(this is a Ma’amar (one of two) said at the farbrengen for 11 Nissan; the Rebbe turned sixty years old that year).
Class One. Tohu and Tikun, what is the reason for the difference? This Ma’amar explores this question all the way to the highest source, and explains that it has to do with how the worlds are Bottul in Atzmus. He explains that the heavens have the imprint of worlds from the bottom up. This means that Atzmus (and Ohr) are plain and the image of ‘Adam’ found in them is actually based on our reality, imprinting itself ‘from the bottom up’ in them the image of ‘Adam’. When we perceive how we are included in the Ohr, we can envisage it as fish in water or as an image on water. The former is a Metzius in the water (somewhat) and the latter is not a Metzius at all. The first creates a Tohu where the ratzui has an element of selfishness and does not result in a Shoiv; while the second is the source of Tikun, that sees itself only as a vehicle for service of G-D and therefore there is a Shoiv.
Class Two. The beginning and the end of the Ma’amar. Kalos HaNefesh is a Mitzva but there must be a Shov after it. He compares it to 1) the Akaida, 2) Kalos HaNefesh of the Ba’al shem Tov and 3) the Hispashtus HaGashmiyus discussed in Hilchos Tefilla. Why Nadav and Avihu failed to have a Shov. The Rebbe connects it to the Kapital 61 and more.
