Chasidut do Samuela I 3:26

Yet truly supernal Beriyah and Yetzirah, allowing one who has been influenced by them to prophesize, has ceased to exist. See I Samuel [3:6] and Rashi there.²⁷¹R. Shapiro continues on to explain this reference in the following lines. The divine voice was apprehended on such a physical level that Samuel mistook it for Eli’s voice. Rashi ad locum explains that, at that point in the narrative, Samuel does not yet understand the workings of prophecy, and still does not understand that he is not hearing the voice of Eli. The entire nation received their light, enclothed in Asiyah, elevated by the prophets of each generation, accompaniers of the Matroness [Shekhinah]. Yet the sages of the Talmud wondrously managed to draw down the Torah to our lowly, simple world of Asiyah—though not to the Asiyah within it itself, within the bush, which would have allowed them to see the revelation of divinity and angels within it, and with their ears to hear a simple voice from God—so similar that Samuel erred as he said ‘it is the voice of Eli’²⁷²I Samuel, ibid.—but rather to the Yetzirah and Beriyah in it, that is, to the human intellect in each person, even a child beginning to learn Talmud. How much Yetzirah and Beriyah each person can grasp in Torah is dependent on his particular level of holiness and his own Yetzirah and Beriyah.²⁷³In this and the following passages, through the end of section B, R. Shapiro makes the critical point that, according to kabbalistic-hasidic philosophy—the study of Torah (including, especially, Talmud) is an act of encounter with the very stuff of divinity. It is a quasi-prophetic experience, an intellectual communion with God, accomplished in and via the more supernal and ethereal levels of the learner’s soul. One can surmise that R. Shapiro is here critiquing two camps: one, the world of the yeshivot, who study Talmud but do not recognize its spiritual character; and two, the ‘enlightened’ camps who abandon traditional Talmud study for other intellectual pursuits which they deem comparable to it.

‎Genesis 22,1. “It was after these events that G’d subjected ‎Avraham to a trial, saying to him: ‘Avraham!’” We must try ‎and understand why at this point G’d addressed Avraham by ‎calling out: ”Avraham,” once, whereas in verse 11 of this chapter ‎the angel addressing Avraham calls out to him: “Avraham, ‎Avraham!” Another nuance that deserves our attention is why, ‎on the first occasion (verse 12) G’d compliments Avraham on not ‎having tried to withhold his beloved son from Him, ‎ולא חשכת את ‏בנך את יחידך ממני‎, whereas in verse 16 when the compliment is ‎repeated, the word ‎ממני‎, “from Me,” is absent.
This may be ‎understood when we consider that according to Rashi on ‎verse 11 repetition of the name indicates that the party addressed ‎by G’d is especially beloved by G’d. We find in Samuel I 3,10 that ‎when G’d called on Samuel, He always repeated his name when ‎addressing him. In the case of Avraham, his very name reflects ‎the fact that he was beloved by G’d. Here when G’d called upon ‎him seeing that He wanted him to perform a commandment, He ‎deliberately refrained for indicating how fond he was of him, as ‎this call had not been designed to make him go through with ‎slaughtering Yitzchok. However in verse16, when we became ‎aware that Avraham was not to slaughter his son, this had ‎become the ‎מצוה‎. By commanding Avraham not to harm ‎Yitzchok in any way, He displayed His true love for him. He did so ‎by repeating his name when He called him.
As to the word ‎ממני‎ in verse 12, this was the angel speaking (although in the ‎name of the Lord) Bereshit Rabbah 56,5 understands the ‎angel as hinting to Avraham that seeing the angels in heaven ‎have shed tears when they heard that Avraham had been asked to ‎sacrifice his son Yitzchok, G’d cancelled the decree. The angel ‎wanted Avraham to know that he had had a share in Yitzchok’s ‎surviving the akeydah. In verse 16, when G’d is speaking to ‎Avraham without intermediary, there was no reason to add the ‎word: ‎ממני‎, “from Me.”‎