Sefer Tanya

Ch. 17

2007-07-19T20:23:00.000-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman
__________________________________________

Ch. 17

1.

Realizing by now where we fit within the rasha-benoni-tzaddik continuum and knowing as well how we can become benonim and bolster our benoni-ism [1], we’re in a position to start elucidating the verse that serves as Tanya’s motto, “For the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart -- so that you can do (i.e., achieve) it” (Deuteronomy 30:14).

Now, the truth be known, it just doesn’t seem valid to say that getting close to G-d on any level is easy and “very near-at-hand”, despite the verse, and notwithstanding the fact that everything enunciated in the Torah is true for all of us and for all time [2]. For we often don’t find it easy to upend our emotions and love G-d over all the things we tend to love in this world.

And though it’s in fact written, “And now, O Israel, what does G-d your L-rd ask of you but to fear G-d your L-rd …” (Deuteronomy 10:12), didn’t our sages themselves pointedly ask, “But is fear (of G-d) such a simple thing?” (Berachot 33B), let alone the love of G-d [3]? And didn’t they indicate as well that only the very few tzaddikim there are in the world at any one time can control their emotions (Breishit Rabbah 34:10, Zohar 3:290B) -- not benonim, and certainly not rashaim [4]?

2.

But RSZ takes the term “so that you can do it” in the statement “the matter is very near-at-hand to you … so that you can do it” as alluding to the native love for G-d that lies deep and nameless in our hearts, and which can lead us to actually do mitzvot [5]. His point is that while this sort of love isn’t open and aboveboard or passionate, it would still-and-all be genuine and could be used to prompt us to do good things (Biur Tanya).

He also means to underscore the fact that the ability to cultivate that sort of love is indeed “very near-at-hand” and easy for anybody to do. For while we aren’t all in command of our emotions, so we can’t elicit just any feeling we’d like to, we do though have it within us to focus our minds on whatever we care to, and to not think about what we don’t want to or shouldn’t (see Biur Tanya) [6].

His suggestion thus comes to this: reflect deeply and at length upon G-d’s actual greatness, and a sense of love of Him will automatically arise in your heart and you’ll want to cling to Him by fulfilling His mitzvot and studying His Torah as a matter of course. For our minds control our hearts by nature, which then controls our actions (see 12:4 and Ch. 51 below).

For if we’d fully concentrate upon G-d’s greatness, it would occur to us that observing G-d’s mitzvot is our raison d’etre at bottom. After all, aren’t we bidden to “observe all the mitzvot, statutes, and judgments, that I (G-d) command you this day” (Deuteronomy 7:11) meaning in this world (see Eruvin 22A) [7]?

3.

But this option is only available to benonim and ordinary wrongdoers who lapse from time to time -- not to out-and-out rashaim (see Ch. 11).

After all, rashaim of that ilk are invariably controlled by their heart (Bereishit Rabbah 34:10) as a consequence of their sins, rather than in control of it; they’re utterly cut off from G-d for that reason, too; and they’re considered “dead” for all intents and purposes (Berachot 18B) [8] since they’re not doing what they were born to do [9]. So the option would be useless.

What utter rashaim would have to do first off in order to benefit from the opportunity (or any chance to draw close to G-d) would be to do teshuvah for what they’d done wrong (see Iggeret Hateshuvah 7) by realizing their plight, and becoming broken-hearted and embittered as a result (see Zohar 2:116B). That would sever the husks that separate them from G-d so starkly, and undo their heart’s impurities (see Zohar Pinchas p.240 and Vayikrah p.8, as well as p. 5A according to Ramaz).

And that will then enable them to hold sway over their heart and begin to draw close to G-d [10].
_____________________________________________________________

Notes:

[1] Especially after knowing that even our inborn fear and love of G‑d helps to bolster our observance (Shiurim beSefer HaTanya).

[2] As Tanya Mevuar points out, the idea that Torah is relevant to all of us across the board and throughout the generations is stated in several places, including: Rambam’s Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 9:1 Hilchot Teshuva 3:8; Hilchot Malachim 11:3 (at end); and Perek Chellek, Yesod 9. Also see Taz to Y.D. 74:4, Rav’s Shulchan Orach 2:2 (at end), and Ch. 25 below.

[3] For while both fear and love are inborn, fear comes upon you suddenly and severely, and usually only asks you to stay in place or run away for a while, while love demands effort and great change (see Biur Tanya). It’s also true that while you can be afraid of things you haven’t any real knowledge of and are in fact more likely to be afraid of such things, you really can’t love things you’re not aware of (see Likutei Biurim).

[4] So, how can the Torah indicate that the love of G‑d is very easy to come by, which would signify that our hearts are under our control and that we could easily love Him rather than all sorts of material things (Shiurim beSefer HaTanya)?

[5] It’s as if he’d translate the phrase “so that you can do it” as “since you can activate it”, i.e., you can in fact easily enough activate the love in your heart so as to help you fulfill mitzvot.

[6] See 12:4 above, and note 8 there. Refer to what was said in the previous chapter about our inborn love.

[7] The point of loving G‑d isn’t just about fostering the feeling of love itself, but rather about using that feeling as a means of fulfilling G-d’s mitzvot. For what matters most in this world is actually doing constructive concrete things (Shiurim b’Sefer Tanya). That's to say that while the love of G-d is a lofty, magical thing it’s nonetheless a selfish urge often enough; and at bottom we’re asked to subsume our desires to His will.

[8] It has been said quite intriguingly that rashaim bring a sort of “hell on Earth” upon themselves in life with their insatiate yearnings. For they can never get everything they want and are thus are always discouraged and perturbed, wont and unfulfilled -- and like a soul in a foreign realm, they haven’t any control over their situation (Biur Tanya).

[9] Shouldn’t it have said that they would have been better off not being born, as in the statement that "A person would be better off not being created than being created. But, now that he has been created, he should do good things for himself and for others" (Eruvin 13B)? Why term them “dead”?

The point is that they were in fact created, yet they didn’t “do good things for (themselves) and for others”, so they they might as well be dead.

[10] What comes along here in the original is a fairly complex mélange of Kabbalistic explanations of how a rasha of that ilk can come to control his heart, which we’ll try to lay out and explain here.

The explanation touches upon a number of Kabbalistic premises. First off, that each of the four Hebrew letters of G-d’s name: yud, heh, vav, and heh, represents a single sephirah or a cluster of sephirot. Yud stands for Chochma; heh – this upper, higher heh specifically, as opposed to the other lower heh to follow – stands for Binah; vav (which has a numerical value of six) stands for the six sephirot of Chessed, Gevurah, Tipheret, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod; and the other, lower letter heh stands for Malchut. And that Malchut itself represents the Shechina, the Divine presence as it manifests itself in our experience (see Maskil l’Eitan).

Thus, when RSZ says in our text that the sort of teshuvah (translated literally as “returning”) required in this instance is termed “lower teshuvah”, that’s not only because it’s a less-lofty degree of teshuvah, but also because it involves “returning” the “lower heh” to its rightful place in the Divine name (see Zohar 3:122A). For when one does that he also returns the Shechina to its rightful place in the Divine order of things, and releases it from its “exile” (see Iggeret Hateshuvah 6, Megillah 29A, and Ch’s 37, 45 below).

By virtue of the fact that a rasha is “out of control” if you will, he’s said to act like an “Edomite” (i.e., like one who has undone the Holy Temple and placed the Shechina in exile as a consequence). So, once such a person realizes what he has done both to the Shechina and to his own soul by his actions becomes broken-hearted as a result, the husks surrounding his heretofore unbending heart break in resignation, and he’s then able to reign over that heart.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************

Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 16

2007-06-18T11:50:00.001-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 16

1.

Both this chapter and the next, then chapters 18-25, will expand on two suggestions offered here as to how we’re to advance in our benoni-ness and be “one who serves G-d” in the ever-fresh, original, inspired ways mentioned in the last chapter [1]. And both touch on our relationship to G-d, though from different perspectives.

The best way to do it -- though it’s certainly not the only one or even the only one fully expected of us -- is to resist temptations and to come to fulfill all of the Torah’s imperatives (most especially Torah study) and avoid all its prohibitions by allowing our mind to hold sway over our hearts [2].

And we do that by reflecting deeply upon G-d’s Infinite, unfathomable greatness, and by fostering an attachment to Him and an all-consuming loving, reverential sense of intimacy with Him in our heart that way [3].

But again, that’s what we’re to do optimally. There’s a less lofty, less exquisite method too, though, which is very important to know of.

2.

If we can’t manage to galvanize our beings by deliberately fostering the sort of urgent love of and reverence for G-d that would have us attach on to Him with our minds as above, then we can always draw upon the innate love for Him already sequestered in our hearts instead [4].

For we’re taught that each one of us realizes somewhere deep in his or her heart, on one visceral plane or another, just how infinitely vast G-d’s presence is; how everything is considered as naught by comparison to Him; and that the idea that “surely G-d is in this place, but I didn’t know it” (Genesis 28:16) is true wherever we stand. And that we each can sense instinctually just how right it would be to simply surrender to His Presence, to stand subsumed in His light, and to submit to our soul’s deeply felt desire to leave the narrow confines of the body it has become confined to, and cling onto Him instead [5].

Doing that would convince us once again how much better it is to study His Torah deeply and fulfill His mitzvot fervently. For we’d understand that we could attach onto Him and take hold of Him when we do that (see 4:5), and we’d be spurred on.

Understand of course the point is that while we’d have certainly dwelt upon all that before in order to achieve benoni-ism [6], the only way we’d be able to reinvigorate and bolster our benoni state and keep it ever-fresh would be to dwell on it again and again. Because there will be times when, despite the fact that we know how true all that is, the impulse would be weak for the moment nonetheless, our beings wouldn't be quite touched to the core, and we’d need reinforcement (see Maskil L’Eitan).

So, if we’d dwell upon these details about G-d and our relationship to Him this second way at least, enunciate them to ourselves (and others) and then act upon them, we’d be giving full expression to them -- even if we’d have only come to a detached, and external realization of them rather than the full one we could have achieved by using the first method (Biur Tanya and Maskil L’Eitan).

And that would enable us to dwell upon G-d's Torah and fulfill His mitzvot with new fervor and a spirit of refreshed love, which would itself then invigorate our worship and furnish it with the sort of “wings” we’d need to soar upward (see Ch. 40 below) since our Divine service could never ascend without such wings (see Tikkunei Zohar 10).

While our doing that wouldn’t foster as quite extraordinary a degree of loving and reverential sense of intimacy as the first method would, it would nonetheless serve us almost as well. Because we’d at least have come to fulfill our obligations thus by, rather than just tended to our bodily needs instinctively [7].

3.

RSZ then contends that our sages alluded to the fact that using our minds to reinvigorate our relationship to G-d is better than using our hearts.

The sages said that a person is credited with having done a good deed even if he hadn't managed to, if he *meant* to do it from the first but was prevented somehow, for some good reason or another. But they prefaced it with the following statement: "A good thought is ‘attached’ to the deed" (Kiddushin 40A). The statement should have read something like, "you are credited with having done the good deed" he points out.

But in fact it's worded the way it is, RSZ surmises, to indicate that the latent fear and love of G-d in our hearts do indeed function in the physical mitzvot we do, and do in fact give them the sort of "wings" they’d need to ascend upward, since the heart is itself physical [8]. It's just that the love and fear that comes about when we allow our minds to hold sway (i.e., the preferred method) is much greater and far above physical acts, so they really don’t function in physical mitzvot. And so they're termed good thoughts (i.e., the “good thoughts” that are “attached to the deed” we meant to do) rather than the deeds themselves.

It's just that G-d chooses to "attach" those "good thoughts" to actual mitzvah deeds and to Torah study, so as to allow them to ascend higher [9], which is why the sages depicted it as “a good thought” being “attached” to the deed.

__________________________________________
Notes:

[1] Like ourselves, some indicate that this chapter expands upon the ideas of the previous one (see Biur Tanya and Maskil L’Eitan) while others say that the principles laid out here stand alone as separate, overarching pieces of advice (see Likutei Perushim). But it seems clear-cut that this chapter and the last one are indeed linked given the parallelism of terms used at the end of the last one and here at the beginning of this in the original text.

[2] The text is quite fecund in this chapter (as it is elsewhere, where it’s nevertheless more apropos) and adds many things that are so rich in implication that they befog the essential message it means to convey, which we’ve thus set aside. Purists will argue that we’re skimming the cream and leaving behind a bland remnant of the original, and they’d be right in essence. But our job in this work is to allow RSZ’s spiritual and psychological insights and wisdom to shine through, and to only grant access to his more esoteric insights here, in these notes so as not to clutter the screen, if you will.

Here is the sentence as worded above.

“The best way to do it -- though it’s certainly not the only one or even the only one fully expected of us -- is to resist temptations and to come to fulfill all of the Torah’s imperatives (most especially Torah study) and avoid all its prohibitions by allowing our mind to hold sway over our hearts.”

Here’s the sentence with RSZ’s implications left intact.

“The best way to do it -- though it’s certainly not the only one, or even the only one fully expected of us -- *is to take hold of (one’s) natural inclinations* and to come to fulfill all of the Torah’s imperatives (most especially Torah study) *no matter how major or minor the prohibitions are, and be they either from the Torah itself or from our sages* and avoid all its prohibitions by allowing *the Divine light that shines upon the G-dly spirit in our mind* to hold sway over our hearts.”

He uses the term to *take hold of (one’s) natural inclinations* to distinguish it from the idea of turning one’s bad traits into good ones, as a tzaddik would do, since a benoni can’t do that (see Likut Perushim and Tanya Mevuar). He indicates that that’s true *no matter how major or minor the prohibitions are, and be they either from the Torah itself or from our sages* to say that it’s true of absolutely all of them, regardless of any reason we might have to take them either too lightly or too seriously. And he speaks of allowing *the Divine light that shines upon the G-dly spirit in our mind* to hold sway over our hearts so as to refer back to the idea that we’d need G-d’s input in order to control our impulses, as cited in 13:2 (Shiurim beSefer HaTanya).

But all of this beside the operative point that we’re to concentrate on our mind’s input more than our heart’s natural inclinations, as cited here.

[3] The original speaks of fostering a “knowledge” of G-d, in keeping with the Kabbalistic reference to the mind’s Chochma, Binah, and Da’at (knowledge) components (see 3:1). We translated the term “intimacy” instead, because knowledge is frequently compared to intimacy in Kabbalistic literature, in keeping with the verse that reads, “And Adam 'knew' Eve his wife (intimately) and she conceived” (Genesis 4:1).

See 3:3 for more on this. Also see 4:3 about the role of love and fear in mitzvah observance (Shiurim be Sefer HaTanya) .

[4] RSZ provides a note here in the original that lays out the Kabbalistic explanation for someone’s inability to produce a fresh and original love for G-d in his mind on his own.

It seems it’s due to the fact that that individual’s mind (Mochin, in Hebrew, referring to the sephirotic configuration that corresponds to the human mind) and his “soul” (Naran, in Hebrew, an abbreviation for N’ephesh, R’uach, N’shama, which is the sephirotic expression of the three lower aspects of our G-dly spirit) are in a “pregnant” or “hidden” (i.e., a potential) stage inside its Tevunah configuration (another aspect of the mind), rather than being “newborn” and outright (i.e., rather than actualized).

The insinuation here (which is much clearer than the one suggested in the non-Kabbalistic body of the text itself.) is that such a person is unable to actualize his or her potential, and that that’s a spiritual failing (see Biur Tanya). The non-Kabbalistic implication, on the other hand, is along the lines of, “Don’t worry if you can’t foster a love of G-d on your own: you can always fall back on your native love”, which doesn’t suggest a failing so much as a happy opportunity to rely on an alternative, albeit lesser, option.

[5] In the original, RSZ likens the soul’s heart-felt dissatisfactions with its earthly situation quite evocatively to that of a woman whose husband is overseas whom she can’t be with as a result, who is termed a “widow [for all intents and purposes] of a live man” (see Breishit Rabbah 14:4 and Rashi’s comments to Exodus 22:23, based on 2 Samuel 20:3), which frustrates her so. In fact the analogy is apt, since the Jewish Nation is termed G-d’s “bride” and is kept at a distance from Him as a result of our corporeality (Likutei Biurim).

What’s significant here is the fact that the terms that RSZ uses for the sort of mind-based realizations we’re to come to are far less bracing and intense than the ones he uses for his “default” heart-based ones.

He indeed speaks of feelings of love of and reverence for G-d that would have us attach on to Him that we could foster through our mind’s efforts; yet he then goes on to cite how the heart, the source of the second-best process, knows on its own how infinitely vast G-d’s presence is, how everything is considered as naught in comparison to Him, and how right it would be to surrender to Him and to leave the narrow confines of the body and cling onto Him instead, comparing being without Him to be being what’s classically termed a “grass widow” (a woman whose husband is frequently away from home or who deserted her)!

We’d expect RSZ to prefer the more cerebral method, since that’s what sets his Chassidut apart from the others, which are more emotional. Yet he uses rapturous terms for the emotional method as opposed to the rather cool and detached ones he uses for the analytical mode. On one level that seems to reflect an inner-conflict of his, as RSZ was rather emotional and outright ecstatic in his love of G-d at times, yet extraordinarily analytical a great deal of the time as well.

On the other hand, though, he appears to be making the following subtle point. The first process is preferable specifically because it’s lower-keyed; for while the second method is decidedly more idealistic in tone, it’s nonetheless too self-conscious and self-absorbed, which is always out of favor in Chabad Chassidut.

[6] See 3:3, 4:3, 6:3, 9:2, 4, 10:3, 11:5, 12:5, 13:6, 14:2-3, and 15:3-4.

[7] There’s an interesting parenthetical thought in the original at this point that reads, “... even if he’s naturally inclined to be bookish” (see 15:3 above) and would thus find it easy to study Torah on his own -- which would lead us to think that he’d always find it easy to serve G-d as he’s naturally inclined to (at least when it comes to Torah study) -- he’d “nonetheless just naturally love his body (i.e., himself) more” than books from time to time, as even the most studious do, as when they’re very hungry, thirst, or the like, and they need to follow through on those urgings in a G-dly way. The point is that the second process is thus useful even for such a person.

[8] In what's essentially a parenthetical aside, RSZ adds here in the text that the heart itself is capable of acting as an agent of those holy emotions because of the fact that despite it's being a flesh-and-blood organ it's also a source of our inscrutable life-energy, so it can function both as a medium for such exalted phenomena *as well as* for the flow of blood.

In other words, the term "heart" here can either be taken literally as the physical organ it is, or figuratively as a source of emotions. But isn't that self-evident? Don't we often use the terms interchangeably ourselves (much like we use the term "wings" literally and figuratively)? The point that RSZ is making -- which can be said for so much Kabbalistic literature -- is that *most* of our makeup functions both on a physical and a paradigmatic level at one at the same time, thanks to the "inscrutable life-energy" that comprises our souls.

[9] G-d attaches the two much the way that He miraculously links body and soul, so as to affect change in the world and to allow for things to ascend heavenward along the same lines.

RSZ makes several esoteric points at this juncture, both in the text proper and in a note. In fact, this whole section seems rather speculative as opposed to the practical nature of the rest of the chapter, and we were tempted to place the whole last section of the chapter here (see note 2 above and our thinking there along these lines).

In any event he indicates here, at the end of the chapter, that when we use the preferred method of reinvigorating our service, it’s elevates to the world of Beriah, whereas if we’d use the default method they’d only ascend to the world of Yetzirah. As he said, this will be discussed in depth later on, in chapters 38-39, 44. The point of the matter is that while Yetzirah is less-exalted than Beriah, it’s lofty nonetheless, and far higher than the world of Assiyah (i.e., the physical world we experience).

He bases what he says in the note here on a statement made in the Zohar 3, 291A, and in Etz Chaim 15:4) that’s decidedly obscure and touches upon the make-up of Tevunah and its place in the Kabbalistic world system. We refer to the reader to the note itself.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************

AT LONG LAST! Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued at *at a discount*!
You can order it right now from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Appendix: The Love and Fear of G-d

2007-03-13T13:19:00.000-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Appendix: The Love and Fear of G-d

1.

“My sole objective” as a rebbe and teacher, RSZ remarked to his son and successor Rabbi Dov Baer on countless occasions, was to allow for “a revelation of G-d’s Presence” -- a clear and oftentimes ecstatic sense of His immanence -- “in (my adherents’) souls” (Kuntress HaHitpa’alut, Introduction).

As such, one of the hallmarks of Chabad Chassidut has always been its stress on such an experience, which they maintained could only come about by arousing a sense of love and fear of G-d in one’s being through reflecting upon His true Being.

For, starting with RSZ, all Chabad leaders have emphasized the idea that each one of us can and indeed *should* be moved to the love and fear of G-d, and are to cleave unto Him as a result (see Likutei Torah, V’Etchanan, p. 7). They especially favored doing that when reciting the Sh’ma (“Hear, O Israel, G-d our L-rd alone is G-d” [Deuteronomy 6:4]) and when articulating the Sh’mone Esrei prayer, since those were the most propitious moments for doing that. They also adjured their followers to see beyond the outward form of things and to sense the Divinity hidden in each and everything in order to experience His presence.

But reflecting on G-d’s Oneness, catching sight of Him everywhere, and reacting to it in love and fear actually goes far beyond those phenomena alone, and touches upon the nature of reality, and on the fact that only G-d exists, nothing else.

This obviously calls for some explanation, which is rooted in the following.

2.

While others understood G-d’s Oneness, belief in which is fundamental to the Jewish faith, to only mean that G-d is the one and only Deity, RSZ wasn't satisfied with that, and based on several esoteric sources including the Zohar and the writings of the Ari and the Ba’al Shem Tov, he stressed that G-d’s Oneness not only implies that G-d is the one and only Deity but also that He is the only actual entity.

After all, didn’t He Himself adjure, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 23:24), with the implication that He does so to the exclusion of everything else; didn’t the prophet say “The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3), with much the same implication? Along the same lines, didn’t the Talmud point out that “Just as the soul fills the body so does G-d fill the universe” (Berachot 10A); and didn’t the Zohar declare that “there is no place devoid of G-d” (Tikkunei Zohar 57, p. 91B)? RSZ’s suggestion is that all of that’s indeed true, but that we’re too blind to G-d’s presence to catch sight of that (though for certain purposeful and specific reasons that are beyond the scope of the subject at hand).

But to fully understand this we’ll need to explain something of the Kabbalistic concept of tzimtzum.

3.

There’s something quite vexing about the whole idea of creation. For how could finite entities -- and even spiritual ones such as angels and the like -- have derived from G-d’s infinite, Divine Being? There had to have been a break in the connection between His Being and our own, a synapse along the way, if you will (see Likutei Torah 46C) in order for things other than G-d to come from Him. And therein lies the conceptual rationale behind the phenomenon of tzimtzum.

The term “tzimtzum” itself implies either a contraction of sorts or a concealment (Aruch). The first definition alludes to the notion that G-d pulled His Presence to the side, if you will, to allow for finitetude, and it’s a satisfying solution to the problem of the finite deriving from the Infinite. The second definition, a concealment, was the one that RZV preferred, though. It alludes to a series of obscurings of the Divine Light that had to have occurred for finitetude to appear (see Zohar 1, 15A and Zohar Chadash, Va’Etchanan 57A; Eitz Chaim, Sha’ar HaHakdamot; as well as Tanya’s Ch’s 21-22 and 48-49, and most especially RSZ’s Sha’ar HaYichud cited below).

The point is that rather than “pull Himself to the side” if you will in order to allow for the existence of things other than Himself, RSV understood that G-d stayed in place in fact, but that He hid Himself to allow for things other than He to shine and not be overshadowed (actually, over-shone) by His Being. (The depiction of G-d stepping aside to allow for other entities also raises a problem, in that it implies a change in G-d’s Being when He Himself said that “I, G-d, have never changed” [Malachi 3:6], and we declare daily that He was “the same before the world was created, and [has always] been [and will always be] the same” [Schacharit service, based on Yalkut Shimoni, V’Etchanan 835].)

And so as far as RSZ was concerned, tzimtzum wasn’t something that actually occurred to G-d; it merely appeared to have. As such, reality as we know it only exists thanks to a series of blockings-off of the Divine Light so it doesn’t exist so much as seems to exist. In fact, the only things that truly exists is G-d (see Shaar HaYichud Ch’s 3 and 7). As we’re taught, “There is no place devoid of Him” and Him alone, “neither in the upper or the lower worlds” (Tikkunei Zohar 57), and that He ”fills all worlds and surrounds all worlds” (Zohar 3, p. 225a).

That’s not to say, though, that reality doesn’t in fact exist, since we know it does. It’s only to say that it’s real -- very real -- for us, but no further. That’s to say that we do exist, of course, but as it’s put classically we’re like “a tiny candle in the face of a mighty torch”, or “a single sunbeam in the face of the sun itself” (see Tanya Ch. 33; also see Shaar HaYichud Ch’s 3 and 7).

There are needless to say *all sorts of* profound and recondite implications to all that, but that’s beside our point here. We’re to take heart from the fact though that “all this is beyond the power of speech to express, the ability of the ear to hear, and the human heart to (truly) comprehend”, and that we’d do best to simply accept it in full faith (Shaar HaYichud Ch. 7).

Nevertheless, we’re charged to dwell on this principle as best as we can, and to apply it to our meditations and our lives. For as RSZ would have us understand it (Shaar HaYichud Ch. 6), we’re implored to, “Know this day and lay it upon your heart that G-d is (not only) the L-rd in the heavens above and on the earth below, (it’s also true that) there is no other (entity other than He)” (Deuteronomy 4:39). That’s to say that we’re to not only “know” about that intellectually, we’re to also “lay it upon (our) heart”, i.e., meditate upon it and internalize it as much as we can.

For by doing that we come to be profoundly moved by -- that is, we come to fully love and fear of -- G-d, and thus experience “a revelation of G-d’s Presence” as RSZ would like us to. Since, what most especially rouses love and fear of G-d “is a genuine and faithful belief in His unity and oneness” (Chinuch HaKattan) as RSZ explains it.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

PROLOGUE TO PART THREE: Chapters 16-25

2007-03-01T09:26:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

PROLOGUE TO PART THREE: Chapters 16-25

This part harkens back to Tanya's "motto" which was cited in its introduction: the statement that “the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart -- so that you can do (i.e., accomplish) it” (Deuteronomy 30:14). It also helps explain the statement made on the work's frontispiece that Tanya will address a “longer” and a “shorter” way to draw close to G-d. And it comes here because we're now at the point where we can discuss spiritual growth, after having come to know just who we are, where we stand, and what we're capable of being.

The "longer" way is offered in Ch’s 16-17, which speaks of reflecting lovingly and reverently upon G-d’s infinite and boundless greatness, and of fulfilling mitzvot and studying Torah fervently; the "shorter" way is offered in Ch’s 18-25, which speaks of depending upon the “love that's sequestered in every single Jew's heart”.

(Let it be said that while RSZ directly addresses the benoni per se in this section as he offers his advice, we'll be expressing his ideas as if he were addressing each one of us -- by speaking of "you" and "us" rather than "the benoni" as is done in the text itself -- since we're each bidden to be a benoni as we’ve already pointed out.)

First, we're counseled to be among those who always "serve G-d" (see Ch. 15) by always contending with the influence of our animalistic spirit. But then we're advised that the only way to truly succeed at that is with G-d's help (for otherwise it's frankly *impossible*), which we enjoy when G-d irradiates His light upon our G-dly spirit.

The only way we’d manage to merit that, though, would be to reflect deeply and profoundly upon the greatness of G-d's Being, which then fosters great awe (on an intellectual level), as well as so great a degree of love for Him (on a deeply emotional, even visceral level) that our hearts flare with that love and awe, and want nothing more than to attach on to Him.

Nonetheless, even if you don't manage to foster so great a degree of love for G-d, you can always draw from the sort of native love for Him that each one of us has inherited from our forefathers (the aforementioned “love that's sequestered in every single Jew's heart”). That sort of love alone is capable of convincing us on a subliminal level, if not more manifestly, that it's indeed fitting to "nullify our beings" (i.e., dedicate ourselves utterly) to Him by engaging in Torah and mitzvot and to thus cling on to Him.

It's important to know, though, that while this sort of native love isn't potent enough on its own to have you abandon your more mundane desires and love G-d instead, it does nonetheless inspire us to fulfill mitzvot. In fact, that was alluded to in the statement that “the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart -- *so that you can do it*”.

In fact, the native love is fairly easy to implement. All one has to do is reflect upon G-d's Being (which of course requires one to first study the sort of Torah literature that addresses that, most especially Kabbalah and Chassidut, for the subject isn't accessible without that background).

That then is the "shorter", more accessible way to draw close to G-d. For even if you can't form an intellectual love of G-d you can still easily draw upon your native love. All you have to do is remind yourself that you're a Jew and that love will well up within you -- when you want that to happen, of course.

The reason why this native love is so accessible is because it's rooted in the source of each and every Jew's soul, which is deeper and more transcendent than one's mind, and hence can be tapped into even by those of us who aren't intellectually gifted. It thus also accounts for the sort of faithful, non-rational transcendence that some of our less educated but devoted ancestors exhibited when they were willing to succumb to execution rather than convert to another religion.

(Note: the truth be known, this sort of self-sacrifice is inconceivable in contemporary Jewish society; it's anathema! The closest parallel to it today is the out-and-out adamant, some would say "irrational" aversion most Jews have toward some Christian religious symbols and values, despite the social pressures to be accepting of things. Many, many Jews will forthrightly and proudly reject such things -- in fact to the point of social self-sacrifice and ostracism. So, while it could be said that many of us don't know what we are as Jews -- at least we know what we're *not*!)

But that raises a legitimate question. Why do we sometimes lapse into sin and thus threaten our relationship to G-d on a pedestrian level, when we're willing to sacrifice our very lives to avoid that in extraordinary circumstances? As RSZ explains it, that's because our native love is in "exile" in our beings when we're faced with a sin, it's covered-over by the yetzer harah and the husks, and confronted by the "spirit of foolishness" that overcomes us. The latter has us rationalize that we're still-and-all "good Jews" despite our sins, which is easy to accept on a quasi-rational level. But when one's faith is tested on an intense level and "push comes to shove", then our native love asserts itself, since we're simply not willing to go *that* far.

Now, while no one can deny the cunning of the "spirit of foolishness", it can be overridden, though, by reflecting upon the following three things.

First, on the utter and absolute transcendence of G-d's Being. After all, He existed before creation and always will exist, and He has been utterly unaffected by it; and so everything is as nothing in His awesome and overarching absolute Presence. A stunning and full realization of that can overturn nearly everything, in fact.

Second, we're to reflect upon how deeply our sins affect our relationship to G-d. For when we sin, His Countenance is hidden from us, forcing us to face the hindmost aspect of holiness instead; and we diminish G-d's utter and absolute dominion (His "Yichud").

And third, we're to dwell on the fact that G-d's very Being itself shines upon our souls when we fulfill His mitzvot.

Thus, we're able to draw upon the native love and to quash the "spirit of foolishness" (and thus avoid sin) by reflecting deeply and cogently upon these three themes, and by keeping the importance of mitzvot and the threat of sins in mind. And that's "the matter (that) is very near-at-hand to you", since nearly all you have to do to draw close to G-d whenever you're faced with sin is to rekindle your native love of Him this way.

But you'd also have to trigger your inborn willingness to nullify your wishes to G-d's own (to experience what's termed, "mesirat nephesh", which while usually understood as "self-sacrifice" and in terms of being willing to give up one's life rather than convert, as spoken of above, can also apply on a more day-to-day, less intense level of nullify your wishes to G-d's).

In fact, that explains why we were commanded to recite the Sh'ma Yisrael -- in which we declare G-d's utter dominion and reaffirm our faith in it, and we take the "yoke of Heaven" upon ourselves in a spirit of mesirat nephesh -- twice each day. For by doing that we remind ourselves of all this and are more easily able to resist temptation.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 15

2007-02-28T11:12:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 15

1.

We've spent the last several chapters defining a benoni and contrasting him with a rasha and a tzaddik. But we're going to go beyond that from this point on and begin explaining how a benoni -- how each one of us -- is to serve G-d, knowing what we do now about a benoni's potentials and limitations (see Biur Tanya).

It will become clear from here on that at bottom the benoni's life is one of ever-faithful, on-going acts of Divine service. But not only is that so, he'd also be expected to grow level by level without ever stopping either (Biur Tanya), much the way a professional in any field would need to keep advancing in his craft if he's ever to reach his full potential.

In any event, let's first try to illustrate just what sets one benoni apart from the others in his "profession"; what makes one more successful than another in his Divine service. And we'll do that by explaining a curious verse that will illustrate it for us.

2.

We're told that there’ll come a time when we’ll see for ourselves “the difference between a tzaddik, a rasha, one who serves G-d, and one who doesn’t serve Him” (Malachi 3:18). But that's odd because it seems to imply that there are four types of individuals: a tzaddik, a rasha, someone who serves G-d, and someone who doesn’t. But isn’t that redundant, since it seems that a tzaddik is “one who serves G-d” and a rasha is one who “who doesn’t serve Him”? But RSZ’s point will be that there’s a distinct difference between tzaddikim and those who serve G-d (as he understands the latter) [1].

According to RSZ, “one who serves G-d” is someone who does so on an ongoing basis [2], who's always battling his yetzer harah, forever trying to expunge it from his being, always making sure that he never thinks, utters, or does anything wrong -- and more, as we'll soon see [3]. That's to say that “one who serves G-d” is the benoni par excellence.

A tzaddik would be termed “a (fully accomplished) servant of G-d”, in that he’s impeccable in his service to G-d and is now an utter, absolute, bona fide servant of Him rather than just someone going about serving Him. (Much the way a full-fledged, consumate Talmudist is an out-and-out “Talmudic scholar” rather than a “student of Talmud”). For the tzaddik would have already won his war against the yetzer harah and fully expunged it from his being, and wouldn’t have to do anything else along those lines [4].

But there'll prove to be real distinctions between people who "merely", so to speak, serve G-d on an ongoing basis and those who go further yet.

3.

So again, the verse isn't speaking of tzaddikim in fact but of different sorts of benonim: those who actively and conscientiously “serve G-d” and those “who don’t serve Him" all that much. That's not to say that the latter doesn't serve G-d whatsoever, since that would deem him an out-and-out rasha. It’s just that he’s the sort of benoni who wouldn't have to have served G-d -- wouldn’t have to have fought against his impulses and dedicated them to the service of G-d, that is -- assiduously, purposefully, and with great effort, because he never had to battle his yetzer harah all that much to maintain his benoni-state.

Why? Because he’d be the sort of person whose yetzer harah doesn’t threaten his spiritual standing in one instance or another, so there’d be little to resist. But let's explain.

Someone who's bookish by nature, for example, and thus more serious and studious would find it easy to study Torah a lot. So, he could readily be a serious Torah scholar, and thus couldn't really be accredited with having done very much to achieve that status [5].

The same would be true of someone who's naturally austere or melancholic and thus wouldn’t need to resist any untoward thoughts or actions (see Sanhedrin 39B); or of someone who has always been rather sober or non-indulgent from birth, who'd thus find it easy to become serious and G-d-fearing enough not to sin (without having to depend on certain more taxing means, like dwelling upon G-d’s greatness, all that much) [6].

Or he may only need to depend on the love that’s secreted in all our hearts’ (see ch's 18, 19, and 44) in order to love G-d out-and-out, and to cling to Him by fulfilling His mitzvot, and wouldn’t have to strive to love Him [7].

That would also go, by the way, for someone who worked very hard to train himself to study Torah regularly and consistently, though he didn’t tend toward bookishness from birth. For he, too, would only need to draw on his inborn love of G-d to serve Him rather than foster that sensation -- unless he decided to go beyond his usual limit [8].

The ultimate point here then is that while few of us can be tzaddikim, the rest of us can indeed be benonim, and that the harder the struggle we’d need to suffer to grow in stature, the higher our degree of benoni-hood [9].

4.

That explains the statement in the Talmud (Chagiga 9b) to the effect that only someone who reviews his studies 101 times can be considered one who serves G-d, while someone who “only” reviews it 100 times can’t be (see note 1).

For, as the Talmud points out there, students and scholars of that day and age would just normally review their studies 100 times [10]. Hillel compared someone's willingness to only review his studies 101 times to that of the mule-drivers of the day, who’d charge 1 zuz to transport their customers’ goods the usual distance of 10 parasangs, but who’d only agree to transport those same goods for 11 parasangs if the customer would pay twice as much.

Hillel was making the point that just as mule-drivers would rightfully charge twice as much to go an extra parasang beyond their usual custom which required extra effort, only a student or scholar who’d go out of his way to review his lessons 101 times when that wasn’t the usual custom, could rightfully be called “one who serves G-d”. For he’d have to have mustered enough personal fortitude to choose to go beyond his own way of doing things for one thing, and also because he’d have to have done that all for G-d’s sake (see Ch. 14). For that one extra review would have required as much effort for him as the first 100 times all together.

After all, he’d have to have concentrated deeply enough on G-d’s greatness to arouse enough love for Him to overcome his own nature (which is resistant to that since it’s rooted in his animalistic spirit and affected by the impure husks), and that indeed calls for “service” or extraordinary effort on the part of a benoni (who is the subject at hand, recall). Or he’d at least have to have drawn well enough upon the native love of G-d in his heart that we all have to overcome his own nature [11], which also calls for a lot of effort and determination.

But a benoni who wouldn’t do all that -- who’d be satisfied with not sinning with the aid of the gifts granted him by G-d from birth without fostering the wherewithall to go further on his own by *at least* drawing on his native love for Him, to say nothing of foserting an even deeper love of Him on his own -- couldn’t really be said to be “one who serves G-d” (though he’d certainly be a benoni and not a rasha) [12]. It follows then that what sets one benoni apart from another is how much each strives for ever-fresh, original, inspired service to G-d.

As we’ll see, this chapter actually serves as an introduction to the following one, which starts to explicate just how we’re to serve G-d as benonim on all levels.

__________________________________________
Notes:

[1] The Talmudic statement upon which this entire chapter is based is the following one. We’ll present it entirely here and explain only the beginning, then we’ll explain it in full later on as RSZ understands it.

Once again, the verse cited reads “you will ... see the difference between a tzaddik, a rasha, one who serves G-d, and one who doesn’t serve Him”. Like us, the Talmudic scholar Bar Hehe wondered about the wording of the verse and asks:

“[But isn’t] a tzaddik equivalent to ‘one who serves G-d’ and isn’t a rasha equivalent to ‘one who doesn’t serve Him’?” So, why doesn’t the verse just read, “you will ... see the difference between a tzaddik and a rasha”?

The reply to this question is the premise of the rest of the chapter.

“[Hillel] responded thusly: ‘one who serves G-d’ and ‘one who doesn’t serve Him’ *both* refer to the utterly righteous; but an utterly righteous individual who reviews his chapter [i.e., the chapter of Mishna he’s concentrating upon] 100 times can’t be compared to one who reviews it 101 times.”

“Said [Bar Hehe]: But can it be that because of one [more review of the same chapter] that [an utterly righteous individual] is called ‘one who doesn’t serve G-d?

“[Hillel] responded: “Yes, go and determine that [for yourself] from [what’s commonly practiced in] the mule-drivers market. For [mule-drivers agree to transport goods for a distance of] 10 parasangs for 1 zuz, but [only agree to transport goods a distance of] 11 parasangs for 2 zuz (Chagiga 9b).

[2] I.e., RSZ takes the term “serves” to represent the present-continuous case, as if to say that he’s someone who serves and serves, and continues to serve G-d (because he has to, since unlike a tzaddik he hadn’t perfected his service, as we’ll see). He’s always laboring away (see Lessons in Tanya vol. 1, p. 216) -- forever straining and striving.

[3] Interestingly, the Hebrew term for "serves" in the verse, oved, can imply reworking something over and over again until it becomes utterly new, much the way we'd rework or tan hides until they become parchment, for example. It can also imply softening something and making it pliable (Likut Perushim, footnote 1). As such, that would come to alert us to the fact that we'd need to rework and redo ourselves if we're ever to become benonim; and to soften our "heart of stone" and make it a "heart of flesh" (see Jeremiah 11:19-20).

In fact, even utter tzaddikim have to always change their routines and grow greater and greater; and the truth be known, RSZ himself points out at another junction, a tzaddik who doesn't do that is lower is said to be lower to a degree than a benoni who does in fact change and grow (Maskil L’Eitan)!

[4] That's not to say that tzaddikim don't grow, for they certainly do (see previous note and Berachot 64A). It's just that they're no longer preoccupied with the yetzer harah and are thus free to pursue growth in Torah and mitzvah observance in purer, unimpeded ways arther than in subjugating urges (Biur Tanya). (Indeed, it's remarkable how much ground we lose *just trying not to fall back* when we're still subject to the promptings of the yetzer harah.)

[5] Understand of course that there’d be other corners in his life that would require effort and actual service, since he may not have been born with a natural resistance as far as they’re concerned.

Nonetheless, he’d only be engaging in things that tend toward piety because they came easily to him, and not because he yearned to draw close to G-d. Ironically, his actions also aren’t a result of his having overcome his animalistic spirit, but rather a product of that spirit (Biur Tanya).

[6] It’s pointed out that someone who's a scholar and avid reader by nature who studies Torah when he could very easily study and read a world of other material instead is certainly to be praised for his choices, since his decision is no doubt rooted in a love of G-d (Maskil L’Eitan).

It follows then that someone’s who’s austere and could also deny others’ their pleasures but doesn’t, someone melancholic who might not even try to serve G-d joyfully and good-naturedly (see Deuteronomy 28:47, and 1:2 above) but manages to, and the sober or non-indulgent who would be hard pressed to enjoy the Holy Days who nevertheless overcome their natures are all to be praised.

The idea is that everyone has his or her proclivities; what we’re asked to do is to use everything we’re given in the service of G-d, and to not settle on native gifts but rather to challenge them.

[7] Once again we see just how vital the notion of meditating upon G-d’s greatness, and of coming to love and cling onto Him are in our service to G-d. It will be a primary feature of the following chapter.

[8] The same is true of someone who’d been well-educated as a young person; he too could be said to have been primed for this one good trait, and couldn’t really be praised for just following through on the fine job his teacher had done (see Maskil L’Eitan).

[9] See 1:2 above about the preciousness of spiritual struggles (also see note 2 there).

[10] Because they were studying by memory rather than from a text, as RSZ explains (and thus had to work rigorously in order to have everything at the ready).

[11] Indeed there are a number of points to be made about changing our natures (see the next chapter for more on this): first, that a large part of the reason we were granted life in the first place was to learn to change our inborn natures (Likut Perushim); second, that changing our nature is an aspect of teshuva (ibid, note 14b); and third, that the only way one could ever change his nature is by dint of will, since only one’s will can overpower the body's demands (after all, aren’t there people who can walk on hot coals and the like thanks to the force of their wills alone?) (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 273).

[12] In fact some say that as soon as a benoni would allow himself a sense of self-satisfaction and accomplishement that’s a sure sign that he’d somehow come to be willing to settle for less, he’d have lowered his stature, and he’d have stopped serving G-d for all intents and purposes (see Biur Tanya).

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 14

2007-02-14T10:56:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 14

1.

We’re nearly finished with this second part of the book that has laid-out the diversity of inner beings, so let’s clear up a couple of other quandaries found in the very first chapter. We’ll begin, though, by offering a word-for-word translation of a very important, compelling statement RSZ makes at the very beginning of this chapter (which we referred to in the previous one).

It reads, “The quality of benoni-ism is everyone's (to be had), it's one that everyone strives for; (and indeed,) everyone can become a benoni at any time”.

Let's bypass the idea in the middle of this complex sentence that benoni-ism is a quality that “everyone strives for" just now and concentrate instead on the point that “the quality of benoni-ism is everyone's (to be had)” and that “everyone can become a benoni at any time”.

What that means to say is that while few of us could ever hope to become a tzaddik, each one of us *can* become a benoni, regardless of our history, despite our makeup, and in an instant. We'd just need to truly repent for our sins and decide there and then never again to do, say, or think anything we're not to (see note 2 to Ch. 12).

After all, benoni-ism is “very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart -- so that you can do (i.e., achieve) it” (Deuteronomy 30:14), as has been stressed. And that's so because, as the middle section of our quote points out, it's the quality that “everyone strives for” -- or should, at least (Maskil L'Eitan) -- since on some level each one of us wants to draw close to G-d.

2.

We can also achieve it because we needn't actually despise wrongdoing viscerally to be a benoni, or love G-d instinctively and intensely, which few of us actually do -- though there are times when we can, too, as when we pray or recite "Sh'ma Yisrael" with fervor, for example, when we celebrate Shabbat and Yom Tov in full, and at other auspicious moments of personal elevation, as has been pointed out.

"All" we'd have to do to become a benoni -- which is of course no small feat -- would be to never again do, say, or think anything wrong.

For while we haven't all that much control over what we despise and what we love, we *have* all been granted the freedom to make the right moral choices and to go against our own impulses if we want to [1]. Indeed, whenever we long for one material thing or another that's either out-and-out wrongful or just superfluous (see Ch. 7), all we'd need to do would be to distract ourselves from it altogether and we'd overcome the temptation [2].

Now, one way to do that, we're taught here, is to engage in the following inner-dialogue (loosely translated).

“You know, I don't want to be a rasha even for a minute! After all, who’d ever want to be disconnected from G-d Almighty by sinning (see Iggeret Hateshuva Ch. 5). I want to cling onto G-d with the whole of my being by fulfilling, verbalizing, and dwelling upon His Torah and mitzvot, and by drawing upon the love for Him that's just naturally sequestered in every Jew's heart [3]. After all, if even the simplest of Jews can give his life to Sanctity G-d's Name [4], I'm certainly no less capable of that than he!”

In fact, there are only a couple of reasons why anyone in his right mind would set out to do something that would make him a rasha. Either because he'd gone out of his mind and come to be possessed by the sort of temporary insanity the sages termed the “spirit of folly” (Sotah 3A; see Ch's 19, 24 below) [5], and imagined that he'd still be a good Jew despite his sin; or because he'd come to be completely out of touch with the native love for G-d in his Jewish heart (see Ch's 24-25) [6].

In any event, “I don't want to be a fool like that” the inner-dialogue would continue, “... I don't want to reject the truth that way!". For we can in fact manage to avoid doing that.

3.

When it comes to literally hating wrongdoing (see 13:5) though, we can't possibly simply "decide" to do that; we'd first have to foster the sort of great and mighty love of G-d known as the “love of delights” which the righteous bask in, in the World to Come (see 9:4 and Ch. 27) and sometimes even in life [7].

But not everybody can arrive at that degree of love, let alone *bask* in the "love of delights", since it itself is a reward granted to those who strive for it, as is explained elsewhere (See Chinuch Kattan, Iggeret HaKodesh 18) [8].

And in fact our inability to just decide to hate wrongdoing explains why Job pointed out that G-d "created the ox with cloven hooves and ... the donkey with whole hooves ... " and likewise "created tzaddikim and rashaim" (9:7, see Babba Batra 16A and Ch. 1 in the original). What Job’s point was that just as an animal can't decide to be born other than how it is, we likewise can't aspire to be tzaddikim unless G-d grants us that make-up.

The same was intimated for all intents and purpose in the Tikkunei Zohar’s statement that (1B) “there are many orders and sorts of souls within the Jewish Nation: pious individuals, mighty ones who overpower their yetzer harahs, masters of Torah, prophets, ... tzaddikim, etc.”, to indicate that just as not everyone has the capacity to master Torah or be a prophet no matter how much he might want to, not everyone can be a tzaddik either.

4.

Now we can understand another curiosity from chapter 1 -- the apparent redundancy of the vow our soul is told to take before we’re born to be a tzaddik and to also not be a rasha (Niddah 30B). After all, if it will be a tzaddik, it won't be a rasha by definition, so why would we have to stipulate both?

The point is that since not everyone can be a tzaddik and has the wherewithal to choose to truly delight in G-d's Presence, or to actually despise wrong, then we're told to vow to at least not be a rasha, but be a benoni [9]. And our having vowed to do that will give us the extra impetus and determination to succeed at that (Biur Tanya), at the very least on a subliminal level.

For, again, we have it within us to make the right ethical choices and to take control of our impulses and yetzer harah enough to not be a rasha moment after moment by "simply" not doing anything forbidden and doing everything we should (most especially to study Torah, which is the ultimate and best mitzvah [Pirke Avot 6:3]).

5.

Nonetheless, we're to at least set aside time and find ways to *come to* despise wrong on one level or another. How? By applying the advice of our sages. They recommend at one point, for example, that we picture someone we're attracted to on a lascivious level or anything else earthly we're attracted to as being “a pot of dung”, in order to be thrown off and avoid temptation (Shabbat 152A).

What that means to say is that we're to set aside time to reflect dispassionately on the actual raw, roughhewn, and unpretty make-up of things that we're to avoid, and to take that thought to heart. For after all, the deliciousness of a fine meal is nothing more than the interplay of red, saliva-ridden glands with a compost of mashed food that will inevitably wind up as waste-matter, despite how alluring it is at the moment.

Indeed, if you're wise you can't help but see the inevitable in the present moment (see Pirke Avot 4:1) and realize that all such things will ultimately rot and turn to dust and ash -- while the very opposite is true of the sublime experience of delighting and rejoicing in G-d's Presence, which is truly, copiously luscious; utterly, all-encompassingly gripping; and richly, richly satisfying. And we can only come to the latter perspective by pondering G-d's infinite greatness as best we can. which the benoni is required to do as well (Maskil L'Eitan), not only the tzaddik.

And though we know full well -- if we’re honest with ourselves -- that we’ll never actually arrive at the point where we truly despise wrong so much as *think* we do or *act as if* we do, still and all we’re to do whatever we can to fulfill our vow to be a tzaddik on that level at least [10] and G-d will do what He deems best.

Besides, when you do something regularly, the habit itself starts to take over and to become second nature to you; and in the end, "routine (will) rule" (Sefer Mivchar HaP'nimim) and you'll indeed act as if you felt the way you seemed to be feeling. In point of fact, "second natures" are often actually stronger than "first", inborn natures (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 262) [11].

6.

Besides, the truth of the matter is that when you train yourself to despise wrong, you'll truly come to despise it on some level [12], and you'll foster at least *some* small measure of inner-transformation in the process (Biur Tanya). And training yourself to delight in G-d's Presence by pondering His greatness will also surely help [13].

That aid often comes from unexpected, more supernatural means, too. For we're taught that you just might merit being permeated or "possessed" by the soul of an august tzaddik from on high! And while you'd be being helped along by that soul, it would be *you* who'd have advanced in the end. That would then enable you to serve G-d in true joy, and to have actually fulfilled the vow you took to be a tzaddik -- on that level at least [14].

__________________________________________
Notes:

[1] As Rambam writes in Hilchot Teshuva (5:1), “Permission has been granted everyone to either incline himself in the direction of goodness and to be righteous or, if he so chooses, in the direction of evil and be wicked .... Of his own volition man can consciously and on his own distinguish between good and evil, and do whatever he wants to do, either good or evil, without anyone stopping him". (Recall of course that being "righteous" or "wicked" here hasn't very much to do with being either a tzaddik or rasha per se, as was discussed in 1:2.)

The subject at hand is human “free will” versus ”Divine compulsion” -- that is, whether we're free to do as we see fit, or if G-d (so to speak) transports us from place to place of His own volition, has us do what He wants us to, then carries us along to our next mission, despite ourselves. It contends with the question of how free we are to act out on our own wills; or put another way: where G-d's will end and our's begins; where our will ends and G-d's begin.

Rambam seems to say quite firmly here that man is utterly free to act on his own. For as he says later on in Hilchot Teshuva, “everyone has been granted the capacity to do anything in the human sphere ... he'd like to do” (5:3), “(G-d) want(s) man to be free and to have the ability to act any way he wants, without any deterrents or instigators, of his own G-d-given volition” (5:4), and "man's actions are in his own hands, ... G-d neither instigates or preordains what he's to do” (5:5).

Apparently, then, man is "as free as a bird”-- able to do what he wants, when he wants, as he wants. But, doesn't Rambam himself raise the question later on as to how anyone could do “anything he wants and be allowed to act any way he cares to?” and how, “anything in the world (can) be done without the permission or against the will of the Creator? For isn't it written, ‘All that G-d wants done in heaven or on earth is done’ (Psalms 135:6)?”

But it seems to come to this: Man *isn’t* as free as a bird. In fact, no matter how hard he tries, or how much he’s determined to, he could never fly on his own. Nor could he live to two-hundred, or survive without the ability to breathe (at least without artificial means), etc., etc. And G-d Almighty *does* manifest and express His will all the time, which by definition, is utterly and uniquely invincible and unstoppable.

Still and all, though, man is completely free in one area and domain -- in his moral decisions. As we're taught, “Everything's in the hands of Heaven -- except the fear of Heaven” (Berachot 33B), and only that. That's to say that while G-d Almighty instigates all things and all actions, my moral reactions to them is in my hands and left to me alone.

As such, we have absolute control over our moral decisions -- over how we react to all that G-d presents us with. But that's all we have control over. Everything, but everything else is under the direct and constant rule of G-d Almighty alone.

[2] Of course we could partake of our permitted but superflous desires for more altruistic reasons, but we'd need to be aware of whether we're fooling ourselves into thinking we're doing that when we aren't (Maskil L'Eitan; see Hilchot De'ot Ch. 3), the way we'd need to be sure we're not fooling ourselves about our spiritual standing either (see 13:3 above and note 5 there).

Also see Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s statement to the effect that “the yetzer harah ... knows that if you were to concentrate upon your ways for just an instant you would certainly repent of them, and a strong regret would grow within you” automatically, as he implies, “that would lead you to utterly abandon your sins” right there and then (The Path of the Just Ch. 2).

[3] This concept will be explained later on in the work, but for now let it be said that this love is just naturally sequestered in each and every Jewish heart, without exception; it's rooted in the interconnection between the Jewish soul and G-d's being; it's beyond reason and isn't predicated on anything we do, though it can be prompted by reflection; it isn't undone by our preoccupation with worldly concerns or our sins; and it's what drives us to attach ourselves unto G-d's being and to even sacrifice our lives for His sake, when that's called for, as we'll see later on (Maskil L’Eitan).

[4] ... if forced to (see Ch's 18 and 19 below).

[5] One way to know if we'd become temporarily insane, we're told, would be to determine for ourselves if we'd begun to grant the world and its delights more substance than they're worth and taken them to be more satisfying than they are; and if we'd begun to spurn G-d's presence in the face of them (see Maskil L’Eitan).

Also see Sichot HaRan (#6), where Rebbe Nachman of Breslov likened the yetzer harah to someone running about through a crowd with a hand held tightly shut, giddily asking everyone what they thought he might be hiding, whom everyone then chased after because they imagined his hand contained the very thing they wanted most, and who were all terribly disappointed to discover that his hand had been empty all along.

[6] And so we're taught that the only point at which we can actually stop ourselves outright from falling sway to the "spirit of folly" is the very moment it first occurs to us to commit a particular sin. All we'd have to do then would be to distract ourselves. But once it had gone past that point and traveled along our thought-and-impulse processes all would be lost for all intents and purposes, because we hadn't distracted ourselves. For the "spirit of folly" would have taken over (Likutei Biurim, in the name of R' Chaim Vitale).

[7] Our sages referred to that as “seeing your (eternal) world while (yet) alive” (Berachot 17A).

[8] Moshe Chaim Luzzatto referred to this phenomenon (which he termed the state of "holiness") as being, "a twofold matter: (which) begins in effort and ends in recompense; and (which) begins in striving and ends in being given as a gift .... because it's impossible for a human to place himself in this state which -- because he is in truth physical, and flesh and blood-- is so difficult for him. All you can do is make the effort of seeking the true knowledge, and try to constantly give thought to the sanctification of your actions. Ultimately, G-d alone can direct you in this, the path you would like to follow, and can have His holiness dwell upon you and sanctify you" (Messilat Yesharim, Ch. 26).

[9] In fact it could be said that the essential difference between a tzaddik and a benoni is that while a benoni doesn't want to do wrong any more than a tzaddik does, he's still and all persuaded to sometimes, while the tzaddik simply despises wrong and wants absolutely no part of it (Likutei Biurim).

We could liken the difference between the two to the difference between someone who could be persuaded to drink alcohol or not (depending on circumstances and social pressures) who thus might end up becoming an alcoholic or not, and someone who simply hates the taste, effects, etc., of alcohol and wouldn't think of drinking it, who'd never be an alcoholic.

[10] We might posit that by doing that we'd at least achieve the level of tzaddik depicted in 1:2 -- one "mostly free of sin", as cited it Hilchot Teshuva 3:1.

[11] This concept will be expanded upon in the next chapter, where more of the methodology is laid out.

[12] See 13:6 above about relative truth.

[13] And besides, as most know, while epiphanies -- true and deep insights into significant things -- are very, very satisfying and long-lasting, material or sensual satisfaction is very short-lived, and could actually be said to be unsatisfying by comparison (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 261).

RSZ’s compares this effort to a “spur from below” ushering in a corresponding “spur from above” (see Zohar 1, p. 86B, 88A; 2, p.135B).

[14] A soul comes back to the world in two different ways, we're taught. Either fully embodied again (as a gilgul, in order to rectify sins which that same soul committed in past lives), or as a soul encased within another individual now in a body (as an ibur) to assist it in its Divine service (Likutei Biurim, Maskil L'Eitan based on Shaar HaGilgulim 4-5).

Note, though, that while the first instance is clearly, though necessarily, self-serving on some level, the second is utterly altruistic.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 13

2007-01-31T11:25:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 13

1.

It's become clear by now that the true benoni is just like the rest of us inwardly when it comes to his snares and affinities, yet quite unlike us outwardly, since he doesn't acquiesce to them (see 12: 2). That's not at all to say that a benoni is a hypocrite; the point is that unlike us, he's always contending with his inner anomalies and struggling to prevail over his animalistic tendencies while we hardly or only occasionally, do. But let's try to get some insight into the benoni's inner struggle.

Now, we'd expect a benoni to be depicted as being ruled-over either by his animalistic now or G-dly spirit at another point in an unending series of inner victories and defeats [1]. And we'd assume him to be beholden to one at one point and to the other at another. But it's important to understand that, as our sages explained it, while the benoni is indeed pressured or baited by each spirit to acquiesce to its side of the argument, he's in fact ruled-over by neither [2]. (After all, if he were in fact ruled-over by either one he'd be an out-and-out tzaddik or rasha!)

Instead we're told that his animalistic and G-dly spirits merely *advocate* for one side of the argument the benoni is having with himself about whether to do, say, or think something untoward untoward [3]. The point is that neither advocate has the final say; only the litigant, the benoni himself, does.

2.

But there's a third participant as well, we're told -- G-d Himself, who "stands at (the benoni's) right hand ... to save him" from the input of the animalistic spirit, in RSZ's own words. In fact it would take no less than G-d's own input to fend off the animalistic spirit's arguments since, for as our sages put it, "man's yetzer harah reinvigorates itself daily .... and were it not for the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, was there to help him, man would never prevail over it" (Kiddushin 30B).

So, what actually goes on within is a quick and intense registering of arguments pro and con by equally adroit opposing advocates playing off of each other's points; a single, very vulnerable litigant in the midst of it all; and a generous sympathizer and advisor, G-d.

Yet we could legitimately then ask, "If G-d will indeed come to the benoni's rescue, then why does anyone have a yetzer harah in the first place?" The answer lies in the fact that the benoni is to make the "first move". He has to set out to reflect upon what's going on within him before G-d will abet him (Maskil L'Eitan) and to thus take the struggle seriously enough to warrant G-d's help; and he's to then consciously elect to do the right thing (Likutei Biurim), right there and then.

So, what G-d actually does in that situation is illumine (or, bolster) the G-dly spirit's side of the argument, which then gives the benoni the wherewithal to win his case [4].

3.

Understand, though, that the benoni's animalistic spirit is still as potent and vexing as ever, and it still has him long for all sorts of mundane pleasures; it doesn't become undone or supplanted by its encounter with his G-dly spirit, sad to say; and his G-dly spirit still and all doesn't rule over his body, despite G-d's help -- since at bottom, the benoni is not a tzaddik.

It's vitally important to realize that about the benoni -- that is, about *us*. Because it’s important to reiterate the point again and again that we’re actually referring to ourselves (potentially, that is) when we discuss all this; for as RSZ says at the very beginning of the next chapter, “*everyone* can become a benoni, at any time”.

For if we don’t realize that our animalistic spirit isn’t undone by our encounters with his G-dly spirit then we're likely be unaware of who we are and where we stand on the merit continuum. We might then fool ourselves into thinking we're more righteous than we are and slacken off in our quest for closeness to G-d accordingly (see Biur Tanya, Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya) [5]. Or, conversely, we might not effect certain tikkunim (specific mystical acts of rectification) that are expected of tzaddikim if we *are* tzaddikim but don't know it (Maskil L'Eitan). The truth be known, though, most people who aren't tzaddikim don't (and shouldn’t) assume that they are (Likutei Biurim, p. 327).

4.

All that helps explain something cited in the very first chapter of this work -- why the soul that's about to enter this world had to be told to consider itself "basically wrongful even if everyone says otherwise" (Niddah 30B). And that's so the soul -- which is to say, each one of us before we're born -- would at least strive to be a benoni, who's "basically" but not utterly “wrongful” (since his yetzer harah is somewhat hushed though not eradicated).

Another reason we’re to do that, perheps, is because taking on such an attitude would undoubtedly leave a humbling mark behind in the inner-linings of our as-yet-unborn heart for the rest of our lives.

For indeed we're to always assume that our wrongful side will be in force in our heart, that we'll thus indeed be basically wrongful, and that our animalistic spirit will always and inevitably grow stronger and stronger as long as we live and participate in material life [6]. Since we're not tzaddikim.

For the truth is that even if you were to study Torah day and night -- and altruistically at that, with no thought of personal gain or renown -- that's still and all no guarantee that you'd have eradicated the evil within you [7]. It's just that you might manage to not *express* it by not thinking, saying, or doing anything wrong, thanks to your preoccupation with holy things, and to the G-d-given ability each one of us has to take control of our own actions by dint of will [8].

Understand, too, that this is one of the most astounding claims of this work. For what its says -- and outright at that -- is that one could indeed be a full-fledged, well-intentioned, senior, perhaps even exceptional Torah-scholar and still not be a tzaddik as RSZ depicts it! We'll soon see how that has been true in the past as well, and even among our greatest Talmudic sages (like Rabbah, as we indicated at the beginning).

5.

So, to reiterate, despite his many spiritual accomplishments, a benoni's G-dly spirit is still-and-all not in control of his animalistic spirit other than occasionally, as when he manifests a love of G-d when he prays, and the like. But even then his G-dly spirit only manages to control and tamper down his animalistic spirit, and he continues on in his great and terrible struggle once again.

And that's because he would merely have subjected his untoward inlinations to his G-dly spirit's Binah mind-aspect and not his Chochma or Da'at ones (see 6:2 and note 2 there; and the end of 3:2). Which is to say that the benoni would have come to understand how important it is to draw close to G-d, but he wouldn't have completely assimilated the utter truth of that.

For Binah is the realm in which we're able to reflect upon G-d's infinite greatness (and upon how far from Him we'd strayed [Maskil L'Eitan]), and the one in which we can foster a fiery love for Him to be able to subdue the other side. But we'd need to call upon the deeper aspects of the G-dly spirit's mind-aspect we'd cited if we're to be a tzaddik.

In a way, then, a benoni's wrongfulness only "falls asleep" for all intents and purposes once in a while, as when he recites the Sh'ma or prays, when he can truly love G-d deeply [9]. For unlike the tzaddik who's love of G-d is part of his very being, the benoni is more attached to the world than to G-d, and he isn't really offput by wrongdoing or repulsed by the world, other than when he's deep in prayer or contemplation (Maskil L'Eitan).

In fact, that helps explain why the great Rabbah considered himself a benoni rather than a tzaddik (see 1:1) even though he never stopped studying Torah and so deeply loved G-d when he recited the Sh'ma or prayed. For though he knew those things about himself, he nonetheless only regarded himself as a benoni who prayed all day long at best, for all intents and purposes [10] ... which would certainly be a profound level of accomplishment.

6.

But let's go back now to the subject of the benoni's love for G-d as he prays, and when his G-dly spirit prevails as a consequence. The truth be known, RSZ pronounces, the sort of love he'd experience would be an out-and-out sham if it were expressed on that selfsame level by a tzaddik (Likutei Biurim)! Simply because the benoni's love would only be ephemeral and would melt away as soon as he finished praying, which isn’t so of the tzaddik’s love for G-d.

RSZ's point is that we're not to be disheartened by that reality, though. For that's not to deny the *relative* validity and purity of the benoni's love for G-d (see Biur Tanya) at the time. It’s just that truth is always relative to the level on which it's found (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya). Thus, the benoni *does* love G-d truly and honestly then -- but only as much perhaps as a child loves his or her home, without really knowing anything about what goes into maintaining it or how it functions.

The truth of the matter is that when a benoni senses the love of G-d in his heart, his feelings are indeed legitimate and true -- for him, and commensurate with his own rank. For, among other reasons, while it may indeed be temporary, that love can always be re-aroused during prayer, and is thus always there in potentia and at-the-ready (see Maskil L'Eitan), day after day, thanks to his continued efforts and his preparations [11].

Now, that warm allowance for the relative merit and truthfulness of the benoni's love isn't without it's source. It's rooted in an insight into the inheritance we enjoy from our forefather Jacob.

For Jacob epitomizes truth, as we're taught by the verse that says that G-d "grants truth to Jacob" (Micha 7:20). But there are a number of nuances to the point, since Jacob as the epitome of truth is equated with the "middle bar in the center of the boards that will pass through from (one) end to (the other) end" (Exodus 26:28) (see Zohar 1, 1B). That’s to say that, like the center bolt that passes from one end of the Tabernacle to the other and thus holds the edifice together, the truth that Jacob epitomises is all encompassing and of one sort -- with variations. And that what’s true of one end of that self-same bar isn’t what’s true at the other end, but is true nonetheless. Today we term that phenomenon “relative truth”.

Hence, the very high degrees of love of G-d that tzaddikim experience and the relatively low ones that benoni achieve are both true by degree, and they're bound to each other by that long bar. As a consequence the benoni's "truth" is indeed true at the time for him. For the reach of the sort of truth under discussion is boundless and infinite [12].

__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] Once again we must underscore that when we speak of our expectations for a benoni we're actually citing our expectations for ourselves -- once we reach that potentiality.

[2] Our sages actually depict the process as being "judged" by the yetzer harah and yetzer hatov (Berachot 61B; see Ch. 1 in the original, as well as our reference to it at the end of 1:2), but we've described the scenario in modern court-trial terms, using for example, the terms "advocates" and "litigant".

[3] The benoni has been depicted as dangling in midair, in a manner of speaking; open and vulnerable to two commanding voices that alternatively disallow him to ascend *or* descend with any ease (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 247). How apt and wise a portrayal of the human moral dilemma that is!

It's been pointed out incidentally that halachically, each judge (or, "advocate") in a case must state his opinion (Maskli L'Eitan). That would seem to indicate that each one of us must know and be able to state what we truly want or don't want before we can be expected to transcend anything.

[4] Maimondes said the following, "What David meant when he said, 'G-d is good and just, so He guides sinners onto the path; He directs the humble in the ways of Justice' (Psalms 25:8-9) is this: that G-d dispatches prophets to them to let them know His ways and to bring them to teshuvah. He also means that G-d provides people with the capacity to learn and comprehend" (H. T. 6:5). This is cited as a source for RSZ's insight (Likut Perushim 13:6). What's interesting about *that*, among other things, is that it underscores the fact that G-d doesn't only illumine us in the sort of vague, inchoate ways deep within the soul we might think He does from the context of RSZ's statement.

As Maimondes' remarks indicate, G-d also illumines us by exposing us to prophets (and teachers), and through our own insights. It should also be recorded that others think the illumination is provided us by the daily prayers and recitation of the Sh'ma already cited as special moments of elevation (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 247).

Incidentally, a wonderful depiction of the entire inner struggle is the following one by Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuva 1:11) "Understand that when you sin unwittingly, it's because you craved something, your impulses intensified and overwhelmed you, and your thoughts and feelings couldn't combat such an onslaught by quickly admonishing the ocean of cravings and drying it up. Your impulses fooled you, you fell into their trap for the moment, and you were ravaged by the winds of the yetzer harah. It's not as if you wanted to transgress, or had it in mind to ever do that again."

[5] See 3:4 above about another possible fallacy that results from misreading one’s stature: that of imagining yourself loving and fearing G-d when you really don't.

Yet, there seems to be a wish in every G-d-fearing individual's heart to be a tzaddik in fact, though few are; and we wonder why we can't be one. Perhaps we can take comfort, though, from the following insight by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who offers that "this is (simply) the way G-d chose it to be. Nonetheless, while it is impossible for a whole nation to be of one spiritual type, and there are all sorts of degrees in people ... there will at least be found some special individuals who could completely prepare themselves, and by means of this make meritorious the unprepared for the love of G-d and the indwelling of His Presence" (Messilat Yesharim, Ch. 13).

[6] That clears up the other issues raised by our considering ourselves to be wrongful from inception, as pointed out in 1:3. For as worded there, "First off, how could we be compelled to be righteous by taking such an oath when our devotion is open to free choice? Secondly, we're advised elsewhere to never consider ourselves wrongful (Pirke Avot 2:18) .... And third, if we did consider ourselves wrongful then we'd hardly likely serve G-d as joyously and good-naturedly as we're bidden to (see Deuteronomy 28:47)". The point is that we're still subject to free will as benonim, since there'll always be a plethora of choices to made, moment by moment; we wouldn't be considering ourselves to be out-and-out wrongdoers in the end; and we're capable of being very happy indeed (which is the focus of many of the chapters to follow) and decidedly devout, albeit not utterly righteous (also see Maskil L'Eitan).

[7] But wouldn't his Torah-study itself have subjugated his animalistic spirit? No, for Torah-study only influences and impels our *G-dly* spirit, which is a portion of G-d (like the Torah itself); it has no connection to our animalistic spirit and can't undo it (Maskil L'Eitan).

[8] That's not to deny that that person wouldn't experience an intense inner struggle the whole time he'd be studying Torah deeply or praying selflessly (Biur Tanya), which could last for weeks, months, or even years at a time in some cases.

[9] The yetzer harah could "awaken" right afterwards or fall right back to sleep, we're told. In fact it's been said that the yetzer harah gets bolder yet afterwards, much the way we're energized by a nap (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 250).

[10] Some would suggest that Rabbah was wrong: that he was a tzaddik, but he was so humble and engrossed in Torah all the time that he didn't realize it (Maskil L'Eitan). But shouldn't he have been aware of his status as we're all expected to, as was pointed out in sect. 3 above? It would seem then that he wasn't a tzaddik and he knew that of himself only too well.

[11] See ch. 42 for more about preparations for prayer.

[12] RSZ includes a couple of Kabbalistic and Talmudic references at this juncture which we'll discuss here, for brevity and clarity's sake.

There's a Kabbalistic principle to the effect that the "heads", which is to say, the highest and loftiest levels, of a phenomenon are nonetheless lower than the "soles" and "feet" -- the lowest and humblest -- levels of a phenomenon that's higher than it. As an analogous Talmudic statement reads, "the distance from the earth to the firmament is a journey (by foot) of five hundred years, and the span of the firmament is a journey (by foot) of five hundred years, and that’s likewise true (of the distance) between one firmament and the other. Above them (all, though,) are the holy Chayot, who are equal (in dimension) to all of them (put together)".

The point is that even the loftiest and most awesome aspects of certain recondite mystical phenomenon are lowly compared to the lowliest aspects of mystical phenomenon loftier yet than they; and that even something that would take many, many thousands of years to traverse is as naught in comparison to the magnitude of other things. Hence, even though the truths of tzaddikim (the "heads") are lofty, the lower truths of the benonim can nevertheless be deemed high relative to them.

(See Ramchal’s Klach Pitchei Chochma 32, p. 120 in the Friedlander edition for another treatment of the idea of relative truth.)

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 12

2007-01-17T09:39:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 12

1.

Now, since it's the "benoni" state that offers us the most hope, in light of the fact that so few of us are or will ever actually be tzaddikim, let's explore it in depth and contrast it with the tzaddik and rasha states.

A benoni is depicted as someone whose animalistic biases are still there within and haven’t be transmuted to goodness as they had been in a tzaddik’s heart, all right. But they nonetheless never vanquish or conquer his G-dly biases (the way a rasha's animalistic biases do) [1]. And as a result, the benoni is said to *never sin*, be it in thought, speech, or in action; and he’s able to funnel all his thoughts, utterances, and actions into mitzvot instead of sins [2].

So let's examine the benoni's makeup in more depth.

2.

It's vitally important to understand, though, that the only reason why a benoni doesn't actually sin is because of the fact that his three outer "garments" aren't overtaken by his animalistic spirit [3]. That's to say that while it's true that he doesn't think, say, or actually do anything wrong -- nonetheless "inside" those garments where he himself lies, a benoni *can* be overtaken by his animalistic spirit (unlike the tzaddik who’s no longer subject to that).

So, his righteousness is in a certain, broad sense only "skin deep", in that in his core he isn't fully, essentially righteous; it's just that no one would know that, given how righteous all his thoughts, utterances, and actions are [4].

That's certainly not to say that he's a hypocrite or self-delusional. Only that despite his overt and thoroughly honest goodness and devotion, deep in his being he's still-and-all open to sins and shortcomings. Hence unlike a tzaddik, a benoni is always engaged in an inner struggle (Biur Tanya); always at risk of lapsing.

3.

But there *are* instances in which the benoni's inner being is actually free from the tauntings of his animalistic spirit -- though only temporarily. And that would be when he's reciting The Sh'ma or uttering The Sh'mone Esrai prayer [5]. Since those are times when distinct and extraordinary interactions between G-d and us can take place, which are termed instances of Mochin d'Gadlut (literally, "large mindedness", or "amplified awareness").

For that's when we can all attach our G-dly spirit's three mind elements (see 3:1 above) unto G-d's presence by reflecting deeply upon G-d's infinite greatness, and we can set off a sense of fiery love for Him in our hearts and cling unto Him.

"Extra light" is said to shine downward upon us from up above then [6], which then enables more light to shine upon the G-dly spirit, that in turn helps it to suppress the animalistic spirit (Likutei Biurim). The benoni's mind connects more easily to G-d then, and he can thus delve more deeply into G-d's greatness, and more easily arouse the sort of fiery love that lies dormant in the right side of his heart [7]. Those, then, are the most propitious moments in a soul’s life.

So indeed, that's when the benoni's animalistic spirit is subjugated to his G-dly spirit (the way a tzaddik's is), since his mind is attached to G-d's greatness then.

It's just that his animalistic spirit is only asleep, if you will, then, and his capacity to sin is temporarily "turned off". The point is that his animalistic spirit will still-and-all awaken just as soon as the benoni finishes praying and he once again starts to fantasize about one worldly attraction or another (though some small semblance of his prayers can and often does indeed stay with him through the day [see Maskil L’Eitan]).

4.

Nonetheless since his animalistic spirit doesn't have full reign over him as it largely does in the case of a rasha, the benoni never actually sins in thought, speech, or action, as we said, and he never dwells on how to satisfy his desires. But, how? By virtue of the fact that his mind is able to control his heart. Which is to say that he can consciously decide to ignore his inner promptings and do what's right.

In fact, we *all* have this innate ability to consciously control our desires (Zohar 3, p. 224A) -- albeit with a struggle -- and to thus not succumb to sinful thoughts, utterances, or deeds [8]. And we can even distract our minds from earthly desires to the point where we can foster *holy* desires (which -- truth be known -- seems so out of character for us, as attached as we often are to the world) [9].

In any event the verse that best illustrates this phenomenon reads, "I saw that wisdom is as superior to foolishness as light is to darkness" (Ecclesiastes 2:13). What that indicates is that just as light is clearly superior to and more potent than darkness, given that just a little of it routinely dispels a lot of darkness, our animalistic spirit's all-encompassing foolishness can likewise be easily dispersed by applying just a touch of the wisdom that lies in our G-dly spirit.

After all, as our sages said, "A person only sins when the spirit of foolishness overcomes him (Sotah 3A), which is to say that left to our own devices we'd never sin, thanks to our G-dly spirit's inherent wisdom and light; we only do when we acquiesce to the darkness and foolishness that lies at the heart of our animalistic sprit. For at bottom our G-dly spirit wants to reign over our being and work its way into our thoughts, utterances, and actions, and to fulfill mitzvot by their means.

5.

But a benoni is still and all not a tzaddik -- despite the fact that the light of his G-dly spirit became greater than the dark foolishness of the husks in his being, and regardless of the fact that it played no part in any of his thoughts, utterances, and deeds. Since his inner being hadn't been fully disassociated from the animalistic spirit, and because his animalistic spirit reemerges -- in full flower -- as soon as the benoni finishes praying.

Why is that so? Because the only sort of love of G-d in his heart would be the sort that's naturally sequestered in our G-dly spirit all the time rather than the more exalted "fiery love" for Him, which we’ll learn about later on in this work. And so he's capable of sinning right after having prayed, and of desiring all sorts of mundane things -- both permitted and forbidden -- as if he hadn't just prayed. It's just that it wouldn't occur to him to *actually* sin.

He might indeed, though, be subject to a sudden and involuntary influx of untoward thoughts, which would confound his Divine service and Torah study. After all, as our sages said, "(There are) three sins that no one escapes from for even a day: Sinful thoughts, (lack of) concentration in prayer, and the 'dust' of slander" (Baba Battra 164B) [10]. Nevertheless, the impression left behind in his being from his prayers as well as the fear and love of G-d that's naturally sequestered in his heart do indeed help him to overcome those sorts of thoughts, and prevent them from ruling over him and from having him act out on their promptings.

That's why, in the end, the benoni's animalistic spirit doesn't take control over his untoward thoughts and thus can't force him to dwell on them. As he's able to reject them out of hand as soon as they occur to him and to be repulsed by them [11]. And he's also able to simply refuse to consciously dwell on them, act out on them, or to even utter them; since anyone who dwells on such thoughts is deemed a rasha at that point, while a benoni is never, ever a rasha -- not even for a moment.

6.

The same goes for the way the benoni interacts with others.

For as soon as anything like animosity, hatred, jealousy, or anger would occur to him, his mind would prevail over the inclination, he’d reject the thought, and he'd express empathy and love towards the other person instead of enmity, and would do what’s right [12].

He'd never express anger toward that other person for example, and he'd actually bend over backwards to do favors for anyone who had offended him, the way Joseph did for his brothers (see Zohar 1, 201A) [13].
__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] The nub of untoward thoughts do occur to the benoni though, which distract him from Torah study and from his mitzvah-life and have him long for worldly things, as we'll see later on in this chapter. But they don't *vanquish or conquer* him (Likutei Biurim), though they certainly do gnaw away at his being on some level.

[2] Curiously, the benoni is actually portrayed as being someone who has "*never sinned in his life* nor *ever would*". We're never told that a tzaddik never sinned or never would, so how could that be! Is a benoni then greater yet than a tzaddik? He's really not, by definition; so what's RSZ's point?

Part of the answer lies in something we'll learn in ch. 14. RSZ writes there that anyone can *become* a benoni at any time, which means to say that the benoni state is a fluid rather than a fixed one: no one is born a benoni and no one is denied the opportunity to become one. (And a tzaddik can descend to teh level of one, and lower -- see Maareh Mekomot, p. 235). Thus we can say that when one does indeed become a benoni he rises above and severes his personal ties to all past sins, and that that new lofty states affirms that he'll never sin in the future either (Likutei Biurim, Maskil L’Eitan, Tanya M'vuar). And that's why he can be said to have never sinned or to never sin.

But some frankly see this explanation as rather far-fetched (Likutei Biurim). After all, we're advised to reiterate all our past sins year after year in our confessions on Yom Kippur (see The Gates of Repentance 4:21), which seems to affirm that our sins are never fully gone, on one level; and we're likewise taught to never rest assured that we won't ever sin in the future (see Pirke Avot 2:4 and ch. 30), thus we can never be sure we'll never sin in the future.

So we'd offer another explanation, based on a statement made in ch. 7. We're taught there that when we sin, our souls attach itself on to the other side and we become removed from G-d. Now, could there be anything more daunting or exasperating for anyone trying to draw *closer* to G-d than that?

"What could I possibly do to reverse that and return to G-d?" such a person would wonder. What we're told he -- or any one of us in such straits -- could do is *long* to return to Him. But not just simply and honestly -- rather, "with an intensity *that even the righteous can't muster*"; an intensity that's truly "heartfelt and thoroughgoing" (ch. 7).

The point is that a benoni is thus the ideal and true penitent at bottom.

He's someone who had gone awry in the past, come to realize how far off the mark he'd wandered, then managed to undo and *redo* himself. And that while he'd indeed distanced himself from G-d, it was that very distance that had him draw close; i.e., his "illness" itself had enabled him to produce enough "antibodies" to be fully healed. So in a certain sense a benoni could be considered greater than a tzaddik. Since "the reward conforms to the efforts made" (Pirke Avot 8:23) and the benoni has in fact worked harder at his service to G-d than a tzaddik (see Biur Tanya; and Hilchot Teshuvah 7:4,7).

[3] See 4:2 for a discussion of the soul's "garments".

[4] Of course, only an individual himself and G-d Almighty can really know what anyone is and whether or not his righteousness goes to the core. But one can often-enough "read" another's mind in a sense if he's familiar enough with that person's patterns of actions and utterances. Of course no such reading is foolproof, since there are many well-trained individuals (like actors, con-men, and even well-meaning teachers of different stripes) who can indeed mislead others, but the point is still largely valid.

[5] "Reciting 'The Sh'ma'" entails reading and concentrating on certain potent and affirmative verses that speak about G-d's oneness, might, love, dependability, and justice; about His expectations of us; and about the exile, including Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11: 13-21, and Numbers 15:38-41.

The "Sh'mone Esrai” is the central text of all Jewish prayer.

[6] I.e., a greater degree of immaterial, numinous "nourishment" from up above is said to shine.

[7] RSZ says that this process is in effect not only when we recite the Sh'ma and Sh'mone Esrai -- but also when we recite the blessings before the Sh'ma and after it (and hence before the Sh'mone Esrai). We're told in ch. 49 below that the first of those blessings depicts different aspects of G-d's greatness -- how the most sublime angels are nullified in His presence, how far exalted above them He is, etc. And that the second one tells of how much He loves the Jewish Nation, how He draws them close to Him, etc. Hence, after reflecting upon these blessings one is indeed ready to recite The Sh'ma in the appropriately lofty state of mind.

It's nonetheless important to point out that it's nonetheless true that the benoni's love doesn't "spill over" to the left side of his heart then, and thus doesn't "douse" the fiery love for the world in our being as it would for a tzaddik (Maskil L’Eitan).

[8] This ability will prove to be a major theme of this work, by the way. What it comes down to is consciously and willfully changing your focus away from one thing to its extreme opposite. (The truth be known, it’s indeed the will that matters most in the process, since it’s what has ultimate control over the personality [Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 237]). In fact, we all exhibit this ability to set "mind over matter" in various areas of our life, as when we decide to undergo surgery, for example, even when we're afraid to, simply because it has to be done (Maskil L’Eitan).

[9] Let's explain the difference between a benoni and a tzaddik at this point by using the analogy of a country being threatened by an outside interloper, as cited in 9:3 above.

A tzaddik would have completely vanquished the enemy, who'd thus no longer be a threat. An incomplete rasha -- even one who engages in Torah and mitzvot most of his life -- does find the enemy coming in and out of his borders all the time. And while a benoni would have prevented the enemy from entering the city, he'd still have to be on the lookout for him all the time. But unlike the rasha, the benoni wouldn't let the enemy in (though it would always be a struggle for him -- other than at auspicious times) (Biur Tanya).

[10] See our note 5 to ch. 11.

[11] That's to say that while the benoni still has to contend with untoward thoughts on some level, the same sorts of thoughts merely appear-then-disappear in an incomplete tzaddik's mind, while utter tzaddikim don't even experience them (Maskil L’Eitan).

{12] Some would say that while a benoni might experience anger and the like *within*, he nonetheless wouldn't allow the emotion to come full-bloom (Biur Tanya). But that still raises the question as to how we (as potential benonim) can manage to damper what are sometimes very, very compelling emotions. After all, as someone once indicated, while it's easy enough living alone with G-d if you will and to be on the best of terms with Him, it's extraordinarily difficult living with other people, managing to stay the course, and not lapsing into smallness and meanness.

So perhaps the best advice is that offered elsewhere by RSZ, who counsels that we're to assume a whole other attitude toward the world around us to succeed at that. We're to recall that in fact "there's no place void of Him" (Tikkunei Zohar, 27), i.e., of G-d. For keeping that in mind enables us to be "happy and joyous all the time", as RSZ puts it. After all it only follows, he reasons, that anyone "who's sad and somber ... denies G-d's omnipresence."

That's to say that anyone who truly believes that G-d's comforting and benevolent presence is all around wouldn't "be perturbed by any suffering whatever" -- "'yes' and 'no' would be all the same to him". So we're to believe that "everything is absolutely good, though we don't apprehended it as such", since "when one truly believes that, then everything *becomes* good" (Iggeret HaKodesh, Ch. 11), and living in society becomes easier.

[13] Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, but he nonetheless used his capacity as Viceroy of Egypt to feed and provide for his brothers and their extended families (see Genesis 37 to 50).

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 11

2007-01-04T10:05:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 11

1.

As we'd said in ch. 6, "each and every thing in this world has a parallel, mirror opposite" -- including our ethical and spiritual standing. So just as there are complete and less-than-complete tzaddikim, there are likewise complete and less-than-complete wrongdoers, *rashaim*. A complete and utter rasha (singular of rashaim) is someone who's hopelessly out-and-out wicked, while a less-than-complete rasha is one whose goodness has been overwhelmed and "outnumbered" by his or her wrongfulness, to be sure, but less so.

In short, a rasha is someone whose goodness which is nestled in his G-dly spirit is overcome by the wrongfulness in his animalistic spirit. But know too that there are as many different grades of rashaim as there are of tzaddikim.

In point of fact and highly ironically (as well as emblematic of our age, we’d dare say), we'd sometimes consider some rashaim to be rather *good and wholesome* people who "happen to lapse", as we’d put it, from time to time. Indeed according to RSZ, a rasha might even sin in only very minor ways and only once-in-a-great-while. So we'll clearly have to delineate just what a rasha is and what he’s not.

2.

We'll start off by examining the makeup of less-than-complete, let's say ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill rashaim. By definition, they're people who are guilty of either uttering, thinking, or doing forbidden things. But as we suggested above, the sins they commit might be rather innocuous.

They might for example dally with only minor hands-on prohibitions; or they might say something ambiguous about someone that might only insinuate something bad about him rather than out-and-out slander him [1]; or they might speak disparagingly or sarcastically about something or another (which is forbidden of us), but certainly not vengefully or acrimoniously [2]; they might only think or fantasize about sinning (by having lewd thoughts, for example) without actually planning to act out on those thoughts [3]; or they might be free to study Torah and decide not to, and delve into inanities instead (see Pirke Avot 3:4) -- though not into actual heresy. In fact, they might not even really enjoy these lapses (Biur Tanya) and only fall into them out of sheer force of habit or upbringing, laziness, apathy and the like.

Nonetheless, despite the seeming "normalcy" and "reasonableness" of their sins, and *even though they might have committed no other sins in their lifetime* such individuals are still considered rashaim at that point [4]! For at bottom, anyone who sins -- whose animalistic spirit overtakes him and has him do something wrong -- is a rasha [5].

But all is not lost for the many of us who are guilty of this of course, G-d forbid!

3.

For once a rasha of this ilk -- once someone like most of us! -- regains himself and regrets what we did, and asks G-d to forgive him for his sins, He indeed will, and he’ll be a full-fledged penitent [6]. That is, as long as he takes our sages' advice as to how to completely undo the various sorts of sins we tend to lapse into [7].

Understand as well, nonetheless, that though he'd indeed be forgiven if he does teshuvah -- he nevertheless remains a rasha essentially (Likutei Biurim), since he's still capable of lapsing into sin (Tanya M’vuar)!

We'll get back to this troubling notion soon enough, but let's now speak about people we're more comfortable denouncing as rashaim.

4.

Though there's a wide variety of them as well, out-and-out rashaim are generally the sort of people who lapse into more serious sins and do, say, or think some rather bad, and even some awful and horrible things -- perhaps again and again, and time after time.

But some of them can also regret their sins and think of repenting (thanks to the native goodness in their G-dly spirits). It's just that they haven't the wherewithal to conquer one sin or another they'd become habituated to, so they *don't* tend to repent.

They're termed "rashaim (who are) full of regrets" (see Reishit Chochma, Sha’ar HaYira, Ch. 3. But at bottom all such rashaim have is regret, and little more.

In point of fact, though, some out-and-out, thoroughgoing rashaim *never* regret what they do and never even consider repenting. And that’s because their animalistic spirit had so overtaken their G-dly spirit that the latter leaves its place in their heart and merely "hovers overhead" instead [8].

5.

So let's step back now and reflect on what we've learned in this chapter as we did with the last.

For one thing it's clear that, contrary to a tzaddik, a rasha (of whatever stripe) doesn't have a deep and abiding relationship with G-d -- though he may love and revere Him now and then to some degree or another, or not; he doesn't reflect upon or grasp G-d's greatness, at least to any great degree; and he's certainly not flawless, either in deed or in belief.

It's also clear -- although sad to say and even off-putting but true -- that according to the above *nearly everyone is a rasha to one extent or another*, regardless of whether he or she is Torah observant or not! In fact, a person can even be a Torah scholar and full of good deeds, and still be a rasha essentially (if not in deed) [9].

Now, everyone knows that we're all imperfect, but few of us would characterize the great majority of us as utterly sinful. Primarily because it's largely counter-intuitive and too gloomy a thought. So, since none one other than the most select few of us is a tzaddik; and since very, very few of us achieve the next-best Benoni-state to be depicted in the chapters to follow, for one reason or another, it's vitally important to underscore the following.

Every single one of us has the wherewithal to better him- or herself and to no longer do wrong. For in fact as we'd seen, that idea serves as the very nub of this entire work. RSZ assures us in the frontispiece that we can overcome our failings and indeed draw close to G-d Almighty if we want to, for the process is “very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart. So you *can* achieve it” (Deuteronomy 30:14). And as we said there, indeed "the formula is clear: obey, and prosper; disobey, and languish", and the procedure is neither “hidden or far way” (v. 11-13) -- instead, it's “very near-at-hand to you -- in your (very) mouth and in your heart” (v. 14).

Yet we're getting ahead of ourselves -- but only so as not to grow discouraged.

6.

For another thing, it's important to recall that despite the fact that the term "rasha" is often understood to be an out-and-out wicked person, that's only true of the extreme end of the spectrum, as we’d pointed out. Another thing to be reiterated is that a rasha is a wrongdoer, plain and simple; and the vast majority of us are indeed just that (even though we also do a lot of good). So it seems that we're simply being forced to face ourselves starkly and honestly.

Indeed, nothing's more threatening and off-putting but better for a soul than the truth outright. Since it leads to the sort of sad dissatisfaction that is a springboard to eventual fulfillment.

In another, vitally important way, though, we're not simply rashaim and no more. After all, what we are at bottom are souls incarnate (see ch. 31) which are "a veritable part of G-d, an unadulterated spark of pure G-dliness" (see ch. 2). For indeed, "we ... all have a G-dly spirit. Each and every Jew, without exception" (Ibid.). And we're thus each connected to G-d despite our predilections, "the way each and every child is connected to his parents ... throughout his life regardless of the sort of person he might have turned out to be" (Ibid.). And lastly, we can always derive "spiritual nourishment and vitality by associating and aligning ourselves" with actual tzaddikim, which will then enable us to affix our beings on to G-d (ibid.) [10]. So all is indeed not lost, even if we remain rashaim, G-d forbid.

In any event, we can still strive for a higher level, if not full righteousness, which is the benoni state. We'll now begin to explore that.

__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] This is referred to as uttering the "dust" (i.e., the merest wisp) of slander. The classic example of that entails responding vaguely to a stranger's question as to where he could find a hot meal in town by saying that he could always find one in so-and-so's house, since there's always something on the fire there (Eruchin 16B). The statement is somewhat slanderous because of its nebulousness. It could either indicate that so-and-so is always prepared for guests (to his credit) -- or that he's simply a glutton. Thus, a speaker who meant to praise so-and-so would have been guilty of besmirching his character if his listener took what he said the wrong way.

But we're told that *everyone* is guilty of the "dust" of slander (Babba Battra 165A) -- tzaddikim apparently included. "Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Most (people are guilty) of robbery, some (are guilty) of lewdness, but all (are guilty) of ... the 'dust' of slander". Apparently then RSZ must contend that the statement isn't to be taken literally, and that while indeed *virtually* everyone is guilty of it, some aren't. We'll return to this point shortly since it touches on a larger issue.

[2] One disparages another by insulting or discouraging him. Rabbeinu Yonah cites different examples of disparagement (The Gates of Repentance 3:174-177), but the most innocent of all is disparaging someone jokingly rather than out of meanness or worse, which is apparently the sort of disparagement RSZ is referring to here.

[3] RSZ points out in the text itself that we're taught that thinking about sinning is actually more serious and onerous than sinning itself (see Yomah 29A). But what's wrong with merely *thinking* about sinning if you don't actuate your thoughts? It's explained that since by definition thoughts aren't actions, it's harder regretting having had them and thus harder to repent for them (Biur Tanya), and that's why they're more serious. But that still begs the question as to why the fantasies themselves are forbidden.

Some say that since your thoughts are deeper within your being than your actions are, it follows that thinking about sinning taints you on a far deeper level than actions do (see Maskil L’Eitan). Others say that it’s because thought is a very significant phenomenon, so when you “stain” it, it would be like staining fine linen as opposed to staining the coarse wool of physical actions; or it's because the very fact that you’re thinking of something untoward goes to show just how attached to it you are (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, pp. 224-225).

Yet if thinking of sinning is worse than actually doing so, then why in fact is someone who thinks of sinning listed here among those on the lower, less serious scale of rashaim? Because at bottom some forbidden thoughts are less damaging than others.

[4] As we're taught later on, even if you commit a minor transgression you still and all do go against G-d's Will and thus sever yourself from His Presence (Ch. 24; see Maskil L’Eitan).

[5] See note 10 to the previous chapter for the sinful convictions a rasha could also have.

Let's refer back now to what we said at the end of note 1 above. There are other statements that indicate that no one is utterly without sin. We're told that "there is no one so righteous upon earth that does good and does not sin" (Ecclesiastes 7:20), that "there is no man who does not sin" (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36), and we're even advised not to be "too righteous" (Ibid. 7:16). Rambam asserts that “each and every person has his merits and his offenses” (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:1), that "it is no more possible to be born either inherently lofty or flawed than it is to be born instinctively adept at a trade" (Sh'mone Perakim, ch. 8), and that prophets -- whom Rambam asserted were of greater rank than the pious (Ibid. Introduction) -- "couldn’t prophesy unless (they had) acquired all the intellectual virtues and *most* of the more significant personal ones" (Ibid., ch. 7, italics added), indicating that they were not without their flaws, however minor.

Hence, many would argue against RSZ's position and posit that *no one* is utterly righteous.

Another point to be made is that we might wonder how the world manages to go on if the great preponderance of us are rashaim. After all, weren't many in antiquity destroyed as a consequence of their immorality, like the people of the Generation of the Dispersion and of Sodom?

For Rambam records that "If a country's inhabitants' merits outweigh their offenses, the country is considered righteous; while if its inhabitants' offenses outweigh their merits, it's considered evil. And the same is true of the world at large, as well" (Hilchot Teshuva 3:1). He then goes on to report there that "when the offenses of (the world's) inhabitants outweigh their merits, *it's to be destroyed immediately*" (Ibid. 3:2, italics added). Since the world hasn't been destroyed, it might stand to reason then that humanity as a whole is in fact more righteous than wrongful.

Rambam does provide us, though, with an insight about the state of things that might help to explain this conundrum. He points out that "the determination of all this isn't based on the number of offenses or merits (we each commit) so much as *their relative worth*. For there are some merits that compensate for several offenses ... and ... some offenses that compensate for several merits" (italics added). After all, not everything we do and experience is laid out plain and mathematically explicit.

His point is that the determination of the value of our thoughts, utterances, and actions "can only be made by All-knowing G-d; since only He knows the relative worth of our merits and offenses." Thus it could indeed be argued that we're less wrongful than we appear to be since we do still exist.

[6] First, understand that his regret wouldn't be hypocritical, as we might think, but rather a partial [albeit flawed] victory in an inner conflict between his two disparate spirits (Biur Tanya).

Second, realize that if he so uproots his untoward desire that it was as if he hadn't committed that particular sin -- or any other, then he'd have become a benoni (Likutei Biurim), which will be discussed in the following chapters.

Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explains the dynamics behind the efficacy of regret in The Path of the Just, where he writes that "the uprooting of the *will* to (commit a particular sin) is equivalent to uprooting the act itself". For by virtue of the fact that "the penitent recognizes his sin ... and regrets having done it as much as he'd regret a vow he'd made inadvertently, sincerely wishes he had never done that thing, is terribly pained in his heart that he'd ever done such a thing ... -- such an uprooting of the (sin) from his will is likened to rescinding the vow, and he is forgiven (i.e., absolved)" (Ch. 4).

Assumedly, though, as Maimonides would put it, he'd have to have come to the point where "He who discerns all concealed things" -- G-d Almighty -- "would affirm that he'd never again commit that sin" (Hilchot Teshuva 2:2), which would be a decidedly solid and thorough point to have come to.

[7] See Yomah 86A (as well as RSZ's Iggeret HaTshuvah 1) where it's said that sins are indeed forgiven as a consequence of teshuvah, but not necessarily right there and then. For, one who doesn't fulfill an imperative but then repents is forgiven immediately; while one who commits a transgression but then repents isn't forgiven until the following Yom Kippur; and one who commits a transgression that incurs excision or capital punishment but then repents is only forgiven after having suffered tribulations.

Also see 7:4 above, and Hilchot Teshuvah Ch. 2. And see the late Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l’s insightful, rather exhaustive yet concise layout of the degrees of teshuvah one might achieve or not manage to, depending on his spiritual rank; the various categories of sins different sorts of rashaim might be more or less prone to; and what might inspire some rashaim to repent which might not influence others as cited in Likut Perushim 11:1.

[8] What that indicates for one thing is that one’s G-dly spirit is never totally vanquished and undone, no matter the depths to which we might sink; and that it's ready to descend at anytime, no matter how rarely it may be asked to. It also alludes to how little some people sense its presence.

Understand as well that while here are *degrees* of hovering, including hovering close overhead, somewhat at a distance, etc.; nonetheless at bottom, it's still a gift from G-d that such a state exists (Maskil L’Eitan).

Let it also be said outright that one could be utterly removed from and opposed to Torah, and still call upon his G-dly spirit (ibid.).

RSZ cites the sages' statement that "the Shechina is present whenever ten Jews (of whatever moral stripe) eat together" (Sanhedrin 39A) at this point in the text as proof of this. For what that indicates is that the Shechina can't help but dwell where there are 10 Jews -- even if they’re utter rashaim (Biur Tanya).

[9] See the discussion of the great Rabbah's quandary in ch. 1, which will be followed through on in ch. 13.

[10] Also see Rabbeinu Yonah's comments that "a person’s (spiritual) status is determined by what he praises. For if he praises good deeds, sages, and the righteous, you’d know and could determine for yourself that he himself is good and basically righteous .... And while such a person may have committed some secret sins himself, he’s nonetheless a lover of righteousness and is rooted in what’s right. And he’s thus a member of the community of those who honor G-d" (The Gates of Repentance 3:148).

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 10

2006-12-27T05:40:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 10

1.

Let's see now how different people respond to this inner struggle to squelch and master their untoward side. We'll find that some do quite well at it, even extraordinarily so; others do more or less poorly; and that the great preponderance of us sometimes do well and other times not.

We'll concentrate first upon the eminently successful ones, the righteous or tzaddikim. First off, let it never be forgotten that tzaddikim -- no matter how pious -- are human, hence that they have an animalistic spirit like the rest of us. It’s just that they have fought against its wish to dominate them, won, and thus need no longer fight; and that they're steady in their righteousness from that point onward without ever tottering (Biur Tanya) [1]. But we'll see that there are all sorts of tzaddikim.

So let's peek now into the inner life of the righteous.

2.

We're told that there are two sorts of tzaddikim over all, in fact: less-than-completely righteous ones, with a tinge or more of wrongfulness, and complete and utter tzaddikim.

An incomplete tzaddik is someone who *has* indeed managed to have his G-dly spirit prevail over his animalistic biases after the aforementioned inner struggle and to have rendered them inert, and null and void for all intents and purposes [2], which is quite a victory. But he hasn't managed to do the sort of things that utter tzaddikim do with those biases (which we'll soon explore).

So there's still a semblance of wrongfulness in his heart, which he nevertheless *never acts out on*. Understand of course that the sorts of wrongfulness he’d be guilty of would fall under the category of wanting to use permitted things in improper ways -- not out-and-out wrongfulness (Maskil L’Eitan). So it’s not that incomplete tzaddikim plunge into wrongdoing once in a great while -- they just do ordinary things in ordinary ways, as we do, which renders them less than wholly righteous. And they also don’t experience the more exalted degrees of love of G-d that the fully righteous do (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya).

He (and we) might think, though, that he’d completely eradicated his urges, but he wouldn’t have. For if he had, he’d be a complete tzaddik, which he isn’t. So let's contrast his standing now with that of an actual complete tzaddik [3].

3.

Utter tzaddikim manage to do something quite remarkable. Rather than only prevail over the wrongfulness in their hearts, they actually *transform it to goodness*, and to use those once-untoward biases in the service of G-d (Maskil L’Eitan).

They do that we’re told by divesting themselves of their so-called "filthy clothing" (i.e., their -- and our -- more lowly human longings that are soiled with wrongfulness), by coming to despise physical pleasures [4], and by donning “clean” garments instead. Thus, they've learned how to channel their wrongfullness into goodness (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya) [5].

What utter tzaddikim find repellent about wrongfulness, by the way, is the fact that it's derived from the husk and the other side which they despise. For what gives all tzaddikim their impetus -- and most especially utter tzaddikim -- and what sets them apart from the rest of us is their love of G-d [6]. They love G-d so very much, and quite ecstatically. And that naturally leads them to despise anything associated with the other side (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya) which contradicts His wishes. In fact, one can tell how much he or she loves G-d by determining just how despicable and hateful he or she finds wrongfulness to be.

In any event, even though they’re indeed righteous, incomplete tzaddikim nonetheless don't utterly hate the other side and things associated with it, and don't find them to be completely despicable. That explains the fact that while incomplete tzaddikim don't sin, they nonetheless retain the ability to sin on some subtle level (Biur Tanya).

It still remains true, though, that the righteousness of the incomplete tzaddikim far outweighs their wrongfulness and is null and void for all intents and purposes. It's just that in contradistinction to complete tzaddikim, their love of G-d is incomplete and they thus function on a highly potential but not a fully realized level (Biur Tanya).

Understand as well that there are very many degrees of incomplete righteousness, depending on how much wrongfulness is left behind. Some incomplete tzaddikim will have sixty times more righteousness than wrongfulness, for example, others a thousand times, or tens-of-thousands times more, and the like.

That phenomenon helps to explain two apparently contradictory remarks offered by our sages, by the way. First, that there are eighteen thousand tzaddikim all-in-all (see Sukkah 45B and Sanhedrin 97B), and second that there are actually very few "lofty individuals" (ibid.) in the world. The quandry can be solved by noting that the former refers to the sum total of both incomplete and complete tzaddikim, and the latter to the number of complete tzaddikim.

4.

Now, utter tzaddikim are termed "lofty" for a couple of reasons, by the way (which also serves to explain the difference between them and incomplete tzaddikim). First because they've managed to overturn their wrongfulness and to have sent it "aloft" to the side of holiness as we've indicated; but also because they're said to have discovered how to "turn darkness into light, and bitterness into sweetness" (Zohar 1:4A).

What that indicates is that there came to be a point where there was no longer any darkness in their life, and when their relationship to the world came to be utterly different from our own, in that they would no longer experience the foolishness and bitterness of the world that we do; and that unlike we, they’d be experiencing little or no difference between pure G-dliness and this world (Biur Tanya). And they’d thus be awash in the presence of G-d even in the thick of the mundane.

They're also deemed "lofty" because they’d serve G-d and observe His Torah and mitzvot for altruistic reasons alone, not for self-serving ones. For, *G-d Himself* would be the impetus behind their Divine service (Biur Tanya), rather than any selfish needs, or even a desire to satisfy a personal thirst for Him [7].

Their service of Him would in fact be in line with the concept of "only someone who acts piously toward G-d Himself can be said to be truly pious" (Tikkunei Zohar, Intro., 1b), as they would give fully of themselves to Him, and utterly acquiesce to His wishes.

RSZ then indicates, rather arcanely, that they’d also have done what they could to link G-d’s presence in the Upper Realms with His presence right here, in the world [8]. And that they'd do that so well that it could be compared to helping unite two partners who’d otherwise be apart, or to acting like a child who does everything for his parents' sake "because he loves them more than he loves his own soul, and is self-sacrificing (that way)" (Raaya M'hemmna, Ki Tetze) [9]. That's to say that the fully righteous would be able to lovingly marry heaven to earth and bring everything closer to fruition.

5.

But let’s take some time to reflect. Because unbeknownst to us, we’ve now managed to pass through a series of overarching and pristine gates along the way.

We’ve learned how to excel in our beings and become tzaddikim; and though it hasn’t been stated outright, we’ve also been challenged to locate ourselves along the ethical and spiritual continuum and to rise on our own in the face of what we find.

So let’s review how one becomes a tzaddik and keep it in mind when we delve into the following chapters.

We find that one becomes a tzaddik by excelling on three planes: the emotional, intellectual, and practical. For, at bottom, anyone hoping to be a tzaddik would need to foster a deep, abiding, and all-encompassing relationship with G-d Almighty by basing everything he or she feels, thinks, and does on that relationship. After all, we’d be expected to “align everything we think, say, and do with G-dliness -- not just the clearly G-dly things like Torah study and mitzvot” (Ch. 7).

Hence, we learned that one grows close to G-d *emotionally* and thus becomes a tzaddik by surrendering himself to Him (Ch. 6); by fostering a deep, heartfelt sense of awe and love for Him (ibid.); by never wanting to separate from Him (Ch. 4); by being just too abashed to ever rebel against Him (ibid.); and by coming to despise physical pleasures (see sect. 3 above).

We saw that tzaddikim would be expected to grow close to G-d *intellectually* by concentrating firmly, consistently, and exclusively upon G-d’s greatness, and by internalizing that knowledge (Ch. 3). But we were taught that they could especially do that through Torah study. For when one studies G-d’s Torah he comes to “grasp” G-d’s thoughts in both senses of the term -- that is, he comes to “understand” His thoughts and to “hold onto them” -- and to thus attach onto His very Being, “since He and His thoughts are one” (Ch. 5).

And we'd seen how one would certainly grow close to G-d on a *practical* level by fulfilling all of His thought-, speech-, and action-based mitzvot (the way anyone grows closest to another by complying with his wishes with everything he has). For indeed when we engage in G-d’s mitzvot on all levels that way, we “immerse” or “clothe” ourselves in His will and wishes, and come to “hug” Him, so to speak (Ch. 4).

But let’s be clear about this last aspect -- it’s a statement of the fact that tzaddikim simply *never, ever* sin, on any level [10]. We’ll return to that point later on.

So in the end we’d say that tzaddikim are individuals who manage to prevail over their animalistic biases through-and-through, and on all levels [11]; and to have made an intimate, all-encompassing relationship to G-d their foremost goal. Their motivations for doing that would range from being ever-so-slightly self-serving (if one could call a dream to cling onto G-d in the ethereal realms of the World to Come “self-serving“), to being utterly self-abnegating (see sect. 4 above) [12].

Let’s also try to determine just how the obverse of all this figures into the choice some of us make to settle for less -- or even for out-and-out evil.
__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] At the very beginning of his comments to this section Maskil L’Eitan depicts two wars that both a complete and an incomplete tzaddik would have to have fought and won to gain their status. He'd first had to have protected his G-dly spirit from the animalistic spirit's onslaughts, and then he'd have to had fought aggressively to push the animalistic spirit back into its original "camp", the left side of the heart.

What Maskil L’Eitan doesn't depict at that point, though, is a third battle that the *complete* tzaddik would have to have entered into in order to indeed be one which the incomplete one wouldn't have entered. The complete tzaddik would have to have used the "spoils of battle" -- the animalistic spirits urges to do, say, and think wrongful things -- for G-dly purposes. But that will become clearer later on.

[2] ... compared to all the good in him ...

[3] A complete or utter tzaddik in RSZ’s system is the classical chassid, pious individual (Biur Tanya, Maskil L’Eitan), who's actually loftier than a so-called tzaddik in those contexts. That begs the question then as to how the Chassidic movement managed to switch things around and set the “tzaddik” or rebbe above the “chassid" or adherent.

There are many answers, but RSZ offers an insider's insight that's very interesting. In a letter written in response to Russian government inquiries about the Chassidic movement, RSZ mentions in passing that its adherents came to be called chassidim (by their detractors) because they spent a lot of time on prayers like the early pious ones ("chassidim") cited in Berachot 30B who used to prepare for an hour before prayers, pray for an hour, then reflect on their prayers for another hour afterwards, three times a day (see Hamadrich l'Avodat Hashem pp. 165-167).

Let it also be pointed out that utter tzaddikim are also rare individuals with high souls who are very wise and literally sense the presence of G-dliness, and that there have always been very few of them in a generation -- including the earlier generations (Maskil L’Eitan).

And let’s also add that there are other definitions of incomplete tzaddikim that are easier for most of us to live up to. One who’s careful not to lapse into licentiousness is termed a tzaddik (see Zohar 1, p. 93A) as well as one who’s of sure faith, who’s careful to pray in a minyan and to respond to particular blessings as a consequence, who recites the requisite 100 blessings everyday, and someone who’s charitable (Likut Perushim to Ch. 1, pp. 40-41). We’d also be tzaddikim as soon as we’d repented wholeheartedly for our sins, though that would be undone as soon as we’d sinned again (or used everyday things for mundane ends, according to RSZ).

[4] It's out-and-out, purely *physical*, mundane delights they've come to despise -- those that draw us all away from G-d. But they're still attracted to Shabbat-related delights for example, and the like (Maskil L’Eitan), because the latter are spiritual pleasures "wrapped" in material entities, if you will.

[5] Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explains this in The Path of the Just (Ch. 26) where he says that "Even the mundane actions of the person sanctified in the holiness of His Creator are turned around to actual holiness. This can best be illustrated by the eating of sacrificial-offerings" where ordinary food is thus elevated to an element of a mitzvah, and thus is both profane and Divine at the same time.

[6] Thus, love is a vital element of one's righteousness, and the more of it one has for G-d, the greater the tzaddik he is. For as we noted in Ch. 9 above there are varying extents to which one’s love of G-d can go. There’s "the fiery love of G-d" and "gladness of heart" that comes from apprehending G-d’s presence in the world, and what's termed "abounding" or "ecstatic love" (see there).

RSZ spells out the significance of the varying qualities of one’s love for G-d elsewhere, where he underscores how much it sets utter-tzaddikim apart from lesser tzaddikim and differentiates them from the rest us. (RSZ alludes to it in Tanya also, as we’ll point out; but less outright.)

He underscores the fact (in Torah Ohr, B’chodesh Hashlishi, p. 66) that the Patriarch Abraham, who was undoubtedly a tzaddik of the highest order since he could “overturn the other side and turn darkness into light” (see section 4 below), acheived a state referred to as “exalted love” (ahavah ha’elyonah, which is identical to the above cited "abounding" or "ecstatic love") thanks to which he yearned only to realize true personal nullification before G-d’s Presence.

How did he ever come upon that? By “ruminating upon Ohr Ayn Sof Atsmo HaSovev Cal Olamim”, which is to say by reflecting upon G-d’s very Being in its most transcendant aspect, utterly removed from creation and from everything other than Himself.

The point of the matter is that it’s the quality of one’s love for G-d that defines his tzaddik state; success at that hinges upon the degree to which one ruminates upon G-d’s very Being, and it’s characterized by a high and superhuman degree of personal surrender and subservience to His will. (This sublime degree of love -- depicted as an experience of the World to Come in the here-and-now -- is also said to be a gift from on High as a consequence of the tzaddik’s having had his G-dly spirit prevail over his animalistic one, refined his physicality, studied a great deal of Torah and fulfilled many mitzvot, and his having earned a lofty soul [Chinuch Kattan].

As an interesting aside, we'll note in Ch. 14 that one could also become a tzaddik by being "possessed" by the soul of a deceased tzaddik from the past!

[7] That is, they don't set out to enlighten their *own* souls through Torah and mitzvah-observance, but rather to make the entire world a fitting receptacle for G-dliness, in keeping with G-d's own wishes (Maskil L’Eitan). Setting out to enlighten one's soul is certainly lofty enough (and would that many more of us would strive for so high a degree or “self-interest"!), but it's self-serving nonetheless to one degree or another, when self-interests and service to G-d are inherently contradictory.

[8] That's to say that utter tzaddikim conjoin the aspect of G-dliness that's above and beyond the world with the one that's manifest in it (Biur Tanya, Maskil L’Eitan).

[9] We find it curious that a rather numinous Kabbalistic reference made at this point in the text isn't set aside as a note to the text as others are (but see Likut Perushim 1:29 which notes that some early editions of Tanya didn’t set apart notes from the text itself). We'll present it here, in our notes, as if it had been set aside.

RSZ's point is that the two ideas -- that utter tzaddikim overturn their wrongfulness and send it "aloft" and that they unite G-d's Holiness up above with His presence down below (i.e., the Shechinah) -- are actually complimentary. For by overturning their wrongfulness and refining the luminous husk (which is our task in life, in the end, by the way -- Biur Tanya), they send the "feminine waters" of the Shechina upward, which then has the Divine "masculine waters" up above descend downward, uniting the two, which is an example of an "arousal from below initiating an arousal from above" (Zohar 1, p. 88a) (Tanya M’vuar).

[10] That is, not only do tzaddikkim never overlook imperatives or commit prohibitions -- they also never sin on an ethical and personal level.

For as Rambam says, “Don’t think that one should repent for concrete transgressions, like promiscuity, robbery, or theft, alone. For just as a person has to repent for those sorts of sins, he also has to determine his bad traits and repent for anger, hostility, envy, sarcasm, the pursuit of wealth or glory, the pursuit of food, etc. Because these, too, require repentance [i.e., they too are sins] and they’re even more serious than the concrete transgressions [listed just before]” (Hilchot Teshuvah 7:3).

They’d also have to have the proper perspectives, and always act with proper decorum, since “the following do not have a place in The World to Come [aside from being sinners] ... Renegades, heretics, deniers of Torah, deniers of the resurrection of the dead and of the coming of the Messiah, apostates, those who cause the multitude to sin, those who isolate themselves from the ways of the community, those who sin openly and with a high hand ..., traitors, those who bring dread upon the community for less than G-dly reasons....” (Ibid. 3:6). And aside from that, there are also “less serious transgressions people commit that can deny them a place in the World to Come if they commit then habitually ... which we should stay away from and avoid. They include: giving someone a nickname and calling his by it, publicly embarrassing someone, profiting from another's dishonor, embarrassing scholars....” (Ibid. 3:14).

So we can now see the depth and breadth of a tzaddik’s expected commitments and purity.

[11] How *do* they “manage to to prevail over their animalistic biases” to so great an extent? Apparently thanks to their ability to attune their “over-soul” (i.e., that aspect of their soul that vowed in Heaven to be a tzaddik in the first place, as we learned in Ch. 1) to their this-worldly G-dly spirit (see Likut Perushim 1:4).

[12] For a related but diverse view of what tzaddikim acomplish see Ramchal’s The Path of the Just (Ch. 26) where he speaks of their achievements in terms of "acquired holiness".

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 9

2006-12-10T12:22:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 9

1.

Let's delve more into the makeup of our two spirits now, and see how they interact. For by doing that we'll come to understand who *we* truly are and what drives us, since we'll be able to know when we're being urged on by one rather than the other spirit and to react accordingly. Only then will we be able to draw close to G-d. After all, if we don't know who we are and what’s spurring us on at any one time, how can we possibly head in the right direction?

As RSZ said, we're comprised of a G-dly spirit and an animalistic one. As a consequence we have conflicting "tastes", if you will. Sometimes we prefer this, and sometimes that. But this hasn't anything to do with our tastes in food, literature, clothing or the like. But rather with our stance when it comes to the central human option: whether to head toward G-d or away from Him.

Hence, there’s a conflict in the very core of our being. Should we acknowledge G-d outright and acquiesce to His presence all around us, or acknowledge the world outright and acquiesce to *its* presence? Indeed, everything we want, do, say, or think is a consequence of our response to that conflict, moment by moment -- everything.

The battle hardly seems fair, at that. After all, the world is visible and bold, while G-d is invisible and discreet. Yet despite the disproportionate number of things drawing us toward the world and away from G-d, there *is* still-and-all a draw toward G-d in the Jewish heart, as we learned.

RSZ's point is that for most of us the push and pull is very real, and we're torn as a consequence. He also believes that one cannot have two masters, since by serving one he besmirches the other and vice versa; and that the wise would accordingly do all they could to serve G-d alone [1].

Let's now explore our two biases with that in mind.

2.

Our animalistic spirit dwells for the most part, but certainly not exclusively so (Likutei Biurim), in the left ventricle of our heart. It’s important to point out, of course, that the animalistic spirit isn't a physical entity but rather a spiritual one -- otherwise we could have it surgically removed if we wanted to rid ourselves of it (Biur Tanya)!

It shouldn't really surprise us that it dwells in the heart, since our animalistic spirit is essentially emotional and thus heart-centered (Tanya M’vuar). In any event, that’s where it resides and where it fosters unG-dly drives and emotions like untoward cravings, arrogance, anger, and the like.

The animalistic spirit then infuses itself throughout the body, including the brain (where the G-dly spirit dwells, as we'll see). And from the brain it seeps into our thoughts and affects them too, by playing a role in our choices and enabling us to rationalize our unG-dly desires.

The G-dly spirit on the other hand, which is essentially intellectual by nature (Tanya M’vuar), dwells primarily in our brain from where it diffuses outward to the other organs, including our heart [2], and where it fosters its *own* emotions. But rather than being unG-dly ones like the unG-dly spirit’s are, the G-dly spirit’s emotions are exclusively G-dly [3].

They include the sort of “fiery love of G-d" that burns in the hearts of those who delve into things that foster that (see 3:4); the sort of "gladness of heart" that comes from apprehending "G-d's beauty and the majesty of His Glory", and from "gazing at the King's ... unfathomable, infinite, and boundless greatness" in one's mind; as well as other holy emotions which we’ll touch upon later.

So it becomes clear that the two spirits have completely different nerve centers and impetuses.

3.

But the two spirits aren't autonomous; they share space in our being [4]. In fact, the sensitive soul can't help but be acutely aware of the two of them vying in and *for* his being, and of how opposite and outright contradictory their predilections are. In fact we'd dare say that the ultimate measure of one's honesty with himself is the degree to which he acknowledges his own inner irony.

The most important lesson to be learned from this struggle is that it defines our inner reality our whole lives long. And that other than the rare complete tzaddik, we're *all* conflicted this way -- all of two minds (and hearts), if you will. What RSZ does in this work so well, indeed, is lay out that fact plain and outright (see Biur Tanya), and thus defines the starting point from which we can ascend.

But let's explore more of the dynamic. We're each depicted classically as whole "countries" [5], thanks to our complexity and multifariousness. As such, our two spirits can be seen as two distinct and diverse kings (and their armies) vying for control over the “country” that we each are, and for the right to have the last word about what we’re to do or not do (see Nedarim 32B). And each offers his own incentives.

4.

The G-dly spirit would like us to follow its dictates and submit to its wishes all the time. Which is to say, to be absorbed in [6] G-dliness whenever we do, think, or say something, and to never stray from that. It would have us reflect upon G-d's infinite greatness and to foster the sort of fear and fiery love of Him that would have us attach ourselves onto Him [7].

In fact, the G-dly spirit would like those feelings to be so powerful that they virtually "spill" over from the right side of the heart to the left, where the animalistic spirit is found, and force the animalistic spirit and its unholy urges to reverse themselves [8]. It even wants the animalistic spirit to reach the level of love that actually surpasses the aforementioned "fiery love" that’s termed "abounding" or "ecstatic” love -- the sort of love for G-d one would have in The World to Come [9]. And the G-dly spirit would have everything we'd do, say, and think be suffused with holiness, rooted in mitzvot, and directed toward G-d alone.

So it seems that the “king” that the G-dly spirit who wants to control your interests is, is very demanding and stern, as he’d allow you no indulgences and none your heart’s desires. But that’s really not true. Because we’re taught that if we’d turn our animalistic spirit around as the G-dly spirit would have us, that all wrong would revert to utter goodness, and humankind would unite with G-dliness in all ways! For evil would have unshorn its "soiled clothes" (i.e., its longing for worldly delights and other unG-dly things). And all would be made aright!

So the G-dly spirit actually has the best of wishes in mind for ourselves and for all humankind.

Nonetheless, make no mistake about it: *few* merit so lofty a perch (Maskil L’Eitan). As only a small handful of us delight in thinking about, grasping, and knowing G-d in our daily lives as would be required.

5.

The animalistic spirit, on the other hand, wants just the opposite. It wants us to subsume all our thoughts, utterances, and deeds to *its* dictates [10].

And so it seems that the “king” that the animalistic spirit who wants to control our interests is, is generous and liberal, as he’d allow you all indulgences and all your heart’s desires. But know that that also isn’t true. Because despite that stratagem, the animalistic spirit still-and-all has your best interests in mind and wants you to grow closer to G-d. Because it wants you to conquer and undo it.

Now, we certainly wouldn’t expect RSZ to suggest that. But there's a parable in the Zohar (2:163A) that explains the irony.

It speaks of a king who had an only son whom the king wanted to be sure was fit to assume the throne. So the king hired a harlot to seduce the prince to see if he'd fail a test of character and acquiesce. The harlot understood the king's intentions, and though she did her part to thwart the prince as she was ordered to do, she also had the real purpose of her mission in mind, which was to prove the prince worthy and to make the king happy.

In fact, the prince didn't succumb we’re told, so the harlot failed at *that* task; but she nonetheless succeeded at the larger one (see Likut Perushim 9:15; also see end of Ch. 29 below).

And so the point is that while the animalistic spirit *seems* to do everything it can to thwart our best interests in the end, it too is only following G-d’s wishes and secretly wants us to thwart *it* [11].
__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] But in truth the conflict is largely delusional, in that in a way we *can* "have our -- kosher -- cake and eat it, too". For, as we'd seen earlier, there's a wealth of things that fall in-between G-dliness and unG-dliness (see Ch. 7). The challenge, of course, is to engage in those things in a G-dly fashion and to thus elevate the mundane to the Divine.

The starkest breakdown of the choice between the two, though, is offered in Iggeret Hakodesh 11, where RSZ declares that "The main reason man was created in this world was to be tested ... (so as) to know what's in his heart -- whether his heart will turn toward ‘other gods’, namely physical desires that derive from the other side ... or if he'll ... want to live the true life, that derives from the Living G-d".

[2] ... where it settles in the heart's right ventricle, which is traditionally termed a "vacuum", as RSZ points out. In light of the fact that it's not actually a vacuum as we know today, some explain RSZ to mean that the right ventricle could thus be taken to be a vacuum in a sense given that it doesn't have blood of its own, even though blood from the rest of the body accumulates there (Tanya M’vuar). But it seems it would be better to say that the right ventricle *might as well be a vacuum* since it’s unfulfilled until the G-dly spirit enters into it.

[3] It’s been suggested that RSZ is providing us with insight here as to how to know the source of our urges at any one time. If they come from our mind (which is to say, if they're logical and thought-out) then they're from the G-dly spirit, whereas if they come from the heart (i.e., if they're emotional and irrational to one degree or another) they're from the animalistic spirit (Likutei Biurim, Maskil L’Eitan). And in fact, this seems to be a very handy barometer of things that should be kept in mind.

[4] RSZ cites Genesis 25:23 here, which reads, "And G-d said to her, ‘Two nations are in your (Rebecca’s) womb and two peoples will be separated from your bowels. One people (Jacob’s) will be stronger than the other (Esau’s) and the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob)’". See note 1 to Ch. 6 for our comments.

In a way the two spirits could be said to complement each other by challenging and competing with one another while nourishing each other as well, as we'll see. After all, doesn't our brain need our heart to thrive, and vice versa; and can't they be said to compliment each other all the time in that sense alone? Doesn't our body need both to function? We thus draw your attention to the citation from the Zohar in the last section of the chapter.

Nonetheless, the tension between the two is not to be denied on an experiential level, and the battle is ongoing.

[5] The actual term used is "cities". But the political entity we'd term a country was in fact termed a “city” in antiquity, hence our use of that term.

[6] The term is that we be "draped (or, clothed) in and a vehicle of" the G-dly spirit’s ten elements and three garments.

[7] Literally, "With all your heart, soul, and your means".

[8] RSZ quotes the verse just cited above that reads "You are to love G-d your L–rd with all your heart..." (Deuteronomy 6:5) and supplies us with the sages' explanation of that to mean " ... with both your impulses" (Berachot 54A) to underscore his point.

[9] This sort of love would be a culmination and fulfillment of the yearning to draw close to G-d, and would be a full realization of it rather than the mere yearning for it; that is, the dream of it come-true (see Ch. 43).

In fact, based on the imagery used in Likutei Torah p.78B (Ushavtem) we’d liken this stage to the eventual “quenching of the thirst” for closeness to G-d with the “water” of its achievement (which would explain why RSZ offers the seemingly unnecessary statement here in the text that this love “is on the level of water”).

[10] RSZ doesn't go into details here as he'd done in the case of the G-dly spirit's wishes for us, apparently because he'd be provoking untoward thoughts.

[11] The point to be made is that the animalistic spirit is indeed a hindrance to our spiritual growth, and we'd seem to be better off without it so that we might go on with the task of deepening our relationship to G-d -- but there are two other things to factor in when it comes to that spirit. One is that we've been granted it for the highest of purposes (i.e., to prove -- to ourselves and to G-d -- that we can "assume the throne"); and the other is that it serves to help us understand just who we are and who we're not.

For indeed our animalistic biases don't define who are. They're factors added on to our beings later on (the way the harlot came upon the scene after the prince was already a prince). They add nuance onto our being, even though they oftentimes act as a distraction.

As such, the animalistic spirit is a "blessing and a curse" (Deuteronomy 30:1); a tool and a broken shard at one and the same time. It's also the thrust and parry of the world that's so "visible and bold" which we cited at the beginning of this chapter, and thus the antithesis of G-d who's so "invisible and discreet". But in the end as we now see, it too serves a purpose; it too was created by G-d for His own ends and is likewise utterly subservient to His wishes in the end.

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

PROLOGUE TO PART TWO: Chapters 9 - 15

2006-11-29T11:19:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

PROLOGUE TO PART TWO: Chapters 9 - 15

The first thing we'd need to know in our analysis of the workings of our two spirits is that each has a site in the body from which it emanates and that it affects. The G-dly spirit emanates from our brain for the most part and affects our heart as well as the rest of our body; while the animalistic spirit emanates from our heart for the most part, from which it effects our brain and thoughts as well as our body. We'll use that information later on to learn how to channel our drives.

The next dynamic to know about is that the two spirits compete with each other like two kings vying for the loyalty of a great city-state, in that both spirits want to hold sway over the city-state that comprises our beings, and each has our own best interests in mind (yes -- even the animalistic spirit, since it too is ultimately and inwardly "on our side", for it also serves G-d's ultimate end, which is that we each thrive spiritually).

That's then explained in greater detail. We're taught that the whole of the G-dly spirit's being -- its ten mind and heart elements as well as any Torah-based thoughts, utterances, or actions we might engage in thanks to it -- is a means of attaining holiness. For one thing, its mind elements are an expression of G-d's own wisdom and understanding. Hence, we're able to make use of them to dwell upon G-d's greatness and upon other matters that bring us to love Him (which is a vitally important theme in Tanya).

The animalistic spirit, on the other hand, which is the source of our physical vitality as well as all our wrongful traits, encourages us to do harm.

In any event, it's the side we take in the competition above that designates our spiritual, ethical standing.

Now as we'd alluded already, some of us are completely righteous (tzaddik), some are less-than-completely righteous but righteous nonetheless, some are wrongful (rashaim) by degrees as well, but most of us fall -- better yet, can fall -- into the category of the benoni, which we'll soon elucidate. Each category has its subdivisions with real and nuanced differences which we'll lay out as well.

A complete tzaddik isn't someone who merely avoids acting out on his animalistic spirit (for even the rest of us are bidden to do that) and he isn’t someone who’s merely more righteous than we (since we and tzaddikim are qualitatively different, not just quantitatively so, as we’ll learn). A complete tzaddik has utterly transposed his animalistic spirit to goodness, thanks to his utter and thoroughly transcendent love of and reverence for G-d. A less-than-complete tzaddik, on the other hand, is an individual who has indeed subdued his animalistic spirit and proved victorious in the face of it, but who nonetheless hasn't transposed it.

A rasha, on the other hand, isn't simply an inveterate sinner as we might think. (In fact, thinking that he is makes it easier for us to imagine that the great majority of us -- who aren't wicked, cruel, or decadent -- couldn't ever be considered a rasha, which is simply not so, since we can be.) For there are various types of rasha.

An utter rasha is submerged in wrongdoing and never regrets having sinned or repents. And a less-than-utter rasha can go from the rather low end of wrongfulness to the more extreme one. A relatively "decent" rasha -- who'd be on the lower end of wrongfulness -- is someone who hadn't subdued his untoward urges, but only sins by either saying, thinking, or doing something less-than-heinous or seriously forbidden; and he repents of those sins after the fact. An "indecent" rasha -- someone who'd border on utter wrongfulness -- is a person who's wrongfulness had gotten the upper hand more often than not, so he'd often say, think, or do heinous and seriously forbidden things. And though he might be moved to repent at the time, he still-and-all can't not sin.

Now on to the last category, the benoni. RSZ defines a benoni as someone "who never has and never will sin", to our great surprise. Apparently a benoni isn't somewhere in-between a rasha and a tzaddik as he's classically understood to be. Instead, he's somewhere in-between a "decent" rasha and a less-then-utter tzaddik. He doesn't lapse into sin as a rasha does, but he also hasn't transposed his untoward urges.

The benoni is pulled by both his G-dly and his animalistic spirits, and he senses himself to be in the thick of an exceptionally mighty battle between the two. Yet he doesn't acquiesce to sin. Still-and-all, though, he can never be sure he'll always be victorious (other than when he's reciting the Shema and Sh'mone Esrei prayers, which will prove to be rich and auspicious opportunities for closeness to G-d).

Yet no matter how mighty and elevated a level of spiritual achievement that seems to be, we're assured that each one of us is capable of being a benoni -- though not a tzaddik, which is vitally important for us to know. And that we can do it despite our current station and notwithstanding everything that distracts us from it.

There'll prove to be a plethora of subtle variances between one person's benoni status and another's, to be sure; a world of roles each one of them can play in the here-and-now; and a vast array of options for growth for each one, which will be laid out.

At bottom, though, we're to know that the struggle itself for self-mastery is precious in G-d's eyes; hence the greater the challenge and subsequent victory, the more abundant the reward.

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 8

2006-11-28T06:00:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 8

1.

We’d pointed out in the last chapter that we could engage in all sorts of everyday things in a spirit of holiness: that we could enjoy a fairly elaborate meal for example, take an “innocent” stroll, drink a soda, and read a classic novel and still manage to somehow be connect to G-dliness.

But understand that unless we engage in them in such a spirit that we’d be bogged down in the husks all the time, since most of that is connected to the gray-shaded luminous husk. So we’re now about to see just how far that all goes.

Now, some might say that what’s laid out in this chapter is rather discomfiting, perhaps even chilling. But the point should be made that it’s all quite sensible and reasonable, if not easy, and certainly helpful if our goal is righteousness and closeness to G-d. For as RSZ assured his readers, he’ll “find peace for his soul” by complying with the mandates offered in this book; he’ll come upon “the sort of advice on everything that he finds difficult in Divine service” herein; and that “his heart will thus be firmly fixed in G-d” for having read and applied its insights into his life. So since the serious student of spiritual growth would want nothing less, we'll explore what's to follow in that spirit (see sect 3 of Author’s Introduction).

Before we lay that out, though ... and come to the end of the first section of this book, too ... let’s first touch upon another idea. We spoke last time about transforming ethically and spiritually neutral food (among other neutral things) into elements of holiness. Could we ever do the same to clearly forbidden, unkosher foods and the like?

Could we, for example, accidentally eat an unkosher meal for the best of intentions, use the energy we'd derived from it to then pray, study Torah, or fulfill mitzvot with fervor and thus elevate the unkosher food [1]?

2.

No we couldn't [accidentally eat an unkosher meal for the best of intentions, use the energy we'd derived from it to then pray, study Torah, or fulfill mitzvot with fervor and thus elevate the unkosher food], we're told here. Because -- regardless of our good intentions -- unkosher food is still and all inexorably linked to the other side and the three utterly impure husks rather than to the luminous one that allows for holiness.

Thus unkosher food (along with all other "unkosher" things) can never be aligned with holiness [2].

But this raises an interesting, albeit esoteric point. We're taught that we're meant to "raise up sparks of holiness" from the world: to redeem holiness from unholiness, to salvage the good left behind in the bad (see Ari's Mavo Sha'arim 2:3:8). Now, that might have us imagine then that we should be able to elevate unkosher things and to "redeem" them as well. But the fact remains that we can only raise the sparks of things that derive their energy from the luminous husk and not from the impure ones [3] (Maskil L’Eitan).

After all, food and other such things are utterly, definitively, and objectively either kosher or unkosher, despite our intentions when we eat it. Much the way poisons are simply poisonous and not open to debate or interpretation. In a manner of speaking then, food's kosherness or non-kosherness is a statement of its metaphysical "chemical make-up", if you will; it’s something that's either true or false about them (Biur Tanya).

We're told, in fact, that the wish to partake of unkosher food or the like is rooted in the proddings of what’s said to be "Gentile Demons" (see Zohar 3, p. 253A) [4]. What that means to say is that it's an inherently non-Jewish attraction that's rooted in the three impure husks.

That's not to suggest that we Jews don't yearn for unkosher things, for we do (except the righteous among us). In fact, some of us sometimes search unkosher things out to embarrassingly great lengths. It's just that when we do, we're out of character, if you will, and as if possessed. For just as there are things that would seem bizarre and unexpected when a particular person engages in them, there are likewise things that we Jews wouldn't be expected to do, though we might (Biur Tanya) [5].

And we're also told that any desire we'd have to use the sort of everyday, ethically neutral things under discussion for less than G-dly reasons would come from the proddings of "*Jewish* Demons". For what they are, are unholy, "devilish" longings for what are in fact permitted pleasures that are nonetheless harmful ... but less so than the un-Jewish attractions [6].

3.

The point to be made though -- and this is what’s so difficult here -- is that the latter sorts of things *do* descend into impurity, for a time at least [7]. And that they leave traces, unwanted vestiges of themselves behind in our body. (After all, everything we eat becomes our very flesh and blood, and has to be reckoned with [8], it’s just that sometimes the trace left behind is flavorful while other times it’s wretched, and therein lies difference.)

So the warning -- and it's a very serious one at that -- is that we'd have to experience what’s referred to as “The Purgatory of the Grave” [9] after death for having engaged in these sorts of "innocent" diversions, in order to be purged of the impurities associated with the luminous husk [10] and the aforementioned Jewish Demons [11] we'd thus linked ourselves up to -- usually unknowingly and innocuously.

But the truth be known, only rare and lofty individuals like the holy Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi would escape "The Purgatory of the Grave" altogether (see Ketubot 104A; Shabbat 118A, Tosephot Rubum). For while he'd certainly made use of all sorts of permitted things, he nonetheless didn't derive any personal pleasure from any of it. He only partook of them altruistically (Tanya M’vuar) [12]. So we'd be far from alone in our terror, since most people experience this; but that gives us little succor.

4.

But there’s a whole other order of things that are morally and spiritually neutral and which are far more subtle than food, drink, and the like that aren’t associated with our bodies and touch instead upon our mind. They include conversations we might have and books we might read, for example.

Now, not everyone is capable of holding lofty conversations, and even the most learned among us might not spend every available moment studying Torah. So can more mundane conversations and more profane sorts of books be transmitted into holiness? Or do those iffy kinds of things seep just too deeply within to be safe to engage in?

Let’s start by discussing idle conversation. It seems logical to assume that at bottom the only reason why unlearned people would engage in it is because they're "forced" to, if you will, simply because they can't fall back on loftier subjects of conversation [13]. So, can they really be blamed for it?

But it's not really a question of blame. The point is that there'd be a price to pay for their having engaged in idle conversation, howbeit innocently. Simply because their beings would have been exposed to impurity and the husks so often in the process, much the way people exposed to radiation against their will would have to be detoxified regardless of their intentions. They'd thus have to endure being tossed about in the post-mortem experience known as "The Hollow of the Sling" (see 1 Samuel 25:29; Zohar, Beshalach p. 59) [14].

The reason for that, we’re told, is just as the body would need to be purified by the aforementioned "Purgatory of the Grave", the soul would likewise need to undergo a process of purification of its own -- "The Hollow of the Sling" -- in order to enter the Heavenly Garden of Eden to finally enjoy G-d's presence (Biur Tanya). But the thought of that is also quite daunting and discouraging.

There are other sorts of conversations an unlearned (as well as a learned) person might engage in. He or she might, for example, mock or slander others in conversation. Is there a price to pay for that?

Yes, and it's far steeper, as we'd expect, simply because those conversations are out-and-out wrongful and are thus tied to the three impure husks. So, being tossed about in "The Hollow of the Sling" alone wouldn't be potent enough to expunge someone's soul of them. He'd also have to endure a fiery Gehenom (i.e., form of Hell). While equally daunting, there seems to be a sense of fairness about that, though, since it’s the price such a person would be paying for quite spiteful and harmful actions.

What about someone who's capable of studying Torah but doesn't and engages instead in frivolous conversation (either because he was indifferent, or too lazy to study Torah)? How would such a soul be cleansed? He too would need to be tossed about in "The Hollow of the Sling", we’re taught. But he'd also have to endure a snow-and-ice Gehenom (see Likutei Torah of the Ari, beginning of Shemot) aside from experiencing the sort of discipline due anyone who transgresses [15]. But that’s discomfiting once again, since even the most serious of scholars lapse into that.

5.

Now, what about lofty or challenging ideas that aren't Torah-based and are either inherently un-Jewish or simply out-and-out secular? Is there any reason to avoid delving into them? Yes, we’re told, if for no other reason than that you'd be guilty of not studying Torah when you could have by delving into them.

But there's another, deeper reason to avoid them. For while when you engage in frivolous and mundane conversation you merely harm your personality [16], you could harm your very mind by delving into un-Jewish or secular studies, they go that deep [17]. In fact, the more intensively you'd go into them, the more impurity you'd garner (Biur Tanya).

You'd be allowed to engage in such studies, though, if by doing so you'd eventually be able to make a more-than-equitable living (see Avot 4:5)and thus serve G-d in more comfortable, less distracting circumstances. Or if your knowledge of those things would prove to enrich your service to G-d, as Maimonides, Nachmonides, and others of their caliber were able to do [18].

6.

So it seems that our spiritual standing is threatened fore and aft in the end. For while we can engage in all sorts of everyday things in a spirit of holiness, many, many such things can’t be done that way, and our lives are positively awash in them -- say nothing of our out-and-out sins of commission and omission.

Is there hope for us in the end? Or, taking it from a more affirmative stance, what are we to do, given that we want to draw close to G-d yet so many things hamper us?

Well, there will be answers, to be sure; but the essential point is that the task will truly be arduous ... but well worth it.

We’d need to delve further yet into our inner makeup, though, before we can go on -- if only to know what we have to draw upon. So we're about to delve into the second section of Tanya.
_________________________________________

Notes:

[1] Which is to say, could we eat it altruistically and "for the sake of Heaven" (not knowing of course that it was unkosher)? The answer will prove to be that we can't. But contrast that with our discussion in the previous chapter about doing permitted ordinary thing less than altruistically (Biur Tanya).
Apparently the point of the contrast is to indicate that while intentions are indeed vital, the act itself is what matters in the end.

[2] RSZ points out that that goes both for food whose unkosherness is stated outright in the Torah as well as for food deemed Rabbinically unkosher. In fact, he underscores, the latter are often more stringent than the former (See Sanhedrin 88B).
That’s so because the decisions of the sages about the kosherness or unkosherness of things affects and alters their very essences (Maskil L’Eitan) to the extent where those foods that the Torah accepted as kosher which the sages nonetheless considered to be unkosher (for various reasons) now come to derive their vitality from the three impure husk (Tanya M’vuar), when it had earlier derived it's vitality from the luminous husk.
The truth be known though, since we're commanded by the Torah itself to follow the edicts of the sages (see Deuteronomy 17:11; also see Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 1 along with Ramban's remarks), any act of defiance against them would by definition derive its vitality from the other side.

[3] That’s to say that we're essentially repairmen in this world, as there's a plethora of "broken shards of light" here that came about when the primordial vessels filled with primordial light were shattered in the cosmic realm before the universe was created, and that we're here to piece them together again by using things of this world for holy ends. For, indeed, every material item in this world that's permissible has some sparks, and we liberate them when we use them to serve G-d. And while we can do that when it comes to the potentially kosher circle of things associated with the intermediate shell, we can’t redeem things that are aligned with out-and-out unholiness.

[4] The Zohar presents an allegory of a king -- *the* King, in this instance, G-d Himself -- sitting at a feast with his servants and apportioning out different quality foods to his servants. And that He gives Class A food to His most loyal servants (the angels), Class B food to the "Jewish Demons", and Class C things to the "Gentile demons".
The implication is, of course, that while Class B is certainly not the best, it's also not the worst and is still and all part of the royal repast, while Class C food which is associated with the impure husks, is barely part of the meal and always somehow offensive.

[5] See Ch. 14 below where the idea that one could somehow or another still be a "good Jew" despite his lapsing into un-Jewish ways is disputed.

[6] They're rooted in the fact that while we Jews naturally long to ascend to G-dliness and abhor the thought of separating ourselves from G-d, so we tend to be averse to out-and-out sin -- we're still-and-all fallible and thus subject to such proddings. There's always the risk, though, that once we come to enjoy such excesses that we'd then be drawn to forbidden things as well (Maskil L’Eitan).

[7] ... until you repent, that is.

[8] This is analogous to the semen that had gone on to produce an actual illegitimate child cited in the last chapter. The point is that the flesh and blood produced as a product of our having eaten to excess would have to be reckoned with every bit as much as an illegitimate child would.

[9] This daunting experience is described in Sha’ar HaGilgullim 23 as follows: “Immediately after a person dies and is buried, four angels come to ... return his soul to his body .... They then take him by the ‘corners’ (i.e. by his extremities) and shake and beat him ... , much the way a garment is held by its ends and shaken in order to clean it off from its dust, until the husk (there) leaves completely .... The righteous don’t need much shaking ... but the opposite is true of the wicked .... (But in the end,) each person receives what he needs according to the level of the husk (attached to him) and the degree to which it’s attached.” (See note 8 to the previous chapter.)

[10] ...which is, after all, still a husk, and still attached to un-G-dliness to some degree.

[11] ...which are, after all, still demons -- albeit *familiar*, native ones.

[12] It should be noted that if you enjoy something that’s permissible but not necessary *neither* for the sake of Heaven nor to satisfy a desire but you enjoy it just “like that”, it would still attach itself onto the luminous husk in the end. And that’s because you’d have derived satisfaction from it despite yourself. But if you’d set out to eat, drink, etc. something like that altruistically, you’d be accredited with *not* having derived satisfaction from it in the end [even if you actually did], since you’d (originally) partaken of it for Heaven’s sake (Likut Perushim 8:6).

[13] ... either because they can't grasp lofty ideas, or because they hadn't ever been exposed to them.
Understand, of course, that there are various degrees of "frivolity" as far as conversation is concerned. Talking about household needs and the like can be vital, and relevant to holiness, too -- or otherwise. While "street small talk", if you will, and the day's news can be informative and useful, but often isn't holy. (We'll soon discuss clearly immoral and unholy speech.)
Understand as well that there are many intelligent and otherwise well-read people who'd fit into the category of "unlearned" in our context, simply because they don't study Torah (perhaps because they'd never been exposed to it or because they don't resonate with the subjects at hand). The truth be known, they too would have to suffer the consequences of that (especially in light of the plethora of translated Torah texts with accessible explanations, and the wide diversity of topics encompassed in Torah study which anyone can be exposed to if he's so inclined).
It should be noted, though, that otherwise learned individuals who are “unlearned” in our use of the term fall under the halachic category of Ohness Rachmana Patrei, which is to say that they're halachically excused under the circumstances, since their status is basically beyond their control. And besides, reciting Sh'ma Yisroel twice a day suffices for one's minimal requirement to study Torah and they can easily accomplish that (Maskil L’Eitan).

[14] It's pointed out (see Shabbat 152B) that while the souls of the righteous are "bound in the bundle of life with G-d" (1 Samuel 25:29) -- i.e., they're to be attached to The Source of all life and to dwell in comfort in His presence when they die -- the soul's of the wrongful are to be "cast about as from the hollow of a sling" (1 Samuel 25:29) when they die -- tossed here and there as if shot from a sling and made to endure a chaotic, fierce, and harrowing whirlwind of a ride before they could rest (also see Zohar, Beshalach, p. 59).
Some contend that being "cast about as from the hollow of a sling" means that the soul is first shown the bliss of holiness then slung back roughly to its memories of the life it lead so as to experience the difference between the two for itself (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya). Others say it means that the soul is thrust very, very far away from G-d; or that it’s cast back into the worthless thoughts it had while yet alive, and made to think that its still alive and is thinking and acting as it had in this world (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 189).

[15] All metaphysical reparations are based on the principle of "measure for measure". Hence, the price to pay for *heatedly* mocking and slandering others would be the experience of a fiery Gehenom; while the one to pay for being *cooly* blasé about Torah study would be to experience a snow-and-ice Gehenom. (On one level and quite ironically, this would be quite merciful, in that a "hot" person would be more comfortable in a hot environment, while a "cold" one would be most comfortable in a cold one.)

[16] ... which is only relevant to the luminous husk and your animating spirit (as RSZ indicates in the text).

[17] ... and they touch upon your *G-dly* spirit, as they’re a product of "The Breaking of the Vessels" cited in note 3 above, RSZ also points out.
There’s another problem, too. Reading secular works tends to encourage a stronger sense of self and of egoism, and to discourage self-abnegation, which leads to all sorts of good traits (Likut Perushim 8:19).

[18] As Maimonides explained it, the best way to love and fear G-d is to "contemplate the great wonders of G-d's works and creations", which the study of science and other things helps in. For when you do that, "and realize that they're all a product of a wisdom that has no bounds or limits, you'll immediately love, laud and glorify [G-d], and experience an immense passion to know His Great Name" (Yesodei HaTorah 2:2).

It’s also important to cite Maimonides’ point in the fifth chapter of Sh’mone Perakim that sometimes our minds need distractions so as to return to our Torah studies with renewed vigor.

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 7

2006-11-16T09:15:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 7

1.

So in contrast to the three completely impure husks that only bolster the other side, the one luminous husk straddles holiness and unholiness since it can allow for either. And it thus bolsters, figures into, acts as the backdrop for, and can even be thought to hold sway over most of our world and most of what we do, since nearly everything in our experience -- as neither especially righteous or wrongful people -- is an admixture of good and bad, right and wrong. Thus, when we deliberate upon the world of the luminous husk, we deliberate upon ourselves and our world.

For remember that besides bolstering our animalistic spirit (see 1:5-6), the luminous husk also bolsters all kosher foods (animate and inanimate), as well as all the “kosher”, which is to say, acceptable everyday and profane things we might say, do, or think. Like the stroll we might take which we spoke of in the last chapter, the soda we might drink, the classic novel we might read, and the like [1].

So, again, the stark caveat associated with things in this “everyday and profane” category is that since they’re bolstered by this intermediate husk, they can either wind up drawing their vitality from holiness or from unholiness -- depending on how we use them [2].

For if we think, utter, or perform morally-neutral thoughts, utterances, or deeds for self-serving purposes (even if they’re essential for living, you need to understand!), they then align themselves with the other side. Whereas if we think, utter, or perform such thoughts, utterances, or deeds for altruistic and G-d-centered reasons, they align themselves with holiness.

Accordingly, most of the things we do, utter, and think about are connected to the luminous husk [3]. And the awful but undeniable conclusion we’re to draw from this is that we could conceivably spend our whole life engaged in perfectly acceptable things and still be bogged down in the husks -- unless we know what we’re doing (see Biur Tanya).

And so, it indeed becomes clear that this ubiquitous category of things is very much like ourselves; since we, too, are neither explicitly righteous nor wrongful, but somewhere in between, as we said said (also see 1:2). And we, too, can attach ourselves onto either the side or holiness or the other side, depending on what we do and how we do it.

2.

The point of the matter is that we’re expected to align *everything* we think, say, and do with G-dliness; not just the clearly G-dly things like Torah study and mitzvot. After all, we’re enjoined by G-d to “be holy” (Leviticus 11:45) [4], which means to say, to concentrate on and engage in holiness so much so that it becomes a veritable part of our being.

So how *do* we engage in everyday but “kosher” things in a spirit of holiness? What, for example, are we to have in mind when we eat dinner? Well, we’re to eat it with the thought that we’re doing that in order to have the energy to study G-d’s Torah and fulfill His mitzvot; we’re to work so as to sustain our family and to enable them and us to study Torah, fulfill mitzvot, to give charity; etc. (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya) [5].

Thus it would obviously do us well to consider the implications of what we’re doing each time we engage in these sorts of everyday things. Ironically, in fact, we’d have to be more sure to keep what we’re doing in mind when it comes to doing them than we’d have to when it comes to doing out-and-out mitzvot. Because while we can always rely on the fact that the mitzvah itself is inherently holy and thus carries its own weight so to speak, everyday things are only potentially holy, depending on us (Biur Tanya).

At bottom we’re taught that if we engage in such everyday things for the sort of self-serving or downright un-G-dly purposes we cited above, that they’ll end up being no better than our animalistic spirit itself, and will come to draw their sustenance from the three impure husks rather than from the partly-pure luminous one. But once again we must reiterate the point that the truth of the matter is that *nearly everything* here draws its sustenance from the forces of impurity for the most part, the world being what it is.

3.

Now, there are a number of curious anomalies connected with this in-between realm. Because I could ironically enjoy a fine and fairly elaborate meal, wash it down with fine wine, and still manage to do it all in a spirit of holiness -- with the right intentions. If I do it in order to relax and clear my mind enough to study Torah in more depth, for example (see Yoma 76B, Sanhedrin 40A, Horayot 13B); or in order to honor the Sabbath or a Festival (see Mishne Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 6:10; Shulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 242:1). For it all then comes to be associated with the side of holiness (see Iggeret HaKodesh 26, p. 146B).

The same goes for many other such things. I might for example share a hardy joke with a friend and elevate it to the side of holiness if I tell it, for example, in order to lift his spirits or to give oomph to our mutual Torah studies [6].

The difference is that the spiritual components of the meal I’d eaten or the joke I’d told in such a spirit would have been transferred from the luminous husk to out-and-out holiness, whereas if I’d have eaten or joked for lesser reasons they’d have been transferred to out-and-out impurity, and I myself would have become tainted in the process [7].

There’s always hope, though; always a way to make amends for all sins -- let alone ones associated with things that are permissible anyway. I could reconsider what I’d done and the spirit in which I’d done it, regret my actions and decide right there and then never to do that again. Which is to say, I could repent (see sect. 5 below). And my having done that would then allow the food, the joke, *and myself* to revert fully to the side of holiness.

The truth of the matter is, though, that a shadow or a speck of impurity would remain behind in my being, which would have to be reckoned with in the end [8], but know that it will be indeed be undone by then.

4.

Now, there are many other arenas in which the whole idea of permissible, forbidden, and in-between thoughts, utterances, and deeds come into play, of course. One of them that’s just as ordinary as eating and drinking that’s still and all more charged with passion is the expression of our sexuality. For there’s perfectly permissible and commendable sexuality, a variety of prohibited sexual acts, and a slew of in-between ones as well.

The most commendable expression of sexuality comes into play when husband and wife try to conceive children and express their love to each other; a more intermediate kind touches upon intercourse with one’s spouse simply to satisfy one’s own needs [9]; and there are two especially egregious expressions of sexuality: self-stimulation and adultery. They’re prohibited in the strongest of terms and are said to be inexorably linked to the other side.

Nonetheless the link isn’t everlasting. Because there’ll indeed come a time when *all* sins will be undone, in the End of Days, when "the unclean spirit will pass from the land" (Zacharia 13:2) and all wrong and sin will be undone.

In more immediate terms, though, one can undo even those kinds of sexual sins by repenting earnestly. But not only as earnestly as you might for slighting someone’s feelings, for example. You’d have to repent so profoundly that you’d effectuate enough of a permanent change in your being that your purposeful sins would actually be transmuted into merits! But let’s explain that.

We’re taught that while there are an infinite number of nuanced degrees of repentance, there are two higher sorts: fear-based and love-based repentance. And while both eradicate sins, they do it to different degrees (see Yoma 86B).

Fear-based repentance -- or repentance motivated by a fear of the consequences your sins would have upon your immortal soul or upon your relationship to G-d -- has the ability to turn your purposeful sins around, indeed. In fact, they’d transform them into mere accidental sin, fear-based repentance is that lofty. It would be as if you’d started off meaning to sin and wound up only inadvertently lapsing into it.

Love-based repentance, though, has the ability to turn your purposeful sins into out-and-out merits, it’s that lofty! As if you’d actually obeyed G-d’s will rather than rebelled against it when you sinned [10].

But true loved-based repentance only comes about when you adore G-d so much from then on that you’re drawn closer to Him for having sinned than you’d have been had you not sinned (see Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya)! And when you love Him from the depths of your heart, and out of a passionate and thirsty desire to cleave unto Him because you seem to yourself to be nothing but a clod of parched and barren soil without Him.

(For, indeed, until you’d repented and disowned your sins, your soul had been in a virtual wilderness and in the shadow of death, i.e., in the throes of the “other side”. For you’d been as far removed from G-d as you possibly could, whereas you now thirst to return to Him with an intensity that even the righteous can’t muster [11].)

But if your repentance isn’t as heartfelt and thoroughgoing as that (regardless of the sin), but is rather unexceptional though adequate enough, it will still and all be accepted by G-d and will atone for your sins on some level. It’s just that those sins won’t be transmuted into merits or be extricated from the impure husks until the aforementioned time when "death will be swallowed up forever" [12].

5.

Don’t forget, though, that there are two types of particularly serious sexual transgressions: self-stimulation and adultery. Aside from other considerations like lewdness or hurtfulness toward others, both self-stimulation and adultery bring about emissions of semen for less-than-lofty purposes and are thus bound to the impure husks.

But there’s a difference between the two. The drops of semen wasted in the first instance can still and all ascend upward and away from the three utterly impure husks if the person responsible for them repents adequately enough -- not necessarily out of love or fear -- and he also concentrates intensely and ardently when he recites Shema Yisrael at bedtime (Pri Etz Chaim, Sha’ar Kriat Shem al Hamitta, ch. 2) [13].

(Self-stimulation isn’t cited outright as a sin in the Torah, by the way, simply because it can be undone that way, even though it produces an even greater number of very impure husks than adultery does, and it’s a far more serious sin [14]. It’s just that when one engages in adultery, he bolsters terribly impure husks that can only ascend upward when the perpetrator engages in the aforementioned "love-based repentance" and thus transforms his sins into merits [15].)

Now we understand what our sages meant when they asserted that bearing an illegitimate child is a fault that simply can’t be rectified (Chagigah 9A). Because even if you engaged in serious and intense repentance for your illicit offspring, you still and all couldn’t have the spirit of the original semen involved ascend to sanctity, since it would have already entered the world and become flesh and blood.

_________________________________________

Notes:

[1] I.e., things that are neither mitzvot or sins per se.

It should be underscored that RSZ declares in the text that “most, in fact, almost all of the luminous husk is (related to) wrong, with only a little goodness mixed in”. For the great preponderance of what we less-than-righteous people do is inspired by the overarching human need to be self serving rather than devout -- to say nothing of the out-and-out wrong things we do. (See two paragraphs down from here in our text.)

[2] RSZ makes a fascinating point in ch. 35 that our G-dly spirit is actually synonymous with our immortal soul (our neshama) while our animalistic spirit which is rooted in the luminous husk under discussion, is an “intermediary” between the immortal soul and our body. The point seems to be that the luminous husk has the capacity to turn profane things round to Divinity just because it serves as an intermediate or “passageway” between the Divine soul and the body.

[3] In fact it could be said that these sorts of things are rather banal by nature and less than “luminous” themselves, ironically. Since the evil within this category, while indeed wrongful and un-G-dly, is still and all not as evil as the evil in the three utterly impure husks, while the goodness within it isn’t as good as the goodness in holiness either (see Maskil L’Eitan).

[4] See ch’s 27 and 30 for an explanation of the importance of this requirement as well as techniques for attaining it.

[5] Optimally, we’re to eat it “for the sake of Heaven”, which is to say that we’re not to purposefully set out to delight in the taste, aroma, appearance of the food we eat, per se. Instead, we’re to arouse the love of G-d from the first, and to get to the point where we come to love Him more so than the food (or anything else material, for that matter). Our doing that will undo the food’s unholy components and elevate all its good elements. It’s important to understand, though, that while tzaddikim can elevate the evil in each and every instance (whereas we can only undo it), we can though manage to elevate it on Shabbat and Yom Tov, when it’s a mitzvah to enjoy food -- as long as our intention is to enjoy the Sabbath or Holy Day itself that way (Likutei Biurim), as we’ll indicate shortly in the text.

See Maimonide’s statements in “Eight Chapters”, Ch. 5:

“It’s important to ... place a single goal before your eyes, which is to comprehend G-d Almighty as much as a human being can. Which is to say, that you know Him and direct all your actions, movements, and utterances to that end, so that nothing you do is arbitrary or tends to thwart that goal.

“So, for example, when you eat, drink, sleep, have intercourse, awake, move about, or rest, let your only aim be your health. But let your goal in being healthy be to remain robust and well enough to acquire the knowledge and the personal and intellectual virtues you’d need to reach that goal. Don’t let your goal be to simply enjoy yourself, and thus choose only appetizing foods, drinks, and the like. Strive for what’s edifying. If it happens to be gratifying, too, so be it; and if it happens not to be, so be it.

“Or favor more appetizing things for medical reasons the way someone whose appetite was weak would whet it with well-seasoned and sweet foods. Or the way someone suffering from melancholia would ward it off by listening to poems and music, by strolling in gardens and among alluring structures, or by sitting before attractive works of art and the like -- in order to settle his spirit and ward off his melancholia.

“Your goal in all that, though, should be your physical well-being; and your ultimate reason to be well should be to be able to acquire knowledge.

“Likewise, your goal in accruing money should be to use it to acquire edifying things, to maintain your well-being, and to extend your life long enough to comprehend G-d and know as much about Him as you can.”

[6] See Pesachim 117A, where Rav joked with his students in order to open their hearts and minds enough to be more receptive to what he had to say (Likutei Biurim).

[7] I’d have become a “vehicle” for the misdeed, as it’s put classically -- which is to say that my very being would have been so absorbed by and lost in the deed that I’d have been a virtual mindless accomplice to it, a sort of innocent bystander who could very well have done something to stop the crime but didn’t, and I’d have thus played a part in it despite himself (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya).

[8] I.e., in the afterlife, through a daunting process known as the “Purgatory of the Grave”, which we’ll cite in Ch. 8 as well. (See Ch’s 22-23 of Shaar HaGilgulim).

[9] ... in which case there’s nothing wrong with the act, per se, but rather with one’s intentions at the time (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya) -- one’s need to satisfy himself as an end unto itself. And while that, too, isn’t forbidden in fact, it’s not meritorious.

[10} Also see Maimonide’s Hilchot Teshuvah (2:1-2) where he writes:

One accomplishes full repentance only when, while he’s yet able to sin, he’s faced again with a situation in which he had previously sinned, and he nonetheless doesn’t -- but only as a consequence of repentance, rather than out of fear, or because of a physical inability to carry the sin out.

So if, for example, one had once sinned with a woman, and after a time found himself alone with her, still in love (with her) and in full possession of his prowess, and in the same place he had transgressed -- if, rather than transgressing again, he recants, he’d be a "full penitent".

What’s “conventional” teshuvah, though? No longer committing a sin one once committed, not thinking of committing it anymore, and affixing to his heart the commitment to never do it again. He should also regret having sinned .... and he must then verbally confess and enunciate the things affixed to his heart.

[11] As it’s said, "Where penitents stand .... not even the perfectly righteous can stand” (Berachot 34B). After all, the righteous are always close to G-d and are thus always “close to water”, so their thirst for G-d isn’t quite intense (though their longing to *stay* close to Him is intense). While the penitent actually experiences himself as being in a desert and as very thirsty (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya; see end of ch. 40 below).

Also see Maimonides’s depiction of the rapprochement between the wayward lover and his Beloved, G-d, when the sinner repents:

Repentance is great because it brings a person closer to G-d. As it’s written, "Return, 0 Israel, to G-d your L–rd" (Hosea 14:2); "You have not yet returned to Me, says G-d" (Amos 4:6); and, "If you will repent, Israel, you will return to Me" (Jeremiah 4:1), which is to say, repent and you will cling to Me.

And repentance brings those distant from G-d closer to Him -- whereas heretofore they were repulsive to G-d, disreputable, far removed, and loathsome, henceforward they are beloved and desired, close and intimate ....

How outstanding repentance is! The very person who, just yesterday, was completely separated from the G-d of Israel ...; who would do mitzvot, and have them rent from his hands ... is today attached to G-d ... and even yearned for (Hilchot Teshuvah 7:6-7).

[12] That’s to say that while your sins won’t be transmuted into merits or be extricated from the impure husks *at that point* if your repentance is less than heartfelt, they will eventually be -- when "death will be swallowed up forever". Which is to say, when G-d removes all husks from the world and the holy sparks nestled deep within them will be able to ascend (Tanya M’vuar; See ch. 37 below).

[13] “Shema Yisrael” refers to the recitation of the verse, “Hear, O Israel (Shema Yisrael), G-d our L–rd is One G-d!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) which is done in the morning, evening, and at bedtime (the case in point).

[14] Adultery *is* cited in the Torah explicitly, of course. Not engaging in it is the seventh of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). But self-stimulation is only alluded to in the verse “Onan ... allowed his seed to spill to the ground, ... which was wrong in G-d’s eyes“ (Genesis 37:9-10). That also explains why the act is known as “onanism”.

The other point to be made is that even though self-stimulation is a serious sin, one can nonetheless more easily extract the holy sparks in its case than one can in the case of adultery (Tanya M’vuar).

[15] RSZ inserts an esoteric note here that explains the reason why that’s so. It’s because the spirit of semen emitted in the course of adultery was absorbed by the "female aspect” (i.e., an actual female recipient-- Maskil L’Eitan), which is simply not the case in self-stimulation, where there’s no “female aspect” involved.

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 6

2006-11-08T11:38:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 6

1.

It’s hard to overlook the phenomenon, it’s so prevalent and over-arching, still and all it’s curious isn’t it that each and every thing in this world has a parallel, mirror opposite. Good and bad, light and dark, early and late, etc. As if the world itself needed two countervailing poles to balance it and prepare it to avoid toppling off into space. Despite the curiousness of it, though, it’s a fact. And Solomon alluded to it when he said that “G-d made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14).

Yet we mustn’t ever forget for a moment that it was indeed G-d who “made the one as well as the other” and who set the whole idea of antitheses in motion. As such, we dare not think that since there are opposites all about us, that there must be opposing ultimate sources as well [1]!

The same dynamic holds forth in the spiritual realm, too. As such, for each and every element of G-dliness there’s an opposite, countervailing element of un-G-dliness. Hence everything we said about the G-dly spirit in past chapters holds true for the animalistic spirit as well -- with obvious differences.

The next few chapters will begin to lay out the practical implications of all this in terms of our inner lives and our subsequent service to G-d, and the rest of the work will carry on from there.

2.

Our G-dly spirit, as we learned, is comprised of three “mind” and seven “heart” elements, each of which corresponds on a very deep and recondite level to the ten essential elements of the Heavens Above (see Ch. 3). It manifests itself in our thoughts, speech, and actions, which are the G-dly spirit’s “garments“ (see Ch. 4), and it’s a veritable part of G-d (see Ch. 2).

Now, that’s very -- radically -- different from the make-up of our animalistic spirit. For rather than being derived from G-d Himself and being centered in our brain and the right side of our heart, our animalistic spirit is derived from “the other side” and “the luminous husk” (see Ch. 1), and it’s centered in the blood lying in the left side of our heart. Nonetheless, like our G-dly spirit, our animalistic spirit also manifests itself through three “garments”, and it too is configured into seven “heart” and three “mind” elements [2]. But there are obviously departures from the G-dly model as far as they’re concerned.

For while the G-dly spirit initiates emotions like the love and fear of G-d and the like, the animalistic spirit initiates wrongful and destructive emotions like laziness, melancholy, flippancy, cynicism, slander, dishonesty, hypocrisy, anger, arrogance, impatience, animosity, aggression, the need for acclaim, hedonism, envy, and jealousy (see Ch. 1). And while the G-dly spirit's mind initiates G-dly emotions, the animalistic spirit’s heart introduces untoward thoughts (Biur Tanya), which is to say that while the mind leads in the G-dly model, it’s the that heart leads in the Un-G-dly one and the mind that follows (a technique we term “rationalization”).

That’s to say that when we access our G-dly spirit we’re biased toward G-dly emotions, while when we access -- or are enticed by -- our animalistic spirit, we’re biased toward more brutish emotions. But isn’t that to be expected? After all, our biases towards animalism and rank materialism are very often motivated by childish, frivolous, and self-absorbed thoughts and impressions. So is it any wonder then that those are the emotions it would express?

Don’t make the mistake, though, of thinking that the animalistic spirit’s garments are only impure when we’re engaged in untoward and out-and-out wrongful thoughts, utterances, and deeds. They’re also soiled when they’re occupied in otherwise ethically neutral but trivial and non-G-dly things. Simply because at bottom those sorts of things are irrelevant to G-dliness and to our Divine service. And they, too, are thus products of the “other side” rather than of the side of holiness [3].

But, how so? What’s wrong with things that aren’t G-dly per se, as long as they aren’t actually wrongful and un-G-dy?

3.

It comes to this. We’re taught that G-d’s Presence only infuses things that “surrender” to Him (which we’ll explain) -- either to the degree that angels do, which is to say, utterly so; or to the great degree that each one of us has the potential to as members of the Jewish Nation [4,5]. In fact, that’s why our sages underscored the fact that "the Divine Presence rests upon even a single Jew sitting and engaging in Torah" (Pirke Avot 3:6) and not only upon "ten Jews who come together” to study (see Sanhedrin 39A). For the sort of surrender inherent to the act of studying in reverence and deference, and in a desire to know what G-d’s Torah requires of us is what allows for G-d’s Presence to rest upon us then.

Now, “surrendering oneself to G-d” starts with a deep and heart felt sense of awe and love of Him (see Ch. 3). But what it comes to at bottom is consciously and purposefully abdicating, relinquishing, and yielding one’s own personal wishes and desires for G-d’s own.

But such an admittedly lofty and “mystical” attitude can only be borne on the conviction that nothing and no one is an autonomous entity; that everything was created by G-d and His sake alone; that I personally was only created to serve my Master, and that everything around me is only there to help me do that (Maskil L’Eitan). For indeed despite my own delusions of personal grandeur, it is G-d who’s the “protagonist” of this universe; I and everything else is merely supportive [6].

Hence, whenever we assert self and follow our own wishes rather than G-d’s by taking an innocent stroll perhaps, or sipping a glass of soda, reading a classic novel and the like rather than engaging in a mitzvah, we draw our vitality from the “other side” even though we’re not sinning. Simply because one can only fully draw his vitality from one side (i.e., the side of G-dliness) or the “other” [7].

The truth be known, we’re *always* nourished by the side of G-dliness, if only indirectly, backhandedly if you will (see Ch. 22, Iggeret Hakodesh 25), even when we sin. But we’re then nourished from a degree of G-dliness that has descended through the spiritual worlds and been diluted more and more so by degrees to the point where it’s a pale reflection of its full self and could be said to be in “exile” and displaced (see Ch. 32).

The point in short is that anyone or anything that doesn’t surrender itself to G-d still exists, of course. But barely so, despite appearances. Because it draws its breath if you will from such sparse “air” that it only has enough to go on, and not much more (see Ch’s 22, 38) [8].

4.

Now, since so many things in this world seems to be separate from G-d, by dint of the fact that there’s so much wrongdoing and infamy all about us, and because so much of what we experience is external rather than internal, secondary rather than primary -- reality as we know it is termed “the world of ...”, i.e., the very epitome of -- “husks” and “the other side” (Etz Chaim 42:4; see Ch. 24 below) [9].

But as we said in the first chapter, there are two sorts of husks, one lower than the other. The first sort is comprised of a set of three husks, all of which are completely impure, they encompass no G-dliness whatsoever, and they act as the source of the souls of less-than-righteous Gentiles [10], of forbidden animals and vegetation (see Ch. 38), as well as the source of any forbidden thought, utterance, or action (Etz Chayim 49:5-6; see Ch. 37) [11].

And the second sort of husk -- the fourth one -- is a higher, “luminous” husk. Aside for allowing for and nourishing wrong and un-G-dliness (after all, it’s still a husk at bottom), it still and all also allows for holiness and goodness, depending on the context in which it’s used [12].

We’ll delve into this latter, somewhat-good husk in the next chapter.
__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] For like (non-fraternal) twins, each opposing pole does indeed gestate in its own “egg”, yet both are products of the same “mother”. We find an allusion to this in the Torah’s account that, “Rebecca... conceived, and the (twin) children struggled together within her.... She went to inquire of G-d... (who) said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb... ’” (Genesis 25: 21-23). In fact the twins were Jacob and Esau who are the paradigms of a G-dly and animalistic spirit, and their struggle in the womb alludes to our own struggles to overcome the Esau in our being.

[2] The three mind elements are also known as “Chochma”, “Binah”, and “Da’at” like the G-dly spirit’s (though the latter are the obverse of the former), while the seven heart elements touch upon the wrongful traits soon to be enumerated in the text, rather than the good ones. And rather than being derived from the Ten Sephirot, these ten elements are said to be derived from the "ten crowns of impurity" which are a product of the un-G-dly World of Chaos (Tanya M’vuar).

[3] We see from here that RSZ doesn’t accept the ethically and spiritually “neutral” status that halacha often confers upon things (Biur Tanya). For halacha per se would consider taking a stroll for example to be neither intrinsically good nor bad, as long as one takes it when he isn’t otherwise bound to do a specific mitzvah, and when his taking the stroll doesn’t involve anything prohibited. Everything, to RSZ’s mind, either draws its sustenance from the side of G-dliness or from the “other” side. He’s of the opinion that if you’re even a tiny bit non-G-dly (albeit not *un*-G-dly), you’re by definition not G-dly and must necessarily draw your sustenance from the “side” that’s not G-d’s. This will be expanded upon in another way in the following section. We’ll adress these ethically neutral thoughts, utterances, and actions at more length in the following chapter.

[4] In fact G-d’s Presence lies within us even when we’re not studying Torah (Tanya M’vuar), and that it actually infuses everything. It only means to imply that it’s more obvious and dynamic in things that surrender to it (Biur Tanya).

See 1:5 above and Sotah 5A.

[5] The point is that every single Jew, regardless of his or her spiritual standing, has a nascent potential to surrender him- or herself to G-d (Maskil L’Eitan).

See Ch’s 18 and 25 below for more about this potential.

[6] The idea of surrendering oneself to G-d, usually referred to as “nullifying oneself”, is a major theme in RSZ’s writings which we’ll touch upon again in this work.

We’ll find that there are in fact three levels involved: undoing oneself, being undone, and being infused by the Divine Presence (Likutei Biurim).

Also see Ch’s 19 and 35 below.

An often cited analogy is the ideal relationship of a student to his teacher. The student has to learn to nullify himself and to become an empty receptacle (i. e., to set aside all forgone conclusions and listen fully) to his teacher rather than assert his own thoughts if he’s ever to understand and take-in what his teacher has to say (Maskil L’Eitan). And we too must nullify ourselves to G-d if we’re ever to “take Him in”.

[7] RSZ points out in the body of Ch. 4 above that the “other side” itself draws vitality from us (from our sins, that is). Hence we see that we and the “other side” are interdependent, and that while it would never deprive us of “nutrition” (since it would lack for vitality itself if it did), we’d nonetheless do well to “starve” it for our own good.

The irony of course is that we’re being advised to be cruel and heartless and to deny the “other side” nutrition, while it itself seems to be benevolent and good-hearted by readily offering us nutrition. The truth of course is otherwise, but that’s indeed one of the tricks and mainstays of the “other side”-- it has good appear as bad, and bad as good, until one’s moral compass is undone and he makes the wrong choice.

[8] Thus the underlying message is that there are three “life-styles”, if you will: Divine service (rooted in the mitzvah-system), service to the “other side” (rooted in sin), and self-service (rooted in unholy and self-serving use of the “permitted”). And we draw sustenance from whichever “master” we choose, though G-d will always ensure our ultimate well-being.

[9] RSZ offers a rather esoteric note here based on statements made in Etz Chaim 47:2 as well as in Sefer Hagilgulim 20 to the effect that the very highest reaches of Divinity *can* still to be found in this world, despite it being termed the world of “husks” and “the other side”. And that’s because “the Light of The Infinite One pervades this entire (lowest) world” -- despite appearances -- “by virtue of the fact that it’s clothed in the Ten Sephirot of the four (higher) ones”.

That means to say that the Light of The Infinite One is enveloped in the Ten Sephirot of the highest world, which then enveloped itself in the Ten Sephirot of the next to highest world, etc. down to -- and including -- this world.

The gist of the matter is that G-d’s Presence is indeed everywhere, even here. It’s just that His Presence can’t easily be *sensed* here, which is why we consider ourselves to be seperate entities, apart from G-d (Likut Perushim Maareh Mekomot, p. 156), and why we sin despite His ever-Presence (see note 4 above as well).

We’d offer the following as one example among many others to illustrate the point that “so much of what we experience is external rather than internal, secondary rather than primary”. Consider a sewing-machine. Even a fairly modest home model costs several hundred dollars while the best of them costs thousands. At bottom, a sewing machine functions on a spool of thread and a needle. Everything else about it is supportive, conjunctive, and aesthetic. And that’s true of so much in this world. The great preponderance of “husk-like” things all around us only go to support, boost, and amplify the most important things which are far fewer in number, but of much greater import (i.e., G-dliness).

[10] As is well known, there are many righteous Gentiles, as one would expect in a world that’s vastly non-Jewish and which nonetheless merits continued existence and vitality (see Maimonides’ Hilchot Tshuvah 3:2: “When the offences of the world’s inhabitants outweigh their merits, the world is to be destroyed immediately”.) As such, many Gentiles draw their spiritual sustenance from the loftier luminous husk.

[11] Nonetheless, the Ari and the Baal Shem Tov taught that everything has a “spirit” or “soul” (see Shaar HaYichud ch. 1) without which it would simply cease to exist and couldn’t be distinguihsed from anythng else. It’s the thing’s “self”.

[12] See 1:3 above along with its notes for more about the makeup of the husks.

As to the reason why there are *three* impure husks and only one luminous husk specifically, see note 13 to ch. 31 in Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya; Likut Perushim 6:18; and Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 157.

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 5

2006-10-19T11:22:00.000-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 5

1.

We’d raised the question above about how anyone could ever hope to “grasp” G-d and offered some insight there (see 4:5-6), but we’d still need to explain the whole idea in some more detail since it’s so mystifying. After all, weren’t we told outright that no thought could ever comprehend Him [1]?

But as we pointed out, despite the fact that we can’t grasp G-d either in the sense of understanding Him with our minds or of taking hold of Him by hand, we can be said to grasp Him in the latter sense when our mind “takes hold of” and is engarbed in His Torah [2]. Let’s see how.

2.

As everyone knows, when we dwell on an idea, our mind could be said to “take hold” of and envelope it, and the idea could then in turn be said to be subsumed in and circumscribed by our mind [3].

It’s also true that when that thought is eventually “grasped” it becomes a veritable part of our thinking and can be said to envelope (i.e., preoccupy, overtake, and eventually assimilate into) our minds. But this is all very abstract, so let’s illustrate it.

Having an idea could said to be a lot like having a guest at home for the first time. The guest initially finds himself surrounded or “enveloped” by a slew of utterly new people, things, rules, and practices, but after a while he comes to be a part of the family -- fully “absorbed” into the atmosphere and at home there. In fact, there often enough comes a point when the guest begins to charm his host-family so much so that his very presence starts to “envelope” (i.e., preoccupy, overtake, and eventually assimilate into) them, when he could be said to have become a “part of the family”.

Now, the same is true of Torah thoughts and ideas, with obvious differences, as we’ll see.

Let’s use a practical illustration of Torah thought. Suppose I were to begin to concentrate on a particular point of halachic contention between two litigants that’s cited in the Talmud. There’d come a point when I’d grasp what was being said and when my mind would surround (i.e., absorb) the particulars of the case, and when the case itself would surround (i.e., preoccupy, overtake, and eventually assimilate into) my mind.

The point of the matter is that since it would be G-d’s own will and wisdom that would be determining which litigant was right in our case and would thus be an integral part of it all (since G-d’s will and wisdom informs all of Torah), I could be said to be “grasping” G-d’s will and wisdom right there and then -- despite the fact that “no thought could ever grasp Him”.

And I could be said to be doing that because His will and wisdom were “engarbed”, i.e., encased, in the halachic instance I was reflecting on. Hence, my mind could be said to be absorbed in (literally, “clothed” in) His will and wisdom -- and thus in *Himself*, since He and His knowledge are one, as we said -- at that time [4].

That explains the utterly superior nature of Torah-study over all other mitzvot -- even over all verbal mitzvot, including the mitzvah of enunciating words of Torah. For when you fulfill a physical mitzvah or enunciate a Torah verse or a blessing, G-d indeed dons your spirit at that moment and His supernal light indeed encompasses you from head to toe. But when you know Torah, your mind isn’t only encompassed by G-d’s will and wisdom -- it’s infused with it [5].

3.

That’s why the Torah you come to know and that infuses your very mind and soul is often termed your soul’s “bread” or “food” [6], because it nourishes you when you “ingest” it (i.e., take it in deeply, and truly co-mingle with it). The other point to consider is that it becomes a veritable part of your very blood, flesh, and being, and sustains you-- both now and in perpetuity.

For as the Ari explained (Etz Chaim 44:3; also see Zohar 2, p. 210), while the other mitzvot we fulfil in our lifetime are our soul’s “garments” in The Afterlife, the Torah we’d learned altruistically (which is to say, for the sole purpose of connecting our spirit to G-d thereby, to the best of your abilities) serves as our soul’s “food” there.

That all accounts for why our sages put Torah study on par with all other mitzvot (Peah 2:1). For while the mitzvot we’d fulfilled serve as “garments” and only enable G-d’s “encompassing light” to surround us, the Torah we’d come to know serves both as the “food” that enables G-d’s “inner light” to infuse us *as well as* a garment to the mind and soul engrossed in it [7].

We’re also taught that this supplemental effect of both nourishing and clothing the soul is all the more so true when we enunciate the words of Torah we dwell on (which we’re thus encouraged to do). For then the very vapors that emit from our mouth at the time then act as “encompassing light“ as well (Pri Etz Chaim, Ch. 1).

________________________________
Notes:

[1] The Hebrew term in question, t’phissa, usually refers to taking hold of or grasping something with one’s hand, which will be alluded to shortly. But it can also suggest the idea of grasping something with one’s mind (see Maskil L’Eitan). Our discussion will play off of both senses of the term and will demonstrate how a person could grasp G-d’s wisdom with his mind, and grasp or take hold of His Being too in the process, by being encased by and encasing His will and wisdom.

[2] ... and in His mitzvot, too, though to a different degree.

[3] The text here speaks of the sechel she’maskil ... b’sichlo (literally, “the mind that comprehends ... with its mind”) and of the fact that the sechel tophet et hamuskal umakifo b’sichlo (“the mind grasps and surrounds the subject at hand with its mind”), both of which seem to indicate that the mind itself has a mind. This appears to be alluding to a higher mind or consciousness which does the grasping and somehow or another enables the ordinary mind to grasp as well. It might hence be addressing the process of Chochma (“Wisdom”) informing Binah (“Understanding”).

[4] It would do us well to raise a number of points about this. First off, making a new idea a part of your thoughts or accepting a stranger into your home (to use our example) obviously takes time and follows a progression. And some of us are more successful at either skill than others. Clearly, the degree to which we “absorb” and internalize new ideas and friends depends on the depths to which we go when we study (see Maskil L’Eitan), or the degree to which we reach out to guests. The same is true then of “grasping” G-d: the deeper we reflect on His Torah, and the more of ourselves we extend, the “tighter” will our grasp onto Him be.

Another important point is that it’s said that we even “take hold” of G-d to a degree when we study His Torah with ulterior motives, or even if we use our Torah knowledge to do someone a disservice (Likutei Biurim; Likut Perushim 5:4), because the damage done will eventually be undone when the one who studied Torah in that fashion repents (Maskil L’Eitan). The difference is that Torah studied less than altruistically doesn’t *nourish* him in terms we’ll discuss below (Maskil L’Eitan). (In fact, Maskil L’Eitan points out here that the repentance could even be done in another life!)

Let it also be said that we can begin to understand how G-d is said to “surround” all worlds, to “infuse” them at the same time, and to commingle with them from the notion of uniting with a thought as presented here (Likut Perushim 5:12).

The point could also be made that there’s absolutely no other instance of utter co-mingling like this in the world, since it’s a co-mingling of two utterly disparate entities: human intellect and Divine intellect (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya). And let it also be underscored that not only does one’s mind co-mingle wth G-d at that time -- his entire being does, including his immortal soul (Maskil L’Eitan).

[5] Let’s clarify some details. There are several sorts of mitzvot connected with Torah. For example, there’s a mitzvah to write a Torah scroll, which is a physical mitzvah; there’s the one to enunciate words of Torah, which is verbal; and there’s a mitzvah to know and fully comprehend Torah concepts, which is intellectual. RZS’s point is that the latter is the greatest of all since it’s the only one that enables us to fully co-mingle with G-d’s presence.

[6] See Proverbs 25:21, Sukkah 52b, Chagigga 14a, and Zohar 2, p. 61b.

[7] G-d’s presence can be encountered on a large, all-encompassing level which is known as an experience of His “encompassing light” or on a more personal, intimate dimension known as an experience His “inner light”. Consequently, Torah study is on par with all other mitzvot because our having fulfilled mitzvot “only” enables us to encounter Him in broad terms, our having ingested Torah enables us to encounter Him inisde and out.

The fact that mitzvot are likened to clothing here isn’t meant to demean them, for they serve a very high purpose. After all, we’re taught that the soul’s garments shield it from the exquisite, but by-far too intense lustre of the Divine Presence in the Garden of Eden, which the soul couldn’t otherwise bear (Shiurim b’Sefer haTanya).

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 4

2006-08-06T10:53:00.000-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 4

1.

We’d delved up to now into the backdrops of our two spirits and touched upon what they’re made of, rooted in, and derived from. We begin now to examine just what they do and don’t do, and most significantly-- how they effect our service to G-d.

As we indicated in the last chapter, our two spirits contend with each other each and every moment. In fact they seem to be like two distinct moods vying for attention at every turn that are poles apart, with two utterly different biases, as we’ve put it: one towards G-dliness and the other towards everything but.

The two spirits do have one thing in common, though. They both express themselves forthrightly and constantly (though many of us are only slightly aware of the less-dominant one). And they do that through our minds and hearts, our words and actions. The difference is that the *content* and *objects* of our thoughts, emotions, etc. under either spirit’s influence are antithetical to each other.

So let’s now examine the content and objects of our G-dly spirit’s thoughts, emotions, words, and actions [1].

2.

RSZ refers to the G-dly spirit’s thoughts, emotions, words, and actions as its “garments” [2]. That’s largely because they’re the means by which it exhibits itself in the world, for all intents and purposes, much the way we exhibit or convey ourselves through our clothes.

But just as our clothes don’t really do us justice, since they often only act as a facade or perhaps they only express how we want to be taken in public; and they oftentimes misrepresent us other ways, too, as when our clothes have us appear wealthier than we are, or poorer and the like-- in much the same way, our G-dly spirit’s “garments” likewise don’t express it *as it truly is*. After all, as we said before, it’s a veritable portion of G-d (see Biur Tanya).

Be that as it may, we activate our G-dly spirit when we engage in mitzvot with our minds, power of speech, and through our actions (our hearts are involved too, as we’ll soon see). As when we delve into Torah, enunciate Torah texts or prayers, and when we fulfill more concrete mitzvot.

Now, our G-dly spirit is comprised of 613 intangible component parts, we’re taught [3]. And they express themselves in all their glory through the 613 mitzvot that they “don” [4]. As such, mitzvot can be said to sometimes serve as the Divine spirit’s “body” when it’s clothed in them.

3.

Our *hearts* come into play, too. As when we fulfill any of the intellectual, verbal, and practical mitzvot in a spirit of love for G-d or of fear of Him [5]. In short, loving G-d comes to either never wanting to separate yourself from Him and wanting instead to unite your whole being to His (see Ch. 14 below), or to experiencing a great, fervent, and all-consuming glowing yearning from the depths of your heart to cleave onto Him (see Ch. 9 below).

In fact, it’s the love of G-d that moves and enables us to fulfill the imperative mitzvot in all their fullness (see Zohar 3:122B) [6]. Since we can only attach ourselves to G-d through the mitzvah system as we’re implored to do when we love Him and want to attach ourselves to His being. In fact, without a love of G-d behind it, we really couldn’t be said to be fulfilling mitzvot-- with any ardor, at least (Likutei Biurim).

There are other ways to fulfill the 248 imperatives, to be sure. By rote, for example; out of a sense of duty; or simply by dint of the Divine spirit’s natural pull toward them. But that doesn’t allow you to draw G-d’s light upon yourself (Igeret HaKodesh 10), or to take hold of the corresponding 248 “limbs and organs of the King” (which we’ll explain) [7]. So, the best way to fulfill them is in a spirit of love.

Now, as to the fear of G-d which touches upon the 365 prohibitions: we’re told that there are two sorts. One comes down to being just too intimidated and frightened to rebel against G-d Almighty, while the second -- which is more internal and touches more profoundly upon oneself -- is based on a thoroughgoing sense of being too out-and-out ashamed to rebel against Him but doing anything that would vitalize the husks and the other side that are so anathema to Him (Shiurim BeSefer HaTanya) [8].

Thus our emotions can be said to goad our thoughts, speech, and actions away from pedestrian to lofty service of G-d, and to act as its very wings.

4.

We’re told, though (parenthetically, quite ironically, and very esoterically), that its three garments of thought, speech, and action are actually more august and eminent than the G-dly spirit itself. But how could that be?

It comes to is this. We’re taught that G-d and His Torah are one and the same (Zohar 1:24A, 2:60A). Needless to say that doesn’t mean that the Torah-scroll we might find before us is G-d! All it implies is that the instruction (hora’ah in Hebrew, a cognate of Torah) that we receive from G-d via His Torah -- that we do this or that, and avoid something else -- is at one with G-d since its derived from His very own will and wisdom [9].

So, while the G-dly spirit is indeed a part of G-d (see ch. 2), it’s *only a part* -- and a detached and discrete one at that ... while G-d’s will and wisdom, and hence the Torah that’s derived from it and which we think and speak about and act out on, are an expression of His full Being (see Likutei Biurim) [10].

The implication is that at bottom it’s the fact that the Torah and its mitzvot are so utterly unearthly that enables us to transcend our beings so.

5.

We learned above that we attach ourselves to G-d through the mitzvah system (sect. 3). But, how could anyone be said to cling onto G-d Himself altogether, and by fulfilling His Torah in particular? After all, His Being is termed Limitless, we're told that “His greatness can't be fathomed” (Psalms 145:3), that no thought could ever comprehend Him (see Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar), that “there’s no searching out His understanding” (Isaiah 40:28), that “if you search (for) G-d could you find Him?” (Job 11:7), and that “My thoughts are not like your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8). So let’s try to explain the connection between the Torah that we observe, study, and interact with and G-d’s Being.

We’ll clarify that all by drawing upon a well known dictum that reads, “Wherever you find G-d’s greatness you also find His humility” (Megillah 31A).

What that means to say is that G-d Himself is connected to the Torah by virtue of the fact that He “humbled Himself” at creation, so to speak, despite His omnipotence, by compressing and agglomerating -- squiggling and pushing -- His will and wisdom into the 613 Biblical mitzvot and their halachic ramifications and into the array of letters that comprise the text of the Bible and their various Rabbinic explanations.

But, why would he have done that?, we might reasonably ask. And the answer is just so that we might unite with Him by grasping and fulfilling as many of His mitzvot as we can (Likutei Biurim).

In fact, the Torah’s situation in the world and our own is analogous (Maskil L’ Eitan; see Tanya M’vuar). For while both we and the Torah are entrenched in materiality -- we, by dint of our earthly circumstances, and the Torah by virtue of the fact that it deals with day-to-day matters like food, clothing, and the like for the most part -- nonetheless both our own and Torah’s “roots” are far loftier than anyone can imagine and not at all of this world in fact.

In truth, the very fact of Torah’s being rooted is in the Heavens and yet set in earth, explains why it’s likened to water (Babba Kama 17A). For like water, Torah also cascades further and further downward from a high point to a lower one, step by step -- world by world -- until it comes to be clothed in the physical components of the mitzvot that we fulfill, and in the very ink and letters that comprise the text of the 24 books of Torah, Writings, and Prophets. And it descends to that level all so that we might grasp it, discuss it, and act upon it [11].

So, once the Torah and its mitzvot "clothe" our G-dly spirit’s heart and mind (and its 613 “limbs”) from top to bottom, we come to be bound in “the Bond of Life” (1 Samuel 25:29) -- in fact, to the point where G-d’s light both surrounds and suffuses us then, and we come to be attached to Him from all sides, inside and out.

6.

That also explains the apparent incongruity of the statement that “A single hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is altogether greater than life in The World to Come“ (Pirke Avot 4:17), by the way. After all, how could that be? We know that the World to Come experience is one of delighting in the glow of the Divine Presence (Berachot 17A), which is explained as being an exalted experience of “grasping”, knowing about G-d. So how could fulfilling mitzvot here, in this world, be better yet than that?

The answer lies in the fact that no one, no matter how lofty his being, could ever hope to grasp anything other than a ray of G-d’s light -- rather than Himself or His light itself -- in the World to Come (Likutei Biurim). That’s why the experience of The World to Come is referred to as “delighting in the *glow*” rather than in the full experience “of the Divine Presence”.

So, despite the fact that no one’s mind could ever grasp G-d Himself -- once again, we *can* grasp Him on a sublime level when our G-dly spirit “takes hold of” and is engarbed in His Torah and mitzvot. For we then quite literally grasp and are engarbed in G-d’s Being (though we might not sense it), since He and the Torah are one and the same, as we said.

RSZ’s point is that we can thus draw closer to G-d in fact while in this world, through the mitzvah system, than we can in The World to Come. And he means to thus underscore the preciousness of life and the opportunities the mitzvot provide us with to truly adhese onto G-d Almighty.

As such, in the end it doesn’t matter that fulfilling the Torah involves all sorts of physical and mundane phenomena, which would seem to distance us from the Divine. For when we draw close to Him through the mitzvah system, we hug the King Himself, if you will, in His royal robes -- what do we care if He's wearing layers and layers of clothing, for we’d still be embracing the King himself within!

And it certainly wouldn’t matter that the King were wearing a lot of clothing if He Himself took us to Him -- which He does! For we're taught that “He embraces me with His right arm” (Song of Songs 8:3), that is, with His Torah, which G-d Himself caused to cascade down upon us and to embrace us so lovingly [12].

________________________________
Notes:

[1] An important point to be made though, is that it’s *we* who implement and actualize our own G-dly or animalistic spirits. Each one of us, of his or her own volition, accesses either spirit at any one time. And we become the person we eventually come to be based on our own choices.

Some have gone so far as to say that RSZ and Chabad-thought in general doesn’t value the “self”-- a personal mediator between the two warring biases -- and that in fact, the undoing of the self (bittul ha’metzias) is the ultimate goal (see Ch. 43 in the text). “For,” (they’re said to reason), at bottom, “there’s (absolutely) nothing but Him (G-d)” (Deuteronomy 4:35) (See end of Ch. 21 in the text; Sha'ar HaYichud v’He’emunah 3, 6, etc.).

While that’s certainly a fundamental (albeit highly controversial) Chabad teaching, it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that RSZ was arguing from that perspective in this work (or at least at this point). Since Tanya focuses on offering practical advise about how to grow in one’s being. As such we’d argue that if, as we’re taught in Ch. 1, “each Jew... has (the aforementioned) two spirits”, then “each Jew” is one thing, while his or her two spirits are two other things; and that even RSZ would agree that there’s a self for all *practical* purposes.

In fact there seem to be a number of references to an independent self. This chapter starts off by saying, “When *a person* actively fulfills all the mitzvot... ” (as opposed to when “*a person* dwells upon (unholy thoughts, utterances, or actions)...” [Ch. 6]).

Also see Ch. 14, where the self enters into an inner-dialogue; Ch. 25’s, which speaks of “*a person* (being) capable at that time of ridding himself of the spirit of foolishness and forgetfulness (i.e., from falling sway to his animalistic bias), and instead recalling and awakening his love of the one G-d (i.e., accessing his G-dly spirit)”; Ch. 28, where we’re depicted as individuals with two biases at war somewhere within the ‘self'”; Ch. 29, where the self and its struggles are discussed; and Ch. 31, where the self addresses itself again; etc.

We’d also remind the reader that RSZ cites Rabbi Chaim Vital’s Shaarei Kedusha as the source of the information about the various spirits (see note 3 to Ch. 1 above), and it’s said there that “the self” (said there to be our “rational spirit”) and the two spirits are clearly differentiated. (In fact, see Iggeret Hakodesh 15 where the rational and G-dly spirits are actually differentiated; and Likutei Torah 69B which lays out the battle between good and evil, and discusses the freedom we have to use our minds to differentiate and choose between our G-dly and animalistic biases.)

[2] The garments spoken of here are not the ones cited toward the end of Ch. 2 above. See note 9 there.

[3] This will be discussed at some length in Ch. 51.

It’s also pointed out there that the G-dly spirit is of course not limited to space and time-- or to number (and hence, subdivision). So it stands to reason that the mere 613 parts it’s said to have here, in this chapter, is how it represents and manifests itself in this world of space, time and number.

[4] Just as the body is comprised of 613 parts (248 limbs and organs, and 365 blood vessels according to the traditional reckoning) and the Torah is comprised of 613 mitzvot (248 imperatives and 365 prohibitives), the G-dly spirit is likewise comprised of 613 spiritual components. Hence when one puts all of his G-dly spirit and his body into the fulfillment of all of the mitzvot, he’s said to be fully clothed in, i.e., fully absorbed in and suffused by, them. The idea of being both fully absorbed in and suffused by mitzvot will be discussed later on.

It’s also important to make two other points. First, that each spiritual component of the G-dly spirit corresponds to and is engarbed in a particular mitzvah (Biur Tanya); and that each body-part corresponds in turn to a spiritual component of the G-dly spirit and a particular mitzvah as well.

And second, that in their essence the mitzvot are actually infinite in number, and become reduced to 613 in our experience alone (Maskil L’Eitan), corresponding to the this-worldly situation of the 613 components of the spirit laid out in the previous note.

[5] Love and fear are the two quintessential emotions, as was indicated in the last chapter, and they’ll be expanded upon just below and in later chapters in greater detail.

[6] That’s to say that while it’s the love of G-d that moves and enables us to fulfill *all* the mitzvot, it especially and more specifically moves us to fulfill the imperatives.

Loving G-d will prove to be a major and primal theme in Tanya, and it will be presented with many shadings and a lush array of depictions. The fear of Him is also of major importance, but it only seems to attract RSZ’s rapt attention when it touches on some level of loving Him, interstingly enough. For it seems that RSZ often experienced blissful states of G-d-intoxication. He was said to have been found alone from time to time, seemingly out of anyone’s sight (but not), chanting over and over again, “G-d Almighty! I don’t want Your lower heaven, Your upper heaven, or Your World to Come -- all I want is You!”

We’ll learn about the sort of love of G-d that emanates from the depths of one’s being, that seems to flare up and glow with passion and desire, and to overflow, as well as how to differentiate between “abundant” and “ardent” love in Ch. 9; about “delightful” love in Ch. 14; and about the hidden, latent love found in each Jewish heart in Ch’s 15 and 18, for example.

[7] See Ch. 23 below where RSZ explains that the mitzvot are said to be G-d’s “limbs” and "organs" simply because they acquiesce to His will on teh spot much the way our organs acquiesce to our wishes.

[8] This sense of being ashamed to rebel against Him is not, though, the greatest and highest degree of fear of -- or better yet, awe in the presence of -- G-d one could experience. That would be the sort that's discussed in Ch. 43 below which leads to the undoing of the self spoken of there (Likutei Biurim). And apropos to what we wrote above in note 6, RSZ discusses other aspects of the fear of G-d in Ch. 43, and elsewhere.

[9] And thus, when we grasp Torah, apply its mitzvot to ourselves, and cling onto the whole of it, we grasp onto G-d as well -- since He and it are enmeshed (Likutei Biurim; Shiurim BeSefer HaTanya).

[10] On another level, though, the G-dly spirit is indeed loftier yet than the Torah. After all, our people are said to be G-d’s “bride”, hearkening to a deep and unique connection to Him. The solution offered for that paradox is that on its highest planes (i.e., on a Chaya and Yechida level, technically speaking) the G-dly spirit is indeed loftier than the Torah, while its lower planes (i.e., its Nephesh, Ruach, and Neshama levels) are in fact lower than the Torah (Likutei Biurim).

[11] The other point to be made about water as an analogy to Torah, by the way, is that just like it’s the self-same water down below as it was above before it cascaded down and that other than a change of place, nothing is different about it, the same is true of G-d’s Torah (Maskil LEitan). Other symbols also offered for Torah, like light or like bits of information offered from one person to another, aren’t sufficient to explain the analogy. For a ray of light from the sun wouldn’t be the sun itself anymore than any information that a teacher would pass on to a pupil would be the teacher himself (Shiurim b’sefer haTanya; see Sha’ar Hayichud v’He’emuna 3). Yet water is water wherever it is; and Torah as it is in a metaphysical context is the same Torah that it is in a physical context.

[12] The two metaphors here of our hugging the King himself and of being hugged by Him are a lead-in to the next chapter’s idea that we both embrace and are embraced by Torah at one and the same time when we engage in Torah wholeheartedly (Maskil L’Eitan)

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Ch. 3

2006-05-26T08:18:00.000-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 3

1.

But there’s a lot more we’d need to learn about our G-dly spirit than the glorious but abstract fact that it's a veritable part of G-d if we’re ever going to apply it to spiritual growth as we’re expected to. So let’s see how RSZ lays out its make-up.

To now he'd been mostly philosophical, but RSZ will now draw upon his Kabbalistic background. As such, when he starts out to depict our G-dly spirit he harkens back to the three aspects of our soul he’d cited before: our nephesh, ruach, and neshama (see 2:4). And he makes the point that that soul is comprised of ten components in all: a cluster of three “mind” elements, and another cluster of seven “heart” elements, which correspond to, align themselves up with, and derive from the ten primordial sephirot [1, 2].

Now, we can’t help but notice that he hadn’t touched on any of that when he discussed our animalistic spirit. He didn’t refer back to the soul en toto with its nephesh, ruach, or neshama aspects, and he also didn’t break it down to its component parts. All he did was point out that it’s rooted in un-G-dliness. This will prove to be significant. But let’s first see what he says about the G-dly spirit’s mind and heart elements.

We’ll try not to get too technical here, so suffice it to say that the G-dly spirit's three mind elements encompass its capacities for “wisdom”, “understanding”, and “knowledge” [3]; and its seven heart elements are its capacities to “give”, “withhold”, “(experience or produce a sense of) beauty”, “endure”, “glory”, “(experience or produce a sense of) foundation”, and to “rule” [4]. And we learn that the mind and heart elements interact with each other in particular ways which we’ll touch on later.

We’ll delve into each of these elements now, then go back to our point about what sets this spirit apart from our animalistic one.

2.

Let’s begin by detailing the G-dly spirit’s mind elements, which is to say, its thinking process [5]. It’s important to know at this point that the mind elements will prove to be the source of and impetus behind the G-dly spirit’s heart elements. Know, however, that this depiction will be rather abstruse, but we’ll continue to do our best to draw all such ideas into our experience.

As we said above, the G-dly spirit’s mind starts off in its capacity for “wisdom”. But don’t misunderstand the term. “Wisdom” in this instance hasn’t anything to do with any knowledge we might have acquired which we’d then apply careful, experience-borne consideration to, as we might expect. It's a supernal phenomenon far beyond that. So in order not to confuse ourselves we’ll use the Hebrew term for it, Chochma, instead [6].

Chochma is the G-dly spirit’s experience of a spontaneous awareness of an abstract, unformed, amorphous notion somewhere in the mind’s background. We’d refer to it as “intuition” and would liken it to the first flash of insight the mind experiences when it hits upon an idea: the sort of loud and vivid albeit ethereal “Ah Ha!” we all know of.

It’s next mind-element, “understanding”, isn’t simply the G-dly spirit’s storehouse of any data, information, or perceptions it might have managed to stow away, as we might think. So we’ll use its Hebrew term in this instance too, Binah.

Binah entails the G-dly spirit's ability to step back and “observe” the aforementioned intuitive flash as a whole; break it down into its component parts; categorize those parts; and to delve into the matter in depth.

Its third element, Da’at (“Knowledge”), involves the G-dly spirit’s ability to take hold of all that, if you will; to subtly co-mingle itself with it all in a most intimate way, and to ultimately assimilate and incorporate all that into its being till it all becomes a veritable part of the G-dly spirit itself [7].

In fact, it’s the quality of Da’at that engenders and connects with all the G-dly spirit’s feelings, as we’ll see.

3.

Now, the G-dly spirit’s “heart elements” are chiefly comprised of Chesed (“giving”) and Gevurah (“withholding”). The other elements cited are said to be offshoots of these, their roots, so we won’t delve into them [8].

Chesed is tied in to the G-dly spirit’s ability to love G-d, while Gevurah refers to its ability to fear Him [9]. The G-dly spirit comes upon those two emotions thusly.

When its “mind” dwells upon G-d’s presence infusing and enveloping everything [10] and on the fact that everything else is of no consequence in the face of that [11], it comes to be agog and abashed in His great and lofty presence (see ch. 43); to be awestruck, startled, and frightened by His Being.

It then starts to fall deeply and intensely in love with G-d as a consequence of that, and to yearn, burn with “a most vehement flame” (Song of Songs 8:6) for Him with a “longing soul” (Psalms 107:9), and to want only to cling onto the Infinite. That’s to say that the G-dly spirit comes to pine away for G-d deeply and passionately, and to “ache to be in and to become undone in G-d’s courtyard” to “cry out to the living G-d“ (Psalms 84:3), to “thirst for ... the living G-d”, and to wonder when it will “ever appear before G-d“ (Psalms 42:3)

That’s quite an astounding and sublime reaction to G-d, needless to say. And it could be said to be the ultimate human longing.

In any event, the combination of these two core traits then foster the other traits by means of the Da’at, as we indicated. For the Da’at enables the G-dly spirit’s “mind” to mull over all we’d represented to the point where the G-dly spirit truly knows for certain of G-d’s reality within. That Da’at level of assurity then has G-dly spirit’s “heart” sense G-d’s reality too and respond to it. RSZ underscores the fact that Da’at is in fact the root of the G-dly spirit’s emotions of love and fear of G-d.

As we’ll see in the course of this work, that sure and fixed combination of mind and heart responding to G-d’s Being is a vitally important aspect of our G-dly spirit.

But know for a certainty that the G-dly soul’s “mind” would have to truly fix itself firmly, consistently (Likutei Biurim), and exclusively upon G-d’s infinite greatness to achieve such levels of fear and love. Otherwise it would have only imagined itself truly loving and fearing Him -- which will prove to be no avail when it comes to changing ourselves (Tanya Mevuar).

4.

Let’s go back now to the fact that RSZ hadn’t touched on any of the intricacies of our animalistic spirit when he introduced it. But in fact, he’ll do just that as well as compare and contrast the two spirits at some length in Ch. 6, below.

We contend first off that RSZ delved into on our animalistic spirit first (albeit minimally) because it manifests itself first in our being, at birth, while the G-dly Spirit doesn’t manifest itself until we’re halachically adult and culpable for our own deeds, at Bar and Bat Mitzvah age (Maskil L’Eitan, vol. 1, pp. 89-90).

But it seems that he granted us greater insight into the G-dly Spirit from the start for two other reasons: first, because he finds its effulgent light and promise far more stunning, lustrous, and exhilarating than anything the animalistic soul could ever hope to experience, as his depictions of it seem to indicate; and second because, as we’ll see, he contends that the animalistic spirit is ancillary to the G-dly Spirit at bottom, since we’re called upon to have the G-dly Spirit overtake it (Maskil L’Eitan, vol. 1, p. 90), and because the G-dly Spirit descended to this world in the first place to purify it (ibid., p. 104).

Let it also be said that another, significant difference between the two is that while the G-dly spirit yearns for G-d, the animalistic spirit yearns for everything but Him.

That having been said, the point to be made though is that we ourselves either access the G-dly spirit’s elements and thus avail ourselves of our natural bias toward G-dliness, or we access our natural bias toward rank animality. The choice is ours. For as we’ll see, both systems work alike-- though they draw from and our nourished by utterly opposite roots.

It would of course do us best to access our G-dly bias and tend toward G-dliness each and every moment, but we often don’t. And the competition between the two spirits is relentless and fierce.

Nonetheless even when we do access our G-dly bias at every turn we may still be less than righteous (though not wrongful, per se); and might yet be existentially “somewhere in between”, as we’ll see.

__________________________________________
Notes:

[1] See 2:3 above which refers to “the hidden depths of our being known Kabbalistically as our ‘nephesh’, ‘ruach’ and ‘neshama’...“, and note 5 there as well.

The truth be known, though, the soul is indivisible. It just *manifests* itself in various ways (Shiurim b’Sefer HaTanya), much the way the One indivisible G-d manifests Himself variously in this world.

[2] RSZ’s audience and readership obviously had a strong working knowledge of the Kabbalistic details touched on here, since he never fully explains them per se. In fact, though, RSZ really doesn’t touch upon many of the lesser-known, more complex, even revolutionary Kabbalistic themes that the Ari and his adherents expanded upon at great length but only upon certain more widely-known and discussed ones, though that’s certainly not meant to besmirch his obvious expertise in Kabbalah.

Be that as it may, the Sephirot cited here are depicted as “endless and limitless” emanations of G-d’s Light which itself “radiates and is engarbed in them” (Iggeret Hakodesh 15), and they act as intermediaries between G-d and this world. They’re termed Chochma, Binah, Da’at, Chesed, Gevurah, Tipheret, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malchut.

[3] I.e., Chochma, Binah, and Da’at.

[4] I.e., Chesed, Gevurah, Tipheret, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malchut.

[5] Understand that we’re discussing our G-dly spirit's thinking process here in contrast to our animalistic spirit’s. Our *own* thinking process -- our ability to choose between the thoughts of one spirit over another -- joggles between the two at any given moment, depending on our predilection. But we’ll delve into that later on.

[6] The word Chochma is often broken down to read *koach ma* or the “power” to perceive “the inchoate”.

[7] RSZ cites the verse “And Adam ‘knew’ Eve (conjugally)” (Genesis 4:1) as an indication of the kind of co-mingling being alluded to here (though the instance of it here in the text is a decidedly nonphysical one, of course).

[8] The heart’s seven qualities are actually laid out as two clusters of three qualities each (Cluster 1 being comprised of “giving”, “withholding”, and “beauty”; and Cluster 2 including “endurance”, “glory”, and “foundation”), along with a single quality (“rule”) that serves as the sum and substance, as well as a repository, of the other six.

It’s also pointed out that the clusters themselves are each comprised of two opposite though complimentary qualities (thesis and antithesis) with a third one that evenly blends and harmonizes the two (synthesis). As such, “giving” and “withholding” are harmonized by “beauty” (i.e., which is rooted in balance); and “endurance” and “glory” are harmonized by “foundation” (i.e., which is rooted in permanence).

[9] The vitally prominent notions of the love and fear of G-d will be discussed in detail in ch’s 9, 19, and 41-42 below. Suffice it to say for now that we ourselves experience fear (or “awe” as it’s also understood) followed by love when we’re thunderstruck by someone who’s more exalted than we whom we then want to draw close to (see Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, p. 112).

[10] These often reiterated notions of "infusing" and "envloping" are portrayed as G-d “filling (and...) encompassing all worlds” (Zohar 3:225a) respectively. The former is usually taken to refer to G-d’s immanence and the latter to His transcendence. Both together refer to His All-Presence. See next note.

[11] The implication of this is that at bottom G-d is *everywhere*. There's also the notion that by extension, the point at which "inside" touches "outside" and "outside" touches "inside" comes to be so minute that the notions of inside and outside become irrelevant, and “everything comes to be considered naught in His presence” (Zohar 1:11b) and of no consequence-- null and void, for all intents and purposes (see Sha'ar HaYichud v’He’emunah, ch. 7).

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Ch. 2

2006-05-26T08:16:00.000-04:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 2

1.

Let's concentrate now on our "G-dly spirit", or bias toward pure G-dliness.

What would ever draw us in that direction in the first place, given how unworldly, almost unnatural such a bias would seem to be? For few among us truly strive so high (and fewer yet achieve it) -- though some certainly do yearn for it. After all, there have always been those who want nothing better than to draw close to G-d, who nonetheless manage to get waylaid by the exigencies of life. (In fact, they're the very people who'd benefit most from this work.)

Nevertheless, most of us believe that other than some rare people we’d read about in the far-off past, nothing is further from most people’s experience than a bias toward G-dliness and away from the sort of very earthly delights we long for.

Yet still and all we're taught that each and every Jew has such a G-dly spirit, know it or not. And that it's that which enables us to achieve piety.

It's just that for most, the G-dly spirit is an exceptionally subtle and un-sensed element of our being. In fact, most would be as surprised to learn we have one as to discover that we can control our own heart-rate. But let it be said outright that our G-dly spirit is very real -- though often hoarse or tightlipped.

We're also taught that it's a veritable part of G-d Above (see Job 31:2) [1] -- a pure and simple spark of G-dliness that lies dormant and in virtual captivity within (see Iggeret Hakodesh Ch. 4).

But that itself is astounding. For how could a part of us be a part of G-d? Doesn't it seem misty-eyed if not downright irreverent to think as much? We'll find, though, that our G-dly spirit is very real, and that it's as much a part of G-d as His own "breath" and "mind", so to speak, as we’ll soon see.

In any event, we’re ensured that we’re each gifted with an innate yearning to draw close to -- indeed, return to -- G-d, our Source and Core-Center, know it or not.

2.

Let’s first explore the connection RSZ makes between our G-dly spirit and G-d’s “breath”, go from there to learning how he links it to G-d’s “mind”, then continue to explicate some of the implications of this G-dly spirit.

Understand that this will get rather esoteric at times (as will a lot of what we’ll be discussing in this work, by necessity). But suffice it to say that we’ll do our best to depict the sorts of things that one could only truly understand after spending years palpating subtle intangibles and dabbling at the roped-off edges of the Divine as RSZ had to have done in order to offer the following. In any event, let’s see how our G-dly spirit is connected to G-d’s breath by delving into the way G-d created the world at large as opposed to how He created us.

We’re taught that G-d Almighty created the world by enunciating what He wanted there to be there. He said “let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), “let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters“ (v. 6), “let the waters under the heavens be gathered together“ (v. 9), “let the earth bring forth grass, herb-yielding seed, and fruit trees“ (v. 11), “let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens“ (v. 14), “let the waters be filled with many kinds of living creatures, and let there be birds to fly above the earth“ (v. 20), and “let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures, cattle, creeping things, and beasts“ (v. 24). And all those things came about, as if following orders. Then G-d declared that He wanted to create man, which He did (see v. 26). But He did that fundamentally otherwise, and in two stages.

He “formed” him rather than ordered him to come about, which is to say that He fashioned his body and everything associated with it “out of the dust of the ground” with His own “hands”. Then He imbued him with a soul by “breath(ing) out... into his nostrils“ (Genesis 2:7; see Iggeret Hakodesh Ch. 4).

Now, at the risk of stating the obvious, doesn’t it go without saying that G-d doesn’t speak, doesn’t have hands, and doesn’t breathe? So what’s being suggested in fact? And what does that have to do with our soul being connected to G-d’s Being?

It comes to this. While the world and all its accouterments is a product of a relatively outlying element of G-d’s Being (which is thus likened to a mere “utterance” on His part), and man and his accouterments -- including our “animalistic spirit” by the way -- is a product of a more intrinsic element of G-d’s Being (which is thus likened to the work of His own “hands”), man’s soul -- our G-dly spirit -- is a direct expression of G-d’s Being (which is thus likened to His very “breath”, since nothing is closer to one's person than his breath [2]).

3.

Now let’s see the reported connection between our G-dly spirit and G-d’s “mind”.

We’d explain it by offering the fact that we're termed G-d’s "children" -- His first-born, in fact -- in the Torah. “You are the children of G-d your L-rd“ (Deuteronomy 14:1) it’s said; “Israel is ... My firstborn“ (Exodus 4:22), we assured.

And that helps explain our connection to His "mind"; for we’re only termed G-d's “firstborn” because our G-dly spirit was the first thing His mind “conceived of” (pun intended); and we’re only dubbed His “children” because we continue to be on His mind (i.e., continue to be monitored by Him, if you will), much the way children’s actions are always on their parents’ minds.

As an aside, though, let’s not be foolish enough to imagine that we can truly understand anything about G-d’s mind. The truth be known, everything we say about G-d is a metaphor and figure of speech, to say nothing of His mind (despite our being straight-out linked to it). Since it’s utterly, utterly out of our experience and beyond our ken. As it’s said, “Could you ever delve into G-d? Could you ever determine the Almighty’s aim?“ (Job 11:7), “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says G-d“ (Isaiah 55:8). (Part of the reason why we can’t understand G-d’s mind, by the way, is because in a very real, albeit inscrutable way, G-d’s mind and thoughts are “at one” with His Being [3], which we could never hope to fathom.)

Be that as it may, by virtue of the fact that we were the very first thing G-d conceived of in His plans to create the world, and given that His Being and His thoughts are one, it again follows that we’re assuredly linked to G-d’s “mind” and Self in a very real way.

And the rest of us -- the animalistic spirit spoken of in the last chapter, as well as our rank physicality -- was produced out of the “dust of the earth” in a backhanded, almost lackadaisical, extrinsic sort of way (see Genesis 1:26).

At bottom, though, let's realize that each Jew in fact has a G-dly spirit that is an element of G-d’s Being, which allows us all to strive for true righteousness and perfection despite the sort of rank humanity we all experience (see Biur Tanya). And let's also allow ourselves to be galvanized to the core by that fact (see Maskil L’itan) [4].

4.

RSZ then discusses a couple of issues that aren’t directly germane to our G-dly spirit but which address a larger, perhaps even the largest issue of Tanya: Who we are at bottom and what’s expected of each one of us personally as a consequence.

The first point is this. We do indeed each have a G-dly spirit that derives from the same Source, but we're each clearly different. How can that be, and what insight does that offer us about ourselves?

RSZ’s response is that our common “heritage” doesn’t deny the fact that we’re different (much the way siblings can be quite different from each other). There’s also no denying the fact that we’re different than our ancestors as well, and are in a certain sense “different” from our very selves, given how complex, sometimes self-contradictory, and always highly variable we are despite our having come from the One Source.

For who among us wouldn’t be stunned to truly realize that he or she is a direct descendant of the great and holy Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Or that we’re indeed related to Moses himself? After all, they were far, far loftier than we; ever so very much closer to G-d than we could ever imagine being! And yet we and they aren’t only related by blood, we’re also related on a soul level, if you will. Because we and they alike had and have G-dly spirits that are tied to G-d’s essential Being.

(But we needn’t try to fathom how we could be related on any level to ancestors such as they. Frankly, how could most of us claim to be of the same stock as some of the more exalted souls with whom we share this era who lived selfless lives of deep reflection, scholarship, and concentrated prayer who dedicated their lives to the well-being of each and every Jew of his time and to come as they have? Certainly not.)

There's another point to consider, too. Seeing, as we said before, that each one of us is comprised of a multitude of diverse “selves” moment to moment, day after day (righteous enough one minute, cruel the next; gracious, then insensitive; giddy, then morose, and on and on ...), to say nothing of the hidden depths of our being known classically as our nephesh, ruach, and neshama which most of us know nothing of (see Likutei Biurim) -- could anyone imagine that we still-and-all have a single and unadulterated G-dly spirit [5]? (We’ll delve into our nephesh, ruach, and neshama in the next chapter, by the way.)

But we're assured that we do. We ourselves, as well as the holy ones (and very unholy ones, too!) who preceded us and live in our midst, all have a G-dly spirit. Each and every Jew, without exception.

What does differentiate us from each other, though, aside from personal quirks and characteristics, is the function we each serve in the “body” of the greater Jewish Nation. For the greatest of us serve as the heads of either their generation or of the nation at large, while others of us serve lower positions, including as mere “heels”.

5.

Now, as to how such seemingly dispensable, "heel"-like individuals can derive from so lofty a source as G-d’s “mind” and Being, that goes back to the analogy we drew before of our being “conceived” of by G-d.

For just as the birthing process starts off with the idea someone has to have a child and results in the birth of a full-bodied baby with head, torso, organs, and the like, all the way down to its heels and toe-nails, each and every Jew -- from relative “head” to “heel” -- is a product of G-d having purposefully set out to “conceive” of us in His mind as we are, and of our eventually coming about.

And as to how such individuals maintain a connection to G-d throughout their lives despite the way they turned out, that’s analogous to the way each and every child is connected to his parents -- at least on a genetic or legal level -- throughout his life, and regardless of the sort of person he might have turned out to be [6]. For indeed, every child is fundamentally and inexorably linked to his parents before being born, while in his mother’s womb, and from then onward. And we're each inexorably linked to G-d much the same way.

We’re also taught that these “lower” members of the nation can draw spiritual nourishment and vitality from more accessible sources as well. After all, despite the Divinity and majesty of their Source, they’d still seem to need help expressing their bias toward G-dliness.

As we’re taught, they derive that spiritual nourishment and vitality by associating and aligning themselves with the “heads”, the righteous ones of either their own generation or of previous ones [7,8] -- much the way we might indirectly strengthen our bonds to our parents by aligning ourselves with older siblings if we weren’t close to our parents. For regardless of whether our association with G-d is either direct or roundabout, it nonetheless takes hold.

For the truly righteous are more openly and conspicuously aligned with G-d Almighty Himself, since they more fully and passionately delve into and live out His Torah, which is intimately joined with His “mind”. Hence, fusing with those individuals’ bolder and richer connection to G-d enables even the lowest of us to associate with Him, too.

At bottom, then, the idea is that we do all indeed have a G-dly spirit, despite ourselves, which we can always employ; and that we can also draw upon the G-dly spirits of the more exalted among us for succor.

6.

Another side issue now arises: what role do we play in our children’s make-up, as parents, if everyone’s spiritual being is already implanted from birth? Aren’t we cautioned to have the purest of intentions when trying to conceive children, in order to provide them with pure souls (see Zohar 2, 204B and on; 3, pp. 80-820), which seems to underscore our importance in the process?

We’re taught, then, that what we contribute as parents are our child’s souls' “garbs” rather than their souls itself [9]. Which is to say that we provide the outer trappings, if you will -- the means the soul has to express and reveal itself, including its physical and spiritual qualities, talents, abilities, etc. (see Biur Tanya).

That’s not at all meant to demean the role we can play as parents. After all, everything a person does -- as well as everything he derives from G-d -- is filtered through the garb he inherited from his parents (Tanya Mevuar). Nonetheless, the soul unto itself is unaffected by one’s parents’ actions -- so much so that even an august and eminent soul can hail from humble, even base parents.

Take heart, though. For despite their implied permanency we’re each assured that we can always “change our garb” with enough effort (Likutei Biurim).
_________________________________________
Notes:

[1] As to it being a “part of G-d”, that’s not to suggest that G-d can be broken-down into parts, which is absurd. By definition, G-d is a perfect, utterly self-contained whole. Instead, the point (as offered in sect. 2 below) is that “while the world itself and all its accouterments is a product of a relatively outlying expression of G-d’s Being ..., man and his accouterments ... is a product of a more intrinsic expression of G-d’s Being ... while man’s soul -- our G-dly spirit -- is a direct expression of His Being” -- a virtual part of Him.

There’s another interesting point being made here. The Hebrew term for veritable here (as in “a veritable part of G-d Above”), mamash, can also be translated as “tangible” or “material” which is of course the very opposite of the transcendence implied by “Above”. But that’s meant to underscore the paradoxical nature of the G-dly spirit, which functions on a spiritual level ... in a material world (Likut Perushim 2:9).

Parenthetically, the G-dly spirit’s situation before entering a human body and its mission while here will be discussed in ch. 31 below.

[2] The notion that RSZ uses for this concept is the famous one that “One who exhales, exhales from his very being“, which he cites the Zohar as the source for. But as all of his commentators point out, no reference to that can be found in the Zohar. But in his edition of Ramban’s commentary to the Torah (Genesis 2:7) Rabbi C. D. Chavel acknowledges Rabbi Y. Leiner’s citation of the Sefer HaKanah as the actual source of this quote.

[3] RSZ includes a rather complex note here that delves into a seeming contradiction between statements by Maimonides and Rabbi Yehuda Loewe (Maharal of Prague).

Maimonides equated G-d Himself with His knowledge by saying that, “G-d is simultaneously the Knower, the Known, and His Knowledge“ (Yesodei HaTorah 2:10; Sh’mone Perakim ch. 8). It would help to see what Maimonides said elsewhere about this to understand this concept.

He said that “G-d doesn’t know with a knowledge that’s external to Him, as does man, whose knowledge is separate from his being. G-d and His knowledge are One“ (Hilchot Tshuvah 5:5). His point is that G-d can’t be said to “acquire” knowledge from outside of Himself. For that would mean that He lacked that bit of information beforehand and was thus “improved” by having come upon it. But that’s absurd, since G-d is by definition perfect, so He couldn’t possibly be improved. Maimonides reasoned that the only solution would be to say that G-d and what He knows are one and the same -- His knowledge is already part of His Being. And that, in fact, He’s the very subject of His own knowledge; since He contains everything, and everything is contained in Him; and ergo, what he knows is Himself.

Hence, again, “G-d is simultaneously the Knower, the Known, and His Knowledge”. Nonetheless, Maharal of Prague argues against this concept and wonders how anyone would dare say that G-d is mere “knowledge”.

RSZ’s point is that Kabbalists (including Rabbi Moshe Cordovera, but most especially the holy Ari) still-and-all agree with Maimonides’ statement. It’s just that Maharal and they are approaching the problem from different reference points.

For according to Ari we're to differentiate between G-d’s revelation of Himself in the “Ohr Ayn Sof” (i.e., an emanation of His Infinite Presence) and His revelation of Himself in the “Ayn Sof” (i.e., His Infinite Presence) itself.

It’s RSZ’s contention then that Maimonides is referring to “Ohr Ayn Sof” where G-d can indeed be said to be the “Known“, “Knower“, as well as “Knowledge“. And that he’s not at all referring to “Ayn Sof” itself, where it would be wrong to refer to G-d as being the “Known“, “Knower“, to say nothing of His “Knowledge“ (see Maskil L’itan).

[4] An obvious question at this point is, when did the Gentile nations stop having this connection to G-d? After all, it was Adam and hence mankind en toto who was granted “that part of G-d” at creation.

RSZ doesn’t seem to address that issue in his writings, but see Rabbi A. D. Goldberg’s commentary to Nephesh HaChaim, entitled Vedibarta Bam (at 1:4 note 3), who argues that the change occurred in the course of the Generation of the Dispersion (see Genesis 11:1-8). His point seems to be that the dispersion wasn’t a mere physical one alone but an existential one, too; for since those involved in the construction of the Great Tower had decided to take things into their own hands and to elude G-d, they were allowed to, to this very day, measure for dreadful measure.

[5] The astute reader will recall that we said in note 5 to Ch. 1 that not everybody has a neshama. But understand that each level of the soul is itself multifarious and comprised of varying degrees of the other levels. As such, the nephesh has elements of ruach and of neshama, and they have elements of it. The neshama we’re alluding to here, at this point, is the nephesh’s neshama element (just as the ruach spoken of is the nephesh’s ruach element). The kind of neshama we alluded to in the notecited which not everyone has, is the “over-neshama”, if you will -- the sort of more sublime neshama that would have an “under-” nephesh, ruach and neshama of its own.

[6] At this point in the text RSZ likens that to the process of the soul descending through the Supernal Worlds termed Atzilut, Beriah, and Asiyah while yet maintaining its integrity-of-self and its connection to the Higher Worlds and their Source. This descent of the soul will come up again in a way in Ch. 3.

[7] Contrary to popular opinion, the notion of drawing close to G-d by associating with the holy and righteous did not originate in Chassidic thought. See the 14th century’s Derashot HaRan #8 (which itself cites Ramban and the 12th century’s Yehudah HaLevy as its source) where the idea is set out.

[8] We arrived at the idea of forming a relationship to a righteous soul who’s no longer alive based on the Kabbalistic notion of ibbur -- of the spirit of a dead righteous person “occupying” a living person’s being in order to help rectify the latter (or itself). See Ari’s Sha’ar HaGilgulim, Hakdamah 2; and see references to the concept in chapters 14 and 16 below.

[9] It’s unclear from the context just what the “garb” is. Likutei Biurim indicates that RSZ’s grandson, termed “The Tzemach Tzeddik”, thought it possible to equate the garb with the rational spirit (though Tanya Mevuar unjustifiably says that Tzemach Tzeddik does in fact equate the two).

But that definition doesn’t seem to fit in context, and doesn’t appear to follow other statements RSZ himself made. After all, RSZ uses the term “garb” to refer to Adam’s body at one point in our text (which we omitted because of the sort of highly esoteric nature of the citation, which we try to avoid in this adaptation); in Torah Ohr (Parshat VaYeira) he likewise refers to the body as the “garb” of the nephesh; and he uses the term in yet other contexts in chapters 4-6 below as we'll see. The definition we’re about to offer above in conjectural.

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Ch. 1

2006-03-31T08:17:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 1

1.

The great and holy Rabbah indicated at one point in the Talmud that it’s important for each one of us to know if he or she is truly righteous or not (Berachot 61B). After all, when our lives will be accounted for in the end, we’ll have to admit to our sins and errors, and take credit for the good and bad we’d done. So if we ourselves can’t determine who and what we are on a spiritual and existential level, then we’ll be hard pressed to argue our own case.

Besides, any sensitive soul would want to know where he or she stands in G-d’s eyes if you will, and what he’s made of.

Yet it seems that Rabbah himself didn’t quite know how righteous he was. For while there are various spiritual levels a person can fall under (with an infinite number of nuanced variances), and one would surely expect a towering figure like Rabbah to be on the highest one, he apparently only considered himself to be where we’d expect ourselves to be -- somewhere in the middle.

Now, that’s a striking and off-putting statement. After all, if someone like him is somewhere in the middle, then we ourselves -- who aren’t great, though we aren’t all that bad -- must be somewhere near the bottom by comparison! So what hope can there be for any of us in the end?

We’ll have to explain a lot of things before we can return to Rabbah’s impression of himself, though (which happened to have been correct, by the way, though not in ways we might have thought). But we won’t even begin to clear that up until Ch. 13.

2.

Now, there’s another point to consider (which we also won’t clear up for a long time). We’re taught that we’ll all eventually be assessed by G-d, and that His assessment will be based on how we’d responded to His charge to us to be the best Jews we could.

And we learn that there are five over-arching ethical, spiritual categories of Jews we might fall under: truly or mostly righteous, truly or mostly wrongful (see Berachot 7A), and the category most of us seem to fall under -- somewhere in between (Berachot 61B).

(The Hebrew term for “somewhere in between” by the way is benoni. It’s usually identified as a religious intermediate -- a sort of spiritual middleweight, if you will. We’ll touch upon the term and the concept itself again later on and throughout the work because it will prove to be supremely important for our purposes, and it’s also the one Rabbah considered himself as falling under).

Now, that seems to indicate that we’re to be assessed by our spiritual accomplishments. But Rabbah was a very “accomplished”, devout Jew. He was always and profoundly immersed in Torah-study, for example (Babba Metziah 86A), and was a paragon of virtue. So how could he ever be termed anything other than fully righteous?

Not only is that so, but we’re also taught that it’s virtually impossible to be “somewhere in the middle” at any one time. Since the axis of one’s spiritual stature shifts instant by instant.

For, every time we sin, on however subtle a level, we’re designated a “wrongdoer” right there and then (see Yevamot 20A, Niddah 12A, Shavuot 29B); and each moment we fulfill a mitzvah -- again, on however subtle a level -- or we repent for a sin, we’re designated “righteous” (see Kiddushin 48B). So how could any one of us ever be deemed somewhere in the middle, half accomplished and half not?

It’s also commonly thought that people who are mostly free of sin are righteous, that those who are mostly sinful are wrongful, and that everyone else is a benoni by virtue of the fact that he or she is half-righteous and half-wrongful (see Hilchot Teshuva 3:1) [1]. But, again, we just determined that we’re each either righteous or wrongful at any one time depending on our actions (as well as our utterances and thoughts, as we’ll see). So, how could anyone depict righteousness and wrongfulness so inaccurately?

Well, the answer to this last point is straightforward enough. People who are mostly free of sin are termed righteous, and people who are mostly sinful are termed wrongful only figuratively speaking. For the Hebrew term for righteous (tzaddik) also means innocent, as in “innocent of all charges”; and the Hebrew term for wrongful (rasha) also means “guilty”, as in “guilty as charged”.

So the point is that while mostly-good people will be assessed more leniently considering the fact that they were mostly good; and mostly-bad people will be adjudged more harshly considering the fact that they were mostly bad, still and all that doesn’t speak to their overall spiritual status. For the commonly understood use of the terms righteous, wrongful, or somewhere in between don’t apply to anyone’s being so much as to his or her over-all legal standing.

For there are known to be very few truly righteous people in the world at any one point in time (see Yomah 38B). So if we accept the idea that people who are mostly free of sin are indeed righteous, then there’d seem to be many, many righteous and not just good, decent people in the world.

But consider this, too. There are a couple of other sources that seem to indicate that we’re to be assessed by G-d according to our spiritual struggles. Which is to say, by whether we’d allowed ourselves to be swayed by our baser impulses, as wrongful people do; if we’d allowed ourselves to be motivated by our higher, G-dly impulses, as righteous people do (Berachot 61B; Zohar 2:117b) -- or if we’d contended with both (Berachot 61B) and had come to allow our higher impulses to prevail, as we’re all capable of doing [2]. This point will come up again as well later on in Tanya.

On top of that we’re taught that each one of us was confronted in Heaven by an angel just before we were born and made to promise a couple of things: that we’d be righteous rather than wrongful, and that we’d nonetheless always consider ourselves basically wrongful even if everyone said otherwise (Niddah 30B).

That’s puzzling. First off, how could we be compelled to be righteous by taking such an oath, when our devotion is open to free choice [3]? Secondly, we’re advised elsewhere to never consider ourselves wrongful (Pirke Avot 2:18); and thirdly, if we did consider ourselves wrongful, then we’d hardly likely serve G-d as joyously and good-naturedly as we’re bidden to (see Deuteronomy 28:47) and we’d likely assume a certain “devil may care” attitude.

So, what is righteousness after all? What’s wrongfulness? What’s that puzzling rank of being somewhere in between called the benoni state, which the great Rabbah considered himself to be a part of? And most especially, what does all of that do to affect our relationship to G-d?

We’d need to explore quite a number of profound things beforehand to get to the bottom of all this, including the make-up of our beings, our connections to G-d, the nature of our mission in this life, and much more.

So, let’s start off with the make-up of our beings (which will take us quite a while unto itself).

3.

Rabbi Chaim Vital was a Kabbalist of the first rank. Indeed, he was the preeminent student of the great and holy Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (known as “The Ari”), the most eminent Kabbalist of all. And R. Vital earned the right to single-handedly disseminate the latter’s oral teachings.

He taught in his teacher’s name that each and every Jew’s being without exception is comprised of two “spirits”, two biases or predilections, if you will: one toward rank animalism, and another toward pure G-dliness (see Shaarei Kedusha 1:1-2, Etz Chaim 50:2) [4, 5].

We’ll lay out the basics of our bias toward animalism here, and start addressing our G-dly bias in the next chapter.

Our “animalistic” spirit is termed that because it’s much like the sort of instinct- and impulse-driven spirit that animals have, too [6].

It’s nestled in our blood, and it’s rooted in two phenomena that call for some explanation of their own: the four “husks” surrounding our inner core, and the “other side” from which our animalism derives. The “other side” is simply another term for unG-dliness; it’s the “side” or realm one faces when he turns away from G-d, if you will. As to the husks, they come to this [7].

Just as there are husks and peels covering everyday, common fruit, there are likewise spiritual “husks” and “peels” overlaying spiritual “fruit”, if you will [8].

Now as we indicated, there are four husks surrounding our spiritual fruit -- i.e., our G-dly spirit: a hard outer one and three inner, successively softer ones, the last of which is rather diaphanous (which is analogous to the thin shell surrounding certain nuts, for example).

The three outer husks are said to be utterly un-G-dly (ch. 6 below) and to act as curtains and partitions between us and G-d Himself (ch. 17 below) as well as our G-dly spirits; and the fourth diaphanous one -- which is contiguous with the fruit itself -- is partly G-dly and partly not, and it also serves to mediate between the other three husks and our G-dly spirit (ch. 7). This last husk and all its implications will prove to be very important for our purposes.

And finally, we’re also taught that our untoward character traits come from our animalistic spirit (see Shaarei Kedusha 1:2) -- as well as some of the more admirable traits our people are famous for, interestingly enough [9].

Now on to our G-dly bias.
__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] The benoni could very well be depicted as half-righteous and half-wrongful in a certain way. For as we’ll see later on, he’s equally drawn toward G-dliness and to wrongfullness, and is thick in a struggle between the two all the time (Likut Perushim 13:1). But that’s beside the point now.

[2] RSZ offered some rather recondite notes to his work at several points that either raise questions about his own assertions in the body of the text itself or offer insight from other, usually Kabbalistic sources. His notes often seem to obfuscate his main points to most readers, so we'll do our best to explain them here in our notes rather than in the text itself, and we’ll point out some of their ramifications when that’s called for, too.

His note in the text here sets out to indicate the fact that our righteousness isn't determined by the quantity of our righteous deeds so much as by the quality of our struggles (as the text illustrates). But he then acknowledges that the Zohar seems to say the opposite at a certain point (see Zohar 3 p. 231), which would be a strong contradiction of his point. RSZ contends, though, that the Zohar's remark isn't a definitive statement so much as a legitimate proposal made on the spot that will be rejected later on; and that the definitive statement is in fact the one he quoted above (from Zohar 2, p. 117B) to the effect that we will in fact be judged by the quality of our struggles.

[3] An interesting aspect of this pre-birth vow is the fact that we're thus asked to shore up everything we have within us before we enter our physical beings, and to be righteous in life -- even when we're not sure we can, and despite the fact that we could never foresee the circumstances we'd be under (and would thus seem to be absolved of our oath), simply because we swore we would.

The point is that G-d apparently has such great faith in our abilities and is so sure that we can live out our spiritual potential that He asks us to sign such a blind "contract", that He Himself will sign on to it as well, if you will, and help us to succeed. (That final point will be illustrated later on.)

[4] R. Vital uses other terms for our two spirits, like our “bad” and “good” spirits, or our “pure” and “defiled” spirits. And he also refers to our G-dly spirit as our “angelic” and “Asiyatic” spirit (referring to the cosmic level which that spirit occupies). But we’ll use the terms laid out above.

[5] It’s important to note that we use the term spirit here rather than “soul” (unlike others who have translated and commented upon Tanya). The Tradition speaks of five levels of the soul over-all (which correspond on an esoteric level to the five spiritual levels spoken of in section 1 above). They’re termed the “Nephesh“, “Ruach“, “Neshama“, “Chaya“ and “Yechidah“, and they can each legitimately be translated as “spirit” or “soul”. We’ve chosen to refer to the lower aspect (the “Nephesh”), which is the part of it that manifests itself in the body and in the world and is the term used in the text here -- as the “spirit”; and to refer to the higher aspect (the “Neshama”), which will be discussed later on, as the “soul”.

It’s also notable that while not everybody has a “soul”, everybody indeed has the two aforementioned “spirits” (Chinuch Katan). RSZ will point out later on that we each also have a third “spirit”: our rational mind (see ch. 42, Iggeret HaKodesh 15), which mediates and chooses between our animalistic side and our G-dly one (also see Likut Perushim 1:37). R. Vital terms it our “very selves” while we’re in this world (Shaarei Kedusha 1:1).

We should be aware as well of the fact that everything in the world has what’s referred to as an “animating” spirit or what’s known as an elan vital -- some electric, immaterial element in its bosom that keeps things intact and self-contained (See Shaar HaYichud v’Ha’emunah ch. 1). But we won’t be addressing that here.

Our use of the terms “biases” and “predilections” is based on the idea that our spirits are in fact expressions of just those things, since they’re the media through which we express our will (see Likut Perushim 6:19 for the correlation between spirit and will).

[6] In fact, both our’s and animalkind’s animalistic spirit are hewn from the same source, as it turns out. The difference is, though, that our’s is rooted in a deeper, more interior and choice part of that source (which is why we, rather than animals, are able to speak [Etz Chaim 50:2]).

[7] The concept of the husks is based upon a phenomenon known as “The Account of the Chariot”, related in the Book of Ezekiel. At one point the prophet Ezekiel experienced an astounding and wondrous vision in which he saw “a stormy wind..., a great cloud, and a fire flaring up“ in the Heavens, with a certain “luminousness round about it“ (Ezekiel 1:4). There’s a wealth of things to be said about all that, but suffice it to say for our purposes that those four features -- the wind, cloud, fire, and luminousness -- are depictions of the four husks. And that the last one, “luminousness”, is the one rooted in part-goodness, as we’ll soon discover.

[8] Suffice it to say that just like everyday fruit, it’s the “spiritual fruit“ that’s to be enjoyed rather than the shells. it’s also important to realize that spiritual “husks and peels” both protect the spiritual fruit and they prevent us from getting to it sooner (much the way commonplace husks and peels affect everday fruit).

[9] The animalistic spirit is said to incorporate four basic elements, known classically as the elements of “earth”, “air”, “fire”, and “water”. We in modernity would refer to them as the four states of solidness, gaseousness, energy, and liquidness. The three denser, unholy husks are said to foster the untoward traits, while the other one is said to foster the (usually but not always) admirable ones. Needless to say, our unarguably noble and holy traits are rooted in our G-dly spirit, as we’ll see.

Thus the three unholy husk’s earth (or solid) state is said to encourage the traits of laziness and melancholy (which are weighty, sluggish, dry traits) for example. Their air (or gaseous) state is said to foster flippancy and cynicism, slander, lying, and hypocrisy (which are vacuous traits rooted in airy, and fleeting impressions). Their fire (or energy) state is said to stoke up our anger and arrogance, as well as impatience, animosity, aggression, and the need for acclaim (which are emotions that singe and sear). And their water (or liquid) state is said to feed hedonism as well as the traits of envy and jealousy (all of which expand outward and fatten quickly).

And the fourth husk is said to be responsible for Jewish compassion and altruism (which as every subtle soul knows, can be alternatively good or bad depending on circumstances).

The idea is that our emotions and our reactions to the world are largely rooted in animalistic predilections, and that it would do us well to know that rather than assume that we usually act and react intelligently and reasonably.

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

PROLOGUE TO PART ONE: Chapters 1- 8

2006-03-26T07:04:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

The first eight chapters of Tanya form the book's first unit; chapters 9 through 15 form the second; 16 through 25, the third; 26 through 34, the fourth; 35 through 40, the fifth; 41 through 50, the sixth; and 51 through 53 form the seventh and final unit. We'll offer the essence of each unit in the form of a prologue before we come upon the text itself, which this is the first of.

Part One begins by introducing the idea that while some of us Jews are utterly wrongful by nature and others are fully righteous, the great preponderance of us are somewhere in between. And it behooves us each to know just where we stand on that continuum. Before we can do that, though, we'll have to understand our spiritual makeup.

RSZ's first insight for us into that is his statement that we're each comprised of two antithetical "predilections" or spirits: one toward rank animalism and another toward pure G-dliness.

The G-dly spirit, we're taught, is a veritable portion of G-d and is comprised of ten elements in all: three “mind" and seven “heart" elements. And that it dons three "garments" at any one time: thoughts, speech, and actions.

We also learn that our G-dly spirit is elevated when its garments are used to fulfill mitzvot; that our mind is united with G-d's very will and wisdom when we study Torah; and that our hearts come into play when we infuse the love and fear of G-d into all that.

Our animalistic spirit is also comprised of ten mind and heart elements, and also has three garments. But they’re all derived from the four "husks" and from the "other side" rather than directly from G-dliness. Those four husks are themselves comprised of two subsets, though: three utterly impure husks, and a single "luminous” one that straddles both holiness and unholiness.

Now, since the luminous element of our animalistic spirit can function in either holiness or unholiness, and since we have it within us to determine in which one it will, it stands to reason that there'll be times when we lapse into unholiness (since we nearly all fall sway to the animalistic spirit's urgings). So how do we rectify things when we do?

And what's the difference between what we do when we lapse into outright unholiness and when we succumb to more subtly wrongful things, like partaking of perfectly acceptable things to excess?

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Author's Introduction

2006-03-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

1.

There’s a certain dynamism in the Chassidic movement not to be denied. And it’s borne on a series of electric encounters between one man -- who has struggled to amass as much of the truth as he could; to have ingested it, taken it to heart, and rendered it into his very being -- and another one. And the latter is either yearning to do what the first one had already done and looking for clues how to, or is at least hoping some of the wisdom and piety of the former will rub off on him and enrich his being vicariously.

When those encounters can no longer go on for one reason or another and the master is forced to put in writing what he’d always said outright, inflected, motioned toward, alluded to, sighed or smiled about (to indicate when the disciple was on or off the mark), a lot is lost. Rather than seeing the master and “getting it”, the struggling disciple now has to wade through comments and thoughts till he’s fortunate enough to somehow or another hear the master confide in him behind the words in print.

The paradigm didn’t begin with the Chassidim and isn’t only found among them. But it has somehow or another managed to represent the classic Chassidic dilemma. It starts with a great soul emerging from among the ranks who proves to be a Rebbe {“master”); he begins to explicate the inscrutable in unique and stunning ways; a few younger enthusiasts determine somehow that, unlike the others, this one “knows”; others gather about the master based on the say-so of the enthusiasts; yet others come simply because there are so many questions to ask and so few to answer them; then more and more come, much the way the many poor go to the few wealthy. But then things change.

The Rebbe’s words come to be memorized and lionized -- at a distance by this point, since there’ll be so many Chassidim (“devotees”) wanting to see him, and so few opportunities for this. His dicta start to be written about (brilliantly or awfully) by lesser teachers, compared and contrasted with earlier Rebbes, and to eventually be standard fare. Until both the Rebbe and his Chassidim pass on and another Rebbe emerges.

But that's not true if the old Rebbe’s works prove to speak to the ages and to somehow transcend time and place -- either because his message is immortal, because it dwells on the immutable and what lies on man’s heart in every generation, or because it’s effulgent with wisdom and fulfills the fundamental need we all have to understand ourselves and draw close to G-d in the process.
Tanya is just such a work, and its having been set to print is thus an exception to the rule, as we’ll see.

2.

RSZ had been a disciple of the holy Maggid of Mezritsch who was himself the disciple par excellence of the founder of the Chassidic Movement, the holy Ba’al Shem Tov. And RSZ had come into his own. He’d proven himself to be a master of halacha (by composing an updated Shulchan Aruch [Code of Jewish Ritual and Law] at the behest of the Maggid), as well as a master of the Mysteries of the Torah (which he’d studied under the tutelage of both the Maggid himself and the Maggid’s son, Avraham “the Angel”). And there came a point where he began to teach publicly.

The first few students who came to be his Chassidim were at a great advantage, in that they could sit with RSZ for hours at a time, for days and days, and open their hearts to him. They were in search of a path that would finally, finally undo the glitches in their being that separated them from G-d somehow and would thus bring them close to Him. And they found that RSZ was able to provide them with one.

More and more would come with their most intimate questions, fecund with self-revelation. At a certain point, RSZ could no longer meet with anyone other than his closest Chassidim one on one. He resorted to writing down his insights that were based on his years of answering questions the many Chassidim would bring him. He noticed that the questions tended to follow a pattern. And they seemed to fall under certain specific categories of inquiry -- about G-d, about the soul, about human nature, about self-betterment, about prayer, etc.

RSZ’s “pamphlets”, as they were called, came to be widely circulated and copied by hand -- both by his Chassidim, by other Chassidim, and by the opponents to Chassidism. And certain errors crept into the text either by accident or on purpose (when some of RSZ’s opponents inserted heretical phrases into the text in order to discredit him and the entire Chassidic movement).

In the process of time it became clear that an “official version” had to be issued, within which each and every word would be verified, justified, and accounted for. That version is what’s referred to as Tanya (the very first word of the text), also known as “The Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”. We’ll now enter the text itself.

3.

RSZ began Tanya with a note to his Chassidim (i.e., this introduction) that acts as a sort of apology. After all, if Chassidism works best one on one, as RSZ’s Chassidim knew to be true themselves -- then what sense was there in writing another learned tome or pious exhortation? Wasn’t that avoided by the other Chassidic Rebbes contemporary with RSZ, most significantly by the holy Ba’al Shem Tov and the Maggid of Mezritch themselves? RSZ would soon contend with the problem.

The first thing he wanted to do was to set a particularly bright and inviting tone for his work, so he cited verses that would exhort all his readers, “great and lowly” (2 Chronicles 34:30) to seek wisdom (Proverbs 8:4); pursue righteousness and seek G-d (Isaiah 51:1); to do what they could to be heard out by G-d (Judges 9:7); and finally, to rest assured of ultimate peace (Exodus 18:23) and life everlasting (Psalms 133:3). The clear implication was that this work would allow for all that. Then he contended with the irony of a Chassidic text.

He acknowledged the saying among Chassidim to the effect that hearing words of Mussar (statements meant to goad one on toward ethical and spiritual preeminence) from one’s Rebbe is better than reading them. And he offered that that was true for a number of very practical reasons.

That’s not to say, though, that the early Chassidim didn’t delve into classical Mussar texts. In fact, no lesser light than the Ba’al Shem Tov himself exhorted his students to study Mussar every single day (Tzivaat HaRivash #1).

RSZ’s point is that the problem of reading Mussar texts rather than hearing one’s teacher exhort him face to face lies in the fact that readers of Mussar (and even of Halachic works) often miss certain subtle remarks their authors make; that not every such work appeals to everybody (despite the fact that on a very deep and subtle level, each and every Jew is inexorably linked to words of Torah); that everyone is unique and has his or her own preferences and predilections which may not be addressed by a particular text; etc.

Yet RSZ decided to indeed offer this written work despite all that. Since it’s more a “manual” than a learned and pious Mussar text; and it’s an “answer-book” for questions he’d had put to him again and again that fit the aforementioned patterns and areas of concern his Chassidim had when it came to their Divine Service.

He also decided to publish it because, as we indicated, he was blessed with throngs of adherents, so there simply wasn’t enough time to meet and counsel each and every one. And because people tend to forget even the best advice, the truth be known, thus having it in print to refer to again serves a very real and practical need.

RSZ assured his readers, though, that each one of them -- each one of us, too, we’re assured by his latter adherents -- will “find peace for his soul” studying this work. That each one will come upon “the sort of advice on everything that he finds difficult in Divine service” he needs. And that “his heart will thus be firmly fixed in G-d” for having read and delved into this work.

4.

There was one ironic “loophole”, if you will, allowed into the formula. Should a reader come to something he can’t understand in Tanya at some point in time, he’s to go to someone in the community recognized as being learned enough in RSZ’s system and thought to elucidate it for him. And he’ll then come to know. (The scholar himself is forewarned not to display false modesty and to claim not to know what to respond if he really does; since that would serve no one, and do harm rather than good.)

It turns out then that RSZ’s teachings can be said to exist in both written and oral form (analogous to the Written Torah, i.e., the Five Books of Moses; and the Oral Torah, i.e., the Talmud, Midrash, etc.). In fact, Tanya itself is referred to as the Written Torah of Chabad Chassidism. Since it’s set down in writing, and thus offers its devotees the advice they’re looking for in black and white. But since it also spawned explications on the part of those scholars the unlearned were to depend on for the true import of Tanya, it has thus produced its own Oral Torah.

Hence we have the best of all worlds now, thanks to RSZ’s prescience. We have written and accessible advice from the master which is a product of his field-experience of what his Chassidim needed to know in order to draw close to G-d. And we have access to contemporary masters who -- rather than use RSZ’s work as a spring board to works of their own, and to eventually come to leave the original work behind in the distance -- would see it as their duty to explicate Tanya to each and every generation that encounters it.

In a way, then, rather than a master sitting knee to knee with one disciple at a time, we’re presented with the opportunity for every single generation to sit knee to knee with the original master, R. Schneur Zalman, and to have his words applied to it by its explicators. Thus we return to another point we made in our remarks about the Frontispiece.

We indicated that RSZ’s point in setting the verse “the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart-- so that you can do (i.e., achieve) it” (Deuteronomy 30:14) as the lodestone for this book was the following. To indicate that Tanya “is not in Heaven” (v. 12), i.e., it’s indeed *not just the words of earlier, long departed great souls*; “nor is it beyond the sea” (v. 13), i.e., nor is it the words of other great masters who, while closer to us in time, might as well be from the other side of the world, *since they don’t address questions of how to draw close to G-d head-on* as RSZ does. It’s indeed “very near-at-hand to you” (v. 14), i.e., it has been compiled by someone able to adduce the spiritual needs of those of his generation and environs. And its immortal message has been entrusted to the author’s true explicators in each generation [1].

---------------------------
Notes:

[1] In fact, I see *my* role in this rendition of the original as that of advocate for and guide to Tanya. For while I have the utmost respect for RSZ and this masterful work which I've dwelt on for years, I dare not claim to be one of its explicators by virtue of the fact that I'm an “outsider” and not a devotee of R. Schneur Zalman per se. And in fact, I actually intend this work for others like myself who are fully observant and seeped in Torah who nonetheless aren't Chassidic and wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to Tanya.

At bottom my wish is that the reader will be moved and transformed enough by whatever I manage to do here to go back to the original and to discover for him- or herself the world of things I omitted in my rendition necessarily but regrettably.

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Frontispiece

2006-03-12T17:13:00.000-05:00

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

1.

The following fecund statement serves as Tanya’s frontispiece (as well as a précis of the entire book):

“(The ideas contained in this work have been) collected from holy books, and from eminent and heavenly authors whose souls are in Heaven; (they’re) based on the verse, ‘For the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart -- so that you can do (i.e., achieve) it’ (Deuteronomy 30:14); and (it's) meant, please G-d, to explain straight-forwardly and in both an extensive and abbreviated manner just how near-at-hand the matter is”.

So we'll start off by delving into all that.

2.

Now, few things tantalize the inner hem of the Jewish heart as much as the thought of drawing near to G-d, knowing Him, loving Him, and being close enough to Him to be jolted and transformed by that.

But who among us is bold enough to feel along that inner hem in fact and not pull back incredulously? And who’d dare say that he or she could ever hope to draw close to G-d once he'd owned up to the sensation? For can anyone alive today, who’s consequently impelled by the demands of the god-of-this and the god-of-that day after day, ever hope to engage with G-d Almighty Himself in fact?

Yet we’re assured by the Torah that we can, and easily so at that. For as the above verse indicates, drawing close to G-d (the subject of the verse, at bottom) is “very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart”. And in fact, when we examine the context in which this bold promise is made we draw even more solace.

For we’re told that once we “take (what G-d has offered us) to heart“ (Deuteronomy 30:1) and “turn to Him, and hear Him out... heart and soul” (v. 2), that He’ll gather us together from the farthest reaches (v. 3-4), bring us back home (v. 5), and “circumcise (our) heart” (v. 6).

That’s to say that G-d will then assemble us together once again (both as a people; and individually, by consolidating our disparate sides), He’ll sensitize our hearts so that we might truly love Him “heart and soul” (v. 6), and that we’ll then be able to serve and adore G-d without all the snags that the aforementioned demigods lay at our feet (v. 7-8). And as a consequence, we’ll prosper (materially and spiritually) (v. 9).

Thus the formula is clear: comply and prosper; resist and languish (see v. 18). The process is neither “hidden or far way” (v. 11-13), we’re assured, and neither more complex or abstruse than that. For indeed, as our original citation put it, drawing close to G-d will prove to be “very near-at-hand to you -- in your (very) mouth and in your heart”; truly, “you can do it!“ (v. 14).

Since Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (whom we’ll refer to as RSZ) did indeed set this as the very motto and theme of this work, it’s clear that Tanya will thus be a manual of sorts for getting close to G-d Almighty that’s rooted in profound Torah scholarship.

3.

It has been contended that the books that RSZ drew from are the works of Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon (known alternatively as “Maimonides” and as “Rambam”), Rabbi Yehudah Loewe (known as “Maharal m’Prague”), and Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz (known as “Sh’lah”). And that the teachers he’d been directly influenced by include Rabbi Yisroel (the “Ba’al Shem Tov”), Rabbi Dov Baer (the “Maggid of Mezritch”) and his son Avraham (known as “The Angel”), and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk [1].

Now, the truth of the matter is that aside from the Torah itself, every single book is an amalgam of material collected from other books and from statements made by the author’s teachers.

So what RSZ seems to be saying is that Tanya is indeed “not in Heaven” (v. 12), i.e., it’s not merely the words of those earlier, long departed great souls; “nor is it beyond the sea” (v. 13), i.e., nor is it the words of other great masters who, while closer to us in time, might as well be from the other side of the world, their spiritual climate is so unalike our own. For Tanya will prove to be “very near-at-hand to you” (v. 14), because it has been compiled by someone able to adduce the abiding and immutable spiritual needs of those of his generation and environs (as well as later ones, as RSZ’s adherents maintain [see Likutei Biurim ]) and to make it all accessible to us.

4.

And finally as to Tanya demonstrating how very near-at-hand closeness to G-d can be in both an “extensive and abbreviated” manner, it’s been pointed out that the extensive manner refers to instructions offered in the work’s Ch.’s 16-17, which involves reflecting and ruminating lovingly and reverently upon G-d’s infinite and boundless greatness, and fulfilling mitzvot and studying Torah fervently; and that the abbreviated one refers to instructions offered in Ch.’s 18-25, which involves drawing upon the “love that’s sequestered in every single Jew’s heart which is an inheritance from the Patriarchs” that we can all cull from at any time.

We’ll see that the abbreviated one is second-best in fact, because it’s rooted in a sort of indolent and passive dependance on one’s native gifts, while the extensive approach is preferable since it involves augmenting one’s own self and striving for a degree of spiritual excellence one didn’t know he had.

A descendant of RSZ’s, Rabbi Shalom Dov Ber of Lubavitch, raised an interesting point about our trying the more extensive and challenging route to intimacy with the Creator. He suggested that some might diffidently back off from such a summons and think it’s beyond them. But he rejects that as being a “trick of the yetzer harah” and a “bitter dollop of false humility”, since drawing close to G-d is indeed “very near-at-hand to you” (citing the verse that heads this frontispiece) and “not hidden from you” (Deuteronomy 30:11), so it's not unapproachable [2].

_______________________

Notes:

[1] Nonetheless see RSZ’s fascinating declaration in Ch. 42 in the text that “The essence of knowledge doesn’t lie in knowing and in being cognizant of G-d from writers and books (exclusively). The essential thing is to immerse your mind deply into G-d’s greatness (on your own) and to affix your thoughts on G-d ... until your thoughts are attached to G-d”. For despite his reticense to say as much for himself, that's in fact what RSZ himself did; and Tanya is all and all the product of that.

[2] Kuntress Hatephilla, para. 6.

(c) 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman