Part V

As known, whenever two (or more) analogies are offered in a Chassidic discourse to explain one concept, it is because each one, in and of itself, is not entirely representative of the analogue. Thus, two (or more) analogies are drawn, each of them explaining certain aspects of the analogue.

The same is true with regard to why two analogies — that of ilah and alul, and that of ma’or and or — are offered to explain that when entities are brought into being b’derech memeila, the source of existence remains close to the entity which is brought into being. [Both of these analogies are somewhat dissimilar to the analogue]. For in the analogue, even when existence is brought about b’derech memeila, something new that is entirely incomparable to its source is brought into being. This can be appreciated from the fact that even with regard to creation from the name Havayah, it is written, “He commanded and they were created.” For the term “created” has a specific meaning, the creation of an entity from absolute nothingness,1 and a new created being is far removed from its source.

(In sec. 4,) it was explained that when existence comes into being from the name Havayah, He is revealed within the creations which come into being from Him. This, however, refers only to the created beings’ awareness that they are not independ­ent entities. [Instead, they realize that] their entire existence [is an expression of] the G-dly light that creates them from absolute nothingness. This perception causes them to nullify themselves to their source. The intent [in that statement] is not, however, that Havayah is revealed within the created beings themselves (within their nature and qualities). For since creation is incomparable to [the name Havayah], it is impossible that there be revealed within them a light that is infinitely loftier than their level. To cite an analogy, it is impossible for a koach which is spiritual to be revealed in a po’el which is physical (as explained above).

{Additionally, with regard to koach and po’el: the unique dimension of koach is that it brings about a po’el, and that it does so in a manner of hislabshus. Therefore when the koach brings about the po’el, [the existence of] the koach is revealed. (It is merely that [its nature] is not revealed within the po’el itself). When existence is brought into being from the name Havayah, by contrast, this does not reveal [the existence of the Creator], for [His being] totally transcends the [entire framework of] existence which came into being. This is so, because as mentioned above, existence which comes into being from the name Havayah comes about b’derech memeila.}2

Thus, the analogy of ilah and alul is not entirely accurate. For in the relationship of ilah and alul, the closeness of the alul to the ilah depends on the fact that the alul is comparable to the ilah, [which results in] the ilah being revealed in the alul itself.3 {An example of a relationship of ilah and alul is intellect and emotions. Within the emotion itself, one is able to recognize the idea which brought it into existence. For when one is roused to love some­thing because he understands intellectually that the matter is good for him, within the love itself, it can be sensed that the attraction to the matter stems from [his perception of] its goodness. And the nature of the love will parallel the nature of the goodness of the matter.}4

To explain that even when an entity brought into being is truly incomparable to its source, there may still be closeness between them, the analogy is therefore drawn from ma’or and or. Or is but a ray [from the ma’or] and is no way comparable to the ma’or — {for which reason the ma’or is not revealed within the or, for from or one knows only about the existence of the ma’or but nothing of its essence5}. Nevertheless, [the or] is close to the ma’or, i.e., it feels its source and is nullified to it.

However, the analogy of or and ma’or also does not suffice. For in [the relationship of] or and ma’or, the closeness of the or to the ma’or and its nullification to it, [results from the fact] that the or is not an entity unto itself at all — its entire being consists of it being a revelation of the ma’or. In the analogue, however, even when speaking of existence being brought into being from the name Havayah, it is stated, “for He commanded and they were created” — creation involves (not merely, an extension and revelation of the source), [but bringing into being] distinct enti­ties.

This can also be appreciated from the statements in Tanya6 that even if creation were to be [solely] from the name Havayah, without the tzimtzum resulting from the name E-lohim, creation would nevertheless come into being from absolute nothingness. (Only then [the created beings] would be entirely nullified, as the sun’s rays are nullified within the orb of the sun.)7

Thus, in order to explain that a distinct entity can be close to its source, we must also employ the example of ilah and alul. [In this instance,] though the alul is an entity unto itself and not the revelation of its ilah, the two, nonetheless, share closeness.

It can be explained that the analogy of ilah and alul is men­tioned before the analogy of or and ma’or for the following reason. The fundamental novel dimension resulting from the nullification of the created beings that come into existence from the name Havayah, lies in the fact that although they are created beings (entities which exist), they still palpably feel the light of the name Havayah within themselves. This aspect is understood more clearly from the analogy of ilah and alul. The analogy of or and ma’or is added to explain that it is possible for the source to be revealed even within an entity that is truly incomparable to it.