Until now, the maamar has explained the analogy of the Midrash, which speaks of “a clever person who said: ‘I will choose the king,’” and the analogue, the Jewish people’s choice of G‑d. A difficulty was noted: that the analogy did not parallel the analogue. For in the analogy, it appears that the clever person chooses the king due to that person’s wisdom. Hence, he provides an explanation for his choice: “The others are all subject to replacement, while the king is not subject to replacement.” Nevertheless, in the analogue, when describing the Jewish people’s choice of G‑d, the Midrash states that the choice is made because “‘G‑d is my portion,’ says my soul,” implying that what motivates the choice is not an intellectual rationale but an inherent spiritual bond.
In resolution, it was explained that the essence of the soul affects its intellectual functioning: because of the soul’s inherent spiritual connection to G‑dliness, its intellect operates in a manner that enables it to appreciate the advantage of choosing G‑d.
As explained previously, it is possible for a person to attain an intellectual appreciation that G‑dliness is the ultimate truth and yet, because of one’s own self-interest, he will seek to receive sustenance from the intermediaries. In contrast, the soul’s essential connection with G‑d causes one’s thinking processes to rise above self-interest and understand that it is desirable to choose G‑d even though it may conflict with its self-interest.
The question, however, remains: If the choice is a reflection of the soul’s essential, inherent connection to G‑d, why is it necessary for this choice to be filtered through the person’s intellect? Let it shine forth with its essential power. This question is resolved through the explanations in this and the subsequent sections.
As mentioned above, the soul’s choice of G‑d stems from the essence of the soul, a level that transcends intellect. Perhaps one can addוְאוּלַי יֵשׁ לְהוֹסִיף, דְּעַל יְדֵי שֶׁהַבְּחִירָה דְּהַנְּשָׁמָה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהַשֵּׂכֶל
that when this choice is drawn down and has an effect on the intellect,נִמְשֶׁכֶת וּפוֹעֶלֶת בְּהַשֵּׂכֶל,
it elevates the soul to a loftier rung than its natural, inherent level.מִתּוֹסֵף בָּהּ עִלּוּי נַעֲלֶה יוֹתֵר מִכְּמוֹ שֶׁהִיא מִצַּד עַצְמָהּ.
This can be understood by prefacing with a concept explained in the maamar entitled Avadim Hayinu LeFaraoh BeMitzrayim in the Siddur Im Dach:1וְיוּבַן זֶה בְּהַקְדִּים הַמְּבֹאָר בַּסִּדּוּר דִּבּוּר הַמַּתְחִיל "עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרַיִם",
that the Divine blessings granted to those who transgress G‑d’s will are as “an aside,”2בְּעִנְיַן הַהַשְׁפָּעָה הַנִּמְשֶׁכֶת לְעוֹבְרֵי רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁהִיא רַק בְּדֶרֶךְ אַגַּב
like one who throws what he gives to another over his shoulder.כְּמַאן דְּשָׁדֵי בָּתַר כַּתְפוֹי,
The sustenance is given begrudgingly, with disdain. For G‑d to bring into being and maintain the world in its present form, there must exist entities that He does not fundamentally desire. He brings them into being only “as an aside,” i.e., solely to create the setting He desires for His will to be expressed.
To explain by analogy, it is like a king who makes a celebratory feast for his prominent officers and prestigious servants3שֶׁהוּא בְּדֻגְמַת מֶלֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה סְעוּדָה וּמִשְׁתֶּה בִּשְׁבִיל הַשָּׂרִים הַגְּדוֹלִים וַעֲבָדִים הַחֲשׁוּבִים
and spares no expense.וּמוֹצִיא עַל זֶה מָמוֹן רַב,
Now, even lowly servants and maids found “behind the millstones”4 receive the leftovers from the feast.וּמֵהַשִּׁירַיִם שֶׁל הַסְּעוּדָה מְקַבְּלִים גַּם פְּחוּתֵי הָעֵרֶךְ כְּמוֹ עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת שֶׁאַחֲרֵי הָרֵחַיִם,
And even dogs feast on the bones that were discarded.וְעַד שֶׁגַּם הַכְּלָבִים אוֹכְלִים אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת שֶׁמַּשְׁלִיכִים לְמַטָּה.
Of course, the king had no intention of spending money on them.שֶׁבֶּטַח לֹא כִּיוֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׁבִילָם הוֹצָאוֹת,
The leftovers they receiveוְזֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּע לָהֶם שִׁירַיִם
(and the leftovers from such a feast are indeed of great value)(שֶׁגַּם הַשִּׁירַיִם שֶׁל הַסְּעוּדָה הֵם הוֹן רַב)
are given merely as an aside.הוּא רַק בְּדֶרֶךְ אַגַּב.
Does the king really desire to provide a feast to the lowly servants and the dogs? Of course not. But in order for the king’s palace to be maintained and the feast to be served, the lowly servants and even the dogs are necessary.
Similarly, in the analogue,וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה הוּא בְּהַנִּמְשָׁל
those who violate G‑d’s will receive sustenance as an aside.שֶׁהַהַשְׁפָּעָה לְעוֹבְרֵי רְצוֹנוֹ הִיא רַק בְּדֶרֶךְ אַגַּב,
It is given to them begrudgingly, like one who throws it over his shoulder,כְּמַאן דְּשָׁדֵי בָּתַר כַּתְפוֹי,
as explained at length in that source.כַּמְּבֹאָר שָׁם בָּאֲרֻכָּה.
It can be explained that the details of the analogy are significant.וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר,
The two examples that the maamar cites of those who receive sustenance as an asideדְּזֶה שֶׁמֵּבִיא שְׁתֵּי דֻּגְמָאוֹת שֶׁהַהַשְׁפָּעָה לָהֶם הִיא רַק בְּדֶרֶךְ אַגַּב
(and do not sit at the king’s table)(וְאֵינָם יוֹשְׁבִים בְּשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ),
– the servants and maids, and the dogs –עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת וּכְלָבִים,
and the two examples of those who sit at the king’s tableוּשְׁתֵּי דֻּגְמָאוֹת בְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִים בְּשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ,
– prominent officers and prestigious servants –שָׂרִים גְּדוֹלִים וַעֲבָדִים חֲשׁוּבִים,
parallel four levels in the analogue.הוּא, בְּהֶתְאֵם לְד' דַּרְגּוֹת בְּהַנִּמְשָׁל.
On the lowest level are the dogs.שֶׁדַּרְגָּא הֲכִי תַּחְתּוֹנָה הֵם הַכְּלָבִים
They do not serve the king;שֶׁאֵינָם עוֹבְדִים אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ,
they are motivated solely by their own desire that material things be given to them andוּרְצוֹנָם הוּא שֶׁיֻּשְׁפַּע לָהֶם גַּשְׁמִיּוּת,
that the largesse should continue endlessly, enabling them to receive more and more,עוֹד וָעוֹד,
as it is written:5 “The dogs are fiercely wanting; they know no satiation.”כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב "הַכְּלָבִים עַזֵּי נֶפֶשׁ לֹא יָדְעוּ שָׂבְעָה".
This can be associated with the well-known concept6 that כלב, Hebrew for “dog,” can be associated with the phrase: כולו לב, “all heart.”וְיֵשׁ לְקַשֵּׁר זֶה עִם הַיָּדוּעַ שֶׁכֶּלֶב הוּא מִלְּשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ לֵב.
The inherent nature of a person and his innate tendency is that his mind rules over the heart.7דְּטֶבַע הָאָדָם בְּתוֹלַדְתּוֹ וְטֶבַע יְצִירָתוֹ – שֶׁהַמֹּחַ שַׁלִּיט עַל הַלֵּב,
A person described with the analogy of a dog is the direct opposite.וְזֶה שֶׁהוּא בִּבְחִינַת כֶּלֶב הוּא בַּקָּצֶה הַהָפְכִי.
Not only does his mind not rule over his heart,דְּלֹא רַק שֶׁהַלֵּב שַׁלִּיט עַל הַמֹּחַ,
he is “all heart.”אֶלָּא יְתֵרָה מִזּוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֻּלּוֹ לֵב.
All8 of his concerns are solely to fulfill the desires of his heart.וְלָכֵן כָּל עִנְיָנוֹ הוּא לְמַלֹּאות תַּאֲוַת לִבּוֹ.
On a higher level are the lowly servants9וּלְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה הֵם הָעֲבָדִים הַפְּחוּתִים
(the servants and the maidservants who are found “behind the millstones”) who do not enter the king’s presence.(הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁפָחוֹת שֶׁאַחֲרֵי הָרֵחַיִם),
They do serve the king, in contrast to the dogs that only serve themselves.שֶׁהֵם עוֹבְדִים אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ,
Nevertheless, they serve the king only out of compulsionאֶלָּא שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתָם הִיא רַק מִצַּד הַהֶכְרֵחַ
(because they fear that otherwise they will be beaten).10(מִפְּנֵי אֵימַת הַכָּאַת הַשֵּׁבֶט),
Serving the king runs contrary to their will and their pleasure,הֵפֶךְ הָרָצוֹן וְהַתַּעֲנוּג שֶׁלָּהֶם,
for a servant enjoys living without any restraints upon him,11 behefkeira nicha lei, in the original Aramaic.דְּ"עַבְדָּא בְּהֶפְקֵירָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ".
Since their desires and pleasures are directed to worldly matters,וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָרָצוֹן וְהַתַּעֲנוּג שֶׁלָּהֶם הוּא בְּתַאֲווֹת עוֹלָם הַזֶּה,
and the only reason they do not violate G‑d’s will is that they fear punishment,וְזֶה שֶׁאֵינָם עוֹבְרִים עַל רְצוֹנוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ הוּא מִפְּנֵי יִרְאַת הָעֹנֶשׁ,
they are not worthy of sitting at the king’s table.מְקוֹמָם הוּא מִחוּץ לְשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ.
Since they have no real desire to serve the king, they are not worthy of beholding his countenance.
In contrast, the “prestigious servants”מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן עֲבָדִים הַחֲשׁוּבִים,
serve the king willingly; this is their desire.עֲבוֹדָתָם אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ הִיא בְּרָצוֹן וָחֵשֶׁק.
True, their service is primarily motivated by the acceptance of the king’s yoke.דַּהֲגַם שֶׁעִיקַּר עֲבוֹדָתָם הִיא מִצַּד קַבָּלַת עֹל
[As is well known,12 this constitutes the difference between the service of a son and a servant.[כַּיָּדוּעַ הַחִלּוּק בֵּין בֵּן לְעֶבֶד,
A son carries out his father’s will because of his love,דְּזֶה שֶׁהַבֵּן עוֹשֶׂה רְצוֹן אָבִיו הוּא מִפְּנֵי הָאַהֲבָה
while a servant carries out the will of his master because he accepts his yoke.]וְזֶה שֶׁהָעֶבֶד מְמַלֵּא רְצוֹן אֲדוֹנוֹ הוּא בְּדֶרֶךְ קַבָּלַת עֹל],
Nevertheless, a “prestigious servant” accepts the king’s yoke willingly and with desire;מִכָּל מָקוֹם, זֶה גּוּפָא הוּא בְּרָצוֹן וָחֵשֶׁק,
in the analogue, he desires to accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.שֶׁרוֹצִים לְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם.
Therefore, he is worthy of a place at the king’s table.וְלָכֵן מְקוֹמָם הוּא בְּשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ.
And the gifts the king grants him are granted face to face, joyfully.
On a higher level than this are the king’s officers.וּלְמַעְלָה מֵהֶם הֵם הַשָּׂרִים,
They know the conventions of the kingdom.שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם יְדִיעָה בְּהַנְהָגַת הַמְּלוּכָה
[For that reason, many of the matters of the kingdom are entrusted to their authority.][שֶׁלָּכֵן כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה עִנְיָנִים בְּהַהַנְהָגָה מִתְנַהֲגִים עַל פִּיהֶם],
They also comprehend the virtues of the kingוְגַם יֵשׁ לָהֶם הַשָּׂגָה בְּמַעֲלַת הַמֶּלֶךְ,
and therefore, they love him.וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לָהֶם אַהֲבָה אֵלָיו,
Thus their service is not motivated by the acceptance of the king’s yoke alone;וַעֲבוֹדָתָם הִיא לֹא רַק מִצַּד קַבָּלַת עֹל
it also results from their love of him.אֶלָּא גַּם מִצַּד אַהֲבָה.
The category of officers itself subdivides into several levels.וּבַשָּׂרִים גּוּפָא יֶשְׁנָם כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה דַּרְגּוֹת,
In general, there are two levels, ordinary officers and prominent officers.שֶׁנֶּחְלָקוֹת בִּכְלָלוּת לִשְׁתַּיִם. שָׂרִים (סְתָם) וְשָׂרִים גְּדוֹלִים.
It is possible to say that these three categories found at the king’s tableוְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר, דְּג' סוּגִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּמְצָאִים בְּשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ
– prestigious servants, ordinary officers and prominent officers –[עֲבָדִים חֲשׁוּבִים, שָׂרִים וְשָׂרִים גְּדוֹלִים]
correspond to the three types of officers – a duke, a prefect, and a commander – whom the above-mentioned Midrash describes as accompanying the king.הֵם בְּהֶתְאֵם לְג' הַסּוּגִים שֶׁבַּמִּדְרָשׁ, דֻּכָּסִין וְאִיפַּרְכִין וְאִיסְטְרָטִילוּטִין, שֶׁנִּמְצָאִים יַחַד עִם הַמֶּלֶךְ,
The description the Midrash gives – that they accompany the king –כִּלְשׁוֹן הַמִּדְרָשׁ "וְהָיוּ עִמּוֹ",
is similar to the concept mentioned in the analogy: that the prestigious servants and officers sit at the king’s table.בְּדֻגְמַת עֲבָדִים הַחֲשׁוּבִים וְהַשָּׂרִים שֶׁנִּמְצָאִים בְּשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ.
On this basis, it is possible to offer further insight concerning the Midrash cited above:וְעַל פִּי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר,
The obvious analogues to the duke, the prefect, and the commander are the seventy patron angels of kelipas nogahדַּהֲגַם שֶׁהַכַּוָּנָה (בְּפַשְׁטוּת) בַּדֻּכָּסִין וְכוּ' הִיא לְהָע׳ שָָׂרִים דְּנֹגַהּ
(as explained in the maamarim cited above).(כַּמּוּבָא לְעֵיל מֵהַדְּרוּשִׁים),
This is also evident from the fact that the Midrash describes the people who chose these officers as those who serve the sun and the moon.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Midrash describes the duke, et al., as “accompanying the king,” alludes to the concept that the analogue refersמִכָּל מָקוֹם, זֶה שֶׁמְּדַיֵּק שֶׁהַדֻּכָּסִין "הָיוּ עִמּוֹ" הוּא בִּכְדֵי לְרַמֵּז שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר כָּאן
[not only to the seventy patron angels who are characterized by yeshus and possess an independent identity,[לֹא רַק בְּהָע׳ שָׂרִים, שֶׁהֵם יֵשׁ וְדָבָר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ,
Accordingly, it is explained in Chassidus13 that the vitality drawn down to the seventy patron angels is in exile within them.
like the lowly servants whose place is removed from the king’s table,דֻּגְמַת עֲבָדִים הַפְּחוּתִים שֶׁמְּקוֹמָם הוּא מִחוּץ לְשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ,
Since these patron angels are characterized by yeshus, self-concern, it is not fit to speak of them as “accompanying the king.”
but] also to those angels whose identity is subsumed in G‑dliness.אֶלָּא] גַּם בַּמַּלְאָכִים שֶׁהֵם בְּטֵלִים לֵאלֹקוּת,
Moreover, on a higher level, the analogy can also refer to the Sefiros of Atzilus, וּלְמַעְלָה יוֹתֵר – בַּסְּפִירוֹת דַּאֲצִילוּת
about which is said:14 “He and His life-energy are one; He and His causations are one” שֶׁאִיהוּ וְחַיּוֹהִי וְגַרְמוֹהִי חַד,
– entities that are at one with the King at all timesשֶׁהֵם תָּמִיד עִם הַמֶּלֶךְ.
And hence, can be described as “accompanying” Him. Previously, the maamar described the intermediaries as being powers within the realm of kelipah. At this point, the maamar is emphasizing that it is possible to conceive of there being intermediaries even within the realm of holiness. Nevertheless, they are merely intermediaries. The uniqueness of “the clever person” is – as the maamar proceeds to explain – that he does not want to receive sustenance even from these intermediaries. He desires a bond solely with the king.
On this basis, one can further comprehend the extent of the “cleverness” of the person who states: “I will choose the king.”וְעַל פִּי זֶה מוּבָן עוֹד יוֹתֵר גֹּדֶל פִּקְחוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁאָמַר "אֲנָא נָסֵיב מַלְכָּא",
Not only is he unwilling to receive sustenance as do the dogs or the lowly servants that are removed from the king’s tableדְּנוֹסָף לָזֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְקַבֵּל הַהַשְׁפָּעָה בְּדֻגְמַת הַכְּלָבִים וְגַם לֹא כַּעֲבָדִים הַפְּחוּתִים שֶׁמִּחוּץ לְשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ
(even though the sustenance granted to them is vast),(הֲגַם שֶׁהַהַשְׁפָּעָה שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּע לָהֶם הִיא בְּרִבּוּי גָּדוֹל)
he wants to be present at the king’s table.וְרוֹצֶה לִהְיוֹת בְּשֻׁלְחַן הַמֶּלֶךְ,
Moreover, he does not desire intermediaries like the duke,אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה גַּם בְּהַדֻּכָּסִין וְכוּ'
(in the analogue, the angels, the Sefiros of Atzilus, or intermediaries on even higher levels).(מַלְאָכִים, סְפִירוֹת דַּאֲצִילוּת וּלְמַעְלָה יוֹתֵר),
He desires the king himself: “I will choose the king.”אֶלָּא בְּהַמֶּלֶךְ, אֲנָא נָסֵיב מַלְכָּא.
This can be illustrated by the Baal Shem Tov’s well-known analogy15 on the phrase:16 “A prayer of a poor person when he languishes and pours out his soul before G‑d.”וּכְתוֹרַת הַבַּעַל שֵׁם טוֹב הַיְדוּעָה עַל הַפָּסוּק "תְּפִלָּה לְעָנִי כִי יַעֲטֹף וְלִפְנֵי הֲוָיָ׳ יִשְׁפֹּךְ שִׂיחוֹ",
The “poor person” does not desire anything.שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבַקֵּשׁ שׁוּם דָּבָר,
His request is only that he be able to “pour out his soul before G‑d.”וּתְפִלָּתוֹ הִיא שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הֲוָיָ׳ יִשְׁפֹּךְ שִׂיחוֹ.
Choosing the King rather than the intermediaries requires great wisdom.וְלָזֶה צָרִיךְ פִּקְחוּת גְּדוֹלָה.
As in the analogy of a mortal king,וּבְדֻגְמַת מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם,
in order to reach the throne room where the king is found and his countenance can be beheld,שֶׁבִּכְדֵי לִכָּנֵס לְהַקִּיטוֹן שֶׁבּוֹ נִמְצָא הַמֶּלֶךְ וְלִרְאוֹת אֶת פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ,
it is necessary to pass through numerous chambers, each containing fabulous treasures.צָרִיךְ לַעֲבֹר תְּחִלָּה דֶּרֶךְ כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה הֵיכָלוֹת שֶׁבְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם יֵשׁ הוֹן יָקָר,
There are people who will derive such wonderful pleasure from seeing the great treasures that are found in the outermost chamberוְיֶשְׁנָם כָּאֵלּוּ שֶׁכְּשֶׁרוֹאִים אֶת הַהוֹן יָקָר שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל הַחִיצוֹן, הֵם מִתְעַנְּגִים מִזֶּה בְּתַעֲנוּג נִפְלָא
that they become transfixed and will remain there and thus fail to reach the chamber where the king sits.וּמִתְעַכְּבִים שָׁם.
Others are transfixed by the pleasure they derive from the treasures found in an inner chamber.וְיֵשׁ כָּאֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּתְעַנְּגִים בְּהֵיכָל פְּנִימִי יוֹתֵר.
Only one who is very wise is unaffected by the magnitude and the value of the magnificent treasures that are found in even the innermost chambers,וְדַוְקָא מִי שֶׁהוּא חָכָם גָּדוֹל, גֵייט אִים נִיט אָן הַחֲשִׁיבוּת וְהַיֹּקֶר שֶׁל הַהוֹן עָצוּם הַנִּמְצָא גַּם בַּהֵיכָל הֲכִי פְּנִימִי,
but instead, focuses his will and his desire solely on entering the throne room where the king sits,וְכָל רְצוֹנוֹ וּתְשׁוּקָתוֹ הִיא לִכָּנֵס לְהַקִּיטוֹן בּוֹ נִמְצָא הַמֶּלֶךְ
so that he can behold the king’s countenance.וְלִרְאוֹת אֶת פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.

Summary

The soul’s choice of G‑d stems from the essence of the soul, a level that transcends intellect. Perhaps one can add that when this choice is drawn down from its essence and has an effect on the intellect, it elevates the soul to a loftier rung than its natural, inherent level.
This can be understood by prefacing with a concept explained in the Siddur im Dach: that the Divine blessings granted to those who transgress G‑d’s will are like “an aside,” like one who gives something to another by throwing it over his shoulder. To explain by analogy, it is like a king who makes a celebratory feast for his prominent officers and prestigious servants. Now, even lowly servants and maids receive the leftovers from the feast. And even dogs feast on the bones that were discarded, but of course, the king had no intention of spending money on them. The leftovers they receive are given merely as an aside. Similarly, in the analogue, those who violate G‑d’s will receive sustenance as an aside. It is given to them begrudgingly.
The details of the analogy are significant. The two examples of those who receive sustenance as an aside and do not sit at the king’s table – i.e., the servants and maids, and the dogs – and the two examples of those who sit at the king’s table – the prominent officers and prestigious servants – parallel four levels in the analogue.
On the lowest level are the dogs. They do not serve the king; they are motivated solely by their own desire that material things be given to them. On a higher level are the lowly servants who do not enter the king’s presence. They do serve the king, but only out of compulsion, because they fear that otherwise they will be beaten. Serving the king runs contrary to their will and their pleasure. Therefore, they are not worthy of sitting at the king’s table.
In contrast, the “prestigious servants” serve the king willingly; this is their desire. True, their service is primarily motivated by the acceptance of the king’s yoke. Nevertheless, he accepts that yoke willingly and with desire. In the analogue, the person desires to accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, he is worthy of a place at the king’s table. On a higher level than this are the king’s officers. They comprehend the virtues of the king and therefore, they love him.
The category of officers itself subdivides into several levels. In general, there are two levels, ordinary officers and prominent officers. It is possible to say that these three categories found at the king’s table – prestigious servants, ordinary officers and prominent officers – correspond to the three types of officers – the duke, the prefect, and the commander – whom the above-mentioned Midrash describes as accompanying the king.
The description the Midrash gives – that they accompany the king – resembles the concept mentioned in the analogy: that the prestigious servants and officers sit at the king’s table. On this basis, it is possible to offer further insight concerning the Midrash cited above: Although the obvious analogue to the duke, the prefect, and the commander are the seventy patron angels of kelipas nogah, since the officers are described as “accompanying the king,” they can also be understood as referring to angels whose identity is subsumed in G‑dliness, and even to the Sefiros of Atzilus.
On this basis, one can further comprehend the extent of the “cleverness” of the person who states: “I will choose the king.” He wants the king alone, not any intermediaries, not even one bonded with the king.
This relates to the Baal Shem Tov’s well-known analogy explaining the phrase: “A prayer of a poor person who pours out his soul before G‑d.” The poor person wants nothing else but to come before the king.