The above concept – that there is an advantage to the Divine service of a person who redefines his identity and subsumes it in the service of G‑d (as alluded to by the phrase “this day”) over the total obliteration of his personal identity (as alluded to by the word “desert”) – can be understood on the basis of our Sages’ teaching:1וְיוּבַן זֶה עַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה
Before the Giving of the Torah, “When the Jews made the commitment naaseh, ‘We will do,’ before nishma, ‘we will listen,’בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע
the ministering angels came and attached two crowns to every Jew,בָּאוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת וְקָשְׁרוּ לְכָל אֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵי כְתָרִים
one crown corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma.”אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְאֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע.
Chassidus2 raises a well-known question based on the wording used by our Sages in their aforementioned statement:וְיָדוּעַ הַדִּיּוּק בָּזֶה,
The beginning of their statement “When the Jews made the commitment of naaseh before nishma” impliesדְּבִתְחִלַּת הַמַּאֲמָר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ כו' מַשְׁמַע
that the angels attached the two crowns to themדְּזֶה שֶׁקָּשְׁרוּ לָהֶם שְׁנֵי כְתָרִים הוּא
because they “made the commitment naaseh before nishma.”מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע,
By contrast, the conclusion of the quote, “one crown corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma” impliesוּבְסִיּוּם הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹמֵר אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְאֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע,
that the two crowns were given for the commitments of naaseh and nishma themselves,דִּשְׁנֵי הַכְּתָרִים הֵם עֲבוּר נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע עַצְמָם.
i.e., in their own right, each of the commitments warranted a crown regardless of the order in which they were made.
In resolution of this seeming contradiction, the Rebbe Maharash explains in his maamar entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, which he delivered on Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar 100 years ago,3וּמְבָאֵר אַדְמוֹ"ר מַהֲרַ"שׁ בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ דִּבּוּר הַמַּתְחִיל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּשַׁבָּת פָּרָשַׁת בַּמִּדְבָּר לִפְנֵי מֵאָה שָׁנָה,
that the Jews’ commitment of naaseh represents the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, i.e., their recognition that G‑d is our King and we are His subjects,דְּנַעֲשֶׂה הוּא קַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם
whereas their commitment of nishma represents their acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos, i.e., their committing themselves to observe and fulfill His commandments.וְנִשְׁמָע הוּא קַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת.
Prefacing the commitment of nishma with the commitment of naasehוְעִנְיַן הַקְדָּמַת נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע
parallels our Sages’ statement regarding Kerias Shema, the recitation of the Shema, in our prayers:4הוּא כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה
“Why does the passage beginning Shema precede the passage beginning Vehayah im shamoa?לָמָּה קָדְמָה פָּרָשַׁת שְׁמַע לִוְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ
So that one should first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven,כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם תְּחִלָּה
Shema is associated with the acceptance of G‑d’s sovereignty, as the Alter Rebbe writes in his Shulchan Aruch:5 “The word echad (‘one’) communicates the theme of sovereignty. [The implication is that] He is unique and unified [with all existence]; there is none that can be likened to Him, and His Kingship reigns over all.”
and afterwards accept upon himself the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos.”וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל מִצְוֹת.
In that maamar, the Rebbe Maharash explainsוּמְבָאֵר שָׁם,
that the first passage, the passage beginning Shema, is identified with the Divine service of ratzo, “yearning for G‑dliness,” and mesirus nefesh, “self-sacrifice,” as reflected in its emphasis on G‑d’s transcendent oneness and in the corresponding commandment to love G‑d “with all your might.”דְּפָרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא רָצוֹא וּמְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ
This relates to the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, because through accepting such a yoke, a person goes beyond his own identity and commits himself totally to G‑d.
The second passage, which opens with Vehayah im shamoa, parallels the Divine service of shov, “return,”וּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּ' הִיא שׁוֹב.
i.e., the soul’s resolve to live within the context of material reality, based on its awareness that this is G‑d’s ultimate intent. This is reflected in the passage’s mention of mundane activities: “You will gather your grain, your wine, and your oil… you will eat and be satisfied.”6
This corresponds to the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvos, because the observance of mitzvos involves performing acts on this material plane with the intent of making this world into G‑d’s dwelling.
Just as in the ratzo veshov motif, one initially must be aroused with the longing of ratzoוּכְמוֹ שֶׁבְּרָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב, בִּתְחִלָּה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת רָצוֹא
and only afterwards pursue the thrust of shov,וְאַחַר כָּךְ שׁוֹב,
so too do similar concepts apply with regard to the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven and the yoke of mitzvos:עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה הוּא בְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם וְקַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת,
The acceptance of the yoke of mitzvos must be preceded by the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.שֶׁלִּפְנֵי קַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת קַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם.
Based on the above, in that source, the Rebbe Maharash explains7 our Sages’ statement: “When the Jews made the commitment naaseh before nishma…:”וְעַל פִּי זֶה מְבָאֵר שָׁם מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ כו',
Even though the two crowns that the angels granted the Jews correspond to the commitments of naaseh and nishma, respectively,אַף שֶׁשְּׁנֵי הַכְּתָרִים הֵם כְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע עַצְמָם
[as reflected by the continuation of their statement “One corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma,”][אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְאֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע],
nevertheless, in order that the Divine service of shov (nishma) be deemed worthy of a crown, it must be preceded by ratzo (naaseh).כִּי בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשּׁוֹב (נִשְׁמָע) צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת קְדִימַת הָרָצוֹא (נַעֲשֶׂה).
In that maamar, the Rebbe Maharash proceeds to explainוּמַמְשִׁיךְ בְּהַמַּאֲמָר שָׁם,
his aforementioned resolution, emphasizing that when mentioning the angels conferring two crowns upon the Jewish people, (our Sages specifically employ the term “crowns”)דְּזֶה שֶׁקָּשְׁרוּ לָהֶם שְׁנֵי כְתָרִים (כְּתָרִים דַּוְקָא), הוּא,
because Kesser, the crown, refers to an encompassing light, reflecting G‑d’s light that is sovev kol almin, which transcends all worlds.כִּי כֶּתֶר הוּא מַקִּיף, סוֹבֵב,
Chassidus distinguishes between oros p’nimiim, internal lights, and oros makifim, encompassing lights, explaining that oros p’nimiim are enclothed within the keilim8 whereas oros makifim transcend the keilim.
The difference between these two types of light can be understood by comparing them to parallel influences on man’s character. When a person approaches a mentor to learn how to refine and develop his character, he understands the lessons that the mentor imparts to him. He works them over in his mind and tries to internalize them and shape his character accordingly. Chassidus terms this type of influence as pnimiyus, i.e., it affects the person from within.
There are other occasions when a person’s conduct changes due to an external influence. The setting in which he finds himself causes him to comport himself in a specific manner. No one instructs him how to behave, but he instinctively knows that he must act differently than usual. For example, when he is in the presence of a venerable personage, he intuitively feels the necessity of conducting himself in a befitting manner. This type of external influence is referred to as makif, encompassing.
Intellect is a koach p’nimi, an internalized power. The person understands and feels in control of what he knows. In contrast, will, ratzon,9 is referred to as a koach makif, an encompassing power, because the person ultimately doesn’t understand what it is that is motivating to want the object of his desire. He wants it because a core dimension of his being – something beyond his conscious mind – is drawn to it.
To focus on the parallels to these concepts in the spiritual realms: G‑d’s light that is memale kol almin is described as an or p’nimi because it enclothes itself in the sefiros and takes on their character. His light that is sovev kol almin is described as an or makif because it transcends the sefiros and, when revealed, overpowers them and generates bittul, i.e., causing them to be subsumed entirely in its light.
Chassidus explains that Divine revelations are drawn down through man’s carrying out a mode of Divine service that reflects and corresponds to that particular revelation. To draw down an encompassing light, G‑d’s light that is sovev kol almin, that transcends all worlds, a person must transcend his own identity. This is achieved through kabbalas ol; a person goes beyond his individual desires and commits himself totally to G‑d’s service. Such bittul is a medium to draw down G‑d’s encompassing light (kesser – a crown).
More specifically, however, our Sages mention two crowns, i.e., that a crown was given not only for the commitment of naaseh, the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s Kingship, but also for nishma, the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvos. It is readily understandable why naaseh elicits G‑d’s encompassing light: In making such a commitment, a person declares himself G‑d’s servant. A servant is not his own person; he is his master’s property. When a person makes such an all-encompassing commitment, he draws down an all-encompassing light, that is sovev kol almin.
However, the reason that the Jews’ commitment of nishma, the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvos, warranted their receiving a crown is problematic. The observance of mitzvos involves a person’s activity in the world. Although he is acting in G‑d’s service, he is nevertheless using his own personal powers of intellect, emotion, and action. Such efforts seemingly relate to G‑d’s light that is memale kol almin. Why then did making such a commitment warrant a crown, i.e., relate to G‑d’s light that is sovev kol almin?
In resolution, the Rebbe Maharash explains that
there are two dimensions of the connection to G‑d’s light that is sovev kol almin:וְיֵשׁ בָּזֶה ב' עִנְיָנִים,
a) the ascent of the light that is memale kol almin to the level of sovev kol almin,עֲלִיַּת מְמַלֵּא בַּסּוֹבֵב
and b) drawing down the light that is sovev kol almin into the worlds that receive their vitality from the light that is memale kol almin.וְהַמְשָׁכַת סוֹבֵב בִּמְמַלֵּא.
On the surface, the Rebbe Maharash’s intent is that the crown that corresponds to naaseh (i.e., Divine service characterized by ratzo)וְלִכְאוֹרָה הַכַּוָּנָה, דְּכֶתֶר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה (רָצוֹא)
represents the ascent of the light that is memale kol almin to the level of sovev kol almin,הוּא עֲלִיַּת מְמַלֵּא בְּסוֹבֵב
A person’s going beyond his identity and accepting G‑d’s Kingship parallels G‑d’s light that is memale kol almin ascending to His light that is sovev kol almin.
and the crown that corresponds to nishma (i.e., Divine service characterized by shov)וְכֶתֶר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע (שׁוֹב)
represents drawing down the light that is sovev kol almin into the worlds that receive their vitality from the light that is memale kol almin.הוּא הַמְשָׁכַת סוֹבֵב בִּמְמַלֵּא.
The commitment to observe mitzvos – activities within the world – relates to the light that is memale kol almin.
It is possible to explain that the explanation that the Rebbe Maharash added in the maamar –וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר, דְּזֶה שֶׁמּוֹסִיף בְּהַמַּאֲמָר
that our Sages were precise in their choice of wording: the reason the angels “attached two crowns” to the Jews was due to the fact that Kesser, “the crown,” is an encompassing light –שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁקָּשְׁרוּ לָהֶם שְׁנֵי כְתָרִים הוּא כִּי כֶּתֶר הוּא מַקִּיף,
was neccessary because the wording of our Sages, “When the Jews made the commitment naaseh, ‘We will do,’ before nishma, ‘we will listen,’ the ministering angels came and attached two crowns…”הוּא, כִּי מִלְּשׁוֹן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ כו' קָשְׁרוּ לָהֶם שְׁנֵי כְתָרִים
implies that the fact that they made the commitment of naaseh before the commitment of nishma relates to the two crowns that correspond to naaseh and nishmaמַשְׁמַע שֶׁהַדִּיּוּק דְּהִקְדִימוּ נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע שַׁיָּךְ לִשְׁנֵי הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע
(and not to the commitments of naaseh and nishma themselves).(וְלֹא לְנַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע עַצְמָם),
I.e., what warranted receiving the crowns was the order in which the commitments were made and not the commitments themselves.
Therefore, the Rebbe Maharash explains that kesser, the crown, refers to an encompassing light, reflecting G‑d’s light that is sovev kol alminוְלָכֵן מְבָאֵר דְּכֶתֶר הוּא מַקִּיף וְסוֹבֵב
and the two crowns reflect two different motifs of interaction with the light that is sovev kol almin.וּשְׁנֵי הַכְּתָרִים הֵם שְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים בַּסּוֹבֵב,
This explains why the Jews deserved the angels’ attaching the two crowns to them because they made the commitment of naaseh before nishma (as will be explained).כִּי זֶהוּ בֵּאוּר עַל זֶה שֶׁקְּשִׁירַת שְׁנֵי הַכְּתָרִים הָיְתָה דַּוְקָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע (כְּדִלְקַמָּן).
The explanation that the Rebbe Maharash gave before that – that the commitment of naaseh must precede that of nishma,וְזֶה שֶׁמְּבָאֵר לִפְנֵי זֶה דְּזֶה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַקְדִּים נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע הוּא
because naaseh and nishma correspond to ratzo and shov respectively –כִּי נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע הֵם כְּמוֹ רָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב,
is an explanation of the fact that a crown (which reflects an encompassing light) was granted corresponding to nishmaהוּא בֵּאוּר עַל זֶה שֶׁהַכֶּתֶר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע (מַקִּיף וְסוֹבֵב) הוּא
specifically when the commitment of nishma was preceded by naaseh.דַּוְקָא כְּשֶׁהַנִּשְׁמָע הוּא לְאַחֲרֵי הַקְּדִימָה דְּנַעֲשֶׂה.
To explain the latter point:
G‑d’s encompassing light, His light that is sovev kol almin, transcends any connection to the structure of the spiritual worlds.כִּי מַקִּיף וְסוֹבֵב הוּא לְמַעְלָה מִשַּׁיָּכוּת לָעוֹלָמוֹת,
Since, in contrast, nishma reflects the motif of shov, drawing G‑dly energy down to a lower plane,וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁמָע הוּא שׁוֹב וְהַמְשָׁכָה לְמַטָּה,
attaching a crown (which, as explained above, reflects an encompassing light, G‑d’s light that is sovev kol almin, which transcends the structure of the spiritual worlds)לָכֵן, זֶה שֶׁקָּשְׁרוּ כֶּתֶר (מַקִּיף וְסוֹבֵב שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵעוֹלָם)
corresponding to nishma (drawing down G‑dly energy to a lower plane)כְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע (הַמְשָׁכָה לְמַטָּה)
is appropriate specifically because the commitment of nishma was preceded by naaseh,הוּא דַּוְקָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנִּשְׁמָע הָיָה לְאַחֲרֵי הַהַקְדָּמָה דְּנַעֲשֶׂה,
ratzo, the yearning to ascend.רָצוֹא וַעֲלִיָּה לְמַעְלָה.
I.e., Although nishma, the approach of shov, can exist even when it is not preceded by naaseh, [it is then not worthy of a crown].10 Shov reflects the thrust to descend and invest oneself in worldly activities. Such activities relate to G‑d’s light that is memale kol almin. For shov to be worthy of a crown, i.e., for it to draw down an encompassing light, it must be preceded by ratzo.
To explain: After a person has made the commitment of ratzo, desiring to go beyond his own identity, to then reverse course and focus on drawing down G‑dliness into the world requires him to once again go beyond himself, for he personally is yearning for self-transcendence. His involvement in the world at this stage is not an ordinary commitment to carry out G‑d’s will within the world but rather an extension of his acceptance of G‑d’s Kingship. Because he has identified himself as G‑d’s servant, he dedicates himself fully to carrying out His will through the observance of the mitzvos, notwithstanding his personal desire for self-transcendence. Such a commitment is worthy of a “crown,” i.e., it draws down G‑d’s encompassing light which is identified with Kesser, “the crown.”

Summary

The concepts presented in the previous sections can be further explained through the interpretation of our Sages’ teaching: “When the Jews made the commitment of naaseh, ‘We will do,’ before nishma, ‘we will listen,’ the ministering angels came and attached two crowns to every Jew, one corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma.”
That teaching is problematic: On one hand, it implies that the two crowns were given by virtue of the order in which the Jews expressed their commitments, pledging naaseh before nishma. However, the conclusion of the quote, “One corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma,” implies that the crowns were given for the commitments of naaseh and nishma themselves, i.e., each commitment itself warranted a crown.
In resolution, the Rebbe Maharash explains that naaseh represents the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, and nishma, the acceptance of the yoke of His mitzvos. The order in which the Jews pledged their commitments conforms to our Sages’ teaching that “One should first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, and [only] afterwards, the yoke of the mitzvos.”
The Rebbe Maharash proceeds to explain that the first passage in Kerias Shema, which opens with the word Shema, is identified with the Divine service of ratzo, “yearning for G‑dliness,” while the passage beginning Vehayah im shamoa is identified with the Divine service of shov, “return.” Just as in a ratzo veshov motif, one must initially be aroused with the longing of ratzo and only afterwards pursue the thrust of shov, so too must the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvos be preceded by the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.
On this basis, the abovementioned difficulty can be explained: A crown reflects an encompassing light, paralleling G‑d’s light that is sovev kol almin, which transcends all worlds, whereas the thrust of shov and the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos involve man’s service within the material world. Even though the two crowns that the angels granted the Jews correspond to the commitments of naaseh and nishma respectively, in order that the Divine service of shov (nishma) be worthy of a crown, i.e., to draw down G‑d’s encompassing light, it must be preceded by ratzo (naaseh). For then the person’s involvement in the world (shov) is not an ordinary commitment to carry out G‑d’s will within the world but rather an extension of his acceptance of G‑d’s Kingship.