חייב “On Purim, a man is obligated to become so intoxicated that he does not know the difference between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordechai.’” Megillah 7b. It is necessary to understand: Why is the happiness of Purim so much greater

I.e., unlimited in nature, transcending the norms of ordinary conduct.

than the happiness of the other festivals?i

For although it is a mitzvah to rejoice on the festivals, that rejoicing is contained. Indeed, the court would send out messengers to insure that the celebrations were kept within appropriate bounds (Rambam, Hilchos Shevisas Yom Tov 6:21).

Miracles were performed for our ancestors on the other festivals [as well, e.g.]: the Splitting of the Sea on Pesach and the Giving of the Torah on Shavuos.

These were open and revealed miracles, while the miracles associated with the Purim festival were enclothed in nature.

[Moreover,] those festivals are on a higher rung of holiness, as evidenced by the fact that it is forbidden to perform work on them. With regard to Purim, by contrast, Mordechai decreed [that work should be forbidden], but [the people] did not accept it.1

See the conclusion of the maamar where this question is discussed and resolved.

ויובן [The above questions] can be resolved based on the concept [implied by the verse]:2 “And the Jews accepted what they had begun to perform.” “What they had begun…” refers [to the commitment they made] at the time of the Giving of the Torah, as our Sages commented3 on the verse,4 “The Jews carried out and accepted…”: that

At the time of Haman’s decrees,

they carried out what they had already accepted

at the time of the Giving of the Torah.

כי [To explain:] At the time of the Giving of the Torah, “G‑d held the mountain over them like a tub,” [compelling them to accept the Torah. Hence,] “from this event, there were [grounds for] a great protest [concerning the acceptance] of the Torah.

Because the Jews were forced to accept the Torah, as it were, they could protest that they never really agreed to observe it (Rashi, Shabbos, op. cit.).

They did, however, accept it [willfully] in the era of Achashverosh.” [A question arises:] Why is the fact that G‑d held Mount [Sinai] over them considered more of a compulsion than what Achashverosh did [to them]?

At which time, Haman sought to annihilate the Jewish people entirely. Since Haman’s decree came as a result of the Jews’ undesirable conduct (see Megillah 12a) and was nullified through teshuvah, it could be considered as compulsion from Above.

והנה [To resolve the above points,] it is first necessary to understand the concept of the Giving of the Torah. And it is necessary to understand our Sages’ statement:5 “Happy is he who comes here, [to Gan Eden,]

I.e., the Afterlife, the non-corporeal realm of the souls.

possessing his Torah knowledge.” In Gan Eden, the souls derive pleasure from the revelation of [G‑d’s] infinite light. Of what relevance is the possession of one’s Torah knowledge there? For [the Torah one has studied] involves the knowledge of laws enclothed in material matters.

I.e., in that realm of revealed G‑dliness, seemingly, the Torah studied in this world would be of little relevance.

וגם [It is] also [necessary to understand] our Sages’ statement:6 “Anyone who has the possibility of studying the Torah and does not, is described by the verse:7 ‘He scorned the word of G‑d. That soul will surely be cut off.’”

Kares, the soul being cut off, involves premature death in this world (Moed Katan 28a) and the soul being prevented from receiving a share in the World to Come (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 8:1).

This is difficult to comprehend, for one who does not have the potential to study that much can fulfill his obligation [by studying] one portion in the morning and one portion in the evening.8 Why then is a person who has the opportunity to study, yet does not, considered to have transgressed so greatly that it is said of him: “[That soul] will surely be cut off”?

I.e., why is the punishment so severe? Since, seemingly, the essence of the mitzvah can be fulfilled with far less effort, why does failing to make an additional effort warrant such harsh punishment?

אך These concepts [can be understood through prefacing with an explanation of why] the Torah is called “the primeval analogy (mashal hakadmoni),”9 as it is written:10 “As the primeval analogy

Our translation of the phrase mashal hakadmoni follows the understanding of Metzudos Tziyon. Rashi suggests the meaning referred to later in the maamar, that the Torah is “the analogy of the Primary Being of the world,” i.e., “the analogy of the Holy One, blessed be He.”

says: ‘Wickedness issues forth from the wicked.’” This is referring to [the implications of] the verse:11 “G‑d caused it to occur to him.”

I.e., the verse is speaking about a person who killed another individual accidentally. Our Sages (Makkos 10b) explain that through this event, G‑d is executing judgment. Previously, the victim had himself killed another person intentionally and the killer had also killed another person accidentally beforehand, without the matter becoming public knowledge. G‑d thus “causes” the intentional killer to receive the punishment due him — he was killed — and the accidental killer to receive the punishment due him — he will be exiled.

Similarly, King Shlomo [refers to the Torah as an analogy,] saying:12 “To understand analogies and parables.”

והענין To explain: The term “primeval” (kadmon) refers to the Essence of [G‑d’s] infinite light itself, “the Primary Being of the world (Kadmono shel olam).”

Kadmon, translated as “Primary Being,” refers to G‑d, implying that in the Tzemach Tzedek’s words:

His [existence] does not have a beginning — in contrast to everything other than Him about which this cannot be said. Instead, all other existence is comprised of new entities [whose] prior [state] was non-being and which were brought into being by Him…. Describing Him as kadmon (primary) implies that He exists before everything [see Rashi, Devarim 33:27]….

Thus we are not speaking about chronological precedence. Instead, the intent is that He existed alone, before the existence of time…. When He created the world, He also created time…. It and the entire world are new entities and G‑d existed before them. The nature of [G‑d’s] precedence, however, is far more wondrous than chronological precedence. The latter reflects a limited precedence, for, being a creation, time is also limited…. G‑d’s precedence, by contrast, is an unlimited precedence, for He is mechuyav hametziyus [see Selections from Derech Mitzvosecha, Vol. II, Mitzvas HaAmanas Elokus, sec. 1, fn. 20, for an explanation of this term].

G‑d] has existed forever. He was not brought into being, Heaven forbid. Instead, He has always existed. Saying He has always existed is like saying that He exists for an infinite span of time. [This, however, is not an adequate explanation of the concept.] Instead, in truth, He exists independent of time, above the entire framework of chronology. Even now He exists above time, for time is [relevant] only to the created beings (ibid., sec. 11).

[In contrast,] the levels of sovev kol almin

Literally, “that encompasses all the worlds,” a light that is too transcendent to be revealed within the worlds and hence, is described as being above them. Nevertheless, as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, it too shares a connection with the worlds. G‑d’s Essence, by contrast, is totally above Creation.

and memale kol almin

Literally, “that fills all the worlds,” i.e., the light is revealed in each world according to the nature of that specific world.

reflect the radiance drawn down from [G‑d] to grant life to the worlds. If so, these levels — even the level of sovev kol almin — share a connection with the worlds. For [the light that is sovev] also endows the worlds with life; only it does so in an encompassing manner, while [the vitality granted through] memale kol almin comes as an inward light.

And is thus enclothed in the created beings in every spiritual world, each one according to its level.

G‑d’s Being and Essence, by contrast, transcends the entire Spiritual Cosmos completely. [Thus] it is not appropriate to speak of Him as sovev kol almin.

For that would also imply a connection to the worlds.

Therefore He is called “the Primary Being of the world.”

This appellation refers to Him as He exists for Himself, above all connection to the worlds He brings into being.

והתורה The Torah is called “the primeval analogy” (mashal hakadmoni); i.e., it is an analogy for “the Primary Being of the world” (Kadmono shel olam).

I.e., Rashi (to I Shmuel 24:14) meant the phrase to be understand as “the analogy of the Primary Being of the world,” i.e., the analogy created by G‑d. As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, the phrase can be understood as meaning: “the analogy for the Primary Being of the world,” i.e., a means through which we can comprehend G‑d, as it were.

[The intent is that] just as through an analogy, one grasps the analogue,

An analogy enables one to appreciate a different concept that is too abstract to be conceived directly. For example, when a teacher desires to explain a mathematical equation to a child, he does not speak in abstract terms. Instead, he takes tangible articles that the child can see to illustrate it. Now the physical entities that the child sees are not the abstract mathematical construct the teacher wishes to communicate. Nevertheless, the child understands it when he sees it illustrated. Similarly, as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, the Torah speaks in terms that are defined and thus comprehensible and, in this manner, enables us to relate to G‑d Who is infinite and beyond our grasp.

so too, through the Torah one has acquired,

The Alter Rebbe is referring to the quote from Pesachim 50a mentioned previously.

one merits a revelation of radiance and light from [G‑d’s] infinite light which is above the levels of sovev kol almin and memale kol almin. Indeed, it transcends the Spiritual Cosmos entirely.

כי [The description of the Torah as an analogy can be explained as follows:] There are multitudinous, indeed, infinite, levels in the comprehension of the Torah, ascending upward, rung after rung.

Just as there are endless levels in Seder HaHishtalshelus, the chainlike progression of spiritual realms, there are endless levels in the comprehension of the Torah. For there is a level of Torah knowledge corresponding to every level of existence.

For example, the nature of the comprehension [of G‑dliness] in the lower Gan Eden is incomparably [lower] than the nature of the comprehension [of G‑dliness] in the upper Gan Eden.

The Higher Gan Eden represents an entirely different frame of reference than the Lower Gan Eden to the extent that the difference between them is somewhat comparable to the difference between the Lower Gan Eden and our material world. Similarly, every “spiritual world” is a different realm of existence, distinct from others. (Indeed, for that reason, it is referred to as a different world.)

Therefore the relation between the understanding in the lower Gan Eden and the understanding in the upper Gan Eden is comparable to the relationship between an analogy and its analogue.

ועד"ז [This same concept applies on many levels, for] there are an infinite number of rungs in the Spiritual Cosmos, [including levels] even above the higher Gan Eden, as implied by the phrase:13 “And holy ones will praise You every day for eternity” and as stated by the AriZal in his commentary Likkutei HaShas to our Sages’ statement:14 “The righteous have no rest, not in this world, nor in the World to Come, as it is written:15 ‘They shall proceed from strength to strength.’” Every level of understanding can be considered an analogy in relation to the level above it.

וז"ש This is implied by the verse regarding [King] Shlomo:16 “And Shlomo delivered 3000 analogies,” i.e., [he would relate 3000 analogies] for every Torah concept.

Each spiritual world is a different realm with a different frame of reference. King Shlomo perceived all of these realms and saw how every concept was expressed on all of these different levels.

To illustrate by analogy, the term sweetness is applied in many different contexts. For example, food is described as being sweet, a melody is called sweet, a person is referred to as sweet, and there is even the expression, a geshmaka seichel, a sweet idea. Now within each of these categories themselves, there are many levels. There are many different types of sweet foods, songs, and persons. However, the difference between two types of sweet food is of a totally diverse nature than the difference between sweet food and a sweet song. The sweetness of both foods can be tasted by the palate, while the sweetness of a song requires the use of higher senses, and the sweetness of a person and an idea cannot be perceived by our physical senses at all. Nevertheless, the same term is used to describe all these four types of sweetness. In other words, the same motif can exist on different planes and in different forms, and the lower manifestation of the motif can be seen as an analogy for the higher one (see the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. II, p. 645; Vol. III, p. 1220; Kuntres U’Maayon, Discourse 21, ch. 1-2; see also sec. 4 of the maamar entitled Ner Chanukah in this series).

King Shlomo would relate 3000 analogies for every Torah concept, i.e., he would see and explain every Torah idea to others as it existed on 3000 planes of existence. The rationale for the number 3000 can be explained as follows: There are ten Sefiros which interrelate in manifold ways. 1000 can be understood as referring to 10 cubed,i.e., each Sefirah on two levels of interrelation. Now there are three created realms: Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah. King Shlomo understood a concept as it existed on the level of the Chochmah of Chochmah of Chochmah of the world of Beriah and was able to communicate to one whose understanding was on the level of Malchus of Malchus of Malchus in the world of Asiyah.

For in the lower Gan Eden, the concept can be understood in a given manner, and in the higher Gan Eden, the same concept can be understood in a more spiritual and abstract manner to the extent that the first level was only an analogy to the higher level. [King Shlomo] comprehended 3000 different levels of expression for every Torah concept. [Moreover, there are even more than 3000 levels, as implied by] the phrase, “will praise You… for eternity,” i.e., without end. This is the implication of the verse:17 “His understanding is beyond reckoning.”

והנה Behold, “the Torah emanates from Chochmah (wisdom).”18 It is the source of all of these [levels of] comprehension, as [implied by] the verse:19 “A river emerged from Eden.”

The river is identified with the Sefirah of Binah (understanding), and Eden with Chochmah, the source of Binah (Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 39b).

The sublime Chochmah is itself an analogy for “the Primary Being of the world.” [That statement appears problematic, for G‑d’s] infinite light is uplifted and exalted infinitely higher than the level of Chochmah.

I.e., Chochmah is a defined and limited entity, while G‑d’s Essence transcends all definition and limitation.

And all of the ten Sefiros — the first of which is Chochmah — are called “the secret of [G‑d’s] holy name” in the Zohar.20 Just as a person’s name does not involve his essence and being at all,

I.e., a name is merely the medium through which others call a person. It does not express what type of person he is, what his individual characteristics are, and how they function.

[so too, the Sefiros, G‑d’s name, as it were, are removed from His Essence].ii Nevertheless, [G‑d’s] infinite light rests and enclothes itself in the sublime Chochmah, as it is written:21 “G‑d in Chochmah….”

With this statement, the Alter Rebbe is clarifying the uniqueness of the level of Chochmah. Although it is a defined entity, G‑d’s essential light,which defies any and all definition or limitation, can rest in it. The core of the explanation of this paradox lies in the Tzemach Tzedek’s notes to a later portion of this maamar:that Chochmah is identified with bittul, self-transcendence. (See Tanya, ch. 18, and the note to Tanya, ch. 35.)

To clarify this point: In general, the difference between intellect and emotion is that emotion is subjective, reflecting what a person feels about a given matter, while intellect is objective, focusing instead on the objective reality, what the matter is.

Within the realm of intellect itself, there are three basic thrusts: Chochmah, Binah, and Daas. Daas refers to a person’s identification with a concept, seeing how it relates to him. Binah refers to a person broadening and deepening his comprehension of an idea by comparing it to other concepts that he learned previously, analysis of its particulars, and the like. In this manner, he is creating “handles” to grasp the concept and bring it closer to his understanding. Chochmah, by contrast, represents the connection to the germ of the idea, a person stepping above his understanding and grasping the concept as it is, without connection to preconceived ideas. This represents bittul, where one’s self is taken totally out the picture and one is able to appreciate the concept in its fullness.

Chochmah of Atzilus represents the most complete and perfect expression of this motif. Because of its bittul, it serves as a medium in which G‑d’s infinite light can rest. Because“the Torah emanates from Chochmah,” as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, the Torah makes it possible for man to relate to this level of G‑dliness. For every rung of Torah understanding is “an analogy,” enabling a connection to be established with the analogue, G‑d’s infinite light.

ולכן Accordingly, the Torah, which “emanates from Chochmah,” is called “the primeval (kadmoni) analogy. Even though an analogy is not of the same nature as the analogue at all, [nevertheless,] the analogue is enclothed in the analogy, and through it, the analogue can be comprehended. Similarly, Chochmah and the Torah are garments for [G‑d’s] infinite light, as it is written:22 “He garbs Himself in light as a garment.”

The term “light” refers to the Torah, as reflected by Mishlei 6:23.

Therefore through occupying oneself in Torah study, one can derive pleasure from the radiance of [G‑d’s] infinite light, the level [identified with] “the Primary Being of the world.”iii

Since Torah study enables a person to connect to G‑d on this level, his soul will derive satisfaction from this bond, for it is the ultimate of pleasure.

וזהו On this basis, we can understand the statement of our Sages cited above: “Happy is he who comes here, possessing his Torah knowledge.”

For the pleasure a soul will feel in the Afterlife is dependent on the Torah knowledge it acquires during its lifetime.

With regard to an analogue and an analogy, it is impossible to comprehend the analogue until one first comprehends the analogy. For only through the analogy can one comprehend the analogue. If one lackscomprehension of certain elements of the analogy, he will not be able to comprehend the analogue at all.iv

In Sefer HaMaamarim 5571, p. 127ff., this concept is explained with the analogy of a person using a telescope or a microscope to see a particular entity. If even a small portion of the lens closest to the eye is covered, he will be prevented from seeing a major portion of the overall area he desires to view.

ועד"ז [Similar concepts apply to the Torah.] Since the Torah is an analogy through which “the Primary Being of the world” can be grasped, [as it were,] when [a person’s soul ascends to Gan Eden,] he must “possess his Torah knowledge” [to gain awareness of G‑d]. For by knowing the analogy [— the Torah —] thoroughly, he will be able to perceive the analogue, “the pleasantness of G‑d,”23

As stated in Zohar, Vol. II, p. 11a, this phrase refers to the awareness of G‑d that the soul enjoys in the Afterlife.

and “satisfy his soul in a time of drought.”24

This verse also refers to the soul’s perception in the Afterlife (Zohar, Vol. I, p. 141a). The World to Come is described as “a time of drought,” because, in contrast to our material world, it is impossible to make radical advances in those spiritual realms.

In the Tzemach Tzedek’s notes to the maamar, he cites Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 29, where the Alter Rebbe explains that צחצחות, the term translated as “a time of drought,” refers to the essential light embedded in the inner dimensions of Kesser and thus relates to the concept of “the Primary Being of the world” mentioned above.

When, by contrast, he does not possess [understanding of] the analogy, there is no way that he will be able to comprehend the analogue, [i.e., G‑d].

ובזה On this basis, [the difficulty aroused by] the quote [cited at the outset]: “To anyone who has the possibility of studying the Torah and does not, is described by the verse: ‘… That soul will surely be cut off’” can be resolved and understood. [True,] a person who does not have the potential [to study Torah can satisfy his obligation] with one portion of study in the morning and one in the evening, [but that is because the spiritual mission given these individuals is different].

When a person has been granted more elevated intellectual capacities and/or a more comfortable financial position, his obligation to study the Torah is far more encompassing than that of someone who has not been granted these gifts.

והענין [To explain the quote] using the example of analogues and analogies as they apply to human thought: Not all concepts, i.e., analogues, require the same type of analogies. There are concepts and analogues that can be illustrated and understood through one simple and straightforward analogy. And there are deeper concepts that require more analogies, and the analogies themselves are more sophisticated and more profound.v

וכך Similarly, in the spiritual realms, all souls do not share the same level of comprehension [of G‑dliness].

The higher the soul, the more comprehensive its appreciation of G‑dliness should be. Hence, there will be a need for a greater and more detailed “analogy” of Torah knowledge for it to attain comprehension of the dimension of G‑dliness appropriate for it.

In this, there is an infinite number of levels and rungs, as [implied by] our Sages’ statement:25 “Every righteous man will be burned by the light encompassing

This translates the term chuppah in this mystic context (see Torah Or, p. 32d). The term “light encompassing” is used because the essence of the light is greater than the light that the soul comprehends. Since all the souls do not share the same light, the chuppah of each soul is different and everyone possesses a dimension the other lacks. Since the soul lacks that dimension, it is burned when exposed to it.

The term “burned” is used as in our Sages’ statement (Sanhedrin 38b): “[G‑d] extended His little finger and burned them,” i.e., He revealed a light higher than they could bear.

his colleague.” (Therefore [the fact that] it is sufficient for a particular individual to study one portion of Torah in the morning and one portion in the evening indicates that an “analogy” [of this type] is sufficient for the comprehension [of G‑dliness] appropriate for the source of [that person’s] soul.) This applies when the person does not have the capacity to occupy himself [further in Torah study], for that itself is an indication that [what he is able to study] is sufficient for him.vi

And he is able to fulfill his soul’s purpose with the attainments that he can reach.

אבל When, by contrast, a person does have the potential to study Torah, this is an indication that his soul is from a level that enables him to perceive [more G‑dliness] in the spiritual realms. Therefore the analogy [fitting for him] must also be extensive and very developed, appropriate for the time granted him to occupy himself in Torah study which is “the primeval analogy.”

And in that way, he fulfills his soul’s individual mission.

When he does not occupy himself in Torah study during the time that he can, he is lacking necessary elements of the analogy [appropriate for him]. Therefore the phrase “that soul will surely be cut off” is applied to him, because his lack and incomplete [grasp of] “the primeval analogy”

Caused by not using the opportunity he had to study.

will prevent him from grasping “the pleasantness of G‑d” which is the analogue.vii

I.e., his soul will not achieve the level of comprehension of G‑dliness appropriate for it.


Summary

The maamar begins by citing our Sages’ statement: “On Purim, a man is obligated to become so intoxicated that he does not know the difference between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordechai.’” The question is raised: Why is the happiness of Purim so much greater than the happiness of the festivals during which the celebrations are kept in moderation?

To resolve that issue, [the maamar] cites our Sages’ statement that the commitment expressed by the Jews at the time of the Purim miracle represented the consummation of the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

These concepts are explained in terms of the description of the Torah as “the primeval analogy,” interpreted by Rashi to mean “an analogy for the Primary Being of the world,” i.e., just as one grasps the analogue through an analogy, so too, through the Torah, one grasps G‑d, as it were.

To explain: “The Torah emanates from Chochmah” and that attribute serves as a garment for G‑d’s infinite light. The Torah then descends through the various levels of the Spiritual Cosmos, with each level serving as an analogy for the level(s) above it. Ultimately, through the comprehension of the levels of Torah appropriate to his own spiritual level, a person has a handle through which he can connect to the Torah’s highest levels and to G‑d as He enclothes Himself in the Torah.