Hokhmah in Binah: The Concrete Trace of Essential Transcendence

This insight leads directly into the third section of the hemshekh, in which hokhmah is described as the antidote that neutralizes unholy folly and heals the rift between the spiritual and the physical. Here the arc towards hokhmah’s illumination of binah—and the somethingness of created reality—is further developed. In one crucial passage, R. Shmuel further probes the collapse of the distinction between the orot and the keilim at the very point from which they emerge. Initially he anchors his argument in a seminal passage from R. Meir Ibn Gabai’s Avodat Ha-qodesh: “The infinite light is the ultimate completion, and if you say that He has the capacity for infinitude but not for finitude you are detracting from His completion; and the limitation that is first brought into existence from Him is the ten sephirot of atzilut.”1 The genesis of finitude, in other words, lies within the infinite capacity of G‑d’s essential self.

“If so,” continues R. Shmuel, “there is the aspect of nothing [i.e. the transcendent selfhood of G‑d] that reveals the concealed limitation that comes into existence from it, which is the root of limitation below.”2Paradoxically, it is infinite nothingness that is the root of finite existence. At the point from which limitation emerges, there is no limitation. At the genesis of fragmentation, there is no fragmentation. All is encompassed in the singular being of G‑d.

The point in the present context is that the nothingness of hokhmah is the core of everything, including the somethingness of binah—finite, graspable, revelation—from which the somethingness of creation extends. Accordingly, through the efforts of man, the sacred consciousness of hokhmah can ultimately be disclosed throughout all existence. The keilim, in other words, can be made transparent to the orot.

But R. Shmuel does not make do with the insight adduced from Avodat Ha-qodesh. Building on Chabad’s intergenerational exploration of tzimtzum’s meaning and significance, he takes this line of thinking a radical step further. We have already mentioned that R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi equates the veiling of the infinite light (ohr) with the unveiling of the luminous source (ma’or), and that R. Shmuel similarly equates the veil of tzimtzum with the unveiling of hokhmah’s receptive effacement before the cause-of-all-causes. Here, R. Shmuel links these two ways of thinking about the revelatory face of tzimtzum by introducing the kabbalistic motif of the trace of revelation, the reshimu, which R. Moshe Zacuto described as “remaining” in the “void” despite the concealment of tzimtzum.3

In earlier Chabad teachings, the reshimu is simultaneously described as a trace of G‑d’s essential infinitude and as the root of the finite keilim. The logic of this association echoes the argument in Avodat Ha-qodesh, but also builds on it. Divine infinitude does not merely encompass the capacity for finitude; it is in the actualization of divine self-constriction and concealment that the completeness of divine infinitude is best demonstrated and most immediately manifest. It is via tzimtzum’s concealment that G‑d’s transcendent omnipotence is most eloquently traced.4

Though this idea had already been developed by R. Shmuel’s predecessors, none of them formulated it with such swift boldness as we find in Vekakhah:

The root of the keilim is from the reshimu, accordingly the radiance of the reshimu is the nothingness of the keilim [i.e. the nothingness that is genesis of their somethingness]. And being that the reshimu comes from the tzimtzum, therefore they [i.e. the keilim] are in the aspect of finite enumeration [ten sephirot] specifically. And because the luminance of the reshimu is that which was not impacted by the tzimtzum, therefore the keilim [in the realm of atzilut] are literally divine.5

On the one hand “the reshimu comes from the tzimtzum,” for it is the concealing function of tzimtzum that discloses G‑d’s finite capacity. On the other hand the reshimu is “not impacted by the tzimtzum.” The concealing, limiting, containing quality of the reshimu is inherent to the transcendent infinitude of G‑d. This quality is not a product of tzimtzum, nor is it concealed or changed by tzimtzum. But it is only disclosed when the tzimtzum pulls back the tide of infinite revelation and allows the divine keilim to emerge. Bringing the discussion back to the relationship between hokhmah and binah, R. Shmuel immediately continues:

It is accordingly understood concerning the cognitive grasp of binah, which is something, that the fundamental power of its cognitive grasp comes via the nothingness that makes it be; that is, via the nothingness of hokhmah.

R. Shmuel communicates all this with such understated brevity that it would be easy to miss the drama of this passage. In stating that “the luminance of the reshimu is … not impacted by the tzimtzum,” he elevates the concrete constrictions of the creative process to the same status that his great-grandfather, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, famously applied to the essential core of divine being: “In the luminary, that is the infinite Himself, tzimtzum does not apply.” R. Shmuel’s extension of this paradigm to the reshimu, which appears here and elsewhere in his writings, would not pass without controversy.6 But what is important at this point is to understand the significance of this extension, and its place in Hemshekh Vekakhah.

Of the essential luminary, R. Schneur Zalman went on to say, “on the contrary”—despite the cosmic tzimtzum—“it is in a state of revelation.” Yet he acknowledges that this revelation remains fundamentally intangible. It is axiomatic, but it has no dimension, no form by which it can be grasped and perceived. “For this reason even children know that G‑d is present, though they have no understanding or grasp of how G‑d is manifest or what G‑d is … nevertheless the luminary is found below as above.”7 But R. Shmuel explicitly casts the reshimu as the unmediated embodiment of this divine essentiality, as the transcendent nothingness that is immanently traced in the finite somethingness of the keilim. The axiomatic presence of the luminary is no longer ethereal. The very being of the luminary is now grasped in the concrete contours of finite reality, in the concealing keilim, in the points of withdrawal and effacement that give all the specifics of the created realm definition and shape. It is precisely in the elemental constraints of our experience that we can directly encounter the unveiled face of G‑d. Such is the transformative consciousness of hokhmah.

In identifying the reshimu with the luminous effacement of hokhmah, which has already been associated with the motif of the nequdah, R. Shmuel also lays the ideological foundation for a formulation that would be crystallized and elaborated by his son, R. Shalom DovBer, in Hemshekh Ayin Bet:

The essence of the point of the trace [etsem nequdat ha-reshimu] is literally the aspect of concealment. It is of the essence of the light that even transcends the aspect of revelation to the divine self [gilui le-atsmo], and beyond this it is literally of the aspect of the essential concealment… The essence of the point of the trace is of the aspect of the essential concealment of the infinite [helem ha-atsmi de’ain sof]…”8

This passage, and the particular locution “nequdat ha-reshimu” has been discussed extensively by Elliot R. Wolfson, who concludes that “the point of the trace… intones the secret of the supreme paradox, the incarnation of the infinite essence in finite nature, the appearance of the apparent through the veneer of the inapparent.” The conceptual and linguistic roots of this radical rendering of the ultimate significance of the reshimu are already present in Hemshekh Vekakhah Ha-gadol, albeit in more diffuse and cryptic form.9

Egotism, Folly, and the Everyday Practice of Messianic Madness

Hermeneutically, this discussion is linked to a verse foretelling the messianic era: “A spring shall go forth from the house of G‑d and water the valley of Shittim.”10 This last word is ostensibly the name of a place, but Midrashic sources link it to the word shtut, which means folly.11 R. Shmuel builds on this, equating the spring that issues from the house of G‑d with hokhmah. Its superrational quality of ascent and effacement heals the unholy folly that is fueled by excesses of self-confidence and self-interest. These egotistical traits plague terrestrial man, leading to competing extremes of superficiality, self-righteousness and anxiety—to the point that “one’s mind becomes confounded … and one is considered crazy, which is itself synonymous with folly, for the idiot and the fool are one and the same.”12

Folly, according to R. Shmuel, is not only the result of egotism, but also its cause. Moreover, the most learned of people are sometimes even more susceptible to the pitfalls of foolishness and egotism. Their intellectual gifts render them all the more likely to be lulled into a false sense of superiority, and their egotism is particularly degrading: “As the body of one who stumbles into the nethermost pit is lower than that of other people who stand or walk on the face of the earth, so the one who falls into egotism falls so utterly that they are far worse than any regular person …. The service of a learned scholar is with his faculties of hokhmah and binah, which correspond to [the first two letters of the tetragrammaton,] yud and hei … Though this [egotism] is in the yud and hei in the soul of man, the disfigurement caused by egotism disfigures the yud and hei above.” Egotism, in other words, is not merely a sin against man. Egotism is a sin against G‑d. Egotism is rooted in the foolish claim that your gifts and successes are your own, and in the foolish confidence that your intellect can easily encompass all there is to know. In truth, nothing is yours. All belongs to G‑d. And G‑d can only be grasped through effacement.13

The antidote to such unholy folly can only be the holy folly of hokhmah, which R. Shmuel likens to the madness of prophecy; self-consciousness and embarrassment is lost, effaced in the singular consciousness of G‑d. Beyond the ecstasy of prophecy, such madness must be applied in the concrete realm of the everyday: “As a crazy person who does one thing many many times and is not wearied at all, so a person must repeat his study, and constantly repeat. Though it appears to him that his already fluent, he nevertheless studies it again, and repeats it further. And in truth, with each additional iteration innovations are added, and further, he becomes more fluent, cleaving to the hokhmah of Torah, that it should become absorbed within him. This is true cleaving, without deception.”14

Even more radically, R. Shmuel explains, “we further find in hokhmah the power that through it, and with it, [all] that can be refined, even from utter evil, is subdued, weakened and refined.”15 As he puts it later: “Being that the luminosity of the nothingness of hokhmah is in the aspect of literal intimacy with the true being, before whom ‘as dark, as light,’ darkness being literally equal to light … [therefore] with the revelatory disclosure of the luminosity of hokhmah itself … the foolishness of that which is opposed to G‑d transforms itself to be like the foolishness of holiness.”16

In the earlier part of the hemshekh Shabbat was singled out as the day when the terrestrial world ascends into the sacred consciousness of hokhmah. The messianic era, accordingly, is liturgically described as “the day that is entirely Shabbat.”17 In the present context, this means that all of existence will ultimately become transparent to the true being of G‑d. R. Shmuel explicates this in a passage that plays 1) on the above liturgical formulation, 2) on the verse that is the hermeneutical touchstone of this discussion—“a spring shall go forth from the house of G‑d and water (ve-hish-qah) the valley of Shittim”—and 3) on the spirit of G‑d-intoxication that the motif of prophecy invokes:

With all of the above will be understood what I saw written in the hand of my father [the Tzemach Tzedek], what our master [R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi] said (at the circumcision of my brother, the gaon, R. Yehudah Leib) at the time when they drank liquor (mashqeh), ‘may it be G‑d’s will that we merit to drink when all shall be liquor’—for ostensibly [one might ask] what is the meaning of the intimation that ‘all will be liquor?’ But the intention refers to the future-to-come when the spring will go forth from the house of G‑d … for holiness will certainly be radiant, but even the valley of Shittim, which is now folly from which holiness has been shaken and emptied, will in the future-to-come be affluent with the affluence of divinity … Through the refining work of subjugation and transformation in Torah study and mitzvah observance … all will be refined, and battle with the evil inclination will no longer be required …” 18

Torah and mitzvot empower us to practice the nothingness of hokhmah within all the mundanities and struggles of terrestrial life. Practice must inevitably lead toward perfection; toward the perfect routinization of prophetic madness, every day.