Introduction
This section focuses on the questions: If G‑d is the source of all existence, what could possibly motivate Him to emotive activity? What could cause Him to be happy or angry, as it were?
It is explained that even though there is no change within G‑d’s Essence, G‑d, on His own initiative, has established a pattern within His light in which man’s conduct evokes a correspondent response.
— VIII —
With G‑d’s help, it was explained in the previous sections
אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּעֶזְרַת ה' בִּפְרָקִים הַקּוֹדְמִים
how the attributes and activities ascribed to G‑d in the Torah are true descriptions of His G‑dliness.
אֵיךְ שֶׁהַמִּדּוֹת וְהַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה עָלָיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ הֵם אֲמִתִּיִּים בֵּאלֹהוּתוֹ
But nevertheless, there is no change or activity within the Essence of His Being,
וְשֶׁאַף עַל פִּי כֵן בְּמַהוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ אֵין שִׁנּוּי וְהִתְפַּעֲלוּת כְּלָל
because these attributes and activities emanate through the medium of the tzimtzum, as explained.
כִּי נֶאֶצְלוּ עַל יְדֵי הַצִּמְצוּם כָּאָמוּר
On the basis of this understanding, the complaint of the philosophers – how can G‑d relate to a limited world, when He is simple, undefined, and unchanging – was resolved.
וְסָרָה תְּלוּנַת הַפִלְסוֹפִים,
Selections from Derech Mitzvosecha (SIE)
Derech Mitzvotecha dives into reasons behind mitzvot such as tzitzit, tefillin, prayer, belief in G-d, loving a fellow Jew, starting a family and many others. Five generations later, the author`s grandson and successor, the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, has often advised those seeking to begin study of Chasidic philosophy to study this fundamental work.
Nonetheless, there still remains one concept that requires explanation:
הִנֵּה עֲדַיִן חָל עָלֵינוּ חוֹבַת בֵּאוּר עִנְיָן אֶחָד בְּזֶה,
the question raised by the philosophers concerning the emotive activities and the attributes ascribed to Him.
וְהוּא כִּי קֻשְׁיַת הַפִלְסוֹפִים עַל עִנְיְנֵי הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת וְהַמִּדּוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ
They were hard-pressed concerning this issue for the reasons to be explained below,
עַד שֶׁלְּזֶה נִדְחֲקוּ
and explained that these terms were used only to negate the concept that G‑d lacked these qualities
לוֹמַר שֶׁהֵם רַק שׁוֹלְלִים
The philosophers postulated that by defining G‑d as wise, the intent is not to limit Him to being wise, but rather to state that He cannot be considered not wise, for that would also be a limitation. This process of logic is called yedias hashelilah, literally, “negative knowledge.” Implied is that – as opposed to concepts that are comprehensible directly, e.g., 2+2=4 – we are speaking about ideas that we cannot grasp directly, as in this case where He and the manner in which He knows are beyond our comprehension. Nevertheless, we are compelled logically to accept that the concept is true.
and that “the Torah speaks in the language of man,”
וְדִבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם
that mortal attributes were used to describe G‑d only because man has no other means available. Our minds cannot comprehend how G‑d exists and how He interacts with His created beings; we can only use language and terms that we can relate to.
as stated in section 7.
כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל פֶּרֶק ז',
Their difficulties focus on two points:
הִיא ב' דְבָרִים
a) The essence of the concept of emotive activity involves a change,
א' עַל עֶצֶם הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת שֶׁהִיא שִׁנּוּי
When a person is aroused to a feeling, there is a difference between his state before that arousal and afterwards.
and such change cannot be mentioned with regard to the Creator,
וְלֹא יִתָּכֵן לוֹמַר כֵּן בַּבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרֵךְ
for the two reasons for their statements mentioned in section 7;
מִשְּׁנֵי טְעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בְּדִבְרֵיהֶם כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל פֶּרֶק ז',
for a) a Creator cannot change and b) change would imply multiplicity – that there is G‑d as He exists before the change and as He exists afterwards.
b) Even if this question could somehow be resolved
ב' גַּם אִם נַנִּיחַ קֻשְׁיָא זוֹ
and it could be postulated that emotive activity would not involve a change in the Creator,
וְנֹאמַר שֶׁאֵין הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת גּוֹרֵם שִׁנּוּי,
The philosophers offered various resolutions to this question. As the Tzemach Tzedek stated in sec. 7 and explains in further detail below, according to Chassidus, this question is resolved through the kabbalistic concepts of or, “light,” and tzimtzum.
there is still a question:
עֲדַיִן קָשֶׁה
What could motivate this activity within G‑d?
כִּי מֵהֵיכָן יִהְיֶה הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת
With regard to a person, when there are entities that exist on his level,
שֶׁבִּשְׁלָמָא בָּאָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ זוּלָתוֹ דְּבַר מָה בְּעֶרְכּוֹ
he will be affected by them
יִתְפָּעֵל מִמֶּנּוּ
and show mercy to them or be angered by them.
וִירַחֵם עָלָיו אוֹ יִכְעַס עָלָיו
With regard to the Creator, by contrast,
אֲבָל בּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ
since there is no existence aside from Him,
שֶׁאֵין דָּבָר חוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ
who could cause Him to react with happiness or anger,
מִמִּי יִתְפָּעֵל בְּשִׂמְחָה אוֹ בְּכַעַס
since all existence stems from Him?
מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַכֹּל הוּא מִמֶּנּוּ,
Our emotions are responses to other people and/or situations that are significant enough to affect us. Most people do not show mercy to ants and insects, because they do not consider them significant. There cannot be another entity that is “significant” with regard to G‑d, for He is the Creator and far above the level of the created beings. What then could evoke emotive activity within Him?
Seemingly, the resolution of this second question has not been explained in our previous statements.
וְהִנֵּה קֻשְׁיָא זוֹ הַשְּׁנִיָּה לֹא נִתְבָּאֵר יִשּׁוּבָהּ לִכְאוֹרָה מִדְּבָרֵינוּ
True, it has been explained that G‑d’s activities and qualities represent G‑dly radiance that shines after the tzimtzum.
כִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל שֶׁהַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת וְהַמִּדּוֹת הֵם בִּבְחִינַת הֶאָרָה אֱלֹהִית שֶׁאַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם
Hence, there is no longer any difficulty presented by the first question
עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִקְשֶׁה עָלֵינוּ הַקֻּשְׁיָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה
– that He cannot change,
שֶׁלֹּא יִתָּכֵן לוֹמַר בּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ שִׁנּוּי
and were He to become angry at times and to rejoice at times, He would be undergoing change –
וְאִלּוּ הָיָה פְּעָמִים כּוֹעֵס וּפְעָמִים שָׂמֵחַ הָיָה מִשְׁתַּנֶּה
because within His Essence, in truth, there is no change.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת בּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ אֵינוֹ שִׁנּוּי
The happiness and the anger are drawn down from Him through a great tzimtzum
וְהַשִּׂמְחָה וְהַכַּעַס נִמְשְׁכוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בִּבְחִינַת צִמְצוּם רַב
and only from His radiance and light, and do not cause change within Him,
מִן הַזִּיו וְהָאוֹר שֶׁלּוֹ כוּ'
as explained above at length.
כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל בְּאֹרֶךְ,
Even with the resolution of that question, it is, however, difficult to understand:
אֲבָל עֲדַיִן קָשֶׁה
Why should He be aroused to emotive activity? I.e., who or what can arouse Him to activity?
לָמָּה יִתְפָּעֵל
The questions and explanations in this section focus primarily on the existence of the middos, G‑d’s emotive attributes, for the arousal of emotion necessitates a relationship with another entity that is significant enough to evoke such feelings. It is difficult to understand how there could be any entity that is significant with regard to G‑d.
To explain: It is necessary to say that both the happiness and the anger that exist after the tzimtzum are drawn down from Him,
כְּלוֹמַר הֲרֵי בְּהֶכְרֵחַ שֶׁגַּם הַשִּׂמְחָה וְהַכַּעַס שֶׁאַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם הֵם נִמְשָׁכִים מִמֶּנּוּ
As explained in sec. 7, the attributes are an expression of Him and He is the active agent that causes their expression.
and at every moment He contracts His infinite light and radiance
וּבְכָל רֶגַע הוּא מְצַמְצֵם אוֹרוֹ וְזִיווֹ הַבִּלְתִּי בַּעַל גְּבוּל
to be limited
לִהְיוֹת מִתְצַמְצֵם
and to express either happiness or anger.
לִהְיוֹת בִּבְחִינַת שִׂמְחָה אוֹ כַּעַס
If so, to whom will He react,
אִם כֵּן מִמִּי יִתְפָּעֵל
since there is no existence outside of Him?
מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָבָר שֶׁחוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ כוּ'.
Nevertheless, in truth, the resolution of this matter has also been explained and is understandable to a person who thinks thoroughly about the concepts explained above regarding the tzimtzum.
וְאָמְנָם בֶּאֱמֶת תְּשׁוּבַת דָּבָר זֶה גַם כֵּן נִתְבָּאֵר וּמוּבָן לְמַשְׂכִּיל הֵיטֵב בִּדְבָרִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְעֵיל בְּעִנְיַן הַצִּמְצוּם,
For, as we said, in His Essence, there is no activity at all.
וְהוּא כִּי כְּבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁבְּעַצְמוּתוֹ אֵין הִתְפַּעֲלוּת כְּלָל
He is not angered, nor does He rejoice,
וְאֵינוֹ לֹא כּוֹעֵס וְלֹא שָׂמֵחַ
because He is exalted and uplifted above all these qualities.
כִּי הוּא מִתְעַלֶּה וּמִתְרוֹמֵם עַל כָּל מִדּוֹת אֵלּוּ,
With regard to this level, it is written (Iyov 35:7): “If you acted righteously, what have you given Him?”
וּבְעֶרֶךְ זֶה נֶאֱמַר אִם צָדַקְתָּ מַה תִּתֶּן לוֹ (אִיּוֹב ל"ה ז')
and (ibid.: 6): “If your transgressions multiply, what have you done to Him?”
וְרַבּוּ פְשָׁעֶיךָ מַה תַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ (אִיּוֹב ל"ה ו')
I.e., G‑d’s Essence is, by nature, entirely above being affected by any and all acts, whether positive or negative, performed by mortals.1
On this level, neither our mitzvos, nor our transgressions are at all significant
שֶׁאֵין הַמִּצְוֹת וְהָעֲבֵרוֹת תּוֹפְסִים מָקוֹם כְּלָל
to cause His Essence to be affected by them.
לִהְיוֹת הוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ מִתְפָּעֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ מֵהֶם
The Tzemach Tzedek’s words should not be interpreted to mean that G‑d’s Essence does not relate to our conduct. Instead, the intent is that – in and of themselves – our deeds are not significant enough to affect Him. Nevertheless, as implied by the analogy the Tzemach Tzedek employs further on in the text, G‑d chooses that our deeds should affect Him.2
Indeed, on that level, the very concept of being aroused to emotive activity is not relevant.
גַּם בְּעֶרְכּוֹ לֹא יִתָּכֵן הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת,
The fact that G‑d derives happiness from the deeds of the righteous and becomes angered by the deeds of the wicked
וּמַה שֶּׁהוּא שָׂמֵחַ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים וְכוֹעֵס עַל הָרְשָׁעִים
does not mean that this involves His true Essence.
אֵין זֶה בַּאֲמִתַּת עַצְמוּתוֹ
Rather, these attributes emanate from His light through the tzimtzum
רַק שֶׁמַּאֲצִיל מִדּוֹת אֵלּוֹ מֵאוֹרוֹ עַל יְדֵי צִמְצוּם,
in order to endow the righteous and the wicked with influence as is appropriate.
כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁפִּיעַ עַל יָדָן לַצַּדִּיקִים וְלָרְשָׁעִים
The influence granted comes about as if it resulted from happiness and from anger.
כְּפִי הַמִּסְתָּעֵף מִן הַשִּׂמְחָה וּכְפִי הַמִּסְתָּעֵף מִן הַכַּעַס.
G‑d does not feel either happiness or anger. Nevertheless, He rewards or punishes man as if He would be motivated by such qualities. For example, if a person acts kindly, G‑d grants him kindness, for the person’s act is of the type that would evoke happiness on G‑d’s part, as it were.
Thus, this second question must be resolved in either of two ways, as will be explained.
וּמֵעַתָּה קֻשְׁיָא זוֹ הַשְּׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ נִמְלֶטֶת מִב' עִנְיָנִים
One could say that the intent of the question is:
שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְפָרְשָׁהּ אִם רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר קֻשְׁיָתְךָ כָּךְ,
How can G‑d be aroused to activity by the deeds of the righteous and the deeds of the wicked,
אֵיךְ יָכוֹל לְהִתְפָּעֵל מִמַּעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים וְהָרְשָׁעִים
reacting to one with happiness and to the other with anger,
לְזֶה בְּשִׂמְחָה וְעַל זֶה בְּכַעַס
since the created beings are of no significance at all with regard to His Essence,
מֵאַחַר שֶׁבְּעַצְמוּתוֹ אֵין הַנִּבְרָאִים תּוֹפְסִים מָקוֹם
and thus, from whom will He be aroused to activity?
וּמִמִּי יִתְפָּעֵל כוּ'
The resolution of this question is that
תְּשׁוּבָתְךָ בְּצִדְּךָ
in truth, before His Essence, the created beings are not significant at all
הִנֵּה בֶּאֱמֶת קַמֵּיהּ עַצְמוּתוֹ אֵין הַנִּבְרָאִים תּוֹפְסִים מָקוֹם כְּלָל
and their existence is entirely batel,
וּבְטֵלִים בִּמְצִיאוּת מַמָּשׁ
like the radiance of the sun in the orb of the sun
כְּזִיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ
which is not even worthy of being called by an independent name.
שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בְּשֵׁם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כְּלָל
All that is perceived is the orb of the sun; the radiance is not perceived as an independent entity at all,
as explained in Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 3.
כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְבָּאֵר בְּלִקּוּטֵי אֲמָרִים חֵלֶק ב' (פֶּרֶק ג'),
For in truth, He in His Essence is not affected by the actions of the created beings at all,
וְהִנֵּה בֶּאֱמֶת שֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְפָּעֵל מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם כְּלָל
as stated above in the interpretation of the verses: “If you acted righteously…,” and “If your transgressions multiply….”
וְכַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל בְּפֵרוּשׁ אִם צָדַקְתָּ וְרַבּוּ פְשָׁעֶיךָ כוּ'
Nevertheless, the ray of G‑dliness that shines from Him after the tzimtzum has descended to the level where it is affected by their actions, as explained above.
אֲבָל לְגַבֵּי הַהֶאָרָה אֱלֹהִית שֶׁהוּא מֵאִיר מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל
Although it is G‑dly,
הִנֵּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֱלֹהִית
because of the awesome tzimtzum that this ray has undergone,
לְגֹדֶל הַצִּמְצוּם הֶעָצוּם שֶׁהַהֶאָרָה הַזֹּאת
it is not comparable to the infinite light and radiance
אֵינָהּ מֵעֶרֶךְ הָאוֹר וְהַזִּיו הַבִּלְתִּי בַּעַל גְּבוּל
at all – not to any degree –
לֹא מִנֵּיהּ וְלֹא מִקְצָתֵיהּ
and is called a mere trace (reshimu), as explained in section 6.
וְנִקְרָא רְשִׁימוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל פֶּרֶק ו',
This radiance includes Ten Sefiros:
וְהֶאָרָה זוֹ הִיא בְּחִינַת י' סְפִירוֹת
ChaBaD , ChaGaT, etc.
חָכְמָה־בִּינָה־דַעַת חֶסֶד־גְּבוּרָה־תִּפְאֶרֶת כוּ'
It is possible that based on this limited level of knowledge, the knowledge that permeates the Sefiros of Atzilus,
יִתָּכֵן שֶׁעַל פִּי הַדַּעַת הַמְצֻמְצָם
(which is limited when compared to His Essence and His Being,)
(רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר לְגַבֵּי מַהוּתוֹ וְעַצְמוּתוֹ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִקְרָא מְצֻמְצָם)
there will be an actual arousal as a result of the deeds of the righteous and the wicked,
הַהוּא יִהְיֶה הִתְפַּעֲלוּת מַמָּשׁ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים וְהָרְשָׁעִים
to happiness and to anger as is appropriate.
עַל זֶה בְּשִׂמְחָה וְעַל זֶה בְּכַעַס
For with regard to the level of knowledge from which the arousal of sublime emotive activity stems,
כִּי בִּבְחִינַת דַּעַת זֶה שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ נִמְשָׁךְ הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת
the created beings are significant
הֵם תּוֹפְסִים אֵיזֶה מָקוֹם
to the extent that they will arouse objection, anger, or happiness according to their deeds.
עַד שֶׁכְּדַאי הֵם שֶׁתָּנוּחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הַקְּפֵידָא וְהַכַּעַס אוֹ הַשִּׂמְחָה כְּפִי מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם,
For the intellectual attributes of ChaBaD and the emotive attributes of ChaGaT
כִּי בְּחִינוֹת חָכְמָה־בִּינָה־דַעַת וּבְחִינוֹת מִדּוֹת חֶסֶד־גְּבוּרָה־תִּפְאֶרֶת אֵלּוּ
exist within the ray of G‑dliness that has already undergone tzimtzum
הֵם בְּהֶאָרָה אֱלֹהִית שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְצַמְצֵם
and, in truth, His infinite Essence and Being has already become hidden from them.
וְנִתְעַלֵּם מִמֶּנָּה מַהוּתוֹ וְעַצְמוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבִּלְתִּי בַּעַל גְּבוּל בֶּאֱמֶת,
As a result of the tzimtzum, the created beings appear as entities of significance and importance,
וּמִסִּבַּת הַצִּמְצוּם הַזֶּה נִרְאִים הַנִּבְרָאִים לְאֵיזוֹ יֵשׁ וְדָבָר
even though before Him, they are of no significance.3
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקַּמֵּיהּ הֵם כְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִין
For this lack of significance applies “before Him,” i.e., with regard to His Essence,
כִּי זֶהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דַּוְקָא
as the created beings are perceived by His knowledge before the tzimtzum.
כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא בִּידִיעָתוֹ שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַצִּמְצוּם
(The use of the term “knowledge” is merely an analogy,
(אָמְרֵנוּ שֵׁם יְדִיעָה לְשַׁכֵּךְ הָאֹזֶן
because at that level, there is no concept of knowledge as we understand it.)
כִּי אֵינוֹ בְּגֶדֶר מַדָּע)
The term “knowledge,” comprehending an entity objectively, is not appropriate at these sublime levels. For knowledge implies limitation, and at these levels there is no limitation at all.
Nevertheless, with regard to the ray that shines after the tzimtzum, by contrast,
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּבְחִינַת הֶאָרָה זוֹ שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם
it is possible to speak of being aroused to joy or to anger,
יִתָּכֵן הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת לְשִׂמְחָה אוֹ לְכַעַס
to Chessed or Gevurah,
לְחֶסֶד וּגְבוּרָה כוּ'
since the created beings are somewhat significant at this level because of the tzimtzum.
כִּי הַנִּבְרָאִים תּוֹפְסִים אֵיזֶה מָקוֹם מֵחֲמַת הַצִּמְצוּם,
For this is the purpose of the tzimtzum: to conceal the light and the vitality that radiates from the Ein Sof,
שֶׁזֶּה עִנְיָנוֹ לְהַעֲלִים הָאוֹר וְהַחַיּוּת מֵאֵין סוֹף בָּרוּךְ הוּא
so that the substance of the entity brought into existence will be seen as significant and a yesh,
לִהְיוֹת מַהוּת הַמִּתְהַוֶּה נִכָּר לְיֵשׁ וְדָבָר
as explained in Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah,(ch. 4,)
כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּלִקּוּטֵי אֲמָרִים שָׁם (פֶּרֶק ד')
in the interpretation of the verse (Tehillim 84:12): “For the sun and a shield are Havayah and Elokim.”
עַל פָּסוּק שֶׁמֶשׁ וּמָגֵן ה' אֱלֹקִים (תִּלִּים פ"ד י"ב)
There, however, the subject of the discussion is the tzimtzum from Atzilus to Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah
אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁם מְדַבֵּר בְּצִמְצוּם שֶׁמֵּאֲצִילוּת לִבְרִיאָה־יְצִירָה־עֲשִׂיָּה
to allow for limited created beings to come into existence.
לְהַוּוֹת נִבְרָאִים בַּעֲלֵי גְבוּל
Nevertheless, similar concepts also apply with regard to the first tzimtzum that brought about the empty cavity wherein the Ten Sefiros came into being.
וּכְמוֹ כֵן צִמְצוּם הָרִאשׁוֹן לִהְיוֹת חָלָל שֶׁיִּתְהַוּוּ י' סְפִירוֹת גַּם כֵּן מֵעֵין זֶה
That tzimtzum brought about concealment,
שֶׁצִּמְצוּם זֶה הַמַּעְלִים
making it possible for there to be an emotive arousal within the middos of Atzilus
עַד שֶׁיּוּכַל לִהְיוֹת חָל בְּחִינַת הִתְפַּעֲלוּת
as a result of an awakening from below, as explained above.
מֵאִתְעֲרוּתָא דִלְתַתָּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל.
As our Sages state,4 G‑d relates to the created beings in a manner described as “measure for measure,” for example, man’s arousal of kindness evokes G‑d’s kindness. Nevertheless, for such interaction to take place, a tzimtzum is necessary in order to limit G‑dliness to the extent that His attributes share a commonality with those of mortals and will respond to them.
One may look deeper and reinforce the question:
וְאִם תַּעֲמִיק עוֹד לְחַזֵּק קֻשְׁיָתְךָ,
How is it possible for there to be an arousal of emotional activity even within the Sefiros of Atzilus? Seemingly, just as G‑d’s Essence is transcendent and above being affected by the deeds of mortals, so too, the Sefiros of Atzilus are transcendent. True, the Sefiros are defined entities, while
It is postulated that His Essence is infinite and unchanging, never being aroused.
וְתֹאמַר הֲרֵי מִכָּל מָקוֹם הוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ עַצְמוֹ הַבִּלְתִּי בַּעַל גְּבוּל וּבִלְתִּי בַּעַל שִׁנּוּיִים וְהִתְפַּעֲלוּת,
He contracted His light in order to shine a limited ray from it
הוּא הַמְצַמְצֵם אוֹרוֹ לְהָאִיר מִמֶּנּוּ הֶאָרָה מְצֻמְצֶמֶת
to allow for an emotive arousal in response to the actions of the created beings.
שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִמֶּנָּה הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת,
Now, this limited ray clings to Him
וַהֲרֵי הֶאָרָה מְצֻמְצֶמֶת זוֹ אֲדוּקָה הִיא בּוֹ
and is being drawn down from Him at every moment.
וּמִמֶּנּוּ נִמְשֶׁכֶת בְּכָל רֶגַע,
How then is it possible that there be an emotive arousal within the ray as a result of the actions of the created beings,
אִם כֵּן אֵיךְ יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת,
since with regard to His Essence, all of the created beings are not significant at all?
מֵאַחַר שֶׁבְּעַצְמוּתוֹ אֵין זֶה תּוֹפֵס מָקוֹם כְּלָל,
He is the One Who caused Himself to undergo tzimtzum
וַהֲלֹא הוּא הַמְצַמְצֵם עַצְמוֹ
and He recognizes His Essence,
הוּא מַכִּיר עַצְמוּתוֹ
for it is revealed and known before Him that His Essence is unlimited.
שֶׁקַּמֵּיהּ גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ עַצְמוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבִּלְתִּי בַּעַל גְּבוּל,
If so, how is it possible for there to be emotive arousal within the limited ray
אִם כֵּן אֵיךְ יִהְיֶה הִתְפַּעֲלוּת בְּהֶאָרָה מְצֻמְצֶמֶת
whose tzimtzum He brought about within Himself?
שֶׁהוּא הוּא הַמְצַמְצֵם עַצְמוֹ,
The Tzemach Tzedek raises a difficulty, for the explanation that there is the possibility for emotive arousal within the realm of limitation established by the Sefiros is problematic. The difficulty stems from the fact that the sublime middos are extensions of His Essence. Hence, just as worldly existence is not significant with regard to His Essence, it should also not be significant with regard to the sublime middos.
The resolution of this question also becomes apparent when one takes a slightly deeper approach to the above concepts.
הִנֵּה הַתְּשׁוּבָה בְּזֶה גַם כֵּן גְּלוּיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר נַעֲמִיק מְעַט יוֹתֵר בִּדְבָרִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְעֵיל
Initially, I will offer an analogy in material terms
וְטֶרֶם כֹּל אַצִּיעָה לְפָנֶיךָ מָשָׁל גַּשְׁמִי
that will clarify the question and its ultimate resolution.
אֲשֶׁר מִמֶּנּוּ יִתְבָּאֵר הַקֻּשְׁיָא יוֹתֵר וּתְשׁוּבָתוֹ בְּצִדּוֹ,
The analogy involves a father who desires to train his one-year-old son,
וְהוּא כְּמוֹ הָאָב הַמַּדְרִיךְ בְּנוֹ קָטָן בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ,
to improve him in a particular matter,
לְהוֹעִילוֹ בְּאֵיזֶה עִנְיָן
e.g., to teach him to walk or talk.
כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּלַמְּדוֹ לֵילֵךְ אוֹ לְדַבֵּר
When the child carries out his father’s will, the father shows him a smiling countenance,
וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ בַּעֲשׂוֹתוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ פָּנִים שׂוֹחֲקוֹת
satisfies his desires, and gives him nuts and the like, to reinforce the son’s positive behavior.
וּמְמַלֵּא מִשְׁאֲלוֹתָיו וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ אֱגוֹזִים וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא
Conversely, if the son violates his father’s will, the father shows him an angry countenance and withholds the things that the son desires from him.
וּבְעָבְרוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ מַרְאֶה לוֹ פָּנִים זוֹעֲפוֹת וּמוֹנֵעַ מִשְׁאֲלוֹתָיו הַלָּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ,
Now, in truth, the father is aware that because of the son’s limited intellectual capacity, the son is not on a level
וּבֶאֱמֶת בְּדַעַת הָאָב עַצְמוֹ גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין הַבֵּן לְמִעוּט הַשְׂכָּלָתוֹ בְּעֶרֶךְ
that the father would be emotionally aroused to such an extent by the son’s actions.
שֶׁיָּחוּל שֵׁם הִתְפַּעֲלוּת אֵלָיו
Nothing his son does is really significant enough for him to be aroused. Of course, the father loves his son and cares about him, but the son’s acts in and of themselves are not important to the father. Certainly, those acts mean a lot to the father but not because of the acts themselves, but because it is his son who performed them. For example, when his son takes his first steps, those steps do not benefit the father.
Nevertheless, the reason he shows him these responses
אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה מַרְאֶה לוֹ כֵּן
is only so that the son will be reinforced to adopt these behaviors, as explained above.
רַק כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְחַזֵּק הַבֵּן בָּעִנְיָן הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל
When the son sees his father’s reaction and encouragement, the son will be motivated to continue this course of conduct.
The father shows emotions to the child in the manner that is appropriate to respond to the child’s conduct and acts as if he is affected by his conduct in a manner befitting the child’s limited understanding.
וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ אֵיךְ שֶׁרָאוּי לְהִתְפָּעֵל מִמֶּנּוּ עַל פִּי שֵׂכֶל הַמְצֻמְצָם כָּמֹהוּ וְשֶׁמִּתְפָּעֵל בְּזֶה,
The actions the child performs are not, in and of themselves, on a level sufficient to arouse such an emotional response on the part of the father. Nevertheless, out of his love for his child, the father goes beyond his ordinary pattern and involves himself with his child on his child’s level in order to train him.
The analogue to the above can be understood in the spiritual realms.
וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה יוּבַן לְמַעְלָה
In truth, in relation to G‑d’s Essence, the created beings are not significant
שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת בְּעַצְמוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ אֵין הַנִּבְרָאִים תּוֹפְסִים מָקוֹם כְּלָל
and are not worthy of generating an emotive arousal,
שֶׁיָּחוּל עֲלֵיהֶם שֵׁם הִתְפַּעֲלוּת
for all existence is actually considered as nothingness and void before Him.
דִּכְלָא וּכְאַיִן וְאֶפֶס מַמָּשׁ חֲשִׁיבִין
How is it possible that something that does not exist generate emotive arousal?
וְאֵיךְ יִהְיֶה הִתְפַּעֲלוּת עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ
And it is said: There is no existence aside from Him,
וּכְאָמְרָם אֵין לְךָ דָבָר שֶׁחוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ
as it is written (I Divrei HaYamim 29:14): “Everything is from You.”
כִּי מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל (דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים א' כ"ט י"ד),
Nevertheless, He hides His great light
אַךְ שֶׁמַּעֲלִים אוֹרוֹ הַגָּדוֹל
and reveals only a trace of it
וּמְגַלֶּה רְשִׁימוּ בִּלְבָד
which brings into being a framework of limited knowledge
שֶׁהוּא עִנְיַן דַּעַת הַמְצֻמְצָם
from which an emotive arousal can be drawn down in response to the created beings.
עַד שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת נִמְשָׁךְ הִתְפַּעֲלוּת עַל הַנִּבְרָאִים,
The Tzemach Tzedek has thus resolved the first aspect of the question raised above. For in truth, the actions of the created beings are not, in and of themselves, significant enough to generate emotive arousal on G‑d’s part. That is possible only because G‑d chose, as it were, to enable them to generate such an arousal.
If so, however, a further question can be raised:
וְאִם כֵּן תִּקְשֶׁה וְתֹאמַר
In the analogy, the limited intellectual parameters of the interaction and the emotional arousal that the father shows to the son have no genuine existence at all.
כְּמוֹ שֶׁבַּמָּשָׁל אֵין לְדַעַת הַמְצֻמְצָם וְהַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת שֶׁהָאָב מַרְאֶה לִבְנוֹ מְצִיאוּת כְּלָל,
For the father is not truly emotionally aroused,
שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הָאָב מִתְפָּעֵל בֶּאֱמֶת
since he is conscious of his own adult level of understanding,
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקַּמֵּיהּ גָּלוּי דַּעְתּוֹ הָרְחָבָה
and the son’s actions are not on the level to have generated such an arousal in an adult. Thus, the father is really just acting out those emotions. They do not really exist.
שֶׁאֵין הַבֵּן בְּעֶרֶךְ שֶׁיָּחוּל עָלָיו הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת
It is merely that to the son, it appears that the father is emotionally aroused.
אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לְהַבֵּן כְּאִלּוּ מִתְפָּעֵל,
Similarly, it could be said that in the spiritual realms,
וְתֹאמַר שֶׁכְּמוֹ כֵן לְמַעְלָה
the Sefiros which are the emotive qualities, the seven middos, do not truly exist;
אֵין לְהַסְּפִירוֹת שֶׁהֵם הַמִּדּוֹת הַנִּזְכָּרוֹת לְעֵיל מְצִיאוּת כְּלָל
On a deeper level, this also applies with regard to the Sefiros of ChaBaD, G‑d’s intellectual attributes.
it only appears to us that they do.
אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּרְאֶה אֵלֵינוּ כֵּן,
The Tzemach Tzedek is stating that, apparently, since the limited framework of existence of Atzilus has no genuine existence in and of itself – i.e., it exists only because G‑d chose to make it – it cannot be considered as true being.
This, however, is not true,
אָמְנָם הָעִנְיָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֵן
for His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.5
מִפְּנֵי כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵינוּ וְלֹא דְרָכָיו דְּרָכֵינוּ
When a person uses his imagination and thinks about bringing a particular entity into being,
שֶׁכַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַמֶּה הָאָדָם בְּשִׂכְלוֹ לְהַוּוֹת אֵיזוֹ מְצִיאוּת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה
his thought will have no effect
הִנֵּה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ לֹא תַפְעִיל
and the thought will be as if it had never existed
וְהָיָה כְּלֹא הָיָה
unless he acts
עַד יִפְעַל
and brings about a deed through the medium of action.
וְיֵצֵא לְפֹעַל עַל יְדֵי כְּלִי הַמַּעֲשֶׂה
This is not true with regard to G‑d’s thoughts.
וְאֵין כֵּן מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ
When it arises in His will and thought to bring into being and emanate a framework of existence,
כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר עוֹלֶה בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ לְהַוּוֹת וּלְהַאֲצִיל
His thought alone is sufficient to bring about this emanation and cause its existence.
הֲרֵי דַי כֹּחַ מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְהַוּוֹת וּלְהִפָּעֵל הָאֲצִילוּת הַלָּז,
Thus, when His thought construed the contraction of His light
וְנִמְצָא כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר שִׁעֲרָה דַעְתּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְצַמְצֵם אוֹרוֹ
so that it would shine in the mode of tzimtzum
וּלְהָאִיר בִּבְחִינַת צִמְצוּם
until the Sefiros of ChaBaD would be brought into existence
עַד לִהְיוֹת מִזֶּה בְּחִינַת חָכְמָה־בִּינָה־דַעַת
– thus allowing for the arousal of the emotive qualities mentioned above –
וְהִתְפַּעֲלוּת הַמִּדּוֹת כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל
in truth, this actually takes place;
הִנֵּה בֶּאֱמֶת הָיָה כֵן
i.e., this framework of being is brought into existence
וְנִתְהַוּוּ מְצִיאוּת הַלָּז
and the existence of the Sefiros is genuine.
וְהָיָה לָהֶם מְצִיאוּת
In this respect, the analogy of the father’s relationship to his son is not appropriate for the analogue.
וּבְעֶרֶךְ זֶה אֵין הַמָּשָׁל הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל מֵהָאָב לַבֵּן דּוֹמֶה לַנִּמְשָׁל
For in the analogy, the limitation on the father’s part – the feelings which he lowers himself to show in response to his son’s conduct – does not really exist at all,
שֶׁבַּמָּשָׁל אֵין לְהַצִּמְצוּם מְצִיאוּת כְּלָל
because a person’s mind does not have the potential to bring anything into existence.
כִּי אֵין בִּיכֹלֶת שֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם לְהַוּוֹת דְּבַר מָה
Man’s thoughts and desires remain on the level of thought, and unless they are brought down to speech and action, they will never produce anything tangible.
This is not true in the spiritual realms,
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן לְמַעְלָה
for His thoughts are not our thoughts, as mentioned above.
כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵינוּ כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל,
G‑d’s thought and desire, by contrast, bring about actual existence. True, it is existence on a refined level, above our material world, but it does exist.
Thus, the question raised by the analogy is resolved, because an analogue to the realm of emotion brought about by the father’s choice does in fact exist Above. As a result of this emotive activity, the middos of Atzilus came into being.
Behold, through the medium of the light that comes after the tzimtzum,
וְהִנֵּה עַל פִּי בְּחִינַת אוֹר שֶׁבָּא לְאַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם
all the types of influence are drawn down into the world,
הוּא שֶׁבָּא וְנִמְשָׁךְ כָּל הַהַשְׁפָּעוֹת בְּהָעוֹלָמוֹת
as the hymn Pasach Eliyahu states:6
וּכְמַאֲמַר אֵלִיָּהוּ
“…to direct hidden realms that are not revealed, and revealed realms.”
לְאַנְהָגָא בְהוֹן עָלְמִין סְתִימִין דְּלָא אִתְגַּלְיָן וְעָלְמִין דְּאִתְגַּלְיָן
After the above explanation, the above question, “What brings about arousal within G‑d?” is no longer difficult.
וְשׁוּב לֹא יִקְשֶׁה הַקֻּשְׁיָא הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל מִפְּנֵי מָה יִתְפָּעֵל
For the worlds are being controlled by the ray of Divine light that exists after the tzimtzum,
כִּי הַהַנְהָגָה הִיא עַל יְדֵי הַהֶאָרָה שֶׁאַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם
and on that level, it is appropriate and possible for there to be emotive arousal in reaction to an awakening from below, as mentioned above.
וְשָׁם רָאוּי וְיִתָּכֵן לִהְיוֹת הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת מֵאִתְעֲרוּתָא דִלְתַתָּא כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל.
Our statement that the limited realm of existence brought about by the tzimtzum exists,
וּמַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהַצִּמְצוּם יֵשׁ לוֹ מְצִיאוּת
does not present a difficulty when considered in light of the statement: “Everything is considered as nothing before Him,”
לֹא קָשֶׁה לְעִנְיַן הַמַּאֲמָר דְּכֹלָּא קַמֵּיהּ כְּלָא חֲשִׁיב
which implies that everything is nothingness and void.
דְּמַשְׁמַע שֶׁהוּא כְּאַיִן וְאֶפֶס מַמָּשׁ
For, as explained in Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 6,
וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּלִקּוּטֵי אֲמָרִים חֵלֶק ב' (פֶּרֶק ו')
the intent is not that there is no existence whatsoever.
כִּי אֵין הַכַּוָּנָה בְּפֵרוּשׁ כְּלָא שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם מְצִיאוּת כְּלָל
Were that to be the case, it would have been stated: “Everything is considered nothing” without using a כ (“as”) which denotes comparison.
דְּזֶהוּ לָא מַמָּשׁ וְלֹא כְּלָא בְּכָ"ף הַדִּמְיוֹן
Such a state existed before the creation of the world, but not after Creation.
וְזֶה הָיָה קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם
Moreover, we are forced to say that there is some type of existence,
וְעוֹד
for the statement: “Everything is considered as nothing before Him,” refers to our material world,
דְּהָא פֵּרוּשׁ כֹּלָּא קַמֵּיהּ כְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִין קָאֵי עַל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה הַגַּשְׁמִי
and we see that the world does exist. The world contains inanimate objects, plants, animals, humans, stones, houses, and earth, etc.
וַהֲרֵי אָנוּ רוֹאִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ דּוֹמֵם צוֹמֵחַ חַי וּמְדַבֵּר אֲבָנִים וּבָתִּים וְעָפָר כוּ'
How could it be said that it does not exist at all?
וְאֵיךְ הוּא לָא מַמָּשׁ,
Instead, the intent of the expression “is as nothing”
אֶלָּא פֵּרוּשׁ כְּלָא
is that the world does not have an independent identity,
הַיְנוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בְּשֵׁם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ
just as the radiance of the sun has no independent identity at all when it is in the orb of the sun.
כְּזִיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּגוּף הַכַּדּוּר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בְּשֵׁם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כְּלָל
There, the radiance does not appear as a distinct entity,
לְהִתְרָאוֹת לְיֵשׁ
as it appears to our eyes in this world which is outside the orb of the sun.
כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה לְעֵינֵינוּ בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם כַּדּוּר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ
When the radiance is within the sun, all that is seen is the orb of the sun,
אֶלָּא שָׁם לֹא נִרְאֶה רַק כַּדּוּר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ
because the existence of the radiance is entirely nullified.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַזִּיו בָּטֵל בִּמְצִיאוּת,
The intent is not that the radiance does not exist there at all.
וְאֵין הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִמְצָא שָׁם כְּלָל
This is not true, for the light certainly exists in the sun’s orb. Were it not to exist there, it could not come into existence outside the sun.
שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ כִּי וַדַּאי נִמְצָא שָׁם
Indeed, the light exists there more powerfully than it does elsewhere,
בְּיֶתֶר שְׂאֵת
but its existence is batel.
אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּטֵל
These lines give us an understanding of the term batel (בטל), one of the more frequently used terms in Chabad Chassidus. To explain by illustrating the use of the concept in halachah (Jewish Law): Our Sages (Sukkah 3b-4a) speak of a sukkah that is more than 20 cubits high and therefore unacceptable. If one seeks to reduce the height of the sukkah by placing straw on its floor, the sukkah is acceptable, provided one makes the straw batel, i.e., one must intend to leave the straw there permanently. Although the straw previously existed as an independent entity, its individual identity has been subsumed and it is now part of the sukkah, a greater, more encompassing entity.
The same concept applies with regard to the light of the sun being batel within the orb of the sun. The concept is not that the light is nullified and ceases to exist, but rather that it no longer exists independently and has taken on a new and higher identity. On this level, it can be seen as part of the orb of the sun. The classic analogy given for this is a candle that is included in a torch. It continues to shine. Nevertheless, its light is no longer its own individual light, but the light of the torch.
Similar concepts apply with regard to G‑d’s light being included in its Source and becoming batel. The intent is not that the light ceases to exist, but rather it is not perceived as an independent entity. It is subsumed within its Source and only the Source is perceived. Indeed, the oneness of the light with its source is more pronounced than the halachic parallel cited with regard to a sukkah, for G‑d’s light was never a distinct entity in its own right, while the objects that become batel to the sukkah were.
This is what is meant by “as nothing.”
וְזֶהוּ פֵּרוּשׁ כְּלָא,
Similarly, with regard to the worlds as they exist after Creation:
שֶׁכְּמוֹ כֵן הֵם עִנְיַן כָּל הָעוֹלָמוֹת לְאַחַר בְּרִיאָתָם
they do exist,
שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם מְצִיאוּת
but before Him they are as nothing,
אֶלָּא שֶׁקַּמֵּיהּ הוּא כְּלָא
like the nullification of the radiance of the sun in the orb of the sun described above.
כְּבִטּוּל הַזִּיו כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל
It is not that they do not exist at all.
וְלֹא לָא מַמָּשׁ
This is sufficient for a person of understanding.
וְדַי לַמֵּבִין:
Thus, the second question raised at the beginning of this section has been resolved in one way, as we explained it.
וְהִנֵּה נִתְבָּאֵר יִשּׁוּב קֻשְׁיָא הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּפַן הָאֶחָד שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ אוֹתָהּ
The question was: How can there be an arousal of emotive activity on G‑d’s part?
וְהוּא אֵיךְ יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת
What can bring about arousal within G‑d, for there is no existence outside of Him?
שֶׁמִּמִּי יִתְפָּעֵל
And it has been explained that there is the possibility for such an arousal,because we are speaking about the G‑dly light that shines after the tzimtzum.
כִּי יָכוֹל וְיָכוֹל הוּא.
There is, however, another manner in which this question can be resolved.
וַעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ מָקוֹם לְפָרֵשׁ הַקֻּשְׁיָא זוֹ בְּפַן אַחֵר
As a preface, one could ask: Why is it necessary for Him to undergo tzimtzum and as a result be aroused by the deeds of the created beings?
וְהוּא כִּי לָמָּה יִהְיֶה מְצַמְצֵם עַצְמוֹ לְהִתְפָּעֵל
Seemingly, it would have been preferable for Him to control the world through His great light
וַהֲטוֹב טוֹב הָיָה אִם הָיָה מַנְהִיג הָעוֹלָם עַל יְדֵי אוֹרוֹ הַגָּדוֹל
that transcends the limited ray enclothed in the worlds.
שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהֶאָרָה מְצֻמְצֶמֶת
In this way, He could be generous to all.
לְהֵטִיב לַכֹּל,
This, in truth, is not a question at all.
אַךְ בֶּאֱמֶת אֵין מִזֶּה קֻשְׁיָא כְּלָל
For we have already explained in section 6
כִּי כְּבָר הִקְדַּמְנוּ לְעֵיל פֶּרֶק ו'
that without His light undergoing tzimtzum, the worlds would not be able to come into existence in the limited state they are at present.
שֶׁאִם לֹא הַצִּמְצוּם לֹא הָיוּ מִתְהַוִּים כְּלָל הָעוֹלָמוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵם בַּעֲלֵי גְבוּל
Now, just as the tzimtzum is necessary to bring them into being,
וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהַצִּמְצוּם מֻכְרָח לְצֹרֶךְ הִתְהַוּוּתָם
so, too, the tzimtzum is necessary to enable G‑d’s light to control these worlds.
כָּךְ לְצֹרֶךְ הַהַנְהָגָה בּוֹ,
For if the light that exists above the tzimtzum were revealed, the worlds could not exist in their present state.
Moreover, if the tzimtzum did not exist, the Jewish people would not reach their ultimate purpose and reward
וְעוֹד שֶׁאִם לֹא כֵן לֹא הָיוּ מַגִּיעִים לְהַתַּכְלִית וְקַבָּלַת הַגְּמוּל
through their involvement with the Torah and its mitzvos,
עַל יְדֵי עִסְקָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת
for there would be no punishment at all.
מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה עֹנֶשׁ כְּלָל
As the Zohar Vol. III, Parshas Korach, p. 178b, states:
וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּזֹּהַר פָּרָשַׁת קֹרַח דַּף קע"ח ב'
“ ‘He’7 – this is Atik.
הוּא דָּא עַתִּיקָא
Were there no judgment in the world,
אִלְמָלֵא דִינָא לָא אִשְׁתְּכַח בְּעָלְמָא
Judgment is identified with tzimtzum, for judgment requires focusing one’s attention on the issue at hand and rendering a decision that is commensurate with the positive and negative factors involved.
men would not know the higher level of faith,
לָא הֲווּ יָדְעֵי בְּנֵי נָשָׁא מְהֵימְנוּתָא עִלָּאָה
nor would they labor in Torah study or observe the precepts of the Torah.”
וְלָא יִשְׁתַּדְּלוּן בְּאוֹרַיְתָא וְלָא יְקַיְּמוּן פִּקּוּדֵי אוֹרַיְתָא,
Similarly, on the verse:8 “And G‑d saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good,” our Sages (Bereishis Rabbah 9:10) comment: “ ‘Good,’ this refers to the Angel of Life. ‘Very good,’ this refers to the Angel of Death.”
וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה אָמְרוּ רַזַ"ל טוֹב זֶה מַלְאַךְ חַיִּים מְאֹד זֶה מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה פָּרָשָׁה ט' עַיֵּן שָׁם)
The Angel of Death is also identified with the concepts of judgment and limitation (see the other interpretations offered by our Sages in that chapter of the Midrash). Our Sages were implying that as a result of the challenges and judgment that exist in the world, man can achieve the ultimate good.
These concepts are well known, and it is unnecessary to elaborate on the words of our Sages that are of public renown.
וּכְיָדוּעַ וְאֵין לְהַאֲרִיךְ בִּדְבָרִים הַגְּלוּיִם וִידוּעִים בְּדִבְרֵי רַזַ"ל:
Based on the above, we can thoroughly understand the words of the Midrash:
וְהִנֵּה עַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל יוּבַן הֵיטֵב הַמִּדְרָשׁ
“The attribute of Truth said: ‘Do not create the world,9 for it is full of falsehoods.’ The attribute of Kindness said: ‘Create, because it is full of kindness.’ ”10
אֱמֶת אָמַר אַל יִבְרָא שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ מָלֵא שְׁקָרִים חֶסֶד אוֹמֵר יִבְרָא שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ מָלֵא חֲסָדִים
This is what is implied by the verse:11 “The world was created through kindness” (Bereishis Rabbah 8:5; consult that source).
הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה פָּרָשָׁה ח' עַיֵּן שָׁם),
Explanation is necessary: Is Kindness, which is one of G‑d’s attributes, not true?
וְצָרִיךְ לְהָבִין וְכִי הַחֶסֶד שֶׁהוּא מִמִּדּוֹתָיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ אֵינוֹ אֱמֶת
Surely it would not say the opposite of truth!
וְלֹא יֹאמַר הִפּוּךְ מִן הָאֱמֶת,
Conversely, explanation is also necessary with regard to the attribute of Truth which is one of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy. What is its nature?
וְכֵן צָרִיךְ לְהָבִין עִנְיַן מִדַּת אֱמֶת שֶׁבְּי"ג מִדּוֹת הָרַחֲמִים מָה עִנְיָנָהּ
For if truth opposes kindness, how can truth be one of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy?
And are the other Attributes of Mercy not true, Heaven forbid?
וְכִי כּוּלְהוּ אֵינָן אֲמִתִּיִּים חַס וְשָׁלוֹם,
The concept can, however, be explained as follows:
אַךְ הָעִנְיָן
It is elaborated upon in sacred texts,
כִּי כְּבָר הֶאֱרִיכוּ בִּסְפָרִים
that the adjective “true” can only be applied to G‑d,
שֶׁפֵּרוּשׁ מִלַּת אֱמֶת לֹא יֵאָמֵר אֶלָּא עָלָיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְבָד
as it is written (Yirmeyahu 10:10): “G‑d the L‑rd is true,”
כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב וַה' אֱלֹקִים אֱמֶת (יִרְמְיָה י' י')
because He is mechuyav hametzius,12
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ מְחֻיָּב הַמְּצִיאוּת
i.e., His existence comes from His own Essence
שֶׁמְּצִיאוּתוֹ מֵעַצְמוּתוֹ
and He is past, present, and future.
וְהָיָה הֹוֶה וְיִהְיֶה
All of the other entities that exist, by contrast,
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּכָל הַנִּמְצָאִים
do not exist by virtue of their own selves, for they were brought into existence out of nothingness by G‑d.
שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם מְצִיאוּת מִצַּד עַצְמָן
Instead, their existence is dependent on Him,
אֶלָּא מְצִיאוּתָם תָּלוּי בּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ
See Rambam,13 who writes: “The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought all existence into being. All the entities in the heavens, the earth… came into existence solely from the truth of His being.”
i.e., on the vitality that shines forth and endows them with influence.
דְּהַיְנוּ עַל יְדֵי הַחַיּוּת שֶׁמֵּאִיר וּמַשְׁפִּיעַ בָּהֶם
This enables their existence to continue.
מִזֶּה הֵם קַיָּמִים
If so, their being as it appears to us is not true at all.
אִם כֵּן אֵין מַהוּתָם הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלֵינוּ אֲמִתִּי כְּלָל
What is fundamentally important, i.e., the truth of their existence, is the life-energy that brings them into being.
וְהָעִקָּר הוּא הַחַיּוּת הַמְהַוָּה אוֹתוֹ,
According to what was explained above, the attribute of Truth refers to G‑d’s perspective, how He looks at the world, as it were, i.e., a rung above the tzimtzum,
וּלְפִי מַה שֶּׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל הִנֵּה בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא קַמֵּיהּ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לִפְנֵי הַצִּמְצוּם
at which level all existence is as of no significance.
דְּכֹלָּא כְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִין
Therefore, this attribute said not to create, for the world is full of falsehood.
וְלָכֵן אָמַר אַל יִבְרָא שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ מָלֵא שְׁקָרִים
For the world appears as a yesh and a significant entity,
שֶׁהָעוֹלָם נִרְאֶה לְיֵשׁ וְדָבָר
and in truth, that is falsehood, as mentioned above.
וּבֶאֱמֶת שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁקֶר כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל
The attribute of Kindness, however, exists after the tzimtzum,
אַךְ מִדַּת הַחֶסֶד הִיא אַחַר הַצִּמְצוּם
on which level it is possible that there be an arousal of G‑d’s attributes as mentioned above.
שֶׁאָז הוּא שֶׁיִּתָּכֵן הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל
Kindness said that the world is full of kindness,
אָמַר שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ מָלֵא חֲסָדִים
emphasizing the positive dimension of man’s actions, because, on this level, an awakening from below is, in fact, significant.
כִּי הָאִתְעֲרוּתָא דִלְתַתָּא תּוֹפֵס אֵיזֶה מָקוֹם כוּ'
Similarly, the attribute of Truth in the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy
וְכֵן הוּא עִנְיַן אֱמֶת שֶׁבְּי"ג מִדּוֹת
refers to the two mounds of the cheeks,
שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת תְּרֵין תַּפּוּחִין שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵי לְחָיַיִם
a place where there is no hair.14
שֶׁהוּא מָקוֹם פָּנוּי מִשְּׂעָרוֹת
This refers to a revelation of the Ein Sof that is above the tzimtzumim
וְהוּא בְּחִינַת גִּלּוּי הָאֵין סוֹף שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּמְצוּמִים
that are alluded to by the mystic secret of hair.15
שֶׁזֶּה סוֹד הַשְּׂעָרוֹת
The other Twelve Attributes, by contrast, are associated with hairs,
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן י"ב מִדּוֹת הַנִּשְׁאָרִים הֵם מִבְּחִינַת שְׂעָרוֹת
i.e., tzimtzumim,
שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת הַצִּמְצוּמִים
to allow for kindness and mercy,
לִהְיוֹת חֶסֶד וְרַחוּם כוּ'
as explained at length in another source16
וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר בְּאֹרֶךְ
on the verse (Bamidbar 33:1-2): “These are the journeys of the Children of Israel…. And Moshe wrote….”
עַל פָּסוּק אֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כוּ' וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה כוּ' (בַּמִּדְבָּר ל"ג א' ב')
Consult that source.
יְעֻיַּן שָׁם:
Synopsis
In this section, the Tzemach Tzedek focuses on a further difficulty raised by the philosophers: Even after it has been explained that the emotive activity described in the Torah does not involve any change in G‑d’s Essence, a question still remains: If everything comes from G‑d, what could possibly motivate Him to emotive activity? What could cause Him to be happy or angry?
People respond emotionally when affected by other persons to whom they relate. Their feelings are aroused by situations around them. Can such statements be made about G‑d? Nothing exists outside of Him. Who or what then could possibly call forth an emotive response from Him?
In resolution it can be explained as follows: In His Essence, there is no activity at all. He is not angered nor does He rejoice. Instead, He is exalted far above all these qualities. On this level, neither our mitzvos nor our transgressions are significant at all: they do not cause Him to be affected by them and there is no concept of emotive arousal.
Nevertheless, the ray of G‑dliness that shines from Him after the tzimtzum has descended to the level where it is affected by man’s actions. Since the Sefiros come into being as a result of an awesome tzimtzum, it is possible that the deeds of the righteous and the wicked will elicit happiness and anger respectively. For on this lower level of G‑dliness, the created beings are significant.
Nevertheless, this explanation is problematic. For the Sefiros were not created as independent beings as were the other elements of Creation. They are emanations from His Essence and still united with it. Hence, just as mortal conduct creates no emotive response in His Essence, one might think that it would not generate emotive response within the Sefiros as well.
The Tzemach Tzedek resolves this difficulty with an analogy of a father who desires to train his small child to act in a given manner and offers positive or negative reinforcement by showing different emotions in response to his child’s conduct. Now, the father is not really angry or happy during this process, he is only using these responses for the son’s benefit so that he will learn to perform the particular task.
Similarly, in the analogue, the created beings are of no significance in relation to G‑d’s Essence. Nevertheless, He chooses to involve Himself with them and respond to their conduct.
The Tzemach Tzedek also raises the question: Why is it necessary for Him to undergo tzimtzum in order to be aroused by the deeds of the created beings? Seemingly, it would have been preferable for Him to control His world through His great light that transcends the limited ray enclothed in the worlds.
In resolution the Tzemach Tzedek states that, as explained in section 6, without His light undergoing tzimtzum, the worlds would not be able to come into existence in the limited state they are now. And just as the tzimtzum is necessary to bring them into being, so, too, it is necessary to maintain their existence.
This creates a commonality between G‑d and limited existence, enabling Him to unite with the internal dimension of the created beings.