In the previous chapter, the Rebbe Rashab emphasized how difference need not lead to division. Instead, the development of each entity’s particular qualities can enable the realization of a more complete and integrated whole.
As he emphasizes in the lines that follow, this is the result of the quality of bittul. By contrast, the sitra achra, the realm of evil, is characterized by yeshus, self-concern. This leads to separation and, ultimately, strife.
וְהִנֵּה כָּל זֶה הוּא בְּסִטְרָא דִקְדֻשָּׁה
All the above — i.e., unity and ability to interrelate — applies in the realm of holiness,
שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בְּחִינַת הַבִּטּוּל
which is characterized by bittul.
וְהוּא סִבַּת הַהִתְאַחְדּוּת וְהַהִתְכַּלְלוּת כוּ'.
Bittul brings about the unification and synthesis that characterizes this realm.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּסִטְרָא אָחֳרָא
By contrast, the sitra achra, the Kabbalistic term for the realm of evil,
שֶׁהֵם בִּבְחִינַת הַפֵּרוּד לְגַמְרֵי
is characterized by utter separation
וְהַיְנוּ מִצַּד הַיֵּשׁוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם כוּ'.
that stems from its yeshus.
(דְּזֶהוּ עִקַּר הַהֶפְרֵשׁ בְּשָׁרְשׁוֹ בֵּין סְפִירוֹת דְּתֹהוּ לִסְפִירוֹת דְּתִקּוּן
(This is the primary distinction between the Sefiros of Tohu and the Sefiros of Tikkun.
דִּסְפִירוֹת דְּתֹהוּ הָיוּ בִּבְחִינַת אֲנָא אֶמְלוֹךְ דַּוְקָא
The Sefiros of Tohu were characterized by an attitude of self-orientation, each declaring, “I will rule” —
אֲנִי וְלֹא אַחֵר כוּ'.
I and no other.
וְגַם עִנְיַן הַמְּלוּכָה הוּא בְּחִינַת יֵשׁוּת וְהִתְפַּשְּׁטוּת כוּ'.
Kingship also involves yeshus and self-expression.
Malchus, “sovereignty” or “kingship,” is one of the Ten Sefiros. As is self-understood, such an attribute is solely holy. Nevertheless, that statement does not contradict what is stated here, for yeshus is not necessarily a negative quality. On the contrary, G‑d in His essence is described as Yesh HaAmiti, “the true Yesh.” Even in the realm of Tohu, the expression of kingship is not entirely negative.
To explain the concepts by seeing the parallel in the personal realm: there is a difference between self-esteem and self-centeredness. Positive self-esteem is a very important quality.1 Only when a person is comfortable and secure can he really think of caring for another. Similarly, self-expression, the free-flowing exercise of one’s potentials, enables a person to carry out the mission for which G‑d entrusted him with these potentials and gifts.
However, as the Rebbe Rashab emphasizes below, in a full sense, the positive expression of the quality of Malchus is found in the realm of Tikkun, because that realm is characterized by the bittul stemming from the influence of Chochmah. When that modulating influence is lacking, Malchus, as well as a person’s other qualities, will be characterized by self-orientation and ultimately lead to a negative outcome. Indeed, the Sefiros of Tohu are referred to in Kabbalah2 and Chassidus3 via an analogy to the kings of Edom, who “ruled and died.”4
וְזֶהוּ גַם כֵּן הַסִּבָּה מַה שֶּׁהַבִּטּוּל שֶׁלָּהֶם הָיָה בִּבְחִינַת רָצוֹא לְבָד
For this reason, the bittul of the Sefiros of Tohu was characterized solely by the thrust of ratzo, yearning for union with G‑d
As mentioned in ch. 3, the Sefiros of Tohu represent lofty spiritual powers. However, at this level, these powers are revealed in the elemental stage, each one seeking its own self-expression without restrictions, unfettered by the modulating influence of intellect or any other limiting force. Realizing that they had emanated from G‑d’s light, they each sought to return to that source without anything holding them back.
The paradox of the realm of Tohu — that on one hand, its Sefiros were characterized by intense bittul, while conversely, it is the source of yeshus — can be explained based on a maamar5 of the Rebbe Maharash, who paraphrases a teaching of our Sages (Chulin 108b) regarding kashrus: “Since it is occupied in absorption, it does not release.” Thus, “Since [the Sefiros of Tohu]are occupied [entirely] with [their absorption] in the Essence of the Ein Sof, ‘they do not release’ — they do not release influence,” i.e., because these Sefiros cling to the Ein Sof, G‑d’s Essence, and realize that He is the True Being, their own being is subsumed in His light and they do not feel themselves as independent entities. Hence, they do not seek to impart influence to others. Thus, because the Sefiros of Tohu seek to transcend their own identity and unite with G‑d, it can be said that they are characterized by bittul. However, that very drive to self-transcendence is also self-oriented; they are concerned solely with their bond to G‑d and are unable to relate to other entities.
וְלֹא בִּבְחִינַת שׁוֹב כַּיָּדוּעַ וּמְבֹאָר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
and did not involve shov1 returning to one’s created existence and subordinating one’s will to G‑d’s, as explained in other sources.6
Since all existence is an emanation of G‑dly light and not a truly independent entity, two fundamental dynamics operate simultaneously within it. On one hand, the light is extending outward, creating an existence that has — at least on the surface — an independent identity. Simultaneously, since it is an expression outside its source, it is naturally drawn to its source and continually feels an inherent tendency to return to it.7 These two dynamics are constant, like breath for a human being or animal, which is characterized by inhaling and exhaling.
These dynamics produce two tendencies in the existence brought into being by that light, described by the kabbalists with the terms ratzo and shov. Ratzo refers to the desire within an entity to return to its source and shov to its tendency to feel its own identity.
In avodah (Divine service), ratzo refers to the desire to cling to G‑d because one is aware of His greatness and desires to be one with Him. Shov refers to the awareness that G‑d’s intent in creation is to bring about a dwelling in the lowest realms8 and accordingly, one focuses on drawing down G‑dliness into those lowly realms and making them fit to be His dwelling.
וְהַיְנוּ כַּיָּדוּעַ שֶׁבְּחִינַת רָצוֹא אֵינוֹ בִּטּוּל אֲמִתִּי
As is well-known,9 ratzo is not an expression of true bittul,
Although ratzo reflects a desire to cling to G‑d, it does not reflect a complete sense of bittul.
כִּי אִם הֶרְגֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ כוּ'.
but stems from feelings of self.
On a basic level, ratzo stems from the entity’s natural desire to return to its source. In avodah, it is aroused by the awareness of G‑d’s greatness that motivates a desire to unite with Him. In both instances, even though the entity or the person will, to a certain extent, rise above itself or himself, that very self-transcendence is an expression of the entity’s or the person’s selfhood.
וְעִקַּר הַבִּטּוּל הוּא בִּבְחִינַת הַשּׁוֹב דַּוְקָא
Fundamentally, bittul is expressed by the quality of shov.
Instead of seeking to cling to its source, the entity aligns itself with the G‑dly thrust towards downward expression. In avodah, one commits himself to G‑d’s intent to establish a dwelling in the lowest realm, and therefore focuses on living in the context of that realm.
וְזֶהוּ לֹא הָיָה בִּסְפִירוֹת דְּתֹהוּ מִצַּד הַיֵּשׁוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם.
The yeshus of the Sefiros of Tohu prevented them from expressing the bittul of shov.
וְלָכֵן הָיוּ בִּבְחִינַת עַנְפִין מִתְפָּרְדִין כוּ'.
Therefore, they remained “separate branches,”10 i.e., they did not interrelate with each other.
Because the Sefiros of Tohu were characterized by ratzo, the desire to return to their G‑dly source, and yeshus, self-orientation, their yearning to cling to G‑d was all-encompassing. They did not have the inner space to consider bonding with a Sefirah of a different nature.
To cite an example from the personal realm: a person who is solely absorbed in giving to others (one who expresses Chesed) will express that quality without any restraints, without considering whether the recipient is at all worthy. He does not control his generosity at all; he fails to exert Gevurah.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּסְפִירוֹת דְּתִקּוּן שֶׁהֵן בִּבְחִינַת הַבִּטּוּל
By contrast, the Sefiros of Tikkun are characterized by bittul.
וְלָכֵן עִקָּרָן בִּבְחִינַת שׁוֹב
Therefore, their primary tendency is shov. Since they are characterized by self-transcendence, they are aligned with G‑d’s fundamental intent.
שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִנְיַן הַהִתְיַשְּׁבוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּתִקּוּן
This results in the tendency towards stability and balance that prevails within the realm of Tikkun.
שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת הַשּׁוֹב לִהְיוֹת מִתְיַשֵּׁב בִּכְלִי דַּוְקָא כוּ', כַּיָּדוּעַ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
As a result, the realm of Tikkun is characterized by shov. G‑d’s infinite light is settled within the keilim (“vessels”) in which it is enclothed, as is well-known and explained in other sources.11
Thus, the realm of Tikkun is the source of the order and structure that prevails in our world.
וּמִשְּׁבִירַת הַכֵּלִים דְּתֹהוּ
By contrast, the “shattering of the vessels” that resulted from the tendency of ratzo and the self-orientation that characterized the realm of Tohu, as explained in ch. 3,
נַעֲשָׂה לְמַטָּה מְצִיאוּת הַסִּטְרָא אָחֳרָא בִּבְחִינַת יֵשׁ וְרָע גָּמוּר כוּ'.)
ultimately brought about on this lowly material world, the existence of the sitra achra, that is characterized by yeshus and utter evil.
וְזֶהוּ סִבַּת הַפֵּרוּד וְהַהִתְחַלְּקוּת כוּ'.
Division and separation arise for this reason.
וְזֶהוּ עִנְיַן קְלִפַּת מִדְיָן
This is the nature of the kelipah of Midian;
שֶׁהוּא הַמָּדוֹן וְהָרִיב וְשִׂנְאַת חִנָּם מֵאִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ
it is the force leading to strife, contention, and baseless hatred of one’s fellowman.
At this point, the Rebbe Rashab changes the focus of the maamar from the theoretical and abstract sphere to the personal, showing how the concepts explained above are expressed in interpersonal relations and in the individual Divine service of every person.
גַּם שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה לוֹ שׁוּם רָעָה כְּלָל
One person hates another even though the other has done him no harm,
וְלֹא נָגַע בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ לֹא דָבָר וַחֲצִי דָבָר כוּ',
nor has the other touched anything belonging to him at all,
וְגַם הוּא אֵינוֹ חוֹרֵשׁ רָעָה עָלָיו כְּלָל.
or planned any evil against him.
רַק שֶׁלֹּא יוּכַל לְסָבְלוֹ
Despite the other person’s blamelessness, the first simply cannot tolerate him
וְהוּא שׂוֹנֵא אוֹתוֹ בְּתַכְלִית
and hates him utterly
עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ וְלֹא לְהִתְעָרֵב עִמָּדוֹ בְּשׁוּם דָּבָר, אַף בְּדָבָר שֶׁבִּקְדֻשָּׁה.
to the point where he will neither speak to, nor join the other in any endeavor, even a holy one.12
וְהַסִּבָּה לְזֶה הוּא רַק מִצַּד הַיֵּשׁוּת שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מָקוֹם לְהַזּוּלַת,
This hatred stems solely from his own yeshus, which leaves no room for anyone else.
When a person is preoccupied with self-concern, he will see everything in terms of his own needs and wants. He will look at others solely as they fit into his own plans, without being able to find the inner space to see them as they are, what they need, and what would make them feel good. Instead, he will constantly view them as intruding upon him.13 If such a person is compelled to interact with others, friction will inevitably arise.
וְהוּא מְנַגֵּד לוֹ
He will oppose another person
(אַף שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה לוֹ שׁוּם רָעָה
(even though the other has never harmed him.
וְאֵין בּוֹ שׁוּם הִתְנַגְּדוּת פְּרָטִי נֶגְדּוֹ)
The other person arouses negative feelings although he has no particular quarrel with that person; there is nothing specific that he can pinpoint about the other that bothers him).
רַק בְּזֶה שֶׁהוּא נִמְצָא בָּעוֹלָם,
It is just that the very fact that this other person exists in the world
שֶׁבְּזֶה הֲרֵי הוּא מְמַעֵט יֵשׁוּתוֹ
detracts from his yeshus.
וּמִשּׁוּם זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסָבְלוֹ וְשׂוֹנֵא אוֹתוֹ
This is why he finds the other intolerable, hates him
וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְחַבֵּר עִמּוֹ כוּ'.
and, needless to say, cannot join together with him.
The Rebbe Rashab now speaks directly to his listeners and readers.
וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ הָרַבִּים בְּדוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים בְּכָל מְקוֹמוֹת מוֹשְׁבוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
Due to our many sins14 in these later generations, such a state exists in every Jewish community.
שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִלּוּקֵי דֵעוֹת בְּכָל דָּבָר וּבְכָל עִנְיָן מֵעִנְיָנִים הַכְּלָלִים
There are differences of opinion on every question or issue of public concern,
וּבִפְרָט בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבִּקְדֻשָּׁה
particularly those which deal with holy matters
(כְּמוֹ בְּעִנְיְנֵי הָרַבָּנִים וְשׁוֹחֲטִים וְעִנְיְנֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְכַדּוֹמֶה)
(for example, questions concerning rabbis, shochtim [ritual slaughterers], synagogue affairs, and the like).
שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהִתְאַחֵד.
People find it impossible to unite.
אַדְּרַבָּה מַה שֶּׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר חֲבֵרוֹ בְּהֵפֶךְ.
On the contrary, if one person says one thing, another will contradict him.
וּמַה שֶּׁזֶּה בּוֹנֶה זֶה מְהָרֵס.
What one builds, another destroys.
וְהַחִלּוּקֵי דֵעוֹת בֶּאֱמֶת הֵם פֵּרוּד לְבָבוֹת,
These differences of opinion are in fact a division of hearts. The discord between the two does not originate in in the abstract realm.
דְּמַה שֶּׁאוֹמֵר בְּהֵפֶךְ מִזּוּלָתוֹ
When one disagrees with another’s opinion,
אֵין זֶה מִצַּד שֶׁשִּׂכְלוֹ מְחַיֵּב כֵּן,
it is not because his mind dictates that he must.
כִּי אִם אוֹמֵר מַה שֶּׁהוּא רוֹצֶה וְלֹא מִצַּד הֶכְרַח הַשֵּׂכֶל,
It is only that he says what he wants, not what is determined by his mind. The person may think that he is speaking objectively, but in truth it is his heart not his mind that determines what he says.
וְלָמָה הוּא רוֹצֶה כָּךְ
Why does one man want such-and-such?
זֶהוּ רַק מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲבֵרוֹ רוֹצֶה בְּאֹפֶן אַחֵר כוּ'.
Because his colleague wants something different.15
דְּהַכְּלָל הוּא שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִרְצוֹת וְלֵאמֹר בְּהֵפֶךְ מִזּוּלָתוֹ,
The general rule is that one person must want and say the opposite of someone else.
וְהַיְנוּ מִצַּד הַפֵּרוּד לְבָבוֹת
Such differences arise as a result of a division of hearts —
שֶׁאֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לִסְבּוֹל זֶה אֶת זֶה
the two people cannot tolerate each other
וּמִשּׁוּם זֶה הֵם מְנַגְּדִים זֶה לְזֶה כוּ'.
and hence become opponents.
(וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה נִפְסָד הָעִנְיָן הַכְּלָלִי הַנִּצְרָךְ וּמֻכְרָח כוּ'.
(Due to this, the public good, even things that are necessary and essential, are forfeited.
וְאֵינָם מַבִּיטִים עַל זֶה כְּלָל, כִּי הָעִקָּר הוּא יֵשׁוּת עַצְמוֹ כוּ'.)
Yet the loss is ignored since each is obsessed with his own yeshus.)
קִצּוּר.
Summary:
הֶפְרֵשׁ
The chapter outlines the distinctions between:
דִּסְפִירוֹת דְּתִקּוּן וְתֹהוּ –
the Sefiros of Tikkun and Tohu, which are characterized by
בִּטּוּל וְיֵשׁוּת
bittul and yeshus,
שׁוֹב וְרָצוֹא.
shov and ratzo, respectively.
Even though the Sefiros of Tohu demonstrate a yearning for G‑dliness that appears to reflect bittul, it is self-oriented. They are seeking their own self-fulfillment. As a result, they were characterized by disunity and ultimately, shattered.
Such self-orientation is the yeshus that defines the kelipah of Midian. These are reflected in the personal and communal realm.
יֵשׁוּת סִבָּה לְפֵרוּד וְשִׂנְאַת חִנָּם.
Yeshus is the cause of separation and baseless hatred. Strife arises for no real reason, only because each person is motivated by his own yeshus.
