23rd day of Kislev

Before a Jew is born, an oath is administered to him in heaven, charging him:

The soul of a Jew descends into a body for a purpose—in order to fulfill a specific spiritual mission in this world. To enable him to fulfill it, a heavenly oath is administered to him that he “be righteous and not wicked” and concurrently that he regard himself as wicked and not righteous. The root (שׁבע) of the verb מַשְׁבִּיעִים (“an oath is administered”) is virtually identical with the root (שׂבע) of the verb מַשְׂבִּיעִים (“one causes [him] to be sated”). Accordingly, the oath charging him to be righteous may also be understood to mean that the soul is thereby invested (“sated”) with the power that enables it to fulfill its destiny in life on earth.

How, then, can we say that an oath is administered to the soul that it regard itself as wicked when this directly contradicts the Mishnaic injunction not to regard oneself as wicked?3

Apart from the previously mentioned contradiction from the Mishnah, an additional question is now raised. A cardinal principle in the service of G‑d is that it be performed with joy—joy at the privilege of serving Him either through performing a positive command or by refraining from that which is prohibited. How then can one be required to take an oath to consider himself wicked, when this will cause him to be depressed, making it impossible for him to serve G‑d with joy?

Furthermore, just as the first part of the oath, “Be righteous and be not wicked,” is vital to his success in realizing his life’s mission, so, too, the fulfillment of the second part of the oath, that he consider himself wicked, is imperative. How can this possibly be so, when such an attitude hinders his joyful service of G‑d?

I.e., if we should propose that in order to fulfill the oath, the person will indeed regard himself as wicked but at the same time will resolve that his wickedness shall not perturb him so as not to encumber his joyful service of G‑d,

For although his original resolve that being wicked will not perturb him stems only from his sincere desire to serve G‑d with joy, yet such a resolution may very well lead to a situation where wickedness will truly not disturb him.

Once he has achieved this level, physical suffering—to cleanse the soul from the impurities of sin—is unnecessary; he therefore prospers materially as well.

He therefore experiences some measure of material suffering, thereby cleansing the soul while it is yet clothed in the body, so that he will not have to endure any spiritual suffering in the World to Come.

Accordingly, the Gemara is not referring to two tzaddikim on the same spiritual level, one of whom prospers while the other suffers; rather, it speaks of two distinct levels of tzaddikim. The Gemara thus cites only two characterizations regarding the tzaddik—“consummate” and “imperfect” (lit., “complete” and “incomplete”). The terms “who prospers” or “who suffers” do not indicate his spiritual level: they merely describe his resultant material status.

He is a tzaddik who still retains some vestige of evil, albeit subservient to his good nature. Accordingly, a “righteous man who prospers” is a tzaddik in whom there is only good, since he has totally transformed his evil nature.

According to the Zohar (of which Raaya Mehemna is a part), the terms “who prospers” and “who suffers” also indicate and describe the level of the tzaddik. The “tzaddik who prospers” is a tzaddik in whom there is only good—the evil within him having already been transformed to good; the “tzaddik who suffers” is a tzaddik of lower stature—one who still harbors some evil.

However, we must now understand why redundant titles are given to each level of tzaddik: “complete tzaddik” and “tzaddik who prospers”; “incomplete tzaddik” and “tzaddik who suffers.” If the “complete tzaddik” is the “tzaddik who prospers” (i.e., in whom there is only good) and the “incomplete tzaddik” is the “tzaddik who suffers” (i.e., retains a vestige of evil), why then is it necessary to give each tzaddik two appellations?

The explanation provided further (in ch. 10) is that each descriptive term denotes a specific aspect of the divine service of the tzaddik. The terms “complete tzaddik” and “incomplete tzaddik” denote the level of service of the tzaddik’s G‑dly soul, i.e., the tzaddik’s love of G‑d, for it is by virtue of this love that he is called “tzaddik.” The “complete tzaddik” is he who has attained perfection in his love of G‑d in a manner of ahavah betaanugim (“love of delights”)—the serene love of fulfillment. The tzaddik whose ahavah betaanugim is as yet imperfect is called the “incomplete (or unperfected) tzaddik.”

The terms “tzaddik who prospers” and “tzaddik who suffers” denote the tzaddik’s status vis-à-vis his efforts in transforming his animal soul to holiness. For the tzaddik, through his lofty service of ahavah betaanugim, transforms the evil within him into holiness and good. The designation “tzaddik who prospers” indicates that he has already totally transformed the evil within him and now good alone remains, while the “tzaddik who suffers” is one who has not yet managed to totally transform the evil within him to good; a vestige of it still remains.

The explanations that follow make it abundantly clear that the evil referred to here is no more than an amorphous evil still harbored in the heart of the “incomplete tzaddik.” For the tzaddik has no association with actual evil that manifests itself in thought or speech and most certainly not with the evil that finds expression in actions.

Abbaye argued thus: “If you are a beinoni, then all those on a lower level than you fall into the category of the wicked, concerning whom our Sages say:9 ‘The wicked, even while alive, are considered dead.’ By calling yourself a beinoni, you thus make it impossible for anyone to live.”

In addition to the question which will soon follow—that according to the common conception of a beinoni as a person having half mitzvot and half transgressions, how could a great sage like Rabbah mistake himself for a beinoni—a further question is implied:

If a beinoni is simply one having half mitzvot and half transgressions, then his status is readily identifiable, and there is no possible room for debate.

The Gemara11 relates that G‑d decrees that a child about to be born will be wise or foolish, strong or weak, and so on. However, whether the child will be righteous or wicked, G‑d does not say: this is not predetermined; rather, it is left to the individual’s free choice.

How, then, are we to understand Job’s plaint, “You have created righteous men, You have created wicked men”?12

The mahut of a tzaddik is righteousness; the mahut of the wicked man is evil. What is the mahut—the essential nature—of the beinoni?

Such was Rabbah’s diligence that he did not neglect his studies for even one moment. Qualitatively, too, his learning was on so high a plane that the Angel of Death was unable to overpower him.

A sin most difficult to avoid and counted among those sins that people transgress daily.21

Since a beinoni is innocent even of neglecting Torah study, Rabbah could [mistakenly] consider himself a beinoni, even though he scrupulously observed even the most minor commandments and never ceased from his studies.

It is only in this legal sense that the term tzaddik is applied to one who performs more good deeds than evil.

David extirpated his evil nature through fasting; other ways, too, are possible.

We thus see from the Gemara that the definition of tzaddik in its true sense applies to the person who has rid himself of his evil nature.

In fact, not only has he not reached the rank of tzaddik, he has not yet attained even the level of beinoni, as has been demonstrated above.

Thus, in each generation, there must be a tzaddik who serves as the “foundation of the world.”

This paucity of tzaddikim (“the righteous were few”) can be explained only if a tzaddik is he who has totally rid himself of his evil nature. Were the term tzaddik to mean one whose good deeds outweigh the evil, why then do our Sages say that “the righteous were few” when the overwhelming majority of Jews have more good deeds than evil!

Though the verse speaks of an individual Jew (as is indicated by the singular form of the word ruach (spirit) in the preceding phrase, “When the spirit of a man which emanates from Me will be humbled…”), the plural term souls is nevertheless used, indicating that every Jew possesses two souls.

“Kelipah” means a shell or peel. G‑d created forces which conceal the G‑dly life-force found in all creation, as a peel covers and conceals a fruit. “Sitra achara” means “the other side”—the side of creation that is the antithesis of holiness and purity. (The two terms are generally synonymous.)

Just as the four physical elements of Fire, Air, Water, and Earth are the foundation of all physical entities, so, too, is this nefesh comprised of four corresponding spiritual elements. Since they derive from kelipah and evil, they themselves are evil, and from them, in turn, one’s evil characteristics come into being.

Once ignited by anger and pride, a man (like fire) soars aloft. Pride is the state of considering oneself superior to others. Anger, too, is an offshoot of pride. Would a person not be proud, he would not be angered when someone defied his will.

The ability of water to make pleasurable things grow indicates that concealed within it is the element of pleasure. Thus, the appetite for pleasure derives from the element of Water.

Earth is characterized by heaviness. A man encumbered by sloth and melancholy likewise senses a heaviness of the limbs.

But since this is a nefesh of kelipah and evil, how do good characteristics come from it? This matter is now addressed.

Since their nefesh emanates from kelipot which contain no good, it follows that any good done by them is for selfish motives.

When a Jew acts in a benevolent manner, he is motivated mainly out of concern for the welfare of his fellow. The proof of this is that were his fellow not to need his help, this would give him greater pleasure than the gratification derived from his act of kindness.

Concerning the nations of the world, however, this is not so. Their motivation is not the welfare of their fellow; rather, it stems from a self-serving motive—the desire for self-glorification, a feeling of gratification, and the like.

It should be noted that among the nations of the world, there are also to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah.33 Called “the pious ones of the nations of the world,” these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow.