Appendix 5: “Even… in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, You Are With Me” - Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 57ff

[Herein lies] a lesson for every Jew: When he commits a sin in a literal sense, the sin is against G‑d’s will. Nevertheless, he must realize that from an inner standpoint (even at the time of the sin), he is in the midst of a process of continuous ascent.

To explain the above (at least in brief): One of the fundamental principles of faith (even according to the legal tradition of Nigleh1 ) is that G‑d is the sole Master of all existence. Aside from Him, no other entity has any dominion [or independent authority]. All the stars and the spheres2 — and even the angels — are merely “an ax in the hand of the chopper,”3 functioning only “according to the will and command of G‑d.”4 …

This also applies to every individual. Everything that a person does, even those matters which affect the Torah and its mitzvos (which, with regard to them, he has been granted free choice), are dependent on G‑d’s providence5 and His will.6 …

Based on the above, it is clear that even the descents that the world at large and every individual person experiences, and that come as a result of man’s deeds performed according to his own free will, are still dependent on G‑d’s providence. Accordingly, [it is also evident that] they lead to a [positive] purpose. Hence even these descents can be seen as phases in [the accomplishment of] this purpose.

No Place for Despair

Unquestionably, the actual performance of a sin is against G‑d’s will.7 Nevertheless, the descent — in the world and within the person — which comes as a consequence of the sin is not contrary to G‑d’s will.8 And thus it is not a true descent, but rather a phase in the ascent which comes about through it….

Regardless of the nature of the situation in which a Jew is found, even if he is in a very lowly and degrading situation, and even if he himself chose to bring himself to this abject state through choosing evil, [he should maintain a positive perspective].

[Certainly,] because “he caused himself a loss…it is appropriate for him to cry and lament his sins and the evil which he brought upon his soul.”9 And yet, the person should not despair and think that all hope is lost for him. For since the situation to which he brought himself came about not only because of his own choice, but because of G‑d’s providence, it will ultimately lead him (— through teshuvah —) to an extremely elevated rung.10 Through teshuvah, he will be able to elevate even the sparks of holiness that are found within his willful transgressions and transform them into merits.11

The sins themselves cannot be elevated; on the contrary, “their destruction12 is their rectification.”13 With regard to the person’s own situation, however, he must realize that through the sin, he has been granted the opportunity (in an inward manner which is not overtly revealed) to achieve an ascent. For he has the potential [to do teshuvah] — and [since] he has been assured that “None who are estranged will remain [permanently] banished from Him,”14 he will certainly actualize that potential. In doing so, he [will] elevate the sparks of holiness found within these purposeful sins, transforming them into merits which surpass the merits of the tzaddikim.

(Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5713, 5725, Chag HaShavuos, 5721)

« Previous

Appendix 4: Never Estranged

Footnotes

See Mitzvas Achdus HaShem in Derech Mitzvosecha (p. 60b).

[Powers to which astrologers would attribute control over fate.]

Cf. Yeshayahu 10:15.

This is the wording used by the Tzemach Tzedek in the above source. (See also p. 6a ff.) See also the fifth of Rambam’s “Thirteen Principles of Faith” (in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1), which states that neither the constellations nor any other heavenly [or earthly] entity has free choice.

Were this not to be so, there would be no resolution to the question raised by Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:4): “How is it possible for man to do whatever he desires and be granted the potential to control his deeds? Is it possible [for man] to do anything in this world without the will of his Creator?”

Rambam offers the following resolution: “Just as the Creator desired that fire and wind ascend upward... and desired that the other creations follow the nature with which they were endowed, so, too, He desired that man be given license [to act as he desires] and for all of his deeds to be under his control.”

This resolution, however, appears insufficient, [because the concept that man can have utter free will — even if granted to him by G‑d — appears to be a denial of G‑d’s absolute sovereignty]. For the idolaters who worship the stars because they believe that [the stars] have free choice and do not consider them as “an ax in the hand of the chopper” (Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 6a), still do not think that they inherently possess free choice. Instead, they believe that it is G‑d who desired that they have free choice. (See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 1:1 who writes: “They believe that this emptiness, [i.e., the worship of false divinities,] is His will.”) Nevertheless, since the idolaters maintain (according to their [mistaken] conception) that the stars have the authority to do as they desire, ascribing free choice to the stars is (not merely an error and foolishness, but also) a denial of His oneness.

[Thus although the resolution mentioned by Rambam cited above is based on the fact that man’s free choice was granted to him by G‑d, it could also apply, according to the idolaters’ mistaken conception, to the free choice of the stars. Hence, according to Rambam, the question can be raised:] What is the difference between the free will of man and the [supposed] free will of the stars?

Therefore it is apparent that we must rely on the elucidation that follows in the text above. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, Parshas Shemini, note 19.

This is the wording used by the Previous Rebbe in the maamar entitled VaYachalom, 5708, sec. 9. The continuation of the text [in that maamar]: “This is the concept of choice with regard to the Torah and its mitzvos,” indicates that [such freely chosen observance] is also “dependent on [His] providence.”

Although [sinning is against G‑d’s will, the fact that man can do so] does not minimize G‑d’s authority or His unity because [of the uniqueness of G‑d’s indefinable desire for the Torah and its mitzvos. Since this desire is not defined or forced upon Him, Heaven forbid, (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 66, note 70), the sin is of no consequence, nor does it generate concealment for Him (as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, p. 23).

[I.e., were G‑d’s desire for the Torah and its mitzvos to be a straightforward cut and dry matter, the fact that a person committed a sin would not only represent a difficulty with regard to that person’s relationship with G‑d, but a challenge to His sovereignty. For sin is a defiance of His will. And it would represent a contradiction to His absolute unity, for the act of sin could not be at one with Him. Explaining that His desire for the Torah and its mitzvos is undefined — “We do not know which [He] desires: the deeds of the righteous or the deeds of the wicked” (Bereishis Rabbah 2:5) — clarifies why a transgression of the Torah and its mitzvos does not dispute His authority or His oneness. For even if a person commits a sin, he has not violated G‑d’s will as it exists in an ultimate and indefinable sense.]

Although from the standpoint of G‑d’s [active] choice, He does not desire the deeds of the wicked [and therefore at this level, the questions sin raises with regard to His sovereignty and His oneness would appear legitimate, this also does not represent a theoretical problem]. For this choice stems from His Essence, which exists in a manner beyond the framework of existence as we know it. [That level] is utterly undefined; no description — either positive or negative — is appropriate for it. Therefore the fact that one acts contrary to this level of G‑d’s will does not represent a change [in His will, and His will can also include an act that appears, on the surface, to run contrary to His desire].

[To cite a parallel, Tanya,] Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 25 (p. 138b), [explains that] although a person who injures a colleague is given free choice [and was not compelled to harm his fellow man (indeed, he is forbidden to do so)], it was already decreed from Above that the injured party would suffer this harm.

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:2.

10.

[The uniqueness of the spiritual level attained through teshuvah] can be explained in two ways:

a) Through teshuvah, the person can elevate even the sparks of G‑dliness within the sins which he purposefully committed, as explained in the text above;

b) He destroys the sinful acts through his regret and bitterness over them.

The second dimension (destroying the act of sin) reaches a higher level than the refinement of the sparks of G‑dliness. [For to free oneself from the framework of evil and destroy its hold on him, one must tap the essence of the soul, a spiritual level above any of the sparks of G‑dliness that are being elevated. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, p. 22ff., translated in Crown Jewels.)]

(This concept can be appreciated from the explanation in Toras Chayim, Shmos, pp. 332b, 337a.) This is also reflected by the fact that Pirkei Avos 5:1 and Tanya, ch. 22 (p. 27b) mention “to punish the wicked,” [which parallels the second dimension], before “to grant a generous reward to the righteous who subjugate the sitra achra.” (See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 249, note 59.)

11.

See Yoma 86b.

12.

[The sins themselves must be rejected entirely. There is no way that they themselves — in contrast to the G‑dly spark they contain — can be elevated.] Although there is nothing apart from G‑d, as it is written (Devarim 4:35): “There is nothing else aside from Him,” nevertheless, we cannot say that (completely unclean kelipah and more particularly,) sins will be able to be elevated and made vessels for G‑dliness, for they are the opposite of His will. With regard to them, the concept that “There is nothing else aside from Him,” is revealed by the fact that the [sins and the kelipos] are of absolutely no consequence in and of themselves, merely created in order to be vanquished, and need not be reckoned with. Therefore “their destruction is their rectification.”

{I.e., in contrast to the realm of holiness, which [reveals G‑dliness in a positive manner] by being united with Him, [kelipah and sins can] never become mediums [for the revelation of G‑dliness]. [They reveal G‑d’s power by being nullified and showing that their existence — i.e., an existence apart from G‑d — is not genuine.]}

{G‑d’s lack of desire for “the deeds of the wicked” is reflected in the fact that “the deeds of the wicked” exist, and yet are nullified. See Toras Chayim, Shmos, p. 331b, which explains that the forces that oppose holiness are brought into being “to [bring into expression] His attribute of victory.” See also the explanation of the phrase “to punish the wicked” in Tanya, ch. 22 (p. 27b), as explained in note 10 above.}

13.

Cf. Keilim 2:1. See the maamar entitled Noach, 5670. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, pp. 22-23, notes 20 and 28.

14.

See II Shmuel 14:14. [The interpretation of this phrase in the above context has its source in] the Alter Rebbe’s ruling, Hilchos TalmudTorah 4:3, and Tanya, ch. 39, which states: “He will certainly turn [to G‑d] in teshuvah, for ‘None who are estranged will remain [permanently] banished from Him.’”

(Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah 7:5 uses a different [prooftext for a similar concept, because Rambam] is speaking about the Jewish people as a whole, [while the Alter Rebbe is speaking about each individual Jew].)