On The Essence of Chasidus

See also On the Teachings of Chasidus and On the Learning of Chasidus by R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn [recently republished in On The Study Of Chasidus, Kehot.]

[See Appendix for an in-depth elaboration of this concept. It is one of the fundamental principles of Judaism that both the Written and the Oral Torahs in their entirety were given to Moshe at Sinai. The Written Torah, or Tanach, includes the Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Oral Torah comprises the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, commentaries, etc. The Talmud furthermore states, “Whatever any distinguished scholar will innovate in Torah study in the future was already given to Moshe at Sinai (Megillah 19b). That is to say, although all of Torah was given at Sinai, different parts were revealed at different times in Jewish history—for example, the Talmud in its appropriate time, the commentaries of Rashi in their appropriate time, etc. The fact that a particular idea or aspect of Torah was revealed at a specific time itself indicates that this was indeed the most fitting moment for its appearance, the time when it was most relevant. One of the earliest challenges to the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Chasidism) and his new school of thought concerned the question of the contribution of Chasidus to the tapestry of Torah—how does it differ, and why was it not articulated in earlier generations.]

This explanation is found in an old Chasidic manuscript whose author is unknown.

[It has since been printed in Sefer Hamaamarim 5663, p. 142. When the Baal Shem Tov initiated his movement, the material situation of Eastern European Jewry—economic and political—was precarious, and the religious state was hardly better. The pogroms of 1648 and the false Messiahs were critical blows that the people barely survived. Their condition was virtually “comatose.”]

See also Kovetz Yud Shevat, pp. 65-6. [Likkutei Sichot vol. 2 p. 516 ff. When a person faints, there is a tradition of whispering his name in his ear in order to revive him, because a person’s Hebrew name has an essential connection to his general life-force. The soul of the Baal Shem Tov was the “general soul” of all the Jews, as indicated in his own name, “Yisrael,” which he shared with all Jews. As Israel’s “general soul,” of which the particular soul of every individual Jew was a “component detail,” the Baal Shem Tov’s purpose and mission was to revive all Jews, even the lowliest, from their “unconsciousness,” and to connect even the lowliest Jew with the Essence of G‑d.]

Padah b’Shalom 5675 (B’Shaah Shehikdimu 5672, p. 772-3); Sefer Hamaamarim Melukat vol. 6, p. 45.

[According to Torah law, one should desire, and is allowed, to pursue spiritual enlightenment for one’s personal sake, and to strive for one’s own spiritual interests. A Chasid, though, is one who reaches beyond that level and has no self-interest at all. An example is given (ibid.) of Moshe, who wanted to enter the Land of Israel not for his own attainment of spiritual revelations from on High, but rather so that the entire Jewish nation should have the ability to elicit G‑dliness into the world.]

Niddah 17a and Tosfot, s.v. sorfon chasid. See also Likkutei Dibburim (Eng. Ed.) vol. 1, p. 149.

[The Talmud explains that one who cuts his nails should not throw the parings on the ground, lest a pregnant woman step on them, causing her to miscarry. One who does throw away nail parings in this manner is a rasha (wicked); one who buries them, following the letter of the law, is a tzaddik (righteous); and one who burns them, thus taking extra precaution against them being uncovered, is a Chasid (pious).

Tosfot, quoting the Aruch, explains that the burning of any particle of one’s body can cause harm to the one from whom the particle originated. Although one may be harmed, nevertheless one who burns his nail parings is a Chasid, for he goes beyond the requirement of the Law, and is prepared to suffer for it; the Law does not require a person to harm himself. See further Ba’er Hetev on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 260:2.]

Likkutei Dibburim ibid., p. 128. [“R. Menachem Mendel, the Tzemach Tzedek, once asked his grandfather Rabbi Schneur Zalman, the Alter Rebbe, at yechidus...: ‘What is the ultimate point of Chasidus?’ And the Alter Rebbe replied: ‘The entire point of Chasidus is that one should transform the nature of his character traits (middot).’

“It should be noted that the question was, ‘What is the ultimate point of Chasidus?’ and not, ‘What is Chasidus?’ The Tzemach Tzedek knew what Chasidus is—a divine level of wisdom, the inner dimension of Torah. His question was, ‘What is the ultimate point of Chasidus?’ And it was to this question that the Alter Rebbe answered that ‘the entire point of Chasidus is that one should transform the nature of his middot.’

“…Now everyone understands with absolute clarity the difference between ‘his natural middot ’ and ‘the nature of his middot.’ That much requires no explanation.

“Chasidus demands of everyone who studies its teachings that he should transform the nature of his middot. Chasidus is not only a schoolmaster who teaches one how to transform the nature of his middot [but a discipline that demands concrete action].”]

Ibid. See Hatamim, vol 3, p. 66 ff. [There are three basic souls in every Jew—the “G‑dly soul,” the “intellectual soul,” and the “natural soul.” Each of these three souls contains a full complement of both intellectual and emotional faculties in accordance with its nature. The natural soul is called the “animal soul,” for all of its desires are directed towards materialistic and animalistic ends. The intellectual part of the animal soul engages in rationalizing actions according to its own understanding, and is concerned with self-preservation and self-justification. The emotional part of the animal soul is the “evil inclination” (yetzer hara). I.e., the emotional part of the animal soul is the inclination to do evil, while the intellectual part of the animal soul is the means of justifying the act.

Until one has the appropriate instruments with which he can correct the inclinations of the animal soul, one must first break one’s natural desires. True divine service, however, is not breaking, but fixing, mending (tikkun). And one begins this service of mending with the intellectual soul, the middle soul. The instrument is the study of Chasidus, which includes the contemplation of those ideas which are in consonance with one’s level of understanding, and of material which also can be understood by, and is able to, arouse the heart.

Both the G‑dly soul and the intellectual soul have emotional attributes, or “character traits”: the intellectual soul is naturally drawn to that which is below it, and the G‑dly soul is naturally drawn to that which is above it. To transform “the nature of one’s middot ” one is to transform the middot of both these souls. Thus, the intellectual soul should recognize that performance of a mitzvah should be because it is G‑d’s commandment, and not because it is rationally acceptable. Consequently, one transcends the confines of reason in pursuit of this. Conversely, the middot of the G‑dly soul naturally desire to depart their physical holding, the body, and absorbed in their source, G‑d. These middot can be “transformed” by directing them towards the service of G‑d in this physical world, within the confines of the body.]

Torat Shalom, p. 113. [Until the revelation of Chasidus, the esoteric elements of Torah (e.g. Kabbalah) were reserved for the spiritual elite, those with innately “lofty” souls, or those who had purified and refined themselves. Chasidus however, made the most abstruse concepts accessible to all by articulating them in intellectual, understandable, terms. Rabbi Shalom DovBer explains that this was consistent with what the Baal Shem Tov was told when he asked when Moshiach would come and was answered, “When your wellsprings will be dispersed outward (chutzah )”—i.e. when they will be dispersed even to unrefined and lowly people, so that even those who are chutzah should also understand G‑dliness. And, Rabbi Shalom DovBer adds, chutzah (“outside, abroad”) can even connote “rational understanding.” That is, the articulation of Chasidus—which, as the text will soon note, transcends the realm of intellect—in rational terms, is already the first step in its extension to the “outside.” See fn. 32.]

[There are four approaches or interpretations of Torah: peshat (plain meaning); remez (allusion); drush (homily); and sod (mystery)—the esoteric interpretation as found, for example, in Kabbalah. See below for detailed explanation and illustration of these four approaches.]

Job 19:26. [Chasidic literature explains this verse to mean that by examining the structure of one’s own soul and its faculties, which are created in the image of G‑d, one can comprehend Divinity itself.]

See Likutei Dibburim (Eng. Ed.) vol. 3, p. 5 ff. [“R. Shalom R. Hillel’s once quoted an account which he had heard from his teacher, R. Hillel of Paritch, of the first lesson in Chasidus that he had ever heard… ‘Before I became a Chabad Chasid,’ recalled R. Hillel, ‘I considered my body to be a loathsome thing, because all spiritual woes derive from it. But when I apprehended the spirit of the teaching that ‘from my flesh I perceive G‑d,’ that the body is a magnifying glass through which one perceives G‑dliness, my body acquired good standing in my eyes.’”]

See also Torat Shalom, p. 185, that “as a result of this innovation of Chasidus—that the faculties of man can serve as an analogy to comprehend their parallels ‘Above,’ in G‑d, as it were—these faculties thereby become G‑dly.” Thus, one can connect this fourth explanation of Chasidus with the third.

[The innovation of Chasidus over Kabbalah is that Chasidus makes Divinity comprehensible through the analogy of human faculties. Though Kabbalah in a sense does the same, it is not truly perfect comprehension. Chasidus, however, brings G‑dliness to perfect human comprehension, for from one’s own human faculties, he can understand supernal matters. (See below, fn. 71.) From one’s own intellectual attributes, he can understand what the “intellect” of G‑d is, and from his own emotional attributes, or middot, he can understand the middot of G‑d. And through this understanding and, consequently, purification, one’s faculties thereby become G‑dly—fitting vessels which can be absorbed into, and become a part of, G‑dliness.

Thus the explanation of the fourth definition of Chasidus (that it enables even a simple person to understand Divinity through its analogies to the soul) is connected to the third definition (that Chasidus changes the nature of one’s character). By understanding G‑dliness, one’s own faculties become G‑dly.]

[See fn. 7. The intellectual soul bridges the gulf between the animal soul and the G‑dly soul. Intellectual understanding is a vessel for G‑dly understanding and thus can have an effect on the animal soul. See Sefer Hamaamarim 5702, p. 102.]

See Sefer Hasichot Kayitz 5700, p. 26 ff., and elsewhere. [R. Gershon Ber (a distinguished Chasid of Rabbi Menachem Mendel, the Tzemach Tzedek) was asked by a group of questioners, “What is Chasidus?” Though the questioners all agreed that Chasidus was a G‑dly philosophy, they sought to know what advantage Chasidus had over Kabbalah and philosophy. R. Gershon Ber answered: Kabbalah describes the sefirot, the creative attributes and manifestations of G‑d, while philosophy explains how G‑d is beyond description and definition, how one cannot really understand Him at all—for if one would know G‑d, he would “be G‑d.” Chasidus, however, maintains “Know Him and become like Him.” Through the effort of actually understanding G‑d, one becomes like Him. See also A.C. Glitzenstein, Or Hachasidus (Kehot, Kfar Chabad, 1965), for other explanations.]

Nevertheless, it is only through these specific different qualities that one can grasp the essential nature of Chasidus, as will be explained in Chapter XVIII.

Cited in footnote 4.

[NEW LIGHT. “Light” is used as a favorite metaphor in Kabbalah and Chasidus to represent and describe the various manifestations, emanations and forces of the Divinity. It is often used in contradistinction to what is called Atzmut (the “Essence” of G‑d), the level beyond all definition, manifestation, etc. R. J. Immanuel Schochet in his Mystical Concepts in Chassidism, appended to the English-Hebrew Tanya (Kehot, 1998), uses Kabbalistic sources to explain the aptness of this metaphor as follows (pp. 884-885, see further there):

Of all physical phenomena, light is that which most closely approximates what is spiritual and freed from the limitations of matter. For example, it is not corporeal; it delights the soul; it enables one to see. It is also analogous to the nature of Divine emanations insofar as light is never separated from its source, spreads itself instantaneously, irradiates all physical objects, does not mix and mingle with any other substance, never per se changes, is essential to life in general, and is received and absorbed relative to the capacity of the recipient, etc.

Needless to say, however, the analogy is still only an approximation, and must not be taken in any literal sense. Terms and concepts related to the Divinity must be understood spiritually, without any temporal and spatial connotations whatsoever.]

B’Shaah Shehikdimu 5672, p. 768.

[KETER. Lit., “crown.” In Kabbalah and Chasidic literature, keter refers to one of the most transcendent levels of G‑dliness. It is the “crown,” or level that transcends the ten so-called sefirot, creative divine attributes and manifestations of G‑d. The sefirot are divided into two categories: sechel (intellect) and middot (emotions). The ten sefirot are the source of, and parallel to, the ten powers of the human soul. Just as man reveals himself through his attributes, or their “garments” (thought, speech, and deed), similarly G‑d reveals Himself through His attributes, the sefirot.

There are four “worlds,” or basic levels, each of which is a general category of Divine manifestation (see fn. 45), ranging from the highest level, where there is total unity with G‑d, down to this lowest physical world which we inhabit, where the Infinite is all but concealed. (Each of these four worlds contains numerous subgradations also described as “worlds.”) Now keter is the level which transcends all worlds, and which is the “crown” to the sefirot. It is identified with G‑d’s Supernal Will, which links G‑d—the Infinite Ein Sof—with all His finite created worlds, for an intermediary is necessary in order to link the infinite with the finite.

An analogy: The essence of the human soul itself is beyond all description. It is neither intellectual nor emotional. How then does the soul express itself and give rise to intellect and emotions if it entirely transcends these realms? It does so through the faculty of ratzon (will). Ratzon is a general power not limited to any particular part or function of the body, but is all-encompassing and unlimited. And though ratzon is still not the essence of the soul, but only an extension and reflection of it, it is the first state of movement from the pure soul to the faculties which express it; and thus it is an intermediary between the essence of the soul and its faculties.

Every “intermediary” must contain two parts; i.e., the factors it shares in common with the two levels between which it mediates. These may be described as: 1) The “head” of the lower level; 2) The lower part of the upper level. Likewise, in ratzon there are two parts: 1) Ratzon—an external aspect; 2) Taanug (delight), the internal aspect, which is the motivating force of all activity, including ratzon.

Hence, we can understand how keter (G‑d’s Will) is that which links the Four Worlds with the Infinite G‑d. And, similarly, in keter there are also two levels of ratzon: the external, and the internal. The external level of G‑d’s Will which transcends all worlds is called arich anpin; and the internal level is called atik, and corresponds to taanug.

When new light emanates from keter, all the sefirot are rejuvenated, as it were, and elevated. In our context, Chasidus is described as a “new light,” a revelation of an aspect of G‑d hitherto concealed; a deeper insight vouchsafed to man.

For further introduction and explanation of these concepts, see Schochet, Mystical Concepts in Chassidism (op. cit.) and Posner, Translator’s Explanatory Notes to On the Study of Chasidus (Kehot, 1997).]

[ATIK. The innermost level of the Supernal Will, corresponding to “delight.” See preceding note.]

[EIN SOF. Literally, “Infinite,” “Endless.” The most absolute, Infinite force of G‑d, totally beyond description, knowledge, and comprehension, completely beyond any boundaries; the Essence of G‑d Himself, the innermost aspect of the innermost level of keter. As explained above, keter (will) is the intermediary between the Ein Sof and the sefirot.]

B’Shaah Shehikdimu 5672 p. 770; 773.

[RADLA. A Kabbalistic term indicating the deepest and innermost level of the Essence of G‑d which is entirely unknowable—not only because of its profundity, but because it is utterly beyond the realm of knowledge. Chasidus recognizes the bounds of intellect as innate. Intellect is a manifestation, a “power” of the soul or a sefirah of G‑d, and is not Essence. Essence transcends intellect. Thus, Ein Sof transcends knowledge because knowledge itself originates on a lower plane than G‑d’s Essence.]

Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 3; Tikkunei Zohar 69, (p. 100a). See also Avot d’R. Nattan, ch. 31; Kohelet Rabbah 1:4; Zohar I:134b; Guide for the Perplexed I, ch. 72; Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 5b.

See R. Ovadiah of Bartenura on Ethics of the Fathers, beg. [where he explains why this tractate begins with the statement that Moshe received the Torah from Sinai, and why it details its transmission: While non-Jews contrived their own ethical systems, the ethics of the Jews are from Sinai, of Divine origin, and are the basis of all ethics.]

For G‑d created the entire creation “laasot”—to be worked with, fixed, completed, and perfected. See Bereishit Rabbah 11:6, and Rashi’s commentary there; Zohar I:47b ff.; Or Hatorah to Genesis 1:3 (p. 514 and p. 717). After Adam’s sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, good and evil, formerly totally separate, merged. Nothing is pure any longer; there is no good without evil and vice-versa. (Torah Or, Toldot 21b; Torat Chaim, Toldot 14b; and elsewhere. See Likkutei Dibburim (Eng. Ed.) vol. 1 p. 183-4.)

From a letter dated 4 Tevet 5698 [Igrot Kodesh vol. 4, p. 200 ff].

Deuteronomy 4:6.

[In Kabbalah and Chasidus, the term “world” refers to the different stages of spiritual and physical existence, and levels of concealment of G‑d. All the worlds are elevated and sustained through the performance of mitzvot and the study of Torah; they depend on the appropriate observance of even its most minute detail, for the Torah is the wisdom of G‑d. See below, fn. 45.]

Kuntres Acharon, section 6; Derech Mitzvotecha 41 a-b.

[P’SHEETUS HA’EIN SOF. “Unformed abstractness”; lit., “Simplicity.” In our context, “Simplicity” connotes not a “lack” or “deficiency,” of course, but rather the most absolute level of Ein Sof, that which totally transcends description, boundary, form, or composition. That is, it is entirely abstracted from and beyond any form—even the forms and qualities of “perfection.” It is utter Essence.]

Psalms 102:27. As it is known, there are two types of “garments.” There are those that are impossible to exchange for others, such as garments of “skin and flesh with which You have clothed me” (Job 10:11). [Then there are ordinary garments which one can change. In other words, peshat, remez, drush and sod are four set approaches through which the Torah can be comprehended. The “garment” of Chasidus, however, is not fixed in any form.]

Chapter VIII ff.

Tanya, ch. 39 (53a). [This is R. Schneur Zalman’s interpretation on Avot 4:2, “The reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah,” that the reward of a mitzvah reflects the essential nature of that mitzvah itself.]

For the specifics of the expression “dissemination,” or “dispersal, spreading out” of the fountains, see below, Chapter XXI.

When Moshiach was asked by the Baal Shem Tov when he would come, his response was, “When your fountains [of Chasidus] will be disseminated to the outside.”

The Baal Shem Tov recorded this incident in his well-known letter describing his soul’s ascension on High on Rosh Hashanah 5507. The letter is printed at the end of Ben Porat Yosef, and in a book of letters by the Baal Shem Tov and his students (Lwow 1923, wherein the publisher notes that he copied this letter from the one written by R. Yechiel, the Baal Shem Tov’s son-in-law, and signed by the Baal Shem Tov). It is also printed in Ginzei Nistarot (Jerusalem, 1924) part 1 ch. 65, and in part at the beginning of Keter Shem Tov and the Maggid of Mezritch’s Likkutei Amarim.

Likkutei Dibburim vol. 2, chapters 16-18 explains the Baal Shem Tov’s question and Moshiach’s answer according to Chasidus. [To quote a segment (ch. 17 sect. 30-32):

The Baal Shem Tov asked Moshiach: “Master, when are you coming?” It would seem that this was an unwarranted question. Consider the following explicit episode in Sanhedrin 98a:

R. Yehoshua ben Levi asked this question of Elijah the Prophet, and was told to ask Moshiach himself. Moshiach reply was, “Today.” When Moshiach did not come, R. Yehoshua returned bitterly depressed to Elijah, who explained that this answer meant, “Today—if you will listen to My voice” (Psalms 95:7). That is, Moshiach could come only when Israel listened to the voice of G‑d.

With such an explicit reply in the Talmud, why did the Baal Shem Tov again ask the question, “Master, when are you coming”?

The Baal Shem Tov is the Moshe Rabbeinu of the entire school of Chasidus, for he was chosen by G‑d to be the one through whom the teachings of Chasidus at large were revealed. Similar to Moshe, the Baal Shem Tov was a “shepherd” of Israel who was concerned for even the least of his flock. Known for his great love for all Israel, the Baal Shem Tov could find virtue in every single Jew, and in every mitzvah he could perceive the true radiance within. He witnessed the great self-sacrifice of his fellow Jews, the pain which they were suffering in Exile, the splendor of all their mitzvot, and thus the way in which they were listening to G‑d’s voice. And so his soul ascended on High and visited the heavenly palace of Moshiach and asked him, “Master, when are you coming?”

In response, Moshiach told the Baal Shem Tov, “When your wellsprings will be disseminated abroad” (cf. Proverbs 5:16). Rashi comments: “You will ultimately acquire disciples and give forth instruction publicly, and your name will be renowned.” Chasidus explains the term “wellspring”: the space required by a wellspring is but sinewy and restricted, and its waters trickle forth by drops; a river, in contrast, covers considerable length and breadth and its abundant waters flow turbulently from its place of origin to the outside (chutza), to places which are not even fit for it. Likewise, Chasidus has to spread abroad and become so popular and widespread that everyone would be able to know the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings and be familiar with this G‑dly understanding.]

See B’Shaah Shehikdimu 5672, p. 771 ff., that the revelation of Chasidus is analogous to the future revelations of the era of Moshiach.

To quote Megillah 29a: “The Holy One blessed be He will return with them from Exile.”

[SHECHINAH. The “Divine Presence,” the immanent category of the Divine influence, brought down to earth by the study of the Torah and the practice of mitzvot. Shechinah is identified with malchut and the source of the souls, and also corresponds to the second letter hay of the Tetragrammaton, Y-H-V-H. One who sins, on the other hand, breaks up the unity of the Divine Name, dragging down the Shechinah into “exile.”]

Rambam, Hilchot Melachim, end. Even when the Beit Hamikdash stood, the entire world was not “full of the knowledge of G‑d…,” for that is set to take place only when Moshiach will come.

See Rambam, ibid., that in the era of Moshiach there will be no jealousy, etc., and there will be an abundance of all delights, etc. Although Rambam maintains (ibid., beg. chapter 12) that the prophecies concerning the era of Moshiach—such as “the wolf will lie down with the lamb”—are only to be taken allegorically and not literally, yet he included predictions that in the era of Moshiach there will be great change?

—According to the view (as also favored by Kabbalah and Chasidus) that the descriptions are to be taken literally, how much more so will there be great changes. See also Raavad, who disputes Rambam’s allegorical interpretation (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:2); Avodat Hakodesh, part 2, ch. 41; and elsewhere.—

Perhaps the following explanation may be offered as a solution to this difficult issue: Rambam also maintains that there will be two distinct stages in the era of Moshiach after it has become certain that Moshiach has arrived. The first stage of the Redemption is when “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d...” (Isaiah 11:9); and it is this period—wherein there will be no great change in the nature of creation—which Rambam refers to in the entire chapter cited above. This corresponds to Rambam’s Hilchot Teshuvah 9:2, that the era when “the earth will be filled with the knowledge...” refers to the period in which the world will operate according to its natural order.

Accordingly, one can answer the following question of Lechem Mishneh (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:7). How can Rambam follow the Talmudic opinion of Shmuel, that there will be no great change in Creation when Moshiach comes, and that all the prophecies are allegorical, if elsewhere he follows the opinion of the Sages, that there will indeed be a great change in Creation, and that the prophecies are to be taken literally?

[This question partly involves a discussion of whether one is allowed to carry a sword on Shabbat (Shabbat 63a). The Sages forbade it, for it constitutes the prohibited act of carrying on Shabbat. R. Eliezer, however, maintained that swords are defined as “ornaments,” which one may carry on Shabbat. The Sages replied: Since Isaiah 2:4 prophesizes that “they shall beat their swords into plowshares...,” a sword is not considered to be an ornament, but rather a lethal weapon which will be abolished in the era of Moshiach. Hence, it may not be carried on Shabbat.

Thus, the contrasting opinion—that one may carry a sword on Shabbat—will maintain that the Messianic prophecies are merely allegories, and thus, swords will exist in the era of Moshiach, since they are ornaments. The Lechem Mishneh therefore asks: How can Rambam rule in Hilchot Shabbat that one cannot carry a sword on Shabbat—meaning that he understands the prophecies in their literal sense—and at the same time follow the aforementioned opinion of Shmuel that the prophecies are allegories?]

One can answer: The statement in Talmud and Rambam concerning the era of Moshiach that, “there is no difference between the present age and the era of Moshiach besides the servitude to the nations,” refers only to the beginning of Redemption. However, in the second stage, Rambam also agrees that there will be a great change, and that the prophecies will be literal.

(This further clarifies and supports the answer of the Kesef Mishneh (Hilchot Melachim, beg. chapter 11) to Raavad, ibid.) [Raavad asks: Rambam maintains that Moshiach will not have to perform miracles to prove himself; but this is not so, for when Bar Kochba said that he was Moshiach, the Sages tested him to see if he could “judge according to his sense of scent” (Rashi, s.v. Rava amar, Sanhedrin 93b). That is, they tested him to see if he was so learned as to instantaneously know the answers. When he could not, they killed him. This proves that Moshiach will have to perform miracles and signs!

Kesef Mishnah answers: Raavad’s account of Bar Kochba is correct if one follows the report given in Sanhedrin 93b. However, an alternate report in Eichah Rabbah relates that Bar Kochba was killed by non-Jews. Rambam is obviously following Eichah Rabbah because Sanhedrin 93b is not consistent with the opinion of Shmuel—that there will be no difference between the present and the era of Moshiach besides servitude to the nations. Eichah Rabbah, however, is consistent with Shmuel’s opinion, which Rambam follows, which is why Rambam accepts Eichah Rabbah over Sanhedrin.] Thus, there is no contradiction, and Rambam is consistent with his own reasoning, that in the beginning of Redemption, Moshiach will not need to perform miracles and signs to prove himself, and he will not need to be able to “judge according to his sense of scent.”

In the second stage, however, Rambam also agrees that there will be great innovation in the world, and the verse in Isaiah 2:4, “they will beat their swords into plowshares,” is to be taken literally—not allegorically. And since swords will be abolished (at least) in the second period of the Redemption, it is proof they are not ornaments [and thus cannot be carried on Shabbat, as discussed above].

Berachot 34b; Rambam, Hilchot Teshuvah, end of ch. 9; Hilchot Melachim 12:2.

See Zohar I:139a. See also above, footnote 36.

Zohar III:125a, explained in Igeret Hakodesh, epistle 26.

[KRI AND KTIV. Numerous words in Torah are not pronounced as they are written. These words are known by two terms, kri and ktiv. Kri refers to the manner in which the given word is read, while ktiv refers to manner how the word is spelled, or written in the Torah. The Name of G‑d, the Tetragrammaton, is composed of four letters. It is written yud, hey, vav, hey. Its pronunciation in prayer, however, is Ad-nay. (The Tetragrammaton’s colloquial pronunciation is Havaya.) The concept of kri and ktiv is pertinent only in our current era, before Moshiach’s coming, for kri—the manner in which the word is “revealed” by speech— indicates the level of G‑dliness presently revealed, while ktiv—that which is not pronounced—indicates the level of G‑dliness that transcends nature, that which is “hidden.” When Moshiach comes, however, the aspect of G‑dliness presently hidden within creation will be manifest and revealed. Consequently, we will pronounce the Tetragrammaton in the same manner as it is written, for G‑dliness will be revealed and manifest within creation.] (See also Igeret Hakodesh, epistle 19 (128a); Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 6d; Shir Hashirim 31c.)

Pesachim 50a.

[HAVAYA. The Ineffable Divine Name, or Tetragrammaton, composed of the four letters Y-H-V-H, and pronounced in conversation as Havaya. (See footnote 40.) There are many Hebrew names for G‑d in Scripture, each of which expresses a different aspect or attribute of the Divinity. Havaya refers to G‑d the Infinite, transcending creation and nature, time and space, completely—the level of Divinity which brings everything into existence ex nihilo. The name Elokim represents the level of G‑d which conceals the Infinite Light and life-force, for this Infinite force is too intense for finite creatures to endure. Elokim is the power of G‑d that makes the world appear as though it exists naturally and independently. Therefore, Elokim has the numerical value of the word hateva (nature). In the era of Moshiach, however, the level of Havaya will be revealed and perceived throughout nature.]

Zohar III:257b. Shaar Hayichud v’HaEmunah, ch. 7 (82a).

[In the times of the Beit Hamikdash they pronounced the Tetragrammaton as it is written.]

However, the revelation of the era of Moshiach will be even greater than the revelation that existed during the time that the Beit Hamikdash stood. For in the era of Moshiach, the name Havaya will be manifest throughout the entire world (and not limited as it was when the Beit Hamikdash stood. This can be compared to Likkutei Torah, Drushei Rosh Hashanah 57c, discussing the superiority of the first Beit Hamikdash over the second: when the first Beit Hamikdash stood, the revelation of Divinity pervaded throughout the borders of Israel). [When the second Beit Hamikdash stood, Divine revelation was limited to the Beit Hamikdash. When Moshiach comes, however, this Infinite Light will pervade the entire world.]

[THE FOUR WORLDS. Kabbalah and Chasidus explain the phenomenon of the creation of a finite physical universe by an Infinite Creator with the concept of tzimtzum, contraction and concealment. G‑d effected a series of concealments of His presence and infinitude, resulting ultimately, in the creation of our physical universe, through a virtually total concealment of G‑d. The non-corporeal intermediate steps between the Creator and this material world are called “worlds,” referring to the basic levels of spiritual existence in the creative process. The differentiation reflects their level of concealment of the Divine light, the higher worlds receiving this light in a more revealed manner.

In general, there are four worlds: Atzilut (World of Emanation—a state of proximity and relative unity with G‑d); Beriah (World of Creation); Yetzirah (World of Formation); Asiyah (World of Action or Making—the final stage in the creative process). The four worlds have been compared to the elements inherent to building a house. Four stages are necessary: 1) A general idea, as yet undefined; 2) A definite idea of the house in one’s mind; 3) The architectural plan or design; 4) The actual building of the house (Tanya, Bi-lingual Edition, Kehot 1998, p. 343 fn. 3; p. 922).

“Higher” (or “Supernal”) and “Lower” refer to stages closer or more distant from the Creator, with a greater or lesser awareness of Him (not, of course, implying physical distance). Lower Worlds appear to be independent entities apart from the Creator.

Through the performance of mitzvot and subordination of the physical world to the Divine purpose, all Worlds are elevated, and experience a clearer apprehension of G‑d. See Mystical Concepts in Chassidism, ch. 2 (Tzimtzum) and ch. 4 (Worlds).]

See Rosh Hashanah 8b; Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1:3; Tanchuma (Buber), Bo 13.

[Unlike Shabbat, which follows an inexorable cycle, the Hebrew months are determined by Beit Din, based on Biblical sanction. Since the lunar cycle is about 29 1/2 days, some months must be 29 days long and others 30. Based on testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon, the Beit Din declared that day Rosh Chodesh and counted the days for the next festival (Pesach, for example, on the fifteenth of Nissan). Rosh Chodesh was always on the thirtieth day or the thirty-first of the previous month. Now, reconciling the 354 days of 12 lunar months with the 365 days of the solar year created more complexity. The Beit Din, depending on when the witnesses arrived to testify, was empowered to add a thirteenth month periodically. Hence, Rosh Chodesh and the festivals were dependent on the actions of the human court.]

Sefer Hamaamarim 5699, p. 207, in the name of Ramaz. See Shaar (and Sefer) Hagilgulim, beg., and elsewhere.

[NAMES OF THE SOUL. These five names are the five levels of the soul—see next footnote. In rough translation: Nefesh (“Vitality”) is the lowest grade and life-force of the body, the natural soul and simple life of man. Ruach (“Spirit”) the next grade, is the spiritual faculty vivifying man’s emotional attributes. Neshamah (“Soul”) is the Divine Force vivifying the intellect. Chaya (“Living”) is an even more refined G‑dly level. Yechidah is the Divine spark itself enclothed in the most refined spark of the soul. Yechidah is the innermost point of the soul, “united” and one with G‑d. It represents total bittul, self-nullification, nothingness. Since every one of Israel possesses each of the five, four obscure and one predominant, Yechidah in this sense is expressed in mesirat nefesh, literal self-sacrifice—martyrdom if need be.

David, Eliyahu, Moshe, Adam, and Moshiach each possess the general level of one of these five categories. Moshiach possesses the general Yechidah of all souls.]

[As clarified in previous footnote.] See Bereishit Rabbah 14:9, Devarim Rabbah 2:37: “Five names are given to the soul—Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chaya, Yechidah.” In some editions of the Midrash there are changes in this order, and also in piyutim [liturgical hymns], etc. But in the writings of the Arizal (Eitz Chaim, Shaar 42, beg.; Shaar Hagilgulim, beg.) and in Chasidic literature this order is stated specifically. See also Zohar I:81a; 206a.

See Imrei Binah, Shaar Hakriyat Shema, ch. 8. See also Likkutei Torah, Balak 70a.

[The difference between Yachid (Sole, Only) and Echad (One) is the difference between G‑d’s Oneness as expressed within the multiplicity of creation (His Oneness, Echad), and His essential Oneness above multiplicity (His Soleness, Yachid), in relation to which nothing has any existence.]

[SEDER HISHTALSHELUT. Lit., “order of progression of worlds,” or, “chain of worlds”; i.e., the transmission of life to the various levels of creation through a process of gradual and ordered descent and downward gradation, by means of numerous contractions of the Divine life-force. See footnote 45 for references.]

See Sanhedrin 92a. (See also Midrash Hane’elam, Vayera (Zohar I:114b): “The righteous do not return to dust...but endure forever.” The opinions of Rambam and Ramban as to when the essential part of the reward will be manifest and the decisions concerning this are discussed in Likkutei Torah, Tzav 15c; Drushim L’Shabbat Shuva 65d; and Derech Mitzvotecha 14b.

[Concerning the nature of eternal life, Rambam is of the opinion that after the first stage, which is the Resurrection of the Dead, the final and ultimate stage will be the existence of the soul without the body (termed and/or known as the World to Come). Ramban disagrees, and is of the opinion that the Resurrection of the Dead is the ultimate stage, wherein the body and soul exist together. Chasidus agrees with Ramban.]

It is only in relation to seder hishtalshelut that this limitation exists, i.e., that peshat, remez, and drush are revealed and the esoteric part, sod, is concealed. In relation to the essence and inner being of Torah, however, the level of Yechidah, there is no division between the esoteric part and the other portions; even the esoteric part can be revealed.

In terms of the four levels of Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, and Chaya, a person retains his individual entity, and it is “he” who serves his Creator. Since his self is undiminished, therefore: 1) His intention in his service of G‑d is for the sake of the desirable consequences of serving G‑d. (In general, this is the idea of behavior according to the standards of the law, as explained in the aforementioned Padah B’Shalom, p. 772-3.) For even on the sublime level of Chaya one has some objective, some self-interest (Sefer Hamaamarim 5670 p. 151; Kuntres Ha’avodah ch. 5); 2) The nature of his middot is not changed, but rather he exploits and makes use of those middot which he already naturally possesses to love G‑d, etc.

On the level of Yechidah, however, one attains complete nullification of one’s own “existence,” and therefore: 1) One has no “self-interest” in his service of G‑d whatsoever—corresponding to behavior beyond what is required by the law; 2) The very nature of one’s middot are also changed (from gevurah to chesed, or chesed to gevurah, etc.).

For this “unconsciousness” is only in relation to the manifest levels of the soul, but does not extend to its essence, Yechidah ; and therefore it is possible to arouse it.

[The adjective “essential” in “essential energy”—used here as well as other places in the text in translation of chayut atzmi—does not mean “important,” but refers to Essence.]

See Sefer Hamaamarim 5699 ibid., that the innermost part of the Torah that Moshiach will teach is by virtue of his level of Yechidah. It is noteworthy that Achiyah the Shilonite—who was the teacher of the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Chasidus (the inner part of the Torah, and a foretaste of the Inner Torah to be revealed in the future)—is called “Master of Chaya-Yechidah” (Sefer Hasichot 5700, p. 159). Similarly, the leaders and heads of Israel in every generation—the masters who revealed Chasidus—are of the category of the general Yechidah of all Israel (R. DovBer, Shaar Hateshuvah, Padah B’Shalom, ch. 12).

[Achiyah the Shilonite is a Biblical figure mentioned in I Kings 11:29 ff. In Rambam’s introduction to his Mishneh Torah, he mentions that Achiyah was one of those who left Egypt (cf. Bava Batra 121b). The Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 5:1) states that “he was one of those who left Egypt, a teacher of Eliyahu.”]

The Baal Shem Tov’s successor was Rabbi DovBer, the “Maggid of Mezritch” (d. 19 Kislev 1772). He is credited with being the organizer of the Chasidic movement during the twelve years of his leadership in succession to the Baal Shem Tov. He was the teacher of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad movement. Like his predecessor, he left no written works, but his disciples compiled his teachings in two books, Maggid Devarav l’Yaakov and Likkutei Amarim.

Within Chasidus itself, Chabad Chasidus was the part that brought general Chasidus into the realm of understanding and comprehension by ChaBaD, the three intellectual attributes—chochmah (wisdom), binah (understanding), and daat (knowledge). Thereby, Chabad Chasidus revealed the essence of the inner part of Torah. (Padah B’Shalom 5685, quoting R. Shalom DovBer, Yud-Tes Kislev 5679. See also Likkutei Sichot vol. 4, p. 1138.)

[The Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid of Mezritch revealed the inner part of Torah, but their revelations were in a form higher than rational understanding and beyond intellectual comprehension. The doctrines were trans-rational, appealing to faith, and called for a largely emotional response. Intellect was not the obvious instrument for dealing with their Chasidic teachings.

R. Schneur Zalman, the founder of Chabad Chasidus, articulated these doctrines in a form which intellect could comprehend. Thus he revealed the essence of the teachings of the inner part of Torah. That is, he was able to take that which totally transcended reason and logic, and bring it into the realm of intellect. One can accomplish such a feat only by penetrating to the essence of the inner part of Torah. For although essence is that which is not limited to any particular form—be they rational, or emotional—nevertheless, essence is expressed through all of these forms. See below, Chapter VII, and footnote 64. Hence the revelations of the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid were the preparation for the revelation of the essence of the Inner Torah, which was accomplished by R. Schneur Zalman.

Sefer Hamamarim 5688, p. 201 ff. (also in Sefer Hasichot 5688, p. 18 ff.) analogizes the contributions of the founders of Chasidus, the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid, to the contributions of the Patriarchs before the Torah was given at Sinai. The Patriarchs fulfilled all the commandments of the Torah even before they were given (see Kiddushin 82a). Yet, as Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:3 states, this was but the “fragrance”—not the substance—of Torah. The revelation at Sinai, however, was the essence of Torah. Just as the deeds and teachings of the Patriarchs were a preparation for the giving of the Torah at Sinai through Moshe, similarly the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid prepared the way for the revelation of the essence of Chasidus through R. Schneur Zalman.]

Sefer Hasichot 5705, p. 127 ff.

[The Arizal explains (Sefer Hagilgulim ch. 7) that there are two kinds of souls: 1) Those included in Adam’s soul; 2) Those not included in Adam’s soul. This second category of souls is superior to all others; thus, they are termed “new souls.”] See Likkutei Torah, Shir Hashirim 50a.

[This talk was delivered on Yud-Tes Kislev, the nineteenth day of the Hebrew month of Kislev, the anniversary of liberation of R. Schneur Zalman from Russian prison, after having been arrested for his teaching of Chasidus and falsely accused of treason.] The festival of Yud-Tes Kislev marks the turning point at which Chasidus was presented in intellectual terms (Torat Shalom, p. 114; see Likkutei Dibburim vol. 1, p. 22a ff.). Thus, as explained in footnote 59, the essence of the inner Torah was expressed. Significantly, Yud-Tes Kislev is termed Rosh Hashanah of Chasidus. “Rosh Hashanah” (the “head” of the year) is inclusive of the entire year, as a head is comprehensive of the entire body, and on Rosh Hashanah there is elicited “depth and innerness... from the core and Essence of the blessed Or Ein Sof.” (Letter by R. Sholom DovBer, Yud-Tes Kislev 5662, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 1 p. 259; Kuntres Umaayan, intro., p. 17).

[Concerning Yud-Tes Kislev, see The Arrest and Liberation of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, (Kehot, 1999), and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, A Biography (Kehot, 2002).]

This analogy of Chasidus to oil is even more appropriate after Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s liberation, as expressed in Rabbi Shalom DovBer’s well-known aphorism of this event: “Just as the olive gives forth its oil when it is squeezed and pounded, similarly, it was only through the accusations that took place in Petersburg that the essence was revealed...” (Torat Shalom, p. 26).

[A striking difference can be noted in the style of R. Schneur Zalman’s teachings before his arrest and after his release, named among Chasidim, “before Petersburg” and “after Petersburg.” His earlier teachings were brief, pithy, difficult to absorb. His later works were expansive, rich in elaboration, no less deep but more accessible because of the more generous exposition. The fact that the hardships and ominous arrest marked the turning point is not fortuitous, for “oil” only comes forth after “pounding.” Chasidic tradition interprets the arrest as symbolic of the test of the validity of Chasidus and its “right” to prevail. The release demonstrated that the “wellsprings may spread abroad” without hindrance.]

Imrei Binah, Shaar Hakriyat Shema, ch. 54 ff., explaining the difference between “wine” (secret) and “oil” (secret of secrets). As long as wine is withheld and concealed inside the grape, it gains strength and quality. Conversely, oil does not gain any additional power at all by being contained and withheld in the olive. Thus wine is the category of the hidden—and has the numerical value of the word sod, “secret.” (Hence it derives strength from being withheld and concealed.) Oil however, transcends the sense of “concealment and revelation” (and therefore the constraints of concealment do not give it any additional strength). Thus, Chasidus, compared to oil, also transcends “concealment and revelation” (and therefore has the power to reveal the hidden, as explained above in footnote 53).

See Torah Or 39a; 110d; Likkutei Torah, Naso 27d; Imrei Binah, ibid., ch. 56 (54b).

[The “essence” is apart from all particular aspects, manifestations, or qualities derived from it, and yet is the foundation and central point of everything. “Essence refers to the absolute, fundamental, non-derivative state of any being, the state which transcends revelation. It is non-composite. Manifestation does not involve the Essence of being, the Essence being the Source of the manifestation...” (See the Explanatory Notes mentioned in footnote 16.)]

[INNER TORAH—REVEALED TORAH. “Inner Torah” (Pnimiyut Hatorah ; Nis-tar) is a term used to describe the esoteric aspects of Torah, dealt with for example in Kabbalah, etc. The “Revealed Torah” (Torah haniglit; Nigleh) refers to the exoteric parts, e.g., the Talmud, its commentaries, and the Codes of Law. The Inner Torah is also called the “soul” of the Torah, and the Revealed Torah its “body.” Just as the soul and body are correspondent to each other, there is a correspondence of the Inner Torah to the Revealed Torah.]

Tevul Yom, 2:5; Rambam, Hilchot Tumat Ochlin, 8:10. (Even according to R. Yochanan ben Nuri that “the two of them (wine and oil) join,” the meaning is not that oil mixes with wine, rather that the oil touches and adheres to wine. See Imrei Binah, ibid., beg. ch. 56). See also Shemot Rabbah 36:1.

[The discussion in the Mishnah concerns the ritual purity of wine on top of which oil is floating, if someone who is ritually impure touches the oil. One opinion in the Mishnah is that only the oil is contaminated because the two do not mix. R. Yochanan ben Nuri, however, maintains that the wine is also contaminated because they are attached. It is evident though, that even according to R. Yochanan the contamination is not because the oil mixes with the wine, but only because the oil touches and adheres to the wine.]

See Chullin 87a. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 105:5.

[Note the distinction between radiation or reflection of the life-force, and its Essence. The radiation of the life-force is merely a dimmed manifestation, or reflection of its source, whereas the source is the Essence of the Divine Light itself. Radiation is not G‑d’s Essence but only an emanation from Him, comparable to the light (radiation) shining from the sun. The Essence of His life-force, however, is that which encompasses and transcends creation, and permeates it in a hidden manner. Chasidus comes from this Essence of the life-force.]

Zohar II:161a. See also Bereishit Rabbah, beg.

[See footnote 9, and below.]

See Torat Shalom, p. 172: “The world considers Chasidus to be an explanation of Kabbalah. That is a mistake...”

The statement concludes, “Kabbalah is an explanation of Chasidus.” To explain: Chasidus is the comprehension of Divinity. (Yechidah is in the feminine form—it receives from Yachid [G‑d, the Sole One]. See Eitz Chaim, Shaar 42, beg. ch. 1: “The small spark [of G‑d]...clothes itself in the small spark [of man]...and is called ‘Yechidah.’”) Chasidus achieves this comprehension of G‑d by using analogies, parallels, and explanations. Kabbalah, though, explains “the location” [of G‑d] in terms of “the Body of the King,” and the sefirot, etc.

It should also be noted that the revelation of keter (analogous to darkness) is in chochmah. [As discussed in Chapter II, Chasidus is the effusion of new radiance from the innermost level of keter, the crown or highest of the sefirot. Kabbalah corresponds to chochmah, the following sefirah. Each spiritual level in the order of descent of creation is revealed in the subsequent level:] The top point of the letter yud [of Havaya, representing keter] is revealed in the yud; similarly Yechidah is revealed in Chaya; ratzon is revealed in chochmah, etc. But the intensity and essence of keter is expressed only through physical action.

[There are two major ideas discussed here: 1) The manner in which Kabbalah is an explanation of Chasidus, and not vice versa; 2) The fact that Kabbalah is only an explanation, a reduced reflection, and does not capture the essence of Chasidus.

In the first part, the Rebbe distinguishes between the nature and methods of comprehending G‑d in Chasidus and Kabbalah. Kabbalah is a descriptive “anatomy,” so to speak, of the “Body of the King”; i.e., the various manifestations of Divinity. It is interested in “indexing,” “cataloging,” and “locating” these Divine revelations, assigning them “places” and names. Hence Kabbalah is concerned with the technical identities and relations between the sefirot, the worlds, seder hishtalshelut, etc. Chasidus, however, is concerned with the direct perception of Divinity underlying all these terms, forms, and “locations.” It will thus employ all manner of explanation, example, parallels—including Kabbalah—in order to reveal the Essence of Divinity expressed in all levels. That is, Kabbalah is the technical explanation of these forms and terms in themselves, while Chasidus only uses, and is interested in, these forms as a means for perceiving Divinity. As discussed earlier in Chapter III, Chasidus is not limited to any “forms.”

An analogy: A physician uses biology, chemistry, anatomy, etc., only to gain comprehension of the body’s essential life-force, in order that he may be able to heal. He is not interested in anatomy in and for its own sake, but only insofar as it helps him further understand the nature of the body’s existence. Similarly, Kabbalah is an “anatomy,” so to speak, while Chasidus is concerned with the essential comprehension of G‑d’s being and existence.

The Rebbe then proceeds to analyze the nature of Kabbalah as a “revelation” of Chasidus. Another analogy: the anatomy textbook helps the physician understand the body; nevertheless, the text is only a schematized, secondary reflection of the body and not, of course, the essence of the body’s life-force itself. Furthermore, the full force and essence of the physician’s understanding of the human body is demonstrated not in his particular knowledge of anatomy, but in the practical effects of his healing. Similarly, Kabbalah, while it is a “revelation” and “explanation” of Chasidus, is merely an explanation, and not the essence of Chasidus itself. The essence of Chasidus is captured only in action, in practical deed.

Chasidus is likened above to the state of Yechidah, to keter, to the top point of the yud, to ratzon—all of which refer to transcendent, concealed levels of G‑d. Yechidah is the quintessence of the soul that transcends all form; keter transcends the ten sefirot and is analogous to “darkness,” a hidden level; the top point of the yud is an unformed seminal point; ratzon is a general force (see note 16 above). Now all these levels—although essentially beyond comprehension—are reflected in a reduced, dim way in their next lower manifestations. That is, in the sefirot, a reduced reflection of keter is “revealed” in chochmah; the top point of the yud is manifested in the yud, etc. Yet, these lower manifestations do not capture the essence of these higher transcendent levels. As explained in Chapter VII and note 64, “Essence” is a fundamental, non-derivative state which at once transcends all revelation, and yet permeates all. Hence in Chasidic terminology, the concept of “revelation” has a dual sense: it is a “manifestation” of the “essence,” but at the same time is merely a manifestation, a secondary reflection or glimmer of the “essence.” Kabbalah, therefore, is an explanation, but only a dimmed manifestation of Chasidus. The true inner force and essence of Chasidus is expressed in action. See further in Chapters XVII and XVIII.]

[See footnote 65.]

Yoma 32b. See also Tzofnat Paneach (by the Rogatchover Gaon) on the Torah, beg. Korach.

[This explains why even these “common” sacrifices had to be performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur.]

Similarly in relation to the prayers of Yom Kippur (“prayers correspond to the sacrifices”—Berachot 26b): The cause for the addition of the Ne’ilah prayer (in which is the primary revelation of the fifth level, Yechidah) also affects the other four prayers of Yom Kippur (although they are also recited during the rest of the year). These other four correspond to Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, and Chaya respectively. The affect of Yechidah is indicated in the expression (Likkutei Torah, Pinchas 81b), “the day on which one is obligated to pray five prayers” (see Likkutei Sichot vol. 4, p. 1154).

[When the Beit Hamikdash stood, the essence of the Jewish people was bound with the Essence of G‑d by the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. Today, this union is achieved by the five prayers which we recite on Yom Kippur, for prayer takes the place of the sacrifices. Yom Kippur is the only day of the year when one is obligated to offer five separate prayers: Maariv, Shacharit, Musaf, Minchah, and Ne’ilah. These five prayers correspond to the five levels of the soul, Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chaya, and Yechidah. The fifth prayer, Ne’ilah, or “closing prayer,” is said only on Yom Kippur. By reciting it, one reveals the Yechidah of the soul, which is the state of complete union with G‑d. Hence the meaning of Ne’ilah or “closing”: all the doors are closed, excluding everything but the union of Israel with the Essence of G‑d.

Although Yechidah is associated specifically with Ne’ilah, it nonetheless permeates the entire day of Yom Kippur, as indicated in the expression “the day on which one is obligated to pray five prayers.” That is, throughout the entire day, at the time of each prayer, this fifth category, Yechidah, illuminates and permeates.]

See Likkutei Torah, Drushei Yom Kippur 70d, that “Shabbat Shabbaton” [i.e., a “Shabbat” over regular Shabbatot, as Yom Kippur is called], is [a revelation of] Or Ein Sof that is vested in radla. And this is the level of Chasidus, as explained above in Chapter II.

The source of the text of Modeh Ani is Seder Hayom. It is quoted in Ateret Z’kenim, beg. of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim; Shulchan Aruch Harav 1:5 (and in the second version 1:6); Siddur Admur Hazaken, beg.

[Modeh may be translated as “acknowledging” and “giving thanks,” and also as “confessing,” “admitting,” or “conceding.” It is an expression of confronting a “fact” greater than the person. Contrasting our usage of the term Modeh, as Chasidus explains it, is not “denial,” but “comprehension.” One is able to comprehend only that which is not greater than himself; he can master it and contain it intellectually. Modeh Ani, then, is certainly a declaration of gratitude, but of a specific kind: it is a pre-rational or supra-rational declaration, not the reasoned product of sharp thinking. It is instinctive and spontaneous, emanating from the soul.]

Shulchan Aruch Harav, second version, ibid. In the Siddur it reads, “remember G‑d hanitzav…” [instead of the word omed, used in Shulchan Aruch. Although both omed and nitzav are identically translated as “standing,” the term “nitzav” denotes a stronger presence than “omed.” See Or Hatorah, Devarim, p. 1202.]

Jeremiah 23:24.

Siddur Admur Hazaken, loc. cit.

Shulchan Aruch Harav, first version, 1:2. See also Darkei Moshe on the Tur, ibid. (from Guide for the Perplexed III, ch. 52).

Shulchan Aruch Harav, second version, 1:5. Note numerous changes from the first version. This, however, is not the place for further examination.

Perhaps one can say that the obligation of Torah study, which is constant and ceaseless (and is a manner of study that brings to practice—i.e., Divine service throughout the entire day), always contains an element of “waking from one’s sleep.” For, as stated in Likkutei Torah, Shelach 44a, one is able to attain Torah knowledge only because previously, when one was in his mother’s womb, he was taught the entire Torah, until being tapped by an angel above the mouth [making him forget] (Niddah 30b). Through Torah study, one regains what he had known before, but had forgotten (and left him). [Thus, Torah study is analogous to “waking from one’s sleep.”]

Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4.

[The blessing Elokai Neshamah follows the blessing for washing the hands, and the blessing of thanksgiving for physical health, Asher Yatzar. See Siddur Tehillat Hashem, Morning Blessings.]

[There are two categories of blessings: 1) Birchot Hanehenin are blessings of gratitude for enjoying G‑d’s Creation, include Hamotzi before bread, and similar blessings. 2) Birchot Hoda’ah are blessings of praise and acknowledgment, recognizing G‑d in all His works. Although it is Birchot Hanehenin that are recited before partaking of the food, the Rebbe applies the principle to Birchot Hoda’ah as well.]

In our case, however, it is obviously not possible to make a blessing for the restoration of the soul before (it is restored, the parallel of) deriving benefit; it is nevertheless obligatory to make the blessing immediately upon awakening. This would correspond to (and even surpass) the concept of the blessing recited on purification by immersion in a mikvah: Although the blessing cannot be recited before immersion, since “the person is not yet fit [to recite it],” one does not postpone the blessing to a later time. Rather, the blessing is said immediately upon emerging from the water (Pesachim 7b; see also Shulchan Aruch Harav 6:5: “One should recite the blessing as close to the action as possible...”). [Hence, the blessing of acknowledgment for the restoration of the soul in the morning certainly should not be delayed.]

For one is not allowed to enjoy anything of Creation without reciting the appropriate blessing (Berachot 35a).

Berachot 60b; Shulchan Aruch Harav, 1:7.

[See below.]

Rosh on Berachot, ibid.; Shulchan Aruch Harav 46:3.

[Modeh Ani only contains the words “Everlasting King” in its reference to G‑d, but does not mention any of His Names directly, for one is not permited to pronounce any of G‑d’s names until after the morning ritual washing of the hands. Washing the hands restores purity and cleanliness to the mind and body. Shulchan Aruch Harav first version, 4:1,4.]

Berachot 40b, Shulchan Aruch Harav 214:1.

[A “blessing” in Jewish law is defined by its mention of G‑d’s name and His Kingdom, as in the formula: “Blessed are You, L‑rd our G‑d, King of the universe...” The text of Modeh Ani does not contain these elements.]

Being “holy,” they were able recite this blessing amid cleanliness immediately upon awakening from their sleep. (Rabbenu Yonah, Berachot 60b, s.v. Ki Shama).

Berachot 57b, Zohar I:169b; III:119a.

See Eichah Rabbah on Lamentations 3:23, “They are new every morning, great is Your faithfulness.” See references there.

Zohar III ibid. Nitzutzei Zohar (on Zohar ibid.; and 198b) refers to the following sources: Sifri, Hazinu 32:4; Zohar Chadash, Bereishit 18b and Rut 88d; Mordechai, Bava Metzia sect. 406 (likewise in Kol Bo, 116) from Responsa and Rabbinical Edicts of Rabbenu Tam. Ibid., 408 from Jerusalem Talmud; Radvaz 1:483; Baal Haturim, Teitzei 24:14; Rema, Choshen Mishpat 72:17; Shach sect 5 on Choshen Mishpat 292 from Responsa of Mahara Sasoon; Ketzot Hachoshen on Choshen Mishpat, 4; Pitchei Teshuva sect. 2 on Choshen Mishpat, ibid., from Birkei Yosef in the name of Rabbi Menachem Azaria of Fano.

[MALCHUT. Lit., Royalty or Kingship; the tenth and last of the ten sefirot. Malchut is referred to in the Tikkunei Zohar (intro. 17a) as the “Mouth of G‑d,” the Word or speech of G‑d by which the world comes into actual being. (Mouth and speech are used for communication with “others” outside of the self.) The world and the creatures (the “others”) make it possible to speak of a Divine Kingdom, since “there cannot be a King without a nation”—G‑d cannot be a ruler without the element of “others.”

Eitz Chaim (6:5, 8:5, et passim) speaks of malchut as “a dim speculum because it has no (light) of its own.” The Zohar (I:249b, 251b) therefore compares malchut to “the moon that has no light of its own save that which is given to it from the sun.” Paradoxically, although malchut is a passive sphere that only contains that which the other sefirot pour into it, it is specifically through malchut that the original creative plan is actualized. But malchut can only actualize the potential of the earlier sefirot. See Mystical Concepts in Chassidism, ch. 3 (Sefirot).]

YESOD. Lit., “Foundation”; the ninth of the ten sefirot. Yesod is the Divine Attribute which is the blending channel of all the preceding sefirot. Yesod is the all-inclusive principle which joins heaven and earth and makes it possible for all the emanations of the sefirot to issue forth—it is the “foundation” of creation.

In the words of Rabbi Schneur Zalman (Igeret Hakodesh, epistle 15): “The aspect of yesod is, by way of example, the bond by which the father binds his intellect to the intellect of the son when teaching him with love and willingness, for he wishes his son to understand. Without this bond, even if the son would hear the very same words from the mouth of his father, he would not understand them as well...” I.e., yesod is the bond uniting Emanator and recipient. See also Mystical Concepts in Chassidism, ibid.]

Siddur HaArizal (Kol Yaakov), beg.

See footnote 103.

Hayom Yom, p. 19.

Likkutei Torah, Pinchas 80b. See also Zohar III:257b.

In simple terms, the fact that Modeh Ani contains no mention of G‑d’s name and therefore may be recited even before the morning washing of the hands (see sources in fn. 76) indicates that Modeh Ani is of a lower realm than that of G‑d’s names. But on an inner level, the reason why there are none of the Divine names in Modeh Ani (and also why we recite it before the washing of the hands) is that Modeh Ani transcends the level of G‑d’s names.* (Note also Torah Or 100b and 121b, explaining why none of G‑d’s name’s are mentioned in the Book of Esther.)

This idea [that Modeh Ani transcends G‑d’s names] does not contradict the fact that “there is no holiness in Modeh Ani, for Modeh Ani is comparable to the word “Anochi (Hashem Elokecha)” [“I am the L‑rd your G‑d,” Exodus 20:2]. Though Anochi [“I”] refers to the Essence that transcends all names (as explained in the sources cited in the previous footnote), nevertheless (and for this very reason) the name Anochi does not possess any holiness (because the word Anochi is not a vessel for the Essence; it only alludes to it and represents it).

[The “Seven Names of G‑d” are “vessels” for what they represent—e.g., Kindness, Eternity, etc.—and as such are “holy” and must be treated with reverence (they cannot be erased, for example). Anochi, however, is not a “name” or a “vessel” for His Essence, but refers to Essence, and hence does not “contain” holiness.]

*If, as according to Chasidus, Modeh Ani has a transcendent quality [of Yechidah] not shared by Elokai Neshama (though on the "revealed" plane - as noted in Chapter X, Elokai Neshama contains all of Modeh Ani and more), why was it not recited in the days of the Talmud? A possible solution: The arousal and expression of Yechida is specifically when even one who is in a state of ritual impurity acknowledges the Eternal King (as will be explained later in Chapter XVII ff.) This idea is similar to the fact (Sefer Hamaamarim 5709, p. 107) that the capacity for self-sacrifice (engendered by Yechidah) is more evident during Exile, especially toward its end, than when the Beit Hamikdash stood. The same is true of Chasidus, the level of Yechidah: it was only revealed in the later generations, when the world was in a state of "unconsciousness", as explained in the beginning of this talk.

Although Yechidah is, in fact, mentioned in the Midrash, as noted above in footnote 49. Also in Zohar II:158b, and addendum to the Zohar (from Sefer Habahir) vol. 1 (267a), etc. (One should further note that the category of Yechidah written of in Zohar II ibid. is the level of “with all your soul,” and not the more sublime level of “with all your might”— implying that the Zohar is not referring to the true level of Yechidah.)

[That is, the Zohar does mention, although it does not elaborate upon, the idea of Yechidah, in its interpretation of the Shema: “You shall love the L‑rd your G‑d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might...” Here the Zohar associates Yechidah with the second level of love, “with all your soul,” and not with the highest form of love, “with all your might.” The latter is the highest level and corresponds to the true Yechidah ; for “with all your might” represents an unlimited, boundless love that leads one to self-sacrifice, and can result only from Yechidah. Thus the Yechidah of which the Zohar speaks is not the same as that which Chasidus expounds upon. (Yechidah, however, is sometimes applied to a lower level, the level of Chaya, to represent what is beyond the natural order in relation to, and in context of, the lower faculties. See Likkutei Sichot, vol. 19, p. 151 fn. 33.)]

Zohar I:79b; 81a. (Also quoted in Or Hachaim, Emor 22:12.) The term Neshamah of Neshamah [“soul of the soul”] (and similar expressions) is also mentioned in Zohar III:152a; Zohar Chadash, Rut 78c.

In contrast, [the subject of Yechidah is not explained and elaborated in depth] in Eitz Chaim, etc. See also note in Eitz Chaim, Shaar 42 (Drushei Abiya) beg. ch. 1 and notes and explanations there.

See Shulchan Aruch Harav 46:4.

Yevamot 61a. [The Talmud quotes Ezekiel 34:31, “You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, you are Man,” to explain: “You are called ‘man,’ but idol-worshippers are not.”]

Ecclesiastes 3:21.

In reference to a slave, see Yevamot 62a.

In reference to a non-Jew, see Ezekiel 23:20. See also Shabbat 150a, Yevamot 98a (and Ketubot 3b Tosfot s.v. Lidrosh) and elsewhere.

Genesis 1:29-30 and commentary of the Sages there.

[The verse states: “And G‑d said: Behold I have given you every herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heaven and to everything that crawls upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food. And it was so.”

Rashi comments, from Sanhedrin 59b, that “He made equal the animals and the beasts as regards food, and He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh...” Hence the sanctity of physical life in any form.]

Genesis 9:5-6 and commentary of the Sages there.

[The verse states: “And surely your blood of your lives will I demand; at the hands of every beast will I demand it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother will I demand the life of man. He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of G‑d made He man.”

Rashi comments from Bava Kama 91b, that one is not allowed to take his or her own life, or injure oneself.]

Shabbat 67a. Moreover, it is explained in the “Inner Torah” (Zohar II:26b; Tikkunei Zohar, intro., beg.) that they are actually kings (in their inner aspect).

Hayom Yom p. 102.

Bereishit Rabbah 28:3; Zohar II:28b. The luz bone [a bone located at the back of the neck] is completely different from the rest of the body. (See these references and their commentaries).

Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim, 702; Shulchan Aruch Harav 6:1. See also Eicha Rabbah referred to in footnote 95.

See Shaar Hayichud v’HaEmunah, beg.

[Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains the concept of constant creation ex nihilo through the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation of Psalms 119:89, “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands firm in the heavens.” “Your word,” the Baal Shem Tov explains, means the original ten utterances of G‑d by which the world was created in the six days of creation. Furthermore, Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains, these words “stand firmly forever within the firmament of heaven and are forever clothed within all the heavens to give life to them... for if the letters were to depart [even] for an instant, G‑d forbid, and return to their source, all the heavens would become naught and absolute nothingness, and it would be as though they had never existed at all... And so it is with all created things, in the upper and lower worlds.”

In chapter 2, Rabbi Schneur Zalman points out the error of those who conceive of creation through the false analogy of “comparing the work of G‑d, the Creator of heaven and earth, to the work of man and his schemes. For, when a goldsmith has made a vessel, that vessel is no longer dependent upon the smith, and even when his hands are removed from it and he goes away, the vessel remains in exactly the same image and form as when it left the hands of the smith. In the same way, these fools conceive the creation of heaven and earth. But their eyes are covered [and they fail] to see the great difference between the work of man and his schemes—which consists in making one thing out of another which already exists, merely changing the form and appearance from an ingot of silver to a vessel—and the making of heaven and earth, which is creation ex nihilo... With the withdrawal of the power of the Creator from the thing created, G‑d forbid, it would revert to naught and complete non-existence. Rather, the activating force of the Creator must continuously be in the thing created to give it life and existence.”]

See Likkutei Torah, Achrei 26a: “He renews [His works]...from absolute nothingness. No example or illustration at all of creation from nothingness may be found below in this physical world. One may only perceive this in minute form when the light of each new day breaks forth from the darkness of the night...which is thus somewhat like creation ex nihilo.”

Shaar Hagilgulim, beg., and elsewhere. [See footnote 45.]

To say that solely in Yechidah is there an innate feeling that all the worlds are as nothing does not contradict what is mentioned elsewhere (see B’Sukkot Teishvu (ch. 27); Mi Yiten 5706 [Sefer Hamaamarim 5706 pp. 29, 114], that (also) in Atzilut, Divinity is absolutely primary and intrinsic (Elokut b’pshitut), and the worlds considered novel creations (olamot b’hitchadshut)—for in their particular aspects, the existence of the worlds begins from Beriah, but on the general level, even Atzilut is called the World of Atzilut. See also Vayehi He’anan v’Hachoshech 5675 [in B’Shaah Shehikdimu 5672 vol. 2, p. 934], where this distinction (between Divinity as absolutely and intrinsically felt, and Divinity as an acquired perception) is applied to the following situations: before the tzimtzum and after it; to Adam in the Garden of Eden; and also to great tzaddikim, etc. And thus it will be in the Future Time. [In the Era of Moshiach, the entire world will be on this sublime level where Divinity is innately and absolutely felt.] Hence, there are numerous levels in the application of this concept.

[That is, the category of feeling Divinity innately and fundamentally (Elokut b’pshitut) is applied to many levels relative to what is under particular consideration. There are numerous uses of the terms. Thus it is no contradiction that in certain contexts, Atzilut is also said to be on this level and not just Yechidah alone. Yechidah, however, is the highest degree of this level of Elokut b’pshitut.]

In terms of one’s responsibility to the buyer there is, however, (a different prohibition:) the prohibition against putting a stumbling block before the blind (Sefer Me’irat Einayim on Choshen Mishpat 146:39). But regarding retrieving one’s object in this manner, there is no prohibition involved.

Lech 5666, end [Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShana 5666, p. 67]; and elsewhere. [There it explains that the rational is not the highest faculty of man; ratzon (will) precedes it.]

Ve’ani Tefilati 5694 (Kuntres 27). [Sefer Hamaamarim Kuntreisim, vol. 2, p. 311. The term “abstractness” describes the primitive ratzon, before it is embodied in reason. See footnote 27.]

L’maan Daat 5690, ch. 5 [Sefer Hamaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 1 p. 84]; Havaya Li Beozro 5691 (5687) ch. 3 [ibid. p. 180]; Sefer Hamaamarim Yiddish, p. 46; and elsewhere.

[There are three categories of commandments in the Torah: 1) Edut; 2) Mishpatim; 3) Chukim. Edut (testimonials) commemorate the great events in Israel’s history, such as Pesach, which commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. Mishpatim (judgments, ordinances) are laws that deal with man’s just relation to man, and which are apprehensible through human reason. Chukim (“decreed statutes”) are those mitzvot that are not comprehensible through reason, such as the laws of Kashrut.

Chasidus explains that the root of all these categories and their essence is G‑d’s Supernal Will, which transcends human reason, and thus all commandments must be performed with this awareness and intention.]

But the foundation and basis of their fulfillment must be in a manner of kabbalat ol, acceptance of G‑d’s Will, for all of the commandments are G‑d’s Supernal Will, as stated in the text. (It should be noted that also concerning Mishpatim our Sages said: “‘Before them’ [the Jewish courts]—and not before the non-Jewish courts... even if their law is the same as the Jewish law.” [One is not allowed to take cases to the non-Jewish courts.] Gittin 88b; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat beg. 26.

And furthermore: even the fact that the commandments of “mishpatim” must also be fulfilled for the sake of their reason is because G‑d so decreed that His Will embodied in these commandments should also be enclothed in “reason.”* See Likkutei Sichot vol. 8, pp. 130-31 at length.

*Specifically through this [fulfillment of the rational commandments not just for the sake of their reason, but in submission to G‑d's Will], Yechidah is more revealed - even more than through fulfillment of chukim, which can only be performed amid kabbalat ol. For it is specifically this that expresses that the fulfillment of the commandments is due to the essence of the soul, and hence one's intellect is also affected, since the "essence" is found in all the details, as will be explained in Chapter XVII below.

Note Shemonah Perakim L’haRambam, ch. 6 (quoted in Derech Mitzvotecha 84b), that concerning those evils that even logic dictates as evil, one must say, “I do not desire to do it.”

Thus we can understand the Sages’ statement (Eruvin 100b): “If He had not given the Torah (G‑d forbid*) we would have learned modesty from the cat and laws of theft from the ant...” Seemingly, one might ask, what is the point of this saying [since the Torah already has been given]?

[That is, since the Torah already has been given, why do the Sages present us with a seemingly irrelevant and merely hypothetical case? The answer to this question is that even though the Torah lays down the laws of morality, we should nevertheless also use our own powers of reason in these areas and learn what we can from the behavior of animals and nature, thus fulfilling the Torah’s laws for the sake of their logic as well.

This answer can be understood in light of Shemonah Perakim L’haRambam, ch. 6, where Rambam discusses the apparent contradiction between the point of view held by the philosophers and that held by the Sages, concerning the difference between the saintly (or highly ethical man), and he who by struggle subdues his passions and practices self-restraint. The philosophers rank the former, who acts from a disposition to be moral without having any inclination to do evil, as superior to the latter, who has such inclinations but must overcome his passions in order to act morally. For it would seem that one who by nature has no desire to do evil is far superior to one who does have such a nature.

The Sages say, however, that one who struggles and only with great difficulty overcomes his evil inclination, is more praiseworthy than he who does not exert such efforts, and has a greater reward. Furthermore, the Sages forbid one to say, “I, by my nature, do not desire to commit such and such a transgression.” Rather, one should say, “I do indeed want to commit the transgression, yet I must not, for my Father in heaven has forbidden it.”

Rambam, however, further notes that in fact, the positions of the philosophers and the Sages really do not contradict each other at all. Both are correct and in agreement—but only in relation to those evils which the philosophers term evil through the use of reason, and of which it is commonly agreed that they are evil, such as murder, theft, robbery, fraud, etc. One who has no inclination to commit these types of evil is indeed superior to he who does desire to do them, but conquers his passions. In the Torah, this category of evil is prohibited by those commandments called mishpatim (the rational laws, as explained above in fn. 125).

However, when the Sages maintain that one who does have a desire for evil but overcomes his inclinations is superior to and has a greater reward than one who does not, they are referring to the prohibitions in the category of laws called chukim, the non-rational statutes (such as mixing meat and milk, etc.). Were it not for the Torah’s prohibitions against them, they would not rationally be considered transgressions. Regarding these, Rambam says, a man should allow himself to “retain” his natural inclination for them, but yet overcome it because of G‑d’s law. (It should be noted, however, that a baal teshuvah—one who has already had an experience with the transgression—should not allow himself such inclinations. —R. DovBer, the Maggid of Mezritch, cited in Likkutei Torah, Va’etchanan 9d.)

Concerning all that human reason dictates is evil, one of course must say, “I do not desire to do it”; one who does have such a desire is in this case (mishpatim) inferior. Regarding chukim, however, one who has such a desire but overcomes it is superior. This is also why the Sages state the seemingly irrelevant information that we would have learned the rules of morality from animals had the Torah (G‑d forbid) not been given. They meant to convey the very practical message that we should still apply our own reason to these types of laws (mishpatim), and fulfill them for the sake of their intellectual reason—as well as for the reason that the Torah simply tells us to do so.]

*So Rabbi Shalom Dovber of Lubavitch used to add (in a whisper) when he would quote this saying of the sages.

In K’tzot Hachoshen sect. 4 on Choshen Mishpat 340, it is stated that as long as the deposited article is safe, there is no obligation upon the guardian to return it (and only through neglect—or if it is lost or stolen in the case of a shomer sachar—does he then have an obligation to return and compensate for it in full). However, in Shulchan Aruch Harav (443, Kuntres Acharon sub-para. 2) it states: “When the shomer chinam is liable for negligence, the obligation is not by reason of the negligence itself; but rather, from the moment the article is given to him, he is obligated to return it intact to the depositor at the proper time. If, however, within that time it is lost, not through the negligence of the guardian, the Torah has pity on him and releases him from his obligation.” And on the basis of what is written in Kuntres Acharon, ibid., we can understand the words of Yam Shel Shlomo (quoted in K’tzot Hachoshen, ibid.), “As soon as one becomes a guardian, his case is identical as “I don’t know if I returned it.”

[To clarify, three of the four categories of the guardian (shomer) listed in the Talmud are relevant here: 1) shomer chinam—one who undertakes safekeeping without compensation and is responsible only for loss or damage incurred due to his negligence; 2) shomer sachar—one who is paid for guarding the object and is obligated to pay for its loss, theft, and his negligence (he is only exempted in the case of accident); 3) shoel—one who borrows the object and has to pay for whatever happens, except in the case of its “death” in the course of work.

The nature of the obligation to return the deposited article is the subject of a dispute: K’tzot Hachoshen maintains that the guardian has no obligation to return the object until something happens to it. Shulchan Aruch Harav maintains, however, that the obligation is incumbent upon him from the moment he receives it, regardless of whether or not something happens to it—simply because he has a mitzvah of returning it. This corresponds to the point which is made in the text: that there is no basis for maintaining that one can withhold the entrusted object for the debts of the depositor, for one is obligated in the mitzvah of restoration.

As explained earlier, one who borrows an animal (shoel), unlike the other categories of guardians, is liable even for accidents. The Torah does, however, release him from his obligation to pay if the animal dies in the course of its work.

Now, in a case where the shoel is in doubt if the animal died in the course of its work or for other reasons, the authorities differ as to whether or not he is liable for compensation. Nimukei Yosef maintains that he is exempt since the obligation is of a doubtful nature. The owner of the animal can be compared to a creditor who claims money, and the debtor is in doubt if he had ever borrowed the money; in such a case, the debtor is exempt from payment. Yam Shel Shlomo takes issue and argues that the shoel is indeed liable, for this case is comparable to a different scenario, wherein the debtor replies in response to the creditor’s claim, “I don’t know if I returned the money or not”—a scenario where he would be obligated to pay (since he conceded the loan). Our situation, says Yam Shel Shlomo, is as if the shoel had said, “I don’t know if I returned the object or not,” and therefore he is obligated to pay.

The opinion of Yam Shel Shlomo can be understood in light of Shulchan Aruch Harav’s perception that a guardian’s obligation commences the moment he is entrusted with the article. Hence, any doubt that arises is comparable to the case where he claims, “I don’t know if I discharged my obligation,” since the guardian concedes that an obligation did exist. K’tzot Hachoshen maintains that the guardian has no obligation until something happens. Therefore, if there is a doubt concerning the nature of the accident, it is comparable to the situation where a doubt exists if there ever was an obligation. The position of K’tzot is entirely at odds with that of Yam Shel Shlomo.

Thus, we see that according to Shulchan Aruch Harav and Yam Shel Shlomo there is indeed an obligation upon the shoel, and consequently he is not permitted to withhold the object for payment of his debts, since the mitzvah of restoration would not be fulfilled without returning the article.]

Shaar Hayichud v’HaEmunah, ch. 7 (82a), and elsewhere.

[As explained in footnote 97, malchut is the last and “lowest” of the Divine attributes, or Sefirot, and is the instrument through which all that is latent and potential emerges into manifest reality, actuality, existence. As Shaar Hayichud explains further, malchut is the attribute which brings the world into existence and sustains it as a seemingly independent and separate entity. “World” refers here to that which possesses the dimensions of space and time, space and time themselves being creations ex nihilo from malchut.]

See Igeret Hakodesh epistle 20: “His Essence and His being... He alone...” (130a ff.). There, however, the explanation is in a different manner.

[Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains creation of yesh me’ayin (“something from nothing”) from the Essence of G‑d thus: The feeling of a created being (yesh) that it is independent and self-existing, i.e., that it has no source, can come only as a result of a level which itself has no source—“for the light is like its source, i.e., the nature and essence of the Emanator, whose Being is of His Essence, and He is not, G‑d forbid, caused by some other cause preceding Himself. He alone, therefore, has it in His power and ability to create something out of absolute nothingness, without this ‘something’ having any other cause preceding it.”]

The recognition that creation comes from the Essence of Or Ein Sof derives from (and is compelled by) the recognition that the worlds are created ex nihilo (as explained above in Chapter XV). Nevertheless, since the realization of creation ex nihilo produces the realization that creation comes from the Essence of Or Ein Sof, this latter recognition in turn not only intensifies the understanding of creation ex nihilo but further adds to its depth. For the understanding of creation ex nihilo in itself [without the knowledge that it comes from the Essence of G‑d] is (as explained above, Chapter XV) that “there is no possibility whatsoever for any independent, separate being of itself...” But this definition does not yet prove that there is also no basis for the world’s existence even in relation to the “Light” that creates it (see next footnote). However, through the recognition that creation comes from the Essence of Or Ein Sof which transcends all the worlds, one subsequently realizes that even in relation to the Light that creates the world, the world is “nonexistent.” And as a result, even after “it arose in the Divine Will to create...,” the creation of the world at every instant is totally new.

[The question being addressed is this: How can it be said here in Chapter XVI that knowledge of creation from the Essence of G‑d intensifies one’s awareness of creation ex nihilo—when in Chapter XV we said just the opposite, that it was the recognition of creation as ex nihilo that leads one to realize that creation is from the Essence of G‑d.

To answer: there are two levels, so to speak, of one’s understanding of the meaning of creation ex nihilo. The first level, the recognition that all creation is ex nihilo, leads one to realize that therefore creation must come from the Essence of G‑d, and not from any “reflection” of His Light. But this recognition in turn casts new light on and gives one a deeper understanding of the meaning of creation ex nihilo in the following manner:

Without knowing that this creation ex nihilo comes indeed from the Essence of G‑d, we only understand its meaning by saying that there is no basis for any separate existence in itself. However, in relation to its source—to that “Light” which created existence—we might perhaps believe that the world does have a prior basis; until we realize that the source of all being is the very Essence of G‑d, we do not know that existence has no basis even in regards to its source (which is malchut).

Before comprehending this latter fact, creation ex nihilo only meant that any separate, independent existence has to be created and does not have its own basis. With this understanding alone, though, we could assume that once brought into being, creation does possess an independent ground within its own source (malchut). However, since we now know that its source—the “Light” that created it—is also nothing in itself, and comes from the Essence of G‑d, there is no basis for separate, independent existence whatsoever—neither in itself, nor in its source.

The result of this recognition is our new and deeper comprehension that even after G‑d decided to create, He must renew the creation continuously, at every instant. Had the creation come through another level (or “Light”), and not from His Essence itself, such a continuous creation of every aspect of existence would not be necessary (as the text proceeds to explain). Existence, instead, would attain its own grounds for being. But since creation is from the Essence of G‑d, then even after the world is created, it still has no basis for existence, and must be constantly and completely renewed at every moment.]

[The worlds possess a pre-existing basis and root within the attribute of malchut, which is by definition that aspect of Divinity which is related to the world. Hence malchut, while it actualizes the creation, is not the aspect of Divinity which creates from utter nothing—that is, which can give rise to something totally new. Malchut is an activating channel, or instrument, for what it receives from above. See footnote 97.]

See Derech Mitzvotecha (23a), that the explanation in Shaar Hayichud v’HaEmunah ch. 6, concerning Ein Od [“There is nothing else besides Him”]—that there isn’t even any secondary or subordinate existence, in contradistinction to the manner in which the body is subordinate to the soul—is true in terms of sovev kol almin [Divine transcendence] only. Hence, the nations of the world, whose perception is only of memalei kol almin [Divine immanence], conceive G‑d’s relation to the world as the relation of the soul to the body. See there.

At first glance however, even in nations’ systems of belief, aren’t they compelled to recognize that G‑d creates all beings and does not simply vivify them? The explanation: Since the Light of memalei allows for the existence of the worlds, therefore, after the worlds were created, their nullification to this Light is similar to the subjugation of the body to the soul (even though their entire existence and being is derived from the Light, and not just their vivifying life-force). This matter still requires clarification.

[To explain: The soul’s relation to the body as similar to G‑d’s relation to the world is a frequently discussed topic in Talmud and Chasidus. On one level, it is quite simple to see that just as the soul fills and vivifies the body, so does G‑d fill and vivify the world (Berachot 10a). Yet the analogy is not absolute, as R. Schneur Zalman explains in Shaar Hayichud v’HaEmunah ch. 6, because the soul and body are two separate existences entirely, and have different sources. The soul does not create the body, as G‑d creates the world. The body is created from the seed of the parents. In the case of heaven and earth, however, “their very being and essence was brought into existence from absolute nothingness, solely through the ‘word of G‑d...’ [which] still stands forever [in all created things], and flows into them continuously, and continuously brings them into existence from nothingness, just as, for example, the coming into existence of the light from the sun within the very globe of the sun.” And just as in its source, the light of the sun is null, so also in relation to their source, which is G‑d, all the worlds are considered as naught. The worlds only appear to be separate, independent existences because of G‑d’s “self-restriction” and concealment. Therefore, G‑d does not fill and animate the worlds in the way that the soul animates the body, for the body has its own existence without the soul; whereas G‑d constantly creates the worlds anew, and they are nullified completely to Him.

Now this constant creation ex nihilo cannot result from malchut alone, as the text explains—for malchut is already associated with the worlds in their finite, seemingly separate existences in space and time. Malchut vivifies the world as the soul vivifies the body, but it cannot create the world ex nihilo, just as the soul cannot create the body. That power comes from the Essence of G‑d which transcends all the worlds. Chasidus clarifies this point, and thus intensifies one’s realization that the worlds are as nothing in relation to G‑d, and must constantly be created anew, from the Essence of G‑d.

In Chasidus, these two levels of the creative force are called sovev kol almin and memalei kol almin: Sovev kol almin is the Divine energy that transcends creation, while memalei kol almin is the Divine energy invested within the creation.

Sovev kol almin acts in a remote, imperative, unidirectional manner (i.e., solely from above to below, but not vice versa). An analogy: Sunlight shines into a room and illuminates it. However, the room itself is not changed thereby, since the light emanates from a source outside of the room; it is not the room itself that lights up. Even when the light illuminates the room, the walls of the room do not actually absorb the light. The light is merely there as light—an illumination from the luminary—but does not become part of that which it illuminates. Similarly, the energy of sovev is of an infinite order that cannot be confined within limited creatures. It therefore “encompasses” them in both a pervasive and transcending form. This is why it is called makif: it is “there,” but remains remote from that which it illuminates.

Memalei kol almin, unlike sovev, is immanent Divine energy, measured and limited in accordance with that which is being animated. Since it is limited, it permeates all of creation and is mutually interactive and inter-responsive with the subject that it enlivens. By way of analogy, the life force from the soul is clothed within the body in a way that alters the body fundamentally. It is not simply life-force which enlivens the body; it is the life force of the body, that which transforms a dead corpse into a live body. (See Tanya, chapters 46 and 48; Sefer HaMaamarim 5703, p. 31.)

In Derech Mitzvotecha (ibid.), it is stated that the belief that G‑d relates to the world in the same manner that the soul vivifies the body is not called “faith” at all, for the nations of the world, who deal with intellectual and quantitative categories, grasp this concept and understand memalei kol almin. But the unique faith of the Jew in the Oneness of G‑d is in the transcendent level of G‑d, sovev kol almin, in His Essence which does not vest itself in the world, and in relation to which the world is completely nullified, like the light of the sun within its source in the sun. There is literally nothing else besides Him—not even anything subordinate, as the nations of the world believe. Other nations call Him the “G‑d of gods,” the First Power and Source of all other powers, but they still conceive the world as having a degree of independent and separate existence, similar to the relation of the body to the soul, wherein although the body is dependent on the soul, it still has a degree of independence. The truth is, however, that He is completely transcendent—One—and there literally is nothing else.

Although “nations of the world” refers, of course, to “nations,” the idea can be extended. The perspective of the created being allows for perceptions of the created world (nature), and from observing the world certain conclusions may be drawn. One of these is the existence of a Creator, described perhaps as a First Cause or Prime Mover, etc. Inferred from creation, the Prime Mover cannot transcend creation. He is bound by the laws of nature, by time and space, by “impossibility,” and is subject to predictability. Memalei kol almin as manifest in creation is termed Elokim, the Creator in action, and this name is numerically the equivalent of hateva, “nature.” Acceptance of Elokim, the Creator, precluding a self-creating universe, is enjoined on all mankind, the “children of Noah.”]

[That is, the worlds have no pre-existent basis or root in the Essence of Or Ein Sof, in relation to which they simply do not “exist” at all.]

Shaar Hayichud v’HaEmunah, ch. 6 (80b).

Sefer Yetzirah 1:7.

[Only in the “end” is the first intention and purpose truly realized; just as, for example, man was created last, but was first in G‑d’s intent, and is the central purpose of all creation. Additionally, what is seemingly the lowest level contains the highest intent, and comes from the highest source. And, in particular, as the Rebbe proceeds to explain towards the end of the text, this lowest, unrefined physical world, and the lowest level within man are the true places for the most sublime revelations and intentions of G‑d. For it is man’s task and mission to transform this lowest world and the lowest element in himself into an abode for Divinity, “a dwelling place for G‑d here below,” through Torah study and the performance of mitzvot.]

[This exhortation also refers back to the expression explained in footnote 32, of the answer of Moshiach to the Baal Shem Tov—that he would come “when the wellsprings of Chasidus would be spread outside (chutza)” throughout the world, even to the lowliest place and person. Each person has his allotted “portion” in the world, which is his responsibility to refine and purify (birur), and restore to Holiness through Torah study and the performance of mitzvot.

Only through the dissemination to the “outside” is the essence of Chasidus revealed.]

Kiddushin 30b.

[The Talmud continues: “If you occupy yourself with Torah, then you will not fall into its [the Evil Inclination’s] clutches… but if you do not occupy yourself with Torah, then you will fall into its hands…” See further for the significance of “spices.”]

This is the wording of Rabbi Schneur Zalman in Tanya ch. 36 (beg.).

Sukkah 52b.

See references in fn. 26—based an aphorism of our Sages (Sotah 35a).

[King David was punished for extolling the Torah with the praise that the entire vivifying force of all the worlds depends on one minute detail of it. For that is not the true recognition of the Torah’s inner nature—which is its union with Or Ein Sof, in relation to which all the worlds are as naught and are utterly insignificant.]

According to what is stated in the text, we can understand the expression: “I created the Torah as spices for it.” At first glance, it would appear that the Evil Inclination must be eliminated. (This is also accomplished through Torah, as the Sages state (Kiddushin ibid.), “Drag it [the Evil Inclination] to the House of Study: If it is like a rock it will dissolve; if it is like iron it will be shattered).” Spices, however, do not destroy food but on the contrary, they flavor and season it.

It is necessary to destroy the Evil Inclination when “this disgraceful one meets you—[when] the Evil Inclination incites you.” But the essence of the Evil Inclination, the essential power of craving per se (see Likkutei Torah, Chukat 56d; Rosh Hashanah 61d), must be seasoned and flavored, thus transforming this craving to good, as explained in the text.

This is the meaning of the saying, “I created the Torah as spices for the Evil Inclination.” The meaning of “I created...spices” refers to the essence of the Torah, i.e., the intention for which it was created. And the essence of the Torah expresses itself (not in the destruction of the Evil Inclination, but rather) in transforming it to good, as will be explained in the text.

[That is, there are two aspects to the Evil Inclination: 1) That which incites a person to do evil, and which, of course, must be destroyed; 2) The essence of the Evil Inclination itself, which is the power to desire and crave; this is not necessarily evil in itself, for this depends on to where this craving is directed. And this is precisely the aspect of the Evil Inclination which one has to “season” and not destroy, but rather direct it to “taste” the good.]

[Anything which is defined excludes whatever lies outside that definition. “Revelation” of G‑d has definition, particularity, form, uniqueness; as a result, other “things” exist in a different framework. Evil, the subject at hand, is not only in a different framework, but in an opposing one. “Revelation” and evil struggle for supremacy, the supremacy over evil being in its destruction.

The Essence of G‑d is “simple”— meaning undefined, formless, beyond categorization (even to call Him “good” is irrelevant), since He transcends all bounds. Evil does not stand in contrast to abstraction, and since Essence is the ultimate in abstraction, evil is not in opposition to Essence. When Essence is summoned into confrontation with evil, it does not just deal with the external, manifestation of evil, but its root, and can transform it to good.

This doctrine is well-based in Talmud (Berachot 54a), which interprets to love G‑d “with all your heart” as loving G‑d with both your impulse to good and your impulse to evil; i.e., the latter impulse should also love G‑d.]

[See footnote 27.]

See Likkutei Sichot, vol. 7, p. 23.

Proverbs 8:30. See also references in footnote 26, where it is stated that “delight before Him” refers to the inner aspect and essence of Torah. [I.e., its union with Or Ein Sof. As R. Schneur Zalman explains in Kuntres Acharon 6, this delight and pleasure of the Torah to G‑d and man is beyond human comprehension—it is only before Him, G‑d Himself. Man cannot truly appreciate this basic character of the Torah.]

See Torah Or 17d ff.

[See footnote 7.]

[See footnote 65, and Chapter VIII.]

Bava Metzia 10a. [There are numerous manners by which on may legally acquire a moveable object (Choshen Mishpat 198): 1) Acquisition by lifting (kinyan hagba’ah); 2) Acquisition by property (kinyan chatzer), i.e., by the object being on one’s property, as discussed in the text; 3) Acquisition with the four cubits of one’s immediate territory (kinyan arba amot), i.e., were one to find an (ownerless) object in an alley or sidestreet, one needn’t actually place his hands on it to acquire it; the mere fact that it is found within a four cubit radius around the person grants him ownership. The Sages arrived at the measurement of four cubits by taking into account the average height of man, which is three cubits, plus another cubit “in which one may spread, or stretch, his hands and feet.” See Eruvin 48a and footnote 165, below.]

Bava Metzia 10b.

[This refers to the law concerning the necessity of giving an object (a writ in the case of divorce, and an object of value or a contract in the case of marriage) into the hand, or domain of the woman, i.e., her four cubits.]

See Beit Shmuel 5 on Even Ha’ezer 30. See further references there. (And the opinion of Rav Pappa—Bava Metzia, ibid.—is that one may also acquire a lost object that is found in a public domain.)

Avnei Miluim 30:5 writes that according to the opinion of Ramban (Gittin 78a), the Sages did not appropriate the place of the four cubits themselves, but rather the object that is located in them. See there. However, see Avnei Miluim ibid., that according to the opinion of Ran (Gittin, ibid.) they also appropriated to him the four cubits themselves. (So it appears from Ritva (Gittin, ibid., his second answer) and the Responsa of R. Yosef Migash, ch. 106.)

Now the Sages’ reason that “people should not quarrel” is only relevant to acquisition of the [actual] object [and not the four cubits themselves]. Why, then, did the Sages appropriate the four cubits themselves? One can answer that the Sages did not want to appropriate the object for the person in a manner which would be like “a law without a reason” completely. Therefore, they also appropriated the four cubits to the person, so that through them he may acquire the object.

[See footnote 150.]

Bava Metzia 11a. Rambam, Hilchot G’zelah v’Avedah 17:10. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 243:23, and end of 268.

Therefore, Tosfot (s.v. Arba) and Rosh (Bava Metzia 10a) maintain that the four cubits do not acquire for theft, even though the Sages made them as his own property. (As for selling and giving—see Shach 9 on Choshen Mishpat 243.) They did not designate the four cubits as one’s own property for every purpose, but only for the purpose of acquiring an object in certain situations (e.g., “for acquiring an object found,” and the like).

See D’rishah 7 on Choshen Mishpat 268.

Rambam, Hilchot G’zelah v’Avedah ibid., law 8. And Beit Yosef on Choshen Mishpat ibid. (near the end) states that this is the final opinion.

See Bava Metzia 10a-b: “If he has not said it, it makes no difference.”

See Choshen Mishpat, beg. 268: “And it [the law of kinyan chatzer] is not made inferior if he throws himself upon it” (even though he thereby openly shows his intentions of not acquiring it through the method of four cubits).

This is the question of Rashba (quoted in Maggid Mishneh on Rambam, Hilchot G’zelah, ibid., and Beit Yosef, ibid.).

Beit Yosef answers there [why four cubits is superior to chatzer and does not require any proclamation], “that since the Sages enacted the law of acquisition through four cubits so that people should not come to quarrelling, they did not see any reason to distinguish between the case of one who says ‘My property acquires this object for me’ and one who does not, for it would still lead to quarrelling.” This answer, however, requires explanation, for since ultimately they enacted the law of four cubits through the mode of designating them as his own chatzer (see fn. 154), it does not therefore appear to be possible that they should acquire for him in any manner that property itself (chatzer) does not acquire.

[That is, the answer of Beit Yosef does not appear sufficient, for if the four cubits are synonymous with chatzer, why then is the saying of these words necessary for chatzer and not for the four cubits?]

Imrei Binah, Shaar Hakriyat Shema, ch. 42.

Note Eruvin 48a: “One’s body is three cubits and one cubit in order to...” The levels of the soul which are clothed in the physical body are only the three levels of Nefesh, Ruach, and Neshamah [and correspond to the 3 cubits]. The fourth cubit, which is in addition to the length of the body, but is connected to it (for the idea of this cubit is “in order to extend arms and legs” or “in order to pick up an object which is under his feet and place it under his head”), is the category which is “in addition” to the Nefesh, Ruach, and Neshamah—the (close) encompassing level, Chaya.

[Based on Exodus 16:29 that on Shabbat, “Let every man remain in his place; let no man leave his place on the seventh day,” the Sages decreed that one is allowed to walk no more than 2,000 cubits from his “place” (as defined by his home) on Shabbat. He may walk this 2,000 cubits in any one, or in several, directions, and even walk back and forth several times up to the 2,000 cubit line. Once he passes beyond this 2,000 cubit point, however, he is only allowed another four cubits. He can neither walk backwards nor forwards further than these four cubits. The Talmud gives two reasons for this allowance of four cubits: 1) His body occupies a space of three cubits, and one additional cubit is allotted in order that he may extend his arms and legs; 2) The additional cubit is allotted so that he may pick up an object which is under his feet and place it under his head.

The Rebbe explains that this additional fourth cubit corresponds to the fourth level of the soul—Chaya. Chaya and Yechidah are both “transcendent” aspects of the soul, and not enclothed in the physical body. Chaya, however, is called makif hakarov, a transcendent level which is nevertheless still “close,” and related to the other three levels of the soul (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah). Yechidah, on the other hand, is makif harachok—so “distant” from NaRaNaCh that it is utterly transcendent, and cannot even be classed as their “source,” as was explained in Chapter V. In Chasidus, these two levels of transcendence, makif hakarov and makif harachok, are explained through an analogy to the difference between the encompassing nature of a garment and that of a house. A garment is makif, i.e., it is not part of but rather surrounds a person, yet it is also karov, “close” to him, moulding itself to the contours of his body. A house is makif harachok—it entirely surrounds and encompasses him, but has no relation to his body whatsoever. For further explanation of the four cubits, see Likkutei Sichot, vol. 16, p. 192 ff. (esp. fn. 46., p. 197).]

And then Yechidah manifests itself (not only in the purification of the physical object which is outside the person, but also) in the various levels of the soul itself, the four levels of Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, and Chaya. Only through them does Yechidah affect the physical object that is outside the person (though the arousal of Yechidah comes solely because of the purification [birur] of the physical object).

(A parallel of this phenomenon can be seen in the power of the Essence of G‑d, “Whose Existence comes from Himself” [i.e., the Essence of G‑d does not derive its origin and sustenance from anything other than itself—it is its own source]. Though this power is specifically expressed through the creation of a physical being, nevertheless, eliciting this power of Essence into an independent being comes only through the Light [Or], for “the Light is that which mediates between True Being and created being. Thus, through the mediation of the Light, the power of Essence is enabled to bring about the existence of a ‘thing’ from complete and utter nothingness.” (Yechayenu 5694, ch. 14 [Sefer Hamaamarim 5711 p. 39]; see also Igeret Hakodesh, epistle 20.) [See fn. 130, that the power of Essence expresses itself in the creation of an independent, physical being. Or is the medium, however, which brings Essence (atzmut) to the world.]

The same is true in one’s Divine service: Though the manifestation of Essence comes specifically through the actual performance of mitzvot, nevertheless, the manner of eliciting the Essence into the performance of mitzvot is only through the inner faculties (one’s intellectual and emotional faculties). (See Likkutei Sichot, vol. 3, p. 956, that for this reason love and fear [of G‑d] are called “the paths of G‑d.” See there further at length.)

And therefore (for the purpose of acquiring an object) the four cubits themselves (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chaya) are also appropriated to the person; and it is specifically through this that the four cubits acquire the object for him, as explained in the text.

One can further say that this is also the inner explanation of why the Sages did not want to appropriate the object in a manner which would be completely like “a law without a reason” (see fn. 154)—for even the purification of the physical, etc., must specifically flow from sechel (reason).

The preparation and vessel also elicit (and are not only passive receptacles for) the effusion and light. As stated in Tanya, beg. ch. 37 (and quoted further in the text), they cause the reward of the mitzvah.

Isaiah 40:5.

Tanya ch. 36 and beg. ch. 37.

Perhaps one can understand his meaning through the explanation in Shaarei Orah (end of Ki Atah) of the verse “G‑d will illuminate my darkness” [II Samuel 29:29], that this refers to the transformation of darkness to light (in the manner explained previously in the text—i.e., evil itself will be positively transformed).

Liturgy, High Holiday Amidah.

My father, teacher and master [R. Levi Yitzchak Schneersohn] explained: “The two expressions maasenu v’avodatenu (‘our works and our service’) can be understood from what is stated further in Igeret Hakodesh epistle 12, s.v., ‘And the act of tzedakah...,’ see there. It can be said that ‘maasenu’ refers to the Era of Moshiach,* and ‘avodatenu’ to the Resurrection of the Dead” (He’arot l’Tanya—Likkutei Levi Yitzchak, p. 15).

[R. Schneur Zalman distinguishes between “maaseh” and “avodah” by defining “maaseh” as that level of man’s deeds from “below” which arouse a manifestation of G‑d from “Above.” This level of action, however, does not entirely separate good from evil, nor take the vitality out of evil. “Avodah,” on the other hand, applies to that which man does with great effort, and that which is contrary to his natural inclination. By this self-abnegation of his body, and his subordination to the will of G‑d, he subdues the evil to such an extent that it can no longer awaken itself, and thus, falls away.]

*See also Iggeret Hakodesh ibid. (118a), explaining the term maaseh: "In His goodness He renews the act of creation every day," and "They are new every morning..."