Tzav: Building a Bond with G‑d

The Torah uses three different expressions to describe the manner in which G‑d instructed Moshe to communicate the mitzvos to the Jewish people:3 daber, “speak,” emor, “say,” and tzav, “command.” All the mitzvos – even those communicated with the expressions, daber and emor – are referred to as mitzvos ( מִצְוֹת ), a noun which shares same root letters as the verb tzivah ( צִוָה ) and its imperative form tzav (צַו), with just a mem added. That term is appropriate since they are not merely statements or sayings but instructions and commands.4

Nevertheless, the fact that the Torah uses the expression tzav only regarding a certain type of mitzvos indicates that these mitzvos are more closely related to the concept of a command than those communicated with the expressions daber and emor, even though they are also commandments.

For this reason, Toras Kohanim (and Rashi) at the beginning of our Torah reading state,5 “[The implication of the term] tzav is solely to connote encouragement [to fulfill a commandment] for the immediate present and [also] for future generations.” Giving a directive to encourage the performance of an action “for the immediate present and [also] for future generations” emphasizes to a greater degree the concept of a commandment.

In Chassidus,6 it is explained that the term mitzvah shares the same root letters as the Aramaic term tzavsa, meaning “bond” and “connection.” The mitzvos connect and bond a Jew to G‑d, as it were.

Since all the interpretations in the Torah are related to each other,7 it is understood that the two interpretations of the term mitzvah – a) a commandment, i.e., a directive and instruction, and b) a bond and connection – are related. The manner in which Jews bond and connect with G‑d is through the observance of mitzvos, and specifically, when they observe them as commands, i.e., they do not observe them because their minds, feelings, or the like8 motivate them to do so, but rather because they are G‑d’s commands, and they are to be fulfilled because of the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven. Observing them in that manner brings about a bond with G‑d, Who commanded these mitzvos.

From this it is understood that the mitzvos which were communicated using the term tzav, “command” – which underscores their observance as Divine commandments to a greater degree – bring out the concept of bonding and connecting with G‑d more powerfully.

The above can be understood by first explaining a chassidic concept9 regarding the bond and the connection that is established through the observance of the mitzvos.

In and of themselves, a created being and the Creator – without the bond established through the mitzvos – do not share any significant connection to the extent that when compared to the existence of the Creator, the created beings are not considered as existing at all.

Chassidus explains this with an analogy of a sage with a great intellectual capacity whose life revolves solely around abstract thought. For him, what defines a person’s humanity? His conceptual abilities. Accordingly, a simple person who is not at all involved in intellectual thought does not exist in the sage’s world at all. It is not that the sage is motivated by pride and thinks himself higher than the simple person. He does not look down upon him; it is just that they operate in two utterly different spheres.

The lack of a relationship between a created being and the Creator is even starker; there is not even a negative relationship, i.e., it cannot be said that just as the wisdom of a great sage transcends that of a lesser sage to the point where the lesser sage cannot be compared to the greater one, so too, the existence of the Creator overshadows the existence of a created being. Instead, in relation to the Creator, a created being does not exist at all.

This is the point of the analogy of a great sage and a simple person. One should not think that the Creator and a created being share a negative relationship. Instead, the existence of a created being in relation to the Creator is comparable to the way a great sage looks at a simple person; when considering the sage’s lofty wisdom, it is as if the simple person does not exist.10

To give another analogy: In Tanya,11 the Alter Rebbe writes that if someone would say that an abstract and profound concept was so lofty “that it could not be touched by a hand because of its depth,” anyone listening would laugh at him.

To explain: An intellectual concept is not a type of entity that can be discerned through the sense of touch. The intent is not that the concept and touch share some form of a relationship, but because the concept is abstract, the sense of touch cannot detect it. Instead, the idea is that the concept is an entirely different type of being, an existence that has nothing to do with physical matter or space. Therefore, in the world of touch, it is as if the concept does not exist.

This distinguishes the existence of an intellectual concept, something that could be described as spiritual when compared to physical matters which are also non-tangible, e.g., sound, appearance, and fragrance. According to Torah Law, if a person benefits from the sound, appearance, or fragrance of a consecrated entity, he is not liable for misappropriating that entity,12 because such benefit is not tangible. Nevertheless, even though sound, appearance, and fragrance cannot be perceived by the sense of touch, they are still closely connected with a physical entity that can be touched and, thus, share a “negative” connection to touch. It can be said of such entities that one cannot relate to them with touch because of their non-physical nature. Thus, the very fact that it is said that they cannot be perceived through touch indicates a certain connection to that sense.

By contrast, a spiritual entity, e.g., an intellectual concept, has no connection to touch whatsoever. Take for example, the concept that a defendant who acknowledges a portion of the plaintiff’s claim must take an oath to absolve himself of all liability.13 This concept is entirely outside the realm of touch.

Just as intellectual concepts do not exist in the realm of touch, the opposite is also true; in the realm of intellect, there is no place for touch or anything associated with it. It is not only that intellect does not relate to the physical dimension of touch. Instead, in the world of intellect, there is no place for anything associated with touch.

On this basis, we can understand the lack of connection between a simple person and a great sage. The sage is involved with lofty spiritual concepts in the sphere of intellect. In that sphere, it is as if the simple person does not exist, because he is totally removed from such concepts.

Now, if the above is true with regard to the comparison between a simple person and a great sage – who are both created beings – how much more so does it apply regarding the relationship between a created being and the Creator! Even when a created being is in an utterly perfect state, it is as if he does not exist at all in relation to the Creator.

The loftiest attribute that exists among the created beings is wisdom.14 Now, it is not that the wisdom of a created being is too limited and too physically-oriented to be considered at all significant by the Creator. Instead, in relation to the Creator, a created being and his wisdom do not exist at all.15 They are entirely separate realms.

Based on the above, it is understood that the bond between the Jews and G‑d established through a mitzvah – a term whose root-letters point to bonding and connection – does not result only from the fulfillment of the mitzvah, but also from the command to do so.16 The issuance of the commandment itself brings about a connection between the Jews who were given the command and G‑d Who commanded it.

This connection remains even when a person violates a commandment. When he violates a commandment, he is rebelling, Heaven forbid, against G‑d Who issued the command. By doing so and going against His will, he removes himself from an active and participatory connection with the Creator. However, the very fact that it is said that he violates G‑d’s will shows that he shares a connection to His will, albeit in a negative manner.

This is one of the explanations of our Sages’17 statement, “Even though he sins, he remains a Jew,” i.e., his existence remains entirely different from that of the non-Jews.

There is no concept of non-Jews sinning, acting against G‑d’s inner will,18 for they have no connection to G‑d’s inner will, not even a negative connection. Since they do not have a connection to G‑d’s inner will – i.e., they were not commanded to fulfill the 613 mitzvos that Jews were commanded to fulfill – they cannot be described as going against G‑d’s inner will, i.e., having a negative connection to it.(True, the non-Jews were given the seven mitzvos. However, these mitzvos are of an entirely19 different nature.)20

By contrast, a Jew who was given and commanded to perform 613 mitzvos remains a Jew even when he sins. Moreover, the term the Sages use for Jew in that statement is Yisrael ( יִשְׂרָאֵל ) which in Hebrew is an acronym for the phrase meaning “there are 600,000 letters in the Torah” ( יֵ שׁ שִׁ שִים רִ יבּוֹי א וֹתִיוֹת לַ תּוֹרָה ).21 No matter what a Jew’s state of observance, he remains connected with the Torah and its mitzvos and, by consequence, with the Giver of the Torah Who commanded the mitzvos.22 However, when he sins, his connection is a negative one.

From the above, it is understood that although all the mitzvos enable an equal bond and connection with G‑d because they were commanded by Him,23 nevertheless, the fundamental concept of a mitzvah – and the bond and connection it engenders – is reflected in the mitzvos communicated with the preface tzav – command.

The difference between the words emor, “say,” and daber, “speak,” and the word tzav, “command,” is that tzav is obviously a command. When one says something to another person or speaks to him and tells him to do something, the prerogative of actually doing so is left to him entirely; he can do whatever he wants. A command, by contrast, is relevant only when the commander has at least some degree of authority over the person commanded to perform the act. The very fact that a command was issued means that – to a certain degree – the matter is not left up to the choice of the person commanded. At least in part, by issuing a command it is as if the commander is compelling him to carry out the command.

Accordingly, since the mitzvos communicated through the terms daber or emor leave the choice of fulfilling the command entirely to the Jews, the concept of mitzvah – and the bond and the connection that are brought about by the mere communication of the command (before it is fulfilled) – is somewhat limited. It involves merely the connection brought about by the very fact that G‑d gave the command.24

By contrast, there is a certainty – or at least a greater likelihood – that the Jews will fulfill the mitzvos communicated with the term tzav because these mitzvos bring about a connection and a bond in a direct manner even before their actual fulfillment. The connection and bond established by virtue of the command itself is similar to the connection and bond established through the observance of the mitzvah.

Clarification is, however, necessary. Jews have free choice regarding the observance of all the mitzvos, including those mitzvos communicated with the term tzav. For that reason – i.e., because they have free choice – they will be given a full reward for the observance of these mitzvos, and punished for their lack of observance.25 How can it be said that the Jews have free choice to fulfill the mitzvos communicated by the term tzav when it is certain that the Jews will have to observe them?

That question can be answered as follows: In general, the mitzvos are divided into three vectors, each vector reflecting a different pattern of sefiros, the spheres through which G‑dly light is conveyed to the world (see the illustration below). Thus, there are some mitzvos that represent and express the right vector,26 others the left vector,27 and still others the middle vector.28 The wording with which G‑d communicated the mitzvah to Moshe reflects the vector that each mitzvah represents.

G‑d communicated the mitzvos from the right vector with the term emor, a term which our Sages29 associate with “gentle speech.” He communicated the mitzvos of the left vector with the term daber, which our Sages30 associate with “firm speech.” The mitzvos that He communicated with the term tzav reflect the unique quality that distinguishes the middle vector and sets it apart from the right and left vectors.31

The middle vector includes both the right and left vectors, but that does not define or characterize it. Instead, it is an independent motif.32 A similar concept applies regarding the expression – tzav – with which the mitzvos from the middle vector were communicated. Tzav does not reflect an intermediate quality between gentleness and firmness or a combination of the two. Instead, it is not connected at all to gentleness and firmness but rather expresses the fundamental quality of the middle vector.

Among the fundamental characteristics of the middle vector which distinguish it from the right and left vectors are:

a) It ascends to the inner dimensions of kesser,33 reaching the very essence of the Ein Sof, G‑d’s infinite dimension, that is invested in that level, while the right and left vectors reach only the external dimensions of kesser.34

b) It “extends from one end to the other,”35 radiating Divine munificence throughout the entire range of the Spiritual Cosmos, from the highest levels to the lowest levels. On every level that the light of this vector reaches, it remains the same.

By contrast, not only does the light from the right and left vectors only convey influence from the external dimension of kesser, also that light itself becomes diminished as it descends from level to level. By contrast, the light of the middle vector conveys the same strength and intensity that stems from the inner dimension of kesser to the lowest levels as at the initial levels to which it is drawn down.36

On this basis, Chassidus37 offers a well-known mystical interpretation of our Sages’38 statement, “An erection is a conscious act”: The sefirah of yesod39 – (the final attribute of the middle vector which is associated with the reproductive organs) – brings into expression the inner dimension of daas, the dimension of intellect that stems from the middle vector and controls our operative consciousness; the inner dimension of kesser is enclothed in daas.40

The mystical concept – that the positive virtue of the middle vector is that it ascends to the inner dimension of kesser – can be explained in simpler terms and applied with regard to the mitzvos:

Through their performance, all the mitzvos produce an interactive effect within G‑d’s will from which they derive. However, the mitzvos that derive from the right and left vectors affect and call forth only the external dimension of His will – in Kabbalistic terminology, the external dimension of kesser.41 By contrast, the mitzvos associated with the middle vector produce an effect upon and engage the inner dimension of G‑d’s will, and indeed, the Master of the Will, i.e., the level of G‑dliness from which His will emanates.

Therefore – i.e., because they affect G‑d’s inner will – the mitzvos associated with the middle vector were communicated with the term tzav, “command.” To communicate them, it is not sufficient merely to say or to speak (emor or daber). A command – an empowering encouragement to actually carry them out – is necessary because they affect deeper and loftier levels of G‑dliness.

Just as there is a difference between the mitzvos associated with the right and left vectors and those associated with the middle vector with regard to G‑d Who commanded the mitzvos, so too, there is a difference in the manner these different mitzvos affect and call for response from the people commanded to fulfill them, i.e., the Jews. The mitzvos associated with the left and right vectors affect only the external dimension of G‑d’s will. So too, they affect only the external dimensions of the soul of the Jew who is commanded to fulfill them. By contrast, the mitzvos associated with the middle vector that affect and engage the inner dimension of the will of the One Who commanded them also affect and engage the inner dimension of the soul of those who are commanded. Since the middle vector shines equally in all its levels, from the beginning to the end, there is no difference between the One Who commanded and those being commanded. The inner dimension of G‑d descends and becomes manifest in the inner dimension of the Jewish people.

This explains why there is certainty that the Jews will fulfill the mitzvos that were commanded with the word tzav.42 True, the Jews have free choice at all times. However, the entire concept of free choice, choosing the path of good or the opposite, Heaven forbid, is relevant only to the external dimensions of the soul, the levels at which there is an equal possibility to turn to the side of evil as there is to turn to the side of good. However, in the inner dimension of the soul, nothing opposite the side of holiness exists. Indeed, even at the time a person sins, the inner point of his soul, is faithful to G‑d.43 As Rambam rules,44 the reason that a Jew may sin at times is only because his yetzer haraovercomes him.

That statement is somewhat problematic. After all, Rambam himself states,45 “Free choice is given to all men…. [A person may] do everything he desires… [whether] good or bad.” Thus, when a person does something not good, Heaven forbid, it is a result of his own free will. How can it be said that it is only because his yetzer haraovercomes him, compelling him to go against his own will?

The answer, as explained above, is that a Jew can choose one way or the other, and this is only possible because he is motivated by the external dimensions of his soul. At all times – even at the time he sins – the inner dimension of his soul desires “to perform all the mitzvos and to distance him from sin.” The fact that he may stumble and sin is only because his yetzer hara compels him to go against his own will.

The mitzvos that were communicated with the word tzav stem from the middle vector and, thus, establish a direct connection and bond between G‑d and the Jews because they engage the inner dimension of their souls. Since the inner dimension of the soul always chooses good alone, it is appropriate to say that one can be certain that the person commanded to fulfill these mitzvos will do so.

Nevertheless, there is still room for a question: If the mitzvos are fulfilled with our conscious powers of thought and emotion, which are considered external dimensions of the soul in this context, what effect results from the fact that, in the inner reaches of his soul, a person wants to fulfill the mitzvah? Since his conscious powers leave room for options that conflict with holiness, does the inner desire of his soul lead to any actual change?

The answer is that the middle vector shines with equal power and intensity on all levels, from the highest to the lowest. Thus, the power of the inner dimension of the soul descends and manifests itself in a person’s conscious powers. The same intensity of the inner dimension of the soul is equally manifest on the lowest levels of one’s conscious powers as on the highest levels.

Based on the above explanation, it is also possible to understand the use of the term tzav – and the connection with the mitzvos communicated by that term – “to connote encouragement [to fulfill a commandment] for the immediate present and [also] for future generations.”

A lack of eagerness comes about when there is something interfering with an intellectual decision made by the mind that prevents it from being manifest in actual deed. Moreover, even when nothing prevents intellectual decisions from being manifest in the lower powers of the soul, the impetus from the mind undergoes multiple contractions and, as a result, there is a lack of eagerness. However, when the sefiros of the middle vector – daas, tifferes, and yesod – are involved, the same intensity is manifest on the lowest level as on the highest. Therefore, the mitzvos stemming from this vector that are communicated by the term tzavproduce an immediate effect. As soon as one perceives and understands G‑d’s command with the intellectual power of daas, it becomes manifest immediately with eagerness and with its full force, affecting even the lowest dimensions of our personalities, those corresponding to the sefiros of yesod and malchus, which produce actions in this physical realm.

G‑d “put the world in their hearts”46 and the changes a person brings about in his own heart have an effect on the world at large. When a person generates eagerness in his heart and within the powers of his soul so that they are not being affected by any limitation or contraction, and he erases the differences between his thinking processes (his highest powers) and his actions (his lowest powers), he brings about a similar lack of limitation in the world at large. This is reflected in the expression, “for the immediate present and [also] for future generations.” The person eliminates the limitations of time, the distinctions between past present and future, and then there is no difference between “the immediate present” and “future generations.”

This enables us to understand the words of Rabbi Shimon in the continuation of the passage in Toras Kohanim (according to Rashi’s version), “To a greater extent, it is necessary for Scripture to add encouragement in a place where [one will suffer] financial loss.” For example, encouragement is necessary with regard to the mitzvah of tzedakah, which is associated with financial loss.

Although encouragement derives from the middle vector, as described above, for it engages the inner dimension of the soul, additional encouragement is required to fill the mitzvah of tzedakah in a desirable manner. To fulfill that mitzvah, there is a need for an inward expression of the middle vector itself that engages the inner dimension of the soul to a greater degree.

As is well known,47 tzedakah is connected with the commandment to love G‑d, as spelled out in the words of the Shema, bichol me’odecha.48 That phrase has two meanings, “with all your money” and “with all your might,” i.e., an unlimited commitment. “With all your heart” and “with all your soul” represent limited service when compared to the level of “with all your might.” When it comes to giving tzedakah, a matter in which “[one will suffer] financial loss,” it is necessary to arouse the commitment of “with all your might.”

This understanding of the matter can be further clarified according to the explanations in Tanya49 regarding the advantage of tzedakah over all the other mitzvos, including even the mitzvos associated with the middle vector.

According to our Sages, tzedakah is equivalent to all the mitzvos50 and, when the Talmud Yerushalmi usesthe term mitzvah without any further description, it is referring to the mitzvah of tzedakah,51 because tzedakah is the most essential of all the mitzvos and furthermore, “ascends above them all.”52 Tzedakah is given such great priority because it affects the entire animal soul since “with the money [given to tzedakah, the person] could have purchased [necessities for] the life of his vital soul.” Thus, when he gives this money to G‑d, i.e., to tzedakah, he “is giving the life of his soul to G‑d.”

Tzedakah possesses another advantage over other mitzvos. Not only does tzedakah involve the animal soul, it also involves a person’s portion in this world, because the money which a person gives to tzedakah is not an element of the giver’s body; it is part of the world at large.

There is a well-known concept53 – that in order to refine something on the lowest level, it is necessary to draw upon a very lofty power. Accordingly, it is understood that since tzedakah is a mitzvah that encompasses one’s animal soul as a whole and also the person’s portion in this world, it is necessary to involve even greater and deeper resources within the inner reaches of the soul.

On this basis, the preciseness of our Sages’ wording – “To a greater extent, it is necessary for Scripture to add encouragement in a place where [one will suffer] financial loss” – is evident. Our Sages did not say, “when financial loss is involved,” because the phrase they used contains far-reaching allusions. Greater encouragement is necessary, i.e., the deeper resources of the inner reaches of the soul must be engaged:

a) “in a place” – i.e., when one is associated with a place, a portion of this world outside the physical body of the person observing the mitzvah;

b) “where [one will suffer] financial loss” – where the person himself, indeed, his animal soul as a whole is affected, because he is losing something with which he “could have purchased [necessities for] the life of his animal soul.”

Based on the above, we can also understand the unique connection that exists between the statement, “To a greater extent, it is necessary for Scripture to add encouragement in a place where [one will suffer] financial loss,” and its author, Rabbi Shimon.

Who has the potential to elicit “greater” encouragement, i.e., to reach the deeper resources of the middle vector and draw them down to the lowest levels, i.e., to one’s animal soul as a whole and to one’s portion in the world? Specifically, one who draws on the power of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon – i.e., Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, for whenever the Talmud refers to Rabbi Shimon without mentioning the name of the father of the Sage involved, the intent is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai54 – reached the loftiest peaks of oneness with G‑d, as he stated, “with one bond I am bonded with Him,”55 achieving the ultimate connection.56 Simultaneously, he was able draw down these levels to the material plane, to this world. As is well known,57 he was able to bring about the descent of rain in this physical world by reciting words of Torah, showing that, for him, the higher and lower realms were the same.58 Therefore, he had the power to elicit greater encouragement, i.e., to draw upon the resources of the inner dimensions of the soul even “in a place where [one will suffer] financial loss,” i.e., in matters affecting the animal soul and one’s portion of the world, connecting the very highest levels of existence with the lowest ones.

Likkutei Sichos, Volume 7, p. 30ff.
Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tzav, 5725 [1965]