Daily Quote:
Even the empty ones amongst you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate[Talmud, Berachot 57a]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 4th Portion Numbers 9:15-10:10 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Numbers Chapter 9
15On the day the Mishkan was erected, the cloud covered the Mishkan, which was a tent for the Testimony, and at evening, there was over the Mishkan like an appearance of fire, [which remained] until morning. טווּבְיוֹם֙ הָקִ֣ים אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן כִּסָּ֤ה הֶֽעָנָן֙ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן לְאֹ֖הֶל הָֽעֵדֻ֑ת וּבָעֶ֜רֶב יִֽהְיֶ֧ה עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֛ן כְּמַרְאֵה־אֵ֖שׁ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר:
the Mishkan which was a tent for the Testimony: The Mishkan served as a tent over the tablets of the Testimony.
המשכן לאהל העדת: המשכן העשוי להיות אהל ללוחות העדות:
there was over the Mishkan: Heb. יִהְיֶה. In the sense of being continuously over the Mishkan. Such [is the meaning of] the expression in the entire passage.
יהיה על המשכן: כמו הווה על המשכן, וכן כל לשון הפרשה:
16So it was always, the cloud covered it and there was an appearance of fire at night. טזכֵּ֚ן יִֽהְיֶ֣ה תָמִ֔יד הֶֽעָנָ֖ן יְכַסֶּ֑נּוּ וּמַרְאֵה־אֵ֖שׁ לָֽיְלָה:
17and according to the cloud's departure from over the Tent, and afterwards, the children of Israel would travel, and in the place where the cloud settled, there the children of Israel would encamp. יזוּלְפִ֞י הֵֽעָל֤וֹת הֶֽעָנָן֙ מֵעַ֣ל הָאֹ֔הֶל וְאַ֣חֲרֵי כֵ֔ן יִסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּבִמְק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁכָּן־שָׁם֙ הֶֽעָנָ֔ן שָׁ֥ם יַֽחֲנ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
the cloud’s departure: הֵעָלוֹת. As the Targum renders, אִסְתַּלְּקוּת, departure. Similarly,“the cloud departed” (verse 21). It would have been incorrect to write, וּלְפִי עֲלוֹת הֶעָנָן [and in verse 21] וְעָלָה הֶעָנָן, for that would not be an expression denoting ‘departure’ but sprouting forth or ascending, as in,“Behold a cloud, small as a man’s palm, rising (עֹלָה) from the sea” (I Kings 18:44).
העלות הענן: כתרגומו אסתלקות, וכן ונעלה הענן. ולא יתכן לכתוב ולפי עלות הענן ועלה הענן, שאין זה לשון סלוק אלא צמוח ועלייה, כמו (מלכים א' יח, מד) והנה עב קטנה ככף איש עולה מים:
18At the bidding of the Lord, the children of Israel traveled, and at the bidding of the Lord, they encamped. As long as the cloud hovered above the Mishkan, they encamped. יחעַל־פִּ֣י יְהֹוָ֗ה יִסְעוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְעַל־פִּ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה יַֽחֲנ֑וּ כָּל־יְמֵ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכֹּ֧ן הֶֽעָנָ֛ן עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן יַֽחֲנֽוּ:
At the bidding of the Lord…traveled: We learned in the [Baraitha] Melecheth HaMishkan [ch. 13]: When the Israelites traveled, the cloud would fold and spread itself over the tribe of Judah like a beam. They blew a tekiah (long blast), a teruah (series of short blasts), and another tekiah , but it did not move on until Moses declared, “Rise up, O Lord” (10:35), and then the banner of the camp of Judah would travel. This [appears] in the Sifrei. [35]
על פי ה' יסעו: שנינו במלאכת המשכן, כיון שהיו ישראל נוסעים היה עמוד הענן מתקפל ונמשך על גבי בני יהודה כמין קורה, תקעו והריעו ותקעו ולא היה מהלך עד שמשה אומר קומה ה', ונסע דגל מחנה יהודה, זו בספרי:
and at the bidding of the Lord they encamped: As soon as the Israelites encamped, the pillar of cloud would mushroom upward and spread itself over the tribe of Judah like a canopy. It would not depart until Moses declared, “Return O Lord, to the myriads of Israel’s thousands” (10:36). This is what is meant by,“according to the Lord’s word, through Moses” (verse 23). - [Melecheth HaMishkan ch. 13]
ועל פי ה' יחנו: כיון שהיו ישראל חונים, עמוד הענן מתמר ועולה ונמשך על גבי בני יהודה כמין סוכה, ולא היה נפרש עד שמשה אומר שובה ה' רבבות אלפי ישראל, הוי אומר על פי ה' וביד משה:
19When the cloud lingered over the Mishkan for many days, the children of Israel kept the charge of the Lord and did not travel. יטוּבְהַֽאֲרִ֧יךְ הֶֽעָנָ֛ן עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן יָמִ֣ים רַבִּ֑ים וְשָֽׁמְר֧וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־מִשְׁמֶ֥רֶת יְהֹוָ֖ה וְלֹ֥א יִסָּֽעוּ:
20Sometimes, the cloud remained for several days above the Mishkan; at the Lord's bidding they traveled and at the Lord's bidding they encamped. כוְיֵ֞שׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִֽהְיֶ֧ה הֶֽעָנָ֛ן יָמִ֥ים מִסְפָּ֖ר עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן עַל־פִּ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ יַֽחֲנ֔וּ וְעַל־פִּ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה יִסָּֽעוּ:
Sometimes: Heb. וְיֵשׁ, lit., [and there is used in the sense of וּפְעָמִים]“and sometimes.”
ויש: כלומר ופעמים:
several days: Heb. יָמִים מִסְפָּר, lit., days of number, a few days.
ימים מספר: ימים מועטים:
21Sometimes the cloud remained from evening until morning, and when the cloud departed in the morning, they traveled. Or, the cloud remained for a day and a night, and when the cloud departed, they traveled. כאוְיֵ֞שׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִֽהְיֶ֤ה הֶֽעָנָן֙ מֵעֶ֣רֶב עַד־בֹּ֔קֶר וְנַֽעֲלָ֧ה הֶֽעָנָ֛ן בַּבֹּ֖קֶר וְנָסָ֑עוּ א֚וֹ יוֹמָ֣ם וָלַ֔יְלָה וְנַֽעֲלָ֥ה הֶֽעָנָ֖ן וְנָסָֽעוּ:
22Whether it was for two days, a month or a year, that the cloud lingered to hover over the Mishkan, the children of Israel would encamp and not travel, and when it departed, they traveled. כבאֽוֹ־יֹמַ֜יִם אוֹ־חֹ֣דֶשׁ אֽוֹ־יָמִ֗ים בְּהַֽאֲרִ֨יךְ הֶֽעָנָ֤ן עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙ לִשְׁכֹּ֣ן עָלָ֔יו יַֽחֲנ֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְלֹ֣א יִסָּ֑עוּ וּבְהֵעָֽלֹת֖וֹ יִסָּֽעוּ:
or a year: Heb. יָמִים, a year, as in“Its [period of] redemption shall be a full year (יָמִים)” (Lev. 25:29).
או ימים: שנה, כמו (ויקרא כה, כט) ימים תהיה גאולתו:
23At the Lord's bidding they would encamp, and at the Lord's bidding they would travel; they kept the charge of the Lord by the word of the Lord through Moses. כגעַל־פִּ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ יַֽחֲנ֔וּ וְעַל־פִּ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה יִסָּ֑עוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמֶ֤רֶת יְהֹוָה֙ שָׁמָ֔רוּ עַל־פִּ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּיַד־משֶֽׁה:
Numbers Chapter 10
1The Lord spoke to Moses saying: אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2Make yourself two silver trumpets; you shall make them [from a] beaten [form]; they shall be used by you to summon the congregation and to announce the departure of the camps. בעֲשֵׂ֣ה לְךָ֗ שְׁתֵּי֙ חֲצֽוֹצְרֹ֣ת כֶּ֔סֶף מִקְשָׁ֖ה תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑ם וְהָי֤וּ לְךָ֙ לְמִקְרָ֣א הָֽעֵדָ֔ה וּלְמַסַּ֖ע אֶת־הַמַּֽחֲנֽוֹת:
Make yourself: So they should blow before you like a king, as it says, “There was a king among in Jerushun” [Deut. 33:5].
עשה לך: שיהיו תוקעין לפניך כמלך, כמו שנאמר (דברים לג, ה) ויהי בישורון מלך:
Make yourself: From your own resources.
עשה לך: משלך:
Make yourself: You make them and use them, but no one else. - [from Midrash Rabbah])
עשה לך: אתה עושה ומשתמש בהם ולא אחר:
To summon the congregation: When you wish to speak with the members of the Sanhedrin court and the rest of the people, and you summon them to gather before you, convene them with the trumpets.
למקרא העדה: כשתרצה לדבר עם הסנהדרין ושאר העם ותקראם לאסוף אליך, תקראם ע"י חצוצרות:
And to announce the departure of the camps: At the time the camps are due to depart, blow on them as a signal. It follows that they traveled at the behest of three-at God’s bidding, by the word of Moses and by the call of the trumpets.
ולמסע את המחנות: בשעת סלוק מסעות תתקעו בהם לסימן, נמצאת אתה אומר על פי שלשה היו נוסעים, על פי הקב"ה וע"פ משה ועל פי חצוצרות:
Beaten: It should be made out of a single block, by banging it with a hammer.
מקשה: מהעשת תעשה בהקשת הקורנס:
3When they blow on them, the entire congregation shall assemble to you, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. גוְתָֽקְע֖וּ בָּהֵ֑ן וְנֽוֹעֲד֤וּ אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ כָּל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:
When they blow on them: With both of them; it is a signal for the congregation to assemble, as it says, “the entire congregation shall assemble to you, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.”
ותקעו בהן: בשתיהן והוא סימן למקרא העדה, שנאמר ונועדו אליך כל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד:
4If they blow one of them, the princes, the leaders of Israel's thousands, shall convene to you. דוְאִם־בְּאַחַ֖ת יִתְקָ֑עוּ וְנֽוֹעֲד֤וּ אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ הַנְּשִׂיאִ֔ים רָאשֵׁ֖י אַלְפֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
If they blow one of them: It is a signal for the princes to assemble, as it says, “the princes…shall assemble to you.” Their meeting point was also at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This is derived by the Sifrei from the rule of inference.
ואם באחת יתקעו: הוא סימן למקרא הנשיאים, שנאמר ונועדו אליך הנשיאים. ואף הן יעידתן אל פתח אהל מועד. ומגזרה שוה הוא בא בספרי:
5When you blow a teruah [a series of short blasts, the camps which are encamped to the east shall travel. הוּתְקַעְתֶּ֖ם תְּרוּעָ֑ה וְנָֽסְעוּ֙ הַמַּֽחֲנ֔וֹת הַֽחֹנִ֖ים קֵֽדְמָה:
When you blow a teruah: [a series of short blasts] The signal for the camps to travel was a tekiah , a teruah and a tekiah . The Sifrei derives this from redundant verses.
ותקעתם תרועה: סימן מסע המחנות תקיעה תרועה ותקיעה, כך הוא נדרש בספרי מן המקראות היתרים:
6When you blow a second teruah, the camps encamped to the south shall travel; they shall blow a teruah for traveling. ווּתְקַעְתֶּ֤ם תְּרוּעָה֙ שֵׁנִ֔ית וְנָֽסְעוּ֙ הַמַּֽחֲנ֔וֹת הַֽחֹנִ֖ים תֵּימָ֑נָה תְּרוּעָ֥ה יִתְקְע֖וּ לְמַסְעֵיהֶֽם:
7But when assembling the congregation, you shall blow a tekiah [long blast] but not a teruah. זוּבְהַקְהִ֖יל אֶת־הַקָּהָ֑ל תִּתְקְע֖וּ וְלֹ֥א תָרִֽיעוּ:
But when assembling the congregation: Because it says, “they shall be used by you to summon the congregation and to announce the departure of the camps” (verse 2). Just as summoning the congregation is done by two priests, and with both trumpets as it says, “they shall blow with them”-so the traveling of the camps was with both of them. I might think that just as [with] the departure of the camps he blows a tekiah , teruah , tekiah , so when summoning the congregation he blows a tekiah , teruah , tekiah , and now there would be no difference between [the signal for] summoning the congregation and [the signal for initiating] the departure of the camps. Scripture therefore teaches, “But when assembling the congregation…” indicating that no teruah is blown to summon the congregation, and the same applies for [convening] the leaders. So there is a signal for all three: Summoning the congregation was with two, and [convening] the princes with one and neither of them included a teruah . Initiating the camps departure was with both-with a teruah and a tekiah .
ובהקהיל את הקהל וגו': לפי שהוא אומר והיו לך למקרא העדה ולמסע את המחנות מה מקרא העדה, תוקע בשני כהנים ובשתיהן, שנאמר ותקעו בהן וגו', אף מסע המחנות בשתיהן, יכול מה מסע המחנות תוקע ומריע ותוקע אף מקרא העדה תוקע ומריע ותוקע, ומעתה אין חילוק בין מקרא העדה למסע את המחנות, תלמוד לומר ובהקהיל את הקהל וגו', לימד שאין תרועה למקרא העדה והוא הדין לנשיאים. הרי סימן לשלשתם, מקרא העדה בשתים, ושל נשיאים באחת, וזו וזו אין בהם תרועה, ומסע המחנות בשתים ע"י תרועה ותקיעה:
8The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets; this shall be an eternal statute for your generations. חוּבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ הַכֹּ֣הֲנִ֔ים יִתְקְע֖וּ בַּֽחֲצֹֽצְר֑וֹת וְהָי֥וּ לָכֶ֛ם לְחֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם:
The descendants of Aaron…shall blow: For these summonings and journeyings.
ובני אהרן יתקעו: במקראות ובמסעות הללו:
9If you go to war in your land against an adversary that oppresses you, you shall blow a teruah with the trumpets and be remembered before the Lord your God, and thus be saved from your enemies. טוְכִֽי־תָבֹ֨אוּ מִלְחָמָ֜ה בְּאַרְצְכֶ֗ם עַל־הַצַּר֙ הַצֹּרֵ֣ר אֶתְכֶ֔ם וַֽהֲרֵֽעֹתֶ֖ם בַּֽחֲצֹֽצְרֹ֑ת וְנִזְכַּרְתֶּ֗ם לִפְנֵי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם וְנֽוֹשַׁעְתֶּ֖ם מֵאֹֽיְבֵיכֶֽם:
10On the days of your rejoicing, on your festivals and on your new-moon celebrations, you shall blow on the trumpets for your ascent-offerings and your peace sacrifices, and it shall be a remembrance before your God; I am the Lord your God. יוּבְי֨וֹם שִׂמְחַתְכֶ֣ם וּבְמֽוֹעֲדֵיכֶם֘ וּבְרָאשֵׁ֣י חָדְשֵׁכֶם֒ וּתְקַעְתֶּ֣ם בַּֽחֲצֹֽצְרֹ֗ת עַ֚ל עֹלֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וְעַ֖ל זִבְחֵ֣י שַׁלְמֵיכֶ֑ם וְהָי֨וּ לָכֶ֤ם לְזִכָּרוֹן֙ לִפְנֵ֣י אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
For your ascent-offerings: The verse speaks of communal offerings. - [from Sifrei]
על עלתיכם: בקרבן צבור הכתוב מדבר:
I am the Lord your God: From here we learn that [on the New Year Festival (Rosh HaShanah)] the verses proclaiming God’s kingship (מַלְכִיוֹת) [are recited] with [verses of] remembrances (זִכְרוֹנוֹת) and [verses] relating to the shofar (שׁוֹפְרוֹת), for it says,“You shall blow”-this refers to the שׁוֹפְרוֹת;“a remembrance”-this refers to זִכְרוֹנוֹת;“I am the Lord your God”-this refers to מַלְכִיוֹת. - [from Sifrei]
אני ה' אלהיכם: מכאן למדנו מלכיות עם זכרונות ושופרות, שנאמר ותקעתם הרי שופרות, לזכרון הרי זכרונות, אני ה' אלהיכם זה מלכיות וכו':
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 79 - 82• Hebrew text• English text• Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument crafted in Gath (Metzudot).
2.The cooking vessels used to prepare food for their captors (Rashi)
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 5• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5776 · June 22, 2016
• Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 5
• Thanks to G‑d’s attribute of Gevurah and His capacity for tzimtzum — so the Alter Rebbe explained in the foregoing chapter — created beings live in the illusion that they possess an independent and tangible existence: they are unaware of the Divine life-force continuously found within them.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5776 · June 22, 2016
Being thus insensitive to the force that animates them, they are able to think of themselves as existing independently of their source. They fail to perceive that in truth they are but a diffusion of the rays of their source, like the diffusion of the sun’s rays as they are found within the sun.
At first glance this is incomprehensible: G‑d “desires to act with goodness,” to treat His creatures benevolently. Why, then, did He first plan to create the world through the attribute of strict justice?
According to what has been explained above, this is entirely understandable: In order for created beings to believe that they possess independent existence there must be the process of tzimtzum, which is an expression of the stern attribute ofGevurah. Without it, all of creation would be completely nullified within its source.
G‑d, however, desired that created beings maintain that they possess independent existence, in order for them to be able to serve Him and ultimately be rewarded for their service. Thus, it is specifically Gevurah and tzimtzum that enable them to realize the ultimate purpose of creation.
The original plan for creation, therefore, was that it should be dominated by the attribute of stern judgment. When, however, G‑d saw that if He created the world in this manner it could not endure, He tempered it by the attribute of mercy.
Why, indeed, would the world not be able to endure otherwise? — Because if creation had come about under such auspices alone, the life-force of holiness would have been utterly hidden. Accordingly, the spiritual task of revealing G‑dliness in such a world would have been inordinately arduous. G‑d therefore involved the attribute of mercy in the creation of the world, so that holiness and G‑dliness could be revealed within it.
It was stated in the previous chapter that both the expansive and creative attribute of Chesed and the concealing and constrictive attribute of Gevurah transcend the grasp of created beings. Here the Alter Rebbe adds that these attributes transcend even the comprehension of those souls that proceed from the level of Atzilut. Even so lofty a soul as Moses‘, which is a soul of the World of Atzilut, cannot fathom the Supernal attributes which are One with G‑d Himself.
The fact that they are Supernal attributes also helps us understand how they are able to combine, when by definition they are opposites. Within the “Side of Supernal Holiness” there is no dissonance, G‑d forbid, for all its components are complementary and integrated. At that level, Chesed and Gevurah, though opposed by nature, coexist and conjoin as “two opposites within a unity.” This is possible because of their complete and total union with G‑d.
I.e., an or pnimi, a degree of illumination that can be internalized and comprehended, issues forth from the firmament. Being comprehensible, this level of perception is likened to food, which is ingested internally.
We thus see that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah of the World of Atzilut transcend not only the comprehension of created beings, but even souls of the level of Atzilut cannot comprehend them. Only as a reward are the souls in Gan Eden enabled to comprehend a mere diffusion of these two attributes.
Commentary of the Rebbe on End of Chapter Four and Chapter Five
...The entire fifth chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah as well as the conclusion of the fourth chapter do not at all appear to advance our understanding of the concept of Divine Unity.
Ch. 4 concludes by explaining that the life-force is termed or (“light”) and the tzimtzum is termed kelim (“vessels”). It goes on to state that the kelim originate from the five consonants מנצפ"ך, and that they have an additional, even higher source: Gevurah ofAtik. Correspondingly, Chesed of Atik is the source of the attribute of Chesed [of Atzilut].
At first glance, these seem to be strictly kabbalistic concepts that have absolutely no bearing on our understanding of Divine Unity, especially as the Alter Rebbe endeavors to explain it in a manner that will make it “very near to you.”
(Although the conclusion of ch. 4 is enclosed in brackets, the Alter Rebbe nevertheless chose to incorporate it in the body ofTanya rather than relegating it to a marginal note (as with many comments in the first part of the book, as well as in the second part8). This indicates that even the bracketed text must be directly related to the general theme of this work.)
The same question applies to the whole of the fifth chapter: it deals throughout with matters that seemingly have no connection with the concept of Divine Unity. The Alter Rebbe first explains a Midrash, then the level of Moses‘ apprehension of Divinity, and finally the level of Gan Eden. Since none of this seems to be related to Divine Unity, why did the Alter Rebbe include it inShaar HaYichud VehaEmunah?
It is indeed true that many subjects obliquely alluded to in Tanya are not directly related in their simple context to making its stated goal “very near,” nor do they appear to be directly related to the subject of “Unity and Faith.” (Witness the many points quoted from Tanya and explained in various chassidic discourses at length, whereas in Tanya itself they are only hinted at.)
Nevertheless, these are matters which are only alluded to obliquely. Those topics, however, that are plain for all to see, must clearly be connected to the overall theme of the book.
This is similar to the written Torah in general, and especially according to the commentary of Rashi on the Chumash. Although many interpretations are alluded to there on the homiletical and mystical levels of Remez, Derush and Sod, it is nevertheless a principle sanctioned by law that in the revealed context “a verse does not depart from its plain meaning.” And it is this Pshat,this plain or literal meaning, that the commentary of Rashi seeks to explain.
The same is true of Tanya, which is the Written Torah of Chassidut. Although all aspects of Torah are to be found within it, it always retains its simple meaning (as Pshat is to be understood in the context of the esoteric dimension of Torah).
Hence all subjects appearing in Tanya must be connected with the general theme of the book. They must all be “very nigh”; they must all explain “Unity and Faith”; and they must do so in a manner that enables one to “train a child” in them all. Those subjects that do not meet these criteria never found their way into Tanya. In the words of the Rebbe Rashab, of blessed memory,9 “Tanya is like the Chumash..., which is understood.”
Accordingly, it is very difficult to understand how the topics discussed at the conclusion of ch. 4 and throughout ch. 5 found a place in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah. We must therefore say that they deepen our understanding of the theme of Unity, as shall soon be explained.
The third chapter goes on to explain that since these creative letters are constantly found within the created being, it is always in a state of absorption within them, similar to the light of the sun within the sun-globe. The created being is thus completely nullified out of existence.
The reason that the created being perceives itself as possessing independent existence is explained by the Alter Rebbe in the fourth chapter. Only because of the tzimtzum, by which G‑d conceals and contracts His life-force so that the created being should not be aware of it, does that being appear — and perceive itself — to be a separate entity. “If, however, the eye were permitted to see..., then the physicality, materiality and tangibility of the creature would not be seen by our eyes at all.”
However, this does not suffice. Although it is true that G‑d caused this concealment, yet man, as an intelligent being, should surely use his mind’s eye to see through the concealment; his understanding should inevitably lead him to the realization and the sensation that he is completely nullified within his source.
The Alter Rebbe answers this question by stating (in ch. 3) that a created being feels that he exists because “we do not comprehend nor see with our physical eyes the power of G‑d and the ‘breath of His mouth’ which is in the created thing.” Thus it is man’s very corporeality that blinds him to the Divine life-force contained within every created being.
This whole subject as explained until the end of the fourth chapter poses numerous difficulties regarding fundamental aspects of Divine Unity. And without the explanations furnished at the end of the fourth chapter and the whole of the fifth chapter these questions cannot be answered.
(a) Each creature is animated by different letters from among the Ten Utterances, for, as explained in ch. 1, the life-force descends through numerous combinations and substitutions of these Divine creative letters until it is clothed in each particular creature. It would therefore seem that there exists (G‑d forbid) a multiplicity of G‑dliness, with the number of letters equalling the number of creatures. In fact, the multitude of letters is even greater than the number of created beings, for, as explained in ch. 1, many letters are invested within each creature. This seeming multitude of G‑dliness would appear to be the very antithesis of Divine Unity.
Moreover, the above question specifically arises out of the Alter Rebbe’s explanation!
There are those who mistakenly understood the doctrine of tzimtzum in a literal sense, as if G‑d actually removed His Presence from this world. If we were to assume their view then there would be no problem, for we could then say (as they do) the following: G‑d is indeed a complete Unity, but his relation to the proliferation in the created universe is that of a king who sits in his palace and gazes at a garbage heap outside.
However, according to the explanation in Tanya — that “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands firm in the heavens,” i.e., that letters of the Ten Utterances are clothed within each individual creature — there arises the question: how can there possibly be a multiplicity in G‑dliness?
We cannot answer that the multiplicity results from the attribute of Gevurah of the Divine Name Elokim. For as explained in ch. 4 (until the bracketed ending), the tzimtzum which comes from the Name Elokim adds nothing to creation itself: it merely acts as a barrier and concealment so that the life-force will not be felt by the created being. (This prevents the creature from being wholly nullified within its source, enabling it instead to feel its own separate and distinct existence.) The life-force itself emanates strictly from the utterance of the Divine Name Havayah. (This is also why in ch. 3 the Alter Rebbe likens the created being to the sun’s rays, and the life-force to the sun itself — for the source of the life-force within the creature (i.e., the letters) is the “sun” of Havayah.)
It would thus seem that the multiplicity in the universe does not result from the Name Elokim, a name which utilizes the plural form, but from the Name Havayah itself. This would seem to imply that in Havayah as well there is multiplicity. This prompts the question: “How many suns (Divine Presences) are there?” [Cf. Likutei Amarim, end of ch. 35.]
(b) According to the Alter Rebbe’s explanation, created beings are in reality found within their source. They perceive themselves as existing separately from it merely because of the concealment of the tzimtzum; in reality, however, they are G‑dliness. Therefore, “if the eye were permitted to see,” we would perceive that they are G‑dly.
This gives rise to a cataclysmic question regarding the entire essence of Torah and mitzvot.
The purpose of Torah and mitzvot is to draw down G‑dliness into the physical substances with which the mitzvot are performed. This is what is meant by the teaching that only by performing a mitzvah does the physical object become holy. Indeed, this concept is implicit in the recitation of blessings before the performance of mitzvot, for the Hebrew word for blessing (ברכה) implies the drawing down of G‑dliness within the object with which the mitzvah is performed.
The mitzvah of tefillin, for example (and so, too, all other mitzvot, all of which are likened to tefillin), is intended to draw down G‑dliness into the physical parchment and ink, etc.
Now, since the parchment is G‑dly (even before the performance of the mitzvah), how is it possible for a mitzvah originating in the “Torah of truth” to imply by its effect (and by its inherent truth) that the parchment is in fact mundane, and only by virtue of what is inscribed on it, and so on, does it begin to become G‑dly? In fact it is G‑dly even before this; it is only the corporeal eyes of man that fail to perceive it to be so.
We mortals fail to perceive the truth. Torah, however, is truth, and its mitzvot are true. How, then, can there possibly be amitzvah (and the very fact that there is such a mitzvah indicates the truth of the matter) of taking parchment and transforming it into G‑dliness, when in reality it was G‑dly even before it was used for a mitzvah?
This difficulty too springs from the explanation of Tanya. Were we to say that the doctrine of tzimtzum is to be understood (as its erroneous exponents understand it) in its literal sense — as if G‑d literally withdrew His Presence from creation, thereafter gazing upon creation from a distance like the proverbial king through his palace window — then there would be no difficulty.
However, according to the concept of Unity as explained here in Tanya, whereby the King Himself is found in the place of the parchment or whatever, then the difficulty manifests itself. For according to this explanation the place itself and all its aspects are themselves G‑dliness.
If so, what is the meaning of Torah study and performing precepts? What is the point of studying the law that applies to “one who exchanges a cow for a donkey,” what is the point of performing a mitzvah involving parchment and ink, when in reality there is no cow and no donkey, no parchment and no ink, but everything is G‑dliness? What is the significance of Torah andmitzvot?
(c) The question now becomes even greater. The reason we perceive the world to exist as an independent entity is that we view it with “physical eyes,” and “the eye [was not] permitted to see,” and so on; i.e., our tangible corporeality prevents us from beholding the truth.
It would therefore be logical to assume that tzaddikim, inasmuch as they are not hindered by the concealment occasioned by corporeal flesh and inasmuch as they transcend materiality, should be able to perceive the truth — that the world truly does not exist, for everything is G‑dliness alone. Those tzaddikim who are at the level of the World of Yetzirah or Beriah, and surely the truly great tzaddikim who have become a “chariot of Atzilut” (as explained in Likutei Amarim, ch. 39), should not be subject to the restrictions of the concealment. With regard to them the above question becomes even stronger: What is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot for them? Since the G‑dliness manifest in this world is revealed to them, there would seem to be no need for them (G‑d forbid) to perform Torah and mitzvot!
The Alter Rebbe explains at the conclusion of ch. 4 that the tzimtzum and concealment of life-force is termed kelim (“vessels”), while the life-force itself is called or (“light”). He then goes on to explain that “the kelim are verily the letters.”
This seems to contradict what was explained in the previous chapters. Earlier on, in the first chapter, the Alter Rebbe writes that the letters are the life-force of created beings. Here, however, he says that the life-force is the light, while the letters are the vessels, which contract and conceal the life-force. How is this to be reconciled with his previous statement that the letters are the life-force that reveal, as opposed to the kelim, which conceal?
But in truth, not only is the present statement not a contradiction to what was stated earlier: it is actually an explanation of the previous statement that the letters are the life-force.
The question was raised earlier that since the letters are the life-force of creatures, it would seem that there is a multiplicity of G‑dliness. For since tzimtzum itself is not a party to creation (but only conceals the Creator from the created), the multitude of letters is thus caused not by tzimtzum but by Elokut, by G‑dliness Itself. The question then is: How can there possibly be a multitude of G‑dliness?
The Alter Rebbe answers this in the bracketed text by stating that “the tzimtzum and concealing of the life-force is called kelim.” One of the novel insights contained in this statement is that tzimtzum is an actual entity.
Just as kelim are more than just a concealment of the light, being entities unto themselves, so, too, with regard to the tzimtzumand concealment which are deemed to be kelim; they too are an entity. And it is this entity that brings about the contraction and concealment of the light (just as an actual vessel, being an entity, conceals that which is found within it).
We are now able to understand the multiplicity of letters. The multitudinous letters are not intrinsic to the light itself; they are a result of its passage through the tzimtzum of the kelim.
This is illustrated by the well-known comparison with the sun’s rays that pass through white, green or red glass. The light itself remains simple, unaffected by its passage. However, there is an evident change with regard to its effect; after passing through red glass the light functions as red light, through green glass — as green light, and so forth.
This is what the Alter Rebbe means when he says that “the kelim are verily the letters”; i.e., the shaping of the life-force into letters is not a function of the life-force itself, for “the life-force itself is called or (light)” — and light itself is simple, transcending any particular form or shape. (For light is rooted in the “ ’sun‘ of Havayah,” and in the Name Havayah there can be no multiplicity, heaven forbid, as has been explained earlier.) The letters contained in the life-force result from the kelim, which cause the light clothed in them to be shaped (with regard to their effect).
Accordingly, the second question, regarding the relevance of Torah and mitzvot, is answered as well. Were tzimtzum to be a non-entity and only constitute a state of concealment, its sole purpose being to hide and act as a barrier to the light, then created beings that emerge as a result of this tzimtzum would in reality not exist at all. (It would only seem to corporeal eyes that they enjoy a true state of existence.)
Since tzimtzum does, however, constitute an entity — the entity of kelim, it possesses existence. As such, its effect in concealing is similar to its effect when bringing letters into being.
Regarding the latter, it was explained earlier that the effect of tzimtzum on the light was that it caused it to assume the “shape” of letters, even though the light itself is not affected; its effect exists only in relation to created beings. Thus it is similar to the sun’s rays which do not really change in themselves, although the effect of the colored glass on them is to produce red or green light, and so on.
The same is true with regard to the effect of tzimtzum in concealing the life-force so that it will not be perceived by created beings. The concealment itself is a real entity. It is true that in relation to the light, the tzimtzum does not conceal at all. From the perspective of created beings, however, the tzimtzum is truly an existing entity. It therefore follows that [since they were created through it] they have true tangible existence as well.
What does this have to do with his previous statement that the tzimtzum and concealment is termed kelim, and so on?
By stating the above the Alter Rebbe forestalls a formidable problem: How is it possible for the tzimtzum to conceal the light? If we were to hold that the tzimtzum merely prevents the light from being revealed within creation, then there would be no problem. However, in the bracketed text the Alter Rebbe teaches us a novel concept — that the tzimtzum results from thekelim. Now since they are a separate entity distinct from the light, the question arises: How is it possible for the kelim (a distinct and separate entity from light) to effect a change, as it were, in the light?
The question is even greater: Light is the attribute of Chesed; tzimtzum is the attribute of Gevurah. In the order of the Sefirot, Chesed precedes Gevurah (qualitatively as well). How can Gevurah possibly cause a change in an attribute which is spiritually superior to it?
The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that the root of the letters is the “five degrees of Gevurah that divide and separate the breath and voice....” I.e., the Alter Rebbe is teaching us that the concept of letters is not found only within the Sefirot of Atzilut, but far higher, until ultimately the source of the Gevurot is the “supernal Gevurah of Atik Yomin,” while “correspondingly, the source of [the various levels of Divine] kindness is also Chesed of Atik Yomin.” Thus, both Gevurah and Chesed are rooted inAtik Yomin.
Since both attributes are rooted in Atik Yomin, the meaning of which is “removed (נעתק) and separated from ‘days’ [i.e., the attributes of Atzilut],” it follows that because of their common source they are indeed not opposites: they are one. For, as the Alter Rebbe will soon explain (in chs. 6 and 7), even in Atzilut “He and His attributes are One.” How much more certainly must this be the case insofar as they exist in their source in Atik Yomin, which is far superior to Atzilut. It is therefore possible for the light of Chesed to be modified by the tzimtzum of Gevurah.
One reason the Alter Rebbe does so is that it enhances our understanding of the entire concept of tzimtzum. This will be understood after several prefatory remarks.
This Midrash is generally thought to be saying that G‑d originally planned that the world be conducted with the attribute ofGevurah, stern judgment. However, when He saw that the world could not endure this, He combined with it the attribute of mercy.
The wording of the Midrash, however, is not “to conduct the world” but “to create the world.” Clearly the Midrash refers to G‑d’s manner of creation — that He had originally planned to create the world solely through the attribute of Gevurah.
The question thus becomes: How is it possible for creation to come about from the attribute of Gevurah, an attribute oftzimtzum? I.e., how is it possible for tzimtzum to bring about creation, when (simplistically) tzimtzum is a non-entity, its function being only to contract and constrain the Divine life-force. How can the non-entity of tzimtzum create?
This serves to prove that tzimtzum is indeed an entity, for as explained previously tzimtzum corresponds to kelim.
This, then, is what the Midrash means when it says, “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment.” G‑d’s initial intention was that creation come about by means of the kelim, through the power of the light vested in them — that creation result from the letters that are formed in the light through its being clothed in kelim.
Accordingly, we will also understand the continuation of this passage — that “He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation]” refers to “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles....” Why must this necessarily be the explanation of the role of the attribute of mercy?
In light of the above, this is clearly understood: Since the “attribute of stern judgment” refers to the letters, we must therefore say that the “attribute of mercy” refers to the light as it transcends the shape of letters. This light finds expression in “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles...”— by effecting a change in the course of nature. (The letters cause each individual creature to have its own characteristics and nature; a change in nature must necessarily derive from the spiritually superior light.)
In explaining that the attribute of mercy refers to “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles,” the Alter Rebbe adds the words “recorded in the Torah.” At first glance, it is unclear what this phrase means; does the Alter Rebbe refer specifically to the Written Torah, or is the Oral Torah included as well? Furthermore, the miracles that occurred after the forty-year sojourn of the Jewish people in the desert; that occurred after the first Holy Temple (concluding the events and miracles recorded in the Written Torah); that occurred even after the Talmud (the Oral Torah) had been finally recorded; up to and including the miracles10 “witnessed by our own eyes and not by a stranger,” i.e., the miracles that occurred on the 12th and 13th of Tammuz 5687;11 — all these are “revelations of G‑dliness” emanating from the “attribute of mercy.” Why then does the Alter Rebbe specify the miracles “recorded in the Torah”?
The Alter Rebbe added this phrase in order to answer two very strong questions:
(a) Since the world was created from the letters (for which reason each individual creature has its own character and nature), how is it possible that there be revealed within the world (through signs and miracles that transcend nature) a light which is superior to letters? Inasmuch as the world was created through the letters, one would expect it to be incapable of housing a light that transcends letters, which would still continue to exist as tangible entities.
(b) As mentioned earlier, the Midrash addresses itself not to the manner in which the world is conducted, but to the manner of its creation. G‑d first intended to create the world through the attribute of stern justice. Thereafter — but prior to the actual creation — G‑d combined in it, i.e., within creation, the attribute of mercy. Thus the act of creation is brought about by the attribute of mercy as well as by the attribute of stern judgment.
This leads to the following question:
“The revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles” took place long after creation. What then does the Midrash mean by stating that “He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation],” when this attribute was only revealed long after creation?
It is in order to answer these two questions that the Alter Rebbe adds the words, “recorded in the Torah.” One of the meanings of this phrase is: The G‑dliness that is revealed through tzaddikim and miracles (which emanate from the light that is superior to the letters, as has already been explained), — this too was first recorded in the Torah. It follows that it is found in creation as a whole, inasmuch as creation proceeds from the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah, as explained above (at the end of the first chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah).
Accordingly, we will also understand why the Midrash states that “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment”; it was only in thought that G‑d considered creating the world solely with the attribute of stern judgement, that is, from the letters themselves bereft of the light that transcends the kelim. When it came to actual creation, however, i.e., when it came to the speaking of the Ten Utterances that brought about creation, these letters were invested with the light that transcends kelim.
Since the letters contain this light, signifying the negation of the tzimtzum of these letters, it is then possible that at the appropriate time — preordained when the Utterances were first spoken — there occur the signs and miracles that signify the negation of the tzimtzum as found below.
Thus, all these miracles were not something that came about later; rather, they emanate from the light and G- dliness that transcend kelim and that were invested within the letters. This degree of G‑dliness is then revealed at a later time through thetzaddikim and through signs and miracles.
This, then, is what is explained here in Tanya — that at the very moment of creation G‑d combined and vested within creation the attribute of mercy; that in the letters of the Ten Utterances which are enclothed within every creature there is invested the light that transcends the kelim, this light to be later revealed through the signs and miracles.
The above question applies primarily to Moses. His soul was always in a state of total revelation, and not at all concealed by his body, for it was completely penetrated and elevated by his Divine service. For a person such as Moses, for whom there is no concealment of G‑dliness, what is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot?
And with regard to Moses himself, the question stems not so much from his qualities in general as it does from the distinctive nature of “his prophetic vision.” Moses was unique among prophets in that not only his soul, but his very body too was equally a fit receptacle for prophecy. His body was not only able to understand G‑dliness, it could actually perceive the G‑dly prophetic vision. This being so, the question becomes all the more demanding of an answer: What is the meaning of Torah and mitzvotto so lofty an individual as Moses?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by saying: “Even the comprehension of Moses...in his prophetic vision did not extend to the World of Atzilut.” This means to say, that even for an individual as great as Moses the world could be said to exist. True it is that this manner of existence was ever so much higher than our own conception of existence, but existence it was. Torah andmitzvot thus applied to Moses as well, so that he could transform this existence (of his world) into G‑dliness.
Although [Moses was of the World of Atzilut, and] the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah as they exist within Atzilut are G‑dly attributes and wholly at one with G‑d Himself, and thus Gevurah does not conceal Chesed, nevertheless, Moses‘ comprehension “did not extend to the World of Atzilut, except through its being clothed in the World of Beriah.”
This, however, does not suffice. While it is true that Moses‘ comprehension of (the Chesed and Gevurah of) Atzilut extended to the degree that it clothed itself in the World of Beriah, it is only in the World of Beriah that creation first takes place. Moses was therefore able to see in prophetic vision the limitlessness of G‑dliness (as explained in ch. 4). And surely Moses did not behold creation there with corporeal eyes.
G‑d’s Gevurah even after being clothed in Beriah still remains G‑d’s Gevurah. Since Moses was not subject to the concealment inherent in corporeal eyes, he was able to perceive the attribute of Gevurah as clothed in the World of Beriah; he did not perceive a concealing attribute of Gevurah: he perceived a luminous Gevurah. The question thus remains: What was the meaning of Torah and mitzvot for Moses?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by adding that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah as they were clothed in the World of Beriahwere not themselves apprehended by Moses, but “but only insofar as they were clothed in attributes which are of lower levels than themselves, viz., the attributes of Netzach, Hod and Yesod.”
Thus when Moses apprehended Chesed and Gevurah of Atzilut, he apprehended Chesed insofar as it is clothed in Netzach, Gevurah insofar as it is clothed in Hod, and both of them insofar as they are clothed in Yesod. Since his comprehension ofChesed and Gevurah related to them only insofar as they were garbed in the concealing cloak of Netzach, Hod and Yesod, therefore even for Moses the world was endowed with existence. It was, to be sure, a very rarefied form of existence, but it was existence nonetheless. Torah and mitzvot thus applied to him as well.
Now according to that which was just explained, how can it be possible to “derive pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence” in any of the Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah or Asiyah?
The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that in Gan Eden there is an apprehension of the “spreading forth of the life-force and light which issues from these two attributes, Chesed and Gevurah”; i.e., in Gan Eden one is able to comprehend the life-force as it spreads forth from Chesed and Gevurah themselves, without the intermediacy of Netzach, Hod and Yesod. (The “spreading forth ” is to be understood as explained in Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 19.) This comprehension, the Alter Rebbe goes on to say, is “the food of the souls”; i.e., it is internalized, like food which is ingested internally.
However, this gives rise to yet another question: Would we not expect Gan Eden itself to be nullified out of existence, inasmuch as the radiance of the Divine Presence is revealed there? Moreover, Gan Eden has to do with comprehension.13How does it relate to the emotive attributes of Chesed and Gevurah?
In answer to this the Alter Rebbe states: “For from the diffusion of these two attributes, a firmament is spread.... Within this is the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah.” Within these letters of the Torah which bring all created beings into existence, was clothed the Divine light which transcends the tzimtzum of these letters, as explained earlier.
From the perspective of Torah, these two attributes — the revelation of Chesed and the concealment of Gevurah — do not contradict one another. This is because Torah encompasses them both, [as the Alter Rebbe goes on to say:] “as it is written, ‘From His right hand [He gave] unto them a fiery Law.’ ” Torah is thus composed both of “right” (Chesed) and “fire” (Gevurah). It is therefore possible for these two opposites to coexist — Gan Eden existing as an entity, and within it, the revealed radiance of the Divine Presence.
The question of how Gan Eden, which is intellectual perception, relates to Chesed and Gevurah, which are emotive, is answered by the Alter Rebbe when he states: “For this firmament is the secret of knowledge (Daat).” This means to say that the one intellectual faculty of Daat encompasses both emotive attributes of Chesed and Gevurah, and yet Daat is a faculty of intellect.
But another matter remains to be understood. Gan Eden comprises two aspects: (a) In Gan Eden there is Torah study (seeLikutei Amarim, ch. 41); (b) Though in Gan Eden there is no performance of mitzvot (as alluded to in the verse, במתים חפשי), there is, however, reward for prior performance.
Now it is understandable how Torah can be found in Gan Eden, for as explained previously, Torah is comprised of the harmonious conjoining of Chesed and Gevurah. Mitzvot, however, are individualized.
For it is known14 that Torah is likened to blood and the mitzvot to bodily organs; whereas blood courses throughout all parts of the body, the organs are separate from one another, each with its own individual function.
Since, from the perspective of mitzvot, Chesed and Gevurah are two separate attributes, it would seem that from this perspective Gan Eden could not possibly exist, inasmuch as it is a composite of both Chesed and Gevurah. Furthermore, if the light elicited by the performance of precepts would indeed be drawn down, this light being a manifestation of Chesed, would this not cause the very existence of Gan Eden, whose source is Gevurah, to be completely nullified?
The Alter Rebbe therefore says, “and the commandments are [their] garments.” Since the mitzvot comprise both Chesed andGevurah, which are two distinct attributes, it is indeed impossible for the light elicited by the mitzvot to permeate [the souls inGan Eden] inwardly, for if it were to do so they would be nullified out of existence.
For this reason, the reward in Gan Eden for the performance of mitzvot is granted only in the protective and auxiliary manner of a garment; this light is not drawn down into the souls in a permeating manner.
Torah, however, which is comprised of the conjoining of Chesed and Gevurah, is truly “food” for the souls in Gan Eden. It permeates them without causing their nullification, unlike the mitzvot, which are merely “garments”.
According to all the above-mentioned questions, whose answers are provided by the Alter Rebbe beginning with the bracketed text in ch. 4, and continuing until the final bracket of ch. 5, this difficulty finds the following simple resolution:
The bracketed text beginning near the conclusion of ch. 4 extends until the end of ch. 5. The worthy typesetter, however, seeing two brackets at the end of ch. 5, assumed that one of them was surely superfluous — not taking into consideration that one of them possibly marked the conclusion of the bracketed passage beginning in ch. 4.
Excerpted from a Sichah delivered on Shabbat, Parshat Mishpatim, 5727.
והנה על זה אמרו רז״ל
Concerning this i.e., concerning the concept that all of creation came about through the process of tzimtzum, which enables created beings to believe that they enjoy an independent form of existence, our Sages, of blessed memory, said:1
בתחלה עלה במחשבה לברוא את העולם במדת הדין
“Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment, through the attribute oftzimtzum and Gevurah;
ראה שאין העולם מתקיים
He saw, however, that in this manner the world could not endure,
שתף בו מדת רחמים
so He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation].“At first glance this is incomprehensible: G‑d “desires to act with goodness,” to treat His creatures benevolently. Why, then, did He first plan to create the world through the attribute of strict justice?
According to what has been explained above, this is entirely understandable: In order for created beings to believe that they possess independent existence there must be the process of tzimtzum, which is an expression of the stern attribute ofGevurah. Without it, all of creation would be completely nullified within its source.
G‑d, however, desired that created beings maintain that they possess independent existence, in order for them to be able to serve Him and ultimately be rewarded for their service. Thus, it is specifically Gevurah and tzimtzum that enable them to realize the ultimate purpose of creation.
The original plan for creation, therefore, was that it should be dominated by the attribute of stern judgment. When, however, G‑d saw that if He created the world in this manner it could not endure, He tempered it by the attribute of mercy.
Why, indeed, would the world not be able to endure otherwise? — Because if creation had come about under such auspices alone, the life-force of holiness would have been utterly hidden. Accordingly, the spiritual task of revealing G‑dliness in such a world would have been inordinately arduous. G‑d therefore involved the attribute of mercy in the creation of the world, so that holiness and G‑dliness could be revealed within it.
דהיינו: התגלות אלקות על ידי צדיקים, ואותות ומופתים שבתורה
That is, i.e., “He combined with it the attribute of mercy” means: the revelation within the world of G‑dliness and of supernatural power through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles recorded in the Torah.It was stated in the previous chapter that both the expansive and creative attribute of Chesed and the concealing and constrictive attribute of Gevurah transcend the grasp of created beings. Here the Alter Rebbe adds that these attributes transcend even the comprehension of those souls that proceed from the level of Atzilut. Even so lofty a soul as Moses‘, which is a soul of the World of Atzilut, cannot fathom the Supernal attributes which are One with G‑d Himself.
והנה על זה אמרו בזהר, דלעילא, בסטרא דקדושה עילאה, אית ימינא ואית שמאלא, דהיינו חסד וגבורה
Regarding this, i.e., regarding the fact that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah transcend intellect, it was stated in theZohar:2 “Above, in the ‘Side of Supernal Holiness,’ i.e., in the World of Atzilut, which is far superior to the three lower Worlds ofBeriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, there is right and left,” namely, Chesed and Gevurah.
פירוש: דשתיהן הן מדות אלקות למעלה משכל הנבראים והשגתם
This statement was surely not written simply to inform us that Chesed and Gevurah exist, for this is already well-known; rather:This means that both — Gevurah as well as Chesed — are attributes of G‑dliness that transcend the intellect and comprehension of created beings,The fact that they are Supernal attributes also helps us understand how they are able to combine, when by definition they are opposites. Within the “Side of Supernal Holiness” there is no dissonance, G‑d forbid, for all its components are complementary and integrated. At that level, Chesed and Gevurah, though opposed by nature, coexist and conjoin as “two opposites within a unity.” This is possible because of their complete and total union with G‑d.
דאיהו וגרמוהי חד בעולם האצילות
for3 “He and His attributes are One in the World of Atzilut,” both Chesed and Gevurah being thus wholly united with Him.
ואף השגת משה רבינו עליו השלום בנבואתו לא היתה בעולם האצילות
Even the comprehension of Moses our Teacher (peace unto him) in his prophetic vision did not extend to the World of Atzilutitself,
אלא על ידי התלבשותו בעולם הבריאה
except through its being clothed in the World of Beriah;
ואף גם זאת, לא בשתי מדות אלו, חסד וגבורה
and even then, [his comprehension of the World of Atzilut did] not [extend] to these two attributes, viz., Chesed and Gevurah,4
אלא על ידי התלבשותן במדות שלמטה מהן במדרגה, שהן מדות נצח הוד יסוד
but only insofar as they were previously clothed in attributes which are of lower levels than themselves, viz., the attributes ofNetzach (“victory”, “eternity”), Hod (“splendor”), and Yesod (“foundation”), the attribute of Netzach being merely an offshoot ofChesed, and Hod an offshoot of Gevurah, so that through them Chesed and Gevurah percolate down into Yesod, which in turn transmits its influence to yet lower levels.
(כמו שכתוב בשער הנבואה)
(5as is explained in Shaar HaNevuah) concerning the level of Moses‘ prophecy.
רק שמתן שכרם של צדיקים בגן עדן הוא השגת התפשטות החיות ואור, הנמשך משתי מדות אלו, חסד וגבורה
It is only the tzaddikim in Gan Eden who are granted the reward of comprehending the spreading forth of the life-force and light which issues from these two attributes, Chesed and Gevurah.
והוא מזון נשמות הצדיקים שעסקו בתורה לשמה בעולם הזה
This comprehension of the spreading forth of life-force and light which issues from these two attributes is the “food” of the souls of the tzaddikim who, in this world, engaged in the study of Torah for its own sake.
כי מהתפשטות שתי מדות אלו, נמתח רקיע על הנשמות שבגן עדן
For from the diffusion of these two attributes, a firmament i.e., an or makkif, a transcendental (lit., “encompassing”) degree of illumination is spread over the souls in Gan Eden, and it is this firmament that empowers them to receive this diffusion.
ורקיע זה נקרא רזא דאורייתא
This firmament is called Raza deOrayta (“the secret of the Torah”); i.e., the mystical dimension of the Torah.
ובו סוד כ״ב אותיות התורה, הנתונה משתי מדות אלו
Within this firmament is the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah (which derive from an even higher level than the rational and comprehensible aspect of the Torah), which was given as an expression of these two attributes,
כדכתיב: מימינו אש דת למו
as it is written,6 “From His right hand [He gave] unto them a fiery Law.” The “right hand” represents Chesed, while “fiery” alludes to the element of Gevurah that is present in the Torah.
ומרקיע זה נוטף טל למזון הנשמות
From this firmament, from this transcendental illumination, drops dew, symbolic of the esoteric insights of the Torah, as food for the souls,I.e., an or pnimi, a degree of illumination that can be internalized and comprehended, issues forth from the firmament. Being comprehensible, this level of perception is likened to food, which is ingested internally.
דהיינו ידיעת סוד כ״ב אותיות התורה
i.e., a knowledge of the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah.
כי הרקיע הזה הוא סוד הדעת
For this firmament is the secret and level of knowledge (Daat), and the “dew” that issues forth from it is the knowledge of the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah,
והתורה היא מזון הנשמות בגן עדן, והמצות הן לבושים
and the Torah is the “food” of the souls in Gan Eden, and the commandments are [their] “garments”,
כמבואר כל זה (בזהר ויקהל דף ר״ט ור״י, ובעץ חיים שער מ״ד פרק ג׳)
as all this is explained (7in Zohar, Vayakhel, pp. 209-210, and in Etz Chayim, Shaar 44, ch. 3).We thus see that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah of the World of Atzilut transcend not only the comprehension of created beings, but even souls of the level of Atzilut cannot comprehend them. Only as a reward are the souls in Gan Eden enabled to comprehend a mere diffusion of these two attributes.
Commentary of the Rebbe on End of Chapter Four and Chapter Five
...The entire fifth chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah as well as the conclusion of the fourth chapter do not at all appear to advance our understanding of the concept of Divine Unity.
Ch. 4 concludes by explaining that the life-force is termed or (“light”) and the tzimtzum is termed kelim (“vessels”). It goes on to state that the kelim originate from the five consonants מנצפ"ך, and that they have an additional, even higher source: Gevurah ofAtik. Correspondingly, Chesed of Atik is the source of the attribute of Chesed [of Atzilut].
At first glance, these seem to be strictly kabbalistic concepts that have absolutely no bearing on our understanding of Divine Unity, especially as the Alter Rebbe endeavors to explain it in a manner that will make it “very near to you.”
(Although the conclusion of ch. 4 is enclosed in brackets, the Alter Rebbe nevertheless chose to incorporate it in the body ofTanya rather than relegating it to a marginal note (as with many comments in the first part of the book, as well as in the second part8). This indicates that even the bracketed text must be directly related to the general theme of this work.)
The same question applies to the whole of the fifth chapter: it deals throughout with matters that seemingly have no connection with the concept of Divine Unity. The Alter Rebbe first explains a Midrash, then the level of Moses‘ apprehension of Divinity, and finally the level of Gan Eden. Since none of this seems to be related to Divine Unity, why did the Alter Rebbe include it inShaar HaYichud VehaEmunah?
It is indeed true that many subjects obliquely alluded to in Tanya are not directly related in their simple context to making its stated goal “very near,” nor do they appear to be directly related to the subject of “Unity and Faith.” (Witness the many points quoted from Tanya and explained in various chassidic discourses at length, whereas in Tanya itself they are only hinted at.)
Nevertheless, these are matters which are only alluded to obliquely. Those topics, however, that are plain for all to see, must clearly be connected to the overall theme of the book.
This is similar to the written Torah in general, and especially according to the commentary of Rashi on the Chumash. Although many interpretations are alluded to there on the homiletical and mystical levels of Remez, Derush and Sod, it is nevertheless a principle sanctioned by law that in the revealed context “a verse does not depart from its plain meaning.” And it is this Pshat,this plain or literal meaning, that the commentary of Rashi seeks to explain.
The same is true of Tanya, which is the Written Torah of Chassidut. Although all aspects of Torah are to be found within it, it always retains its simple meaning (as Pshat is to be understood in the context of the esoteric dimension of Torah).
Hence all subjects appearing in Tanya must be connected with the general theme of the book. They must all be “very nigh”; they must all explain “Unity and Faith”; and they must do so in a manner that enables one to “train a child” in them all. Those subjects that do not meet these criteria never found their way into Tanya. In the words of the Rebbe Rashab, of blessed memory,9 “Tanya is like the Chumash..., which is understood.”
Accordingly, it is very difficult to understand how the topics discussed at the conclusion of ch. 4 and throughout ch. 5 found a place in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah. We must therefore say that they deepen our understanding of the theme of Unity, as shall soon be explained.
* * *
The first chapter of this book explains how each individual created being has within it letters of the Ten Divine Utterances, which continuously create it and provide it with life.The third chapter goes on to explain that since these creative letters are constantly found within the created being, it is always in a state of absorption within them, similar to the light of the sun within the sun-globe. The created being is thus completely nullified out of existence.
The reason that the created being perceives itself as possessing independent existence is explained by the Alter Rebbe in the fourth chapter. Only because of the tzimtzum, by which G‑d conceals and contracts His life-force so that the created being should not be aware of it, does that being appear — and perceive itself — to be a separate entity. “If, however, the eye were permitted to see..., then the physicality, materiality and tangibility of the creature would not be seen by our eyes at all.”
However, this does not suffice. Although it is true that G‑d caused this concealment, yet man, as an intelligent being, should surely use his mind’s eye to see through the concealment; his understanding should inevitably lead him to the realization and the sensation that he is completely nullified within his source.
The Alter Rebbe answers this question by stating (in ch. 3) that a created being feels that he exists because “we do not comprehend nor see with our physical eyes the power of G‑d and the ‘breath of His mouth’ which is in the created thing.” Thus it is man’s very corporeality that blinds him to the Divine life-force contained within every created being.
This whole subject as explained until the end of the fourth chapter poses numerous difficulties regarding fundamental aspects of Divine Unity. And without the explanations furnished at the end of the fourth chapter and the whole of the fifth chapter these questions cannot be answered.
* * *
The following are the questions:(a) Each creature is animated by different letters from among the Ten Utterances, for, as explained in ch. 1, the life-force descends through numerous combinations and substitutions of these Divine creative letters until it is clothed in each particular creature. It would therefore seem that there exists (G‑d forbid) a multiplicity of G‑dliness, with the number of letters equalling the number of creatures. In fact, the multitude of letters is even greater than the number of created beings, for, as explained in ch. 1, many letters are invested within each creature. This seeming multitude of G‑dliness would appear to be the very antithesis of Divine Unity.
Moreover, the above question specifically arises out of the Alter Rebbe’s explanation!
There are those who mistakenly understood the doctrine of tzimtzum in a literal sense, as if G‑d actually removed His Presence from this world. If we were to assume their view then there would be no problem, for we could then say (as they do) the following: G‑d is indeed a complete Unity, but his relation to the proliferation in the created universe is that of a king who sits in his palace and gazes at a garbage heap outside.
However, according to the explanation in Tanya — that “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands firm in the heavens,” i.e., that letters of the Ten Utterances are clothed within each individual creature — there arises the question: how can there possibly be a multiplicity in G‑dliness?
We cannot answer that the multiplicity results from the attribute of Gevurah of the Divine Name Elokim. For as explained in ch. 4 (until the bracketed ending), the tzimtzum which comes from the Name Elokim adds nothing to creation itself: it merely acts as a barrier and concealment so that the life-force will not be felt by the created being. (This prevents the creature from being wholly nullified within its source, enabling it instead to feel its own separate and distinct existence.) The life-force itself emanates strictly from the utterance of the Divine Name Havayah. (This is also why in ch. 3 the Alter Rebbe likens the created being to the sun’s rays, and the life-force to the sun itself — for the source of the life-force within the creature (i.e., the letters) is the “sun” of Havayah.)
It would thus seem that the multiplicity in the universe does not result from the Name Elokim, a name which utilizes the plural form, but from the Name Havayah itself. This would seem to imply that in Havayah as well there is multiplicity. This prompts the question: “How many suns (Divine Presences) are there?” [Cf. Likutei Amarim, end of ch. 35.]
(b) According to the Alter Rebbe’s explanation, created beings are in reality found within their source. They perceive themselves as existing separately from it merely because of the concealment of the tzimtzum; in reality, however, they are G‑dliness. Therefore, “if the eye were permitted to see,” we would perceive that they are G‑dly.
This gives rise to a cataclysmic question regarding the entire essence of Torah and mitzvot.
The purpose of Torah and mitzvot is to draw down G‑dliness into the physical substances with which the mitzvot are performed. This is what is meant by the teaching that only by performing a mitzvah does the physical object become holy. Indeed, this concept is implicit in the recitation of blessings before the performance of mitzvot, for the Hebrew word for blessing (ברכה) implies the drawing down of G‑dliness within the object with which the mitzvah is performed.
The mitzvah of tefillin, for example (and so, too, all other mitzvot, all of which are likened to tefillin), is intended to draw down G‑dliness into the physical parchment and ink, etc.
Now, since the parchment is G‑dly (even before the performance of the mitzvah), how is it possible for a mitzvah originating in the “Torah of truth” to imply by its effect (and by its inherent truth) that the parchment is in fact mundane, and only by virtue of what is inscribed on it, and so on, does it begin to become G‑dly? In fact it is G‑dly even before this; it is only the corporeal eyes of man that fail to perceive it to be so.
We mortals fail to perceive the truth. Torah, however, is truth, and its mitzvot are true. How, then, can there possibly be amitzvah (and the very fact that there is such a mitzvah indicates the truth of the matter) of taking parchment and transforming it into G‑dliness, when in reality it was G‑dly even before it was used for a mitzvah?
This difficulty too springs from the explanation of Tanya. Were we to say that the doctrine of tzimtzum is to be understood (as its erroneous exponents understand it) in its literal sense — as if G‑d literally withdrew His Presence from creation, thereafter gazing upon creation from a distance like the proverbial king through his palace window — then there would be no difficulty.
However, according to the concept of Unity as explained here in Tanya, whereby the King Himself is found in the place of the parchment or whatever, then the difficulty manifests itself. For according to this explanation the place itself and all its aspects are themselves G‑dliness.
If so, what is the meaning of Torah study and performing precepts? What is the point of studying the law that applies to “one who exchanges a cow for a donkey,” what is the point of performing a mitzvah involving parchment and ink, when in reality there is no cow and no donkey, no parchment and no ink, but everything is G‑dliness? What is the significance of Torah andmitzvot?
(c) The question now becomes even greater. The reason we perceive the world to exist as an independent entity is that we view it with “physical eyes,” and “the eye [was not] permitted to see,” and so on; i.e., our tangible corporeality prevents us from beholding the truth.
It would therefore be logical to assume that tzaddikim, inasmuch as they are not hindered by the concealment occasioned by corporeal flesh and inasmuch as they transcend materiality, should be able to perceive the truth — that the world truly does not exist, for everything is G‑dliness alone. Those tzaddikim who are at the level of the World of Yetzirah or Beriah, and surely the truly great tzaddikim who have become a “chariot of Atzilut” (as explained in Likutei Amarim, ch. 39), should not be subject to the restrictions of the concealment. With regard to them the above question becomes even stronger: What is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot for them? Since the G‑dliness manifest in this world is revealed to them, there would seem to be no need for them (G‑d forbid) to perform Torah and mitzvot!
* * *
It was in order to answer all these questions that the Alter Rebbe wrote the end of ch. 4 and the whole of ch. 5, as shall soon be explained.The Alter Rebbe explains at the conclusion of ch. 4 that the tzimtzum and concealment of life-force is termed kelim (“vessels”), while the life-force itself is called or (“light”). He then goes on to explain that “the kelim are verily the letters.”
This seems to contradict what was explained in the previous chapters. Earlier on, in the first chapter, the Alter Rebbe writes that the letters are the life-force of created beings. Here, however, he says that the life-force is the light, while the letters are the vessels, which contract and conceal the life-force. How is this to be reconciled with his previous statement that the letters are the life-force that reveal, as opposed to the kelim, which conceal?
But in truth, not only is the present statement not a contradiction to what was stated earlier: it is actually an explanation of the previous statement that the letters are the life-force.
The question was raised earlier that since the letters are the life-force of creatures, it would seem that there is a multiplicity of G‑dliness. For since tzimtzum itself is not a party to creation (but only conceals the Creator from the created), the multitude of letters is thus caused not by tzimtzum but by Elokut, by G‑dliness Itself. The question then is: How can there possibly be a multitude of G‑dliness?
The Alter Rebbe answers this in the bracketed text by stating that “the tzimtzum and concealing of the life-force is called kelim.” One of the novel insights contained in this statement is that tzimtzum is an actual entity.
Just as kelim are more than just a concealment of the light, being entities unto themselves, so, too, with regard to the tzimtzumand concealment which are deemed to be kelim; they too are an entity. And it is this entity that brings about the contraction and concealment of the light (just as an actual vessel, being an entity, conceals that which is found within it).
We are now able to understand the multiplicity of letters. The multitudinous letters are not intrinsic to the light itself; they are a result of its passage through the tzimtzum of the kelim.
This is illustrated by the well-known comparison with the sun’s rays that pass through white, green or red glass. The light itself remains simple, unaffected by its passage. However, there is an evident change with regard to its effect; after passing through red glass the light functions as red light, through green glass — as green light, and so forth.
This is what the Alter Rebbe means when he says that “the kelim are verily the letters”; i.e., the shaping of the life-force into letters is not a function of the life-force itself, for “the life-force itself is called or (light)” — and light itself is simple, transcending any particular form or shape. (For light is rooted in the “ ’sun‘ of Havayah,” and in the Name Havayah there can be no multiplicity, heaven forbid, as has been explained earlier.) The letters contained in the life-force result from the kelim, which cause the light clothed in them to be shaped (with regard to their effect).
Accordingly, the second question, regarding the relevance of Torah and mitzvot, is answered as well. Were tzimtzum to be a non-entity and only constitute a state of concealment, its sole purpose being to hide and act as a barrier to the light, then created beings that emerge as a result of this tzimtzum would in reality not exist at all. (It would only seem to corporeal eyes that they enjoy a true state of existence.)
Since tzimtzum does, however, constitute an entity — the entity of kelim, it possesses existence. As such, its effect in concealing is similar to its effect when bringing letters into being.
Regarding the latter, it was explained earlier that the effect of tzimtzum on the light was that it caused it to assume the “shape” of letters, even though the light itself is not affected; its effect exists only in relation to created beings. Thus it is similar to the sun’s rays which do not really change in themselves, although the effect of the colored glass on them is to produce red or green light, and so on.
The same is true with regard to the effect of tzimtzum in concealing the life-force so that it will not be perceived by created beings. The concealment itself is a real entity. It is true that in relation to the light, the tzimtzum does not conceal at all. From the perspective of created beings, however, the tzimtzum is truly an existing entity. It therefore follows that [since they were created through it] they have true tangible existence as well.
* * *
After the Alter Rebbe concludes his explanation that the tzimtzum and concealment of the life-force is termed kelim, which “are verily the letters,” he goes on to add that these letters derive from the five letters מנצפ"ך, which are the “five degrees ofGevurah.” He also states that their source in turn is the supernal Gevurah of Atik Yomin, etc.What does this have to do with his previous statement that the tzimtzum and concealment is termed kelim, and so on?
By stating the above the Alter Rebbe forestalls a formidable problem: How is it possible for the tzimtzum to conceal the light? If we were to hold that the tzimtzum merely prevents the light from being revealed within creation, then there would be no problem. However, in the bracketed text the Alter Rebbe teaches us a novel concept — that the tzimtzum results from thekelim. Now since they are a separate entity distinct from the light, the question arises: How is it possible for the kelim (a distinct and separate entity from light) to effect a change, as it were, in the light?
The question is even greater: Light is the attribute of Chesed; tzimtzum is the attribute of Gevurah. In the order of the Sefirot, Chesed precedes Gevurah (qualitatively as well). How can Gevurah possibly cause a change in an attribute which is spiritually superior to it?
The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that the root of the letters is the “five degrees of Gevurah that divide and separate the breath and voice....” I.e., the Alter Rebbe is teaching us that the concept of letters is not found only within the Sefirot of Atzilut, but far higher, until ultimately the source of the Gevurot is the “supernal Gevurah of Atik Yomin,” while “correspondingly, the source of [the various levels of Divine] kindness is also Chesed of Atik Yomin.” Thus, both Gevurah and Chesed are rooted inAtik Yomin.
Since both attributes are rooted in Atik Yomin, the meaning of which is “removed (נעתק) and separated from ‘days’ [i.e., the attributes of Atzilut],” it follows that because of their common source they are indeed not opposites: they are one. For, as the Alter Rebbe will soon explain (in chs. 6 and 7), even in Atzilut “He and His attributes are One.” How much more certainly must this be the case insofar as they exist in their source in Atik Yomin, which is far superior to Atzilut. It is therefore possible for the light of Chesed to be modified by the tzimtzum of Gevurah.
* * *
In light of the above, we will understand why the Alter Rebbe opens ch. 5 by quoting the Midrashic statement, “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment.” Since this Midrash does not seem to offer any further explanation of the topic at hand, why quote it at all?One reason the Alter Rebbe does so is that it enhances our understanding of the entire concept of tzimtzum. This will be understood after several prefatory remarks.
This Midrash is generally thought to be saying that G‑d originally planned that the world be conducted with the attribute ofGevurah, stern judgment. However, when He saw that the world could not endure this, He combined with it the attribute of mercy.
The wording of the Midrash, however, is not “to conduct the world” but “to create the world.” Clearly the Midrash refers to G‑d’s manner of creation — that He had originally planned to create the world solely through the attribute of Gevurah.
The question thus becomes: How is it possible for creation to come about from the attribute of Gevurah, an attribute oftzimtzum? I.e., how is it possible for tzimtzum to bring about creation, when (simplistically) tzimtzum is a non-entity, its function being only to contract and constrain the Divine life-force. How can the non-entity of tzimtzum create?
This serves to prove that tzimtzum is indeed an entity, for as explained previously tzimtzum corresponds to kelim.
This, then, is what the Midrash means when it says, “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment.” G‑d’s initial intention was that creation come about by means of the kelim, through the power of the light vested in them — that creation result from the letters that are formed in the light through its being clothed in kelim.
Accordingly, we will also understand the continuation of this passage — that “He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation]” refers to “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles....” Why must this necessarily be the explanation of the role of the attribute of mercy?
In light of the above, this is clearly understood: Since the “attribute of stern judgment” refers to the letters, we must therefore say that the “attribute of mercy” refers to the light as it transcends the shape of letters. This light finds expression in “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles...”— by effecting a change in the course of nature. (The letters cause each individual creature to have its own characteristics and nature; a change in nature must necessarily derive from the spiritually superior light.)
In explaining that the attribute of mercy refers to “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles,” the Alter Rebbe adds the words “recorded in the Torah.” At first glance, it is unclear what this phrase means; does the Alter Rebbe refer specifically to the Written Torah, or is the Oral Torah included as well? Furthermore, the miracles that occurred after the forty-year sojourn of the Jewish people in the desert; that occurred after the first Holy Temple (concluding the events and miracles recorded in the Written Torah); that occurred even after the Talmud (the Oral Torah) had been finally recorded; up to and including the miracles10 “witnessed by our own eyes and not by a stranger,” i.e., the miracles that occurred on the 12th and 13th of Tammuz 5687;11 — all these are “revelations of G‑dliness” emanating from the “attribute of mercy.” Why then does the Alter Rebbe specify the miracles “recorded in the Torah”?
The Alter Rebbe added this phrase in order to answer two very strong questions:
(a) Since the world was created from the letters (for which reason each individual creature has its own character and nature), how is it possible that there be revealed within the world (through signs and miracles that transcend nature) a light which is superior to letters? Inasmuch as the world was created through the letters, one would expect it to be incapable of housing a light that transcends letters, which would still continue to exist as tangible entities.
(b) As mentioned earlier, the Midrash addresses itself not to the manner in which the world is conducted, but to the manner of its creation. G‑d first intended to create the world through the attribute of stern justice. Thereafter — but prior to the actual creation — G‑d combined in it, i.e., within creation, the attribute of mercy. Thus the act of creation is brought about by the attribute of mercy as well as by the attribute of stern judgment.
This leads to the following question:
“The revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles” took place long after creation. What then does the Midrash mean by stating that “He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation],” when this attribute was only revealed long after creation?
It is in order to answer these two questions that the Alter Rebbe adds the words, “recorded in the Torah.” One of the meanings of this phrase is: The G‑dliness that is revealed through tzaddikim and miracles (which emanate from the light that is superior to the letters, as has already been explained), — this too was first recorded in the Torah. It follows that it is found in creation as a whole, inasmuch as creation proceeds from the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah, as explained above (at the end of the first chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah).
Accordingly, we will also understand why the Midrash states that “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment”; it was only in thought that G‑d considered creating the world solely with the attribute of stern judgement, that is, from the letters themselves bereft of the light that transcends the kelim. When it came to actual creation, however, i.e., when it came to the speaking of the Ten Utterances that brought about creation, these letters were invested with the light that transcends kelim.
Since the letters contain this light, signifying the negation of the tzimtzum of these letters, it is then possible that at the appropriate time — preordained when the Utterances were first spoken — there occur the signs and miracles that signify the negation of the tzimtzum as found below.
Thus, all these miracles were not something that came about later; rather, they emanate from the light and G- dliness that transcend kelim and that were invested within the letters. This degree of G‑dliness is then revealed at a later time through thetzaddikim and through signs and miracles.
This, then, is what is explained here in Tanya — that at the very moment of creation G‑d combined and vested within creation the attribute of mercy; that in the letters of the Ten Utterances which are enclothed within every creature there is invested the light that transcends the kelim, this light to be later revealed through the signs and miracles.
* * *
One question, however, still remains: What of those great tzaddikim who are on the level of a “chariot of Atzilut,” for whom the corporeal eye of created beings does not conceal G‑dliness? How do Torah and mitzvot apply to them? It is concerning this that the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain “the comprehension of Moses our Teacher (peace unto him) in his prophetic vision.”The above question applies primarily to Moses. His soul was always in a state of total revelation, and not at all concealed by his body, for it was completely penetrated and elevated by his Divine service. For a person such as Moses, for whom there is no concealment of G‑dliness, what is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot?
And with regard to Moses himself, the question stems not so much from his qualities in general as it does from the distinctive nature of “his prophetic vision.” Moses was unique among prophets in that not only his soul, but his very body too was equally a fit receptacle for prophecy. His body was not only able to understand G‑dliness, it could actually perceive the G‑dly prophetic vision. This being so, the question becomes all the more demanding of an answer: What is the meaning of Torah and mitzvotto so lofty an individual as Moses?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by saying: “Even the comprehension of Moses...in his prophetic vision did not extend to the World of Atzilut.” This means to say, that even for an individual as great as Moses the world could be said to exist. True it is that this manner of existence was ever so much higher than our own conception of existence, but existence it was. Torah andmitzvot thus applied to Moses as well, so that he could transform this existence (of his world) into G‑dliness.
Although [Moses was of the World of Atzilut, and] the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah as they exist within Atzilut are G‑dly attributes and wholly at one with G‑d Himself, and thus Gevurah does not conceal Chesed, nevertheless, Moses‘ comprehension “did not extend to the World of Atzilut, except through its being clothed in the World of Beriah.”
This, however, does not suffice. While it is true that Moses‘ comprehension of (the Chesed and Gevurah of) Atzilut extended to the degree that it clothed itself in the World of Beriah, it is only in the World of Beriah that creation first takes place. Moses was therefore able to see in prophetic vision the limitlessness of G‑dliness (as explained in ch. 4). And surely Moses did not behold creation there with corporeal eyes.
G‑d’s Gevurah even after being clothed in Beriah still remains G‑d’s Gevurah. Since Moses was not subject to the concealment inherent in corporeal eyes, he was able to perceive the attribute of Gevurah as clothed in the World of Beriah; he did not perceive a concealing attribute of Gevurah: he perceived a luminous Gevurah. The question thus remains: What was the meaning of Torah and mitzvot for Moses?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by adding that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah as they were clothed in the World of Beriahwere not themselves apprehended by Moses, but “but only insofar as they were clothed in attributes which are of lower levels than themselves, viz., the attributes of Netzach, Hod and Yesod.”
Thus when Moses apprehended Chesed and Gevurah of Atzilut, he apprehended Chesed insofar as it is clothed in Netzach, Gevurah insofar as it is clothed in Hod, and both of them insofar as they are clothed in Yesod. Since his comprehension ofChesed and Gevurah related to them only insofar as they were garbed in the concealing cloak of Netzach, Hod and Yesod, therefore even for Moses the world was endowed with existence. It was, to be sure, a very rarefied form of existence, but it was existence nonetheless. Torah and mitzvot thus applied to him as well.
* * *
According to the above it would seem that within the three lower Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, the comprehension of G‑dliness is an impossibility: all that there can be is G‑dly revelation. This, however, is not the case. For as explained in ch. 39 of Tanya, the distinctive quality of Gan Eden (whose place is in Beriah; ibid.) lies in the fact that there it is possible to12 “derive pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence”; the Divine Presence itself becomes revealed and accessible to comprehension, making it possible that pleasure be derived from it.Now according to that which was just explained, how can it be possible to “derive pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence” in any of the Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah or Asiyah?
The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that in Gan Eden there is an apprehension of the “spreading forth of the life-force and light which issues from these two attributes, Chesed and Gevurah”; i.e., in Gan Eden one is able to comprehend the life-force as it spreads forth from Chesed and Gevurah themselves, without the intermediacy of Netzach, Hod and Yesod. (The “spreading forth ” is to be understood as explained in Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 19.) This comprehension, the Alter Rebbe goes on to say, is “the food of the souls”; i.e., it is internalized, like food which is ingested internally.
However, this gives rise to yet another question: Would we not expect Gan Eden itself to be nullified out of existence, inasmuch as the radiance of the Divine Presence is revealed there? Moreover, Gan Eden has to do with comprehension.13How does it relate to the emotive attributes of Chesed and Gevurah?
In answer to this the Alter Rebbe states: “For from the diffusion of these two attributes, a firmament is spread.... Within this is the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah.” Within these letters of the Torah which bring all created beings into existence, was clothed the Divine light which transcends the tzimtzum of these letters, as explained earlier.
From the perspective of Torah, these two attributes — the revelation of Chesed and the concealment of Gevurah — do not contradict one another. This is because Torah encompasses them both, [as the Alter Rebbe goes on to say:] “as it is written, ‘From His right hand [He gave] unto them a fiery Law.’ ” Torah is thus composed both of “right” (Chesed) and “fire” (Gevurah). It is therefore possible for these two opposites to coexist — Gan Eden existing as an entity, and within it, the revealed radiance of the Divine Presence.
The question of how Gan Eden, which is intellectual perception, relates to Chesed and Gevurah, which are emotive, is answered by the Alter Rebbe when he states: “For this firmament is the secret of knowledge (Daat).” This means to say that the one intellectual faculty of Daat encompasses both emotive attributes of Chesed and Gevurah, and yet Daat is a faculty of intellect.
But another matter remains to be understood. Gan Eden comprises two aspects: (a) In Gan Eden there is Torah study (seeLikutei Amarim, ch. 41); (b) Though in Gan Eden there is no performance of mitzvot (as alluded to in the verse, במתים חפשי), there is, however, reward for prior performance.
Now it is understandable how Torah can be found in Gan Eden, for as explained previously, Torah is comprised of the harmonious conjoining of Chesed and Gevurah. Mitzvot, however, are individualized.
For it is known14 that Torah is likened to blood and the mitzvot to bodily organs; whereas blood courses throughout all parts of the body, the organs are separate from one another, each with its own individual function.
Since, from the perspective of mitzvot, Chesed and Gevurah are two separate attributes, it would seem that from this perspective Gan Eden could not possibly exist, inasmuch as it is a composite of both Chesed and Gevurah. Furthermore, if the light elicited by the performance of precepts would indeed be drawn down, this light being a manifestation of Chesed, would this not cause the very existence of Gan Eden, whose source is Gevurah, to be completely nullified?
The Alter Rebbe therefore says, “and the commandments are [their] garments.” Since the mitzvot comprise both Chesed andGevurah, which are two distinct attributes, it is indeed impossible for the light elicited by the mitzvot to permeate [the souls inGan Eden] inwardly, for if it were to do so they would be nullified out of existence.
For this reason, the reward in Gan Eden for the performance of mitzvot is granted only in the protective and auxiliary manner of a garment; this light is not drawn down into the souls in a permeating manner.
Torah, however, which is comprised of the conjoining of Chesed and Gevurah, is truly “food” for the souls in Gan Eden. It permeates them without causing their nullification, unlike the mitzvot, which are merely “garments”.
* * *
The Rebbe concludes that according to the above discussion another difficulty (not quite incidental) will be resolved, namely: Where is the concluding bracket at the end of ch. 4? (Even in the first edition of Tanya this bracket is missing.)According to all the above-mentioned questions, whose answers are provided by the Alter Rebbe beginning with the bracketed text in ch. 4, and continuing until the final bracket of ch. 5, this difficulty finds the following simple resolution:
The bracketed text beginning near the conclusion of ch. 4 extends until the end of ch. 5. The worthy typesetter, however, seeing two brackets at the end of ch. 5, assumed that one of them was surely superfluous — not taking into consideration that one of them possibly marked the conclusion of the bracketed passage beginning in ch. 4.
Excerpted from a Sichah delivered on Shabbat, Parshat Mishpatim, 5727.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | See Rashi on Bereishit 1:1; Bereishit Rabbah 12:15. |
| 2. | I, 53a. |
| 3. | Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar. |
| 4. | Note of the Rebbe: “According to that which is explained in Iggeret HaKodesh (Epistle 19), it is clear that this does not preclude [comprehension of] a higher level (for there have been souls whose comprehension has reached up toChochmah and Binah). Rather, the comprehension of Chesed and Gevurah (the source of creation and its tzimtzum), which is the matter at hand, became possible only through their being clothed in Netzach, Hod and Yesod.” |
| 5. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 6. | Devarim 33:2. |
| 7. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 8. | Chs. 9 and 12. |
| 9. | He‘arot VeKitzurim, p. 126. |
| 10. | Cf. Iyov 19:27. |
| 11. | I.e., the release of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, from incarceration and capital sentence in Leningrad in 1927. |
| 12. | Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 5. |
| 13. | Tanya, ch. 39, et passim. |
| 14. | Explained at length in Likkutei Torah, Parshat Bamidbar. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5776 · June 22, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 104
Ritual Impurity of a Zav
We are commanded regarding the ritual impurity of a zav [a man who suffers an abnormal seminal discharge.
When contracted, one must follow all the laws associated with this impurity. E.g.,] how he contracts this ritual impurity and how, after he becomes a zav, he can pass on this impurity to others.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Ritual Impurity of a Zav
Ritual Impurity of an Animal Carcass
We are commanded regarding the ritual impurity [contained in and emitted by] an animal carcass. [I.e., when contracted, one must follow all the laws associated with this impurity.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 104
Ritual Impurity of a Zav
We are commanded regarding the ritual impurity of a zav [a man who suffers an abnormal seminal discharge.
When contracted, one must follow all the laws associated with this impurity. E.g.,] how he contracts this ritual impurity and how, after he becomes a zav, he can pass on this impurity to others.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Ritual Impurity of a Zav
Positive Commandment 104
Translated by Berel Bell
The 104th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the tumah of a zav. This mitzvah includes the laws of how he becomes a zav1 and how he conveys tumah to others.2
FOOTNOTES
1.See Hilchos Mechusarei Kapparah 2:1-2.
2.See Hilchos M'tamei Mishkav U'Moshav, Chapter 1.
Positive Commandment 96Ritual Impurity of an Animal Carcass
We are commanded regarding the ritual impurity [contained in and emitted by] an animal carcass. [I.e., when contracted, one must follow all the laws associated with this impurity.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Ritual Impurity of an Animal Carcass
Positive Commandment 96
Translated by Berel Bell
The 96th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the tumah of neveilah. This mitzvah includes tumas neveilah and all of its laws.1
I will now give an introduction you should remember all through the following discussion of the various types of tumah. When we count each category as a separate positive commandment, this does not mean that one is commanded to become tameh with this form of tumah; nor that one is forbidden from becoming tameh with it, as if it is a prohibition. Rather, the Torah's statement that anyone who touches a certain category is tameh, or that a certain category conveys tumah in a certain way to one who comes in contact with it — this itself is the positive commandment. This means that the law we are commanded to follow — that if one touches a certain object in a certain way he becomes tameh, but in another way, he does not — is itself the mitzvah.
The actual decision to become tameh or not, however, is optional. If one wants, one is allowed to become tameh, and if one doesn't want, he doesn't have to. The Sifra says, "From the verse,2 'Do not touch their neveilah,' I might think that one who touches neveilah receives 40 lashes — the Torah therefore says,3 'To these you will become tameh.' I might think that if one sees neveilah he must go and become tameh from it — the Torah therefore says, 'Do not touch their neveilah.' How is this possible? It is optional."
Therefore the mitzvah is the actual ruling regarding these laws, that we are commanded that anyone who touches a certain object becomes tameh and is bound by all the obligations of those who are tameh — to go outside the machaneh Shechinah, not to eat or touch sacrificial food, etc. This itself — that he becomes tameh through touching or some other connection4 — is the mitzvah.
You should remember this principle throughout all the categories of tumah.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Hilchos Shaar Avos HaTuma'os, Chapters 1-3.
2.Lev. 11:8.
3.Ibid., 11:24.
4.Such as carrying it without touching, such as in the case of neveilah, or entering under the same roof, as with tumas meis.
• 1 Chapter: Bechorot Bechorot - Perek 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Bechorot - Perek 8
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Bechorot - Perek 8
Halacha 1
The following laws apply when a person brought sheep into a corral, they began to depart one by one with him counting them as we explained, and he erred in numbering them, and called the eighth lamb or a lesser number, the tenth. In such a situation and, similarly, if he called the twelfth or a greater number, the tenth, those animals are not consecrated. If, however, he called the ninth or the eleventh, the tenth, they become consecrated.
This matter is a halachah, [communicated by the Oral Tradition: that an error when tithing causes one greater than the tenth or one lesser than the tenth to be consecrated, but not those greater or lesser than they.
Even if one called the ninth, the tenth, and the eleventh, the tenth, whether in error or intentionally, all three are consecrated.
Halacha 2
What are the laws that apply to them? The ninth is not sacrificed. Instead, it should be eaten after it becomes blemished. The tenth is the tithe offering and the eleventh should be offered as a peace offering. Accompanying offerings are required to be brought with it. Its holiness may not be transferred to another animal, because it is considered as an animal to which holiness has been transferred itself.
When does the above apply? When the person counting was the owner of the animals. When, however, a person appoints an agent to tithe for him and the agent errs with regard to the ninth or the eleventh, only the true tenth one is consecrated, for he was not appointed as an agent to err and to cause him a loss, only to consecrate the animals in the appropriate manner.
Halacha 3
The statement that if one called the eleventh animal "the tenth," it becomes consecrated applies when one called the tenth, "the ninth." If, however, he called the tenth "the tenth," and called the eleventh, "the tenth," the eleventh is not consecrated. The rationale is that the name "tenth" was not removed from the true tenth animal.
Moreover, even if the owner was silent when the tenth animal departed and did not call it "the tenth" or "the eleventh" and when the eleventh departed, he called it "the tenth," it is not consecrated. The rationale is that the tenth is consecrated as a matter of course, even though it was not explicitly called "the tenth." Hence, since the name "tenth" was not removed from the appropriate animal, the eleventh is not consecrated.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when the ninth and the tenth depart together. Whether the owner called both of them "the ninth" or both of them "the tenth," they are both consecrated. They both, however, should be eaten after they contract blemishes and neither should be sacrificed.
Similarly, if the tenth and the eleventh departed together, if he called them "the tenth," the tenth and the eleventh are considered as intermingled. It is as if a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, in which instance, the law is that they should be eaten after they contract blemishes, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.If he called them "the eleventh," it is considered as if the tenth animal and an ordinary animal are intermingled and they should be eaten after they contract blemishes.
Halacha 5
If, when the owner began counting, two animals, the first and the second, departed together, he should count all the animals in pairs and consecrate the tenth pair. Similarly, if he counted them all in sets of three or in sets of five, the tenth set becomes consecrated.
Halacha 6
If, at the outset, two departed and he counted them as one, and then he called the third that departed after them, "the second," and continued counting one by one in the ordinary manner, the ninth and the tenth are both consecrated and should be eaten after they contract blemishes. The rationale is that the ninth is the true tenth, because two animals departed at the outset. And the one that he called "the tenth" is really, the eleventh and when the eleventh is called "the tenth," it is consecrated, as we explained.
Halacha 7
If one counted backwards, i.e., when the first one departed, he counted it "ten;" when the second departed, he counted "nine;" until the tenth departed and he counted "one," it is consecrated, because the tenth is consecrated on its own accord.
Halacha 8
If one mistakenly called the ninth, "the tenth" and the tenth remained in the corral, the ninth should be eaten after becoming blemished and the one that remained in the corral is the tithe. This applies even though it did not depart, nor was it designated as the tenth, because the tenth is consecrated on its own accord.
If the tenth died in the corral, the ninth should be eaten after becoming blemished and the eight which departed after being counted are exempt even though the tenth among them was not consecrated to be offered, but instead, died before departing, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed, they are exempt.
Halacha 9
When one brought ten lambs into a corral and proceeded to count, if one of those counted died, he should continue counting and complete the reckoning in its ordinary manner, consecrating the tenth, even though there are only nine that are alive at the time.
Halacha 10
If after a person began counting, one of the animals in the corral died, those which were counted are exempt, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed even though one was not separated for them, they are exempt, as stated.Those that remained in the corral should be left for a later "threshing floor" until others are added to them.
Similar concepts apply when one had fourteen lambs and brought all of them into a corral and four departed through one opening and were counted, then six departed through another opening and were counted and four remained in the corral. If the four depart through the opening that the six departed, one should be taken as the tithe and all the others are exempt. The four that departed at first through the first opening are exempt, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed, they are exempt.
If the remaining four departed from the opening through which the first four departed, the four that departed at the outset and the six that departed afterwards through the second opening are exempt, because each one of them was counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed. For at the time each of the groups departed, others remained in the corral to complete the counting and the tithing. The four that remained, however, although they departed through the first opening and were counted, were not counted in a manner appropriate for tithing. Therefore they must be included in another "threshing floor."
The following laws apply if four departed through one opening, four departed through another opening, and six remained. If all six departed from the same one of the two openings, one should be taken as a tithe and all the lambs are exempt from being tithed again. If, however, the six departed from both openings, some from one and some from the other, the six are included in another "threshing floor." The eight that departed from the two openings at the outset, however, are exempt, for each set of four was counted in a manner appropriate for ten to be counted and the tithe taken, for there were six remaining in the corral.
Halacha 11
If there were nineteen lambs in the corral and nine departed from one opening and nine departed from the other opening, the last one should be taken as the tithesand all the previous are exempt, for both sets of nine were counted in a manner appropriate for tithing.
12 . If one was counting and a lamb stuck out its head and the majority of its body from the corral and then returned, it is considered as having been counted in all contexts.
Halacha 13
If a person was counting and interrupted the reckoning because his colleague spoke to him or because night fell beginning the Sabbath, he should continue and complete his counting afterwards.
Halacha 14
When one was counting those that departed one by one and one consecrated the tenth and one of those which had been counted jumped back into the corral, becoming intermingled with those which had not been counted as of yet and which were not tithed, all of those in the corral are exempt. The rationale is that there is a doubt concerning every lamb in the corral: Is the one that was counted and jumped back in or is it another one? And we have already stated, that all those which were counted are exempt.
Halacha 15
If one of the animals selected as the tithes jumped back into the corral and became intermingled with the remaining animals, they should all be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Then they should be eaten after acquiring the blemish.
• 3 Chapters: Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav - Chapter 13, She'ar Avot haTum'ah She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 1, She'ar Avot haTum'ah She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 2 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav - Chapter 13
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5776 · June 22, 2016• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
When a priest purifies his keilim for the grape-pressing season and then sets them aside for the following grape-pressing season, it is assumed that their status remains unchanged, for unlearned people will not touch the keilim of a priest when they are in his winepress, because he partakes of pure food. If an Israelite puts away his keilim in a similar manner, by contrast, they are considered impure, unless he says: "Within my heart, there was a resolve to guard against an unlearned person entering the winepress and touching thekeilim."
Halacha 2
When a person desires to make wine that is ritually pure while using workers who are unlearned, he must make sure that those who harvest the grapes immerse themselves in a mikveh. Similarly, if they were involved in producing oil, he should have those who work in the olive-press immerse themselves. He must stand over the workers and have them immerse themselves in his presence, for they are not familiar with the laws of immersion and intervening substances.
If the workers left the entrance to the olive-press and went outside to defecate behind a fence and returned, they are still considered as ritually pure. How far may they go and still be considered as ritually pure? Until they are hidden from the chavair's sight. If, however, they go out of his sight, they return to a state of impurity until he has them immerse again and they wait until nightfall.
Halacha 3
When a source of impurity was found in the presence of olive-press workers and grape harvesters, if they say, "We did not touch it," their word is accepted. This also applies if their children say: "We did not touch the wine or the oil."
Halacha 4
The following laws apply when a person purifies olive-press workers, brings them into the vat, and locks it. If there were keilim there that had contractedmidras impurity, the entire olive-press is impure, for perhaps they touched those keilim. Even if the chavair saw them previously showing care not to touch those keilim, the olive-press is impure, for perhaps they moved them and thus contracted impurity and they think that a person who moves keilimwith midras impurity is not impure. For unlearned people are not familiar with the impurity contracted by moving keilim.
Halacha 5
When a chavair's donkey-drivers and porters were loaded with pure foods and they were proceeding in front of him, even if they were more than a milahead of him, they are pure. The rationale is that they assume that he is watching them. Hence, they are afraid to allow others to touch impurity, for they will say: "He will come now, for he is following after us." If, however, he tells them: "Go and I will follow you," as soon as they proceed beyond his sight, the foods are impure.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when a chavair was wearing a tunic and wrapped in a cloak while proceeding on his way. If he said: "In my heart, I intended to guard the tunic from contracting impurity and I was careful about it, but I diverted my attention from the cloak," the tunic remains pure, while the cloak is considered impure, because it is possible that an unlearned person touched it.
If there was a basket on his shoulder with a pitchfork in the basket and he said: "In my heart, I intended to guard the basket and to guard the pitchfork from something that would make it a source of impurity, but not from something which disqualifies it," the basket is pure, the pitchfork is impure, and all the terumah in the basket is impure. The rationale is that the impure pitchfork disqualifies the food in the basket.
If chavairim were using a barrel while in a state of purity under the assumption that its contents were ordinary food and it was discovered that they wereterumah, even though it is pure, it is forbidden to be eaten, for perhaps it was touched by a person who had immersed in the mikveh that day. Such a person disqualifies terumah, even though ordinary food he touches is pure, as will be explained. Guarding terumah is not the same as guarding ordinary food. If, however, he states: "In my heart, I intended to guard it from even an entity that will disqualify it," it is permitted to be eaten.
If a person's Sabbath garments become exchanged with his weekday garments and he wore his Sabbath garments on an ordinary weekday, they become impure, for one does not guard his weekday garments to the same degree as he guards his Sabbath garments.
An incident occurred concerning the wives of two chavarim whose clothes became exchanged in the bathhouse. The matter was brought to the attention of the Sages and they ruled that the garments were impure. Even if one's scarf fell and he asked a chavair to give it to him and he gave it to him, it becomes impure. This is a decree, enacted lest an unlearned person give it to him or lest the chavair not guard it, for a person will not guard articles that do not belong to him like he guards his own articles unless the other person notifies him and relies on him.
Halacha 7
When a chavair dies and leaves pure foods, they are considered as pure. When he leaves keilim, they are impure. The rationale is that we suspect that perhaps they became impure and he had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on them on the third day of their impurity, and not on the seventh day. Or perhaps he had the ashes sprinkled on them on the seventh day, but did not immerse them. Or perhaps he did not have the ashes sprinkled on them at all.
Halacha 8
When one witness tells a person, "Your pure foods have contracted impurity," and the owner remains silent, his word is accepted and the foods are considered as impure. If he contradicts him and maintains that they did not contract impurity, it is assumed that their status has not changed unless two witnesses testify that they contracted impurity.
If a person was working together with a colleague with pure foods or sacrificial offerings and after a while, the colleague found him and told him when he met him: "The pure foods with which I was working you became impure or the sacrificial offerings that I was offering with you became piggul, his word is accepted. If, however, he met him and did not say anything and afterwards met him a second time and he told him the above, his word is not accepted. Instead, his sacrifices are assumed to be acceptable and his pure foods are assumed to be pure.
Blessed be the Merciful One Who offers assistance.
She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 1
HILCHOT SHA'AR AVOT HATUM'AH
The Laws of Other Primary Sources of Impurity
Included in this text are three positive commandments. They comprise the following:
1) the laws of the impurity of a dead animal;
2) the laws of the impurity of a dead crawling animal;
3) the laws of the impurity of semen.
False deities impart impurity like a dead crawling animal. This impurity is a Rabbinic decree.
These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.
Halacha 1
The carcass of a dead animal is a primary source of impurity. An olive-sized portion of its meat imparts impurity to a person and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container when it enters its inner space. And it imparts impurity to a person when being carried to the extent that his clothes become impure, as is the law regarding a surface on which one rides that contracted impurity from a zav.
What is implied? When a person touches the carcass of a dead animal, he is considered as a primary derivative of impurity. If he touches keilim - even at the same time that he is touching the carcass - they are pure. Similarly, the clothes that he is wearing are pure, for he is a derivative of impurity and a derivative does not impart impurity to keilim.
When, by contrast, one carries the carcass of a dead animal, he imparts impurity to keilim while he is carrying it, as Leviticus 11:28 states: "One who carries their carcasses must launder his garments." Those garments are considered as primary derivatives of impurity. He does not impart impurity to another person or to earthenware containers even when he is carrying the carcass, as we explained in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav.
Halacha 2
These laws apply regarding both the carcasses of a domesticated animal and a wild animal, whether of a species permitted to be eaten or one forbidden to be eaten. If any of these types of animals die, an olive-sized portion of their meat imparts impurity. The ritual slaughter of a kosher domesticated animal or a kosher wild animal purifies it in all circumstances. Even if one slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard or a consecrated animal outside the Temple Courtyard, they are pure. If a disqualifying factor occurs in the process of ritual slaughter, the carcass is considered like that of an animal that died. It imparts impurity when carried, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah.
Halacha 3
Ritual slaughter has no effect on the status of a non-kosher domesticated animal or a non-kosher wild animal. Whether one slaughters such an animal, stabs it in the throat, strangles it, or it dies naturally, it is considered as an animal carcass. Flesh from all carcasses - both from kosher species and from non-kosher species can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion that imparts ritual impurity.
Halacha 4
The marrow of a bone is considered like flesh. The blood of an animal carcass does not impart impurity like an animal carcass. Instead, it is considered as an impure liquid which does not impart impurity to a person or to utensils according to Scriptural Law.
Halacha 5
The fat of a kosher animal that died without ritual slaughter is ritually pure, as implied by Leviticus 7:24: "The fat of a domesticated animal that died or the fat of a domesticated animal that was torn to death may be used for any purpose." The license granted by this verse applies to an entity forbidden only because the animal had died or was torn to death. If such fat was made fit to contract impurity due to contact with liquids that convey that status, it is considered as impure food and not as the meat of a dead animal.
Nevertheless, when one touches the fat the surrounds the kidney of a kosher domesticated animal that died without ritual slaughter before it was separated from the kidney, he is impure like one who touches the kidney itself. The rationale is that several strands of flesh from the kidney itself extend into the fat.
With regard to a non-kosher domesticated animal and a wild animal, whether kosher or non-kosher, the same laws apply to both its meat and its fat with regard to ritual impurity. An olive-sized portion imparts impurity to a person and to keilim like the meat of a dead animal.
Halacha 6
The fat of a ko'i imparts impurity like its meat does, but this impurity is of doubtful status. Therefore terumah and sacrificial foods are not burnt because of it, nor is one liable for karet for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial foods after touching it.
Halacha 7
These are the parts of a carcass that do not impart impurity: the bones, the horns, and the hoofs; this includes even their soft portions that if cut off from a living animal would cause bleeding, the hide, even if has not been processed to use for other purposes, the pieces of flesh that remain attached to the hide when an animal is skinned, the sinews, sauce, and spices cooked with such meat.
When does the above apply? When they were separated from an animal's carcass. If, however, one touches any of these entities while they are still attached to the meat of a carcass, he contracts impurity, provided there is an olive-sized portion of meat. For none of these can be included as part of that required olive-sized portion.
Halacha 8
The pieces of flesh that remain attached to the hide when an animal is skinned whether separated by a wild beast or by a knife should not be considered as part of an olive-sized portion. If the different pieces of flesh were collected and they comprised an olive-sized portion, they impart impurity.
Halacha 9
These are the parts of animals for which the hide is considered as their meat: the hide of a domesticated pig, the soft hide of a camel hump, the skin of the genital area, the skin of a fetus, and the skin below the fat-tail. Such portions of an animal carcass impart impurity. If one processed them or trod upon them to the extent necessary to process them, they are pure. If one performed a deed that negated their use as meat, they are pure even though he did not trod upon them to the extent necessary to process them.
What is implied? If one used the ear of a donkey as the handle for his basket, it is pure. For how long must one tread on a hide in order to process it? For as long as it takes to walk four millin. What is meant by a soft camel hump? One that was never used for a burden. If a camel reached the age when it was fit to carry burdens, but one did not use it for that purpose or one used it for that purpose before it reached the appropriate age, it is questionable whether its status changes.
Halacha 10
The following laws apply when one skins the carcass of a domesticated or a wild animal, whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher one, whether it is a small animal or a large animal. If he skins it to use as a mat, as soon as he skins a portion of the hide sufficient to hold onto, i.e., two handbreadths, one who touches the hide that was skinned is pure. Before it is skinned two handbreadths, one who touches the hide is like one who touches meat.
If one skins the animal in order to use its hide for a flask, the hide is considered as connected to the carcass until one skins the entire breast. If one skins an animal from its feet alone, the entire hide is considered as connected. One who touches the hide is like one who touches the meat until the hide is entirely separated from the meat. Similarly, when one skins the hide of crawling animals, the hide is considered as connected until it is skinned in its entirety. Similarly, the hide that is around an animal's neck is considered as connected until it is removed in its entirety.
Any hide that is considered as connected with regard to imparting ritual impurity is also considered as connected with regard to contracting ritual impurity, i.e., if an animal was slaughtered and impurity touched this hide that was connected to the meat, the meat contracts impurity.
Halacha 11
When there is a hide that has an olive-sized portion of meat from a carcass on it, if one touches a strand of the hide that extends outward from the meat or the hair on the other side of the hide that is opposite the meat, he contracts impurity. The rationale is that the hide and its hair are considered as "protecting" the meat.
When does the above apply? When the meat was left over by an animal. When it was left over by a knife, it is considered insignificant with regard to the hide if it was thin.
Halacha 12
When there are two pieces of meat, each half the size of an olive-sized portion on a hide, the hide causes them to be considered as insignificant. They do not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried. The rationale is that any portion of a carcass that does not impart impurity when touched does not impart impurity when carried.
If, however, one skewered two pieces, each half the size of an olive-sized portion, one who carries them is impure because he carried an olive-sized portion of meat from a carcass. One who touches them, by contrast, is pure, because something joined by man is not considered as joined. The liability for carrying the pieces of meat applies provided both pieces are flattened and stuck together so that they are picked up together. If, however, the two half olive-sized portion were separate entities, but held on the same skewer, the person is pure even if he carries them back and forth the entire day.
Halacha 13
When the meat of a carcass decomposes, becomes spoiled, and is no longer fit for a dog to eat, it is pure. Accordingly, there is an unresolved doubt whether the netzal of an animal carcass imparts impurity or not.
The following laws apply when the meat from a carcass dries out. If it would return to a moist state and be fit for a dog to eat when left to soak in lukewarm water for an entire day, it imparts impurity. If not, it is pure. It does not even impart impurity like impure foods do.
Halacha 14
When the meat of an animal carcass was decomposed at the outset and was not fit for human consumption, it is pure, as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 14:21: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will eat it." At the outset, it must be fit for a stranger to eat.
Halacha 15
A placenta found in an animal carcass is considered as waste matter and feces. It does not impart impurity like a carcass. If the person had in mind to eat it, it is susceptible to the impurity associated with food. The dried milk in the stomach and the liquid milk in the stomach of a carcass are entirely pure.
Halacha 16
When an animal discharges coagulated blood, even though such a discharge makes it exempt from the laws of the firstborn, it does not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried unless there is the form of a fetus recognizable. The rationale is that it is nullified because there is a majority of other substances that are discharged with it. Therefore, it is pure even though it was initially fit for a stranger to eat together with its mother.
Halacha 17
The following laws apply when the carcass of an animal that was not slaughtered became intermingled with that of a slaughtered animal. If the majority of the meat is from the ritually slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is considered as insignificant and none of the mixture imparts impurity when touched. If, however, one carries the entire mixture, he contracts impurity.
The reason why the meat of the carcass can be considered insignificant is that it is impossible for the ritually slaughtered meat to be considered as a carcass, but the carcass can become pure if it becomes putrefied. Therefore it can become nullified.
She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
When a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild animal was slaughtered, it does not impart the impurity of a carcass as long as it is in its death-throes unless its head is cut off. Instead, it is considered as impure food. If it is killed by being stabbed in the throat and it is in its death throes, as long as it makes convulsive movements, it is not even considered as impure food.
A limb that is separated from an animal that is making convulsive movements is forbidden to a Noachide, as if it were separated from a living animal. And meat that is separated from it is considered as having been separated from a living animal. Similarly, when a kosher animal is slaughtered in an unacceptable manner and it is still making convulsive movements or one of its signs or the majority of one was slit, it is not considered impure at all until it dies.
If one divides an animal in half or one removes its thigh and its inner cavity, it is considered as a carcass and it imparts impurity when carried and when touched, even though it shows signs of life. Similarly, if it was ripped apart from its back or its back bone was broken and the majority of the meat around it severed, it is considered as a carcass in all contexts.
Halacha 2
When the fetus of an animal dies within its womb and a shepherd inserts his hand and touches it - whether it is a non-kosher species or a kosher species - the shepherd who touches it is considered pure until he removes the stillborn animal from the womb.
Halacha 3
Meat that is separated from a domesticated or wild animal - whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher species - in their lifetime is ritually pure and does not impart impurity as a carcass does. When, however, an entire limb is separated from a living animal, it does impart impurity as a carcass does. This applies to a limb from a living animal itself or from a fetus in its womb.
There is no minimum measure to the size of a limb. Even if it is the size of a barley-corn or smaller, it imparts impurity provided it was intact as when it came into being with flesh, sinews, and bones. It must have enough flesh to regenerate and return to a state of wholeness. If the limb did not have enough flesh to return to a state of wholeness or the bone was lacking, it is pure.
Halacha 4
A kidney, the tongue, the lips, and like - even though they are organs and will not regenerate - are considered as meat in this context, because they do not have bones, they.
Halacha 5
The flesh or a limb of a domesticated or wild animal that could not regain its vitality and reconnect with the remainder of the body does not impart impurity as a carcass does as long as the animal is alive. Instead, they are considered as like other edible substances. If they were made fit to contract impurity, they can contract impurity while attached to the animal.
If the animal was slaughtered, the slaughter causes the flesh or the limb that had been maimed to be considered fit to contract impurity, but they do not impart impurity as a carcass does. For the slaughter of the animal does not cause them to be considered as if they were separated from the animal during its lifetime. If, by contrast, the animal died, the flesh that was hanging loosely from it during its lifetime must be made fit to contract ritual impurity and a limb that had been hanging loosely imparts impurity as a limb from a living animal and not as a limb from a carcass.
What is the difference between a limb from a living animal and a limb from a carcass? Meat that was cut from a limb separated from a living animal is pure, while meat cut from a carcass imparts impurity when touched or carried if an olive-sized portion is present. The same measure applies in both instances.
Halacha 6
When an animal that was tereifah was slaughtered in a proper manner, even though it is forbidden to be eaten, it is pure. Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal and discovers a dead fetus, the slaughter of its mother purifies it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass.
If one discovers a fetus that is in its eighth month and is alive, it is considered as a tereifah. Even if it is slaughtered after it was deemed tereifah, the slaughter does not prevent it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass. The rationale is that there is no concept of ritual slaughter for an animal of this type.
Based on this logic, when the offspring of an animal was not kept for seven full days before it was slaughtered, the slaughter does not prevent it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass, because such an animal is considered like a non-viable offspring.
Halacha 7
As explained, when a person slaughters an animal and finds a living fetus that has been carried for nine months, ritual slaughter is not required before it steps on the ground, because the slaughter of its mother causes it to be considered as pure. Nevertheless, if its mother becomes impure before the fetus was removed, the fetus does not contract impurity. If the slaughter of its mother was not performed successfully and the mother became considered as a carcass, the living fetus remains pure. The rationale is that a living being does not contract impurity at all, not the impurity associated with foods, nor the impurity associated with a carcass, even though it is considered as one of the limbs of the mother. If it dies before it steps on the ground, it is pure, because the slaughter of its mother causes it to be deemed pure.
Halacha 8
When an animal that is tereifah was slaughtered, even though its meat is pure according to Scriptural Law, if meat from a sacrificial animal touches it, the sacrificial meat contracts impurity according to Rabbinic Law. This is an added stringency applied with regard to consecrated foods.
Halacha 9
The following laws apply when an animal had difficulty birthing its offspring. If, after the fetus stuck out its foot and it was cut off, the mother was then slaughtered, the limb that was cut off is considered as if it was from a carcass, but the remainder of the meat of the fetus is pure.
If the mother was slaughtered and then the limb was cut off, the limb is considered as the meat of a tereifah animal that was slaughtered. The remainder of the meat of the fetus is considered as meat that touched atereifah animal that was slaughtered which imparts impurity to consecrated foods, but not to terumah.
If the fetus stuck out its foot between the slaughter of one sign and the other and it was cut off, the slitting of the second sign is joined to the slitting of the first to purify the limb from imparting impurity as a carcass does.
Halacha 10
When a non-Jew slaughters an animal, it is considered as a carcass and imparts impurity when carried. This applies even when a Jew is supervising him and even if he slaughtered it properly with an acceptable knife. Whether the slaughterer is a gentile, a Samaritan, or a resident alien, his slaughter causes the animal to be considered as a carcass.
According to my estimation, this is also a Rabbinical decree, for the impurity imparted by false deities and objects offered to them is a Rabbinical decree, as will be explained. And it is because of their worship of false deities that the Samaritans were distanced and their slaughter forbidden. If you will ask: According to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to partake of an animal which they slaughtered? In resolution, it can be said that not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity. For an animal that is tereifah, but which was slaughtered properly, is forbidden to be eaten, but is ritually pure. It is impossible to obligate a person for karet for such impurity for entering the Temple or for partaking of sacrificial foods unless one can clearly prove his assertion that he contracted impurity.
Halacha 11
When a person touches or carries the thigh bone of a dead animal, he is pure. The rationale is that any portion of an animal's carcass that does not impart impurity when touched, does not impart impurity when carried. If, however, it was perforated to the slightest degree, one who touches it or carries it contracts impurity.
When does the above apply? When the marrow in it rattles, for, in that state, it would not regenerate flesh were the animal to be alive. If, however, it is in its natural place and it has sufficient marrow that it could regenerate flesh on the outside of the bone, it imparts impurity when touched or carried like other limbs. We have already explained that a thigh-bone is closed on all sides.
Halacha 12
When a person thought of perforating a thigh bone, but had not done so as of yet, one who touches it contracts impurity of a doubtful status. For there is an unresolved question whether the fact that he has not perforated the bone as of yet is considered as not having carried out a significant deed or not.
• English Text | Video Class• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5776 · June 22, 2016• "Today's Day"
Shabbat Sivan 16 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82.
Tanya: Ch. 5. Concerning (p. 299)...Shaar 44, ch. 3). (p. 301).
The early sages, who were like angels1 (may their merit protect us) have already determined that the healing of the soul is like the healing of the body:
The crucial first step is to identify the location of the illness, whether it is caused by the crassness, grossness and corruption of his physical body or by a failing in his soul-powers, the person being inclined to undersirable traits like arrogance or falsehood and the like. Or, the source of the malady may be habit - inadequate rearing or unwholesome environment having brought on bad habits.
Without ascertaining the specific site of the illness and the cause of infection, it is impossible to embark on a cure. One can only prescribe an orderly proper conduct in all matters, what to do and what to avoid. To "do good"2 in terms of observing mitzvot, designating times for Torah-study and acquiring good character traits - and also to "turn away from evil."3
Most urgent of all, however, is that the patient make himself aware of two things: a) to know that he is ill, and desire most fervently to be cured of his malady; b) to know that he can be cured, with hope and absolute trust that, with G-d's help, he will indeed be cured of his sickness.
FOOTNOTES
1.Allusion to the Talmudic statement: "If the first (or early ones, i.e. our predecessors) were like angels, then we are like men; if they were like men, we are like donkeys."
2.Tehillim 34:15.
3.Ibid.
• Daily Thought:
Multiple Personalities
You may consider yourself a single person, but there are many characters playing their own script inside you, each capable of detaching itself from the others.
Intellect will fire off on its own journey happily detached from emotion. Emotion will burn itself up in a fire that never comes to action. Your arms and legs can go through mindless, heartless, meaningless actions day in and out. And the soul can fly high, oblivious to anything that concerns your down-to-earth life.
But when you eat your meal with mindfulness, do business with a conscience, treat a cranky child with loving patience—in all these things a harmony of parts is achieved. All of you becomes one.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment