|Jewish Released Time||Holidays Shabbat Chabad-houses Chassidism Subscribe Calendar Links|
As Divided for a Regular Year
Tanya for 9 Tishrei
It will now be understood - [in terms of the Sefirot and the corresponding letters of the Divine Name] - why the mitzvot are in Malchut, the [latter] hei of the Four-Letter Name of G-d, while the Torah is in Z-eir Anpin, the vav of the Four-Letter Name of G-d.
Though on a higher plane - [as mitzvot and Torah are found in the level of Keter] - in Arich Anpin, the mitzvot are in the Gulgalta [lit., the "skull" that encompasses the Mochin] and, [more specifically], in the "Whiteness" [i.e., in the level of Chesed of the Gulgalta, or Chesed of Arich Anpin], i.e., the "path" that is in the parting of the Se-arot [lit., the "hairs"] which divide into the 613 paths [i.e., effusions] of the Torah as it is in Z-eir Anpin, [thus, mitzvot are on the encompassing level of Gulgalta that transcends the level of Mochin], and the root of the Torah which [merely] issues from the Supernal Chochmah, [though it ultimately derives from a root which is loftier than Supernal Chochmah], is in the "Concealed Mochin" of Arich Anpin, which is the wisdom underlying the reasons for t he commandments.
[The "Concealed Mochin" of Arich Anpin that utterly transcends comprehension contains the wisdom underlying the reasons for the commandments. These reasons will first be revealed with the revelation of the "Concealed Mochin," when Mashiach comes.
Insofar as Torah and the mitzvot are rooted in Keter, then, the mitzvot are on a higher plane than Torah; Torah is rooted in "Concealed Chochmah," the level of Mochin in Keter, while the mitzvot are rooted in Gulgalta, the encompassing level of Keter that transcends Mochin.
Why is it, then, that in their standing within the Sefirot and within the corresponding letters of the Four-Letter Name of G-d, Torah is loftier than mitzvot? - For the mitzvot are situated in Malchut, and in the corresponding final letter hei of the Divine Name, while Torah is in Z-eir Anpin, and in the corresponding letter vav of the Divine Name.
This is the question which the Alter Rebbe now answers:]
However, this is like an inverted seal.
[The stamp of an engraved seal leaves an impression which is the exact opposite of itself: right becomes left and left becomes right; whatever protrudes becomes indented, and whatever was indented, protrudes.
So, too, the "protruding" or superior level of mitzvot in Keter descends by means of Hishtalshelut within the Sefirot in an "indented" or lower manner, while the "indented" or lower level of Torah descends within the Sefirot in a "protruding" or loftier manner.]
Thus "Their beginning is wedged in their culmination": [The "beginning" or superior level of Keter in which the mitzvot are rooted descends and is "wedged" at the culmination of the lowest level of the Sefirot, viz., the Sefirah of Malchut,] that being the power of the blessed Ein Sof to create yesh from ayin, ["something" from "nothing", for, as explained above, the power of Keter is vested within Malchut,] and not by way of ilah and alul, whereby the alul (the effect) would be encompassed by its ilah (the cause), and essentially non-subsistent [relative to it;
Such a manner of creation could not possibly fulfill the Divine intent in creation.]
But [that "creative" power is] in such a way that the yesh should be - [in its self-perception - an entity distinct from [its source in] Divinity, so that the blessed Emanator can be King over all such [self-styled] separate beings, through their fulfillment of the commandments that He will command them.
[It is only thereby that G-d's desire to reign over created beings is fulfilled. For, as explained above, His sovereignty can find expression only over creatures who consider themselves to be separate entities from Him, but who nevertheless nullify their will to His through their actual performance of mitzvot.]
Moreover, "The final act - [those mitzvot that are performed with physical objects] - was present in the "beginning" [Techila] of thought," [in the level of thought that transcends even the "first" Divine thought (Reishith Chochmah). Within this sublime level a Divine intent desires the fulfillment of those mitzvot which involve physicality.]
That is why the Sages asked in the Yerushalmi:  "Is then R. Shimon not of the opinion that one interrupts [Torah study] in order to fulfill the commandment of lulav?!..." - [i.e., that even Torah study defers to a mitzvah, the time for whose performance has arrived.
The Sages asked this question in response to R. Shimon's earlier statement that he and his colleagues would not interrupt their Torah study even for the recitation of the Shema. Their assumption was that whatever would be true of the mitzvah of lulav would also be true with regard to the recitation of the Shema.
The Yerushalmi then goes on to differentiate between Shema and other commandments with regard to interrupting one's Torah study, explaining that both Shema and Torah study involve learning. Surely, however, R. Shimon would interrupt his Torah study for the performance of practical commandments in their proper time.
Insertion by the Rebbe Shlita: "And even Torah study itself presupposes the prior performance of the mitzvot - for they are its beginning, and on them depends its very existence (as in the forthcoming analogy on [the relationship between] the afterbirth and the child)."]
Moreover, [as the Yerushalmi proceeds to quote R. Yochanan], "Whoever learns with the intention not to practice, it were better for him had his afterbirth turned over...," [and he would not have be born.
Why does the Yerushalmi relate to the afterbirth instead of simply stating that "it were better for him had he not been born"?]
For the afterbirth was formed first by the seminal drop, and until the fortieth day, when the embryo begins to take on form, it alone was the essential substance of the embryo.
In like manner, the commandments are the essence and root of the Torah, even though a commandment is corporeal and the Torah is wisdom, [hence ethereal; Insertion by the Rebbe Shlita: "This does not raise a problem as to the consequent standing of the Torah relative to the mitzvot, for the reason explained above [using the analogy of the inverted seal]."
Except that this [the lofty standing of the mitzvot] is on an external [makkif] level, while the other [the Torah] exists on an internal level, [and thus infuses the mitzvot with vitality and soul], as will be explained below.
[Thus, should a person study Torah and not intend to perform the mitzvot, he is lacking the very root and foundation of the Torah, and it would thus have been better for him had his afterbirth turned over.]
- (Back to text) Shabbat 1:2.
Note of the Rebbe Shlita: It will be observed that this entire discussion appears earlier in the Yerushalmi, in Tractate Berachot (1:2), except that there the sukkah precedes the lulav, whereas in Tractate Shabbat the lulav precedes the sukkah. It would therefore appear reasonable to assume that [the Alter Rebbe] preferred to cite specifically this tractate (presumably because the law at hand applies primarily to Shabbat). Somewhat problematic, however, is the fact that the expression used in both discussions (as recorded in current editions of the Talmud) is `to make a lulav and to make a sukkah,' whereas the difference between these cases is self evident. See the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, begining of sec. 641. At any rate, this is not the forum for a lengthy discussion.
See also Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XX, p. 267, footnote 10, and the sources listed there.
| About |