כי תורה אחת לכולנו

for we all have one Torah: the laws of the Torah apply equally to all Jews.

From all the above it becomes eminently clear that though a person may not feel the sanctity brought about by the performance of a mitzvah, so much so that he is likened to a beast, nevertheless, through his performance of a mitzvah, this “beast” is unified with G‑d to the same degree as the greatest sage. Indeed, this is the implication of the verse, “Beasts I am with You, [yet] I am constantly with You.”

The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that there is a definite reason why the similarity to a beast is described in the plural (“beasts I am with you”). This tells us that the performance of a mitzvah on the level of a beast — with neither comprehension nor feeling — is related to the spiritual level which transcends comprehension and feeling, this level too being termed “beast” since it is not in the realm of comprehension, rather transcending it. Thus there are two levels of “beasts”, that which is lower than the realm of comprehension and that which is above it. Both are alluded to by the same word, since the two are connected.

ומה שכתוב: בהמות, לשון רבים

(21And as for the use of the plural form “beasts”, which is inconsistent both with the singular form mentioned earlier (“and I am a fool”) and with the singular form mentioned later (“And I am constantly…”),

לרמז כי לפניו יתברך גם בחינת דעת העליון, הכולל חסד וגבורה, נדמה כבהמות ועשייה גופנית לגבי אור אין סוף

this intimates that before Him, even Daat Elyon (“Supernal Knowledge”) — which comprises Chesed and Gevurah — is like “beasts” and a physical creation (i.e., the physical world of Asiyah, not its spiritual counterpart), when compared with the light of the Ein Sof,

כמו שכתוב: כולם בחכמה עשית

as it is written:22 “You made (עשית) them all with wisdom,” thereby comparing the level of Chochmah (“wisdom”) with Asiyah (“physical creation”). From G‑d’s perspective, Chochmah and Asiyah are equally distant.

ונקרא בהמה רבה, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר

And this is called Behemah Rabbah (“a great beast”), denoting that level of “beast” which transcends understanding rather than that which lacks comprehension, as is explained elsewhere.

והוא שם ב״ן, בגימטריא בהמ״ה, שלפני האצילות

And this is the level of the Supernal Name of “Ban” (one of the four variations of the Tetragrammaton, corresponding with the number 52), with the same numerical equivalent of the Hebrew word Behemah (“beast”), which is on a level even preceding Atzilut).

We thus see that even one who performs mitzvot on the level of a “fool” or “beast”, neither comprehending nor sensing the unity and holiness achieved and drawn down through his actions, — even such a person, too, attains a union with the level of “beast” that transcends even that most lofty of levels — Daat of Atzilut.

Footnotes

1.Mishlei 27:19.

2.The Rebbe explains that by going on to say “This means…” after having quoted from Mishlei, the Alter Rebbe is expounding the verse in a manner other than its supposed simple meaning.

As stated at the opening of Mishlei, the purpose of the book is to teach “wisdom and ethics” — proper moral behavior. This verse, then, teaches us that “as water mirrors the face…,” so, too, should one person’s heart respond to the other; one should not repay kindness with evil, and so on.

It goes without saying that some of the ethical exhortations of Proverbs are easier to fulfill than others. Accordingly, this verse cannot serve to buttress that which is being taught here in Tanya — that G‑d’s love of Jews should arouse a similar response within each and every Jew. The Alter Rebbe therefore does not interpret the verse to mean that “so should be the heart of man to man,” but that “so is the heart of man to man.” King Solomon is not exhorting: he is merely stating an established fact; just as the nature of water is to reflect an image, so, too, is it in man’s nature to mirror the emotion of another. To accomplish this, one need not labor at all; one has but to recognize and consider the fact that his friend is showing him love. He will then immediately be filled with love in return.

However, according to the interpretation of the Alter Rebbe, what is the verse teaching us? And teach us it must, for as mentioned above the purpose of Mishlei is to instruct the reader in proper conduct, and not merely to state truisms.

The lesson may be, proposes the Rebbe, as follows: Since it is indeed a fact that “love reflects love,” one should make an effort to love his fellow abundantly, thereby ensuring that he, in turn, will reflect this love towards himself. Even if the other person may hate him for the moment, still, by being shown love, he will eventually become aware of it; his hatred will wither, and be replaced by love.

In the episle to his chassidim upon his release from Peterburg (entitled Katonti, and appearing in Iggeret HaKodesh as Epistle 2), the Alter Rebbe exhorts them likewise “not to become haughty-minded in relation to their brethren nor to speak defiantly against them. Rather they are to subdue their spirit and heart before everyone…. And, perhaps, through all that, G‑d will put it into the heart of their brethren that as water [reflects] the face….”

3.The Rebbe notes that according to the explanation provided in the previous note it becomes abundantly clear how the arousal of love in this manner is not only suitable to all, but is also “very nigh indeed.”

Inasmuch as it is within the nature of man to mirror love, the arousal of such love is an approach “suitable for all.” This is true even when both parties are on the same level. Furthermore, it is “very nigh,” for in the analogue of G‑d’s love for the Jewish people, the two are on entirely different levels. His love for them is similar to the love that a great king showers upon a most coarse commoner. This provides all the more reason for the king’s love to evoke a similar response in the heart of the commoner. Additionally, not only is it “very nigh,” but it is “very nigh indeed.” For this love is unique in that the lower the level of the person upon whom the love is showered, the more it evokes a reciprocal love. Thus, G‑d’s love for insignificant man should arouse within him an intense love for G‑d in return.

This is alluded to by the Alter Rebbe when he enumerates the various levels in his analogy. For even when two people are on the same plane, love will mirror love. How much more so when the love is shown by (a) “a king”; moreover, (b) “a great king”; furthermore, (c) “a great and mighty king.” Surely, then, the recipient will reciprocate this love.

The person to whom the love is shown is also described in a number of ways. Not only is he unlike the king: he is also (a) “a commoner”; moreover, (b) he is “despised”; furthermore, (c) he is “lowly among men,” and so on.

At any rate, the lower the person’s spiritual level and the feebler his comprehension, the greater should be his impetus to arouse this form of love within himself. It is therefore “very nigh indeed” for people to arouse their love of G‑d when they become cognizant of His love for them.

This, then, is what is novel in this chapter of Tanya. The previous chapters informed us that even a person of lowly spiritual stature may nevertheless attain a love for G‑d. In this chapter the Alter Rebbe explains that quite the opposite is the case: the very lowliness of the individual serves as an impetus to his attainment of a love for G‑d; the lower he is, the greater his ability to arouse it within himself. Moreover, this love may be achieved by all for it requires only awarness, not contemplation.

4.Chagigah 13b.

5.Iyov 25:3.

6.Daniel 7:10.

7.Yeshayahu 6:3.

8.Bereishit 42:9.

9.Haggadah of Passover.

10.Shmot 3:8.

11.Bereishit 2:24.

12.Vayikra 20:26.

13.Bamidbar 15:40-41.

14.The Rebbe explains that the Alter Rebbe cites these verses to provide evidence of the various aspects inherent in the term, “has sanctified us.” That sanctification is similar to the sanctification and union of a marriage we learn from the phrases, “…unto your G‑d; I am the L‑rd your G‑d.” I.e., G‑d is our G‑d in a manner of a man taking a wife, whereby she becomes his wife.

The second form of “sanctification” — the concept that Jews are (a) elevated to Supernal Holiness, G‑d’s essential holiness, and (b) sanctified in the sense of being apart — is understood from the first verse, as follows: The words, “And you shall be holy unto Me, for I the L‑rd am holy,” indicate that the Jews‘ sanctity is bound up with G‑d’s Supernal Holiness. The concluding words, “…and I have separated you from other nations that you should be Mine,” indicate that sanctity which entails being separate and apart.

15.See Kiddushin 33a.

16.Tehillim 73:22-23.

17.Concerning the statement that “this is also the meaning of what Asaf said, under Divine inspiration…,” the Rebbe remarks that the Alter Rebbe is not in the habit of naming the individual who authored a specific verse, nor is he in the habit of remarking that it was first uttered under Divine inspiration.

An exception was made here, the Rebbe explains, because Asaf is addressing himself to the problem of “a wicked man who prospers” and “a righteous man who suffers.” Asaf is also speaking either about himself, or, at least, about those Jews who lived in his time, for in the same chapter he explicitly says “…until I came to the Holy Temple.” I.e., he is referring to a time when the Temple is standing. Now at that time corporeality did not conceal G‑dliness to the same degree as it does now. This being so, how do Asaf’s words apply to our times?

The Alter Rebbe answers this by saying that in this verse Asaf was not talking about himself and his generation, but about the Jewish community in times of exile. Though he was no prophet (as Rashi states in Megillah 14a), he was nevertheless able to speak of the future, for he spoke under Divine inspiration. Daniel likewise foresaw and foretold many future episodes, even though (as Rashi mentions in his commentary to Daniel) he too was no prophet.

In the next footnote the Rebbe will offer evidence that in the verse, “So foolish was I…,” Asaf speaks of the Jews in time of exile.

18.The Rebbe notes that with the words “This means,” the Alter Rebbe is saying, that unlike the previous verses which speak of Asaf’s own time, this verse refers to the Jewish community in exile. Proof that this is indeed so, lies in the fact that after saying, “And I am foolish and know not,” he goes on to say, “I was as a beast before You.” If Asaf is speaking of himself, his final words are superfluous.

We must therefore say that he is speaking of the time of exile, when the veil of corporeality is so palpable that “even when I am with You” — even in the midst of performing a mitzvah, at which time a Jew is at one with G‑d — still “I am as a beast,” unable to feel this union with G‑d. This also explains why the Alter Rebbe quotes the beginning of the verse (“And I am foolish and know not”), when he mainly addresses himself to the latter part of the verse. He does so because the opening words prove that the phrase, “I was as a beast before You,” speaks of the Jewish people in times of exile.

19.Tehillim 139:12.

20.The Rebbe explains that with the Alter Rebbe’s statement — “Accordingly, one will be able to understand…” — a number of very problematic issues are resolved. Firstly: How is it possible that an illiterate person be subject to the same severe punishment as a tzaddik, for transgressing the prohibition of work on the Sabbath or that of leavened bread on Passover? The punishment results from the individual’s desecration of the sanctity which pervades the Sabbath and festivals. However, this sanctity does not rest upon the illiterate person. Why, then, should he be so severely punished?

Even if we posit that the illiterate person, too, possesses some miniscule measure of the sanctity of the Sabbath and Festivals, we must still understand why the same measure of punishment “equally applies to all.” Reason dictates that the illiterate’s punishment should be much less severe than that of the tzaddik, inasmuch as he harbors but an echo of the sanctity enjoyed by the tzaddik.

According to what the Alter Rebbe has just now explained, the matter becomes entirely understandable. For within the soul of the illiterate person there radiates the light of the sanctity of those holy days in the same measure as within the soul of a tzaddik. The only difference between the two is that the tzaddik feels this sanctity while the illiterate person does not.

The Rebbe adds that this explanation also helps us understand why the Alter Rebbe cited evidence specifically from transgressing the prohibitions of the Sabbath and Festivals. These prohibitions, says the Rebbe, are not intrinsic to the acts themselves, for doing these selfsame things on any other day is not prohibited at all. Rather, these are prohibitions which apply to the individual: he is not permitted to perform such labor on the Sabbath.

This being so, we must surely say that the light of Sabbath illumines the soul of an illiterate person just as it does that of a tzaddik. Were we not to say so, then the question of why the punishment is not for the inherent wrong of the act itself, but for the person’s performance of this act on the Shabbath. If the illiterate person’s soul is not illumined to the same degree as the tzaddik’s, it is unthinkable that the punishment should be the same.

21.Parentheses are in the original text.

22.Tehillim 104:24.