Back
Likutei Amarim
Chapter 1תַּנְיָא [בְּסוֹף פֶּרֶק ג דְּנִדָּה] (ל, ב):
It was taught in a baraita (at the conclusion of the third chapter of Nidda [30b]): Although the Talmud there quotes an amora, Rabbi Samlai, and not a baraita, which is a teaching of a tanna, the term tanya can still be attached to this citation. According to some, there were two Sages who shared this name and the one mentioned here was indeed a tanna. In addition, Rabbi Samlai lived in the bridge generation between the tanna'im and amora'im, and a few of their teachings became codified in beraitot.
"מַשְׁבִּיעִים אוֹתוֹ, תְּהִי צַדִּיק וְאַל תְּהִי רָשָׁע. וַאֲפִילּוּ כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אוֹמְרִים לְךָ צַדִּיק אַתָּה – הֱיֵה בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּרָשָׁע״.
"The angels administer an oath to the soul prior to its descent into the fetus: Be righteous and do not be wicked. And even if the entire world says to you,'You are righteous,' consider yourself like a wicked person." There are two elements to the oath that the angels have the soul swear. The first is that one should be righteous and not wicked, and the second is that one should always consider himself wicked, even if everyone else insists that he is righteous.
וְצָרִיךְ לְהָבִין, דְּהָא תְּנַן [אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ב משנה יג]: "וְאַל תְְּהִי רָשָׁע בִּפְנֵי עַצְמְךָ״.
This statement demands explanation, for it was taught in a mishna, "Do not be wicked in your own estimation" ( Avot 2:13) . Clearly, the second part of the oath demands explanation: Why do the angels administer such an oath, giving the person a heavenly, inalterable directive that he should always regard himself as wicked? This poses a contradiction between the sources. In the baraita, man is advised to view himself as wicked, while the Mishna states that one should not consider himself wicked.
וְגַם אִם יִהְיֶה בְּעֵינָיו כְּרָשָׁע – יֵרַע לְבָבוֹ וְיִהְיֶה עָצֵב וְלֹא יוּכַל לַעֲבוֹד ה׳ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְטוּב לֵבָב. וְאִם לֹא יֵרַע לְבָבוֹ כְּלָל מִזֶּה – יָכוֹל לָבוֹא לִידֵי קַלּוּת חַס וְשָׁלוֹם.
Furthermore, if one views himself as wicked, he will feel distraught and saddened, in which case he will be unable to serve God with joy and gladness. On the other hand, if he will not feel distraught at all by this, by finding a fault during his self-assessment, he could be led to frivolity, God forbid. This challenge does not just demand the reconciliation of these two sources, but rather poses an essential, existential issue. On the one hand, a person who views himself as defective, flawed, and wicked will be prone to sadness and despair. On the other hand, a person who is not affected by his shortcomings will not feel the weight of transgression. When one does not engage in self-evaluation at all, or if he always concludes that for one reason or another he is justified in his actions, while avowing that others – the world at large, society, or God – are in the wrong, then he is liable to take his obligations lightly. Much more than a question of textual study, the author of the Tanya is posing a foundational issue: Should man view himself as perfect, imperfect, or essentially defective? This question has nothing to do with reputation or public opinion but rather probes the depths of one's soul, independent of whatever titles one has earned or attributed to himself.
אַךְ הָעִנְיָן, כִּי הִנֵּה מָצִינוּ בַּגְּמָרָא ה׳ חֲלוּקּוֹת: צַדִּיק וְטוֹב לוֹ, צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ, רָשָׁע וְטוֹב לוֹ, רָשָׁע וְרַע לוֹ, וּבֵינוֹנִי.
However, the truth of the matter is that we find five distinctions regarding the righteous and the wicked in the Talmud: a righteous person who prospers, a righteous person who suffers, a wicked person who prospers, a wicked person who suffers, and a beinoni , an intermediate-level person. To understand this issue, the fundamental definitions of tzaddik and rasha, righteous person and wicked person, must be clarified. Piecing together several talmudic sources, the author of the Tanya arrives at five general categories that describe five types of people.
וּפֵירְשׁוּ בַַּגְּמָרָא (ברכות ז, א):
The Sages in the Talmud offer an explanation: "The righteous person who prospers is a completely righteous person. The righteous person who suffers is one who is not a completely righteous person" (Berakhot 7a). The Talmud goes on to say that a wicked person who prospers is not completely wicked, while a wicked person who suffers is completely wicked. These categorizations are not based on the set of life circumstances dealt to a person in this world. It is not that the tzaddik who prospers and the tzaddik who suffers are on the same spiritual level, and it is only that the latter is a tzaddik who has a life filled with hardship and suffering, while the former is both righteous and enjoys a life of prosperity. Rather, this categorization refers to distinctly different types of people based on their personal inner world and their struggles with their evil inclination. Essentially, the five distinctions listed in the Talmud are five levels that classify all human beings within life's vast spectrum from one extreme to the other.
וּבְרַעְיָא מְהֵימְנָא, פָּרָשַׁת מִשְׁפָּטִים (חלק ב קיז, ב) פֵּירֵשׁ צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ, שֶׁהָרַע שֶׁבּוֹ כָּפוּף לַטּוֹב וכו׳.
In Raya Meheimna, Parashat Mishpatim (Zohar 2:117b), it is explained that a righteous person who suffers, literally, "who possesses evil," means that the evil within him is subservient to the good within him and so forth. A tzaddik who suffers refers to a tzaddik who still grapples with evil but dominates it. For this reason, he is not considered a complete tzaddik. A complete tzaddik has no vestige of evil within him at all. In this light, a wicked person who prospers refers to a wicked person who is not thoroughly evil and still has glimmerings of good within, but his evil urge prevails over them.
וּבַגְּמָרָא סוֹף פֶּרֶק ט דִּבְרָכוֹת (סא, ב): "צַדִּיקִים יֵצֶר טוֹב שׁוֹפְטָן כו׳ רְשָׁעִים יֵצֶר הָרָע שׁוֹפְטָן, בֵּינוֹנִים זֶה וָזֶה שׁוֹפְטָן וכו׳
In the Talmud, at the conclusion of the ninth chapter of Berakhot (61b), it states, "The good inclination rules the righteous.… The evil inclination rules the wicked…. Beinonim are ruled by both inclinations.… The word for rule, shofet, also connotes to judge. This talmudic teaching is thus derived from the verse "For He stands at the right hand of the needy to deliver him from those who judge him" (Ps. 109:31). Two judges adjudicate in the inner consciousness of one's being: one's good inclination and one's evil inclination. The difference between people on various spiritual levels, between a tzaddik and a rasha, is their ultimate, decisive inner authority, despite other dissenting inner voices. In the tzaddik, it is the good inclination that has decisive power, while the wicked person's evil inclination dominates. The beinoni grapples with a more complex inner reality, as will be explored below.
אָמַר רַבָּה: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא – בֵּינוֹנִי.
Rabba said: I, for example, am a beinoni . Tzaddik and rasha are clearly defined levels, whereas the beinoni is a complex intermediate level difficult to delineate. It is for this reason that Rabba presented himself as an example of the beinoni, to help clarify this elusive category.
אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵּי: לָא שָׁבֵיק מָר חַיֵּי לְכָל בִּרְיָה״ וכו׳.
Abaye said to him: If the Master claims that he is merely a beinoni, he does not leave room for any creature to live." Rabba claims that he himself is a beinoni, but as the head of the yeshiva of Pumbedita, Rabba is not an average person. He was one of the greatest of the amora'im in Babylon, so holy that even the angel of death had no power over him.
וּלְהָבִין כָּל זֶה בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב,
In order to understand all this, a thorough explanation is needed. The author of the Tanya now embarks on an exploration of these three distinctions, tzaddik, rasha, and beinoni. He will show how these definitions lie at the very bedrock of divine service, crucial to the questions that every person must ask himself when he chooses his spiritual path.
וְגַם לְהָבִין מַה שֶּׁאָמַר אִיּוֹב [בָּבָא בַּתְרָא פֶּרֶק א] (טז, א):
It is also important to understand Job's statement ( cited in the first chapter of Bava Batra [16a]), "Master of the universe, You created righteous people and You created wicked people…," Job's grievous complaint against God, as quoted in the Talmud, is not a protest regarding his own personal plight but rather the lack of fairness in the creation of the world: "You created the ox with split hooves [making it kosher], and You created the donkey with closed hooves [making it forbidden]. You created the Garden of Eden, and You created Gehenna; You created righteous people, and You created wicked people. Who can restrain You?" Job makes a claim against God that He created all His handiwork according to a predetermined form that forces it to function accordingly. Every created entity must live within the confines of its genetic makeup, in accordance with the immutable gifts with which it was endowed. In light of this, Job's complaint concerns the unfairness of judgment. As Rashi explains, "Sinners act under compulsion."
וְהָא "צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע לָא קָאָמַר״ (נדה טז, ב).
for "he does not say: Will he be righteous or wicked?" (Nidda 16b). Job's declaration implies that God created every human being from the outset to be either righteous or wicked. Yet the talmudic statement in tractate Nidda relates what happens before a person is even born: The angel appointed over conception takes a drop of seed, presents it before God, and asks, "Master of the universe, what will be with this drop? Will the person fashioned from it be mighty or weak, wise or foolish, wealthy or poor?" The Talmud then notes that the angel does not ask God, nor does God disclose, whether this particular person will be righteous or wicked, because "everything is in the hand of Heaven except for fear of Heaven." Every person inherits certain characteristics, including his skills, abilities, talents, and selected areas of excellence. He is even handed a particular life trajectory that engenders either wealth or poverty, success or wretchedness. But the choice between good and evil, whether to be a tzaddik or a rasha, remains absolutely in a person's control every moment of his life. The question, then, becomes, how could Job claim that "You created righteous people, and You created wicked people"? The answer is that it is true that He created the ox with split hooves, rendering it kosher, and the donkey without, rendering it forbidden, so that the donkey is incapable of transforming into a pure animal, and the ox is powerless to become impure. Yet there is no predestined lot that forces a person to be righteous or wicked. God does not determine the spiritual level that any person may attain. This choice is totally up to each individual.
וְגַם לְהָבִין מַהוּת מַדְרֵגַת הַבֵּינוֹנִי,
It is also necessary to understand the nature of the level of beinoni . Though the author of the Tanya listed five categories of individuals, his focus in this work is on the beinoni. As highlighted in the title page of the book, the beinoni serves as the axis around which the entire book revolves. In fact, this section of the Tanya is called Sefer shel Beinonim, "The Book of Beinonim," since the book deals primarily with "the nature of the level of beinoni." As will be explained, a difference is drawn between the beinoni's nature and level. One can even argue that the whole book is based on the conflict between the two.
שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי אֵינוֹ מֶחֱצָה זְכֻיּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עֲוֹנוֹת,
It certainly does not mean that his deeds are half meritorious and half sinful. The general concept of beinoni, which literally means "average" or "medium," is difficult to apply. Not every phenomenon can be divided in half with the demarcation of a third, independent realm. There are many pairs that do not have a meaningful average or middle. They can either be one way or the other. Yet, as outlined below, one way that the concept of beinoni can be understood is figuratively, by delineating an average, a person who has equal merits and demerits. Yet this definition poses certain difficulties. One cannot posit that the essential nature of a tzaddik is someone who possesses mostly mitzvot, while a rasha is one who mostly sins, and the beinoni is someone who has an equal number of merits and transgressions.
שֶׁאִם כֵּן אֵיךְ טָעָה רַבָּה בְּעַצְמוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא בֵּינוֹנִי,
If it were so, how could Rabba err concerning himself by saying that he is a beinoni ? If half the actions of the beinoni are characterized as mitzvot and half as transgressions, his transgressive behavior would be obvious. In that case, it is impossible that the behavior of a person of the stature of Rabba, who was a leader of his generation and who spent every waking hour studying Torah and performing endless acts of kindness, would lead him to believe he was a beinoni. On the other hand, one cannot make the claim that his self-assessment was merely a show of humility. A falsehood cannot be an expression of true humility. A person of great stature claiming to be lowly is not being humble. He is simply stating an untruth.
וְנוֹדַע דְּלָא פְּסִיק פּוּמֵיהּ מִגִּירְסָא עַד שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לִשְׁלוֹט בּוֹ וְאֵיךְ הָיָה יָכוֹל
It is known that his mouth never ceased studying Torah to the extent that even the angel of death was unable to best him. How, then, could he err in determining that
לִטְעוֹת בְּמֶחֱצָה עֲוֹנוֹת חַס וְשָׁלוֹם?
half his deeds were sinful, God forbid? Rabba did not even have time to commit transgressions because he never ceased studying Torah. The Talmud relates that the angel of death was sent from Heaven to take Rabba's life, but the angel could not even approach him because Rabba did not stop studying Torah for one instant.
וְעוֹד, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עֲוֹנוֹת נִקְרָא רָשָׁע גָּמוּר [וְאִם אַחַר כָּךְ עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה נִקְרָא צַדִּיק גָּמוּר].
Furthermore, when one commits sins, he is categorized as a completely wicked person (and, conversely, if he subsequently repents, he is categorized as a completely righteous person). It is clear from Rabba's description of himself and his great qualities that the beinoni cannot be characterized as someone who is half sinful. Rather, the beinoni must closely resemble a tzaddik to the point that one cannot differentiate between the two. Yet the question of what defines the beinoni becomes even more pointed, because this distinction does not define a person's outer behavior but rather his internal essence, his nature. This leads to the crucial question of how there can exist an intermediate level between tzaddik and rasha. Is there really such a thing as an "intermediate" person? The moment a person commits a transgression, no matter what his prior merits were, he is considered an absolute rasha. If that same person repents, despite the number of merits or demerits he accrued, at that moment he becomes a complete tzaddik. In that case, when does a person become a beinoni?
וַאֲפִילּוּ הָעוֹבֵר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִקְרֵי רָשָׁע, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּפֶרֶק ב׳ דִּיבָמוֹת (כ, א) וּבְפֶרֶק קַמָּא דְּנִדָּה (יב, א).
Even one who transgresses a minor prohibition of the Rabbis is categorized as a wicked person, as stated in the second chapter of Yevamot (20a) and in the first chapter of Nidda (12a). It is also impossible to characterize the beinoni as one who performs only minor mitzvot and commits only minor transgressions because it is not just one who transgresses foundational tenets of the Written Torah who is considered a rasha. Even someone who transgresses a small aspect of an enactment of the Sages is considered wicked.
וַאֲפִילּוּ מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחָה נִקְרָא רָשָׁע [בְּפֶרֶק ו דִּשְׁבוּעוֹת] (לט, ב).
Also, even one who had the ability to protest a transgression and nevertheless he did not protest is categorized as a wicked person (as stated in the sixth chapter of Shevuot [39b]). A person may be deemed wicked, not only through his actions but also due to inaction in the face of a rasha, when he could have objected or prevented the rasha from causing harm.
וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר בִּמְבַטֵּל אֵיזוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְקַיְּימָהּ, כְּמוֹ כָּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק, שֶׁעָלָיו דָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ ז״ל (סנהדרין צט, א): "כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה וגו׳ הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ וגו׳.
All the more so is this certainly true regarding one who neglects to fulfill any positive commandment that he is capable of performing, such as someone who is able to study Torah yet does not do so. Concerning such a person, our Rabbis (Sanhedrin 99a) expound the verse "Because he scorned the word of the Lord and he violated His commandment, that person shall be excised..." (Num. 15:31). A person who is capable of performing a mitzva and fails to do so also moves into the realm of wicked. The fact that he did not commit a sin when he was supposed to perform a mitzva does not remove him from the category of rasha. A paradigmatic example of this is when a person could have studied Torah but instead engaged in some neutral activity that is neither good nor bad.
וּפְשִׁיטָא דְּמִקְרֵי ‘רָשָׁע׳ טְפֵי מֵעוֹבֵר אִיסּוּר דְּרַבָּנָן, וְאִם כֵּן עַל כָּרְחָךְ הַבֵּינוֹנִי אֵין בּוֹ אֲפִילּוּ עֲוֹן בִּיטּוּל תּוֹרָה, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי טָעָה רַבָּה בְּעַצְמוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא בֵּינוֹנִי.
It is obvious that such a person is categorized as wicked, more so than one who transgresses a rabbinic prohibition. If so, it must be that a beinoni does not possess even the sin of neglecting Torah study. It is on account of this that Rabba erred concerning himself by stating that he was a beinoni . Clearly a person who neglects his Torah study is considered wicked even more than one who transgresses an enactment of the Sages, since the Sages attach such neglect to the very severe punishment of karet, premature death and excision from the World to Come. In summary, those who are considered a rasha include a person who transgresses a major or minor sin, a person who fails to protest against or prevent other people from sinning, and even one who could have performed a positive commandment, such as Torah study, yet failed to do so. In that case, a beinoni must be someone who commits no sins and fulfills every mitzva he possibly can in thought, speech, and action. The beinoni is clearly not an average person. The central question then becomes, why is he called a beinoni? What does he lack that makes him undeserving of the title of tzaddik? The author of the Tanya will go on to explain that what the beinoni lacks is not expressed in his actions, speech, or even thoughts but rather in the inner recesses of his soul. There, hidden from the purview of any onlooker, known only to himself, lies the distinction between tzaddik and beinoni.
הַגָּהָה: וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּזֹּהַר חלק ג׳ דף רל״א, א: "כָּל שֶׁמְּמוּעָטִין עֲוֹנוֹתָיו״ וכו׳
Gloss: As for what is written in the Zohar (3:231a), that "one who has fewer sins than merits is categorized as a righteous person
הִיא שְׁאֵלַת רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְאֵלִיָּהוּ. אֲבָל לְפִי תְּשׁוּבַת אֵלִיָּהוּ שָׁם, פֵּירוּשׁ "צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ״ הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּרַעְיָא מְהֵימְנָא פָּרָשַׁת מִשְׁפָּטִים דִּלְעֵיל, "וְשִׁבְעִים פָּנִים לַתּוֹרָה״.
who suffers," this seems to pose a contradiction to the aforementioned premise that a righteous person is one who never sins. This is actually Rav Hamnuna's question to Elijah. But according to Elijah's response there, the definition of a righteous person who suffers accords with what is written in Raya Meheimna , Parashat Mishpatim , cited above. Yet the Torah has seventy facets. The definitions of tzaddik, rasha, and beinoni that are presented in this chapter seem to be contradicted by the definitions of these terms from another source in the Zohar. According to the Zohar there, even if a person has many sins, he is still considered righteous as long as his merits outnumber his transgressions. Since he is punished for his sins in this world, he is considered a righteous person who suffers. This understanding differs from the author of the Tanya's approach here based on the Zohar's statement in Raya Meheimna: A righteous person who suffers is not someone who has fewer sins than merits but rather is someone whose evil inclination is subjugated to his good inclination. The contradiction is resolved by pointing out that the alternative explanation does not reflect the conclusion of the Zohar but rather was only presented in the form of a question by Rav Hamnuna. Elijah's answer is the authoritative conclusion, and it parallels the Zohar's statement that the author of the Tanya quoted at the beginning of the chapter from Raya Meheimna.
וְהָא דְּאָמְרִינַן בְּעָלְמָא דְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה מִקְרֵי בֵּינוֹנִי, וְרוֹב זְכֻיּוֹת מִקְרֵי צַדִּיק, הוּא שֵׁם הַמּוּשְׁאָל לְעִנְיַין שָׂכָר וְעוֹנֶשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁנִּדּוֹן אַחַר רוּבּוֹ וּמִקְרֵי צַדִּיק בְּדִינוֹ, מֵאַחַר שֶׁזּוֹכֶה בַּדִּין.
As for the well-known statement that one whose deeds are half meritorious and half sinful is categorized as a beinoni , while one who has accrued a majority of merits is categorized as a tzaddik, this does not define the person's intrinsic nature. Here "tzaddik" is merely a figurative term applied in the context of reward and punishment, since one is judged in Heaven according to the majority of his deeds, and he is categorized as righteous with regard to his verdict since he was acquitted in the judgment. The common usage of the term beinoni as referring to a person whose merits and demerits are equal, an idea reflected in many sources,
אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲמִיתַּת שֵׁם הַתּוֹאַר וְהַמַּעֲלָה שֶׁל מַעֲלַת וּמַדְרֵגוֹת חֲלוּקוֹת צַדִּיקִים וּבֵינוֹנִים,
However, with regard to delineating a term that truly describes the different qualities and levels of tzaddikim and beinonim , When the tzaddik is defined as one whose merits outweigh his sins, and therefore is a tzaddik in the figurative sense, then there is no real difference between tzaddikim and beinonim. Yet the true definition of a tzaddik describes his intrinsic nature, which is indeed different from that of the beinoni. In a certain sense, the author of the Tanya raises each of these categories by several levels. The rasha is anyone who committed even one transgression or failed to perform a viable positive commandment and has not yet repented. By our standard, the author of the Tanya's definition of rasha is our conception of the average Jew. According to the author of the Tanya, the beinoni performs every possible good deed that he can and never committed a sin that he did not rectify. The question then becomes, what is a tzaddik? The author of the Tanya goes on to explain.
אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ ז״ל (בתלמוד בברכות שם): "צַדִּיקִים יֵצֶר טוֹב שׁוֹפְטָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ‘וְלִבִּי חָלַל בְּקִרְבִּי׳״ (תהלים קט, כב), שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יֵצֶר הָרַע כִּי הֲרָגוֹ בְּתַעֲנִית.
our Rabbis state (Berakhot 61b), "The good inclination alone rules the righteous, as the verse states,'And my heart is dead within me' (Ps. 109:22)." With this statement, King David was expressing that he no longer had an evil inclination, because he killed it by fasting. The heart is the abode of desire and emotional impulse. When this desire is channeled toward evil, it becomes the seat of the evil inclination. The heart of the tzaddik, however, is "dead within him" – meaning empty and hollow. His heart does not contain an evil impulse. This is the essential quality of the tzaddik, who not only acts righteous like the beinoni, but he is a tzaddik at his core, with no evil inclination at all. The difference between a tzaddik and a beinoni does not lie in their actions, speech, or even thoughts, because a person who sins even in the realm of thought by allowing forbidden thoughts to enter his mind defiles his soul and is considered a completely wicked person. (Sins of the mind may be even worse than transgressive behavior.) The beinoni does not even sin in thought, yet he still has an evil inclination. Although he does not allow it to manifest, it still exists palpably within him. By contrast, for the tzaddik, "his heart is dead within him." He has no evil inclination at all.
אֲבָל כָּל מִי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְמַדְרֵגָה זוֹ, אַף שֶׁזְּכֻיּוֹתָיו מְרוּבִּים עַל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו, אֵינוֹ בְּמַעֲלַת וּמַדְרֵגַת צַדִּיק כְּלָל. וְלָכֵן אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ ז״ל בַּמִּדְרָשׁ (יומא לח, ב): "רָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בַּצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵם מוּעָטִים, עָמַד וּשְׁתָלָן בְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר וכו׳ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב: ‘וְצַדִּיק יְסוֹד עוֹלָם׳ (משלי י, כה)״.
But whoever has not attained this level, where one has no evil inclination at all, even though his merits outnumber his sins, is not at all of the status and level of a tzaddik. That is why our Rabbis expound in the Midrash (Yoma 38b), "The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the righteous people were few, so He arose and planted some of them in each and every generation…as the verse states,'But the tzaddik is the foundation of the world' (Prov. 10:25)." Tzaddikim uphold the world and, through their righteousness, justify its existence. It is in their merit that the world exists. Since there are but few tzaddikim, God distributed them throughout the generations so that the world would continue to exist. Yet in this work the author of the Tanya focuses mainly on beinonim, not tzaddikim. As discussed above, the problem with other preexisting mussar works is the formulation of an ideal that is virtually impossible to attain. The innovation of the Tanya is in the portrayal of a new ideal: the beinoni. Until this point, the concepts presented have been in the way of an introduction, presenting the concept of tzaddik, rasha, and beinoni from the sources along with an initial analysis. This point in the chapter marks the beginning of the organized, theoretical arrangement of the book: a delineation of the three levels of tzaddik, rasha, and beinoni, how they are attained, and how a person operates within the framework of these definitions.
אַךְ בֵּיאוּר הָעִנְיָן עַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָר׳ חַיִּים וִיטַַל ז״ל בְּשַׁעַר הַקְּדוּשָּׁה (חלק א שער ב) [וּבְעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר נ׳ פ״ב], דִּלְכָל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶחָד צַדִּיק וְאֶחָד רָשָׁע, יֵשׁ שְׁתֵּי נְשָׁמוֹת,
In fact, this matter can be explained in light of what Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital, of blessed memory, wrote in Sha'ar HaKedusha 1:2 (and in Etz Ḥayyim 50:2), that within every Jew, whether righteous or wicked, there are two distinct souls, The basis of all that will be discussed below is the idea that every Jew has two souls (unlike non-Jews, which will be explained further on). The presence of these two souls is not contingent on the quality of a person – great or simple, righteous or wicked. Essentially, the presence of these two souls is an intrinsic component of each and every Jew no matter who he or she is. Their differing spiritual levels depend on the degree of expression of these two souls, which one is made more manifest, in what way, and to what degree in one's life and consciousness.
וּכְדִכְתִיב: "וּנְשָׁמוֹת אֲנִי עָשִׂיתִי״ (ישעיה נז, טז), שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי נְפָשׁוֹת.
as it is written, "And souls it was I who made" (Isa. 57:16) – "souls" in the plural, referring to two souls. First and foremost, the author of the Tanya demonstrates that every Jew has two souls by citing a verse that uses the Hebrew word neshamot,
נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִצַּד הַקְּלִיפָּה וְסִטְרָא אָחֳרָא,
One soul is rooted in the kelippa , the husk of impurity, and the sitra aḥara , literally, "the other side," referring to the forces of impurity. One of the two aforementioned souls stems from the kelippa and the sitra aḥara, the side of evil and impurity in opposition to the side of holiness. In truth, kelippa and sitra aḥara are concepts that hasidic teachings, and particularly that of Chabad, do not elucidate too extensively. One reason is that one who is familiar with these forces knows of them, and if he is not familiar, why familiarize him? The main reason that hasidic teachings avoid going into too much detail is that one who delves into evil in any way, even to rectify it, is drawn into negativity, making contact and creating a familiarity that has many adverse repercussions. In a very broad sense, without getting too specific, the world can be divided into two sides: the side of holiness and the other side. The side of holiness belongs to God and to anyone who acknowledges His presence and accepts His authority. The other side does not even have an independent name because it does not have its own essence. It is only "other," something that is other than holiness, and therefore it is viewed as negating holiness. According to the author of the Tanya, a neutral position between the holy and the unholy does not exist. Everything falls into either the category of holiness or the lack of holiness. A person who cleaves to God is on the side of holiness, and if he does not cleave to God, he finds himself on the other side. One who is not in favor is necessarily opposed. This approach is also connected to the definition of the beinoni herein. As mentioned above, no average exists between tzaddik and rasha. One who is not a tzaddik, who is not connected to the side of holiness, necessarily belongs to the sitra aḥara and is essentially a rasha. In this light, the beinoni depicted by the author of the Tanya is like the tzaddik in that he does not sin and has no association whatsoever with the other side, and if he does sin, he belongs to an entirely different realm and becomes associated with the other side. From the perspective of halakha, one finds a different approach. A whole dimension of Jewish law deals with situations that fall neither into the category of obligatory nor prohibited. There are commandments, prohibited actions, and permissible actions. Kabbala, on the other hand, views the dimension of the permissible, not as neutral, but rather as belonging to the sitra aḥara, that which has not yet been transformed into holiness and so by definition is "other." Though there is nothing that is not either holy or impure, there is a significant division within the realm of impurity: impurity that can be rectified and impurity that cannot. Kelippa that has no rectification, that cannot be elevated to holiness, falls into the category of that which is prohibited according to the halakha. That which is permissible in halakha is a paradigm of kelippa that bears the possibility of rectification, harboring the potential to be elevated to holiness. Belonging to the sitra aḥara, it can and must be transferred to the side of holiness.
וְהִיא הַמִּתְלַבֶּשֶׁת בְּדַם הָאָדָם לְהַחֲיוֹת הַגּוּף, וּכְדִכְתִיב: "כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִיא״ (ויקרא יז, יא).
This soul is clothed within a person's blood in order to animate the body, as it is written, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11). The first nefesh that the author of the Tanya describes is the vital, natural soul. It is the soul of life that provides man with vitality in every aspect of his natural, spiritual, and physical being. This is the "soul of flesh" that binds with the body by becoming enclothed in the blood and sustains a person as part of the global biological ecosystem.
וּמִמֶּנָּה בָּאוֹת כָּל הַמִּדּוֹת רָעוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע יְסוֹדוֹת רָעִים שֶׁבָּהּ.
From this soul stem all evil traits, which emanate from the four elements of evil contained within this soul. All negative human attributes stem from the vital soul, in accordance with the four basic elements that comprise it. These four foundational elements – fire, water, wind, earth – encapsulate the entire physical world, as was accepted in the ancient world and, to a certain degree, in Jewish thought. These are not the indivisible elements delineated in chemistry but rather the four basic elements that constitute everything in the universe.
דְּהַיְינוּ, כַּעַס וְגַאֲוָה מִיסוֹד הָאֵשׁ שֶׁנִּגְבַּהּ לְמַעְלָה,
Namely, anger and arrogance emanate from the element of fire, which rises upward. Anger and arrogance are intrinsically connected; one engenders the other. Here, however, the author of the Tanya is referring to their structural similarity. Like fire that perpetually rises upward, anger and arrogance are attributes that stem from an inflated ego and self-aggrandizement. Arrogance is a swollen sense of self, while anger is a response to anything that disturbs one's sense of me and myself and no other. Like fire, which rises upward on its own, anger and arrogance are attributes that spontaneously surge up. The more one engages in other negative attributes, the less he is captivated by them until they eventually dissipate. But when it comes to anger and arrogance, the more one engages in them, the more they increase. This is why the Hebrew term for each is in the reflexive form – mitragez and mitga'eh, to cause oneself to be angry and to cause oneself to be prideful. When a person allows himself to be prideful, the pride reverts back on him, making him even more arrogant. When a person gets angry and wallows in his anger, he works himself up even more. Arrogance and pride fuel themselves, inflaming and further igniting, just like fire, increasing and rising ever higher.
וְתַאֲוַת הַתַּעֲנוּגִים מִיסוֹד הַמַּיִם, כִּי הַמַּיִם מַצְמִיחִים כָּל מִינֵי תַּעֲנוּג,
The desire for pleasures emanates from the element of water, for water causes the growth of all sorts of pleasures. "The desire for pleasures" does not necessarily imply mere lust or physical desire. All desire constitutes a drive for something specific. "The desire for pleasures" refers to the craving for anything that gives a person pleasure, whose roots lie in the element of water, the foundation of life, fertility, and delight felt by the animal soul. Water represents the faculties of kindness and love, which in their negative manifestations in the realm of kelippa lead to repugnant desires and destructive love, to lusting after pleasure simply for its own sake.
וְהוֹלֵלוּת וְלֵיצָנוּת וְהִתְפָּאֲרוּת וּדְבָרִים בְּטֵלִים מִיסוֹד הָרוּחַ,
Frivolity, scoffing, boastfulness, and idle talk all emanate from the element of air, These attributes are vapid, wind-like characteristics, lacking any real substance. Scoffing, frivolity, and boastfulness express a degree of anarchy and irresponsibility. This is not a craving for greatness or pleasure, but only so much hot air. Something puffed up with air seems to be filled with content but actually contains nothing of substance. Similarly, a person exhibiting these attributes seems to be accomplished but is filled with nothing but air.
וְעַצְלוּת וְעַצְבוּת מִיסוֹד הֶעָפָר.
and slothfulness and depression emanate from the element of earth. Earth is the lowest element, drawing the vital soul down to inactivity. Whether stemming from lethargy or melancholy, laziness is a sensation of heaviness, of inability to motivate oneself to accomplish what one needs or wants. Sadness numbs the desire for productivity and creation even to the point where a person is paralyzed from functioning and responding to his surroundings. The division of all negative attributes into four categories embodied by each of the four elements does not suggest that one person cannot exhibit all four. This is certainly possible. These categories resemble avot, principle categories in halakha, foundational theoretical structures, each one of which constitutes an edifice in and of itself. The toledot, derivatives that stem from an av, are each rooted in one element. Various toledot that stem from the same principle attribute can blend together and feed into each other. Attributes that are derivatives of different principles can exist within one person yet still remain distinct attributes. They are intrinsically two different attributes yet can reside within the same person.
וְגַם מִדּוֹת טוֹבוֹת שֶׁבְּטֶבַע כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם,
So too positive attributes that are innate within every Jew, The vital soul is not inherently bad but rather defines the innate nature of an individual Jew. This vital, spiritual, and emotional force enlivens a person and may be channeled either for good or bad.
כְּמוֹ רַחֲמָנוּת וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, בָּאוֹת מִמֶּנָּה.
such as compassion and kindheartedness, stem from the vital soul. The Talmud states, "There are three distinguishing marks to this nation [the Jewish people]: [They are] compassionate, bashful, and kind" (Yevamot 79a). These qualities are part of a Jew's identity to the extent that the Sages were wont to say that a person who does not display these characteristics is clearly not Jewish. A Jew is charitable not because he subjugated his negative inclination, or because he is an especially good person, but rather because it is part of his vital soul's DNA. Just as some people have particular weaknesses and are sympathetic to certain causes, so too a Jew has certain "weaknesses": he is humble, compassionate, and benevolent. Some people have a musical sense yet are not better or worse human beings because of it. That Jews are humble, benevolent, and compassionate is an innate part of their makeup. They were born that way. These traits are hereditary, and this does not make them tzaddikim – it just makes them Jews.
כִּי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶפֶשׁ זוֹ דִּקְלִיפָּה הִיא מִקְּלִיפַּת נוֹגַהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גַּם כֵּן טוֹב,
For with regard to a Jew, this soul of kelippa stems from the kelippa called noga , which also contains good aspects. In general, there are four kelippot: the three impure kelippot and the kelippa of noga, which literally means glowing. Their names are extrapolated from a verse in Ezekiel's vision of the divine chariot: "I saw, and behold, a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud and fire igniting and an aura surrounding it…" (Ezek. 1:4). "Storm wind," "great cloud," and "fire igniting" correspond to the three impure kelippot, while "an aura surrounding it" refers to the fourth kelippa called kelippat noga. The kelippa of noga is the realm between the world of impurity, which is entirely darkness and oblivion, and holiness, which is solely light. It is a kelippa and so it is dark, but it is a darkness with noga – a darkness illuminated by a glimmer of light.
וְהִיא מִסּוֹד "עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע״ (בראשית ב, ט).
This kelippa is derived from the mystery of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the foundation and paradigm of kelippat noga, of the mixture of light and darkness, of good and evil in one working blend. When Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, he broke the global balance between good and evil, creating an intermediate reality between holiness and kelippa. From now on, they would struggle, receiving spiritual nourishment from each other, one influencing the other. This is a dangerous reality, wherein the kelippa receives its spiritual nourishment from the realm of holiness yet is also gradually rectified and refined by it. This is the reality of kelippat noga in this world, the realm where Jewish souls have been sent after Adam's sin, so that they may cultivate and rectify it.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן נַפְשׁוֹת אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם הֵן מִשְּׁאָר קְלִיפּוֹתטְמֵאוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן טוֹב כְּלָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר מ״ט פרק ג׳. "וְכָל טִיבוּ דְּעָבְדִין הָאוּמּוֹת – לְגַרְמַיְיהוּ עָבְדִין״.
This is not the case with regard to the souls of the gentile world, which are derived nations of the from the other, impure kelippot , which contain no good whatsoever, as it is written in Etz Ḥayyim 49:3. As the Zohar states, "Any good deed performed by the nations is performed for their own selfish purposes" (see Tikkunei Zohar 22a). The entire kelippa system revolves around ego, where the "I" becomes the central axis of anything that is executed through its power. The starting point is always "How do I benefit?" In light of this, even the good that is accomplished flows from ulterior motives, whether out of pride or out of a desire to maintain the status quo of the world that revolves around me. It is not authentically good, which actually constitutes nullification of the self and giving to another.
וְכִדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָרָא (בבא בתרא י, ב) עַל פָּסוּק "וְחֶסֶד לְאוּמִּים חַטָּאת" (משלי יד, לד), שֶׁכָּל צְדָקָה וָחֶסֶד שֶׁאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם עוֹשִׂין אֵינָן אֶלָּא לְהִתְיַיהֵר כו׳.
This is supported by the Talmud's statement regarding the verse "Kindness of nations is sin" (Prov. 14:34): "All the acts of charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform are counted as a sin for them, since they perform them only in order to glorify themselves…" (Bava Batra 10b). These statements are not quoted in order to denigrate the gentile nations but rather to provide background for the subject that the author of the Tanya is addressing here: the vital soul of the Jew. The chosenness of the Jewish people and their uniqueness amid the nations lies in the dimension of the vital soul and not in the divine soul, which Jews possess and non-Jews do not have at all. The souls of the nations of the world are like a tree trunk from which the animal soul of the Jew sprouts, both comparable and incomparable to the souls of gentiles.