וְהִנֵּה מוּדַעַת זֹאת לַכֹּל כִּי מִצְוַת וְאַזְהָרַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהֵם שְׁנֵי דִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים: "אָנֹכִי״ וְ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ״, הֵם כְּלָלוּת כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

It is well known to all that the positive commandment to believe in the one God and the admonition with regard to idolatry, which are the first two of the Ten Commandments, "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods before Me," constitute the totality of the entire Torah, The first two precepts deal with one topic: the negation of idolatry in all its forms. The proclamation "I am the Lord your God" is the general negation of the existence of idolatry, and "You shall have no other gods" is the explicit prohibition of its worship. But beyond this specific meaning, these two commandments encompass the entire Torah.

כִּי דִּבּוּר "אָנֹכִי״ כּוֹלֵל כָּל רמ״ח מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה וְ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ כּוֹלֵל כָּל שס״ה מִצְוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

for the precept "I am the Lord your God" encompasses all the 248 positive commandments, and the precept "You shall have no other gods" encompasses all 365 prohibitions. The positive commandments are the way to connect to the very essence of God until He becomes "the Lord your God," while every transgression is a form of idolatry, a severance from the unity of God by virtue of acting in defiance of His will. At times, this is clearcut, and at others, murky. At times, a transgression results from conscious rebellion. At other times, it comes from a spirit of folly that persuades a person that what he is doing is not quite idolatrous, that he remains a good Jew who is still attached to sanctity. If one were to experience, in its full poignancy and clarity, the truth of "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods," one would never be able to sin.

וְלָכֵן שָׁמַעְנוּ "אָנֹכִי״ וְ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ לְבַד מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה, כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ״ל (מכות כד, א), מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם כְּלָלוּת הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

Therefore, we heard only the first two precepts, "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods," directly from the mouth of the Almighty in accordance with our Rabbis' statement (Makkot 24a) because they constitute the totality of the entire Torah. The Jews heard the first two of the Ten Commandments directly from God's mouth and not through the agency of Moses, and the reason for this is "because they constitute the totality of the entire Torah." A person who completely accepts that "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods" accepts the entire Torah. Everything else in the Torah is nothing but a detailed delineation of how to cling to God (embodied by the precept "I am the Lord your God") and how to refrain from idolatry ("You shall have no other gods"). In view of this, every Jew had to hear these commandments directly from God with no intermediary so that these precepts would constitute the primal and direct basis for his existence as a Jew. At this point, the author of the Tanya digresses from the topic of serving God through activating one's concealed love. Over the next few chapters, he embarks on a lengthy discourse on God's unity and one's attachment to Him, a state achieved through divine service and meditation. In truth, this divergence is not entirely off topic. The very essence and power of the concealed love is entirely rooted in God's oneness and the soul's absolute integration with it. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance at this juncture to elucidate this point, not merely as a speculative exercise, but chiefly in a manner in which one can tangibly meditate on it to the greatest degree possible. The goal set forth here is for one to actively awaken the feeling and power of this concealed love.

וּלְבָאֵר הֵיטֵב עִנְיָן זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר תְּחִלָּה בִּקְצָרָה עִנְיַן וּמַהוּת אַחְדּוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁנִּקְרָא יָחִיד וּמְיוּחָד,

To thoroughly elucidate this subject, it is necessary to first briefly discuss the idea and essence of the oneness of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is referred to as the one and only. God's oneness is expressed with the concept of eḥad, "one," as we say, when reciting the Shema, "The Lord is one." Yet the oneness of God is more far-reaching than any concept of oneness that exists in all the worlds or that relates to them. This is expressed in the author of the Tanya's description of God as yaḥid u'meyuḥad, "one and only." Elsewhere, the author discusses the meanings of these two terms, eḥad and yaḥid. In brief, whereas the concept of eḥad, that God is one, allows for the existence of an additional being, yaḥid denies any possibility of duality, of a second and similar divinity. The author of the Tanya then explains why, when reciting the Shema, we say that "God is one," eḥad, rather than "God is the only one," yaḥid, though the meaning of yaḥid is apparently more exalted than that of eḥad. The reason is that eḥad expresses God's oneness in terms of His existence within the worlds, where only He can be truly called one. When reciting the Shema, we emphasize the oneness of His all-encompassing being. Yaḥid, on the other hand, expresses the singularity and exclusivity of God's essence and being before it was drawn into the worlds.

וְכֹל מַאֲמִינִים שֶׁהוּא לְבַדּוֹ הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהָיָה הוּא לְבַדּוֹ,

All believe that He is literally alone just as He was prior to the creation of the world when it was He alone, We believe that God is singular, that not only is there no other divinity like Him but there is not even any existence outside of Him. "He is literally alone" means that He alone exists now no differently than before the world was created.

וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: "אַתָּה הוּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אַתָּה הוּא מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא״ כו׳.

as we say in the morning prayers, "You are He who existed before the world was created, and You are He who exists since its creation…." This odd expression mentions the Creation in the passive voice, without explaining that it was God Himself who created the world. Some prayer books have therefore introduced the alternate wording, "You were He before You created…." But the original wording expresses better the relationship between God and the creation. God is so exalted that we do not explicitly emphasize that He is the Creator of the world in the sense that He actively operates and sustains the world. Rather, "He spoke and it was done" (Ps. 33:9), using the passive voice. He spoke, and it immediately came into existence. God is so elevated, so separate from the world, that He Himself does not change at all as a result of the fact that there is a world. Although it exists and operates as a result of His power, it does not affect Him, and whether or not it exists makes no difference to God.

פֵּירוּשׁ, הוּא מַמָּשׁ בְּלִי שׁוּם שִׁינּוּי, כְּדִכְתִיב: "אֲנִי ה׳ לֹא שָׁנִיתִי״ (מלאכי ג, ו). כִּי עוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְכֵן כָּל הָעוֹלָמוֹת הָעֶלְיוֹנִים אֵינָם פּוֹעֲלִים שׁוּם שִׁנּוּי בְּאַחְדּוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ בְּהִבָּרְאָם מֵאַיִן לְיֵשׁ, שֶׁכְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הוּא לְבַדּוֹ הוּא יָחִיד וּמְיוּחָד קוֹדֶם הִבָּרְאָם – כֵּן הוּא לְבַדּוֹ הוּא יָחִיד וּמְיוּחָד אַחַר שֶׁבְּרָאָם,

This means that He is literally without any change, as it is written, "I the Lord did not change" (Mal. 3:6), for this world, as well as all the higher worlds, effects no change in God's oneness by their having been created from nothingness and brought forth into existence. Just He was alone, the one and only, before they were created, so He is alone, the one and only, after He created them. When a man fathers a child, he is no longer the same. The existence of the child has altered him. Once there is another, this causes a change in the former. But God is different. We say of Him that He was the same before the world was created, and He has remained the same after the world was created. The creation of the world modified nothing in God. His essence remains immutable, even though the world was created.

מִשּׁוּם דְּכוֹלָא קַמֵּיהּ כְּלָא חֲשִׁיב וּכְאַיִן וְאֶפֶס מַמָּשׁ.

This is because in essence everything is considered as naught, literally like absolute nothingness, in relation to Him. The word ayin, literally, "nothingness," has a double meaning, depending on whether it refers to the lower unification, the viewpoint from the lower worlds looking up to God, or to the higher unification, the viewpoint from above, gazing downward. From the viewpoint of the lower unification – when we gaze upward – we experience the lower worlds as existing and that which lies beyond them is ayin, nothing. But from the standpoint of the higher unification, from above gazing downward, it is actually the lower reality that is absolute nothingness. In truth, only God alone exists. That which was created, that which appears to be other than God alone, is not real. Even though the world appears to exist, even though it operates in a seemingly independent fashion, that itself expresses the fact that it is, in truth, absolute nothingness.

כִּי הִתְהַוּוּת כָּל הָעוֹלָמוֹת עֶלְיוֹנִים וְתַחְתּוֹנִים מֵאַיִן לְיֵשׁ, וְחַיּוּתָם וְקִיּוּמָם הַמְקַיְּימָם שֶׁלֹּא יַחְזְרוּ לִהְיוֹת אַיִן וָאֶפֶס כְּשֶׁהָיָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר ה' וְרוּחַ פִּיו יִתְבָּרַךְ הַמְלוּבָּשׁ בָּהֶם.

Bringing forth all the higher and lower worlds from nothingness into existence, as well as their life force and existence that sustains them so that they do not revert to absolute nothingness as they were before the Creation, is nothing other than the word of God and the breath of His divine utterance that are clothed within them. The creation of the world should not be viewed as the genesis of a new being that emerged from the Divine and is now severed from it. Such a concept would raise three problems: how the world could continue to exist, how it shares existence with the Divine, and what the relationship is between the two. These are questions that have perpetually occupied philosophers and theologians. But our understanding is that the created reality is never separate from the divine being. This is so not only with regard to the life force within the world, but the world's very existence, both its higher and lower realms, is to be understood as nothing but a revelation, a manifestation, of the Divine. As such, there can never be an independent existence that places a barrier before the divine reality.

וּלְמָשָׁל, כְּמוֹ בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם

This is analogous to the human soul. The intent of the author of the Tanya is not to elaborate on the existence of the world in and of itself but to discuss the ramifications this has for a person's life. The analogy that follows is meant to clarify the relationship between created being and divine being, between the world and the word of God that vivifies it, in order that one can visualize this concept as much as humanly possible. As we have seen, from God's viewpoint the entire universe is nothing but divine speech. That is, it literally constitutes the ten utterances of Creation. What, then, is the relationship between the Speaker and the spoken? The analogy offers a little clarity.

כְּשֶׁמְּדַבֵּר דִּבּוּר אֶחָד, שֶׁדִּבּוּר זֶה לְבַדּוֹ כְּלֹא מַמָּשׁ אֲפִילּוּ לְגַבֵּי כְּלָלוּת נַפְשׁוֹ הַמְּדַבֶּרֶת, שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת לְבוּשׁ הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁלָּהּ, שֶׁהוּא כֹּחַ הַדִּבּוּר שֶׁלָּהּ,

When a person utters a single word, that word alone is literally considered as nothing even in relation to his soul's general ability to speak, which is the soul's middle garment, namely, its faculty of speech, In relation to a person's intrinsic nature, any sentence or statement he utters shrinks into insignificance. This is true not only with regard to a person's essence but even in comparison to his soul's ability to speak. A person's words are insignificant when compared to the ability of his soul to speak. More than that, the ability to speak is merely a garment, and as the author of the Tanya explained in previous chapters, the garments of the soul are not the soul itself but only its expression, a particular manifestation. The power of speech is only a garment, and not even an inner garment.

שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר דִּבּוּרִים לְאֵין קֵץ וְתַכְלִית.

through which one is capable of uttering endless and limitless words. The soul has three garments: the inner garment, thought; the outer garment, deed; and the middle garment, the power of speech. Speech has its limitations. Certain thoughts and feelings are too subtle and complex to express in words. One cannot speak of some matters but only act on them. But all these limitations concern only speech's ability to express certain thoughts and feelings, not the quantity of speech. They reflect the content of speech, not the act of speech. As an act, speech has no quantitative limitations. The potential of speech in the soul is infinite when compared to any one statement or sentence that a person expresses.

וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן לְגַבֵּי בְּחִינַת לְבוּשׁ הַפְּנִימִי שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁהוּא הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה, שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה נִמְשְׁכוּ הַדִּבּוּרִים וְהִיא חַיּוּתָם,

All the more so does this apply in relation to the soul's innermost garment, which is the faculty of thought, from which speech flows forth and which is its life force. Thought is the innermost garment of the soul and the content of speech, which can communicate only the smallest portion of thought to others. Elsewhere, the author of the Tanya distinguishes between various hierarchical levels of thought itself. Two of these strata are speech within thought, or inner monologue, which is relatively close to speech, and, deeper than that, thought within thought, which is thought that constitutes abstract concepts or even preconceptual thought. Clearly, thought on this latter level is remote from speech, and words would be able to express it only in fragmentary fashion.

וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְגַבֵּי מַהוּת וְעַצְמוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר בְּחִינוֹתֶיהָ הַנִּזְכָּרוֹת לְעֵיל חָכְמָה בִּינָה דַּעַת כו׳, שֶׁמֵּהֶן נִמְשְׁכוּ אוֹתִיּוֹת מַחֲשָׁבָה זוֹ הַמְלוּבָּשׁוֹת בְּדִבּוּר זֶה כְּשֶׁמְּדַבֵּר.

It goes without saying that one's word is considered as naught when compared to the essence and being of the soul, namely, its aforementioned ten faculties (see chap. 3), wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and so forth. It is from these faculties that the letters of thought are drawn and are subsequently clothed in speech when it is spoken, Speech is the result of a multileveled process. The sentence a person speaks at the end of that process is the outcome of one's capacity for speech, the ability to communicate to others. That capacity for speech is a result and expression of the power of thought, the ability to engage in internal communication. This power of thought, in turn, is a mere garment, a tool of communication that expresses the faculties of the soul that are revealed in the mind. Thought stems from the faculties themselves, as well as from the relationships between them – the relationship between wisdom and understanding, for example, and between kindness and restraint. These faculties and their relationships constitute the primary components from which thought is derived. They create the content of a thought and the purpose and direction that guide and activate the thought.

כִּי הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה הִיא גַּם כֵּן בְּחִינַת אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּמוֹ הַדִּבּוּר, רַק שֶׁהֵן רוּחָנִיּוֹת וְדַקּוֹת יוֹתֵר.

for thought, like speech, also consists of letters, only the letters expressing thought are more spiritual and refined than those of speech. Despite the differences between them, thought and speech are both garments of the soul, a means of communication, of transferring ideas from one environment to another. The difference between thought and speech is not qualitative but functional. Thought constitutes internal communication from a person to himself. Speech is outwardly directed. In this sense, writing and hand motions are also speech, whereas if a person is speaking to himself, although he is saying words, he might merely be involved in crystallizing his thoughts without any attempt at outward communication. The distinction between speech and thought may also be found in descriptions of the nature of prophecy. Our world, the reality that is visible to us all, is the reality of the letters of divine speech. The prophet, on the other hand, sees or hears the letters of divine thought, of God communing with Himself, as it were, as the verse states, "[Moses] heard the voice [of God] speaking to him…" (Num. 7:89). Rashi comments that the word for "speaking," medaber, is reflexive, implying that God was speaking to Himself and that Moses overheard. Like all communication, speech and thought are composed of letters. The letters of speech represent sound waves, whereas the letters of thought are the finer signals expressed by the mind. Like the letters of speech, the letters of thought are vehicles through which the soul is manifest in the organs of the body, whether through the throat or, more subtly, the brain.

אֲבָל עֶשֶׂר בְּחִינוֹת חָכְמָה בִּינָה וָדַעַת כו' הֵן שֹׁרֶשׁ וּמְקוֹר הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה וְאֵין בָּהֶם בְּחִינַת אוֹתִיּוֹת עֲדַיִין קוֹדֶם שֶׁמִּתְלַבְּשׁוֹת בִּלְבוּשׁ הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה.

By contrast, the ten attributes, wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and so forth, are the root and source of thought and do not yet possess the element of letters prior to their being clothed in the garment of thought. A clear distinction is to be drawn between thought, which the author of the Tanya views as a partially physical process, and the intellect itself, which is composed of the three cognitive attributes, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, whose function is purely spiritual. Thought is an activity of the brain, which, although physical, picks up spiritual vibrations and is activated by them. The physical aspect of thought is the letters (described in Sefer Yetzira as "stones") that construct thought in the physical world. Needless to say, these letters are not physical in the literal sense, yet they function as vessels housing spiritual content on various levels. As vessels, these letters possess the ability to transmit their contents from one realm to another, similar to the letters of speech, which transmit content from one person to another. Letters allow the spiritual being in the brain to form more than a vague impression. They allow it to create a construct that can become realized in a person's thoughts, speech, and deeds.

לְמָשָׁל, כְּשֶׁנּוֹפֶלֶת אֵיזוֹ אַהֲבָה וְחֶמְדָּה בְּלִבּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, קוֹדֶם שֶׁעוֹלָה מֵהַלֵּב אֶל הַמּוֹחַ לְחַשֵּׁב וּלְהַרְהֵר בָּהּ – אֵין בָּהּ בְּחִינַת אוֹתִיּוֹת עֲדַיִין רַק חֵפֶץ פָּשׁוּט וַחֲשִׁיקָה בַּלֵּב אֶל הַדָּבָר הַהוּא הַנֶּחְמָד אֶצְלוֹ.

To illustrate by way of analogy, when a particular feeling of love or desire for something enters a person's heart, it does not yet possess an element of letters prior to its ascent from the heart to the brain in order that it may think about and ponder it. It is but a simple, pure desire and longing in the heart for the object he finds desirable. Even prior to thought, even before a person thinks of something in concepts and words, he experiences an initial attraction, a simple desire that cannot be articulated. This attraction is the expression of the direct relationship between the self and the object it desires.

וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן קוֹדֶם שֶׁנָּפְלָה הַתַּאֲוָה וְהַחֶמְדָּה בְּלִבּוֹ לְאוֹתוֹ דָּבָר, רַק הָיְתָה בְּכֹחַ חָכְמָתוֹ וְשִׂכְלוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה נוֹדָע אֶצְלוֹ אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נֶחְמָד וְנָעִים וְטוֹב וְיָפֶה לְהַשִּׂיגוֹ וְלִידָּבֵק בּוֹ, כְּגוֹן לִלְמוֹד אֵיזוֹ חָכְמָה אוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל אֵיזֶה מַאֲכָל עָרֵב.

All the more so is this the case before the craving and desire for that object entered his heart, when it existed only in his faculty of wisdom, intellect, and consciousness, when he was aware that this object is desirable, gratifying, good, and pleasant to attain and cling to, such as studying a particular discipline or eating a particular delicacy. Even prior to a desire's manifestation as a feeling in one's heart, this desire existed on an inner, more abstract level in the person's soul. This level, that of the intellect, precedes the experience of a sensation in one's heart. A person cannot desire something of which he has no conceptual awareness. We are not talking necessarily of a sophisticated awareness of all the details of an object but simple recognition. There is no such thing as abstract love. Love must be directed toward a specific object, whether it is an image internalized from the external reality or an image that one initially created in one's mind. There must be an awareness, and there must be an object of which to be aware. It is only when this awareness exists that a relationship is possible. If a person experiences a positive awareness that something is "desirable, gratifying, good, and pleasant," he will desire it, whereas a negative awareness will result in feelings of disgust or fear. Admittedly, this mechanism does not function so simply, and we cannot take for granted that these processes will take place just as we have described them. There can be disruptions on the way, inhibitions and obstacles, whether in our awareness or in the pathways from awareness to emotion. A person may know that a certain object (whether holy or not) is good, yet have no desire for it. But if this framework is properly constructed, it is possible to overcome those barriers. There are three steps to this process. The first is the awareness that something is good and desirable. This awareness can either be disengaged, or it can be channeled toward the realization that attaining this thing is worthwhile. This can lead to the second step: the desire, the emotion. That emotion leads to the third step: expression in thought, speech, and deed.

רַק לְאַחַר שֶׁכְּבָר נָפְלָה הַחֶמְדָּה וְהַתַּאֲוָה בְּלִבּוֹ בְּכֹחַ חָכְמָתוֹ, וְשִׂכְלוֹ, וִידִיעָתוֹ,

Only after the desire and craving entered his heart through his faculty of wisdom, his intellect, and his awareness, "His faculty of wisdom, his intellect, and his awareness" describe the three cognitive faculties of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. Subsequent to the awareness in one's mind facilitated by these faculties, an emotional connection in the heart is evoked, generating emotions such as love and fear.

וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה וְעָלְתָה מֵהַלֵּב לַמּוֹחַ לְחַשֵּׁב וּלְהַרְהֵר בָּהּ אֵיךְ לְהוֹצִיא תַּאֲוָתוֹ מִכֹּחַ אֶל הַפּוֹעַל, לְהַשִּׂיג הַמַּאֲכָל אוֹ לְמִידַת הַחָכְמָה בְּפוֹעַל, הֲרֵי בְּכָאן נוֹלְדוּ בְּחִינַת אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּמוֹחוֹ,

and only after that desire ascended once more from his heart to his brain so that he might contemplate and ponder how to actualize his craving, to obtain that delectable food or to actually study the discipline, only at that point are letters generated in his mind, Although born of one's intellectual cognition of the desired object, the desire in the heart is nevertheless unformed, lacking words and letters. It is abstract, without a specific object. Such a desire cannot be realized, or even articulated in speech or thought. It can either remain in this state, disengaged from reality, or it can rise to the mind and become clothed in the letters of thought there. The function of the mind in this second stage is not the same as its function in the initial stage, when it produced the desire. Instead, one could say that it is the intellect born of the desire itself, whose function is to serve and enhance it. This intellect in particular is clothed in letters of thought, letters that are capable of transferring the desire to the next stage: defining the desire and its object in relation to the self and delineating a means of actualizing it. The distinction between a desire and the words that express it can be demonstrated by considering a language defect, whether in the ability to formulate the letters of thoughts or the capacity to express those thoughts in words. The lack of vocabulary or the lack of ideas and symbols can interfere with one's ability to think of a certain subject or even prevent it.

שֶׁהֵן אוֹתִיּוֹת כִּלְשׁוֹן עַם וָעָם הַמְּדַבְּרִים וְהַמְּהַרְהֲרִים בָּהֶם כָּל עִנְיְינֵי הָעוֹלָם.

which are the letters spoken in the respective language of each nation, who employ them to speak and ponder all worldly matters. In its first stages, before the formulation of letters, the heart's desire is universal. When a person is hungry, even before he thinks that he is hungry, he experiences a sense of hunger, a sensation so abstract and general that all of humanity uniformly shares it. Only after he starts thinking in words and symbols that he is hungry, that he wants to eat, and what and how much he wants to eat, do his desires become specific, distinguishing the thought of one person from that of another. More broadly, the thoughts of one person are distinguished from another, a distinction that is language-specific and based on each individual's manner of expression. The majority of this chapter, which began by describing God's unity, was devoted to explaining the distance between speech and the inner processes that generate that speech, and between both of these and the essence of the speaker. This description was given as an analogy to give us some idea of the nothingness of this world in relation to God and thereby provide an understanding of God's oneness. In general, when we hear speech, we do not consider the complex chain of events that produced it. But once we analyze it, it grows clear that speech is not a discrete action but an expression of an inner state that is the outcome of a process, one that begins on the level of wisdom. When we trace back the chain of events from the spoken word to the ability to speak and from that to the powers behind it, proceeding backward from stage to stage until we reach the initial power within a person, his faculty of wisdom, we learn that the divide between speech and thought is so vast that relating one stage to another is practically impossible. As mentioned, all this is presented only in order to bring into sharp relief the relationship between God's word and His essence and being, between a single divine statement and the entire world that it creates, and the chasm that exists between the creation and the Speaker. However, the purpose of this discussion is not to emphasize how created reality is nothingness in relation to God, but to set forth an understanding of the Torah, its commandments, and God's unity. This understanding is based on the infinite chasm that separates God from the world. If not for this unbridgeable gap, man would be able to take a finite number of steps to reach God. He would need only to learn a certain amount of material, to perform certain deeds, and then be assured of being able to cleave to Him. Since this infinite chasm between God and man does exist, the matter is not in his hands. Only God can bridge that gulf. Only He, not an angel or seraph, neither illumination nor concealment, can provide us with the way to reach Him. This bridge is embodied in the concepts contained in the first and second of the Ten Commandments, "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods," which were heard from God Himself. The relationship thus formed – composed of 248 positive commandments and 365 prohibitions – is the only way man could relate to the Divine, since it is the sole avenue of God's communication to man. When a person disconnects himself from that relationship, when he does not want to hear, he falls into a deep abyss, the abyss of nothingness, of total cessation and lack of meaning. The moment he abandons this relationship, he abandons any relationship. The moment he ceases to grasp this, he ceases to grasp the whole. Existence in its entirety is expressed in the phrase "There is no other besides Him." All meaning attributed to the creation and existence of man depends on the fact that man has a connection with God who speaks to him, that man has a way of attaching himself to God's unity. Notes