Likkutei Amarim Chapter 10 · 5785

00:00 Speaker 1 No, it’s not the same difference as with Yosef Yitzchak, or seven hours. Not Moishy—Moishy in Tzfas.

00:07 Speaker 2 Oh.

00:08 Speaker 1 Moishy, not Shmuly. No. Shmulik is moving. He told me at the beginning of the week—it was Sunday—that they had started counting the Omer. So I asked him, “What, exactly forty-nine days?” He said yes.

00:19 Speaker 2 They should take El Al.

00:21 Speaker 1 He—they booked the ticket a long time ago. As soon as the trial there ended, they booked a ticket right away.

00:26 Speaker 2 Boruch Hashem. See, Chaim Shalom, uh, my contractor, was supposed to come back last week, and then four da—

00:32 Speaker 1 There’s the cancellation.

00:33 Speaker 2 There was a cancellation. And then he came back already, boruch Hashem.

00:37 Speaker 1 Uh, when they flew there, they had a Delta flight, and there were delays and all sorts of things. And he had been given a certain amount of time to go to the wedding and then return to the United States. But then he sent all the correspondence with the airline and everything to the court so that—I didn’t know.

01:00 Speaker 7 The court released him for the wedding. They told him, “Come back on this date.” He couldn’t come back. He was stuck.

01:04 Speaker 1 They told him, “All right, another two weeks”—I don’t know how long after the wedding. They approved it for him.

01:08 Speaker 2 The Houthis are stopping things too.

01:09 Speaker 1 And why did he pay for those things? The money? Because at the time there was the situation with, uh, you know, the missiles.

01:16 Speaker 7 The airline shut down, and he was stuck in Israel. They canceled the flights.

01:20 Speaker 1 Uh, and the ticket he had to get there in the first place was with Delta. So they flew only as far as Europe instead of Israel, and from there he had to buy another ticket.

01:29 Speaker 2 Wow.

01:29 Speaker 1 Yes.

01:30 Speaker 2 Equipment.

01:30 Speaker 1 And that was a mess too.

01:31 Speaker 2 Look, Mushka lost all that money. I hope she doesn’t know that—

01:35 Speaker 1 Why?

01:35 Speaker 2 Uh, she won’t fly for Shavuos. No. Because they flew for Shavuos. My Mushka—I don’t think they flew for Shavuos.

01:41 Speaker 1 For Shavuos too?

01:42 Speaker 2 But Rosh Hashanah.

01:43 Speaker 1 She was there for Chanukah.

01:45 Speaker 2 No, no, no, no. Rivka was there for Chanukah.

01:48 Speaker 1 Oh, Rivka. Oh, Mushka.

01:49 Speaker 2 Mushka—before Rosh Hashanah, she also had a whole mess with it. And then, as soon as—

01:53 Speaker 1 She didn’t fly.

01:54 Speaker 2 In the end, she didn’t fly.

01:55 Speaker 1 Yes.

01:55 Speaker 2 And then she canceled. She canc— they canceled on her, and then in the end she canceled, and to this day they haven’t refunded her money. They really gave her the runaround.

02:02 Speaker 1 Wow.

02:05 Speaker 2 These companies are unbelievable.

02:07 Speaker 1 Yes, they’re brazen. And El Al—the nerve they have, robbing the public like that.

02:14 Speaker 2 They can charge whatever they want.

02:15 Speaker 1 But it’s outrageous. An Israeli company. Don’t you understand the situation here? You do understand.

02:19 Speaker 2 That’s why I just booked with Yitzchak. [unclear]. It’s also an Israeli airline, but it’s new. Arkia.

02:23 Speaker 1 Israeli, isn’t it?

02:24 Speaker 2 Arkia.

02:25 Speaker 1 Okay.

02:27 Speaker 2 It was expensive too. The ticket cost me sixteen hundred dollars.

02:29 Speaker 1 Sixteen hundred. Oh my goodness.

02:31 Speaker 2 Pesach.

02:31 Speaker 1 Oh.

02:32 Speaker 2 For Pesach now, I think, this year.

02:34 Speaker 1 Were you at Yosef Yitzchak’s for all of Pesach?

02:36 Speaker 2 No, I came home because I’d lost my warmth, my quality of life. I’d lost my strength.

02:42 Speaker 1 Sixteen hundred. Oh my goodness.

02:43 Speaker 2 And I even bought [unclear]. But Arkia was sixteen hundred; El Al was twenty-two hundred.

02:51 Speaker 1 Oh, wow. They’re out of their minds.

02:56 Speaker 7 All right, today we’re learning chapter 10. Last week, in chapter 9, we spoke about the G-dly soul and the animal soul. The Alter Rebbe explains why they fight if one is in the brain and the other is in the heart. Why would they fight at all? What do they have to do with each other? So he explained that they don’t each stay in their own place. Each one wants to rule the body—the entire body. The G-dly soul wants to rule so that all the limbs obey it and become a vehicle for it. It wants every thought, word, and action of a person, and every feeling, to be holy. And the animal soul wants the exact opposite. So there’s a battle. And because there’s a battle, sometimes one wins and sometimes the other wins. In chapter 10, he explains what happens when the G-dly soul wins. He explains that there are two possibilities.

03:54 Speaker 1 Which one is closer?

03:56 Speaker 7 It’s actually a very short chapter, and an easy one too. There was just a printing mistake: I printed on one side instead of both sides, so it made a lot of pages.

04:05 Speaker 1 No, what does that have to do with it? I’m not looking at the number of pages, I’m looking—

04:09 Speaker 2 We’ll get through it quickly, quickly.

04:11 Speaker 1 It gets messed up.

04:14 Speaker 7 He says as follows: “Now, when a person strengthens his G-dly soul and fights so hard against the animal soul...” What did we say “strengthens his G-dly soul” means? That he makes such an effort—he works so hard to contemplate G-dliness, and fixes his soul firmly and persistently on it, until the love of Hashem in the right chamber of the heart spills over to the left side of the heart as well and conquers it. “When a person strengthens his G-dly soul and fights so hard against the animal soul that he drives out and eradicates the evil within it from the left chamber.” Because we said there are two possibilities. There’s a state... I mean, we discussed in the previous chapter that when the G-dly soul fights the animal soul, the love of Hashem can spill over to that side—it can conquer the animal soul too. There are two states: iskafya and ishapcha. If his love is a love like flames of fire, then it really does reach the left side too, but it only conquers it, subdues it; it doesn’t turn it into good. But if his love is a love of delight, then it affects the animal soul, transforming it from evil to good. So that’s what he means when he says that a person fights so hard that he drives out and eradicates the evil in the left chamber. In other words, the strength of his holiness, of his love of Hashem, is such that it doesn’t merely subdue the sitra achra; it drives it out of the heart completely. It is no longer there, as it says, “And you shall eradicate the evil from within you.” What does “the evil from within you” mean? He had evil in his heart, in the left chamber, and he contemplated so deeply and built up the fire of his love of Hashem—a love of delight—so much that he eradicated the evil. He has no evil left. But if he eradicated the evil without the evil actually being transformed into good, then there can be two states. Even for a tzaddik, there can be

06:28 Speaker 7 two states. We said the difference between a tzaddik and someone who isn’t a tzaddik is that someone who isn’t a tzaddik has only subdued the evil. A tzaddik is someone who drives out the evil. And there are two states when it comes to driving out evil. In one state, he drives out the evil and there is no evil left. In the other, he not only drives out the evil but transforms it into good. Those are two completely different things.

06:53 Speaker 8 Right.

06:55 Speaker 7 Yes. Both are called tzaddikim. Why is the first one a tzaddik? He has no evil. He has no evil. He has no—he has no evil, so he’s a tzaddik. There is only good in him. Why is the second one called a tzaddik? Not only does he have no evil, but what was previously evil is now good. Now he also desires holiness from his very essence; he has changed. The essence of the animal soul has changed. So when he drives out, eradicates the evil—“And you shall eradicate the evil from within you”—but the evil has not been transformed into good, then he really is a tzaddik, but he’s called an incomplete tzaddik. Why is he incomplete? “An incomplete tzaddik” and “a tzaddik who has evil within him.” He has two descriptions. In other words, we asked at the beginning, in chapter 1 of Tanya, about the five levels: a tzaddik who has good within him, a tzaddik who has evil within him, a rasha who has good within him, a rasha who has evil within him, and a beinoni. There he only raised the question; he didn’t answer it. Only now does he get to... only here, in chapter 10, does he explain the difference between a tzaddik who has good within him and a tzaddik who has evil within him. In other words, a tzaddik who has only driven out the evil and hasn’t transformed it into good has two names. We’re not talking about two levels here. The same tzaddik who only drove out the evil and didn’t transform it has two names. What are they? He is called an incomplete tzaddik, and he is also called a tzaddik who has evil within him. Why does he need two names? So he begins to explain the first name—the second name. Why is he called a tzaddik who has evil within him? “That is, there is still a minute trace of evil within him in the left chamber.” There is still a minute trace of evil within him in the left chamber.

08:52 Speaker 7 We need to understand this. What did we say was the difference between a tzaddik and someone who isn’t a tzaddik? A tzaddik is someone who, at the very least, if he hasn’t transformed the evil, has driven it out. And he drove out the evil to the point that he has no evil left. What does he say immediately afterward? Why is he called a tzaddik who has evil within him? Do you hear the contradiction here? Do you hear the contradiction here?

09:26 Speaker 9 Could you go over that again, please?

09:27 Speaker 7 What did we explain? We explained that among tzaddikim there are two... Let’s leave the other things aside. Among tzaddikim there are two levels: a tzaddik who drove out the evil, and a tzaddik who transformed the evil into good. Right? What does it mean to transform the evil into good? That’s clear. The evil is now good. There’s no evil in him. What does it mean to drive out the evil? That there’s no evil in him.

09:51 Speaker 9 Great.

09:52 Speaker 7 If even a little evil remained in him, he wouldn’t be a tzaddik anymore.

09:58 Speaker 9 Oh, like “my heart is hollow within me”—is that more than driving it out?

10:01 Speaker 7 Yes. If there is evil in him, what did we say? If he has only a fiery love and merely subdues the animal soul, but the evil is still there, he is not a tzaddik. A tzaddik means there is no evil. There are two ways for there to be no evil: either it is gone altogether, or it has been transformed into good. But if there is still evil, then he is not a tzaddik. Right? That’s the first level.

10:26 Speaker 9 Well, that’s clear. Why are you so...

10:28 Speaker 7 Why is it clear? Because here he says the opposite. What does he say? When we say a tzaddik is called... the tzaddik at the lower level is called “a tzaddik who has evil within him.” What do you hear from that?

10:38 Speaker 9 That every tzaddik...

10:39 Speaker 7 Has evil in him.

10:41 Speaker 9 But that’s...

10:41 Speaker 7 What did we say? The whole meaning of tzaddik is someone who has no evil in him. So what is “a tzaddik who has evil within him”? That’s someone who does have evil in him. How do those fit together? Let’s bring...

10:49 Speaker 9 Maybe things are bad for him materially, and then it’s...

10:52 Speaker 7 We already asked that in chapter 1. Tanya is talking about spiritual levels. The whole lengthy discussion in chapter 1 comes to show that the difference between the levels is not about material circumstances or the number of transgressions, but about spiritual levels in a person’s soul. Here the Alter Rebbe introduces something new. He explains, right at the start of the explanation, that “a tzaddik who has evil within him” and “an incomplete tzaddik” are not two levels. They are two names for the same tzaddik, the same level. And he began explaining the second level, which is called “a tzaddik who has evil within him,” because there is still a tiny trace of evil in him. Now I’m asking—and this is a question that comes up—if there is still a tiny trace of evil in him, why do you call him a tzaddik? Is the question clear? So that’s what it says in the second line: he is called an incomplete tzaddik; he is called a tzaddik who has evil within him. Why? Because there is still a tiny trace of evil in the left chamber of his heart. So if there is a tiny trace of evil in him, why do you call him a tzaddik? He answers: the evil within the tzaddik is subdued and nullified to the good because there is so little of it. There is so little evil that it is nullified to the good. What does “nullified” mean? Nullified—it doesn’t exist.

12:18 Speaker 9 Subdued, no?

12:19 Speaker 7 Hmm?

12:19 Speaker 9 “Nullified” means it doesn’t exist; “nullified” means subdued.

12:23 Speaker 7 Subdued in such a way that it is nullified. This tzaddik... the tzaddik doesn’t know he has evil in him. As far as he is concerned, there is no evil. He doesn’t... We said, what is evil? Evil is an attraction to the desires and pleasures of this world.

12:36 Speaker 9 Is that like the... um, what was it? In the Beis Hamikdash there was a kohen who was like that all his life, and then at the end of his life he became a Sadducee, or...

12:44 Speaker 7 Ah, a great sage. No, no, I’m not talking about...

12:51 Speaker 9 So, I mean, how does the evil show itself? That’s the whole question.

12:55 Speaker 7 We explained in chapters, uh, 6, 7, and 8 what is called evil. All matters of this world, the kelipos, are called evil. Everything is called evil. A person wants his house not to be dirty; he wants a clean house. Is that connected to Hakadosh Boruch Hu? Is there a mitzvah in it? That is kelipah. It is kelipah. It is sitra achra. He wants his food to taste good. That is kelipah; it is sitra achra.

13:23 Speaker 9 Being clean is sitra achra?

13:25 Speaker 7 Why not? Yes. All matters of this world.

13:27 Speaker 9 Why? But a chossid is supposed to be clean, in a way...

13:31 Speaker 7 If he wants it to be clean for the sake of... fine. But if he just wants it clean because he likes a clean house...

13:41 Speaker 9 But that’s sitra...

13:41 Speaker 7 It feels good to him. It makes him feel good.

13:42 Speaker 9 Sitra what?

13:44 Speaker 7 If a person does something because it makes him feel good—“It makes me feel good, it makes me feel good”—that “me,” that’s the self. That is kelipah, that is sitra achra, that is kelipas nogah. True, it does not oppose holiness, but it is kelipah and sitra achra. All the pleasures of this world, without a single exception. Everything in the world is kelipah. If a person is not acting with the conscious intention of doing it for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, it is kelipah. A tzaddik is someone for whom there is no such thing. It doesn’t exist for him. For him, everything in this world is solely for holiness. It doesn’t exist in his vocabulary, in his thoughts, in his feelings, in his mind—there is no such thing as something that is not for holiness. It doesn’t exist. He wants only Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He has love of Hashem; he has no evil. And that is because the evil in him is so slight that it is nullified to the good. What does “nullified to the good” mean? He doesn’t feel it; he doesn’t know about it. Why doesn’t he feel it? Because he knows that he has no attraction whatsoever to matters of this world. Yes, this is a person who... Everyone—how do you say it? Everyone knows about himself, when he looks at himself, whether this world plays a role for him or not. So he knows that he wants Hakadosh Boruch Hu, that this world doesn’t interest him, and so he knows he is a tzaddik. “Therefore it seems to him that he has driven it out and it has gone away.” So there can be a person who really has driven out the evil. What does “driven out the evil” mean? He has no attraction at all, not the slightest bit, to matters of this world. And he really is a tzaddik; he has driven out the evil completely. Yet we say of him that it only seems to him that he has driven it out completely. We need to understand what that means. I mean, is it in him or

15:54 Speaker 7 isn’t it? What is going on here? “It seems to him that he has driven it out and it has gone away entirely, but in truth, had all the evil in him departed and gone away completely, it would have been transformed into actual good.” In other words, this does tell us there is a condition here. If the evil in a person—in the tzaddik; we are talking about the tzaddik—he overcame it, and he came to take pleasure in G-dliness, and that flowed into the left chamber, and there is no evil in him. In other words, if the evil in the left chamber had been transformed into good, nothing would have remained. There cannot be a situation where the evil is transformed into good and something of it still remains. If we are talking about a tzaddik who has evil within him, a tzaddik in whom something of the evil remains, that itself is a sign that it has not been transformed into good. The Alter Rebbe has not explained it yet; he has only stated it. What is an incomplete tzaddik? An incomplete tzaddik is a tzaddik who has evil within him. Why is he called a tzaddik who has evil within him, even though he is a tzaddik? Because there is evil in him. If there is evil in him, why do we call him a tzaddik? Because in truth he doesn’t feel the evil. He has driven it out completely. There is no evil in him. Right? And if there isn’t—if we still have to say that he... If we say he is a tzaddik who has evil within him, the meaning of “he has evil” is that he has not transformed it into good. If he had transformed the evil into good, nothing would have remained. Why? All right, is the line of reasoning clear? Yes or no? Okay? So he begins to explain. “And the explanation of the matter”—from here almost to the end, for half a chapter, the Alter Rebbe explains this point: what is the difference between a tzaddik who has evil within him and a tzaddik who has only good within him? So, “the explanation of the matter.” To understand what an incomplete tzaddik is, we need to understand what

18:18 Speaker 7 a complete tzaddik is. What is a complete tzaddik? A complete tzaddik is one whose evil has been transformed into good, and because his evil has been transformed into good, he is therefore called “a tzaddik who has only good within him.” In other words, there are two aspects to a tzaddik: how much he loves Hashem, and how much he has transformed the evil into good.

18:42 Speaker 10 Don’t those go together?

18:44 Speaker 7 They go together, and that is why these are two names for the same person. When we talk about his love of Hashem—how much good he has, how much love of Hashem he has—we say he is a tzaddik who has only good within him. He is a tzaddik who has only good, only love and perfection. When we talk, uh, about that same level in terms of his complete love of Hashem—how much evil remains in him—he is a complete tzaddik. We say “complete tzaddik”: he has finished transforming the evil completely. When we talk about his love of Hashem, he is a tzaddik who has only good within him. He has only good. By contrast, an incomplete tzaddik is called incomplete because the tzaddik within him—his love of Hashem—is not entirely complete. Why is he called “a tzaddik who has evil within him”? Because he has not finished transforming the evil. Okay? Yes or no? You’re looking at me like... Huh? Again?

19:51 Speaker 10 Yes.

19:53 Speaker 7 There are two aspects to a tzaddik.

19:55 Speaker 10 Don’t make it complicated for us.

19:56 Speaker 7 How far has he transformed the evil into good, and how much does he love Hashem? The Rebbe says the two depend on each other. If he has completely transformed the evil into good, he loves Hashem completely. If he has not transformed the evil into good, but has only driven it away, then he does not love Hashem completely. The two depend on each other. That is why he has two names. If he is a tzaddik who is not complete, he has not transformed the evil into good completely, so he is a tzaddik—sorry. If he is a “tzaddik who has evil,” meaning he has not yet transformed the evil completely, then he is an “incomplete tzaddik.” The good in him is not complete, not perfect. If he is a “tzaddik who has good,” who has completely transformed the evil into good, then he is a “complete tzaddik.” His love of Hashem is complete. These are two things that depend on each other. He says: “To explain the matter: A complete tzaddik is one whose evil has been transformed into good, and therefore he is called a tzaddik—therefore he is called a tzaddik who has good.” Why is he called a tzaddik who has good? Why is his love of Hashem complete? Because he transformed the evil into good. This comes about by completely removing the soiled garments from the evil. What did we explain in the previous chapter, chapter 9? How can the G-dly soul influence the animal soul? The animal soul is the sort that loves this world. How can it change at all? What did we explain about that? The animal soul itself is only the power to desire. So why does it desire things of this world? That is what it knows. If we peel away all the animal soul’s garments, remove from it all the desires of this world, what will remain? Simply the power to desire. What will it desire

21:47 Speaker 7 now? It will desire holiness. How do we transform the animal soul from evil to good? By removing its garments, its image of this world. Right? In simpler words.

22:05 Speaker 11 What does it mean, the...

22:12 Speaker 7 If—thank you.

22:15 Speaker 11 Is there tea too?

22:16 Speaker 7 No.

22:16 Speaker 11 No, no.

22:21 Speaker 7 If a person contemplates, he begins to think that everything in this world is kelipah and sitra achra, that it distances him from Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and that he wants to draw close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He contemplates this so deeply that it becomes vivid before his eyes. He begins to hate the sitra achra, to hate the kelipah. Since he hates the kelipah, or hates the sitra achra, he comes to loathe all the pleasures of this world. He does not want them; he understands that they harm him. Right? So the way to transform evil into good is for him to contemplate how the sitra achra harms him and distances him from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. This is called removing the garments. He takes the garments—the worldly desires in which the animal soul is clothed—and strips them off. How does he strip them off? By contemplating, by thinking about how harmful they are, how much they distance him from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So the more he contemplates and strips away the garments of this world, the more the evil will be transformed into good. He is called a tzaddik who has good through “completely removing the soiled garments from the evil.” That is, he utterly loathes the pleasures of this world—taking pleasure in them as people do, merely to satisfy the body’s desires. He loathes that, and he loathes anything that is not for the service of Hashem. Why? Because he reckons that all the pleasures of this world are drawn and flow from kelipah and sitra achra. Again, we are not talking here about pleasures that oppose Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The mere fact that something in this world gives him pleasure, that he enjoys it—he understands that this enjoyment is kelipah, it is sitra achra, it

24:19 Speaker 7 distances him from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He does not want it; he loathes it. And anything that comes from sitra achra, the complete tzaddik hates with absolute hatred. Why does he hate it? Because of the greatness of his love for Hashem and His holiness. So the more he loves Hakadosh Boruch Hu and wants to draw close to Him, the more he hates the sitra achra. “Because of the greatness of his love for Hashem and His holiness, with the great love, delight, and extraordinary affection mentioned above, for they stand in opposition to each other.” The purpose of the sitra achra is to draw a person toward this world—that is, to distance him from G-dliness. Holiness, the G-dly soul, wants to draw close to G-dliness. So if his G-dly soul is dominant, and he understands how good Hakadosh Boruch Hu is and is drawn to Him, he hates anything that distances him. If, all day long, he keeps thinking that even the simplest, smallest thing in this world—if it gives me pleasure, if I enjoy it... What do I mean by pleasure? Not that he is sitting there doing something extraordinary. If it is something I enjoy, it distances me from Hakadosh Boruch Hu—then he hates it. All the things of this world, the pleasures of this world: why would he want them? Only if they are for the sake of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. As you said earlier, he wants to have a beautiful home so that people will want to be guests there, so that it will bring honor to Hashem. I don’t know—if it serves some purpose. But if it is only for his personal enjoyment, he hates it. That is a complete tzaddik. You’ll say, “That’s not something within our reach...” That’s true. It is the level of a tzaddik. “For they stand in opposition to each other,” as it is written: “With utter hatred

26:18 Speaker 7 I hate them; they have become my enemies.” About whom does King David say, “With utter hatred I hate them”? About the pleasures of this world, in the plain sense. “Search me, G-d, and know my heart.” And the greater his love for Hashem, the greater his hatred of the sitra achra and his utter loathing of evil. Now we understand why the two are linked. Why does loathing the sitra achra depend on love of Hashem? Because how does he become a tzaddik? Through love of Hashem, he comes to loathe the sitra achra. One comes at the expense of the other. The more he loves, the more he loathes, because loathing is the very opposite of love, just like hatred. Now, something very interesting: Look at the Alter Rebbe’s wording here. Regarding the sitra achra, he says that the person hates the sitra achra, while regarding evil, he says that he loathes evil. The more a person hates the sitra achra, the more he will loathe the evil in the world. Why use the word “hatred” for the sitra achra and “loathing” for evil? Do you hear the question?

27:47 Speaker 12 It says further on here, “For loathing is the opposite of love, just like hatred.” It’s the same thing, isn’t it?

27:52 Speaker 7 Loathing is the opposite of love, just like hatred.

27:55 Speaker 12 So...

27:57 Speaker 7 So, still, why?

28:01 Speaker 12 Why?

28:01 Speaker 7 First of all, the sitra achra is a spiritual kelipah. The sitra achra is not something you can see with your eyes. Impurity—what is impurity? You cannot touch it with your hand. The sitra achra is some sort of angel, a kelipah, something spiritual. What is evil? Evil is evil; it is physical, something you can see. These are physical things. Right. So first of all, a person does not loathe something that is far away from him. A person loathes something he sees right in front of him and cannot stand. If something is far away, spiritual, how can he loathe it? It is distant. You can only loathe something close to you. Physical evil is close; you can see it, and you loathe it. With something spiritual, “loathing” does not fit so well. He hates it; he does not loathe it. And more than that: the sitra achra is a kelipah. A kelipah is spiritual, and something spiritual has intellect, has feelings, understands. Something with awareness, something that understands, you can hate. But something that is simply disgusting—what is there to hate? Can you hate a cockroach? What is there to hate? Did it do something to you? It is disgusting; it is loathsome. You do not hate it. Right? So the term “hatred” applies to spiritual kelipos, and the more he hates the spiritual kelipah, the root of evil, the more he loathes physical evil. And what gives rise to such intense hatred and loathing of the sitra achra and evil? Love of Hashem. Since a complete tzaddik is someone whose love of Hashem is absolute, and it is as clear as day to him that the kelipos, the sitra achra, and evil distance him from G-dliness, he hates them utterly. Now it is very clear, right? So what have we explained here? The Rebbe said

29:52 Speaker 7 To understand what an incomplete tzaddik is, we first have to understand what a complete tzaddik is. Right? So up to this point, he has explained what a complete tzaddik is. A complete tzaddik is someone whose love for Hashem is absolute, and who has completely transformed the evil within him. What does it mean that he has completely transformed the evil? That he has no pleasure at all in this world. Yes, and therefore his love for Hashem is utterly complete. So his hatred of the sitra achra and his revulsion toward evil are also absolute. That is a complete tzaddik, a tzaddik who has only good. Now, on that basis, we can understand what a tzaddik who still has evil is. So what is a tzaddik who still has evil? He explains—he continues on the next page: “An incomplete tzaddik is one who does not hate the sitra achra with absolute hatred.” What does it mean to hate, but not absolutely? He hates it. He truly hates it. Someone who hates something doesn’t love it. He has not the slightest love for it. He doesn’t love it; he hates it. What’s the difference between hating with absolute hatred and hating without absolute hatred? What? Where is the distinction here? Yes. The difference is very great. There’s something a person genuinely hates, but he hates it because... he has a reason. And there’s something a person hates without a reason—he simply hates it. He can’t bear it. I’ll give an example. Each of us... There are many peoples in the world who eat all kinds of things that would make us vomit if we were given them. All kinds of crabs and snails and I don’t know what else. Yes. If one of us were given that to eat, he would simply vomit. He couldn’t eat it. It’s so repulsive. It really is repulsive

32:04 Speaker 7 to us, to every one of us. We can’t put it in our mouths. None of us could put such a thing in our mouth. We couldn’t. It really is repulsive, yes. But suppose someone were given such a thing without being told what it was made of. He wouldn’t say a word about it. He’d eat it, and it would taste good. Then they’d tell him. What would happen? He’d vomit his guts out. But excuse me—you ate it. You enjoyed it. Right? What happened here? You ate it, and it tasted good. What changed?

32:43 Speaker 13 Just knowing.

32:44 Speaker 7 Just knowing. His revulsion comes from knowing. It’s not that the thing itself is repulsive; it’s because of what he knows, what he thinks. Yes, that’s a tremendous difference. His revulsion really is genuine. He truly finds it repulsive; he truly is a tzaddik; he truly finds evil repulsive. All the things we’re drawn to—he genuinely finds them repulsive. He isn’t putting on an act. He really finds them repulsive. But why? Because he understands that they aren’t good. He has a reason. There are things a person simply cannot eat. He doesn’t need an explanation. There are things he doesn’t like, things that are dirty or stink or whatever. The reason he can’t eat them isn’t what someone did or didn’t tell him. The thing itself really doesn’t taste good to him. It’s something he truly cannot eat. Yes. That’s the difference between a complete tzaddik and an incomplete tzaddik. A complete tzaddik hates evil; he finds evil repulsive. Not because he understands that it’s evil. His very nature has changed, so that to him, the thing itself truly is bad.

34:02 Speaker 13 But isn’t that a feeling you can’t really explain? Hatred, love. You can’t explain it because it’s a feeling; it’s hard to explain.

34:08 Speaker 7 We’re talking here about what gives rise to the hatred and revulsion in each of them. In both, you see complete hatred

34:13 Speaker 13 In both of them.

34:14 Speaker 7 of the sitra achra. In both, you see complete revulsion toward evil, toward the pleasures of this world. What’s “evil”? When we say “evil,” it sounds like... He finds the things we’re drawn to repulsive, and he truly hates the sitra achra. But where does that come from? A complete tzaddik is someone who hates the sitra achra absolutely and finds evil utterly repulsive. Meaning, he regards the pleasures and concerns of this world the way we would regard someone offering us filth from a toilet to eat. That’s how he regards them. Not because he understands that they’re no good; he feels it. The evil within him has been transformed into good. It doesn’t come from a reason. With an incomplete tzaddik, it comes from a reason. If, hypothetically, he didn’t know, he wouldn’t reject it. Yes.

35:16 Speaker 14 Well, what about the non-Jewish bread—one of the chassidim

35:21 Speaker 7 who...

35:22 Speaker 14 who was particular about it, even though it wasn’t... And once they brought him bread from another bakery because they didn’t have any there.

35:29 Speaker 7 Yes, and that...

35:31 Speaker 14 It wasn’t intentional, and he simply didn’t eat it.

35:34 Speaker 7 So...

35:34 Speaker 14 And then he became particular about it, yes.

35:36 Speaker 13 And then what? What did they discover?

35:37 Speaker 14 And afterward—or did they discover? No. I mean, they tried to fool him into thinking it had been baked as Jewish bread. But he

35:45 Speaker 13 But he

35:45 Speaker 14 He didn’t eat it.

35:48 Speaker 7 I don’t remember.

35:52 Speaker 14 But the loaf...

35:54 Speaker 7 It’s a story, one of the well-known stories about him.

36:00 Speaker 14 Baker’s bread.

36:02 Speaker 7 Baker’s bread that... Yes, baker’s bread. But that doesn’t mean he was a tzaddik.

36:09 Speaker 13 Could he have been a nasty person?

36:10 Speaker 7 Huh? No, no, no.

36:12 Speaker 13 Sorry, this really is...

36:15 Speaker 7 “And whenever the hatred and revulsion are not absolute, inevitably some trace of love and pleasure for it remains.” If the tzaddik does not hate the sitra achra absolutely, what does it mean that he hates the sitra achra and evil? He hates them only for a reason: because they aren’t G-dliness. Not because he truly hates them. If he doesn’t truly hate them, we have to say that some love for them remains.

36:44 Speaker 13 For them.

36:44 Speaker 7 “And the filthy garments have not been removed entirely and completely, and therefore the evil has not actually been transformed into good.” Why? “Since it still has”—what does “it” mean? “The evil still has some hold on the filthy garments.” Why, in an incomplete tzaddik, has the evil merely been driven out rather than transformed into good? The evil in the animal soul needs something to hold on to, just as a fire needs a wick. If it has nothing to hold on to, it cannot exist. Again: evil is not the essence of the animal soul. We explained that in chapter 9, right? The animal soul itself is a power of desire; it isn’t evil. Evil is a form that power takes. If something of that form still remains in the animal soul—some trace, some garment, some little piece of wick that the evil can clothe itself in—then it takes hold there. It’s so slight that the tzaddik doesn’t feel it. And when we say he doesn’t feel it, that means he truly hates the sitra achra and truly finds evil repulsive. But if his revulsion were absolute—what does “absolute” mean? It means the evil would have nothing left to hold on to, nothing at all. Then it would have been transformed into good. The very fact that it hasn’t been transformed into good but has only been driven out—that it simply isn’t present, rather than having been transformed into good—is a sign that some tiny bit of the garment still remains there. All right? Is that clear? “And therefore his love for Hashem is also not absolute, which is why he is called an incomplete tzaddik.” So this explains both descriptions of a tzaddik at this second level. He is called an incomplete tzaddik—and a tzaddik who still has evil—because he still has evil. How do we know he has evil? If he loved Hashem absolutely, the evil

38:52 Speaker 7 would have been transformed into good. The very fact that the evil has only been driven out, and that he hates evil for a reason, proves that some small trace of those garments remains. And since a bit of those garments remains somewhere, in some hidden place there is still a little attraction to the concerns of this world, to evil, to this world. Consequently, his love for Hashem is not absolute either. So he is called a tzaddik who still has evil, and he is called an incomplete tzaddik. His love for Hashem is incomplete; it is not absolute. “Now, this level is divided into tens of thousands of levels.” Which level is that? The complete tzaddik or the incomplete tzaddik?

39:41 Speaker 13 The incomplete one.

39:41 Speaker 7 The incomplete tzaddik.

39:44 Speaker 13 Because that is how the evil is nullified.

39:46 Speaker 7 Exactly. The— the imperfect tzaddik: this level is divided into tens of thousands of levels. “Also with regard to the small measure of evil that remains from one of the four evil elements.” We said that the animal soul has four elements: fire, air, water, and earth. So that trace of evil that remains—which element does it come from? From fire, from water, from— from which element, right? For one person it’s this one; for another, it’s that one. So there are all kinds of differences. “And also with regard to its being nullified in sixty, for example, or in a thousand or ten thousand, and so on.” In halachah, something nullified in sixty is considered nonexistent. Are you familiar with that halachah? If milk fell into a pot of meat, and there is sixty times as much in the pot as the milk, you may eat what’s in the pot. It’s not just permitted after the fact. It’s permitted. Why? The Torah says that less than one part in sixty is... Where does the Torah say that, by the way? Where is it written in the Torah that less than one part in sixty is considered kosher?

40:58 Speaker 3 Isn’t it in the laws of tithes?

40:59 Speaker 7 Huh?

41:00 Speaker 3 In the Rambam, in the section on tithes.

41:02 Speaker 7 That’s somewhat related. Yes, related. When they cook the— when a nazir offers a sacrifice in the Beis Hamikdash, they cook the foreleg together with everything else. Now the foreleg of the— of the sacrifice, in a peace offering, is a gift that goes to the kohanim, while the rest is eaten by the owners. So how can you cook the portion given to the kohanim together with everything else without making it forbidden? Right? The answer is that the foreleg is only one-sixtieth of all the— of all the meat in the sacrifice. So because it’s only one-sixtieth, it’s considered nonexistent. You cook them together, and it’s considered nonexistent; it doesn’t make the rest forbidden. So that’s the basis for the Torah saying that one part in sixty is nonexistent. Now, obviously, if there’s less than one part in sixty, it’s even more nonexistent. Right? If it’s one in a hundred, one in a thousand, one in— ten thousand, it’s obviously even more nonexistent. That’s the difference between tzaddikim. Once a person has eradicated the evil within him until less than one part in sixty remains, he’s already a tzaddik. He’s no longer a beinoni; he has driven out the evil. There is no evil in him. Now, to what extent is it nullified? One person has nullified it only in sixty; another has nullified it much more. But as long as he has only driven out the evil and hasn’t transformed it into good, he’s still on the level of a tzaddik who has evil. He’s already a tzaddik—it’s already nullified in sixty—but he isn’t yet a tzaddik who has good, because he hasn’t transformed it into good. “These are the many tzaddikim in every generation, as stated in the Gemara.” It says in the Gemara that eighteen thousand— eighteen thousand tzaddikim stand before Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That

43:03 Speaker 7 refers to all these tzaddikim. “But it was about the stature of the perfect tzaddik that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: ‘I have seen men of ascent, and they are few.’” There aren’t many like that. A tzaddik who is a perfect tzaddik, who has transformed evil into good—that level is no longer— it’s no longer just called a perfect tzaddik; it has another name. They’re called men of ascent. And that’s why they’re called— why they’re called men of ascent. Why? There are two reasons a perfect tzaddik is called a man of ascent. “They transform”—the first reason—“they transform evil and elevate it to holiness.” What was previously evil, he has now elevated and transformed into good. “As stated in the Zohar’s introduction: When Rabbi Chiya wanted to enter the chamber of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, he heard a voice come forth and say, ‘Which of you have transformed darkness into light and tasted bitterness as sweetness? Only they may enter here,’” and so on. Rabbi Chiya was such a Jew that when he stood with his sons at the lectern and said, “Who makes the wind blow and the rain fall,” it began to rain. And when he came to say— when he reached the end of the blessing, “Who revives the dead,” Hakadosh Boruch Hu caused an earthquake so he wouldn’t get there, because then the dead would rise and there would be— there would be problems. He interrupted his prayer in the middle. That was Rabbi Chiya. And nevertheless, when he reached Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s chamber and wanted to enter, they told him, “Sorry, you haven’t transformed evil into good.” Rabbi Chiya hadn’t transformed evil into good? He was a tzaddik, but he wasn’t one of the men of ascent. A man of ascent is someone who transforms evil or elevates all the evil completely.

44:55 Speaker 4 So he does have the desire.

44:57 Speaker 7 Hmm?

44:57 Speaker 4 He does have the desire.

44:59 Speaker 7 He does?

45:00 Speaker 4 A connection to evil.

45:02 Speaker 7 He does have the soiled garments in a concealed state. That means, yes, that he doesn’t utterly hate the sitra achra, because there is— Why do we say he doesn’t have it? Because it’s nullified in sixty. When something is nullified in sixty, it’s generally considered nonexistent.

45:13 Speaker 4 No, but a man of ascent—that’s considered such a high level. It’s a person who has the means, as it were.

45:19 Speaker 7 There are only a few of them. What does it mean, “I have seen men of ascent, and they are few”?

45:24 Speaker 4 And still, that’s not the level we want.

45:26 Speaker 7 Why?

45:28 Speaker 4 That’s what you’re saying, that...

45:29 Speaker 5 Men of ascent? Why?

45:30 Speaker 4 Men of ascent are the ones who work with evil, elevating evil into good.

45:33 Speaker 7 He has already elevated the evil.

45:35 Speaker 4 Upward.

45:37 Speaker 7 He’s already elevated it. He hasn’t just driven it out; he’s elevated it to holiness.

45:42 Speaker 4 Okay.

45:43 Speaker 7 The truth is that Rabbi Yoel’s explanations say that among the perfect tzaddikim there are... That isn’t the plain meaning here in...

45:52 Speaker 5 You want to study Rabbi Yoel? That’s...

45:56 Speaker 7 And another—

45:56 Speaker 5 Study for a few hours.

45:57 Speaker 4 Before that, nullify the angel.

45:59 Speaker 7 No, here, in the plain meaning, there are ordinary tzaddikim and perfect tzaddikim, and the perfect tzaddikim are called men of ascent. Between the lines, you can also find another explanation: that among the perfect tzaddikim, some are men of ascent. That’s another... “And they are also called men of ascent”—we said there are two reasons a perfect tzaddik is called a man of ascent. One reason is that he elevates evil to holiness. The second reason: “And they are also called men of ascent because even their service in the category of ‘do good,’ through observing the Torah and its mitzvos, is for the sake of Above.” He ascends higher and higher, to the loftiest heights. He doesn’t observe Torah and mitzvos for himself; he observes Torah and mitzvos because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants it. For the sake of Above. He’s called a man of ascent because... So it turns out— what did we say? A perfect tzaddik has two names: a tzaddik who has good, and a perfect tzaddik. Right? Why is he called one who has good? He transformed the evil. Why is he called—

47:04 Speaker 4 Perfect.

47:06 Speaker 7 Ah, perfect? Because his love of Hashem is complete. His two names refer to his having transformed the evil completely and to his loving Hashem completely. That means that for both those reasons he’s also called a man of ascent. Because he has elevated— transformed the evil completely into good and elevated it upward, elevated it completely; and because, in “doing good,” his love of Hashem is complete. His love of Hashem isn’t because he loves Hashem, but because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants it that way. So both aspects—the transformation of evil and the love of Hashem—are forms of ascent for him. In other words, he does good— observes Torah and mitzvos not merely to cleave to Him, may He be blessed, like any ordinary mortal, to quench the thirst of his soul that thirsts for Hashem, as it says, “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the water,” as we’ll discuss elsewhere. What does the verse “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the water” mean? If you’re thirsty, go have a drink. Right? What a great insight.

48:25 Speaker 5 As though he has a personal interest in studying Torah.

48:27 Speaker 7 Not for no reason. What does it say? “Ho, everyone who is thirsty, come to the water.” If you’re thirsty, go have a drink. You don’t need to be a prophet to say that. A thirsty person goes to drink; you don’t have to tell him. Right? If someone is thirsty to study Torah, do you have to tell him, “Come, go study Torah”? Do you have to say such a thing? A thirsty person goes to drink. Someone who wants to study Torah will study Torah. So what does the verse mean, “Ho, everyone who is thirsty, come to the water”? Water is Torah. Why call out to him? Why does this need explaining? The thirst isn’t a thirst to study Torah. It’s a thirst to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. They tell him: You’re thirsty to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu? Go study Torah. That isn’t self-evident. It isn’t something you can see or feel. If you’re thirsty to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, how do you do it? By going to study Torah. So that’s what it means: Why does an ordinary person, even a tzaddik who is not complete, study Torah? He wants to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He’s thirsty to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so he studies Torah, and through that he comes close to Him. Why does a complete tzaddik study Torah? Not because he’s thirsty, not because of that thirst. Not in order to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So if he has no personal interest in coming close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, why does he study Torah? Do you hear the question? An ordinary person, even a tzaddik, aspires to come close, to cleave to G-dliness, so he fulfills mitzvos and studies Torah. But a complete tzaddik’s service is for Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He wants nothing for himself. He doesn’t even want to come close to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He wants absolutely nothing for himself. So why should he study

50:17 Speaker 7 Torah? He studies Torah—

50:21 Speaker 5 Torah is, it’s...

50:22 Speaker 7 He doesn’t study Torah in order to come close. He studies Torah because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants him to study. It’s for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, not for himself. As it is explained in Tikkunim: “Who is a chossid? One who acts with kindness toward his Creator, toward His nest, to unite Hakadosh Boruch Hu and His Shechinah in the lower realms.” He studies Torah because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants the Shechinah to be united with the lower realms. How will the Shechinah be united with the lower realms? He is down here, and he studies Torah, and the Shechinah is united with the lower realms. His entire interest in studying Torah is for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants to be revealed in the world. He has no personal interest here. As it says in Raaya Mehemna, Parshas Ki Seitzei: “Like a son who exerts himself for his father and mother, whom he loves more than himself, his nefesh, his ruach and his neshamah, and who gives his life to redeem them,” and so on. As we say elsewhere, the Zohar explains there the love of Hashem that Moshe Rabbeinu had. Why did Moshe Rabbeinu keep mitzvos and study Torah? His love of Hashem—what was it all for? He was a ben aliyah. Not for himself. I have a Father in heaven, and I want to bring my Father pleasure. So if my Father wants me to study, I’ll study; if He wants me to do mitzvos, I’ll do them. Not for himself, not even to come close to Him. He doesn’t want to gain anything here. So we have two explanations of a tzaddik and a complete tzaddik, right? And two explanations of a tzaddik who is not complete. And we said that both explanations of a complete tzaddik fit the idea of bnei aliyah. Is everything clear so far? The Alter Rebbe adds, in parentheses at the end of the chapter, that the two explanations of bnei aliyah and the two explanations of a complete tzaddik are connected to each other. They aren’t separate. They aren’t just two explanations; they’re linked. They go hand in hand. Why? Through the refinements they make of kelipas nogah, they raise mayin nukvin, and supernal unifications take place, drawing down mayin duchrin.

52:44 Speaker 6 What is mayin duchrin?

52:46 Speaker 7 Mayin nukvin is an awakening from below. Mayin duchrin is an awakening of influence from above. How is influence drawn down from above? When there’s an awakening from below. Those are the two explanations of bnei aliyah. Because the complete tzaddik elevates the evil, he draws G-dliness down below. Because he is a complete tzaddik, he is a tzaddik who has only good. That’s it; all these things depend on one another. These are the chassadim in each of the 248 positive mitzvos, all of which are an aspect of chassadim, mayin duchrin—that is, drawing the holiness of G-dliness down from above to be enclothed in the lower realms, as we discussed elsewhere. So in this chapter, chapter 10, the Alter Rebbe explained what happens with the G-dly soul. We said in the previous chapter that we discussed why there’s a battle in the first place: because each soul wants to conquer. When the G-dly soul succeeds in conquering the body and the animal soul, there are two ways this can happen. One is the usual way—“usual,” so to speak. After all, how many people merit to be tzaddikim? But the ordinary, more basic way is that a person drives the evil out from within himself. Even then, though, he is still called a tzaddik who is not complete, a tzaddik who still has evil. Why evil? He drove the evil out! “Drove it out” means that one-sixtieth is still there; something remains. Because if he had nullified the evil completely, his love of Hashem would also be complete. So such a person is not a complete tzaddik, not a tzaddik who has only good, and certainly not a ben aliyah. A tzaddik of that kind—and the bnei aliyah are few—is someone whose great love of Hashem makes him utterly hate the sitra achra. Not for some particular reason, but because he truly hates it for what it is. He therefore utterly loathes evil, transforms his own evil, turns it into good, and his love of Hashem is complete. That is why he is called one of the bnei

54:50 Speaker 7 aliyah. So that’s chapter 10. What comes in the next chapter? The next chapter is about what happens when the animal soul wins. It’s about what happens when the soul... We’ll see that there, too, the same two levels appear in the opposite direction.

55:13 Speaker 6 Should I record you?

55:14 Speaker 7 Hmm?

55:14 Speaker 6 Should I record you?

55:15 Speaker 7 I recorded it, yes, of course.