Shiurim on Kuntres Ha'avodah - Part 2

00:00 He’s speaking here about the matter of acknowledgment. There is acknowledgment at the level of nefesh, and now there is acknowledgment at the level of ruach. In other words, action within the world of Asiyah and action within the world of Yetzirah. So he explains that when a person davens Pesukei Dezimrah, which belongs to the level of ruach, the level of the middos, the acknowledgment is also elevated. Except that it happens in a more hidden way. He’ll explain what “more hidden” means: it’s a higher level, a deeper acknowledgment. Now he’ll explain it here in parentheses, more precisely. We can also offer this explanation in parentheses. These are parentheses within parentheses, because we’re inside parentheses this whole time. We live inside parentheses. This is part two; that’s how it is. I don’t know if you know this, but half of part two is in parentheses. The parentheses begin in part two and end in part three. Three hundred, three hundred pages of parentheses. All right, so what does he say here? “We can also say”—yes, another explanation of acknowledgment, and of the difference between acknowledgment at the level of Hodu and acknowledgment at the level of Pesukei Dezimrah. “We can also say: There is a general acknowledgment in ‘Modeh Ani lefanecha,’ and so on. This acknowledgment is not directed toward particular levels of G-dliness, but is a general acknowledgment of G-dliness.” There is a level of acknowledgment that is general. What does that mean? There are no particular levels involved; rather, in a general way, he acknowledges G-dliness, accepts it, and yields himself to it. “And likewise, the self-nullification, the giving of oneself in this acknowledgment, does not concern any particular aspect.” When a person gives himself over to G-dliness, it isn’t some particular aspect of himself, “but his entire being: just as he gives himself over to G-dliness in a general awareness, he gives over himself as a whole.” In other words, he

02:27 is speaking from the perspective of the person and from the perspective of the object. He means from the perspective of G-dliness and from the perspective of the person. The acknowledgment is general with regard to G-dliness: it isn’t directed toward a particular level of G-dliness, but toward G-dliness as a whole. He doesn’t give himself over to any specific level. What is all this [unclear]? Himself, and this—it isn’t some particular aspect; it’s G-dliness. Yes, that’s called a general acknowledgment from the perspective of G-dliness, the object, and also from the perspective of the person. What does he give over? His whole self. It isn’t that he gives over his intellect, or his middos, or his garments. He gives over himself. So it is general both on the person’s side and on the side of G-dliness. “And there is a settled certainty in this.” What is the Rebbe saying? That this, specifically, has an advantage. In other words, if we don’t look at it as [unclear], but look at it generally—what is the advantage of something general? You might think the general is only superficial. But no, it actually has a very great advantage. There is a settled certainty in it, in the very act of giving himself over. The fact that he gives himself over [unclear]. But the act of giving—it is his very self. So there is an advantage specifically in general acknowledgment. Why? Because in general acknowledgment he gives himself over in a much truer way than when it concerns a particular aspect. Why? “Because a particular matter is above his level.” Why is this truer? Modeh Ani, the general [unclear]. So he says that when it concerns a particular matter, that matter is above his level. It isn’t on his level; it’s on a higher level. And because it is above his level, it isn’t entirely genuine for him either. “By contrast, giving oneself over to G-dliness as a whole, which is above particular levels, belongs to each and every Jew.”

04:28 That isn’t something above his level. It is his level; it belongs to everyone. So what is he explaining here? There is another explanation. What is the explanation? To us it all looks backward, but that’s the whole secret. The secret of it all is that it’s backward. Everything is the opposite of what we think. When you speak about a particular level of G-dliness, any level of G-dliness is certainly beyond comparison with us. What does it mean that it is beyond comparison with us? We are created beings, and this is G-dliness. So however much you grasp of G-dliness, you never grasp the matter completely. There is always something left that you don’t grasp, something beyond comprehension. Consequently, you grasp only some light, some particular aspect, while the essence of the matter remains far beyond you. So that level is above your level. Whatever level of G-dliness it may be, it is above my level. That’s all when we’re speaking of levels—levels of G-dliness. But we’re speaking about the essence of G-dliness. On the one hand, the essence is above all levels, right? On the other hand, that essence is also my essence. It is my essence. So on the one hand it is the essence of everything above, and on the other hand it is everything, and therefore it is present within me. It’s mine. So when I devote myself to it, I have all of it. Let’s explain this with an analogy. You’ll understand it better. What is the difference between particular levels and G-dliness as a whole? Here’s a very simple analogy. You’re learning a sugya. Say you’re learning the sugya of removing chametz and searching for chametz, a sugya in the Gemara in Pesachim. Several chapters discuss removing chametz and searching for chametz. There are about four—at least four chapters, I think, if I’m not mistaken—that discuss all the matters

06:45 connected with searching for chametz and removing chametz. It’s a very long sugya, with great depth. There is the central point of the sugya, and there are its details. If you look at the details of the sugya, you never know them completely. You can’t say, “I have the sugya in its entirety.” You don’t have any detail of the sugya in its entirety. Say you’re studying this Tosafos now. In that Tosafos, you learn one explanation, but there is another, deeper explanation. Say you’ve reached the depth of that Tosafos. You’ve never really reached its full depth, because there is always a deeper depth that you haven’t reached. There’s a more inward, deeper explanation. You could go on endlessly. What have you grasped? One interpretation. That’s when you look at it in terms of levels: how much of the sugya have I understood? I’ve never understood the sugya completely. But the essence of the matter itself—what is the point of the sugya? What are we learning about here? We’re learning about searching for chametz, about removing chametz. That is what we’re learning. We’re speaking about the positive mitzvah of “You shall remove it.” Even if I recite only the first line, “On the night of the fourteenth, we search for chametz,” I’m already speaking about the positive mitzvah of “You shall remove it.” You might ask: Where do you see “You shall remove it” here? It’s only one part, one detail. No, it’s the whole thing. That is, the essence of the matter, the essence of the sugya, is present in every line you take. If you’re speaking about the interpretations, the explanations, the details, then you don’t take hold of any detail completely; you don’t grasp any detail fully. There is always so much more. So you never grasp the whole point, the entirety; you grasp only a part. But if you look at the essence of the matter, then the whole essence is present in every detail, and in every detail of the sugya and every

08:47 line of Gemara and every Tosafos and every Rashi, there is a point—the point of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s words. That is the essence of all the details. It is also the essence of the simplest interpretation of the sugya. And so we come to our subject in the maamar. It’s the same here. When you say, “I acknowledge,” what does that mean? It is the recognition, the awareness, that Hakadosh Boruch Hu exists. Now, if you speak of acknowledgment in relation to a particular level, that level isn’t you. It is a level of G-dliness, a particular level. Whatever level of G-dliness it may be—Atzilus, Beriah, a sefirah, Adam Kadmon, Akudim—that isn’t me. It’s a level above me. However much I grasp of a level, I don’t take hold of it. I have only its light; the essence of the matter remains above me. But if I say “Hakadosh Boruch Hu,” the Eibershter—what is the Eibershter? The Eibershter is everything. It says in the Torah, in Parshas Vayeira, that a small child says “Hakadosh Boruch Hu.” No, the child has no understanding of what that means, but it is specifically Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is the whole of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And that is close to each and every person. It is present within me. It isn’t a matter of reaching some level. However much I understand, I don’t have that level. But here I have reached G-dliness as a whole, and G-dliness is everything. So whatever you... When you say, “I acknowledge Hakadosh Boruch Hu,” it is Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The Rebbe once said that when a small child says, “Modeh Ani lefanecha, Melech chai vekayam,” the essence is present there. True, a small child doesn’t know what levels are, doesn’t know Atzilus, doesn’t know any of that—but that isn’t the point. Someone who knows about Atzilus.

10:28 Atzilus is from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Atzilus is a level, and even that level, he doesn’t really know it. It’s a level; he only knows something about the level. He doesn’t know the level itself. Yes, when a little child says “Hakadosh Boruch Hu,” without explanations, without qualifications—that is Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Hakadosh Boruch Hu is the Essence, which is everything and needs no explanations. There is no need to say anything more about Him, to add any interpretation or anything else. So the Rebbe says here that this is the foundation: there is an advantage specifically in general acknowledgment. General acknowledgment is close to each and every person. With a specific acknowledgment, you don’t really relate to it; it is above you. It is a level, so it isn’t genuine, it isn’t true. What does it mean that it isn’t true? To say it isn’t false merely rules out falsehood. But to say something is true means that it permeates me completely; it is something genuinely true within me. This isn’t genuine, because ultimately it is above you. It isn’t me. But general acknowledgment is on my level. I relate to it, because everyone relates to it. That is one point he makes. And there is another advantage, which I mentioned at the end: it is present in everything he does. Another advantage the Rebbe gives is that general acknowledgment involves the whole person, everything he does. What does “everything he does” mean? That is another advantage. So one advantage has to do with what I am acknowledging: it is something genuine, because G-dliness in general is close to me. What I know in detail is no longer close to me; it is beyond my grasp. That is from the standpoint of G-dliness, of the level itself. There is another advantage

12:00 to acknowledgment. General acknowledgment means that the whole person, everything he does, is involved. What does “everything he does” mean? It’s simple. Think of the story with the Tzemach Tzedek. “Where is Grandfather? Where is Grandfather?” When he was asked where Grandfather was, someone took hold of his hand and said, “This is Grandfather’s hand.” He took hold of his beard: “Grandfather’s beard.” He took hold of his eyes. Wherever he took hold, though, that wasn’t “me.” When he called out, “Grandfather!” he turned toward him. Ah, that was Grandfather. Yes, that’s how it works. When acknowledgment concerns particular levels, it is connected with some part of the person—with the intellect. I’m speaking now from the person’s standpoint. From the person’s standpoint too, when acknowledgment is connected with a particular level, it is connected with a particular faculty, with a particular understanding. There is a certain distance here, something intellectual. What is doing the acknowledging? The intellect is acknowledging; my intellect acknowledges. My emotional faculty acknowledges. It is some particular part that acknowledges. In other words, the intellect understands up to a point, and then it says, “No, there is something beyond what I know, so I acknowledge it.” Which part of me acknowledges? The intellectual part. For example, “The Sages conceded to Rabbi Meir.” What did they actually concede? They had an intellectual disagreement, and then the Sages conceded that Rabbi Meir was right. There was acknowledgment, but did the Sages give themselves over entirely to Rabbi Meir? Was their whole being involved in that surrender? No. The Sages’ intellect conceded to Rabbi Meir’s intellect. It concerned one particular aspect, not their whole being. By contrast, Modeh Ani is not a matter of the intellect or an emotional faculty, or any particular faculty. It involves the person entirely. So it is also present in everything he

13:52 does. These, then, are the two advantages of general knowledge: general knowledge encompasses the whole person, not just one part of him. And second, it is genuine, because it applies to everyone. That is why this knowledge is the foundation of the entire day’s avodah. As the maamar says, this is the advantage of Modeh Ani. That is why Modeh Ani is said to be the foundation of the whole day. In other words, we must not belittle Modeh Ani, even though it is general knowledge, without contemplation or details. Yes, this is in Kuntres HaAvodah. After all, the Rebbe Rashab goes on in the kuntres to explain, on the contrary, that the main avodah must focus specifically on details and particular matters in order to awaken the heart. But here he says: true, all of that applies at the level of someone engaged in avodah. When we speak about the foundation of avodah, though, Modeh Ani has an advantage precisely as the foundation. On the contrary, it should be valued because it is more genuine and also permeates the person’s entire being more fully. This is the avodah of this level, the avodah of the essence. This avodah is general knowledge. It is knowledge at the level of the essence of the soul. That is general knowledge. More specifically, in prayer it extends until Baruch She’amar. It is primarily in Modeh Ani, but in prayer, more specifically, it continues until Baruch She’amar. That is the portion associated with the essence of the soul, with the essence of knowledge. So what kind of knowledge is involved here? Primarily general knowledge. There is a major novelty here. If you look at other maamarim, you see that many of them say something not quite like this. Perhaps that is why the Rebbe Rashab put this in parentheses. In other maamarim that discuss this subject, Modeh Ani and Hodu Lashem are specifically treated as different things. Many maamarim explain that Modeh Ani is general knowledge, yes, but Hodu Lashem, the beginning of prayer, is already specific knowledge. There is already Rava, there is already

15:53 Shmuel; there are already details, and it speaks about particular matters. So in those maamarim they distinguish between Modeh Ani and Hodu Lashem. Several maamarim do so; that is one example. There are several places in the Rebbe’s maamarim, and several places in discussions of the order of prayer, where this distinction is made. Here the Rebbe Rashab does not distinguish between them. He says that, generally speaking, everything from Modeh Ani until Baruch She’amar is considered general knowledge of... We need to... I am only pointing out what he calls general knowledge here. There is general knowledge, but there is also specific knowledge. What he means to say is that the knowledge associated with the level of Asiyah and Yetzirah is specific knowledge. What is specific knowledge? It is knowledge of the particular levels within the unity of G-dliness. When a person contemplates the unity of G-dliness, he is already contemplating a particular subject. He is already considering the subject of the unity of G-dliness. I don’t know whether the meaning of the unity of G-dliness is clear. “All is as nothing before Him.” The unity of G-dliness means, as we explained, that all the worlds have no significance whatsoever in relation to Ein Sof. We explained that, as the Rebbe Rashab says, the subject of the unity of G-dliness—“all is as nothing before Him”—can truly be grasped only by lofty souls. Not everyone is capable of grasping it genuinely. One must be a lofty soul to relate to it. Therefore, ... the unity of G-dliness. But for the Jewish people in general, for an ordinary Jew who is not a lofty soul, what does the unity of G-dliness mean? That needs explaining. Every Jew must also contemplate the unity of G-dliness, even though it is not genuine for him. In other words, one might say, “I cannot grasp this; it is beyond me. I cannot grasp the unity of G-dliness,” meaning that he does not truly grasp it. Only lofty souls grasp that “all is as nothing before Him.” Nevertheless,

17:50 everyone is expected to contemplate and study the subject of the unity of G-dliness. As mentioned, the Rebbe devotes quite a few chapters in Tanya—in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah and also in Likkutei Amarim—to explaining the unity of G-dliness. That means we do need to study and understand it. As it says in Likkutei Sichos, it is presented in a way that shows that everyone must contemplate the unity of G-dliness. There it says that this was Adam’s sin. Do you know what Adam’s sin was? The sin of the Tree of Knowledge. What do you think—he ate an apple or a tomato? What did Adam eat? According to the explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Adam’s sin was that he studied only yichuda tata’ah, the lower unity, and said that yichuda ila’ah, the higher unity, was beyond him, leaving it up above. He separated yichuda tata’ah from yichuda ila’ah, and that was the whole problem with the Tree of Knowledge. When you take yichuda tata’ah on its own, it is still a form of unity. It is not that he said, G-d forbid, that anything exists apart from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He spoke of Hashem’s will. He said [unclear], and so on. No, yichuda tata’ah is, as we explained, [unclear]. Rather, what is the issue? That it becomes clothed in... becomes clothed. The existence of the world is connected to Hashem’s word. What is wrong with that? The Rebbe Rashab explains that if you take only yichuda tata’ah without yichuda ila’ah, you can ultimately fall, through a progression of stages, into attaching importance to the existence of the world. From there, it can develop into a sense of independent selfhood. He connects this with studying Nigleh without Chassidus—that is the point. Yes, studying Nigleh without Chassidus: although it is the Oral Torah, Nigleh alone, without Chassidus, can lead to the

19:31 A person’s pride, sense of self, and feeling of perfection—none of that will even enter his mind. He connects these two matters, which means that everyone must also contemplate the oneness of G-d. Now, that does not mean [unclear]. For most people, even when we have knowledge and understanding of the oneness of G-d, it remains just knowledge. In other words, I study the oneness of G-d and contemplate it, but I do not feel it. I cannot say that I feel G-dliness; I do not even feel G-dliness. The proof is that if someone takes away my... my chicken drumstick and gives me a good piece, a good portion of food, I will get upset with him. Right? It matters to me. And if someone hurts my honor or says something I don’t like, I’ll be angry with him and his whole family for the rest of my life. So ultimately, even though we contemplate the oneness of G-d, the world still matters to us. Right? We can study the oneness of G-d and understand it, but to say that we live with it, that we feel “everything before Him is considered as nothing”—we don’t feel that. Still, at this level there is a degree of knowledge and also a degree of inner feeling, as it says. But yes, the point is not that he merely acknowledges the oneness of G-d without understanding it at all; rather, he also feels it. We are not talking here about someone who says, “Everything before Him is considered as nothing,” without knowing what he is saying. Right? Today there are many people who pray according to the Chida’s text, or pray with all sorts of Kabbalistic intentions and unifications. They say things without knowing at all

21:17 what they are saying. Right? They say, “For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah,” before every mitzvah. In Chabad, we say it once a day. But the siddur is full of the subject of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah, with lengthy explanations. Some people say, “For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah,” before every mitzvah. Ask one of them what it means, and he doesn’t know. In fact, if he starts thinking about what it means, he’ll become completely confused. What is going on here? How can one unite the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah? Are there two deities here that need to be joined together? He has never—he doesn’t even notice what he is saying. Why must the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah be united? Are there two gods quarreling who need to be brought together? Who is the Holy One, blessed be He, and who is His Shechinah? But what happens? People say it without even thinking about what they are saying. They say it because that is what people say. So that is what we are talking about here, simply. Similarly, anyone can say, “Everything before Him is considered as nothing.” But here there must be understanding and comprehension, and also feeling. What does “feeling” mean? That the idea takes hold in his heart, is settled within him, and becomes real to him: “Everything before Him is considered as nothing.” And nevertheless, he is not on that level. He studies it, understands it, and lives with it. But to say that he is truly on the level of the oneness of G-d—he is not. That level belongs to tzaddikim. This is what it says: through a chossid’s connection to the Rebbe, he gains a connection to the matter. Right? But we cannot say that we ourselves are on that level. Rather, the Rebbe gives us the ability, through [unclear] and connecting to

22:42 the Rebbe, to reveal it here at least, to reveal... Right? Then it becomes a point within us: to feel that the oneness of G-d is indeed so. But to say that we inherently belong to that level—certainly not. “And even if this knowledge is not genuine, even if one has knowledge of the oneness of G-d...” [unclear]. So although it is not considered genuine—as the Rebbe says afterward in parentheses, because “it is a higher level”—even if you know about it, that knowledge is not yet genuine, because this is a lofty level. The true meaning of the oneness of G-d involves certainty that it is so. Understanding and comprehension are not enough for the oneness of G-d; there must be that certainty. What does that mean? It must be like something he sees with his own eyes. What does it mean to say that a person is on the level of the oneness of G-d? It means that he sees it—with the mind’s eye. His intellect sees that this is how things are. It is not merely that I understand it. We study the oneness of G-d. We study its explanation and all the explanations, and we understand the whole approach to the oneness of G-d. It is an approach, a profound approach—an extraordinary one. They explained it to us with an analogy involving the sun’s rising and setting. And then there is an extensive discussion explaining how the nullification of created beings is not only a nullification of their sense of independent existence, but a nullification of their very existence. There are wonderful analogies for this, such as letters as they exist within the soul. You see that Tanya, chapter 21, gives a wonderful analogy to explain it. If you study it and contemplate the analogy, you understand it. You can even feel it and live with it,

24:28 but you do not see it. By “see,” we do not mean [unclear]. Seeing means that it is true, that this is how things are, and that it cannot be otherwise. It is clear to me, right, [unclear]. How does it say it? [unclear]. I have a passage from the Gemara about this here. That this thing is right before your eyes. That is the idea of the oneness of G-d. Why? What is the connection? Why must the oneness of G-d come specifically through seeing? The lower unity—no, the question is why the oneness of G-d in particular: when is knowledge of the oneness of G-d considered genuine knowledge? When it comes through seeing. Why? What is the connection? Time is short. We’ll explain it next time. Let’s finish the passage. The point is that an inner comprehension of [unclear] must involve seeing, or at least inner comprehension, not just ordinary comprehension. Inner comprehension connected with [unclear]. We’ll explain that next time. But knowledge and [unclear] are a form of comprehension. This is not genuine comprehension in itself. The intellectual concept of the oneness of G-d, and one’s comprehension of it, cannot in themselves be genuine. Nevertheless, he feels it and lives with it. And in this there is [unclear]—this is also the advantage of specific knowledge over general knowledge. Right? With specific knowledge, he understands something and feels it. That is a level of inner good, and it is a level in one’s avodah. We are now speaking about levels. General knowledge, by contrast, should not be counted as a level; it is the foundation and beginning of avodah. But it is not a level in avodah. With specific knowledge, when the knowledge has already become a particular level, one can say that this is

26:14 an ascent to a third level: the soul’s intellectual grasp of G-dliness, and even higher than that. This is what it means for the soul to rise to [unclear]. Next time we’ll explain it better.