Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 1 - Part 5

00:02 Speaker 1 Nu, the Alter Rebbe is being precise here. Yes, yes, yes. He has reached a conclusion. Here on page 5b, we’re up to “And as for what we say.” The Alter Rebbe has concluded that a beinoni is a person who has no transgressions at all—not even the transgression of neglecting Torah study. Although neglecting Torah study is one of the transgressions a person finds hard to avoid, nevertheless, a beinoni does not have even that transgression. And so on. We can therefore understand how Rabbah said of himself that he was a beinoni: Rabbah thought that although his mouth never ceased from study—he studied Torah without interruption—a beinoni also studies Torah without interruption. So he mistakenly thought of himself as a beinoni. Now, there is a well-known story about Reb Hillel of Paritch. Reb Hillel of Paritch had been a Chernobyl chossid through his father, and later became a Chabad chossid. In one of the stories told about him, he was asked what Chabad Chassidus had accomplished for him. He said that before he studied Tanya, he thought he was a tzaddik. But when he studied the first chapter of Likkutei Amarim in Tanya, he said, “Dla tzaddik”—certainly not a tzaddik. “Dla” is Russian; it means it’s already certain that he isn’t one, that there’s nothing to discuss. “Dla tzaddik.” He no longer thinks of that at all. If only he were a beinoni! Considering what the Alter Rebbe demands—as he emphasizes already in the first chapter of Tanya—a beinoni is someone without even the transgression of neglecting Torah study, someone with no transgressions at all. His speech and actions are now complete. So, if only he were a beinoni. Along these lines, they tell a story about the Chofetz Chaim. Once, one of the Chofetz Chaim’s students was arguing with

02:36 Speaker 1 a chossid. They were speaking about the Chofetz Chaim and his greatness, and the chossid said that, in his opinion, the Chofetz Chaim might be a beinoni. The student objected strongly. He was angry and complained: How could the chossid belittle the Chofetz Chaim so much and call him a beinoni? But he had not studied Tanya. When he heard the chossid call the Chofetz Chaim a beinoni, he took it as an insult: How can you say such a thing about the Chofetz Chaim—that he is only a beinoni? So the chossid told him, “You should know that your beinoni is greater than—sorry. My beinoni is greater than your tzaddik.” He said, “I want to ask you a question. Do you think the Chofetz Chaim ever committed a transgression?” No, certainly not. “Did the Chofetz Chaim ever say anything forbidden?” The Chofetz Chaim—guarding one’s speech was his whole life. Certainly not. “Did the Chofetz Chaim ever have an improper thought?” Well, come on. Everyone stumbles when it comes to improper thoughts. So the chossid told him, “When I say the Chofetz Chaim is a beinoni, it’s because I think he is in good standing even in his thoughts.” So my beinoni is greater than your tzaddik. That’s the story. In any case, what is the conclusion? A beinoni is someone who does not have even the transgression of neglecting Torah study. Now the Alter Rebbe continues. Look, we have the Tanya here on page 5b, after “And as for what we say”: “And as for what we say elsewhere, that one whose merits and transgressions are half and half is called a beinoni, and one with a majority of merits is called a tzaddik.” The Alter Rebbe asks: Why? If so, it is not clear why we say this elsewhere. What does “we say elsewhere” mean? It means that, generally, people say something different from what we have explained until now. When people speak of a tzaddik and a beinoni, they generally say that someone whose merits and transgressions are half and half is called a beinoni,

04:45 Speaker 1 and someone with a majority of merits is called a tzaddik. Where do we say this “elsewhere”? It is not merely something people say; it is language from the Gemara. “We say elsewhere” means in the Gemara as well. Where? One of the places cited is the well-known Gemara in Rosh Hashanah, which says that three books are opened on Rosh Hashanah, the Day of Judgment. Three books are opened during the days of judgment: a book of tzaddikim, a book of resha’im, and a book of beinonim. Tzaddikim are inscribed—inscribed immediately for life; resha’im are inscribed immediately for—inscribed immediately for death; and beinonim remain in suspense until Yom Kippur. So there, in the plain sense, what do tzaddik, beinoni, and rasha mean? There, they explain that someone whose merits and transgressions are half and half—half mitzvos and half transgressions—is called a beinoni and remains in suspense until Yom Kippur, while someone with a majority of merits is called a tzaddik. How does that fit with everything we have explained until now? The Alter Rebbe says: it is a borrowed term. The terms tzaddik and beinoni there are only borrowed terms. What does that mean? It means it is not the term’s true meaning. It is a term

06:02 Speaker 2 [unclear].

06:03 Speaker 1 It is a term borrowed for another matter. When something resembles another thing in one particular respect, we borrow a word to describe it. Take, for example, the head of a table or the legs of a table. A table has a head and legs—but what does that mean? We borrow the word “head” from a person, for whom the head is the beginning and the essential part. The first part of the table, where the rabbi or the head of the household sits, is called its “head” by borrowing that one aspect of the word. The same goes for “legs.” Likewise here, tzaddik, beinoni, and rasha have their true meanings, but we borrow the words tzaddik and beinoni for the matter of judgment: a tzaddik in judgment, a rasha in judgment, and a beinoni in judgment. It is a borrowed term with regard to reward and punishment, because a person is judged according to the majority of his deeds. He “is called righteous in his judgment because he has prevailed in judgment.” Since he has prevailed in judgment, he is called a tzaddik. What does tzaddik mean here? Not a tzaddik in essence, but a tzaddik in this particular respect, the matter of judgment. Since he has prevailed in judgment—since he has come out with a favorable verdict—he is called righteous, someone found to be in the right. The same applies to a rasha in judgment and a beinoni in judgment. Now, some people make a mistake here, and we need to clarify it. Many people study Tanya and make this mistake, and it is a very serious mistake. They think this means that a person who has a majority of mitzvos, more mitzvos than transgressions, receives a favorable verdict. A person did many mitzvos and a few transgressions, but Hakadosh Boruch Hu does not look at his transgressions: he is a tzaddik in judgment, and that’s that—straight to Gan Eden.

08:14 Speaker 1 That is not how Hakadosh Boruch Hu works; this is not a game. Yes, “a tzaddik in judgment” does not mean that because I have one more mitzvah than transgressions—a majority of merits—that settles everything. Does Hakadosh Boruch Hu disregard all the transgressions? After all, Hakadosh Boruch Hu examines every detail to a hair’s breadth, and a person certainly receives punishment for anything he has done wrong, and so on. There are two points here. First, we are speaking about Rosh Hashanah—yes, about Rosh Hashanah. “A tzaddik in judgment” refers to what sort of year a person will have: whether he will have life that year or, G-d forbid, the opposite, as it says. With regard to the judgment on Rosh Hashanah about what sort of year he will have, it follows the majority. If most of his conduct was good, he is judged favorably for the coming year; if the opposite, then the opposite. On this very point, there is a very, very important Rambam. It is important for people to know this. It does not bear on the plain meaning of Tanya. I mention it so people will know, because it is relevant to several matters. The Rambam says that “a majority of merits” is not meant literally as a count. It is not that a person’s deeds over the year are put on a scale and, say, he has a hundred transgressions and a hundred and one mitzvos, so that’s it—he is called a tzaddik; and if it is the other way around, he is called a rasha. The Rambam says—and this is very relevant—that it does not go by quantity. A person could do one mitzvah all year, and that mitzvah could outweigh all the transgressions he committed during the year. He is called a tzaddik in his judgment, with a majority of merits, because “majority” does not necessarily mean quantity. It depends on quality. A person could commit many transgressions during the year, but perform one mitzvah that

10:14 Speaker 1 It cost him something; it didn’t come easily, and he had to make a major commitment to do it. So that mitzvah counts as a majority of merits. And the Rambam says that no one knows how to weigh this except the mind of the G-d of all knowledge. Hashem alone knows how to weigh how much each deed counts. A person cannot do that. So we might see, for example, someone we approach on mivtzoim. Perhaps all week, even all year, he doesn’t do mitzvos. But putting on tefillin on Friday may be hard for him. He does it in the middle of his store, and sometimes he may even be embarrassed by it. Nevertheless, he puts on tefillin on Friday. His putting on tefillin once a week or once a month may be worth more than all the times we put on tefillin throughout the year. Why? Because for him, it cost him something. So Hashem judges this. But it all depends on how we explain the Gemara. If it is speaking about Rosh Hashanah, then if a person has a majority of merits, he has a good year; if he has a majority of transgressions, he does not. Or we can interpret it as referring to the days of judgment Above, where too there is a majority of merits. What does a majority of merits Above mean? “Righteous in his judgment” Above? The meaning is “righteous in his judgment” and “wicked in his judgment.” This is based on what we learned earlier. We said that there are people who are wicked yet things go well for them, and people who are righteous yet things go badly for them. Sometimes wicked people have good lives, and sometimes righteous people have difficult lives. What does it depend on? What does it say about this? Sometimes a person is wicked, but he has some merits, he has some

11:58 Speaker 1 mitzvos. So Hashem pays him his reward down here, so that he will already receive his reward down here and can then be punished Above: “He pays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them.” Hashem sometimes pays a person by giving him a good life in material terms, so that afterward, in the spiritual world, he can receive punishment. G-d forbid, yes? And sometimes it can be the opposite: a righteous person for whom things go badly. A person is righteous, a good person, but he has some things that aren’t good and need correcting. So Hashem punishes him for them here in this world, so that his World to Come will be completely clean, completely good, with no evil at all. What does it depend on? On the majority of merits. That is the meaning of “righteous in his judgment” and “wicked in his judgment.” If he has a majority of merits, he is righteous in his judgment. Hashem judges him as righteous, so if he must be punished, He prefers to punish him in this world, so that his World to Come will be utterly perfect. And if he has a majority of transgressions, he is wicked in his judgment. Then Hashem gives him material good—and spiritual... material good, at any rate—in this physical world, so that afterward he will receive his due. That is the meaning, even when this is interpreted as referring to judgment Above. In any case, all this is “righteous” only in a borrowed sense. It is not the true meaning of the term. But when we speak of the true meaning of the designation and level, we are not talking about a borrowed term but about a descriptive term: a name that describes the essence of a tzaddik, a beinoni, or a rasha. When we speak about the distinct levels and ranks of tzaddikim and beinonim, about the levels that distinguish a tzaddik from a beinoni, our Sages say—this is where what we quoted earlier, on the first page, is relevant: “The tzaddikim are judged by their good inclination,” as it says, “My heart is empty within me.”

13:50 Speaker 1 “Empty within me.” A tzaddik is a person whom the good inclination judges. In other words, the only inclination he has is the good inclination. As it says here—the Alter Rebbe also brings the verse in the chapter, at the beginning of the chapter. The Alter Rebbe did not bring the verse there. Here the Alter Rebbe brings the verse because it is relevant to the meaning: “My heart is empty within me.” Where do we learn that a tzaddik’s inclination is good, that he has only a good inclination and no evil inclination? We learn it from the verse “My heart is empty within me.” What does “My heart is empty within me” mean? “Empty” means vacant: “My heart is empty within me.” It is an empty space. The Alter Rebbe explains: I have no evil inclination. Empty means empty of the evil inclination. Who said this? King David. King David said, “My heart is empty within me.” He reached such a state, such a level, that he removed the evil inclination from himself. He was left empty of the evil inclination; he had no evil inclination, because he killed it through fasting. King David killed his evil inclination through fasting. As is known from what it says about this in the Jerusalem Talmud—the Rebbe brings it in many sichos. It comes from the Jerusalem Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud says that he killed it through fasting, and that there was a difference between King David and Avraham Avinu. Avraham Avinu took the evil inclination and transformed it into good. As it says, “With all your heart”—the word for “your heart” is written with two letters beis, signifying two hearts, the good inclination and the evil inclination. That was Avraham Avinu’s level: he transformed evil into good. David was at a level where he could not transform evil into good. In this particular respect, he was on a lower level than Avraham Avinu. He could not transform the evil inclination into good, so he killed it. He killed it through fasting. That is what is brought here: he has no evil inclination because he killed it through fasting. He killed the evil inclination through fasting. In other words, the descriptive meaning of

15:45 Speaker 1 a tzaddik is not merely a person who has few transgressions. He has no transgressions at all. And even having no transgressions at all does not yet make him a tzaddik; he could also be a beinoni. He does not even have an evil inclination. Even in his heart, he has no evil, no evil inclination at all, because he killed it through fasting. Or he may be at the level of Avraham Avinu—which is not brought here, but is understood—who transformed it into good, an even higher level. But in any case, he has no evil inclination at all. Within him, in his soul, there is no evil whatsoever. He killed it through fasting. And some say that what the Alter Rebbe says here, “he has no evil inclination because he killed it through fasting,” combines two meanings of the word “empty.” It says, “My heart is empty within me.” Now, the word has two meanings: an empty space, vacant; and also, as in “If a slain person is found in the land,” it means someone who has been killed, a fallen casualty. It is a term for death, for someone dead. So these are two ideas that the Alter Rebbe brings together. “My heart is empty within me”: my heart is empty, vacant; it has no evil inclination. “Empty” means vacant, because he killed it through fasting—drawing on the other meaning, someone dead—because he killed it through fasting. Those are the two meanings together. I remember once seeing a handwritten note from the Rebbe on the Tanya, on the Lessons in Tanya. It says there, “My heart is empty within me.” So when you translate it—the one who wrote the Lessons in Tanya, Rabbi Weinberg, wrote an interpretation, and the Rebbe would edit his lessons—he wrote “My heart is empty within me,” and in Yiddish he wrote, “My heart is dead within me.” In other words, my heart is dead. He translated “empty” as “dead.” So the Rebbe wrote in the margin, as a question: “Is that how one learns

17:39 Speaker 1 Tanya?” That is what the Rebbe wrote to him, as a question: Is that how you explain the meaning of Tanya? And the Rebbe rejected it, crossed it out, and wrote “My heart is empty”—vacant. Yes, “empty” means vacant; “because he killed it through fasting” gives the reason. But the translation of “My heart is empty within me” is that my heart is empty within me, not dead. That is not the correct translation. That is just an aside, but in any case, that was King David’s level. Hm? What? It says so in a lesson. What?

18:14 Speaker 3 [unclear]

18:18 Speaker 1 The Alter Rebbe? No, that was Rabbi Tzvi [unclear]. I don’t know; I saw it in a manuscript. But we can look it up and see. [Unclear], five hundred and fifty—well, that’s what it says here. This is the meaning of a tzaddik: he has no yetzer hara, because he killed it through fasting. But anyone who has not reached this level, even if his merits outnumber his sins, is not at all on the level or in the category of a tzaddik. A person who hasn’t reached that level, even if he has more merits than sins—so what? He hasn’t reached the level of a tzaddik at all. “He is not at all on the level or in the category of a tzaddik”—so he certainly isn’t on the level of a tzaddik. Now everyone asks here: “He is not on the level or in the category of a tzaddik.” Someone whose merits outnumber his sins isn’t even on the level or in the category of a beinoni—not just not a tzaddik, but not even a beinoni. So why does the Alter Rebbe say “tzaddik” here? The Rebbe says that a person whose merits outnumber his sins, who has done more mitzvos than transgressions, isn’t a tzaddik. More than that: he isn’t even a beinoni. Why does the Alter Rebbe say he isn’t a tzaddik? On a simple level, we can answer that it follows what he said earlier. Earlier he said that in common usage, someone whose merits are in the majority is called a tzaddik. So here he concludes that explanation and says: But in truth, that is only a borrowed name—calling someone with a majority of merits a tzaddik. In the true sense, he is not at all on the level or in the category of a tzaddik. He is concluding the point he began with, and that is why he uses that term. Of course, such a person isn’t even a beinoni. But you see that he writes “tzaddik” because it follows the wording he used at the beginning: in the context of judgment, a person with a majority of merits is called a tzaddik. So that is a borrowed name, a descriptive title.

20:53 Speaker 1 He is not on the level of a tzaddik—that is the straightforward meaning. The Rebbe says we can take it more deeply. He says “not at all on the level of a tzaddik” because you cannot say that such a person is not on the level of a beinoni. You cannot say that a person whose merits are in the majority is not on the level of a beinoni. He isn’t called a beinoni; he does have some transgressions. A beinoni has no transgressions. But you cannot say he is not on the level of a beinoni. Why? Because at any moment he can do teshuvah and become a beinoni. That possibility is within his reach. You cannot say that the level of a beinoni is beyond him. It is within his ability at every moment. The moment he does teshuvah, he will become a beinoni. A tzaddik, by contrast, is different. He is not at all on the level of a tzaddik; he cannot become a tzaddik at that moment, because it does not depend on him. It is something that has to come from Above, as explained in chapter 14, with all the conditions the Rebbe discusses based on chapters 3 and 4. It is not something available to every person. So he may reach the level of a beinoni, even if with difficulty, but that level is within his reach. He can be a beinoni. If he wants to, he can be a beinoni right now. That is why you cannot say the level of a beinoni is beyond him. In any case, the Alter Rebbe concludes: “As our Sages said in the Midrash: Hakadosh Boruch Hu saw that the tzaddikim were few, so He arose and planted them in every generation, etc.” According to this, we can understand what our Sages say. Actually, it isn’t a Midrash; it is written in the Gemara, in Tractate Yoma. The Alter Rebbe calls it a Midrash because it appears in the aggadic part of the Gemara, and aggadah is sometimes called Midrash. But the Rebbe asks why

22:37 Speaker 1 the Alter Rebbe specifically needed to write “Midrash.” Every word in Tanya is precise. True, aggadah is sometimes called Midrash, but the Alter Rebbe could also have said “in the Gemara.” Why specifically “Midrash” rather than “Gemara”? It is precise, because the Alter Rebbe wants to explain why there is no contradiction with other places in the Gemara. We find places where a person is called a tzaddik on the basis of his judgment, whereas here we say that tzaddikim are rare. The distinction is this: when the Gemara is discussing halachah, matters connected with practical halachah, “tzaddik” means someone judged to be a tzaddik—the borrowed use of the term. But in the Midrashic part of the Gemara, which expounds verses and other matters, “tzaddik” can mean a tzaddik in the true sense we have been discussing. So it is in the Midrashic part of the Gemara that it says Hakadosh Boruch Hu saw that the tzaddikim were few. That certainly refers to true tzaddikim, because there are surely many people whose merits outnumber their sins. Here, though, it is speaking of true tzaddikim, who do not even have a yetzer hara. Hakadosh Boruch Hu saw that they were few, so He arose and planted them in every generation, etc. He placed tzaddikim in every generation to sustain the world. That is what it says. The Gemara cites a verse for this: “For the pillars of the earth are Hashem’s, and He set the world upon them.” This is the verse from which we learn that Hakadosh Boruch Hu plants tzaddikim in every generation. “The pillars of the earth” means the pillars that support the world. Hakadosh Boruch Hu knows their number—how many pillars of the earth, how many tzaddikim there are—and therefore “He set the world upon them.” He placed the world upon them. In every generation, as it were, Hakadosh Boruch Hu placed tzaddikim who would

24:28 Speaker 1 sustain the world. And the Alter Rebbe concludes: “As it is written, ‘A tzaddik is the foundation of the world.’” The Gemara there cites the other verse I just mentioned. Later, though, the Gemara brings another teaching of our Sages: it says that the world stands on one tzaddik, and concludes, “As it is said, ‘A tzaddik is the foundation of the world.’” It is interesting that the Alter Rebbe does not bring the first verse. He brings specifically the second verse, “A tzaddik is the foundation of the world,” which appears later. That, too, implies that there is one tzaddik upon whom the entire world stands. Why does the Alter Rebbe bring this verse specifically, and not the first one? The Rebbe explains that he wants to tell us there are many levels among tzaddikim. He wants to show that “tzaddik” is not just one level. There are many levels of tzaddikim. There is a person judged to be a tzaddik because most of his deeds are merits. There is the elevated tzaddik, of whom Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, “I have seen people of ascent, and they are few.” And there are all the other distinctions concerning a tzaddik, including a tzaddik who experiences evil and a tzaddik who experiences good. There can be several tzaddikim, but there is also such a high level of tzaddik that we say there is one tzaddik in the generation: “A tzaddik is the foundation of the world.” That is one tzaddik, one person upon whom the entire generation stands—upon whom the entire world stands. In our generation, that is the Rebbe, the tzaddik who is the foundation of the world: the one pillar, the one tzaddik upon whom the world stands. Yes, this refers to the Rebbe, whom we have seen to be the one tzaddik upon whom the entire world stands. Both materially and spiritually, the entire world’s existence depends on him. And so we ask Hakadosh Boruch Hu that, in his merit, this be realized down here, below ten handbreadths, with a soul in a body.

26:09 Speaker 4 Amen.