Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 5 - Part 2

00:04 We said that here, in chapter 5, the Alter Rebbe begins to explain the special quality of Torah study. In chapter 4, the Alter Rebbe spoke about Torah and mitzvos in general. What is the quality of Torah and mitzvos as a whole? It has to do with the soul’s garments: the garments of the G-dly soul are Torah and mitzvos—the thought, speech, and action involved in the Torah’s 613 mitzvos. The Alter Rebbe explained the extraordinary quality of these garments: it is precisely in the garments that Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself is found. That is why the garments are beyond comparison with the soul, which is a created being; through the garments, by contrast, we have the Creator Himself. In chapter 5, the Alter Rebbe continues to explain this and adds a special quality of Torah with regard to what we are discussing here: the soul’s union with G-dliness. Torah has an advantage over mitzvos. Through Torah, the soul’s union with G-dliness is much deeper than it is through mitzvos. The Alter Rebbe begins: “To further explain thoroughly the term ‘grasp’ used by Eliyahu when he said, ‘No thought can grasp You at all.’” We need to understand more about the word “grasp.” Eliyahu’s statement, “No thought can grasp You,” means that it is impossible to grasp Hakadosh Boruch Hu. But we said that this applies to thought on the part of a created being. Even a created being—even a soul in Gan Eden—cannot grasp Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Through Torah and mitzvos, however, there can be a grasp. So, the Alter Rebbe says, we use the word “grasp.” We need to understand what it means. The Alter Rebbe will now explain that grasping means a very deep union with something, a very inward union with Hakadosh Boruch Hu, which is possible through Torah more than through mitzvos. “Whenever an intellect comprehends and understands an idea”—a person takes something with his intellect; his intellect takes some

02:18 idea, some subject. When a person understands something intellectually, the intellect has grasped the idea. The first thing that happens is that the intellect takes the idea and grasps it. “It encompasses it intellectually.” Grasping means taking it and encompassing it with the intellect. As with a physical object: when I say I’m holding something, I’m holding a cup, I have the object in my possession. That is, I surround it and take hold of it. It is with me. Similarly, a person takes an idea with his intellect, so he encompasses it. He grasps and encompasses the subject; the subject is within him. “And the idea is grasped, encompassed, and clothed within the intellect that understood and comprehended it.” At the same time that I encompass the idea with my intellect, the idea is grasped and becomes encompassed by the intellect. So we asked: seemingly, isn’t that the very same thing? If my intellect encompasses the idea, then of course the idea is grasped by my intellect. Isn’t that the same thing? We briefly explained the point that the rabbi made: these are stages, two stages. There is one stage at the beginning, when the intellect encompasses the idea. The first stage is when a person takes in the subject as a whole, the basic point of what he is going to study—the gist of the subject, its initial formulation. At that point, my intellect encompasses the subject. Then there is the end: after all the explanation, depth, and understanding, the idea is once again grasped by the intellect. It is as though he now has the summary, after reaching the conclusion and working through the entire idea. We had other explanations too; that was one of them. “And the intellect is also clothed in the idea while understanding and grasping it intellectually.” There is something else happening at the same time; it all takes place simultaneously. What is it? The intellect encompasses the idea. The intellect surrounds

04:33 the idea. But the reverse also happens: the idea surrounds the intellect. The idea surrounds the intellect. When? When I delve into a subject, when I apply my intellect to understanding it, when I put my mind to work to understand the sugya, it is as though my intellect is inside the sugya. So which encompasses which? The sugya encompasses me. My intellect is inside the sugya; the sugya encompasses me. We have two things here. On the one hand, the intellect encompasses the sugya, and on the other hand, the sugya encompasses the intellect when I delve into it. Both things are happening here. That is the great innovation about the intellect: we have both what encompasses and what is encompassed. On the one hand, it surrounds the idea; on the other hand, the idea surrounds it. And both happen at the same time. This is the remarkable union: at the very moment that I unite with the subject, the subject unites with me. “For example.” The Alter Rebbe begins to explain this with an analogy. He gives an example: “For example, when a person understands and comprehends a halachah in the Mishnah and Gemara thoroughly and accurately.” A person takes a subject in Torah and understands and comprehends a halachah in the Mishnah and Gemara thoroughly and accurately. In other words, he is working on a halachah. He wants to understand a halachic subject in the Mishnah and Gemara. “Thoroughly and accurately” is the expression the Alter Rebbe used earlier in connection with binah. In other words, he wants to understand it in all its details. “His intellect has grasped and encompasses it.” On the one hand, the intellect grasps and encompasses the halachah. I’m studying a halachic subject. I’m studying a halachah in the laws of Chanukah, for example. So, on the one hand, my intellect grasps, takes hold of, and encompasses that halachah of Chanukah

06:37 within me. The intellect encompasses it—and what is inside, what is grasped? The halachah, the halachic matter, is the idea being understood. On the other hand, “his intellect is also clothed within it in a settled manner.” At the same time that I delve into understanding the halachah, I study it in depth, working through the sugya. My intellect has to enter the sugya. It follows that I am inside the sugya, and the sugya encompasses me. So both things are present: what encompasses and what is encompassed. Now... all of this is about the intellect in general. Now we want to explain how it relates to Torah study. This is what the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize here. Up to this point, we’ve been speaking about the special quality of Torah study: when I study a subject in Torah, I grasp and unite with Hakadosh Boruch Hu in a deep, complete union. So the Alter Rebbe explains how a person’s intellect unites with the idea it is studying. What does that have to do with Hakadosh Boruch Hu? The Alter Rebbe continues: “Now, this halachah is the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu.” We are not talking here about studying some philosophy. I am studying a halachic subject. And what is halachah? As we said earlier, halachah is the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. What we have here is His wisdom and will. The Alter Rebbe puts wisdom before will because here we are speaking about a sugya, about comprehension. The main thing is that a person studies the Gemara with his mind and tries to understand the subject in depth. That is why wisdom comes before will here. The focus is on the wisdom: he understands the subject and delves into the sugya. So what is happening here? “This halachah is the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu.” I am comprehending something that is His wisdom and will—“for it arose in His will that when Reuven makes such-and-such a claim”

08:38 For example, Reuven will make such-and-such a claim, and Shimon will respond in such-and-such a way. It is part of Hashem’s will that when there is a claim and a counterclaim, one person will argue one way and the other will argue another way. This is just like an example from the Gemara they’re learning now in yeshiva, Bava Metzia. There you have the case of two people holding a tallis: one says one thing, and the other says something else. Here, too, we have a claim and a counterclaim: Reuven argues one way, Shimon another, and the ruling between them is such-and-such. All of this is contained in Hashem’s will. The Rebbe raises a question here: Why do we always use Reuven and Shimon as the example? Why those two all of a sudden? Why not Avraham and Yitzchak? The Rebbe gives a very interesting explanation. In every yeshiva, people talk about Reuven and Shimon, but how many know why those names were chosen? It’s because the first dispute we find in the Torah concerns Reuven and Shimon. It was about Yosef—whether to sell him or not. There was a debate about whether to kill him, sell him, or put him in the pit. Reuven stood up and said, “Let us not take his life,” intending “to save him from their hands.” The brothers wanted to kill him, and Shimon was among those who did. Reuven argued against him and said not to kill Yosef. That was the dispute between Reuven and Shimon.

10:39 It’s the first dispute between two people that we find in the Torah. Before that, we don’t find a dispute between two people like this. That’s why Reuven and Shimon are used as the example. So that is what it means here: Reuven makes such-and-such a claim, Shimon makes such-and-such a claim, and the ruling between them is such-and-such. But why does the Rebbe choose an example from Choshen Mishpat? The Shulchan Aruch has Orach Chayim, Yoreh De’ah, Even HaEzer, and Choshen Mishpat. Choshen Mishpat is its fourth section. Why not choose an example from Orach Chayim? Why specifically a case where Reuven and Shimon bring competing claims? Claims and counterclaims belong specifically to Choshen Mishpat, and the Rebbe chose the last section of the Shulchan Aruch for his example. Aren’t there enough laws in Orach Chayim he could have used? The Rebbe makes a wonderful point about this: he wants to emphasize the idea of unity. When a Jew learns Torah, he can unite with Hashem’s wisdom and will. When I learn a subject in Torah, I unite with Hashem’s wisdom. That is the greatest possible union. So the Rebbe wants to emphasize just how extraordinary Torah is. He specifically chooses an example from Choshen Mishpat, where there are opposing claims and one of the claims must be false. One person is lying. Two people can’t make contradictory claims and both be telling the truth. That’s impossible. The Alter Rebbe is making another point here. I might have thought that when I learn a halachah about how to act in practice, I can say that I unite with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Why? Because it tells me what to do.

14:19 It concerns my actual conduct, my service of Hashem: how I should behave, what to do and what not to do. I need to know what to do in practice, so of course it matters. But what about learning other subjects and sugyos? This is a question some yeshiva students ask about the Gemara. They say, “What relevance does it have? We learn sugyos that have nothing to do with my life.” Once, it was taken for granted that you learned because you were learning the wisdom of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Today there are foolish arguments like this. “Why should I learn Gemara about cases such as a kohen seizing property, or laws and matters that have no practical relevance to me? I’ll never need them in my life. I can’t make a living from them. They don’t teach me about day-to-day life or change my life.” That is a hollow, foolish question. Why? The Alter Rebbe explains here that, on the contrary, the point is not practical action. We are talking about the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The point of learning Torah is not only, “What am I going to do?” Certainly, there is a reason to learn Torah so that one will know what to do, and all that. But that is not the point here. What matters here is union with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The point is that a person, with his own mind, unites with the mind—with the wisdom and will—of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu are one with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is the point. Whether or not the case ever occurs in practice is beside the point. What difference does it make whether it leads to an actual deed? This subject is the wisdom of Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

15:55 When I learn that subject in Torah, I unite with the wisdom of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So when a person takes a subject in Torah—a sugya, or a passage in Tanya, say—and delves into it and learns it, at that moment the greatest possible union takes place. On the one hand—what happens? His mind grasps and encompasses the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu contained in that halachah. That’s one side. On the other side, his mind is also immersed in it. He is inside it as well. These are the two things we mentioned: he encompasses it and is encompassed by it at the same time. It is the greatest possible union. In the previous class I raised a question. There are several questions here that we need to explain, but let’s go in order. Last time we asked: What is novel about this “wonderful union”? It would seem that it isn’t unique to Torah. It seems to happen in every field of knowledge. When I study any subject—mathematics, philosophy, science, whatever it may be—even the wisdom of the nations, which is altogether different, my mind engages with the idea and unites with it. There, too, you have the person who understands and the thing understood: my mind grasps the idea, and the idea occupies my mind. This doesn’t seem to be unique to Torah. Yet the Alter Rebbe seems to be saying that it applies specifically to Torah, to the wisdom of Torah. That is the impression from the whole discussion here, especially since the example he brings is specifically from Torah. So why is this specific to Torah? First of all,

17:56 This is the plain meaning of Tanya; the Rebbe says so. Simply the plain meaning of Tanya. Granted. The Rebbe does not deny that this exists in other fields of knowledge too. It does. There is one difference: here we are speaking about Hakadosh Boruch Hu. With other fields of knowledge, I may become united with whatever wisdom I study, but that does not connect me with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. I connect with that wisdom. If I study mathematics, I become united with mathematics. If I study science, I become united with science. If I study physics, I become united with physics. In other words, I become united with a created intellect, with knowledge about created things. Here, by contrast, the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize that the unity of the one who understands, the subject understood, and the faculty of understanding is a unity with Hakadosh Boruch Hu, who is present here. That is the main point, and it is possible only with Torah. But the Rebbe adds another very deep and interesting point: when we speak about this wondrous unity of a person with what he understands, there really is something unique to Torah that is not found in other fields of knowledge. What is it? A very simple point. Everything—all the fields of knowledge in the world—is composite. It is made up of parts. What does “composite” mean? It means several things joined together. For example, a person studies medicine. What is medicine? I study medical matters, the science of healing. There are several things here. There are the herbs from which remedies are made, the things used to make a remedy. There is the knowledge I acquire about those herbs. And there are the illnesses I study. Each one is a

20:09 separate thing. The illness is one thing; the herbs are another. And knowing how to combine things and find a remedy for each illness is a third thing. The knowledge is not the herbs, and the illness is something else again. These are several separate things. So when I become united with medical knowledge, I do not become united with the remedy. I become united only with the knowledge involved in medicine. The remedy itself is not the knowledge; they are two different things. Or say I study astronomy. I study the movements of the stars, the sun, the celestial spheres, and everything else. What do I become united with? With the knowledge concerning the stars and constellations, but not with the stars and constellations themselves. I have no connection with them. There are the stars and constellations, and there is the knowledge about them. The knowledge and the thing itself are separate. A person might even study a particular subject without ever having seen the thing he is discussing. He can study it and have no contact at all with the thing he is studying. It is like a story the Rebbe once told about visiting the rabbi of France. It is not directly related to our subject; it is just an example. The rabbi of France at the time was a very great Torah scholar, completely absorbed in his learning. The Rebbe saw a woman come in with a question. She was holding a thermos with some milk and began asking him about it. The rabbi cited all sorts of things—the Shach, the Taz, the differing opinions—and she simply did not understand what he wanted from her. She asked, “Can I use it?” He said, “No.” The rabbi said he did not recognize the object she had brought, some kind of kopito. It was something he had

21:53 never seen and did not know what it was. So she told him it was a kopito. “Ah, that’s what is written about in the Shulchan Aruch! That’s the kopito mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch.” He had never seen one. He had studied it all his life; he knew the Shach and the Taz on every law concerning a kopito, but he had never seen a kopito in real life and did not know what it was. So the point is that when you study an ordinary field of knowledge, the knowledge about a thing and the thing you are studying are not connected in that way. They are separate components. Knowledge is one thing... The novel point here is that when we speak of the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, the knowledge I study is different. With Hakadosh Boruch Hu, everything is one, so the knowledge concerning the subject, Hashem’s will within it, and the subject itself are all one. When I study the case of “two people holding a tallis,” the wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu have been invested in the matter of the tallis. So when I study the tallis, Reuven, and Shimon, I have more than the subject matter before me. In studying Reuven, Shimon, and the tallis, I also have the actual wisdom and will of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. I become united with Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself. Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself, His wisdom, and the things in which His wisdom is invested are not three separate things; they are one. It is along the lines of what the Rambam says: He is the knowledge, He is the Knower, and He is the Known. Therefore, this unity

23:29 is a much deeper unity. It is truly like one thing. There is another point we need to explain, but we will leave it for the next class. Why does the Alter Rebbe use a doubled expression? Why does he word it, “Reuven will claim such and such, and Shimon such and such, and the ruling between them will be such and such”? Why the phrase “such and such”? It is repeated here. And what is surprising is that later, when the Alter Rebbe brings this wording again, he says it only once. The second time he brings it, further on, he says, “Even if the matter never happened and never will happen,” and then says that if this one claims such and that one claims such, the ruling will be such. Why at first does he say “such and such,” doubling it, while at the end he says “such” only once? There is an explanation of this from the Rebbe. We will leave it for the next class. I just want to finish with a story connected to this chapter that we are studying now. I heard it from the person it happened to, Reb Shmuel Lew, the Rebbe’s shliach in England. He told me that he was with the Rebbe in 5721 and had a yechidus. On Yud Shvat, the students from Montreal would travel to the Rebbe, and on 11 Shvat they would go in to the Rebbe for yechidus. The whole yeshiva would go in together for a sicha, and afterward they would approach the Rebbe to hand over their panim. At that time he wanted to ask for a blessing for his hiskashrus—for the Rebbe’s blessing and advice on how to be more connected to the Rebbe. First, though, something happened at the farbrengen. In the middle of the farbrengen, he was thinking a lot about hiskashrus, and suddenly the Rebbe looked at him and told a story during the sicha. The Rebbe told

25:20 the story, the teaching of the Frierdiker Rebbe, that when a chossid thinks about the Rebbe, it is because the Rebbe is thinking about him. It is a matter of “as water reflects a face to a face.” This happened at the very moment he was thinking about it, and he understood that the Rebbe was saying it to him. The next day he went in for yechidus. After the sicha, he approached the Rebbe, handed him his note, and said that he was asking for a blessing for hiskashrus. The Rebbe told him, “Ah, the advice for hiskashrus is to study what I study. As it says in Tanya”—this is what the Rebbe told him—“in chapter 5 of Tanya, the greatest unity is a wondrous unity unlike any other. It comes through Torah study, when what encompasses, what is encompassed, and the intellect all become one. So by studying what I study, you will achieve the greatest unity, especially with regard to hiskashrus.” The greatest unity, then, is the unity of Torah. He had a little chutzpah and asked the Rebbe, “Nu, what does the Rebbe study?” The Rebbe told him, “I study nigleh and Chassidus.” That was the whole point: “I study nigleh and Chassidus.” In other words, if you study nigleh and Chassidus—but with the intention... What is new about that? We study nigleh and Chassidus all the time. The new point is to study nigleh and Chassidus with the intention that through doing so I become united with the Rebbe, because the Rebbe studies nigleh and Chassidus, and I study nigleh and Chassidus, and all of Torah is one. Because when I study nigleh and Chassidus at the same time.