Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 33 - Part 6

00:00 We’re going back to the bottom of page 42, after the colon, three lines from the bottom. There may be two points we haven’t discussed. Let’s briefly review what the Alter Rebbe has said so far. The Alter Rebbe explains the matter of joy: to reach true joy, one must contemplate the unity of Hashem. He explains that we need to contemplate Hashem’s unity until we arrive, with a thorough understanding, at the conclusion that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is the only reality, and all the worlds are utterly nullified within His light. Thinking deeply about this brings a person to tremendous joy, with all his heart, soul, and might. Why? The Alter Rebbe explains several further points. First, closeness to Hashem: the very feeling of being close to Hashem brings tremendous joy—actual closeness to Hashem. Then the Alter Rebbe adds that this is the purpose of all creation, the purpose of man: that there should be a dwelling place in the lower realms. And what does a dwelling place in the lower realms mean? It means that a Jew lives with the concept of Hashem’s unity. A Jew is here in a soul and body, with an animal soul—that is what “the lower realms” means. When a Jew, as he is here in the lower realms, grasps and understands Hashem’s unity, that is a dwelling place in the lower realms. If he only believes in Hashem’s unity, it is not yet a dwelling place, because faith remains something that surrounds him. But if he contemplates Hashem’s unity and believes in it, it becomes a dwelling place in the lower realms. This faith itself—the fact that a Jew instills within himself the belief in Hashem’s unity and the strength it brings—is itself a dwelling place in the lower realms, and that is the purpose of the world’s creation. So the Alter Rebbe adds another point.

02:23 For example, with a person in the physical world, imagine that a king of flesh and blood stays and lives with him. We mentioned that there are several points here: not just that the king stays with him, but that he lives there. The Alter Rebbe is precise about the terms. There is joy in the very fact that the king has arrived, even if only as a guest. All the more so if he makes his home there and lives there permanently. And all the more so when it isn’t that I am with the king, but that the king is with me, in my own home. That brings tremendous joy. Likewise, when a Jew contemplates that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is here in the lower realms, with him in his home permanently, that is the greatest joy. There are several precise details we didn’t have time to explain. After all, every word of Tanya is precise, every detail and every word. Of course, however deeply we delve into it, we reach only the barest edge of the depth of these ideas. As is quoted in the name of the Rebbe of Monastyr[unclear], Tanya is a book that the smallest of the small understands, while the greatest of the great does not understand. However deeply you delve, you can always find a deeper level. But there is a precision here in the Alter Rebbe’s wording. He says: “How great is the joy of a common and lowly person.” Why does the Alter Rebbe use both expressions, “common” and “lowly”? The commentaries explain that “common” refers to a deficiency in intellect. A common person, in this sense, is someone foolish, a simple person of limited understanding. “Lowly person” refers to character traits; he is lowly in his traits. So the Alter Rebbe says “common and lowly”—in both intellect and character traits. Then the Alter Rebbe says, and there is a precision here too, that the king “lives with him, together with him, in his home.” Why the two expressions “with him” and “together with him”?

04:27 They seem to mean the same thing. What does the Alter Rebbe add by using both? This wording appears in Rashi on Parshas Vayeishev. Regarding the verse “They conspired against him to kill him,” which speaks of Yosef’s brothers wanting to kill him, Rashi uses these expressions, “with him” and “together with him.” So we find that wording there. Look, they seem to mean the same thing. What is the difference? Besides, we know that the Alter Rebbe does not use expressions in Tanya merely for style. He wants to convey something through these words. What, then, does “together with him” add to “with him”? “With him” can imply something secondary. In the language of our Sages, “es” can indicate something secondary, something appended to the main thing. It suggests that this is not the primary thing; it expresses bittul, self-nullification. “Together with him” also refers to something secondary. In Chassidus, too, we often find that something described as “together with” another is secondary and nullified to it. Nevertheless, the difference is that “together with him” emphasizes a connection. In other words, something can be secondary, utterly secondary and nullified. “Together with him” emphasizes that although it is not primary, it is with him—united with him. So the Alter Rebbe wants to say here that when a Jew nullifies himself to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, on the one hand, it is a matter of being secondary to Him. By contemplating the true unity of Hashem, in all its depth, you reach the conclusion that we are all utterly nullified. That is entirely a matter of being secondary, of bittul. But at the same time,

06:26 he is together with Him. This is not a secondary status that implies weakness or distance. On the contrary: he is with Him, together with Him. His bittul takes the form of unity—he connects with Him, is united with Him, is bound to Him. This is one of the things we need to know. It is among the most important things about the bittul discussed in Chassidus. People who study Chassidus often mistakenly think that bittul means weakness, a weakening of one’s very existence: “I am nothing; I am nobody.” Sometimes this can even lead to a mistake in serving Hashem. Because so many maamarim speak about bittul, bittul, bittul, a person may come to feel that he is nobody. He becomes a shmatte, a rag, because he thinks bittul means, “I am nothing; I am nobody.” So what is my home worth? What is my existence worth? What difference does it make what I do or don’t do? But the truth is, that is not right. On the contrary, the bittul Chassidus speaks of brings out all of a person’s abilities through that very bittul. My bittul means unity and connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is what the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize in this chapter: the joy that comes from bittul. That is why he adds “together with him”: this being secondary is in a way that unites him with Hashem. That, seemingly, is the explanation closer to the plain meaning. But Reb Levi Yitzchak, the Rebbe’s father, offers another explanation. In his commentary on Tanya, the Rebbe’s father writes that the words “with him, together with him” allude to two levels.

08:06 There are different levels in the matter of Hashem’s unity, but we’ll leave that for later, because it comes up further on in the chapter. We’ll come back to it. Let’s continue inside the Tanya. By the way, before we move on, let me add a story connected with the passage we just learned about how great Hashem’s kindnesses are. I heard it from my mashgiach, who received a letter from the Rebbe when he was a yeshiva student. We’re talking about fifty years ago. He had asked the Rebbe for a blessing, advice, and guidance concerning yiras Shamayim in speech and action. The Rebbe wrote that he should learn chapter 41 of Tanya by heart, review it, and reflect on it from time to time—regularly—so that it would awaken yiras Shamayim within him. Some time later, he received another letter from the Rebbe on the subject. The Rebbe wrote that he should continue reflecting on chapter 41. The Rebbe told him that he needed to keep at it: on the contrary, the more he reflected, the more it would affect him. If he complained that it wasn’t affecting him, that was because he wasn’t reflecting enough. So the Rebbe urged him to continue. Then the Rebbe added: “But one must also bring about that it be done with joy.” In other words, I’m reflecting on chapter 41. What does chapter 41 say? It speaks of how Hakadosh Boruch Hu places His kingship upon us and singles us out—upon the Jewish people as a whole and upon each individual—and how “Hashem stands over him, and the whole earth is full of His glory, and He looks upon him and examines his heart and innermost thoughts to see whether he serves Him properly.” But in chapter 41, the Alter Rebbe does not emphasize joy. There, he chiefly emphasizes awe: “And therefore one must serve Him with reverence and awe, as one standing before the king.” The feeling

10:00 is that if the king is here, standing over him, that awakens awe, fear, and self-nullification. The Alter Rebbe does not emphasize joy there. So the Rebbe added in his letter that one must also see to it that there is joy in this reflection, and therefore he should also reflect on what is written in chapter 33. The Rebbe quotes part of the chapter, the passage about how great Hashem’s kindnesses are. In other words, together with “Hashem stands over him,” which awakens awe and the fear that makes one careful in thought, speech, and action not to rebel against the King, there also needs to be the joy that comes from the very fact that the King is here with me. That, too, awakens a feeling of joy. So, three lines from the top. The Alter Rebbe continues here: “And for this, they instituted that we give praise and thanks to His blessed name every morning and say, ‘How fortunate we are, how good is our portion,’” and so on. This is for the matter of true faith. Every morning in davening, then, we praise Hakadosh Boruch Hu for it. Before davening, in the Korbanos section—which we’ll get to—some people have the custom of saying Korbanos very quickly on the way to the mikveh or on the way back, or saying it as they walk. They treat it lightly and say it very fast, just to fulfill the obligation. Heaven forbid. I should also mention that there may be some who sometimes skip Korbanos. There are very strongly worded letters from the Rebbe saying not to skip Korbanos, even if it means missing davening with a minyan. Although the Shulchan Aruch says that if someone arrives at shul and wants to daven with the minyan, he may even skip parts of Pesukei Dezimrah, Chabad chassidim are careful—particularly in accordance with Kabbalah and the writings of the Arizal—not to skip anything, not even Korbanos. Even if because of

11:54 that I’ll miss davening with a minyan, I still shouldn’t skip Korbanos—not in Shacharis and not in Minchah. According to Kabbalah, the entire order of davening is arranged with precision, and it must be in this particular order, not another. So although halachah allows certain sections to be skipped, according to Kabbalah one may not skip them. The holy Shelah even writes very strong words about the section in the Beis Yosef devoted to what may be skipped. He says that on this point the Beis Yosef did not follow the path—[unclear]. The Beis Yosef was also a kabbalist, so in this matter he should have been more careful and not so lenient. The point is that chassidim need to be very careful about matters of Kabbalah. Here the Alter Rebbe notes that, in the wording of the prayers, every morning we give praise and thanks to His blessed name and say—what do we say there? “How fortunate we are, how good is our portion,” and so on, “how beautiful is our inheritance.” In the text of the prayers we say, “How fortunate we are, how good is our portion, how beautiful is our inheritance.” What are we saying we are fortunate about? What is the wording there, and what is it talking about? “How fortunate we are, how good is our portion, how pleasant is our lot, and how beautiful is our inheritance. How fortunate we are that we rise early and stay up late, morning and evening, and say twice each day: Shema Yisroel.” This is the introduction to the morning recitation of Shema. Especially for chassidim who daven late, it’s very important to be careful not to miss the proper time for saying Shema. So the Shema said earlier is connected with the Torah obligation to recite Shema. Otherwise, by the time one reaches Shema while davening with the minyan, it may already be past the proper time. That earlier recitation fulfills the Torah obligation.

13:42 And what do we say there? “How fortunate we are, how good is our portion, how pleasant is our lot, and how beautiful is our inheritance.” What makes us so fortunate? It is Hashem’s unity: that morning and evening we say Shema Yisroel. That is, the Alter Rebbe explains, like someone who rejoices over an inheritance that has come to him—a vast fortune for which he did not toil. A person is very happy when he receives an inheritance he didn’t work or labor for; it came to him as an inheritance. He becomes very happy that, all at once, he has received a great inheritance, a huge treasure. And even more so—this is precisely why we call it “our inheritance.” The same applies here, and not just the same: infinitely more so. We should rejoice just as much, and infinitely more, over the inheritance our Father has bequeathed us: the true unity of Hashem, that “even in the earth below, there is nothing besides Him.” What should we rejoice over? That we have inherited the awareness of Hashem’s true unity: even here below on earth, there is nothing besides Him. Here in this world, too, there is nothing apart from Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And this is a dwelling place for Him in the lower realms. This inheritance we have received—the capacity to feel Hashem’s unity—is itself the dwelling place in the lower realms. A Jew here below, in the physical world, can, as we said earlier, feel Hashem’s unity. That itself is the dwelling place in the lower realms. The ultimate purpose is that, when he reaches maturity, Hashem’s unity becomes clear to him. What does it mean that this is “our inheritance” from our Father? Hashem’s unity exists in the world even without our Father. It is the truth, after all. Hashem’s unity is

15:39 That is reality as it truly is from the world’s perspective. Nevertheless, a Jew in particular is a vessel for the oneness of Hashem. A non-Jew is not a vessel for the oneness of Hashem. It is brought in the sefarim, and the maamarim also say, that a non-Jew is inherently not connected to the oneness of Hashem. Why is that? There are two mitzvos here: the mitzvah of faith and the mitzvah of oneness. The mitzvah of faith is to believe in the existence of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. A non-Jew is obligated in that too; it is one of the Seven Noahide Laws. A non-Jew, too, must believe in Hakadosh Boruch Hu, in the existence of Hashem—that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and so on, the whole matter. But when it comes to oneness, to not believing in other powers alongside Him, it says that non-Jews are not prohibited from doing so. That is why the verse “Hear, O Israel: Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is one” specifically says “Israel.” This is something that belongs specifically to the Jewish people. It is also explained in the maamarim on this week’s parsha, Parshas Vaeira, concerning “And you shall know that I am Hashem,” which is the mitzvah of the oneness of Hashem. The Zohar explains that in this week’s parsha, Vaeira, it says, “And I appeared to Avraham,” and later it says, “And you shall know that I am Hashem.” This refers to the oneness of Hashem: the mitzvah of the oneness of Hashem was revealed to the Patriarchs, and afterward, through Moshe Rabbeinu, at an even higher level. This oneness of Hashem is something we received as an inheritance. Why? Why do we say this comes specifically as an inheritance? The oneness of Hashem is the true reality, so why must it come specifically through inheritance? Why specifically to a Jew? Why not to a non-Jew? Chassidus explains that a created being is, by nature, a distinct existence. And because a created being is a distinct existence, it cannot attain the oneness of Hashem. A created being is, after all, an existence in its own right, no matter how refined it becomes, no matter how—

17:30 And a non-Jew is a distinct existence, so he can never reach that point. He can come to recognize that Hakadosh Boruch Hu exists and that Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world, but not the oneness of Hashem. Why? Because the foundation of his entire existence is a sense of independent existence. Even if he attains some degree of bittul, it can be bittul of the sense of self, but not the true nullification of independent existence. That is the bittul of the oneness of Hashem: recognizing that the existence of Hakadosh Boruch Hu is the only existence. That does not belong to him. A Jew, specifically, has a soul, and the soul is “a part of G-d above”; it comes from the level of sovev kol almin. This is also explained in a maamar of the Baal Shem Tov, in Shoresh Yud-Gimmel. There the Rebbe explains at length the difference between a non-Jew and a Jew: a non-Jew receives life from memalei kol almin, while a Jew receives life from sovev kol almin. So a non-Jew is inherently a distinct existence, and for him, belief in other powers alongside Hashem is not prohibited. He may believe that there is Hakadosh Boruch Hu and there are other powers with which Hakadosh Boruch Hu shares a role in the worlds—that the world also has some existence of its own. A Jew, by contrast, is “Hashem’s portion is His people.” A Jew therefore belongs to the true oneness of Hashem. Where did we get this? We received it as an inheritance from our ancestors. As the Alter Rebbe said earlier, in chapter 18, “The Patriarchs are the chariot,” and for that reason they merited to pass on to their children the quality of being Hashem’s portion. Because we inherited this quality of being Hashem’s portion, the oneness of Hashem is part of the nature of every Jewish soul. It is alive within him; it is firmly rooted in him. What, then, is our avodah? To contemplate it, understand it, and grasp it. But as a matter of faith, it is alive within each and every one of us. And about this we—

19:01 say, “How fortunate we are, how goodly is our portion, and how beautiful is our inheritance.” What is this inheritance for which we praise Hakadosh Boruch Hu? It is our inheritance of the true oneness of Hashem, which belongs to us alone. This is the matter of making a dwelling place for Him in the lower realms, which was entrusted specifically to the Jewish people. There is an interesting point the Rebbe notes here—truly remarkable. The Alter Rebbe quotes the wording from the siddur: “How fortunate we are, how goodly is our portion,” and “how beautiful is our inheritance.” But he leaves out the middle phrase, “how pleasant is our lot.” Either quote all three, or quote... Well, if he does not want to quote it all, then since he is speaking mainly about inheritance, he should have quoted only the last part, “how beautiful is our inheritance.” Instead, he quotes the first part and the third part. The straightforward explanation, incidentally, is that “How fortunate we are, how goodly is our portion” is how the text begins. That is the beginning of the sentence, so he cites it as an introduction, but what he primarily means is the conclusion, “how beautiful is our inheritance.” As the Rebbe explains, this passage is about inheritance, right? We receive it as an inheritance. But there is also a deeper explanation for why the Alter Rebbe specifically quotes both expressions, “how goodly is our portion” and “how beautiful is our inheritance.” Why? Because Chassidus explains the three levels here: our portion, our lot, and our inheritance. Chassidus says that “our portion” relates to intellect. A portion is internal; a portion can be divided into parts, and it relates to the part of the soul that is invested in the intellect. That is called “our portion.” A lot is something above intellect—that is what a lot is. And inheritance is the essence of the soul, higher even than a lot. A lot corresponds to chayah; inheritance corresponds to yechidah. As the matter is explained—

20:58 in Chassidus in a number of maamarim—how exactly these levels are divided. This is also in one of the explanations the Rebbe gives in the explanations from 5732. There the Rebbe discusses this whole matter, and there are several other maamarim that explain it as well. But in any case, back to our point. Here the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, he wants to emphasize that every Jew has the oneness of Hashem through simple faith, as an inheritance. That is “how beautiful is our inheritance.” On the other hand, the Alter Rebbe wants Chabad Chassidus: it should not remain only a matter of faith. Rather, as the Alter Rebbe said earlier, the emphasis is on contemplating it and applying one’s mind deeply to it—specifically, on avodah and intellectual understanding. That is why he also quotes the first part, “how goodly is our portion.” We have both qualities. On the one hand, the oneness of Hashem comes to us as an inheritance. A Jew has it through simple faith, as the Alter Rebbe said earlier and says afterward: when a Jew says, “You are the same before the world was created; You are the same since the world was created”—which is also there on the same page, in the same section of davening, in that same passage—he believes with simple faith that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is unchanged, that His oneness is absolute. But that is faith. On the other hand, we are required to bring it into avodah and understanding as “our portion,” so that it enters our avodah and understanding through Chabad. Some add a further point: on this basis, one could also say by way of allusion that when the Alter Rebbe says here of “our inheritance,” “which our ancestors bequeathed to us,” then in the straightforward sense “our ancestors” refers to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, from whom we received faith. But by way of allusion, too, when he says “which our ancestors bequeathed to us,” the Alter Rebbe means the Baal—

22:32 The Baal Shem Tov, the Maggid, Chassidus—Chassidus began bringing the concept of Hashem’s oneness down from the level of faith, so that it would also enter our understanding, our avodah, and our feelings. And the word “our fathers” also alludes to the fathers of Chassidus, who brought the concept of Hashem’s oneness more into understanding and more inwardly. Since today is 24 Teves, let’s tell one story, or perhaps two, connected with what we’re learning in Tanya and with 24 Teves. Chassidim have been telling a number of stories in recent days, but two of them relate to what the Alter Rebbe explains here in Tanya. Two stories. The first is a well-known story about something the Alter Rebbe said shortly before his passing. They tell it about both the Alter Rebbe and the Tzemach Tzedek. A day or a few hours before his passing, the Alter Rebbe said, “I don’t see the—what do you call it—the beam in the roof.” You see, he meant that he didn’t see the—houses were built with beams, iron beams. So the Alter Rebbe said—and I don’t know how the story goes with the Tzemach Tzedek; I don’t remember the details exactly—“I don’t see the beam, the roof, the ceiling, the wood it’s made of. I see the word of Hashem within it.” In other words, the Alter Rebbe had reached a level where a person sees this tangibly. Everything Chassidus says about Hashem’s oneness—he saw it tangibly. And there’s a precise point about this. I don’t know exactly where it appears in the Rebbe’s account, but the Alter Rebbe’s precise wording was important: he didn’t say, “I don’t see—I see

24:15 the word of Hashem,” or “I see G-dliness.” He said, “I see the word of Hashem within the beam in the ceiling.” In other words, that is the Alter Rebbe’s innovation regarding Hashem’s oneness: not to negate the existence of the world, but to see G-dliness within the world’s existence. That’s one story. There’s a second story people tell as well. As is known, when the Alter Rebbe… Yes? Did you want to ask something? They tell that in the Alter Rebbe’s final days, the war with Napoleon was still going on, and Napoleon was a great opponent. The Alter Rebbe’s entire struggle and all his self-sacrifice—to the point that he passed away before his time—were because he very much wanted Napoleon to lose and Russia to win. Chassidim tell that a group of Jews came to the Alter Rebbe and asked him why. Why did he so badly want Napoleon to lose? What, was Russia better than Napoleon? The Russians were non-Jews too. As people used to say, “Panya is a thief, Panya is a robber.” “Panya” was what they called a Russian non-Jew. That’s what Jews used to call them. So Panya is a thief and a robber too. Why, then, did the Alter Rebbe so badly want the Russians, the Panyas, to defeat the French? What was so much better about them? The Alter Rebbe answered, they say, in a melody: “Panya is a thief, Panya is a robber, Panya is naive. But he is not an opponent of One. Napoleon is an opponent of One—of my One.” Those were the words of the melody. That is how Chassidim have passed down what the Alter Rebbe said, translated here. So he said that Panya is a thief, Panya is a robber, Panya is naive. But what does that mean? Regarding the Russian non-Jew, it’s true

26:04 that he is a non-Jew, a thief, with all those shortcomings, but he is not opposed to One. Napoleon, on the other hand, was opposed to One—and not merely to One, but to “my One.” That means the oneness taught by Chassidus, the true oneness of Hashem: “There is nothing else besides Him.” And Napoleon, as the whole story about him makes clear, embodied self-importance in practice—the opposite of “There is nothing else besides Him.” He was the greatest opponent of the concept of One, and that is why the Alter Rebbe so strongly opposed Napoleon’s victory. In any case. [unclear]