The Alter Rebbe now offers an instance of how creation came about through the Sefirot.
על דרך משל, ביום ראשון מששת ימי בראשית נגלית מדת החסד, כלולה מכל מדותיו הקדושות, ורצונו וחכמתו ובינתו ודעתו מלובשין בה
For
example, on the first of the Six Days of Creation, the attribute of
kindness — comprised of all [G‑d’s] holy emotive attributes, with His
Will and wisdom and understanding and knowledge enclothed in it — was
revealed,
וברא בה את האור, במאמר: יהי אור
and with [this attribute] He created light, through the utterance, “Let there be light,”
שהיא בחינת התפשטות והמשכת האור לעולם מלמעלה, והתפשטותו בעולם מסוף העולם עד סופו, שהיא בחינת מדת חסד
which
is a diffusion and flow of light into the world from above, and its
diffusion in the world from one end to the other. This [creation of
light] is [an expression of] the attribute of kindness, for Chesed is characterized by diffusion and revelation.
רק מפני שכלולה גם ממדת גבורה
Yet, because [the attribute of kindness] also includes the attribute of might (for the attributes of Atzilut all incorporate each other),
לכן לא היה רוחני כאור שלמעלה ממש
therefore [the light] was not as spiritual as the actual Supernal Light,
וגם נתלבש בעולם הזה, שהוא בחינת גבול ותכלית, שהוא מהלך ת״ק שנה מהאר׳ לרקיע וממזרח למערב
and it also became enclothed in this world, which is finite and limited, for
1 “it is a journey of five hundred years from earth to heaven and from east to west.”
These
limitations would not have come to pass were creation to proceed
undiluted from the attribute of kindness, which diffuses without
limitation. However, since the attribute of might — the source of
limitation — is incorporated within this kindness, creation is finite.
At
any rate, because the attribute of kindness was revealed and was
dominant during the first day of creation, created beings related to Chesed — such as light — came into existence on that day.
וכן ביום שני נגלית מדת גבורה, כלולה משאר מדות, ורצונו וכו׳
In
like manner, on the second day there was revealed the attribute of
might, which is composed of the other emotive attributes and His Will,
and so on, i.e., ChaBaD,
וברא בה הרקיע, במאמר: יהי רקיע בתוך המים, ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
and
with [the attribute of might, G‑d] created the firmament, through the
utterance, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let
it divide the waters from the waters.”
שהיא בחינת צמצום וגבורות, להעלים מים העליונים הרוחניים ממים התחתונים
This [separation of the waters by the firmament] is an expression of tzimtzum and restraints (Gevurot), to conceal the upper spiritual waters from the lower waters.
ועל ידי זה נתגשמו התחתונים, בהבדלם מהעליונים
Through this separation from the upper waters, the lower waters became material.
This materiality was brought about through the tzimtzum
and concealment which emanate from the attribute of might — the
attribute that was revealed and dominant during the second day of
creation.
ומדת חסד כלולה בה, כי: עולם חסד יבנה
The attribute of kindness is included in [this attribute], for
2 “the world is built with kindness,”
(Note of the Rebbe: “[and the very act of building itself is] an expression of kindness”),
Thus, even where might prevails, it is tempered by the attribute of Chesed.
שהכל כדי שתראה היבשה ואדם עליה לעבוד את ה׳
for all this — the division of the waters — is in order that dry land appear and man [live] upon it to serve G‑d; thus, this too is ultimately an expression of kindness.
וכן כולן
And so with them all:
each of the other emotive attributes was likewise revealed on each
subsequent day, in order to bring created beings into existence.
וזהו שאמר אליהו בתיקונים שם: לאחזאה איך אתנהיג עלמא בצדק ומשפט כו׳
And it is this thought that Elijah expressed in the Tikkunim, loc. cit.: “[The purpose of the emanation of the Sefirot was] to show how the world is conducted with…righteousness and justice;...
צדק איהו דין, משפט איהו רחמי כו׳, כולא לאחזאה איך אתנהיג עלמא
righteousness is…law (i.e., the attribute of Gevurah), justice is…mercy…; all [the revelation of the attributes] is to show how the world is conducted;
אבל לאו דאית לך צדק ידיעא, דאיהו דין
but it is not that You have a knowable righteousness, which is law,
ולאו משפט ידיעא, דאיהו רחמי
nor a knowable justice, which is mercy,
ולאו מכל אינון מדות כלל
nor any of these [other] attributes at all.“
This
means to say that righteousness and justice exist as separately
identifiable attributes only relative to worlds and created beings. As
regards G‑d Himself, “it is not that You have” these
attributes. In relation to Him, they do not exist independently at all,
being completely unified with Him, just as sunlight enjoys no
independent identity when within the sun
Commentary of the Rebbe on Chapter Ten
In the course of the frabrengen of Yud-Tet
Kislev, 5728, the Rebbe explained the statement in the beginning of ch.
10 regarding the unity of the Divine attributes with the Ein Sof.
The Alter Rebbe there likens their unity to “the unity of the sunlight
that is within the solar globe, with the solar globe [itself].”
The
Alter Rebbe goes on to say that the sun’s rays are found not only
outside the solar globe but must also surely exist to an even greater
degree within their source — the sun. Nevertheless, insofar as sunlight
is to be found within its source, it is united with it to such a degree
that “it has no existence by itself at all.” It therefore cannot be
deemed “light”, for within the sun globe “there is only one entity,
namely, the body of the luminary which emits light.”
Turning
from the analogue to the analogy, the Alter Rebbe now says: “Precisely
in this manner, and even more so,” is G‑d’s unity with His attributes.
So perfect, indeed, is this unity, that the attributes are not called by
any names at all, whether Will, wisdom, kindness, or whatever, for they
are all truly One with G‑d Himself.
* * *
A
number of points here call for clarification. To begin with: As soon as
the Alter Rebbe proposes the analogy of the unity of the sun’s light
with the sun, and before he even begins to explain it in detail, he
mentions that the sun “is called a ‘luminary,’” and buttresses this
point by citing a proof-text from Scripture (“the greater luminary”). He
then goes on to say that “the radiation…which…shines from it is called
‘light’, as it is written, ‘And G‑d called the light — day.’”
Now
this is somewhat problematic. Firstly: All that is necessary to know
concerning the sun’s unity with its light while this light is within it,
is that the sun serves as the source of the light. (We are then able to
adduce that when something is found within its source, it does not
possess a personality of its own.) Why is it important to let us know
that the sun is called a luminary and its radiation is called light?
Secondly:
Granting that a valid reason exists for the Alter Rebbe’s need to
explain that the sun is a luminary, is it necessary to seek proof for
this from Scripture? If the sun radiates light, then surely it is by
definition a luminary.
Thirdly:
Even more perplexing is why the Alter Rebbe not only informs us (as
above) of the other most elementary fact — that the radiation of the sun
is called light — but finds it necessary to go on to cite Scriptural
evidence for this. All this seems to be completely superfluous.
Furthermore, what innovative insights are we intended to glean from the
verse that tells us that “G‑d called the light — day”?
These
questions become even stronger when we bear in mind that the same
illustration of the unity of sunlight with the sun, has already been
used in ch. 3, and even earlier, in ch. 33 of the first part of Tanya.
There the Alter Rebbe did not find it necessary to inform us that the
sun is a luminary and that its rays are light, and understandably, no
proof is sought from Scripture.
With
regard to ch. 33, one might answer that since the Alter Rebbe himself
indicates that the illustration will be treated at length elsewhere, and
it is only mentioned there parenthetically, he does not go into detail
at that stage. In ch. 3 of our text, however, this illustration is
treated at length. If it is indeed necessary for the Alter Rebbe to
spell out the above-mentioned details, why does he not do so in ch. 3?
We
are thus compelled to conclude that here, in ch. 10, when repeating the
illustration of the sunlight that is still in the sun, the Alter Rebbe
seeks to explain something new — something that warrants the additional
details that were previously unnecessary.
In
order to understand the difference between what the Alter Rebbe sought
to teach in each of these two cases, it is first necessary to explain
the subject of each of these two analogues (which become understandable
through their common analogy). And they are indeed different.
The analogy in ch. 10 seeks to explain the unity of G‑d with the Supernal Sefirot:
although they bear not the slightest comparison with G‑d, they are
nevertheless united with Him, to the point that “He and His attributes
are One,” in perfect and uncompounded unity.
This
is indeed mind-boggling. Ch. 9 made it clear that the Divine attributes
are even more distant from G‑d Himself than the distance that separates
the lowly level of action from the lofty level of wisdom — so distant,
in fact, that we cannot even negate wisdom in relation to G‑d. How,
then, can we possibly say that the attributes are united with Him in
perfect unity?
In
order to explain this, the Alter Rebbe proposes the analogy of
sunlight within the sun. Light, too, while found within the sun is
absolutely united with it. (This is a novel aspect of the concept that is not found in the preceding chapters.)
In
order to explain in turn how this is the case, the Alter Rebbe first
had to state that the sun is called a luminary and its rays are called
light (as shall soon be explained). This is not true of ch. 3, where
the Alter Rebbe seeks to explain (not the unity of the Sefirot, but rather) how created beings are nullified and of no account in relation to the Divine life-force that creates them constantly ex nihilo.
Since
created beings are absolute nothingness in relation to the creative
force that brings them into existence and provides them with life, it is
thus clearly impossible to imagine, G‑d forbid, that they are united
with Him; it is impossible to say that “He and His creation are One,” heaven forbid. The reason is simple: Since all of creation is truly naught in relation to G‑d, there exists no being which we could describe as being united with Him.
Ch. 10, by contrast, deals with the manner in which the Sefirot
are united with G‑d. Concerning this unity the Alter Rebbe provides the
analogy of the sunlight that is still within the sun, at which stage
“it is united with it in absolute unity.”
This
aspect of unity is made more readily understandable in the analogy by
explaining that the sun is called a luminary and that its rays are
called light, and by citing Scripture to prove this point.
The Alter Rebbe intends to stress that only that which radiates beyond
the sun is called light; the light as found within the sun is not
deemed light at all. Since this is a novel thought, he finds support
for it by citing the verse, “And G‑d called light — day.” This verse
tells us that the defining characteristic of light is “day”, as opposed
to the darkness of “night”. This means to say that light refers, like
the term “day”, to actual and visible illumination. By contrast, that
which does not express itself overtly in actual illumination as light
does by day is not deemed to be light. (This is true even when it
exists, but its existence is assimilated in its source.)
The
reason that light while found in its source is not considered to be
light is self-understood: while there, it is one with its source in a
state of absolute unity. Were it to be designated as light, we would
then have within the orb of the sun two distinct entities — the luminary
and the light. But this cannot be, for the source of light is deemed
by the proof-text to be a luminary to the exclusion of all else: only
one entity exists there, namely, the luminary. Saying that sunlight is
united with the sun itself in absolute unity signifies that it
is exclusively so, that even the light that is to be found in the
luminary has no separate identity as light, but is itself [assimilated
within the] luminary.
This
detail is crucial to the analogue, namely, to the understanding that
G‑d’s unity with His attributes is a perfect and absolute unity (as
mentioned at the beginning of ch. 8). It is therefore clear that “all
the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Will and wisdom,
are not designated and called by these names at all,” as the Alter Rebbe
says in ch. 10. Were the attributes to be designated by the names
Will, wisdom, kindness, might, and so on, then there would be, G‑d
forbid, a compound of G‑d Himself (the infinite Ein Sof-light) with His attributes.
In
order for this to be understood in the analogue, it is necessary for
the Alter Rebbe to explain in the analogy as well, that only that which
spreads forth beyond the sun is called “light”; while found
within its source, however, it “has no name of its own at all, only the
name of its source” — the luminary.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario