Tanya/ Iggeres Ha’Kodesh – The Holy Epistle, Epistle 19, Class 3
These latter four emotive attributes are merely the extrinsic offshoots of the first three basic emotive attributes—chesed, gevurah, and tiferet, which they activate and cause to descend.
There, [Moses’] prophecy apprehended the pnimiyut, i.e., the inner dimension of netzach, hod, yesod, and malchut, whose function is to bring about the descent of the loftier sefirot within the worlds that are below Atzilut.
וְשָׁם הָיְתָה הַשָּׂגַת נְבוּאָתוֹ בִּבְחִינַת פְּנִימִיּוּת, דְּהַיְינוּ מִבְּחִינַת פְּנִימִיּוּת דְּנֶצַח־הוֹד־יְסוֹד־מַלְכוּת.
However, his apprehension did not extend to the Pnimiyut of the levels [of Divinity] transcending netzach-hod-yesod-malchut but only to the achorayim (the external aspect) of chochmah which is vested in binah, which in turn is vested and extended within the pnimiyut of netzach-hod-yesod-malchut.
אֲבָל לְמַעְלָה מִנֶּצַח־הוֹד־יְסוֹד־מַלְכוּת לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שׁוּם הַשָּׂגָה בִּפְנִימִיּוּת, כִּי אִם בִּבְחִינַת אֲחוֹרַיִים דְּחָכְמָה הַמְלוּבָּשִׁים בְּבִינָה, הַמְלוּבֶּשֶׁת וּמִתְפַּשֶּׁטֶת תּוֹךְ פְּנִימִיּוּת דְּנֶצַח־הוֹד־יְסוֹד־מַלְכוּת,
In his Glosses and Emendations to this work, the Rebbe asks: What does the Alter Rebbe accomplish by repeating that the external aspect of chochmah vests itself in binah and in turn in netzach-hod-yesod-malchut? It will be noted that here, the Alter Rebbe does not mention its being clothed in the other attributes, as he had done earlier, but only its vestiture in binah and in netzach-hod-yesod-malchut.
This is the mystic principle underlying the teaching of the Midrash6 that “The novlot (withered vestige) of supernal chochmah is Torah,”
בְּסוֹד “נוֹבְלוֹת חָכְמָה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה – תּוֹרָה”,
I.e., the Torah is not the undistilled essence of supernal chochmah; only a paler dilution of this can find actual expression in the revealed aspect of the Torah.
on the level of z’eyr anpin, i.e., diminished and finite, as explained above.
שֶׁהִיא בִּבְחִינַת “זְעֵיר אַנְפִּין”,
Thus, it is written that G‑d said to Moses, “You shall see My back (the Heb. achorai suggesting the hinder or external aspect of Divinity), but My face (the Heb. panai suggesting pnimiyut, the frontal or inward aspect of Divinity) shall not be seen.”7
וּכְדִכְתִיב: “וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחוֹרָי, וּפָנַי לֹא יֵרָאוּ”,
Even Moses could behold no more than the achorayim of supernal chochmah and not its pnimiyut, or essence.
See there (in Likkutei Torah of the Arizal), and in Shaar Hanevuah, ch. 1.
עַיֵּין שָׁם וּבְשַׁעַר הַנְּבוּאָה פֶּרֶק א’.
Now this seems surprising. After all, it is said, “There rose no other prophet in Israel like Moses.”8
וְלִכְאוֹרָה יֵשׁ לְהַפְלִיא, הֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר: “וְלֹא קָם נָבִיא עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמֹשֶׁה”,
How then did R. Yitzchak Luria, of blessed memory, apprehend more than he, and expound many themes dealing with the pnimiyut, even of many sefirot and levels that transcend chochmah and keter of Atzilut?
וְאֵיךְ הִשִּׂיג הָאֲרִיזַ”ל יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנּוּ וְדָרַשׁ כַּמָּה דְרוּשִׁים בִּבְחִינַת פְּנִימִיּוּת, אֲפִילוּ בִּסְפִירוֹת וּמַדְרֵגוֹת רַבּוֹת שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהַחָכְמָה וְכֶתֶר דַּאֲצִילוּת?
Yet the Arizal writes that Moses’ prophecy did not enable him to grasp the pnimiyut of chochmah of Atzilut!
Likkutei Haggahot (a compilation of glosses to the Tanya)9 quotes here Chiddushei Haritva: “The supernal chariot [not as it appears in the World of Beriah, nor in the World of Atzilut, but at a higher level] was never beheld by the prophets, yet its secrets were known to the mystics of the Kabbalah [lit., ‘to the Masters of Truth’].”10
However, it is plain and clear to all,
אַךְ הָעִנְיָן הוּא פָּשׁוּט וּמוּבָן לַכֹּל,
that there is a great difference between the apprehension of the Kabbalists, such as R. Shimon bar Yochai and R. Yitzchak Luria, of blessed memory, which is an apprehension through wisdom and knowledge,
שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֶפְרֵשׁ גָּדוֹל בֵּין הַשָּׂגַת חַכְמֵי הָאֱמֶת כְּרַשְׁבִּ”י וְהָאֲרִיזַ”ל, שֶׁהִיא הַשָּׂגַת חָכְמָה וָדַעַת,
and the prophetic apprehension11 of Moses our Master, peace to him, and the other prophets,
וּבֵין הַשָּׂגַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו־הַשָּׁלוֹם וּשְׁאָר הַנְּבִיאִים בִּנְבוּאָה,
to which Scripture refers as actual vision.
הַמְכוּנָּה בַּכָּתוּב בְּשֵׁם “רְאִיָּה” מַמָּשׁ;
Seeing something grasps its essence; comprehension merely grasps its externality.
In these terms, Scripture describes Moses’ prophetic apprehension: “You shall see My back.”12
וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחוֹרָי”,
Likewise, even with Isaiah, a lesser prophet than Moses, who was the greatest of prophets: “And I saw G‑d.”13
“וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת ה’”,
Furthermore, even before G-d gave the Torah, we find Abraham’s prophecy referred to in these terms: “And G‑d appeared to him.”14
“וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה’”.
Now, though the term [“seeing” with regard to prophecy] is used in a metaphorical sense and does not denote actual sight by the physical, fleshly eye,
וְאַף שֶׁזֶּהוּ דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל, וְאֵינָהּ רְאִיַּית עֵין בָּשָׂר גַּשְׁמִי מַמָּשׁ,
nevertheless, the analogue needs to resemble the analogy.
מִכָּל מָקוֹם, הַנִּמְשָׁל צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת דּוֹמֶה לַמָּשָׁל,
Just as the analogy of physical sight means that the viewer beholds the essence of a thing, so, too, the analogue—prophetic vision—must refer to a spiritual kind of seeing that grasps the essence of the spiritual level that is beheld through prophecy.
Thus, too, the Targum translates the above-quoted “vayeira eilav Hashem”: “And G‑d became revealed15 to him…,” indicating revelation,
וּכְתַרְגּוּם “וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה’”, “וְאִתְגְּלִי לֵיהּ וְכוּ’”, שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת הִתְגַּלּוּת,
meaning that G‑d,16 blessed be He, being hidden, became manifest to [Abraham].
שֶׁנִּגְלָה אֵלָיו הַנֶּעְלָם בָּרוּךְ־הוּא בִּבְחִינַת הִתְגַּלּוּת.
In this direct mode of revelation, the recipient of the Divine manifestation is able to absorb and internalize it, just as with visual sense-perception. The above-described manner of spiritually “seeing” a revelation is thus quite different from “hearing,” an inferior level of perception which leaves the recipient with a less tangible impression.
It is different, though, with the apprehension of the Kabbalists. G‑d did not become revealed to them in a manifest mode;
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּהַשָּׂגַת חַכְמֵי הָאֱמֶת, שֶׁלֹּא נִגְלָה אֲלֵיהֶם הַוָיָ’ בִּבְחִינַת הִתְגַּלּוּת,
rather, they apprehend the secrets of wisdom in a manner17 which is hidden and removed from them.
רַק שֶׁהֵם מַשִּׂיגִים תַּעֲלוּמוֹת חָכְמָה הַנֶּעְלָם [נוסח אחר: בַּנֶּעְלָם] וּמוּפְלָא מֵהֶם.
They merely “hear” about these matters rather than truly “see” them.
____
FOOTNOTES
__________
9. Kehot, N.Y., 1973.
10. In his commentary to Sukkah 28a.
11.Note by the Rebbe: “In contrast, by means of their [nonprophetic] ‘apprehension through wisdom and knowledge,’ they comprehended [higher levels, such as] keter, and so on.”
15. Heb. text emended according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
16. Heb. text emended according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
17.The above reading (הנעלם) could imply that the manner of their apprehension is hidden from them; the variant reading (בנעלם) would imply that the subject of their apprehension is hidden from them.
Comments are closed.