And even in the occasional places where some apparently intelligible reason has been revealed and explained,

וְגַם בְּאֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה וְנִתְפָּרֵשׁ אֵיזֶה טַעַם הַמּוּבָן לָנוּ לִכְאוֹרָה

this reason alone, which is understandable to us, is not the ultimate and full reason; we have not yet plumbed its depths;

אֵין זֶה – הַטַּעַם הַמּוּבָן לָנוּ לְבַדּוֹ – תַּכְלִית הַטַּעַם וּגְבוּלוֹ,

rather, within [this reason] is vested the innermost core (the pnimiyut) and mystic principle of chochmah that transcends comprehension and understanding.

אֶלָּא בְּתוֹכוֹ מְלוּבָּשׁ פְּנִימִיּוּת וְתַעֲלוּמוֹת חָכְמָה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהַשֵּׂכֶל וְהַהֲבָנָה.

In a public address,²⁵ the Rebbe once explained why the Alter Rebbe makes the point that even when we have some intelligible reason for a mitzvah, this is not תַּכְלִית הַטַּעַם. This phrase, rendered above as “the ultimate reason,” would more literally mean “the end of the reason”; i.e., the explanation given for a commandment is not the last word in the reason for performing it. Not only does the mitzvah remain in some measure unexplained, even the reason remains in some measure unexplained. For in essence, a mitzvah is a superrational expression of the Divine Will, which is fulfilled through its performance.

At the very beginning of Derech Mitzvotecha (subtitled Sefer Taamei Hamitzvot—“A Book on the Reasons for the Mitzvot”), the Tzemach Tzedek writes similarly²⁶ that what one should chiefly keep in mind during the performance of a commandment is the intent of doing it because G‑d has so commanded us. The fact that we may not understand just why G‑d desired this particular action done is immaterial.

The Tzemach Tzedek goes on to say that whatever modest insight we may have about the purpose of the mitzvot—according to the Kabbalah and Chasidut or according to Jewish philosophy (chakirah) and homiletics (derush)—is not even a glimmer of their true intent. It is a finite drop in an infinite ocean. For no human being, clothed as he is within a corporeal body, can possibly comprehend the infinite domain of spirituality. Even Moses, who has experienced more than three thousand years of constant elevation in Gan Eden, advances constantly in his understanding of the rationale underlying the mitzvot.

Concerning these successive levels of comprehension, the verse states,²⁷ “To every yearning, even to the point of expiry, I have seen an end; Your mitzvah is very wide.” I.e., the comprehension and yearning experienced in Gan Eden are finite, whereas a mitzvah defies limitation: the extent of its inner content is endless.²⁸

One outstanding question: Why, though, does the Alter Rebbe write that intelligible reasons have been given only for “occasional” mitzvot, whereas in fact this would appear to apply to a multitude of commandments (of the categories of mishpatim and eduyot), if not to a majority?

Likkutei Biurim on the Tanya (by R. Yehoshua Korf) quotes the Rebbe as answering this question in the following manner:

In most cases, only a general reason is provided while the details remain unexplained. For example, while the general reason for the mitzvah of tefillin is stated—that it be “a sign upon your hand…”²⁹—no revealed explanation is provided for the myriad details relating to this commandment, such as: why the tefillin must be square; why the four scrolls in the tefillin of the head must be housed in four separate compartments while the Biblical passages in the tefillin of the hand must be inscribed together on one scroll; why the straps of the tefillin must be black; and so on and on.

The same is true with respect to every word uttered by the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, to the prophets, as recorded in the Tanach—

וְכֵן בְּכָל דִּיבּוּר וְדִיבּוּר שֶׁיָּצָא מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא לַנְּבִיאִים, הַכְּתוּבִים בַּתּוֹרָה־נְבִיאִים־כְּתוּבִים,

Every word of prophecy found in the Tanach is applicable not only to the generation that first heard them but to all future generations as well.³⁰

whether they be words of admonition, as transmitted by the prophets, or narratives of incidents.

הֵן דִּבְרֵי תּוֹכָחָה וְהֵן סִיפּוּרֵי מַעֲשִׂיּוֹת,

An incident is recorded in the Tanach not only as history but also as an eternal message for all generations.

Vested in them—in these words of rebuke or narrative—is an aspect of the Divine chochmah that transcends conception and comprehension.

מְלוּבָּשׁ בְּתוֹכָם בְּחִינַת חָכְמַת אֱלֹהוּת שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהַשֵּׂכֶל וְהַהֲבָנָה,

This is empirically evident from the principle of kri, the Scriptural text as read, and ktiv, the Scriptural text as written, the two not always being identical.

כַּנִּרְאֶה בְּחוּשׁ מֵעִנְיַן הַ”קְּרִי” וְהַ”כְּתִיב”,

The kri reflects the comprehension [of the text] as revealed to us. The ktiv transcends conception and comprehension.

כִּי הַ”קְּרִי” הוּא לְפִי הַהֲבָנָה הַנִּגְלֵית לָנוּ, וְהַ”כְּתִיב” הוּא לְמַעְלָה מֵהַשֵּׂכֶל וְהַהֲבָנָה,

That is, a particular word in its written form has no comprehensible “garment,” though as read aloud, it does have such a “garment,” i.e., it is readily comprehensible.

שֶׁתֵּיבָה זוֹ כִּכְתִיבָתָהּ אֵין לָהּ לְבוּשׁ בִּבְחִינַת הַהֲבָנָה, וּבִקְרִיאָתָהּ בַּפֶּה יֵשׁ לָהּ לְבוּשׁ.

An example of this would be the verse, “Know that the L-rd is G‑d; He has made us, velo anachnu, His people and the sheep of His pasture.”³¹ The ktiv form of the word velo ends with an alef (וְלֹא) while the kri form of the word ends with a vav (וְלוֹ). According to the latter form, the verse is readily comprehensible: “Know that the L-rd is G‑d; He has made us, velo anachnu—and we are His….” In the ktiv form, however, the verse reads, “He has made us and not us….” While this has meaning on a more sublime level,³² in the simple sense, the ktiv of this verse seems exceedingly difficult to comprehend.³³

The same applies to the large letters that are occasionally found in the Tanach; they derive from a sublime world—from the sefirah of binah—and radiate from there openly and not through a garment like the other letters.

וְכֵן הָעִנְיָן בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה נְבִיאִים וּכְתוּבִים, שֶׁהֵן מֵעָלְמָא עִילָּאָה, וּמְאִירוֹת מִשָּׁם בְּגִילּוּי – בְּלִי לְבוּשׁ כִּשְׁאָר הָאוֹתִיּוֹת.

Now, the aspect of the blessed Divine chochmah that is vested in the 613 commandments of the Torah is referred to as the hindmost aspect of chochmah.

וְהִנֵּה, בְּחִינַת חָכְמַת אֱלֹהוּת בָּרוּךְ־הוּא הַמְלוּבֶּשֶׁת בְּתַרְיַ”ג מִצְוֹת הַתּוֹרָה נִקְרֵאת בְּשֵׁם “בְּחִינַת אֲחוֹרַיִים דְּחָכְמָה”,

The Alter Rebbe had previously said that (a) Moses’ prophetic comprehension of the sefirah of chochmah consisted merely of the achorayim (the hindmost aspect) of chochmah. He then went on to say that (b) the source of the Torah in chochmah is the same, for it too transcends reason. The Alter Rebbe is now saying that (c) even the chochmah vested in the 613 commandments is referred to as no more than the achorayim of chochmah.

For the achorayim of any one of the sefirot are the external and lower levels within that sefirah, which are capable of descending and extending downward, to become vested in created beings in order to animate them.

כִּי כָּל אֲחוֹרַיִים שֶׁבַּסְּפִירוֹת הֵן מַדְרֵגוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת בְּמַעֲלָה שֶׁבִּסְפִירָה זוֹ, מַה שֶּׁיּוּכְלוּ לֵירֵד וּלְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט לְמַטָּה לְהִתְלַבֵּשׁ בַּבְּרוּאִים לְהַחֲיוֹתָם;

The aspect of the panim (the “face” or inner dimension) of the sefirah is the sefirah itself as it is united with its Emanator, the blessed Ein Sof, in an absolute union.

וּבְחִינַת הַפָּנִים, הִיא הַסְּפִירָה עַצְמָהּ הַמְיוּחֶדֶת בְּמַאֲצִילָהּ אֵין־סוֹף בָּרוּךְ־הוּא בְּתַכְלִית הַיִּחוּד.

As, for example, the sefirah of chochmah, the sefirah now under discussion: It is united with its Emanator, the blessed Ein Sof, in absolute unity, for the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Wisdom, are One (³⁴as explained above)—evidently in reference to Part I, chs. 2 and 52.

כְּגוֹן דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל, סְפִירַת חָכְמָה שֶׁהִיא מְיוּחֶדֶת בְּמַאֲצִילָהּ אֵין־סוֹף בָּרוּךְ־הוּא בְּתַכְלִית הַיִּחוּד, כִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא וְחָכְמָתוֹ אֶחָד (כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל),

But that which radiates and extends from His blessed chochmah to the limited and finite nether beings below,

וּמַה שֶּׁמֵּאִיר וּמִתְפַּשֵּׁט מֵחָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְמַטָּה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים, שֶׁהֵם בַּעֲלֵי גְבוּל וְתַכְלִית,

and becomes vested in them,

וּמִתְלַבֵּשׁ בָּהֶם –

Light that merely “radiates” and “extends” does not necessarily contract according to the limitations of the recipient of the light; it may “radiate” and “extend” in an encompassing manner (makif) and thus not be subject to them. However, when the illumination is “vested” within a receptor, this implies adjustment to its limitations.

Hence, a light that becomes vested within finite created beings cannot possibly be infinite, as would be the case if the actual sefirah as united with its Emanator—and thus as infinite as its Emanator—would descend into created beings. Therefore, the life-giving force which is vested within creation—

is called achorayim: it is the external aspect of the sefirah and not the sefirah itself,

נִקְרָא “אֲחוֹרַיִים”,

and it is also called the aspect of Asiyah within Atzilut.

וְנִקְרָא גַם כֵּן בְּחִינַת “עֲשִׂיָּה שֶׁבַּאֲצִילוּת”.

The external aspect of chochmah—chochmah here being an allusion to the World of Atzilut—is termed the level of Asiyah within Atzilut,³⁵ i.e., that level of Atzilut that is capable of descending below.

____

 FOOTNOTES

_____________

27. Psalms 119:96, explained in Epistle 17, above.

28.As an instance of this, consider the commandment involving the nesting bird (Deuteronomy 22:6-7), chosen by the Sages (Berachot 5:3) as a classic example of a mitzvah which one should not assume one knows the reason for. The Rebbe points out that in Moreh Nevuchim (Vol. III, sec. 48), the Rambam offers an explanation for this mitzvah, yet in his Commentary on the Mishnayot, the Rambam himself writes that this is a mitzvah “which has no explanation”!

29. Deuteronomy 6:8.

30. See Megillah 14a.

31. Psalms 100:3. See also Bereishit Rabbah, beginning of ch. 1.

32.Note by the Rebbe: “Zohar I, 120b; Or Hatorah (Yahel Or) of the Tzemach Tzedek on this verse in Psalms (and see further references there).”

33. Note by the Rebbe: “But see commentary of Rashi there.”

34. Parentheses appear in the original text.

35.Note by the Rebbe: “So it is written in the editions that I have seen. It would seem, however, that the text should have stated ‘Asiyah of chochmah.’ Possibly, however, since the Alter Rebbe is speaking here of the difference between the finite and the infinite—the Torah at the level of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, as compared to the Torah at the level of Atzilut (where תורתך—‘Your Torah’ refers to the Torah of Atzilut while שלמדתנו—‘that You have taught us’ refers to the Torah of Beriah)—he therefore stresses ‘of Atzilut.’ “As to the relevance of this subject to our text: The infinity of the World of Atzilut lies in its correspondence to the sefirah of chochmah (i.e., the letter yud of the Four-Letter Name) while the Worlds of Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah correspond to the other [lower] sefirot.”

36.See Ecclesiastes 3:7.