E pluribus unum

It is said that even if Hashem did not give us the land of Israel and the Holy Temple, just bringing us to Mt. Sinai would be enough. The famous question is asked: what do you mean, it would be enough? The whole point of bringing us to Har Sinai is to give us Torah, which we would keep in Eretz Yisroel. The answer is that it would be enough, because when Jews received Torah, they were unified as one person. (We learn that Jews were tired before receiving of Torah. Why were they tired? Because it took them an effort to become unified. We learn from this that Jews get their strength from argument, which is why the main pastime of a frum Jew is to learn Gemara and argue.)
        Being unified “would be enough”, because unity amongst Jews results in the unity between the holy Names of G-d, between Him and His Presence, and between Him and this world. (For a detailed kabbalistic explanation of this process, see Derech Mitzvosecha, mitzvas Ahavas Yisroel. Suffice it to say that each Jewish soul contains sparks from all the other Jewish souls, and unification “below” draws forth the unification “above”.)
        This is why it is said that loving your fellow as yourself is the basis of the whole Torah. The point is not so much that the purpose of Torah is to bring peace amongst people (how exactly does putting on tefillin result in peace?), but that all Torah mitzvos accomplish the same thing that the single mitzva of ahavas Yisroel accomplishes: unity between G-d and His Presence in this world. And this is the whole purpose of creation and giving of Torah.

Now, the concept of unity is a tricky one. How can two separate entities become unified? This problem of disunity existed throughout the history of creation and of Jewish people. It all started from shviras ha’keilim, the breaking of the vessels of the chaotic world of Tohu (don’t worry, I won’t talk about that in detail now). The sfiroes of Tohu did not get along, couldn’t cooperate, each thinking of itself as the most important one — and kabloom! Chernobyl b’ruchnius.
        And the story repeated itself many times and indeed still goes on today. The theme of disunity is the theme of Omer. As everyone knows, the students of Rabbi Akiva quaralled, had no respect to each other, and a plague sent by G-d and augmented by socialized healthcare system killed many of them, r"l, in this very period of time.
        But what does it mean that they quarreled? These were the greatest sages of their generation, and they couldn’t get along? What were their disagreements about? What were the disagreements of the Jews in the desert about that they had to put aside to receive Torah? Now that we are writing a string of questions, what was the deal with the sferoes of Tohu? We shall examine these answers after the commercial break.



The Rebbe writes in the sicho devoted to Lag B’Omer that you can’t really blame the Jews in the desert, the spheroes, the students of Rabbi Akiva. They were not arguing about petty matters. They were not practicing sinas chinum. They didn’t care about chitzoinius (“your shtreimel looks worse than my hat”). Each of them had a shitta. Each of them had a job to do, a role that they played. And they took that job seriously.
        Think about it: if Chessed is merciful, and it’s taking its own job as the source of mercy seriously, how can it tolerate Gevurah? What do you mean, gevurah? Chessed! And Gevurah had the same attitude. In order to “live and let live”, to “agree to disagree”, one has to take a slightly mild view of one’s own shitta. Look at it with a bit of sense of humor. And these guys couldn’t afford doing that. They were responsible agents of their missions. The sages really believed, each of them, that they were right. Of course, each one of them was, but it’s all nice and good for us, sitting here in our b’dieved armchairs, to say “eilu v’eilu”. For these people, their shittos were their whole world.

So, what is one to do? Well, says the Rebbe, this is a serious problem. This is not just a problem for the sages or spheroes or the Jews in the desert. This is a problem for any two people that are trying to create a relationship. Any kind. Two friends, two colleagues, a husband and a wife, a parent and a child, etc. How can two people become one? What do you mean, one? If I am X, I am X. I cannot be Y. I can tolerate Y. I can respect Y. I can agree to disagree, even, but to be absolutely completely unified with Y? But then what happens with my identity, my “job” (which I take seriously) of X?
        Elsewhere (Inyanei Toras HaChassidus), the Rebbe explains that giluim (revelations) of G-dliness are always in conflict with each other. Because, as explained above, in order for each gilui to be itself, it must be itself and nothing else. Gevurah is Gevurah. End of story. That is why we can’t eat meat with milk. Meat is Gevurah; milk is Chessed. They don’t mix well.
        But the Essence of G-d, says the Rebbe, does not have that problem. Because the Essence includes all the revelations in itself (in potential). So, when the Essence is brought into play, no threat to the identities of individual revelations happens — and they can co-exist. Which is why G-d Himself can disobey rules of logic and do things that are mutually exclusive. Which is why, when Moshiach comes and G-d’s Essence is revealed (may it happen now), there will be no contradiction between the fact that G-d is revealed (which, under normal circumstances, would destroy this world) and, at the same time, the world exists and is a world, with its physical matter. (And, incidentally, we shall be allowed to eat meat and milk together.)

So, what’s the solution to disunity? Bring G-d into the equation. When the spheroes gain the awareness that each of them is not just Chessed or Gevurah, but Chessed and Gevurah that are each doing a job for G-d, this awareness allows them to co-operate, since each of them is doing essentially the same thing (serving G-d), albeit in a different way. The deepest identity of Chessed is not its vessel, but its Light, and the whole point of the Light is the idea that it’s on a mission from G-d (“light reveals the luminary”). Furthermore, this co-operation allows them to do their jobs better. And voilá, the world of Atzilus (aka Tikkun) is here. Jews are given Torah. Sages stop dying.
        And two people become one. This is the only way. In order for a relationship to be that of true, absolute unity, not just tolerance, one needs to bring G-d into it. G-d in the relationship is what allows the two people to become completely one and at the same time each retain his-or-her unique identity.

Gutt Yom Tov, y’all. May we merit to see speedily the time when the greatest unity of all possible is achieved: that between G-d and His nation, with the coming of Moshiach.

Forms and substances

I would like to advertise two posts by Rabbi Micha Berger:

Form and Information
Mind, Pereception and Metaphysics

If I were to summarize the two posts (the parts relevant to the discussion below), I'd say:

1) Phenomena of a world higher become the forms of the phenomena of the world lower
2) Soul is a ray of G-dly Light that pierces the spiritual worlds
3) The lowest level of the soul is the highest level of the brain, its form

We recognize that each object has two components: matter and form (chomer and tzurah). A key consists of the metal from which it is made and its unique shape. If the metal is replaced from aluminum to copper, but the shape is the same, what was replaced is the matter, while what remained is the form. If the key was melted down, its matter remained the same, while its form was changed.

I personally define form as the relationship between different parts of the matter. The properties, the nature of the object, can be thought of as the matter: after all, we can't say that there are two things: the electron and its properties; the properties of the electron are electron. But then again, they can also be though of as the form: if all we care about is the charge of an amino acid, even if a point mutation in a gene replaced amino acid A with amino acid B, as long as the function that it plays in the protein (due to its charge) is unaffected, the protein will still fold normally; so, we've replaced the matter, but retained the form, which means that the key property of the amino acid that we cared about could be identified as its form.

In order to see in detail the discussion of form and matter as it pertains to brain and soul, in the context of Jewish sources, please read the posts. I would like to quote this bit:

[W]e can say the soul is therefore the pattern which the brain fits, encoded in the layout and attributes of its neurons, neurochamicals, glial cells, etc… This doesn’t mean the soul is only the pattern, or that the soul has no existence without the brain. The soul is the same thing, as substantiated in a higher world, one in which there is no need for a physical instantiation. The two are in sync in the same way a movie picture changes as the light from the projector flickers in its different colors.

Thus the mind is a product of the design and structure of the brain while simultaneously being a spiritual thing, our connection to a higher plane.

(See also this post, briefly.)

Now, Rabbi Berger says that he is a Litvishe Mikubol and thus doesn't subscribe to all ideas of Chassidus Chabad, but I was wondering if I can apply his model to the struggle between Nefesh Elokis and Nefesh Ha'Bahamis as described in Tanya.

According to Tanya, the two souls (G-dly and animalistic) fight over control of the brain. Each one wants to be the one "enclothed" in it. So, for instance, we can say that when I was sixteen years old, not religious and eating lobsters, my brain was controlled by my Nefesh Ha'Bahamis. When I turned seventeen and became religious and started going to shull (and stopped eating lobsters), but brain started to be controlled by my Nefesh Elokis.

Well, if an atheist Neuroscientist hears this, he will scoff. It's not like, he will say, my brain was plugged into an iPhone when I was sixteen, and then was plugged into Android when I was seventeen. The internal structure of my brain changed! Due to a number of outside influences (charismatic rabbi, his wife's chip salad, certain propaganda literature, certain conversations), some connections in my brain (e.g., in the circuits responsible for lobster-eating behavior) weakened or even became associated with negative emotions, while other connections (e.g., in the shull-going circuits) strengthened.

If you consider Rabbi Berger's model, however, the Neuroscientist's view does not contradict the concept of one soul being enclothed in my brain vs. another.

Remember, according to the model, hislabshus (enclothment) of the soul in the brain happens through the brain's tzurah (form). Perhaps we can even say that the brain's tzurah is the soul's hislabshus in the brain's chomer (matter). [See again the first post linked above.]

Yes, the brain's tzurah changed, as the Neuroscientist above tells us. But that is exactly what it means that one soul vs. another gained the control. The change in the brain circuits from lobster-eating to shull-going is (evidence of) the change in hislabshus of one soul vs. another in the chomer of the brain.


(What I am trying to understand at the moment is what the specific nature of hislabshus of neshama in moach might be, according to the model and according to sources in Kabbala and Chassidus. To be continued, iyH. Any comments, especially with sources, are welcome.)

The Rebbe and Rav Kaduri

Reposting.



They are giving each other blessings and talk about rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdosh.

Rav Kaduri was always a big friend of the Rebbe and Chabad. When one of the rabbis of Israel said something negative about the Rebbe, Rav Kaduri asked: “Who is this fly that raises its wing against a lion?” After gimmel Tammuz, Rav Kaduri also talked very hopefully and prophetically about the Rebbe and speedily approaching geulah.

May the merit of the two giants protect us and bring the Era of Mashiach speedily in our days, when every child will see with his eyes the contents of their teachings, Kabbala and Chassidus, the Essence of Torah, revealed in the physical matter of the world.

Besides the absolute beauty and seriousness of the moment, it was a little funny to watch how Rav Kaduri gives the Rebbe a “rabbi handshake” — a handshake which seems to go on forever, when the one shaking your hand (usually a rabbi) keeps holding on to it and talking to you.

First in thought

We say in Lecha Doidi that Shabbos is "soif b'ma'aseh, b'machshovo tchilo" — last in action (creation), first in thought.

The simple meaning is that Shabbos was the last day of creation, but it was first in thought of Hashem — the whole creation was for its purpose, and it was the culmination of creation. Just like the times of Moshiach.

But if you learn Kabbala and Chassidus, they look at this statement literally (as oftentimes happens, the "esoteric" interpretation of a statement according to Chassidus is more literal than pshat, the supposedly literal interpretation).

Kabbala talks of a concept of "Shabbos before the first Sunday" — that before the world's creation started on the First Day (Sunday), there was a Shabbos. But this was not really Shabbos as a part of creation. Creation happens through the mode of "speech", which (as Ramban and many others explain) means that Hashem creates something (as if) outside of Himself — just like our thoughts become speech only when they are outside of ourselves in some other medium than our mind and reach another person (or are supposed to reach, have a potential of reaching; so, even if I write my thought in a notebook and hide it, it may be poor communication, but it is still "speech"). On the other hand, the "Shabbos before Sunday" was in Hashem's thought: it was Hashem's design of the world that was still one with Hashem before Hashem started implementing the design into "reality".

So, literally, in the realm of creation, Shabbos was last (sof b'ma'aseh), but first, before that, it already happened in the realm of thought (b'machshava tchilo) preceding the speech.

The thing is: the first "official" Shabbos, the one following the first week of Creation, was also in thought. This is the meaning that Hashem "ceased creating" on Shabbos. It doesn't mean that He literally stopped bringing the world into existence yesh m'ayin — the world would not exist then. As we learn from Chassidus (although this idea existed before Ba'al Shem Tov), creation is happening every moment, yesh m'ayin, ex nihilo. And it happens through the same "speech", the same "words" that were used to create the world ("Forever, oh G-d, are your words in Heaven" — again a case of Chassidus doing super-literal interpretation and explaining that the words "Let there be separation..." that created the Heaven are still literally in Heaven, being spoken every moment and giving it existence).

But, on Shabbos, Hashem stopped "speaking". After a week of creating the world through "speech", as something outside of Himself, Hashem retracted the world back into His Mind (so to speak). And that is what Shabbos is: being inside Hashem's Mind, since the same process repeats itself every week. That is why it is the holiest day — it is holy not because of some contract we made with Hashem that sanctified this day, but because on it we are literally inside kedusha, inside Hashem, so to speak.

The meditation on the above, at length, both during davening on Shabbos, and during the rest of activities, should give a person a special feeling of both love and awe for this day.

And now I refer you to the post by Rabbi Oliver: "Shabbos is not a day of rest".

You need Light

When encountering the difference between Chakirah (Jewish philosophy) and Kabbala, one can ask the question: what’s the purpose of Light? After studying Chassidus, one can ask a more eidel question: if everything is about the Essence of G-d, and, indeed, only about this world, again, what’s the need for Light, intellectual understanding of the deeper aspects of a mitzva and emotions while performing the mitzva? If we reach G-d’s Essence through the physical deed itself, what else is needed?

Excerpt from Inyonei Toras HaChassidus. The second and third paragraphs are my focus; the first one is for the context. (The Rebbe is discussing the concept of acquiring a physical object through one’s daled amos. For more detail, see here.)

[T]he Yechida manifests itself (not only in the purification of the physical object which is outside the person; but also) in the different levels of the soul itself, the four levels of Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama, and Chaya. Only through them does the Yechida affect the physical object that is outside the person (though the arousal of the Yechida comes solely because of the purification [Birur] of the physical object).

A parallel of this phenomenon can be seen in the power of the Essence of G-d, “whose Existence comes from Himself” [i.e., the Essence of G-d is the only level that does not derive its origins and sustenance from other than itself: it is its own source]. Though this power is specifically expressed through the creation of a physical being¹, nevertheless, eliciting this power of Essence into an independent being comes only through the Light, “the Light is that which mediates between True Being and created being. Thus, through the mediation of the Light, the power of Essence is enabled to bring about the existence of a ‘thing’ from complete and utter nothingness.” (Ma’amar “Yechayenu” 5694, ch. 14 [Sefer HaMa'amorim 5711 p. 391]; see also Iggeres HaKodesh Sect. XX.)

Similarly in the individual’s service: though the manifestation of Essence comes through the fulfillment of the mitzvos of action, nevertheless the manner of drawing the Essence into the performance of mitzvos is only through the inner powers: Intellect and Emotions. (See Likutei Sichos 111, p. 956, that for this reason Love and Fear are called “the paths of G-d”. Examine there further in detail.)

A more detailed explanation here (and in the whole sicha).
____________________
¹ In the above-mentioned sicho, the Rebbe says:

Regarding da’as

Everyone knows that tiferes is a combination of chessed and gevurah. Chessed wants to give infinite amount of goodness; gevurah wants to give nothing. Chessed wants to reward; gevurah wants to punish. Chessed is kindness; gevurah is severity. Convincing a drunk Israeli who is behaving like a beheima that he should go home to his wife (and then walking him home) is chessed. Punching him out and calling his wife to come collect her husband is gevurah.

Now, tiferes is the combination of the two. It’s not red; it’s not white; it’s a garment with stripes of red and white. It is a midda that successfully combines both emotions. That is why on the kabbalistic representation of the spheros, it’s in the middle — it’s a combination of right (chessed) and left (gevurah).

Now, da’as is also in the middle, and in the Chabad’s version of the tree of 10 spheros, it’s preceded by two spheros: chochma and bina. I always wondered whether the same way that tiferes is a combination of chesed and gevurah, da’as is somehow a combination of chochma and bina. Based on their traditional explanation, it’s hard to see how this is the case. Chochma (“the father”) is the beginning of a thought, its pure knowledge without explanation of the details. Bina (“the mother”) is a development of the thought to the point of understanding its details. Da’as (“the child”) is the connection of the thought to emotions, to reality — it’s the “care” about the thought.

Reading Mitteler Rebbe’s biography today, however, I saw the following:

Author’s Note: I read in In di Getzalt fuhn Chabad, written by a son of one of the Tzemach Tzedek’s chassidim, that chassidim say that Alter Rebbe once said: “My brother the Maharil writes exactly as I say it. My son [Mitteler Rebbe] writes it as I mean it, and my grandson [Tzemach Tzedek] writes it as I say it and as I mean it. This, in essence, is Daas; a combination of Chochma and Binah together.”

What do you have in your hand?

A few weeks ago, my rabbi talked about a story he read in one journal about a Rosh-yeshiva who always had some dirt in his pocket to remind him where he came from and where he is going to.

A couple thoughts regarding this:

1. That’s wonderful. Oftentimes we get so fixated on the personalities of the gedoilim, tzaddikim and rebbeim that we forget that their greatest achievement was to be battul to Eibeshter. (And don’t make a mistake now. We are takeh gürnischt. They were ayin.)

2. There is a picture (which I couldn’t find unfortunately) of the Rebbe walking out of 770 on the way to his car. He is holding something in his hand. It’s not dirt. It’s coins for the little children to put in tzedakah.

Your avoidah is important. But there is something else besides your personal growth in Yiddishkeit, in your learning, observience of mitzvos, davening, middois. There is the goal. “עלה במח' ורצון הפשוט: אנא אמלוך” — “It arose in His simple though and desire: I will be King”.

Our goal is make it happen.