A Condensation of "Da'at Tevunot" (Part 2)

A CONDENSATION OF RABBI MOSHE CHAIM LUZZATTO'S "DA'AT TEVUNOT"
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Part Two: The Revelation of G-d's "Yichud" as the Basis of Creation

1. The first point to grasp before we can delve into what enables us to perfect ourselves is this: We're taught that G-d utilized and manifested just a fragment of His Being to create the cosmos. (Consider the ramifications of that, in light of the fecund and stunning makeup of the cosmos en toto, and you can't help but be stunned by the thought of His full reach!) There's much more to be said about that, but it will come later on. For now, though, we'll concentrate on that aspect of Himself that G-d *does* manifest here.

2. In fact He manifests many, many qualities here, but the one that best defines His role in the cosmos -- and the only one we can grasp -- is what's known as His "Yichud" (related to the Hebrew term for "*one*"), which we'll soon define. In fact, the whole thrust of the comments made about G-d in the Torah and by the prophets was to explicate and illustrate His Yichud!

3. G-d's Yichud will prove to be a many-layered and labyrinthine phenomenon, but suffice it to say for now that on one level, G-d's Yichud refers to His being the *one and only* ("echad") indispensable Entity in the cosmos, and on another it alludes to His *singular and unique* ("m'yuchad") utter sovereignty. And it will also prove to be the one trait upon which all His others hinge.

4. But we tend to deny G-d's utter sovereignty and take five different stances that oppose it. (The significance of some of these might not strike us at first, but they'll become clear.)

5. First, some people believe that G-d is too lofty to care about and govern the world, so He has appointed celestial administrators, and that it's *they* we should worship. Others contend that there are two distinct deities, one of whom is responsible for good and the other for bad. Others believe that either the laws of nature or destiny prevail over everything. Others think that G-d has rejected the Jewish Nation because of their sins, and has chosen another one instead. And some others maintain that anyone with the right mystical know-how can impede upon G-d's wishes. But a full grasp of the implications of G-d's Yichud would easily dispel all of those delusions.

5. For the truth of the matter is that no person, entity, or thing could ever abrogate G-d's supreme sovereignty -- even by using the elements that He Himself set up to hold sway. His rule is supreme and absolute. And that will all become manifestly clear in the end.

6. In fact we're taught that the reality and revelation of G-d's Yichud is the axis around which the events of the cosmos play themselves out, and that the most essential role reality serves is as a stage for that revelation!

7. We'll find that our personal flaws and their undoing likewise hinge upon the revelation of G-d's Yichud (to return to our question at #1). For *all* flaws -- ours and the universe's own -- are rooted in G-d's full dominion being blurry at best and deniable at worst, and all perfection derives from its revelation.

8. After all, the thinking goes, wouldn't a perfect and all-powerful G-d be expected to have created a perfect universe; and doesn't an imperfect universe indicate either that G-d isn't perfect and all-powerful or that His perfection and dominion is hidden (or somehow shut-off)?

9. So we'll be focusing a great deal on G-d's Yichud and seeing what its revelation would entail throughout this book. For now it's important to know that it's His one trait that we can discuss (see #2 above), for whatever else we can say about Him can't really be explained and will prove to be an element of His Yichud at bottom anyway (see #3 above).

10. How do we depict His knowledge or His existence, for example, which are utterly out of our experience and like nothing we know of? Yet we can understand G-d's sovereignty, since it comes down to finding instances where it seems *not* to be in play and then discovering how it really *is*. And besides, G-d's other traits only come into play when He interacts with the cosmos, and He only does that in order to illustrate His Yichud (see #6 above)!

11. Indeed, that directly touches upon the imperfect nature of the universe. For the fact that it's imperfect is *the* instance par excellence of G-d's dominion seeming not to be at play.

12. So we're taught that G-d created imperfection and all wrongdoing for two reasons: to allow us the wherewithal to perfect ourselves and the universe at large despite it, and in order for it to eventually be undone and to prove *in retrospect* that G-d's dominion held sway even when imperfection and wrongdoing existed!

13. Another point to be made is that G-d purposefully created a relativistic, linear, time-bound universe (see #1 above) so as to enable us to grasp it and His plans for it to some degree. (For if He'd created it full-throttle and based on His full capacity, not only would we not have been able to endure that reality -- we likewise wouldn't be able to grasp it, and G-d thus couldn't reveal His Yichud to us).

14. The mechanism G-d used to allow for imperfection and wrongdoing (as well as for the creation of our relativistic universe) is known as "Hester Panim" (The Concealing of the Divine Visage). The implication of that is that G-d has "turned His Face from us" so as not to stun us with His Glory, and to allow us to act on our own and exist in the world (the way parents would allow their children the emotional "space" to be themselves while continuing to pay the bills).

15. We *reveal* the Divine Visage (a phenomenon known as "Ha'arit Panim") when we follow the mitzvah system and thusby allow G-d's dominion to have sway in our beings, which then enables us to undo our flaws. But know that the Divine Visage will be revealed in the end (see #'s 6, 7) one way or the other. Those who don't follow the mitzvah system will have to suffer the consequences of not actively participating in the process or they will have repented and come to serve G-d after all, *but one way or the other, everyone will experience "Ha'arit Panim" in the end*.

16. Full and unabated "Ha'arit Panim" will come about in The World to Come, when all imperfections and wrongdoing -- as well as free will (a temporary concession to our need to perfect ourselves by ourselves) -- will be undone.

17. But note the following irony: the stronger imperfection and wrongdoing get in the process of time, the greater will be the case for the reality of G-d's full dominion in the end. For imperfection and wrongdoing's initial strength and doggedness *followed by its undoing* will prove it to have been feckless and meaningless from the start (much the way a heckler would prove to have been weak and ineffective once he backs off in the face of criticism).

18. Another point to be made is that if we only merited it, imperfection and wrongdoing wouldn't have to become strong for G-d's full dominion to be revealed, and we wouldn't have to endure the havoc and anguish born of imperfection and wrongdoing. In fact, G-d's dominion would have manifested itself from the start had Adam and Eve not succumbed to temptation in the Garden. But their having done so made it necessary for the lengthy and formidable process of "Hester Panim" and eventual "Ha'arit Panim". And our having followed through on their error all this time has only served to prolong the process.

19. One again though, we're assured that G-d's full dominion *will* be revealed in the end.

20. So at bottom reality falls into two epochs of time: "Hester Panim", when we work at perfecting ourselves and the imperfect universe at large; and "Ha'arit Panim", when we reap the rewards of our efforts.

21. One more point, to be expanded on later, before we explicate "Hester Panim". Recall that we said (Part 1, #6) that G-d's Essence is far beyond our grasp but that we can understand something about Him by the way He set out to interface with reality. What we'll determine is that the traits He exhibits here actually allow us to grasp something of His Essence. Nevertheless, even those traits can only be grasped in light of what they bring about. So while we can catch sight of *instances* of G-d's compassion, we could nonetheless never grasp His compassion unto itself (much the way we can only fathom Moses' greatness and holiness in light of his accomplishments rather than in and of itself).

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

A Condensation of "Da'at Tevunot" (Part 1)

A CONDENSATION OF RABBI MOSHE CHAIM LUZZATTO'S "DA'AT TEVUNOT"
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Part One: G-d Wants Man to Perfect Himself In Order to Enjoy His Beneficence

1. We're taught that G-d founded the universe upon justice, goodness, and design (see Deuteronomy 32:4). But our experience seems to contradict that, so in order to convince of us of it, we'd need to backtrack and understand a number of things about ourselves and the world that would explain how it's true -- and why we don't perceive it as being so.

2. What we'll delve into then is our makeup (which won't be explained until later on), what's expected of us (see #3 below), and our raison d'etre (see #10 below).

3. What's expected of us, at bottom, is to perfect ourselves along and the entire universe.

4. But why would we have to do that? In order to answer that, we'd first have to determine why G-d created us in the first place, but we can only explain that after first defining G-d.

5. So in sequence:
a) we'll start off by defining G-d (#6 below),
b) we'll then uncover why He created us (#7 below), and we'll go on from there to explain
c) what we're expected to perfect about ourselves (#10 below).

6. The truth of the matter is that we *can't* define G-d -- as He is in His Essence, at least -- since we can't begin to fathom that. But what we *can* grasp to some degree is how He presents Himself in the universe and interacts with us, since that's clarified by the Torah and the Tradition. Hence, G-d is defined as the ultimate beneficent Being (since He gives all and needs nothing in return).

7. Now, since a beneficent Being like Himself would only be expected to have others whom He could benefit, He'd thus "need" to create such beings (suffice it to say that G-d "needs" nothing, but that's beyond this short treatment). Thus, the reason why G-d created us was so that we might enjoy His largesse.

8. And yet in order for His creations to enjoy His beneficence and not be "embarrassed" -- i.e., compromised -- by that, they'd somehow need to *earn* what they receive. So, we're expected to serve Him and to thus perfect ourselves in the process of our own volition in order to truly enjoy His beneficence.

9. But, what's imperfect or flawed about us in the first place, and what kind of perfection are we capable of achieving?

10. What human perfection comes to, essentially, is the ability to adhere onto G-d's Presence and to come to know Him; and what's imperfect about us which we're expected to rectify are the flaws that isolate us from Him. So, our raison d'etre is to indeed adhere onto G-d's presence and to know Him.

11. Next it's important to realize that G-d *purposely* didn't create a perfect universe -- just so that we could perfect ourselves and thus benefit from His beneficence.

12. But, what it is it that enables us to perfect ourselves in the first place? We'll come back to that after having first touched upon a number of points.


(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".


***************************************************************
***************************************************************

A Condensation of Tanya (Part 3)

A CONDENSATION OF RABBI SHNEUR ZALMAN'S "TANYA"
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman
_______________________________________________

PART THREE: Ch's 16-25

1. This section harkens back to Tanya's "motto" which was cited in its introduction -- the statement that “the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart-- so that you can do (i.e., accomplish) it” (Deuteronomy 30:14). It also helps explain the statement made on the work's frontispiece that Tanya will address a “longer” and a “shorter” way of drawing close to G-d. And it comes here because we're now at the point where we can discuss spiritual growth, after having come to know just who we are, where we stand, and what we're capable of being.

2. The "longer" way is offered in Ch.’s 16-17 (which speaks of reflecting lovingly and reverently upon G-d’s infinite and boundless greatness, and of fulfilling mitzvot and studying Torah fervently), while the "shorter" way is offered in Ch.’s 18-25 (which speaks of depending upon the “love that's sequestered in every single Jew's heart”).

3. Let it be said that while RSZ directly addresses the benoni per se in this section when he offers his advice, we'll be expressing his ideas as if he were adressing each one of us (by speaking of "you" and "us" rather than "the benoni", as is done in the text itself), since we're each bidden to be a benoni.

4. First, we're counseled to be those "serving G-d" (in the present-continuous case) by *always* battling the influence of our animalistic spirit. But then we're advised that the only way to truly succeed at that is with G-d's help (for otherwise it's frankly *impossible*), which we accomplish when G-d irradiates His light upon our G-dly spirit.

5. The only way we manage to merit that happening, though, is by reflecting deeply and profoundly upon the greatness of G-d's essence, which then fosters great awe (on an intellectual level), as well as so great a degree of love for Him (on a deeply emotional, even visceral level) that our hearts flare with that love and awe, and want nothing more than to attach itself on to Him.

6. Nonetheless, even if you don't manage to foster so great a degree of love for G-d, you can always draw from the sort of native love for Him that each one of us has as an inheritance from our forefathers (the aforementioned “love that's sequestered in every single Jew's heart”). That sort of love alone is capable of convincing us on a subliminal level -- if not more manifestly -- that it's indeed fitting to "nullify our beings" (i.e., dedicate ourselves utterly) to Him by engaging in Torah and mitzvot and thus cling on to Him.

7. It's important to know, though, that while this sort of native love isn't potent enough on its own accord to have you abandon your more mundane desires and to love G-d instead, it does nonetheless inspire us to do fulfill mitzvot. In fact, that was alluded to in the statement that “the matter is very near-at-hand to you -- in your mouth and in your heart-- *so that you can do it*”.

8. In fact, the native love is fairly easy to implement. All one has to do is reflect upon G-d's Being (which of course requires one to first study the sort of Torah literature that addresses that -- most especially Kabbalah and Chassidut, for the subject isn't accessible without that background).

9. That then is the "shorter", more accessible way to draw close to G-d. For even if you can't form an intellectual love of G-d you can still easily draw upon you native love. All you have to do (after having fulfilled #8's requirements) is remind yourself that you're a Jew and it will well up within you -- when you want that to happen, of course.

10. The reason why this native love is so accessible is because it's rooted in the source of each and every Jew's soul, which is deeper and more transcendent than one's mind, and hence can be tapped into even by those of us who aren't intellectually gifted. It thus also accounts for the sort of faithful, non-rational transcendence that some of our less educated but devoted ancestors exhibited when they were willing to succumb to execution rather than convert to another religion. (Note: the truth be known, this sort of self-sacrifice is inconceivable in contemporary Jewish society, it's anathema! The closest parallel to it today is the out-and-out adamant, some would say "irrational" aversion most Jews have toward Christian religious ideas and values, despite the social pressures to be accepting of everything and everyone. Many, many Jews will forthrightly and proudly reject it -- in fact to the point of social self-sacrifice and ostracism. So, while it could be said that many of us don't know what we are as Jews -- we know what we're *not*!)

11. But that raises a bona fide question. Why do we sometimes lapse into sin and thus sever our relationship to G-d (Heaven forfend!) when we're willing to sacrifice our very lives to avoid that? As RSZ explains it, that's because our native love is in "exile" in our beings when we're faced with a sin, it's covered-over by the yetzer harah and the husks, and confronted by the "spirit of foolishness" that overcomes us. The latter has us rationalize us that we're still-and-all "good Jews" despite our sins, which is easy to accept on a quasi-rational level. But when one's faith is tested on an intense level, and "push comes to shove", then our native love asserts itself, since we're simply not willing to go *that* far.

12. Now, while no one can deny the cunning of the "spirit of foolishness", it can be overridden, though, by reflecting upon the following three things.

13. First, on the utter and absolute transcendence of G-d's Being. After all, He existed before creation and always will exist, and He has been utterly unaffected by it; and so everything is as nothing in His awesome and overarching absolute Presence. A stunning and full realization of that can overturn nearly everything.

14. Second, we're to reflect upon how deeply our sins affect our relationship to G-d. For when we sin, His Countenance is hidden from us, forcing us to face the hindmost aspect of holiness instead; and we diminish G-d's utter and absolute dominion (His "Yichud").

15. And third, on the fact that G-d's very Being itself shines upon our souls when we fulfill His mitzvot.

16. Thus, we're able to draw upon the native love and to quash the "spirit of foolishness" (and thus avoid sin) by reflecting deeply and cogently upon these three themes, and by keeping the importance of mitzvot and the threat of sins in mind. And that's "the matter (that) is very near-at-hand to you", since nearly all you have to do to draw close to G-d whenever you're faced with sin is to rekindle your native love of Him this way.

17. But you'd also have to trigger your inborn willingness to nullify your wishes to G-d's own (termed, "mesirat nephesh", which while usually understood as "self-sacrifice" and in terms of being willing to give up one's life rather than convert, as spoken of in #10 above, can also apply on a more day-to-day, less intense level of nullify your wishes to G-d's).

18. In fact, that explains why we were commanded to recite the Sh'ma Yisrael -- in which we declare G-d's utter dominion and reaffirm our faith in it, and we take the "yoke of Heaven" upon ourselves in a spirit of mesirat nephesh -- twice each day. For by doing that we remind ourselves of all this and are more easily able to resist temptation.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

A Condensation of Tanya (Part 2)

A CONDENSATION OF RABBI SHNEUR ZALMAN'S "TANYA"
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman
_______________________________________________

PART TWO: Ch's 9 - 15

1. The first thing we'd need to know in our analysis of the workings of our two spirits is the following: Each one has a site in the body from which it emanates and affects. The G-dly spirit emanates from our brain for the most part and affects our heart as well as the rest of our body; while the animalistic spirit emanates from our heart for the most part, from which it effects our brain and thoughts as well as our body. We'll use that information later on to learn how to channel our drives under whatever circumstances we'll face.

2. The next dynamic to know is that the two spirits compete with each other like two benevolent kings vying for the loyalty of a great city-state, in that both spirits want to hold sway over the city-state that comprises our beings, and each has our own best interests in mind (yes -- even the animalistic spirit, since it too is ultimately and inwardly "on our side", for it also serves G-d's ultimate end, which is that we each thrive spiritually).

3. That's then explained in greater detail. We're taught that the whole of the G-dly spirit's being -- its ten mind and heart elements, as well as any Torah-based thoughts, utterances, or actions we might engage in thanks to it -- is a means of attaining holiness. For one thing, its mind elements are an expression of G-d's own wisdom and understanding. Hence, we're able to make use of them to dwell upon G-d's greatness and upon other matters that bring us to love Him (which is a *vitally* important theme in Tanya).

4. The animalistic spirit, on the other hand, which is the source of our vitality as well as all our wrongful traits, encourages us to do harm.

5. In any event, it's "the side we take" in the competition above that designates our spiritual, ethical status.

6. Now, some of us are righteous ("tzaddikim"), some wrongful ("rashaim"), and some of us fall into the category of the "benoni", which we'll soon elucidate. Each category has its subdivisions with real and nuanced differences, as we'll now lay out.

7. An utter tzaddik isn't someone who merely avoids acting out on his animalistic spirit (for even the rest of us are bidden to do that). He has utterly transposed his animalistic spirit to goodness, thanks to his utter and thoroughly transcendent love of G-d. A less-then-perfect tzaddik, on the other hand, is an individual who has indeed subdued his animalistic spirit and proved victorious in the face of it, who nonetheless hasn't *transposed* it.

8. A rasha, on the other hand, isn't simply an inveterate sinner as we might think. (In fact, thinking that he is makes it easier for us to imagine that the great majority of us who aren't wicked, cruel, or decadent couldn't ever be considered a rasha, which simply isn't so.) For there are various types of rasha.

9. An utter rasha ("rasha v'rah lo") is submerged in wrongdoing and never regrets having sinned or repents. And a less-than-utter rasha ("rasha v'tov lo") can go from the rather low end of wrongfulness to the more extreme one.

10. A relatively "decent" rasha -- who'd be on the lower end of wrongfulness -- is someone who hadn't subdued his untoward urges, but only sins from time to time by either saying, thinking, or doing something less-than-heinous or seriously forbidden; and he repents of those sins after the fact. An "indecent" rasha -- someone who'd border on utter wrongfulness -- is a person who's wrongfulness had gotten the upper hand more often than not, so he'd often say, think, or do heinous and seriously forbidden things. And though he might be moved to repent at the time, he still-and-all can't not sin.

11. Now on to the last category, the "benoni". RSZ defines a benoni as someone "who never has and never will sin", to our great surprise. Apparently a benoni isn't somewhere in-between a rasha and a tzaddik as he's classically understood to be. Instead, he's somewhere in-between a "decent" rasha and a less-then-utter tzaddik. He doesn't lapse into sin as a rasha does, but he also hasn't transposed his untoward urges.

12. The benoni is pulled by both his G-dly and his animalistic spirits, and senses himself to be in the thick of a mighty battle between the two. Yet he doesn't acquiesce to sin. Still-and-all, though, he can never be sure he'll always be victorious (other than when he's reciting the "Shema" and "Sh'mone Esrei" prayers, which will prove to be rich and auspicious opportunities for closeness to G-d).

13. Yet no matter how mighty and elevated a level of spiritual achievement that seems to be, we're assured that *each one of us* is capable of being a benoni -- though not a tzaddik. And that we can do it despite our current station, and notwithstanding everything that distract us from it.

14. There'll prove to be a plethora of subtle variances between one person's benoni status and another's, to be sure; a world of roles each can play in the here-and-now; and a vast array of options for growth for each one, which will be laid out.

15. At bottom, though, we're to know that the struggle itself for self-mastery is precious in G-d's eyes; hence the greater the challenge and subsequent victory, the more abundant the reward.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

A Condensation of Tanya (Part 1)

A CONDENSATION OF RABBI SHNEUR ZALMAN'S "TANYA"
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman
_______________________________________________

PART ONE: Introduction through Ch. 8

1. This first section begins by introducing the idea that while some of us Jews are utterly wrongful by nature and others of us are fully righteous, the great preponderance of us are somewhere in between. And it behooves us each to know just where we stand on that continuum. Before we can do that, though, we'll have to understand our spiritual makeup.

2. RSZ's first insight for us into that is his statement that we're each comprised of two "predilections" or spirits: one toward rank animalism and another toward pure G-dliness.

3. The G-dly spirit, we're taught, is a veritable portion of G-d and it's comprised of ten elements in all: three “mind" elements and seven “heart" elements. There are three "garments" connected with it, too: our thoughts, speech, and actions. We learn that our G-dly spirit is elevated when its garments are used to fulfill mitzvot; that our mind is united with G-d's very will and wisdom when we study Torah; and that our hearts come into play when we infuse the love and fear of G-d into that.

4. Our animalistic spirit is also comprised of ten mind and heart elements and three garments. But it's *derived* from the four "husks" and the "other side" rather than directly from G-dliness. The four husks that it's derived from are actually comprised of two subsets, though: three utterly impure husks and a single "luminous” one that straddles the border between holiness and unholiness.

5. Now, since the luminous element of our animalistic spirit can function in either holiness or unholiness and we have it within us to determine which one it will, it stands to reason that there'll be times when we lapse into unholiness (since we nearly all fall sway to the animalistic spirit's urgings). So, how do we rectify things when we do? And what's the difference between what we do when we lapse into outright unholiness and when we succumb to more subtly wrongful things, like partaking of perfectly acceptable things to excess?

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

An Aside

Now that I've caught us up on my translation of and comments upon R' Ashlag's work, I'll continue offering that section-by-section and add ongoing condensations of Tanya and Da'at Tevunot, as I said I would in my introduction.

-- Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(always feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org)

R' Ashlag Ch. 7

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________________

Chapter 7

1.

"Now that we know that, we can begin to fully and clearly explain our second inquiry."

-- That is, now we can finally understand what it is that wasn’t found in Him originally but was created by Him out of sheer nothingness.

"For we’ve determined that there’s in fact a phenomenon that’s clearly not a part of G-d’s essence, which can thus be said to have been created utterly anew rather than out of anything else."

-- That’s to say that since G-d doesn't need anything it follows that the need to derive pleasure is clearly something extrinsic to Him and thus utterly original. So it must play a unique and purposeful role in creation. And besides, ...

"Now that we know for certain that G-d’s intent when He created the world was to bestow pleasure upon His creatures, it’s clear that He necessarily had to have created a willingness to accept all the pleasure and goodness He’d planned for them. Thus it’s the willingness to accept (all that) that wasn’t a part of G-d’s essence before He placed it in our souls. After all, from whom could He receive?"

-- ... and what could He be lacking?

"So He did indeed create something anew that wasn’t part of His Being."

2.

"In light of His intent when He created the world we can now understand that there was no need to create anything other than that willingness to accept things. For it’s all He needed to (create in order to) fulfill His intent to create the world, which was to bestow us with favors."

-- We've only alluded to it till this point but we'll now expand upon our willingness to accept things, since it's a major theme in R' Ashlag's system. It's termed the "ratzon l'kabel" in Hebrew and it can be translated as our willingness, wish, or intent to accept, receive, or take things. At bottom it comes down to our tendency to catch rather than throw, eat rather than cook.

-- But don't make the mistake of thinking that it's fully and exclusively a symptom of our spoiled or self-centered nature, for it goes far deeper. In fact, sometimes it's a rather healthy need at that. Consider inhalation and exhalation. I just naturally will, wish, and intend to accept, receive, or take in oxygen all the time; and I only "give it back" when I exhale in order to be able to inhale again -- or so it seems. But as every schoolchild knows, when I exhale I proffer carbon dioxide into the air which in fact feeds. And besides, if I didn't inhale, I'd die. I likewise ingest food for seemingly selfish reasons, but I'd also die if I didn't (and the body's waste matter is also useful). The list goes on and on.

-- Still and all, though, our wish to take-in rather than give-out *is* selfish and self-serving for the most part. For as we all know, while immaturity and crudeness are marked by selfishness (by an utter exploitation of the ratzon l'kabel), maturity and refinement are marked by self*less*ness. And we're called upon to transcend the ratzon l'kabel in ways we'll discuss later on.

-- In fact, it's the ratzon l'kabel that sets us apart from G-d, who needs nothing and grants everything (as we pointed out). That having been said, though, it's still true that G-d purposefully created the ratzon l'kabel, so it must fulfill a role in His plans. In fact it does, and a supremely high one at that: it serves as the medium through which G-d's intention to bestow us with favors plays itself out. After all, if I didn't want to take, then my Benefactor couldn't effectively give (see 6:2).

3.

"Nonetheless the complete fulfillment of His intentions for the world -- which is to say, all the goodness He had in mind for us -- originated directly from His essence. So He (really) didn’t need to create it anew (or, 're-create' it), since it originated in something that already existed and became the great willingness to accept things that dwells within us (literally, 'in our souls')."

-- His point is that since all we tend to do (with exception) is take-in and all G-d does indeed do is give-out, it necessarily follows that our urge to take-in is the only thing G-d created outright, out of the blue, which is apart from Him. For everything else comes directly from Him and is a manifestation of His will to give-out -- a purposeful "prop" for G-d's wish to bestow us with favors.

"Thus it becomes absolutely clear that all of creation, from start to finish, is nothing other than (the creation of) the ratzon l'kabel."

-- R’ Ashlag has thus satisfied both his first and second inquiries (see 2:2,3) which in short were, how could there ever be a completely original creation apart from G-d’s Being, and just what is it? The ratzon l'kabel is that thing, and it was purposefully created by G-d to be separate from Him so as to allow us to enjoy His beneficence.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

R' Ashlag Ch. 6

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________________

Chapter 6

1.

"Now, our sages have already taught us (Etz Chaim, 'Sha'ar HaKlallim', Ch. 1) that the only reason G-d created the world was to grant pleasure to His creations. Hence, that’s what we should be focusing all of our attention and our thoughts upon, since it’s the ultimate aim and function of creation."

-- The holy Ari (whose work R' Ashlag cites as his source) revealed that we were created to enjoy life. Now, while everyone intuits that should be so and would like it to be, reality seems to quash the notion. For as every mature soul knows only too well, there's a lot of agony and anguish in the world (see 1:5). Yet the human heart somehow retains the idea that life, a gift outright at bottom, should be good, and the Ari affirms that.

-- Just understand, though, that while some people are happy traveling and exploring, others are only happy when they're left alone to eat and play board-games. And realize too that a truly sweet and transcendent moment for someone mortally ill might be one in which he's pain-free and not ravaged by mortal fears; or when his body is still, and he's simply able to breathe in, out, and again. So while R' Ashlag is indeed declaring outright that we were meant to be happy and well-pleased with life, he'll soon-enough depict the sort of true happiness he's referring to.

-- But don't think he's about to tell us that true happiness can only be found in dark, dry bread and tepid water; because he won't. What he’ll indeed come to do in the end, though, is reveal what true bliss and satisfaction is all about.

-- Now, since pleasure and delight is the point of it all at bottom, it follows then that that's what our attention should be focused on. And indeed it is, the truth be known, and many are fully aware of that and act on it. Yet others of a more ascetic bent deny it and claim that the only way to be satisfied and full is to be hungry and empty. Just understand, though, that even the latter want to be satisfied. It's just that their systems function other ways; and only subtler though still and all material things please them.

-- Don't think that R' Ashlag is advocating hedonism either, because he certainly isn't. As we'll see, he'll be advising us to enjoy life indeed, but with a particular end in mind that's rooted in fostering and maintaining an abiding relationship with G-d.

2.

"So we'll now reflect upon the following. Since G-d’s intention upon creating the universe was to grant His creatures pleasure, it only stands to reason that He created us with an enormous amount of desire to accept what He meant to grant us, inasmuch as the amount of pleasure and delight (a person can derive) depends on how much he wants it. For the greater the willingness to accept (something), the greater the pleasure (derived from it); while the lesser the willingness, the lesser the pleasure."

-- An example R' Ashlag brings is the different ways we drink water. He points out that we gulp it down when we're thirsty, and sip at it or want very little to do with it when we're not. So it's the wanting that makes all the difference. It then follows that we'd have to want what G-d would like us to have if we're to enjoy it; and since enjoying life is the goal, it's clear that He who made that the goal would also have implanted the desire for enjoyment and pleasure in us.

-- It's also clear that since the greatest pleasure we could derive comes from drawing close to G-d and adhering onto Him (as we'll see), there must be a great longing to do just that -- but we're getting ahead of ourselves. In any event it still follows that if G-d wanted us to be radiantly healthy for example (which He does), that He'd have instilled a longing for that in us (which He clearly has), etc.

3.

"It follows then that the intention behind creation itself would have seen to it that a vast enough amount of willingness to accept (things) would be created within us to accommodate the vast amount of pleasure that G-d Almighty thought to bestow upon us, since great delight and a great willingness to accept it go hand in hand."

-- The point is that G-d has not only granted us noble and beneficial desires, He has granted us a colossal array of desires of all stripes. For if He had only accorded us a limited number of desires, that would have restricted our capacity to enjoy, which would then have stymied His goal for us.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

R' Ashlag Ch. 5

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________________

Chapter 5.

1.

"So logic would only demand that we assume the very opposite of what appears (to be true) and declare that we’re truly good and noble creatures, and of inestimable worth -- as worthy as one would expect our Producer to have made."

-- How radical a theology this is: that at bottom mankind is just-so, and purposefully so! And that our having been created by G-d Almighty is proof of that! But what about all the manifest wrong and fraudulence out there, all the treachery and moral rot? The answer lies in the fact that ...

2.

"Whatever faults you may want to find in our bodies (i.e., in our physical, emotional, intellectual, ethical dispositions) can only be blamed on G-d no matter how you explain it, since it’s He who created us as we are. And it’s also clear that it’s He alone who created us, not we. He also knows all the consequences of our natures and of the “wrongful” attributes He implanted within us."

-- G-d is perfectly aware of all the wrong, having set it all in motion; and He's clearly mindful of the ramifications of our having been created the way we were. Our apprehension about all this, though, lies in our human provincialism, if you will (which G-d granted us, too, of course, and which thus also serves its purpose -- but we'll get to that later).

3.

"For as we said, we’d do best to look at the climax of events (rather than peer midcourse), for only then will we be able to understand it all. As the expression goes: 'Don’t show a fool a project that’s only half done'."

-- The mortals that we are, we miss the end of the story, and thus overlook the big picture. So we misread (and underestimate) the characters involved and can't imagine how well things will turn out in the end. That's not to deny our experience of evil and wrong, though, for there's a teeming world of it. It's just to trip-off the realization that while there will be chaos and ugliness as the work progresses, the painting itself will be effulgent and luminous in the end.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

R' Ashlag Ch. 4

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________________

Chapter 4.

1.

"The device we'll use to answer all these questions and inquiries is to look at the culmination of things, which is to say, at the ultimate goal of creation. Since we can only understand things once they're finished rather than while they're in process."

-- First off, only someone as boldly aware of the Divinity of his sources as R' Ashlag could ever claim to cite "the ultimate goal of creation". More importantly for our purposes, though, is the fact that we'd all do well to know that goal, since nothing gnaws more rancorously at our being than the dread thought that we -- and life itself -- are meaningless. Thus knowing the goal and meaning of life would be a great antidote for a lot of what ails us, and we'd be fortunate to know it.

-- Murder mysteries become more understandable when you read the end at the beginning, for example; and it's always easier to solve a maze by starting it at its conclusion. For knowing how things come out from the first helps explain its intentions and allows you to avoid pitfalls. R' Ashlag's point is that we can only truly understand life once we know the end from the beginning, too; and that not knowing it is what has us stumble.

-- (Should you object and say that knowing the end from the beginning takes all the fun out of reading mysteries and working at mazes you'd be right. Since the fun in both cases lies in your first experiencing, and then personally relieving the tension the work brings up. But the sort of existential and cosmic tension brought on by not knowing the meaning of life is too great to bear, and we ourselves aren't capable of relieving it -- we need someone of the caliber of R' Ashlag to do that for us. So his point is well taken.)

-- R' Ashlag goes on to depict the course of all things by stating what G-d had in mind when He created the cosmos. After all, He had to have had plans or an agenda, if you will, when He created and set everything in order, since ...

2.

"It’s clear that no one other than a madman does anything without a particular goal in mind."

-- ... that is, since utter extemporaneousness and abandon is either a product of a person of unsound mind or of an entity devoid of free will, and G-d is neither.

-- (Now, some might argue that art is a product of abandon and non-rationality. But the truth of the matter is that while the artistic process is impulsive and "mindless" or non-rational, the preparations and actual outcomes are anything but. For as any artist knows, a lot of thought goes into each moment of magic and quick genius.)

-- That having been said, R' Ashlag goes on to explain G-d's ways in the world.

3.

"I know that there are some irreligious and unbelieving scholars who acknowledge that G-d indeed created the world but who also claim that He then left it to its own devices. 'After all', they reason, 'His creations are so worthless that it wouldn't befit so exalted a Creator to keep watch over such as they with their trivial, sordid ways'".

-- Two points are being made here. First, that there are indeed those who acknowledge a Creator, who nonetheless deny His ongoing engagement with the world as L-rd. Which is to say that they accept the notion of a physical, chemical, and mathematical First Cause but they deny a purposeful G-d.

-- The second point is that if they'd somehow be persuaded to believe in G-d in theory they'd still and all think it absurd to believe we could engage with Him since (they'd argue) it would be beneath one such as He to interact with anyone such as we.

4.

"But the truth of the matter is that those scholars don’t know what they’re talking about. For it’s absurd to argue that we’re base and worthless without then arguing that we made ourselves that way."

-- In other words, if G-d indeed created us but then left us on our own as they'd first thought, then we obviously came to be who we are despite Him and on our own, not thanks to Him. Because He would have created us utterly neutral, and our "baseness" and "worthlessness" would have come about after the fact and of our own volition.

5.

"But when we argue (instead) that an utterly perfect Creator created and designed us -- and that He made us with both good and bad inclinations -- (then we’re forced to admit that such) a perfect producer wouldn't produce a shoddy and inferior product. After all, a product only reflects its producer, so an inferior garment couldn't be blamed for being so if a second-rate tailor made it."

-- Not only is G-d purposeful as we'd said, He's also utterly perfect by definition. Those two points underlie all of R' Ashlag's assumptions in this work, and all else follows from them.

-- Now, since G-d is perfect it thus follows that everything He does is done perfectly, just-so, and with His purpose in mind. It likewise follows that we, His creations, must be just-so, too. (We couldn't say we're perfect, because we're not; though we could say that we're prepared and even primed to be "perfect" when G-d's purpose is realized -- but that's far beyond the subject at hand).

-- In any event, anything about us that appears to be off and unbefitting a product of a perfect Creator must actually not be off, but just-so and in-process instead (the way sculptured works are before they're finished). It follows then that our "bad" inclinations must be purposeful, too, and that we really can't be blamed for them (though we can be blamed for not improving and perfecting ourselves as we're able and bidden to).

-- R' Ashlag now goes on to present a parable to that effect from the Talmud. He tells us to ...

6.

"Refer to the sages' story of Rabbi Eliezer who came upon a very ugly man to whom he said 'How ugly you are!' to which the ugly man replied, 'Just go and tell the Craftsman who formed me how ugly the vessel He made is!' (Ta’anit 20)."

-- The Talmud reports there that Rabbi Eliezer called the ugly man a "reika" (from the term "reik", empty) which would thus either be translated as "dunderhead" or "good-for-nothing". But it has been explained that the man was ugly both inside and out -- that he was coarse and vulgar (see Maharsha's comments), and that's why he was called reika, or "flawed" in this instance. Thus R' Ashlag's point is again that our failings are there by Divine will; so "just go and tell the Craftsman who formed me how ugly the vessel He made is!" if you think we're anything other than just-so.

7.

"Thus those scholars who claim that G-d abandoned us (after having created us) because it’s beneath Him to keep watch over such worthless and base creatures only divulge their own ignorance (by claiming that)."

"After all, could anyone ever imagine coming across someone purposefully setting out to create beings who'd be as tormented and tried their whole lives as we are, and who'd utterly abandon them and not even bother to look after them or help them besides? How loathsome and despicable a person he'd be! So how could we ever imagine such a thing of G-d?"

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

R' Ashlag Ch. 3

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________________

Ch. 3

1.

"Fourth, since the chariot of the other side and the husks is utterly and completely removed from G-d’s holiness -- then how could it ever have been culled from and created by Him, let alone allowed to go on?"

-- This calls for more extensive explanation since it assumes that we're aware of some fairly well-known Kabbalistic and otherwise Jewish concepts which we may not be. So we'll do what we can to spell them out.

-- The term "chariot" is obviously as old as the item itself, and it's cited over 150 times in Tanach. On one level it simply stands for a chariot per se, or any other vehicle. But on another level a chariot stands for the point at which a human being controls -- or is controlled by -- an animal in transit. Thus a chariot often represents the center of the lifelong struggle between body (the chariot's horse) and soul (its driver).

-- In the present instance, though, it stands for something else again -- the matrix, environment, or ground of the "other side" and "husks". And they stand for the same thing overall: the "side" of reality that's "other" than G-dly, and the hard "shell" of materiality overcovering the G-dly fruit that one would like to get to.

-- R' Ashlag depicts that universe as being "utterly and completely removed from G-d's holiness" which is to say completely opposite to Him.

-- Now, if that's so, then "how could it ever have been culled from and created by Him" since that's more or less analogous to a woman giving birth to a stone? And secondly, why would G-d accommodate something that seems to run counter to His whole Being and intentions?

2.

"Fifth, touching upon the resurrection of the dead, since the human body is so base that it's doomed to die and be buried from the outset, and since the Zohar says that the soul can't ascend to its place in the Garden of Eden until the body decomposes and disintegrates, then why would the body be resurrected anyway? Couldn't the Creator have delighted our souls without it?"

-- Some more definitions. We're taught that the Messiah ("Moshiach") will appear at a certain point in time and that all the deserving dead will be resurrected body and soul afterwards, and assume their place in the "World to Come" (the state of being which the universe will unfold into after all of the above). The "Garden of Eden" spoken of here isn't the one cited at the beginning of Genesis where Adam and Eve dwelt, but rather the numinous environment in which the soul alone dwells (and reaps its reward) after death and before the resurrection.

-- R' Ashlag's point is that it seems odd that the human body -- which is so seemingly un-G-dly and earthly that it's doomed to be buried and to decompose in the ground rather than go elsewhere to reap its reward (as the soul does) -- would be resurrected along with the soul later on, rather than be utterly forgotten and brushed aside. After all, the soul could just as easily delight in its place in the World to Come on its own!

3.

"Even more baffling is our sages’ statement that the dead are destined to be resurrected with all of their defects (in place) in order not to be mistaken for someone else, and that all those defects will be cured afterwards. For why would G-d care enough to first bring back someone’s defects and then cure him simply because he was mistaken for someone else?"

-- That's to say that we'd expect the body to be enjoy a new supernatural status once it comes back to life, yet we're taught that it will come back "warts and all" instead, and that only later will those "warts" be undone and the body elevated. Why? We're told it's so that everyone will know exactly whom they're seeing come back to life. But why would that matter?

4.

"And sixth, our sages say that man is the focal point of reality, that all the upper worlds as well as this corporeal world along with everything in it were created for him alone (Zohar, Tazreiah 40), and they even obliged us to believe that the world was created for our sake (Sanhedrin 37A). But, isn’t that strange? After all, why would G-d bother to create all that for man, who’s so insignificant and only occupies a hair’s-breadth worth of space in the universe -- to say nothing of (his insignificance when it comes to) the upper worlds, whose reaches are immeasurable! Why would G-d have troubled Himself to create all that for man’s sake? And besides -- what would man need all that for?"

-- R' Ashlag's last inquiry here focuses on our own centrality for a good reason. For if G-d Almighty could be said to be not only the Creator of all of reality but its "leading character" as well, then man is its sole supporting character (while everything else serves as stage-props and incidentals).

-- But in fact, considering how minute we are within the vast reaches of things, we seem on one level to be as awesomely consequential but overlookable as a sudden chink in a vast stopped dam; while on another to be as superfluous as a chink in a tumbler. So why fill the "stage" with so much else?

-- (Notice, by the way, that R' Ashlag cites mankind's minuteness much the way others do, but that while they use it to point out our essential insignificance, he uses it to underscore our splendid potency. Let this serve as a single example of our contention that the wise never dismiss facts that seem to deny their underlying beliefs -- they simply see them in other lights.)

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

R' Ashlag Ch. 2

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________________
Chapter 2

1.

"But we’d first have to explore a few things before we can solve all that, though we certainly won’t explore anything we’re not allowed to, like G-d’s very Essence, Heaven forfend! For “no thought can grasp His Essence whatsoever” (TIkkunei Zohar, Introduction), so we dare not think about or reflect upon that.

"But we will delve into the things we’re commanded to explore, like G-d’s actions. After all, the Torah charges each one of us to “know your father’s G-d and serve Him” (1 Chronicles 28:9); and as it’s said, “we know You from Your actions” (Shir HaYichud)."

-- R’ Ashlag now begins to answer his questions by stepping back a bit and laying out certain Kabbalistic principles beforehand.

-- Let it be said from the outset that there's G-d Himself, and G-d as He “presents” Himself in the world.

-- But make no mistake about it. That's not to say that there are different aspects of the one, sheer, complete, total, unalloyed, and indivisible G-d. Just that there's how He is Himself, and how He's experienced now that the world has been created (which changes the whole picture, since He's no longer unto Himself).

-- The point is that G-d doesn't present Himself -- appear -- in the world as He is per se since the world couldn't endure that. He appears here on a more subdued, we might even say “suppressed” level (the way geniuses present themselves when they interact with more ordinary people).

-- And while we're indeed encouraged and charged to know Him as He presents Himself in the world, which we can deduce from what He does here (the way you can deduce anyone's character by his or her actions), we're still-and-all forbidden to know Him Himself, i.e., His ultimate thoughts and motivations. For “no thought can” -- is able or allowed to -- “grasp His Essence whatsoever”.

-- So we'll explore G-d's ways in the world, from the moment it occurred to Him to create it and onward, but not before that.

2.

"So, our first inquiry would touch on this: How could anyone imagine a completely original creation -- something utterly new-sprung that hadn’t already been incorporated in His Being from the first -- when it’s obvious to any thinking person that everything was originally incorporated in His Being? After all, isn’t it apparent that a giver can only give what he himself already has?"

-- We’ll now address the first series of sub-questions (referred to in Chapter 1). Don't forget that these aren't reiterations of the five "underlying" questions we'd just presented. They're new conundrums we'd need to solve before we could go back to the original questions.

-- Just know that this is heady and deeply abstract stuff, so I'd advise you to be patient here and to allow yourself to luxuriate in it.

-- So, at the time it occurred to G-d to create the cosmos (which is our time-frame, don't forget) all that existed was G-d Himself and His idea to create it (other thoughts existed, too, but they're also out of our framework).

-- It follows then that the entirety that did eventually come about had to have been an utterly new and original phenomenon, rather than a derivation of or a variation on something else ongoing. It had to have "popped up" somehow "out of the blue", as we'd put it, unlike anything else (which means to say, unlike G-d Himself).

-- But, how can there be anything outside of or seperate from G-d -- that is, how could anything appear out of the blue in fact? For as R' Ashlag words it, "isn’t it apparent that a giver can only give what he himself already has?" So, how could anything other than He ever come about?

3.

"Second, if you posit that since He’s omnipotent, He could certainly have created something out of sheer nothingness, which is to say, something that didn’t already exist in His Being -- then what is this “thing” that we’d decided wasn’t found in Him originally but was created out of sheer nothingness?"

-- That is, if in fact the cosmos did come about out of sheer nothingness, as it could very well have, since G-d can do anything including just that -- then what does that say about the nature and makeup of the cosmos? It must be nearly as sublime and utterly inexplicable as G-d Himself in its perplexity and marvel.

-- The truth of that should strike us, by the way. After all, the "everything" that has come into being is utterly original and fresh; everything that we do, don't, can't, and won't know of is a thing (and non-thing) sprung from G-d's mind, while every "thing" else is either G-d Himself, or still in His mind.

-- We've raised questions up to now about our essential natures, about G-d, and about the cosmos at large. Now onto our souls (which we said aren't our essential natures, if you recall). Did they "pop-up out of the blue" too? What are they comprised of? R' Ashlag begins exploring that by first citing a fundamental Kabbalistic portrayal of the soul.

4.

"Third, the kabbalists say that the human soul is a “part of G-d”, with the only difference being that G-d is the "whole" while the soul is a "part" or “piece” of Him. And they equate the two to a rock hewn from a mountain, with the only difference between them being that one is the 'whole' and the other is a 'piece'"."

-- That's to say that the reason the human soul is the numinous, very otherwise, singular, and peculiar a phenomenon that it is, is because it's a "part of G-d".

-- First off, understand that we're not talking about the "battery-cell" that keeps the body alive when we refer to the soul; or about the human heart which is admittedly profoundly occult, forestial, and awash with mystery, but not the soul; or about the nearly equally numinous human mind either. Instead, we're referring to the immortal utterly non-physical "kernel" that lies both deep within and near-and-far outside our beings.

-- Each soul, we're told, is a particular detail in the perfect total makeup of G-d Himself.

-- Now, that's not to say that at bottom G-d is the sum-total of all souls, since He Himself can't be defined or limited in any way (as we said). What it means to say is that once G-d decided to create the cosmos, He allowed for the appearance of our souls as well. And they're each a part of Him, much the way each segment of a hologram is an independant example of the hologram itself.

-- But this point itself raises other questions.

5.

"Only now we’d need to explore the following. A stone that’s hewn from a mountain had to have been hewn by an ax made for the express purpose of separating it from the "whole". But could anyone ever imagine hewing a seperate “part” of G-d, i.e., a soul, which would then be considered a part of His very Essence?"

-- That is, how could G-d Almighty be divided into parts -- and what in the world could ever have actually done that?

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

R' Ashlag Ch. 1

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman
_______________________________________________

Chapter One

1.

"What I want to do in this work is clarify certain ostensibly simple things that everyone contends with and which a lot of ink has been spilt over trying to explain, which still-and-all haven’t been spelled out clearly or adequately enough."

-- R' Ashlag wrote a number of very technically exact and well-ordered works on the "nuts and bolts" of Kabbalah, with all the "laws of supernature" laid out plain. The most prominent of them is his Talmud Esser Sefirot (“A Study of the The Ten Sefirot”) which is an encyclopedic laying-out and explanation of the Ari’s writings; and there are several other shorter works, including his P’ticha L’Chochmat HaKaballah (“An Opening to the Science of Kabbalah”) and others.

---In point of fact, most people don't know that Kabbalah is a very technical subject of study that’s rooted in capturing the principles G-d used in creation, laying them out in order, then using that information to experience a sort of re-enactment of all that deep in one's being.

-- So there's a world (and more) of data to contend with, a wealth of principles to internalize, and a staggering amount of worldly and other-wordly interactions to explicate. But this short book doesn't touch on very much of that at all. Instead, it’s a philosophical work rooted in the experience of having gone through all the above already; and it tries to express that all in earthly, experiential terms.

--As such, R' Ashlag sets out here to solve things that have bothered thinking people for millennia, including the meaning of life, our role in the universe, our relationship to G-d, and the like.

-- He terms them "ostensibly simple" because we tend to think we know the answers already. And he says that "everyone contends with" all this (though most of us don't think we do) because both those steeped in religion and others think that the things they believe to be true do enough to explain the meaning of life on one level or another. But in truth, he adds, these questions "still-and-all haven't been spelled out clearly or adequately enough" and, as we'll find, he has an entirely different approach.

-- So we now come to R’ Ashlag’s questions. There are five in all. Understand, though, that these five questions are the work’s most basic, underlying ones. There’ll be others, too, but they’ll be secondary (and tertiary) to these. So we’ll need to be sure to follow the sequence.

-- We’ll find that often enough there’ll be an underlying question, a sub-question, then a sub-sub-question, which is followed by a sub-sub-answer, a sub-answer, then finally an underlying answer. And other points will be made in-between that will be dealt with, too. It may get confusing at times.

-- In any event, we’ll take each point on its own and do our best to “connect the dots”, but we'd all do well to not concentrate on the sequence itself so much as the points being made.

2.

"First of all, what are we essentially?"

-- There’s no question asked more often than this on one level or another both by each one of us about ourselves and by society at large about humankind.

-- We all know what we are basically. We’re this body, this mind, with these feelings, these opinions, this sense of truth, these experiences, etc. But those aren’t us our selves. They’re our “outright self” -- the combination of this and that with which we greet others, and which we take into consideration when we think about ourselves.

-- But don’t assume that R’ Ashlag is going to say that our souls are our essential self, as so many do. He’ll contend that we’re defined by some other phenomenon; and that while we do indeed have souls, we’re to know that they too are part of the “outright self” (albeit a deeper, more abstruse and subliminal, immortal aspect of it).

-- But now we turn to the rest of R’ Ashlag’s underlying questions, which touch on our place in the grand scheme of things, our stature, G-d’s intentions for the universe, the place of pain and suffering, and our relationship to G-d.

3.

"Second, what role do we play in the great course of events which we’re such minor players in?"

-- We’d only be expected to wonder where we fit in, once we know who we are at bottom, which was the gist of the first question. After all, given that G-d is all-powerful, all-knowing, purposeful (by definition), and well-intentioned too (as we’ll soon determine), it follows that everything and everyone must play some role or another in His creation. So, what role do we humans play?

-- Is it a major or a minor one? We’d imagine we’d only be expected to play a minor one, seeing how thick in the midst of so much matter and so many events and phenomena far more colossal and portentious than us, we seem to be.

4.

"Third, when we look at ourselves closely we get the sense that we’re somehow tainted and as lowly as can be, and yet (conversely) when we look at our Creator we can’t help but praise Him for how utterly exalted He is! But wouldn’t a perfect Creator’s creations be expected to be perfect themselves?"

-- And besides, we seem to be so base and garish at bottom, while G-d Almighty our Creator is so grand and sublime -- which then raises the question of why one such as He would create us as we are.

5.

"Fourth, logic would suggest that G-d is all-good and benevolent. So, how could He have purposefully created so many people who suffer and are tried their whole lives long? Wouldn’t an all-good Creator be expected to be benevolent -- if not at least less malevolent?"

-- G-d has no needs. After all, He's perfect, utterly self sufficient, independent of everything, and fully contained (by definition). Thus everything He does is for "the other". And since a being who does things only for "the other" is benevolent (again, by definition, since there’d be no need for him to harm the other, which is only a self-serving need), then why does G-d indeed allow so many of us to suffer? It seems so “out of character” for Him.

-- Understand the ramifications of this question, if you will.

-- Indeed, nothing lies deeper beneath the surface of human consciousness than the fact of suffering and the distinct possibility of sudden, virulent suffering at that. After all, who hasn’t heard of quick car accidents “out of the blue” that maimed their victims? Or of sudden gunshots rushing through windows and mangling chance targets?

-- There are two broad reactions to that fear overall, though. The first is based on a deep and primal conviction that no Divine Entity would ever allow such a thing to happen; so when it does, that proves that there’s no G-d.

-- And the second is based on the equally deep and primal conviction that nothing is as it appears to be (which, ironically, is confirmed by science everyday), and that while G-d’s ways are largely inexplicable, He still-and-all has our best interests in mind. Those who believe that draw comfort from the idea that when we suffer, we do so for some “good” reason. Yet they’re still thrown by their pain and misery, and left in an emotional -- if not a philosophical -- quandry.

-- So we’d need to understand the underpinnings of suffering in fact if we’re to be steadfast in our faith.

6.

"And fifth, how could finite, mortal, and ephemeral creatures (like us) ever derive from an Infinite Being who is without beginning or end?"

-- In other words, how did we manage to be products of an Almighty Creator who’s so unlike us, as we indicated.

-- Let’s begin to offer R’ Ashlag’s responses to these and other questions.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".


***************************************************************
***************************************************************

Prologue to R' Ashlag's Work

Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar"

-- as translated and commented on by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

_______________________________________________

First off let it be said that R' Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar" is an arcane and tightly bound work that's sometimes difficult to comprehend and chock full of allusions to his other works (which are far more fleshed out). So we'll present the text bit by bit here and comment on it based on our reading of those other works, as well as of other Torah sources.

Secondly, this work actually has very little to do with the Zohar per se, though of course it touches on ideas expressed or implied there. So "Introduction to the Zohar" is a misnomer. It's more like an introduction to R' Ashlag's thoughts. It's only given the title it has because it comes at the beginning of R' Ashlag's major work on the Zohar (“Peirush HaSulam”) and because there's other introductory material there. So this work would best be termed "One of Several Introductions to the Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag’s Edition of the Zohar", but that wouldn't do.

The work is comprised of 70 short, pithy chapters; we've taken the liberty of breaking them down into parts to make it easier to take hold of.

(c) 2004 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Get your own copy of Rabbi Feldman’s translation of “The Gates of Repentance” by logging onto http://www.aronson.com/jbookstore/ and typing in "The Gates of Repentance".
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has translated and commented upon "The Gates of Repentance", "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). And his new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available from Judaica Press.
His works are available in bookstores and in various locations on the Web.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled "Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal".

Introduction

My first site -- rabbiyaakovfeldman.blogspot.com -- doesn't function anymore for some technical reasons, so I'll start off again from here. This blog's layout is different, as is its tone, but much of the content will be the same.

I'll continue offering my treatment of Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag's "Introduction to the Zohar" again, as well as the series of condensations of Tanya and Da'at Tevunot I'd just begun.

What I'll do first is republish what I'd already offered from Rabbi Ashlag's work, chapter by chapter, until I get back to where I left off. And then I'll start the other works off again from the beginning.

Always feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org