405 —הסרת סתירה בין אחדות למציאות, השגחה פרטית, ומשלים בחסידות

B"H, Elul 5708.

To Balinitski. Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your questions:

Question A. The contradiction in understanding unity from the existence of worlds—seemingly this should be removed, explained, and clarified. It is similar to how in the Beis HaMikdash there was a place and beyond place together: the space of the Aron was not measured. Answer: Two points must be prefaced: (a) The fact that the space of the Aron was not measured is not a matter for explanation or clarification but only an example and proof for the possibility of two opposites at once. (b) Even as an example, this concept does not fit here as you propose. We can say there is place in reality, there is beyond place in reality, and both exist together in reality. This actually strengthens true faith because it shows that above is 'nimna hanimnaos' (the impossible is possible), as will be explained. But it is a contradiction in faith to say: there are worlds in reality and G‑d's unity in reality—before explaining that the existence of worlds does not imply duality (or at least stating so even if it cannot be intellectually explained). After clarifying this (that the existence of worlds is only a ray brought about by tzimtzum, which itself is not real compared to its source), there are no longer two opposites here and no need for the Aron example. In many places in Chassidus a proof is brought from the space of the Aron not being measured (and also from time and beyond time together—when Adam HaRishon saw all generations). There are three ways this concept appears: (a) When measuring the Aron itself you find its exact length; this is real according to Torah which commanded its dimensions. At that moment you know—not tangibly—that if you then measure the Kodesh HaKodashim you'll find ten cubits on each side. This shows how something can exist yet be nullified—yichud hatachton. There are many such examples; but this isn't the main point of 'the space of the Aron was not measured.' (b) When measuring Kodesh HaKodashim you find ten cubits on each side tangibly; you know that if you then measure the Aron you'll find its set size—this shows tangibly 'beyond place,' though you know it's still a place—yichud elyon (see Kuntres Etz Chaim ch. 2 summary). (c) When grasping both measurements at once—the measurements have equal force for him; this cannot be said about Adam HaRishon's vision since his seeing generations was with intellectual or spiritual sight—not like physical time's presence during his vision. This proves that 'nimna hanimnaos' can be grasped and not grasped simultaneously; impossibilities do not have fixed nature above (see Petach HaShaar to Imrei Binah ch. 6). Therefore this was specifically with the Aron—not with Adam HaRishon's vision—and this is what 'the space of the Aron was not measured' means.

It needn't be explained that these three types do not depend on which measurement comes first but rather on qualities and levels of contemplation—what comes more naturally or more newly to him. In some maamarim two types are brought together without distinguishing between them (e.g., V'Taher Libeinu on Chol HaMoed Sukkos; Vayehi Beshama Atzeres on Simchas Torah). The reason is that those maamarim do not go into details but explain generally (thus removing any apparent contradiction between maamarim regarding boundaries together).

Question B. Based on what was taught by the Baal Shem Tov—that Divine Providence applies even to straw or a leaf—is this only for plant life but not for mineral? The reason being that many souls reincarnate into plants but not into minerals? Answer: First, reincarnation does occur even into minerals as discussed at length in Shaar HaGilgulim introduction 22, Shaar HaMitzvos Parshas Eikev, etc.; so one cannot distinguish based on reincarnation alone. On the other hand, one cannot insist Providence applies to every plant because souls may reincarnate there since not every individual plant must contain a soul. If one says Providence over tzomeach and domem exists only because a soul may reincarnate there—and thus only when it affects mankind—then there's nothing novel about Baal Shem Tov's teaching since earlier authorities agreed Providence applies where it affects man (see end of Shomer Emunim etc.). What Baal Shem Tov revealed—and as known from Alter Rebbe's decisive proof from our Sages regarding 'the shalach bird and fish'—is that every detail even among tzomeach and domem has individual Providence for its own sake; our Sages judge each creature itself.

This should be made part of what Baal Shem Tov explained: "Forever Hashem Your word stands firm" applies to every detail of creation—since at every moment G‑d's word brings each detail into being just as during creation itself; thus there's never any room for chance. Just as believers don't attribute chance during creation itself—even for details among tzomeach or domem—the same applies at every moment since Baal Shem Tov taught they are created anew each instant from absolute nothingness.

Deeper still: All creation and all events throughout six thousand years arose in primordial thought—all are surveyed at once there; thus any event happening differently would mean a change above too! This primordial thought/will follows supreme intent precisely—not more nor less. Thus every event—even among domem—in all its details fulfills supreme intent by occurring exactly so (see V'Al Kein Yomru Hamashlim 5696 until now).

On the contrary—the only type of event where we sometimes don't know if it matches supreme intent are those involving mankind—especially Jews who have free choice to change their assigned role according to intent; whereas all other beings fulfill their Divinely assigned role precisely (see Iggeres HaKodesh sec. 25). The inner reason: true free choice originates above intent itself—Yisrael preceded Torah (see Likkutei Torah explanations).

Question C. If one can use "the map" parable regarding Zeir Anpin—even when explaining relationships between worlds? Answer: You did not clarify what practical difference this makes; every parable explains some aspects while others may show deficiency—one must specify which aspect he means when asking if it fits between worlds.

The map parable appears at Bereishis Rabbah's start regarding Torah ('an artisan builds only with blueprints...') and see also Zohar II p161b; it's cited regarding "He declares from beginning... her food/clothing" about Zeir Anpin called Torah relative to Essence (see Imrei Binah Shaar Kriyas Shema ch39/33 etc.), but details aren't analyzed there nor compared with other parables.

However Imrei Binah Shaar HaYichud ch12ff brings map along with three other parables about reshimu ('short repetition,' map, sign, hint); differences are discussed elsewhere (see BiYom Hashmini Atzeres 5670 etc.).

The conclusion: In maps all details exist—which teaches advantage—but it's always about something foreign—which teaches deficiency like sign/hint parables too. Thus between two worlds one can apply only first aspect—not second—for world Yetzirah isn't foreign relative to Beriah etc.; similarly even Atzilus vs Beriah themselves can't be called foreign except regarding light shining within them.

When BiYom Hashmini Atzeres says map fits Beriah—it means relative to reshimu-light but not Atzilus itself etc.; also BiYom Hashmini Atzeres says map is like a parable about something foreign but doesn't explain difference between them—they both contain all details yet true Torah parables descend from their subject while maps concern something entirely different.

Thus analogy between worlds fits best with mashal/nimshal structure—not map analogy.

Question D. Can we use as an explanation for G‑d's wondrousness over creation—the example that knowing two letters doesn't grant knowledge of an entire book written with them? Answer: Again you did not clarify what additional insight this mashal brings regarding G‑d's wondrousness over creation.

In nimshal—the worlds themselves are like letters which are their source; knowledge gained through "Lift up your eyes..." i.e., through creation/Seder Hishtalshelus—as Eitz Chaim says creation was so His greatness would be known—is like understanding intellect clothed within those letters used for creation; such knowledge exists and should exist.

Regarding G‑d Himself—the wondrousness goes deeper: speech compared to totality of speech compared to intellect etc.; if you mean His wondrousness even as Creator—that too is discussed in Tanya ch20 where levels higher than speech are counted—but always connected back to speech/source-of-will etc.

Chassidus explains three types of wondrousness: (a) Tanya describes nullification/wondrousness of creation relative to its source above—which relates to knowing unity after/before creation alike; (b) Likkutei Torah explains how Divinity creating worlds has no comparison even with lower aspects—as known "this isn't essence..." just as worlds relate to Torah which far surpasses them—here fits your mashal about two letters vs whole book; (c) Wondrousness relative to essence itself—not just as source/connection—even higher revelations don't compare—so too above.

The difference noted earlier—that wondrousness relative to Torah refers only to its external aspect since inner Torah precedes everything—is such that even one letter/whole concept analogy doesn't apply here—as seen throughout Chassidic discourses discussing David calling Psalms 'songs.'

Summary

This letter clarifies deep questions about unity versus existence, universal Divine Providence per Baal Shem Tov—including over minerals—and how various parables illuminate or limit understanding spiritual concepts within Chassidus.