433 —דרגות הפשיטות באור האלוקי ורמות השכל

B"H, 18 Teves, 5709.

Haraha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Yosef Goldstein

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your questions: A) Question: How can we say that the light before the tzimtzum has different levels, when it is said (Etz Chaim Shaar Igulim V'Yosher, branch 2) that it is a simple light, equal in perfect uniformity? Answer: The statement about this light being simple refers to its relation to the order of hishtalshelus. That is, not only relative to the worlds but also regarding precedence and sequence, cause and effect, etc., for all these distinctions arise only through tzimtzum. Yet even so—it is not true simplicity. This must be so because true simplicity means absolute unity—that it is impossible to speak of two aspects within it. In every entity—except for Atzmus (the Essence of G‑d)—there are at least two aspects: the thing itself and what brings it into being. For example, in the aforementioned light there is both the light and the power of its source within it—its cleaving to its source. There are many examples of something being considered simple relative to what is below it, even though it is composite relative to what is above. For instance, the four elements are simple compared to all other creations but composite compared to primordial matter (see Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah end ch. 3 and ch. 4; Ramban on Torah at its beginning; Etz Chaim at its end; Bad Kodesh ch. 4); the soul as it enclothes in the body is simple relative to it (see Tanya ch. 41), but composite relative to the essence of the soul since it divides into Narancha”y and more. In general and in depth: From the Creator’s perspective—all is utterly simple because everything is only "there is nothing besides Him," with no distinction whether above without end or below without limit. From the perspective of revelations—all is composite, as above.

An analogy in avodah: In true service—that is, a simple servant who has no existence for himself—all his matters are utterly simple; whether a mitzvah preparation, a rabbinic mitzvah or a Torah mitzvah—there are no distinctions for him at all because they are all only expressions of his master’s will. The fact that with a Torah mitzvah one acts stringently in doubt and with a rabbinic one leniently—and similar distinctions—does not mean he distinguishes between mitzvos; rather, it’s that his master’s will "appears" in Shema as it does in these distinctions between rabbinic and Torah-level doubts. A similar example in revealed Torah: According to Rambam all rabbinic commands are from Torah law (Rambam Hilchos Mamrim at its start; Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh Aleph)—but Rabbanan (which according to this view means from Torah law) commanded us to distinguish between them. In every form of service except for this—the service comes with composition; at least from two: one who fulfills the mitzvah and the mitzvah itself.

This could be elaborated further—let me know if you have difficulty with any aspect mentioned above.

Note: There isn’t space here to explain what seems difficult—according to Chassidus—about what makes distinctions within light since there exists there only "He and His Name alone."

B) Question: In Maamar Lulav VeAravah 5666 it mentions "the light of intellect" versus "actual intellect"—what distinguishes them? Answer: There are several levels in the evolution of intellect. Briefly and by a coarse example: The intellect regarding "one who admits partially must swear." Higher than this—the intellect that "a person would not brazenly deny..." (Bava Metzia 5a). Higher still—the intellect stemming from human refinement. Even higher—the intellect or more accurately perspective within a person’s soul itself. In each level above—the later stage has less connection with vessels or letters than its predecessor; each later stage serves as cause and light for what came before. Additionally, in the last level there aren’t even thought-letters at all.

Similarly you can find an order of development within every reasoning or intellectual process (see also Tanya chs. 20 “Chalzu” s.v., s.v. 22 etc.). Therefore in every discourse one must clarify from context what “light of intellect” versus “actual intellect” refers to.

In Maamar Lulav VeAravah mentioned above—since he speaks about chochmah (wisdom), i.e., where thought-letters do not yet exist—it must be that “light of intellect” versus “intellect” refers respectively to initial inclination (afleig), where one senses a tendency toward a certain direction, versus the actual premise itself; both are above letters.

Certainly you will endeavor regarding what was enclosed about dividing Shas etc.—to your ability.

Summary

The Rebbe teaches that true simplicity belongs only to Atzmus—the Essence of G‑d—and everything else contains some duality or composition depending on perspective or level. Similarly, intellectual processes have gradations from abstract inclination down to concrete thought.