447 —על נוסח התניא 'אנא בינוני' והדיון בצדיקות

B"H, 16 Shevat, 5709.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Regarding your note on Tanya chapter 1, "Amar Rabbah: Kegon Ana Beinoni"—as you requested, I am writing here what seems correct to me in explaining what is written in Tanya:

a) In the printed Talmud, Ein Yaakov, Yalkut Shimoni to Tehillim 36, in manuscript versions of the Talmud and as cited in Dikdukei Soferim on Berachos (61b), and in R. Hananel's commentary (printed as an appendix to Otzar HaGeonim on Berachos)—in all these places, the version is in plural: "Anu beinonim" or "Anan beinonin." I have not found so far anyone besides the Alter Rebbe with the version "Ana beinoni," except for what seems implied by Rashi's commentary there, who writes: "If you are among the beinonim"—unlike what is written in Pirchei Hananel above: "If we are beinonim, our master would not allow etc."

b) What Rashi writes there—"If you are among the beinonim, there is not a single tzaddik in the world"—I do not see as supporting your precise reading in your letter that there is not even one tzaddik in the world. For how could Abaye simply decide that among all of Rabbah's colleagues there was no one greater than Rabbah? Especially since his colleagues included Rabbi Zeira (called Charikh Shaki; see at length Bava Metzia 85a; also see at the end of Maamar Purim 5708 that Rabbi Zeira represents wisdom and Rabbah understanding), who lived a long life (Megillah 28a). And Rabbi Yosef (see at end of Berachos that Rabbi Yosef is similar to Rabbi Zeira; Sinai is preferable), who suffered greatly (Pesachim 113), was extremely humble (end of Sotah), and became blind due to his fear of Heaven (see Seder HaDoros under his entry; Ran beginning of Kiddushin). Furthermore, there were many sages then in Eretz Yisrael while Abaye was from Bavel—how could he make such a sweeping decision about their status! The intent of Abaye (even according to Rashi) is simply that if Rabbah and those on his level (which is what "anu" means—not all Israel) are considered beinonim, then how many would be left on the level of tzaddik.

c) It seems from your letter you wish to explain "lo shavik chayei"—that since a tzaddik is the foundation of the world, if there is no tzaddik on earth then no creature can live. I do not know what compels you to this explanation. I learn it simply as similar to what we find in Bava Metzia (92a): "Lo shavik Isi chayei lechol beriah," meaning most field owners will have trouble. Here too it is similar. From my father I heard an explanation for this "lo shavik": based on Chazal (Rosh Hashanah 8b) that tzaddikim are immediately inscribed for life. Since there is no tzaddik in the world, all creatures do not fall into this category. This fits even better with Rashi's surrounding commentary that says: "They consider everyone wicked," so every creature falls into those inscribed immediately for death.

d) At first glance it is difficult to understand Rashi's precision: "There isn't a complete tzaddik in the world." Since Rabbah is a beinoni, even a tzaddik who isn't complete does not exist! But as explained above, according to Rashi's view—in our sugya at least—a tzaddik means one whose merits outweigh sins but still has an evil inclination (see Rashi s.v. leibi who explains Hillel—that he can subdue it). A complete tzaddik has no sins at all. So the difference between beinoni and incomplete tzaddik is razor-thin. Therefore Rashi finds it obvious that only regarding a complete tzaddik can one say definitively "there isn't...for any creature." He explains Abaye refers specifically to a complete tzaddik who never sinned.

e) It seems unclear why the Alter Rebbe quotes also Abaye's words "lo shavik...", when his question comes from Rabbah's statement about himself being a beinoni? One could say this strengthens his question: since we see from our sugya that they challenged Rabbah’s statement and knew his greatness—even if we force ourselves to say Rabbah erred out of humility (as explained elsewhere), or did not want to reveal his stature—the question remains regarding Abaye: why did he challenge based on others? He could have simply questioned Rabbah himself—how could he be only a beinoni when he never ceased Torah study?

f) The wording in Tanya: "lo shavak mar chayei lechol beriah etc."—why does he hint with “etc.” since Abaye’s words have already ended? If there’s some hint here, why didn’t he explain it as he did other questions? One could say: according to several versions (Ein Yaakov, R. Hananel; see also Chiddushei Aggados), after Abaye’s words comes: “Rabbah said: A person knows about himself whether he’s a tzaddik.” This answers Abaye’s challenge—that no one can know for certain about another; only oneself knows oneself. According to Tanya’s assumption that “tzaddik” means one whose merits outweigh sins—it’s difficult since both Rabbah and Abaye knew Rabbah never ceased Torah study; how could Rabbah answer that only he knows himself when they both saw otherwise? The Alter Rebbe does not write this explicitly because: a) That version isn’t definitive; b) Ultimately this remains part of the later question—how could Rabbah err about himself etc.—and thus follows as above.

Summary

This letter explores textual variants and interpretations regarding who qualifies as a beinoni or tzaddik according to Tanya and Talmudic sources. The Rebbe clarifies subtle distinctions between levels of righteousness and addresses why certain phrases appear in Tanya’s text.