1587 —ביאור השבועה בתניא והבחנה בין גבול לבל"ג

B"H, 26 Iyar, 5712.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n etc. Moshe Aryeh Leib Shapiro

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I received your letter—even though it arrived a bit late—and regarding what you asked: (A) At the beginning of Sefer HaTanya, where it explains our Sages' statement "Mashbi'in oto: 'Tehi tzaddik...'" (He is administered an oath: "Be a tzaddik...")—it is known in Chassidus that "mashbi'in" can also mean "to satiate." (See Kitzurim VeHe'aros LeTanya p. 57 and onward, etc. In truth, this is also the content of being sworn to fulfill mitzvos even though one is already obligated from Sinai.) You point out that if so, it is unclear why there is a need for the oath's conclusion: "Even if the whole world tells you you are a tzaddik, be in your own eyes as a rasha." However, this question does not really apply according to the explanation in Chassidus that 'shvuah' means 'satiation,' because even according to its simple meaning—an actual oath—it still requires explanation about the great importance of considering oneself as a rasha even if everyone says you are a tzaddik. Regarding your comment itself—there are several details in what they make him swear about; as our Sages say: "And know that the Holy One is pure..." The content of all these secondary matters is that they affect one's avodah so as to fulfill the main oath of "be a tzaddik and do not be a rasha." Therefore, it is especially important not to err in one's avodah; for the avodah of a tzaddik and that of a rasha are completely distant from each other—especially as explained in Tanya about the level of a tzaddik whose heart is hollow within him and has no evil at all; thus he has no evil inclination of his own—the evil is repulsive to him. All his matters are not only about "in all your ways know Him," but they are matters of holiness themselves; therefore, the tzaddik can hold onto them and elevate them—not by way of rejection, etc. This differs from a beinoni—which is what "as a rasha" means—who must scrutinize whether his actions come from his wise heart on his right or from his foolish heart on his left; thus if there is doubt—and this is a Torah-level doubt—it must be treated strictly. It is clear how relevant this is to almost every action. Also noteworthy is what it says in Kuntres HaAvodah ch. 7 regarding avodah above one's level and its deficiency; based on this one can also answer if we interpret our Sages' statement literally—that even if everyone calls you a tzaddik, meaning "tzaddik" as an honorary title for someone whose merits outweigh their sins.

(B) In Iggeres HaKodesh ch. 15 regarding the difference between Avraham Avinu's love for G‑d and love on higher spiritual planes: he writes there that although one might think otherwise, still both are essentially of one kind—just that love above is infinitely greater than Avraham's; yet both are types of supernal attributes. Therefore he says "I am dust and ashes," which only compares the essence of dust turned to ash with that of wood as it was originally; but you ask: since finite versus infinite seems an even greater gap than comparing dust/ash with beautiful wood, what does this analogy add? The answer becomes clear by carefully noting our Rebbe's language: when bringing this analogy he always specifies "essence." This also answers your question about whether finite/infinite differences can be quantitative but not qualitative—and certainly not essential. For example: comparing a drop to ocean water or an individual person to all generations potentially contained within him—this better fits finite/infinite distinctions—or when saying one angel compared to countless hosts; even though that's finite/infinite, their essence and quality remain identical. Thus it's precise that dust/ash compared to beautiful wood—their essence and quality are entirely different—as stated: they have no resemblance or equivalence at all; this becomes known only through the analogy of ash—not through finite/infinite distinctions.

With blessings for receiving the Torah with joy and inwardness.

Summary

The Rebbe explains how Chassidus interprets oaths in Tanya as both literal and figurative (satiation), emphasizing careful self-assessment in avodah. He clarifies that differences between levels—such as finite versus infinite—can be essential rather than merely quantitative.