“Harut (carved) on the tables”; do not pronounce it Harut (carved), but rather Herut (freedom), to show that they are liberated from the angel of death.
– Midrash Shemot Raba, 41
These words need to be clarified, because how is the matter of reception of the Torah related to one’s liberation from death? Furthermore, once they have attained an eternal body that cannot die through the reception of the Torah, how did they lose it again? Can the eternal become absent?
To understand the sublime concept, “freedom from the angel of death,” we must first understand the concept of freedom as it is normally understood by all of humanity.
It is a general view that freedom is deemed a natural law, which applies to all of life. Thus, we see that animals that fall into captivity die when we rob them of their freedom. This is a true testimony that Providence does not accept the enslavement of any creature. It is with good reason that humanity has been struggling for the past several hundred years to obtain a certain measure of freedom of the individual.
Yet, this concept, expressed in that word, “freedom,” remains unclear, and if we delve into the meaning of that word, there will be almost nothing left. For before you seek the freedom of the individual, you must assume that any individual, in and of itself, has that quality called “freedom,” meaning that one can act according to one’s own free choice.
We will need to define the term "Freedom" to understand the word "Freedom". We have not yet done this. Can you define it? Do you think the US Constitution defines it? How about the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independance? None of these terms define "Freedom".
However, when we examine the acts of an individual, we shall find them compulsory. He is compelled to do them and has no freedom of choice. In a sense, he is like a stew cooking on a stove; it has no choice but to cook. And it must cook because Providence has harnessed life with two chains: pleasure and pain.
Pleasure and pain are motivating tools of the Creator.
The living creatures have no freedom of choice—to choose pain or reject pleasure. And man’s advantage over animals is that he can aim at a remote goal, meaning to agree to a certain amount of current pain, out of choice of future benefit or pleasure, to be attained after some time.
But in fact, there is no more than a seemingly commercial calculation here, where the future benefit or pleasure seems preferable and advantageous to the agony they are suffering from the pain they have agreed to assume presently. There is only a matter of deduction here—that they deduct the pain and suffering from the anticipated pleasure, and there remains some surplus.
Thus, only the pleasure is extended. And so it sometimes happens, that we are tormented because we did not find the attained pleasure to be the surplus we had hoped for compared to the agony we suffered; hence, we are in deficit, just as merchants do.
And when all is said and done, there is no difference here between man and animal. And if that is the case, there is no free choice whatsoever, but a pulling force, drawing them toward any bypassing pleasure and rejecting them from painful circumstances. And Providence leads them to every place it chooses by means of these two forces, without asking their opinion in the matter.
Moreover, even determining the type of pleasure and benefit are entirely out of one’s own free choice, but follow the will of others, as they want, and not he. For example: I sit, I dress, I speak, and I eat. I do all these not because I want to sit that way, or talk that way, or dress that way, or eat that way, but because others want me to sit, dress, talk, and eat that way. It all follows the desire and fancy of society, not my own free will.
Furthermore, in most cases, I do all these against my will. For I would be a lot more comfortable behaving simply, without any burden. But I am chained with iron shackles, in all my movements, to the fancies and manners of others, which make up the society.
So you tell me, where is my freedom of will? On the other hand, if we assume that the will has no freedom, then we are all like machines, operating and creating through external forces, which force them to act this way. This means that we are all incarcerated in the prison of Providence, which, using these two chains, pleasure and pain, pushes and pulls us to its will, to where it sees fit.
It turns out that there is no such thing as selfishness in the world, since no one here is free or stands on his own two feet. I am not the owner of the act, and I am not the performer because I want to perform, but I am performed upon, in a compulsory manner, and without my awareness. Thus, reward and punishment become extinct.
And it is quite odd not only for the orthodox, who believe in His Providence and can rely on Him and trust that He aims only for the best in this conduct. It is even stranger for those who believe in nature, since according to the above, we are all incarcerated by the chains of blind nature, with no awareness or accountability. And we, the chosen species, with reason and knowledge, have become a toy in the hands of the blind nature, which leads us astray, and who knows where?
The above section is clear as written. No one has freedom of will since the tools of pleasure and pain cause society to push forward towards a goal. And the individual goes along with the society. The ultimate truth of this is the suicide bomber within his society.
It is worthwhile taking some time to grasp such an important thing, meaning how we exist in the world as beings with a “self,” where each of us regards himself a unique entity, acting on its own, independent of external, alien, and unknown forces. And does this being—the self—appear to us?
It is true that there is a general connection among all the elements of reality before us, which abide by the law of causality, by way of cause and effect, moving forward. And as the whole, so is each item for itself, meaning that each and every creature in the world from the four types—still, vegetative, animate, and speaking—abides by the law of causality by way of cause and effect.
Moreover, each particular form of a particular behavior, which a creature follows while in this world, is pushed by ancient causes, compelling it to accept that change in that behavior and not another whatsoever. And this is apparent to all who examine the ways of nature from a pure scientific point of view and without a shred of bias. Indeed, we must analyze this matter to allow ourselves to examine it from all sides.
This section is clear as written except for this last paragraph where Rabbi Ashlag points out that the conclusions that one reaches will become biased by an agenda of the person. What is an agenda? It is a preconceived conclusion that a human decides and then attempts to persuede others by causing the logic of his perceptions to become warped. An example is Donald Trump lies and then all words from Donald Trump are suspect. If they fit the preconceived conclusion fine; if not they are ignored or explained away.
Bear in mind that every emergence occurring in the beings of the world must be perceived not as extending existence from absence, but as existence from existence, through an actual entity that has shed its previous form and has robed its current one.
Therefore, we must understand that in every emergence in the world there are four factors where from the four of them together arises that emergence. They are called by the names:
A. The source.
B. The unchanging conduct of cause and effect, related to the source’s own attribute.
C. Its internal conducts of cause and effect, which change by contact with alien forces.
D. The conducts of cause and effect of alien things, which affect it from the outside.
And I will clarify them one at a time:
To fully understand the above discussion one needs to be familiar with the following Kabbalistic discussion: HaShem only created one thing and that one thing is called Yesh MeAyin - Something from Nothing. That one thing is a desire to receive. Every other creation is formed from something. These somethings are desires to receive. The infinite number of desires to receive are formed from the initial desire to receive of the vessel in the endless world. How these desires to receive are fragmented into the infinite number of creations in the various worlds and universes is for another discussion. Just know that everything is formed from the initial creation of a desire to receive.
A) The “source” is the first matter, related to that being. For “there is nothing new under the sun,” and anything that happens in our world is not existence from absence, but existence from existence. It is an entity that has stripped off its former shape and taken on another form, different from the first. And that entity, which shed its previous form, is defined as “the source.” In it lies the potential destined to be revealed and determined at the end of the formation of that emergence. Therefore, it is clearly considered its primary cause.
B) This is a conduct of cause and effect, related to the source’s own attribute, and which is unchanging. Take, for example, a stalk of wheat that has rotted in the ground and arrived at a state of sowing many stalks of wheat. Thus, that rotten state is deemed the “source,” meaning that the essence of the wheat has stripped off its former shape, the shape of wheat, and has taken on a new discernment, that of rotten wheat, which is the seed, called “the source,” which has no shape at all. Now, after rotting in the ground, it has become fit for robing another form, the form of many stalks of wheat, intended to emerge from that source, which is the seed.
It is known to all that this source is destined to become neither cereal nor oats, but only equalize with its former shape, which has left it, being the single stalk of wheat. And although it changes to a certain degree in quality and quantity, for in the former shape it was a single stalk, and now there are ten stalks, and in taste and appearance, too, the essence of the shape of the wheat remains unchanged.
Thus, there is a conduct of cause and effect here, ascribed to the source's own attribute, which never changes. Thus, cereal will never emerge from wheat, as we have said, and this is called “the second reason.”
C) This is the conduct of the internal cause and effect of the source, which change upon encountering the alien forces in its environment. Thus, we find that from one stalk of wheat, which rots in the ground, many stalks emerge, sometimes larger and better wheat than prior to sowing.
Therefore, there must be additional factors involved here, collaborating and connecting with the force concealed in the environment, meaning the “source.” And because of that, the additions in quality and quantity, which were absent in the previous form of wheat, have now appeared. Those are the minerals and the materials in the ground, the rain and the sun. All these operate on it by administering from their forces and joining the force within the source itself. And through the conduct of cause and effect, they have produced the multiplicity in quantity and quality in that emergence.
We must understand that this third factor joins with the internality of the source, since the force hidden in the source controls them. In the end, all these changes belong to the wheat and to no other plant. Hence, we define them as internal factors. However, they differ from the second factor, which is utterly unchanging, whereas the third factor changes in both quality and quantity.
This is a conduct of cause and effect of alien things that act upon it from the outside. In other words, they have no direct relation to the wheat, like minerals, rain, or sun, but are alien to it, such as nearby things or external events, such as hail, wind, etc.
And you find that four factors combine to the wheat throughout its growth. Each particular state that the wheat is subject to during that time becomes conditioned on the four of them, and the quality and quantity of each state is determined by them. And as we have portrayed in the wheat, so is the rule in every emergence in the world, even in thoughts and ideas.
If, for example, we picture to ourselves some conceptual state in a certain individual, such as a state of a person being religious or non religious, or an extreme orthodox or not so extreme, or midway, we will understand that that state is determined in that person by the above four factors.
These 4 items relate to the 4 phases which is a separate teaching yet we learn from this the following spiritual law: Cause and effect always follows 4 steps wether it is creation of something from nothing or formation of something new from something old.
The cause of the first reason is the source, which is its first substance. Man is created existence-from-existence, meaning from the minds of its progenitors. Thus, to a certain extent, it is like copying from book to book. This means that almost all the matters that were accepted and attained in the fathers and forefathers are copied here, as well.
But the difference is that they are in an abstract form, much like the sowed wheat, which is not fit for sowing until it has rotted and shed its former shape. So is the case with the drop of semen from which man is born: there is nothing in it of its forefathers’ shapes, only abstract force.
For the same ideas that were concepts in his forefathers have turned into mere tendencies in him, called “instincts” or “habits,” without even knowing why one does what he does. Indeed, they are hidden forces he had inherited from his ancestors in a way that not only do the material possessions come to us through inheritance from our ancestors, but the spiritual possessions and all the concepts that our fathers engaged in also come to us by inheritance from generation to generation.
And from here surface the manifold tendencies that we find in people, such as a tendency to believe or to criticize, a tendency to settle for material life or desiring only ideas, despising a life without aspirations, stingy, yielding, insolent, or shy.
All these pictures that appear in people are not their own property, which they have acquired, but mere inheritance that had been given to them by their ancestors. It is known that there is a special place in the brain where these hereditaments reside. It is called, “medulla oblongata” (the elongated brain), or “subconscious,” and all the tendencies appear there.
But because the concepts of our ancestors, acquired through their experiences, have become mere tendencies in us, they are considered the same as the sowed wheat, which has taken off its former shape and remained bare, having only potential forces worthy of receiving new forms. In our matter, these tendencies will robe the forms of concepts. This is considered the first substance, and this is the primary factor, called “source.” In it reside all the forces of the unique tendencies he had inherited from his progenitors, which are defined as “ancestral heritage.”
Bear in mind that some of these tendencies come in a negative form, meaning the opposite of the ones that were in his ancestors. This is why they said, “All that is concealed in the father’s heart emerges openly in the son.”
The reason for it is that the source takes off its former shape in order to take on a new form. Hence, it is close to losing the shapes of the concepts of his ancestors, like the wheat that rots in the ground loses the shape that existed in the wheat. However, it still depends on the other three factors.
The second reason is an unchanging, direct conduct of cause and effect, related to the source’s own attribute. Meaning, as we have clarified with the wheat that rots in the ground, the environment in which the source rests, such as soil, minerals, and rain, air, and the sun affect the sowing by a long chain of cause and effect in a long and gradual process, state by state, until they ripen.
And the source retakes its former shape, the shape of wheat, but differing in quality and quantity. In their general aspect, they remain completely unchanged; hence, no cereal or oats will grow from it. But in their particular aspect, they change in quantity, as from one stalk emerge a dozen or two dozen stalks, and in quality, as they are better or worse than the former shape of the wheat.
It is the same here: man, as a “source,” is placed in an environment, meaning in the society. And he is necessarily affected by it, as the wheat from its environment, for the source is but a raw form. Thus, through the constant contact with the environment and the society, he is gradually impressed by them through a chain of consecutive states, one by one, as cause and effect.
At that time, the tendencies included in his source are changed and take on the form of concepts. For example, if one inherits from his ancestors a tendency to stinginess, as he grows he builds for himself concepts and ideas that conclude decisively that it is good for a person to be stingy. Thus, although his father was generous, he can inherit from him the negative tendency—to be stingy, for the absence is just as inheritance as the presence.
Or, if one inherits from one’s ancestors a tendency to be open-minded, he builds for himself ideas, and draws from them conclusions that it is good for a person to be open-minded. But where does one find those sentences and reasons? One takes all that from his environment unknowingly, for they impart to him their views and likings in the form of gradual cause and effect.
Hence, man regards them as his own possession, which he acquired through his free thought. But here, too, as with the wheat, there is one unchanging part of the source, which is that in the end, the tendencies he had inherited remain as they were in his forefathers. And this is called “the second factor.”
The above discussion is expressing the reality that children pick their parents sometimes to follow their example and sometimes to reject their example. Learn this well as it impacts the tikune of the individual.
The third reason is a conduct of direct cause and effect, which affect the source and change it. Because the inherited tendencies in man have become concepts, due to the environment, they operate in the same directions that these concepts define. For example, a man of frugal nature, in whom the tendency for stinginess has been turned into a concept, through the environment, perceives frugality through some reasonable definition.
Let us assume that with this conduct, he protects himself from needing others. Thus, he has acquired a scale for frugality, and when that fear is absent, he can waive it. Thus, he has substantially changed for the better from the tendency he had inherited from his forefathers. And sometimes one manages to completely uproot a bad tendency. This is done by habit, which has the ability to become a second nature.
In that, the strength of man is greater than that of a plant. For wheat can change only in its private part, whereas man has the ability to change through the cause and effect of the environment, even in the general parts, that is, to completely invert a tendency and uproot it to its opposite.
The fourth reason is a conduct of cause and effect that affects the source by things that are completely alien to it, and operates on it from the outside. This means that these things are not at all related to the source’s growth conduct, to affect it directly, but rather operate indirectly. For example, monetary issues, burdens, or the winds, etc., have their own complete, slow, and gradual order of states by way of “cause and effect,” and change man’s concepts for better or for worse.
Thus, I have set up the four natural factors that each thought and idea that appears in us is but their fruits. And even if one were to sit and contemplate something all day long, he will not be able to add or to alter what those four factors give him. Any addition he can add is in the quantity: whether a great intellect or a small one. But in the quality, he cannot add one bit. This is because they are the ones that compellingly determine the nature and shape of the idea and the conclusion, without asking our opinion. Thus, we are at the hands of these four factors, as clay in the hands of a potter.
The above discussion impacts the nature versus nurture discussion. Does the environment have greater effect on a person or is the DNA set and their truly is no free will. We will find out below.
However, when we examine these four factors, we find that although our strength is not enough to face the first factor, the “source,” we still have the ability and the free choice to protect ourselves against the other three factors, by which the source changes in its individual parts, and sometimes in its general part, as well, through habit, which endows it with a second nature.
This protection means that we can always supplement in the matter of choosing our environment, which are the friends, books, teachers, and so on. It is like a person who inherited a few stalks of wheat from his father. From this small amount, he can grow dozens of stalks through his choice of the environment for his “source,” which is fertile soil, with all the necessary minerals and raw materials that nourish the wheat abundantly.
There is also the matter of the work of improving the environmental conditions to fit the needs of the plant and the growth, for the wise will do well to choose the best conditions and will find blessing. And the fool will take from whatever comes before him, and will thus turn the sowing to a curse rather than to a blessing.
Thus, all its praise and spirit depends on the choice of the environment in which to sow the wheat. But once it has been sown in the selected location, the wheat’s absolute shape is determined according to the measure that the environment is capable of providing.
So is the case with our topic, for it is true that the desire has no freedom. Rather, it is operated by the above four factors. And one is compelled to think and examine as they suggest, denied of any strength to criticize or change, as the wheat that has been sown in its environment.
However, there is freedom for the will to initially choose such an environment, such books, and such guides that impart to him good concepts. If one does not do that, but is willing to enter any environment that appears to him and read any book that falls into his hands, he is bound to fall into a bad environment or waste his time on worthless books, which are abundant and easier to come by. In consequence, he will be forced into foul concepts that make him sin and condemn. He will certainly be punished, not because of his evil thoughts or deeds, in which he has no choice, but because he did not choose to be in a good environment, for in that there is definitely a choice.
Therefore, he who strives to continually choose a better environment is worthy of praise and reward. But here, too, it is not because of his good thoughts and deeds, which come to him without his choice, but because of his effort to acquire a good environment, which brings him these good thoughts and deeds. It is as Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perachya said, “Make for yourself a Rav, and buy for yourself a friend.”
We see here the source of the Kabbalah's teaching that we only have one free will choice - to be reactive or stop our reaction since that creates the movie that we are in and once the movie is chosen the environment is set.
Now you can understand the words of Rabbi Yosi Ben Kisma (Avot 6), who replied to a person who offered him to live in his town, and he would give him thousands of gold coins for it: “Even if you give me all the gold and silver and jewels in the world, I will live only in a place of Torah.” These words seem too sublime for our simple mind to grasp, for how could he relinquish thousands of gold coins for such a small thing as living in a place where there are no disciples of Torah, while he himself was a great sage who needed to learn from no one? Indeed, a mystery.
In our modern age of the internet there is no place devoid of Torah. Yet as we know, the internet is the Tree of Knowledge Good and Evil. The question becomes can we find a source of Torah that is truly "good" as opposed to the less good or even "evil".
But as we have seen, it is a simple thing, and should be observed by each and every one of us. For although everyone has “his own source,” the forces are revealed openly only through the environment one is in. This is similar to the wheat sown in the ground, whose forces become apparent only through its environment, which is the soil, the rain, and the light of the sun.
Thus, Rabbi Yosi Ben Kisma correctly assumed that if he were to leave the good environment he had chosen and fall into a harmful environment, in a city where there is no Torah, not only would his former concepts be compromised, but all the other forces hidden in his source, which he had not yet revealed in action, would remain concealed. This is because they would not be subject to the right environment that would be able to activate them.
And as we have clarified above, only in the matter of the choice of environment is man’s reign over himself measured, and for this he should receive either reward or punishment. Therefore, one must not wonder at a sage such as Rabbi Yosi Ben Kisma for choosing the good and declining the bad, and for not being tempted by material and corporeal things, as he deduces there: “When one dies, one does not take with him silver, or gold, or jewels, but only Torah and good deeds.”
And so our sages warned, “Make for yourself a Rav, and buy for yourself a friend.” And there is also the choice of books, as we have mentioned, for only in that is one rebuked or praised—in his choice of environment. But once he has chosen the environment, he is at its hands as clay in the hands of the potter.
Some external contemporary sages, after contemplating the above matter and seeing how man’s mind is but a fruit that grows out of the events of life, concluded that the mind has no control whatsoever over the body, but only life’s events, imprinted in the physical tendons of the brain, control and activate man. And a man’s mind is like a mirror, reflecting the shapes before it. And although the mirror is the carrier of these shapes, it cannot activate or move the shapes reflected in it.
So is the mind. Although life’s events, in all their discernments of cause and effect, are seen and recognized by the mind, the mind is nonetheless utterly incapable of controlling the body, to bring it into motion, meaning to bring it closer to the good or remove it from the bad. This is because the spiritual and the physical are completely remote from one another, and there is no intermediary tool between them to enable the spiritual mind to activate and operate the corporeal body, as has been discussed at length.
But where they are smart, they disrupt. Man’s imagination uses the mind just as the microscope serves the eye: without the microscope, he would not see anything harmful, due to its smallness. But once he has seen the harmful being through the microscope, man distances himself from the noxious factor.
Thus, it is the microscope that brings man to distance himself from the harm, and not the sense, for the sense did not detect the noxious factor. And to that extent, the mind fully controls man’s body, to avert it from bad and bring it near the good. Thus, in all the places where the attribute of the body fails to recognize the beneficial or the detrimental, it needs only the mind’s wit.
Furthermore, since man knows his mind, which is a true conclusion from life’s experiences, he can therefore receive knowledge and understanding from a trusted person and take it as law, although his life’s events have not yet revealed these concepts to him. It is like a person who asks the advice of a doctor and obeys him even though he understands nothing with his own mind. Thus, one uses the mind of others no less than one uses one’s own.
As we have clarified above, there are two ways for Providence to make sure certain that man achieves the good, final goal:
A. The path of pain.
B. The path of Torah.
All the clarity in the path of the Torah stems from that. For these clear conceptions that were revealed and recognized after a long chain of events in the lives of the prophets and the men of God, there comes a man who fully utilizes them and benefits from them, as though these concepts were events of his own life. Thus, you see that one is exempted from all the ordeals one must experience before he can develop that clear mind by himself. Thus, one saves both time and pain.
It can be compared to a sick man who does not wish to obey the doctor’s orders before he understands by himself how that advice would cure him, and therefore begins to study medicine. He could die of his illness before he learns medicine.
So is the path of pain vs. the path of Torah. One who does not believe the concepts that the Torah and prophecy advise him to accept without self-understanding, must come to these conceptions by himself by following the chain of cause and effect from life’s events. These are experiences that greatly rush, and can develop the sense of recognition of evil in them, as we have seen, without one’s choice, but because of one’s efforts to acquire a good environment, which leads to these thoughts and actions.
Now we have come to a thorough and accurate understanding of the freedom of the individual. However, that relates only to the first factor, the “source,” which is the first substance of every person, meaning all the characteristics we inherit from our forefathers and by which we differ from each other.
This is because even when thousands of people share the same environment in such a way that the other three factors affect all of them equally, you will still not find two people who share the same attribute. This is because each of them has his/her own unique source. This is like the source of the wheat: although it changes a great deal by the three remaining factors, it still retains the preliminary shape of wheat and will never take on the form of another species.
Rabbi Ashlag is saying that each individual person has a unique "source". Therefore even if the environment and the other three aspects work equally on two people these people may turn out different since they are different at the source. We think of wheat stalks as being the same yet they also are not at their source. The Perception is ours and it is incomplete as it applies to wheat. It is not incomplete when applied to people since we already accept that each person is unique and different.
So it is that each “source” that had taken off the preliminary shape of the progenitor and had taken on a new shape as a result of the three factors that were added to it, and which change it significantly, the general shape of the progenitor still remains, and will never assume the shape of another person who resembles him, just as oat will never resemble wheat.
This is so because each and every source is, in itself, a long sequence of generations comprised of several hundred generations, and the source includes the conceptions of them all. However, they are not revealed in it in the same ways they appeared in the ancestors, that is, in the form of ideas, but only as abstract forms. Therefore, they exist in him in the form of abstract forces called “tendencies” and “instincts,” without him knowing their reason or why he does what he does. Thus, there can never be two people with the same attribute.
chanoch adds: This truly applies to the results we see with identical twins.
Know, that this is the one true possession of the individual that must not be harmed or altered. This is because the end of all these tendencies, which are included in the source, is to materialize and assume the form of concepts when that individual grows and obtains a mind of his own, as a result of the law of evolution, which controls that chain and prompts it ever forward, as explained in the article “The Peace.” Also, we learn that each and every tendency is bound to turn into a sublime and immeasurably important concept.
Thus, anyone who eradicates a tendency from an individual and uproots it causes the loss of that sublime and wondrous concept from the world, intended to emerge at the end of the chain, for that tendency will never again emerge in any other body. Accordingly, we must understand that when a particular tendency takes the form of a concept, it can no longer be distinguished as good or bad. This is because such distinctions are recognized only when they are still tendencies or immature concepts, and in no way are any of them recognized when they assume the shape of true concepts.
The above two paragraphs are amazing. This indicates that we are not to eradicate what is considered negative character traits from anyone especially ourselves. What we are to do is to learn to control these traits so that they do not manifest as negative in our lives. This is my opinion and it is also something that i find difficult to reconcile with the teachings of morals and ethics from relationship. Pursue this teaching with caution.
From the above we learn what a terrible wrong inflict those nations that force their reign on minorities, depriving them of freedom without allowing them to live their lives by the tendencies they have inherited from their ancestors. They are regarded as no less than murderers.
And even those who do not believe in religion or in purposeful guidance can understand the necessity to preserve the freedom of the individual by watching nature’s systems. For we can see how all the nations that ever fell, throughout the generations, came to it only due to their oppression of minorities and individuals, which had therefore rebelled against them and ruined them. Hence, it is clear to all that peace cannot exist in the world if we do not take into consideration the freedom of the individual. Without it, peace will not be sustainable and ruin shall prevail.Thus, we have clearly defined the essence of the individual with utmost accuracy, after the deduction of all that he takes from the public. But now we face a question: “Where, in the end, is the individual himself?” All we have said thus far concerning the individual is perceived as only the property of the individual, inherited from his ancestors. But where is the individual himself, the heir and the carrier of that property, who demands that we guard his property?
From all that has been said thus far, we have yet to find the point of “self” in man, which stands before us as an independent unit. And why do I need the first factor, which is a long chain of thousands of people, one after the other, from generation to generation, with which we set the image of the individual as an heir? And what do I need the other three factors, which are the thousands of people, standing one besides the other in the same generation? In the end, each individual is but a public machine, forever ready to serve the public as it sees fit. Meaning, he has become subordinate to two types of public:
A. From the perspective of the first factor, he has become subordinate to a large public from past generations, standing one after the other.
chanoch adds: This refers to reincarnation.
B. From the perspective of the three other factors, he has become subordinate to his contemporary public.
chanoch adds: This is referring to the society that the person lives within. Also note that Rabbi Ashlag is referring to the generations in a society as one group of souls.
This is indeed a universal question. For this reason, many oppose the above natural method, although they thoroughly know its validity. Instead, they choose metaphysical methods, or dualism, or transcendentalism, to depict for themselves some spiritual object and how it sits within the body, in man’s soul. And it is that soul that learns and that operates the body, and it is man’s essence, his “self.”
And perhaps these interpretations could ease the mind, but the problem is that they have no scientific solution as to how a spiritual object can have any contact with physical atoms to bring them into any kind of motion. All their wisdom and delving did not help them find a bridge on which to cross that wide and deep crevice that spreads between the spiritual entity and the corporeal atom. Thus, science has gained nothing from all these metaphysical methods.
chanoch adds: The question that is being asked is "How does a soul motivate a body? Or move a body?
Rabbi Ashlag teaches that creation and or change comes through 4 phases. Kabbalah explains that the soul is in the body to teach the body to control its tendencies. This means that the soul is phase 3 which is related to Zeir Anpin. The body is therefore phase 4 which is related to Malchut. How to we relate these teachings to which is the essence - the soul or the body or both? Rabbi Ashlag says above that it is the soul. Yet we are on the path of the process towards the goal which is not wholly clear. We are taught that when we return to the endless which is a goal that we will take our body yet not the phsyical body. There is much to contemplate.
To move a step forward in a scientific manner here, all we need is the wisdom of Kabbalah. This is because all the teachings in the world are included in the wisdom of Kabbalah. Concerning spiritual lights and vessels, we learn that the primary innovation, from the perspective of Creation, which He has created existence from absence, applies to one aspect only, defined as the “will to receive.” All other matters in the whole of Creation are not innovations at all; they are not existence from absence, but existence from existence. This means that they extend directly from His essence, as the light extends from the sun. There, too, there is nothing new, since what is found in the core of the sun extends outwardly.
However, the will to receive is complete novelty. Meaning, prior to Creation such a thing did not exist in reality, since He has no aspect of desire to receive, as He precedes everything, so from whom would He receive?
For this reason, this will to receive, which He extracted as existence from absence, is complete novelty. But all the rest is not considered an innovation that could be called “Creation.” Hence, all the vessels and the bodies, both from spiritual worlds and from physical worlds, are deemed spiritual or corporeal substance, whose nature is the will to receive.
chanoch adds: When did you ever consider the soul as a desire to receive?
Two Forces in the Will to Receive: Attracting Force and Rejecting Force
You need to determine further that we distinguish two forces in that force called the “will to receive”:
A. The attracting force.
B. The rejecting force.
The reason is that each body, or vessel, defined by the will to receive is indeed limited, meaning the quality it will receive and the quantity it will receive. Therefore, all the quantity and quality that are outside its boundaries appear to be against its nature; hence, it rejects them. Thus, that “will to receive,” although it is deemed an attracting force, is compelled to become a rejecting force, as well.
Rabbi Ashlag is explaining the comfort zone. This rejecting force is what keeps us in the comfort zone. Going outside our comfort zone expands the vessel to receive more and bring more into the vessel. This is describing the ideas of the inner light and the surrounding light. It is truly amazing. It is also why so many in our generation reject the wisdom of Rabbi Ashlag.
Although the wisdom of Kabbalah mentions nothing of our corporeal world, there is still only one law for all the worlds (as written in the article, “The Essence of the Wisdom of Kabbalah,” section, “The Law of Root and Branch”). Thus, all the corporeal entities in our world, that is, everything within that space, be it still, vegetative, animate, a spiritual object or a corporeal object, if we want to distinguish the unique, self aspect of each of them, how they differentiate from one another, even in the smallest of particles, it amounts to no more than a “desire to receive.” This is its entire particular form, from the perspective of the generated Creation, limiting it in quantity and quality. As a result, there is an attracting force and the rejecting force in it.
Yet, anything other that exists in it besides these two forces is deemed the bounty from His essence. That bounty is equal for all creatures, and it presents no innovation, with respect to Creation, as it extends existence from existence.
Also, it cannot be ascribed to any particular unit, but only to things that are common to all parts of Creation, small or large. Each of them receives from that bounty according to its will to receive, and this limitation defines each individual and unit.
As we learn in Kabbalah. The inanimate world has the lowest / least desire to receive. Plant world has a slightly greater desire to receive. The animal world has an even greater desire to receive. This is followed by the greatest desire to receive which belongs to the speaking world meaning the human world.
Thus, I have evidently—from a purely scientific perspective—proven the “self” (ego) of every individual in a scientific, completely criticism-proof method, even according to the system of the fanatic, automatic materialists. From now on, we have no need for those lame methods dipped in metaphysics.
And of course, it makes no difference whether this force, being the will to receive, is a result and a fruit of the material that had produced it through chemistry, or that the material is a result and a fruit of that force. This is because we know that the main thing is that only this force, imprinted in every being and atom of the “will to receive,” within its boundaries, is the unit where it is separated and distinguished from its environment. And this holds true both for a single atom or for a group of atoms, called “a body.”
All other discernments in which there is a surplus of that force are not related in any way to that particle or that group of particles, with respect to itself, but only with respect to the whole, which is the bounty extended to them from the Creator, which is common to all parts of Creation together, without distinction of specific created bodies.
Now we shall understand the matter of the freedom of the individual, according to the definition of the first factor, which we called the “source,” where all previous generations, which are the ancestors of that individual, have imprinted their nature. As we have clarified, the meaning of the word, “individual,” is but the boundaries of the will to receive, imprinted in its group of molecules.
Thus you see that all the tendencies he has inherited from his ancestors are indeed no more than boundaries of his will to receive, either related to the attracting force in him, or to the rejecting force in him, which appear before us as tendencies for stinginess or generosity, a tendency to mingle or to stay secluded, and so on.
Because of that, they really are his self (ego), fighting for its existence. Thus, if we eradicate even a single tendency from that individual, we are considered to be cutting off an actual organ from his essence. And it is also considered a genuine loss for all Creation, because there is no other like it, nor will there ever be like it in the whole world.
After we have thoroughly clarified the just right of the individual according to the natural laws, let us turn and see just how practical it is, without compromising the theory of ethics and statesmanship. And most important: how this right is applied by our holy Torah.
Rabbi Ashlag is explaining that there is only a central essence throughout all the worlds. That central essence is the desire to receive of the endless vessel which is the consciousness of the endless vessel.
Our scriptures say: “Take after the collective.” That means that wherever there is a dispute between the collective and the individual, we are obliged to rule according to the will of the collective. Thus, you see that the collective has a right to expropriate the freedom of the individual.
But we are faced with a different question here, even more serious than the first. It seems as though this law regresses humanity instead of promoting it. This is because while most of humanity is undeveloped, and the developed ones are always a small minority, if you always determine according to the will of the collective, which are the undeveloped, and the reckless ones, the views and desires of the wise and the developed in society, which are always the minority, will never be heard and will not be taken into consideration. Thus, you seal off humanity’s fate to regression, for it will not be able to make even a single step forward.
However, as is explained in the article, “The Peace,” section, “Necessity to Practice Caution with the Laws of Nature,” since we are ordered by Providence to lead a social life, we have become obligated to observe all the laws pertaining to the sustenance of society. And if we are somewhat negligent, nature will take its revenge in us, regardless of whether or not we understand the reasons for the laws.
And we can see that there is no other arrangement by which to live in society except following the law of “Taking after the collective,” which sets every dispute and tribulation in society in order. Thus, this law is the only instrument that gives society sustainability. For this reason, it is considered one of the natural Mitzvot (commandments) of Providence, and we must accept it and guard it meticulously, regardless of our understanding.
chanoch adds: This is the law of "taking after the collective" and a corollary law which is "Majority rules".
This is similar to all the other Mitzvot in the Torah: all of them are nature’s laws and His Providence, which come to us from Above downward. And I have already described (“The Essence of the Wisdom of Kabbalah,” The Law of Root and Branch) how all the stubbornness we detect in the conduct of nature in this world is only because they are extended and taken from laws and conducts of Upper, Spiritual Worlds.
Now you can understand that the Mitzvot in the Torah are no more than laws and conducts set in Higher Worlds, which are the roots of all of nature’s conducts in this world of ours. The laws of the Torah always match the laws of nature in this world as two drops in a pond. Thus, we have proven that the law, “Taking after the collective” is the law of Providence and nature.
chanoch adds: Thus we see that the Mitzvot in the Torah all relate to these laws being described and that there is only one law and many corollaries.
Yet, our question about the regression, which had emerged from this law, is as yet not settled by these words. Indeed, this is our concern—to find ways to mend that. But Providence, for itself, does not lose because of that, for it has enveloped humankind in two ways—the “Path of Torah,” and the “Path of Pain”—in a way that guarantees humanity’s continuous development and progress toward the goal without any reservations (“The Peace,” Everything Is in Deposit). Indeed, obeying this law is a natural, necessary commitment.
We must ask further: things are justified when matters revolve around issues between people. Then we can accept the law of “Taking after the collective,” through the obligation of Providence, which instructs us to always look after the well-being and happiness of the friends. But the Torah obliges us to follow the law of “Taking after the collective” in disputes between man and God, as well, although these matters seem completely unrelated to the existence of society.
Therefore, the question still stands: how can we justify that law, which obligates us to accept the views of the majority, which is, as we have said, undeveloped, and to reject and annul the opinion of the developed, which are always a small minority?
But as we have shown (“The Essence of Religion and Its Purpose,” Conscious Development and Unconscious Development), the Torah and the Mitzvot were given only to purify Israel, to develop in us the sense of recognition of evil, imprinted in us at birth, which is generally defined as our self-love, and to come to the pure good defined as the “love of others,” which is the one and only passage to the love of God.
Accordingly, the precepts between man and God are considered tools that detach man from self-love, which is harmful for society. It is thus obvious that the topics of dispute regarding Mitzvot between man and God relate to the problem of society’s sustainability. Thus, they, too, fall into the framework of “Taking after the collective.”
Now we can understand the conduct of discriminating between Halachah (Jewish law) and Agadah (legends). This is because only in Halachot (plural for Halachah), does the law, “individual and collective, Halachah (law) as the collective” apply. It is not so in the Agadah, since matters of Agadah stand above matters that concern the existence of society, for they speak precisely of the matter of people’s conducts in matters concerning man and God, in that same part where the existence and physical happiness of society has no consequence.
Thus, there is no justification for the collective to annul the view of the individual and “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” But regarding Halachot that deal with observing the Mitzvot of the Torah, all of which fall under the supervision of society, since there cannot be any order, but through the law, “Take after the collective.”
Now we have come to a clear understanding of the sentence concerning the freedom of the individual. Indeed, there is a question: “Where did the collective take the right to expropriate the freedom of the individual and deny him of the most precious thing in life, freedom?” Seemingly, there is no more than brute force here.
But as we have clearly explained above, it is a natural law and the decree of Providence. And because Providence compels each of us to conduct a social life, it naturally follows that each person is obligated to secure the existence and well-being of society. And that cannot exist but through imposing the conduct of “Taking after the Collective,” ignoring the opinion of the individual.
Thus, you evidently see that this is the origin of every right and justification that the collective has to expropriate the freedom of the individual against his will, and to place him under its authority. Therefore, it is understood that with regard to all those matters that do not concern the existence of the material life of the society, there is no justification for the collective to rob and abuse the freedom of the individual in any way. And if they do, they are deemed robbers and thieves who prefer brute force to any right and justice in the world, since here the obligation of the individual to obey the will of the collective does not apply.
It turns out that as far as spiritual life is concerned, there is no natural obligation on the individual to abide by the society in any way. On the contrary, here applies a natural law over the collective, to subjugate itself to the individual. And it is clarified in the Article, “The Peace,” that there are two ways by which Providence has enveloped and surrounded us, to bring us to the end:
A. A Path of Pain, which develops us in this manner unconsciously.
B. A Path of Torah and wisdom, which consciously develops us in this manner without any agony or coercion.
And since the more developed in the generation is certainly the individual, it follows that when the public wants to relieve themselves of the terrible agony and assume conscious and voluntary development, which is the path of Torah, they have no choice but to subjugate themselves and their physical freedom to the discipline of the individual, and obey the orders and remedies that he will offer them.
chanoch adds: The lower case he in the above paragraph is the spiritually elevated person within the society. Ultimately this is referring to the Tzadik yet Rabbi Ashlag did not use the term Tzadik just "he". This is significant, in my opinion.
Thus you see that in spiritual matters, the authority of the collective is overturned and the law of “Taking after the Individual” is applied, that is, the developed individual. For it is plain to see that the developed and the educated in every society are always a small minority. It follows that the success and spiritual well-being of society is bottled and sealed in the hands of the minority.
Therefore, the collective is obliged to meticulously guard all the views of the few, so they will not perish from the world. This is because they must know for certain, in complete confidence, that the truer and more developed views are never in the hands of the collective in authority, but rather in the hands of the weakest, that is, in the hands of the indistinguishable minority. This is because every wisdom and everything precious comes into the world in small quantities. Therefore, we are cautioned to preserve the views of all the individuals, due to the collective’s inability to tell wrong from right among them.
We see now why Rabbi Ashlag used the term "he". This is because the Tzadik is a term used for the values in the society of the Children of Israel or the Jews. In other societies the minority is also important to support and follow. Remember if we apply this to the ISIS society the suicide bomber is not the minority spiritual person but the planner and leader may be. What is being said by Rabbi Ashlag in my opinion is we can not know what will come from this passion demonstrated as a trait among the ISIS society. Of course we must find a way to protect us and to nurture the trait within the killing so that it can eventually demonstrate what it will become that is socially acceptable.
We must further add that reality presents to our eyes extreme oppositeness between physical things and the concepts and ideas regarding the above topic. For the matter of social unity, which can be the source of every joy and success, applies particularly among bodies and bodily matters in people, and the separation between them is the source of every calamity and misfortune.
But with concepts and ideas, it is the complete opposite: unity and lack of criticism is deemed the source of every failure and hindrance to all the progress and didactic fertilization. This is because drawing the right conclusions depends particularly on the multiplicity of disagreements and separation between opinions. The more contradictions there are between opinions and the more criticism there is, the more the knowledge and wisdom increase and matters become more suitable for examination and clarification.
chanoch adds: Of course personal attacks and criticism is not productive to improve the knowledge and wisdom of the world.
The degeneration and failure of intelligence stem only from the lack of criticism and disagreement. Thus, evidently, the whole basis of physical success is the measure of unity of the society, and the basis for the success of intelligence and knowledge is the separation and disagreement among them.
It turns out that when humankind achieves its goal, with respect to the success of the bodies, by bringing them to the degree of complete love of others, all the bodies in the world will unite into a single body and a single heart, as written in the article, “The Peace.” Only then will all the happiness intended for humanity become revealed in all its glory.
But against that, we must be watchful to not bring the views of people so close that disagreement and criticism might be terminated from among the wise and scholarly, for the love of the body naturally brings with it proximity of views. And should criticism and disagreement vanish, all progress in concepts and ideas will cease, too, and the source of knowledge in the world will dry out.
This is the proof of the obligation to caution with the freedom of the individual regarding concepts and ideas. For the whole development of the wisdom and knowledge is based on that freedom of the individual. Thus, we are cautioned to preserve it very carefully, so each and every form within us, which we call “individual,” that is, the particular force of a single person, generally named the “will to receive.”
All the details of the pictures that this will to receive includes, which we have defined as the “source,” or the First Reason, whose meaning includes all the tendencies and customs inherited from his ancestors, which we picture as a long chain of thousands of people who once were alive, and who stand one atop of the other. Each of them is an essential drop of his ancestors, and that drop brings each person all the spiritual possessions of his ancestors into his “medulla oblongata” (the elongated brain), called “subconscious.” Thus, the individual before us has, in his subconscious, all the thousands of spiritual legacies from all the individuals represented in that chain, which are his ancestors.
Thus, just as the face of each and every person differs, so their views differ. There are no two people on earth whose opinions are identical, because each person has a great and sublime possession inherited from his ancestors, and which others have no shred of them.
Therefore, all those possessions are considered the individual’s property, and society is cautioned to preserve its flavor and spirit so as to not be blurred by its environment. Rather, each individual should maintain the integrity of his inheritance. Then, the contradiction and oppositeness between them will remain forever, to forever secure the criticism and progress of the wisdom, which is humanity’s advantage and its true eternal desire. bold is chanoch's emphasis.And after we have come to a certain measure of recognition in man’s selfishness, which we have determined as a force and a “will to receive,” being the essential point of the bare being, we have also learned thoroughly clear, from all sides, the original possession of each body, which we have defined as “ancestral heritage.” This pertains to all the potential tendencies and qualities that have come into his “source” by inheritance, which is the first substance of every person, that is, the initial seed of his forefathers. Now we shall clarify the two discernments in the will to receive.
chanoch adds: Rabbi Ashlag is referring to DNA which science does not yet realize applies to ideas as well as physical attributes.
First, we must understand that although this selfishness, which we have defined as the “will to receive,” is the very essence of man, it cannot exist in reality even for a second. For what we call “potential,” meaning before it emerges from potential to actual, exists only in our thought, meaning that only the thought can determine it.
But in fact, there cannot be any real force in the world that is dormant and inactive. This is because the force exists in reality only while it is revealed in action. By the same token, you cannot say about an infant that it is very strong when it cannot lift even the lightest weight, but you can say that you see in that infant that when it grows, it will manifest great strength.
However, we do say that that strength we find in man when he is grown was present in his organs and his body even when he was an infant, but that strength had been concealed and was not apparent. It is true that in our minds we could determine (the powers destined to manifest), since the mind asserts it. However, in the infant’s actual body there is certainly no strength at all, since no strength manifests in the infant’s actions.
So it is with appetite. This force will not appear in a man’s body in the actual reality, when the organs cannot eat, meaning when he is satiated. But even when one is satiated, the force of appetite exists, but it is concealed in man’s body. After some time, when the food had been digested, it reappears and manifests from potential to actual.
However, such a sentence, of determining a potential force that has not yet been revealed in actual fact, belongs to the conducts by which the thought perceives. But it does not exist in reality, since when satiated, we feel very clearly that the force of appetite is gone, and if you search for it, you will find it nowhere.
It turns out that we cannot display a potential as a subject that exists in and of itself, but only as a predicate. Thus, when an action occurs in reality, at that time the force manifests in the action.
Yet, we necessarily find two things here, in the perceiving process: a subject and a predicate, that is, potential and actual, such as the force of appetite, which is the subject, and the image of the dish, which is the predicate and the action. In reality, however, they come as one. It will never occur that the force of appetite will appear in a person without picturing the dish he wishes to eat. Thus, these are two halves of the same thing. The force of appetite must dress in that image. You therefore see that the subject and the predicate are presented at once, and become absent at once.
Now we understand that the will to receive, which we presented as selfishness, does not mean that it exists so in a person, as a craving force that wishes to receive in the form of a passive predicate. Rather, this pertains to the subject, which dresses in the image of the eatable object, and whose operation appears in the form of the thing being eaten, and in which it clothes. We call that action, “desire,” meaning the force of appetite, revealed in the action of the imagination.
And so it is with our topic—the general will to receive, which is the very essence of man. It appears and exists only through dressing in the shapes of objects that are likely to be received. For then it exists as the subject, and in no other way. We call that action, “life,” meaning man’s livelihood, which means that the force of the will to receive dresses and acts within the desired objects. And the measurement of revelation of that action is the measurement of his life, as we have explained in the act we call, “desire.”
From the above, we can clearly understand the verse: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living (Chayah) soul (Nefesh)” (Genesis 2:7). Here we find two creations:
A. Man himself;
B. The living soul itself.
And the verse says that in the beginning, man was created as dust of the ground, a collection of molecules in which resides the essence of man, meaning his will to receive. That force, the will to receive, is present in every element of reality, as we have explained above. Also, all four types: still, vegetative, animate and speaking emerged from them. In that respect, man has no advantage over any part of creation, and this is the meaning of the verse in the words: “dust of the ground.”
However, we have already seen that this force, called “will to receive,” cannot exist without dressing and acting in a desired object, and this action is called, “life.” And accordingly, we find that before man has arrived at the human forms of reception of pleasure, which differ from those of other animals, he is still considered a lifeless, dead person. This is because his will to receive has no place in which to dress and manifest his actions, which are the manifestations of life.
This is the meaning of the verse, “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” which is the general form of reception suitable for humans. The word, Nishmat, (breath) comes from the word, Samin, (placing) the ground for him, which is like “value.” And the origin of the word “breath” is understood from the verse (Job 33:4): “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life,” and see the commentary of the MALBIM there. The word, “soul” (Neshama), has the same syntax structure as the words, “missing” (Nifkad), “accused” (Ne’esham), and “accused” (Ne’eshama—female term of Ne’esham).
And the meaning of the words, “and breathed into his nostrils” is that He instills a soul (Neshama) in his internality and an appreciation of life, which is the sum of the forms that are worthy of reception into his will to receive. Then, that force, the will to receive, enclosed in his molecules, has found a place in which to dress and act, meaning in those forms of reception that he had obtained from the Creator. And this action is called “life,” as we have explained above.
And the verse ends, “and man became a living soul.” This means that since the will to receive has begun to act by the measures of those forms of reception, life instantly manifested in it and it “became a living soul.” However, prior to the attainment of those forms of reception, although the force of the will to receive had been imprinted in him, it is still considered a lifeless body, since it has no place in which to appear and to manifest in action.
As we have seen above, although man’s essence is only the will to receive, it is still taken as half of a whole, as it must clothe in a reality that comes its way. For that reason, it and the image of possession it depicts are literally one, for otherwise it would not be able to exist for even a moment.
Therefore, when the machine of the body is at its peak, that is, until his middle-age, his “ego” stands upright in all the height imprinted in him at birth. Because of that, he feels within him a large and powerful measure of the will to receive. In other words, he craves great wealth and honor, and anything that comes his way. This is so because of the perfection of man’s ego, which attracts shapes of structures and concepts that it dresses in and sustains itself through them.
But when half his life is through, begin the days of the decline, which, by their content, are his dying days. This is because a person does not die in an instant, just as he did not receive his life in an instant. Rather his candle, being his ego, withers and dies bit by bit, and along with it die the images of the possessions he wishes to receive.
He begins to relinquish many possessions he had dreamed of in his youth, and he gradually relinquishes great possessions, according to his decline over the years. Finally, in his truly old days, when the shadow of death hovers over all his being, a person finds himself in “times of no appeal,” since his will to receive, his ego, has withered away. Only a tiny spark of it remains, hidden from the eye, from clothing in some possession. Therefore, there is no appeal or hope in those days for any image of reception.
Thus, we have proven that the will to receive, along with the image of the object expected to be received, are one and the same thing. And their manifestation is equal, their stature is equal, and so is the length of their lives.
However, there is a significant distinction here in the form of the yielding at the time of the decline of life. That yielding is not a result of satiation, like a person who relinquishes food when he is satiated, but a result of despair. In other words, when the ego begins to die during the days of decline, it senses its own weakness and approaching death. Therefore, a person lets go and gives up on the dreams and hopes of his youth.
Observe carefully the difference between that and the yielding due to satiation, which causes no grief and cannot be called “partial death,” but is like a worker who completed his work. Indeed, relinquishment out of despair is full of pain and sorrow, and can therefore be called, “partial death.”
Now, after all that we have learned, we find a way to truly understand the words of our sages when they said, “‘Harut (carved) on the stones,’ do not pronounce it Harut (carved), but rather Herut (freedom), for they have been liberated from the angel of death.”
It has been explained in the articles, “Matan Torah” and “The Arvut,” that prior to the giving of the Torah, they had assumed the relinquishment of any private property to the extent expressed in the words, “a Kingdom of Priests,” and the purpose of the whole of Creation—to cleave unto Him in equivalence of form with Him: as He bestows and does not receive, they, too, will bestow and not receive. This is the last degree of Dvekut (adhesion), expressed in the words, “Holy nation,” as it is written at the end of the article, “The Arvut.”
I have already brought you to realize that man’s essence, meaning his selfishness, defined as the will to receive, is only half a thing, and can only exist when clothed in some image of a possession or hope for possession. For only then is our matter complete, and can be called “man’s essence.”
Thus, when the children of Israel were rewarded with complete Dvekut on that holy occasion, their vessels of reception were completely emptied of any worldly possession and they were cleaved unto Him in equivalence of form. This means that they did not have any desire for any self-possession, but only to the extent that they could bestow contentment, so their maker would delight in them.
And since their will to receive had clothed in an image of that object, it had clothed in it and bonded with it into complete oneness. Therefore, they were certainly liberated from the angel of death, for death is necessarily an absence and negation of the existence of a certain object. But only while there is a spark that wishes to exist for its own pleasure is it possible to say about it that that spark does not exist because it has become absent and died.
However, if there is no such spark in man, but all the sparks of his essence clothe in bestowal of contentment upon their Maker, then it is neither absent nor dead. For even when the body is annulled, it is only annulled with respect to self-gratification, in which the will to receive is dressed and can only exist in it.
However, when he achieves the aim of Creation and the Creator receives pleasure from him, since His will is done, man’s essence, which clothes in His contentment, is granted complete eternity, like Him. Thus, he has been rewarded with freedom from the angel of death. This is the meaning of the words of the Midrash (Midrash Rabba, Shemot, 41, Item 7): “Freedom from the angel of death.” And in the Mishna (Avot 6): “Harut (carved) on the stones; do not pronounce it Harut (carved), but rather Herut (freedom), for none are free, unless they engage in the study of Torah.”
© 2021 www.yeshshem.com All rights reserved. Site development by Eltitude