Igrot Kodesh · Letter 405 — Divine Unity, Providence, and the Blueprint — Philosophical Questions

By the grace of Hashem*, Elul 5708, To Belinitski[1], I reply to the questions you posed me.

1st question: Is there a contradiction between the unity of Hashem and the existence of worlds? Can one draw a connection between this idea and the fact that the Temple had a precise location while, at the same time, transcending space, since the Ark of the Covenant* occupied no space within it?

Answer: Two preliminary notions must be introduced:

A) The Ark of the Covenant* certainly had no dimensions, but this is by no means an explanation. It is solely a proof, an illustration of the fact that two extreme elements can coexist.

B) Furthermore, the absence of dimension of the Ark of the Covenant* in this case proves nothing in relation to your question. One might indeed suppose that space exists, that which transcends it exists, and then both together, conjointly. In fact, one can only draw from this a strengthening of one's faith — the proof that for Hashem nothing is impossible, as we shall show.

On the other hand, to claim that worlds exist despite the unity of Hashem genuinely contravenes faith, if one does not specify that the existence of the world is not separate from that of Hashem — Heaven forfend — or if one does not affirm that it is so even if one cannot explain it.

Having specified that the worlds emanate solely from a reflection of the divine Light*, as a result of the Tzimtzum*[2] — which itself has no independent existence — one can understand that there is no contradiction here between two opposing elements. It is therefore no longer necessary to say that one has both space and that which transcends it simultaneously.

The fact that the Ark of the Covenant* occupied no space is cited as a proof by various texts of Chassidus*. Similarly, it is said that Hashem showed all the generations to Adam*, the first man, and this likewise establishes that time and that which transcends it can converge.

To return to your question, one may distinguish three conceptions of the Divine: the lower perception, the higher perception, and that which transcends both:

A) If one measures the Ark of the Covenant*, one finds it to be exactly two and a half cubits in length. This corresponds to the truth of the Torah*, which required it to be fashioned at these dimensions. One can verify this through one's senses. And yet, while measuring it, one will be aware — though unable to verify it — that if it were placed in the Holy of Holies*, the latter would measure exactly ten cubits[3].

This image demonstrates that an existence is real, without it therefore needing to be taken into account. This is the lower perception. There are several ways to prove this, and it is therefore unnecessary to resort to the image of the Ark of the Covenant*, which has no dimensions.

B) If one measures the Holy of Holies*, one finds ten cubits on each side. And one knows that if one subsequently measures the Ark of the Covenant*, it will itself be two and a half cubits. Thus one sees that which transcends space, while knowing that one is within space.

One can conclude from this that space does not truly exist. This is the higher perception, briefly expounded in the second chapter of Kuntres Etz Chaim*[4].

C) If one takes into account simultaneously both dimensions — that of the holy Ark and that of the Holy of Holies*, which is ten cubits on each side — one will apprehend the measure of these two values with equal force for each.

It was not so when Hashem showed all the generations to Adam*, for he received only an image, a representation, a spiritual vision. It is clear that this vision was in no way comparable for him to what he saw with his eyes.

Here is evident proof that nothing is impossible for Hashem, that one can simultaneously grasp Him and not grasp Him, for no rule can be formulated in this matter, as explained in the sixth chapter of the introduction to Imrei Bina*[5].

This occurred precisely in the case of the Ark of the Covenant* and can therefore not be compared to the various generations that Hashem showed to Adam*.

This is how one must interpret the fact that the Ark had no dimensions.

It goes without saying that the difference between these three conceptions does not depend on what one wishes to measure first. In fact, everything depends on the state of mind and the level of the one performing the measurement, his initial assumption, the nature of his certainties, and what can still surprise him.

In certain texts of Chassidus*, two of these conceptions are presented together without the difference between them being specified. This is the case, for example, in the discourses of Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkos* and Simchas Torah* 5677[6]. Indeed, these texts do not undertake a detailed analysis and offer only a general presentation of this subject. This enables one to understand an apparently contradictory statement found elsewhere concerning the juxtaposition of the finite and the infinite.

2nd question: The Baal Shem Tov* emphasizes that divine Providence* governs even a fallen leaf or a blade of straw[7]. Is this so only for the vegetable kingdom and not for the mineral? Is it because numerous souls are imprisoned in vegetation but not in minerals?

Answer: I will introduce a few preliminary notions:

A) Reincarnation* introduces no difference between vegetation and mineral. Souls enter into the latter as well — Heaven forfend — as the Shaar HaGilgulim* and the Shaar HaMitzvos*[8] explain at length.

Furthermore, the intervention of divine Providence* in vegetation cannot be linked to the presence therein of such souls. It is abundantly clear that a soul does not enter into every plant.

B) If one wishes to establish a connection between the action of divine Providence* in mineral, vegetable, and animal on the one hand, and the actual or potential presence of souls in these elements — that is, their relation to humankind — on the other, then the conception of the Baal Shem Tov* has nothing innovative about it. The Sages of previous generations indeed acknowledged that divine Providence* could govern a mineral, a vegetable, or an animal, when it had a bearing on man. This is what the Shomer Emunim* explains in particular.

In fact, the Baal Shem Tov* revealed to us that every particular aspect of minerals, vegetables, and animals is governed by divine Providence*. The Admur HaZaken* cites in this regard a decisive proof: that of the heron appointed to carry out the divine sentence upon the fish, at the bottom of the sea. In the most literal sense, our Sages say that the heron and the fish are indeed both judged.

What has just been said is part of a broader concept found in the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov*: that the Word of Hashem*[9] is permanently present in the mineral, vegetable, animal, or human being that it vivifies. At every instant, this Word creates the object anew, as it did during the six days of creation. Nothing is therefore left to chance.

No believer would claim that chance played a role in creation, even for a single detail concerning a mineral, a vegetable, or an animal. And yet the same is true at every instant in which this creation perpetuates itself. Indeed, the Baal Shem Tov* teaches that creation occurs anew at every moment, from absolute nothingness.

More profoundly, creation and all the events constituting its six millennia were present in the primordial Thought* of creation. At that stage, they are all reduced to a single point. Thus, a change in an event occurring at the present moment would have to result in a change in this point and this thought, if one may so express it.

Now, this Thought and this Will are the desire of Hashem, which must be fulfilled in the most precise manner. Every situation, even the most insignificant, concerning only the mineral, thus indeed occupies its place in the plan of Hashem. A Chassidic discourse* of 5696[10] explains all of this.

Furthermore, the only situations regarding which it is sometimes difficult to determine whether they correspond to the desire of Hashem are those that concern human beings, and in particular the most perfect and most protected of them, namely the Jew. He alone is endowed with free will and can therefore alter the terms of the mission entrusted to him in the plan of Hashem.

Other creatures cannot do the same. They must abide by the mission allotted to them, which strictly conforms to the divine Plan. Igeres HaKodesh* explains this in chapter 25.

3rd question: Does the image of the blueprint*[11], which enables one to understand the various emotional Attributes*, also illustrate the arrangement of the worlds in relation to one another?

Answer: You do not specify what you wish to deduce from this comparison. Every image describes certain aspects of an idea. Often these aspects are contradictory — one corresponding to a quality and another to a limitation. You should therefore have specified to which precise detail you wish to apply the image of the blueprint*, and then verified whether it also applies to the arrangement of the worlds.

The image of the blueprint* appears at the beginning of Midrash Bereishis Rabbah*. In that context, the blueprint is the Torah*. And the Midrash notes that 'the architect builds only when he has blueprints and charts.' It also appears in the Zohar*. The Maggid MeReishis* applies it to the Attributes of feeling*, which correspond to the Torah* in relation to the Essence of Hashem. Yet he does not specify the meaning of this image and what distinguishes it from others.

The twelfth chapter of Shaar HaYichud*, however, mentions the image of the blueprint* alongside three other allegories, to describe the trace left by the Tzimtzum*[2].

The Chassidic discourse* of Shemini Atzeres* 5670[12] defines each of these images. It concludes that the blueprint* presents the full totality of details, which is a quality. In this sense, it evokes one who conveys his teaching concisely. And yet the blueprint* has a different nature from what it describes. It is therefore only an allusion, an indication — which constitutes a limitation.

To describe the relationship between the worlds, one must choose the first aspect of the blueprint* but not the second. Indeed, the world of Yetzirah* does not have a different nature from that of Beriah*. And the same is true of the world of Atzilus* in relation to that of Beriah* — but not with respect to the light that illuminates each of them.

A Chassidic discourse* of 5689[13] applies the image of the blueprint* to the relationship between the hidden world and the revealed world. It specifies, however, that in this lower realm a blueprint is only a representation. This is not so spiritually. Likewise, the previously cited discourse of Shemini Atzeres* indicates that the image of the blueprint* more specifically describes the world of Beriah*. This is true only in relation to the trace left by the Tzimtzum*[2], but not in relation to the world of Atzilus*.

That same discourse states that the blueprint*, like an image, is foreign to what it describes. But it does not specify the difference between the two. One can define it as follows.

The blueprint* and the image both provide a faithful representation. Nevertheless, a true image — for example one stated by the Torah* — is directly linked to what it describes. Thus, earthly kingship is a faithful representation of heavenly kingship; the ten powers of the soul illustrate the ten Sefiros*. In contrast, there is nothing in common between the blueprint* and what it describes.

The relationship between one world and another is therefore illustrated most precisely by the relationship that exists between an idea and its representation, but not by the blueprint*.

4th question: To show how greatly the Creator transcends creation, can one say that the world was created by two letters[14], while an entire work presenting the wisdom issuing from those two letters remains inaccessible to us?

Answer: Here again, you have not specified your question sufficiently. In what manner will the greatness of Hashem be illustrated by this image?

The worlds are, properly speaking, those letters which are at the origin of their existence. The perception of the Divine derives from the observation of creation and the chain of worlds. The Etz Chaim* says that Hashem created the world 'so that His greatness be recognized therein.'

This perception can be compared to the idea expressed by the letters that served to create the world. At this level, comprehension is possible and therefore necessary.

The intrinsic greatness of Hashem, by contrast, is already described more profoundly in the twentieth chapter of the Tanya*, by reference to a single utterance compared to the power to speak or even to comprehend.

If the greatness of Hashem consists in building worlds, the Tanya* provides in this regard an image of that which transcends speech while remaining linked to it. It is the 'source of the source' of the worlds, in the Will of Hashem. Chassidus*, and in particular the Likutei Torah*, defines the greatness of Hashem as described by its two letters.

In fact, there are three ways to perceive the greatness of Hashem:

A) The Tanya* describes the submission of creation and of the force that realizes it before their ultimate source, as stated. One must have knowledge of this in order to understand that the unity of Hashem is in no way challenged by this creation.

B) The Likutei Torah* explains that the creation of worlds has nothing in common with the other aspects of Divinity, not even the letters, including in their most inferior stage. It is said indeed that 'the creation of worlds is not the most decisive aspect of Divinity.'

The same distance exists between the worlds and the Torah* which is 'longer than the earth.' It is here that the image you cited is to be found.

C) The greatness of Hashem is perceived also in relation to the essence of the soul — not as the source of speech or even of higher revelations that cannot be expressed in words, but by taking as reference the very quintessence of that soul. The same is true on High.

You link the majesty of Hashem in relation to the Torah* to the second category. But this concerns only the superficial aspect of the Torah*. Its profound dimension, by contrast, is linked to the profound aspect of Divinity and therefore cannot be represented in the form of letters, as one who is familiar with the study of Chassidic discourses* will understand.

Found in the most inferior category are the three ways of submitting to Hashem and perceiving His greatness. These are the Light of Hashem that permeates the worlds*, that which surrounds them*, and the stage of perception in which everything connected to creation becomes negligible. All of this will not be elaborated upon here.

לכללות ישראל -היתה יציאת מצרים הולדתם כעם וראשית

ההכנה לקבלת תורה ,אשר תורה ״ מהותה הוראה -הוראה לחינוך

בדרך החיים.

לכל אחד מישראל בפרט -הדגישה התורה במיוחד; ״והגדת

לבנך״ ,חנוך הילד ,שהוא אחת הנקודות העיקריות בחג הפסח.

על כן מתאים הוא חג הפסח להתעמקות בסדרי החינוך ואופניו,

וכיצד לקיימם בפועל ,בפרט בהנוגע לימי החגים.

הימים הטובים בכלל וחג הפסח בפרט ,קשורים בדינים ומנהגים

רבים אשר נוסף לחשיבותם בשעת מעשה ,חייבת השפעתם להמשך

ולחדור בחיים היום־יומיים אף בכל ימות השנה.

עד כמה שחשוב הדבר לגבי כל אחד מישראל ,הרי חשובה הרבה

יותר ההשפעה על הנוער וילדים בפרט.

למעשה ,מסיבות שונות ,במקום שבימי החגים תתחזק ותרבה

ההשפעה -משוחררים הילדים והתלמידים ,בנים וגם בנות ,מהשפעת

הישיבה ,ישיבה קטנה ות״ת ,ולא רק לימי החג ,אלא אף זמן מסויים

קודם לכן.

בשנים קודמות לא הי׳ שחרור התלמידים בימי ״בין הזמנים״

משפיע לרעה על החינוך ,כי הרחוב ,והבית בודאי ,נתנו אוירה תוססת

וחמימה של יהדות וקיום המצוות בחיים היום־יומיים במדה הראוי׳ j

תפקידם של מוסדות החינוך הי׳ בעיקר לתת לתלמידים ידיעות בתורה.

אולם בזמננו ,וביחוד במדינה זו ,חובתם של מוסדות החינוך אינה רק

להעשיר את ידיעות התלמידים בתורה ויהדות ,אלא עיקר העיקרים הוא

לנטוע בהם יראת שמים ,קיום המצוות בהידור ואורח חיים יהודי בכלל.

הנה כי כן יש בנתק מהשפעת מוסדות החינוך בימי ״בין הזמנים״

וימי החגים בפרט ,משום מניעת השפעה חיונית מן התלמידים ,וזאת

דוקא בשעה שזקוקים הם לכך ביותר.

הנני פונה בזה לכל העוסקים ,או שיש בידם לעסוק ,בחינוך הכשר,

ואל ההורים בכלל ,לתקן את המצב המעציב באמצעים הדרושים,

והעיקר;

לארגן ,שבערב יום טוב ,או עכ״פ בסמוך ליו״ט ,הילדים יקבלו

א(

שוב הוראות והדרכה הנחוצות בדיני ומנהגי החג הבעל״ט ,ואודות

תוכנו וערכו.

ב( לארגן ,דבר שהוא נחוץ ללא ספק ,שגם בימי החג ,לפחות בימי

חול־המועד ,יפגשו המחנכים עם הילדים באופן מתאים ,על מנת לנצל

ימי סגולה אלה לחזוק ההשפעה על הילדים בכל הענינים הקשורים

ביו״ט בכלל ובהנוגע אל הפועל בפרט.

וודאי אפשר למצוא דרכים ואמצעים להתגבר על הבעיות

הקשורות בריחוק המקום או פיזור הילדים במקומות שונים ,כי את

הפגישה בימי החג אפשר לסדר לאו דוקא בבנין אשר בו נמצא מוסד

החינוך .גם אין נוגע כאן כ״כ הסדר הטכני של הכיתות השונות,

המחנכים השונים וכדומה ,כי המדובר כאן הוא אודות לימוד והדרכה

היכולים לאחד ילדים מכיתות שונות וכר.

ג( אל יסמכו ההורים לגמרי על מוסדות החינוך ,אלא גם מצדם הם

יביאו בחשבון ,שמצד אחד השפעת הרחוב מזיקה ,ומצד שני ,יש לילדים

יותר זמן פנוי בימי יו״ט ובין הזמנים -אשר ע״כ גדולה יותר אחריות

ההורים על ההשפעה על ילדיהם ,אבל גם אפשרויותיהם גדולות הרבה יותר.

השי״ת יתן שכל הבנים והבנות ,כל הילדים מכל ארבעת הסוגים

הנמנים בהגדה ,יאספו אל שולחן אחד לקיים את העדות והחוקים

והמשפטים אשר צוה ה׳ אלקינו ,ויהיו כולם שואלים טובים ,השואלים

על מנת לדעת ולקיים את תשובתה האמיתית של התורה.

וראשית קיבוץ גלויות ,קיבוץ ב׳סדר׳ על-פי תורה ,גם את הילדים

שהם אורחים זמניים ,יחיש גם את האתחלתא דגאולה והגאולה

האמיתית והשלימה על ידי משיח צדקנו ,כאשר תתקיים הבקשה אשר

בה פותחים אנו בסדר של פסח; השתא עבדין לשנה הבאה בני חורין.

בברכת חג הפסח כשר ושמח