Vol 16.40 - Purim 1 Spanish French Audio Video
(5738) Merging if Tal. Bavli (7a) and Yerushalmi (ibid 1:5) if only Esther sent to the Sages "write me down for posterity" or Mordechai and Esther sent etc;
The difference between Mordechai and Esther in the miracle of Purim and the connection of attributing the writing of the Megillah specifically to Esther.
Explanation of the Talmud (Yoma 29a) "Just as morning is the culmination of the entire night so too Esther is the culmination of all the miracles" According to pnimiyut.
And the hint in the change of wording between the first edition and second edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 1) in the law: "You should awaken the morning etc"
1. The Talmud states in tractate Megillah (7a):
“Esther sent to the Sages saying, ‘Commemorate me for future generations’” (שלחה להם אסתר לחכמים קבעוני לדורות)
Meaning that Esther requested that the 14th of Adar and the 15th be established as a “Yom Tov and a commemoration of my name” – Rashi) (ליום טוב ולקריי׳ להיות לי לשם).
After this the Talmud cites another passage on this:
“Esther sent to the Sages saying, Write an account of me for generations” (שלחה להם אסתר לחכמים כתבוני לדורות)
Meaning that Esther requested that the Megillah (which is named after her) be written (included) “with the other Writings”.
This means that beforehand, she just asked that they “Write an account of me for generations” – as a “Yom Tov and a reading” – (ליום טוב ולקריי׳) meaning that every year that they should read the story of Purim, but it must not be read from a scroll. Yet afterward she asked that the Megillah be written for generations and also be included in the ‘Ketuvim” – which means that they must read the Megillah from a scroll for “if one reads it verbally, they have not fulfilled” (the Mitzvah).
2. In Talmud Yerushalmi it states:
“Mordechai and Esther wrote a letter and sent it to our Rabbis for they said to them accept upon yourselves these two days, each year etc.” –
This means that both of them – Mordechai and Esther (wrote and) requested concerning the remembrance of Purim etc. not that it was
(Like in the Talmud Bavli where it mentions)
just Esther alone.
(As it states: “Esther sent to the Sages saying, ‘Commemorate me and Write an account of me”).
One can however say that this is not a dispute
(and also furthermore (דערצו) – in an occurrence (מציאות))
between the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud Yerushalmi
(Whether the request came solely from Esther, or from both of them together) –
but rather that is speaks of separate aspects:
In Talmud Bavli – it speaks of the enactment of the reading of the Megillah.
(Which is why Rashi explains the word ““Commemorate me” (״קבעוני״) – (not just) as a Yom Tov (but also) for “reading”, since Esther‘s main request - “Commemorate me” (“a commemoration of my name”) - was in relation to the reading of the Megillah (which is named after her).
And (also – afterward) it speaks of the writing of the Megillah, as one of the “Ketuvim” (as it states “Write an account of me for generations” (״כתבוני״)) – and these two requests came from Esther alone (without the participation of Mordechai).
The Talmud Yerushalmi, however, speaks only regarding the essential enactment of establishing the days of Purim each year as days of “Mishteh vSimcha” - to make them days of feasting and joy, and sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor (לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיֹנִים),
(like the simple understanding of the words of the Talmud Yerushalmi: “accept . . these two days each year etc.) and both of them requested this from the Sages.
3. One could say that the three aforementioned aspects:
1. “Accept upon yourselves these two days, each year etc.”
2. “Commemorate me” (״קבעוני״)
3. “Write an account of me” (״כתבוני״) –
and the aforementioned difference between them
(namely that the first aspect – was requested from both Mordechai and Esther; and the last two aspect Esther alone)
are alluded to with emphasis in the Megillah:
In the telling of how the Yidden accepted to “fulfill these days of Purim”, the verse states: “as Mordecai the Yehudi and Esther the queen had enjoined them”.
Yet afterward it states: “Esther's order confirmed these words of Purim, and it was inscribed in the book.”-
Therefore, one could say that these two verses speak of the three aforementioned aspects:
In the first verse, it speaks of the enactment of the days of Purim (as days of Mishteh vSimcha etc.) – which is apparent from the wording “to fulfill these days of Purim”,
(Similar to the aforementioned wording of the Talmud Yerushalmi “accept . . these two days”).
Therefore both of them are mentioned here: “Mordecai the Yehudi and Esther the queen” since the enactment came through their combined (בשותפות׳דיקער) request, as aforementioned.
However in the second verse, it speaks of the enactment of reading the Megillah, and regarding the writing of the Megillah,
The verse: “Esther's order confirmed these words of Purim” - refers to the enactment of reading the Megillah. Therefore it states: “these words of Purim” (not “days”) which means (or at least – alludes to) the speech – to speak and the recount of the miracle of Purim,
(As Rashi states: “to read it” -לקריי׳)
And the verse: “it was inscribed in the book.” (ונכתב בספר) - refers to the story of Purim, the Megillah, which was written as one of the “Ketuvim”
(as it states “Write an account of me” (״כתבוני״).
Therefore the verse states “and Esther’s order” (and it does not mention Mordechai) – because these two aspects were requested by Esther alone.
4. One must however understand:
1. How, indeed, is it possible that Mordechai only requested of the Sages regarding the enactment of the days of Purim, and not concerning the reading and writing of the Megillah?
2. Moreover: Mordechai was a member of the Sanhedrin. Therefore he was one of the Sages that agreed to the request of Esther “Commemorate me” and “Write an account of me” – therefore he certainly should have also joined in the request, together with Esther?
One must therefore say that in Mordechai himself, there were two levels:
1. From Mordechai’s status as an individual (מצד עצמו) i.e. himself – there must not be the aspect of “Commemorate me” and “Write an account of me”, and therefore he did not join in the request of Esther.
2. From his status as a member of the Sanhedrin, which gives room to fulfill Esther’s request of “Commemorate me” and “Write an account of me”.
3. Every aspect of Torah is precise. Therefore one must say that the reason that
· The request of Esther, “Commemorate me for generations” and “Write an account of me for generations” are cited only in the Talmud Bavli (not in the Talmud Yerushalmi)
· And on the other hand, that the request of Mordechai and Esther “accept upon yourselves these two days” is found just in the Talmud Yerushalmi (and not in the Talmud Bavli) –
is completely precise.
5. One can understand this with a preface:
The reason that the Megillah was written
(as it states: “Write an account of me” (״כתבוני״))
is not just because it is an additional aspect and detail of the miracle of Purim, but rather because it is connected with the essence of the topic of the miracle:
This is also understand from that which the Talmud states in tractate Yoma:
“Why was Esther compared to the dawn? To tell you that just as the dawn is the end of the whole night, so is the story of Esther the end of all the miracles” (״למה נמשלה אטתר לשחר לומר לך מה שחר סוף כל הלילה אף אטתר סוף כל הנסים״)
And the Talmud explains that even though “there is Chanukah? (Meaning that that the miracle of Chanukah happened after the miracle of Purim) – Nevertheless, Esther is considered as the “end of all the miracles” – because Esther was “given over to be written” (״ניתנה לכתוב״). The last miracle which was written (in the Written Torah, Tanach) – was Esther.
This means that the miracles that were given to be written are a different category of miracles, and Esther is the “end” of this category
(And therefore specifically (because Esther was “given to be written”) it can be compared to “the dawn . . end of the whole night”. For Esther had the same content (תוכן) as the “dawn”. And if it had not been written, one would not have been able to make the comparison).
6. The explanation of all this is:
The plain difference between Mordechai and Esther is in their efforts to nullify the decree of Haman:
Mordechai was (mainly) involved with awakening the Yidden to repent (תשובה צו טאן) on the sins that caused the decree of Haman. For even the act of “gather all the Yidden and fast etc.” – even though it was at Esther’s request, was nevertheless - actually carried out by Mordechai.
Whereas Esther, who was in the palace of the king (not among the Yidden)
As it states: “who knows whether at a time like this you will attain the kingdom?” and “you did not attained sovereignty except for this moment to save Yisroel”,
endeavored and did many deeds, according to nature, so that Achashverosh should nullify the decree of Haman. She came to Achashverosh unannounced, and prepared the meals for Achashverosh and Haman etc.
In other words:
Mordechai mainly endeavored in the spiritual part of nullifying the decree –accomplishing the nullification of the decree from Above. Therefore his efforts were with (and among) the Yidden.
Whereas Esther endeavored (mainly) in the effort according to nature,
(In order to accomplish that the nullification of the Supernal decree, be effected below – she did it all)
through Achashverosh so much so that Achashverosh nullified the decree and even more – “it was reversed, the Jews should rule over their enemies.”
7. One could say – that in the same way that Mordechai and Esther, differed in their actions regarding the nullification of the decree, so too is the difference between them with regard to the emphasis in the miracle of Purim, their accomplishment:
Regarding Mordechai, the emphasis in the miracle of Purim was the spiritual “victory” (דוחניות׳דיקער ״נצחוך) of the Yidden –
that which they repented (תשובה) and in such a manner that this accomplished that “They confirmed what they had accepted long before” (קיימו מה שקיבלו כבר)” and the “They reaccepted it in the days of Achashverosh” (״הדר קבלוה בימי אחשורוש״) which removed the “Strong protest against the Torah” (״מודעא רבה לאורייתא״) from Matan Torah (and therefore Mordechai wanted that work should be forbidden on Purim – similar to Yom Kippur – a day of Teshuvah and the giving of the Second Luchot – it should be a day that is dedicated to the aspect of the soul).
Whereas Esther emphasized in the miracle, the salvation from the decree of Haman “to destroy, kill, and cause to perish all the Jews etc.” – the salvation of the bodies of the Yidden, as it states in the Levush:
“The decree was to destroy and kill the bodies . . and not the souls . . therefore when they were saved from it etc.”
8. With this one can explain why even regarding the remembrance of the miracle, the request of “accept upon yourselves these two days” was from Mordechai and Esther, whereas the request of “Commemorate me” and “Write an account of me” were just from Esther alone. For in the three aspects the remembrance of the miracle of Purim manifests itself in different ways:
Regarding fulfilling the “days of Purim” - even though this is connected with the physical Mitzvot of Mishteh vSimcha and Mishloach Manot and Matanot L’evyomim, nevertheless, their aspect is plainly – that through them the Yidden should in their thoughts come to the remembrance of the miracle.
Through the aspect of “Commemorate me”- “to read” – it causes the remembrance of the miracle to come down in speech, as it states that “the movement of the lips is considered deed” (״עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה״)
However, speech is just a “minor deed” (מעשה זוטא).
Therefore, afterward, through the request of “Write an account of me” (״כתבוני״) – the remembrance of the miracle came down into “major deed” (מעשה רבא) – the miracle was written with physical ink on physical parchment etc.
Regarding Mordechai, where the emphasis of the miracle for him was the spiritual victory – even in the remembrance of the miracle, the main aspect was the remembrance in thought (the spirituality of the person) (and as aforementioned, he also wanted to forbid work on that day of Purim).
However regarding Esther, whose emphasis was the literal salvation – the saving of the physical body, therefore it was not sufficient that the remembrance of the miracle should be in thought but rather that it must mainly come down into deed (עשי׳) (in a “minor deed” and then afterward in a “major deed”).
9. The reason that Mordechai just requested “accept upon yourselves these two days” (not “Commemorate me” and not “Write an account of me”) is because it stems from the way Mordechai is, from the perspective of the condition and virtue of himself. For then he also sees his generation
(of which he is their leader and head (פרנס וראש) as they stand and draw and receive vitality from him - c.f. Tanya chap. 2))
the way they are from the perspective of their souls and their spirituality– and from the perspective of their spirituality, it is sufficient that the remembrance of the miracle should be in thought. It is not so much relevant that it come down into deed, as aforementioned.
However when he sits in the Sanhedrin, and one brings a difficult matter there – for the aspect of the Sanhedrin is to decide the practical law (דין למעשה), and for this they must become available (אראפלאזן) to the Yidden and see their condition in the physical world, from the perspective of their bodies (and the decision of the halacha (פסק הלכה) must be physically carried out) – then he views the Yidden from the perspective of their bodies. Therefore at that level, the remembrance for the miracle must come into actual deed, since specifically this takes (דערנעמט) the body completely.
10. The aforementioned aspect is explained in the style of Torat HaChassidut:
The difference between the level of Mordechai and the level of Esther is:
Mordechai‘s aspect is “Yesod of Abba” (יסוד אבא). From the level of “Abba” (the Sefirah of Chochmah/wisdom) the concern is the aspect of the “light/Or” (אור). Whereas the level of Esther is the Sefirah of Malchut, and in this itself – the way that Malchut descends into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah (as it is alluded to in her name “Esther” – from the words: “And I will hide” (וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר) – the epitome of concealment and hiding, which from the perspective of the Sefirah of Malchut concerns the aspect of the “receptacles/Keilim” (כלים).
The difference between the manner of the way that the miracle of Purim is felt from the perspective of the aspect of the “Or” and the way it is felt from the perspective of the ”Keilim” is:
The miracle of Purim, being from the miracles that are enclothed in nature, contains two extremes:
From one side – since the miracle was enclothed in nature in a manner of “there was nothing that was visible to the eye (to indicate) that it was above nature”, it is understood that it is connected with the G-dly light which comes down and is enclothed in the world.
From the other side - since this is an aspect from a miracle and the revelation of G-dliness (so must so – that “it is visible to the senses that all the causes were only above nature”) it is understood that the root of the miracle is from the G-dly light which is higher than nature.
This itself, namely that the miracle can come down into nature is a sign that at its root, it is higher even than the revealed miracles. Therefore it is not “bound” (מוגבל) in the bounds of higher-than-nature (העכער־פוו־טבע) and can be drawn into nature itself.
And this is the difference between the miracle of Purim, the way it is from the perspective of “light” (אור) and the way it is from the perspective of the “receptacles” (כלים):
The aspect of “light” effects the revelation and the miracle – the miracle, how it is from its root and source.
The aspect of the “receptacles” is to draw down (אראפטראגן) the miracle into the concealment and hiddenness of the garments of nature. In this, the intent of the miracle is also carried out – to transform the concealment of nature, so that one can see that nature is conducted from G-d Himself.
11. And this is the difference between Mordechai and Esther:
From Mordechai‘s aspect - the aspect of “light” - the main emphasis of the miracle of Purim is (not in the refining of nature, but rather) in the revelation of light - that which, through the miracle, the true Omnipotence (Bli gevul) of G-d is revealed (that it reaches even to the lowest level – in the conduct of nature).
And therefore, also in the remembrance of the miracle, it is not so relevant that it should come into deed – it is sufficient that the remembrance of the miracle manifests itself in the physical Mitzvot of Purim. However the remembrance of the miracle itself can remain in thought and spirituality.
(Therefore this aspect is cited in the Talmud Yerushalmi - which in Torah itself represents the aspect of the “light” (one immediately finds the correct reasoning and answer etc., the way one sees a thing in the light).
From the perspective of Esther, However, the aspect of the “Keilim” “I will surely hide” – the main emphasis in the miracle of Purim is that which, through it, the concealment and darkness of nature transformed (איבערגעמאכט) is. Therefore even in the remembrance of the miracle, it matters that it should come in (the world of) physicality (עולם העשי) in the reading and writing. For specifically through this, is the intent of the miracle, carried out – that nature itself should illuminate.
(And therefore this aspect is cited in Talmud Bavli, of which it states: “He hath made me to dwell in dark places . . This, said R. Jeremiah, refers to the Babylonian Talmud” (במחשכים הושיבני.. זה תלמודה של בבל) - it is the aspect of “refining the darkness” (in Torah itself))
12. According to all the aforementioned, one can also understand the comparison of “Esther” to the “dawn” – as it states:
“Just as the dawn is the end of the whole night, so is the story of Esther the end of all the miracles”
and how this is connected to that which Esther was “given to be written”.
The reason that the Talmud compares the “end of the whole night” to “the end of all the miracles” – for seemingly “miracle” and “night” are complete opposites (as the Maharsha asks) – is because, as aforementioned (end of Par. 10) the purpose of a miracle is that nature itself should change. Namely that in nature (which, on its own, represents an aspect of “night” and darkness) should “hear” (אנהערן) (i.e. be influenced by) the light and revelation of G-dliness.
And “Esther” is the “end of all the miracles”. She is the end and purpose of all the miracles - drawing the miracle and revelation of G-dliness into the concealment and hiddenness of the world. For she accomplishes
(Not just in the darkness of this world which has a relation (- and is “close” (״בממיכות״)) to “light”. The refined aspects of this world but)
in the “end of all the night” – in the epitome of the darkness and concealment, and ‘surely hide’ (הסתר אסתיר) of this world - which has no relation to “light”
(Just like the “end of all the night” literally, which specifically then (before dawn (עלות השחר)) is the darkness of the night stronger than during the night).
According to this, it is understood why these miracles which are in the category of “given to be written” can be compared to “night”, and specifically to the “end of all the night”:
The reason that regarding these miracles, the remembrance of the miracle was drawn down into “writing and deed” – which in this world itself, is the category of mineral (דומם), the end of all the levels of the world of Asiyah – is because the aspect of these miracle are to transform the “night” and especially the “end of all the night”.
13. This is also the explanation why “Esther compared to the dawn”. The light of the dawn, which breaks the darkness of the “end of all the night” depicts a light that becomes “specifically drawn down from the darkness that preceded it”
(In other words, that which one transforms the darkness itself to light).
This is also alluded in the word “dawn” which is from the wording “blackness, gloom, and darkness” (ל׳ שחרות וקדרות ווחושך).
And this is also represented in the Sefirot:
The Zohar states that:
“(the first rays) of dawn (Ayelet HaShachar) refers to Knesset Yisroel’’ (״ (אילת ה) שחר דא כנסת ישראל״)
– which is the Sefirah of Malchut.
And since the “dawn is the end of all the night”, it is understood that this is the Sefirah of Malchut -
not the way that it is in its place, in Atzilut, or even the way it is manifested in the “Atik of Beriah” - where the aspect of Malchut is revealed, but rather -
the way it descends in the concealment and darkness of the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah – to transform the concealment to light (similar to what was mentioned previously with regard to Esther)
14. The reason that Esther transforms (מאכט איבער) the concealment and hiddenness of the world – even though the connotation is “surely hide” (הסתר אסתיר) - is because it is not just in the power of Mordechai (whose aspect is light and revelation, as aforementioned, at length) but also because Esther herself, is in Pnimiyut, completely higher than the hiddenness.
This is the inner explanation of the verse: “Hadassah is Esther”. For (also) in the descending in the concealment and hiddenness of the world (“Esther” - from the word concealment) there is found the level of “Hadassah” (which refers to the “Tzaddikim”). This depicts the Pnimiyut of Malchut which is united with the sefirot which are above it.
And this is also the lesson in the Avodah of each person:
For even when a Yid finds himself in a situation of “hiddenness” (הסתר) and darkness - one must not be affected.
On the contrary:
Since, in his Pnimiyut, he is higher than the concealment, he has the power, not only to withstand the darkness, but even more so – to transform the concealment itself to light.
15. As has been spoken of many times - all the aspects of Pnimiyut of Torah here, are found, or at least alluded to) in the Revealed Torah (niglah of Torah).
The same is in our case:
The aforementioned aspect in the Avodah of each person – meaning the way that a Yid is, in pnimiyut, higher than “concealment” (הסתר) - is alluded to by the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch (second edition (במהדורא תניינא)) in the beginning of Hilchot Hashkamat HaBoker, in the law of “I awaken the morning and the morning does not awaken me” (״אני מעורר השחר ואין השחר מעיר אותי״).
This is connected with a puzzlement in the Taz (Turei Zahav) and a change in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch from the first edition to the second - which becomes understood according to the inner explanation (mentioned above in Par. 13) in the level of “dawn” (״שחר״).
16. The Tur cites (in the first chapter of Orach Chaim) that:
“One must strengthen himself like a lion to get up in the morning to serve his Creator, so that you awaken the dawn and not that the dawn awakens you, as King David, peace upon him states: ‘I awaken the dawn and the dawn does not awaken me’”.
In Shulchan Aruch however, the Mechaber (the author of Shulchan Aruch – R’ Yosef Karo) cites just the beginning –
“So that it is he who awakens the dawn”
and not the conclusion (‘and the dawn does not awaken me”).
The Taz explains that ‘dawn’ means Knesset (holiness) of Yisroel (כנסת ישראל) – the holiness that resides in Yidden.
In this, there are two manners:
· “I awaken the dawn” – the awakening from below to be able to attain the “dawn”
· “The dawn awakens me” – the awakening from Above, from the level of “dawn”
And this is what king David meant by saying: “the dawn does not awaken me” that “his awakening from below was so great that it did not require the aid of an awakening from Above”. And since this is a level which is only applicable to “David, and the like” – the Mechaber does not cite it in Shulchan Aruch.
This is seemingly very puzzling:
How can one say that there is someone that does “not require the aid of an awakening from Above”?
For it states “were not the Holy One, blessed be He, to help him, he would not be able to prevail against him (the evil inclination)”. And every Yid, even a complete Tzaddik says: “Do not believe in yourself etc.”?
17. The Alter Rebbe in the first edition also cites (like the Mechaber) only the aspect that “he should awaken the dawn” – however in the second edition he states: “he should awaken the dawn as it states: ‘I awaken the dawn ‘– ‘I awaken the dawn and the dawn does not awaken me’ and this is an intermediate characteristic’” (Middah Benonit (מדה בינונית)).
It is not understood:
Since even the second edition is a part of Shulchan Aruch - a matter that is equal to all souls – why does the Alter Rebbe cite the aspect of “the dawn does not awaken me” which applies only to “David and the like”?
The puzzlement is even greater:
From the flow of the words of the Alter Rebbe, it appears that the words “and this is an intermediate characteristic’” applies
(Not only to the general din regarding arising “before the light of the morning” (which does not approach the level that “it is proper for every G-d fearing person etc. to arise at midnight) but rather)
also to the aspect of “the dawn does not awaken me”. This means that it is applicable not only to unique individuals, but on the contrary - that “this is an intermediate characteristic”.
18. According to the aforementioned (Par. 13) in the level of “dawn” – that this refers to “Knesset Yisroel” (Malchut), the way that it descends into the concealment and hiddenness of the world – one could say that:
The reason that the Taz states that:
“It did not require the aid of an awakening from Above”
only means that he does not require the aid of an awakening that is taken from the level of “dawn”. However, he must indeed rely on an aid from higher levels – in G-dliness.
The explanation in this is:
In the aid from Above, one could say that there are, in general, three levels:
1. The aid to prevent one from stumbling in forbidden desires (תאוות איסור), G-d forbid. That aid is from the level of “dawn”, as Malchut descends in the “end of all the night”, the place of the epitome of the concealment of this world.
2. The aid that protects (אויסהיטן) one from mundane desires (תאוות היתר) – and this comes from Malchut as it is manifested in the “Atik of Beriah”.
(For although even this level is an aspect of “night” (descent into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah) – and the same is in Avodah, that it comes to protect one (פארהיטן) from desires (תאוות), however it is not the “end of all the night”- the aid is for mundane desires).
3. The aid that enables one to rise from one level to another in holiness itself. This comes from Malchut of Atzilut, as it is in its place in Atzilut - for there it is called “day”.
19. These three aforementioned aspects correspond, in general, to the three levels in Avodah: The Avodah of the Tzaddik, the Benoni and – the Rasha, as their levels are explained in Tanya:
A Tzaddik is completely not applicable to the aspect of desires, which are taken from the Nefesh haBahamit (animalistic soul). His Avodah manifests itself in rising in holiness itself.
For a Benoni, it is inconceivable (אפגעפרעגט) that he would sin, G-d forbid (as it states: “he did not transgress with sin etc., and he will never transgress”). He must, however, battle to protect himself from mundane desires.
A Rasha must wage war in order not to fall into forbidden things – and for this he must rely on the aid from Above – from the level of “dawn”.
And one could say that this is also the explanation of the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch:
From the revealed aspect of Torah (Niglah), a Benoni is one that is “half - half” (מחצה על מחצה) - one whose deeds are half virtuous and half sinful”.
One who has more than half – namely that “the majority of his deeds are merits” - is a Tzaddik.
Therefore in the first edition, which was written according to the decisions (הכרעה) of the “Talmud” and the “codifiers”, the Alter Rebbe does not cite the aspect of “the dawn does not awaken me” (that one must not rely on the aid of “dawn” which protects one from transgressing a sin).
However in the second edition, the Alter Rebbe decides according to the “kabbalists” (כהמקובלים). And from the perspective, and according to (the explanations in) Pnimiyut HaTorah, even a Benoni is also not applicable to transgress a sin (and therefore does not require the aid from the level of “dawn”).
Therefore the Alter Rebbe also cites there, the aspect of “the dawn does not awaken me” and concludes “this is an intermediate characteristic’” (Middah Benonit (וזו מדה בינונית״)) (which with this, he alludes to the level of a Benoni).
And the Alter Rebbe places this itself in Shulchan Aruch as a ruling of law (פסק דין) which is relevant to all souls - for after the Alter Rebbe revealed in Tanya the true aspect of a Benoni – this became the “rank that is attainable by every man; each person should strive after it if he has not yet attained it, and should not think it beyond his reach, for every person can, at any time or hour, be a Benoni”.
20. The Alter Rebbe demands this aforementioned aspect - immediately upon rising in the morning, even before reciting Modeh Ani. This means that even when there is not yet, a revelation of light in his soul, and he is still in a condition of “darkness” – nevertheless it is demanded from him that he “overcome his inclination like a lion” in a manner that he even does not need to rely on the aid from Above to protect him from transgressing a sin, G-d forbid (“the dawn does not awaken me”).
How can one indeed demand from a Yid such a level and condition?
The explanation in this is:
The reason that a Yid is in a condition of darkness is only from his externality (Chitzoniut). In his Pnimiyut – he is higher than the concealment (as aforementioned in Par 14, regarding the aspect of “Hadassah is Esther”).
And on the contrary - this condition of “hiddenness” (הסתר) evokes the Pnimiyut of the soul with greater strength and greater power (ביתר שאת ויתר עז) which manifests itself in the power of Mesirat Nefesh which every Yid possesses. And as it was in the time of Esther, and in the course of “the entire year completely” (כל השנה כולה) - the Yidden were: “in the level of actual Mesirat Nefesh every day, every moment and during the entire year”, since Mesirat Nefesh involves a person completely, in all of his powers and “even in his outer garments”.
So too is this in the Avodah of every person:
Specifically the condition of “darkness” evokes the Pnimiyut of one’s soul more so than the condition of “revelation of light”. And this manifests itself in the acceptance of the yoke (קבלת עול), from the essence of the Neshama (soul) which overtakes him completely. And from this - “every person can, at any time or hour, be a Benoni”.
mSichas Purim and Shabbat Parshat Tisa 5724
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|