Tiyul in Tanya Part 9: Meet Your Soul

This is the part that I have been longing to write about.  It is really a great piece, and quite possibly one of the most misunderstood pieces in all of Tanya(Rav Steinsaltz agrees with me on that).

The explanation [of the questions raised above] is to be found in the light of what Rabbi Chayim Vital wrote in Sha’ar ha-Kedushah (and in Etz Chayim, Portal 50, ch. 2) that in every Jew, whether righteous or wicked, are two souls, as it is written, “The neshamot (souls) which I have made,” [alluding to] two souls.

This is probably going to become my mantra for this pieces, however, let me say that it is much more complicated than that.  I am not going to translate the Eitz Haim here(meaning for this piece, not all of it anyway).  But what I have done is translate the relevant piece from Shaarei Kedusha, Part 3 Gate 2:

View this document on Scribd

There is one soul which originates in the kelipah andsitra achra, and which is clothed in the blood of a human being, giving life to the body, as is written, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” From it stem all the evil characteristics deriving from the four evil elements which are contained in it. These are: anger and pride, which emanate from the element of Fire, the nature of which is to rise upwards; the appetite for pleasures— from the element of Water, for water makes to grow all kinds of enjoyment; frivolity and scoffing, boasting and idle talk from the element of Air; and sloth and melancholy— from the element of Earth.

If you have done the reading you already understand this, if not, I will fill you in a bit.  What he is breaking down as two souls here are really five.  However he is calling one the Sitra Achra and Klipa.  First in Kabbalah, every world is a Klipah to the one above it(which will really do your head in when we get to the end of the chapter).   Second let’s take the example of an orange.  An orange has a peel.  An orange peel is made up of three distinct layers(Kilpot) however, since our concern is for the fruit, we only speak in terms of fruit(the inner part of the orange) and klipah(the peel).  Since the Baal HaTanya’s primary objective is not to give a full fleshing out of the human soul, but rather only to talk about that part in each person, in fact in each Jew, that relates most closely with HaShem, he is simplifying.  However the should of cow, in a cow is equally holy.

From this soul stem also the good characteristics which are to be found in the innate nature of all Israel, such as mercy and benevolence. For in the case of Israel, this soul of the kelipah is derived from kelipat nogah, which also contains good, as it originates in the esoteric “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.”

Ah now we get to the real issue, the soul that is derived from the Kali Nogah.  The Arizal explains that it is forever tinged by evil.  Once again this is that Yetzer HaRa that we can never fully expunge from ourselves.  Primarily this is on account of the sin of man that the soul is so mixed.  Also this leads us to the primary avodah of a Jew which is to separate the good from the evil.  The Arizal writes in two places(Shaar HaPasukim and Shaar Mamarei Rashbi) that this is the secret of the 39 melakhot.  That since Adam HaRishon sinned on the sixth day, before Shabbat, this work of separating good from evil is not in our hands on Shabbat, as it only affected(in one sense) the profane days of the week.  However it doesn’t so much touch Shabbat.

Here we get the problem with Jew.  As good a a Jew will ever be, like it says on Sukka 52a, “The greater the Tzadik the greater the Yetzer Hara,” he will have equal evil to contend with.  There is no escaping it.  Unlike the nations who as we will learn are derived from the harder klipot, this kilpa is fully mixed, there is not peel or shell to strip away and be left with only holiness.  Rather it is forever mixed, and thus a Jew always has room to grow in yirat shmayim(fear of heaven) and lshem shamayim(service only for the sake of heaven.

The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, uncleankelipot which contain no good whatever, as is written in Etz Chayim,Portal 49, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations do, is done from selfish motives. So the Gemara comments on the verse, “The kindness of the nations is sin,”— that all the charity and kindness done by the nations of the world is only for their own self-glorification, and so on.

I’m going to start this final bit of discussion with the words of Rav Adin Steinsaltz

The author is not coming, with these few brief sentences, to define the nature of the non-Jew.  Whatever he says here about non-Jews is just the background for the issue with which he is dealing.

In other words it would be a grave error to try to extrapolate from this any sort of doctrine about a non-Jew’s relationship with HaShem.  One of the most important commentaries on the Eitz Haim, the Beit Lehem Yehuda, has several long pieces spread out over a number of Shaarim in which he builds at last a logic system of understanding the nature of non-Jews from the various statements that the Arizal makes.  Let me start with a direct quote from the piece at hand, “There is no created thing in the world that does not contain sparks of holiness which enliven it.”   He then points us to something he said earlier in the chapter, which is another long piece.  There he tells us about the righteous amongst the nations.  In short a non-Jew has an incredibly hard time breaking through the shell of the klipa from which his soul is derived, but once he does he has access to holiness much easier(hence the reason that a Noahide only has to keep 7 laws).

Furthermore the question from which klipot the non-Jew’s soul is derived.  For instance a Jew may have a soul that is derived from the Kali Noga of Asiyah(the lowest of the worlds) whereas a non-Jew may have a soul derived from the Klipa of fire of Atzilut.  Thus if the non-Jew were to overcome his sitra achra and break through to being a righteous gentile, his connection with Hashem would be qualitatively superior(this is all spelled out in Shaar HaGilgulim and the second Drush of Shaar Ruah HaKodesh).

Tiyul in Tanya Part 8: Defining a Beinoni…

Getting back to our little ongoing discussion on Tanya, it appears that we will finally close out the first chapter this week.  Also please note that I have added a new category, Tiyul in Tanya(found at the bottom) that will allow easy access to all of these posts.

Furthermore, [at what stage can a person be considered a Benoni if] when a man commits sins he is deemed completely wicked (but when he repents afterward he is deemed completely righteous)?

Here is our first key that a “Tzadik Gamur”(completely righteous person) is not a person who has never ever sinned, as the Arizal states in Shaar Ruah HaKodesh drush 1, “There is no righteous person who only does good and does not sin, not even one.”  He goes on to explain that not even Moshe Rabbeinu or David HaMelekh were without sin.

Even he who violates a minor prohibition of the Rabbis is called wicked, as it is stated in Yevamot,ch. 2, and in Niddah, ch. I. Moreover, even he who has the opportunity to forewarn another against sinning and does not do so is called wicked (ch. 6,Shevuot). All the more so he who neglects any positive law which he is able to fulfil, for instance, whoever is able to study Torah and does not, regarding whom our Sages have quoted, “Because he hath despised the word of the Lord… [that soul] shall be utterly cut off…,” It is thus plain that such a person is called wicked, more than he who violates a prohibition of the Rabbis. If this is so, we must conclude that the Intermediate man(Benoni) is not guilty even of the sin of neglecting to study the Torah. Hence Rabbah could have mistaken himself for a Benoni.

And as for the general saying that one whose deeds and misdeeds are equally balanced is called Benoni, while he whose virtues outweigh his sins is called a Tzaddik, this is only the figurative use of the term in regard to reward and punishment, because he is judged according to the majority [of his acts] and he is deemed “righteous” in his verdict, since he is acquitted in law. But concerning the true definition and quality of the distinct levels and ranks, “Righteous” and “Intermediate” men, our Sages have remarked that the Righteous are motivated [solely] by their good nature, as it is written, “And my heart is a void within me,” that is, void of an evil nature, because he [David] had slain it through fasting. But whoever has not attained this degree, even though his virtues exceed his sins, cannot at all be reckoned to have ascended to the rank of the Righteous (tzaddik). This is why our Sages have declared in the Midrash, “The Almighty saw that the righteous were few, so He planted them in every generation,…” [for,] as it is written, “The tzaddik is the foundation of the world.”

I must admit that I have some difficulty understanding the last bit of this.  The Arizal from Shaar Ruah HaKodesh doesn’t understand it this way.  He understands that David HaMelekh rectified his soul… but that he was completely without a Yetzer Hara, that would seem to be impossible for a Jew, considering the pieces of the Eitz Haim that the Baal HaTanya is yet to quote in which every Jew’s soul comes from the Klipah Noga and thus is an eternal mix of Good and Evil.   Furthermore the Gemarra clearly says, “The greater the Tzadik the greater the Yetzer Hara”(Sukkot 52a).

My attempt to rectify this seeming Stira(self-contradiction) is this.  In Rav Salant’s Iggrot HaMussar and Likutei Moharanan 72 it is brought that there are two forms of Yetzer HaRa.  The first is entirely physical.  This is the battle that takes place between a man’s base physical desires and his mind/soul as well as the various negative character traits one is born with.  The second is a spiritual force that is solely external to man who convinces him to act corruptly through careful persuasion and trickery.  The former, the purely “natural” yetzer HaRa one can kill.  Rav Haim Vital references this in the first two tikkunim of Shaar Ruah HaKodesh(that one can through proper kavvanot, fasting and the donning of sack, the real stuff not burlap, kill one’s yetzer and be called Kadosh).  The Second form the spritual Yetzer Hara will be with us forever.  A person would have to be very honest with himself to know whether he has fully killed his Yetzer, and thus is only now dealing with forces external to himself.

Tiyul in Tanya Part 7: Gaining Clarity

So picking up where we left off…

To understand all the aforesaid clearly an explanation is needed, as also to under-stand what Job said [Bava Batra, ch. i], “Lord of the universe, Thou hast created righteous men and Thou hast created wicked men,…” for it is not preordained whether a man will be righteous or wicked.

In order to understand how to properly classify(for the moment we are going to work within this illusion, granted it ultimately breaks down, as the Leshem, Rav Shimon Algasi and other major mekubalim write that even in the world to come we will still be beinonim with choice, avodah[service], aveira[sin], reward and punishment) each.  What is a Tzadik, what is a Beinoni, what is a Rasha?  How do those things exist?  In order to do that we need to examine a few more bits in order to get a full picture of what exactly we are talking about.  Then we can explore how all of those things touch upon our worship of Hashem, and the questions that they force us to ask of ourselves as we continue upon our path of service.

Job’s statement is also perplexing.  If the full piece in the Gemarra he is arguing, what is in his mind, the fundamental unfairness of creation.  An ox is born with cloven hooves, yet a donkey is not… thus they have no equality(seemingly) in the basest potential.  He makes the same argument about men claiming that some are compelled to sin by the status and circumstances of their birth, while others are born to be tzadikim.

However as the Baal HaTanya states that this is not true at all.  There is an aphorism in the Gemarra, אין חסיד עם הארץ “A Chasid is not an Am HaAretz.”  This applied in the Gemarra and it applies equally today to the study of Chassidut.  So surely you would know that on Niddah 16b is found the rest of the story.  There it says before a soul descends into a body Hashem decrees whether it will be wise or foolish, rich or poor, handsome or ugly ect.  However the Gemarra than asks if it decrees whether it will be righteous or wicked and says, “Everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven.”

It is also necessary to understand the essential nature of the rank of the Inter¬mediate.

This is especially so since this is ultimately the place where we all fall out.  From the greatest Admur to the humblest Jew, each is according to his level a Beinoni.  Rav Kaduri ZTzUK”L used to call himself a beinoni.  How could this be?  It was a matter of perspective.  He told several mashalim(parables) explaining this.  One he said over to me was, “So you passed your Rabbanut Exam with Alef Alef… very nice, how do you compare with Rav Ovadia Yosef?”  His point was poignant and clear, whatever level you achieve, there is always another one(or 100) left to attain.  The Gemarra says that a man does not die with half of his desires in his hands, Rav Yaakov Hillel in his work Ascending the Path says this also applies to Torah and Righteousness.  The Gra in his biur on Mishle(chapter 16) says that a man is called a holek(walker) because his way is to constantly be moving, there is no standing still.  If he thinks he is standing still and enjoying some level that he has attained he is in fact falling backward.

Surely that cannot mean one whose deeds are half virtuous and half sinful, for if this were so, how could Rabbah err in classifying himself as a Benoni? For it is known that he never ceased studying [theTorah], so much so that the Angel of Death could not over¬power him; how, then, could he err to have half of his deeds sinful, G-d forbid?

The status of a Beinoni has very little to do with one’s deeds.  Quite obviously the Angel of Death had to trick Rabbah into wanting to sacrifice himself in order to be able to kill him(see Bava Metzia 86a).  Though, as the Baal HaTanya will point out, at times that label is given to such a person, in that case it is not discussing an actual Beinoni, but rather it is a colloquialism that is applied.  We run into such things throughout Torah literature.  Take the word Zonah for instance, it is applied, even in the Torah as a colloquialism for a prostitute, however, in halakhic terms, it has nearly nothing to do with prostitution.  In fact a woman could well be a prostitute, so long as she is properly selective in her clientele and never attain the status of a Zonah.

Essentially what the Baal HaTanya is warning us here is to not conflate the colloquialism with the “halakhic” definition.  They are not necessarily the same.  Since his basic thesis will be, as it is spelled out over about 20 chapters, that we are all Beinonim, he wants up front to let us know that he is not giving us license to misbehave.  One cannot say, “well I am a Beinoni, so I’m expected to sin here and there.”  Rather a Beinoni, as he will say is one who still has an evil inclination, and again since as the Gemarra says, and the Arizal quotes at the start of Shaar Ruah HaKodesh, “There is no Tzadik that does only right and does not sin.”  We are all, from Moshe Rabbeinu, to the humblest Jew, a Beinoni.

Tiyul in Tanya Part 6: It’s all about perspective.

This installment is dedicated to my father, who departed this world for the world of Truth on Rosh Hodesh Nisan 5766.

Continuing on, in the Tanya the Rav writes. 

Rabbah declared, “I, for example, am a Benoni” Said Abbaye to him, “Master, you do not make it possible for anyone to live,” and so on.

Now I’m not going to move much further than that today, because that itself is a loaded statement.  Now as I have often said here, that it is essential if you want to understand this text to open up the sources and see what is written therein.

אמר רבא כגון אנו בינונים אמר ליה אביי לא שביק מר חיי לכל בריה

Rava said, we for example are benonim.  Abbaye responded, “The master would not let any creature live.”

First thing of note is that the Baal HaTanya misquoted the Gemarra, or had before him a defective text.  So we must either try to understand what will come after according to the original text, or we can try to understand according to his reading.  For the purpose of going forward as the Baal HaTanya lays out his points I will allow him his reading.  Otherwise his position becomes much less tenable and I’m not trying to tear down the Tanya.

For now however I’m going to stay with the text as is in the Gemarra.  How is it that Rava could say that he and his companions, were in fact Beinonim.  If that is the case what hope do Baal HaBatim have?  Here we run square into a Kabbalistic concept known as Arechin(perspective).  Let me give an example by way of a Mashal that I hear oft repeated in the Beit Midrash when discussing this topic.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef usually learns about 12hrs a day.  Now let us say that he had a really bad night, didn’t get much sleep and has a migraine to top it all off.  So today, instead of 12hrs he only pulls off six hours.  This for him is a major degradation.  He has not learned his normal amount, and without question because of the circumstances his depth of learning will also be lacking.  Now let’s say I walk over to the shuk, snatch up some Chiloni, and by some miracle of Kiruv I manage to convince him to sit and learn for 6hrs that day.  For him this would be a major accomplishment, even a Tikkun.

The constant is 6hrs of learning.  What is variable is the perspective of the individual.  Now let us apply this to our situation.  We know that Rava(or Rabbah by the text of the Baal HaTanya) is a Tzadik seemingly devoid of the Yetzer HaRa.  However, that is from our perspective.  What about Rava’s perspective?  Another well known axiom of our Rabbanim is that the bigger the Tzadik the bigger the Yetzer HaRa.  Now Rav Yaakov Hillel does a great work on this piece in his Ascending the Path, and I really don’t want to overly beleaguer the point.  Rather I’m going to go with a piece that the Gra brings on Mishle 15:24, “The path of life leads upward for the prudent to keep them from descending into death.”  To this the Gra states, “Man is called a walker because it is necessary to always be walking  from level to level, for if he is not ascending he is Chas V’Shalom descending to the depths.  because it is impossible for him to stand at a single level.”

What this all means can be summed up into two points.  First that man is always in the place of tension.  In fact the Rashash as well as the Leshem both say that it will even be so in the world to come, that there will still be work to be done, there will still be reward and punishment, and there will still even be, in some way, a Yetzer HaRa.  So if man is constantly confronted(even in the world to come ) with a Yetzer HaRa, then from that man’s perspective he will of course always be a Beinoni.  For man is either fighting his Yetzer Hara and ascending or he is descending.  Perspective really means everything.  The Leshem and Rashash also state that what we call today Yetzer HaTov we will call Yetzer HaRa in the world to come.  Rava, surely is a Tzadik, what we would probably even call a Tzadik gamur, from our perspective.  We will do well to remember that as we go forward, because we will be seeing this concept again.

Second that there are a multitude of levels amongst even Beinonim.  Here we have Rabbah addressing the academy at Pumbedita.  While I will admit freely that to gain entrance into that academy one already had to be an elite Talmid Hakham, however, within that academy there were also individuals on diverse and varying levels.  The simple fact that Abaye calls Rabbah master denotes this.  However, Rabbah seems by his inclusive statement to be referring(at the minimum) to the entire academy.  This would denote that there is at least a spectrum of levels included in the overall category of “Beinoni.”

Tiyul in Tanya Part 5: The Good the Bad and the Inbetween.

Finally we arrive at chapter 1 of the Tanya,

It has been taught (Niddah, end ch. 3): An oath is administered to him [before birth, warning him]: “Be righteous and be not wicked; and even if the whole world tells you that you are righteous, regard yourself as if you were wicked.”

Like many Torah works it opens with a line from a Torah source, in this case, the Gemarra Niddah 30b.  Since mankind has been given absolute free will, before his birth he is exhorted how to use that free will.   So far so good.

This requires to be understood, for it contradicts the Mishnaic dictum (Avot, ch. 2), “And be not wicked in your own estimation.” Furthermore, if a man considers himself to be wicked he will be grieved at heart and depressed, and will not be able to serve G-d joyfully and with a contented heart; while if he is not perturbed by this [self-appraisal], it may lead him to irreverence, G-d forbid.

The Baal HaTanay(the author) not brings a kushia(a difficulty) on the original statement.   The question is essentially this: How can one view himself as wicked?  Either he will be depressed, because despite all of his striving his is still separated from HaShem, and is still wicked.  If this were the only problem that would be bad enough.  It is a mitzvah(commandment) to serve HaShem with joy.  One cannot do that if one is chronically depressed over his spiritual state.

Second to that is if he is actually not perturbed about being wicked.  This is by far a worse scenario as it can lead to irreverence and worse.  It is said, in Kabbalistic circles, that this is the essential error that brought Shabttai Tzvi to heresy.  How that works I will have to explain later(probably chapter 3) but for now it is enough to say that if one is not upset about being wicked then all of the speed bumps on the road to hell have been removed.

However, the matter [will be understood after a preliminary discussion].

We find in the Gemara five distinct types—a righteous man who prospers, a righteous man who suffers, a wicked man who prospers, a wicked man who suffers, and an intermediate one (Benoni). It is there explained that the “righteous man who prospers” is the perfect tzaddik; the “righteous man who suffers” is the imperfect tzaddik. In Raaya Mehemna (ParshatMishpatim) it is explained that the “righteous man who suffers” is one whose evil nature is subservient to his good nature, and so on. In theGemara (end ch. 9, Berachot) it is stated that the righteous are motivated by their good nature,… and the wicked by their evil nature, while the intermediate men are motivated by both, and so on.

It would actually behoove us here to look in depth at this particular piece of Zohar.  I have heard Tanya taught many times and have read some excellent commentaries, however the way Tanya is often taught and what is written in the Zohar are night and day from one another.  So here is the text of the Zohar, translated and elucidated taken directly from the Matok U’Mdvash(the text of the Zohar will be regular and the elucidation from Matok UM’dvash ittalicised, he is actually bringing his perush from the Ramak):

And he brings forth sources from the Mishna in masechet Berakhot 61b A Tzadik(righteous person) he good inclination judges him, a Rasha(wicked person) his evil inclination judges him, and a Beinoni both judge him and they explain a person who has his source in the Tree of Life one who’s soul comes to him from tiferet of Atzilut this is a complete Tzadik and there is to him Torah which is called good because, there is no goo other than Torah and this is the one about whom it is written ‘for I give you sound teaching, do not abandon my instruction’, which is to say that Torah alludes to tiferet from whence his soul comes.  And the Tzadik to whom there is evil he comes from the side of tree of knowledge good and evil the tov is an angel and the evil is a Satan  and most times his good overcomes his evil, but sometimes his evil overcomes his good.  So he asks why is he called a Tzadik afterall he sill has an evil inclination which is called evil?  He answers, rather it is because the Good rules over him, which is to say that he overcomes his evil with good therefore he is called a Tzadik that has evil which is explained to mean that his evil is surrendered under its authority.

A wicked person to whom there is good he asks why is he called wicked when there is yet a good inclination in him?  Because the Rasha has raised his Yetzer Hara Above him so as to be his head and rule over him the good is thus surrendered to the authority of the evil and he doesn’t do good except for self-serving reasons, just as a child, because he himself is surrendered to evil, and this is the Rasha to whom there is evil.

This requires a deal of explanation.  First let us say that no one is born a Tzadik gamur.  The Arizal explains in Shaar Ruah HaKodesh as well as Shaar HaGilgulim that no one is born with a soul on the level of Atzilut(the highest of the four worlds), but rather Asiah(the lowest of the four worlds).  What is more even Moshe Rabbeinu, his soul only came from the world of Beriah, granted Tiferet of Beriah(the third highest of the four worlds), but Beriah none the less, and even then it took him 80yrs to acheive that level and his Navua(prophesy) on that level.  Few even are the people who have the potential to reach such a high level.  Then even if they can reach such a level, they do not remain there.

The Zohar tells us that there are 36 hidden Tzadikim in the world who have attained this level.  Rav Shalom M. Hedaya told me a story of when he was a young man, he asked Rav Yehuda Pataya if Rabbi Aryeh Levin(who was without doubt a complete Tzadik) one of these 36, Rav Pataya replied, “Sometimes.”  What does this mean.  That even a person such as Rabbi Aryeh Levin, for whom it would take many many blog posts to describe his righteousness, was never always righteous on that level.  There are several important foundational concepts that I am skipping over here, hopefully I will be able to come to them later, and then this will be more understandable.

So after having described this level that at best we can only hope to achieve temporarily, we move on to the level of a Tzadik to whom there is evil.  This is another long discussion for which there is little space.  However, let us suffice it to say that this is not someone who never sins, because the man who never sins simply does not exist.  Rather this is a man who while he may sin, immediately repents and tries with his utmost to be in the service to heaven only for the sake of bringing joy to his Creator.

We then jump to the Rasha to whom there is good.  This is the ultimate self-centered person.  Any good they do do, they do for what they can get out of it.  Even if it would be something that you might think is purely spiritual such as Torah study, prayer ect. The reason that a Rasha does it is for the reward that he hopes to get, not out of a a heart love and desire to honor and please his Creator.  This is why the Zohar compares him mentally to a child, because this is the way a child thinks.  The child does things for the reward(even if that reward is simply the avoidance of punishment).  At a more denigrated level a Rasha who whom there is good, may in fact be thinking that he is doing good.  While such statements once got Will Smith in trouble, even the majority of the most despotic dictators probably never woke up in the morning and thought to themselves, “what is the most wicked thing I can do today.”  Rather they simply were ruled by and surrendered to evil, as the Zohar says, and thus came to the point that they called good evil and evil good(see Yeshayah 5:20 and especially the biur HaGra there).

That leaves us with two groups that the Zohar does speak about, namely the Beinoni and the Rasha to whom there is evil(meaning only evil).  The reason that the Zohar does not speak of these two is because the first exists only in the realm of erekhin(perspective) and the second is so extraordinarily rare.  We will discuss the Beinoni in a bit, but a Rasha to whom there is evil, also known as the Rasha gamur, is one who knows HaShem and his goodness on the level of the greatest of the Prophets and Righteous men, and knowing this, actively seeks to act contrary to His will.  Balaam is the poster-child for this.  A man who had prophecy equal to Moshe Rabbeinu, but who sought to do evil even though he knew the will of Hashem.

 

Tiyul in Tanya Part 4

I have been really busy with several safrut orders.  Hopefully motzei Pesah I will be able to actually post on this as often as I would like.   I’ve already get material going through the first three chapters, it’s just a matter of having the time to type it all in.  Also I’m thinking about starting a series in the Likutei Maharan of Rabbi Nachman, so let me know what you think of that.  Anyway… here is the conclusion of the forward.

I have, therefore, recorded all the replies to all the questions, to be preserved as a sign-post and to serve as a visual reminder for each and every person, so that he will no longer press for admission to private conference with me. For in these [responsa] he will find peace for his soul, and true counsel on every matter that he finds difficult in the service of G-d. His heart will thus be firmly secured in the Lord Who completes everything for us.

Here the Rav is getting down to the main purpose of Tanya.  The sefer was meant in a certain way to take the place of the need of a private audience with the Rav.  He has tried to compile all of his mussar into one place, namely the Likutei Amarim, so that the seeker can find the advice he seeks within these pages.  In a certain sense he has not denied the limitations that we spoke of earlier, however, he has hopes that within the bounds of those limitations the text will serve as a guide in the service of HaShem.

As for him whose mind falls short in the understanding of the counsel given in these kuntresim, let him discuss his problem with the foremost scholars of his town, and they will elucidate it for him. And I beg of them not to lay their hand on their mouth, to conduct themselves with false meekness and humility, G-d forbid. It is known what bitter punishment is his who withholds food [i.e. knowledge], and the greatness of the reward [in the opposite case], from the Rabbinic teaching relating to the Scriptural text, “The Lord lighteneth the eyes of them both,” for G-d will cause His face to shine upon them, with the light of the countenance of the King [the Source of] life. May the Giver of life to the living make us worthy to live to see the days when “no longer shall one man instruct the other … for all shall know Me,. . ,” “for the world shall be full of the knowledge of G-d….” Amen. May this be His will.

This piece has two interesting points to it.  First it was fully expected that there would be scholars that would know the inner meanings of what the Rav was trying to convey.  In a very real sense Likutei Amarim is a closed book.  The Baal HaTanya has written an immensely concise sefer, that if one were to read in depth the various sources that he brings and quotes, means something very different then a more superficial reading of the words would indicate.  We will see this when we arrive at chapter one.  In fact the understanding is at times diametrically opposed to what has become the more accepted understanding of the text.  What has changed is that Hasidim, at least Lubavitch Hasidim are no longer baki in Zohar and Kitvei HaAri, in fact most of them never crack those books these days.  I’m going to put forward that without opening those texts, one really cannot know what the Rav is trying to say.

The second point of interest to me is the Baal HaTanya forbidding his followers from playing dumb about what they know.  There is a line in the Baba Metziah(23a) that states “Rabbi Yehuda stated in the name of Shmuel: In the following three matters it is the practice of the rabbis not to tell the truth: In matters of a tractate, a bed, and hospitality.”  The Talmud(and the meforshim on the piece) bring down that one is in fact permitted to lie about the amount of one’s knowledge, even to the point of denying knowledge of an entire tractate, for the sake of humility.  However, if a scholar is presented with a specific question, because the supplicant is sincerely looking for help in understanding then the scholar may not withhold the information or disclaim knowledge.  Where that line is, I’m not particularly sure.  One of my friends at the Yeshiva likes to say that we learn in the Yeshiva where no one knows anything, because most of the time if you ask one of the Rabbanim a question they will respond, “I don’t know, read the text and its commentaries a few more times.”  My favorite one was when I asked one of the Rabbanim about a few of the finer points of Birkhat Kohanim to which he replied, “I don’t know, but if you read the Mishnah Berura Siman x:x and compare that with what the Ben Ish Hai wrote here and here, you should have no problem finding your answer.”

So returning to the point at hand, here, as will be the case without, the Baal HaTanya’s words are not to be taken as literally as they first appear.   He’s not saying, Has V’Shalom, that following the Talmud’s instructions is operating in a condemnable false humility.  Rather he is saying, that when one sees a person who is truly struggling to grasp the text, even though it is typically appropriate to hide one’s knowledge, especially in the area of penimut hatorah, one should not do so.  Which begs the question: Why?

The reason should be clear, we are dealing with matters of Avodat HaShem.  The who purpose of the Likute Amarim is to bring a person into a greater and more sincere avoda(service/worship).  Just as one shouldn’t withhold tools from a workman that are necessary to do his job neither should this be held back.  On the contrary there is a blessing to be had in helping one’s fellow Jew strengthen their avoda.

Since the said kuntresim have been disseminated among all our faithful, as mentioned above, by means of numerous transcriptions by the hands of various and sundry scribes, the multitude of transcriptions brought about an exceedingly great number of copyists’ errors. Therefore the spirit of the noble men, named on another page, has generously moved them to a personal and financial effort to have the said kuntresim published, cleared of chaff and errors, and thoroughly checked. I congratulate them on this worthy deed.

There were both unintentional as well as intentional errors made.  Here the author is sorting out the mess and stating that this is the authorized version.

And inasmuch as there is an explicit verse, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark”— and “cursed” includes both damnation and shunning, G-d forbid— therefore, “like Judah and scripture in addition” I come to invoke a strict prohibition on all publishers against printing the saidkuntresim, either themselves or through their agency without the authority of the above-named, for a period of five years from the day that this printing is completed. And it will be well with those who conform, and they will be blessed with good.

These are the words of the compiler of the said Likutei Amarim.

This was the copyright of the day.  B”H we are now finished with the forward and we can move on to the meat of the text in chapter 1.

Tiyul in Tanya Part 3

I know it’s been a while since I did one of these, but if you have missed the previous ones and want to catch up they can be found here and here.  I am still continuing on with the compiler’s forward.  Hopefully we will be past this soon and able to jump into the actual text.  However, I think this is an important introduction to the author’s intent in writing the text.

I speak, however, of those who know me well, each and every one of our faithful who lives in our country and in lands adjacent to it, with whom words of affection have been frequently exchanged, and who have revealed to me all the secrets of their heart and mind in the service of G-d which is dependent on the heart. May my word percolate to them, and my tongue be as the pen of the scribe in these kuntresim that are entitled Likutei Amarim (“Selected Discourses”), which have been selected from books and teachers, heavenly saints, whose souls are in Eden, and who are renowned among us. The subjects of] some of [these discourses] are hinted to the wise, in the sacred epistles of our teachers in the Holy Land, may it be built and established speedily in our days, Amen; some of them I have heard from their saintly mouth when they were here with us; and all of them are responsa to many questions which all our faithful in our country have constantly asked, seeking advice, each according to his station, so as to receive moral guidance in the service of G-d, since time no longer permits of replying to everyone individually and in detail on his particular problem. Furthermore, forgetfulness is common.

The compiler is now giving a full defense(for lack of a better word) for his work.  After having shown that all books of mussar are deficient compared to learning directly from a Rav, he lays the foundation for why he felt it both appropriate and necessary.  First these words were being composed to those with whom he was intimately familiar.  He was not so much writing a book for the masses as he was writing a book for his own intimate disciples, whose souls and needs he already understood.  Rav Adin Steinsaltz writes on this beautifully:

As the author stated earlier, the first limitation of any book is that the writer is essentially speaking to himself; he cannot specifically address the reader because he does not know him.  But in this case, states the author, I wrote the book because I speak to my intimates and “to those who know me well.”  Tanya was for a specific audience- the author’s closest Hasidim, whose inner selves were no mystery to him, for they had already come to consult with him on the most intimate matters of their souls.  They had poured out their hearts to him, telling him not so much their material cares (as Hasidim did even then, a phenomenon that the author later denounces), but mainly the inner problems of the heart, problems of how best to serve and attain a relationship with God.

Of course Lubavitch Hasidim will insist that all who study and all who will study Tanya are included in Shneur Zalman’s intimates.  Personally I am quite unconvinced of this.  The reason being that what faced that generation does not necessarily face this generation.  What was the necessity of the hour then, may be radically different today.    Far aside from the descent of the generations, in which the later generations are in many respects(though not all, see the Leshem, Biurim, Anaf 5:7) less capable, also the general situation has changed.  For instance, Judaism, B”H, has not been under serious persecution since 1945, Hasidim have not been under serious persecution by other Jews in over 100yrs(by and large).  There are other major Kabbalistic factors alluded to in the above mentioned Leshem that make the perception of the divine by today’s generation radically different from that of the previous generation, let alone a generation already 2ooyrs removed.

Moving on.  Tanya is essentially, as the compiler says in this introduction, a compilation of answers to questions involving, and revolving around, avodat Hashem.  He has essentially attempted to reduce all of the questions that he has been asked over the years down to the least common denominators, the primal issues if you will, and thus answer those.  Herein lies the complexity of a book in which babes can wade and elephants can swim.  Thousands of Hasidim asked the Baal HaTanya regarding service to HaShem.   Some were men who were quite accomplished, having learned in depth Zohar and parts of the Kitvei(those few bits that made it to Europe).  Others were simple peasants.   Thus is brilliance of the Baal HaTanya in that he writes a sefer that is sufficient for both.

The road of Avodah is long and hard.  Arduous in the extreme as it requires constant striving for moral perfection without the possibility of ever attaining that perfection.  The Mekubalim in various places, say that even Moshe Rabbeinu, while the greatest that has ever lived, did not achieve perfection, for that is the level of Mashiah.  Yet even the Mashiah, while he will most certainly be at a higher level of perfection than Moshe Rabbeinu, will never achieve ultimate perfection.  In short, ultimate perfection is to be identicle to the Holy One Blessed is He, and that simply is not possible for the creation.  It is the eternal striving, the constant upward path… It is along this path that the Baal HaTanya offers road signs, again, both to beginners and to long time travelers.

Finally it would appear, that at least part of the reason that the Baal HaTanya was committing these things to writing was because even those who were yet able to get an audience with him, were forgetting what they were hearing.  So this book was written as much to remind those who had received his advice, of the advice they had received as it was to give advice.

Tiyul in Tanya Part 2

Continuing on with the compiler’s forward.  Hopefully later this week or next we will finish this and get into the first chapter.  However, in the meantime there is a great deal to learned about Tanya from these specific words.

Even in the case of the laws governing things prohibited and permitted, which have been revealed to us and to our children, we find and witness differences of opinion among Tana’im and Amora’im from one extreme to the other. Yet “these as well as these are the words of the living G-d.” The plural is used as a reference to the source of life for the souls of Israel, which are generally divided into three categories — right, left, and centre, namely, kindness (chesed), might (gevurah), and so on, so that the souls, whose root originates in the category of kindness, are likewise inclined towards kindness in the leniency of their decisions, and so forth, as is known. All the more, a minori ad mains, in the case of those things which are hidden [yet revealed only] to the Lord onr G-d, these being the awe and love that are in the mind and heart of each and every one according to his capacity, i.e. according to his heart’s estimation, as explained in the holy Zohar on the verse, “Her husband is known in the gates (she’arim), . . .”

This paragraph in and of itself is quite profound and alludes to a great many profound concepts within Kabbalah.  First is that the source of our souls, will determine the way that we view Torah.  Whether to leniency, stringency, or as the Rambam and Arizal both say is the preferred path -balance.   These are rare few individuals that can, all of their lives, walk the ideal center path of balance.  First the soul itself is constantly influx between the three positions, depending upon its current state of rectification or degradation.  Furthermore it would require an amazing amount of self-knowledge, and as the Kabbalists teach us in several places the person we are best at lying to is ourselves, and then often about ourselves.  Now while the Torah has seventy faces, and while Elu V’Elu Divrei Elokim Chaim, that does not mean that they are all halakha l’maaseh, the way that is right and proper for a Jew to live.  That halakha, again comes from the center path.  It should not escape notice that several of the major codifiers of Jewish law(at least in the Sephardi tradition) were excluded from learning Kabbalah, Maran Yosef Karo, the Hida, Rav Ovadia Yosef, they are among the rare individuals who have the ability to walk the center path, but I diverge.  Ultimate what the Baal HaTanya has done is given us one difficulty that we all face in learning Torah, namely that our perception is clouded by our spiritual makeup.

To this should be added the dictum from Pirkei Avot, עשה לך רב Make yourself a Rav The Rambam states that even if he is your lesser, and the Bartenura states that one should not go from Rav to Rav seeking answers that you like.   A dirty little secret in today’s world, is that even the Gadol Hador has(or at least should) a Rav from whom they ask Shailot.  Again because a person’s own views can be skewed.  In one of his derushim on Pirkei Avot Rav Shalom Hedaya says that one should find a Rav who matches one’s own Derekh… meaning that one size does not fit all even amongst Gedolim.

With this first difficulty however, we can say that some of it is from HaShem.  Yes there are parts of our own rectification that will allow us to see Torah differently and perhaps a bit more clearly, but partially it is because HaShem wants His Torah to be seen in all of its beauty, from each of its many facets, thus ultimately we have the various root souls, that even if we were to completely rectify ourselves, we would still see things differently.

The Baal HaTanya then brings another problem, though this one he only hints at from the Zohar, Parashat Vayera 103a.  I have translated that here, with my comments/explanations in italics like this they are based upon and at times taken from the Pirushim by the Yafe Shaah and Rav Avarham Galanti(most notably where they coincide).

Rabbi Yehuda said: “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land” (Mishlei 31:23). Come and behold: the Holy One, blessed be He, was exalted in His glory, because He is hidden and greatly elevated. Since the creation of the world and all the more so after the creation was blemished through the chet, nobody has ever been able to grasp and conceive His entire wisdom. Thus, no one is able to comprehend it despite that they were created with His own splendid wisdom.  He is concealed in binah, hidden in hokhmah and exalted in keter high above the reach of all the lower and supernal beings to even have some small understanding of the place of his dwelling from which he governs the world.. He is so far above that they all proclaim: “Blessed be the glory of Hashem from His place” (Yechezkel 3:12). The people on earth when they perceive some variance in how he governs the world say that His governance of the world  is from high above, as it is written: “His glory is above the heavens,” (Tehilim 113:4) but the supernal beings when they perceive some variance in his governance of the heavens say that is because of the actions of those down below, as it is written: “His glory is over all the earth” (Tehilim 57:12). So that all the supernal and human beings declare: “Blessed be the glory of Hashem from His place,” because He is unknowable, and no one is able to grasp Him. Thus, how does one explain the verse: “Her husband is known in the gates”?  How is it that we can say that Z”A who is the husband of the Shekinah, which is the Eshet Hayil, is known in the gates?  Even if he were to descend into those supernal gates, or the vary gates of an earthly city, whether above or below, he is not revealed.

Most certainly, “Her husband is known in the gates” refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is known and conceived according to what each one suppose in his heart from what he is able to observe of the greatness and supremacy of Hakadosh Barukh Hu and is able to grasp with the spirit of wisdom which is the power of neshama. Thus, he is able to understand the greatness and supremacy of Hashem according to what he is able to suppose in his heart of the greatness and supremacy of Hashem. Therefore, it is written: “Her husband is known in the gates,  that is to say these suppositions and thoughts that everyone supposes in his own heart, and when he is able to purify them, by his sitting with the sages of his people, and learn from them the wisdom of Torah, and the greatness and supremacy of Hashem, even though full knowledge of Him is far beyond the reach of anyone.

Rabbi Shimon asks: “Her husband is known in the gates.” What are the gates? They are the supernal sephirot  are the same as the gates mentioned in: “Lift up your heads, gates, and lifted them up, you everlasting doors” (Tehilim 24:9). It is through these gates, which are the levels of the supernal sephirot which are in atzilut, that the Holy One, blessed be He, is known. For were it not, no one would have been able to commune with Him.  Come and behold: even the neshama of man cannot be understood directly. It is grasped only through the limbs of the body which in turn clothe the soul by which is revealed, these the limbs are the grades, which reveal the actions of the soul as well as its intentions and desires. Thus it the neshama is conceivable and at the same time inconceivable.  It is conceivable through the agency of the limbs of the body, but its own essence is inconceivable. In such a manner, the Holy One, blessed be He, is conceivable and inconceivable He is conceivable through his interaction with the sephirot, but His essence is inconceivable. He is the neshama to the neshama and the spirit to the spirit because it is He who gives them life, and they ultimately are derived from divine sparks, hidden and concealed from all. But to he who merits those gates,  that are the openings of the soul, the Holy One, blessed be He and his Torah, is made known to each according to the level to which he has rectified himself and his ability to receive.

Rav Haim Vital writes in his commentary upon Pirkei Avot that the reason the word קיבל kibel(recevied) was used in the opening Mishna, “Moshe received the Torah…” was a hint that he was not handed all of Torah, but that he received all that he was able to withstand.  Linguistics aside, there is an important lesson to be learned here.  Namely that our ability to perceive and receive Torah on any level, and most especially on the level of Sod is going to be determined ultimately by our soul’s ability to receive it.  There is a certain level of this which will forever be inborn, and there is a certain level of this which we can control through our own rectifications.

I have probably revealed far more here than I should have.  Let me end with a piece from Lessons in Tanya,

The Zohar interprets the “husband” of this verse as a reference to G‑d, Who is the “husband” of the community of Israel. We “know” and attach ourselves to Him “by the she‘arim,” which the Zohar interprets in the sense of shaar (“gate”), shiur(“measure”), and hash’arah (“estimation”), as explained above. At any rate, we see that being inspired in the love and fear of G‑d is intrinsically subjective. To return to the thread of our earlier argument: If even in the objective halachah we find differences of opinion arising from the variety in human nature, we will surely find a variety of response to inspirational literature. The chassidic saying quoted above, that “seeing” (in books — even Torah books) “is not the same as hearing” (inspiration from a teacher), seems quite justified. How then could the Alter Rebbe now propose to offer the Tanya to his followers as a substitute for the personal guidance that he had been giving them until this time

Tiyul in Tanya Part 1

So I decided to take a second look at Tanya, the classic work of Chabad Chassidus, and I thought that I would share my thoughts on it here.   My basic methodology is going to be to learn the text with two primary commentaries, Lessons in Tanya as that is often touted as the only “Rebbe approved” commentary.  As well, I will be referencing Rav Aidin Steinsaltz’s commentary, as he is both a Lubavitcher(decidedly anti-Mashiachist) and a pre-eminent Torah Scholar.  I will be also reference classic Kabbalistic sources.  I don’t know where this is going, but I thought it would be interesting at least.

Being an Epistle sent to the Communities of our Faithful. May the Almighty guard them.

I choose to start with the compiler’s forward.  Mainly because the the compiler was the Baal HaTanya.  The current title page and the approbations(where most people start) were not written by him, and in some cases were not even written in his life time.

This first line is of vital importance, because it let’s us know the intended audience of the book, something that the author himself will go on to show as vital.  Primarily the audience were the Chassidim(who would eventually be called Chabad/Lubavitch) of the author’s time.  Thus the question should be raised, as to what relevance the book has to our own time, or to those outside of Chabad/Lubavitch.

To you, O men, do I call. Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, who seek the Lord; and may G-d hearken to you, both great and small, all the faithful in our land and those adjacent to it. May each in his place achieve peace and eternal life, for ever and ever. Amen. May this be His will.

Behold, it is known as a saying current among people— all our faithful— that listening to words of moral advice is not the same as seeing and reading them in books. For the reader reads after his own manner and mind, and according to his mental grasp and comprehension at that particular time. Hence, if his intelligence and mind are confused and wander about in darkness in G-d’s service, he finds difficulty in seeing the beneficial light that is concealed in books, even though the light is pleasant to the eyes and [brings] a healing to the soul.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz writes:

This book is intended for a specific community, and the author does not know if it will as effective with a people from a different background.  So it is addressed to “our faithful in our land and those adjacent to it,” namely, to the Hasidim of White Russia and the neighboring areas, a community that at that time was defined only vaguely as Chabad Hasidim.

It is quite fitting that the author should not be certain about the effectiveness of Tanya for all people, because simply it is not meant for all people.  Likewise this is a charge that he will level equally against the ethical works of other authors.

He explains that the written word is not as effective as hearing directly from the lips of a Rav.  A statement that is often found in Chassidus, and a good part of the reason that there is so little actually written by many of the early Chassidic masters.  As the Torat Hakham explains on Sha’ar HaSheveirah in the Eitz Haim, a Rav, of whatever level, receives a level of Ruah HaKodesh to teach his talmidim(a concept also found in the Gemarra though there dealing specifically with Roshei Yeshivot).  That allows him to specifically speak to the needs of the student, into the very soul of the student so to speak, not only to his mind.  Rabbi Nachamn of Breslov states(as recorded in his Likutei Mohranan, I believe 17 or 18 though my memory fails me, and I don’t have a copy in front of me), that the written word is only to bring to memory that which was heard from the Tzadik.

Even though the words written within the book may be the very words spoken from the Rav, even so, without that vital connection to the Rav, without having received them in some manner from the Rav himself they will remain deficient for the fullness of their purpose.  The primary way that is is resolved is through mesora.  Having a line of tradition, a line of those who received and thus passed on that which they had received from their own Rabbanim.  Thus the Torah of the Arizal, or of the Baal HaTanya remains relevant to those who will come generations after.

Apart from this, the books on piety which stem from human intelligence, certainly have not the same appeal for all people, for not all intellects and minds are alike, and the intellect of one man is not affected and excited by what affects [and excites] the intellect of another. Compare with what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said with reference to the blessing of the “Wise One in Secrets” (חכם הרזים ) upon beholding 600,000 Jews, because their minds are dissimilar from one another, and so on. As also RabbiMoses ben Nachman, of blessed memory, [explains the reason for this blessing] in Mikhamot, elaborating on the commentary of the Sifreconcerning Joshua who is described as “a man in whom there is spirit,” “who can meet the spirit of each and every one,” and so on.

Being that the author is himself composing a work of musar, Chassidic musar to be sure, he compares his work with other various works of musar.  One should not think that Tanya would in any way be free from the limitations of other works of musar.  Many of those classical texts were written by giants such as Haim Vital, the Ramhal, the Rashash, and the Hida.  However, each was written for the benefit of a specific community.  Haim Vital, the Rashash, and the Hida for example wrote specifically for the needs of those who would come to follow the derekh of the mekubalim, the Rashash and Hida writing specifically to the Mekubalim of the Beit El school.  For those of that particular stream of Judaism, their words are incredibly profound.  However, others, even intensely pious Jews will not find their words as easy to understand or as readily applicable.

But even the books on piety, whose basis is in the peaks of holiness, the Midrashim of our Sages, of blessed memory, through whom the spirit of G-d speaks and His word is on their tongue; and [although] the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one and the same, and all the 600,000 general [souls] of Israel with their individual [offshoots] down to the “spark” in the most worthless and least estimable members of our people, the children of Israel, are thus bound up with the Torah, and the Torah binds them to the Holy One, blessed be He, as is known from the holy Zohar— this [bond] pertains [only] in a general way to the community of Israel as a whole. [As for the individual] although the Torah was given to be interpreted, in general and in particular down to the minutest detail, to [apply to] each individual soul of Israel, which is rooted in it [so that these books pertain to every person], nevertheless not every person is privileged to recognise his individual place in the Torah.

What the author is saying is that it is impossible for any work to speak to the soul of every single Jew.  There are 600,000 general souls from which stem all of souls of Klal Yisrael.  No two of those general souls connect with Torah in the same way.  Each and everyone has its unique derekh.  So no Rav, and no book could possibly hope to connect with all of them.

The greatest of the Neviim, those who lead entire generations, such as Joshua, received a special help from heaven to be able to relate to their people.  An broad example of this is the the 613 commandments found in the Torah.  No one individual can ever keep all 613, even if we had a Temple.  Why?  Because some mitztzvot are only specific to a king, others only specific to Kohanim, others only specific to a widow, ect.  If under the best of circumstances a Jew cannot always relate to Torah as another Jew, how much more so, when dealing with the varied derekhim that we have today.

Rav Aidin Steinsaltz writes,

A person needs to recognize what belongs to him, which aspects of Torah are relevant to his life, which part he is to implement at any given moment.  But not everyone knows this.  Some individuals (even great ones) were said to have been told to concern themselves with a particular aspect of Torah and no other.  It is told that following the death of Rabbi Cordovero, Rabby Joseph Karo wen to learn Kabbalah from Rabbi Isaac Luria(know as the Holy Ari) and kept falling asleep when the Ari was spieak, until the latter told him that this was not his portion in the Torah, that the Holy Ari’s Kabbalah was not for him.

It is known amongst the Beit El Kabbalists that the Rashash refused to allow the Hida to study Kabbalah.  Recognizing that every Jew was required to learn all parts of Torah, he permitted him to sit in his shiurim, but he forbade him from asking questions, telling him that it was not his portion, it was not the Tikkun that his soul needed.

Once I asked Rav Kaduri, that if he were the Zaken HaMekubalim(the greatest of the living Kabbalists) why were there so many other Kabbalistic Yeshivot.  His response was that, not all could learn from him.  Yes there was room enough in his Yeshiva for all of those who currently study Kabbalah in all of Jerusalem, but what he meant was that not all would be able to learn from him.  Even if we focus a derekh down as narrowly as that of those who follow the system of the Arizal and the Rashash, a group numbered in hundreds, even there we will find that there are different derekhim, that while love and fellowship exists between them, still there is sufficient difference in their inherent spiritual makeup, in their inherent being, that different Yeshivot and different methods are needed.

So I guess this comes to the question of whether I can penetrate the depths of Tanya in the way a Lubavitch Chasid can?  The answer is no.  Its not my derekh, however, just as a multitude of derekhim are informed by, say the Arizal, so can those on other derekhim learn from what there is to be found within its pages.