The 18 Principles of Sefer Likutei Moharan: R’ Avraham ben R’ Nachman (1848-1917)
Aside from the concealed meaning and the drushim contained within his holy statements in their richness which is drawn from elsewhere, or, from one teaching to another (and at times it appears that even the essence of the teaching is like an enigma, or a wondrous garment to what he grasped akin to the garbing of his understanding in the telling of his tales); even as they arrive in their revealed sense, they are wondrous and true in wisdom and in understanding- the beginning, the end and the middle of the teachings all clarify and elucidate each other, one towards the other and vice versa.
Through the measure and scale of his wisdom and ruach ha’kodesh, he counted and chose each and every statement, both written and spoken, what to lengthen and what to shorten, what to add and what to detract.
In a place where he includes numerous things and ideas, yet chooses one particular idea and utilizes it as a metaphor and example from which all the other ideas can be derived, it appears and it has been revealed numerous times that he had a specific intention in choosing this specific idea and not some other idea.
Similar to that which is explained and known regarding the passuk (Devarim, 6:8), “and you shall tie them as a sign upon your hand”, the intention of the verse refers back towards itself and its paragraphs, that they should be tied as a sign etc., and even if only one letter is lacking from the commandment itself, that is “and you shall tie”, then the tying has no essential value whatsoever. Furthermore, the Kabbalists emphasize the elevated orot and mochin contained within each and every letter of these paragraphs referred to as the “crown of the king” (kitra d’malka), and it is implicit within their words that even the letters of the commandment in and of itself, that is “and you shall tie”, is contained within these orot and mochin; an example of this can also be found by the passuk (6:9), “and you shall write”. This applies to his understanding and his holy statements as well, that within the utterance and disclosure itself, the very rectifications (tikkunim) contained therein were drawn forth and disclosed, (and so too now, through the learning of these teachings the rectifications contained within the teaching being studied are stimulated and revealed, see the end of teaching 87 in the second volume of Likkutei Moharan).
Any passuk or rabbinic statement that is partially employed to clarify an idea or detail, one must enter and elucidate the entire verse or rabbinic statement in all of its details according to that particular idea.
The idea behind the passuk (Kohelet, 7:14), “G-d has established this against that” as it is interpreted in the sifrei emes, that for everything that is found from the perspective of holiness and good, there is a parallel that can be found from the perspective of impurity and evil (like an ape in relation to man), and at times the side of good is inferred from its opposite on the side of evil.
All of the traits (middot) and aspects (behinot) that are referenced in each teaching contain within themselves every other particular trait and aspect that is referenced in the idea (akin to the description of the sefirot in the sifrei emes).
All of the stages that ascend from that which is without end (ein-tachlis) towards the unlimited (ein-sof) are considered as lights (orot) and vessels (keilim), for every preceding stage is considered as a vessel relative to the stage that proceeds it which is considered as a light that is received within a vessel.
Concerning his grasp and his declarations regarding the elevation of the “tsaddik” and his teachings, the essence of his intention is towards the unique ones of their generation (yehidei ha-dorot) (like Shimon bar Yohai and R. Isaac Luria), but in the vast majority his true intention is for none other than Moshe/Mashiach himself for whom we are waiting.
Concerning his interpretations of pessukim and rabbinic statements according to his holy grasp, his method is to firstly deliver and explicate the details of his understanding in all of its particulars. Afterwards he elucidates how all of this is contained and clarified in the passuk or the rabbinic statement; and if at times he appears to shift from this path you will find an explanation for this within his holy words (aside from the times where he simply starts with the passuk or the rabbinic statement that contains the entirety of the grasp that he will elucidate afterwards).
When a passuk or a rabbinic statement that encompasses the idea is brought after the full explication of his essential grasp and teaching, it is not his way to graft onto this verse or rabbinic statement a new idea that was not discussed previously. If at times it appears to the eye of the reader that there is a departure from this path, they should know faithfully that it contains an explanation of his holy words, and in the reader’s investigation and effort they will discover and see the hints of his words contained therein, whether minor or important. Only then will you understand his wondrous intention that brought him to this [passuk or rabbinic statement].
Regarding the ideas that are known and explained within rabbinic statements and the sifrei kabbalah, at times he mentions nothing but the general idea (roshei perakim) relying on the reader to know them or to investigate them.
Regarding the interpretations of pessukim and rabbinic statements according to his holy grasp, he does not remove the passuk or statement from their plain meaning (p’shutam) – the opposite is true- his explanations are tied up and unified twith the plain explanation, with each one completing and elucidating the other.
[To properly understand the teachings of Rebbe Nachman, one must always hold in mind] The simple faith (emunah p’shuta) in the supreme knowledge (romemut daat) of Hashem may His name be blessed which is unlimited (ein-sof) and unending (ein-takhlit) in its depths, to the extent that we find numerous things that appear to our human-knowledge as two opposites contained within one postulate (shnei haphakhim b’noseh ehad) but according to the limitless nature of Hashem’s blessed knowledge and wisdom, they are not considered as opposites. The reverse is also true, that there are things which according to Hashem’s knowledge are necessarily considered as two opposites while from our human perspective the reason for this necessity is utterly hidden and concealed.
Regarding the name of the “shechinah” described by the kabbalists- she represents the drawing forth of godliness into the totality of creation. As such she may be considered, heaven forbid, as a separate entity of sorts. In truth however, she is not considered as separate heaven forbid, for it is the thought and the mind of man that separates and detaches her explicitly and literally to the point that she is considered as an intermediary or avodah zarah, heaven forbid. This is not the case in the hearts of the wise ones who understand from within their own minds (by way of a knowledge that cannot be known or grasped according to our lowly knowledge). Because for them, even the speculation that sees her [the shechinah] as an intermediary or separate, kevyachol, is still within the framework of utter and complete unity with HaKadosh baruch Hu, for according to the truth of truth (emes l’amiso) “there is nothing other than Him”.
When it comes to explaining the Torah that emerges from the wisdom of the Infinite, may His name be blessed, there is no limit or end to the amount of tzimtzumim and tangents that are needed in order to explain [the ideas] and bring them down into the hearts of limited creatures. Because in truth drawing the infinite wisdom of G-d into the limited hearts of man are two contradictory concepts within a single postulate (shnei haphachim b’nosei echad). In truth, therefore, it is impossible to enter into these tzimtzumim and tangents except through emunah and the complete nullification of our own knowledge. And according to the level of our emunah in the suggestions and instructions of our great doctors (who are our tzaddikim) regarding the protection and the cleansing of our minds and thoughts, so too shall we merit to accomplish their suggestions which will ultimately lead to our own minds grasping the knowledge that was previously removed from us.
At times he will bring two or three proofs for a single idea, and for someone who reads the teaching carelessly, it will appear as if they are all part of a single proof. The reason for this is that [each teaching] is profoundly connected with itself to the point that each teaching is unified.
It is not his way to include a new and unique idea within the connections and associations expressed in his teaching unless there is a very specific reason.
Sukkot and the Seven Beggars
תִּיבוּ תִּיבוּ אוּשְׁפִּיזִין עִילָאִין, תִּיבוּ תִּיבוּ אוּשְׁפִּיזִין קַדִּישִׁין, תִּיבוּ תִּיבוּ אוּשְׁפִּיזִין דִמְהֵימְנוּתָא
Before beginning his thirteenth and final tale “The Seven Beggars”, R. Nachman asked his students to bring him the news of the world. Listening, silent, he sighed and opened, “let me share with you how once there was joy from within despair”.
The tale tells of a carnivalesque celebration. As all the villagers return to their homes, two young orphans, a young boy and girl, are left behind in the vacant forest. Bereft and lost they are visited by seven enigmatic beggars who open with advice and close with blessings.
With each beggars departure the desire of the orphans grows, mourning the loss and anticipating their re/turn. The beggars of the neighboring villages, the “community of those without community” take the children under their care, initiating them into the ways of the impoverished.
Eventually the community decides that the orphaned children should get married. A royal feast was set in a neighboring village. The beggars descend on the feast collecting the leftovers and the surplus for the marriage of the lost children.
The beggars dig a four-walled pit into the mud of the forest. The orphans descend into the pit. The pit is covered with branches and dirt.
The seven enigmatic beggars, the blind, the deaf, the stuttering, the hunchbacked, the crooked and the arm-less visit the muddy pit covered with branches to offer their gifts.
The Blind Beggar: Weary Eyes
And they began to remember the kindness they received in the forest. And they began to cry, to yearn: “how can we bring the blind beggar here, the one who brought us bread in the forest?” Suddenly, as they were still yearning for the blind beggar, he appeared: “here I am”, he announced, “I have come to join you at your wedding, and to provide you with a gift: that you should be old like me. Previously I had blessed you with this, and now I offer it as a gift: that you may live a long life like me. Do you think I am truly blind? I am not blind at all, rather, the time of the world is but a blink of an eye, and I am very old yet I remain entirely young, for I have not yet begun to live, nevertheless I am very old indeed”.
We are bombarded with images. Caught in the thicket of media, the eyes collapse under the weight of visions that assault the eyes.
The world in all its harshness, the sheer outsideness that descends into our dwellings forces one to blink, reassuring ourselves that what we see is real. Things that in previous times were un/imaginable have now become commonplace.
With our gaze held on the moving images that move us towards the tears that have since dried up, the perceivable world induces a certain blindness. An inability to not-look. A blindness that sees too much. Worn out by the incessant barrage of images, the eyes grow tired. Squinting under the burden of the seen, our vision is blurred- seeing duplicitous, frightful things in the shadow of a distant clarity (see Likkutei Moharan, I:51).
Unable to close our eyes to the world, our gaze is caught in the brokenness, the weariness, the burden of times incessant sway that imposes the shackles of oldness on all things once new.
There is a path of vision, of a blindness that sees. A way of looking through stimu d’eiynim, the closing of the eyes. To peer into time. Through the trappings of her vicious movement, into the recesses of the perpetually new. Old with the knowledge of this-worldly pain; young with the knowledge of other-worldly time.
Closing our eyes to the incessant barrage of images, images born of lack and desire, we catch a glimpse of the gift hidden within the veil of the broken.
“Our master, may his memory be a blessing, answered and said: everyone says that there is this-world (olam ha-zeh) and the world-to-come (olam ha-bah). Regarding the world-to-come- we believe that there is a world-to-come; it is possible that this-world exists as well in some realm, because here it appears to be hell, for everyone is filled with interminable suffering. And he said: this-world does not exist at all.”
(R. Nachman of Breslov)