If you are not familiar with Judaism then you will not know what a Tzaddik or Rasha is but Rabbi Zalman will spend considerable time discussing the different definitions of this. It is vitally important because the concept of the Benoni is also being defined by what will make the difference between a Benoni and a Tzaddik. The illumination, so to speak, of the diving line between the two. In laymans terms though think of a Tzaddik as a individual that who not only does not sin, but that inside them they do not even have an evil nature that could generate such a thought. Wikipedia offers a good source for these as well as the Chabad site.

Rabbi Zalman discusses this concept of what a Tzaddik is in-depth beginning in Chapter 1,
Some of his comments are as follows.

“ Our sages have said that “Tzzaddikim, their inclination for good (alone) judges them, as it is written” and my heart is void within me” – that it is void of any evil inclination, because he had slain it through fasting. But whoever has not attained this level even if his virtues exceed his sins, cannot at all be reckoned to have ascended to the rank of a Tzaddik”.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his commentary on the Tanya [ Opening the Tanya] explains it this way, “…the Tzaddik, he not only behaves righteously (as does the benoni) but is intrinsically righteous, devoid of all inclination to evil”.

There is an exceedingly in-depth discussion by Rabbi Zalman on this term, of which I am not completely summarizing on this blog, but the point of this appears to be that he heads towards a careful distinguishing between these three broad catagories of individuals as outlined in the Talmud (Tzaddik, Benoni, and Rasha) and expands them to specifically name the five conditions of man as previously observed.

How does three become five you may ask?
He does this by how the Tzaddik is described as two sub-types of (1) Tzaddik ( to whom is good and is completely righteous) and a (2) Tzaddik (to whom is evil and incompletely righteous), the Benoni, and the two types of Rasha, that being the (1) Rasha who prospers and is not completely evil and the (2) Rasha who is completely evil and does not prosper. Hence a total of five.

Where this is then going is he is carefully laying the groundwork for his major theory of his book, that we each have within two distinct and separate souls. He does this by illuminating two very distinct qualities of existence that are in the benoni. One thing you will notice is that Rabbis Zalman’s writing is spares and terse and there are no wasted words. In fact not only is he saying something very specific, he often is saying multiple things very specifically. The same technique is present when he quotes something from the Talmud.

Rabbi Zalman quotes the Talmud,
“And in the Talmud [ch9, Berachot] it is stated: “Tzaddikim, their inclination for good judges them…resha’im, their inclination for evil judges them…benonim are judged by both…”

When I read this I kept coming back to it and it resonates deeply. “benonim (plural for benoni) are judged by both”. You can immediately sense where he is going and why he chooses this passage in the Talmud to quote. If this is so, then man must have two qualities that will ultimately be used by G-d to judge his life. In the case of the Tzaddik and the Rasha it will be which of these two qualities has had the decisive voice. In the benoni both inclinations will be used. These two qualities so observed often in the Talmud are the groundwork for the foundation of his two souls theory. Our dear Rabbi’s brilliance has surfaced abruptly in his taking this and prying deeper.

The Talmud is further quoted by him giving us a personal individual case of the same phenomena,

Rabbi Z starts this book ( the Tanya) by illustrating a contradiction in Talmudic scripture. He refers to an oath the soul takes before it comes into the world, “be righteous and be not wicked; and even if you are righteous, regard yourself as if you are wicked”. [Talmud, Niddah, 30b]
It does directly contradict what is written in the Gemara, [ Avot, ch 2]
” do not be a Rasha in your own eyes”
He then points out that the Gemara describes five types of men in the world (presumably this also applies to women) and they are as follows:
1) A righteous man that prospers
2) A righteous man that suffers
3) A wicked man who prospers
4) A wicked man who suffers
5) An a intermediate one…a Benoni
R. Zalman further quotes the Gemara where it states that “the righteous are motivated by their good nature and the wicked by their bad nature, while the intermediate one by both, and so on “
and he quotes Job when he says in a conversation to G-d that “Lord of the Universe, Thou hast created wicked men…for it is not preordained whether a man will be righteous or wicked”.

Having done this he triangulates a certain condition of man scripturally that illustrates a scenario where man comes into the world in a manner that is neither predisposed toward being bad nor toward being good. [I would think though that a soul born into a family where strong values are present and the Torah or like scripture is taught should have an advantage at least in the realm of awareness or knowledge of what is considered moral or right and wrong than a child raised on a street in a slum where death and stealing are constant forces around them. Maybe not, but mathmatically it would seem so if I was to wager.]
Nonetheless Zalman has given us a catagorzation of how an infinite number of gradations of man’s character can be rather smartly summarized in five categories lastly of which is the most interesting, the benoni. This becomes how he ultimately answers the contradiction and becomes the subject of his book.

I’ve been reading a series of books lately that explore the philosophy of Rabbi Schneur Zalman (1745-1812) of Liadi Poland. He is one of the major intellectual forces behind the birth of Chabad or the Lubavitch stream of Judaism which was, to put it mildly, revolutionary in many ways.  R. Zalman’s well known for several books that are considered key texts of Hasidim, main among them is his beautiful Tanya.

[ here are 28 of his key teachings ] 

This small book (actually a collection of several publications) is wonderfully summarized by a quote of Rabbi Zusha of Anipoli (1718-1800) as ”I wonder how he managed to put such a great and awesome G-d into such a small book!” In this book he articulates a path to G-d and simple guide for Jewish worship. What is intriguing to me is how using the Zohar’s interpretation of Genesis he confronts the condition of man in a truly original manner. Splitting man’s soul into two divisions it can be summarized as a condition of one being an aspect that draws us to the divine and the second that draws us to our reality as we experience it on Earth. Contrary to traditional Judaic or Christian interpretation of self-mortification or the classic interpretation of good versus evil, R. Zalman confronts the spiritual condition of man by outlining a philosophy that embraces this tension or what has been previously perceived as conflict- in this he is truly revolutionary. He labels these conditions as the “animal” and “divine” aspects of the human soul. The tension between these are not seen as a battle of good and evil but instead a ongoing encounter with the divine and in this he says is the very purpose of our existence. The human character he terms a “beinoni”, which he describes as a person that is not inherently righteous or evil but who does seek a path of ever increasing connection to the divine in the struggle with his animal soul. Whats fascinating to me is how he sees each aspect of the soul being in a complimentary relationship that works together to create existence. That is beautiful philosophy - although it does’nt necessarily make it true. But I intend to follow this thought a bit, find its sources, and compare them the next few weeks as I travel. This is not a intended to be a commentary epr se on the book as I am seriously not prepared for that but I want to read it closely and share my thoughts and questions for this is a most pivotal text if one is to understand Judaism. I’ll post my daily notes and if anyone cares to discuss (or enlighten) please reply.

Read more »

So my blog has been on a  bit of a hiatus lately. I have been in Alabama after completing my thesis and trying to resolve where I go from here. In the future I am going to just post thoughts and a few pictures, no essays per se or continuation of the ivory tower stuff - thats useless, senseless and without meaning to the larger community. Comments, feedback on art or photographs are appreciated.