Chapter One

Key Words to know for this chapter

Many common words and fundamental concepts have entirely different meanings in Tanya than those we are used to. As you learn each chapter, it’s important to pick up some of the building-block lexicon of Chabad thought.

Tzadik (pl. tzadikim): Commonly used to describe a person who lives a moral life as prescribed by Torah. In this chapter, however, we discover that this definition will not suffice.

Rasha (pl. resha’im): Commonly used to describe someone who acts immorally. The opposite of a tzadik. Here too, we will find that simple definitions will not suffice.

Beinoni (pl. beinonim): Literally, a person in-between the tzadik and the rasha. Generally understood as someone who is neither perfect in observance of mitzvahs, nor morally corrupt. Again, that turns out to be unsatisfactory.

Kelipah (pl. kelipot): Literally, “shell” or “husk.” Used in Zohar almost interchangeably with the word “evil.” The connection is simple: Evil exists when the divine flow of energy is obstructed and distorted by the kelipot, just as a shell obstructs the consumption of a fruit or nut. By discarding the kelipah, we reveal that divine light and heal our world.

Sitra Achra: Literally, “the other side.” A term from Zohar, it often appears alongside the word kelipah. This is the realm of anything and everything that is not within the realm of the divine. There is no neutral ground. It is the dominant state of the world at present, prior to our work with it.

Introduction

At the dawn of modernity, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov (1698–1760) came to awaken the smoldering ashes of darkened hearts, to breathe life back into the dry bones of a nation weary from persecution, and to lift from the ground a people buckling under the burden of Torah observance they had carried for so many thousands of years. He came to show us once again that we are all capable of serving G‑d with love and joy, and that every activity of life is an opportunity for oneness with the divine.

He declared that the heartfelt prayers of a simple Jewish wagon-driver were treasured by G‑d at least as much as the Talmudic studies of the most brilliant scholars. He quoted the words of the Talmud, “G‑d desires the heart,” meaning that whatever a Jew does – whether it be Talmud study, an act of charity, a prayer to G‑d – all had to be done with joy and with love.

The advent of the Baal Shem Tov was a watershed in Jewish history, a rebirth and revolution for the Jewish spirit. All those that he touched through his parables and teachings felt as though they had just crossed through the parting of the sea with Moses.

But he wrote no books. Neither did any of his disciples organize a cohesive whole from the teachings they had heard from his mouth.

That he left for Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, a disciple of a disciple. As the old order of Europe began to collapse and the status of the common man and woman started to rise, he wrote this book we call Tanya, a book not for the enlightened sage or the lofty soul, but for the rest of us.

Tanya was the first everyman’s guide to Chassidic thought and practice. Beforehand, a Jew would have to either receive these teachings orally or peer into one of the anthologies of cryptic aphorisms, anecdotes, and wisdom-teachings. From these you could gain some idea of what the Baal Shem Tov believed every Jew could and must achieve. But no one had attempted to map out the journey a Jew must take to get there.

This is the purpose of Tanya. In it, Rabbi Schneur Zalman shows you how to scale the mountains that loom along your path, sidestep the pitfalls scattered along the road, and, most importantly, keep your soul active, awake, inspired, and alert–because as long as your divine soul is awake, nothing could possibly stand in your way, not even your own inner beast. Every mitzvah you do will be a joyful mitzvah, and all of life a love affair between you and your Creator.

A likely starting point for such a book would be a description of this journey on which you are about to embark. Or perhaps some words of inspiration or purpose. Strangely, instead, the Tanya begins with a dissection of Talmudic dictums and terminology.

There is a reason for this, and it touches on a crucial distinction between the goals of the Tanya and those of other Jewish ethical works: Most other works construct their guidance upon well-established foundations. In the Tanya, Rabbi Schneur Zalman re-examines those foundations and provides an entirely new understanding of their meaning.

In the first chapter, he investigates the building blocks of Torah’s values and their very fiber, namely, the words it uses to describe the playing field. These are the goalposts that were set for you before you were born, a life-defining oath you took before your journey began: Be a tzadik. Don’t be a rasha.

But what is a tzadik? What is a rasha? Are these behavioral terms measured by deeds and misdeeds, or are they inner states of being? Do they lie on two ends of a one-dimensional pole, distributed along a spectrum, or perhaps imply a multidimensional constellation as befits the diversity of human life?

R. Schneur Zalman examines how these words are used in the contexts that matter. Halachah demands a clear definition of a rasha, since the testimony of a rasha is not accepted in court. But crucial, definitive passages from Zohar and Midrash illuminating the topic challenge these notions. The entire spectrum of Torah wisdom is invoked, from the most pragmatic to the most abstract and mysterious.

By the time we are halfway through the first chapter, the goalposts have been moved, the field expanded into a whole new realm, and all our preconceptions have been shattered. It becomes clear that these terms are structured around something far more complex and more essential to the human experience than our external behavior, something that cannot be explained without prefacing an analysis of the structure of the human psyche and its struggles.

From this point on, each chapter provides yet another re-examination of these core structures, reframing and restructuring them, presenting yet another revolution in our concept of life’s purpose and meaning, turning upside-down and inside-out basic, universal notions.

Many classic works of Jewish ethics that preceded the Tanya provide a good argument for shifting focus towards the inner world of the Jew. The Tanya, on the other hand, forces us into a system-wide reset of the fundamentals: Who are we? What is Torah? What do we mean when we say “G‑d”? How do G‑d, the Torah, and the Jew fit together?

In this restructuring, the Tanya reaches to the core foundations of the Jew. Not just to your heart, but to the divine soul hidden deep within its recesses. It’s not your hands that must do the mitzvah. But neither is it your emotions, or your mind, for that matter. It has to be you, from your innermost.

You, and not your habits. You, and not your nurture. You, and not your nature. You, at your core-essence, a divine soul.

פרק א'
Chapter One

Your Promise

תַּנְיָא [בְּסוֹף פֶּרֶק ג' דְּנִדָּה]:
Here is a teaching from the end of the third chapter of Nidah, a book of the Talmud:
"מַשְׁבִּיעִים אוֹתוֹ, תְּהִי צַדִּיק וְאַל תְּהִי רָשָׁע.
“Before you were born, the heavenly court made you swear: Be a tzadik and don’t be a rasha.
וַאֲפִילוּ כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אוֹמְרִים לְךָ צַדִּיק אַתָּה – הֱיֵה בְעֵינֶיךָ כְּרָשָׁע".
Yet they also made you swear: Even if the whole world tells you that you are a tzadik, be in your own eyes like a rasha.”
וְצָרִיךְ לְהָבִין, דְּהָא תְּנַן [אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ב']: "וְאַל תְּהִי רָשָׁע בִּפְנֵי עַצְמֶךָ".
We need to understand this oath, as it appears to contradict a teaching we learned (Avot, chapter two), “Do not consider yourself a rasha.”
וְגַם, אִם יִהְיֶה בְעֵינָיו כְּרָשָׁע – יֵרַע לְבָבוֹ וְיִהְיֶה עָצֵב, וְלֹא יוּכַל לַעֲבוֹד ה' בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְטוּב לֵבָב.
Furthermore, it seems counterproductive: If, despite all your efforts to be good, you nevertheless consider yourself a rasha, you may become discouraged and depressed, and you won’t be able to serve G‑d with joy and enthusiasm.
וְאִם לֹא יֵרַע לְבָבוֹ כְּלָל מִזֶּה, יָכוֹל לָבוֹא לִידֵי קַלּוּת, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם.
And if you don’t allow it to bother you at all, you might come to just not care, G‑d forbid.

Tzadik, Rasha, Beinoni

אַךְ הָעִנְיָן, כִּי הִנֵּה מָצִינוּ בַּגְּמָרָא ה' חֲלוּקּוֹת:
When we look into it, we find in the Talmud not two, but a total of five categories of people. Let’s try to understand these:
צַדִּיק וְטוֹב לוֹ,
A tzadik for whom things are good.
צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ,
A tzadik for whom things are bad.
רָשָׁע וְטוֹב לוֹ,
A rasha for whom things are good.
רָשָׁע וְרַע לוֹ,
A rasha for whom things are bad.
וּבֵינוֹנִי.
A beinoni (an in-between person).
וּפֵירְשׁוּ בַּגְּמָרָא: "צַדִּיק וְטוֹב לוֹ – צַדִּיק גָּמוּר, צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ – צַדִּיק שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָמוּר".
The Talmud explains: The tzadik for whom things are good is a complete tzadik. But the tzadik for whom things are bad is an incomplete tzadik.
וּבְרַעְיָא מְהֵימְנָא פָּרָשַׁת מִשְׁפָּטִים פֵּירַשׁ: צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ – שֶׁהָרָע שֶׁבּוֹ כָּפוּף לַטּוֹב וְכוּ'.
The Zohar, in the section Raya Mehemna, on Parshat Mishpatim, provides the inner meaning of these terms. The original Hebrew words, “a tzadik and things are bad for him,” can also be read “a tzadik and bad is his.” The Zohar explains that this tzadik does contain some bad, but it is subdued to the good that dominates within him. Conversely, the “rasha and good is his” contains some good, but it is subdued to the bad that dominates him.

The Zohar also states that the higher level of tzadik is a complete tzadik because there is no bad inside him at all. It would follow that the converse should be true with the complete rasha – he has no good inside him.

וּבַגְּמָרָא סוֹף פֶּרֶק ט' דִּבְרָכוֹת:
Elsewhere in the Talmud, Tractate Berachot, end of chapter 9, the three general categories are given a different description, this time revolving around the internal judge who determines their moral decisions:
"צַדִּיקִים – יֵצֶר טוֹב שׁוֹפְטָן כוּ',
“In Tzadikim, their good impulse is the judge who determines their moral decisions.
רְשָׁעִים – יֵצֶר הָרָע שׁוֹפְטָן,
“In Resha’im, their bad impulse is the judge who determines their moral decisions.
בֵּינוֹנִים – זֶה וָזֶה שׁוֹפְטָן וְכוּ'.
“In Beinonim, both judges determine their moral decisions.”

This seems to mean that the behavior of tzadikim and resha’im is governed by a single impulse, while beinonim waver back and forth.

There, the Talmud continues:

אָמַר רַבָּה: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא בֵּינוֹנִי.
“Rabba said, ‘For example, I am a beinoni.’
אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵּי: לֹא שָׁבִיק מַר חַיֵּי לְכָל בִּרְיָּה וְכוּ'".
Abaye, his student, responded, ‘Master! If you are a beinoni, what is with the rest of us? Your standards are too high for any creature to live by!’”
The Five Categories — a comparison of the types of people across four definitions (Definition 1: Talmud, Berachot 7a; Definition 2: Talmud, Berachot 7a; Definition 3: Zohar II, Raya Mehemna 117b; Definition 4: Talmud, Berachot 61b). Tzadik: (1) a tzadik for whom things are good — a complete tzadik, only good within him; (2) a tzadik for whom things are bad — an incomplete tzadik, contains some bad but it is subdued to his good; for both, the good impulse is the judge that determines their moral decisions. Rasha: (3) a rasha for whom things are good — an incomplete rasha, contains some good but it is subdued to his bad; (4) a rasha for whom things are bad — a complete rasha, only bad within him; for both, the bad impulse is the judge that determines their moral decisions. Beinoni: (5) the intermediate — both judges determine their moral decisions.
וּלְהָבִין כָּל זֶה בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב.
We need a good understanding of all this with a thorough explanation.
וְגַם לְהָבִין מַה שֶּׁאָמַר אִיּוֹב [בָּבָא בַּתְרָא פֶּרֶק א']: "רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּרָאתָ צַדִּיקִים בָּרָאתָ רְשָׁעִים כוּ'",
Along with the above, we also need to understand the Talmud’s interpretation of Job’s dispute with G‑d (Baba Batra, chapter 1). It says that he argued, “Master of the World! It is You who created tzadikim! It is You who created resha’im!” The Talmud never refutes his statement, implying that he had a valid point.
וְהָא 'צַדִּיק' וְ'רָשָׁע' לֹא קָאָמַר!
This is puzzling, because elsewhere the Talmud states clearly that “…when the life of every individual is determined in heaven, it is never declared whether he will be a tzadik or a rasha.” Both these statements must be true, but how? Certainly, clarifying this matter will assist us in defining what we mean by tzadik and rasha.

Seeking the Beinoni

וְגַם לְהָבִין מַהוּת מַדְרֵגַת הַבֵּינוֹנִי,
We also need to understand what this level called the beinoni truly means.
שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי אֵינוֹ מֶחֱצָה זְכֻיּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עֲוֹנוֹת, שֶׁאִם כֵּן, אֵיךְ טָעָה רַבָּה בְּעַצְמוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא בֵּינוֹנִי,
Commonly, a beinoni is understood as a person with half merits and half sins, a kind of median position between the tzadik and the rasha. But that cannot be correct, because if it were that simple to distinguish, how could a person such as Rabba possibly mistake himself for a beinoni?
וְנוֹדָע דְּלָא פָסִיק פּוּמֵיהּ מִגִּירְסָא, עַד שֶׁאֲפִילוּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לִשְׁלוֹט בּוֹ, וְאֵיךְ הָיָה יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹת בְּמֶחֱצָה עֲוֹנוֹת חַס וְשָׁלוֹם?
As is well known, Rabba’s mouth never ceased reciting the words of his Torah study – to the point that even the Angel of Death could not take his life. How could such a person have imagined that he had as many sins as merits, G‑d forbid?
וְעוֹד, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עֲוֹנוֹת נִקְרָא רָשָׁע גָּמוּר [וְאִם אַחַר־כָּךְ עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה – נִקְרָא צַדִּיק גָּמוּר],
Furthermore, how is a middle category of half-sins and half-merits possible? As long as a person is committing sins, the Talmud says he is considered completely a rasha (and if he repents afterward, the Talmud says he is forgiven and considered completely a tzadik)!
וַאֲפִילוּ הָעוֹבֵר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים – מִקְרֵי רָשָׁע, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּפֶרֶק ב' דִּיבָמוֹת וּבְפֶרֶק קַמָּא דְנִדָּה. וַאֲפִילוּ מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחָה נִקְרָא רָשָׁע [בְּפֶרֶק ו' דִּשְׁבוּעוֹת].
Neither could the beinoni be someone whose sins are not so serious. Even someone who transgresses something prohibited only by rabbinic decree is considered a rasha, as stated in the second chapter of Yebamoth and the first chapter of Nidah. Furthermore, even a person who didn’t sin himself, but could have protested someone else’s sin and failed to do so is labeled a rasha (in Shavuot, chapter 6).
וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן וְקַל וָחֹמֶר, בִּמְבַטֵּל אֵיזוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְקַיְּימָהּ,
If a person is considered a rasha in such cases where there is no explicit Torah instruction, how much more so is he considered a rasha when he fails to do an express mitzvah of the Torah.
כְּמוֹ כָּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק, שֶׁעָלָיו דָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה: "כִּי דְּבַר ה' בָּזָה וְגוֹ' הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת וְגוֹ'".
For example, someone who is able to study Torah, but doesn’t do so. Concerning such a person, the rabbis applied the verse, “For he has spurned the word of G‑d…he shall surely be cut off…”
וּפְשִׁיטָא דְּמִקְרֵי רָשָׁע טְפֵי מֵעוֹבֵר אִיסּוּר דְּרַבָּנָן.
Obviously, such a person deserves to be labeled a rasha more than someone who transgresses a rabbinic prohibition.
וְאִם כֵּן, עַל כָּרְחֲךָ הַבֵּינוֹנִי אֵין בּוֹ אֲפִילוּ עֲוֹן בִּיטּוּל תּוֹרָה,
If so, we must conclude that, far from being a person with half sins and half merits, a beinoni does not have any sin, even the sin of neglecting Torah study.
וּמִשּׁוּם הָכֵי טָעָה רַבָּה בְּעַצְמוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא בֵּינוֹנִי.
That being the case, it makes sense that Rabba mistook himself for a beinoni.
הגההMarginal note
וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּזֹּהַר חֵלֶק ג' דַּף רל"א: כָּל שֶׁמְּמוּﬠָטִין ﬠֲוֹנוֹתָיו וְכוּ', הִיא שְׁאֵלַת רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲבָל לְפִי תְּשׁוּבַת אֵלִיָּהוּ שָׁם, פֵּירוּשׁ "צַדִּיק וְרַע לוֹ" הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּרַﬠְיָא מְהֵימְנָא פָּרָשָׁה מִשְׁפָּטִים דִּלְﬠֵיל. וְשִׁבְﬠִים פָּנִים לַתּוֹרָה:

The True Tzadik

R. Schneur Zalman has now methodically eliminated the definition of a beinoni as a halfway stage between good and bad behavior.

This compels us to look deeper at what the Torah is asking of us. If the Torah was only concerned with behavior, we could assign everyone a position along a one-dimensional line stretching from those who do many mitzvahs and never sin to those who do many sins and have no mitzvahs, with possibly a third, vague middle area.

But we’ve established that the in-between category is not a midpoint between two extremes of behavior. Behaviorally speaking, you’re either a rasha or a tzadik.

Furthermore, Rabba – obviously a tzadik – teaches his students that he is a beinoni. He’s not feigning modesty – he’s teaching Torah and telling matters as he perceives them. That tells us that the beinoni and the tzadik are behaviorally indistinguishable.

It must be, then, that what separates the tzadik from the beinoni is some internal state of being and that a Jew’s focus in life lies beyond good behavior. This is what we will begin explaining now.

וְהָא דְּאָמְרִינָן בְּעָלְמָא, דְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה מִקְרֵי בֵּינוֹנִי, וְרוֹב זְכֻיּוֹת מִקְרֵי צַדִּיק,
But if a beinoni has no sins, how is it that someone with an equal balance of sins and merits is commonly called a beinoni and someone with a majority of merits is commonly called a tzadik?
הוּא שֵׁם הַמּוּשְׁאָל לְעִנְיַן שָׂכָר וְעוֹנֶשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁנִּדּוֹן אַחַר רוּבּוֹ, וּמִקְרֵי צַדִּיק בְּדִינוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁזּוֹכֶה בַּדִּין,
The answer is that, in all those instances, we are not using these words in their true, literal sense. We are using them as a useful figure of speech within the context of divine reward and punishment. When you are judged by the heavenly court, you are judged according to the majority of your deeds, and if you come out meritorious, you are called a tzadik for the purposes of that judgment.
אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲמִיתַּת שֵׁם הַתּוֹאַר וְהַמַּעֲלָה שֶׁל מַעֲלַת וּמַדְרֵגוֹת חֲלוּקוֹת צַדִּיקִים וּבֵינוֹנִים, אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה:
When it comes, however, to the true, descriptive title and status of the distinct qualities and levels of tzadikim and beinonim, none of this applies. Rather, the true definition is reflected in the teaching of our rabbis:
"צַדִּיקִים יֵצֶר טוֹב שׁוֹפְטָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְלִבִּי חָלַל בְּקִרְבִּי"
“In Tzadikim, their good impulse is the judge who determines their moral decisions, as King David said, ‘My heart is empty within me.’”
– שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יֵצֶר הָרָע, כִּי הֲרָגוֹ בְּתַעֲנִית;
It was empty because there was no evil impulse within it. He had killed that impulse by fasting, leaving him with only one impulse, the impulse to do good.
אֲבָל כָּל מִי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְמַדְרֵגָה זוֹ, אַף שֶׁזְּכֻיוֹתָיו מְרוּבִּים עַל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו – אֵינוֹ בְּמַעֲלַת וּמַדְרֵגַת צַדִּיק כְּלָל.
But anyone who has not attained this degree of internal transformation – even if he has more merits than sins – has not achieved the status and level of a tzadik at all.
וְלָכֵן אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה בַּמִּדְרָשׁ:
So, when our rabbis are not discussing halachah, but interpreting Biblical verses, they point out the scarcity of tzadikim:
"רָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא בַּצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵם מוּעָטִים – עָמַד וּשְׁתָלָן בְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר וְכוּ', וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב: וְצַדִּיק יְסוֹד עוֹלָם":
“The Holy One, may He be blessed, saw that the tzadikim are few, so He planted them deliberately in each generation, as the verse says, ‘G‑d knew who are the pillars of the earth, and He has set the world upon them.’ The entire world could endure even for the sake of a single tzadik, as the verse says, ‘A tzadik is the foundation of the world.’”

Before continuing, let’s clarify the general direction that we’re heading.

The first issue raised in this chapter remains unresolved: How are you expected to consider yourself a rasha when that is both forbidden and perilous? This is a fundamental question about the crippling self-blame that seems unavoidable as soon as we set any moral standard.

We’ve established that a rasha is anyone who has failed to keep up to the standards set by the Torah, a beinoni is someone who never fails those standards, and a tzadik is a very rare person who has no impulse to do the wrong thing. We don’t yet have clarity on these three categories, and neither have we established a distinction between the two kinds of rasha and the two kinds of tzadik.

The second half of this chapter doesn’t address either of these issues directly. Instead, it starts to unfold a map of the human psyche. You have two souls. The first of them is innately self-centered. The second soul is the subject of the next chapter.

More Than One Soul

אַךְ בֵּיאוּר הָעִנְיָן, עַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָרַב חַיִּים וִיטַאל זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה בְּשַׁעַר הַקְּדוּשָּׁה [וּבְעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר נ' פֶּרֶק ב'], דִּלְכָל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶחָד צַדִּיק וְאֶחָד רָשָׁע, יֵשׁ שְׁתֵּי נְשָׁמוֹת, דִכְתִיב: "וּנְשָׁמוֹת אֲנִי עָשִׂיתִי",
All these questions and concepts can be explained according to something Rabbi Chaim Vital writes in Sha’ar HaKedushah (and in Etz Chaim, portal 50, section 2). There he explains that every Jewish person, whether a tzadik or a rasha, has two souls, as it is written, “When a spirit emerges from within Me and clothes itself in a body, I have made souls.”
שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי נְפָשׁוֹת.
These two souls are two entire persons.
נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִצַּד הַקְּלִיפָּה וְסִטְרָא אָחֳרָא, וְהִיא הַמִּתְלַבֶּשֶׁת בְּדַם הָאָדָם לְהַחֲיוֹת הַגּוּף, וּכְדִכְתִיב: "כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִיא".
One soul is of the kelipah and the sitra achra. This is the soul that invests itself within the blood to vitalize the body, as it says, “…for the vital soul of the body is in the blood.”
וּמִמֶּנָּה בָּאוֹת כָּל הַמִּדּוֹת רָעוֹת, מֵאַרְבַּע יְסוֹדוֹת רָעִים שֶׁבָּהּ, דְּהַיְינוּ:
From this soul emerges all bad human traits. They arise from the four bad elements of which this soul is composed:
כַּעַס וְגַאֲוָה – מִיסוֹד הָאֵשׁ שֶׁנִּגְבָּהּ לְמַעְלָה,
Anger and arrogance arise from the element of fire, just as fire lifts itself upward.
וְתַאֲוַת הַתַּעֲנוּגִים – מִיסוֹד הַמַּיִם, כִּי הַמַּיִם מַצְמִיחִים כָּל מִינֵי תַּעֲנוּג,
The lust for pleasure arises from the element of water, just as it is water that allows all forms of delight to sprout and grow.
וְהוֹלֵלוּת וְלֵיצָנוּת וְהִתְפָּאֲרוּת וּדְבָרִים בְּטֵלִים – מִיסוֹד הָרוּחַ,
Frivolity, mockery, boasting, and chattering arise from the element of air.
וְעַצְלוּת וְעַצְבוּת – מִיסוֹד הֶעָפָר.
Laziness and depression arise from the element of earth.
וְגַם מִדּוֹת טוֹבוֹת שֶׁבְּטֶבַע כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם, כְּמוֹ רַחֲמָנוּת וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים – בָּאוֹת מִמֶּנָּה.
Not only these negative traits, but even the good qualities that are innate to every Jew from birth – such as compassion and acts of kindness – come from this soul.
כִּי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶפֶשׁ זוֹ דִּקְלִיפָּה, הִיא מִקְּלִיפַּת נוֹגַהּ, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גַּם כֵּן טוֹב, וְהִיא מִסּוֹד "עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע":
This is because, in a Jew, this soul of kelipah is of kelipat nogah – a kind of kelipah that also contains some good. It’s all related to the inner meaning of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, by which good and bad became entangled.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן נַפְשׁוֹת אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, הֵן מִשְּׁאָר קְלִיפּוֹת טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן טוֹב כְּלָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר מ"ט פֶּרֶק ג'.
That is not the case with the souls of the other nations of the world. They are not of kelipat nogah, but of the other impure kelipot that have no good in them at all, as written in Etz Chaim, portal 49, section 3.
וְכָל טִיבוּ דְּעָבְדִין הָאוּמּוֹת לְגַרְמַיְיהוּ עָבְדִין,
They do good, but “Any good the nations do, they do for their own selves.” It is self-serving, not genuine good.
וְכִדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָרָא עַל פָּסוּק: "וְחֶסֶד לְאוּמִּים חַטָּאת" –שֶׁכָּל צְדָקָה וָחֶסֶד שֶׁאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם עוֹשִׂין, אֵינָן אֶלָּא לְהִתְיַיהֵר כוּ':
The same point is made in the Talmud. On the verse, “The kindness of the nations is sin,” the rabbis explain that all the charity and kindness done by all the nations of the world is only in order to feed their pride over others.

Notes

  1. Sanhedrin 106b. See Zohar II, 281b.
  2. Notable amongst the early printed works compiling the oral teachings of the early Chassidic masters are: R. Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Ben Porat Yosef (Korets, Ukraine: 1781); R. Dov Ber of Mezritch (as recorded by his disciples), Magid D’Varav L’Yaakov (Korets, Ukraine: 1791); R. Yisrael ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov (as recorded by his disciples), Tzava’at HaRivash (Zhovkva, Ukraine: 1793); Keter Shem Tov (Zhovkva, Ukraine: 1794–1795), 2 vols.
  3. See, for example, R. Bachye ibn Paquda, introduction to Chovot HaLevavot.
  4. Nidah 30b.
  5. Avot 2:13; R. Obadiah Bartenura, ad loc., citing Rambam.
  6. See Deuteronomy 28:47; Tanya, ch. 26.
  7. Berachot 7a; 61b.
  8. Berachot 7a.
  9. Zohar II, 117b.
  10. Berachot 61b.
  11. The Hebrew text concludes with “and etcetera.” It is likely that the author is referencing the consequent account in some editions of the Talmud, in which Rabba responds to Abaye, “A person knows himself whether he is a tzadik or not.” This strengthens the question: How could Rabba sincerely believe he was half-full of sins? (The Rebbe, R. Menachem M. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 3, pp. 61ff.)
  12. Baba Batra 16a.
  13. Nidah 16b.
  14. Baba Metzia 86a.
  15. Kidushin 49b. See Pesachim 8a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Edut 12:3; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 34:28. “Completely”: see Ohr Zarua, sec. 112.
  16. Talmud, Yebamoth 20a; Nidah 12a.
  17. Talmud, Shavuot 39b.
  18. Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a; Deuteronomy 15:31.
  19. See, for example, Rashi and Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 16b; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuva, ch. 3.
  20. Talmud, Berachot 61b; Psalms 109:22.
  21. Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 5:5; Korban HaEdah, ad loc.
  22. 1 Samuel 2:8.
  23. Talmud, Yoma 38b; Proverbs 10:25.
  24. Vol. 1, portal 1–2.
  25. Isaiah 57:16.
  26. Leviticus 17:11.
  27. Talmud, Yebamoth 79a.
  28. Torah Ohr, 5b–6a; Torat Chaim, pp. 30a–33b.
  29. Tikunei Zohar, tikun 6.
  30. Proverbs 14:34.
  31. Baba Batra 10b.
  32. Midrash Rabbah, Numbers 13:15; Zohar I, 47b; III, 20a; 216a.