English translation — מאמר קץ שם לחושך תשכ"ד

With the help of Heaven.

Shabbos Parshas Devarim,

Tisha B'Av postponed,

5724

"He set an end to darkness,"

and it is brought in the Midrash,

"He gave a set time to the world, how many years it will be in darkness."

And the Tzemach Tzedek explains

that it is in the manner of what is said in the Zohar

on the verse,

"To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose,"

that there is a set time for the darkness of exile.

And it needs to be understood,

since all things in the world have a set time,

"to everything there is a season,"

what is the novelty in "He set an end to darkness"?

And even more so it is not understood,

for from the language of the verse "He set an end to darkness" it implies,

that darkness in and of itself has no end,

rather that He set for it an end.

And one can say the explanation of this,

that this—that undesirable things do not exist during the times that are set aside for good—

is only that they will not then exist in actuality,

for through the good things that exist then,

the undesirable things are nullified.

For it is similar with light and darkness,

that light pushes away darkness

[to the extent that even a little light pushes away a great deal of darkness].

And the concept of "He set an end to darkness" is,

that after its end will come, the concept of darkness will not be relevant at all.

For this—that the future redemption will be an eternal redemption after which there is no exile—

is,

that then the darkness of exile will not be relevant.

2)

Now, the distinction in the manner of the nullification of darkness—whether it is merely pushed aside by the light,

or its existence is not relevant at all—depends on the level of the light.

For in order to push away darkness

(but even after it is pushed aside, its existence is still relevant)

this is also through a limited light,

to the extent that even a little light pushes away a great deal of darkness.

And in order for the darkness to be completely nullified, it is through an unlimited light.

And as it is brought in the Midrash,

that this—that the redemption of the Exodus from Egypt

(and likewise the redemption from the Babylonian exile and the other exiles, up to the future redemption)

was a redemption after which there was exile,

and the future redemption will be an eternal redemption after which there is no exile,

is,

because the redemption of the Exodus from Egypt is analogous to the light of a candle, which is subject to extinguishing,

and the future redemption is analogous to the light of day, which is not subject to extinguishing.

That is,

the revelation of the future redemption will be a revelation of unlimited light that is not subject to cessation,

and therefore it will be an eternal redemption after which there is no exile.

3)

Now, it is known that all revelation is through Torah

(Torah Or13).

And from this it is understood,

that since the nullification of the darkness of exile is through light,

therefore,

in order to bring closer and hasten even more the future redemption,

it is through the study of Torah concerning the matter of light14.

And it is to be noted,

that in the discourse of the Rebbe

(the Rebbe Rashab)

of blessed memory, which was said on the postponed Shabbos Tisha B'Av15,

the matter of light is discussed.

For it may be said,

that the connection of this matter to the postponed Tisha B'Av is16,

because Tisha B'Av that falls on Shabbos and is postponed is conducive to causing it to be entirely nullified17,

and the postponement and nullification of the exile is through light18.

And it is explained in the discourse,

that light is ayin,

bittul (nullification).

[For the difference between light and vessel,

is,

that light is ayin and vessel is yesh].

And in the bittul of light there are three levels.

The bittul of light in its own right,

because light is of the same kind as the luminary,

and the bittul within it through its feeling its source,

and its bittul due to the nature of ratzo (running) and its ascent to be included in its source.

And it must be understood,

after all, even the bittul of light in its own right is

(seemingly)

that light is not an independent existence and its essence is the revelation of the luminary,

and what is the difference between the light itself

(whose essence is the revelation of the luminary)

and that in which its source is felt.

Also, it must be understood what is said in the discourse19

that the bittul in the light through its feeling its source is the bittul of "klo choshiv" (insignificance),

after all, that light is not an independent existence and its essence is the revelation of the luminary,

is,

seemingly,

a greater bittul than the bittul of "klo choshiv"

[for the bittul of "klo choshiv" is only regarding its importance,

that it has no value or importance relative to its source,

and this does not affect its very existence],

and in the discourse it says,

that the bittul added in the light through its feeling its source,

beyond its bittul in its own right

(whose essence is the revelation of the luminary),

is the bittul of "klo choshiv."

And the explanation of this may be said based on what is known20,

that although light is of the same kind as the luminary,

nevertheless,

since the luminary is separate from the light

(that the luminary is not the source of the light, only that it emanates from it),

therefore, that the light reveals the luminary is only the existence of the luminary and not its essence21.

But nevertheless,

due to the attachment of the light to the luminary, the essence of the luminary is also felt within it

(which is separate from the light and is not revealed in it).

And through this it is nullified from its existence.

For the existence of light is revelation

(of the luminary),

and through its feeling that the luminary

(the essence of the luminary)

is beyond revelation,

and that revelation has no value

(klo choshiv)

relative to the luminary,

it is nullified from its existence.

However, nevertheless,

even the nullification of light by means of its feeling its source is not complete nullification.

For since the light and its source are two separate matters,

and the light is outside its source,

then this that the light feels its source is that something external to it is felt in it,

which does not affect its own essential existence.

Therefore,

the nullification that comes through this feeling is only in its diffusion and not in its essential existence.

And the primary nullification of light

(complete nullification)

is the nullification that stems from its ratzo to be absorbed in its source.

For since will touches its essential existence

[as per the Baal Shem Tov's interpretation22

of the verse23

"Seraphim stand above Him,"

that through their will to be absorbed in Ein Sof they

(as it were)

are found

(standing)

there.

And similarly with the will of man,

that in the place of a man's will,

there he is found,

and moreover,

that there he is found entirely24],

therefore,

through his willing to be absorbed in his source, he

(as it were)

is absorbed in his source.

And therefore,

his nullification from the aspect of the will to be absorbed in his source is complete nullification

(like the nullification of light that is included in the luminary).

D)

And the maamar continues,

that the three levels in the nullification of light correspond to the three levels in the light.

The nullification of light from its own aspect is in the light that is invested in the vessels.

The nullification of light because its source is felt in it is in the light that is above investment in vessels,

but within the category of investment.

And the nullification of light from the aspect of the nature of its ratzo and ascent to be absorbed in its source is in the light that is above the category of investment.

And the three levels in the light, as they are in the matter of the Sefiros, are Binah, Chochmah, and Kesser.

Light that is invested in vessels is in Binah,

for in Binah there is the connection of light with vessel.

For this is that in Binah it is Havayah with the vowel points of Elokim25,

because in Binah there is the connection of the light

(Havayah)

with the vessels

(Elokim)26.

The light that is above investment in vessels but within the category of investment is in Chochmah.

And the light that is above the category of investment is in Kesser.

And this is that the nullification of the supernal intellect,

that everything before Him is considered as nothing,

is specifically in Chochmah, which is above Binah27,

for the nullification of "considered as nothing" is from the aspect that its source is felt in it,

and therefore this nullification is specifically in Chochmah – light that is above investment

(but within the category of investment).

And the nullification in Kesser

(light that is above the category of investment)

is a nullification more elevated even than the nullification of Chochmah,

for the nullification of Chochmah is the nullification of "He alone is and there is nothing besides Him"28,

the nullification of Ayin,

and in Kesser it is the nullification of Efes.

And it can be said,

that this that the nullification of light from its own aspect is in the light that is invested in vessels, and the nullification of light from the aspect of feeling its source and from the aspect of ratzo to be absorbed in its source is in the light that is above investment,

is,

because the matter of light is revelation,

and since the primary revelation in light is through its investment in vessels,

therefore,

the light

(as it is from its own aspect)

descends and flows to become invested in vessels.

For although the vessels are the opposite of light,

in that light is Ayin and the vessels are Yesh

(as brought above in section 3 of the maamar),

nevertheless,

since the nullification

(Ayin)

of light from its own aspect is that its matter is the revelation of the luminary,

therefore,

from this very aspect it descends and flows to become invested in vessels,

in order that its revelation be complete29.

But when the source of the light, which is separate from revelation, is felt in the light,

through this it becomes nullified from the matter of revelation

(as above in section 3)

and it does not descend and become invested in vessels.

However, nevertheless,

since its nullification through its source being felt in it is only in its diffusion and not in its essential existence

(as above there),

therefore,

its nullification is in a manner that it still remains within its category,

the category of revelation,

and therefore it is within the category of investment in vessels.

And through the nullification of light from the aspect of ratzo to be absorbed in its source,

since this nullification is in its essential existence,

therefore,

through this nullification it is not

(also)

within the category of investment in vessels.

9)

And behold, these three levels of nullification in light

also have

(their parallel)

in the service of man.

And based on what was brought above from the maamar, that these three levels of nullification in light are in Binah, Chochmah, and Keter,

it can be said

that these three nullifications in divine service are the nullification of comprehension founded upon faith,

the nullification of faith, and the nullification of self-sacrifice.

And this will be understood based on what is explained elsewhere

regarding the matter of the encompassing and the internal,

that even when the encompassing is drawn and clothes itself within the internal,

it remains in its essence,

encompassing.

[And likewise regarding the clothing of light in vessels

(where the light in itself is encompassing, and through its clothing in vessels it becomes internal light),

that even after the light clothes itself in vessels, it remains in its essence,

light.

And analogously with will,

that even after it is drawn and clothes itself in intellect, to the point that it tilts the intellect to be according to the will and becomes a reason for the will,

nevertheless it remains in its essence,

a will that is above reason.

And likewise regarding the clothing of faith in intellect,

for when one contemplates in his intellect a matter that he believes in

(with simple faith that is above intellect)

in order that also in his intellect he will understand the matter,

even after he understands the matter in his intellect,

his faith remains faith that is above intellect.

And the difference between these two analogies is,

that in the analogy of the clothing of will in intellect,

the fact that the intellect understands according to the will is not from the side of the intellect, but from the side of the will that tilts the intellect and changes it.

And since the clothing of will in intellect is in a manner that the intellect is nullified

(changed)

before the will,

therefore,

that the clothing does not effect a change in the will

(that even after its clothing in intellect it remains in its existence),

is not so novel.

And in the clothing of faith in intellect,

the fact that the intellect reaches the conclusion that the matter he believes in is true also from the side of the intellect,

is from the side of the intellect

[for when he contemplates in his intellect in order that also his intellect will be according to the truth,

he strives that his contemplation and reasoning be according to the truth of the intellect],

and nevertheless the clothing does not effect a change in the faith,

and even after he understands the matter in his intellect

(from the side of the intellect),

his faith is faith that is above intellect.

And another difference between the two analogies,

that in the clothing of will in intellect,

that the will clothes itself in intellect and acts upon it to be according to the will is because the will rules over the intellect

(and not that this affects the will).

And since that the will rules over the intellect is

(not the will itself,

but rather)

its relationship to the other faculties,

therefore the descent of the will and its clothing in intellect is a true descent

(a departure from will to intellect).

And in the clothing of faith in intellect,

that he contemplates in his intellect in order to understand the matter is for the sake of faith,

in order that his faith will also be in internality.

Therefore the descent of faith and its clothing in intellect is not a true descent.

And based on the known principle

that faith is nullification and intellect is existence,

it is understood

that the matter of the clothing of faith in intellect is that nullification is drawn into existence.

And since his contemplation

(and comprehension)

is for the sake of faith

[and also that the intellect remains in its existence and is not nullified before faith

(as it is nullified before will)

is for the sake of faith,

in order that also the intellect, as it is in its existence, will be according to faith],

therefore even after the nullification of faith is drawn into the existence of intellect,

the nullification is in its full strength.

And the difference between the nullification of faith that clothes itself in intellect and the nullification of faith that is above intellect is,

that the nullification of faith that clothes itself in intellect comes in a form of revelation

(that the nullification is revealed in intellect),

existence.

For in addition to the fact that the intellect

(in which faith clothes itself)

is existence,

also the revelation of faith

(that faith is in revelation in a manner that it is felt in the intellect)

is existence.

And the nullification of faith that is above intellect is above the existence of revelation.

[Analogous to the difference between the nullification of light that clothes itself in vessels and the nullification of light that is above clothing,

that even the light that clothes itself in vessels is not an existence unto itself, and its entire matter is the revelation of the Luminary.

Rather, the nullification of light that clothes itself is in a form of revelation,

existence.

For in addition to the fact that the vessels in which the light clothes itself are existence,

also the revelation of the light

(that is revealed in the vessels)

is existence.

And the nullification of light that is above clothing is that it does not have even the existence of revelation].

6)

Now, even the nullification of faith, which is above intellect, is not total nullification.

For the nullification of faith is that one believes in G-dliness even though from the perspective of his intellect

(his existence)

he has no proofs of this.

And since the reason for this—that he believes in G-dliness

(even though he has no proofs of this)

—is that G-dliness is felt in his soul

[except that this feeling is above his existence

(comprehension)

],

therefore,

the nullification of faith is not total nullification,

because he believes because G-dliness is felt within him.

And this is analogous to the nullification of light by its sensing its source

(the essence of the luminary),

for even though this sensing of its source is above its existence

[for the essence of the luminary is not revealed in the light],

nevertheless,

this is sensed in the light as it is in its existence,

an existence outside the source

[therefore,

this sensing of its source does not cause it to desire to be included in its source].

And the nullification of self-sacrifice,

where one gives his soul for the sake of G-dliness

(departure from his existence),

is analogous to the nullification of light from the aspect of its ratzo to be included in its source.

This is also understood from the continuation of the topics in Tanya36,

that the power of self-sacrifice in Israel is analogous to the desire of the soul to separate and depart from the body and cleave to its root and source,

even though it will become naught and nothing and be nullified there in existence entirely37.

And to add,

that in the desire of the soul to be included in Ein Sof, there are two levels.

That it wants to be included,

and that it is in a state of dissolution in a spontaneous manner.

And it can be said,

that since the nullification

(of light)

that comes from the desire to be included in its source is total nullification

(like the nullification of light included in the luminary as mentioned above in section 3),

therefore the desire is also nullified.

7)

And the maamar continues38,

that since the ratzo of light to be included in its source is because it is attached to its source,

therefore,

the ratzo of light

[and likewise the nullification that comes from ratzo]

exists in all levels of light,

even in the light that is enclothed in vessels

(for the fact that light is attached to its source is in all its levels),

except that the primary ratzo

[and the nullification that comes from ratzo]

is in the essence of light, which is above the category of enclothing in vessels.

And it can be said,

that in the nature of the ratzo in light to be included in its source,

there are two matters.

The desire to be included in its source,

and the desire not to be outside its source.

And that the primary ratzo is in the essence of light,

is,

that in the light that is enclothed in vessels and in the category of enclothing,

it is the desire not to be outside its source,

and in the essence of light, it is the desire to be included in its source.

And the explanation is,

that regarding these two desires mentioned above, each one has an advantage that the other lacks.

The desire to be included in its source is more elevated,

for this desire in light is because the source is sensed in it—and the revelation of the source is primarily in the essence of light.

And the desire not to be outside its source is more internal

(deeper)

in the light,

to the extent that this desire is in the very essence of its existence—and therefore it is in all its levels.

And this is analogous to the distinction between the soul's desire to be included in Ein Sof and the power of self-sacrifice39,

that the desire to be included in Ein Sof is revealed only in unique individuals,

while the matter of self-sacrifice—not to be separated, G-d forbid, from G-dliness—is revealed in every single person.

8)

Now, according to the known great precision in the discourses of our Rebbes and Nesi'im

(also regarding the time of their delivery),

it stands to reason,

that the connection of the aforementioned maamar to the postponed Tisha B'Av is both from the perspective of the general content of the maamar—the matter of light—

and also from the perspective of the details of the light explained in the maamar.

The explanation is,

that in order for the darkness to be completely nullified

(and not merely be pushed aside by the light)

it is

(specifically)

through the revelation of unlimited light

(as in section 2 above).

And in more detail—through the revelation of the light that is included in the luminary.

For the light that spreads outside the luminary,

its function is to illuminate the darkness.

Like the light of the sun that spreads into the space of the world

(outside the sun),

where the place of the space of the world is a dark place,

and the function of the light that spreads into the space of the world is to illuminate the place of darkness.

But the light that is included in the luminary is in a place

(level)

where the matter of darkness does not apply.

And likewise above,

that from the distinctions between the Ein Sof light before the tzimtzum

(the light included in His Essence)

and the light after the tzimtzum

(which is analogous to the light that spreads outside the luminary),

it is,

that the light drawn down after the tzimtzum, its function is to illuminate the worlds.

Therefore,

the G-dly revelation that exists in the world through the revelation of the light after the tzimtzum is in a manner of renewal.

Existence in simplicity and G-dliness in renewal40.

[Analogous to the light of the sun that spreads into the space of the world,

where the place of the space of the world in itself is a dark place,

and the light that shines in it is in a manner of addition and renewal].

But when the revelation of the Ein Sof light before the tzimtzum shines in the world,

G-dliness is in simplicity40,

to the extent that there is no place at all for anything that is not G-dliness.

[In the analogy of what was before the tzimtzum,

when the Ein Sof light filled the place of the void,

when there was no place for the existence of the worlds41].

And this is that the nullification of darkness completely is through the revelation of the light included in the luminary

(the Ein Sof light before the tzimtzum),

for the light after the tzimtzum,

since its function is to illuminate the worlds,

from this it is understood that the worlds occupy a place relative to it,

therefore,

the revelation of this light is in a manner that the concealment and hiding of the world is capable of concealing it.

That is,

in addition to the concealment of the world that exists even when the revelation shines,

that the G-dly revelation in the world through the revelation of this light is in a manner of renewal

(as above),

it is possible that the concealment of the world will also conceal this revelation

(so that there will be no G-dly revelation in the world at all,

not even a revelation that is in a manner of renewal).

And in order for there to be a nullification of darkness, it is through the revelation of the essence of the light that is above the light that illuminates the worlds,

for this light the world cannot conceal.

And this is what is said in the Midrash42

that the future redemption is analogous to the light of day which cannot be extinguished,

it can be said that the intention in this is for the light that is above any connection to worlds,

for which concealment does not apply.

9)

And it is necessary to understand,

for seemingly,

since from the perspective of the light that illuminates the worlds it is impossible for darkness to be nullified

(and it is only pushed aside by the light),

and that in the future redemption the darkness of exile will be nullified,

is because then there will be a revelation of a new light that is above relation to worlds,

then the world itself

(as it is from the perspective of its limitations,

including also the revelations that are related to the world)

would remain in exile, heaven forbid.

And the point of the explanation of this,

is from the reasons

for this, that creation was in such a manner that initially there is the light that is above relation to worlds, and specifically from it is drawn the light that illuminates the worlds

(even though seemingly there should have been from the outset a drawing down of light that is relevant to worlds),

is,

in order that the light that is relevant to worlds will contain within it

(in concealment, at least)

something of the light that is above relation to worlds.

And based on this it is understood,

that even though the nullification of the darkness of exile will be through the revelation of the essential light that is above the light that illuminates the worlds,

nevertheless the redemption will be

(also)

within the limitations of the world,

for the revelation of the essential light that will be in the future redemption will illuminate in revelation also within the light that illuminates the worlds,

and through this—within the world.

And based on this, one can explain the connection of the topics in the maamar to the nullification of the darkness of exile,

that this which the maamar elaborates on the matter of the inclusion of light in its source,

one can say,

is because the nullification of the darkness of exile is through the revelation of the included light

(as above, section 8).

And this which it explains that the nature of ratzo and inclusion is also in the light that is in the category of enclothing and also in the light that is clothed in vessels,

is,

because in order that the nullification of the darkness of exile

(which is from the revelation of the included light)

will be within the limitations of the world,

it is through the fact that the matter of the inclusion of light in its source is also in the light that is clothed in vessels.

10)

And this is the explanation:)

And this is "He set a limit for darkness,"

for one can say,

that the meaning of the word "limit" in this verse is

(also)

a limit

(and boundary)

to its beginning.

That is,

that the matter of darkness has a place only in the light that illuminates the worlds,

and not in the essential light.

And it says "He set a limit for darkness"

(that this that there is a limit to darkness is because He set a limit for it,

but from its own perspective it has no limit),

for this that darkness has no place in the essential light that is not in the category of worlds,

is not relevant to the world.

And since from the perspective of the limitation of the world it has no limit at its beginning

(because it has a place in all the levels that are relevant to worlds),

then also the limit at its end,

that in the future the darkness will be nullified,

would not, heaven forbid, be within the limitations of the world.

Therefore "He set a limit for darkness,"

a limit at its beginning,

that the light that is not in the category of worlds,

where there is no place for darkness,

will be relevant to the world.

And through this,

also the limit at its end,

the nullification of darkness that will be in the future redemption,

will be within the world, in its innerness.

For even though the nullification of darkness that will be in the future is through the revelation of a new light that is above relation to worlds,

nevertheless,

the world will be a vessel also for this light,

and through this the intention of a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He, in the lower realms will be completed,

that the lower realm

(from the perspective of its limitations)

will be a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

for Him, for His very Essence.