It is stated[1] in Zohar III, p. 168a: "The Master of the Celestial Academy opened [his discourse and said], 'He who [considers himself] insignificant is eminent; he who [considers himself] eminent is insignificant.... Behold: G-d exalts only the humble; He casts down only those who consider themselves exalted.'" This is in accord with the teaching of our Sages (Eruvin 13b): "He who humbles himself is lifted up by G-d; he who holds himself in high esteem, G-d casts him down." [The Zohar continues:] "Meritorious is he that humbles himself in this world; how greatly exalted is he in that world [i.e., in the spiritual world to come]."

Herein lies the difference between the holy and the unholy: The holy is [always in a state of] nullification [of self, bittul] and unity [with others, while the unholy is always in an egotistical and discordant state. Concerning holy service] it is written,[2] "And you shall love your fellow as yourself," and the Alter Rebbe notes[3] that to "love your fellow as yourself" is the vessel [through which one may come to fulfill the commandment],[4] "And you shall love G-d your L-rd."

It is written in Pri Etz Chayim (Shaar Olam HaAsiyah, ch. 1), that before one begins the morning prayer he should undertake [the fulfillment of] the mitzvah to "love your fellow as yourself," with the intention of loving each and every Jew as much as he loves himself.

For Divine service entails climbing the rungs of prayer from level to level, ultimately attaining the level of Shema Yisrael[5] [wherein it is written, "And you shall love G-d your L-rd"]. Man's service throughout the day in the level of love [for G-d] must be prefaced by the mitzvah to "love your fellow as yourself," for holiness is bittul and unity. Unholiness, on the other hand, consists of egotism and divisiveness.

This is why Yaakov said,[6] "I have all [that I need]," an expression denoting the commingling [of different aspects into one united whole]. In terms of man's character traits (middos), this expression refers to the trait of contentedness - being happy with one's lot. Esav [by contrast] said,[7] "I have much," an expression denoting egotism, and a multitude of disparate entities. In terms of man's character traits, this represents the haughtiness and boastfulness that result from arrogance and self-satisfaction.

This is also why Yaakov and his progeny, although consisting of seventy souls, are referred to with the singular[8] "soul," while Esav and his family, although numbering only six, are referred to with the plural[9] "souls,"[10] [for Yaakov represents unity, and Esav, fragmentation.

This difference between Yaakov and Esav springs from the fact that] Esav and Yaakov represent [the Worlds of] Tohu and Tikkun.[11] The emotional attributes (middos) of Tohu were [disunited] like "spreading branches." They were unable to tolerate one another; the attribute of kindness could not endure the attribute of severity, and the attribute of severity could not condone the attribute of kindness.

It is for this reason that [concerning each of the kings of Edom, and alluding to each of these attributes] it is written,[12] "He reigned, then he died." "He reigned" alludes to the attitude that "I [alone] shall rule"; i.e., each emotional attribute was in such a state of expansiveness that it left no room for any other attribute. "Then he died" refers to sheviras hakeilim [the "breaking of the vessels," wherein the Divine light contained within the vessels of the middos of Tohu ascended to its source, while the vessels themselves "broke" and underwent a process of spiritual descent]. As is known, the sheviras hakeilim of the middos of Tohu serves as the source for the divisiveness of unholiness, this [attribute of discord] being the very antithesis of the unity of holiness.

The yeshus of Tohu, its awareness of self, thus served as the [ultimate] cause of the seven evil attributes, which are the evil counterpart of the seven holy attributes. The yeshus of Tohu produced the root cause of the seven evil attributes, this being - in terms of man's character traits - the trait of baseless hatred (sinas chinam), the source and root of all the various manifestations of evil within all these [seven] evil traits.

Whereas the seven evil traits are specifics, sinas chinam is an all-encompassing evil. Such hatred does not result from a particular cause (e.g., that one was harmed or opposed by another in a particular way), for then the hatred would depend on this, and because of this he would quarrel and bicker with him. Rather, sinas chinam derives solely from the fact that one person cannot tolerate another.

This explains why sinas chinam can sometimes apply to a person whom one knows not in the slightest and has only heard of his good name, without ever having come in contact with him. In spite of this, he hates him utterly, and is not even able to mention him by name. Moreover, when he hears something good about that person he negates it, and is angered that people should speak highly of him.

Especially [will this baseless hatred manifest itself] when he knows the individual [whom he hates]. He [then] seeks to find various faults with him and make light of him in order to make it clearly known to all that he cannot live in harmony with him. Such hatred is called sinas chinam, for it has absolutely no basis.

At times there may be some minor grounds [for the individual's hatred], i.e., he finds some rational explanation for it. But in truth, this reason comes only after the fact. The particular reasons are not the cause of his enmity, but are found or invented later on: they are only a pretext and excuse for whitewashing and justifying his baseless hatred. But [in truth these reasons] are not genuine; he hates the other person only because he cannot tolerate him.

Summary: Holiness is characterized by bittul and unity; unholiness, by yeshus and divisiveness. The yeshus of Tohu is the cause of the seven evil attributes. It [underlies their source, which] is sinas chinam, whose rationale and ramifications come after the fact.

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) [Many of] the notations to this discourse have already been indicated in the appropriate places in the preceding discourse [viz., Heichaltzu].

2. (Back to text) [Vayikra 19:18.]

3. (Back to text) See at length in HaTamim IV, p. 45.

4. (Back to text) [Devarim 6:5.]

5. (Back to text) See Introduction to Siddur [im Dach].

6. (Back to text) [Bereishis 33:11.]

7. (Back to text) [Ibid., v. 9.]

8. (Back to text) [Shmos 1:5.]

9. (Back to text) [Bereishis 36:6.]

10. (Back to text) [Cf. Vayikra Rabbah 4:6, cited in Rashi on Bereishis 46:26.]

11. (Back to text) I.e., their roots are in Tohu and Tikkun. See also Likkutei Torah of the AriZal, conclusion of Parshas Vayishlach; Torah Or, beginning of Parshas Vayishlach; and the maamar entitled Vayashuvu.

12. (Back to text) [Bereishis 36:31ff.]