The apparent contradiction between G-d’s omniscience and man’s free choice

Table of contents

Search this book:

Thankful acknowledgment to a chassid for sending his memoirs

No. 440

This letter was sent to R. Nissan Nemenov, the spiritual mentor of the Lubavitch yeshivah in Brunoy, France.

B"H, 8 Shvat, 5709

Greetings and blessings,

In continuation of my letter of 20 Teves:

1. Enclosed is a kuntreis that was just published for you to share with people at large.

2. Enclosed is what I believe is [the resolution of the differences between the description of G-d] as “forgiving” [sin] and “suppressing” [sin].

With regards to our entire brotherhood,

M. Schneerson

In response to your note regarding the statement in the maamar entitled Kol HaMeracheim, secs. 4-5 (printed in Kuntreis Tud-Tes Kislev, 5709)[124] that the attribute of rav chessed, “abundant kindness,” is identified with kindness that overwhelms judgment; it therefore washes away sin, but the sin itself is not obliterated:

[You raised several] relevant questions. To restate them after [embellishing your words] slightly: There is a difference of opinion in Rosh HaShanah (17a) whether the quality of rav chessed, “abundant kindness,” involves “suppressing sin” or “forgiving sin.”[125] The difference between the two can be explained based on our Sages’ statements (Pesikta DeRav Kahana, Piska 6; Pesikta Rabasi; Yalkut Shimoni, Parshas Pinchas; see also Aruch, maareches kevas c) on the phrase:[126] “lambs, a year old.”

The School of Shammai says: “‘Lambs (kevasim),’ because [these sacrifices] suppress (kovsim) sins.”

The School of Hillel says: “Every entity that is suppressed will ultimately rise upward. [The term] ‘lambs’ [is used] because [these sacrifices] launder (kovsim)[127] [sins], as it is said:[128] ‘If your sins are like scarlet, they will become white like snow.’”

If so, we are forced to say that Ravva’s statement in Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit., that the sin is not obliterated, follows the opinion that [G-d] merely suppresses the sins, but according to the opinion that He forgives them, they are obliterated entirely, as explained in the maamar entitled Tiku, 5670. According to the above, [the following points] still remain problematic:

1. According to the opinion that [G-d] “forgives” [sin], what is the difference between the attribute of abundant kindness and the attribute of truth?[129]

2. How can the statement in the maamar entitled Kol HaMeracheim be reconciled with those of the maamar entitled Tiku cited above?

[It is] also [necessary to reconcile the above with] the statements of the maamar entitled Mi E-l Chamocha in Likkutei Torah which explain that there is a difference of opinion whether G-d “suppresses sin” or “forgives sin” and [concludes that] both opinions are true. The essence of the sin is [merely] suppressed, but the power of desire [that motivated the sin] can be uplifted[130] and included within holiness.

Thus, on the surface, it appears that each of the maamarim follows an independent viewpoint. The maamar entitled Kol HaMeracheim states that the attribute of abundant kindness does not cause sin to be obliterated at all. Likkutei Torah states that the essence of the sin is not obliterated, but its power of desire is elevated to holiness. And the maamar entitled Tiku states that according to the opinion that G-d forgives sins, one’s purposeful sins become transformed into merits.

Reply: There are two ways of understanding the matter: one according to nigleh, the revealed dimension of Torah Law, and one according to Chassidus. I will begin with the explanation according to nigleh and follow with the one according to Chassidus.

With regard to the attribute of abundant kindness, there is a difference of opinion in Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.,2 whether it involves G-d forgiving [sin] or [merely] suppressing it. With regard to [sin’s] suppression, there are different opinions in the Talmud as Rif, Rosh, and their commentaries elaborate at length. Only Rav Y[eh]uda[h] (Arachin 8b) accepts the view that [G-d] forgives. By contrast, one of the Sages of the School of Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbah, and Ravva — the latter being the last of the Sages [of the Talmud who discuss this issue] — follow the opinion that [G-d] suppresses [sin], but the sin itself is not obliterated. [Hence, we can conclude] that the halachah follows this view. For this is the rule [as explained] in the general principles for Talmudic [study].[131]

There are opinions that maintain that the general principles for Talmudic [study] apply only to matters involving practice[132] (Maharik [Responsum 165], cited by Tosafos Yom Tov, keilim 3:2). Nevertheless, as [Tosafos Yom Tov] concludes in that source, “Whenever it is possible to maintain the general principle, we do so.” [In addition,] it appears to me that [the Maharik’s statement was mentioned] only with regard to principles like “In a difference of opinion between one Sage and another, the halachah follows the first Sage.” For the rationale [for that principle] is [that the Sage whose opinion is favored] is more familiar [with the matters under discussion] than his colleague.[133] Hence, [in such matters,] it is possible to say that the principle applies only to matters that were practiced. With regard to matters dependent on logic, like the principle under discussion,[134] [this is not necessarily so]. For logic mandates [the application] of this principle even though [the matter under discussion] was not practiced at that time. See more details about this matter in Kovetz Lubavitch, Vol. X, p. 82, note 15.[135]

A clear proof that the halachah follows the opinion that [G-d] suppresses sin is evident from the fact that Rif [136] omits all mention of the opinion that [G-d] forgives sins, and elaborates on the different interpretations of what it means that He suppresses [sin].

---

Seemingly, a question can be raised regarding the above [discussion], based on the Pesikta and the Yalkut Shimoni cited above which mention a difference of opinion [concerning this issue] between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The School of Hillel maintains that the sin itself is obliterated. This follows the opinion that [G-d] forgives sin. And when there is a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, the halachah follows the School of Hillel. (This[137] is also a principle that is universally relevant and does not apply only to matters that applied at that time, as evident from Eruvin 13b which speaks of “Whoever humbles himself....”)[138] If [the spiritual influence generated by] the daily offering — which is the subject of the difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel — obliterates sin, [seemingly,] how much more so should this apply with regard to the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy![139] [The difficulty is even greater,] because the difference of opinion in Rosh HaShanah regarding whether [G-d] suppresses or forgives sin follows the position of the School of Hillel.2 If so, the passage in the Pesikta and the Yalkut Shimoni [seems to] run contrary to our Talmud’s [position on the issue].

The resolution is obvious: The Pesikta is speaking about the daily offering, and that offering atones only for [the failure to observe] a positive commandment (see Tanya, Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 11). [That wrongdoing] can be obliterated entirely. The passage concerning the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Rosh HaShanah speaks about [atoning for the violation of] a negative commandment. [Attaining] atonement for this is more difficult than [attainining atonement for failing to observe] a positive commandment.

---

[Even] according to the opinion that [G-d] forgives sin and obliterates the sin entirely, the attribute of abundant kindness differs from the attribute of truth. For the attribute of truth has no limitations; it is “an inheritance without boundaries,”[140] as explained in the maamar entitled Kol HaMeracheim. The attribute of abundant kindness, by contrast, [has limits to its expression]. Therefore it applies only when one is equally balanced between sins and merits and it washes away only the first sin,[141] [as evident] according to all the interpretations that exist with regard to the suppression of sins (see the statements of Rif and Ran). For the opinions on whether [G-d] forgives or suppresses sin apply only to whether the sin itself is obliterated or not.[142]

---

According to Chassidus, in short, it appears to me that the matter can be explained as follows: There are three approaches to [overcoming the challenges of this material world]: iskafia, subjugating [the material nature of the world, but not transforming it]; is’hapcha, [the transformation to good of the sparks of G-dliness found within] kelipas nogah, and is’hapcha of the three [completely] impure kelipos.

Iskafia comes through a battle, for the two sides are of comparable [strength], and ultimately one side increases [its strength] and overcomes the other in the battle. [In the spiritual realms,] this relates to [the level of] Z’eir Anpin which possesses a right vector and a left vector and is called[143] “the man of war.” At times, one side overcomes, and at times, the other.

Is’hapcha involves the transformation of the opposing forces. This is possible only when there is no comparison between the two opponents; to use a different expression, only when the opponent does not have a foothold with which to attach itself to the nature of the conqueror[144] whose level is above limitation.

Within this category, [there are two rungs]: a) The transformation of kelipas nogah: This does not run contrary to the order of spiritual progression within the spiritual cosmos, because when following a pattern of Divine service, it is possible to elevate kelipas nogah and transform it into holiness. [This relates to the level of] Arich Anpin, a level which is [itself] unlimited, but [nevertheless, serves as] the source of the downward progression of spiritual worlds and the Divine emanations.

b) The transformation of the three [completely] impure kelipos: This runs contrary to the order of spiritual progression within the spiritual cosmos. Therefore it is impossible for it to have its source in Arich Anpin, the source of Divine emanations.[145] It is possible only through the influence of Atika Kadisha which shines within the inner dimensions of Arich Anpin (see the conclusion of the explanation of the maamar entitled VeLo Ava, Likkutei Torah, Parshas Ki Seitzei).

The Thirteen Attributes of Mercy are expressed within Z’eir Anpin, the external dimensions of Arich Anpin, and the internal dimensions of Arich Anpin (see the conclusion of Parshas Re’eh in Likkutei Torah). It is understood that [the manner in which] the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy [are manifest] in Z’eir Anpin can come from that level itself. [Or it can be drawn down as a result of] the influence from the internal dimensions of Arich Anpin shining powerfully. Alternatively, it may result from the influence from the external dimensions of Arich Anpin shining powerfully. Hence, it is possible for there to be three [types of expression]: a) suppressing [the sin] in which the sin itself is not obliterated, iskafia; b) forgiving [sin], is’hapcha, but only within the realm of kelipas nogah, without [elevating] the essence of sin from the three impure kelipos; or c) the sin will be transformed entirely — the transformation of darkness into light that also affects the three impure kelipos.

[On this basis, we can appreciate] the different interpretations of “abundant kindness.” In and of itself, it refers to the Chessed of Arich Anpin within that Sefirah.[146] It, however, shines within the Chessed of Z’eir Anpin and it receives influence from the Chessed of Atika Kadisha, the level of “He desires kindness.” Indeed, there are times when it is called the Chessed of Atika (see the maamar entitled Havayah Yechatu Merivov at the conclusion of Parshas Re’eh in Likkutei Torah, et al.). Therefore there is room for differing opinions in how to refer to it: suppressing sin, forgiving it, or the compromise suggested in Likkutei Torah; transforming only the power of desire.

The attribute of truth, v’emes, is “clear from hairs,”[147] i.e., [it represents] the revelation of truth as it is. ([This concept is explained] according to Chassidus in the explanation of the third maamar entitled Eileh Maasei in Likkutei Torah.) This refers to the level of Atika Kadisha as it is manifest in every one of the three expressions of the Thirteen Attributes explained above. Therefore it brings about is’hapcha in a complete sense.

---

The parallel to these concepts in our Divine service can be explained based on the statements at the conclusion of the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, in the portion that was not copied (p. 203ff.).[148] There are three approaches to the “sweetening” of the attributes of Gevurah:

1. iskafia — sweetening them by an abundance of the attribute of Chessed. [This refers to] the G-dly soul’s overcoming the animal soul in battle. The advantage of this approach is that it entails an ascent from below upward, and [ultimately] the animal soul is aroused on its own initiative and ascends.

2. is’hapcha — like the sweetening of the waters of Marah by casting a piece of wood from the Tree of Life into it (as understood by the Zohar II, p. 60a). This refers to the essence of kindness and goodness. The waters themselves[149] become sweetened. [In the analogue,] due to the abundance of light from the G-dly soul, the animal soul becomes refined as a matter of course. This, however, comes about through [revelation] from Above downward, as at the Giving of the Torah. Hence it is possible that the effect will only be temporary.[150]

3. is’hapcha — like [the sweetening of] the waters of Marah (as understood by the Mechilta, Midrash Tanchuma, Shmos Rabbah, ch. 50). [In these sources, it is explained that] Ridofoni wood or the like, i.e., bitter wood, was cast into them. [A parallel would be] Elisha’s transformation of the waters of Jericho into sweet water by casting salt, [representative of] Gevuros, into them.[151]

In the analogue, this refers to a state in which the animal soul, on its own initiative, becomes distressed at its situation and condition (not because the G-dly soul feels distress at being enclothed in the animal soul, for the bitterness of the G-dly soul will never approach the bitterness of the animal soul, as explained in several sources). An example [is the spiritual arousal felt by even] the most frivolous of people at Neilah or [those to be experienced by] those “lost in the land of Ashur” when “the Great Shofar is sounded.”[152] For the arousal of the Great Shofar and [the] Neilah [service] also stem from Gevuros and represent a hidden power.[153]

In general, this refers to the Divine service of baalei teshuvah, whose intentional sins become considered as merits.[154] This reflects the difference between the ketores and the other offerings. [Among the spices] from which the incense offering was made was myrrh, which comes from the blood of a non-kosher animal.[155] Rabbeinu Yonah[156] even permits it to be eaten [thus indicating that it has been transformed entirely] (see the discussion of this concept in the second maamar entitled Chayiv Inish in Torah Or).

---

This must be made known: On the surface, according to what is stated in the maamar entitled Mi E-l Chamocha in Likkutei Torah, it is impossible for the actual deed of sin to be transformed to good; only the power of desire. But according to the explanations given in several places: that purposeful sins become transformed into merits, we are forced to say that there are three elements: the deed of sin, the spark of holiness in it, and the power of desire. The intent in Likkutei Torah is that the essence of the deed [can never be transformed], but the spark of holiness in it [can]. For the spark of holiness in the three impure kelipos can also be elevated, as in the myrrh mentioned above. This is achieved through [the service of] baalei teshuvah and through [withstanding] challenges. This [concept] is understood from the statements in the explanation of the maamar entitled Acharei at the conclusion of the Tzemach Tzedek’s text Derech Mitzvosecha.

The statements of Likkutei Torah (in the explanation of the maamar entitled Zos Chukas, sec. 6): “This is difficult, for the three impure kelipos will not be refined at present; not until the Ultimate Future,” require explanation. This is not the place for further discussion of the issue.

---

Extending the subject beyond its ordinary scope, the following can be said: According to the general principles of Talmudic study, nigleh, which represents the refinement achieved through the Tree of Knowledge (as explained in Kuntreis Etz HaChayim by the Rebbe Rashab), the halachah follows the opinion that sin can merely be suppressed, but transformation is impossible. This perspective is also expressed in the maamar entitled Kol HaMeracheim, a maamar relevant to the entire year.[157] [For this is the pattern of] the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy as they are revealed in the midst of the year. For example, the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy revealed in the month of Elul are an arousal from Above in order to provoke an arousal from below. [This follows the pattern:] “When a man gives seed first, a female is conceived.”[158] [This refers to the Divine service of iskafia,] and not is’hapcha.

The teachings of Chassidus delivered during the Ten Days of Teshuvah (see Likkutei Torah, the conclusion of Parshas Re’eh), e.g., those in Likkutei Torah and the maamar entitled Tiku cited above, [reflect the manner in which] the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy are revealed during that time period. Then we are lifted to the level of “before G-d,”[159] [and as a result,] “you shall become pure.”[160] [As a result of this influence,] purposeful sins can be transformed into merits.

   

Notes:

124. (Back to text) [Printed in Sefer HaMaamarim 5709, p. 11.]

125. (Back to text) [Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit., mentions a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel with regard to the judgment of a person whose conduct is equally balanced between sins and merits. The School of Shammai maintains that he receives retribution in Gehinnom for a limited time. The School of Hillel maintains that the Divine attribute of abundant kindness causes the person’s judgment to be considered favorably and he is saved from retribution. Rabbi Eliezer states that his sins are merely suppressed, and Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina states that they are forgiven.]

126. (Back to text) [Bamidbar 28:3.]

127. (Back to text) [Phonetically, the two terms are similar, and on the level of Derush, a samech is often interchanged with a sin.]

128. (Back to text) [Yeshayahu 1:18.]

129. (Back to text) [The maamar entitled Kol HaMeracheim, p. 11, states that the attributes of abundant kindness and patience cause G-d to overlook sin although it exists, while the attribute of truth obliterates sin entirely. Thus according to the opinion in Rosh HaShanah which states that G-d merely suppresses sins, there is a difference between the attribute of abundant kindness and the attribute of truth. According to the opinion that G-d forgives sins, however, there does not appear to be a difference between the attribute of abundant kindness and that of truth.]

130. (Back to text) [This is also one of the meanings of the term nosei, translated above as “forgive.”]

131. (Back to text) [Namely, that the halachah follows the latter opinion.]

132. (Back to text) [I.e., and not matters of only theoretical concern as the matter under discussion here.]

133. (Back to text) [For example, there is a general principle that with regard to differences of opinion between Rav and Shmuel, the halachah follows Shmuel’s opinion regarding questions of business law. The rationale is that this was Shmuel’s area of expertise, and he had more experience in these matters than Rav.]

134. (Back to text) [That the halachah follows the latter opinion.]

135. (Back to text) [That discussion is printed in the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. II, Letter No. 200, where this point is discussed in somewhat greater detail.]

136. (Back to text) [Who collects the halachos from the discussion of issues in the Talmud.]

137. (Back to text) [That the halachah follows the opinion of the School of Hillel.]

138. (Back to text) [I.e., the passage there deals with theoretical issues, not only practical ones.]

139. (Back to text) [The agent of atonement mentioned in the passage in Rosh HaShanah.]

140. (Back to text) [Cf. Shabbos 118a.]

141. (Back to text) [As mentioned above, the discussion in Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit., concerns the judgment of a person whose conduct was equally balanced between sins and merits. Moreover, the School of Rabbi Yishmael teaches that this quality is expressed by forgiving (or suppressing) the person’s first sin. Afterwards, his merits outweigh his sins and hence, he is judged positively.]

142. (Back to text) [But according to both perspectives, this Divine attribute is not manifest in all situations and circumstances.]

143. (Back to text) [Cf. Shmos 15:3; see Zohar II, p. 94b.]

144. (Back to text) [I.e., the conqueror is on such an elevated level of spirituality that his opponent cannot find any point of weakness to which to attach himself.

145. (Back to text) [Since the order within spiritual existence has its source within Arich Anpin, it is necessary to tap a higher source to upset that order and transform these kelipos into good.]

146. (Back to text) [I.e., the Chessed of Arich Anpin as it shines within the Chessed of Z’eir Anpin.]

147. (Back to text) [See Zohar III, p. 131a; 133b. The intent of the analogy is that the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy are alluded to by the hairs of the beard. For, as explained in other sources (see Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvas Tzitzis), hair is used as an analogy for conveying influence from a high level to a level that is radically lower. Nevertheless, through this process of transfer, the influence is constricted and condensed. The uniqueness of the attribute of Emes is that it is conveyed without hairs, i.e., it is drawn down as it is, without constrictions.]

148. (Back to text) [In the present printing of the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, this concept is found in Vol. III, p. 1314ff.]

149. (Back to text) [Which were previously bitter; see Shmos 15:23-25.]

150. (Back to text) [Since the change is dependent on the revelation from Above, if that revelation is weakened or ceases, the change may also cease.]

151. (Back to text) [See II Melachim, ch. 2.]

152. (Back to text) [Cf. Yeshayahu 27:14.]

153. (Back to text) [This line of explanation is necessary, because the Rebbe had spoken of the animal soul being aroused on its own initiative and the examples he gives — the sounding of the Great Shofar and Neilah — represent arousal by outside influences. He explains that these outside influences come from the quality of Gevurah, and thus the refinement they prompt comes from the animal soul itself.]

154. (Back to text) [See Yoma 86b.]

155. (Back to text) [See Berachos 43a; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos K’lei HaMikdash 1:3.]

156. (Back to text) [In his gloss to Berachos, loc. cit.]

157. (Back to text) [And not primarily to the High Holiday season.]

158. (Back to text) [Berachos 60a, et al.]

159. (Back to text) [I.e., a higher spiritual plane than revealed by the name Havayah.]

160. (Back to text) [Cf. Vayikra 16:30.]

The apparent contradiction between G-d’s omniscience and man’s free choice

Table of contents

Search this book:

Thankful acknowledgment to a chassid for sending his memoirs