491) A source trail defending the Baal haTanya’s definition of the soul as ‘a part of G-d’

 

Signature of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in a copy of the Tanya in 1979

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Louis Jacobs (1920-2006)[1] − traces possible sources that the author of the Tanya, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, also known as the Baal haTanya (1745-1812), may have used, to formulate what is sometimes described as his ‘controversial’ definition of a soul being an actual ‘part’ of G-d.  

The notion of an infinite and monotheistic G-d who incarnates Himself in humans is often regarded as anathema to Jewish theology which seems firmly against the idea that G-d embodies Himself within mortal beings. Yet, as we shall see, there is an array of earlier mystical sources that the Baal haTanya could, and may, have used to develop his famous statement that the [second or Godly] soul is חלק אלו-ה ממעל ממש, truly a part of G-d above (Tanya, Ch. 2).[2] 

Note: The following is (obviously) not an attempt at definitively defining what a soul is. Rather, it is an attempt at showing how the soul was conceptualised in various earlier sources. 

Background

The great 19^th-century Jewish historian, Salo Baron is an exemplar of the commonly held view that even the most mystical of the Jews never entertained the idea that the Creator could be incarnated in human form, because even: 

“in their most daring dialogues and visions they never forgot the chasm which separated the Infinite from all His creatures…”[3] 

Jacobs points out that Baron is correct, but only with regard to Merkavah Kabbalah (i.e. pre-zoharic mysticism). However: 

“[t]he categorical  statement that Judaism, in any of its forms, knows nothing of the identification of the ‘divine spark’ with the divine can be maintained only by ignoring a considerable portion of the [texual] evidence…” (Jacobs 1966:89).[4] 

The Chabad Chassidic movement has often been criticised for its founder’s reference in Tanya to the soul being a ‘part of G-d,’ and charged with its violation of a strict and hallowed Jewish tradition of monotheism. However, this concept: 

“has its antecedents in earlier Jewish thought…and…its prominence in Habad comes at the end of a long process” (Jacobs 1966:90). 

We will now proceed to trace some of these antecedents within earlier Jewish thought. 

Philo

The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo, writing in the first century CE, seems to have been the first Jew to have put to pen the notion that there was a divine element in the human soul. Philo, in turn, traced it back to the verse in Genesis (2:7) where G-d “breathed into man” a soul of life. This demonstrates that: 

“the essence or substance of that…soul is divine spirit…”[5] 

Philo explains that the human mind would not have been capable of comprehending the basic idea of G-d: 

“were it not that God had permitted the abyss to be crossed by infusing the mind with something of Himself” (Jacobs 1966:92). 

It is noteworthy that Philo − the first Jewish source equating the the soul with the “substance” of G-d – is not technically considered a ‘rabbinic’ source due to his Hellinisic worldview. 

In any case, Philo contends that this divine infusion or ‘spark’ was then transmitted to all humans after Adam, although in some fainter form. Philo maintains the universalistic view that all humans have this divine ‘spark’ although later rabbinic literature often limits it to Israel alone. 

Talmud

1) The Talmud Bavli speaks about the purity of the soul: 

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהָרוּחַ תָּשׁוּב אֶל הָאֱלֹקִים אֲשֶׁר נְתָנָהּ״ — תְּנָהּ לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לְךָ, בְּטׇהֳרָה — אַף אַתָּה בְּטָהֳרָה

“The Sages taught with regard to the verse: ‘And the spirit returns to God who gave it’ (Ecclesiastes 12:7) that the words: ‘who gave it,’ mean: as it was given. In other words, give it to Him as He gave it to you; just as He gave it to you in purity, you too should return it to God in purity” (b. Shabbat 152b). 

This is a Talmudic allusion to the idea of the soul being given by G-d and in purity − although, at this stage, it only indicates that the soul comes from G-d, not necessarily that it is a part of G-d. 

2) The Talmud addresses the nature of the soul again in another tractate: 

מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מָלֵא כָּל הָעוֹלָם — אַף נְשָׁמָה מְלֵאָה אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף. מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רוֹאֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — אַף נְשָׁמָה רוֹאָה וְאֵינָהּ נִרְאֵית. מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זָן אֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ — אַף נְשָׁמָה זָנָה אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף. מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָהוֹר — אַף נְשָׁמָה טְהוֹרָה. מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים — אַף נְשָׁמָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים. יָבֹא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ וִישַׁבֵּחַ לְמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ

“Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, fills the entire world, so too the soul fills the entire body…so too does the soul see, but is not seen…so too the soul sustains the entire body…so too is the soul pure…so too the soul resides in a chamber within a chamber, in the innermost recesses of the body…

Therefore, that which has these five characteristics, the soul, should come and praise He Who has these five characteristics” (b. Berachot 10a). 

Again, in all these cases there is not the slightest indication of the essence of the soul being identified with G-d. 

3) The closest Talmudic reference  to holiness dwelling within a human is the following: 

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם יָמוֹד אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ קָדוֹשׁ שָׁרוּי בְּתוֹךְ מֵעָיו 

“Rabbi Elazar said: A person should always consider himself as though a sacred object is immersed in his bowels” (b. Taanit 11a/b). 

Even this statement, while encouraging one to imagine holiness within one’s very being, does not equate the essence of the soul with the ‘substance’ of G-d. The tenor of R. Elazar’s statement seems more to indicate that the body must be well cared for because bodily functions are G-d-given. 

It is interesting to note that none of these Talmudic rabbis were yet prepared to go as far as Philo who had earlier maintained that indeed the very “substance” of the soul was divine. 

Rabbinic mediaeval philosophers

Jewish mediaeval philosophers like Avraham ibn Da’ud, Rambam (Maimonides), Ralbag (Gersonides) and Crescas were influenced by the Arabic Aristotelians and adopted the notion of the Active Intellect. The concept of the Active Intellect maintains that the Sechel (intellect), which derives from G-d, allows humans to exercise their minds and comprehend metaphysical truths. 

According to these more rationalist philosophers, the Sechel or Active Intellect is the only immortal component of the human, capable of defying death. Yet even these bold conceptualisations do not reflect the idea that a ‘part of G-d’ constitutes the human soul.  

Rabbinic neo-platonists

Turning to the neo-platonic or more mystical rabbinic teachers such R. Shlomo ibn Gabirol (Avicebron)  (c.1021-c.1058), we begin to find stirrings of links between the soul and the ‘substance’ of G-d: 

“Who can contain Your might when from the abundance of Your Glory You created a pure radiance…which You called the Soul” (Ibn Gabirol, Keter Malchut 29).[6] 

Ibn Gabirol’s eleventh-century reference to G-d creating the human soul from his ‘Glory’ is probably one of the earliest rabbinic mystical sources for the idea of the soul being a ‘part’ of G-d. 

Ramban (Nachmanides 1194-1270)

Nachmanides was vehemently opposed to the rationalist influences of the philosophers who followed Maimonides and Aristotle. Nachmanides was the first biblical commentator to make use of Kabbalistic ideas for his exegetical purposes. Commenting on Genesis 2:7 describing G-d breathing a soul into man, Nachmanides is remarkably close to the interpretation of Philo where the essence of that soul is considered to be the divine spirit which comes from G-d Himself. Technically, Nachmanides maintains that the soul comes from the sefira (attribute) of Bina (Understanding) which in its highest manifestation is part of the Godhead. 

For our purposes, it is interesting to note that centuries later, R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi wrote in his Tanya about this very matter of G-d ‘breathing’ the soul into man. His teaching was very similar to that of Nachmanindes. R. Shneur Zalman explained that the metaphor of ‘breathing’ was specifically chosen to emphasise that the soul comes from the highest aspects of G-d: 

וכמ״ש בזוהר מאן דנפח מתוכיה נפח

“And it is written in the Zohar, ‘He who exhales, exhales from within him…(for it is something of his internal and innermost vitality that man emits through exhaling with force)’” (Tanya, Ch. 2). 

Jacobs, however, comments on this alleged zoharic reference: 

“Schneor Zalman of Liady in his Tanya…Chapter II…quotes it as a saying of the Zohar, but there is no such passage in the Zohar” (Jacobs 1966:110, footnote 32). 

Zohar

With the publication of the Zohar for the first time, around 1270, these neo-platonic ideas became well fermented. Here we find the concept of the soul and ‘divine spark’ further developed. 

The Zohar (II 174a) describes the highest aspect of the soul, the neshama, as originating in the ‘body’ of Adam Kadmon (Primordial Man), the Ein Sof (Infinite One), in other words, G-d as He is in Himself: 

“R. Yehuda began his discourse…’We have been taught that all souls are derived from that Holy Body and they animate human beings. From which place are they derived? From the place that is called Y-ah…’” 

The Zohar equates Ya-h with the G-dly sefira (attribute) of Chochma (Wisdom). This does not mean that G-d used wisdom to create the soul but that G-d created the soul from His own being. 

“The Sephira of Wisdom is in zoharic thought an aspect of the Deity. Consequently, the soul comes from God Himself.” (Jacobs 1966:94). 

There are other sections of the Zohar, however, which describe the soul emanating not from Chochma (Wisdom) but Bina (Understanding). Either way, the meaning remains the same. The soul is perceived to come from a ‘part’ of G-d. 

Bachya ibn Asher (d. 1340)

Like Nachmanides, Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Asher of Saragossa also writes in his Torah commentary (12b) on Genesis 2:7 about the notion of G-d breathing the soul into man. However, unlike Nachmanides, Rabbeinu Bachya maintains that the soul comes from the sefira or divine attribute of Chochma (Wisdom) and not Bina (Understanding). Nevertheless, the overall teaching remains the same in that once again the soul is said to come from a ‘part’ of G-d: 

“[A] soul is hewn from out of the Source of life…Hence the verse speaks of Gods as breathing into his nostrils that we might understand the foundation of the soul and its most elevated state, since it emanates from the Holy Spirit… ‘Know yourselves and you will know God.’ Consider all this.” (Rabbeinu Bachya, Gen. 2:7). 

Eliyahu de Vidas (1518–1587)

R. Eliyahu de Vidas was a primary student of R. Moshe Cordovero of Safed, and he deals with the nature of the soul in his work entitled Reshit Chochma. He claims to base himself on the Zohar but his teachings on the soul are probably a little more innovative (Jacobs 1966:98). He writes that the soul is comprised of an actual ‘nitzutz’ or spark of G-d which is contained with the human body. Eliyahu de Vidas quotes Deuteronomy 32:9: 

כִּ֛י חֵ֥לֶק ה עַמּ֑וֹ 

“For God’s portion is His people” 

The word ‘amo’ (His people) can also be read ‘imo’ (in him) implying that every person carries within them a ‘portion’ of G-d. Eliyahu de Vidas explains, that every Jew has a soul that is an actual ‘portion’ or ‘part’ of G-d. 

Here we clearly have the word ‘chelek’ or ‘part’ of G-d, used in the same context as R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi was later to use in his Tanya. 

R. Moshe Cordovero (1522-1570)

R. Moshe Cordovero, as mentioned, was the teacher of Eliyahu de Vidas, and he had an interesting albeit unusual take on the creation of the Neshama (soul). In his work, Elima Rabati, R. Cordovero writes that the Neshama is the result of the ‘copulation’ of the Holy One blessed be He (corresponding to the sefira of Tiferet) and the Shechina (corresponding to the sefira of Malchut). Whatever this means it certainly places the soul among the higher elements of the conceptualisations of the Godhead. 

This may be related to the similar teachings of R. Chaim Vital as follows. 

R. Chaim Vital (1542-1620)

A major student of the Ari Zal, R. Chaim Vital elaborated on the make-up of the soul: 

“The soul’s greatness…is a great light born of the Sephiroth themselves, without any intermediary. This is the meaning of: ‘You are children of the Lord your God (Deut. 14:1)” (Shaarei Kedusha, Part III, Shaar 2, 27b). 

R. Shabbatai Sheftel Horowitz (c.1565-1619)

R. Shabbatai Sheftel Horowitz of Prague authored the Kabbalistic work entitled Shefa Tal. R. Horowitz writes (in words that are remarkably similar to those to be used almost two hundred years later by R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi in his Tanya): 

“It is known that the souls of the people of Israel are a חֵ֣לֶק אֱל֣וֹ-הַּ מִמָּ֑עַל, ‘portion of G-d from above’ (Job 31:2)” (Horowitz, Shefa Tal, Introduction).[7] 

Regarding the intended meaning of the word ‘portion’ or ‘part’: 

“[I]n essence the whole and the part are identical. In the same way there is no difference or distinction between the soul and God…” (Jacobs 1966:99). 

Emergence of Gali Razaya

Although, as we have seen, R. Horowitz had fertile ground and many authoritative precedents upon which to base himself, he was to acknowledge the audacity of his claim that G-d is incarnate in human souls. So much so, that immediately after writing that “the souls of the people of Israel are a חֵ֣לֶק אֱל֣וֹ-הַּ מִמָּ֑עַל, ‘portion of G-d from above,” he adds: 

“O student of this work, be not astonished at this idea; for my master and teacher, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero[8] has written even more than this…[He] remarks [that t]he Patriarchs [and not just the souls] are more elevated than the Sephirot for they are…Divinity Itself…You see that he states that the Patriarchs are Divinity Itself.” 

In other words, if R. Horowitz’s readers think it is irregular to consider souls to be a ‘part’ of G-d, then they should read his teacher R. Cordovreo who claims that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also ‘part’ of Divinity. 

R. Horowitz, therefore, implores his readers not to read ahead, but rather to progress slowly through the whirlwind of mystical revelations he offers. He writes: 

“But I request the student to study this treatise in the order of its gates and Chapters, for each Gate and each Chapter is the key…to the Gate and Chapter which follows it. Do not, therefore, permit your thoughts to skip immediately to the middle of the work, for this will be of no advantage to you.” (Horowitz, Shefa Tal, Introduction). 

R. Horowitz’s Shefa Tal, with all its warnings, was barely off the press and his fears were realised. His book caused much offence because of its claim that the soul was synonymous with G-d: 

“It appears, indeed, that so fierce were the protests that…the author resolved to write a special work of defence against his critics” (Jacobs 1966:100-101). 

R. Horowitz’s response to address the ‘misconceptions’ was a short work entitled Nishmat Shabbatai haLevi (Prague 1616). He writes that he is now going to combine both Shefa Tal and Nishmat Shabbatai haLevi to form a new combined work entitled Gali Razaya (Revealed Mysteries). 

Four ‘pillars’ of authority

As part of his apology or rejoinder, R. Horowitz reminds his readers that none of these ideas were his own. Instead, he relied on four ‘pillars.’ The first, he claimed, was Moshe Rabbeinu himself, the second was R. Shimon bar Yochai (traditionally regarded as the author of the Zohar), the third was Nachmanides and the fourth was his colleague Eliyahu de Vidas. 

Most surprising is R. Horowitz’s claim that Moshe is the primary source for the concept of the divinity of the Jewish soul. R. Horowitz reads Deuteronomy 6:4 (Shema) most unusually. Instead of “Hear O Isreal, the Lord our God the Lord is one,” he seems to suggest the following reading: “Hear! Israel and the Lord our God are one Lord.” This is because as R. Horowitz writes: “Israel is united with God in the upper worlds” (Jacobs 1966:103). 

Dealing directly with the affront to monotheism

R. Horowitz deals squarely with the apparent affront to monotheism that the concept of the divinity of souls brings with it. If the soul is an actual part of G-d, then somehow G-d could be divided into the number of existing souls. Yet, all Kabbalists agree that in the Infinite aspect of G-d, the Ein Sof, there is only unity and no division. This means that there cannot be ‘parts’ of G-d as He manifests as Ein Sof. There can only be segregation, as it were, as G-d manifests through the lower elements of the Sefirot. 

“Denying emphatically that he is in any way recanting, he goes on to say that all along he had meant to say that the soul was a portion of the sephirotic realm – G-d in His aspect of self-disclosure – not a portion of Eynn Soph…Of this aspect of Deity nothing whatsoever can be postulated” (Jacobs 1966:102). 

Here Horowitz denies he ever tried to suggest that the soul is a portion of the Infinite or Ein Sof realm. One may, however, speak of the soul as a portion of the Sefirotic realm. 

Jacobs (1966:103), however, notes that: 

“the doctrine of the divine spark – even if it comes from the sephirotic realm – is still exceedingly bold.” 

Which level was the Baal haTanya referring to?

It would be interesting to ascertain which of these levels − Ein Sof or the realm of the Sefirot – the Baal haTanya had in mind when he added the word ממש as in an ‘actually’ or “truly a part of G-d above.” The implication of his adding the word ממש, ‘actually,’ seems to be that he was indeed referring to the highest and most essential aspect and ‘real substance’ of G-d, as He manifests in the level of Ein Sof. 

Conclusion

Jacobs (1966:103) points out that in the final analysis: 

“nowhere…do we find such a highly developed metaphysical system based on the idea as we do in the writings of Schneor Zalman of Liady.” 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the R. Schneur Zalman of  Liadi did not write about such matters in a vacuum. He had more than enough source material to base himself on from the various mystical texts we have examined. It, therefore, would be incorrect to assume that the notion of the soul being ‘a part of G-d above,’ was an innovation of the Baal haTanya.

---

[1] Jacobs, L., 1966, ‘The Doctrine of the “Divine Spark” in Man in Jewish Sources’, in Studies in Rationalism, Judaism and Universalism: In Memory of Leon Roth, edited by Raphael Loewe, Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York, 87-114.

[2] This is similar to Job 31:2: וּמֶ֤ה ׀ חֵ֣לֶק אֱל֣וֹ-הַּ מִמָּ֑עַל which literally means “What fate is decreed by G-d above?” The context in Job is, of course, different from that in Tanya.

[3] Baron, S., 1958, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2^nd ed., vol. VIII, Columbia University press, New York, 112-13.

[4] Square brackets are mine.

[5] De Specialibus Legibus, IV. 24. English Translation by F.H. Coulson and G.H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library, 84.

[6] Paraphrase and emphasis are mine. See Kether Malkuth, XXIX, 1961, translation by Bernard Lewis, Vallentine Mitchell, London, 2-11.

[7] The Tanya, on the other hand, adds in the word ממש, which means ‘really’ or ‘actually.’ This way, the Baal haTanya emphasises that these words are not just to be regarded as poetic language, but as an ‘actual’ description. 

[8] R. Moshe Cordovero was the teacher of both R. Eliyahu de Vidas as well as R. Shabbatai Sheftel Horowitz.