 Previous |
 Enlarge |
 Next |
This series is a continuation and should be read in order. If you are not familiar with previous posts you may have trouble understanding later ones.
And now Chapter 12.07
The first analogy of the Reshimu was of the blueprint an architecht makes of a building
However, though this analogy is fine to understand how everything is enclothed within the impression, it does not show a complete removal of the original light, for though the blueprint may only be mere lines with nothing to do with the wood and stone of which the actual house is constructed, it still contains the same shape and proportions as the building.
The Mittler Rebbe, therefore, now gives a second analogy of a sign to remember, in which, though it is more difficult than the first to see how everything is included within this sign, but it has the advantage that it shows a greater removal of the original light than the previous analogy.
Now in the words of the Mittler Rebbe:
This Reshimu can also be described as being similar to the analogy of a sign that is made to help one remember something, such as a mnemonic or a string around one’s finger. The sign bears no relevance to the actual idea that one needs to remember itself, but rather it is only meant to be a remembrance. As the Talmud advises, that as an aid in ones study one should "make for oneself signs (mnemonics) etc.". So that, for example, the mnemonic ROY Gee BiV, to remember the order of the colors in a rainbow, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet. Now this mnemonic does include the information as to the order of the colors. However, at the same time if one did not know what this was a mnemonic for there is little chance that one would guess its meaning, because there is no apparent connection between the two at all. The same thing with tying a string around ones finger, the string itself bears absolutely no essential connection to that which one is to remember, but rather it only serves as a sign.
This type of analogy, like the blueprint or the mnemonic, express a greater concealment than the summary of the law, where the mentor actually relays and includes everything within this summary, only that it is in a short fashion. For, in this case there still remains a relevance between the summary and the lengthy exposition. For, in the case of the summary, the subject matter remains the same only that it was shortened, but there is an obvious connection between the summary and the lengthy exposition. This is not the case with the analogy of the blueprint and even more so with a sign to remember, where there is no apparent connection between the two at all.
Previous |
Enlarge |
Next |
The material in this series is copyrighted by Rabbi Yossi Markel