Time in the Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

bi-penimiyut
]. 
[The verse] “Now the Lord had said” [unto Abraham; Gn 12:1] refers to the 
revelation and the drawing down of the Light of 
Ein Sof
into all the worlds 
from above to below by way of the inner aspect. However, the revelation by 
way of the outer aspect [
be-hitsoniyut
], giving rise to a true disclosure of the 
divinity, as mentioned above, [even] within such a material thing as the
 
parchment [of the 
mezuzah
], cannot be achieved by means of concatenation 
[
hishtalshelut
] but rather by way of “they made their lives bitter” [
va-
yemareru hayehem
] etc., with all manner of “hard bondage” [
‘avodah 
kashah, 
Ex 1:14]. This gives rise to a revelation from above the [order of] 
concatenation, and it is this revelation that enables [the light of 
Ein Sof
] to be 
revealed below the [order of] concatenation, for there [i.e. beyond the order 
of concatenation], above and below are the same, and 
Hokhmah 
is considered 
[the same] as ‘Making’ [
‘asiyah
], [as Scripture says:] “In wisdom hast thou 
made them all” [Ps 104:24].
95 
95
TO 11d [Appendix 16]. 

---

91 
Rashaz reiterates the traditional belief that Abraham, who lived centuries 
before the Torah was given to Moses at Sinai, had nevertheless fulfilled it, albeit 
spiritually, in all its details.
96
This means that the manner of his observance was 
different from that of all the generation that came after the Exodus, as he fulfilled 
only the inner aspect [
penimiyut
] of the commandments. The terms Rashaz uses to 
distinguish between the inner and the outer aspects of observance carry certain 
axiological connotations: 
penimiyut
is associated with the essential and the spiritual 
whereas 
hitsoniyut
is linked to the accidental and material. Rashaz’s use of these 
terms parallels the midrashic image of Abraham, who performed the commandments 
spiritually but not materially, i.e., without resort to any actual ritual objects such as 
the 
mezuzah
, the 
tefilin
or the Torah scroll. Moreover, “outer” or “external” may 
refer to the “other” in the sense of the non-Jewish or plainly evil, as, for example, in 
the expression “external wisdom”, which stands for pagan philosophy, or “external 
forces”, denoting the forces of evil. Thus, by characterising Abraham as observing 
the internal aspect of Torah, Rashaz underscores his extraordinary spiritual stature 
while at the same time suggesting that his observance was incomplete, as it lacked 
the all-important external aspect of Torah observance. This external aspect has 
twofold connotations: on the one hand, it appears to be less refined than the internal 
since it is closely related to the evil side of reality, but on the other hand, it is a vital 
part of divine service, even though – owing to its proximity to the evil side – it 
requires special effort, such as was beyond the reach of the Patriarchs. It is the effort 
entailed in the enslavement in Egypt that is a precondition for worship [
‘avodah
] by 
way of 
hitsoniyut
.
While the revelation of the divinity in the mode of 
penimiyut
reached 
Abraham through the concatenation of a whole hierarchy of divine worlds,
97
revelation in the mode of 
hitsoniyut
can take place only within the confines of 
materiality, namely, in the realm that lies below the hierarchy of the divine worlds. 
96
On the traditional claim that the Patriarchs kept the Torah, see Urbach,