Ne Ganvah, Ne Phasta

“I have heard in the name of my Master, {the} explanation of the Midrash “I wish they {would have} abandoned me, and my teachings {they would have} kept”, a humorous style explanation: that “a thief at {the entrance of} the breach, calls upon the merciful one {for help} (1)”.
And this is what {the Talmud says that god} says: “I wish they abandond me” that they would not call upon me and not steal, and then “my teachings they have kept”- and it is easy to understand”
Toldos, BPY, Pietrkov 1884, 2a
Prayer is good- right? Well, not really. Not always.
As an introduction, I’d like to present Reb Nachman on prayer- which gives us a glance into the life of a healthy prayer:
“…this is the realm of prayer, that he {the prayer} believes in god, that god is good {effective} to all things, whether {it is} health, wealth or any other thing. When one believes this, surely his main occupation would be to get to god- and he would not run after “many strategies.” For he who does not believe in the {power of the} holy one blessed be he, must occupy {himself} with “many strategies”… and through prayer {one} achieves complete peace … that the compassion of god should extend to all creatures {!!!}, and all creatures will have compassion one on another, and there will be peace amongst themselves- as it says {Isaiah 11:6-9} “the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat… they shall not hurt nor destroy” … how does one achieve {the state} of prayer? Through peace of the home {shalom bayit}, {i.e.} that there should be peace in his essence {Atzomov- bones or essence} between body and soul”
Likutei Moharan, I, 14, 11
So, prayer –when done right- is intend to lead one from the many {strategies, worries and plans}- to the one {oneness, the cure to all ailments and lack}, and ultimately {eventually} a world of complete peace, compassion and love (2). This is true on the individual {now} and on a more general {moshiach kloli} level.
This is the Tzaddik’s kind of prayer, an experience of where the individual transforms and transcends himself. It is the complete surrender of the individual and his wills to his higher self. This requires going to a place so deep within one’s psyche- a place where there is no desire other than surrender to oneness.
Not so is our thief’s prayer. Though both, the tzaddik and the ganev, pray- the quality and experience is completely different, with entirely different results. Our little thief is praying with the hopes of appeasing god, with the intention of manipulating god into making him a better and more successful thief. Our thief is experiencing the complete opposite of surrender. There is nothing common about the transcendental experience of prayer, it follows that man cannot remain common and completely surrender at the same time.
It is a question of faith. The Zaddik finds it easy to surrender, because he fully believes that all answers are within. Why would the Zaddik steal when he could easily ask god for money? If the thief really believed that god could help, he’d stop stealing and working so hard- and allow god to work the miracles. Obviously, our thief is mostly stuck in his own world with its weight on his shoulders; he simply cannot even comprehend the concept of surrender. Prayer is simply a tool, to the thief, to be used only in order to achieve greater booty. It is using good to achieve the bad {those who have been victims of theft- sure would agree to these temporary labels}, the one to acquire many. Instead of unifying heaven with earth, soul with body, inner light with outer deed- instead of revealing the divine he further hides him.
Should the common thief continue to pray?
“They bark as dogs: Give! Give!” is how the Zohar describes the common man’s prayer even on the high holy days. I personally could do without the canine bark, could the world?
In the pre-evolved, turbulent and pre-examined common mind, everything gives rise to its opposite. Sin {and its disconnected experience} inspires prayer. Prayer {which has a rather infantile effect on the common psyche}, quickly turns to sin {their only mode of expression to balance that unbearable infantile state of powerlessness}.
So, what do we do if we find ourselves stuck in that vicious cycle of the holy and the profane?
The Besht advises us, that in these cases, we should cease all positive activity. One only needs to cease the good and the bad will disappear too (3). What we need is reflection, at this point, not prayer.
Maimonides claims that there is a Biblical obligation for one pray to god when in danger (4). Our thief sure fits the criteria: so, is the Besht seriously suggesting that our thief better his life by abandoning prayer? Well, that depends on how seriously you want to take the Besht’s joke (5).
Either way, {whether we prefer our thief silent or praying}, the spirit of the concept {that even a good deed with the wrong intention could create havoc} is well documented in Chassidism. In the words of the Besht himself:
“there is another great one principle: that one should connect himself, {connection} meaning the inner meaning of Torah and the commandments, to connect his psyche and soul to the root of Torah and the commandments that he is doing (6)- for if he does not {do them via connection with its root}, he creates –god forbid- {the} pruning and separation in the shoots {“kitzutz u’pirud b’netioys”} (7), as I have received from my Master”
Toldos, BPY, Pietrkov 1884, 41a
“this is the mystery of “ChaShMaL” {that one} needs to be silent {“ChaSh”} until he cicumcizes {“Mal”} and cuts off the Husks, and {only} then should he speak”
Toldos, BPY, Pietrkov 1884, 29c (8).
“that he should not speak {words of} torah and prayer with a “Pniyeh Chitzoynis” because from this the Husks are created and (it) {they} cloth {themselves} with the wicked {who} revenge him, as I have heard –something close- from my Master”
BPY, 21b

But, than again- there is Reb Nachman’s advise: “you occupy yourself with Judaism; the good will remain, and the bad will disappear on its own (9).”
{Here would have been a great cut-off point, but our shtikel continues:}
“more he {the Besht} explained: that {the purpose of} knowledge is to not know {i.e. to transcend knowledge}. However, there are two paths to not knowing: one, is instant, {i.e.} that he does not enter to research and know since {ultimately} nothing could be known. {the} second {path}, that he researches and seeks {knowledge} to the point of knowing that it is impossible to know.
The difference between this one and that one:
Two wanted to {get to} know the king. One went into all the {accessible} chambers of the king, and derived pleasure from the treasures and chambers of the king, and then he cannot get to know the king.
The second {visitor} said, that since it is impossible {to get} to know to know the king- so he does not enter at all into the king’s chambers {so that} he does not know the king, immediately.
And now we understand, surely with both {of these examples}- “they have left me”{i.e.} knowing me, since it is impossible. However, {god says} “I wish they would have left me through research and knowledge” {only after} “they observed my Torah” {i.e. studied, challenged and knew}
And the words of the wise, a charm”
Toldos, BPY, Pietrkov 1884, 2a (10).
God can never be known. God can only be experienced. Experience can only happen once the mind is dropped. So, once the mind is dropped it shouldn’t really matter what kind of a mind was abandoned. Not so, says the Besht.
There are tremendous advantages to developing our mind. True, our mind shall never see the king- but that does not mean that we have to return to confines of our little hut. The smarter one leaves his mind to wander in the treasures and chambers of the king where he indulges in all pleasures known to mind.
In our teaching, the cultivated mind is of great benefit, as it can appreciate, conceive and grasp, and thus enjoy, god’s treasures {i.e. our world} so much more. And after all, what is more important in a Beshtian universe than real pleasure?!
Interesting is the Degel’s take on this Beshtian teaching is that one should understand “not that he should have only faith. (11)”



Notes:
(1) {Ein Yaakov, missing in the standard versions of Ber. 63a}
(2) {the love part is discussed in Likutei Moharan, I, 33;5}
(3) {as we will get to see, hopefully- sometime soon, the Besht prefers the opposite: using the bad to accomplish the good, namely “Aveirah Lishmoh,” sinning for heavon’s sake. The Besht prefers one who steals in order to be able to pray, than one who prays in order to be able to steal.}

(4) I do not have a copy handed. I am also not sure if there is a ruling on the subject in Rabbi J. Karo’s Shulchan Aruch.
(5) As it is recorded to have been said “al pi halotzeh”. Although, I would {personally} fail to see the humor in it, if the Besht would seriously advise him to stop praying. There are, however, solid reasons to believe that it is just a joke {the humor being that his prayer enables him to steal- people find that funny you know}, as we find the Besht and the maggid advising us never to abandon a good deed for fear of lack of intention:
“for I have heard from my Master … that the beginnings of torah {study} and {observing} commandments should be with the Evil Inclination {i.e.} not for Her Sake. This way the Evil Inclination will not try to stop him and he shall be able to complete {the study or deed} for Her Sake”
Toldos, Vayishlach, fol. 10
“I have heard from my Master … “for there is no-one righteous on esarth who will do good and not sin {Kohelet 7;20}” he means to say that there will not be any of that good deed that he will do without a deterrence and sin, {as} it is impossible. And he {the Besht} explained that when one does good without any bad, the Evil Inclination starts fighting him {and makes it impossible to get it done at all}, not so when the Evil Inclination observes that {within the good} there is a combination {that includes a} portion of the Evil Inclination {i.e. evil}, he lets him be. And then he can complete the thing and he {will eventually?} get to do it for Her Sake”
Toldos chukkas 12
“this is a great principle, that when it comes to one to do some commandment, in one’s thoughts {i.e. he is thinking about doing something good}, one should not refrain from doing it for reasons of pride or for some distortion {“pniyeh”}- since surely through {action} “not for Her sake” he will come to {action} “for Her sake.” For even with a good deed {without the right intention}, one could create above {in the high heavens or one’s higher consciousness,} a good vessel.” –Maggid, MDL 190- another version appears in LY, 60- Though, these soutrces do not specifically discuss one who performs a mitzveh with an evil intention {the known Tosaphic “lekanter”- does our thief fit the description? Arguments could be made both ways}, the Maggid’s argument holds even the worst of intention: “for even with a good deed one could create above, a good vessel.” Or not?
Noteworthy: There are Chassidic concepts that are along the lines of clearification, and have no practical application. See for instance, Maggid, Likutim Yekorim {Jerusalem, 1974} 90, “he who speaks without thought is like he is masterbating” which threw the LY editor into a rant about how masturbation is really worse… see also fol. 81 “seperates the union” and fol. 107 “the maid-servant who inherits her mistresss” which {to me} sound more severe than masturbation.
Also: the question only arises with the Besht {with his absolute insistence on inner pure and good intentions}. The Halachic ruling regarding this question is simple: do the mitzveh {or go to hell}, which would be the last word on the matter in all organized ultra-orthodox religious circles {including contemporary Chassidism. Historically speaking, the first Chassidim seem to have cared for little other than pure intention, Misnagdic literature overflows with accusations against the Chassidim who {who were perceived, or actually} would regularly forgo doing mitzvos for fear that their intention is not pure enough- see: Reb Chaim Vilozhiner, Nefesh Ha’Chaim, I:22, II:1 {briefly}, III:3, Polemic {printed between Gates II and III}:4, 5, 7.
M’Inyan L’inyan vechulu, in Imrei Pinchos {Reb Pinchesel Koritzer, 5th gate, 12}, we find “in the name of the Master {RP}: it is better to go unfilled {“Botel”} than to learn from a rabbi {who is} wicked.” The editor {of AP} wants to back it up by Maimonides {mishneh torah, laws of study of torah, beginning of ch. 4}, but this is not the case as Maimonides is talking about “bitul toyreh” b’eichus {to forgo the teachings of an unfit master, though he is the best out there and “the whole nation needs him”}.
You decide.
(6) In a more abstract form:
“the righteous makes use of the Wicked’s traits with the holiness of “for His sake,” and through this the left streak {Judgment, unrevealed good} is defeated in the right streak, {i.e.} in the realm of Love and Kindness. And all the ten {spheres or Sephirot}, which are the Three Heads as is known, are included in One, {i.e.} the love of kindness- for Love is {the same numerical value, as} One.
However, the wicked do the {exact} opposite: they take the Right Streak {meaning} the trait of kindness, {and cause it} to be defeated in {the darkness} of the left- by using wickedness and thoughts of fornication whose source is from the real of kindness {Chesed}, as I have heard from my Master”
Toldos, BPY, Pietrkov 1884, 25b

(7) For a milder take on “the pruning of the shoots,” see MDL, 12, where the separation created, seems to be, mostly, just another missed opportunity.
(8) It is quoted in Besht al HaToreh {Amud HaTefillah, 75}. However, in BPY- it is not quite so clear that this is from the Besht. It may very well be by the Toldos {not in the name of the Besht}.

(9) Chayey Maharan, Avoydas HaShem, 4.
(10) See also a shorter version of our shtikel in Likutim Yekorim {ed. Jerus. Fol. 99, although it is not mentioned in the name of the Besht, we have no reason to doubt the Toldos. The absence of exact details as to who said what is a quite common occurrence in the writings of the Maggid and his disciples {and it only gets more confusing from there on}. In true Chassidic spirit, if its good- who cares who said it.
(11) In Besht Al HaToreh, Amud HaTefileh, 160- footnote 156 quoting the Degel Machneh Efraim, Lech, on the verse “v’loy yikorei shimchoh.”