והנה The Torah follows a similar pattern, also becoming enclothed in letters. For the letters of the Torah have a source higher than the Torah itself, [as reflected by the Zohar’s statement]:1 “The Torah emerged from Chochmah.”
Implied is that the source of the Torah’s wisdom is the Sefirah of Chochmah, “wisdom.”
The [Torah’s] letters, by contrast, have a higher source, the level of Kesser.
Kesser, “the crown,” surpasses Chochmah, as explained above. In this context, it is referring to the essential G‑dly dimension of the Torah that transcends the intellect. Thus there are two dimensions of the Torah: its intellectual content and its G‑dly core; i.e., one studies an idea that resembles other intellectual ideas, yet the source for that idea is G‑dliness, as the Zohar (Vol. I, p, 24c; Vol. II, p. 60b) states: “The Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one.” The intellectual dimension of the Torah has its source in Chochmah, while the essential G‑dly dimension of the Torah is rooted in Kesser and is expressed through the Torah’s letters.
Now the two dimensions of the Torah are not discrete entities. It is not that one is studying an intellectual idea that originated in G‑dliness, but is now separate. Instead, even as the Torah has emerged from its G‑dly source and enclothed itself in logical patterns and matters of this world, it is still one with that source. To refer to the analogy the Alter Rebbe employs in Tanya, ch. 4, it is like embracing a king while he is enclothed in his garments. Although one is actually touching the garments, one is holding the king. In the analogue, although one is relating to G‑d as He is enclothed in the Torah, He and the Torah are one. By comprehending the Torah, one grasps Him, as it were.
The word osios, “letters,” is associated with the term asa, which means “come,” i.e., to draw down. For the letters are mediums through which the Torah’s [essential source] is drawn down.
והענין To explain the concept: It is written:2 “As the primeval analogy states.” That refers to the Torah, for the Torah is referred to as mashal hakadmoni, “the primeval analogy.”3
As the Alter Rebbe will explain, the Torah is an “analogy” for G‑d Himself. Just as an analogy enables one to appreciate a different concept that is too abstract to be conceived directly, so too, the Torah serves as a medium through which we can perceive and bind with G‑d.
וביאור To explain this concept: The purpose of an analogy is to illustrate the analogue in a way that can be understood from the analogy. Now the analogy is something of a different nature from the analogue; it is only that it enables the analogue to be understood.
For example, when a teacher desires to explain a mathematical equation to a child, he does not speak in abstract terms. Instead, he takes tangible objects that the child can see to illustrate it. Now the physical articles that the child sees are not the abstract mathematical construct the teacher wishes to communicate. Nevertheless, the child understands it when he sees it illustrated.
This is implied by the verse:4 “Through the prophets, I provided imagery.”
See Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 7:3, which states: “When a prophet is informed of a message in a vision, it is granted to him in metaphoric imagery. Immediately, the interpretation of the imagery is imprinted upon his heart and he knows its meaning.” I.e., as the Alter Rebbe says here, there is the message which G‑d seeks to convey to the prophet and there is the allegory and imagery through which He communicates it.
[Similarly,] our Sages describe5 prophecy with the analogy of a glass viewer. When one sees through a viewer, even though he sees an exact image of the form [of the entity] in its appearance and semblance, it is not the actual form [of the entity] itself, only its image and appearance. In the same way, all of the prophets’ comprehension of G‑dliness is only a likeness and an image, like an analogy from which the analogue can be understood.
The above motif applies not only to the spiritual concepts communicated to a prophet, but how much more so, to the prophet’s conception of G‑d. A prophet does not see G‑d as He is. All he can do is appreciate an image of Him.
With regard to G‑d Himself, it is written:6 “No [man] shall see Me.” Note our Sages’ interpretation.
Apparently, the intent is Yevamos 49b, which points to the apparent contradiction between the verse cited and Yeshayahu’s statement “And I saw G‑d, the L‑rd” (Yeshayahu 6:1). It explains that the Torah was speaking about perception through a clear viewer, i.e., a direct appreciation, while Yeshayahu was speaking about perception through a viewer that is not clear, in which instance, one sees a mere image (see Torah Or, Bereishis, p.33a).
וז"ש This is the intent of [the description of King] Shlomo as “relat[ing] 3000 analogies.” I Melachim 5:12. [The intent is not that he communicated a total of 3000 analogies on different subjects, but that he shared 3000 analogies] on every Torah concept.
Each spiritual world is a different realm with a different frame of reference. King Shlomo perceived all of these realms and saw how every concept was expressed on all these different levels.
To illustrate by analogy, the term “sweetness” is applied in many different contexts. For example, food is described as being sweet, a melody is called sweet, a person is referred to as sweet, and we even find the expression, a geshmaka seichel, a sweet idea. Now within each of these categories themselves, there are many levels. There are many different types of sweet foods, songs, and people. However, the difference between two types of sweet food is of a totally diverse nature than the difference between sweet food and a sweet song: the sweetness of both foods can be tasted by the palate, while the sweetness of a song requires the use of higher senses and the sweetness of a person and an idea cannot be perceived by our physical senses at all. Nevertheless, the same term is used to describe all these four types of sweetness. In other words, the same motif can exist on different planes and in different forms, with the lower manifestation of the motif serving as an analogy for the higher one (see the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. II, p. 645; Vol. III, p. 1220; Kuntres U’Maayon, Discourse 21, chs. 1-2).
King Shlomo would relate 3000 analogies for every Torah concept, i.e., he would see and explain to others every Torah idea as it existed on 3000 planes of existence.
He would describe every Torah subject as it exists in a spiritual sense. For example, the mitzvah of bringing animals as sacrifices involves offering blood and fats on the altar and that the kohen [bringing the offerings] wears priestly garments. [King Shlomo] would explain the spiritual counterpart of bringing a sacrifice, and what the fat and the blood — and a kohen and the priestly garments — refer to in a spiritual sense.
King Shlomo perceived the very core of the concept as it existed above enclothement in any of the garments of the created worlds.
והנה Now [in the worlds] above, there exists a hierarchy, with many different spiritual levels, one above the other. [King] Shlomo comprehended 3000 analogies, i.e., he grasped 3000 levels, one higher than the next. Each one of them was merely an analogy with regard to the actual G‑dliness that rests and is enclosed in the Torah.
The number 3000 is arrived at as follows: There are three “worlds,” Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah. Each of these worlds includes the ten Sefiros as they are interrelated. 1000 implies three levels of interrelation (10*10*10).
והנה Now Shlomo comprehended only 3000 analogies. In truth, however, the same motif operates on an infinite number of levels until the highest peaks. All are merely an analogy in relation to
Implied here are two concepts: that a) just as the analogue is different and more refined than the analogy, G‑d’s infinite light transcends all these different spiritual realms; and b) just as an analogy enables one to comprehend the analogue, so too, these spiritual realms grant us some understanding of His infinite light.
Kadmono shel olam, “the Primary Being of the world,”
The term Kadmon refers to something that does not have a beginning in time. This can only be said about G‑d’s Essence and no other entity or spiritual quality (Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvas HaAmanas Elokus, sec. 11).
i.e., G‑d’s infinite light that transcends the spiritual cosmos (SederHaHishtalshelus). [This light] is not [revealed according to] the pattern of memale [kol almin],
Literally, “that fills all the worlds,” i.e., the light is revealed in each world according to its nature.
nor according to the pattern of sovev [kol almin,]
Literally, “that encompasses all the worlds,” a light that is too transcendent to be revealed within the worlds and hence, is described as being above them.
[but is rather above the worlds entirely].
For even the light that is sovev kol almin shares some connection to the worlds, as indicated by the fact that it is described as being above them and encompassing them.
רק The Torah is drawn down from this essential level through the letters and other mediums.
I.e., with regard to mortal speech, it was explained that the source of the letters of speech is higher than the content they communicate. Similarly, there are two dimensions of the letters of the Torah. In addition to the intellectual dimension expressed through them, they also draw down the essential G‑dliness invested in the Torah.
Concerning this, our Sages say:7 “[King] David would connect the sublime Torah with the Holy One, blessed be He,” i.e., he drew down the letters of the Torah [from their source] in G‑d’s infinite light.
I.e., he would connect the Torah as it has been drawn down to revealed levels with its essential G‑dly source, enabling the inherent G‑dliness to be perceived.
This concept is reflected by the phrase:8 “[My judgments] that man will perform” and [the phrase]:9 [“the words of this Torah,] to perform them.”
In both of these phrases, עשה, the root of the Hebrew term translated as “perform,” literally means “make.” Through man’s performance of the Torah’s commandments, he is “making” the Torah, as it were.
[The intent is similar to that of] our Sages in their statement:10 “I will consider it as if you made Me.”
- I.e., every person can, in microcosm, duplicate the achievement of King David. By connecting the Torah to its G‑dly source, he can, as it were, “make the Torah,” revealing the G‑dliness within it.
וזהו [On the basis of the above, we can appreciate] the intent of the phrase “and the Torah is light”: that the Torah shines forth G‑d’s infinite light. Nevertheless, the light of the Torah is not revealed as light
I.e., it is possible for its essential power to remain hidden.
except through the candle of mitzvah.
I.e., just as the letters of the Torah connect its essential G‑dly source to its revealed dimension, allowing its G‑dliness to be perceived, so too, the “candle of mitzvah” creates a setting for “the light of the Torah” to be revealed.
Summary
Just as the letters of ordinary speech have a deeper root in the soul than conscious thought, the letters of the Torah are rooted in a higher G‑dly source than its wisdom.
A similar concept is alluded to in the description of the Torah as “the primeval analogy,” i.e., that the Torah enables us to grasp the “analogue,” G‑d’s infinite light. Implied is that the ideas which the Torah communicates are analogies, garments for its G‑dly core.
On this basis, we can appreciate the intent of the phrase “and the Torah is light”: that the Torah shines forth G‑d’s infinite light. Nevertheless, the light of the Torah is not revealed as light except through the candle of mitzvah, which, like the letters, conveys the infinite G‑dliness enclothed in the Torah.
