Crown Jewels: Parshas Yisro

Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, p. 107ff.

I. “And on the third day, when it was morning, there were sounds (Kolos) and lightning; and there was a heavy cloud on the mountain. And the sound (Kol) of the shofar [resounded] very powerfully... And the sound (Kol) of the shofar continued.... And G‑d answered him in a [loud] voice (Kol).”1

This verse mentions five Kolos, sounds or voices.2 Commenting on this, the Talmud states:3 A person who brings joy to a bridegroom will acquire the Torah, for the Torah was given with five Kolos, and there are five Kolos mentioned with regard to a bridegroom: “the voice (Kol) of joy, the voice (Kol) of happiness, the voice (Kol) of a groom and the voice (Kol) of a bride, and a voice (Kol) stating: ‘Give thanks to the G‑d of Hosts.’”4

The reason a person who brings joy to a bridegroom will acquire the Torah is that there is an inner connection between the fundamental nature of these two entities.5 (It is not appropriate to say that a person who brings joy to a bridegroom should acquire the Torah merely because the same number of Kolos are mentioned in both contexts without there being an inner connection between the two subjects. On the contrary,) the reason the same number of Kolos are mentioned with regard to both the Torah and a bridegroom is that there is an inner connection between them.

Thus the Alter Rebbe explains6 that the reason a person who brings joy to a bridegroom acquires the Torah is based on the principle “measure for measure.”7 The Torah itself (is called a bridegroom, because) the influence that it conveys to the Jewish people resembles the influence conveyed by a bridegroom to his bride.

The reason the Talmud [does not mention the thematic connection, and instead] focuses on the five Kolos mentioned in connection with the giving of the Torah (even though on the surface, it appears to be merely an external consequence) is that the number of Kolos mentioned in connection with the Torah and a bridegroom expresses the inner connection8 that reflects the essence of both the Torah and a bridegroom.

The Torah was given with five Kolos, the same number of Kolos mentioned with regard to a bridegroom, (not only because both the Torah and a bridegroom convey influence, for that is an obvious fact that does not require any proof, but also) because [they both convey the same type of influence]. For the influence the Torah conveys to the Jewish people cannot be compared to a teacher’s conveying a concept to a student, but instead resembles the inner, lofty influence that a bridegroom conveys to his bride, as will be explained.

All concepts in Torah are precise and serve as a lesson. Similarly, the fact that the Talmud focuses on the number of Kolos mentioned in connection with the Torah and a bridegroom (and not merely that they share the same number of Kolos) indicates that the number five also provides a lesson for us in this context.

II. The unique quality associated with the Torah that is expressed by the mention of five9 Kolos (and which expresses the special connection between the Torah and a bridegroom) can be understood by prefacing the explanation of the concept of a Kol.

A Kol draws down and reveals an entity’s quality; something that was previously hidden is revealed.10 For example, a human being’s voice reveals his intellect or his emotions.

Moreover, a person’s voice reflects and parallels the subject that it reveals. {For example, the tone of voice that expresses a command — a high and stern pitch — is different from the tone of voice which communicates an intellectual concept, as it is written:11 “The words of the wise are heard12 gently.”13}

Similarly, in the spiritual realms,14 there are different Kolos, modes of expression, each one distinguished from the other. The distinction between them reflects the difference in the objective each Kol is intended to accomplish.

From this, we can appreciate that the fact that the Torah was given with five different Kolos, modes of expression, indicates that there are five different dimensions, one higher than the other,15 each one being drawn down through one of the five types of Kolos.

This also explains the unique dimension of the Torah — that it was given with five voices. As is well known,16 the entire spiritual cosmos is divided into four types of worlds (which parallel the four forms of earthly existence: inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans17). Moreover, these four different levels are reflected, not only in the worlds which are brought into being, but also in G‑d’s name Havayah (v-u-v-h),18 the active agent which brings the worlds into existence. For this name contains the four letters that serve as the source for the four worlds19 (and within each world, for the four forms of existence: inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans, in that world20).

Since G‑d “looked into the Torah and created the world,”21 it follows that the same pattern that applies to the life-energy vested in the worlds exists in the Torah. Indeed, [the order is reversed, the pattern begins in the Torah, and from] the Torah is drawn down [into the world]. And thus the Torah also contains the four levels ([that reflect the four letters] of the name Havayah.

Based on the above, we can understand the uniqueness of the fact that the Torah was given with five voices,22 i.e., together with the four levels that stem from the name Havayah and which are reflected in the spiritual cosmos, the Torah contains a fifth dimension which transcends the name Havayah (even the Yud of the name Havayah).

This concept is alluded to [in the first of the Ten Commandments] which begins (reflecting an order of descent from Above): Anochi Havayah E‑lokecha (“I am Havayah, your G‑d”). Anochi refers to “[G‑d] as [He] is [for Himself], who cannot at all be defined by a name, nor alluded to in a letter, or even in a point of a letter.”23 Havayah [refers to the four levels of the spiritual cosmos as above]. And E‑lokecha means “your strength24 and your life-energy.25 All five dimensions of the Torah, even the level that transcends the name Havayah, were endowed to [the Jews as they live in] this physical world. This represents the uniqueness of the Torah having been given with five voices.

III. We have no way of comprehending spiritual concepts as they exist on their own level. The only way we can [appreciate these concepts] is through the material entities that have their source in them. Through [understanding these material entities, and then through abstraction and deduction,] we can develop some tentative assumptions with regard to the spiritual entities which are their source.26

Thus we can develop some conception of what is meant by the four letters of the name Havayah {and thus the awesome uniqueness of the Torah which was given with five voices, transcending the name Havayah as explained above} by explaining the four forms of existence — inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans — that exist in our world. For they “parallel the four letters of the name Havayah and receive influence from them.”27

[To explain:] The difference between inanimate matter and plants is that with regard to inanimate matter, we see only the actual physical entity; it does not express life at all. Although it possesses a “soul,” i.e., a source of spiritual, life-energy,28 [there is no outward manifestation of that spiritual energy]. With regard to plants, by contrast, it is obvious that they contain spiritual life-energy which cannot be perceived by our five senses.

(In a certain way,) this distinction is much greater than the distinctions between plants and animals or humans.29 For all of these entities share a common denominator; their spiritual vitality is revealed. (The difference between them involves merely the extent and the nature of that revelation, as will be explained.) With regard to inanimate matter, however, there is no revelation of the spiritual energy it contains.

Nevertheless, on the whole, the plant kingdom can be considered closer to inanimate matter than to animals or humans.30 Indeed, when the four forms of existence — inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans — are divided into two categories: those which are predominantly associated with the body and those which are predominantly associated with the soul, the plant kingdom, together with inanimate matter, are placed in the category of the body. Animals and humans, by contrast, are placed in the category of soul. 31 Indeed, the very Hebrew name for the plant kingdom, tzomei’ach, which means “growing,” is a marked contrast from the name for the animal kingdom, chai, which means “living.” The distinction between the two is reflected in the fact that before the flood, mankind was allowed to eat only plant-life and was not allowed to eat animals. 32

The reason for this difference can be explained as follows. [There are two qualities which distinguish the life-energy of] an animal:

a) The life-energy is associated with a soul, [a conscious entity with a sensation of self]. For this reason, an animal possesses the power of will33 (which expresses the soul34); and

b) Because the body and the soul are unified,35 the body is naturally affected by the will of the soul [and carries out its desires]36 to the extent that the definition [of the body changes].37 [It does] not [see itself as] matter, but is [identified with] the soul.38

In contrast, not only does the life-energy of a plant not make a change in the nature of its body, but the life-energy is itself bodily oriented. For its entire purpose is to make the body grow and become larger.

IV. Another distinction between a plant and an animal is that the life-energy (and growth) of a plant is dependent on the fact that it is rooted in a specific place. (If it is uprooted from that place, it will no longer [be alive or] grow. The life-energy of an animal, in contrast, is not limited to any specific place.39

The reason for this distinction is that a material entity is defined by place. Thus, since the life-energy of a plant is [subordinate to] its body, it is limited to a specific place. In contrast, an animal’s life-energy is spiritual in nature and therefore it is not as bound by the limitations of place.

As mentioned above, although the two forms of existence — inanimate matter and plants — both belong to the same category, i.e., the body, from a certain perspective, the difference between them is greater than the difference between a plant and an animal (see section III). Similarly (and indeed, to a greater extent), there is a distinction between the two forms of existence which are identified with the soul, animals and humans. For humans are entirely distinct from animals: humans are the chosen creations and all the other created beings (including animals) were created for the sake of serving humans.40

[As mentioned,] the point that distinguishes inanimate matter from other forms of existence (including plants) is that with regard to inanimate matter, all that is perceived is the material form (as stated above). Similarly with regard to the other extreme, the point which distinguishes mankind from the other created beings (even from animals) is that it is within mankind that the true concept of soul and spirituality is expressed.

VI. The true description of spirituality is that it is not bounded by any particular boundary, [that its existence is higher] than what can be perceived, even by powers which are higher than the five senses that can appreciate a physical entity. A spiritual entity also has a specific definition which delineates its existence and separates it from another spiritual entity.41 Nevertheless, because of its spiritual nature (and its refinement), there is a sensation of peshitus42(simplicity43) within it which is above comprehension.44

The simplicity which can be perceived in spiritual entities has several manifestations. Among them:

a) A spiritual entity does not contradict another entity.45 We see this point reflected with regard to refined, abstract ideas. The more refined and abstract they are, the less they contradict each other.46

b) Its spiritual nature causes it to seek to rise above itself. (We see this quality manifest in the [reflections of] spirituality [that exist] within [our] material [world]. For example, fire is the most refined of the four fundamental elements.47 Because of this spiritual quality, its nature48 is to ascend upward.49) For its true quality50 is not to remain [limited] within its particular identity, but to rise above itself and become included in its source in the higher realms.

VII. The above also explains why humans reflect the true definition of soul and spirituality, because the advantage of humans over animals is the power of intellect51 which possesses both of the above-mentioned qualities:

a) [A person’s] intellect is not confined by the nature of his emotional make-up. Since a person possesses an intellectual capacity,52 he is not forced to retain the fundamental tendencies to which he has an inherent inclination.53 (While other created beings, by contrast, cannot change their natures,) man has free choice to embrace any path he desires [to follow].54

This is also the reason why a person includes within himself all the other forms of existence contained within creation, (for which reason, he is called55 “a world in microcosm.”) For he is not confined by any limitations.56

b) The tendency of intellect is to (withdraw from itself57 and) approach a plane higher than itself. In this, there is also a fundamental difference between a human being (whose character is defined by intellect) and an animal (whose character is defined by emotions). For “the spirit of man ascends upward, and the spirit of an animal descends downward,”58 i.e., an animal has a tendency for material things, while a person seeks to rise above himself.

VIII. From the fact that a person is “a world in microcosm” (as explained in section VII), it can be understood that the four forms of existence that are found in the world in macrocosm also [have parallels] that are apparent59 in man’s “world in microcosm,” not only in his body, but also within his soul. As is explained within Chassidus,60 the letters [within our soul, see the definition which follows] represent the quality of inanimate matter within the soul. Emotions parallel plant life, intellect, animals, and the source for the power of speech, humanity.

The concept can be explained as follows: The Hebrew word for letters, ,uh,ut, (relates to the word t,t61 as in the phrase62 reuc t,t, “morning is coming”) and is identified with manifestation and revelation. The letters [within our souls] are distinguished from the other powers of the soul in that the other powers affect the [character of the person himself], (for example, emotions describe an individual’s personality, whether he is a generous person or a stern individual).63 Letters, by contrast, are merely mediums through which the person’s powers become manifest and expressed. They themselves do not affect the person himself.64

Since the letters are an external matter, the light of the soul is enclothed within them in a very limited way and is absolutely hidden to the extent that (overtly) no life-energy can be appreciated, not even life-energy that resembles growth. Therefore, they are considered as inanimate matter.

From this perspective, the difference between the letters and all of the other powers of the soul is far greater than the differences among the other powers themselves. For all of the other powers affect and express the person’s [character] itself; the light of the soul is revealed. (The difference between them is only in the degree and extent of that revelation, as will be explained.) With regard to letters, by contrast, their function is only to express and to reveal [the powers of the soul]. Therefore they resemble an entity that is distant from the soul.

(This parallels the relationship between inanimate matter and the other three forms of existence in the macrocosm. The fact that no life-energy at all is revealed in inanimate matter sets it aside from the other forms of existence to a far greater extent than the distinctions among the other forms of existence in which the life-energy of the soul is revealed.)

IX. The parallel within man to the second type of existence, plant life, is the emotions. The emotions affect the soul and cannot at all be compared to stone, inanimate matter,65 as the letters can. On the contrary, the emotions involve a tremendous amount of energy and activity. Nevertheless, the life-energy invested in the emotions is not comparable, and indeed, remarkably different from the life-energy that characterizes the intellect.

The very fact that the nature of emotions involves activity indicates that the emotions relate to a person as he is drawn out of his own sphere.66 Intellect, by contrast, does not take a person out of his sphere. No matter how many concepts a person understands, he may remain calm. This shows that the emotions do not affect a person as he exists for himself. They affect only the dimension of soul that shares a connection with others.

[To explain: What motivates emotion?] The positive qualities — or the qualities that are not positive — of another person or entity affect a person and cause him to draw closer to that person or entity with feelings of love, or retreat with feelings of fear.

Since the emotions involve only the aspect of soul which has a connection to an outside entity — in contrast to intellect which involves the soul as it is for itself — the emotions are considered as closer to the quality of letters than to the intellect. For both letters and emotions are not connected to the soul as it is for itself. Both have a connection to other entities. (The difference is that the letters reflect only the influence drawn down from the soul, while the emotions affect the soul itself, as the soul is drawn outward.)

This resembles the relationship between the plant kingdom and the other three forms of existence in the macrocosm. For the life-energy of plants is bodily oriented. Therefore it is linked together with inanimate matter in the category of body, instead of being joined with animals and humans in the category of soul.

Just as the difference between animal and plant life is reflected in the fact that a plant is always rooted in a specific place, while an animal can move wherever it desires (as explained in section IV), so, too, we find a similar parallel with regard to emotion and intellect (the analogues to plants and animals in the microcosm [of our souls]).

Emotions (and even the intellect which relates to the emotions) as they exist in their own right are anchored in a specific tendency from which they cannot depart. As his character [is defined by] the nature of his emotions, a person whose nature reflects the attribute of chesed ([which is expressed in] love) must remain within that fundamental thrust. Within that thrust itself, there will be growth from an underdeveloped state to maturity. From underdeveloped states of love, he can precede to more advanced levels. [But his fundamental character remains the same.] A similar motif also applies to a person whose character thrust expresses gevurah (severity and might).

This is not true with regard to intellect. Firstly, intellect itself is not limited to a specific character thrust (for we see that a person can comprehend a concept which he cannot — due to the nature of his intellectual [not only his emotional] tendencies — tolerate). Moreover, because of the true and fundamental nature of intellect (i.e., the level of intellect that is above connection to the emotions), a person is capable of bringing about change within the character and nature of his emotions.67

Furthermore, within the realm of intellect itself, [despite the fact that each of the three qualities] Chochmah, Binah, and Daas, [have different fundamental thrusts,] there are several individuals [who manifest excellence in] all three areas. In the realm of emotions, by contrast, the attributes of chesed and gevurah cannot [coexist and work in harmony] unless the person modulates his emotions with intellect.68

X. Despite the above, the quality of intellect represents merely the analogue to the level of the animal within a person’s soul. The human dimension (which is entirely distinct from the animal) is expressed in (the source for) the power of speech. Therefore, the term [in Lashon HaKodesh] used to describe humans is midaber (speaker) and not maskil (thinker).69

To explain: The spirituality and peshitus which rests within a person’s intellect empowers him to go beyond his limits and choose any path he desires, even one which runs contrary to his nature (indeed, even one which requires him to change his nature). Nevertheless, this peshitus is still associated with defined existence. The reason a person chooses (based on his intellect) an approach that runs contrary to his emotional makeup is that his intellect — [which is also a] defined entity — requires him to do so.

{Similar concepts apply with regard to the second dimension which expresses the spirituality humans possess (due to intellect) — the fact that “the spirit of man ascends upward.” Although a person’s quest to rise above himself takes him beyond his personal limits, nevertheless, [this too has an end-point]. For [this quest] stems from the fact that his intellect appreciates the advantage that exists in the higher level; (i.e., his mind forces him to understand that he is limited and there are matters that are above his intellect). Thus this [quests] itself stems from [and thus is bounded by] his personal existence.70

The power of speech, by contrast, reflects how a person is not bound by his own identity and can communicate with another individual. This unbounded quality is not connected with the person’s own existence (for the potential to speak to another person does not stem from the fact that his own identity obligates him to speak to the other person, but from the fact that the source for this power comes from a very lofty place within the soul, a level where there are no definitions; there are no distinctions that separate one person from another). Thus the power of speech reflects the true concept of spirituality and peshitus possessed by the soul.71

XI. The explanation of the nature and type of distinctions among the four forms of existence: inanimate matter, plants, animals, and humans (in the world at large, and in the microcosm of every individual) gives us some understanding of the four spiritual realms: Asiyah, Yetzirah, Beriah, and Atzilus.

The initial72 origins of personal existence (yesh) is the world of Beriah. Nevertheless, since in the world of Beriah, the ayin (the simplicity of G‑dliness which transcends definition) shines [powerfully], the perception is that true existence is not yesh (the individual existence of the created beings), but the ayin which brings it into being. This feeling nullifies the sense of yesh. {This parallels animal life in which the body is subservient to the soul; indeed, the mahus (identity) of the body is the soul (as explained in section III). Or to cite another parallel: intellect (the animal in man) has the tendency to be attracted to what is above itself [even though] this involves losing its individual identity.73}

Therefore the yesh of the world of Beriah is described as “simple substance” without form [or definition],74 in contrast to the yesh of the worlds of Yetzirah and Asiyah where the substance is already given form: in Yetzirah, a general form, and in Asiyah, a particular form. {This parallels the plant kingdom and inanimate matter in which the body is given precedence. For even in the plant kingdom, the body of the plant is not subservient to its life-energy. Or to cite another parallel: the letters and the emotions which are both predominantly given over to entities outside oneself.}

Nevertheless, even the simple substance of the world of Beriah is still yesh, a substance and an entity. Its peshitus is only within the context of yesh (like intellect, which can be described as peshitus, but a peshitus that exists within the realm of definition, as explained in section X.)

The world of Atzilus, by contrast, is actual G‑dliness.75 It is entirely above the concept of yesh; it is ayin.76

XII. Although the four worlds of Atzilus, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah ([i.e.,] the spiritual dimension of the world of Asiyah) are spiritual realms, they, nevertheless, share certain points of commonality with the four forms of existence in our material world: inanimate matter, plants, animals, and humans (and the parallels that exist within our souls). Similarly, there is also a parallel to these levels in the root and source which brings into being (— and therefore is much higher —) than these four worlds, the four letters of G‑d’s name v-u-v-h. ([Although it must be emphasized that these four letters represent spiritual levels] which are incomparably higher [than these material entities]), nevertheless, there is a similarity between these letters and the four forms of existence: inanimate matter, plants, animals, and humans which are drawn down from them after a vast process of descent and contraction.

Accordingly, we can appreciate that these four letters (including even the yud) do not represent the true peshitus of the Or Ein Sof. For these levels all share a connection to limited existence.

On this basis, we can appreciate the uniqueness of the fact that the Torah was given in connection with five Kolos, i.e., it contains a fifth dimension which transcends all the four levels [mentioned above]. This represents true peshitus. This exemplifies the essence of the Torah, the level which is united with the essence of Or Ein Sof.

On this basis, we can appreciate why the connection between a bridegroom and the Torah is expressed in the fact that they both relate to five Kolos. For the potential to conceive new life possessed by a bridegroom, (for “being fruitful and multiplying” is the purpose of a marriage,77) expresses the power of Ein Sof78 which transcends all of the characteristics of the four forms of existence mentioned above.

XIII. Without minimizing the greatness of the essence G‑dliness and the peshitus invested in the Torah which transcends the four letters of the name Havayah, [our Sages do not say that the Torah was given [only] with the fifth Kol. Instead,] they emphasize that the Torah was given with five Kolos. For when the Torah was given, the four levels which are connected to the four letters of G‑d’s name were also given. Indeed, the fifth and highest level was given together with them. For the Torah as a whole was given with five Kolos.

The reason for this is that [studying] the four levels of the Torah awakens the four levels of the soul: nefesh, ruach, neshamah, and chayah. And the fifth level arouses [the essence of the soul,] the level of yechidah which is connected with yachid, G‑d’s singular oneness.

All of the four levels of the Torah were given together79 so that the level of yechidah would [permeate and] shine within the levels of nefesh, ruach, neshamah, and chayah, which constitute a person’s individual existence. For this empowers him to make the world (which is composed of four forms of existence: inanimate matter, plants, animals, and humans) a dwelling for G‑d’s essence.80

(Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Metzora, 5717)

Footnotes

Shmos 19:16-19,

[I.e., the word Kol is mentioned three times, and Kolos, the plural form, i.e., at least two, is mentioned once.]

Berachos 6b.

Yirmeyahu 33:11.

See the Chidushei Aggados of the Maharsha to Berachos, loc. cit., which [explains the connection between the Torah and a bridegroom as follows: The Torah] was given on the day of [G‑d’s] rejoicing and the day of His marriage with the Jewish people.

Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 94a.

Sanhedrin 90a.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. I, p. 57, which explains our Sages’ statement (Pirkei d’R. Eliezer, ch. 32): “ten blessings... corresponding to the Ten Utterances of Creation.” The connection between the blessings and the utterances stems from their essential nature (and therefore, the numbers associated with them are the same). {Similar concepts apply with regard to many statements of our Sages which emphasize a numerical connection between two subjects.}
[One might ask: If so, the order should be reversed, and the emphasis should be placed on the utterances, for they are the source for the blessing.] Nevertheless, the blessings are mentioned first, because in certain matters, our pattern of deduction works from the end result to the source, as explained at length in that source.

See the maamar of the Alter Rebbe entitled Lahavin Inyan Chamishah Kolos (Maamarei Admur HaZakein 5565, Vol. I, p. 43) and several explanations of the verse from the Tzemach Tzedek in Or HaTorah in the maamar entitled VeChol HaAm Roi’im (p. 958ff.).

10.

See Torah Or, p. 74c, Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 29a ff.
In the texts of Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah, the concept of five Kolos is discussed by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. II, ch. 33 and the Avodas HaKodesh (who questions the Rambam’s statements,) Vol. IV, ch. 31. See also the maamar in Or HaTorah from the Tzemach Tzedek cited above.

11.

Koheles 9:17.

12.

See the maamarim entitled Shoftim, 5672, and Tiku, 5707, sec. 3.

13.

Similarly, we find Shmos 32:18 speaking of “a voice resounding with strength... a voice resounding with weakness... a voice of distress.”

14.

See the commentaries to Tehillim 29:3ff., and our Sages’ interpretation of those verses.

15.

Based on the above, we can resolve the differences between this statement of our Sages mentioning five voices and other statements of our Sages (Shmos Rabbah, 28:6, the commentary of Ramban) which mention seven voices [associated with the giving of the Torah]. For all seven voices mentioned are associated with one level, our [seven] emotional attributes. See also the commentary of the Rikanti.

16.

[In addition to the sources in Kabbalah and Chassidus,] see also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. II, ch. 10.

17.

See the maamarim entitled Chavivin Yisrael, 5696, and Azehu Chacham, 5702, sec. V, et al, [where these concepts are explained] at length.

18.

Indeed, as explained in Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 4, the name Havayah relates to the term mehaveh, bringing into existence.

19.

Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 95a, et al.

20.

Tanya, ch. 38 (p. 50b). See also Torah Or 3c ff., and Toras Chayim, p. 19c ff., which explain the connection between the four forms of existence: inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans, and the four letters of the name Havayah.

21.

Zohar, Vol. II, p. 161a,b.

22.

Note a similar concept explained in Or HaTorah, Yisro, pp. 961-962.

23.

Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 80b; see Zohar, Vol. III, p. 257b.

24.

Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 5:1).

25.

See Torah Or, Parshas Yisro, p. 67b.

26.

See Sefer HaSichos 5702, p. 76ff., Sefer HaSichos 5703, p. 148ff.; see also note 7.

27.

Tanya, ch. 38.

28.

See Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1. See the explanation of all the above in the end of the text Etz Chayim. [These texts explain how every entity which exists is maintained by the G‑dly energy that is enclothed within it.]

29.

Similar concepts apply with regard to the four spiritual worlds: Atzilus, Beriah Yetzirah, and Asiyah (which parallel the four forms of existence: inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans). The phrase (Yeshayahu 43:7): “I even made it” is interpreted as a reference to the world of Asiyah. (That phrase contains the term “even,” indicating an interruption.) For deed represents a separate entity [unlike speech and thought where there is still some connection with the thinker or the speaker]. See Likkutei Torah, the beginning of Parshas Balak, et al.

30.

A parallel is found with regard to the distinctions between the four spiritual worlds, Atzilus, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah. See note 73.

31.

See Tanya, loc. cit., (p. 51a). See also the Rebbe Rashab’s notes to Tanya (Kitzurim VeHaaros LiTanya, p. 115): “[The text] does not say “the soul of an inanimate object or a plant. That term is used only with regard to humans and animals.”

32.

See Sanhedrin 59b (cited in Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 9:3). See also Sanhedrin 57a.
The distinction between plants and animals is also relevant in the present age. There is a prohibition that forbids eating ever min hachai,a limb from a living animal, while there is no such prohibition with regard to eating plant-life that is still connected to its source of nurture.

33.

See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3:11 and the Peirush [which describe the nature of inanimate matter].

34.

This is reflected in the interpretation of Yirmeyahu 15:1 vzv ogv kt hapb iht. Rashi interprets hapb (which would ordinarily be interpreted as “my soul”) as “my desire.”* See also Kitzurim VeHaaros LiTanya, loc. cit., which states: “Inanimate matter and plants which do not possess will and feeling... are not called ‘a soul.’”
* This concept is quoted in Torah Or, p. 36b, Kitzurim VeHaaros, loc. cit., and other places in Chassidus. See the note on p. 227 of Sefer HaMaamarim 5709, which explains why this verse is frequently cited as a proof of this concept.

35.

See Torah Or, p. 13a, et al.

36.

“Without the necessity for a command or statement” (Tanya, ch. 23).

37.

This reflects the difference between the bittul of the body to the soul and the bittul of a chariot to its driver. Since the chariot is a separate entity, distinct from the driver (although nullified to him), it must be directed by the driver. Since the limbs of the body, by contrast, are unified with the soul, they follow the will of the soul as a matter of course (the maamar entitled Kol Machlokes, 5671).

38.

As is well known (see the maamar entitled Ki Imcha, 5700, ch. 2), the relationship of the body to the soul can be defined as mahus and metzius.
[Trans. Note: The Hebrew term mahus (,uvn) is derived from the two words ma hu (tuv vn) which mean: “What it is.” An entity’s mahus is its fundamental identity, what that entity is. Metzius means “existence,” the entity’s outward existence.
The soul is the mahus of the body. In other words, the body does not see itself as a separate entity in which the soul is lodged. Instead, it is identified with the soul to the extent that it defines itself in terms of the soul. The soul is its “I.” When a person stubs his toe, he does not see his toe as a separate entity from himself; it is he himself who feels the pain. His body exists to manifest his soul.]
Thus [our Sages rule] that “a living entity carries itself,”* and indeed, does not feel itself as separate [from its life-energy] (the maamar entitled Yecheinu MiYomi’im, 5701, ch. 2).
* Shabbos 94a. Although the Sages differ and rule (and their opinion is accepted as halachah, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:80) that a person who transfers an animal or a beast to the public domain is liable [for the violation of the Shabbos laws, they do not object to the theoretical basis of the concept. Instead, their position stems from the fact that an animal] makes itself difficult to hold and tries to slip from the holder’s grasp. [Their position] does not reflect on [the relationship between the animal’s body and] its soul.

39.

We find that there is a living entity called Adnei HaSadeh (Kilayim 8:5) which also has limitations. See Etz Chayim, Shaar 42, which considers that entity as an intermediary between a plant and an animal.

40.

As our Sages state (at the conclusion of tractate Kiddushin): “They (fowls and animals) were created solely to serve me.”

41.

See the Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:5-7.

42.

See the maamar entitled Lulav ViAravah, 5659, which explains that the fundamental definition of the qualities of the soul comes about because of their enclothment within the limbs of the body. We are compelled to say that there exists a definition of these qualities within the soul itself.(For even as the soul exists in the spiritual worlds, it possesses [these qualities, for] it comprehends [spiritual concepts] and expresses the emotions [of love and fear]. Nevertheless
In truth, it is a wondrous matter for us and we really do not know at all how it is possible for there to be a definition of powers [as the soul exists in the spiritual realms] and how [these powers] exist. For the possibility that a definition of powers should exist within a spiritual entity which is above a material form and garment is not understandable to us at all. [We cannot comprehend] how it is possible that there could be a definition of powers [in a spiritual entity] and how that definition would be expressed.
As explained in the note 44, even the definition of the powers as they exist after being enclothed in the body is not a strict definition.

43.

[Trans. Note: I.e., an integral oneness that stems from a lack of definition. Material entities are defined by the three dimensions: length, width, and height. Even though spiritual entities are not defined by such limits, they, too, have their definitions. And yet, over and above these definitions, there is a fundamental oneness that characterizes all spiritual entities.]

44.

Note the letter of the Previous Rebbe (printed at the conclusion of Kuntres HaAvodah, p. 54) which [mentions three types of love and] states:
A spiritual entity is not confined by a stone barrier... by the appearances of different colors... or the varying flavors of sweetness.... Therefore, within all three types of love, there will be found offshoots that resemble one another and are similar to one another.
On the surface, the distinctions between the three forms of love mentioned are spiritual; how then does the fact that a spiritual entity is not bound by the limitations of substance and matter demonstrate that within the three types of love, there are offshoots that resemble each other? [For even though these types of love are not bound by material definitions, they are seemingly bound by spiritual definitions, and each one has a nature of its own.]
[The resolution of this question is that] because of the simplicity which characterizes spiritual existence, even though each one of the three types of love is defined by its own character, we are nevertheless forced to say that it includes within itself dimensions of the other types of love. Further clarification of the matter is, however, still required.

45.

We find that several spiritual entities can be found in the same place {see Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim, p. 49a; the maamar entitled Ki Cheilek, 5694 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5711), ch. 10; Kuntres Limud HaChassidus, ch. 17ff.}. Nevertheless, this does not prove the above concept fully, because such an interrelation is not (reflective of their essential nature, but merely) [a result of] their being in the same place. [The fundamental point is, however,] that even the essential nature of [a spiritual entity] is not circumscribed and defined in a complete manner, as explained in the previous note.

46.

See the maamar entitled Shelach, 5672.

47.

Of the four elements: fire, air, water, and earth, it is fire which is comparable to humans (in the four types of existence] {Toras Chayim, Bereishis, p. 19c. See the maamar entitled Ner Chanukah, 5666 (the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, p. 115) which explains that the statements in Tanya, ch. 19, follow the opinion of the Etz Chayim, Shaar Derushei Abiyah, ch. 1} and to Atzilus [in the four worlds] (Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 4d; Or HaTorah, Yisro, p. 826; the maamarim entitled Zeh HaYom, 5660, and Vihar Sinai, 5662).

48.

See also Bamidbar Rabbah 14:12, Tanya, loc. cit.
Based on the above statements — that fire’s tendency to rise stems from its spiritual quality — it is possible to explain the Alter Rebbe’s statement in Tanya that “the light of the fire possesses a natural desire” [i.e., his emphasis is on “the light of the fire” and not merely fire]. For although even the material dimension of fire is spiritual (when compared to [the other three elements:] air, water, and earth), the spiritual dimension within it cannot be compared to the spiritual dimension in the light of the fire. Therefore, when the Alter Rebbe speaks of “the desire to separate from its wick and cling to its source,” he is referring (primarily) to the light of the fire.

49.

See the maamar entitled Kivod Malchuscha, 5661.

50.

See the above maamar which explains that the statement in Tanya, that fire possesses a natural desire to rise upward, indicates that this tendency to rise upward is {not (an incremental dimension of its being) [stemming] from its appreciation of the higher quality of its source. Instead, because of} its essential spiritual quality (i.e., its lack of [defined] existence), it desires to rise above its existence entirely.
There is a question whether this explanation can be corroborated with [the explanation often given for fire’s tendency to rise,] that each entity is drawn to its source. Hence earth descends downward, and fire rises, [because of its higher source]. It is possible to explain that [the latter explanation refers to] the material dimension [of fire], while [the previous explanation] refers to its light.

51.

See Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, 4:8, [which states that the power of knowledge is the unique dimension of soul granted to man]; see also the maamar entitled Vayavo Amalek, 5709 (based on the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah), et al. This view is also reflected in Tanya, ch. 38 (p. 51a).
See sec. X which [takes a somewhat different tact and] explains that the fundamental advantage that man possesses (which distinguishes him from the animals) is the source for his power of speech. Therefore when referring to man, our Sages called him midaber, a speaker. See Torah Or, p. 3d [which appears to fuse both these views saying]: “In humans, in addition to all the above, there is the intellectual soul, the soul which speaks.”

52.

Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 38b, states that man’s power of choice stems from the fact that the Or Ein Sof, (G‑d’s infinite light) {which transcends the intellectual faculties of Chabad, see ibid.:a} rests within man.
[Nevertheless, this does not represent a contradiction.] For as explained in that source, the Or Ein Sof rests in the realm of Tikkun. It is understood that this relates to the quality of intellect (or enclothes itself in intellect), for the gestalt of Tikkun is fundamentally determined by the intellect. See also the Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah 5:1 (quoted in Likkutei Torah, loc. cit.) which describes [man’s power of choice] [as follows]: “He can, on his own initiative, with his knowledge... do anything that he desires.” See also Tanya, loc. cit., which [describes man as possessing] intellect and choice.
See also Toras Chayim, Toldos, p. 14b ff.; and the maamar entitled Min HaMeitzar, 5660 and the maamar which follows it.

53.

See ch. 8 of the Rambam’s Shemoneh Perakim (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Introduction to tractate Avos, ch. 8); the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh to Hilchos Teshuvah, 5:4; Toras Chayim, loc. cit., p. 14a; Shaar HaBechirah of the Mitteler Rebbe, ch. 7.

54.

It is possible to see that the reason [for this distinction] is that in animals, the character tendencies are firmly established, while with regard to man, he is merely (as the Rambam states) fit for a positive or negative quality. [This is, however, not a sufficient explanation, because:]
a) Even with regard to a human being, being “fit” [for a quality] means that he has an inclination toward it {to the extent that because of this inclination, he can be labeled as “wicked,” as Tehillim 58:4 states: “The wicked are estranged from the womb.”}. And thus, a person requires unique power to be able to choose to act contrary to this inherent tendency;
b) The reason why a person’s tendencies are not firmly established is that {his source is from the level of (Sublime Wisdom) which is above any definite characteristic (as explained in Toras Chayim, loc. cit.)}. And this level is also the source for man’s power of choice.

55.

See Bereishis Rabbah, chs. 8, 12; Koheles Rabbah, ch. 1; Avos d’R. Nosan, ch. 31, where the concept is explained at length.

56.

See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 37c ff., et al.

57.

[Trans. Note: The concept of withdrawal refers to the mind’s desire to ascend to a higher plane. Instead of nurturing its present framework of existence, it seeks to ascend to a higher plane.]

58.

Koheles 3:21. Note the maamar entitled Shechorah Ani, 5702, which states: “An animal has never seen the heavens and does not know of the fact that the heavens exist.”

59.

While with regard to animals, plants and inanimate objects, [by contrast, these four qualities are not overtly apparent]. See the maamar entitled Lehavin Inyan... HaNekudim, Maamarei Admur HaZakein 5568, Vol. I, p. 111.

60.

Torah Or, p. 4a ff.; Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 58a; Toras Chayim Bereishis p. 19d ff.; the maamarim entitled Chavivin Yisrael, 5696, and Eizahu Chacham, 5702, ch. 5.

61.

See Torah Or, p. 42b, et al.

62.

Yeshayahu 21:12.

63.

[Trans. Note: By letters, the sichah refers to the potential for conscious thought and speech. These means of expression are considered as a power of the soul, for if they did not exist within the soul, the soul would be unable to use them. Nevertheless, they are external dimensions of an individual’s personality. For the fact that a person is a capable speaker does not tell us anything about who he is. He may be able to speak about love, without having the tendency to manifest that emotion.]

64.

Therefore they are called garments. [For although a person’s garments may be representative of his character, they are, nevertheless, separate and distinct entities.] (See the explanation of this concept in the notes of the Rebbe Rashab to the maamar entitled Posach Eliyahu in Torah Or, and the maamar entitled VihaEven HaZos, 5673.)

65.

[Trans. Note: Indeed, a “heart of stone” is a frequently used analogy to a person who does not express the positive emotional attributes which he possesses.]

66.

[Trans. Note: The intent here is not that emotions involve communication with another being. On the contrary, emotions are largely self-contained (see sec. VII in the sichah from Parshas Shmos in this series). Instead, the intent is that emotions — like letters — reflect the aspect of a person’s soul which functions in relation to the environment in which he lives. The soul — the person’s influence as it exists for itself — is revealed in a diminutive manner.]

67.

See Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 84a; Or HaTorah, Mishpatim, p. 1134 (which explains that [intellect] reflects the level of Beriah).

68.

See the Sifri which comments on the verse (Devarim 6:5): “There is no love in the place of fear, or fear in the place of love, except among the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He.”

69.

See Sefer HaMaamarim 5628, p. 167, the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah 5637, ch. 22; Toras Shalom, p. 245.
Sometimes it is explained that the reason a person is called a midaber is that speech is the first phase of the advantage that humans possess (the maamar entitled BaChodesh HaShelishi, 5702, ch. 4).

70.

[Trans. Note: Intellect will motivate only a limited measure of personal growth, for its own horizons are restricted — as a whole and for each person individually.]

71.

[Trans. Note: Every entity in the spiritual cosmos is bound by its own specific identity. In our physical world, there are spatial distinctions that differentiate one entity from another. In the spiritual realms, the distinctions are not spatial, but reflect the nature of the entity. Each entity is what it is, and only what it is.
Every entity, whether spiritual or physical, cannot go beyond its identity. It is confined within its own set. Communication — sharing thoughts and feelings of substance — is a uniquely human potential. It stems from the fact that man is in essence more than himself, that his core is an unlimited spiritual entity. And moreover, that spiritual potential is not an abstract quality that remains hidden within the person’s core, it affects his day-to-day existence. For man is a midaber, a speaker, sharing with others, showing self-transcendence as an ordinary part of his personal experience.]

72.

See the explanation of these concepts in the maamar entitled Tzaaku, 5688, et al.

73.

See the letter of the Previous Rebbe (HaTomim, Vol. V, p. 61 (243), in which he quotes his father, the Rebbe Rashab) with regard to the niggun of four stanzas composed by the Alter Rebbe, explaining that the third stanza [which parallels the world of Beriah] shares a connection to the fourth stanza, and not to the second stanza, because “the world of Beriah is more closely connected to the world of Atzilus than to the world of Yetzirah. And {Ibid., p. 63 (244)}: “The result of the third stanza is [a feeling of self-] negation and transcendence.”

74.

[Trans. Note: I.e., the influence of Atzilus causes it to go beyond its distinctions.]

75.

Tanya, the beginning of Tanya, ch. 49.

76.

[Trans. Note: The intent is that there is no sense of self in that realm and that the distinctions between the different attributes of G‑dliness in the world of Atzilus allow for a perfect interrelation and fusion among themselves.
This clarification is necessary, for in some sources in Chassidus, it is explained that the origin of yesh is in the world of Atzilus. For in contrast to the levels above Atzilus, every attribute within Atzilus has already taken on its identity: Chochmah is Chochmah, and chesed is chesed. And yet, even as the attributes function within their own identities, there is a perfect sense of interrelation between them which stems from the fact that they are G‑dliness and not yesh.]

77.

For this reason, the explanation is given that the blessing Shehechiyanu is not recited together with the wedding blessings (Gilayon Maharsha, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, ch. 28, Sifsei Kohen subsection 5). [For until children are conceived, the purpose of a wedding is not consummated.] See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, pp. 118-119 and notes.

78.

Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 40a.
[Trans. Note: See also the maamar entitled Sameach Tisamach 5657, which explains at length that the conception of a child is one of the closest parallels to creation yesh me’ayin, something from nothing. Such creation is possible only through G‑d’s essential power (see Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 20). And He granted man this power in order to bring children into the world.]

79.

It is possible to explain that [the reason all five levels are revealed together] is that when the level of yechidah (and the level of yachid) is revealed, everything is revealed. See the maamar entitled Lehavin Inyan... HaNekudim cited in note 57.

80.

[Trans. Note: The world is made a dwelling for G‑d’s essence through the revelation of the fifth level. Nevertheless, if the fifth level was not given together with the other four, that dwelling could not be “in the lower worlds”; it could not permeate our material framework of reference. Instead, its revelation would nullify the existence of our world. Through giving the Torah with five Kolos, G‑d blended the fifth level together with the other four, enabling His essence to be revealed within the context of limited existence.]

From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson

From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson; translated by Eli Touger

Browse Book

Crown Jewels »

From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson

Buy Book

Selected from the Rebbe`s voluminous Likkutei Sichot, these "Crown Jewels" expound the most profound of Chasidic concepts, presented according to the Torah portions in which they originally appeared.

In this Book

About the Publisher

SIE »

Sichos in English has published hundreds of volumes on Chassidism and its way of life.

Visit Site

Crown Jewels: Parshas Yisro

More in this section

Start a Discussion

More in this section

You may also be interested in...

Start a Discussion