The Holy Epistle: Epistle 19 – Part 5 – video

Share
Loading the player…

The Holy Epistle: Epistle 19 – Part 3 – video
The Holy Epistle: Epistle 29 – Part 4 – audio

Part (ii)

 

The Epistle that follows, beginning “The Letters that are Revealed,” is one of the Epistles that was appended to the edition of Tanya published in Vilna in the year 5660 (1900), these additions being noted by R. Asher of Nikolayev in his introductory declaration there.55

 

This relevance of this Epistle to the previous one may be found in the following parallel: The previous Epistle explains how only the Netzach-Hod-Yesod-Malchut (i.e., the lower Sefirot) of the Emanator extend to the recipient. The conclusion of the present Epistle likewise explains56 that only the hindmost aspect and externality of the Netzach-Hod-Yesod of the higher realm enter the lower one.

 

האותיות הנגלות לנו, הן במעשה, דיבור ומחשבה

 

The letters57 that are revealed to us exist in action, speech, and thought.

 

דמעשה, הן תמונות האותיות שבכתב אשורי שבספר תורה

 

Pertaining to the plane of action are the visual forms58 of the letters in the Assyrian script of the Torah scroll.59

 

The very validity of the scroll depends on the scrupulous observance of the numerous detailed laws governing the writing of these twenty-two letters. As is explained in the Note to ch. 12 of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, each letter reflects the flow of a unique life-force and spiritual energy: its distinct shape suggests the form taken by the flow of light and energy revealed in that letter.

 

ואותיות הדבור נחקקות בהבל וקול, המתחלק לכ״ב חלקים, שונים זה מזה בצורתן

 

The letters pertaining to speech are engraved in the breath and voice, which is divided into twenty-two parts, one differing from the other with respect to their form,

 

שהיא הברת ומבטא הכ״ב אותיות בכל לשון

 

i.e., the enunciation and utterance of the twenty-two letters in any language.60

 

כי אין הפרש בין לשון הקודש ובין שאר לשונות במהות הברת האותיות, כי אם בצירופן

 

For there is no difference between the Holy Tongue and the other languages with respect to the nature of the letters’ enunciation, only with respect to their combinations.61

 

ואותיות המחשבה הן, גם כן בכל לשון שאדם מחשב, תיבות ואותיות הלשון

 

The letters of thought are — again, in any language that a person may think in — the words and letters of that language and its letters,

 

שהן כ״ב לבד

 

which number twenty-two only.

 

רק שבמחשבה, יש בה ג׳ מיני בחינות אותיות

 

Now in thought there are three kinds of letters.

 

שהרי כשרואה בספר תורה תמונות האותיות, הן מצטיירות במחשבתו

 

For when one sees the visual forms of the letters in the Torah-scroll they are pictured in his thought.

 

וזה נקרא בחינת עשיה שבמחשבה

 

This is called the “action in thought,” i.e., the manner in which thought envisions the letters of actual handwritten script. In terms of the spiritual Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, “action in thought” relates to the lowest World — Asiyah, the World of Action.

 

וכן כאשר שומע אותיות הדבור, הן נרשמות במחשבתו, ומהרהר בהן

 

Likewise, when one hears the letters of speech, they become inscribed in his thought and he meditates upon them.

 

וזה נקרא בחינת דבור שבמחשבה, ובחינת יצירה

 

This is called the “speech in thought,”i.e., thinking about the letters of speech, and it relates to Yetzirah.

 

ואותיות המחשבה לבדה, בלי הרהור אותיות הדבור, נקראות מחשבה שבמחשבה, בחינת בריאה

 

The letters of thought alone, without any meditation on the letters of speech, are called the “thought in thought,” and relate to Beriah.

 

In general terms, thought, speech and action correspond to Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, respectively. More particularly, “action in thought” corresponds to “Asiyah within Beriah,” “speech in thought” to “Yetzirah within Beriah,” and “thought in thought” to “Beriah within Beriah.”

 

והנה אותיות הדבור ממש, הן מתהוות ומקבלות חיותן מאותיות אלו עצמן שבמחשבה

 

Now, the letters of actual speech come into being and receive their life-force from those very same letters that are in thought.

 

ואף שלפעמים מדבר אדם, ומהרהר בדבר אחר

 

Though sometimes a person may speak [of one thing] while thinking of another,

 

This would tend to indicate that the letters of speech do not receive their life-force from the letters of thought.

 

הרי אינו יכול לדבר כי אם אותן דבורים וצירופים שכבר דברם, והיו במחשבתו פעמים רבות מאד

 

in such an instance he can speak only such words and combinations that he has already spoken previously and that were in his thought a great many times.

 

ונשאר בדבורים וצירופים אלו הרשימו מהמחשבה, שנכנסה בהם פעמים רבות

 

Thus in those words and combinations there remains the vestige of the thought that entered into them many times, and this serves as the life-force of the letters of his speech.

 

וזהו בחינת אחוריים וחיצוניות נה״י מפרצוף העליון שנכנס בתחתון, להיות לו בחינת מוחין וחיות כנודע

 

And this, in terms of the Sefirot, is the hindmost aspect and the externality of the Netzach-Hod-Yesod of the Visage of the higher realm that enters into the lower one, serving it as the intellective faculty of mochin (lit., “brains”) and life-force, as is known.

 

Footnotes

 

1.

See Yahel Or (Glosses of the Tzemach Tzedek) on this verse.
2.

Tehillim 104:2.
3.

See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XIX, p. 11ff., and references there.
4.

Iyov 11:9.
5.

Note of the Rebbe: A close examination of Likkutei Torah shows how all that appears here in this letter is derived from it, and specifically, by combining the passage in Ki Tissa with that in Vayikra.
6.

Aramaic; in the original text, abbreviated as א״א.
7.

Aramaic; in the original text, abbreviated as ז״א.
8.

Bereishit Rabbah 17:7.
9.

Shmot 33:23.
10.

Devarim 34:10.
11.

Kehot, 5733.
12.

In his commentary to Sukkah 28a.
13.

Note of the Rebbe: “In contrast, by means of their [non-prophetic] ‘apprehension through wisdom and knowledge’ they comprehended [higher levels, such as] Keter, and so on.”
14.

Shmot 33:23.
15.

Yeshayahu 6:11.
16.

Bereishit 18:1.
17.

Heb. text emended above according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
18.

Heb. text emended above according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
19.

The above reading הנעלם could imply that the manner of their apprehension is hidden from them; the variant reading בנעלם would imply that the subject of their apprehension is hidden from them.
20.

Bava Batra 12a.
21.

Note of the Rebbe: “This is not the case with their comprehension, as [in footnote 13] above.”
22.

Lit., “to those versed in the Hidden Wisdom.” In the original text, the three Heb. words are abbreviated to לי״ח, which is an abbreviation for ליודעי חן (the letter chet being read as if vocalized with a tzeirei). The letters ח״ן in turn are an abbreviation for חכמה נסתרת.

23.

According to the variant parenthetical text, “…understanding the G‑dliness and the light of the blessed Ein Sof”; i.e., the [infinite] Ein Sof-light too can filter down to the level of mortal understanding.
24.

Zohar III, 28a.
25.

Parshat Beshalach, 62a; cf. Parshat Chukat, 182a and Parshat Vaetchanan, 261a; et al.
26.

Cf. Sanhedrin 21a.
27.

Shabbat Parshat Vayeishev, 5724.
28.

P. 4b.
29.

Tehillim 119:96, explained in Epistle 17, above.
30.

As an instance of this, consider the commandment involving the nesting bird (Devarim 22:6-7), chosen by the Sages (Berachot 5:3) as a classic example of a mitzvah which one should not assume one knows the reason for. The Rebbe points out that in Moreh Nevuchim (Vol. III, sec. 48) the Rambam offers an explanation for this mitzvah, yet in his Commentary on the Mishnayot the Rambam himself writes that this is a mitzvah “which has no explanation”!
31.

Devarim 6:8.
32.

See Megillah 14a.
33.

Tehillim 100:3. See also Bereishit Rabbah, beginning of ch. 1.
34.

Note of the Rebbe: “Zohar I, 120b; Or HaTorah (Yahel Or) of the Tzemach Tzedek on this verse in Tehillim (and see further references there).”
35.

Note of the Rebbe: “But see commentary of Rashi there.”
36.

Parentheses appear in the original text.
37.

Note of the Rebbe: “So it is written in the editions that I have seen. It would seem, however, that the text should have stated ‘Asiyah of Chochmah.’ Possibly, however, since the Alter Rebbe is speaking here of the difference between the finite and the infinite — the Torah at the level of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, as compared to the Torah at the level of Atzilut (where תורתך — ‘Your Torah,’ refers to the Torah of Atzilut, while שלמדתנו — ‘that You have taught us’ refers to the Torah of Beriah) — he therefore stresses ‘of Atzilut’.“

As to the relevance of this subject to our text: The infinity of the World of Atzilut lies in its correspondence to the Sefirah of Chochmah (i.e., the letter yud of the Four-Letter Name), while the Worlds of Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah correspond to the other [lower] Sefirot.”

38.

See Kohelet 3:7.
39.

In the original Heb. text, parentheses around the word להשפיע indicate that it should be substituted by the bracketed word להתלבש.
40.

Tehillim 104:24.
41.

Heb. text emended above according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
42.

Zohar I, 11b.
43.

Heb. text emended above according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
44.

Heb. text emended above according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
45.

Devarim 7:11.
46.

Eruvin 22a.
47.

Kiddushin 40b.
48.

Vayikra Rabbah 35:7.
49.

See the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:4, and the sources cited in the glosses there.
50.

In Yahel Or on Tehillim, p. 369.
51.

Shir HaShirim 1:2.
52.

See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XV, p. 282, and sources cited in the footnotes there.
53.

Conclusion of Tractate Tamid.
54.

Likkutei Sichot, Vol. X, p. 10, and sources cited in the footnotes there.
55.

Note of the Rebbe: “It will have been noted that the Alter Rebbe himself added letters to Iggeret HaKodesh (Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 170, et al.).”
56.

Note of the Rebbe: “For example: In keeping with the teaching that ‘from my flesh do I behold G‑dliness,’ [the above levels are here discussed] as found within man — in thought, speech and action.”
57.

Note of the Rebbe: “In all that follows, cf. Imrei Binah, Shaar HaKriyat Shema, sec. 32; the slight differences in the mode of explanation may be resolved without great difficulty.”
58.

Heb. text emended above according to the Glosses and Emendations of the Rebbe.
59.

Cf. Sanhedrin 21b.
60.

Note of the Rebbe: “In this respect, ‘letters of speech’ and ‘letters of thought’ are superior (to ‘letters of action,’ whose visual forms vanish [when depicted in another language], as they are superseded by its differing visual forms).”
61.

Note of the Rebbe: “What possible connection between the combinations and the enunciations [of the letters] prompted [the Alter Rebbe] to negate it? Possibly he is here anticipating the assumption that since [the letters of other languages] are not holy, they must perforce be on a lower level than those of the Holy Tongue (and surely — different). Hence he explains that the [difference between the letters of the Holy Tongue and those of other languages lies only] in their combinations.”

Leave a Reply