Likkutei Amarim Chapter 20 · 5785

00:01 Speaker 1 How nice. Today we’ll learn chapter 20 of Tanya. Ah, good.

00:13 Speaker 2 Go ahead.

00:15 Speaker 1 You surely remember what we’re talking about. Right, we’re talking about the hidden love. In the earlier chapters, chapters 16 and 17, the Alter Rebbe explains the principles of serving Hashem. He explains that it is very close to every person to serve Hashem, because everyone has a mind, and the mind rules over the heart. A person contemplates Hashem’s greatness, and then they’ll have love for Hashem. When they have love for Hashem, they’ll naturally want to observe the mitzvos and will fulfill them with love and awe, and so on. After he finishes explaining that, fairly briefly, the Alter Rebbe turns to the person who doesn’t succeed.

01:02 Speaker 2 Put it, put it in front of you.

01:06 Speaker 1 What should someone do if they can’t... either they can’t manage to contemplate, or they don’t know what to contemplate, or they haven’t learned enough, or they don’t have time? Does that mean they can’t serve Hashem? The Alter Rebbe says: Yes, even someone whose understanding of Hashem is limited and whose heart is... a heart of stone, not a heart of flesh. Though the Alter Rebbe doesn’t use such harsh words. Even someone who doesn’t really manage to arouse their heart through contemplation can serve Hashem. On the contrary, he says, even such a person can serve Hashem—not just in some way that... merely fulfills an obligation, but with a great love from the depths of the heart, and so on. How can that be? He says that each of us, every Jew, inherited a soul from the Patriarchs, and the nature of that soul is to love Hashem. It senses Hakadosh Boruch Hu, sees G-dliness, feels G-dliness, and therefore cannot separate itself from G-dliness. Because it cannot separate itself, it has an immense love for Hashem. When is that love aroused? The Alter Rebbe says that generally, in day-to-day life, we don’t feel it. When do we feel it? When we face a test... when we’re put to the test. This love is deeply rooted, very, very deep in the soul. But there’s a “but.” What is it? We don’t feel the love. It’s there; it exists. And not only does it exist, it exists with tremendous force. It’s powerful, immense, but it doesn’t reveal itself. When does it reveal itself? Only when a person is put to the test. When a non-Jew comes and threatens them: “If you don’t convert to Christianity, or, I don’t know, convert to Islam, change

03:09 Speaker 1 your religion, we’ll kill you.” Then that love awakens, and once it awakens, it has tremendous force, as he explained there at length. Those are chapters 18 and 19. After learning that, we were left with a question. What was the question? It’s wonderful that everyone has such a love, and that to serve Hashem with such tremendous love and awe, all we have to do is reveal it. Fine—but how do I reveal it? If the only thing that arouses this love, the only thing that stirs it, that reveals it and brings it out of concealment, is a threat to its very existence—a threat involving idol worship—well, I’m not threatened with idol worship every day. Remember we asked that at the end of the last class? So what does it mean that it’s very close to us to serve Hashem with this love? How? How do I reveal it? The Alter Rebbe says, and will begin explaining in our chapter, that in fact all the mitzvos, every one of them—both positive mitzvos and prohibitions, the entire Torah—are particulars of the commandment concerning idol worship. The mitzvah of sukkah has to do with idol worship. Lighting candles has to do with idol worship. Learning Torah has to do with idol worship. Keeping Shabbos. All the mitzvos are particulars of the commandment... of the prohibition against idol worship. Now, once I understand this as a Jew, once I understand the principle, it won’t just be something vague, some slogan thrown at me: “This, the entire Torah, is about idol worship.” I’ll understand it. So whenever I come to fulfill a mitzvah, if something holds me back—some desire that wants to prevent me from fulfilling it, or some other obstacle—then if I just... I’ll only need to remember what I learned: that this, too, is part of the prohibition against idol worship. If it’s

05:51 Speaker 1 idol worship, the very essence of the soul awakens. We’ve already discussed that. Right? What’s the source for that? That what? That everything in the Torah is particulars? I’m speaking generally about what we’re about to learn inside. Ah, okay. There’s a sicha in which the Rebbe really talks about this, about the meaning of... It’s written here; it’s a foundation of Judaism. That means it comes from the Written Torah. Clearly, there’s no doubt about it. So that’s the idea. It’s a principle that we’re now going to study over five chapters. The Rebbe explains, over these five chapters, how every single mitzvah, both positive mitzvos and prohibitions, are all particulars of the commandment concerning idol worship. And then, whenever I encounter a mitzvah—whether I’m fulfilling it or, if it’s a prohibition, taking care not to transgress it—at that very moment my hidden love will ignite. Every mitzvah will ignite it, and then I’ll constantly serve Hashem with that same deep, wonderful, powerful love. Is that clear...? So let’s start looking inside at how this works. But won’t that extinguish the... that? What? Won’t it extinguish that love? It can’t be extinguished. It can’t. Impossible. It’s constant, eternal; it doesn’t change. So let’s say there were situations, say, in Russia, with soldiers and wars, and eventually somehow it did work out, work out. What? In Russia, in America, if there were a war and we tried to fight. That’s it. Because there it wasn’t about... Ah, there we were talking about someone actually being threatened with idol worship. Here we’re talking about my needing to understand that every mitzvah, an ordinary mitzvah, is exactly the same as the actual prohibition against idol worship. Not figuratively—literally. Not some minor detail; it is the thing itself. That’s the whole explanation.

07:59 Speaker 1 And the whole point. Have you closed it? Chapter 20. Let’s begin; that was the prologue. [unclear]. Chapter 20. “Now, everyone knows this.” He starts with something everyone knows, which is why this is very close to everyone. What does everyone know? “That the positive commandment and the prohibition concerning idol worship, which are the first two commandments, ‘I am’ and ‘You shall have no other,’ encompass the entire Torah.” So everyone knows. You don’t have to tell anyone that, right? That’s why he says we heard them from the Almighty Himself. Hmm? And that’s why we heard those two from the Almighty Himself. We heard them from the Almighty Himself. There’s also a nice gematria about this, but, ah, not everyone has heard it, so let’s mention it too. “Torah”—this is well known—has a numerical value of 611. Two. We have 613 mitzvos. Six hundred and thirteen mitzvos, but “Torah” has a numerical value of 611. How many are missing? Two. Two. Why? Because the entire Torah that we heard from Moshe Rabbeinu consists of 611 mitzvos. The other two, “I am” and “You shall have no other,” we heard from Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself. And the Alter Rebbe says “the positive commandment and the prohibition concerning idol worship”: even “I am,” not only “You shall have no other,” which concerns idol worship. “I am Hashem your G-d” is also a commandment concerning idol worship. Why? Very simply, in the simplest terms. If a person—if I believe in Hakadosh Boruch Hu and believe in the oneness of Hashem, then I’m not denying Him, right? And conversely, if a person does deny the oneness of Hashem, then they don’t believe. Those are two aspects of the same thing. Two sides of the same thing. The same thing. So if “I am” and “You shall have no other,” which encompass the entire Torah, are two sides of the same mitzvah, the commandment concerning idol worship, then it follows that—and they encompass

10:09 Speaker 1 of the entire Torah. So it comes out that the entire Torah is the general principle, and all its details relate to the prohibition against idol worship. That’s it. We haven’t yet understood how, but that’s what it says. Now we need to be even more precise, because the Alter Rebbe says that “I am Hashem” and “You shall have no other gods”—no, they aren’t just the foundation of the entire Torah. He could have said that they are the foundation. Once a Jew believes in Hakadosh Boruch Hu, then if I believe in Him, I’ll do everything He says, right? It’s like a building resting on its foundation. The foundation is set in the ground; you don’t see it. On that foundation you can build this kind of building, that kind of building, all sorts of buildings. Yes, the whole building rests on the foundation, but there’s no inherent connection between the building and the foundation. You could put all sorts of buildings on the same foundation. So you could have said that “I am Hashem” and “You shall have no other gods” are the foundation of the entire Torah: if you believe in Hakadosh Boruch Hu, you’ll naturally keep all the mitzvos. No. They aren’t only the foundation; they encompass the entire Torah. Think of a seed from a tree: the tree later grows from the seed, and all the details that will later be in the tree were somehow contained, hidden, within the seed from the beginning, right? So “I am Hashem” and “You shall have no other gods” aren’t merely the foundation of everything—they encompass it. The whole Torah is contained within them. How? Everyone knows this. We know it, but when you think about it, how exactly? “Do everything because Hashem commands it.” Hmm? “Do everything because Hashem commands it.” Yes, but that’s only a foundation. Because if He had commanded other things? Of course, not other things. Yes, but th-that means... “But I’m saying...” Then it isn’t contained in them. “Contained” means

11:55 Speaker 1 that it comes from there. A foundation is a foundation; everything rests on it. And what can rest on it? All sorts of things. As you said, other things, different mitzvos. This isn’t only the foundation. All the mitzvos are there and come from there; that’s their root. Let’s put it this way: if, G-d forbid, someone eats orlah, it’s not just that we reject it because, well, Hashem said not to eat orlah; rather, it’s idol worship. It’s contained in the mitzvah of... Yes. How is it contained? Let’s see. “And ‘You shall have no other gods’ encompasses”—uh—“And therefore we heard ‘I am Hashem’ and ‘You shall have no other gods’ alone from the mouth of the Almighty, as our Sages said, because they”—“I am Hashem” and “You shall have no other gods”—“encompass the entire Torah. To explain this matter thoroughly...” How does that work? Obviously, this calls for an explanation. Take any mitzvah we like: what connection does it have to idol worship? We’re told there is one, and it’s well known, but what’s the explanation? “To explain this matter thoroughly, we must first briefly mention the nature and essence of the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, who is called One, Singular, and Unique.” So he uses three descriptions here for Hakadosh Boruch Hu: He is one—His oneness, yes—one, singular, and unique. When we say that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is one, there could be more. There are others, and He is one. There’s a sack full of apples here, and I took out one apple. There are plenty more apples inside, right? Saying He is one doesn’t yet rule out others. When we say He is singular, it’s like an only son to his father. There’s only... only one like him, not merely one among others. Fine, he’s his father’s only son, but there are other fathers too. There’s also... His father has only him, but no, He is singular in a way that is unique. Right? What does it mean that He is one, singular, and unique? As long as I say He is one, or even that He is singular, that doesn’t rule out the existence of a world. There is Hakadosh Boruch Hu, who is one. More than that, He is singular. Fine, He is singular, and there is the world. But once we say He is unique, there is no existence apart from Him. What does it mean, no existence apart from Him? What, I don’t exist? There’s me and there’s the whole world, right? Yes or no? Do I exist or not? Obviously. Does the world exist or not? It does. It says, “In the beginning, Elokim created the heavens”—so He created it, and the world does exist. Then what does it mean that He is unique? “Unique” means there is no other existence. But there is existence. How can you tell me there isn’t? Right? So we need to... So the Alter Rebbe says that, to understand how all the mitzvos are contained within “I am Hashem” and “You shall have no other gods,” you need to briefly understand—actually, not even understand. We must first briefly mention the nature and essence of the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The Alter Rebbe doesn’t explain it here; he only mentions it briefly. These are things studied elsewhere; here he only mentions them briefly. That “briefly” takes two chapters. But isn’t that also, say, because...? Because also—one moment, one moment. He says “mention” because it was in the first part. Just a few more words. Yes, we’ll get to that shortly. Right, right. First of all, as you say, we should say this already: why does he say “briefly” here? We already explained it at length in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. That’s twelve chapters.

13:45 Speaker 1 He is one—but not just one. He is singular in such a way that He is utterly unique. Right? What does it mean that He is “one, singular, and unique”? As long as I say He is one, or even that He is singular, that doesn’t rule out the existence of a world. There is Hakadosh Boruch Hu, who is one. More than that, He is singular. Fine—He is singular, and there is the world. But the moment we say He is utterly unique, we are saying that nothing exists besides Him. What does that mean? What, I don’t exist? There’s me, and there’s the whole world. Right? Yes or no? Do I exist or not? Of course I do. Does the world exist or not? It does. It says, “In the beginning, G-d created the heavens,” so He created them—so the world does exist. Then what does it mean that He is utterly unique? It means that there is no other existence. But there is an existence! How can you tell me there isn’t? Right? So we need to—so the Rebbe says that, to understand how all the mitzvos are included in “I am” and “You shall have no other gods,” you first need to understand briefly—or rather, we don’t even need to understand it here. We need to begin by briefly mentioning the concept and nature of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s oneness. The Rebbe doesn’t explain it here; he only mentions it briefly. These are things studied elsewhere, and here he just mentions them briefly. This “briefly” takes two chapters. But that’s not—[unclear]. In a moment, in a moment. He mentions it because it was in the first part. Just a few more words. Yes, we’ll address that shortly. Right, right. First of all, as you’re saying, we do need to say this here. Why does he say “briefly”? Because we already explained it at length in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. There, it takes twelve chapters.

15:48 Speaker 1 We explained it at length there. Here we mention it briefly—only two chapters. What is its nature and essence? So we said, all right, Hakadosh Boruch Hu is one, singular, and unique. What? What does that mean? As we say in the Musaf prayer on the festivals: “All believe that He alone is He.” What does “He alone is He” mean? Seemingly, it should say—we should say—“He alone exists.” Right? How would you phrase it? Only Hakadosh Boruch Hu exists. “He alone exists.” What does “He alone is He” mean?

16:32 Speaker 3 That it isn’t something.

16:34 Speaker 1 “He alone is He” means that even after the world was created, He alone is He, just as He was before the world was created.

16:47 Speaker 3 That it’s not.

16:48 Speaker 1 Not only is there no change in Him; there is no change in His oneness. Let me explain it better. That isn’t everything. The sun shines, right? There’s a sun, and it shines. Does the light that comes from the sun cause any change in the sun? No. No change at all. It remains the same weight, the same in every way. Nothing happened to it; it stayed the same. The light caused no change in it, but the light itself is a change. Before, there was no light; now there is light. Before, the world was dark; now it’s illuminated. Right. So an influence can make no change in its source, while bringing about a change in what receives it. Yes, so seemingly you could say: what does it mean that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is eternal and undergoes no change? There’s no change in Him, but He created the world. The world is something additional. It isn’t Him. Truly, there is no change in Him. We say no, you can’t put it that way. I mean, it’s not that you can’t; it’s not what we’re saying. What we’re saying is that even after the world was created, He remains one, singular, and unique, just as before. Before He created the world, before He shone forth any light, before He said, “And He said”—before “In the beginning”—He was He, only He; there was nothing else. Even after the world was created, there is still only He. Not only is there no change in Him; there is no change at all. Nothing changed after the world was created, as though it hadn’t been created. And soon we’ll see that it isn’t merely “as though”: in actuality, it truly wasn’t created, even though in actuality it was created. No change at all. How can that be? But that’s what we say. That’s why the wording is “All believe”—believe. Why do we believe that “He alone is He”? I don’t

18:54 Speaker 1 feel that. I feel that the world was created.

18:56 Speaker 3 Interesting—the heat does cause a change in it.

18:57 Speaker 1 Huh?

18:58 Speaker 3 The heat that it produced.

19:00 Speaker 1 Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, by Whose word everything came into being.

19:03 Speaker 3 Amen. What does it say in the machzor?

19:15 Speaker 1 “All believe that He alone is He”—just as He was before the world was created, exactly as He was before the world was created. What was there? He alone was there. Before the world was created, what was there? Only He was there; there was nothing else. And as we say: “You are He before the world was created; You are He after the world was created.” Where do we say that?

19:36 Speaker 3 In davening.

19:37 Speaker 1 In davening. Right: “You are He before the world was created; You are He after the world was created.” Seemingly, it should say—we should say—“You are He before the world was created and after the world was created.” Right? Why repeat “You are He”?

19:54 Speaker 3 Because it’s the same One.

19:55 Speaker 1 For “You are He”: just as You alone were He before the world was created, even after it was created, You are still He. What does “You” mean? What does it mean that it is still the same? There is a world now. How are You still He? No, that’s just it: it remains the same. There is no change at all. We believe it and say it, but what is the explanation? So they explain it further. Actually, “You are He” contains two opposites. What is “You”? “You” addresses someone present, someone you can point to. “He” is the third person, someone hidden. You don’t see him; he isn’t here. So “You” refers to the world, to revelation. We see that there is a world; something has been revealed. “He” refers to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He alone is He. What was there before? What are we saying? “You are He before it was created.” Before the world was created, there was also “You”—there was a world—but it was included within “He.” It had no existence of its own. “And since the world was created, You are still He.” It still has no existence of its own. Nothing has changed. That is according to Kabbalah. What does “He” mean? Literally He. This isn’t—In several places in the maamar in Tanya, the Alter Rebbe wants to stress that he isn’t saying this as a metaphor. He means what he says. Literally. Without any change. As it is written, “I, Hashem, have not changed.” “I have not changed” means that there has been no change in Me, says Hakadosh Boruch Hu, from before the world was created to after it was created. Not only has there been no change in Me; there has been no change in My oneness either. It is as though nothing was created. If we say something was created, then He may not have changed, fine, but His oneness has changed. He is no longer alone; there is someone else besides Him. If not, then even

22:07 Speaker 1 after the world was created, there is nothing besides Him. It does not exist. How does that work? Hmm? That’s a question. He says more than that: Not only this world, but all the higher worlds as well bring about no change in His oneness when they are created from nothing into something. You might have said, fine, this world really is nothing at all. Even after it was created, it doesn’t exist. But the higher worlds have a reality of their own; they are something significant. So he says no: the higher worlds, too, are nothing and naught, exactly like this world. It is as though they were never created at all. Just as He alone was one—and not only one, but, as we explained, uniquely one—before they were created, He alone is He. Again, the same wording: one and uniquely one after He created them. The Alter Rebbe’s wording here is very interesting. There are wonderful subtleties in it. Notice: “Just as He alone was one and uniquely one before they were created.” According to that, it should have said the same thing afterward: “He alone is one and uniquely one after they were created.” How should it have been written? Either say “they were created” in both places, or say “He created them” in both places. Do you understand what I’m asking? Take a look at the wording inside. Do you see the change in the letter? With the Alter Rebbe, a change in one letter isn’t just a change in a letter; it teaches us something about the content. There is a whole idea in that letter shin. When we say that the worlds “were created,” it is like what we say in Tehillim: “Praise Hashem, for He commanded and they were created.” What does “they were created” mean? Didn’t anyone create them? “They were created.” In the Torah it says, “In the beginning, Elokim created.” What does “created” mean? Hakadosh Boruch Hu performed an act; He did something and created worlds. Right? “Created” describes an action; it’s a verb. But when we say “they were created” or “were created by Him,”

24:42 Speaker 1 what does that mean? Literally, it means they were created on their own. No one created them. Do you understand what’s contained in that? It’s explained. We learned this here at length once, but I’m sure you’ve forgotten. That’s all right; it’s been a year already.

25:12 Speaker 4 A year?

25:15 Speaker 1 Last year we learned the Rebbe’s maamar “Great Will Be the Glory of This House.” It’s explained there, in that maamar. The Rebbe explains it there. Actually, it’s drawn from a maamar of 5660, but the point is that the Rebbe explains it there: There is a way the worlds are created through the name Havayah, Yud-Kei-Vav-Kei, and a way they are created through the name Elokim. We won’t go into the whole lengthy explanation now, but the gist—or the point, not even the gist or the point, just the heading of what is explained there—is that through the name Havayah, things come into being as a matter of course. Through the name Elokim, created beings come into being through investment, through an action, through doing something. For example, when a person thinks about something, a feeling of love for it arises in his heart on its own—or hatred, anger, irritation, or whatever. Because he is thinking about it. In other words, the mind affects the heart as a matter of course. A person doesn’t need to perform some action: “I want to get angry now, so what should I do?” He just thinks about the thing, and the heart responds on its own. That’s called happening as a matter of course. There is also a way in which Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates the world that is called coming into being through the name Havayah. Things are created—so to speak, Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants them, but the moment He wants them, He does not occupy Himself with creating them; they come into being on their own. Of course, what is created in this way are very, very high worlds that are nullified to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And there is another kind of creation, through investment, by way of the name Elokim. “And He said”—speech. Here, worlds are created that have a sense of their own existence, a sense of self, that feel themselves to be something much more distant. So there are two modes of creation. The Alter Rebbe says that just as Hakadosh Boruch Hu was alone before He created the higher worlds, which are nullified

27:27 Speaker 1 to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so He alone is He after He created even the distant worlds that have a sense of themselves. Whoever understood that, understood it. We can manage without it too. It’s a wonderful idea, but I don’t know—I don’t want to elaborate on it now. “For everything before Him is considered as nothing, as absolute nothing and naught.” Why? What is the reason? Why is the whole world, even after it was created—where did Chani go? Hmm? Oh, dear. Why? That’s the point. Why do all the worlds, even after they were created, bring about no change whatsoever, not even in Hashem’s oneness? Because they are nothing at all. They are such absolute nothing and naught in comparison with Hakadosh Boruch Hu that there is nothing here at all.

28:35 Speaker 5 I started with them and now I can’t stop. I shouldn’t have started. I’ve gotten myself tangled up.

28:47 Speaker 1 Before we continue, I want to sharpen this point, because it’s an important point here. It’s important to understand for everything that follows. This isn’t written inside, but it’s something we need to understand. When we say that the worlds are nothing and naught compared with Hakadosh Boruch Hu, what does that mean? Broadly speaking, He is immense, He is great, He is infinite, and here there is this little something that is nothing at all. Say there’s a person at home, eating, studying, taking care of the children, right? And there’s some fly—not even in the same room, but in the corner of the next room. It doesn’t exist as far as he’s concerned; it doesn’t bother him. It’s not a reality at all. So he says: What is the explanation? Since all the worlds are truly nothing and naught, even after they were created, they make no change in the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Right? That sits a little better with the mind, with—right? Is that understood? No one has a question? How can you explain it that way? All right, what are we trying to say? We’re trying to say that even after the world was created, there was no change in Him at all. What does it mean that there was no change? It was created. Something small was created; a fly was created, a zero was created, nothing was created. Fine, but it was created. How can you say there was no change? Say it was a small change, a negligible change, whatever you want—but something was created. How can you say nothing was created? How can you say “He alone,” literally He? It isn’t literally only Him. Something else was created, even if it is nothing at all. It’s zero, it’s nothing. As we’ll see throughout the rest of the chapter, something was created. Right? What kind of answer is that? The question is a strong question, but what kind of answer is that? Seemingly, it’s an answer

30:54 Speaker 1 That it, that it isn’t worth anything. Right? And here we come to the point you mentioned earlier—that’s the heart of the matter. Originally, the Alter Rebbe wrote this part of the Tanya and wanted to print it after Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. In this explanation, the Alter Rebbe relies on what he wrote there. There, in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, he already explains what it means that “there is nothing else”—that none of the worlds has an existence of its own. After everything explained there, a question still remains, and here he explains it more deeply. All right? This entire explanation rests on what he explained in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. It adds another layer of depth to what’s written there. What does it say there? It explains the Baal Shem Tov’s approach at length. The Rebbe lays it out over six chapters there. Let’s give an analogy. Let’s give two analogies—not the ones brought in Tanya, but simpler ones to make it easier to grasp, though we’ve heard this many times already. We’ve spoken many times about a person standing in front of a mirror, right, and seeing his image in it. Is the image in the mirror a reality or not?

32:31 Speaker 6 Not a reality.

32:32 Speaker 1 Hmm?

32:32 Speaker 6 Not a reality.

32:36 Speaker 1 So, like this. Someone might come along and say—

32:41 Speaker 6 It has no existence of its own.

32:42 Speaker 1 Could someone come along and start investigating, contemplating, thinking? He conducts a study: What is that image in the mirror made of? On the one hand, I can see it—there it is; on the other hand, when I leave, it ceases to exist. So what conclusion will he reach? He’ll conclude that there’s some kind of image here that exists on condition that someone is standing... That’s nonsense. Nonsense. The image exists on condition that...? The image is him; it’s his reflection. The entire existence of that image consists of someone standing in front of the mirror. True, in practice there’s something else here, but that “something else” exists only as a revelation of him. If he isn’t there, there’s no “something else.” It’s not that there’s another thing here, conditional on his being there. There is no other thing here. This “other thing” is only an extension and revelation of the person standing before the mirror. There’s no one else here. Right? So yes, in practice there’s an image here, but the image has no independent existence. Its entire existence depends on him; its whole definition is that it reveals him. You can’t say there’s another thing here—it’s him! Right? And another analogy people give, which is a little harder to understand but very relevant here, is a stone that’s thrown. When you throw a stone, it was lying on the ground before, and now it’s flying through the air. Right? Has the stone changed while it’s flying through the air? Has anything about the stone changed?

34:34 Speaker 6 No.

34:34 Speaker 1 Nothing. It’s still the same. It hasn’t turned into a flying stone. It remains a stone with the same properties. What has changed now? The fact that it’s flying, that it’s traveling, that it’s moving. That has changed, right? Now let’s set the stone aside and focus only on its movement, right? As though there’s nothing here but movement. Why is it moving? There’s some force moving it, right? So what is the reality here? Can we say there’s movement of the stone here? There’s nothing here. There’s a force moving the stone. True, in practice there is movement here, but the stone’s movement isn’t something independent. It isn’t something that came and appeared in the stone, something that was created. It’s an expression of the force moving it. So essentially, apart from the force moving it, there’s nothing here. Right?

35:40 Speaker 6 It’s a force that moves it.

35:42 Speaker 1 So that—

35:43 Speaker 6 It doesn’t come from within the stone.

35:45 Speaker 1 Right, I’m not talking about the stone; I’m talking about the stone’s movement. Its movement, the fact that it moves, its movement is... In fact, there’s no movement here. There’s the force, and the force—once the force is gone, then it’s... like when a person moves away from the—

36:01 Speaker 6 It isn’t part of the stone.

36:02 Speaker 1 It isn’t part of the stone, and it also isn’t something separate from the force. What we wanted to say wasn’t that it isn’t part of the stone, but that it isn’t something separate from the force moving it. Its movement is the force moving it. There’s nothing else here. Apart from the force moving it, there’s nothing else. The movement is an expression of the force. Like the image of a person standing before a mirror—it’s an expression of the person standing before it. Along these lines, the Alter Rebbe explains this point there, over several long chapters in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah: the entire existence of the world is only an expression of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Hakadosh Boruch Hu radiates a light, and that light brings things into being. So what does that mean? We always say, and we like to repeat, that Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates the whole world anew, from nothing, at every moment. Hakadosh Boruch Hu isn’t occupied with each thing individually, right? Hakadosh Boruch Hu radiates a light—a light whose nature is to create beings—and the entire existence of those beings is due to this light being present. This light brings about their existence. So can you say there’s an existence of created beings here? There’s no independent existence here. The entire existence of created beings is the existence of the light, of G-dliness. That’s what he explains there in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. Right. So what follows? What’s missing from the explanation there, from this explanation? The explanation is that the worlds are essentially... What was explained? It was explained that the worlds have no existence of their own. Right? Yes. Why don’t they? Because they’re only an expression, a reflection of Him, and so on. So they have no existence of their own. Fine, they have no existence, but they do have significance, don’t they?

37:45 Speaker 6 Yes.

37:46 Speaker 1 He created them. If He took action to create them, that itself means He wanted them to be created. Well, if Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself wanted them to be created, then they have significance. You could say, fine, they have no existence of their own, but they do have significance. So how can you say that He alone exists and there is nothing else within His oneness? Before, they weren’t there; now He does want them—there’s something here that grants them a certain significance. Right? To address that, the Rebbe comes along here in chapter 20 and says that it’s not only as we explained in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah—that the worlds have no existence of their own. They also have no significance whatsoever. Why do they have no significance? Because they are literally nothing and naught. All right? Now, to understand just how much they are nothing and naught, the explanation begins here. Until now, we were speaking only in general terms. Now we’re going to explain just how much the worlds are nothing and naught. That they have no existence of their own—we settled that long ago. Now, they’re also nothing at all. That’s what these two chapters address. “For the coming into being of all the upper and lower worlds from nothing into being, and their vitality and continued existence, which sustain them”—there are several things here: He brings them into being. Hakadosh Boruch Hu brings them into being, right? First, they didn’t exist, and now they do, so He brings them into being. Then He not only brings them into being, He also gives them life. There’s movement here, there’s vitality. And He not only brings them into being and gives them life, He also sustains them. They continue to exist. So there are three actions here. The bringing into being, the vitality, and the continued existence: “which sustain them so that they do not revert to being nothing and naught as they were at first, are only the word of Hashem and the breath”

39:35 Speaker 1 “of His mouth, blessed be He, which are clothed within them,” as we explained earlier. And what is that word of Hashem? Here the Rebbe explains just how much this word of Hashem is nothing and naught. In other words, all the worlds come into being, live, and continue to exist through the word of Hashem. What is the word of Hashem? It’s like—by way of analogy, “the Torah speaks in human language.” Why is the creation of the world called speech in the Torah? “The world was created through ten utterances.” Why? Why does the Torah call it speech? Because it’s analogous to human speech. My speech doesn’t create anything. The speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu does create worlds. So obviously, the speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu isn’t literally speech; it’s only an analogy. Why is the vitality that brings into being—

40:24 Speaker 6 “And G-d said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

40:27 Speaker 1 Correct.

40:28 Speaker 6 Yes, He said it.

40:29 Speaker 1 But that’s... No. The Torah is using an analogy. Hakadosh Boruch Hu has no mouth, no vocal cords, no human form. So why is it called “And He said”? Why do you say... why does the Torah use the language of speech for it? There’s no speech there. Hakadosh Boruch Hu doesn’t speak. Why does the Torah call it speech? It’s an analogy. So he wants to say even... We need to understand the analogy. What’s the connection between the analogy and what it represents—between my speech and... Why is the G-dly power that creates the worlds called speech? Why call it speech? Call it light. Call it an emanation. Why speech? What’s the connection to speech? So here he explains the analogy: “For example, in the human soul, when a person says one thing”—meaning one word—“this single utterance is truly as nothing even in relation to his entire speaking soul.”

41:39 Speaker 6 What does that mean?

41:41 Speaker 1 A human being is called “the speaking species.” Right. What is a human being called?

41:49 Speaker 6 “The speaking species.”

41:50 Speaker 1 From “the speaking one.” Why is he called “the speaking one”? Because he has a soul that knows how to speak—the speaking soul of a person. A person’s power of speech is its intermediate garment. We already learned in the previous chapters that there are three garments: thought, speech, and action. The power of speech is the intermediate garment. So first of all, the speech that brings all the worlds into being is only... Let’s leave Hakadosh Boruch Hu aside; for us, speech is only a garment. We’ll learn the whole analogy, and only at the very, very end will we discuss what it represents. All right? No, don’t get confused. First we want to say just how utterly insignificant speech is. First of all, speech is only a garment; it isn’t the essence of the soul. Right. Now, of the three garments, it’s the intermediate one. It isn’t the inner garment; it isn’t thought. It’s only the intermediate garment. And this power of speech, this intermediate garment, can speak words without end. Here, a person’s actual speech is limited. A person can’t speak forever; he gets tired, and even after 120 years his allotment runs out. But the power of speech is an infinite power. In other words, a person’s speech is limited because it is clothed in a body. The limitation comes from the body. The body gets tired; the muscles, the body, can’t speak anymore. But the soul’s spiritual power to speak has no limit. It’s infinite.

43:40 Speaker 6 They say there’s a quota for how much you can talk.

43:43 Speaker 1 Huh? What? What’s that?

43:46 Speaker 6 Teachers in the classroom.

43:47 Speaker 1 Yes.

43:48 Speaker 6 How much do you talk? It’s as though you’re using up your...

43:51 Speaker 1 That’s true. That’s true. It’s written in books of Kabbalah. It’s no joke.

43:55 Speaker 6 There’s a quota.

43:56 Speaker 1 Yes, there’s a quota, certainly, but that applies to the body, not to the...

44:02 Speaker 6 The spirit.

44:03 Speaker 1 Certainly.

44:04 Speaker 6 Now you can choose.

44:06 Speaker 1 It says in the books that every person comes down, every soul comes down into the world, with a set number of letters. That’s the allotment. When it runs out, you can’t...

44:15 Speaker 6 So that doesn’t mean you...

44:16 Speaker 1 Depart from the world.

44:18 Speaker 6 If you write, then it’s all right.

44:20 Speaker 1 Huh?

44:20 Speaker 6 You can write.

44:21 Speaker 1 The power of speech...

44:22 Speaker 6 There’s a bigger bag, isn’t there? No, no, no, we’re not talking about running short of money.

44:28 Speaker 1 But this allotment is an allotment, um, and it’s up to one’s choice...

44:35 Speaker 6 Yes, that’s all speech. Maybe it only means, say, idle talk, or if someone spoke words of...

44:38 Speaker 1 No! That’s the whole point: a person has free choice. Will he use his bag...

44:46 Speaker 6 If he spoke falsely, then, like, if he spoke falsely, then...

44:47 Speaker 1 No, no, no, no, no. There’s a fixed allotment, and that’s it. The question—the choice a person has—is whether to use it for Torah matters or for, um, other matters. That’s his choice. The allotment is the allotment. But all of this is from the perspective of the body, not the soul. From the perspective of... even from the perspective of the—not the soul itself, but the soul’s garment, the speaking garment of the soul—its power to speak is infinite. The limitation comes from the body, on the... Now, we’re just chatting away. What value does one utterance, one word, have compared with the soul’s power of speech? It isn’t just that one is limited: this is one word, and that is infinite. Yes?

45:39 Speaker 6 And if you’re teaching Torah classes, that could be normal.

45:43 Speaker 1 Come on, come on, come on, let’s get back to the text.

45:46 Speaker 6 It’s just, um...

45:48 Speaker 1 Exciting, exciting...

45:50 Speaker 6 Yes.

45:51 Speaker 1 Exciting.

45:51 Speaker 6 It captivates the women.

46:00 Speaker 1 Which is closer to infinity: one or a million?

46:04 Speaker 6 Both are far away.

46:07 Speaker 1 There’s no difference. One and a million are equally far from infinity. There’s no difference at all. Infinity has no limit. What value does one finite word have compared with the soul’s infinite power to speak?

46:27 Speaker 6 What does it mean that it has infinite power? That isn’t clear.

46:29 Speaker 1 It isn’t something you can... Come on, come on.

46:34 Speaker 6 All right, fine, leave that aside.

46:35 Speaker 1 Is everything clear so far?

46:39 Speaker 6 Yes.

46:39 Speaker 1 Good. The next step.

46:40 Speaker 6 Comes down from what?

46:42 Speaker 1 The next step. The Rebbe says: “All the more so.” What does “all the more so” mean? It’s an argument from lesser to greater. If one word, one utterance, is utterly insignificant compared with the power of speech, because this is finite and that is infinite, then all the more so, one word is utterly insignificant compared with the inner garment of the soul, which is thought. The words of speech flow from thought, and thought gives them life. Why is this an argument from lesser to greater?

47:15 Speaker 6 Because thought is also...

47:16 Speaker 1 The power of thought is infinite, like the power of speech.

47:19 Speaker 6 But it’s greater than the power of speech.

47:21 Speaker 1 In what way is the power of thought greater than the power of speech?

47:23 Speaker 6 It’s more infinite.

47:25 Speaker 1 It isn’t more infinite.

47:27 Speaker 6 It’s inward; it doesn’t want...

47:29 Speaker 1 That’s a difference in quality, not a difference in quantity. The power of speech is a physical power. So speech and the power of speech are, after all, the same kind of thing. Thought is something else. Thought isn’t speech. Thought is the life that... When a person speaks, what does he say? He says what he’s thinking, right? In other words, speech is the body, and within the physical body of the words—the air coming out of the mouth—the content, the thought, is clothed. Right? So thought is the soul of speech. Yes? In other words, the relationship of thought, of the power of thought, to the power of speech is like that of soul to body. One is spiritual and the other physical. Right? So if one word is utterly insignificant compared with the power of speech because that power is infinite, then all the more so, one word is utterly insignificant compared with the power of thought. Because the power of thought isn’t only infinite; it’s also spiritual, not physical. So all the more so it’s infinite. Yes, as though it were more infinite. I don’t know how to put it. And “needless to say,” on line fourteen. “And needless to say,” one word is utterly insignificant compared with the nature and essence of the soul—its ten faculties mentioned above, Chochmah, Binah, Daas, and so on—from which flow the letters of the thought clothed in this speech as one speaks. We already learned in chapter 4 of Tanya that the soul’s garments are only garments for the soul itself. Ultimately, even the garment of thought is, as we said, only an action; it isn’t the person himself at all. He can think things that he doesn’t understand and doesn’t believe. Right. So if speech is utterly insignificant compared with thought, then what is one word compared with the essence of the soul, the soul’s faculties?

49:44 Speaker 7 Mathematically, zero.

49:47 Speaker 1 Now, it’s interesting: concerning the relationship of speech to thought, he says “all the more so.” But concerning the essence of the soul, he doesn’t say “all the more so.” He says “needless to say.” What’s the difference?

50:06 Speaker 7 It doesn’t even fit into that comparison. An argument from lesser to greater.

50:10 Speaker 1 It isn’t on the same level at all. It isn’t. There’s nothing to discuss. You say “all the more so” when something is true on a smaller scale, so it’s certainly true on a larger scale. But when you’re talking about something of an entirely different nature, it isn’t “all the more so”; it’s “needless to say.” Right. Because thought, too, consists of letters, like speech. Thought is also of that kind, but it’s more spiritual—its letters are more subtle and spiritual. But... But the ten faculties—we’ve turned the page—but the ten faculties, Chochmah, Binah, Daas, and so on, are the root and source of thought, and they don’t yet have letters. The Chochmah, Binah, and Daas and the emotions in the soul don’t have letters before they are clothed in the garment of thought. What does it mean that... that there are no letters in thought? So he explains. For example, what does it mean to understand something without thoughts? When a certain love and desire arises in a person’s heart: he sees something and wants it to be his, to have it close to him. He hasn’t thought about it yet. He’s only just seen it, heard it. Right. Before it rises from the heart to the mind to think and reflect on it, it doesn’t yet have letters. He’s only just seen the thing. A desire for it has awakened in his heart, and he hasn’t thought about it yet. There are no letters there, only desire. He has only a simple longing, not composed of letters, without words, and a yearning in his heart for that thing he finds desirable. So in the heart, before he begins thinking about the thing, there are no letters. And he says, “All the more so before the desire and longing for that thing arose in his heart, when it existed only in the potential of his wisdom, intellect, and knowledge”—when he knew that the thing was desirable, pleasant, good, and beautiful. When a person sees something and is drawn to it—say he sees something—why is he drawn to it? Because he knows that it’s good, right?

52:32 Speaker 8 Because of the power of thought.

52:34 Speaker 1 No! We’re not talking about thought. Without thought. There’s some tasty food here, something with a very enticing smell. Right? All right? When you have it there—or they put it in front of his eyes, and he starts to smell it—a desire for it awakens in his heart. Right?

53:00 Speaker 8 Without, without, without breathing in between. Small sips without breathing in between.

53:10 Speaker 1 When you put a cake in front of a person, a desire is aroused in him. Why does he want it? Because he knows it’s good. How does he know it’s good? He knows it in his mind, with his intellect. Right? But as long as he hasn’t seen it, his heart won’t be stirred. Right? Why does his heart become stirred? Because he knows it’s good. So what comes first? First he knows that this sort of thing is good, that it tastes good, and so on. Right? Then, because he knows that, a desire is aroused when he sees it. Afterward he starts thinking about how to get it, or what to do with it. Right? So what follows from this sequence? When are the thoughts, the words, born? When does he start thinking about the thing?

54:00 Speaker 8 When he sees it.

54:01 Speaker 1 When he sees it and becomes excited and stirred. But in that initial excitement, before he starts thinking, there are still no letters. So what does that tell us about the knowledge he had that the thing was good, even before it was in front of his eyes? There are certainly no letters there. Right? So what is one word worth compared with that knowledge itself, where there are no letters at all? We spoke about how speech is nothing compared with thought. True, it’s not just a difference in quantity but in quality too—but thought still has letters. One word compared with the thing itself, as it exists in his chochmah, binah, and daas, where there are no letters at all, is truly nothing and naught. Right. Far more so than what we discussed before. It was only—on line seven: “It was only present in the potential of his wisdom, intellect, and knowledge, for he knew that the thing was desirable, pleasant, good, and beautiful to acquire and become attached to—for example, studying a particular discipline of wisdom or eating a tasty food.” When were the letters born? “Only after the longing and desire had already arisen in his heart.” Why did it first exist in the potential of his wisdom, intellect, and knowledge? Because he knew it was good. “And afterward it returned and rose from the heart to the mind, to think and reflect on how to bring his desire from potential into actuality—to obtain the food or actually learn that discipline. It is then that the aspect of letters is born in his mind: the letters of the language of each people, in which they speak and think about all the affairs of the world.” But before that, there was nothing. Right. Oops, time’s up. What’s the application? What’s the application?

55:50 Speaker 8 Now.

55:50 Speaker 1 Because you gave the analogy, but you didn’t give its application.

55:52 Speaker 8 Now.

55:54 Speaker 1 No, there’s no next week. That’s it. You’ll have to figure out the application yourself. What’s the application?

56:00 Speaker 8 I’ll tell you the application.

56:02 Speaker 1 What were we trying to say about this chapter?

56:04 Speaker 8 All transgressions are idol worship.

56:05 Speaker 1 What did we say—yes, in this chapter. What do we need to begin explaining in this chapter? That all the worlds not only have no independent existence. We want to explain the oneness of Hashem. What does the oneness of Hashem mean? That the creation of the worlds brought about no change. Not only did it bring about no change in His essence; it also brought about no change in His oneness. Even after the world was created, nothing was created. What’s the explanation? First of all, none of the worlds has independent existence, as explained in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. Ah, they don’t have independent existence, but do they have significance? Right? Sorry. Do they have significance?

56:45 Speaker 8 Relative to what?

56:46 Speaker 1 All the worlds were created through speech. What is speech? It says, “For with Yud-Hei, Hashem formed the worlds”—all the worlds were created with one word, with Yud-Hei. With the Yud, all the concealed, hidden, higher worlds were created, and with the Hei, this world was created. Hakadosh Boruch Hu created all the worlds with two letters. So Hakadosh Boruch Hu created all the worlds with one word. What is one word compared with the power of speech? It is nothing and naught. And thought, in comparison, is nothing and naught; the faculty itself is beyond comparison. So if the entire existence of all the worlds—existence. The worlds have no independent existence, right? They only have significance. And what is their significance? They have no significance at all. So what follows? The worlds not only have no independent existence, they also have no significance, no standing at all. And if they have no standing, then there is no change whatsoever in the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Just as before the world was created He alone existed, so after the world was created, there is still nothing else.

58:02 Speaker 8 So what about, um, significance? There is a purpose to the creation of all the worlds.

58:07 Speaker 1 That’s not for now. It’s true, but that’s not—not for now. Here, we’re discussing—

58:11 Speaker 8 Purpose.

58:11 Speaker 1 Here we’re discussing—what we’re discussing is understanding how the entire Torah consists of details within the service of Hashem. First we need to understand what the oneness of Hashem means. What you’re saying is true, but it doesn’t relate to what we’re discussing here. That’s in chapters 36 and 37 of Tanya; it isn’t the subject being explained here. What is? What does the oneness of Hashem mean? That Hashem is one. Not only one—He is the only One. And not only the only One—He is utterly one. Not only before the world was created, but after the world was created too. There is no change whatsoever. He alone exists. What do you mean, He alone? I see the world. Excuse me. First of all, everything you see is not something independent. It’s all, as it were, only a reflection of Him. You might say, “Fine, but it has significance. After all, He saw fit to create the world; He wanted to, and He created it.” No, no, no, no. All the significance you’re talking about is nothing at all. It’s like speech, like a single word. But this explanation isn’t enough. Something is missing. It’s still not complete oneness. What’s the problem with this explanation?

59:23 Speaker 8 Something external.

59:24 Speaker 1 Relative to what do the worlds have no significance? Relative to Him, they have no significance.

59:29 Speaker 8 Relative to what?

59:30 Speaker 1 Relative to—what was the whole explanation up to now?

59:32 Speaker 8 Relative to Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

59:32 Speaker 1 Relative to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, they have no significance at all. But what about me? What does that mean? Right. So we need one more chapter to explain that the worlds not only have no significance relative to Hakadosh Boruch Hu; they also have no significance in their own right. That’s chapter—chapter 21. Chapter 21.