Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah Chapter 10

00:00 Speaker 1 That’s it, is this who we have today? Good.

00:02 Speaker 2 [unclear].

00:04 Speaker 1 Yes. We’re up to chapter 10. In the last two chapters, 8 and 9...

00:13 Speaker 2 Let’s say this is in the merit of Ilana bas Rosa Firuza.

00:15 Speaker 1 In the merit of Ilana bas Rosa Firuza.

00:17 Speaker 2 And for the elevation of the soul of Herzl ben Rachel.

00:19 Speaker 1 And for the elevation of the soul of Herzl ben Rachel. In the last two chapters, 8 and 9, we learned the difference between, uh, the sefiros and created beings. Let’s briefly recall what we discussed so that what we’re talking about here will be clear. In the first seven chapters of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, the Alter Rebbe explained that created beings are utterly nullified in their source and origin. Right? Like sunlight within the sun: just as sunlight, when it is in its source, within the body of the sun, has no existence of its own, so too created beings are, as it were, constantly within their source and origin. Therefore, they have no existence of their own; they are utterly nullified. Then, in chapter 8, he began explaining the sefiros. In other words, if we want to say that Hashem is One, that there is nothing besides Him, that He alone exists, it isn’t enough to say that nothing else exists besides Him—that there are no other created beings. We also need to explain why He Himself is not composite. How can you say He has sefiros? He has will, wisdom, knowledge, kindness. How can you say that? If He has various attributes, then He is composite, and if He is composite, then He is not absolutely simple and one. How can that be? We also need to explain His own oneness, His unity. So the Alter Rebbe began explaining the unity of Hashem, the matter of the sefiros. What is the difference between the sefiros and created beings? Created beings were created something from nothing, while the sefiros were drawn forth and emanated. That was the central point of the explanation. What is the difference between something from nothing and being drawn forth and emanated? He explained it in the previous two chapters. He says this: “Something from nothing” means that Hakadosh Boruch Hu took nothing and made a reality out of it, made something out of it. So since the entire existence of that “something” comes from nothing, what is it made of, that something?

02:27 Speaker 1 What is that something made of? It was made from nothing. Meaning that even while it exists, what is its essence? What is it made of? It’s made of nothing. Without the Divine power, the utterance that says “Let there be light,” “Let there be a firmament,” and brings created beings into existence—without that utterance, it has no existence. Its entire existence consists of its being made right now. Because on its own, it is nothing. You took nothing, and there’s nothing there. That’s created beings. You can’t say that about the sefiros—that they are something from nothing. The sefiros are not something from nothing; they aren’t nothing, they didn’t come from nothing. The sefiros were drawn forth and emanated. They are a revelation of Him. So, G-d forbid, you can’t say about the sefiros that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is nothing, that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is a void. G-d forbid. You can’t say that the sefiros are nothing. It makes no sense to say such a thing. And...

03:26 Speaker 2 Shalom.

03:30 Speaker 1 Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, through Whose word everything came to be.

03:34 Speaker 2 Could you coordinate with me, please?

03:41 Speaker 1 So what can we say? We can’t say that the sefiros are nullified in their source and don’t exist, because that would be the opposite—the complete opposite—of the point. On the other hand, we also can’t say that the sefiros are an existence in their own right. If you say they are, then they’re separate. So how does this work? How do we resolve this contradiction? He explained that the sefiros were drawn forth and emanated. What does that mean? It means that the sefiros are a revelation of Him. Hakadosh Boruch Hu reveals Himself in the form of will, in the form of kindness, in the form of wisdom. But who is being revealed here? He Himself. It isn’t someone else. Now, it’s true that there is no comparison between the World of Atzilus, between the sefiros, and His Essence and Being. Meaning, it isn’t just a difference of five levels; it’s a distance of infinitely many levels. But there, in the World of Atzilus, despite that incomparable distance, who is being revealed? He Himself. And on this he explained two sides. On the one hand, he said that the Kabbalists know how to explain the process by which the sefiros were drawn forth and emanated from the Infinite until the World of Atzilus came to be. If you want to, you can study it. It isn’t really something that... it isn’t a fundamental matter of faith. Anyone who wants to can study it. There are explanations for it; it’s called “the hidden things.” What are “the revealed things, for us and our children”? To believe with complete faith that despite the vast difference, despite the sefiros being utterly incomparable to Him, they are nevertheless one with Him. That’s something you can’t understand intellectually. It isn’t possible to understand it intellectually, but through faith, a Jew can grasp it. A Jew accepts it naturally. When you tell a Jew that the sefiros aren’t something separate from Him, that they are one with Him, the Jew believes it. He doesn’t need

06:05 Speaker 1 proofs for that. So those are the two sides of the sefiros: it’s possible to understand how they were drawn forth, but you don’t need to, and these are deep and difficult matters. On the other hand, what does matter to us is believing that Hashem is One, the only One, that there is nothing besides Him; that He is not composite; that the sefiros are not something separate from Him. You tell a Jew that, and he believes it with simple faith, and that settles it. Because the nature of the sefiros—this is how he ends chapter 9—is not intellectual, not something that can be understood intellectually, they are called raza d’meheimnusa, “the secret of faith.” And with that, he finished explaining why the sefiros of Atzilus are called the secret of faith. Why are they called the secret of faith? Not because we can’t understand them, but because their very essence is not intellectual. Their essence is a matter of faith. All right? That was chapters 8 and 9: the difference between the nullification of created beings and the unity of the sefiros. Chapter 10. The Alter Rebbe begins by saying that although we’ve just said there is no way to grasp how the sefiros are united with G-dliness, no way to understand it—it’s a matter of faith—nevertheless, there is an analogy that brings it a little closer to our understanding and explains a certain detail, giving us some grasp of it. All of chapter 10 deals with that analogy, which does explain something: something we can understand about how the sefiros are united with G-dliness, with the very essence of G-dliness. So let’s see. Chapter 10: “Nevertheless, since the Torah speaks in human language, to make the ear hear what it is capable of hearing”—and the entire Torah consists only of allusions to G-dliness—“the sages of truth,” the sages of Kabbalah, “were therefore given permission to speak of the sefiros by way of analogy.” The Torah gave the sages of Kabbalah permission to offer an analogy for the sefiros, even though this is something that can’t be understood. And the sages of Kabbalah

08:27 Speaker 1 made use of the permission the Torah gave them and called them—called the sefiros—“lights.” In other words, the term “lights,” used for the sefiros, Atzilus, the World of Atzilus, is an analogy that the sages of Kabbalah gave for the sefiros. Why did they call the sefiros specifically “lights”? Why didn’t they call them an emanation, or letters, or something else? There are all sorts of analogies. Why is this particular analogy the main one? Because the analogy of lights has an advantage that other analogies don’t have. Through this analogy of lights, calling the sefiros “lights” gives us some basis for comparison. We can understand a little of the unity of Hakadosh Boruch Hu and His attributes. That same thing we said was a matter of faith, the secret of faith, something that isn’t intellectual at all—through the analogy of lights, we get some sense of it. His unity with His attributes is, by way of analogy, like the unity of sunlight within the body of the sun with the sun itself, which is called the luminary. No one’s asking the question. Wow, wow. I was sure you would ask! This analogy is very surprising. After all, he used this same analogy of sunlight being nullified within the sun for created beings, and here he wants to explain the exact opposite. Everything he explained about created beings was that in their source they are nullified; they have no existence of their own. What he wants to say about the sefiros is that even as they are nothing and naught, they have that same validity and are truly one with G-dliness. It’s the exact opposite. How can we understand the sefiros through the same analogy we used to understand created beings? So let’s first see what he says, and then we’ll look at the... we’ll explain it inside the text. First, let’s read the Alter Rebbe’s words simply: “Which is, by way of analogy, like the unity of sunlight within the body of the sun”

10:56 Speaker 1 With the body of the sun, which is called a luminary. As it says, “the greater luminary,” and so on. How do we know the sun is called a luminary? There’s a verse: “the greater luminary,” in Bereishis. And the radiance and the ray that spread out from it and shine—the light that comes from the sun—what are they called? That is called light. How do we know that the light is called light? There’s a verse: “And G-d called the light day.” An explicit verse. So we know that light is called day, and day is called light. Now, when the light is at its source, within the body of the sun, before it has emerged from the sun, it is united with it in absolute unity. Because before the light emerges from the body of the sun, there is only one entity there: the body of the luminary that shines. That’s what we learned in chapter 3. Remember? At length: when does light have an existence of its own? When it leaves the sun. When it is within the body of the sun, its existence is nullified there. But here he doesn’t say that its existence is nullified. He uses slightly different words: when it is within its source, it isn’t nullified in its existence; rather, there is only one entity there, the body of the luminary that shines. What is the difference between saying that its existence is nullified—as we said there in chapter 3, that it has no existence—and saying that it is one entity with the body of the luminary that shines? We aren’t saying it has no existence. On the contrary, we’re saying its existence is united with its source, that it has now acquired the strength of its source. That is exactly the opposite. So which is the real picture: the way he explained it there, or the way he explains it here? A few more words, and then we’ll explain. All right? I’m pointing out the questions as we read. There are a few more questions here; we’ll get to those in a moment too.

13:06 Speaker 3 David, that’s surprising. David, that’s surprising.

13:13 Speaker 1 Why? Why is the light one with the essence of the body of the luminary that shines? Because the radiance and the light there are literally one entity with the body of the luminary that shines. And the light, as long as it has not emerged from the luminary, has no existence at all in its own right. So that is the analogy. And what is the lesson? Precisely the same—and even more so—is true of the attributes, will, and wisdom of Hakadosh Boruch Hu in the World of Atzilus, in relation to His essence and being, so to speak, which is enclothed within them and united with them in absolute unity. One interesting detail about this analogy is that, unlike the analogy in chapter 3, where he says that the light is nullified at its source, within the body of the sun, here he brings verses to prove the point. There, the light is nullified relative to the luminary. Right?

14:21 Speaker 3 So what is the point of bringing the verses here?

14:24 Speaker 1 So first, why does he bring them here but not there? Second, do I need proof from a verse that the sun is called a luminary? Wouldn’t I know that otherwise?

14:35 Speaker 3 Right.

14:38 Speaker 1 The same goes for light. Do I need proof from a verse that light is called day—is that how I know it? And if I couldn’t know it without the verse, why didn’t you bring these details there?

14:52 Speaker 3 Right.

14:55 Speaker 1 Yes. So we see that even though it looks like the same analogy, there is a difference here, probably a major difference. In fact, he wants to say the exact opposite. So what’s going on? Let’s explain it this way. When, um, an effect emerges from a cause—we have cause and effect, meaning a source and... or a root and an extension, right?—that can happen in two ways. There is one way, for example... By their nature, emotions are not intellect; they don’t think. They involve being moved and feeling toward someone else. Those are two completely different things. Now, it’s true that for an emotion to be born, it comes through intellectual contemplation. The intellect gives birth to it. And if the intellect gives birth to it, we have to say that before it was born, it was first in gestation, within the intellect. Now, what was the existence of those emotions within the intellect before they were born? We don’t yet have emotions. Right now the intellect is only contemplating something that will bring it to love. At this point there is no love yet; it is only contemplating.

16:56 Speaker 4 Right, nothing.

16:59 Speaker 1 Nothing. Why nothing?

17:01 Speaker 4 Because it doesn’t have any definite substance.

17:03 Speaker 1 Not because it has no substance. It’s because what will be born afterward is not intellect. Within the intellect, as intellect, there is no source for emotions. Intellect is intellect; it isn’t emotion. It can give birth to emotions, so emotions do have a root in the intellect. But what does the root of the emotions look like within the intellect? It doesn’t look like emotions; it looks like intellect. That’s why we say that when the emotions are at their source and root, their existence is nullified. There is no existence of emotions here. There is intellect that will later develop into emotions, but there are no emotions as emotions. At their root, they don’t look like emotions; they look like intellect. In other words, at their source and root they are nullified; they have no existence. That is one way. All right? The second way is like when... ah, a thought, an intellectual idea, is drawn from the essence of the intellect. In the essence of the intellect there are no ideas, no concepts. It is only the capacity for understanding, a capacity that can grasp concepts. But it itself doesn’t have... It’s not as though there’s a whole collection of ideas there and each time you draw one out. No. There is only a capacity to understand, but no actual ideas. When the concept emerged, where did it come from? The capacity for understanding grasped it, gave birth to it. Right? What was the existence of that concept before it was born, while it was still included in its source and root? Can we say there too that it was nullified relative to its source?

18:51 Speaker 4 No.

18:51 Speaker 1 Not there. Why?

18:54 Speaker 4 It was—

18:54 Speaker 1 Because it is intellect. When it emerges, it is intellect. So what gave birth to it? Something intellectual gave birth to it. It doesn’t contradict its source; it isn’t something different. Its nature is intellect. It is a revelation of the intellect. So when it is within its source and root, it isn’t nullified. On the contrary, it is united with its source and root. It has much greater strength there. There it isn’t merely some limited idea; there it is one with the essence of the intellect. There is no... Right? These are two completely different things. Now, what determines whether the light, the radiance, the extension, is one way or the other? It isn’t the source that determines it. It’s the result. If the result is something different, then while it is in its source and root, it is nullified to them. And if the result is an extension of the source, then on the contrary, while it is in its source and root, it draws strength from the source and truly unites with it. Is that clear so far? Now, the further the thing that is born—the extension—is from its source, then... Hmm?

20:16 Speaker 4 Which one is more [unclear]?

20:17 Speaker 1 No, I’m saying—take intellect and emotions: the emotions are nullified relative to the intellect. Right? But if the intellect could give birth to something much lower than emotions, something much more different from intellect, then clearly, while it was in its source, before it was born, it would be even more completely nullified. The more different it is when it emerges, the more completely it is nullified before it emerges. If we say that created beings come into existence from nothing—which is the greatest possible difference; there can’t be a greater difference than that—then when they were in their source and root, their existence was utterly nullified. And if we say the exact opposite about the sefiros, that the sefiros are, um, an extension of Him, then on the contrary, when they are in their source and root, He and they are truly one. It is exactly the opposite.

21:21 Speaker 4 I understand. So creation from nothing is the greatest degree of nullification.

21:33 Speaker 1 Since a separate, physical existence is the thing furthest from G-dliness, what did it look like when it was in its source and root, before He created it? It was most completely nonexistent, most completely nullified; it had no existence at all.

21:49 Speaker 4 So that fits with the, with the—

21:51 Speaker 1 With the sefiros. The sefiros are analogous to an idea emerging from the source of intellect. Since the existence of the idea is intellectual, similar to the source that gave birth to it—which is also intellect, except that the idea is revealed intellect, while its source is only the capacity for understanding—then before the concept is grasped, while it is still in its source and root, it is truly one with it. It’s not that there is an intellectual capacity and something else within its source and root that will later emerge. No. When the intellectual idea is in its source and root, there is only the intellectual capacity. There isn’t something else there. There isn’t something else that will later emerge.

22:35 Speaker 4 Okay.

22:36 Speaker 1 And it is the thing itself.

22:38 Speaker 4 It’s more hidden from view.

22:40 Speaker 1 That’s a completely different matter.

22:41 Speaker 4 Okay.

22:42 Speaker 1 Here we’re talking about how, in the first way we explained the relationship of the middos to the intellect, the created being becomes nullified when it is in its source; it loses its own existence. But with the sefiros, which are like the intellect emerging from its source and root, it is a radiance, a drawing forth, an emanation. So it’s exactly the opposite. Not only is it not nullified; it’s exactly the opposite. It is now truly one with its source and root. There aren’t two things here. Its existence is the existence of its source. Okay? Now, if we look at another... I don’t want to read more of the passage inside, but if we look at it now, everything will be clear. There, in chapter 3, the Alter Rebbe speaks about the nullification of light within the body of the sun. That is, the sun has the light it gives off, and it has the matter that makes up its physical body. Right? So the light is nullified in relation to the body, to the sphere, to the physical substance of the sun, just as the middos are nullified in relation to the intellect. They are two different things. There is the body of the sun and there is the light; they are two different things. Right? That’s why the light is nullified and has no existence of its own. But the sefiros in relation to G-dliness are not like sunlight in relation to the body of the sun. They are like light in relation to the luminary. Right? And the very nature of a luminary is to shine. So when the light is in its source—not in the source as a physical body, but in the source as a luminary whose nature is to shine—then there isn’t a separate light here. There is only one thing: the very essence of the shining luminary. There is nothing else here. Okay?

24:37 Speaker 5 Yes.

24:37 Speaker 1 All of that is contained in the wording here. Good. Now that we’ve understood the idea—this is the content of chapter 10—he continues on line seventeen... Actually, let’s start from line thirteen. “And precisely so, and even more so, are Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s middos, will, and wisdom in the world of Atzilus, united with His essence and being, so to speak, which are vested within them and united with them in absolute unity.” Why? Because the middos were not created; they did not come into being as something new. Rather, they were drawn forth and emanated from Him, blessed be He, “by way of analogy, like the spreading forth of light from the sun”—light spreading forth from the luminary, not from the body of the sun. “But not...” So if this is so clear and so understandable, why do you say it is only a matter of faith, and so on? He says: No, no, no. It isn’t actually like this. This is only a remote analogy, far beyond our comprehension, because His ways are higher than our ways. In the end, physical light and its luminary are two different things. In G-dliness they are not two different things; they are truly one.

26:06 Speaker 5 Okay.

26:06 Speaker 1 Hmm?

26:06 Speaker 5 I said, the higher one.

26:09 Speaker 1 So we cannot really understand it at all, and that is why it is called raza demeheimnusa, the secret of faith. But it gives us some sense of the direction. A little sense of it. That’s what the Alter Rebbe says: it gives us a little sense. “Nevertheless, to make this intelligible to the ear, let us listen and reflect on the analogy of sunlight, which is united with and nullified within its source and has no name of its own whatsoever.” What is there in the body of the sun? In the body of the sun, the body of the luminary, there is only the source itself. There is no separate light. And when we say there is no light, it isn’t because the light has been nullified and no longer exists. Just the opposite: it is because it is one with the luminary, and the luminary is one with it. “So too, all of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s middos, will, and wisdom are not considered or called by these names at all.” Up to this point, the Alter Rebbe has explained the unity of the sefiros with G-dliness. Now we need to understand the other side. If all the sefiros are truly one with G-dliness, how is it that I see wisdom here, kindness there, and might over there, each with a different function? There is only one here, isn’t there? Right? When are they called by these names, if they are one with G-dliness and there is only the very essence of the luminary, with nothing else besides it? How can you call it kindness one time and might another time? They “are not considered or called by these names at all, except in relation to the created beings, higher and lower,” the beings created from nothing into something. That means the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah. Their coming into being, their vitality, and the way they are governed—the created beings come into existence from nothing into something. Once they exist, they have their characteristics. We spoke about their being round, blue, hot, cold, and so on. That is their vitality. And where does their very existence come from? From the sefiros. And there is their

28:23 Speaker 1 vitality—where do their characteristics come from? From the sefiros. And there is the way they are governed. As the Midrash puts it, “The world will exist for six thousand years”: two thousand years of tohu, two thousand years of Torah, and two thousand years of the days of Moshiach. So during those two thousand years of tohu, there was tohu in a general sense—the nature of the world, a pattern of governance characterized by tohu. Right? And similarly in each generation in particular.

29:00 Speaker 6 You’re talking about tohu va-vohu?

29:01 Speaker 1 Yes.

29:01 Speaker 6 Ah.

29:04 Speaker 1 Exactly. So there are three aspects of created beings: their coming into being, their vitality, and the way they are governed. All three are through the sefiros, through which Hakadosh Boruch Hu brings them into being, gives them life, and governs them. How does He do this? Through His will, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, which are vested in His holy middos. As the Midrash states, “The world was created through ten things.” How did Hakadosh Boruch Hu create the world? Through wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and so on. As it is written, “Hashem founded the earth with wisdom.” With wisdom He founded the earth. “He established the heavens with understanding; through His knowledge the depths were split open,” and so on. And as Eliyahu says, “You brought forth ten faculties, and we call them ten sefiros, with which to govern the worlds.” Why did You, Hakadosh Boruch Hu, make ten sefiros? Because You brought them forth. When do you call them sefiros? “You brought forth ten faculties.” As long as we are speaking of the sefiros as they are from Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s perspective, as He sees them, there are no sefiros here. There is only His essence and being, truly one. There isn’t even the name “sefiros” here. When do you call them sefiros? When You go forth with them to govern the worlds.

30:32 Speaker 6 It’s like one of those two-sided pictures: if you look down, it’s all empty space, and if you look up, it’s all Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

30:38 Speaker 1 Yes, there are many analogies for this. We’ve already discussed one of them. Suppose you tell a young child a parable with a profound meaning. The child hears the parable and hears a nice story. It never occurs to him that there is some deeper idea inside it. That doesn’t make the parable something devoid of intellectual content. Its content, its inner meaning, its truth, is a profound intellectual idea. What does the child see? Only what he can grasp with his own faculties. But that isn’t the reality at all. The reality he sees isn’t the true reality. When I see wisdom there, it isn’t really wisdom; it is His essence and being.

31:15 Speaker 6 An actual illusion.

31:19 Speaker 1 “With them to govern the hidden worlds”—even the concealed worlds—“and the revealed worlds. And within them You conceal Yourself.” So there are two things: with them You govern the worlds, and within them You conceal Yourself from the worlds. Both sides. Understood? Now we can also say Patach Eliyahu with some understanding when we say it on Erev Shabbos. Not necessarily with full intent—at least we can understand what we’re saying. And he goes on to spell it out by way of an example: On the first of the six days of Creation, when Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world, the middah of chessed was revealed. The middah of chessed as it includes all His holy middos—as we’ve learned several times, the middos of holiness include one another—and His will, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge are vested in it as well, in the middah of chessed. And through the middah of chessed, with everything vested within it, He created light. Why? Because light is an expression of abundance, of giving, of chessed. So with the middah of chessed He created light through the utterance “Let there be light,” an expression of light spreading forth and being drawn down into the world from above, spreading throughout the world from one end to the other. It says that with the light Hakadosh Boruch Hu created on the first day, a person could see from one end of the world to the other. It was a kind of boundless light. Today we can’t see that far. That is an expression of the middah of chessed. But because it also includes the middah of gevurah, the light that was created was not spiritual like the light above. It had a form resembling the light we know. So this is what it means that Hakadosh Boruch Hu brought the world into being, created it, and governed it through the middos. On the first day, which is associated with the middah of chessed, He created beings characterized by chessed. But because chessed includes gevurah, those beings were somewhat more physical and did not become spiritual, and they did not, they...

33:20 Speaker 1 Not unlimited. What does it mean that Hakadosh Boruch Hu governed the world? During the first thousand years, which correspond to the first day, Hakadosh Boruch Hu governed the world through the attribute of kindness, and so on. That attribute was also enclothed in this world, which is finite and limited—a journey of five hundred years from earth to heaven and from east to west. So not only did the light become dense and material, becoming physical light; it also became limited in space: above, below, east, west. That was on the first day. And the same is true of the second day. On the second day, the attribute of might was revealed, and it, too, included the other attributes and His will, and so on. Through it He created the firmament with the utterance, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate water from water.” That separation is a form of contraction and severity, concealing the spiritual upper waters from the lower waters. And through the attribute of might, the lower waters became physical when they were separated from the upper waters. We have to say that the attribute of kindness is included in it, in the attribute of might, because “the world is built through kindness.” So even though He separated the upper and lower waters, and the lower waters became physical, becoming a created, material entity, the whole thing was an act of giving. He created something; He brought something into being. So kindness is included in it. It was all so that dry land would appear, with man upon it to serve Hashem. And the same is true of all the attributes. So Hakadosh Boruch Hu brought the entire reality of the attributes into being for the sake of the lower realms, and they are called “attributes” only in relation to the lower realms. This is what Eliyahu said there in Tikkunei Zohar, in the passage we recite: “to show”—to show how the world is governed with righteousness and justice, and so on. What are the attributes for? To show how the world is governed with kindness, righteousness, and justice. Righteousness means judgment. How is the world governed with righteousness? It means, how is it governed with judgment? Justice is mercy: that the world should be governed in a way of justice. All the attributes are there “to show”—to show how the world is governed, how the world is governed—

35:40 Speaker 1 how the world is governed. That is what the sefiros are for: to bring the world into being, give it life, and govern it. But “it is not that You possess a known righteousness.” The attribute of righteousness—why is it called righteousness? Because it governs the world with righteousness. But that does not mean You are righteousness, or that You possess righteousness. You have no righteousness. From Your perspective, from the perspective of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, the attributes are one with You. Yes: “It is not that You possess a known righteousness, which is judgment, or a known justice, which is mercy.” You have no mercy, no judgment, no righteousness, nothing—“You are not any of these attributes at all.” So once you grasp the point of this chapter, it really provides a foundation—a very broad and solid foundation—for understanding... I don’t know if I can say all of Chassidus, but for understanding what G-dliness is, what the sefiros are, what bittul is, and the difference between bittul of one’s existence and the oneness of the sefiros with G-dliness. All the fundamentals of faith in the oneness of Hashem are in this chapter—in these three chapters, 8, 9, and 10. Good. So that concludes the Alter Rebbe’s explanation of why Hakadosh Boruch Hu is not a multiplicity, not a unity composed of parts. The fact that He has sefiros—that is Him Himself. People often want to say: Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world. How did multiplicity come from absolute oneness? Well, the multiplicity did not come from Him; the sefiros created the world. Right? So what—

37:37 Speaker 7 Why say the sefiros created the world? The Creator of the world created the world.

37:40 Speaker 1 Right. It’s a mistake to say it that way. You’re right. That’s how people try to explain it: He is absolute oneness, so how can multiplicity come from absolute oneness? They say the multiplicity doesn’t come from Him; it comes from the sefiros. No. The sefiros are Him.

37:54 Speaker 7 …

37:56 Speaker 1 We call them sefiros because we see sefiros, not because they are sefiros.

38:02 Speaker 7 Can you explain what sefiros are? Because I don’t...

38:04 Speaker 1 …

38:05 Speaker 7 What are sefiros?

38:08 Speaker 1 Ah, sefiros. One second.

38:16 Speaker 7 Okay.

38:22 Speaker 1 So these three chapters—8, 9, and 10—explained the oneness of the sefiros with G-dliness, the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Now, that isn’t the end of it. Why not? Because when Hakadosh Boruch Hu actually created the world, He did not create it through the sefiros. He created it through speech.

38:42 Speaker 7 Speech, right.

38:42 Speaker 1 The Torah says the world was created through ten utterances. Right? Now, the speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu was not created ex nihilo. Right? His speech is not a created thing; it is G-dliness. It created the world. It is part of the Creator. So to explain that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is one, unique, and indivisible, it isn’t enough to say that the sefiros do not introduce multiplicity within Him. We also need to explain that the utterances do not introduce multiplicity within Him. Right? That is what the next chapter is for. And even that is not enough, because ultimately, when He actually creates the created beings, He creates them through speech and through letters. So ultimately there are countless G-dly forces here, each one creating, bringing into being, giving life to, and governing a particular created being. Once again, we have an endless multiplicity of individual forces that actually create—the force of the maker within what is made. So once again, we have multiplicity. We need one more chapter, chapter 12, to explain that the force of the maker within what is made, and the letters that create the created beings, do not constitute multiplicity either. Right? So, once again, now we have the framework of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. The first seven chapters explain the bittul of created beings: “There is nothing else besides Him.” And the chapters from chapter 8 onward explain the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That divides into three parts: the oneness of the sefiros with G-dliness, in three chapters; the oneness of the utterances with G-dliness, in chapter 11; and the oneness of the letters with G-dliness, in chapter 12.

40:33 Speaker 8 A blessing. It’s deep, but—

40:38 Speaker 1 …

40:38 Speaker 8 You didn’t explain to me what sefiros are. Right.