Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah Chapter 11

00:02 Speaker 1 All right, good evening. We’re up to chapter 11, toward the end of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. We spoke two weeks ago—I mean, in the chapter... last week, chapter 11 last week. Yes, right. We discussed how the second half of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, from chapter 8 to the end, deals with the unity of Hashem. The first half, through chapter 7, explains that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is not one among a number. There is nothing besides Him: no other G-dliness, no other existence. He is the only existence there is. But how can that be? There are created beings. The created beings are utterly nullified; they add nothing to Him. So even after He created them, He remains the only One, because they are utterly nullified. That was the general explanation of the first part. Then it begins to explain that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is not only not one among a number; He is also not a composite unity. He isn’t made up of several powers. How can we say He is a simple unity? After all, we speak of His will, His wisdom, His knowledge, His kindness. He has attributes, will, and wisdom. How can we say He is one? The explanation in chapters 8, 9, and 10 was that all of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s attributes—not only the attributes, all the sefiros—

01:33 Speaker 2 emanate—

01:34 Speaker 1 they are only an emanation, a radiance, and a revelation of Him. They aren’t something else; they aren’t created from nothing. They are He Himself, revealed in one way or another. But how can they be He Himself? Wisdom is infinitely distant in its standing from His essence and being. The answer is: that we cannot understand. It is a matter of faith. But throughout those three chapters, with explanations and an analogy and so on, the point was that the sefiros are only an emanation from Him. Therefore, the existence of sefiros, will, wisdom, and kindness does not constitute multiplicity. That was chapters 8, 9, and 10. Then, at the end of the previous class, at the end of the last chapter we studied, we were left with a question. We’ve learned that created beings do not introduce multiplicity into Him, and the sefiros do not introduce multiplicity into Him. But the Torah says—the Sages said in the Mishnah: “The world was created with ten utterances.” The world wasn’t created with the sefiros. The world was created through the speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so to speak, through utterances. And speech, at least in a human being, is something separate from the person. It goes out from him; it isn’t part of him. The whole purpose of speech is for someone else. A person doesn’t speak when he’s alone. The whole purpose of speech is for the oth— There are people who speak when they’re alone too, true. But there are special places for them. The purpose of speech is to speak to another person. I want to convey my feelings, my thoughts, to someone else—to bring what’s inside me out. For that, I need speech. A person on his own doesn’t need speech. So the very fact that the Torah likens the creation of the world to utterances implies that there is something external with which Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world. That brings us back to the question:

03:47 Speaker 1 How can there be multiplicity in G-dliness? In other words, besides wisdom and understanding and so on, besides the attributes, there are also utterances. And the utterances, seemingly, aren’t part of Him. They aren’t an emanation or a radiance; they aren’t a revelation of Him. Well, created beings don’t count, and the sefiros don’t count, because they are united with Him, nullified to Him. But there are utterances. If there are utterances, that’s something else besides Him. How can that be? Chapter 11 comes to answer this.

04:17 Speaker 2 Didn’t he already answer this in chapters 20 and 21?

04:23 Speaker 1 No. No. There, in chapters 20 and 21, he discusses the nullification of created beings to G-dliness. To clarify just how thoroughly created beings are nullified, he uses five levels within a person as an analogy, just as he does in our chapters. He returns to that analogy in chapter 15 as well. But there, the analogy explains how vastly distant created beings are from the Creator—the immeasurable gulf between something and nothing. Here he’s asking a different question. He’s asking: Since the utterances are utterly incomparable to Him, they aren’t Him. So if they aren’t Him, there is another existence besides Him.

05:25 Speaker 2 But he already said that the speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu is different from our speech. The whole question only works if it’s like our speech.

05:32 Speaker 1 Even if it’s different from our speech—our speech doesn’t create worlds; it doesn’t create anything. But even if it’s different from our speech, the very fact that it’s called speech matters. Speech means something that goes outward. It’s no longer within Him; it’s outside. It’s something external to Him. How can it be external? Now, you might say: What about created beings? Created beings certainly aren’t Him, right? So not just speech—created beings also aren’t Him, and they’re external too. There’s something else besides Him. But created beings aren’t the question, because we explained that although they aren’t Him, although they’re external and were created from nothing, they are utterly nullified. Their existence is null; their existence amounts to zero. But you can’t say that about the utterances. You can’t say they’re nullified. They aren’t nullified. It is He who speaks; it’s His power. So on the one hand, you say they have existence; they are His power. On the other hand, you say they aren’t Him; they’re outside. That gives us multiplicity. How does it fit together? That’s what chapter 11 comes to explain. Or, as we said more generally at the end of the previous class, in the second half of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, he first explains the unity of the sefiros with G-dliness, then the unity of the utterances with G-dliness, and then, on a lower level, the unity of the powers that descend to bring created beings into existence—that they too are united with G-dliness. That’s the next chapter. Chapter 11: “Now, the ten utterances too”—not only the sefiros, but the ten utterances too—“are called utterances only in relation to created beings.” So here we have the answer. Yes, sometimes the answer comes first, and then the explanation. What we call “utterances” are utterances from my perspective.

07:24 Speaker 1 From the perspective of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, they aren’t called utterances. Just as we said about the sefiros: they’re called wisdom or kindness or will only because that’s how I see them. From the perspective of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, each is truly united with Him like light within its source—not like sunlight and the body of the sun, but like light within its source. Do you see the difference?

07:47 Speaker 2 No.

07:47 Speaker 1 Hmm?

07:48 Speaker 2 What’s the difference?

07:51 Speaker 1 May I go over it again?

07:52 Speaker 2 Yes.

07:52 Speaker 1 Not everyone was here anyway, right?

07:55 Speaker 2 Maybe they weren’t, but they remembered.

07:58 Speaker 1 We said... the Rebbe explains—sorry, the Rebbe... To make the nullification of created beings to G-dliness more accessible to the mind, the Alter Rebbe brings, in chapter 3, the analogy of sunlight being nullified to the sun. Just as sunlight, when it’s outside, is something insignificant, but when it’s inside the body of the sun, it is utterly nullified and has no existence of its own. That’s more or less the analogy; he explains it there at length. In chapter 10, the Alter Rebbe comes to explain the nature of the sefiros. You can’t say the sefiros don’t exist, that they’re utterly nullified. The sefiros are G-dliness. Right? G-d forbid to say they don’t exist. So if they exist, why isn’t that multiplicity? He says: I have an analogy. What is it? It’s like sunlight being nullified within the sun. Excuse me. In chapter 3, you said the analogy of sunlight being nullified to the body of the sun explains how created beings have no existence of their own. And here, in chapter 10, you bring the same analogy to explain how the sefiros do have existence. It’s the same analogy. Yes, that’s a question the Rebbe asks. Many chapters, a lot... What’s the point of the explanation? If you look at the fine details, at the Alter Rebbe’s wording of the analogy, it isn’t the same analogy. There’s a slight difference, and that small difference turns the analogy on its head. What’s the difference? In chapter 3, he speaks of light being nullified to the body of the sun. In chapter 10, he speaks of light being nullified to its source. What’s the difference between the two? The body of the sun isn’t made of light; it’s made of some physical substance. I don’t know—hydrogen, carbon, I don’t know what it’s made of. Yes, some... helium, I don’t know. Some kind of gas, who knows what.

10:10 Speaker 1 I don’t know, I don’t know exactly what’s there. It’s made of some kind of physical substance. The substance of the sun’s body is not light, and so when the light is in its source and root, it is nullified. What’s the analogy? The analogy he gave is the nullification of the emotions within the intellect. When emotions are born from the intellect, before they are born they are included in their source, in the intellect. When the emotions were included in their source in the intellect, before they were born, what did they look like? What form did they have? They had no form as emotions. There are no emotions in the intellect; there is no feeling in the intellect. In the intellect there is a decision that one should feel something, a decision that one should have compassion. That’s a decision. It’s an intellectual matter. There is no feeling there. The nature of intellect is not the nature of feeling. Intellect is cold and moist, while the emotions are the opposite of intellect in every possible respect. That’s why we say that when the emotions were in their source and root, they were nullified, because there was no existence of emotions there. Right? Now, the more different the nature of the source is from the nature of what emerges from it, the more nullified that thing is while it is in its source. So the most extreme example you can imagine in the physical world, of a source and something that emerges from it, is the body of the sun and light. These are two things whose natures are utterly different. One is physical, heavy, enormous, and the other is airy, soft, almost spiritual. And one emerges from the other. So because the nature of light is so different from the body of the sun, clearly, while it was in its source and root, before it emerged into actuality, it was nullified; it had no existence of its own. That is the state of created beings in relation to G-dliness. In chapter 10, he speaks about something entirely different. He isn’t talking about the nullification of light within the sun’s body, but about the nullification of light within its luminary. When you think of the sun not as some physical thing that shines, but as a luminary—there is something there that shines, whose whole nature is light—what does the luminary do?

12:46 Speaker 1 It shines. And what does the light do? It reveals the luminary. It isn’t something else. An analogy for this is an intellectual idea that emerges from the essence of the intellect. The essence of the intellect, the faculty of intellect—yes, the power to conceive, the potential faculty of intellect, whatever you call it—the essential intellectual faculty is not an idea. There is no idea there. You can’t think with it; it only gives birth to ideas. When a person exerts himself at the source of his intellect to understand something, an idea is born. Right? What does the idea look like before it is born? Earlier we asked what the emotions looked like when they were within the intellect, before they were born. Now we are asking what an idea looks like when it is within the essence of the intellect, within the intellectual faculty, before it is born. What does it look like? It doesn’t look like anything. There aren’t two things there. When an idea emerges from the essence of the intellect, what emerges? An idea emerges, and it is the intellect itself that has emerged. Something else hasn’t emerged from it. When emotions emerge from the intellect, something different emerges. When an idea emerges from the essence of the intellect, it is the intellect itself. It isn’t someone else. So while it is in its source and root, there aren’t two things there. There is only the essence of the intellect. There is nothing else there. Right, so the relationship of the sefiros to G-dliness is along those lines, and the analogy is from the physical world. It is like the nullification of light within the luminary. Why did we get into all this? I don’t remember anymore. What?

14:44 Speaker 3 Like, the utterances, that all this is...

14:48 Speaker 1 I mentioned something about last week’s class and saw that there was... a gap in the middle. Yes.

14:56 Speaker 3 Like, he’s talking about the question of things that... when he was in chapter 26.

15:03 Speaker 1 Ah, ah, ah, ah.

15:04 Speaker 3 That’s what stayed with me today.

15:08 Speaker 1 Well, that isn’t relevant to our chapter. In any case, what we want to understand now is how the utterances, although they seem to be separate, are—the truth is that they, too, are not merely nullified to G-dliness; they are extensions of G-dliness. That’s what he explains at the beginning. He says that we call them “utterances” because we—the world, the created beings—hear utterances; that is what brings them into being. But the true reality of the utterances is not what I feel, not what I see. The true reality of the utterances is He Himself. Just as the emotions are only a revelation of Him, the utterances, too, are only a revelation of the emotions; they aren’t something else. And he explains this. Why do we say that? Because they are called “utterances” because they resemble the way a person utters something, the way a person speaks. So he first explains how this works in the analogy, with us. When the emotions in a person’s soul come to be revealed in action, they come clothed in the letters of thought. When a person, uh, feels tremendous compassion in his heart for a poor person, right? That compassion won’t put his hand in his pocket and open his wallet. It has to be clothed in the letters of thought. The feeling is too lofty to be clothed directly in a person’s capacity for action, and certainly to have an effect outside himself. The Rebbe is speaking here about the emotions, about feeling, but this isn’t—this is true not only of feeling. Desire, too: for me to know what I want, it has to be clothed in the letters of thought. For me to know what I understand, I can’t understand without thinking. Right? All of a person’s inner faculties, intellect and feeling, must pass through thought in order to be revealed outwardly. The intellect itself is too lofty. After it is

17:19 Speaker 1 narrowed down into thinking, into letters, then it can, uh, come out into action. When they come to be clothed, they come clothed in the letters of thought. For example, the soul’s attribute of kindness and compassion cannot actually be revealed in practice, by giving tzedakah to a poor person, unless one thinks about it and contemplates doing acts of tzedakah and kindness for others. To actually do it—because one cannot act without thought. So that is regarding thought. And it isn’t only action that cannot happen without the letters of thought. Speech, too, cannot happen without the letters of thought. If he commands others to act, as a king does, then the attribute of kindness, together with the letters of thought, is clothed in the letters of speech. That is an even more external action. So if a person’s emotion, his feeling, wants to be clothed in action, the letters of thought are enough. But if he wants to affect someone else as well, it isn’t enough for his feeling to be clothed in the letters of thought. His thought must then be clothed in the letters of speech, and when he speaks, the other person will hear what he wants and do it. He notes in parentheses that this is true not only when a person commands someone else to do something, but also when a person simply speaks words of kindness and compassion to his fellow. So, in fact, every word we speak contains thought within it. In other words, it isn’t only speech directed to another person, a command to do something, that has to be clothed first in the letters of thought and then in speech. All speech must follow this order: first there is some feeling, a desire to express something; that is clothed in the letters of thought, and the thought is clothed in the letters of speech. It cannot be otherwise. So that is the analogy. There is another detail here, but it isn’t emphasized as much. Similarly, by way of analogy, the attributes of Hakadosh Boruch

19:49 Speaker 1 Hu. And what are we trying to explain? We asked about the utterances. What does it mean that they are called “utterances” only in relation to created beings? In relation to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, they aren’t called utterances. That was the question. “Similarly, by way of analogy, the attributes of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, when they come to reveal their effect among the lower realms.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants to create the created beings. What does it mean for His attributes to be revealed? He wants to create the created beings. How are created beings created? We saw in chapter 9 that Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates them through the attributes, as it says, “You made them all with wisdom.” Right? “The world is built through kindness,” and other verses like that. Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates the world through the attributes. How can He create the world through attributes? After all, we said that emotions, feelings, cannot be clothed directly in action. They must first be clothed in letters, and only then in action. Correct. First there is the desire, the kindness, so to speak, of Hakadosh Boruch Hu—the desire, the feeling, to create the worlds. Then it is clothed in the letters of Divine thought, and afterward in the letters of speech, in the utterances, and He creates the created beings. “Similarly, by way of analogy, the attributes of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, when they come to reveal their effect among the lower realms, this revelation and extension of their effect is called an utterance and a combination of letters.” So what have we established? The utterances and the letters—what did he call them? A revelation and an extension. This isn’t a new creation; it isn’t something from nothing; these aren’t created beings. Again, it is only a revelation and extension of Him Himself. It isn’t multiplicity. And this extension—and—“this revelation and extension of their effect is called an utterance and a combination of letters, for no effect can proceed from His holy attributes without combinations called letters.” And within this itself there are two stages.

22:02 Speaker 1 There’s the first, general stage—and actually, it’s the same with speech. When a person speaks, there’s the content of what he wants to say, and that itself is broken down into words. Every sentence is made up of words, every word is made up of letters, and every letter has some content. When a person wants to express a particular idea, he can say that same thing in one set of words or in another. Similarly, as he’ll say in a moment, from the attribute of chesed there can be creations of one kind, or creations that also come from chesed but look completely different. For example, light was created from chesed, and the heavens were also created from chesed. Those are two completely different things. What determines the difference? Just as a person can express his feelings in one set of words or another, there is the basic act of speech, the general descent involved in creating something, and then there are the combinations of letters—the particular arrangement of forces, the pattern of Divine forces that determines what will be created, which particular creation will emerge from that general flow. That’s what he’s saying here: No action can proceed from His holy attributes without combinations called “letters.” So from the same flow, one set of combinations will create one thing, and another set will create something else. For example, to create light from the attribute of chesed, a flow of action and power proceeded from it to bring the light into being. That flow of power and life-force is called the utterance and the letters “Let there be light.” So there was “Let there be light”—what the Torah calls “Let there be light” is called an utterance. What is the content of that utterance? For me, it’s

24:21 Speaker 1 an utterance. From my perspective, He created light through it. But what is it from Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s perspective? Is there something here separate from Him? It’s simply a revelation of Him, a flow from Him that comes in particular combinations. But what is in those combinations? He Himself. It isn’t someone else. There’s no multiplicity here. For although they are not like the letters of our thought—chas v’shalom, you can’t say that... yes. Our speech doesn’t create anything. All the more so with thought: not only does it create nothing, it doesn’t even become revealed outside us. But with Hakadosh Boruch Hu, speech creates worlds, and thought creates worlds too. So it isn’t like our thought and speech. Nevertheless, the underlying idea is the same: just as our utterances and letters reveal outwardly our attributes, feelings, and intellect, so to speak, so it is with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. They are only flows and revelations of Him Himself. Nevertheless, they convey the bringing of light into existence from nothing. That is why light was created from this flow of power, rather than other things that were also created from the attribute of chesed, such as water and the like. For those other creations were invested with those same forces, but in different combinations, which convey the bringing of water into being, and so on. It follows that all the life-force and powers that flow from His holy attributes to the lower realms to create them from nothing, give them life, and sustain them—which until now I thought were utterances and letters, things separate from Him—no. They are called holy letters, and they are a flow of life-force from His will, wisdom, and attributes. It is only a flow of will, a flow of life-force, a flow of Divinity to bring worlds into being and give them life. So why do we need both letters of speech and letters of thought? If the purpose of the Divine letters is to channel a pattern of Divine forces to create beings, then

26:50 Speaker 1 for me, there’s a difference between speech and thought—a big difference. To speak, I have to think. But if, for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, both the letters of His thought and the letters of His speech create worlds, why does He need two kinds? What is the purpose of these two kinds of flow? They are for two kinds of worlds. The hidden worlds—almin setimin d’lo isgalya—come into being, live, and endure, as we said last week when we discussed those three terms, from hidden powers and flows, like the letters of thought in a person’s soul, by way of analogy. And the revealed worlds—almin d’isgalya—are created and receive life from the revelation of those hidden powers and flows called letters of thought. When they are revealed to give life to the revealed worlds, they are called utterances, the word of Hashem, and the breath of His mouth, like a person’s letters of speech, by way of analogy, which reveal to listeners what is hidden and concealed in his heart. Elsewhere in Chassidus it is explained that the hidden worlds contain everything found in the revealed worlds. That is, just as here there are earth and heavens, a moon, a sun, and stars, so too the hidden worlds have their earth and heavens, their moon, sun, and stars, and so on. Every created thing here exists there too. What’s the difference? The creations here are revealed, while the creations in the hidden worlds are concealed.

28:36 Speaker 4 Because it’s sort of a kind of—

28:38 Speaker 1 Well, it depends what you mean, but is it sort of what Hakadosh Boruch Hu thought before He said, “And it was so”? Is that how we’re meant to understand it? These are higher flows, subtler, more Divine; the Divine light is more revealed in every respect. And therefore the creations there, in the hidden worlds, are creations that are nullified to Divinity.

29:01 Speaker 4 No, is it like, say, a blueprint of what a building will look like, as opposed to the building itself?

29:06 Speaker 1 No, there too, the building—

29:07 Speaker 4 No, it exists there too, but there it flows from thought, as though Hakadosh Boruch Hu thought it before He said it.

29:13 Speaker 1 It’s like the difference between creatures on dry land and creatures in the sea. Creatures on dry land live off the land. To live, they have to eat what grows from it, and...

29:29 Speaker 4 No, I mean from Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s perspective.

29:31 Speaker 1 Well?

29:32 Speaker 4 Is it like us, when we think before we speak, and then, in the end, the thought itself also created worlds?

29:41 Speaker 1 That’s what the Alter Rebbe was addressing. He didn’t ask it outright; more precisely, he alluded to the question. In his answer he alluded to the question: Why is there a need for two kinds of flow? As people, we feel that we can’t speak without thinking. Hakadosh Boruch Hu can, so why are two kinds of flow needed? To that he answered that there are two kinds of worlds.

30:00 Speaker 4 Ah.

30:01 Speaker 1 All right? In other places, the difference between the worlds and why both are needed are explained more fully, and so on. What have we established here? We’ve established... Ultimately, there’s still a difficulty. If we explained that the function and purpose of the utterances is to create things outside Him—that was the point, right? All right, so we explained that in their essence they are Divine flows, and therefore they don’t constitute multiplicity. But ultimately, what kind of Divine flows are these? What emerged from the whole explanation is that there’s an essential difference between all of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s other powers and the utterances. Ultimately, all His other powers, even the letters of thought, operate within Him, so to speak. They aren’t external like... What are the hidden worlds? The hidden worlds are like the analogy of the difference between dry land and the sea. I started to say this earlier. What’s the difference between creatures on dry land and creatures in the sea? Sea creatures sense their source and origin, and they are nullified to their source and origin. Right? Take a fish out of the water, and it stops living. Its whole life is... Creatures on dry land—a creature can fly through the air; it can... it doesn’t have to remain on the land all the time. More than that, the fish senses that its life comes from the water. Just as we breathe air, it breathes water. Creatures on dry land—a person living on land doesn’t feel that his life comes from the earth.

32:04 Speaker 4 There’s a sicha of the Rebbe that says that, on the contrary, dry land is more restrictive, and the sea is more restrictive.

32:10 Speaker 1 Right. To the point that halachah says that if you want to immerse something, if it is something really small and the fish is really large, you can immerse it in the eye of a fish. You can immerse it there because it is water. The fish’s existence is so completely nullified that, halachically, even its eye is considered water. It is not considered something separate. So even when we are speaking about the lowest powers in G-dliness—thought, the letters of thought, which create separate beings—what kind of beings do they create? They create beings whose entire existence is nullified to G-dliness, like fish that are nullified to the sea. There is nothing external here, nothing separate from anything else. But when we speak about an utterance, its whole purpose is to speak—as we said at the beginning—to someone else, someone external. Or, in the analogy, the whole purpose of the utterances is to create separate beings that are not G-dliness, that feel their own existence, feel themselves to be something. The whole purpose of an utterance is to act outside.

33:28 Speaker 4 That is why it is called an utterance.

33:29 Speaker 1 So if it is outside, how can you say it is nullified? Where does it act? It acts there. It acts outside. How can you say that it is only an emanation, that it is nullified? That is what he comes to address in the following lines. In truth, the letters of speech Above—even though we said they are only letters, and letters of speech at that, which are lower than letters of thought—are infinitely higher than the level and nature of the wisdom and intellect of created beings. We said that the utterances and letters of speech create the beings, but they are not there; they are external, not inside them. He said, “Let there be,” and it came to be. He said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. The utterance itself is not there. Well, it is there, but in an encompassing way. It does not become enclothed within the created beings. It is not there inside; it is outside.

34:45 Speaker 4 Why does it have to pass through all the contractions from the utterance down to the created being? If that is so, then what?

34:51 Speaker 1 Because nothing can emerge directly from the letters, from the middos themselves. As in the analogy, the middos cannot reveal themselves outside, and even the letters of thought are not revealed outside. Only the letters of speech are revealed outside.

35:02 Speaker 4 But the speech “Let there be light” is already a revelation.

35:05 Speaker 1 The speech “Let there be light” is a revelation outside. But that is exactly his point: what does “a revelation outside” mean? It itself is not there. It itself is infinitely higher, even than the intellect of created beings.

35:16 Speaker 4 By “it,” you mean the letters of the...

35:17 Speaker 1 Okay.

35:18 Speaker 4 So why does it have to pass through so many contractions and reinforcements before it reaches the created beings?

35:22 Speaker 1 Because if it remained above them, there could be no created beings at all.

35:26 Speaker 4 The encompassing light has to descend so that it can create the beings.

35:30 Speaker 1 I added the term “encompassing light.” He does not call it that. In fact, he does call it enclothed. I don’t know, but this is what he is explaining here. On the one hand, the letters of speech are the only thing that acts outside; on the other hand, the way they act outside does not mean that they themselves are outside. I have no more words to explain it; this is what it says. “But in truth, the letters of speech Above are infinitely higher than the level and nature of the wisdom and intellect of created beings. For through the utterance and letters ‘Let us make man in our image,’ etc., man, endowed with wisdom and intellect, was created.” In other words, if the utterance creates wisdom and intellect, then it itself is infinitely higher even than wisdom and intellect, which are the first of the created faculties. And more than that: man was created even from the supernal breath alone. As it is written, “And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” In speech there are the speech, the letters, and the breath of the mouth. We are not talking about the breath of the heart, but the breath of the mouth. When a person speaks, air comes out, right? That breath is on a level much lower than the letters themselves. Letters have some meaning; breath is just breath, nothing. So what was the soul—the first of created beings, man, the choicest of created beings—created from? From the breath of the mouth. Even the breath, which is lower than speech, is higher than the first of all created beings. “Thus, the supernal speech and breath are the source of the wisdom and intellect of the soul of Adam, whose soul includes all the souls of the tzaddikim; and the souls of the tzaddikim are greater than the ministering angels.” Yet the utterance and the supernal breath are above them all. “That is because the letters of His blessed speech are emanations of the powers and vitality of His middos, which are united with His essence and being in absolute unity, and He is infinitely higher than the level of wisdom of created beings.” So if that is the case, what

37:55 Speaker 1 have we concluded? “They are called ‘letters’ not in relation to created beings, but only in relation to His blessed middos themselves.” Why are they called letters? Letters are something inanimate by comparison. In our analogy, there are feelings, there is intellect, there is the person himself. Then comes thought, which is already a step lower. Speech has content, but the letters—the movement of a person’s lips and tongue to form them—are something entirely physical. True, intellect is actually enclothed within that physical thing, but the letters themselves are physical, nothing in their own right. They have no content of their own, right? So why are these emanations of Divine powers called letters? Because they are letters in relation to the middos, not in relation to created beings. Relative to created beings, they are infinitely higher than everything, and their nature is an emanation of G-dliness, an emanation of the middos themselves. The middos themselves are an emanation of G-dliness, and the letters emanate and emerge from the middos. Just as the middos are not separate, but only light from its luminary, so too the letters are only light from its luminary. So why do I call them letters? They are letters in relation to the middos, not in relation to created beings. Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, by Whose word all things came to be.

39:39 Speaker 5 Amen.

39:39 Speaker 1 To understand the end of the chapter: it looks like something you read that is completely disconnected from the rest of the chapter. He starts talking about all sorts of things, about the letters and so on. So first we need to point out a question that, at first glance, seems quite surprising. Turn back a moment to the first page, right at the beginning, the second line—or even the first line. What does it say here? That the Ten Utterances are also called “utterances” in relation to created beings. Right?

40:15 Speaker 5 Yes.

40:16 Speaker 1 What does it say in the last line we just read—that...

40:18 Speaker 5 The letters are also called created beings.

40:21 Speaker 1 Exactly the opposite. What is going on here? Is the question clear?

40:33 Speaker 5 Those are the utterances, and these are the letters.

40:35 Speaker 1 True, but throughout the chapter we explained that the letters are just the combinations of the utterances. So why do we say that the utterances are called “utterances” in relation to created beings? In relation to G-dliness they are not called that; they are only an emanation and an extension, not utterances. But of the letters we say that they are called “letters” in relation to the... the opposite. So it follows that if the letters are merely something inanimate in relation to the middos, and they are what act and become enclothed, then letters are an inanimate thing. Once again, we are back where we started: the original question returns. If they are merely inanimate, then they are separate; they are an existence of their own. So how can you say that they are an emanation of G-dliness? Okay? Is the question understood? Ultimately, the letters descend and become enclothed within the created beings. Otherwise they would be outside; instead, they are inside. So they are indeed outside. How can you say they are only an emanation of G-dliness? That is what he comes to answer in the final lines. He says: “And behold...” Right. “And behold, those letters are twenty-two kinds of emanations of vitality and powers, distinct from one another, through which all the upper and lower worlds and all the creatures within them were created. For so it arose in His will and wisdom to create the world through precisely twenty-two kinds of His emanations, no fewer and no more. And these are the twenty-two letters fixed in the mouth and tongue, as taught in Sefer Yetzirah.” This is very interesting. Where are the letters? Have you ever seen someone speak with—I don’t know—their stomach, their back? The letters are fixed in the mouth and tongue. He brings proof of this: that is what we are taught in Sefer Yetzirah. Avraham Avinu already said it. But where else would they be fixed? Why do you need to bring me proof that the letters are fixed in the mouth and tongue? Why does that require proof? So in truth, the proof here is

43:19 Speaker 1 It’s not that the letters are fixed in the mouth and on the tongue—that needs no proof. The point that needs proving is that the letters are only fixed in the mouth and on the tongue. That isn’t their place. Hakadosh Boruch Hu placed them there. That’s not what they are in themselves. The letters themselves are the very essence of G-dliness and its emanations. They are actual G-dliness. Hakadosh Boruch Hu placed them in the mouth and on the tongue, placed them down below. This is explained at great length in Igeres Hakodesh. With Hashem’s help, we’ll get there one day. Igeres Hakodesh 15, if I’m not mistaken.

44:01 Speaker 5 Or 17.

44:02 Speaker 1 Hmm?

44:02 Speaker 5 17.

44:04 Speaker 1 Or 5 or 15. I don’t remember. I think it’s 15.

44:06 Speaker 5 In the end, people can

44:07 Speaker 1 Ah, this is how he explains it there. He says that the letters fixed in the mouth and on the tongue precede the intellect. In other words... How does it seem to us, in our own thinking? How do I speak? I think about what I want to say, and then I speak, right?

44:45 Speaker 5 Of course.

44:46 Speaker 1 Right? So that thought comes from emotion, but it still comes through thought. And who taught me to speak? Who taught me that to say the sound “d,” I have to move my tongue this way and that?

45:05 Speaker 5 Automatically.

45:07 Speaker 1 It happens automatically, right?

45:09 Speaker 5 Yes.

45:10 Speaker 1 When we teach our children to speak, nobody teaches a child how to move his tongue. He knows on his own. As soon as he tries to speak, his tongue moves that way. Right? We don’t teach him. Why don’t we need to? Because those are only the instruments of speech. The five places where sounds are formed in the mouth are only where the letters become revealed. That’s where Hakadosh Boruch Hu placed them. It isn’t their true place. In their true place, the letters precede the intellect. That’s also why a person is called “the speaking species.” Why can other animals only make all kinds of noises and chirp—even those that have organs of speech similar to a person’s—but cannot speak? Why can’t an animal speak? It has a voice box, organs of speech just like a person’s. There are other animals like that too. Why can’t it speak? It has a tongue, a palate, vocal cords, lips and teeth. It has everything. Why can’t it speak? Some even have intellectual faculties. Because it has no letters in its soul. Only a person has a soul built of letters. No other creature has that. It’s like the difference between... Well, you could put it this way: when a person wants to speak, he doesn’t have to make an effort. He knows what he wants to say, and the words come out. He doesn’t have to try. When a person plays music, he has to direct what he’s playing. It doesn’t happen on its own. Even someone very skilled and well trained has to think about every movement. Every movement comes through thought. It doesn’t happen by itself. With all animals, even those that have the instruments of speech, how do they make a sound? They push some air out of their lungs, and it

47:14 Speaker 1 encounters whatever organs of speech they have, and whatever comes out, comes out. They can’t direct it. They have nothing there to direct it. With a person, it works exactly the opposite way. The soul wants to say the letter alef, and that alef descends, reaches the mouth and moves the... It’s not that the person wants to say alef and therefore moves the... He doesn’t plan how to move his tongue, teeth and lips. The opposite: the soul wants to say alef, so the lips move. It works in precisely the opposite direction. So where do the letters come from? Rabbi Chaim Vital explains there that the true source of the letters precedes the intellect.

48:05 Speaker 5 That’s why we also speak of intellect, emotions and letters.

48:08 Speaker 1 Yes, and more than that: because the letters are of the very essence of a person’s soul, every revelation of the soul comes through letters. The revelation of pleasure, of will, of intellect, of chochmah, of binah—every faculty of the soul is revealed only through letters. Why? Because the letters are the loftiest thing in the soul, the very essence of the soul itself. So Sefer Yetzirah also explains: if they are so lofty, why did Hakadosh Boruch Hu create the world with them? Hakadosh Boruch Hu placed them in the mouth and on the tongue. So although the letters with which Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates the world appear inanimate compared with the Divine emotional attributes, that’s just as it is with a person. Yes, they appear inanimate, but their essence is the very essence of G-dliness. So don’t be troubled by the fact that the utterances contain utterances and letters. They are only an emanation of G-dliness. They aren’t something separate or something else. It’s only an emanation that descended and descended and descended. On the contrary, precisely where it descended lowest, to the level of letters—what are those letters? What is revealed there? The very essence of G-dliness. Not something else. This is not multiplicity. And he adds something more: “And their written forms indicate the form of the emanation, as will be explained below.” When you write the letter yud, why is it shaped like a little point? Because it indicates the aspect of chochmah, which is a point. And why does the vav have its shape? Because it indicates an emanation from above to below. In other words, the letters retain their Divine essence not only when they are fixed in the mouth, but even when they descend into actual physical action. Even when you write them on a sheet of paper or engrave them in stone, their Divine essence is still present in them.

50:24 Speaker 5 That’s why there’s an issue—there’s an issue with bringing printed letters into the bathroom. That’s the issue. That’s what...

50:35 Speaker 1 Yes. Just a few more lines, two lines. “And the letters of speech and thought in a person’s soul, too, are emanations from the intellect and emotional attributes in the soul, from their very essence and being, as explained elsewhere.” And the same is true of G-dliness. So what did we cover in this chapter? Until now, we thought that only the emotional attributes are united with G-dliness, while the utterances are already outside it. That’s how it seemed, right? No. The utterances, too, are only an emanation and extension of Divine vitality, and they do not create multiplicity in G-dliness. What’s still missing? Ultimately, these letters descend to give life to the created beings in actuality, and at that point they are truly enclothed within the created beings. What will you say about that? That’s for chapter 24.

51:25 Speaker 5 Let’s finish.

51:26 Speaker 1 We did that part.

51:27 Speaker 5 Yes.

51:31 Speaker 1 Oh, what was the question asked here a few minutes ago?

51:33 Speaker 5 About... printed letters in the bathroom.

51:36 Speaker 1 Ah, yes. Well, that’s a matter...