Hemshech Tereg"Tes (5669) - summary of the general topic of Daas Elyon and Daas Tachton

00:01 Okay, we’ve reached a section of the hemshech that concludes a topic. Page 70 brings one part of Hemshech 5669 to a close. The topic itself continues afterward, but you could say that its conceptual explanation runs through page 70. After page 70 there is still conceptual explanation, but also avodah: the topic is applied to other matters and other areas. What is the topic? If we were to give it a title, we could call it “Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge.” That is really the central point of Hemshech 5669. The Rebbe Rashab explains Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge in the greatest depth and breadth. I think that, in all of Chassidus, this is where the topic is explained most extensively. Although Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge come up often in the maamarim of the Rebbe Rashab, and also in the Rebbe’s maamarim generally, here they are explained most extensively, as they find expression in every area. Up to this page, up to this part of the hemshech, he has explained Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge as they are expressed in general, [unclear], and at each level according to its nature. So today we’ll first summarize all the maamarim. We’ve already made summaries at various points in the hemshech, but now we’ve finished the entire topic. I think it’s right to summarize it, and that way we can take something from it. There’s one more thing I want to do today, if we have time: at the end of the topic, in the part we haven’t studied inside, on the very last pages, the Rebbe Rashab brings a very fundamental point through which we can arrive at an understanding of how the whole topic comes together.

02:06 At the end of this part of the hemshech, from page 66 to page 70, he brings a Midrash on the question, “From where was the light created? This teaches that Hakadosh Boruch Hu wrapped Himself in a cloak,” [unclear]. It looks like another interpretation of the Midrash, but if we go deeply into this passage, we’ll see that he is saying something very fundamental about the purpose of creation. He explains how, once we understand the whole topic of Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge in the hemshech, we also gain a deeper understanding of the matter and of its root in the purpose of creation: why there are, in fact, two perspectives, and what the ultimate purpose is in joining them. That is really the [unclear] of the connection we want to reach—to join Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge. In other words, we see something interesting in this topic we’ve studied. On the one hand, the Rebbe Rashab explains to us in the hemshech just how far apart the two extremes are, the incomparable distance and the difference between these two perspectives. Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge are two utterly opposed perspectives, and so on. On the other hand, the ultimate intention is to join them. The intention is not for the two perspectives to remain separate, but for them to become one, because both are true and both have a root in G-dliness. So the ultimate purpose of creation is for Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge to be joined. And that is what we come to understand from studying the hemshech: how incomparable they are, what distinguishes them, and at the same time what connects them, and why the intention is to join the two perspectives rather than remain with only one. These, broadly speaking, are the two main points needed to understand what

04:17 is going on here in the hemshech. So let’s summarize the hemshech from the beginning up to this point and see where it takes us. The hemshech begins with Rosh Hashanah. Everything begins with Rosh Hashanah and everything ends with Rosh Hashanah, because Rosh Hashanah is the beginning of the year. And not only the beginning of the year, but the head of the year, from which vitality is drawn down to the entire year. That’s why everything starts with Rosh Hashanah. In connection with Rosh Hashanah, we find the matter of 25 Elul and the matter of 1 Tishrei. In other words, there are two points in time connected with Rosh Hashanah. “This day is the beginning of Your works”—following Rabbi Eliezer’s view that the world was created in Tishrei. What is the significance of 25 Elul, and what is the significance of 1 Tishrei? The Rebbe Rashab explained at the beginning of the maamar that 25 Elul is the creation of the worlds, and the creation of the worlds comes from the sefirah of Malchus: “Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds.” The sefirah of Malchus is called the level of koh, “thus,” whose Hebrew letters also have the numerical value of 25. Koh means a reflection of a reflection, a separate radiance. It is not zeh, “this.” Koh means something similar, a likeness or an image, whereas zeh is the essence itself. That is the difference between 25 Elul and Rosh Hashanah. 25 Elul is the creation of the worlds at the level of koh, while on Rosh Hashanah we say, “This day”—the level of zeh. The difference between koh and zeh is the difference between a reflection of a reflection, or a separate radiance, and the essential light. The Rebbe Rashab explains at the beginning of the maamar, at the beginning of the hemshech, that there is a revelation of light that reveals the essence. When you look at the light, you see the essence. The entire purpose of this light is to reveal what is above it. Light whose purpose is to reveal the essence is called essential light, and this is called the level of zeh, the revelation of the essence. By contrast, there is another kind of light

06:13 that does not reveal the essence. The light that becomes enclothed, the level of koh, is enclothed in something else, and through that enclothement it becomes concealed, so its source is not felt. For the light that becomes enclothed—the light, the light of the light—is the enclothement of Divine vitality within a thing to bring it into being, give it life, and so on. This is why the level of koh is associated with the creation of the worlds, and why there is a world on the level of yesh, a world with its own sense of existence. And even though this also gives rise to bittul—because if you contemplate the Divine vitality within the worlds and created beings that brings them into being, you arrive at bittul—it is only bittul hayesh, an external form of bittul. By contrast, when the essential light shines, the level of zeh, the bittul is bittul bimetzius, true bittul. And that is what Rosh Hashanah is about: on Rosh Hashanah, the level of zeh is revealed. He introduces a new point in the maamar: the intention is not that the level of zeh is revealed on Rosh Hashanah in order to nullify the level of koh. Not entirely, because the Rebbe Rashab is precise in showing that there is a joining of the two here. The intention is not to nullify the existence of the world. Rather, when the essential light is revealed, and a Jew, through the avodah of Rosh Hashanah, the avodah of teshuvah and so on, reveals the Divine essence, reveals a higher light—the intention is for it to be revealed within the worlds. It is a joining of zeh and koh, a joining of yichuda ila’ah with yichuda tata’ah. That is the intention behind what we say. That is why we say “Shema Yisroel,” and also “Boruch shem,” and then say [unclear]. If you remember, he brought at the beginning of the hemshech, on page 240, [unclear], that the intention here is the unification of yichuda ila’ah with yichuda tata’ah, “Shema Yisroel” and “Boruch shem,” so that the two should be

08:08 together. “And you shall say, ‘Koh lechai,’” [unclear]—this refers to Rosh Hashanah, when koh and zeh are joined, when yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah are united. All of this is the foundation. Then the explanation begins, so that we can understand the whole matter, understand the foundation. By the way, before I continue: there was a point the Rebbe Rashab made at the beginning of the maamar, a very important point. He says it almost in passing, but it is very fundamental, also for the continuation of the maamarim, if we merit to study them. He says that the avodah of Rosh Hashanah is not only the joining of yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah, the joining of zeh and koh. There is another point to it: “Night will shine like day.” He brings this at the beginning of the maamar, on page... page... page 5, yes. He explains that Rosh Hashanah is like a “long day”: the two days of Rosh Hashanah are considered one day, and this is the idea of “Night will shine like day.” Apparently, he is alluding here to another matter. That is, Rosh Hashanah is not only a joining of two levels of revelation, a joining of yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah, Higher Knowledge and Lower Knowledge—two levels of revelation. Rosh Hashanah also involves something deeper: it is connected with the revelation of [unclear], the bittul of Atzmus, the true yesh, from whose perspective “night will shine like day.” This is apparently a deeper point about Rosh Hashanah, and it seems that he will return to it later in the maamarim. All right, that was a digression. Let’s continue with the maamar. Now the topic begins. To understand this, he brings the verse, “For Hashem is a G-d of knowledge,” meaning that there are two

10:04 There are two perspectives of knowledge: daas elyon and daas tachton. Daas elyon says: Above there is existence, and below there is nothing. The existence Above is the true existence. What does “nothing” mean? That it is nothing and naught—“everything before Him is considered as nothing.” That is daas elyon. Daas tachton says: Below there is existence, the created existence, and Above there is “nothing.” What does “nothing” mean? It means something that cannot be grasped, or something unknown. From the perspective of the true existence, “nothing” means nothing and naught. From the perspective of created existence, “nothing” cannot mean nothing and naught, because by “nothing” it means the source that brings it into being. So there, “nothing” means something unknown or beyond the created being’s grasp. Since that source is not revealed within it, the created being does not recognize or see it, and calls it “nothing” because it cannot grasp it. First of all, where are these two perspectives, daas elyon and daas tachton? The verse says, “For Hashem is a G-d of knowledges,” meaning that both perspectives exist in G-dliness. So the Rebbe Rashab first explains what they are. But he starts from the opposite direction: he begins with the soul’s avodah, in which the two perspectives are two levels. There are two kinds of souls: souls from the category of “the seed of man,” and souls from “the seed of beast.” But in the wording of the maamar there is [unclear], two levels among Jewish souls. There are lofty souls in which daas elyon shines, and for them the true perspective of Hakadosh Boruch Hu shines: He is the true reality, and “everything before Him is considered as nothing.” Within this itself there are several levels, as he says in the maamar: either they sense the bittul of the worlds, and therefore their avodah takes the form of withdrawal; or, conversely, they sense that the world itself is G-dliness, and then their avodah takes the form of involvement in it. But the third side is...

11:49 Such souls are illuminated by the truth that Hakadosh Boruch Hu is the only reality and “everything before Him is considered as nothing,” and they have true bittul. That is daas elyon. And there are souls—and these are most souls, ordinary souls, which means most of us—who have a body and an animal soul, and need to contemplate the G-dliness that is invested in the worlds: “For He is your life.” For them, the worlds have significance, and there is a descent into all the worlds. Their bittul comes through knowing Hashem, from the perspective that below there is existence and Above there is “nothing.” So here too, within daas tachton, there are levels. In the maamar he also discusses two ways this works, from above and from below: how does it affect a person? In any case, what they have in common is that here the bittul is only bittul hayesh, the nullification of something that feels itself to exist. He also says in the maamar that every soul really has both aspects, because in truth all souls have their root in the Essence, as it were, deep within. At its core, every soul reaches the level of yechidah. In other words, inwardly every soul has both bittul bimetzius, complete self-nullification, and bittul hayesh. But broadly speaking, souls fall into two general levels, and that is why we say our avodah must bring them together. That means we must first bring the two ways of knowing together. Bringing daas elyon and daas tachton together—that is in avodah. Then he begins to explain what this means in G-dliness. We say the root of both ways of knowing is in G-dliness, so that is the starting point. That is where the discussion in the series begins. At the end of the first maamar, he begins to say that the order of hishtalshelus divides into four levels, called yesh, ayin, ayin, yesh—existence, non-existence, non-existence, existence. In other words, to understand what it means that there are two ways of knowing within G-dliness, we need to understand that there are two levels of ayin. That is, when I say the ayin of the true yesh and the ayin of the created yesh, it is not just...

13:48 It does not mean that we are talking about the same ayin, and one calls it ayin for one reason while the other calls it ayin for another reason. No. The explanation is that these are two forms of ayin, two different levels. The first ayin is not the second ayin; the first ayin does not... it does not itself become the second ayin. They are two different levels, and he explains why. He explains this at the beginning of the series. At the end of the first maamar, the Rebbe Rashab explains why we cannot say that this ayin is the very same ayin. What does he mean? He means that in Chassidus, in other places, in other series of maamarim, in earlier maamarim before the Rebbe Rashab, many maamarim seem to imply that there are really only three levels: yesh, ayin, yesh. The order of hishtalshelus is made up of three aspects: yesh, ayin, yesh. There is the true yesh, the created yesh, and the ayin in between. There is the true yesh, Hakadosh Boruch Hu—in the Rambam’s words, “the truth of His existence.” There is the created yesh, whose existence is not the truth of His existence; on the contrary, it is not true existence. It is a false existence, or something that exists but not with true existence, as we learn in matters of faith. There are two forms of yesh, and in between the true yesh and the created yesh are all the intervening levels: the G-dly light, the ayin. So he says in the maamar: No, it is not the same ayin. The ayin of the true yesh and the ayin of the created yesh are two different levels. He gives two reasons why they are not the same ayin. The Rebbe Rashab gives two reasons: one has to do with its essential nature, and the second with its bittul. Do you remember? Hmm? One reason concerns its essential nature. The second concerns its bittul. Regarding its essential nature, he says that the ayin of the true yesh is the revelation of the true yesh. It is a light whose entire purpose is to reveal the true yesh. It is called

15:49 ayin because it is light. Light is light, and relative to the essence, light is ayin. But because its entire purpose is to reveal the true yesh, it stands close to the true yesh among the levels. In its essential nature it is an extension, a revelation, of the true yesh, and because its entire purpose is to reveal the true yesh, it is not on the level of being a source for the created yesh. In terms of what it reveals, that is not what it does. So there must be another ayin to serve as the source of the created yesh. That is in terms of what it does and does not do. And then, regarding its bittul, there is another point: because the ayin of the true yesh is close to the true yesh, it is nullified. And something that is nullified cannot serve as a source. Because of the greatness of its bittul, “being occupied with absorbing, it does not emit.” Since it is occupied, it is in a state of bittul, of negating itself, and therefore it cannot be a source of existence. To create a yesh, there has to be a sense of existence; it cannot be in a state of bittul. So those are the two explanations, the two reasons. And he gave an analogy to explain this. What analogy did he give? Who remembers? Help me out. Come on, no looking things up. What was the first analogy he gave? Hmm? The power of growth. The first analogy was growth, where there are also four aspects. There is the essence of the power of growth, which is the word of Hashem, a G-dly power; that is the aspect of the true yesh in growth. At the other end are the fruits that grow on the tree, and that is the created yesh. Between those two aspects—between the essence of the power of growth and the fruit that grows on the trees, and the seeds—there are two forms of ayin. There is the general light of the power of growth present in the earth, the general light of the power of growth throughout the earth and the world, so that if you put a fruit into it, it will grow there—a general light. And there is

17:47 a particular light. The particular light is drawn out through the seed. When you plant a banana seed or a tomato seed, it arouses the particular light from which that particular growth comes. These are two examples showing that there are two aspects. In any case, we need to understand the analogy, but not now; I am just reviewing. At any rate, we are saying there are four levels. Later in the series, in the second maamar, he will bring another analogy. The analogy he brings in the next maamar is from the soul. The soul, too, has four levels. What are the four levels in the soul? As we discussed, as we learned, there is a novel point in the series of 5669. This is not the usual approach. We have already gotten used to it, but it is not usual in Chassidus to speak this way, saying that the soul, too, has four levels. What are the four levels? There is the essence of the soul, which in the analogy is like the sun—the essence of the soul, yes? That is the true yesh in the analogy of the sun. “Five names were given to it.” To what does “it” refer? To the essence of the soul. The essence of the soul is the soul’s essence; that has no name at all. In that respect, it is the true yesh within the soul. At the other end is NaRaN. The soul’s NaRaN—nefesh, ruach, neshamah—is what can be invested in the body. That is called the created yesh on the level of the soul. And the two aspects in between are yechidah and chayah. Yechidah, here in our series, is the ayin of the true yesh, while chayah is the ayin of the created yesh. Because yechidah, on the one hand, is already a name; it is called by a name. “Five names were given to it”: nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, yechidah. So yechidah is a name. If it is a name, it is the light and not the essence; but it is the light united with the essence. That is why it is called yechidah—united with the One. This

19:52 The light of the soul, whose whole purpose is to connect with the Essence, to reveal that there is nothing besides Hakadosh Boruch Hu, that a Jew cannot be separate from G-dliness—he feels this. But this is the light that is connected with the Essence. This is the level of the ayin of the true Being: yechidah. Chayah is already a surrounding level, a source. It too is a surrounding level, but it is already the source from which nefesh, ruach and neshamah come. It is already their source. That is why chayah is called the ayin of created being. In other words, it is the source of nefesh, ruach and neshamah, though it too is a surrounding level. Those who studied [unclear] will remember this; he spoke about it in the maamar on Terumah. The difference between chayah and yechidah is that chayah is the closer surrounding level. It too surrounds, but it has an effect inwardly. So it brings about intellectual insight, understanding and feeling; it brings a person more and more depth, more revelation, more light in his inner faculties. On the one hand, then, it is above the inner faculties, but it is their root. That is why it is included in the “ayin of created being.” Yechidah, by contrast, is the ayin of the true Being. In any case, these are analogies. What? Now, in the second maamar of the series, the Rebbe Rashab begins explaining exactly how the levels of bittul differ. We say that the ayin of the true Being and the ayin of created being differ in their bittul. The ayin of the true Being, because it is in a state of utter bittul, is not a source for created being. The bittul of the ayin of created being, by contrast, is not like that. Both are in a state of bittul, but they are different kinds: one is intrinsic bittul, and the other is bittul hayesh. That is the subject of the second maamar in the series. It comes to explain the difference

21:36 between the two kinds of bittul. What is the difference between bittul hayesh and intrinsic bittul? He gives several analogies for this. One analogy concerns a king and the bittul one feels toward him. There is bittul before the king himself: when you stand before the king, you become completely nullified—bittul b’metzius—to the point that you cannot lift your head before him. And there is the bittul you have when you are far from the king: the bittul of a servant, the ordinary bittul in which you act out of kabbolas ol. He also discusses this in terms of a teacher and student, the student’s bittul toward his teacher. There is the bittul involved in understanding: you want to understand, so you need to set yourself aside, right? That enables you to understand what the teacher is teaching. This is bittul for the sake of grasping the teacher’s ideas. But there is also bittul before the teacher himself, which goes beyond the subject being studied. We are talking about a true teacher: he does not convey only intellectual ideas. There is something far beyond the ideas—the light, the depth, the inner dimension of the intellect, that which sets the teacher apart. As the saying goes, “Forty years.” All this is an introduction to explaining the matter as it applies to G-dliness. In the second half of the second maamar in the series, he begins explaining what it means in G-dliness. There are two levels in G-dliness: a level that is the ayin of the true Being, and a level that is the ayin of created being. In general, the difference lies in the G-dly light that shines there. The G-dly light of the true Being is the G-dly light connected with the Essence, the G-dly light that shines from the Essence. Therefore, in that light, the truth that “everything before Him is considered as nothing” is felt, and all the worlds are utterly nullified. There, “ayin” does not mean zero; “ayin” means “considered as nothing.” “Ayin” means that no existence exists apart from Atzmus. That is the true ayin. Therefore, from the standpoint of this level, the worlds’ bittul is also absolute. There, in that section, he explained two levels of bittul b’metzius.

24:52 What does bittul b’metzius mean? Does it mean that something has no significance? Again, bittul b’metzius means that it has no existence of its own. All existence is only Hakadosh Boruch Hu. There are two ways of explaining bittul b’metzius. On the other hand, there is the ayin of created being. Because it is the source of the created being, you cannot say that it is in a state of bittul b’metzius—for it is the source of the created being. To be a source for a created being, it must have an existence. You cannot bring a yesh into being if you are completely nullified. To bring a yesh into being, you need to connect with it, draw close to it, and become invested within it. That means this ayin is already after the tzimtzum. There is a source for the worlds. Therefore, from the standpoint of the ayin of created being, the worlds do have an existence. But what kind of bittul is there? Bittul hayesh. Here too, he explained several ways of understanding bittul hayesh—why the worlds are in a state of bittul hayesh relative to the G-dly light invested within them. He also explained different meanings of “ayin”: what does the word ayin mean in relation to created being? Does it mean that the source is unknown to it, or that it cannot be grasped? All this was in the second maamar. Now, at the end of the second maamar, the Rebbe Rashab said something very important. After explaining the difference between the ayin of the true Being and the ayin of created being—that these are two kinds of ayin and two kinds of bittul—and the differences between them, the two meanings of “ayin,” and everything we have discussed so far, the Rebbe Rashab states, at the end of the second maamar, the point we mentioned at the beginning of the class: ultimately, the intention is to unite daas elyon with daas tachton. He says this on page—this point is very important, because it is actually a fundamental, central theme of the entire series—page 18. On page 18, at the end of the second maamar, the Rebbe Rashab says: [unclear] that daas tachton too.

26:52 Daas elyon. Then he says: “For it is known that yichuda tata’ah has an advantage over yichuda ila’ah.” Wow. Up to this point, it seems to you that yichuda tata’ah is a lower level. Poor us, right? We need yichuda tata’ah. We are simple souls. So it seems like a low level. But the maamar comes along and says: No, yichuda tata’ah really has an advantage. Therefore, ultimately, the intention is not to break yichuda tata’ah, not to eliminate it. The intention is for yichuda ila’ah to shine within yichuda tata’ah. Yichuda ila’ah has an advantage in its level of bittul, which is higher; but yichuda tata’ah has its own advantage, specifically because of the novelty of bittul hayesh and because of the higher intent: Hakadosh Boruch Hu derives greater delight specifically from bittul hayesh than from bittul b’metzius. When we studied this, we discussed several explanations of the advantage of yichuda tata’ah. That is why the intention is for “one to be within one,” for yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah to be joined. We say this in the Shabbos prayers: “Just as they are united above in oneness, so too she is united below in the mystery of oneness.” The whole intention is to join one with one. It is not to eliminate yichuda tata’ah, but for its advantage to remain even when yichuda ila’ah shines, and for the two to unite. This is a very fundamental point in the series. He also says there, at the end of the maamar, that through this union Atzmus is revealed, because true union comes through the power of Atzmus. How can two opposites be joined? Through Atzmus. This brings us to the maamar “Patach Eliyahu,” which we also had the privilege of studying during the year. In the Rebbe’s maamar “Patach Eliyahu” from 5721, [unclear], the Rebbe illuminates this subject for us. What does it mean to unite—to join

28:45 yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah, daas elyon and daas tachton? And how is this expressed in the relationship between miracles and nature? How is it expressed in avodah, where through mesirus nefesh we join yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah? This is a very, very fundamental matter. In our series, it appears at the end of the second maamar. That concludes the summary of the first two maamarim. Starting with the third maamar, the Rebbe Rashab begins explaining where daas elyon and daas tachton fit on the map of seder hishtalshelus. There he begins explaining daas elyon and daas tachton within seder hishtalshelus. He starts from below and works upward, yes, first explaining daas elyon and daas tachton on the lowest level: the difference between malchus of Atzilus as it becomes invested in Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah—which is daas tachton—and Atzilus as a whole, the sefiros of Atzilus, which are called daas elyon. For the sefiros of Atzilus are a level of fire. Atzilus is called fire, and here, toward the end of the series, he returns to this again on page [unclear], a level of fire over [unclear]. There he begins explaining daas elyon and daas tachton as they relate to Atzilus and Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. So what is the distinction? Atzilus is daas elyon. Malchus of Atzilus, which is the source of created beings, is already daas tachton. In this maamar, the third maamar, he also gives us a set of concepts. There is a whole subject here, yes, a subject called light, name and kingship. It is a very important, fundamental subject in its own right. But to explain the difference between malchus of Atzilus, which is called daas tachton, yes, and the sefiros of Atzilus, which are called daas elyon, he explains it on the basis of light, name and kingship. So along the way, we gain an entire subject of study. The third maamar discusses the difference between light, name and kingship. All three fall within the category of light—light, name and kingship—but there is a very great difference between them. In general.

31:10 That is the difference: light is light whose entire purpose is to remain attached to its source and reveal the essence. Malchus, by contrast, is a light that is separate. The whole purpose of Malchus is for the people. A name is somewhere in between. On the one hand, it is not entirely for someone else; on the other hand, you cannot come to know a person through their name. Yes, a name has two sides. On the one hand, the point of a name is that through it you address the person himself. You call to a person, and in a certain respect a name has an advantage even over light. We learned this at length when we studied the subject. Light only reveals the essence; it is not rooted in the essence. A name is connected to the essence, and does not merely reveal it. A name has an advantage over light, but when we are talking about revelations, light reveals the essence, while a name does not. You cannot come to know a person through their name. So a name is somewhere in between. On the one hand it is for the person himself; on the other hand it is not entirely [unclear]. And there is another distinction among names. There are several kinds of name—another subject discussed in the third maamar: a descriptive name, an essential name, and a name of action. There are three levels to a name. Malchus is a name of action; the vessels of Atzilus are descriptive names. This gives us a general rule and a qualification. This distinction—what is he trying to get us to understand from all this? It gives us a general rule and a qualification regarding the difference between the higher perspective and the lower perspective. As this applies in Atzilus, Malchus of Atzilus is a name of action. That is already the lower perspective, the source of created existence. The sefiros of Atzilus, however, are different—even their vessels. Although the vessels are already a kind of distinct existence, because they are descriptive names rather than names of action, they unite with the light. So even the vessels of Atzilus are connected to the higher perspective. A name conveys something loftier. This is the level

33:08 of the higher perspective, the self-nullification in which one feels that one is of no account, as experienced in the world of Atzilus. Now, at the end of the third maamar, he also said that this is expressed in the names: the difference between the name Havayah and the name Elokim. These two levels are the name Havayah and the name Elokim. Atzilus is the name Havayah. Malchus of Atzilus is the name Elokim, and through it the lower perspective comes about. That is in the third maamar. In the fourth maamar he begins to move up to a higher level. In the fourth maamar, the Rebbe Rashab begins to say: Actually, Atzilus is not the true meaning of the higher perspective; Atzilus is, after all, an intermediary. What is the whole purpose of Atzilus? Why did Hakadosh Boruch Hu create Atzilus? Why is Atzilus needed? He explains that Atzilus is an intermediary between Ein Sof and created beings. And because Atzilus is an intermediary, it already has a connection to what will emerge from it. So first he explained at length why Atzilus is called an intermediary. What does that mean? Why is an intermediary needed? He gave three explanations for why there has to be an intermediary. How is Atzilus the intermediary? The three points were: A. The will—to bring the will down. The will is transcendent; it is the source of creation, but it is encompassing. To bring the will inward, Atzilus is needed to bring it closer to the particulars. The second point is also connected to creation and enclothement. There are two aspects: creation by way of will. But there is also creation by way of enclothement, so that it reaches the level of speech. And the third point is vitality. Every created being has its own particular form, which is connected to [unclear]. In all three of these respects, Atzilus is the intermediary, enabling the Ein Sof to bring about the creation of the worlds. Here the fourth maamar turns to explaining the subject of Atzilus. He cited several views, which we will still get to. What is Atzilus? Is it creation from nothing, or the revelation of what was concealed? He

35:32 cited several views here from Kabbalah and Chassidus. How does an intermediary come about? How can there be an intermediary between the unlimited and the limited? The unlimited and the limited are opposites. So how does it work? Is Atzilus itself limited, or does it only have the capacity for limitation? There is a difference between the lights of Atzilus and the vessels of Atzilus. There are several views in Kabbalah that the Rebbe Rashab reconciled, and in general we reached the conclusion that the world of Atzilus has an unlimited aspect and a limited aspect. That is why a parsa is needed not only between Atzilus and Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, but also between what is above Atzilus and Atzilus itself. Since Atzilus is an intermediary, it must ultimately be the source of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. So there is a parsa—not merely a tzimtzum, but a parsa as well—the parsa between what is above Atzilus and Atzilus. All this leads us to understand that Atzilus is connected to the lower perspective; it is not the true meaning of the higher perspective. Since there is a parsa, where is the higher perspective found? In Kesser. Kesser is [unclear]; Kesser is the will; Kesser is unlimited. Accordingly, the higher perspective is the level of Kesser, and the lower perspective is the level of Atzilus. That sums up the fourth maamar in the series, and in the fifth maamar he continues on this subject. He explains the difference even more deeply: the difference between Kesser and Atzilus. Kesser is the revelation of the boundlessness within G-dliness, while Atzilus is already the source of limitation. He explains how this is expressed in souls as well. He returns to the subject of souls, explaining that there are two kinds of souls: souls on the level of princes and souls on the level of shepherds. Among the souls of tzaddikim, there are even souls whose primary purpose is to reveal the boundlessness within G-dliness. Souls called [unclear], souls that were utterly self-nullified even while they were down here. Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa and various other tzaddikim he mentions—they

37:37 were princes, utterly self-nullified before the encompassing light. And there are souls whose purpose is to reveal the inner light, such as Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and others. There was also a long discussion there about the revelations of the future, in the fifth maamar of the series. What is its opening phrase? [unclear]. There was a long discussion there, and we come to the revelations of the future: in the future, Kesser and Atzilus will be united, and the encompassing light and the inner light will be united. In the future, “His feet will stand on that day upon the Mount of Olives.” He explained at length the whole idea of “His feet will stand upon the Mount of Olives.” What is the significance of the Mount of Olives? The point is that there is oil, there are olives that are the source of oil, there is the Mount of Olives, and there are His feet, which will stand upon the Mount of Olives. In short, he explains that the point is that the revelations of Moshiach will bring about the union of princes and shepherds, and of the encompassing light and the inner light, in absolute perfection. That is essentially the whole idea of the revelation of Moshiach. But overall, what are we talking about? Let’s not forget what we are talking about. We are talking about the higher perspective, the lower perspective, and the higher perspective. That is the subject of this part of the series. The higher perspective is the level of Kesser, the unlimited light, the encompassing light; and the lower perspective is the level of Atzilus, the inner light. And the two must be united again. Throughout, he explains how far apart the two perspectives are, but in the end he explains that the intention is to unite them. And here we come to the maamar from Tishrei, from Shabbos Bereishis: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,” on page 48. In the maamar “Eileh Toldos Hashamayim Vehaaretz Behibaram,” the Rebbe Rashab takes the subject we have just been discussing—the distinction between Kesser and Atzilus—and explains it through the names Havayah above and Havayah below. If you remember, earlier we mentioned Havayah and Elokim, when he spoke about Atzilus and about Binah and Malchus.

39:45 So he said: Havayah, daas elyon, and Elokim. Now, when we speak on a higher level, we speak of makif and pnimi—encompassing and internal. Within the name Havayah itself, there are two names: Havayah of Atzilus and Havayah of Kesser, the lower Havayah and the higher Havayah. There he goes on to explain the difference between the lower and higher Havayah. The lower Havayah is yud—Chochmah, hei—Binah, vav—Ze’eir Anpin, and hei—Malchus. That is what he calls “lower.” He explains at length what the four letters are in the human soul and what the four letters are in G-dliness—the whole subject of Havayah. Then he says, “To explain the matter.” The Rebbe says that “to explain the matter” means to understand the difference between before the tzimtzum and after the tzimtzum. For this, he cites the statement of our Sages: “Before the world was created, there was only He and His name.” Now I’ll stop here so we don’t get confused before going into the explanation of that statement, from Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer: “Before the world was created, there was only He and His name.” This is still not the highest level, because there is a higher level, and that is the level discussed in the last maamar we studied, the maamar of Lech Lecha. Actually, we don’t know exactly what the opening words of that maamar of Lech Lecha were, or how we know it was for Lech Lecha. But if you look at the end of the maamar, on page 69, you see that its opening words were apparently “Blessed be Avram of the Most High G-d, Possessor of heaven and earth.” That is a verse in Parshas Lech Lecha which he quotes and uses to conclude here. It would seem possible to say that these were the maamar’s opening words. Yes, it is a verse from the parsha, and it is what he explains at the end of the maamar. It seems that when the Rebbe Rashab wrote his series of maamarim, he often wrote the series without the opening words, but there was a separate notebook in which he later wrote the opening words and the revisions. We know there were two notebooks: one in which he wrote the entire series, and another in which he wrote the openings, the conclusions, and the revisions or additions.

43:56 Apparently, he did not manage to finish that. That is why we do not have all the opening words here. He did not manage to complete the second notebook, so we have the entire series, but not all the opening words. From the conclusion here, though, it appears that this was a maamar for Lech Lecha, at any rate. What is the highest level of daas elyon and daas tachton? Daas elyon and daas tachton are both before the tzimtzum. Within the state before the tzimtzum, there are two levels in Ein Sof. In Ein Sof, everything is light. “He and His name”—this is what he adds in this last maamar. “He and His name” are both in Ein Sof. The distinction is that “He” is the essence of the light, while “His name” is the extension of the light. Within the extension of the light itself, there are two levels: revelation to Himself, and revelation that relates to the worlds. All of this is before the tzimtzum. He explained this at length in the last maamar we studied: in the light before the tzimtzum, there is a level called revelation to Himself, which is analogous to knowledge of Himself. He explained at length, using an analogy from the soul, what knowledge of oneself means. The soul’s knowledge of itself, above its faculties, above [unclear]—that is knowledge of oneself. The potential within it shines, so to speak, openly: what exists in its potential shines openly. That is the level of revelation to Himself. Then there is revelation that relates to the worlds, the level of the power of thought and of “He estimated within Himself in potential,” which itself has a number of levels. But all of it is light that relates to the worlds, and all of it is before the tzimtzum. These two levels are daas elyon and daas tachton in their source before the tzimtzum. Now, regarding the statement of our Sages, “He and His name alone”: as we discussed, he explains it in several ways. In the maamar of Noach, he explained it by proceeding from above downward. First, he explained that “He and His name” are both within Atzmus: “He” is Atzmus, and “His name” is the capacity.

46:08 He discussed it on a very high level. Then, in the last maamar, he said that, more specifically, there are two levels in the light: “He” is the essence of the light, and “His name” is the extension of the light. I mention this only to complete the picture; these are different explanations in this maamar. And what is the conclusion of the series? This is the finishing touch, and this is what I wanted to get to. We have another two minutes—it’s late already—so I’ll say at least a few words. At the end of the series—I mean this section, from the bottom of page 66 through page 70—the Rebbe Rashab says something very fundamental that relates to the entire subject. On the surface, it looks as though he is explaining a Midrash. The Midrash asks, “From where was light created?” and says that “Hakadosh Boruch Hu wrapped Himself in a tallis, and the radiance of His splendor shone forth.” What is he getting at with this? If you look carefully at this section, there is a principle here that relates to everything we have said. What he wants to say is that this part of the series enables us to understand that statement of our Sages, once we explain it step by step: in essence, light is not suited to being invested in the worlds. Light, in essence, does not relate to worlds. That is the Midrash’s question: “From where was light created?” By nature, light is in a movement of ratzo, of striving upward. By nature, light moves upward. By nature, light cleaves to its source. By nature, light tends toward concealment, not revelation. This is what he brings here from the Ramban: its very vessel is dark. Light always wants to escape by nature. Why? For a very simple reason: since the light is bound to its source, it senses its source. So why would it want to move away from its source? On the contrary, it wants to be more within its source, closer to the truth, closer to the essence. The whole nature of light is that it always wants to be part of its source, to be nullified and become nothing at all. In the language of Chassidus, this is called

48:03 the light’s natural ratzo: the light wants to escape, to become part of its source. We see this in physical fire, which always leaps upward, but something holds it in place. With physical fire, that is the wick and the wood. There is something—a garment—that tells it: I want you down here. We need to illuminate the world; we need to do something; there is a purpose. But there is constantly a kind of struggle between ratzo and shov, upward striving and return. It knows that here—as this wonderful maamar puts it—it is not a necessity, but a matter of its will. The light wants to descend not because that is its nature. Its nature is to rise, but it wants to descend because it knows there is an intention to illuminate. That is why it is called the light of revelation, and revelation is complete when it shines below. But on the other hand, where is its true place? That is why there are always two sides to fire. It becomes invested here because there is an intention, but that is something outside itself. It is as though it says: Really, I do not want to be here; I want to be included in my source. And this is quite literally so, all the more when we apply it to the soul as well. This is what happens to each and every one of us. As it says in Tanya, the soul truly wants to be included in the Life of life; it does not want to be in the world. The soul is essentially always moving upward, wanting to escape existence and become nothing at all. It does not want itself. It wants to be with Atzmus, as the Rav said. So what happens? Because there is an intention to make a dwelling place in the lower realms, it descends willingly and joyfully, knowing that this is the intention. But for that, it must submit to the supernal will. That is the concealment; that is the concealing garment. On the one hand, it causes the light to become invested in a way that relates to the worlds. But in its essence, inwardly, it remains light bound to its source. It always wants to rise. Therefore, all the time

50:06 The luminary is felt within it. And this is the connection between daas elyon and daas tachton that we’re discussing here as we continue: even when it becomes enclothed, it remains in deveikus. So the point here is not merely the order of hishtalshelus, a progression from one level to the next. This passage is also telling us that the source of daas elyon and daas tachton lies in the light before the tzimtzum. After all, that is what existed before the tzimtzum: everything was within His Essence, “He and His Name alone.” But even before the tzimtzum there is the thought of “Ana Emloch”—“I shall reign”—[unclear]. Why? Because the ultimate intention is a dwelling place in the lower realms, and this is the garment. This is the concealment that means that even before the tzimtzum, there is already a source for the tzimtzum, a source for the worlds. Yet in that very place, “He and His Name” are felt. This gives us the ability, afterward and even now, to connect daas elyon and daas tachton, so that true bittul shines even within the existence of the worlds. And this is the meaning of what is said of Avraham: “G-d of heaven and G-d of earth.” We say it in Shemoneh Esrei every day, too. It is in the first blessing, where we need to have kavannah. What do we say in Shemoneh Esrei? [unclear] Avraham, “G-d of heaven and G-d of earth”—this is that level, because through him it was drawn down into the earth as well. Here daas elyon and daas tachton are connected, so that true bittul is felt both in heaven and on earth—the bittul of “this way and that way,” yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah. The connection between daas elyon and daas tachton is, in essence, the revelation of Moshiach that we are all waiting for. “I will make your windows of kadkod.” The bochurim here learned this in Bava Basra, right? “I will make your windows of kadkod”—“this way and that way”: there will be both shoham and yashfeh, both daas elyon and daas tachton, both yichuda ila’ah and yichuda tata’ah. There will be a unification of the light

52:00 of that which conceals, which belongs to the worlds, and it will shine within the worlds. And consequently there will be a complete Geulah after which there will be no exile, as the Rebbe explains in the maamar “Ki Eishev Bachoshech,” 5708.