Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 3 - Part 1

00:00 Now he begins to explain what the soul contains—its details, its inner faculties. “Each level and degree of these three—nefesh, ruach, and neshamah...” The Alter Rebbe explained in chapter 2 that there are different levels of souls: nefesh, ruach, and neshamah. We explained then that these are three levels, three dimensions of the soul. There is nefesh, there is ruach, and there is neshamah. The Alter Rebbe says that each of these three levels—nefesh, ruach, and neshamah—includes ten aspects. Each includes ten aspects. Actually, in many places in Chassidus we learn... In many places in Chassidus we learn that nefesh, ruach, neshamah, and the body themselves correspond to these ten aspects. Chassidus often says that neshamah is the intellectual faculties, ruach is the emotions, and nefesh is malchus. Yes, or the garments, or malchus. So sometimes that is how Chassidus presents it. What is the point here? What does this mean? He is explaining that each one is a complete entity in its own right. Speaking generally, the level of nefesh is mainly associated with malchus. Nefesh is associated with action, with doing things in practice. That is the aspect of malchus, which is connected with action. Ruach, generally, is associated with the emotions, corresponding to the spirit and the heart. And neshamah, generally, is associated with binah, with the intellectual faculties. That is the general picture. But here the Alter Rebbe says in detail that each of these three levels also contains the sefiros. There are sefiros within the intellectual faculties, sefiros within the emotions, and malchus. So he says that each of these three levels—nefesh, ruach, and neshamah—also contains ten aspects. “Each level and degree of these three—nefesh, ruach, and neshamah—includes ten aspects.” It includes ten levels, ten dimensions, corresponding to the ten supernal sefiros. They correspond to the ten sefiros above, “from which they are derived.” As we said about the soul, the essence of the soul: where does it

02:29 come from? From “the wisdom of your Creator,” and “He is wise with His wisdom”—the most hidden aspect of the sefiros. The same is true of all the soul’s faculties, its inner faculties and its encompassing faculties. The faculties of the soul are also derived from the ten faculties above, the ten sefiros. They correspond to the ten supernal sefiros. It is interesting: when he speaks about the faculties of the soul below, he calls them “aspects.” But when he speaks about the ten sefiros above, he calls them “sefiros.” Why are they called aspects below, while above he calls them sefiros? Chassidus explains that the word “sefiros”—when we speak of the sefiros of Hakadosh Boruch Hu above, the ten sefiros, we use the word “sefiros.” What are sefiros? Hmm? Sefiros. What are sefiros? The word has three meanings. Sefiros is related to sapphire, which conveys light. It is related to telling, as in “the heavens tell,” and it is related to number. These are the three dimensions of the sefiros. They are of Atzilus; they are light and revelation, and they reveal G-dliness, revealing the simplicity of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He Himself is beyond revelation, beyond any defined form. So the sefiros reveal G-dliness in the world. Telling, too, means communicating something—again, a form of revelation. And number implies limitation, something within defined bounds. That is how the distinctions between these meanings are explained. But when we come down to the soul below, we cannot yet call its faculties “sefiros,” because the soul’s faculties become enclothed in the body and are dimmed by it. Then the full force of G-dliness is not revealed. So we cannot call them sefiros, because sefiros implies brightness and revelation. That is why below they are not called sefiros; they are called aspects. What does “aspect” mean? An aspect is an aspect. It means it is not the thing itself, only an aspect of it. “Aspect” is a broad term. In Chassidus

04:52 the term “aspect” is used all the time. It often says “the aspect of chesed,” “the aspect of chochmah”—this aspect and that aspect. What does “aspect” mean when we say it in Chassidus? It is like an assessment. What is an assessment? It is not something exact. It gives you an approximate sense. That is what an exam does in school, too. An exam cannot tell you a student’s exact standing, but it gives you some indication. You want to know whether he studied. Did he study? I don’t know. Sometimes a student might not do well on an exam because he is afraid of exams, because writing is difficult for him, or for other reasons. So it really is an assessment—a certain estimate of the matter, not the matter itself. Similarly, we speak of ten aspects. This means that the soul’s ten faculties are not exactly like the sefiros above. They are only aspects, derived from that source in a limited form. They have a source that corresponds to and resembles the ten sefiros above. But as they are here—after all, this is the whole point of the expression we always use, not only in Chassidus: it is an “aspect” of something. An aspect of chesed, an aspect—because whatever understanding we have is not of the things themselves. We have no conception of the essence of G-dliness or the essence of these levels. That is why we always call it an aspect. It is only an aspect of the thing, not the thing itself. It is a comparison, an approximation, a certain estimate, but not the thing itself. In any case, he says that each one has ten aspects, corresponding to the ten sefiros from which they are derived. These ten aspects of the soul are derived from the sefiros above. What does the Alter Rebbe add by saying “from which they are derived”? Here the Alter Rebbe adds

06:47 a profound point. The Alter Rebbe is saying that they do not merely correspond. Generally, when we speak of an analogy, there are two ways to look at it. An analogy can mean that we have found something similar. What is an analogy? It may have no intrinsic connection at all; it is simply a resemblance. You want to explain something: Hakadosh Boruch Hu is the King of kings. So you bring an analogy from a flesh-and-blood king. Certainly, there is no intrinsic connection. You just find similar details and link them together. The two things are not inherently connected. But what does Chassidus say? That it is not like that. Chassidus says something novel about analogies: it is not simply that we found one thing that resembles another. Rather, the nature of an analogy is that the analogy is derived from what it illustrates. The analogy itself is derived from it; that is its source, and that is why it can serve as an analogy for it. The analogy is derived from what it illustrates, and therefore, through the analogy, we gain a deeper, inner understanding of what it illustrates. The same applies here: “from which they are derived.” This is not just a casual expression; the precise wording matters. It is not merely that we have ten faculties in the soul that resemble the ten sefiros above. Rather, the ten faculties below, the faculties of the soul, are derived from the ten sefiros above. Therefore, by understanding the soul’s ten faculties, we gain a deeper understanding of G-dliness. Precisely because the ten faculties below are derived from the ten sefiros above, when we contemplate “From my flesh I shall perceive G-d”—when we understand and contemplate the soul’s ten faculties below—we can gain some understanding of what is above, because that is where they come from. Chassidus says even more than that. Chassidus says even more: that every

08:58 The reason Hakadosh Boruch Hu made sefiros in G-dliness is that He Himself is above the whole concept of sefiros. Hakadosh Boruch Hu is utterly simple. He is infinite and beyond any form, and yet He made sefiros. Why should there be sefiros in G-dliness? Is there form in G-dliness? Chassidus explains that the entire reason there are sefiros in G-dliness is so that a created being can reach G-dliness, so that a created being can connect with G-dliness. If, hypothetically, G-dliness had no aspect of chochmah and binah, if there were no category of intellect there, no way to engage with G-dliness intellectually, then even though I have an intellect, could I understand G-dliness? It would not be possible. G-dliness is not in the category of understanding. All our intellect would then be for things of this world. We could not understand G-dliness, because it would not be in the category of understanding. So that there could be a way to understand G-dliness, Hakadosh Boruch Hu made an aspect of understanding within G-dliness. He made intellectual faculties in Atzilus. And because the intellectual faculties in the soul, the soul’s Chabad, descend from the Chabad of Atzilus, we can understand G-dliness. The same applies to the middos. If, hypothetically, there were no attribute of kindness, truth or humility in G-dliness—if there were no middos in G-dliness—then the whole idea of loving Hakadosh Boruch Hu would not be possible. You cannot love something that does not fall within the category of love. You can love something to which the concept of love applies. Something that is not in that category at all—just as you cannot speak of touching a spiritual thing, of grasping something spiritual. Spirituality and physical grasp are unrelated. In the same way, something that is not in the category of love cannot be loved.

10:49 If G-dliness were not in the category of middos, it would not be possible to speak of loving Hakadosh Boruch Hu—of loving something that does not fall within the category of love. So Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so to speak, placed Himself, clothed Himself, in the ten sefiros—in intellectual faculties and middos. Through this we can understand and feel G-dliness and connect with G-dliness. This is what “descended from them” means. The ten powers of the soul descend from the ten sefiros above, and therefore, through the soul’s ten powers, we can grasp and understand G-dliness and come to connect with the ten sefiros of G-dliness. This is the whole idea of “From my flesh I perceive G-d”—really one of the great foundations of Tanya and of Chassidus in general. Chassidus revealed this point: that from the powers of the soul, one can understand G-dliness. Incidentally, this also relates to why Chassidus actually has so few analogies. Telling analogies is an art. There are very few of them here. There was a Jew known as the Maggid of Dubno, who had analogies; there are even entire books of his analogies. Some people know them. Analogies—it takes skill to tell them. He was a master of analogies. It takes skill to create analogies. Nevertheless, in Chassidus the number of analogies is very limited, and almost the same ones keep recurring: sunlight, a candle and its light, and the powers of the soul. Generally, those are the analogies that repeat. Yes, yes, there really is a particular, limited number of them. The reason is that an analogy is not just a story someone tells, looking for a resemblance. The point is that the analogy descends from the concept it illustrates; we are not just looking for analogies. Especially with analogies drawn from the powers of the soul, there is a deeper purpose here. It is not only because

12:49 they descended from them. The real purpose is to make G-dliness accessible in this way. Since Chassidus wants a person to be able to connect every part of himself with G-dliness, by using the powers of the soul as analogies for G-dliness, we connect each and every power with G-dliness. We also reveal, in every power of the body and soul, its connection to its source above. That is what Chassidus is about. So the Alter Rebbe revealed how to understand G-dliness through the powers of the soul. There is a story about the Rebbe of Berdichev. The Rebbe of Berdichev was not initially a Chabad chossid. His family—his father—was a chossid of Tsherov[?]. We have spoken about this before. He became a Chabad chossid. In one of the stories told about him, he explained what changed for him through the teachings of Chassidus, through Chabad Chassidus. He said that before he studied Tanya, he felt that all his spiritual troubles, all his problems, were because of the body. The body was the worst thing. The soul wants Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The soul wants G-dliness; it wants, wants to connect with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. What stops it? The body. The body is physical and material, and it pulls the soul toward all sorts of things. So he attributed everything that was not good in him to the body; it was the body’s fault. He therefore hated the body and wanted to break it with fasting and self-denial, to weaken it so it would not interfere. When he began studying Tanya, he said, he studied a page of Tanya, and there it says, “descended from them.” You see the great significance of this: a person’s entire being is a reflection of G-dliness—“from my flesh.” There is this within him: precisely through the body and bodily things, one can understand G-dliness, understand Hakadosh Boruch Hu and grasp

15:01 Him, and so on—all these things specifically through the body. For him, everything was completely reversed. He began to understand that the body was a telescope. That is the expression [unclear]—a telescope, binoculars, how do you say it in English? Folding binoculars. Maybe it was a telescope. In any case, for him the body was like a telescope through which one can see Hakadosh Boruch Hu, see G-dliness. “From then on,” he said, “I began to value the body, to look after it and make sure it was healthy.” That was what happened. In other words, the Alter Rebbe brought this point together for him. He understood that “From my flesh I perceive G-d” means that one can reach G-dliness precisely through flesh and physicality. That raised his appreciation of the body: to look after it and sanctify it. This is the point the Alter Rebbe revealed. Accordingly, the Alter Rebbe says that each person has all the powers of the soul, which descended from the supernal sefiros. They come from there. In other words, the sefiros are our source.

16:15 It is an expression of the ten sefiros above in our own existence. These ten powers are divided into two general categories, two groups: three mothers and seven doubles. There is a division into two parts—what those two parts are, and how the middos fit in. Above, though, they are called by different names: three mothers and seven doubles. That phrase, “three mothers and seven doubles,” is from Sefer Yetzirah. Sefer Yetzirah says that before Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world, the first thing He created was twenty-two letters. Twenty-two letters are the twenty-two letters of the alef-beis. Sefer Yetzirah says there that the twenty-two letters are divided into groups. There are three mothers, three letters that are the mothers. “Mothers” means sources, like a mother. In the language of the Gemara, “em” means a base, a foundation; it is called an “em.” [unclear] In any case, that is one meaning of “mother”: a foundation, a base. That is also why a mother is called an “em.” So there are three mothers, as it were three foundations: the letters alef, mem and shin. Alef, mem and shin are the three mothers. They are the three roots of the letters, corresponding to the three elements of fire, water and air. Alef is air, mem is water, and shin is fire. If you ask why shin—why is fire shin and not alef?—the reason is explained in Chassidus. In any case, alef, mem and shin are the three mothers. Then there are seven doubles: beis, gimmel, daled, chof, pei, reish and tav. These are seven letters that are doubled. What does “doubled” mean? They appear in Tanach both with dots and without dots. Beis is—what about gimmel? I don’t know.

18:50 How do you say it? Some people know that there is a gimel without a dot and a gimel with a dot. There is a difference; Yemenite Jews know how to distinguish between them. There is one gimel and another gimel, and a way to pronounce each one. Among Ashkenazim, people don’t know much about the... In any case, dalet also has a soft form and a form with a dagesh. The same goes for kaf and fei; reish, too, has a soft form and a form with a dagesh, and finally, tav. So those are seven letters called “doubles,” leaving twelve. Yes, seven plus three leaves twelve letters called the “twelve simples.” Then there are three mothers, seven doubles, and twelve simples. “Simples” means simple letters. That is the basis of the twenty-two letters. Corresponding to this, there are also concepts among the sefiros: the three mothers are chochmah, binah, and daas, called the first three; the middos are called the seven doubles; and the twelve mazalos, or twelve diagonal boundaries, are called the twelve simples in Chassidus. Those are the twelve simples. In any case, the Alter Rebbe is not discussing Kabbalah at all here in Tanya; he speaks only about the ten sefiros. So he brings the three mothers and the seven doubles. He says that chochmah, binah, and daas are called the three mothers. We’ll soon see why. He will explain why they are called mothers: they are the sources of all the middos. And the seven middos are called doubles. Why are they called doubles? What makes them double? With the letters, we said there are two forms of each letter, but what does that mean in the inner sense? As explained, it means there is a form with a dagesh and a soft form. The difference between letters with a dot and letters without a dot—between the form with a dagesh and the soft form—is the difference between the middos of Tohu and the middos of Tikkun. In other words, a dagesh represents middos with

20:47 force. A dagesh indicates forcefulness, judgment, gevurah. Those middos are more forceful, like the middos of Tohu. And there are softer middos, the middos of Tikkun, which are gentler, more refined, and have more bittul. That is the soft form. These are the two forms: with a dagesh and without. They represent two kinds of middos. That is what “the seven doubles” means. There are two kinds of middos. This is what the Gemara says: “A person should always be soft like a reed and not hard like a cedar.” A person’s middos should be soft—“soft like a reed,” with bittul—and not hard, “like a cedar,” dismissing the other person, and so on. So there are two kinds of middos, and that is why the middos are called doubles. Chochmah, binah, and daas are the mothers. The seven days of creation are the seven doubles, the Alter Rebbe says. He also calls them the seven days of creation—the seven days in which Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world. As is known, those seven days correspond to the seven middos. Each day, Hakadosh Boruch Hu used one middah to create the world. On the first day, He used the middah of chesed. Chesed is about revelation. So what was created on the first day? Light. Light is revelation. On the second day, Hakadosh Boruch Hu used the middah of gevurah. So what happened on the second day? Separations: the firmament divided the upper waters from the lower waters. Separation is an aspect of gevurah. On the third day, Hakadosh Boruch Hu used tiferes, and so dry land emerged, a place for human beings. Hm? Hm? I didn’t say that the word “mothers” contains the letter shin. I said that the letters alef, mem, and shin

23:03 are the mothers of the letters. They are the sources of all the letters. In any case, the seven days of creation are chesed, gevurah, tiferes, and so on. Those are the seven days in which Hakadosh Boruch Hu created the world. And so it is in the human soul, which is divided into two: intellect and middos. In the human soul, too, there are these two aspects: the intellect, which is the mothers, and the middos, which are the doubles. The intellect means chochmah, binah, and daas; the middos include love, patience, fear and awe, glorifying, and so on. Love of Hashem is chesed. Fear and awe are two aspects of gevurah. Fear is in the heart, while awe is in the mind. Here the Alter Rebbe puts fear before awe, the heart before the mind, because he is discussing the middos themselves. So he begins with what is closer to the heart, fear, and then awe, which is loftier. Later we’ll see that the Alter Rebbe reverses the order: awe and then fear. We’ll explain that. And glorifying, and so on. Chabad is called the mothers and the source of the middos because the middos are the offspring of Chabad. Then there is Chabad. Why is Chabad called that? Why are these sefiros called mothers? The Alter Rebbe says it is because the middos are the offspring of Chabad. Since the middos are Chabad’s offspring, they are called... What else does the Rebbe add here? The Rebbe Rashab explains this in his commentary. He explains why the Alter Rebbe says “offspring”: as is known, the middos have their own root in the soul, apart from the intellect. The middos come from the soul; they have a distinct root there. The intellect does not bring the middos into existence. The soul has ten sefiros: it has intellect and it has middos. Understood? Yes, exactly. So why do I call the faculties of intellect “mothers,” the sources of the middos? The Alter Rebbe explains that the middos are the offspring of Chabad; they are not brought into existence by Chabad. The middos are only the offspring

25:12 of Chabad. They are born—that is, brought out and revealed. The middos themselves have a root in the soul, but on their own they remain hidden. Who gives birth to them? Who reveals them and brings them into the world? The faculties of intellect. That is why they are called mothers. Today, of course, is 13 Elul, the date of the Frierdiker Rebbe’s wedding. The Frierdiker Rebbe married on Friday, Erev Shabbos, 13 Elul. The chuppah was on Erev Shabbos, and the wedding feast was held on Sunday. Many people don’t know that. That is how things were sometimes done in those days; it was a custom. Today it’s no longer done because of concerns about Shabbos. But it was once fairly common to hold the chuppah on Friday and the wedding feast either on Motzaei Shabbos or on Sunday. So Sunday, 15 Elul, was the day the sheva brachos concluded. It was the day of the wedding feast. That is a piece of history worth knowing. Everyone knows it was on 17 Tammuz, but they don’t know it was at the wedding feast. In other words, it wasn’t at seven in the morning; it was at the wedding feast. The chuppah was on Friday, and the wedding feast was on Sunday, 15 Elul. That was when the sheva brachos concluded. The Rebbe Rashab delivered the well-known maamar beginning “Samei’ach Tesamach,” 5657. It is one of the longest maamarim in Chassidus generally, and among the Rebbe Rashab’s maamarim in particular. A very long maamar, both at the beginning and at the end. A wonderful maamar, and very long too. I don’t remember exactly, but it’s about two hundred pages. And the remarkable thing is that this came to light.