Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 21 - Part 2

00:06 Speaker 1 The Rebbe comes and says something very, very fundamental here about the whole subject of Hashem’s oneness: for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, speech—yes, speech—never separates from Him. That is the difference between the analogy and what it represents. In the analogy, speech leaves a person, becomes separate from him, and then becomes a reality in its own right. So you can say there are two states, two levels. There is speech within the soul, where it is utterly nullified. But when speech leaves the soul, becomes separate, and reaches someone else, it becomes a reality. That is true of a human being’s speech. But “My thoughts are not your thoughts,” and His speech is not like ours. With Hakadosh Boruch Hu, we say that even after He speaks and His speech goes forth to bring the worlds into being, there is still nothing outside of Him. “There is no place devoid of Him,” because there is nothing—nothing—outside of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So His speech never actually separates. And what follows from that? The nullification we speak of when a letter is within the soul, when speech is within the soul—where it is absolutely nothing, has no significance at all, and therefore brings about no change—that remains true now too, even after He speaks. That is the difference between a person and Hakadosh Boruch Hu. With a person, it is like that before he speaks, but after he speaks, on the level of speech, the speech is a reality. There are two levels: the level of speech and the level of the soul. Two levels, two places, two states. But Above there are not two states, because nothing ever truly leaves Him. So the state of nullification is always there: even when He speaks and brings the worlds into being, their nullification is one of being absolutely nothing, of being of no account whatsoever. And therefore it has no significance

02:11 Speaker 1 and brings about no change. That is what the Rebbe is saying here. By Divine Providence, it also appears in today’s and tomorrow’s Tanya, as we are now studying chapter 7, where the Rebbe explains the avodah of Yichuda Ila’ah. More specifically, the point of chapter 21 is the nullification of Yichuda Ila’ah. This is the difference—if we speak in general terms, yes?—between the way Hashem’s oneness is explained here and the way it is explained there. The oneness discussed in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah is more a matter of Yichuda Tata’ah, particularly up to chapter 7. All the extended discussion of the letters of speech bringing things into being, and the analogy of sunlight within the sun in the early chapters of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, concerns the avodah of Yichuda Tata’ah: the created being’s nullification to the speech. Here, though, we are speaking about Yichuda Ila’ah—the beginning of Yichuda Ila’ah. Not every aspect of the avodah; from the outset, he is speaking about true oneness. From the outset, he wants to explain Yichuda Ila’ah: how it is truly a higher unity. So he says it briefly; he does not go into the whole progression and discussion here. He goes straight to explaining unity, and therefore says that the letters of speech never left Hakadosh Boruch Hu. They are always included within the Ein Sof, and since the speech is within the Ein Sof, its nullification is consequently that of Yichuda Ila’ah: being absolutely nothing, of no account whatsoever. And that is the difference between the analogy he brings here and the analogy there. What is the analogy he brings here? The entire analogy we are studying here is speech in relation to the soul. Speech’s nullification in relation to the soul is a nullification born of utter incomparability. As we explained in previous classes, speech is one thing—it is a garment, and so on, with all its limitations—while the soul is the essence itself. It is utterly incomparable, boundless, an entirely different kind of being. So the nullification of speech

04:13 Speaker 1 in relation to the soul is a nullification born of utter incomparability. All the more so in relation to the Ein Sof and His light: the nullification is one of being utterly insignificant, absolutely nothing. That is what the analogy of speech illustrates—the nullification in relation to the Ein Sof, the nullification of Yichuda Ila’ah. Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, by contrast, speaks of the created being’s nullification in relation to the word of Hashem. In the relationship of a created being to the word of Hashem, the main point is that the created being has no existence of its own; its entire existence is the word of Hashem. More than that: since it is created something from nothing, it has no existence of its own. Its entire existence, at every moment, is the word of Hashem. What analogy does he bring? Sunlight, as we know—the light of the sun. Now, at any rate, we must be careful not to get confused. The analogy of sunlight appears several times, each time for a different purpose. Even within Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, he brings the analogy of sunlight within the sun several times—sometimes in connection with Yichuda Tata’ah, sometimes in connection with Yichuda Ila’ah—and each time we have to see what he is discussing. In any event, in the early chapters of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, when he brings the analogy of sunlight within the sun, it is an analogy for Yichuda Tata’ah, not Yichuda Ila’ah. There he does not emphasize that the light is of no account. His point is not that the light is of no account compared with its source. No; he is describing the light’s existence. It has no existence of its own. The source of light is the entire basis of the sunlight’s existence, particularly when the sunlight is within its source, where it has even less existence of its own. Even when the sunlight is outside its source, it has no existence of its own: its entire existence depends on the source, on the sun. Still, it has something, because in practice it is outside. When it is inside the sun, it has

06:00 Speaker 1 no independent existence at all, apart from the source of light itself. So the emphasis there is: what is the created being’s existence? The created being’s existence is the word of Hashem. That is why the analogy is sunlight and the sun, because ultimately the light and the sun are not utterly incomparable. It is life, life, life. After all, what is the light? The sun revealed. What is the sun? The source of the light. It is not like the analogy of the soul. With the soul, you say that the soul is an essence, it is life, it is something essential and inward, something lofty. The letters of speech, on the other hand, are something external. They are letters, a garment, something very [unclear]. So the letters have no comparison to the soul. But with the sun, what is the source of light? Simply a source of light. And the light is its revelation. What is the relationship between the revelation and the source? Essentially, they do have a connection. It is just that within the essence, the revelation is nothing; it is not a reality in its own right, because you have the essence itself. So that is an entirely different kind of nullification. Therefore, in connection with Yichuda Tata’ah, which is what Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah is discussing there, he brings the analogy of sunlight and the sun. In connection with Yichuda Ila’ah, he brings the analogy of the letters of speech. That, seemingly, is the straightforward way to understand the distinction between the two analogies as they appear in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah and here in Likkutei Amarim. But I have to add something so we do not get confused: in Tanya itself, later in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, in chapter 7—and I think this is already today’s lesson—he brings the analogy of sunlight and the sun again. This time, though, it is not about the created being and the word of Hashem, but about Malchus and how it is included within the higher sefiros. Right? In other words, he also brings the analogy of sunlight and the sun for Yichuda Ila’ah

08:00 Speaker 1 as well. We see it even more clearly later in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, in chapter 10, when the Alter Rebbe speaks about the sefiros: how the sefiros are included within the Ein Sof, how the sefiros comprise both lights and vessels, and how the sefiros bring about no change in His oneness. That is the whole subject he explains in the second half of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah. There, again, he brings the analogy of sunlight and the sun. It is the same analogy. The point is that you can look at the analogy of the sun and its light in two ways. You can look at it in terms of existence, as we said earlier: the light has no existence of its own and is not separate. Its entire existence depends on there being a source of light. Without the source, it has no existence; and within the source, all the more so. That is why it serves as an analogy for the created being’s nullification to the word of Hashem. But there is a deeper way to look at the analogy of sunlight and the sun: the utter incomparability between a ray and its source. There is an aspect in which you can say that the ray is only a reflection, a reflection, a reflection—nothing. The source of light is the essence. So when you speak of a reflection, a ray, in relation to the essence, there is indeed utter incomparability. There is no comparison at all. One is something essential, and the other is nothing. It is like nothing compared with something; it has no standing at all. So when that “nothing” is within the essence, it certainly has no standing whatsoever. That is how the analogy of sunlight and the sun does take on meaning in connection with Yichuda Ila’ah. That is why Chassidus sometimes uses the analogy of the sun and its light to describe a higher level, and this is very important. What I am saying now bears directly on learning Tanya, yes? In every instance, you need to see what the Alter Rebbe brings the analogy to explain. This is relevant to the bochurim who are learning Ha’umnam, or who have learned Ha’umnam, where you see something

09:59 Speaker 1 Remarkable. Does everyone remember the maamar Ha’umnam? Or have you already forgotten? In any case, in Ha’umnam, in the section where he explains the matter of the word of Hashem and its bittul, he doesn’t bring the analogy of the sun. Which analogy does he bring? Who remembers? Huh?

10:24 Speaker 2 Throwing a stone.

10:25 Speaker 1 Throwing a stone. Good. That’s the analogy he brings for creation of something from nothing: the force in the throw. Similarly, there is the force of the word of Hashem that brings the created being into existence. He doesn’t bring the analogy of the sun’s radiance. When does he bring the analogy of the sun’s radiance and the sun? In section nine, when he comes to explain that tzimtzum is not literal. He says that the infinite light is present everywhere, below just as above, and consequently the tzimtzum is not literal. So wherever the radiance is, the luminary is there too, as in the analogy of the sun’s radiance and the sun. That means the Rebbe Rashab brings the analogy of the sun for the highest degree of bittul, the bittul of yichuda ila’ah. But Tanya brings it for the bittul of the created being to the word of Hashem. When you learn this, you notice what seems like a contradiction. What kind of contradiction? It depends on which point you’re drawing from the analogy of the sun’s radiance and the sun. So in chapter three of Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, he discusses the bittul of the created being to the word of Hashem and brings the analogy of the sun’s radiance and the sun for the bittul of yichuda tata’ah. In the maamar Ha’umnam, he discusses a higher degree of bittul, yichuda ila’ah. He brings the same analogy, but he’s drawing on a different point, a very different aspect of the analogy of the sun’s radiance and the sun. It’s very interesting to look at chapter 33 of Tanya. Since we’re talking about the subject as a whole, in chapter 33 of Tanya the Alter Rebbe again briefly explains the unity of Hashem, this time in connection with joy. The Alter Rebbe says that a person should feel genuine joy when he reflects on how Hakadosh Boruch Hu is right there with him, and so on. Contemplating the unity of Hashem brings a person genuine joy throughout the day. [unclear]

12:18 Speaker 1 A fundamental matter in serving Hashem. So the Alter Rebbe returns once more to creation and the unity of Hashem, and there you see something remarkable. He says to contemplate the true unity of Hashem—that He alone exists and there is nothing besides Him, and so on, in every respect. He gives one analogy: letters within the soul. He presents this analogy in three lines, like letters of speech within the soul. The Infinite, yes, the Infinite. After that he adds: “Or, as a physical analogy for this”—where does he get it from?—“the sun’s radiance within the sun itself.” He brings both analogies together, and the only distinction he makes is that this one is a physical analogy. As though the difference between them is that the analogy of the letters is spiritual, an analogy from the soul, while the analogy of the sun is physical—but essentially they convey the same message. So you can see some interesting things here, right? Do you notice what’s happening? On the one hand, in chapter 21 of Tanya he brings only the analogy of the letters. There he speaks only about the unity of G-dliness. In Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah he speaks about the bittul of the created being to the word of Hashem. He brings the analogy of the sun’s radiance, only the analogy of the sun; he doesn’t bring the analogy of the letters. And in chapter 33 of Tanya, when he speaks about the joy that comes from the unity of Hashem, he brings the two analogies side by side, and the only difference is that one is a spiritual analogy and the other a physical one. Why? Because, evidently, when it comes to joy, the distinctions between the two analogies aren’t what matters. What matters is what they have in common: Hakadosh Boruch Hu is present wherever the created being is. So I am always with Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and therefore I should be joyful. There, both analogies help you understand how the worlds are always connected to the Infinite. Do you understand? Now let’s continue a little

14:19 Speaker 1 further in the text. The Alter Rebbe says: “His speech is called ‘speech’ only by way of analogy.” The speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu is called speech only by way of... What is he trying to explain now? A simple question apparently arises: if the speech is never separate from Hakadosh Boruch Hu, if it is always included within Him, then in what sense is it called speech? After all, that’s what the Torah calls it, isn’t it? “By the word of Hashem the heavens were made.” “And G-d said, ‘Let there be light.’” The Torah says “speech,” “said.” But apparently there was no utterance at all. If it was never separate, it always remained with Him. So where is the speech here? Why call it speech? He explains as follows. This is the question the Alter Rebbe asks. Do you know why it is called speech? Only by way of analogy. This is a different point. “Just as a person’s speech below reveals to listeners what was hidden and concealed in his thought.” Speech has an advantage. The advantage of speech is that it reveals: what was concealed becomes revealed. “So too above, with the blessed Infinite One, the emergence of light and vitality from Him, blessed be He, from concealment into revelation, to create worlds and give them life, is called ‘speech.’ These are the Ten Utterances through which the world was created, as well as all the rest of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings that the prophets apprehended in their prophetic visions.” What is he saying? The Alter Rebbe is saying something remarkable here. Look, the whole point of Chassidus, the whole... Chassidus teaches us how to examine every analogy in depth. Here’s the thing: we want to speak about Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and to do that we use physical terms. Our entire language—we have no G-dly language. We speak in terms of the physical, but above, Hakadosh Boruch Hu is not physical. Hakadosh Boruch Hu is G-dliness, while your words

16:28 Speaker 1 are physical words. So what is our job when we learn Chassidus? This is where all the rabbis come in and teach us that you have to examine every word and remove its physical aspect. Strip away the physicality and leave only the G-dly aspect of the matter. What does that mean in simple terms? Simply put, every thing in the world, every analogy, has an advantage and a shortcoming. The advantage is its good aspect, its spiritual aspect, the positive quality it has. Its shortcoming comes from the fact that it is created. It comes from its physical nature, so it has a limitation. Nothing in our world is complete, because our world is a world of created beings, and a created being is limited. So if something has an advantage on one side, that entails a shortcoming on another. It can’t have both; only in G-dliness is that possible. But in the physical world, if something has the advantage of day, it doesn’t have the advantage of night. If it’s night, it isn’t day. If it’s chesed, it isn’t gevurah; if it’s gevurah, it isn’t chesed. If it has this particular advantage, it can’t have the other one, because it is limited. Its particular form entails that boundary; it lacks something else. If it speaks, then it isn’t... it isn’t a living creature or a plant. It has one quality and lacks another. What does this mean? I’ll get to thought and speech. In short—you’re already looking at the clock—thought has an advantage and speech has an advantage. The advantage of thought is that it is united with the soul. What is the advantage of speech? It becomes revealed to someone else. There is revelation here. Thought doesn’t have that; speech does. It...

18:15 Speaker 1 It can also be revealed to someone else. But what is the drawback? The advantage comes with a drawback: the revelation is to someone else. Because if you want to reach another person, you have to go outside yourself. Decide where you want to be, inside or outside. If you’re outside, you’re not inside; if you’re inside, you’re not outside. Thought is inside, for myself, so the other person is missing here. They can’t know what you’re thinking. Speech, on the other hand, is for someone else, so it becomes detached from its source. But what, then, are we saying? The speech of Hakadosh Boruch Hu has the advantage without the drawback. That’s what the Baal Shem Tov is saying here. The advantage of speech. Why are the Ten Utterances called speech? Because of the advantage of speech: revelation. And that is what happened. Hakadosh Boruch Hu said, “Let there be,” and it was revealed; an actual world came into being. There is revelation here. But what is the drawback of revelation? That it becomes separate. That does not apply to G-dliness. Even as it is revealed and brings things into being, it does not become separate; it remains bound to its source. So it has this advantage as well: even as it comes forth in revelation, it remains included in the Infinite Light. It therefore remains utterly nullified. That is the whole point the Baal Shem Tov wants to make here in Tanya. As for the difference between revelation through thought and revelation through speech, which we discussed through [unclear] and through [unclear]: revelation through thought has the quality of thought, so that even from the perspective of the one below, it is always bound to its source. Even from the perspective of the created being, it remains included in its source, in a state of complete nullification. By contrast, when something comes through speech, the created being feels itself to be an independent existence, as the Baal Shem Tov will explain later. But in any case, let’s get back to our point, to the essential idea. Divine speech has only the advantage of speech, without the drawback of

19:58 Speaker 1 speech. Therefore, even the speech from Above remains included in the Infinite Light. So even after it is revealed and reaches another, “all is as nothing before Him.”