Igeres Hateshuvah Chapter 4, Part 10 - The difference between the letters of the Name Havayah

00:00 We’ll continue with Igeres Hateshuvah, on page 94b. We’re in the middle of explaining the four letters of the name Havayah. The Rebbe explains that the four letters of the name Havayah allude to the ten sefiros. He explains how this carries over to the soul as well: the soul, too, has a veritable part of Havayah. It has four letters of the name Havayah, which allude to its ten faculties, corresponding to the ten sefiros from which they evolved. But here we’re in the middle of explaining the four letters as they are Above. We discussed this, and we’ve reached the letter yud. We’ve reached the letter yud. The Alter Rebbe says two things. The letter yud itself alludes to Chochmah. That’s the significance of the yud being a point. It represents His blessed wisdom, a state of concealment and hiddenness, which is why it’s a point. A point is a point; it is beyond revelation. It has no length, no expansion. So it represents the quality of concealment and hiddenness—G-dliness beyond the world. There’s also the tip of the yud, which is higher still: the tip extending above the yud. It alludes to the level of the Supernal Will. In the previous class, we explained why this comes up here. Look, he’s explaining the four letters of the name Havayah. What is the tip of the yud doing here? We explained how the whole subject relates to Igeres Hateshuvah. Knowing about the tip of the yud—that there is a level above the yud, yet connected to it, and that this is the Supernal Will—helps us understand where the entire concept of atonement for sins, forgiveness of sins, and reaching the attribute of mercy comes from. The forgiveness of sins comes from the tip of the yud, and that leads into what follows. With Hashem’s help, we’ll return to this, and so on. There’s another very, very interesting point here, based on a teaching of Reb Levi Yitzchak, on the gaon—

02:12 —of Reb Levi Yitzchak, which at first seems to be just a matter of precise wording. But as the Rebbe teaches us, every point of wording that Reb Levi Yitzchak examines matters to our understanding of the entire subject we’re learning here in Igeres Hateshuvah. There’s a point to examine here. If you look in Igeres Hateshuvah, you’ll notice something interesting: the Alter Rebbe uses two expressions. When the Alter Rebbe begins explaining that the ten sefiros are present in the four letters of the name Havayah, his wording is “contained and alluded to.” All ten sefiros are “contained and alluded to.” Those are two expressions. Reb Levi Yitzchak points out that there are two expressions here: one is “contained,” and the other is “alluded to.” What’s the difference between them? And why does the Alter Rebbe use both? Looking further, you notice something interesting. When he gets to the details, to the yud, the Alter Rebbe says that the yud, which is merely a point, “alludes to His blessed wisdom.” Here the Alter Rebbe uses only one word: “alludes.” He doesn’t say “contained and alluded to.” He only says “alludes.” When he discusses the tip of the yud, he likewise says, “And the tip above the yud alludes to the level of the Supernal Will.” So here too he uses the expression “alludes.” He doesn’t say “contained and alluded to.” Later, when he gets to the letter hei—and similarly with the vav and the lower hei, the other letters—the Alter Rebbe goes back to saying “contained and alluded to.” When he gets to the letter hei, the Alter Rebbe says, “contained and alluded to in the letter hei.” And when he gets to the letter vav, he likewise says, “contained and alluded to in the letter vav.” So what’s going on here? Reb Levi Yitzchak says: just pay attention to the wording and you’ll see this pattern. When he first speaks about all four letters, at the beginning of the discussion, saying that all ten sefiros are alluded to in the four letters, he says “contained and alluded to.” He uses both—

04:31 —expressions. When he speaks about the yud, he says only “alludes.” When he speaks about the tip of the yud, he says only “alludes.” He doesn’t say “contained and alluded to.” Then, when he speaks about the hei, vav, and hei, he goes back to saying “contained and alluded to.” Why? There’s a wonderful sicha about this in the explanations of Igeres Hateshuvah. The Rebbe gives us an explanation that really opens our eyes to the difference between the letters of the name Havayah, and to how the letters of the name Havayah are affected by mitzvos. It explains how, by doing mitzvos, we draw down G-dliness. After all, that’s the whole purpose of Igeres Hateshuvah: to explain how a Jew, through Torah and mitzvos, draws down G-dliness and adds an additional light to the name Havayah; while by committing a transgression, one causes, G-d forbid, a blemish in the name Havayah. And the whole point of teshuvah is to repair those blemishes, atone for them, refine them, and cleanse them. So first of all, what’s the difference between these two words? What’s the difference between “contained” and “alluded to”? What’s the difference between saying something is contained and saying it is alluded to? “Contained” means it is actually present there, enclothed within it. When you say “contained,” yes, you mean there is a real union and enclothement. When you say “alluded to,” it is only a hint. A hint isn’t something actually enclothed within it; the connection is more distant. To give an example of “contained,” let’s talk about a teacher teaching a student. When a teacher teaches a student, the teacher’s idea is enclothed in explanations, analogies, and examples that the student can understand. That’s called enclothement. That’s one way. But sometimes the ideas are so lofty that the teacher cannot explain them to the student, so he gives him only a hint. When an idea is very high and lofty, it can’t be conveyed in letters, in words, in explanations, so the teacher conveys it only through a hint. Chassidim give an example: Why does a person gesture with a finger? What’s that movement of the finger? Sometimes, when a teacher is teaching a student, he wants to convey something very deep. He explains and explains, but when he reaches a certain depth of the subject, he has no words; he has nothing more to say. So the teacher gestures with his finger, and the student understands from that movement that there’s something deeper here. He’ll think about it, contemplate it, and arrive at it himself. The movement of the finger is a very external movement. Yes, there’s no intellectual content in it; it’s just a physical movement. But it contains a hint. There’s something deeper there. In any case, broadly speaking, “contained” and “alluded to” are two different things. What does this mean Above, in the sefiros? Broadly speaking, in the sefiros Above, it’s the difference between the lights and the vessels. That’s the difference between lights and vessels. The four letters of the name Havayah—the letters of the name Havayah—each letter has a shape: the shape of the yud, the shape of the hei, the shape of the vav. The shapes of the four letters of the name Havayah are vessels for Chochmah, Binah, Zeir Anpin, and Malchus. The shape of the yud is an analogy for the Chochmah of Atzilus, because it has the shape of a point, and so on. The shape of the hei, which has length and width, is an analogy for Binah. The shape of the vav—each letter’s shape is an analogy, a garment for the vessel of one of the sefiros. But with respect to the vessels, you can say “contained.” With respect to the lights, though, the light of a sefirah is not—he calls it light. Light is simple. The lights don’t take on such distinct forms. The lights remain very lofty, so there is only an allusion to them. That, then, is the Alter Rebbe’s wording: that all ten—

06:45 In words, in explanations, the teacher can convey it only through a hint. Chassidim sometimes give this example: Why does a person gesture with his finger? What is that movement of the finger? Sometimes, when a teacher is teaching a student, he wants to tell him something very deep. He explains and explains, but when he reaches a certain depth of the subject, he has no words left. So the teacher makes a movement with his finger, and the student understands from that movement that there is something deeper here. He thinks about it, reflects on it, and reaches it on his own. The movement of the finger is something very external. There is no intellectual content in the movement itself; it is just a physical gesture. But it contains a hint to something deeper. In any case, broadly speaking, the difference between “included” and “hinted at” involves two distinct things. What does this mean in the sefiros above? Broadly speaking, it is the difference between the lights and the vessels. The four letters of the name Havayah—each letter has a shape: the shape of the yud, the shape of the hei, the shape of the vav. The shapes of the four letters of the name Havayah are vessels for Chochmah, Binah, Zeir Anpin, and Malchus. The shape of the yud is an analogy for Chochmah of Atzilus, because it is shaped like a point, and so on. The shape of the hei, which has length and width, is an analogy for Binah. The shape of the vav—every letter’s shape is an analogy, a garment for the vessel of one of the sefiros. But with regard to the vessels, you can say “included”; with regard to the lights, the light of a sefirah has no such shape. It is called light. Light is simple. The lights do not take on a definite shape in the same way; they remain on a very high level, so they are only hinted at. So this is the Alter Rebbe’s wording: that all ten

08:45 The sefiros are included and alluded to. At the beginning of the discussion, the Alter Rebbe says “included and alluded to.” Since all the sefiros have both lights and vessels, “included” refers to the vessels: they are actually included in the four letters, because vessels have a form. So the form of the vessels is included in the form of the four letters of the name Havayah. Or the other way around: the form of the four letters is included in the vessels of Atzilus, because the form of the letters corresponds precisely to the form of chessed, chochmah, and the other sefiros. That is regarding the vessels. But you cannot say the lights are “included,” because they are too lofty. They are formless, so there is only an allusion to them. That is at the beginning of the discussion. But later, when he goes into the individual letters, the Alter Rebbe says that the letter yud alludes to the sefirah of chochmah. In truth, even the vessel of chochmah does not really take on a definite form. We know that Chassidus teaches us how lofty the sefirah of chochmah is. Chochmah is koach mah, the capacity for bittul. The Alter Rebbe says in Tanya, in Likkutei Amarim, chapter 35, that “there is nothing besides Him” shines in chochmah. He alone exists, and there is nothing besides Him—that is the sefirah of chochmah. So how can you say that chochmah is actually invested in the letter yud? Chochmah is bittul. Where is the form? How could it have a form? Therefore, when the Alter Rebbe comes to chochmah, he says “alludes to.” It is not actual investment—not only the light of chochmah, but even its vessel. Because ultimately, given the bittul of chochmah, since the true bittul of “He alone exists, and there is nothing besides Him” shines there, even its vessel is like its light. The vessel is too lofty. So the Alter Rebbe says only “alludes to.” It is not actual investment. That is regarding chochmah. Regarding

11:00 the tip of the yud, it is even more so. If that is true of chochmah, which is already a sefirah, and yet, because chochmah is bittul, the Alter Rebbe says it only “alludes to”—then, as Rabbi [unclear] says, the tip of the yud certainly cannot be a vessel. The tip of the yud is the Supernal Will, keser. The Supernal Will cannot be invested in a vessel. The Supernal Will is infinite, without limit. That which is without limit cannot be invested in a vessel, so the Alter Rebbe says only that it “hints at” it. The Rebbe makes an even finer distinction—Reb Levik points it out, and the Rebbe explains it. This is very interesting. Listen carefully: it is very important to see how every detail is precise, both grammatically and according to Chassidus. Regarding chochmah, the Alter Rebbe uses the word “meramezes,” while regarding the tip of the yud, the Supernal Will, he uses “romez.” What is the difference between meramezes and romez? There is a difference here too. Grammar speaks of “heavier” letter forms, including forms with the letter mem. In other words, when you say meramez, it is heavier: it suggests more substance, more investment. When you say romez, it is more distant. And that is what we are saying. Chochmah is a sefirah. But because it is utterly nullified, you cannot say it is actually included; it is not actual investment. So he says meramez, with a mem, because ultimately it is a sefirah. But regarding the Supernal Will, you cannot even say meramez; it is only romez. It is utterly beyond comparison. The tip of the yud is utterly beyond comparison. It is merely a hint. Based on this principle—well, good, so it turns out that the wording is precise. Here it says “included and alluded to”; here it says meramezes;

13:14 here it says romezes. That tells us it is merely a hint, not actual investment. Why does this matter here in Igeres Hateshuvah? Why do we need to know in Igeres Hateshuvah how Hakadosh Boruch Hu is invested in the letters—where there is actual investment, where there is only an allusion, and where there is only a hint? What is the point? So the Rebbe says: It is very simple; it relates to the entire subject. There is a straightforward question here. Why does a person have the ability to commit a sin and cause a blemish in the name Havayah? How does it happen that when a person sins, he causes a blemish in the name Havayah? How can that be? The name Havayah is Hakadosh Boruch Hu. How can a person affect the name Havayah? What is the explanation? The explanation is that the sefiros have a certain measure of substance. The sefiros have vessels. They are invested within the limitations of vessels, and this is invested in Atzilus. So ultimately there is some measure of substance here. For all the greatness of the name Havayah, it is invested in vessels. And because it is invested in vessels, through many tzimtzumim there is room for a person’s existence. A person’s existence thus has a connection to the vessels of Atzilus. So when I do a mitzvah, I bring about bittul in the vessels. I bring about an increase of light, a greater flow of Divine energy. Conversely, when I commit a sin, I cause a blemish in the vessels. There is a connection between the vessel and the person: the vessel has substance. However subtle it may be, there is a connection. According to this, the question arises: How can the Supernal Will repair the blemish? We said that when you do teshuvah, you draw on the Supernal Will, and that repairs the blemish. But if the will also has a form—after all, the will is invested in the tip of the yud—then it

15:21 too has a connection to existence: the tip of the yud. If so, the will too has a connection to existence, and if so, the will too can be blemished. How, then, can the will repair anything? If the will is entirely beyond any connection to the worlds—if the Supernal Will is [unclear], above the worlds, with no connection to them at all—then we understand how it can repair. But if the will too falls within the category of letters, if the tip of the yud is the will, then the will too has a connection. So how can it repair? The Alter Rebbe answers this through his change in wording. By writing romezes, he gives us the answer. Regarding the other letters, he says “included” or “alluded to.” That means there is a form here, there is investment. So a blemish has significance, and by sinning you cause a blemish in the name Havayah. But the tip of the yud is only a hint. The Supernal Will is not actually present there; the tip merely hints at it. A hint does not create an intrinsic connection. The Supernal Will remains above it. In essence, it is beyond any connection; the tip is nothing more than a hint. So the blemish has no significance there—it does not reach there—and that is why the Supernal Will can repair the blemishes. On the other hand, as we said in the previous class, ultimately the Alter Rebbe also wants to say that it does have a connection. The tip of the yud is connected to the yud, and that explains how the Supernal Will repairs. There are two sides to this. On the one hand, because it is above the four letters of the name Havayah, above the sefiros, and the blemish has no significance to it, it can grant atonement. It can forgive. Yes? On the other hand, it can repair the blemishes because it does have a connection. That is the idea of the tip

17:13 of the yud. On the one hand, it is above the letters; the tip is merely a hint. On the other hand, because it does provide a hint, there is also a connection, and so the Supernal Will can repair the blemishes in the four letters of the name Havayah. This is the Rebbe’s explanation here, a very interesting explanation. But one more thing: based on this principle, the Rebbe explains something remarkable, truly remarkable. The principle is that the tip of the yud hints at something loftier. Listen carefully: this will explain a very interesting point in halachah. The tip of the yud hints at keser, at the Supernal Will—something supremely lofty. Yet it only hints at it; it is not invested there. That answers a simple question that arises in halachah: Which is holier? Which has greater holiness according to halachah—the four letters of the name Havayah, or the tip on the yud? According to halachah, it is forbidden to erase the name Havayah. Obviously, it is also forbidden to erase its tip, but that does not carry the same severity. A person who erases the name Havayah violates a Torah prohibition. Yes? It is forbidden to destroy the name Havayah; it is forbidden to erase it. That is a Torah prohibition. If a person erases only the tip, he has not yet erased the name Havayah. Strictly speaking, it does not have the same severity; it is not the same matter. You could ask a simple question: Wait, which is higher, the yud or the tip of the yud? The tip of the yud is higher. The tip represents the Supernal Will, while the yud represents chochmah. Will is higher. But in halachah, it is explicitly the reverse. The tip of the yud does not have that degree of holiness. The yud and the other letters are holier than the tip of the yud. What is the explanation? It is exactly what we learned here in Tanya. This is the heart of the explanation: the four letters of the name Havayah are vessels for chochmah, binah, and Z’eir Anpin

19:28 Essence. They are vessels for the revelation of the light of Ein Sof. Because they are vessels, they have holiness. The tip of the yud is not a vessel. It is not a vessel because will has no vessel. Will is above vessels. The tip is only a hint. If it is a hint, then the will itself is not invested in it; it is above it. That is why it does not have the same degree of holiness as the four letters of the name Havayah. Another simple example of this is the tallis and tzitzis, and “Anochi Havayah Elokecha.” “Anochi Havayah Elokecha”—yes? What does Chassidus say? Who does “Anochi” refer to? “Anochi” refers to Hashem’s Essence. “Anochi”—“I, Who I am”—refers to the Essence and Being of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, above every name. “Havayah” refers to Yud-Kei-Vav-Kei, the name Havayah, sovev kol almin. The name Havayah corresponds to Chochmah, Binah, Ze’er Anpin, and Malchus, according to what we are learning here. “Elokecha” refers to the name Elokim, below, at the end of the discussion, and so on. Now, in halachah, the name Havayah has holiness. It is one of the names that may not be erased. The name Elokim has holiness. You may not erase the name Havayah or the name Elokim, but you may erase “Anochi.” If a scribe made a mistake and wants to erase “Anochi,” he has no problem; strictly speaking, there is no problem erasing the word “Anochi” under the laws of a Torah scroll. Erasing the name Havayah is forbidden; erasing the name Elokim is forbidden. But “Anochi” you can erase and write again. What? “Anochi” refers to Hashem’s Essence, which is higher than Havayah. And yet “Anochi” does not have that holiness. What is the explanation? The same thing. The name Havayah is a vessel for Atzilus; it relates to the sefiros. The name Elokim is a vessel for Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s attribute of Gevurah. “Anochi” is not a vessel

21:28 for Hashem’s Essence. “Anochi” is not a vessel for Hashem’s Essence. Hashem’s Essence is not within the category of vessels; a vessel is not applicable to Hashem’s Essence. “Anochi” is only a hint. How else could we refer to it? We have no word for it. Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself has no name. “Hakadosh Boruch Hu” is not a name. “Anochi” is only a hint, but Hashem’s Essence is not invested in the word “Anochi,” so the word “Anochi” does not have the holiness of “Havayah Elokecha.” Another example in halachah: tallis and tefillin—tallis and tzitzis. The laws of tallis and tzitzis are very interesting. In halachah, there is no... Which has more holiness, the tallis or the tzitzis? According to halachah, which has more holiness—the tallis or the tzitzis? The tzitzis. According to halachah, the fabric of the tallis has no holiness at all. You can even throw it in the trash. It does not have to go into genizah. According to halachah, a tallis is not considered an article of holiness. While you are using it, you are performing a mitzvah, but when it becomes unfit for use, when you are done with it, the tallis itself has no halachic status of holiness. The tzitzis do have certain laws relating to holiness, yes? It says that you must not tear them with your teeth; you have to be careful, because that is disrespectful. There are more halachic rules and more precautions concerning the tzitzis than concerning the tallis. So, as I said, with certain laws concerning disrespect, it says not to treat the tzitzis disrespectfully. About the tallis, it says that it has no holiness at all. The tzitzis, according to halachah, do have, in certain respects, a greater degree of holiness. That is how it comes out in halachah. According to Chassidus, what are the tallis and the tzitzis? What does it say in Derech Mitzvosecha, in the mitzvah of tzitzis? Presumably the students learned it. The tallis alludes to sovev kol almin, and the tzitzis allude to tzimtzum, the kav, memalei. So which is higher, the tallis or the tzitzis?

23:34 The tallis is higher than the tzitzis. But in halachah it is the opposite: the tzitzis have more standing, more importance in halachah than the tallis. How do we explain that? The same way we explain the point here. Because the tzitzis allude to tzimtzum, the life-force of memalei, the kav—whatever it may be—is invested in them. The tallis is makif, encompassing, and a makif is not invested in it. It is only a hint. Since it is only a hint, the tallis itself has no holiness. This is a very interesting principle in avodah. The Rebbe also explains it in connection with the well-known sicha, Kuntres Inyanah Shel Toras HaChassidus, in the explanation of Modeh Ani. Why is Modeh Ani higher than all the other prayers? It contains no Divine name, so it can be said before washing your hands. Modeh Ani expresses the essence of the soul. It is yechidah, it is Essence, it is innermost. But on the contrary, it is only a hint and not a vessel, and that is why you can say Modeh Ani without washing your hands. And there is more to say about that. In any case, let us return to our subject. So what are we learning here in Tanya? The Rebbe explains to us that the four letters of the name Havayah are included in the ten sefiros, and in the four letters of the name Havayah there are both light and vessels. All four letters relate to the ten sefiros. There are the vessels, and there are the lights. When a Jew performs a mitzvah, he has the power to bring an additional light into Atzilus, into both the lights and the vessels. And when a Jew commits a transgression, he causes a blemish in both the vessels and the lights. That is what the Rebbe wants to say. At the same time, there is also the possibility of repairing it through teshuvah. Through teshuvah we draw down the Supernal Will. On the one hand, the Supernal Will is above Havayah, as we said, entirely beyond comparison, and therefore it has the ability to repair what is above Havayah. On the other hand, it does have a connection—but that connection

25:42 is only by way of a hint, not by way of being invested in it. If it were invested in it, the blemish would have significance there. Because it is only by way of a hint, the blemish has no significance there, and the Supernal Will can also bring about the repair. The avodah of teshuvah causes the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy to be drawn down from the Supernal Will, enabling a person to begin a new existence. That is what will all be explained, with Hashem’s help, later in Tanya. That’s it—and now we have reached the Tanya.