1561 —ביאורים על ליקוטי תורה, דיוקי לשון ותובנות חסידות

B"H, 10 Iyar, 5712.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vaharaha"ch iy"a nu"n osek b'tzt"z etc. Ephraim Eliezer

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh Tiferes Sheb'Tiferes—the birthday of the Rebbe Maharash—regarding your question in Likkutei Torah Tazria (the discourse beginning "Kamiflegi b'Metivta d'Rekia," end of section one), where it says: "The Keter is drawn from Malchus d'Ein Sof, which is only light and radiance from the Emanator Himself." You asked about the word "shehu": does it refer to Keter (and if so, it's unclear since Malchus d'Ein Sof is also only light and radiance), or does it refer to Malchus d'Ein Sof (in which case it should be in the feminine form "hi")?

The answer: clarification of the doubt. This statement also appears in Sefer HaMitzvos by tzt"z, and in tzt"z's version (section Kuf-Gimmel, page Alef) it says: "Keter is drawn only from Malchus d'Ein Sof, and the aspect of Malchus is called light and radiance from the Essence." Your difficulty that in Likkutei Torah it should also say "hi": as stated in Sefer HaMitzvos, it's known that generally in Chassidic discourses there isn't strict attention to such grammatical details—except for Sefer Tanya part one and similar works where precision regarding masculine/feminine, singular/plural is maintained. See also the discussion between Rashal and Rama as printed in Teshuvos HaRama section four at length.

Also see what Rashbatz writes (part one section 43) as brought in Sdei Chemed (Klalim HaPoskim section 16 sub-section 65): "There is no flaw for a sage if he does not know grammar or words," just as there are many grammatical errors in the piyutim of R. Elazar HaKalir who was among the greatest sages. It is also possible that lack of grammatical precision in Chassidic discourses is as Rama writes in his responsa—that it's due to copyists.

Regarding our case in Likkutei Torah: another answer can be given based on what is explained in Chassidus about prayer language: "Emunah kol zot" (faith—all this) uses feminine; "ve'kim aleinu" (and may it be established upon us) uses masculine (see Likkutei Torah Parshas Eikev section Tet-Zayin end of page four). For when Malchus stands at the end of the upper world—it receives; when it becomes head for this world—it influences. Thus first it's "emunah kol zot," then "ve'kim aleinu." Similarly here: when explaining how Keter is drawn from Malchus d'Ein Sof—it's an aspect of influence upward; thus Malchus is referred to with masculine because it draws upward. Tzt"z writes with feminine because he repeats again: "the aspect of Malchus...is called...", speaking about Malchus itself—not just its light that draws Keter but its essence—thus he writes with feminine.

b) Regarding why both terms "or v'ziv" (light and radiance) are used instead of just "ziv": As above, it's significant to explain such double expressions—even in Tanya part one. See Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah chapter three for distinctions where sometimes only "or," sometimes only "ziv," sometimes both together are used—and sometimes "or" precedes "ziv," sometimes vice versa. In general usage these terms have different meanings for influencer and recipient: for the influencer, or (light) is more essential than ziv (radiance), which is external; hence we often find phrases like "or me'ein hama'or" (light from the luminary), where or adheres to its source—not ziv. For recipient: or being lofty can only be received generally; ziv being secondary/external can be received internally. Thus our Sages say: their crowns on their heads (crown = makif/surrounding), they enjoy ziv haShechinah (radiance of the Divine Presence)—enjoyment = internalization (see Rashi Berachos 17a). In Malchus and Keter both aspects exist; hence both terms are used. See also Likkutei Torah for this week pages 20a-b.

c) In Likkutei Torah there at end of section two: there are several garments of thought—when one's thought is engaged with wisdom of Torah it's an inner garment; thinking about wisdom needed for Torah like astronomy is an intermediate garment; your question was whether contemplating greatness of creation to reflect on greatness of Creator counts as inner or intermediate garment.

In my opinion there are two possibilities: if contemplating creation literally—as Rambam writes (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah chapter two): how does one come to love/fear Him?—this is preparation for mitzvah—the mitzvah being love/fear of Hashem. But if thinking about knowledge of Seder Hishtalshelut—the chain-like progression of sefirot etc.—this itself is a lofty mitzvah that surpasses all others as written: "Veyadata hayom...da et Elokei avicha..." (Know this day...know the G‑d of your father...)—see Tanya's glosses regarding understanding what Pri Etz Chaim says page 156b.

Note: In our printings it says mitzvah rabbah v'nisa'ah—but see Bava Basra 8b Tosafos s.v. lo Gittin 41b—and nisa'ah; but according to correction chart by Reb Asher z"l who worked on printing Tanya—it should read mitzvah ramah v'nisa'ah—and my father-in-law agreed with his correction chart.

d) There at section three/four you ask whether Kelipas Nogah d’Atzilut draws sustenance from Tiferes d’Atzilut or only from Chesed/Gevurah etc.: Based on context there it's clear that if only Or Abba departs then drawing sustenance can occur—but what you quoted about drawing from Tiferes or at least Netzach/Hod/Malchus isn't so—and certainly not literally so! The meaning is that when Or Abba departs—even though other sefirot remain—there's room for drawing sustenance but not from sefirot themselves G‑d forbid! That's why Scripture says: Adam ki yihiyeh b'or besaro... (When a person has a blemish on his skin...)—see Likkutei Torah there—and similarly explained elsewhere that drawing sustenance comes from letters etc., not from sefirot themselves G‑d forbid.

e) Regarding your note about reasoning found in several places—that a verse teaches certainty not doubt—and connecting this with dispute whether baheret precedes white hair etc.: See this very discourse at end section four where distinction between doubt/knowledge regarding blemishes/mamzer versus other matters is discussed.

f) In general about this discourse—as ethical instruction—from my father-in-law's talk on Chai Elul 5703 page fifteen.

g) Just now I received your letter from Sunday. Many thanks for these fine matters regarding what you wrote on Kedoshim Tihiyu. Among Chabad chassidim it's told about Rashbatz Shaptil z"l (mashpia at Tomchei Temimim Lubavitch Yeshiva): he would say at farbrengens emphasizing too—you can be like me! Because I am holy—holiness above comes through your holiness below.

Blessings.

On the saying “Kamiflegi b’Metivta…” there’s a brilliant discourse interpreting Tehomas Mitzvos by Malbim (beginning Parshas Chukas). All this highlights most strongly what Chassidus truly is—the wellsprings and new light revealed thereby.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies nuanced questions about language use and conceptual distinctions within Likkutei Torah, showing how even grammatical choices reflect deeper spiritual realities. He emphasizes that Chassidus brings unique insight into these matters, illuminating both text and soul.