165 —ביאורי נוסחאות מפורטות בתניא, דקויות הלכתיות, ומושג רצון דלבא

B"H, Wednesday, 6th of Menachem Av, 5704.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

The esteemed and honorable Avrech vavac"h iy"a etc. Mr. Shalom Rivkin

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your comments on Tanya: a) In chapter 2 regarding the phrase "Ve'atah Nafachta Bi" (You breathed into me) — 'Nafachta' is written without a final hei in Tanya, though in the Siddur it appears with a hei at the end. Also in Iggeres HaKodesh ch. 12 it is as in Tanya. For intellectual sharpness one could say that in Tanya, the intent is to bring proof that the nefesh ha'elokit comes from the innermost vitality above; if it had brought the version 'Nafachta' with a hei — meaning 'You breathed her' — it could be said that the nefesh itself is not from the innermost aspect but rather that its placement in the body was through a breath coming from inner vitality above. (In truth both are present: both the placement in the body and the soul itself are from inner vitality — see maamar Vayigash 5688 at end of hemshech 5666.) Therefore he wrote 'Ve'atah Nafachta', meaning that from this breath comes forth the soul; similarly, "Vayipach b'apav" (He breathed into his nostrils) — from this breath comes a living soul. In contrast, in Birkat Elokai Neshamah which discusses how the soul descends through worlds, it must say specifically 'Nafachta Otah', i.e., with a hei. But aside from this being somewhat forced — Admor HaZaken wants to bring proof for his words from elsewhere, and everywhere Birkat Elokai Neshamah is cited (Berachos 60b, Rambam Hilchos Tefillah ch.7 halacha 3 etc.), it appears as 'Nafachta Otah' with a hei. (In Pri Etz Chaim Dubrovin edition on blessings ch.7 it's printed 'Nafachta' without hei — but this print is full of errors; even within this very passage it prints 'Berata' with hei, 'Yatzarta Nafachta' without hei; in Shaar HaKavanos Jerusalem print 1902 — 'Berata Yatzarta' without hei, 'Nafachta Otah' with hei; also in Mishnas Chassidim Seder Moed Maseches Chatzos ch.2 mishnah 10 — all with hei.) Therefore I am nearly certain that originally it was written 'Nafachta'' with a line over the tav indicating an abbreviation for hei — often done to avoid extending beyond the line; later this line was omitted due to error or typesetter's mistake. A similar indication can be found in Likkutei Torah corrected edition maamar Ki Tehiyen Le'Ish where these chapters of Tanya are quoted and it says "Ve'atah Nafachta" with a hei. (In first Zhitomir print of Likkutei Torah 1848 it's also printed 'Nafachta' without hei but many errors exist there compared to later editions.)

Note: There is another difficulty in Tanya here — surprising you didn't mention it: The use of "Ve'atah" (and You) with a vav even though the standard text is "Atah" without vav. One might say that the vav does not belong to "Atah", but rather adds another proof as if saying: "And another proof from Atah...", but in Likkutei Torah there it's not possible since it starts "Ve'atah Nafachta Bi", and also repeats "Ve'atah" again; see there. Perhaps it's based on Rambam whose version is "Ve'atah Nafachta Bi", and Otzar HaTefillot commentary brings that so it appears also in Machzor Vitry, Yemenite Siddurim and Roman Machzor. But still needs explanation why Admor HaZaken changed in Tanya and Likkutei Torah to adopt Rambam's version when practically he ruled in his Siddur to say "Atah" without vav. Maybe it's based on what is explained in Chassidus (Tzemach Tzedek's commentary printed vol II Sefer HaMitzvos maamar VeAtah Tetzaveh; at length maamar Atah Hu Hashem Levadecha 5701) that adding vav to Ve’atah indicates drawing down from an extremely lofty level — illumination of kav etc.

Thus we understand why our version regarding Berata Yatzarta Nafachta says "Atah", and only regarding protection does it say "Ve’atah", because protection comes from a higher level than Atah Nafachta (see additions to Torah Or maamar Lehavin Inyan Simchas Chag Sukkos 5633), and regarding neshamah itself: Bi refers to levels of soul invested within body but Ve’atah Meshomrah refers to essence of soul (Likkutei Torah commentary on maamar Levavtani 5622). Still Ve’atah Meshomrah refers to time when soul is within body here below which corresponds to level of Nafachta Bi as simply understood in this blessing since connection between illumination of soul’s essence and its revelation/protection occurs specifically here below.

See maamar Vayigash at end of hemshech 5666 and maamar Atah Hu Hashem Levadecha 5699 on this; there he writes Ve’atah Meshomrah refers to igul hagadol before kav while question remains based on above-cited maamar Atah Hu Hashem Levadecha 5701 where he writes it's from kav; perhaps adding vav hints at extremely lofty drawing down which varies by context: In maamar 5699 referring to Ve’atah Meshomrah all protection comes from makif—drawn from igul etc.; while in maamar 5701 referring to Ve’atah Mechaye Es Kulam where vitality comes from pnimius—drawn from kav; more could be said but not for now.

Therefore in Tanya/Likkutei Torah which mainly discuss levels of soul invested within body (see Likkutei Torah commentary on maamar Velo Tashbis Sicha Aleph), he brings case of Nafachta Bi but wishing also to hint at essence-soul especially since essence-soul connects specifically with levels invested within body as makif over them protecting them—he uses version "Ve’atah" with added vav hinting at Ve’atah Meshomrah connected specifically with Nafachta as above.

See Likkutei Torah beginning parshas Haazinu where he writes Atah Berata Atah Yatzarta Ve’atah Nafachta—but I do not know how precise this print is regarding such missing/extra letters.

* * *

b) In Shulchan Aruch Harav ch.24: “And what pikuach nefesh pushes aside other prohibitions and also one should transgress rather than be killed” means as our sages said: “The Torah said desecrate one Shabbos so you will keep many” – not because some sins are light or severe... rather because it’s G‑d’s decree.” You asked: What does “also one should transgress rather than be killed” add? If “Pikuach nefesh pushes aside” means permission then perhaps “also one should transgress...” means obligation—but this depends on dispute among poskim; surely Admor HaZaken did not intend entering into dispute.

This does not matter: A) Often “pushes aside” means obligation—as positive commandment pushes aside negative commandment etc.; B) The only case where some say one may choose martyrdom for other sins is when non-Jew intends forcing him against faith—then besides sin itself there’s issue affecting faith generally as Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin ch.3 halacha 5 says “If Jew—Jew”, but if non-Jew acts for his own benefit then even Tosafot who follow their view forbid being strict—as Maggid Mishneh rules Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah ch.5 halacha 4 and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deiah sec.157 para.1 etc.

Therefore here in Tanya he rightly brings proof that all agree one must transgress rather than die for other sins themselves.

Another point about Tanya here: If you say bringing both proofs (“Pikuach nefesh pushes aside...” AND “one should transgress...”) adds nothing—the first alone would suffice—then clearly each proof has something unique.

Perhaps explanation is as follows: The phrase “Pikuach nefesh pushes aside...” cited by Talmud Yoma ch.5a refers like positive commandment pushing aside negative—that doing so is itself a mitzvah though occurring during forbidden time or matter e.g., sick person or someone seized by hunger—as Talmud compares there to circumcision on Shabbos etc.; see also Tosefta Shabbos ch.17 Rabbi Yehuda says whence do we know pikuach nefesh pushes aside Shabbos? From “You shall keep My Sabbaths”—could mean circumcision/service/pikuach nefesh etc.

B) It’s an absolute obligation for pikuach nefesh even if danger arises not directly through mitzvah performance e.g., someone seized by hunger or for another’s sake e.g., removing debris off someone else—as explained by Minchas Chinuch mitzvah #296 who interprets “Pikuach nefesh pushes aside...” adds two points: A) Even if danger doesn’t arise through mitzvah performance B) Even for someone else’s pikuach nefesh e.g., removing debris off him.

The phrase “one should transgress rather than be killed” means A) The act itself remains prohibited e.g., cutting fodder (Yevamos 121b) except now linked with saving life B) This language lacks clear implication of obligation so room remains for dispute among early authorities as above.

Therefore Tanya brings both points—to strengthen argument/proof simply: A) That pushing aside prohibition is obligatory—from pikuach nefesh B) That pushing aside applies even when act isn’t itself mitzvah—from “one should transgress rather than be killed.”

Still needs clarification re Ketubot (19a): It says “Pikuach nefesh” even when no mitzvah involved—perhaps because when saving another cannot choose martyrdom for him even though according to above logic one must transgress rather than die; only regarding oneself can distinction be made since perhaps allowed choosing martyrdom for oneself.

* * *

You asked why Admor HaZaken brings reason “Desecrate one Shabbos so you will keep many” (from Yoma ch.5b)—since ultimately concludes it’s G‑d’s decree why mention reason?

The intent seems that G‑d’s decree—derived by comparing betrothed maiden with murderer (Sanhedrin 74a)—means only regarding forbidden relations do we NOT apply logic ‘transgress once so you’ll keep many’, not because those sins are more severe but because their nature differs fundamentally.

When Torah says desecrate one Shabbos so you’ll keep many—it clarifies that Shabbos isn’t pushed aside due to some external factor or lesser severity but precisely because keeping future Shabbatot outweighs keeping just this one—and practically we need both reasons including ‘live by them—not die by them’ (Yoma ibid.), since we learn even doubtful pikuach nefesh overrides prohibitions—and cases like saving someone being taken out of Jewish people require specifically ‘desecrate one Shabbos...’ reasoning (see Shulchan Aruch Harav Orach Chaim end sec.306).

* * *

Note: Admor HaZaken rules Orach Chaim end sec.306 that if someone is forced once into idolatry we do NOT desecrate Shabbos via biblical prohibition to save him... because Shabbos wasn’t given up just for saving someone from more severe sin—and thus follows what he writes here in Tanya—that it isn’t about relative severity/lightness between sins—even according to those who permit desecrating Shabbos once for such cases they consider these three cardinal sins equivalent legally to pikuach nefesh since Torah obligates martyrdom over them—as explained fully by Ahalei Yosef student of Admor HaZaken laws Kaddush Hashem sec.s22-23.

Note: Needs investigation whether Admor HaZaken’s statement ‘it’s G‑d’s decree’ applies also regarding murder or only idolatry/forbidden relations—see Kesef Mishneh Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah ch.5 halacha5; also consider logically if no verse existed would reason dictate all commandments require martyrdom or all require transgression? See Tosafot s.v."B'Nefesh" Sanhedrin74b; Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah start ch5; Ra’em Shemot4; Parshas Derachim start drush2 etc.—not place here for full discussion.

* * *

d) You asked about what Admor HaZaken writes chapter39: “This love is called Ratzon D’Libba as above”—whether ‘as above’ refers back to chapter17 or forward chapter44?

I saw copy—not original handwriting—of tzt"z's glosses on Tanya which doesn’t comment here but after words ‘u’mirautza d’liva’ notes see chapter17/chapter44—and further question arises about your question:

A) Surely ‘as above’ isn’t just cross-reference showing same term used elsewhere—for what purpose would knowing term appears elsewhere serve? Clearly meant as pointer where topic explained further—so must clarify what new point chapter17 adds over what’s written here;

B) What practical difference does calling such love Ratzon D’Libba make? Same question applies chapter44 too.

What seems correct: Here ‘this love called Ratzon D’Libba as above’ refers back specifically chapter17—not chapter44—for besides everywhere else future chapters are referenced using ‘later’, never ‘as above’, additionally chapter44 discusses natural love awakened by intellect only enough to reveal what already exists within every Jew whereas chapter39 discusses dveikus/running after G‑d drawn forth via contemplation—and likewise chapter17 discusses love born out of contemplation not innate hidden love found naturally within every Jew—see there.

Even though chapter17 deals with lower level love (“this matter very near/easy... mind rules over left side heart”—which obviously relates only outer aspect heart), still both share commonality—they result from contemplation upon G‑d’s greatness—which supports quoting strength/proof from chapter17 where such love called Ratzon D’Libba—and thus certainly applies here too—in chapter39 where love manifests openly—that such love called Ratzon D’Libba—and since such love called Ratzon D’Libba proves dwelling place souls discussed here lies within world Beriah—for Zohar Vayakhel states Maruta D'Liba forms garment for soul Gan Eden which corresponds world Beriah—that's context here—and thus precision added chapter44 referencing Zohar since proves conclusion drawn there about souls residing world Beriah per above discussion.

* * *

Note: To reconcile different explanations about Ratzon D’Libba must conclude several levels exist:

• a)

(A) Lowest level—Ratzon D’Libba hidden/outer heart—a novelty since most discourses explain Ratzon D’Libba belongs exclusively inner heart—but must accept lower level exists too per Tanya ch17 (“matter very near... mind rules over left side heart”) which obviously relates outer heart—see Likkutei Torah Maamar Mi Mana s262 (“there exists aspect Ratzon D’Libba which itself divides into inner/outer aspects”—unless forced interpret word ‘this’ refers back only generally); likewise Likkutei Torah Maamar Hinech Yafeh s262 explains Ratzon D'Liba means will revealed openly—even outer heart can experience revelation—but requires further development until fully revealed inner heart per usual definition—in order not contradict what stated earlier perhaps say since love described ch17 emerges mind-to-heart until stated explicitly ‘in your heart’, leading practical mitzvah fulfillment—that too counts as revelation—even though most discourses define Ratzon D'Liba exclusively inner heart perhaps refer specifically Zohar's context where only highest form counts;(B) Outer heart revealed—that's context ch44;(C) Inner heart revealed—as implied Kuntres HoAvodah s1 (“even Ratzon D'Liba discussed ch39 belongs inner heart”—see also various discourses); Maamar Parshas Matos year5673 distinguishes three types:a) From contemplation upon Ein Sof's wondrousness leading pleasure-love (“love delights”)—which counts inner aspect since face/makif becomes pnimius i.e., total self-nullification/pleasure;b) Contemplation leads excitement beyond intellect causing intellect vanish amidst emotion;c) Essential will unrelated any intellectual process—the makif d’yechidah experienced especially during awe-filled times like Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur/Ten Days Repentance;He adds always essential will exists intellect serves merely reveal latent will—which may explain apparent contradiction Maamar Lech Lecha s266 implying only third type allows true union within will itself.* * *(E)You asked about meaning behind phrase “Amrei Binah” cited Sefer Tzava’as Harivash referenced Iggeres Hakodesh ch25—I quote relevant passage below plus see Beis Rebbe vol1 ch12.* * *Blessings immediately for teshuvah—for immediate redemption(signed)Rabbi Menachem SchneersonP.S.: Everything derives from Divine expansion via His attributes love/fear—as known—but love enters exile clothed physically e.g., toward woman/foodstuffs; when person realizes such love merely garment concealing Divinity—itself fallen through shattering process—they tremble recalling misdeed feeling shame/humiliation thinking if I can feel such strong fallen love how much more ought I direct toward Him Above! Likewise fear—if afraid gentile/sword remind self true cause lies solely Divine presence manifesting through person/situation thus how much more ought I fear Him! Same applies pride/other emotions—even hearing speech interrupting prayer realize everything occurs via Divine Providence—the speech itself Shechinah resting upon speaker intended solely strengthen personal avodah/prayer especially if speaker gentile/child then surely Shechinah present how much more zealously should one serve! Printed Kuntres Lubavitch issue15 p48 part included Likkutei Sichos vol17 p489 completed per secretariat copy.

---

Summary

The Rebbe analyzes textual variants and halachic nuances found throughout Tanya, emphasizing precision in language and sources while exploring deep concepts like Ratzon D'Liba across multiple spiritual levels—all underscoring careful study leads both clarity and deeper connection in Divine service.