331 —הבהרות על תניא, מושגים חסידיים, ומהות ההוד

B"H, 2nd of Rosh Chodesh Adar, 5708.

Haraha"ch vavaha"ch iy"a etc. Yosef Altain

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter: a) Regarding what you wrote to Haran"k. b) On what is written in Tanya chapter 2: "And even now in a son, the nourishment of the nails and their vitality comes from the brain in the head," it seems clear that this refers to the brain in the son's head and not the father's, as is evident in reality. As is also written later in the analogy: for the nourishment and vitality of nefesh-ruach-neshamah (Ner"n) of an am haaretz (which is drawn from the nails of My firstborn Israel) comes from the Ner"n of the leaders of Bnei Yisrael in their generation (the analogy of his brain and head). Note: In the analogy, Ner"n of an am haaretz, through attachment to a Torah scholar, are united in their original essence with the Shechinah itself. If so, in the analogy, it should be that the son's nails—by receiving nourishment from his own brain—are united with the drop from his father's brain. Perhaps one could say that this is indeed so: because in the son's brain—which is also made from the white (see Gemara there), i.e., from a drop from his father's brain—it does not become a different essence; rather it always remains clothed within it from the essence of his father's drop. Thus, when nails receive nourishment from this brain, they are thereby also connected to what is clothed within it—the essence of his father's drop. Or one could say that here is where the analogy differs from its lesson; this is also what is explained—that a son becomes an independent entity from his father—and therefore he is not obligated in self-sacrifice; whereas for a soul—see Likkutei Torah on Shir HaMa'alos MiMa'amakim at its beginning.

c) In Tanya chapter 3: why does it use "koach" (potential/force) regarding chochmah but not binah? There are two explanations for "koach": (1) When speaking about powers of the soul—as organs or faculties. See Tanya later chapter 51 regarding 613 powers of the soul. In this sense there is no difference between chochmah, binah, daas etc.—all can be called "koach": koach ha-chochmah (power of wisdom), koach ha-binah (power of understanding), etc. (2) Koach as potential versus actualization. The difference: when something exists only generally or concealed (or only as potential), we say it is "in koach." When it emerges from potential into actuality and details are specified—it has gone "from koach to poel." This parallels chochmah and binah; hence they are called father and mother. See elsewhere; see also later chapter 18, Iggeres HaKodesh section 5, section 15, section 29 and more.

d) What is the difference between tiferes—beauty—and hod—beauty? And what connection does hod's beauty have with kidneys giving counsel? In most chassidic discourses I have seen, hod is explained as acknowledgment/thanksgiving rather than splendor or majesty; only rarely is that latter explanation brought. Among those places: Iggeres HaKodesh section 15 where both explanations appear. From there we understand that tiferes involves beauty understood intellectually (seeing a blend of colors or qualities), whereas hod means recognizing some aspect of beauty without understanding what makes it beautiful—it transcends one's comprehension entirely. I have not found so far any use where hod means tiferes or beauty per se; apparently beauty applies only where there is an integration of colors or qualities. See Iggeres HaKodesh there; Beis Kodesh chapter 3 and more. Even so, this itself—an unfathomable quality being revealed to a recipient—is also considered beauty: something deeply profound yet revealed to one who cannot comprehend it even after exposure. In such a way an even deeper aspect can be revealed by one who influences another because it does not become enclosed within their understanding—but since it's so internal it can only be revealed at its lowest level. The main beauty here lies in arranging things so even someone very lowly can receive them (kidneys giving counsel), even if he doesn't grasp them—not like tiferes—and sometimes he has no connection at all except merely acknowledging he must acknowledge (hod shebe-hod). An example: A simple villager who has no understanding at all about what makes a king special but sees that his village chief—whose greatness he does understand—bows before a royal minister; thus he feels gratitude toward that minister because someone remarkable bows before him. Then when he sees that minister bow before the king—the king's greatness becomes apparent through gratitude upon gratitude by this villager. See discourses on Lag BaOmer (in Siddur etc.) about hod shebe-hod which are based on this idea. Also see Tzitzit commentary on Tehillim by tzt"z caput 104:1 sec.7 which says: There is an essence to wisdom which grasps intellect independently without revealing it...and when one explains intellect to another...this is called hod; but if one does not influence another there isn't any aspect called hod—like sunlight when it doesn't shine...thus according to this netzach/hod do not mean acknowledgment...even though this level too can be called hod—the main meaning relates to radiance as something shines forth etc.—as pertains here.

There is much more to elaborate on all these matters.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies subtle points in Tanya about spiritual transmission and distinctions between chassidic concepts like tiferes and hod—explaining how true inner qualities may be revealed beyond intellectual grasp and how acknowledgment can reflect profound connection even without full understanding.