287 —חידושי תורה, מושגים קבליים, והתכתבות למדנית

B"H, 25 Menachem Av 5707.

To the honorable Haraha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"n etc. Mahar"ch HaOvelin.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Your letters from the 29th of Tammuz and the 13th of Menachem Av were received, as well as the newspaper Kol Yisrael in which you discuss your sons. May it be His will that you raise them to Torah, chuppah, and good deeds with abundance.

In response to your letters: a) Regarding publishing your son's Torah innovations: there is no collection here for novellae from Talmidei Tomchei Temimim or similar. b) For Hilash and Keren Orah we requested from the publisher and it will be sent to you via our secretary. Sefer HaToldos was sent to you by the attorney of Melach Mar Stral—an upright person with good character traits. Also sent were Kuntres N. and Sefer HaSichos by mail as assistance for our work. c) The minimum price for tzt"z is fifteen shekel. As per your request, a second copy of Bed Kodesh and the Maamar for Yud-Gimmel Shevat were sent. d) Since Ramtz Rivkin sent "Ata Horeisa" without specification, we are now clarifying with Ramtz if there was any particular dedication; after clarification we will inform you. e) Letters from Mahar'a of Kalisk do not need to be copied except those not received even by my father-in-law the Rebbe shlita (some pages were received; the last letter begins "Shalom v'Emet Me'eretz Chaim... Mahar'a of Kalisk"). f) Surely you will expedite sending a copy of the deed of acquisition in honor of my father-in-law the Rebbe ad morenu ve'rabenu... g) Thank you from Kol Yaakov for your efforts in transferring my donations for the yahrzeit day.

* * *

In your first letter there is a debate in Chassidus. Following your suggestion I will offer some comments:

a) You analyze what is written in BiYom HaShemini Atzeres Resamach-Vav: "And as written in Etz Chaim that Maod is Atik Kadmon...and it is above even Pnimiyus HaTorah now which is Chochmah Stima'ah and Atik Yomin." You encountered an erroneous copy; it should read "that Maod is Adam Kadmon (A"K) with an aleph." So it appears in manuscripts and Etz Chaim Shaar Seder HaAtzilut chapter 2. This is also evident from the proof "that Maod shares letters with Adam." (See also BiYom HaZeh VaYeshev and Seder Dvarim Im BeChukosai in that series.)

b) You are unsure about what is meant by "Chochmah Stima'ah (ChS) and Atik Yomin (AY)": which level does AY refer to? This can be clarified: at first glance it's unclear why AY is mentioned at all—the discussion seems only about ChS. But this fits (in Kabbalistic language) with what was previously stated (in Chassidic language): there are two types of reasons for composite will—intellectual reason and pleasurable reason. Thus it says that the essence of simple will is above both reasons; or in Kabbalah: A"K (simple will) is above ChS (intellectual reason) and AY (pleasurable reason). From this it's clear that AY refers to pleasurable reason for will—the level in Atik that clothes itself within Arich Anpin, i.e., Zat d'Atik. Based on what's explained in Kavod Malchut 5660 that both types of reasons are rooted in Chochmah, here it mainly refers to AY clothed within ChS—i.e., Gevurah d'AY. Still needs further study; see later section 5.

c) Which level is called Atik Kadmon? Primarily this name refers to Ein Sof (Etz Chaim Shaar Adam Kadmon chapter 82; Mevo Shearim Shaar Gimel part one chapter one; Zohar II p10; Shaar Maamarei Rashbi Parshat Haazinu). It seems evident (see Etz Chaim there and Shaar Seder Atzilut ch1; needs clarification regarding Tzemach's glosses there) that this refers to A"K from its navel downward but called Ein Sof relative to them. However, BiYom Naso 5672 brings what Etz Chaim says in Shaar Sheva Hekhalot ch7 that above Gulgalta d'A"K there is a likeness of Atik d'Atzilut; he writes that in Zohar/Idra it appears Atik is truly its essence—see there. This name also applies to several lower levels—even AA (Arich Anpin), as cited above. See also several levels of Atik at end of Likkutei Torah drushim on Yom Kippur and Seder Dvarim Im BeChukosai cited above; also see Sefer Emes L'Yaakov entry Ayin referencing Etz Chaim/Mevo Shearim etc. In summary: Atik Kadmon or AY must be understood contextually everywhere; do not equate two places without investigation.

d) You cite what’s written in Hagaot u’Biurim (to Etz Chaim Shaar Adam Kadmon ch2 sec2). But I do not understand his explanation—the wording needs clarification. His intent seems that plain AY (where not specifying levels within Atik itself) means Radla, while plain Atik means AA—even though sometimes they are called AK or AY too. With this he resolves why Shaar Adam Kadmon calls Radla “AY” since there he only distinguishes between it and AA; while Shaar HaMelachim calls “AY” Zat because there he details levels within Atik itself. Perhaps there’s an error in Hagaot or source texts—I don’t have them here to check directly.

e) You bring what’s written in Vayechulu (series Resamach-Vav): “The will associated with mitzvot relates to Chesed d’AY—not Gevurah d’AY.” You want to explain this refers either a) to the hidden reason for mitzvah-will or b) Chesed within Gar d’AK. Both explanations seem untenable: a) The hidden reason is ChS as explained elsewhere—including BiYom HaShemini Atzeres cited above—and within ChS specifically Gevurah d’AY clothes itself—contrary to Vayechulu’s implication. b) Admor Hazaken explains Gevurah d’AY refers to fiery enthusiasm while Chesed represents descending waters etc.; he connects this with Tanya ch41 re sweetening severity through kindness via integration—which shows these refer to middot not mochin/intellects. In my view there’s no difficulty at all: why raise a question from Vayechulu? Better yet cite BiYom HaShemini Atzeres itself which says “the essence/pnimiyut/atzmut haRatzon” lies specifically in Gulgalta—which is root of mitzvot—but Gulgalta itself is Keter d’AA which is below Chesed d’AY since Chesed spreads into/animates it (Etz Chaim Shaar AA ch87). Thus I think Admor Hazaken comes only to explain superiority of mitzvah-will over creation-will across all levels these wills extend—from AA where ratzon reveals itself upward—and specifies: In AA this means Gulgalta & ChS (BiYom HaShemini); In Atik—Chesed & Gevurah (Vayechulu); higher still—Sovev & Kav; before Tzimtzum—potential estimation & higher still; essence—it’s light relating outward & higher still (“At Nach”). See also Hashamayim Kisai at end Resamach-Vav series.

Note: Your precise reading “etzem Gulgalta” likely excludes “hair” aspects—as explained BiYom HaShemini Resamach-Zayin & additions Tora Or beginning Tetzaveh—where “Lebanonita”—the essence of Gulgalta—is intrinsic nothingness of Keter because Nehi d’Atik shines there (Etz Chaim Shaar AA ch5; Mevo Shearim III ch7; Magen Avraham on Arich ch4). Yet throughout all AA stature shines aspects from Atik—as stated Etz Chaim ibid & elsewhere—and perhaps Nehi specifically roots in Keter (Likkutei Torah Biur Dzaor s63 & Kol Dodi Resamach-Chet re Pnei haKeter). More likely: From Resamach-Vav series overall only through Ohr Chozer can essential extension occur—and Ohr Chozer enclothes Atik within AA specifically via Nehi illumination through Gulgalta per Etz Chaim/Mevo Shearim etc.—while hair arises via membrane separation unlike Lebanonita.

f ) Regarding what’s written about Shabbat meals—that there’s no difference between second & third meal’s light—it concludes second meal shines upward not downward unlike third meal; similarly stated Resamach-Vav series e.g., “At Nach” near end—and overall unclear if these matters are identical—no time now for thorough study.

g ) You question what’s written about third Shabbat meal: “Pnei Abba Pnei AY—the aspect Pnei refers to delight/simple will shining from essence of simple delight & AK ratzon deAtika”—which seems limited specifically to Gar deAtika—but I don’t understand its meaning especially since it says delight shines from essence but doesn’t say it IS essence itself! See Vayetze–Vayishlach I referenced previously & Hashamayim Kisai at end Resamach-Vav series where Pnei Abba/Pnei Atika means felt simple delight drawn via Torah which involves taste/wisdom unlike essential delight drawn via mitzvot—and when mentioning “Keter sheb’Keter” see second Shabbat meal drush “BeHadain Yoma” where explained as Gulgalta d’AA—and plain Gulgalta includes hair too.

Certainly you won’t mind my comments—for "and those who love her shall be like the sun rising at its might."

Summary

This letter demonstrates deep scholarly engagement between the Rebbe and his correspondent on advanced topics in Kabbalah and Chassidus, clarifying textual nuances while maintaining warm personal connection through practical assistance and blessings.