507 —הבהרת דעות מהרי"ק וכ"ק אדנ"ע על פרקי ו' וכ"ז בתניא

B"H, 24 Tammuz, 5709.

Shneor Zalman Levitin.

BaYom HaZeh Ba'u Midbar Sinai. 5709.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter (which was delayed for a reason—please accept my apology), you quote the glosses of my revered father-in-law on Tanya chapters 6 and 27, add explanations from Maharik Kadiner, and discuss whether they intended the same idea. I have been searching for Maharik's explanations for many years (they are needed here for several matters), but so far have not found them. Therefore, it is difficult for me to determine Maharik's opinion, especially since you also write that you "do not recall in detail" Maharik's words. It seems from your letter that you struggle with understanding my father-in-law's glosses—why he ends with "tzarich iyun" (requires further study), and why he does not answer according to what is written in Maharik's name.

The main point of the explanation you bring from Maharik is: There are two matters—the body (i.e., the quantity of the four elements in this created being; in all domem-tzomeach-chai-medaber this is domem and kelipas nogah) and the existence of the body (the power that combines these four elements in this being; this applies to each creature according to its type—whether domem, tzomeach, chai or medaber—and whether kelipas nogah or gimel kelipos hatmeios). The biggest question on this explanation is: Why does Tanya not mention the greater point—that all bodies in all domem-tzomeach-chai-medaber are from kelipas nogah? Even if it has no practical difference for avodah, still, knowledge about the root of nefashos tzomeach-chai is also not so relevant to avodah. Also: just as in chapter 27 it says at the end "and the existence...of all domem," including according to this explanation also Yisrael and animals; so too in chapter 6 it should have said "and the existence of their bodies" only once at the end, omitting them before "and nefashos kol baalei chayim." Also in chapter 27 it should have said "all domem" after "all tzomeach," since even a plant's body is included in that domem. There are several other nuances which I will not elaborate on here.

What seems correct to me regarding my father-in-law's intent in his glosses is: He explains that Tanya discusses only matters related to kelipos—whether gimel kelipos hatmeios or kelipas nogah—not the body whose creation and existence come from Or Ein Sof sovev kol almin. Even though also non-Jews' bodies and impure animals are created from there—see at length Torah Or Devarim HaMevi'im Levush Malchus and its additional explanations at its end, as well as Shaarei Orah as indicated in the subject index at the end of Sefer HaKitzurim. The sources cited by my father-in-law are not with me now—but it is explained there that Or sovev kol almin acts by being drawn into or shining through memale kol almin. Therefore, with pure animals where it passes only through kelipas nogah—which can at least be elevated into holiness—it does not conceal Or sovev kol almin; thus, the main existence of their bodies comes from sovev kol almin—as stated in Tanya ch. 6 "whether actually...or potentially," though there it discusses memale kol almin; see also ch. 18 regarding kelipas nogah concealing Or memale kol almin. But with impure animals that must pass through gimel kelipos hatmeios—which can never be elevated—it completely conceals Or sovev kol almin; thus, their existence comes from gimel kelipos hatmeios; see Sefer HaKitzurim on Tanya p.143 quoting Devarim HaMevi'im Levush Malchus.

Also note Drush Milah (Sefer HaMitzvos tzt"z mitzvas milah etc.) where this distinction between kelipas nogah and gimel kelipos hatmeios is explained; from memale kol almin one can understand about sovev kol almin as well. Another way to explain this distinction is based on analogies brought in Chassidus (see Shaarei Orah p.82 ch.3) about wanting to build a palace or wanting to profit money—in all details of building or making money there is no contradiction to recognizing that desire except for places like garbage or excrement (the opposite of a dwelling) or when losing money (even if it's ultimately for greater gain); this suffices for now.

As for why my father-in-law ends with "tzarich iyun": Several reasons can be given—for example: If so, why when eating ordinarily does it not become holy? Why does yesh come from physicality? It's difficult to say both are due only to vitality—that is, nefesh ha-domem or ha-tzomeach within them—and logic suggests otherwise. Also Torah Or there explains that sovev kol almin only gives strength and power but per above sustains the body; etc.

You raised Maharik's question about how things will be in future times regarding non-Jews' bodies and impure animals which are now tamei since "the spirit of impurity will be removed from earth." I do not understand how dividing between body and its existence answers this—if then only source of combining power changes while composition remains unchanged, one could equally say source creating body will change even if body itself does not change. Also unclear why he doesn't ask about a convert nowadays or forbidden food eaten for pikuach nefesh which becomes fully permitted—or sins turned into merits etc.

The matter is simple: Gimel kelipos hatmeios themselves do not sustain or give life—G‑d forbid to say so—but rather it's their sparks of holiness; yet they are called by name gimel kelipos hatmeios because those sparks have been so darkened they become like an actual forbidden piece—as explained Devarim HaMevi'im Levush Malchus cited above. In future times—and even now during birurim—the klipos will be broken/removed while their sparks themselves will live; see Pesachim 68a, mitzvas milah there end ch.1.

For your information: Our Sages said (as I noted on Mayim Rabim Tarlav p.87): Why is its name 'chazir'? To return it to us—proving camel/hyrax/hare remain forbidden—even though above shows two periods: first only pig becomes pure while others remain forbidden/tamei until later when impurity will be removed entirely—including all impure compositions like camel etc.

By the way: What Iggeres HaKodesh says about issur yoledes remaining—in that first period—is precise since Midrash Tehillim 146 says even niddah will become pure (and see there different midrashic opinions; see Ohr HaTorah Bereishis p.51a); more could be said but this suffices.

Summary

This letter explores subtle distinctions between sources of physical existence according to Chassidus—clarifying how different types of beings derive their vitality spiritually—and addresses complex questions about future spiritual transformations based on classic sources.