516 —קליפת נוגה, ניצוצות, ודיני חכמות חול ואסורות

B"H, 13 Menachem Av, 5709.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Aharon Hilvitz

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from the 14th of Tammuz: (A) Several of your questions on what I wrote—“they will depart on their own”—can be resolved by a general introduction. In Tanya chapter 6 and onward regarding the connection of domem-tzomeach-chai-medaber (dztch"m) to kelipas noga (k"n) or to gimel kelipos hatmeios (gkht), there are two distinctions: the inherent connection of a thing itself, or its connection through an action performed with it. Obviously, this second connection only applies to the part of the thing affected by the action and to where that action originates. For example: permissible food—the Divine spark that sustains it is from those sparks that are clothed in k"n. This is always so—even on Yom Kippur. Clearly, food does not descend in its level because of Yom Kippur’s holiness. Conversely: forbidden food—the sustaining spark is from those clothed in gkht. This is always so—even in times of danger. There are two main differences between these sparks: A. The spark in k"n has a “sense” that it is Divine, even though it is limited; whereas the spark in gkht is completely darkened until it becomes like “the piece itself becomes non-kosher” (as stated in the discourses of my revered father-in-law; I did not want to copy these words into my book Kitzurim v’He’aros l’Tanya p. 143—see there; also see Tanya ch. 6 and Kitzur l’Tanya ch. 6). B. The spark in gkht comes from a very high place—that is, it has a stronger power (meaning a qualitatively greater strength—like the difference between a lion’s might and an ox’s—they differ in quality not quantity) than the spark clothed in k"n (see at the end of Derech Mitzvosecha by tzt"z on “Acharei” and its explanation).

So when a Jew eats permissible food on Yom Kippur, this limited act cannot change creation’s order—to remove from the food its k"n spark and insert into it a gkht spark (see my revered father-in-law’s glosses to Tanya ch. 6—printed in the above Kitzurim p. 115—therefore we do not say about orlah or kilay hakerem “and their bodies endure”). His action is that just as he lowers himself into gkht, so too he lowers the food and its spark there; just as his energy invested in eating becomes forbidden and bound by external forces (“chitzonim”), so too does he affect the food and its spark.

Conversely—when one eats forbidden food for pikuach nefesh (saving life)—it does not mean exchanging sparks; rather, in this case our Sages permitted releasing the bond of the spark that was bound by external forces which had darkened its light and sense; thus one can now elevate it (see also Derech Mitzvosecha by tzt"z mitzvas teshuvah ch. 3 and elsewhere). But they are always the same sparks as before eating on Yom Kippur or before eating for a dangerously ill person—and after.

(Further investigation is needed regarding ger [convert], yefat toar [beautiful captive], Canaanite slave, pig fat when permitted etc.—this is not our focus now.)

It is also understood: where an action must effect a change of association to another place/source, that action must come from there—as above. For example: A Jew (whose body and animal soul are themselves from k"n) eats permissible food (itself k"n) without intent—not for G‑d’s sake nor for desire—no change occurs in association or place of spark/food (except that it rises to human status since it becomes his flesh/blood—but this isn’t our topic).

A parallel example from revealed Torah: issur cheftza vs issur gavra; generally we rely on chazakah etc.

Now I will briefly address your letter’s order regarding your questions:

(B) How did I write in case two that learning is a mitzvah even before sanctifying the new month? Isn’t such study “plain”? This cannot be—my wording was “when Torah commands this directly.” To emphasize further I highlighted “commands.” Would such be called plain study? Obviously not! And certainly Torah’s command does not mean learning like Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai (Bechoros 8a)—that was case one—which only applies to rare individuals; Torah speaks for most people.

Also—it makes no difference if one learns from Greek books or books of mathematical wisdom etc., whether they were among our nation but lost—as Rambam writes—the language isn’t what matters but content.

(C) What distinguishes cases two and four? Both seem only preparatory for mitzvah fulfillment! In my letter I wrote case two refers to when Torah commands directly—as above—which differs from case four. Is it trivial that some count calculation of seasons/mazalos among mitzvos? Would anyone count learning about animal blemishes as positive commandments?! See what I wrote—and what you cited elsewhere about preparation for sukkah construction—and I elaborated at this Shabbos farbrengen about Moshe saying “A mitzvah has come into my hand—I will fulfill it” (Makkos 10a) by designating three cities of refuge east of Jordan even though they would only serve later.

(D) Case five—using cleverness only as needed for livelihood—this must be complete holiness! But I don’t understand: business dealings themselves and earning livelihood are k"n—how can preparation for them be complete holiness? Rather—as above—it remains k"n itself; so too when done without special intent (see Avos d’Rabbi Nosson ch.11; Iggeres HaKodesh sec.9).

(E) What ultimately distinguishes cases four and six if both involve intent l’Shem Shamayim during study? The distinction is simple: studying secular wisdoms without intent defiles Chabad [intellect] of animal soul—that is, brings it down from holiness to kelipah. When a mitzvah descends into secondary kelipah level—that is gkht—it was permitted only if at descent itself elevation occurs—not just preparation for elevation (“aseh docheh lo ta’aseh” if at time prohibition uprooted positive commandment fulfilled—Shabbos 132b; see Mishneh Lamelech Hilchos Korban Pesach beg.; see also Malei HaRo’im vol.I entry “aseh docheh lo ta’aseh”). Seemingly permission for descent into first level kelipah—that is k"n—also requires such condition—that’s case four.

This introduces case six: with k"n descent was permitted even if then only preparation l’Shem Shamayim occurs.

(F) Case three refers to learning l’Shem Shamayim but not as mitzvah—a negative form: being careful with prohibitions—as I wrote myself—but you didn’t explain your reasoning here! Since one may not think Torah thoughts in impure places but can guard oneself via secular calculations—that fulfills a negative commandment—not just acting l’Shem Shamayim! Compare knowing Him in all your ways vs fulfilling practical mitzvos; these are two types described Tanya ch.7: A) Eating etc., to broaden mind etc.; B) Fulfilling mitzvas oneg Shabbos/Yom Tov; see also there ch.34—the chumash elevates all four hands etc.—and besides this during intent itself there’s added elevation obviously.

(G) In k"n there are two modes: l’Shem Shamayim—it rises to holiness; not l’Shem Shamayim—it descends into gkht—as above—I disagree! If not l’Shem Shamayim but also not out of desire—just plain—it remains k"n itself/in place! My opinion matches end sec.A above; also practical examples—in writing—a child eating doesn’t lower nor descend into gkht; also our Sages’ wording Tanya ch.7: Only someone gluttonous out of desire etc.; this is explicit Tanya summary chs.7 & 8.

(H) Why did Admor Hazaken write at end ch.7 reasonings for Rambam/Ramban z”l—not “their reasons”? It’s common style that one word draws another along—for example this week’s parsha: “so your servant may rest…like you”—not “may rest they”; thus Targum Onkelos translates literally “may rest,” while Targum Yonatan translates intention “may rest they.”

(I) Ultimately what distinguishes idolatrous wisdom from mathematical wisdom etc.? As explained above: idolatrous wisdom was prohibited by “do not turn…”—it comes from gkht—that means its sparks are from gkht—that’s their place inherently—and plain study—even if learning to understand/teach—the Sages permitted releasing their bond/prohibition so those sparks rise up etc.; mathematical wisdoms etc.—are inherently from k"n—and plain study leaves them there; both types found within Torah itself are complete holiness like all parts of Torah—that’s their inherent place—even with plain study.

(J) Just now I saw Tzafnas Paneach on Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zarah beg.chap2 that prohibition against reading idolatrous books applies only while idolatry exists—not after abandonment (see Yerushalmi ch3 Avodah Zarah); thus Rambam read such books himself! But needs clarification—for Rambam explicitly writes Moreh Nevuchim III:29 that such cults still exist at northern edge/India—is it forced to say prohibition applies only if practiced citywide per Yerushalmi? See commentaries there—and especially since even today such cults exist in India’s large cities at least partially—and this isn’t our focus now.

Summary

The Rebbe details how different types of spiritual sparks relate to actions involving kosher or forbidden things, clarifies halachic categories around secular studies versus forbidden knowledge, and stresses intention's role in elevating or lowering spiritual energy through one's actions.