English translation — יתרו א

1.

And it was on the third day when it was morning, and there were <b>thunder</b> and lightning and a heavy cloud on the mountain <b>and the sound</b> of a shofar etc. And it was <b>the sound</b> of the shofar etc. and God answered him <b>with a voice.”</b><b>¹</b>

<b> — </b>Here five voices are mentioned.

Says on this the Gemara²,

that one who gladdens a groom merits "the Torah which was given with five voices",

because also in relation to a groom there are five voices: the voice³

of joy and the voice of gladness,

the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride,

the voice of those saying, "Give thanks to the Lord of Hosts."

It is simple,

that the reason,

why the one who gladdens the groom merits Torah,

is because Torah and groom have between them a substantive connection,

in terms of their essence and their nature⁴

(for it does not lie upon the intellect to say,

that he merits Torah merely because,

that Torah and groom are similar <b>only</b> in the number of five voices,

and besides this there is no

(inner)

connection between them; rather)

on the contrary: that Torah and groom both have the same number of voices comes as a result of that they are alike in their nature.

And as the Alter Rebbe indeed explains⁵,

that that which the one who gladdens the groom is "merits Torah",

is this "measure for measure" — also Torah

(is called "groom" because she)

influences the Jews,

in the likeness of the influence of the groom to the bride.

And that which the Gemara says "merits Torah that was given with five voices"

(although,

at first glance,

this is no more than a side result,

as above)

it is because the equal number of voices of groom and Torah,

expresses⁶

their essential connection that comes from their essence; i.e.

that

that in that "Torah was given with five voices" exactly like the number of voices by groom one sees,

(that not only are Torah and groom — both "influencers" — for which one need not have proofs,

but also)

that the influence of Torah to Jews is from the same type of influence — in the likeness of the inner and higher influence of the groom to the bride and not like the influence of intellect from a teacher to a student and the like — and as will be explained further.

All matters in the Torah are indeed precise, and a matter in the Torah

(in instruction)

— is also that which the Gemara says here

(not merely the same number of voices,

but)

<b>In five </b>voices — is an instruction and lesson in our matter.

B.

In order to understand the special quality that is expressed in the number of "five⁷

voices"

(in which is expressed the special connection and comparison between Torah and groom),

one must first explain the concept of "voice" and its general content:

The content-related meaning of "kol" is: continuation and revelation — "kol" means,

in general,

that something that was previously hidden is drawn down and revealed⁸

— analogous to a voice in a person which expresses and reveals his intellect or his middos.

c.

v.

And just as the voice in a person is measured and adapted to the content that is revealed through it

that the voice that expresses a command is different — a higher and stricter voice; and different is the voice that brings out a matter of intellect,

that "words of*⁸

the wise are heard <b>gently</b>"⁹

etc.¹⁰]

— so too are there above¹¹

various "voices"

(modes of drawing down),

one different from the other because each is adapted to the matter that is drawn down through it.

From this it is understandable,

that therefore the Torah was given "with five voices"

(five modes of drawing down),

because in Torah there are five different matters,

one higher than the other¹²,

each of which was drawn down through one of the five types of voices.

And this is also the explanation of that which the wondrousness of the matter of Torah expresses itself in that Torah was given with five voices: It is indeed known¹³,

that the general order of the chain of descent divides into four types of worlds

(which are by way of example,

like the four types: inanimate,

vegetative,

living and speaking*¹³.

And these four distinctions exist not only in the worlds that are &lt;b&gt;brought into being,&lt;/b&gt;

but also,

to distinguish,

in the Name Havayah

(from the word "brings into being"¹⁴),

which &lt;b&gt;brings into being &lt;/b&gt;the worlds,

there are &lt;b&gt;four &lt;/b&gt;letters,

which are the source of the four types of worlds¹⁵

(and in each world — of the four types of inanimate, vegetative, living, speaking¹⁶).

And since "He looked into the Torah and created the world"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

and everything that exists in the order and vitality of the worlds is present in the Torah and derives from the Torah — it is understood,

that also in the Torah there are

(the)

four levels

(of the Name Havayah).

And with this is understood the wondrous superiority of the Torah which expresses itself in that "it was given &lt;b&gt;with five &lt;/b&gt;voices"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

: together with the four levels of the Name Havayah,

of the order of the chain of descent,

there is in the Torah also a fifth matter,

which is higher than the Name Havayah

(even than the yud of the Name Havayah)

— as is explicit in the Giving of the Torah

(which was in the order from above to below)

: Anochi

(I who am I, Who is not grasped by a name and is not hinted at by any letter or tag at all&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;)

Havayah

(and all this)

your God

(the power&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

and vitality of yours&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;)

and all these five matters of the Torah,

also that which is higher than the Name Havayah,

were given down here below,

which means &lt;b&gt;"it was given with five &lt;/b&gt;voices".

Just as we indeed have no comprehension in spiritual matters,

to grasp them as they are in themselves; only through the physical matters which are derived from them,

can we have a certain conjecture also in their source²²

— in the spiritual matters — therefore,

in order to have a concept in that which the four letters of the Name Havayah mean

as this is higher than the Name Havayah,

as above],

one can also understand it from the four types: inanimate,

vegetative,

living and speaking down here,

which are "corresponding to²³

the four letters of the Name Havayah blessed be He from whom they are influenced".

The difference between "inanimate" and "vegetative" is: in a thing of inanimate one sees only the material substance, that there is no vital movement even though it also has a soul of the inanimate,

a soul and spiritual life²⁴

; by a vegetative however,

it is already &lt;b&gt;noticeable &lt;/b&gt;that it has within itself a life

(spiritual which cannot be felt with the five senses).

And this difference is

(in a certain sense)

much greater than the difference between "vegetative" to "animal" and "speaker" ²⁵

: because the last three types have between them a "common side",

in that,

that by all of them the spiritual vitality comes to revelation

(and the difference is only in the <b>manner</b> of the revelation,

as will be explained),

but by inanimate there is altogether no revelation of spirituality.

But,

nevertheless,

in their overall comparison,

vegetative is closer to inanimate than to animal and speaker ²⁶

; so much so that when one divides the four levels of inanimate, vegetative, animal, speaker into the two general categories of "body" and "soul",

vegetative is counted in the category of "body" together with the "inanimate" — and <b>not</b> in the category of "soul" to which belong animal and speaker²⁷.

And as the name itself says that "vegetative" is not "animal".

And to such an extent that until after the flood one <b>must</b> eat vegetative and one <b>may not</b> eat animal²⁸.

is the explanation on this: by the type of a living being is

(a)

the vitality a <b>soul-ish,</b>

which is why by an animal there is the power of will²⁹

(in which expresses itself "soul"³⁰),

and

(b)

also his body becomes <b>consequently </b><b>³¹</b>

<b> </b>affected by the will of the soul,

because it is <b>united </b><b>³²</b>

<b> </b>with it ³³,

so that his <b>essence </b>is

(not matter,

but)

soul³⁴

But not so by a "growing [thing]",

is not only that its vitality does not effect a change in the essence of the body,

but the vitality itself is a physical vitality — because all his matter is only that which he grows and makes larger the body.

4.

The above difference between a growing thing and a living thing expresses itself

(among other things)

also in this,

that by a growing thing its vitality

(growth)

is dependent on that which it is rooted in a specific place

(and if one uproots it from its place, the "growing thing" that is in it becomes "lost")

: but a living thing is with its vitality not subject to this <b>limitation</b><b>³⁵</b>

<b> </b>of a specific place.

The reason for this is: a "physical" is defined in "place",

and since the vitality of a plant is a physical vitality as above,

therefore it is defined in a specific location.

But not so the "living being",

since its vitality is a spiritual one as above,

therefore it is not so defined in place.

H.

Just as by the two types — inanimate and plant,

although they both belong to the category of "body",

the difference between them

(in a certain sense)

is much greater than the difference between plant and living being

(as above sec. 3)

— so too

(and even more)

is it also regarding the two levels of the soul-category,

living being and speaker,

that the speaker is distinguished &lt;b&gt;utterly &lt;/b&gt;from the living being.

For he

(the human)

is indeed the chosen of the creations,

and all creations

(including also the category of the living being)

were created &lt;b&gt;for the sake of &lt;/b&gt;serving the human&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

And just as the point that separates the inanimate from all other types

(also from the type of the vegetative),

expresses itself in seeing only the material body of the inanimate

(as above there)

; so too is at the other extreme: the point that separates the speaking being from all creations

(also from the type of the living being)

is — that which in the speaking being is seen the true essence of "soul" and spirituality,

as follows.

6.

The true concept of "spirituality" is — being stripped of a defined boundary,

through which one could "grasp" and apprehend the spiritual existence,

even not with the faculties that are higher than the five senses that "take" a physical thing.

Because even though also a spiritual thing has a certain definition which determines its existence and what separates it from another spiritual thing &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

— nevertheless,

from the perspective of its "spirituality"

(and refinement)

there is heard in it a "simplicity"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

which is above coming down into comprehension&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this "simplicity",

which is felt in the spiritual thing,

expresses itself in several ways,

and among them:

a)

The spiritual thing does not contradict another reality⁴⁰

; and as we see this in subtle and abstract concepts,

that the more the concepts are finer and more spiritual,

the less they oppose one another⁴¹.

b)

Because of its spirituality it draws itself upward from itself

(as we find this even in the spirituality within physicality — such as,

for example,

in fire,

the finest among the four elements⁴²,

which because it is

Spiritual is he by nature⁴³

the higher above⁴⁴),

because the true essence of him⁴⁵

is not to remain standing in his own existence,

but on the contrary,

to go out from his existence and become included in his source above.

7.

And this is the explanation that specifically the species of the desert has in itself the true essence of soul and spirituality,

because the advantage of man over the “animal” is the intellect that he possesses⁴⁶

— and from that aspect, there are in him the two virtues mentioned above:

(a)

Intellect is not defined and not subject to the definition of the nature of the attributes.

And therefore,

Since man is a possessor of intellect⁴⁷,

he is not compelled to remain in the line to which he has a natural inclination by his innate nature⁴⁸

(like all other creations that cannot change their nature⁴⁹),

but he has a free choice to choose whichever path he wants.

And this is also the reason that man includes in himself all kinds that exist in creation

— because he is not limited in boundaries⁵¹.

(b)

The property of intellect to

(withdraw from itself and)

elevate itself above itself; and also in this consists the primary difference between a human

(whose essence is intellect)

and,

to distinguish,

an animal

(whose essence is emotions),

that "the spirit of man ascends upward and the spirit of the beast descends downward"⁵²

— an animal draws itself to physical matters

(matters of "below"),

and a human draws himself to above himself.

8.

From this that man is a "small world"

(as above sec. 7)

it is understandable,

that all these four categories of domem, tzomeach, chai, medaber in which the "great world" is arranged,

are also present and stand <b>openly</b>⁵³

in the small world of man,

and not only in his body but also in his soul.

And as it states in Chassidus⁵⁴,

that letters are the aspect of domem in the soul,

emotions — tzomeach,

intellect — chai,

and the root of the power of speech — medaber.

And the explanation of this is:

The concept of "letters"

(from the term "I will come&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

in the morning"&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;)

is drawing down and revelation.

That

is,

that the "letters" are distinguished from the other powers of the soul by this,

that all other powers affect the person himself

(such as the emotions,

for example,

which &lt;b&gt;describe&lt;/b&gt; the person: whether he is a man of kindness or a person of the attribute of might),

but letters are only the vessels through which his powers are drawn down and revealed,

they do not, however, affect the person himself&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;.

And because letters are an external matter,

therefore the light of the soul is invested in them in a contracted manner and in the utmost concealment,

so that in them one does not hear

(in revelation)

any vitality,

not even the vitality of growth — and therefore they are called "inanimate".

And from the perspective of the point,

the difference between letters and all other powers of the soul is a much deeper one than the distinction among the other powers of the soul themselves.

For all other powers,

since they affect and express the actual essence — the light of the soul is in them in revelation

(and the difference between them is only in quantity and manner of revelation,

and as will be explained below)

; the letters, however,

whose matter is only drawing down and revelation,

therefore they are already like an existence that is&lt;b&gt; removed &lt;/b&gt;from the soul

(And as in the example in the Tzemach Tzedek of the "great world",

that from the aspect that in the category of the inanimate, life is not at all apparent,

its distinctness from the other categories is much stronger than the differentiation among the categories of the vegetative,

animal and speaking itself,

in all of which their life is indeed recognizable).

9.

The second category,

the "vegetative" of the soul — the emotions,

although they indeed stir the soul,

as above,

and therefore they are not "inanimate things" like the letters: on the contrary,

one sees tangibly that emotions have in them a great ferment and excitement — nevertheless, the life-force that is in "emotions" is not equal,

and incomparably not equal,

to the life-force that is in "intellect":

Because this itself,

that the nature of the middos is "excitement"

(excitement from the term action),

that the middos agitate a person and he "goes out" from his standing and state — not as with intellect,

that the many comprehensions which a person comprehends,

do not lead him out of his state and he remains composed — this itself is a proof,

that middos affect not where the soul is by itself,

but rather where the soul already stands with a connection to something other.

And in &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; consists the excitement of middos:

The matters of the other,

the virtues of the other or the opposite thereof,

affect a person such,

that he draws himself to the thing of the other with a drawing of love,

or he flees from it with a feeling of fear.

And in this particular, the middos only relate to the aspect of how nefesh stands with a connection to another — not as intellect which has to do with nefesh as it is in itself — the middos are closer to letters than to intellect,

because both — letters and middos — are not connected with the nefesh as it is by itself,

and

(consequently)

both have a connection to the "other".

(It is only,

that by letters there is only the &lt;b&gt;hamshacha&lt;/b&gt; from the nefesh and by middos the &lt;b&gt;nefesh&lt;/b&gt; itself is also heard,

as &lt;b&gt;it&lt;/b&gt; comes into hamshacha).

And this is analogous to the four types of domem, tzomeach, chai, medaber that in the "great world": the type of tzomeach,

because in it there is a &lt;b&gt;physical&lt;/b&gt; vitality,

therefore it belongs together with domem to the type of "guf" as above,

and not to the type of "nefesh" to which belong chai and medaber.

And just as the difference between "vegetative" and "animate" is,

that the "vegetative" must stand in a specific place and the "animate" can move itself to any place it wants

(as above p. 4)

— so it is also regarding "emotions" and "intellect"

("vegetative" and "animate" which are in the "small world")

Emotions in themselves

(including also the intellect that relates to emotions),

have a specific definition,

from which they cannot go out: he whose nature is in the line of kindnesses

(love),

is by his nature of emotions he must remain in <b>that</b> line; it is only,

that in that line itself there is growth from smallness to greatness — that the smaller love grows and becomes later a greater love.

And the same is also in the line of severity etc.

Different is by intellect: not only is intellect itself not so defined in a certain qual

(and as one sees,

that a person can understand also a matter which he can — even from his nature of intellect — <b>not</b> suffer)

Rather,

even more,

from the aspect of the truth and essence of intellect

(i.e.

that is

the level which is above the intellect that relates to the emotions)

can it effect a change also in the boundaries and nature of the emotions⁵⁸,

and in intellect itself — there are indeed several people who are a wise one and a discerning one and a knowledgeable one — unlike regarding the emotions of kindness, might, etc.

(except when intellect mixes in⁵⁹).

J.

But after all this,

is also the intellect no more than the aspect of "living" in the soul of man; and the main superiority of the category of "speaker"

(which is distinguished <b>completely</b> from the category of the living)

expresses itself in this

(root of)

the power of speech which is in the soul,

which therefore is man called by the name "speaker" and not by the name "intellect"⁶⁰.

The explanation of this is:

The "spirituality" and "simplicity" that exists in a person from the side of his intellect, which gives him the power to go out of definitions and to be able to choose whichever path he wants,

even one that is <b>not</b> according to his nature

(and even to the extent of changing the very nature)

— it is, however, such a simplicity that is still connected with <b>existence</b>,

for also that which a person chooses

a matter contrary to the nature of his traits,

comes from this,

that such is necessitated by the existence of his understanding.

(from the side of his intellect)

(from the aspect of his intellect)

— that which "the spirit of man ascends upward": although that with his drawing himself to higher than himself,

he goes out of his existence,

but since this derives from that which intellect understands the superiority that exists in that which is higher than him

(for intellect itself compels that it is limited and that there are matters that are above intellect)

— is then in this itself intermixed his "existence"].

Not so in the "power of speech",

since man is here not defined in his own existence and he can speak with another — for this non-definition is indeed <b>not</b> connected with the <b>existence</b> of man

(for the power to speak with another comes indeed <b>not</b> from that which his existence obligates occupying himself with the other,

but because the root of the power of speech is in such a high place in the soul where there is no definition whatsoever,

even not that which separates between him and the other)

— therefore is expressed in the power of speech the true essence of spirituality and simplicity of the soul.

11.

Now the explanation of the essence and the manner of division of the four types דצח״מ

(in the "great world" and in the "small world")

gives us a certain understanding of the difference between the four worlds — Asiyah,

Yetzirah, Beriah and Atzilut:

The first⁶¹

beginning of "yesh" is in the world of Beriah,

but since in the world of Beriah the "ayin" still shines,

therefore it is felt there that the truth is not the "yesh",

but the "ayin" which brings it into being; and from that feeling it becomes <b>nullified</b> from its yeshut

like the category of the living being,

whose body is nullified to the soul,

so that its <b>essence</b> is soul

(as above sec. 3),

or like the existence of a fetus

(living being within man),

which draws itself above itself and thereby "loses" its own existence]⁶².

And therefore the "yesh" of Beriah is a "chomer hapashut",

which has no form — not like the "yesh" in Yetzirah and Asiyah which already has a form: in Yetzirah — a general form,

and in Asiyah — a particular form

and as above there,

that even in tzomeach the body is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; nullified to its life-force,

or like letters and middot,

in which the concept of "zulat" is heard]

But nevertheless, also the "chomer hapashut" of Beriah is a "yesh" and its "pashitut" is only a &lt;b&gt;yeshut'dike&lt;/b&gt; pashitut — "&lt;b&gt;chomer&lt;/b&gt; hapashut"

(similar to the pashitut of sechel,

that also the pashitut itself is a metziut,

as above s.y.).

But not so the world of Atzilut is actual G‑dliness&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;,

which is stripped of yeshut entirely,

the aspect of "nothingness".

12.

Just as this is in the four worlds ABY"A,

that although they

(also the world of Asiyah — the spiritual)

are spiritual worlds and nevertheless there is a certain equivalence between the four distinctions in the worlds and the four types of DCh"TzM

(not only to the DCh"TzM that are in the soul but even to the DCh"TzM of "the great world")

in physicality

— So too is it also in the root and source which is what brings into being and enlivens

(and consequently much higher than)

the four worlds — the four letters of the Name Havayah,

that also in them there is a likeness

(although,

of course,

with a superiority that is "incomparable")

to the four types of inanimate, vegetative, living, and speaking which are influenced from them after a multitude of descents and contractions and declines.

From this it is understandable,

that all these four letters

(including also the yud)

are still not the true simplicity of the light of the Ein Sof blessed be He — because they have some relation to the existence of definitions.

And this is the superiority of Torah that expresses itself in that "it was given with five voices": this shows that in it there is also the fifth level,

which is higher than all

(four)

possible definitions — the true simplicity,

which is the essence of Torah,

as it is united with the essence of the Infinite Light, blessed be He.

And this is also the explanation that the connection of "groom" to "Torah" consists in that in both there is the same number of <b>five</b> voices — because also by a groom the power of procreation is expressed

(that "be fruitful and multiply" is indeed the purpose of marriage⁶⁴)

the "infinite power"⁶⁵

which is higher and abstracted from the "existence" of the definitions of the four types mentioned above.

13.

But despite the greatness of the elevation of the aspect of essentiality and simplicity that is in Torah,

which is higher than the four letters of the Name Havayah,

nevertheless Torah was given "&lt;b&gt;with five&lt;/b&gt; voices",

i.e.

that

that at the Giving of the Torah there were also given the aspects that pertain to the letters of the Name Havayah,

and even more: the fifth and higher level was given together with the other four aspects — because &lt;b&gt;the entirety&lt;/b&gt; of the Torah was indeed given "with five voices".

And the reason for this is: through the four aspects of Torah are aroused the four levels: Nefesh,

Ruach,

Neshamah and Chayah; and through the essentiality of Torah is aroused the aspect of Yechidah which is connected with "Yachid" —

And therefore all five aspects of Torah were given together⁶⁶,

so that the aspect of yechidah should illuminate also in the four aspects of NRNCh" — the <b>reality</b> of man,

through which he has the power to make from the world

(which is established in the four categories of D'TzCh"M)

a dwelling place for His Essence.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Metzora 5717)