Zos Tiheyeh Toras HaMetzora BeYom Taharaso
© 2014 Dach Holdings, Ltd.
This week’s Torah portion, Metzora, opens with a discussion of the rituals by which a person afflicted with tzaraas is purified. This subject opens a window onto the underlying spiritual factors that are the root cause of tzaraas, as well as those that cure it.
***The Kabbalah’s View of Tzaraas
We read in the Kabbalistic work Eitz Chaim that tzaraas is caused by a departure from the afflicted person of the influence of the spiritual level known as chochmah. This is hinted at by a Talmudic teaching in conjunction with a verse from the Bible. The Talmud teaches that, in certain respects, a metzora has the status of a dead person; moreover, the verse states, “they die, but not with wisdom.” Taken together, these sources imply that “not with wisdom”— i.e., lack of chochmah—is what brings about “they die”—the spiritual condition of tzaraas.
For a better understanding of the above, it will first be necessary to explain the concepts referred to in Kabbalistic literature as mochin deImma (the “intellectual aspects of ‘Mother’”) and mochin deAbba (the “intellectual aspects of ‘Father’”).
***Mochin deImma and Mochin deAbba: “Recognition of ‘Mother’” and “Recognition of ‘Father’”
It is one of the most fundamental principles of Jewish mysticism that G-d expresses Himself within creation primarily through ten attributes, called the ten Sefiros. To enable us mortals to relate to Him, G-d created us in His image by structuring our own souls with these same ten attributes. In this way—guided by insight gained through Torah study—by contemplating the structure and functioning of our own character, we can glimpse something of G-d Himself.
The very highest faculty within humankind is the intellect. Within intellect itself, we may distinguish between the conceptual faculty—the ability to conceive new ideas, seemingly out of nowhere—and the faculty of understanding, which expands on these seminal flashes of inspiration, fleshing them out into fully understood concepts. The former is known as chochmah (frequently translated “wisdom”) and the latter, binah (“understanding”). Thus, in our context, chochmah denotes the very highest level within a person, and binah refers to the second highest. Accordingly, the very highest level of G-dly manifestation within the universe (which human chochmah and binah are patterned after, as explained above) is known as the Sefirah of Chochmah. Likewise, the second highest Sefirah is that of Binah. The third Sefirah, Daas, is also analogous to an aspect of intellect, while the rest—Chessed, Gevurah, Tiferes, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malchus—mostly correspond to various emotions.
Actually, though, that is not all there is to it, because each of the ten Sefiros is a composite of all of them. In other words, Chochmah comprises the Chochmah component of Chochmah, the Binah component of Chochmah, and so on through the Malchus component of Chochmah; Binah comprises the Chochmah component of Binah, the Binah component of Binah, etc.
Now, the Sefiros of Chochmah and Binah are also referred to as Abba (Father) and Imma (Mother), respectively, since the combination of the germ of an idea (Chochmah) and the gestation, as it were, of that idea in the sense of its development and expansion into a fully understood concept (Binah), gives rise—or, more colorfully, gives birth—to various emotions and motivations about the idea (the so-called emotional Sefiros).
From all the above, it develops that the three intellectual components—Chochmah, Binah, and Daas—within Chochmah are, technically, the mochin (literally, “brains,” i.e., intellectual aspects) deAbba (“of Abba”), while the three intellectual components within Binah are technically the mochin deImma. The reason the word “technically” has been used in the preceding sentence is that the terms mochin deAbba and mochin deImma can imply more than simply the particular Sefiros involved. They can also refer to the effects of those Sefiros, as will now be explained:
Let us distinguish between “knowledge” and “realization.” A person can know something without truly realizing its significance, without fully appreciating it. Anyone who has ever returned to home and family after a period of absence has probably experienced, on first sight of the familiar neighborhood and loved ones, a certain heightened sense of what he or she had been missing, as well as joy at being back. Undoubtedly, the returnee knew, intellectually, what had been left behind; it is not as though coming home supplied any new information. Nevertheless, the homecoming engendered a heightened awareness of what was already known: old memories come vividly alive, and the value of what one had is sharply realized and appreciated as one returns from the context of missing those things. It is that realization of something, that true recognition giving rise to emotion, that is meant by the term mochin.
Chochmah, as mentioned above, is the very highest intellectual faculty, conceiving new ideas seemingly from nowhere. With respect to the Sefiros, Chochmah represents the first glimmer of manifestation of G-d Himself, the very first revelation of the Or Ein Sof—the light of the Infinite One—in the created universe. That unknowable, transcendent aspect of G-d—the Or Ein Sof—is the “nothing” from which the world’s “something” sprang, it is the “nowhere” that is the ultimate source of what Chochmah conceives. Turning back to our own attributes for an analogy, let us imagine a great scholar of, say, philosophy or physics. That person has acquired considerable knowledge in his or her field, in large part by studying the works of previous scholars, including, perhaps, the founders of particular schools of thought or of new approaches. Now, let us assume that, at a professional conference, our scholar is able to meet the great So-and-So, founder of the school of thought in which the scholar specializes. As the scholar listens to the speaker, his or her impression is likely to be one of awe: “What profound grasp of the subject! What intimate familiarity with the material! He or she is the ‘real thing’; I don’t know anything compared to this person!” Previously, the scholar knew that So-and-So’s mastery was superior to his or her own, but that knowledge was just an abstraction; the scholar was not particularly moved by it. Now, however, coming face to face with the very fount of wisdom, the source of all he or she is, the scholar is moved to an awed humility, the feeling that he or she is utterly insignificant next to the vast store of knowledge and expertise evidenced by the master. This, too, is a function of mochin.
Mochin deImma thus refers to a true realization within Binah, an awareness that engenders inspiration. When Binah fulfills its function—that is, when, after reflection on G-d’s greatness and how nothing exists but Him, it gives rise to true appreciation of G-d’s utter unity and omnipresence—the result is great joy and yearning to unite with Him. This is because, prior to contemplation and realization of this concept, Binah had been in a position comparable to that of a prince separated from his father the king. Once the prince returns home and sees his father again, he experiences a rush of emotion stemming from the realization of what he had been missing and the knowledge that now, he is back. Likewise, true realization, through contemplation on the part of Binah, that G-d is the only true existence gives rise to great joy and yearning because, although previously the person had been oblivious to this, he or she now appreciates how good it is to be “home.” This effect of Binah is hinted at in the verse, “The mother of sons rejoices”—i.e., the Mother, Binah, is what gives rise to rejoicing in G-d.
Likewise, Mochin deAbba means not merely the abstract knowledge that Chochmah’s source is the light of the Ein Sof, but the true appreciation of that source, the full consciousness on Chochmah’s part (so to speak) of the light of the Ein Sof present within it. This awareness, this realization, results not in joy (as with Binah), but in the utter bittul—negation of self—that is characteristic of Chochmah. In fact, that is the only result possible, since the Or Ein Sof is, by definition, infinite and all-encompassing—there is no room for anything else but bittul in the face of direct exposure to the Or Ein Sof. This state of utter nullity before G-d is symbolized by bowing to Him during the Shemoneh Esreh prayer.
***Ratzo VaShov: The Spiritual Dynamic of “Running and Returning”
Another fundamental principle of Jewish mysticism is that there is a spiritual rhythm or pulse to the universe, which is reflected in our own relationship with G-d. This general concept is known as ratzo vashov, “running and returning,” based on the verse, “The [heavenly] creatures ran and returned.” As it applies to our worship of G-d, ratzo vashov describes the dynamic whereby first we reach out to G-d through our love and longing for Him, yearning to break free of our earthly moorings and run back to reunite with G-d (ratzo), and G-d then responds by bestowing upon us an increased measure of spirituality (shov). This is relevant to what was said above, because the joyous love and yearning for G-d that results from comprehension and appreciation—binah—of His greatness and unity is the ratzo that leads to the shov of that added perception of G-dliness by which we lose all sense of self and simply dissolve into a state of bittul—chochmah.
The passionate love for G-d that characterizes ratzo burns like fire within our hearts; shov, on the other hand, associated with the bittul of the intellect, is like cool water that quenches that fiery thirst. This is the inner meaning of the Kabbalah’s advice, “If your heart races [lit., “runs”—ratzo], return [shov] to one.”
It is certainly a great thing to achieve such a burning love for G-d that one actually wants to flee one’s earthly existence and be reabsorbed in His utter unity. Nevertheless, such ratzo is considered inferior in one respect: it leaves the person intact as an independent entity with feelings of his or her own, albeit refined feelings like love for G-d. The true pinnacle of worship, by contrast, is shov, whereby one is incapable of feelings of one’s own because one has become absolutely nullified, batel, to G-d. Shov can only be achieved through the bittul associated with mochin deAbba, and is essentially an extension of G-dliness from above, a bestowal upon the person of increased spirituality.
***“Making Room” for G-d through Torah
For this to happen, something else must take place first: one must expand one’s capacity for spirituality, opening oneself up to the additional revelation of G-dliness. This can only be done through the Torah. To understand why, we must explain something about the nature of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (the alef-beis).
***The Letters of the Alef-Beis: Building Blocks of the Torah
Ideas are fluid and without form; they expand, they narrow, they shift focus constantly. It is only by putting an idea into words that it can be pinned down at all, defined and expressed in some set way. Then, the idea as expressed has shape and definition: it extends so far and no further, and it can be distinguished from other ideas, even if similar. We may look upon letters as the most basic elements in this process, the vessels or containers for “packaging” abstraction. Individual letters, of course, are still not definite enough to express things precisely, but they are the first and most important step on the road to words, sentences, and paragraphs. Thus, letters represent the transition from abstraction to concrete expression.
On a broader scale, this can serve as a metaphor for the manner in which G-d—Who is utterly unknowable, beyond “abstraction”—nevertheless expresses Himself within creation. Specifically, it is through the Torah that G-d expresses Himself to us. We know from our own experience that profound concepts, much deeper than can be encapsulated in a few words, can nevertheless be represented symbolically by some suitable object, phrase, or custom. In a similar way, G-d Himself is utterly unknowable; even those aspects of Himself (so to speak) that He wants us to know are beyond the grasp of mortals. However, to bridge this gap, G-d “condensed” these spiritual concepts into the Torah, formulated in terms of real life here on earth. We can easily understand what it means to weave wool into tzitzis, or to resolve business disputes according to Torah guidelines, or that this person “begat” that person. But these things, by themselves, are not all there is to it: everything in the Torah is a symbol, actually a vehicle for the expression of G-dliness so lofty it is beyond our mortal reach. That G-d places it firmly within our grasp anyway, by packaging His very Self into bite-size format, as it were, is not only miraculous, but a sign of His great love for us Jews, to whom He gave the great gift of Torah. The letters of the Torah—the 22 letters of the alef-beis—are the first step in this transition from G-d’s utter abstractness to His concrete expression in everyday terms. Indeed, the Hebrew letters themselves, which facilitate the expression of G-dliness within the Torah, originate on a spiritual plane so lofty it transcends the Torah itself.
***The Written Torah and the Oral Torah: the World of Thought and the World of Speech
Carrying this concept a bit further, we may note the way ideas take shape in our own minds. At the deepest level, what is closest to our innermost selves cannot be put into words—even in the form of our own thoughts. The very fact we have formulated an idea within our own minds represents progress: we, at least, are beginning to know our inner selves, even if no one else does. Putting our thoughts into spoken words projects them even further, so that even others can know what is on our minds. In Kabbalistic terms, the former stage is known as “letters of thought”; the latter, “letters of speech.” With respect to the Torah as G-d’s expression within the universe, the Written Torah is associated with letters of thought and the matriarch Leah, while the Oral Torah is associated with letters of speech and the matriarch Rachel.
***Harchavas HaKeilim: Constructing the Partzufim of Leah and Rachel
Armed with the above insight, we are able to understand something about the “mechanics” of shov. We said above that this transmission of added spirituality only comes about through the Torah; in Kabbalistic terms, we say that for shov to take place, there must first be harchavas hakeilim, “expansion of the vessels.” At the same time, we now know that the vessels, or containers, for G-dly revelation are none other than the letters of the Torah. Thus, expansion of the vessels actually is shov: by definition, it means that increased G-dliness is flowing into the world.
More specifically, the Torah as we know it—i.e., G-dliness expressed in terms the world can relate to—originates on the plane of the so-called “emotional” Sefiros, namely, Chessed, Gevurah, Tiferes, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod (collectively referred to by the abbreviation za). To return to our human analogy, when a person is batel—when he or she has no self interest—he or she will effectively desire only what G-d desires. The person’s emotions, in other words, will themselves develop into G-dly emotions by virtue of their being suffused with the spirituality flowing through the soul’s own link with G-d: the faculty of chochmah. The same is true, in a heavenly sense, of Torah: the bittul associated with mochin deAbba suffuses the Sefiros of za, rendering them transparent or elastic, so to speak, so that they can expand to accommodate the increased flow of G-dliness of shov. In mystical terms, this is the “expansion of the vessels”—the letters of the Written and Oral Torah—that is Kabbalistically referred to as “constructing the faces (partzufim) of Leah and Rachel.”
This cannot occur from mochin deImma alone. As explained above, mochin deImma implies great joy and a fiery, passionate love for G-d. Virtuous as those things are, they are obviously functions of emotional strength, not emotional nullity or bittul. On the contrary, mochin deImma results in yearning to leave one’s “vessels” entirely; it is a spiritual outflux (ratzo) as opposed to a receptivity to spiritual influx (shov), and is inherently incompatible with the latter.
***How Tzaraas Is Caused by Foreclosing the Influence of Chochmah
And that is precisely the reason behind the Kabbalah’s teaching that tzaraas is caused by departure of the influence of Chochmah. There are several possible symptoms of tzaraas, the most important of which are the skin conditions s’eis (a white blotch), sapachas (a dull white discoloration), and baheres (a bright white or pink spot). The Kabbalistic work Eitz Chaim, cited at the very beginning of this discourse, states that s’eis corresponds to Leah and that sapachas and baheres correspond to Rachel. This teaching, at first blush incomprehensible, takes on meaning in light of what we have just been saying.
To make the explanation as clearly as possible, let us preface it with a paragraph of background. In a well-known metaphor, it is said that the soul expresses itself through three modes of expression, termed its “garments”: these are thought, speech, and action. As is intuitively obvious, thought is the most subtle, the “innermost,” the closest-fitting, as it were, garment of the soul; speech is a bit further removed from the soul’s essence; and action is the soul’s outer garment. We can restate what we have said earlier in these same terms, with respect to the increased G-dliness flowing from mochin deAbba into vessels consisting of the letters of the Torah: the Written Torah, associated with Leah and the world of thought, is the innermost garment, or form of expression, for this G-dliness; and the Oral Torah, associated with Rachel and the world of speech, is the middle garment. However, the Oral Torah also contains the details and practical laws of all the mitzvos of the Torah—that is, instructions for how they are to be carried out in actual practice. In this sense, the Oral Torah is also associated with action—the outer garment for the G-dliness of mochin deAbba. These three garments—thought, speech, and action, represented by the Written Torah and the Oral Torah—are Kabbalistically associated with the three alefs of the Shem Mah, the Divine Name of 45. This is because the Shem Mah represents the bittul associated with Chochmah, and the letter alef represents transmission from a higher level to a lower; the three alefs signify transmission of increased G-dliness flowing from mochin deAbba into the worlds of thought, speech, and action, symbolized by the Written and Oral Torahs.
To return, then, to the symptoms of tzaraas:
When mochin deAbba is present, the light of the Ein Sof inherent within Chochmah is transmitted to the vessels that are the letters of the Torah: that is, to “Leah” and “Rachel”; to the worlds of thought and speech associated with the Sefiros of za, as well as to the world of action associated with the Sefirah of Malchus. So much is well and good. However, if only mochin deImma is present, without the light of Chochmah, what we have is ratzo alone, without shov—that is, a movement away from the vessels without a corresponding return in the form of bittul, necessary for an influx of G-dliness.
This state of affairs is fraught with danger: it is essentially a stirring up of the emotions, an inflammation of passion, without the cooling, calming influence of intellect that would ensure their proper use. In our own experience, this phenomenon could take place if one has aroused one’s passions at prayer, yet not followed up with Torah study after praying. In that case, it is possible for one’s zeal to be diverted to improper things like intolerance or anger, leading eventually to haughtiness or even desire for worldly temptations (G-d forbid). (This usurpation of holy energy and its diversion to evil use is known as “nurturing of the chitzonim,” or forces of evil.) If this happens—if the letters and vessels (i.e., the means for expression) of holiness within za and Malchus are supplanted by letters of unholiness—the latter are referred to as s’eis with respect to Leah (the world of thought) and as sapachas and baheres with respect to the two levels (the worlds of speech and action) within Rachel.
This is why tzaraas is translated segiru by Onkelos, the classic Aramaic Bible translator. This word connotes a closing or shutting off, and refers to the closing off of the influence of Chochmah as the essential nature of tzaraas.
Now, here is an important principle in Divine service: what we do down here in this physical world—how we exercise and express our own character traits, the ten attributes of our souls—elicits a response in kind from G-d. This is how G-d wishes the universe to function, and He so thoroughly ingrained this “rule” in the spiritual infrastructure of the universe that we may think of it as, in a sense, “mechanical”: if we act a certain way, a certain heavenly consequence will result; if we act in another way, a different consequence will follow, and so on., 
In light of all the foregoing, we are finally in a position to understand the teaching that tzaraas is caused by the foreclosing of the spiritual influence of Chochmah. As noted earlier, tzaraas was not identical with the disease known today as leprosy; rather, it was a spiritual ailment whose physical symptoms miraculously mirrored a spiritual deficit and whose cure was effected through the ministrations of a Kohen (priest). When a person, in that person’s own worship, failed to achieve mochin deAbba after the fiery emotion of mochin deImma, the symptoms of tzaraas would miraculously appear on the skin.
***“The Entire Torah [Consists of] the Names of G-d.”
The idea, elaborated earlier, that G-d expresses Himself through the letters of the Torah is similar to the teaching that “the entire Torah [consists of] the names of G-d.” In a sense, the Torah bears a similar relationship to G-d as a person’s name does to that person.
In isolation, one is not called by name. One is who one is; a name has no meaning to a person as he or she knows him- or herself. Instead, a name is merely a device to identify the person to others. However, although one’s name represents the complete person, it is not in any way a part of or physically similar to that person. In a comparable fashion, G-d makes Himself known to the world through the Torah. Like a name, which represents a person to others yet is not itself of that person, the Torah represents G-d to the world, bridging the gap between us and His very Self—a level which is completely unknowable.
This concept underlies the teaching that tzaraas is caused by slander, known in Hebrew as motzi shem ra, “creating a bad name.” The letters of the Torah expanding to accommodate increased flow of G-dliness into “Leah” and “Rachel” are called shem tov, “a good name.” A person who slanders another (which is antithetical to the flow of shov, the expression of G-dliness within letters and vessels of holiness) not only does harm in this world, but brings about the opposite effect in heaven as well: the emergence of letters expressing the spiritual energy from which the forces of unholiness derive sustenance, referred to as “a bad name.”
connotation of the word shem (name) is also found with respect to the
statement by those building the
The same connotation can be associated with an alternate reading of this Hebrew word, in which case it would be pronounced shom, “there”—as we find, “They will call out there, ‘Pharaoh,’” and, “They will die there.” This latter reference is also significant in light of the teaching that a metzora is like a dead person.
***The Cure for Tzaraas
Introducing the subject of the rites by which a metzora is purified, the Torah states, “This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification: He shall be brought to the Kohen. And the Kohen shall go outside the camp [to examine the metzora and officiate at his purification].”
The first step in the process calls for the metzora
to be brought to the Kohen. This is because, as mentioned above,
the function of the Kohen is to draw forth Or Abba—the light, or
spiritual influence, of Abba—and channel it to the people.
It makes perfect sense that, to cure a condition caused by absence of the
influence of Abba, one must have recourse to the Kohen—the very
person who can remedy that deficit. As explained above, mochin deAbba refers to the influence of the
Or Ein Sof within Chochmah of Atzilus. It may be thought
of as the input to Chochmah of the light of the Ein Sof; the
point at which Chochmah is just receiving this illumination from above.
On the other hand, it was also stated
that the light of the Ein Sof is only transmitted beyond Chochmah (i.e.,
to Binah and the other Sefiros) by way of its investiture within Chochmah.
The output, so to speak, by which the light of the Ein Sof is passed on
from Chochmah into the next level is known as Yesod Abba. Technically,
then, what happens is this: the flow of mochin deAbba into za
results in a bursting through or penetration by Yesod Abba of Yesod
in turn, is the flow of shov. It is also mystically symbolized by the
union of the patriarch Jacob with Leah and Rachel, his wives: the Hebrew name
***Significance of the Wording, “the Torah of the Metzora”
This also explains one aspect of the wording of the verse. In Hebrew, the phrase “the law of the metzora” is toras hemetzora—which can also be interpreted as “the Torah of the metzora.” As explained above, tzaraas is caused by withdrawal of the influence of mochin deAbba flowing from Chochmah, source of the Torah. The remedy for this situation (as Eitz Chaim points out) is to learn more Torah. When introducing the cure for tzaraas, the verse says, “This shall be the Torah of the metzorah”—and not, for example, “the purification of the metzora”—to hint at this inner meaning.
A similar allusion is found in Midrash Tanchuma and Yalkut, where it is stated that the verse, “The tree of life is a healing for the tongue” teaches that Torah study (the “tree of life”) is the remedy for the sin of slander (“the tongue”).
This is also alluded to by the verse, “A good name is better than fine oil.” In Hebrew, the word “than” in a comparative construction such as this is signified by the letter mem, which also means “from.” It is therefore possible to read the verse as follows: “tov shem (a good name) mishemen tov (comes from fine oil).” The Torah is “the fine oil” (an allusion to Chochmah Ilaah, the supernal Chochmah—the Torah’s source); As explained elsewhere, the high priests were anointed with a sacred preparation of oil described as shemen mishchas kodesh. Literally, this simply means “sacred anointing oil,” but, since the word mishchas implies “drawing forth,” the phrase can also be interpreted as “oil (shemen) that draws forth (mishchas) the sublime spiritual level known as ‘Holy’ (kodesh).” Kodesh is a reference to the Sefirah of Chochmah within the realm of Atzilus, which, as we have been discussing, is the source of the Torah. additionally, the word “good” can be understood in the sense of improvement or rectification, as in hatavas haneiros, “fixing up the candles [of the Menorah].” Thus, the verse is hinting to us that improvement, fixing up, of the “name”—which, through slander, had been shem ra, a bad name, and needs to be restored to the state of shem tov, a good name—comes through Torah and mitzvos.
The final clause in our verse—“This shall be the Torah of the metzora on the day of his purification”—is also consistent with this theme. The Zohar teaches that purification can only come through Torah, just as healing is found in Torah. Thus, “on the day of his purification” is also an allusion to the Torah.
Notwithstanding all the above—concerning how Torah is the antidote, as it were, for the spiritual defect underlying tzaraas—the verse goes on to say “He shall be brought to the Kohen.” Granted that Torah study is the remedy for what causes tzaraas, and that the Kohen (whose function, again, is to draw forth Or Abba) symbolizes this. Nevertheless, Torah must be studied with the requisite bittul, consistent with its origin in Chochmah, also characterized by bittul. As our sages have taught, “Anyone who says, ‘I have nothing but Torah’ [meaning that his or her preoccupation is with acquiring a vast knowledge of Torah, without caring about the enhanced worship and closeness to G-d such knowledge should entail] does not have even [that].” One should not think of him- or herself as significant, and of the Torah as a possession, something to be acquired. Rather, one should recognize the Torah’s primacy and one’s own need to leave one’s place and seek it out at all costs. One must be “brought to the Kohen,” not the other way around.
***Ratzo Is a Prerequisite for Shov
The previous paragraph made an important point based on the fact that the metzora must be brought to the Kohen. There is something very puzzling about that, though: the very next words in our Biblical passage read, “And the Kohen shall go outside the camp [to see the metzora].” Which is it, then—is the metzora to be brought to the Kohen, or is the Kohen to go to the metzora?
Something else needs clarification as well. The Torah does not waste even a single letter; even the smallest detail of Torah has profound meaning. As the commentator Alshich points out, instead of “This shall be the law of the metzora”—a phrase requiring the seemingly superfluous word tiheyeh (“shall be”)—the Torah could simply have said (as it does in similar verses elsewhere), “This is the law of the metzora.” In Hebrew, there is no separate word for “is”; it is always understood from the syntax. Thus, we are not asking why one word was used instead of another; the question is really, why did the Torah see fit to introduce an entirely superfluous word, without which the sentence would, apparently, have meant exactly the same thing? What hidden meaning does the word tiheyeh contribute?
These two questions will be understood on the basis of a passage in the Kabbalah. The Zohar states that the “Kohen” before whom a metzora must be brought is actually G-d. If so, why does the verse say “He shall be brought to the Kohen”—the appropriate wording would seem to be, “He shall be raised up unto the ‘Kohen’”? However, Eitz Chaim explains the meaning as follows: Certainly, there is a real life Kohen of flesh and blood before whom the metzora is brought. As with all mitzvos, the metzora coming before the Kohen in this physical world has ramifications in the heavenly realms as well: the lights, or spiritual emanations, of Imma within za—that had left their vessels and assumed the status of negaim (“leprous” afflictions)—thereby return to their source, in accordance with the spiritual principle of ratzo vashov.
What all this means to us is this:
One might think, since the problem stems from a deficit of mochin deAbba within the vessels of za, that the solution is simply to draw forth more mochin deAbba through Torah study. However, this would be an error: it could not work. The reason is that one must first address the reason mochin deAbba failed to flow in the first place. That happened because the action of mochin deImma within za did not take place with bittul, selfless devotion to G-d; the emotions, once inflamed, were allowed to stand independently, as fiery passions in their own right. They were therefore susceptible to misdirection. Only after one has rectified that situation—only after one has remedied the defect in mochin deImma, so that one’s emotional faculties reach out selflessly to G-d alone (in the manner of ratzo)—can mochin deAbba once again respond (shov) and suffuse the emotional attributes of za. This accords with a Talmudic principle. The Talmud states that genuine teshuvah (repentance, lit. “return”) is defined as one’s refraining from sin under the exact same conditions that had prevailed when one had originally succumbed to temptation. Thus, in our context, which (as is about to be elaborated in the main text) is a mystical form of teshuvah, it is not enough to seek mochin deAbba; one needs the underlying defect in mochin deImma—the original conditions of the “sin”—to be made right first.
***The Mystical Concept of Teshuvah
Indeed, this is the mystical principle of teshuvah, usually translated “repentance” but literally meaning “return.” For, in a broad sense, negaim are not merely symptoms of misdirected emotion, but are—in their heavenly form in the Realm of Atzilus—the spiritual root of all sin.
Now, it is an interesting fact that the Hebrew language—which is the Holy Tongue, whose every nuance has spiritual meaning—has no word for “repentance” per se. The closest thing may be charatah, “regret,” but that is not the same at all: teshuvah is something special. What is being “returned” when we engage in teshuvah? This question has more than one answer, but in our present context, the answer has to do with the symbolism of the Tetragrammaton, the four letter name of G-d.
The Tetragrammaton is spelled as follows: the Hebrew letter yud, followed by the letter hei, followed by the letter vav, followed by another hei. It is well established in the symbolism of the Kabbalah that the yud of G-d’s name represents the Sefirah of Chochmah, and the first hei, the Sefirah of Binah. Based on this, we may express the dynamic of tzaraas—mochin deImma (Binah) having become disconnected, as it were, from mochin deAbba (Chochmah)—as the first hei of the Tetragrammaton having become separated from the yud.
The word teshuvah hints at the rectification of this condition. This five-letter Hebrew word can be separated into two segments: the first, consisting of the first four letters, would then spell tashuv, “[she] will return,” and the second, consisting of the letter hei, would represent the hei of the Tetragrammaton: the hei will return. What we are talking about, then, is the “return” of the initial hei (symbolizing Binah, or mochin deImma), and its reconnection with the yud (Chochmah, or mochin deAbba) that precedes it. This is effectuated in accordance with the verse, “From the depths I call out to You.” The word “depths” (maamakim) is plural, because true repentance must reach both “depths”—the Yesod elements of both Abba and Imma—together. That is, repentance must involve both ratzo (ahavah rabbah, Great Love for G-d) and shov (the bittul that transcends such love) together in order for the hei to return to the yud. Without prior arousal of the ratzo associated with mochin deImma, though, there can be no corresponding flow of mochin deAbba to cure the metzora, as mentioned above in the main text.
This dynamic is also reflected in the service of the Leviim (Levites) and Kohanim (priests). As touched upon earlier, the spiritual function of the Levites was to arouse mochin deImma through their singing, and that of the Kohanim was to arouse mochin deAbba. The prescribed order of service was that first the Leviim sang, then the Kohanim offered sacrifices. The latter was dependent upon the former; the Kohanim alone would not have been spiritually effective.
This, then, is the meaning of Eitz Chaim’s explanation of the Zoharic passage referenced above: it is specifically through the metzora coming before the Kohen—that is, specifically through the defect in mochin deImma first being repaired and once again connecting with mochin deAbba—that the lights of Imma that had left the vessels of za can then return to their source, in accordance with the spiritual principle of ratzo vashov.
And this explains the first of our two questions. The expression “He shall be brought to the Kohen” refers to arousal of ratzo through mochin deImma and the need for that ratzo to be subsumed within the bittul of mochin deAbba. This is hinted at by “return of the hei to the yud.” This is also alluded to by the phrase Shema Yisrael (“Hear, O Israel”): as explained at greater length elsewhere, the first two letters of the word shema are numerically equivalent to the sum of 288—representing the 288 sparks of holiness embedded within this physical world—and 52—representing the Divine Name of 52, associated with the Sefirah of Malchus. This combination symbolizes elevation of the sparks to their source in Malchus of Atzilus, from where they are elevated even further and included in their antecedent source in the Sefirah of Binah—symbolized by the final letter, ayin, of the word shema. The word shema, then, represents the development of the emotional attributes and their inclusion in mochin deImma. The following word, Yisrael, symbolizes Chochmah, and the juxtaposition of the two indicates that once mochin deImma has been developed, it must then move on to be included within mochin deAbba, as we have been saying. Only thereafter does the Torah go on to say “and the Kohen shall go forth,” that is, after ratzo comes shov: the flowing forth of Yesod Abba, bursting through Yesod Imma and investing itself into vessels and letters. Once that happens, the verse continues, “the affliction of tzaraas has healed.”
***Significance of the Word Tiheyeh
Along the same lines, we can now understand the answer to the second question: what is the purpose of the seemingly unnecessary word, tiheyeh, “will be”? This word is spelled by the letters tav, hei, yud, and hei. The initial tav is the part of the word that signifies the future tense; “will be.” The remaining letters hint at the principle we have been discussing:
The first hei in the word tiheyeh precedes the letter yud. Since, as noted above, hei symbolizes Binah and yud symbolizes Chochmah, this sequence indicates that mochin deImma must come before mochin deAbba. On the other hand, once this prerequisite—the “return of the hei unto the yud” discussed above—has been satisfied, the influence of mochin deAbba flows forth and invests itself within mochin deImma—symbolized by the fact that the yud is itself followed by another hei. In fact, the transmission of spiritual influence extends even further than the hei that follows the yud. That hei corresponds to the initial hei of the Tetragrammaton (representing Binah), but in fact, the influence of Chochmah continues through the latter two letters of the Tetragrammaton, vav and hei (representing za and Malchus, respectively) as well—symbolized by the form of the letter vav, a line from above downward.
It develops, then, that the entire word is meaningful: “This shall be the Torah of the metzora” stands for the idea that mochin deAbba alone (simply learning more Torah) is insufficient. Torah as the remedy for tzaraas is indeed out there somewhere as the solution, but it is in the future; there is something that must come first. What is needed is the full process alluded to by the sequence hei, yud, and hei as just described; only after that will one’s Torah be complete.
***Importance of Breadth in Torah Knowledge
The upshot of all this is that one should always strive for one’s ratzo to be followed by shov. Ratzo itself is but preparation, laying the groundwork, so to speak, arousing the soul to a state of readiness for the main thing, which is shov. And shov requires that there be many vessels to contain it: the letters of Torah and the mitzvos. That is why our Sages have taught, “A person should always study [Torah] broadly [before delving deeper into its intricacies]—even if he forgets, even if he does not know what he is saying, as it is written, ‘My soul is crushed by longing.’” The straightforward meaning of this teaching is that one should acquire a broad foundation in Torah concepts before focusing on intense analysis, because the knowledge one gains will assist one in the analysis. On a deeper level, however, the Talmud’s advice is based on the fact that our main task is to prepare a great many vessels to contain the revelation and flow of the G-dly light—and these are the letters of the Torah one studies. It is by doing this that the light of shov will not only be drawn forth, but will endure, because it will be preserved in all those vessels.
***“She Does Not Fear for Her Household When it Snows, for All Her Household Is Garbed in Red.”
One final point: on the basis of all the foregoing, we can understand a deeper meaning of the verse, “She does not fear for her household when it snows, for all her household is garbed in red.”
It was said earlier that the G-dly life force that animates all of creation—the light of the blessed Ein Sof—flows into the universe exclusively through the Sefirah of Chochmah. By reason of its investiture within Chochmah, the life force spreads through all of creation, since Chochmah itself is enclothed within all levels of creation. For this reason, Chochmah is considered the life blood of the universe, just as blood courses through the entire body, bringing life-giving force to its every part. Consistent with this theme, we find, “Wisdom [Chochmah] gives life”; furthermore, the mystical association between Chochmah and life-giving blood is symbolized by the pulse.
Blood, of course, is red. On the other hand, absence of blood, symptomatic of embolism (G-d forbid)—total blockage of blood flow to a particular area—is conceptualized as white.
Now, the proverbial “woman of valor” who is the subject of the verse “She does not fear for her household” is actually not an individual woman (only), but the spiritual entity known as Knesses Yisrael, the general community of Jewish souls. This concept is associated with the matriarch Rachel and the Sefirah of Malchus.
Cognizant of all these symbols, we can appreciate that if the Jews—Knesses Yisrael—experience a blockage of the life blood of Chochmah—the very same deficit in mochin deAbba that has been explained in this discourse—the result will be tzaraas. Specifically, baheres—the symptom of tzaraas associated with Rachel and Malchus —is as bright as snow, and is, in fact, what is alluded to by the word “snow” in our verse.
On the other hand, also as mentioned earlier, Rachel is identified with the Oral Torah, which is itself associated with the chut hashani, the scarlet cord or string featured, for example, in the atonement rites of Yom Kippur. This represents the drawing down of the light and vitality of Chochmah Ilaah, the heavenly Chochmah. That is why the string was red: that color is appropriate as a symbol of the flow of Chochmah, the spiritual life blood of creation. See the discourse BeShaah SheHikdimu Yisrael Naaseh LeNishma, where it is explained that the phrase, “this is the Torah: adam” implies that the Torah is called adam (lit. “man”) because that word can be divided into the letter alef and the word dam, “blood.” This is an allusion to the function of Torah as the vehicle for infusion of essential G-dly life force (symbolized by the letter alef) into all the 248 positive mitzvos, just as blood carries life force to all the 248 limbs of the body.
And that is what is meant by the statement “She does not fear…snow”: since all the members of her household are garbed in red (shanim in Hebrew, an allusion to the chut hashani); since, in other words, the Jews are engaged in study of the Oral Torah, which promotes “healthy circulation,” as it were, revelation of Chochmah Ilaah within Knesses Yisrael This link between Chochmah and Malchus is in accordance with the Kabbalistic teaching, “the father [Chochmah] founded the daughter [Malchus].”—there is no reason to fear “snow,” the condition of baheres that represents cessation of that flow.
© 2014 Dach Holdings, Ltd. Please note that the foregoing is an informal adaptation by a private person, and that, therefore, errors are possible. Also, the Hebrew original contains much more than could possibly be presented here, and constitutes a much more direct transmission of the Alter Rebbe’s teachings. Furthermore, the adaptation may contain supplementary or explanatory material not in the original, and not marked as such in any way. Thus, for those with the ability to learn in the original, this adaptation should not be considered a substitute for the maamar. Good Shabbos!
 A disease frequently translated as “leprosy,” but which is in fact distinct from that illness. Tzaraas—which no longer occurs in this time of exile—was associated with spiritual taint, and (though its symptoms were physical) its etiology and treatment were not physiological but spiritual, as will be explained in the text.
 By Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, known as the Ari of blessed memory; transcribed by his disciple Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory (1543–1620).The reference is to Portal 37 (the Portal of Leah and Rachel), chap. 7, explaining a passage in Zohar 3:49b.
 Often translated “wisdom” but technically describing the conceptual faculty by which one conceives new ideas. This will be discussed shortly in the text.
 Nedarim 64b.
 That is, a person afflicted with tzaraas; a “leper.”
 Job .
 See Genesis 1:26.
 This applies also to the structure and functioning of our physical bodies, as it says (Job ), “From my flesh, I perceive G-d.”
 In other contexts, a person’s will, as well as the capacity for pleasure, are said to transcend reason and are thus superior to chochmah. However, these supra-rational faculties correspond to spiritual levels that transcend the normal order of creation, the Seder Hishtalshelus.
 See note 12 below.
 More accurately, it is only within the spiritual realm of Atzilus (the highest of the four general spiritual realms (on which see, e.g., pp. 34–35)) that the Sefiros of Chochmah and Binah are called Abba and Imma.
 It is the Sefirah of Daas that is usually said to mediate between intellect and emotion. However, this is not the defining characteristic of Daas; we have just seen in the text that emotion can arise from intellect even prior to the stage of Daas. Perhaps the difference between mochin and daas can be expressed as follows: the heightened awareness of mochin can come and go, whereas Daas is characterized by permanence. Indeed, we often find mochin described in terms of whether or not it is present at all, or, if it is, in terms of degree: there is katnus hamochin (or, alternatively, mochin dekatnus)—a “limited recognition or perception”—and gadlus hamochin (or mochin degadlus)—a “full recognition or perception.” Emotion born of this fluctuating recognition can likewise come and go. Daas, on the other hand, is (as the Alter Rebbe explains in Tanya, chapter 3) a term signifying union; it refers to concentration and fixation upon one’s recognition of G-dliness to the point it is permanently integrated into one’s consciousness. Daas thus sustains emotion born of intellect—such as love and reverence for G-d—as lasting features of one’s character.
For a concise
definition of and contrast between mochin dekatnus and mochin
degadlus, see Yaakov Leib Altein, ed., Likkutei Amarim—Tanya im peirush
Chassidus Mevoeres [Chassidus Mvueres – Tanya], vol. 2 (
 Or the attribute of Binah itself, depending on whether we are focusing on things as they play out in this world or in the heavenly realms.
 Psalms 113:9.
 The reason that, in the case of Binah—unlike Chochmah—awareness of G-dliness does not result in bittul, but in joy and passionate yearning for G-d, is as follows: It is only within Chochmah that the Or Ein Sof is directly manifest; only Chochmah, therefore, is characterized by absolute bittul, having no substance of its own. (This is analogous to the human conceptual faculty, which is essentially nothing but a blank slate, a “receiver” that contains nothing in and of itself, but whose function is simply to receive ideas transmitted to it.) The function of Binah, by contrast, is precisely to develop and understand the inchoate flashes of insight passed to it from Chochmah. Binah’s exposure to the Or Ein Sof is not direct, but filtered, as it were, through Chochmah; what Binah is contemplating and understanding is thus the Or Ein Sof as it is inherent within Chochmah. Therefore, whereas Chochmah is literally “blown away”—rendered batel—in the face of G-d’s omniety, Binah is left intact to contemplate and understand it. And this thorough understanding engenders joy, as we know from our own experience: the satisfaction—indeed, the joy—of thorough comprehension does not come from merely sensing the initial gleam of an idea arising within chochmah, but only after working it through and fully developing it within binah.
 For more on the subject of mochin deAbba and mochin deImma, see, e.g., the discourses LeHavin Mah SheKasuv BaHaggadah (Likkutei Torah, Tzav, 11d–12a) and VeAvad HaLevi Hu (Likkutei Torah, Korach, 55a).
 Or, more colloquially, “ebb and flow,” “to and fro,” or “back and forth.”
 Ezekiel 1:14.
 For more on ratzo vashov, see, e.g., the discourses in Torah Or entitled VeChol HaAm Ro’im Es HaKolos and Eileh Fekudei HaMishkan (Words of the Living G-d, vol. 2, chaps. 5 and 11).
 Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar 7a. (Note that a variant reading of Tikkunei Zohar has “turn back” (shuv laachor) in place of “return to one” [shuv le’echad]; also, in Sefer Yetzirah, chap. 1, the wording is “return to [your] place” [shuv lamakom].)
 This does not mean that one walks about in some sort of catatonic trance. It simply means that the emotions one feels are wholly G-dly, uncontaminated by personal considerations. If one loves one’s fellow, or hates evil, it is (so to speak) because G-d Himself feels that way, and for no other reason. If, on the other hand, one loves one’s fellow because of some quality one finds pleasing, or even if one loves G-d because one personally yearns for Him, that falls short of this ideal.
 Although, as in English (where the letters “a,” “I,” and “O!” constitute complete words), there are several letters in Hebrew—even if not words unto themselves—that express whole ideas.
 For more on the spiritual nature of the Hebrew letters, see, e.g., Words of the Living G-d 1:241–43; vol. 3, chap. 10; and the discourse on Chanukah in the holiday volume. See also the maamar on the verse (Genesis 2:7), “And [G-d] formed man” (Torah Or, 4a), in which it is explained at length why the spiritual source of letters is specifically Chochmah, as opposed to the relatively lower level of Binah.
 The complete scriptures, consisting of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa.
 See chapter 9 below, notes 31*** and 32*** and accompanying text, where it is explained that the 600,000 letters of the Pentateuch are associated with thought because many of them are implicit within a prior vowel and do not actually appear in writing.
 The entire corpus of Jewish knowledge other than the Written Torah—i.e., Midrash, Kabbalah, Mishnah, Talmud, philosophy, legal codes, etc.
 The context of this entire discussion is the spiritual realm of Atzilus, and the reference to the emotional Sefiros is to the emotional Sefiros of that realm.
 This stands for the Kabbalistic term Z’eir Anpin, lit., “small face.” It is the face, as it were, G-d presents to the world (on a relatively detailed or “microcosmic” level; cf. n. 78).
 For a more detailed description of how the middos, the soul’s emotional attributes, grow and develop until they reflect G-d’s own attributes, see Words of the Living G-d 1:304–306.
 That is, Leah and Rachel represent the levushim, or garments—machshavah (thought), dibbur (speech), and maaseh (action)—by which the influence of mochin deAabba within the Sefiros of za is expressed. See further in the text, pp. 120–21.
 As is evident from I Samuel 2:36 (see also Isaiah 14:1), the word sapachas denotes secondary or derivative status, meaning that it is secondary to the two main types of tzaraas, which are s’eis and baheres. There are thus two main types of tzaraas (termed avos, “fathers”) and two derivative types (termed toldos, “derivatives”), for a total of four types of tzaraas generally (see Mishnah, Negaim 1:1). These white lesions differ from one another in degree of brightness, which, according to the Mishnah, are—in descending order—as follows: the bright white of snow; the whiteness of wool; the color of the plaster with which the Temple walls were whitewashed before Passover (see Middos 3:4); and the color of the membrane of an egg. Two of these are included within the term sapachas: one a derivative of s’eis and one a derivative of baheres. In the Mishnah (ibid.), Rabbi Meir and the Sages differ over which is which: both agree that baheres is the brightest of the four (like snow), and that its derivative (a form of sapachas) is the color of the whitewash of the Temple walls. However, according to Rabbi Meir, s’eis is the dullest white of the four (like the membrane of an egg), and its derivative is less dull—like wool. The Sages, on the other hand, hold that it is s’eis that is like wool, and its derivative is less bright—the color of an egg’s membrane.
 For a concise summary in English of the many
opinions as to the precise meaning of these Hebrew terms, see Aryeh Kaplan,
trans., The Living Torah (New York: Maznaim, 1981), 558–59. See also (in
Hebrew) the introduction (esp. sec. 4) of Rabbi Baruch Epstein of
 See note 2 above.
 See, e.g., Tanya, chap. 4.
 The Kabbalah teaches that the Shem Mah is actually the Tetragrammaton—the holy and unpronounceable Divine Name of four letters—in which each of the four letters themselves are “expanded” by spelling them out as words in which the letter alef is (except in the first) included. That is, the first letter of the Tetragrammaton, yud, would be written with the letters yud, vav and dalet; the second and fourth letters, which are both hei, would be spelled by the letters hei and alef; and the third letter, vav, by the letters vav, alef and vav. This combination of letters adds up to the value 45.
 Note that the word chochmah itself can be separated into the components koach mah, “an indefinable, nameless, force,” or “the power of Mah.”
 The letter alef looks like this: À. It is itself a composite of three letters: a yud on top, a yud on the bottom, and a vav connecting them. (This is not fanciful: it is actually an element of the laws governing the shapes of Hebrew letters—see Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chaim 36:2.) The upper yud, a simple point, symbolizes tzimtzum, encapsulating or condensing an idea into suitable form for transmission to someone else. The vav, a line connecting top and bottom, represents that transmission. Finally, the lower yud symbolizes tzimtzum on the part of the recipient, preparatory to passing the idea on to yet another. The alef as a whole, then, symbolizes the process of transmission to lower levels, as mentioned in the text.
 On the subject of the letter alef and its association with the Shem Mah, see the discourses Mareihem U’Maaseihem (Torah Or, 69a), and LeHavin Beiur Inyan HaAvos Hen Hen HaMerkavah (Torah Or, 72d).
 Compare the version of this discourse in Maamarei Admur HaZakein 5565, 423–34, where it is stated that the specific element within Imma that causes this movement away from the vessels of za is Yesod Imma (the Yesod aspect of Imma), not technically mochin deImma. The meaning seems to be in accordance with what is explained below, in the italicized matter on pp. 127–28: that the “output,” as it were, from one sefirah to the next lower sefirah is the aspect of Yesod within the higher sefirah (although it is the aspect of Malchus within each sefirah that actually transmits the influence that was formulated within Yesod and passes it on to the next sefirah). Recall that Binah itself—“understanding”—is intellectual; although it has emotional components, these function primarily in terms of the logical consequence of Binah’s understanding (that G-d is the only true existence)—namely, they focus on the desirablility (in the abstract) of reuniting with G-d Himself. (Cf. what is written in the series of discourses by the Rebbe Rashab popularly known as Hemshech Ayin-Beis, or “the Series of ’72”( published under the title, BeShaah SheHikdimu 5672), 1:56, to the effect that the middos—emotional components—of the mochin recognize that a thing is good in the abstract, whereas the middos of za—emotions in their own right, such as chessed, gevurah, etc.—feel that the thing is good for the person). By contrast, the sefiros of za—Chessed, Gevurah, etc.—are not simply intellectual excitement over the realization of G-dliness; they are full-blown emotions, whereby a person actually feels such things as love for G-d, awe of Him, and so on. Now, theoretically, it should be impossible to reach that stage; there seems to be a natural barrier between Binah and the full-blown emotions of za. That is because the “output” of Binah (expressed through Yesod Imma) should logically be the immediate cessation of all further “downward” progression in favor of an abrupt turnabout (“or chozer”) and return to G-d Himself. This would leave the emotions of za devoid of G-dly input, and thus susceptible to usurpation by unholy impulses. (That is precisely what happens in a case of tzaraas.) Something must break through, penetrate, the barrier of Yesod Imma and allow G-dly influence to reach them, in order for the emotional faculties of a person to be “healthy”—i.e., directed toward holiness. That is why, as explained in the italicized matter referred to (pp. 127–28), shov—the bittul of Chochmah—is characterized as a bursting through by Yesod Abba of Yesod Imma.
 For a lengthy discussion of how this is possible, see Words of the Living G-d, vol. 1, chap. 8.
 Or segirusa.
 The Seder Hishtalshelus, the fixed progression of G-dly revelation from the highest reaches of heaven all the way down to us. See above, pp. 34–35 and 40n.
 This has important ramifications for understanding the spiritual effects of particular mitzvos, and in other areas as well. In this maamar, however, the focus is on the relationship between our religious feelings and their heavenly effects in terms of the cause and cure of tzaraas.
 It is also possible to override the usual correspondence between our actions and their heavenly results through, for example, true sincerity in worship or repentance. However, that subject is treated elsewhere.
 This is fitting, as skin symbolizes the source of the problem. Klippos—forces of unholiness—are meant to derive their sustenance through the spiritual level represented by the hairs of the skin (which contain no life-giving blood, indicative of their status as “leftovers” devoid of any real influence of Chochmah), not by that represented by the skin itself (which does contain blood, and represents the emotions of za). (Accordingly, the presence of white hairs is also part of the symptomatology of tzaraas.) See the discourse beginning BaGemara DeVava Metzia Perek HaPoalim Ka Miflegi BaMesivta DeRakia (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, 22b), esp. sec. 4. (That discourse is very helpful generally as a foundation for the ideas contained in the present one.) See also Words of the Living G-d 1:176.
 Zohar 2:124a; introduction to Ramban’s commentary on the Torah.
 For more on the Torah (and the ten Sefiros) as the names of G-d, see Words of the Living G-d, vol. 2, chap. 7.
 Cf. Numbers 12:1–10.
 Note that Eitz Chaim expressly links Leah and Rachel with the concept of “name.”
 This may be because slander is a sign of self-importance: the person has such an inflated ego that he or she cannot tolerate anyone else, and must put others down. This is the polar opposite of bittul, whereby the person considers him- or herself insignificant and puts others first.
 Note that these letters and the spiritual energy they contain are not in and of themselves evil; they serve as the source of evil’s life force. This corresponds to the fact that negaim, “leprous” afflictions, are not inherently impure (tamei), but only become so once the Kohen has pronounced as much.
 Genesis 11:4.
 Ibid. 6:4.
 Numbers 16:2.
 Anshei shem, lit., “men of name.” Korach was a Levite who objected to the elevation of his fellow Levite Aaron to the office of high priest. See Numbers chap. 16.
 Jeremiah 46:17.
 “Pharaoh” is usually associated with the forces of unholiness. See generally Words of the Living G-d 1, chap. 10.
 Numbers .
 See note 4 above.
 Leviticus 14:2–3.
 In the italicized text on p. 126.
 See Words of the Living G-d, vol. 4, chap. 3, regarding G-d’s assurance to Aaron that his task was superior to that of the Nesi’im (tribal leaders).
 See note 15 above.
 For a discussion of the levels known as Yesod Abba and Yesod Imma, see, e.g., the beiur (explanatory supplement) to the discourse VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis (beginning with the words LeHavin Inyan HaLev), Likkutei Torah, Shlach, 44b–44c.
 As in (Isaiah 58:8), “Then your light will burst forth [yibaka] like the dawn.”
Jacob is primarily identified with the Sefirah of Tiferes of the
Realm of Atzilus. However, this Sefirah is unique in that it both
receives influence from the very highest levels above, and transmits that
influence on to the lowest levels beneath. (Moreover, Tiferes serves to
unify and combine within itself the Sefiros to its right and left—Chessed
and Gevurah—as well.) Thus,
 For more on the mystical significance of the union of Jacob with Leah and Rachel, see Likkutei Torah, Emor, 38d.
 Loc. cit.
 On the Torah portion Metzora.
 Metzora, remez 558.
 Proverbs 15:4.
 See the Talmud’s exposition of this verse in Arachin 15b, as well as the verse’s interpretation by Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna (1720–1797; known as the Vilna (or Vilner) Gaon—the “Genius of Vilna”—or simply by the initials GRA, a Hebrew acronym for “the Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu”) in his commentary ad loc.
 Ecclesiastes 7:1.
 See Psalms 133:2.
 See page 51 above.
 See Exodus 30:22–33.
 Zohar 3:80b.
 The reason, according to the commentary of the Ramaz (Rabbi Moshe Zacuto, 1625–1697), ad loc. 80a, is that the spiritual source of Torah is also the source of hamtakas hadinim, “sweetening of the judgments,” which allows for such things as nullification of decrees, purification of the impure, and healing of the sick. Note that in this context, we are not considering the source of the Torah in the sense of its origin within the spiritual hierarchy of creation (in that sense, the Torah’s source is, as we have said in the text, the Sefirah of Chochmah within the Realm of Atzilus). Rather, the Zohar is discussing the ultimate source of the Torah, in the sense of its origin on a plane more closely associated with G-d Himself, which transcends the entire hierarchy of creation—even the spiritual realms. In that sense, the source of the Torah is said to be mocha sesimaah (“hidden mind or brain”; “latent intellect”), in which the attribute of Gevurah of Atik—source of hamtakas hadinim—is inherent. (Bridging the gap between G-d Himself and creation (including the spiritual realms within creation) is an intermediate level known as Kesser, or “crown.” It is so named because, like a crown atop the head of its wearer, Kesser transcends even the highest level of creation, of which it is not a part. Like all intermediate levels, Kesser, as the intermediary between G-d and creation, includes an inner aspect—which relates to G-d—and an outer aspect—which relates to creation. The inner aspect of Kesser is called Atik Yomin (a reference to G-d as the “Ancient of Days”; see Daniel 7:9), and the outer aspect, Arich Anpin (“Long Countenance”; the grand overall face, as it were, that G-d shows to the universe (on a “macrocosmic” level; cf. n. 28)). (For more on the meaning of Kesser, and Atik Yomin in particular, see Torah Or, 98c, and Yitzchok Dovid Wagshul, adapt., Beyond All Reason (Houston: Dwelling Place Publishing, 2006), 14–19.)) Gevurah of Atik, mentioned above, refers to the Gevurah aspect of the inner manifestation of Kesser, Atik Yomin, which is invested within mocha sesimaah (an aspect of the outer manifestation of Kesser, Arich Anpin)—the source of the Torah.
 Yevamos 109b.
 Rabbi Moshe ben Chayim Alshich (1508–1600), in his commentary, Toras Moshe.
 Zohar 3:49b.
 Cited by the Ramaz at the end of his commentary found on the Torah portion Tazria.
 See note 43 and accompanying text.
 See note 51.
 Yoma 86b.
 See the discourse, mentioned in note 45 above, beginning BaGemara DeVava Metzia Perek HaPoalim Ka Miflegi BaMesivta DeRakia (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, 22b), sec. 3.
 See, e.g., Tanya, Part III (Iggeres HaTeshuvah), chaps. 4–6.
 In this discourse, the expression “return of the hei to the yud” is consistently used in the original. This is probably to distinguish this concept (involving the first hei of the Tetragrammaton, which is adjacent to the yud) from the interpretation of teshuvah referred to elsewhere (see preceding footnote), in which the reference is to the second hei of the Tetragrammaton.
 Psalms 130:1.
 See Words of the Living G-d 1:294–296.
 See p. 126.
 Deuteronomy 6:4.
 See the discourse VeAhavta Eis Havayah Elokecha, Likkutei Torah, VaEschanan, 12d (adapted into English in Words of the Living G-d, vol. 5, chap. 2).
 In the Torah, the letter ayin—numerically equivalent to 70—of the word shema is written larger than the surrounding letters. This quality alludes to the fact that the seven lower Sefiros of Binah (i.e., the Sefiros of Chessed through Malchus, as these are found within Binah) contain, in larger, “expanded” form, those same Sefiros as they exist in their own right (i.e., separate from Binah). In general, each of the ten Sefiros is a composite of all ten, so that, for example, the Sefirah of Chessed is actually composed of the Chochmah component of Chessed, the Binah component of Chessed, and so on through the Malchus component of Chessed. Thus, the seven Sefiros of Chessed through Malchus, expanded in this way, comprise 70 individual components. These 70 expanded attributes are hinted at by the large ayin in shema.
referred to, in this context, as Yisrael Sabba, the “ancient” or “elder”
 See further on this subject in the discourse Re’ei Anochi (Likkutei Torah, Re’ei, 18a), where the union of Chochmah and Binah is associated with the word eisan, and the subsequent flow into za and Malchus with the concept of nachal eisan, a strongly flowing stream (see Deuteronomy 21:4).
 Leviticus 14:3.
 Avodah Zarah 19a.
 Psalms 119:20.
 This teaching is based on a play on words. In the Aramaic of the Talmud, the term for learning broadly, gaining wide knowledge (as opposed to learning in depth, analyzing the subject and attempting to understand it fully) is girsa. This is similar to the Hebrew word “is crushed” (garsah) in the verse from Psalms. The Talmud elaborates that the verse uses the word “crushed” and not “finely ground” (tachanah), to indicate that, because of one’s longing for Torah knowledge, one cannot wait to finely grind each point before “consuming” it, but instead, as it were, gulps down Torah as soon as it has been broken into bite-size nuggets.
 Rashi ad loc. explains that Torah teachers are not always available, so while one is, a student should learn as much as possible and not spend precious time on only one point. Furthermore, Rashi continues, once one has acquired a broad knowledge of Torah, one will be able to analyze questions in depth even without a teacher (as mentioned in the text).
 Proverbs 31:21.
 Eccleisiastes 7:12.
 See what is written on the verse (Song of Songs 5:2), “The voice of my beloved knocks” (kol dodi dofek) in the beiur to the discourse Ani Yesheinah VeLibi Er (Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim 35b); see also the discourse Eileh Fekudei HaMishkan, Likkutei Torah, Pekudei 5d (adapted into English in Words of the Living G-d, vol. 2, chap. 11).
 See pp. 120–22.
 Shevuos 5a.
 See Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim 13c. Regarding the chut hashani on Yom Kippur, see Yoma 67a.
 LikkuteiTorah, Bamidbar, 13a.
 See Deuteronomy 19:14.
 That is, mitzvos that are affirmatively performed, such as putting on tefillin, as opposed to those that are observed by refraining from action, such as by not murdering.
 Zohar 3:248a, 256b, 258a; Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 21.