for that aspect of modesty, as explained elsewhere.) Even though clothing

for that aspect of modesty, as explained elsewhere.) Even though clothing also has a certain style and expresses something about the person based on what type of clothing they wear, it expresses the person by covering over the person, albeit in a certain style.

Adornments or jewelry however, unlike regular clothing, serve purely to reveal the inner beauty of the individual. Thus, the intellect and emotions, which are likened to adornments, serve no purpose that is separate from the soul. They serve only to reveal the true greatness of the soul. Thought, speech and action, on the other hand, are compared to clothing. Just as clothing has a distinct purpose (modesty), and cover the person, so do thought, speech and action function with a certain degree of separation from the essence and being of the soul, and they express and reveal the soul by covering over and concealing it in a certain “style,” as it were.

In other words, intellect and emotion are direct expressions of the soul, and are always bound up with the essence of the soul. They cannot exist separate from the essence of the soul in any way.

However, the “garments” of thought, speech, and action, are a step removed from the essence of the soul. They are bound up directly with the intellect and emotions, but not directly with the essence. (In these “garments” themselves the only garment that is directly bound up with the intellect and emotions is the “garment” of thought. Whereas speech and action can only exist as a derivative of thought, since, without thought (on some level) one cannot speak or decide how to act.) These garments exist with a degree of separation from the soul, since a person can act by copying someone else (or being forced by them to act a certain way contrary to their essential nature), and the same applies to speech, and even a person’s thoughts could be based on someone else’s feelings or ideas, not from within one’s own inner self.

It comes out that there are two opposite ways to look at the relative significance of intellect and emotion versus thought, speech, and action:

1- From the perspective of the essence of the soul, intellect and emotions are truly revealing it, whereas thought, speech, and action are concealing the true nature of the essence, in things that have a degree of separation from the soul.

2- However, from the perspective of another person, the only way we know anything about another person is by looking at their actions, listening to their words, and trying to figure out their thoughts. The other person’s intellect and emotions are not directly accessible to another person. So, from that perspective, the garments of thought, speech, and action are revelation, whereas intellect and emotion are concealed.

The point is that these two stages of expression of the soul - “united garments” of intellect and emotions, and “separated garments” of thought, speech, and action - are the system, the method, of how the essence of the soul can relate to something outside of itself.

The essence of the soul is so spiritual and intangible that it has no way to relate to anything else directly, only through the stages of this interface system of “united garments” and “separated garments.” It uses its own “interface system” to relate to something outside of itself, whether to a physical body, or through the body to other people or objects.

Based on this, we can extrapolate an analogy for how the Infinite Essence of Hashem, and His Infinite Light, which are completely undefinable and intangible, interact with worlds and creations using its own “interface system” of Sefiros, as will be explained.

Before we continue with the analog, Hashem’s “interface” system of Sefiros, we will present here a basic chart of the makeup of the soul, which will help us later in understanding the various levels of Hishtalshelus (system) of the Sefiros. (Some of the aspects of the soul’s makeup described in this chart were not mentioned yet in the maamar, but will be important later in the analogy.)