Giving strength against destruction
For nitzuach, Rebbe Nachman brings the title of Tehillim 59:
לַמְנַצֵּחַ אַל־תַּשְׁחֵת לְדָוִד מִכְתָּם בִּשְׁלֹחַ שָׁאוּל וַֽיִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת־הַבַּיִת לַהֲמִיתֽוֹ׃
For the conductor, on “Do not destroy”; of David, a michtam, when Shaul sent men to watch the house in order to kill him. (Tehillim 59:1)
Lamnatzeiach is a direction to the conductor. In this teaching, nitzuach also carries the force of overcoming, and al tashchis means “do not destroy.” Parparaos LeChochmah sets that against the language of corruption:
וַיַּרְא אלוקים אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה כִּֽי־הִשְׁחִית כׇּל־בָּשָׂר אֶת־דַּרְכּוֹ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Hashem saw the earth, and it was corrupt, because all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. (Bereishis 6:12)
And in the account of Onan:
וַיֵּדַע אוֹנָן כִּי לֹּא לוֹ יִהְיֶה הַזָּרַע וְהָיָה אִם־בָּא אֶל־אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְשִׁחֵת אַרְצָה לְבִלְתִּי נְתׇן־זֶרַע לְאָחִֽיו׃
Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; when he came to his brother's wife, he would waste it upon the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. (Bereishis 38:9)
The word tashchis answers the language of hashchasah, destruction. In the kabbalistic explanation developed here, yesod is meant to convey blessing to malchus, pictured as the earth and as the receiving side of the relationship. Misuse breaks that proper joining. The prayerful force of “do not destroy” stands against that loss.
These associations help us understand a direction in the teaching. They do not turn a psalm title into a complete account of all its spiritual effects.
Prayer, salt and being receptive
The verse brought for tefillah may seem surprising:
הֲיֵאָכֵל תָּפֵל מִבְּלִי־מֶלַח אִם־יֶשׁ־טַעַם בְּרִיר חַלָּמֽוּת׃
Can tasteless food be eaten without salt? Is there taste in the spittle brought on by strong food? (Iyov 6:6, following Rashi's reading)
The word tafel, tasteless, is associated here with tefillah. Parparaos LeChochmah offers several ways to understand its connection with repair of the bris.
One involves the end of the verse. Rashi explains challamus in terms of strength, such as a strong food that produces saliva. He also records an interpretation connected with a dream, but explicitly says that he does not accept it as the plain reading because of the dagesh in the lamed. Parparaos LeChochmah draws on that recorded dream interpretation as a possible allusion to the night. We should keep the distinction between an allusion being suggested and the plain meaning that Rashi accepts.
A second connection is salt. The Torah speaks of salt together with covenant:
וְכׇל־קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָתְךָ בַּמֶּלַח תִּמְלָח וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית אלוקיךָ מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ עַל כׇּל־קׇרְבָּנְךָ תַּקְרִיב מֶֽלַח׃
You shall season every meal-offering with salt; you shall not omit the salt of your Elokim's covenant from your meal-offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt. (Vayikra 2:13)
The phrase appears again in the gifts to the kohanim:
כֹּל ׀ תְּרוּמֹת הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לַֽה׳ נָתַתִּֽי לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֹתֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחׇק־עוֹלָם בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא לִפְנֵי ה׳ לְךָ וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ אִתָּֽךְ׃
All the sacred gifts that the people of Israel set aside for Hashem I have given to you and to your sons and daughters with you, as an everlasting entitlement. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before Hashem for you and your offspring with you. (Bamidbar 18:19)
Rashi there explains the lasting covenant through salt's preserving quality. In the association offered here, food without salt pictures the absence of that covenantal quality, and prayer is connected with its repair.
A third connection involves tafel in the sense of being secondary to another. Parparaos LeChochmah brings Tikkunei Zohar 47 and the image of a horse in relation to its rider. In proper riding, the horse responds to the rider's direction. Tefillah asks a person to place himself in a receptive relationship with Hashem, rather than treating his own immediate will as the only guide.
The commentary notes the play between tafel with a tes and tafel with a tav. These are interpretive associations. Rebbe Nachman gives the verse, and the commentary suggests how its words can help us understand prayer as a movement back toward a proper relationship with Hashem.
What happens to a person's splendor?
For Hodu, the verses warn:
הַרְחֵק מֵעָלֶיהָ דַרְכֶּךָ וְאַל־תִּקְרַב אֶל־פֶּתַח בֵּיתָֽהּ׃
Keep your way far from her, and do not approach the entrance of her house. (Mishlei 5:8)
פֶּן־תִּתֵּן לַאֲחֵרִים הוֹדֶךָ וּשְׁנֹתֶיךָ לְאַכְזָרִֽי׃
Lest you give your splendor to others, and your years to a cruel one. (Mishlei 5:9)
Its context is the warning to keep away from the forbidden relationship. Hod means splendor. The warning asks what happens when a person gives away something that ought to belong to the life of kedushah he is meant to build.
The related image is:
חֲגֽוֹר־חַרְבְּךָ עַל־יָרֵךְ גִּבּוֹר הוֹדְךָ וַהֲדָרֶֽךָ׃
Gird your sword upon your thigh, mighty one, with your splendor and your majesty. (Tehillim 45:4)
Parparaos LeChochmah cites the Zohar's association of this guarding with tikkun habris. Splendor is understood as the outward expression of something inward. The rav describes the inward kedushah of the bris as giving a person an outward shine. This is his application of the Zohar's teaching about a hidden spiritual level on which the body's splendor depends. The avodah is to guard that inward gift and the direction in which he gives it. It does not give us a test for judging another person's spiritual life by his appearance.
Hallelukah brings us to the verse:
שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת־ה׳ הִיא תִתְהַלָּֽל׃
Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting; a woman who fears Hashem is the one to be praised. (Mishlei 31:30)
The praise is directed toward yiras Hashem. Within the spiritual framework of this discussion, it stands against attraction to a deceptive outward appearance and to the opposing influence described as an evil woman. The verse itself praises a woman whose life is rooted in fear of Hashem. Alongside the earlier reversal of yelalah into halali, it helps direct praise toward its proper place.
Ten verses and ten particular chapters
The ten verses we have been learning are not ten substitute readings for Tikkun HaKlali. Some come from Tehillim, others from Mishlei or Iyov. They provide remazim, allusions, through which Rebbe Nachman presents the ten forms of song.
The ten chapters themselves are 16,32,41,42,59,77,90,105,137 and 150. Their list appears in the later part of Likutey Moharan II:92. Many chapters in Tehillim contain the same forms of song, so knowing a title such as lamnatzeiach would not by itself tell a person which chapter to choose.
A bracelet with the chapter numbers written on it gives a small practical example. Someone who finds himself with a Tehillim but without a separate Tikkun HaKlali booklet can still know which chapters to say. The correct list matters.
Nor should we imagine that each chapter contains only one form of song. Parparaos LeChochmah explains that several expressions can be present within a single chapter. The sources also preserve different lists of the ten forms. A full comparison, and the connection with the sefiros, need their own careful learning. The present verses give us some understanding without exhausting the reasons for choosing these particular chapters.
The image of the princess in the Seven Beggars makes the comprehensiveness of the repair easier to hold in mind. She has been wounded by ten arrows. Removing one or two is different from knowing how to draw out all ten and bring the healing to completion. The actual tale distinguishes the king who shot her from the healer who can draw out all ten arrows. This image is a preview in the shiur, expressing a tikkun that addresses the several aspects together. It should not be mistaken for the full sixth-beggar explanation the rav repeatedly says he intends to give later.
Taking the repair seriously enough to continue
The instruction in Likutey Moharan II:92 speaks of saying the chapters on the day of the impure occurrence. Sichos HaRan 141 also stresses the mikveh, while expressly preserving the value of the chapters when illness or travel prevents immersion. These teachings are presented within a return that includes genuine regret and a commitment for the future. Saying the chapters is not an excuse to omit teshuvah or to stop guarding one's conduct.
The rav distinguishes teshuvah from the tikkun being discussed. Regret and a commitment for the future are necessary parts of returning. The tikkun also concerns repairing what the act damaged and bringing back the holy spark that became caught elsewhere. He asks the person to trust the stated promise of repair, alongside trying to understand its connections. The ten forms of song are the explanation he has been developing; he is not presenting an unexplained magic potion.
A person also needs emunah that teshuvah works. The Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6–7, describes how someone who had been distant can become close and beloved, with his mitzvos accepted. The awareness of wrongdoing must not become a belief that return is impossible.
The aim is to repair and recover what has become scattered. Likutey Moharan II:92 ends by connecting this tikkun with the coming of Mashiach and the ingathering:
בּוֹנֵה יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם ה׳ נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יְכַנֵּֽס׃
Hashem builds Yerushalayim; He gathers the dispersed of Israel. (Tehillim 147:2)
In the prayer for ingathering, we ask for people to be brought back from dispersion. We can also pray for those struggling in their relationship with Yiddishkeit. The rav attributes an inward application to the Arizal: the gathering of holy sparks that have become scattered through misuse of the bris. A printed passage in the Lurianic collection Pri Etz Chaim, Shaar HaAmidah 19:7–8, records a prayer of Mahar'i Sarug, described there as a student of the Arizal, and a related note in the name of Rabbi Noson Shapira about this blessing and the repair of these sparks. Likutey Halachos, Hilchos Tefillah 5, develops the connection too. These printed parallels establish the tradition; they should be distinguished from claiming that every word of the rav's explanation is a verbatim statement by the Arizal. The request is for a return to their proper place, alongside the physical and spiritual return of Israel.
After taking the steps of teshuvah and tikkun, a person should be able to continue his avodah. There is room to say Reb Noson's prayer afterward when time permits, and to say the Tehillim with attention. Understanding the words helps a person find his own life within them.
The rav reads the closing placement of this teaching, followed by chazak, as a statement of how central this repair is to Rebbe Nachman's work. He describesII 92 as the close of the main collection, with further material printed after it. His interpretation of that position is an expression of the teaching's importance.
He then makes a spontaneous observation: here there is one chazak, “be strong.” Having taken the steps of repair, the person can receive strength from believing that the tikkun worked. He does not need to keep treating the same harm as though no repair had happened. The rav's wordplay encourages that trust; it does not promise that a person can never face another struggle.
The yetzer hara may bring back a severe quotation and insist that return is impossible. The rav's answer is to take the wrongdoing seriously, do teshuvah, say the chapters with attention, and trust the tikkun enough to continue.