Having discussed the AV present in all the names, we must explain one particular matter that appears problematic in connection with the 288 Sparks.
This proposition consists of two parts. Part 1: Although the fourfold number... This presents the answer to a problem that seems to arise in connection with these four AVs. Part 2: This shows... This provides a deeper understanding of the answer.
Part 1: Although the fourfold number, which is AV (72), exists in all the names, only what is particular to each of them individually is considered intrinsically their own. For a certain problem exists in connection with the 288 Sparks (see Etz Chayim, Shaar RaPaCh ch. 3, 87a). We are faced with a dilemma. Either we are saying no more than that the numerical value of AV (72) will be found in the simple, “unfilled” (or unexpanded) form of each of these names wherever they are (i.e. in each one’s “simple” Havayah in its fourfold form of Yud, Yud-Heh, Yud-Heh-Vav, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh, which has the numerical value of AV=72, as explained in the previous Opening in connection with BaN). Or else we are saying that this total must be found specifically in the “filled” (or “expanded”) form of the names (the מילוי milui, as explained in the previous Opening in connection with AV, SaG and MaH). If we are saying the former (that AV is in each case found in the simple, unfilled Havayah in its fourfold form), then we can reckon that all Havayahs in their fourfold form contain AV without taking account of the expanded form of the name. However, if this is not enough – because what is not specific to the filled or expanded form of any given name is not reckoned as AV inasmuch as we want to find it in the filled forms themselves – then you may object that BaN does not produce an AV from its filled form but only in its simple, fourfold form, and this cannot be reckoned as being particular to BaN since it is present in BaN in just the same way as it is in the others.