שלימות של ימין ושמאל מול שלימות של מקור וצל | פרדס רמונים שער א פרק א (ג) (Auto Translated)

Gate Ten and Not Nine: The Number of Ten Fingers and Five Corresponding to Five

Introduction: The Order of Gate Ten and Not Nine

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, gentlemen, let’s learn some halachot. What are we learning here? Gate Ten and Not Nine. An interesting gate. The camera is coming, for nice things it’s good to have it this way. And this gate discusses that there are ten sefirot and not otherwise. And we’re holding here at page 18. Yes? We’re holding here that we spoke earlier, he began to explain a bit the mishnah of the ten sefirot.

Right, the context is, this entire Gate Ten and Not Nine, he really wants to get to the next mishnah, or two mishnayot further, where it says “ten and not nine,” where he’s going to give the reason for it, in chapter 5 or 4. He doesn’t get there. He gets stuck on “five corresponding to five” for three chapters. Yes, chapter 5, only in chapter 5 he finally gets to the mishnah he really wants to reach. But we go according to the order, what can one do? It’s a bit boring for us, I know. Can you give us nothing faster, or do you want to follow the order? We’ll hear what you have to sell. When a rabbi writes a sefer, the Ramak writes a sefer, and he gets stuck in the middle, you have to go along with it, that’s how I hold.

The Ramak’s Explanation of the Mishnah of Ten Sefirot Belimah

And he said, so really, I want to get to the points, that in Sefer Yetzirah, in the mishnah, he began to speak about the ten sefirot belimah. And it appears that the mishnah, according to the Ramak’s interpretation, came to say from where he took the number ten in the first place, right? I mean, because after the sefirah it will say “ten and not nine,” so first, where does he get the number from at all? Or why, or how does it basically work?

So, right, seemingly, so he says. So, the Ramak already said two things. He says, ten sefirot means, ten is a problem, from this it says belimah. Belimah is like antiquities, it’s not real ten sefirot. We only say ten, but it’s not really. The count is actually belimah. So that’s number one. Ah, what does ten mean? He says, we’re not going to go yet, we’re going to discuss it soon. Right? Now he goes back.

The Meaning of “Number” and “Sefirot”

So he says:

> And he said “the number ten” etc.

If so, he positions himself to say that if it’s belimah and everything is negated from boundary and from physicality, then

> it’s obvious that it’s complete, internal and external, and its foundation is specifically abundant, as known to the wise, that there is nothing in existence except the simple One

That one should say there are no sefirot, there is only simple unity. Right?

So he says:

> And he said that the number

No. The sefirot do have a number.

> And he expounded sefirot as meaning number, that they should be judged by number, and even from them is belimah. And in this way their name, that sefirot is not the language of number as we explained

So, this is the meaning of the word “number.” Remember, we said this week that the word “number” is not superfluous. Because “the number of ten fingers” is not saying anything, you could say “ten fingers,” I don’t know, “corresponding to ten fingers,” something like that. So, when he says “the number of ten fingers,” he’s trying to say that there is a number for it. Even though it’s belimah, it does have a number in a certain way. Which way he doesn’t explain. And therefore it’s called sefirot, from the language of number. So he says here. Correct?

The Number of Ten Fingers — The Source of the Number Ten

What is the other side? Ah, and what is this ten? So he says:

> Ten corresponding to the fingers

> And afterward he placed a number, that they were counted as ten, he says the number of ten fingers

And how do we know it’s ten fingers? So, here he brings in a verse that Sefer Yetzirah didn’t bring, so it’s why it’s not the simple pshat. Because Sefer Yetzirah probably, actually I don’t know, he wanted to say something connected to this world.

The Ramak says that we bring a verse. There’s a verse:

> “When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers”

It turns out that the Almighty made the heavens with fingers. What are the fingers?

> A metaphor for His sefirot, that the King of kings of kings

Discussion About the Verses of “Finger”

Student:

Sure, that’s a topic. That’s for the purpose of shortening the summary. That’s true. That’s true. That’s true. But I’m thinking, the number of ten fingers. Right, now, but you could say, like, there are two ways. Is he talking about our fingers, or God’s fingers, right? So… I understand that further it comes together.

So like, how can you say “ten sefirot, the number of ten fingers, five corresponding to five”? Right? “And a singular covenant directed in the middle.” So that’s not true, it doesn’t fit.

And we say something like… What’s the simple pshat that we count to ten because we have ten fingers? Do we say such a thing?

Maggid Shiur:

The Almighty created the world, yes.

Student:

Ah, yes, we talked about it last week. The hands have ten fingers, so the way the world comes into being is through ten. I mean, it’s simple.

Maggid Shiur:

Hmm. Okay.

Okay, anyway, that’s his chiddush. And there’s a verse that says “the finger of God is it,” “in Egypt.” It also says “with the finger of God,” that’s actually one finger only. That’s why we have this… The midrash actually makes this calculation. This is literally pshat. In the Passover Haggadah. Yes, finger, it turns out that yes, this is five times. It fits very well with Sefer Yetzirah’s way of thinking, to take this finger very literally.

Student:

It also says something like this language, “He extended a finger between them,” right? By the angels.

Maggid Shiur:

There is such a language that he brings.

Student:

A verse?

Maggid Shiur:

A verse? I don’t know. Let’s see, I can use my search function. Let’s find it. “Finger.” “Finger of God.”

Well, but it’s a little bit of a chiddush that Sefer Yetzirah, when he says “the number of ten fingers,” he means to say, because there’s a verse “the work of Your fingers,” it turns out that…

Student:

Sefer Yetzirah refers to the entire Torah, he knows the entire Torah.

Maggid Shiur:

Ah, there’s one more verse. I looked at the word “finger” in Tanach. So “finger” almost always means, is talking about a person’s finger, besides for these three. It says according to the three… 31 times finger in Tanach. But, there are three important verses that we need to remember.

One is “the finger of God” — “And the magicians said to Pharaoh, it is the finger of God.”

Is there another such important verse, right? “Tablets of testimony written with the finger of God.”

Student:

Wow, that’s more important. It’s seemingly more direct than… We’re talking about engraving, yes, carved out like that.

Maggid Shiur:

“Written with the finger of God” is actually from the Ten Commandments, right? Written with a finger — with one finger? Not proven. And then, the kohen, Rabbi Elazar, with his finger… Twice it says “with the finger of God,” right? Also in the book of Deuteronomy it says “two tablets of stone written with the finger of God.”

And then, this is the verse he’s talking about, “When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers” etc. These are all the times it says “finger.”

Student:

Ah, so the Ten Commandments are the ten sefirot, “written with the finger of God” is the ten fingers. That’s the…

Maggid Shiur:

Finger of God, Act of God, that’s what the BDB Dictionary says. “Finger of God” — he translates Act of God, and in Selichot there’s Finger of God, or Writing of God you could say, “written with the finger of God.” That’s the topic of finger.

Okay, so from this the number of ten is derived. Okay. That’s “the number of ten fingers.” Yes, yes, like you’re saying, it makes sense. We have “yad” (hand), yad is even more common, right? To say “the hand of Hashem” and the like. I don’t know, I need a concordance that works to say when a thing… which verb is said about God. I don’t have a way to find that out yet. I need to perhaps make myself smarter about such a thing. Do you understand what I’m saying? How you find, I don’t know, the concordance finds me when there’s any verse with a word. But I want when it’s only talking about the Almighty. It could even be. Yes, but I don’t know how to put the word Hashem together. It doesn’t have any… It positions itself like this… Who is the verb about? Who is… the hand.

Five Corresponding to Five — The Two Hands

So yad is five corresponding to five. So each hand has five, so that’s already good. It’s already good from this place, the five sefirot. Yes, yes, that’s what you wanted to say, right?

Student:

No, however you want to understand it, it’s only one…

Maggid Shiur:

And it doesn’t make sense, because finger of God is only one. You can’t title, you can’t use one finger. You do things with the whole hand. You do things… right, so when it says “the work of Your fingers,” what’s the meaning? It says five corresponding to five.

The hand of Hashem, the hand of Hashem Havayah, the hand of Hashem was upon them, the hand of Hashem… It says this a lot of times. The hand of Hashem did this, the hand of Hashem… Okay. “The hand of Israel, the great hand that Hashem did.” Okay.

In short, these are the fingers. Done. So that’s one pshat. Five corresponding to five.

The Question from “My Hand Also Founded the Earth and My Right Hand Spread Out the Heavens”

The Ramak says such a form. It becomes difficult from two things. It says “My hand also founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.” So according to this verse, it should be the heavens for… I don’t grasp his error. The heavens should be one hand, and the earth another hand. It turns out that there should only be five sefirot, not ten. I don’t understand the question.

Student:

If we say five corresponding to five, it doesn’t turn out that heavens are the work of one hand and earth is the work of one hand. Rather both are divided on the hands. Five corresponding to five, five on the right and five on the left, right for the making of heavens and left for the making of earth.

Maggid Shiur:

I don’t know exactly how this works. He’s trying to say something that one shouldn’t think that only five, only with one hand. Just as it says “my hand and my right hand,” it comes out as if with one hand He made and not with “His hands.” There is such a thing.

Five Corresponding to Five: The Question of the Two Hands and the Answer of Sefer Yetzirah

The Ramak’s Question: Five Sefirot or Ten?

The Ramak says a claim, it became difficult for the righteous of Yetzirah. It says “My hand also founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.” So according to this verse, it should be the heavens for… I don’t have his claim. The heavens should be one hand, and the earth another hand. It turns out that there are only five sefirot, not ten.

I don’t understand the question.

> “Five corresponding to five, for the heavens are the work of one hand and the earth is the work of one hand, and the fourth when together they are ten.”

This is five corresponding to five, five on the right and five on the left, right for the making of heavens and left for the making of earth.

I don’t know exactly how this works. Let’s try to say something. That one shouldn’t think that it’s only five, because only with one hand. Just as it says “my hand and my right hand,” it comes out as if with one hand He made, not with “His hands.” What is this? It’s an interesting question.

Let’s try to get it, let’s try to get at something here. He wants to argue that the five, so what’s he doing with five corresponding to five? So the Ramak’s meaning is that five corresponding to five is the Ten Commandments, only here five sefirot. Forget about the verse. Let’s think of why would someone would say that? Because one hand has only five fingers, and one hand is enough. Just as the Almighty can make things with one hand. We can only make with two hands, but the Almighty can make with one hand.

What would that mean? “My hand and my right hand.” So the entire heavens He made with one hand. Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, I’m confused. He brings two verses. It says “Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,” right? So he says that by the heavens it was made with all ten fingers. That’s his first thing. But the other verse says “heavens” with one hand, and the “earth” with another hand. It seems like you could read like that. So it seems like the heavens was only made with five fingers. One must conclude that “the work of Your fingers” means five fingers and not ten fingers. Do you understand the claim?

The Answer of Sefer Yetzirah: Five Corresponding to Five

On this he brings Sefer Yetzirah’s answer, five corresponding to five. That’s it. I don’t know what the answer is.

That indeed, what does it matter to you? Let’s say that indeed, the heavens He made with one hand, and the earth with a second hand, and still they’re standing together, five corresponding to five. That’s his pshat. This is a very good pshat. I’m very happy with this pshat.

The Second Question: Why Not Twenty Sefirot?

And then in the next piece he goes the opposite. I don’t know why he’s so confusing. The next piece he goes the opposite. The other thing is, he learns every word. He learned every word in the mishnah. You can learn the mishnah, you understand? He explains what five corresponding to five means. He explains that… No, no, but I see that he’s worried about the problem that there should be five. And then he says maybe there’s twenty. And that’s his thing, the inferences that he makes. I’ll tell you what I’m trying to get at.

He says, that it becomes difficult. And what does “a singular covenant directed in the middle” do? A singular covenant directed in the middle is proving you that there’s not twenty. Why? Because he says like this, true, you have twenty fingers, right? He explains, that why are there twenty fingers? The answer is, that the ten fingers of the foot are only a hint, a shadow and likeness of the ten sefirot of Atzilut. It’s again, it’s like a copy of the same one. It’s not a new thing, it’s a copy of the same. And the hint is that there are ten sefirot in Beriah, but it’s only a garment for the ten sefirot in Atzilut. Therefore it was made this way.

Okay, so once you have this teaching that you can say there are two, but it’s only two levels of the same thing, why don’t you do the same teaching with the two hands? Why don’t you say that the five corresponding to five are only a garment or an image of the first five?

The Answer: A Singular Covenant Directed in the Middle

And then he says the answer, that the singular covenant is directed in the middle. Of course, in other words, if you think about it, it doesn’t really answer the question. That’s what I’m saying, he’s trying to prove something, and he’s worried about something, and it’s not even the problem he’s worried about. And he says that but everything has a covenant between the forearms, there’s a covenant between the five and the five of the hands, there’s a covenant, and so too between the five and the five of the feet. So the covenant is what makes them into one thing, that one should count both of them, not that one should say that one is a copy of the other. Unlike between hands and feet there is no covenant, therefore there we say, okay, it’s only another copy. That’s his teaching with this piece of Sefer Yetzirah.

The Main Foundation: Ten Sefirot as an Organic Unity

Something else Sefer Yetzirah wants with this, right? “Five corresponding to five and a singular covenant directed in the middle.” Well, I think that it could be like this, it’s correct that there’s a basic question, right? There’s a basic question. Forget, take out all the verses and all the mishnayot with investigations that he puts in here. There is something of a problem. What is the problem?

Topic number that we make and we say, okay, the world was made with so many fingers of the Almighty, okay, let it be so. What we’re doing always is like looking for a very basic number, a very basic amount, you can divide or categorize, you can divide everything in so many ways. Let’s actually use our hands, just as we use the example, or the body of the person, because we’re speaking in this language. Okay.

Now, there’s always a question, like, from both ends. One is, what makes a set into a set that goes together? Maybe it’s just extra things. You have two hands, what connects, what coordinates between the two hands? That’s a good question just like that, right? Hands are not really things. Hands work only within something that coordinates between them, like the whole, right? So that’s like one big question.

When you say ten sefirot, you’re saying ten sefirot as, I can’t use this word, as an organic unit, right? Ten sefirot, and he uses the example of ten fingers. Not ten sefirot where each one is its own god that does its own thing. I think that there’s something like that going on here. There must be some system, a system, or an organism, right? Some living thing. These are all ten of his images, ten extensions of one being, of one person. So, it can’t be ten extra things. Ten extra things don’t make ten sefirot, it doesn’t yet make a world. There’s a middle between not, right?

The Concept of “Machria” — Coordination, Not Decision

And I think that this middle element, he’s going to say other answers, but I think that this middle element is trying to show that always. Like, the Sefer Yetzirah has this idea, and like, many people have similar ideas. There has to be something in the middle that coordinates between them, right? And if you say makria (deciding factor), makria means people think it means there’s a machloket (dispute). First of all, I want to say, it doesn’t mean dispute. It’s more coordination is a better word. Like, ah, like, ah, nu?

Right, the Sefer Yetzirah works with this idea of a makria later in different, in a lot of different ways. And he says that like, nature works like this, and people think makria means there’s a dispute and one needs to decide. And the Baal Shem Tov says like this, even then, like, a manager, a manager is the makria, you understand more like that, a manager. What is a manager’s job? A manager’s job is not to make peace between disputes that the… Right, to make them into one thing.

So he’s also particular about this matter of right and left, perhaps, like, and not to think that there’s like, a separate thing. Right, that’s like, no, so that’s like, one side.

The Verse “My Hand Founded the Earth and My Right Hand Spread Out the Heavens” — What is “Hand” and What is “Right Hand”?

And the Arizal, that when the Torah of heaven, what he wants to say is that they mean, he is too for. Right, that’s one thing, one thing, that it’s not making two, that the heaven is not separate things. Let’s assume, there’s probably different ways of cutting this stuff. One can say that the heaven is the ten sefirot, and the world is the ten sefirot. Because if we’re talking about the entire Bereishit words together, it will be one thing. That’s actually what the verse of “His hands, His right hand” says, and the Ramak interprets “His hands” as “His left,” right? So that’s the trick always, I told you. It’s not simple pshat. Because simple pshat, what?

There’s a verse that mentions only the right? “His right hand and upon Your hand,” what is “Your hand”? “Your hand” is yad kehah (the weaker hand), the left hand. There’s such a rule that “yad” (hand) always means left, unless it says “right.”

Digression: Tefillin and the Weaker Hand

I once saw it written, this is a drash, but the real reason why one puts tefillin on the left hand is because it’s the weaker hand, tefillin needs to be worn the whole day, and one can’t put tefillin on the hand one works with, so one puts it on the other hand.

And when one writes the tefillin? One needs to write it with the stronger hand. Ah, when can’t one go with tefillin? Ah, okay, I have a problem, I have a problem. I need to wear tefillin when I learn, but I learn with a keyboard, and one can’t. When one writes it’s really only one hand. Wow, that’s the difference, very interesting. When one writes one is not at all a unified individual, because one writes only with one hand, and the other hand does nothing. Today when one types one is much more of a unified individual, because it’s with all ten fingers. As Rabbeinu HaKadosh said, “my fingers.” A person who can’t type… yes, no, I type like this. It’s not with ten fingers, it’s with four, whatever.

Ah, that’s indeed a… therefore always… I don’t know what… I always wondered how people used to wear tefillin the whole day. I already asked people who wore them the whole day, they told me there are solutions that never, I don’t know, they said it works. In short, I have this problem.

Back to the Verse: Biblical Parallelism and the Weaker Hand

Nu, I’m saying the simple pshat, I don’t understand why I’m saying this, just. Simple pshat, when it says “My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens,” this is regular biblical parallelism with correspondence, right? And it makes it stronger. “My right hand” is a doubling and intensification of “my hand,” so both are really “my right hand.” Simple pshat. Perhaps one can say that the weaker hand is as if the left hand. Anyway, left is a metaphor, right? I don’t understand the point.

It’s true yes. So “my hand” is the left hand, because the earth is weaker, of course. What is the whole earth, come on. And the heavens is “my right hand.” There are five fingers.

“When I See Your Heavens, the Work of Your Fingers” — The Details of Creation

I always thought that “when I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,” what is the work of Your fingers when You write? There are so many details in the world, one doesn’t see them. There are also many details, these are the simple stars, what is this? Little dots, all the stars. What is this? One really needs to ask, I don’t know, it’s all spread out. Yes, it’s not like ten fingers, it’s spread out. It says in the Zohar. Yeah, it’s very like… it looks like… like one of them.

The Heavens as the Writing of the Almighty, and the Essence of Coordination in the Ten Sefirot

The Heavens Like Five Fingers – The Work of Creation of the Heavens

Teacher:

Like whom. And the heavens is His right hand, right? So that’s five fingers.

I always thought that “like the throne of the King, the work of Yitzchak” – what is the work of Yitzchak of the heavens? There are so many details in the world, one doesn’t see them. There are indeed so many details, the stars. It’s so finger-like, all the stars. I always thought, I always wondered, I don’t know why…

Spread out? Yes, it’s like that, it looks like ten fingers. It’s so spread out a bunch of pieces, as you say. Yes, it’s very like, it looks like – which part of your body are the stars most similar to? I don’t know, it’s like the…

I don’t know, it’s art, it’s like, I like the word, I don’t know, I like it.

“The Writing of the Heavens” – The Script in the Sky

There’s also this idea of like “the writing of the heavens,” like the writing in the, right? It’s indeed like a writing. There are verses about this, right? The sky is such a… yes, that’s not a good proof, I once saw better verses that say this.

Ah, I know what this is. This is the pshat of the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban, that “written with the finger of God” truly means written in astrology. And what does it even mean that… ah, that’s different.

The Midrash of “Three Books are Opened” and the Book of Life

What does it even mean? The Sefer Yetzirah is based on this midrash, right? That “three books are opened.” We discussed this. What does it even mean that… I once made a list of all the places about the secret of the metaphor.

What does it even mean that the Almighty opens a book? It says in the verses, “and write them in the Book of Life.” The image of a book of life is verses, is biblical. It’s not just the midrash of three books. What does it even mean that the Almighty writes in a book? Which book does He write? What is the metaphor? Okay, what is the meaning? What are you talking about?

The Torah is compared to the stars, and the stars, they predict, according to astrology, what will be.

So when he says that it says… That’s why, in general, how do we know that the month of Tishrei is the three books being opened? Because Tishrei is the constellation of Libra (scales), which is literally the three books.

The Sky as a Great QR Code

So, right? This is the writing that is like little dots making a design. That’s very good. Just as today one writes with computers, there’s such a way of writing that is a different kind, that’s not a linear way. There’s a spirit of this, and from all the codes combines a pattern.

Somehow one finds out from this that the sky is a great QR code. Ah, the entire sky is a great QR code, and one needs to know how to scan. That’s the prize. One finds the scanner, that’s it.

In short, every dot in every place can… Right, it’s a kind of like that. Somehow, it turns into pictures or into something. Yeah. So, that was the thing.

Now, that’s why the secrets are written in the heavens. The work is simple. I didn’t say the word “the work is simple.” It’s not of the writing, because secrets means something like something more fine-detailed, like there’s more fine details. And that’s why… yes, so in short the work, ah, but back to the thing.

The Essence of Coordination – What Makes the Ten Sefirot Into One Thing

So, we need something to coordinate all of them together. That’s the important thing.

There’s also a question about the heavens, how they coordinate together, right? There’s another piece about ten sefirot, that it means the ten spheres. And there was a big problem: what makes them work as one thing? Because seemingly, each one has its own cycle, and somehow they have such a small coordination. How does one see such coordination, I don’t know now.

So the Sefer Yetzirah has this idea. So, but the point is, that the coordination is what makes it into one thing. Otherwise, it’s not one thing at all. It’s just 10 random things. There can’t be ten worlds, there must be one world, not ten worlds. So, that’s the thing that has the function of the sefirot.

So, later we have that. So, the Holy Palace is aligned in the middle, right? There’s six sides and the middle. There’s all kinds of things, like generalizations and different… in Sefer Yetzirah, as Sefer Yetzirah means.

Looking for a Sefer Yetzirah with Just the Text

I still haven’t found a Sefer Yetzirah that’s just the text. When in Sefer Yetzirah it says a lot about this, that there’s something in the middle that… makes everything work. And I think that the middle is what makes it into one thing, right? Even here, we did, it doesn’t say “or” in unity, no, it’s… I need one that has much fewer pages.

I should have bought it in the mountains, and I couldn’t print it out.

Yaakov, the black one, but without money? Ah. I think that’s called Sefer Yetzirah. I’ll just look here.

In the Sefer Yetzirah: Three Mother Letters Aleph-Mem-Shin and the Rule of the Deciding Factor in Between

Chapter 2 – Fire, Water, and Air

So, it says… it doesn’t say here aleph. In the second Sefer Yetzirah it says, for example:

> Fire above, water below, and air is the deciding rule in between.

right? This is the intention, that the air is between the heaven and the earth, and it holds the two things.

Three Mother Letters Aleph-Mem-Shin – Three Parallels

Three mother letters Aleph-Mem-Shin, the second chapter is full of this. Three mother letters Aleph-Mem-Shin, mem is silent, shin hisses, aleph is the deciding rule in between. Deciding rule, I don’t know what the word “deciding rule” means.

Three mother letters Aleph-Mem-Shin, the second chapter is about the three mothers. The first three mishnayot is that their foundation is the scale of merit and the scale of guilt, and the tongue is the deciding rule in between. Right, very good. Tongue, rule. But what does “deciding rule” mean?

Does it say there also “tongue rule”? No, it goes like this: the second chapter speaks three times about three mothers, and it gives three different correspondences to this, right?

Heaven, earth, air, and then it explains: fire above, water below, and air is the deciding rule in between. “Rule” is how he calls a deciding factor, I don’t know. Perhaps engraving, perhaps not, I don’t know.

The same thing, three mother letters Aleph-Mem-Shin is, one is silent, one shouts, and one is in the middle. Aleph doesn’t make anything. And shin shouts, and aleph decides.

The same thing, scale of merit and scale of guilt, and tongue decides. Like you’re saying, that means the tongue of the scale.

The Twenty-Two Letters and More Places of “Deciding Factor”

And then it talks about the twenty-two letters. This is messed up, something is wrong. And then it talks also, there’s deciding factor in another place, right? In… in the end. Chapter 5.

In chapter 26, it talks about it somehow. I’m not sure.

Three mothers three, and how it decides between them. So he says there.

The Actual Meaning: The Deciding Factor as the Overall Manager

All in all, the meaning is actually… there’s a third thing in between which is like the sixth, the overall manager. It’s, it’s, but this third thing, that’s its job.

Discussion: What Does “Deciding Factor” Mean?

Student:

But you’re saying that aleph and the mem, the aleph and the mem is one letter. It’s not over, it’s not in that sense on top of them. I mean, I can’t understand what you mean.

Teacher:

I don’t know, because just like the scale. Take the scale, which is the greatest example. It’s not really deciding, right? Very good. What is the job of… what is the image of a scale? There’s a scale of merit and a scale of guilt. The one that decides is what decides which is overall correct, right? The tongue, how does one say, the tongue of the scales.

All in all, its job is not to… Well, here it’s not coordination, because this is the only one that… We’re always using this image of… the question is which image is primary, right? Which idea are we talking about here first?

The Metaphor of Judgment – It’s Only a Metaphor

As you think, the… Some people like always talking about judgment, for some reason. Everything is either chesed (kindness) or din (judgment), mercy. Everything is either you’re guilty or you’re exempt, or in between decides if you’re guilty or exempt. That’s weighing.

But that’s only a metaphor.

Right, but that’s only a mashal, right? We’re talking about nature, we’re not talking about the nature, it’s not like… a question, it was created the world time, and only created the world time, yes.

We’re talking, or something like, a person has heat and cold, I only know to say, some old way of saying medicine, and it needs to be not too hot and not too cold, it’s not a decider. It’s not like, someone wins, it’s not like, there’s really two students. It’s more that, like you would say, something like, the homeostasis of the system is what makes it a system.

The True Meaning: Coordination That Makes It Into One Thing

It’s still, there’s some cases, that’s what there is in the judgment, in the bad, there’s the judgment side, scale of merit, and the scale of guilt. That’s like, reality. But then that’s why, in the more basic sense, it’s still that this middle thing is what makes it into one thing. And not is the two…

I know to say, my two hands, I need to have coordination to put them together. Sefer Yetzirah is, imagining that your mouth is what coordinates between your two hands. Not an anchor. Yes? Not exactly. But there’s some system. So, you need a piece in your brain, what’s doing this. You know? High-end, so all you mean, coordinations.

The Metaphor of Hand-Eye Coordination

All, the people who do physical therapy, know about it. Right? You know, you have to have more hand-eye coordination, and they teach for even kids. Like, there’s a level. You see a kid who grows up, first really doesn’t know. A baby doesn’t know how he has to put two hands together. Right? He can do like this, he doesn’t know. You notice, he can’t catch… in the beginning, he can’t catch with one hand, he can’t catch with two hands.

It takes a certain wisdom, a certain level of their brain. But the Rizal [Sefer Yetzirah] is all about figuring out these kind of things. It’s like, wait, now I could use both hands together to do… …even one hand, you have to figure out how to use this finger and this finger together to help something, and so on.

The Covenant That is Aligned in the Middle

That’s the covenant that is aligned in the middle. And the same thing, heaven and earth, is that maybe some internal to the heaven, that you have your own coordination, because you also have a coordination between heaven and earth, which makes that this is the right and the left of that, of the same system, of the same ten sefirot. Right?

And then… Right. Now, the opposite thought, let’s think.

Two Ways of Unity: Horizontal and Vertical – Five Books Corresponding to Five Books Versus Shadow and Garment

The Ramak’s Question: How Are There Only Ten Sefirot?

Teacher:

Now, the opposite error, let’s think – I’m thinking too deeply – the opposite error is, what he’s worried about, is that one of the basic structures here is that things are just copies of each other, right? Images of each other. This is basic Platonism – things being images of each other.

Now, things that are images of each other means that truly there’s only one, there’s not truly two. There are two different ways of making several things into one, right? Two very different ways. Like, this is like the vertical and the horizontal way I think of this.

The Horizontal Way: Five Books Corresponding to Five Books

The horizontal way is five corresponding to five, and a singular covenant aligned in the middle. Like, or, afterwards he goes into – okay, then we could start figuring out all the meanings in five corresponding to five, because we know what it’s about, right?

The horizontal way is: I have a right hand and a left hand, I need to have both to be one thing. But it’s in a certain sense still actually both things, right? If you look at it correctly, you see both, but they’re one. Like, this is a kind of wholeness, a whole of parts, whatever, I don’t know what the correct – Proclus is the definition. Once we’ll learn Proclus we’ll understand it better.

But it’s a certain completeness, a certain unity you can call it. Completeness and unity are basically the same thing, right? It means that it works as one thing.

The Vertical Path: Shadow and Garment – Ten Sefirot of Beriah

Then, we have a different kind of unity, which is when he mentions here about the ten sefirot of Beriah, which is a garment and shadow to the ten sefirot of Atzilut. You’ll notice that this is really – he’s going to say it – he refers to Shaar HaBi’ah. And Shaar HaBi’ah talks about the same question, he asks the same question.

The entire shaar is entirely built on the idea that there are only ten sefirot, no less and no more. And there are many different questions about this that he asks in the shaar. First, you have to establish it from the Mishnah, and that’s the problem with this.

What is another big problem with this? What is the problem of the ten sefirot of Beriah? After all, in the Zohar, in the Tikunim, it specifically states many times that there are ten sefirot of Atzilut, and ten sefirot of Beriah, and Yetzirah, and Asiyah, and the World of the Garment – that’s forty sefirot, not just ten!

Do you see the question he asks in Shaar HaBeriah?

The Ramak’s Answer: Copies and Images

The Ramak gives an answer: No, there’s only one, it’s just a copy, carbon copy, the images.

But this is a very different way of… I said it differently, a different way of making things one. Making, saying that – for example, there will always be bad analogies – but something like a copy, right? A copy is a good example.

Analogies of Copies: Bava Kamma and Sefer Yetzirah

For example, how many Sefer Yetzirahs are there? Okay. How many Gemaras of Bava Kamma are there? Depends what you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the volumes, there are thousands. But that’s not the interesting thing about Bava Kamma. In truth, there’s only one Bava Kamma, and all are copies of it, or all are instances of it.

So then, Platonism would say: there’s like the ideal Tractate Bava Kamma. That one doesn’t even exist, because all instances of Bava Kamma have errors. Each one – you don’t know which is the correct version, what is the correct ideal. But in heaven, or in theory, there is one Tractate Bava Kamma, of which all are just shadow and garment. The Drach Shin Bava Kamma is one interpretation of Bava Kamma, and Tosafot Bava Kamma is another interpretation, and the Vilna edition is another interpretation, and so on, right? But it’s really just one. That’s the idea of copies. That’s the like bottom-up-down kind of way of making things into one.

The Difference Between Copies and Parts: The Analogy of Fingers

Or: How many fingers does a person have? Why does a person count with ten fingers, not with twenty fingers?

Student:

Because you have to take off your socks?

Teacher:

What’s the problem? He apparently didn’t go around with socks.

The Ramak’s answer is: Why do we count only with ten fingers and not with twenty fingers? Because the second ten aren’t really mine – that is the main point, the right one is the main one, right? That’s the real part of me, and that’s just a copy.

No, it’s not real and copied. Both are real, they’re together, that’s why you need coordination. After all, there’s the right and the left. One might be more important. It could be that the person is more important, but it doesn’t mean – in any case when we speak this way, it doesn’t mean that it’s not really the same.

Discussion: Are Right and Left Copies?

Student:

It’s not really the same.

Teacher:

Okay, with a person’s face, the right and left aren’t the same, it’s not a copy?

Student:

No, even with a person who is very beautiful and very perfect, usually a person has different right and left.

Teacher:

But I would say this: There’s something new in the left that’s not in the right. The right is not a mirror image, according to this. It’s not an image of the left. Right and left aren’t images of each other, they’re parts of each other. They’re parts of each other, and that’s important.

The Advantage of Both Sides: Depth and Perspective

Another way you can understand it: You’re talking now about the physical appearance, whether it’s a carbon copy, whether you can make it. You know, today there are people who make pictures like this, I’ve seen with the apps – I saw a person making art, so he makes a portrait, he doesn’t want to have any time to make both sides of the face, so he has an app, he makes one half, and the other part he makes a copy.

Student:

And you see that it’s wrong?

Teacher:

Ah, so you can’t, it’s not the same. The right and left are different.

Okay, but the point is, like, you have two eyes, it’s important because you have depth, right? Two eyes – otherwise you can only see in 2D, basically. You can’t measure, right?

So the point is: The fact that this is a right and that is a left, adds something to the reality. It adds something. It’s not like just the same thing.

The Principle: Copies Don’t Add, Parts Add

When you say that something is a copy of each other, a copy can’t add anything. Everything that’s in the copy must be in the source. It adds that it’s in a different material, let’s say. Now there’s also a form that you see it on a computer and not just on papyrus, I don’t know. But it doesn’t add anything to the actual structure of it, to the form.

The right and left are different forms, they add something. The left, even the fact that it’s a left, adds something. Now you can grasp something. That doesn’t do anything. It’s the same thing in a different garment, in a different change, yes? A different kind of manifestation of the same idea, right?

Like you do, you play the same… the same play in two different cities. The one in New York isn’t different from the one in Lakewood. The two people of the teli, they don’t avoid – maybe reflect each other, but they’re apart. They can say they reflect each other, but they’re still each doing something new, they’re doing something interesting.

Back to the Finger Analogy: Feet Versus Hands

This is what he says: A person, why don’t we count with twenty fingers? Exactly because we say that it’s twenty – that’s the whole idea. Twenty means two tens, right? It’s not one thing. If you would count by twenty, it wouldn’t be called a minyan, it would be called something else.

Student:

Yes, that’s how the base ten system really works. Theoretically you could count by twenty, but it’s not there.

Teacher:

That’s a person has… We still don’t know why people have ten fingers, we didn’t look it up. But what do the fingers on the feet do, right? It’s the same ten. It’s not a copy?

Student:

It’s a copy. It’s a copy.

Teacher:

Biologically, the thing is like this, right? It already works, that when you make fingers, you already make fingers on the feet too.

Student:

It’s a remembrance. It’s a remembrance. The whole feet are a clumsy version of the hands. It’s very useful, you can’t walk on the hands. But you can’t do the fine things with the feet. So that’s the real one, and that’s the…

Teacher:

Very good, it’s a more coarse version of the same thing.

The Advantage of the Coarse Version

Student:

Okay, very good. And the coarse is good in a certain sense. Like, at least what we see, that with the creation of the feet, that it actually creates things that your hands can’t create, or that your mouth can’t create in the same way.

Teacher:

Right, but still it’s a very coarse way.

Student:

Quite coarse.

Teacher:

And here you’re the more…

Student:

No, it’s less precise. Coarse would also mean less precise.

The Analogy of a Dvar Torah: Precision and Copies

Teacher:

When I say a dvar Torah, and I create, I don’t make any recording, I make in your head the same idea that I mean. I have good words, I know exactly what I mean, I have to speak with the hands – it has something to do, I don’t know what, because it has something to do one with the other. And blessing with the hands – the Zohar is very into this blessing with the hands.

This is, I make an exact copy. At least very close to exact. Maybe you don’t have enough context, or your vessels aren’t smart enough, so it’s going to be a copy, but it can be almost the exact same thing.

When I make a person, my feet, it doesn’t come out the exact copy. I mean, DNA copies, but not… there’s mutations every single time. It never makes exact copies. Why indeed not such a good one? Because it’s only a copy.

But I tell you, the DNA is by the way not the material. The idea is not really to be precise.

Student:

Ah, yes. Copies lose fidelity, like a… digital copies, by the way, again, digital copies have an advantage, because they’re always from the original, you understand? The third isn’t a copy of a copy.

Digital Copies and the Problem of 1’s and 0’s

Teacher:

Because the digital is already… is another beginning in another world. It’s not… it’s not the same beginning. It’s a beginning of another thing.

Student:

Yes, it’s fake. It has a beginning. The whole thing is fake.

Teacher:

Not fake, it’s different. It’s not written with ten sefirot, and therefore it doesn’t hold.

Student:

Ah, it’s only 1’s and 0’s.

Teacher:

Also, well, 1’s and 0’s is the basic ten sefirot down below. It’s too low level. The Ramak doesn’t have this level here.

Student:

What? 1 and 0 is 10, right? I’m thinking into it.

Teacher:

No, it’s like just 1 and… yes and no. It’s more basic than 10. When you say 10, it’s a big structure. It has a vitality. There’s a connection. But you can’t make any use of it. You can only make use of it after you put it into bigger structures. That’s how it seems. It’s not live, it’s a machine, it’s sensitive, it’s an answer. The level of the 1’s and 0’s I mean is not the previous display, there is the previous display.

The Principle: How to Recognize a Copy from a Part

In any case, this… does it make sense? And therefore it’s lacking. This is what the Ramak wants to show: If there’s coordination between them, then it’s one thing and it’s left and right. If it’s again the same whole thing – so this would be a way to say it, you understand? – if you see two things that are again the whole thing, then you know that it’s just a copy. If it’s missing a bit and it needs to connect to the first, then it’s probably adding something to it.

Makes sense? That’s an interesting point.

The Difference with Animals: Only Feet, Not Hands

Student:

Unless people walk on four feet. The animals have such feet, it’s really different. Animals really don’t have hands. One of the big things of human beings is they have hands. Animals have only four feet. They’re not at all on the level of Chesed-Gevurah-Tiferet, only on the level of Netzach-Hod-Yesod, basically, relative. Not really. Relative to humans. That’s what we call it. That’s why we like, becoming human, that’s why.

Teacher:

Ah, yeah.

The Difference Between a Copy and a Partnership: The Foundation of the Prohibition of Idolatry

The Level of Humans and Animals

Makes sense? Does my heuristic work? Unless people walk on four feet. The animals have such feet. It’s really different. Animals really don’t have hands. One of the big things of human beings is that they have hands. Animals, we said, only have four feet, because they don’t have at all the level of Chesed-Gevurah-Tiferet, only the level of Netzach-Hod-Yesod, basically, relative, not really, relative to humans. That’s what we call it. That’s why, like, becoming a human, that’s why… um, yeah.

Even a human, right, starts off crawling, and then he becomes a person, he already has a distinction between hands and feet. The Arizal explains this, that the katnut (smallness) means that everything is included in the feet, in Netzach-Hod-Yesod. When gadlut (greatness), it’s flory, it opens up. And then, some people also get a Chochmah-Binah-Daat, but that’s only certain people. For at least… in short, yes?

Analogy of Two Types of Students: Student-Colleague and Student-Copy

So, the point is that the idol worshippers, anytime… I always think about this, like, how do you do a good copy?

You have two types of students, for example. You have a student who complements the rebbe, you have a student who is a copy of the rebbe, right?

The Student-Colleague

So, a student who is a copy… who complements the rebbe, like a student-colleague, right? He’s… the rebbe is giving him something, and he’s also giving the rebbe something. And there must be something between them, the system of the beit midrash or something, whatever the truth, the Brisks that they have between them, is what coordinates them into one system. They go, a student that the rebbe needs him, and he needs the rebbe.

The Student Who Is a Better Copy

Then there’s a student who is a better copy in a certain sense, right? You see? Very interesting. So, the student-colleague, he’s not so… he doesn’t have… he’s not a high fidelity copy of the rebbe, because he’s missing something that the rebbe has, and the rebbe is also missing something that he has, and that’s why they’re friends. It’s one kind of friend.

Then there’s students that are better copies. He does everything that the rebbe… I don’t know, well, it’s not a good example, probably. It’s probably the opposite. He’s a kind of student that adds something to the rebbe. Yes, no, the good students are usually the first kind. I mean like a tail of a fox.

Student: Yes, but you want someone to transcribe his teachings word by word, there’s no such thing.

Teacher: No, there isn’t. Nobody does that. That’s not a solution. Not in Ruzhin, not in R’ Chaim Vital, none of them are actually doing that. They’re all adding. Even if they only add the ability to organize things on paper, which obviously people like R’ Nachman of Breslov didn’t have, right? He was missing something. So you’re already adding.

So you can say, it’s more a talent of bringing out, but it reorganizes the thoughts. It’s not a copy.

Analogy of Today’s Rebbe’s Tish

A copy would be like the… I told someone that a person… I don’t know, I have chassidim who come and they go to certain chassidic courts, and I have such people too, it’s not a novelty. But, people like the… you go to today’s rebbe’s tish, what happens? The rebbe knows what he’s doing, I don’t know, he has intentions from swaying at the tish in general. There’s something to it.

I just want to tell you, I come home, imagine I have such a sort of… I actually go to tishes, I watch them on YouTube these days, about this. Because… imagine I can show you a film of the Sanzer Rebbe how he sits. You would watch the film, right? I have a film for you, they perform it every week in Boro Park. Not exactly the Sanzer Rebbe, just his grandson, the Klausenburger Rebbe. It’s already a film of a film. Basically, he plays over what he saw by his father. So he’s a good film. And the more he plays more, the same he makes, the same emotions, the same movements. It’s interesting. The custom of Ropshitz is to sway this way. It’s interesting, he saw that there’s a way of swaying. And what does one do through this? One puts something into it. Even if it’s just a way of feeling.

You’ll notice, I already told you, I go to shul, I look at every person how he sways, and you can see which chassidus he is. It’s so funny. I look for the one original guy, someone who sways crooked swaying, he doesn’t imitate anyone. Because imitating, you just get used to that. So, there are people, I look at them really like carbon copy, everyone makes the burda that the rebbe makes.

The Foundation of the Prohibition of Idolatry: A Copy Is Always Weaker

So, anyway, I’m just saying, the idea that I come to with this whole teaching is: If something is a very good copy, then it means it’s not adding anything to the original. So he’s not a connector between… there’s no connector between the two things. He’s an image. What?

Student: The father used to say in Tahsh, when he washed his hands he would say “Our God in heaven.”

Maggid Shiur: Yes. So he is an image. There is a virtue in this, so to speak, it’s a full image, but the virtue is really “the virtue is a deficiency,” because it means that it’s always gonna be weaker, ’cause that’s the nature of an image, that it’s weaker than the original. It will always be a copy. Yes? And this is forbidden.

Why Should Idol Worshippers Have Better Pictures of God?

Another thought, for example, idol worship – what is the difference of… why should idol worshippers have better pictures of God than we have? This is my radical idea.

Student: Say what?

Maggid Shiur: An idol, that is the advice for unification, I think, in a certain sense. An idol has a better picture of God than we have. This is “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or molten image.” Why are you not allowed to make one? Why not? Because we claim that we are the Almighty’s brothers, we are not His copies. We hold that He is missing something…

The Radical Kabbalah Claim: We Are Missing Something and the Almighty Is Missing Something

This is the really radical… the Kabbalah, like, the one thing that nobody agrees with Kabbalah on is this. Not the Rambam, not the… not even the Neoplatonists that the Kabbalists are… they are one thing they don’t agree on, and the Kabbalists are stubborn, they love to say such things, and it’s based on Chazal and Midrashim, think like this.

Like, we claim, and one must consider if it’s true, perhaps it’s wrong, but the claim of the Jews is that we are missing something and the Almighty is missing something, in some sense. And therefore, we’re not just a copy. There’s something new. There’s something new in the righteous, in the Jews, in the people, humans, that we are acting towards the heavens, towards the heavens, more like right and left rather than like above and below.

The Parable of Husband and Wife

More like a husband and wife, right? A husband and wife are really an example of right and left, right? They’re not… they’re not… they’re not children, right? My wife is not a daughter of mine, right? One must make something together with him. So, and because of this, in a certain sense it’s always weaker.

So if it would be able to be complete, and it would be a complete image, like an idol. An idol is, every idol, he explained to himself how the world is, and he made a picture of it. What’s bad? What’s wrong? It’s better. He just put it into a physical thing, and everyone understands that it’s only the image, not the physical part. It’s the form, it’s the concept, it’s the wine, not the glass. Yes, everyone understands this, there’s no doubt. No one has ever claimed that idol worship is correct, that the donkey was more beautiful and better. They mocked them.

So, nobody really thought that ever. But what’s the argument? I think that one of the arguments could be, he has too good a picture. Too good a picture, the meaning is, it’s only a copy. It’s only a copy, yes, okay, there’s no shortage of copies in the world.

Our Weaker Picture Is the Virtue

But we want to claim that we have a weaker picture. Why? Because we are always missing something. What the Almighty completes for us is missing, but something is also missing from the Almighty. And we’re working together to make a third thing, so to speak, or to make this system that’s a third thing. We and Him are one system, not two systems. This is what the innovation was.

And that’s why it’s always… it’s never so beautiful. It’s never so beautiful. Our synagogue will never be as beautiful as a… I don’t know. Why can’t the Temple be as beautiful as the Roman temple? It could be. That Temple was actually fake. I don’t know. I don’t know what I said.

Student: What do you mean you put a Roman form in the Temple? Would that have been the god? It’s not. The Christian churches, when everything was standing, it was a sanctuary when it wasn’t.

Maggid Shiur: Maybe he didn’t hold by my approach, I don’t know. In the Temple there wasn’t an image of the god, let’s be real. There were all kinds of things, the main thing was missing, right? And they admit that the Ark was missing, the Divine Presence, the Urim and Tumim. I don’t know.

Somehow I think that this is a thing. There’s always something missing. And there’s something missing because… like the student, what… this is my parable. The parable I understand what he means. Like the student who is somewhat of a student, he adds something for the rabbi, and therefore he doesn’t have everything that the rabbi has. Not even in his answers. There are certain character traits that the rabbi has, he knows nothing about his. There are other things that he knows, the rabbi knows nothing about his work with him for a moment. I don’t know, maybe it’s a crazy argument, but I feel like this is the…

Student: Say it again.

The Third Cherub: “And Between the Two Cherubim I Will Speak to You”

Maggid Shiur: Could be this is like the third cherub that’s missing, you know? Like, it’s in the middle of the two cherubim as it says in the Torah, “And between the two cherubim I will speak to you,” yes? The Almighty is between the two cherubim.

Which means… This is the basic theory that the Bible people have, right? They say that two cherubim… how does the Almighty sit? “Sitting upon”… “riding upon a cherub.” The Almighty comes upon the cherubim, right? And that’s like his chair. And it’s in between the two cherubim that the Almighty comes, there’s a verse like this.

The Difference Between the Cherubim and Idol Worship

So this means that the cherubim are fake, right? Because how does it work in a regular statue, in a regular idol? Yes, a regular image. Idol means an image, right? An icon. A regular icon works, that the icon becomes the god, becomes like the body of the god. This really works. It’s not for the Rambamists, it works quite well. And furthermore, he speaks, he says, the mouth of the… of the icon speaks. It’s in thought, it’s with the… I don’t know. That’s the idea, right?

And then we have the cherubim, and the Almighty doesn’t speak through the cherubim. Even the Sages say that the cherubim are literally two people. The cherubim should have spoken. No, the cherubim don’t speak, rather something in between. Right?

The Eleventh That We Don’t Count

So here, the Almighty is “passing between them,” which should be an eleventh. What is the covenant? Why don’t we count the eleventh one? Because the eleventh one has to be outside the system. In other words, it has to be the thing that makes this work relative to the other thing, and then it becomes equal.

Student: What fits with Torah? This is a…

Maggid Shiur: Yeah, I didn’t make up all of this Torah, but it’s how sometimes I think… wait a minute, what fits a point on the bag, and specifically.

The Problem of Eleven Sefirot and the Approach of Five Against Five

Why Isn’t There an Eleventh Sefirah?

But the simple meaning, if there are ten sefirot, there are five and five, why must there be an eleventh? Why is there a covenant? Why don’t we count the eleventh one? Because the eleventh one has to be outside the system. In other words, it has to be the thing that makes this work relative to the other thing, and then it becomes equal.

What fits with Torah? This is a… you know, I didn’t make up all of this Torah, but it’s how I sometimes think.

Right, seven to nine, I mean that there is… right, yes. Seven to eleven, nine and in its foundation, it’s a broken system. Eleven means don’t add, don’t become a full copy, don’t ever… I don’t know, I just think that this is the sign. This is perhaps just like a sign. I just think that this is the… I don’t know why, I didn’t explain why, like why is this person that’s not a… why can’t he be complete? Why can’t he have all the virtues of the rabbi? I don’t know, it just usually seems to be how it works. The rabbi doesn’t want to have a copy, he wants that you shouldn’t be able to draw anything from the rabbi. You can’t have a copy.

This is not a copy, this is just a creation of him.

Right. Like, not even a creation, like a reflection. It’s not even a creation.

The Contradiction Between Secret and Simple Meaning: The World as a Real Thing

Student: No, the question is, this is like a contradiction. The basic idea that everything is just images of God, right? Then this is a contradiction to the idea.

Maggid Shiur: And in a certain sense, this is the dialectic between the simple meaning and the secret. The secret is very Platonic always, that the world is just an image of God. Therefore there is no world, really. There is no real… essentially, at the end of the day, it’s not here. But the Torah does want to make the world into a real thing. And this making, this… you could say God is pretending in that, right?

Student: The…

Maggid Shiur: As above, so below, this is an Aristotelian thing, that the world is a real thing.

Student: Right, good. But this is more than that, right? Not… it doesn’t mean like the Hermetics say, “As above, so below.” Like for example, as above so below, this is just a copy. Light above, light below. Okay, so what will be here? Two copies. Okay, make a backup there, take one, put it in the day, right?

The Statement of the Sages About the Temple Above and Below

For just, the Sages say something more crazy. I said the whole drasha about this once, Tisha B’Av, contrasting Augustine’s “City of God” and this.

But I’ve already seen a few other people have already grasped the same Torah. The sects, right? And the name, Augustine literally says this in his book, “The City of God”, they all, the Qumran community, they all said the Temple below is impure, it’s weak, corrupt. Because the Temple above, we are from the Temple above people.

The Sages answered, and they said like this, they said that the Almighty made an oath that He will not enter the Temple above until He enters the Temple below. Do you understand? They say, it’s not a copy. It’s a copy, but also, it doesn’t work from above that we should work below. In some sense, it’s one system. It’s missing. You have an innovation, you have a new thing in creation that isn’t in the source.

Then there’s a question, okay, where did this come from? This also has a source. Okay, one can already make a debate, if one wants. But still, that’s why, could be this is only true to some extent. Maybe in some extent, everything is images of each other. But in a certain way, there are new things, and because of this there is a new thing, you have a partnership. Like, there’s already a partner in the act of creation, and these kind of words. All of them could be read in the mirror way also, if you want.

The Encouragement of Not Being a Full Copy

In short, practically, this is my encouragement. Because of this we are never in completeness. This is my encouragement. Because of this, by Jews nothing ever works properly, because we are such kinds of things that we don’t want to be a copy. My excuse for being a weak chassid, or whatever it is I’m a chassid. I wanna do your own thing. Good, I don’t want to be the rabbi. What the rabbi has already done, he has already done. I have… indeed, I want to make copies? There are enough Chumashim. He can buy enough empty papers and make copies like that. I don’t need to be the empty paper for him.

No, I also want to do this, I want to help him. I think I could make progress. I think I could, by me being a copy, or being a certain kind of copy, I can add something to the original. A copy doesn’t add anything to the original, but the left hand adds to the right hand, right? How are they different? Anyway, this is his Torah.

Back to Sefer Yetzirah: Five Against Five and the Covenant

As he says here, this is how it comes out. Such are the matters, as its meaning five upon five, one finds a covenant that is in between. This comes out five right and five left, this is one thing. This is one matter in one topic that includes the ten sefirot. Between the ten feet and the ten hands there is no deciding factor. What is this? So the same thing, right? You understand half. What’s better is worse.

So therefore there are two systems. Each one is the same garment for this. Very good. And the deciding factor is between these two. Now, each one has their deciding factor, right? The covenant of the tongue between the top, and the covenant of circumcision between the bottom.

The Problem: How Does This Fit with the Ten Sefirot?

And the same thing is with the sefirot. Afterwards he goes in, here we need to know if it’s the simple meaning. We have to think about it next time. A little time has passed. What is the five against five? How does it work? Because there is a problem with the sefirot. If it’s five against five, then can’t be eleven, right? This is a basic issue. What is the covenant?

I think that the Ramak’s basic solution is that the covenant is just one of them. But it’s not true by the parable of the fingers, so I don’t know how to make it work. Do you understand my basic question? I’m asking you a basic question. The Sefer Yetzirah says that there are ten fingers, and the covenant is in between, okay? We must say that there are ten and not eleven. And how do the Kabbalists mean that there are ten sefirot? Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet, Keter, Chochmah, Binah, the very famous ten sefirot. So which one is going to be the covenant? Where is the eleventh for the covenant? So there is a problem here.

Discussion: The Covenant as Part of the Ten

Student: One doesn’t need this to be anything, just like there is a mouth. In the limbs of man, the Sefer Yetzirah is very explicit that there are ten fingers with the eleventh hands, right? You could always say something that he is not, and the like. So here there is a problem. Here there is a problem.

Maggid Shiur: It’s a part of one set. Like we speak with the hands. The mouth alone without the hands can’t do anything, he says, they can’t do anything without it. And you want to transmit wisdom, so the mouth speaks, and the hands write it down, the wisdom. Let’s say, okay.

Student: What is it then? Is this another wheel wish?

Maggid Shiur: No, it’s only the ten. All ten come from one. It’s only a branch of it.

Student: And you only write with one hand. But there are ten. It must be that the Almighty made the world with a keyboard.

Maggid Shiur: Let it be. This is what, it’s the ten. It’s even more with a keyboard than with a pen. One must tell the Kabbalists that one shouldn’t write Torahs with a keyboard. It’s not a good thing. Not Torah scrolls. Not Torah scrolls. Not Torah scrolls. Kabbalah books.

Regarding the keyboard it’s okay, I don’t want to go into this. Okay, I don’t know. I feel that the Kabbalists would have skipped this. I don’t know how.

Student: Perhaps Daat is more from building, from the language of “and Adam knew.” When a person builds, you can’t build with a mouth. Even the mouth is the mouth or the power. You tell someone else to build with his hands. This is the job of the manager. I say and you make. But the builder didn’t give anything. The mouth didn’t drag anything. Only who drags? The ten sefirot.

Maggid Shiur: So then, so the deciding factor is still… the simple meaning is that the deciding factor is not one of the sefirot. By the Kabbalists, don’t go like this. The Ramak is not going to go like this. He goes a whole find. So it seems to me. That the five against five comes out from his meaning, I remember here, that it comes out that one of the ten is the covenant, which doesn’t fit so much with the fingers. Let’s see. I mean that one must look here.

The Ramak’s Approach: Two Aspects of Five Against Five

Look, he says that there are two aspects. The first meaning is that there is top and bottom. The first five sefirot, Keter, Chochmah, Binah, Gedulah, Gevurah is five for the heavens. The second, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, Malchut, is for the earth. And he says that he doesn’t agree, he holds that both lead both. But, so he means, but practically he says that he agrees that there is such a distinction.

What to say? If the Ramak goes like this, if the Zohar has such a distinction, then it must be true.

The Zohar on Tefillin: The Four Portions and the Sefirot

And he says that Rabbi Shimon says that the tefillin, the four portions of the head, this is in Chochmah, Binah, Gedulah, Gevurah.

[Interruption from a phone call]

Lecturer: Hello? Hello? Hello? Yes? Do you need something now? No, I can call you in half an hour. Do you need something this minute? I’m in the middle of learning. Okay, bye.

He says that Rabbi Shimon says regarding the tefillin, a kavvanah (intention), that the four parshiyot (sections) of the tefillin are very interesting, because the tefillin has a tefillin shel yad (hand tefillin) and a tefillin shel rosh (head tefillin), and you need to have four parshiyot. And the tefillin shel rosh is divided, and the tefillin shel yad is the same. So this is a nice structure to play with.

The Zohar says that the tefillin shel rosh, if I remember correctly he says it this way, that the tefillin shel rosh is the four upper sefirot: Chokhmah, Binah, Gedulah, Gevurah. The tefillin shel yad is the second set: Netzach, Hod, Yesod. And then the Keter and the Malkhut are like above and below of each of these, something like that. This is how you can do ten.

But the point is that we see that Rabbi Shimon also holds by this way of cutting the sefirot in half.

The Tikkunim on the Four Faces of the Merkavah

And in general, the Zohar also says that these are four merkavot (chariots). Ah, another thing, because the Tikkunim has the problem: what are the faces of the merkavah? The merkavah famously has Adam (man), Nesher (eagle), Aryeh (lion), Shor (ox), which is four. So how does it connect with the sefirot? The Tikkunim connected it and said that Chokhmah is Adam – Chokhmah is the gematria of “koach mah,” the gematria of Adam, whatever. Nesher is Binah, Aryeh is Chesed, Shor is Gevurah. That’s one, and then there’s two.

The Question of the Ten Fingers and the Different Systems of Sefer Yetzirah and Zohar

The Two Merkavot in the Tikkunim

Ah, another thing, because the Tikkunim has the problem, because there are four things in a merkavah. A merkavah famously has Adam, Nesher, Aryeh, Shor, which is four. So how is it connected with the sefirot? The Tikkunim connected and said that Chokhmah is Adam, Nesher is Binah, Aryeh is Chesed, Shor is Gevurah. That’s one. And then there’s two, another merkavah, which would be Adam is Tiferet, Netzach Hod Yesod, Aryeh Shor Nesher. And then there’s again the Keter, so the Keter Elyon (upper Keter) is above and the Malkhut is below.

So these are the two places where we see that the Zohar says such a thing. And the Ramak says such a thing here, and then he says such a thing. Look, he says that after where he is stuck, according to the simple meaning it comes out that the brit yachid (singular covenant) is the Tiferet. You see? So I was right. So he’s saying Keter, Chokhmah, Binah, Chesed, Gevurah, or what he calls Gedulah Gevurah, is the first two. And then Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, Malkhut is the second two. And then he calls the brit yachid, the Tiferet, one of the five. Yeah, which is very weird, because it’s not the simple meaning. I don’t know why he doesn’t talk about this problem.

Tiferet as the Decider and Connector

Because the Tiferet, it goes up from above, it is connected to the three upper ones, and it decides between the two arms, and it influences into Netzach Hod Yesod. And in short, it is connected, it is the thing that combines. It makes sense if you think of the Tiferet as the torso, as the body, which brings together the whole body. That’s true. But this is not the ten fingers. You skipped the whole story of the ten fingers. I remembered the whole piece, and you started to skip, and it’s very annoying to me. I don’t know what the explanation is. Do you understand my problem?

Because the Zohar, the mekubalim (kabbalists), or the Ramak, usually works with the structure of the ten sefirot being the ten, like each one, as it says in Petach Eliyahu, right? The head has three, and then seven parts of the body, basically seven. And this is what the mekubalim, the Zohar, mostly works with. And what is the explanation? You understand, in the Zohar, the Ramak surely needs to talk about the question, why doesn’t he say it. So, a basic problem.

The Fundamental Difference Between Sefer Yetzirah and Zohar

But the Sefer Yetzirah doesn’t fall into this, because Sefer Yetzirah has a whole different way of organizing the body, which is really connected with the twelve letters, not with the ten sefirot. And he does… he maybe has something, one needs to look better. So, ten fingers is then his ten fingers, ten sefirot. But then the hand, it’s all… all the other limbs he has his own explanation for, right? You remember, yes? The right hand is simple, and the left hand is simple, things like that.

The Twelve Simple Letters and the Twelve Senses in Sefer Yetzirah

Yes, in Sefer Yetzirah, and… look, Sefer Yetzirah, in… in… where’s my summary? It doesn’t say in my summary yet, not this? I got it confused. In Sefer Yetzirah it says, the… Sefer Yetzirah talks about twelve simple letters, okay? Twelve simple letters he connects with twelve senses, okay? He has a very weird list of… something like senses, the first is sight, hearing, smell, speech, eating, intercourse, action, walking, anger, laughter, thought, sleep. Okay? That’s… he thought these are the twelve things that people do.

So I think, this is a totally different problem that I have, that he needs to count things in so many different ways, and he is stuck with certain ways. Does the list make sense? Think, what does a person do? He sees, he hears, he smells, he talks, he eats, he has intercourse, he does things, he walks, he gets angry, he is happy, he thinks, and he sleeps. Sounds reasonable.

The question is why this list? I couldn’t understand. Action? Action is the one which is the most generic. I don’t know. So he made a list. I can’t tell you. The Sefer Yetzirah made such a list. I haven’t found anyone who justifies the list. Maybe there is, I have to look. We really need to have a piece of a shiur on Sefer Yetzirah now, we need to figure it out.

The Twelve Diagonal Boundaries, Constellations, and Limbs

And he associates these twelve things with a whole bunch of things. With something called the twelve diagonal boundaries, which is the twelve lines that make up a cube. And then with the twelve constellations. And then, with twelve parts of the body. Two hands, two feet, two kidneys, liver, gallbladder, spleen, stomach, gizzard, intestines. It doesn’t carry any corners, it’s twelve. Again, it’s twelve, but like why did he decide to count the twelve parts in this way? I don’t know. But this is the Sefer Yetzirah’s theory. Just like I don’t understand why he decided to do the twelve senses, as he says there. Presumably there is an explanation. It’s like an ancient theory of dividing things.

The Seven Gates in the Soul

So the point is, the Sefer Yetzirah doesn’t have the Zohar’s thought that the right hand is your Chesed and the left hand is Gevurah and so on. Nowhere. The right hand is Heh, and the left hand is Vav, and the right foot is Zayin, and so on, throughout the text.

He has one thing of seven in the soul. He has seven… right? He has seven gates in the soul, which is connected to the letters Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh, Reish, Tav, which is the two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and a mouth, which is the seven holes that a person has. It’s a very ancient association between the seven planets and the seven… the seven holes that are in a person’s head. I mean, it’s a standard way of the seven. Seven shepherds. Seven shepherds. Yes, but in short, he certainly doesn’t have the idea that the Zohar… I don’t see any hint in Sefer Yetzirah of the idea that the Zohar has, that you make ten sefirot and you associate it with the ideas, that you have Chokhmah Binah Daat in the head, and then three and three, right?

Discussion: The Ramak’s Approach and the Question of the Fingers

Student: You need to understand in the Chokhmah that the…

Lecturer: Ah, the Ramak basically didn’t hold by the Zohar, he learned Sefer Yetzirah.

Student: Of course, he knew the Zohar.

Lecturer: He learns Sefer Yetzirah, and he said that the whole ten sefirot is only a parable like…

Student: But he does say, but for him the ten sefirot is only like the sight, because there’s a verse that says “ten,” so it must be specific.

Lecturer: But you have an explanation. The Arizal talks about this. Do you remember? The Arizal asks the question. I remember that the Arizal does have an answer to the question. And surely they have an answer somewhere. One needs to search, or learn, or imagine on one’s own. There has to be an answer, even according to the Zohar, what is the explanation that the ten sefirot – the Arizal has a question in the Etz Chaim. What is the explanation that everyone knows that the whole person is the upper Chokhmah, everything is hinted at in the sefirot. What is specifically the number ten, which is the very most important number in some sense for mekubalim? Why is it specifically in your fingers that there’s a connection? He says a few explanations on this in his system. And the Ramak also asks the question. I imagine that the Ramak asks the question, you understand? Because in any case, here something has to do with the fingers, and he says that in Shaar HaNeshamah he will explain this. Maybe over there he talks about it. He says there, and when he is at the place that he points to, there in Shaar HaNeshamah, Shaar HaNeshamah which is Shaar 32 I think. I think that they have a very different theory of how the connection of the body works. We’ll see, I don’t know.

The Practical Difference Between the Two Systems

It must be that you’re right that of course he’s working with his own system. It could be he accepted a good answer for why the holy Zohar didn’t go with this system, and something is going on here. It’s something of a mystery. It makes a big practical difference, because with the holy Zohar’s view, let’s say the claim is what are the ten fingers of God, so God is still behind the whole system, right? A person, you see that he has it in his hands. With the holy Zohar you already see the whole body. It’s a very different, it gives you a very different image. The whole world is the Almighty’s ten fingers, and what is the Almighty’s head? He is already not at all part of the story.

It’s definitely two different pictures. And they have some connection. You can’t? You can do everything. Hello? Why is there Kabbalah if you can’t put things together? Here, I have to figure it out, but there’s something going on. I see that there is indeed a question.

Searching for the Answer in Shaar HaNeshamah and Other Places

From this I learn that the Ramak will bring out all the questions. He poses here very interesting questions about the ten fingers, also about the deciders, and also about what happened that they left off the ten fingers. I think that the Ramban also talks about the ten fingers. He doesn’t talk about the Zohar’s way, he talks about the hands. And that the hand means Chesed. This is explained in Sefer Yetzirah.

Student: Actually, he doesn’t say such things. The Ramban, the Ramban says such things? That the hand means…

Lecturer: Yes, the Ramban says that the hand is Gedulah. Well, actually, the Ramban says that the hand is the Malkhut. The Ramban also doesn’t say such things. I need to think. There’s something interesting here. I don’t know. I’m sure people talked about it. I’ll look in the books what they say about this.

Looking in Shaar HaNeshamah

I don’t see that he explains here in Shaar HaNeshamah about… ah, limbs. Yes, he goes entirely with the side that it costs… ah, with hands. Let’s see. “And also there are arms.” Ah, the heart. Well. “Five fingers of the hand.” He has a whole different explanation. Look. He doesn’t go at all with the explanation of the Sefer Yetzirah here. Chapter 8, 411. Yes, he goes through all the limbs, and he says all kinds of teachings about the arms, and the hand, “five fingers of the hand,” the name Havayah is hinted at, and in short, and the arm has three parts, which is this and this and this, and arm is Gedulah. In short, he doesn’t bring it at all. At all ten fingers is ten sefirot, that’s all. That’s the most you get.

Very funny. In Sefer Yetzirah there is very basic. He also has it in the first chapter. He doesn’t say anything about this, although he has many other nice hints. And… no, it’s something… I thought that here he would ask the question. I forgot one… It’s something of a secret here, and I need to figure out what the secret is. I’ll try to figure out the answer. It’s nothing, it’s only the question. Alright.

End of the Shiur – Chat About the Recording

Instructor: All right.

Student: Do you want to make my video? You don’t know what you’re doing? You have a red button there in the ears, you know that you’re an untrained eagle.

Instructor: I’m just pressing.

—

*[End of shiur]*