Three Interpretations of ‘Five Corresponding to Five’ | Pardes Rimonim Gate 1 Chapters 1-2 (Auto Translated)

Five Opposite Five – Two Interpretations of the Ten Sefirot

Review: The Ten Fingers and the Covenant in the Middle

We are holding that we learned that the Sefer Yetzirah said that there are ten sefirot belimah, the number of ten fingers, five opposite five, and the covenant of the Unique One is aligned in the middle. And the Ramak’s interpretation was, more or less, that this is – yes, he brought that there is a verse, “Who measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,” whatever, that the Almighty made the world with His fingers. This is a hint to the ten sefirot.

And that the five opposite five shows that – because you could say that there are only five. We spoke last time that there are two ways that one can say. One can say that there are ten – a person has twenty fingers, because he has fingers on his hands and fingers on his feet. So why shouldn’t you say that there are twenty?

Or, to say that by the feet it’s a copy, you can’t say that there are five, and the second – right hand, left hand – is also the same thing. So regarding this he says that the decisive one solves the problem. Between the two sets of five there is a covenant that is in the middle, so this makes it one set. And afterwards, indeed the ten of the feet is indeed a double, like a copy. This is his plain meaning.

The Two Interpretations of the Commentators: Five Opposite Five in the Sefirot

And afterwards he explained what the five opposite five are. So on this he says thus:

> And the explanation of this matter

What is the – who are the five opposite five, right? So by a person it’s the five fingers. But by the sefirot, what is the idea of the five fingers and five opposite five?

So he says, he brings two interpretations from the commentators. Commentators means – yes, the Raavad they bring here below, and other people as well. Yes. The commentators on Sefer Yetzirah have two interpretations.

Interpretation A: Higher and Lower Sefirot

One interpretation is that the sefirot have two levels, a higher level and a lower level. And higher level means from Keter to Gevurah – Keter, Chochmah, Binah, Gedulah, Gevurah – that’s five. And he says that they said that this is to govern the upper ones, what “upper ones” means I don’t know here. And what comes afterwards are five lower sefirot – Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, Malchut – this is like the lower level, and this is to govern the lower ones. This is what one interpretation that the commentators said.

The Ramak’s Position: Half Agreeing

The Ramak only agrees with this halfway. The Ramak doesn’t agree with this completely. He says he doesn’t agree with the “to govern the upper ones and to govern the lower ones.” I think that’s because – I think that’s because he doesn’t believe that it can be that upper ones and lower ones means something like heaven and earth, or the angels and the things… I think one thing that they say is intellectual things and simple things, something like that, and tangible and intellectual.

And the Ramak doesn’t agree, because, according to him, every sefirah – all the sefirot have to do with everything. It doesn’t make sense for him to divide the ten sefirot this way. That means is what bothers him. I don’t – nobody is telling me here why, but that’s what I think.

Proofs from the Zohar That One Can Divide the Sefirot This Way

But nevertheless it’s still true that he holds a proof from the Zohar that one can indeed divide the sefirot this way, because this is a plain meaning that the Zohar says regarding the tefillin.

Proof A: Tefillin of the Head and Tefillin of the Hand

The Zohar says in several places that tefillin has four portions in each box – tefillin of the hand and tefillin of the head. Tefillin of the head is four upper sefirot: Keter, Chochmah, Binah, Gedulah, Gevurah. Tefillin of the hand is Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod.

And he says a note that one must understand the Zohar, because in other places it says that it’s opposite the four letters of the Name, which doesn’t match with this. But in any case, one sees that there are indeed two sorts of levels. This is one thing, like four and four, and we skip the Malchut and the Keter, assuming that those are above and below. So this comes out the same sort of division.

Proof B: The Two Chariots in Tikkunei Zohar

And he brings another proof from the Tikkunei Zohar which says that there are two chariots. This is an interesting teaching from the Tikkunim that one must understand better.

And Yechezkel has four faces, so he says that there are two of them. Because this is trying to make the tefillin teaching be one teaching. One must understand, like trying to make a hint in the four portions of the tefillin, which has to do with the sefirot. It doesn’t come, it doesn’t match, it’s not ten, it’s four and four. So the Zohar perhaps has a plain meaning. He says that this is what it says in Parshat Va’etchanan.

But the thing of the chariot is another thing, because there’s a problem for the kabbalists how to connect the topic of the chariot, which has the idea of four living creatures or four faces of the chariot, how to connect with the sefirot. Because it should be ten. So there’s all kinds of ways of making these things match.

And one way that the Tikkunim fell upon is that one can say thus, that there is, again, doing this four-four, two-two thing. That is, he says that there is the… yes, he calls it upper chariot, lower chariot, one chariot, second chariot, I don’t know exactly. Two chariots. So like again, similar to the idea of like, there being two, two levels.

Student: Yes, it switches the cherub with an eagle, whatever, but it’s still four.

Lecturer: Ah, yes, could be that that’s the four. Right, right, very good. Ah, maybe that’s what it means. So the first is Adam which is Chochmah, eagle Binah, lion Chesed, ox Gevurah. And the lower one is like you say, very good. Is Adam Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod – lion, ox, eagle. He doesn’t have any cherub in either of them, I don’t know, I am not sure.

This is another plain meaning. And Keter includes everything above, and Malchut includes everything below. So in any case one sees from the two places in the Zohar that it’s correct to divide the sefirot this way. So this is one point of five opposite five.

The Problem with the Covenant According to This Interpretation

Now, this is a good plain meaning for kabbalists who say that there are ten sefirot, and the ten higher sefirot are one point, and the ten lower sefirot are another point. The problem is that the covenant doesn’t come in here. The covenant of the Unique One aligned in the middle doesn’t seem to work with this, right?

Because – what do the commentators actually say? Yes, first of all, you’ve already used up all ten sefirot. The middle one is an eleventh sefirah. And… yes, what does one need a decisive one for? What’s the middle doing here at all? What is its job?

If it’s like in the right hand and left hand you can understand, one needs something to connect, to coordinate, which should be a decisive one to be. But between above and below it’s a bit funny to say that one needs a decisive one to be.

This is indeed why in the next chapter he’s not going to be so happy with this plain meaning, he’s going to say a different plain meaning altogether. He’s still going to have the problem that the decisive one is one of the ten, but he’s not going to have the problem.

The Ramak’s Answer: Tiferet is the Covenant

But – ah, very good. He says, according to this he says, this is the next piece. The next piece he tries to solve this problem. He says that according to the interpretation that this is the lower and the higher sefirot, one is for the body and one is for the soul, he doesn’t agree with that. Because in any case, there is some such sort of way of dividing the sefirot, he doesn’t explain the concept.

Then he explains that the Tiferet is the covenant. What does it mean that the Tiferet is the covenant? That the – indeed the lower and the higher ones – need to have something that connects them.

So the Tiferet, he goes up, he’s not explaining how this works, I mean that in other – I just want to bring out other places where it might work – the Tiferet, he’s called the covenant.

So, as we said, the Tiferet is the first of the lower sefirot according to this calculation. So the Tiferet, he goes up, he connects the higher with the lower, through the fact that he goes up with three roots, in Chochmah and Binah – Keter, Chochmah and Binah – and he is decisive between the arms, that is Chesed and Gevurah, and afterwards he brings to Netzach, Hod, Yesod, Malchut.

So this is the meaning that “in the middle” means between the ten upper fingers the decisive one is the Tiferet. He’s assuming that the Tiferet is decisive between the – not ten fingers – between the five and five.

Why Is It Called “Covenant”?

And it’s called the language of circumcision, why? He’s not explaining yet. And this is called a covenant, why? Because covenant is to connect two things. Okay, so it’s a covenant.

There’s a question whether it says “yachid” (unique) or “yichud” (unification). The point is, that “through the covenant there will be unification, that will bind the matter and it will be one piece.”

I like the explanation of brit yichud better, because the Sefer Yetzirah says five, five, and one. He better has the word yichud. That it’s connected the two things. Afterwards that the interpretation which cuts someone, which cutting makes connecting.

Brit Yichud – The Decisive One Between Five and Five

The Foundation of “Covenant” Between Five and Five

Lecturer:

Between the five and five, and this is called the language of circumcision. Why? He’s not explaining yet. And this is called a covenant. Why? Because covenant is to connect two things. Okay, so this is a covenant.

There’s a dispute whether it says yachid or yichud. The point is that:

> “Through the covenant there will be unification, that will bind the matter through the power of its unification”

Yes.

I like the version of brit yichud better, because the Sefer Yetzirah is saying five, five, and one. And he’s interested in finding the one. So he better likes the word yichud, that it’s connected the two things.

The Matter of Cutting a Covenant

I don’t know why, I don’t know what comes in here. Why… covenant, right. But why should one cut? Brit doesn’t mean cutting. Kritut brit means cutting. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that this cuts off the top from the bottom? I don’t know. Perhaps this is what he means to say. I mean that I have somewhere the new notes on this piece, and this made sense a bit.

The Raavad’s Interpretation of “Five Opposite Five”

The Raavad in Sefer Yetzirah says:

> “Five opposite five” is the five upper ones, for the upper ones are like a soul and the lower ones are like a body

This is the meaning that he said, the first meaning.

The Ramak’s Qualification – Gate 23 Chapter 13

He brings other commentators, I see here. Ah, a qualification to all… in Gate 23 Chapter 13 the Ramak says that he doesn’t agree about the governance of upper ones and lower ones. Why? Because all the sefirot are the governance of upper ones and lower ones, so he doesn’t agree. Okay.

Okay. I don’t know what he means. I have no idea. We’re missing something here.

There’s a whole gate later, Gate 9, the Gate of the Decisive One, where he tries to explain the topic of covenant of the decision between things, so perhaps we’ll find better there.

“Language of Circumcision” – Binah or Tiferet?

Okay. Now, what is the plain meaning of “language of circumcision”? He says that there are those who interpret that this means Binah. I don’t know who. But according to our way it means further Tiferet.

Here it says that the Raavad interprets “language of circumcision” is Binah, one must learn the Raavad on Sefer Yetzirah to see. And also that he agrees that “tongue” is interpreted as Binah, so is his rule.

But it doesn’t say “tongue,” it says “language of circumcision.” So “language of circumcision” means the voice or the words that come out from the tongue, not the tongue itself. The tongue itself is indeed Binah, but the words that come out from the tongue, this means…

Voice = Tiferet, Including Water, Fire, Wind

He says thus:

> “Voice” includes water, fire, wind, as is known and famous

I’m sure you know this already. We’ve just started the first chapter, surely you already know everything. This is how one works in Kabbalah, that’s how they become… you understand, this is the part of the trick, this is how he becomes friends with you. “You already know, knowledge.”

It says in Sefer Yetzirah almost this, no? What does the Sefer Yetzirah say? “Voice, wind and speech,” something he said. Okay.

Anyway, you’ll learn that he says that “voice” means Tiferet, and he says that Tiferet which comes out from Binah, and it includes water, fire, wind, which is Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet. Water is Chesed, fire is Gevurah, wind is Tiferet. Or he calls it three aspects of the Tiferet, because the wind is decisive between the water and fire, between the Chesed and Gevurah. So therefore this is the voice, the “language of circumcision” that comes out from the tongue.

Tiferet Is Not an Eleventh Sefirah

But it doesn’t mean the organ, if it were the organ it would be an eleventh. Very good, the question remains difficult.

The Language of the Ramak

> However, the essence of the decisive one is the voice, which is the Tiferet in the secret of “to me instruction to Binah,” which is the tongue, which is the shofar, from which comes out the entire voice from the refined air, which is the aspect of Tiferet that rises between the two tongues, decisive between Gedulah and Gevurah, which indicates the line of five upper ones and five lower ones, as was explained in the Gate of the Definitions of Titles

One must look in the Gate of the Definitions of Titles and find out how exactly all these things happen.

Discussion: What One Needs to Know and What Not

There’s a line on another level that you don’t need to know. There are things you must know, there are things you don’t need to know.

Student:

Yes, yes, I mean that this is too… advanced.

Lecturer:

It’s not advanced, it’s all basic things, as if, but how it actually connects to the plain meaning of the Mishnah I don’t know so well. Because the Mishnah doesn’t say the whole complicated piece of Torah. This is what annoyed me. The Mishnah says a very simple thing, and he makes it very complicated. He put in here ten sefirot, and suddenly the Tiferet is a tongue, because if it were an eleventh it’s a problem. So I don’t really know how to… how to make sense of it.

It’s not a derash, it’s not a derash. He wants to say the plain meaning. Derash other people say. He wants to say the plain meaning of the weak word.

Student:

Hello, one must try to make it match. What will we do?

Lecturer:

Right, the main problem that doesn’t match… No, but it’s annoying that I don’t understand at all that the Sefer Yetzirah speaks of ten fingers, and he suddenly speaks of the tongue. What does this come in here? But the Sefer Yetzirah says that the tongue comes in between the ten fingers. But you can’t like suddenly work with a whole different thing, with voice and all the other titles that… the Sefer Yetzirah also speaks of voice and speech, but I don’t know what it has to do with this. Perhaps yes. One must learn, and already this has something yes to do.

[Short break]

The Process in Brief

So, anyways, this is the problem. Okay, and language of light… the text says… language of light…

Okay, anyways, you understand this process, right? He’s looking at the Tiferet, like a tongue, a shofar, all different words, for the same idea. Like the Binah, is from there comes out the voice, so like the internal, the thought, or something like that, the root, is the Binah, and when it comes out outside, that’s the Tiferet.

So, with this he’s answered, how the Tiferet is first of the lower sefirot, but it brings down the voice or the abundance, whatever you want to call it, from the higher sefirot to the lower sefirot, and through this it’s also decisive between Gedulah and Gevurah, and to connect the lower sefirot also. So, the Tiferet is the central sefirah, according to him, that’s his point here. Central, also, between top and bottom, above and below, and also between right and left, friends above and below, basically. That is, this is what I try to try to do.

“Language of Light” – Brit Milah

And language of light, language of the light, language of the light, is brit milah. Ah, I need to go further here.

Yes, language of the light, is brit milah, what does light mean, like uncovering nakedness. Yes, it means from the language of nakedness, from the language of haste, like I said on the verse “like a hasty man,” like a hasty man and on nakedness that.

And the meaning is, further, this revolves around the unification between the ten, and the feet’s causes that through the covenant of light that is very unified… and… and yes…

Proof from Chapter 6 of Sefer Yetzirah

He says that this must be… this is true, this is he’s right, he brings up from the sixth chapter where it says explicitly:

> “He made a covenant for him between the ten fingers of his feet and this is the covenant of circumcision, and between the ten fingers of his hands and this is the covenant of the tongue”

The Second Explanation of “Five Opposite Five”: Five Sefirot to the Right and Five to the Left

So that is the decisive factor between the ten lower sefirot, which according to the Ramak means the sefirot of Olam HaBriah (the World of Creation). Ah, yes, okay.

Anyway, that’s the end of the first chapter.

Let’s go faster, we need to finish the matter with all these ten things.

The Ramak’s Second Explanation: Five Opposite Five According to the Structure of Right and Left

Afterwards he says that there is a better explanation from the commentators, the Ramak also brings such an interpretation from other people, that how is it that “five opposite five,” he says, this will fit better with the Zohar in many places. But in order to make this explanation, you have to like assume another whole structure, like what you are saying.

And the explanation is like this, that five to the right, that there are five sefirot that lean to the right, and five sefirot lean to the left.

So which five sefirot are more chesed (kindness)? Keter, Chochmah, Gedulah, Netzach, Tiferet.

And five sefirot are more left, which is Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, Malchut.

Explanations for the Less Obvious Divisions

Now, of course, some of them are obvious, right? Keter is… Keter is all the way on top, so it is more chesed. Chochmah and chesed are obviously… sorry, Chochmah, Gedulah, Netzach are obviously to the right.

Tiferet — Leans Toward Chesed

The only thing that needs to be explained is Tiferet, which is essentially in the middle, but nevertheless the main thing is it leans toward chesed. It leans somewhat toward chesed, and is an addition to the right. And Tiferet, although it is in the middle, it is more with the right.

So from this it means that there are five, not just three sefirot to the right, there are five sefirot to the right.

The Five Sefirot to the Left

The same thing, Binah. So the same thing is to the left, the left which is Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, Malchut.

Binah — The Source of Judgment

So, one can ask a question about Binah, because Binah is a problem, seemingly there are no judgments there. He says, we don’t just look at what is going on there, but what is the source. We see that Binah is the source of this. Although there is no judgment in Binah, but it is the source of it.

Hod

The same thing Hod. We see that it stands on this, Hod is generally a concept of the giver’s existence, things that make hod. So Hod also has more… obviously it’s on the left side, it’s not a problem.

Yesod — Leans to the Left

Yesod also, Yesod is also decisive, it’s also in the middle, but it is more on the left side. And he brings a Tikunim that says that tzaddik (righteous one), which is the Yesod, comes from the right, notel mishemala (takes from the left), it receives from the left side. Whereas Tiferet notel miyamin (takes from the right), it takes from the right side.

He also says further, tzaddik notel leshemala (the righteous one takes to the left), which is Yitzchak ketz chai. So Yitzchak, which is the left, the Gevurah, one can say ketz chai, and ketz chai we know that chai is the Yesod. So we see that the Yesod is connected to the left.

We see in any case that between the two that are in the middle, Tiferet is more right and Yesod is more left.

Malchut — The Weakened Attribute of Judgment

So it comes out that we have five sefirot to the right and five to the left. Malchut is to the left simply because it’s the lowest one, so it’s understood by itself that it’s more judgment.

The Matter of Two Decisive Factors

And in any case he says, it could be that this is why we need to have two decisive factors. There is a question, if the point is that there should be one on one side and one in the middle, why do you need two, Tiferet and Yesod? He will still talk in Sha’ar HaMachri’im more about this, but one is for one…

Student: What?

Teacher: Yes, because you want to go faster, I’m saying it faster.

You know the picture of ten sefirot how it looks, in the middle there are three, there are three sefirot in the middle, and Malchut is in the middle. The point is, the Yesod and the Tiferet are certainly in the middle. So, the point of being in the middle is to be decisive between the right side and the left side. So why do you need two?

There are two types of decisive factors. There is a decisive factor that is more decisive, and there is one that is more lenient. So the Tiferet is…

Student: Who?

Teacher: Ah, no, wait, wait, wait, that’s a problem. One minute, one minute.

What he’s saying is, that there are five “five opposite five,” he’s counting the decisive factors. That’s another weird thing, that’s why I’m telling you, the whole explanation is weird, because he connects two other structures and he tries to squeeze one into the other.

But what he’s saying is, that “five opposite five” means that in total of the ten sefirot, five of them are more right and five of them are more left. And when he says five more right and five more left, he already counts the decisive factors also as either more right or more left. And since there are two decisive factors, so the Tiferet is more right and the Yesod is more left.

And Malchut is simply that it’s the attribute of judgment, as everyone knows that it’s called the weakened attribute of judgment. Who knows, has anyone heard of dina rafia? Dina rafia is the Malchut, that’s the name of the Malchut, the weakened attribute of judgment.

And we have a dispute about this, this is the clear approach that he says, the Ramak.

Summary of the Second Explanation

So it comes out that this is the five, it comes out the right hand is Keter, Chochmah, Gedulah, Netzach, Tiferet. Five from the left is Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, Malchut.

Now it comes out that “and all that is in your hand” is without addition, and further Tiferet, eh, it is itself one that was counted, the same thing “at the head of myrrh” is itself one that was counted, and one can even say also the Tiferet, because Tiferet and Yesod can be counted once.

It comes out further that there is no decision between ten and ten, because again, both of these explanations have this big difficulty, also the third explanation that he will say is an even greater difficulty. In the sense of the plain meaning of the Mishnah, which he tries to say that there are five and five.

This is true, if you learn the two explanations not exactly in this way, this is the truth.

The Explanation’s Connection to Zohar and Writings of the Arizal

But for example in the Zohar, many times you find, if you’ve learned the writings of the Arizal, you will find the two basic structures many times, because many times he talks about the five upper ones, when the five higher sefirot have all kinds of calculations for why they need to come from them, and the five lower sefirot.

And the same thing that many times the Arizal counts from five chasadim and five gevurot. Five chasadim, five gevurot, and at the end of the day comes from this Mishnah, “five opposite five.”

But he counts it many times differently, because according to what, one way of counting is certainly like this. Keter, Chochmah, Gedulah, Netzach, Tiferet, and Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, Malchut, is going to be the 5-5, and the decisive one is in the middle of them, therefore there isn’t 11.

The Difficulty in This Explanation — How Does It Fit with Sefer Yetzirah?

This is his forced way of solving the problem that it comes out to be 11 here. He says no, brit yachid (unique covenant) is itself one of the ten fingers. Eh, it doesn’t fit in the picture that Sefer Yetzirah says of the two hands with the covenant. It’s all not simple, the whole thing.

This is what happens in his explanation, really. Because he looks at it, apparently, that the fingers are just a hint. When one says “five opposite five opposite five fingers,” it doesn’t mean to say that now you should look that this is the main way of organizing the sefirot. There are ten, the measurements come from the five fingers, but the real meaning of the sefirot is this structure, this whole structure.

Discussion: The Difference Between the Fingers

Student: I guess you’re saying now what is the hint to the fingers, I mean, all fingers are the same thing, like…

Teacher: It does matter, but the internal structure, you mean.

Student: Meaning to say, if you want to think about what each attribute does, you need to connect it to a more important part of your body. I mean, the hand does one thing, the foot does a second thing, the fingers, what is the difference between one finger and another finger?

Teacher: I guess… I don’t know. It’s a thing, always a very interesting thing. It could actually be that Sefer Yetzirah didn’t fall into the structure of the explanation of the way that the whole body of the ten sefirot or seven sefirot in the way that the Zohar does. It’s very interesting. We need to do more research about this. There lies here some secret.

We are among today’s Jews who think that the simple plain meaning in Sefer Yetzirah is also good. We don’t need to twist everything with the Zohar.

Student: Ah no, I understand.

Teacher: I’m just saying that the Ramak is such a type of person that everything needs to fit into one structure. The Zohar structure, more or less, he stuffs everything into this. Although one cannot really learn Sefer Yetzirah with this explanation. You’re right that Sefer Yetzirah is missing.

Student: Right, right, but one can still say more simply. One can say that this is like one level of hint, and this is simply another…

Teacher: I don’t know. I need to think about this better. I already spoke about this last time, some hint.

The Fundamental Problem: What Did Sefer Yetzirah Itself Mean?

Because let’s understand, Sefer Yetzirah itself said as it says later, “ten and not nine, ten and not eleven,” and the same person says “five opposite five with the covenant in the middle.” So what did he think? That there is an eleventh?

The basic question that he tries to solve, all who are a way to solve the question by simply ignoring what it says and saying that the brit is one of the ten sefirot. Eh, it says fingers? Let’s skip the fingers when we talk about this.

Yes, but what did Sefer Yetzirah itself think about the problem?

Student: It’s just the opposite, because Sefer Yetzirah has…

Teacher: Very good, it’s not a problem at all, right? And not only is it not a problem, but the middle one, it makes them into one thing, right?

One of the things that Sefer Yetzirah in chapter 1 is very clearly doing, is trying to explain how all these different things end up being one thing, right? “And the end is unity, ask in your heart,” has three or four other Mishnayot that end with unity at the end.

The Third Explanation of the Ramak: “Five Opposite Five” Means Five Decisions

The Expression “Ten and Not Nine” — Is This a Precise Statement?

Teacher:

By the way, when it already says from before a whole time “ten and not nine,” this is not a precise statement at all, because it says the same thing by all other things, right? “Thirteen and not fourteen” etc. It says this by some other thing. It also says this by the seven. “Seven and not eight.” It writes “seven and not six, seven and not eight.” What does this actually mean? Does it mean to say something, or not? It says “ten and not nine” in Mishnah 4 here.

Student:

And you’re saying that I should look at twenty-two letters. It says “three mothers… seven and not six,” you’re right, “seven and not six, seven and not eight.” Aha. This is in chapter 4. By the twelve does it also say such a thing? “Twelve leaders…” I don’t see. Perhaps there is another version that doesn’t say?

Teacher:

Aha, chapter 1 Mishnah 2. Aha, chapter 1, I’m looking in Sefer Yetzirah, but what does chapter 1 say, it says “ten sefirot belimah and ten fingers, five opposite five, and the unique covenant aligned in the middle.” It doesn’t say “ten simple sefirot.” Aha, I don’t have that in mine. Perhaps it’s actually a dispute of versions. Aha, I don’t know.

Student:

What does the Ramak say? The “Sha’ar Perati Sheva” actually says.

Teacher:

Okay. He means to say something with this, but you’re right that we don’t need to squeeze everything into this and not be concerned about what it says in other places. I get what you’re saying.

The Concept of “Yachid” in Sefer Yetzirah

Student:

No, Rabbi, I’m saying even more, because you look in chapter 1, you look here, in Mishnah 3 it ends “and the unique covenant in the middle.” Mishnah 4 ends “and the holy living creatures and the speaker on its wheels and the speaker on its base.” Mishnah 5 ends “and the end is unity,” yes, the word “yachid” (unique), “and the end is unity, the faithful King ruling over all.” And Mishnah 6 ends “before His throne they bow down.” Mishnah 7 ends “for the unique Master has no second, and before One what do you count.”

So it seems very clear that he has some matter, at least how many times did I count, the word “yachid” appears here how many times? Yes, one, two, three, at least three Mishnayot in this chapter, and perhaps four or five, speak about the fact that there is still one thing in the whole matter.

So this is simply what he means to say with the “brit yachid,” that this makes the whole thing into one somehow. Aha, there are actually five with five, but one leads them, or something like that. But like you, the five, in short, it’s not a contradiction with what he says that it’s ten with ten.

Teacher:

Yes.

Student:

Anyway, okay.

Teacher:

Afterwards it’s like this, afterwards… what?

Student:

No no, that’s all.

Teacher:

So in short, this is the… he also revealed with this that there is no brotherhood between the ten and ten. Okay, it’s the same thing. That the brotherhood is only the two camps that he talks about, and they are themselves still part of the “five opposite five,” and that’s it. That’s the second explanation.

Again, I told you, both concepts are in the later mekubalim, they exist, they exist always. The two explanations, the five upper and five lower, and the five… how is it called… five right and five left, is a thing that is very popular. Perhaps not exactly in this order, but this is a thing that… yes.

The Third Explanation: “Five Opposite Five” Means Five Decisive Factors

Teacher:

Afterwards he says, he has another explanation. And he says like this, he says that he has his own explanation. I don’t understand what he wants from his explanation, but he says like this, that he has another explanation, and he holds that “five opposite five” doesn’t mean the fingers at all. Totally away from the plain meaning. “Five opposite five” doesn’t mean at all the five fingers that are opposite the other five fingers, but “the number bearer is ten.”

Student:

Yes, do you have the text? Should I bring it back here?

Teacher:

What? He went away from the… went away, already went away from the topic of ten sefirot, from the ten fingers, and begins to talk generally about five decisive factors. I don’t know why anyone would think this is a good explanation.

Ah… and five others? Some are between judgment and kindness. And five others, and some require decisive factors. There are very important decisive factors between judgment and kindness, and there are five other types of decisive factors between judgment and kindness. This is what he says.

He says like this, first of all Tiferet, and other ways the Tiferet which is in the middle, is decisive in five other ways between judgment and kindness. One, first of all it is decisive between Chochmah and Binah, and then it’s called Da’at. This is the maximum explanation of Da’at. Da’at is not a sefirah. So when the Tiferet rises to Chochmah and Binah, Chochmah opposite Binah which is one root of kindness and one root of strength and the Tiferet is in the middle.

Afterwards there is the second decision of the Tiferet which is between Gedulah and Gevurah, as is known.

The Zohar on “And God Called the Firmament Heaven”

Teacher:

This “as is known” brings however a whole piece of Zohar, for some reason, and meanwhile enjoy learning Zohar. He says like this, and this is in the, God called the firmament heaven here the middle of Tiferet, which is between right and left, which is between right and left, and it includes both, so that it says, and there was evening and morning, it means evening means the evening of Yitzchak, Gevurah. And morning is chesed, the chesed of Avraham, and the, what is it called, the middle pillar, it is in between.

How is the translation, the heavens of evening and morning. God gave birth, the Binah gave birth to Tiferet, and it is between evening and morning, and it is the heaven which is between evening and morning. So says the person.

And he wants to say an explanation. First you see there is the known version that Tiferet is decisive between chesed and Gevurah, okay.

The Ramak’s Method of Learning — “Hospitality” for a Piece of Zohar

Teacher:

“But it will not seduce and direct our mind to its beauty in confusion.” There is such a rule in Kabbalah by certain people, that when a Torah teaching comes one needs to give it a bit of hospitality. So he makes hospitality for this piece of Zohar, and he says like this, first he makes a list of questions, almost endless.

What is “Vayikra Elokim”? How does he know that Elokim is Binah? What is “Ima”? What is a part of Ima in Binah? It’s the same thing. What is “amitat hametziyut” (the truth of reality)? “Certainly it is between right and left,” what is he saying? What is between right and left? In short, the entire language is superfluous, basically, because one already understands all these things. And what comes in with evening and morning? What do we learn from this?

This is the Ramak’s way of learning everything, and he learned this from Rabbi Yitzchak ibn Latif, and it’s a great principle. That whenever he learns something and he already knows what it says there, he says, “How can it be that he’s telling me what I already know? Why would he explicitly say something I already know? Rather, he’s saying something deeper.”

I once wrote an entire article about this derech halimud (method of learning). You can flatten it, you can say, “Ah, certainly he knows from this thing a piece of Zohar, he knows it. Why are you asking questions?” But on the other hand, if you don’t learn like this, you end up being a very boring person. “Yeah, I already know, I already know, I already know.” Yes, the one who wrote it also knew that you already know. Perhaps there’s something else that you don’t yet know. Do you agree?

Student:

You can do it without the answers. You can do it without, you know, the questions are fake.

Maggid Shiur:

But he’s showing you, you have to read backwards. After the answer, you’ll see that the words make even more sense than they did before.

Student:

Right, it’s really like close reading.

Maggid Shiur:

Yes, wait, everyone knows that what he’s saying basically is, if I want to say it over in my own language, and I think this is a good derech halimud, yes, Tiferet is between Chesed and Gevurah, and this is power, and for this you need another verse, it’s written in two words.

Close Reading in Zohar: The Ramak’s Rule About Kinuyim (Appellations) and Bechinat (Aspects)

The Process of “Close Reading” in Zohar and Tikkunim

Instructor:

It’s really like close reading, it’s close reading, it’s like, yes, certainly, everyone knows that what he’s saying basically is, if I want to say it over in my own language, and I think this is a good derech halimud, yes, Tiferet is between Chesed and Gevurah, and this is power, for this you need another verse, it’s written in two thousand verses, think a minute, one minute, but what does it mean that it’s called rakia (firmament), it was called shamayim (heaven), something comes in here, no, it’s gone, what does “Vayikra Elokim larakia shamayim” (And God called the firmament heaven) mean according to Kabbalah? It’s called rakia and shamayim, it’s two names for the same thing, so what are you doing? Why is it called in the middle of reality? These are 17 different meshalim (parables), why do all these things come in? He’s saying something here, this is basically what he’s asking, all his questions more or less are that.

It turns out, yes, when you want to simplify everything, you say ah, this is Chesed, this is Gevurah, I know the story, I already know the story, no, but he’s telling you the story in a slightly different way, so what does that mean? So he says that the question, he goes to the verse, he says that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the Tikkunim was actually difficult, what does “Vayikra Elokim larakia shamayim” mean? Yes, there are two names for heaven, or two names for Tiferet, rakia and shamayim, what are you telling me here? You see here that rakia is not shamayim, but he says no, that rakia is Ima, what does Ima mean? So he says thus, when Binah is influencing from the side, he calls it from the aspect of Ima Tata’in (Lower Mother) which is the influencer, then it’s called Eim (mother), yes, so this is the Ramak’s rule on kinuyim, he says it explicitly in Shaar HaKinuyim, but there are never two words for the same thing.

The Concept of “Bechina” by the Ramak

And what he calls a bechina, how the word bechina is, this is how he uses it and this is what it means, in other words, when I speak of the level called Binah, so I can speak of other parts of Binah, or it doesn’t have parts which are called bechinat. You could say chalakim (parts). The Arizal has no problem, he simply calls them chalakim, you divide it into pieces, and he says I’m speaking of this part. The Ramak is a bit more abstract, and he says it’s a bechina of Binah. In other words, Binah b’bechinat (in the aspect of) what she influences to the lower ones is called Ima. B’bechinat what she is… what? Yes, like… yes, in a manner, or something like that. Bechina, bechina means like a test, or like looking, like havchana (distinction).

Yes, what is there? I don’t know where bechinat comes from. It’s probably philosophical language that they borrowed.

But he wants to say, I’m speaking of this… in English it would say, “under the aspect of”. And the aspect isn’t called Binah. Binah b’tor (in the capacity of) what she is an influencer to the lower ones, an influencer to Binah, not Binah b’tor what she is other things. She has other meanings of the word Binah, or other senses, other, right?

In Aristotle, bechina is called “qua”. What comes from the word qua? Like, mi qua father I’m one person, mi qua brother I’m a second, right? It’s the same me, but b’tor something else. I fill another role. What? Yes, in Yiddish “als”. In Greek or Latin, “qua”. There was someone who said that Aristotle’s solution for all questions is another qua. Yes, when you speak of the bechina, the bechina, it’s the same thing.

So apparently what is clearly expressed, like, the word doesn’t stand in error. When you say “Eim”, you mean to say from the side that she is with the emanated ones, with the lower ones, because it’s called “Eim”.

The Difference Between Ramak and Arizal: Bechinat versus Chalakim

So, now previously, now previously. Now. The same thing, Tiferet has more than two meanings here. He calls it two realities. So the Ramak has a rule, it’s called Shaar HaMetziyut, he explains this clearly. I told you, this beginning is just to get you curious about a lot of things, because you don’t know most of it. So he explains that when we speak separately or spiritually, it’s called, when I say that I am from the aspect with my children I’m a father, from the aspect with my father I’m a son, from the side of my friends I’m a friend, and so on. So I am many things. But now, in each of these, you can call it a metziyut (reality). So unlike a person who when he’s a father isn’t a son, and when he’s a son isn’t a father, he can’t, at least b’gashmiyut (in physicality), you can’t be both at the same time, it’s different stages or something. But b’bechinat ruchaniyut (in the aspect of spirituality), this is only like other levels of the same, other realities. It’s not, it’s not in time, so it doesn’t change, it doesn’t become this, that. So this he calls a metziyut. In other words, what you just called bechina.

Discussion: Physicality and Spirituality – Division and Mixture

Student:

In physicality he can mix everything, right?

Instructor:

Yes, there’s also the opposite. In physicality is the place where everything gets confused.

Student:

Why, you always hear…

Instructor:

It depends what you’re saying. There’s a confusion here.

Student:

In physicality you mean the body, the whatever, I mean, no?

Instructor:

Yes, so, so, right, but… what do you want to say?

Student:

I’m a father, I’m a friend.

Instructor:

Right, in the same, in the same…

Student:

True, true, true, it’s more separate. I agree. I agree. Concepts are more divided than… so the Rambam will say in the piece we’re going to learn tomorrow about imagination and intellect. The intellect divides, and imagination connects. Because imagination sees whole bodies, and whole bodies are always connected to other things. It’s true. But the way he is thinking of it is, let’s talk about the action, right? When you act b’tor father, you don’t act b’tor son, usually, at the same time. But if the reality is that the whole action is that he can be a father, or that he is in a certain way a father, then both can be at once. That’s what he means. So it doesn’t go away, it’s not like in time. Your activity is in time, even if you’re… that your body exists in time is still something to understand. But when you act, you don’t act both at the same time. So we say, like on the first day I did this, yesterday I did this, tomorrow I will do this. But when you speak of sefirot, it’s not true that therefore the sefirot are called yom rishon (first day), yom sheni (second day), whatever. It doesn’t mean that first there was Binah, and afterwards it became Tiferet. There is such a thing, and there is such a thing. That’s what he calls metziyut.

Tiferet’s Two Realities

Okay. Anyways, so what he says is thus, that Tiferet has two meanings, two realities, two levels of Tiferet you can call it. And again, one of the Arizal’s big tricks is to take all these things that the Ramak calls bechinat and metziyut, and to give them names and like make them concrete, because it makes it easier for people to learn. That’s why everyone likes learning the Arizal.

Discussion: The Two Names of Tiferet

Student:

It already has two names, no?

Instructor:

Which names?

Student:

The names with Tiferet, no?

Instructor:

No, wait. No, he says, ah, no. The Tiferet itself from the side that it’s from the kav harachamim (line of mercy), it’s in the middle. He means the emanation from the Keter already. He’s going to explain the seder ha’atzilut (order of emanation). That’s the whole question, because apparently Tiferet comes after Gevurah. If Tiferet is after Gevurah, it’s emanated from Gevurah. But he says that truly Tiferet is emanated from Keter, not from Gevurah, because you have to read it as three kavim (lines). So it comes out, it has a higher…

Student:

This is like Daat.

Instructor:

What we call Daat. But Daat is the upper reality of Tiferet. There is no sefirah.

Student:

It already has two names.

Instructor:

Hm?

Student:

It already has two fixed names, no?

Instructor:

Yes, yes, in Ramak, yes, what you call Daat, yes, it’s true. But…

Student:

Apparently…

Instructor:

But it’s confusing, because you say Daat, most people who learn Daat mean that there’s a third sefirah called Daat between Chochmah and Binah. The third sefirah, it’s Tiferet, when it’s still there it’s called Daat. Okay. The practical difference, I don’t know.

The Upper Reality: Moshe Rabbeinu and the Soul of Tiferet

Anyway, wait a second. And he says that the reality is Moshe Rabbeinu. So it says in the Tikkunim that Yaakov is the Tiferet from outside, and he asks in the Tikkunim what does Moshe mean? He says no, outside was Yaakov, but inside, the soul of Tiferet was Moshe. So the reality, when there it’s entirely mercy, is called the soul of the reality that becomes between Chesed and Gevurah, that from them should become the middle line. And this is truly called rakia.

Explanation of “Vayikra Elokim Larakia Shamayim”

So “Vayikra Elokim larakia shamayim” speaks of what the Tiferet itself became from rakia. You can say rakia with a yud, as it was spread out from the Keter through the yud of Chochmah, and it became shamayim, which shamayim is esh u’mayim (fire and water), yes? It’s the mixture of fire and water, of Chesed and Gevurah. And this he says is the explanation, that through its reality, that you understand that it’s not after Gevurah, it’s a middle thing, it comes out not simply that it’s truly an offspring. Tiferet isn’t truly a son of Chesed and Gevurah, it’s truly a middle pillar, it’s from Keter. But because it’s after what it comes down, it’s through Binah, after it goes after Binah, it’s corrected, there it becomes a rakia, which then is called shamayim, which is esh u’mayim. This is “koneh shamayim b’tevunah” (acquires heaven with understanding), that the tevunah, the Ima, made the shamayim, which is the lower level bechina of Tiferet.

Ima = Ehyeh with Three Vavs

And the bechina that includes the whole thing, this means when it’s still in Ima, I guess, is called Ima, which is Ehyeh, Ima is Ehyeh, which has three vavs, which is the three lines Chesed Din Rachamim. So one will explain the entire reality. Okay, I guess we’ll soon learn this here.

“V’chol Tarvayhu” – Including Chesed and Din

And about this, this means “v’chol tarvayhu” (and both of them). He says “v’chol tarvayhu” doesn’t simply mean to say that Tiferet includes Chesed and Din. It means to say that he’s still speaking of the previous reality, of the previous level of Tiferet, it’s still higher, it’s still in Binah. When it’s still like it’s still included in Binah, then it’s truly including Chesed and Gevurah.

Afterwards he has another piece of Zohar here which is a proof.

My wife says that I need to go eat supper. So she claims, I don’t know why.

The Ramak’s Way of Learning and the Structure of Sefer Pardes Rimonim

Tiferet as Including Chesed and Gevurah – The Higher Level

So Tiferet includes Chesed and Gevurah. It means to say that he’s still speaking of the previous reality, of the previous level of Tiferet which is still higher – it’s still in Binah, it’s still like… it’s still included in Binah. Then it’s truly including Chesed and Gevurah.

Afterwards he has another piece of Zohar which is a proof.

Notes About the Structure of the Ramak’s Writing

My wife said that I need to go eat supper, so she tells me, I already know why. Don’t worry, we’re going… it’s the next two chapters. No, he does this thing for another two chapters until chapter 25, afterwards he’ll explain the next Mishnah. He goes, he goes, little by little, little by little, little by little. Everything is good, don’t worry. He goes.

He’s a lamdan (scholar), he loves to learn, so he finds a piece and he has three questions and four answers, and he’s very happy to say this, he can’t wait. He’s less of a teacher a bit in this way, but I enjoy it, so you’ll see what I do. Ask a bit. More or less explained, no? The explanation of the words, more or less.

The Ramak’s Own Instructions on How to Learn the Book

Okay, but this is how you can, this is how you begin to be able to. The Ramak gave instructions, he gave instructions at the beginning of his book that one should learn it, one should learn a chapter, and if one doesn’t understand it one should learn it again until one understands it, and then one should go to the next chapter.

And you’ll see, he makes references to things he’s going to say later, which is backwards. What can you do? That’s how it is. When you get there you’ll understand it better.

The Way of Learning Zohar

I think it’s worth the way of learning Zohar, and to say that he doesn’t say the same thing in twenty-four different ways, he wants to tell something each time.

I mean, I don’t know, I don’t have an answer. I guess, what should one do?

First know the old, and we’ll make the new. Whatever, in the same time.

Student: Yes, yes, it’s already good like this.

Maggid Shiur: True, but you have to know, you have to learn.

Student: Okay.

Maggid Shiur: No, no.