Ten and Not Nine, Ten and Not Eleven | Pardes Rimonim Gate 1 Chapters 2-5 (Auto Translated)

Pardes Rimonim, Chapter 22: Three Interpretations of “Five Opposite Five” – The Third Interpretation and the Topic of Hakhraah

Overview: The Three Interpretations of “Five Opposite Five”

Basically, we’re holding at Chapter 22, where he [the Ramak] is in the middle of his second interpretation of “five opposite five,” and he wants to say a whole piece of Torah on this. Yes, that there are five sefirot that lean toward the right, and five that lean toward the left. And… yes, that’s what he says. That’s the second interpretation.

Sorry, after that he has a third interpretation? Yes, the third interpretation, sorry. Yes? Third interpretation. Agreed?

There are three interpretations. The first interpretation is… “five opposite five.” The first interpretation, but the most straightforward interpretation is that there are five fingers. That interpretation isn’t relevant. He’s looking for interpretations according to kabbalah, according to Zohar. Not according to kabbalah – Sefer Yetzirah is also kabbalah, but we’re learning according to Zohar.

The First Interpretation: Higher and Lower Sefirot

The first interpretation is actually most reasonable. The first interpretation is that there are the five high, higher sefirot on a higher level, and the five lower sefirot on a lower level. That’s the first interpretation. It doesn’t fit so well with the covenant in the middle, but okay. One must say that all of the interpretations don’t really have an eleventh. They all have the middle one as one of the five. Right, again, in the five fingers there are more than ten, that’s the answer. But according to the plain meaning of Sefer Yetzirah, there’s a problem in the analogy of the sefirot.

The Second Interpretation: Right and Left

So, okay. The second interpretation is that there are five sefirot that lean to the right, and five that lean to the left. That’s the second interpretation from the second chapter. Both of them he brings from the commentators that are in the book. The commentary of the Raavad already brings both interpretations, and so he brings here from below from other people. The second interpretation is that Keter, Chochmah, Gedulah, Netzach, Tiferet are right, and Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, Malchut are left. Okay, second interpretation. He brings a proof from the Zohar that it’s actually so. And that’s it.

The Third Interpretation: Expansion and Branching – The Topic of Hakhraah

The third interpretation is… the third interpretation is his own interpretation, according to what seems to me in my humble opinion. This he does afterward. I think it’s his own interpretation. That “five opposite five” doesn’t speak about this at all. It speaks about… it doesn’t speak about the ten sefirot. He says this clearly:

> “Rather, the intention is” – their expansion and branching.

What are the ten expansions? Officially yes, because the ten expansions are the ten sefirot that divide themselves. Here he wants to make a third, a completely different “five opposite five.” And he says that this essentially has to do with the general topic of the subject of hakhraah. It’s an important subject, the subject of hakhraah, there’s a whole gate, Shaar HaMachri’im, which is really about this.

The Connection with Shaar HaMachri’im

Yes, the main subject of hakhraah is essentially the subject of the way of the mitzvah that we saw in… what’s it called… in the other gate. What can you tell about the other gate? What do you think?

Well, it’s actually very interesting, because I feel it’s very weird that he started here, the first topic that we bump into here is this. It’s not… it’s like a distraction. There’s Shaar HaMachri’im, Shaar HaMachri’im, yes? Gate 20, explains the matter of hakhraah and the need for hakhraah briefly. What’s it called, maybe we should go back here to find out, because there he explains why one needs to have a hakhraah, and what he means by hakhraah, and who is the machria, and which sort of things. Do you see what I’m saying? By Shaar HaMachri’im.

This has very little to do with the subject of… the subject of the first gate is that there are only ten sefirot, no more and no less. He brings on this the Sefer Yetzirah, and he has a few more inquiries about this. The whole interpretation of what is “five opposite five” doesn’t come in badly. I see, I don’t see how he relates to this. Why does he relate this to the gate of the subject of hakhraah?

So that’s why I feel like it’s backwards. Yes, here he’s explaining. Somewhere, somewhere he surely says that he relates this to what he said here previously.

The Five Hakhraot

So he says that the two examples of “five opposite five” are essentially about the topic of hakhraah, it has nothing to do with this. And he says that there are different types of hakhraot. One is that there are five types, he says “as we will explain in Shaar HaMachri’im,” it looks so clear:

One – Tiferet decides between Chochmah and Binah.

Second – it decides between Gedulah and Gevurah, and he brings here proofs from the Zohar.

Third, chapter 3, it decides between Gedulah and Hod – “the kindness of God all day,” Gedulah and Hod, and Gevurah and Netzach. That’s already four.

And he brings a whole Zohar about this.

And in chapter 4 he explains the details about this.

And comes the fifth – Yesod decides between Netzach and Hod, and on this he notes further that one should look in Shaar HaMachri’im.

In short, it comes out five hakhraot. Five hakhraot, but it’s a pair with the same thing.

Yes, exactly. That’s why I’m saying, it’s not at all relevant. According to this interpretation it has nothing to do with the five fingers. There are five types, five levels of hakhraah, basically. Like, there’s basically… yes, I guess. Five forms or five… I haven’t checked, but there are five types that one needs hakhraah. Right, but it can be different from different from different. Exactly. Five… I guess there are different kinds of hakhraot, but I guess this is the subject of hakhraot. One must understand the subject of hakhraah.

And he’s explaining here the five types. Chochmah and Binah need to have one, which is the next one, Gedulah and Gevurah. Netzach… what are the next two? Umm… again, I can repeat what it is, I don’t have the strength to say all the proofs with things. Gedulah and Hod and Gevurah and Netzach. That’s a funny thing.

The Source: Rabbi Shlomo Turiel

On this he brings here from below, one brings himself, I think Rabbi Klonimus, Rabbi Shlomo Turiel. If he weren’t so famous, he would have become famous. He brings here in… I’m looking, he brings here in… I see because they printed in the time of the Ramak and the Ari. Page 31 in the book printing, Rabbi Shlomo Turiel, Turiel, I don’t know, Turiel.

There was, there’s a book Chesed L’Avraham, yes, a very nice book, whoever wants to learn from Azulai. He made a collection from the Ramak according to the order of topics, and instead of, you know, he had my problem that the Ramak is busy explaining the Zohar’s, and I want to know the essence. So he went and learned Ramak, and he tried very hard to make the structure of one, there’s no translation of any verse in the whole book. I already started learning in another shiur, hello? I can’t jump everything from one to the other. But the book is a very nice book, actually. There’s almost no translation of any verse, nothing. He really went to pieces of Ramak, “Pardess” and “Elimah” and “Adikra” and all these places, and wherever he sees a piece, he cut out, said the idea, and went further. It’s only words, he doesn’t know the language. Yes, approximately, yes.

Sometimes he brings, so he brings, there are sometimes things that he brings. And also he brought from the Arizal, so his main source, his main source was Rabbi Avraham Azulai, who was much later. But his main source was the Ramak. And then he also brings from the Arizal certain teachings. And also he has some third source that stands in a manuscript. And I didn’t know until yesterday who the manuscript is.

No, I’ll tell you right away, I’ll tell you right away, I’ll tell you right away. He says almost nothing himself. And the Rav, the tzaddik, the Rav, what’s his name? The Breslover who helped publish the Hillula D’Rabbah, what’s his name? He discovered, Rabbi Barzi Chasin discovered that there’s a book from a mekubal Rabbi Shlomo Turiel. He was a unique mekubal, wrote many books that exist in manuscript, he said he’ll publish it at some point when he has the money for publishing the virtues of Rabbi Nachman. Published and one uses the donations for that.

And it’s an abbreviation that he brings that he disagrees with the Ramak. Look what he says at the end. “And when it came up good,” I don’t know, he doesn’t say. It’s so funny. The Chesed L’Avraham, all funny things, you know, Chesed L’Avraham used to bring many funny things. For example that the groom should put his foot on the bride’s foot at the chuppah, it’s a segulah from Chesed L’Avraham. And it says in Chesed L’Avraham that it will happen in the year 5760. Did you know? It already happened. 5760 was 15 years ago.

A little, yes. Rabbi Shlomo Uriel said.

Okay. In short, only as part, yes. So in short, this is from his side, for the most part.

The Question of Rabbi Shlomo Turiel: Hakhraah Between Chesed and Hod

So when he should pay, he says, he brings here a question from the Ramak that he doesn’t understand, how can there be a hakhraah between Chesed and Hod, and Gevurah and Netzach? He says it makes as much sense as saying that one must decide a dispute of Tannaim with Amoraim. Amoraim don’t argue with Tannaim.

Yes. You know the chart, right? It doesn’t make sense. Chesed is stronger than Hod. He, the Ramak, wants to argue that since he’s on the right side and that one is on the left side, one can decide between him and him. Understand?

Where is my… the mekubalim love charts. No, what he says is, the Ramak holds that one can go diagonally. Very good. The Ramak holds that one can go diagonally. But Rabbi Shlomo Uriel has a good question.

No. Again. Okay. There are levels, and there are sides. I imagined that there are two different things. Sorry, I don’t need to make the triangles for the hakhraah. Okay, Gedulah, Gevurah. In the middle one can make the Tiferet, right? After that… all mekubalim… the Ramak has the chart. What all mekubalim who have the strict chart… that is, you know, he’s strong.

And then, it’s very funny, because why would one need to decide this way? He can’t at all be equal to a dispute with him. So he says. Okay, the Ramak had a… one can’t say what’s the mouth. One can’t say what’s the mouth. There’s a logic. Like when you’re strong.

The Ramak’s Innovation in Hakhraah of Sefirot — and Transition to the Second Mishnah in Sefer Yetzirah

The Ramak’s Method and Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz’s Question

Very good. The Ramak holds that one can go diagonally. But Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz has a good question.

No, again. Okay, there are levels and there are sides. I want to assume that there are two different things. If there are Chochmah and Binah, okay, in the middle one makes a Tiferet, Daat — let’s call it Tiferet. There’s Gedulah and Gevurah. Sorry, I don’t need to make the triangle for this, the triangle is for the machria. Okay, Gedulah, Gevurah, in the middle one can make Tiferet, right?

After that, all mekubalim — the Ramak doesn’t mention this, but all mekubalim assume that there are three levels. That is, a lower level. And then, it’s very funny, because what would one need to decide this way? He can’t at all be in dispute with him. So he says.

Okay, the Ramak had that one can’t say what one wants. You see, one can’t say what one wants. There’s a logic. What are the levels?

It’s really funny. I’m sure he tries to justify this somewhere, but it’s really funny. Perhaps if he had said deciding between Netzach and Hod I would understand, but here he says the Yesod is there. So he’s not talking about that, he’s talking about deciding between this and that. That’s really funny. He has proofs in the Zohar on this, but that’s the interpretation.

The Ramak’s Explanation: Judges and Advisors

He says it says Netzach and Hod are judges, and… sorry, no. Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet are three judges, one says thus, and the obligation of Chesed decides. And Netzach and Hod are not judges, they are advisors.

What’s the difference? He can’t decide a matter, he can give advice how to carry out the ruling. Sometimes the gabbai — in short, sometimes one must decide between the gabbai and the other rabbi. That’s the thing, that’s the Ramak’s interpretation. Yes, something like that. Or the rabbi and the other gabbai, both ways.

The Question of Tannaim and Amoraim

But essentially he asks a good question. He says like Amoraim. It says — I think it says this in the Zohar — that Chesed Gevurah are like Tannaim, and Netzach Hod Yesod are like Amoraim. He can’t decide between Shmuel and Rav Yehudah, it doesn’t make sense.

In short, if a Tanna disputes such… if there’s a dispute between a Tanna and an Amora, what are you going to do? Are you going to rule like the Amora? That’s not what happens, right?

Well, but he says that an Amora is certainly not meant to push the Tanna, but he says there’s a hakhraah. Just as a Tanna can say the halachah is like so-and-so, he can say the opposite, so an Amora can say — it’s more than an Amora. That an Amora won’t say the halachah is like so-and-so, it can’t be that an Amora should rule like a Tanna. But he explained that it’s meant to say that then the Amora is stronger than the Tanna, because he’s like the gabbai is stronger than the rabbi, he says how the rabbi meant.

A dispute, an Amora must make an answer, for example, to say, he must come completely and take the Gemara and turn over that one that he can with the Tanna.

But here also, in the rules, one never pushes away the second side. That’s the whole point of the hakhraah, right? If you want you can ignore the second opinion, and one doesn’t ignore it. Halachah l’maaseh, the question is, okay, the question is, is a hakhraah like ignoring? When one rules? No, only perhaps l’maaseh, but… I hear.

The Ramak Is Satisfied with His Innovation

Anyway, that’s the subject. He brings proofs on all these things, he’s very happy with his interpretation, the Ramak, he says this is a new interpretation. He gives out that there are five hakhraot, and this is the covenant of unity properly intended, because all five are all the Tiferet, understand? In short. And the Ramak is happy with this, because this is better for him to say that it doesn’t become eleven. And another interpretation wouldn’t have been eleven, because this stands, he ignores completely the whole thing of five and five. So it makes it make more sense in his hands, I don’t know.

In any case, he’s very happy, he’s terribly happy with his interpretation. He even has the proofs, three proofs, from Rashbi, and from the Sefirah, and from the Geonim. Because it’s the innovation, that’s what’s the big innovation l’maaseh, that Tiferet can decide also between Gevurah and — how do you call it — between Gevurah and Netzach, and Chesed and Hod. This is an innovation that doesn’t make sense, but therefore he had to bring on this many proofs. And he’s happy that… okay, so we’re skipping to chapter 5 then.

The Ramban on Sefer Yetzirah

After that he says here a Ramban, another version, he didn’t have the version of that one, and he doesn’t know the commentary of the Ramban. You see, the Ramak is very critical. He didn’t know that it says in the Ramban, and he also doesn’t know what’s really from him.

The truth is, I don’t remember, in any case, there are two commentaries of the Ramban on Sefer Yetzirah, I don’t remember either one. Here, two different commentaries that are called Ramban on Sefer Yetzirah. And as far as I remember, the old one is really a mistake, but the Ramban that he brings here I think is the second one actually. As far as I remember, Shlomo printed another commentary, and he says that he’s precise from the Ramak that there is the correct one. Because there I see that the Ramak wasn’t so ignorant, so I don’t know.

Anyways, he still puts a very good commentary, I didn’t understand what he wants at all, so I didn’t understand the Ramban. It must be that he didn’t write it, because I don’t understand it. Not a proof from me.

Transition to Chapter 5 — The Second Mishnah in Sefer Yetzirah

Okay, so in short, that’s what I wanted to say, I don’t have patience to learn most of the hakhraah, I think we should learn the matters of the gates. If the Ramak had made a second edition of his book, he would surely have put it there. As I said, I told him one thing.

He says here like this, chapter 5, we’re skipping to chapter 5. Yes, this is the next mishnah. The next mishnah says:

> “Ten sefirot belimah, ten and not nine”

We’re Still Holding in the Mishnah

We’re still holding in the Mishnah, right? From him we learned it. The Mishnah states:

> “Mispar eser atzba’ot kluggin” (A count of ten fingers, wise ones)

The first Mishnah he explained that there are ten sefirot, what they are, right?

The second Mishnah states:

> “Eser v’lo tesha, eser v’lo achat esreh, havan b’chochmah v’chacham b’binah” (Ten and not nine, ten and not eleven, understand with wisdom and be wise with understanding)

Linguistic Analysis: “Havan b’Chochmah v’Chacham b’Binah”

I don’t know, is it a verb, chacham? Be wise? Havan? We don’t say it that way. I don’t know why, I’ve never heard anyone except for the Sefer Yetzirah say that. I don’t know why it’s not accepted that way. Can you build a verb from that? Havan, well, it should be hachacham.

Student: Yes. Chacham? Chacham is a wise person. Chacham is the wisdom of something. Perhaps chocham? That he became wise?

Instructor: No, there is that you can build a verb. I’m sure you can. So chacham is be wise? No. Chacham would be a construct form, chacham of something. I don’t know, that’s my… I don’t know any grammar. Okay, chacham b’binah. Perhaps he did more, perhaps he said chacham because it sounds more with havan.

The Simple Meaning of the Mishnah

Well, what does he mean to say? Have wisdom, it’s words of reason. Havan b’chochmah v’chacham b’binah. In short, he says like this, there are ten sefirot, we already know, of course, ten and not nine, ten and not eleven. And then he says what you should do about this. You should understand well with chochmah, and you should be wise well with binah.

L’histakel, did we say? What does that mean at all? Something has a simple meaning in chochmah and binah, and the mekubalim took the Mishnah, I already know, he’s going to talk about this.

“Bachon Bahem v’Chakor Mehem”

He says like this, the bachon… because it’s certainly a hint, which the Sefer Yetzirah continues, right?

> “Bachon bahem v’chakor” (Examine them and investigate)

Look into them, be a good investigator, think well into it.

> “V’da v’chashov mehem” (And know and think from them)

And know and think it out.

> “V’ha’amed davar al buryo, v’hoshev yotzer al mechono” (And establish the matter on its clarity, and return the Creator to His place)

Establish the… I don’t know what is “yotzer al mechono”. Yotzer means the Creator? Al mechono, on his… on his position? On his machine? On his car? Al mechono, on his… what is the simple meaning of “mechono”? Like “muchon l’shivtecha”, on his chair? Or a… “machon” is a chair. Here “machon”, like a pedestal, put him on a pedestal.

“As it says in my commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, see there”. Ah, what is the “davar”? “Davar” can be the speech. Yes, the whole commentary on Sefer Yetzirah is in a certain sense a commentary on the idea of aseret ha’ma’amarot, right? Doesn’t he say that the sefirot are in aseret ha’ma’amarot? That’s weird. Certainly the Sefer Yetzirah thought of us, right? It can’t be otherwise. Can it be otherwise? Can it be that the Sefer Yetzirah didn’t know, didn’t think about aseret ha’ma’amarot?

But it’s very interesting because in this Mishnah, there’s like a… like a command, there are verbs. Until now were there also verbs?

Sefer Yetzirah and the Ramak’s Interpretation of “Eser v’Lo Tesha”

Sefer Yetzirah: Structure of the First Mishnayot

Instructor:

Can it be that the Sefer Yetzirah didn’t know about… didn’t remember about aseret ma’amarot?

But it’s very interesting, because in the Mishnah, there’s like… it’s like a command, there are verbs. Was that also verbs? Do you understand what I’m saying? He says what one should do. Here is the… where is my Sefer Yetzirah? This is a Sefer Yetzirah.

It’s the first Mishnah. The first Mishnah doesn’t begin very simply. Yes, but it’s only a general principle, that we did learn. But I’m saying, that when you look precisely at the words… it’s a Sefer Yetzirah. The first Mishnah was with all the titles there: “Bishloshim u’shtayim netivot, chakak”. The Almighty was chakak, right? Yes, I know that. I’m not going through all these things, I can’t, it’s too much.

Okay, let’s see. It’s prepared. Or you’re going to say that each thing has simply the simple meaning. It could be that it’s just a… that’s the way he said so many names, and Rav Chanina didn’t give approval, he said that… “atem tenu l’HaKadosh Baruch Hu tehilah”. I don’t know, you know? Yes, there is such a style, that one says very many names.

There is what you said ten against ten sefirot.

In any case, that’s all. “Chakak olamo b’lamed-bet netivot, bishloshim sefarim”. And in the second Mishnah it states in total all three levels of things that exist. That means two levels: eser sefirot blimah and twenty-two letters. These are the thirty-two, have we already seen this. And from the third Mishnah until the eighth he speaks and explains the ten sefirot.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s Approach: Sefer Yetzirah as a Meditation Device

First of all it’s “mispar et tzaftzufeihem”. And the third Mishnah, it’s not there, there is what to claim, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan said that one should read “chakuk kah Hashem” — you be chakuk. Who said that the Almighty was chakuk? Perhaps you should be chakuk. He tried very much to turn the whole thing around, there are verbs, I would make everything into verbs, he says “chakuk”, but it’s that he was chakuk, perhaps it means you should be chakuk, imperative language, yes, be chakuk.

Student:

No, aha, I hear. He wanted to say that it’s a meditation device.

Instructor:

It says in his book which he calls a commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, I mean it’s a custom among tzaddikim to write things and they call it a commentary.

Davar and Yotzer

So afterwards, okay, 10, 9, 10, 11, is an interesting thing, and afterwards, there is a davar and a yotzer, so I think, there is such a secret, davar is the, what is the meaning of yotzer? Malchut. How can I have a davar… the yotzerot is actual… so there is a difference, he is a davar, but we’ll make the things clear. And it says in the yotzerot, as it says yotzer bereishit, so it says adon hakol yotzer bereishit, so it says in Landler’s book.

And what is this “v’hu b’echad u’mi yeshivenu”? Here he brings a whole long text, “da bih, hu b’echad, b’chochmah u’binah, da bih, b’chochmah da’at emet, da bih, bachon bih, chakor da v’chashov”… I don’t know.

Okay, I know, something we need to understand.

The Ramak’s Approach: “Eser v’Lo Tesha, Eser v’Lo Achat Esreh”

Anyway, we’re going to learn the Ramak’s interpretation. It’s the fourth Mishnah, and the second Mishnah that’s relevant to us. He says like this, “hiskamnu”, I’m not going to ask questions at all. Actually, the order of learning should be made all from questions. He says, but here there’s no question, there’s nothing that one understands yes. A question is when one does understand. The whole thing is a question. In short, we’ll say afterwards what the Rishonim suggested, but he’ll say what’s interesting.

So first, what does “eser v’lo tesha” mean? He says like this, “peirshu”, so the commentators said, “ikar kavanatan l’hazhir aleinu min hahashagah”. I don’t know, it doesn’t make sense. “Eser v’lo tesha” and “eser v’lo achat esreh”, this should be like symmetrical. It should be about the same thing. They interpreted it as two different things. It’s weird. They spoke about the stone, with zeros, or with… I don’t know.

Student:

It has a simple meaning.

Instructor:

Okay. It’s better with a simple meaning. Perhaps it’s made not to have a simple meaning. Perhaps sefirot is made that one should keep looking and say like these are paradoxes. It’s not made to have a simple meaning.

Student:

Who says? His interpretation, the interpretation you’re saying is probably very close to the real interpretation, or something close to that.

Instructor:

He says an interpretation. His interpretation is clear. His interpretation, no, his interpretation says, fine from your perspective, by the way. His interpretation says.

The Main Interpretation: Keter – Sefirah or Ein Sof?

Okay, the first interpretation that he says in the name of the commentators, he says that we’ll still look who, I believe that there’s an interpretation coming. That one shouldn’t think that Keter is not a sefirah, because Keter is the Ein Sof. I know, a bit there was such an approach which he’s going to say soon in sha’ar 3, that there were many tzaddikim who said that Ein Sof is the first sefirah, and that’s called Keter. It comes out that there are only nine sefirot, because the first is the emanator, is the Ein Sof. And we’re going to refute this opinion, and in the next sha’ar we’ll say that Ein Sof is not Keter, v’rachmana litzlan mehai de’ata. Because the opinion is that there are ten sefirot besides the emanator. Because if you don’t interpret it, it comes out that there are nine sefirot. No, there are ten emanated, that’s the important thing.

The Parable of the Tribes and Yitro

This is the “lo k’Yitro”. How did the tribes join with the Almighty for a minyan? They held, they held that they could join with the Almighty for the minyan. So this is a minyan besides the Almighty. It’s like that. And not at all, can one make every minyan, so it shouldn’t be nine people, say that the Shechinah is the tenth.

Student:

How can you do this? Yitro did the trick, the tribes did it. They joined Yitro with the… with the… ah, there’s a dispute. It depends on the dispute. It tries to say…

The Deeper Debate: Transcendence of Ein Sof

Instructor:

Okay, the Ramak explains in sha’ar 3 that he’s angry at those who say that Ein Sof is Keter, because then it comes out that Ein Sof is also something. That’s really the question. The question is, to what extent is Ein Sof something that we can speak about. That’s basically the point. If there is a structure. This is a theological, very serious debate. The numbers are just about what is a beginning, but it’s a very serious debate. If the one or the Ein Sof, whatever you want to call it, the essence of divinity, is still one thing that one can speak about, that there are many levels. There is the Almighty, there is the sefirah, the intellect, etc., all the way to us. So there’s like some, how do you call it, continuity, right? There is a certain, it’s one step after another, one step further, but it’s still a step. I mean, it’s not really a step, but it’s still can be counted as one kind. Like, there’s a chain of being, there’s all the things that exist, and the Almighty is the first thing that exists.

The Ramak’s Way: Radical Transcendence

The other interpretation is the Ramak’s way, is basically like the Rambam, like the radical transcendence of God. And if God is not domeh k’shum davar nivra, k’shum davar notzal also not, then you can’t count them as one. That would make sense. Like, the whole point of sefirot is, that above is not the Almighty. Above one doesn’t speak of the Ein Sof. That’s the point. That’s his problem with this mostly. The Almighty is part of the world. The highest thing is also called the Almighty in some sense, right?

Student:

I’m telling you, you can say that all sefirot is the Almighty in some sense. That’s not the problem. But the Ramak still wants…

Instructor:

Right, right, that’s why we have the sefirot, and we’ll be able to say. The Ramak’s way is very… and that’s then, then you can’t even have sefirot. Like, okay, we have to get to sha’ar 3 about this. But if I understand, this is about safeguarding the transcendence of God. Which would say that the Almighty is not one of the sefirot. He is very different.

Student:

The Ramak literally says, in short, “It could be that it’s confusing. It could be that he is confused. It could be that it’s not as simple as you say.”

Instructor:

But that’s his way of doing it. And that’s mainly his thing.

The Ramak’s Explanation of “Eser v’Lo Tesha” – Guarding the Transcendence of the Almighty

The First Interpretation: Ein Sof is Not One of the Sefirot

Instructor: If I understand, this is about guarding the transcendence of the Almighty. Which is to say that the Almighty is not one of the sefirot, he is very different.

The Ramak literally says, in short, there is – it could be that it’s confusing, it could be that he’s confused, it could be that it’s not so simple what he says – but that’s his way of explaining. And that’s mainly his thing. He brings an answer, which he says as reasoning. There is a sense in which we call the sefirot names, but, but, but the whole point of then, in what way let’s assume, what is the simple meaning in Sefer Yetzirah, in the middle of Sefer Yetzirah? “B’lamed-bet netivot”, which is clearly eser sefirot, “chakak Hashem”, yes, Hashem is before the sefirot, right? It can’t, there’s no way, even the greatest mekubal who learns into Sefer Yetzirah and its sefirot however you want, there’s no way of making this identical with, with God Himself who was before, right? Or do you assume that He was chakak et atzmo b’eser sefirot? I mean, it can’t be.

But he says, if there were only nine sefirot, one could, he would be included. He is assuming that there is such an approach indeed. There is such an approach that says that Keter, when they say Keter they mean Ein Sof. And if so there are only nine besides this. And then he is, but there’s a certain universality, right? There’s something shared, there’s something shared between God and everything else. He is the first, but he is shared. And if not, he is a completely different kind of thing. So he is, I don’t know how to call him, a completely different kind. It could be that when we say “he”, we already mean him with the sefirot. Okay, that’s already complicated. That’s like you say, you do want to say names and so on.

In short, okay, so that’s the first interpretation, eser v’lo tesha. It’s a bit funny, because like, yes, eser v’lo tesha, because the ninth is a heretic. In short, according to him, the Mishnah is assuming that you know of such an approach that has only nine sefirot. In other words, he does have ten sefirot. I know that the interpretation is funny.

The Comparison to Zero and One

Student: Even the ten sefirot of the whole Ramak, yes, I know that one is the first thing that I can imagine. What was before one? Nothing. Right, my question is, how would you know that nine would mean now?

Instructor: In a sense it’s like you say with the zero, that it’s numbers is the same thing, which is translated. I agree that it’s not so different from the simple meaning of the zero. If zero points to the thing that is before…

Student: We only have nine numbers, one to nine.

Instructor: What do you mean we only have nine numbers, by the way?

Student: How do you mean that we only have nine numbers? We have nine characters, nine symbols.

Instructor: Symbols, you can make a symbol for zero too, although it’s nothing. In modern times there is. In the times of the Ramak there wasn’t. The numbers work with nine characters, I mean, aside from zero.

Is zero a number? It’s before one. Before the oneness, there comes a place from where the one comes. The direction of the one is…

Anyway, I don’t want to get confused. Yes, I just want to know the basic thing. If someone says ten…

Student: In a case where someone says ten, it’s like the gimel, yes, it’s like, it’s not really part of the system, of the chart.

Instructor: But what he says is, don’t think that the… how he says it, right? He says, “v’al tit’eh lomar”, don’t think that the one who is completely before the system is part of the system. It’s before the zero. According to this, if ten is one and zero, and right, ten is… and then the Malchut would be the zero, right, or something like that, then the thing before which he is excluding, by saying there isn’t only nine. There isn’t nine, really. It’s not a zero. It’s the opposite, it’s the thing before the zero. Do you understand what I’m saying?

A Question on the Ramak’s Approach

My question is only, it’s a funny way, if he wants to say that Keter is not Ein Sof, it’s a very funny way to say “eser v’lo tesha”. So you’re assuming that someone already knows that there are ten sefirot, they have the ten names, and the question is only whether Keter is a sefirah thing or is he God, or whatever, Ein Sof. And then you say, if so, it comes out that there are only nine left. Do you understand what I’m saying? The straight way would be to say, like you’re saying, there are Mishnayot that say “lefanecha timneh et hasofer”. It could be that there are Mishnayot that speak about the question of… It could be that it has to do with this somehow, but maybe perhaps the opposite, perhaps “lo achat esreh” means that the Keter… do you understand what I’m saying? Why shouldn’t you say the opposite? Why shouldn’t you say that “lo achat esreh” means not to think that… that… perhaps “lo achat esreh” shouldn’t mean that there is an eleventh which is Ein Sof. Like, how would you go?

Practical Ramakists: The Kabbalists’ Way in Focus and Attention

How Much Reality Do We Give to Multiplicity?

Instructor:

I don’t think, like, when there could be a theory that has a real… like, everyone is like… you say, everyone agrees, from the point of view of the beginning, everything is like this. Also, everyone agrees, from the point of view of the end, some things are different. And now, the question is, how much reality do we give to that?

One could say that it’s very real. One could say that there never were ten sefirot. Let’s say, someone can tell you that there never was a Malkhut in Atzilut. Never was. It was always in exile. It was always like this. You’ll ask what does that mean? I don’t have any source. I’m not talking about the source, I’m talking about the Olam HaEmet. You’re also talking about the Olam HaEmet, right? And he’ll say, it never was. It’s always separate. Separate, different. I don’t know, like, the word separate isn’t good. But anyway, it never was.

Well, that person says it’s heresy, it’s wrong. It could also be, you know what, like, one way of thinking about these things? It could also be that all these things are instructions instead of theories. That would be one way of thinking about such things. It has problems. When you come to, like, the real questions, you can say that I understand, that’s where the rachmana litzlan comes in.

And you want to ask, according to the truth, what is the basic reality, how to understand it? You have here such a, as you say, a principle that no one disputes at the end of the day. But when I tell you, you shouldn’t think, you can’t be such and such, what he means to say is, don’t focus on that aspect too much. Don’t spend too much, basically don’t spend time on that. Rather, what is it, that person asked me, even after he spent all that time saying, he also holds, but he doesn’t hold enough to think beyond holding. In that sense, it’s not about the reality, because everyone agrees to the reality, it’s about the action, it’s about the act of thinking. And that actually matches very much with the frum language of “don’t think.” I can say, “Why don’t you think about what it says here like this?” No, I also know that it’s so, the intellect, you mean so? I tell you, don’t think that it’s not so, don’t think that it is so, because you’ll become lost, instead of becoming great.

The Rambam and Kabbalah: “Don’t Think” Because You’ll Become a Heretic

And that’s the Rambam, that’s Kabbalah, that Malchut is blunt, blunt, you’re going to become a heretic, you’re going to become a heretic.

Student:

Right, you’re right, fingered, exactly.

Instructor:

That if you start thinking about these things, you’ll start thinking, “Oh, in practice there is a world, so there’s no God.” Right, you’re gonna become… You’ll separate yourself from Him, and you’ll believe that there’s a very real connection there, even though it’s… It’s a real part of Him, it’s not…

Right, and then all these sorts of solutions can be seen as solutions to this. That Malchut of Atzilut, but the Malchut of Beriah is indeed separate. Okay, but it’s not a problem, because we don’t say it’s a separation, it’s just not God so strongly. So, you know, these might be solutions that are…

At some point when you start thinking, you have to realize that thinking has real consequences for how you look at the world. And it’s not that I can have an encyclopedia, a chart where everything can stand precisely. How you make that chart is also a difference. And like saying… And that’s what you’re saying, that the way in which, if someone is smarter and he comes up with an image that he can have both at once, very good. Okay, very good, that’s the sort of solution that the Arizal does. He gave you an approach where you can hold both at once.

But it could be that someone is wrong in that sense. Hmm, I wonder. I don’t know, it’s very annoying when the mekubalim use the language of faith and heresy and stuff like that. They never mean it seriously, because they believe in all heresies, you understand? Because when the Rambam or a simple person says that this is heresy, he means to say that it’s wrong, it’s false. When a mekubal says it’s heresy, he says it’s true, but don’t think about it.

The History of Kabbalah: A Way of Balancing

I think the history of Kabbalah is kind of a way of going back and forth. Someone says an idea, and then people take it and they start to emphasize it too much in that direction, and then people say, “No, no, okay, in practice it’s part of the thing, but in practice it’s not.” And then you play around with the same ideas, but just like, you add, you try to make things more, “We’re not getting out of balance, we’re not getting too focused on this and that.”

I think you could say that. But what that means, for example, is that mekubalim like to say, for example, Korach, I don’t know who, the Malbim only made a small mistake in the distinction of, whatever, of Ein Sof and Zeir Anpin, whatever, something like that. And it turns out that it’s not just a small mistake. I mean to say, in a certain sense of ontology, that is the difference.

Avodah Zarah: An Ethic of Attention

Why is everyone angry at mekubalim? Because they’re true scientists. Everyone is such Rambamists, I don’t know what. They’re like, “I thought there was avodah zarah, turns out there is indeed avodah zarah, one shouldn’t believe in it.” If it indeed exists, why shouldn’t one believe in it? That’s the problem that the Rambam people have. By the way, the Rambam also believes that avodah zarah exists. He just doesn’t say it explicitly. He was much more careful than the mekubalim.

But the answer should be something like this, that of course, we have no dispute about the reality with avodah zarah. But what should the dispute be? That if it’s so… Again, with small details, yes, okay, it wasn’t Jesus, it was Yankel. What’s the difference? The idea can still be true.

The problem is that there are questions of how you focus, and what sort of story you make out of this, and what sort of technical detail. When you become very technical, then there’s still place for everything. But in the more crude kind of pictures, it’s like, “Wait, the picture is wrong.” What does it mean the picture is wrong? Because it leads you to think in that way and to focus on that. I mean that I should say not a mistake, it’s less of a mistake in the sense of saying a lie, like a false statement, more a mistake in the sense of like, you have a house, I want to see if the bookshelf is nice, I’m not going to go look exactly in the corner where it’s not nice. Don’t look there. And avodah zarah, according to this, is someone who specifically likes to look where it’s not nice. Like, yes, it’s there, it’s missing, you can even fix it, you can’t fix it, whatever. Something like that. It’s the ethics of attention, instead of the ethics of truth. I wonder how much that would make sense.

Mekubalim Are Practical Rambamists

Student:

You just denied the intermediate steps.

Instructor:

It’s very simple. Not so simple, the Rambam also thinks that you should learn about the ten sefirot, or his version of the ten sefirot, the ten angels and stuff. What does the Rambam mean when he says that prophets think about the tenth angel, whatever? They are thinking of that. The Rambam is not worried about thinking of that as God. It’s very weird, why? By the way, the mekubalim are actually Rambamists, practicing Rambamists. That’s the whole difference. I hold that in general, the whole thing that people think there are Rambamists and mekubalim is not true. There are theoretical Rambamists and practical ones. The mekubalim are practical Rambamists. The mekubalim say, “Ah, there are ten intellects? Okay, let’s see what we talk with them. Wait, do they connect to each other? Are they each a god?”

And the mekubalim say, “No, there’s the god of darkness, the idea of darkness, the angel of darkness, and you start to lead about this, and you start to make plans about this.” That’s what the people have done all the time, right? When you sit and you look, and then there are while it’s built in built. It’s not true that they go only to nine sefirot. Because there are very from their popular presentation was this. And the mekubalim agree, they just say it in their way, their much more complicated way. And you want to become a prophet, and you can talk to God, and the angel Gabriel, and the active intellect. And now you start worrying, wait, is the thing that’s talking to me God? Well, it’s God if you look at it from this point of view, but it’s not God if you look at it from that point of view. And I’m like, okay, so wait, I start to understand all the goyim in history. They just looked at that point of view. Ah, actually, true. But that’s basically what happens. And then, like, what does it mean to claim that God is your God? Ha. Anyway.

We Live in the World of Words

I mean that we live in the world of words, and if Jews live we even in the world of Gemara Tosafot, with pictures and two pieces of Zohar, which is just another way of doing Gemara Tosafot, and about that, we need to have God is one. So, one should be able to explain that nine cents is in ten sefirot, to eleven sefirot, to nine sefirot… Which live we? Then that would be heresy. I’m not sure. I truth. I once had a rabbi told me – I never can, I had someone say that. Well one time tell him that so-and-so is a heretic – you have to understand, that he is indeed topics of the matter, heresy. What do they say, is wrong? And I said to them, you are a genius. Here it says that it’s not a problem. What he is. Who is the problem? Who doesn’t know. What can you say so it would have been nicer? Will perhaps that one would have to go? He says, God forbid. Yes, truly God forbid. Anyway. A yid, always not fitting. It’s a creature.

The Ramban: “In Emanation but Not in Unity”

The Ramban had such a language, one should look it up, hmm, I remember that it’s “They are in emanation but not in unity.” Aaron, if the Ramban means what they mean, and it even appears in the language of the Ramban, Vayikra 23:36, you see that it’s a good… In Vayikra 23:36 it says in the Ramban that the Shechinah is in emanation but not in unity.

The Ramban on Shemini Atzeret, “Ten and Not Nine,” and Souls from Malchut

The Ramban in Parshat Emor – Shemini Atzeret and Atzilut

Student: Ramban, where? Vayikra? What did you say? Vayikra chapter…

Instructor: Ah, I said 23. I said that it’s in Parshat Emor, “And the assembly shall be for you,” I remember. Yes, yes, yes, yes, again.

> “For it is emanation, and it is fitting to teach that the eighth festival is by itself, and it is the completion of the first.”

It’s a contradiction – is it the completion of the first or is it a festival by itself? Says the Ramban:

> “For it is the emanation of the first ones.”

The Ramban never says feminine language about the Shechinah, it’s always “he.” He, the Ramban didn’t yet know that one should speak romantically. Yes, he says hints, but when he speaks about this, he speaks normally.

> “The emanation of the first ones and it is not like their unity.”

So you see that the mekubalim understand that there is a world of Atzilut but not in unity together with them. I mean that the Ramban’s translation is that it’s an emanation from the first, “emanation of the first ones” – it’s like the Malchut is emanated from the Tiferet, or whatever it is, and “and it is not like their unity,” and he is not… That is, “completion of the first” – that’s how he fits it into the law that he builds on it. “Completion of the first” – it’s like Atzeret is “completion of the first,” it’s a continuation of the first, but not… It’s a festival by itself, it’s not one thing, it counts as another level of this matter.

Anyway, his interpretation is that one should look at “the eighth shall be an assembly for you.” Okay, it was good that you found it.

The Ramak’s Interpretation of “Ten and Not Nine” – Malchut Is Counted

Ah, now, this is very interesting. He says that the Ramak, the interpretation, the meaning of “ten and not nine” means that the Malchut is counted, is the meaning of the Zohar in Sefer Raya Mehemna, that is Rashbi in Sefer Raya Mehemna.

The Raya Mehemna on Different Levels of Souls

Interpretation, somewhere where is it? He says like this, there are people – the Raya Mehemna says that there are different souls. There are people who have a soul from the world of Beriah, they only learn Mishnayot, Gemara, halachah. Then there are people who have fear of the secrets of Torah, they have, they know the secrets of the Torah, they have fear of masters of attributes.

Masters of attributes probably means, not masters of sins, it’s just the simple meaning of masters of attributes. It’s not meant that masters of attributes is someone who has good attributes. Here he means masters of attributes is someone who owns the attributes of Atzilut. Yes, just as it says in Lag BaOmer.

Student: Fear of attributes. What does it say?

Instructor: I’m explaining. Well, I say, look further. It’s like the last letter, it’s a continuation, but the thing before, there are people that don’t have that.

And there are others who are masters of the secrets of Torah, masters of attributes. I mean that it means they have the attributes, the sefirot are called attributes. Yes, so he says.

The Ramak’s Explanation – Souls from the Side of the Holy Malchut

Okay, the Ramak translated, he’s going to translate everything. If you want, we could read his interpretation without reading the inside. In short, I try not to learn alone, it’s not that I’m going to know the simple meaning.

> “That they have a soul from the side of the holy Malchut, which is included of ten sefirot.”

Why? Because whoever inherits the Malchut, the sefirah of Malchut has ten complete sefirot without separation, “ten and not nine.”

> “And the truth is that whoever inherits the Malchut alone, behold nine are separated from it.”

He will go the last separation.

The Author of Sefer Yetzirah and “Ten and Not Nine”

By the way, the Raya Mehemna, we don’t know who wrote Sefer Yetzirah. Said the author of Sefer Yetzirah. So the Raya Mehemna didn’t know who made Sefer Yetzirah. He says “the author of Sefer Yetzirah,” whoever he was. “Ten and not nine.”

> “And you with the ascents to the world of Asiyah.”

Asiyah says that it goes higher than Asiyah? No.

> “Shmuel explains yud-kuf vav-kuf Asiyah that is unified in it, and it doesn’t ascend to the world of Asiyah, and there is no Asiyah and unification here.”

Okay, so the Ramak assumes that he will come with this interpretation that Asiyah from this meaning means he shouldn’t separate the Malchut from the ten sefirot, and Asiyah and unification means he shouldn’t go higher.

The Secret of Yud-Kuf Vav-Kuf with the Filling

Only according to this is a hint that when one writes yud-kuf vav-kuf with the filling it comes out ten letters. That’s the secret of… It’s exactly the simple meaning.

Student: Yes, yes, yes, I think so. It’s just in the context of the person who receives a soul from it.

Instructor: I need to learn in Shaar HaNeshamot what this means exactly.

End of the Shiur

Ah, I’m going to say. The intention is in my articles. I’m going to say… Shaar… ah, it’s Ezra. Do I need to pick up?

Student: No. Will you catch him?

Instructor: Hello? Hi Carl, how are you? I’m in the middle of learning, you want to call me in about half an hour? I can’t.

Carl: What can’t you?

Instructor: Because I’m gonna be swimming.

Carl: Swimming? Why are you going swimming?