The Necessity of the Sefirot from the Investigation and the Explanation of the Verse “Yours, Hashem, is the Greatness” | Pardes Rimonim Gate 1 Chapter 8 (Auto Translated)

The Ten Commandments, Creation of the World, and the Beginning of Chapter 8 in Pardes Rimonim

Introduction: A Dvar Torah on the Ten Commandments

I saw a dvar Torah, I was even surprised. I learned a bit of the Ten Commandments on Erev Shabbos before the shiur, perhaps I’ll say it actually at the shiur too. I can say something twice, sometimes no one knows about it.

So, I thought, it should be interesting that in the Ten Commandments it says – in Parshas Va’eschanan it doesn’t say, it says the other reason for Shabbos, right? Everyone knows that. It says “v’zacharta ki eved hayisa,” it doesn’t say “ki sheishes yamim.”

I caught myself that this is actually a much bigger problem, because as the Ramban says in Parshas Bereishis that this is – the Almighty created the world in six days, all the details, and in Parshas Bereishis one doesn’t really understand anything, sodos haTorah. And the Ramban says, hey, one needs to know? He says, well, it already says in the Ten Commandments “ki sheishes yamim asah Hashem,” nothing more is missing from that, no one knows more than that verse, he doesn’t know anyway. “Ki sheishes yamim asah Hashem es hashamayim v’es ha’aretz,” would have been more than enough. Hey, to convince the gentiles, they don’t understand anyway. In short, it must be about “koach ma’asav,” in short, one must understand why. This is the Ramban’s explanation on the question from the Midrash that Rashi brings.

The Problem: In Va’eschanan, Creation of the World is Missing

So, in other words, I caught that basically the Ten Commandments are very important, right? It gives out “Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha,” yes? This is like a basic thing. This is what every Jew needs to know, this is what one places on the tablets. This is like the picture of Judaism, the picture that one may make, I don’t know. Carved on a stone, the ten things. And it says there that the Almighty made the world in six days, it’s very important, it’s important that it says there. Shabbos is like all other things, but it’s all basic things that are stated there.

Afterwards when one goes to the second tablets, to Parshas Va’eschanan, it doesn’t say it, you catch? It’s not simply that the reason changed. A Jew can read the entire Ten Commandments, the version from Parshas Va’eschanan, he won’t know that the Almighty created the world. He certainly won’t know that the Almighty created the world in six days.

Creation of the World in Sefer Devarim

I asked him, I made him a search. In short, I made a search, I thought, okay, fine Va’eschanan, what about the entire Sefer Devarim? Does creation of the world appear in all of Sefer Devarim? It says very many times about the Exodus from Egypt, hundreds of times. In Ha’azinu it perhaps says by hint, “vayatzev gevulos amim,” perhaps it speaks about Parshas Noach. It says “halo hu avicha kanecha,” it doesn’t properly say creation of the world. In Ha’azinu it begins in the desert, “yimtza’eihu b’eretz midbar.” Yes, it begins in the desert. Okay, but later there is a bit. No, but it’s very funny, it was in the desert. That wasn’t in the desert.

So, I saw, so it says well. It says once in total, so the search said, I didn’t check, but it seems to me. It says once in all of Sefer Devarim that the Almighty created the world. Where? In divrei tachanunim, at the introduction to the Ten Commandments. Right? It says, well, where is it? And we say it on Tisha B’Av, right? “Ki she’al na l’yamim rishonim asher hayu lefanecha, ul’min hayom asher bara Elokim adam al ha’aretz, ul’miktzeh hashamayim v’ad ketzeh hashamayim” etc. Yes? Once it’s mentioned that the Almighty created a person.

The Zohar and the Gemara on This Verse

It’s very interesting, because from this the Gemara learned that “shnayim b’reishis atah sho’el, lifnav i atah sho’el,” is one of the very basic verses of the Zohar, “ul’miktzeh hashamayim v’ad ketzeh hashamayim,” from Binah to Malchus. Above Binah one may not know. In short, yes, the Gemara says that from here should be a source for the Mishnah of “ein dorshin.” Parshas Bereishis doesn’t say, one doesn’t know if one may learn it. Divrei tachanunim says.

What Does This Verse Say?

Now, think about it, what does this verse say? In this verse it says like this: Ask yourself, can you inquire about all of history, from creation of the world until all geography, with either heaven or heaven. The only thing that’s interesting is that the Almighty spoke with people once. It says explicitly, and the one time that creation of the world is mentioned, it says that to you this is not interesting. It doesn’t exactly say that, but that’s how I learn it. Pshat. It says “atah hora’ata lada’as ki Hashem hu haElokim” – that’s interesting.

Another Hint in Va’eschanan

And he says more, that it says a bit before, in Va’eschanan there’s another place that’s hinted almost clearly, I mean also the Ten Commandments is really the same thing, the six days of creation, because it says “pen tashchisun va’asisem lachem pesel tmunas kol samel, tavnis zachar o nekevah, tavnis kol behemah, tavnis kol tzipor kanaf, tavnis kol romes, tavnis kol dagah, ufen tisa einecha hashamayma” – this is roughly like the six days of creation in a certain order. This is almost the formulation of the divisions, the thing in the heaven, in the earth, in the water, in the air. Also Vayikra goes a lot into the forbidden combinations with the list.

So further, what does it say there? All these things are not. Ma’aseh bereishis this is not… What is the Almighty? What could be? “V’eschem lakach Hashem vayotzi eschem” – the Exodus from Egypt and giving of the Torah.

The Kuzari’s Approach

So more or less, the master of the approach that “bereishis” is not interesting, but “hotzeisicha” is Parshas Va’eschanan, almost explicitly. But Bereishis they didn’t hold that way, after the question they didn’t hold that way. But in any case they held once. It’s deeper than that, but whatever, one can go that way.

Now, I mean you see, this is the best way of understanding, like the… You know the dispute of the… I don’t remember about the Kotzker Rebbe, and… But Reb Bunim asked the Kotzker Rebbe, how did he get his’orerus for avodas Hashem? He says, it says “se’u marom eineichem, ur’u mi bara eileh.” Reb Bunim said, hey, that’s good for a gentile reaction. What about your Judaism? A Jew must take from the Exodus from Egypt. The Shem MiShmuel brings it, and he says that this is the entire pshat of the Kuzari, this is word for word what the Kuzari says.

But Reb Bunim said that his son said that he can answer his grandfather. He says that true, he took a land. Ah, the Exodus from Egypt opened the heart so that one should be able to understand ma’aseh bereishis. It’s some kind of combination, this is a time.

Ma’aseh Bereishis is Not Irrelevant

So, yes, so, in short, when you say that ma’aseh bereishis is not irrelevant, it’s irrelevant because if to understand like a gentile it’s not relevant. I want to ask questions about nature, I want to mean to say history. Yes. History is… whether it’s pure is history? No, whether it’s not history. He says, no, you say, “uvayom asher bara Elokim adam al ha’aretz,” you mentioned that. Everything that happened, but, it’s not really very interesting about exactly what happened, which kingdom, which empires. Perhaps means, simply the verse means history. Nature it’s not what once was. You can see right now, you won’t ask, you can other…

One goes over the Shem Tov. There was once something interesting something that gave you some divinity on will? Yes, there were kingdoms, there were turmoils, there were all how what do I have from that? There were all how how how was once already spoke to Jews, and that’s what then one saw under creation, the final things simply. But then everything began to make sense. That’s the whole thing.

The Source of “Ein Dorshin”

It’s interesting that the Gemara learns “she’al na” for a mitzvah. Ask yourself. A world thing is apparently permitted forever, people say that this is a source, it’s a source backwards. It turned out to there’s something interesting in the whole matter. Yes, there was, yes, “cheilek Hashem amo,” that’s interesting.

—

Beginning of Chapter 8 – Fifth Section, Pardes Rimonim

Now we’re going to learn Chapter 8, what is this book called? Toras Rimonim. This chapter, supposedly, is about how now we’ve learned that there are ten sefiros from Sefer Yetzirah, and to ask the one who will say that there are other numbers? Now we’re going to know, the source, very funny actually, I mean funny in the way how he lays it down, he goes with the way, and one begins from the Torah, and afterwards one goes to Sefer Yetzirah.

First it says in Sefer Yetzirah that there are ten sefiros, everyone agrees, it’s already. How does one know that there’s a God? Because the Rambam says, and the Rambam is not disputed. I mean, I have no proof, because the Ra’avad says he didn’t understand the chapters, so he’s not on that.

The Ramak’s Introduction

He says like this:

> “After we’ve established from the side of the structure of the number of sefiros” – and you already know how many sefiros there are – “it’s proper that we investigate if they are necessary from the side of investigation” – but you know that there’s a necessity according to philosophy, that there are sefiros.

Interesting. And he says like this, one will say like this, there are several reasons why it’s necessary. In practice, they are necessities not actually necessities according to the way of faith. But if one wants that certain faith shouldn’t be correct, one must say so.

He says like this, the first, what is the second? I don’t see how the second is. I don’t want to see more pages. But anyway, he says like this.

The First Necessity: Divine Providence

First is like this: because Jews believe in providence, even individual providence. Okay, I need a bit what that means. And the person says that one should look… Yes, it’s clearer to me. But anyway, the Jews who believe in individual providence, individual means even general providence, providence on the species, right? One must say that the Almighty supervised from the side of the sefiros. This is the Torah. Why?

> “Because after the Simple One, cause of all, and ultimate cause of all, is removed from change and from attributes” – the Almighty could change himself, therefore cannot have any attributes, like wise, righteous, hearing. Or other terms “which the investigators removed from Him”, means the Rambam. “Therefore like the ways of physicality, which Hashem” – this is just a change, but anyway – “yeira’eh kevod Hashem k’eish ocheles b’rosh hahar”, further the certain vision that he looks like fire, “therefore v’er’eh es Hashem”, or “v’er’eh es Hashem yoshev al kisei ram v’nisa”, “uchvod Hashem malei es haMishkan” – these are all a bunch of different things that are bunching all together. “Vayehi ra’is lo Yisrael”, “v’atah k’ven Yosef”, “kesuvim beis Bil’am”, “oznei Hashem v’einei Hashem umevo’ei Hashem”, etc. etc. All these things point to feeling and physicality and descriptions.

A whole bunch of different things that he just squished together, but there’s no place where he went into this.

Divine Providence, Sefiros, and the Rambam’s Approach to Closeness to God

The Ramak’s Fundamental Problem: Contradiction Between Principles of Faith

Instructor:

This is the Torah. Why? Internally.

> Because the Simple One, cause of all causes and ultimate cause of all causes, is removed from change and from attributes.

The Almighty could not change himself, therefore cannot have any attributes, like wise, righteous, hearing, or other descriptions that the investigators removed from Him, meaning the Rambam. And they defined Him from physicality, like the hand of Hashem, that just changed.

But anyway, yeira’eh kevod Hashem v’eish yatza milifnei Hashem, further the certain vision that he looks like fire. And so v’er’eh es Hashem, or v’er’eh es Hashem yoshev al kisei ram v’nisa, v’ra’isi es Hashem, uchvod Hashem malei es haMishkan. This is a whole bunch of different things that he punched all together. Vayeira eilai Hashem, v’atah k’ven Yosi, kasiv mar’eh panim, oznei Hashem, einei Hashem, yad Hashem, etc. etc. All these things point to feeling and physicality and descriptions. A whole bunch of different things that he just squished together.

But this is the place where he goes into this much more at length in Elimah [Gate 1, Chapter 5], where he better understood what he says here. And there’s a bunch of things.

The Ramak’s Answer: Sefiros as the Middle Way

He begins from providence. The problem is like this: there’s one belief called individual providence, and another belief that says that the Simple One has no change, has no attributes, has no descriptions, has no physicality. These are separate things, this list, is he even there? I guess. He has no boundary. The fifth thing.

V’zeh b’echad hapashut, he says like this: He makes a great approximation, this is clearer to me, this is the whole Kabbalah, and this piece.

> V’zeh b’echad hapashut, in terms of his aspect to his essence and simplicity, it’s impossible to believe about him so.

It’s true, one cannot say about the Almighty himself, it’s the simple one, right? B’echad pashut, it’s the simple one. One cannot say about him, at all, the… But how can one say it?

> Except in terms of his aspect on his attributes as we will explain in the Gate of the Essence of the Vessels and in the Gate of Names. And behold through the attributes there is the matter of judgment and mercy not in his aspect as will be explained in the mentioned gate.

This is an answer that, of course, he doesn’t actually explain here. He only says it like a statement of place. He lists:

> Therefore it comes out for us so that we don’t deny the principles of our faith in the Simple One who is removed from descriptions

And we must believe in providence, which is also from the principles of religion, therefore one must believe in sefiros.

> So that the principles of our faith won’t contradict each other as we explained. And these are reasons

Reasons means because there’s more than one question here. Because physicality is only this is a question that it’s a question. I mean that would have meant:

> Necessities of belief in sefiros, and if a person sees some dispute, he will admit and say according to the way of investigation the Torah doesn’t need.

This is the Ramak’s basic thing. Not only the matter, I’m going many other Jews.

Why Specifically Providence as the First Question?

Student:

It’s interesting that he speaks about providence as the first thing. Why doesn’t he speak about the verse? He can say, one doesn’t need to stand on the verse. It says in the verse “einei Hashem.” What’s the pshat?

Instructor:

I don’t know, I don’t know what providence is. Providence is relevant that I can’t be every Jew, but according to… If God is, like, completely detached from the world, what could I even choose what I want, what I mean to be a Jew. And the eye of Hashem is also because the Torah wants to say something, something the Almighty came and spoke to him and they said…

Student:

One needs to know so, hey, I understand what you’re saying.

Instructor:

One needs to think but so, it’s not actually there, these are two things that are not actually dependent on each other. Let’s be very clear. The Ramak has some picture of the world how they are dependent on each other. If the Almighty is only the Simple One, then he cannot supervise in detail. That’s not true. Straight out, I’ll say, it’s not true.

The Rambam’s Approach: Distinction Between Essence and Actions

Why is it not true? Because as the Rambam explained to him, for example in the world, the Rambam says that one simple thing can do many things. Remember that the Rambam had a very basic distinction, the Rambam will bring this chapter in Gate 4, but there’s a very basic distinction of what we call the essence of Hashem and the action of Hashem. The Rambam says this himself, the distinction without sefiros. What we say that one cannot speak about the Almighty, one speaks of something called His essence, what he is, right, his essence. Describing what he is, it’s not possible to… What he is is simple and one and so on.

But what he does, there’s another question, but what he does, the Rambam says in general, one can know it. The Almighty does everything. Everything that exists in the world is the action of Hashem, directly. The Almighty, without any sefiros in between, without any attributes.

Man Acts Through Vessels, the Almighty Acts Directly

When a person acts, he acts through attributes. A person cannot do anything directly. If a person could do directly, he would be a god. Perhaps he can do thought or even not thought, like will. Certain things perhaps a person does directly. One says, how do you do it? One can perhaps say that like… How does a person want something? With what? With such vessels? With himself, maybe and maybe not, something, how do you understand the person’s will or self or something.

But certainly that through things that a person does outside of himself, he does through his limbs which is also a vessel, it’s not through his oneness, it’s my hand, my hand is a thing, I need to do with a hand. So when I do something to you, I don’t do it directly, not with my me-ness, it’s with my hand. And all the more so that a person who through cannot even do things with his own body, he needs to do with next level vessels, tools, instruments.

Regarding This: A Person Has a Minority in His Actions

Regarding this, a person has a minority in his actions, even his body, his limbs, and his character traits, which is an even more internal thing. “I love you with my trait of love,” not with myself.

Okay, now, the Rambam says that the Almighty, who is achad pashut (absolutely simple), doesn’t have… it doesn’t mean that He doesn’t do. You see, this conclusion doesn’t follow yet. The Almighty, when the Rav sees that the Almighty doesn’t have any descriptions, He doesn’t have any physicality, he doesn’t mean that He doesn’t do everything. He means He doesn’t do through intermediaries. He doesn’t do with a power.

The Almighty is not, as the Rebbe says, not chacham b’chochma (wise with wisdom) or yachol b’yecholes (able with ability). This is like a person who, if you speak in physical terms, when I push you with my hand, I need to have my hand to do it. The Almighty can push you, kiveyachol derech mashal (so to speak, by way of analogy), I’m saying I can will, let’s say, with just willing, or interestingly, using the analogy of speech, because the Almighty speaks and it happens. Speech – a person also speaks with tools, but it’s a closer analogy. And a person wills, whatever he wills with. The Almighty does everything with what He is, directly.

The Rambam’s God is the Closest

So, the Rambam’s theory actually has God as the closest as it’s ever possible to be. It’s not possible to be closer to the Almighty than the Rambam holds that the Almighty is close to all His actions. I want to make it very clear, because people say this language only about the Rambam and about Jewish philosophy, I don’t know about non-Jews, and when one can misunderstand it. I’ll tell you in a second. It’s just not true. It’s as close as it can possibly be because everything is directly God’s action. Not possible to be closer.

Student:

The Ramak said hashgacha (providence). You’re saying something new. Hashgacha means there is a mashgiach (supervisor). There is someone. So wait. What? Because here Spinoza also says that everything is God. A little bit, one cannot serve such a God. We cannot serve such a God. Soon we’ll talk about serving. Everything is God, but there is no one there, what will my token do?

Instructor:

I’m not yet showing what he means that there is no one there. So let’s think about this. But do you agree? Do you agree with this?

Student:

Do I want to agree with this? Is it clear? Is it true?

Instructor:

I mean that it’s true. Soon we’ll talk. Let’s go slowly, very slowly. Very slowly.

The Rambam’s God: Karov Hashem L’chol Korav

The Rambam’s God is, as the Rambam, the last line of the Rambam, I even printed the poem nicely once, you really should hang it here somewhere. The Rambam’s end of Moreh Nevuchim has a poem there, and you know what it says? “Karov Hashem l’chol korav” (God is close to all who call upon Him).

Yes, the Rambam’s God… I’m not talking about simplicity, even if we’re not talking about mysticism. I’m speaking, let’s speak technically, even what you’re talking about. I want to hold one thing for myself. You’re not wrong. The Rambam’s God is closer… two people cannot be as close as the Almighty is close to the last bug. Because everything is the Almighty’s actions, and when the Almighty does something, He doesn’t do it through other things.

A person, in order to lift a large thing, needs a truck. So, what’s being lifted is through many intermediaries. The Almighty can lift it with what He is. That’s the whole point of being simple, of being God. Right? So, and whoever understands this, he is the closest to what can possibly be. This is what “karov Hashem” means.

Kabbalah as Commentary on the Rambam

Now, I want to say here, there are two… I mean that there are two, if one wants to speak about hashgacha. Hashgacha is a completely different problem. One must be clear about this, a person is also confused about what the Rambam held. So, first I’ll say what the Rambam held. Maybe the Ramak… I think that a lot of Kabbalah is just explaining what the Rambam really thought. Like, ’cause people have this… they’re responding to a certain talmid (student) of the Rambam that we still know that had this like weird thought that therefore God is far. No, God is closer. I don’t want to get into this now, but I want to first finish what I asked.

Okay? Now, the Rambam has a discussion about hashgacha pratis (individual providence), right? It’s not actually clear that the Rambam believed in hashgacha pratis, right?

The Rambam’s Position on Hashgacha Pratis and the Question of Sefiros

The Rambam’s Position on Hashgacha Pratis

What Hashgacha Pratis Doesn’t Mean

So first of all I’ll say what the Rambam held. Maybe the Ramak… I think a lot of Kabbalah is just explaining what the Rambam really thought. Like, because people have this… they’re responding to certain students of the Rambam that we still know had this weird thought that therefore God is far. No, God is closer. I want to explain your question to you in a minute, I just want to first finish what I thought.

Okay? Now, the Rambam has a discussion about hashgacha pratis, right? It’s not actually clear that the Rambam believed in hashgacha pratis, right? But what does hashgacha pratis mean? One must understand what the discussion of hashgacha pratis means by the Rambam, or of miracles, what it means.

It doesn’t mean that there are things that the Almighty doesn’t do. That would be crazy, that would be atheism. And the Rambam says, it also doesn’t mean that there are things that the Almighty doesn’t know. The Rambam makes very clear the distinction between hashgacha and yediah (knowledge).

Someone who says that the Almighty doesn’t know something, also, it doesn’t make any sense. The Almighty doesn’t need to have some knowledge to know. The Almighty knows with what He is God, from which everything comes from God. However that happens, maybe we don’t know how, but however that happens, God is the cause of everything, every single thing. Therefore, God knows everything. It would be very weird to say that He does things blindly. The Rambam brings the expressions that people said about him, and he says it doesn’t make any sense, actually, if you think about it, it doesn’t make any sense.

And they all speak now about emunah (faith), right? The proof that there is a God, as we learn in Moreh Nevuchim. But whatever God must be, whatever the proof proves, is that there is something that is the cause of everything, okay? And therefore, it knows everything, because it doesn’t need knowledge to know. It, He, whatever you want to say. So He knows everything, and there isn’t any single thing that He doesn’t do. “Hu asah v’oseh v’ya’aseh l’chol hama’asim” (He did, does, and will do all actions), according to all opinions. There isn’t any position that says otherwise. Again, maybe, whatever, for all kinds of complicated reasons one can say such funny things, but not the Rambam. The Rambam says clearly, the Almighty does everything.

The Real Question: How the Almighty Does Everything

Now, when the Rambam speaks about hashgacha pratis, he means a completely different question, right? Like you say. What the question is, is how the Almighty does everything. Okay? Now, what does that mean? What it means is, that… there’s two questions here really. One is a theological question… I mean, yes, by the Rambam it’s the same question, yours. It’s the question of nature. Okay? That’s the question.

The question is, whether there is nature. Nature means, in the language of the Rambam who also has the language sibos shniyos (secondary causes), secondary causes, sibos mishniyos for themselves. In other words, whether the Almighty, the Rambam says this, whether the Almighty does things b’chochma (with wisdom) or b’ratzon (with will).

Two Positions on Hashgacha Pratis

So, the Rambam lays it down, yes, they spoke about this by the Kalam. If there is the position of hashgacha pratis, which the Rambam makes more refined apparently, I don’t know, actually I mean still.

Position Number 1: There is one position that says that the Almighty does everything. How does He do everything directly? Like the Rambam, the Rambam also agrees that the Almighty does everything directly, because He doesn’t do it through something that is separate from Him, He doesn’t have any parts. But that one says that the Almighty also doesn’t do things through other created things. What appears that fathers have children, that’s false. It only appears, meanwhile the Almighty has children and fathers at the same time, and He also has all fathers having children, does everything at the same time, it’s all a beautiful play, nothing begins. This is position number 1.

According to this position everything is miracles, because there’s no such thing as nature and miracle, there’s no such thing as nature, there’s no such thing as causes, there’s no seder hishtalshelus (chain of causation), there’s nothing there. Except that means one cannot understand the world, everything is as it is.

The other position, which is the Rambam’s position, is that the Almighty does everything, but this doesn’t mean that the Almighty does without an order. The Almighty makes it so that there should be fathers who make children, or that the angel makes the next angel. Whatever, what we call seder hishtalshelus, or nature. Seder hishtalshelus is a very fancy word for nature. Things make things. That is, nature is the lowest level of seder hishtalshelus. And the child has it after the children, and the sun makes the world turn, whatever, all these ordered things.

The Question of Hashgacha Pratis Within the Order

And therefore when the question of hashgacha pratis is, whether one way of saying it is, whether it’s this way or that way. Whether the Almighty kiveyachol decides every second to make a person slip or not, or that the Almighty makes that people should slip or not through the whole… not once decided. No. So this must be very strongly dragged. Not that there’s no time. The Almighty doesn’t do things in time. Everything is one system.

But he’ll even say what not. The Rambam is other times. The Rambam must remain in deism. The Rambam is not interconnected, and therefore when he designs the system, he designs it after everything. Which doesn’t change. There’s a system that doesn’t change. There’s a thing, I don’t know the word system. The Rambam just didn’t hear the word system, so one must be careful.

But there are causes, there’s a process. Something makes sense. There’s an order that doesn’t change, the Almighty doesn’t change it. The Almighty knows why, perhaps we don’t know why it must be so, but there are things that we know yes, but internally is the system, outside of the whole system you can’t know anything, but it is the word system. And inside the world means, after there is one thing, you can understand why there must be the second thing, but why there must be the first thing, the Rambam agrees that he doesn’t know.

So in a certain sense, why is there the whole thing like this? Because the Almighty made it. That’s the only answer. That’s the whole point of the Almighty to answer the question, ultimately why is the other there.

The Almighty is Necessary for Every Moment of Existence

But I want to say it very clearly. The Rambam doesn’t say, never says, that the Almighty made a system, and since then it runs by itself. Nothing can run by itself for even one moment. Because the Almighty is necessary not that a thing should begin. Which would be a different kind of cause, which would be something called a… in the Rambam’s language is a sibah pe’ulis, yes, which means an efficient cause? That’s a reason for change.

The Almighty is not only the reason for change of the world, He is also the reason for the existence of the world, for the sibah ruchanis (spiritual cause). This is actually part of what the Almighty doesn’t do like a person. With a body, I’ve already said these lessons with fear, I have that I understand what I mean. The Almighty didn’t make once a system, and from now He forgot about it. The Almighty makes the whole thing, or makes it already then exist. Is the reason for the whole thing the whole time.

Not in the sense that He can change His mind, or perhaps He can, but He doesn’t want to. It’s not about that. In other words, the question of hashgacha is a question about the world, not about the Almighty. Very clear.

The Question of Hashgacha Pratis: A Question About the World

The question about whether the world has streams that run always, which always come for reasons, the causes, one can understand why. Or everything the Almighty does every minute, and He also decides every minute how it should be. And there’s no reason why He decides, not even after what there apparently are yes causes, it’s not truly there. This is the question of hashgacha pratis.

Or there can be a question of hashgacha pratis within after you say that there are causes, one must know whether every single thing must be a certain way, or there are things that can be different ways and change according to the deeds of man etc. All these are the Rambam’s questions.

The Error About the Rambam’s Position

Now about this they have the opinion that the Almighty, because He is mufshut (simple), He doesn’t do everything. The thought is nonsense, not the Rambam. I don’t know, anyone actually thought it. These are very clear roads. What is the reason that because the Almighty is achad pashut, so He can’t do hashgacha pratis? Not correct, He can very well do hashgacha pratis.

If there’s a reason that the Rambam would say that He can’t do hashgacha pratis, it’s because every Almighty does a thing with a reason. And if there’s a reason, a reason is still a good reason. Why should I change it? There’s no hashgacha pratis in the sense, for example to say prayer perhaps doesn’t help in the simple way, because there’s a reason why it’s so. Perhaps prayer is one thing that helps, there’s no problem.

But there’s no… I don’t know, the Rambam brings people who say this, actually. The Rambam brings people who say that there’s no hashgacha pratis because the Almighty is too great, and you won’t make, without sefiros. He has no sefiros, the basic logic on which you sit doesn’t actually add. There are people who have a feeling that the Almighty is so high, therefore can… The Almighty is indeed elevated. The point of the Almighty is that it is indeed a high thing, which high means here, and regarding this He leads the whole world. It’s not at all a contradiction. The contradiction is something being foolish… It doesn’t begin in the question, and in a simple manner.

The Question of Sefiros

So, I must… so I mean. Is this correct? It could be that the Ramak means people who don’t understand it this way, and they indeed make the error. But the Ramak must go further. The Ramak needs there to be sefiros. This is what we need to understand. What are the sefiros lacking?

Now, of course, there are those who say that sefiros are nothing more than actions, and then it’s one hundred percent Rambam. What I mean… So you’re saying something else. I’ll tell you what you’re saying. I’ll tell you that I mean that…

What is Lacking Without Sefiros?

The one thing that bothers the mekubalim (kabbalists), again, they say it bothers them, and they say such things, and of course, first it will come out later in the next Friday no car he says, therefore whoever doesn’t believe in sefiros is a heretic, but you don’t believe in hashgacha pratis. No, there are obviously Jews who don’t believe in sefiros and do believe yes in hashgacha pratis. One part of them is because they have no complaint about this. They don’t think into this, they don’t need to understand everything. Okay.

Let’s say they do want to understand, there is a way to understand it. It’s not true that there’s no way to understand it. There’s also a way to say that one doesn’t need to believe in hashgacha pratis in the way that the Ramak says one must believe. That can also be. But there are certainly also people who believe in hashgacha pratis exactly like the Ramak believes, and they believe that I hold already sefiros. So it’s not a good necessity. Certainly it’s not a good necessity. I’ve never seen much more sefiros.

The Basic Problem: To Whom Does One Speak?

Ah, what means more sefiros? If the Almighty is everything, is the source of everything, is the one thing, then to whom are you speaking? You talk yourself? You talk the table? And what means speaking? Who speaks? These are the very basic principles.

Okay, so in other words, how have you stripped certain ideas of how things, the good, the bad, the love and, yes, all the basic, basic, simple, extra concepts, and then one can accept it to at all think. So let me try that from this. I’m not satisfied, I want it should be good, I beg the Almighty it should be good for me. Otherwise, when everything is good, then… what are you starting? What are you starting? What are you starting? One makes basic statuses, how one works, science, people, DNA, nature, recursive…

The Sefirot as Abstractions — And Why We Need Them

The Necessity of Abstractions in Our Understanding

Rav:

Or you know, when everything is God, then… it’s already correct, baby. What are you davening? So we make abstractions. Everything you do is abstractions.

What question do you mean?

Like illustrations, abstract abstractions. That is, we make basic structures of how God works, science, people, DNA, nature. We create a whole bunch of things that don’t really exist in reality, but we created this idea so we can understand how the world works.

You want to understand. There’s such a thing called health. Health you do through certain actions, you get the health. Everyone wants to have health. So there’s such a name called health.

The sefirot are even higher — we go directly to the source. We go directly to chesed, we ask for the chesed of the world, and we give everything that is included in chesed. Like I’m telling you, that we’ve created abstractions so we can think and can talk about something, right?

The Rambam and Attributes in the Almighty

This is simple, but further, I mean this doesn’t bother anyone. I mean, the Rambam also admits that we say that the Almighty is good. And the Rambam says, what does it really mean? That is, if you ask philosophically, technically, what does it mean that the Almighty is good? It means that the Almighty is responsible for all actions that come out from His goodness. True, and for that He’s called bad, middat hagevurah.

Now, this is another… now you’re asking another question. Let’s… okay, let’s… I feel we have… this is another problem that you have. That is… it could be that the Ramak also has all these problems. I don’t mean, these are very short pieces, and I’m telling you that one could write a whole book. He himself wrote almost two whole books on this topic. Ah, that is directly on these sorts of questions.

The… it’s true that to understand… when you speak to me in English I’ll speak to you in Yiddish. The truth is that to say… that the Almighty does everything directly and the same, right? Because there are no distinctions. It’s true, but it’s not relevant. It’s not relevant, it’s not understandable, it’s not intelligible.

Why We Cannot Live Without Abstractions

It’s like, you can’t… let’s say this, even if we say that by a person there are no middot, he doesn’t have any middot, he doesn’t have any anger, he doesn’t have anything at all. It’s all abstractions that we make, because I see that a person always acts nicely to me, so I call that a… I’m a nominalist, I call that a. Or you’re a realist, you say, “See, I see that there’s such a king, he’s generally always nice to me. There’s something, a thing that he has niceness, some chesed, some love that he must have for me, and this is a thing that I can speak about directly.” Right? Makes sense.

And sometimes he’s not nice, so that’s because he also has a middat hakaas, and sometimes he gets angry. And this organizes the world for us. It’s very important to organize the world for us, right?

And you’ll ask, you’ll come a scientist and say that research was done, it was seen that people don’t have these things. It actually wasn’t changed much. It’s only changed, that it can be hard to talk about, because it’s bad. We still need to be able to speak, the dear world lives. True, this is true.

So in this sense the mekubalim are completely right. That if what happens from the Rambam is that we can’t speak about… the Almighty is middot. In other words about other sorts of parts, behaviors, parts on the world, and organize this basically in a nice way, because all our categories will be taken from us, and one may each like adam olam katan and so on. It can be very difficult to live in such a world. We can’t live in such a world. I agree. It’s true. It’s true.

We can always tell you that it’s a parable. If not a parable, because the nimshal is not a parable, it speaks truly about all these things. Perhaps it’s true that from the Almighty’s side there’s no distinction. That is, the distinction of chesed and gevurah is because we need to be able to… It’s true that there’s actions through chesed and actions through gevurah, but it doesn’t mean that the Almighty divides Himself according to them. The same oneness of Him does everything. But in order for us to be able to deal with life, we have to be able to talk it this way.

The Rambam agrees. The Rambam doesn’t disagree. The Rambam says, everything is actions. And there are distinctions. When He does actions, it looks like this, it looks like that. I mean, I think that this is something again. The Rambam wasn’t… the Rambam himself has a whole chapter where he explains that the world is a parable to a person, and this is the head of the world, and this is straight-up kabbalah, what we would have said straight-up kabbalah.

Why the Rambam Brings the Parable of Adam Olam Katan

And why does he do this? One of the reasons is that they can understand the truth also. The parable is true, because it speaks about true things, but the comparison to a person doesn’t mean that the heavens are the head of the world and therefore look for the holes of the eyes. Yes, it has the eyes for the heavens, the old parable, but… It’s just, so, how else you gonna teach it? How else you gonna understand it? They relate to the world as like that.

I agree. And the dry Lithuanians who say, ah, one may not. Just a dry dimension. It’s nothing. It’s nothing. It’s nothing.

Theological Questions vs. Maaseh Bereishit Questions

So what you had now — personality is a bigger thing, and we need to try to say it clearly. Because also one shouldn’t be corporeal, but one also needs to be able to speak.

The thing is like this, there’s another nice one. Not the nice one that is, right? What is, is… whatever it is, again, what is exactly? Whether the world has order or more order or less order? These are internal questions to maaseh bereishit, maaseh merkavah, to the science, as it were, of the world.

The theology questions are about what to call God. The calling of names, when does He get what are His sub-names? The Rambam doesn’t hold of names, the Rambam looks at names, it’s only a way to speak about what exists.

The Distinction Between a Chassid Person and the Almighty Chassid

And why? Because there’s a second thing. That is, the Rambam says, when he calls the Almighty chassid, yes? Let’s say there’s the name Havayah that stands for chesed, let’s say, when he calls the Almighty chassid, the Rambam says, I mean here the mekubalim are a bit in disagreement. The Rambam says, when he calls a person chassid, what does it mean? Certainly it means that he does chassidic things, and not that he wants, from wanting nothing happens.

But a person, his structure of his soul, at least how the Rambam understood, is built that there’s a middat hachassidut in his nefesh, and from that he actually does actions of chassidut. So why does he call him chassid and not just oseh chesed, which is a more dry way? Because he’s actually a chassid. He actually has, he’s actually a chassid. There already exists the essence of the person before that, what he is, his essence of the soul, whatever you want to call it.

But the essence of the soul doesn’t only have actions, he also has middot, something between actions and the essence. Maybe the essence is separate in some way, I don’t know. But let’s say the essence is indeed a simple thing, I mean the Rambam says so, right? I’m not sure. But he actually has middot in between that, right?

From this I say, we remember, when a person is a friend with you, he’s not a friend with you, he with his middat hachesed is a friend with you. He actually has a middat hachesed between him and you.

Student:

Clear. I’m not saying it’s a problem with this, but maybe some people will try to be friends by the essence. Perhaps such a thing is possible. Isn’t the essence communicating?

Rav:

Yes, certainly it is. Certainly it is. It’s true. It is. But it’s still, like now speaking on the telephone, it’s actually us communicating, but it’s a bit further than speaking directly. Unfortunately, by human beings, we remain… no, it’s not a problem, it would have been a problem. You can’t shut his mouth from speaking with you. It’s true.

It’s a problem if you want like real unification, like the mystics, like, even if you want like really be, people who are really like friends with someone, like really in love, they always want something more. This is what they always want, they want to always be the same thing with you, not just that I speak with you. I want to be you. I want to be the same thing. I can understand the problem. It’s not so hard to understand.

The Almighty Has No Middot — Only Actions

Now, but let’s not speak the technical like ontology, right? I’m telling you, what’s not so by the Almighty, the Almighty is oseh chesed, certainly. What does oseh chesed mean? He does all things that are chesed for us, relative to us. But the Almighty doesn’t have any middot. The step is completely missing by the Almighty, because the Almighty is what He is, He’s not composed of parts, like a person who, although what he is in the end, but the part of what he is is the person is his portion of the soul, his middot, and so on.

The Almighty doesn’t have this, He’s not made up of this. What we call Him chassid is different than we call a person chassid. When we call a person chassid, we mean that there exists by him chassidut, besides the fact that he does chassidut, the chassidut makes the chassidut. When he says the Almighty is chesed, we mean only oseh chesed, directly from what He is Himself. Skipping that part, that the Almighty is closer to call. It’s all, like the Almighty comes out closer, not further.

What’s Missing — And What the Mekubalim Are Looking For

But, we’re still missing something. This is the thing that we’re missing. And this is what the mekubalim, unlike the chassidim, are looking for. Why? I mean, I don’t know, chassidim, chassidim, all chassidim, all Chabad chassidim, seem to think like this. Why? Because the mekubalim say that, like he said earlier, but on another level.

To say that the Almighty is oseh chesed, and therefore He’s very close to all His actions, is very good, but doesn’t give me a way to understand Him, to understand myself with Him, to love Him even. Because the way how people actually understand other people is indeed through their middat hachesed.

You can say very cute, I would have wanted to be with you essence to essence, but in practice, I can’t understand a person like that. I can say I have some devekut above that, but if I want to understand you, I speak of your middot.

That’s why people who don’t have stable middot, it’s impossible to be their friend. Right? He’s bipolar. So what are you? He can be one day like this, one day like that. A friend, it lacks a certain stability, in other words, certain middot, because this way a person can connect.

This means personality, right? Personality is basically middot, I think. The sum total of all middot, I guess, is personality. He’s such a sort of person.

The Necessity of Middot in Order to Relate to the Almighty

Personality and Friendship — The Foundation of Relationship

I can say I have some devekut above that, but if I want to understand you, I speak of your middot. That’s why people who don’t have stable middot, it’s impossible to be their friend, right? He’s bipolar. So what are you? He can be one day like this, one day like that. But a friend, it lacks a certain stability, in other words, certain middot, because this way a person can relate to another.

This means personality, right? Personality is basically middot, I think. The sum total of all middot, I guess, is personality. He’s such a sort of person, right? Correct? Is there something else besides this? More than this? I think what we call personalities, when it is, I’m such a sort of person. It’s true, people that change personalities, then they lose their old friends, they get new friends, because one can’t be a friend, again, except the great tzaddikim who are friends with people who they’re not friends, it’s something another sort of thing. A friend is a friend. The two personalities meet. Understood, they meet through their personalities by them.

The Problem: How Can One Be a Friend with the Almighty Without Middot?

But if the Almighty doesn’t have anything of this, so, turns out that to be friends with the Almighty, which is a mitzvah, “ve’ahavta et Hashem Elokecha”, I need to be a friend of the Almighty. True, there are many types of friends, okay? There are other sorts of friends, like a father, like a king, like a better, from the root level they are friends. So, how can He be a friend if the Almighty isn’t there?

In other words, the Rambam says this, because when the Almighty makes a storm and He does a chesed for a Jew and He gives him money, by Him… this comes from the same place, right? And so, you tell me, no problem, it’s even better, the Almighty does everything more directly, it’s very good, but I can’t speak like that, I can’t speak with the beard of the person, I can’t speak with a person’s beard, I can’t speak with such a God. I can’t relate.

The Rambam’s Approach to Hashgacha and the Question on It

He can even say that He doesn’t supervise. You catch? I think this is the word, it’s impossible to say about Him so. He wants to be able to say that the Almighty supervises. The Rambam is true that the Almighty supervises because He does everything directly. But hashgacha is a certain wonder. For this the Rambam had a question at all.

Hashgacha means, let’s say hashgacha pratit, I care about you, I want good for you, something like that means hashgacha. Hashgacha doesn’t mean no question either. Hashgacha means wanting good.

Student: No, you didn’t understand that it means care.

Maggid Shiur: See, hashgacha means care. I have some interest, I agree. By drama also, hashgacha means care. When drama has an investigation about hashgacha, it’s also not an investigation. The Almighty can care about everything at once, He has no limitations. The question is, whether there’s something that cares. Yes, it’s important. He needs to care about me. It’s apart from me, but I care not.

And the way this is, you could say a person doesn’t do it. But let’s say, a person runs some program, and now you need something you run, you have to have so many mechanics to what becomes. But you don’t need to really care for it.

The Rambam’s Parable of Hair and the World

It’s not… yes, the Rambam’s example is a parable in the chapter of adam olam katan. He says that this world is like the hair of the person which is the whole… a person needs hair, but which hair, how much hair, there’s no hair at all also nothing. It’s not… it doesn’t make a difference. It’s whole like… only where it’s a person, where… and a way that it goes further, it goes further white the paint, but already, it’s not Pesach, it’s not love, it’s not fine, it’s Pesach, it’s not yes.

Again, by the Almighty you can’t say a real distinction, because the Almighty doesn’t need to have… that if the Almighty doesn’t have any middot, very good.

The Distinction: From the Almighty’s Side and From Our Side

So from the Almighty’s side, from the perspective, or relative to His essence he calls it, from the Almighty’s side there’s no problem at all, because He indeed does everything. People think that kabbalah says that the Almighty Himself does nothing, only the middot do. That’s what the heretics are. It’s not true, it’s the opposite. The Almighty from His essence Himself does everything. The problem is He doesn’t do it in a certain way that you can understand.

He does everything, like the person, his essence of soul makes that his last house should grow. You can believe in that level, but not in the level that his middot do it not. Therefore I can’t speak, I can’t speak with the beard of the person, I can’t speak with a person’s beard, I can’t speak with his middot. Yes, the person comes with with with not the same as the control things, which is actually not the same. The Almighty can indeed control and can know and everything from directly.

But We Have a Problem

But we have a problem, which is what? We want to believe that the Almighty is mashgiach (provides Divine Providence). That’s like the important reason. That’s the connection of the Almighty to the world. That’s what the Rambam says, that the Almighty does everything directly, which is true. The problem is that we’re not happy with it for some reason. The Almighty made it that it should be this way, there can be no mistake on our part. But people specifically want the middle thing.

Kabbalah — The Torah of the In-Between, Between the Almighty and the World

In a certain sense, Kabbalah, all of Kabbalah is to speak about the middle between the Almighty and the world. Eh, how can there be a middle? That’s the… yes, the problem is to begin a middle. Just like when I speak with you, because I have a middle between me and you. If you want the Almighty to speak with me, I want to speak with Him, you can’t say that there’s a middle, speak of something that is a middle. The point of this is to be on His side, not on our side.

The Difference Between the Rambam and Kabbalah

So this is the big difference between the Rambam and Kabbalah. Because the Rambam wants to be able to speak of the Almighty separate from you. The Rambam doesn’t just speak of the Almighty like Lubavitch does completely from the Almighty who does everything directly, but what is everything directly. What is the Almighty’s personality? What is the Almighty’s body? I mean that the Rambam says that the Almighty’s body is the entire world, everything directly. Then you can’t do anything with that.

And we wanted to say that the Almighty doesn’t just have like a body, but also something in between, like the soul, even the middos (character traits). Now, how do the middos exist? Because not in the Almighty, because they don’t make the Almighty into middos. For a person, yes, a person maybe is in some sense middos, but one clarifies already, maybe a person also won’t be middos.

But what do we speak of regarding people, we say this always, and they don’t say it about the simple unity that a person is, they were speaking about the soul in the vessel. Because one can. Even one who believes yes that a person is a simple essence, he doesn’t usually speak with him that way, except maybe some Chassidic rebbe who tries to speak to people that way, because one can’t.

So, we need yes a way to speak of the… what’s it called? Of the world directly. To say that the Almighty, you understand that the hashgachah (Divine Providence) should be good also. That the Almighty should be such a sort of thing that is mashgiach, or you say that all middos should go into hashgachah, chesed (kindness) din (judgment) rachamim (mercy), all sorts of hashgachos. Not that there should be a hashgachah, there shouldn’t be a hashgachah. What the Ramak wants to add is that the Almighty is such a sort of thing that has a hashgachah.

The Necessity of Sefiros — How the Almighty Makes Himself Middos

It comes out, ah, are there two pieces of Almighty? No, you don’t understand. The Almighty remains what He is, because He doesn’t need any middos at all. In order that He should be able to speak with us, He needs to. He makes Himself.

Student: What’s the problem? I can do that in the center.

Teacher: No, that’s not a good excuse. I don’t like when you say that. Okay, that’s what we have… Okay, I will try to explain it how He makes Himself it. But I mean that this is more of a necessity. Does it make sense? I mean that it makes sense.

It’s also true. That’s why I will later say that a person must pray to the Almighty through His sefiros, not directly. I don’t go directly. And they are not, they are necessary, because the Torah also says that… when you work for us to relate to something, you can… you can’t come… The Almighty is not direct, when you serve Him He has created. The Almighty made me, the Almighty made the sin, the Almighty made anything. When you go directly to Him, then you… that doesn’t work. Right, you’re paralyzed. You can’t do anything.

The Almighty Created a World That Should Look Like a World

What… for you to do anything, to live in this reality, the Almighty has for some reason made a world that will look like a world, and He wants us to imagine ourselves as if we do something, and for that reason one must imagine that yes, the Almighty gets upset from the sin, He becomes happy from the mitzvos. But it doesn’t mean related to the Ein Sof. What do you do? The Ein Sof is just everything and we can’t… we have no idea about any of it, why and what and… just…

Three Interpretations of “The Torah Spoke in the Language of People”

So let’s say like this. So in other words, one can only speak to the Ein Sof, without the Ein Sof nothing begins, that means we only speak to the Ein Sof, but we speak to Him as He is… as He would have or perhaps He actually has middos. In other words, what does it mean to say? When you stand with “the Torah spoke in the language of people,” right, there are like three interpretations, that’s what I want to bring out.

Interpretation 1 — The Naive, Childish Interpretation

There are three interpretations, there’s the naive, the childish interpretation, which says… says already… the Almighty is a little man who sits behind the world, somewhere out there is some little man, a giant person, whatever, he’s happy, he gets angry, sometimes he gets so angry that he also sends lightning. And that’s nonsense. Yes?

Interpretation 2 — The Rambam’s Interpretation

The Rambam comes and says, no, the Almighty is not a person, He doesn’t get angry, He doesn’t have the whole thing. But what? There is lightning in the world. Who makes lightning? The Almighty. If it were a person, would you call it jealousy? Therefore it’s called anger. That’s the second interpretation.

The Rambam also admits that one says that the Almighty has different middos, thirteen of them at least. He doesn’t say that one should stop saying it, he just says that one shouldn’t say that it’s the Almighty. Not that the Almighty has middos, the Almighty does middos. He is called so, the language is the middos. Mah hu nikra (What is He called)? The Rambam says, mah hu nikra rachum, af atah heyeh rachum (Just as He is called merciful, so too you be merciful). So the question is, who calls the Almighty so? We call Him so. According to all opinions one calls Him so. On the contrary, afterwards we come into a situation where it doesn’t fit at all to call Him so, because we know that it’s not true.

Interpretation 3 — The Kabbalistic Interpretation

Kabbalah comes and one does call Him yes. Okay, that’s one interpretation of Kabbalah.

Another interpretation is, this was the third interpretation. They don’t say that there’s the Almighty outside of the world who sits and He gets angry. Not that anger is just a word that we use for small people who should be able to understand the lightning that the Almighty sends, which is His anger. Rather they legitimize, or they want to say that the Almighty has yes made, brought into being, whatever, it’s a very fancy word that they made, at least relative to what He is, an anger.

So the anger is a real anger, right? It doesn’t exist in a… It doesn’t exist outside of the world, outside of Atzilus it doesn’t exist. But it’s not… like it’s not a…

Student: It could exist before Atzilus.

Teacher: It’s not a concept, it’s kind of… No, it’s God’s… it’s God’s… like you say, God’s personality, which is not God. Even less than my personality is me, God’s personality is Him. But it’s an entity. It’s not… It’s not…

The Necessity of Sefiros — Why One Must Believe in Sefiros

Sefiros Are a Middah-Based Concept, Not an Independent Reality

So the concept of sefiros is a middah-based concept, right? It must exist in a… It must exist outside of the world, outside of the ba’alus, it must exist. It can exist before the ba’alus. It’s such a concept. So, it’s God’s… it’s God’s… it’s God’s… it’s God’s… it’s just a thing. Yes, it’s beyond the thing.

If you look in that the Ramban says, he says in other ways, who else to say from the side of the Almighty exists? We don’t know, right? We don’t care. It’s worthwhile for us to… It’s that with which the Almighty when He looks at Himself. No, and because the Almighty wants that they should be real with Him, that’s my way of saying it. Because the Almighty wants that He should be real with Him, that’s my way of saying it. Because the Almighty wants that He should really speak, He made it real also. He doesn’t want that He should take dinner. Not at all. Exist, because anything that exists, everything in the world is just an abstraction. The abstractions are abstract, the bottles exist and not the abstractions are abstract. Okay, so in the same way, there exist abstractions that… yes, is me yes.

The Innovation of Kabbalah: One Places the “Yes” in Devekus

But the main thing is, one places the yes in devekus (cleaving), that is genius. That’s the big innovation. There is, one can call that God, although it’s not the God. It’s God when He does something.

So the thing is like this, the Rambam also has God when He does something, but the when depends on the reception of sefiros. Do you understand it like that? God, simple unity when He does something, that’s a general principle. But the Mekubalim (Kabbalists) give names for the when He does something, or he should say that this is a real level. The Almighty does things through the level that He does, and why does He do it this way? Actually so He should be able to understand it, that’s the tzimtzum (contraction), the name marks, he means, okay, that’s what’s missing.

The Necessity Through Investigation — The Philosophical Compulsion

Just as he says the necessity according to investigation he means, okay, that’s all he says the way. The necessity according to investigation is that the… the God who is yes mashgiach bifratiyus (provides individual Providence) according to the other approach, but it’s not any Divine individual Providence. It turns out that it’s natural, it’s the world that works, and that’s all from the Almighty. He wants that the Almighty should be mashgiach bifratiyus, there should be such a middah that’s called individual Providence, there should be such a middah that’s called chesed. Well, certainly, the middos one can call however one wants, here one can have all discussions about the appellations and so forth. But that’s the basic necessity of Kabbalah.

The Rambam’s Problem: A God That One Cannot Grasp

So we admit that it’s necessary for the matter of service, because the Rambam must basically end up being an atheist or I don’t know what in the actual world, because his God cannot be grasped. Certainly, the Rambam can yes, so one must know this. The Rambam would have said that what you need is… no, the Rambam also makes this sort of thing when he speaks of comprehension of the world. Because the Rambam says, when you think about God, don’t think about this, think only about that the Almighty is not any one thing, and that will be even better.

Perhaps in these places they disagree, it’s not even a difference. But they say that the… yes, there’s no reason, it’s true. The Ramak says himself that it’s proper before learning Kabbalah to know what else the Almighty is not, even not sefiros. But… the Chassidim and the Rambam’s Chassidim, the Rambam’s followers, the things that the chesed din is a sefirah, is din in chesed. Nonsense, learn Kabbalah and know that the Almighty has yes sefiros, and afterwards not. That’s one difference, one practical difference.

The Personal God — The Central Question of Judaism

But also, one will therefore yes, in order that the Almighty should be mashgiach, which is certainly simple, because when one says Shema in the evening, one can remember that the Almighty is one, and you shouldn’t forget, you pray for a world not of things, and it’s already long forgotten that the Almighty is one. No, Baruch Atah Hashem, chonen hada’as (Who graciously grants knowledge), there is such a sort of Havayah (the Tetragrammaton) that He is chonen hada’as. It’s the same Havayah that is everything, but a specific middos, which he calls approximately his aspect according to his middos. When you think about God, that He is with us.

But anyway, that’s the necessity through investigation. Makes sense? I’m done. And for this to be real, that’s rather another question. That’s more more thinking to think. But I think it to be real for it to work. Because if there is a parable that is there in the image about a parable. And we are indeed Knesses Yisrael (the Assembly of Israel), we are indeed heavens high. Avraham Avinu (Abraham our forefather) made with the meal. In truth, believe in something, then it is something, because nothing is beyond ideas. So when we have given it a name, then it’s recognized. Okay, but we gave it because there’s something that one gives. Because what is the same days? For there was much… the first sefiros are built according to what we all have in ourselves, how we see with the structure of the person, right? The body, the external appearance, whatever’s, it’s like the merit of a man. One makes us human. The things that we all can share, right? Yes, it could be. I think that’s enough. That’s enough. So we can do more, but it’s enough. It’s enough for… It’s enough. I think there’s more things, but it’s enough.

Um, yes, that’s the point. Anyway, that’s the thing. Therefore one is compelled to believe, compelled to have sefiros. So that’s one thing. Okay, one can go further, right? That’s through investigation, from the Torah through investigation, proof from necessities of silver. I mean that when he says silver he means that one can question it, just as I explained earlier, one can question everything, but it’s a bit of proof from the side of the Torah through investigation.

The Most Important Question: To What Extent Is the Almighty a Personal God?

I do see that this is the most important question that every Jew does to figure out, to which extent he is a personal God, and what does it mean to have to be a personal God if you want to be a human being? If you don’t have a personal God, you’re not a person either. That’s the problem.

The Rambam says that actually it doesn’t need to be a person, it doesn’t need to be simple. But one who holds that there is yes a matter to be a person, but it is a small matter, I don’t know if it’s a big matter, then God must also be a bit of a person, and one must figure out how it should be a personal God. A very important question. The entire redemption depends on this. Everything depends on this. Entirely correct.

Anyway, yes, it’s agreed. It’s simple. One means, okay. One can figure out, like how it was, about the world, about the universe, if this is a God about me, is this a God about the nations.

The Baal Shem Tov and Shabbetai Tzvi — The Danger of Separating the Personal God from the One God

The Baal Shem Tov wanted to bring Mashiach (the Messiah) through making a “kirvah el nafshi ge’ulah” (draw near to my soul, redemption), that the Almighty should be my God. And also Shabbetai Tzvi before him said that everything has to do with the day, but they didn’t… like we’re not very good philosophers, I don’t know. In short, they got stuck in this, like, making the personal God different than the one God. Because there were two concepts and the difference.

The Zohar and the Rishonim and the Ramak, they’re very into it, making it the same one. Because it can’t be a different God. That would be very weird. There’s only Jews, and there’s also people. A Jew is a sort of person. A Jew is a good sort of person. So that’s the thing, Judaism is a good sort of God. The personal God, Elokei Avraham (God of Abraham), is a good interpretation of the… perhaps the best interpretation, I don’t know. It’s a good interpretation of the God. The Almighty Himself made the interpretation, because we don’t make anything yet, and everything the Almighty makes. But if one forgets to say that it’s Him, that it’s an interpretation… because everything that we say about God applies also about us.

Olam Adam Katan — The Person and the Almighty

A person must know… yes, I think that whenever we say the drama itself says it… at the end of that chapter, when he speaks of olam adam katan (the world is a small person), he says that there are differences between the God and the person. But the difference, afterwards at the end of the chapter, he says, all the differences that I said are true only about the lower soul of the person. The true intellect of the person, that which lives forever, is truly the same thing as the Almighty. The world doesn’t understand this, just as I don’t say this. But the Chassidim, they all know what this, what the acquired intellect, or what the Chassidim call the soul to the kiss, whatever. The sense of what the soul is basically identical to God, or whatever, something because of that. No one understands what that means, but anyway.

The Danger of Two Domains — Sabbateanism and the Separation of Personality and Soul

And whatever that means, not to the extent that you are something that is not your personality, but it’s true. But the people that separate these two things too much are crazy. Therefore, the matter of Kabbalah is that a person should be a person, a good personality, of course, not a bad one, a Jew is not a gentile, but not that because of this he should not be a person. Not be not a person. Not a person becomes interesting.

Aristotle’s Question

Aristotle says that it can’t be that the best thing is to be a good person or to know about human things, because the best thing in the world is not a person. The Almighty is better than people. And knowledge is about knowing good things. So, how could it be that knowing or dealing with, making people good, tikkun hama’aseh (rectification of deeds), should be the best thing? It’s only fixing something that is not the best thing. The best thing is to know God, and that is not a person. Ah, a person has some possibility to know this. That means that a person has a nefesh Elokit (divine soul), an intellect.

The Danger of Shtei Reshuyot — Sabbateanism and the Division of Personality and Soul

In any case, the two things have come together. The shtei reshuyot (two domains) in people, they are the ones who say that the human being, or the “I”, whatever, the self, the no-self, whatever you want to call it, the essence of the soul is not your personality. That’s why they do all kinds of crazy aveirot (transgressions). That’s the real reason.

People are so confused. People think that the Sabbateans do aveirot because it’s a mitzvah to be memalei (fulfill) the nitzotzot (sparks) and stuff. They do aveirot because they separate their personality from their self. And therefore, like, your personality can do whatever it wants, whatever. It becomes like very weird, because he tries to separate. And one of the ways of separating is doing the aveirot. And that’s why they do all these strange deeds, as it says.

The Ultimate Perfection — Ratzo VaShov

And the ultimate perfection is that one should have a good personality, and also he should be a good person, and also he should be a… how do you call it… a neshamah (soul). Makes sense? This is a different conversation that one needs to have. But most people are like stuck in one of the sides. It’s very hard to do both. It’s like ratzo vashov (running and returning), you need to be a little bit a person, and a little bit not a person.

Conclusion: From This One Must Believe in Sefirot

Anyway, from this one must believe in sefirot. From this one must believe in sefirot. Because “le’ikar amitato nistam elu va’elu” (regarding His true essence, both these are concealed). That means, one must not have to believe in sefirot.

The First Three Sefirot in Job and the Seven Sefirot in Chronicles

The Necessity to Believe in Sefirot

Instructor:

How do you call it? A neshamah. Makes sense? This is a different conversation. But most people are like stuck in one of the sides. It’s very hard to do both. It’s like ratzo vashov, you need to be a little bit not a person, and a little bit a person. Anyway, from this one must believe in sefirot.

> “Certainly he should not deny them and say there are none of these, only forms and idols.”

It says that you must indeed believe in sefirot and say, sefirot are the Almighty when He is a person, or I a person, a nefesh Elokit is something that is a person when he is a person. Therefore it can be both. When he says Shema Yisrael, or whatever, he thinks of the Almighty who was, or yes, Shema Yisrael. The Jew, which Jew, who understands “Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad” (the Lord our God, the Lord is One), after he says Shemoneh Esreh (the Eighteen Benedictions), he makes sure that the person should have selichah (forgiveness) and kapparah (atonement) and parnassah (livelihood) and “kabetz nidchei amcha Yisrael” (gather the dispersed of Your people Israel), whatever, all these things. Makes sense? Yes, very good.

Two Types of Inquiry

Instructor:

⟦#2⟧ Now we learn further:

> “However, regarding the way of inquiry in other matters, we have no involvement in it.”

Simply regarding the way of inquiry, not simply to make sense of the faith, right? There are two types of inquiries. There is inquiry that makes sense of what one already believes. That’s one important kind of inquiry. This is what he calls a “clarification of the Torah’s approach through inquiry.” And there is another way of inquiry, which is real philosophy, with proofs, just starting from pure thought.

But in this way he explains what he says in Sefer HaIkkarim. The Sefer HaIkkarim is a very interesting Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed). We can learn it another time. I learned it long ago. I don’t remember everything. I remember I wrote down certain things.

Anyway, later, in Sha’ar 5 there is ta’am atzilut (the reason for emanation), right? He will do that later.

> “But it is not our way in this composition through the way of inquiry.”

He says that this book is not a philosophy book. So if you want only through the way of inquiry without the secrets of the Torah, go learn Proclus. And it’s already on YouTube, the whole thing. And there it’s more or less through the way… he also does the same game with Aristotle and Plato, but he tried to make one book that is only straight philosophy. One can learn there and see if it’s correct. They also, they are not any better. As the Rambam says, “our perfect Torah should not be like their idle talk.” If Aristotle can bring proofs from Homer, I can bring proofs from Chumash (the Five Books of Moses), says the Rambam.

But here yes there was an idea to write. The Ramak didn’t have the idea at all, he didn’t care to do inquiry directly, but others did care yes. And it will help many people to say, “I don’t believe that it says in a book,” but very few people are really ready to think for three minutes. Even the Ramak didn’t think, but he thought more in this way. So, even this I don’t discourage people, right? He says that he makes sense of what you already believe. Then he talks about this, what you should believe. Because we have already proven today, we have already disproven today. Who has disproven? Have you read? No, it says in the holy books. Right.

Anyway, well, I think that this is the big matter of inquiry without prior thought, but the Ramak didn’t think it’s a matter. I don’t know why. “In our way.” Maybe it just means that it’s too complicated for this book. I don’t know.

Okay, let’s finally learn the next piece of the chapter. So this is the proof from inquiry. Now, one can speak about how it says in the verse. Going right back to the Torah. It does say in the verse. How does it say in the verse? Like this. Very interesting, what this is really only a proof for drush (homiletical interpretation). I don’t know what he’s thinking exactly. Perhaps it is indeed an important proof.

The First Three Sefirot in Job

Instructor:

⟦#3⟧ The first three sefirot are stated in Job. Job said thus, the Book of Job chapter 28 says here this thing:

> “VeHaChochmah me’ayin timatzei ve’ei zeh mekom binah” (And wisdom, from where shall it be found, and where is the place of understanding).

You see here that there are three sefirot. Why? What does the first three sefirot mean? Ayin (nothingness), Chochmah (wisdom), and Binah (understanding). Place? Where? He’s going to say a… Let’s see. Well, I already… Well, what… So what is the… How does he interpret this verse?

The Chochmah is from ayin. He says, Chochmah comes from the first sefirah which is called Ayin. The Ramak holds that Keter (crown) is the first sefirah, we will see later. So, Chochmah comes from Ayin. Ayin, what is the secret of Ayin? Ayin… he interprets yes, “ve’ei shehu” – alef ayin, vav is yud, Chochmah, “hu mekom binah” (it is the place of Binah), “ve’ei zeh mekom binah.”

What does it say next? Does it say “ei zeh”? Yes, it does. “VeHaChochmah ayin timtzo ve’eizeh” (And wisdom from nothingness you will find and where), yes, it says next, why don’t they bring it? It’s not written as if. It says “ve’ei zeh,” so it says in the Sifrei, the person printed that he didn’t know how the verse should be. It says, the ayin, this is the place of Binah.

What does “sha’al yadam litalat habinah” (ask their hand to take the understanding) mean? Ah, you will ask from where does the ayin come? This indeed says there in the verse. If it’s called ayin, how can one say how does it come? “Lo ne’etzal nikra ayin” (It is not called ayin for nothing). It means answer, we can’t see the Keter, we can’t see, I have comes from Keter. For how Keter is self comes? This we don’t know, because Keter is ayin. Okay.

So this, here are stated the first three sefirot.

The Seven Sefirot in Chronicles

Instructor:

And there come another seven sefirot. Because there King David, he would have said that he would have said that he would have said. It means thus: “Lecha Hashem” (Yours, O Lord) – the first three. Why? Because Binah is called “lechah,” because it’s gematria fifty, it has fifty gates of Binah. And “lechah” and “kol” (all) are the same letters. Therefore the secret, we will already see “ki chayav bashamayim ha’aretz” (for obligated in heaven and earth), which comes from the Binah, he is also called “kol.” That means, the seal spreads, right? It causes the opposite way. From “lechah” becomes “kol,” it causes backwards. Yes.

Fifty Gates of Binah

And why does it say? Why does it say here the fifty gates? You know that it says “lecha” and you say “ki chol.” Because Binah extends until Hod. Do you understand sefirot? The next five sefirot, Chesed Gevurah Tiferet Netzach Hod, are themselves the articulation of the fifty gates of Binah. So each one, when it’s more articulated, yes, it’s more detailed, becomes ten, comes out fifty. Comes out that the three on two.

Student:

They speak of the fifty gates of Binah? This is the revelation, the…

Instructor:

No, this is the externalized fifty gates of Binah. Fifty gates of Binah is when there is in the Binah, when there are the sources of the things. And then, you can call ChagaT sheBinah (Chesed Gevurah Tiferet within Binah).

Student:

Like you say that there are ten sefirot in the Chesed, and ten sefirot in the Gevurah? This is not the fifty gates of Binah?

Instructor:

Yes, well, I don’t know. I don’t know what he wants to put together. He can take it that way. The Rama explains thus the fifty gates of Binah according to the Zohar in this, that this is to say five sefirot that come out from Binah times ten. Times ten each, or like, yes, five sefirot and five sefirot to each, however he wants to say.

Seven times seven is not the normal way that one counts sefirot. There are reasons for this which will be found out.

Lamed and Kaf — The Forms of the Sefirot

And they are called lamed and kaf specifically, understand? Because Gedulah Gevurah Gevurah are like a segol or a segolta. Segolta means, I think the reason it’s called segol, right? Perhaps this is a segol? Yes, it’s the same thing. Okay, perhaps sometimes the Tiferet is on top of the Chesed Gevurah, we will see, from this it’s a segolta. This is lamed. And Netzach Hod is a tzeirei or a shurek when they stand straight. I don’t know, I guess it will be explained at other times. He doesn’t draw here what this means kaf. Comes out that it’s specifically lamed-kaf, because there is some difference. Again, this he also doesn’t explain.

⟦#4⟧ Ah, I think he has a seal that spreads. In other words, he explains that it looks like at some point it’s the opposite, as if the Netzach Hod are a shurek and then they become a tzeirei, or vice versa. And the same thing here, they are a segolta and they become a segol, something like that. I am not sure. He only gives an explanation for each detail, which is not yet important. And whoever wants to know about lines, will look in Sha’ar HaShurot chapter 7. I guess that he explains it there. I learn Etz Chaim, so many times, I can never get to Sha’ar 17, perhaps. I have learned both Gemara. He says that there one explains this. Yes, the simple Torah is however this, he says. Okay, we’ll see over there. Yes. Here we come to this.

The Names of the Sefirot

Instructor:

And this is “Lecha Hashem,” then “HaGedulah veHaynu Chesed” (the greatness which is Chesed). Usually the early mekubalim (kabbalists) called it Gedulah. I don’t know who started calling it Chesed, perhaps the Zohar. I’m not sure. I mean even in Etz Chaim there is such, that this is what it was called. And Torah conversely, here it was switched. The early mekubalim said Gedulah Pachad (fear), like the Ramban. And we say Chesed Gevurah. Go understand.

And “Tiferet veNetzach veHod ki kol bashamayim uva’aretz” (Tiferet and Netzach and Hod for all in heaven and earth). Gedulah? Pachad Yitzchak (Fear of Isaac), right? How does Gedulah come from… because Agudah? I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know what’s the secret of all these things. This is like the only verse where they found all the sefirot at once, understand? I mean all seven. Perhaps “Lecha Hashem” is Binah. There isn’t any other single verse. I mean, every verse one needs to calculate something… Here comes the remez (hint) of the sefirot, what Kabbalah usually calls.

And “Tiferet veNetzach veHod,” these are the names that you already know. Certainly, the Ramak is assuming that you already know Kabbalah, right? There’s no such thing as an introduction to Kabbalah. Either you don’t know, or you do know. It’s a good way to learn, this is jump in. Jump in, and you will see.

Then, “ki kol bashamayim uva’aretz.”

The Targum on “Lecha Hashem HaGedulah” and the Order of Malchut

The Targum on Chronicles – Unclear Sources

There are names that you already know. And I assume that you already know Kabbalah, right? There’s no such thing as an introduction to Kabbalah. Either one already knows, or one doesn’t yet know. It’s a good way to learn, you should need to…

Then, “vechol bashamayim uva’aretz,” says Targum Onkelos, “da’it bishmaya ve’ar’a” (that which is in heaven and earth). Just to be clear, understand, there is no Onkelos in Chronicles. It’s also not exactly Targum Yonatan. I mean that this is a Targum that is like made up. I need to check. Yes, but in the Gemara it says that Yonatan made Nevi’im (Prophets) and not Ketuvim (Writings). Now, is there some Targum of Ketuvim? And here it says, let’s see what it says at all. Page 157. Where is the verse? Chronicles I chapter 29. I’m going to check. If I remember, this is some Targum that the Zohar… The Zohar says that nobody knows where it’s coming from, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m more wrong, right?

The Targum’s Content – The Midrash of HaGedulah VeHaGevurah

So, “Lecha Hashem HaGedulah.” Says the holy Targum, “Vayevarech David et Hashem vayomar… Lecha Hashem rabuta devrit alma bigevurta rabta” (Yours, O Lord, is the greatness that created the world with great might). The Gevurah grasped… I can’t say the words here… He grasped our forefathers in Egypt, “vegevirin al Avraham, vehavticho et yavo” (and mighty over Abraham, and promised him that he would come). In short, he recounts the whole story. He goes like the Midrash that Gevurah is… HaGedulah is the Exodus from Egypt. You know the Midrash? The Maharal speaks a lot about this. There is a Midrash. And “veHaGevurah al Yam Suf veSinai” (and the might at the Sea of Reeds and Sinai), and “veHava’at nitzchona” (and bringing victory) is Netzach with Amalek etc., “vezivu yikrach” (and the radiance of Your glory) which is Hod, “ikvata shimsha beGiv’on vesihara bemala shari lon” (the footsteps of the sun in Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ayalon). “Ram kol hon ovdei yadach bishmaya ve’ar’a ve’at shalit alehon, vesavil kol madei bishmaya vechol madei be’ar’a lach” (High above all the wealth of Your handiwork in heaven and earth and You rule over them, and bear all measures in heaven and all measures on earth to You). “Hashem malchutei birki’a, venatnan al kol umaya bechayei devishmaya, ve’al kol umaya bishna reisha be’ar’a” (The Lord, His kingdom in the firmament, and given over all nations in the life of heaven, and over all nations in the year’s head on earth). This finishes the verse.

In short, what he says is not stated in the Targum that is printed in Chronicles, as it says yes, if I remember, it says in the Zohar in the name of the Targum. Maybe there’s probably there’s some Targum word where it says. But this means the “echad” (one), something he understood, perhaps it’s a drush on what is stated here that the Almighty “soveil kol almin bishmaya ve’ar’a” (bears all worlds in heaven and earth)? I don’t know. “Ki kol,” what is the translation? “Ki kol bashamayim uva’aretz,” because to You is everything. “Ki lecha kol bashamayim uva’aretz,” right? What is the translation? “Lecha,” as if, right?

The Zohar’s Interpretation – “Echad” Means “SheMeyached”

So, somehow, yes, “ki atah moshel bechol asher bashamayim uva’aretz” (for You rule over all that is in heaven and earth), the Radak, the Radak. For some reason, the Zohar keeps on quoting the Targum. It doesn’t say here from below anything about this, I don’t know why, I need to tell the person who makes him learn to write. In short, that the Zohar brought a Targum, and the Zohar says an interpretation according to Kabbalah. “Explanation, the one who unifies Tiferet which is called heaven and earth which is called Malchut in unity.” So this is a made up Targum, which is an interpretation according to Kabbalah? And I simply say that it’s made up, maybe it’s from somewhere. No, the “echad” means that… yes, I think so. He is the only one in heaven.

The translation, no, the “echad” means shemeyached (that He unifies), that he translates according to the Zohar. I don’t know where the Targum is. There must be something. After all, I’m sure people have already looked into this. But if it’s the Zohar, it can indeed be a variant or whatever. But if it’s a Targum, one needs to know the source. No, it can be that the Targum has something similar and the Zohar… He says here himself the interpretation, “hameyached” (the one who unifies). Maybe the Targum says something else and the Zohar rephrased it, it can be a paraphrase, I don’t know. I don’t know.

Yesod Unifies Tiferet and Malchut

Anyway, again, but even if I don’t know what the Targum is, it makes sense on the “echad.” Yesod, this connects heaven which is Tiferet and earth which is Malchut, and this is the Yesod.

Now, what about Malchut? He says, Malchut doesn’t appear, “lo nitba’er bichtav heitev” (it’s not clearly explained in the verse), that’s his reasoning. But it does appear in the next piece, “lecha Hashem hamamlacha”, but that’s the next verse. Yes? No, but it does appear later. Rather he said, not sure why he said “lo nitba’er bichtav heitev”, it does appear. Ah, the difference is that it comes after “lecha Hashem”? Because of that? Yes, that’s what he means to say. Why doesn’t it appear immediately?

The Ramak’s Answer – The Descent of Malchut

The answer is, “And behold, Malchut’s place is above Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and through the diminishment it descended below”. There is an event of the descent of Malchut, he says, that previously Malchut was as high as Tiferet, and later it descended below. “And therefore he didn’t want to mention it together with them, to make known that its place is in heaven, but that it should send from heaven to earth”.

So he says, he doesn’t say Malchut, someone asks him what are you saying, it does appear, but afterwards. So he says, “lecha Hashem hamamlacha is separate and on its own, and with all this he returned and united it with the root”. He says “lecha Hashem”, “lecha Hashem”, “lecha Hashem”, this he says for Binah, Chochmah, Tiferet, and afterwards he says Malchut. It comes out, ah, “that is its existence in its husband”, we’ve still arrived at that case.

Before the Diminishment – Malchut Equal with Tiferet

The point is, that before the diminishment, Malchut was as great as Tiferet, and both were directly from Binah, or as close to Binah as Tiferet. Afterwards it receives from Yesod. All the teachings of Rashbi have to do with the teachings.

Anyway, so, about this the Ramak says, it doesn’t say “lecha Hashem hagedulah vehagevurah vehamalchut”, because it would have had to say right after Tiferet, because Malchut isn’t at Tiferet. So, it doesn’t appear in the correct place, as if, “as it was before the diminishment”. But it appears afterwards with an extra piece “lecha Hashem hamamlacha” to show that it goes back up all the way. Yes, it’s not a problem. I think so.

The Arizal’s Approach – Partzufim

Or, one can understand it in the Arizal’s ways, that Malchut will also be… that’s how the Arizal thought. And these things must mean something presumably, so it’s not not true, but the Arizal would have said, the Arizal’s picture is that Tiferet and Malchut are two partzufim. So, Malchut can be as high as Tiferet, or as high as Tiferet up to Binah, which would be Tiferet of Binah, it doesn’t matter, and then they were equal. And now Malchut is either completely under Tiferet, or under the Yesod of Tiferet, or completely the other side, achor b’achor (back to back), whatever, so…

The Ramak says, Malchut doesn’t appear in the correct order because it’s not the place, it also doesn’t just appear like that, it says lecha Hashem hamamlacha, as it should be, which is that Malchut is lecha Hashem together with Tiferet under Binah. That means shnei melachim mishtamshim b’keter echad (two kings using one crown), that’s the Tanchuma kabbalah, that the crown on both Tiferet and Malchut is Binah, but not the true Keter, the crown of Binah that became Tiferet of Binah that became a crown for the zon, that’s the mother, that’s the Arizal’s concept. And it appears here. That’s the holy Primarkostatshvit.

Further Sources for Ten Sefirot

Anyway, this is all to know how the ten sefirot appear in the verse. Almost, there’s another place where it appears in a verse, no? Is there another verse with all ten sefirot? There are the ten names that he will say soon, wherever, and birchei yud. He says differently here, look in the back there’s an Or Ne’erav that makes a summary of all these things, and in Sha’ar Aleph the summary with the… it begins here. The Almighty, look on page 420. And he lists the sefirot, he says that… it says “rabah tisha’a et Hashem Elokei”, there are three keterim (crowns), and under the three keterim there is mishneh, sechen mishneh and a bet, and afterwards there is mishmeret kinah and others. Rabah tisha’a et hamitashurim, rabah tisha’a et hamitashurim, what does that mean? Niflaotecha machshevotecha eleinu. For us? I have immediately from the ten azkarot, I don’t bring the verse. Lecha Hashem. I think it’s a different verse by her, it’s something different from Torah.

Maybe we will see that in Sha’ar Gimel in Sha’ar Sha’ar Bet, we’ll talk about more why we need the ten sefirot. He writes Ta’am HaAtzilut, there he goes… Yes, Ta’am HaAtzilut is very connected with the question of yearly, why do we need the ten sefirot for? And he brings there more proofs, he writes “asarah hilulim”, more hints to the proofs. So, there’s more certainly organized the book in the way that now when what want. Yes. There are the ma’amarot. There are more such basic sources for ten sefirot.

Student: What?

And this appears in Sha’ar Bet. And what does mean going the first shin nun? Another chapter. Two.

Alright. I know everything already. I know almost everything.