Understand with Wisdom, Be Wise with Understanding | Pardes Rimonim Gate 1 Chapter 6 (Auto Translated)

Pardes Rimonim, Chapter 6 – “Understand with Wisdom and Be Wise with Understanding”

A Place for Learning

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, we’re holding in the middle of Chapter 6. We’ve already learned about “ten and not nine,” we’ve finished it more or less. Now we’re going to learn about the rest of the Mishnah, which says “understand with wisdom and be wise with understanding.” What do you say?

Student:

“And be wise.” I actually didn’t see a place where it says “and be wise.”

Maggid Shiur:

Who?

Student:

“And be wise.”

Maggid Shiur:

One minute. Who thinks there is such a word? “Be wise with understanding.” Okay. How did he come to say that word? They themselves don’t know either. This is in the Mishnah, right? “Ten and not nine, understand with wisdom and be wise with understanding, and understand a matter clearly and return your Creator to His place.” He says this a few times, right? This is the… ah, he says this, and he’s not going to elaborate on the simple meaning. He elaborates on something. He brings the simple meaning. Let’s see.

The Commentators’ Interpretations of “Understand with Wisdom and Be Wise with Understanding”

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, so the commentators, he says, have said – he doesn’t say who the commentators are, the person should cite them, I don’t know why – that the matter is that one must unify Chochmah with Binah, and Binah with Chochmah. Which doesn’t mean anything. I agree, no problem.

Another interpretation, that one must know that the root of Chochmah is in Binah, and the root… I don’t understand what you’re saying. The second interpretation is that the root of Chochmah is in Binah, and the root of Binah is in Chochmah. That doesn’t work. You can’t say it goes both ways. Where is the root? Tell me. Okay.

The third interpretation… the third interpretation I can understand. Also it’s connected, they’re all connected, but he tried to say a better explanation, and perhaps his explanation is better. “When you draw abundance to Chochmah, it should be with the intention that it will pass to Binah, understand with wisdom.” Or… I don’t know. Yes, when you think of Chochmah, you bring abundance to Chochmah, you must remember that it should reach Binah. “And when you draw it to Binah, give it the power of Chochmah.” Okay, certainly, if the abundance of Chochmah comes to Binah, it is…

This isn’t the first explanation, no? I don’t know, “to unify,” perhaps “to unify” and “to draw abundance” isn’t the same thing. I don’t know if it’s the same thing. It’s just thought, this is perhaps a remainder. It’s just similar, yes. But the root I don’t understand. What is the meaning of “the root of Chochmah in Binah and the root of Binah in Chochmah”? What is that supposed to mean? That both are interconnected?

Note: The Mishnah in Avot About Interdependence

Maggid Shiur:

Interconnected I understand. There’s a Mishnah, “if there is no knowledge there is no understanding, if there is no understanding there is no knowledge.” Do you remember the Mishnah? The Rambam has an explanation in that Mishnah, some philosophical explanation. What does the Mishnah say? What does it mean? It’s not Chochmah and Binah. You don’t mean Chochmah and Binah, it means something else. What does the Mishnah say? I know what the Mishnah says. Yes, one cannot… What can’t one? Why isn’t it a secret? You don’t say it out loud? Ah, I can’t say. I can’t say.

What does the Mishnah say? The Mishnah doesn’t say about Chochmah and Binah though. There’s a Mishnah? What does it say there Chochmah Binah? No, “if there is no fear there is no wisdom.” The Mishnah says like this, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah… Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah… Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah… not Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says, “If there is no Torah there is no proper conduct, if there is no proper conduct there is no Torah. If there is no wisdom there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no wisdom. If there is no understanding there is no knowledge, if there is no knowledge there is no understanding. If there is no Torah there is no flour, if there is no flour there is no Torah.” It doesn’t fit in there then. It only says Binah, why does it need to be Daat?

The Ibn Ezra in Mishlei

Maggid Shiur:

The Rambam has some explanation that I don’t understand properly, one needs to learn what he feels with philosophy. In Ibn Ezra in Mishlei it says, “I am understanding, I have strength,” that Binah is the offspring of Chochmah, “if there is no Chochmah there is no Binah.” He held that Binah is the offspring of Chochmah. Interesting.

The Ramak’s Questions on the Commentators

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, we’re going to learn what he says. “And according to these words and similar ones the commentators explained.” Such types of interpretations the commentators say. Nu. “And it is not a satisfactory explanation.” It’s not satisfactory, the interpretation. Why? “For why would he mention it in matters above regarding Binah and Chochmah and not in the other Sefirot?” What first of all, one must also unify Daat and Tiferet, whatever, what about Chochmah and Binah? That’s one question. “And certainly just as we are obligated to unify the first three, so we are obligated to unify the seven below.” One must also unify Chesed with Gevurah, and Gevurah with Chesed, and Gevurah with Binah, in short, all things. If we’re talking about unification and abundance, all things that… doesn’t fit in here. “And furthermore, why does he enter into the matter of unifying this Keter?” This Keter? He says, what about the interpretations? I don’t know what he’s saying. Keter is missing? As if that’s his question. What does it mean there’s only Chochmah and Binah?

Sefer Yetzirah’s Names for the Sefirot

Maggid Shiur:

Of course, this is… here the Ramak is going to say a good explanation. Where is my Sefer Yetzirah that I used to see what’s going on there? There’s no Sefer Yetzirah here? We’ll put it together. Sefer Yetzirah. How does one say, does Sefer Yetzirah say the same thing? This is the second Mishnah? Ten and not nine, understand with wisdom and be wise with understanding. Does Sefer Yetzirah say something again about Chochmah and Binah? Where is my text of Sefer Yetzirah?

He’s right that Chochmah and Binah don’t fit. And let’s say, Chochmah and Binah are the first of two Sefirot. Although Sefer Yetzirah doesn’t say so. By the way, that Chochmah and Binah are simply the names of Sefirot, is not the approach of Sefer Yetzirah. Because Sefer Yetzirah calls the first Sefirah Ruach Elokim Chaim, and the second Sefirah Ruach MeRuach, and so on. And it has names, it gave names afterwards, it actually calls it Peliat Netivot Chochmah. Netivot Peliat Chochmah. That seems to be something. But for example Chochmah, later there is Temurot Chochmah and Yovlot, and the Sever Kefulot. But that’s all it talks about Chochmah. So in general, the explanation that Chochmah Binah are ten Sefirot is not a good explanation from Sefer Yetzirah. It didn’t come from the Ramak. Sefer Yetzirah didn’t know about the Sefirah called Chochmah. The book says in part, I don’t know. He knew about the Sefirah, he called it Ruach Elokim Chaim, or it says Keter, whatever. So that’s that, and here I mean is Ramak. Okay, let’s see further.

The Instructions in Sefer Yetzirah – “Be Wise from Them and Investigate from Them”

Maggid Shiur:

This seems to be part of like Sefer Yetzirah has instructions, right? It has descriptions, and it has instructions, and we’re talking about that. So the part is some instructions. There’s this, but you should understand it in this way, that you should do it in this way, something like that. And afterwards, the end of the last major piece says, “and be wise from them and investigate from them and establish a matter clearly and return the Creator to His place.” This is the language. And the commentators also say explanations according to the way of Kabbalah. “And be wise from them” – you will know that Chochmah and Binah are the root of Gedulah and Gevurah. “And investigate from them” – and from investigating you will understand that from Gedulah and Gevurah there are two more called Netzach and Hod that come out from them. “And establish a matter clearly” – Davar is Malchut. “Clearly” like “his support.”

The Language “A Matter Clearly”

Maggid Shiur:

Like his support? Today it’s a language of the Sages like… yes, “a matter clearly” is not a language of the Sages. It’s just. “A matter clearly.” No, do you remember such language in this world? In the Rambam it says, “until he knows a matter clearly.” Or Rambam, like afterwards, it’s four until now, there’s just. “Until they establish a matter clearly.” It says in Midrash Tanchuma. Ah, you should later in the Midrash. “Clearly.” It says yes, “send him out” in the Gemara. Okay, ger, I don’t know. “Send him out and establish the matter clearly.” It’s a language from the Gemara, a nice one. “A matter clearly.” The “clearly,” simply, means to know clearly, no? Clear language clearly, no? So, this already says in the Gemara this language, it’s not the book that he invented the language. So, okay.

The Targum Onkelos on “On His Support”

Maggid Shiur:

But they interpreted it like this, the Davar means the Malchut, Malchut is called speech, so simply “on his health,” it should begin to stand on his health. Because he had to, it says… nu, let’s see what it says his support. They had some kind of explanation. His support, where does the verse say his support? Exodus 21, “if he gets up and walks outside on his support.” Says the holy Onkelos, his support means a stick, right? But the Targum says, where does it go there? “If he gets up and walks on his health.” What is actually the meaning? What is actually the meaning of the Targum? What does “on his health” mean? What is he translating? Health? Healthy? “On his support”? That means, he’s learning not literally, not “on his support” on his stick. He means the opposite, by himself, not with a stick.

Student:

He walks alone, it’s an expression. One expresses oneself like this, that he’s already healed.

Maggid Shiur:

Right. I see the English also translates like this, “on his own power.” What kind of English power is there? Ah, he translates the health. He translates the German from the English. Aha.

So, now, so these people are… they were confused, because the English doesn’t say that health means support. The English translates that the verse… no, I made a mistake, don’t do that. The English translates that the verse… no, the Ramak dealt with the nobles. And the Ramak didn’t have the English that would tell him what it says here. So they made a mistake and thought that… I like this kind of investigations. They thought that…

Student:

You can answer, you can say like this. But the essence of the verse says that he goes out with his own power, he calls it his support.

The Ramak’s Critique of the Commentators of Sefer Yetzirah, and His Own Explanation

The Ramak Is Not Convinced by the Commentators’ Interpretation

Maggid Shiur:

That he’s not yet completely healthy, but he can find the strength in himself to walk alone. That will be called health, the strength that a person… I get it.

Simply, Onkelos learns the verse not literally. It’s an image though. No, no, not not literally. It is literally, but… right, like shevet means a stick. It doesn’t mean a stick, it means a leader. It means, yes, “a scepter shall rise from Israel,” means, it’s the Onkelos, king, what this is an image, it’s a metaphor in the verse. The same thing means, it’s our. Onkelos says, it means that he can walk alone. Very good. Health actually means being able to walk alone, but it doesn’t mean being able to lean on something. It’s the opposite, it means… do you understand what I’m saying?

I can translate in general “a matter clearly” means that the Malchut should be clear. Can say it like this, “a matter clearly” should show clearly, how does the Malchut become? I can say such teachings. But the commentators meant differently that once there was a pleasure. I don’t know what the commentators made of themselves, but the commentators took upon themselves.

Anyway, it was already even who the tzaddik is. The Davar has in short, it’s only correct, the translation in Gemara, I am sorry. “And return the Creator to His place,” they translated, “return,” ah, one should do teshuvah. It’s very sweet. “And return the Creator to His place,” bring the teshuvah should do teshuvah. The teshuvah is called, everyone knows that teshuvah is called the Binah. So “return the Creator to His place,” bring the teshuvah should… should encounter the power of abundance in Tiferet, and it’s called Yotzer. Why is Tiferet called Yotzer? I’m not sure. It’s “on his place,” on his, like “my preparation to the wall,” on his supports which are the Netzach and Hod.

Says the Ramak:

> Until here are the words of the commentators, one that we chose the choice and the finest.

This is the best that the commentators can here, and he’s not very impressed.

Three Arguments Against This Interpretation

First Argument: It Doesn’t Fit with the Language of Sefer Yetzirah

Says the Ramak, and you see that he’s going to say a better explanation, closer to the simple meaning. I’ve already learned in Ramak, so I’m biased.

> Certainly this matter is satisfactory to us, it doesn’t look yet, but this is not the nature of the author’s language.

It’s not the nature of the language, it doesn’t seem to say this. He means to say, what does he mean to say, “this is not the nature of the author’s language”? Of any author or of Sefer Yetzirah?

So he had to learn earlier the simple meaning in Sefer Yetzirah, he doesn’t need to listen to me, I said that one must examine, examine them, one should see that from them is a nice translation, I didn’t do it.

Second Argument: This Is the Way of Those Who Pray, Not the Way of Authors

> And furthermore, another thing, for what good is it to inform us of these matters and these innovations?

He asks after Rabbi Alkabetz, what does it come in here?

> For this is the way of those who pray, not the way of authors, and there is no learning or innovation in this.

He says, granted when a person prays and he wants to have intention with the Sefirot, he says “I give thanks before You,” he thinks, “I” means the Malchut, “before You,” the Malchut connects to the Binah, whatever. I understand, because he wants to pray with the intentions. But this thing is not a prayer book, it’s a teaching, he must say something. Granted when one prays, one doesn’t need any innovation, not every piece of prayer needs to be an innovation, one just needs to find where the Sefirot are alluded to, because that’s the way of prayer according to Kabbalah. But it’s not the… do you understand? It’s very interesting.

So he’s assuming that when you make intentions in prayer, it’s not innovations, it’s the way of those who pray, it’s to connect what they think in the language of prayer. But according to what he learns, Sefer Yetzirah is indeed a meditation book. If it’s a prayer, then it doesn’t fit.

Nu, it’s still, even if it’s a prayer, he’s trying to say something. When one prays, when one prays, why must one make such undertakings with prayer? Because one prays with the hidden things constantly. When one must put in an explanation. Okay, yes. But if it’s a prayer, he must do it every day again be a friend. Okay, yes. But if it’s a prayer, he must do it every day make what he how how how. He doesn’t want to make such a cold. And so you know it now, we’re going to now be difficult, we learned Sefirot, and we’re going to make such a Kabbalah. Could be, could be.

Third Argument: Sefer Yetzirah Doesn’t Have the Structure of Sefirot

But I would have had a third argument, a whole argument, that it’s not with the language of Sefer Yetzirah. Sefer Yetzirah, first of all, doesn’t have the structure of the Sefirot. Ramak does think it can’t fit, but he doesn’t have the words Chochmah Binah for him are not names of Sefirot, but at least not in Sefer Yetzirah. Again, it could be that the author of Sefer Yetzirah was. He says, he has names.

This is like, that’s why I’m not buying all these interpretations, because this is far to say is not a hard book to figure out. There are things that are, how does one say, ambiguous, he doesn’t know what he’s saying, but his structure, what his Sefirot are, is no doubt. The Ramak knows about this, he learned later. So, that’s a better argument.

The Ramak’s Own Explanation: Chochmah Means Receiving from One’s Teacher

> Therefore it seems to him to bring

Says the Ramak a better explanation. And more not a Sefirot explanation, but a way of learning explanation. And that’s the thing.

> Chochmah is receiving and the learning that a person learns from his teacher, like the matter adds to him the language of chapters.

So this is Rashi’s explanation of Chochmah, right? And remember, Rashi says that Chochmah, remember where does Rashi say like this?

Student:

I don’t know. Chochmah is what he received from his teacher. What is Devarim?

Maggid Shiur:

Here, this week is Chochmah such and such?

Student:

No. What does Rashi say that Chochmah is what he received from his teacher?

Maggid Shiur:

Wise and understanding, about what he received from his teacher.

Student:

Ah, yes?

Maggid Shiur:

I’ll still stretch, by the stretches. I’m actually curious by this, I’ll say like this, I have some innovation about this. Chochmah from what he received from his teacher. Ah, by wise and understanding, does Rashi say like this?

Student:

About Chochmah, wise and understanding people, about what he received from his teacher. Parshat Devarim, last week.

Maggid Shiur:

I haven’t learned any Rashi yet, but about this I don’t know. Purim.

Student:

Rashi says. Rashi says like this, we are wise from understanding. Also by Yosef, first afterwards when wise. Rashi says places.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, Rashi says. Says the holy Rashi. Wise and understanding, on understanding will wise he doesn’t say. Understanding understand one thing from another thing.

The Midrash with Arius and Rabbi Yose

Maggid Shiur:

Ah, there is, Zusha Shaul transmitted a Sephardi. Zusha Shaul, Arius and our rabbis. Who was Arius, right? Arius, apparently, was the Ari in Christians in his name.

Student:

What? Who? He’s talking about this?

Maggid Shiur:

Doesn’t it fit?

Student:

Okay, the Midrash didn’t know what the years are. Could still have cried that one.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, there were two theories, maybe I remember. Ah, I remember that someone else had a proof from this, he had some proof. Someone on this head told me some teaching, why this only fits according to the approach of… ah, because the Christian said that Chochmah and Binah are three persons on the Trinity, Chochmah and Binah and Daat. But he asked Rabbi Yose, the great wise one?

Student:

No, it’s a simple explanation, something like, something like the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s.

Maggid Shiur:

Anyway, he brings about, he brings in other places the Aryos. So Aryos asked Rabbi Yosi, what is the difference between chachamim and nevonim? He said like this: A chacham is like a wealthy money changer. A wealthy one, that means he has, if someone brings him a dinar he sees, otherwise he doesn’t have. A navon is like a merchant money changer, in short, a Jew is a navon, he’s a businessman, if he has money it’s good, if he doesn’t have money, he brings.

So, this is like the idea that chochma is like receiving, what do we receive? And then binah is havanat davar mitoch davar.

A Question on the Well-Known Distinction Between Chochma/Binah

Maggid Shiur:

Why are you not happy with this? I’ll tell you why. I saw that the… the… here it says… Rashi says it in other places. About this, does it really mean exactly that?

Student:

Someone talks about this? Here? What is it? What is chochma and binah? This is here the revealed simple meaning of chochma and binah. I mean what.

Maggid Shiur:

No, I mean it’s not there. All the drush books say this thing that chochma is what one received from his teacher, and there’s no one who… ah, this is like the basic, this is chochma and binah. I think, apparently… why are you thinking? Why do I hold that it’s wrong? I’ll tell you why.

First: In the Simple Meaning, Chochma and Binah are Synonyms

Um, let’s see here. How do chochma and binah appear? Um, first of all, it’s understood that they are synonyms. In the simple meaning there doesn’t have to be any difference, right? That’s first of all, right? “A wise and understanding and wise man,” “a wise and understanding man.” I don’t know. Understandably, he’s a smart person. Why must it be that they’re all definitions? In the simple meaning there doesn’t have to be, right?

Second: The Rambam’s Distinction Between Chochma and Kabbalah

But more than that, I had such a thing. I saw that Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Leib of Modena – we can call him Reb Leibel, you’ll make him more heimish – in his book against the mekubalim says that the mekubalim call themselves “chochmat hakabbalah.” And he says, he doesn’t understand: “If it’s chochma, it’s not kabbalah; and if it’s kabbalah, it’s not chochma.”

Because the Rambam says many times that there’s a difference between chochma and Torah. The Rambam makes a different distinction: that chochma is when one understands, when a person has comprehension, he understands on his own. Torah is when he receives, it’s called “taklid,” when he receives. And he says that the mekubalim, they claim to be a science, “chochmat hakabbalah.”

The Paradox of “Chochmat Hakabbalah” and the Ramak’s Resolution

The Question of Reb Leibel of Modena on the Mekubalim

In his book against the mekubalim he says that the mekubalim call themselves “chochmat hakabbalah.” He says, he doesn’t understand: “If it’s chochma, it’s not kabbalah, and if it’s kabbalah, it’s not chochma.” Because the Rambam says many times that there’s a difference between chochma and Torah. The Rambam makes a different distinction, that chochma is when one understands, when a person has comprehension, he understands on his own. Torah is when he receives, it’s called “taklid,” when he receives.

On this he says that kabbalah, this claims to be a science. Chochma means a science. The Almighty only said, science means when one knows the why, the reasons, the causes. This was called chochma. If you don’t know the causes, then it’s kabbalah indeed, which is not chochma. And they want to say that there’s a chochmat hakabbalah – that doesn’t make sense. On one hand, they claim kabbalah, one must believe it, one must know it, one can know it through tradition. But if one only knows it through tradition, it’s not knowledge.

I think that this is a true paradox in kabbalah, certainly in the Ramak’s way of learning kabbalah, because the mekubalim do want you to understand. The whole thing is he says understand, he doesn’t want to be a simple-faith Jew. By the Chinese, they’re against the philosophers, because the philosophers understand to use their own intellect, and they say, “Ah, one doesn’t need one’s own intellect, Moshe Rabbeinu already received,” I don’t know. But it’s like a paradox. One can’t answer the paradox, don’t say. It’s a good question.

Student: So, do you agree that it’s not a real question?

Maggid Shiur: Ah, this is indeed a real question.

The Concept “In the Way of Chochma” and “In the Way of Hasagah”

“In the way of chochma.” Nu, what does “in the way of hasagah” mean? “In the way of hasagah” is also, when people say “in the way of hasagah,” I still don’t know what that means. You know “in the way”… I have two explanations. It can mean “in the way of understanding,” that means like something that the Rambam wants to understand “in the way of chochma.” It doesn’t have to be rational chochma or “discursive thought” which isn’t there in the details. But it must be something a thing that one does oneself, it’s “self-made.”

And the mekubalim have something against this in a certain sense. We can go deeper into this to answer, but I don’t have the nerves now. But in short, they have something against this, and they say “hasagah.” They say, “No, it’s not intellect, it’s not things that you thought, it’s from heaven.” Okay. Chochma is also from heaven, by the way, I don’t understand. So I’m not sure what that means.

So, it’s true. In short, that’s the… I hold that one can, what I’m full. Okay, I hold that most people will say that one can mean it, okay, yes? I mean that one can say. Who says that one can mean it, or one doesn’t mean? No, I don’t agree. Who says that all full people.

The Answer of One of the Respondents

Now, let’s go back to this. So, I saw that Rabbi… what’s his name who wrote an answer to his book, Rabbi Yitzchak Chaver of Mainz? One of the answerers. What was it called? The Magen Tzina? What did I write? One of these people that wrote it, or the em zag, what is, one of the people that answered to the Rabbi Leibel, of Modena, said that he doesn’t know what he wants in this chapter.

It’s very funny when the people who write answers, as if it’s a sugya in lomdus, they don’t grasp that he’s crying out to bring out a problem. You can try to solve the problem, but the point of the speaker is the problem that he’s speaking about.

He says, they say like this, nu, you bring the Rambam’s explanation of chochma. Nu, nu, who says that the kabbalists will go with the Rambam’s explanation? They can go with Rashi’s explanation. Rashi says that chochma is indeed received from one’s teacher. So, it’s not a contradiction.

Ah, it’s not called binat hakabbalah? If it were called binah, there would indeed be a problem. But it’s called chochma is kabbalah, it fits very well, because Rashi says that chochma is receiving from one’s teacher. According to Rav Yosi from the Sifrei it stands like this. And Rashi sees this precious piece. It’s fake, right? It wasn’t the problem that it’s not the wrong word. But I do have.

Ah, so I have an answer. I have a resolution, to reconcile both. But, let’s see first what the mark says. I have some idea what when one can answer it. What should I tell you soon? How I think about chacham, and whoever, if you don’t listen to my Zohar shiur on Sefirat HaOmer, which was so I understand it.

The Ramak’s Explanation of “Heven BeChochma VeChacham BeBinah”

Anyway, the Ramak says like this, that chochma is what one learns, that means one receives, and receiving is only chapter headings, and one shouldn’t teach out kabbalah, or one only says chapter headings.

> Binah is contemplation and addition that a person contemplates and adds from himself from the principles and chapter headings that are transmitted to him.

That’s binah. Okay, that’s Rashi’s explanation, basically, and Rabbi Yosi’s explanation.

> And now on this he intended in saying “heven bechochma.”

This is the meaning of “heven bechochma.” “Heven bechochma” means:

> Understand well what you learned from your teacher in the wisdom of the attributes.

Understand very well, you need a lot, that just receiving chochma is not enough. It shouldn’t be just chochma, it should also be binah. Why? Because the rabbi didn’t teach out only chapter headings:

> And it’s necessary that the person understand on his own one thing from another thing

As it says explicitly. Very good.

> One only says this thing to a wise person who understands from his own knowledge.

By the way, this is very cute. “Chacham umevin midato” are all three things: chochma, binah, daat. Chacham umevin midato. From this one sees that it’s not the other thing, because it’s mevin midato. But anyway, according to kabbalah, they don’t have this problem.

The Importance of “Intellect That Gives Birth”

So, since one must indeed be mevin midato:

> A person needs to compare thing to thing, to derive thing from thing, so that the intellect will give birth, not barren intellect.

So, this is very important. The Ramak says, even the mekubalim hold that the essence of chochma is receiving from one’s teacher, but one doesn’t fulfill it at all like that. One must give birth. If you don’t give birth to the chochma by yourself, you never got anywhere. And it had to be so, and because of this one only gave chapter headings, so that you would have to give birth yourself. That’s his… one should think.

“Heven BeChochma” and “Chacham BeBinah”

So, that’s the meaning of “heven bechochma.” It has nothing to do with sefirat hachochma. I mean, it could be sefirat hachochma has something to do with this, but it basically means understand what you learned.

And “chacham bebinah” means, explanation:

> That you give birth and compare this to that.

Means, after you understand yourself, you make all the comparisons from thing to thing, and binah is thing from thing:

> You will see that it will make you wise.

You should make from the binah chochma. Why?

> And it will make you wise in the reception of the rabbis and in some of their words, that includes the matter of what is added to you whether much or little, and on your understanding do not rely.

It says “and on your understanding do not rely.” It doesn’t say “and on your wisdom do not rely.” Yes? How does it say there “and on your understanding do not rely”? This is the end of a Mishnah where it says… yes? “That your friends will establish in your hand, and on your understanding do not rely,” something like that?

Student: It means that you should learn with other people, one should… that’s actually what it means in the source.

Maggid Shiur: That is, this is actually a verse, but in the verse it says “Trust in Hashem with all your heart and on your understanding do not rely.” And in the Mishnah it says it somewhere else, right? In Pirkei Avot it says… great and awesome and don’t say they will be drawn after you, and the master of fear says, yes? Do you remember? You don’t remember. And don’t say they will be drawn after you that your friends will establish it in your hand, and on your understanding do not rely. Very good.

So, after one learns oneself, one must look back in the book and see, ah, the book said everything that I understood. Why couldn’t you say it clearly? Because he says the chapter headings. But the holy one says nothing, that’s not written. Although I myself was mechadesh everything. This is the Ramak’s, and I think it’s a new explanation in practice.

A New Explanation of Chochma and Binah — Reconciling Both

But if one understands this way, I think one can also understand that the dispute of Modena with the Rambam with Rashi is not a real dispute. Because I think about chochma binah a little differently. And I mean it’s connected with this, but it also fits with another explanation. Because I look at it like this:

Chochma is when one sees the conclusion, like the essential concept, the essential thing that one sees, you get it that it’s so. Chochma is that it’s so. This is not the give and take.

Binah is, when it says this is so, from this, one step is the next step, this is what we call discursive thought, it takes binah, I say that binah takes time, right? Binah is something that takes time. One must first learn, think, maybe so, maybe not so, until one arrives, there are questions and answers, and so on.

Chochma is, before, so the two chochmot, this is there before, so if someone has faith receiving from his teacher, he doesn’t have faith. Every there doing action and giving, it’s there doing not easier than truth. But he has the thing is so. Yes, he does it in the way of faith, or he has some hasagah, he knows that it’s so.

Then the binah is, who says that it’s so, how does he know? And what do they mean? What do they mean for us to save? And the whole, the whole piece of Torah. But that point is not to stand in the give and take. People think that if one learns philosophy or something, the point is to always be contemplating. The point is, but you want to understand something, right? You understand something. The something, that’s the chochma. In the end, a conclusion is that he gives the chochma. And then it’s what a good rabbi that told you the truth, and I guess it’s back to what you ever said.

Chochma is What One Receives From His Teacher — A Novel Idea

So that means that chochma is what one received from his teacher, I want to make a chiddush. When Rashi says that chochma is what one received from his teacher, he doesn’t mean that chochma is kabbalah, is a kind of blind kabbalah. What he means is, the kind of things that a rabbi can’t teach binah. I mean that a rabbi can be a rabbi, the student, he can teach how, he can teach how, he can do it out. But the content, is all gone bin. How do I know? This will be, do you understand like this?

Student: No, that’s Rashi’s explanation, one transmitted halachot, one transmitted laws, and so this begins wisdom.

Maggid Shiur: You believe so? Then one makes the Gemara, why? One discusses it out, then one doesn’t transmit it further, the Gemara remained oral. Because there one sits and one learns it, and one didn’t yet have the actual, but eventually one transmits only the eventual chochma on. Yes, one didn’t transmit the whole give and take, it’s never going to end. Like the Rambam, one can’t learn the Gemara one’s whole life. It’s a living thing, it’s not a fixed thing. The Gemara never ended. That is, the Gemara continues on.

Student: Yes, it indeed continues on.

Maggid Shiur: Yes, so… Mishnayot one can say. So the conclusion remained such a halacha. So that’s chochma. Right, very good. How does one do that chochma means Mishnayot? This is who Rashi is a concept, and Rashi says so? Chochma is a holy order?

Student: No, the first answer. The first Rashi, chochma is what one received from his teacher?

Maggid Shiur: I have a system. Nu, what does the system have? Nu, I’ll put it together briefly. I’ll put it together. Chochma, he doesn’t bring. Why doesn’t he bring? He can ask the AI maybe he’ll find by something. I don’t have a rabbi’s name too long to find chochma. Chochma.

Chochma, Binah, and Daat – The Distinction Between Kabbalah and Understanding

Rashi’s Definition of Chochma: “What One Received From His Teacher”

Maggid Shiur:

No, that’s not the question. This is what says that traditions… cultures… traditions cultures.

The most interesting from Rashi: “Chochma – what one received from his teacher.” I have a system. Nu, what does the system have? Nu, I’ll put it together briefly. I’ll put it together. Chochma – he doesn’t bring. Why doesn’t he bring? I can ask the AI, maybe find the book? I don’t have a rabbi’s name too long to find things.

Sinai and uprooting mountains – yes, it’s the thing of whose teacher’s word. Sinai and uprooting mountains is a very nice image. The Sinai received the conclusion this, but the uprooting mountains breaks the Sinai, right? What one received from his teacher – how does that stand? Why does he bring it? What doesn’t he find it? What one received from his teacher.

I don’t have to agree with the explanation, that Rashi is when the person has – that means the Rav Chaver, whoever he answered his his his – like the Enk or others I saw says that, maybe someone holds, that if you read a book, then it’s a really good book, then first one doesn’t read, one doesn’t understand what is part, then one engages, and then one comes to – if you want to come back and see, ah, it’s simple explanation. I’ve already added nothing.

And in a brickle the whole world is like this, whatever, that’s already… then that’s who he gives simply, is sefirat hachochma and binah. And that’s the explanation of sefirat hachochma, if the chochma and binah, and not what you said from the song, that the Almighty is simple, and He made the whole world.

This is like the Almighty set learning Gemara – the Almighty was Mishnah first, He learned Gemara, He said, a flood not a flood, vayinachem libo, not yinachem libo. Then, Mashiach comes this Shavuot, the giving of generations, ah, in practice everything remained Hashem echad. It was born, He had a flood. And still it stands. Right?

I said that there is – there is – there is the Rama makes it here a bit more simple, as if the Rama makes as guidance of kabbalah. I mean he writes this also in his other if I remember something, or something similar, or the other Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin says it still like this – contradiction, one must learn kabbalah or one must understand. The answer is, one must be mechadesh. But one must be mechadesh according to what one received from the sages in wisdom and wisdom and wisdom and in short. But it’s not like a mitzvah, it really ends up being the same thing.

Or, sometimes the rabbi didn’t understand, but the rabbi is rabbi, when the rabbi is rabbi, when the rabbi’s rabbi’s – the rabbi doesn’t mean what the rabbi said, means indeed what the idea is. Yes, okay, so that’s your good explanation.

The Sefer Yetzira and the Method of Chapter Headings

Maggid Shiur:

So the – so the – so what needs to look at the verses? We have the best verses, we have the best verses, we have the best verses. The simple meaning is a good simple meaning. There’s sometimes a “chochmatcha al tish’on” (don’t let your wisdom mislead you). I need to have the easy way to switch, I need to have the other computer that has the battery line. I don’t know how the battery line went in the computer.

Chochma, bina, and da’at. And the siddur?

Student:

No, the siddur doesn’t say chochma, bina, da’at, but in Nusach Sefard. “Kne chochma, kne bina” (acquire wisdom, acquire understanding).

Maggid Shiur:

Many times it is indeed like synonyms. One cannot – there is a difference. Synonyms doesn’t mean no difference. It means that they’re similar things, one can say them together, but there’s some difference. Okay.

Student:

No, I’m in the Sefer Yetzira, he’s trying to say, understand well.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, but it can still be that he means that. I glanced at Sefer Yetzira, it says “eleh tasar” (these are ten), and he gave the construction. He says, because the Sefer Yetzira is very clear the chapter headings. If there’s a book, there’s a book, the Zohar, for example, he couldn’t have been able to sacrifice with him in the middle to say more chapter headings. He says, whatever he had to say.

The Mekubalim and the Revelation of Secrets

In general, the mekubalim – I generally wanted what to think you know recently, I caught that it could be the whole dispute between the mekubalim and non-mekubalim, what one may reveal the secrets, and that from the first generation, the never-want mekubal there to say away to say. There were literally a few of the Rishonim HaKabbalim who actually don’t speak clearly. That is if he tries to – perhaps he can’t, perhaps there’s a limit on the stinky cells, maybe the limit is out. As the Rambam also says, I tried to write everything, ah, I can’t. Okay.

Student:

This whole matter is embarrassing, as the Rambam says here.

Maggid Shiur:

But they’re not trying to hide anything. The Mekubal people is just hiding it. That’s why we don’t know what they think. But I’m saying, the Sefer Yetzira isn’t here, the Ramak writes like any Acharon writes, and any sugya, he’s not trying to hide anything. Is it possible to explain?

Student:

Okay, in the Gemara it’s also not possible to explain, by the which, I believe we don’t understand any Egla Arufa.

Maggid Shiur:

The explanation is that one must be davening with wisdom. If you’re not modad, you’re own thoughts, to lay out numbers, you’re not going to understand. It’s not that Kabbalah is enough in the summer. Any havana (understanding), that’s interesting. I don’t want to read, that’s a telephone book. You’re going to have to be independently re-derived every generation.

There are differences, but not in quantity, not in quality. Do you understand what I’m saying? There are differences, but not real differences. I mean that… I mean that the world doesn’t believe what a great end the halacha is, to mean that the halacha is understood. Anyway, but… I want that’s how it was to change the whole perspective.

Student:

Ah, could be. But it’s even more advanced.

Maggid Shiur:

Psider (certainly). It’s even more real. 10 million times more advanced. It’s even more advanced.

The Sefer Yetzira’s Structure and Language

So, ah, so, like, all these, because books, which are actually written, like, with chapters. The Sefer Yetzira is one of the books. He says, as I say, you can know its structure what he tells, but what he means, he’s obviously not telling you. And all these, like, pieces, and, like, yes, yes, I just told you now, there are ten not, eleven, eleven, ten not, nine. Now, one can while. So, do you catch what I’m saying?

It comes out that all these instructions from Sefer Yetzira in the end. “V’hashev, mikan v’eilach tze u’chshov” (and return, from here on go and calculate), all these such expressions. He says, he says in the end, they are being explicitly saying, I told you, Rebbe, I’m brackets, now you think yourself.

So, to the translation of “haben b’chochma v’chacham b’bina” (understand with wisdom and be wise with understanding), I don’t know what one says it, chacham? Chacham? Chacham? Perhaps on “haben b’chochma, v’chacham b’bina.” I can’t how Chassidic Hebrews make, it doesn’t work. “Chacham b’bina”? Chacham. Chacham.

In short, the piece, whether he means here the electric, could be yes could be not, but he certainly means to say, think well into what I told you, because I didn’t tell you better. Yes, that’s what he means, he means he uses here such language. In short, he didn’t catch any language that doesn’t fit. He’s going back and forth, but that may be part of it, like all idea of the world.

There are two expressions that we find, which means obviously, such a way, like, like, like, I said, chochma chamvina, you have mixed up everything, you have, you know, it’s a good spring. Yes, one will be in, but as if, he means to emphasize that in a sense. Yes, yes, yes, not in single, because that’s what’s effective.

Synonyms in Verses – The Difference Between Tanach and Sefer Yetzira

I’ll tell you why… ah, let’s tell yes what, let’s say something else. You feel lav synonyms in the verses, usually, there they’re interchangeable, actually. So, whatever, one can make a reading that we should have originally a different meaning, or different connotations, or one says it on other things, but it’s not truly the same concept. But almost there’s no… in the verse, you could never do it backwards. In other words, there’s even an order of the synonyms, usually, that they don’t change, or sometimes they do. But one can’t… do you understand what I mean?

For example, if it says… nu? I’ll make some synonym in the verse. I’ll say it, now I, yes? Nu? I need some good example to explain, to know what I mean. I don’t have a good example because the sentences there are weird. But…

If there’s a verse like “libi sarchar azavni kochi” (my heart pounds, my strength has left me), I don’t know what. Let’s say it means roughly the same thing twice. One can’t say the opposite, “libi azavni v’kochi sarchar.” You’ll notice that the verbs always match with the nouns. And there’s a certain… a chuka (statute) stands according to its foundation, almost always. Sometimes there’s an exception, but almost always one can’t say both ways. One can’t turn back the wheel, because that’s actually why it’s different, because it works. They work with they, one can it in one, one can it in one, and it truly means both. I’m not saying that every time it means only specifically, but almost always it’s never interchangeable.

The Sefer Yetzira is doing something that matches with his way of thinking about language, but it doesn’t match how language actually works. Because the Sefer Yetzira always thinks that everything is interchangeable. One can make yishuv (settlement), one can make… if one can go all ways, one can say one makes a shriek. No, it always goes out screamed. But he always thinks that one can interchange things.

So I would think, for example, if you ask me, that’s why I’m keeping on getting stuck in this “chacham b’bina.” I mean that “l’havin b’chochma” (to understand with wisdom) makes sense. I have no proof. I can do the concordance, I can try to find. There are things, “dei chochma l’nafshecha” (know wisdom for your soul) stands in a verse. So these are all the verbs that mean some wisdom, knowledge, understanding, I know, let’s say similar things. A part of them can go one on the other.

Sefer Yetzira’s Language-Method: “Flip Everything and See” – And the Ramak’s Distinction Between “Bechon Bahem” and “Chakor Mehem”

The Matter of “Haben B’chochma V’chacham B’bina” – A Language Analysis

Maggid Shiur:

L’havin b’chochma (to understand with wisdom). I, we’re trying to think, if that’s in the verse, if that’s there. “Hakshivu lada’at bina” (listen to know understanding), for example stands a verse, lada’at bina, I know. “V’im l’vina tikra” (and if you call to understanding). Lada’at bina. Yes, lada’at bina. Lada’at bina. Lada’at bina. One can be yodea (knowing) chochma, so, right? But chochma is a verse? So, in my head it makes sense to say haben b’chochma, to understand chochma, as one can say da’at chochma, one can say understand chochma. I’m not sure that there’s such a verse, but maybe there is. But I don’t think that according to the way that the language works to you, you can actually say l’hachkim bina (to make wise with understanding). Have you said? Chacham libcha (make your heart wise), one can say chacham, maybe that’s also by the way of a verb, right? Chacham libcha. Your heart is wise.

Do you catch that I’m crazy that I’m getting stuck on the word chacham. Not because I don’t know any Hebrew, it’s not a word that you say. I find myself somewhere else, such language. No, it’s stuck. Haben b’chochma. Many people have written books “Haben B’chochma,” okay? No one has yet written a book “Chacham B’bina.” Chacham b’bina. Ah, that’s what I would have said.

Sefer Yetzira’s “Atomic” View of Language

The Sefer Yetzira seems to have more… like an atomic view of language, doesn’t take the context into account. Because he thinks that always can be alef with all, and all with alef. Yes, that’s his understanding. And he understands language as being based on language on the world, which we understand by language and so on. So, he seems to understand like his games do work like this, like reversing things. If one can make alef with bet, why can’t one make bet with alef? We can’t, but a mekubal can yes, understand? Like, all this, he has this idea of like language coming from tzirufei otiyot (letter combinations), right? “Shtei avanim bonot” (two stones build), that’s what I showed him.

And then, if you look, you’ll notice that you can’t actually take any tziruf and make it into a word. Firstly, he forgot a whole… he is yes a bit gores (addresses), but he’s not properly gores the topic of vowels, and not every consonant goes together with every other. So, the problem, literally, your mouth can’t say them, or there must always be a vowel in between. He’s not gores that. Okay, he’s not gores because in lashon hakodesh (the holy tongue) there are no vowels, there are only nekudot (vowel points), and he doesn’t speak of the nekudot.

But also, he’s not gores like the fact that in human language at least, there is a difference. There are things that go this way and not that way. He found that “eng” and “nge” are the same thing. But, again, “eng” is actually something, but “neg” is nothing. Why not? Like, because we don’t, sof kol sof (after all), we don’t have a word for that, so I think… because some certain words that you would think are bizarre…

A Computer Project: All Possible Combinations

I’m going to take my computer to make a list of all the three-letter tzirufim possible in the world, and find out if there’s a pattern, which ones are actually… There’s for sure a pattern. The computer is going to take whatever is and going to make a pattern.

Student:

But we found, the computer worked itself out, yes? Did we find more shorashim (roots) that we never knew.

Maggid Shiur:

And we found that certain words from lashon hakodesh that we didn’t even know it’s a shoresh, now we understand it’s a shoresh because… like, in other words, our knowledge of lashon hakodesh is not complete. We don’t know every word. I guess that’s true. In certain, certain tzirufim that you would think that are definitely not possible, I don’t know, peh tzadi mem… man, who would make such a… But actually, there is in the Mishna “patzimi” something, yes. There’s some weird… would you have thought?

But there are things that we thought makes sense. Actually, “nag” is a… Why not? Like, it could be, it’s a… it could be. And the renewal is indeed a novelty, it’s a novelty.

A Proposal: Using the Sefer Yetzira’s Method for New Words

So the Sefer Yetzira is… so maybe I should tell my computer to do something better. I should tell my computer to make the words that should be, and I’ll go accept it to use. Because there is indeed a problem, in lashon hakodesh we don’t have words for many things, right? So the Academy, they make something like, a telephone is a “rav-kol” (multi-voice), I know what. No, let’s make some tziruf. The Sefer Yetzira…

But maybe the Zohar, that’s how it worked. He knew that the Zohar is all the words that mean nothing. Maybe he looked how the words should be based on… yes, I’m saying, one can make words. No, if for example a nun points to this, and a gimmel points to that, so a nun-gimmel should be a… I don’t know, an A-I, I don’t know. Because “kursaya b’yada al kamtza’ya talkin” (the chair in the hand to the kamtza’ya you hang). Understand, it can only be something or nge or eng. What about a nun-gimmel? Perhaps that’s a third type of thing, it’s not a nge, it’s not an eng, it’s a third type of thing.

The Sefer Yetzira’s Method: “Flip Everything and See”

Anyway, I’m just saying that this kind of word game… nu, you know, okay, the paytanim (liturgical poets) might have done things, games like this, right? One must look, they have… they don’t follow the rules. But you could imagine that Rabbi Elazar HaKalir had an idea, “chacham b’bina.” Perhaps he actually wrote it. Maybe it was the same game that he wrote that. Maybe it was earlier than Sefer Yetzira. But in any case, it’s similar.

I’m saying, that’s why… He seems… No, I’m saying, he’s specifically doing this, because that’s his way of thinking, like, let’s flip everything and see. Because he’s trying to get to the scientific basis for everything, right? And so he says, in our language, people just forgot. But in the reality, why shouldn’t it be the opposite?

Just as one can put a table on a bench next to a table, one can still put a table next to a table, one can still put a table next to a table, why does a person walk with a foot always below and the head above? Perhaps try to make it opposite, see if it works. Anyways, flip everything and see. Flip everything, see what happens. Okay, haben b’chochma v’chacham b’bina.

“Bechon Bahem V’chakor Mehem” – The Ramak’s Explanation

Already, we’ll go further. “U’vechon bahem” (and examine in them). What does “u’vechon bahem” mean? So the Ramak has, the earlier, the previous person translates, whatever, look that from this also comes out a thing.

> He says thus: “The examination of ‘bahem’ (in them) is to say, in the essence of the sefirot themselves”

That he makes such a distinction, that there is bochon (examining) and choker (investigating).

“Bahem” – Examination in the Essence of the Sefirot

“Bahem,” in the essence of the sefirot themselves, in the essence that they are, in their substance, right, he means the essence:

> “There should be examination only, in the way of ratzo v’shov (running and returning), in the way of humility, and to sense the honor of the Koneh”

Koneh means he God, right, Koneh HaKol (the Acquirer of All):

> “Before the Emanator the Glorious, this is ‘bahem’”

Bahem, if you want to know what they are, should, I don’t know why bechina (examination) he thinks is less for some reason. Not investigation, but examination. Ah, because in Kabbalah they say bechinot (aspects), and the investigators say chakirot (investigations). I think. Bechina is like… I don’t know what bechina means. I don’t even know what this word means.

Student:

Testing in Yiddish?

Maggid Shiur:

No. The Almighty is “bochon klayot v’choker klayot” (examines kidneys and investigates kidneys). It’s the same thing. Where would you see bechina? “B’zot tibachanu chai Pharaoh” (by this you shall be tested, as Pharaoh lives). That’s the first time. “Hashem tzadik yivchon” (Hashem the righteous examines). It says… It means like looking. I would think it means looking well. L’havchin (to distinguish), like “l’havchin bein or u’vein choshech” (to distinguish between light and darkness), such things, yes?

Choker is actually not a word in Tanach almost. In Tanach it stands only in… okay, I won’t say something I don’t know. Let’s try to check. “V’darashta v’chakarta” (and you shall inquire and investigate). Yes, I’m right that it’s less.

Choker, I would say the opposite. Choker means like you don’t know something, you’re looking for it. I mean that choker is a synonym of chipus (search), as stands a verse “nachpesa drachenu v’nachkora” (let us search our ways and investigate). I think that choker is in the field of searching. Bochon is in the field of like seeing, testing.

So, I don’t know, I don’t know what that is. The simple meaning is… is matching with how I think the word is in Chumash. Choker Iyov (Job) said many times the word choker. “Lachkor et ha’aretz” (to investigate the land), right? “Lachkor” means like… finding out. I guess “bechina” also means like finding out. So I don’t know. I’m not so in investigation. In short, it stands indeed in investigation.

So one can’t be choker, but one can be bochon. So what can one be bochon? Anyway, and that’s called “bahem.”

“Mehem” – Investigation in the Action of Their Extension

And afterwards “mehem”:

> “However, the action of their extension from them”

That means “mehem” means not “in them” but “from them.” That’s probably a good diyuk (precise inference), “bechon bahem v’chakor mehem” (examine in them and investigate from them).

> “It will be a matter of essential investigation and clear knowledge with little action and great contemplation”

Right? So the chakira (investigation) is not in what they are, but in what they do.

> “The action of their extension, not in the existence of the sefirot, but from them”

That’s the simple meaning of “bechon bahem v’chakor mehem.”

Student:

What?

Maggid Shiur:

“Bechon bahem v’chakor mehem.” I guess that’s true. “Bechon bahem” means check into them, look into them. The Ramak says, not so well, but because one can’t fully know. “V’chakor mehem” – and be investigating from them. That means, see what follows from them, right? What they do, what comes out of them.

I don’t catch the language just like that. What does “v’chakor mehem” mean? One doesn’t say “chakor mi-” (investigate from), one says “chakor et” (investigate), “chakor otam” (investigate them).

Student:

You’re asking a question?

Maggid Shiur:

You should know Sefer Yetzira’s language.

Student:

You’re asking, you’re saying that he has no language.

Maggid Shiur:

I can’t. It could always be a variant text.

Precision in the Language “Chakor Mehem” and the Problem of Variants in Sefer Yetzirah

The Language Difficulty: “Chakor Mehem” or “Bachon Bahem”?

That is, see what follows from them, right? What they do, what comes out of them.

I don’t understand the language just like that. What does “chakor mehem” mean? One doesn’t say “chakor mehem,” one says “chakor es,” “chakor osam.” You’re asking a question, I told you, you need to know the language. You said before that you only need the language. Well, I don’t know. “Bachon bahem”? I don’t understand the language at all.

It could always be a variant. I don’t know, maybe in the other version it also says “bahem,” “mehem.” It’s such a difference that can easily be flipped, right? Here it also says “bachon bahem v’chakor mehem.” You can be “chakor mehem”? In a verse it’s “chakor es,” “chakor osam.” “Chakor es.” Okay, but “es” isn’t… “mem” means “from.” Maybe it’s like missing a word, “chakor es she’bahem,” that’s what the Ramak interprets it. In short, as if there’s a word missing. It looks like you’re questioning them. If you’re questioning them, that would be “chakor osam.” Investigate them.

Okay, “v’haveyn davar al buryo,” okay, we’ve finished. But in short, “bachon bahem” isn’t so clear in this, but I see that he also says the same interpretation in Rokei’ach. In short, let’s understand it well. “V’al ta’amik ba’sefiros l’ofen reishis reishisam v’acharis acharisam, af al pi chen bachon bahem neyda, chakor bahem nefarsheyhem.” “Bachon bahem, chakor bahem.” He also has, he has “bahem” for both, you see? He doesn’t have the difference. The language “chakor mehem” really doesn’t make sense. It’s funny to make such a precision when it’s a letter that can easily be switched. It’s a difference, let’s write it that way.

The Problem of Variants in Sefer Yetzirah

In Sefer Yetzirah it’s so strong “chochma v’haveyn b’chochma,” that you need to write it yourself too. I don’t know. All books, like everyone that wrote, they made a petition, also wrote the source, the text, because there are so many variants that one can make whichever version I want. And there’s no way to solve the problem. He’ll find the first manuscript, he’ll pray himself, what are you going to do?

So, the Ramak could have written into his, my hand, in order to hint at the difference. Yes, he understood he had the variants. He also knew that there are a thousand variants. He did it, seriously, he assumed that it was because it made sense to him.

I think it’s not bad at all. I’ve thought about a few old books that I’ve learned a bit. It’s not bad at all that one needs to make one’s own edition every time one learns it. Why can’t I write? Why is the first scribe who was in the times that I don’t know what? He can basically copy the book. Let’s now understand it and I can. No, it’s the book. You want to rely on the author, you need to find a version. Rely on the commentary? Not find. I can tell him that he needs to write this. Maybe the author who isn’t good becoming, I can’t clearly write his own book.

Okay, again, the Tosafos used to do this, everyone copied Tosafos. Sometimes a book is sealed, with the books here they’re sealed sometimes, with Sefer Yetzirah it’s still not sealed. There are three versions, there’s the Gra’s version, there’s the Ramak’s version, there’s the Raavad’s version, that means not sealed. That means that every editor still leaves it open.

I wanted to publish a book. Halachos means Mishnayos. Halachos is indeed the translation of Mishnayos, right? Makes sense. It’s a Mishnah, it’s really not around like a Mishnah. Mishnayos is also a bit of a chasidah, but the bit one can change, it’s variants.

I’ve thought about another book. I learned the book Shi’ur Komah. It’s not even available. I mean, you need it, it’s there, but there are four five other editions. I think, I’ll make my own, I’ll compile. Why can’t I? It should be Yitzchak’s version of this book.

“V’ha’ameyd Davar Al Buryo” — The Simple Interpretation

Anyways, already, this is the “bachon bahem.” “V’ha’ameyd davar al buryo,” says the Ramak, the simple interpretation, very necessary, the simple interpretation.

> Explanation: Establish the matter on its strength, burya means its strength, more like burka d’chama, yes? The clarity, strength. And descend to the depth of the interpretation that it will be clarified for you without doubt

It should be clear, not have any doubts. Sefer Yetzirah begs of us, you want to understand, no one fulfills.

“V’hoshev Yotzer Al Mechono” — The Simple Interpretation

“V’hoshev yotzer al mechono.” Ah, this is also… okay, I don’t know, he says it dearly like this:

> Explanation: All your intention in any case should be to the Yotzer Ein Sof King of Kings of Kings who emanates from His base, which are His thrones, which are His ten sefiros. And the intention of everything should be regarding the unification of the emanated from the cause of the Emanator and the Emanator in the emanated.

So “hoshev yotzer al mechono” is like an image. It’s saying, the yotzer means the yotzer, right? The creator, the former, the shaper, technically. And place him up on his chair, on his base. Mechon isn’t a chair, mechon means more like a… “mechon kis’acha me’az,” “mechon l’shivtecha.” Mechon means like a… a base, right? Base him, he needs to be based. Base God. The Creator isn’t based enough, what we need from the next Sefer Yetzirah, one needs to make based.

Now, what this means is that people don’t understand the connection of the yotzer with the mechono, because there’s… like, the basic question in Sefer Yetzirah that one needs to be worried about is, there’s so many things and there’s only one God. So how does this work? One needs to have an answer. One can make from one two, and from two can become already four, and four becomes already six. That’s whatever, or the ten sefiros, all these kinds of explanations. When you’ll clearly understand this, “haveyn davar mitoch davar,” you’ll put back, you’ll set up… set up, exactly. “Melech yoshev.” I mean “hoshev” is perhaps from the language of sitting. That’s how he translates it, right? “Hoshev,” not returning, like before he said teshuvah. “Hoshev,” set up. “Hoshev” one needs to write. “Yoshev kis’os l’mishpat,” like that. Set him up on his chair.

It makes sense, because now sits… in your head, if you have an understanding of how the Matzil and the atzilim, how the thing works, it’s as if you’ve set him up on his chair. “Melech yoshev al kisei” whatever.

“V’hoshev Yotzer Al Mechono” — The Kabbalistic Interpretation

This is certainly the simple interpretation. The yotzer certainly means the Almighty, and mechono means the world, or the vessels, whatever you want to call it. So… we have here “v’hoshev yotzer al mechono.” Until now there wasn’t a complete throne, the world didn’t understand how one connects with the other. I mean like this, presumably that’s also there. I want to learn it over the blaza mige armeizes interpretation. Ah, he doesn’t hold at all the… oh yes, “v’hoshev yotzer al mechono”? Ah, “ki hu yotzer,” he has a whole version.

> For He is the yotzer, He is the creator alone and there is none besides Him.

What rabbi? We understand that the Almighty how thinks. Oh now, after this he says another interpretation according to Kabbalah. That is derfelt briah, go back to the previous, he says the same thing, that ah, in order to let’s say interpreters say that davar means the Malchus and briah means the Yesod. Not to separate them should say that it’s nine, like we say before that the Malchus is external, ten from the Malchus. And hoshev yotzer al mechono is the opposite, that one shouldn’t count the throne for the matzil. Not to separate them that the matzil is one of the ten, and the throne is the matzil. No, each is the yotzer is on the mechon. And sefiros they are a mechon.

> And the master emanator like a king on his throne is not counted in his throne.

Okay, first of all, the interpretation is the same thing that Esav later, which it… Rabbi Malachi had a minute treat said that it’s not such a good interpretation.

Conclusion: Until Here the Explanation of the Mishnah

Until here the explanation of the Mishnah, we’ve learned two Mishnayos, blessed be God and Sefer Yetzirah. It comes out, we’ve worked through the five chapters, the conclusion of the matter is that there are ten sefiros, not more not less. And there is no doubt in this matter God forbid, and nothing God forbid, this is God forbid, this is there understand. Rather the belief in the heart of all the mekubalim. All mekubalim believe that there are ten sefiros.

It’s interesting, because warns he what have six, would already be forty-four, and exactly ten. The Ramak makes into a hakpeidah, I believe that it must be.

Discussion: The Arizal and the Number of Sefiros

Student: Who? The Briton told that actually the Kabbalah we hold today because it’s only found. Yes? I knew about this.

Teacher: The result, that’s what Rabbi R’ Wiser Heinstrach said. But it’s more complicated in this. Like we learned the Ramak himself, when we spoke about general and particular, and the level, and that level. And the Arizal said, the Arizal said, the Arizal threw out more than four or five. But the Ramak also, the structures of this in the Ramak, it’s not… it speaks of something else… it’s true, so someone said that…

Rabbi Ashlag thought up a story that there was opposition to the Arizal. He himself was mechadesh the story. On the story he threw in, I’m not the greatest AI, but Rabbi Ashlag said that there was opposition to the Arizal, which is true, there was opposition, it was very well shut down, the sages of Tzfat did a lot of work not to cause the opposition, but there were opponents. We know from Rav Medinah’s book.

And Rabbi Ashlag says that there are such kinds of stories, there are in R’ Shlomo’le in the letters, in the praises there are stories that people read the Maharsha, the stories are only with the Arev, but Rabbi Ashlag argued that the opposition was presumably because the Arizal said that there are five sefiros and not ten. He said it that there are five sefiros and not ten. He said it that there are five sefiros and there are five sefiros, but in short, the Arizal plays around a lot with the numbers, but it doesn’t mean that the Arizal also brings the ten and not nine many times. So it’s not…

So I need to say it something else, he’s going to say about thirteen. In chapter 7 he spoke that there’s a shitah that says perhaps that there are thirteen, and he disagrees, he explains that shitah. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Student: Nater was it is nader hole sugya.

Teacher: I have yes, but it’s a whole… they need to learn Rav Higvaran and ask out who Rav Higvaran was and all kinds of things. And I think that it’s nader hole issue, which is… It’s an important issue because the Ramak used it for some big insight that he has later in the Kabbalah, which he explains the shitas haGaon that there are thirteen sefiros, with the three before, the three roots, which he called on this. But until he brought a Sefer Yetzirah, mostly to prove, a bit like this, particularly taken a Sefer Yetzirah, that it’s ten and not nine, ten and not eleven.

Dispute in the Count of Sefiros: Why is “Ten and Not Nine” Such a Big Thing?

The Ramak’s Foundation of Ten and Not Nine

Teacher:

I think it’s another whole issue, it’s an important issue, but I think that the Ramak uses it for a big foundation that he has later in Kabbalah, that he explains the shitas Rav Hai Gaon that there are thirteen sefiros, and the three previous ones, the three roots, how he calls it there.

But he brings Sefer Yetzirah mostly to prove, a bit Zohar, explains Sefer Yetzirah, that it’s ten and not nine, ten and not eleven. It’s interesting that he holds that it’s such a big thing.

What does he say here for example in the Zohar? What does R’ Shlomo HaMekubal say? I found that until now there are only ten sefiros? Ah, he speaks about the ten tzachtzachos. That’s the toros. Wait. Ah, very interesting. He has many things, not about the count of sefiros.

Okay, according to the Arizal one can say other numbers, but in any case, one can do in the sense of… he says a simple parable, I ask him, write him Atzilus, and the other says why he needs to say ten. He said, here is this still speaking in emunah.

Sefer HaShorashim and the Dispute in Numbers

There’s something a Sefer HaShorashim that had a melachah pftered that someone has smaller here is a dispute that there’s in the back on page 668, brings them that something a Sefer HaShorashim said that there’s a dispute in the numbers.

Ah, here he speaks about this here. Ah, he brings something a Sefer HaShorashim that had… I’m looking if there’s someone who argues that there’s a dispute. Ah, here in the back, on page 668, he brings that something a Sefer HaShorashim said that here is a dispute in the numbers. Count of sefiros.

That’s the point, he says. Well, he’s going to attack all kinds of things to say, it comes out that there are different understandings in the sugya. He says that there were those who said that the First Cause is not a sefirah, and there are those who say that it is. That’s one of the things we’re going to talk about. Right, we’ve already seen about this a bit. The Ramak has a whole gate about this later, gate 14, gate foundations of wisdom, foundations of holiness, foundations of holiness.

Different Opinions in the Count of Sefiros

And there are those who say… yes, he brings that there’s a dispute. There are those who say that no, that there are only nine sefiros vessels with the Ein Sof. And then he brings that there are those who say that there are thirteen, and there are those who say that there are thirty. That’s a different shitah. And there are those who say that there are one hundred, or three hundred, or three hundred and ten. In short.

Ibn Wakar and the Book “Shorshei HaKabbalah”

And so he says further from a philosopher who wrote a book “Shorshei HaKabbalah,” Ibn Wakar. Have you heard of this person?

Student:

What was he, a bit of an apikores like?

Teacher:

A bit, yes. Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz brings his book, and he’s angry at him. He says “see this fool.” He says all these things, that it can’t be that there are more than ten sefiros or less, and because of that, he… wait, I didn’t take… I didn’t take the sefiros. Ah, I don’t know if he goes back to the shayge sugya of how many there are.

The Kollel of Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz

The books in the back are actually the notes of the kollel of Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz where they learned all these sugyos before the Ramak made his book and said his shitah about everything. So you could see what he’s reacting to.

Okay, the Ramak is a student of Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz. Yes, he says explicitly, he calls himself a student there. And you can see here all the writings, for example besides Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, that he’s talking about all the same problems that he has. That is, even certain pieces of Pardes you’ll see that it’s based on this. Or in the question, we’ll see that in the question there are also verses, statements, that there are more than ten sefiros or less.

The Big Question: Why is it Such a Big Deal?

But it’s still a bit of a mystery to me, like, why? Where did they get it? What does one want from this matter? After all the toros of Ramak, he’s not privileged to understand what the topic is. Why is it a big deal? Yes.

Like, all the things that all the sugyos that the Ramak puts into this later, the question of the roots and the question of the Keter of the Malchus, the question I understand in its own right. But that’s, he seems to think that the belief of ten sefiros is all about that.

Or someone says that it’s written in Zohar that there’s Beriah and Yetzirah, it comes out that there are thirty sefiros, that one needs to understand what the world of Beriah means. Okay, that all the sugyos understand it themselves. But he puts them all into this, like, concept of ten and not, on 10.

And I just want to know, okay, what the Belza says that there isn’t any… the sefiras haHod doesn’t exist. It’s only Netzach. Understand? He speaks of all sugyos that he calls that this is the sugya of ten and not nine. But what the Belza says, I don’t understand what one needs to have Netzach or Yesod. I mean that Chesed Gevurah Tiferes Malchus is enough. What is this for example? Understand? What is his answer to that question?

Student:

He didn’t make it clear.

Teacher:

And it’s not clear to me, according to how they end the Sefer Tzurah, he’s burrowed over this, and it’s specifically ten and not nine. Who does it come from?

Student:

What?

Teacher:

No, it’s only one Mishnah. Also only in certain versions. What’s bad if someone says that there are 74 sefiros? I don’t know, whatever the sefiros is, there are 22.

Student:

Okay, there are 22.

Teacher:

Is he already, is he already, is he already in a conflict. 34 against 34. Daled lamed nun, it shows the whole… I have him according to Sefer Yetzirah, that there are Satmar ambers, is it… is it? Makes sense.

Two Sources for the Number Ten

English Translation

1. The Pythagorean-Philosophical Source

Ah, if it’s based on this, like, number, number, number, this is basically the second thing that I can understand that it’s based on one, the number system, based in the Pythagorean, and it’s like this, it’s one important the number ten, the decade, oversight. This itself one needs to understand what it means, but at least I understand from where it comes, the idea.

2. The Spheres (Galgalim) of Astronomy

The other thing is the idea of the 9 or 10 galgalim. This is the other idea. But the, the, the, 7 planets, 8 for all stars, 9 for the day, for the daily revolution, and that’s all. There are only 9 galgalim, according to all opinions, at most.

The Rambam says that we don’t know how many galgalim there are, because it could be that we need more things to turn, or there are more stars that move, besides the 7 planets, or there are and there are 54. It’s not at all agreed upon, but the number that the… all the Rishonim were based on is approximately nine.

Afterwards there was Ibn Ezra who had a theory, which says that there was a sekhel, but the center is something a sekhel. That’s why we have ten, like the number ten.

The Conflict Between Philosophy and Kabbalah

And if this is the thing, it’s very funny because many of the opinions of the mekubalim, I didn’t say that he is connected, but the opinions that he learns from philosophy he did want to connect, because the Ramak wanted to connect these things.

And then the nine and ten becomes a big question, because, as I said, because there are at most in the system of the world nine galgalim, at most. Sometimes people only had eight, or you can even have less if you put things together and so forth.

And then, and then there is also the question of is there an Ein Sof at all, this is a philosophical question, whatever. But, and then why are there nine? Because there are seven galgalim, seven planets, plus the stars, plus the day, plus the sun and the moon, whatever, plus the, not the sun and the moon, plus the day. That’s how we end up with nine, nine plus one. And then it’s not such a big issue.

The Ramak’s “Prohibition” and the Modern Problem

The Ramak makes like a prohibition. The Ramak makes like a prohibition, how can one say that there are five? I know why, because we stopped believing so much in the galgalim. Now, you can basically collapse them all in a different way. You can say, okay, there are planets, and there are stars, and there is the sun, and that’s still only three or four things.

Sefirot and Galgalim: Is the Astronomical System Part of Kabbalah?

The Problem of Counting the Galgalim

Not the sun and the moon, plus the day. That’s how we end up with nine, nine plus one. And then it’s not like a big problem that the Ramak speaks… The Ramak makes something like a prohibition. That story goes like that.

How can he say that there are five? I know why, because we stopped believing so much in the galgalim. Now, you can basically collapse in a different way. You can be, okay, there are planets, and there are stars, and there is the sun, and there are ends all these three on different things.

So, what isn’t? No one made the connection that I know. There’s certainly a way. What is the connection? If the Arizal knew about Copernicus or something like that sort of thing.

Student: And he caught, he didn’t know by the way.

Maggid Shiur: Exactly. No, in the sense on levels on the… they did know, the Ramak taught him.

Student: No. No. No. Okay, I just just now, maybe there really are millions.

Maggid Shiur: Ah, maybe the Sefer HaTzurah is right, that there are millions of worlds. And the ten is something else, the base. He’s not talking about the heavens. Just.

Right, so it could be that one needs to make, I think that one needs to make a better kabbalah.

Olam Katan and Olam Gadol: What Remains Valid?

The mekubalim have one thing, that they have the body system that they have going down, which is still true. A person still has approximately the same sound, limbs, externally at least, as they thought.

But the world, the olam gadol, the olam gadol is still olam katan, adam katan, whatever it’s called, the microcosm is still a big question.

The Rama still believed in galgalim, and Rabbi Chaim Vital, all of them, quotes it. But they knew, they knew. The Rama quotes somewhere the new system, and he ignores it. And in Rabbi Chaim Vital, I’m in one book, and astronomy quotes it. So they knew it.

The Hafla’ah’s Answer: Galgalim Is Not Kabbalah

I told you, Rabbi what’s his name, the Hafla’ah? The sefer showed me a Jew who says that he asked the Hafla’ah what is the explanation that all these mekubalim say that there are galgalim and the scientists say not.

He says, well, the mekubalim took this from them. This is not kabbalah.

The Hafla’ah told him, so he brings from the Hafla’ah and from someone else, it’s one of the tzaddikim in the Ukrainian region, that it’s not a problem, this piece that stands in Etz Chaim is not kabbalah, this they took from the science of those days, and the kabbalah begins afterwards.

But it does have a connection, you can’t really like say that, so one needs to make an improvement on it. Figure out what are their ideas and what are their like details of facts that are like… In short, maybe there are more than ten sefirot, and the mekubalim only knew of ten. I don’t know.

The Connection Between Ten Sefirot and Aristotle’s Ten Categories

Or, depending on what you call it, there’s like this whole… There’s another connection that many people made, that the ten sefirot is connected to the ten categories that Aristotle had.

Student: Have you seen it in the Torah?

Maggid Shiur: It’s not just. It’s not entirely just. Ah, do you know who made it first in the Torah? Rav Saadia Gaon. And it’s asked in Sefer Yetzirah. I think he’s the first one that I found to connect these things. I remember being the Sefer Yetzirah taken in bed the… The Becker Remin has a great length about this…

It’s not just, because the ten categories are the kinds of everything, the greatest kinds. When you make clear the clear of all sides, then one will end up, according to the other style, with these ten things. And according to the Plato, with five things. That’s the dispute.

In short, it’s still a mystery to me a bit of how they want.

The Importance of the Number Ten in Torah

But if the Jew is very important, a minyan is ten Jews. Asarah ma’amarot, you see the Mishnah emphasizing, this is an idea, and asarah nisim, the entire Mishnah. Eser leshonot, there’s very much, I made recently in midrash, but the midrash seeks on every thing eser leshonot.

Student: Yes, but 10 is a real round number, it’s kind of makes sense.

Maggid Shiur: It’s very interesting how they did this to us regularly, they said eser leshonot, eser leshonot, eser leshonot. They keep doing it, and it works. Are there really only ten of all these things? In short, they made another list.

But it’s funny, they had some kind of insistence, they wanted to seek specifically ten, and they found ten. There’s something about it. Maybe, maybe there is.

Discussion About “Unlucky Numbers” Among Jews

Ah, this is the eser leshonot. Someone asked if Jews have an unlucky number. Apparently 11 is an unlucky number among Jews.

Student: Yes. 11, Simchat Torah is the aseret hadibrot, the Haman, the 11th, the chelbenah. Maybe 9, but I think 11 more than 9.

Student #2: No, lo tenachesh v’lo te’onen.

Maggid Shiur: Hello, lo te’onenu, that’s just a way of getting away from problems. We don’t have any unlucky numbers. We certainly have lucky numbers. The Tanakh definitely believes that 7 is a special number. But that’s not… Okay, that’s a question of conduct. I’m not talking about conduct.

Student: No, no, no, it’s very a real… It’s a question of conduct.

Maggid Shiur: I just always want to know and remember and believe that numbers can’t hurt you. Of course they can’t hurt you. What does it come in here? Yes, there are numbers that have a special importance, because there is Pesach is seven days, and there are seven days Shabbat. Certainly, seven days is the seventh day, and it reminds a Jew of Shabbat, of the Almighty, certainly. But not just because the number 7 is a mystical thing and it can hurt you.

Well, the seventh boy of cheder, the seventh… On the contrary, the seventh helps you. The seventh helps you. Specifically 10, there’s a lot less in the Torah 10 than 7.

Student: Ah, that’s the lucky numbers, not the unlucky ones. That even the lucky and unlucky is just such a clear… Okay, it’s a… no problem, there’s no complaints. God forbid, someone who comes in the eleventh to shul, has something a clear, needs now…

Maggid Shiur: Yes, he needs one, he needs to make a siman leshanim. Hello, why didn’t you come earlier?

Student #3: Of course, I’m just saying, like, people don’t even know what the Jewish language of all these symbols are, but we’ll try to figure it out.

Maggid Shiur: The Pythagoreans also had, like, bad numbers. Like, even numbers are bad, I think. Zugot. Zugot. Even means separation. Three is… connected. One, two. Even numbers are not good.

—

Okay, good, that’s the shiur. I don’t know, I’ve already been learning.