Shimon HaTzaddik that there are 13 Sefirot and the reason to synchronize all the Kabbalists | Pardes Rimonim Gate 1 Chapter 7 (2) (Auto Translated)

Sefer Pardes Rimonim, Page 40 – Another Place for Error: The Baraita of Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik and the Thirteen Powers

Introduction: The Second Place for Error

Maggid Shiur:

In short, we are on page 40, “Another place for error.” Yes, here?

Okay, so the first error was that… the first error was that there was a responsum from Rav Hai Gaon about the thirteen attributes, and they added sefirot, and they say that there are another three. In short, we answered that these are three upper roots above the sefirot. Okay, but not sefirot.

There is another place for error. There is a baraita of Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik. I don’t know who this Shimon HaTzaddik is. Certainly not Shimon HaTzaddik from the remnants of the Great Assembly, right? Maybe yes. But that one is not called Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik. Just like Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel. Is that how one says Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel? I didn’t know.

A midrash, is there such a book, Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik?

Incidental Notes: Who is Shimon HaTzaddik?

Shimon HaTzaddik in the Gemara in Yoma

Shimon HaTzaddik already had a name on page 42, the Gemara in Yoma. He was indeed a great… Shimon HaTzaddik already had [a reputation] in Jerusalem. What of it? Something the Gemara in Yoma about the… There the Gemara told about the fifty years before… I don’t remember about… Ah, I think so. I don’t remember. No, I don’t remember.

Because is this Shimon HaTzaddik the same Shimon HaTzaddik? This is the Shimon. Just a Jew named Shimon is called Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi of blessed memory. Was Shimon bar Yochai? Righteous Shimon. What does Shimon mean? No, maybe it has something to do with it. You’re thinking, Rabbi Shimon, some name of kabbalists.

What do you say it says in the Gemara? Let’s grab it. The Gemara says that Shimon HaTzaddik didn’t know any greatness? No, they didn’t say the explicit Name except once. No. You mean it says in the Gemara in Yoma? It doesn’t say about the Name there, I remember.

Shimon HaTzaddik was some important person. The Gemara says, the famous Gemara in Yoma says that in the Second Temple, yes, in the Second Temple there were four hundred and eighty years, there were more than three hundred kohanim, except for forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served. So, all the kohanim were only in groups that changed yearly. This is the famous Gemara, an interesting matter in the Gemara.

And there are other things on 39b it says that Shimon HaTzaddik said, in short about this, the lot of Shimon HaTzaddik is the lot that came up on the right, sometimes it went yes sometimes no. On this it says further, in short, many other things, the lashon of the Torah that was worn out, the crimson thread that laughed, and in short all the miracles of the Temple. From when did Shimon HaTzaddik [serve]?

And it says further on 39b, that year that Shimon HaTzaddik died, you mean, he said to them this year I will die. But how do you know? He said, every Yom Kippur there was an old man dressed in white and wrapped in white, who entered with me and left with me. And this year an old man dressed in black and wrapped in black, entered with me and did not leave with me. After this he was weak for seven days and died, and his brother kohanim refrained from blessing with the Name.

So this is the matter from the death of Shimon HaTzaddik, this also says in Kiddushin, that until then they would bless with the Name, afterwards they stopped blessing with the Name. With Baruch shem? In Birkat Kohanim they would say the explicit Name of Hashem. Rashi in other places mentioned that the explicit Name of Hashem is the explicit Name of Hashem. So you see that he had to do with this matter? It was a tradition.

He certainly had to do, he had to do, the last Kohen Gadol, he was the last. And so it also says in Kiddushin, it brings Yoma, from the death of Shimon HaTzaddik.

There is also the story of Alexander the Great, that he said that the likeness of the image of Shimon HaTzaddik, he was a tzaddik. The likeness of the image of this one conquers me and I am not afraid of him. So Alexander the Great said about Shimon HaTzaddik. He is somewhat interesting, he looked like an angel of Hashem.

From the Death of Shimon HaTzaddik

Afterwards it says that in tractate… Well, it doesn’t say here, it doesn’t say here from the death of Shimon HaTzaddik, it says again in the Gemara in tractate… Yes, in merit of the kingdom, but the Name, the Name, and it was answered later, later, later, so it says in the Mishnah in such and such. How does it say in tractate Sotah it also says about the Name, how does it say that they stopped saying the explicit Name in Birkat Kohanim? From the death of Shimon HaTzaddik.

There is what you have his concept of from the death of Shimon HaTzaddik, well? Who was this Shimon HaTzaddik? Who was this Shimon HaTzaddik? Does anyone know who he was? Who was Shimon HaTzaddik? Who was his father? I saw it, I saw it. I saw it. He must have been very early. It’s still before the Hasmoneans, still before the whole story. He says that there were perhaps two. I saw it.

From the death of Shimon HaTzaddik, there is such a concept of from the death of Shimon HaTzaddik, well? Who was this Shimon HaTzaddik? Who was the tzaddik? Does anyone know who he was? Because Shimon HaTzaddik, who was this? Who was Shimon HaTzaddik? Who was Shimon HaTzaddik? I don’t remember. I’m asking you a simple question, who was Shimon HaTzaddik? Who was he? He was a tzaddik. I mean, he was his son, perhaps?

Ah, there is such a thing. I don’t know, but everyone doesn’t know who Shimon HaTzaddik is. Everyone knows who Shimon HaTzaddik is, but about him, he must have been very early, it’s still before the Hasmoneans, still before the whole story. He says that there were perhaps two. I don’t remember, there were two. One of them was a tzaddik, therefore he was called Shimon HaTzaddik, because there was a tzaddik and there was not a tzaddik. Presumably this is the secret, just as one calls someone a tzaddik, simply that others were not tzaddikim.

Right, but the Gemara in Yoma also says that most Kohanim Gedolim in the Second Temple were not great tzaddikim, and therefore the one tzaddik, one tzaddik was called Shimon HaTzaddik. So I think, no? Exactly why would we call Shimon HaTzaddik? He was a tzaddik! He was a great Jew! There were once great Jews!

Do you know what you were in him today? I agree, but I say that the language Shimon HaTzaddik, I mean that even a second one was a Shimon not a tzaddik. Do I know that Shimons were Shimon is a very popular name. Can’t it be? He was indeed a tzaddik, today I was already a tzaddik. There were many Shimons, Shimon this one, Shimon that one, Shimon that one, that one, yes. Remnants of the Great Assembly.

Anyway, so the Kohanim Gedolim, they could, it is true, one of the big ones. Well, the minimum of the congregation, blessed be Hashem, is lost. This says the days, he doesn’t bring more information.

One of the great sources of the secrets of the Torah is from the Kohen Gadol, that he had, yes, there is indeed the Brit Menucha built on the idea that the Names are known from the… from the… from the… from the… aha? The Kohen Gadol who said the Name on the mountain, he says the word from reality.

So, it says this a book Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik, this says this, some baraita of Shimon HaTzaddik, perhaps this Yom Tov. Not clear.

Rav Hamai Gaon and Sefer HaIyun

Rav Hamai Gaon brings it in Sefer HaIyun, there is a book Sefer HaIyun, Rav Hamai Gaon. One of the books that is hard to understand, but perhaps it is easy to understand, there is in the matter of pnimiyut (inner dimension).

> And this is Sefer HaIyun that Rabbi Hamai, head of the speakers, composed regarding the inner dimension, and revealed in it the essence of the matter of all existence of the Glory hidden from the eye, which no creature apparently can stand on the essence of its existence and its becoming in the true way, as it is in the equal unity in its completion united in its matters and lower.

Here he speaks precisely when immediately the thirteen powers. Okay, let’s learn the language that he brings. Ay the thirteen powers.

The Language of Sefer HaIyun About the Thirteen Powers

So basically Sefer HaIyun goes like this, he says that Rav Hamai Gaon explained it like this. There is a Name, there are five things, and the explanation of the five things is something else another Name. And He is unified like this, this is how it comes. And He is unified like this, I will see a bit before.

In short:

> And He, blessed be He, is unified in His powers and elevated and exalted until there is no end to His exaltedness, for He is unified in these thirteen powers, and each and every one has a known name by itself, and all of them their level is one above the other.

There are thirteen powers. Yes, this is the language of the source here. One, apparently it goes one above the other, means apparently it goes from top to bottom. One is after, the second there are thirteen powers that exist.

The first has a different version here. What the Ramak says that the first is called Or HaKadmon (Primordial Light), the second is called Chochma Keduma (Ancient Wisdom), the third is called Chochma Keduma.

The Thirteen Powers and the Midrash of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha

The Thirteen Powers and Their Names

In short, “And He, blessed be He, is unified in His powers and elevated and exalted until there is no end and no limit to His exaltedness. And He is unified in these thirteen powers, and each and every one has a known name by itself, and all of them are elevated one above the other.”

There are thirteen powers. Yes, this is the language that he quotes here. Apparently it goes from top to bottom. One is higher than the second. There are thirteen powers that exist.

The first, he has a different version here. Okay, this is the Ramak says that the first is called “Abir HaKadmon” (Ancient Mighty One), the second is called “Chochma Keduma” (Ancient Wisdom), the third is called “Or Mefulpal” (Refined Light), the fourth is called “Chashmal” (Electrum), the fifth is called “Arafel” (Thick Darkness), the sixth is called “Kisei HaNogah” (Throne of Brightness), the seventh is called “Ofan HaGedulah HaNikra Chazuzit” (Wheel of Greatness Called Chazuzit).

I don’t know what this is. “Chazuzit”. This is the word. The seventh is “Chazuzit”. Yes, I understand, why does it come to visions. “Chazuzit” is just a seeing. It corresponds to the sefirot more or less. This is Chesed, Keruv, Tahor, Gedulah, Merkavah. Yes, let’s try ourselves. Eleven, “Abir HaSovev”. Eleven, twelve, thirteen.

Netzach is “Chazon HaChozrim”, as everyone knows this, it says in the zemirot, “Netzach pri nichsei avotam”. And eight is “Keruv”, nine is… in short, he doesn’t know. This is the one this is obvious. He had this to be a… what does he say? The “Abir HaSovev”. There is like an “Abir HaElyon”, an “Abir HaKadmon”, and there is an “Abir HaSovev”, the last. So says the Ramak, he doesn’t explain why they should think so. The section of this is the side that corresponds to the Zohar that counts like this, always Netzach before Hod. He doesn’t say.

The Problem: Thirteen Powers Against Ten Sefirot

Okay, so he says, “apparently it seems that these are the ten sefirot”. These are ten sefirot. “Abir Kadmon” everyone knows means Keter. He says it goes stronger in that matter.

Oh, Master of the Universe. It could be that these are simply better names. One must stop saying Keter. Perhaps one should start saying “Abir Kadmon”. It’s a brightness, I feel of a greatness, much more mystical. Yes, could be. It’s interesting, it became perhaps a practical difference from the ten names. Yes, but on the other hand, they all become similar to each other. It’s very hard to… what is the difference between an Or Mufla and a Chashmal and an Arafel? All the same thing.

On the contrary, the ten sefirot is now in the same thing. Everything says that the Almighty is awesomely beautiful and powerful. Everything means to say that the Almighty is King and He is King. I understand. Maybe we’re too used to remember the name of this how this is how it sounds different. And here something appears everything. I know that one can learn the same same same one has schemata from this the person. Okay, us learn us already. I am indeed as people who are only written into secrets.

Okay, yes he says so, yes from here and onward it is not in sefirot. If there are only ten sefirot it comes out like this. It’s very funny, because this… one must look in the books to know the plain meaning, one must know if they have at all a concept of ten sefirot. Presumably they do, one must see. Because the Ramak is very sure that it goes like this problem, there are ten sefirot, and here it says that there are thirteen. One must say first with the thirteen. He had a bit of a proof that there is… Yes, because that responsum he said spoke about this. He clearly spoke about this that there are ten sefirot and there are these. But these…

The Midrash of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha

Why does he say that it’s Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik that he is copying? I don’t see that Sefer HaIyun says that it’s Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik. Look at many versions. Here it says plainly, I will copy the other version. The midrash says that it appears to be another thing.

One of the stories that says here is like this, that Rabbi… Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said Kohen Gadol not like Tagzit. Why did Rav Hama have to write “Rabbi Yishmael said”? What is the connection?

Rabbi Yishmael said: That day I am distinguished I am from Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, before Rabbi Chanina ben HaKaneh. And he is Hashem Rabbi Nechunya ben Dardim. I asked Rabbi Nechunya Chanina, Rabbi, show me the Glory of the King of the Universe so that His knowledge will be glorified in my heart like His other actions. Show me the Glory of the King of the Universe, so that His knowledge will be clarified in my heart, it should become clear to me His knowledge in my heart, like His other actions, just as I know all His other actions, show me His Glory. He had already finished learning all His [actions], he says now I want to know the Almighty also, I want it to be so clear.

He said to me my son Gaon, son of Gaon you are. I don’t know, does it mean the opposite, son of Gaon is a language of greatness? Is there some language son of Gaon? Pure and we will engage with you in the great seal that is sealed in heaven and the seal of heaven. There is a seal, which from this is the seal of heaven, and is called aleph resh aleph resh yud tav aleph, could be a Name. And there is a seal of earth, which is called aleph heh vav. I will show you everything, I will give you.

He took out the book of Rabbi Chananel ben Chananel, which is called Sefer HaAchilut, and there he saw that it says like this:

> “Mighty in chambers of greatness who sits on the multitude of wheels of my chariot in the seal of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, in the great seal that is sealed in the name of lions, sign one head, unity head, unification exchange one, unification and unified makes worlds, seal of earth in the name aleph heh vav heh, sign one was and will be.”

What is there a poem this? “Who sits on the multitude of wheels of my chariot in the seal of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, in the great seal that is sealed in the name of lions, sign one head, unity head, unification exchange one, unification and unified makes worlds, seal of earth in the name aleph heh vav heh, sign one was and will be, Ehyeh”.

There was a city Ehyeh, and the Name was one was and will be, but what is between them is hoveh (present), word word on its face, was and will be. He tries to describe the Almighty.

The Explanation of “Was, Is, and Will Be”

And afterwards he says like this, ah, it’s yes connected, because it flows in this version, I see that there are simply versions, one must ask. The Chatam Shmuel Weiner says a language from Sefer Yetzirah, the seal was before the creation of the world, do you know the plain meaning? It’s another plain meaning, was, which was not before the world, is in this world and will be in the world to come.

And in this order are explained that the heads of all existences are included in the book of the work of creation, which are secrets included in the book on the hidden and called craftsman. The three existences and they are the thirteen powers in which the one Master is revealed, and which each and every one has a name by itself, from them appear the actions of the thirteen attributes that are written in the Torah.

Also here a similar language, here is a list, a bit a different list. Here begins again the Or Mufla in the list. And it also goes to thirteen? He says yes, a three of them, here comes out a three of them in a conclusion for the honor of the Shechina that rises ten.

In short, this is a principal people who were elevated the topic. What is here? This is a tradition of three? Of thirteen? What do you see here? Not one can understand, how it works.

The Ramak’s Approach About the Thirteen Powers

Okay, we’ll learn what he said. They speak yes about the sefirot, I don’t know exactly. I see that there are perhaps the sefirot, one indeed can’t know the books to what it was, who wrote which piece. I see immediately, he says, and it needs to be but not. He tries to understand the topic.

In short, it is like this, that the Ramak assumed… that this is the generation normally here. That the approach that he has another three, means he three things after the sefirot. There is what they say, and there are those who say, so I see it says in the midrash here. Because of Rabbi Moshe Putriler, I don’t know. That the three… no, he had to come permitted from the same person. One brings his indeed here.

Notes About the Times

Today was the times very difficult, because we have the world very over from this. But it’s today can be beautifully back and a Jew to pour Chaim Bloch. And it’s always indeed Jews people. It’s a sort such a creature that they were further wanted in after.

It’s today how here? Today it’s not possible to live, the people work still now on his things, and he can’t now spread it, because people will go break it off.

Thirteen Sefirot, the Rambam and the Kabbalists, and Form and Matter

Thirteen Sefirot — A Dispute of Geonim

Instructor: You mean actually?

I once saw, I don’t know if you saw, there was a Jew named Chaim Bloch, did you hear of him?

Student: Yes.

Instructor: He wanted to print all these people, there are such tremendous people, there are such creatures who wrote things that… I have it here. Today it’s not possible to print, because people are still working on his things, he can’t spread it now, because people will immediately grab it.

Student: Or yes.

Instructor: Why do the people who print sefarim, they write, not print it with normal pieces that one can read? It’s a custom of the academy to print in a normal way. The regular nusach and the irregular nusach.

Now, here there are thirteen things. No, it could actually be that this is the point, that in the beis hamidrash there were people who spoke about thirteen. The piece from Rav Hai Gaon that struggles with this is exactly… It looks like there was a machlokes, he is already a machlokes. Exactly there where the question is, right? So it seems, no? He says that in Sefer Yetzirah it also says thirteen things. It says sefer safar v’sippur, and it says eser sefiros.

There are three on top of the ten.

I’m sure there are ten, and there’s something else. What are the thirteen? What are the thirteen? What are the thirteen?

Student: What are there thirteen midos harachamim?

Instructor: What?

Student: Because someone translated it in Chumash.

Instructor: I don’t know, I’m saying, there are thirteen mitzvos, there are thirteen. Thirteen is like… I don’t know, it’s not a good number.

Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik and Sefer HaIyun

Instructor: Now, this comes from me just from… ah, anyway, thirteen is like nothing. Ten is a whole unit of ten. Three you can’t, what begins after the first understanding number… I don’t see that he quotes from the Bris Hashem… ah, this is Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik, where the same piece appears. And in the Sefer HaIyun of Rav Chamai Gaon, where there are 25 versions here, the same thing appears. It seems that the Ramak decided that this comes from… he writes often, it says here in the name of the Braisa of Shimon HaTzaddik. It seems that the Ramak decided that… I don’t remember if he mentions Shimon HaTzaddik at all. It seems that the Ramak understood this, or perhaps for him. I remember that the person had something about this too, that the Midrash Shimon HaTzaddik is like a mahadura, it looks like it’s a piece like an earlier mahadura of the Sefer HaIyun.

He says there are expressions from the Rambam that appear in this sefer. No, not. One can’t know, because the… is it certain. Because the Rambam, this is certainly, it’s certain that all these sefarim don’t have other secrets for us.

The Rambam and What the Mekubalim Try to Reconcile

Instructor: All these people try to reconcile something that the Rambam missed. All of Kabbalah is this, or a large part of Kabbalah. The problem is that most mekubalim don’t understand what the Rambam did know. So, we’re missing that part. The person learned the Rambam. The Rambam said that one can only know pe’ulos (actions/effects). One can. Before the Rambam didn’t repeat such expressions, Chazal already say it’s not only the Rambam, but it’s the idea. He says yes, but I want to know the Shem (Name). Do you understand? Something is missing for him. The Rambam said that nothing is missing for you, that there’s nothing more to know. Or he says to me, he holds differently. Yes, something is missing for him. And he tries the whole time. This really won’t always be what the mekubalim are trying to add or give. And the Rambam always tries to find what is the gadol (great one) within the pe’ulos. What is this thing?

Ma’aseh Merkavah — The Rambam’s Definition

Instructor: For example, the Ribbono Shel Olam, the last thing here is the galgalei hamerkavah (spheres of the chariot). I don’t know. The galgalim, at some point, are just connected, at least, from the galgalim that the Rambam spoke about. And the Rambam said that the galgalim turn through some koach (force). I only know it was a malach (angel). This says very nicely, but in the malach there must be some Shem, that means the Ribbono Shel Olam leads the malach. So I want to see the Ribbono Shel Olam who leads the malach. This is how I understand the mekubalim, I don’t understand what I’m saying, the big circuit that they have, all the timers that they have, all the words that they are, but can feed reconcile, I can’t speak about this, but I always want to see.

He says, what the Rambam truly calls ma’aseh merkavah. Merkavah, says the Rambam, is that the Ribbono Shel Olam is… he has an expression in chapter 72, in chapter 71 of part 2 it says there that merkavah is that the Ribbono Shel Olam is nifrad v’ne’elam (separate and hidden) from the world, but also mechubar mimenu (connected to it), chubar v’ne’elam mimenu (connected and hidden from it), tachlis (ultimate), in such a way that one cannot understand how to say on one hand that He guides the world, that He is in the world, and to also say that He is what we call transcendent, that one cannot, shlilos hazach (negation of the thing), and all these things. The mekubalim are all trying to look at that, exactly that. And it’s very hard, because that’s the way they can’t do all these difficulties that they have in the world. Because one can’t do a whole thing that’s impossible.

The Concept of “Shefa” — Words for the Impossible

Instructor: I don’t know. Maybe, maybe, you have to make it too much or you’ll go crazy. Maybe, maybe, you have to have words, and in some systems they do give words for it, they say that we will indeed figure it out. They’ll figure out a way how to speak of saying the word, the shefa (flow/abundance). The shefa. The word is indeed the general rule, because words, true words, I can because someone doesn’t say, true words are still only here. Not exactly what the Rambam said, it’s not anything, that’s the problem. The Rambam is contradicting himself about what this is. In other words, it’s not interesting, it’s not interesting what Mr. Maimon thought about this. There’s some problem here. The Rambam admits that there’s some problem here.

There are Rambam-types who are happy, they don’t want the light without any desire to know anything. They say that we know pe’ulos, not when we know science. We know, we can know, even metaphysical science, not just science that we know today, it’s only olam ha’asiyah (world of action). I already know the science, even of olam and all olam habri’ah (world of creation), I already know that too. I already know up to the first malach, and now I’m happy. The problem is, there’s a reason why there must be a God in the first malach. And I don’t have good words for it. I think the mekubalim are trying to give words for these things.

Eser Sefiros — A Structure for the “Shefa”

Instructor: I say there are eser sefiros (ten sefiros). For example, Ein Sof sent, this starts from, let’s say, from the idea that in the ten galgalim there must be kochos (forces). But they’re not happy with enough saying, just believing. You are, that the world which is in a certain way, must have a certain power, whatever you want to call it, right? We’ve given reconciliations, energy, all reconciliations, it means the kiyum (existence), the metzi’us (reality) of all things. This is where people have very entered the word like metzi’us, Havayah, plays with such words. But the world has metzi’us from God. Now, you can see how as it were the metzi’us travels from God to the world. Maybe we should start talking about 14 different levels in it. Like, maybe 10 would be a good number. This is basically the number of 10, which is what we’re saying.

The ma’aseh (story) of the tzimtzum (contraction) that the Ramak almost spoke about, and that he says, all the stories that they try to talk exactly exactly exactly. He wants, I say, you could argue it could be that it’s a recipe for going crazy. I agree.

Tzurah (Form) and Chomer (Matter) — A Philosophical Foundation

Instructor: This is much a lower level, but… This is indeed a lower level, but you could say all kinds of things that exist in the mind of God or whatever. This is not the direction they’re going here. Because if certain things exist beyond reality, beyond what we can see, yes, again, when you talk about forms, ideas, forms are very a low thing, relative to Kabbalah. It’s crazy. Um, meaning, a form would be something like a plot, right? A structure. And now, how can a structure exist? Here is a problem. How can it exist?

And about this, one of the original geniuses and means of the later students of Plato was to say that the form exists but in the mind of God. But that is not enough to explain existence, you see? Because a structure is a structure of something. A structure is a structure of something. There’s a plan which is the form of a person’s life. There’s a form. What do I mean I have a form? A person, such a thing, a creature, does he have a plan. He’s a little baby, then he grows up a youngster, then he’s a bachur (young man), then he dies. And the steps in between, and then he learns, there’s a certain story to him, a certain plan, a certain beginning and end, let’s say. Every form is there at the beginning. Like the form of a living thing, or something like that. This one has a form, it goes around in orbit, that’s its tzurah.

Now, but this is the tzurah of something, right? This is because an original, and is perhaps, starts thinking that there must be a separate source for matter. It must be like what’s called later, what the Ramban calls chomer kadmon (primordial matter), the later people call it the matter that exists, undifferentiated matter. Understand, we have never seen matter without a form. Every thing has some certain tzurah.

Tzurah and Chomer, Existence and What is Above Tzurah

Plato, Aristotle and the Concept of Chomer Kadmon

This is why originally, and Plato and Aristotle started thinking that there must be a separate source for chomer. It must be like what’s called later, what the Ramban calls chomer kadmon, and later people call it that matter had to exist, or a certain undifferentiated chomer.

Understand, we have never seen matter without a form, because every thing has some certain tzurah. But a tzurah is still not the same thing as this. So how did it begin? Let’s say, at some point you get, Parshas Bereishis according to the simple meaning is Plato, is like, to me it’s in this way, that it actually doesn’t speak of yesh me’ayin (something from nothing). Maybe in one word, as the Ramban says, but mostly, it assumes that there is like a certain undifferentiated matter, which is reikam tohu vavohu (empty, formless and void), and the creation is havdalah (separation), right? It’s giving tzurah to this, it’s giving tzurah to this.

This is All “Very Low” for Kabbalah

Now, what this shows us, and this is all, again, for Kabbalah, all these things are very low. Very low, because this is the point. They disregard everything. They only care about the one thing that’s understood. Maybe the tzurah of the world, the tzurah of existence, the tzurah of reality.

So the thing is, the thing is, that existence is not a tzurah, in that sense, in that specific sense. Because a tzurah is a process, like a pattern, a pattern of something. Can there be a pattern without something? Yes, maybe like, as I said, in the mind of God, that before everything, this is. But this is still not enough. No, this is still not enough. This is still not enough to explain why there would be something.

Eser Sefiros Bli Mah — Before the Tzurah

Okay, so the first thing that’s said is just a point. Just, there’s… we’re going to start thinking more things today, we start thinking, um, why to do something. So, like when you, in a sense, you start explaining matter and existence in the same way. Because tzurah is what science does, what normal science does, right? To say the structure of things. It’s not the tzurah of science, it’s the tzurah of the… But there isn’t a form of being. Being is… the Ribbono Shel Olam, I’ll explain it in the Republic, very basic things, very good.

Before there was being, there was being, and that’s not called a form. As it says in the holy sefer, that the good, which is the reason for things to be, is beyond being, or beyond form, and power, and grace. What’s said in Kabbalah, eser sefiros bli mah (ten sefiros without what), yes? Starting with this. Eser sefiros bli mah, bli mahus (without essence), means before form. Mahus means a tzurah, a something, asher hu alul l’hiyos (which is liable to be). When you say this, it already means much separation. It’s this and not that, it’s this in the sense of being about something.

If you want to talk about, when you say existence itself, or being itself, or things like that, then you’re already talking about something before what we call forms. This is already from before Chochmah, or whatever, one can call it Chochmah, I don’t care about the names now, it’s like everyone’s gonna have their language. But you’re talking about something before structures of something, not structures of anything.

The Duality of “The Idea of Something”

And therefore, one can’t really say the idea of something. The idea of something, which we usually call in… also in Kabbalah, and as I said, in Kabbalah it’s very hard to speak. The idea of something always has this duality. It’s an idea of something. Even if you speak the idea before the something, it’s still, it’s still what’s going to be something. It’s like, hoveh (present), yihiyeh (will be) something, it’s going to be something.

If you want to speak of anything, of anything being… for example, if you want to explain matter, which is not going to be helped by this, right? But you have to talk about like what you started saying, like being, or goodness by the way, or the idea of good, or existence, or things like that.

Below the Tzurah and Above the Tzurah — Where They Meet

And then, would this existence would have been something that has a tzurah exactly. Understand? You can be below with a tzurah, in the sense like chomer. Is below the tzurah, and you can have at some point something that is above the tzurah, like first matter, something that is totally unformed. So it’s the lowest thing, in our hierarchy it’s the lowest thing, this is the olam hatohu (world of chaos), this is the dalet klipos (four husks).

And then you can have the highest thing, and in some sense the things meet, that’s why there’s a very great confusion in all these things, because in some sense the things meet, because the things that have no structure, but they have existence.

Where Does Existence Come From?

So now one must start speaking of existence. Where does existence come from? Now, the theory of a God is that there’s one thing that is only existence, and perhaps even not existence, because remember that it becomes problems when you start speaking of existence itself.

Existence sounds also like something, and it’s definitely in contrast to non-existence, and all such things. It’s also a word. And when one says existence, when you think of the word existence, you think of the way how all things that you’ve ever seen and heard and thought exist. And this is not existence, this is a sort of existence.

More Than One Type of Existence — Shem Meshutaf or Mashal?

And then one begins to enter into the difficulties, that there’s more than one type of existence. What does this mean? Can one say the same word for other types of existence? Does it become a shem meshutaf (shared name) or a mashal (parable)? Even the word that God exists, the Rambam says that this is an equivocal term, it’s not true to say that God exists the same way as something else exists. Other people say that perhaps there’s a connection.

But one must think that God gave for other things to exist. His job is only to give existence to anything. And how does one even speak of His job? But this is what the mekubalim try. When they speak of shemos (names) and sefiros and all these levels, they’re only interested in this area.

From the beginning of the sefer to the end, and at the end he has perhaps half a page about the rest of the world, the rest of everything else. So all of Kabbalah fits into the space that the Rambam — I don’t think what he claims doesn’t exist. That’s the important thing. But the Rambam doesn’t think it’s possible to speak of it, or doesn’t have language to talk about for sure.

Ma’aseh Bereishis — The Order of Hishtalshelus of Tzuros

Understanding the World Through Form and Metaphysics

So you understand the entire world, you want to understand… and just to be clear, understanding the entire world also means understanding the metaphysics of the entire world. How? You want to talk about form (tzurah). There’s an entire study, if you’re like a Platonist, that you think that a higher sense of form explains a lower sense, right? If you believe that… the opposite of reductionism, right?

If you believe that to explain why there are tables, you have to understand why there’s the form of tables, and maybe that’s not a real form, but there’s a higher level of things that explain the lower level of things. Greater principles that explain the smaller details. And then, there has to be a limit.

And here too, it’s very hard, there’s all kinds of speculation. The Rambam says there’s the central angel that gives forms to everything. How does it do that? What does it even mean? He doesn’t explain it. He himself writes that there’s a problem there. Can one understand this? When a person understands something, he also receives a form that sits upon the existence of the thing, and how does it happen? Where does it come from? It’s not so easy to explain. You’ll tell him maybe you’re born with it, maybe you receive it when you’re ready, all kinds of theories like that.

And then you can get like a whole, you know, seder hishtalshelut, an entire story of all the forms. Like, some contemporary people talk about biology and evolution in this way, right? How does higher level organization come from? And where does it come from? And how does it happen? And how does that control the lower level organizations of the world? And this would be an entire study, this would be ma’aseh bereishit as everything, the mekubalim call this ma’aseh bereishit. This is what science is supposed to be, maybe science is, or some science is, and so on.

Ma’aseh Merkavah – The Connection Between God and the World

Then, if you want to know not ma’aseh bereishit but ma’aseh merkavah… and this is all called pe’ulat Hashem, right? Very nice, you’re a believer, the Almighty made all this, these are the things He does.

If you want to talk about ma’aseh merkavah, which is the way in which this is all God acting, there’s precisely the word “the way”. The connection, as it were, that makes… in the mekubalim one would say, like we’ll see later in Chelek Tet, if you say the Almighty made something, a miracle (nes), a natural law (teva), it doesn’t matter, you have to have a meaning to that word.

In the Rambam, there’s missing a meaning that makes that true. Because you say only, “Well, everything is from God as the first cause.” Very cute. But how is He the cause? Like, how… how does… how does it become a matter of divinity? What does it do? Maybe, there are matters that aren’t, maybe they’re too… there’s too much hishtalshelut and they’re not considered God anymore. But what… what makes it… what makes it a matter of the divine? In other words, what are… what are the connections?

And these things are before the forms and before the… ah… even before existence, possibly.

The Space of Ma’aseh Merkavah – What the Mekubalim Try

There’s… there has to be like a… a way in which this God thing that is barely can be said to exist, or maybe can’t be said to exist, and… must be beyond being, beyond existence, for sure beyond form. The Rambam sometimes sounds like he says God has a form, but then he says, “No, God is not a form, it’s just a parable (mashal).” Um… how does this, ah, give existence to existent things?

This is the… this is precisely the language that the early mekubalim use, like the movement of existence from existent to existent, or from existent to non-existent, or from non-existent to existent, depending on which language you play, it’s always gonna be the same thing.

And they… they at least think you could imagine it in some sort of tzefiyah bamerkavah, you can name it. Like this whole story of the 613 kishrei chochmah is a certain naming of this. Like you said, there’s a matter of keter, and there’s a matter of… right? But when you speak… of course, all these things have like a hishtalshelut.

Kabbalah as Parable: The Nature of Language, The Sin of Impatience, and the Comparison with Science

The Universal Nature of Language and the Essence of Kabbalah

Maggid Shiur:

Which language you play, it’s always been the same thing. And they think at least that you can imagine it in a certain tzefiyah bamerkavah. You can name it. Like the whole story of the two keter chochmah is a certain naming of this. Like you said, there are two points.

But when you speak, naturally all these things have a hishtalshelut. And here too, when one writes the Shem Havayah itself, and you know, the Zohar is instruction how to write the Name, through the doing. But this is only a parable of a parable of a parable of a parable. When one speaks only about kabbalah, you must actually speak about the movement of existence itself, or something before existence, which becomes from something undefined and unnamed into something that one says it is. How does the Almighty become the God of the world? This is actually the question. And kabbalah is the entire story of this. And, yes, essentially. What is called kabbalah properly. Not like ma’aseh bereishit, or what is called avodat Hashem, which is simply nothing. The true story.

The Rambam’s Alternative

Could it be that it all doesn’t actually make sense to speak of it? Yes. As the Rambam would say, first become clear on what you can become clear. And the things you don’t understand, there’s such a thing in Torah, “lo taturu acharei levavechem,” it’s perhaps not relevant to you, and you don’t need to delve into it.

The Sin of Impatience – Chet Adam HaRishon

The mekubalim are all impatient, they want to know right now. And when one is impatient, one sometimes makes mistakes. This is like the sin of Adam HaRishon. This is like the sin. The mekubalim are all very aware of this. This is like the greatest sin, when you grasp things, you don’t yet have the vessels (keilim), you don’t yet have the ability to grasp them. So one begins to say things, one begins to say there are two gods, literally, right? Because of problems like this. And the mekubalim are all very aware, one won’t say, one will say, one will think, one will dream, one will imagine, try. And therefore no one should learn kabbalah except whoever feels he must.

But there are all people who can never be satisfied with saying, “Yes, this is precisely the Rambam’s language.” The Almighty is connected with the world and separate from the world, and we cannot – we cannot overcome the problem of saying both and not knowing how it works. And one wants to say it, I have this certain work, look, let’s imagine there’s a big pipe. A little existence comes in like this, and it gets divided, and it breaks, it gets fixed. This is the kind of things you claim to know what is their revelation on Sunday. Maybe if you think about this now, you’ll find. I can’t speak of this. Can I say nothing, I can speculate about it. I can’t learn.

Kabbalah as Parable – And the Value of a Parable

Rather what, there is indeed something of wisdom in it. Is something connected to something? Is it just random words? So is the story. See, please, please. But the problem is that all words, in general anyway, is that all words, in general anyway, yes, I think, that all words is board, only the words, from the words, you words, you words, you words. If you understand the problem, or if you look at the problem, the words will help you look at it. Like every parable, right? Everyone agrees it’s all a parable, right? I want to already say what a parable means.

But you try to understand a certain thing, and I give you a certain diagram, or a certain way how to think about it. Now, where did I get the diagram from? That’s a good question. I don’t know where people get something from, who knows? Where did Einstein get the theory of relativity from? Do you know where? From the mind. It’s true that he says, “I can show you exactly how it works.” Not really, he can already, he can show you how it helps you, he can’t show you how he got it, and what it is, and how it connects to anything else. You say this is something that has nothing to do with anything, it’s a good piece of idolatry, this is how one can sit and say it has nothing to do with any word you want to think of.

This is if you don’t have the problem, then it doesn’t speak to you. But this is an answer to a problem you have, or it’s a clearer way to think of a problem you have at least, or to see something you want to see as a religious person, as one who wants to see the Almighty, it’s something that will help you.

Where Do Ideas Come From? – The Comparison with Science

Besides the question of where his ideas come from, he said, “I simply thought to imagine, and I came up with the idea.” When you ask him, “Meheichi teiti should I believe you?”

So there is a difference, because for whatever reason scientists pretend to speak from the authority of how their theories work and not from the authority of where their theories actually come from. Which is only halfway, only like halfway is only something… I speak to what this is indeed, I spoke of science, but halfway is the reason why we call science says not that one must believe, one must believe them because the Almighty spoke with them, is because they actually don’t claim authority from the place where the ideas come from. Because the ideas actually come from somewhere. If you actually like, there’s work on this, like a phenomenology of discovery, like where do scientists get their ideas from? It’s not true. It’s not true. It’s not true. So the… no, it’s… no, it’s… no, it’s anything I can understand, anything I can…

He says he got it from a hishtalshelut, but a custom… in general, people in this sort of area, for a reason, have a custom to speak. To tell you, to claim the authority, like this, the reason why I’m able to follow, or I’m able to hear, is because from the place where I was able to get an idea. Now, this is simply not the main thing in most other areas of… contemporary times, it’s not the main thing. It actually was the main thing in ancient times, even by scientists, they used to speak this way, they said God told me, and therefore… and no one still knows where people get their ideas from. It’s still from the same God.

But why you would listen to this is for the same reason you would listen to any idea, because it’s useful. It’s useful, it’s useful to understand, or, because it’s very important. You tell me, you want to understand… again, all these things you need here during talmidei atzilut, we’ll come to this more. He wants to tell you there’s a problem, there’s a… first of all, you would never experience the question or the need of understanding this, then naturally, it’s not for you. But if you have this issue, now, I have you a method, I’ll tell you an answer.

The Ramak’s Method – Synchronizing All Systems

The Ramak is annoying, sometimes he just says, so it says, and do me something, but it’s not relevant, what does it mean? But if you have a problem, I tell you an answer, that when it comes to ten levels, one will understand the method of the ten levels. The ten levels (madregot), this will help you understand because you’ll understand…

And there a second time he said there are thirteen, so he speaks of the same thing, he doesn’t speak of the same thing, he differs from you. So there’s a problem for your model. There is, like think of this way, think of this way, think of it that way. So he tries very strongly to synchronize everything. I don’t know that he speaks of the same thing he spoke of. No, they actually, if he spoke it’s true. And then, your job as a layman is to…

Discussion: Can One Learn Kabbalah Without Understanding?

Student:

No, you can indeed, you want to still understand, you just want to hear what the other says.

Maggid Shiur:

…just hear what the other says, and that’s the text, right? No understanding, no nothing.

Student:

No, there’s no such thing as without context and without understanding. There’s no such thing.

Maggid Shiur:

And you can learn through the text and understand how the ten sefirot work.

Student:

No, no, I don’t agree. Not agree.

Maggid Shiur:

Let’s say there’s a guy who had a vision, and also he has understanding, and he can explain to you where his vision comes from.

Again, no one here is ever explaining where the vision comes from. They’re explaining what the vision does or what it says, and these are the words they give you. Just like every other theory, speculative theory, will explain to you what it is, how it helps you, what it solves, such things. No one will… the authority and the question of the source of the idea is not the same as the question… like, the only people who claim, in an interesting way, that their ideas come from the same… the source or the authority of their idea is the same as the structure of the idea itself, are the philosophers. And this is like their great innovation… actually science is mostly not working this way, and even… it’s like the whole… like the whole problem… like a certain ideal of philosophy, of Platonism or whatever, of the school called philosophy is… it’s a very interesting claim they have, it’s not actually trivial. It’s not how human learning works for the most part.

The Difference Between Philosophy and Other Sciences

Their interesting claim is that “I’ll show you a proof of something, such a thing called a proof, a dialectic” called by Plato, “and I’ll… you’ll learn it the same way I learned it, from the same proof. And the proof is also meant to be the structure of the reality it recognizes, because it’s a proof because… not a proof in like a mere sign sort of way, it’s not a proof in the way modern science considers a proof, like we made a test and this quote came out, so therefore this is the fact. It’s a real proof.

Methodology of Kabbalah: Speculation, Reality, and the Ramak’s Project

The Philosophical Ideal of Learning Against Practice

This is a very beautiful dream of the philosophers of how learning should work. The way learning actually works for the most part in the world is not so, even if philosophers agree with this – they just have a scheme to get there in the end.

And the way learning actually works is: number one, most people who know things don’t know where they know them from, and their knowledge definitely doesn’t match the structure of the reality they tell you. In other words, people – maybe one can say they make guesses, or maybe they have imagination. Again, these are the correct theories of where they come from. We don’t know, we don’t have a clear understanding of where knowledge comes from.

We do know yes that people, actually, every knowledge… there’s no science in the world that isn’t built on looking at certain problems. I want to understand why this comes, I want to understand how this works, I want to understand why this is so. Everything can be, but the reason we follow the proofs is because we can… no, proofs don’t… that’s the problem. It doesn’t actually work.

Student: Should one believe everything anyone says?

Maggid Shiur: You again, you don’t know there there, anyone it’s… no no, say, whatever you said, you don’t know there there, you wonder already that there is something word in the radical. Already you believe anything anyone says, what do you believe? You don’t believe not not not only.

The Legitimate Critique of Kabbalah

Already you don’t believe not not not to say that the mekubalim all worked with a certain very basic set of problems, and they tried to see something very clear which is very hard to see, and maybe they’re wrong for working on this problem. That would be a good criticism. But I don’t agree with it. It’s true. This is the true critique. All mekubalim.

Chassidim, for the most part, are not mekubalim. Those who are mekubalim are concerned about this problem. Chassidim in the sense that… they’re definitely not concerned about what one means.

Student: Yes, this is a waste of time.

Maggid Shiur: That’s what you’re saying, but I think that’s what the Baal Shem Tov, that’s what they mostly were… I don’t know. As you said, some of them.

The Main Point: One Can Only Reach God Through the Way He Is

And if you have no concern, if you think that the real thing would be – if you think that you can have a relationship with God not in the way the world is, then you’re certainly wrong. I don’t mean that anyone actually thinks that.

So, it’s only the argument, the only argument that a student would say is something like… again, there’s a lot of belief here, a lot of guessing as you say, a lot of speculation. No one has, perhaps he wouldn’t have any proof of this. But every religious person has always believed that you can’t reach God except through the way He is, or the way reality is.

And as much as this can be, there’s seemingly a difference. Every system in the world has a difference between imagination and truth, even Chassidus. No one thinks that as long as I think something, it’s true. And especially this isn’t true regarding reaching God, because God is meant to be the ultimate reality. And therefore one can only reach Him if it’s in the way the ultimate reality is. If you imagine God in a false way, then you’re not imagining God.

Discussion: What Does “Possible to Understand” Mean

Student: We believe it’s true, but we can’t understand it, right? There are things that are impossible to understand.

Maggid Shiur: I don’t know what you mean by “possible to understand.” I don’t know what “possible” means here.

Student: Okay, that’s not for now.

The Microcosm Argument: The Ramak’s Justification

And the only argument that people who would start from you would say is something like, based on a kind of microcosm theory – which is sometimes taken too far, but everyone takes it too far always – which is that if the way in which… I get to it is in this way, so this is the way in which I should start.

This is explicitly what he says is the justification for doing what he does. He doesn’t say “because I don’t care.” Many people feel that he’s saying that this is simply a lie. He says that he doesn’t care what the reality is, he only cares what he says.

But he says here that “shtei tzurot hakdoshot,” that man is an adam katan. And therefore, the way, like, if I have this fixed series of feelings or series of understanding or series of contemplations that I see usually when I try to think about God or I try to think about reality, that probably must be a mirror of how reality really is. And therefore, it’s a legitimate way to work with.

And he does find a hint in the verse “ki sha’ari” and “ki tachat kol hashamayim” and all these hints. He doesn’t say this, but his method is mostly not reading the book, mostly trusting that the order in which things look like to him or appear to him is a true order, because of the belief that the human being is an image of God and all these things, whatever, or an image of the world and so on.

So it’s not always based on a reality, it’s just that he holds this way and it’s also a speculation, it’s like every other speculation. But it’s important for him and for anyone to see how things are, because seeing how things are or knowing how things are, however you want to call it, is what they’re after. They’re not after anything else besides this.

The Ramak’s Project: Coherence of All Kabbalot

And the Kabbalah HaMekubelet is using structures, let’s be sure, yes, I’m making this speculation. Everyone is using structures from somewhere else, right? You say that ten is a number ten that makes sense because you have ten numbers. So okay, so you’re using some basic structure that you know from somewhere. Nobody has promised you that God works in this structure.

But we’re assuming that if the world works in this way, that this would be a legitimate way, and it would be a reasonable way to access the divine, the real way, or any other structure that you use. This is what he says “al mishalam.” And so on. This is basically what they do.

Coherence as a Criterion of Truth

If there’s… well, a structure, anything has to be coherent, to be useful. Because you can be a mekubal of only one system. There’s no problem. If one system makes sense to you, and you’ll make sense of it, and you’ll make sense of it, right? Everything, all the data you have, matches with this. And no problem.

But most of the time people that have that kind of thing, they accomplish it by cutting off most of the reality. They’re like just saying, even though it doesn’t look that way, it still has to look that way. That’s like a kind of trick.

But if you don’t see one line sentence from somewhere or something is everything, then you’re going to try to use a lot more data. Now, all the things that people have speculated about and have written are useful data, at least useful languages, or useful models, or useful… there might be mistakes.

The Ramak’s project is basically taking one book and making everything else work with it, and the way he says it is… and the Ramak’s answer, all the kabbalot. The way he says it is something like, that this was also Birush and Birush and is a Tanna, and therefore he knew better than anyone else.

And traditionally, this is just real logic in this. Certainly according to Kabbalah. According to nigleh, of course, in a halacha, a Seder, I don’t know, Rabbeinu, Warsaw, whatever. But according to Kabbalah, when Kabbalah is understood as reality, it’s just like halacha.

The Problem of Ten Sefirot as “Halacha”

It was already that everyone had to agree that there are ten sefirot. What’s going on? Let’s say there are seventeen sefirot, and there are thirteen. It wouldn’t be any… there’s the problem. This isn’t the political problem. If it is, but simply it’s not.

You have a reality, and you don’t have crazy what someone says. And therefore it should help that you don’t have any mekubalim. Sometimes people call themselves mekubalim. And you don’t have any mekubalim saying. And last night the angel spoke to me, and I explained that the reality is this way, and I’m doing something. So that’s not a real reason.

The Real Reason Why the Ramak’s Project is Useful

The real reason why it’s useful, all of this whole project is useful is because the… because, like, one important thing for anything to be useful, to be able to live with something, to be able to understand it in a way, is for it to be coherent and for it to match as much data as possible.

This is a sign, this is what truth means, and this is also what it means to grasp any theory accurately. In other words, if so it would be, I don’t know, I’m a contradiction, a good day, do me something, I’m a contradiction with the Zohar. It would already be a mistake. Because it would stand that he included something so that it stands in the Zohar or in the Sefer Yetzirah, wherever, it must just be. And therefore one must understand.

Shortcuts and Structures

But it’s only shortcuts. It’s only shortcuts in the sense of taking certain sentences, certain ikkarim, certain basic amudim, certain basic pillars of the theory, and making them central and working things around that. And that’s what’s going to help us see clearly all the other things within that. Otherwise, it would just be…

If someone tells him, sometimes he does this, but then if you’re even smarter, you realize you encompass even that. Why does he say it? Ah, so this is hard for him, he struggles with himself and went further. Okay, you can do that. No one stops you.

The Way of Learning Kabbalah: Why One Must Start with a Basic Structure

The Value of Learning from Different Mekubalim

Otherwise it would be every day saying something different, which is not a very clear way to get clarity.

If someone tells him, sometimes he does this, but then if you’re smarter, you see that you encompass even that. Why does he say it? Ah, so this is hard for him, he struggles with himself and went further. Okay, you can do that. No one stops you. And sometimes one can actually know better from this. Yes, certainly, if you think this is literally so, you know he struggles with himself. But if he’s trying to show something that’s true, then you know what he struggles with, and it’s useful.

And remember, no matter when you think or speak about these things, whether in a supernatural way or in a natural way, right? Whether the angel, I don’t know what elyon, spoke with all these people, or all these people were Jews who turned to think about all these problems. And again, more or less the same, you know, limitations, right, of all Jews. They must more or less believe in the Pardes [Pardes Rimonim] ten [sefirot], something similar, because it won’t jump some non-Jew from I don’t know where who starts from a completely different place, and even if the reality may be the same, it won’t be useful.

And then, in both of these ways, all these people must be worth understanding, because, if you learn a subject and five different people have thought about it, and each one has, how do you call it, each one came with a certain point of it, or a certain aspect of it, or a certain way of thinking about it even, then probably there’s some aspect of reality that he grasps. Most of the time people don’t grasp everything alone. So it’s always a good thing to learn from each one. And the same thing, if it’s the angel from outside, so why did the angel say to him this way and to that one that way? One answer is that both are true. One answer is because the angel had to… the angel also said only one thing at a time, he says to this one this and to that one that. We don’t say it’s a contradiction, but it means if you want to understand the world you need to understand both.

This whole language of learning, like, Gemara, like, it says here this way and there that way, a contradiction comes out, three commentators, three answers. It’s simple, like, how else do you want to do things? The Jews knew how to do things this way. Does anyone else know how to do things in a different way? It’s not like any science that does things in a different way.

The Difference Between Halacha and Kabbalah in This Matter

And it’s not like you have a big difference. Halacha has a structure. Halacha has? Because halacha is only a thought, it’s a bigger difference. Halacha is only a thought. It’s not only about now, how the world is. The world is more, we can’t compare everything that is. The things, we can’t compare. The person who revealed it grasped it, and he said it, how will he grasp it? There are two things that you’ll fall into a certain process to see, you’ll understand little by little. I don’t understand, but I don’t know what people mean when they say, it’s just a statement. The statement means understanding. What do you think understanding is? No, I can understand. Saying things… saying things is the best, the most part the best sort of understanding that exists. I don’t want to just say things, we’re talking about understanding, I’m not just saying things.

What Does “Understanding” Mean in Kabbalah — Against Imagination

Why imagine? Who says imagination is so good? What is imagination? Imagination is a very low way of understanding. Imagining is not far from… yes, certainly you say, saying is what everyone… I understand that I say things and I understand, but that’s not the same as imagining. And perhaps imagining is a way of understanding, and perhaps not. This is against imagination.

There’s something about connecting it in your mind… that’s what understanding is, that’s what every understanding is. You learn Bava Batra, you learn Gemara, you don’t understand what it says there? It’s not just a list? No, you want… every… there’s no science in the world, no knowledge in the world that isn’t learned by saying three times.

But they also say more words, they connect to something else in your mind.

Explain to me. For example?

There’s no science in the world that… if you learn math, your teacher will teach you a bunch of formulas that you’ll review? No, he’ll tell you one plus one, he’ll show you two apples. If you think that from two apples one can see that one plus one, then yes, other things. You can’t see two apples, and then you see again two apples. From this you can at least start to grasp what does the teacher want? What does one mean? No, you can’t, by the way, you can’t, you can’t. It’s the same relationship as this.

The Example of Mathematics and Other Sciences

You start at, like every other knowledge in the world, you start at saying the words, and if you figure out how to look at it, then you start to see the knowledge or the science, the form of it, right? The understanding. Not, perhaps not everything is a form, whatever it should be. Different realms have different ways of understanding. But there’s no science that you won’t start at knowing the basic structure of it, what comes first and what comes after. There’s no science in the world that is done, at least teaching every science.

Against the “Idealized” Conception of Learning Kabbalah

People have very funny, idealized… when people talk about mekubalim, they think that one learns in a funny, idealized way that no subject is learned that way. You learn math, go to any advanced math course, or any hard science, especially, it’s always learned through… coming, he reviews himself on the blackboard twenty times, it comes back perhaps in four years. Yes, perhaps the great scholars in post-graduate school, three of them think what all these things mean. But first he must learn that it works. Every single science is learned this way, and the Moreh L’Horot is the way that every other science is no worse. And if a student comes on the first day of physics or math or geometry or topology, I don’t know, I don’t care what you learn, and he says to the rabbi, “but tell me, what is it actually about?” The rabbi tells him, “No, I can’t. First you’ll learn the whole system, and then, if there’s time, we’ll talk.” Most of the time, most people never come, there’s really no time. But almost no science is learned from first principles or from actually starting to understand them that way. Why would you expect that any serious science would be learned that way?

One learns from children in cheder, one teaches them in school all kinds of basics of science simply by simple faith. Not only by simple faith that one already knows how, but what one learns further is also by simple faith, the way of long review, reviewing formulas. If you take the most basic algorithm that the teacher in cheder, I don’t know if you remember the teachers then, and if you take a three-digit number and you try to multiply it, so you borrow things and you move things from this column to that column, and no one understands what it works on. What does it work on? You have to believe it works. Who says it gives you the result? Why does it work? And when you get to the reason why it works, perhaps you come and say, “Wait, I have a better algorithm. This isn’t even so good. For a clearer way, this sometimes makes a mistake. Once in a thousand years the wrong result comes out from this one.” And you can have the debates at the very advanced levels of theory. But at the basic levels, they’ll always start.

In the beginning, you can’t start any science, and science means something that we can learn with other people, or not everyone will be stuck in their own mind. We’ll be able to talk about it, we’ll be able to make some progress by talking with other people. Remember that one person is always just one person. The greatest prophet, the greatest that he’ll only be able to be, will he only know very little. If he can talk with another person, he’ll know two times, three times as much, and if he can talk with a thousand people over a hundred years, and so it’s important to go forward forward forward for the first step is to, like, let’s get some terms.

The Main Point: Why the Ramak Establishes a Basic Structure

What the Ramak is trying to say here, first let’s make sure that there are ten sefirot. This is very important. No sage can disagree. Afterwards, a sage can say, you know what? I hold that there are twelve. No problem. That’s actually correct. But if nothing starts, everyone says, ah, one says this way, one says that way, this is exactly, this is the last chapter, is exactly that person who says it from his breadth of knowledge. Ah, I heard that there are different approaches. And first one must understand, there is one basic structure, there is one basic problem. The one who says there are thirteen sefirot, actually, he holds that there is another problem, about which he said there are another thirteen. And the other one who says the same thirteen, both he, he means a third thing entirely. You understand at all what’s going on here. But there is like a basic sense in which they all speak about the same thing, and therefore they speak about the ten. Well, one says that the ten are actually not ten. I told you, cross out Netzach. It’s not missing. There is only Hod. Okay, he’s not arguing with the assertion in that sense. You still have like the basic structures. There are ten sefirot, and ten sefirot do such and such a thing, which they’re going to learn whatever their job is to do. And that’s the sage who said differently, actually about this he wrote the Pardes to say, that second one who says differently also meant this, perhaps he is that speaker.

The Three Interpretations of the Three Things Below the Sefirot – And the Ramak’s Approach of BYA

The Necessity of a Basic Language in Kabbalah

The Maggid Shiur:

Okay, I’m not arguing with you in the sense, because you still have like this basic structures. There are ten sefirot, they speak, ten sefirot do such and such a thing, which they’re going to learn whatever their job is to do. And that’s what it is.

And the whole thing of like refining, but the second one who says differently, actually about this he wrote the interpretation to say, that second one who says differently also meant this. Maybe he was just wrong, but maybe more probably he actually agreed with me, or agreed in a basic sense. It can still be true that people speak all the time of thirteen, and other people don’t speak all the time of thirteen, the difference takes place. But he’s actually trying to like formalize the science, like to give it a place where you can start from.

It’s not just about like everyone should say the same thing. You can’t start any learning if not everyone’s going to say the same thing. Even if it’s going to start in a very fuzzy and not exact way, when I say this, I think a bit differently than you. Okay, because you say more or less in the same area as you. And both of us are… basically language. I mean, one can’t learn anything without any language. And every more specific science basically creates its own more specific language. And if we’re not going to have like the most basic language set up, one won’t be able to do anything.

The Later Kabbalists Went Outside the Boundary

And the later kabbalists went outside the boundary. And that’s the answer? Well, he goes longer, a whole shiur on this. Everything is a shiur on this. One must see, one must take with a class, one must review things. The later ones already did it, first of all. Now has come the time of all people who think they know better. First say, come on, you learned, there’s a book, it’s written on a certain page, it says there are thirteen. They didn’t mean it. What did they actually mean? Would have asked him. The second one says, there are other thirteen? Let’s think that there are three. Both ways let’s finish it. I’m going to excuse myself, I have to come eat a meal at the Rebbetzin’s. Let’s finish.

Interpretation #2: Three Powers – Alkiel, Atriel, Ashriel

So, there are still the… he says that there are three different interpreters. What are the next three? The… and what is later? You understand what is Armiplach? You understand what is Armiplach? Anyway, from here onwards is below the sefirot.

There were those who said that the three are… the batch from before, he goes Pargod, Makom HaNeshamot, and Sodei HaMa’arachet HaElyonah. These are the three things that are between Malchut: not Atzilut proper, three powers, which are called Alkiel, Atriel, and Ashriel, may one say the names of angels, I don’t know, and he’s going to explain the names a second time. That’s one interpretation.

Interpretation #3: Three Hidden Sources of Malchut

And that one has another interpretation, for they are three hidden sources of Malchut. This is the interpretation that goes together with the previous reason, that if one comes to the end of the world of Atzilut and the Malchut, there are the three sources of the next level, really.

Just like the first theory, he says that there are three, which are really the three shalosh rishonot (first three of the ten sefirot), which are the root of all sefirot, the same thing in Malchut is the root of the next thing. The same thing, for they came as a hint, just as there are three upper ones in Keter, right? The same thing in Keter, like we said, the first three, the three above the sefirot, are three sources. So they came in it revealed, and they, in the Malchut there are three, it’s already more revealed, but it’s the same concept – these are the sources for the next world, I think, he’s going to be only the gate of entry and gate of three.

The Ramak’s Interpretation: The Three Worlds of Beriah Yetzirah Asiyah

And what are the same three? What? He says so, after all this. Is Rabbi Shimon, you see, all the time it’s Rabbi Shimon. It seems to me that he doesn’t think that he is Shimon HaTzaddik. The second one knew Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik.

He gives their names. They knew Pargod, which is also called Kisei HaKavod, and Makom HaNeshamot is called Chadrei Gedolah. Probably “called” means that there’s a Midrash that says this language or the Sefer Heichalot, and another thing called Sod HaMa’arachet Elyonah called HaKodesh Elyon.

Pargod = Kisei HaKavod = Olam HaBeriah

He says that it appears here that these are not actually sefirot, they’re only powers of the sefirot, and the proof is Pargod which means separation. It appears that this is a curtain, between Atzilut and everything else. This is indeed Kisei HaKavod. What is a throne with much honor, this is the language that we call Olam HaBeriah, as we’re going to mention.

Makom HaNeshamot = Chadrei Gedolah = Olam HaYetzirah

Everyone knows that the soul came from under the Throne of Glory, this is where the place before Makom HaNeshamot which is under the Throne of Glory, under this is the soul which is under the Throne of Glory. And from all this they are hewn from under the Throne, this is a language. Why is hewing a term for formation? I want to already understand, I don’t want to go once, something I look at you. This is something like carved, hewn, something like that. It comes out that this is under the Beriah.

Sod HaMa’arachet HaElyonah = Olam HaAsiyah

The Ramak has a third interpretation, really. So, his interpretation really is that the three worlds are called Beriah Yetzirah Asiyah, because Beriah is called Kisei HaKavod. Under the Beriah, as it says souls are hewn, under the Throne of Glory, means Olam HaYetzirah. Because you know such hewn ones, the language hewn belongs to Yetzirah, as we’re going to find a proof. And there is Makom HaNeshamot. And then Chadrei Gedolah it’s also called, yes? One says it’s called Chadrei Gedolah, which means Gan Eden, that’s where the soul comes from.

And under this there is Olam HaAsiyah, which is called Sod HaMa’arachet HaElyonah, and they are the array of the servants. I think that means the stars, the spheres. But Sod HaAsiyah, which is under Yetzirah, we learn from the Baraita, as it says righteous. Okay, this is the Rabbi very strong on the Baraita. He calls it a Baraita? I don’t know. What chapter one needs to take where to find the Baraita. And the letter Kuf is that word. Already, I won’t be what the…