Ten and Not Nine in the Details of the Sefirot and the Secret of the Half-Shekel | Pardes Rimonim Gate 1 Chapter 6 (Auto Translated)

The Gate of the Soul: The Question of Rabbi Yehuda Chai and the Ramak’s Position that Every Soul Includes All Ten Sefirot

Where We Are Holding in the Study

In short, we are learning Pardes Rimonim Part 1, Gate 1, Chapter 5. No, we’re already learning Chapter 6, yes?

Student: Did they learn Chapter 5?

No, no, they finished Chapter 5.

Student: They finished Chapter 5?

Chapter 5 is about the Mishnah that says “ten and not nine.” They more or less finished it then.

The Ramak’s Relationship to the Gate of the Soul

Ah, I saw this, I saw at the end there’s a gate, I wanted to learn it for other reasons. The last gate is Gate 31, the Gate of the Soul. He talks there about the soul, and there he brought what he said here about how every soul includes all ten sefirot, which he said here, because even if one is only in Malkhut, it’s already all ten, because he used this there to resolve a problem he had.

How is it? Chapter… he said he’s going to write in the Gate of the Soul. So here… no, not in Chapter 1, he already wrote in Chapter 1, no, it’s one that goes. In Chapter 1, in the Gate of the Soul Chapter 1, right in Chapter 1, he asked a question.

The Question of Rabbi Yehuda Chai

In the name of Rabbi Yehuda Chai—Rabbi Yehuda Chai was a great mekubal—and he asked a question from Rabbi Al Castali. Interesting, he asks the question that in the Zohar it says there are three levels: nefesh, ruach, neshamah. And each one of them comes from a different sefirah: nefesh from Malkhut, ruach from Tiferet, neshamah from Binah.

If so, everyone knows that Avraham Avinu was from the attribute of Chesed, and Yitzchak from the attribute of Gevurah, and Yaakov from Tiferet. And how can it be? I just learned that all the sefirot, every soul has three parts from Binah Tiferet Malkhut. So, how does it go together with this Torah that every tzaddik has his own sefirah? That’s basically his question.

The Ramak’s Answer: Every Soul Includes All Ten Sefirot

He brought answers from the earlier commentators, he didn’t agree with them, and he said that his way is, that since every soul includes ten aspects, as he brought in the Gate of “Ten and Not Nine” Chapter 5—they need to make a backwards index, so whoever writes the chapter where else he uses it, when he doesn’t understand what he wants from it.

And therefore he says like this, that truly, every person has all the sefirot. What Avraham Avinu had, that’s how it came out for him. That Avraham Avinu had the attribute of Chesed doesn’t mean he was born with the attribute of Chesed. Imagine, every Jew is born with all the souls, with all the attributes. But he had free choice, he decided to do more chesed, and then all the sefirot, as he says here—he says that by the sefirot themselves, that one must look at the action, the change of names and conduct, and this—it’s true that there’s no real difference between the sefirot, they do everything.

But when one does an action, then all the attributes act in that way, so he says. So all the sefirot. Truly Avraham Avinu had all ten sefirot, as one says, neshamah from here, ruach from there, nefesh from there, and so on. But through his actions…

Student: Yes, yes, it’s still word learning now, okay? You finished coloring? It’s still color something else by yourself.

Through his actions he decided this, and through his actions then all the sefirot, all ten sefirot become, become the aspect of chesed, become agreeable to the action of chesed, something like that. That was his… he says, because in this way it’s possible for a Jew to be reincarnated as a Kohen or Levi, a Jew can… ah, that means answer, and there is the other way.

The Ramak’s Position Against Fixed Soul Roots

In short, he says that… in short, the whole thing that people say that people have different soul roots for different sefirot, the Ramak is not such a big fan of that. For all souls are everything. He doesn’t say on an aspect exactly. He says through his actions.

Student: So why does he say take a paper? Take a paper. What? He doesn’t say that. I don’t know. What do we say just? It’s just randomly?

No, no, it doesn’t seem, it seems to be more on the side of choice, yes. Someone already had something to do with his history, what he had to do. As if, a person stands in a certain situation, it says “for a person can establish in his soul whichever part he wants according to his actions.” Many times there’s no choice, many times you’re in such a situation and you must hear the word choice.

Student: Yes, I don’t know what it means. Yes, as if, as if, as if, you must hear the word choice.

It’s more complicated, it’s a very big question.

The Foundation of the Ramak’s Position: Ten and Not Nine and the Unity of the Sefirot

The Ramak is in this piece, and it’s built, that there’s no attribute is built—yes there is, but there’s everything. It’s built on what is meant to be focused on.

Student: What’s the difference? How do you need what you’re in the situation? How do you measure with him?

Even many tzaddikim held like the Ramak. Yes, the Ramak is interested in the learning, and it’s built on the learning that if there’s a soul, and if the soul comes from, how does one say, I don’t know, from Malkhut of Atzilut. And Malkhut of Atzilut must be ten and not nine, if you divide it up, you’re saying there are external external external attributes that one may not divide, it comes out that one may not say that any soul has a certain totality. Everything has to do with the unity of Hashem situation. One may not say that any soul has something. It’s a whole certain basic idea.

That’s what’s interesting. Because people say that in Kabbalah one can say everything. But here you see that one can’t say everything, that it’s everything, but in a certain way.

Proof from Sefer HaBahir

One of the basic ideas, the most original ideas of Kabbalah was the idea that Avraham is chesed. That’s really like a basic foundation in Kabbalah. And he says that the Ramak doesn’t understand it, he even brings a proof, he says that Sefer HaBahir says that Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak rejected the attribute of Malkhut. I see it says something “the stone the builders rejected,” “the stone the builders rejected” says Sefer HaBahir, the Ramak says he explains in it it’s place, but curious the younger one will prove it.

Sefer HaBahir says that the Shekhinah, the attribute of Malkhut, Avraham Avinu wanted chesed, and Yitzchak, no one wanted Malkhut until David HaMelech came, and he agreed to take the attribute. He only asks what does it mean, what do you have complaints against him? It’s a perception of Sefirat HaChesed. Could you have explained something else? One says, no, it doesn’t work out. All souls have everything. But what? On the contrary, all souls have everything. Because of this, Avraham Avinu wanted chesed, he didn’t want Malkhut.

Student: You say, he wanted perhaps actually according to the action?

Copy, he doesn’t see now, he is not everything. Yes, copy there’s reasons, copy there’s Torah reasons. If Malkhut means having a Jewish kingdom, yes, so, whatever it means. Yes, true. But, he must first explain, he is chesed. Yitzchak didn’t want.

Student: Yes, yes, could be.

Could be there is a structure to these things. I’m just saying that… but it’s still, it’s not… I don’t know. It’s not because his soul couldn’t, or something like that, his soul is not connected with that.

Discussion: Individuality and Types

A person who seeks very nicely, today is a person who doesn’t seek very nicely nicely itself anymore.

Student: Ah, one goes to the… there are the types.

Yes, it’s a little overrated this types. But on the other hand, no one wants to be just a determiner. He says already a higher Jew, he still says that Avraham wins completely.

Student: Ah, the individual should be… each one individual anyway would be his body.

It’s only against the individuality, it’s more against, separate. How does one say that? It will be different.

The Question of Hitkalelut (Inclusion)

Yes there is a question what it means that all sefirot are everything. I also searched for this in the book. He talks about this a lot, I didn’t understand what is the difference that I didn’t see last week about hitkalelut (inclusion). I think it’s something because of this.

For example, a person is a small world, and it says in the world week, Part 72. Every person is there, let’s say, truly all sorts of forces that are in the world in a certain way. But that still means that every person is the whole world. In order for a person to truly act in a universal way, let’s say, right?

Let’s say that a person is a microcosm. My hands, I go in just with plain, but let’s say my hand points to the power of chesed that is in the world, and my left hand to the power of gevurah, and so on. Does that mean that every time I lift my right hand, the whole world’s power of chesed changes? Only for tzaddikim.

Ah, and then. Very good. That’s a small world, I’m nothing. No, very good. So, there is a… that will be the difference of the scholars, as he says scholars in yichud (unification), or… I see in other places he says sof, a third level. So what it means is, something like this that by you lie all the forces. Yes, very good, because you are created from the whole world, but I still need while your person is a microcosm. Let’s say, you have all the things. Universal being. It doesn’t mean that the real… as if one must say… which is the real? One doesn’t have to say that the… a person is matter with form, yes, that would certainly have been more comprehensible, yes? That if one connects his form to his matter, whatever that means, through this he can make that the whole world will happen that way, right? Do you know the theory? Does it really work that way? Sometimes. I mean that’s the difference.

No, I just want to say the learning. The whole world consists of your… your whole world consists of your perception. The whole world consists of your perception. I don’t want a world outside of perception. A year and but. The world comes together for you. Okay, learning, I want to leave, I only wanted to use this to point to the learning.

Kelulot and Mityachadet – The True Difference

I mean that will be the difference to the scholars. Scholars say everything lies by you. Let’s say, I’m not agreeing in Torah on the perception team, because I don’t think it’s the best way to think, even if we don’t know. But if there is such a thing as a person, since it’s so, it’s true that that’s even that enables the yichud. For example, I don’t know the exact situation, but there is a person who acts in this way, and then truly, all… you bring you know what? Forget. Forget by the whole world, and for yourself, right? And a person’s hand lies intellect. What does it mean that intellect lies? Yes, a person has a part of the hands, and his ten sefirot as we learned. And besides that he has actual to it, there is the original to it, the whole body, or the whole person, right?

No, so in a certain sense, there isn’t a hand which is the whole person, it’s the hand of a person, it works with a certain intellect, and so on. But that doesn’t mean that every time you use your hand, he uses the whole person. There sometimes, which yes, if you use your hand to make something very beautiful and very insightful. And it has with it much knowledge and feeling and awaiting. So then, there if yichud, in your hand lies all ten sefirot in the action that you do with your hand. But in a normal state, it’s true, like the default state, the fact is still that the hand is connected with the whole body, but it doesn’t live that it doesn’t do, there isn’t, there isn’t. There if each different, what do you say?

And that’s out, how did they learn in the previous part? Do you know the difference of… mityachadet and kelulot. Do you understand what I’m saying? In Chapter 34 in Bitopa it says this, we learned this. There is what is kelul (included), and there is what is mityached (unified).

Avraham Avinu – All Things in the Way of Chesed

And in the same way, there’s still a difference between Avraham Avinu, Avraham Avinu also did all things. See, that’s what when you say that a person should be a normal person, a normal every person does all things, even Avraham Avinu slept and ate and made babies and did business and did service of Hashem also, and so on and so on. But all of that which since you, in this way, there’s still a choice, understand? I don’t know what is choice. I don’t know. All things he did in the way of… Let’s say, I don’t know what it means, that he used to how to be stringent with chesed. So when I close the door, am I? All things he did in the way of chesed. Understand? So you could do all of those things in gevurah also. And in tiferet also.

Like how on Rosh Hashanah one also does negel vasser. It doesn’t mean that… like negel vasser? Yes, I think so. There is a whole order of the day, and mostly they have the same order of the day every day. It’s Rosh Hashanah. Yes, the Baal Shem Tov. The Maggid. One already sees a whole order of the day, and there is the Baal Shem Tov, one of these two people. It says in Yosef Ometz that people cook themselves in this, and they forget about the basic. I don’t know if it’s fairly criticism, but the creations are special. But now we hold that this was what I saw about the previous previous connection, and he said that he attributed to this, that this has to do with this that the souls are all… and all the same thing.

The Zohar About Five Opposite Five – The Five Bars in the Mishkan

Oh, I don’t have patience to do another piece. Actually, I do. Okay, Perek Vav. Also trailer, learn another Zohar. Okay, in short, it’s very basic things. Today I learned another Zohar which I think has to do with the five opposite five. What do we have with this about? The Zohar says there are five bars in the Mishkan, and the middle bar. Five bars, on each side of the Mishkan it says in this verse five bars, “and the middle bar running from end to end.” Yes. So the Zohar says you shouldn’t read that the middle bar is another one, no it’s one of the five. It seems to me to be taken wanted what the forders what to had wanted earlier about the five. I don’t know which interpretation. All interpretations. No one interpretation didn’t have an eleventh. Right? It seems like the Zohar is worried about that. Parashat Pekudei in the Yemukim.

Another Explanation in “Ten and Not Nine” – Raya Mehemna on Half a Shekel

Okay, now we’re going to learn another interpretation of “ten and not nine.” The Ramak says like this, in Taduk five. Another explanation, there is another interpretation in the Mishnah in the Raya Mehemna. So Raya Mehemna, the previous interpretation which is this from Raya Mehemna, right? Yes, the previous Torah is about “ten and not nine.” Raya Mehemna, ah ha, first part, yes. Raya Mehemna which seems to be the Ramak’s rabbi, which I don’t know exactly who. Okay.

And Raya Mehemna, the commandment of half a shekel, he said another interpretation in the Mishnah of “ten and not nine, ten and not eleven.” He says like this, here the commandment of half a shekel, said the Raya Mehemna, the Raya Mehemna said like this, he’s going to make an interpretation of the half a shekel. What is half a shekel? So you understand, it’s a very nice interpretation.

What is Machatzit HaShekel?

> What is machatzit hashekel? Like chatzi hahin. And this vav is in the middle between two heys.

He says like this, a machatzit hashekel is a half shekel. What else is half? It says “chatzi hahin”. He translates, hahin is a language of hey, two heys. And “chatzi” he translates as in between, not half, in between. So the machatzit hashekel is a vav which is in between two heys. This is the vav of the Name, right? Which is between two heys. There’s a hey before and a hey after.

Then he says:

> The stone that weighs with a yud.

The shekel means you weigh it. And with what do you weigh it? With the letter yud. Because two times five is gematria yud, yes? So you weigh the two heys with one yud. Now you have the whole Name, yud, two heys, and a vav which is the machatzit hashekel. Yes? Does it make sense? I’m very impressed that I see he fits the Name Havayah into every mitzvah.

And it also says “esrim gerah hashekel”, how is ten also twenty? That means, a shekel is ten, right? It makes a lot of sense. Shekel is ten, “esrim gerah”, yes, yud is ten gerah. “Esrim gerah hashekel” is ten. Sorry, a yud is a machatzit hashekel, right? Half of a shekel is yud. So what does he say, the shekel itself is the vav which is between two heys, and you weigh it with a yud, which is ten gerah. And where does the whole twenty gerah come in? Ah, machatzit hashekel is ten gerah, and a shekel is twenty gerah. The yud, because yud is written yud vav dalet, which is gematria 20. The yud is 10, and the vav dalet is another 10. So then, this is the secret of the machatzit hashekel.

“The Rich Shall Not Give More and the Poor Shall Not Give Less”

Then he says like this, now is a very nice interpretation, it says “the rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less”. He says:

> “The rich shall not give more” – this is the amuda de’emtza’ita.

Amuda de’emtza’ita is another word for the vav, right? The machatzit hashekel, which stands in between two heys. “Shall not give more and shall not give less”. So “shall not give more” is like it says in Sefer Yetzirah, “ten sefirot bli mah, ten and not eleven”. That means, “the rich shall not give more”, you shouldn’t be a rich man and have eleven sefirot. “And the poor shall not give less”, shouldn’t be a tzaddik… ah, “the rich”, I don’t know what it means, “the rich” this is the tiferet, the tiferet is a rich man. Why is he a rich man? Because he stands in the middle of everything, I guess. “And the poor”, this is the tzaddik, the yesod, is also “shall not give less than ten”, it shouldn’t be less, as it says “ten and not nine”. This is the machatzit hashekel which is ten.

This is the Ra’aya Meheimna’s Torah on machatzit hashekel. I think it’s very nice the principle, not nine and not eleven, which means not nine and not eleven.

The Ramak’s Questions on this Zohar

But the Ramak goes and tries to make very complicated this piece of Zohar, and he goes very well to learn, and he’s going to say like this. First he’s going to make a list of his four questions, and then he’s going to explain them. Yes? Yes?

The Ramak’s First Question: How is Machatzit a Memutza?

Instructor:

First of all, what is this that he says that machatzit hashekel was chatzi hahin? And he translates, this means that the chatzi hahin is tiferet, which is memutza, between two heys. But actually regarding machatzit hashekel, how can one interpret memutza between? What does it mean that a machatzit hashekel is in between, not in between, it’s a half?

So this is like… in short, Rabbi Elazar is noticing that the Zohar’s midrash from machatzit to memutza is only a very good midrash, that the connection in memutza is not between anything, it’s half of half.

The Ramak’s Second Question: How is the Yud Twenty?

Okay, then he said the condition of faith that even mashkal bah the yud, that the yud is a… he says very well and says that the yud is twenty, right? So what does it mean, how can one not add, not subtract, not add? It’s twenty. He just added a whole ten. Yes?

And to say that each sefirah itself has ten sefirot. Let’s understand, because according to the will that places yesod, not the tiferet and not the yesod is itself the ten. Okay, right? So how is the yud, which needs another sefirah, still twenty.

In short, the… if he says apparently the simple meaning, he says that the rich, each sefirah, let’s say, has itself ten sefirot from its details, and both of them should not be less than ten. Okay, how is the yud more than ten? Why is the yud twenty?

Okay, this is actually a bit of a problem for the Torah of my three problems. Third problem. Do you agree that it’s a problem? Don’t know. All these questions are a little bit fake in my opinion. But what he says in his answer, whether he makes it better.

Discussion About How the Ramak Learns Zohar

Student:

How did I translate? You ask a question on a Torah?

Instructor:

No, the Ramak always asks questions on Torahs. Because he is just, that the Zohar is not some Torah scientist, he is precise. And he is not wrong in this sense, I don’t mean that he is wrong about this. The question is only how one should then understand it. The Zohar theoretician tries to solve with this problem.

According to what I said, that the twenty, I said that’s what I would tell you. I was saying that the yud, the yud is only ten, but if you say it out and you write it out yud vav dalet is twenty. So, I can understand what he was saying.

Student:

No, no, he says it in the text.

Instructor:

He says it in the text, he says it in the text.

Student:

Well, but it says in the Zohar, it says in the Zohar, he says it in the text.

Instructor:

He doesn’t say any rules. I know, it’s a good question. But the answer is that he knows yes the rules, and he knows it from somewhere else.

Student:

Okay, this is what you want to learn, you want to learn this is the Zohar.

Instructor:

You have to stay with the Ramak’s question. I mean that the Ramak is teaching you close reading. And I’ve thought many times, when I started here, I thought a lot that the Ramak’s questions are fake. Later, I learned enough Zohar, I saw that the Zohar truly means something with every word that he says.

The question is, once the Ramak is a mechaber al ha’emet, probably not, every mechaber is not, you can’t say that one hundred percent, but there is something, you do have to read it seriously. You can’t say, ah, the Torah said a Torah, ten, twenty, mainly the Name Havayah, it’s correct, there is something a meaning. It’s not obvious.

Okay, then he asks a drush. But you see the first two questions that he asks, they are problems in the drush? Is there something a solution? A lot of times when the drush on the Zohar stands not the first solution. What the Ramak was is to refine the solution, one must add certain introductions from Kabbalah usually, in the end he solves the problems. And I mean that it’s not entirely wrong.

The Ramak’s Third Question: Lengthy Language – Why Does Yud Appear Twice?

Then he says like this, what is this avda lemashta by the yud? He asks a question, what does it mean? Okay, both of the questions are answered according to my simple meaning, that the yud is… further, perhaps this is what he’s actually going to say, what does it mean, how can one weigh with the stone? It’s twenty, and the shekel should be ten.

One will he say that derech lishkol ba’even zeh hashekel hashalem, what does it mean, can one calculate with this? If so lengthy language, I don’t have clear, I don’t catch what he’s asking, what the second that the amnam omer is. One will he say that what, that one can calculate, how can one weigh with the stone?

I greatly like this idea of the shekel, the Zohar has the idea, I think that it’s much a broader idea that the sefirot are measures, that not the thing that gets measured, but the yud is the thing that measures, he decides what, in a sense places the value, is the thing that decides what to measure.

But anyway, I understand what his ve’imnam amru, ve’imnam shekamto limud derech lishkol ba’even tzofeh hashekel hashalem. He is the regulator. Usually one doesn’t measure any language. Let’s swear why he says lengthy language. I want to understand the lengthy language prompt.

Aval limshkol, bo, the yud. Esrim gerah hashekel, the yud. Ay, he says twice. As if, if you will say that there is means the same thing, it came out twice. Aval limshkol, the yud. Esrim gerah hashekel, the yud. Okay.

According to my simple meaning, again, it was answered, but maybe that’s what he was going to get to. All three, not all three, the first questions I don’t have a proper answer, according to my simple meaning.

The fourth said machatzit hashekel eser ay, where does it say that? Ah, in the end, machatzit hashekel milet me’eser bli tesher, machatzit hashekel eser. What does this come in? Earlier he said that machatzit hashekel is memutza, and this says that it’s ten. I have not sure, I understand the piece for the most part, the understanding, because according to how I explained reading it, I also answered all his precise points as I read it.

When he says, machatzit hashekel, this is the chatzi hey, this is the vav which is machatzit, memutza between two heys, and the matter is also so, it’s not half, it’s memutza. But that makes sense, why is our half a journey, the five against the five, half one in the middle which is memutza. The gematria doesn’t say the five against five, this is the vav which is between two heys.

And it gets measured with the yud, esrim gerah, this is a whole yud, and the machatzit is only one yud, as I understand. It seems he says “the rich shall not give more”, the rich the tiferet should not be more than ten, and “the poor” the yesod should not be less than ten. And machatzit hashekel is ten, means ten gerah. This he means to say in the end, machatzit hashekel eser gerah. Yes, as I translated.

Okay. He says, it goes back to this first thing, that he is not happy with that machatzit should mean memutza. And here, that he brings in that at the end of this piece he’s going to say, yes, the normal translation that machatzit is half, it’s ten gerah instead of twenty. Okay.

The Introduction of the Ramak: Twenty Sefirot – Ten from Above to Below and Ten from Below to Above

In short, he makes an introduction, an interesting introduction. What is important in the introduction, I’m not sure what we need from it. He says an introduction, that know the introduction, so, it’s an important introduction, but he was very, and really was actually better in gate fifteen, gate from above to below.

He makes an introduction that there are truly twenty sefirot. And the sefirot are ten from above to below, and ten from below to above. Like the image of a spark of the sun that comes striking a mirror and returns and flips opposite them. It’s like a mirror. When the sefirot come down to the malchut, they go back up, and then it’s as if like 20 sefirot. Ten on the way down and ten on the way up.

They are not the same ten twice, according to what he says. Because it goes down, there is such a process of hishtalshelut, and then there is a process of going back up. And these things are truly there actually, there is truly really, if one speaks it was a thing.

That means, in the gate from below to above he explains that it’s not simple that one can count whichever way one wants. There is truly like a process of an emanation that goes out, and then it goes back. In Neoplatonism, this is called procession and reversion.

But I don’t know if he understood it exactly in that way, because this is the great foundation of Platonism, that everything goes back to where it came from. And back only means to say that it is inclined toward perfection, it is inclined toward the good, that the measure of evil goes back and gets destroyed. But the Ramak is just noticing that one can look or one can speak about each sefirah from the way down and from the way up.

The Secret of the Letter Alef

And he says like this: the whole secret stands in the letter alef. Why? Because alef is a yud from above and a yud from below. This shows what? That there is the source of light above and below. There is also a source from below, as if, because when it comes all the way down to the malchut, it begins again from there, it goes back up.

And the vav, that means mayim elyonim and mayim tachtonim. Mayim elyonim is on the way up, and the vav is the tiferet, which unites mayim elyonim and mayim tachtonim, it makes it a shekel, a complete measure, the measure of Atzilut, which is from above to below, and which is from below to above.

So, it comes out that it is a measure equal to twenty, really. This is the solution for the twenty, that it is really twenty, because this is the foundation of ten from below to above and ten from above to below.

Student:

I don’t know what it means that the tiferet unites mayim elyonim and mayim tachtonim. That means, he makes from both, he makes from both two? He makes from the…

Twenty Sefirot, Or Chozer, and the Yearning for the Source

The Foundation of Twenty Sefirot

Instructor: This is the solution for the twenty. That there is truly twenty, because there is the foundation of ten from below to above and ten from above to below.

Okay, the tiferet bestows. Ah, no, I don’t know. I know what it means that the tiferet unites mayim elyonim and mayim tachtonim. That means he makes from both two? He makes from the way up and the way down the same thing? I don’t understand this actually. What does this mean?

I will have a lot of questions and not know what everything means. What does this have to do with what the sefirot are busy, the mayim elyonim and mayim tachtonim? Not only halfway. In a certain way yes, in a certain way not yes. It has to do. Everything has to do. Well, it has to do.

Or Chozer and Arichut HaDa’at

The arichut hada’at is or chozer. This is what is called or chozer. I think or chozer is something that the Ramak says in gate twenty-three. He says it with avodah, with avodah from him. You can call it avodah, yes, if you want. Or hamithapech. Ah, he calls it or hachozer and or hamithapech. Or that it’s natural. Avodah is also natural, anyways. Yes, because avodah is just the tendency toward.

The Chassidic Parable: All Things Incline Toward the Good

Like for example, I mean the Chassidic parable, like somewhere along this is run-off, the… I have to remember how to… how I understand this. We learn here to have questions, then one goes to figure out what this means. But the way that he understands it is something that something like the… how do you say about ideas? All things desire good. Every thing wants to be good. This is a natural thing.

This is by people expressed, that every thing wants to be good, wants to be its good or its perfection. Good only means perfectly good, as much as it can be what it is. Good is not a house thing from outside, it must be good. There is you and there is good. Good is the best of you. Right? Right? One and the same basically.

Now, all things want to be good. For example, all things have their way of being good. This all things are kol hadevarim notim el hatov. All things want to be good. Yes, this is the reversion. This is the two ways.

Two Ways: From Above to Below and From Below to Above

For example, we can speak of… and it’s very important, one must be able to speak of everything in two ways. From the way up and from the way down. This is what the Kabbalists call it. And the Kabbalists have the problem that he doesn’t stop at the parable, and he still doesn’t know what this is a parable for.

But for example, there is from where things come from, right? As if the first, let’s call it the first the whole time a parable. The first, for example, we must call it the causes of causes. Let’s see the first causes of causes, right? There is this, from where did this come from there? It came from the first cause, the first cause. This is called, from our perspective, this is going back. From the Almighty’s perspective, this is going down, right?

The first thing made the second, which made the third, like the hishtalshelut of sefirot, keter made chochmah, and so on.

Now, the nature, the yearning, right? This is the yearning, the drive, the desire. The desire of every thing is to be as much as it can what it is. And this is a natural thing, even a stone wants to be a stone.

Perfection and the Source

Okay, there we learn a lower way, but there we learn to explain what good means, and every thing wants to be good. Now, to be good means to be your perfection. Now, to be your perfection means to be what you truly are.

The Problem of Created Beings and Their Source

Now, the problem is that if you are a created thing (davar nivra), if you are a caused thing, you are not truly real, your truth lies in your source, right? Because the thing that makes you real is your parents, let’s say, hypothetically, not your physical father, because the physical father is not really your father, but the thing that made you, it is the source (makor) of your existence, right?

And to be complete means to be entirely what you could be or what you are, which means that the aspiration of all things to be good is the aspiration toward their source. Right?

Does This Mean to Be Destroyed?

That doesn’t mean to be destroyed. You understand, that’s what people think, the return means to destroy the world. I don’t mean to destroy, I’m really a bit not…

When you say, the entire creation is supposedly a way to make pleasure, or to somehow give to the Ein Sof, something that He needs to have in us. So, it was broken into pieces. And then… what we try to do is, how do we complete ourselves by completing it?

Right, you don’t have to start with this deficiency (chesaron). You have to say, the entire creation is the expression of good (tov), because the Ein Sof is overflow. Why would one return to the root (shoresh)? Returning doesn’t mean, very good. Returning to the one means.

No, shoresh, shoresh, because you are not a gentile. You don’t have to start with this chesaron that the Ein Sof wanted. Chassidus wanted it this way, and perhaps other people, one wouldn’t need to start so truly, because you can start with the perfection (shleimus) of the perfection of goodness (hatavah).

The Creator’s Expression in Creation

It’s a funny way, I’m going to say negative language, but it’s good for the overall everything, as if He wanted to express Himself in every single way of existence.

Now, the sort of thing about these things is that they are not complete in themselves. Because He didn’t put Himself in. To the extent that He didn’t put Himself in, so to the extent that He already made Himself, in a certain sense they make themselves away, but to the extent that He already made Himself is to say His good is not to be good alone, to be good in a manner that is called in Chassidus “in a separate manner” (be’ofen nifrad).

As if because it’s not truly Him, because it’s not truly Him, it can’t even be a person. You can’t be a gentleman and be a nice, fine gentleman. That’s what we learn in the other lessons, it sounds so, as if it was a perfect person.

The problem is that’s only true if you don’t believe or if you don’t know, that a person has already made himself. So to be a perfect person is not to be a person at all.

Self-Sacrifice (Mesirus Nefesh) and Connection to the Source

Student: Now, then one begins with a question, does mesirus nefesh mean to be destroyed?

Instructor: No, because the One who made him made him that he should indeed exist. But it does mean, to… it’s a call to become closer to the source in different ways but it’s quite certain, one can say to be a gentleman, that it will be a beautiful world, if all people will be gentlemen, the race of people will be very beautiful, then the entire world will be awesomely beautiful, and the whole thing, everything saying… right, it’s not just to be a gentleman, not for the sake of being a gentleman. For the sake of… it could be it’s just a matter of intention (kavanah). For the sake of being connected with the source of all people.

By the way, this is not only true by people, it’s true by everything. He says, it’s a natural thing. The only funny thing is people, people have the evil inclination (yetzer hara), good inclination (yetzer tov), free choice (bechirah), whatever. People work. The nature of people is to be the kind of things that one must praise them for wanting. That is, a stone wants to be good and remains whole all the time.

Student: Because a person is nothing good?

Instructor: No, yes. Broken stones have a certain… before there are people at all, not just angels and such. Because surely people have certain chesaron, more than all of those things. But that’s also a thing. So that’s a sort of thing, another sort of good. There’s a sort of good which is a whole stone, there’s also a sort which is half a stone.

Student: How will that one’s good be when Moshiach comes and a stone will be destroyed?

Instructor: The walls aren’t beautiful, they don’t need to have… yes? It’s a question, it’s not clear.

Student: Dirt is only a perspective, dirt means a thing that I hold is not good.

Instructor: But then a person doesn’t need to do anything.

Student: Okay, the Creator told me.

Instructor: Okay, by the way, by the way, by the way, who is that not? Okay, by the way, that’s a different question.

Student: Yes, what is true?

Instructor: It’s your good. It’s your good. That’s the people, true, so, that word. It’s who, who, I that’s a different question.

Work and Nature

In short, how this works, that people want to make things better, you’re also a part of nature. So, not so late.

Student: No, understand, there are people who say that He is at rest (bimenucha), He is in the aspect of Shabbos, it’s “all your work is done” (kol melachtecha asuyah), and therefore he doesn’t do anything.

Instructor: Okay, when I want to do things, it also comes from the same rest (menucha). How do you know that the Creator made nature such that sometimes people with ambitions want to do things? Why is that questioned? Not questioned? Another beautiful soil, also elephants are confused, because I don’t know what is confused.

The Big Question: Is the World Already Perfect?

In short, so, so, there’s a question, it’s not clear. And in certain local ways it’s yes, and you can say the Jews are in exile (galus), they don’t want to be in exile. Okay, I understand that. But you want to say that the entire world needs to be different? It’s only clearer to me. What the Enoch says, that’s the big question anyway. But you heard, different approaches (shitos), different ways of looking at it. Like, is the world already perfect?

The Structure of From Above to Below and From Below to Above, and the Secret of the Half-Shekel

The Question of Perfection in the World

Not questioned? Another beautiful style. If then elephants are confused, whenever, I don’t know what is confused. In short, so, it’s a question, like, you are you given over, it’s not clear. In certain, like, local ways it’s yes, and you can say that the Jews are in exile, they don’t want to be in exile. Okay, I understand that. But you want to say that the entire world needs to be different? It’s only clearer to me.

What the Enoch says, one can say, that’s a big question anyway. But you heard, like, different approaches, different ways of looking at it. Like, is the world already perfect? In the most general sense? Perhaps yes. It could be that when they say it’s not perfect, they mean only in a local sense. I’m not in a good state, that I want to be in a better state. And that’s part of nature. The perfection of everything, that there are so many different cycles, everything returns. The sun revolves only because it wants to return to its root (shoresh), but in practice it revolves a whole century, it doesn’t come to an end. Right? That’s something like a theory that, again, I’m saying it in a funny way, but it says in the Kitzur and many books.

Sefiros From Above to Below and From Below to Above

So, that’s part of words. In short, the deed is that even sefiros go back from above to below (milma’alah lemata), therefore there are two of them. There are sefiros from above to below, from above to below. Okay? And that’s a natural stop, everything is natural. It doesn’t mean any. In short, it’s… no, there’s such a teaching, that it was in this. But I need to know if this is true.

Student: Ah, that’s a problem for us. True, we always hold what we mean, because we unfortunately started here, we are stuck. I mean, but it doesn’t mean that the reality is like that.

Instructor: Yes, no, because after what… there’s a different sense, that’s why the Ramak explains that from below to above (milmata lema’alah) is the simple meaning, like my cables, they say but how the reality is by us. From the side of people, it’s the Platonism that goes to destroy. That means the opposite, it’s not to say, what you want to say, you want to say, you want to say, you want to say, you want to say, you want to say, you want to say.

No, being included in the root (nichla bashoreish) doesn’t mean stopping to exist in your way. It just means stopping to exist in a separate way. So I agree, because in the Chassidic way it would be as if to say that the will of Hashem is that there should be people who do so. Only that they don’t do the will of Hashem, they are not in their root. But I think it’s more complicated than that.

Okay, in short, there’s very much depth in this.

The Letter Vav — The Firmament Between Upper Waters and Lower Waters

That’s the upper waters (mayim elyonim) and the lower waters (mayim tachtonim), and they’re not let. That’s the letter vav. The letter vav doesn’t let the upper waters. I I in now. That’s what it seems to be, that the vav is like a firmament (rakia). This is stated in Tikkunei Zohar, the Midrash, everyone, making up himself. Vav is also a… right? On the it’s the that’s, the yud from above and the yud from below, are like the… equivalent? Lays the abundance (shefa), the lower waters that go down, the upper waters that want to rise up. And then vav is like something long. It’s like a firmament that separates between water and water. It’s like spread out, until it makes the constriction (tzimtzum), the vav. It doesn’t let. It unites them. I know who unites. It keeps this tension, somehow. It comes to a matter. In this view, like something that mediates between the pressure to go up and the pressure to go down. Something like that, that’s how he thought.

This is the half-shekel (machatzis hashekel). He doesn’t say, he doesn’t explain what he means that it’s united, so I can’t help so simply. I mean, whatever, no, one can go further. I think it goes later. He doesn’t explain this late. It’s in the middle of a contradiction, whether it’s in the middle, whether it’s in another word, it has nothing to do with this, the decider. In the end, in the end, all the way, he finds something a… I’m not sure, I’m not sure if he exactly solves the contradiction. Many times when one asks such a question, perhaps the question, I don’t know, perhaps the question remains.

The Half-Shekel — The Tiferes

In short, it’s Tiferes, that is the half-shekel. Let’s see. That’s the half-shekel, it’s in the middle between the shekels, that’s in the middle of the whole shekel, that is the twenty, right? Because there’s from above to below, and from below to above.

So, it’s a real new interpretation, he invents a new interpretation, which is in this piece of Ra’aya Mehemna, he superimposes another whole structure of this from above to below and from below to above, which answers the problem, how is there twenty? There’s twenty, because the same ten twice. And the half-shekel is, that is, “and you shall speak from the names half the hin,” which is the half-shekel for each thing.

I don’t understand that. It’s the half-shekel, that means it’s both in the middle, because it’s between the Tiferes, and both it’s between the upper waters and lower waters, and both it’s half. I don’t understand. How is it half? I don’t understand what he’s saying. I don’t understand his answer. And the answer is like the question, I understand that he became, I don’t understand. He means to say something, but I don’t know what. I don’t understand.

The problem was, that the half-shekel is not in the middle between nothing and nothing, it’s only half of ten. The answer is, no, it’s half of ten, but in the middle of twenty, something like that, or the opposite. It’s in the middle between ten and ten. I don’t understand how he solved the problem. He claims that he solved the problem, he claims that he solved the problem. I am poor from myself, what should I do?

The Stone and the Form of Yud

Then he says like this: “A stone to anoint with the hand yud.” What does that mean? A stone (even) is yud, truly. A stone is a form of a yud. Okay, let’s say. The Kabbalists would draw a yud to be just a dot. I just need to know. “And behold it is a stone to weigh with the half-shekel, for the half-shekel is ten,” as we’re going to explain, “therefore the stone in which it’s weighed from the form of yud, that is ten.” Okay, I understood that also naturally.

So what is the 20? Ah, he says like this, ten from the full shekel is the yud of the filling (milui). What points to 20? What are the two yuds? There’s a yud from above and a yud from below, like in the form of alef. It comes out the lower one, which is half of what is a plain yud, is the stone. When it’s whole, it’s a whole shekel, which is from above to below and from below to above to below. In short, he holds that the teaching of from above to below helps everything, because now there’s twenty and ten, and it’s the same ten.

The Rich Shall Not Give More — The Tiferes

Now, what does “the rich shall not give more” (ashir lo yarbeh) mean? He says like this: one needs to say in the gates of sefiros, even the rich one which the Tiferes has more abundance and is closer than all other sefiros. Whatever way, I need to know, we’ll find a different time. With all this he should not increase, included more than twenty, it’s not included more than ten, because it’s a ten of the eleven. He cannot according to, included more than twenty, because in it ashir is also a language of ten (eser). Ah, eser yud, I’m talking now, the rich one, the rich one shall not pass from ten. With a shin with a sin, one doesn’t know.

Rather his wealth (ashiruso) will be in abundance of flow and light. Oh, Joseph included from ten times. I perhaps need a hundred, but not a hundred and one. Oh, that’s for the totality of ten. Okay, that’s the meaning of “the rich shall not give more.” I understand that. It always remains doubles of ten. It never becomes something else. That’s somewhat the idea. I understand that.

He was elected to do a whole thing, because he interprets that he’s right in this, that “the rich shall not give more” means that the Tiferes should not be more than ten, he should not have included in him more than ten. He says, he explains that although it does have a certain greater totality, and in a certain way the Tiferes is more important than other sefiros, that only means to say that it has more abundance, or that one can detail it more, ten times ten, but never eleven.

And the Poor Shall Not Give Less — The Yesod

And the poor (dal) what is the dal? The Yesod is called poor (ani). Why is he poor? As it says “the righteous is lost” (hatzadik avad), yes, I don’t know why. What is the Yesod of the dal? Yes, on this “that poor one” is the Yesod. I understand it, because what in exile he’s poor? Because when there’s no abundance, he’s poor. But why he’s always poor I don’t know.

And if he is making poor, perhaps he means this, even the Yesod receives only like leftovers from Tiferes, that’s how he looks, the Yesod is poor in himself, only at the time of union (yichud) he receives something. So, although he’s poor, doesn’t mean it will be less than ten sefiros. That’s also like even the poorest of Israel, okay, he has the four cups, I don’t know. There could be such things, that even a poor person shouldn’t be without yud, not be without yud is ten sefiros.

The Baal Shem Tov’s Innovation About a Minyan

In short, it was never when one calls Jews. How small they are, they still have a minyan. No, the Baal Shem Tov who said that if there are nine there will be ten, everything was built on this place. Yes, there’s a verse, “you are the fewest of all peoples,” how can it be to remain nine? If there are only eight, okay. Nine and ten is exactly like the nine sefiros and the Malchus, it’s no… I’m setting the secret for the third Kabbalah that’s said from the Baal Shem Tov. It’s a unification (yichud).

In short, when one counts Jews, one must count Jews properly. Not like the… who made all these four daleths? Certainly, one must count Jews on daleths. I mean it’s only because…

The Question of “Hashem Echad” — Is He Already One, or Do We Make Him One?

The Foundation of Ten Sefiros — Not Less Than Ten

Okay, there’s nothing. The problem already begins. Nine and ten is exactly like the nine sefiros and the Malchus — that can’t be.

Do you know the secret of this Kabbalah that’s said from the Baal Shem Tov? It’s yichud. In short, there’s not less than ten. Not like the… who made all these four dimensions? It’s a type of kelipah. I mean it’s only because then one must say yud.

[Note: Writing the Name of Hashem — Yud vs. Hei]

Ah, anyway, they say the Hasidic Ivra is a yud, not a hei. What is the alef? Where does it come from? Is it a Jewish aesthetic thing? No, it’s Jewish aesthetic writing with a yud, but why is it the yud? The yud. A Jew. A Jew, this is a Jew, a Jew.

I am very careful about that, and you know that in earlier times, when one wanted to write the Name, one would write a yud or two yuds, three yuds, perhaps when one used to write three yuds which means from the Name, two yuds with a segol before it. Today in these times one writes a dalet or a hei — this is a great descent from the Shechina, because one must write the yud which points to the first letter of the Name, and then everything is clear. Suddenly we have separated and said a “Name” — a “Name” means literally, “Name” is the Malchut, and one writes hei as if it’s an abbreviation for a “Name”. So I try very hard when I bring a verse and I don’t want to write the Name, I write a yud or two yuds, not a hei according to the custom of the countries which is very low.

Student: That points to the Name of Hashem. What? Ah, you mean the Name of Hashem? Yes. This is Hashem, Hashem is Ado-nai. Do you know the difference? One may not say the Name Ado-nai in the… One says to write the Name of Hashem, it’s a k-e-l, a k-e-l, a k-e-l.

The Ramak’s Question: “Hashem Echad” — What Does It Mean?

That doesn’t help, it’s anyway the Almighty. No, don’t try to see low. Even how low one is, the low will stand. You righteous one. The ten will not stand. Even the greatest tzaddik, the greatest rebbe has everything here in the standing. The ten will not stand. That is not grasped. No, you don’t grasp it. He is the same thing, his humility in the diminishment that is not from his totality of his deeds and not his praise. Must course this is a very big diminishment still. This is more than cult, right? The situation of diminishment of abundance or diminishment of curses, what does this have to do with the subject?

I learned, ah, I’m stuck there on the very declaration, what the Ramak — this has to do with very deep things, all these things, very basic things in service according to Kabbalah. What the Ramak explains in Sha’ar HaKavana, and in Sha’ar HaNeshama, and in Sha’ar HaHanhaga, all these places. It has taken days, he speaks of such a question. What is the meaning of what we say Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad?

So, seemingly there are two things. Everything you say is already. There are two interpretations, yes, Rashi has — I can say that it’s even a dispute between Rashi and the simple interpretation, right? Or according to Kabbalah. Everyone says so, it’s a dispute between Kabbalah and the simple meaning, but you see the Rema says that one must have according to the simple meaning and not sometimes.

There are two — there is to say that the thing is so, right? It’s already there, or as one says, there are already ten sefirot and everything. Lo ya’amod means that it cannot be, this is the reality, right? The way the structure of reality is, that always the Almighty leads, always everything is, it doesn’t become “Hashem Echad”, right?

The Simple Interpretation

Hashem Echad simple interpretation means that the Almighty is the ruler, King of Kings, the dalet that stands in the Gemara, we crown Him over the entire world. This is the simple simple meaning.

The Kabbalistic Interpretation

The Kabbalists come and we say, no, “Hashem Echad” means we make a unification. Until now He was not unified, now He is unified. It’s a real activity, a real change.

Or as Rashi says, “Hashem Echad” — is the time when He is not “Hashem Echad”. Now isn’t His name one? No, He is not His name one. What is this that will be “Hashem Echad and His name one”?

The Question

So now, this is the question. So which must one do? Which must one have in mind? Which must one have in mind by Shema? Do we make Him one, or is He already one? And in general, what may one have in mind that He is not one?

It comes out that the Kabbalists intend exactly the opposite. All normal people they mean that the Almighty is already one. It comes out that he should say no, He is not, one must make Him. So when he intends “Echad”, he means to say “not one”. It’s a strange question. So, in any case, it’s a disturbing problem.

The Baal Shem Tov’s Answer — Concealment of Face and Unity

But when he says “lo ya’amod”, so, there is understanding what one is understanding. We will explain who this is? Before was it or was it not? Before one didn’t know. Before we think further.

Student: Okay, we didn’t know that it makes a difference?

Teacher: Yes correct, how much does he get here? He’s already ten, he’s already fifty. So very good, so your interpretation is that it’s subjective, but it’s not only subjective, because people, everything in the world is not the voice of every person. Now one knows that actually everyone, ah, actually, it’s only going good, what was only good? What was only good? Now one cannot be stronger than otherwise.

But because let’s say that “not one” means, okay, yesterday there were such people. Yesterday there were such people. Zeigers, but there were other people yesterday. Okay, after Mashiach comes, after one tells them, one asks if yesterday was two yesterdays. He says, there were two yesterdays. What was only one? It was truth. Yesterday I didn’t remember. It didn’t know about this. Now I already know, now I don’t know. But yesterday there were zeigers.

So when one says “not one” means that there are people who think that it’s not there. So when yesterday there were such people. It’s still all people. It’s Igger Tosafot. But it’s a Tosafot that people have, and people are real. People’s errors are real.

Student: In which sense is it not real?

Teacher: That’s the question. I said, it’s not really goy. It’s not really goy. It’s only a perception. I said, I said, I said, I said, I said.

That the intention, the way how the Baal Shem Tov says such a Torah, how does one remove any concealment of face? Through not because there is no concealment of face. The problem is that all people before the Baal Shem Tov thought that if there is a thing, whether it’s the face, something is the Almighty. On that word, it’s something real.

The Nuances of “Unity” After Creation

I’ll tell you like this, for example, if one says that… whatever the even means that there is no abundance, there is no unification, right? It means for example that the world doesn’t work so well, right? Not only the people. Perhaps the people are guilty, but after the people did it, there was a flood. Now, there is a flood. I don’t know, flood is only a good crumble, exactly. But there is, the plagues, the plagues, the plagues in the world, in some sense, right?

The world is something terrible dispute, I don’t know, dispute is quite an argument between people, but I’ll take find an example. People broke the world, right? There was a tree, there was a unity, one tree. A person comes who cut down the tree, and now out one tree, not his name one.

A person comes and says yes, but think in, even after the tree has broken, it’s still everything one in a deeper way.

Student: Okay, but that’s not negated. The language “one” hasn’t negated it, that’s only negated that… doesn’t it make an error that there are two gods or something.

Teacher: Okay. It is now we understand that you have still two pieces, I don’t mean that it becomes… It means but yes. In a certain sense it means yes. But for someone who doesn’t grasp… No, it is yes. It means yes. Because the way to hold them will go transform, and it’s back to the… The process of a simple process heard that in order to say, one thing must be connected. So once you, physically, I get that. Yes? Once they’re not connected physically, it’s a two.

So no, way, the whole what they are even things that are not connected. But I think the endless stake, but I think the endless stake. Okay, so holding in one, every black Kriat Shema one connects there from all things.

Student: Okay, very good. But until the blacks are truly not connected. Not only doubts in people. The angels, two angels are fighting now. Let’s say people guilty. I don’t know. A real luck. Again Kriat Shema one grasps that who made the evil inclination, dispute that comes upon the Almighty. right.

Teacher: But remember that the point what this has the Almighty before the world was created was one, that’s not the wisdom. The wisdom was that it should be still be, and also they should still everything be one.

Before the World Was Created He and His Name Alone

When you see still everything in the sense, you grasp it so, when you see still everything, if you can speak so, it’s at the time before the world was created He and His name alone, so thank you very much, this is still everything truly now, and the Baal Shem Tov says one can still everything access now, so thank you very much, of course.

The reason because the world is created, would this already be coherence, not the same level unity, one can call this yechida tata’a in Hasidic language, not the same level unity, but should be such a sort unity, what let’s say even the lowest sort unity, which is like things that are close to one, like a table, not a table is not a good example, a tree that is one because all pieces of it are together and it works well together, it’s not only the pieces, right? Even by a tree there is something a form that makes it one, yes?

Now, you say that the tree has broken, in practice it’s one because the same Creator made it.

Student: No, it’s not one tree, no, no, it’s not one tree.

Teacher: Very good, but we don’t want to be one tree, we want to be one world, we want to be one tree. Remember, this is the purpose of creation, it should be not only one Creator but also one tree. Let’s say, I speak of a tree, I make many pieces, each piece is a one, truth, let’s say. The withdrawal goes it makes many pieces, and then… maybe, but you have to actually put it back together, it’s not enough to believe.

The question is if it’s enough to believe, I claim that it’s not enough to believe, because believing one believed before the world was created at all.

Like, you could say something, I think what the Baal Shem Tov was really getting at, is maybe that the believing helps that one should put this back together. I don’t know if the word is put together, I’m calling it one has believing and putting together.

The Paradox of Exile and Ten Sefirot

The low doesn’t know, even in the time of exile, the ten sefirot rest in the tzaddik, true? But in practice there is exile, true? Diminishment of abundance, diminishment of totality, or whatever you want to call it, right? It’s still everything not there a separation, but it is yes there a separation, right? In which sense is not there a separation? That it’s still everything ten, okay.

Separation and Unity in the Time of Exile – The Problem of Dispute and the Ways of Repair

Separation and Unity in Time of Exile

Teacher:

I don’t know what the word is to, but I call good from a believing and doing. The low stands, even in the time of exile, yet holds here ten sefirot in the tzaddik, true? But the deed is exile, true. Diminishment of abundance, diminishment of holiness, curses, whatever you want to call it, right? It’s still everything not there a separation, but it is yes there a separation.

In which sense is not there a separation? But it’s still everything ten. Okay. In which way is yes there a separation, and another way. Okay. But you say yet that there is a concept of making a unification, there is a concept of making a shape. What I mean that it will be not separation in another way. And how does one do that? Not through saying that “lo ya’amod”, but through other ways, through making unifications.

Through, actually, this is a difference in unification of totality. We said that the totality is in truth the reality. The reality, in truth, is that there is a coherence, there is a unity, everything is as it is. But also the reality is that there’s things that are truly in his deeds, and Adam or hanging, and other things, is a change. And therefore one must fix that reality also.

Parable of Dispute and Baseless Hatred

I want this that all people should together. I want parable only morn. Okay, I want this basically, what everyone wants… ah, so that what your see. So the cells is a good. I’m not good. I’m not the, you’re not I. It’s mine, it’s yet. I didn’t want the whole week. Okay, the good. How I’m very happy to be I, because mine actually sees it. It’s now a change of perspective, it’s not a change of perspective. And I see it, you haven’t yet summed, because you don’t see it yet.

Student:

What? One goes a Friday? It can be that… yes, yes, yes.

Teacher:

So you say what I say, that if all Jews will believe in the unity of Hashem, well… the whole world. Let’s already, you know what, let’s speak, I want to think of an example, okay? Let’s say just a problem of dispute, okay? There is baseless hatred. Baseless hatred causes the Jewish people, or the Satmar Hasidim, I don’t know, they shouldn’t be able to work as one body, which is, if they would be doing good things, it would be a bad thing, right?

There is a problem, separation for the wicked is fitting for them. Okay, but let’s say they do something a good thing. At least survival is a good thing, let’s say, for Jewish people. And it’s very hard to survive when one can’t work together. So, does one work together? So, one doesn’t work together. So, you say that the problem is that they are fighting. So, it’s a separation. Lack of abundance, lack, whatever you want to call.

The Question: Can Teaching Unity Help?

Student:

Will one teach for everyone, should know… I think it could work what you’re saying, although I haven’t ever seen it in history working. Maybe, maybe, yes.

Teacher:

I’m not asking you about Mashiach, I mean after Mashiach. After Mashiach will come and find what I here place.

Student:

No, no, even you’re not done. That’s what I’m trying to say.

Teacher:

Let’s teach for everyone who comes here. That what you are so that is so, means still everything not that it’s not “one father for all of us”. Eh, it’s different, who cares? Now, after everyone will understand this, will they stop being fighting. And therefore, they will be able to work together, what they have still been actually waiting.

Student:

It won’t be enough, it will perhaps call, it won’t be enough. Let’s not say all Jews accept the way of the Baal Shem. I do think it works. It could work. Could be that if all Jews will believe in the unity of Hashem and the Baal Shem Tov teaches, will they be less fighting one and the second. Although, one doesn’t see that the students of Baal Shem are less fighting to anyone else. So…

Teacher:

Of course, all things is not power. I understand, but the all clear this, I mean, almost no one is at all. It’s yet, I understand it. So in short, one is back to the same problem of the real. Why is there no unity of Hashem good? One is on the evil advice of dispute. And why does this disturb a covering on the unity of Hashem good? So, maybe we should go back to working with the reality above. Maybe we should solve the plain simple matters below, and then one can… It’s not so simple that it helps.

The Baal Shem Tov’s Way – Repair of the Individual

Let’s say it helps. Let’s say in one person in himself it helps, let’s say. The Baal Shem Tov didn’t have any practice in politics.

Student:

He said that he will be Mashiach. He said that he will be a leader.

Teacher:

Exactly, and he didn’t practice politics, he only practiced repair of the individual.

Student:

But he said that he will be Mashiach, which that means that he will something see that one will return.

Teacher:

But, the Bobover Rebbe, for example, is yet… He tried to make the Baal Shem Tov from Elijah the Prophet to Mashiach. He tried very hard.

Student:

But the Breslovers, they tell, that this is Mashiach. Well, he’s still everything not in any place.

Teacher:

At a certain point will be only all Jews will be Breslover. It will be only one whole, one totality of six hundred thousand Jews who will be Breslover.

Student:

I don’t see that. I don’t see that Breslav manages that you will take together Jews, throw off all partitions.

Teacher:

No, this is the Baal Shem Tov. What you speak is the Baal Shem Tov.

Student:

Ah, that’s a truth. Okay, okay.

The Difficulty of the Baal Shem Tov’s Way

Lecture on Sefer Pardes Rimonim – Charity, Sefirot, and the Limits of Chesed

The Measure of Charity – The Rich Shall Not Give More and the Poor Shall Not Give Less

Maggid Shiur:

Yes, I’m saying, let’s say, let’s say it’s not from the Torah, okay? Somewhere there’s a measure where it becomes bad. Because if you do this, you’ll give out all your money for charity, tomorrow you’ll be the pauper, so what will you do? The measure is basically that you shouldn’t become the pauper yourself. That’s really all it is.

This is the Chovot HaLevavot’s heuristic that the sages say. I don’t think it’s a fixed law, right? That even if someone has five billion dollars he may give. I mean that the poskim say not. It’s not a hard limit, it’s an ideal, a heuristic, a rule. It basically means to say, they assume that 20% is enough to make you poor. You’ll become poorer because you give too much charity.

Why? Because then you can’t give charity anymore. You destroy the charity. That’s basically the theory, right? Eh, you’ll be able to be the wealthy one? Okay, so be it. In short, it doesn’t work that way in the world usually.

Student:

Why is that bad? Everyone will become a pauper. Everyone needs to…

Maggid Shiur:

I don’t know, it’s not gonna work, right? No one will have enough to give.

Student:

Well, they’ll be equal.

Maggid Shiur:

No, the reason, I think, I mean in the real world, the reason why it’s not gonna work is because the pauper is usually a pauper because he can’t, he’s idle, he can’t give charity. It’s not gonna…

Student:

What is the Chovot HaLevavot’s question then?

Maggid Shiur:

I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m not a Chovos Halevavos expert, I don’t know what he says. I’m just saying, the idea, I think, they don’t want you to become a pauper. They don’t want you to become a pauper. I don’t know if he’s going to give money, he’s not going to give money. He’s a pauper. He’s a pauper. What’s he going to give?

Student:

But someone said that the point is…

Chesed Without Boundaries, Levels of Sefiros, and Machatzis Hashekel

Chesed Without Gevurah — The Parable of Communism

And this is what the communists don’t grasp. A communist doesn’t grasp that a child… I want to see the greatest wealthy person, I don’t know, he’s going to give away his money. It’ll work for one day, but the next day it goes back. Why? Nobody’s going to work. Nobody’s going to work, because he doesn’t have any money, what does he do?

Okay, so, well, I’m just trying to say, this would be called that it’s chesed without a boundary, and that’s bad. Lo kulo, lo titbatel Knesses Yisrael, I don’t know, right? It’s missing… whatever, I’m just giving a parable. It’s missing the gevurah that makes it a good thing.

You say, he gave without a boundary, his money ran out quickly, he had a boundary. The answer is, yes, but the boundary was on the same level. He, from his perspective, gave chesed without a boundary, but the external world limited him. So, but in his little world, he was limitless. And the correction is, the proper way of giving tzedakah with a boundary would mean that you yourself need to have the limit. It has to be within you also according to how much you can give away. Otherwise, it’s gonna destroy you. Yes, it’s true, that there are bigger levels in the world.

“Eser V’lo Teisha” — On Which Level?

So, in other words, in a certain detail it can be, that’s what I’m saying. When we say “eser v’lo teisha,” maybe that’s only true on the biggest… unlike what the Ramak said, maybe that’s only true on the biggest level, like the biggest klal. B’ofan hachi klali, I know, b’ofan hachi klali, they will never be… there can’t be less than ten, unless the whole world is destroyed, I guess. The haragos yehargunu of that one too. Within the structure of the world that Hashem made with the eser sefiros. But it can be that in Lakewood there shouldn’t be any sefiros, I don’t know, Chochmah Malchus, because they destroyed them. I don’t know which sefirah doesn’t exist in Lavan, they say that he can, let it be. The Ramak counts that he can’t be. Because on a pauper level he says that one must… but he maybe says all bechinas dileilah, not bechinas of real.

So, but according to what Kabbalah says, everything is here, everything, everything fifty thousand times. So, it doesn’t have ether. So, that’s the difference, and there is a difference. It’s built in, it’s built in, it’s built in, it’s built in on a certain level.

The Distinction Between Levels — Money as a Parable

Student: The money itself has all the sefiros.

Maggid Shiur: True, I can’t. But that’s not the relevant level. We’re always confusing different levels. Certainly. Also that the money itself is not one sefirah. Every money is five dollars. Every dollar is only one dollar. I agree. But we’re not talking about that level, right? That’s what I’m saying. When you say everything is built in, it’s true. But you can’t jump between one level or another.

When we say, his world he destroyed. So, it became nine, and it actually became destroyed. This maybe this for us, see how it means, if there should only be nine there will be nothing. Not that there isn’t such a thing that there’s only nine, there isn’t such a thing that it can’t stand, it will be destroyed.

This is the question, how much reality do we give to things that aren’t real? I mean that we need to give them a bit of reality, because otherwise we can’t speak about being normal. You say, according to the truth there’s only ten. Okay, but now I’m speaking of the exact exact way that it isn’t. You tell me, yes, one step up, one step up, one step every way, and we leave it to everything. But in the exact step, what is there? It must believe. Ah, don’t believe in the exact step, believe in your step up.

This is why the normal people are very mad at the mekubalim, because mekubalim gives reality to what doesn’t have reality. Because they say that there’s a separation. You know, there’s a separation? Forget it, I’m being attacked, I speak terribly of myself that there’s a separation. Do me something. Mekubalim speak, there’s a separation. But one shouldn’t do so.

Mi’ut Shefa and Mi’ut Klalus — The Ramak’s Explanation

U’vechinas hashefa. Can you say that Sefiras Yesod is batel? Well, says the Ramak, not that you’re speaking of the truth, of the reality. If you’re speaking of the mi’ut hashefa, you can say, just as it’s mi’ut shefa u’mi’ut klaluso.

Mi’ut klaluso just means that it’s one less level, right? Think about it. That let’s say, if it would have been complete he could have reached a hundred, now he can only reach ten, right? So it’s missing. Each one of those ten doesn’t have ten, you grasp? Do you agree with my calculation?

The Ramak says, I’m just, I bump into the two things he says, that there’s a wealthy person, there is a wealthy person and a poor person, but even they have ten. And he explains in two ways, maybe including the same, I mean still.

One is mi’ut shefa, that there’s more, as if the ten fit into more or less shefa. Okay, whatever that means, we want this can become.

Another thing he says, mi’ut klalus, because the Tiferes is a wealthy person. He’s always so separated, you could do all, one can speak of him as a thousand. Ten times ten, ten times ten and ten. But the Da’as, the Yesod, sometimes one can’t. One can only speak about a hundred. So in other words, each part of the hundred is not kol ma’aseh, but one. There is a level where he agrees that it’s not kol ma’aseh. And maybe if you look with a microscope, he’ll speak when it comes to a microscope. That’s the whole distinction, certainly with a microscope. The end of the text.

The Parable of Minyan and Eser Sefiros

Like you’re saying, that one needs a minyan, the Maharan Amor said that he needs to die with a minyan, because he needs with his eser sefiros, eser sefiros, eser sefiros, right? You say, very cute, but the minyan means that one should learn to daven with his eser sefiros, eser sefiros, right.

In the exact situation where one needs to say Kaddish with a minyan, he couldn’t say Kaddish. First he could say Kaddish in his head. The whole theme like any is v’tuv, which has a certain peshat, a legalistic, according to the peshat. One needs to live in a different world altogether. The Torah meant that the whole time itself, one needs to live in the eser sefiros.

But still, there’s different eser sefiros. There’s an eser sefiros when ten Jews come together, and there’s another eser sefiros when you yourself come together. Now, it was true that these people didn’t conduct themselves, and they didn’t themselves unify themselves, and therefore, maybe they don’t count for a minyan at all in your world, because they’re not people at all. Okay.

But also, he can’t say Kaddish. He can only say, let’s say that a ten sefiros, his head is the… his head can say Kaddish for his body. He can’t say Kaddish with his mouth. I guess. I don’t know if he said Kaddish. Kaddish, he makes the yichud of Kaddish, he makes in another… in his head. Between his head and his nose, whatever. It’s true. It’s true.

Machatzis Hashekel — Money and Sefiros

Good, we need to be clear and know the distinction of one thing from the other. Machatzis hashekel. I still don’t understand how he’s gonna answer those questions, unfortunately. A bit. I very much love the image of machatzis hashekel, it’s connected to this. Sounds to… means one perhaps showed from Moshe. Yes, with a finger. From a finger, which is the fingers that learned about… Ah, it specifically says the finger? How the… edvir shel in shel… the whole side.

But, anyway what he says, Hashem says, everything is worth money. And the nimshal of this is that everything is worth sefiros. Everything is worth something an amount of shefa, or something an amount of existence. Turns out, everything is the same.

In capitalism, everything is, you can buy everything from money. But this is the nimshal of this is that everything can be bought for existence. Everything can be exchanged. It’s only how much, and which ways, and unity is the existence. But, yes, it shows the unity of everything. This way it’s with dollars in order you grasp, you grasp? Can you say it for the song? What is the same money? No, osher lo yirbeh! Allowed! This says you have more money, that doesn’t make more of a person. That’s the opposite of one. It’s all only one. I don’t know! Way you like it?

Way the problem with the wealthy person is because he gave away his money, it can be equal with everyone. I can’t be no lying, hello, everything is a shiur. Ish eli arbeh. And one understands that the money, courses on reality, is the first sefiros. And the moment told me.

And that’s why there’s machatzis. And within that, there’s a machatzis hamachatzis. And the Tiferes is the Hillel, and he’s also in between. He still didn’t understand the Torah, Hillel. I’m missing, like the basic key of the whole derush I’m missing. Somehow, he understood that with this, maybe we’ll learn later Torah on…

He’s doing all this macheh u’mesamei’ach here. I’m going to make a new version for the terumah? All these go nicely the right science. But one can’t learn. Kmo shenever, hello? What is this from sher yesh lo tesha? I don’t know anything at all from here. Did he want to tell me the Torah of eser v’lo teisha?

Summary: Four Interpretations of “Eser V’lo Teisha”

I can hear, yotzei lanu mizeh, that there’s another third peshat of eser v’lo teisha, right? So one peshat is, let’s count the peshattim, one peshat was that one shouldn’t count the Ein Sof, and a second peshat is one shouldn’t count the Malchus, and a third peshat, this is he guesses that eser v’lo teisha, eser v’lo teisha, another peshat that one shouldn’t count the Olam HaBriah, and this is the end of Chapter 5, olam yachol lefaresh. One shouldn’t count down the Ein Sof, one shouldn’t count down the Malchus, one shouldn’t count the Olam HaBriah.

And another thing, one should never make any distinctions within your sefirah. Even when we say that every sefirah is kelulah me’eser, one shouldn’t say that because there are distinctions, there are changes in the shefa, one shouldn’t say that a pauper, it’s ever more than ten or less than ten. Will never mean all of them. That’s the last chiddush.

Not to Make Any Klalus in the Sefiros

The Chiddush: No Hierarchy of “More” and “Less” in the Sefiros

And another thing, one should never make any klalus in your sefirah. Even when we say that every sefirah is kelulah me’eser, one shouldn’t say that because there are distinctions, there are changes in the shefa, one shouldn’t say that a pauper is ever more than ten or less than ten.

That’s the last chiddush that’s written here. But to understand why, that’s enough. But to understand why the Torah is not a Torah—

—

[End of Shiur]