Rabotai, Vihi no'am Hashem Eloheinu aleinu, uma'aseh yadeinu konenah aleinu, uma'aseh yadeinu konenehu (May the favor of Hashem our God be upon us; establish the work of our hands for us). Etz Chayim, Sha'ar Tet, Shevirat Kelim (breaking of the vessels), Perek Vav. Perek Vav is a game changer. There is a lot of commentary on Perek Vav. Number one, it is a game changer; number two, the question is: What part of the game is changing? There are contradictions in what Rav Chayim is saying, and there is a lack of clarity.
Let’s review the main chiddush (novelty) we have reached so far. If you were here before yesterday, you know about Nekudim. When you hear the word Nekudim, you know it means shevirah. We know the rule: There are three basic things. The Nehi of the Keter (Crown) fell, and the achorayim (back side) of Abba ve-Imma (Father and Mother) had a fall. We called what happened to the Keter a pegam (blemish); this is a nefilah; and then, in the Zayin Tachtonot, we had a shevirah.
We always understood all of this to be in the kelalut (the general level). What does kelalut mean? You have Keter. Take the AK, in Olam ha-Nekudim: Nekudim lets out kelim and ten sefirot (emanations). In that world called Nekudim, with its ten sefirot, we know that Keter, box number one, had a pegam. Chochmah (Wisdom) and Binah (Understanding), which are Abba ve-Imma, had a nefilah and achorayim. And the Zayin Tachtonot had a complete, massive shevirah.
That was ad kan (until now), up to yesterday. Yesterday, we also began to sense from Rav Chayim Vital’s words that there might be something else: a similar situation of pegam, nefilah, and shevirah in the peratiyut (the particular level). So what does that mean? We have to enlarge the microscope a little and look at the cells more closely. For a moment, don’t look at the kelalut. Let’s look at Keter. Keter is made up of ten points. The ten points of Keter are Keter de-Keter, Chochmah de-Keter, and Binah de-Keter. That is what we were talking about. When we talked about the pegam, we meant the pegam in Keter de-Keter, Chochmah de-Keter, and Binah de-Keter, in the peratiyut of Keter.
Then what? Then we have Chochmah. Chochmah also has ten within it. So we have the Keter in Chochmah, Binah de-Chochmah, and the same thing: all the Ketarim are going to have the same reaction, all the Chochmahs at every level in the peratiyut will have the same nefilah, and all the Zayin Tachtonot at every level will have the same shevirah.
So we learned that it was in the peratiyut. Then we said, “Okay, that’s interesting. That’s a new way of looking at it.” Everything is within the sefirot themselves. Then we asked: What about the Zayin Tachtonot? Does anything change when you get to Chesed, Gevurah, or Da'at, Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malchut, or is it the same?
Yesterday we ended the shiur (class) on the last line. He said, “I’m reading from yesterday. We said at some point”—I’m going back in your book; it’s Tav-Resh-Chet, reading it inside—“Ve-achar kach yatz'u zayin nekudot de-Ban (the name Ban), she-hem kelalut bet nekudot le-vad” (Afterward, seven points of Ban emerged, which are only the general level of two points). Let’s review what he means by “two points.” Bet nekudot means the two dots. Altogether, you have five dots. What are the five dots? Keter is a dot, Chochmah is a dot, Binah is a dot, which is Abba ve-Imma, and ZON (Ze'er Anpin and Nukva). ZON is considered two nekudot. For our purposes, we’ll call them dot number four and dot number five. The first three are already Keter, Chochmah, and Binah; we know what happened there.
For dots four and five, Rav clearly said yesterday, “She-kol nekudah mi-bet bechinot ha-elu le-vad kelulim me-eser sefirot” (Each of these two points alone is included in ten sefirot). Here he clearly says they are made up of ten sefirot. That means they came out complete and whole. “Ve-khol elu nishberu” (And all of these broke). That is where we had some controversy yesterday. “Ve-khol elu nishberu” could sound as if they all broke—the whole thing, including the GAR of the Zayin Tachtonot. He is telling me there was a GAR, telling me there were ten, and that everything broke.
Then we said, “No, but in Mevo She'arim, as we saw yesterday in the handout, he clearly says it isn’t like that. Whatever happened in the GAR happened in the ZAT, and in the GAR there was no shevirah, no nefilah in the Keter. Therefore the same thing would happen in the Zayin Tachtonot. It’s the same thing throughout.”
Tonight, where we start, it seems he is saying something different again. “Ve'omnam”—yes. Going back to how the Keter was described: this way, more than seventy percent of it fell; in the old way, it was a pegam. That is a major difference. There’s a big chiddush: There is nefilah at every level. Automatically, you’re adding to the nefilah. The way we learned it bichlalut, there was no nefilah in the Keter at all. The Keter is impervious to nefilah. So, yes, in the Keter itself there was nefilah. You’re right: We’ve added many boxes, and now every box has a nefilah.
But look at it the other way, too. Every box also has a Keter that did not break. Reverse it: The other way we learned it was that the Zayin Tachtonot had a total shevirah. But if you come along—and it sounds like that’s what he said here, too—then in Mevo She'arim he told us, “No, the Ketarim even there remained.” That also reverses what we thought. We thought there was a total shevirah, but he tells me that the Keter there actually survived.
Now let’s see what he says tonight. “Ve'omnam yesh hefresh” (However, there is a difference). We’re going to make a distinction. “Ki begimel nekudot harishonim yatzu gam GAR shebechol nekudah venekudah” (For in the first three points, the GAR of each point also emerged). In the GAR of Keter, Chochmah, and Binah, let’s look at the dots. In dot number one, number two, and number three, he says all ten sefirot came out, including their GAR. That’s no chiddush for us; we know that.
“Ach bi-shetey nekudot hatachtonim”—in four and five, which yesterday we said all ten came out—he is going to say something different tonight. “She-hem kelalut”: He is also talking now about the kelalut of Zayin, so we are not talking about the peratiyut; we are talking about ZA and Nuk. “Lo yatzu ha-GAR shebechol nekudah mehem kelal ve'ikar” (The GAR of each of these points did not emerge at all). Oh! There was no GAR. That means ZA came out with the bottom seven, and Nukva came out with the bottom. If you remember, we went through this extensively in Da'at u-Tevunah, with dots four and five. How did they come out? At this point he says, “No, they did not come out with their GAR.” Where was their GAR? Stay tuned.
“Ve-da ki al derech she-be'arnu bichlalut ha-Ban ki bet nekudot hatachtonim she-hem kelalut zayin melachim lo yatzu GAR shebahem” (Know that, as we explained generally about Ban, in the two lower points—which are the general level of the seven kings—their GAR did not emerge). “Ken bechol zayin melachim de-chol echad mehagimel nekudot harishonim”—and in each of the seven kings of each of the first three points—“de-Ban de-kelalut, lo yatzu ha-GAR de-zayin melachim atzmam bifratut ve-nish'aru be-vinah shelahem shebe'otah nekudah atzmah” (of the general level of Ban, the GAR of the seven kings themselves did not emerge in particular, and they remained in their Binah, in that same point).
He is saying two things here. First, they never emerged. But if they never emerged, where are they? They have to have a GAR. Where is the GAR hiding? He says the GAR is in their Binah. So ZA has a Binah. And Nukva has a Binah. They didn’t emerge yet. Where are the first three? They’re in Binah. They’re hiding in Binah, the mother, in Ima. They’re hiding in Ima. Okay, whatever they’re doing there.
He said that this happens in the pnimiyut as well. In the pnimiyut, when we say the Zayin, we have the Zayin Melachim. In the pnimiyut, we said of the rishonot that they came out. We had the Zayin; they said it came out be-eser. If it came out be-eser, what do you have? You have all ten. And what does that mean? There was a pegam in the first three, and then there was whatever we said: nefilah—I mean nefilah and shevirah.
But what does he mean in the bottom note here, “ki bechol zayin melachim de-chol echad mehagimel nekudot harishonot,” which is one, two, and three, “de-Ban de-kelalut”? In all the Zayin Melachim of each of the first three points—ah, okay, the gimel rishonot are Keter, Chochmah, and Binah of Ban, de-kelalut. Right, it’s all Ban. We’re not at the bottom one; it’s all Ban. “Lo yatzu ha-GAR de-zayin melachim atzmam bifratut.” He clearly says that the Zayin Melachim did not emerge bifratut, which sounds as if he is learning that it is all kelalut here. It’s all kelalut here. That means the Zayin Tachtonot came out bichlalut. He says there is no peratiyut, only the Zayin Tachtonot without a GAR. Where did the GAR go? Into the Binah.
Now hold on. Keter, Chochmah, and Abba ve-Imma. You’re starting to say that there is a kelalut of Keter, and even a peratiyut of Keter. You’re saying the ZA that we said broke has ten of its own, and that ZA only came out as seven, not as three. Isn’t that what the Rabbi just read at the bottom? Then the top three—the top three of Ban. Everything here is Ban. Right, all Ban, all five dots, I’m saying. The whole Atz right now—we’re only in the bottom, exactly, the five of Ban. So he is saying that in Keter and Abba ve-Imma, even the ZA there came out only as the bottom seven. That’s right. There’s no GAR at any level. Where are all those GARs? In that Binah, in their respective Binah.
So when we say that the ZA in Keter broke, the ZA itself has ten. It’s like the ZA of ZA broke, then. You’re going very small. But otherwise, how do you say ZA broke? No, it didn’t have a GAR! It didn’t have a GAR. It didn’t have a GAR. The ZA broke, meaning the bottom seven; its GAR was in—can only be on the bottom seven.
“No, so we have Keter. Keter is ten sefirot, right? We just said Keter doesn’t break; it has a pegam.” “Correct.” “Abba ve-Imma have—” “But that’s in the top three.” “In the bottom two, they never came out.” “Yeah, but he said also in the top three. The Rabbi read it.” “In the top three of Ban.” “Oh, not the top three of everything?” “Everything’s Ban here. Ban, only talking about Ban. I’m not talking about—” “Not talking about the top, too?” “No. In this line it says, ‘ken bechol zayin melachim, de-chol echad meha-gimel nekudot harishonot de-Ban,’ which is Keter, Chochmah, and Binah of Ban.”
“So your Rabbi is calling ZON Ban.” “I’m calling this whole thing, this whole world, ZON.” “No, but he doesn’t say ZON; he says Ban. Nekudot de-Ban.” “Oh, you’re calling what? The whole everything we are in is—” “Because you mean nekudot, as opposed to Mah (the name Mah).” “Nekudot. Yeah, nekudot. And the Keter, Chochmah, Binah that we’re talking about—the Keter, Abba—” “So I’ll read how he explains it. He says, ‘de-hainu, kesheyatzu ha-ZON de-ha-Keter, ve-ha-ZON de-ha-Keter, yatza ZA de-Keter bilvad belo ha-GAR, ve-ha-Nukva de-Keter, yatza ben nekudat ha-Keter bilvad.’”
“Yeah, he’s talking about the last two. He’s talking about ZA and Nuk.” “Of Keter, though, you said?” “Yeah, even at the Keter level, he’s saying that. When ZA—we said ZA broke in Keter. So according to this understanding of Rav Chayim Vital, there was never—” “Question: Did the Keter come out in the top three dots?” “The Keter came out.” “But when ZA came out, it didn’t have—” “Of course it came out. But when the ZA of the top three came out, it was missing its KaChaB, and its KaChaB went into its respective Binah.”
We said ZA broke in Keter, but ZA has ten. So not only the Zayin Tachtonot of the kelaluyot, but in the Zayin Tachtonot of each of the peratiyot, the same format happened.
Let me explain it again. In the last, bottom two dots, which are ZA and Nuk, you want to say that the KaChaB did not come out. Where did the KaChaB go? The book itself said the opposite on Kaf-Heh. That’s why he wrote—“Yes, that’s the stirah.” Very good, that’s the stirah. Stay tuned; we’ll have to deal with that stirah. At this point, we want to know what he is saying, and then ask how he can reverse himself. He is saying they never came out. He is adding that what we said about ZA in the bottom two—that it never came out—applies at every level in the bottom two. It applies in the top three as well: Each was made up of five dots, so the bottom two of those, being ZA and Nuk, follow the same format. And therefore, it’s always seven. Where did they go? Into the Binah.
Now we have some side questions. Once you say this, let’s talk it through for a minute. If the GAR never came out, hold on. We learned in the earlier chapters that ZA was having a zivug (union), and that was giving a ma'aleh MAN to Abba ve-Imma. That allowed Arich to give a he'arah (illumination) to Abba ve-Imma, so they stayed face to face and all that. Then, once there was a shevirah in the ZA, they couldn’t have a zivug, and that affected Abba ve-Imma. According to this, you couldn’t have a zivug in the lower ZA, because the GAR never came out. So how do you ever have a—?
Therefore, at this level, you have to understand that whenever we were talking about that, we were talking about peratiyut. That means in the top three dots—in Keter, Chochmah, and Binah. In its ZA ve-Nuk of the Keter, let’s say, it was sending up a he'arah, and the Arich of Keter was sending down to Abba ve-Imma. So this was happening in each of those peratiyot. We understood that it was happening begadol, that the bottom seven—or the bottom ten—were sending up. There were no bottom ten! So you have to say all this was happening in the peratiyut of each one. Correct. Once the Zayin Tachtonot of each of the peratiyot broke, that affected the Abba ve-Imma of that peratiyut, of the Keter or the Chochmah, whatever it may be. That’s what you have to say at this point.
But now the Rav is going to have a question. If this is the new way we’re learning it, it sounds as if the bottom was different from the top. That’s what it came to tell us: There’s a difference. At the top there was Keter, Chochmah, and Binah; the GAR was there. But the GAR was not there at the ZAT level—not at any level. So he says, “Ve'al titmah” (Do not wonder). There’s a question: “Eich yatz'u hatachtonot achar shevirat ha'elyonot” (How did the lower ones emerge after the breaking of the upper ones)? What happens if you’re telling me that in Binah—in the peratiyut of Binah—it has a shevirah? How could something come out of Binah? How could the Zayin Tachtonot come out of Binah when the Zayin Tachtonot of Binah itself broke? So it broke first, and then they came out. That’s one problem. How did the lower ones emerge after the breaking of the upper ones? As the note says, how did the Zayin Tachtonot come out of Keter into Binah if the Zayin Tachtonot had already broken? How are they coming into Keter?
Then he has another question, a related one: “Eich kol ha-GAR shebechol nekudah shel heh nekudot lo nishberu veha-ZAT de-Nekudim rishonim nishberu” (How did the GAR of each of the five points not break, while the ZAT of the first Nekudim broke)? You have to hold a premise here: The ZAT of the higher level is higher than the GAR of the lower level. Accept that. Then how is it possible that the GAR of Chochmah survived when the ZAT of Keter did not? He has put himself in a corner, because he is saying it happened at every level, and therefore there was a shevirah at every peratiyut. If you accept that the Zayin Tachtonot broke, how do you explain this?
He has an answer: “Ve-hateshuvah hi”—let’s see if we get this answer—“ki bechol nekudah venekudah” of the five nekudot of the kelalut of Atzilut, “yesh min or echad shaveh le'erech hanekudah hahi” (there is a kind of light that is proportionate to that point). So every sefirah, we’ll call it, has its own unique or. It is specific to that; Chochmah has its own special one. They’re not leftovers from another one. It’s its own unique or, specific to it. So you can’t compare them by saying, “If the ZAT of Keter couldn’t survive, how did the ZAT of Chochmah?” No, here I’m in Chochmah.
In a certain sense, we thought of them as levels, one, two, three, four, five. If it broke in one, it couldn’t survive in two. But he says, “No, no, no, they’re all ones. Each is its own item.” In Chochmah, it’s its own or, and the gimel rishonot can survive in Chochmah because they’re proportionate to Chochmah. And so on. Don’t compare it to Keter; compare it to its own level.
He says, “lemashal, ha-or ha-Chochmah eino chazak kemo or ha-Keter” (For example, the light of Chochmah is not as strong as the light of Keter)—that is certainly so—“ki hu shaveh le'erech ha-Chochmah” (because it is proportionate to Chochmah). The or of Chochmah is proportionate to the levels of Chochmah. “Lachen, hagam she-ra'ah Chochmah sheha-ZAT de-Keter nishberu”—even though Chochmah saw what happened upstairs. This is going to be a story now. Chochmah saw what happened. So why would Chochmah enter its kli? It knows it’s going to break. You saw what happened to the Zayin Tachtonot. Why would it enter its kli? He says, “mi-kol makom, ho'il ve-hu or chalash yoter me'or ha-Keter” (Nevertheless, since it is a lighter light than the light of Keter), “chashav she-yuchlu klei ha-ZAT de-Chochmah lisbol or ha-ZAT de-Chochmah” (it thought the vessels of the ZAT of Chochmah could withstand the light of the ZAT of Chochmah).
He is saying that because it is weaker, adderaba, it thought the kli could tolerate it. That’s a little different from what I’m saying. Again, because it is a separate or, a lighter or, just because the Zayin Tachtonot broke, the or of Chochmah went into its kli thinking it would survive. It is further away and lighter, not such a severe or, but then, of course, it wasn’t able to.
Again, the Rav’s question is: How did the GAR of every nekudah not break, while the Zayin Tachtonot of Nekudim Rishonim broke? He answers that since it is lighter, the GAR of that box can withstand it. “Va'az ha-or hahu shelahem”—the light, whatever it is—“ha-GAR yecholim lekabelo.” Fine. The GAR can receive it, but the Zayin Tachtonot in it could not. For example, the GAR de-Chochmah can withstand the or of Chochmah, because it is its own kind, while the ZAT de-Chochmah could not receive its light and broke. Fine, we have an answer. How could the Zayin Tachtonot break while the GAR could withstand it? Because this is the GAR of Chochmah, and the GAR of Chochmah can tolerate Chochmah. The Zayin Tachtonot could not. “Vechen al derech zeh bechol nekudah venekudah meha-nekudot”—and the same applies to each of the points—“yerachach.”
After that, the tikun (rectification) begins. Before we get to “achar kach,” at this point we have a stirah. Yesterday Reuven made a very good point. He sent me the passage; that’s why I started today’s shiur with it and went back. It is the stirah where he says, “The bottom came out—the bottom two nekudot came out complete with ten sefirot,” and he says it beferush (explicitly). Here he says, “No, the bottom came out without them.” Make up your mind: Did it come out with ten or not? To deal with this, what is Rav Chayim’s bottom line? That’s why I brought Mevo She'arim yesterday. Do you have Mevo She'arim again? Yes, from yesterday. Do you have those papers? Where did we put them? In the genizah (repository)? Where did we put yesterday’s Mevo She'arim? I thought I put it in my book, but I guess it came out.
Mevo She'arim says, “Neva'er atah od ki zeh ha-mikreh she-kara le-Zayin Melachim ha-elu shel kelalut Olam ha-Nekudim gam kara bifratut” (We will further explain that what happened to these seven kings of the general level of the world of Nekudim also happened in particular). Okay, “gam kara bifratut”—we accept that. That isn’t changing here. Bifratut. Notice, by the way, “gam kara bifratut.” It sounds as though according to Rav Chayim, it happened both bichlalut and bifratut. It happened in begadlut and in peratiyut.
“Ve-hu mah she-yitba'er”—okay. “Hineh eser sefirot she-yatzu berishonah... yatzu eser sefirot de-Arich Anpin im ha-tikunim ve-nechelakim Chabad be-Arich, Chagat be-Ze'er ve-Nukva, ve-lachen gimel pe'amim hayah inyan bitul ha-Zayin Melachim, echad be-Arich, bet be-Ze'er, gimel be-Nukva” (The ten sefirot that first emerged were the ten sefirot of Arich Anpin, with their rectifications, divided into Chabad in Arich, Chagat in Ze'er and Nukva. Therefore, the nullification of the seven kings occurred three times: once in Arich, once in Ze'er, and once in Nukva). He wants to say that this happened at every level, as we said.
“Veha'inyan ki ka'asher yatza batechilah bivchinat ha-Arich Anpin”—when it first emerged in the aspect of Arich Anpin—“kodem ha-tikun, hineh ha-gimel rishonot shebo yatzu yoter metukanot” (before the rectification, the first three that were in it emerged more rectified). As we said, it came out in kavim, “lihyotam gimel rishonot chashuvot ke'echad” (because the first three were considered as one). They were serving one another because they were kavim, and they could receive the light. But when the Zayin Tachtonot within Arich emerged from the Binah within it, which is the mother of the children, they could not receive their light and were nullified. So there was a shevirah in the Keter itself. “Ve-zehu inyan ha-Zayin Melachim she-malchu be-eretz Edom” (This is the matter of the seven kings who reigned in the land of Edom).
Then he says that this is the Zayin Melachim of Eretz Edom. “Hi ha-Binah de-Arich Anpin, ve-naqat Eretz Edom de-dinin mit'arin minah ka-noda ve-chulei” (It is the Binah of Arich Anpin, and it is called the land of Edom because judgments emerge from it, as is known, and so on). It is Binah wherever it is.
“Vechen hal'ah be-seder Ze'eir Anpin, kalul me-eser sefirot.” Here he says, “kalul me-eser sefirot”—included in ten sefirot. Again, he just said there were no ten sefirot. “Ve-hineh ha-gimel rishonot shebo yachlu lisbol ha-or ve-lo nishberu.” He said here that the gimel rishonot went into the Binah; here he says the gimel rishonot could withstand the light. When the Zayin Tachtonot emerged from the Binah within it, they could not receive it. After that it went to Da'at and broke. They are the second Zayin Melachim of Ze'eir Anpin.
The same thing happened at the fifth level, Nukva. “De-Ze'eir Anpin yatz'u ha-gimel rishonot, u-keshe-ba'u latzet ha-Zayin Tachtonot shebah min ha-Binah shebah lo yachlu lisbol ha-or metu harei ha-Zayin Melachim shelishiyim mi-Nukva de-Ze'eir Anpin, ve-chulam malchu be-eretz Edom, hu ha-Binah shebechol echad mehem.” The third Zayin Melachim are from Nukva de-Ze'eir Anpin, and they all reigned in the land of Edom. That is the Binah in each of them, because Eretz Edom is Binah. Whatever came out of Binah, which is the judgments, is where the shevirah takes place.
Beautiful. It comes out that you have three shevirot: a shevirah in Arich, a shevirah in ZA, and a shevirah in Nuk. Is that why the shevirah is mentioned three times in the Tanach? One time in the Torah, in Parashat Vayishlach, and one time in Divrei HaYamim. It says it two times. The Rav says the one in the Torah, in Parashat Vayishlach, is keneged ZA, because ZA corresponds to the Torah; the vav corresponds to the Torah. When it says Nukva, that refers to what is in Sefer Divrei HaYamim, the shevirah. Arich, since it is so elusive to us, isn’t mentioned at all. That’s what the Rav says here. The shevirah is mentioned twice: once in the Torah, corresponding to the shevirah of ZA, and once in Divrei HaYamim, corresponding to the shevirah of Nuk. The other time is not mentioned, because we don’t talk about Arich; Arich is beyond us.
Here’s the chazarah (review). Forget about what you read here now, whether the first one is right or this part is right. It seems this is the—Now what does the Rashash say? To understand the Rashash, the summary was that they came out as ten. They came out as ten, and there was a shevirah. Let’s review how we’re learning it now. He is doing top three, middle three, lower. If you group it that way, you don’t have this issue. That means it is going to happen at every level.
What is also going to happen is that according to the Rashash, there was really no shevirah bichlalut. Everything we’re talking about is bifratut. Nothing is bichlalut. You look at the bottle: the bottle is complete on the outside. Inside, all this was happening. The volcano was erupting inside, and on the outside you didn’t see anything. He learned that it was all bifratut, and the peratiyut happened at every level. Therefore—once you say this, even the bottom, everything, even the bottom set, even the ZAT, is the same. The glass didn’t break, only the inside. All five are working the same way, according to the Rashash: bifratut, inside.
Therefore, according to this, we have reversed what I told you earlier. Now we can say that at each level, even in the Zayin Tachtonot, the ZA gave a he'arah to the Abba ve-Imma of each one. Until now, we learned that the bottom seven gave a he'arah to the top; that’s when you learned it begadlut. But once you learn it bifratut, all of this is happening at every level and in every box. The ZA and Nuk are giving a he'arah to Abba ve-Imma. Once it breaks, Abba ve-Imma loses its he'arah from Arich, and then you have a nefilah de-achorai. Where is it happening? In ZA ve-Nuk as well. It’s not only one, two, and three—which was a chiddush for us—but even four and five.
Today he said, “No, no, no. In four and five, it was a complete shevirah, and there was no GAR at all; the GAR was hiding in Binah.” Here, in Mevo She'arim, he says, “No, no, no, no, no. All three levels are in every dot of the five. There’s an Arich, a Ze'eir, and a Nuk. Arich always behaves the same way wherever you find it; Ze'eir always behaves the same way wherever you find it; and Nuk behaves the same way no matter where you find it.”
Just for your information, this is the Sefer Rechovot HaNahar, which is the Rashash’s. This is page one of the Rashash, right at the beginning. It’s kedai (worthwhile) to read it because, again, it’s the Rashash, zechuto yagen aleinu (may his merit protect us), of course. Perek Vav is where the Rashash begins his whole discussion of Kabbalah. It’s Perek Vav because this is where all the action is. No, it’s not; it’s where he starts. Nahar Shalom, Hakdamah (introduction), by the way, is already the preface to what he is going to discuss.
Let’s start. “Alef: yadu'a ki heih nekudot yatzu me-einayim de-AK” (It is known that the five points emerged from the eyes of AK). Okay, we know about the five points. That’s a complete partzuf (configuration) of all AK. “Mivchinat bet-zayin.” Want to take a guess? De-AK, mivchinat—want to take a shot at it, boys? Circle that. I didn’t get it yet. Because it’s an easy one, obviously, but we didn’t get it yet. “It looks like a zayin to me.” “Okay, so vav.” “I don’t get it either.” “Mivchinat bet-zayin, ve-chulan yatzu shelemot.” There it is, right there. Bingo. All five came out complete. “Kol achat shelemah bechol chelkei ha-nekudah hahi” (Each one was complete in all the parts of that point). Really, like what? Like Mevo She'arim? “Be-ofen she-kol achat ve'achat kolelet heih partzufim” (In such a way that each one includes five partzufim). They’re all made up of the five partzufim. They’re not missing Arich: Atik, Arich, Abba ve-Imma, ZON.
“Ve-seder shevirat ha-kelim hayah bechol nekudah venekudah mehem, lechol echad ve-echad meha-GAR, Atik ve-Arich Anpin ve-O"A shebo nitkaymu” (The order of the breaking of the vessels occurred in each of the points: the GAR of each one—Atik, Arich Anpin, and Abba ve-Imma—remained intact), as we said. “Ve-Zayin Tachtonot ZON shebo nishberu,” the Zayin Tachtonot ZON in whatever point you’re in, “kemo al kol zeh be-orech be-Etz Chayim, Sha'ar Tet-Zayin, Perek Vav.” Where are we? Perek Zayin, as you’ll see. Perek Gimel mi-Sha'ar Yod-Zayin u-vechamah mekomot be-Sha'ar HaLikutim u-mi-Sha'ar Ma'amarei Rashbi ve-chen be-Mevo She'arim. That’s the Mevo She'arim we just read. Mevo She'arim, Sha'ar Bet, Chelek Gimel, Perek Vav. If you look at the address in your Mevo She'arim, it’s exactly where we are: Sha'ar Bet, Chelek Gimel, Perek Vav.
“Ve-af al pi she-hiniach sham ha-Rav Chayim Vital z"l she'elato be-tzarich iyun”—even though Rav Chayim Vital left his question there as requiring further study—“ayin sham.” He leaves his questions be-tzarich iyun. “Hineh yadu'a pashut u-varur ki zeh bitechilat limudo im ha-Ari” (It is clear and obvious that this was at the beginning of his studies with the Ari). That’s when he started learning with the Ari, so he understood it one way. “She-adayin lo nityashev ha'inyan belibo”—he didn’t yet have full clarity. “Ve-hu machmat she-hevin she-mikreh ha-melachim hahu hayah bichlalut.” He understood that everything was being done bichlalut. Then he understood that it was done bifratut. In the beginning, he saw it happening bichlalut and bifratut, both, as we saw here as well. “Ve-lachen yatza lo kushya”—and therefore he had a question. “Aval be-emet hu ki lo hayah bichlalut”—but in truth it was not bichlalut, “rak bifratut levad”—only bifratut. Once you say that, there’s no kushya, no question.
That’s what Rav Chayim Vital himself returned and wrote simply, at length, and especially in bifratut in Sha'ar HaLikutim and Sha'ar Ma'amarei Rashbi, in several places: ki lo bifratei ha-nekudot bilvad hayah mikreh ha-melachim ela hayah bechol minyan yod sefirot, yod sefirot de-chol partzuf bifratei ABY"A—and then it goes to ABY"A, but there’s another question, how, how it happened in ABY"A—and katzarnu bishvil ha-da'at.
Okay, fine. That’s what we need to know. This is a very important Rashash, Rabotai, which gives us the bottom line. When you start learning this way, all the kushyot and all the issues you have go away.
This perek creates a little confusion about Rav Chayim Vital’s opinion, so you need the Rashash to come and tell you that in the beginning he felt one way, and then the other. But the kelalut—no, there was nothing going on. It’s mivchinat Ben. “Mivchinat Ben, it says?” “Yeah, I pulled it up; it’s a typo.” “Oh, ot, that’s better. Very good. Ot Nun? That makes more sense.” “See? Very good, very good.” “It’s a Ben. It’s a boy!” “It’s a girl!” “It’s a girl. It’s a Ben, boy.”
Okay, so that’s very good. We have a little clarity about what took place here. Then you don’t have to come along and say that the bottom affected the top. Everything affected each other. “Otzrot was written after?” “Etz—after what? Etz Chayim?” “Otzrot was written first.” “So this is—” “No, I’m saying, if it was written second, maybe that’s why he didn’t include it. This part I thought Otzrot was second. Didn’t he make it more of a—?” “No, I think I—” “No, but even this part we just read, doesn’t this—?”
By the way, if I’m not mistaken, if I heard it from Chacham Ya'akov—and I have to review the history—even that’s a machloket (dispute). Wow. The order of the books. You see, maybe he skipped this part in Otzrot because it’s not—“It’s not a machloket, but it’s a stirah on what he said in the two derachim.” “Well, the problem was there were five versions, there’s everything.” Right, that’s the problem. “Which version? First version, exactly, double-victor.” Which version are we talking about? That was a long class. Shemuel Vital put something out—his son—and they found it; it was buried. Buried, dug it up.
By the way, that’s a big question you’re asking: what came first? That’s why most of the time in Rav Ya'akov’s books, he starts by explaining what we’re doing here and where we are in the history of the life of the books. Is it earlier, middle, or later? Correct, because it makes a difference at what point in Rav Chayim’s understanding. One hundred percent. That’s why the first thing the Rashash says is, “Oh, that was early on! That was early on, when he believed that way. And that’s why he was pushing, you know—” There’s a reason he wrote this here, that he—or he said—and that’s what he thought. Correct. So when he puts out a new mahadura (edition), he doesn’t have to go back and correct the other one. “Yeah, he’s not going to correct, exactly.” “Because he wasn’t releasing it—” “He said, ‘Listen, read my next book; you’ll see in the—’ He wasn’t publishing the other one. That’s what I’m saying. It wasn’t supposed to be out. He buried it.” Right, so the truth will come out in the second book. When you see the second book, you’ll see what he eventually said, who knows. This is why the Rashash has to come out and clarify.
By the way, look how important this yesod (principle) is for the Rashash to open his book with it, so people don’t get confused. Rabotai, we thought—You can get lost, because it changes everything and answers a lot of questions. That’s what it is. Wow, how great that point is.
Then there’s no shevirah on the outside; it’s all inside. No shevirah on the outside; all the shevirah is on the inside. Once you say that everything happened at every single level, you don’t have to say the bottom affected the top. Everything affected every peratiyut of every level. So there’s a shevirah on every level. It’s not like we said yesterday, that the Zayin Melachim were totally destroyed. They weren’t totally destroyed. They were still there. Parts of them had—you know, parts of the bottom. Whatever happened to the top happened.
Okay, that’s that. All right. Try more? This one’s a workout, but let’s see. Where are we now? We move to page Yud-Chet. “Achar kach?” Yeah—no, sorry, my page moved. We’re here, yes. “Achar kach.” This is the better part now. We’re basically done with the shevirah. “Chazru le-hizdaveg AB SAG de-AK, sham Chochmah Binah shebo.” So now there is going to be a zivug penimi, an inner union, of AB SAG of AK. They—That was the original place where Shem Ban was born. So they’ll have another zivug, and something else will emerge, which is Mah. “Ve-holidu ha-ben zachar”—they gave birth to a male child. “Mabruk, nolad lanu ben.” We have a son. “Another Ben.” Another Ben, but this Ben is Mah. And that’s it: Mah chadash, bifnim mamash. In other words, the panim of AK.
Fine. The Beit Lechem Yehudah proves something here: “AK lo hayah kalul techilah me-Asmab, rak me-AB ve-SAG.” There was a whole discussion earlier in the pnimiyut: Did you have everything, and only in the chitzoniyut didn’t you have it? To me, it sounds like even in the pnimiyut you didn’t have a Mah. The Mah was created now. “Yeah, because one time he says the SAG was all the way to the bottom.” What do you mean? There’s nothing else there. There’s always discussion about how to understand it. So you want to say there were only AB and SAG, and Mah came afterward.
“Ve-az yatzu anfei ha-Mah derech ha-metzach.” How did the anfei ha-Mah emerge? Mah is something that is all penimi, but it is going to come outside. Through which opening will it come out? It will come out through the metzach. “Mi-tabur de-AK u-lematah.” That’s where you see it, right? In the beginning, we said everything is covered. So it goes through the orot of AChAP, obviously from the outside, but it gets swallowed in them, because “shraga be-tihara mai ahani?” (What benefit is a lamp in broad daylight?) The orot of AChAP are so strong that you don’t really pick up the Mah. But once you pass that, when you come out of the tunnel, then we can start to see its light.
“Ve-attah nishlemu daled bechinot AB, SAG, Mah, Ban de-AK, ha-shorashim shebi-bifnim u-va-chutz she-hem anafim.” Now we’re done. Didn’t we say where the AB came out in anafim? Remember, he said, “We’re not going to get involved with that.” It was too high, we said. “Yes, we said we’re not going to talk about it. It’s too high.” Okay, so now we have everything. We have the Asmab of panim, and we have Asmab mi-bachutz.
“Ve-az hitchil ha-tikun me-Atik ve-Arich.” We’re not going to talk about Atik; it’s too high for us. “Ve-naniach tikun de-Atik,” because it’s ne'elam (concealed), too far up, “ve-nedaber be-Arich,” which is also very high. “Ki hineh mi-Zayin Tachtonot shebo hitchilah shevirah”—from Da'at up to Malchut. That’s where we can start talking about where the tikun took place. Now we know what that means when we say “mi-Da'at shebo bifratut,” from the Da'at of the Keter of Arich. At every level. Fine.
“Ve-hinei keivan she-GAR shebo nish'ar sham”—as we said, the GAR always remained—“hitchil sham,” sorry, “sham hitchil le-taken.” He says the tikun of the GAR de-Arich, and again, to fix the Zayin Tachtonot in it, will involve minimizing the light. That is the whole problem: There is too much light, and the kli is not big enough to hold it. We have to minimize the light and make the kli stronger. “She-hu bechinat reisha ve-se'arot u-nekavim.” So in the rosh of Arich—what is the rosh of Arich?—you have se'arot. The light comes out through the se'arot. Obviously, the se'arot have follicles, so there are holes if you look at each one. The hairs themselves are like tubes. If you look at an open hair, it looks like a tube. Why? Because the lights come out of the se'arot.
“Ve-az nitma'et ha-or ha-yotzei mehem.” Now, because it comes through these follicles, which are very, very narrow and very, very small, the light coming out of Arich is reduced; it comes through the se'arot. “Ve-az hayu yecholes be-Zayin Tachtonot of Arich le-taken bechinat kelim de-gufa.” It was then able to rectify the kelim of the body in the Zayin Tachtonot of Arich. The Zayin Tachtonot in it were strengthened by the lights that came out of the se'arot of Arich. Basically, Arich is lowering the power. “You know what? I’m not going to give it to you right away. I’ll give it through the hair, and then you guys can—” Exactly. We lower the voltage.
“U-mi'utim u-masachim.” What’s that word? “U-masachim. U-mi'utim u-masachim gam ken dumya de-reisha.” So the light now becomes a masach (screen), like a mask or shield. “U-mi'utim kemo she-hayu be-rosh.” Like a parsa, a shield in front of it. “Ve-na'asu kol zeh bechinat Ban Nukva de-Arich be-yud sefirot sheleimot.” This rectifies the partzuf of Ban, the Nukva of Arich, in ten complete sefirot. Again, we know that Ban came out with only one tenth; now this strengthens it, so it can get everything it needs. “Ve-zeh hayah also becho'ach de-chura de-Arich Anpin she-hu Mah he-chadash.” Therefore, it fixes the male and the—Actually, Mah he-chadash is what fixes it; that does the fixing. “Ve-zeh hayah becho'ach de-chura.” What is the koach de-chura? It is Mah he-chadash. That is the fixing.
“Ki techilah nizdavgu kemo reshimot de-Mah de-Arich Anpin im GAR de-Ban de-Arich Anpin shelo nishberu.” There was a zivug of the GAR of Chochmah of the Mah he-chadash. That’s where we said the reisha of Arich was with the se'arot, and it had a zivug with the GAR of the heh tachtonot of Keter de-Ban. Say it again: the heh tachtonot of Keter de-Ban. “Asher mimenah na'aseh beit ha-shidrah de-Nukva.” Fine, so we have zivugim.
“Ve-he'elu Zayin Tachtonot de-Ban de-Nukva de-Arich she-nishberu.” What happened through that zivug? The Zayin Tachtonot of Ban that broke—where were they? They were in Biya, because the kelim fell into Biya. “Ve-nitchabru imahem Zayin Tachtonot de-Mah,” and the Zayin Tachtonot of Mah met up with them, “de-dechura de-Arich Anpin, ve-nitkan hakol.” The way the Rav says it: “she-nitchabru ha-yud sefirot de-Chochmah de-Mah de-Arich im yud sefirot de-chetzi ha-tachton de-Keter de-Ban de-Arich she-hu partzuf ha-Ban de-Arich ve-na'asu sheneihem partzuf echad ha-kolel mi-dechura ve-nukva, chetzyo ha-yemani dechura ve-chetzyo ha-sema'ali nukva.” Fine. The right side is zachar; the left side is nekevah.
“Achar kach nizdavgu ZON she-hem Zayin Tachtonot de-Arich Anpin ve-tiknu GAR de-Chochmah de-Ban de-Ima ve-az ha-GAR tiknu ha-Zayin Tachtonot shelahem de-Mah u-Ban ve-chen al derech zeh she-hem heh partzufim de-Atzilut ve-az nikre'u berudim, ki Nekudim hu Ban.” What is berudim? They called it Olam ha-Berurim? I’m not explaining it yet, because that’s going to be the whole next chapter. He’s giving it to you very quickly: Nekudim is called Ban, and berudim is called Mah u-Ban yachad.
“Ve-omnam lo yachlu letaken legamrei ad biat ha-Mashiach.” The tikun will not take place completely until Mashiach comes. “Ke'ilu nitkneu legamrei,” if it had been fixed immediately, “hayu metaknim yud sefirot de-Mah im yud sefirot de-Ban.” Arich would have fixed it completely, from the Keter de-Mah to the Keter de-Ban. But that is not the case, because we said only the bottom part was fixed, not the top part.
“Ve-omnam lo hayah chen ki im al derech ha-amur be-kuntres zeh ki Atik lakach kol ha-Keter de-Mah ve-ha...” Atik took all the Keter of Mah, and the—heh rishonot bilvad of the—okay, only the first five of Keter de-Ban. That’s how Atik was formed. You have to have a zachar and nekevah even by Atik. So it took all the Keter on the Mah side, and it took the first five Keters of Ban.
“Ve-Arich lakach kol ha-Chochmah de-Mah ve-heh acharonot de-Keter de-Ban ve-chen Abba lakach Chochmah de-Ban ve-chetzi Binah de-Mah ve-chen al derech zeh kulam ki lo yachlu be-inyan Ban le-hitbarer legamrei kol ha-chalukot shelahem shebechol Binah u-vechol mehem.” They only took parts. They didn’t get equal levels. “Al ken lo nishtavu yud sefirot de-Ban im yud sefirot de-Mah.” Mah got more, and Ban—as we’re going to learn; this is an introduction to what we’re going to do—the division isn’t exact. When Mashiach comes, the division will be perfect, when the ten sefirot of this line up with the ten sefirot of Mah. Then Mah u-Ban will be equal and all that: “im yirtzeh Hashem beviat kevodo ve-zeh yushlam le-atid lavo bimheirah veyameinu, amen” (If Hashem wills, with the coming of His glory, may this be completed in the future, speedily in our days, amen).
Okay. Bedyuk (exactly), then it would have been done. Tzaddik, Perek Vav. We got the main points. Boys, let’s do the review. Very important review. I’ll start. Do you have it? Send the review here, because this is an important chapter to have in our repertoire. Who knows? I didn’t read the review; I read up to here. He does add things, so let’s see.
“Da she-techilah nivra ha-olam be-middat ha-din, ve-yatz'ah batechilah, she-hi Shem Ban, batechilah, mi-pnim de-AK, ve-achar kach yatzu anafav la-chutz derech ha-einayim, that's SAG de-SAG, from the tibura u-lematah de-AK.” Beautiful. Tov (good). “Ve-lo nitkaymu anafim sheba-chutz ad she-nolad Shem Mah she-hu middat ha-rachamim, u-vifnimiyut AK u-mi-bachutz de-AK nitkayem ha-olam be-sod be-yom asot Hashem Elokim.” Hashem Elokim (Hashem God), he said, is Mah and Ban, “ba-shamayim ke-she-nitchabru Mah u-Van yachad.”
“Ve-hineh be-sod Ban techilah she-hi Nukva ve-chulah dinim, lachen hayah shevirah be-chol ha-ZAT shel kol echad meha-asarah Nekudim.” All the ten Nekudim had that—why? Because they were all dinim. “Mi-kol partzuf mehem, kelalut yud sefirot yesh shevirah.” In each of their partzufim, among the general level of ten sefirot, there is a shevirah. So when the lights emerged from Keter, they all entered the vessels of Keter; Keter did not break. Afterward, they entered the vessel of Chochmah de-Keter, and so on. Afterward, they entered the vessel of Binah. That is the pnimiyut, so we know that.
“Ach ke-she-yatz'u orot de-ZAT tachtonot de-Keter, nitlabshu bi-kelim de-ZAT tachtonot de-Keter, lo yachlu lisbol oram ve-nishberu.” Again, that’s an intra-shevirah in the top three.
“Achar kach yatz'u ha-orot shel sefirat ha-Chochmah, le-hitlabesh ba-kelim shelahem.” Now we’re in the pnimiyut of Chochmah. “Nir'eh bahem kemo mah she-karah”—as what happened in Keter? Or what occurred in Keter? The same thing. The GAR of Chochmah remained in their vessels, and the ZAT of katnut broke and fell. Correct.
“Achar kach yatz'u ha-orot shel sefirat ha-Binah, ve-nitkaymu ha-GAR shelah be-Atzilut, ve-ha-ZAT shelah nishberu ve-naflu be-Biya.” Okay, that’s what happened.
“Achar kach yatz'u kol echad mi-Zayin Tachtonot zeh achar zeh, ve-ha-GAR kegon rishonot ha-peratiyim shel kol echad, ha-ZAT ha-peratiyim shel kol echad nishberu ve-naflu le-Biya.” Look what he says: “nimtza she-bein bichlalut u-vein bifratut”—he’s learning it this way, bichlalut and bifratut—“eira lahem mikreh echad.” As I said, each of the partzufim (configuration) of Atzilut had its GAR, and they remained. He has a GAR for it. So there is a GAR at every level, and they remained, right? But he says bichlalut and bifratut, “she-lo nitkaymu be-Atzilut,” they did not remain in Atzilut, “ve-ha-ZAT tachtonot nishberu ve-naflu le-Biya.”
“Omnam yesh chiluk bein ha-GAR de-ha-Nekudim le-vein ha-ZAT, ki ha-GAR yatzu kol nekudah mehem kelulah me-eser sefirot.” Yesterday: “ela she-ha-GAR shel kol yud ve-yud”—the rest of their completeness—“nish'aru shelemut, ve-ha-ZAT shel kol yud ve-yud nishberu.” Each of the ten broke. Okay.
“Omnam be-nekudot”—that’s the first three, which we understand. “Omnam be-Zayin nekudot tachtonim, she-hem keruyot ZAT de-Van, lo yatzu shelemim, ki ZAT de-Van yatza rak im ha-VAK, ki im—ki im kalul me-asarah, kol echad, kol echad—mah asarah? Kol echad kalul me-asarah, nitkaymu ha-GAR shel kol echad me-ha-VAK, ve-ha-ZAT nishberu ka-na'al.” Aha! So they remained.
“Ilu kol ha-ikarim de-ZA lo yatzu bi-zman ha-Nekudim kelal, nish'aru be-ibur Ima ad zman ha-tikun.” That’s what he said today. The GAR remained in the Binah; they never came out bichlal. We fell off that, by the way.
“Ve-ha-Nukva de-ha-Nekudim yatza rak im nekudah achat bilvad.” That is the only one tenth, out of ten. “Ve-ha-GAR”—where was the GAR? Also in its Binah—“shel otah nekudah nitkaymu, ve-idach ha-ZAT shel otah nekudah nishbar, ve-naflu le-Biya.” The ZAT of that point broke and fell to Biya.
“Omnam kol she'ar ha-tet sefirot, tet sefirot, ha-ikarim de-ha-Nukva, lo nichnesu kelal be-ikar bi-zman ha-Nekudim, ve-nish'aru be-me'ei.” Not only the GAR: the nine sefirot, the nine of Nukva, didn’t enter at all. They remained in the womb. Keter—only Malchut came out as one. So the other nine all went there.
“Ve-zehu sod ma'amar Chazal she-nivra ha-olam techilah be-middat ha-din, ve-lo hayah yachol le-hitkayem.” Okay, that’s a nice learning.
“Achar kach nizdavgu AB ve-SAG de-AK, she-hem Chochmah u-Vinah shebo, ve-nolad ben zachar, she-hu Shem Mah bifnim de-AK.” Fantastic. “Ve-az yatzu anfei ha-Mah la-chutz derech ha-metzach de-AK ve-nitpashtu meha-tibura u-lematah, ve-az hitchil tikun ha-Atzilut al yedei mi'utim u-masachim”—minimizing the light—“she-hem se'arot.” Go to the hairs. “Al yedei zeh nitma'et ha-or ha-yotze min ha-GAR she-lo ve-chulei pasuk.” Then the kelim of the ZAT of each partzuf could be rectified by means of the screens mentioned above.
“Ve-chen al yedei she-nitchabru imahem ha-ZAT shel kol echad mi-ktzavot de-ha-Mah, ve-al yedei zeh nitkan ha-kol, she-zeh sod, zeh sod be-yom asot Hashem Elokim, asot Hashem Elokim, Mah and Ban, eretz ve-shamayim.” All the worlds remained intact. Then Atzilut, the world of perudim, was built. Perudim—so that’s Nekudim, boys. Nekudim is Ban. Perudim is both. “Ve-hu bi-zman ha-Ban de-Atzilut nikra'im olam ha-tikun, al yedei Mah u-Van nitkayem ha—” That’s Nekudim. Perudim, Hashem Elokim. Hashem Elokim. Ad kan Ezer Yehudah.