To the honorable students:
This week I received a double portion of letters from the portions Shlach [Send] and Korah. Last week I did not receive any letters and I thought that you didn’t write today because on the third day of the portion, Korah, it’s been a full year since I have left you.
Regarding the impression of ... with the question ... regarding, “you did not see any image,” to the point that he wrote me that even Solomon’s wisdom would not be enough to answer such a question, I call on him the words of our sages: “Do not judge your friend until you are in his shoes.” If I had even Moses’ wisdom, of whom it was said, “And he beholds the image of the Lord,” he would be able to blunt his teeth, too, for there is a form in spirituality.
What I wrote is according to the view of fools, who interpreted the word “form” and the word “image” as one. But I am surprised at you—in a place where I ground wheat into flour for human consumption, you turned the flour into wheat again to chew on like a beast of the wild.
I elaborated extensively on the matter of form and disparity of form, which is only the difference between the Emanator and the emanated. It is necessary that we find some discernment for which it will be called “emanated” and not “Emanator,” and I placed “the name” on that discernment, to be able to engage in it and speak of it.
This is why I called it “disparity of form” and “equivalence of form.” Sometimes I call it, “great Dvekut [adhesion]” and “little Dvekut.” It can also be named by any name we want in order to explain this matter.
Once we have ground [analyzed] the matters from several pages in the book, he made them wheat again, and materialized the box of the form, clothing it in a corporeal image until his hands and legs were hopelessly tied up in this image. It is written explicitly in the Torah, “For you did not see any image,” while here it writes that there is form, disparity of form, and equivalence of form... I elaborated in your words to evaluate your inclination toward externality, that one needs to look into one’s actions.
The precision that Rav ... makes regarding the name Ein Sof [infinity] and “the light of Ein Sof,” the wording in the book, My Desire Is in The Lord: “And all those worlds and Malchut were included in the upper world, each of them. Also, they are included in Keter, and the whole of Ein Sof, inside of which all the worlds, etc., and everything was one unity, and all was Ein Sof,” thus far his words, word for word.
And what he wrote in the title of the book The Holy Tongue, p 20, I didn’t know the initials of that title, nor suffixes.
And what he imagines to be my words in the beginning, that “The light and all the abundance are already included in His essence Himself,” has no connection to my words regarding the Hitkalelut [mingling/inclusion] of the bottom worlds in Ein Sof. There, I explain specifically the matter of Ohr Pashut [Simple Light], which does not change wherever it is, and the difference between the Emanator and the Emanated is actually in the darkness. This is why I wrote very precisely, “In His essence,” which has neither a name nor a word. I do not even refer there to the light of Ein Sof, God forbid.
I don’t understand you whatsoever, how you scrutinize but don’t taste what you are saying, and compare one issue to another like food to a barrel. It must be due to multiple engagements or a desire for multiple engagements.
And what roams as a “thought”—to know where she belongs, he caught my tongue in Bina, and in the order, ABYA—is said in Atzilut, as well as in Tikkunei Zohar [Corrections of The Zohar], “Upper Hochma is called ‘a thought.’”
Indeed, it is from the wondrous and concealed secrets. But see in Gate to the Essays of Rashbi, these are his words in “The Hidden Midrash of Ruth”: Moses means Daat, as in Tifferet, and Rabbi Akiva is Bina, called “Being.” Had the Torah been given from the part of Bina, the Klipot would have no clothing in the Torah. But the Creator wished to give them a part and a grip, similar to how the first sparks in Hochma raised 320 sparks. This is the meaning of “So it came about in the Thought.”
You find here that Rabbi Akiva as Bina is called “being,” but this is difficult because it’s known that “being” is the name of Hochma. And yet, see in Branch 2 in Panim Masbirot (as well as in the introduction on the AHP) in the “Preface” regarding the ascent of Malchut to Bina. It explains that BehinaDalet rose to Hochma and became Nukva to Hochma of Behina Dalet that was established as Upper Ima. This is why Bina, which is Behina Bet, went out, meaning below Behina Dalet, whose Sium is called Parsa, since out of that Bina that went out, the two Partzufim YESHSUT were established below the Parsa.
By that you will understand that that Malchut that went up, really did go up to Hochma and acquired Upper Ima there, and she is called “being.” She is also called “a thought,” and there is the mitigation of the Dinim with Rachamim. This is why it is where the 320 sparks rose, as they are from BehinaDalet.
However, they did not rise to the actual Hochma, but rather to Upper Ima, who is Hochma. This is the meaning of “All is clarified in the thought,” since there is their root.
Sometimes Bina is called Nukva of Hochma, which is why I said that Malchut rose to Bina, meaning received the form of Upper Bina, which is called “a thought,” and “existence from absence.” This is the deepest of the deep, which is why the authors were succinct here.
And what I wrote in Panim Masbirot, p 6, it writes “nine Sefirot, Toch and Rosh,” it is no longer in the pamphlets, but was written “Toch and Sof.”
And what the Rav ... that I should ask on his behalf, it is similar to a working steam engine. Any machine that you attach to the steam engine with a strap will be just as strong. Thus, it is only Dvekut that we need.
Yehuda Leib