The First Gate

The Gate of Atik, and It Contains Five Chapters

השער הראשון שער עתיק ובו ה׳ פרקים

Chapter 1

שער יב פרק א מ״ת

[12:1] And now we will begin and explain how the entire world of Atzilut was rectified (וְעַתָּה נַתְחִיל וְנְבָאֵר אֵיךְ נִתְקַן כָּל עוֹלָם הָאֲצִילוּת), which is made from the two aspects mentioned above (הַנַּעֲשֶׂה מִב׳ בְּחִינוֹת הַנַּ״ל), which are M”H and B”N (שֶׁהֵם מ״ה וּב״ן), which are the kings who died (שֶׁהֵם הַמְּלָכִים שֶׁמֵּתוּ), and they are the aspect of the Nekudot [Vowel Points] of S”G (וְהֵם בְּחִי׳ הַנְּקֻדּוֹת דְּס״ג), and there is the new Name M”H (וְשָׁם מ״ה הֶחָדָשׁ). And it is necessary to explain (וְצָרִיךְ לְבָאֵר), what is the portion that Atik takes from the Name M”H (מַה הוּא הַחֵלֶק שֶׁלוֹקֵחַ עַתִּיק מִשֵּׁם מ״ה), and what it takes from the Name B”N (וּמַה שֶׁלוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם ב״ן), for it has already been explained above (כִּי כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל), that in Atik there is male and female (שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעַתִּיק זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה), and similarly in Arich Anpin and in Abba and Imma and in Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (וְכַעֲדַ״ז בְּא״א וּבְּאו״א וּבְּזו״ן).

And you already know (וְכְבָר יָדַעְתָּ), that the Name M”H has the aspect of Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks], Nekudot [Vowel Points], Tagin [Crowns], and Otiot [Letters] (כִּי שֵׁם מ״ה יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּחִי׳ טנ״ת״א), and likewise in the Name B”N (וְכַעֲדַ״ז בְּשֵׁם ב״ן), which are the Nekudot [Vowel Points] of S”G (שֶׁהֵם הַנְּקֻדּוֹת שֶׁל ס״ג), it is divided into the four aspects mentioned above (נֶחְלָק לְד׳ בְּחִינוֹת הַנַּ״ל), which are Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks], Nekudot [Vowel Points], Tagin [Crowns], and Otiot [Letters] (שֶׁהֵם טנ״ת״א).

Also know (גַּם דַּע), that just as the Name B”N, which is the Nekudot [Vowel Points] of S”G, has within it ten points which are ten Sefirot (כִּי כְּמוֹ שֶׁשֵׁם ב״ן שֶׁהוּא הַנְּקֻדּוֹת דְּס״ג יֵשׁ בּוֹ י׳ נְקֻדּוֹת שֶׁהֵם י״ס וְכַנַּ״ל), so too the Name M”H has within it ten Sefirot (כָּךְ שֵׁם מ״ה יֵשׁ בּוֹ י״ס). And when these two Names, M”H and B”N, are joined together (וּכַאֲשֶׁר מִתְחַבְּרִים אֵלּוּ ב׳ שֵׁמוֹת מ״ה וּב״ן), in a union of male and female as mentioned above (בְּחִיבּוּר זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כַּנַּ״ל), they are joined ten Sefirot with ten Sefirot (הֵם מִתְחַבְּרִים י״ס בְּי״ס). And it is necessary first to explain the matter of the Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks] (וְצָרִיךְ לְבָאֵר תְּחִלָּה עִנְיַן הַטְּעָמִים), some say: Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks]–Nekudot [Vowel Points]–Tagin [Crowns]–Otiot [Letters] (נ״א טנ״ת״א), and their division into ten Sefirot (וְהִתְחַלְּקוּתָן לְי״ס).

And know (וְדַע), that in the Zohar they said that the Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks] are in Keter (כִּי בַּזֹּהַר אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַטְּעָמִים בְּכֶתֶר), and the Nekudot [Vowel Points] in Chokhmah (וְנְקֻדּוֹת בְּחָכְמָה), and the Tagin [Crowns] in Binah (וְתָגִין בְּבִינָה), and the Otiot [Letters] in the seven lower of Atzilut (וְאוֹתִיּוֹת בְּז״ת דַּאֲצִילוּת), which are called Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (שֶׁהֵם נִקְרְאוּ זו״ן). But know (אֲבָל דַּע), that this division is with regard to the ten Sefirot themselves of the Name M”H (כִּי זֶה הַהִתְחַלְּקוּת הוּא בְּעִנְיַן י״ס עַצְמָן שֶׁל מ״ה), which are divided in this order (שֶׁהֵם מִתְחַלְּקִים בְּסֵדֶר זֶה).

However (אַמְנָם), when these aspects are divided in Atik and Arich Anpin, etc. (כַּאֲשֶׁר בְּחִי׳ אֵלּוּ מִתְחַלְּקִים בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א וְכוּ׳), their order is not like this (אֵין סִדְרָם כָּךְ), but rather in another manner (אֶלָּא בְּאוֹפֶן אַחֵר). And remember this introduction (וּזְכוֹר הַקְדָּמָה זוֹ). And this is its detail (וְזֶה פְּרָטָן): behold, Atik and Arich Anpin are both included in the Keter of Atzilut (הִנֵּה עַתִּיק וְא״א שְׁנֵיהֶן נִכְלָלִין בְּכֶתֶר דַּאֲצִילוּת), as will be explained, with the help of Hashem p2-0(כְּמוֹ שֶׁנְּבָאֵר בְּעֶזְרַת ה׳).

And behold, Atik took from the Name M”H the aspect of Keter in its entirety, which are the Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks] (וְהִנֵּה הָעַתִּיק לָקַח מִשֵּׁם מ״ה בְּחִי׳ כֶּתֶר כּוּלוֹ שֶׁהֵם הַטְּעָמִים), and from B”N it took the first five of its Keter, which are also the aspect of Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks] (וּמִב״ן לָקַח ה״ר שֶׁל כֶּתֶר שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁהֵם גַּם כֵּן בְּחִי׳ הַטְּעָמִים), for you already know that each one of the ten Sefirot is included of ten (כִּי כְּבָר יָדַעְתָּ כִּי כָּל א׳ מֵהַי״ס כָּלוּל מִי׳). And additionally it took the three upper of Chokhmah of B”N (וְעוֹד לָקַח ג״ר דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן), and the four lower of Binah of B”N (וְד״ר דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן), and seven Keters of the seven lower of B”N, as mentioned above (וְז׳ כְּתָרִים דְּז״ת דְּב״ן כַּנַּ״ל). And Arich Anpin took from the Name M”H the aspect of Chokhmah, which are the Nekudot [Vowel Points] (וְא״א לָקַח מִשֵּׁם מ״ה בְּחִי׳ חָכְמָה שֶׁהֵם הַנְּקֻדּוֹת), and from the Name B”N it took the five lower of the Keter of B”N, which are from its Tiferet and below (וּמִשֵּׁם ב״ן לָקַח ה׳ תַּחְתּוֹנוֹת דְּכֶתֶר שֶׁל ב״ן שֶׁהוּא מִן הַת״ת שֶׁלּוֹ וּלְמַטָּה).

And behold, also from the other aspects, which are Chokhmah and Binah of S”G, some of them were clarified to make from them Atik (וְהִנֵּה גַּם מִבְּחִי׳ הָאֲחֵרוֹת שֶׁהֵם ח״ב שֶׁל ס״ג הוּבְרְרוּ מֵהֶם קְצָתָם לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶם עַתִּיק), for from the aspect of the Keter it took only half of it, as mentioned above (כִּי מִבְּחִי׳ הַכֶּתֶר לֹא לָקַח רַק חֶצְיוֹ כַּנַּ״ל). And behold, that which it takes from Chokhmah are the three upper (וְהִנֵּה מַה שֶּׁלוֹקֵחַ מֵחָכְמָה הֵם ג״ר), it follows that the seven lower remain for Chokhmah itself (נִמְצָא כִּי נִשְׁאֲרוּ לַחָכְמָה עַצְמָהּ ז״ת), and from them Abba is made (וּמֵהֶם נַעֲשֶׂה אַבָּא). And this is what is said in the Zohar, “Abba is grasped and dependent in Chesed” (וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר בַּזֹּהַר אַבָּא אָחִיד וְתָלְיָא בְּחֶסֶד), for from Chesed and below of Chokhmah, from there Abba begins (כִּי מֵחֶסֶד וּלְמַטָּה שֶׁל חָכְמָה מִשָּׁם מַתְחִיל אַבָּא). And from Binah it took the four lower (וּמִבִּינָה לָקַח ד״ר), in such a manner that Imma has only from Gevurah and below of Binah (בְּאוֹפֶן כִּי אִמָּא אֵין לָהּ רַק מִגְּבוּרָה וּלְמַטָּה שֶׁל הַבִּינָה). And this is the secret of “Imma is grasped and dependent in Gevurah” (וְזֶה סוֹד אִמָּא אָחִיד וְתַלְיָא בִּגְבוּרָה).

Behold, we have explained the aspect of Atik (הֲרֵי בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּחִי׳ עַתִּיק), that it has the entire Keter of M”H (שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כָּל הַכֶּתֶר דְּמ״ה), and from it is the secret of the male (וּמִמֶּנּוּ סוֹד הַדְּכוּרָא), and it also took the first five of the Keter of B”N [some say: of S”G] (וְגַם לָקַח ה״ר דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן [נ״א דְּס״ג]), and the three upper of Chokhmah of S”G (וְג״ר דְּחָכְמָה דְּס״ג), and the four lower of Binah of S”G (וְד״ר דְּבִינָה דְּס״ג), and from these three aspects of S”G are made the Nukvah of Atik (וּמֵאֵלּוּ ג׳ בְּחִינוֹת שֶׁל ס״ג נַעֲשִׂים נוּקְבָּא דְּעַתִּיק). And Arich Anpin took Chokhmah from M”H in its entirety (וְא״א לָקַח חָכְמָה מִמ״ה כּוּלָּהּ), and the five lower of the Keter of B”N (וְה״ת דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן), for the first five of B”N were taken by Atik (כִּי ה״ר דְּב״ן לָקַח עַתִּיק). And Abba is the Chokhmah of Atzilut (וְאַבָּא הוּא חָכְמָה דַּאֲצִילוּת), and it takes from the Name M”H half of Binah, which are the Tagin [Crowns] (וְלוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם מ״ה חֲצִי בִּינָה שֶׁהֵם תָּגִין), and from the Name B”N it takes the seven lower of the Chokhmah of B”N (וּמִשֵּׁם ב״ן לוֹקֵחַ ז״ת שֶׁל חָכְמָה דְּב״ן), for the three upper were taken by Atik, as mentioned above (כִּי הַג״ר לָקַחָם עַתִּיק כַּנַּ״ל). And Imma is the Binah in Atzilut (וְאִמָּא הִיא בִּינָה שֶׁבָּאֲצִילוּת), and it takes from the Name M”H half of Binah, which are the Tagin [Crowns] (וְלוֹקַחַת מִשֵּׁם מ״ה חֲצִי בִּינָה שֶׁהֵם תָּגִין), and from the Name B”N it takes the six extremities of the Binah of B”N (וּמִשֵּׁם ב״ן לוֹקַחַת ו״ת שֶׁל בִּינָה דְּב״ן), for the four lower were taken by Atik (כִּי ד״ר לָקַחָם עַתִּיק). And Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah took letters from the Name M”H, which are the seven lower of M”H (וְזו״ן לָקְחוּ אוֹתִיּוֹת מִשֵּׁם מ״ה שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת דְּמ״ה), and from the Name B”N they took the seven lower that are in it (וּמִשֵּׁם ב״ן לָקְחוּ ז״ת שֶׁבּוֹ), except for the Keters of these seven lower of B”N (חוּץ מִן הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁל אֵלּוּ הַז״ת דְּב״ן), which Atik also takes for itself (שֶׁגַּם הֵם לוֹקְחָם עַתִּיק לְעַצְמוֹ). And do not err in our words to say that they are one aspect and what they take is another thing (וְאַל תִּטְעֶה בִּדְבָרֵינוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהֵם בְּחִי׳ א׳ וּמַה שֶׁלוֹקְחִים הֵם דָּבָר אַחֵר), but our intention is (אֶלָּא כַּוָּנָתֵנוּ הוּא), that Atik Yomin of Atzilut, all of its very essence, is made from these two aspects, which are M”H and B”N (כִּי עַתִּיק יוֹמִין דַּאֲצִילוּת כָּל עַצְמוּתוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה מִב׳ בְּחִינוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵם מ״ה וּב״ן), and the aspect of M”H within it is what is called Atik, the male (וּבְחִי׳ הַמ״ה שֶׁבּוֹ הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עַתִּיק דְּכוּרָא), and the aspect of B”N within it is what is called the Nukvah of Atik (וּבְחִי׳ הַב״ן שֶׁבּוֹ הוּא הַנִּקְרָא נוּקְבָּא דְּעַתִּיק), and remember and do not forget (וּזְכוֹר וְאַל תִּשְׁכַּח).

The general principle that emerges is (כְּלַל הָעוֹלֶה הוּא), that in the world of Atzilut there are ten Sefirot (כִּי בְּעוֹלָם אֲצִילוּת יֵשׁ בּוֹ י״ס), and the Keter is Atik and Arich Anpin (וְהַכֶּתֶר הוּא עַתִּיק וְא״א), and Chokhmah is Abba (וְחָכְמָה הוּא אַבָּא), and Binah is Imma (וּבִינָה הִיא אִמָּא). And the six extremities, which are Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet and Netzach, Hod, Yesod, are Ze’ir Anpin (וְו״ק הֵם חג״ת נה״י הוּא ז״א), and Malkhut is the Nukvah of Ze’ir Anpin (וּמַלְכוּת הִיא נוּקְבָּא דְּז״א). And all these aspects, their very essence, are made from the two aspects, M”H and B”N (וְכָל בְּחִי׳ אֵלּוּ נַעֲשֶׂה עַצְמוּתָן מִב׳ בְּחִינוֹת מ״ה וּב״ן), and all the male aspects are from M”H (וְכָל בְּחִי׳ הַדְּכוּרִים הֵם מִמ״ה), and the Nukvah is from B”N, as mentioned above (וְהַנּוּקְבָּא מִב״ן כַּנַּ״ל).

Further, all of this will be explained later, with the help of Hashem (עוֹד יִתְבָּאֵר כָּל זֶה לְקַמָּן בְּעֶזְרַת ה׳). And according to another opinion (וְנִלְעַד״ח), that it is not literally its half in precise constriction (שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחֲצִיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ בְּצִמְצוּם), but rather it is in the manner of the other Partzufim (רַק הוּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ שְׁאָר פַּרְצוּפִים), for Atik takes until one-third of Tiferet (כִּי עַתִּיק לוֹקֵחַ עַד שְׁלִישׁ ת״ת), as is known from the other diagrams (כַּנּוֹדָע מִשְּׁאָר הַצִּיּוּרִים), for until one-third of Tiferet everywhere is the form of one Partzuf (כִּי עַד שְׁלִישׁ ת״ת בְּכָל מָקוֹם הוּא צִיּוּר פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד), and from there and below is a second Partzuf (וּמִשָּׁם וּלְמַטָּה פַּרְצוּף ב׳). And we will now explain them in detail (וְנְבָאֵרָם עַתָּה דֶּרֶךְ פְּרָט), and we will say and begin to explain the matter of Atik Yomin (וְנֹאמַר וְנַתְחִיל לְבָאֵר עִנְיַן עַתִּיק יוֹמִין), and first we will explain who is the one called Atik Yomin (וּתְּחִלָּה נְבָאֵר מִי הוּא הַנִּקְרָא ע״י). Behold, at the beginning of the Idra Zuta, daf 88a, it states as follows (הִנֵּה בִּתְּחִלַּת אַדְרָ״ז דְּרפ״ח ע״א וְזַ״ל): “This Atika Kadisha is hidden and concealed, etc.; three heads are engraved, this within that, and this above that, etc.” (הָאֵי עַתִּיקָא קַדִּישָׁא טָמִיר וְגָנִיז וְכוּ׳ ג׳ רִישִׁין אִתְגַּלְּפִין דָּא לְגוֹ מִן דָּא וְדָּא לְעֵילָּא מִן דָּא וְכוּ׳). And the explanation is (וְהַבֵּיאוּר הוּא):

Know (דַּע), that this Atika Kadisha mentioned here (כִּי זֶה הָעַתִּיקָא הַנִּזְכָּר כָּאן) is not speaking of the male that is made from the Name M”H (אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר עַל הַזָּכָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה מִשֵּׁם מ״ה), but rather of the Nukvah of Atik and of Arich Anpin (אֶלָּא עַל נוּקְבָּא דְּעַתִּיק וְדְּא״א), which are made from the aspect of the Sefirah of Keter of B”N, of the Nekudot [Vowel Points] of the kings who died (הַנַּעֲשִׂים מִבְּחִי׳ סְפִי׳ הַכֶּתֶר דְּב״ן שֶׁל נְקֻדּוֹת שֶׁל הַמְּלָכִים שֶׁמֵּתוּ). And remember this introduction (וּזְכוֹר הַקְדָּמָה זוֹ), for it is necessary for you throughout the entire Idra, for all the discourses of Atik and of Arich Anpin as mentioned above (כִּי הִיא צְרִיכָה לְךָ בְּכָל הָאַדְרָא לְכָל הַדְּרוּשִׁים דְּעַתִּיק וְדְּא״א כַּנַּ״ל). And behold, this Keter in its entirety is called Atika Kadisha (וְהִנֵּה כֶּתֶר זֶה בִּכְלָלוּתוֹ כֻּלּוֹ נִקְרָא עַתִּיקָא), and understand this very well (וְהָבֵן זֶה מְאֹד). And behold, the Keter, which is the totality of Atika Kadisha, is divided into two divisions which are three (וְהִנֵּה הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁהוּא כְּלָלוּת עַתִּיקָא מִתְחַלֵּק לִב׳ חֲלוּקוֹת שֶׁהֵם ג׳).

The explanation is (פֵּרוּשׁ), that behold it is divided into Atik Yomin and Arich Anpin (כִּי הִנֵּה נֶחְלַק לְעַתִּיק יוֹמִין וּלְא״א), and afterward Arich Anpin itself is also divided into two heads (וְאַחַ״כ גַּם הָא״א נֶחְלַק גַּם הוּא לִב׳ רִישִׁין), and they are its Keter of Arich Anpin itself (וְהֵם כֶּתֶר שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁל א״א עַצְמוֹ), and the Chokhmah of Arich Anpin itself (וְהַחָכְמָה דְּא״א עַצְמוֹ), which is the concealed brain within Arich Anpin (שֶׁהוּא מוֹחָא סְתִימָאָה שֶׁבּוֹ בְּא״א). Thus, this Atika Kadisha mentioned above includes three heads (בְּאוֹפֶן כִּי עַתִּיקָא הַנַּ״ל כָּאן הוּא כּוֹלֵל ג׳ רִישִׁין): the first head is the one called Atik Yomin (רִישָׁא א׳ הוּא הַנִּקְרָא ע״י), and it is the portion of the supernal head which is in Atika Kadisha (וְהוּא הַחֵלֶק שֶׁל הָרֹאשׁ הָעֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר בְּעַתִּיקָא). And the two lower heads which are in Atika Kadisha (וּב׳ רִישִׁין תַּתָּאִין אֲשֶׁר בְּעַתִּיקָא), they are called Arich Anpin (הֵם הַנִּקְרָא א״א), which is divided into its Keter and its Chokhmah itself (הַנֶּחְלָק לְכֶתֶר וְלַחָכְמָה שֶׁבּוֹ עַצְמוֹ). For Atika Kadisha is a general name for Atik Yomin and Arich Anpin (כִּי עַתִּיקָא הוּא שֵׁם כּוֹלֵל לְעַתִּיק יוֹמִין וּלְא״א), with respect to the Name B”N within it (בִּבְחִינַת שֵׁם ב״ן שֶׁבּוֹ), and understand this very well (וְהָבֵן זֶה מְאֹד). And therefore it is called Atika Kadisha (וְלָכֵן נִקְרָא עַתִּיקָא), for it is from the aspect of the Nekudot [Vowel Points] of the Keter of the beard within all the ten Sefirot (כִּי הוּא מִבְּחִי׳ נְקֻדּוֹת כֶּתֶר הַזָּקָן שֶׁבְּכָל י״ס), from which Atik Yomin and Arich Anpin are made (אֲשֶׁר מִמֶּנּוּ נַעֲשִׂים עַתִּיק וְא״א). Unlike the Name M”H, the male (מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשֵׁם מ״ה הַזָּכָר), for Atik alone is made from the Keter of M”H (כִּי עַתִּיק לְבַדּוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה מִן הַכֶּתֶר דְּמ״ה), but Arich Anpin is made only from the Chokhmah of M”H (וְא״א לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא מֵחָכְמָה דְּמ״ה).

And behold, that which it takes from the Name M”H, from which is made the aspect of Atik the male, has already been explained (וְהִנֵּה מַה שֶּׁלוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם מ״ה שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחִי׳ עַתִּיק דְּכוּרָא כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר עִנְיָנוֹ), that it is the Keter, which are the Ta‘amim [Cantillation Marks] of M”H (שֶׁהוּא הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁהֵם הַטְּעָמִים דְּמ״ה). But the Nukvah of Atik Yomin (אֲבָל נוּקְבָּא דְּע״י), which is the supernal head among the three heads (אֲשֶׁר הוּא הָרֹאשׁ הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁבַּג״ר), which are called, in general, Atika Kadisha as mentioned above (שֶׁנִּקְרָאִים דֶּרֶךְ כְּלָלוּת עַתִּיקָא כַּנַּ״ל), behold there are great uncertainties (הִנֵּה יֵשׁ בָּהּ סְפֵקוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת), as to what are the aspects that it takes from the Name B”N (מַה הֵם הַבְּחִינוֹת שֶׁלוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם ב״ן), in order to be made into the Nukvah of Atik (כְּדֵי לְהֵעָשׂוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ הַנּוּקְבָּא דְּעַתִּיק). And this is what is said in the Idra Zuta, “three heads are engraved,” etc. (וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר בְּאַדְרָ״ז ג׳ רִישִׁין מִתְגַּלְּפִין וְכוּ׳), and he explained their matter (וּבֵאֵר עִנְיָנָם), and he said that the lower head among them is the concealed brain of Arich Anpin, which is the aspect of the Chokhmah within it (וְאָמַר כִּי רֹאשׁ הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶם הוּא מוֹחָא סְתִימָאָה דְּא״א שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת הַחָכְמָה שֶׁבּוֹ). And this is what is said, “one head is concealed wisdom, that is covered and not revealed and not opened,” etc. (וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר רִישָׁא חֲדָא חָכְמְתָא סְתִימָאָה דְּאִתְכַּסְיָא וְלָא אִתְגַּלְיָא וְלָא אִתְפְּתְחָא וְכוּ׳). And above it is the supernal head, Atika Kadisha, concealed of all concealments (וּלְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא רִישָׁא עִלָּאָה עַתִּיקָא סְתִימָאָה דְּכָל סְתִימִין), and it is the aspect of the Keter itself of Arich Anpin, which is also called Atika Kadisha, since it is the aspect of Keter (וְהוּא בְּחִינַת הַכֶּתֶר עַצְמוֹ דְּא״א אֲשֶׁר גַּם הוּא נִקְרָא עַתִּיקָא לִהְיוֹתוֹ בְּחִינַת כֶּתֶר). And above it is the head of all heads, the head that is not a head, which is not known and is not known at all what is within that head, etc. (וּלְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא רִישָׁא דְּכָל רִישִׁין רִישָׁא דְּלָאו רִישָׁא דְּלָא יָדְעֵי וְדְּלָא אִתְיְדַע כְּלָל מָה דְּהָוֵי בְּהַהוּא רִישָׁא וְכוּ׳).

And behold, this head, the third from below to above, which is the uppermost of all (וְהִנֵּה זֶה הָרֹאשׁ הַג׳ מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה שֶׁהוּא עֶלְיוֹן שֶׁבְּכֻלָּם), is the aspect of the Nukvah of Atik Yomin (הוּא בְּחִינַת נוּקְבָּא דְּע״י). And therefore it said, “it is not known what is within that head” (וְלָכֵן אָמַר דְּלָא אִתְיְדַע מָה דְּהָוֵי בְּהַהוּא רִישָׁא), because with regard to Atik, the male, we have already explained that it is known what is within it, which is the Keter from the Name M”H (לְפִי שֶׁבְּעַתִּיק דְּכוּרָא כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ דְּאִתְיְדַע מָה דְּהָוֵי בֵּיהּ שֶׁהוּא הַכֶּתֶר מִשֵּׁם מ״ה). But that which it takes from the Name B”N for this third head (אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁלוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם ב״ן לְהַאי רִישָׁא תְּלִיתָאָה), there are in it many uncertainties, as will be explained with the help of Hashem (יֵשׁ בּוֹ כַּמָּה סְפֵקוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁנְּבָאֵר בְּעֶזְרַת ה׳), and this is what is meant by “it is not known what is within that head” (וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר דְּלָא אִתְיְדַע מָה דְּהָוֵי בְּהַהוּא רִישָׁא). And at first glance one must be precise (וּלְכָאוֹרָה צָרִיךְ לְדַיֵּיק), why it did not say “and it is not known what this head is” (לָמָּה לֹא אָמַר וְלָא אִתְיְדַע מָה הֲוֵי הַאי רִישָׁא), for this would imply that we already know the existence of the head itself—what its matter is, that it is Atik Yomin as mentioned above (שֶׁאָז מַשְׁמָע שֶׁכְּבָר אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים מְצִיאוּת הָרִישָׁא עַצְמָהּ מַה עִנְיָנָהּ שֶׁהוּא הָע״י כַּנַּ״ל), but what is within it we do not know (אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ בְּתוֹכָהּ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין מַה הוּא). And its explanation is (וּבֵיאוּרוֹ הוּא), that it refers to the aspect of the Name B”N (עַל בְּחִינַת שֵׁם ב״ן), which is there, for it clarifies from the clarifications (some say: from the Keters) that are in the Name B”N (כִּי הוּא מְבָרֵר מִן הַבֵּירוּרִין [נ״א מִן הַכְּתָרִים] שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּשֵׁם ב״ן), and they join with it and are made a Nukvah to it (וּמִתְחַבְּרִים עִמּוֹ וְנַעֲשִׂים נוּקְבָּא אֵלָיו). This is what we do not know—how much it clarified from it and joined to it (זֶהוּ שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין כַּמָּה בֵּירֵר מִמֶּנּוּ וְחִבְּרוֹ אֵלָיו).

Chapter 2

שער יב פרק ב מ״ת

[12:2] And first of all it is necessary (וּתְחִלַּת הַכֹּל צָרִיךְ), that before we explain these uncertainties (שֶׁטֶּרֶם שֶׁנְּבָאֵר הַסְּפֵקוֹת הָאֵלֶּה), we first explain the matter of these Nukvot that are in the world of Atzilut (נְבָאֵר תְּחִלָּה עִנְיַן אֵלּוּ הַנְּקֵבוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעוֹלָם הָאֲצִילוּת), whether in Atik Yomin or in Arich Anpin, etc. (הֵן בְּע״י הֵן בְּא״א וְכוּ׳). And the matter is (וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא), for behold I have informed you above (כִּי הִנֵּה הוֹדַעְתִּיךָ לְעֵיל), that there is the aspect of Atik and Nukvah (שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּחִי׳ עַתִּיק וְנוּקְבָּא), and Arich Anpin and Nukvah (וְא״א וְנוּקְבָּא), and Abba and Imma (וְאו״א), and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (וְזו״ן). However, there is a distinction regarding the Nukvot mentioned above (אָֽמְנָם יֵשׁ חִלּוּק בְּעִנְיַן הַנְּקֵבוֹת הַנַּ״ל), and that is (וְהוּא), for behold the Nukvah is judgments (כִּי הִנֵּה הַנְּקֵבָה הִיא דִּינִין), and it is from the aspect of the clarification of the kings (וְהוּא מִבְּחִי׳ בֵּרוּר הַמְּלָכִים), and how can the name Nukvah be applicable in Atik and Arich Anpin (וְאֵיךְ יִצְדַּק שֵׁם נְקֵבָה בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א), which are the ultimate of mercies (שֶׁהֵם תַּכְלִית הָרַחֲמִים), as mentioned in the two Idrot (כַּנִּזְכָּר בִּשְׁתֵּי הָאִדְּרוֹת). And furthermore (וְעוֹד), behold the very existence of the aspect of male and female indicates limitation and separation (כִּי הִנֵּה הֱיוֹת בְּחִי׳ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה מוֹרֶה עַל מִעוּט וּפֵרוּד), and not complete unity (וְאֵין אַחְדוּת גָּמוּר), as when the male exists alone (כְּמוֹ בִּהְיוֹת הַזָּכָר לְבַדּוֹ).

And behold, we find and have seen in many places in the Zohar (וְהִנֵּה מָצִינוּ רָאִינוּ בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת בַּזֹּהַר), and in the Idra Rabba, daf 141b (וּבְאַדְרָ״ר דְּקמ״א ע״ב), “in this form of Adam He began and established the general principle of male and female” (בְּהַאי דִּיּוּקְנָא דְּאָדָם שָׁרֵי וְתִקֵּן כְּלָלָא דְּכַר וְנוּקְ׳), which is not so in Atika (מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּעַתִּיקָא). And likewise in many places we find (וְכֵן בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת מָצִינוּ), that the aspect of male and female did not begin except from Abba and Imma and below (שֶׁלֹּא הִתְחִיל בְּחִי׳ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה אֶלָּא מֵאו״א וּלְמַטָּה), as mentioned in the Idra Zuta, daf 270a (כַּנִּזְכָּר בְּאַדְרָ״ז דְּר״ץ ע״א): “This Chokhmah spread forth and was found as male and female, which is Chokhmah the father and Binah the mother, and through them everything is sustained in male and female,” etc. (הָאֵי חָכְמְתָא אִתְפְּשַׁט וְאִשְׁתְּכַח דוּ״נ שֶׁהוּא חָכְמָה אַב בִּינָה אִם וּבְגִינַיְיהוּ כּוּלָּא אִתְקַיֵּים בְּדוּ״נ וְכוּ׳).

If so (אִם כֵּן), how do we say that even in Atik and Arich Anpin there is an aspect of Nukvah (אֵיךְ אֲנַחְנוּ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאַף בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א יֵשׁ בְּחִי׳ נוּקְבָּא), behold we find the opposite of this in many places (וְהִנֵּה מָצִינוּ הֵפֶךְ זֶה בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת). And in particular (וּבִפְרָט), in Sefer haZohar, Parashat Bereshit, daf 22b (בְּס״ה פ׳ בְּרֵאשִׁית דב״ך ע״ב), regarding “the Cause of all causes” (דְּעִילַּת כָּל הָעִילּוֹת), it says: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god with Me” (אָמַר הַאי קְרָא רְאוּ עַתָּה כִּי אֲנִי אֲנִי הוּא וְאֵין אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי), for there is one with partnership, such as male and female (דְּאִית אֶחָד בְּשִׁתּוּף כְּגוֹן דוּ״נ), and it is said of them, “I called him one” (וְאִתְמַר בְּהוֹן כִּי אֶחָד קְרָאתִיו), but He is one, not by number and not by partnership (אֲבָל אִיהוּ חַד וְלָא בְּחוּשְׁבָּן וְלָא בְּשִׁתּוּף). And therefore He said, “and there is no god with Me” (וּבְגִין כָּךְ אָמַר וְאֵין אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי), for “Elohim” is the aspect of the Nukvah (שֶׁהִיא בְּחִי׳ הַנְּקֵבָה הַנִּקְרֵאת אֱלֹהִים), which is judgment (שֶׁהִיא דִּין).

And behold, in order to reconcile these statements (וְהִנֵּה לְיַשֵּׁב הַמַּאֲמָרִים הָאֵלּוּ), you must know (צָרִיךְ שֶׁתֵּדַע), that certainly in all the ten Sefirot there is male and female (כִּי בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁבְּכָל הַי״ס יֵשׁ דָּכָר וְנוּקְבָּא), except that there is a difference in their mode of existence—how they are (אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִלּוּק בְּמְצִיאוּתָן אֵיךְ הֵם).

And the explanation of the matter is (וּבֵיאוּר הָעִנְיָן הוּא), for behold Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (כִּי הִנֵּה זו״ן), in whom the essence of death occurred (אֲשֶׁר בָּהֶם עִיקַּר הַמִּיתָה), for in them was the matter of the seven kings who died (כִּי [הֲרֵי] בָּהֶם הָיָה עִנְיַן ז׳ הַמְּלָכִים שֶׁמֵּתוּ), therefore there exists in them the aspect of male and female as separate Partzufim, one from the other (לָכֵן יֵשׁ בָּהֶם בְּחִי׳ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּפַרְצוּפִים נִפְרָדִין א׳ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ). And that which you sometimes find that they are joined (וּמַה שֶּׁתִּמְצָא לִפְעָמִים שֶׁהֵם מְחֻבָּרִין), is only when they are back-to-back (אֵינָם אֶלָּא בִּהְיוֹתָן אֲב״א), for then their backs are joined together (כִּי אָז אֲחוֹרֵיהֶם דְּבוּקִים יַחַד), and one wall serves for both of them (וְכוֹתֶל א׳ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן), and there is need of sawing at the back in order to separate them (וְצָרִיךְ נְסִירָה בָּאָחוֹר לְהַפְרִידָם). But Abba and Imma (וְאָֽמְנָם או״א), in whom there was annulment and there was not death in actuality as there was in Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah, as mentioned above (אֲשֶׁר הָיָה בָּהֶם בִּטּוּל וְלֹא הָיְתָה בָּהֶם מִיתָה בְּפוֹעַל כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּזו״ן כַּנַּ״ל), therefore there was also in them the aspect of male and female, each one in itself (לָכֵן הָיָה בָּהֶם גַּם כֵּן בְּחִי׳ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כָּל א׳ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ), meaning as two Partzufim (פֵּרוּשׁ בִּבְחִי׳ ב׳ פַּרְצוּפִים), similar to Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (כְּדִמְיוֹן זו״ן).

But there was added in them an immense union (אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְוַסֵּף בָּהֶם חִיבּוּר עָצוּם), which is that they are joined together face-to-face constantly (וְהוּא שֶׁהֵם דְּבוּקִים יַחַד פב״פ תָּמִיד), and a single wall alone serves for both of them (בְּכוֹתֶל א׳ בִּלְבַד מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לִשְׁנֵיהֶן), and there is no separation between them at all (וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן פֵּרוּד כְּלָל), unlike Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (לֹא כְּמוֹ זו״ן), where when they are back-to-back they are joined (שֶׁבִּהְיוֹתָן אֲב״א מִתְחַבְּרִין), and when they are face-to-face they are separated (וּבִּהְיוֹתָן פב״פ נִפְרָדִין). And this is the reason that it is said in many places (וְזֶהוּ הַטַּעַם שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת), in the Zohar, Parashat Aḥarei, daf 61a, and in the Idra Zuta, daf 270 (בְּס״ה פ׳ אַחֲרֵי דְּס״א וּבְאַדְרָ״ז דְּר״צ), “But Abba and Imma do not separate their will; the two emerge as one and dwell as one, and they do not separate one from the other” (אֲבָל או״א לָא מַפְסִיק רְעוּתָא דִּתְרוֹיְיהוּ לְעָלְמִין כְּחַדָּא נָפְקִין כְּחַדָּא שְׁרָיָין לָא אִפְסוּק דָּא מִן דָּא), and therefore their union is constant and does not cease (וְלָכֵן זִוּוּגַיְיהוּ תָּדִיר דְּלָא פָּסִיק). But Arich Anpin (וְאָֽמְנָם א״א), which is from the aspect of the Keter of the Nekudot [Vowel Points] (שֶׁהוּא מִבְּחִי׳ הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁל הַנְּקֻדּוֹת), there was not even annulment in it, as mentioned above (לֹא הָיָה בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בִּטּוּל כַּנַּ״ל). And indeed it is from the five lower of the Keter of B”N, as mentioned above (וְאָֽמְנָם הוּא מִן ה׳ אַחֲרוֹנוֹת שֶׁל הַכֶּתֶר דְּב״ן כַּנַּ״ל).

And it is known (וְנוֹדָע), that in the Netzach, Hod, Yesod of the Keter of the Nekudim there was some annulment (כִּי בְּנֵה״י שֶׁל הַכֶּתֶר דְּנְקוּדִים הָיָה קְצָת בִּטּוּל), when they descended to be made into vessels and Mochin for Abba and Imma (כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרְדוּ לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כֵּלִים מוֹחִין לְאו״א), and therefore there was also in it the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (וְלָכֵן גַּם בּוֹ הָיָה בְּחִי׳ זו״ן). However, an additional rectification and union was added to them (אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְוַסֵּף לָהֶם תִּקּוּן וְחִיבּוּר נוֹסָף), and that is that both of them were one Partzuf—the male and the female within it (וְהוּא שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן הָיוּ פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד הַזָּכָר וְהַנְּקֵבָה שֶׁבּוֹ), in the following manner (בְּאוֹפֶן זֶה): that the aspect of the Name M”H within it was placed on the entire right side (כִּי בְּחִי׳ שֵׁם מ״ה שֶׁבּוֹ נָתוּן בְּכָל צַד יָמִין), and the aspect of the Name B”N within it was on its left side (וּבְחִי׳ שֵׁם ב״ן שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה בַּצַּד הַשְּׂמָאלִי שֶׁבּוֹ), and both of them were joined together as a single Partzuf (וּשְׁנֵיהֶן דְּבוּקִים יַחַד בִּבְחִי׳ פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד). And this is the meaning of what is written in the Zohar, that the Keter is male alone without a Nukvah (וְזֶהוּ עִנְיַן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּזֹּהַר שֶׁהַכֶּתֶר הוּא זָכָר לְחוּד בְּלִי נוּקְבָּא), meaning without a Nukvah separate from it (ר״ל בְּלִי נוּקְבָּא נִפְרֶדֶת מִמֶּנּוּ). And that which we say that there is male and female (וּמַה שֶּׁאָנוּ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה), is that there are found within it these two aspects of M”H and B”N (הוּא הֱיוֹת נִמְצָאִים בּוֹ ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁל מ״ה וּב״ן), on its right and on its left (בִּימִינוֹ וּבִשְׂמֹאלוֹ), which are the aspect of male and female everywhere (אֲשֶׁר הֵם בְּחִי׳ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם), but not that there are in it Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah separated into two Partzufim (אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ זו״ן נִפְרָדִים בִּב׳ פַּרְצוּפִים). And understand this very well (וְהָבֵן זֶה מְאֹד). And through this you will understand (וּבְזֶה תָּבִין), how Abba and Imma enclothe Arich Anpin—this one on its right and that one on its left (אֵיךְ או״א מַלְבִּישִׁין לְא״א זֶה לִימִינוֹ וְזֶה לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ), for so is the matter in Arich Anpin itself (כִּי כֵן הַדָּבָר בְּא״א עַצְמוֹ): the right side within it is M”H, the male (צַד יָמִין שֶׁבּוֹ הוּא מ״ה דְּכוּרָא), and the left side is B”N, the Nukvah (וְצַד שְׂמֹאל הוּא ב״ן נוּקְבָּא).

However, in Atik Yomin (וְאָֽמְנָם בְּע״י), which is from the aspect of the first five of the Keter of the Nekudim (שֶׁהוּא מִבְּחִי׳ ה״ר שֶׁל הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁל הַנְּקוּדִים), where there was never any annulment at all (שֶׁשָּׁם לֹא הָיָה שׁוּם בִּטּוּל כְּלָל מֵעוֹלָם), therefore the aspects of male and female within it, which are M”H and B”N (לָכֵן בְּחִי׳ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה שֶׁבּוֹ שֶׁהֵם מ״ה וּב״ן), were completely intermingled together (נִתְעָרְבוּ יַחַד לְגַמְרֵי), and both of them are intermingled one with the other (וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מְעֹרָבִים יַחַד זֶה בָּזֶה), on the right by itself and likewise on the left (בִּימִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְכֵן בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ). And they are not like Arich Anpin (וְאֵינָם כְּמוֹ א״א), where the male is on the right and the Nukvah on the left (שֶׁהַזָּכָר בִּימִין וְהַנְּקֵבָה בִּשְׂמֹאל). And this is what is said in the Idra Rabba, daf 129a (וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר בְּאַדְרָ״ר דְּקכ״ט ע״א): “There is no left in this concealed Atika; all is right” (לֵית שְׂמָאלָא בְּהַאי עַתִּיקָא סְתִימָאָה כּוּלָּא יְמִינָא).

And the matter is (וְהָעִנְיָן), that in Arich Anpin the male is on the right and the female on the left (כִּי בְּא״א הַזָּכָר בִּימִין וְהַנְּקֵבָה בִּשְׂמֹאל), but in Atik Yomin the right side within it is comprised of M”H and B”N, and likewise the left side (אֲבָל בְּע״י צַד יָמִין שֶׁבּוֹ כָּלוּל מִמ״ה וּב״ן וְכֵן בְּצַד שְׂמֹאל), therefore they are equal (אִם כֵּן שָׁוִין הֵם), and there is no distinction between its right and its left (וְאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ). However, the aspect of the female and the male within it is in another manner (אָֽמְנָם בְּחִי׳ הַנְּקֵבָה וְהַזָּכָר שֶׁבּוֹ הוּא בְּאוֹפֶן אַחֵר), and that is that they are two aspects—face and back (וְהוּא שֶׁהֵם ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת פָּנִים וְאָחוֹר), meaning (פֵּרוּשׁ), that between its right side and its left side there is within it the aspect of M”H on the side of face and the aspect of B”N on the side of back (כִּי בֵּין צַד יְמִינוֹ וּבֵין צַד שְׂמֹאלוֹ יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּחִי׳ מ״ה מִצַּד פָּנִים וּבְחִי׳ ב״ן מִצַּד אָחוֹר), and through this there is a wondrous and very great union (וּבְזֶה הוּא חִיבּוּר נִפְלָא גָּדוֹל מְאֹד). And through this you will understand (וּבְזֶה תָּבִין), that you will not find that there is in Atik face and back as there is in all the others from it and below (כִּי לֹא תִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעַתִּיק פָּנִים וְאָחוֹר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּכָל הַשְּׁאָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה).

And the matter is (וְהָעִנְיָן), that Atik, from one side, has M”H, and from the other side has B”N (כִּי הָעַתִּיק מִצַּד א׳ יֵשׁ לוֹ מ״ה וּמִצַּד הַשֵּׁנִי יֵשׁ ב״ן), and it is in the following manner (וְהוּא בְּאוֹפֶן זֶה): For certainly in the Name M”H there is face and back, and likewise in the Name B”N there is face and back (כִּי וַדַּאי שֶׁבְּשֵׁם מ״ה יֵשׁ פָּנִים וְאָחוֹר וְכֵן בְּשֵׁם ב״ן יֵשׁ פָּנִים וְאָחוֹר), and they are joined—back of M”H with back of B”N (וְהֵם דְּבוּקִים אָחוֹר דְּמ״ה בְּאָחוֹר דְּב״ן), and the face of M”H is on this side and the face of B”N is on that side (וְהַפָּנִים דְּמ״ה מִצַּד זֶה וּפְנֵי דְּב״ן מִצַּד זֶה). And it follows that on this side the face of M”H is recognized and visible, and on that side the face of B”N (וְנִמְצָא שֶׁמִצַּד זֶה נִכָּרִים וְנִרְאִים פְּנֵי מ״ה וּמִצַּד זֶה פְּנֵי ב״ן), and the backs of both of them, of M”H and of B”N, are concealed one to the other inside (וְהָאֲחוֹרַיִם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם דְּמ״ה וּב״ן מְכֻסִּים זֶה לָזֶה מִבִּפְנִים), within the two aspects of face (תוֹךְ ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת פָּנִים).

Thus, no aspect of back is revealed in Atik at all (אִם כֵּן אֵין מִתְגַּלֶּה בְּעַתִּיק בְּחִי׳ אָחוֹר כְּלָל), and therefore all of it is called face (וְלָכֵן כֻּלּוֹ נִקְרָא פָּנִים). But Arich Anpin (אֲבָל א״א), where the Name M”H stands alone on its right (אֲשֶׁר שָׁם מ״ה עוֹמֵד לְבַדּוֹ לִימִינוֹ), has face on one side and back on the other (פָּנִים מִצַּד זֶה וְאָחוֹר מִצַּד זֶה), and likewise on its left—the face of B”N on one side and the backs on the other (וְכֵן בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ פְּנֵי דְּב״ן מִצַּד זֶה וְהָאֲחוֹרַיִם מִצַּד זֶה). It follows that the two faces of M”H and B”N are on one side, and the two backs of M”H and B”N are on the other side (נִמְצָא שֶׁב׳ הַפָּנִים דְּמ״ה וּב״ן הֵם מִצַּד א׳ וּב׳ הָאֲחוֹרַיִם דְּמ״ה וּב״ן מִצַּד הָאַחֵר), and therefore the aspect of face and back is applicable to it (וְלָכֵן יִצְדַּק בּוֹ בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים וְאָחוֹר). However, that which we sometimes say even with regard to Atik that there is face and back (וְאָֽמְנָם מַה שֶּׁאָנוּ אוֹמְרִים לִפְעָמִים גַּם בְּעַתִּיק בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים וְאָחוֹר), the intention is regarding the two aspects of M”H and B”N (הַכַּוָּנָה עַל ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת שֶׁל מ״ה וְשֶׁל ב״ן), for the aspect of B”N—even its face—is called back relative to the M”H that stands (כִּי בְּחִי׳ ב״ן וַאֲפִלּוּ הַפָּנִים שֶׁלּוֹ יִקָּרֵא אָחוֹר בְּעֶרֶךְ הַמ״ה הָעוֹמֵד) on the other side (בְּצַד אַחֵר). And it follows (וְנִמְצָא), that the face of M”H on this side is called face, and the face-aspect of B”N standing on one side is called back relative to the Name M”H (כִּי הַפָּנִים דְּמ״ה שֶׁמִצַּד זֶה נִקְרָא פָּנִים וּבְחִי׳ הַפָּנִים דְּב״ן הָעוֹמְדִים מִצַּד א׳ נִקְרָא אָחוֹר בְּעֶרֶךְ שֵׁם מ״ה).

Chapter 3

שער יב פרק ג מ״ת

[12:3] And we will now return to explain the matter of the uncertainties mentioned above (וְנַחֲזוֹר עַתָּה לְבָאֵר עִנְיַן הַסְּפֵקוֹת הַנַּ״ל), which we said exist in Atik Yomin regarding the aspect of what it takes for itself from the portion of the aspect of B”N (שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּע״י בְּבְחִי׳ מַה שֶּׁלוֹקֵחַ לְעַצְמוֹ מֵחֵלֶק בְּחִי׳ ב״ן), which are the Nekudot [Vowel Points] that are the aspect of the kings (שֶׁהֵם הַנְּקֻדּוֹת שֶׁהֵם בְּחִי׳ הַמְּלָכִים).

Behold, it has been explained (הִנֵּה נִתְבָּאֵר), that you do not have any light that does not have two aspects—inner and surrounding (שֶׁאֵין לְךָ שׁוּם אוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת פְּנִימִי וּמַקִּיף). It follows that in the Name B”N there is inner and surrounding, and likewise in the Name M”H (וְנִמְצָא כִּי בְּשֵׁם ב״ן יֵשׁ פְּנִימִי וּמַקִּיף וְכֵן בְּשֵׁם מ״ה). And behold, it is necessary that we present to you one premise (וְהִנֵּה צָרִיךְ שֶׁנַּצִּיעַ לְךָ הַצָּעָה אַחַת), and that is (וְהוּא), for behold Atik Yomin is all of the Keter of M”H (כִּי הִנֵּה הָע״י הוּא כָּל כֶּתֶר דְּמ״ה), and it has ten Sefirot, as is known (וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְפִירוֹת כַּנּוֹדָע). And these ten Sefirot within this Keter are divided and spread forth and become a complete Partzuf called Atik Yomin the male (וְאֵלּוּ הַי״ס שֶׁבְּכֶתֶר הַזֶּה מִתְחַלְּקִים וּמִתְפַּשְּׁטִים וְנַעֲשִׂים פַּרְצוּף שָׁלֵם שֶׁנִּקְרָא עַתִּיק יוֹמִין דְּכוּרָא). And when it was clarifying from the aspect of the Name B”N, which are the kings as mentioned above (וְכַאֲשֶׁר הוּא הָיָה מְבָרֵר מִבְּחִי׳ שֵׁם ב״ן שֶׁהֵם הַמְּלָכִים כַּנַּ״ל), which have ten Sefirot within them (אֲשֶׁר יֵשׁ בָּהֶם י״ס), behold it clarifies one part and joins it from the aspect of the Keter of B”N to the Keter of the Keter of M”H (הִנֵּה הוּא מְבָרֵר חֵלֶק א׳ וּמְחַבְּרוֹ מִבְּחִי׳ כֶּתֶר דְּב״ן אֶל כֶּתֶר דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה). And afterward it clarifies another part from the Chokhmah of the Keter of the Name B”N and joins it with the Chokhmah within the Keter of M”H (וְאַחַ״כ מְבָרֵר עוֹד חֵלֶק א׳ מִן הַחָכְמָה דְּכֶתֶר דְּשֵׁם ב״ן וּמְחַבְּרוֹ עִם הַחָכְמָה שֶׁבְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה), and so with all of them (וְכֵן כֻּלָּם), until it clarifies the tenth part from the Name B”N and joins it with the Malkhut of the Keter of M”H (עַד שֶׁיְּבָרֵר חֵלֶק הָעֲשִׂירִי מִשֵּׁם ב״ן וּמְחַבְּרוֹ עִם הַמַּלְכוּת דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה). And then the aspect of the Partzuf of Atik Yomin is completed (וְאָז יֻשְׁלַם בְּחִי׳ פַּרְצוּף ע״י). And the uncertainty that exists in this matter (וְהַסָּפֵק שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּזֶה), is to know which parts it clarifies and joins in its head, and which parts it clarifies and joins in its body (הוּא לָדַעַת אֵיזֶה חֲלָקִים הוּא מְבָרֵר וּמְחַבְּרָם בְּרִישָׁא דִּילֵיהּ וְאֵיזֶה חֲלָקִים מְבָרֵר וּמְחַבְּרָם בְּגוּפָא).

And behold, it is already clear to us (וְהִנֵּה כְּבָר הוּא פָּשׁוּט אֶצְלֵנוּ), that the aspect of the Keter of Atik is made from the Keter of the Keter of M”H and from the clarification of the first five of the Keter of B”N (כִּי בְּחִי׳ הַכֶּתֶר דְּעַתִּיק נַעֲשֶׂה מִן הַכֶּתֶר דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה וּמִן בֵּרוּר ה״ר דְּכֶתֶר ב״ן), and here there is no further clarification other than this (וְאֵין כָּאן עוֹד שׁוּם בֵּרוּר אַחֵר אֶלָּא זֶה). But the uncertainty is what we will now explain (אֲבָל הַסָּפֵק הוּא מַה שֶּׁנְּבָאֵר עַתָּה), and that is (וְהוּא), that there are here two aspects (כִּי יֵשׁ כָּאן ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת). And in the first aspect there are two uncertainties (וּבְבְחִי׳ הָאַחַת יֵשׁ בָּהּ ב׳ סְפֵקוֹת), and in the second aspect there is one uncertainty (וּבְבְחִי׳ ב׳ יֵשׁ בָּהּ סָפֵק א׳).

The first aspect is (הַבְּחִי׳ הָאַחַת), whether we say that the surrounding light of the Name B”N, due to its great magnitude (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁאוֹר הַמַּקִּיף דְּשֵׁם ב״ן לְסִבַּת רֹב גָּדְלוּתוֹ), did not require that the Name M”H rectify it (לֹא הֻצְרַךְ לוֹ שֶׁיִּתְקְּנֵהוּ שֵׁם מ״ה), for surrounding light is greater and more exalted than the inner light, as is known (כִּי אוֹר מַקִּיף גָּדוֹל וּמְעוּלֶּה מִן הַפְּנִימִי כַּנּוֹדָע). And therefore it remained above in its root (וְלָכֵן הוּא נִשְׁאַר לְמַעְלָה בְּשָׁרְשׁוֹ), and did not go out to join with the Name M”H, as is known (וְלֹא יָצָא לְהִתְחַבֵּר עִם שֵׁם מ״ה כַּנּוֹדָע). Rather, only the inner light of B”N was required to return and go out for rectification (אֶלָּא הַפְּנִימִי דְּב״ן בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לַחֲזוֹר וְלָצֵאת לְתִיקּוּן). And it is that which was joined with the Name M”H (וְהוּא אֲשֶׁר נִתְחַבֵּר עִם שֵׁם מ״ה). And the second aspect is (וְהַבְּחִי׳ הַב׳ הוּא), whether we say that the surrounding light and the inner light of B”N were required to come to be rectified and to be joined with the Name M”H (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁאוֹר הַמַּקִּיף וְאוֹר פְּנִימִי שֶׁל ב״ן הֻצְרְכוּ לָבוֹא לְהִתְתַּקֵּן וּלְהִתְחַבֵּר בְּשֵׁם מ״ה).

And behold, according to the first aspect (וְהִנֵּה לְפִי הַבְּחִי׳ הָאַחַת), there are within it two uncertainties (יֵשׁ בָּהּ ב׳ סְפֵקוֹת אֵלּוּ). And they are (וְהֵם): whether we say (אִם נֹאמַר), that since only the inner light of B”N came alone (שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא בָּא רַק הַפְּנִימִי דְּב״ן לְבַד), also from the Name M”H only the inner light came (גַּם מִשֵּׁם מ״ה לֹא בָּא רַק הַפְּנִימִי). And then the inner light of B”N, whose root is the Nekudot [Vowel Points] of S”G as mentioned above (וְאָז הַפְּנִימִי דְּב״ן אֲשֶׁר שָׁרְשׁוֹ הוּא נְקֻדּוֹת דְּס״ג כַּנַּ״ל), becomes the aspect of surrounding light for the inner light of M”H (נַעֲשֶׂה בְּחִי׳ מַקִּיף שֶׁל או״פ דְּמ״ה), for always the Name S”G is greater than the Name M”H in one aspect, as mentioned above (כִּי לְעוֹלָם שֵׁם ס״ג גָּדוֹל מִשֵּׁם מ״ה בְּחִי׳ א׳ כַּנַּ״ל).

And it follows (וְנִמְצָא), that the inner light of the Name B”N becomes a surrounding light to the inner light of M”H (כִּי שֵׁם ב״ן הַפְּנִימִי נַעֲשֶׂה מַקִּיף אֶל פְּנִימִי דְּמ״ה). And if the matter is so (וְאִם הָעִנְיָן כֵּן), it follows that now there is one surrounding light and one inner light only (נִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ עַתָּה אוֹ״מ א׳ וְאוֹ״פ א׳ בִּלְבַד). And that is (וְהוּא), that the Keter of the Keter of M”H becomes an inner light in the Keter of Atik (כִּי הַכֶּתֶר דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹ״פ בְּכֶתֶר דְּעַתִּיק), and the inner light of the first five of the Keter of B”N becomes a surrounding light to it (וְאוֹ״פ שֶׁל ה״ר דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן נַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ אוֹ״מ). Or if we say in another manner (אוֹ אִם נֹאמַר בְּאוֹפֶן אַחֵר), and that is (וְהוּא), that from the Name B”N certainly only the inner light was required to come (שֶׁמִשֵּׁם ב״ן וַדַּאי לֹא הֻצְרַךְ לָבוֹא רַק הַפְּנִימִי לְבַד), but from the Name M”H both surrounding light and inner light came (אֲבָל שֵׁם מ״ה בָּא אוֹ״מ וְאוֹ״פ), and then the inner light of B”N also becomes the aspect of surrounding light (וְאָז נַעֲשֶׂה הַפְּנִימִי דְּב״ן גַּם כֵּן בְּחִי׳ מַקִּיף). And it follows (וְנִמְצָא), that there are two surrounding lights—one of M”H and one of B”N—and only one inner light, of M”H alone (כִּי יֵשׁ ב׳ מַקִּיפִים א׳ דְּמ״ה וְא׳ דְּב״ן וּפְנִימִי א׳ בִּלְבַד דְּמ״ה).

The second aspect is (הַבְּחִי׳ הַב׳), whether we say (אִם נֹאמַר), that from the Name B”N both surrounding light and inner light came (כִּי מִשֵּׁם ב״ן בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ״מ וְאוֹ״פ), and likewise from the Name M”H both surrounding light and inner light came (וְכֵן מִשֵּׁם מ״ה בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ״מ וְאוֹ״פ). And it follows (וְנִמְצָא), that there are two surrounding lights—of M”H and of B”N—and two inner lights—of M”H and of B”N (כִּי יֵשׁ ב׳ מַקִּיפִים דְּמ״ה וּב״ן וּב׳ פְּנִימִיִּים דְּמ״ה וּב״ן). And behold, the uncertainties that exist in the Keter of the Keter of Atik have been explained (וְהֲרֵי נִתְבָּאֲרוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּכֶתֶר דְּכֶתֶר דְּעַתִּיק), and how the uncertainties there are only with regard to the lights alone (וְאֵיךְ אֵין הַסְּפֵקוֹת בּוֹ אֶלָּא בָּאוֹרוֹת לְבַד).

There are further uncertainties in the Chokhmah–Binah of Atik (עוֹד יֵשׁ סְפֵקוֹת בְּחו״ב דְּעַתִּיק), and these uncertainties depend upon the uncertainties that exist above in the Keter of Atik (וְהַסְּפֵקוֹת הָאֵלּוּ תְּלוּיִין כְּפִי הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְמַעְלָה בְּכֶתֶר דְּעַתִּיק), except that here there is uncertainty both with regard to the lights and with regard to the vessels (אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּאן יֵשׁ סָפֵק בֵּין בְּעִנְיַן הָאוֹרוֹת וּבֵין בְּעִנְיַן הַכֵּלִים). And the matter is (וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא), for here also it is known to us (כִּי גַּם כָּאן נוֹדָע לָנוּ), that there are in them Chokhmah–Binah of the Keter of M”H (שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם חו״ב שֶׁל כֶּתֶר דְּמ״ה). And indeed with regard to the aspect of B”N as well (וְאָֽמְנָם בְּבְחִי׳ דְּב״ן גַּם כֵּן), it is known to us (נוֹדָע לָנוּ), that Atik took the three upper of the Chokhmah of B”N and the four lower of the Binah of B”N (כִּי לָקַח הָעַתִּיק ג׳ רִאשׁוֹנוֹת דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן וְד׳ רִאשׁוֹנוֹת דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן). And it is obvious (וּפָשׁוּט הוּא), that even the aspect of the Keters that exist within the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N cannot ascend into the Keter of Atik at all (כִּי אֲפִלּוּ בְּחִי׳ הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּחו״ב דְּב״ן אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ בְּכֶתֶר דְּעַתִּיק כְּלָל), for behold we wrote above (כִּי הֲרֵי כָּתַבְנוּ לְעֵיל), that the Keter of Atik is made only from the Keter of the Keter of M”H and from the first five of the Keter of B”N (שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה כֶּתֶר דְּעַתִּיק אֶלָּא מִכֶּתֶר דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה וּמֵה״ר דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן).

And the reason is (וְהַטַּעַם), for behold the entire aspect of Atik, from its head to its feet, is all called the aspect of Keter in relation to Chokhmah–Binah (כִּי הֲרֵי כָּל בְּחִי׳ עַתִּיק כּוּלּוֹ מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו הַכֹּל נִקְרָא בְּחִי׳ כֶּתֶר בְּעֶרֶךְ חו״ב), and if so, how could the Keters of Chokhmah–Binah ascend into its Keter (וְאִם כֵּן אֵיךְ הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁל חו״ב יַעֲלוּ בְּכֶתֶר שֶׁבּוֹ). Therefore it is necessary and obvious (אִם כֵּן מֻכְרָח הוּא וּפָשׁוּט), that they do not ascend into the Keter of Atik at all (שֶׁאֵינָם עוֹלִין בְּכֶתֶר דְּעַתִּיק כְּלָל), but certainly they are from there and below (אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁהֵם מִשָּׁם וּלְמַטָּה). And in this lies the uncertainty (וּבְזֶה הוּא הַסָּפֵק): whether the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascend into the Chokhmah–Binah of Atik (אִם ב׳ הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁל חו״ב דְּב״ן עוֹלִין בְּחו״ב דְּעַתִּיק), or whether we say that even though they are Keters (אוֹ נֹאמַר שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם כְּתָרִים), nevertheless they are the Chokhmah–Binah that are inferior relative to Atik (עִם כָּל זֶה הֵם בְּחִי׳ חו״ב הַגְּרוּעִים מִבְּחִי׳ עַתִּיק), and if so, how could they ascend into its Chokhmah–Binah (וְאִם כֵּן אֵיךְ יַעֲלוּ בְּחו״ב שֶׁלּוֹ). And therefore (וְאִם כֵּן), they ascended only into its body alone (לֹא עָלוּ רַק בְּגוּפָא דִּילֵיהּ לְבַד). And this uncertainty applies both with regard to the vessels and with regard to the lights (וְסָפֵק זֶה הוּא בֵּין בְּבְחִי׳ הַכֵּלִים וּבֵין בְּבְחִי׳ הָאוֹרוֹת), and within these two aspects there are many detailed questions (וְיֵשׁ בִּשְׁתֵּי בְּחִינוֹת אֵלּוּ כַּמָּה פְּרָטֵי שְׁאֵלוֹת), as will be written below, with the help of Hashem (כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּכְתֹּב לְמַטָּה בְּעֶזְרַת ה׳).

However, regarding the Chokhmah, Binah of the Chokhmah of B”N, and the Chokhmah, Binah and Chesed of the Binah of B”N (אָֽמְנָם בְּחו״ב דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן וּבְחו״ב וְחֶסֶד דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן), in these it is obvious (בְּאֵלּוּ פָּשׁוּט הוּא), that they cannot ascend upward into the head of Atik, into its Chokhmah, Binah (שֶׁאֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לַעֲלוֹת לְמַעְלָה בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק בְּחו״ב דִּילֵיהּ), and it is certainly the case that they remain in its body (וַדַּאי הוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרוּ בְּגוּפֵיהּ דִּילֵיהּ). There is yet another uncertainty regarding the seven lower of Atik (עוֹד יֵשׁ סָפֵק בְּעִנְיַן ז״ת דְּעַתִּיק), for it is obvious that they took for themselves the seven lower of the Keter of M”H (שֶׁהוּא פָּשׁוּט שֶׁלָּקְחוּ לָהֶם ז״ת דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה). And the uncertainty is (וְהַסָּפֵק הוּא), whether it takes from the Name B”N the aspect of the seven Keters that exist in the seven lower of B”N or not (אִם לוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם ב״ן בְּחִי׳ ז׳ כְּתָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּז״ת דְּב״ן אוֹ לָאו). For the rest of their aspects—even the Chokhmah–Binah within them—it is obvious (כִּי שְׁאָר הַבְּחִינוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם אֲפִלּוּ חו״ב שֶׁבָּהֶם פָּשׁוּט הוּא), since the entire totality of the seven lower kings of B”N are only the aspect of body, as is known (כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּל כְּלָלוּת ז׳ הַמְּלָכִים הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים דְּב״ן אֵינָם רַק בְּחִי׳ גוּפָא כַּנּוֹדָע).

Therefore it is impossible for them to ascend even into the body of Atik (אִם כֵּן נִמְנָע הוּא מִלַּעֲלוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק). But the uncertainty concerns the seven Keters that are in the seven lower of B”N (אֲבָל הַסָּפֵק בְּז׳ הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁבְּז״ת דְּב״ן): whether we say that since they are the aspect of Keters (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵם בְּחִי׳ הַכְּתָרִים), they are able to ascend into the body of Atik (יוּכְלוּ לַעֲלוֹת בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק), and also to be joined with the Chokhmah–Binah of the Chokhmah of B”N and with the Chokhmah–Binah and Chesed of the Binah of B”N (וּלְהִתְחַבֵּר גַּם כֵּן עִם חו״ב דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן וְעִם חו״ב וְחֶסֶד דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן), for these certainly remained in the body of Atik, as mentioned above (אֲשֶׁר אֵלּוּ נִשְׁאֲרוּ בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק בְּוַדַּאי כַּנַּ״ל). Or if we say (אוֹ אִם נֹאמַר), that these seven Keters do not ascend at all into Atik, not even into its body (שֶׁז׳ כְּתָרִים אֵלּוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ כְּלָל בְּעַתִּיק אֲפִלּוּ בְּגוּפֵיהּ דִּילֵיהּ כְּלָל). And these uncertainties are both with regard to the lights and with regard to the vessels, according to what was explained above (וְאֵלּוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת הֵם הֵן בָּאוֹרוֹת וְהֵן בַּכֵּלִים עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל).

And understand and now see the reason for all of the above (וְהָבֵן וּרְאֵה עַתָּה טַעַם אֶל כָּל הַנַּ״ל), and that is (וְהוּא), for with regard to the Name M”H, since Atik takes from it the entire Sefirah of Keter in its completeness (כִּי בְּשֵׁם מ״ה כֵּיוָן שֶׁלוֹקֵחַ הָעַתִּיק מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל סְפִירַת הַכֶּתֶר שְׁלֵמָה), some say: of the Name M”H (נ״א שֶׁל שֵׁם מ״ה), which has within it ten Sefirot as is known (אֲשֶׁר יֵשׁ בָּהּ י״ס כַּנּוֹדָע), therefore it sufficed for its male aspect (לָכֵן הִסְפִּיק לוֹ לִדְכוּרָא דִּילֵיהּ). However, its Nukvah, which is made from the Name B”N (אֲבָל הַנּוּקְבָּא דִּילֵיהּ הַנַּעֲשֵׂית מִשֵּׁם ב״ן), since it does not take from the Name B”N except half of the Sefirah of Keter of B”N, which are its first five alone (וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֵחַ מִשֵּׁם ב״ן רַק חֲצִי הַסְּפִירָה דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן שֶׁהֵם ה״ר שֶׁבָּהּ לְבַד), therefore it is necessary (אִם כֵּן מֻכְרָח הוּא) that it take from other places to complete the equivalent of the five lower that are lacking in it from the Keter of B”N (שֶׁיִּקַּח מִמְּקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים לְתַשְׁלוּם תְּמוּרוֹת ה״ת שֶׁחָסְרוּ בּוֹ מִכֶּתֶר דְּב״ן). And therefore it takes the three upper of the Chokhmah of B”N, and the four lower of the Binah of B”N, and the seven Keters of the seven lower of B”N (וְלָכֵן יִקַּח ג״ר דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן וְד״ר דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן וְהַז׳ כְּתָרִים דְּז״ת דְּב״ן). And all of these—would that they suffice for the measure of replacement of the five lower of the Keter of B”N that are lacking from it, as mentioned above (וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַלְוַאי יַסְפִּיקוּ לְשִׁעוּר תְּמוּרַת ה״ת דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן שֶׁחָסֵר מִמֶּנּוּ כַּנַּ״ל). And all of the latter uncertainties (וְכָל הַסְּפֵקוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים), are with regard to the aspect of the Name B”N (הֵם בְּעִנְיַן בְּחִי׳ שֵׁם ב״ן), which are the first five of the Keter of B”N, and the three upper of the Chokhmah of B”N, and the four lower of the Binah of B”N, and the Keter within each of the seven lower of B”N (שֶׁהֵם ה״ר כֶּתֶר דְּב״ן וְג״ר דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן וְד״ר דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן וְהַכֶּתֶר שֶׁבְּכָל אֶחָד מִז״ת דְּב״ן). And within these aspects are the uncertainties as to how they are divided in the existence of the ten Sefirot of the Nukvah of Atik (וּבְאֵלּוּ הַבְּחִינוֹת הֵם הַסְּפֵקוֹת אֵיךְ יִתְחַלְּקוּ בְּמְצִיאוּת י״ס נוּקְבָּא דְּעַתִּיק). And the discerning one will understand (וְהַמַּשְׂכִּיל יָבִין), that the number of possible aspects of the divisions that can be in this matter is beyond count (כִּי עַצְמוֹ מִסְפַּר הַבְּחִינוֹת שֶׁל הַחִלּוּקִים שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִהְיוֹת בָּזֶה).

Chapter 4

שער יב פרק ד מ״ת

[12:4] And after we have explained the uncertainties in a general manner (וְאַחַר שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת דֶּרֶךְ כְּלָלוּת), it is necessary that we explain them in a detailed manner (צָרִיךְ שֶׁנְּבָאֵר דֶּרֶךְ פְּרָט). And first it is necessary that you know (וּתְּחִלָּה צָרִיךְ שֶׁתֵּדַע), that the uncertainties that arise regarding the matter of the lights (כִּי הַסְּפֵקוֹת הַנּוֹפְלִים בְּעִנְיַן שֶׁל הָאוֹרוֹת), are whether there is inner light or surrounding light (הוּא אִם יֵשׁ אוֹ״פ אוֹ אוֹ״מ), and whether there is light of back or light of face (וְאִם יֵשׁ אוֹר דְּאָחוֹר אוֹ אוֹר דְּפָנִים). And the uncertainties that arise regarding the matter of the vessels (וְהַסְּפֵקוֹת הַנּוֹפְלִים בְּעִנְיַן הַכֵּלִים), are whether there is the aspect of back alone (הוּא אִם יֵשׁ בְּחִי׳ אָחוֹר לְבַד), or the aspect of face alone (אוֹ בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים לְבַד), or both together (אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן יַחַד). Also, it is necessary that you know (גַּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁתֵּדַע), that the aspect of the vessels depends according to the aspect of the lights (כִּי בְּחִי׳ הַכֵּלִים תְּלוּיִים כְּפִי בְּחִי׳ הָאוֹרוֹת), for if the lights are many, the vessels must also be large (כִּי אִם הָאוֹרוֹת רַבִּים גַּם הַכֵּלִים צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ גְּדוֹלִים), because the entire essence of rectification is the enlargement of the vessel (כִּי כָּל עִיקַּר הַתִּקּוּן הוּא גַּדְלוּת הַכְּלִי), and its becoming an aspect of a Partzuf (וְהֵעָשׂוֹתוֹ בִּבְחִי׳ פַּרְצוּף), so that the light is diminished and the vessel is broadened and can sustain it (כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט הָאוֹר וְיִתְרַחֵב הַכְּלִי וְיוּכַל לְסוֹבְלוֹ).

And behold, from the aspect of the Name B”N (וְהִנֵּה מִבְּחִי׳ ב״ן), Atik did not take vessels except from the first five of the Keter of B”N (לֹא לָקַח עַתִּיק כֵּלִים רַק מֵה״ר דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן), and this certainly is not sufficient to be vessels for the ten Sefirot within it (וְזֶה וַדַּאי לֹא יַסְפִּיקוּ לִהְיוֹתָן כֵּלִים לַי״ס שֶׁבּוֹ). And therefore (וְלָכֵן), just as it took other lights from the other Sefirot of the Name B”N (כְּמוֹ שֶׁלָּקַח אוֹרוֹת אֲחֵרִים מִשְּׁאָר סְפִירוֹת שֵׁם ב״ן), so too it must take vessels from the other Sefirot of B”N (כָּךְ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּקַּח כֵּלִים מִשְּׁאָר סְפִירוֹת שֶׁל ב״ן). Also, it is necessary that you know one introduction (גַּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁתֵּדַע הַקְדָּמָה אַחַת), and that is (וְהוּא), that it is impossible for the aspect of vessels to exist except through the striking of the surrounding light upon the inner light (כִּי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִהְיוֹת בְּחִי׳ הַכֵּלִים אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי הַכָּאַת הָאוֹר מַקִּיף בְּאוֹר פְּנִימִי), and from there the aspect of a vessel is made as a result of that striking (וּמִשָּׁם נַעֲשֶׂה בְּחִי׳ כְּלִי מִתּוֹלֶדֶת הַכָּאָה הַהִיא), and remember this (וּזְכוֹר זֶה). And we will begin to explain the uncertainties that exist in the three upper ones, which are called the head of Atik (וְנַתְחִיל לְבָאֵר הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּג״ר הַנִּקְרָא רִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק). Behold, it has already been explained (הִנֵּה כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר), that the uncertainties were divided into two aspects (שֶׁהַסְּפֵקוֹת נִתְחַלְּקוּ בִּשְׁנֵי בְּחִינוֹת).

The first aspect is (הַבְּחִי׳ הָאַחַת), whether only the inner light of the Name B”N came (אִם לֹא בָּא רַק אוֹ״פ לְבַד שֶׁל שֵׁם ב״ן), and it became a surrounding light to the inner light of M”H (וְנַעֲשֶׂה אוֹ״מ אֶל אוֹר פְּנִימִי דְּמ״ה). And behold, within this aspect there are two divisions (וְהִנֵּה בִּבְחִי׳ זוֹ יֵשׁ ב׳ חֲלוּקוֹת): Whether we say (אִם נֹאמַר), that the inner light of the Keter of B”N alone becomes a surrounding light to the Chokhmah–Binah–Keter within the Keter of M”H, which is inner (שֶׁאוֹ״פ דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן הוּא לְבַדּוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה מַקִּיף אֶל כח״ב שֶׁבְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה אֲשֶׁר הוּא פְּנִימִי). And if this is so (וְאִם כֵּן הוּא), it is certain that these lights suffice for the entire head of Atik (וַדַּאי שֶׁמַּסְפִּיקִין אוֹרוֹת אֵלּוּ לְכָל הָרֹאשׁ דְּעַתִּיק), for even though there already exists within it Chokhmah–Binah–Keter of the Keter of M”H in this head (כִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר [נ״א כִּי כְּבָר] יֵשׁ בּוֹ כח״ב דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה בָּרֹאשׁ הַזֶּה), nevertheless this suffices for it (עִם כָּל זֶה [נ״א וּבְזֶה] יַסְפִּיק לוֹ), since its surrounding light is only the aspect of the inner light of the Keter of B”N, as mentioned above (כִּי הֲרֵי בְּחִי׳ הַמַּקִּיף שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּחִי׳ פְּנִימִית הַכֶּתֶר דְּב״ן כַּנַּ״ל). And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), so that there would not be (כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה [נ״א לֹא יִהְיֶה]) an inner light greater than the surrounding light (אוֹ״פ גָּדוֹל מִן הָאוֹר הַמַּקִּיף), according to this (וּכְפִי זֶה), there was no need for the two lights of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N to ascend here (לֹא הֻצְרְכוּ ב׳ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל ב׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן לַעֲלוֹת בְּכָאן). But the aspect of the backs of their vessels did ascend into the Chokhmah–Binah of the Keter of M”H (אֲבָל בְּחִי׳ הָאֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁל כְּלֵיהֶם הֵם עָלוּ בְּחו״ב דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה), since there are no vessels at all in the Chokhmah–Binah of M”H there (לְפִי שֶׁאֵין כָּאן בְּחו״ב דְּמ״ה שׁוּם כְּלִי כְּלָל). For when there is no inner light and surrounding light to strike one another, no vessel is born or comes into being at all (כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵשׁ אוֹ״פ וְאוֹ״מ לְהַכּוֹת זֶה בָּזֶה אֵין נוֹלָד וְנִתְהַוֶּה בְּחִי׳ כְּלִי כְּלָל). And here, even though there is the aspect of a surrounding light of B”N and an inner light of M”H (וְכָאן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּחִי׳ מַקִּיף דְּב״ן וּפְנִימִי דְּמ״ה), nevertheless this surrounding light is not an actual surrounding light but an inner light that became a surrounding light for the inner light of M”H (עִם כָּל זֶה מַקִּיף זֶה אֵינוֹ בְּחִי׳ אוֹ״מ אֶלָּא אוֹ״פ שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה מַקִּיף לִפְנִימִי דְּמ״ה), and it cannot bring forth a vessel from M”H (וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא כְּלִי מִמ״ה). And therefore it was necessary for those backs of the vessels of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N to ascend (וְלָכֵן הֻצְרְכוּ לַעֲלוֹת אוֹתָם הָאֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁל כְּלֵי הַכֶּתֶר דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן), but their lights did not ascend, for the reason mentioned above (אֲבָל הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם לֹא עָלוּ לְטַעַם הַנַּ״ל).

And behold, the sign of this uncertainty is A–A–G (וְהִנֵּה הַסִּימָן שֶׁל סָפֵק זֶה הוּא אא״ג), meaning (פֵּרוּשׁ), one surrounding light and one inner light, and three vessels (א׳ מַקִּיף וְא׳ אוֹ״פ וְג׳ כֵּלִים), which are the vessel of the Keter of B”N and the two vessels of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (שֶׁהֵם כְּלִי דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן וּב׳ כֵּלִים שֶׁל חו״ב דְּב״ן).

The second uncertainty is (סָפֵק הַב׳ הוּא), whether we say that there was also a surrounding light of M”H (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁגַּם כֵּן הָיָה מַקִּיף דְּמ״ה), and it follows that now there exists one inner light of M”H and two surrounding lights (וְנִמְצָא עַתָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ אוֹ״פ א׳ דְּמ״ה וּב׳ מַקִּיפִים), one of them being the surrounding light of M”H (א׳ הוּא מַקִּיף דְּמ״ה), and another being the inner light of B”N which became a surrounding light to the surrounding light of M”H (עוֹד אוֹר פְּנִימִי דְּב״ן שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה מַקִּיף אֶל מַקִּיף דְּמ״ה). And according to this (וּכְפִי זֶה), it is necessary that the inner light be equal to the surrounding light (צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּוֶּה אוֹ״פ עִם אוֹ״מ), and that is (וְהוּא), that the two lights of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N must ascend upward into the Chokhmah–Binah of Atik (שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ ב׳ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל ב׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן לְמַעְלָה בְּחו״ב דְּעַתִּיק). And this is only the lights of the aspect of backs alone (וְאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל בְּחִי׳ אָחוֹרַיִם לְבַד).

And through this (וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה), the inner light will also be increased, just like the surrounding light (יִהְיֶה אוֹ״פ מְרֻבֶּה גַּם כֵּן כְּמוֹ הַמַּקִּיף). And likewise, the aspect of the backs of the vessels of the two lights mentioned above, in the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N, will ascend together with the portion of their lights, which are also in the aspect of backs (וְכֵן בְּחִי׳ אֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁל ב׳ הָאוֹרוֹת הַנַּ״ל בְּב׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן יַעֲלוּ עִם חֵלֶק הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁגַּם הֵם בִּבְחִי׳ אָחוֹרַיִם). And the sign of this uncertainty is B–G–D (וְסִימָן שֶׁל סָפֵק זֶה הוּא בג״ד), meaning (פֵּרוּשׁ), two surrounding lights, three inner lights, and four vessels (ב׳ מַקִּיפִים וְג׳ פְּנִימִיִּים וְד׳ כֵּלִים), which are the vessel of the first five of the Keter of B”N and the vessel of the Keter of M”H (שֶׁהֵם כְּלִי דְּה״ר דְּכֶתֶר דְּב״ן וּכְלִי כֶּתֶר דְּמ״ה), since M”H already has a surrounding light and an inner light, through which the aforementioned vessel is generated (לְפִי שֶׁכְּבָר יֵשׁ לְמ״ה אוֹ״מ וְאוֹ״פ אֲשֶׁר עַל יָדוֹ מִתְיַלֵּד הַכְּלִי הַנַּ״ל), and the two vessels of backs, as mentioned above (וּב׳ כֵּלִים דְּאָחוֹרַיִם כַּנַּ״ל). And it is necessary to know one matter (וְצָרִיךְ לָדַעַת עִנְיַן א׳), and that is (וְהוּא), that in these uncertainties mentioned above there are three aspects regarding the ascent of the lights of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N into Atik, as mentioned above (כִּי בְּאֵלּוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת הַנַּ״ל יֵשׁ ג׳ בְּחִינוֹת בְּעִנְיַן עֲלִיַּת אוֹרוֹת חו״ב דְּב״ן בְּעַתִּיק כַּנַּ״ל).

The first is (הָא׳ הוּא), whether only the lights of the aspect of face ascended (אִם עָלוּ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים לְבַד). And behold, then they are intermingled with the Chokhmah–Binah of the Keter of M”H itself (וְהִנֵּה אָז הֵם מִתְעָרְבִים עִם חו״ב דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה עַצְמוֹ), since they too are the aspect of face (כֵּיוָן שֶׁגַּם הֵם בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים). However, if only their aspects of back ascend (אֲבָל אִם אֵינָם עוֹלִין רַק בְּחִי׳ אֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁלָּהֶם), then it is impossible for them to intermingle with the Chokhmah–Binah of the Keter of M”H itself (אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּתְעָרְבוּ עִם חו״ב דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה עַצְמוֹ), since they are not the aspect of face (כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָם בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים). Rather, the lights of M”H will be the aspect of face (אֶלָּא הָאוֹרוֹת דְּמ״ה יִהְיוּ בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים), and these backs that ascend will be the aspect of back relative to the aforementioned faces of M”H (וְאֵלּוּ הָאֲחוֹרַיִם הָעוֹלִים יִהְיוּ בְּחִי׳ אֲחוֹרַיִם אֶל הַפָּנִים הַנַּ״ל דְּמ״ה). And if it is the third aspect (וְאִם הוּא בְּחִי׳ ג׳), that both ascend—the aspects of face (some say: the inner aspects) and the aspects of back (שֶׁעוֹלִין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּחִי׳ הַפָּנִים [נ״א הַפְּנִימִים] וּבְחִי׳ הָאֲחוֹרַיִם), then the faces intermingle with the lights of M”H (אָז הַפָּנִים מִתְעָרְבִים עִם אוֹרוֹת דְּמ״ה), and the backs remain as backs relative to them (וְהָאֲחוֹרַיִם נִשְׁאָרִים בְּחִי׳ אֲחוֹר לָהֶם). However, the aspect of the Keter of B”N certainly does intermingle with the Keter of M”H (אֲבָל בְּחִי׳ הַכֶּתֶר דְּב״ן וַדַּאי הוּא שֶׁמִּתְעָרֵב עִם כֶּתֶר דְּמ״ה).

And behold, these three aspects mentioned above have already been explained—one of them—in this second uncertainty (וְהִנֵּה ג׳ בְּחִינוֹת אֵלּוּ הַנַּ״ל כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר אַחַת מֵהֶם בְּסָפֵק הַב׳). And the two latter aspects will be explained in the remaining uncertainties (וּב׳ בְּחִינוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים יִתְבָּאֵר בִּשְׁאָר הַסְּפֵקוֹת). The second aspect contains three uncertainties (הַבְּחִי׳ הַב׳ יֵשׁ בָּהּ ג׳ סְפֵקוֹת), and that is (וְהוּא), whether we say that both the inner light and the surrounding light of B”N also came (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁבָּאוּ אוֹ״פ וְאוֹ״מ שְׁנֵיהֶם דְּב״ן גַּם כֵּן). And these are the three uncertainties (וְאֵלּוּ הֵם ג׳ סְפֵקוֹת):

The first is (הָא׳), whether we say that there are two surrounding lights—one of M”H and one of B”N—and two inner lights—one of M”H and one of B”N (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ ב׳ אוֹרוֹת מַקִּיפִים א׳ דְּמ״ה וְא׳ דְּב״ן וּב׳ אוֹ״פ א׳ דְּמ״ה וְא׳ דְּב״ן). And according to this (וּכְפִי זֶה), it is not necessary that the lights of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascend (אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל ב׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן), for the inner lights are just as numerous as the surrounding lights (שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאוֹרוֹת הַפְּנִימִיִּים הֵם כָּךְ רַבִּים כְּמוֹ הַמַּקִּיפִים). However, with regard to the vessels (אָֽמְנָם בְּחִי׳ כֵּלִים), it is necessary that they ascend (הוּא שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ). And the reason is (וְהַטַּעַם), because there is no power in the vessel of M”H to receive the inner light of S”G (כִּי אֵין כֹּחַ בִּכְלִי דְּמ״ה לְקַבֵּל אוֹ״פ דְּס״ג).

For if each light were in its own vessel, that would be acceptable (כִּי אִם יִהְיֶה כָּל אוֹר וְאוֹר בִּכְלִי שֶׁלּוֹ נִיחָא), but now the vessel of M”H receives the light of M”H and the light of B”N, and likewise the vessel of B”N receives both (אֲבָל עַתָּה הַכְּלִי דְּמ״ה מְקַבֵּל אוֹר דְּמ״ה וְאוֹר דְּב״ן וְכֵן הַכְּלִי דְּב״ן מְקַבֵּל שְׁנֵיהֶם). And there is no ability in the vessel of M”H to receive the inner light of B”N, which is S”G (וְאֵין יְכוֹלֶת בִּכְלִי שֶׁל מ״ה לְקַבֵּל אוֹ״פ שֶׁל ב״ן שֶׁהוּא ס״ג). And therefore (וְלָכֵן), it is necessary that this vessel be enlarged through the vessels of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתְגַּדֵּל הַכְּלִי זֶה עַל יְדֵי הַכֵּלִים שֶׁל הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן). And thus (וְאִם כֵּן), it is necessary that all aspects of the vessels of face and of back ascend upward (צָרִיךְ שֶׁכָּל בְּחִי׳ כֵּלִים דְּפָנִים וְדְּאָחוֹר יַעֲלוּ לְמַעְלָה). But their lights will remain below, in the body of Atik (אֲבָל הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם יִשָּׁאֲרוּ [נ״א נִשְׁאֲרוּ] לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק), for there is no need for them to ascend there to its head, as mentioned above (כִּי אֵין צֹרֶךְ בָּהֶם לַעֲלוֹת שָׁם בְּרֹאשׁוֹ כַּנַּ״ל). And the sign of this is B-B–V (וְסִימָן הוּא בב"ו), meaning (פֵּרוּשׁ): two surrounding lights and two inner lights, and six vessels (ב׳ אוֹרוֹת מַקִּיפִים וּב׳ פְּנִימִיִּים וְו׳ כֵּלִים), which are the vessels of B”N and of M”H, and two faces and two backs of the two vessels of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (שֶׁהֵם כֵּלִים דְּב״ן וּדְּמ״ה וּב׳ פָּנִים וּב׳ אֲחוֹרַיִם דְּב׳ כֵּלִים דְּב׳ כְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן).

The second uncertainty is (הַסָּפֵק הַב׳ הוּא), and its sign is B–D–D (סִי׳ בד״ד), meaning (פֵּרוּשׁ), that perhaps it was not necessary that they ascend upward except for the faces of the vessels of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (כִּי אוּלַי לֹא הֻצְרַךְ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ לְמַעְלָה רַק הַפָּנִים שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים דְּב׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן). And the sign B–D–D means (וְהַסִּימָן בד״ד פֵּרוּשׁ): two surrounding lights, four inner lights—one of M”H and one of B”N, and two inner lights of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N—and four vessels: two of M”H and of B”N, and the two aspects of face of the vessels of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah mentioned above (ב׳ מַקִּיפִים ד׳ פְּנִימִיִּים א׳ דְּמ״ה וְא׳ דְּב״ן וּב׳ אוֹ״פ דְּב׳ כְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן וְד׳ כֵּלִים ב׳ דְּמ״ה וּדְּב״ן וּב׳ בְּחִי׳ הַפָּנִים שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים דְּב׳ כְּתָרִים (דְּחו״ב) הַנַּ״ל). And if you ask (וְאִם תֹּאמַר), why above, in the first uncertainty, as we said that the vessels of face and back ascended (לָמָּה לְמַעְלָה בְּסָפֵק א׳ [כְּפִי] שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁעָלוּ הַכֵּלִים שֶׁל פָּנִים וְאָחוֹרַיִם), Some say: that perhaps they ascended (נ״א: שֶׁאוּלַי עָלוּ), and we said (וְאָמַרְנוּ [נ״א אָמַרְנוּ]) that their lights did not ascend at all (שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם כְּלָל), whereas here we say that the faces of the vessels ascended (וְכָאן אָמְרוּ [נ״א וְכָאן בְּסָפֵק הַב׳ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁאוּלַי עָלוּ] הַפָּנִים שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים), and we say that their face-lights also ascended with them (וְאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁגַּם הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם דְּפָנִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶן).

The matter is (וְהָעִנְיָן), that in the first uncertainty, since the aspects of face and back of the vessels ascended (כִּי בְּסָפֵק א׳ כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלוּ בְּחִי׳ הַפָּנִים וְהָאֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים), it is impossible that half of their lights ascend upward and half remain below (אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ הָאוֹרוֹת מֶחְצָתָן לְמַעְלָה וְיִשָּׁאֲרוּ מֶחְצָתָן לְמַטָּה). For behold, to have all of them ascend, there is no power in the vessel of the head of Atik to sustain so many lights (כִּי הֲרֵי לַעֲלוֹת כֻּלָּם אֵין כֹּחַ בִּכְלִי דְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק לְסַבֵּל בּוֹ כָּל כָּךְ אוֹרוֹת). And therefore no light ascended at all (וְלָכֵן לֹא עָלָה שׁוּם אוֹר). However, when only the faces of the vessels ascend, as mentioned in this uncertainty (אֲבָל כַּאֲשֶׁר עוֹלִים הַפָּנִים שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים לְבַד כַּנִּזְכָּר בְּסָפֵק זֶה), then it is possible for their lights to ascend with them (אָז אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ אוֹרוֹתֵיהֶם עִמָּהֶם), and the head of Atik can sustain them (וְיוּכַל רֹאשׁ דְּעַתִּיק לְסַבְּלָם), because they are few (כִּי מְעַטִּים הֵם). And similarly, in the third uncertainty that we will now write (וְכַעֲדַ״ז בְּסָפֵק הַג׳ שֶׁנִּכְתֹּב עַתָּה), which is (וְהוּא), that if the backs of the vessels ascended (אִם עָלוּ הָאֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים), it is possible that their lights also ascended with them (אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁגַּם אוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן עָלוּ עִמָּהֶן), because they are few (כִּי מְעַטִּים הֵם). Unlike the case where both the faces and the backs of the vessels ascended (מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן אִם עָלוּ הַפָּנִים וְהָאֲחוֹר שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים), for then, if all of their lights were to ascend together with them, the head would not be able to sustain them (שֶׁאָז אִם יַעֲלוּ כָּל אוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן עִמָּהֶן יַחַד לֹא יוּכַל הָרֹאשׁ לְסַבְּלָם). And if we say that half of them would ascend, that too is impossible, as is known (וְאִם נֹאמַר שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ מֶחְצָתָן גַּם כֵּן אִי אֶפְשָׁר כַּנּוֹדָע). And therefore they all remained below (וְלָכֵן נִשְׁאֲרוּ כֻּלָּם לְמַטָּה).

The third uncertainty is also (סָפֵק הַג׳ הוּא גַּם כֵּן), whose sign is B–D–D (שֶׁסִּימָנוֹ בד״ד), and it is according to the above manner (וְהוּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל), except that there is another change (אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ שִׁנּוּי אַחֵר). And that is (וְהוּא), that whereas in the second uncertainty mentioned above we were uncertain whether the faces of the vessels of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascended (וְהִנֵּה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּסְתַּפֵּק לָנוּ בְּסָפֵק הַב׳ הַנַּ״ל אִם עָלוּ הַפָּנִים שֶׁל הַכֵּלִים דְּב׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן), here we are uncertain whether only the backs ascended—both their vessels and their lights, as mentioned above (הִנֵּה עַתָּה נִסְתַּפֵּק לָנוּ אִם לֹא עָלוּ אֶלָּא הָאֲחוֹרַיִם לְבַד כֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶם וְאוֹרוֹת כַּנַּ״ל). And behold, all the uncertainties have now been explained (וְהִנֵּה הֲרֵי נִתְבָּאֲרוּ כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת).

And now it is necessary that we explain what was said above (וְעַתָּה צָרִיךְ שֶׁנְּבָאֵר מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה), and that is (וְהוּא), that when we are uncertain and say that it is possible that the backs of the two Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascended (כִּי כַאֲשֶׁר אָנוּ מִסְתַּפְּקִים וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁעָלוּ בְּחִי׳ הָאֲחוֹרַיִם דְּב׳ כְּתָרִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן), do not err to say that their faces remained below in the body of Atik (אַל תִּטְעֶה לוֹמַר כִּי בְּחִי׳ הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּהֶם נִשְׁאֲרוּ לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק), for such a thing is impossible (כִּי דָּבָר זֶה אִי אֶפְשָׁר), that the backs should ascend upward into the head while the faces, which are more excellent, should be below in the body (שֶׁהָאֲחוֹרַיִם יַעֲלוּ לְמַעְלָה בְּרִישָׁא וְהַפָּנִים שֶׁהֵם יוֹתֵר מְעוּלִים יִהְיוּ לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא). Rather, it must be said (וְאָֽמְנָם צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר), that the aspect of the faces remained in their place, which is in Abba and Imma, for their own need (שֶׁבְּחִי׳ הַפָּנִים נִשְׁאֲרוּ בִּמְקוֹמָם שֶׁהוּא בְּאו״א לְצֹרֶךְ עַצְמָן). And if you will say that the matter is still difficult (וְאִם תֹּאמַר עֲדַיִן קָשֶׁה הַדָּבָר), to say that the backs ascend into the head of Atik while the faces are in Abba and Imma (לוֹמַר שֶׁהָאֲחוֹרַיִם יַעֲלוּ בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק וְהַפָּנִים בְּאו״א), behold Abba and Imma are inferior to the body of Atik (הֲלֹא או״א גְּרוּעִים מִגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק). To this there is an answer (וְיֵשׁ לוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה), and within it other difficulties that exist here in these uncertainties will also be resolved (וּבִכְלָלָהּ יִתּוֹרְצוּ תְּמִיהוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן בַּסְּפֵקוֹת הָאֵלּוּ).

Behold, it has been explained above (הִנֵּה נִתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל), that there is an aspect where the faces are superior to the backs (כִּי יֵשׁ בְּחִי׳ שֶׁהַפָּנִים מְעוּלִים מִן הָאֲחוֹרַיִם), and there is an aspect where the backs are superior to the faces (וְיֵשׁ בְּחִי׳ שֶׁהָאֲחוֹרַיִם מְעוּלִים מִן הַפָּנִים). For in the aspect that the light of the face is what joins them to return face-to-face, it follows that the light of the face is greater (כִּי בְּעֵרֶךְ שֶׁאוֹר הַפָּנִים הוּא הַמְחַבְּרָם לַחֲזוֹר פב״פ נִמְצָא כִּי אוֹר הַפָּנִים גָּדוֹל). But in the aspect that the lights of the backs are what build the entire essential Partzuf, whereas the light of the face is only to return it face-to-face, therefore the light of the backs is greater than the light of the faces (וּבְעֵרֶךְ שֶׁהָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל הָאֲחוֹרַיִם הֵם בּוֹנִין כָּל פַּרְצוּף הָעִקָּרִי אֲבָל אוֹר הַפָּנִים אֵינוֹ רַק לְהַחֲזִירוֹ פב״פ לָכֵן אוֹר הָאֲחוֹרַיִם גָּדוֹל מֵאוֹר הַפָּנִים). And behold, since there are these two aspects (וְהִנֵּה כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת אֵלּוּ), we will decide and say (נַכְרִיעַ וְנֹאמַר), that certainly when these two aspects—face and back—come together (כִּי וַדַּאי הוּא כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵלּוּ ב׳ בְּחִינוֹת פָּנִים וְאָחוֹרַיִם בָּאִים יַחַד), then certainly the light of the face is superior (אָז וַדַּאי שֶׁאוֹר הַפָּנִים מְעוּלֶּה), since it comes as an addition beyond the fact that there already exists the light of the back (לְפִי שֶׁהוּא בָּא בְּסוֹד תּוֹסֶפֶת עַל הֱיוֹתוֹ לוֹ כְּבָר אוֹר הָאָחוֹר), and this is increased and added upon it (וְזֶה נִתְרַבֶּה וְנִתּוֹסֵף עָלָיו), and returns them face to face (וּמַחֲזִירָם פב״פ). And therefore we said in the second uncertainty (וְלָכֵן אָמַרְנוּ בְּסָפֵק הַב׳), that it is possible to say that the light of the face ascended upward into the head (שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שֶׁאוֹר הַפָּנִים עָלוּ לְמַעְלָה בָּרֹאשׁ), and the light of the backs remained below in its body (וְאוֹר הָאֲחוֹרַיִם נִשְׁאָר לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דִּילֵיהּ). But in the third uncertainty (אֲבָל בְּסָפֵק הַג׳), where only the aspect of the back came into Atik (שֶׁלֹּא בָּא בְּעַתִּיק רַק בְּחִי׳ הָאָחוֹר לְבַד), one cannot say that the aspect of the face would also come and remain below in the body of Atik (אֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁגַּם בְּחִי׳ הַפָּנִים יָבוֹאוּ וְיִהְיוּ לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק), for then (שֶׁאִם כֵּן), Some say: it would shine in the body of Atik (נ״א: יָאִיר בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק), and behold they would be joined together (הֲרֵי הֵם מְחֻבָּרִים), and how could the face be below and the back above (וְאֵיךְ יִהְיוּ הַפָּנִים לְמַטָּה וְהָאָחוֹר לְמַעְלָה).

Therefore the face remained in Abba and Imma (לָכֵן נִשְׁאָר הַפָּנִים בְּאו״א), and the light of the back ascended into Atik (וְאוֹר הָאָחוֹר יַעֲלֶה בְּעַתִּיק), since, when they are not joined together in a single Partzuf (כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָם מְחֻבָּרִים יַחַד בְּפַרְצוּף אֶחָד), it is certainly the case that the light of the back is greater than the light of the face (וַדַּאי הוּא שֶׁאוֹר הָאָחוֹר גָּדוֹל מֵאוֹר הַפָּנִים). For if the light of the face is not added upon the back, but exists alone (כִּי אִם אוֹר הַפָּנִים לֹא נִתּוֹסֵף עַל הָאָחוֹר אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְבַדּוֹ), behold it is inferior and small relative to the light of the back (הֲרֵי גָּרוּעַ וְקָטָן מֵאוֹר הָאָחוֹר), and therefore it remained for Abba and Imma (לָכֵן נִשְׁאָר לְאו״א).

First edition: And to me, the writer, a doubt remains (מ״ק וְלִי הַכּוֹתֵב נִשְׁאַר לִי סָפֵק), and that is (וְהוּא), for we have already learned that from the Keter of S”G Atik takes only the first five, as mentioned above (שֶׁכְּבָר לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁמִן הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁל ס״ג אֵינוֹ לוֹקֵחַ הָעַתִּיק רַק ה״ר כַּנַּ״ל). And I have a doubt (וְלִי יֵשׁ סָפֵק), whether we say that all of them were intermingled with the Keter within the Keter of M”H alone (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁכֻּלָּם נִתְעָרְבוּ עִם כֶּתֶר שֶׁבְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה לְבַדּוֹ), or whether we say that these five lights, since they are the aspect of a single Partzuf, afterward grew and were doubled and became a single Partzuf of ten Sefirot (אוֹ אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ הַה׳ אוֹרוֹת כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵם בְּחִי׳ פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד אַחַ״כ גָּדְלוּ וְנִכְפְּלוּ וְנַעֲשׂוּ פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד מִי״ס), and then these ten Sefirot were corresponding to the ten Sefirot of the Keter of M”H (וְאָז הָיוּ הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת הָאֵלּוּ נֶגֶד י״ס דְּכֶתֶר שֶׁל מ״ה), until here (עַד כָּאן).

Chapter 5

שער יב פרק ה מ״ת

[12:5] And behold, the uncertainties that exist in the head of Atik have been explained (וַהֲרֵי נִתְבָּאֲרוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק), and now we will explain the aspect of the seven Keters of the seven lower, which are the kings who died (וְעַתָּה נְבָאֵר בְּחִי׳ ז׳ כְּתָרִים שֶׁל ז״ת שֶׁהֵם הַמְּלָכִים שֶׁמֵּתוּ). And we said above that it is possible that they ascended into Atik (וְאָמַרְנוּ לְעֵיל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁעָלוּ בְּעַתִּיק). However, the aspect of the body of Atik (וְאָֽמְנָם בְּחִי׳ גּוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק), according to how the uncertainties are with regard to the head of Atik (כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּהְיוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת בְּעִנְיַן רִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק), from this will be drawn what remains below in its body from the aspect of Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (יִמָּשֵׁךְ מִמֶּנּוּ מַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאָר לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דִּילֵיהּ מִבְּחִי׳ חו״ב דְּב״ן), for according to what ascended into the head of Atik, so is known (Some say: will be known) what remains below in its body from the aspect of Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (כִּי כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁעָלוּ בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק עַד כָּךְ יוֹדֵעַ [נ״א: יוּוָדַע] מַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאָר לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דִּילֵיהּ מִבְּחִי׳ חו״ב דְּב״ן). However, with regard to the aspect of the Keters of the seven lower of B”N (אָֽמְנָם מִבְּחִי׳ הַכְּתָרִים דְּז״ת דְּב״ן), it is necessary to explain now all the uncertainties that fall within them (צָרִיךְ לְבָאֵרָם עַתָּה כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת הַנּוֹפְלוֹת בָּהֶם).

And behold, according to the first aspect and the first uncertainty, whose sign is A–A–G (וְהִנֵּה כְּפִי הַבְּחִי׳ הָאַחַת וְסָפֵק א׳ שֶׁסִּימָנוֹ אא״ג), then the lights of the back of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N remained below in the body of Atik, which are the seven lower (אָז נִשְׁאֲרוּ הָאוֹרוֹת דְּאָחוֹר דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק שֶׁהֵם ז״ת), and the light of the face remained in Abba and Imma (וְאוֹר הַפָּנִים נִשְׁאָר בְּאו״א). And this is their place in their withdrawal there (וְזֶה מְקוֹמָם בְּהִסְתַּלְּקוּתָם שָׁם). For the back-light of the Keter of the Chokhmah of B”N is in the Chesed of Atik (כִּי אוֹר הָאָחוֹר דְּכֶתֶר דְּחָכְמָה דְּב״ן הוּא בְּחֶסֶד דְּעַתִּיק), and from there it illuminates the three middle ones, which are its Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet (וּמִשָּׁם מֵאִיר אֶל הַג׳ אֶמְצָעִית שֶׁהֵם חג״ת שֶׁבּוֹ). And the back-light of the Keter of the Binah of B”N is in the Netzach of Atik (וְאוֹר הָאָחוֹר דְּכֶתֶר דְּבִינָה דְּב״ן הוּא בְּנֵצַח דְּעַתִּיק), and from there it illuminates the three lower ones, which are its Netzach, Hod, Yesod (וּמִשָּׁם מֵאִיר אֶל ג״ת שֶׁהֵם נה״י שֶׁבּוֹ). And indeed, know (וְאָֽמְנָם דַּע), that even though their vessels ascended upward into the head of Atik as mentioned above (כִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶם עָלוּ לְמַעְלָה בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק כַּנַּ״ל), behold these very lights extend and send illumination to the vessel from below to above to illuminate them (הִנֵּה אֵלּוּ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם מַמְשִׁיכִין וּמְשַׁלְּחִין הֶאָרָה אֶל הַכְּלִי מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה לְהָאִיר לָהֶם).

And behold, these Keters of the seven lower of B”N are divided within the seven lower of Atik (וְהִנֵּה אֵלּוּ הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁל ז״ת דְּב״ן הֵם מִתְחַלְּקִים בְּז״ת דְּעַתִּיק): the first in its Chesed (הָא׳ בְּחֶסֶד שֶׁבּוֹ), and the second in its Gevurah (וְהַב׳ בִּגְבוּרָה שֶׁבּוֹ), and likewise in all of them in this manner (וְכֵן בְּכֻלָּם עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה), until the seventh, which is in its Malkhut (עַד הַז׳ שֶׁהוּא בְּמַלְכוּת שֶׁבּוֹ). And they were not divided according to the order of the division of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N (וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקוּ עַל סֵדֶר חִלּוּק חו״ב דְּב״ן), such that their three upper ones would be with the Chokhmah of B”N in the Chesed of Atik, and their four lower ones with the Binah of B”N in the Netzach of Atik (לִהְיוֹת ג״ר שֶׁבָּהֶם עִם חָכְמָה דְּב״ן בְּחֶסֶד דְּעַתִּיק וְד״ת שֶׁלָּהֶם עִם בִּינָה דְּב״ן בְּנֵצַח דְּעַתִּיק). And the reason is (וְהַטַּעַם הוּא), because the lights of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N illuminate from below to above in their vessels that ascended into the head of Atik as mentioned above (לְפִי שֶׁהָאוֹרוֹת דְּכֶתֶרֵי חו״ב דְּב״ן הֵם מְאִירִים מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁעָלוּ בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק כַּנַּ״ל). And if these seven Keters were also divided according to the manner of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N as mentioned above (וְאִם אֵלּוּ הַשִּׁבְעָה כְּתָרִים יִהְיוּ מְחֻלָּקִים גַּם כֵּן עַל דֶּרֶךְ כְּתָרֵי חו״ב דְּב״ן כַּנַּ״ל), their light would also ascend upward (יַעֲלֶה גַּם אוֹרָם לְמַעְלָה), and they would be lacking light below in their place (וְיִהְיוּ חֲסֵרִים אוֹר לְמַטָּה בִּמְקוֹמָם). And therefore they were separated in the manner mentioned above (וְלָכֵן נִפְרְדוּ עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל).

And know (וְדַע), that these seven Keters—each one illuminates its companion that is smaller than it (כִּי ז׳ כְּתָרִים אֵלּוּ כָּל אֶחָד מֵאִיר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַקָּטָן מִמֶּנּוּ), and this is by way of the lines (וּבְדֶרֶךְ הַקַּוִּין). How so (כֵּיצַד): the Chesed illuminates the Netzach (כֵּיצַד הַחֶסֶד מֵאִיר אֶל הַנֵּצַח), and the Gevurah illuminates the Hod (וְגְבוּרָה מֵאִיר אֶל הַהוֹד), and likewise with the rest (וְכַעֲדַ״ז הַשְּׁאָר). And according to the second uncertainty whose sign is B–G–D (וּכְפִי הַסָּפֵק הַב׳ שֶׁסִּימָנוֹ בג״ד), then the lights of the back of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascended upward into the head of Atik (אָז עָלוּ הָאוֹרוֹת דְּאָחוֹר דְּכֶתֶרֵי חו״ב דְּב״ן לְמַעְלָה בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק). And nevertheless (וְעִם כָּל זֶה), they illuminate from above—from it—downward by way of the lines in the body of Atik (הֵם מְאִירִים מִלְּמַעְלָה [מִמֶּנּוּ] לְמַטָּה בְּדֶרֶךְ קַוִּין בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק).

And behold, the seven Keters of the seven lower are divided within the seven lower of Atik in the manner mentioned above (וְהִנֵּה ז׳ כְּתָרִים שֶׁל הַז״ת הֵם מִתְחַלְּקִים בְּז״ת דְּעַתִּיק עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל), and they illuminate one another by way of the lines as mentioned above (וְהֵם מְאִירִים זֶה בָּזֶה בְּדֶרֶךְ קַוִּין כַּנַּ״ל). And behold, above, in the uncertainty A–A–G, where the lights of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N were below and from there they illuminated upward into their vessels (וְהִנֵּה לְמַעְלָה בְּסָפֵק אא״ג שֶׁהָאוֹרוֹת דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן הָיוּ לְמַטָּה וּמִשָּׁם הָיוּ מְאִירִין לְמַעְלָה בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶם), therefore there was in them power to illuminate the seven Keters and to give them strength to illuminate one another by way of the lines as mentioned above (לָכֵן הָיָה בָּהֶם כֹּחַ לְהָאִיר בְּז׳ כְּתָרִים וְלָתֵת בָּהֶם כֹּחַ שֶׁיָּאִירוּ זֶה בָּזֶה דֶּרֶךְ קַוִּין כַּנַּ״ל).

However, since their intention was to illuminate upward (אָֽמְנָם לִהְיוֹת שֶׁכַּוָּנָתָם לְהָאִיר לְמַעְלָה), therefore there was not in them power to gather the seven Keters into their places—in Chesed and in Netzach as mentioned above (לָכֵן לֹא הָיָה בָּהֶם כֹּחַ לְקַבֵּץ אֶת ז׳ הַכְּתָרִים בִּמְקוֹמָם שֶׁלָּהֶם בְּחֶסֶד וּבְנֵצַח כַּנַּ״ל). And here, in the uncertainty B–G–D, where the lights are above (וְכָאן בְּסָפֵק בג״ד אֲשֶׁר הָאוֹרוֹת לְמַעְלָה), therefore there is no power in them to gather the seven Keters in Chesed and in Netzach (לָכֵן אֵין בָּהֶם כֹּחַ לְקַבֵּץ ז׳ כְּתָרִים בְּחֶסֶד וּבְנֵצַח). However, since these lights, even though they stand above, nevertheless send their illumination downward (וְאָֽמְנָם לְפִי שֶׁהָאוֹרוֹת הַנַּ״ל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעוֹמְדִין לְמַעְלָה עִם כָּל זֶה מְשַׁלְּחִין הֶאָרָתָן לְמַטָּה), therefore they illuminate the seven Keters and give them power to illuminate one another by way of the lines as mentioned above (לָכֵן הֵם מְאִירִין בְּז׳ כְּתָרִים וְנוֹתְנִין בָּהֶם כֹּחַ שֶׁיָּאִירוּ זֶה בָּזֶה בְּדֶרֶךְ קַוִּין כַּנַּ״ל). And the second aspect, according to the first uncertainty whose sign is B-B–V (וְהַבְּחִי׳ הַב׳ כְּפִי הַסָּפֵק הָא׳ שֶׁסִּימָנוֹ בב״ו), then the lights of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N remained below in the body of Atik—aspect of face and aspect of back (הָאֲז הָאוֹרוֹת דְּכֶתֶרֵי חו״ב דְּב״ן נִשְׁאֲרוּ לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק בְּחִי׳ פָּנִים וּבְחִי׳ אָחוֹר), and they are divided in the manner mentioned above—Keter of Chokhmah in the Chesed of Atik, and Keter of Binah in the Netzach of Atik (וּמִתְחַלְּקִים עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל כֶּתֶר חָכְמָה בְּחֶסֶד דְּעַתִּיק וְכֶתֶר בִּינָה בְּנֵצַח דְּעַתִּיק). And now they do not need to illuminate from below to above into their vessels that ascended into the head of Atik (וְעַתָּה אֵינָם צְרִיכִין לְהָאִיר מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁעָלוּ בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק), since there are already two inner lights above and they suffice for them (לְפִי שֶׁכְּבָר יֵשׁ לְמַעְלָה ב׳ אוֹרוֹת פְּנִימִיִּים וּמַסְפִּיקִים לָהֶם). And since this is so (וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכֵּן הוּא), they have great illumination and great power to illuminate the seven Keters and to gather them with them—three uppers in the Chesed of Atik and four lowers in the Netzach of Atik (יֵשׁ לָהֶם הֶאָרָה גְּדוֹלָה וְכֹּחַ גָּדוֹל לְהָאִיר בְּז׳ הַכְּתָרִים וּלְקַבְּצָם עִמָּהֶם ג״ר בְּחֶסֶד דְּעַתִּיק וְד״ת בְּנֵצַח דְּעַתִּיק). And they illuminate in the manner of the Keters of the Chokhmah–Binah themselves that are there (וְהֵם מְאִירִין עַל דֶּרֶךְ כִּתְרֵי חו״ב עַצְמָם אֲשֶׁר שָׁם), and that is (וְהוּא), that the three in Chesed illuminate the three middle ones, and the four in Netzach illuminate the four lower ones (כִּי הַג׳ שֶׁבְּחֶסֶד מְאִירִין בַּג׳ אֶמְצָעִים וְהַד׳ שֶׁבְּנֵצַח הֵם מְאִירִין בְּד״ת).

And according to the second uncertainty whose sign is B–D–D (וּכְפִי הַסָּפֵק הַב׳ שֶׁסִּימָנוֹ בד״ד), then the face-lights of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascended into the head of Atik (אָז הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן דְּפָנִים עָלוּ בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק), and their back-lights remained below in the body of Atik—Keter of Chokhmah in Chesed and Keter of Binah in Netzach as mentioned above (וְהָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם דְּאָחוֹר נִשְׁאֲרוּ לְמַטָּה בְּגוּפָא דְּעַתִּיק אוֹר כֶּתֶר הַחָכְמָה בְּחֶסֶד וְאוֹר כֶּתֶר הַבִּינָה בְּנֵצַח כַּנַּ״ל). And then the face-light that ascended into the head of Atik spreads downward by way of the lines in the following manner (וְאָז אוֹר הַפָּנִים שֶׁעָלוּ בְּרֹאשׁ עַתִּיק הִנֵּה הוּא מִתְפַּשֵּׁט דֶּרֶךְ קַוִּין עַד לְמַטָּה בְּאוֹפֶן זֶה): how so (כֵּיצַד), Chokhmah spreads by way of the right line and illuminates through the line as actual extension itself and not merely as an illumination from its place alone (כֵּיצַד חָכְמָה מִתְפַּשֶּׁטֶת בְּדֶרֶךְ קַו יָמִין וּמֵאִירָה דֶּרֶךְ הַקַּו בִּבְחִי׳ הִתְפַּשְּׁטוּת עַצְמָהּ מַמָּשׁ וְאֵינָהּ הֶאָרָה בַּעַלְמָא מִמְּקוֹמָהּ לְבַד). And likewise Binah spreads through the left line (וְעַד כֵּן גַּם הַבִּינָה מִתְפַּשֶּׁטֶת דֶּרֶךְ הַקַּו הַשְּׂמֹאל), and the Keter of S”G and M”H spreads through the middle line (וְהַכֶּתֶר דְּס״ג וּדְּמ״ה מִתְפַּשֵּׁט דֶּרֶךְ הַקַּו הָאֶמְצָעִי). And according to this, it follows that there are three uncertainties regarding the seven Keters (וּכְפִי זֶה נִמְצָא ג׳ סְפֵקוֹת בְּז׳ כְּתָרִים).

The first is (הָא׳ הוּא), whether we say that they stand, each and every one, in its own place within the seven lower of Atik (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁהֵם עוֹמְדִין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ בְּז״ת דְּעַתִּיק), or whether they stand—three of them in the Chesed of Atik and the four latter in the Netzach of Atik—in the same manner that the lights of the backs of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N stand (אוֹ אִם עוֹמְדִין הַג׳ שֶׁבָּהֶם בְּחֶסֶד דְּעַתִּיק וְהַד׳ אַחֲרוֹנוֹת בְּנֵצַח דְּעַתִּיק עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹמְדִין כָּךְ הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל הָאֲחוֹרַיִם דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן). Or whether we say (אוֹ אִם נֹאמַר), that since the light of their faces spreads downward in actuality as mentioned above (כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּתְפַּשֵּׁט אוֹר הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּהֶם מַמָּשׁ לְמַטָּה כַּנַּ״ל), therefore they do not need to be joined with the backs (אֵין צְרִיכִין לְהִתְחַבֵּר עִם הָאֲחוֹרַיִם), and therefore each one stands in its own place as mentioned above (וְלָכֵן כָּל אֶחָד עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כַּנַּ״ל). And there is also an uncertainty (וְגַם יֵשׁ סָפֵק), that since the supernal face-lights spread downward through the lines (כֵּיוָן שֶׁאוֹרוֹת הַפָּנִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים מִתְפַּשְּׁטִים עַד לְמַטָּה דֶּרֶךְ קַוִּין), therefore they also illuminate one another by way of the lines (אִם כֵּן גַּם הֵם מְאִירִין דֶּרֶךְ קַוִּין זֶה לָזֶה), or whether we say (אוֹ אִם נֹאמַר), that they illuminate one another not by way of the lines, but rather each one illuminates the one that stands below it (שֶׁהֵם מְאִירִין זֶה לָזֶה שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ קַוִּין אֶלָּא זֶה לְמִי שֶׁעוֹמֵד לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ). And these matters remain in uncertainty (וְהַדְּבָרִים הֵם בְּסָפֵק). And according to the third uncertainty, whose sign is also B–D–D (וּכְפִי הַסָּפֵק הַג׳ שֶׁסִּימָנוֹ גַּם כֵּן בד״ד), in which the lights of the backs of the Chokhmah–Binah ascended upward into the head of Atik (שֶׁאָז הָאוֹרוֹת שֶׁל הָאָחוֹר דְּחו״ב עָלוּ לְמַעְלָה בְּרֹאשׁ דְּעַתִּיק), while the face-lights are below in Abba and Imma as mentioned above (וְאוֹרוֹת הַפָּנִים הֵם לְמַטָּה בְּאו״א כַּנַּ״ל).

However, the back-lights, even though they ascended upward, nevertheless from their place they illuminate downward into the seven lower (וְאָֽמְנָם הָאוֹרוֹת הָאֲחוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָלוּ לְמַעְלָה עִם כָּל זֶה מִמְּקוֹמָם הֵם מְאִירִין לְמַטָּה בְּז״ת), not by way of the lines as mentioned above (שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ קַוִּין עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל), but rather Chokhmah illuminates from its place into the three middle ones (אֶלָּא חָכְמָה מֵאִירָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ בַּג׳ אֶמְצָעִית), and Binah illuminates from its place into the four lower ones (וּבִינָה מֵאִירָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ בְּד״ת).

And behold, now there are two deficiencies (וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה יֵשׁ ב׳ הֶפְסֵדוֹת): the first is that the lights are not below (הָא׳ הוּא שֶׁהָאוֹרוֹת אֵינָם לְמַטָּה), and furthermore, even when they are above they do not illuminate by way of the lines (וְעוֹד שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הֵם לְמַעְלָה אֵינָם מְאִירִין בְּדֶרֶךְ קַוִּין). And therefore (וְעַל כֵּן), there is no illumination and great power for the seven Keters (אֵין הֶאָרָה וְכֹּחַ גָּדוֹל אֶל הַז׳ כְּתָרִים), and therefore they are not gathered in the manner mentioned above in the Chesed and in the Netzach of Atik (וְלָכֵן אֵינָם מִתְקַבְּצִים עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ״ל בְּחֶסֶד וּבְנֵצַח דְּעַתִּיק). And furthermore, they do not illuminate by way of the lines, but only one to another (וְעוֹד שֶׁאֵינָם מְאִירִין דֶּרֶךְ קַוִּין רַק זֶה לָזֶה). And remember the aspect of illumination by way of the lines—what its matter is (וּזְכוֹר בְּחִי׳ הֶאָרָה דֶּרֶךְ קַוִּין מַה עִנְיָנוֹ), for its explanation has been explained above in the second aspect in the second uncertainty (וְנִתְבָּאֵר פֵּרוּשׁוֹ לְעֵיל בְּבְחִי׳ ב׳ בְּסָפֵק ב׳).

And behold, all the uncertainties that I heard from the mouth of my teacher, of blessed memory, have been explained (וְהִנֵּה נִתְבָּאֲרוּ כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי מוֹרִי זל״ה״ה), and there are yet uncertainties without end and without limit, and there is no investigation (וְעוֹד יֵשׁ סְפֵקוֹת לְאֵין קֵץ וְתַכְלִית וְאֵין חֵקֶר), and I did not merit, may Hashem grant me, even according to these uncertainties (וְלֹא זָכִיתִי אֱלֹהִים גַּם כְּפִי אֵלּוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת). And just as these uncertainties occur in Atik, so too they fall correspondingly throughout the rest of the order of Atzilut (אֲשֶׁר בְּעַתִּיק יִפְּלוּ גַּם כְּפִי אֵלּוּ בִּשְׁאָר סֵדֶר אֲצִילוּת), and the example of this is whether Abba and Imma take the light of face of the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N or not (וְהַמָּשָׁל בָּזֶה אִם או״א לוֹקְחִים אוֹר פָּנִים דְּחו״ב דְּב״ן אוֹ לָאו).

The general conclusion that arises from all of this is (כְּלַל הָעוֹלֶה מִכָּל זֶה), that because of all these uncertainties Atik Yomin is called “the head that is not known” (שֶׁלְסִבַּת כָּל אֵלּוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת נִקְרָא עַתִּיק יוֹמִין רִישָׁא דְּלָא אִתְיְדַע), for it is not known what aspect exists within it (כִּי אֵין נוֹדַע מַה בְּחִי׳ יֵשׁ בּוֹ). And behold, Isaiah the prophet, peace be upon him, was also uncertain regarding these uncertainties (וְהִנֵּה יְשַׁעְיָה הַנָּבִיא ע״ה נִסְתַּפֵּק גַּם הוּא בְּאֵלּוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת), and to them he alluded (וְאֲלֵיהֶם רָמַז), “and He will satisfy your soul with radiances” (וְהִשְׂבִּיעַ בְּצַחְצָחוֹת נַפְשֶׁךָ) (Isaiah 58). And they expounded in the Zohar, Parashat Vayechi (וְדָרְשׁוּ בַּזֹּהַר פָּרָשַׁת וַיְחִי), “One Tzach [Splendor], two Tzachot [Splendors]” (צַח חַד צַחוֹת תְּרֵין). And its explanation is (וּבֵיאוּרוֹ הוּא), that the matter was uncertain to him whether there is in Atik one Tzach [Splendor] or two Tzachot [Splendors] (כִּי הָיָה הַדָּבָר סָפֵק אֵלָיו אִם יֵשׁ בְּעַתִּיק צַח אֶחָד אוֹ ב׳ צַחוֹת), for it is known that the aspect of the Tzachatzachot [Supernal Splendors] is in Atik (כִּי נוֹדָע שֶׁבְּחִי׳ הַצַּחְצָחוֹת הֵם בְּעַתִּיק), and remember this introduction (וּזְכוֹר הַקְדָּמָה זוֹ).

And behold, there is an uncertainty whether it took one tzach or two Tzachot (וְהִנֵּה יֵשׁ סָפֵק אִם לָקַח צַח אֶחָד אוֹ ב׳ צַחוֹת). And the matter is (וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא), for we have already explained that Atik is composed of two aspects, which are M”H and B”N (כִּי כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁעַתִּיק מֻרְכָּב מִב׳ בְּחִינוֹת שֶׁהֵם מ״ה וּב״ן), whose numerical value is ninety-eight with the inclusive count (שֶׁהֵם גִּימַטְרִיָּא צ״ח עִם הַכּוֹלֵל). And it would be possible to say that in the head of Atik there is only the Keter of B”N and the Keter of M”H, and behold one tzach (וְהָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק רַק כֶּתֶר דְּב״ן וְכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה וְהֲרֵי צַח אֶחָד). Or if we say that also the Chokhmah–Binah of B”N ascend and are joined with the Chokhmah–Binah of the Keter of M”H, then behold one Tzach, and they are two Tzachin [Splendors] (אוֹ אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁגַּם עוֹלִין חו״ב דְּב״ן וְהֵם מִתְחַבְּרִים עִם חו״ב דְּכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה וְהֲרֵי צַח אֶחָד וְהֵם ב׳ צַחִין). And regarding Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma, the matter of Atik will be further clarified (וּבְעִנְיַן א״א וְאו״א יִתְבָּאֵר עִנְיַן עַתִּיק יוֹתֵר).

First Edition: I will inform you (מ״ק: אוֹדִיעֲךָ), that we have already explained (כִּי כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ), that the lights of Abba and Imma ascend into the head of Atik (שֶׁעוֹלִים הָאוֹרוֹת דְּאו״א בְּרִישָׁא דְּעַתִּיק), and they intermix with the Chokhmah–Binah of M”H itself (וּמִתְחַבְּרִים עִם חו״ב דְּמ״ה עַצְמוֹ). And if only the backs ascended (וְאִם לֹא עָלוּ רַק אָחוֹר), they do not intermix (אֵין מִתְעָרְבִין), but rather those of M”H become inner (רַק שֶׁל מ״ה נַעֲשׂוּ פְּנִימִי), and those of Abba and Imma become external and also back (וְשֶׁל או״א חִיצוֹן וְאָחוֹר גַּם כֵּן). And when both the inner and the backs ascend upward (וּכְשֶׁעוֹלִים שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּנִימִי וְאָחוֹרַיִם לְמַעְלָה), then the faces intermix (אָז הַפָּנִים מִתְעָרְבִים), and the backs become external (וְאָחוֹרַיִם נַעֲשִׂים חִיצוֹנִים). But the Keter of S”G and the Keter of M”H always intermix (אַךְ הַכֶּתֶר דְּס״ג וְכֶתֶר דְּמ״ה מִתְעָרְבִים תָּמִיד). Thus far is the gloss (עַד כָּאן הַהַגָּהָ״ה).