Ohr haShemesh (Nehar Shalom Daf 2, Col. 1)

אוֹר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ-נְהַר שָׁלוֹם דַּף ב׳ טוֹ״אֵ

It is known that five points emerged from the eyes of Adam Kadmon (יָדוּעַ, כִּי ה׳ נְקֻדּוֹת יָצְאוּ מֵעֵינַיִם דְּאָדָם קַדְמוֹן), from the aspect of B"N (מִבְּחִינַת ב״ן). And all of them emerged complete (וְכוּלָּם יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמוֹת), each one complete (כָּל אַחַת שְׁלֵמָה), in all parts of that point (בְּכָל חֶלְקֵי הַנְּקוּדָּה הַהִיא). In such a manner that each and every one includes five Partzufim (בְּאוֹפֶן, שֶׁכָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת כּוֹלֶלֶת ה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים): Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma and Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah (עֲתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן).

And the order of the breaking of the vessels was in each and every one of these points (וְסֵדֶר שְׁבִירַת הַכֵּלִים הָיָה, בְּכָל נְקוּדָּה וְנְקוּדָּה מֵהֶם), that in each one of them, the upper three of Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma within it were sustained (דְּכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶם, הַג״ר עֲתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א שֶׁבּוֹ, נִתְקַיְּמוּ), and the seven lower ones, Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah within it, were broken (וְז״ת זו״ן שֶׁבּוֹ, נִשְׁבָּרוּ).

As all of this is explained in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine, chapter six and chapter seven, and chapter three of Gate Seventeen (כְּמְבוֹאַר כָּל זֶה בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ פ״ו וּפ״ז וּפ״ג מִשַּׁעַר י״ז), and in several places in Sha‘ar haLikutin (וּבְכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת מִשַּׁעַר הַלִּקּוּטִין), and in Sha‘ar Ma’amaré Rashbi, peace be upon him (וּמִשַּׁעַר מַאֲמָרֵי רַשְׁבִּ״י ע״ה), and likewise in Mavo She’arim, Gate Two, Section Three, chapter six, see there (וְכֵן בְּמָבוֹא שְׁעָרִים ש״ב ח״ג פ״ו יְעַיֵּין שָׁם). And even though Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, left his question there as requiring further investigation (וְאַף עַל פִּי, שֶׁהֵנִיחַ שָׁם הָרַח״ו ז״ל שְׁאֵלָתוֹ בְּצָרִיךְ עִיוּן), behold, it is known (הִנֵּה יָדוּעַ), and the matter is simple and clear (וּפָשׁוּט וּבָרוּר הַדָּבָר), that this was at the beginning of his study with the Ari, may his memory be for a blessing (כִּי זֶה בִּתְחִלַּת לִמּוּדוֹ עִם הָאַרִ״י זלה״ה), when the matter had not yet settled in his heart (שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְיַשֵּׁב הָעִנְיָן בְּלִבּוֹ), and this was because he understood (וְהוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵבִין), that the incident of the kings was both in general and in detail (שֶׁמִּקְרֵה הַמְּלָכִים הַהוּא, הָיָה בַּכְּלָלוּת, וְגַם בַּפְּרָטוּת), and therefore a difficulty arose for him (וּלְכָךְ יָצָא לוֹ קוּשְׁיָא).

But the truth is (אֲבָל הָאֱמֶת הוּא), that it was not in general, but only in detail (כִּי לֹא הָיָה בַּכְּלָלוּת, רַק בַּפְּרָטוּת לְבַד), and then there is no difficulty (וְאָז אֵין קוּשְׁיָא). And just as later Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, himself wrote (וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ כָּתַב הָרַח״ו זלה״ה עַצְמוֹ), simply and at length and in greater detail (בִּפְשִׁיטוּת וּבְאֹרֶךְ וּבְיוֹתֵר פְּרָטוּת), in Sha‘ar haLikutin (בְּשַׁעַר בְּלִקּוּטִין), and in Sha‘ar Ma’amaré Rashbi, peace be upon him (וּבְשַׁעַר מַאֲמָרֵי רַשְׁבִּ"י ע״ה), and in many places (וּבְכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת), that the incident of the kings was not only in the individual five points (כִּי לֹא בִּפְרָטֵי הַה׳ נְקֻדּוֹת בִּלְבַד הָיָה מִקְרֵה הַמְּלָכִים), but rather it was in every kind of ten Sefirot (אֶלָּא הָיָה בְּכָל מִין י׳ סְפִירוֹת), and ten Sefirot of every Partzuf of the particulars of A"B"Y"A (וְי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף דְּפְרָטֵי אבי״ע), as it is written in the discourse of Da‘at (וְכַמָּשֶׁ״כּ בִּדְרוּשׁ הַדַּעַת), and this is his language (וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ):

All Partzufim of A"B"Y"A are comprised of M"H and B"N (כָּל פַּרְצוּפֵי אבי״ע כְּלוּלִים מִמ״ה וּב״ן), which are Chassadim and Gevurot (שֶׁהֵם חֲסָדִים וּגְבוּרוֹת), and every aspect of both contains Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, Yechidah within each Partzuf (וְכָל בְּחִינָה מִשְּׁתֵיהֶם יֵשׁ בָּהּ נרנח״י שֶׁבְּכָל פַּרְצוּף). And at first emerged seven kings - these are Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (וּתְחִלָּה יָצְאוּ ז׳ מְלָכִים וְהֵם זו״ן), the seven extremities in each Partzuf (ז׳ קְצָווֹת שֶׁבְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), in the aspect of Nefesh (בְּבְחִינַת נֶפֶשׁ), which is called seven Malchiot among the seven extremities (הַנִּקְרָא ז׳ מַלְכֻיּוֹת שֶׁבְּז׳ קְצָווֹת), from the aspect of B"N (מִבְּחִינַת ב״ן), and they were broken (וְנִשְׁבָּרוּ). And afterward came the seven extremities of M"H (וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ ז׳ קְצָווֹת שֶׁל מ״ה), in the aspect of Nefesh (מִבְּחִינַת נֶפֶשׁ), and they drew with them the Nefesh of B"N and repaired them (וְהִמְשִׁיכוּ עִמָּהֶם נֶפֶשׁ דְּב״ן וְנִתְקְנוּ). And afterward, in the same manner, came the Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, and Yechidah of M"H (וְאַחַר כָּךְ עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה, בָּאוּ רנח״י דְּמ״ה), and they drew the corresponding levels of B"N which had not yet been emanated (וְהִמְשִׁיכוּ אֶת רנח״י דְּב״ן שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֶצְלוּ עֲדַיִן), and they all came included in the secret of an addition in Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (וּבָאוּ כּוּלָּם כְּלוּלִים בְּסוֹד תּוֹסֶפֶת בְּזו״ן), which are the seven extremities in every general and in every particular (שֶׁהֵם ז׳ קְצָווֹת שֶׁבְּכָל כְּלָל וּבְכָל פְּרָט). And all of this you will understand (וְכָל זֶה תָּבִין), from the commandment of the inheritance of the dead in Parashat Pinchas (מִמִּצְוַת יְרֻשַּׁת הַמֵּתִים בְּפָרָשַׁת פִּינְחָס). And similarly, in this manner, the ten Sefirot of the circles are Gevurot (וְכֵן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה י׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּעִגּוּלִים, הֵם גְּבוּרוֹת), and they emerged initially only in the aspect of Nefesh within them (וְיָצְאוּ תְּחִלָּה בִּבְחִינַת נֶפֶשׁ לְבַד שֶׁבָּהֶם), in the secret of “a female shall surround a man” (בְּסוֹד נְקֵבָה תְּסוֹבֵב גָּבֶר), and afterward the Yosher [Upright Configuration] emerged, which is Chassadim (וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָצָא הַיֹּשֶׁר שֶׁהוּא חֲסָדִים), with its five kinds of Nefesh and Ruach (בְּה׳ מִינֵי נֶפֶשׁ וְרוּחַ שֶׁבּוֹ), and then the circles were completed with the Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, Yechidah within them (וְאָז נִשְׁלְמוּ הָעִגּוּלִים בְּנרנח״י שֶׁבָּהֶם), end of quotation (עכ״ל).

Thus, every set of ten Sefirot of every Partzuf (בְּאֹפֶן, דְּכָל י׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), of the individual Partzufim of A"B"Y"A (דְּפְרָטֵי פַּרְצוּפֵי אבי״ע), are included within the five points (נִכְלָלִים בַּה׳ נְקֻדּוֹת), and in each and every point among them was the incident of the kings (וּבְכָל נְקוּדָּה וּנְקוּדָּה מֵהֶם הָיָה מִקְרֵה הַמְּלָכִים), In such a manner that the words of the Ari, of blessed memory, are alive and enduring (בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁדִּבְרֵי הָאַרִ״י זלה״ה חַיִּים וְקַיָּמִים), for even though some difficulty or a “needs investigation” remark is found in the words of Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory (כִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בְּדִבְרֵי הָרַח״ו ז״ל אֵיזוֹ קוּשְׁיָא וְצ״ע), nevertheless, because of that the words of our teacher the Ari, of blessed memory, are not dismissed (לֹא מִפְּנֵי כָּךְ נִדְחִים דִּבְרֵי רַבֵּנוּ הָאַרִ״י זלה״ה), for this difficulty is due to our lack of understanding (כִּי זֹאת הַקּוּשְׁיָא הִיא מֵחֹסֶר יְדִיעָתֵנוּ), that we did not understand his words (שֶׁלֹּא הֵבַנּוּ דְּבָרָיו), but in the end, his words are the living, true words of the living God (אֲבָל סוֹף סוֹף דְּבָרָיו דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים אֱמֶת).

Shemen, Siman 1

(שֶׁמ״ן סִימָן א׳)

His intention is to say (כַּוָּנָתוֹ לוֹמַר), that each point from the five inclusive points (כִּי כָל נְקוּדָּה מֵה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת), includes five points (כּוֹלֶלֶת חֲמֵשׁ נְקוּדוֹת), which are five Partzufim (שֶׁהֵם ה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים). And each one of the five Partzufim of a single point (וְכָל אַחַת מֵה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים שֶׁל נְקוּדָּה אַחַת), the upper three of that Partzuf emerged complete and endured (יָצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁל הַפַּרְצוּף הַהוּא שְׁלֵמוּת, וְנִתְקַיְּימוּ). And its Ze’ir Anpin was in the aspect of six points (וְהַז״א שֶׁלּוֹ בִּבְחִינַת ו׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and its Malkhut in the aspect of one point (וְהַמַּלְכוּת שֶׁלּוֹ בִּבְחִינַת נְקוּדָּה אַחַת), and the Seven Kings were broken (וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ ז״מ).

For the Ze’ir Anpin, which is the fourth point among the five inclusive points (כִּי הַז״א שֶׁהוּא נְקוּדָּה ד׳ מֵהֶ׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת), contains five points (יֵשׁ בּוֹ חֲמֵשׁ נְקוּדוֹת), which are Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (שֶׁהֵם עַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן). And in each one of these five Partzufim within it (וּבְכָל אַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ הֶ׳ פַּרְצוּפִים שֶׁבּוֹ), their Keter, Chokhmah, and Binah emerged complete and endured (יָצְאוּ הַכֶּתֶר חָכְמָה וּבִינָה שֶׁלָּהֶם שְׁלֵמוּת, וְנִתְקַיְּימוּ). And the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of each and every one of them (וְהַזו״ן דְּכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת מֵהֶם), the Ze’ir Anpin emerged in the aspect of six points (יָצָא הַז״א בִּבְחִינַת ו׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and the Malkhut in the aspect of one point (וְהַמַּלְכוּת בִּבְחִינַת נְקוּדָּה אַחַת), and they were broken (וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ).

And likewise in this manner (וְכֵן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה), in the other four inclusive points (בְּד׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָאַחֵרוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת), this same detail applied (הָיָה בִּפְרָטוּת הַזֶּה). And as he, of blessed memory, wrote above (וּכְמַה שֶׁכָּתוּב מִלְעֵיל הוּא ז״ל), and this is his language (וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ): And it is found that every place where the Rav, of blessed memory, writes (וְנִמְצָא שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתֵב הָרַב זלה״ה), that the upper three emerged complete (שֶׁג״ר יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמוּת), and Ze’ir Anpin emerged only in six parts of the point (וְהַז״א יָצָא בְּו׳ חֲלָקֵי הַנְּקוּדָּה לְבַד), and the Nukvah in one part, the Malkhut within it alone (וְנֻקְבָּא בְּחֵלֶק א׳ מַלְכוּת שֶׁבָּהּ בִּלְבַד), this refers to the upper three and the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of each and every one of the five inclusive points of each Partzuf (הֵינוּ בַּג״ר וּבְזו״ן דְּכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת מֵה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף). But the five inclusive points of that Partzuf (אֲבָל ה׳ נְקוּדוֹת כּוֹלְלוֹת דְּאוֹתוֹ פַּרְצוּף), emerged complete, etc. (יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמוּת כּו׳).

In such a manner (בְּאֹפֶן), that all the discourses of the Rav, of blessed memory (שֶׁכָּל דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב זלה״ה), which speak of the Partzufim of Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּפַרְצוּפֵי עַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן), do not refer to the inclusive ones (אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר עַל הַכּוֹלְלִים), but only to the five Partzufim of a single point of the ten Sefirot of one Partzuf, etc. (כִּי אִם בַּה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּנְקוּדָּה אַחַת דִּי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּפַרְצוּף א׳ כּו׳), see there (יַעֲוֹיֵן שָׁם). And with this is resolved the difficulty of our teacher the Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory (וּבָזֶה נִתְיָשְׁבָה קוּשְׁיַת מוֹהַרְח״ו ז״ל), in the book Mavo She’arim (בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים), and it is that after (וְהוּא שֶׁאַחַר) he wrote there that the aspect of the Seven Kings was in Arich Anpin, and in Abba, and in Imma, and in Ze’ir Anpin, and in Nukvah (שֶׁכָּתַב שָׁם שֶׁבְּחִינַת הַז״מ הָיָה בְּא״א וּבְאַבָּא וּבְאִמָּא וּבְז״א וּבְנוּקְבָּא), he wrote, and this is his language (כָּתַב וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ): If so, Chaim, it requires investigation (א״ה חַיִּים צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן), if the matter of these kings, in each Partzuf among the five, was all before the Tikkun (אִם עִנְיַן הַמְּלָכִים אֵלוּ, שֶׁבְּכָל פַּרְצוּף מֵהֶ׳, הָיָה הַכֹּל קֹדֶם הַתִּקּוּן), if so, it is difficult (אִם כֵּן קָשֶׁה), for how could it be that in the Nukvah of Ze’ir Anpin was the aspect of the Seven Kings after the exit of her upper three (כִּי אֵיךְ בְּנוּקְבָּא דְּז״א הָיָה בְּחִינַת ז״מ אַחַר צֵאת ג״ר שֶׁבָּהּ), and behold it was explained (וְהֲרֵי נִתְבָּאֵר), that never emerged except the Keter of the Nukvah alone (כִּי מֵעוֹלָם לֹא יָצָא רַק הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁל הַנּוּקְבָּא לְבַד), end quote (ע״כ).

For this difficulty arose for him (כִּי קוּשְׁיָא זוֹ יָצְאָה לוֹ), because he understood that the shattering was in general - that is, the seven lower ones, Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of B"N in totality (מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵבִין שֶׁהַשְּׁבִירָה הָיְתָה בַּכְּלָלוּת, שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת זו״ן דְּב״ן הַכּוֹלֵל), and in particular - that is, the seven lower ones of the upper three of B"N in totality (וּבִפְרָטוּת, שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת דְּג״ר דְּב״ן הַכּוֹלֵל). And if so, the Malkhut of B"N did not emerge - only her Keter (וְאִם כֵּן, לֹא יָצְאָה הַמַּלְכוּת דְּב״ן רַק הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁלָּהּ), which is the seventh point of the seven lower ones of B"N (שֶׁהִיא נְקוּדָּה הַז׳ דְּז״ת דְּב״ן). And if so, it is difficult how in the Nukvah there were aspects of the Seven Kings (וְאִם כֵּן קָשֶׁה, אֵיךְ בְּנוּקְבָּא הָיוּ בְּחִינוֹת ז״מ). But according to what was stated, that the shattering was in particularity alone (אֲבָל לְפִי הָאֲמוּר, שֶׁהַשְּׁבִירָה הָיְתָה בְּפְרָטוּת לְבַד), there is no difficulty (לֹא יֵשׁ קוּשְׁיָא).

For that which the Rav the Ari, of blessed memory, wrote (כִּי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָרַב הָאַרִ״י זלה״ה), that the Malkhut did not emerge except in the aspect of one part within her (שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת לֹא יָצְאָה רַק בִּבְחִינַת חֵלֶק אֶחָד שֶׁבָּהּ), refers to the Malkhut of each and every point among the five inclusive points of each Partzuf (הוּא עַל הַמַּלְכוּת דְּכָל נְקוּדָּה וּנְקוּדָּה מֵה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), but the five inclusive points of each Partzuf (אֲבָל ה׳ נְקוּדוֹת כּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), emerged complete (יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמוֹת).

And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), also in the Nukvah (גַּם בַּנֻּקְבָּא), which is the fifth point of the five inclusive points (שֶׁהִיא הַנְּקוּדָּה הַחֲמִישִׁית דְּה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת), there are within her five inclusive points (יֵשׁ בָּהּ ה׳ נְקוּדוֹת כּוֹלְלוֹת), and each and every one of them (וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶם), their upper three emerged complete and endured (יָצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁלָּהֶם שְׁלֵמוּת, וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ). And their Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (וְהַזו״ן שֶׁלָּהֶם), emerged in the aspect of seven points alone (יָצְאוּ בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת לְבַד), and were broken (וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ). And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), also in the Nukvah there can be the aspect of the Seven Kings (גַּם בַּנֻּקְבָּא יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת בְּחִינַת הַז״מ), just as there were in the first four points, which are Keter, Chokhmah, Binah, and Ze’ir Anpin (כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּד׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָא׳ כֶּתֶר חָכְמָה בִּינָה וְז״א), this is the content of his intention (זֶהוּ תּוֹכֶן כַּוָּנָתוֹ).

And behold, at first glance this answer appears correct (וְהִנֵּה לְכָאוֹרָה תְּשׁוּבָה זוֹ נְכוֹנָה), however, in my humble opinion, I do not know what compelled him (אֲבָל לְעַדְיוּ״ד לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מִי הִכְרִיחוֹ לְפָרֵט), this specificity (פְּרָטוּת זֶה), which is not mentioned at all in the words of the Rav, of blessed memory (מַה שֶּׁלֹּא נִזְכַּר כְּלָל בִּדְבַרֵי הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה), for what is found written in the discourses of the Rav the Ari, of blessed memory (שֶׁהֲרֵי מַה שֶּׁנִּמְצָא כָתוּב בִּדְרוּשֵׁי הָרַב הָאַרִ״י זַלָּהָ״ה), is that the aspect of the Seven Kings was in Atik, and in Arich Anpin, and in Abba, and in Imma, and in Ze’ir Anpin, and in Nukvah (הוּא כִּי בְּחִינַת הַז״מ, הָיוּ בַּעֲתִּיק וּבְא״א וּבְאַבָּא וּבְאִימָּא וּבְז״א וּבְנוּקְבָּא), that after their upper three emerged and endured (שֶׁאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁלָּהֶם, וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ), their seven lower ones emerged, and were broken (יָצְאוּ הַז״ת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ).

And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), the five inclusive points (הֶ׳ הַנְּקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת), that emerged from the eyes of Adam Kadmon (שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵעֵינֵי אָדָם קַדְמוֹן), each one emerged complete with ten Sefirot (כָּל אַחַת יָצְאָה שְׁלֵמָה בְּי׳ סְפִירוֹת). And its upper three emerged complete and endured (וְהַג״ר שֶׁלָּהּ יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמוֹת, וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ), and its seven lower ones - its Ze’ir Anpin - emerged in six parts of the point (וְהַז״ת שֶׁלָּהּ, הַז״א, יָצָא בְּו׳ חֲלָקֵי הַנְּקוּדָּה), and the Malkhut in one part alone (וְהַמַּלְכוּת בְּחֵלֶק א׳ לְבַד).

And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), what the Rav, of blessed memory, wrote (מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה), that the upper three emerged complete and endured (שֶׁהַג״ר יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמוֹת, וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ), and the seven lower ones emerged in the aspect of seven points alone and were broken (וְהַז״ת, יָצְאוּ בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת לְבַד, וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ), he is speaking about the upper three and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of the first point among the five points (הוּא מְדַבֵּר בַּג״ר וּבְזו״ן דְּנְקוּדָּה אַחַת מֵהֶ׳ נְקוּדוֹת), that emerged from the eyes of Adam Kadmon (שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵעֵינֵי אָדָם קַדְמוֹן). And with this is resolved the difficulty of Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory (וּבָזֶה מִתְיָשֶׁבֶת קוּשְׁיַת הָרַח״ו זַלָּהָ״ה), for that which the Rav, of blessed memory, wrote (כִּי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה), that the Malkhut emerged only in the aspect of one part (כִּי הַמַּלְכוּת יָצְאָת בִּבְחִינַת חֵלֶק א׳ לְבַד), refers to the individual Malkhut of each one of the five inclusive points (הוּא עַל הַמַּלְכוּת פְּרָטִית דְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶ׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת), but the inclusive Malkhut, which is the fifth point of the five inclusive points (אֲבָל הַמַּלְכוּת הַכּוֹלֶלֶת, שֶׁהִיא הַנְּקוּדָּה הַחֲמִישִׁית דְּהֶ׳ נְקוּדוֹת), emerged complete with ten Sefirot (יָצְאָה שְׁלֵמָה בְּי׳ סְפִירוֹת). And her upper three were complete and endured (וְהַג״ר שֶׁלָּהּ שְׁלֵמוֹת, וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ), and her seven lower ones were in the aspect of seven points and were broken (וְהַז״ת שֶׁלָּהּ בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת, וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ).

And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), also in the Malkhut there can be the aspect of the Seven Kings (גַּם בַּמַּלְכוּת יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת בְּחִינַת הַז״מ), just as there were in the first four points - Keter, Chokhmah, Binah, and Ze’ir Anpin (כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּד׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָא׳ כֶּתֶר, חָכְמָה, בִּינָה, וְז״א). And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), Atik, and Arich Anpin, and Abba and Imma, and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (עַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן), that are mentioned in the words of the Rav, of blessed memory (הַנִּזְכָּר בִּדְבַרֵי הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה), refer only to the inclusive ones, whose seven lower ones alone experienced the shattering (אֵינָם אֶלָּא הַכּוֹלְלִים שֶׁבַּז״ת שֶׁלָּהֶם לְבַד הָיְתָה הַשְּׁבִירָה), according to the plain meaning of the words of our teacher the Ari, of blessed memory (כְּפְשָׁטוּת דִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ הָאַרִ״י זַלָּהָ״ה).

And if so (וְאִם כֵּן), the aspect of the Seven Kings occurred no more than six or five times (לֹא הָיְתָה בְּחִינַת הַז״מ רַק ו׳ אוֹ ה׳ פְּעָמִים), that is, one time in each Partzuf (דְּהַיְנוּ פַּעַם א׳ בְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), in accordance with the simple meaning of the discourses of the Rav, of blessed memory (כְּפְשִׁיטוּת דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה). But according to his words, of blessed memory (וְאִלּוּ כְּדִבְרָיו ז״ל), the aspect of the Seven Kings was five times within each Partzuf (הָיָה בְּחִינַת הַז״מ, ה׳ פְּעָמִים בְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), and where is this mentioned, or hinted at, in the discourses of the Rav, of blessed memory (וְזֶה הֵיכָן נִזְכָּר, אוֹ נִרְמַז בִּדְרוּשֵׁי הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה), such that (כְּדֵי) one should change from the plain meaning of the language of the Rav, of blessed memory (לְשַׁנּוֹת מִפְּשָׁטוּת לְשׁוֹנוֹת הָרַב זַלָּהָ״ה), and say that Atik, and Arich Anpin, and Abba and Imma, and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah mentioned in his words (וְלוֹמַר כִּי עַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן הַנִּזְכָּר בִּדְבָרָיו), are not the inclusive ones, but rather the particulars (אֵינָם הַכּוֹלְלִים כִּי אִם הַפְּרָטִים).

Indeed, according to the truth, in my humble opinion, these answers to the question of Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, are nothing but Oral Torah (אֻמְנָם לְפִי הָאֱמֶת, לְעַנְיֻת דַּעְתִּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת הַלָּלוּ עַל קֻשְׁיַּת מוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה, אֵינָם רַק תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה), for his question, may his memory be blessed, is upon the Written Torah (כִּי קֻשְׁיָתוֹ ז״ל הִיא עַל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב), which is what he wrote of what he heard from his teacher, the Ari, may his memory be blessed (שֶׁהוּא מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ הָאֲרִ״י זְלָה״ה), which is known and clear (שֶׁיָּדוּעַ וּבָרוּר הוּא), that everything which is found written in the derushim of the Rav, may his memory be blessed, without attribution (שֶׁכָּל הַנִּמְצָא כָתוּב בִּדְרוּשֵׁי הָרַב זְלָה״ה בִּסְתָם), is that which Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, heard from his teacher the Ari, of blessed memory (הוּא שֶׁשָּׁמַע אוֹתוֹ הָרַח״ו ז״ל מֵרַבּוֹ הָאֲרִ״י ז״ל), and he wrote it as he heard it (וּכְתָבוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמְעוֹ), and he did not add nor diminish even a hair's breadth (וְהוּא לֹא הוֹסִיף, וְלֹא גֵּרַע אֲפִלּוּ כְּמִלְּא נִימָא), as written in the introduction to Etz Chayim (כְּכָתוּב בְּהַקְדָּמַת הָעֵץ חַיִּים).

And in any place where he added a nuance of his own, he writes explicitly: “and in my humble opinion, Chaim,” or “Chaim said,” or “the writer said” (וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹסִיף נוֹפֶךְ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, כּוֹתֵב בֵּפֵרוּשׁ: וְנִלְעַ״ד חַיִּים, אוֹ אָמַר חַיִּים, אוֹ אָמַר הַכּוֹתֵב). If so, since he wrote what he heard from his teacher (וְאִם כֵּן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא כָּתַב מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ), that the aspect of the shattering was in general (כִּי בְּחִינַת הַשְּׁבִירָה הָיְתָה בִּכְלָלוּת), meaning in the seven lower Sefirot of B"N (שֶׁהוּא בְּז״ת דְּב״ן), and in particular, in the seven lower of the three upper of B"N (וּבִפְרָטוּת, שֶׁהוּא בְּז״ת דְּג״ר דְּב״ן), as written in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine, chapter seven (כְּתוּב בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ פ״ז). If so, how can we say that it is because he understood that the episode of the Kings took place in general and also in particular, therefore he arrived at a difficulty? (אִם כֵּן אֵיךְ נוּכַל לוֹמַר, שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהֵבִין שֶׁמִּקְרֵה הַמְּלָכִים, הָיָה בִּכְלָלוּת וְגַם בִּפְרָטוּת, לָכֵן יָצְאָה לוֹ קֻשְׁיָא).

But according to the truth, it is only in particular alone (אֲבָל לְפִי הָאֱמֶת, אֵינוֹ רַק בִּפְרָטוּת לְבַדּוֹ), and behold, Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, did not write this from his own reasoning (וְהֲלֹא הָרַח״ו ז״ל לָאו מִסְּבָרָא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ כָּתַב זֶה), but thus he heard from his teacher, of blessed memory (אֶלָּא כָּךְ שָׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ ז״ל). And upon this, it was difficult for the Rav: how is it possible for this report to exist alongside the other report? (וְעַל זֶה הֻקְשָׁה לְרַבִּי, אֵיךְ יִתָּכֵן שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ, עִם הַשְּׁמוּעָה הָאַחֶרֶת), for also in the Nukvah, there was the aspect of the Seven Kings (כִּי גַּם בַּנֻּקְבָּא, הָיָה בְּחִינַת ז״מ), for these two reports cannot be sustained, for they contradict one another (כִּי ב׳ שְׁמוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ לֹא יִכּוֹנוּ, שֶׁהֵן סוֹתְרוֹת זֶה אֶת זֶה).

And likewise there in the book Mavo She‘arim, Gate Two, Section Three, chapter one, he wrote, and these are his words: “See in Section Three, chapter six, regarding the matter of these Seven Kings (וְכֵן שָׁם בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים ש״ב ח״ג פ״א כָּתַב, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: וְעַיֵּין בַּח״ג פ״ו עִנְיַן אֵלּוּ הַז״מ), for their aspect was also in each and every Partzuf of the five Partzufim (שֶׁהָיְתָה גַּם כֵּן בְּחִינָתָם בְּכָל פַּרְצוּף וּפַרְצוּף מֵהֶה״פ). However, everything that we are discussing in this section refers to the Seven Kings of the general ten Sefirot of the Nekudot (אֲבָל כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֲנַחְנוּ מְדַבְּרִים בְּחֵלֶק זֶה, הוּא בְּז״מ שֶׁל כְּלָלוּת הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּנְקֻדוֹת).” And in chapter six he wrote, and these are his words: “After it was explained in the previous chapters, the matter of the Seven Kings (וּבְפ״ו כָּתַב, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בַּפְּרָקִים שֶׁעָבְרוּ, עִנְיַן הַז״מ), we shall now further explain (נְבָאֵר עַתָּה עוֹד), that this event that happened to these Seven Kings of the general World of Nekudim (כִּי זֶה הַמִּקְרֶה שֶׁקָּרָה אֶל הַז״מ אֵלוּ, שֶׁל כְּלָלוּת עוֹלַם הַנְּקוּדִים), also occurred in particular, etc.” (גַּם קָרָה בִּפְרָטוּת כו׳) And at the end of the passage he wrote: “And thus it is found, that aside from what we have explained in this Gate concerning the Seven Kings in a general manner through the ten root Sefirot (וּבְסוֹף הַלָּשׁוֹן כָּתַב: וְנִמְצָא, כִּי מִלְּבַד מַה שֶּׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּשַּׁעַר הַזֶּה בְּעִנְיַן הַז״מ דֶּרֶךְ כְּלָלוּת בְּי׳ סְפִירוֹת הַשָּׁרְשִׁיּוֹת), behold, also in each and every Partzuf from these five Partzufim (הִנֵּה גַּם בְּכָל פַּרְצוּף וּפַרְצוּף מֵאֵלּוּ הַה״פ), after the three upper Sefirot in that Partzuf, there was in it the matter of the Seven Kings (אַחַר כָּל ג״ר שֶׁבַּפַּרְצוּף הַהוּא, הָיָה בּוֹ עִנְיַן הַז״מ).” See there (עַיֵּין שָׁם).

Behold, for even here he wrote both in general and in particular (הֲרֵי כִּי גַם כָּאן כָּתַב בִּכְלָלוּת וּבִפְרָטוּת), and therefore he posed there his difficulty (וְעַל כֵּן הִקְשָׁה שָׁם קֻשְׁיָתוֹ). And if this was at the beginning of his learning with the Ari, of blessed memory, how did he not pose his difficulty to the Ari, may his memory be blessed? (וְאִם זֶה הָיָה בְּתְחִלַּת לִמּוּדוֹ עִם הָאֲרִ״י ז״ל, אֵיךְ לֹא הִקְשָׁה קֻשְׁיָתוֹ אֶל הָאֲרִ״י זְלָה״ה)

And furthermore, what is there that was found more than this at the end of his learning, to say so? (וְעוֹד, כִּי מַה הוּא הַנִּמְצָא יוֹתֵר מִזֶּה בְּסוֹף לִמּוּדוֹ כְּדֵי לוֹמַר כָּךְ) And just as later Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, himself wrote, simply and at length, etc. (וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ כָּתַב הָרַח״ו ז״ל עַצְמוֹ, בִּפְשִׁיטוּת וּבְאֹרֶךְ כו׳). And behold, in all the places he wrote that there were aspects of the Seven Kings even in the Nukvah (וְהֲרֵי בְּכָל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת מָ״שׁ הוּא, שֶׁהָיוּ בְּחִינַת הַז״מ גַּם בַּנֻּקְבָּא), and this itself is what he wrote in the book Mavo She‘arim (וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ מָ״שׁ בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים), and on this he posed his difficulty (וְעַל זֶה הִקְשָׁה קֻשְׁיָתוֹ). And if this is from what he brought from what was written in the Derush haDa‘at, regarding all the Partzufim of A"B"Y"A, etc. (וְאִם הוּא מִמַּה שֶּׁהֵבִיא מִמָּ״שׁ בְּדְרוּשׁ הַדַּעַת, כָּל פַּרְצוּפֵי אבי״ע כו׳), in my humble opinion there is proof from there to the opposite (לְעַדְנִי מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה לְהֶפֶךְ), for behold, he wrote there: “and they all came included in the secret of addition in Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah, which are the six lower Sefirot in every general and every particular,” etc. (שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב שָׁם: וּבָאוּ כֻּלָּם כְּלוּלִים בְּסוֹד תּוֹסֶפֶת בִּזו״ן, שֶׁהֵם ו״ק שֶׁבְּכָל כְּלַל וּבְכָל פְּרָט כו׳), behold, he wrote general and particular (הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּתַב כְּלַל וּפְרָט). And if as his words, of blessed memory, that it was not in general but only in particular (וְאִם כִּדְבָרָיו ז״ל, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בִּכְלָלוּת רַק בִּפְרָטוּת לְבַדּוֹ), and that thus was the opinion of Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, at the end of his learning (וּשְׁכֵן דַּעַת הָרַח״ו ז״ל בְּסוֹף לִמּוּדוֹ), then who even mentioned general-that it was in general? (אִם כֵּן מַאן דָּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ דְּכְלַל שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלָלוּת) And what is this as “in general”-should he not have said only “in every particular”? (וּמַה הוּא זֶה כְּכְלַל, וְלֹא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לוֹמַר אֶלָּא בְּכָל פְּרָט)

Rather, on the contrary, from what he wrote “in every general,” it is because Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, remained in his opinion from beginning to end (אֶלָּא אַדְּרַבָּא, מִמָּ״שׁ בְּכָל כְּלַל, הוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמוּהַרְח״ו ז״ל, עוֹמֵד בְּדַעְתּוֹ מֵתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ), as he heard from his teacher, may his memory be blessed (כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ זְלָה״ה), that the Shevirah [Breaking] was in general-that is, in the seven lower Sefirot of the world (שֶׁהַשְּׁבִירָה הָיְתָה בִּכְלָלוּת, שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם), and in particular-that is, the seven lower Sefirot of the three upper Sefirot of the particulars of that world (וּבִפְרָטוּת, שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת שֶׁל הַג״ר דְּפְרָטֵי פַּרְצוּפֵי אוֹתוֹ הָעוֹלָם).

And therefore he wrote “in every general,” meaning the seven lower Sefirot of the world (וְלָכֵן כָּתַב: שֶׁבְּכָל כְּלַל, שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם), and “in every particular,” meaning the seven lower Sefirot of the three upper Sefirot of the particulars of the Partzufim of that world (וּשְׁבְּכָל פְּרָט, שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת שֶׁל הַג״ר דְּפְרָטֵי פַּרְצוּפֵי אוֹתוֹ הָעוֹלָם). And furthermore, this which is written in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine as mentioned above-that the shattering was in general and in particular (וְעוֹד, כִּי זֶה הַכָּתוּב בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ הַנ״ל, שֶׁהַשְּׁבִירָה הָיְתָה בִּכְלָלוּת וּבִפְרָטוּת) was brought there in the name of the Mahadura Batra p1-3(הוּבָא שָׁם בְּשֵׁם מַהֲדוּרָא בָּתְרָא), and surely the Mahadura Batra is not from the beginning of his learning (וּמִסְתַּמָּא מַהֲדוּרָא בָּתְרָא אֵינוֹ תְּחִלַּת לִמּוּדוֹ).

And in the introduction to Etz Chayim it is written that this Mahadura Batra, due to its great depth, was hidden by Rabbi Chaim Vital, may his memory be blessed (וּבְהַקְדָּמַת עֵץ חַיִּים כָּתוּב, כִּי זֹאת הַמַּהֲדוּרָא בָּתְרָא לְרוֹב עֹמְקָהּ גִּנְזָה מוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה), and these Gates of Light were revealed to Rabbi Yitzchak Tzemach, of blessed memory p1-4(וְנִתְגַּלּוּ לוֹ שַׁעֲרֵי אוֹרָה אֵלּוּ לְמוֹהַר״י צֶמַח זְלָה״ה), written by the finger of God from Rabbi Chaim Vital himself (כְּתוּבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים מִמוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה עַצְמוֹ), see there (עַיֵּין שָׁם).

And the truth stands (וְקוּשְׁטָא קָאֵי), that a person sees with his eyes (שֶׁהָאָדָם יִרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם), that in this Mahadura Batra which is brought in the book Etz Chayim, it is there that Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, spoke of the matters in particular (כִּי בְּזֹאת הַמַּהֲדוּרָא בָּתְרָא, הַמְּבוּאָה בְּסֵפֶר עֵץ חַיִּים, הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר מוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה הָעִנְיָנִים בִּפְרָטוּת). And also in this Mahadura Batra, Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, posed a difficulty similar to what he posed in the book Mavo She‘arim (וְגַם בְּזֹאת הַמַּהֲדוּרָא בָּתְרָא, הִקְשָׁה מוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה דּוֹמֶה לְמָ״שׁ בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים).

And these are his words in Etz Chayim, Gate Eleven, chapter five, in the Mahadura Batra: “It requires investigation concerning the matter of Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah that its three upper Sefirot did not emerge, and not the first nine within her (וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר י״א פ״ה בַּמַּהֲדוּרָא בָּתְרָא: צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן בְּעִנְיַן זו״ן, שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ ג״ר דִּידֵיהּ, וְלֹא ט׳ הָא׳ שֶׁבָּהּ), if so, how do we say that the Kings of Ze’ir Anpin emerged from its Binah, which is called Edom? (אִם כֵּן אֵיךְ אֲנַחְנוּ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים דְּז״א יָצְאוּ מִבִּינָה דִּידֵיהּ, הַנִּקְרָא אֱדוֹם), and also from the Binah of the Nukvah, which is called Eretz Edom? (וְכֵן מִבִּינָה דְּנֻקְבָּא, הַנִּקְרָא אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם), and behold, there was no Binah in them (וְהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה בָהֶם בִּינָה), as is written in the treatise of my teacher, of blessed memory” (כְּמָ״שׁ לְקוֹנְטְרִיס מוֹרִי ז״ל), end quote (עכ״ל).

Behold, that even here he posed a difficulty similar to what he wrote in the book Mavo She‘arim (הֲרֵי כִּי גַם כָּאן הִקְשָׁה דּוֹמֶה לְמָ״שׁ בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים). And this is not at the beginning of his learning with the Ari, of blessed memory (וְזֶה אֵינוֹ בְּתְחִלַּת לִמּוּדוֹ עִם הָאֲרִ״י ז״ל), for behold he wrote “my teacher, of blessed memory” (שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב: מוֹרִי ז״ל).

And furthermore, the Ari, of blessed memory, himself is the one who wrote that Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah did not emerge except in the aspect of seven Nekudot, and they did not have Binah (וְעוֹד, שֶׁהָרַב הָאֲרִ״י ז״ל בְּעַצְמוֹ, הוּא הוּא שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁזו״ן לֹא יָצְאוּ רַק בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶם בִּינָה). And on this it was difficult for him based on the other report, that the Seven Kings of Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah emerged from their Binah (וְעַל זֶה הוּקְשָׁה לוֹ מֵהַשְּׁמוּעָה הָאַחֶרֶת, כִּי הַז׳ מְלָכִים דְּזו״ן יָצְאוּ מִבִּינָה שֶׁלָּהֶם), which is what is written in the book Mavo She‘arim, and in the Likutim, and in Sha‘ar Ma’amaré Rashbi, peace be upon him (שֶׁהוּא מָ״שׁ בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים, וּבַלִּקּוּטִין, וּבְשַׁעַר מַאֲמָרֵי רַשְׁבִּ״י ע״ה), for how can both these reports be reconciled? (כִּי אֵיךְ יִכּוֹנוּ ב׳ שְׁמוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ)

And behold, it is indeed true that one must say: why did Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, not pose here in Etz Chayim a stronger difficulty? (וְהִנֵּה הֵן אֱמֶת שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹמַר, דְּלָמָּה מוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה, לֹא הִקְשָׁה כָּאן בְּעֵץ חַיִּים קֻשְׁיָא יוֹתֵר חֲזָקָה), for since in the aspect of the Nukvah only one Nekudah emerged (כִּי כֵיוָן שֶׁבִּבְחִינַת הַנֻּקְבָּא לֹא יָצְאָה רַק נְקוּדָה אַחַת), how is it possible for there to be in her the Seven Kings? (אֵיךְ יִתָּכֵן לִהְיוֹת בָּהּ ז״מ) - and just as he posed this question in the book Mavo She‘arim (וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהִקְשָׁה בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים). And likewise, one must say there in the book Mavo She‘arim: why did he not also pose a question on the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin? (וְכֵן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שָׁם בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים, דְּלָמָּה לֹא הִקְשָׁה גַּם עַל בְּחִינַת ז״א), for how could he say that when Ze’ir Anpin emerged with ten Sefirot included within him (כִּי אֵיךְ אָמַר כִּי בְּצֵאת ז״א כָּלוּל מִי׳ סְפִירוֹת), its upper three Sefirot were able to receive the light and were not broken (הַג״ר שֶׁבּוֹ יָכְלוּ לְסַבֵּל הָאוֹר וְלֹא נִשְׁבְּרוּ), and when its lower seven emerged from its Binah, they were broken? (וּכַאֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ מִן הַבִּינָה שֶׁבּוֹ הַז״ת שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׁבְּרוּ).

And yet the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin never emerged at all-only six Nekudot! (וְהֲלֹא מֵעוֹלָם לֹא יָצְאוּ בְּז״א הַג״ר שֶׁלּוֹ רַק ו׳ נְקוּדוֹת), just as he posed in Etz Chayim, as mentioned above (וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהִקְשָׁה בְּעֵץ חַיִּים כַּנ״ל). And perhaps in Etz Chayim, he did not concern himself to pose the stronger difficulty regarding the aspect of the Nukvah (וְאֶפְשָׁר כִּי בְּעֵץ חַיִּים לֹא חָשׁ לְהַקְשׁוֹת קֻשְׁיָא גְּדוֹלָה יוֹתֵר עַל בְּחִינַת הַנֻּקְבָּא), for he wished to pose a difficulty equally on both Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah (כִּי רָצָה לְהַקְשׁוֹת קֻשְׁיָא הַשָּׁוֶה בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם בִּזו״ן), and therefore he abbreviated his language (וְלָכֵן קִצֵּר בִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ).

And in the book Mavo She‘arim, he did not pose a question on the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin, because perhaps it can be resolved with difficulty (וּבְסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים לֹא הִקְשָׁה עַל בְּחִינַת ז״א, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְתָרְצָהּ בִּדְחִיק), for that which is written in some places that even the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin emerged (כִּי מָ״שׁ בְּאֵיזֶה מְקוֹמוֹת, כִּי גַּם הַג״ר דְּז״א יָצְאוּ), the intention is that they emerged from their Emanator, which is the Eye of Adam Kadmon (הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמְּאַצִּילָם, שֶׁהוּא הָעַיֵּין דְּאָדָם קַדְמוֹן). And that which in other places he said that the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin did not emerge (וּמַה שֶּׁבִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים אָמַר שֶׁהַג״ר דְּז״א לֹא יָצְאוּ), it means they did not emerge from the Binah of Nekudim (הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ מִן הַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים).

For when the Chokhmah of Nekudim gave the lights of the ten Sefirot of Ze’ir Anpin to the Binah of Nekudim (כִּי כַאֲשֶׁר הַחָכְמָה דְּנְקוּדִים נָתַן אֶת הָאוֹרוֹת דְּי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּז״א לַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים), the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin remained within the Binah of Nekudim (נִשְׁאֲרוּ הַג״ר דְּז״א בְּתוֹךְ הַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים), and from the Binah of Ze’ir Anpin, which was included within the Binah of Nekudim (וּמִן הַבִּינָה דְּז״א הַכְּלוּלָה בְּבִינָה דְּנְקוּדִים), emerged his lower seven (יָצְאוּ הַז״ת שֶׁלּוֹ), which are the Seven Kings of Ze’ir Anpin (שֶׁהֵם הַז״מ דְּז״א).

And as explained there in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine, chapter six (וּכְמְבוֹאָר שָׁם בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ פ״ו), and these are his words: “Afterwards, in Ze’ir Anpin, the upper three Sefirot within him did not emerge (וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: אַחַר כָּךְ בְּז״א, לֹא יָצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁבּוֹ), but rather they remained included within Imma (אֶלָּא נִשְׁאֲרוּ כְּלוּלִים תּוֹךְ אִמָּא), and only the lower seven, from Da‘at downward, emerged (וְיָצְאוּ ז״ת מִן הַדַּעַת וּלְמַטָּה בִּלְבַד), and all of them emerged from the Binah of Ze’ir Anpin which was included within Imma Ila’ah (וְכוּלָּם יָצְאוּ מִן הַבִּינָה דְּז״א הַכְּלוּלָה תּוֹךְ אִמָּא עִלָּאָה), as mentioned-that they did not emerge” (כַּנִּזְכָּר שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ), see there (עַיֵּין שָׁם).

It follows that we are able to say that the upper three Sefirot of Ze’ir Anpin emerged, meaning from their Emanator (נִמְצָא שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין אֲנַחְנוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהַג״ר דְּז״א יָצְאוּ, וְהַכַּוָּנָה מִמְּאַצִּילָם). And we are able to say that the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin did not emerge, meaning from the Binah of Nekudim, because they remained within her (וְיְכוֹלִין אֲנַחְנוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהַג״ר דְּז״א לֹא יָצְאוּ, וְהַכַּוָּנָה מִן הַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים, כִּי נִשְׁאֲרוּ בְּתוֹכָהּ). And we are able to say that the Kings of Ze’ir Anpin emerged from his Binah, for his Binah was already within the Binah of Nekudim (וְיְכוֹלִין אֲנַחְנוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים דְּז״א יָצְאוּ מֵהַבִּינָה שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַבִּינָה שֶׁלּוֹ כְּבָר הָיְתָה תּוֹךְ הַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים). And that which Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, did not resolve there in Etz Chayim regarding the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin (וּמַה שֶּׁמוּהַרְח״ו ז״ל לֹא תֵּירֵץ שָׁם בְּעֵץ חַיִּים עַל בְּחִינַת ז״א), it is because just prior to that, he himself was uncertain about it (הוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁם קֹדֶם לָזֶה נִסְתַּפֵּק הוּא עַצְמוֹ בָּזֶה).

And these are his words from the manuscript of Rabbi Chaim Vital, manuscript 42: “It requires investigation regarding the emergence of the Nekudot of the Kings (וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ מִכְּתָב יַד מוּהַרְח״ו ז״ל מ״ב: צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן בְּעִנְיַן יְצִיאַת הַנְּקוּדוֹת שֶׁל הַמְּלָכִים), for the Nekudah of Ze’ir Anpin emerged only in the aspect of six Nekudot alone, and the rest did not emerge (שֶׁיָּצְאָה נְקוּדַּת ז״א בִּבְחִינַת ו׳ נְקוּדוֹת לְבַד, וְהַשְּׁאָר לֹא יָצְאוּ), and likewise in the Nukvah only the tenth part emerged (וְכֵן בַּנֻּקְבָּא לֹא יָצְאָה אֶלָּא חֵלֶק עֲשִׂירִי לְבַד). One must say: where did the remaining lights remain? (צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר: הֵיכָן נִשְׁאֲרוּ שְׁאָר הָאוֹרוֹת) If we say they remained in their root in the World of Nekudim (אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרוּ בְּשָׁרְשָׁם בְּעוֹלַם הַנְּקוּדִים), or if they were left in their Imma, their Mother, “Imma of the children” (אוֹ אִם הִנִּיחוּם בְּאִמָּא שֶׁלָּהֶם - אֵם הַבָּנִים), both in general and in particular, for from her they emerged” (בֵּין בִּכְלָלוּת בֵּין בִּפְרָטוּת, כִּי מִמֶּנָּה יָצְאוּ), end quote (עכ״ל).

And the matter is that in the book Mavo She‘arim, Gate Two, Section Two, chapter one, he wrote that they remained attached to their Emanator, which is the Eye of Adam Kadmon (וְהָעִנְיָן, כִּי בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים ש״ב ח״ב פ״א כָּתַב, שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרוּ דְּבוּקוֹת בְּמְאַצִּילָם, שֶׁהוּא הָעַיֵּין דְּאָדָם קַדְמוֹן), see there (עַיֵּין שָׁם). And therefore, since at that time this matter was doubtful to him (וְלָכֵן כֵּיוָן שֶׁבַּפַּעַם הַהִיא הָיָה זֶה הָעִנְיָן בְּסָפֵק אֶצְלוֹ), he did not resolve it there (לָכֵן לֹא תֵּירֵץ שָׁם). But in the book Mavo She‘arim, possibly because when he was writing the matter of the Shevirah [Breaking] in the particulars of all five Partzufim (אֲבָל בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים אֶפְשָׁר, כִּי בִּהְיוֹתוֹ כוֹתֵב עִנְיַן הַשְּׁבִירָה בִּפְרָטוּת כָּל הַה״פ), he ruled and concluded in his mind, according to most of his traditions, that the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin did emerge from their Emanator (הִכְרִיעַ וְגָמַר בְּדַעְתּוֹ, לְפִי רֹב שְׁמוּעוֹתָיו, שֶׁהַג״ר דְּז״א יָצְאוּ מִמְּאַצִּילָם), and therefore he did not trouble himself to pose a question on the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin (וְלָכֵן לֹא חָשׁ לְהַקְשׁוֹת עַל בְּחִינַת ז״א), since it could be pushed aside and resolved with difficulty as stated (כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהִדָּחֵק וּלְתָרְצוֹ כָּאֲמוּר).

And in the end, there certainly is an actual state of the Seven Kings in Ze’ir Anpin (וְסוֹף סוֹף כְּבָר יֵשׁ מְצִיאוּת בְּחִינַת הַז״מ בְּז״א), which is not the case in the Nukvah (מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנֻּקְבָּא). And according to most places it is necessary to say so-that the upper three of Ze’ir Anpin emerged from their Emanator (וְלְפִי רֹב הַמְּקוֹמוֹת מֻכְרָח לוֹמַר כֵּן, שֶׁהַג״ר דְּז״א יָצְאוּ מִמְּאַצִּילָם), for behold there in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine, chapter six, he wrote: “And at the time of the emanation of the Olam haNekudim, all five Partzufim emerged, each one composed of ten Sefirot (שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁם בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ פ״ו כָּתַב: וּבְעֵת הָאֲצִילוּת עוֹלֶה הַנְּקוּדִים, יָצְאוּ כָּל הַה״פ, כָּל אֶחָד כָּלוּל מִי׳ סְפִירוֹת), and all of them from the Shem B"N,” etc. (וְכוּלָּם מִשֵּׁם ב״ן כו׳).

And afterwards he specified the matter of the Shevirah [Breaking] in the seven lower Sefirot of Atik (וְאַחַר כָּךְ פֵּרֵט עִנְיַן הַשְּׁבִירָה בְּז״ת דְּעַתִּיק), and in the seven lower of Arich Anpin (וּבְז״ת דְּא״א), and in the seven lower of Abba and Imma (וּבְז״ת דְּאו״א). And when he arrived at Ze'ir anpin and Nukvah, he said that in Ze’ir Anpin the upper three did not emerge, and in the Nukvah only her Malkhut emerged, etc. (וּכְשֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְזו״ן אָמַר שֶׁבְּז״א לֹא יָצְאוּ הַג״ר, וּבַנֻּקְבָּא לֹא יָצְאָה רַק מַלְכוּת שֶׁלָּהּ כו׳). And behold, this contradicts what he wrote at the beginning, that each emerged composed of ten Sefirot (וְהֲרֵי זֶה הֶפֶךְ מָ״שׁ בִּתְחִלָּה, שֶׁיָּצְאוּ כָּל אֶחָד כָּלוּל מִי׳ סְפִירוֹת). Therefore, it is necessary that this emergence is from the Emanator (אֶלָּא מֻכְרָח שֶׁאוֹתָהּ הַיְּצִיאָה הִיא מִן הַמְּאַצִּיל), and that which he said “they did not emerge” refers to the Binah of Nekudim (וּמָ״שׁ שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ - הִיא מִן הַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים), as mentioned there (כַּנִּזְכָּר שָׁם). And likewise there in chapter seven he wrote: at first that in each of the five Partzufim there are ten complete Sefirot (וְכֵן שָׁם בְּפ״ז כָּתַב, בִּתְחִלָּה שֶׁבְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהַה״פ יֵשׁ בּוֹ י׳ סְפִירוֹת גְּמוּרוֹת), and after he detailed the shattering, when he arrived at Ze'ir anpin and nukvah, he said that they only emerged in the aspect of seven Nekudot (וְאַחַר אֲשֶׁר פֵּרֵט הַשְּׁבִירָה, כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְזו״ן אָמַר שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ רַק בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת).

It is therefore necessary that it is as was said: that the emergence in the aspect of ten complete Sefirot is from the Emanator (אֶלָּא מֻכְרָח שֶׁהִיא כְּמָ״שׁ, שֶׁהַיְּצִיאָה בִּבְחִינַת י׳ סְפִירוֹת גְּמוּרוֹת הִיא מִן הַמְּאַצִּיל), and the emergence in the aspect of seven Nekudot is from the Binah of Nekudim, as mentioned there (וְהַיְּצִיאָה בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת הִיא מִן הַבִּינָה דְּנְקוּדִים כַּנִּזְכָּר שָׁם). And therefore Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, did not pose his difficulty regarding the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin in the book Mavo She‘arim (וְלָכֵן הָרַח״ו ז״ל, לֹא הִקְשָׁה קֻשְׁיָתוֹ עַל בְּחִינַת ז״א בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים), and this is a conclusive proof (אֲשֶׁר זוֹ הִיא רְאָיָה גְּמוּרָה), that what is written in the book Mavo She‘arim, the difficulty that was posed there, he wrote it later (כִּי הַכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים הַקֻּשְׁיָא שֶׁהִקְשָׁה שָׁם, כְּתָבוֹ יוֹתֵר בְּאַחֲרוֹנָה).

Thus, Rabbi Chaim Vital, may his memory be blessed, maintained his opinion from beginning to end (בְּאֹפֶן, שֶׁמוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה בְּדַעְתּוֹ עָמַד מֵתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ), that the event of the Kings occurred both in general and in particular (שֶׁמִּקְרֵה הַמְּלָכִים הָיָה בִּכְלָלוּת וְגַם בִּפְרָטוּת), as he heard from his teacher, the Ari, may his memory be blessed (כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ הָאֲרִ״י זְלָה״ה), and therefore he posed his difficulty (וְעַל כֵּן הִקְשָׁה קֻשְׁיָתוֹ).

And in Etz Chayim, Gate Nineteen, chapter five, he wrote, and these are his words (וְבְעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר י״ט פ״ה כָּתַב, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ): The particulars of the Tikkun from the conclusion of all the above (פְּרָטֵי הַתִּקּוּן מִתַּכְלִית כָּל הַנַּ״ל), according to the discourses above (עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַדְּרוּשִׁים הַנַּ״ל), is this, after the conclusion of the investigation (הוּא זֶה, אַחַר תַּכְלִית הָעִיּוּן). Behold, all of Atzilut, which are the five Partzufim (הִנֵּה כָּל הָאֲצִילוּת, שֶׁהֵם ה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים), are made from two aspects (נַעֲשִׂים מִב׳ בְּחִינוֹת), which are the Shem M"H and Shem B"N, etc. (שֶׁהֵם שֵׁם מ״ה, וְשֵׁם ב״ן כו׳). And behold, the Kings who ruled in the land of Edom (וְהִנֵּה הַמְּלָכִים שֶׁמָּלְכוּ בְּאֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם), they are the ten Sefirot of the inclusive B"N mentioned above (הֵם י׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּב״ן הַכְּלוּל הַנַּ״ל). And the first Nekudah is the Keter of B"N (וְנְקוּדָּה הָא׳ הוּא כֶּתֶר דְּב״ן), and it is the Nukvah of Atik and of Arich Anpin (וְהִיא נֻקְבָּא דְּעַתִּיק וְדְּא״א).

And the second Nekudah is Abba, the aspect of B"N within him (וְנְקוּדָּה הַב׳ הִיא אַבָּא, צַד ב״ן שֶׁבּוֹ). And the third Nekudah is Imma, the aspect of B"N within her (וְנְקוּדָּה הַג׳ הִיא אִמָּא, צַד ב״ן שֶׁבָּהּ). And each of these three Nekudot included ten complete Nekudot (וְכָל אֶחָד מִג׳ נְקוּדוֹת אֵלּוּ, הָיוּ כוֹלְלִים י׳ נְקוּדוֹת שְׁלֵמוֹת). But afterward, the fourth Nekudah emerged (אֲבָל אַחַר כָּךְ יָצְאָה נְקוּדָּה הַד׳), and it did not emerge inclusive of ten Nekudot (וְלֹא יָצְאָה כְּלוּלָה מִי׳ נְקוּדוֹת), but only the six lower Nekudot within her alone (רַק בְּו׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ לְבַד).

And therefore it is called six Nekudot (וְלָכֵן נִקְרֵאת בְּשֵׁם ו׳ נְקוּדוֹת). And together with the upper three, behold there are nine Nekudot (וְעִם הַג״ר, הֲרֵי ט׳ נְקוּדוֹת). And afterward the fifth Nekudah emerged (וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָצְאָה נְקוּדָּה ה׳), and it did not emerge inclusive of ten Nekudot (וְלֹא יָצְאָה כְּלוּלָה מִי׳ נְקוּדוֹת), but only one Nekudah from among them alone (רַק נְקוּדָּה אַחַת מִכֻּלָּם לְבַד), a tenth part of that Nekudah (חֵלֶק עֲשִׂירִית שֶׁבַּנְּקוּדָּה הַהִיא). It follows that their root is only five Nekudot (נִמְצָא, שְׁשָׁרְשָׁם אֵינָם רַק ה׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and it is called ten Nekudot of B"N (וְנִקְרָא עֶשֶׂר נְקוּדוֹת דְּב״ן), and these emerged first and were broken, therefore (וְאֵלּוּ יָצְאוּ רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ עַ״כּ).

It follows that after the conclusion of investigation, he wrote that the Ze'ir anpin and nukvah of the inclusive B"N only emerged in the aspect of seven Nekudot (הֲרֵי שֶׁאַחַר תַּכְלִית הָעִיּוּן כָּתַב, שֶׁהַזּו״ן דְּב״ן הַכְּלוּל לֹא יָצְאוּ רַק בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and it cannot be said as was stated by the Rav Sar Shalom, may his memory be blessed (וְאֵין לוֹמַר כְּמָ״שׁ הוּא הָרַב שַׂר שָׁלוֹם זְלָה״ה), that all the derushim of the Rav, of blessed memory, which speak of Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma and Ze'ir anpin and nukvah, are not speaking of the inclusives, but only of the five Partzufim of the first Nekudah of the ten Sefirot of a single Partzuf (דְּכָל דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב ז״ל הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן, אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר עַל הַכְּלוּלִים, כִּי אִם בְּה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת דְּי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּפַּרְצוּף א׳), for if the Rav who said this is referring to Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, it is impossible (כִּי אִם הָרַב שֶׁאָמַר הוּא עַל הָרַח״ו זְלָה״ה - אִי אֶפְשָׁר), for behold, he himself says the opposite (שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ אוֹמֵר בְּהֶפֶךְ), for he said “the ten Sefirot of the inclusive B"N” (שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר: י׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּב״ן הַכְּלוּל), and afterwards said “the first Nekudah is the Keter of B"N,” etc. (וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמַר: נְקוּדָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא כֶּתֶר דְּב״ן כו׳), and likewise in the end: “and it is called ten Nekudot of B"N” (וְכֵן בְּסוֹף: וְנִקְרָא עֶשֶׂר נְקוּדוֹת דְּב״ן).

Behold, it is explicit that he is speaking of the inclusives (הֲרֵי מְבוֹאַר שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל הַכְּלוּלִים), for if not, he ought to have said so plainly (דְּאִי לָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לוֹמַר סְתַם). And even if we press ourselves with great difficulty to say that he is speaking of the five Partzufim of the first Nekudah (וְאַף אִם נִדְחֹק עַצְמֵנוּ בִּדְחוּק גָּדוֹל, וְלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל ה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת), this too is impossible (גַּם זֶה אִי אֶפְשָׁר), for according to the words of the Rav Sar Shalom, may his memory be blessed, even the two Partzufim of Ze'ir anpin and nukvah of the first Nekudah emerged complete (שֶׁהֲרֵי לְפִי דִּבְרֵי הָרַב שַׂר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל, גַּם הַב׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּזו״ן דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמִים), that is, their upper three Sefirot complete, and their lower seven in the aspect of seven Nekudot (דְּהַיְנוּ: הַג״ר שֶׁלָּהֶם שְׁלֵמוּת, וְהַז״ת שֶׁלָּהֶם בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת).

Whereas Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, says that the Ze'ir anpin and nukvah emerged in the aspect of seven Nekudot alone (וְאִלּוּ מוּהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַזּו״ן יָצְאוּ בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת לְבַד). All the more so, it cannot be thought to say that Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital, of blessed memory, is speaking about one Nekudah from among the five Nekudot of a single Partzuf (וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת לוֹמַר, שֶׁהָרַח״ו ז״ל מְדַבֵּר עַל נְקוּדָה אַחַת מֵהֶ׳ נְקוּדוֹת דְּפַרְצוּף א׳). All the more so, according to the general rule which the Rav Sar Shalom, may his memory be blessed, gave us (וּמַה גַּם לְפִי הַכְּלָל אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָנוּ הוּא הָרַב שַׂר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל), that all the derushim of the Rav, of blessed memory, which speak of Atik, Arich Anpin, Abba and Imma, and Ze'ir anpin and nukvah, are speaking of the five Partzufim of the first Nekudah (דְּכָל דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב ז״ל שֶׁמְּדַבְּרִים בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן הֵם מְדַבְּרִים בַּה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַ). And if the Rav being referred to is the Ari, may his memory be blessed, himself (וְאִם הָרַב שֶׁאָמַר הוּא עַל הָרַב הָאֲרִ״י זְלָה״ה בְּעַצְמוֹ), then we would be forced to say that Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, did not understand the intent of his teacher, may his memory be blessed (אִם כֵּן צְרִיכִין אֲנַחְנוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהָרַח״ו ז״ל לֹא הֵבִין כַּוָּנַת רַבּוֹ זְלָה״ה), for behold there is a great difference between them (שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶפְרֵשׁ גָּדוֹל יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם): according to the words of the Rav, may his memory be blessed, the ten Sefirot of B"N are included in five Nekudot (שֶׁלְּפִי דִּבְרֵי הָרַב זְלָה״ה, הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּב״ן נִכְלָלוֹת בְּה׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and each Nekudah among them includes five Partzufim (וְכָל נְקוּדָּה מֵהֶם כּוֹלֶלֶת ה״פ), and each Partzuf among them includes ten Sefirot - upper three complete, and lower seven in the aspect of seven Nekudot (וְכָל פַּרְצוּף מֵהֶם כּוֹלֵל י׳ סְפִירוֹת: הַג״ר שְׁלֵמוֹת, וְהַז״ת בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת).

And according to the words of Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, the ten Sefirot of B"N are included in five Nekudot (וּלְפִי דִּבְרֵי הָרַח״ו ז״ל, הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּב״ן נִכְלָלוֹת בְּה׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and the first three Nekudot among them - each of them includes ten Sefirot: upper three complete and lower seven in the aspect of seven Nekudot (וְהַג׳ נְקוּדוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת מֵהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם כּוֹלֵל י׳ סְפִירוֹת: ג״ר שְׁלֵמוֹת, וְהַז״ת בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and the final two Nekudot among them are in the aspect of seven Nekudot only (וְהַב׳ נְקוּדוֹת אַחֲרוֹנוֹת מֵהֶם - הֵם בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת). If so, what is the meaning of the support that his teacher placed upon him (וְאִם כֵּן מַה זֹּאת הַסְּמִיכָה אֲשֶׁר סָמַךְ רַבּוֹ אֶת יָדָיו עָלָיו), to say that among all his students, there was none who understood him - except for Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory (לוֹמַר: כִּי מִכָּל תַּלְמִידָיו לֹא הָיָה מִי שֶׁהֵבִין אוֹתוֹ, זוּלַת מוּהַרְח״ו ז״ל), if at the root and foundation of understanding the wisdom - namely, the aspect of the Kings - he did not understand him? (מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּעִקָּר וְשֹׁרֶשׁ יְדִיעַת הַחָכְמָה, שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת הַמְּלָכִים לֹא הֵבִין אוֹתוֹ)

And how could the Rav, may his memory be blessed, not have seen in his holy spirit (וְאֵיךְ הָרַב זְלָה״ה לֹא רָאָה בְּרוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ), that Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, had not understood the foundation of the wisdom, in order to explain it to him clearly? (שֶׁהָרַח״ו ז״ל לֹא הֵבִין יְסוֹד הַחָכְמָה, כְּדֵי לְפָרְשׁוֹ אֵלָיו בְּאֵר הֵיטֵב) Rather, certainly the Rav, may his memory be blessed, had already explained it to Rabbi Chaim Vital (אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁהָרַב ז״ל, כְּבָר פֵּרֵשׁ אוֹתוֹ לְהָרַח״ו ז״ל), and he understood his words with good reasoning (וְהוּא הֵבִין דְּבָרָיו בְּטוּב טַעַם).

And therefore he wrote as mentioned (וְעַל כֵּן כָּתַב כְּאָמּוּר), for so he received from his teacher: that the Shevirah [Breaking] was also in general - that the lower seven of Ze'ir anpin and nukvah of B"N did not emerge except in the aspect of seven Nekudot (שֶׁכֵּן קִבֵּל מֵרַבּוֹ - שֶׁהַשְּׁבִירָה הָיְתָה גַּם בִּכְלָלוּת, שֶׁהַז״ת זו״ן דְּב״ן לֹא יָצְאוּ רַק בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת), and therefore he posed his difficulty (וְעַל כֵּן הִקְשָׁה קֻשְׁיָתוֹ). And in the book Mavo She‘arim, Gate Two, Section Two, chapter two, he wrote, and these are his words (וּבְסֵפֶר מְבוֹא שְׁעָרִים ש״ב ח״ב פ״ב כָּתַב, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ): The general principle arising from all this (הַכְּלַל הָעוֹלֶה מִכָּל זֶה), and it is a great root of this wisdom (וְהוּא שֹׁרֶשׁ גָּדוֹל לַחָכְמָה זוֹ), is that the ten Sefirot of Atzilut are not equal to one another (כִּי הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת דַּאֲצִילוּת אֵינָם שָׁוִין זֶה בָּזֶה).

However, their root is only five Sefirot alone (אֲבָל שָׁרְשָׁם אֵינָם רַק ה׳ סְפִירוֹת לְבַד), and the first three each one is composed of ten (וְג׳ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, כָּל אֶחָד כָּלוּל מֵעֶשֶׂר), but the fourth only emerged as the six lower parts within it (אֲבָל הַד׳ לֹא יָצְאָה רַק הַו״ק תַּחְתּוֹנוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ), from Chesed until Yesod, and Malkhut is included within it (מֵחֶסֶד עַד יְסוֹד, וּמַלְכוּת כְּלוּלָה בּוֹ). And the fifth emerged as its upper portion only - its Keter alone (וְהַה׳ יָצְאָה הַחֵלֶק הָעֶלְיוֹן הוּא הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁבָּהּ בִּלְבַד).

And afterward, at the time of the Tikkun of the Kings (וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּעֵת תִּקּוּן הַמְּלָכִים), then Ze'ir anpin and nukvah were repaired (אָז נִתְקְנוּ זו״ן), becoming each one composed of ten complete Sefirot (לִהְיוֹתָם גַּם הֵם, כָּל אֶחָד מֵי׳ סְפִירוֹת גְּמוּרוֹת). And with this you will understand why it is called “Ze’ir Anpin” (וּבָזֶה תָּבִין לָמָּה נִקְרָא ז״א), to indicate that he is small at first (לְהוֹרוֹת כִּי הוּא קָטָן בַּתְּחִלָּה), and afterward he became great through the Tikkun like the other supernal ones, Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma (וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּדֵּל עַל יְדֵי הַתִּקּוּן, כִּשְׁאָר הָעֶלְיוֹנִים א״א וְאו״א). And it follows that the Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet and Netzach, Hod, Yesod of the ten Sefirot of Atzilut are not six complete Sefirot (וְנִמְצָא, כִּי חֲג״ת נ״ה״י שֶׁל הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת דַּאֲצִילוּת אֵינָם ו׳ סְפִירוֹת גְּמוּרוֹת), but six parts of one single Sefirah only (רַק ו׳ חֲלָקֵי סְפִירָה אַחַת לְבַד). And guard this principle (וְשָׁמוֹר כְּלַל זֶה), for it is the necessary foundation for understanding this wisdom (שֶׁהוּא הַיְּסוֹד הַמֻּכְרָח בְּיְדִיעַת הַחָכְמָה הַזֹּאת). And with this, deep questions in this wisdom will be clarified to you (וְיִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ עִם זֶה שְׁאֵלוֹת עֲמוּקוֹת בַּחָכְמָה הַזֹּאת), end quote (עכ״ל).

Behold, even here it is written that the ten Sefirot of Atzilut (הֲרֵי כִּי גַם כָּאן כָּתַב שֶׁי׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּאֲצִילוּת), which refers to the entirety of Atzilut (שֶׁהַכַּוָּנָה עַל כְּלָלוּת הָאֲצִילוּת), their upper three emerged complete (יָצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁבָּהֶם שְׁלֵמוּת), and their Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah emerged in the aspect of seven points (וְהַז״וּ״ן שֶׁבָּהֶם יָצְאוּ בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת). And according to the words of Rav Shar-Shalom, may his memory be a blessing (וּכְפִי דִּבְרֵי הָרַב שַׁר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל), it must be that he is speaking about the upper three and Ze'ir anpin and nukvah of one of the five inclusive points of one Partzuf (צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל ג״ר וְזו״ן דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת דְּה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּפַרְצוּף א׳), and how could such a thought arise (וְאֵיךְ יַעֲלֶה זֶה עַל הַדַּעַת), that in the very place where he, of blessed memory, seeks to establish a general rule and introduce a foundational preface to teach us the root and essential principle of the knowledge of the Chokhmah (כִּי בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הוּא ז״ל רוֹצֶה לְכַלֵּל כְּלָל וּלְהַקְדִּים הַקְדָּמָה לָנוּ לְלַמְּדֵנוּ הַשֹּׁרֶשׁ וְהַיְּסוֹד הַמֻּכְרָח לְיְדִיעַת הַחָכְמָה), he would not write with clear and explicit wording (לֹא יִכְתֹּב בִּפֵירוּשׁ מְבֹאָר בָּאֵר הֵיטֵב).

And not only this (וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד), but he wrote in language whose intent appears clearly from end to end (אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּתְבוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן הַנִּרְאֶה כַּוָּנָתוֹ מִן הַקָּצֶה אֶל הַקָּצֶה), for from the beginning of his wording to its end, he wrote: “the ten Sefirot of Atzilut,” the meaning of which is the entirety of Atzilut (שֶׁהֲרֵי מִתְּחִלַּת הַלָּשׁוֹן עַד סוֹפוֹ כָּתַב י׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּאֲצִילוּת שֶׁפֵּרוּשׁוֹ הוּא עַל כְּלָלוּת הָאֲצִילוּת), and at the very least he should have written simply that “the ten Sefirot are not equal one to another,” etc. (וּלְפָחוֹת הוּא לֵיהּ לִכְתוֹב סְתַם כִּי הַי׳ סְפִירוֹת אֵינָם שָׁוִין זֹאת לָזוֹ כו׳), and then we would have said that his intent was upon each and every individual aspect of the ten Sefirot (וְאָז הָיִינוּ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁכַּוָּנָתוֹ עַל כָּל בְּחִינָה וּבְחִינָה שֶׁל י׳ סְפִירוֹת).

Rather, certainly, from his statement “the ten Sefirot of Atzilut,” it is clear that he is speaking about the entirety of Atzilut (אֶלָּא וַדַּאי מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמַר י׳ סְפִירוֹת דְּאֲצִילוּת, הוּא שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל כְּלָלוּת הָאֲצִילוּת), for so is his opinion, the supreme opinion, from beginning to end (כִּי כֵן דַּעְתּוֹ דַּעַת עֶלְיוֹן מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ). For the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of the generality of the Name B"N (כִּי הַז״ו״ן דְּכְלָלוּת הַשֵּׁם ב״ן), did not emerge except in the aspect of seven points (לֹא יָצְאוּ רַק בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת). And if this general rule and this introduction are the words of Rabbi Chaim Vital of blessed memory from his own thought (וְאִם כְּלָל זֶה וְהַקְדָּמָה זוֹ הֵם דִּבְרֵי הָרח״ו ז״ל מֵעַצְמוֹ), and the general rule of Rav Shar-Shalom, may his memory be a blessing the Rav who spoke is concerning the words of the Ari himself, may his memory be for a blessing and life of the World to Come (וּכְלַל הָרַב שַׁר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל, הָרַב שֶׁאָמַר, הוּא עַל דִּבְרֵי הָרַב הָאֲרִ״י זְלָה״ה בְּעַצְמוֹ).

If so, one must say, as stated above (אִם כֵּן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר כְּמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר לְעֵיל), that in the essential root and foundation of the knowledge of the Chokhmah (שֶׁבְּעִקָּר וְשֹׁרֶשׁ וִיסוֹד יְדִיעַת הַחָכְמָה), Rabbi Chaim Vital, may his memory be a blessing, did not understand his teacher, may his memory be a blessing (לֹא הֵבִין הָרח״ו ז״ל לְרַבּוֹ ז״ל), and this cannot be entertained in the mind (וְזֶה לֹא יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת). And in my humble opinion, the greater wonder concerning Rav Shar-Shalom, may his memory be a blessing (וּלְעַדִּי״ן הַיּוֹתֵר תֵּמָא עַל הָרַב שַׁר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל), is from the details of the Shevirah [Breaking] mentioned in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine, chapters six and seven (הוּא מִפְּרָטוּת הַשְּׁבִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ פ״ו וּפ״ז), for whoever sees there will see that it explicitly discusses the five inclusive Partzufim of the Name B"N in totality (אֲשֶׁר הָרוֹאֶה שָׁם יִרְאֶה שֶׁבִּפֵירוּשׁ מְדַבֵּר עַל הַה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים הַכּוֹלְלִים דְּשֵׁם ב״ן הַכּוֹלֵל), and there is no need to elaborate further (שֶׁאֵין צֹרֶךְ לְהַאֲרִיךְ).

For there it is explained (כִּי שָׁם הוּא מְבֹאָר), and after having detailed the shattering in the seven lower of Atik (וְאַחַר אֲשֶׁר פֵּרֵט הַשְּׁבִירָה בְּז״ת דְּעַתִּיק), and in the seven lower of Arich (וּבְז״ת דְּאֲרִיךְ), and in the seven lower of Abba and Imma (וּבְז״ת דְּאו״א), when he reached Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְזו״ן), he wrote: “Indeed, the two lower points (כָּתַב אֲמְנָם ב׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת), which include the seven lower of B"N (שֶׁהֵם כּוֹלְלִים ז״ת דְּב״ן), did not emerge each one in the aspect of ten Sefirot like the first three points (לֹא יָצְאוּ כָּל אֶחָד בִּבְחִינַת י׳ סְפִירוֹת כְּמוֹ הַג׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָא׳). However, the fourth point, which corresponds to Ze’ir Anpin of B"N (אֲמְנָם הַנְּקוּדָה הַד׳ שֶׁהִיא כְּנֶגֶד ז״א דְּב״ן), its upper three remained in the third point of B"N, which is the aspect of Imma of the generality of B"N (נִשְׁאֲרוּ ג״ר שֶׁבּוֹ בַּנְּקוּדָה הַג׳ דְּב״ן שֶׁהִיא בְּחִינַת אִימָּא דִּכְלָלוּת דְּב״ן), and this is the root of the sons (וְהוּא שֹׁרֶשׁ הַבָּנִים). And from the fifth point, which is Malkhut of B"N (וּמִן הַנְּקוּדָה ה׳ שֶׁהִיא מַלְכוּת דְּב״ן), all nine lower ones within her remained above, in the manner of Ze’ir Anpin (נִשְׁאֲרוּ כָּל הַט׳ אַחֲרוֹנוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּדֶרֶךְ ז״א), and only the Keter within her emerged alone (וְלֹא יָצָאת רַק כֶּתֶר שֶׁבָּהּ לְבַדּ).

And through this is understood how they are seven, and yet they are only two points (וּבְזֶה יוּבַן אֵיךְ הֵם ז׳ וְהֵם ב׳ הַנְּקוּדוֹת לְבַד), thus it is found that whether in the first three points of the generality of B"N (נִמְצָא כִּי בֵּין בְּג׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָא׳ דְּכְלָלוּת דְּב״ן), or in the last two points of the generality of B"N (וּבֵין בִּב׳ נְקוּדוֹת אַחֲרוֹנוֹת דְּכְלָלוּת דְּב״ן), which are the aspect of the seven lower of the generality of B"N (שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת ז״ת דְּכְלָלוּת דְּב״ן), in all of them the shattering was equal (בְּכֻלָּם הָיְתָה הַשְּׁבִירָה שָׁוֶה), that only the seven were broken (שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבְּרוּ רַק הַז׳ לְבַד). However, there is a distinction (וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן יֵשׁ הֶפְרֵשׁ), for in the first three points, the upper three of each and every point emerged (כִּי בְּג׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָא׳ יָצְאוּ גַּם ג״ר שֶׁבְּכָל נְקוּדָה וּנְקוּדָה), and they were not broken (וְלֹא נִשְׁבְּרוּ), but in the two lower points, which are the totality of the seven (אֲבָל בִּב׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵם כְּלָלוּת הַז׳), the upper three of each of their points did not emerge at all (לֹא יָצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁבְּכָל נְקוּדָה מֵהֶם כְּלָל וָעִיקַר).

And know that just as we said concerning the generality of B"N (וְדַע כִּי עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בִּכְלָלוּת הַב״ן), that the two lower points among them, which are the generality of the seven kings (כִּי ב׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת שֶׁבָּהֶם שֶׁהֵם כְּלָלוּת ז׳ מְלָכִים), their upper three did not emerge at all (לֹא יָצְאוּ ג״ר שֶׁלָּהֶם כְּלָל). So too in all the seven kings of each one of the first three points of the generality of B"N (כֵּן בְּכָל ז׳ מְלָכִים דְּכָל א׳ מִן הַג׳ נְקוּדוֹת הָא׳ דְּב״ן), the upper three of the seven kings themselves in their particularity did not emerge (לֹא יָצְאוּ הַג״ר דְּז׳ מְלָכִים עַצְמָן דְּפְרָטוּת), but remained in their Binah within that very point itself (וְנִשְׁאֲרוּ בִּבִינָה שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁבְּאוֹתָהּ נְקוּדָה עַצְמָהּ כו׳), see there his explanation (עַיֵּין שָׁם בֵּיאוּרוֹ).

Behold, it is clearly explained, in such clarity that it is impossible to explain further (הֲרֵי מְבוֹאָר בָּאֵר הֵיטֵב שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְבָאֵר יוֹתֵר), that from this it is understood: in the place where he wrote about the matter of the shattering in the detail of all the Partzufim (מְבוֹאָר מִזֶּה שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם שֶׁכָּתַב עִנְיַן הַשְּׁבִירָה בִּפְרָטוּת כָּל הַפַּרְצוּפִים), he wrote that the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of the generality of B"N did not emerge except (כָּתַב שֶׁהַז״ו״ן דְּכְלָלוּת דְּב״ן לֹא יָצְאוּ רַק) in the aspect of seven points (בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת).

And even if we force ourselves and thread an elephant through the eye of a needle (וְאַף אִם נִדְחֹק אֶת עַצְמֵנוּ וְנָעִיל פִּילָא בְּקוּפָּא דְּמַחְטָא), reversing the understanding and plain sense of the language (הֶפֶךְ הַמּוּבָן וּפְשָׁטוּת הַלָּשׁוֹן), to say that he is speaking of the five Partzufim of one point, as per the words of Rav Shar-Shalom, may his memory be a blessing (לוֹמַר שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר עַל הַה״פ דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת כְּדִבְרֵי הָרַב שַׁר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל), it is still difficult upon him, as stated above (אַכְּתִּי קַשְׁיָא עָלָיו כְּמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר לְעֵיל).

For according to his words, may his memory be a blessing (כִּי לְפִי דְּבָרָיו ז״ל), even the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah included in the first point emerged complete (גַּם הַז״ו״ן הַכּוֹלְלִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת יָצְאוּ שְׁלֵמִים), that is, their upper three in completeness (דְּהַיְנוּ הַג״ר שֶׁלָּהֶם שְׁלֵמוּת), and their seven lower in the aspect of seven points (וְהַז״ת שֶׁלָּהֶם בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת). And according to the above derush in its interpretation, it is stated repeatedly and emphatically (וּלְפִי הַדְּרוּשׁ הַנ״ל בְּפֵירוּשׁוֹ אִיתָמַר כָּפוּל וּמְכוּפָּל), that the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah emerged in the aspect of seven points (שֶׁהַז״ו״ן יָצְאוּ בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת).

And not only this (וְלֹא עוֹד), but according to his words, may his memory be a blessing, it is difficult both regarding the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin and regarding the aspect of the Nukvah (אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּפִי דְּבָרָיו ז״ל קָשֶׁה בֵּין עַל בְּחִינַת ז״א בֵּין עַל בְּחִינַת הַנֻּקְבָּא). However, according to the plain meaning of the language - that they are the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah included in B"N (אֲבָל לְפִי פְּשָׁטוּת הַלָּשׁוֹן, שֶׁהֵם זו״ן הַכּוֹלְלִים דְּב״ן), which are the two lower points of B"N (שֶׁהֵם ב׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת דְּב״ן) - then the difficulty rests only on the question of Rabbi Chaim Vital, may his memory be for life of the World to Come, regarding the aspect of the Nukvah (אֵינוֹ קָשֶׁה רַק קֻשְׁיָת מוֹהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה עַל בְּחִינַת הַנֻּקְבָּא), for in Ze’ir Anpin, in the end, the aspects of the seven kings are already present, as stated above (כִּי בְּז״א כְּבָר סוֹף סוֹף נִמְצָאִים בְּחִינַת ז״מ, וּכְמַשֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר לְעֵיל).

All the more so, it should not enter one’s mind to say (וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת לוֹמַר), that he is speaking about the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of the first point among the five inclusive points of each Partzuf (שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר בְּזו״ן דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת מֵה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף), for aside from the fact that the language cannot bear such specificity at all (שֶׁמִּלְּבַד שֶׁהַלָּשׁוֹן לֹא יִסְבּוֹל פְּרָטוּת זֶה כְּלָל וָעִיקַר), even so, it is impossible to say this (עַכָּ״ז אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמְרָן), for even according to his words, may his memory be a blessing, the Shevirah [Breaking] was only in Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (שֶׁהֲרֵי גַּם לְפִי דְּבָרָיו ז״ל הַשְּׁבִירָה לֹא הָיְתָה רַק בְּזו״ן), that is, in the seven lower of each and every point of the five inclusive points of each Partzuf (שֶׁהֵם הַז״ת דְּכָל נְקוּדָה וּנְקוּדָה דְּה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף).

But the upper three of each and every point of the five inclusive points of each Partzuf were sustained (אֲבָל הַג״ר דְּכָל נְקוּדָה וּנְקוּדָה מֵהַה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף נִתְקַיְּמוּ). And yet in the specific order of that shattering mentioned there (וְאִלּוּ בְּסֵדֶר פְּרָטוּת הַשְּׁבִירָה הַזֶּה הָאֲמוּר שָׁם), it begins from the seven lower of Atik (מַתְחִיל מִז״ת דְּעַתִּיק), and afterward the seven lower of Arich Anpin (וְאַחַר כָּךְ ז״ת דְּא״א), and afterward the seven lower of Abba (וְאַחַר כָּךְ ז״ת דְּאַבָּא), and afterward the seven lower of Imma (וְאַחַר כָּךְ ז״ת דְּאִמָּא). If so, it is necessary to conclude (וְאִם כֵּן מֻכְרָח), that the shattering of Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah mentioned there afterward (כִּי שְׁבִירַת זו״ן הָאֲמוּרָה שָׁם אַחַר כָּךְ), is either regarding the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah of the generality of B"N (הִיא אוֹ עַל זו״ן דְּכְלָלוּת דְּב״ן), or, with difficulty, upon the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah included in the first point (אוֹ בְּדוֹחַק עַל זו״ן הַכּוֹלְלִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת), which are the two points of the five inclusive points of each Partzuf, according to his words, may his memory be a blessing (שֶׁהֵם הַב׳ נְקוּדוֹת מֵה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּכָל פַּרְצוּף לְפִי דְּבָרָיו ז״ל).

All the more so according to the principle that he gave us (וּמַה גָּם לְפִי הַכְּלָל אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָנוּ), that all the teachings of the Rav, may his memory be blessed, which speak about Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (כִּי כָּל דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב ז״ל הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן), are speaking of the five Partzufim of the first point (הֵם מְדַבְּרִים בְּה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת), even so, it does not settle even according to his words, and remains difficult, as stated above (וְעַכָּ״ז אֵינוֹ מִתְיַשֵּׁב גַּם לְפִי דְּבָרָיו, וְקָשֶׁה עָלָיו כמש״ל).

Thus it is found, that according to this order in the specific account of the shattering, which Rabbi Chaim Vital, may his memory be blessed, heard from his teacher, may his memory be blessed (נִמְצָא כִּי כְּפִי זֶה הַסֵּדֶר בִּפְרָטוּת הַשְּׁבִירָה שֶׁשָּׁמַע מוֹהַרְח״ו ז״ל מֵרַבּוֹ ז״ל), his objection stands in its place (קֻשְׁיָתוֹ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת), and it contradicts the specifics as stated by Rav Shar-Shalom, may his memory be a blessing (וְהוּא סוֹתֵר פְּרָטוּת הָרַב שַׁר שָׁלוֹם ז״ל), even if we interpret him according to his own view, may his memory be blessed (גַּם אִם נְפָרְשֵׁהוּ לְפִי דְבָרָיו ז״ל), even though it is contrary to the plain understanding (עִם שֶׁהוּא הֶפֶךְ הַמּוּבָן בִּפְשִׁיטוּת). And even according to the stated rule (וְגַם לְפִי הַכְּלָל הָאָמוּר), that all the derashot of the Rav, may his memory be blessed, which speak of Atik and Arich Anpin and Abba and Imma and Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah (שֶׁכָּל דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב זַלְעֵהוּ הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּעַתִּיק וְא״א וְאו״א וְזו״ן), they are about the five Partzufim of the first point (הֵם בְּה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת) - in my humble opinion it is difficult upon him (לְעַדִּי״ן קָשֶׁה עָלָיו), from what is written in Etz Chayim, Gate of the Tikkunim, chapter five (מִמַּה שֶּׁכָּתַב בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר הַתִּקּוּן פ״ה), where it begins from Atik, etc. (שֶׁשָּׁם הִתְחִיל מֵעַתִּיק כו׳), and says that Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah emerged as seven points (וְאָמַר שֶׁזו״ן יָצְאוּ ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת).

And according to his words, may his memory be blessed, the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah and the five Partzufim of the first point also emerged complete, like the upper three (וּלְפִי דְבָרָיו ז״ל הַז״ו״ן וְהַה״פ דְּנְקוּדָה אַחַת יָצְאוּ גַּם כֵּן שְׁלֵמִים כְּמוֹ הַג״ר). And this very wording from Sha‘ar haTikkunim is brought in the section that follows this one (וְהוּבָא לְשׁוֹן זֶה דְּשַׁעַר הַתִּקּוּן בְּסִימָן שֶׁאַחַר זֶה).

Accordingly, what appears to me in brief (בְּאוֹפֶן כִּי מַה שֶּׁנִּלְעַ״ד בְּקִצּוּר), according to the plain meaning of the language of the derashot of the Rav, may his memory be blessed (לְפִי פְּשָׁטוּת לְשׁוֹנוֹת דְּרוּשֵׁי הָרַב זל״ה), is that from many places it appears that the Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah included in B"N (הוּא כִּי מֵרֹב הַמְּקוֹמוֹת נִרְאֶה שֶׁזו״ן הַכּוֹלְלִים דְּב״ן), did not emerge except in the aspect of seven points (לֹא יָצְאוּ רַק בִּבְחִינַת ז׳ נְקוּדוֹת), that is: Ze’ir Anpin in the aspect of the six portions of the point (דְּהַיְנוּ ז״א בִּבְחִינַת ו׳ חִלְקֵי הַנְּקוּדָּה), and the Nukvah in the aspect of the tenth portion, which is the Keter within her (וְנוּקְבָא בִּבְחִינַת חֵלֶק הָעֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהוּא הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁבָּהּ). And according to what is written in the book Mavo She’arim (וּלְפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר מָבוֹא שְׁעָרִים), and in Likutin, and in Sha‘ar Ma’amaré haRashbi, peace be upon him (וּבַלִּיקּוּטִין וּבְשַׁעַר מַאֲמָרֵי הָרַשְׁבִּ״י ע״ה), it is that also in Ze’ir Anpin and Nukvah emerged their upper three - Keter, Chokhmah, and Binah - and they were sustained (הוּא כִּי גַּם בְּזו״ן יָצְאוּ הַג״ר כַּח״ב שֶׁלָּהֶם וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ), and their lower seven - whether of Ze’ir Anpin or of Nukvah - emerged and were broken (וְיָצְאוּ הַז״ת בֵּין דְּז״א בֵּין דְּנוּקְבָא וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ).

Thus, these two accounts contradict one another (וְנִמְצָא כִּי ב׳ שְׁמוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ סוֹתוֹרוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ), except that with regard to the aspect of Ze’ir Anpin one may force an explanation and say (אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּבְחִינַת ז״א אֶפְשָׁר לִדְחוֹק וְלוֹמַר), that what was said - that his upper three emerged - refers to their source in the Ayin of Adam Kadmon (כִּי מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר שֶׁיָּצְאוּ הַג״ר שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מִמְּאַצִּילָם שֶׁהוּא הָעַיֵּין דְּאָדָם קַדְמוֹן), but in his place below, only his lower seven were revealed (אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לְמַטָּה לֹא נִתְגַּלּוּ רַק הַז״ת שֶׁלּוֹ), for his upper three remained in the third point of B"N in totality (כִּי הַג״ר שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׁאֲרוּ בַּנְּקוּדָה הַג׳ דְּב״ן הַכּוֹלֵל), which is the Binah - the mother of the sons (שֶׁהִיא הַבִּינָה אֵם הַבָּנִים). And from his Binah, which is included there, his lower seven emerged (וּמִן הַבִּינָה שֶׁלּוֹ הַכְּלוּלָה שָׁם, יָצְאוּ הַז״ת שֶׁלּוֹ), which are his seven kings and they were broken (שֶׁהֵם הַז״מ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ). But regarding the aspect of the Nukvah it is difficult (אֲבָל לְבְחִינַת הַנֻּקְבָּא קָשֶׁה), and this is the objection of Rabbi Chaim Vital, may his memory be blessed (וְהִיא קֻשְׁיַּת מוֹהַרְח״ו זְלָה״ה).

And even in those places where it is stated that the incident of the kings occurred in specificity in all the five Partzufim (וַאֲפִלּוּ לִמְקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי מִקְרֵה הַמְּלָכִים הָיָה בִּפְרָטוּת בְּכָל הַה״פ), it is only regarding the five inclusive Partzufim of B"N (אֵינוֹ רַק בַּה׳ פַּרְצוּפִים הַכּוֹלְלִים דְּב״ן), which are the five inclusive points of B"N (שֶׁהֵם הַה׳ נְקוּדוֹת הַכּוֹלְלוֹת דְּב״ן), once in each inclusive Partzuf (פַּעַם אַחַת בְּכָל פַּרְצוּף כּוֹלֵל), where the upper three emerged and were sustained, and the lower seven emerged and were broken (שֶׁהַג״ר שֶׁלּוֹ יָצְאוּ וְנִתְקַיְּמוּ, וְהַז״ת שֶׁלּוֹ יָצְאוּ וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ), in such a way that the shattering occurred only five times (בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁהָיְתָה הַשְּׁבִירָה חָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים בִּלְבַד). And so it is explained in Etz Chayim, Gate Nine, chapter six (וְכֵן מְבוֹאָר בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר ט׳ פ״ו), according to the plain meaning of the language stated there (כְּפִי פְּשָׁטוּת הַלָּשׁוֹן הָאֲמוּר שָׁם), see there (עַיֵּין שָׁם), and see Sha‘ar Tikkun haNukvah, chapter two, general principle nine (וְעַיֵּין בִּשְׁעַר תִּקּוּן הַנֻּקְבָּא פ״ב כְּלָל ט׳), and in Sha‘ar Chitzoniyut and Pnimiyut, chapter six (וּבִשְׁעַר חִיצוֹנִיּוּת וּפְנִימִיּוּת פ״ו), and examine well, for so it appears to me in humility (וְדוּ״ק, כְּנֶעֱלַ״ד א״נ׳ק״ד).