Pardes Rimmonim 2

The Second Gate is the Gate of the reason of the emanation.

On the reason why there are ten [Sefirot] and not more. And after we have in the previous gate been occupied with the necessity of the subject of the emanation, and [with] that it is agreed upon among the Kabbalists that they are ten, not less and not more, and [after] we have arranged their subjects and their names, we want in this Gate to give the reason why they are ten, and on the subject of the emanation, its totality in general, with help of HaShem and His aid.

First Chapter

When we were delighting ourselves in the garden of the pleasures of the books of the wise on this wisdom, we have found that the sage Rabbi Yehuda Chayyati in his book “The Offering of Yehuda” (folio 9b) has written on the reason of the [number] ten. The first reason is in the name of Rabbi Azriel [of Gerona], and [has] his [= R. Yehuda Chayyati’s] answer [to this] from his part. And this is what it says: ‘Know that every point comes with three axes: length, width and depth. And when you multiply them, each one with the other by method of the square number, the three make nine, and with the place that bears them they are ten’. End of citation. And Rabbi Yehuda questioned him and this is what he says: ‘It is not good in my eyes, this reason, for two reasons. The first [is] that the preamble is not true, because the axes mentioned have quantity, but the point does not have quantity as it is an end of the line. And further [the second reason is:] [would it be] proper in the eyes of HaShem that the mentioned axes, with which substance is enclosed, would be attributed to the emanation/Atsilut? But isn’t it so [that] in the godhead “the substance/(rain) is vanished and away” [Song of Songs 2:11].’ End of citation.

And because his words [= those of R. Yehuda Chayyati] are partly unclear, especially in the first objection, when he says that the point has no quantity etc., we want to explain his intention. And the subject/topic is that everything material has length, width and depth, and you will find no material matter in the world that does not have these three, as these are the walls of the body. But when two walls of the body by themselves are imagined, being length and width without depth, it is called a ‘plane’ (שטח), of which the explanation is: as the coloring that is spread (שטוח) on the surface of the paper with which length and width are justified, but depth is not justified with it, and therefore it is called ‘plane’ (שטח). And when we imagine the wall of the body [to be] only one by itself, being the length and not the width, it is called ‘line’, explanation: line [is] the length being deprived of the width, and similarly of the depth. And when we imagine the deprivation of [all] three walls of the body, you will call this subject ‘point’. And the subject [is] that it does not have length or width or depth. And not because it could be in reality, but it is called ‘point’ formally [= abstract], that is the conception of the deprivation of the walls of the [material] body, and not that it would exist in reality. And with this preamble the intention of R. Yehuda will be understood, who contradicted R. Azriel whose words were unclear, who said that a point comes with three axes, but this is not possible, as a point does not have length nor width nor depth, but that it is the end of the line, explanation: just as we have explained that it is the end of the line, [this means] that it [= the end] is also the deprivation of length, and it is found that the point does not have any walls at all. And his saying that it is the end of the line is not agreed upon by the masters of geometry. As there are some who say that two points or more, their gathering makes a line, but there are some [others] who say that even if all points in the world are gathered, it does not make the line, since as the point does not have length at all, it is not possible that by way of it the length will come into being. But this does not belong to the root of the discussion we are having.

And see R. Yehuda, to his two objections to the opinion of R. Azriel, explained [it] by using number to the defense of R. Azriel, but as the matter is not suited nor accepted, we do not copy it here. But it seems to us to consider carefully the defense of R. Azriel, and we say that the truth [is] that the emanation/Atsilut does not have body nor material. Nevertheless out of it body and material is stretched, and, just as the masters of the Kabbalah believe, the four elements, which are Water, Fire, Air and Earth, are alluded to by the Sefirot, and they are: Gedolah is [connected to] the element Water, and Gevurah is [connected to] the element Fire, and Tif’eret is [connected to] the element Air, and Malkut is [connected to] the element Earth. But it is not on account of them being themselves the elements, God forbid! But they are the root of the elements, and the elements are created out of their root. Similarly the subject on the walls of the body, as the subject is not that there would be an actual body above, and not that it would be right that in the Sefirot [are] the walls of the body, but [it is that] because the body is created out of them and they are its root, [that] they [= the walls of the body] are found to be in the roots [= the Sefirot] by way of the attribute of reality: the walls of the body. And therefore it is right above that we speak of length, width and depth. And the intention is: the power that is in it [= the walls of the body] we will make the length, the power that is in it we will make the width, and the power that is in it we will make the depth. And thus [with] each one of these three powers making three different actions, it is found that their reality is nine. And the provider of the reality of the body prior to its reaching its walls is the tenth power. See that [this shows that] there are by necessity ten powers above which are the ten Sefirot. And not that the opinion of Rabbi Azriel is that there would above be walls of the body, God forbid!Further it seems that from the beginning there was no difficulty, as Rabbi Azriel did well when he compared emanation/Atsilut to the walls of the body, as permission had already been given to this matter.

And see, in Sefer Yetzirah one has walked this way [already] in its saying: “depth of above and depth of below” [Sefer Yetzirah 1:5], and above and below, east and west, and south and north [on which the verse in Sefer Yetzirah further extends], they are the walls of the body, and nevertheless one did not withhold oneself in Sefer Yetzirah to [applying] its likeness in the godhead as they are comparison and similitude necessarily. And to the second objection, that the point has no quantity, this does not contain criticism. As see, there is no point that does not have walls for sure, and if we have above said that the point does not have quantity, this holds only so for a formal point which is not in reality. And the point which is itself in reality does have axes, and if this is so, it does not contain criticism.

And further, since the emanation does not have body nor corporeality, he qualifies it by the expression ‘point’, as it does not have corporeality, although the emanation is the root of the body and its walls.

And now we will write what R. Yehuda wrote on the reason of the emanation, and this is what he writes: ‘Since emanation has come in a point, we must acknowledge reluctantly that in this point there is beginning, middle and end. We must acknowledge end, because we see that the things created [would be] from the side of power which had no end, they would have been going [on] without end, and they would exist for always, and that was not the intention. And since it does have end, (if this is so) it does have beginning, as there is no end without beginning, and there is no beginning without end. And abstain yourself from thinking [that] in my saying ‘beginning, middle, end’ the intention is beginning, middle, end of quantity, God forbid!, but [my intention is] on the subject of power, because there is a difference between the cause and the caused. And because all three mentioned extremities in the point [each of them] consists of the three, as in beginning there is end [and] middle, and similarly in middle and end, we find that they mount [to] nine, as when three is multiplied by three by way of the square number, and the place that bears etc.’, end of citation.

See, these are a small part of his matters in short, and he brought many sayings from the Zohar as proof. But as these sayings are no proof at all for his matters, we haven’t seen [it necessary] to copy them. And when it is fitting to question his matters and the matters of Rabbi Azriel of blessed memory, is: when the reason of the ten is the point which possesses three [parts], and each one [of these three parts] is composed of three [parts], if this is so, we also say that each part of the three [parts] which is in each of the three parts, is [also] composed of the three [parts], and they will go up without end from three to three [= this division into three can be repeated infinitely]. And if we do not want to count them up in this way, the first sum which we make, from three [to] nine, from where does it come? And this is very a large objection. Until in this, there are [some] who wanted to join two opinions [to] one, and one said that each point has length, width and depth, and each one out of [these] three has end, middle and beginning, see [this makes] nine, and the place surrounding it see [this makes] ten. And in my hands to question those who have these three opinions [that of “length, width, depth”, that of “beginning, middle, end”, and that of their combination] as I see no place for these matters, as they found that the bodies and the border are necessary for the reality of emanation, and this is an unacceptable matter, as it is said that, since these very walls are necessary [for the creation, later on in the process], the number of the Sefirot should be necessarily thus, as, see, the Sefirot act and generate the world and all creatures. And see, if there were sixteen perhaps that in the reality of the walls there would be sixteen matters, four times four. But who has wanted to force the reality of the form of the father because of the reality of the form of the son? And when one boasted the necessity that Ruben will have hands according to [the fact] that his son has hands, or similarly the necessity that Ruben has three hands according to [the fact] that his son has three hands, but how is the form of the cause necessary because of the form of the effect? As according to the truth the cause is the essential and the effect is of secondary import to it. And how could it be that the effect compels the form of the reality of its cause? I wonder!

And further on the matters of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the point has in it, end, middle, end, and that in each one of these three there is [again] end, middle, end. Also this [view] is not considered good, as see [for] middle it is not possible that there is inside it end and beginning, because if there would be inside it end and beginning, there would not be middle, and when it is middle, in it end and beginning is not justified, as its beginning is the first beginning and its end is the last end, as end and beginning is not quantitative end and [quantitative] beginning, but cessation of its power or its beginning. And how is it possible to say that there is a power for which there will be cessation of its power or beginning of it, unless its cessation [is] the last [absolute] one or its beginning is the first [absolute] one, which is its beginning and its end in itself.

And further, because the intention is not on beginning and end, but on the subject of cessation of the power or its inception, as we have explained, if this is so, because the end is cessation of the power, how in this cessation can we say ‘beginning’ and ‘middle’, as see, there is nothing but naught, as [there is] naught of power, and in naught there is no inception nor middle; while it is possible to settle somewhat from this, [this is] with difficulty. And by way of what is the difficulty for Rabbi Azriel, that the axes of corporeality, how they will ‘be attributed to the emanation’, ‘as in the godhead etc.’ And also, according to his opinion, which will do, how will the cessation of power and the inception of power fall on emanation, as it is not right that in the godhead there is deficiency of power, heaven forbid, as it is complete of the perfection of completeness. And against our will we will reply to this [difficulty] one out of two matters. The first [matter] is forced by reason as there is a division between the En Sof and the emanated realities as the division between cause and effect, and therefore a little cessation of the power is justified in it, because by necessity, it is only a resemblance of the Emanator Himself, by reason that it descends from Him and it is emanated from Him, and this subject is not a deficiency on the Emanator, heaven forbid, and not in what is emanated, but because it is emanated and [is] effect, it is necessary to descend a degree from the cause, and this is because of the elevated place of the Emanator above the emanated, and by reason of this cessation of power is justified in it somewhat. Or that it is said that it is necessary that there is a boundary in their activities to the fulfillment of the intention of the Emanator, which is that the created entities will possess inception and cessation. If this is so, also to the matters of Rav Rabbi Azriel we will say that the boundary is necessary in emanation because of these reasons: The first [reason is that] as the first cause is the perfection of the negation of cessation of form and of the quantity of each and all, truly [it is so that] the entities [that are] emanated from it, according to their descent from before it, necessarily are limited somewhat with a formal boundary, but not [with] the real boundary, truly in the order of the emanator which is their cause, from which we are obliged to negate the boundary and the cessation and the other similar subjects to it, it is necessary that there is for the emanated entities a difference from it [=the emanator], as the difference of the effect from the cause.

And further, second [reason], so that the created entities that are extended from the emanated entities do possess boundary, and this is its blessed power, as just as the world is created out of not[hing], similarly En Sof, King of Kings, did emanate the emanated entities, from which the actions extend that possess end, so that the created entities will possess boundary. And it is necessary for one who is considering this to understand his [= Rabbi Azriel’s] opinion and to establish it and to strengthen it, and to straighten it towards truth. And one should not think that our intention in this is to make a boundary, nor in the emanator nor in the emanated entities, Heaven forbid! But the intention in this is that, after body and boundary have been negated along with quantity, cessation of the power, aim and end, from the emanation, the pure and holy, aim of negation and distance, we are obliged in complete necessity to raise up further in a degree higher and more select in En Sof, the King of Kings. And therefore, they have called it En Sof (“There is no end”), because of the mentioned reason. And speaking scanty of speech on this subject is good and becoming, and both on this and on what follows from it, it has been said (Proverbs 27:26) “lambs [will suffice] for your clothing [but [for] the price of a field [one needs] rams]”. And nevertheless, we want to force the subject with the words of the Rashbi of blessed memory in the Tikkunim (Tikkunei Zohar 135b), and this is what it says: ‘Superior Keter, although it is the primordial light, bright light, polished light, it is black before the cause of causes’, end of citation.

And the intention of ‘although’ it is ‘bright light etc.’ uppermost purity, and it [belongs] in what has no boundary, and we are obliged to eliminate from it density and boundary, nevertheless we are obliged to believe that it has density and boundary and cessation of the light and the force, compared to the emanator which is its cause. And therefore he [= Rashbi] employs in this citation for En Sof the expression ‘cause of causes’, and the intention [is] to forge the subject, with absolute necessity, that it is the cause of causes of all, and therefore it is necessary for it to be above all. And when all deficiency that is in the world is negated from emanation, and we raise it on the rung that is the most perfect as possible in the world, from it will extend the negation of the reality of the first reason, with Keter being above, for which there is no [place] above it; if this is so, what is the above that raises itself above? The emanator. Therefore, we are obliged to give a place whereto we will raise the emanator, above all emanated entities, when we raise the emanated entities with everything possible. And man needs to consider this matter closely, and should not hasten to answer quickly.