Pardes Rimmonim 3

The third Gate to know if En Sof is Keter.

What is intended in this Gate is to take up and to allow for the subject of the confusion that has fallen among the kabbalists to know whether En Sof is Keter itself or [that it is something] apart from it. And this is the name with which they will call it [= this Gate]: “If En Sof is Keter”.

First chapter.

Many of the Kabbalists among those of our people are confused with much confusion and have fallen into the pit of error, and have thought that upper Keter is En Sof, and that it [= En Sof] is among the number of the ten [Sefirot]. And some of them said that, since we have ten degrees, what need is there for further emanation, except that the subject of the Emanator with the emanated entities is ten? And they thought that [this] is supported by the mishna of Sefer Yetzirah which said: ‘Ten and not nine, ten and not eleven’ [Sefer Yetzirah 1:4], and they said that its saying ‘not eleven’ [intends] to say that one does not add further to the ten, but that ten are really with the Emanator which is En Sof, upper Keter. This is their manner [of understanding this mishna]. ‘And their masters have permitted them’, as this is the subject of cutting and separation, and he who observes what I have explained on this mishna in the first Gate in chapter six will see that, on the contrary, from there is [actually] proof for the opposite.

And see, this logical argument is put off by many reasons: if you want, say [a verse from] Scripture, if you want, say a logical argument. The logical argument is from the fact that the Emanator is distinct from His emanations on many points. The first [point of difference is] that the emanated entities do fall under time, and He [= the Emanator] does not fall under time. But I do not mean [here] time according to the simple meaning of our words [time as it is here below, in our physical reality], but the intention [of the word ‘time’ here] is that there already was such ‘time’ when there were not [yet] emanations, as [is the case] prior to the Emanation. And this is one of the matters withheld from En Sof, as there is no existence when It does not exist, but It is by necessity the existence and It is the provider of time, and not that It is subjected to time, Heaven forbid! 1This is a difficult paragraph; to me it appears that the Ramak thinks of a different kind of (causal) time, outside of En Sof, but prior to Emanation< . And on this subject is understood its saying: ‘First, and [there is] no beginning to His beginning’ [Piyyut ‘Yigdal’ by Daniel ben Yehuda (13th century) based on Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith] as although it is said ‘first’ - and each expression of ‘first’ points to [the fact that] it does possess beginning, as truly He is first for all that came behind him - , but the expression ‘first’ [here] points to the beginning of time. And on this it said that He is ‘first’ and nevertheless ‘there is no beginning to His beginning’, and the expression ‘first’ is only there to deny that there is anything prior to Him besides Him. And this is what it says in the Tikkunim [Tikkunei Zohar; Petichat Eliyahu] “I/ אני am first and I/ ואני am last” [Isaiah 44:6]. And the explanation of the Rashbi of blessed memory [is] that “I/אני” is En/ איןwhich is upper Keter. “and I/ ואני” is Malkut, which is the end/aim of Emanation, its end attached to its beginning, and its beginning to its end [an allusion to Sefer Yetzirah 1:7], as En/אין is א [upper] Keter, י Chochmah, ן Binah when one stretches the Wav/ו which is ן: [which is] the Yud/ יon [top of] the Wav/ וand [this is also] the reality of the ן by itself, is Malkut, according to the truth we find [that] I/אין comprises all Emanation. And this “I am first” is the mystery of the prolongation and extension of Emanation from above to below. “and I am last” is the reality of the light returning, turning itself from below towards above. And with this the subject of ‘first’ and ‘last’ is understood, as Keter is in truth called ‘first’ because it is the first to all that came in the beginning, which is from the emanated entities and below, but above it in En Sof, the expression ‘first’ does not belong ‘first’, and this is ‘and before “one” what can you count?’[Sefer Yetzirah 1:7]. Explanation: Keter is called one as it is the beginning of the calculation which is the number of the ten [Sefirot], as in it is comprised all calculation, and the calculation, its foundation is above, as we have explained in the previous gate. And it says that ‘before “one”’, which is what precedes it, which is En Sof, ‘what can you count?’, as there does not belong number nor speech nor affirmation at all. And about it, it is said (Job 37:20): “Would it be counted to Him when I speak?”, and there number does not belong. And with this introduction the verse (Isaiah 43:10) is understood, in which all plain expounders were confused: “You are My witnesses, word of HaShem, My servant, which I have chosen so that you will know and believe in Me, and so that you will understand that I [am] He, before Me no divinity was formed, and there will not be after Me.” And the explanation: “that I [am] He”, this is Keter, as “He” is Keter, which is truly called He/הוא. And to teach its hiding, the word ‘He’ is a special name for the concealed [the word ‘he’ indicates a greater distance than the word ‘you’]. And therefore, it says that ‘He’ is called I/אני, also thus to teach that it is [both] the beginning of the Emanation and the end of the Emanation in the mystery of “I am first and I am last” as we have explained [above]. And it says “that before Me no divinity was formed”, and the word “was formed” [is] according to its meaning as its explanation [is] ‘was not emanated’, because the expression of formation is similar to the meaning for the emanation, just like the meaning of the expression of creating which is ‘In the beginning [He] created’ [Genesis 1:1]. And it says: ‘that before Me nothing except for Me was created’, because it is beginning of what came with the restriction of what was created. And it is end to all Emanation, and this is what it says: ‘and after Me there will not be’. And this teaches the strength of the greatness of En Sof, King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, which teaches on its existence that it does not fall under time but on the contrary, it brought out the time, and no existence in the world is formed in any way [in] its absence. And this is one of the many degrees on its emanated entities which all fall under existence, as there was already time when En Sof was without them, as before Emanation. And there are many who thought, saying that Keter was before all, meaning to say that although there was [still] no Emanation, it [= Keter] was [already] in existence and was forever clothing to the Emanator [they thus think that En Sof and Keter were always and forever existent]. And those who hold this opinion are ‘shield-bearers’ [an expression from Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 27b, for Torah scholars ‘battling’ in Halakhic discussions], and the main object of the necessity that is forced upon them to this matter is a saying of our sages of blessed memory in the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer: ‘Before the world was created, there were only He and His name’2Note that this citation is not in the extant versions of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer.< . Explanation: ‘He and His name’ corresponds to En Sof and Keter. And they forced out of this that Keter precedes [emanation], and that it is being united with the Emanator and [is] garment to Him. But this subject is not appropriate to believe. But [it is appropriate to believe] that all of Emanation was emanated in one [single] time, and also Keter [is part] out of the totality of the emanated entities, as it is proven by many sayings, and part of them we will transfer to Gates with help of Hashem. And particularly in the Gate of Substance and Instruments [Gate IV] and in the Gate of the Order of Emanation [Gate V], and in the Gate of Brightnesses [Gate XI] with help of Heaven. It has been found that the Emanator is exalted above His emanations, because their absence preceded His Emanation, which is not the case for the Emanator, King of Kings, the Holy One blessed be He. And see, [this concludes] the first distinction. The Emanator is further distinguished from the emanated entities because their life depends on what is beside them - which is the Emanator, who enlivens them, and He is the source and the light and the abundance to all His emanated entities -, [thus] they are all found to need Him. But En Sof, blessed be He, does not need what is besides Him, but He is the source of living beings, and the living beings are emanated out of Him, while He is the life of the living beings. And therefore, the Rashbi of blessed memory named it in several places in the Tikkunim with the expression ‘Light that does not depend on light etc.’ [Zohar Chadash, Vaetchanan 15], since He does not depend on vitality and abundance from what is besides Him, but He is the source of the light for all other luminaries. And the Rashbi of blessed memory explained this matter in the Tikkunim (Tikkunei Zohar 15 folio 132b) [to be found in Zohar Chadash, Tikuna Kadma'ah 91] and in the Zohar on Bereshit (folio 22) [Zohar, Bereshit 15:168-169]: Rabbi Shimon further began and said: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me” [Deuteronomy 32:39]. He said: Fellows, hear the ancient words which I want to reveal etc. Who is it who said: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me”? But this is the cause for all those above, He who is called ‘cause of causes’ above those causes, as no one of these causes can do any deed unless it has received permission from the one that is above it, as I have established above in [the explanation of the verse] “Let Us make a human being” [Genesis 1:26]; “Let Us make” verily, on two it was said [the plural indicates more than one], as this one spoke to the one above it etc., and the one above it cannot do anything until it has received council from its fellow. But He who is called ‘cause on all causes’, above whom there is no one, and no one below [Him] equal to Him, this is what is written: “And with whom do you compare Me and am I equal with? said the Holy One” [Isaiah 40:25]. He said: See now that I, I am He, and there is no god/elohim beside Me” which receives council from Him as how which is said: “And God/Elohim said: ‘Let us make a human being’” End of citation.

See, in this holy passage [from the Zohar] he the Holy One, he [the Rashbi], of blessed memory, intended to depart on this height, as En Sof is exalted above its emanated entities, which need to take council, the lower from the higher, as it needs influx from its cause which influences on it, and therefore it says: “Let us make a human being”, as if to say: ‘You shall influence [on me] and I shall act, and a human being is found made by means of the two of us’. But [even] the upper one still needs to be influenced by its cause, as [even] in its hand there is also no [total] ability. But blessed En Sof has no need to talk to what is besides it ‘Let us make’, but [only] “I, I am He, and there is no god/elohim beside me”, meaning to say: with assistance [that is] with me: not below, as it does not have its equal below it, and not above, as there is no above beside it, because it is above all emanated entities. And he [= the Rashbi] said: ‘cause for all those above’, ‘above those causes’. He intended to clarify for us that the reason which is called ‘cause of causes’ is of two aspects. The first [aspect] he explained from the expression ‘ascent’, and the intention [is] that it is above all the upper ones. And the intention is not a spatial ascent - Heaven forbid! – as there is no spatial matter at all in Atsilut/Emanation, let alone in the Emanator, but the explanation [is] the reality of an upward ascent and the spirituality and the possibility. And the second explanation [and aspect] is from the expression ‘cause’/עילה and ‘reason’/סיבה as it is cause and reason for all the causes that there are in reality3The Ramak explains the difference between ‘cause’/עילה and ‘reason’/סיבה in more detail in his commentary Or Yakar (on the Tikkunei Zohar, volume IV, page 8, while commenting on Tikkkunei Zohar 17a, the second introduction to the Tikkunei Zohar). ‘Cause’/עילה indicates closeness to what is caused by it, while ‘reason’/סיבה indicates distance..

And see, [we have explained] the second distinction [with] which En Sof, the Emanator blessed be He, is distinguished from the emanated entities. [There is] further a third distinction, and this is that all emanated entities have a name from the holy names which is defining them, with which the Sefira and this emanated entity is called, as the subject אהיה in Keter and יה in Chochma, and thus for all the rest of the Sefirot, as we have clarified in the first Gate with its explanation. And similarly, the Tetragram totalizes all emanation completely, as is explained in the Zohar and [which] we will explain in the Gate of the Tetragram [Gate XIX] [But] what is not so with En Sof, the Emanator, blessed be He, as there is no name or [vocalization] point with which we could name it, and [there is] no degree that will limit it, and we have found no name for it to name it except ‘necessary reality’. Explanation: that it is necessary in its reality, because it is never possible that the giver of abundance and enlivening all realities is not directing, and because of this reason its reality is necessary. And because there is no name that will define it, therefore we will describe it [as] ‘necessary reality’, and the philosophers attributed this name to it4See for example Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed I.57 on מחויב המציאות.Further they attributed to it the name ‘En Sof’ (“without end”), and the reason [is] because it does not have end and completeness. Because matter that is defined by a name has an end, but the divinity, because it does not have end, does not have a name that limits it, and therefore we describe it with ‘En Sof’

And further [we give] another explanation: because the investigation of it does not have an end. As it [= the investigation] is not as the way of the rest of the investigations, which has end and agreement on one conclusion. Truly the investigation of the Godhead is on En Sof, and therefore no one knows about its nature at all except by way of Sefirot which are revealing a glimpse of its grandness, truly from its Sefirot and above [them] there is no reaching from the side of the profundity of what is being perceived, and therefore they [= the philosophers] described it with En Sof. Further they attribute to it ‘Cause of the causes’, and the intention [is] that the causes, from whom others [= causes] are caused, they are caused by it, and therefore it is called ‘Reason of the reasons’, as it is the first reason for all reasons in the world, and although they are reasons for the other surrounded/caused entities, nevertheless all of them are surrounded/caused by it. And there are some who said that upper Keter is also called ‘Reason of reasons’, as it is the reason for all the other reasons, which are surrounded/caused by it; this is not so for what is below it, as Chochma is not reason/cause for all the caused/surrounded reasons/causes, as see Keter is surrounding/causing, and is not surrounded/caused by Chochma, but to the contrary: Chochmah is being surrounded/caused by it. And thus, from this reason they said that Keter is called ‘Cause of the causes’ as it is the cause of the causes that are caused by it. [So, what is again the fundamental difference between En Sof and Keter?] Truly En Sof is called reason of áll reasons and cause on the causes with the addition of ‘all’ to demonstrate on En Sof that it is reason of áll the reasons, and [it is] also [the reason of] of Keter; which is not so [for] Keter, for which the expression ‘[of] all the reasons’ is not right, and thus ‘all the causes’ [is also not right], as already there was a cause and reason which is surrounding/causing it, as Keter is surrounded/caused by En Sof, and En Sof is its reason. And thus for all the causes, which is not attributed thus to Keter. And these three names, namely ‘En Sof’, ‘Reason of all the reasons’ and ‘Cause of all the causes’, the Rashbi has attributed to the Emanator, blessed be He, many times in his books, and he also attributed to it other names, such as ‘Hidden of Hidden ones’ and ‘Ancient of ancients’ and as these [there are] many following from them; and when one examines closely their source, one will find that all of them teach on the concealment as we have explained, that it does not have name nor being nor epithet that will limit it. And see, [this was] the third distinction that distinguishes the Emanator from the emanated entities. Besides many other distinctions such as the distance, the measure, the degree, the attributes, the differences, as everything [= all these distinctions] are in its Sefirot and we will not extend on them [here]. And we say that after the Emanator elevates Himself and is distinguished from its emanated entities with complete distinction and removes Himself with complete separation, if this is so, the conclusion is that it is not fitting for the Emanator to be counted among the number of the emanated entities - Heaven forbid! –, as those who say that it is Keter had been thinking. And now we will come to prove [this] from evidences [in the next chapter].