Rebbe Rashab

A prayer of thanks:

Thank You so much for the new discourses I am studying from the Rebbe Rashab, particularly “Hemshech Ayin Beit” with the interwoven commentary. I’m so taken with his slow presentation of nuances. Even if they may be inherent to the point of almost obvious, without his help they’re so easily glossed over and missed.

In real truth, he’s like an artist who makes his performance seem so easy that all youngsters in the audience harbor the silly thought of, “Oh yeah, I can get right on stage and do the same thing!”

Though the simplicity they see is there, it’s still not theirs. It’s something which requires much work and refinement to even approach. Inherent talent is not enough.

Case in point, I was very taken yesterday by his distinction between “forcing” (כְּפִיָה) and “controlling” (שְׁלִיטָה). The Rebbe Rashab explains that “surrounding light” (אוֹר מַקִיף) “forces”. That’s because it’s external to the recipient. By contrast “inner light” (אוֹר פְּנִימִי), since it’s within the recipient does not need to “force”. It simply “controls”. By “control” the Rebbe Rashab does not mean in a harsh demanding way, the way the word is often used. Rather, he means a situation where a bond of trust and love have already been established and feedback is welcome. Otherwise, that would simply be what he means by “forcing”.

It’s similar to the difference between being motivated by the raw demand of a royal edict or by the guidance of a dear teacher. The king “forces”, while the teacher gently “controls”. The king feels distant, outside, while the teacher feels intimate, within; has a place within the recipient’s heart.

Now, this teaching is just a logically inherent part of what it means to be “surrounding light” or “inner light”. However, for all my previous study, this distinction did not fully occur to me beforehand. Hints of it had dawned on me, with my studies on the Sefirah of Keter. However, those hints too were from Chabad teachings. It took the subtle and mentally patient approach of the Rebbe Rashab to tease out such breathtaking and refined details.

Thank You for giving us the Rebbe Rashab and all the teachings he left for us.

------------------O---------------- 

Ruach/Spirit Within = Paradise Without

The Talmud tells of the four companions who ascended up into paradise through a mystical practice known as the "workings of the divine chariot". The following is a translation of certain key parts of their story.

Four entered paradise: ben Azai, ben Zoma, Acher (alias for Elisha ben Abuya) and Rabbi Akiva.

[Before entering] Rabbi Akiva cautioned them, "When you approach the pure marble stones, do not say, 'Water, water'; as it states, '... those who speak falsehood cannot be established before my eyes.' (Psalms 101:7)

Ben Azai gazed and died. Concerning him it states, 'Precious in God's eyes is the death of His devout ones.' (Psalms 116:15) Ben Zoma gazed and went insane. Regarding him it states, 'You discovered honey. Eat moderately. Lest you over-satiate and vomit it up'. (Proverbs 25:16) Acher cut the plantings (i.e. become a heretic). Rabbi Akiva exited in peace...

What happened [to Acher]? He saw the Angel Metatron ... who was given permission to sit ...

Acher reflected, 'We have a tradition that [besides for God's revealed presence] there is no sitting in the higher realms ... Perhaps, [if another entity is also capable of sitting then] there are two authorities (i.e. a duality)?'

[To demonstrate to Acher that despite sitting, this angel is subordinate to God's higher authority,] they brought Metatron out [in Acher's presence] and lashed him with sixty pulses of fire ...

~ Chagigah 14B - 15A

Reviewing this story inspired the following question.

We are taught that a person can only perform sins and good deeds while in this physical world, while occupying a biological body. Once disembodied, the soul may do many things, go through many journeys, but it is no longer capable of sins or good deeds. The reason is because such behavior requires free choice. The gift of free choice is only given to a combined body and soul. Once the two separate, the gift vanishes. If so, how exactly did Elisha ben Abuya sin, while seemingly disembodied on a visit to the spiritual realms?

There are several answers which have been advanced to me. However, they all seemed to address what he did on earth either before or after his walk in paradise, not during. These answers left me feeling unsatisfied for several reasons:

A) The Talmud seems to indicate that he sinned while in paradise itself. Though certain prior life choices may have predisposed him to falter in the moment, they weren’t the sin itself. 

B) Somehow, while in paradise he had to have free choice. Otherwise, what occurred could not have been considered a sin. 

C) What he did afterwards wasn't the sin itself, but a new accumulation of sins - even if they were built upon the foundation of his discouragement over what happened in paradise.

Accordingly, I prayed in my heart for an answer to explain how he could have possibly sinned for entertaining the notion of a duality, while in the delightful environs of paradise itself. Then what dawned on me is that his entry into paradise might not have involved becoming disembodied at all. However, to understand this paradox in paradise, it’s important to first introduce a long cherished Kabbalistic concept which Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag had later on named “Hashva’at HaTzurah”, i.e. “similarity of form”.

Jewish mystical teachings often rely on the usage of spatial imagery. Though possibly convincing, such descriptions are not intended to be understood literally as referring to physical space. For greater accuracy, such images need to be divested from their physicality.

Our experience of space centers on notions such as closeness and distance. Accordingly, Kabbalah too often employs the terms of closeness and distance in its discussions of spiritual entities. One way to divest such descriptions from their physicality is to understand them as referring to the measure of how similar or dissimilar the entities are in relation to each other. Spiritually speaking, entities which share similarity are close and entities which are dissimilar are distant. Of course, between the extremes of absolutely similar or dissimilar there are many gradations along the spectrum, which allows for a very wide range of variation of distance or closeness.

Kabbalah’s notion of space is closer to what we relate to as “psychological space”. Psychologically speaking, people who share many similarities have the capacity to be very close even if they live at opposite ends of the globe. In contrast, those who are very dissimilar would be distant even if they lived right next door to one another. Clearly, spiritual space and physical space operate very differently. As psychology involves the human soul, it’s not at all surprising that it extends a taste of spiritual space to those enclosed in the bubble of physical space.

It’s logical that spiritual space bears an interesting implication. Imagine, two spiritual entities becoming progressively more and more similar to each other, drawing progressively closer and closer to each other. Then at the moment of complete similarity, they suddenly converge into a single point. Accordingly the notion of “being identically similar”, in spiritual space ends up meaning, “being identical”. There’s no such a thing as exact duplication, like the kind industrialists strive for during mass production. 

Based on this understanding, likely the four sages transported themselves on the principle of similarity. They moved into paradise by somehow increasing their personal resemblance to paradise. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan teaches in his work “Meditation and Kabbalah”, that the mystics of that period first purified themselves with the still extant ashes of the red heifer. Upon separation from impurities, they then meditated over a series of divine names to enter into a deep state consciousness; i.e. to access a deep level of soul. 

It seems likely that their goal was to access their ruach level of soul. At the point of ruach consciousness, they would each experience themselves as a ruach, a spirit. All their sense perceptions would be filtered through ruach senses. With “ruach eyes”, everything they saw around them would be what a ruach normally sees, namely the Yetzirah level of paradise all around; more specifically “the chambers of Yetzirah”. To move around, they’d meditate bonds of similarity with whatever they sought to approach. They did not have to leave their bodies to do this. They would simply be present in paradise by virtue of the soul level they accessed.

Thus, Elisha ben Abuya was simultaneously in his body and walking about in paradise. Since the connection with his body was still intact, he had an earthly anchor and the free choice which came with it. That’s likely why he held responsible. (Also, being simultaneously embodied and not embodied, a dual experience, might have exposed him to the risk of perceiving a duality.) 

In absence of the ashes of the red heifer and the likely lack of spiritual masters initiated into such techniques, I would expect that such ascensions are impossible today. However, even without the experiential access, we can still be open to understand how some of this mystical process might have worked. Plus, it bears valuable lessons for us today. 

It's quoted from the Baal Shem Tov that a person is wherever his/her mind is; which means to whatever s/he connects to mentally. This statement is loaded with implications for what mental tools we can muster in directing our lives to fulfill our positive potentials. For example, it explains a basis for what some refer to as the “law of attraction” and why some engage in exercises of creative visualization. Most importantly, it’s a way to explain the value of each Mitzvah; as in some sense each Mitzvah forms a bond of similarity with God.

-------------------O-------------------

Old New Universe (updated version)

_____________________________

Introduction

Ever since science has attempted to determine the age of the universe there has been a fierce intellectual battle between the forces of science and creationism. I tend to believe that the two perspectives don't have to conflict, especially so fiercely. Today, there are several genuine approaches which can reconcile the two accounts of creation. What I will present here is one particular possibility based on my understanding of what I have learned in Jewish mysticism. While I believe that my approach is correct, I also know that my understanding is limited and has its share of human imperfections. Hence, I leave it to the great Jewish Sages of the generation (especially those initiated into the mysteries) to determine the veracity of what I am about to present.

Though I am a concerned about my worthiness to make this presentation, I am motivated by several considerations:

A) I’ve seen many in my generation who are hampered by creation issues from taking Judaism seriously.

B) According to many authorities (often Kabbalists themselves) we are already living in a generation that has permission to study the mysteries. Therefore, I am less reluctant to be open.

C) In the course of presenting my understanding on the topic, I might be teaching my readers certain key concepts germane to Jewish mysticism, which will help their growth.

May the Creator help me and clarify my way for His own sake and for the sake of the aiding the world’s spiritual growth.

Chapter 1 – The universe and perception

Jewish mysticism has a layered view of the universe. According to this view the universe conceptually depicted as layers of an onion. [i] There is a large outer sphere encompassing a slightly smaller sphere, which in turn encompasses an even slightly smaller sphere. This process of sphere within the sphere continues until reaching the center sphere – which is the physical universe we are familiar with. A two dimensional view of this would look like a classical archery target with our universe being the bull’s eye. Each of these spheres is referred to as a “universe”. Hence, there seem to be many universes. The outer universes are more spiritual and the inner ones harden, tending towards ever more physical – until reaching the most physical of all, our own universe. [ii] Naturally, each universe is inhabited by creatures with match its own spiritual level. Accordingly, angels inhabit outer universes and animals inhabit the innermost level. This establishes a spiritual hierarchy of universes and creatures – a spectrum with those higher up having much less limitation and those closer to the center beginning to feel the crunch of limitation. Freedom versus limitation is a very strong distinguishing factor between spiritual and physical beings.

In some sense, this multi-universe view might be a metaphor. Based on the teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi it seems likely that there truthfully is only one universe. [iii] The multitudes of “universes” seem likely to be merely many various creatures perceiving the same universe very differently. When a group of creatures share a largely overlapping perception of the universe, they are considered to be living in the same universe. For example, a human, a dog and a bee are all considered inhabitants of the same universe. Why? They can all perceive each other and pick up many of the same vibes. This does not mean that their perception range is entirely identical; a dog perceives sounds and smells outside the range of human perception. A bee sees ultraviolet light. However, there's sufficient overlap to allow these creatures to interact. Hence, they share the same "universe".

In contrast, a human and an angel are considered to be inhabitants of different "universes". Why? Because the human sees the universe as a physical structure, while the angel sees the same universe as a containing spiritual force. The universe each sees is not different. What's different is the level of perception each creature was designed for. There are as many "universes" as there are perceptual ranges. Rabbi Shneur Zalman teaches that had the eye been allowed to see the spirituality in each creature, it would not appear earthly at all, but rather as a vibrant spiritual force. (Tanya II chapter 3)

Kabbalah teaches that a universe is defined as a framework of time, space and life.[iv] Since ultimately there is only one shared universe there is also only one framework of time, space and life. Every single creature lives within this over arching framework which defines the basic parameters of the universe. However, the way each creature experiences time, space and life can vary greatly from the next. The way time is experienced by humans dwelling in an earthly body is not the way time is experienced by a disembodied soul. People who survived near death experiences have shared on interviews that when disembodied their perception of time was vastly different.

It seems like the experience of time can be compared to a sensory perception which varies depending on what vessels of perception the creature was designed with. This notion of time is bolstered by recent research in the field of psychology which discovered through research that the human perception of time as really a "construction of the human mind".[v] Therefore, there can be many kinds of time perception in the overall universe.

Chapter 2 – The Garden of Eden

One of the most celebrated Kabbalists in all Jewish history was Rabbi Isaac Luria, of blessed memory (1534 – 1572). In order to gain perspective on the issue of the age of the universe, it is useful to examine his treatment of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

According to Rabbi Isaac Luria, the universe Adam and Eve inhabited was not physical at all. Rather, it was highly spiritual. [vi] For that matter neither was the snake’s realm physical. It too was spiritual, though it was much closer to being physical, as it was spiritually lower. The tree of knowledge served as a tenuous link between where the first couple lived and the snake’s realm. As a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, the two realms mixed together into a single realm becoming the physical universe as we know it today. This is how Adam and Eve were "chased out" of the Garden. [vii] The world around them simply became physical. It was no longer a “garden”. Obviously, Adam and Eve no longer looked the same either. Previously, they were clothed in spiritual light. Now, they were clothed in skin. [viii]

Although I have not seen this written anywhere [ix], it's my own understanding that the reason why mixing the realms made our universe physical is because Adam’s realm and the snake’s realm were very incompatible with each other. Imagine bringing together two dancers trained in very different styles of dancing to dance with each other. Their tedious efforts to synchronize their movements will slow them down. Similarly, the elements of Adam’s realm and the snake’s realm were so vastly different that they didn’t “dance well together”. Each slowed down the other. The slower the movement the more concrete an entity becomes. For example, solid is harder than liquid, gas or energy because the molecules in solid aren’t moving as freely. As molecules slow down, substances harden, becoming more concrete.

Since Adam and Eve were not initially created physically, but rather as inhabitants of Eden, it logically follows that their experience of time was also very different than our own. In our current state, we are incapable of understanding what time was like for them. The very same notion in its own way applies to time in the snake’s realm as well. Their experiences of time there was unique to each of their respective realms.

Upon mixing, the inhabitants of both realms became earthly. Commensurate with their new level, their sensory apparatus now perceived physicality. As a result of their new perceptual range, a brand new experience of time, space and life emerged – one that never existed before either in the Garden of Eden or in the snake’s realm. What existed in both spiritual realms downloaded into this new realm – squash ... everything became more constrained into newly introduced limitations brought on by two incompatible realms attempting to work together - resulting in slow motion. Therefore, anything which seems to predate the first couple’s entry into the physical realm is really a footprint of something which existed spiritually in a whole other perception of time, which cannot be measured in human terms. This is why the true age of the physical universe cannot be measured. The history of our physical universe began in two realms, each with their own version of immeasurable "spiritual time" and combined 5,780 years ago, continuing onward in “physical time”.

Yet, when all that previous “spiritual time” downloaded physically, it probably translated into about 15 billion earthly years. Upon entry into the physical realm, everything brought along its own previous history. All that spiritual history downloaded into physical constraints, yielding a new kind of history appropriate for a more limited format. This could be comparable to taking a jump drive full of data and trying to transfer all that data onto a batch of old 3.5" floppy discs. The vast quantity of data which the single jump drive had easily stored will now require many floppy discs, as the data is being translated into a more limited format. What's lost in quality requires greater quantity to bring about an equal result. Similarly, translating events from high quality spiritual time into the constraints of physical time requires a huge number of units to hold it; possibly, something like 15 billion human years. 15 billion years worth of history downloaded, but only 5,780 years ago.

These ideas accord nicely with the view of the Medieval Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac of Acco (1250 – 1340).

Chapter 3 - Rabbi Isaac of Acco

Rabbi Isaac of Acco, discourse on the age of the universe which combines ideas from the Talmud and Bible was introduced to the English speaking audience by late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, of blessed memory. He has an elaborate essay about Rabbi Isaac of Acco's discourse in his book "Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View". He also has a shorter explanation in his translation and commentary to "Sefer Yetzirah" P.186.

Rabbi Kaplan explains that the Talmud cites in a number of places that the universe is supposed to exist for 7,000 years. A variety of Rabbinic sources expand on this teaching and explain that the universe really goes through seven cycles of 7,000 years, totaling 49,000 years. There’s some disagreement on whether we’re in the second cycle or the seventh cycle.

Rabbi Isaac of Acco takes each day in the 49,000 years and multiplies it by 1,000 years – teaching that a “divine day” really equals 1,000 human years. He bases this idea on the Biblical verse (Psalms 90:4) “A thousand years in Your eyes are just like yesterday (i.e. a single day).”

Assuming we are in the last of the seven cycles, we can do a simple calculation: 1,000 years x 365.25 days x 42,000 = 15,340,500,000 human years - that's 15 billion and 340 million and 500 thousand human years. This equation multiplies the 1,000 year long divine day by 365.25 days in the solar year in order to determine the length of a divine year, which is 365,250 “human years”. Then following the approach of those Rabbinic authorities who believe we’re in the seventh cycle, six cycles have already passed by making the world at least 42,000 years old in this context. By multiplying 365,250 “human years” and 42,000 “cycle years”, one yields 15,340,500,000 human years. This is pretty close to some scientific estimates of the age of the universe.

In light of Rabbi Isaac Luria’s teaching, I understand Rabbi Isaac of Acco as conveying that a value of over 15 billion human years has passed since the universe’s inception, but not that the universe was literally more than 15 billion years old. Of course, had Adam and Eve been initially created as physical beings then over 15 billion human years would have actually transpired, but this was not the case.

Chapter 4 – Seven Days in Physical Time

A contemporary physicist and Torah scholar, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, demonstrates that the seven days of creation can also be calculated in physical time. [x] Even though the first couple spent at least their first hours in spiritual time, I accept Dr. Schroeder’s findings as a confirmation that the seven days of creation had left their imprint even physically. This means that had the universe been physically created, the notion that it was created in seven days would have still been true.

Dr. Schroeder theory attempts to reconcile the Biblical time frame of creation, of seven days, with the scientific age of the universe, which according to some scientists is over 15 billion years old. He argued that seven days from the outer rim of the universe can equal billions of years within the universe. His approach is based on Einstein's time dilation theory. (If you don't believe in Einstein's theory of time dilation then please throw out your GPS. It heavily depends on this theory to work.)

The gist of Dr. Schroeder's reconciliation goes like this. When the big bang happened the outer rim of the universe ballooned outward with such a tremendous burst of energy that it approached the speed of light. Einstein's time dilation theory teaches that the faster something travels in space the slower it goes in time. Therefore by reaching such high speeds, time greatly slowed down at the outer rim of the universe when measured relative to clocks within the universe. While the outer rim experienced only seven days, the interior of the universe could have experienced 15 billion years.

According to Dr. Schroeder’s theory, the Creator measured the Biblical seven days from the perspective of the most universal clock, the clock which embraces all clocks; namely, the outer rim of the universe. This makes sense considering that time dilation theory teaches that the experience of time is not only affected by speed, but also by gravity. The stronger gravity is, the slower time moves. So while from the perspective of earth the universe could be about 15 billion years old, from the perspective of Jupiter the universe could be much older. Since there are a vast multitude of gravitational fields within the universe with vastly varying intensities, just for this reason alone there are also a vast number of clocks from which the age of the universe can be gauged – each yielding a different result. Therefore, the over-arching clock on the rim of the universe makes the most sense to use.

Once the framework of a seven day creation has been paradoxically greatly expanded while simultaneously being very literal, there is room to discuss a protracted process of creation, along with what tools might have been in the Creator's "tool box" to bring this about. Without any knowledge to the contrary, evolution should be as good a tool as any other for the Creator to slowly form the amazing wide variety of species which inhabit our planet.

I'm not personally saying that this is how it happened or that I throw my full support into Dr. Schroeder's theory, as literally having happened. However, (a) it serves as a neat reconciliation for people who don’t want to get too mystical (b) it demonstrates that the Creator could have worked out a seven day creation even within physical time (c) the very fact all these reconciliations between the Biblical and scientific accounts exist should bring members of both camps to question whether there really needs to be such a heated argument, when one can simultaneously believe in the Creator, science and a literal reading of the Bible without any inner intellectual conflict? Let all sides continue their work peacefully, so we can all grow together towards our fullest potential.

Content copyrighted by author

[i] A note to those studying Kabbalah: I am only discussing sefirot igulim here – as they are the chambers which are inhabited by beings.

[ii] Sefer Etz Chaim, Shaar Igulim V’Yosher

[iii] Tanya II, Chapter 3

[iv] See “Sefer Yetzirah”, from chapters 3 to 5 the 22 mystical letters of the Hebrew alphabet are described as manifesting in time, space and life – encompassing the entire framework of creation as we know it.

[v] Radio interview with neuroscientist David Eagleman on WHYY broadcast in Philadelphia on August 11, 2011.

[vi] “Shaar HaPesukim”, Siman 2, Discourse 3. Also see “The Knowing Heart”, by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Feldheim Publishing’s English translated edition, P. 188 – 189.

[vii] Genesis 3:23

[viii] “Ben Ish Chai” commenting on the Torah portion of Braishit (first year).

[ix] I received oral confirmation for this idea from a known Kabbalist.

[x] See “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. More about Dr. Schroeder’s theories can be found on his website http://www.geraldschroeder.com

Baffled!

At present, I am baffled by certain schools of Jewish mysticism for claiming that God's Infinity ("Ein Sof") is not His Essence ("Atzmut"). If so, how do they interpret the references to God's Infinity found in the classical texts? They work around it with the claim that Infinity is merely an appellation, a title of sorts ("Keenui"). 

When asked, "Why?", they respond, "God's utterly indescribable! So, nothing can be said of Him at all. The word 'Infinite' says something about Him. It applies a description to Him."

To me, it seems like the very word "Infinite" itself actually means "not describable"; the very opposite of their claim. The notion of being "indescribable" is present in the etymology of the word.  For anything to be described means that it needs to be finite, i.e. have limits. The word "Infinite" breaks into the two root words "in" and "finite", which means, "not limited". (The same is true with the Hebrew word for Infinite, "Ein Sof". It too means, "not limited".)

Thus, a simple equation can be set up:

1) Infinite = not limited

2) Not limited = not describable
3) Infinite = not describable. 

So, when the members of those mystical schools claim that they cannot call God "Infinite" because they cannot describe Him, they seem to me to be unintentionally playing a game of semantics; a game of words. They dismiss a word meaning what they mean to say whose meaning they're going to say anyways. Got that?

To my ears, it sounds like they end up saying, "We cannot call God by a word which means, 'Indescribable' because He's Indescribable"!

Is it possible that they have yet to examine the true meaning of the word "Infinite"? Is it possible that I am the one misunderstanding? Shrug!


**********************


Afterwards:

I posted around the above for comments and insights. The best responses I got came down to that anything which humans can conceptualize, even in a "negative sense", cannot be the Essence of God. 

Previously, I have come to understand of God's Oneness the following: 

What our sages teach when explaining the notion of Oneness is merely an understanding which is as close to edge as humans can possibly get to knowing God. Paradoxically, its real effect is to help us understand why we cannot know God. By revealing in His Torah that He's One, essentially God leads us down a contemplative pathway whose final destination is an appreciation of why He's unknowable.

The way Rabbi Bachya Ibn Pequda explains God's Oneness in "Sha'ar HaYichud" ends up meaning Infinity too. The notion of Oneness he explains ends up as a Being without limits. Therefore, what applies to Oneness is true for Infinity too. 

As two ways of expressing the same concept they're both as close to the edge as the human mind can possibly get to knowing God. However, their real goal is to serve as a contemplative path towards the appreciation that God is utterly unknowable.


---------------O---------------  
  

Oneness in "Da'at Tevunot"

Recently, I began to restudy a book from which I have learned much from in the past, but still have much to learn from. The book is "Da'at Tevunot" authored by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. The most recent English translation of the book goes by the title, "Knowing God's Plan", published by Feldheim Publishers. Much of this book is dedicated to how God directs the world in a way that at first conceals His Oneness and then reveals His Oneness. In my previous readings, it seemed to me like I had some grasp on this dynamic. What I did not clearly grasp is what does Rabbi Luzzatto mean by God's Oneness to begin with.

Usually, when our classic Torah sages teach about God's Oneness through the books they left behind, they are referring to God's Being. Of course such efforts are tricky, as nobody can know God's Essence. This knowledge eludes even the highest and holiest of souls and angels. What our sages teach when explaining the notion of Oneness is merely an understanding which is as close to edge as humans can possibly get to knowing God. Paradoxically, its real effect is to help us understand why we cannot know God. By revealing in His Torah that He's One, essentially God leads us down a contemplative pathway whose final destination is an appreciation of why He's unknowable. In the first chapter of "The Way of God", Rabbi Luzzatto discusses God's Oneness in this way as well, using language similar to that of Rabbi Bachya Ibn Pequda and the Maimonides. 

However, early on in "Da'at Tevunot" he uses the term God's Oneness in a different way (see Section 38). In my restudy of the book, it initially threw me for a loop, as my approach was to assume that Rabbi Luzzatto meant the usual concept of God's Oneness. As I carefully read onward with an eye towards conceptual consistency, I realized that with this approach the text made progressively less and less sense to me. So, I backtracked, researched commentaries and contemplated deeply. 

What I came to realize is that in this section of "Da'at Tevunot", Rabbi Luzzatto is not discussing God's Being. Rather, he's discussing an attribute of God, which is God's absolute control over everything. He calls this attribute, "God's Oneness" in the sense that all control over everything emerges from the One source, God Himself. To me, this attribute seems identical with what Kabbalah refers to as the Sefirah of Malchut (of Atzilut). Malchut translates as "kingdom". So, essentially this attribute can be thought of as God's power of kingdom.

Further, Rabbi Luzzatto explains that this is the only attribute of God which humans can directly experience. However, for humanity to fully experience this attribute, evil must be eliminated entirely from the world (see Section 38). This turn of events will first occur in the messianic era. Once accomplished, we will no longer harbor any doubts about God's absolute control any more than a healthy person doubts having seen or heard. It will simply be an experiential fact of reality.  In contrast, all the other attributes of God, cannot tangibly enter into the arena of human experience.

It seems to me that what Rabbi Luzzatto means is that at best the other attributes remain intellectual constructs, shrouded in parables. For example, human love is often used as a parable for God's love. However, it's very poor at best. This is why Abraham expressed that he's like "dust and ashes". Despite reaching very high inner states of love for God and humanity, he felt like all the love in his heart is merely a burnt out, severely reduced, version of God's own attribute of love; with no real comparison between them at all. Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezeritch explained that to try to compare God's love and Abraham's love is a bit like trying to compare a beautiful, vibrant fruit tree to one which was burnt down and reduced to "dust and ashes". (see Tanya, "Igeret HaKodesh", 15) 

Similarly, Rabbi Luzzato comments on God's attribute of wisdom. There is a tradition to approach certain delicately discussed attributes of God by way of negation, i.e. what we call today, "by process of elimination". When applying this approach to wisdom, one can say that though we do not know what God's wisdom is, we can discuss what it's not. Among what it's clearly not, is "stupidity". So, let's logically eliminate all versions of stupidity. Yes, but when that mental exercise is complete, once again the parable falls very short. All the exercise has led to is a higher version of human wisdom. It did not lead to God's wisdom at all (see Section 38). As God tells the prophet, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts...". (see Isaiah 55:8) Thus, spring boarding off of the human experience does not bring about a real understanding of this attribute.

After commenting on the attribute of wisdom, Rabbi Luzzato turns his attention to why the other attributes may seem somewhat relatable to us, despite what he just taught. He explains that what we're relating to is really the attribute of absolute control, as it employs these other attributes. In these cases, they're really part of the attribute of absolute control (see Section 40).

It seems to me what he's likely referring to is what we notice around us in the world as marks of God's other attributes, such as His wisdom and love. In these cases, they are not experienced by us the way they really are in their original inscrutable states. They're just present in our world as downgraded versions of these original states. Down here, their presence is limited to what His attribute of absolute control requires to perform its role. They're merely tools of the kingdom. It's similar to a big specialist who only needs a few simplified tools to work on a very easy project. From God's perspective, the entire creation, for all its vastness and complexity, is merely a "very easy project".

Yet, as mentioned earlier, the attribute of God's absolute control can bridge over to the human experience and via this attribute, humans can tangibly relate to God. Of course, this is mainly referring to the messianic period. However, it seems to me that with inner work, this can be true to a lesser extent in pre-messianic times as well. However, it definitely requires much tapping into the inner intuitive voice of our souls called, "Emunah" (loosely translated as, "faith").

Until the Messiah arrives, it's entirely possible for someone to easily profess belief in God's Oneness of Being and yet, in hidden recesses of self, harbor doubts about His absolute control; without even realizing it. That's why at least until then, inner work and "Emunah" are essential to one's experiential relationship with God.

----------------O----------------

Vanished!

There's a story which happened to a relative of my maternal ancestors, Reb Mendel Hauser. The story comes down in the family and was likely set early 19th Century. Reb Mendel was a very close follower of the Rebbe of Zidichov. He was also a very well to do businessman who was very generous with the blessings God gave him. He distributed alms in abundance. Plus, his mansion was always at the disposal of guests, especially those in need.

One day he embarked on a business trip and left his wife in charge of distributing the alms in his absence. He instructed her how much to give to each needy person. Taking into account the long lines of people typically awaiting alms at his door each evening, he left her with enough money for the duration of his trip. 

Everything proceeded as planned until Reb Mendel was just about to return home. Suddenly, a particularly pitiful looking beggar came along. When Mrs. Hauser handed him his allotted share, he begged, "It's not enough. I need more."

With a smile, she added on a bit more.

But the beggar was still not satisfied and implored her for yet more.

Mrs. Hauser explained, "This is based on what my husband arranged for me to distribute. He's expected home shortly. Please take a seat here and when he returns you are welcome to discuss your situation with him."

As expected, in a little while Reb Mendel's coach arrived at his mansion. He greeted his wife, who pointed him to the beggar eagerly awaiting his return. Reb Mendel turned to the beggar, "I just arrived and you just arrived. You must be famished. Let's have dinner together. If you would like, we can discuss your situation over dinner."

Dinner was served and Reb Mendel listened to his story. He offered to add considerably to what his wife already offered. The beggar was still unsatisfied. So, he offered even more. Still, the beggar refused. Like a tightly competitive auction, the price to satisfy the beggar kept rising and rising, until an exasperated Reb Mendel finally pleaded, "Please tell me, how much do you really want?"

The beggar named a sum, which was astronomical for the given context. Reb Mendel was overcome by a vague intuition that something unusual was afoot and delightfully filled a money bag to the beggar's satisfaction.

After dinner, Reb Mendel turned to his guest, "Night already fell. It's no longer safe to travel. Please stay overnight. I can put you up in a comfortable guestroom. What would you like to take in with you?"

The beggar replied, "A candle and a volume of Talmud."

Though Reb Mendel couldn't put his finger on it, the feeling that something unusual was afoot lingered on. So, he placed the guest in a windowless guestroom and instructed a loyal servant to carefully guard the door. The room was furnished with a bed, a chair and a desk, allowing the guest to study Talmud in comfort.

Morning arrived and nobody emerged from the room. The servant assured him that the door remained shut ever since the guest entered. Reb Mendel was getting concerned. After waiting a while, he gently knocked. No response came forth. He knocked more firmly and there was still no response. Finally, he felt that he had no choice but to cautiously open the door and tip toe into the room.

To his utter shock, the room was vacant. There, on the desk was a sight to behold. The candle was still burning and the volume of Talmud was still open. Plus, the money bag with all its contents sat on the open pages of Talmud. 

Reb Mendel could not figure out how the guest vanished. There was no escape route. The room was windowless and if the door ever opened at all, at the very least the servant would have known.

Unable to process what had just transpired, he ran to his Rebbe to seek counsel. He opened the door of his Rebbe's study. Before he had a chance to open his mouth, he heard the Rebbe chime rhetorically, "Is it any surprise that a close follower of mine should be privileged to be visited by Elijah the prophet himself?"

In our family tradition, the story concludes: Apparently, Elijah the prophet had personally descended to test Reb Mendel's kindness and hospitality.

---------------------O---------------------
    

Shapes & Placement

As stated in "Sefer Yetzirah" the Sefirot can be analyzed from the perspectives of time, space and life. Each of these dimensions yield fascinating teachings and insights. For example, Chassidut typically takes a "life" approach and as a result is filled with personal spiritual growth insights, which sound very psychological. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto is very known for a "time" approach. He's very timeline oriented, with each period having its own character, infused by a unique flow of spiritual energy descending just at that time. 

However, some of the classical texts seem to speak of the Sefirot in the "space" dimension. Certainly, that has been my experience with Lurianic Kabbalah and "Sefer Yetzirah". (The Zohar is more mixed. It's not as singularly devoted to the Sefirot. Though central to the Zohar, the work trails off onto a variety of other topics as well.)

When examining the Sefirot from a "space" perspective, each detail on the diagrams communicate. Additionally, one sees that everything is just a role, defined by its relative placement to everything else. Higher is only higher because there's a lower. Lower is only lower because there's a higher. Being right only exists when there's a left. Being left only exists when there's a right. 

Plus, a vertical line has one meaning, a horizontal line another and a diagonal line yet another. There's a difference between being a circle and being a line. There's unique meaning to being inside and being outside, and even to how it's inside or outside. 

It's possible that classical texts have described the Sefirot in this way because being visual, it's the most tangible way to express the ideas. Also, it can be simply plotted on a diagram, saving much time. Descriptions of events in (past or future) time and psycho-spiritual analysis is a more complicated and time consuming route of transmission. Whereas, with a diagram "a picture is worth a thousand words". 

Still, this does not mean that shapes and placement are simply the easy way out. They have a very unique depth and symbolism all of their own. In the course of my studies of Jewish mystical thought, I have either learned what most of these symbols mean or at least came close to learning what they mean. In the case of the latter, a bit more contemplation over them, may throw me over the edge to actually understand them.

As Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto teaches, gathering information is one thing and organizing it is another. Rabbi Elchonon Bunim Wasserman tzvk"l remarked that a mind filled with unorganized information is like a huge library which has just one problem. It lacks a filing system. Yes, the shelves are full. Wherever you look you see books upon books. The supply is more than ample. The "minor" problem is finding what you want to read or reference. You can look all day and not necessarily find it.

Therefore, I am now in the throes of trying to review, contemplate and organize my thoughts on the shapes and placements found in the works of Kabbalah which I have been exposed to. Maybe, if I feel so inspired, I will share something of my discoveries in writing.

--------------------O-------------------