ענין נשיאת ראש. Also, what בכלל the פשט נשיאת ראש, when it says נשא את ראש? נשא The the literal translation for the word is pick up the head. What do you mean pick up the head? Of course pick up the head, what does that mean? The מובן is to understand what we said before about אצילות יש ב' ענינים. אצילות has in it two opposites: שהוא בחינת גילוי ההעלם וגם באין ערוך. On one hand we say אצילות is גילוי ההעלם from higher. גילוי ההעלם means it's not like יש מאין which is completely far away, it's connected. And at the same time we say it's it's אין ערוך. Normally גילוי ההעלם... And what was the answer? מזה, so we learned, שזה בבחינת אורות וכלים דאצילות. Both are true and one goes on the אורות and one goes on the כלים. The כלים is באין ערוך, and the אורות, which came from the קו, and the קו is a המשכה from אור אין סוף שלפני הצמצום. So the קו comes from לפני הצמצום, הרי זה בבחינת גילוי ההעלם. והיינו שהאורות are גילוי ההעלם. So the כלים are אין ערוך of the of the צמצום. Yeah. וגם

there's a מעלה, you said before, in the כלים, because the כלים come from the רשימו. Yeah. And that's not in גילוי. That's העלם. But still the מעלה is that it's closer in that in that angle. touched them and what happened to the גילוי? Oh, their their גילוי is העלם. The גילוי of the צמצום is העלם. so bright you can't see it? Not because it's so bright. No, it's the כח ההעלם of the Aibishter. To hide. So that's the כח כדי שלא יהיה. שלא יהיה. The גילוי is טאקע העלם. So on one hand it's connected more to the כח of אין סוף that לא נגע בו הצמצום, but it's still more העלם. Therefore, from the גילוי it's a it's far. So the כלים are far from the גילוי, and the אורות are closer to the גילוי. The אורות come from the קו, and the קו comes from אור אין סוף שלפני הצמצום. So it's באין ערוך It's באין ערוך because it's העלם. Because there's no גילוי. That's how it's more. It's the same thing. So the כלים are אין ערוך because the צמצום, the רשימו is העלם. Right. משא\"כ the the אורות, they're from the קו. And the קו is from אין סוף, comes directly from אין סוף שלפני הצמצום. So that's called גילוי. So, the גילוי of אצילות, which comes from the אורות דאצילות, which come from the קו, are גילוי ההעלם. This is both the same source. It's just two different aspects. One being revealed, one not being revealed. One showing itself as it's not revealed, one showing itself as it is as it So, you can't you don't even can't hard to say In revelation, it's like that. Right. It's hard to say one is really greater than the other because there's a גילוי of העלם or there's a גילוי of No, it depends which way you look at it. Looking at from from if it's in גילוי, this is higher. אורות are higher than כלים. That's it. That's what gives it this the differentiation is all the times. It's how much we we can relate to it, that means it's smaller צמצום, if we can relate to it. It's but it's higher if we can't relate to it. Yes, but and as far as we're concerned, it's far away. And then it's far. אך עדיין צריך להבין לכאורה everything is answered already. We

have to understand הרי מה שכתוב והחכמה מאין תמצא, when it says חכמה comes from אין, משמע דקאי על כללות החכמה. It says חכמה comes from אין, which means that חכמה is yesh me'ayin, is משמע it goes on חכמה, on the whole חכמה, גם בחינת האור דחכמה. We just finished saying that the אור is only גילוי ההעלם, it's not באין ערוך. The כלים are באין ערוך. But when it says חכמה is מאין, חכמה דיין, goes on the whole חכמה, also on the אור of חכמה, שהוא בבחינת אין ערוך לגבי אין סוף, is אין ערוך to אין סוף, כערך יש לגבי אין like a יש לגבי אין. והרי ראינו לפי הנ\"ל בפרק ח' based on what we said before in פרק ח', שהקו נמשך מאין סוף שלפני הצמצום, that the קו comes from לפני הצמצום, הרי בבחינת בלי גבול, so the קו is בלי גבול. ולכן האורות גם כן בלי בלי מה בבחינת פשיטות, so the אורות are also פשוט. So, אם כן איך שייך לומר שהם באין ערוך? How can you say they're באין ערוך? And from the פסוק, חכמה מאין תמצא is משמע that even the אורות of חכמה are באין ערוך. And it doesn't make sense to what we said before. If the אורות דאצילות are not באין ערוך to the מקור, to the קו, and the קו is not באין ערוך to לפני הצמצום, because it's all one המשך, so it comes out that the אור is close, is not באין ערוך to the מקור. But the חכמה מאין תמצא shows that it is. But there must be something difference between the קו and the אורות of the חכמה. In what sense, how? חכמה comes from the קו. We're talking the whole time of the אורות דאצילות that come from the קו. And we said why are the אורות דאצילות called not יש מאין, not they're only called גילוי ההעלם, עשר ספירות דאצילות, because they come from the קו. And the קו is directly from the בלי סוף עצמו. So you're asking, if that's so, how do we say החכמה מאין תמצא? That means חכמה comes from עין. That means that the מקור of חכמה is יש? I mean is עין and this is יש? Maybe it was hinted in a parenthesis or something. Here it was the, to latch this to the קו. Maybe that's, anyway let's not jump to an answer by saying Right, all the answers. Okay. So, we did have that, the פנימיות of the קו. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. אמנם יש לומר, let's say like this, שגם האורות דעשר ספירות הנמשכים מן הקו, and the אורות of the עשר ספירות that come from the קו, אין רצונו לומר פשוטים, doesn't mean פשוטים שלגמרי כפי פשיטות אוא״ס ממש. When we say פשוטים, it means they're not limited to anything, that they're just פשוט, so we do not make completely, do not mean completely פשוט. Like אין סוף is פשוט. אין סוף has no ציור at all of any ספירה. So when we say that the אורות are also פשוט because they come from the קו, normally we'd think פשוט means פשוט, there's no ציור of it. So it's not so pashut, it's pashut is not so pashut. Right, there's a peshitut and then there's, that's a word, so there's something beyond the word of peshitut. No, yeah, but even the word peshitut is not correct here, he's saying. Well, בלי מה. He's going to say why. He says, ומשום זה אנו רואים בספר יצירה עשר ספירות בלימה. So, we're calling it בלי מה, yet we're calling it עשר ספירות. בלי מה normally would mean without a gevul, so it's no tziur, it's completely בלי גבול. But then you can't say עשר ספירות בלי מה. So, he calls them, הרי גם כמו שהן בלימה, But that one only went on the orot we said in the previous. Did it go on the... Talking about orot. Okay. So, the way we say that it's בלי מה, at the same time, הרי הם בבחינת עשר ספירות עכ״פ. So, it's עשר ספירות. So, it comes out that these are עשר ספירות, the orot of the עשר ספירות, are also not really pashut because we're already saying that the orot are divided into ten. ומצינו עשר ספירות באורות גם כן. We take a fight עשר ספירות in the light. In the עשר ספירות דעתיק. And in עתיק, הרי בעתיק לא יש עדיין בחינת כלים, כידוע. There's no kelim there. So, mimela when it says that, in, in Atik there is עשר ספירות, it means עשר ספירות in the orot. And isn't it, even A.K.? Yeah. האורות שבו שרשו גנוז... That's, גנוז, here we're not talking about גנוז. וכידוע בענין ואין אלקים עמדי. Says ואין אלקים עמדי. There's nothing with Hashem. דלעתיד... ולעתיק יומין המינקת. That's talking about Atik. That in Atik there's nothing else. Elokim is, comes as כלים. ובעתיק יומין, ואין אלקים עמדי. In עתיק there is no כלים. So, in א״ק, in עתיק there is only אורות, and nevertheless we say in עתיק עשר ספירות. How's that שייך? All he's trying to bring out is that the word עשר ספירות goes on the אורות also. Okay. And עתיק יומין, that's unusual, it's usually an א, it's usually an ע stretched for a י, I see, no, I never saw the ף. Sometimes, sometimes it's easy to read like this. Yeah. So, it comes out from here that definitely we're talking about the אורות because we're talking about עתיק, עתיק is only אורות, and in the אורות we say there are עשר ספירות. Yeah. So, we see from here that we cannot say that the אורות are not ואין ערוך, and the אורות are פשוט. Since we're saying it's connected to the קו and the קו is linked to the אין סוף, linked to the עצמות, and there it's פשוט so the אורות are also פשוט, so you can't say, even though we use that לשון, but it doesn't mean כפשוטו, it doesn't mean simple פשוט that it's א קי פשוט, because you see if it's פשוט, you can't call it עשר ספירות. And the proof is by kind of reverse logic, by saying that there's no אלקים in, אלקים are the כלים, and there's no אלקים in עתיק. עתיק, ממילא there are only אורות. יש לומר דמה שבבעתיק דלא יש בחינת, ואין יש בחינת... What word is there? הכלים? Oh, I see. What is missing here? No כלים. דמה שבבעתיק לא יש בחינת הכלים, Yeah. היינו, yeah? Yeah. Hm. Wow. A whole word missing in the, a whole space even? Yeah. No. It's not, if it was a mezuzah, this would be pasul. All that's spontaneous, it has to be some emet to that. I think it's clear. Yesh lomar, yeah, יש לומר דבבחינת עתיק יש לומר שלא יש ענין הכלים, ובפרט דבעתיק אין בו כלים, היינו שלא יש מענין הכלים כלל, ולא רק העדר המציאות של הכלים. There is no Not the peshat is you don't have the מציאות of כלים. It means you have the potential of כלים, but the גראבקייט of the כלים you don't. No, you have no כלים בכלל. That's interesting. I asked about שבירת הכלים. It's for certain, I mean by כתר it doesn't couldn't have the שבירה by כתר. בחכמה we're gonna find that the... Where is where is תהו, before עתיק or after עתיק? Before. Before? So how do they have כלים there? Oh, if you didn't have כלים in כתר, had no כלים in כתר, how did you have כלים up there? Because they were because they were differentiated. They were not How did they have כלים if there's no כלים in... אינו כן, אלא it says they were כלים מועטים. Yeah, small כלים, yeah. I mean, small כלים. That's the problem. That's why there was a שבירה. שבירה came for two reasons. Because there's no התכללות and the כלים were too small, was אורות מרובים, כלים מועטים. Which goes together, the idea of התכללות. מועטים and smallness and and no התכללות. Yeah, you call it two ביאורים, but they go together obviously, they're connected, yeah. So here we said by עתיק, there's none at all? It says by one פרצוף. Not only the ענין הכלים, not only בפועל כלים, the ענין הכלים is not there. Not only the מציאות of כלים aren't there. Let's see if I get this. הגם He's gonna ask the שאלה I asked a little bit differently. הגם שבמדרגה שלמעלה מעתיק דאצילות In the levels higher than עתיק, כמו בבחינת א״ק מבואר במקום אחר ונתבאר גם לעיל בפרק י״ב שהעדר הכלים ששם, when we say there is no כלים, רק בבחינת העדר המציאות. That means that there's no מציאות of, but the ענין of כלים is there. והיינו שגם בא״ק יש מציאות הכלים, באמת there is כלים, רק מפני תוקף האור והגילוי שם, it's such a great light, הם בבחינת העדר המציאות, they don't exist, not because בעצם they're not there. דכאילו אינם, are not regarded as, that they don't look at them, you don't count them. And כאילו אינם is as if you could say, כאילו אינם? You said כאילו נעלם? I didn't say the word כאילו. Right, what's a כאילו נעלם? Oh, כאילו, I said now. There's a לשון החסידות, כאילו נעלם. By צמצום it says there's מלכות, כאילו, as if as if כביכול. As if, so I'm saying it also. When we say there is, it's as if there is no כלים, but באמת there is, באמת there is. In ענין there is, but but the מציאות, they are not a מציאות there. So what the שאלה is now, so how do we say that in Atik there is no כלים, when actually in A.K. there is? When we say in A.K. there is no כלים, it doesn't mean there is no כלים, he says. It means the כלים are are there, but because of such a great גילוי, it's blocked out, you don't see it, but it's there. So how do we say now in A.K. it's not, which is a similar שאלה to what I asked. How could they say A.K. has Atik, I mean, has no כלים, but תהו has כלים? But here he says even more, even in אצילות, even א״ק has כלים, but they're not felt. Right, so for sure that she just gotta be... Mikol makom, he says, דבבחינת עתיק יש לומר שלא יש ענין הכלים כלל. You can say in א״ק yes, and in עתיק not. אי, how is this? He says, דהרי א״ק הוא בחינת אריך דכללות עולמות. Because א״ק is really אריך. אריך דכללות. וכמו שכתוב בלקוטי תורה בביאור בירם וציים בשם המינקת סוסים. Oh, so it's including everything, so it has to include that, I guess. So, has that like אריך. אבל בחינת עתיק שהוא בחינת תחתונה שבמעשה, which is לוז דשדרה, כמו שנתבאר דשרשו למעלה מבחינת א״ק. It says the the עתיק שורש is higher than א״ק. יש לומר דשם לא יש ענין הכלים כלל. Because there there's no כלים at all. Uh-huh. ואם כן, הרי עשר ספירות דעתיק הן בחינת אורות. So, the עשר ספירות דעתיק is only אורות. So so, makes sense to say by תהו... We're gonna see in a second by תהו, okay? Because of that. We'll see probably. I believe what he's talking about... Yeah. Yeah, because it's part of the the whole it's dos iz that that has to come down. What that שבירה made up what what's in א״ק and everything else. I mean, it fell down to a certain degree, so even בכללות, the the idea of what אריך is in in א״ק, א״ק and אריך, those are. That's it. Trying to say this the שורש since it fell down, it fell down and at different מדרגות, it the sparks stopped. The מ״ה וב״ן obvious thing came all the way down to here. But then then there were higher levels of sparks of the כלים, let's say, in תהו, if I'm told. And? So, so, so it's on the שורש for everything else that, I don't know, that that's all. Just like, in א״ק, everything was there, but then the next level, which is עתיק, is is is is the idea in א״ק that there is no כלים At all? at all, yeah. That's part of what א״ק was thinking, so to speak? But א״ק did have... But א״ק did have, because it had all the כלים of all the lower מדרגות that have כלים, and every and as you get more and more grob, as they get coarser and coarser as they get lower. So, but that's all in א״ק to begin with. Isn't that what how we say this, בסקירה אחת? So, it's everything is there. So, from one to 10, it's all there, Including the כלים of later? including the כלים of later. And so each מדרגה has to have its amount or it's with or without, or as fine or or as coarse. And that's in א״ק, but but תהו is is even to say that where did the כלים in א״ק come from that they could even have all these, it has to I don't care where it came from. I want to know where they went to. You want to know where they went to. If there's כלים there, it should be כלים all along, all the way down. Where did they go? Not where they came from. They came from, they came. They came from the רשימו or whatever, but Oh, תהו. Oh, תהו, yeah. what happened to them? Why can't I can't I can't say that they were still there and then, unless they broke, so עתיק didn't, עתיק came later, עתיק missed the כלים because the כלים broke. All right, you can say that. Yeah, so, and I mean, in order for whatever was in א״ק that was thought of to be in all the lower worlds and כלים that were the other worlds that had כלים, all the דרגות that have כלים, was was מושרש in תהו, in those sparks in תהו, that those כלים had to come from How could that be? From א״ק? Well, was it not צמצום? There was צמצום, and then there was then there was a Sorry. Then, I I'm also, my confusion about that is. עולם התהו was אחר צמצום. א״ק Obviously, right. But it's is after עקודים. But after what? After א״ק. Oh, it's after א״ק. Right, right, right, right. Okay. Let me just think for a second. That's my question: if א״ק had, what happened to them in תהו? Oh, yeah, yeah. But he's talking about now עקודים, because you have א״ק, then you have עקודים, then you have נקודים. עקודים is before תהו. נקודים is תהו. Right. So, he's going to ask now בנוגע עקוד- you're going to speak about עקודים now. Right, עקודים. In other words, he had like this: א״ק has כלים, the inyan of the limited, the the concept of כלים, עתיק doesn't. How could that be? That's what he asked. And he answered, because א״ק is really not עתיק,

א״ק is really אריך. So, be'etzem, in in inyan, א״ק is lower than עתיק. In other words, could be that א״ק has כלים, and עתיק doesn't. Yeah, but one's פרטי, and one's כללות. But the fact that it's out of the כללות shows it's be'etzem the נקודה of אריך. And the fact is it's the כללות. Yeah. But I mean, it contains עתיק in it, so how could, you know, so to speak. It's אריך כללות, meaning it's the it's the long face, right, as they say, אריך אנפין, you know. It's it's it's descending all the way down from, you know, it's not אריך is How about אריך? So, it's אריך כללות, since it contains everything, But let's say the אריך, the real אריך, the regular אריך, Yeah, also, that's has כלים. It's עתיק that doesn't. And this this inyan of א״ק is a a concept of אריך. Oh, I see, so it's connected. So, mimela, it has כלים, in in its level, whatever level is there. Uh-huh. Well, so in order for that אריך, the פרטי, is to have כלים, it had to have the כללות to have Right. But א״ק doesn't, kivayachol, come from that channel. א״ק is a different channel. So, א״ק takes from a place which is higher even than א״ק, so עתיק. And he's saying because by Akudim, he's in Etz Chaim, שהן עשר אורות וכלי אחד. So, there are 10 אורות. What he's trying to bring out is one point here. He's trying to bring out that even the אורות דאצילות are called עשר, which makes him have a קשיא. That's how it started the whole thing here. He has a קשיא, how do we say before that מצד the אורות there is not, they are not עשר, they're only בהעלם, and because of that, just like the מקור, and they're close to the מקור, and so the מקור is פשוט, so the אורות are פשוט. How do you say the אורות are פשוט? They are עשר ספירות! And he wants to show that when we speak of עשר, not do we not necessarily do we always mean the כלים. Like, this way we always could answer when it says עשר ספירות, it means the אורות after they're in the כלים already. So, he wants to show, no, we find the לשון עשר ספירות when there are no כלים yet. למשל, we find עשר ספירות דעתיק, and just what he went through That whole thing that in עתיק there are no כלים. So how do we have עשר ספירות in עתיק? Must be only אורות. So the אורות are already not פשוט. So Akudim is not meaning, even Akudim, just talking about talking about עקודים, ברודים. Yeah, Akudim is lower than עתיק, which is עשר ספירות. So there you have עשר אורות בכלי אחד, no? Yeah. So the problem makes no sense. If if the if אורות are פשוט, and the only thing that makes the אורות into difference is the כלים, how could you have עשר אורות בכלי אחד? If there is כלי אחד, should be one אור. Right. If the whole chiluk between one and another comes through the כלים, so it's impossible to have. He's got a raya that in the אור itself you have the עשר. The raya right, in the כלי already. Even not only in עתיק, but even higher, even in in in עקודים. Even in עקודים. הרי יש, הרי זה ראיה שיש עשר ספירות באור עצמו, באורות עצמם. There is עשר ספירות in itself, כמו שהם בעקודים בכלי אחד. They are all one כלי, but there are עשר. So it's all a raya that the אורות are not pashut. How do we say that because they're גילוי ההעלם that's why they're pashut? And he says, באמת אם היו האורות בבחינת בלי גבול ממש, he says, I have another raya that they're not so pashut, not really בלי גבול. Had they really been בלי גבול, לא היה אפשר להתלבש שיתלבשו האורות בכלים. It would be impossible that the אורות go into the כלים. So הרי זה דבר מוסכם, that's the clearest thing everyone knows, שכל גוף שהוא בבחינת גבול, anything that's גבול, אי אפשר שיהיה בתוכו התלבשות אור וחיות של בלי גבול, בלי גבול. You can't have in something that's גבול a אור or a חיות of בלי גבול. It's impossible. Now, והכלים, and since it was גבול, שהרי יש מציאות ספירות באצילות. There is a מציאות of ספירות in אצילות, ששם כן מציאות חכמה וחסד, so mimela they are already מוגבל. ובהכרח שזהו בבחינת הכלים על כל פנים, so by the כלים it's for sure. Even if you try to say that this chiluk of מציאות of ספירות, חכמה, חסד is even by the אורות, but let's forget about that, for the כלים עובדא. So the כלים are definitely מוגבל. No, but but but I mean we just said earlier that that that the אור of the that the אור were touched by the צמצום. That the קו was touched by the צמצום. Yeah, that's what is a מעלה. He used the לשון as a מעלה in the כלים. But

לפועל, so the אורות are the ones that are גילוי ההעלם, and not the כלים. The כלים, he said, are יש מאין. They're not, the כלים are not יש מאין. So how does it contradict? How do we say they contradict that they were touched by the צמצום? Even even looking at a distinction compared to the כלים, we're still they were touched, they were touched. It can't be the same אור. If it's not the same אור, then there's a Well, there's the same אור of the קו. The אור של צמצום, so the אור של צמצום, then it's not פשוט. צמצום we're saying, that's the צמצום הראשון. What about the קו? It's there. Are the אורות of אצילות גילוי ההעלם of the קו? Or are they יש מאין of the קו? So the כלים, he says, are יש מאין. The אורות of אצילות are not יש מאין of the קו. And if גילוי ההעלם, that means that the העלם had to be the אור פשוט that was לפני הצמצום? Yeah. And he said that that the or in the kav is the אור שלפני הצמצום. Except there's two aspects to the kav. Well, we'll see. Uv'hechreach, at least by kelim, וכמו שכתוב בתיקוני זהר, it says in תיקוני זהר, ותיקנת כלין, גופין, תיקנת לון, you made many גופין, ויקראו בתיקונא דא, חסד דא ימינא. This is what we call now chesed, right, and that's called guf. Guf is a, הרי הכלים עובדא בבחינת מציאות ספירות ממש. So the kelim are definitely a metziut of sefiros. עם היות שהם אלוקות ממש, on one hand they're אלוקות, מכל מקום הרי הם בבחינת מציאות. פה מה שלאלוקות נהפך למציאות, it's Elokus that became a metziut. וכמו שכתוב בעץ חיים דקדיש, Etz Chaim, yeah, הגבול הנמצא מן התחילה בספירות, find by kelim. The sefiros come first. So mimela, so what comes out from here, that the kelim are definitely mugbal. Definitely mugbal. ואם נאמר שהאור הוא בבחינת בלי גבול ממש, if

you're going to say the or is a hundred percent בלי גבול, איך אפשר שיתלבש בבחינת הכלים? We're going to say penimi, how could it go inside in a penimiyut in the kelim when בלי גבול cannot come into gvul? What's he trying to do you know? Trying to back up the sevara that he said, that even that the orot themselves are not really בלי גבול ממש, they're not pashut. So he's bringing it in in very mesudar. One thing he brings a re'ayah that it's not pashut is the fact that we call it עשר ספירות. Ah, you might ta'anah when we call it עשר ספירות we mean the kelim. Says no, we find places where there is no kelim, like עתיק, עקודים, there's only one כלי and we still call it עשר ספירות, so it's so it goes on the אורות. So obviously the the אורות are also not really בלי גבול, they're מוגבל. Another raaya he says, the fact that they could be מתלבש in the כלי. The כלי is certainly גבול. How could the אורות if they're not גבול at all, they have nothing to they're פשוט תכלית הפשיטות, then how could they go into the כלים? It's impossible. How come we don't say that there's that third entity? Hashem put the אור in the כלי. I mean because if it's the third pushing it in, it could make You try to push in something bigger into something smaller. Matan Torah happened, I mean, that's an example, isn't it? No. But that's If we say that, we could close everything up. The Eibershter did everything, we don't care how, I mean He could do it and He could do that. Trying to have an הסברה that should fit into כללי השכל. Okay. Okay. I guess that's something for like another maamar, in a sense. Yeah, if you say that, you can look at that as למעלה משכל, or something למעלה, something higher than that. But the Eibershter could do two opposites. So you say this is this shaila is asked. And what's the purpose of this shaila? To answer the first shaila. The first shaila was, we said before the אורות are אין ערוך, a דרגא of גילוי ההעלם. But it says והחכמה מאין תמצא, which goes on the אור also, the אור החכמה is also יש. So he says, tell you the truth, yes. We see that the אורות בכלל are not so פשוט. Four rayot. So that's why even the אורות, as much as we said before, the אורות are connected to the קו, and the קו to the בלי גבול, and mimeila it's all גילוי ההעלם, not yesh me'ayin, it's not so. There is some level of ישות there. The דרך, I mean, Tzemach Tzedek answers this a little bit in וכל בשליש עפר הארץ. So it's the tefillah, you know, the tefillot tefillah, you know, but how is it how is the אור פשוט being in each in each in each ספירה? What are you davening to? What do we daven? You daven to the to Him, by the way He is מתלבש in a certain ספירה. Right, which is which is בלי גבול, which is higher than... So that's... Yeah, but the shaila is how does it work. How does it work? So this is an explanation. Explained it a little bit there, I think. It doesn't explain it really, it just says you must say that we're davening to Him, אליו ולא למדותיו, we can't daven to the מדה, אלא מאי, the way He is מתלבש in the מדה. The mashal of the מלך, if you ask to give you something, you say, please tell this officer to give this and this. Right. So really you're stopping with the king, but you're asking, you're guiding to say that the כוונות, you're guiding the king, please give a... So it's like an action. הפשיטות is there. So, it still doesn't explain exactly how is it פשוט and not פשוט at the same time. Or

another another example is how חכמה comes down into each ספירה. Like there's a there's a there's a התפשטות of חכמה within all the other ספירות. And that חכמה, because it's it's the פשיטות of the אור of חכמה, and חכמה itself is not פשיטות. But it's the פשיטות of the אור that's in the חכמה, that's able to help it come comes down into each And you can't call it אור החכמה. Cuz once it leaves its דרגא so to speak, then it's not the You want to say that it has in it בעצם a connection to the ספירות that they are. But he's trying to say they're not really פשוט. There is a אור החכמה. The famous מחלוקת, is there פשיטות, are the אורות פשוטים or not? Right. The re'iyah that each side brings is from the same מראה מקום. It says a לשון מחליפו דוכתייהו. אור החסד בכלי הגבורה, אור הגבורה בכלי החסד. There, some bring a re'iyah that the אור is a פשוט. If they wouldn't be פשוט, how could אור החסד go into כלי הגבורה? If it's חסד, how does it go into גבורה? That's a re'iyah it's פשוט. Zogt der anderer, the opposite. How do you even call it אור החסד? If it's פשוט, so it's the same light. It goes here, it goes there. What's the chiddush? It goes from here to there, it could go. The chiddush is that even though it's אור החסד, that means it had a שייכות to חסד, nevertheless it came into גבורה. The she'eilah is how. So, Reb Ginsburgh as a last thing in the נח, as has a whole thing about particle particles and antiparticles, just to throw this out. Between if there's there's tzaddik and baal teshuvah. One is, you know, רצוא ושוב, or oys velt and eyn velt. That you're here, but you're not here. There's this whole idea that you connect to פשיטות, but at the same time you're you're you have to come down to דירה בתחתונים, and get involved in the world, and and do teshuvah, and get in the grobkayt in order to... but at the same time, you've got to be out of this world. There's So this

back and forth... I don't know if that makes any sense. It's off my head. He calls it particles and antiparticles. This idea there's פשיטות and is Antiparticles is פשיטות? Yeah, yeah, because it's No particles. Yeah, it lacks metziut. Okay. Like a tzaddik, let's say, who's not here in the metziut. We can't all be a tzaddik, but But he's oys velt, and the world does not affect him, doesn't smack him, and he's higher than everything. Makes sense. Okay, so he's trying to say that the אורות are not really so פשוט. הנה במקום אחר מכריח מזה, in other maamarim we prove from this דהגבול דכלים הוא שאינו אלא כעין הגבול, ולא גבול ממש. הקשיא we ask this proof he has that אורות are not פשוט, because otherwise how does it come inside the גבול of the כלים. So, in other places we say must be that the כלים are not really כעין הגבול. Yeah, but אם ישנם בגדר מיוחד דחכמה, חסד וגבורה, even though they're מוגבל so to speak, they're a certain thing, חסד וגבורה, מכל מקום אין סוף להתפשטותם. As much as they are what they are, but what they are is בלי גבול. הרי שהם בגדר מיוחד, the חסד וגבורה על כל פנים they are in a special גדר, גדר מיוחד. וענין מה שהיא רק כעין הגבול, איי so how do we say they're not גבול, they're just כעין הגבול, but then לפועל יגבול, חסד, גבורה, וליש לומר שבאצילות אין מגבילין, אין מגבילין, והחסד, what's the next words? והחסד על דרך משל בבחינת That was in אצילות they're not מוגבל, they're take in אצילות they are what they are, but they're not, והחסד על דרך משל בבחינת בלי גבול. בבחינת בלי גבול. אבל מכל מקום הרי זה בבחינת הגבלה דחסד. It's a הגבלה דחסד, but that חסד is בלי גבול. The חסד is בלי גבול, right, right, right. So the the aspects of the כלים and the אורות we're talking about, right? What's, which is No, we're talking now about the אורות. Oh, you're just talking about the אורות. No no no, the כלים. He's trying to say that the how did the how does it come into אצילות? The אורות are בלי גבול, how does it come into the כלים? So he says, so some place it says the כלים he must say the כלים are also not גבול. But what do you mean the כלים are not גבול? כלי of chesed is not גבול? It's chesed, not gevurah, it's מוגבל. So he says there are two types in גבול. There's גבול what it is and there's גבול how much it is. You can have it's chesed, but the chesed is בלי גבול. Oh, so we mentioned something about the השפעה of it, the השפעה of chesed, say, or the I remember you said this, I remember this a few learnings ago, that one thing is the השפעה, that's בלי גבול, and then there's the inyan of it what it is. I don't think I used the word השפעה, התפשטות maybe. התפשטות is the word you used, that's right. The inyan of it, so yeah. So then I understand what you're saying. The התפשטות is בלי גבול, but what? Of chesed. Right, but the inyan of what it is Is is is whatever it is. וגם, also, that's why it's called כעין הגבול, but not really גבול because it's בלי גבול. But that's already implying something about the כלי you didn't say yet, right? No, it's talking about the כלי in general. Yeah, but I mean that there's some inyan He says when we say it's only כעין הגבול, we have a שאלה, how do we say it's כעין הגבול when it's really מוגבל? It's chesed. So you're right, when we say כעין הגבול not real גבול, meaning that this chesed is בלי גבול. Then he says וגם, another פשט why it's called כעין הגבול. That's like that the angels, you know, the troops and the Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah. וגם אף שפועלים באור דכשיוצא חוץ לאצילות יהיה בבחינת הגבלה, even though the כלים make that the אור when it comes out from אצילות and continues חוץ לאצילות it should become הגבלה, because how does it טאקע become מוגבל in בריאה? Because of the כלים of אצילות. Because it says לולי כח המגביל שבאצילות, if you wouldn't have the כח המגביל of אצילות, הרי היה בבחינת בלי גבול גם חוץ לאצילות, it would have been בלי גבול, it would come out בלי גבול and it would come בריאה it would still בלי גבול. Didn't they always say the פנימיות or the the intermediate and the חיצוניות of the כלים create the three worlds below אצילות, right? It says in Tanya... No, because the חיצוניות is the part that's for the השפעה לחוץ. Right. Right, no, but the פנימיות of the כלים creates בי\"ע? The intermediate part of the כלים create יצירה, and All good, that's mentioning something else, whether the inside and the outside, no, that's, that says there are three דרגות in the כלים. Ein hachi nami, but in all whichever way, it causes הגבלות. So, in other words, why is it מוגבל when it comes out, whether it's בריאה, יצירה, עשיה, is because the כלים in אצילות had the כח הגבלה, they made it. Mimeila, mimeila since they cause הגבלה for outside, בהכרח שגם באצילות פועלים איזה הגבלה, that must be that in אצילות they're also a certain הגבלה. What is the הגבלה? והוא שאף שאין סוף להתפשטותם, so even though the התפשטות, here he uses the word התפשטות, is אין סוף, מכל מקום היא התפשטות רק באצילות בלבד. There is a הגבלה that it should be מתפשט בלי גבול in אצילות only. רק באצילות בלבד. Yeah. כנודע, like we know the heferesh between the אין סוף לפני אצילות, between the אין סוף of Atzilus, the difference between the אין סוף in Atzilus and out of Atzilus, no, before Atzilus and in אצילות, דאין סוף שלמעלה מאצילות שנמצא ומשפיע בכל העולמות, that אין סוף goes all over. So it's a real bli gvul. אין סוף שבאצילות is מתפשט רק באצילות, לא חוץ לאצילות. לא חוץ לאצילות. Doesn't go out of Atzilus. ובכדי שיאיר אצילות בבי\"ע, but in order there should be a gilui of Atzilus in בי\"ע, אז הגילוי דאור עליון שלמעלה מאצילות has to be a higher gilui, but this itself can't do it. There it's that kind of answer. And where do we find? כמו בקריעת ים סוף. So יתחבר אצילות in biya, there was a חיבור אצילות in biya. So there it's ktiv it says וילך ה' את הים ברוח קדים, מבחינת קדמונו של עולם, so it's a higher darga. קדמונו של עולם, so that's a higher darga, that's it's קדמונו, א״ק, yeah. That helps understand the Tanya a little bit better. Okay, so here's that third, that third entity that kind of helps reconcile. Something a little bit us we were talking about yesterday? No, but that's what he's trying to bring out here. So how do we have the התפשטות lower than Atzilus, yeah, into biya? There is, because there's a כח עליון that pushed it. But what does it push it to? To make hagbalah. He wants to say even though the hagbalah happens חוץ לאצילות, but it must be that in אצילות גופא it also is hagbalah. In other words, if it wouldn't have the גדר הגבלה in Atzilus, it couldn't cause the hagbalah outside. If you don't have it yourself, you can't cause it anywhere else. So another reason he wants to say why he called this sefirah the כלים כח הגבול, כח הגבלה. So one reason he said, because it's not really הגבלה, because it goes בלי גבול. On the other hand, he says there's another reason. There is also a reason of הגבלה, yeah. But there's another reason of הגבלה, that because it causes the הגבלה in בי״ע, it is in itself has a certain כח הגבלה. Otherwise it wouldn't have a כח הגבלה, it can't cause the הגבלה there. But that's, so בי״ע is יש מאין from אצילות, so that, that's, you know, the, it's התפשטות from אצילות. Yeah, but it's a type of התפשטות which is not בהעלם. Right, like, so it's tzimtzum. Through the, through the, what do you call it? Says the, the curtain. The מסך, the מסך? Yeah, the פרגוד? מסך. מסך. פרגוד. פרוכת. Yeah. Did they read this week, no? Torah? Saying the Torah here this week about this? Probably, it always is. In all, especially by מסך ומפסיק. פרסה. פרסא, yeah. Look, I know of that maamar, I have to look up the thanks to him. I don't think it's that maamar, I think. Is that the maamar, is it the first maamar? The other maamar here, I'm not sure. Okay, it's the פרסא, the מסך. וכן בנשמות, יש נמשך לפעמים נשמה דאצילות בבי״ע. Sometimes the נשמה of אצילות gets stuck in בי״ע. משום דכמו מאחר ד, שיש נשמה שנקרע עליהם הפרגוד. Sometimes there's נשמות that the פרגוד, which is the פרסא, gets torn, and it goes through. Even that is על ידי גילוי עליון דווקא. It itself can't do it, it can never get from אצילות to בי״ע, you have to have a stronger כח from above. So that's not such a good thing, is it? I mean, you want the נשמה to hold, it's, no, but it remained, it stays, remains אצילות. Oh, so it can be good. In a sense, yeah. והיינו לפי שאין סוף שלמעלה מאצילות הוא מבחינת אין סוף ממש. The אין סוף למעלה מאצילות is אין סוף. על כן יוכל להיות משם שיהיה גילוי אצילות בבי״ע. The real אין סוף, which is higher than both, could make it. מה שאין כן אור אצילות הוא שנפעל על ידי הכלים להיות התפשטות באצילות. But in אצילות itself, what gives the גבול into the אורות? Only the fact that there are כלים and the כלים make a, a גבול to the התפשטות, only in אצילות. Okay, so what is he trying to bring out? He's trying to bring out, all one נקודה, that the אורות of אצילות are already מוגבל. ואם נאמר שאור אצילות הוא בבחינת בלי גבול ממש, if you're going to say that אצילות is בלי גבול, איך אפשר שיתלבש בכלים שהם כח הגבול? As much as we explain it's not really גבול, it's a כח הגבול, but there is a כח הגבול there. ושיוגבלו על ידי הכלים. And the כלים are going to be מגביל the אורות. But if the אור is בלי גבול, it can't take the הגבלה. Muz men zogn, you must say one thing, that the אורות themselves are also not really, really, really, really בלי גבול. Based on everything, the fact that you call them עשר ספירות, and we call עשר ספירות the אורות, not the כלים, כלים also, but even the אורות. In עתיק we have ten אורות, how do you have ten אורות? In ten ספירות, it must be the אורות. In other words, it's a סימן that they're not really. And this is the other ראיה, the other ראיה is how else could it be מתלבש in a כלי? ואינו דומה למדרגה שלפני הצמצום, not like we meant in בחינת כח הגבול שבאין סוף. He says, Lechora, what's the problem? The problem we said was that you can't have אצילות בלי גבול, the אורות בלי גבול together with the כלים which is גבול. But that's what happens לפני הצמצום. You have the כח הגבול שבאין סוף, שבאותיות דרשימו, הוא היה בגילוי ממש, because אין סוף was בלי גבול. The אותיות, רשימו, the רשימו, the אותיות of the רשימו לא נגע בהם הצמצום, which means they are the before. The difference is, before, the אור was inside them, and then they left. But how was the אור inside them? If they are a כח הגבול and the אור is בלי גבול, how could the אור בלי גבול go into the גבול? Same kashya we ask now by אצילות. We don't ask that, that question by לפני הצמצום. Why not? Because לפני

הצמצום, everything was contained, everything was there, so, no, but how could you have the concept of רשימו which is the כח הגבול to contain, have in it בלי גבול? You can't. לפני הצמצום, הרי לא היה ענין היה ענין המציאות כלל וכלל, there was no real מציאות, שהרי איתא שזה רשימו אינו מציאות, it's just chas veshalom, not really a מציאות, וכמו שנתבאר בפרק י״ד, ובמילא כך בערך שזה הכל מעין איזה שייכות, remember we talked about איזה שייכות, אבל לא היה מציאות. You had that before. אם כן אינו שייך לשאול על זה, basically I'm a little bit puzzled, so mimela you can't ask: איך היה בהם גילוי אור אין סוף? How was it given? מאחר שהכל היה אין סוף ממש. Even the כח הגבול is אין סוף. רק מה ש כח הגבול, he has a כח in גבול, but כח הגבול אין סוף ממש, like כח הבלי גבול. There we're not talking about גבול, real גבול, גבול בפועל. It's the כח, and the כח הגבול is a כח אין סוף. It's a כח, it's a כח. That's it. So m'meila over there you could. So what's that answer? It's a כח, so he can have many כוחות. No, he doesn't have many כוחות. The כח to make It's not the גבול. The כח to make בלי גבול to make גבול is a כח of בלי גבול. How is it the same? It's two different כוחות. That's not the same Why do we say he has a כח הגבול? Cuz he has no limits. Right. Which is בלי גבול. Right. So, this is an expression of his בלי גבול. The גבול there also is part of the בלי גבול. It's part Why is it part of the בלי גבול? Because Because why what makes you so sure that he has גבול? That's the whole point. Oh, cuz it's comparative. The the reason why we're so sure that he has גבול because he has no limits. To say is or to say that he can't have גבול is a limit. Okay, you can't have yes without no and you can't have no without yes. So if you're gonna say he only has בלי גבול, not גבול, it's a limit. So, because he has there is no גבול to him, that's why he has גבול the גבול also. So that's part of אין סוף. וגם בזה כשהיה הגילוי דאין סוף הבלי גבול, so therefore when you had the אין סוף בלי גבול shining into the כח הגבול, הרי היה כח הגבול בהעלם בתכלית. Why? Because it was you couldn't feel the גבול, because the גבול itself was really בלי גבול. וכשם שאחר הצמצום כשנתגלה כח הגבול, just like after הצמצום when there is the כח הגבול בגילוי, ונתגבר על כח הבלי גבול, and the גבול overpowers the בלי גבול, the בלי גבול is בהעלם. What was by the צמצום? What happened by the צמצום? The כח הגבול, the כח ההעלם overpowered the כח הגילוי, and it was so the כח הגילוי was בהעלם. שהרי הגם דאין סוף נמצא בכל מקום ממש, cuz אין סוף, which is all over, בכל החלל, עד למטה מטה. Even after the tzimtzum, אין סוף is there. דלית אתר פנוי מיניה. And

nevertheless, we say we don't feel it, מכל מקום אינו מורגש כלל. אף שיש מדרגות שאין בהם גילוי אין סוף כלל, there's no גילוי אין סוף. היינו שאין יודעים כלל מענין אלקות, a place they don't know about אלקות. So that's after So after the tzimtzum, what the peshat is the כח הבלי גבול is still there, but it's בהעלם. So too, כמו כן קודם הצמצום was the opposite. שאין סוף היה בגילוי, ממילא היה מלא כל מקום החלל all over. כולו חלל היה בגילוי ממש בחינת אור אין סוף, אין סוף is there. And and and mimeila there was כח הגבול, but the כח הגבול was no stira to the בלי גבול. Right, just like You just couldn't see you couldn't see the גבול as a גבול, just like afterwards you can't see the בלי גבול as a בלי גבול. And then it's not a stira yet. So mimeila it's no The she'elah is about אצילות. That's all לפני הצמצום. כל זה במדרגות שקודם הצמצום. אבל שיהיה אחר הצמצום התלבשות פנימית דאור אין סוף בכלים, after the tzimtzum when we say that there should be אור אין סוף, really אין סוף in כלים, which it is גבול, ושיופעלו הגבלה באיזה באצילות או חוץ לאצילות, should cause a הגבלה in אצילות or after חוץ לאצילות, איך אפשר שיהיה כן? How could that be? So he's all backing up again his kushya. Not his kushya, his proof. He

wants to prove that the אורות cannot really be בלי גבול, because one of the ra'ayot were because if it was בלי גבול it couldn't go into גבול. And he says, why not? Look, לפני הצמצום you have the רשימו, which is the אורות and there because הצמצום it's all בלי גבול. But after the צמצום, how is it possible? Uvehachrech so we must say Didn't you just say that it was the opposite? It's just It doesn't matter. It's It's the same thing happened there is happening now, but No, but he's saying that that's in the אור אין סוף itself. The כח הגבול and כח הבלי גבול. לפני הצמצום, the כח הגבול was בהעלם, כח בלי גבול בגילוי. Now the גבול is more That's right. But that's all in that אור. So, he's saying מה שאין כן אבל באצילות What's in אצילות? But there's both the two בחינות in אצילות, no? What's the I mean, the בחינה that's No, how is it possible that a בלי גבול should go into גבול? Because the גבול is really גבול. Even if you think the גבול is not really גבול, the גבול itself is a בלי גבוליק's thing. So, it's kind of the intermediary between this לפני צמצום and and and now. Yeah. Go on, sorry. So so you must say that the אורות דאצילות אין בהם התלבשות פנימית בכלים. They're not מתלבש. וכמו שנתבאר לעיל פרק ה׳ ו-ו׳. Okay, now it's okay. And what are we trying to bring out? How could they have התלבשות? Because they are also not really בלי גבול. אבל נראה שיש בהם התלבשות בעולמות, and you see he goes even to the עולמות, שזהו בשרש מעשר ספירות דאצילות. How is there an התלבשות of אור in in in עולמות? Because in אצילות it's like that. So mimela we must say that the אורות themselves in אצילות already have are not so pashut. Yes. דגם האמת אלא עצמי, he says that the Is the is is the best proof שיש כאן התלבשות פנימי. That's the best proof. That's correct. If they're מתלבש בפנימיות in the כלים, they cannot be פשוט. How could they be מתלבש בפנימיות? ואיך אפשר להיות שבגוף שהוא בחינת גבול, in the גוף in a body, in a thing which is גבול, יהיה התלבשות של בלי גבול? Right. Okay. אז על כרחך לומר, we must say, שגם האור דאצילות איננו בחינת, it's not בחינת בלי גבול ממש. It's not not בלי גבול ממש. What does that do? That answers the שאלה. The kashya was,

how does it say חכמה מאין תמצא, which goes on the whole חכמה, כלים and אורות, that the אורות are called יש and עין? When we said before that they're גילוי ההעלם. He says that it's טאקע גילוי ההעלם, but they are יש מאין also. A טאקע גילוי ההעלם means that they are still פשוט, but I have to tell you, he says, this whole whole סעיף, that it's not really פשוט. If it's not really פשוט, we could say it's a יש. So, but so we really have to continue to answer the question, no? I didn't understand how they're No, how do you put the two things together? On one hand it's גילוי ההעלם, and then we say, but it's not really גילוי ההעלם. So what is it? There's a פשיטות, and there's not a פשיטות. Yeah. Right? Yeah. But so again, the way you explained it was was that לפני הצמצום you had אורות גבול and אורות בלי גבול, but what shines more? The אורות בלי גבול. The גבול was there, right? Now you say, so after צמצום it seemed like you said that what do we have now? We have גבול and בלי גבול, but what's shining more? The גבול. Why can't you say the same Yeah? No. No, that's not how you said it? It's reversed? No, this is an example of when he wants to say that לפני הצמצום the בלי גבול was there, but the בלי גבול overpowered it. So he gives an example, a letter like it's not. אחר הצמצום the opposite. But that doesn't answer the question at all. It has nothing to do with answering the question. That's just giving an example. So בפועל we

see that one thing that in in that stage of לפני הצמצום the גבול was really בלי גבול. And mimeila over there, there was no problem how the גבול is in the בלי- the בלי גבול is in the גבול, because the גבול is not really גבול. But לאחר הצ- in אצילות you don't say that. In אצילות the גבול is גבול. How does the בלי גבול go in? It must be it's not really בלי גבול. So the גבול is not really גבול, but yet we still call it גבול. In לפני הצמצום. Because כח הגבול is part of the בלי גבול. It's part of the בלי גבול. So then at what point was the בלי גבול not really בלי גבול, but more גבול? By the By the צמצום? No, it doesn't say that. It's בהעלם. It doesn't say that Oh, בהעלם. It doesn't say No, there it's not a בלי גבול that is not really בלי גבול. It's just בהעלם, that's it. It's covered up by the גבול. But you So why not say that לפני הצמצום how does גבול become גבול, how does בלי גבול become גבול? No. Why not say that that the גבול just becomes בהעלם, was בהעלם, that the גבול was there. לפני הצמצום, not אחר הצמצום. Yeah, לפני הצמצום the גבול was בהעלם. Right. But you can use the same lashon then. Yes, it's the lashon, but l'foal what that means is the gevul was behelem because in לפני הצמצום, because it's really bli gvul. Because it's really bli gvul, but, again, that's a limitation, too, to just call it bli gvul, because the You mean the Ein Sof. Oh, but then it's really really really bli gvul, and that's even gevul. I have to repeat that to myself. It's really really, and it's even gevul. No, it's really bli gvul, because even though it's gevul, but that gevul is is really bli gvul. Why is he why is there a koach hagevul? Because he's bli gvul. Which means he's Ein Sof, which means he's everything. Ein Sof. Ein Sof includes gevul. So gevul which is the opposite of Ein Sof, but that's what it is. So, and so right, so now Atzilus makes a little makes a differentiation. So you've got אחר הצמצום, but you're still holding with that But when you come to Atzilus, then we have more Then we have a problem. That's real gevul. Right. So how does the bli gvul go into the gevul? Right. Yes. And so it's but it's it's So it must be that it's not pashut. Okay. Yishar koach, Yishar koach, Yishar koach. It's not pashut. It's not pashut. Thank you. Thank you very much, rabbi.