Two Tears to the Great Sea

(înapoi la pagina ZOHAR CUPRINS / ŞMOT – click)

342) Come and sea the Creator’s mercy. When He has mercy over Israel, He forces the quality of Din and brings it down and has pity on them. The Creator brings two tears down to the great sea.

In Tzimtzum Bet [second restriction], Malchut rose to Bina as a Yod that entered the Ohr [light] and became Avir [air]. Thus, the light of Bina became Avir because of Malchut’s Dinim that entered her. Avir means VAK without a Rosh [head], and two kinds of Dinim were made in Bina by Malchut’s ascent: Malchut that is mingled with Bina, where at the time of Gadlut, the illumination from AB SAG brings down the Malchut from Bina back to her place. It turns out that the Yod departs the Avir of Bina and Bina returns to being light, which means GAR. Thus, when the Katnut and Gadlut in Bina are made, it is also made in Malchut, and Mochin de GAR emerge in Malchut, too.

It was written that when He has pity over Israel, He forces the quality of Din, which is Malchut that rose to Bina, and brings her down to her own place and has pity on them. At that time, the GAR come out in Bina, in Malchut, and in the souls of Israel below.

In other words, the Creator brings two tears down to the great sea, Malchut, two kinds of DinimBina that is mingled with Malchut, and Malchut that is mingled with Bina. It is not clear why they are called tears, meaning that it is not clear that the Din in them is Din, due to the mixture of Bina in Malchut and Malchut in Bina.

Tears indicate mixture, from the words, “Raising the Meduma [mixture],” where the Din in them is unclear. This is because even at the time of Katnut, when the light of Bina becomes Avir and the light of ZON becomes Avir because of them, too, and the Klipa of Ov wishes to cling to Dinim, it is denied and said of these two Dinim that they are not Din, thus removing it from clinging to them. Thus, the Din in them is not so clear, which is why they are called Demaot [tears], from the words, “mixture of Din” that it is not so clear that it is Din.

343) We do not follow the Klipa of Ov. We bring no evidence from the Klipa of Ov that because we deny before him saying that there is no Din in them and we distance him, it is evidence that the Din in the two tears is unclear. This is not so. Rather, the meaning of it is that the Din in the two tears is clear: in the ten Sefirot of the king, there are two tears for the Creator and two qualities of Din, one that extends from the mingling of Malchut in Bina, and one that extends from the mingling of Bina in Malchut.

The Din comes from both. Thus, the Din in them is clear, and when the Creator remembers His sons, He brings them down to the great sea, the sea of HochmaMalchut, to mitigate them. Thus, the Katnut of Bina comes out in Malchut. Afterwards, Malchut can receive the Gadlut de Ima, too, like a mother who lends her clothes to her daughter. At that time Malchut’s quality of Din becomes the quality of Rachamim, meaning she receives GAR. And He has pity on them, on Israel, so they receive GAR, as well.

The Din comes from the two tears from which the tears come. At their root, the two tears in Bina that are made by the ascent of Malchut to her are not clear Din. Rather, other tears extend from them to the place of Malchut, and the Din comes from these tears in Malchut, as it was written that the Din comes from the two tears from which the tears come in Malchut.

344) “The Egyptians were traveling after them.” This is the minister of Egypt. It means that he was still established when Israel departed Egypt, but you said, “The king of Egypt died,” which is the minister of Egypt. This was prior to Israel’s exit from Egypt. There is no contradiction here. Rather, it even supports the interpretation of the words above, which is “The king of Egypt died,” since here it writes, “Behold, the Egyptians,” and there it writes, “The king of Egypt died.” This teaches that now, after the exodus from Egypt, there was no king, since he has already been brought down from his greatness. This is why it writes, “Behold, the Egyptians,” and does not write, “Behold, the king of Egypt.” And the reason why he said that he died is not that he was completely annulled, but that he was brought down from greatness and could no longer do harm, as it is written, “For all the men that sought your life are dead,” meaning they can no longer harm. Here, too, “Died” means no longer being able to harm, since he was brought down from his greatness.

345) All the kings of Egypt are named, “Pharaoh.” And here it says only, “The king of Egypt died.” It did not say, “Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” This is because it is about the minister of Egypt. Had it written, “Pharaoh,” instead, it would be the actual Pharaoh and not the minister of Egypt. As long as there is government above, in the minister of the people, there is government in the people below. When the government above is removed from the people’s minister, the government below is removed, as well.

(înapoi la pagina ZOHAR CUPRINS / ŞMOT – click)

error: Content is protected !!