(înapoi la pagina ZOHAR CUPRINS / Beresheet Bet – click)
154) “Let there be a firmament inside the water.” In the verse, “Let there be a firmament,” the upper waters were separated from the lower waters. A firmament means spreading of water. This is why it is written, “And let it separate between water and water,” Between upper water and lower water, as it is written, “Let there be a firmament,” which means that an expansion would expand from one another.
155) “And God made the firmament.” “Made” indicates that He made in it an act of Gadlut of above, meaning extended in it Mochin de Gadlut from Bina, for in the word, “Let there be a firmament,” preparation was made for reception of the upper Mochin of Bina to ZON.
And the word, “made,” indicates the completion of all that is desired, for all the upper Mochin from Bina were already extended into ZON. It does not write, “Let there be a firmament,” but rather, “And God made the firmament.” This wording indicates that He enhanced it in great Gadlut.
156) Hell for the wicked of the world was created on the second day. On the second, dispute was created. On the second, the work was not completed, but on the third day. This is why it is not written on the second day, “That it was good,” until the third day came and the work was completed in it. This is why it is written twice on the third day, “that it was good,” once for completing the work of the second day, and once for completing its own work.
On the third day, the second day was corrected and the dispute in it was settled, for the existence of the illumination of both. In it, the Rachamim for the wicked in Hell were completed, to exempt them from the Din. On the third day, the glimmers of the fire of Hell grow still, meaning that they cool off in the illumination of the third day and no longer burn. This is why the second day was included and completed in it.
157) But the light emerged on the first day, darkness emerged on the second day, and the division of water and dispute were in it. Why was all that not completed in the illumination of the first day? After all, the right includes the left, meaning that since the light of the right emerged on the first day, it follows that it is the root of the second day, and any root includes its branch within it and governs it. Hence, the first day could have corrected it, so why did the second day become needy of a third day to correct it?
There is a very big difference because through the correction of the third day, its illumination diminished, and it could not illuminate from above downward, only from below upward, which is considered VAK de GAR. Had the second day been corrected by the first day, it would have remained as it was and would not have been diminished whatsoever.
The thing is that the dispute was over the fact that the first day really did wish to correct it, as a root that corrects the branch. However, the second day did not wish to accept the governance of the first day over it. It disputed it, until the third day had to bring itself between the first day and the second day, to determine the dispute and make peace between them.
(înapoi la pagina ZOHAR CUPRINS / Beresheet Bet – click)