“Snake Life; Different and the Same” p: 57

Add caption

AyinBase with R' Paltiel 10/30/11 Sunday 2 Cheshvan 5772  

Page 57 – at the lower third of the page (line starts: “be makom acher...”)

See link on the upper right of the blog to view all pages of the text...

The will is aroused from a source beyond itself.

We are looking at how these topics are above. The original thought for creation is like the ratzon and in it is contained all elements of creation.

But all these elements are there in an 'equal' capacity and do not yet have the characteristics of real entities.

In actual creation there must be sechel/mind that grasps the will/ratzon and translates it to its level and then 'runs with the ball'. And speech cannot precede thought. But up in ratzon or 'the original thought' all is contained in an equal way.

Every thing that follows was contained in the 'primal thought'. Nothing can function independently and all reflect the essence of the person. The Freddike Rebbe said in hard times, when some of our best were caught in the flood, 'the hands do the sin, but face receives the smack'.  

We're learning it from below to above. The kav has the function of 'ohr pnimi' even though it is from the 'ohr ein sof that is before the tzimtzum'. It points to its source. This is the difference between kedusha/holiness and klipah/unholiness. Holiness always points to its source. This is the difference between ohr/light and darkness/choshech. Light reveals all within a context.

The kav is revealing the ohr ein sof/primal light, but in a 'kav manner'. The 'kav manner' means things come in a 'digestible' way. We drink water from a cup. We don't jump in the lake to drink. The abundance of water in the lake is the source, but it cannot be taken in internally. To intenalize it we need the tzimtzum and the kav first!

Water is an essential presence in the world. A reality. That's the lake. It is part of reality. Then when we limit it and draw it through a pipe into our cup we have brought it from an original state to a 'useable' context. A qualitative difference has been affected. The water in the cup is defined and it is conceivable that is would not be there. The water in the like is 'infinite and eternal'. 

Imagine a king giving out treasures from his supply. Taking down the walls and letting them take is unholiness. The other way is he opens a window and each subject comes to the window and makes a request that is granted. On the one hand it is a specific request based on the person's need, and the ability to grant it is not because it is a 'small request' but due to the abundance and the relationship. The connection to the origin is maintained.

This is like the kav. It maintains the sense that it comes from the G-dly reality.

In holiness the giving is 'face to face'.

In unholiness it is 'over the shoulder'.  

The difference: indirectly given, means the giving is limited to 'that thing'. Giving face to face is 'giving a little bit of himself'. And the limit is so that he shouldn't lose himself, but rather appreciate the source that it came from. Wealth, and we should all be wealthy, can disorientate a person.

To translate the infinity of the King into tangible/defined elements is hischadshut/innovation.

This is the opposite of the snake. The serpent has the earth, without the source of the earth. It is secure, on his belly with his food before him, but he lacks the connection to ein/nothing/infinity and that's why he is so venomous.

The kav is always connected above and points back to a source. And it makes everything digestible and appropriate for the recipient.

"I can afford it, I give my child whatever he wants!” is not chinuch/educating/raising a child.  It is a cop out! The parent must assess, is it good for the child.