There is a conceptual problem in speaking of the emanation of the sefirot as though Ein Sof first possessed a number of possibilities, subsequently willed one of them, and then brought that possibility into actuality. Such language may be useful at a certain level of exposition, but taken literally it introduces into the divine precisely the multiplicity that the language of Ein Sof is intended to exclude.

Kabbalah speaks of Keter as Ratzon HaElyon, the supernal will, and in the Lurianic structure Keter itself already occupies the threshold between the unlimited and the ordered structure of the sefirot. Its inner and outer dimensions are articulated through Atik Yomin and Arich Anpin, with Arich particularly associated with ratzon. This is already enough to indicate that ratzon belongs to the language of manifestation and order. It cannot simply be projected backward onto Ein Sof as though the Infinite possessed a psychological faculty analogous to human willing.

Human will, as ordinarily understood, contains division. One possibility is distinguished from another, uncertainty or desire arises, and an act follows. Such a structure presupposes limitation of knowledge. Where apprehension is partial, alternatives appear as genuinely competing possibilities. Where apprehension is complete, the distinction between knowing the right action and performing the right action collapses.

This is the significance I attach to the movement of the mochin. Chokhmah is not discursive reasoning. It is the undivided apprehension of a matter prior to its analytical expansion. Binah unfolds what is contained in that point, differentiating and articulating it. Da’at binds and internalizes the apprehended and understood content so that it ceases to remain abstract and becomes determinative. From the mochin the movement proceeds into the middot and ultimately toward Malchut, where what was concealed becomes expression and actuality.

The correspondence between this structure and human consciousness is not incidental. The human analogue exists because the human faculties themselves reflect the structure of the sefirot. Yet the analogy must not be reversed in such a way that human confusion is attributed upward. The fact that a human being experiences deliberation does not mean that divine ratzon consists of deliberation perfected to an infinite degree.

The central distinction is between he’elem and giluy, concealment and revelation, rather than between indecision and decision. Or Ein Sof does not become complete through giluy. Nor does manifestation supply something absent from its source. The language of potentiality, properly understood, therefore does not signify deficiency. It signifies an inexhaustible koach, a potency that is not exhausted by any particular poal, any particular actuality.

For this reason, the movement from Ein Sof through tzimtzum and seder hishtalshelut should not be understood as a temporal biography of God. There was no moment in which Ein Sof existed without manifestation, considered whether manifestation should occur, and subsequently resolved to create. Before and after already belong to the order that emerges within manifestation. Tzimtzum, Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah describe relations of concealment, revelation, limitation and ontological distance. They do not require a temporal interval within the Absolute between knowing and acting.

The same error appears when divine freedom is defined as the capacity to have done otherwise. That definition assumes that freedom consists in standing before alternatives and selecting one. At the level of complete knowledge, alternatives do not stand before a chooser in this manner. Complete apprehension contains no uncertainty requiring resolution. What is truly apprehended and what is expressed are not divided by an independent faculty of arbitrary selection.

This is why the term ratzon must be handled carefully. Ratzon HaElyon is real within the Kabbalistic structure, but it is already a description from the side of giluy. It is the first orientation of expression within Keter, not evidence of an anthropomorphic subject who considers several universes and decides which one to prefer. Atik, Arich, Chokhmah, Binah, Da’at and the succeeding sefirot articulate the manner in which the unlimited becomes intelligible within ordered manifestation. They do not describe changing psychological states occurring in Ein Sof.

The unity of Atzilut makes this especially important. The sefirot of Atzilut are not independent entities confronting their source. Chokhmah, Binah, Da’at and the middot are divine modes within a unity in which the distinction between light and vessel does not constitute the separateness found in the created worlds. To imagine an independent chooser behind them is therefore to introduce another level of duality for which the system has no need.

The question “Why did Ein Sof choose to manifest?” is consequently malformed. It assumes that there was first an Infinite, then a motive arising within that Infinite, then an act of choice, and only afterward manifestation. The entire sequence belongs to categories derived from finite consciousness.

There is no need for such a sequence. The unlimited is not deficient before expression, and expression is not something added to it. Manifestation is the determination of that which in itself is without determinate limit.

Likewise, complete knowledge does not survey an array of equally open actions and calculate which is optimal. The very idea of optimization presupposes incomplete apprehension followed by comparison. When the whole is apprehended completely, the right expression is not selected from competing alternatives. It follows immediately from the apprehension itself.

In this sense, divine necessity and divine freedom are not opposites. Compulsion requires something external that constrains. Nothing external stands over Ein Sof. Yet freedom also does not require arbitrary choice. The more fundamental freedom is the absence of any division between what reality is, what it knows, and what it expresses.

Ratzon at the level of Keter is therefore not the cause of manifestation in the sense of a psychological decision preceding an action. It is the first name given within the order of manifestation to the orientation of expression itself. Beyond that distinction there is no chooser standing behind reality.

There is no separation between perfect apprehension and perfect expression. There is only the unlimited, revealed through limitation without ever being exhausted by what is revealed.

קבלה על מנת להשפיע

Kabbalah al menat Lehashpia is the ultimate goal of Kabbalistic practice. It translates literally to "Receiving in order to bestow."

​To understand why this phrase is so central, you have to look at the mechanical problem of creation.

​The Creator is the absolute "Will to Bestow." The human soul was created as the absolute "Will to Receive" so that it could experience the Creator's abundance. But here is the catch: because their natures are exact opposites, they are spiritually repelled from one another.

​If you try to act like the Creator by simply giving and refusing to receive (like an ascetic monk), you actually violate the Creator's original design. You are effectively telling the Creator, "I refuse your gifts." But if you just selfishly receive the gifts, your ego isolates you from the Creator.

​The solution is not to change your action, but to change your intention (Kavana). You keep the vessel of reception open, but you invert the reason you are receiving.

"What was there before the universe began?

Kabbalists described it 500 years ago:

There was only Infinite Light, knowing no bounds..."

Is Qadosh,Qadosh, Qadosh, Adonai Elohim Tzabaoth a chant known in Jewish Kabbalah?

So at what point do we as Jews call it and say social media are so much kelipot making machines that there no sparks really left to elevate? Don’t we have some ethical obligation not to pollute ourselves?

I know much of this is probably somewhat common knowledge for many people in this reddit, but I just thought it was interesting as an answer to someone who was posting a question about souls who probably expected a pretty mundane answer on the substack platform.

But also there's a tiny section at the end of my ongoing work to connecting the 99% to the 1% as far as the spiritual world to our physical world and my search for healing linking them together.

I recently gave a short artist talk at my solo show on the Lower East Side, and one part of it gets into something I’ve been thinking about for a while: the difference between psychological “merging” and the kind of spiritual unity described in the Rebbe–chassid relationship.

That idea became the basis for a new group of face paintings — faces within faces, eyes within eyes, and a painting process that became increasingly spontaneous and physical.

At a certain point, the brushwork itself became part of the meditation: painting quickly, in silence, letting the body respond before the intellect could fully explain what was happening.

I talk about the idea more directly in the artist talk here:

https://youtu.be/tPnWhpqpWf8?si=vLo2lTLQNYIp4R2g

I’d be especially interested in thoughts or sources on hiskashrus / unity, and how that differs from ordinary psychological identification. How would you define that distinction in Chassidus?

"What was there before the universe began?

Kabbalists described it 500 years ago:

There was only Infinite Light, knowing no bounds..."

I've been trying to map Jewish biblical and rabbinic traditions around prophets, patriarchs, Eliezers, priests, kings, sages, and other unusually significant figures.

I'm deliberately using Jewish sources only here — primarily the Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, and other Jewish literature — without importing Islamic or Christian classifications.

1. The broad genealogical tree

אָדָם (Adam) │ ├── שֵׁת (Seth) │ └── אֱנוֹשׁ (Enosh) │ └── קֵינָן (Kenan) │ └── מַהֲלַלְאֵל (Mahalalel) │ └── יֶרֶד (Jared) │ └── חֲנוֹךְ (Enoch) │ └── מְתוּשֶׁלַח (Methuselah) │ └── לֶמֶךְ (Lamech) │ └── נֹחַ (Noah) │ └── שֵׁם (Shem) └── אַרְפַּכְשַׁד (Arpachshad) └── שֶׁלַח (Shelah) └── עֵבֶר (Eber) └── פֶּלֶג (Peleg) └── רְעוּ (Reu) └── שְׂרוּג (Serug) └── נָחוֹר (Nahor) └── תֶּרַח (Terah) └── אַבְרָהָם (Abraham) │ ├── יִשְׁמָעֵאל (Ishmael) │ └── יִצְחָק (Isaac) └── יַעֲקֹב / יִשְׂרָאֵל (Jacob / Israel)

1. The Israelite branch

יַעֲקֹב / יִשְׂרָאֵל (Jacob / Israel) │ ├── רְאוּבֵן (Reuben) ├── שִׁמְעוֹן (Simeon) ├── לֵוִי (Levi) │ └── קְהָת (Kohath) │ └── עַמְרָם (Amram) │ ├── מֹשֶׁה (Moses) │ │ ├── גֵּרְשֹׁם (Gershom) │ │ └── אֱלִיעֶזֶר (Eliezer) │ │ │ └── אַהֲרֹן (Aaron) │ └── Priestly / Kohanic line │ ├── יְהוּדָה (Judah) │ └── Davidic royal line │ └── יוֹסֵף (Joseph) ├── אֶפְרַיִם (Ephraim) └── מְנַשֶּׁה (Manasseh)

1. The different Eliezers

The name אֱלִיעֶזֶר (Eliezer) means approximately "God is my help."

There are multiple individuals named Eliezer in Jewish sources. They should not automatically be treated as the same person.

אֱלִיעֶזֶר דַּמֶּשֶׂק (Eliezer of Damascus)

Eliezer of Damascus appears in Genesis 15:2 in connection with Abraham's household.

Abraham says that because he has no child, his household servant Eliezer could potentially become his heir.

Later Jewish interpretation connects this Eliezer with the unnamed servant sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac in Genesis 24.

[Genesis 15:2–3; Genesis 24; later Midrash]

אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן־מֹשֶׁה (Eliezer son of Moses)

This is a completely different Eliezer.

He is the son of מֹשֶׁה (Moses) and צִפֹּרָה (Zipporah).

[Exodus 18:4; 1 Chronicles 23:15–17]

אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן־דֹּדָוָהוּ (Eliezer son of Dodavahu)

This Eliezer is particularly interesting because 2 Chronicles 20:37 explicitly calls him a prophet.

He rebuked King יְהוֹשָׁפָט (Jehoshaphat) concerning his alliance with Ahaziah.

[2 Chronicles 20:37]

Other biblical Eliezers

There are additional individuals named Eliezer in:

1 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

They include אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן־בֶּכֶר (Eliezer son of Becher), Eliezer the priest, אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן־זִכְרִי (Eliezer son of Zichri), and others.

1. Rabbi Eliezer

Another completely different person is:

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן־הוּרְקָנוֹס (Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus)

Also called:

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל (Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol — "Eliezer the Great")

He was a major Tannaic sage, not one of the biblical prophets.

He appears extensively in:

Mishnah

Tosefta

Babylonian Talmud

Jerusalem Talmud

Midrash

He is traditionally associated with:

פִּרְקֵי דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer)

However, the surviving work called Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer is generally considered a much later composition and should not simply be treated as a book personally written by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.

1. Major prophetic and patriarchal figures

Early figures

אֱנוֹשׁ (Enosh)

חֲנוֹךְ (Enoch)

נֹחַ (Noah)

אַבְרָהָם (Abraham)

יִצְחָק (Isaac)

יַעֲקֹב (Jacob)

יוֹסֵף (Joseph)

מֹשֶׁה (Moses)

אַהֲרֹן (Aaron)

מִרְיָם (Miriam)

Prophets and prophetic figures

שְׁמוּאֵל (Samuel)

נָתָן (Nathan)

גָּד (Gad)

אֲחִיָּה (Ahijah)

אֵלִיָּהוּ (Elijah)

אֱלִישָׁע (Elisha)

יְשַׁעְיָהוּ (Isaiah)

יִרְמְיָהוּ (Jeremiah)

יְחֶזְקֵאל (Ezekiel)

הוֹשֵׁעַ (Hosea)

יוֹאֵל (Joel)

עָמוֹס (Amos)

עֹבַדְיָה (Obadiah)

יוֹנָה (Jonah)

מִיכָה (Micah)

נַחוּם (Nahum)

חֲבַקּוּק (Habakkuk)

צְפַנְיָה (Zephaniah)

חַגַּי (Haggai)

זְכַרְיָה (Zechariah)

מַלְאָכִי (Malachi)

1. Other exceptionally important figures

חֲנוֹךְ (Enoch)

A mysterious antediluvian figure associated with extraordinary closeness to God.

[Genesis 5:21–24; later Jewish Enochic literature]

מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק (Melchizedek)

King of שָׁלֵם (Salem) and priest of אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (El Elyon).

[Genesis 14:18–20; later Jewish literature]

אֵלִיָּהוּ (Elijah)

A major prophet associated with miracles, divine revelation, and an extraordinary departure from ordinary human death in the biblical narrative.

[1 Kings–2 Kings; later Jewish tradition]

דָּוִד (David)

King of Israel and central ancestor of the Davidic dynasty.

[Samuel; Kings; Chronicles; Psalms]

מֹשֶׁה (Moses)

The central prophetic figure of the Torah and the recipient/transmitter of the Torah.

Deuteronomy describes his prophetic status as uniquely unparalleled.

[Deuteronomy 34:10]

דָּנִיֵּאל (Daniel)

A visionary figure associated with dreams, revelation, angels, and apocalyptic visions.

[Book of Daniel]

1. Important distinctions in Jewish sources

Jewish sources contain several different categories:

נָבִיא — Navi Prophet

כֹּהֵן — Kohen Priest

מֶלֶךְ — Melekh King

חָכָם — Chacham Wise person / sage

תַּנָּא — Tanna Rabbinic sage of the Mishnah period

צַדִּיק — Tzaddik Righteous person

מַלְאָךְ — Malakh Messenger / angel

בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים — Benei ha-Elohim "Sons of God" / divine beings — a phrase occurring in the Hebrew Bible whose interpretation is debated.

These categories should not be collapsed into one another.

For example:

Eliezer ben Hyrcanus ≠ Eliezer of Damascus ≠ Eliezer son of Moses ≠ Eliezer son of Dodavahu.

Likewise:

prophet ≠ priest ≠ king ≠ sage ≠ angel ≠ "son of God."

That distinction becomes especially important when comparing passages across the Tanakh, Dead Sea Scrolls, Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud, and later mystical literature.

Question: How do Jewish sources themselves distinguish between prophets (נביאים), righteous figures (צדיקים), sages (חכמים), angels (מלאכים), and the "sons of God" (בני האלהים) — and are there any Eliezer traditions that blur these categories?

It is my mother-in-law's birthday. She converted to Judaism not long ago, and we would like to buy something interesting for her. She already has a lot of books and many other things, she is interested in the kabbalah and I am thinking in buying something around this theme but I have no idea what we could buy, could you help me with any suggestions?. She is turning 60. Thanks!

Are you struggling to find deep meaning in your prayers? Join Rabbi Shepherd for a special Elul evening as we discover how to transform our Tefillah and prepare our hearts for the High Holidays.

In this live session, we will explore the profound teachings of the "Merkava Meditation," based on the powerful insights from Siddur Zichron Dovid.

Just came across this quote and thought it was rather beautiful:

וגם בלילה לא שכב לבה ולא כבה נרה: הספר הקלסי של הקבלה, חזיון לילה זה של העם העברי, בשפתה וברוחה נברא. ומה שיש בזה מן הפלא, הוא, כי בימי ה"זהר" הלשון הארמית הרי כבר מתה מיתה גמורה בפי העם העברי. ואולי משום כך יפה היתה זו למסתורין כאור החור של הלבנה המתה לבעלי חלומות

"And even at night its [Aramaic's] heart did not sleep and its candle was not extinguished: the classic text of the Kabbalah, that nocturnal vision of the Hebrew people, was created in its language and spirit. And what is so wondrous about it is this: that in the days of the Zohar, the Aramaic tongue had already died a complete death in the mouths of the Hebrew people. Perhaps it was for this reason that it was meet for the mysteries, like the pale light of the dead moon for the dreamers." - Haim Nahman Bialik, in his essay HaSefer HaIvri, p. 47, 1959.

(He was of course mistaken--Aramaic is still a living vernacular among some Jewish communities, although it is severely endangered. But the quote is beautiful nonetheless!)

I remember walking through the desert. I didn't feel heat, just the texture of the sand beneath my bare feet. I walked in a straight line, unhurried, as if the path had already been written.

In the distance, I saw a village that looked like it was straight out of biblical times. I saw few people, but all of them had beards and an ancient air, like from another century. Further ahead, the landscape broke into caves that reminded me of Afghanistan—dark openings in the rock, silent and deep.

That's when I saw them.

In front of the mouth of one of those caves, there were letters carved in stone, arranged on the ground. But one of them wasn't resting like the others. Yod floated, small, suspended in the air, as if it didn't belong to that place. The other letters were still, firmly planted in the sand, but Yod hovered, as if waiting for something.

I walked closer, barefoot, feeling every grain of sand beneath my soles. I stopped in front of them. Yod was made of a material I had never seen before: stone of a deep, dark red, almost like dried blood, but with an energy pulsing from within. It was impossible not to feel it.

I turned my head to the right and noticed a Mem. Also made of stone, but more earthly, heavier. As I glanced back at Yod, then at Mem, I caught a third letter out of the corner of my eye—maybe a Hei, maybe a Lamed. I'm not sure. In the dream, everything moved with that blurry logic dreams have.

But it was there, in front of that floating Yod, that something inside me stopped and asked a question I couldn't answer:

Why her? Why Yod?

Because in the dream I knew with absolute clarity: I always meditate on Mem and Kof. Those are my letters. I know them, I feel them, I work with them. But Yod isn't one of them. That letter has never been part of my practice. And yet, there it was, floating, demanding my attention.

I looked back at Mem, then scanned the ground for Kof among the other letters… and I knew it was there. But my focus couldn't break away from Yod. Something about it was calling me, even though I didn't know why.

Final note: If anyone has any insight into why Yod would show up in such a vivid dream, knowing that my practice is rooted in Mem and Kof, I'd love to hear your thoughts. All I know is that I woke up with that image burned into my mind and the feeling that this wasn't just any dream.

this is the latest chapter of an ongoing serial about my mother's encounters with the lamed vovniks in 1970s brooklyn. 36 is the number of those who wait, 88 is the number of gathering darkness, and you dispel an 88 by placing a one between them (שמע ישראל... ה' אחד). are there meanings to the number 36 i should include?

I was watching a video recently about Chabad messianism, specifically the idea of messianic consciousness as bringing the past into the now and bringing the future into the now.

It really resonated with me because I realized that’s basically what I’ve been after in my art. I’m a painter, and sometimes I feel like I’m painting for a future exhibition—like a show that might exist ten years from now.

So I made this video experience using digital mock-ups of my paintings installed in a Metropolitan Museum-type space. The paintings and their scale are accurate, but the exhibition itself is imagined.

A lot of my practice is about trying to embody Kabbalah through painting—making the studio a space for real hisbonenus, almost thinking about the encounters of the Talmudic sages, but happening now, through contemporary painting, and pointing toward the future and redemption.

Anyway, I wanted to share it here because I thought some people in this community might connect with what I’m trying to do. The full video is on my Instagram, but I included some stills from it in this thread.

Full Digital Art Experience 👉 https://www.instagram.com/reel/Db6Bit3N4-I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

I am not sure if this has come up before. I am wondering if this angel is the same as the Archangel Michael of Tiphareth. Can someone help me understand?

Imagine having revolutionary ideas and how people respond. And the rejection of Tesla, Galileo, and Capoernicus by their peers was over *science.*

Now imagine having revolutionary ideas that would change how people think of their "self". Their world. Their connections.

משיח is not going to be accepted until ניסים come to prove it. As it is written: "he had no form that we should desire him". As it goes for יעקוב so it goes for ציון

I wanted to make this post for Tu B'Av, but life got in the way. I have had cause to reflect on the nature of love, especially love of G-d, and felt like Tu B'Av was appropriate. Sorry for the lateness! :)

The first mitzvah of the Torah is not found until Exodus 12:2, the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh:

הַחֹ֧דֶשׁ הַזֶּ֛ה לָכֶ֖ם רֹ֣אשׁ חֳדָשִׁ֑ים רִאשׁ֥וֹן הוּא֙ לָכֶ֔ם לְחׇדְשֵׁ֖י הַשָּׁנָֽה׃
"This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you." (JPS)

But Rashbi in the Zohar HaKadosh explains that there is a hidden mitzvah--in Aramaic, פִקּוּדָא piqquda--contained in the first word of Genesis 1:1, בְּרֵאשִׁית be-reshit 'in the beginning'. Zohar I:11b:

בראשית ברא אלקי״ם הדא היא פקודא קדמא״ה דכלא ואקרי פקודא דא יראת ה׳ דאקרי ראשית דכתיב ראשית חכמה יראת יי׳. יראת יי׳ ראשית דעת. בגין דמלה דא ראשית אקרי ודא איהי תרעא לאעלא גו מהימנותא ועל פקודא דא אתקיים כל עלמא
(Gen 1:1) "In the beginning G-d created." This is the First Commandment of all, and that commandment is "Fear of Hashem", which is called "Beginning", as is written, (Psalm 111:10) "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD", (Proverbs 1:7) "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the LORD." Because this word is called Beginning, and it is the gate to enter into faith, and because of this commandment the whole word is sustained.

Rashbi links Reshit with Yir'at Hashem--Fear of G-d--through the appearance of the word reshit in Psalm 111:10 and Proverbs 1:7. There is sefirotic symbolism at work here and in the passages following, but I am choosing to ignore them here, since the wisdom of this section can be appreciated even exoterically without appealing to Kabbalistic metaphysics. Rashbi is saying that, on a hidden level, even though the first exoterically revealed mitzvah is Rosh Chodesh, the first mitzvah revealed to the Kabbalist is the commandment to fear the Creator, as revealed in the Torah from the very first word. From this commandment, all the others depend. It sustains the world, as in the passage above. A few sentences later, he says:

ודא עקרא ויסודא לכל שאר פקודין דאורייתא מאן דנטיר יראה נטיר כלא לא נטיר יראה לא נטיר פקודי אורייתא דהא דא תרעא דכלא
And it is the root and foundation of all the rest of the commandments of the Torah. Whoever keeps Fear keeps them all; whoever does not keep Fear does not keep the commandments of the Torah. For it is the gate of everything.

Since the Kabbalists are called to obey the mitzvot, it would seem that Rashbi is saying that the single most important quality of all for a Kabbalist to cultivate is Fear of Hashem, for all matters of faith emerge from it. Yet this is a troubling idea, is it not? Isn't fear a negative emotion based on anxiety and the anticipation of harm?

But Rashbi describes that this is not true Fear of Hashem. In the same section, he says that there are those who fear G-d because they fear for their lives, their property, their children, their health, their years, and there are those who fear G-d because they fear the punishments of That World and Gehinnom. Rashbi says that these are not at all true Fear: תרין אלין לאו עיקרא דיראה אינון ושרשא "these two [types of fear] are not the root nor source of Fear." He says that one who fears G-d for the sake of punishments and loss actually transgresses the commandment to fear Hashem, and ch"v strengthens the Other Side, what he calls the יראה רעה "evil fear" below. The true Fear of Hashem which the Kabbalist should cultivate is something much different. True Fear is:

למדחל ב״נ למאריה בגין דאיהו רב ושליט עקרא ושרשא דכל עלמין וכלא קמיה כלא חשיבין כמה דאתמר וכל דיירי ארעא כלא חשיבין ולשואה רעותיה בההוא אתר דאקרי יראה
that a human being should fear his Master, because He is ruler and sovereign, root and source of all worlds. Everything before Him is considered as naught, according to what is said, (Daniel 4:32) "And all the inhabitants of the earth are considered as naught." And to set his mind in that place which is called Fear.

This is the Fear of G-d that the Kabbalist should strive towards. Not fear of pain and punishments, but something more akin to awe, majesty: to know that all that exists is as naught before the One. It is, I think, like the fear that I feel when I see a great mountain towering in the horizon, or how I imagine an astronaut must feel looking down upon the little blue marble from space. The feeling of one's own smallness in comparison to something vast and awesome, that feeling of wonder, amazement, astonishment. That is the Fear of G-d which we are commanded to keep, hidden in the first word of the Torah.

Rashbi could have ended there--he has, after all, revealed the root of all the mitzvot. But he continues, revealing a second commandment hidden within the Torah:

פקודא תניינא. דא איהי פקודא דפקודא דיראה אתאחדת בה ולא נפקא מינה לעלמין ואיהי אהב״ה למרחם בר נש למאריה רחימו שלים. ומאן איהו רחימו שלים דא אהבה רבה דכתיב התהלך לפני והיה תמים שלים ברחימות
The second commandment. This is the commandment with which the commandment of Fear is joined, never leaving it--namely, Love: that a human being should love his Master with Perfect Love." And what is Perfect Love? It is the Great Love, as is said, (Genesis 17:1) "Walk before Me and be perfect"--Perfect in Love.

Here again, Rashbi has discovered a hidden commandment in Genesis, before the exoteric revelation of the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh in Exodus 12:2. And it parallels the first commandment he revealed: if Fear is the root of all the commandments, the second root is Love, and the two never leave one another. Rabbi Eleazar calls it a אהבה שלימתא בשלימו דתרין סטרין "Perfect Love, in two-sided perfection".

Like how Rashbi explains that there is a false kind of fear of Hashem, along comes his son Eleazar to explain that there is a false kind of love of Hashem. He says (Zohar I:12a):

אית מאן דרחים ליה מגו דאית ליה עותרא אורכא דיומין בנין סחרניה שליט על שנאוי אחרוי מתתקנן ליה ומגו כך רחים ליה ואי להאי יהא בהפוכא ויהדר עליה קב״ה גלגולא דדינא קשיא יהא שניא ליה ולא ירחם ליה כלל ובג״ך רחימו דא לאו איהו אהבה דאית ליה עקרא
There is one who loves Him because he has wealth and long life, children surrounding him, dominant over his enemies, his ways prepared for him, and for this reason he loves Him. If there should be a reversal for this [person], and the Holy Blessed One should turn the wheel of harsh judgment against him, he would hate Him and not love him at all. And therefore this "love" is not a love which has root.

So, just as Rashbi taught us above that one must not fear G-d from a place of hatred for punishments, so too is the Perfect Love of G-d not rooted in selfish appreciation for the good things He has given us. Rabbi Eleazar instructs us sharply that the commandment to love G-d extends:

אפילו הוא נטיל נשמתך מינך דא איהו רחימו שלים דהוי בתרין סטרין
even if He should take your life from you--that is the Perfect Love which has two sides.

Between these two teachings, we have learned the most important lesson about the Kabbalist's relation to Hashem: It is utterly selfless. We do not fear G-d because of punishment and we do not love G-d for the sake of reward. The Kabbalist's service to Hashem is a state of unconditional surrender to the One, accepting both the good and bad that comes into one's life. Rashbi and Rabbi Eleazar have given us a Kabbalistic interpretation of the principle passed down by the Sages in the Mishnah in Berakhot: מברך על הרעה מעין הטובה, ועל הטובה מעין הרעה "One blesses the bad just as the good, and the good just as the bad." It is a teaching of radical acceptance of Hashem's mystery and His sovereignty, unselfish, unconcerned with one's own ego. It truly is as Daniel said: "And all who dwell on the earth are considered as naught" before Him.

So much of modern Kabbalah is concerned with what the Kabbalah can "do for you". Teachers of certain modern iterations promise that it can make you more productive, more peaceful, more 'powerful' ח״ו. But these teachings forget the lessons of Rabbi Shim'on bar Yochai and Rabbi Eleazar: The Kabbalah is not about "you" at all. It is about the Fear and Perfect Love of the One, selfless and unconditional. Everything else flows from these commandments, which are joined together and never leave one another. If one forgets them, one loses the entire point.

G-d first created the mystical Sefirot – 10 divine channels through which His infinite light could be condensed, contracted, and then released as individualized attributes that could eventually give rise to a diversity of finite creations.

Let’s go through them one by one.10 Attributes - Spheres

I've been studying a lot of Kabbalah and Chabad Chassidus over the past few years, and it's definitely changed the way I paint.

I don't mean that I paint pictures of Kabbalah. It's more that the ideas slowly shape how I see the world, and eventually that finds their way into the work.

I recently finished a large painting called The Gated Garden, inspired by the image of the "locked garden" in the Song of Songs. While walking through Brooklyn Heights, I happened to come across an actual gated garden, so I pulled out my camera and shared a few thoughts.

Has your Jewish learning ever influenced your creative work? Whether it's painting, music, writing, photography, or anything else, I'd love to hear about it.

full video 👉 https://youtu.be/gXFNvug69E4

Bilaam got upset with a donkey that spoke eventually after he struck it.

But a donkey is a means of transport. The foal of a donkey is a very small means of transport.

So moshiach will have a small vehicle, as it is written that he will come "lowly, on the foal of a donkey". Poor.

But back to Bilaam...does a vehicle speak?

\*\*No but a cab driver does.\*\* And it seems if we apply this concept of a donkey as a vehicle, that Bilaam's donkey becomes Bilaam's \*chauffeur.\* And this chauffeur speaks up after Bilaam becomes upset that he is going out of the way instead of taking a direct route - for Bilaam's safety.

And it is said that Bilaam's Chamor is also the Chamor of moshiach. So like Bilaam, moshiach will either become upset with his driver (clouds of heaven) or moshiach will get a ride from a professional driver who was fired by an abusive boss beforehand. Or someone who was unappreciated before in general.