English translation — בחוקותי ב

1.

On the verse “And I will walk you upright”¹

the Gemara says²

: “Rabbi Meir says two hundred cubits like two stories of the first man³.

Rabbi Yehuda says,

one hundred cubits corresponding to the Sanctuary and its walls, as it is stated*³

‘Our sons are like saplings well-tended in their youth, our daughters like corner-pillars carved in the form of a Sanctuary.’”

Learning the Gemara simply, it comes out,

that the source of Rabbi Meir to learn “two hundred cubits <b>like two</b> stories etc.” is from the word “komemiyut”,

which is

(with a vav⁴)

a plural form; but the source of Rabbi Yehuda to learn “one hundred cubits” is

on <b>two</b> stories — but]

the verse “Our sons etc. the form of a Sanctuary”,

and from that he learns that “komemiyut” means only one story

(of the first man⁵)

as if it had stood “komemit”

(without a vav).

And before the proof "as it is said etc." R' Yehuda precedes "corresponding to the Sanctuary and its walls" — because the Sanctuary itself

(without the walls)

held less than one hundred cubits,

therefore he adds "corresponding to the Sanctuary &lt;b&gt;and its walls&lt;/b&gt;",

so that the meaning of "the pattern of the Sanctuary" is the entirety of the Sanctuary,

the Sanctuary with its walls,

which together was one hundred cubits&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;.

Based on this, however, it is not understood:

Since R. Y. disagrees with R. Meir in the interpretation of the word "komemiyut",

that this means not "two stories" but "one story" — he should have, at the first

(immediately after the words "one hundred cubits")

stated his

(novel interpretation,

the)

interpretation "like the single stature of Adam HaRishon" ⁷

and <b>afterwards</b> bring the proof for the interpretation of the verse "asher baninu etc. tavnit heichal".

Why does he immediately begin "

(keneged heichal v'kotlav)

shene'emar etc.",

and moreover: he does not state his interpretation in "komemiyut" at all?

b)

From the fact that

a)

(a)

the words "keneged heichal v'kotlav" R. Y. says <b>before</b> he brings the verse "tavnit heichal",

and

(b)

from the language "keneged heichal etc." it is proven,

that "keneged etc." is

rather it is]

a <b>reason</b> for that which the stature of man will be one hundred cubits.

It is not understood: the dispute between R' Meir and R' Yehuda is indeed seemingly only in the <b>how many</b> stories "koma" means "komas"

(one story or two),

but also according to R' Yehuda "komas" means

(<b>not</b> the story of the Heichal⁸,

but)

the stature of Adam HaRishon,

so why does he say "corresponding to the Heichal and its walls" and not "like the stature of Adam HaRishon"?

g)

The same question is also in the verse "which we built etc. the pattern of the Heichal"; why does King David in Tehillim compare the future structure to "the pattern of the Heichal" while the <b>Torah</b> compares it to the stature of Adam HaRishon?

4)

Also from the side of logic: When one seeks a matter to which to compare the height of "our sons" and "our daughters" in the future,

is it seemingly the most fitting thing to compare it to the stature of a person,

and in particular — Adam the first,

from whom all people descend — why does the verse say "the pattern of the Temple" and not "the stature of Adam the first"?

5)

The source of the opinion of Rabbi Meir to learn "like two statures of Adam the first" — although "komemiyut"

(plural form)

indicates only "two statures",

but it does not indicate which statures — the Maharsha explains⁹,

that this is a simple thing,

which needs no proof,

because "the creation of man in the future certainly will not be less than the creation of Adam the first in this world".

And based on this it is not understood according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: why do I need a verse? It is logical!

What is the novelty in the verses "And I led you erect" and "which our sons etc. the pattern of the Temple",

since from the standpoint of logic one certainly knows that the stature of a person in the future will not be less than one hundred cubits?

B.

The explanation of all this will be understood by prefacing what is stated in Chassidus

on the verse "And I will walk among you etc.",

that "And I will walk" in the plural form means two types of walking: walking from above downward — direct light,

and walking from below upward — reflected light.

What these two modes of movement are actualized through the service of the tzaddikim and the service of the baalei teshuvah: through the service of the tzaddikim, Divinity is drawn from above downward,

and through the service of teshuvah, the elevation is from below upward.

And just as each type of movement has an advantage over the other¹⁴

— in the matter of "revelations," direct light is superior,

but on the other hand,

there is the advantage of "reflected light," that specifically through this one attains essence — so about this the verse says "and I will walk among you,"

that in the future there will be both advantages.

3.

So the superiority of "v'his'halachti" which includes both virtues

(the virtue of direct light and the virtue of reflected light),

can be in two manners:

One manner is,

that the inclusion of the two virtues is in the same person

— and also <b>the</b> manner is

(a very great quality,

which is why it is)

one of the designated matters

(novellae)

above.

Because since "direct light" and "reflected light" are two opposites,

therefore it is not possible

(now)

that the same person be permeated in <b>all</b><b>¹⁵</b>

his faculties with two opposite movements.

And a second manner is,

that both matters of "direct light" and "reflected light" are

(not only in the same person,

but)

in one and the same movement: the refinements of "reflected light" itself will be in a manner of revelation in the way of direct light¹⁶.

4.

And this is the dispute of R' Meir with R' Yehuda,

whether Jews will be then "two hundred cubits" or "one hundred cubits":

Both hold,

that all ten powers of the soul

(and each power as it is in perfection — included of all ten powers,

which is the number of "one hundred")

will be taken up both from the service of the righteous and from the service of repentance — and as the simple explanation of "komemiyut"

(plural form)

which indicates two stories

(also according to R' Yehuda — and as will be explained below).

And their dispute is only whether the two types of service will be in two separate matters,

or they will be unified into one matter:

Rabbi Meir holds,

that they will be two movements.

And therefore he teaches that the person

(also in his physical body)

will be "&lt;b&gt;two hundred&lt;/b&gt; cubits like two stories etc.",

that the two matters

(direct light and returning light)

will be in separate cubits: one hundred cubits direct light and one hundred cubits returning light;

And R. Y. holds,

that both matters will be in one movement,

and therefore he holds that the two stories will be in the same hundred cubits¹⁷.

H.

Based on this one will also understand what R. Y. says the expression "&lt;b&gt;opposite&lt;/b&gt; the Sanctuary and its walls",

and that he says it immediately after the words "hundred cubits"

(before "as it is said etc.")

— because with this he explains the reason of his view that both stories will be in the same hundred cubits:

"Adam"

(even Adam the first)

indicates a matter of "form" and order,

it consists of several levels¹⁸.

And even as the Adam will be in the future — higher also than Adam the first,

until that he will be "<b>like two</b> stories of Adam the first"

(in him will be <b>both</b> levels "direct light" and "reflected light"),

since however that "Adam" is in the aspect of form — the two stories are two separate matters;

Now if so,

then how will these two stories

(according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah)

be <b>one</b> matter — one hundred cubits?

To this he says "corresponding to the Sanctuary and its walls" — that this is from the aspect that then there will be in a Jew corresponding to the Sanctuary and its walls,

that which was in "the Sanctuary and its walls",

a matter that is <b>higher</b> than the aspect of "Adam".

And based on this it is also understandable that in Psalms he compares the hundred cubits of the future to "the pattern of the Sanctuary" — although in the Torah it says "and I will walk you upright,"

which means the stature of Adam the first man — because the verse "and I will walk you upright" tells that in the future there will be for every Jew two statures

(spiritually — not speaking about how this will be physically)

; and in the verse "whose sons are like corner pillars hewn in the pattern of a Sanctuary" he

(adds and)

innovates,

that the two statures will be in the same hundred cubits — and this matter is related to "the pattern of the Sanctuary,"

in the Holy Temple there were the two matters of direct light and reflected light together,

as follows.

6.

In the Holy Temple there were, in general, two things: "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" — service from the aspect of below,

and "and I will dwell in their midst" — drawing down from above.

And these two things were one matter,

and as one saw it explicitly in "the place of the Ark

(the measure of)

the Ark is not from the measure"

; the "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary,"

service from below,

it itself was in the manner of "and I will dwell in their midst" — drawing down from above.

And from the aspect of "Sanctuary" which exists

'in the midst of each and every one of Israel",

there will also be for Jews the two statures in one movement — a hundred cubits.

And this is also what R. Yehudah emphasizes "opposite the Sanctuary &lt;b&gt;and its walls&lt;/b&gt;" — because the aforementioned concept

(that drawing down from above and elevation from below were in the Beis HaMikdash one concept)

expresses itself in "Sanctuary and its walls": the walls of the Sanctuary served to &lt;b&gt;separate&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;divide&lt;/b&gt; between one matter and another,

and they &lt;b&gt;themselves&lt;/b&gt; were a part of the "Sanctuary" whose essence is &lt;b&gt;unity&lt;/b&gt;.

7.

Based on all the above one can also explain

(in a possible manner)

the connection of the two opinions "two hundred cubits" and "one hundred cubits" — to R. Meir and R. Yehudah:

The concept of "one hundred cubits"

(<b>light</b>)

and elevation <b>from below</b>

(<b>vessel</b>)

— are <b>one</b> matter]

can be only from the aspect of Essence: from the level of "light",

although even in Him there exists not only the perfection of the infinite

(light),

but also the perfection of the finite

(vessel)²²

— however, the infinite and the finite are two lines; specifically Essence,

which is devoid of all attributes — "negation of the finite and negation of the infinite"²³,

relative to Him, finite and infinite are <b>one</b> matter ²⁴.

And therefore Rabbi Meir holds "two hundred cubits" and Rabbi Yehudah "one hundred cubits":

R' Meir is his aspect

(and from language)

light,

and since that from the side of "light" are continuation

(light)

and elevation

(vessels)

two matters,

therefore he holds "two hundred cubits" — two separate levels: unlike R' Yehuda is from the language of thanksgiving,

and since that through thanksgiving one takes essence,

therefore

he holds "one hundred cubits" — it becomes one matter.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Bechukotai 5724)