 Previous |
 Enlarge |
 Next |
This series is a continuation and should be read in order. If you are not familiar with previous posts you may have trouble understanding later ones.
And now Chapter 14 Part 4
From all of this it is understood that the kav/line, which is drawn out from the point is only like an extension from an essential heyuli and does not pose a contradiction to the nature of the "point" or reshimu to remain self contained, for it does not represent an extension or lowering of its essence. However, as for the fact that the first emanation of the kav is said to be drawn out in the manner of a "short line," it is explained elsewhere that just as the point is in a manner of a heyuli relative to the kav, so too, the kav is a heyuli for the length and width of a plane. As it is known that even though the kav comes into revelation in a manner of an issuance and extension from above to below, however, this is not at all any specific type of issuance, but rather, only that the light is drawn from above to below through which the aspect of "above" and "below" from the giver to the receiver is brought into being. On the other hand, with the heyuli of the point there is no up or down nor any beginning, middle or end, etc., as is known. (This is likewise the intention of what it is stated in the Eitz Chayim that the essential function of the emanation of the kav is only so there should be an up and down, as will be explained.)
This relationship between the reshimu and the kav and for the concept that the entire function of the kav is to create an up and down can be understood in the light of the analogy of the mentor teaching a deep concept to students possessing much lesser knowledge and understanding. So that if we were to take a great math-professor who is proficient in all fields and aspects of mathematics and who possesses a deep understanding of the principles behind the methods and formulas of mathematics. Then, if he were asked to substitute a few math classes in a local school. Now immediately upon being asked to teach math the professor immediately capsulizes his entire knowledge as one point within the word ‘mathematics’ and this term includes equally all of its particular subjects, such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, radicals, infinite sets, etc. and the professor sees it as one interdependent contingent, with no beginning or end, no aspect higher or lower, for he understands them all completely and equally as one and the same thing - math.
However, immediately after, when the professor begins to contemplate that he will have to bring this knowledge out to students he realizes that it is of great significance which level class he is going to be teaching. For, even though there is no difference to him - he could just as easily teach integrated calculus as basic arithmetic - yet to the students there is a great difference, for they will only be able to understand a class that is on their level; so that if they didn’t yet learn addition, integrated calculus is going to be just a little above their heads. For this, the professor must reveal another ability that he has within latent within his wisdom and understanding, how to divide what he understands into levels and stages that proceed in an orderly and logical manner from simple to more advanced studies, until finally after climbing all of the rungs in this intellectual ladder one will gain a complete understanding of mathematics exactly like the professor himself. In addition, this also includes the ability of measuring the level of a student so as to be able to match the lesson to the level of the students.
In order to make this measure with the single point contained in the word ‘mathematics’ must be broken into several points laid one under the other, each forming a rung in the ladder of understanding and difficulty. For example, mathematics can be subdivided into calculus, trigonometry, geometry, algebra, arithmetic. Then, each of these can be further subdivided. So that a measure is produced with which to evaluate a students proficiency in math and a class plan can be made accordingly, simply proceeding from the more basic to the more advanced studies, until the student has mastered them all.
Now, it is understood that this "measuring rod," which the professor whips out of the back of his mind in anticipation of being told which grade level he is going to be substituting so as to know what to teach, is not, yet, a particular class plan, for the professor does not yet know what class he will be teaching. Rather, it is only creating an "up" and "down," a way of assessing the "distance" between the mentor and the student, so as to be able to tailor the explanation accordingly. This is really, as of yet, only a heyuli for the tailoring of a particular explanation, but not, yet, an explanation at all. In addition, even though this kav limits the explanations given so that they will be on the relatively low level of the students, yet, it does not represent any intrinsic or actual limitation. For, just as it can limit the explanation, making it simple and low for a beginner, it can just as well expand the topic to the full breadth and depth of the professor’s understanding, where he to meet another professor of his field.
Previous |
Enlarge |
Next |
The material in this series is copyrighted by Rabbi Yossi Markel