By the way, if you cannot follow the addendums don't worry. They are "addendums", either stories or answers to questions I received. Often these addendums are on a more advanced level than the rest of the series. I include them to give a greater width to some, but if you skip them the series will still be complete.
 Previous |
 Enlarge |
 Next |
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Eric Caleb Friedman wrote:
*NOTE - Musag = the idea in Binah. Muskal = the idea in Chochmah
Yossi; Could you provide clearer distinctions between these terms? In simple terms? i.e. "Muskal" (from the root "Sekhel"?): The Idea, as it exists in & of itself, regardless of its perception or understanding by another. (The quality of Chochmah) "Musag": The Idea as it is, indeed, perceived and understood by another. (The quality of Binah) I can see some tentative relationship between the application of these terms and ABY"A... well; A"B, anyway! :-) But let's not jump ahead... -Shraga
Answer by Yossi - The Muskal, from "Sechel" (Intellect), is the idea the way it comes into the mind in the totally abstract flash of inspiration of Chochma. By the way, Sechel is somewhat synonymous with Chochma. You see this in the Shmoneh Esreh prayer. Some versions say "Chanenu (grant us) Chochmah, Binah VaDaas" and some say "Deah, Binah VeHaskel". However the Muskal is not the total "nothing" of the concept. It is already a Sechel, an intellectual concept. An example in actuallity: Edison, the inventor, used to keep a pen and paper next to his bed so that if he had a flash of inspiration he would write it down so as not to forget it. The reason for this is that the flash of inspiration is still unformed and therefore can be easily lost.
The Musag, from "Hassoga" (reach), is the concept after the power of analysis and explanation of the mind, that is Binah, and in particular Binah of Binah (which as explained before is Hisbonenus or Iyun), takes the abstract flash of Chochmah and expands on it with analyses and explanations until it "reaches" into it and transforms it into a something that is into a graspable theory or explanation which is expressable in words or mathematical formulae etc.
Of course the Hassogah at first loses something in the translation of the Muskal into the Musag. That is because the theory or explanation is "frozen" into a certain way of understanding the concept. Often there are conflicting Hassogas which try to explain the same Haskolah. This is why the conflicting opinions in the Torah are considered complementary rather than exclusive. As it says: "Eleh VaEleh Divrei Elokim Chaiim." - The words of both schools are the words of the Living G-d.
As it is known, Halachikally the Torah Law we follow is according to the School of Hillel. But the Medrashim say that when Moshiach comes we will follow the School of Shamai. There is a problem with this in that this means that the School of Hillel will become "lower" in the days of Moshiach and "maalim bakodesh veein moridim" in holy things we only elevate and do not lower. The answer given to this is that in the days of Moshiach we will follow the Law according to Shamai AND Hillel. How is that possible? It is because each opinion is a Musag of the Muskal and in the days of Moshiach we shall reach the Muskal and even Higher.
The total "nothing" of the concept is in Kesser. And even there there are higher and higher levels - In Arich, in Attik, and in pnimius (the innerness of) Attik or Radl"a.
And it is in Radl"a where one reaches the conceived thing as it is in and of itself regardless of how it is conceived or conceptualized.
This will all be discussed later. If you are impatient, you can go to my page and read explanation 1 and 2 of Reb Hillel of Paritch regarding how Binah of Binah reaches all the way up to Binah of Attik and then to Daas of Radl"a which is the total unification with the conceived thing. There are also higher levels than Radl"a which will be discussed later in this series.
If you do not mind, I would like to use this post in its entirety as the next post of the series. If you want me not to use your name I can do so although I would rather use it.
Your friend Yossi
From abudoub@erols.com
Mon Nov 10 13:10:56 1997 Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:03:36 -0500 From: Eric Caleb Friedman
To: moshiach@pgh.nauticom.net
Subject: Uh..Duh!
moshiach@pgh.nauticom.net wrote: I would be happy if you used it (& my name). As for Biur Alef & Beis of Reb Hillel; I printed it out several weeks ago (don't worry; I won't circulate it
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Eric Caleb Friedman wrote:(replied) - Yossi, On the contrary, circulate it! I'm trying to get the stuff out there. shraga I just can't stare at a monitor too long; especially when reading material like that! :-) It just seems a matter of semantics at this point. But, to be sure: your point is that both Muskal & Mussag are "Received" or "Perceived" levels of a concept, but one is on the level which transcends analytical method (Muskal/Chochmah) and the other (Musag/Binah) is the result of applying the analytical process - Hisbonenus - to the Muskal, the nature of which is a unified whole, inherently containing all the parts - and a bit more - revealed through the analytical function of Binah, correct? > > Shraga
Answer By yossi: (moshaich@nauticom.net) - Pretty much. It's not totally semantics though. Chochmah is already part of the Hishtalshelus. It is only in the Kesser where the perceived thing is experienced on its own level.
shraga: It just kinda clicked: in his book on logic (Sefer HaHigayon), the RaMCha"L states that every concept has it's Intrinsic Essence (Etzem) and nine basic classes of Mikreh; accidental aspects. When they started teaching me Qabala at Diaspora Yeshiva, they used this book, and then Shefa Tal, as the texts. Now Sefer HaHigayon is one of the texts central to their learning system.
My point being that Etzem can be, and was, equated with Kesser, where the concept exists in it's Intrinsic Essence. "Below" this, the concept can only be defined in relation to that which perceives it. All such relationships are accidental & incidental to the concept in it's essential state of Etzem. This parallels what you have said to me, in that the "Accidental" and relative states are the links, so to speak, of the Hishtalshelus. -Shraga
Answer from Yossi: >From moshiach@pgh.nauticom.net
Mon Nov 10 13:20:58 1997 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:17:33 -0500 (EST)
From: moshiach@pgh.nauticom.net
To: Eric Caleb Friedman Subject:
Re: Uh..Duh!
Right On!
One small comment. Mikreh literally means "happening" so rather than accidental which connotes a random hapenning, we could say that the Etzem is the thing itsef. (etzem means self) while the Mikreh is the conceptioned Hitpashtus Haetzem (spreading of the self) where something "happened" to the concept according to the perceiver.
So as it goes down the Hishtalshelus (chaining downwards of the worlds, the concept becomes more and more Megusham (gross) more a Yesh (something) as the perceivers add their relativistic perception.
Previous |
Enlarge |
Next |