Pardes Rimonim 1:4

Here is an English translation of the passage you provided, preserving the conceptual depth and clarity of the original Hebrew:

---

Since in the previous section we demonstrated, based on the quoted teaching, that **Tiferet mediates between Gedulah (Kindness) and Hod**, and **between Gevurah (Severity) and Netzach**, and since this idea might strike the ear as somewhat strange, we said we would reinforce and clarify the matter further. This is to show that it is neither foreign to the intellect nor unnatural, but rather very reasonable and close to our understanding.

The matter rests on the well-known idea that **Tiferet receives from Gedulah and Gevurah** and **passes influence to Netzach and Hod**. It is certain that when Tiferet transmits to Hod, part of that influence necessarily contains a portion of what it had received from Gedulah, as we explained. Likewise, what Tiferet sends into Netzach must include a portion of what it received from Gevurah.

Yet the flow from Tiferet into Netzach and Hod is not the same as what Tiferet itself received from Gedulah and Gevurah. Rather, the influence becomes **moderated**—blended by Tiferet into a **balanced mixture**, such that it relates both to Gedulah and to Hod, and likewise to Gevurah and to Netzach.

Thus, we find that this form of mediation is, in some respect, a **continuous process**.

And sometimes it may happen that **Tiferet receives primarily from Gevurah** in order to channel that influence to Netzach, when the world requires judgment, retribution, or similar needs. Or perhaps because it received mostly from Gevurah, it sends this influence into Netzach to **temper** the judgment.

Similarly, **Tiferet might sometimes receive primarily from Chesed** and channel that into Hod to **sweeten** Hod’s inherent strictness.

This type of blending and balance will be explained in more detail in *Shaar HaTzinorot* (The Gate of the Channels), chapter 2, section 6. These ideas are **true to reason** and **clear to those who seek understanding**.

We will now add another supporting argument and strengthen the case by referencing a consensus among the great Kabbalists regarding the **colors of the Sefirot**:

> “The color of Netzach is red tinged with white,

> and the color of Hod is white tinged with red.”

Let us explain:

Netzach is said to be **red-tinged-with-white**—red because of its **reception from the harsh judgment of Gevurah** via Tiferet (which mediates between them), and white because its **primary association is with Chesed**, where it finds its place and foundation. Therefore, the red is **softened by the white**, and the dominant tone becomes white—hence, “tinged with white.”

Conversely, **Hod is white-tinged-with-red**—white due to its **receiving from Chesed** through the mediating influence of Tiferet, but red due to its **inherent connection to Gevurah**, which determines its primary inclination. Thus, **Hod shifts the mercy back toward judgment**.

So, Tiferet, in terms of **color**, occupies the **middle**, being a **blend of red and white**, mediating between Gedulah and Hod and between Gevurah and Netzach.

These matters of color will be discussed further in *Shaar HaGvanim* (The Gate of Colors), section 6.

**Praise and thanks to the One who bestows goodness upon the undeserving**, who has shown us this kindness—blessed is He! May He shine His light upon us to further affirm this matter through **three trustworthy witnesses**:

1. The words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, peace be upon him,

2. The reasoning of Kabbalistic tradition, and

3. The consensus of the early sages.

---

**Summary of the key point:**

The locations that require mediation are the five against five:

* **Chokhmah vs. Binah**

* **Gedulah vs. Gevurah**

  → That gives **two pairs** facing one another.

Then:

* **Gedulah vs. Hod**

* **Gevurah vs. Netzach**

  → Another **two pairs**.

That gives us **four against four**.

In addition, **Yesod mediates between Netzach and Hod**, as will be explained in *Shaar HaMakhria* (Gate of the Mediators), chapter 4.

This gives us five against five.

But there are **only two true mediators** between them: **Yesod and Tiferet**.

How so?

* **Yesod mediates between Netzach and Hod**.

* **Tiferet mediates between:**

  * Gedulah and Gevurah,

  * Gedulah and Hod,

  * Gevurah and Netzach,

  * and even between Chokhmah and Binah in a hidden way—**through the secret of Da’at (Knowledge)**, as will be explained.

With this introduction, we can now understand the **Mishnah** we are explaining, which says: *“Five against five.”* For truly, there are **five against five**, with the **covenant of union positioned in the middle**, for the mediators stand **in between the extremes**.

The phrase **“the covenant of the tongue”** refers to **Tiferet**, so named because, **through Binah (which is called “tongue”)**, it ascends to **mediate between Chokhmah and Binah**, in the secret of Da’at. This was explained earlier.

The term **“covenant of the flesh”** refers to **Yesod**, the **second mediator**.

---

With all this, the matter becomes clearer, and we can now resolve the question of why the Mishnah speaks of **five against five** yet lists **eleven items** (i.e., the ten Sefirot and the mediator). The answer is that we are not counting Sefirot here, but **acts of mediation**, as we explained.

Thus, we have explained the Mishnah according to the **most widely accepted version** in books and commentaries.

Even though **Ramban, of blessed memory**, appears to have had a different version, we need not concern ourselves with that, since most sources align with the version we’ve used. And anyone comparing the different manuscripts will find this version to be more precise.

Moreover, it’s not certain that Ramban intended his interpretation in the way it appears at first glance.

---

Let me know if you'd like a **diagram** of the Sefirot as described here or a **simple summary of the five pairings and the two mediators**.

Pardes Rimonim 1:3

 Tiferet also mediates between Gedulah (Kindness) and Hod, and between Gevurah (Might) and Netzach (Victory).

The reason is that Gedulah and Netzach are on the right side—Chesed—while Gevurah and Hod are on the left—Din. Therefore, they require mediation.

There is some support for this idea from the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, peace be upon him, in the Book of Ra’aya Mehemna (Pinchas, 244a):

“In the first connection I plowed ‘my teacher with my perfume’—the right arm with the left thigh.

‘My forest with my honey’—Jacob with Rachel.

‘My wine with my milk’—the left arm with the right thigh.

Kindness with Hod: right arm with left thigh. Jacob with Rachel: the middle pillar with Malkhut.

Gevurah with Netzach: left arm with right thigh.

Why are his attributes set up this way? It is a secret, but so it is written:

‘Your priests shall clothe themselves in righteousness, and your pious ones shall sing joyously’ (Psalms).

And there it should have said, ‘your Levites shall rejoice,’ but the Holy One said: it is not proper conduct to change My attributes.

However, since you have invited Me, I will do your will.

From here we learn that even a homeowner who invites a guest—even if the guest is a king—the king should follow the will of the host.

And therefore the sages said: ‘Whatever the host tells you to do, do it.’

And although this is a secret, it is appropriate and correct.”

Points of Clarification and Questions Raised:

Why does the Zohar use long, repetitive language—such as “right arm with left thigh, kindness with Hod”—to describe what we already know: that Gedulah is the right arm and Gevurah is the left, while Netzach is the right leg and Hod the left?

It would seem clearer to say briefly: “My teacher with my perfume = kindness with Hod,” and similarly for the others, avoiding the metaphor of limbs.

In the original Zohar (Pinchas, 241a), the phrase is more concise:

“My teacher with my perfume: right arm with left thigh…

My wine with my milk: left arm with right thigh.”

No lengthy explanation is given there, nor does it elaborate on the meanings of the words.

Why say “Jacob with Rachel” instead of “Tiferet with Malkhut,” as with the other Sefirot that are paired by limb analogy?

Why does the Zohar sometimes reverse the explanatory order—e.g., stating the attribute pair before the metaphor (kindness with Hod, then right arm with left thigh), instead of stating the metaphor first?

Why ask “Why are His attributes arranged this way?” when we know that sometimes Netzach can receive influence from Gevurah and Hod from Chesed, depending on circumstances?

Interpretation:

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was puzzled by the structure of the verse “I plucked my myrrh with my spice”, etc. Why does the verse say with, with, with—“my teacher with my perfume,” “my forest with my honey,” etc.? It seems redundant.

He answered by referencing an earlier source (Zohar Vayikra 4b):

“My teacher with my perfume”: Chesed with Netzach

“My forest with my honey”: Gevurah with Hod

“My wine with my milk”: Tiferet with Yesod

So the word “with” in these phrases signifies specific pairings.

But even this explanation seems lacking, because it could have simply stated the pairings directly. The word “with” adds a layer of intentionality: these pairings are unusual, going against their natural tendencies.

Hence, the Zohar says: “In the first connection”—i.e., in the earlier book—it was explained differently. There, Chesed (a right-side trait) was paired with Hod (a left-side trait), and Gevurah (a left-side trait) with Netzach (a right-side trait).

That’s why the Zohar says with—because these are unexpected pairings. And that’s also why it uses limb metaphors (arms and thighs) instead of naming the Sefirot directly. Why? Because Sefirot have intrinsic properties: Netzach generally draws from Chesed, and Hod from Gevurah. How then can they be reversed?

The answer: just as in a human body, limbs are connected and balanced by the torso (body), so too in the Sefirot, the middle pillar—Tiferet—mediates and harmonizes these otherwise mismatched pairings. The limb metaphor underscores that this blending is made possible by the central body (Tiferet), without which these unions would seem impossible.

This metaphor explains how Tiferet serves as the harmonizing force. Netzach and Hod are not only opposite but can be cross-linked via Tiferet, allowing the Chesed–Hod and Gevurah–Netzach combinations.

Still, we haven’t fully answered: Why does the Zohar emphasize these pairings?

The answer: the Zohar quotes the earlier text exactly (“right arm with left thigh…”) to emphasize that the pairing is deliberate, not coincidental. Chesed is intentionally paired with Hod, and Gevurah with Netzach, but not the other way around.

Why? If we reversed it—put Hod above Chesed—it would symbolically mean that the lower Sefirah dominates the higher, which is improper. Rather, the higher Sefirot (Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet) dwell within the lower ones (Hod, Netzach, Malkhut).

In this analogy, the groom (Jacob/Tiferet) goes to the bride’s house (Rachel/Malkhut). When in the bride’s domain, the groom acts according to her preferences, even if it means modifying the usual behavior of the Sefirot, thus increasing rachamim (mercy). Therefore:

Chesed resides in Hod

Gevurah resides in Netzach

Tiferet resides in Malkhut

This inversion explains why the limbs are named as they are.

And that’s why Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai prefaces the passage with: “kindness with Hod: right arm with left thigh”, not the reverse—to indicate this purposeful mingling, brought about through the body (Tiferet). The body unites them, and this unification is meaningful, not accidental.

The same logic applies to Jacob and Rachel: no limb analogy is needed, because their union is straightforward and conventional: Tiferet (Jacob) over Malkhut (Rachel).

Also, the earlier passage (in the “first connection”) merely says “right arm with left thigh”, but not “with”—just juxtaposition. In our current text, the Zohar adds the word “with”, and asks why two traits are paired this way—because the union implies actual embedding of one trait inside another, not merely influence.

If Chesed merely influenced Hod, Hod would still act as judgment. But if Chesed actually resides within Hod, the judgment would be softened or even canceled. This change is radical, and thus the question arises: Is it proper to alter divine traits so dramatically?

The answer: Yes—but only when the higher Sefirah dwells in the lower, not the other way around. The bride’s domain allows her to set the tone. Even the attribute of song (rinah, typically associated with judgment) may shift to reflect Chesed instead. More on this will be explained in Shaar Mahut v’Hanhaga, chapter 6.

Thus, just as Jacob (Tiferet) visits Rachel (Malkhut), Tiferet mediates and even adjusts itself to the lower domain, enhancing mercy. That is the inner meaning behind:

“Chesed with Hod, Gevurah with Netzach, Jacob with Rachel.”

It shows how the three upper traits dwell within three lower ones, all made possible by Tiferet—the groom entering the bride’s home and adopting her customs.

If it were the reverse (Rachel going up to Jacob), it would be improper to change the usual order.

Conclusion:

This completes the explanation. It shows with clear reasoning and insight that Tiferet also mediates between Gedulah and Hod, and between Gevurah and Netzach.

Pardes Rimonim 1:2

Further we will explain this Mishnah in a different way, as interpreted by some commentators, regarding “five against five,” and this interpretation is more appropriate and acceptable. It is also consistent with the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, peace be upon him, in many places. The idea is that there are five [sefirot] on the right and five on the left. The five on the right are five sefirot whose tendencies incline toward the side of chesed (kindness), which is the right side: these are Keter, Chokhmah, Gedulah (Chesed), Netzach, and Tiferet. The five on the left are five sefirot whose tendencies incline toward din (judgment), which is the left side: these are Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, and Malkhut.

Although Tiferet’s root is in the middle column, nevertheless, its primary tendency is toward chesed, as is known—it leans toward the right. And Binah is associated with judgment in its aspect because it is called “producer of judgments,” as from it judgments are awakened, as will be explained in Shaar Mahut ve’Hanhaga, chapter 6. Similarly, Hod—about it it is said (Daniel 10:8): "My splendor turned into destruction" (hod became mashchit). The verse (Lamentations 1:13) says "all day long duveh"—which shares letters with hod. And Yesod too primarily inclines to the side of judgment. So also explained Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the Tikkunim (Tikkun 13, 29b) regarding “teshi’ah be-rinah”, etc.: “And the tzaddik receives from the left, and the middle column receives from the right.”

And further he explained there (Tikkunei Zohar Chadash, 125a) regarding this matter itself: “The tzaddik takes from the left, for he is Isaac, ‘ketz chai’—living end—bound on the left,” etc. And although the language there requires broad explanation and careful contemplation, nevertheless, from the general flow of his words we understand that Yesod primarily inclines to the left, unlike Tiferet. This may be the reason for the two mediators, aside from other possible explanations, as will be explained in Shaar HaMakhria, chapter 4, God willing.

And Malkhut too is essentially din (judgment), for it is widely known and accepted among all Kabbalists that it is called the attribute of softened judgment. And even though in some places one may find what seems to contradict this idea, nevertheless, these foundations are well-established—like nails driven in—and this judgment is true.

Thus, the sefirot in order are the two “hands”: the right hand consists of Keter, Chokhmah, Gedulah (Chesed), Netzach, and Tiferet, and the left hand consists of Binah, Gevurah, Hod, Yesod, and Malkhut.

And note: Tiferet is the “covenant of the tongue”, which mediates between judgment and kindness, as is known. It is also counted among the ten. And even though the covenant of the flesh (brit milah) primarily resides in Yesod, still, according to this, it also alludes to Tiferet—because body and covenant are counted as one, as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says many times in the Tikkunim.

Therefore, we find that between ten and ten, there is no mediation, but between five and five, there is mediation, as we explained above in Chapter 1.

Now the Mishnah has been explained with a second interpretation, in the way some commentators interpreted “five against five.”

Now we will explain the Mishnah with a third interpretation, another way of understanding five against five, according to what appears to us—and let the discerning choose what is best for them.

That is: when they said “five against five”, they did not mean the literal fingers, because the topic has moved away from the number ten to explain the mediation between din and chesed, and the structure of that mediation, and which aspects require mediation.

Thus they said “five against five” to teach that Tiferet mediates between Chokhmah and Binah, in the secret of Da’at, when it rises to Keter, as will be explained further in Shaar HaMakhria, with God’s help.

That makes two sets: one versus one—Chokhmah versus Binah, for this one is the root of chesed and the other of gevurah. Then Tiferet mediates between Chesed (Gedulah) and Gevurah, as is known.

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai explained in Tikkunim (Tikkun 30, 75a) on the verse "And there was evening and there was morning”, as follows: “And God called the firmament Heaven”—‘God’ here is the supernal Imma (Mother), and ‘Heaven’ is the middle column, which stands between right and left and includes both sides. As it says: ‘And there was evening and there was morning’—‘evening’ for Isaac and ‘morning’ for Abraham.”

Even though the plain reading of the passage supports our interpretation, since we have the opportunity, let us clarify several small points before moving on:

When it says “God called”—this refers to Imma. But haven’t we already seen in the Creation story that every mention of “Elohim” alludes to Binah?

Why call her Imma here instead of using the more familiar term Binah?

The phrase “middle column between right and left”—isn’t it already clear that a “middle column” stands between the right (Chesed) and left (Gevurah)? Why spell it out?

Now that it is going into detail explaining “between right and left,” why not just say Tiferet and leave out “middle column,” which sounds repetitive?

It says “includes both”—but isn’t that already implied in “between right and left”?

The verse “And there was evening and there was morning”—on the surface, how does it serve as proof for this point?

So we say that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was puzzled by the verse “And God called the firmament Heaven”, since both rakia and shamayim refer to Tiferet, so why would Scripture treat them as separate?

He explains that “Elohim” here is Imma Ila’a (the Supernal Mother)—Binah, in her aspect that reaches down to the lower worlds, bestowing emanation. Therefore, she is called mother.

And the rakia (firmament) is Tiferet, which has two aspects:

One is its aspect from Chokhmah, the purer form, a line of rachamim (mercy) that emanates from Keter and flows into Chokhmah. This is the level to which Moses is a chariot, as stated in Tikkunim (Tikkun 13, 29a): “Jacob is the outer form of the middle pillar… and Moses was there too, but on the inner side…”

This higher aspect is called neshamta (soul) relative to the more composed, combined aspect called rakia.

The term rakia (firmament) implies “spread out,” derived from Keter through the letter Yod (Chokhmah). This is the middle pillar devoid of chesed or din, standing between them.

By Binah, the rakia is adorned with both fire and water, hence it is called shamayim (heaven = fire + water). As it says: “He established the heavens with understanding” (Proverbs 3:19).

The composite aspect is associated with Binah, the mother (Imma), which encompasses three Vavs—the three lines of Chesed, Din, and Rachamim.

That’s the meaning of “includes both”—from Imma, the composite of right and left becomes the adornment for Tiferet.

There is support for this idea from Zohar, Parashat Yitro (84a) on the verse “Go out, O daughters of Zion… in the crown with which his mother crowned him.” Rabbi Yitzchak says: Just like “and Saul and his men encircled David”—the crown is the surrounding light, consisting of white (Chesed), red (Gevurah), and green (balanced blend).

Rabbi Yehuda adds: The crown is not only that—it encompasses the six ends (Z.A.), meaning Tiferet sprouts into six directions—thus called pe'er (splendor), like “the splendor of your turban” (Ezekiel 24:23), meaning branches.

So Israel, the name of Tiferet, becomes the source of Binah’s pride and branching. And the phrase “House of my splendor I will glorify” means: Tiferet is her “house,” branching into six parts, like a robe with six colors. This is the crown (atarah) that surrounds Tiferet.

Thus, “God called the firmament Heaven” means the mother crowns the firmament, which is called Heaven.

And this is proven from “And there was evening and there was morning—one day”. Evening is Isaac (din), morning is Abraham (chesed), and together they clothe Tiferet, which is called “One day.”

The day is fire and water, evening and morning, din and chesed—and Tiferet unites them.

And from this unity come the 12 hours: 6 hours of Chesed (morning), 6 of Din (evening), united by the Aleph (Da’at) between the two Vavs (lines). Thus, echad = one, and the two Vavs = 12 hours.

And though much more could be said about how Tiferet mediates between Chesed and Gevurah, it is a known and agreed matter. Our goal here is only to interpret this Mishnah properly.

Conclusion: Tiferet mediates between Gedulah (Chesed) and Gevurah, which are “one against one.”

Pardes Rimonim 1:1

 

Translation of the Kabbalistic Passage on the Ten Sefirot and Sefer Yetzirah

It is well known and universally agreed upon among those engaged in this hidden wisdom that the number of Sefirot is ten. On this point, there is no dispute whatsoever.

This agreement is one of the foundational tenets in the wisdom of the Sefirot. With us is the ancient text Sefer Yetzirah, attributed to our forefather Abraham, peace be upon him. Some also ascribe it to Rabbi Akiva, though this attribution is not universally accepted.

The words of Sefer Yetzirah are deep, elevated, and hidden from the understanding of most who study them. Even though many different interpretations have been offered, every part of the text still requires further clarification. Nonetheless, we will attempt to explain its words as best we can, despite the limitations of our intellect.

The book opens:

“Ten Sefirot without what (בלי מה), like the ten fingers—five corresponding to five, and a singular covenant directed in the center, through the word of the tongue and the word of the male organ.”

Although we initially thought not to comment on this Mishnah, since its depths and secrets are clearly beyond our comprehension—and no one but Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Rashbi), peace be upon him, and Rabbi Akiva, peace be upon him, can truly understand its inner meaning—we feel compelled to offer some explanation due to the responsibility upon us to interpret.

Questions Arising from the Text

There are many precise points to consider:

1. Why mention “Ten Sefirot without what”? The word “number” seems redundant—it would suffice to say “Ten Sefirot without substance” (בלי מה).

2. Why state “five against five”? What does this add?

3. If you count five plus five plus the covenant in the center, it seems to make eleven—not ten.

4. Why describe “the word of the tongue” and “the word of the organ” as two distinct intermediaries? What do they add?

5. What is the purpose of linking the Sefirot to fingers? How is that conceptually related to the mystical topic at hand?

6. If the text is already using body parts to symbolize the Sefirot, why only mention some and not all, especially those that hint at the full structure, as we will later explain in the Gate of the Soul, Chapter 4?

Initial Interpretation

The author of Sefer Yetzirah intentionally sought to conceal the full wisdom of the Sefirot within this paragraph and simultaneously assert their truth. He said there are ten Sefirot, but to prevent a reader from imagining that they are finite or physical due to being counted, he added that they are “without what”—that is, without any definable essence or substance.

Even though we must use the word “ten” to describe them, the true belief is that they are “without what”, meaning they possess no humanly comprehensible substance. They are not limited, not corporeal, and can only be grasped spiritually by the hearts of the wise among Israel, similarly to how prophecy is experienced.

The reason for numbering them will be explained in later chapters. Still, we note that the term “Sefirot” comes from the root word for counting or numbering—mispar—and so he writes “ten fingers,” drawing from the verse in Psalms (8:4):

“When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers…”

This verse alludes to the creation of the heavens through God's “fingers,” a metaphor for His Sefirot. Thus, the ten fingers signify the ten Sefirot, and the configuration of “five against five” is based on the duality of the hands.

But then we are challenged by another verse (Isaiah 48:13):

“My own hand laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens…”

This implies that the heavens were made by one hand—five fingers—raising the question: if five fingers (Sefirot) made the heavens, what about the earth? Therefore, the text answers that both hands were involved: five from the right, five from the left—heaven and earth each being created by one hand, totaling ten Sefirot.

The Covenant in the Center

The “singular covenant” positioned in the center refers to the connection between the two sets of five. The physical covenant—circumcision—is situated between the ten toes (feet), while the spiritual “covenant of the tongue” is between the ten fingers (hands). Both serve to unite the dualities.

Some interpret this middle point as the Tiferet, the central Sefirah that rises upward into the triad of Keter (Crown), Chochmah (Wisdom), and Binah (Understanding), and descends downward into the lower Sefirot. It connects the upper and lower worlds.

The “word of the tongue” does not refer to the tongue itself, but to the voice that emerges through it. That voice is a blend of water (Chesed), fire (Gevurah), and spirit (Tiferet)—three qualities that the Tiferet mediates and harmonizes.

The second phrase, “the word of the organ,” refers to the covenant of circumcision. It parallels the unification brought about by the tongue—both serve as mediating links: one for the hands (speech), one for the feet (action), corresponding to the upper and lower dimensions.

Models of the Ten Sefirot

Commentators have interpreted the configuration of five against five in various ways. One model divides the ten into two arrays:

• Upper Five: Keter, Chochmah, Binah, Gedulah (Chesed), and Gevurah — governing the upper realms.

• Lower Five: Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malchut — governing the lower realms.

Though Tiferet is traditionally the centerline, it tends toward Chesed and is thus aligned with the right side (kindness). Binah is associated with strict judgment, called the “origin of judgments,” as we will elaborate in the Gate of Essence and Governance.

Similarly, Hod relates to judgment (as in Daniel 10:8: “My comeliness turned into destruction”), and Yesod also leans toward Gevurah. Even Malchut, though sometimes associated with mercy, is called the attribute of soft judgment—Din Rafeh—by most Kabbalists.

Hence, these five on the right and five on the left form a balance. But the Tiferet (the voice) mediates between all. Likewise, the Yesod (the organ) connects them physically and spiritually. Together they ensure unity among the ten.

Deeper Symbolism and Zoharic Allusions

The Zohar and Tikkunei Zohar add another layer: the Ten Sefirot can be mapped onto the Chariot Vision of Ezekiel—each face of the chariot (man, lion, ox, eagle) corresponds to different Sefirot:

• Face of man: Chochmah

• Eagle: Binah

• Lion: Chesed

• Ox: Gevurah

These form the upper chariot. The lower chariot includes Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod—also mapped onto the same symbols.

At the highest level, Keter encompasses all; at the lowest, Malchut does. Thus, the ten are split into two balanced systems.

Summary of the Interpretation

In the end, we find that:

• The ten Sefirot are alluded to in the hands (ten fingers) and feet (ten toes).

• Tiferet (voice/tongue) and Yesod (organ) act as intermediaries.

• The “covenant” refers to the unifying force that binds dualities.

• The Sefirot are arranged in mirrored groups of five—each side requiring a mediator.

• Despite their separation, all ten ultimately stem from unity, without “what”—no material essence.