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.
No comments:
Post a Comment