Know! a true teaching from the mouth of the true tzaddik, even in worldly matters, is more precious than the Torah teachings of another tzaddik. This is because it is possible that in the Torah teachings of the other [tzaddik] there is a great admixture. But the teaching that the true tzaddik utters is nothing but truth. And, because it is only truth, without any admixture, there is nothing more precious.
Now, someone who hears a teaching uttered by the true tzaddik, which is a true teaching, and particularly if he sees him then—as in (Isaiah 30:20), “Your eyes shall see your teacher”—receives an aspect of the countenance of the tzaddik and an aspect of his intellect and soul. This is because this tzaddik puts his intellect within this teaching that he originates. So when a person receives this teaching, he consequently receives his intellect.
This is also an aspect of the soul, because the soul is an aspect of the intellect. As it is written (Job 32:8), “The soul of the Almighty gives them to understand.”
He likewise receives his countenance. For the teaching he utters is truth, and truth is the countenance of all the countenances of holiness. This is as in (Psalms 24:6), “those who seek Your countenance, Yaakov, forever”; as in (Micah 7:20), “Give truth to Yaakov.”
We find therefore that one who receives a teaching from the mouth of the tzaddik receives his countenance, his intellect and his soul. Etched and portrayed in his mind is the likeness of the tzaddik’s image—the countenance, the intellect and the soul.
However, a person has to be on guard against forgetfulness. This is because a lapse of memory causes everything to be forgotten by him—i.e., that which he pictured in his mind from the teaching, as explained. Because of a lapse of memory, all the aforementioned is forgotten and gone from him.
Even if the teaching is recorded in a book for recollection, when the aspect of forgetfulness becomes overbearing, forgetfulness affects even a book [already] written. That is, when the sage who originated the teaching dies, God forbid—in which case the aspect of forgetfulness becomes stronger, as in (Psalms 31:13), “I have become forgotten from the heart like the dead”—then forgetfulness rests even on the written book.
There is a solution for this [forgetfulness]. When studying his teachings, a person should picture in front of him the likeness of the sage’s image at the time of the discourse. As is brought in the Yerushalmi (Shekalim 2:5): “While studying, a person should picture the Tanna as if he stood before him.”
For in the book of the sage is impressed and portrayed the likeness of the sage. This is because those teachings and letters which are impressed and inscribed in the book are the intellect of the sage, his soul, and the aspect of his countenance. We find therefore that his intellect/soul/countenance, which in effect is his image, is in those letters and words.
Thus, in each and every book can be found the likeness of the image of the sage who originated those teachings. In accordance with his likeness, i.e., the intellect/soul/countenance of the sage, so are the letters pictured in the book. For if the sage had a different likeness, i.e., a different intellect/soul/countenance, he would originate and fashion other letters in the book—in accordance with the intellect that he had, which is his likeness. We find therefore that in every book there is the likeness of the sage’s image.
When one merits to memory—to remember the teachings of the sage the way the sage said them, or because of his reviewing them one hundred and one times by means of which he remembers them—then, when he says the teaching in the name of the sage, the likeness of the sage’s image is portrayed in front of him. It is as if the sage himself said it. However, the remembering has to truly be with the power of memory, for then the actual likeness of the image is etched into his mind, as above.
This is the meaning of: Someone who learns when a child, to what can he be likened?… (Avot 4:20). For the person who studies with a student is literally like one writing with ink on paper, fashioning the letters of his intellect there. Similarly, he fashions his actual intellect and likeness on the mind of the student.
However, there are levels to the learning. That is, there is the level of “someone who learns when a child”—i.e., when the student actually hears the teaching directly from the teacher and at the time the teacher originated that teaching. He then corresponds to a child, for the original insights come about as a result of [the teacher’s] elevating the souls in the aspect of “pregnancy” and renewing them, as explained in an earlier lesson. Hence he corresponds to a child, as if he were born today. And then it is like ink written on fresh paper—well etched and pictured there, without any smudging. In other words, he can picture and etch it well in his mind and so remember it.
But “someone who learns when an old man” [is like] one who does not hear directly from the sage himself; or even if directly, later on, and not at the time it was originated. In that case, his soul was not renewed in the abovementioned aspect of “pregnancy,” and he remains old, as beforehand. He is then like ink written on used paper—the writing there is smudged. So the insight which the sage originates, even though it is written and etched in his mind, is nonetheless not well pictured there and he can forget it.
This corresponds to: “It is enough for a servant to be like his master” (Berakhot 58b)—specifically “a servant.” A servant is one who remembers what he receives from his master because he reviewed it one hundred and one times, as above. As our Sages teach (Chagigah 9b): “One who serves God” (Malachi 3:18)—this is one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.
And, through remembering, he merits to be like his master. For the likeness of his master’s image appears to him. It is as if his master taught it to him then, because his master’s countenance and likeness is well etched and portrayed in his mind, like ink written on paper. This corresponds to “DaYO (it is enough) for a servant,” an aspect of “D’YO (ink) written,” as above.
That his likeness is pictured by his student—this is an aspect of ink, because only the likeness of his image is portrayed. For it is a general principle: All enclothing, that one level becomes enclothed within another level, is only an enclothing of the final station of the higher level—i.e., the aspect of the feet of the higher one. It becomes the first station of the lower level. As our Sages teach: That which wisdom made a crown for her head, humility made a heel for her sandal (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:9).
Therefore, he only pictures the likeness. It is like ink, for even though the actual form and likeness is pictured in his [mind], still it is only a picture and a likeness, and not the actual essence of the thing.
Similarly, the teaching, even though the likeness is pictured in it, is still only a picture and a likeness—i.e., his lowest station, namely speech. Understand this.
This is the concept of black fire on white fire (Yerushalmi, Shekalim 6:1), the aspect of mentalities, as in (Song of Songs 4:15), “flowing from LeBaNon”—from the LiBuNa (whiteness) of the mind. And this is (ibid. 1:5), “I am black but comely.” For that which, with respect to the higher one, is black and lowly—i.e., its lowest station—is, with respect to the lower one, beautiful and lofty.
דַּע, שֶׁדִּבּוּר אֱמֶת, שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִפִּי הַצַּדִּיק הָאֱמֶת, אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִלֵּי דְּעָלְמָא, הוּא יָקָר מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה שֶׁל צַדִּיק אַחֵר, כִּי בְּהַדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה שֶׁל הָאַחֵר יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת שָׁם תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה, אֲבָל זֶה הַדִּבּוּר הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּי הַצַּדִּיק הָאֱמֶת הוּא רַק אֱמֶת לְבַד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהוּא רַק אֱמֶת וְאֵין בּוֹ שׁוּם תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, אֵין יָקָר מִמֶּנּוּ,
Know! a true teaching from the mouth of the true tzaddik, even in worldly matters, is more precious than the Torah teachings of another tzaddik. This is because it is possible that in the Torah teachings of the other [tzaddik] there is a great admixture. But the teaching that the true tzaddik utters is nothing but truth. And, because it is only truth, without any admixture, there is nothing more precious.
וּמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵעַ דִּבּוּר מִפִּי הַצַּדִּיק הָאֱמֶת, שֶׁהוּא דִּבּוּר אֱמֶת, וּבִפְרָט כְּשֶׁרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ אָז, בִּבְחִינוֹת (ישעיהו ל׳:כ׳): וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רוֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ, הוּא מְקַבֵּל בְּחִינוֹת הַפָּנִים שֶׁל הַצַּדִּיק, וּבְחִינוֹת שִׂכְלוֹ וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ, כִּי זֶה הַצַּדִּיק מַנִּיחַ שִׂכְלוֹ בְּתוֹךְ זֶה הַדִּבּוּר שֶׁמְּחַדֵּשׁ, וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל זֶה הַדִּבּוּר, נִמְצָא שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל שִׂכְלוֹ.
Now, someone who hears a teaching uttered by the true tzaddik, which is a true teaching, and particularly if he sees him then—as in (Isaiah 30:20), “Your eyes shall see your teacher”—receives an aspect of the countenance of the tzaddik and an aspect of his intellect and soul. This is because this tzaddik puts his intellect within this teaching that he originates. So when a person receives this teaching, he consequently receives his intellect.
וְזֶה גַּם כֵּן בְּחִינוֹת הַנְּשָׁמָה, כִּי הַנְּשָׁמָה הִיא בְּחִינַת הַשֵּׂכֶל, כְּמָה שֶׁכָּתוּב (איוב ל״ב:ח׳): וְנִשְׁמַת שַׁדַּי תְּבִינֵם;
This is also an aspect of the soul, because the soul is an aspect of the intellect. As it is written (Job 32:8), “The soul of the Almighty gives them to understand.”
וְכֵן מְקַבֵּל פָּנִים שֶׁלּוֹ, כִּי הַדִּבּוּר שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר הוּא אֱמֶת, וֶאֱמֶת הוּא הַפָּנִים שֶׁל כָּל הַפָּנִים דִּקְדֻשָּׁה, בִּבְחִינוֹת (תהילים כ״ד:ו׳): מְבַקְשֵׁי פָנֶיךָ יַעֲקֹב סֶלָה, בְּחִינוֹת (מיכה ז׳:כ׳): תִּתֵּן אֱמֶת לְיַעֲקֹב,
He likewise receives his countenance. For the teaching he utters is truth, and truth is the countenance of all the countenances of holiness. This is as in (Psalms 24:6), “those who seek Your countenance, Yaakov, forever”; as in (Micah 7:20), “Give truth to Yaakov.”
נִמְצָא זֶה שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל דִּבּוּר מִפִּי הַצַּדִּיק, מְקַבֵּל פָּנָיו וְשִׂכְלוֹ וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ, וְנֶחְקָק וְנִצְטַיֵּר בְּדַעְתּוֹ דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ שֶׁל הַצַּדִּיק, שֶׁהוּא הַפָּנִים וְהַשֵּׂכֶל וְהַנְּשָׁמָה.
We find therefore that one who receives a teaching from the mouth of the tzaddik receives his countenance, his intellect and his soul. Etched and portrayed in his mind is the likeness of the tzaddik’s image—the countenance, the intellect and the soul.
אַךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִשְׁמֹר מִשִּׁכְחָה, כִּי שִׁכְחָה מְשַׁכַּחַת הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ, הַיְנוּ כָּל מַה שֶׁנִּצְטַיֵּר בְּדַעְתּוֹ מֵהַדִּבּוּר כַּנַּ"ל, עַל־יְדֵי הַשִּׁכְחָה נִשְׁכָּח וְעוֹבֵר מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַנַּ"ל;
However, a person has to be on guard against forgetfulness. This is because a lapse of memory causes everything to be forgotten by him—i.e., that which he pictured in his mind from the teaching, as explained. Because of a lapse of memory, all the aforementioned is forgotten and gone from him.
וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם יִכְתֹּב הַדָּבָר בְּסֵפֶר לְזִכָּרוֹן, כְּשֶׁבְּחִינַת הַשִּׁכְחָה מִתְגַּבֶּרֶת, נוֹפֵל בְּחִינַת הַשִּׁכְחָה גַּם עַל הַסֵּפֶר הַנִּכְתַּב, הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁחַס וְשָׁלוֹם, נִפְטָר הֶחָכָם שֶׁחִדֵּשׁ הַדִּבּוּר, וְאָז מִתְגַּבֵּר בְּחִינוֹת שִׁכְחָה, בִּבְחִינוֹת (תהילים ל״א:י״ג): נִשְׁכַּחְתִּי כְּמֵת מִלֵּב, וְאָז שׁוֹרָה שִׁכְחָה אֲפִלּוּ עַל סֵפֶר הַנִּכְתַּב.
Even if the teaching is recorded in a book for recollection, when the aspect of forgetfulness becomes overbearing, forgetfulness affects even a book [already] written. That is, when the sage who originated the teaching dies, God forbid—in which case the aspect of forgetfulness becomes stronger, as in (Psalms 31:13), “I have become forgotten from the heart like the dead”—then forgetfulness rests even on the written book.
וְיֵשׁ עֵצָה לָזֶה – לְצַיֵּר לְפָנָיו דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ שֶׁל הֶחָכָם בִּשְׁעַת הַלִּמּוּד כְּשֶׁלּוֹמְדִין דְּבָרָיו, כַּמּוּבָא בִּירוּשַׁלְמִי (שקלים פ"ב) שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְצַיֵּר בִּשְׁעַת הַלִּמּוּד כְּאִלּוּ הַתַּנָּא עוֹמֵד לְפָנָיו,
There is a solution for this [forgetfulness]. When studying his teachings, a person should picture in front of him the likeness of the sage’s image at the time of the discourse. As is brought in the Yerushalmi (Shekalim 2:5): “While studying, a person should picture the Tanna as if he stood before him.”
כִּי בְּהַסֵּפֶר שֶׁל הֶחָכָם נִרְשָׁם וְנִצְטַיֵּר שָׁם דְּמוּת הֶחָכָם, כִּי אֵלּוּ הַדִּבּוּרִים וְהָאוֹתִיּוֹת הַנִּרְשָׁמִין וּמְצֻיָּרִין בְּהַסֵּפֶר, הֵם שֵׂכֶל הֶחָכָם וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ וּבְחִינוֹת פָּנָיו, נִמְצָא שֶׁשִּׂכְלוֹ וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ וּפָנָיו, שֶׁהוּא דְּמוּתוֹ מַמָּשׁ, הוּא בְּאֵלּוּ הָאוֹתִיּוֹת וְהַתֵּבוֹת;
For in the book of the sage is impressed and portrayed the likeness of the sage. This is because those teachings and letters which are impressed and inscribed in the book are the intellect of the sage, his soul, and the aspect of his countenance. We find therefore that his intellect/soul/countenance, which in effect is his image, is in those letters and words.
עַל־כֵּן נִמְצָא בְּכָל סֵפֶר וָסֵפֶר דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ שֶׁל הֶחָכָם שֶׁחִדֵּשׁ אֵלּוּ הַדִּבּוּרִים, כִּי כְּפִי דְּמוּתוֹ, דְּהַיְנוּ שִׂכְלוֹ וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ וּפָנָיו שֶׁל הֶחָכָם, כֵּן נִצְטַיְּרִין הָאוֹתִיּוֹת בַּסֵּפֶר, כִּי אִם הָיָה לְהֶחָכָם דְּמוּת אַחֵר, הַיְנוּ שֵׂכֶל וּפָנִים וּנְשָׁמָה אַחֶרֶת, הָיָה מְחַדֵּשׁ וּמְצַיֵּר אוֹתִיּוֹת אֲחֵרִים בְּהַסֵּפֶר, כְּפִי הַשֵּׂכֶל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא דְּמוּתוֹ. נִמְצָא, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּכָל סֵפֶר דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ שֶׁל הֶחָכָם.
Thus, in each and every book can be found the likeness of the image of the sage who originated those teachings. In accordance with his likeness, i.e., the intellect/soul/countenance of the sage, so are the letters pictured in the book. For if the sage had a different likeness, i.e., a different intellect/soul/countenance, he would originate and fashion other letters in the book—in accordance with the intellect that he had, which is his likeness. We find therefore that in every book there is the likeness of the sage’s image.
וּכְשֶׁזּוֹכֶה לְזִכָּרוֹן לִזְכֹּר דִּבְרֵי הֶחָכָם כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֲמָרָם הֶחָכָם, אוֹ עַל יְדֵי מַה שֶּׁחוֹזֵר מֵאָה וְאַחַת פְּעָמִים, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה זוֹכְרוֹ, אָז כְּשֶׁאוֹמֵר זֶה הַדָּבָר בְּשֵׁם הֶחָכָם, נִצְטַיֵּר לְפָנָיו דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ שֶׁל הֶחָכָם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאִלּוּ אֲמָרוֹ הֶחָכָם בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַזִּכָּרוֹן בֶּאֱמֶת בְּכֹחַ הַזִּכָּרוֹן, שֶׁאָז נֶחְקָק בְּדַעְתּוֹ דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ מַמָּשׁ כַּנַּ"ל.
When one merits to memory—to remember the teachings of the sage the way the sage said them, or because of his reviewing them one hundred and one times by means of which he remembers them—then, when he says the teaching in the name of the sage, the likeness of the sage’s image is portrayed in front of him. It is as if the sage himself said it. However, the remembering has to truly be with the power of memory, for then the actual likeness of the image is etched into his mind, as above.
וְזֶה (אבות פ"ד): הַלּוֹמֵד יֶלֶד, לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה וְכוּ'. כִּי זֶה הַלּוֹמֵד עִם הַתַּלְמִיד הוּא מַמָּשׁ כְּכוֹתֵב בִּדְיוֹ עַל הַנְּיָר, וּמְצַיֵּר אוֹתִיּוֹת שִׂכְלוֹ שָׁם, כֵּן הוּא מְצַיֵּר בְּדַעַת הַתַּלְמִיד שִׂכְלוֹ וּדְמוּתוֹ מַמָּשׁ כַּנַּ"ל,
This is the meaning of: Someone who learns when a child, to what can he be likened?… (Avot 4:20). For the person who studies with a student is literally like one writing with ink on paper, fashioning the letters of his intellect there. Similarly, he fashions his actual intellect and likeness on the mind of the student.
אַךְ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּהַלִּמּוּד בְּחִינוֹת, הַיְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּחִינוֹת הַלּוֹמֵד יֶלֶד, הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁהַתַּלְמִיד שׁוֹמֵעַ הַדָּבָר מִפִּי הָרַב מַמָּשׁ וּבְעֵת שֶׁחִדֵּשׁ הָרַב זֶה הַדָּבָר, שֶׁאָז הוּא בְּחִינוֹת יֶלֶד, כִּי הַחִדּוּשִׁים נִתְהַוִּים עַל יְדֵי מַה שֶּׁמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הַנְּפָשׁוֹת בִּבְחִינוֹת עִבּוּר וּמְחַדֵּשׁ אוֹתָם, כַּמְבֹאָר לְעֵיל (סימן יג), וְנִמְצָא שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינוֹת יֶלֶד, כְּאִלּוּ נוֹלָד הַיּוֹם, וְאָז דּוֹמֶה לִדְיוֹ כְּתוּבָה עַל נְיָר חָדָשׁ, שֶׁנֶּחְקָק וְנִצְטַיֵּר שָׁם הֵיטֵב בְּלִי טִשְׁטוּשׁ, הַיְנוּ שֶׁאָז יוּכַל לְהִצְטַיֵּר וְלֵחָקֵק בְּדַעְתּוֹ הֵיטֵב וְיוּכַל לְזָכְרוֹ.
However, there are levels to the learning. That is, there is the level of “someone who learns when a child”—i.e., when the student actually hears the teaching directly from the teacher and at the time the teacher originated that teaching. He then corresponds to a child, for the original insights come about as a result of [the teacher’s] elevating the souls in the aspect of “pregnancy” and renewing them, as explained in an earlier lesson. Hence he corresponds to a child, as if he were born today. And then it is like ink written on fresh paper—well etched and pictured there, without any smudging. In other words, he can picture and etch it well in his mind and so remember it.
אֲבָל הַלּוֹמֵד זָקֵן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הֶחָכָם בְּעַצְמוֹ, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ מִפִּיו לְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַחִדּוּשׁ, וַאֲזַי לֹא נִתְחַדֵּשׁ נִשְׁמָתוֹ בִּבְחִינַת עִבּוּר כַּנַּ"ל, וְאָז הוּא בְּחִינוֹת זָקֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִקֹּדֶם, וְאָז דוֹמֶה לִדְיוֹ כְּתֻבָה עַל נְיָר מָחוּק, שֶׁהַכְּתָב מְטֻשְׁטָשׁ שָׁם. כֵּן הַחִדּוּשׁ שֶׁמְּחַדֵּשׁ הֶחָכָם, אַף שֶׁנִּכְתָּב וְנֶחְקָק בְּדַעְתּוֹ, עִם כָּל זֶה לֹא נִצְטַיֵּר הֵיטֵב שָׁם וְיוּכַל לְשָׁכְחוֹ,
But “someone who learns when an old man” [is like] one who does not hear directly from the sage himself; or even if directly, later on, and not at the time it was originated. In that case, his soul was not renewed in the abovementioned aspect of “pregnancy,” and he remains old, as beforehand. He is then like ink written on used paper—the writing there is smudged. So the insight which the sage originates, even though it is written and etched in his mind, is nonetheless not well pictured there and he can forget it.
וְזֶה בְּחִינוֹת (ברכות נח): דַּיּוֹ לְעֶבֶד לִהְיוֹת כְּרַבּוֹ – לְעֶבֶד דַּיְקָא. עֶבֶד, הוּא מִי שֶׁזּוֹכֵר מַה שֶּׁמְּקַבֵּל מֵרַבּוֹ עַל־יְדֵי שֶׁחָזַר מֵאָה וְאַחַת פְּעָמִים כַּנַּ"ל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (חגיגה ט:): עוֹבֵד אֱלֹקִים – זֶה הַחוֹזֵר פִּרְקוֹ מֵאָה וְאַחַת פְּעָמִים,
This corresponds to: “It is enough for a servant to be like his master” (Berakhot 58b)—specifically “a servant.” A servant is one who remembers what he receives from his master because he reviewed it one hundred and one times, as above. As our Sages teach (Chagigah 9b): “One who serves God” (Malachi 3:18)—this is one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.
וְעַל־יְדֵי הַזִּכָּרוֹן זוֹכֶה לִהְיוֹת כְּרַבּוֹ, כִּי נִזְדַּמֵּן לוֹ דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ שֶׁל רַבּוֹ, וּכְאִלּוּ רַבּוֹ אֲמָרוֹ אָז כַּנַּ"ל, כִּי נֶחְקָק וְנִצְטַיֵּר הֵיטֵב בְּדַעְתּוֹ פָּנִים וּדְמוּת רַבּוֹ כִּדְיוֹ כְּתוּבָה עַל הַנְּיָר כַּנַּ"ל. וְזֶה בְּחִינוֹת דַּיּוֹ לְעֶבֶד וְכוּ', בְּחִינַת דְּיוֹ כְּתוּבָה כַּנַּ"ל, (וְכֵן מוּבָא
And, through remembering, he merits to be like his master. For the likeness of his master’s image appears to him. It is as if his master taught it to him then, because his master’s countenance and likeness is well etched and portrayed in his mind, like ink written on paper. This corresponds to “DaYO (it is enough) for a servant,” an aspect of “D’YO (ink) written,” as above.
בַּזֹּהַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ (תרומה דף קנט) עַיֵּן שָׁם). כִּי מַה שֶּׁנִּצְטַיֵּר דְּמוּתוֹ אֵצֶל הַתַּלְמִיד הוּא בְּחִינוֹת דְּיוֹ, כִּי לֹא נִצְטַיֵּר אֶלָּא דְּמוּת דְּיוֹקָנוֹ. כִּי זֶה כְּלָל, שֶׁכָּל הַהִתְלַבְּשׁוּת שֶׁמִּתְלַבֵּשׁ דַּרְגָּא בְּדַרְגָּא אֵינוֹ מִתְלַבֵּשׁ אֶלָּא מַדְרֵגָה אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁבַּדַּרְגָּא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, הַיְנוּ בְּחִינַת רַגְלִין שֶׁל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וְהוּא מַדְרֵגָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֵצֶל דַּרְגָּא הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה: מַה שֶּׁעָשְׂתָה חָכְמָה עֲטָרָה לְרֹאשָׁהּ עָשְׂתָה עֲנָוָה עָקֵב לְסִלּוּתָא;
That his likeness is pictured by his student—this is an aspect of ink, because only the likeness of his image is portrayed. For it is a general principle: All enclothing, that one level becomes enclothed within another level, is only an enclothing of the final station of the higher level—i.e., the aspect of the feet of the higher one. It becomes the first station of the lower level. As our Sages teach: That which wisdom made a crown for her head, humility made a heel for her sandal (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:9).
וְעַל כֵּן לֹא נִצְטַיֵּר אֶלָּא הַדְּמוּת, וְהוּא כְּמוֹ דְּיוֹ, שֶׁאַף שֶׁנִּצְטַיֵּר בּוֹ הַצּוּרָה מַמָּשׁ וְהַדְּמוּת כַּנַּ"ל, עִם כָּל זֶה אֵינוֹ רַק צִיּוּר וּדְמוּת, וְאֵינוֹ מַמָּשׁ הַדָּבָר בְּעַצְמוֹ,
Therefore, he only pictures the likeness. It is like ink, for even though the actual form and likeness is pictured in his [mind], still it is only a picture and a likeness, and not the actual essence of the thing.
כֵּן הַדִּבּוּר, אַף שֶׁבּוֹ נִצְטַיֵּר הַדְּמוּת, עִם כָּל זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא צִיּוּר וּדְמוּת, הַיְנוּ מַדְרֵגָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ, הַיְנוּ דִּבּוּר. וְהָבֵן:
Similarly, the teaching, even though the likeness is pictured in it, is still only a picture and a likeness—i.e., his lowest station, namely speech. Understand this.
וְזֶה בְּחִינַת (ירושלמי שקלים פ"ו): אֵשׁ שְׁחוֹרָה עַל גַּבֵּי אֵשׁ לְבָנָה, בְּחִינַת מֹחִין, בְּחִינוֹת: וְנוֹזְלִים מִן לְבָנוֹן – מִן לִבּוּנָא דְּמֹחָא, (זוהר פנחס דף רלה:). וְזֶה בְּחִינַת (שיר השירים א׳:ה׳): שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי וְנָאוָה, כִּי מַה שֶּׁהוּא שָׁחֹר וְשָׁפָל אֵצֶל הָעֶלְיוֹן, הַיְנוּ מַדְרֵגָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ, הוּא נָאֶה וְעֶלְיוֹן אֵצֶל הַתַּחְתּוֹן:
This is the concept of black fire on white fire (Yerushalmi, Shekalim 6:1), the aspect of mentalities, as in (Song of Songs 4:15), “flowing from LeBaNon”—from the LiBuNa (whiteness) of the mind. And this is (ibid. 1:5), “I am black but comely.” For that which, with respect to the higher one, is black and lowly—i.e., its lowest station—is, with respect to the lower one, beautiful and lofty.