תוספת ביאור מעט ע״פ ויקחו אליך פרה כו׳

This short discourse adds to the explanation of the red heifer given in the preceding discourses. Its subject is the cedar wood, hyssop and crimson wool that the priest casts into the burning heifer (Numbers 19:6).

The earlier discourses explained that the cedar wood and hyssop cast into the burning heifer draw down Chochmah and self-nullification from Z’eir Anpin, the emotive attributes of the World of Atzilus. That flow is drawn into the mayin nukvin, the “feminine waters” of an arousal from below, which the ash represents; the Ramaz and the Mikdash Melech, commentators on the Zohar, explain it so on Parshas Chukas.

The discourse now adds a second reading: the cedar also alludes to refining the emotive attributes of the animal soul, the soul that drives the body and its desires. It points back to the earlier discourse on “This is the statute of the Torah.”

The Midrash explains why a person with tzaraas is purified with cedar and hyssop, the tallest of trees and the lowliest of plants: standing tall in arrogance like a cedar brought on the affliction, and lowering oneself like the hyssop brings the cure. So the cedar stands for haughty, unrefined emotions.

The Zohar on Terumah speaks of “planted trees” that the Holy One, blessed be He, uprooted and replanted elsewhere, and calls them “the cedars of Lebanon.” The Ramaz’s commentary on that passage shows what kind of cedar needs refining.

The Ramaz reads the uprooted trees as the six emotive attributes of Z’eir Anpin: in the World of Tohu (Chaos) they were uprooted and fell to the World of Beriah, and afterwards they were replanted in the World of Tikkun (Rectification). The Mikdash Melech read the passage differently, both there and on Pinchas.

The Kabbalistic work Emek HaMelech reads the passage as the Ramaz does. The discourse builds on this reading.

If the attributes fell in the shattering of the vessels, then there is a “cedar” that needs refining: what fell from the World of Tohu. The Sages’ teaching that a person should be soft like a reed and not hard like a cedar supplies the image.

Tohu’s attributes were so intense that none could blend with its opposite: kindness would admit no restraint, and restraint no kindness. That rigidity is the hardness of the cedar; in Tikkun the attributes were set in lines, right, left and center, so that each includes the others.

Psalms speaks of “the cedars of Lebanon which He planted.” The planted cedars are the attributes as rectified through Chochmah, called koach mah, “the power of what,” because it is the power of self-effacement; it draws self-nullification down into the emotions.

Abba is the configuration of Chochmah, so “the cedars of Lebanon,” the six extremities of Abba, are the emotive attributes as they exist within Chochmah. On this basis the discourse explains why cedar and hyssop are cast into the fire.

Hyssop, a lowly plant, stands for humility and self-nullification, and so does the worm, as in the verse “But I am a worm and not a man.” Binding the lofty cedar to the lowly hyssop with the crimson thread and casting them into the fire joins pride to humility.

The act refines the attributes of Tohu, rigid as a cedar, by drawing self-nullification into them. The text refers the reader to the discourse on “Arm from among you” for more on this.

Refined in this way, Tohu’s attributes are absorbed into “the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,” the rectified order of Tikkun. This also explains the timing of the act, which the next part takes up.

The Yalkut and the Rash, Rabbeinu Shimshon’s commentary on the Mishnah, say the cedar and hyssop were cast in before the heifer was reduced to ash. This fits the new reading: the cedar and hyssop also stand for levels that need refining, so they too must burn to ash together with the heifer.

The Zohar on Chukas says “once it has become ash, one must cast in the wood and hyssop,” which seems to say the opposite. The discourse concludes that the Zohar’s wording is not meant precisely.

The crimson worm itself may also need refining, since kelipah has its own “worm” opposite the holy one, as Pri Etz Chaim says. Le’umas zeh, “opposite this,” is the term for the unholy counterpart that stands against each holy level.

Sefer HaGilgulim, a Kabbalistic work on the transmigration of souls, applies the verse “Though they be red like crimson” to this unholy worm: the red of sin. The discourse suggests that this worm is the speech and letters of kelipah.

Kelipah’s speech is evil speech, talebearing and idle talk. Rashi at the start of Balak tells that Moav, hearing that Moshe’s power was in his mouth, sought a man “whose power was in his mouth,” Bilam, to oppose him.

The text sends the reader to two passages of the Zohar on Balak. It also points to two earlier discourses: the end of one on “Binding his foal to the vine” (Vayechi), on the word “his foal,” and one on “To My mare among Pharaoh’s chariots” (Beshalach).

When kelipah’s levels burn away, what remains is the ash: their holy root, which comes from the World of Tohu. Then their rectified counterparts in Tikkun are revealed, such as “like a cedar in Lebanon,” said of the righteous man who flourishes.

The holy worm is revealed as well: “you worm Yaakov, men of Israel,” which the text calls a mouth of holiness, the counterpart of kelipah’s speech. When the cedar of Tohu is rectified it has the advantages of both worlds at once.

The rectified cedar keeps the intensity of Tohu’s light, and from Tikkun it gains self-nullification and the blending of the attributes. It resembles the Akudim, the stage in Kabbalah where all the lights were bound together in one vessel, which is above the shattering.

The cedar also stands for Gevurah: the letters of erez (ארז, cedar) add up to 208, as do those of Yitzchak (יצחק), whose attribute is Gevurah, and the red of the crimson worm is also Gevurah. To push away the spirit of impurity, holiness itself needs Gevurah, firmness.

The Idra in the Zohar on Nasso says the hairs of the supernal beard are hard so that they can subdue the forces of judgment. They are hard because they come from Mocha Stima’ah, the hidden brain, in which the Gevurah of Atik, the inner core of Keser, is enclothed.

The text marks all this as only a suggestion. The Zohar on Chukas, at the start of folio 181, says that when the cedar wood is cast in, the strength of the impure forces is weakened and they flee. The text now returns to the earlier explanation, that the cedar draws down from Z’eir Anpin of Atzilus.

That earlier reading, that the cedar draws down from Z’eir Anpin, the emotive attributes of Atzilus, is clearly implied in the Zohar on Metzora and on Chukas.

Both meanings are in the cedar, hyssop and crimson: refinement and a flow from above. That is why they are thrown in neither before the burning nor after the heifer has become ash, but in the middle, when its body bursts open.

The burning of the heifer is only refinement: it refines the gevuros, the severe forces, of nogah, the translucent kelipah in which good and evil are mixed. The living water is only a flow from above, from Mocha Stima’ah; the cedar and hyssop, which do both, come between them.

The cedar, hyssop and crimson refine the corresponding levels in nogah. Through that refinement their holy counterparts in Atzilus are drawn down: “a cedar in Lebanon,” and likewise the hyssop and the crimson worm.

The cedar and hyssop were therefore cast in after the fire had caught most of the heifer and it had burst open, but before it was fully burned, while the refinement was still under way. The text then notes that what has been written implies a narrower reading.

On that reading the cedar and hyssop are only drawings-down from the holy, rectified attributes of Tikkun. So it is written in the letter in Iggeres HaKodesh that opens with the Sages’ question: why is the section of Miriam placed next to the section of the heifer?

For more on the heifer the text lists passages in the Zohar on Vayikra, Acharei and Pinchas, and in the Omissions (Hashmatos), additional Zohar passages printed at the end of its first part. The Kehot note places that passage at folio 259b of the first volume.