Zitat Kommentar zu Schir haSchirim 1:8

The text then explicates the manner of the creation of the two worlds, above and below.
[Ps. 104:2]: “Wrapped in a robe of light; You spread the heavens like a tent cloth”: This denotes the invocation of Wisdom’s emanation enveloping the entirety of being. “Enwrapment” means that it receives illumination from that flow. Its amplification sparked a light which was among the ten entities emanated upon that first day, all as one, without differentiation. These are: heaven and earth; primeval chaos—formless and void, darkness and light, water and wind, the quality of day and the quality of night.¹⁶²The author is linking the ten sefirot of the upper world to these ten attributes which, according to the Talmud [Ḥagigah 12a], underlay the creation of this world. They are heaven, earth, formlessness, void, darkness, light, water, wind, day, and night. This is one of several such lists of primordial entities to be found in rabbinic sources.
And thus [Gen. 1:2 states]: “The world was chaotic, empty”: Chaos is an entity lacking all form; but primal Emptiness enclothed that chaos, until it traced a tracing finer than spirit. “Darkness was upon the face of the deep”: The depth of the supernal heights, the depth below.¹⁶³The depth above: omek rom = keter; omek tahat = malkhut. See the Commentary of R. Azriel to Sefer Yetzirah 1:5. “And the spirit of God hovered over the waters”: The Messiah’s spirit, the spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, hovered over the waters, covering all. This is all that was emanated upon that first day.
The essence of all things was emanated upon the first day, just as our Sages taught concerning the primordial human: “In the first hour of the day the dust from which he was created was gathered together.”¹⁶⁴b. Sanhedrin 38b. When Scripture states: “Let there be light” [Gen. 1:3] its meaning is that Divinity enwrapped Itself in that light as we have explained, meaning that through the amplification of that luminescence, the light entered into a state of actualization.
In this first passage we find the word “light” five times, just as the phrase “it was good” appears five times. In the second passage the term “water” is repeated five times. Five were the drops of water, five were the drops of light in their midst. These were the five voices uttered at Torah’s revelation.¹⁶⁵See comments to Canticles 1:8. It is for this reason that Scripture states, “it was good,” for the light was kindled candle from candle, granting the primal essences the power to expand and flow forth.
“God separated the light from the darkness” [Gen. 1:4]: God set a boundary to the effluence and expansion of each and every one. This is the intent of “Let there be light and there was light” [Gen. 1:3], meaning “the speculum that shines.” “And there was darkness” [Gen. 1:2]: “the speculum that does not shine.”
Concerning both of them it said: “It was good.” This is the meaning of: “God called the light day, the darkness He called night” [Gen. 1:5]. He drew forth the effluence of the attribute of Day to daytime, the attribute of Night to nighttime. “And there was one day” [Gen. 1:5] all remained unified, in all of this the primal essence came to manifestation. Another interpretation: “There was evening”: the speculum that does not shine. “There was morning”: the speculum which does shine. “One day”: unique and unified in His names.

They lodge, they hide They lurk and lodge in the place they hope I will go, and they watch my steps (traces in French, tracks, explained in Gen. 49:19, Song of Songs 1:8) to spy on me and to lead pursuers there. All this he would complain about the wicked of Israel: that they would lie in wait for him and out of fear of them he had fled to Achish.

What is written [immediately] above this subject? Normally Rashi only makes inferences from juxtapositions when matters are not written in their normal place, because then they were certainly written so for one to make an inference. Nonetheless, since there is no comparison between the laws of marriage and those of terumah and sanctified property, it is certain that they were only juxtaposed in order for one to make an inference. (Gur Aryeh) explains that [Rashi’s inference] is not from the juxtaposition of the passages, because if this were so he should have said “why was the Parshah of the sotah juxtaposed to that of sacred property,” as is his normal style. Rather, Rashi was answering the question: The Parshah should not have begun with the man, rather with the woman — saying “a woman who goes astray and acts treacherously…” given that she was the source of the sin. Therefore he explains “what is written above…” meaning that he was the source of the sin and “any man” refers to the passage above. See there. (Nachalas Yaakov) The matter is puzzling — ‘Tuviah sinned and Zeigud was punished?’ So too here — the husband sinned because he withheld the gifts to the kohanim and the woman was disgraced such that she had to come before the kohein! All the more so if she literally became defiled, it is difficult to understand how the sin of the husband could cause the sin of the wife. Rather, this is the correct explanation: The woman certainly has sins of her own and her sins caused the sin of promiscuity. Nonetheless if it were not for the combination of the sin of the husband with her sin of promiscuity, her sin would certainly have caused it to become publicized without the warning and seclusion. Thus the Beis Din would have killed her without causing disgrace to the husband, obliging him to bring her before the kohein and cause her to drink in order for her to die through the lethal waters. Instead, the combination with the sin of the husband caused there to be witnesses to the seclusion rather than witnesses to the defilement, and he had to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. Likewise, if she were to come away exonerated from the charge of promiscuity, had it not been for the combination with the husband’s sin, the sin of the wife would have lead to a simple rumor, without witnesses to her seclusion. Alternatively, there would have been only one witness to her defilement or she would have said that she would not drink — and in all of these cases one would not cause her to drink. Rather, here the combination with the sin of the husband caused him to have to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. (Gur Aryeh) [One may ask:] It appears that this is not specific to the case of a sotah, because had he been a zav or metzora he would also have needed a kohein, given that they too require a kohein. For if one did not say so, why should sotah be different? One may answer that the cases of a zav or metzora are different. If he wanted to be a sinner and not bring an atonement, who would know? Thus he would not necessarily need a kohein. However with a sotah, even a sinner would not wish his wife to be promiscuous, since it is the nature of people for this to be detestable, as the Torah writes “and he was jealous.” And since he was jealous, he would certainly bring her before the kohein. When one appreciates this matter further, one will see that it is measure for measure. Since he did not wish to give the gifts to the kohein, asking why he should give his money to the kohein, the Torah said “By your life you will need him.” You shall know the greatness of the kohein — that he is the intermediary between Hashem and Yisroel, making peace between them through the offerings. Yisroel are called Hashem’s wife as it writes, “If you do not know, most beautiful of women” (Shir Hashirim 1:8) and in many other places where they are termed a wife. Therefore this man will now require a kohein to whom he will bring the sotah, in order that he can also make peace between him and his wife. She strayed from him and the kohein would make peace between them. Surely this is exactly the same as when a kohein makes peace between Yisroel and their Father in Heaven, causing the Divine Presence to rest in the world. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 35:25) that Hashem is called a husband to Yisroel (see Gur Aryeh there). This man was one of them but he did not wish to recognize the greatness of the kohein, therefore he had to bring the sotah to the kohein in order to make peace between himself and his wife.

afterwards because of their shame Heb. על-עקב. When they receive their shame in the wake of everything [they have done], in the measure that they measured out and in the way they walked against Me. עקב is like (below 77: 20): “and your steps (ועקבותיך) were not known”; (Song 1:8), “go your way in the footsteps of (בעקבי) the flocks.” They are all an expression of footsteps, in French traces, footprints on the heel.

Now the daughter of the women he will give him to destroy her This is the nation of Israel, [referred to in Song of Songs 1:8 as] “the fairest of women.” The king of the north will command the general of his army to destroy her. I say that he is Antiochus, the king of Greece, who issued decrees against Israel, and he commanded his general, Phillip, to kill whoever identified himself as a Jew, as is written in the book of Josiphon (ch. 18).

עקב This means: By the same roads and paths upon which they had traveled shall they return. The word עקב has the same meaning as in (Psalms 128:20) “And thy foot-steps (עקבותיך) were not known”; (Song of Songs 1:8) “by the footsteps (עקבות) of the flock”. In old French traces; English, tracks.