בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
No início, Elohim criou os shamayim(céus) e a aretz(terra).
Sefer Yetzirah
YAH, ADONAI of Hosts, God of Israel, Living God and King of the World, EL SHADDAI, Merciful and Gracious, High and Exalted, Dwelling Ever Above, Holy Is His Name1[Isaiah 57:15]—He carved2Throughout the SY, the most common way of describing the מַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית Maʽaseh Bereshit 'Work of Creation' is not the abstract verb בָּרָא bara 'to create' used in [Genesis 1:1]. Instead, the SY prefers verbs relating to the processes of craftsman and artisans, in particular stonemasons: חָקַק chaqaq 'to carve, chisel', חָצַב chatzav 'to hew', שקל shaqal 'to weigh', יָסַד yasad 'to found',יָצַר yatzar 'to form, shape, fashion'—the latter providing the name of the book, סֵפֶר יְצִירָה Sefer Yetzirah, literally the 'Book of Forming' but conventionally rendered the 'Book of Creation'. and created His World3Most manuscripts do not include the expression וּבָרָא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ uvara et ʽolamo 'and created His World' in this verse. In these versions, God simply חָקַק chaqaq 'carved', with no object expressed overtly. See also SY 5:4, where God simply יָסַד yasad 'founded', with no overt object. in Thirty-Two4The number 32 represents the sum of the 10 Sefirot Belimah and 22 Letters of Foundation. Together these represent the mathematical-linguistic foundations of Creation; see notes on 1:2 below. Although the number 32 is not ruminated upon any further after SY 1:1, subsequent commentaries have associated it with the 32 occurrences of the name אֱלֹהִים Elohim in [Genesis 1]. In the Bahir, the Thirty-Two Ways are associated with the gematria value of לֵב lev ‘heart’ ([Bahir 63], [Bahir 95] inter alia cf. SY 6:1-3) and with the 32 tzitzit (fringes) of the tallit (prayer shawl) [Bahir 92]. Wondrous5In the Tanakh, the root פל״א PLʼ generally implies that which approaches or exceeds the limits of one's abilities, comprehension, or willingness, e.g. [II Samuel 13:2], [Deuteronomy 17:8], [Leviticus 27:2]. It tends to be used of things that are marvelous, miraculous, or otherwise supernatural and extraordinary, i.e. that which defies the human ability to do or understand and must therefore be divine, e.g. [Deuteronomy 28:59], [Psalm 118:23], [Psalm 139:6]. The appearance of this root in the SY’s introductory paragraph serves as a reminder that although we embark upon a text rich in vivid, grounded symbolism—even anthropomorphism—we should not hasten to take such symbolic language overly literally. See also SY 1:8 on the limits of knowledge. Ways6The term נְתִיבָה netivah 'path, way, pathway, (raised) road' appears mostly in the poetic sections of the Tanakh, very often as a synonym or parallelism of דֶּרֶךְ derekh 'road, way'. This particular phraseology is one of several hints that the SY may share a particular literary affiliation with the Sifre Emet, the poems of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. For details see Ronit Meroz (2007), "Between Sefer Yezirah and Wisdom Literature: Three Binitarian Approaches in Sefer Yezirah", in the Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6(18), pp. 101-142. of Wisdom7‘Wisdom’ here is likely a reference to the poetically personified חָכְמָה Chochmah of Proverbs 1, 8, and 9, especially [Proverbs 8:22], a favorite verse of Jewish mystics. Meroz has argued that the SY envisions Wisdom [חָכְמָה Chochmah] as a co-participant with God in the Work of Creation. A similar view is reflected in the midrashicic and Kabbalistic literature, where Torah or Wisdom acts as a participant or instrument in the Work of Creation; see e.g. Midrash Tanchuma 1:5 on [Genesis 1:1], Zohar 1:3a inter alia. 8Though the phrase is usually translated the ‘Thirty-Two Paths’, I find that the alliteration of ‘Wondrous Ways of Wisdom’ neatly approximates the SY’s choice of poetic vocabulary. Throughout, I have made an effort to select alliterative or parallelistic translations wherever the happy coincidences of Hebrew and English reasonably permit, so as to replicate the SY’s seamless transitions between prose and poetry, an effect all too easily lost in translation., with three linguistic tools: with Counting, with Writing, and with Speech.9The expression בשלשה ספרים בספר וספר וספור is perhaps the most difficult and obscure line in the entire SY. Some manuscripts have a different reading, בשלשה ספרים בספר וספר וספר ‘with three books: a book, and a book, and a book’—certainly easier linguistically but no more clear in its meaning. Meroz has associated these ‘three books’ with what she regards to be the three original textual layers of the SY, woven together after their composition into a single work by an editor. However, the manuscript variant found in the present edition is certainly old, appearing already in the oldest extant versions of the SY in the commentary of Saadia Gaon. The translation adopted here follows a popular logic. I base it off an interpretation of the SY’s internal structure, the semantic properties of the root ספ״ר SPR, and the SY’s general grammatical inventiveness. The text is intimately concerned with the role of language in the Work of Creation. It appears to conceive of language in three parts: counting or mathematics, i.e. the 10 Sefirot Belimah of SY 1 and the formulaic counting of the letters and the elements of creation throughout the text); writing, i.e. the 22 Letters of Foundation discussed in SY 2-5; and speech or pronunciation, i.e. SY 1:9, 2:3, 4:1. Hebrew has of course several verb roots relating to one or more of each of these three facets of language. However, only one, ספ״ר SPR, is capable of describing all three: counting (סָפַר safar 'he counted', מִסְפָּר mispar 'number, count'), writing (סֵפֶר sefer 'book, scroll'), and speaking (סִפֵּר sipper 'he told, accounted', סִפּוּר sippur 'telling, account'). The root ספ״ר is also utilized to coin the novel metaphysical term סְפִירוֹת Sefirot, on which see SY 1:2 below. For these reasons, I believe the first use of the root ספר SPR in SY 1:1, the plural ספרים SPR-im, does not refer to any specific noun at all, but rather the set of words derived from the abstract, idealized root ספ״ר SPR. This way of thinking about language imbues the Hebrew root itself with a certain metaphysical reality, an entity from which more concrete instantions of individual words may ontologically descend and ultimately crystallize into concrete speech or material reality. The root SPR thus holds unique metaphysical significance for the SY, alone representing the totality of language by which the world was created and is sustained. As each of the following three words derived from the root SPR are invoked as implements in the Work of Creation, I have translated the SPR-im as “linguistic tools”—an inelegant approximation of an elegant metalinguistic idea whose meaning is trapped within the particulars of Hebrew grammar. The three occurrences of the root SPR that follow, “with ספר SPR and ספר SPR and ספור SPWR”, are here interpreted respectively as סָפַר safar ‘to count’, representing counting/mahetmatics; סֵפר sefer ‘scroll, book’, representing writing; and סִפּוּר sippur, representing speech. The word סָפַר safar is technically a finite verb, and not a noun as the syntax requires. It may be vocalized also as the inifitive construct סְפֹר sefor, but given the grammatical playfulness of the SY in general, I see no reason why the text should not have delighted in the oblique transformation of a verb like safar into an abstract noun.
Pardes Rimmonim
And see, this logical argument is put off by many reasons: if you want, say [a verse from] Scripture, if you want, say a logical argument.
The logical argument is from the fact that the Emanator is distinct from His emanations on many points. The first [point of difference is] that the emanated entities do fall under time, and He [= the Emanator] does not fall under time. But I do not mean [here] time according to the simple meaning of our words [time as it is here below, in our physical reality], but the intention [of the word ‘time’ here] is that there already was such ‘time’ when there were not [yet] emanations, as [is the case] prior to the Emanation. And this is one of the matters withheld from En Sof, as there is no existence when It does not exist, but It is by necessity the existence and It is the provider of time, and not that It is subjected to time, Heaven forbid! 1This is a difficult paragraph; to me it appears that the Ramak thinks of a different kind of (causal) time, outside of En Sof, but prior to Emanation< .
And on this subject is understood its saying: ‘First, and [there is] no beginning to His beginning’ [Piyyut ‘Yigdal’ by Daniel ben Yehuda (13th century) based on Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith] as although it is said ‘first’ - and each expression of ‘first’ points to [the fact that] it does possess beginning, as truly He is first for all that came behind him - , but the expression ‘first’ [here] points to the beginning of time. And on this it said that He is ‘first’ and nevertheless ‘there is no beginning to His beginning’, and the expression ‘first’ is only there to deny that there is anything prior to Him besides Him.
And this is what it says in the Tikkunim [Tikkunei Zohar; Petichat Eliyahu] “I/ אני am first and I/ ואני am last” [Isaiah 44:6]. And the explanation of the Rashbi of blessed memory [is] that “I/אני” is En/ איןwhich is upper Keter. “and I/ ואני” is Malkut, which is the end/aim of Emanation, its end attached to its beginning, and its beginning to its end [an allusion to Sefer Yetzirah 1:7], as En/אין is א [upper] Keter, י Chochmah, ן Binah when one stretches the Wav/ו which is ן: [which is] the Yud/ יon [top of] the Wav/ וand [this is also] the reality of the ן by itself, is Malkut, according to the truth we find [that] I/אין comprises all Emanation. And this “I am first” is the mystery of the prolongation and extension of Emanation from above to below. “and I am last” is the reality of the light returning, turning itself from below towards above. And with this the subject of ‘first’ and ‘last’ is understood, as Keter is in truth called ‘first’ because it is the first to all that came in the beginning, which is from the emanated entities and below, but above it in En Sof, the expression ‘first’ does not belong ‘first’, and this is ‘and before “one” what can you count?’[Sefer Yetzirah 1:7]. Explanation: Keter is called one as it is the beginning of the calculation which is the number of the ten [Sefirot], as in it is comprised all calculation, and the calculation, its foundation is above, as we have explained in the previous gate. And it says that ‘before “one”’, which is what precedes it, which is En Sof, ‘what can you count?’, as there does not belong number nor speech nor affirmation at all. And about it, it is said (Job 37:20): “Would it be counted to Him when I speak?”, and there number does not belong.
And with this introduction the verse (Isaiah 43:10) is understood, in which all plain expounders were confused: “You are My witnesses, word of HaShem, My servant, which I have chosen so that you will know and believe in Me, and so that you will understand that I [am] He, before Me no divinity was formed, and there will not be after Me.” And the explanation: “that I [am] He”, this is Keter, as “He” is Keter, which is truly called He/הוא. And to teach its hiding, the word ‘He’ is a special name for the concealed [the word ‘he’ indicates a greater distance than the word ‘you’]. And therefore, it says that ‘He’ is called I/אני, also thus to teach that it is [both] the beginning of the Emanation and the end of the Emanation in the mystery of “I am first and I am last” as we have explained [above].
And it says “that before Me no divinity was formed”, and the word “was formed” [is] according to its meaning as its explanation [is] ‘was not emanated’, because the expression of formation is similar to the meaning for the emanation, just like the meaning of the expression of creating which is ‘In the beginning [He] created’ [Genesis 1:1]. And it says: ‘that before Me nothing except for Me was created’, because it is beginning of what came with the restriction of what was created. And it is end to all Emanation, and this is what it says: ‘and after Me there will not be’. And this teaches the strength of the greatness of En Sof, King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, which teaches on its existence that it does not fall under time but on the contrary, it brought out the time, and no existence in the world is formed in any way [in] its absence. And this is one of the many degrees on its emanated entities which all fall under existence, as there was already time when En Sof was without them, as before Emanation.
And there are many who thought, saying that Keter was before all, meaning to say that although there was [still] no Emanation, it [= Keter] was [already] in existence and was forever clothing to the Emanator [they thus think that En Sof and Keter were always and forever existent]. And those who hold this opinion are ‘shield-bearers’ [an expression from Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 27b, for Torah scholars ‘battling’ in Halakhic discussions], and the main object of the necessity that is forced upon them to this matter is a saying of our sages of blessed memory in the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer: ‘Before the world was created, there were only He and His name’2Note that this citation is not in the extant versions of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer.< . Explanation: ‘He and His name’ corresponds to En Sof and Keter. And they forced out of this that Keter precedes [emanation], and that it is being united with the Emanator and [is] garment to Him. But this subject is not appropriate to believe. But [it is appropriate to believe] that all of Emanation was emanated in one [single] time, and also Keter [is part] out of the totality of the emanated entities, as it is proven by many sayings, and part of them we will transfer to Gates with help of Hashem. And particularly in the Gate of Substance and Instruments [Gate IV] and in the Gate of the Order of Emanation [Gate V], and in the Gate of Brightnesses [Gate XI] with help of Heaven.
It has been found that the Emanator is exalted above His emanations, because their absence preceded His Emanation, which is not the case for the Emanator, King of Kings, the Holy One blessed be He. And see, [this concludes] the first distinction.
The Emanator is further distinguished from the emanated entities because their life depends on what is beside them - which is the Emanator, who enlivens them, and He is the source and the light and the abundance to all His emanated entities -, [thus] they are all found to need Him. But En Sof, blessed be He, does not need what is besides Him, but He is the source of living beings, and the living beings are emanated out of Him, while He is the life of the living beings. And therefore, the Rashbi of blessed memory named it in several places in the Tikkunim with the expression ‘Light that does not depend on light etc.’ [Zohar Chadash, Vaetchanan 15], since He does not depend on vitality and abundance from what is besides Him, but He is the source of the light for all other luminaries. And the Rashbi of blessed memory explained this matter in the Tikkunim (Tikkunei Zohar 15 folio 132b) [to be found in Zohar Chadash, Tikuna Kadma'ah 91] and in the Zohar on Bereshit (folio 22) [Zohar, Bereshit 15:168-169]:
Rabbi Shimon further began and said: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me” [Deuteronomy 32:39]. He said: Fellows, hear the ancient words which I want to reveal etc. Who is it who said: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me”? But this is the cause for all those above, He who is called ‘cause of causes’ above those causes, as no one of these causes can do any deed unless it has received permission from the one that is above it, as I have established above in [the explanation of the verse] “Let Us make a human being” [Genesis 1:26]; “Let Us make” verily, on two it was said [the plural indicates more than one], as this one spoke to the one above it etc., and the one above it cannot do anything until it has received council from its fellow. But He who is called ‘cause on all causes’, above whom there is no one, and no one below [Him] equal to Him, this is what is written: “And with whom do you compare Me and am I equal with? said the Holy One” [Isaiah 40:25]. He said: See now that I, I am He, and there is no god/elohim beside Me” which receives council from Him as how which is said: “And God/Elohim said: ‘Let us make a human being’” End of citation.
The logical argument is from the fact that the Emanator is distinct from His emanations on many points. The first [point of difference is] that the emanated entities do fall under time, and He [= the Emanator] does not fall under time. But I do not mean [here] time according to the simple meaning of our words [time as it is here below, in our physical reality], but the intention [of the word ‘time’ here] is that there already was such ‘time’ when there were not [yet] emanations, as [is the case] prior to the Emanation. And this is one of the matters withheld from En Sof, as there is no existence when It does not exist, but It is by necessity the existence and It is the provider of time, and not that It is subjected to time, Heaven forbid! 1This is a difficult paragraph; to me it appears that the Ramak thinks of a different kind of (causal) time, outside of En Sof, but prior to Emanation< .
And on this subject is understood its saying: ‘First, and [there is] no beginning to His beginning’ [Piyyut ‘Yigdal’ by Daniel ben Yehuda (13th century) based on Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith] as although it is said ‘first’ - and each expression of ‘first’ points to [the fact that] it does possess beginning, as truly He is first for all that came behind him - , but the expression ‘first’ [here] points to the beginning of time. And on this it said that He is ‘first’ and nevertheless ‘there is no beginning to His beginning’, and the expression ‘first’ is only there to deny that there is anything prior to Him besides Him.
And this is what it says in the Tikkunim [Tikkunei Zohar; Petichat Eliyahu] “I/ אני am first and I/ ואני am last” [Isaiah 44:6]. And the explanation of the Rashbi of blessed memory [is] that “I/אני” is En/ איןwhich is upper Keter. “and I/ ואני” is Malkut, which is the end/aim of Emanation, its end attached to its beginning, and its beginning to its end [an allusion to Sefer Yetzirah 1:7], as En/אין is א [upper] Keter, י Chochmah, ן Binah when one stretches the Wav/ו which is ן: [which is] the Yud/ יon [top of] the Wav/ וand [this is also] the reality of the ן by itself, is Malkut, according to the truth we find [that] I/אין comprises all Emanation. And this “I am first” is the mystery of the prolongation and extension of Emanation from above to below. “and I am last” is the reality of the light returning, turning itself from below towards above. And with this the subject of ‘first’ and ‘last’ is understood, as Keter is in truth called ‘first’ because it is the first to all that came in the beginning, which is from the emanated entities and below, but above it in En Sof, the expression ‘first’ does not belong ‘first’, and this is ‘and before “one” what can you count?’[Sefer Yetzirah 1:7]. Explanation: Keter is called one as it is the beginning of the calculation which is the number of the ten [Sefirot], as in it is comprised all calculation, and the calculation, its foundation is above, as we have explained in the previous gate. And it says that ‘before “one”’, which is what precedes it, which is En Sof, ‘what can you count?’, as there does not belong number nor speech nor affirmation at all. And about it, it is said (Job 37:20): “Would it be counted to Him when I speak?”, and there number does not belong.
And with this introduction the verse (Isaiah 43:10) is understood, in which all plain expounders were confused: “You are My witnesses, word of HaShem, My servant, which I have chosen so that you will know and believe in Me, and so that you will understand that I [am] He, before Me no divinity was formed, and there will not be after Me.” And the explanation: “that I [am] He”, this is Keter, as “He” is Keter, which is truly called He/הוא. And to teach its hiding, the word ‘He’ is a special name for the concealed [the word ‘he’ indicates a greater distance than the word ‘you’]. And therefore, it says that ‘He’ is called I/אני, also thus to teach that it is [both] the beginning of the Emanation and the end of the Emanation in the mystery of “I am first and I am last” as we have explained [above].
And it says “that before Me no divinity was formed”, and the word “was formed” [is] according to its meaning as its explanation [is] ‘was not emanated’, because the expression of formation is similar to the meaning for the emanation, just like the meaning of the expression of creating which is ‘In the beginning [He] created’ [Genesis 1:1]. And it says: ‘that before Me nothing except for Me was created’, because it is beginning of what came with the restriction of what was created. And it is end to all Emanation, and this is what it says: ‘and after Me there will not be’. And this teaches the strength of the greatness of En Sof, King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, which teaches on its existence that it does not fall under time but on the contrary, it brought out the time, and no existence in the world is formed in any way [in] its absence. And this is one of the many degrees on its emanated entities which all fall under existence, as there was already time when En Sof was without them, as before Emanation.
And there are many who thought, saying that Keter was before all, meaning to say that although there was [still] no Emanation, it [= Keter] was [already] in existence and was forever clothing to the Emanator [they thus think that En Sof and Keter were always and forever existent]. And those who hold this opinion are ‘shield-bearers’ [an expression from Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 27b, for Torah scholars ‘battling’ in Halakhic discussions], and the main object of the necessity that is forced upon them to this matter is a saying of our sages of blessed memory in the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer: ‘Before the world was created, there were only He and His name’2Note that this citation is not in the extant versions of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer.< . Explanation: ‘He and His name’ corresponds to En Sof and Keter. And they forced out of this that Keter precedes [emanation], and that it is being united with the Emanator and [is] garment to Him. But this subject is not appropriate to believe. But [it is appropriate to believe] that all of Emanation was emanated in one [single] time, and also Keter [is part] out of the totality of the emanated entities, as it is proven by many sayings, and part of them we will transfer to Gates with help of Hashem. And particularly in the Gate of Substance and Instruments [Gate IV] and in the Gate of the Order of Emanation [Gate V], and in the Gate of Brightnesses [Gate XI] with help of Heaven.
It has been found that the Emanator is exalted above His emanations, because their absence preceded His Emanation, which is not the case for the Emanator, King of Kings, the Holy One blessed be He. And see, [this concludes] the first distinction.
The Emanator is further distinguished from the emanated entities because their life depends on what is beside them - which is the Emanator, who enlivens them, and He is the source and the light and the abundance to all His emanated entities -, [thus] they are all found to need Him. But En Sof, blessed be He, does not need what is besides Him, but He is the source of living beings, and the living beings are emanated out of Him, while He is the life of the living beings. And therefore, the Rashbi of blessed memory named it in several places in the Tikkunim with the expression ‘Light that does not depend on light etc.’ [Zohar Chadash, Vaetchanan 15], since He does not depend on vitality and abundance from what is besides Him, but He is the source of the light for all other luminaries. And the Rashbi of blessed memory explained this matter in the Tikkunim (Tikkunei Zohar 15 folio 132b) [to be found in Zohar Chadash, Tikuna Kadma'ah 91] and in the Zohar on Bereshit (folio 22) [Zohar, Bereshit 15:168-169]:
Rabbi Shimon further began and said: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me” [Deuteronomy 32:39]. He said: Fellows, hear the ancient words which I want to reveal etc. Who is it who said: “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me”? But this is the cause for all those above, He who is called ‘cause of causes’ above those causes, as no one of these causes can do any deed unless it has received permission from the one that is above it, as I have established above in [the explanation of the verse] “Let Us make a human being” [Genesis 1:26]; “Let Us make” verily, on two it was said [the plural indicates more than one], as this one spoke to the one above it etc., and the one above it cannot do anything until it has received council from its fellow. But He who is called ‘cause on all causes’, above whom there is no one, and no one below [Him] equal to Him, this is what is written: “And with whom do you compare Me and am I equal with? said the Holy One” [Isaiah 40:25]. He said: See now that I, I am He, and there is no god/elohim beside Me” which receives council from Him as how which is said: “And God/Elohim said: ‘Let us make a human being’” End of citation.