Letter
35
16
Iyar,
Tav-Reish-Peh-Zayin,
May
18,
1927,
London
To
the
honored
disciples,
may
the
Lord
be
upon
them:
The
surprise
of
...
at
my
zeal
and
devotion
to
The
King’s
Valley,
which
I
wish
to
publish,
is
because
he
did
not
understand
me.
It
is
not
The
King’s
Valley
that
I
am
zealous
about,
but
its
abbreviation,
which
is
The
Studies
of
Atzilut,
which
the
copier
maliciously
attributed
to
the
ARI.
In
his
abbreviation,
he
has
done
two
harms:
1)
He
wasted
the
time
of
all
who
search
their
hearts
for
nothing
and
to
cause
fear,
due
to
the
far
ones
who
are
drawing
nearer
in
his
lines
and
cause
bewilderment.
2)
These
are
words
of
the
wise
rav,
author
of
The
King’s
Valley,
in
the
writings
of
the
ARI.
By
this
he
caused
inconceivable
confusion.
So
I
am
zealous
because
of
my
own
time,
which
was
lost.
Concerning
the
above-mentioned
book,
the
author
is
undoubtedly
a
very
high
and
holy
man.
However,
his
words
are
built
on
the
foundations
of
MAHARI
Sruk,
who,
in
my
opinion,
did
not
understand
the
words
of
his
teacher,
the
ARI,
as
well.
However,
the
words
of
Rav
Sruk
spread
to
all
the
holy
ones
that
were
in
the
land
because
the
Rav
Sruk
nevertheless
arranged
the
words
he
had
heard
from
the
ARI,
so
they
are
understood
by
anyone
with
a
degree
in
attainment,
for
the
greatness
of
mind
and
attainment
of
MAHARI
Sruk
are
immeasurable.
For
this
reason,
the
author
of
The
King’s
Valley
relied
entirely
on
his
foundations,
along
with
all
the
Kabbalists
overseas
to
this
day
because
of
the
questions
in
the
words
of
Rav
Chaim
Vital,
which
are
brief
and
disordered.
This
is
also
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
was
moved
to
put
my
own
words
into
a
book
in
arranging
the
Kabbalah
of
the
ARI,
which
came
to
us
from
Rav
Chaim
Vital,
who
understood,
as
the
ARI
himself
testified,
and
as
MAHARI
Sruk
also
admitted.
It
is
surprising
that
the
HIDA
did
not
resolve
to
save
The
King’s
Valley
from
the
quandary
of
the
Makor
Chaim,
who
did
not
lie
at
all
in
the
Kabbalah
of
the
ARI,
God
forbid,
except
that
he
relied
on
MAHARI
Sruk.
This
is
more
or
less
the
case
with
all
the
Kabbalists
and
authors
from
overseas
without
exception.
In
my
view,
MAHARI
Tzemach,
MAHARAM
Paprash,
MAHARAN
Shapira,
and
MAHARAM
Di
Lonzano
also
relied
extensively
on
MAHARI
Sruk,
so
why
was
he
not
mad
at
them?
As
for
me,
I
hope,
God
willing,
to
purify
the
words
of
the
ARI
without
admixtures
of
names
and
attainments
from
others
that
have
mingled
into
his
words
to
this
day,
so
that
in
time
it
will
be
accepted
by
all
the
greats,
and
they
will
not
need
to
water
the
foundations
of
the
ARI
with
other
fountains
but
his.
It
is
interesting
that
...
was
surprised
that
I
did
not
mention
the
RASHASH?
Why
did
he
not
reply
to
him
that
the
RASHASH
begins
his
book
from
the
world
of
Nekudim,
while
I
stand
in
the
middle
of
Akudim?
And
other
than
some
fragmented
words
in
the
sun,
which
also
belong
to
the
five
Partzufim
of
Atzilut,
he
did
not
say
a
word
about
these
matters.
What
he
contended
regarding
the
interpretations
of
Keter
in
the
Gate
42
of
Tree
of
Life,
you
can
tell
him
in
my
name
that
he
does
not
understand
the
explanation
there.
There
he
speaks
of
the
Sefira
Keter,
which
includes
the
ten
Sefirot
of
Ohr
Yashar
[direct
light]
and
ten
Sefirot
of
Ohr
Hozer
[reflected
light],
which
is
the
inner
AK,
the
middle
between
Ein
Sof
and
AB-SAG-MA-BON,
but
which
was
revealed
outside
of
it.
Similarly,
each
Partzuf
contains
Keter,
such
as
the
inner
AK,
which
includes
twenty
Sefirot,
for
which
The
Zohar
calls
them
“twenty.”
The
Tree
of
Life
says
about
it
that
it
can
be
called
Ein
Sof,
it
can
be
called
“emanated,”
and
both
are
words
of
the
living
God.
But
I
speak
only
of
the
Keter
of
the
ten
Sefirot
of
Ohr
Yashar,
which
can
only
be
called
Ein
Sof
and
Emanator,
and
cannot
be
called
“middle,”
and
much
less
by
a
formless
name,
and
the
root
of
the
four
Yesodot
[foundations]
of
HB
TM.
It
is
so
because
prior
to
the
disclosure
of
the
Sefira
of
Bina
of
Ohr
Yashar,
there
is
not
even
a
root
to
the
Kli,
as
I
have
elaborated
in
Branch
1,
for
the
Kli,
the
potential,
and
the
execution
are
all
from
the
emanated.
Concerning
the
inner
light
of
Igulim,
he
confused
my
words
once
I
divided
them
into
two
points—saying
that
the
illumination
of
the
surrounding
light
is
from
the
surrounding
Ein
Sof,
and
the
inner
light
is
what
the
Igulim
can
receive
by
themselves,
which
are
two
discernments.
Near
there,
in
the
third
Behina,
I
interpreted
the
inner
light:
The
light
that
comes
to
them
is
called
Ohr
Pnimi,
meaning
that
it
comes
to
them
by
themselves.
It
is
called
“the
light
of
the
Reshimo.”
That
is,
the
Reshimo
still
has
the
strength
to
draw
and
suckle
from
Ein
Sof,
except
by
a
limited
illumination,
which
is
therefore
called
“a
Reshimo
that
remains
after
the
great
light
from
prior
to
the
Tzimtzum,”
and
I
have
elaborated
there.
Conversely,
those
who
imagine
that
the
matter
of
the
Reshimo
in
every
place
indicates
that
it
is
as
though
a
part
of
the
holy
light
was
carved
and
remained
attached
to
a
place
after
the
departure
of
the
light.
This
is
a
grave
mistake
because
each
light
is
attached
to
its
root.
It
extends
from
its
root
incessantly,
both
a
great
light
and
a
small
light,
which
remains
after
the
departure,
called
Reshimo.
In
Behina
Dalet,
I
interpreted
the
surrounding
light
in
the
following
way:
“Now
Ein
Sof
illuminates
bestowal
from
its
place.”
What
I
mean
is
that
that
light
does
not
come
with
the
quality
of
the
place
of
the
Tzimtzum,
which
is
limited
and
measured
like
the
Ohr
Pnimi
[inner
light].
Rather,
it
illuminates
unboundedly
and
does
not
distinguish
between
great
or
small
that
the
emanated
has
made
for
himself.
These
matters
are
explained
in
Mavo
She’arim,
in
Gate
to
Introductions,
and
in
many
places.
There
is
no
dispute
at
all
between
him
and
me,
except
in
the
meaning,
but
not
in
the
phrasing
whatsoever.
I,
too,
say
that
the
light
of
Reshimo
is
Ohr
Pnimi,
but
I
interpreted
it
so
there
will
not
be
mistakes
about
it.
And
what
he
wrote,
that
he
was
not
set
up
toward
the
desired
goal,
which
is
the
intention,
tell
him
that
this
is
my
whole
intention
with
the
arrangement
of
the
introductions,
since
many
err
in
it,
and
each
one
builds
a
podium
for
himself
because
the
ARI
and
Rav
Chaim
Vital
did
not
arrange
by
themselves.
For
this
reason,
I
had
to
clarify
my
foundations
in
the
explanation
of
the
ten
Sefirot,
in
which
many
grossly
err,
and
in
the
explanation
and
order
of
the
Partzufim
of
AK,
in
which
most
were
grossly
mistaken.
Once
I
explain
the
order
of
the
Partzufim
of
Atzilut
and
the
ascents
of
the
degrees
properly,
I
will
explain
the
book
A
River
of
Peace,
printed
with
great
contradictions
because
it
was
printed
without
the
consent
of
the
RASHASH,
and
things
he
said
in
his
childhood
...
which
he
regretted
as
an
adult,
were
published.
But
if
he
had
composed
them
himself,
he
would
certainly
proofread
what
was
needed.
However,
it
was
known
that
he
did
not
compile
it,
but
others
stole
and
printed
it
while
he
was
not
at
home,
and
he
regretted
it,
as
is
known.
I
saw
other
commentaries
explaining
his
words,
but
these
commentaries
testify
that
they
did
not
even
begin
to
understand
the
RASHASH,
except
for
one
book,
The
Teaching
of
a
Sage,
which
attains
partially,
but
not
thoroughly.
God
willing,
it
will
all
be
explained
properly.
However,
the
method
of
the
RASHASH
goes
against
all
the
authors
until
today,
for
which
I
could
not
negotiate
with
his
real
words
before
I
demonstrated
his
real
foundations
in
the
studying
of
Tree
of
Life,
which,
God
willing,
I
will
disclose
in
the
future.
I
will
also
put
together
an
index
of
all
my
words
in
Meirot
Masbirot
and
Panim
Meirot,
for
I
did
not
add
any
interpretations
to
what
is
written
and
explained
in
Eight
Gates,
in
Tree
of
Life,
or
in
Mavo
She’arim.
I
also
accepted
some
things
from
the
book
My
Desire
Is
in
Her,
by
Rav
Chaim
Vital,
but
I
accepted
nothing
else
into
my
foundations
from
the
rest
of
the
writings
of
the
ARI,
fearing
for
the
purity
of
their
compilers.
It
is
even
more
so
with
the
Kabbalah
of
the
Rishonim,
the
Ge'onim,
and
all
the
others,
which
I
hardly
saw
at
all.
My
reference
to
Nachmanides
in
his
interpretation
to
The
Book
of
Creation
was
not
to
be
as
a
foundation
for
the
wisdom,
but
as
a
foundation
for
purification
from
corporeality.
Rav
Chaim
Vital
also
quotes
him
on
this
matter,
and
so
I
also
quoted
Maimonides
on
that
matter.
I
found
it
necessary
to
elaborate
on
this
so
you
could
listen
to
the
ones
you
should
with
knowledge
and
understanding,
and
the
words
of
the
wise
are
heard
in
peace.
God
willing,
I
will
put
together
an
index
so
you
may
be
able
to
show
each
and
every
word.
Currently,
I
am
preoccupied
with
setting
up
the
introduction
of
the
book,
after
which
I
will
set
up
the
index,
glossary,
and
acronyms.
My
many
troubles
are
delaying
me,
especially
as
these
are
works
to
which
I
am
not
accustomed,
which
are
therefore
delayed
from
day
to
day.
Concerning
the
new
synagogue,
I’m
very
happy,
and
I
wanted
to
hear
how
things
are
going
with
the
other
synagogue,
which
they
were
hoping
to
make
in
the
Old
City.
Regards
to
you,
Yehuda
Leib