Chukas - Word Power

(2) This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.

וזאת חקת התורה THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE LAW — Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying, “What is this command and what reason is there for it”, on this account it (Scripture) writes (uses) the term חקה about it, implying: It is an enactment from before Me; you have no right to criticize it (Yoma 67b; cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 7).

This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be impure seven days;

“This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall take to you an unflawed red heifer, in which there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke was not placed” (Numbers 19:2).
“This is the statute of” – that is what the verse said: “Who can generate the pure from the impure? Is it not the One?” (Job 14:4), like Abraham from Teraḥ, Hezekiah from Aḥaz, Yoshiya from Amon, Mordekhai from Shimi, Israel from idolaters, the World to Come from this world. Who did this? Who commanded this? Who decreed this? Is it not the One of the world?
There, we learned: If there is a bean-sized snow-white leprous mark on a person, he is impure. If it spread on all of him, he is pure. Who did this? Who commanded this? Who decreed this? Is it not the One of the world?
There, we learned: A woman whose fetus died in her womb and the midwife extended her hand and touched the fetus, the midwife is impure with seven-day impurity and the woman remains ritually pure until the offspring emerges. As long as the corpse is in the house the house is pure. When it emerges from within it, it is impure. Who did this? Who commanded this? Who decreed this? Is it not the One of the world?
We learned there: Those dealing with the heifer, from beginning to end, impurify their garments, but it itself purifies garments. The Holy One Blessed be He said: ‘I instituted a statute, I issued a decree; you are not permitted to violate My decree.’ “This is the statute of the Torah” – “the sayings of the Lord are pure sayings […refined seven times]” (Psalms 12:7). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: We find that the Holy One blessed be He added two or three words in the Torah so as not to express a matter of impurity from His mouth: “From the pure animals, and from the animals that is not pure” (Genesis 7:8); “and of the animals that are not pure” (Genesis 7:2).
Rabbi Yudan said: When it [the Torah] came to introduce the signs of the impure animal, it also opened with the signs of purity. It is not written here, “the camel, because it does not have split hooves,” but rather, “[the camel,] because it brings up the cud [but does not have split hooves]” (Leviticus 11:4). It is not written here, “and the hare, because it does not have split hooves,” but rather, “[and the hare,] because it brings up the cud [but does not have split hooves]” (Leviticus 11:6). It is not written here, “and the pig, because it does not bring up the cud,” but rather, “[and the pig,] because it has split hooves […but does not bring up the cud]” (Leviticus 11:7).
Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Children who were in the era of David, before they experienced the taste of sin they were able to expound the Torah forty-nine aspects impure and forty-nine aspects pure. David would pray for them and say: “You, Lord, preserve them” (Psalms 12:8) – keep their Torah in their heart. “Keep them secure, from this generation, forever” (Psalms 12:8).
After all this praise, they would go out to war and fall, because there were slanderers in their midst. That is what David said: “Amid lions, I lie among the eager, [men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are a honed sword]” (Psalms 57:5). “Amid lions” – this is Avner and Amasa, who were lions in Torah. “I lie among the eager” – these are Do’eg and Aḥitofel, who were eager for slander. “Whose tongues are a honed sword” – these are the Zifites, as it is stated: “When the Zifites came and said to Saul [is not David hiding in our midst?]” (Psalms 54:2). At that moment David said: “Rise above the heavens, God” (Psalms 57:6) – remove Your Divine Presence from their midst.
But the generation of Ahab were all idolaters, but because there were no slanderers in their midst they would go out to war and prevail. This is what Ovadya said to Elijah: “Was it not told to my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord? I concealed [the Lord’s prophets…and I provided them with bread and water” (I Kings 18:13) – if bread, why water? Rather, it teaches that it was more difficult to bring the water than the bread. – But Elijah proclaims on Mount Carmel: “I alone remain a prophet of the Lord” (I Kings 18:22), and the entire people knows but do not reveal it to the king.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: They said to the serpent: ‘Why are you found between fences.’ It said: ‘I breached the fence of the world.’ ‘And why do you proceed with your tongue slobbering?’ It said: ‘It is what caused it to me.’ ‘Why is it that every beast bites and does not kill, but you bite and kill?’ It said to them: “If the serpent bites without a whisper, there is no advantage to the charmer [baal halashon]” (Ecclesiastes 10:11) – ‘is it possible that I would do anything that was not stated to me from on High?’ ‘Why do you bite one limb and all the limbs feel it?’ It said to them: ‘You say it to me? Say it to the master of the tongue [baal halashon], who is here and kills in Rome.’
Why is it called third? It is because it kills three: The one who speaks it, the one who receives it, and the one about whom it is spoken. During the era of Saul, four: It killed Do’eg, who spoke it; Saul, who received it; Aḥimelekh, about whom it was spoken; and Avner son of Ner. Why was he killed? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is because he gave precedence to his name over that of David. That is what is written: “Avner sent messengers to David from his place, saying: Whose is the land?” (II Samuel 3:12). He [Avner] wrote: From Avner to David. Reish Lakish said: It is because he made a game of the blood of the lads, as it is stated: “Avner said to Yoav: Let the lads rise now and play before us” (II Samuel 2:14).
The Rabbis say: It is because he did not wait for Saul to reconcile with David, as it is stated: “My father, see, indeed, see the corner of your robe [in my hand, for as I cut off the corner of your robe and did not kill you…]” (I Samuel 24:11). Avner said to him [Saul]: What do you seek to prove from the [corner of] your garment? It was severed with a thorn. When they came to the circle, he said to him: “Will you not answer, Avner?” (I Samuel 26:14). Regarding the corner, you said it was severed by a thorn. Were the spear and the jug also severed by a thorn? Some say: It is because he should have protested regarding Nov but he did not protest.
Rabbi Ḥanan ben Pazi interpreted the verse regarding the portion of the heifer, in which there are seven of everything: Seven heifers, seven burnings, seven sprinklings, seven immersions, seven impure, seven pure, seven priests. If a person will say to you: They are five, say to him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is stated: “The Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:1–2).

Only the land of the priests he did not take over, for the priests had an allotment from Pharaoh, and they lived off the allotment which Pharaoh had made to them; therefore they did not sell their land.

זאת חקת התורה, This is the statute of the Torah, etc. Why did the Torah call this single commandment "Torah?" The Torah should have written simply: זאת חקה, וגו "this is a statute, etc." Alternatively, the commandment could have commenced with the words: "this is the law of ritual impurity, etc." We have such examples in Exodus 12,43 where the Torah wrote: זאת חקת הפסח וגו. We cannot answer the question we raised by saying that the Torah wanted to tell us that in order to be able to study Torah one first had to purify oneself with the ash of the red heifer. This is not only not so, but we have learned in Berachot 22 that "words of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity at all." All the opinions offered in the Talmud, including the ones that are most stringent when it comes to the purification rites needed for people who have experienced seminal discharges, agree that it is permissible for people who are ritually impure due to contact with the dead to study Torah while in that state of ritual impurity. We may be able to answer our question by referring to something we have learned in Nazir 61 and which has been ruled on by Maimonides in the first chapter of his treatise on Tumat Met. It is stated there that the concept of ritual purity originating from a dead body and conferring ritual impurity does not apply to the type of Gentile known in the Talmud as a Kuti. Here is the wording of Maimonides' ruling: "If a Kuti touches a dead body or carries same or forms a tent over such a dead body it is as if he had never touched the dead body. The situation is analogous to an animal having touched a dead body. Just as the animal does not become ritually impure thereby, neither does the Kuti." Thus far Maimonides. The Jewish people have been elevated above other nations in that they have received the Torah without which the Jews would not be different from any other nation. The wording of our verse then reminds us of the distinction of the Jewish people in that contact with the dead confers ritual impurity on a people who have been given the Torah. Lesser spirits yearn to attach themselves to the Jewish people inasmuch as the latter represent a high level of spirituality not only while alive but even while they are dead. The sanctity Jews experience during their lives is evident due to the fact that contact with the dead, or even being under the same roof with a dead body confers ritual impurity on the bodies of living Jews. This reflects how the Gentiles even while dead aspire to attach themselves to Jews, somehow. Were it not for the power of the ash of the red heifer with which this legislative act of the Torah has endowed us to help counteract the pull of the impurity associated with a dead body, we would not be able to shake off this attachment by the spiritual residue of the dead. I have already illustrated this relationship between Israel and ritual impurity by means of a parable. Let us assume that we have two containers inside a house, one full of honey, the other full of refuse. If you take both these containers outside it will be observed that the container full of honey attracts swarms of flies whereas the number of flies which are attracted to the container full of refuse is insignificant by comparison. Similarly, when a Jew dies, the fact that he was full of holiness while alive -i.e. sweet as honey,- now attracts all kinds of spiritually negative elements seeing the soul has departed from that body. These are the forces of impurity which always attempt to attach themselves to anything sacred as they wish to benefit from the physical sweetness of holiness. This is the reason that the body of a dead Jew confers impurity on any other Jew who is under the same roof. This is so even if 1000 houses attached to each other surround the room in which the dead body is kept. As long as one door opens into those houses the impurity is spread throughout the airspace in all these houses. The same does not occur if the dead body is not that of a Jew. This is because the Gentile never possessed holiness while alive so that the spiritually negative elements have no reason to think they would benefit by attaching themselves to it. The body of a dead Gentile confers ritual impurity on a Jew only if the Jew touches it, etc., not if he merely shares the same roofed-over airspace with it. The only impurity which does cling to the body of a dead Gentile is that which is capable of killing on contact. The root cause for all these rules is the Torah (which was given to the Jewish people). With the help of this explanation I have been able to understand why G'd was so particular about only two aspects of the Passover legislation in Egypt. The first aspect is G'd's insistence that only Jews who had been circumcised were allowed to offer and eat the Passover lamb. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 17,3 understand Ezekiel 16,6 and 8 as referring to the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover sacrifice respectively. The second aspect G'd was so concerned with at the time was the prohibition of a בן נכר (normally translated as a Gentile) eating from that sacrifice. The sages in Shemot Rabbah 16,3 explain Exodus 12,21 משכו וקחו לכם צאן, "draw out and take for yourselves lambs, etc." to refer to people who had withdrawn from worshiping idols. The visible evidence of abandoning idol worship consisted of slaughtering the very animal which served the Egyptians as a major deity. When a Jew did this he ceased to be a בן נכר, a Gentile. It is strange that the third major stricture which the Torah warned the Jews of regarding the observance of the Passover ritual, namely, that it must not be eaten by people who are ritually impure did not feature in the legislation as it applied to the Jews in Egypt. Why did G'd not care about this at that time? It is true, of course, as you are all aware, that if the majority of the Jewish people were to find themselves in a state of ritual impurity due to contact with the dead the rule about eating the Passover while in a state of impurity is relaxed, as we know from Pessachim 67. Nonetheless, G'd could have at least commanded that the Jews in Egypt should endeavour to be ritually pure before eating the Passover? Moses could have prepared the ash of a red heifer to facilitate the process of a Jew cleansing himself of such impurity! Even the whole Passover legislation for future observance as detailed in Exodus 12,42-49 does not mention the need to be ritually pure! While one can come up with various excuses as to why ritual purity inside Egypt was not feasible, the Torah should have at least mentioned this as part of the requirements for the Passover observance forthwith! When you reflect on what we have written above you will find that there was a perfectly good reason why the Torah ignored the requirement of ritual purity in Exodus. The Israelites did not need to purify themselves because they had not been defiled through contact with the dead in the first place. As long as they had not been Jews in the legal sense of the word, i.e. through circumcision and the affirmation of their monotheism through the act of slaughtering an Egyptian deity, i.e. the lamb, they were no better than the Kutim discussed in Nazir 61 and the rule laid down for who is subject to such ritual impurity by Maimonides. As long as the Israelites had not received the Torah they would not contract ritual impurity even after they had circumcised themselves and prepared the Passover lamb for ritual slaughter. Moreover, even assuming that Jews could contract ritual impurity as soon as they had converted by circumcision and the denial of idol worship, such a conversion took place only on the 14th of Nissan as they prepared to slaughter the lamb. Any so-called ritual impurity which was contracted before that date would be automatically cancelled as it had been contracted by a different person, a Gentile instead of a Jew. Even nowadays, if a Gentile converts on the 14th of Nissan, any impurity he had contracted prior to that date is ignored for the purpose of including him in the people who may eat of the Passover, provided he meets all the other requirements. Having written this we are faced with the problem mentioned in Pessachim 92 where it states that a proselyte who converted on the 14th of Nissan may not participate in that year's Passover although he had ritually immersed himself [a requirement for all proselytes. Ed.], the reason being that in the event he would be impure due to contact with the dead in the following year he would think that all he had to do was to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Maimonides also rules this way in chapter 6 of his Hilchot Pessach. The reason both the Talmud and Maimonides had to explain the reason for this prohibition teaches that in actual fact such a proselyte had not been ritually impure at all at the time of his conversion. The same applied to the Jews in Egypt. This then is the meaning of the Torah writing זאת חקת התורה. On a moral/ethical plane we may see in the words חקת התורה a message telling us that whosoever observes this commandment although it is labelled as a statute lacking rationale, is considered as if he had observed the whole range of commandments contained in the Torah. The reason is that when we observe a commandment which is completely beyond our understanding this is equivalent to a declaration of faith in G'd and in His Torah. It is as if one declared one's preparedness to observe all the commandments given the opportunity to do so. Who knows if G'd did not present this commandment as a חקה in order to enable us to make such a declaration by means of observing it. אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר, which G'd commanded to convey. Why was this half-sentence necessary at all? We have already learned from verse one that G'd was the One Who instructed Moses and Aaron to convey this commandment to the Israelites! Besides, why did the Torah employ the third person i.e. אשר צוה instead of the usual אשר אנכי מצוך, "which I command you, etc.?" Why did the Torah have to repeat the word לאמר once more in our verse? The Torah already wrote לאמר in verse one! We must also analyse why the words דבר אל בני ישראל do not appear at the very beginning of our verse instead of after the words זאת חקת התורה. Most commandments are either based on reason or on traditions which have to be symbolised. The author calls the former מצות שכליות and the latter מצות שמעיות. An example of the former is the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas the commandment to rest on the seventh day is an example of the latter. Observance of the Sabbath is a symbolic form of acknowledging that G'd rested on that day when He created the universe. We observe certain festivals as commemorations of miracles which the Jewish people experienced on those dates. We do not worship idols to testify that G'd is our deity, that He took us out of Egypt. The examples mentioned are, however, only the apparent, i.e. the visible reason for those commandments. There is not a single commandment that does not contain mystical dimensions, unknown to most people but whose meaning had been revealed to Moses. It behooves each one of us to acquire as much insight into the meaning of the Torah as the 48 methods described in the last chapter of "Ethics of our Fathers" have revealed to us. If one pursues Torah study by taking advantage of all the various tools mentioned there one will be able to gain insights similar to those that G'd revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and which Moses in turn communicated to the Jewish people. The members of Moses' generation were informed about all the mystical dimensions of the various commandments. In our instance, G'd decided to legislate a commandment which did not fit either of the two categories we mentioned before. He decided to withhold the reasons which prompted Him to formulate this legislation. The first time the Torah writes the word לאמר in verse one was to tell Moses to convey this commandment without elaborating on its meaning. This is why the Torah told Moses to say "זאת חקת התורה" as if to say: "do not ask me any questions about the meaning of this law." The second time the Torah writes אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר is equivalent to Moses telling the people: "this is all I am allowed to tell you." He implied that he himself had received further insights into the meaning of this law although he had to keep this a secret. This solves all the questions we had posed about the peculiar wording employed here. It explains why the commandment did not commence with the words דבר אל בני ישראל before saying זאת חקת התורה. The reason was that these words were precisely what made this commandment different from all the other commandments which Moses was meant not merely to convey to the people but also to explain to them. The word דבר referred to the substance of the commandment to be conveyed to the Israelites. The Israelites might counter that anyone who observes a commandment without knowing both the visible and the hidden reason for that commandment was like a person performing a commandment which had a body but no soul. In order to counter such an argument the Torah wrote דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה, "they shall perform the commandment because you know the reason behind it." The Torah meant that seeing that Moses was familiar with even the hidden reason for this commandment the people could observe it in a perfect manner although G'd had not taken them into His confidence in this instance. When looking at the paragraph in this way we can even understand the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ויקחו. It means that in addition to the actual taking of the red heifer the people should be conscious at that time that Moses was aware of the reason for this commandment. One could have reasoned that granted that there was a reason for the red heifer of the generation Moses led in the desert not to have been revealed; what was the situation with the red heifers during all subsequent generations? It is possible that G'd had not withheld the meaning from everybody but had revealed it to selected individuals in each generation such as to Aaron. It is reasonable to assume that such selected individuals in turn would reveal it to selected individuals of the next generation. Alternatively, the Torah expects that all successive generations have to be content with the fact that Moses had known the meaning of this commandment. I have found a comment in Midrash Rabbah according to which the words ויקחו אליך mean that all future red heifers would be named as the "red heifer of Moses." We have to understand why G'd departed from His custom when He formulated this commandment. When you review our explanation you will come to the conclusion that the verses make good sense without recourse to any other commentaries. You may also look at our text in light of the Midrash Rabbah where it is claimed that the Gentile nations would approach Israel demanding to know the rationale of this commandment. The Torah said זאת חקת התורה in order for the Israelites to be able to respond to the enquiries of the Gentiles by pointing out that the nature of this legislation is such that we cannot explain it. We do not make an attempt to second guess G'd on the subject or to question it and by inference doubt Him. If we accept the Midrash, Moses was permitted to reveal his insights to the people on the understanding that the people in turn would keep their secret and not reveal it to the Gentiles even under provocation. פרה אדומה, a red heifer, etc. I believe that all the details described by the Torah here are references to a variety of rules to be observed in connection with this red heifer. 1) אדומה; this is a reference to the ascendancy of the attribute of Justice; (a reminder of blood) 2) תמימה; it must not have black hair. We have learned in Parah 2 that two black hairs disqualify a red heifer from being used as such. Not only must it not have black hairs, but even the horns and the hooves must be coloured red. The colour black, and most certainly the colour white, disqualify such a heifer. 3) אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "upon which there never has been a yoke." The yoke reduces the impact of the power of the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical dimension of Berachot 5 that if a person experiences afflictions this cleanses away all the sins of a person. In other words, afflictions are an aspect of the attribute of Justice in action. 5) The burning of the red heifer is also symbolic of the attribute of Justice being in action. Once these various aspects of G'd's judgments have been reduced to ashes, these ashes enable the accumulated impurity which cleaves to man to escape, seeing that the impurity (טומאה) itself is only like a painful whip employed by the attribute of Justice in subjecting us to justice and retribution. I have seen in Sifri Zuta that it is part of the rules of the red heifer that a person must not buy a calf and raise it because the Torah wrote ויקחו פרה, "they shall buy a (fully grown) cow and not a calf." Maimonides also rules like this in chapter 1 of his Hilchot Parah. In light of what we said that all the details the Torah wrote about the red heifer are related to its connection with the attribute of Justice, there is a deeper meaning to the last mentioned halachah. The very name פרה reminds us of a certain number (known to Kabbalists) connected to the process of judgments and retribution. If one were to use a calf and raise it this would throw this connection out of balance. Even though such a calf would eventually become a cow=פרה and as such would symbolise the number 285 which is the number of judgments G'd has in store for man, G'd insisted that the red heifer be of age at the time it is designated as such. ונתתם אתה אל אלעזר הכהן, "and you are to hand it over to Eleazar the priest, etc." The restrictive word אתה, "it" is necessary in view of a ruling in Yuma 42 that we have a tradition according to which subsequent red heifers could be handled either by the High Priest or by an ordinary priest, whereas in this instance it had to be handled by the High Priest. ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, את ערה, "He shall burn the heifer in his sight; its skin, etc." Why does the Torah interrupt the sequence of what is to be burned by mentioning לעיניו, "in his sight?" We can understand this in light of a ruling by Maimonides in chapter 4 of Hilchot Parah Adumah that the red heifer should be burned whole, but that in the event the priest first skinned the heifer and cut it up before he burned it this was acceptable. The reason the Torah interposed the word לעיניו where it did was to alert us to this alternative way of burning the red heifer. The Torah wrote ושרף את הפרה to indicate that the entire heifer had to be burned at the same time even if it had already been cut up. The words את ערה, "with its skin," indicate that it all has to be burned together though it need not necessarily be when the heifer is still a whole cadaver. על פרשה ישרף, "with its dung it shall be burned." The reason the Torah repeats the apparently superfluous word ישרף, "he shall burn it," is to show that there are two ways in which this burning could take place, as I have explained. Either one burns the heifer while it is whole, or after it has been skinned and cut up. The second word ישרף refers to the second alternative. Maimonides in Hilchot Parah Adumah chapter 4 rules (based on a Tossephta in the second chapter of Parah) that if some part of the skin fell off, or even some of its hair in an amount equal in size to that of an olive, one has to put it back so it can be burned with the animal or the whole procedure becomes invalid. In other words, the second word ישרף may tell us that it is indispensable that all the parts of the heifer be burned.

For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and His Divine Presence, with fear and love and love and fear, to unify the Name of Yud Hei with Vav Hei with a complete unity, in the name of all Israel. Behold, I am wrapping my body with tsitsit (fringes). So too may You wrap my soul – my 248 limbs and my 365 tendons – in the light of the tsitsit, [the letters, strings and knots of] which add up to 613. And in the same way that I cover myself with a prayer shawl in this world, so too may I merit to be in the section of the rabbis and to have a fine prayer shawl in the next world, in the Garden of Eden. And through the commandment of tsitsit, save my essence, my spirit, my soul and my prayer from [negative forces]. And may the prayer shawl spread its wings upon them to save them, ‘like an eagle that rouses his nestlings, hovering over his young.’ And may [this] commandment of tsitsit be considered before the Holy One, blessed be He, as if I fulfilled it in all of its details, all of its minutiae and all of its intentions – [as well as] the 613 commandments that are dependent upon it. Amen, Selah.

ושמרתם את המצות AND YE SHALL WATCH THE UNLEAVENED BREAD that it shall not reach the stage of becoming leavened; hence the Rabbis said, if it (the dough) is rising (a sign that the leavening process is setting in) she (the woman kneading the dough) polishes it with cold water (i. e. she slaps the dough with hands dipped in cold water). Rabbi Josiah said: Do not read “את המַּצּוֹת”, the unleavened bread, but את הַמִּצְוֹת “[ye shall watch] the commandements” — just as we may not cause the unleavened bread to become leavened by letting the dough remain in its raw state too long so we may not let the commandment become “leavened” by waiting too long before we perform it; but if it (a commandment) comes to your hand, perform it immediately (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:17:1).

Therefore, the sages of blessed memory exhorted us: "And you shall watch over the Matzot" - if a Mitzva comes to your hand, do not delay its performance (lit. allow it to become Chametz)' (Mechilta Shemot 12:17).

In truth, the main existence of the world and its true state [occurs] through these higher powers. And the effects of that which [occurs with] them is [what occurs] to the lower physical beings. And this is whether it is beginning its creation, or it is developing as time passes. And this means that according to what is created from these powers, the order in which they are set and the limits that have been set up, that is what unfolds afterwards according to the axiom of unfolding that the Creator, may His name be blessed, willed. And according to that which develops and will develop among them, is what develops and will develop among the lower creatures. Whereas the existence, condition, arrangement and all of the other distinctions among [the higher] powers are according to that which is appropriate for them in accordance with their true makeup; the existence, condition, arrangement and all of the other occurrences among the lower beings, unfold [from the spiritual beings] and are applied to that which is appropriate in them according to their true natures. Three general processes in creation: See that according to this root concept, the beginning of all events is above with the higher powers and their end is below with the lower creatures. And likewise, the beginning of all developments is above and their end is below. However there is one component that is an exception to this rule. And that is that which relates to man's free choice. For since the Master, may His name be blessed, wanted that man have the power to choose what he wants of good or evil, He made him independent of others. And just the opposite, [God] gave him the power to actually move the world and its creatures, according to that which he chooses with his will. So it comes out that there are two opposite general processes in the world: The first is natural and determined, whereas the second is chosen; the first is top-down, and the second is bottom-up. The one that is determined is the process by which the lower being are moved by the higher powers and this is certainly top-down. The one that is chosen is that which man moves through his free will. But it is surely impossible that that which he moves be anything but something physical - for man is physical and his actions are physical. However because of the connection and interaction that exists between the higher powers and physical things - movement of the physical brings about an eventual effect upon the higher power that is above it. So it comes out that that this process is bottom-up, the opposite of the determined one that we mentioned. However you should know that not even man himself chooses all of his actions. Rather some of them are from his choice, while others are caused by a Supreme decree for his reward or his punishment (and as we will write in its place, with God's help [in Part 2, On Personal Providence 4]). Yet the property of that which follows from a decree that is upon him is like other matters of the world, the process of which is top-down - like that which is moved by the higher powers. But that which is coming from the angle of his free choice will move bottom-up, as we have explained.

However after the process moved by choice [begins], it will perforce bring a determinate process. For once it has moved the higher powers, by [the actions] of man, they go back and move the lower beings with the unfolding of the natural process [that they put into] motion. Nevertheless, there are many specific properties to all of these things according to what the Supreme Wisdom, in the depth of His counsel, decreed would be appropriate for His creation - to measure out all the many measures, both in the contact of the process from man to the powers, and in the contact of the process of the powers to the lower beings. According to these deep secrets do all the mechanisms of His direction, may He be blessed, cause everything that was and will be.