A further explanation of this concept is presented elsewhere.[126]

Chochmah and Binah have two distinct sources, and are independent of each other. True, there is a connection and relationship between them. For example, the seminal point of Chochmah is ultimately comprehended through Binah. Likewise, the comprehension attained by Binah could not exist without the point of Chochmah. [Metaphorically speaking,] a river cannot exist without a wellspring [as its source], and every wellspring eventually expands into a river. In like manner, each point of Chochmah comes to be understood through Binah, and each understanding [of a concept] through Binah emanates from a point of Chochmah.

Nevertheless this relationship between Chochmah and Binah exists only because they incorporate and join one another. In truth, however, they are not dependent on one another [for their existence], for each has a separate source. Chochmah can exist without Binah, and Binah without Chochmah.

To illustrate: There are innovative thinkers who constantly give birth to original ideas. Yet they are not analytically minded, comprehending matters thoroughly, and grasping them so that they are firmly established in the mind.

By contrast, sometimes an individual possesses understanding, i.e., he comprehends a matter thoroughly in all its intricacies until it becomes firmly settled in his mind. Yet he cannot initiate original propositions; he merely understands existing ideas which he has heard from others or read in books.

[To explain this independence further:] Although the "point" of Chochmah is usually elucidated through the understanding afforded by Binah, at times one cannot find logical reasons that will explain one's germinal idea to others. In fact the thinker may not even totally understand it himself. We find such a case in the Talmud (Beitzah 6a) concerning the law of a chick hatched on Yom-Tov. According to Rav it is forbidden [to eat the chick on Yom-Tov. When the festival began the chick was unfit to eat, not having yet hatched. Anything unfit at the beginning of Yom-Tov is thereby rendered muktzeh, i.e., handling it is forbidden for the duration of Yom-Tov.] Rav Kahana and Rav Assei asked Rav: "What difference is there between this, and a calf born [on Yom-Tov] from a treifah cow?" [The law is that a calf born on Yom-Tov is not muktzeh. According to Rav's definition, however, it should be muktzeh, since at the onset of Yom-Tov it could not be eaten: it was unborn and not subject to ritual slaughter. Ordinarily, the shechitah of the mother automatically renders the unborn calf kosher. In this case, however, even slaughtering the mother cow would not have rendered the unborn calf kosher since the mother herself was unfit - treifah.] Rav was silent. He found himself unable to articulate rationally exactly what distinguished between the two cases.[127] Nevertheless he did not recant his position,[128] because his Chochmah [intuitive, unreasoned insight] mandated that the law be thus - that a chick hatched on Yom-Tov may not be eaten. He was merely unable to translate [this flash of Chochmah] into a rational explanation at the level of Binah.

Thus we find the possibility of Chochmah without Binah and Binah without Chochmah, for they are distinct faculties, each having a separate source. Chochmah originates[129] in the mazal of notzer and Binah in the mazal of venakeh - two distinct sources. [Notzer and venakeh are two of the thirteen Supernal attributes comprised in the following passage:[130] "And the L-rd passed before him and proclaimed: 'L-rd, L-rd (Havayah, Havayah), benevolent G-d, [Who is] compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth; He preserves (notzer) kindness for two thousand generations, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and He cleanses (venakeh).'" Mazal in this context means "flow" (from the root kzb), i.e., the flow of spiritual vitality from the two abovementioned levels.]

Indeed, the two sources are the opposite of one another. Notzer ("preserves") (See Torah Or [Yisro 69b] in the maamar entitled Mareihem U'Maaseihem.) connotes non-expansion, ayin ("non-existence"). The mazal of venakeh ("cleanses") is related to "doing[131] kindness,"[132] a form of deed; hence, expansion [in order] to create an entity that does have its own existence.

Chochmah and Binah flow respectively from the mazalos of notzer and venakeh. Chochmah is the flow of ayin and of bittul ("self-nullification"), which makes out of "something" [a separate entity], a "nothing." Hence Chochmah is called koach mah[133] ("the power of 'what-is-it?'"). For it is essentially a "mah" [lit., "What?"; i.e., even as it exists it is a nonentity]. Chochmah itself is the epitome of bittul and therefore exists as only a point, lacking external expression. Likewise, it brings about bittul on all levels. Accordingly, Chochmah is called "seeing." As our Sages say:[134] "Who is a wise man? - He who sees what is born," i.e., he who sees how all things are brought about from nothingness.[135] This [wisdom] leads to bittul. Generally, [Chochmah is] the quality of seeing the essence of things. Seeing the essence leads to the absolute nullification of one's being, as for example when one sees a king [whose overwhelming presence causes one to lose one's sense of self. The sense of sight has a most powerful impact on the viewer], as is explained elsewhere at length, in a discussion on the difference between seeing and hearing.[136] Even when the [amorphous] point of Chochmah is conceptualized and revealed within Chochmah, it is still above the level of hearing [of Binah], for the essence is seen and revealed in it. The above [aspects of Chochmah] are all derived from the mazal notzer, which is the flow of ayin and bittul.

Binah comes from the mazal of venakeh, whose function is expansion to create a specific yesh [i.e., an entity with an existence of its own]. It entails understanding the numerous specifics of a subject in all its length and breadth. The light of the concept is grasped consciously. (There is a certain advantage in this, inasmuch as it is experienced more inwardly. The vitality and delight in the Divine conception that one grasps with one's mind are revealed more consciously within oneself. Not so in Chochmah, where they are concealed and intangible.) This is derived from the mazal of venakeh, which brings about a yesh.

Thus Chochmah and Binah - as well as their respective sources, the mazalos of notzer and venakeh - are the antithesis of each other. Chochmah can therefore exist without Binah, and Binah without Chochmah, for their sources are separate, nay, opposite. Nevertheless, the point of Chochmah usually comes to be understood through Binah, for Chochmah and Binah incorporate each other. (This too is the case with their sources, the mazalos of notzer and venakeh.)

Summary: Chochmah and Binah can exist without one another. Each has a separate source, the mazalos of notzer and venakeh. Chochmah and Binah (and their sources) are the antithesis of each other, nevertheless they incorporate each other.

   

Notes:

126. (Back to text) Note Imrei Binah, Shaar HaKerias Shema, ch. 56ff.; the maamar entitled U'Beyom HaBikkurim, 5654 [p. 287ff.].

127. (Back to text) [The Talmud does in fact find an explanation. At the onset of Yom-Tov the treifah mother was fit for human use, albeit not for human consumption, for treifah meat can be fed to dogs. Thus the animal was not muktzeh when Yom-Tov began. An unhatched egg close to hatching time, however, is neither intended nor fit to be fed to a dog. Thus it is muktzeh at the onset of Yom-Tov.]

128. (Back to text) Note that most of the halachic authorities rule according to the view of Rav. See commentaries of Ran and Rosh; Hassagos of the Ravad on commentary of R. Zerachiah Halevi; R. Zerachiah Halevi on Sukkah 7a; Kanfei Yonah (by R. Menachem Azariah of Fano) 4:13; end of Yonas Eilem; Kuntreis Shivrei Luchos. However, Tosafos (Bava Basra 62a, s.v. U'Modeh) is of the opinion that Rav retracted from his previous stand. See footnote at end of the maamar entitled Ki Menaseh, 5708 [p. 102].

129. (Back to text) See Etz Chayim 14:3, 16:6.

130. (Back to text) [Shmos 34:6-7.]

131. (Back to text) Imrei Binah, Shaar HaKerias Shema, ch. 59 [p. 55ff.].

132. (Back to text) [Shmos 20:6.]

133. (Back to text) [Zohar III, 28a, 34a, 235b. See also Rabbi Y. Wineberg, Lessons in Tanya, I, p. 254-5.]

134. (Back to text) [Tamid 32a.]

135. (Back to text) [Tanya, ch. 43.]

136. (Back to text) See Torah Or, beginning of Parshas Mishpatim [p. 75a-b]; VeKachah, 5637, chs. 33 and 57; and other sources.