Time in the Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

partsuf 
(see for example Giller, 
Reading the Zohar
, 105; Hellner-Eshed, 
A River Flows from 
Eden
, 272); a clear distinction between 
‘Atik
and 
Arikh 
in Rashaz's teachings is influenced by the 

---

45 
It is clear, then, that the relation between 
Malkhut
and the Tetragrammaton 
cannot be exhausted by the dichotomy of supra- versus infra-temporality, or eternal 
versus temporal. Rather, Rashaz proposes a more sophisticated model of the 
transition from the ultimate unity of God to the multiplicity of the temporal world. 
The realm that lies beneath 
Malkhut
of Emanation is clearly temporal. What is above 
it, however, is not deemed to be eternal: 
The notion of eternity […] refers only to that which falls within the category 
and limitation of time, [even though] it endures for a very long time. But the 
duration of time does not have any relevance to that which is not within the 
category and limitation of time; rather, [it refers to] “He was, He is, and He 
will be” — all at once. This category and this notion refers only to […] His 
Kingship [
Malkhuto
], blessed be He, which is within the category and 
limitation of time: “He reigned, He reigns, He will reign.”
71
Eternity is itself a mode of temporality, regardless of the duration of time it denotes; 
hence the notion of eternity cannot apply to the transcendent aspect of the divine, 
which is above any temporal characterisation. The idea of the divine that is above
eternity is alluded to by the Tetragrammaton when it is used as the symbol of the one 
instant which comprises the aspects of “was”, “is”, and “will be,” Namely the past, 
present and future. As will be shown below, this aspect of the Godhead relates to the 
sequence of events taking place within the theosophical structure rather than to the 
Lurianic Kabbalah, see Giller, 
Reading the Zohar
, 109-110;
 
Vital, 
'Ets hayim
, Hekhal ha-ketarim, 
Sha'ar 12, ch. 1, 167; Schwartz, 
Mahashevet Habad
, 53-54 n. 99. For sources on 
Keter, 
which is 
excluded from the count of the ten 
sefirot
but plays the role of intermediary between the sefirotic 
world and its transcendent source, see note 34 above. By describing
Malkhut 
of the World of 
Emanation as 
‘Atik
of the World of Creation, Rashaz presents 
Malkhut 
of the upper world as the 
source of the worlds that lie beneath it. In this way he highlights the continuity between the upper and 
the lower worlds, while at the same time keeping them apart. See Schwartz, 
Mahashevet Habad
, 53-
54 n. 99, 55 n. 107. 
70
LT 
Shir ha-shirim
8b. 
71
LT 
Shabat shuvah
, 67c [Appendix 23]. 

---

46 
passage of time within the world; it is identified as the “order of time” [
seder ha-
zemanim
],
72
and as such it precedes ontically the existence of time in the world.
73
2.5 The order of time, or time which is above time.
Since 
Ein Sof
is utterly beyond temporal characterisation, there must be an entity that 
mediates it to the temporal reality of the lower worlds as they come into being. It 
should be noted, however, that the coming into being of the four worlds – 
Emanation, Creation, Formation, and Making, takes place in two stages. The first 
stage is the emergence of the World of Emanation, in which all ten 
sefirot
remain in 
a state of unity with God.
74
The second stage comprises the three worlds that lie 
beneath it, which are in a state of separation and multiplicity. These two stages 
require two different intermediaries to connect them to their supernal source. As was 
shown above,