The transcript has been transcribed and edited from English simultaneous interpretation, thus there may be potential semantic inaccuracies within it.

Daily Lesson (Morning) August 21, 2024.

Part 1: Baal HaSulam. Letter No. 40.

Reader: Hello, we are studying from the book The Writings of Baal HaSulam. We are on page 737 in the Hebrew version. We are going to study from Letter 40. You can find the study material on the websites where we're broadcasting today, on Sviva Tova at kabbalagroup.info and also in the Arvut system. You can ask questions there, as well, and anyone here in the study hall who wishes to ask a question is requested to stand up, hold the mic close to their mouth and speak clearly and concisely. Again, Writings of Baal HaSulam, page 737, Letter 40.

Reading: (00:40) Letter No. 40. 10 Adar Bet, Tav-Reish-Peh-Zayin, March 14, 1927, London

To my student ... may his candle burn:

... The above mentioned letter, which was not sent at the time of its writing, I will now reply to you about it. I will also reply to your latest letter from the beginning of the month, Adar Bet.

... Regarding your question about NHYM, that I did not explain the right, left, and middle about them, it is also because it belongs to the quality of the Ohr Hozer [reflected light], and I have already written you that the qualities of the Ohr Hozer need all the clarifications in my books.

How many times have I commented to you that the spiritual qualities can never be better than the corporeal qualities, yet you insist that you do not feel the taste of servitude in cleanness.

In my view, any place where there is a desire for servitude is already lost there ... from the work, since delaying the contentment and the drawn-out abundance is called servitude, as was said, “A servant let loose feels comfortable.” Therefore, while being tied under the burden of his master’s enslavement, he is called “a servant” and “serving.”

See in the “Preface to the Wisdom of Kabbalah,” that work and labor extend from the Masach [screen] that delays the upper light, which it covets very much, while the reward extends from the Ohr Hozer. Thus, Malchut returns to being Keter and emerges from servitude to complete redemption with simple Rachamim [mercies], which is Keter.

This is why our sages said, “A servant who is not worth his belly’s bread [the bread he eats],” since the Ohr Hozer is defined as NHYM, NHY de ZA and Malchut that mate in Hakaa, as it is known.

If the servant were worth his belly’s bread up to Galgalta [his head], he would be redeemed. But he is worth only up to his own belly, meaning that his intention to delay does not have the hardness of the Masach of Behina Dalet, but in order to receive. It follows that his delaying Masach will be a vessel of reception, too, and not a Kli that delays, for which the Keter will become Malchut. Thus, only the belly is added from the Keter, and NHYM is his belly. Hence, he remains a slave.

All these discernments between the Masach de Keter and the Masach of the belly come to him by utter and complete loathing the vessels of reception into his own stomach. That is, even the pleasure that extends to his belly by itself seemed to him like the pleasure of one who itches and rubs boils [disease], which is a detestable pleasure to any person because the harm is obvious.

Through the detestable force in nature, a second nature is imprinted in him, to truly loathe the pleasures of his gut. By this, his Masach is assisted by the delaying force as Behina Dalet that returns to being Keter.

But what shall we do to those who are not so meticulous about cleanness and detestable things, even in their first, corporeal nature? We should feel very sorry for them because from their perspective, they are cleansed and have already come to loathe what should be loathed. Yet, they cannot discern very well due to the nature of their corporeality that they are not fleeing as carefully as they should, even with corporeal detestable things.

This answers your question about hypocrisy, for which you came up with the mistake that the world was created for work, and what is to me a reward, you inadvertently mistake for work. You should correct yourself before I come to Jerusalem, and even more so before Passover.

Yehuda Leib

M. Laitman: Are there any questions? 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (13:11) At the beginning of the letter, Baal HaSulam writes, this week I received a double portion of letters from the portions Shlach and Korah. That he wrote letters from the portions Shlach and Korah, so there awakens this question, do we need to seek in our study if there is a relevant portion related to it? 

M. Laitman: No, no, it's just a letter; this is why there is a special language, style, here, and a special reason each time for why he wrote it.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (14:14) He begins the explanation, he talks about what is the difference between understanding, between image and form. What's the difference between them? 

M. Laitman: An image is like a copy, a form is something higher that comes from the clothing of the upper light in this form. 

Student: When we always talk about equivalence of form with the Creator or equivalence of form between us, it doesn't matter what. What does it mean? 

M. Laitman: Well, what does it mean, what do we understand about the name, form? The will to receive that makes of itself that, seemingly, it wants to be the bestower. So, it takes upon itself restriction, screen, and reflected light, etc. and then it clothes in these changes. And in such a way it likens itself, resembles itself to the Creator. 

Student: So, form is the extent of intention that we acquire? 

M. Laitman: Yes, so that we take upon ourselves, we clothe on ourselves.

Student: When he says the image of the Creator, would it be something completely different?

M. Laitman: I'm not certain but it seems to me that Malchut, when it rises to Bina, and there it receives an influence or a bestowal from Hochma, then it can say that it is in this action of, and he saw the image of the Lord.

Student: He also tells his students that, you know, the place where I gave you wheat, you turned it into flour and you chew on it like a wild beast. What is this mistake of turning backwards? 

M. Laitman: Materializing things; it’s that they processed the wheat into flour, and now they have to rise even higher instead of retreating, going back. And this is why they should try to advance onward. To, let's say, the baking of bread but it's not that they go back to the previous, first forms. 

Student: What can we learn from that about our path or our direction? 

M. Laitman: That we should demand from our connection, the connection between us, that as much as we achieve connection, we should demand additional spiritual forms. So that if we connect, that what's called, and he saw the image of the Lord, will emerge from that. That we will want that the Creator will make of us a form that we will receive, accept. And out of that, what happens to us is that we will understand the forms of the Creator.

Question (PT 6): (18:32) There's the quote where they write about the prohibition. What is the prohibition of dressing on a corporeal image? What should we be cautious of? 

M. Laitman: Whatever we study, we're studying about the forms that the light takes on through bestowal from above over it in the vessel. And we shouldn't search for these things in the corporeal nature before us but only in the spiritual form. Meaning, that our desire should reach such spiritual forms, meaning restriction, screen, and reflected light, and later on resemble the light, the upper force, the Creator, and that is the only way. Okay, what else do we have to do today? 

Question (Karmiel): (19:53) Can I ask a question about the way we study?

M. Laitman: I don't know, maybe we should wait? 

Student: Connected to the letter.

M. Laitman: What about the letter? 

Student: When the reader reads, and I feel that I have no grasp of what I'm hearing, what is most correct to focus on?

M. Laitman: That it was written by a great Kabbalist in all the generations from the ARI until now. He wrote this letter to his students, so, we should relate to it in such a way as to the Torah. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (21:12) He writes, I don't understand you, whatsoever, how you scrutinize but do not taste what you are saying. 

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: You compare one issue to another, like food to a barrel and it must be due to multiple engagements. What are multiple engagements? He basically tells the student, you got a problem. You have a desire for multiple engagements and that's why you don't understand what you're reading. That's how I understand it.

M. Laitman: Well, let's say that it is so.

Student: But what are multiple engagements, what should we be careful of? 

M. Laitman: We should be careful that we will not blur the matter, itself, by engaging in something which is around the topic instead of the topic, the subject itself.

Question (ITA 4): (22:29) What does it mean that Moses is the part of Daat of the Torah? 

M. Laitman: Moshe, Moses, reached special degrees that we are not capable of understanding what is their nature. And this is what we understand, not much, these are very high degrees. 

Question (New York 2): (23:13) It said in the reading that without wearing another's shoes, can we wear somebody else's shoes? What does it mean if we see, differently? 

M. Laitman: Yes, this is considered entering a place where you're not yet capable of it, you're not ready for it. So, this is why they say so, that he wants to wear shoes that are not suitable for him. They say that you cannot enter his shoes, meaning you're not yet suitable for it. 

Question (Tel Aviv 1): (24:21) Moses means Daat, as in Tiferet, and Rabbi Akiva is Bina, called being. Had the Torah been given from the part of Bina, the Klipot would have had no clothing in the Torah. What is the state of Moses and what is the state of Rabbi Akiva, what is the difference between them? What is he depicting to us here?

M. Laitman: We will learn this one time, separately, I can't talk about it here. The degree of Moses, Moses' action compared to Rabbi Akiva's action, these are things that are not simple. 

Student: What should we do, or be, in order to attain these levels? 

M. Laitman: I didn't reach it and I don't know what to tell you. Devotion, we need devotion, meaning to work above reason. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (25:42) A more general question: Rabash and Baal HaSulam live the weekly portion, how do they relate to it? Is there any kind of message each week that we should take from these portions? Or just in generality, just to know it a bit? 

M. Laitman: Well, if you read the letters and the articles of Rabash especially, then more or less you go over there about most of the things that he talks about.

Student: I'm asking if there's any importance, like this week, like there was the ninth of Av, so we engaged in the excerpts for the ninth of Av. So, if there is a certain weekly portion, should we incorporate in it, somewhat, or it's not important? 

M. Laitman: If you do engage in it, it's better to do it according to the portion. But in general, I don't think so, you can read it according to your order, that's it. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (26:47) Just continuing what the friend said, we have the program today of our friend that speaks about the weekly portion. And he gives, I really recommend to everyone to listen to the program and to really get into it. How he describes the portion in a spiritual way, so a big L'chaim and thank you to the friend. Rav, he writes here in the Letter, that I understand that the Malchut that went up really did go up to Hochma, and it acquired upper Ima there, and she is called a being. She is also called a thought and there is the mitigation of the Dinim with Rachamim. Firstly, what does it mean, Malchut that went up, and it acquired upper Ima there, and why is it called a being?

M. Laitman: Being, or existence, means that it expands, and fills, and shines in the degree. The upper Ima, we know that this is Bina that emerges from Hochma and exists on its own. Even though she has already a different desire from Hochma, that's it. 

Student: What is special about thought that we sometimes say that there is a thought, like you said earlier. That you already feel that Malchut wants to rise upward, and that comes from thought. How does that happen, where it dresses in such a way in thought? Because we always say that from the thought it will become clarified. 

M. Laitman: Yes?

Student: How does that process play out in the system? 

M. Laitman: When Malchut rises to Bina and rises to Hochma, and receives from them her lights, she can impart them downwards.

Student: Meaning, the thought that I receive in myself that creates this picture, where Malchut wants to rise to Bina and receive the light that will dress there in the vessels? 

M. Laitman: The result of Malchut's ascent to Bina, we call it the light of AB SAG, let's say. And then it expands downwards. 

Reader: We'll go to another Igeret, another letter of Baal HaSulam, Letter 28. We are adding another letter to the study, Letter 28 by Baal HaSulam. Letter 28.

Reading: (29:47) Baal HaSulam. Letter No. 28. 10 Adar Bet, Tav-Reish-Peh-Zayin, March 14, 1927, London

To my student ... may his candle burn:

...The above mentioned letter, which was not sent at the time of its writing, I will now reply to you about it. I will also reply to your latest letter from the beginning of the month, Adar Bet.

...Regarding your question about NHYM, that I did not explain the right, left, and middle about them, it is also because it belongs to the quality of the Ohr Hozer [Reflected Light], and I have already written to you that the qualities of the Ohr Hozer need all the clarifications in my book.

How many times have I commented to you that the spiritual qualities can never be better than the corporeal qualities, yet you insist that you do not feel the taste of servitude in cleanness.

In my view, any place where there is a desire for servitude is already lost there ... from the work, since delaying the contentment and the drawn-out abundance is called servitude, as our sages said, “A servant let loose feels comfortable.” Therefore, while being tied under the burden of his master’s enslavement, he is called “a servant” and “serving.”

See in the Peticha [Preface to the Wisdom of Kabbalah], that work and labor extend from the Masach that delays the Upper Light, which it covets very much, while the reward extends from the Ohr Hozer. Thus, Malchut returns to being Keter and comes out from servitude to complete redemption with simple Rachamim [mercies], which is Keter.

This is why our sages said, “A servant who is not worth his belly’s bread [the bread that he eats],” since the Ohr Hozer is defined as NHYM NHY de ZA, and the Malchut that mate in Hakaa, as it is known.

If the servant were worth his belly’s bread up to Galgalta [his head], he would be redeemed. But he is worth only up to his belly itself, meaning that his intention to delay does not have the hardness of the Masach in Behina Dalet, but in order to receive. It follows that his delaying Masach will be a vessel of reception, too, and not a Kli that delays, for which the Keter will, God forbid, become Malchut. Thus, only the belly is added from the Keter, and the bread that he eats [his belly’s bread], hence he remains a slave.

All these discernments between the Masach de Keter and the Masach of the belly come to him by utter and complete loathing the vessels of reception into his own stomach, even the pleasure that extends to his belly by itself. It seems to him like the pleasure of one who itches and rubs boils (disease), which is a detestable pleasure to any person because the harm is obvious.

Through the detestable force in Nature, a second nature is imprinted in him, to truly loathe the pleasures of his guts. By that, his Masach is assisted by the delaying force as Behina Dalet that returns to being Keter.

But what shall we do to those who aren’t so meticulous about cleanness and detestable things, even in their first, corporeal nature? We should feel very sorry for them because from their perspective, they are already cleansed, having come to loathe what should be loathed. However, they cannot discern very well due to the nature of their corporeality that they are not fleeing as carefully as they should even with corporeal detestable things.

This answers your question about hypocrisy, for which you came up with the mistake that the world was created for work, and what is to me a reward, you inadvertently mistake for work. You should correct yourself before I come to Jerusalem, and even more so before Passover.

Yehuda Leib

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (37:14) What is cleanness in the work? 

M. Laitman: Cleanness, I don't know the definition but, having clean hands, cleanness, it's precision in coming closer to bestow.

Student: Does it become expressed in some actions? 

M. Laitman: Actions as well, certainly. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (38:10) How does a person acquire the feeling of hypocrisy, that his work is incomplete?

M. Laitman: It comes to him through the reflected light.

Student: Meaning a person cannot do that to himself? 

M. Laitman: Maybe he can but he needs to perform special actions. We need to get closer to the source of the light, we need to enter bestowal and know in what exactly I'm mistaken or not equal, etc.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (39:15) He writes, I've told you a few times that the spiritual qualities, under no circumstances can be better than corporeal qualities, yet you insist that you do not feel the taste of servitude in cleanness. What does that mean?

M. Laitman: That you need to, first, correct corporeality and then spirituality and to learn from that which you go through about spiritual qualities. 

Student: What does it mean to correct the corporeality? 

M. Laitman: Correcting corporeality means don't get confused first and foremost between corporeality and spirituality. He is only speaking about the force of bestowal that you need to look forward to. 

Student: Corporeality, means to be like in ethics, morals, a person should behave in a?

M. Laitman: No, no, no, no. Corporeality means in order to receive; and spirituality is in order to bestow. 

Student: How can it be that the good qualities which are, the spiritual qualities which are in order to bestow can never be better than the corporeal qualities of in order to receive? How can it be, it's not clear. 

M. Laitman: That spiritual actions can be only according to elevation above corporeal actions. 

Student: So, we check ourselves through actions in our life? 

M. Laitman: In relation to others, yes. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (41:41) Baal HaSulam, in many letters, corrects his students from this inclination towards correcting the corporeality. Correcting the externality, creating all kinds of external corporeal forms, from which he teaches them about spirituality.

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: Is there some way for a student who actually doesn't really have an understanding of what spirituality is? He's constantly inclined towards corporeality because he doesn't really know the difference between corporeality and spirituality until he attains what spirituality is? 

M. Laitman: Well, what's the question?

Student: The question is you also gave us this advice not to confuse between corporeality and spirituality. Is that possible? 

M. Laitman: A person receives that during his study and the changes that he receives. 

Student: A person who has no clue what true spirituality is, how can he to some extent not confuse corporeality with spirituality? What is the rule, what's the advice?

M. Laitman: The advice is to habituate oneself to connection with one's friends; and also, to habituate oneself with yearning for bestowal in the same framework. 

Student: Then, for example, in our society there are many actions, corporeal actions, that support this inner longing that you now mentioned, right? There are many actions that we perform in order to reach this longing for connection.

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: Here the confusion starts because actually everything is already included in spirituality because everything supports spirituality. 

M. Laitman: Yes?

Student: So, how do we scrutinize that? The moment that the corporeality supports the spirituality, how do we sort this out between corporeality and spirituality?

M. Laitman: I don't know? How do we scrutinize it, for what do you do it? That's first, that's the main thing. 

Reader: The next part, the preface to the Sulam commentary, item 27. Let's have a song and then continue.

Song: (45:23)