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

Daily Morning Lesson: April 24, 2026

Part 1: A lesson based on the articles of Rabash
Rabash. Article 17, Part 1, 1984. Concerning the Importance of Friends

Original lesson date: 12/27/2002

Reader: Dear friends, in the first part of today's lesson, we will watch a recorded lesson from the 27th of December, 2002, regarding the article Concerning the Importance of Friends. We'll read the article together in the Ten, we have 13 minutes allotted for that; if you finish reading before the time has elapsed, then start a workshop on the article.

Reading: (00:44) Concerning the Importance of Friends

Article No. 17, Part 1, 1984

Concerning the importance of the friends in the society and how to appreciate them, meaning with which kind of importance each one should regard his friend. Common sense dictates that if one regards one’s friend as being at a lower degree than one’s own, he will want to teach him how to behave more virtuously than the qualities he has. Hence, he cannot be his friend; he can take the friend as a student, but not as a friend.

And if one sees one’s friend as being at a higher degree than his own, and sees that he can acquire good qualities from him, then he can be his Rav, but not his friend.

This means that precisely when one sees one’s friend as being at an equal degree to one’s own, one can accept the other as a friend and bond with him. This is so because “a friend” means that both parties are in the same state. This is what common sense dictates. In other words, they have the same views and thus decide to bond. Then, both of them act towards the goal that they both wish to achieve.

It is like two like-minded friends who are doing business together to achieve a profit. In that situation, they feel that they have equal powers. But should one of them feel that he is more competent than the other, he will not want to accept him as an equal partner. Instead, they would create a proportional partnership according to the strength and qualities that one has above the other. In that state, the partnership is a thirty-three or twenty-five percent partnership, and it cannot be said that they are equal in the business.

But with love of friends, when friends bond to create unity among them, it explicitly means that they are equal. This is called “unity.” For example, if they do business together and say that the profits will not be distributed equally, is this called “unity”? Clearly, a business of love of friends should be when all the profits and possessions that the love of friends yields will be equally controlled by them. They should not hide or conceal from one another, but everything will be with love, friendship, truthfulness, and peace.

But in the essay, “A Speech for the Completion of The Zohar,” it is written, “The measure of the greatness comes under two conditions: 1) to always listen and receive the appreciation of society, to the extent of their greatness; 2) the environment should be great, as it is written, ‘In the multitude of people is the king’s glory.’”

To accept the first condition, each student must feel that he is the smallest among all the friends, and then he will be able to receive the appreciation of the greatness from everyone. This is so because the greater one cannot receive from the smaller one, much less be impressed by his words. Only the lower one is impressed by the appreciation of the greater one.

And for the second condition, each student must extol each friend’s merit as though he were the greatest in the generation. Then the environment will affect him as a great environment should, since quality is more important than quantity.

It follows that in the matter of love of friends, they help each other, meaning it is enough for everyone to regard his friend as being of the same degree as his own. But because everyone should learn from his friends, there is the issue of Rav and disciple. For this reason, he should consider the friend as greater than himself.

But how can one consider one’s friend as greater than himself when he sees that his own merits are greater than his friend’s, that he is more talented and has better natural qualities? There are two ways to understand this:

He is going with faith above reason: once he has chosen him as a friend, he appreciates him above reason.

This is more natural—within reason. If he has decided to accept the other as a friend, and works on himself to love him, then it is natural with love to see only good things. And even though there are bad things in one’s friend, he cannot see them, as it is written, “love covers all crimes.”

We can see that a person may see faults in his neighbor’s children, but not in his own. And when someone mentions some faults in his children, he immediately resists his friend and begins to declare his children’s merits.

And the question is, which is the truth? After all, there are merits to his children, and hence he is upset when others speak of his children. The thing is this, as I had heard it from my father: Indeed, each person has advantages and disadvantages. And both the neighbor and the father are saying the truth. But the neighbor does not treat the other’s children like a father to his children, since he does not have the same love for the children as the father does.

Hence, when he considers the other’s children, he sees only the children’s faults, since this gives him more pleasure. This is because he can show that he is more virtuous than the other because his own children are better. For this reason, he sees only the other’s faults. What he is seeing is true, but he sees only things he enjoys.

But the father, too, sees only the truth, except that he regards only the good things that his children have. He does not see his children’s faults, since it gives him no pleasure. Hence, he is saying the truth about what he sees in his children. And because he regards only the things that can please him, he sees only the virtues.

It turns out that if one has love of friends, the rule in love is that you want to see the friends’ merits and not their faults. Hence, if one sees some fault in one’s friend, it is not a sign that his friend is at fault, but that he is at fault, meaning that because his love of friends is flawed, he sees faults in his friend.

Therefore, now he should not see to his friend’s correction. Rather, he himself needs correction. It follows from the above-said that he should not see to the correction of his friend’s faults, which he sees in his friend, but he himself needs to correct the flaw he has created in the love of friends. And when he corrects himself, he will see only his friend’s merits and not his faults.

Reader: (13:38) We will go to a lesson from December 27, 2002.

_____________________________

M. Laitman: The Order of The Assembly, The Agenda of the Assembly; this is from the first articles that Rav wrote to the new students, the group of new students—not religious. They came to him from Tel Aviv in ‘83, ‘84. And so, to give them some direction in advancing towards the purpose of creation, he wrote these articles for the society because there's this article in the Shamati book called, Inanimate, Growing, Living, Speaking, where Baal HaSulam explains to us that we have, we learn that we have from the thought of creation the development of the four discernments of direct light, four phases from the light which is Shoresh, then comes discernment Aleph - one - which is the will to receive and this is the root of Shoresh, the thought of creation. From the will to receive, later, comes the second discernment which is the desire to bestow; and then we get phase three which is the activation of the will to bestow. The second discernment takes the first discernment and wants to use it in order to bestow. This is called, the third discernment, the will to receive. He's using the first discernment here, in brackets and then we have the fourth phase, the fourth discernment which is the will to receive in full, complete, yes?

There are interesting things here, he explains there, in the article, Inanimate, Growing, Living, Speaking, that the will to receive in the inanimate is very small. Meaning, according to what the Creator wants to bestow here, according to that, the created being was created with the will to receive and the will to receive which exists in the created being is not the kind of will to receive that the created being even understands. It's its nature, he doesn't critique his will to receive. It's just the way he exists, and he uses it. Let's say, like in the, well, inanimate, the growing—it's the same in the living and the speaking in this world. We have nature and nature in nature, it's simple, each one just upholds his nature, acts according to his nature. It's obligated, whether he wants to or not, meaning there is no free choice, no free motion here. He says, now, here, in the second phase, free choice begins. How, how is he more free, a little bit? It's still not free choice but some kind of inner free emotion, let's say, in what? The Creator wants him to receive, and he rejects that desire to receive that came from the Creator – he does the opposite as if he has the desire to bestow – but from where does this desire to bestow come? The desire to bestow comes because the Creator revealed Himself here as the Giver. Meaning I don't only see the pleasure that's arrayed before me, but I see the giver, the supplier of that pleasure, the Giver of the pleasure here, within. There is here, the arrow, pleasure entering me, and within that arrow is the pleasure, itself; this arrow that's in, and inside here, this is the presence of the Creator which I suddenly feel. When I feel the Creator's presence, I want to bestow, then I want to bestow.

(18:24) Meaning this also is mandated; we have no control over it, and the second phase wants to bestow because the revelation of the Creator compels her to do that. Then, comes phase three which, phase two – when it understands, it understands it wants to bestow, but how can it bestow? It discovers a higher degree in the Creator. He wants to bestow and it gives Him pleasure – let's say this is here, higher still – It gives Him pleasure to bestow so from where does He derive pleasure? He gets pleasure from me giving to Him, so she – so to speak – takes phase one and begins to receive inside of phase one and the reception in phase one is actually its bestowal. In this manner, actually, she uses her entire nature: There is a will to receive here, a desire coming from the Creator; it's forced to receive desire created by the Creator. Then there's bestowal, an act of bestowal which comes as an outcome. The combination of both, one and two, together give us this third phase. And then comes the fourth phase which is the desire to receive for oneself which is born as a result of the feeling of the root. He says that in the will to receive in phase one, we don't touch upon that at all; it's the actual nature in itself. It's the rule of the inanimate of this world, the law of the inanimate: it cannot move, it cannot budge, it cannot make any motion — it has no such option. It cannot shift places; it has nothing to do with motion and time, no access to any of that. No, the will to receive in the second phase is bigger, it's already growing, meaning it's in the same place, it doesn't move but it can spread. The nature of all plants is the same nature. They grow all at once; they wither all at once; they open themselves up to the sun or something. They don't have permission to do anything by themselves. They're all together, the same: this species is exactly that, and the same is that species. If you can take one and examine it, a second thing and a third thing, if it's the same species, you don't need to, there's no difference between them if it's the same species.

Now, if you take phase three, this is after the growing, it's living so living things move from place to place. They have things that they share like fish all laying eggs at the same place at once and so on; cats which mate at a certain time, at a certain season. They all have general qualities, yes, that they share, but each one also has its own personal life and the freedom to move from place to place. Some kind of freedom of motion externally, but they're also bound to the time in which they exist. Whereas the person, Adam – the fourth phase – has the ability to move, to change, to transform. He has his own personal life and the main thing that's special about the fourth phase, other than feeling the past and present future which none of the others feel, the main thing in the fourth phase is that he feels the environment, what does it mean to feel the environment? The difference between phase four and the other previous discernments, most especially, is that the fourth phase can suffer, can feel suffering from the suffering of a friend. This is called, Taking upon himself the sorrow of the public, right? Then, reach an outcome from that, fulfillment from that, meaning the fourth phase has this profound addition to it because it can acquire additional desire which the others don't have. Then, this desire in phase four because it can acquire something in addition to what the first, second, and third phase, they can't do that because they're using the same desire that the Creator created.

(23:11) We say that all these desires, they came from the will, from the light that emanates from the Creator whereas phase four came from feeling the status of the Creator. It's a higher point where, here, he adds to all these discernments the status of the Creator. This fourth phase is the completion of the vessel because in her there is a desire which wasn't built directly by the Creator but, rather, it was created – it was built as a beast, let's say but after that – it reached a point where it acquired additional desire. From where does it take this additional desire? From others, from what's outside of him, from the Creator. This ability is called Adam, human, the ability to acquire additional lack, more than what comes to him from above, directly. How is this expressed in our world? In our world, it's expressed in this way. From where do we take that desire? We are at the lowest state, the darkest; we have no ability to connect to this high point, the status of the Creator, to take this desire from Him, on the one hand. But, on the other hand, we must also be under concealment, to have free choice because without free choice, we will never do this, make this ascent, so we will simply be compelled to follow nature. If I see the Creator, then I'll be like all these discernments, you know, I'll simply be in a state where I'm compelled to function as nature compels me, compels me to. But the fact that the Creator is concealed, that gives me the ability, the opportunity to do something independently but to do what independently? That I do not know, therefore, that's why the shattering of the vessels happened, and the soul, one soul divided into many souls and I can perform this action, this acquisition of desire, external desire, not from the Creator who is concealed but, rather, from people who are all around me. If I go to acquire their desires, ultimately, I acquire all the desires that exist in all the souls outside of me. And that is, in essence, me reaching the discovery, the revelation of the Creator, His status, and acquiring that lack. Because that lack, that deficiency, which exists in the society and the lack that is found in others, in the environment, and the lack which is in the Creator, it's the same lack. Meaning it is outside of me and whatever is outside of me, I don't even consider as existing.

And, so, acquiring deficiencies from friends, acquiring additional deficiency from the Creator, to me, it's the same thing. This is the solution which we have through which to rise to spiritual degrees. And, here, the Rav explains in what way I can acquire a lack from the public, sorrow from the public, right? One who shares the public's sorrow, also shares their solace. He says that there are three options here in which I can behave with people around me in three different ways: First of all, he speaks of people who are— we're talking about people who are in the same lane as us, by the same process of development, who share the same goal, the same line. How should I relate to them because I want to acquire their desire from them? He says, you can relate to the people around you, either as Rav meaning bigger, greater than you, or as a friend meaning equal to you or as a student, where they're smaller than you. You don't have any other options, three options; Rav, friend, student – higher, equal, lower. In accordance with what I wish to attain, to achieve, that's how I should relate to him. If I want to learn from him and I do want to learn from him, I want to absorb his desire. And his desire I can absorb through his words, through the way he influences me, through me being impressed by him. And, so, I'm interested in him being great in my estimation where I'm the smaller one. I'm inferior so then I will acquire more desire, I'll advance more towards the goal. Meaning I need to elevate that friend in my estimation, each and every friend, so he's no longer a friend, he's like my teacher and to feel myself as being inferior to him, lesser than him, this is to my benefit. Then, this gap between him and me – and how highly I regard him in comparison to me – that'll give me a greater impression from him. It'll give me a bigger desire and then I can jump forward to that degree. And it doesn't actually matter what merits the friend truly has, it doesn't matter how much he knows and how much he yearns. It depends only on my estimation.

(29:25) It's not for nothing that it's written, I learned from all my students, disciples; it could be a great Rav with a very small student, but Rav makes himself smaller than the student and learns from him, receives lack. Because when we receive lacks, we don't receive them from the person, from the people around us. We receive the lacks from that very soul of Adam HaRishon, and so in order to relate to the friend in that way where it doesn't matter to me if he's truly great or small. But rather it all depends on how I estimate he is, how I appreciate him, which is completely, completely subjective, unreal. There is no true gauge here, and here, Rabash says that the person always feels that his things are better and the friend’s things – ah, it’s fine, if he can’t attain it, steal it; then he doesn’t want to appreciate it, either as a good thing. Why suffer because the other one has something? He gives the example of children.: My children are good. Why? I love them so I see only the good things in them, to begin with, right? I cover, you know, I build the image of the child as good in my estimation, yes? What did your mother always tell you? What a smart child you are, what a beautiful child you are; anyone looking at you, would they say that? But your mother does, right? That's it, it is known. Meaning that everything depends on our subjective estimation and this we have to know.

This is what our free choice depends on, only this, how we relate to each other where I don't really care who he is himself because I know, to begin with, that I'm always bribed, right? I always see what's good for me, I'm not going to dig into him and to start measuring his merits and his tendencies and character and all. It's—I relate to this as something that the Creator gave to me so, through him, and through him, I can acquire additional desire, that's all. My work is towards him, the lesser I am, and the greater he is in my estimation. The more I acquire a desire from him, a greater desire, and with a greater desire, I rise through the degrees. Our choice is only to find an environment which is more or less in the same direction, going the same direction as us, and this environment, I need to set it before me as great with me being small. And then I'll be impressed by them like a small child is impressed by the big kids, and then he learns, yes, and so will I learn and acquire from them the things that I need for the path? In order to be impressed by the society, well, that's not sufficient for me to just make them great and make myself small. I also need to see what it is that they're bestowing upon me. They need to, well, the small one can be influenced by the big one: it can be a gang of it could be a gang of criminals, yes, and then I'll very quickly become a criminal as well. Or it could be a good society which will truly help him reach achievements. I need to bestow upon the society, to influence them: What do they want? What will they want? How can they influence me?

We need to agree in the society that the general influence of the society on each and every one will be only in the greatness of the goal, the greatness of the Creator because the greatness of the goal gives us power. Ultimately, if it is so, then the society becomes for me a means, a lever, an instrument by which I reach the Creator through a very short path. Through the society, I reach the Creator, very simply, there are no other things here on the road, on the way. This is what he clarifies for us in his article, Free Choice, that a person has no other way by which to reach, no other way to reach the goal except through the environment. The environment is actually all these desires that a person needs to gather to connect to himself. And, by all these desires which he gradually, slowly collects from the environment, from the entire world—that's why it's written, Love thy friend as thyself is the great rule of the Torah. Rule meaning something, a vessel, a general vessel for the reception of the Torah, for the reception of the light and so on and so our work, as he writes there in Free Choice is only with respect to the society: The Creator is the goal, the society is the means. The acquisition of the desire to receive from the society, the same acquisition of the external will to receive where if I don't buy, if I don't acquire something that's from outside of me, I remain with my own beastly nature. If I do acquire something from outside of me, external to me, then to that degree I become Adam, human. Because the difference, the gap between the beast, the third phase and the Adam, the human in the fourth phase is that the beast feels itself and because of that it does not feel the past and present and future. It doesn't feel its development; it cannot decide on its development; whereas a person who acquires additional vessels, he can develop through them. Meaning, I'm in my nature. If I don't connect to another, one, two, three others, then I have no way to develop. Each subsequent degree that I need to ascend to, if I'm on some degree, if I just want to rise from degree one to degree two. The difference between the degrees, this desire, I have to receive it from the environment. It will never grow in me; in me, there are no more desires than there are in me than I have. So, this is, as we say, to share the sorrow of the public, meaning acquiring desires from the public, the troubles, the deficiencies, the empty spaces. Then he's also awarded with the solace of the public, fulfillment in those same vessels. Any questions?

Question (Vienna): (36:41) How should I relate to that in which I have a friend in the group that I study with and sometimes he gives an explanation, or he looks at something we're learning in Kabbalah through the lens of his background in Gemara. And says something that's completely unrelated to the topic, something that breaks the whole flow, and you really feel and know that it's incorrect.

M. Laitman: Yes, this is a problem; we have such studious people here, you understand. They know the Gemara and various other things, which are confusing for those who are beginners on the path. Look, the truth is that studying the Gemara and all the other books, if you study them correctly you will see it's Kabbalah. That all the people who wrote all these books, they have the same meaning there, the same things, and here's no difference in the Gemara if you talk about objects or beasts or animals or trees or people. It's all inner discernments within our will, and it doesn't speak at all about our world, but only about these discernments. It's just very difficult to see behind the words which speak, seemingly, about things occurring in our world. It's very difficult for us to see that it actually speaks about spiritual discernments. That's why we transition to the language of Kabbalah. Because, indeed, there's no difference in what you study. He explains this to us in the beginning of The Introduction to TES. He explains why we prefer to study the same Torah, yes, it was all, all of it given to man, I created the evil inclination, I created the Torah as a spice in order to correct our desire. And to rise through that correction to the degree of the Creator, All the way to the Lord, the Lord your God. It's the same Torah but the most beneficial, the most useful, effective, let's say, is the language of Kabbalah. Because there, with the language of Kabbalah when you study that, you don't get confused. It directs you directly towards where you want to get; and not studying about beasts and animals and theft and all those things which, whether you want to or not, our minds are so messed up and confused. We have so many interruptions that we cannot maintain our intention to reach the purpose of creation even while studying Kabbalah, and much more so when studying Gemara.

But I did study many Gemarot with the Rabash and I very much enjoyed his explanations. Myself, I didn't really see, so much, the internality that's there – what it's actually about. But after he deciphered some of these things for me, he gave me a few keys that this is the desire. These are the Sefirot, these are the levels, these are the worlds. And these qualities, those qualities, left line, right line, male, female, so on. How the writers, the authors of the Gemara, what they intended with all the definitions that they gave to us and why, here in this story, they're talking about something that happened between people and there, something between beasts and here something that happens with people and beasts and there something that happens with a field. Why do they clarify things through those examples, those things? After a person receives the keys, he sees it very clearly in the Gemara. And, actually, with the language of the Gemara, you can scrutinize or, let's say, convey many more discernments than with the language of Kabbalah. Because in the language of Kabbalah, until you indicate anything, this discernment through this discernment, this Sefira, this and that state. In our life, from our lives, you can take just one word and, already, it'll be clear to you what it's all about. Meaning, it's a much shorter language but it's only for those who understand, those who are in it already.

It's not the Gemara that he studies is crude, it's he who is crude, that student who arrived and doesn't see in the Gemara anything other than beasts and animals and damages, laws about damages of this world. And then he detaches, decouples Torah from spirituality but the Torah is entirely about spirituality. This wasn't given to us in order to know how to comport ourselves and what to do with animals and beasts, right? Rather, the goal is, I created the evil inclination, I created the Torah as a spice. Meaning that through it, we actually start to ascend and discover the spiritual world. Well, the entire problem is that through the generations, they forgot the main thing, the reason for which the Torah was given, and they use it only as something to learn, and learning, right, so you learn as if it's all about this world. And then you also lower all of the commandments down to the area of this terrestrial world, and there's nothing spiritual about it, and that's how it is with everything. What can you do, what to do with people like that, nothing? Just tell them, here we learn the language of Kabbalah – the same Torah but with the language of Kabbalah. And, so, we have this custom, actually. We don't open – though this may sound very odd, weird but we don't even open the Chumash, the Pentateuch, the actual Torah before we study the language of the branches. If I open the Torah, the Testament, then I need to be certain that behind the words, I will see spirituality, to an extent. What does Moshe Rabbeinu, Moses, require of me? That point in the heart, the Creator, through the point in the heart which is called Moses from the word Limshoch to Pur, what does he require of me to do with my internality? What actions, what operations do I need to do with, what systems do I need, what stages do I need to go through? If I relate to the story of the Torah not in that way, it's better not to read it – I should wait until I'm in it. And more so even with the Gemara and he explains that in The Introduction to TES. It's simply, you're making it very difficult for yourself; lowering the Torah from spirituality into this world, you could not disregard it more, belittle it more. It was given in order to ascend, but you want to use it here, specifically, here.

Indeed, in this world, it has no use, it has no utility, what can you use it for? What can you hear in this world? Meaning, without correcting oneself and ascending, what can you do? We learn in the development of the worlds that all the corrections can only be through ascents: Ibur, Yenikah, right? Conception, suckling, Mochin, wisdom, only ascents. It's impossible to remain in the same place and also correct oneself and advance in that way. Advancing means to ascend so do not lower the Torah, rather, rise to its degree.

There's nothing you can do about it, this, in Vienna, it's a great problem, I gather? God bless; well, yes, I hope you sort it out, gradually, I hope. Truth is, we need to draw other people, not religious ones. There are many from Russia there so we need to attract them, and this will give you a different atmosphere. I don't see any different solution, there won't be any advancement. They're not to blame, these people – that's their education that they receive, they have this education from youth, this is how they look at things, and it's very difficult to get rid of it. Those people who come to us from Tel Aviv, secular, sitting here. Even them, until they clean their heads and start seeing themselves and relating to what we were studying in a spiritual way. It takes a lot of time, much more so a person who received this kind of education it's almost impossible. You need some kind of salvation from above, something special, personal, individual to that person.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (46:16) How can it be that spiritual reason clothes so perfectly over the corporeal mind, and even giving you the ability to sort of study it and philosophize? I'm continuing his question: How does it happen that this spiritual mind clothes so perfectly on the corporeal mind to the point where you can start philosophizing about it and scrutinizing it with our usual mind?

M. Laitman: How can a spiritual mind clothes itself in a corporeal mind: I don't really understand the question. What spiritual mind and what corporeal mind? There are two possibilities, either a person opens the Gemara and sees only what's written there in literal terms, animals, laws, how to work with the land, how to bake bread, temple service, and so on. Meaning, they look at how they need to behave in this world; or they already understand, they're at a spiritual degree and for them, all the words in the Gemara are the language of branches. You read what the language of branches is, In Inner Reflection, in part one of The Study of the Ten Sefirot, there's a part called, Inner Reflection, Istaklut Pnimit. And Baal HaSulam explains it there, the language of branches, that Kabbalists need to explain something about the upper world but in the upper world we have no words, we're only sensations. So how can I take those sensations and express them in a way that I can convey to you? There is no word that directly corresponds to a feeling. But because there is a root and a branch, love above and love below, a table above and table below, a vessel above and a vessel below. Screen, light, right, left, right? So, they looked below at this world and saw how things branched out from the spiritual roots and wrote to us these things in the language of those branches. If they write, pen, it's not really a pen. I understand that they mean some spiritual vessel performing a certain spiritual action, and I don't know that spiritual vessel itself. But, in our world, there's this corresponding object called, a pen, and certain actions done with it.

When can I use the language of branches correctly? Only if I am already in the spiritual world, that's why I say when Rabash opened the Gemara for me, I studied together with him. I remember it was the first time when he was hospitalized in 1980 at the Beilinson Hospital with an ear problem. I'd only been with him for about half a year, I took him through all the doctors, I drove him, arranged everything. And suddenly they told him that he had to be admitted – with all the documents, we arranged that. I sat with him there for a month and in that month, we also studied Gemara, there. Simply, before I came to him, I spent four years looking through religion; I was searching. I wore a kippah, I tried to learn through Gemara and other books, and I didn't find the path which is why I came to him. And when he later opened the Gemara for me and explained how it's written, so I finally understood what they wanted from me for those four years when I was reading those, that Gemara. Where I didn't, I couldn't accept it at all when I first started learning it. I asked those who were seemingly bringing me back to religion, I was asking them: Why do we study this? And they said if you crash your car into someone else's, you'll know what to do, Gemara discusses those damages. So, I said, for that, I should study to be a lawyer, why do I need the Gemara, there are other laws? They answered, but you'll know how to act according to the true laws. In other words, people don't understand why the Torah was given. But really, it's a problem.

So if it is clothed from above, then it's a completely different picture and you see the same thing in the study of the Ten Sefirot – even more richly, I would say – because you'll see the language of Kabbalah, although it's very precise and it's a very sharp language. You don't deviate to see some corporeal things; you can still imagine abstract spiritual forms, but it's like a kind of structure where light enters and exits. But you don't project it into physical objects in this world. You don't feel, in something in this world, something that you're studying in the study of the Ten Sefirot. However, the words, the sentences, and these transitions that you have in the Gemara. If someone who has already had spiritual perception studies them, they carry a special flavor. In the language of Kabbalah. As much as it is great in its precision and directions, sometimes it cannot convey those nuances in the same way. Meaning, I'm not talking to you about something that takes place in attainment, but something – there's a certain flavor, there's an additional flavor, there's this richness of flavor, that's something special. Therefore, it's not just the Gemara, but also the Pentateuch, we prefer to study these books after—the same applies to the Zohar. Even with Rabash, we would study the Zohar for maybe half an hour a day, usually no more than 20 minutes. It was usually done in the evening, whoever could gather, and that was it. What did we do? We read it superficially, he barely explained anything; it was simply read before the evening prayer since. Truly, we were waiting to enter it deeply, inside it so that, later, we could read it in a truly scrutinized, in a way, yes.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (53:05) What's the connection between holiness and bestowal? Now, actually the difference doesn't interest me. What I want is to bestow but in order to bestow, I'm asking myself, what is the difference between holiness and bestowal?

M. Laitman: Bestowal and holiness, what is the difference: Bestowal is an action and holiness, or Kedusha is an inner state. It's, seemingly, as if it's speaking about the same reality, but one is the state and the other is the action. Kedusha or Kadosh – holy – means separate from the will to receive. The word Kadosh, the word holy, means separate; this is holy, right, what is holy? It's separate from something, it doesn't belong to this world, that's the meaning of, when we say something is holy, it relates to something not of this world. It's separated from this world, so bestowal and holiness are, seemingly the same, just holiness is the quality, itself ,meaning it's holy above the will to receive, above reason in a state of Chafetz Chesed, desiring only to give, and bestowal is the action that comes out of that state of holiness.

Student: Can it be said, can it be, you said that holiness is something that one cannot transgress upon wholly, inviolate.

M. Laitman: I don't know; I'd say it's simply bestowal, that's holiness. Don't get confused between the quality and the action; it's enough to define it as being outside the will to receive, that's the most precise definition. What is it separated from? The will to receive.

Student: What should I do if, let's say, I have a friend in the group studying with me, and I see that I cannot receive any advancement from him – he carries me in other directions. But still, he's with me on the path, so on the one hand, do I need to lower myself, diminish myself, and also receive from him?

M. Laitman: After we heard that we depend on acquiring a lack from the friends, and we have no choice, we depend on each other, so we need to –look, I see here more or less people in the same direction. Some people get confused here and there, that's natural; we still haven't locked ourselves onto a clear goal, and that it's before our eyes, and we hold on to it, and we can't deviate from it to any side. Okay, so we're all like that, there's nothing you can do. That's a state, and we need to be in that state. When all the changing states, and everyone, all this confusion. That is exactly organized and calculated from above precisely, so now my question is, how can I act within that? It seems as if he's pulling me this way, and another's pulling me that way, but how do you know what's right or wrong? That's why it's explained in these articles, both in the earlier ones and in this one, there's an explanation. At first, you need to bestow to the society what you want the society to bestow upon you. So, if I want the society to bestow upon me with the greatness of the goal because there's nothing really other than that, that I need. It gives me forces, strength, joy, vitality, everything. The greatness of the goal gives enormous forces. If we could truly use it correctly, we'd have these supernatural forces.

So, I need to make myself into a source of energy, enthusiasm, and inspiration for the society. I need to show that to them, I need to discuss it, I need to project that to the society. It doesn't matter that within I don't have that; with others, we know we can do this. You can preach to someone even if inside you don't feel it. It's different, right? That's fine, it starts from egoism, we don't require to do anything more in the beginning. Remain an egoist, but start acting in a simple, natural way. Give to the friend what you want to receive from him. If you enter into a partnership with someone, how do you behave? If you approach an official and want good treatment, what do you do, you act accordingly. So, it's the same here, there's nothing special required beyond our ability. It's really a very simple, almost primitive kind of game.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (58:37) I'm asking about something else: If, let's say, I have this friend who is my friend together on the path. And in some situations, he drags me, carries me against the path. What should I do with him, do I need to receive from him or not?

M. Laitman: Friend comes from the word for connection, friend, haver – connection, Ibur. A connection exists only to the extent that we have truly connected, and only then is he called my friend. I can be connected with you for five hours a day and the rest of the day we're not really connected. You go your way, and you have all kinds of different tendencies and distractions. So only really in that part where we're somewhat aligned on the path are we considered friends. Also, people have ascents and descents, so when we're on that same path that is called a friend; and then if not then you either need to help him or to leave him. If he's going to drag me on some detour around the world for six months, should I follow him just because he's my friend, how could that be? Friend is from the word for connection, so if we're connected to the same goal; otherwise, why am I with him?

He tells us in this article who's a friend? That the two of them are equal, that they both want to profit, both aim for the same goal, that's what he said in the article we read. That's where I start, now with this friend, someone who has the same mind as me, sometimes I need to make him my teacher and sometimes I need to be the teacher toward him. I influence him with the importance of the path, like a teacher to a student; afterward in order to receive that importance from him I lower myself and make him the teacher and I become the student. By doing so I acquire his lack and he acquires mine, so we increase the greatness of each other, we can constantly work on each other like this. Everyone can just be these nobodies in the group, and they can elevate themselves to the heavens in such a way. People don't understand that everything has been placed in their hands. They disregard this principle even though it is very simple, and other than it there is no other lever. There's no other tool in one's hand that one can use. And look at how people have been gathered together from above? They've been connected and given all the conditions, and each one cries, why don't I have anything, why don't I have anything? What do you mean you don't have anything? Everyone has this complaint.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (01:01:53) The will to receive, is that material, a substance or ego? There are places where Baal HaSulam writes that it's the ego and others where he writes that it's a substance.

M. Laitman: The will to receive, is it substance or ego? It's both, what's the problem? You can attach almost any term you like to the will to receive, except for pleasure, because aside from the will to receive and pleasure there is nothing else. These are the two components of the whole of creation: There is the Creator whose presence is felt in the will to receive as pleasure, and the will to receive is a lack; it's a so-called imprint from the Creator. What did the Creator do? He made a kind of imprint of Himself and that imprint, which is opposite to Him in form, that is called, the created being, the vessel. So, besides these two things, we have nothing; all the appellations we use refer either to the will to receive or the pleasure that the will to receive feels. Not to the pleasure, itself, for pleasure outside the will to receive cannot even be defined as pleasure. Is that it?

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (01:03:20) What kind of pleasure is felt in the will to receive when it's defined as substance?

M. Laitman: What pleasure is felt in the will to receive when it is defined as substance? The will to receive enjoys feeling that it is filled with light, with the Creator, with what it wants. If it is filled with something it does not want, then that is felt as suffering, as a lack. In other words, it's not that the will to receive there is a will to receive that will to receive can feel better either by being filled or by reducing itself. For instance, I want 20 kilos of fulfillment. If I suddenly only want 10 kilos, I already feel less suffering; if I fill myself with those 10 kilos, then I feel both less suffering, and I also feel some pleasure, right? Each person arranges this naturally for themselves according to their ability. If I can fulfill myself, go for it – the more desire I have, the better. Even there's so much food that I can't eat anymore, and I feel sorry that I can't enjoy more, everyone knows this feeling. But if there's no food, then it's a pity to even have an appetite, so what should we do now with that will to receive? So, there are people who prefer to forget about it, to avoid, you know, why should I take on more deficiencies from the society, they say. And there are others, they say, I will acquire more deficiencies from the environment, but I'll also inquire the greatness of the goal. That this deficiency is felt from afar, from the outside, as if there is this surrounding light. A sense of fulfillment existing somewhere, so this big will to receive, which is aimed at fulfillment, really gives all the drive and all the power, and eventually it leads to attainment. It depends on the person; how much they really organize themselves correctly for the right action. The initial will to receive is given to everyone, but you see how many people run away from the study, and why? Because they prefer to forget about the suffering, to forget their desires and return to seemingly normal life, where they can avoid discomfort and suffering. But we need to think differently, not to escape suffering but to attain the goal, to attain pleasure. And the more deficiencies and appetite I have, the more pleasure I will feel when they are fulfilled.

That means we need two things from the society, from the environment: A lot of lacks, a lot of deficiencies, and also a strong appreciation of the goal, the pleasure that awaits us that I really aspire for. I need these two extremes to receive them from the society, this big desire, that's the lowest point below; and the appreciation of the goal, which should rise as highly as possible. And if that gap between them, if I expand it in a special way for myself, so that's what carries me into spirituality, that's called, the measure of tension, Kishui, it's this measure which is unique for each person. You need a gap between your will to receive, your yearning, and the greatness of the goal, which you revolve around day and night – let's say that the gap is like 10 centimeters, and for another it's 2 meters, and for another 5 meters. But if you reach your measure, you don't know what measure you personally need, but once you reach your required measure, so with that you enter spirituality. Baal HaSulam writes about that in Pri Chacham, in Letter 70; he says that the measure of tension, or the Godel HaKishui, so that's my desire toward the goal. When I'm completely locked onto it, completely focused on it with all my desire, so that's the condition for entering spirituality. And that desire can only be acquired from the environment. On your own, you can't increase it even by a gram, even in the beginning, it can only come from the society.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (01:08:35) The wisdom of the article we've read seems to be universal. It seems to be correct, also outside of our society.

M. Laitman: Every person uses it naturally, just we have to use it selectively towards the goal, but the whole world uses it naturally. I'm in some kind of society, I appreciate them, why? Because if it's a big society, I belong to someone great; if they don't accept me, so I disregard them, they're not worth anything. And then I don't feel sorry about it that they didn't accept me. A person naturally tries to be in less suffering.

Student: So, we, as students of Kabbalah, when we think about things in a goal

oriented way within the society and then apply all these things. Should we also apply these principles externally, external society?

M. Laitman: We don’t have to relate to an external society – it’s not my society, not my environment – that’s what he explains there in the article of The Freedom of Choice. The external environment out on the street, it influences me through commercials, tv, things that fill me with all kinds of values that aren’t in the same direction – why should I get inspired by them? The transition into spirituality, he explains; it is a very simple state if you reach it, so you go through. That you are only aimed to that with the biggest will to receive and only towards spirituality. He says you have got such a lust that it doesn’t disappear, day or night, like someone who fell in love. Imagine that you are already an old guy, you forgot about love, but imagine what it is like! It was given to us in this world, such a feeling called, your first love, the Kabbalist wrote about it. You are given such a feeling so you can have an example how a person can just lose his mind about something, and in that way, you have to yearn for spirituality. Once you reach such a state, you enter spirituality with the greatest desire for one goal; that’s it.

___________________________

Reader: (01:11:10) Now we will share impressions from the lesson and what, from it, we’re taking to implement in the Ten. Then, we’ll move to the next part of the lesson, but before that, let's sing a song:

Song: (01:17:50)

Kabala Media

Kabala Media

My LibrarySign in to like, save and subscribe to videos

22 - 24 травня 2025Open Studio 1

22 - 24 травня 2025

Open Studio 1

Open Studio 1

Kabala MediaCopyright © 2003-2026 Bnei Baruch – Kabbalah L’Am Association, All rights reserved

My Library
Sign in to like, save and subscribe to videos

22 - 24 травня 2025
Open Studio 1

Kabala Media
Copyright © 2003-2026 Bnei Baruch – Kabbalah L’Am Association, All rights reserved