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

Daily Morning Lesson: February 9, 2026

Part 2: Part 2: TES Lesson With RABASH

Baal HaSulam. "Study of the Ten Sefirot" (TES). Vol. 2. Part 5. #32

Original lesson date: Jan 1, 1980

Reader: We're going to study from a TES lesson with Rabash. We'll read from “The Study of the Ten Sefirot,” part two.

RABASH: (00:30) This, you understand, he comes and says about this, he comes and says about this, we had a vessel, a will to receive. With this we begin, with receiving in order to receive. If there's no reception in order to receive, there's no one to speak of. The receiver in order to receive, must take upon himself the restriction, and then we have to put a screen on it, meaning to receive, use the will to receive as much as he can with the aim to bestow. And then he says, there was the recognition of a vessel, the light, the giving light also gives. This is why The ARI gives a rule: the expansion of the light and its departure causes the making of the vessels. He comes and says a law: just as we understand, if the light of Yechida is missing in the inner light, it is considered that the internality of the vessel is not completed, because each degree is divided into five phases. Now he gives another rule. The vessel consists of an inner vessel and an outer vessel. The inner one means its own self, the coarseness with which it uses. External means more refined, meaning four has an external, three is more refined than it, two is more refined. He comes and says a law: as long as we have only two lights, it is still not regarded as expansion. You find that he has a complete expansion, meaning inner vessels called NRNHY, and an outer vessel called the surrounding of Haya, the surrounding of Yechida. It is still not regarded as expansion. Therefore, if he received everything and everything departed, then he says, there is already a recognition of a vessel on what he had and departed from him, because he didn't have the reflected light. If he had reflected light, which he could receive in order to bestow, the light would not have departed. We find that now there is a recognition of a vessel. The vessel comes from a coarseness, the will to receive, and the light is all to bestow. Why do we need that recognition? We'll see later. First of all, he says, now there is a recognition, the vessel is in order to receive, the light is in order to bestow. He says, before he receives, completes his work, he is still not completed, so it departs, it's still not expansion. But what do we read, that he has half a vessel, so it departs from him, he hasn't finished his work. Meaning all his work departed, it's considered that he still hasn't finished his vessel. Why do we even need the recognition of a vessel in the first place? That's a question. About this, we should say, we need the recognition of a vessel so we would know how to correct. It's all for the lower ones. Here he comes and says, all the vessels that we begin to speak of in Akudim are only for the emanation of all the vessels.

RABASH: (04:32) In order for there to be scrutiny, clarification of the vessels, the recognition of the vessels, all those things that need to be corrected, for which we need the association of the quality of mercy with judgment which will emerge in the world of Atzilut, there must be that order, the recognition of a vessel. So, there's a complicated vessel here, look. One, you had a vessel that received in order to receive before the restriction, that's one vessel. And after that, we don't speak. After the restriction, we also have two vessels: vessels of the Rosh, and then vessels of the Guf. The head and the body. In the vessels of the Rosh, the vessels of the Guf are still not recognized as vessels. Only after the departure, there is now recognition of the vessels. What has awakened? That the vessel is for its own sake. Why did it lose the reflected light? That's why the light departed. Now there are more corrections to correct. If there's a recognition of a vessel, then there are corrections to make. You find that the recognition of a vessel also must have light before it, and then it departs. So afterwards, there is a recognition of a vessel, and then we know what to correct. That's a general explanation. It gives a branch below. Why, you ask, why does he say here that there is no recognition of a vessel until he receives the inner and the surrounding, you ask? There is, oh, sorry. If he tells us that the expansion of the light and its departure causes the making of the vessel, then we must say, of all, anything that he can receive, if he did not receive, he still didn't finish his work. If he can receive this, he must receive it. He hasn't received it, so, he's not completed. 2. If he were able to receive more, he would not be able to receive. So, as long as he did not receive everything he can receive, he's considered deficient. That means that they can receive, meaning that if the lower ones receive, the upper ones should certainly receive. This is why it causes us that the upper ones too must receive, if the lower one received it. If not, it would be impossible. That's why that recognition, what the lower ones should receive, should also be in the upper ones, but their recognition is made on a different phase. We'll see that later. There's a recognition of how much I lost as well. If a person says, I lost, let's say, 50%, or 20%, or I lost all 100%, in other words, he didn't have much, he didn't lose much, but the first three vessels were made in the direct light, from above downward, through the expansion of the direct light of the Eynaim in the light of Nefesh. Meaning, the vessels of GAR, which are of the ten Sefirot of the Rosh, were made in the expansion of direct light from above downward in its coupling by striking in Malchut of the Rosh, where Malchut raised reflected light from below upwards, and clothed the direct light of the Eynaim, and that's already, and that completes the existence of the Rosh.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (09:24) So we need to start Item 32. Now we shall explain how was the second return of the lights. Know that their second return is not like their descent for the first time. Second time, he means Partzuf AB. First time, he means Partzuf Galgalta. This is because then all ten lights came to their place. However, in the second descent, had they all descended to their place, if they all returned to their place as it was in the first expansion in Partzuf Galgalta, all the vessels that have already been made by their departure would have cancelled, as in the beginning. What was before, light and vessel mixed with each other, now too, it was mixed again. They would not have been able to tolerate the lights as it happened to them before. In order for there to remain a recognition of the vessels even when lights come later, therefore, it was necessary for the upper light in all of them, which is Keter, which is great and equal to all nine lights put together would always remain above, adhered to its root, which emanates it. Who emanates it? Keter of the Guf? Malchut of the Rosh. This is why it rises again. Then, which is the Toch of the Peh of AK; it does not go down. The rest of the phases go down.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (12:25) 33. Only the nine lower lights came out of there again in Partzuf AB and descended to expand below. They expanded in the following manner. Here we have to learn. He says that the vessels that remain from Partzuf Galgalta, they pass on to Partzuf AB. That's why when the light of AB comes to the last vessels in the vessel of Keter, so we find that earlier, what was in this vessel? The light of Keter. What illuminates now? The light of Hochma. We find that there's a deficiency in the vessel that doesn't have a fulfillment. That's what he said here. The light of Bina entered the vessel that they had earlier, of Hochma, etc., until you find that the light of Malchut entered the vessel of Yesod now in Partzuf AB. There are two changes from the way it was at first. In Partzuf Galgalta, where the degree of Keter was, the greatest of all lights put together, namely Keter, remained above, in its root. Moreover, even though the vessel of Keter does not have the power to tolerate its own great light, it can tolerate the light of Hochma, which is much smaller than Keter. Moreover, even though the vessel of Keter does not have the power to tolerate its own great light, it can tolerate the light of Hochma, which is much smaller than Keter. So what does he mean here? What's the innovation? A special correction was made that it could stand the light, and before it couldn't. Let's see onward. It is similar in all the other Sefirot, and for the above two reasons. One, that the light of Keter remained above, and afterward, the vessels could tolerate a smaller light than what they had in the beginning in Partzuf Galgalta. Now these vessels have the ability and power to tolerate their lights, and they are not cancelled as in the beginning. So, what is the departure of the lights? Also in Partzuf AB, so what does it mean by annulment?

Student: That the light and vessel are incorporated in one another.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (15:53) So we have to interpret. We learned that the light shines in the vessel. It cancels the vessel. It doesn't cancel the light. It cancels the vessel, that there won't be a recognition. Now, when the light is smaller, it doesn't cancel the vessel, that there won't be a recognition of the vessel because it doesn't fill it. If it wouldn’t fill it, it would cancel it again. That's the meaning that it will annul as the beginning, that recognition. So it doesn't mean the light, only the recognition of the light that it won't be canceled, not whether the light does depart. So, also we need to understand two things. On the one hand, we say that the lower one needs to receive light. Without the light, there's no one to talk to. If we say that the light cancels the vessel, so then a question is asked, is there a reality that there will be a light? Will there be a vessel or not? There is no one reality. If I say the light annuls the vessel, how could there be a reality that there is a light, that there is a vessel? There is no such reality. But the vessels were made while the Partzuf Galgalta departed the vessel, then the light comes into those vessels, and they both remain; the light and the vessel. How is that possible? Since the light that comes is smaller than the vessel, if so, now vessel remains even after the coming of the light, the upper part that doesn't fill. So then, there are two phases; one extends from the other as if the correction remains for that. If that light wouldn't come, so it remains small. Meaning, if a correction happens that it can receive it, which we'll see there again. He explains to us that in the Keter we say that phase four of clothing and phase three of coarseness, when it reaches Keter, then the light of Keter that remains above, so then below, that light of Keter passes through the light of Keter that it won't illuminate in the phase of VAK. That's why we say the light is in Keter and not Hochma. What is that? That there's no light of Hochma only in VAK because of the light of Keter above. So you can interpret that now the light… I'll start again. Now there are two changes from the way it was first in Partzuf Galgalta. The greatest of all lights put together, namely Keter, remained above its root. It weakens in order to not illuminate below, only in VAK. Even though there's phase four of clothing and phase three of coarseness, it doesn't illuminate the VAK. Moreover, even though the vessel of Keter does not have the power to tolerate its own great light, it can tolerate the light of Hochma, which is much smaller than Keter. It's like the coupling by striking on phase three, it has the forces to receive phase three. If so, it had the force to phase three, if it had the power in Keter, only what illuminated in VAK. So we find that from all the sides, the light was smaller than what it was to begin with.

RABASH: (21:03) Now, the recognition of the vessel remained for two reasons.

Student: Two reasons.

RABASH: One, what the Keter illuminated in the posterior, that there won't be only VAK of the lights. That's why when we say that in Keter there is no light of Hochma, only Hassadim illuminate. And then there was a correction that the lower one could suffer the Hochma by adding a coupling by striking on phase three. So from these two phases, there's a diminution that only a small part remained with no light. That's why we say that even though the light illuminates now in Partzuf AB, still the light doesn't annul the recognition of the vessel since this vessel remained empty, there's an empty part with no fulfillment, no light. Anyway, the light doesn't annul it, cancel it, there's no light in that phase. We learn afterwards that the light of AB comes. So, the Rav says that the expansion in the Keter, that the light reached a degree of Keter, the vessel of Keter, let's say, so it expanded in Hochma, and then the light of Hochma couldn't illuminate but only in the light of mercy. When the light comes to the vessel of Keter, it came on four, three, so we have to say four of clothing, three of coarseness, you would understand that there should only be Hochma and Hassadim. So, he says that on every degree, there's Hochma and Hassadim. So, the departure of the clothing, there was only Hassadim and not Hochma. So why? He explains, since the vessel of Keter is phase four, only now the last phase was lost. If it has phase four of coarseness, it could expand below the lower one. What does it mean phase four could expand below if it has a screen, and it receives in order to bestow on phase four, so it can receive the light that is revealed on phase four, that was the light of Keter. But now it only has phase three of coarseness and phase four of clothing. If it illuminates there, Hochma in phase four of clothing, he says that there's a danger that it will also illuminate below in the Guf on phase four that will receive Hochma from above downward on phase four of coarseness while it doesn't have a screen. That's why in order for us to extend the light of Hochma in the light that comes to Keter now, then the light of Keter controls its vessel that could illuminate below, that it will have only the light of posterior, called Hassadim. If that is a time when I say that it expanded in Keter, there is no light of Hochma, only the light of Hassadim. We have to understand another thing; that usually the light of Hochma and Hassadim is in every Sefira. On the degree of Hochma, it's something else, and the light of Hochma is something else. The light of Hassadim is something else, and the light of mercy is something else. But he discerns if Hochma and Hassadim in each and every Sefira.

RABASH: (25:15) So, there is a rule that on the degree of Hochma and the degree of Hassadim, there are two things that don't mix. That's why we learned that when the light came to the vessel of Keter of Partzuf AB, there's no phase four of clothing. If it illuminates Hochma, it could expand below while there is no phase four of coarseness, meaning there's no screen on phase four of coarseness. That's why, when it expanded in Keter, there is no light. It didn't expand in Hochma. The light of Hochma doesn't shine there, not the degree of Hochma. The light of Hochma doesn't illuminate there. Why? Because the light of Keter, its phase is turning up or down. From what reason? In order to receive the light of Hochma on phase four of coarseness while it did not have a screen. Afterwards, the vessel of Keter refined when it expanded in Hochma, which is phase three of coarseness, it could already illuminate the light of Hochma. Why phase three of coarseness? Because it has a screen that it could receive in order to bestow. Now you understand it?

Kabala Media

Kabala Media

My LibrarySign in to like, save and subscribe to videos

Denní lekce2/9/2026(Morning)Part 1 Rabaš. Co znamená, že dokud nepadnul egyptský vládce, neexistovala odpověď na jejich sténání, v duchovní práci. 15 (1990) (19.04.2002)

Part 1 Rabaš. Co znamená, že dokud nepadnul egyptský vládce, neexistovala odpověď na jejich sténání, v duchovní práci. 15 (1990) (19.04.2002)

Rabaš. Co znamená, že dokud nepadnul egyptský vládce, neexistovala odpověď na jejich sténání, v duchovní práci. 15 (1990) (19.04.2002)

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

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

Denní lekce2/9/2026(Morning)
Part 1 Rabaš. Co znamená, že dokud nepadnul egyptský vládce, neexistovala odpověď na jejich sténání, v duchovní práci. 15 (1990) (19.04.2002)

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