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

Daily Lesson (Morning) July 14, 2024.

Part 1: Baal HaSulam. The Last Generation

Reader: Shalom, we will be reading from the writings of Baal HaSulam, The Last Generation writings, Part Four, under the heading  “Faith in the Masses”. You can find all of our texts on kabbalahmedia.info, as well as through the Arvut system, where you can send us questions live. Anyone asking a question here in the study hall is requested to stand up, hold the microphone close to his mouth, and speak loudly and clearly.

Reading Faith in the Masses: (00:44) It is written, “The voice of the people is the voice of the Almighty.” Indeed, this means that according to reality, they have chosen the least of all evils, and to that extent they always follow the good path. However, of course we must change reality so they can accept the utterly complete path. And it is true that the power of keeping in the masses in general chooses for them a way according to the situation. For this reason, once they have corrupted the interpretation of Torah and Mitzvot [commandments], they have become rebellious. However, it is a sacred duty to find a true interpretation in society, and then it will be to the contrary: The power of keeping in the masses will coerce the keeping of Torah and Mitzvot.

Reader: (02:35) When we read this in the Ten yesterday, in preparation, a few times, it's very difficult to understand what he's talking about, here. 

M. Laitman: What did you understand, after all? 

Student: Well, that he talks about how the power of the masses is leading the way, but there was some mistake on the path that you're not following the Torah and commandments, it's not clear. 

M. Laitman: How the masses choose the path, certainly they don't choose, correctly; but rather close to it, in the good case scenario. And therefore, it is customary to follow the majority or the masses. The Creator takes that into account and leads them on a path that's close, close to the view of the masses. 

Student: So, there's room for a regime such as Democracy, where the masses choose those who lead? 

M. Laitman: You have to go through these states. You see, there's no choice, and even if we have, it seems it's written so clearly that we have to choose the path of Torah and the middle line and so forth, and yet there are different times. If everyone walked correctly, then the path would be clear ahead of us. But here, no, here in our world, we see that we advance, nevertheless, after the reason of the majority, which contradicts the precise path, straight path forward. So, ultimately, humanity advances through incorporation. Incorporation between the upper reason, the reason of Torah, and the reason of the lower one, the reason of the people. 

Student: I want to understand, if there was such a thing as education by the way of Torah, so that education is through the reason of Torah?

M. Laitman: If there was, then you can say whatever you want, but you see it doesn't work, it doesn't happen.

Student: So how is it that the voice of the masses is the voice of the Creator? How is it that the masses are correct, that they say something that's right at all? 

M. Laitman: That’s, it doesn't happen, doesn’t happen. If we were truly taking the right steps forward. Then we would probably advance towards the purpose of creation in  the completely correct path. I'm not sure, not able to express this well, today. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (07:14) I feel that here, he says that they're trying to follow the good path, and I remember you telling me that the good is vanishing, concealed. So how to perceive reality according to the good, always, because I see here that they're trying to build reality that's always good for everyone?

M. Laitman: That we have to make a decision every time according to the right rules, we have no choice.

Student: What do you mean by the right rules?

M. Laitman: Meaning how do we go forward. The Creator's path is the right path, which means always to be in adhesion between us and with The Creator in all the conditions we're in. And each time try to rise to a higher level.

Student: Yes, he says here, to accept reality through the fully complete. Does that mean through The Creator?

M. Laitman: Yes. 

Student: Meaning that we aim ourselves to be in equivalence of form with His quality? Or can we add in something?

M. Laitman: Somewhat, yes.

Student: So, what does it mean to accept it by the true path? We try to work together to resemble The Creator always, to annul ourselves and to equate with Him, always. What is the path, the perfect path, the complete path? 

M. Laitman: Well, that we yearn for wholeness, but we don't yet completely reach it, we long for it. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (09:29) He writes here, again, this is of course idealistic, but he says that it's a sacred duty to find a true interpretation of the society, and then the power of keeping in the masses will be obliging to them. And then he continues, and he says that one who does this, prepares this religion, has to be ready for this first plan, and to bring complete faith into the hearts of the masses. So ideally, those who disseminate this path will be able to put true faith in the hearts of the masses. And this will be some corrected state, and he will suggest that as we continue to read.

M. Laitman: Next. 

Reading: (10:21)... Public Of The First Degree …

To prepare the way he tried (its reason).

1) Nazism: egoism; the international: altruism.

2) It is possible to destabilize the Nazis only through a religion of altruism.

3) Only the workers are ready for this religion, as it is a revolution in religious perception.

4) This religious perception has three roles:

1) To undermine the Nazis.

2) To qualify the masses to assume collective governance so they do not fail as the Russians have. (This follows the term: The progress of humanity comes only through religion.) It is so because the more the worker needs reward for the work, the regime cannot survive, as Marx said.

3) To take religion from the possessors and turn it into an instrument in the hands of the workers.

4) First, it will be accepted by the workers, and through them by the whole of Israel, and the same goes for the international of all the nations, and through them to all the classes in the nations.

6) Revolution in religious perception means that instead of the hermits being thus far the destructors of the world, when they assume altruism, the hermits will be the builders of the world, since the measure of anxiety can be measured only by the measure of help to society in order to bring contentment to the Maker.

7) This concept is clarified over nearly 2,000 pages that explain all the secrets of Torah that the human eye cannot see. It will make every person believe in its truthfulness, as they will see that they are the words of the Creator, for secrets of a glorious wisdom attributed to prophecy testifies to their truthfulness.

8) The distributor of religion must be capable of Plan A, to bring as much faith as possible to the people.

In addition, he must bring complete sufficiency to the still, vegetative, animate, and speaking. Without it, religion is unsustainable. It is as Maimonides said, that it is like a line of blind people headed by one person who sees. That is, the speaking must stand at the front of the line at every place and in every generation. Hence, any religion that does not guarantee to elicit one man out of a thousand becoming a speaking, that religion is unsustainable.

9) Spreading the religion of love is done by Torah and prayer that can intensify one’s quality of bestowal upon others. At that time, the Torah and prayer are as one who sharpens one’s knife, so it can cut and finish one’s work quickly. Conversely, one who works with a blunt knife believes it is better not to waste time sharpening the knife, and it is wrong because his work becomes much longer.

(It is also clear with the regard to the term that there is no progress for humanity unless through religion.)

10) (Relates to Item 9) The fourth role is in favor of Zionism, for during the truce, when fates of countries are decided, we will not have those enemies from among the conservative, who think we have no religion, as we learn from Weizmann’s words [Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), the first President of the State of Israel], and the mediators are bound to be from among those conservatives.

M. Laitman: Okay, in short, he wrote it to himself in a way that it's hard for us to understand from it. Let's move on.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (17:54) There are two very nice things he writes here. First, is regarding how revolutionary he truly was. And the second is when he writes here that he attempts to bring about some interesting advice. He says that it goes through the workers, to the whole of Israel, through them to the whole world, then to the classes, different classes in the nations. So, it's like taking his introduction to the book of Zohar, internality and externality and just delivering it in this kind of language. And also, we need to understand what he means when he says, religious revolution, in terms of the perception of religion. He's taking the Marxist idea of the development of different regimes and how that will end up in revolution, that the workers have to initiate, take governance into their own hands. And he says that it's not a revolution of the workers, but rather a revolution in the establishment of a new religion. And when Israel will do that, they're the true workers, and then that will bring about the correction of society. He's building a completely new perception with respect to society now, also revolutionary in terms of the public in which he lived.

M. Laitman: Okay, go on.

Reading: (19:17) Part 5, Do Not Destroy: The frivolous have already grasped that it is possible to be built only on the ruin of one’s friend. This method is what is frying humanity on a stove to this day, since before one finds a vulnerable place in one’s friend, he cannot even conceive building anything. But the minute he finds a weakness in his friend’s way, he clasps there with his claws and venom until he destroys him entirely, and there he builds his palace of wisdom.

Thus, all the palaces of science are built in a place of ruin. And for this reason, every researcher is interested only in destroying, and the more one destroys, the more one is famous and praised. Indeed, this is the way that science develops, and it cannot be denied.

However, what is this like? It is similar to the struggle that ruled with its terrible destructions for millions of years before the land had formed over the sea. This, too, was certainly a kind of development. And yet, there is no reason to envy those people who witnessed those upheavals. Rather, we should be more envious of those who came to the world after the making of peace, after the struggling materials made peace, and each found its resting place on Earth as it is today.

Although the struggle persists today, it is nonetheless a minor struggle, and not upheavals where each one destroys its predecessor, who has become entirely exhausted. Rather, they have already understood that it is forbidden to destroy, since “for drowning others, you are drowned, and the end of those who drowned you will be that they, too, will drown” (Masechet Avot 2, 6). Rather, the struggle is more about weakening and restricting, while keeping the life of the weak and avoiding destroying it, for he knows full well that the tide will later turn, “And they who drown you will drown.” It is similar to the laws of war that the fighters keep while fighting. This, too, is for the same reason.

Now, if we really do learn from practical history, we must not overlook the above-mentioned principle, and we must take reality into consideration, as in a status quo, and punish one who murders a view just as we punish one who murders a person. It is so because a mind without a view is not in the type of emotion of pity, for they are more numerous than all the dunghills and the lakes, and all the air, and because of it they are given to Providence, and we have no tactics by which to assist them.

For this reason, we should presume that the land before us is vast, and there is room for all the views to dwell in it, the good as well as the bad. Indeed, one who kills and destroys a bad view is as one who destroys a corrected view, as there is no such thing as a “bad view” in the world. Rather, an unripe view is bad.

Therefore, we should judge it as one who kills a bad person, where “the voice of the blood of his descendants, and his descendants’ descendants,” we are redeemed from the evildoer. Likewise, a bad view is a seed that is still unripe for eating, but that will eventually grow and develop.

We should search for a new place for the palace of wisdom that we want to build, a place vacant of others’ buildings, meaning without hurting any existing method. The mind is deep and broad, and the words of the wise are heard with pleasure, and the method of abusers and abused is agreed by everyone to be regarded as bad. Hence, this alone should be uprooted as it is obsolete and loathsome, according to everyone.

At the same time, we should keep all the manners of life in a status quo and maintain the freedom of the individual, since they are not required for our new building because in the end it is merely an economic structure. It is similar to a merchant who wants to open his own grocery store but fears the competition, so he burns all the stores in town along with the gold, jewels, gemstones, and clothes. He is too stupid because he will not grow any richer by burning jewelry stores. Rather, grocery stores only would have been enough for his ruin, and let the keepers keep, and they who vacation, let them vacation. At most, one should make a rule that all who keep must add work so as to satiate the examiners.

I know what Mark wrote, that once the wounds and troubles of the body have been bandaged, we will begin, and we will have a suitable place for studying ideals. Besides, arguing that this is fundamentally untrue, since we know from experience that a tortured and afflicted body finds knowledge and truth better than a satiated body that knows no lack, even if we let his words be, we should still say, “Do not destroy,” at the very least. It is similar to a person cutting down fruit trees because he wants to examine them so they will grow more fruitful. It is foolishness, for if he cut them down they will die and there will be no one picking fruits.

It is likewise in views that have come to us by inheritance from our fathers over hundreds of generations of development. He cuts them down, dries them up, and ruins them, promising us that later, when he is at rest, he will examine them and will improve them, if possible. It is complete folly.

He assumes that religion harms the commune. (But how can he be certain of this assumption? After all, it is a view that is spreading among people of positivity and negativity, and many are the supporters.) He can only dispute the form of understanding that the abusers use to their own benefit. Therefore, we should fight for the understanding, so it does not harm, but sentence it a death sentence.

And yet, his whole theory is built only on religious hatred, similar to structures of scholars of his time concerning hatred of religion, without any motive of economic damage. For this reason, we have permission to demand of the real sages, whose intention is only the economic side, to remove this item from their books. Only then can they hope to win a lasting victory that does not slide on its own vomit.

In a word, there is no joy without calamity, no good without bad. Even the wisest person cannot be saved from a medley of errors, and this is the weaker side in him, which leaves room for those who come to dispute it and completely destroy it. This is the weak side of Marxism, and it is why the occupation is difficult for them, and a hundred fold so the right to exist.

Therefore, if you are true to your method and desire its persistence, hurry up and erase the above-mentioned item from your laws, and then your road will be safely paved.

M. Laitman: We'll continue. 

Reading: (33:50) Has Marx’s Prophecy Come True?: On one hand, his prophecy can be regarded as having been fully realized. The powerful people having been sitting for a while on the fear of certain ruin, on wondrous arms that have been accumulated, and of which there is not a shred of hope to be rid or to balance. Also, economists see their ruin in their eyes, and any chance for salvation has been quenched from reality. The hungry multitudes are accumulating in terrible masses each day; the working class has almost completed its ripeness, etc., etc.

Reading (35:08) Why Were They Cast to the Right?: On the other hand, we find the opposite. Fascism is growing daily, first Italy, now Germany, tomorrow Poland, and America is also on the verge, and so forth. It must be that that prophet had missed a point, which caused his grave error. 

Reader: (36:00) It's not clear what's written here, there's a part that's missing. 

Reading: (36:05) The Flaw Is Buried in His Own Theory: The flaw is buried in his own theory, for he has added redundancies in the theory of participation, and these are the hard seeds that history cannot process whatsoever (religiousness and nationalism), and they were rejected to the right.

Reading: (36:40) Faulty Policy: The guard does not need to sit and guard the surpluses that do not concern his conservativeness, nor the freedom searcher need pursue freedom for the luxuries of the body, nor the collaborator needs to destroy the views that do not contradict his socialism.

All of these three methods are real and are equally respected by their proponents. If the forces let one sect destroy another for a time, it is an incarnation, and in the end, there must be laws that limit the types of arms, so one will not destroy the other to a greater extent. It is a circle, and one does not know what one’s tomorrow will bring.

Therefore, before the day of struggle comes, there is time for the mind to protect from a complete ruin of one of the sides. The current power is not to be relied upon, but rather the certain future.

Considering the truth between the methods, I define this word according to the law of evolution, since each view and each method prepares and makes a way for a better method. As long as it is not made, it must be kept and persisted, since by destroying it you destroy the view and the method whose role is to yield its fruition.

Marx himself had pointed it out... because he says that from the bosom of the great bourgeoisie emerges the working class. Therefore, you will evidently see that if there had been a savior for the working class at the time, to destroy the great bourgeoisie, he would certainly obliterate the foundations of the commune from its root, for this strong law, “do not destroy,” is telling you, until the time comes by itself. In that regard, I dispute him because he says that we must force the issue at all cost, and I say, except for the ruin of views, they do not need this end at all.

For everything, there is a time, and the time of socialism has arrived. Woe to the fools who miss the hour and place before them completely redundant obstacles and boundaries, which are as smoke in their eyes. For this reason, before they turn one way or the other, the world will have already overturned and they will find “relief and deliverance from another place,” and they and their method will be lost for a long time.

The war over the definition of nationality is completely redundant and is nothing like private property. There is no private property in the spiritual, only in corporeal properties. Who does not desire the development of the wisdom, and who does not know that authors’ envy increases wisdom? Therefore, no one disputes it even among the extreme, leftist Marxists. Rather, the war concerns only the corporeal properties, for which envy yields nothing but fright and unnecessary agony. Hence, why should you fight spiritual properties and nationality?

Let us assume that all the nations have reached economic parity and have revoked private property so that the existence of abusers is unthinkable. Instead of the nations competing with one another for corporeal assets, henceforth the competition will be over spiritual assets. That competition is bound to emerge in individuals, just as in the collective. But here, no one speaks of it, even among the most extreme, but would it be so.

Therefore, our debate revolves solely around spiritual assets from the past. You say, “We permit the acquisition of such assets in the future with all the desirable and fitting freedom, but the past you take out of your houses.” Is this not sick and twisted? After all, what will be permitted in the future, why should we destroy the great bulk that has been ready from the past? It is like that famous Egyptian king who inherited a library of precious books the size of three streets, and he commanded they be burned because they are not necessary for the existence of religion or for fear of harm.

And besides, no nation will obey your order to destroy all the assets of its past. They will fight over it with devotion (but you are absolutely permitted because you have no need for it at all). Indeed, even if a spirit of madness takes over the land to obey them to do this, they must spare this giant structure of several generations being lost for no reason at all.

Thus, you must leave the “You have chosen us” of each nation intact, to the extent that they want it. Only the corporeal basis of each nation should be abolished, since that basis has now reached its term, and it is in crisis anyhow. For this reason, it might take correction from whichever hand reaches out to it. However, along with it we must give full and complete confidence to each and every nation that their spiritual assets will be kept in full.

We cannot argue about statements that oppose socialism as we do with religion, since both legislators and religious authorities admit that “renunciation of a court is renunciation, and the law of the land is the binding law.” For this reason, all those laws that oppose the concept of socialism will remain as obsolete history, for now, too, there is already a large majority concealed and unused.

Before us are three forces in reality, fighting against each other. Although it contradicts the view of Marxists, who take into account only two forces into consideration—abusers and abused—it is an abstract theory that has no more merit than all its preceding theories. However, according to the basis of Marxism itself, we should take into account only what is practical, and not endless theories. Hence, I have chosen to detect three forces as though they were set before our eyes in reality.

M. Laitman: We'll continue, a few more minutes.

Reading New Class Division: Quick and Idle: (48:38) Let us assume that one nation is idle, and another nation is naturally more nimble. What one does in two hours, the other does in an hour. Naturally, there will be complaints: One will say that all the nations should work the same number of hours, and the other will say that what counts is the amount they produce. And as it is with those who argue, each will insist. What is the basis by which the court will decide? If it is according to the principle, “Give as much as you can and receive as much as you need,” it still does not necessitate an equal length of time. And if we judge the nations according to the amount of work, then individuals, too, have a similar argument, and the diligent will work half as much as the weak. Thus, you have prepared for yourself a new class: a class of quick, and a class of idle.

You could say that there is power in the idle majority to force the quick minority in the nation, but there is certainly no such power to one nation over another. Thus, you will create classes among the nations, and abusers and abused among individuals.

M. Laitman: Interesting, very nice summary. Continue.

Reading: (50:53) The Arrival of the Redeemer: This is not new, for the founders themselves knew it, as he says … that in the beginning they will see how this is possible through compromise, and will finally come to true ideals, to the highest degree of socialism, where each gives as much as he can and then takes only as much as he needs, meaning the same as the idle. This can be done only by the arrival of the redeemer, when the earth is full of knowledge. Then the giver will understand that he is exerting for his God, giving contentment to his Maker.

The idealistic instincts have already struck numerous roots in the human race. They have also come and become antiquated and have gained a foothold in a place where no one can reach, namely the subconscious in the elongated brain, which moves man’s nerves by itself, without the person’s awareness. This is why they have experimented in Russia, as it is known that they did not do a thing in all their wars. These warriors should know that the human heart will give them anything if they only leave it with its ideals, which have come to it by inheritance from past generations in one’s subconscious. If they insist on destroying this legacy, too, they themselves will suffer the consequences, for the heat and the sulfur is accumulating bit by bit until it is filled to the brim and begins to explode.

And besides all that, a new generation is growing, “which did not know Joseph.” They do not understand at all the need or necessity to revoke private property from their flesh and blood, but only according to a dry theory. Therefore, the passion for private property that is buried deep in their subconscious from past generations, after all the learning, one fine day they will establish camps of young people from all sides, and they themselves will put the elderly to death with all their property and wisdom. It is so because an ideology does not come to a person from the intellect, but only from life’s experiences, out of affection and a combination of good and bad, as with automatic machines. The mind has no control over the body, as it is completely foreign to us. Hence, those young socialists who have acquired knowledge through their own wit cannot be trusted whatsoever, and they will pop like a bubble of soap.

Reading: (55:22) One Last Word of Policy: At that time, three forces will sit on the throne in the councils—right, left, and middle. They will argue and fight with one another: the right opposing the liberty in the left, and the left opposing the reactionism of the right, and the neutral will give room to both, and the majority will solve and determine.

Indeed, in one, they have already come to a solution, namely sharing all necessary and positive needs of life, meaning equal sharing of all the needs of the economy: one land to all who are living on it, and one division in its corporeal pleasures. They will load all the trials and arguments on the suffering of spiritual predicates, along with the three degrees—envy, lust, and honor—they will turn and restrict themselves only to the spiritual boundaries.

This version will indeed be the final word of policy because it will forever remain an inexorable law. It is so because according to the development of the human species, so will views separate and intensify, and each one will be far more obstinate than one is currently so about one’s fortune. There is no hope to come out of this strait unless people begin to regress into the form of fools, meaning be emptied from all of their reason.

For this reason, there will be almost as many parties as there are people, and there is no solution to it other than the fixed law, “follow the majority.” At that time, people will make among them various compromises until they gather into groups. In the groups, there will be competition with the oppositions until the opposition itself will separate.

Thus, the big groups will split into small ones, and the small ones into tiny ones, and they will trade among themselves, as is customary nowadays. However, this negotiation must acquire a more acrid form each time, precisely according to the measure of development of views without compromise forever, for so it should be forever.

However, in one—in private property—they have already arrived at an agreed upon solution: Each will give as much as a successful one can give, and will receive as much as an unsuccessful one, without adding even as much as a hairsbreadth. And the work hours will be equal to all, by order. And besides the mandatory, there will be additional time to the veterans, who will give compared to the weak, to completely exempt them and not afflict them. This is similar to today’s charity.

Also, in each city and community, the weak will be distributed equally. And if there are many volunteers in the community, then all the weak will be exempted. If there are few, then only some of them, the weakest, will be exempted.

One who breaks these rules will be punished either by giving his portion or by criminal punishment.

M. Laitman: All right, so we will conclude with this for the time being and continue to the next part.

Reader: (01:01:03) We'll sing a song before the next part.

Song: (01:01:05)