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

Daily Lesson (Morning), May 31, 2024.

Part 2: Baal HaSulam. Preface To The Sulam Commentary, Item 14.

Reader: We are studying the “Preface to the Sulam Commentary,” item 14, you can find all our texts on kabbalahmedia.info, as well as through the Arvut system. The “Preface to the Sulam Commentary, item 14.

Reading Item 14: (00:24)

14) Now you can understand why The Zohar sometimes says that with the ascent of Malchut to Bina, the five letters of the name Elokim were divided in a way that the two letters MI [Mem-Yod] remained in the degree, and the three letters ELEH [Aleph, Lamed, Hey] departed and were canceled in the degree (as written in the “Introduction of The Book of Zohar,” p 20 [in Hebrew]).

Sometimes The Zohar says the opposite, that when Malchut rose to Bina, the two letters EL [Aleph, Lamed] remained in the degree, and the three letters HYM [Hey, Yod, Mem] were canceled and descended from the degree (as written in The Zohar, Beresheet 1, Item 59). The thing is that the five letters Elokim are the five Sefirot KHB TM or five lights NRNHY. When Malchut rises to Bina, only the vessels Keter and Hochma, which are the two letters EL, remain in the degree, and the three letters HYM descend from the degree.

In the lights, it is the opposite: The two bottom letters MI, which imply the two lowest lights, Nefesh-Ruach, remained in the degree, and the three higher letters, ELEH, which imply Yechida, Haya, Neshama, departed and were canceled from the degree.

Hence, in the “Introduction of The Book of Zohar,” The Zohar speaks of five lights NRNHY, implied in the five letters Elokim. This is why it says that MI remained and ELEH departed the degree. Also, in The Zohar, Beresheet 1, it speaks of five vessels KHB TM, implied in the five letters Elokim.

For this reason, it states the opposite: EL remained in the degree and the three letters HYM departed the degree. We should remember these words and examine every place to see if it speaks of lights or of vessels, and this will resolve many apparent contradictions.

Re-reading Item 14: (03:45) 

14) Now you can understand why The Zohar sometimes says that with the ascent of Malchut to Bina, the five letters of the name Elokim were divided in a way that the two letters MI [Mem-Yod] remained in the degree, and the three letters ELEH [Aleph, Lamed, Hey] departed and were canceled in the degree (as written in the “Introduction of The Book of Zohar,” p 20 [in Hebrew]).

Sometimes The Zohar says the opposite, that when Malchut rose to Bina, the two letters EL [Aleph, Lamed] remained in the degree, and the three letters HYM [Hey, Yod, Mem] were canceled and descended from the degree (as written in The Zohar, Beresheet 1, Item 59). The thing is that the five letters Elokim are the five Sefirot KHB TM or five lights NRNHY. When Malchut rises to Bina, only the vessels Keter and Hochma, which are the two letters EL, remain in the degree, and the three letters HYM descend from the degree.

In the lights, it is the opposite: The two bottom letters MI, which imply the two lowest lights, Nefesh-Ruach, remained in the degree, and the three higher letters, ELEH, which imply Yechida, Haya, Neshama, departed and were canceled from the degree.

Hence, in the “Introduction of The Book of Zohar,” The Zohar speaks of five lights NRNHY, implied in the five letters Elokim. This is why it says that MI remained and ELEH departed the degree. Also, in The Zohar, Beresheet 1, it speaks of five vessels KHB TM, implied in the five letters Elokim.

For this reason, it states the opposite: EL remained in the degree and the three letters HYM departed the degree. We should remember these words and examine every place to see if it speaks of lights or of vessels, and this will resolve many apparent contradictions.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (07:01) Why in the ascent of Malchut to Bina, the vessels exit the degree. Shouldn't more light and more vessels be added?

M. Laitman: What is happening here that he explains to us? That Malchut rises to Bina and then the two letters, Aleph, Lamed, remain in the degree and the letters Hey, Yod, Mem, right, departed from the degree. So we have the difference, a distancing of the letters between GE and AHP. MI is separate and ELEH is separate, so what are you asking? 

Student: The letters MI and ELEH are Bina and Malchut? 

M. Laitman: It's GE and AHP. 

Student: What's the connection between GE, AHP, and Bina and Malchut, where Malchut ascends to Bina? 

M. Laitman: This is the operation that necessitates that these two parts that are in a single vessel will become split. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (08:58) A corporeal degree I know how to depict myself. The question is: Do I need to depict myself a corporeal degree and if so, what is it and what is a spiritual degree? 

M. Laitman: I don't know how you're depicting this. 

Student: I know how to depict a corporeal degree, but a spiritual degree I don't know. The question is: Do I need to depict what a spiritual degree is and if so, then I would be happy to hear?

M. Laitman: It'll come, I can't depict it in you. That's not allowed. Also the depictions, the drawings, we don't really respect them. What's happening here is that we need to learn, according to what's written and gradually, these blocks El, Elohim, Hey, Yod, Mem, and so on. All those names will become more and more clear to us. And when they connect between them, we understand what's happening. Or we just separate from them, and then it's a second restriction or something else, GE and AHP could connect, and so on. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (11:07) The ascent of Malchut to Bina, is it really talking about the MAN of the lower ones, or is it an action of the Upper One? 

M. Laitman: The ascent of Malchut to Bina, meaning by the work of the light, for sure, that can't change, by the actions of the light the Malchut rises to Bina. 

Student: Is the preparation of a deficiency from the lower one in this action? 

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: But if in the work between us, in the raising of Malchut to Bina, to our point, the lacks that accumulate the desire, the deficiency, all those things that we collect and want to connect more to bestowal, can that be considered the rise of Malchut to Bina? 

M. Laitman: I don't know what you're talking about exactly, but let's say so. 

Student: He also tells us that Malchut rises to Bina, she ends under Hochma, yes? 

M. Laitman: Yes. 

Student: Now here I got this depiction, and if it's right, tell me if it's okay to think about it this way. Because now it's like Malchut is the desire, a certain desire, which stands now between Bina and Hochma. It stands between two opposite things and specifically the desire is what will cause the connection. Is that correct, that depiction? 

M. Laitman: Well, let's say. 

Student: Because there's a certain line of thought here, if you can explain this a little bit, that we can think about this of how the desire actually helps us connect between things and create this spiritual connection specifically. Because it is what stands in the middle between two opposites? 

M. Laitman: There is something about it, yes.

Student: Can you say something about that? 

M. Laitman: No, we'll learn about it. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (13:26) Why do we once talk on the side of the vessels and once on the lights? And he writes here and here many contradictions will be clarified. Why does he do this, it's very confusing?

M. Laitman: We're really in a state here that by changing the relationships between the vessels, by that we can combine the lights. 

Student: That principle is understood, but there are names to the lights, and there are names for the vessels. Why doesn't that remain persistently throughout the wisdom? Why do they once call the lights after the vessels, and once the vessels after the lights, and it creates this, is it on purpose? What is this principle of once talking on the side of the lights, once on the side of the vessels? Are they confusing us on purpose? 

M. Laitman: No. Kabbalists don't have any business in trying to confuse you on purpose. On the contrary. I don't know, give me an example. 

Student: Here he writes, and then he says, and in the Zohar he gives this example of what he writes in the “Introduction to the Book of Zohar.” The Zohar talks about the five lights of NRNHY that are being mentioned in the word of Elohim. There, the MI remains in ELEH came out of the degree. And then in the Zohar he talks about Hey, KHBTM which are implied by the five letters Elohim, and therefore he says the opposite, that EL remains in its degree, and the three items Aleph, Bet come out of the degree. 

M. Laitman: Because it depends what you're speaking about, whether it's the lights or the vessels.

Student: But the vessels have names, and the lights have names? 

M. Laitman: So what? 

Student: Why not use the names of the vessels, KHBTM and the name of the lights, NRNHY, and we won't get confused? 

M. Laitman: Use it.

Student: I, with my intellect I would understand, but why do they, do want, and throughout the whole wisdom, there's this, some kind of confusion here, or conclusion here?

M. Laitman: First of all, I don't think that there's a confusion here. It's convenient to do it this way, that simply if I'm speaking about the AHP, so it's convenient to speak in such a way. If I'm speaking about the lights and the AHP, so it's convenient to speak in a different way. I don't understand what the difficulty is here. In understanding, of course, there isn't. All in all, we're speaking about five lights and five vessels that separate by the second restriction, or connect. That's it.

Student: The process he's describing here is clear, even Baal HaSulam, in the “Study of the Ten Sefirot,” in volume one writes, and put them clearly in a box, because if you don't understand one word, this whole wisdom will be confused for you, because there's no wisdom like the wisdom of Kabbalah, where everything is connected in it, like chains and links, and one link is missing and you won't understand anything. And the terminology, he invests so much on that, definitions and concepts, and for everything to be very clearly, he cautions us in everything, and then in the whole wisdom, and in many places in the wisdom, they don't use the terminology that is so clear and defined and meticulous on one hand?

M. Laitman: To them, it's clear what's going on. He doesn't write a study book for the first grade. It's clear to them what's going on. I remember when I studied from Hillel, it was hard for him to understand what I'm asking about. And he always explained it in an even more confused way. For them, it's simple things.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (18:34) These terminologies, these definitions, they eventually come from the Creator? 

M. Laitman: What do you mean they come from the Creator? From the Kabbalists, that in this way they understand these things that they're telling us about. 

Student: What they tell us, they feel a certain phenomenon and they give this phenomenon a name. This is seemingly the Creator who is enabling them to give that name? 

M. Laitman: Yes.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (19:32) From what we learn in the Zohar the name Elohim for example, which is taken from the Torah, it's really a word that the lights and the vessels are in, where the spelling and the points, the punctuation is in the words. So, I understand this word Elohim, that they're talking about specific letters and with their dots that depict them that specific way. The word itself already includes both of them, so, you cannot differentiate between the lights and the vessels?

M. Laitman: You're right. Yes. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (20:23) Why does he write about two lights, about Nefesh, Ruach? The upper of Bina we can work with in order to bestow. They are vessels of bestowal, they're not vessels of reception. Why not Nefesh Ruach, Neshama? 

M. Laitman: Because we don't have a vessel for the light of Neshama, but only Nefesh Ruach and Katnut. 

Student: Neshama is already Gadlut?

M. Laitman: Yes, it belongs to the Gadlut already. 

Student: We always talked about Nefesh, Ruach and Neshama is what we can receive as inner light. And only the third and the fourth are surrounding lights?

M. Laitman: You're right. So NRN, we have that in the vessels, the upper ones and in the lower ones, we have Haya and Yechida, or the opposite.

Student: We know that after the second restriction enters, we actually don't use vessels of reception whatsoever. There is no such thing as receiving in order to bestow even. What we call to receive in order to bestow is the usage of the AHP of ascent. Like Rabash writes this drop of whiskey on the cake, and that will be enough to be the light to the nations, that drop of whiskey that we put there? Because beyond that we can't do?

M. Laitman: Who knows what it'll be.

Student: But the light to the nations is probably the light of Hochma. It's not sufficient to just do the light of Hassadim to the world? 

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: So I can't receive more than a drop of whiskey to pass it onwards? 

M. Laitman: So.

Student: So, is that enough in order to be a light to the nations if we get to that?

M. Laitman: I guess so. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (22:43) I wanted to relate to the friend’s point. They also say that they concealed that not Rashbi wrote, but someone else in the Ten wrote it. And they did conceal it. Now Baal HaSulam is opening it up since the time has come. So they wrote in a way that if you're not in the matter you won't understand so it won’t be clear?

M. Laitman: Yes.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (23:18) We learned this material is very interesting and the discernment of the friends are really different. My question is as such: I'm trying to make the connections between what we read and the work of a Kabbalist. And I think, and I'm turning to you and I'm asking from you, what is the work of a Kabbalist when he reads the text? AHP, ascent, descent. What is the Kabbalist's work from what you've worked with, Rabash? That could help us greatly.

M. Laitman: No, I have nothing more to add. This is how I studied with him, with all of my confusions. I tried to organize them with the help of the Rabash.

Student: I'll give you a little example why I'm asking for your advice. You told us about Rabash, that you saw him dancing in his room. We read an article before this that the pleasure only comes from the upper light. Suddenly it connects in my mind according to what you said and what we read today. And I'm making that connection that it helps the Ten more when I pass it through the Ten to understand the processes and the phenomena. That's why it's so important for you to give us, I think, what you experienced with Rabash? 

M. Laitman: I can't give this, but when we study about it, you yourself can taste it. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (25:12) I also want to put a little emotion into these depictions. There's two things, either ascents, delight, excitement, or descent and the feeling of dust. So can we say that the ascent is Bina and the descent is Malchut? 

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: Those are two states? And then what, I want to raise Malchut to be always in joy and never be in darkness? 

M. Laitman: Yes. 

Student: Do I ask the Creator to always be in joy? 

M. Laitman: Ask. 

Student: So why doesn't He raise me up to Bina? 

M. Laitman: Ask. 

Student: I'm asking all the time? 

M. Laitman: So He doesn't want to raise you. 

Student: Maybe He can guide me to a more precise request? 

M. Laitman: No, no, no. You have to get better. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (25:58) By him emphasizing that the letters Aleph, Lamed, Gimmel were left or something, that he wants to tell us that the Keter and the degree is the Hesed and it's in the specific degree like that? 

M. Laitman: Where is it written? 

Student: That's what I'm asking? 

M. Laitman: No. If it's not written, I'm not answering. 

Student: It was written in the previous item that Keter is the Hesed?

M. Laitman: Yes, well.

Student: My question is, why does he want to emphasize that in the second restriction that the Keter of the degree is Hesed in its presence? 

M. Laitman: Because it's Katnut. It's at times of Katnut.

Student: Why is it important for him to emphasize that Hesed is like Keter in the present degree? What does it mean that he raises Hesed to the Keter in the present degree towards me as the one who is being corrected? 

M. Laitman: Ask, maybe you’ll get an answer from above. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (27:16) I wanted to ask to continue the friend's words. The friend says, look, there's a certain order and all of a sudden you're flipping it over on me. And I feel like the Creator is saying, accept the friends no matter what. Whether you love what they say or you don't love what they say. The Kabbalists are giving us an example, they're doing this flip-flop on us. It's like there's certain states, once they say this, then another time they say there's nothing here. Is that right? 

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: In order for us to accept everyone no matter if I love him, I don't love him, I have to accept the friend. Is that the example for us? How to connect with friends, that's what I'm asking? 

M. Laitman: Let it be like that.

Reader: (28:11) We can move to the next item, the heading, The Ascent of Malchut to Bina, Item 15, or the Giving Of The Torah. 

M. Laitman: I think we have “Matan Torah” we should go to.

Reader: We have the Giving of the Torah. Yes, of course. We can even go to a song.

Song: (28:33)