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

Daily Morning Lesson: January 1, 2026

Part 2: LESSONS OF THE RABASH ON TES

Reader: We are going to study from a TES lesson with Rabash. We’re going to read from part 4, the answers to questions, number two. Before we start, let's hear what Rav has to say about the main topic of the lesson

M. Laitman: (00:25) The created beings’ reality can only be if the created being limits the light. If not - there is no created being, there's only the Creator. Malchut of Ein Sof, the world of Ein Sof is filled with light, there's no created being there. There's only a black central dot, which is the one activating itself, restricting itself. After the restriction and emptiness, then there is a place, as he says, that is the place for the created beings, the emanated, the doers, the created beings. Then it kept going, there was a straight line from the light of Ein Sof, build the worlds and the souls till this world, the lowest of all, and so on and so on, as you remember in that song from the “Tree of Life.” So, that's why all the limitations supposedly are severe actions from the created being, because he's driving out the light, but it's actually necessary actions, because without it, the created being won't exist, because everything is subdued under the light, and there is no created being. Created being, means that there is a desire that resists the Creator, he stands before the Creator, he's willing to deal with the Creator, on one hand, so by that he exists. Now in which way? After he exists, how then does he want to deal with the Creator; whether to agree or not, be together, friends, to hug, to move away, that's something else already. But first, in order to exist, he must restrict himself. So, the limitation on the light is what makes the created being a created being, it makes that reality.

Reader: So now, let's study together with Rabash, Chapter 4, the answers.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (02:40) He opened, question 20. What is the limitation of the light? What is the question? Limitation of light. How is it possible, you asked. So he says, all the measures, and amounts, and multiplication of forms in the light, come from the coarseness in the screen and its refinement. In that state, it generates different levels and forms. This is why it is called the limitation of the light. What was the question, and what was the answer? The question was, how is it possible to limit the light? More in the spirit of the text, the limitation of the light. So, materially, in corporeality things can be limited. Like it is written, enclose the mountain. The people, as it is written, thoughts, contemplations - if you can limit, well, you are not the master of your thoughts. So, a thought comes to you, tell yourself to limit it - you are not the master of your spirit, master of your thought. That's why it says here, limiting the light. I already forgot, what was the question? How to limit the light? Limiting the light, how? How can limitation even apply to the light, ever? Answer. This refers to the vessels. He limits the vessels so as not to receive the light. It's not the light that's being limited. That's the meaning of limitation, the limiting of light. Meaning, wherever the limitation of light is mentioned, the limitation is not applied to the lights. It applies to the vessels. That's what he said. He says, the question, one more time, 20. What is the limitation of the light? All the measures, and amounts, and multiplication of forms in the light, we don't say that it's in the light. In the light there is no change, no difference. And so talking about measures, amounts, limitations, and so on, they come from the coarseness in the screen and its refinement. In that state, it generates different levels and forms. This is why it is called limitation of light. And indeed, in truth, who is doing the limitation, who is being limited? The vessel. Meaning, what does he say? He says the following: there is no limitation; rather, one limits his desire to receive, limits himself. Who lets him, what allows him to limit himself, what allows him to receive? That depends on the screen. What makes changes in the screen? The refinement of the screen. Who or what makes these changes in the refinement of the screen? We learned, in Akudim, it was the inner, it was the clash of inner and surrounding. And before that, it was due to equivalence in phase four. That's why the screen was lost, meaning they couldn't work with the intention to bestow. That's called limitation. The difference is, if he doesn't want to receive of his own volition, then so it stands. What happened in Nekudim? They did not limit themselves, and due to the restriction, they could not receive the light.

RABASH: (08:04) That's why it's called the shattering of the vessels. What happened? The light departed, and it wasn't in their power to set limits. To the contrary, they wanted to receive, but they had no screen. By that, they lose the screen. The question is, what is the refinement of the screen? The refinement of the screen means that one can no longer work with coarseness, as he cannot aim to bestow. What is the cause for him to have a screen? Once we learned that it depends on the upper one. When it comes from the upper one, it's called the clash of inner and surrounding. So, he limits himself. When he sees that he cannot aim to bestow, that will tear up his restriction. And in the world of Nekudim, due to what happens there? They wanted to revoke the restriction, and that's why they shattered. There are many things here: measurements, depictions, right, left, up, down. The light comes from above; the light comes from below. All the descriptions of the light that we learn, we only ever speak of the vessels, not the light. There's no change in the light. That's what he says here.

Student: I'm asking, what's the connection between the measures, the amounts?

RABASH: First of all, tell me what is the meaning of measures and revelations, then we'll talk.

Student: It could be small or big, or a measure could be bad or good.

RABASH: So he says, both the measures and the amounts, they all come from the screen, from the restriction. What does he say? It all comes from the vessels, not the lights. Who are the vessels? Are we talking about holiness? The vessels depend on the screen. So, what is considered bad? The inability to make a screen. What is good? The ability to make a screen. So, what is the question? Light is good for him; meaning, if he can make a screen, then he receives abundance. It's good for him. And when it's bad for him, why bad? Since he cannot receive a screen, the restriction presides over him. It's all about the vessels. The light, we don't speak about the light. We always say, “the land is full of His glory.” Why can't we receive? For the lack of a screen. Now, what of it? What do we learn from this? In our work, he says, we need to work for there to be light, or do we need to work to have screens? So he says, we don't need to work on the lights. Why? Because of the well-known maxim, “more than the calf wants to suckle, the cow wants to nurse it.” You depend only on the screens.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (12:01) That's why there's an allegory about this in the Zohar, I believe. It's about this man, and the wet nurse comes to nurse his son, but the son is sick. So what does he do? He gives the milk to the dogs, so that while the son is sick, at least the milk will not spill, will not go to the shells. That's the allegory. As for us, it's not the lights; only the screens. And what do we work with? Only the lights - how much light did I have? But here he says, I believe, everyone should say, how many screens did you make today? How many screens did you lack? That's our work. Not how much did the Creator give me. And so, I do the work of the Creator, what He needs to do. What is potential limitation? The limitation of the light is called a screen. A part he receives and then says, that's enough. So he's receiving light. What is limitation in potential then? What does he say? The detaining force in the screen of Malchut of Rosh, which detains the upper lights from spreading in Malchut of Rosh, that detainment is only in potential; not in actuality. Why? Even the clothing of the first nine Sefirot, there is only potential clothing. Both the clothing and the rejection of the lights manifest in actuality only in Guf, in the body. The question is about potential limitation. He receives the light, and a part of it he limits rather than receiving it. So, why is it called potential, that limitation? Because what he receives is also in potential. And so his limitation can be greater than what he receives. That's what he says. Then, that's why he later says, this is item 22, what is actual limitation? The limitation of the screen in Malchut of Rosh is only in potential. It does not appear in actuality except in the screen in Malchut of Guf, called Tabur. Guf [body] is what one receives. So, where do we see that he says that's enough? In the screen of the Guf called Tabur, from Tabur and below he says, I do not want to receive. Whereas before that, he does receive. That's what he says. What is this about? It explains to us the difference between Rosh and Guf, head and body.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (15:57) Twenty-six. What is actual clothing? There was a question before that. Limitation in actuality. Limitation. What is the limitation? I don't want to receive. What is clothing, he now asks? The same thing. There is clothing in potential, and clothing in actuality. Everything that is done in a coupling by striking of the upper light in the screen of Malchut of the Rosh, meaning in the rejection of the light from Malchut and below, and the clothing of the light to the nine Sefirot from Malchut and above does not actually appear there, except in the screen of Malchut of Guf, called Tabur. The light is rejected from the Tabur down and clothes in the nine Sefirot from the Tabur up. Here, he doesn't say anything new, but rather he gives us this definition, because we need to know the difference between restriction and screen. When I say restriction, it means that he receives nothing. When speaking of the screen, then he gives a rule that a screen relates to coarseness, presides over coarseness, and so it indicates that one is working with the coarseness. How is this allowed, permitted in order to bestow? There are two things here: that he can use to aim in order to bestow, and the part that he can't. And so each and every degree begins at the Rosh, the head of the degree, which is called Malchut of Rosh. It's calculation, meaning above Malchut, above her domain, there is choice. So, one can receive in order to bestow. It's not her own quality, her own phase, meaning, by way of receiving in order to receive, he doesn't want to receive. And so we find that in the Rosh, in the head, there was clothing in potential, meaning what he will receive will be the first nine, and what he won't is called Malchut of Rosh. He said Rosh is called the coupling Malchut. If the light stops at the Malchut of Rosh, it begs the question, how can the light then reach the Guf, the body? When I say that Malchut of Rosh makes a boundary, she does not want to receive. How can the light pass, is the question? Malchut is not receiving, so how can the light pass down to the Guf, to the body? Answer. It was all in potential there. There was no actual reception, there was no actual limitation. And so, Malchut, which is the Rosh, Malchut of Rosh, is called the coupling Malchut, where the coupling by striking takes place, or you could say the opposite, all the lights that extend down to Guf were extended there by the power of that Malchut. And where is it evident that Malchut doesn't receive, that it makes an actual imitation? And where is it apparent that the screen clothes the light in actuality? That is from Tabur through to the Peh. That is actual clothing from Tabur and below. It's called actual restriction. That's what he says here. You ask me, why is it called potential rejection if he actually rejects it? He's receiving, or is he not receiving?

Student: He doesn't receive.

RABASH: If so, why is it called rejection in potential? He's right in that question. He's right in his question. Answer. When he receives nothing, this is called restriction. So, when can I discuss the screen? Only when there is clothing, when I have a limitation, resistance. As per your question, what he rejects due to the restriction, that's not due to the screen. He receives nothing. While with a screen, that implies coarseness. The parts he does receive, and a part he doesn't. So what part is there? Restriction, you could say, he rejects, he receives nothing. So, you can't talk about a screen as a potential limitation. No actual limitation if there's no actual clothing. What he rejects, that's called restriction.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (22:48) Question 27, what is yearning for its origin? Who yearns for the origin, the source? The light yearns for its source? The vessel yearns its source? What are we talking about, yearning for the origin, or source? He says the following. When the light yearns for equivalence of form, to be as refined as the Emanator, and hence wants to depart from the clothing in the vessels, this departure is called yearning for its origin. He asks, what does it mean when we say that the light yearns for its source? Why did it come? Who forced it to descend? And what is shining now, about which I should say that it's yearning for its source? We say rule. He explains to us in the four phases of direct light that the Keter is called the Creator's desire to do good to His creations. And so He created something from nothing, the vessel of Hochma, called coarseness of phase one. And so he says, when speaking of Hochma, it received light. Well, I'm not talking about the light itself. I only speak of the light that is already clothed in a vessel. So he says, seeing as the light comes from the bestower, two forces are involved, included there. One force is His desire to do good to His creations. What did He create? The will to receive. And so, this is included in the light of whoever will receive it. But the will to bestow is included there as well. Since the light comes from the bestower. Also, he says, Hochma, at its end, awakens towards equivalence of form, when there is light in her. So, we find that Hochma itself, at its end, she felt that she is receiving from the Bestower, and that she doesn't want to be the receiver, but rather the bestower. And there, we said that this continues through to Malchut. Why was Bina not restricted? Ultimately, her reception was not on her end, ultimately, but the upper force was there. So, it's not yet apparent that there is a difference. However, when it comes to phase four, to Malchut, Malchut received the light, and since the light comes from the Bestower, here Malchut awakened to find that she yearns for equivalence of form. Who yearns for equivalence of form? Malchut. And she said that she does not want to receive in order to receive but only in order to bestow.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (27:23) From there on, we learn a law. What law? That the desire in the upper one becomes a compelling law in the lower one. That means that in the beginning, there was choice, and now she can't anymore. That's already called lower in importance. What does it mean that she can't? She doesn't want to be disconnected now. Before she had light, she wanted equivalence of form from her force of choice. Now she feels that she'll be disconnected from being distant, because she got a change. So, we see that before the choice, there still wasn't disparity of form. It was only an adornment. Afterwards, disparity of form was revealed. That's why. How could the light pass below in holiness, while the light is the bestower, and the lower one is the receiver? The answer: since there is a screen. The sensor is equivalent of the light, so she wasn't disconnected from the light. The bestowing light, the lower one can already receive in order to bestow. So we find that by the clothing of the lower one of the light, the light was considered as if the lower one spoils the light, and the lower one can receive it in order to bestow. So it comes out that while the lower one couldn't receive in order to bestow, if it will receive, it won't be equivalent to the source on behalf of the force of bestowal. That's why the light departs, and we call that departure of the light as the one who yearns for the source, meaning in order to bestow. And then he says, in 27, what is yearning for its origin? When the light yearns for equivalence of form to be as refined as the Emanator. How can that be said? We're not speaking about the light. We're speaking about the light being clothed in a vessel. And hence, it departs from the clothing of the vessels, clothing in the vessels. Why? The vessel limits, the vessel distances itself from the vessel of the root. This departure is called yearning for its origin. Why? Because we said earlier that he couldn't aim in order to bestow.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (30:49) Now a question comes: what is the reason that he yearns for a source, because the lower one cannot aim in order to bestow? Answer. This is extended by the striking of the inner light and surrounding light on each other. By that, the screen is lost. So, he couldn't aim in order to bestow. We find that the light he receives will be away from the source. That's why the departure of the light is called yearning for the source. What does he want by this? We always learn that there aren't any changes in the light. So, where does the light depart to? Where does it go? The lower one sees it. Why does the lower one see it, we say? The light has to be in equivalence of form. The light resembles a bestower. That's why it supposedly can't stand when the lower one drives it away, causes disparity of form. That's what he says. You must understand that this does not refer to the upper light itself, but to ten Sefirot of direct light. That means he's speaking about the receiver, not the light itself. He's speaking of the light that is attained. That light departs because the one who attains it as if disconnects it from the root. Meaning, which already supports a relation between the light and its clothing, which is why they are called Sefirot. Indeed, we have no uttering and speech in the upper light, for there is no attainment in the light without a garment or a vessel. That means that the light wants its source. When the lower one attains it, this attainment escapes from the lower one. Why does it escape? Because when the lower one distances himself from the root, that's what it attains. That's why this attainment escapes him. That's called that it departs. Or in The ARI’s words, desiring the root. So he asks, it's written, speaking about “Ten Sefirot,” but in “Ten Sefirot” we learn that there's no more than Malchut. What's called the will to receive? What did we learn? That after Malchut is revealed, Malchut attains its cause. So we speak of Esser [ten] Sefirot or not? So what are you asking?

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (34:09) 28. What is return to the Emanator? Who returned to the Emanator? So, he explains. The departure of the consequential light from the refinement of the screen is called return to the Emanator. To Malchut of the Rosh, the Emanator of the ten Sefirot, called Guf. They are renewed and expand a second time by their ascent there, by way of second expansion. Similarly, any new expansion that emerges solely by the return of the lights to the Emanator in a way that any return of lights to the Emanator is in order to generate a new Partzuf.

So he asks, return to the Emanator. If the purpose of creation is to do good to the created beings, by that, the first expansion after the restriction, from wanting to do good to the created beings, why was that the reason for the departure of the light? Go back to the Emanator. That's the opposite of its intention. Answer. What we say, return to the Emanator for an addition of light, meaning, let's say before it could receive in Partzuf Galgalta forces of phase four, let's say 20%. It received it in inner light. The rest remained in surrounding light. It could receive another 1%. We find that by the departure of the light; it could later on receive another 19%. We need to remember, what is it for? Meaning, it was already revealed on the outside. Only what? That the lower one cannot see it now. So, it can receive another 19%. Afterwards, let's say, if it returns to the Emanator, and it also doesn't want to adorn, only in order to attain another 18%. So, we find that every time I say, return to the Emanator, if it's not in order to illuminate light, on the contrary, by that type of reality, the light is revealed gradually until all the light that was in His thought to give to the lower ones.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (38:35) Now let's go deeper. What is return to the Emanator? So he says, what we learn, that the departure of the consequential light from the refinement of the screen is called return to the Emanator, to Malchut of the Rosh, the Emanator of the ten Sefirot, called Guf. But isn't that opposite of the purpose? The purpose is to do good, not to go back to the departing of the light. So he explains. They are renewed and expand a second time by their ascent there by way of the second expansion. Similarly, any new expansion that emerges solely by the return of the lights to the Emanator, in a way that, if we see that it's written that the light returns to the Emanator, it doesn't mean departure; so, in order to generate a new Partzuf, that there'll be more revelation.

Question 29. What is particular Hesed? What is that? See five Hassadim. What we explained about the five edges. So what did we learn there? HGT, Netzah Hod of ZA are five phases, KHB ZON of direct light. If so, why do you say HGT? Say KHB. Due to the lack of light of Hochma in the GAR of Zeir Anpin, that's why Zeir Anpin is called small. It's the Yesod of the Hassadim. There are merely five Hassadim. After we had six phases, rather the Yesod is an incorporation of the five phases together and their mixture in one another. It is not a particular edge that could be regarded as a particular Hesed from the five Hassadim. What's the question, and what's the answer? The answer, the question, what is private Hesed? So, I'll tell the allegory again what I said. You take five different vegetables separately. Each and every vegetable has a name of its own. A tomato is a vessel on its own. Cucumbers - are its own. An onion is a vegetable of its own. Every vegetable on its own. Then I make a salad with those five discernments. So in the Yesod, in that salad, there is no vegetable on its own. So, what did I search for? He gave me salad. First, there were five vegetables, every vegetable in its own right. And then I'm hiding the sixth one in the salad. Now I gave him a salad. I see that that is an individual on its own. That's the allegory. The Yesod doesn't have an individual part of itself that I can speak of, but all the five phases as one together. I'll say it again.

RABASH (Source Text/Commentary): (43:12) What is a particular Hesed? See, I have five Hassadim and five edges. When he says, where HGT, Netzah, Hod, of ZA or five phases, KHB ZON of direct light? Just as there were four phases of direct light with a root that is five, all the worlds are a seal on its result. There are no more than five phases. So, why does he say that ZA is five Hassadim? Is that not the same thing? It extends from the five phases in direct light. So, why do you name it differently to HGT NHY? What is the answer? Which are merely five Hassadim due to the lack of light of Hochma in the GAR of ZA, there is mainly the illumination of Hochma. That's why its name changed. But actually, it's five phases of direct light. We just see that there is VAK, and there is Yesod. So, what does he say? However, Yesod of ZA is not counted among the five Hassadim. Why? Because there are no more than five phases. What is the Yesod? Rather, Yesod is an incorporation of five phases together and their mixture in one another. It is not a particular edge that could not be regarded as particular Hesed from the five Hassadim. What is the question here? In Question 30, what is half the thickness of the wall? The ARI says that the vessel takes a part of the surrounding light and part of the inner light. That's why there must be an inner, thicker vessel that can receive the surrounding light. When it receives the inner light, the most exalted type, the greater the surrounding light is, it takes half of the external. There he writes this. What's so difficult, he says? The internality of the vessel is like a stamp; that's the word of The ARI. The externality of the vessel is horizontal. So, The ARI himself asks, since the surrounding light is greater, we can see in our senses what's more important for me. The internality of the vessel is what we use, not the externality of the vessel. So why do I say that the inner light shines in the internality of the vessel? Even more, the surrounding light shines in the internality. Why? Because it's more important. So he also says the opposite, that the surrounding light is greater, and it needs a refined vessel. That's why it needs a horizontal surrounding light, which is more refined. But in the inner light that is exalted, he gets in a thicker vessel, which is phase three. But if he got the surrounding light, it should go in phase three, and it couldn't, because it was thicker. That's what The ARI said.

RABASH: (48:19) So he says, again, the internality of the vessel is from its seal. That's what The ARI said. The externality of the vessel is from the Ozen. So, The ARI asks, the surrounding light is greater. We see in our sense what's more important. The internality of the vessel, not the externality of the vessel. So why do I say that the inner light is in the internality of the vessel? Even more, I need a greater surrounding light to shine in the internality of the vessel. Why? Because it's more important. So he also says the opposite. Anyway, in short, he explains that since the surrounding light is greater, and there should be a refined vessel, that's why it receives the surrounding light from Ozen, which is more refined. But the inner light that is exalted, he receives in a thicker vessel, which is phase three. If the surrounding light had to enter phase three, it couldn't, because it is more coarse. Those are the words of The ARI. So, what does he explain there? What's the whole thing? We see two matters. First, we need to know what's internality, and what is externality.

Kabala Medya

Kabala Medya

My LibrarySign in to like, save and subscribe to videos

Günlük Dersler13 дек. 2025 г.(Afternoon)Derse Hazırlık

Derse Hazırlık

Derse Hazırlık

Kabala MedyaTelif Hakkı © 2003-2026 Bnei Baruch – Kabbalah L’Am Association, Tüm Hakları Saklıdır

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

Günlük Dersler13 дек. 2025 г.(Afternoon)
Derse Hazırlık

Kabala Medya
Telif Hakkı © 2003-2026 Bnei Baruch – Kabbalah L’Am Association, Tüm Hakları Saklıdır