Podcasts about beit hamidrash

#0156 Christianity, Patriotism vs Pacifism Introduction: In a country where politics have become more and more heated, should the Christian join in the fray? Or should we sit back with a resignation that simply waits for the return of our Savior? Should we as Christians be involved with the political system? If so, how much or how little should our involvement involve our relationship to Christ? Segment 1: Does God Condone Patriotism? Does the Christian have a role in the modern politic? Should we be involved in the issues of our day? Let's take a look via the Chair of Theology to see what Christ did, as well as what God commanded in the Old Testament. First off, to answer this question, we should understand some cultural context. Who were the Sanhedrin? From Wikipedia: The Sanhedrin (Hebrew and Middle Aramaic סַנְהֶדְרִין, a loanword from Koinē Greek: Συνέδριον, romanized: synedrion,[1] 'assembly,' 'sitting together,' hence 'assembly' or 'council') was a legislative and judicial assembly of either 23 or 71 elders, existing at both a local and central level in the ancient Land of Israel. There were two classes of Rabbinite courts called sanhedrins: Greater and Lesser. A lesser Sanhedrin of 23 judges was appointed to sit as a tribunal in each city. There was only one Great Sanhedrin of 71 judges, which, among other roles, acted as a supreme court, taking appeals from cases that lesser courts decided. In general usage, the Sanhedrin without qualifier usually refers to the Great Sanhedrin, which was presided over by the Nasi, who functioned as its head or representing president, and was a member of the court; the Av Beit Din or the chief of the court, who was second to the nasi; and 69 general members. In the Second Temple period, the Great Sanhedrin met in the Temple in Jerusalem, in a building called the Hall of Hewn Stones. The Great Sanhedrin convened every day except festivals and the sabbath day (Shabbat). After the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Great Sanhedrin moved to Galilee, which became part of the Roman province of Syria Palaestina. In this period, the Sanhedrin was sometimes called the Galilean Patriarchate or Patriarchate of Palaestina, the governing legal body of Galilean Jewry. In the late 200s CE, to avoid persecution, the name Sanhedrin was dropped and its decisions were issued under the name of Beit HaMidrash (house of learning). The last universally binding decision of the Great Sanhedrin appeared in 358 when the Hebrew calendar was established. The Great Sanhedrin was finally disbanded in 425. Over the centuries, attempts have been made to revive the institution, such as the Grand Sanhedrin convened by Napoleon Bonaparte and modern attempts in Israel. With this context we know that the Sanhedrin would have contained the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of the Post-Exilic Judaean Government. When Christ confronted this body and the members thereof, it was on policy that affected every part of Jewish life. Luke 11:46-52 46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. 52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. That's not to say that Christ did not love the country that He was born into, he was rather passionate about her turning to Him and away from the coming destruction in 70 AD. Luke 13:33-35: 33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! 35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Ezra and Nehemiah both exhibited such patriotism: Nehemiah 2:3-6 3And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire? 4Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven. 5And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it. 6And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time. Segment 1 Conclusion: After looking at these models, does it not seem that we do have a model for patriotism within the pages of God's Word? But there are pitfalls here. Segment 2: What Does Christian Patriotism Look Like? On the Philosophical note, there are some questions that should be asked of the believer. If we are to be patriotic, what rubric do we get from Scripture and what would application look like? C.S. Lewis put it well in his Four Loves when he spoke of the wholesomeness of a love of the people, places, and things of one's home country. If one loves the good things of one's home, this is only natural to have a certain preference for these. Lewis Concludes that: “Of course patriotism of this kind is not in the least aggressive. It asks only to be let alone. It becomes militant only to protect what it loves. In any mind which has a pennyworth of imagination it produces a good attitude towards foreigners. How can I love my home without coming to realize that other men, no less rightly, love theirs?...” This is a pure sort of patriotism, one that has gone right and is indeed a beautiful thing. G.K. Chesterton rightly pointed out that: "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." This is indicative of something far more important. When God has entrusted families with offspring, there is a responsibility of the parent to care for and nurture their children. In primitive days, we would have to hunt and forage for food. The men doing the dangerous work, and the women nurturing and training the children. In the modern world, we enjoy a peculiar peace and abundance. No longer do most men kill prey and fight other men for resources, in the civilized world that is, but rather we work for wages and vote for security (which is secured through policy focused on minimizing bloodshed.) America is beautiful for this reason: Though we have effectively conquered the world, our primary modality in the conquered nations of Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc is that we allow them to rule themselves. Now, with the regional stability provided by America, the Church can send missionaries to previously unreached civilizations to spread the Gospel. Such a blessing has never been bestowed upon the World, for wherever the Gospel is heard, the mistreatment of women, slaves, children, and all other evils are now cast into the Light of the Gospel, from which these evils flee. America is not perfect by any means and many sins have been committed in her name, but that is not a reason to throw her out as though she was some sort of heinous thing. But rather, we should strive to make America more like Christ. This is the work of the Church in the Culture, not so much the government, because the American Government is not a single leader or body, but rather a group of America's citizens. On the issue of making America more like Christ, some will say that laws do not legislate morality. This is hogwash on the level of someone who says that people will not dance at a party if you play a catchy beat. People will obey laws for fear of consequences. But they will also regard the laws as codifications of Truth, if the premises of the laws are indeed true. Look at the abortion issue, people will end their own children's lives because “Abortion is legal, if it was immoral, it wouldn't be legal.” However perverse that statement may be, there is a ring of important truth: Instituting moral laws affects people's moral sensibilities. Post-fall of Roe v Wade, many people have stopped in person abortions as they are indeed, “illegal”. But if God ordains Government, then why or how should I involve myself? Is it not predestined? If I don't particularly like a candidate, but they have a record of promoting moral policy, should I stand by the sidelines? A.W. Tozer had an excellent analogy for this in his Knowledge of the Holy: Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with man's freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God's sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfillment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being. We will be judged and made to give an account for our actions and inactions: 2 Corinthians 5:10: 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Segment 2 Conclusion: Are we commanded to be involved with the world? We are commanded to share the Gospel. If there is a tool, such as a 1st Amendment which recognizes our right to share the Gospel, then it would be wasteful indeed to miss the opportunity to preserve such a right. In fact, one can make an argument that sins of omission that lead to the suffering of others are a sin in and of themselves. Ezekiel 33:6 says: “6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.” I don't think it too far of a stretch to say that we were born for such a time as this. Like Ester, our silence or inaction could well be the undoing of God's People. So we should act while we still have an opportunity to affect change in our world for the Gospel's sake. Segment 3: Cultural Nationalism and Christian Nationalism What would the purpose of a Christian Nationalism be? To elect representatives? On what basis? History tells us that Republicanism was founded by Christians to abolish the “twin relics of barbarism, Polygamy and Slavery.” This is all well and good, but what of the corruption that we see in the so-called Republican Party today? There's a lack of desire for change, this includes the issue of abortion, of medical freedoms and rights, of exposing children to pornographic images in school. Very few Republicans truly live up to the Christian ideals that founded the party. So what happened to the purpose? The Church stopped believing in the inerrancy of Scripture and began to water down the Gospel. We see the results in the departures from the Church: Only 55% of Americans believe in the inerrancy of Scripture via this poll from the American Bible Society: https://www.baptistmessenger.com/55-percent-of-americans-believe-in-biblical-inerrancy-study-finds/ Those who self identify as Christians is plummeting: https://news.gallup.com/poll/187955/percentage-christians-drifting-down-high.aspx Segment 3# Conclusion: Can we ever effectively promote Godly principles in politics if our country no longer believes in the God of those principles? Segment 4#: Where Christian Nationalism Has Gone Wrong Love for your country is never a bad thing, in and of itself. However, such a love can go wrong. C.S. Lewis put it well when he gave this anecdote in Four Loves: This third thing is not a sentiment but a belief: a firm, even prosaic belief that our own nation, in sober fact, has long been, and still is markedly superior to all others. I once ventured to say to an old clergyman who was voicing this sort of patriotism, “But, sir, aren't we told that every people thinks its own men the bravest and its own women the fairest in the world?” He replied with total gravity—he could not have been graver if he had been saying the Creed at the altar—“Yes, but in England it's true.” To be sure, this conviction had not made my friend (God rest his soul) a villain; only an extremely lovable old ass. It can however produce asses that kick and bite. On the lunatic fringe it may shade off into that popular Racialism which Christianity and science equally forbid…1 Remember, C.S. Lewis and his audience had lived through the Left's crazed obsession with Racial Superiority in Europe and America with the Eugenics movement fostered by Left leaning thinkers. The culmination of this was in Hitler, Sanger, and the atrocities committed in the name of a better race. Perhaps the old clergyman is harmless. Perhaps there was even an iota of truth at the time; Great Britain was the largest spanning empire to date. However, the note should be made that Conservatism and Christianity often overlap, but one is defined by man and the other by God. Many people in the Conservative movement act in ways that a Christian ought not. This is not to say that we cannot both fight for what is true. However, one should also remember that we are held to the standard of Truth, God's Word, and not a political party platform. Segment 4# Conclusion: Love of a party is only as good as the value it provides to Christians ultimate purpose on this earth, the Gospel. Segment 5#: Does Love Of Country Provide Eternal Benefit or Value? To answer the question, let's look at the sentiment concerning English Nationalism, as laid out by G.K. Chesterton, a Christian Apologist who lived around the turn of the 20th century: We are, as a nation, in the truly extraordinary condition of not knowing our own merits. We have played a great and splendid part in the history of universal thought and sentiment; we have been among the foremost in that eternal and bloodless battle in which the blows do not slay, but create. In painting and music we are inferior to many other nations; but in literature, science, philosophy, and political eloquence, if history be taken as a whole, we can hold our own with any. But all this vast heritage of intellectual glory is kept from our schoolboys like a heresy; and they are left to live and die in the dull and infantile type of patriotism which they learnt from a box of tin soldiers. There is no harm in the box of tin soldiers; we do not expect children to be equally delighted with a beautiful box of tin philanthropists. But there is great harm in the fact that the subtler and more civilized honour of England is not presented so as to keep pace with the expanding mind. A French boy is taught the glory of Moliere as well as that of Turenne; a German boy is taught his own great national philosophy before he learns the philosophy of antiquity. The result is that, though French patriotism is often crazy and boastful, though German patriotism is often isolated and pedantic, they are neither of them merely dull, common, and brutal, as is so often the strange fate of the nation of Bacon and Locke. Now, if you hear a familiar ring in this description of British sentiment towards its own history, rhyming with the 21st Century Anti-Americanism we see in the Left today, perhaps it would be best to look at what is happening in Britain today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ4mfxvM-Y Stealing phones and violating safety policies are the least of the worries. Folks like Tommy Robinson have been speaking out about these gangs attacking women and children. https://nypost.com/2021/02/13/when-europe-ignored-sex-crimes-of-immigrants-all-women-suffered/ The UK had a society fit to raise children before they committed cultural suicide. They are now bringing into the country the worst of the nations who are sending refugees. What could these kids have done or who could they have led to the Lord, but are now stifled by injuries or death? Something to ponder. Final Thoughts: One last thing: What, besides the United States, is your favorite country? Four Loves - C.S. Lewis https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/reflections-october-2019/ The Defendant - Chesterton https://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/the-defendant/16/ Knowledge of the Holy - A.W. Tozer https://www.restoringthecore.com/wp-content/restored/AW-Tozer-Knowledge-of-the-Holy.pdf

Chapter 7 Part 2

Series: Be'erot, Love & Relationship with God.   Episode Transcript: We had been travelling down two different paths regarding the realization of Yaakov and Yisrael, and there is very particular and different relationships between them and Leah and Rachel. And we discovered some very crucial realizations about the way in which Yisrael comes into his fullness regarding in the way he comes back for the pachim ketanim, what he knows to leave behind and what he knows he has to have with him—clarity about that. And we had the growing realization that Yisrael is on one level; one way of looking at him is the realized self, someone who has very deep clarity as to who he is and what he's doing, and since it's Yisrael and not just any person, so his realization is not just a matter of him personally, but is crucial for the entire creation, because Yisrael is the one about whom it says, Bishvili nivrah haolam. At the beginning of Bereshit, Rashi even brings this: Bereshit, bishvil hareshit, for the first one, who is the first one? So the first one is Yisrael reshit tvuato, Yisrael is the first of his production and that is a remez to what G-d says about us, over and over again, before He takes us out of Mitzraim and then leaving Mitzraim to the point where it becomes clear that bni bechroi Yisrael. Yisrael is my first-born son. What does this mean? Yisrael is the first reflection of what I have in mind for creation. And this is also hinted at  by Reshi is a reference to chochmah. Rechit chochmah yirat hashem; the kabbalah interprets that verse as Wisdom is the beginning. Reshit chochmah, because the first movement which is expressed, as opposed to will, which is an impression. But it's the first thought, of Yisrael. And that is the most primal and primary revelation of G-d's will which also then, all the way down to the bottom, of where it becomes manifest in the world is Yisrael, which is knesset Yisrael which is the malchut, and that's why it says in the kabbalah abayasad bartah. That father has established daughter. That seminal thought of what this world will be becomes reflected all the way down in the daughter who is knesset Yisrael who brings that to realization in full living. And the realization of that becomes expressed for us in the personality or in the story of Yisrael in the world, this man called Yisrael, who is a transpersonal phenomenon, really, it's not him in his persoanl life that's of interest to us of people of Torah, but whether him and his particular life of what is a window to a transpersonal personality, something which is beyond his personal expression and then becomes relevant to all of us for all of eternity. This Yisrael is the conscious reflection of the divine thought as to what this world would be. So his name is Yisrael, in other words is li rosh, I have the head, the head belongs to me, and as we saw deeply, it's the counterpart or the inner life of Yaakov who is akeivi. I have a heel, basically, mamash the other end of reality. He's the outer body, the externality of living. He is the struggle, he is the needing to overcome, he is all of those aspects of life that are the process towards, that are not the realization of. But Yisrael is the realization of. And this was very important for us to recognize not only in terms of what we can become as Yisrael, becoming the head of creation, being it's guiding life, and this could be so powerful to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, that He even gave the name to Yisrael, "kel," and said If I am a G-d in the elyonim, then you are the god in the tachtonim, which means that you are the head of creation, its evolution, its evolving realization and coming to purpose is reliant on you. You are the G-d, you are the ones who are leading the way, you are the ones who have the greater and deeper awareness of My purpose and become alive with that. Become the ones who now, becomes the head of creation and move it towards where it is headed. This is what we are here for and it's so crucial for us to maintain consciousness of that.                 So we've been looking at that in terms of personal life. We've been looking at how a person becomes more aware of his purpose and destiny in life and more clear about what his particular voice and expression are. This will become a very deep and intimate relationship with G-d, rather than falling into a project of making himself "of himself," which is where Pharoah ends up, which B"H we might see in the future as the one who say li v'ori v'ani asitani. You see, bni bechri yisrael is what needs to be established in opposition to Pharoah in being king of the world. That's what happens when G-d says, I'm taking them out. Why are You taking them out? I'm going to show them that in the end, b'ni bechori yisrael, and that's why I'm going to kill your first born sons. Because your first born children are born out of a consciousness of "We make ourselves." But my firstborn born? He remains in the awareness and consciousness that he is my first born so, meaning that he is the expression and manifestation and intended to be in alignment with Me and My purpose. Now that can only be in personal life inasmuch as a person is aware of their own personal purpose.  This is where people get confused sometimes and say, That doesn't sound very spiritual, it sounds self-involved. Spiritual has to do with devolving myself of my personal path. It has to do with becoming generic and being mvatel myself. Isn't that what spiritual is about? Spiritual is also about that, but only if one knows the path of the shov, of coming back into this wrold and beocming re-embodied by having perfect clarity about what it is that my particular portion in that grand scheme, vision and consciousness is. If you lose that, so then you have basically have given up the world, which is not the path of Yisrael, the path of Yisrael is to be eloka btachtonim, to be godly in the lower world, or in a less radical language, to make a dirah batachtonim to make a dwelling place for G-d in the lower worlds, by virtue of that particular manifsestion, which is your life, And that's why it's so personal—li rosh Yisrael, in terms of its realization here. IT's both I have a head, which is a personal reference, that I have a vision, a wisdom. It's a more transcended reference, that I have a head means, I have a G-d. Yisrael, struggle with elokim, who is the name of tG-d about the givens, gematira ha tevah, he is the G-d of the givens. Sarita elokim v'anashim batuchal. That you will be able to overcome them and become the yisrael who is lvado. So all this is different aspects of what I've seen; I've expanded it and deepening it now in terms of its divine aspect.                 It has this quite extraordinary parallel in my mind in terms of what goes through Leah. She goes through her own persoanl process from being the snua anochi down to the experience of hodaya, of the gilui of hod, of her glory that G-d has given her, which is also the realization of her personal chelek, of natati yoter michelki. She knows, as we saw in the mashal of the cohen to know that's G-d having given His self to her, in having given that to her. And then, a interesting thing happens. I'm continued now in the same vision, now in Yisrael's counterpart, Leah.                 She has two more children after Yehudah. After the Chumash says v'taamod laledet, that she's done giving birth. That she has arrived at natalti yoter m'chelki, and that she has been given and her personal realization is the greatest access to G-d (12:02) through the medium of hodaya. And then, she has Yisachar. She declares about him, She's socher, she hilre Yaakov for the night, by giving over the dudaim to Rachel, and when she gives birth to Yisachar, she says, now I'm giving sachar for having turned over my shifcha to Yaakov. If you remember, that was in parshat vayetze, chpater twetny-nine.                 Then we asked, What are you talking about? Yisachar was sachar or hiring out Yaakov to sleep with him. Who are you trying to kid? Why are you referring it back to the sachar of giving over the shifcha? Chapter thirty, verse eighteen, where Leah says, Natan elohim shcari, asher natati shifchati l'ishi. G-d has given me my reward for having given my shifcha over to my husband. Vatikrah shmo Yisahar. Then she calls him yisachar. That's not really honest. Sachor schartichi is what she said to Yaakov when she met him, I have hired you out so yisachar, I'm getting repaid for what I invested. I'm getting back on my investment, that's what's being said there. But the truth is not that way. The truth is that which she is revealing is the deep decret of sachar. That sachar has arrived in her chelek because she has given her limited self up. She gave her husband over to her shifcha so that his realization whould occur. And that is the aspect of the selflessness in the self-realization. This is a paradox. She has surrendered herself, giving up her husband to her shifcha. She has resigned, so to speak, to a higher purpose. She then, what about her. So then something has now happended between her and Yaakov, or the emerging Yisrael. Which is that it's not about her; something has happened that is about them. And that might even mean sometimes that in her limited pleasure and achievement that she gives that up and passes that up and surrenders that. That's how she gets the sachar of yisachar. And that's the only way that divine sachar happens. In the giving up and the surrendering of the particular forms. So it's this paradoxical condition of surrendering the form but insisting upon or realizing the specific and beautiful and individual purpose that is mine. But here something has happened in which she has joined together with him. That His purpose should be realized.                 So we saw this last time, and it was the beginning of the emergence of David in the dudaim. It has to do with the next child she has. In terms of the process we have been watching with Leah, it almost looks like Zevulun is a regression. How? Because next, she has the sixth child. Vatahar Leah, v'teled ben shishi l'Yaakov. Who is the sixth child? Vatomer Leah, zvadani elohim oti zeve tov, G-d's giving me a good portion. Hapaam yizbeleini ishi. So now my husband is yizbeleini, Rashi says, now my husband is a home, a beit zvul, a castle, palace. Now my husband and me are a palace. Rashi says, yizbeleini is lashon beit zvul, mador. A place to live. That's the dirah of tachtonim. What does that mean? Initially when we look at this, we're wondering Does he love, me, does he love me not? At the beginning of her calling her children their names, it was all about is he with me, is he not with me? Then she left that and Yehudah and Yisachar are beyond that, and then she's wondering about him again? No. But it's not she's only in her self, nor is she concerned being with him, it's this whole new thing now. There's a dirah, a place of dwelling that has now emerged by virtue of Zevulun's coming into the world. That's something else. When a couple, in their togetherness are something which is beyond the two of them, that's beit mador. Beit zvul. When the couple is indefinable. When you talk about the home of this couple, so there's a way to look at it, and it's occupied by him and by her, there's the mother and the father, but then there's the home. There's not a new element, nothing's been added, it's still the same two people, but it's an entity that's something else, it's the picture of the whole.  This is what happens at the end of this process that we've been following, that's the beit mador. Now there's going to be a home. That's Zevulun, the end of her giving birth.                  If you look in the Chumash, the way the machaneh is built (the encampment around the mishkan) so on the front end are Yehudah, Yisachar, and Zevulun. And the reason is because Yisachar and Zevulun are expressions or elements of what Yehudah is because the real malchut has both elements: I have given myself and only in that is there sachar; and it is not just a conglomerate of individual elements, but rather, this is a dwelling place. This is the kingdom of a couple, of a people, of humanity, reality, the entire cosmos, which is the kingdom of G-d. And it's a kingdom because all of the individual elements are within a greater whole, which is defined by being this kingdom. That's what a malchut is. It's the speaking of the twenty-six, meaning, shem havayah, kaf vav, and mem lamed taf, milat, the speaking. G-d's presence has become a word, which means to say that it has become an expression and a manifestion, just  like a word is. You can't pick a word apart into its letters and expect to have anything left of the word. But a word is nothing more than the conglomeration of its individual letters, isn't it? I mean, it's just a bunch of letters, right? If you really want to know what's in the word, then start picking it apart, the way a scientist will start analyzing and dissecting different pieces and parts of, let's say a butterfly. There's the entrails, and there's these little fuzzy things, that's all the butterfly is, isn't it? And if you dissected it all and put it on a slide, you have it now, you can enlarge it, and you can see all of the elements, and now we're really finding out what a butterfly is. And if we can enlarge it more in a deeper picture, then we'll really, really know what a butterfly is. It's exacly in a sense, the opposite direction of finding out what a butterfly is. Because a butterfly can only be known, not only by seeing its whole, but by seeing it in context of the flowers, and seeing it flying from place to place, and a beautiful springtime afternoon, and of lovers in the field, and of children frolicking. What is a butterfly? Is a butterfly not all of that, too? You'd never draw a butterfuly--if you're really drawing one— without the sun shining, and flowers blossoming in the background, and maybe some children and a couple of bees buzzing around. That's a butterfly. No! A butterfly, if you just dissect it, you'll find out what a butterfly is. So who's right? So, clearly, you can find out what a butterfly is by dissecting it, but you're finding out the elements of what makes a butterfly, but a butterfly is what I just described. The truth is, then a butterfly is really only—what is it? What did I add when I put together all the pieces of a butterfly, and make it into a butterfly? What did I add? Nothing. It's just the same pieces that were there when it was dissected on the slide. And I didn't really add anything when I put it into the background; all these things were there before. But the wholeness of that vision becomes the picture that really is what a butterfly is.  I have to be careful about how I use the word "really." But I've added nothing else. That adding nothing else is the beit mador. Now it's the home. What was just added was just a bunch of kids before, and the mom and dad and did something get added here? Yeah, it became a word. G-d became a word, so to speak, yud key vav key became a word, it became a number.  This is why gematria is so important. When it becomes a number, then you can't divide it up any more. It's just this one entity.  That's malchut, the realization of dirah batachtonim. But people make mistakes sometimes. People think that dirah batachtonim means that I'm the empty vessel and He's in it. No. Dirah batachtonim means I'm making a dirah and He's in it.  What does it mean to make a dwelling place? That there is something in the connection between me and Him, in the realization of all of this together, which is its own reality. And only by virtue of its unification. That is where now things have arrived for Leah in her relation with Yisrael, and that is why she is done giving birth when that happens, because that process is over. She has become the lamed vav, the lo, the e'eseh lo, complete belonging together in something  which is this transcendence of the particular elements that compose the composite reality that is the beit mador.                 This is very crucial to realize—the trivialization of what malchut is in terms of our relationship with G-d because it's not something different. It's the same kind of a thing in which it's not Him or us, and we're not standing separate, but we form the malchut, which is HaKadosh Baruch Hu's reflection and manifestation into reality.                 This is David. David, who is born out of the dudaim. David, who is born out of Yehudah. It shouldn't confuse you—Yisachar, David? He comes from Yehudah, Because Yehudah comes together with Yisachar and Zevulun. It's part of his camp. You can't have Yehudah without Yisachar and Zevulun, in terms of there being a giving up of self in order that there be sachar. And also a realization in the overarching picture of what it is, which is no added element but is the overall picture of what is. And that is David, and that's why, in the end, David, is also the dod, the dodim, the lover, which is where very true love is realized, when it's not something that I experience as me or you, it's where we're together in a picture. Using the word picture, because that's exactly how malchut is describe in Kabbalah. Malchut is described as a temunah, which directly derives from chochmah, wisdom, which is kneged vision, the first vision. The first vision then becomes realized then when all of those elements become incorporated into one picture. That's what I was referring to when I said Aba yasad barta, that father established daughter. First vision brings daughter—daughter being malchut—who is the feminine aspect, because in a sense she is an encasement, the holding of, an incorporating of all the elements into one entity.  So, I wouldn't exactly call it fleshing out, but rather abstracting some of the elements of what we've been looking at. In Chassidut, this is called a birur. Last time we were in the body with things and storyline, but I'm trying to give you access to the spiritual, transpersonal aspect of it. It's an irony, and I hope some of you hold the space, but the more it becomes abstracted and spiritualized, actually, then the more it becomes applicable to myriad applications. The more it's just particular, then it's just one particular story. But the more you abstract it, then the more you see that it's shayach, here, it's shayach here, it's shayach between me and my kids, it's shayach between me and  my husband, it's shayach between me and the rest of you in this classroom, it's shayach between me and the rest of humanity. This isn't just one story, this is a reality applicable to everything.  People say, Wow, that's really high! When you say, That's really high, you mean it's something which is beyond the specific. It's like when you're standing up on a mountain and you see the whole picture. And now you can say, I am going to see that reflected in and—now I am going to emphasize this part of it. (31:30) You have a high perpective. We use sort of a geographic location to talk about something which is intellectual, it's an abstraction. But that's the point, that's how we experience high things, low things. Look, low things are right here (demonstrating). So high things would be applicable to myriad applications. That's why it's so important for us to gain access to this in the Torah,  otherwise the Torah just becomes a storybook, and then you get all sorts of crazy contortions of how to read it and what to do with it—it becomes historicized and irrelevant, etc. (sic) I say this specifically in the context of Yisachar, because the Rabbis say he becomes the father of yodei haitim: Bnei Yisachar yodei haitim, the children of Yisachar are the ones who know the times. Those are the rabbis. True Rabbis know the times. What does it mean to be a real talmid chacham who knows the times? He knows how to apply things to varying times. He is aware and conscious of shifting times. Changing times. People who stay stuck in times as it was, so they can't really have anything relevant to say, so then everyone, they'll try to push you or force you into some previous mode when G-d's moved time on already.  If you belong to the world of Yisachar who has been born of Leah's having given herself up, it's not about me, let me touch what is right now, then I can become yodei haitim. That's a verse in Divrei Hayamim. Bnei Yisachar yodei haitim, which the Chachamim say, yeah, that's the Talmidei Chachamim. Now I can touch what really is, I can touch the eyt, I can touch the time. It's not about my thing. But weren't you just talking about your personal vision, your own voice? Yes, of course I am. But how is it that your own voice comes to expression if what you're doing is you're giving yourself up to the higher reality? Gee, I don't know. I can't answer that question in a dichotomous thinking, it's a paradox.  It's like people say, it depends on the place you're coming from. For me to give up my own voice in this reality means to give up the voice that is meant to be in this reality. So it would mean giving up the reality that I'm committing myself to. In other words, if I'm committing myself to G-d's purpose and the realization in this world, so I'm giving myself up to that. That's marvelous, but you're missing in the picture. I thought you were committed to G-d's realization and manifestation in the world. That's right, so I'm giving myself up, so I'm selfless now. Selfless? Well, that's too bad because your self was supposed to be part of that reality. Ok, so I'm going to be involved in my own self. So then I'm forgetting about the whole of reality and all of G-d's creation. So? Well, but I wanted to be committed to that. Okay. So then be committed to that. Okay, so I'm giving myself up. So, what do you want me to do? Which way to go? It's a paradoxical condition which I think people experience. Like there's a flow of personal realization, a flow of personal joyous creativity of "this is what I'm bringing to the world." When it's pure, that's the way it always comes down. Then you start taking it for yourslef and you think, it's about me, and my own etc. It's garbage, it's junk already, it's lost,  and then you become an idealog(?), and you have this idea that you're trying to promote, then you lose yodei haitim, you can no longer be related to what's here and now in the changing times because you've become convinced that only what I bring is what needs to be brought. So then you've lost it, and you go back. So it's an ongoing oscillation between these visions and realizations, but oscillation is what produces right consciousness.  That's the oscillation of going up and down the ladder. That's the oscillation that produces Leah's coming into her personal realizatoin and it being expressed through hod and hodaya which then comes down into its two elements of Yisachar and Zevulun. There's a sachar to this. There's a personal reward involved in this which comes by virtue of my having resigned myself and surrendered myself and there's a consciousness of "this is a picture that I'm a part of," which is called Zevulun. There's a big mador. So now we've built this house together. So that's the dirah batachtonim where G-d says atah, elokah batachtonim, that's the dirah batachtonim. It's only when it has that real combination of my manifestation in the picture which is the one which is beyond the specifics of who are the members in the picture.                 If I'm saying things that on an intellectual level don't make sense, that's fine. It's a state of being, and it's a difficult thing to divvy out. And the only way it becomes divvied out is through the two additional children. They can like show you this. So, this becomes the world of David, because the king really has to have that. And David's most powerful and beautiful thing which the Rabbis teach us about David Hamelech—it's important to note that there are some important Chamamim that say things more overtly. This is a picture of Hillel Hazakeyn, one of the teachers of Torah she b'al peh—he has to do with hod because l'hodot ul'halel, remember we're talking on Chanukah, hilul, Hillel, is the one who's dancing in simchah at the Simchat Beit Hashoevah, the Water-Drawing Festival. He says, Im ani kan, hakol kan. If I am here, everything is here. That's Hillel. If you remember, Hillel is the one who said, When you're dancing in front of the kallah,  say kallah na v'chasudah, because of course she finds chen in her husband's eyes, and who needs to be pulled together. (I really see why this needs to be a book! [sic.]) But the point is, saying Im ani kan, hakol kan, is a reflection of that and in the Kabbalah, it says that he was experiencing malchut, he was experiencing the Shechinah. Chazal say that the Shechinah was present at the Simchat Beit Hashoevah. The Shechinah is most present when there is joy. Because joy is the experience of the flow of His presence. That's when the Shechinah is there. And that's why Hillel the Zakeyn says, Im ani kan hakol kan. If there is a real realization of ani, then hakol which is a reference to malchut, hakol is here. Everything is here. I am not standing apart from there. I am not standing apart from reality observing it. It's all right here. But all will only be here if I am truly me. Now try go living that.                 There is beautiful passage in Orot Hakodesh by Rav Kook in which he brings from Yechezkel HaNavi standing somewhere in Babylon by a river called Nahar Kvar. He says V'ani b'toch hagola. I am in the exile. He says the following: It's a beautiful passage and it deserves its own teaching. He says, Ani b'toch hagola that the Navi is saying, is reflecting the greatest abomination, when the I goes into exile. This is both personal and kabbalistic, because ani is the name for malchut. So when the I goes into galut, and describes how this has happened over the course of time and how things descended into the condition that the I has gone into Galut. And it all begins with Yechezkiel standing on Nahar Kvar. It's the simplest thing. Nahar Kvar is the absolute opposite of being yodeya haitim. Because Nahar Kvar literally means the River of Wasness. That's the River of Babylon. The deep thing about the River of Wasness is exactly that non-dynamic aspect of selfhood which happens when you separate yourself out from the all. I'll tell you exactly what I mean by that. What happens when a person gets stuck in the past, and is all about shorring up and establishing and consolidating everything of the past, now it's going to be solid. This is me. I've got it. Finally I've got it. This is me. If your experience of this is what you have been in the past, everything you've come to, then you have it like, I'm stopping here. Now everything else is going to be around what I am. So the ani goes into galut. The ani goes into exile. Why? Because the ani is always  a dynamic. Why is it a dynamic? Of course it's a dynamic. Even once you've become aware of all the things you've done up until now, and even though you've done work in establishing and realizing what your purpose is. That's all great and crucial work, now it's become clear. But as soon as you're done you say, Now I've got it, Now I know exactly who I am now, your ani is in dynamic, because your ani is always a dynamic of everything that's happening right now.  It's got to be . This is why the Chachamim say that Yaakov couldn't come back to Eretz Yisrael because he was just a fire. And he needed Yosef who was the flame. But I want to put aside now the question of Yosef as the flame—that's its own thing.  But Yaakov is a fire. Yaakov, by the way, is malchut ila'ah. In the kabbalah, malchut is tiferet, Yaakov, the lower malchut is David. And in the middle you have this flame who is Yosef, the yesod. He's a fire. What does it mean to be a fire, which by the way becomes most manifest in hod, which is the fire midah. You can't be yesterday's fire— "I am going to be yesterday's fire." Fire is always something which is burning right now. As soon as it becomes yesterday's fire, it's not fire anymore.  Let's get a snap on that fire, and freeze! Freeze? Well, that's the opposite of fire, isn't it? People do this, and I totally understand why. This is it, I got myself, I know exactly who I am, could you leave me alone with self reflection and contemptaion, in thinking, and self-awareness? Thinking, Okay, are you done? Now you're finished, now you are who you are, now be that. That's a falsehood. That's when you try to separate it out from what's real and right now. That's Nahar Kvar. That's, in a sense, the life project of Pharoah, who is the king of Mizraim, the king of the very first place of galut, who, like, li ori v'ani asitani. I have made myself, which is also a statement that Yechezkiel Hanavi says about Pharoah. Pharoah declares, The river is mine, li ori, vani asitani, and I have made myself. Interesting. He is a man who basically is the source for Nahar Kvar. The river is mine, I own it, I posees it. I possess Moshe. (inaud. 47:45) Vani asitani, I have made myself, I am done. The project has been finished, it's complete. Fantasti, you're amazing, and he'll be the greatest dictator ever that could be imagined. And that's all you could be, is a dictator who rules over it all and is always trying to keep it under control that it should never counterveil or contradict what I have realized to be myself. That's the biggest lie. That's why at the end of kriyat shema we say the most amazing thing. It makes you shudder to finish kriyat shema. Because at the end of kriyat shema we say Ani hashem elokeichem asher hotzeiti etchem m'eretz mitzrayim lihiyot lahem elohim I am G-d who's taking you out of Mitzrayim that I should be your G-d. Ani hashem elokeichem. And this is how Rav Kook ends that passage. What exacly are we saying when we say Ani hasehm elokeichem? I am the L-rd your G-d. Who is speaking there saying, I am the L-rd your G-d? (49:15) But inasmuch as G-d dynamically always reflects His reality in creation the greatest port through which He manifests that is going to be the Ani of the dynamic person who is now in movement, in an ongoing movement of a changing reality. Only that will be G-d right now. What else could be G-d right now? What was G-d yesterday? And the yodei haitim, the ones who know the times, the bnei Yisachar, who know the reward, what the yesh sachar, and the pleasures of what is real, present and current—they are the only ones who can produce Torah which is appropriate to being psak halachah and speak to people in a way that's real for them. That's what Hillel is saying, ani kan—that's why Hillel, by the way, is a lashon of fire—(inaud-v'hillo ner? (50:28) we saw hilul is a language of fire, od glow. So there he is glowing in the Beit Hamidrash, dancing, on fire, the Rabbis say they would toss around firey torches at the Simchat Beit Hashoevah. Im ani kan, hakol kan. If I am here, then Shechina is here. Why is Shechina hakol? Because it's everything which is right now. And only that is what would be real to say about me, that I am me, I am ani.                  So this becomes the ani, becomes the world of malchut but only when it's a cleanly and clearly realization of a expression and manifestation of a porthole of G-d is what ani kan hakol kan. And I want to tell you a beautiful thing. Standing on Nahar Kvar, standing at this River of Babylon of what was. So there are different experiences that people have when they're standing on a riverside. Most people relate to rivers as time; it's a flow. Some people relate to rivers all the time that's gone by. Some people relate to the time that 's going to be. It might have to do with your age. But for whom the river is what was, those are the ones who stand in Galut. At Yom Kipper, there's one other place that this word eyt, which becomes very prevelant in Kohelet, for reasons we won't get into now, but this word et yodei haitim becomes prominent in Yom Kippur, because the man who, the lo b'chol eyt, yavo al ha kodesh, if you look at the word at the beginning of parshat acharei mot which describes the avodah of Yom Kippur, so you'll see that there's a lot of talk about et there. Ayin taf, times, and there are twenty-eight times, there's an eyt for this, an eyt for that. So, on Yom Kippur there's a person who takes the se hazazel out to the midbar, the desert, he takes the scapegoat out to the desert and he's called the ish iti. And there are different explanations of what that means to be an ish iti. What's an ish iti and why is he the relevant person to be doing this? Literally it means He is a man of the time. That's exactly it because true atonement and release from the past which binds us can only happen when a person is able to be now in this moment. That's why he's the ish iti. It's the simple pshat. He's the time man or the timely man, relating completely to the time. It's a crazy thing, but that's why we say Kol Nidre at the beginning of Yom Kippur. The reason in your machzor that it says we say Kol Nidre is that once upon a time there were these marranos. And these marranos had to hide out, when they came to shul, and they would have to be absolved from oaths that they would take from accepting Catholicism. And then we have to ask for permission to be mitpalel with the avar yanim, to pray with the sinners, the transgressers, a great historical stuff, put it on a shelf in a library. But that's not why we're really saying Kol Nidre. It's like how the history brought it about why we should say Kol Nidre at the beginning of Yom Kippur. But the truth is that you need to be matir your neder at the beginning of Yom Kippur, because I am now enetering into complete presence. I cannot be bound by the oaths I've taken. It's as simple as that. And we ask G-d for a heter that we should pray with the avar yanim. It's so funny because avar yan in Hebrew means a transgressor, and a past-er. An avar yan is someone who is in the past. Those are the sinners. Because they cannot comes loose from what has to be now and always being dragged by and controlled by and determined by what has been.                 So this brings us down into a world of real malchut and a place of real loving.  Why? Because love always has to do with relating in truth with what is. You could never love what is not. You could only love what is. And always has to be present. And that becomes dod, the David, who has all this. This is why—and maybe we'll end with this—ironically, David wasn't meant to live. Because malchut cannot be its own thing, it can only be in the context of all. The midrash says, David was not supposed to live.  Adam Harishom was being shown all the different generations, the midrash says. So he's going through them. He's impressed by this, and this, and he comes to David. He says, Wow, who is this man? That's David, the lover. How long is he going to live? So G-d says, he's not going to live at all. What do you mena he's not going to live? Well, he's going to be stillborn. That's what the midrash says, So Adam says, not going to live at all? That can't be! Don't let that be! So G-d says, What do you want to do about it? Adam Harishon says, I'll give him some of my life. How much do you want to give him? I'll give him seventy years. Seven is kneged the malchut. That's why Adam Harishon only lives nine hundred and thirty years, when he was supposed to have lived a thousand. Elef shanim b'einecha ki yom etmol, A thousand years in Your eyes are like yesterday. Tehillim syas, Who is that referring to? To Adam Harishon, who is supposed to live a thousand years. But that is if you're supposed to live yesterday, ki yom etmol. But if you live in the present, David emerges with his seventy years. And he is able to be that because only he is nothing of his own, and he is everything together. But by being the specific person that he is. And don't try to understand that. Because you can't. Just like it was impossible for David to come into the world.—it was a physical impossibilty for the world to contain David Hamelech, for him to be born. He was stillborn. Because he is nothing of his own. He is everything all at once. That's David, that's real love . That's yodeya itim, That's to be one who's really so present and so real to what is that he can say, Ani hashem elokeichem emet, this is true only this is true.  I don't know what to do with this, all you can do is sing,  which is why he becomes the Anim zmirot yisrael, he just sings, and longs for, but sings—it's a vibration because a song is a vibration. He's just vibrating back and forth with this reality and then he becomes the singer. And then all of reality becomes like a resonance of his presence. This is so deep, that ultimately only that can become the tikkun for the moon that complained, we can both use the same crown?  Yes, of course we can both use the same crown if our realization is this being a big dirah. This being a big home, Who's giving and who's taking, you're not looking at who's giving and who's taking, when it's a home—that's stupid! You're in a reality that's far beyond that right now. That's why at kiddush hachodesh we're saying David melech yisrael chai v'kayam, and we're celebrating the re-emergence of the moon, and that possibility for that realization of that kind of a wholeness which is what the moon lost at her first complaint.  Because only through David Hamalech's consciousness, who holds it all—im ani kan, hakol kan—will you ever overcome this contestual foolishness at like, you can't have two lights, holding one keter. Yes, you can, if it's really one keter. It's the keter of the malchut, It's the higher supernal consciousness that has both specific and all and only Him at once.  It's a peleh and the (inaud. 1:01:28) says, there's nothing except to meditate that kind of consciousness. Nothing except to vibrate that. It's not an enunciated, delineable expression. It's only a song. It becomes the shir pashut which the kabbalah says, there'a shir pashut and a shir m'chupal and a shir meshulash, there's a single song and a double song and a triple song, this is the single song. Yisrael is yashar or yasor, he will sing kel. He will be singing G-d. That's David, just singing G-d. But he's singing and dancing, and he loses it when he's dancing for the mishkan he's losing it, and he says to Michal, who is kelim, and who's trying to contain it all, I'll make myself even more disgraceful and dance even more, it's got to be alive and real, actual and present, if it's going to be anything that is expressed the truth of his love, That is the dod which is david, and it eventually becomes in Shir Hashirim, ani l'dodi and dodi li. And I am for David, and David is for me, I am for my lover and my lover is for me. In which all of that delineation and distinction disappears into the rapture of the presence of G-d. And the realization that it is only through the particular voice which is the one who he is gifted with, that His presence will be song. Eventually Rachel touches that. That's why it says, Mi ikolech mi bechi. V'einayich min dima. You stop your voice from crying and your eyes from tearing ki yesh sahcar l'peulatech. Becaues there is yesh sachar, that's yisachar. L'peulatech. That's its own story, the story of Rachel. But David is the continuation of Yehudah, the dalet of Yehudah into its realization of the perfect lover. And gives us all access to love through his accomplishment, his realization. So today if I might summarize. Let me give you a brief summary.                 We followed through bringing some kind of completion to what we have been seeing of Yisrael and Leah, and we saw Yisrael, li rosh, in the consciousness of creation which comes to specific expression through a particular person, and of course Yisrael is the greatest expression of that, being bni bechori, being the child of G-d, his first born son, what he really wants for his planet, for his family, so to speak, and Leah for her completing of the process, making a beit mador, making a dwelling place, which is a reality which is beyond the particular specifics, it's the whole entity. And so when a marriage becomes a whole entity rather than two players. When the world becomes an entity rather than all these players, when man and G-d together become, so to speak, in the aspect of G-d which is reflected and expressed, not his deepest being, but the aspect of Himself that becomes expressed, when they become two players, then they become one together, so then that becomes the true dirah b'tachtonim, the real true dwelling place, and that becomes revealed eventually through David Hamelech and the malchut.                  This is what we're referring to when we say Shem yisrael hashem elokeinu hashem echad. When Yaakov came to give the brachot to his children, it says he wanted to reveal to them the end time, the ketz. And then it got blocked. So he started wondering, Maybe something is wrong with you people, that I can't reveal the ketz to you. You know what they say to him? Shema yisrael, Stop talking to us like Yaakov who only sees the struggle, the disparate parts. Shema yisrael, hashem elokeinu hashem echad. We know that there is one head to all this creation. We know that it's all one personality coming to realization and we know we're parts of that. Give us a bracha that we should be worthy parts of that. And let that be your revelation of the ketz, the end of time, when you give each of us a bracha that's appropriate to who we are, and pray that it should come its full manifestation and realization. Let that be your bracha. And that will be the ketz. Shema yisrael, Listen yisrael, not Yaakov, Hashem elokeinu, It's all one, it's only Him. And he says to that, baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam vaed. His name is blessed. And you know to whom His name is blessed is referring to? Each and every one fo you. That's his name. That's Baruch. That's the blessings he gives. Baruch shem keod malchuto leolam vaed. That's the blessings he gives, His malchut. Should be blessed forever through you in the unfolding expression and realization of His oneness. Can you live that? If you can live that then the ketz is right here. So then every time you say, Shema Yisrael, then you're saying, Yup, we're still the children of Yaakov struggling the path towards Yisrael, towards the realization of the shir el, the song of G-d, still singing it, we're still L-rding over elokim so to speak, the givens in referring to the consciousness of the purpose and vision of all of creation. The kets is here. You can hear it singing. Are there any questions? I've been walking with this visual--when you talked about Yaakov, everything he touched. The wake we leave behind us as we walk and it's a really powerful image because it brings so much consciousness to everything, the movement, I can't seet he energy necessarily, but let's say I'm walking in water. And the same is tue in walking in the air. So envisioning, what is the wake, how am I changing everything around me. So the song also brings a whole other elemen tto that, another level to that image. Very much. Yeah, it's like sympathetic vibration. I believe a lot that prayer is like that and that's why David is the great pray-er also. And he says, V'ani tefilah. He says about himself, my selfhood is prayer. And a lot of how prayer works—and this is also from Rav Kook—is through a sort of sympathetic vibration. You've shifted consciousness. And since your consciousness is part of all consciousness, so then when your consciousness shifts, so then everyone's consciousness shifts. Even if it's just a little bit, depending on how focused and precise you are, so it will become more or less impactful. Even on that level, prayer is never lost. Because you've shifted the consciousness of the planet which you are a part of. People look at iyun tefilah, Chazal say this, iyun tefilah tochelet v'moshechet machalat lev. An ongoing longing becomes a sickness of the heart. Chazal say, those are the people who it's a pasuk in mishleh, they are always seeking to see if their prayers have been realized. So they're heartsick.  The meaning of that is that's because they are looking in the wrong places. In other words, it's happening. It may not be happening as quickly, as overtly, or external as you want it to be happening. But it's happening. That's the type of iyun tefilah that Chachamim say is not an acceptable iyun tefilah, to be looking to see if it's happened. You got prayer wrong. You get the wrong idea about prayer. It has to do with it happening in the world, of course, but it also has to do with everything having to do with sympathetic vibration. Because my ani is now vibrating at a different tenor so then v'ani tefilah—so another pasuk that David says, v'ani tefilati lecha, et ratzon. That my ani is a tefliah to you in an et ratzon, in a moment of will, like a moment that we were talking about before. Like I am totally in contact with the will of this moment. I can only be contacted with the will of this moment If I am not completely bound by and distorted by my preconceptions and decisions and predeterminations of what ought to be right now. I can pray and talk to G-d about changing, growing, and moving this, but only if I am willing to see exactly what is right now and be in that and be real with that—that's v'ani tefliati lashem et ratzon. That's where my prayer is really yours, G-d, when it's in the eyt ratzon, when it's in the real timeliness of will, when I am totally connected to His will right now. Only then can I talk about impacting that, changing that moving that, shifting that. But if it's all about predetermined stuff, so then you're not aligned. And you might also be impacting things but it will be far less in the alignment in a way that it will be cause the vibration in the reality at large. Just like only Hillel can say im ani kan hakol kan. If myself is here, then all is here. If ani is not here, all is not here, can't be here.  That is really the Vayifga bamakom that we saw at the beginning of Yaakov as he began his journey, and it really was a journey, leaving Beer Sheva, going out, hitting the place, going to sleep, letting go, so then he could really be in the place, and then everything is there. All of a sudden everything in Eretz Yisrael is right there. That was Vayifga bamakom Vayishkav bamkom hahu Vayishkav, the Arizal says, Vayesh kaf bet. There is reality of these twenty-two letters, now form the words. Go to sleep and dream. Not as an escape but as a way to become real. Then he can go to a place called Charan. Which means anger. Charon af. He can go to the place which means anger. Anger is the ultimate emotive expression of disjointed non-alignment. Not accepting what is. I will not take this, I will not have this.  This is not the way I want it to be. YA! Charan! No! That is exactly the opposite of Vayifga bamakom. And all of that anger, which becomes total disconnected and total disalignment is where Yaakov needs to go to make his tikkun. And only by living through that and Lavan, and falsehood and lies, which create anger, which are primarily of the ani not being there present to, not being emet to, as in ani hashem elokeichem emet. Your ani can only be elokeichem when it's emet.  It's exactly what G-d is bringing you right now and sending you right now, so if you don't have that than you're just going to be angry. So Yaakov goes and becomes what he needs to become there. And only after that, only after you go through anger can you come to Eretz Yisrael. This by the way is why Moshe Rabbeinu lost Eretz Yisrael in anger, this the Maharal explains, that in hitting the rock and expressing anger there was a disalignment. And you can't go into Eretz Yisrael like that. Because Eretz Yisrael is Yis-ra-el, and needs to come through Cana'an, hachna'ah of what is, surrender, hoda'ah, acceptance of being whole will. Only from that can be born the tikkun which allows him to come back to Eretz Yisrael knowing what's meant to be with him, what's not meant to be with him, get the pachim ketanim, and then be able to face Esav and all that false reality and move ahead into all that we saw.   What about mourning? I don't think that takes a person out of the now. I hear what you're saying, A sorrow for what has been lost. There's a process in the grieving to go over— It should be noted that aveilut is not a time for simcha. Avelut is the opposite of simchah. There is a taking of hiatus from the presence of being, in that sense. I hear that.

Chapter 1 part 3

Para celebrar el Bar Mitzvá de Pi Elef Uri y Elo regresan a una historia talmúdica y se preguntan acerca del origen de la Torá. Juntos piensan donde se encuentra la palabra divina y en qué medida está se ve alterada por milenios de interpretaciones. Se trata de un episodio que sin duda, sembrará debates acerca de las costumbres tal y como las conocemos. ıllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllııllıllı Y este es el Horno de Ajnai. ¿Qué es Ajnai? Dijo Rabi Iehuda: Un Horno en el cual un insecto entra e impurifica. En ese mismo día Rabi Eliazar respondió todas las preguntas del mundo pero no las aceptaron. Y él les dijo: “Si la halaja es como yo digo que este algarrobo lo demuestre”. Se arrancó el algarrobo y se movió cien codos y hay quienes dicen que se movió 400 codos. Ellos le dijeron: "no traemos evidencia de un algarrobo". Y él dijo: “Si la halaja es como yo digo, que el agua me lo compruebe". Y el mar dio vuelta su curso. Y ellos dijeron: "No traemos evidencia del curso del agua". Él se volvió y les dijo: “Si la halaja es como yo digo que las paredes del Beit Hamidrash lo comprueben". Las paredes del Beit HaMidrash comenzaron a carse. Rabi Ioshua les gritó: “Si los estudiantes de la Halajá discuten entre ellos, ¿qué se meten ustedes? Las paredes se inclinaron pero no se cayeron por el honor de rabi Ioshua pero no se enderezaron por el honor de rabi Elieazar. Él se volvió y dijo: “Si la halaja es como yo digo que lo demuestre una voz del cielo". Y salió un batkol y dijo: “¿Por qué discuten ustedes si la halaja es como rabi Eleazar siempre?” Se paró Rabi Ioshua sobre sus piernas y dijo: “¡La Torá no se encuentra en los cielos!”. Y dijo Rabi Irmia: “Una vez que nos entregaste la Torá en el Sinai ya no nos valemos de un Batkol, ya que así escribiste en la Torá en el Monte Sinaí: a la mayoría debemos seguir (Shemot:23)”. Se enconró Rabi Natan con Eliahu y le preuntó: ¿Qué estaba haciendo Dios en ese momento? Le dijo: riendo y diciendo: “Mis hijos me han vencido, me han vencido.” Fuente: Talmud Babilónico, Baba Metzia 59b https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en #Mandato #Mitzvot #Torá #Talmud #Deberes #Conocimientos #Rabino #Rabinico #Judaísmo #JudaismoRabinico #Espiritualidad #Judío #Fe #Religión #Ley #Código #Conocimiento #Introspección

In this happy and optimistic letter for the New Year that Rabbi Baruch Shalom Ashlag wrote to his friends and students in the Beit Hamidrash for Rosh Hashanah, he teaches that the themes of Rosh Hashanah are actually advice the Sages are giving us in how to come closer to our Creator.

RESUME DU COURS : Nathan dit à David "puisque tu reconnais ta faute, tu ne mourras pas." Mais il faut aussi une réparation. Quand nous avons blessé quelqu’un, ou cassé quelque chose, même si la faute est pardonnée, il nous arrive des épreuves, des issourim. Car la faute, la parole ou l’action mauvaise, a fait entrer en nous des impuretés, a dégagé des énergies négatives et causé des destructions. Il faut nettoyer toutes les saletés qui ont été accumulées dans notre âme, réparer notre être, et ceux que nous avons abîmés autour de nous. Hachem a prévu cette purification : nous avons, enfouies en nous, des forces qui, si nous les déployons, sont purificatrices et vont nettoyer toutes les impuretés entrées en nous. Ces forces nouvelles que nous allons déployer seront, en nous, comme des eaux purificatrices. Nathan avait déjà annoncé à David quelle serait sa punition : "un mâle se lèvera de ta maison. Il prendra tes femmes devant tes yeux". Puis suivent 3 versets, et est ajouté : "sache que l’enfant de Bat Sheva va mourir." Hachem frappa le bébé de Bat Sheva, qui était dans un état désespéré. David pria pour sa guérison, et il jeûna. Il ne pouvait même plus se lever.... Au bout de 7 jours, l’enfant mourut... David se leva immédiatement, remit ses habits royaux, se rendit au Tabernacle pour se prosterner devant Hachem, puis rentra chez lui et demanda qu’on lui prépare un festin. "Tant que l’enfant était vivant, j’ai jeûné, j’ai pleuré, car je me disais : peut-être qu’Hachem va pardonner et l’enfant vivra. Maintenant qu’il est mort, à quoi cela servirait-il ? Après avoir mangé, il alla vers Bat Sheva, s’unit à elle et naquit un enfant qu’ils appelèrent Shlomo, que D. aima. Hachem envoya Nathan dire aux parents : cet enfant sera appelé "Yedida, l’amoureux de D., car c’est ce que D. veut." Pendant 9 mois, au Beit HaMidrash, tous avaient fait honte à David. Puis, quand l’enfant, à peine né, tomba malade et mourut, tout le peuple y vit la punition d’Hachem. Mais, si cette mort avait été une punition d’Hachem, David aurait dû être encore plus affligé après qu’avant, car cela aurait signifié qu’il n’était pas pardonné. Bat Sheva lui aurait été interdite. Et il n’aurait pas pu aller au Temple. Or, David fit tout le contraire ! Car Nathan avait déjà dit à David : tu es pardonné, et c’est seulement après qu’il ajouta : l’enfant mourra. Cette mort n’est donc pas une punition. David ne se sent pas coupable, et c’est pourquoi il va avec sa femme, car il sait qu'elle ne lui est pas interdite. Si D. avait voulu punir David, selon le principe "mida ké negued mida", ce n’est pas l’enfant qui serait mort, mais c’est David qui aurait été envoyé à la mort, comme il y avait envoyé Ouria. David ne se trompe jamais, dans l’interprétation de ce qui lui arrive. Il sait qu’il y a des épreuves qui sont une punition, onesh, et d’autres qui sont un tikoun, une réparation, et qui sont constructrices : Hachem veut permettre à l’homme de dévoiler des forces surhumaines, et d’atteindre un niveau qu’il n’aurait pu atteindre. Si l’épreuve qu’il subit l’abat et qu’il s’écroule, c’est qu’il s’agit d’une punition. Mais si c’est un tikoun, l’homme se lève immédiatement, et gagne. David sait qu’il n’a pas fauté. D. lui donne des tikounim, des épreuves, pour lui permettre d’atteindre le niveau d’être le père du Mashiah. Il mit au monde Shlomo, c’est-à-dire la lignée du Mashiah. Les épreuves de David sont toutes les douleurs de l’enfantement, pour mériter d’être les parents du Mashiah. Le Talmud dit même que la faute de David avec Bat Sheva a été voulue par Hachem. Hachem a envoyé dans David ce yetser hara de l’impatience, car il voulait qu’il faute, afin qu’il devienne, pour l’humanité entière, le modèle de la teshuva qui est toujours possible. David savait que, pour mériter d’être le père du Mashiah, il fallait s’élever à des niveaux surnaturels de compréhension des messages divins, et c’est pourquoi il devait traverser des situations inextricables. Dans un psaume, il dit "mon cœur est vide" (de yetser hara) et il comprend qu’il est entraîné dans un processus qui le dépasse et que c’est Hachem qui agit, en tout cela. En hébreu, le mot "nissayon", épreuve, signifie "élever". En effet, dans le Judaïsme, par l’épreuve, D. ne veut pas nous détruire et nous casser, mais nous élever, comme un père le fait pour son enfant. Tout le monde le comprit plus tard, quand Shlomo inaugura le Temple, et que les portes refusèrent de s’ouvrir. Shlomo dit "fais-le pour mon père David", et les portes s’ouvrirent. Tout Israël comprit que David n’avait jamais fauté. Et il est devenu pour tous "David mele’h Israël, ‘hai vékayam". Il est, pour l’éternité, le modèle unique de la perfection et du Mashiah, car il a tout traversé, dans le bien comme dans le mal, et il est toujours resté le guerrier d’Hachem.

An excerpt of the weekly Talmud study class, co-taught by Rabbi Josh Berkenwald of Congregation Sinai and Rabbi Simchah Green of the Beit HaMidrash. Here, Rabbi Berkenwald expounds on a range of... This is a summary only, visit http://www.hamidrash.org for more details! :)