A Hanukkah Address to Noahides

About a week ago, I was invited by a Noahide community in a distant country to give them a remote class via Zoom. I prepared to talk about the Oneness of God, figuring that it's a great Noahide topic. But the moment we connected online, the community members asked me to speak about Hanukkah.  

Their request caught me by surprise.  Largely because it was a personal challenge for me, as I typically think of Hanukkah in Jewish terms and was not sure that I could find a message in my heart which would apply to Noahides as well. So, we agreed that I would go on discussing my planned topic and to return to the topic of Hanukkah later on; though I was still unsure what I would say. 

Continuing on, I explained the Oneness of God in terms of the concepts expressed by Rabbi Bachya ibn Pequdah in his “Gate of Unity”. Then I touched slightly on concepts expressed by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi in his “Gate of Unity and Faith”. I merely touched on the latter and didn't overly elaborate on the concepts because I felt that they may have been too deep to get across in one sitting and certainly, with a translator struggling along to convey the ideas. Also, it seems to me that knowing Rabbi Bachya ibn Pequda teachings on monotheism alone, already makes a person into a “kosher” monotheist; without needing to delve conceptually deeper. 

When I completed my discussion of God’s Oneness concept, suddenly before I knew what I said, a Hanukkah concept I had studied earlier that day from the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, just popped my mouth in a way which was perfectly suited for Noahides.  

The Lubavitcher Rebbe taught that the Hellenists harbored a deep appreciation for philosophy and culture. Therefore, they tended to leave local wisdoms and cultures intact with an eye towards incorporating them into a larger Hellenic framework. Their seemingly even handed approach was applied to Judaism as well. They adored Jewish wisdom and culture, so long as they can get the Jewish devotion to God out of the way; meaning, the Hellinists were irked by the idea that ultimately a Jew practices Judaism not because it’s intelligent or culturally expressive, but because of what God commands. 

This applies to Noahides as well. There are lots of people in the wider world who technically can be said to unknowingly practice some or even all the Noahide commandments because they believe that it’s intelligent and the finer way to be. Thank God that there are such people. Certainly, the world is a safer place and maybe even a kinder place because of them. However commendable this may be, broadly speaking, they are still not really practicing out of a conviction that God commanded them to and are therefore, missing the main point which truly connects their practice with God. 

Just as a Jew celebrates on Hanukkah that s/he’s practicing Judaism firstly and primarily because the “mitzvahs” are God’s commandments, so too a Noahide can celebrate the same for his or her “mitzvahs”.  A “mitzvah” is a “mitzvah”! In this sense, what difference does a number make, whether it’s seven or 613?

************************************

An Afterthought: 

In Chabad thought, it’s taught that the beauty of a “mitzvah” is that it offers connection without requiring parity. 

Usually, when two entities bond there must be some parity; namely, a significant area of overlap upon which the bonding can occur. For example, with a teacher and a close student, even if the teacher is far more educated than the student, they share much in common: their humanness, academic interests, likely common life experiences, etc. 

When it comes to the relationship between humans and God, there is no parity; hence, no automatic relational bonding. God’s absolutely Infinite and humans are finite. Compared to Him, even the highest of spiritual realms, let alone their resident souls and angels, are finite and share nothing at all in common with Him. If so, how is any true contact made?

The answer is via “mitzvahs”, commandments. Carrying out a command requires no parity. The Infinite One commands. The finite being carries it out. And despite the unbridgeable disparity, in that moment the two have connected. Thus, “mitzvahs” become the relational solution for the disparity.

In fact and perhaps surprising, the Torah turns certain human states of heart and behaviors, into “mitzvahs”, even though they naturally occur in human relationships without ever needing to be commanded. Examples of these can include: loving God, revering Him, imitating His ways, praising Him, thanking Him, etc. Why does the Torah turn these beautiful, sweet and often spontaneous feelings and gestures into commandments? 

It’s likely because with humans love, reverence, imitation, praise and thanks can build relational bonds; but, only because there’s parity between them.   

In truth, since there is no such parity with God, in order for such human feelings and efforts to form a relationship with God, they must first be turned into “mitzvahs”. Only as “mitzvahs” can they ascend to attain their desired goal of bonding with God; as “mitzvahs” are the only vehicle which bond beyond disparity.

(This also clarifies why a “mitzvah” is more potent when performed by the one who is commanded than by a well intentioned volunteer.)  

The special bond with God which “mitzvahs” afford is truly a cause for celebration. Hanukkah celebrates that this bond was preserved against severe pressure from the Hellenic cultures of the time (and in future generations as well). It’s a celebration which Noahides can also share in. As they too were given “mitzvahs” by the Creator; seven, sub-divided into many, direct means to access and connect with Him. 

------------------------O------------------------ 

Think ...

Stop!

Before you address Me,

Think about...

- How many angels can dance on a pinhead?

- What does it mean that I am One?

- What does it mean that I am Infinite? 

- What does all this mean to you?

Now let's talk...

---------------O---------------

Shhhh...Patience...Please

It can take many moons,
  To reflect the light of a single sun.

It can take many lifetimes, 
  To reflect the light of a single soul.

It can take many life stages,
  To reflect a single spark of soul.

It can take many books,
  To reflect the core idea of an author. 

Please do not lose patience, 
  With the protracted pace of your life,

For it's all a reflection,
  Of the higher unto the lower,

The Infinite unto the finite,
  The Single unto the multiple.

To Illuminate what's nether,
  Requires time,  often lots of time. 

---------❤---------

Flashes of the Divine Thought

The universe is immersed,
  In a Divine thought,

For it is less than
  Even a single Divine thought;

Not less fractionally, 
  But less in an ineffable sense.

What's at core a thought, 
  Seamless, Whole n' Infinite, 

Is caught by pieces,
  Of a fragmented world.

Imagine a picture,
  Projected on shreds of screen.

Fundamentally,
  The picture's whole, 

What's fragmented, 
  Is the screen. 

So too Divine thought,
  Remains undivided.

Yet, its manifest flashes,
  Provide a basis to appreciate. 

Appreciate that ...
  All you see, hear, taste, smell n' feel 

Are solidified flashes
  Of the Infinite Divine thought. 

Appreciate that ...
  All you read n' hear of Torah,

Are verbalized flashes,
  Of the self-same Divine thought.

Though a flash is not,
  The entirety of Divine brilliance,

It's still a precious drop,
  A derivative of the Infinite beyond.

-------------◇-------------

~ Dedicated to my daughter "See Em" in honor of her brilliant question which inspired the outpouring of this poem.

Light Alive!

I can't imagine human consciousness evolving into spiritual enlightenment if we continue to think of light as a mere amalgam of seven colors. That's just the tail end of light, as it dips into physical reality. To think of light this way is sillier than for a microbe living in a shoe to think that a human being is a foot. 

-----------------O----------------

One’s Where One’s Mind Is At

When I was 17-18 years old, I spent about eight months attending lectures at what was then called, “The Research Centre of Kabbalah”. When it was time to leave and my journey took me to spend some of spring/summer of 1986 studying at Lubavitch Yeshiva at Morristown, NJ. 

On by first night in Morristown Yeshiva, I schmoozed with one of the Rabbis about my interest in meditation and using it as a technique for spiritual connection. He attempted to relate to my interest by responding with a story about a Rabbi who spent six hours lost in deep contemplation. Needless to say, I felt a disconnect. I was talking about meditation and it seemed to me that he was talking about academics. As a college student, I too had long periods of study where my mind was engaged in a topic for hours at a time. However, that is not what I meant by meditation. That was an academic effort, not a spiritual exercise. This left me with the impression that Lubavitchers do an academic exercise, which they confuse with meditation. However, I kept an open mind and over time encountered other Lubavitch spiritual teachings and which truly impressed me. As a result, I viewed Lubavitch as a very useful resource for mystical philosophy, but not for meditation. 

Instead, I turned for meditative instruction to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s “Jewish Meditation - A Practical Guide”, a book which lays out a variety of traditional Jewish meditative practices. The one which spoke most to me was Rebbe Nachman’s technique, which is to have a daily conversation with God. What I loved about this particular technique was that it afforded me an opportunity to be intimate with God no matter what I was thinking and feeling at the moment, as any psychological state can become subject matter for conversation. Over time, I noticed that sometimes I was so deep into the meditation that it was difficult for me to move my lips. Continuing the conversation in my mind alone flowed smoother. 

In the summer of 1998, I met with Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, a well known Lubavitch Kabbalist. He shared with me that the students of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Alter Rebbe, were regulars at engaging in long conversations with God, just as Rebbe Nachman taught. The only difference was that they carried on the conversations in their minds alone and avoided oral expression. I was literally floored, wowed, that the Alter Rebbe’s followers practiced a meditative style which mirrored the style my meditations were growing into their own.

Shortly, afterwards it dawned on me that in instances where the conversation occurs mentally, there actually might be a very fine line between being in conversation with God and being in contemplation with God. If deep enough, it seemed to me that there’s actually no line at all and they’re the same. This was my eureka moment! I came full circle to appreciate the Lubavitch style of meditation. I realized that what the Rabbi that first night in Morristown Yeshiva was referring to was not simply a contemplation which can occur through any academic effort. Rather, it was a contemplation with God, the kind which was likely becoming my meditative norm. 

*******************************

While still at “The Research Centre of Kabbalah”, I learned that the Baal Shem Tov taught that “one is where one’s mind is at”. Based on this, it was explained that if one concentrates strongly on a location, one can mind travel there and possibly even see what’s occurring there. Of course, we encouraged to be careful not to abuse this technique to enjoy touring around; but rather, to reserve it for visiting holy sites to enhance our prayers and/or meditations. 

“One is where one’s mind is at” fits in beautifully with Rabbi Ashlag’s teachings about how space, closeness and distance, works between two spiritual entities. Entities which have a lot in common are close and those with less in common are more distance. Not surprising it’s a lot like psychological closeness and distance between people. Since the mind is a spiritual entity, it can move about, becoming close or distant, based on this very principle. By strongly focusing on a place the mind can form a “similarity bond” and be there. 

When I was at The Research Centre I knew of this closeness/distance principle, but I had not connected the dots. Only recently it dawned on me that mind travel could be logically traced to Ashlagian principles of closeness and distance. At the time, I just accepted the technique intuitively because it followed the pattern of many other spiritual techniques which require deep states of concentration to form spiritual connections.

In the past month, a few decades later, something just clicked. Maybe, recent study of Rabbi Ashlag’s work with an authentic teacher helped bring me to this awareness. If “one’s where one’s mind is at” then what is the difference if one deeply concentrates on a place or on an idea? If one contemplates philosophical notions of God’s Oneness hasn’t one brought his or her mind there and created a “similarity bond” with what’s deeply spiritual? Besides, the realm of ideas exists in a more spiritual state than physical locations do. This very recent realization has helped me appreciate the beauty of Lubavitch contemplative meditation on a whole new level.  

Of course, this leaves open the question of then what spiritually occurs when one studies academics? The answer is in Tanya. Since the mind is a spiritual entity, there is no such a thing as mental activity which is non-spiritual. The deeper one concentrates the mind on a topic the more one spiritually bonds with the realm it exists on. This is why Torah Law directs one to focus one’s secular studies towards one of the three goals: either to more deeply understand Torah concepts, to understand how to perform good deeds or to earn a livelihood. The idea is that in secular studies the mind will travel to less than holy spiritual realms. There’s no way around that. However, through Torah study, performing good deeds or earning a livelihood, one can re-attach the knowledge or at least its fruits to the realms of holiness, when whence it primordially originated, many [st]ages ago. 

---------------------------------O---------------------------------

Compassionate and Full of Grace

I have wondered why our sages explained the Mitzvah "to cleave to God" as asking us to imitate specific divine attributes; namely, the ones emphasizing God’s love, kindness and giving. For example, just as He is compassionate, so too you be compassionate and just as He is filled with grace, so too you be filled with grace. 

The list of divine attributes which are available for imitation is actually much broader than the two recommended. For example, it could be said that as He is wealthy, so too should you be wealthy or as He metes out justice, so too you should mete out justice. So, why did our sages choose compassion and grace as the main attributes we are supposed to focus on imitating?

Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ashlag explained that since God created the world only because He wanted to "give", the creation of the whole world was really an act of love and kindness. Therefore, the attributes of compassion and grace express where He is coming from. They are His primary attributes.

Of course, whether divine or human,  any act of "giving" is a process. At times the journey between the heart of the giver and the hand of the recipient can be quite long. There can be many, many considerations and stages along the way. To aid with those considerations and stages, other  attributes also come into play; to act in secondary and supportive roles. 

However, our sages asked us to focus on being compassionate and filled with grace. This way we are imitating His primary attributes, as this is really the main way to imitate Him and thereby, draw ourselves closer to Him.

Every parent hopes his/her children will follow in his/her ways. There are ways which are core to a parent's identity and ways which are only present to support what's core. If the child primarily gravitates to and absorbs what is only secondary about the parent, the parent feels hurt. To one extent or another some level of dissonance has been introduced into their relationship. 

However, if the child primarily gravitates to and absorbs what is core to the parent's identity, their bond has been truly deepened. The parent and child share a deep resonance, so deep that words are too shallow to describe. When this happens, it almost doesn't matter too much if the child failed to pick up on what is secondary to the parent. 

Similarly, God is our Parent. He wants us to pick up on and absorb His primary attributes, what's core to His Identity. This is what He truly considers "imitating His ways". This is what draws us closest to Him! 

--------------------O-------------------

Luz Bone

Our sages teach that there is a special bone called a "Luz bone" which is indestructible, for never having taken nourishment from the fruit of the "tree of knowledge". Accordingly, God will use it in the future as the means to spark off the resurrection of the body.

There are Torah sources which identify the elusive "luz bone" as the vertebrae at the bottom of the spine (see "Ta'amei HaMinhagim"). The Ari z"l is quoted as teaching the opposite, that it's located at the top of the spine. To me this reads like two end points or poles which define a line. In this case, it defines the line we know of as the spinal cord.

In "Tal Orot", Rabbi Ya'akov Meir Shpielman explains that both parents produce "seed" (reproductive cells) which are enlivened by sparks drawn from the lower edge of the parents' own souls. These sparks originally reside in the mind/brain, the seat of the soul. They then travel down the spine to give life to each parents' "seed". 

At fertilization, the two sparks, one from each parent, merge to form a "starter soul" for the zygote. As development progresses, the fetus' own soul descends and the "starter soul" remains as a garment around it. This is likely the garment referred to in Tanya I, chapter 2, whose spiritual quality can be affected by the thoughts of the parents during the reproductive act.

So by identifying the  "luz bone" as indestructible and as somehow part of the spine, our sages might really be referring to the reproductive sparks within the spine, as they are sufficiently spiritual to be out of physical reach. Though we bury bodies is ways contemplated to ease their resurrection, sadly there were holy martyrs whose bodies were likely physically destroyed. Yet, even about them we say that their "luz bone" remains. Possibly, this supports the notion that it's not in physical reach. Interestingly, in Spanish "luz" means light, which can also be extended to mean spiritual light.

The idea of a non-physical "luz bone" works nicely with the Ramchal's teaching that before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they weren't physical as we know it. Rather, their version of physical is what we would consider spiritual (see "Da'at Tevunot"). Therefore, if there is a body part which wasn't nourished by the fruit, it's likely that it did not physicalize together with the rest of their bodies.  

If this understanding is correct, then in the future, the human body will be resurrected by its very own reproductive forces. Whether it will be from what's associated with the top of the spine or the bottom, might be a question of the person's own level of holiness. 

----------------O----------------

The Character of Space

Though space exists in the spiritual realms, it does in a way that is qualitatively different than physical space. Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag explained that it's closer to what we relate to as “psychological space”. Psychologically speaking, people who share similarities have the capacity to be close. Those who are dissimilar are considered distant. In that sense two people who live right next door might be considered distant, while two people who dwell on other ends of the globe might be considered close. The basis for this paradox is that spiritual space and physical space operate differently. Since psychology involves the human soul, it’s not surprising to discover that it echoes the spiritual version of space into the earthbound human experience.

When examining Rabbi Ashlag’s concept of how to understand spiritual space, one can wonder why it seems to serve as the law of closeness or distance for countless spiritual realms and then just one realm, our physical realm, suddenly has a different kind of distance and closeness. This exception seems very disproportionate to say the least.  

To appreciate the magnitude of this disproportion, consider why people are inclined to believe in the likelihood of life in outer space. Doesn’t it seem rather disproportionate that only one tiny speck alone in this vastness of billions, even trillions, of light years harbors life? So similarly, doesn’t it seem disproportionate that countless realms have one kind of law for distance and closeness, while just one realm alone out of so many is singled out as a unique exception to bear an entirely different law? What changed that makes distance and closeness in the physical realm different? 

To me, the answer to the question seems simple, more limitation. With more limited space there is not enough room for entities which are similar to bunch up and move out to their own corner nor is there enough room for entities which are dissimilar to move away, avoiding each other’s company. This does not indicate an absence of the tendency. Merely, it’s suppression to one extent or another. 

My example to describe this is to imagine a huge fishing freighter which casts a very wide net in the open seas. Initially, schools of fish which are caught in the net are likely unaware of their situation. The net is so wide and sparsely populated that each school swims in its own area of the net with its own kind - seeking similarity. Eventually, the net gets more and more crowded as more fish are caught. Plus, as hoisting time arrives the net is likely narrowed. During this period there’s less room for fish to keep to their own schools. The space becomes so limited that fish of different schools unavoidably get mixed up together.  

That’s how I understand how a more limited space works to force what’s dissimilar together and prevent what’s similar from bunching too exclusively into their own areas. Our physical realm, by God’s design, has reached a critical point of limitation where this occurs.

Of course this understanding about why space in the physical realm is suddenly different, does not really seem to address framework of space at all. It only addresses closeness and distance within space. What’s similar tends to draw close and what’s dissimilar seeks distance. However, such a concept does not automatically convey that the space within which closeness or distance occur have anything to do with similarity or dissimilarity. The space could be just a passive stage upon which the drama plays out. In that role, theoretically it could be utterly neutral and indifferent to the dynamic interplay of similarity and dissimilarity.

Is this true, could there be a way to understand space as a player in the similarity/dissimilarity dynamics as well? 

Besides the dynamics of similarity/dissimilarity, the framework of space exists differently in different realms. Each realm can be said to have its own character and consequent properties. The inhabitants of a particular kind of space must share in the character and properties of the kind of space they find themselves. In that sense they share a state of similarity with the fabric of space they inhabit.

For example, inhabitants of physical space must possess the character of physicality. Whereas, creatures that exist in a realm of space whose fabric is entirely emotional in nature, must also be composed of emotional fabric. Similarly, creatures that inhabit realms whose space is made of purely intellectual fabric must be of a pure intellectual character.  

So, beings of a particular realm share a similarity to the character of their unique kind of space. This similarity is what places them in their own realm and not in other realms. Thus, the realms themselves are players in the dynamics of similarity/dissimilarity; as entities can only exist in realms which match their characters and not in others which are of dissimilar character. What can be a greater expression of similarity and closeness between two beings than one existing in another, like a fetus in the womb?

Even though one entity existing inside another is clearly a sign of similarity, what particular “concept of similarity” is behind this particular formation? It seems likely it’s a disparity between the two entities’ respective levels of differentiation. Just like a fetus starts off as a single undifferentiated cell of pure potential and then in various stages differentiates out organs, organ systems and limbs, so too this pattern exist through all of emanated and created reality. The fetus merely mirrors an already existing and widespread pattern. 

In the case of a light and a vessel relationship, like with the body and soul, the light is relatively undifferentiated, while the vessel is much more differentiated. This is what makes one a light and the other one a vessel. Thus, instead of the high degree of similarity driving them to be identical to each other, one encases in other (in a manner of speaking). The vessel encases the aspect of the light closest to differentiation, while the aspect of the light which is relatively undifferentiated surrounds the vessel, encompassing it within its energy field. This “encompassing” can also be said to be a kind of “containing”.

Whatever version of space we discuss, there’s a “differentiation disparity” between the fabric of space and what it contains (or encampasses). The fabric of space contains the undifferentiated potential for all which it contains (and much more). The contained entities differentiate out from the very fabric of space itself and as a result are contained by the fabric. 

Obviously, the entire potential contained within the fabric of space does not differentiate. The entities are formed from mere aspects of the vast potential. Overwhelmingly, most of the fabric remains undifferentiated to serve as the fabric of space itself. 

What force stimulates emergence of form from fabric? The answer to that question really deserves its own essay. (A hint can be found in “138 Openings of Wisdom” on the subject of the interaction between the “line of light” and the “afterglow”.)

After all that has been explained, it’s not surprising that the different realms themselves require points of similarity to connect with each other. How else do frameworks of space of different character link up with each other to form that breathtakingly long chain of realms, which flows spiritual light/life down the chain and eventually brings it to the creatures in our physical realm, all the way on the bottom? It must be each realm has a point of similarity with its neighboring realm, where they meet and even slightly overlap. It’s this shared point of similarity which allow the flow of spiritual light/life to pass from realm to realm.

-------------------O------------------

Paradox

As You are Perfect,

  So is Your Oneness.

As You’re Perfectly One,

  You aren't comprised of parts,

Being You are part-less,

  You don’t begin / You don’t end.

No beginning / No end means,  

  You are Absolutely Infinite.

Yet, as True Infinity,

  You include all parts;

But not fragmented, 

  As separate identities, 

But undifferentiated,

  In a seamless continuum,

With Your Identity,

    In Seamless Oneness.

---------O---------

The Light of the “Three Weeks”

During the summer, there are three weeks when the Jewish world traditionally goes into mourning. Though many harsh events have occurred during this time throughout Jewish history, the period is primarily bracketed by two tragedies. The first is the Roman breach of the walls of Jerusalem 70CE, which happened on the Hebrew date of the 17th of Tammuz. The second is when the Roman army destroyed the Holy Temple by setting it ablaze, a mere three weeks later on the Hebrew date of the 9th of Av.

On these two days themselves, able-bodied Jews traditionally fast. During the three week span between these dates a variety of mourning practices are observed. 

As was his way to see the positive in everything, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe shared with us that these three weeks do not simply have to be seen as a spiritual “black out”. We can actually fill this period with positive vibes. Behind the perceived darkness, lingers the very light of the Messiah. This period is particularly auspicious to tap into that light. Therefore, among his followers he transformed these three weeks into a program of study about the Messiah and matters related to the messianic era; to focus more on preparation for the redemption. 

This was a paradigm shift away from the previous view, as it looks to the future rather than the past. Of course, the same customs apply and what’s read in Synagogue does not change. However, he showed the way by demonstrating how to change our attitudes towards this period. Yes, we can change our attitudes!

In the perspective of the “three weeks” I was raised with we also mentioned the messianic era. But mostly this period was focused on the sorrows of the past. If anything, any mention the messianic era was employed in the service of intensifying our sense of sorrow and even our sense that we were helpless victims tossed about in the stormy seas of exile and persecution. In my subjective experience, the mention of the Messiah was like someone dangling a candy before a starving child and taunting, “Not yet, not yet...”. Why? Just so the child can experience the painful cravings of hunger all the more.

The Rebbe flipped all this on its head. He encouraged using these three weeks as a means to look forward to the redemption and use it as a program to prepare for an amazingly glorious future. He employed this period’s referencing of the past only to induce a heightened sense and appreciation for the future we are preparing for and looking forward to - not to emotionally self flagelate, but to positively anticipate.

Unlike the old approach which looked to the future to intensify our sense of sorrow over the past, the Rebbe taught us to look to the past to appreciate why we are working for the future ~ and maybe even to enhance the taste of the future in the present. Those preparing the Sabbath meals get to taste from its delicious foods even while it's still Friday afternoon.

----------------O--------------

A "Gimmel Tammuz" Dream

Someone I know shared a dream:

A Caribbean man, from either Jamaica or Haiti, was a natural intuitive. He accepted his gift as divinely given and dedicated his life to using it to advise people - guiding them through their journey in time. 

He was the kind of person whom can be seen in town fairs offering spiritual services from a makeshift booth. His tools of trade were various, drawn from his culture: herbs, incense, cards, colored candles, etc. He'd travel from fair to fair; city to city, town to town, outpost to outpost - reaching as many people as he could.

One day, by the vibes of his very own intuition it dawned upon him that the next step on his journey was to join the Jewish People. Being already learned in the Bible and spiritually sensitive, his conversion journey under the auspices of Lubavitch was relatively smooth. Before long, he was a card carrying member of the Lubavitch community and devoted to the Rebbe.

With surprising ease, he adapted his vocation to Judaism as well. Gone were his previous tools of trade. He spoke the language of pure monotheism. When advising, he dressed his insights in words of Torah, mostly Scripture (as that is what he was most familiar with). 

When clients approached, he opened a partition, which opened rather dramatically. It opened as a widening circle, much like the aperture of a camera or the pupil of the eye. 

One sunny day, at a fair, he opened his dramatic partition. Confidence beamed from his face. Suddenly, he saw the Lubavitcher Rebbe approach his booth. The expression on his face went from confident to worried, as if a dark cloud swept across the bright sun.

He cringed and wondered, "Does the Rebbe not approve of my vocation? I tried to make it kosher. If I can't do this then what can I dedicate my life to doing?"

When the Rebbe came face to face with him, to his surprise nothing he was anxious over was even mentioned. The Rebbe asked pleasantly but with authoritative bearing, "Why aren't you quoting more from my teachings and from teachings about the Messiah?"

With that a wave of relief came over him. He realized that his Rebbe did not come to chastise, but to lovingly advise. The Rebbe dropped on his lap a very effective tool, one so obvious that it was utterly overlooked.

***************************

The dreamer wondered, "Why the Lubavitcher Rebbe couched his message in a story and did not relate it to me directly?"

He wondered and wondered, but no immediate answer arrived. Then a few days later, a possible answer dawned on him.

The dreamer is a sensitive person who has emotional trouble handling criticism. For him, it comes off as rejection; either actual or potential.  Possibly, the Rebbe was being sensitive to his emotional needs and shielded him (a) by communicating the message to a third party, namely the dream character, and (b) by having the dream character model for him how to appropriately react.

Upon realizing why a dream character might have been used as his proxy, a wide smile broke out across his face.

---------------------O------------------

The Soul of Sabbath

My grandparents lived in the L.A. San Fernando Valley. During their final years, I made several trips from the United States East Coast to visit with them. During one of those trips I found Sabbath hospitality about a mile or so away from their home. Not being allowed to drive on the Sabbath, I took a long walk that Sabbath afternoon to see them. I didn't mind the walk. The weather was pleasant and the sites were interesting. 

Upon arrival at my grandparents' home, I was greeted by a young woman visiting from Lithuania, the daughter of one of the household aids. She was studying to be an attorney and was spending time with her mother during school break. She expressed surprise that I had just taken such a long walk, when I could have simply driven. Knowing that she's an "attorney in training" and values law, I shared with her the following. 

The laws of a country do not merely restrict their citizens; they also create a structure which allows for a particular atmosphere - one where a person can viscerally experience the country's ideals, values, culture, beliefs, etc. Successful laws end up creating a particular "feel on the streets", a vessel alive with a society’s spirit. Similarly, the restrictions of the Sabbath are not merely a set of "do not does". Rather, they are structural devices which allow for an atmosphere of peace, tranquility, holiness and contact with the divine. By these restrictions a "body" is formed which allows in a particular kind of soul of holiness, one which is alive and pulsates within the hearts of the Sabbath observant.

The concept resonated well with her and she smiled with appreciation.

Later on, it dawned on me that this concept does not only apply to the Sabbath, but to all of the "do not does" of the Torah. They are structural devices which allow in particular spiritual lights, affording them entry into our lives. 

-----------------O------------------

Unifications

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan obm wrote an essay which explains the underlying dynamics of unifications ("Yichudim", in Hebrew). Unifications happen when spiritual forces combine and unify in response to physical occurrences. In their most ideal form, these physical occurrences are the performance Mitzvahs (Torah precepts). If accompanied by certain kinds of Kabbalistic meditations, all the better. In his explanation, Rabbi Kaplan employed a principle popularized by Rabbi Yehuda Lieb Ashlag concerning the difference between how space works in the physical realm and the spiritual realms. In physical space, unrelated entities can move into each other's proximity. When they do, they're said to be close. When they move away from each other they're said to be distant. 

Spiritual space works differently. Its measure of space resembles psychological distance and closeness. Psychologically speaking, two people who share a lot in common are said to be close. Two people who do not share much in common are said to be more distant. So too in spiritual space, entities who more closely resemble each other orientations, styles and goals are said to be closer to each other. Entities who less closely resemble each other's orientations, styles and goals are said to be more distant from each other. 

Everything in the physical realm extends from some sort of soul in the spiritual realms. There is nothing in the physical universe which is not somehow “ensouled”. It's just a question of soul level. For example, the Midrash relates that every blade of grass has an angel causing it to grow. This angel is the blade of grass' spiritual counterpart, its soul. Even a rock has a soul, projecting it into existence. Of course, it's a more limited, lower, soul than one which imparts life to a plant.

When humans bring together physical entities, ideally to do a Mitzvah, they also bring together the spiritual counterparts of these entities. This is true even if these spiritual forces are very distant from each other. Think of the physical side of an entity as a kind of handle extending into the physical realm, which humans can wield. When an entity is moved by its handle the rest of the entity, trailing into the spiritual realms, gets pulled along. So, once the physical sides of entities are brought together, their spiritual sides draw closer and unify regardless of the inherent spiritual distance between them. Once unified, their union gives birth to blessings, which flow down into the physical realm in various forms of benefit for earthbound life. 

The above is a general adaptation and summary of what Rabbi Kaplan explained. Soon after reading his essay, I did an experiment to see what would happen if I tried to unify my own inner spiritual forces by physical acts; namely, with how I studied for accounting exams in college. 

I reasoned to myself that since the brain is the seat of the soul's illumination, my mental capacities are spiritual; at least, in relation to the rest of my body and the rest of what's physical. So, after studying a chapter in the textbook, I performed most of my remaining study by solving practice questions relating to the chapter, counting on physical practice to weave together and integrate what by now had a presence in my mental faculties.  

When a fellow student marveled at how well I grasped the material, I shared with him my secret. I explained to him that actual practice brings together more mental abilities than studying does alone. Of course, one needs to begin by studying. The information needs to be introduced into the brain. But after that initial step, learning by doing is a more powerful approach.

Later on, I also applied this principle to daily meditation - though I had not planned to. At the time, I lived in South Florida. I wanted to meditate in nature. The only problem was that I couldn't simply sit still in one place. The mosquitoes liked me too much! Ouch! More accurately they loved me, kissed me incessantly. I discovered that to be out in tropic nature, I had to on the move or I would be instantly discovered. So, I conducted my meditations by walking the nature trails in a local park, one which extended from the mangrove ecosystem. What I discovered was that the act of walking seemed to help the flow of spiritual insights which I encountered during these sessions.

Some years later, I had to modify my meditative practices again. Sometimes, my opportunities to meditate occurred during the day, when I was out in public. I discovered that the conversation I carry on with God, as the core of my meditative practice, can be done on paper as well. 

Till today I often bring a notebook to a cafe', sip coffee and if asked, share that I am writing my diary - well, in a sense I am. Again, I notice a more frequent access to my depth of self and insights than I would get if I carried on that conversation in my mind alone or even if I had engaged in it verbally (a grade more physical).  The overt physical act of writing is apparently successful in bringing together inner forces of my soul. 

Rather recently, I began to wonder whether there is more to initiating unifications than bringing together physical entities; like an arm, pen and paper. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi was fond of relating that the angels Michael and Gabriel have very opposite orientations. Michael conveys God’s kindness and Gabriel His severity. Yet, both come together to coordinate and collaborate in honor of God. This seems like a unification initiated from above rather than from below. Interesting. 

This gets me wondering, perhaps even when humans initiate unifications from below, the real unifications really happen from above; as they still require God to stamp His blessings on them from above. I would expect that most dispatches of Michael and Gabriel are really in response to human behavior. Yet, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi credits their unification to their joint yearning to fulfill God's will, without referencing human behavior. It seems that God alone factors in human behavior when dispatching these angels. It's their yearning to carry out His will, which then in turn motivates them to unify and act.

Accordingly, it makes sense to me that though doing unifications set off identifiable processes whose stages can be "mechanically" charted and explained by those in the know, like so much else (health, livelihood, success, etc.) they really depend on God's blessing to proceed. The presence of identifiable processes is just there so humans can relate and participate. Otherwise, they would be deprived of their co-creative roles, essential to the goals of their creation.

-------------O------------