[Brian Israel]

Hi Gianni,

Thank you for this in-depth and philosophical explanation. If I understand your point correctly, a Kabbalist doesn’t wear a Kippah out of ‘religious piety’ or ‘simple loyalty,’ but as a physical reflection of an internal spiritual mechanism—a Masah (Screen) within the soul’s Partzuf.

However, your metaphor of the ‘Master and the Donkey’ actually reinforces my original question. You mentioned that a Master (the soul) chooses to put his donkey (the body) into an ‘enclosure’ or ‘corral’ (a set of rules/traditions) to maintain discipline and mastery over it. My question then remains: If the goal is simply to discipline the ‘donkey’ and the leader is truly free from the constraints of religion, why is the specifically ‘Jewish religious’ enclosure chosen every time?

If the old forms of religion have indeed lost their function for the correction of the soul, couldn’t any form of discipline or ethical framework serve as this enclosure? Choosing the exact forms of a religion while teaching that religion is obsolete creates an inescapable paradox for any outside observer.

Furthermore, the suggestion that ‘the Master’s freedom is too vast for us to comprehend’ creates a hierarchy where the leader’s actions are placed beyond accountability or clear logic. While I appreciate the explanation of the ‘Middle Line,’ it seems that as long as the teaching and the external persona remain in this state, the perception of it being a ‘new religion’ or a ‘calculated game’ will inevitably persist for many.

Thank you for sharing these insights and for the dialogue.

Best regards,

Brian Israel

[Brian Israel]

Hi Gianni,

Thank you for this clarification. If I understand your ‘Body and Organs’ analogy correctly, you are suggesting a spiritual hierarchy within the collective soul of humanity:

The ‘Rosh’ (Head/Israel): A small, conscious group that undergoes the painful process of ‘Free Will,’ internal struggle, and active correction to attain the spiritual frequency of bestowal.

The ‘Guf’ (Body/Humanity): The remaining billions of people who act as organs. Their ‘Free Will’ is limited to a passive willingness to follow the ‘Head.’ They don’t experience the conscious ‘why’ or the spiritual struggle; they simply enjoy the resulting harmony and health of the system, much like a hand enjoys being part of a healthy body without knowing the brain’s complex thoughts.

So, in essence, you are confirming that for the vast majority of humanity, the transition to ‘bestowal’ will indeed be mechanical and passive.

They will not be ‘conscious Kabbalists’; they will be ‘healthy cells’ in a system they do not fully comprehend. Their happiness will come from ‘not missing the opportunity’ to be part of the body, rather than from a conscious attainment of the Truth.

Is it correct to conclude then, that ‘True Free Will’ and ‘Active Consciousness’ are not universal human goals in Kabbalah, but are reserved only for those who function as the ‘Head’? And that the rest of humanity is, by design, destined to be a passive part of a spiritual technology they didn’t choose to build?

I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting this ‘Middle Path’ you mentioned.

Best regards,

Brian Israel

[Brian Israel]

Shalom,

I’ve been reflecting on the analogy often used in our lessons: that just as a few inventors create a technology (like electricity or the internet) and the whole world benefits from it, our work in the ‘Ten’ (the group) will automatically uplift all of humanity to the level of ‘bestowal’ and love for the Creator once we reach that spiritual frequency.

While this is presented as a ‘Law of Nature,’ I see a significant contradiction here. Technological inventions are passive for the end-user; you don’t need to change your nature to use a smartphone. However, Kabbalah teaches that spiritual correction requires an active, conscious, and often painful struggle against one’s own ego.

If we achieve this ‘high level’ in our groups, does it mean the rest of the 8 billion people—who have no idea about this work—will suddenly start acting out of ‘bestowal’ without any personal effort or choice? If so, what happens to the principle of ‘Free Will’?

Comparing human spiritual evolution to a mechanical or technological discovery seems to treat humanity like a passive machine rather than conscious beings. Is this ‘Law’ truly as mechanical as gravity, where the ‘mass’ of our spiritual achievement simply pulls everyone else along, or does every individual still have to walk their own path of correction? I would appreciate a direct clarification on this mechanical vs. conscious distinction.

Best regards,

[Brian Israel]

Hi Gianni,

Thank you for the analogy. However, I must be honest: the response feels like it’s drifting away from the core of my question and becoming a distraction. The ‘Lego F35’ example explains why the model isn’t the reality, but it fails to address why a leader—who teaches that these models (religions) have lost their function—continues to display them so prominently.

This is a fundamental contradiction that many students around the world likely observe but may not dare to voice. It creates a critical perception issue: ‘Is this just another new religion, a form of manipulation, or a calculated game?’

If the justification for wearing a Kippah is merely ‘social adaptation,’ then let me ask this: If Michael Laitman were living in a geography dominated by Islamic traditions, would he be wearing a turban and a robe to fit in?

In my own journey, whenever fellow students or friends ask me why I might wear a Kippah or respect these symbols, I give them a very simple and clear answer: ‘I am a Kabbalist, and Kabbalah is a wisdom that stems from the depths of Jewish sages and mysticism. Out of respect and admiration for the lineage of this wisdom, I honor their memory by wearing the Kippah.’ This is simple, transparent, and resonates with people; they respect this honesty. Why can’t we get a similarly clear and direct answer regarding the leadership’s stance? The current explanations do not address the essence of this contradiction. I am looking for a direct answer on how this alignment between the teaching and the persona is maintained without it becoming a paradox.

Best regards,

[Brian Israel]

Hi Gianni,

Thank you for your guidance. I understand the perspective of wearing a Kippah as a social norm—”dwelling among my people”—or as an external reminder of the spiritual Screen (Masach).

However, I am curious about a point Michael Laitman frequently emphasizes in his lessons: Given the level that the ego has reached today, doesn’t Kabbalah teach us that physical forms and traditions (like the classical function of religions) are no longer sufficient for spiritual correction, and that the “work in the heart” is what truly matters?

If the Kippah is merely an external copy, doesn’t clinging to such symbols run the risk of diverting focus away from the core essence—the intention of “bestowal”—and back toward empty forms? Where exactly should we draw the line between respecting external traditions and adhering to the internal truth?

I look forward to learning your valuable opinions on this matter.

Best regards,

Brian Israel

[Brian Israel]

Dear KabU  Team,

thank you for your guidance. In our studies on the science of Kabbalah, we also examine the paths followed by valuable teachers like Michael Laitman.

At this point, the place of the Kippah/Yamukah, which is an important symbol in Judaism, has become a matter of curiosity.

As you know, universal principles lie in the depths of Kabbalah.

What is the wisdom behind a Kabbalist leader still wearing a Kippah/ Yamukah?

In fact—even though I am Jewish—I stopped wearing a kippah after I started studying Kabbalah.

We would like to learn your valuable opinions on this matter to expand our knowledge.

Best regards.

Brian Israel

[Author]

Replies