Why Some Souls Struggle—A Chanukah Teaching

All right, happy Kaneka. We're recording this during the days of Kaneka. And I want to tell you something that may surprise you, but really it shouldn't surprise you. You know the ubiquitous eight branched manora where you light one more every single night. Okay, you know they say two Jews, three opinions, which is an actual true thing. Um Torah encourages us to engage in rigorous debate and that means to examine things from all types of perspectives. And after all, you know, Torah is God's truth and God is infinite. So how can infinity be contained in one sort of uh one perspective? You need to have paradox where you have the uh divergence of multiple and even or especially conflicting perspectives in order to get truth. Okay. So having said that, that thing of lighting one more light every night is actually not the only opinion, there's a famous debate between the house of Hel and the house of Shami. Hillel and Shamai were great sages during the period of the Mishna about 2,000 years ago in the second temple period. And uh Hill's opinion was that you light one more every night. But Shami's opinion was you light eight the first night and then the second you light seventh. Seven and then the third night you light six and the Let's see if I can do this. Fourth night you light five and the fifth night you light four. Sixth night you write light three. Seventh night, yeah, it's going to work out. Seventh night you light two. And then the eighth night you only light one. And then the next night you light zero. Okay. So, what's that all about? [sighs] See, Shamay and Hillel represent two very different approaches to life itself. And their approach to the minor lighting is consistent with their overall approach to life. There's a famous debate in the Torah. Would it have been better to never have been born? It's a real question. Would it have been been better never to have been born? Um, I'm going to tell you a joke that no one ever laughs at, but the joke is like this. In Kelm, you know, the there's a whole genre of Yiddish jokes, stories, folktales about Kelm. Kelm was like a um was a town famous for its fools, but they didn't know they were fools, which is what makes them funny. They think they're deep. Anyway, so there's the inm these two guys are talking, these two Helmmites are talking and one says to the other says, "You know, Yenkl, judging from how life uh how difficult life is, one thinks sometimes it would have been better never have to been born." And um Barl says, "Yes, Yankl, that's true. But how many guys do you know who are that lucky?" One in a 100. How many guys do you know are that lucky never have been born? One in 100. How many guys do you know who are never born? Okay, that's why no one ever ever laughs at the joke. It's a deep joke. Everyone you know has been born. Okay, not everyone who's been born do you know, but everyone you know has been born. At any rate, let's talk about this. Would it have been better never have been born? So, it's a legitimate debate between the sages. Hill said, "Yeah, it's better to have been born because the reality is if you're not born, then you don't get a chance at life." And then even even if [laughter] like they say, "It's better than nothing. Even if you don't accomplish everything you're supposed to accomplish, even if it's not, you know, even if you don't have the most amazing life, okay, but it's better than no life." And B Shamay, the house of Shamay, says, "No, no, no. It's better never to have been born because truth is the soul is happy up there in heaven." And you know don't bother it don't disturb don't disturb it with this whole embodiment thing that's you know and even in the best case scenario it's not as nice for the soul as being in heaven you know the soul in heaven it's like sitting in the proverbial spiritual hot tub and sipping pina coladas it's very nice I mean don't take that too literally but metaphorically speaking and then for the soul to be plunged down into the embodiment plane it's like not fun even like even in the best case scenario everything goes does perfectly well. It's still traumatizing for the soul. So those are these two different approaches. Oh, and by the way, the hala is like base hell. We follow the hala means the final ruling, the practical ruling. We fi we follow basel both in the debate would it been would it have been better never been born. Um and in the manora debate as well as in the many many many other debates that they have throughout the Talmud. Generally speaking, in the vast majority of cases, the hal the final ruling follows the opinion of Hillel. Now, if you're still with me, I want to explain to you what this has to do with what we over here at the Soul Words YouTube channel call the sensitive souls. We speak a lot about that. Maybe some of you found my channel because of my sensitive soul content. Maybe you heard about the Soul Survivors, which is a virtual community, a monthly group. If you're interested in joining, by the way, we'll put a link in the description below. It's a monthly group that meets on a video conference, and uh I post uh essays geared toward basically people who identify as having an existential discomfort. What What do I mean by that? It's it's not that there's circumstantial stress in your life, although there may be that as well, but existence existential discomfort means existence itself is um a struggle. And and why would it be a uh a struggle? Because uh the truth is it's very strange. It's very awkward for a soul which is boundless light to be stifled by being contained in this this suit, this this uh vehicle, this vessel called the body. And uh it's it's it's weird for everybody, but not everyone knows it's weird. Some people just get used to it and they're like, "Oh yeah, let's eat some more chocolate cake." And then everything's good. Other people, who I call the sensitive souls, are like, "There's not enough chocolate cake in the entire world [laughter] to make this uh comfortable for me. This is really uncomfortable." And these are the people [sighs] who often have sensory issues, you know, because the stimuli of the physical world is always sort of like jostling them. It's always sort of um, you know, disturbing them. Um, these are people who are very often sort of like have that feeling of terminal uniqueness. I don't mean it as a put down, you know, just people who don't feel connected to others who want to be connected but feel sort of lonely in a crowded room. um deep thinkers, you know, that that that type of profile. Sometimes, you know, very very astute and brilliant in some areas, but like totally clueless in others, particularly when it comes to like social stuff. Like they're amazing at reading people, but then like when it comes to social interactions, they're kind of clueless. So, you know, that paradox of person. Anyways, there's another video and um I'll post it at the end actually if you want to watch it where I speak at length. I I generally don't use the term neurode divergent so much. And the reason is because it's a clinical term and I'm not a mental health professional. I'm a rabbi and I like to stay in my lane and I I I stay in my lane by using metaphysical terms and I believe there are many parallel models for talking about the same thing. And the model that I'm comfortable with is is the spiritual model. But yes, I will admit I mean there is a lot of overlap with the profile that I'm describing as sensitive souls with the profile that currently is described as neurode divergent. You know 20 years ago they add a different word. 20 years from now they'll have another word. So to me the the the labels we use are not all that important. But there's a video where I describe neurode divergence um from a spiritual perspective. And one of the ways that I describe it is like NT versus ND meaning neurotypical versus neurode divergent is like Shamai and Hill. Shami is very much the neurotypical. Uh I'm sorry to the contrary the opposite. Uh Hillel is very much the neurotypical. Shami is very much the neurode divergent. And I'm not saying about these actual historical figures that one was neurode diverent, one was neurotypical. I never met them. They lived 2,000 years ago. I'm not trying to analyze them based on their body of work that's recorded uh in uh the Talmud. That's not my attempt here. Um my point is that the world views that they espouse respectively are very consistent at least to my thinking with neurodeivergent and neurotypical experiences of life. And I'll explain to you um and and this is what I mean by the the sensitive souls as opposed to the normal people who are comfortable with embodiment. Uh same this is the same dichotomy. Okay. Hillel looks at what is Shami looks at what could be. This is not my original thought by the way. the Ragachavar Gon Ravesf Rosen who was a great great scholar great Tomic scholar um [clears throat] he he described the all of the various debates between Shamay Hel said they all circulate around one uh debate which is kayak and py I'm using Hebrew words but kayak means potential py means actuality that hal uh looks at what is and Shamay looks at what could be. Okay, where do you see that? Well, the minora is a perfect example. Um on the first night of Kaneka, there's the most potential because [snorts] um we we have the whole Kaneka ahead of us. So this is strange for us because we're used to lighting one candle the first night. But B Shamai would look at it and be like, "Oh, the first night of Kaneka is the best night." In fact, the best night of Kaneka, the best moment of Kaneka is right the very first moment before we even enter Kaneka. Then it's like pristine. Then it's like you open up the window and you see the snow outside and no tracks are in the snow and it's perfect and pristine and pure and untouched, right? Um, so you light up eight lights that night and then you have a night of Hanukkah and how was it? It was, you know, it was, you know, cash that in. That's now that's over. No, that will never live up to perfection. That wasn't the archetype. That wasn't the ultimate. Now you're going to say that sounds very like um uh finicky. That sounds like very picky, kind of snobby maybe even. No, that's not what Bashami is. Bishami is looking at things compared to the true archetype, meaning the ideal that exists only in the mind, only in the conceptual realm. And therefore, anything in the physical realm by definition will never measure up to it. So that's why things always sort of fall short because Bishama is a visionary. He sees how things could be in their perfected, literally perfected state, and then real life never measures up. So the first night is the greatest potential, eight lights, but then each night sort of okay, it is what it is. And then you take away a light, you take away a light, take away a light until you the end of Kaneka and you got one light and it's like, okay, another Kaneka behind us. Well, how was it? It was, you know, Bello looks at it completely differently. He celebrates what is. So the first night of Kaneka, you light one light because we've got one night. Second night, add another light. Now we got two nights. Well, what about last night? You think it was so great? Well, yeah, it was great. Really? The lotas were burnt and uh [laughter] really it was so good. It was fine. It was great. It was fine. Third night. Let's We've Now we've got Now we've got three nights. Let's add another light. Fourth. Fourth night. Now we've got four nights behind us. Amazing. We're building. Add another light. You see, Hill is like a realist. He's very practical. He looks at what life is and he celebrates it and he doesn't complain about it and doesn't reject it. Doesn't compare it to what it could be. See that's what Shama is doing. Shamba is always comparing real life to the you know pie in the sky ideal and he's always getting disappointed. Um but Hill is looking looking at it much more realistically. I'll give you by the way another hill shame debate and um you're going to see totally how their approaches are consistent with this like one worldview which runs through everything. There's there's there's a question uh how should one praise a bride that was customary in the Talmudic times that um you would pay an official compliment to the bride. In fact, it was sort of like a a song and dance type of thing. Kate said marakala is how it's called in Mishna Hebrew, which means they would like do like a song and dance and like I guess say some type of praise about the bride at the wedding. Talking about at the wedding party, they would say some type of praise about the bride in I guess in verse or something like that. Um so Bass Hill says um You say she's a beautiful bride. She's a gracious bride. That's bas however she is. I'm not going to lie. Why should I lie? Excuse me, sir. This is she's the bride. This is, you know, all brides are beautiful. Well, no, she's not. No, you don't. But you don't say that. [laughter] Why? Why should I lie? Okay, you're picking up on the neurode divergent ven diagram overlap over here, right? Which I was referring to before. Bass Hill is very practical. He's looking at it like this. Look, she's obvious she got married. She's the bride. Like obviously he likes her enough. So like that's good enough for for pract like the engineers say you know the engineer opposed to the mathematician. So the engineer will say for practical purposes it's good enough. You know for building a bridge if I get it down to the millimeter I'm fine. I don't have to get I don't have to split hairs more than that. It's good enough for practical purposes. So Hill is very much like for practical purposes good enough. She's she's she's beautiful and gracious enough. Just let it go. Just roll with it. Just call her beautiful and gracious and roll. and Be Shami is stuck on it and he's comparing this bride to the and he's not not because he's like again he's not he he he he's not a mean guy that's that's a misinterpretation. He's comparing it to he he's a visionary. He sees the ultimate archetype of what things could be and in comparison to what they could be in their archetype. Let's just be honest. Let's call what call it what it is. Right? So, Kamisha, he says he'll he'll describe he'll walk into the the party and describe the bride exactly unfin unflinchingly accurate. You know, fluorescent lights in the mirror exactly as she is, okay? Which probably is not so popular at parties, but you understand how again the the breakdown. I'll give you another example. famous famous story famous story about the prospective convert who came to both Hillel and Shamai and said teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot which is a preposterous thing you could study Torah your entire life Torah is infinite like we mentioned at the beginning of this video so tell encapsulated to me and while I'm standing on one foot I don't know how long this guy could stand on one foot but you know that's not that long so he went to Shami first he chased him off in fact it says He chased him off with a ruler which is interesting homalytically. The ruler means the measuring like he was measuring. So Bishama is always measuring comparison. Um so he hears this request tell me the entire Torah while I'm standing on one foot. And it's like that's crazy. You know like you you want to know the answer? The answer is get out of here. And he chased him. He's like waved a ruler at him and said get out of here. Um he went to to Hel and Hill says what's hateful to you do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. Go forth and learn. Now he did tell him go forth and learn. Meaning he didn't pretend that's all you got to know. But he basically granted his request to to some extent. Yeah. He told him he has to follow up by going and and learning. But you know people read that story and they're like, "Oh, Hill was nice and Shamay was mean." Cuz first of all, Shami, you know, chased the guy off and told him, "Get out of here. That's preposterous. I can't do it." And and and Hill said, "Yes." But even more than that, they say, "Well, Hill said that the entire Torah is whatever you don't like, don't do to others." Meaning, you know, somewhat like the golden rule. Um, formulated slightly differently, but I I don't want to get into that right now. Um, the point is, so Hill's preaching love your brother, and so he sounds like the nice guy. Aishami seems like the mean guy, but the reality is that's not what it is. And a lot of people who are sensitive souls often get accused of being ornery or contankerous or uh unfriendly and it's not true. It's not true at all. That's not what's going on. Bishama is looking at things in terms of perfection and he's saying look like you cannot encapsulate the entire Torah like that. That's silly. That's disrespectful. That's that's it's a it's a fool's errand. it can't be done. And Hill's like, look, let's just roll with it. Let's just like, let's just give this guy an answer that works for him now. Which, by the way, practically speaking, was a great strategy because the guy accepted the answer. He did convert. He did become Jewish. And he did continue studying. So I guess if you want to say it worked out, if that if that's what you call working out, then yeah, then it worked out. So B Shama is busy preserving perfection but nothing's happening in the world. Basil is you know just like let's let's be flexible. Let's make it work. [laughter] You see here though it's like those are two totally different ways of approaching reality. So getting back to like the underlying thing is it better never to have been born. So obviously Shamai who's looking at life in terms of like what the perfection could be and what you know what the ideal is the world is a frustrating place full of disappointment [laughter] right [snorts] uh and with Hill it's just like the world is what it is and you know yeah it's full of imperfection but you roll with it you make with it what you can make with it and it's all good okay so um here's what I want to tell you what I want to tell you is, and this is so powerful. This may even move me emotionally when I tell you. I don't know. Feeling like it might. One second. I'm going to drink some coffee. I made a blessing earlier. The Arizal. You heard of the Arizal? Isaac Laura, one of the great cobbalists. So he explains that although in um when it comes to hal let me back up a second. Remember at the very beginning of this video I said two choose three opinions. It's not a bug it's a feature. I didn't say it's not a bug it's a feature but in so many words I implied it and now I'm saying it explicitly that in order to grasp infinity you have to grasp it through paradox. If you try to encapsulate infinity in one um convergent perspective, you're not going to do justice to it. So that's true when we're talking about ideas, about philosophy, but when it comes to practice, meaning what do you do? We call that halaka. Halaka is Jewish law. And that's what governs our behaviors. So behaviors take place in the time space continuum. And in in the time space continuum, two things cannot be in one place and one thing cannot be in two places with all apologies to the quantum uh theorists. But in our Newtonian experience of having bodies basically you can physically only basically do one thing in one place at one time. So who's right? Should the minor be lit one more every night or one less every night? They're both right conceptually, but practically you have to do one practically. And you could say, well, I could like two different manuras. Yeah, but that's not the point. The point is with one manora, you can only do one. In your mind, you can construct a paradox, but in physical reality, you can only do one. So, we follow Hill. And it makes sense that we follow Hill in physical reality because Hillis approach is much more conducive with physical reality and embraces physical reality. Um so we do like Hill says like one more every night. We light one more every night and and like like I told you in the majority the vast majority of the disputes between Hill and Shamai we follow Hill just cuz I mean that's not the reason but it definitely is interesting that his his approach is more practical and so I guess maybe you could say easier to implement. Um but the cabalists explain something amazing that when Messiah comes and in fact there's a question what what do we do if Msiah comes in the middle of Kaneka and you're going to understand that question in one second when Msiah comes we will follow B Shami in terms of Bashamai conceptually has always been just as correct as B but practically Do we follow one or the other? We follow Hill. When Msiah comes, we'll follow B Shame. We'll follow Shama's rulings. And the question is why is it like just to divvy it up? You know, you get your turn, then you get your [laughter] turn. When Msiah comes, the world will be perfected. [snorts] The world will be in its ultimate state. The world will be so perfect that ultimately there will be the resurrection of the dead because the souls in heaven will leave heaven in order to reexperience embodiment because the physical plane will be so uplifted it'll be holier than heaven. People always get mad when I say that by the way that the Jewish view of the purpose of creation is to make the physical world holier than heaven. Sorry. Sorry if it's triggering to you, but that is our concept. And that that's why resurrection happens. That as high as the souls ascend in heaven, eventually the physical world will be so refined that the highest plane of all existence will be the physical world. And so it'll sort of make a U-turn, come back down, but it won't be down. And it'll actually be up because the physical plane in its fully refined state will actually be the ultimately godly plane where I don't want to get into the whole explanation of it but we're talking about paradox before how Torah has to be paradox in order to contain infinity the physical world will be a paradox that instead of hiding and masking creation our creator know creation masking creator creation will reveal creator but not by disappearing because you could just cause creation to be nullified out of existence and then have a revelation of creator. But then that's that's not the ultimate infinity. The ultimate infinity is that um creator and creation can coexist because God is not you cannot relegate God to being you cannot say God is only creator. You cannot say God is creator and not creation and the creation is something separate from him and outside of him. God forbid because God is ultimate oneness and that ultimate oneness or ultimate infinity will be when it becomes revealed how creator and creation are one and how there's nothing but God and then where will that be revealed on on the physical plane specifically and then the souls will come out of heaven and come back to the physical world for embodiment. So when the physical world is that refined and perfected, we will follow Be Shame's rulings because then the world will finally be able to live up to the views of Beame, the perfection, the ideal, the archetype that he was able to envision. So if you're a dreamer, if you're an idealist, if you're a soul of the house of Shamai who always sort of feels that this world is an uncomfortable place, you're always sort of disappointed [laughter] by how how things fall short in the real world. and you know that things can be better and you know things can be perfect and it's so disappointing and frustrating that they're not perfect and you could see it. You could see it in your your beautiful mind. So I want to let you know that Msiah is coming and every mitzvah that you do, every act of goodness and kindness you do brings that closer and then we're going to finally be able to experience that perfection here in the physical world. I'm going to put here the video uh the longer video about uh the spiritual perspective on neurodeiversity. Uh we'll put it over here so you can check it out. Um and I explained a lot of this stuff here. I explained there more at length. And uh also if you're interested in something more about Khaneka, here's a Kaneka video for you right here. Near divergent video, a Kaneka video. And if this resonated with you, it's funny people always say always say I resonated with it, but the correct term is it resonated with you. Please leave a comment and tell us about your personal experience. Okay, be well. Happy Hanukkah.