json/Mishnah/Acharonim on Mishnah/Derekh Chayim/English/Nataf translation.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Derekh Chayim",
    "versionSource": "Nataf translation",
    "versionTitle": "Nataf translation",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "דרך חיים",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Acharonim on Mishnah"
    ],
    "text": {
        "Introduction": [],
        "Kol Yisrael; The Opening Mishna": [],
        "": [
            [],
            [],
            [],
            [
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [
                    "<i>Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says, \"Envy, lust and honor remove a person from the world.\"</i>",
                    "<b>Envy, lust and honor, etc.:</b> It may be asked, what is the reason these three things remove a person from the world? And that is [the case] even though it certainly should not be asked [from] this mishnah about the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said (Avot 2:11), \"The evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of the creations remove a person from the world.\" And likewise [about] that it said above (Avot 3:10), \"Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, '[Late] morning sleep, midday wine, etc. remove a person from the world.'\" As it is possible to say that all of these remove a person from the world. So it is not a difficulty at all. And no number was taught [to say, \"Three things.\"] For a number certainly comes to exclude [other things]; but no number was taught here. But it is [still] difficult - what is the reason that these three things remove a person from the world?",
                    "<b>You should know</b> that man, who is an animal, has a spirit. And this spirit has different faculties, such that it performs different actions with these different faculties - as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 2:9) several times. And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote in [his] introduction to this tractate (Eight Chapters 1:1), \"That the head of the physicians placed into the beginning of his book that there are three spirits [in man]: The vegetative, the vital and the spiritual\" - as it is explained above in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Omer. And he, may His memory be blessed, wrote that the thing is not so, that there be three spirits to a person. Rather the spirit is one, but it has different faculties and does different actions through these different faculties. Then the spirit is one and the faculties are several.",
                    "And he explained the content of these three [main] faculties: The vegetative faculty is what absorbs the nutrition with which a person is nurtured, repels the natural excesses and expands the body in height and in width according to what it is. And it is from this faculty that there is the lust for promiscuity, which is from the excesses of nature that ripen this faculty. And every faculty of lust is from this faculty that is called the vegetative faculty. And the seat of this faculty is in the liver. The second faculty is the vital faculty, from which there is liveliness. And it is from this faculty that a person moves from place to place. And it is from it that vengeance, spite, envy and hatred are generated. And the seat of this faculty is in the heart, since this faculty is there. And the third is the spiritual faculty - many faculties come from this faculty, like the faculties of the five senses, the faculty of thought, of memory and of intellect. And the seat of this faculty is the brain. At the end of the day, the spirit has different faculties. ",
                    "And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, divided these faculties as we have explained to you very many times. As the first section are the physical faculties, the second section are the faculties of the spirit and the third section are the intellectual faculties - as we explained above regarding (Avot 4:13), \"There are three crowns,\" see there (Derekh Chayim 4:13). And in several places, our Sages, may their memory be blessed, call them (see, for example, Bereishit Rabbah 14:9), the breath (<i>ruach</i>), the spirit (<i>nefesh</i>) and the soul (<i>neshamah</i>). And so is it appropriate to call them.",
                    "And it is according to the division of these three faculties that they said, \"Envy, lust and honor remove a person from the world.\" As since the spirit has these three faculties that we explained above - if he overstepped the [proper] measure in any of these faculties, behold he has removed [himself] from the world. For a man is in the world through these three faculties. Since man is in the world through his faculty of the spirit, if he oversteps the measure with this faculty, he inclines towards absence. For the spirit of a man has a measure in everything. So if he oversteps the limit with excess, behold he inclines towards absence. For any excess is absence and lack.   ",
                    "Hence he said, envy - which comes from the faculty of the spirit, as we have already said that envy is from this faculty. And this envy is an excessive action of the spirit - for why should a person be envious of a thing that is not his? Hence envy is an excessive action, and it brings absence to a person from the angle of his spiritual faculty.",
                    "And likewise lust, which is from the angle of the vegetative faculty - such that he lusts for something that is not needed by a person. Behold this thing is an excess of this vegetative faculty. And with this, he oversteps the limit appropriate for him; hence absence comes to  him. For when any faculty of these faculties oversteps the measure and the limit, with what is not needed and inappropriate for him, he brings himself absence and death.  ",
                    "And honor is from the intellectual faculty, since this intellectual faculty demands respect. As it is the level of this faculty that demands respect, since honor is certainly appropriate for it. And it is as it is written (Proverbs 3:35), \"The wise shall inherit honor\" - behold, honor is appropriate for the intellect. For the intellect is something metaphysical, and not something physical; and that is why honor is appropriate for the intellectual. And it is written (Isaiah 24:23), \"and across form His elders is honor,\" such that you see that honor is for the elders, since the intellect is also with them. And it is also written (Leviticus 19:32), \"In the presence of the elderly you shall rise and you shall respect an elder\" - and an elder is only this one who has acquired wisdom (Kiddushin 32b). So all of this shows that honor is appropriate for the intellectual faculty. But when he oversteps the measure by pursuing more honor than is appropriate, lack and absence comes to him from the angle of this faculty.",
                    "The principle of the matter is that through these three things, the spirit of a person oversteps its limit that are appropriate for the spirit. Hence he used the expression, \"removes him from the world\" - meaning to say, it is because he oversteps the limit which is appropriate for the spirit in these three things; that is why a person [experiences] removal from the world through them. And it is already clear.",
                    "<b>And in order</b> that you will understand words of wisdom well, and that you will understand how these three things remove a person from the world - see that these three things are apt for this and that they removed man from the world - that is the first man (Adam). So you will find that the tree from which the first man ate, which brought him death, had these three things in it. This means to say that he overstepped the limit of the measure with these three faculties; such that when a person oversteps the limit with them, he brings death to himself. And that is what Scripture said (Genesis 3:6) - \"The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was tempting to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to contemplate.\" Behold, Scripture mentioned these three faculties very much in order: \"That the tree was good for food,\" corresponds to lust, for the desire that is with a person is from lust - as was explained above - which is from the vegetative faculty that lusts for eating. \"And that it was tempting to the eyes,\" is corresponding to the faculty of the spirit, which is the vital faculty. As this is the opinion of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed. And it is as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 2:11), regarding, \"the evil eye removes a person from the world\" (Avot 2:11). There we explained that the faculty of sight is dependent upon the faculty of the spirit; and like they said (Avodah Zarah 28b), \"the tendons of the eye are dependent upon the heart.\" And \"and the tree was desirable to contemplate,\" corresponds to the intellectual faculty. So behold that these three things were with the tree of knowledge, and the man was drawn towards the tree of knowledge because of this. And if it were not so, but there had rather only been one or two [of these] things in the tree of knowledge, man would not have been drawn to it in all of his parts. As the part that has no connection to the tree of knowledge would have prevented [it]. But now all of the three faculties of man were drawn towards the tree of knowledge, such that these three things were removing the man from the world. ",
                    "And this is what they are arguing in the chapter [entitled] Ben Sorer OuMoreh (Sanhedrin 70a), \"Rabbi Meir says, 'The tree from which the first man ate was a grapevine, as nothing brings wailing to the world like wine.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'It was wheat, as an infant does not know to call his father or mother until he tastes the taste of grain.' Rabbi Nechemiah says, 'It was a fig tree; with the thing with which they sinned, they were rehabilitated.'\" Behold, they are arguing which thing is the main thing that brought death to Adam.",
                    "As according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the main thing is the faculty of the spirit, from which is the faculty of seeing and the desire of sight. So man was drawn by this the most and death came through it. Hence he said it was a grapevine. For it is stated about wine, which is from the grapevine (Proverbs 23:31), \"Do not ogle that red wine, as it lends its color to the cup.\" Hence Rabbi (Yehudah) reasons regarding wine, that it is suitable to pour libations and to recite <i>kiddush</i> upon it so long as it has the taste and appearance of wine - as it is found in Tractate Bava Batra (97b) [in] the chapter [entitled] HaMokher Peirot - and he brings a proof from that which it is written, \"Do not ogle that red wine.\" And certainly wine is also good for consumption and to contemplate. For behold, this is what our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 76b), \"Wine and good scents make wise.\" But the main thing that draws man to wine through his faculty of the spirit is that it is desirable to see. So [Rabbi Meir] reasons that the main [reason] for the death of man was from this faculty -  meaning the faculty of the spirit - because it is the main part of man. And even though the other two things - meaning that they were good to contemplate and good to eat - were also [significant]; nevertheless this thing, that is desirable to see, is the main thing and it was the cause of death. ",
                    "And Rabbi Yehudah reasons [that] it is the intellectual faculty that he was drawn to the most, according to that which is appropriate for a person. And [the following] should not be difficult to you at all: And is it not appropriate for him to be drawn after the intellectual? And he would [only] bring a blessing upon himself! For the excess of intellect that the first man had was a lack to him. For when a person is innocent (<i>tamim</i>), he is drawn after God, may He be blessed, like that which it is the way of the innocent to be drawn after God, may He be blessed; and as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:13), \"Wholehearted (<i>tamim</i>) shall you be with the Lord, your God.\" And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Sifrei Devarim on 18:13), \"When you are innocent, He is God, may He be blessed, with you.\" And when he is with God, may He be blessed, he lives forever, as we have explained many times. As it is written (Deuteronomy 4:4), \"But you who cling to the Lord, your God are all alive today\" - that by clinging to Him who lives and exists, man also lives and exists forever. And the innocent is one who does not have an excess of wisdom. As this is the measure of the innocent - that he does not exceedingly machinate with cunning and plotting. Rather he believes and is innocent. Hence when machination and contemplation came to him - which is from the angle of man himself when it it is more than what is enough - he separated from innocence with this and death came to him.",
                    "And more than this, it is because knowledge of good and evil is excess knowledge. And it is as it is written (Genesis  3:5), \"and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil.\" And this thing is because man - before he sinned - was clinging to Him, may He be blessed. And his Cause was God, may He be blessed, who is the complete good. That is why he only knew the good exclusively - since He, may He be blessed, is only good. But He, may He be blessed, who does not have a cause, knows good and evil. Hence before he sinned, he was not separated from his Cause, may He be blessed and he only knew good exclusively. But the snake told her that when she would eat from the tree of knowledge, they would acquire excess knowledge, to know good and evil. But this thing is excess knowledge and this thing itself is death. For before the sin, man clung to Him, may He be blessed, completely. And that is why he did not know good and evil, but rather only good. But after he sinned, he knew good and evil [and] he was no longer clinging to Him, may He be blessed, completely. So death came to him, as we said above. And earlier (Derekh Chayim 3:15), we explained that the knowledge of evil is not [having] only knowledge of his Cause. Hence this thing separated him from God, may He be blessed, until man was by himself; and this cause him death. However God, may He be blessed, knows good and evil because He has no cause. So that is why he knows good and evil. And understand this explantion because it is choice. Even though we already explained  this above in a somewhat different way, it is all one way of truth. There is no doubt about this.",
                    "And that is why Rabbi Yehudah reasons (Sanhedrin 70b) that it was wheat and that is what caused death to man. And that is corresponding to, \"and that the tree was desirable to contemplate,\" about which the verse spoke. Even though all three were in the tree of knowledge, he is however explaining that the main part was the wheat in that it is good to contemplate. And though there are the other two things with it, the main thing that brought death to man is nevertheless the intellectual faculty when it went beyond what is appropriate. As due to the level of this faculty - being the intellectual faculty - sin with it, causes sin much more. Hence he reasoned that it was specifically wheat, and as above. For the eating of wheat gives wisdom; \"as an infant does not know to call his father, etc.\" And it is as it is found in Horayot (13b): \"Five things are good for study - one who eats wheat bread, all the more so, wheat itself.\" ",
                    "But according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah, who said it was a fig tree - this thing is corresponding to the faculty of lust. As there is more lust to eat the fig than any other fruit, and that is why this fruit is eaten for dessert. But it is well known that figs are good for eating. And Rabbi Nechemiah reasons that death came to [Adam] when he was drawn after the faculty from which there is lust; and about which it said, \"that the tree was good for food.\" And death came because of this. And even though also according to Rabbi Nechemiah, all three of these things were in (the fig tree) [the tree of knowledge]  - as it was also desirable to see and good to contemplate - nevertheless, the main thing that brought death was that he was drawn after the vegetative faculty from which there is lust. And that is why he said it was a fig tree. ",
                    "And Rabbi Nechemiah holds just the opposite [of Rabbi Yehudah], that the main thing that brought death to [Adam] was the vegetative faculty. As because of the lowliness of this faculty - since it is only the vegetative faculty - when he sinned, it is appropriate that its lowliness bring death and absence. For it itself is a lowly faculty; so that through sin with it, one becomes completely corrupted. So there is lack and absence here. And this is the opposite of the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who holds that one who sins with something more important causes death more. And that is why he reasons it was wheat. But Rabbi Meir would reason that it is inappropriate to say that the sin was in the intellectual faculty. For sin with the intellectual faculty is not considered lowliness and lacking, since it itself is something with stature, so [that] lowliness does not damage it so much. For its own stature is determinative. And likewise is it inappropriate that the sin be in the vegetative faculty: Even though this sin is considered complete lack when he sins with the vegetative faculty due to its lowliness, nevertheless the sin with this faculty is not considered so much of a lack. As its faculty is not so great and strong, that it should bring death. And that is why it can be said that the sin is in the faculty of the spirit. For this faculty is not so important and not so great [like the intellectual faculty]. Hence it is what brings death. As you cannot say that it is not appropriate that it bring death, since it is not important. For this faculty is certainly important. And you also cannot say that sin with this is not considered such lowliness and absence, due to the stature of this faculty. For it is also not considered so [great]. Hence it is appropriate that death be with it, when he sins with it. There are also further words of substance about these three opinions, but we should not elaborate here. So these three opinions of the Sages have been explained to you in a magnificent fashion.",
                    "And in Bereishit Rabbah (15:7), it brings these three opinions, but it also adds, \"Rabbi Abba from Akko says, 'It was an <i>etrog</i> (citron).'\" You should know that the opinion of Rabbi Abba from Akko is a magnificent thing. For Rabbi Abba holds that it was not that the sin was from the angle of the parts of the faculties of the whole spirit, but rather from the angle of the whole spirit, as was explained above (Paragraph 3). And he reasons that the sin was not from the angle of the parts of the spirit, but rather from the angle of the spirit - which is one [and] includes all of the three parts. And that is why she said it was an <i>etrog</i>. For an <i>etrog</i> is called that, from the [Aramaic term for] desire, which is the expression, <i>regig</i>, or desire. And desire includes all three of them as one, without any distinction among them. For the desire is for all three of them together. But behold the opinion of Rabbi Abba is a deep thing - that which he said it is an <i>etrog</i>. As that is a fourth opinion. For [as opposed to] the opinion of the previous Tannaim, that the sin was only in the distinct faculties, the opinion of Rabbi Abba was that the sin was not from the angle of the parts, but rather from the angle of the spirit as a whole. And how very much must you understand these things, for they are very deep wisdom. For when Scripture said (Genesis 3:6), \"that the tree was good for food, and that it was tempting to the eyes, and that the tree was appealing to contemplate,\" all three of them were equally hinted. So to each of the Tannaim, one faculty was the main thing, as was explained. But Rabbi Abba reasoned that the sin was from the angle of the spirit as a whole, not from the angle of the distinct faculties. Rather it was from the angle of the spirit, which includes all three of the faculties - when the spirit oversteps the measure and the limit, it brings him death. And since the spirit is completely one, it is impossible to say anything but that it overstepped the limit with desire. For desire is one and it includes the three things, just like the spirit is one [and] includes the three distinct faculties, as was explained above. For envy also comes because of desire, since one who desires something is envious about it. And lust is from desire; and likewise honor - man desires honor.",
                    "And you should know that there are the three things in the <i>etrog</i>: As it is certainly good for food. And it is tempting to the eyes; for behold it is a lovely fruit (<i>pri hadar</i>). And it is desirable to contemplate because of the scent in it, as they said (Yoma 76b), \"Wine and good scents make wise\" - from the scent in it. And understand these deep words - the opinion of each one of these Tannaim who were mentioned in the Talmud and the opinion of the fourth who was mentioned in the Midrash. For the opinion of each one is magnificent with secrets of wisdom.",
                    "<b>And in order that</b> you will know to understand words of wisdom further - behold two sons were born to the first man (Adam), the first was Kayin, and the second was Hevel. And it was appropriate for Adam who was the first to bring out his faculties, according to the faculties that are in man. For the branches go out according to the trunk. Hence he had two sons, the first was Kayin and the second was Hevel, corresponding to these two faculties - which were the faculty of lust and the faculty of envy. And you should know that only Kayin had envy. For behold he was envious of Hevel when God, may He be blessed, turned to his offering; \"But to Kayin and his offering He did not turn\" (Genesis 4:5)......"
                ],
                [
                    "<i>He would say, \"Those who are born will die, and those who are dead will be revived, and the living will be judged. [It is necessary] to know, to make known, and to become conscious that He is God, He is the Maker, He is the Creator, He is the Understander, He is the Judge, He is the Witness, He is the Litigant, and He is destined to judge. Blessed be He, who has before Him no wrong, no forgetfulness, no respect of persons, no taking of bribes, for all is His. And know that everything is according to the reckoning. And do not let your [evil] impulse assure you that the netherworld is a place of refuge for you; because against your will you were created, and against your will you were born, and against your will you live, and against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give account and reckoning before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.\"</i>",
                    "<b>He would say, \"Those that are born, etc.\":</b> It may asked about this statement - that he said, \"Those who are born will die\" - why did he make it depend on, \"those who are born,\" and not say, \"People will die\"; or \"Those that are living will die?\" Moreover, what is he coming to make us understand? As who does not know that those that are born will die? Also [about] that which he said, \"and those who are dead will be revived, and the living will be judged\" - as he should have first said, \"The living will be judged,\" and then, \"those who are born will die, and those who are dead will be revived.\" And also [about] that which he said, \"and the living will be judged\" - from this it can be known that \"He is the Maker, He is the Creator\"; and how one can know it from this. And also [about] that which he said, \"who has before Him [...] no taking of bribes\" - how is the taking of bribes relevant to God, may He be blessed. For what should he take from man?",
                    "<b>Know that</b> after Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said that three things remove a person from the world, not according to the way of the world - when he oversteps what is appropriate, as was explained - he continued to further explain death that comes according to the order of the world: Why does a person leave the world; given that not all who die, die because of envy or because of lust or because of honor. So he came to teach that there is death without sin - as we establish it in Tractate Shabbat (55b), \"There is death without sin and there are afflictions without iniquity.\" So why do they die? That is why he said, \"Those that are born will die,\" and he did not say, \"Those that are created will die.\" Meaning to say, from the angle that he was born, death is appropriate for him. And that is because one born is born after he was not in the world; and just like he was born after he was not, so too does he leave this world. Hence he said, \"Those who are born will die,\" and he did not say, \"Those who are created will die\" - even though he is also created. Rather [he said], \"Those who are born,\" as there is no proof from one created. For even though he is created, behold his creation is from God, may He be blessed, who is eternal - as we explained. So it is possible that He would preserve him [forever]. But those who are born are from a father and mother. For behold they have a portion from the father and mother, such that they are a cause of the person born. So it is impossible to say that he be preserved forever, since he was born from a father and a mother. Hence regarding the revival of the dead, it is possible that a man live and and not die - for there is no mother and father then that will be a cause of the person. Only God, may He be blessed, will be the Cause. Therefore he specifically said, \"Those who are born will die.\" There is also a deep and clear explanation about this from that which they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 18) on, \"These are the generation of the heavens and the earth\" (Genesis 2:4) - everything that has generations  withers and ides, and everything that does not have generations does not wither and does not die. But here is not the place to elaborate. "
                ]
            ],
            [
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [
                    "<i>Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of sin: [When] some of [the people] give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes; and some go hungry, and others have plenty. [When] they all decide not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes. [And when they decide, in addition,] not to set apart the dough (<i>challah</i>) [offering], a famine of annihilation comes. Pestilence comes to the world for the death penalties set forth in the Torah that are not given over to the court [to carry out]; and for [violation of the laws governing] the produce of the Sabbatical year. [The] sword comes to the world for the delay of justice, and for the perversion of justice, and because of those who interpret the Torah counter to the accepted law.</i>",
                    "<b>Seven kinds of punishment, etc.:</b> We have already mentioned (see Derech Chaim 5:16 and note 1076 in the Hebrew annotations to this mishnah) that which exists in the world with the number seven, [and] that is lower than the level of ten. And it said, \"Seven kinds of punishment come to the world,\" because order is by way of seven things, as we have said (Derech Chaim 5:7:4). And therefore, adjacent to it is, \"Seven kinds of punishment.\" As this thing is the opposite of the first - since, \"Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of sin.\" And the understanding of this is also as we have said. For God, may He be blessed, constrained the world through the commandments, such that the world not veer from order but rather stay in its condition, as is appropriate. And we have already explained in the book, Gevurot HaShem (Chapter 66) that this is the reason for the seven laws that God, may He be blessed, gave to Adam. And that is explained in its place, see there. And that is why it had appear adjacent, after it, \"Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of sin.\" For through these seven sins, the world completely veers from order. And each and every one of these seven sins is one veering. And these things - how these seven sins make the world veer from the appropriate order - are known to the enlightened. And because of that, it said that seven punishments come to the world on account of this. For when the world is ordered in its order, there is no punishment here - as God, may He be blessed, ordered the world to the point that there would be no lack in it all. And punishments are the veering from the order because of sin. As it makes the world veer from order. And therefore punishments come to the world. As punishment are the veering from the order. And that is why it said, \"Seven kinds of punishments, etc.\"",
                    "<b>And the understanding of this thing</b> that it said that famine comes to the world because of the tithe and the dough (<i>challah</i>) [offering]: It can be explained that God, may He be blessed, commanded to give the tithe to the Levites (Numbers 18:21), and to give the dough [offering] to the priests (Bava Kamma 110b); and God, may He be blessed, did not give them a portion and an inheritance (of land) amongst Israel (Deuteronomy 10:9, 18:1). And therefore they said here that when they do not give the tithe and the dough to the one it is appropriate to give them to - the Holy One, blessed be He, also deprives them of their livelihood, and brings famine to the world. And [regarding] that which famine comes more for the dough [offering] than for the tithe - it is because dough is specifically with bread. For bread is the sustenance of man, as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:3), \"that man does not live on bread alone.\" And it is not like the tithe: For even though the tithe comes from olives and grain - and grain is also the sustenance of man, when bread is made from it - nevertheless, it is not the sustenance of man until it is made into bread. And in the chapter [entitled] HaSokher et HaPoalim (Bereshit Rabbah 48:11): \"We have found in the Torah, in the Prophets and in the Writings that bread satiates the heart of man - in the Torah, since it is written (Genesis 18:5), 'And I will get a piece of bread and you will satiate your heart'; from the Prophets (Judges 19:5), 'Satiate your heart with a piece of bread'; and from the Writings (Psalms 104:15), 'and bread that sustains man’s heart.'\" And the sustenance of a man is certainly in the heart; and hence the dough is greater than the tithe. But nevertheless when they do not bring the tithe, the Holy One, blessed be He, [also] brings famine to the world - for even though fruits do not give sustenance like bread, as it is written, \"that man does not live on bread alone,\" regardless it temporarily satisfies the hunger of a man. And therefore, if he does not tithe, there is drought and famine in the world - since it is possible to satisfy a man who he is to give to with them. But if there is no dough - given that the dough is the sustenance of man - they said that the Holy One, blessed be He, brings a famine of annihilation, which is a complete annihilation of sustenance (life).",
                    "And because of this they did not mention the priestly tithe at all - because there is no requisite amount at all for the priestly tithe. So one [grain of] wheat exempts the threshing floor (Chullin 137b). And hence one [grain of] wheat given to a priest is not something with which he can satisfy himself. However the tithe certainly has a requisite amount. And the dough - even though the dough also does not have a requisite amount, nevertheless since it is the sustenance of man, even the smallest amount is also worth something to him - as it is his sustenance. And also, with the dough, it is written (Numbers 15:21), \"and you shall give\" - meaning to say that the dough be something important enough that it can be called giving, as is explained by Rashi, may his memory be blessed, in Parashat Shelach Lecha (Rashi on Numbers 15:21). And hence it is [actually] the sustenance of man. But not the priestly tithe and not the first fruits; only the tithe and the dough. ",
                    "<b>And in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 1:4):</b> \"The world was created in the merit of three things: In the merit of the dough [offering]; in the merit of the tithes; and in the merit of the first fruits. As it is written (Genesis 1:1), 'In the beginning God created.' And 'beginning' is nothing but the dough, as it written (Numbers 15:20), 'The beginning of your doughs.' And 'beginning' is nothing but the tithe, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:4), 'The beginning of your grains.' And 'beginning' is nothing but the first fruits, as it is written (Deuteronomy 26:2), 'From the beginning of the fruits of the land.'\" And we can wonder [about] that which they mentioned these three things and did not also mention the priestly tithe; as it is [also] called, \"beginning,\" in several places! And another difficulty - why was the world created in the merit of these three things? And the understanding of this is that God, may He be blessed, created the world, and benefited the creatures with what they needed. And if it were not that there would also be people in the world that would benefit from their goods to others, it would not have been appropriate for Him to create the world and to benefit them with what they need. For this trait is connected to the trait of kindness, such that it is only appropriate to do kindness one who is kind. As so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say (Ketuvot 72a), \"he who buries [someone, others] will bury him; he who carries [someone, others] will carry him.\" The understanding [of it] is that all of the acts of kindness that a person does, it is appropriate that it also be done to him. And this thing will be explained in its place (Netivot Olam, Netiv Gemillat Chassadim 3) - how it is appropriate that it be done to someone who does acts of kindness  according to the kindness that he does. And therefore if there were not to be people who do acts of kindness in the world and benefit [others] from their goods, it would not have been appropriate for God, may He be blessed, to create the world and benefit the world with what it needs. And this thing is explained above (Derech Chaim 1:18) in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibel Torah, on, \"The world stands on three things, etc.\"",
                    "And [the first] is because God, may He be blessed, benefits the world with something that is the main sustenance of man, like bread - which is the sustenance of man. And the second is [because] He benefits the world with something that if it was not in the world would have been lacking - even though it is possible for man to live without it, man would have nevertheless been lacking. And the third is [because] God, may He be blessed, benefits the world with things that - even though if they were not in the world, the world would not have been lacking, it is just that God, may He be blessed, is the Good (Menachot 53b) and benefits man with total goodness. And these are three levels: The first is what is necessary and that is the sustenance of man; the second is such that it be without lack; and the third is that it be with goodness and pleasure. And corresponding to this are three things - the dough, the tithe and the first fruits. The dough is the sustenance of man. So if he gives the dough, God, may He be blessed, gives and benefits the world with necessary things. And if he gives the tithe - given that the sustenance of man is not dependent on the fruits and it is also impossible that he be supported all of his days with fruits, but they are rather a completion of the world, for if there were not to be fruits and wine, there is is no doubt that it would be a lack - so when people give this, it is appropriate that God, may He be blessed, also benefit the world with things that fill the lack. However the first fruits - given that there is no requisite amount to the first fruits (Bikkurim 2:3), but it is rather the way of people to most desire a fruit when the fruit first comes out, such that a person enjoys it, yet it is only due to pleasure and goodness and it does not fill a lack - and hence when a person benefits another with something that is only pleasure and special goodness, it is appropriate that God, may He be blessed, also benefit the world with His goods, even though if this were not in the world, it would not be lacking at all. Rather, they are only for extra goodness.",
                    "And it is corresponding to this that they ordained the blessing, \"who creates many souls and their lacks - for all which He created to give life with them, to the soul of all the living\" (Berakhot 37a). And the Baal HaTurim (Tur, Orach Chaim 207) explained, \"for all which You created to give life with them, to the soul of all the living\" - that even if they were not created, man would not be lacking. For encompassed by that which it said, \"who creates many souls,\" are the things that are necessary for man, like bread. For if there were not the things that are necessary for man - which are the sustenance of man - there would be nothing in creation. For behold there would not be sustenance here. And with, \"and their lacks,\" it means to say that if it was not in the world, it would have been a lack. \"For all which You created, etc.,\" are things that are not a lack at all, but for extra good. But according to what appears [correct], the understanding of the exact [wording] of, \"who creates many souls and their lacks,\" means to say that He created for Adam, things that - even though they do not give livelihood and sustenance to man, they are nevertheless necessary to fill the lacks of man. For water, (which) man drinks for his thirst, but it does not give livelihood to man, and it does not sustain a man. Rather it is only that he would die of thirst if he did not drink. And even if he would not die, it would have been a lack to man. And hence, they ordained [for it], \"who creates many souls and their lacks.\" And they likewise ordained it upon all the fruits (Tur/Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 207) that do not give sustenance and livelihood to man at all, but rather fill a lack. And afterwards, it said, \"for (<i>al</i>, which can also be understood to mean, beyond) all which You created to give life with them to the soul of all the living\" - these are things that give sustenance and livelihood to man. And that is the language, \"beyond all which You created, etc.\" For the sustenance of man is certainly first.",
                    "And nevertheless, these three things are because man benefits all the categories of good to those besides him. And because of this, they did not mention the priestly tithe - because the priestly tithe, which is the smallest amount, is not so much a need of man. But first fruits is [different]: Because it is only on account of the pleasure of a new fruit, it is even with the smallest amount - and it is applicable to make a blessing upon it - as we have explained above. And therefore on account of the tithe - when they do not give the tithe, famine comes to the world.",
                    "And you should also know that that which it said, \"and not to set apart the dough,\" and did not say, \"if they do not set apart the dough\" - is because it is in addition to the first. As before this, it said that they do not take tithes; and about this it says, that they don't set apart the dough - meaning to say, that they also do not take the dough, to the point that they do not give anything. But one cannot say that at first they do not give the dough; and afterwards they add on not to give the tithes - as this thing is not aplicable. For dough is a small thing. So how should they give the tithe, which is one out of ten, and not give the dough, which is one out of twenty-four for a homeowner and one out of forty-eight for a baker. And therefore, it said, \"[When] others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes; and some go hungry, and others have plenty.\" And even with those that are hungry, it is not a famine of tumult. But [when] they all do not give tithes, a famine from tumult comes to the world. And the understanding of, \"famine of tumult,\" is that they yell out and run around frantically after [their] livelihood, to the extent that there is a tumult among them. And that is what is called a \"famine of tumult.\" And if they add on, not to set aside the dough - and, all the more so, that they do not give the tithes - then a famine of annihilation comes to the world. So behold, you have three things: When you find a lack among some people; when you find a lack among all people - [both of] which are only a lack; and when you find absence, which is total absence. And therefore it said that if, \"some of [the people] give tithes, and others do not give tithes,\" the lack is in some - meaning, \"some go hungry, and others have plenty.\" But if they all do not give tithes, the lack will be in all of them, such that they will all be hungry. But if they add on to this, not to set aside the dough, then there will be a famine of annihilation in the world.",
                    "<b>But there is nevertheless a difficulty:</b> Why did it not mention gifts to the poor, since it is a greater theft from the poor than the tithes and the dough? Yet later (Avot 5:9) with, \"At four times pestilence increases,\" it mentioned the theft of the gifts from the poor and also the seventh year. And hence we should know that that which it it said here that famine comes because of the tithes and the dough is on account of when famine is in the world, it is a result of blessing being withdrawn from the world. As when there is no blessing from God, may He be blessed, then famine comes. And these two things - meaning tithes and the dough - bring blessing to the world: The tithes, as they said in the first chapter of Taanit (9a), \"'You shall surely tithe (<i>Asser titasser</i>)' - tithe, so that you will become wealthy (<i>asser beshvial she'titasher</i>).\" And this has already been explained earlier (Derech Chaim 3:13), with, \"Tithes are a fence for wealth.\" And there the reason was explained: That when God, may He be blessed, commanded that one give one out of ten, it is as if He said to give one from his wealth that God, may He be blessed, gave to him, [back] to God, may He be blessed. And hence it is specifically one out of ten. For up until ten, they are individual units; and there is no wealth in individual units. Rather wealth is with ten, since it is not an individual number. And we have already explained that the individual units go up to ten, not including ten. And that is why ten (<i>esser</i>) is called by an expression of wealth (<i>osher</i>) - meaning to say, it is something of wealth. And since he gives of his wealth to God, may He be blessed, it is appropriate [that he have] wealth. And that is [the understanding of], \"tithe, so that you will become wealthy\" - it means to say that you become completely wealthy. And it is explained more earlier; and it is understood and true - so understand it. ",
                    "And concerning the dough, we also say in the chapter [entitled] BeMeh Madlikin (Shabbat 32b): [That if they do not give the dough,] there is no blessing in what is gathered, a curse spreads to the prices, and they plant but others eat - as it is stated, \"I also will do this unto you; I will appoint panic (<i>behalah</i>) over you, etc.; and you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it” (Leviticus 26:16). Do not read it <i>behalah</i>; rather, read it as <i>bechallah</i>. But if they give [it], they are blessed, as it is stated, \"And the first of your dough you shall give unto the priest to cause a blessing to rest on your home\" (Ezekiel 44:30). To here [is the Gemara]. Then you should note that blessing is because of the dough, and famine is because of the avoidance of the dough. And you should contemplate the reason that one who separates the dough is blessed. It is because the dough is a commandment that is for the home - meaning the livelihood of the home. And the priestly tithe is not like this, as the priestly tithe is not relevant to the livelihood of the home, as is the dough. And therefore the home of a man is blessed, since blessing is applicable to a home. As it is a home that is blessed - as they said in every place (Ketuvot 103a; Bava Batra 144b). And that is why it brought a proof from the verse in which it is written, \"to cause a blessing to rest on your home\" - meaning to say, the <i>challah</i> is from the dough that is relevant to the home and the home is blessed because of it. And hence these two (which) are the ones that are included in blessing. And the opposite of this is also [the case] - as one who does not give them is distanced from blessing. And you should understand these things, for they are great things concerning tithes and the dough.",
                    "<b>And some ask about these words [of this mishnah]:</b> [Regarding] that which it said, \"Seven kinds of punishment come to the world\" - is not famine from drought and famine from tumult [only] one? And also [regarding] that which it said, \"for seven categories of sin\" -behold, \"some of [the people] give tithes, and others do not give tithes,\" and \"they all decide not to give tithes\" is all one sin! And also, behold there are many more than seven sins! As note that there is the tithe, the dough, the death penalties that are not given over to the court [to carry out], the produce of the Sabbatical year and the delay of justice. And afterwards, there is idolatry, sexual immorality, the spilling of blood and the resting of the land. But these things are not difficult: For that which it said, \"for seven categories of sin\" - the understanding of sin [here] is that Israel deviates from the right and appropriate way. And when some of them deviate from something, that, by itself, is called deviating; and when they all deviate, that [too] is called deviating from the path, by itself. And hence, even though they are both the same sin, each one, by itself, is called deviating from the path. So too for the exact same reason is sexual immorality, idolatry, the spilling of blood and the resting of the land considered one sin. For even if they are different things, the teacher [of the mishnah] considered them one sin - since they all completely bring the same punishment of the repayments. And they certainly share the same sin - as idolatry is called impurity, as it is written (Leviticus 18:30), \"and you shall not become impurified by them\"; and likewise with the spilling of blood, as it is written (Numbers 35:34), \"And you shall not impurify the land\"; [and] idolatry is called impurity, as it is written (Leviticus 20:3), \"in order to defile My sanctuary\" - as it is found in Shevuot (7b). And if so, these three are one sin, the sin of impurity. And likewise is the resting of the land called the same sin as these three, as will be explained. And therefore it was well said - \"Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of sin.\" As it called the death penalties that are not given over to the court and the produce of the Sabbatical year, one sin, since they are one matter. As it is because of that thing which they share that the punishment comes. And therefore it is one sin. And hence false oaths and the desecration of God's name are [also] considered one sin, since the punishment comes for the sin that they have in common. And there is no difficulty [here] at all. And accordingly are a famine from drought, a famine from tumult and a famine of annihilation, called three [different] punishments. And since each and every one has a separate name, why would this not be three different punishments?",
                    "<b>Pestilence comes to the world, etc.: </b> It may be asked, what is the relation of pestilence to the produce of the Sabbatical year? Even if we say that pestilence is connected to [obstruction of] the death penalties set forth in the Torah - for when we do not give over those who are fit to die to the hands [of the court], pestilence comes to the world and they will die on their own - still, what is the relations of the produce of the Sabbatical year to pestilence? You should know that you find [something] with the produce of the Sabbatical year that you do not find with other things. For even if you find that you have to destroy <i>orlah</i> (fruit of the first three years) and  mixed vineyards from the world - that is the case, because it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. However it is not forbidden to derive benefit from produce of the seventh year - as behold, it is permitted to eat them. Yet He commanded about them to destroy them from the world when it is the time of [their] destruction. And this destruction in which he destroys them from the world is such that he renders them ownerless in a place that people and animals trample [them] with their feet, until they are destroyed from the world. Moreover, it is because the Torah specifically commanded about the destruction of the produce, and that is the actual commandment - to destroy them from the world. And you will not find that the Torah fixed a commandment about this in any [other] place. And hence pestilence comes for the produce of the seventh year, about which He commanded in the Torah, to destroy them from the world. For [pestilence] comes to destroy the creatures from the world; just like He commanded to destroy the produce from the world and be ownerless to all - whether to men or to animals. And when man does not do this, man becomes completely ownerless towards the angel of destruction, such that he not distinguish between the good and the bad. And this thing is understood."
                ]
            ]
        ]
    },
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "דרך חיים",
        "enTitle": "Derekh Chayim",
        "key": "Derekh Chayim",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
                "enTitle": "Introduction"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "משנת 'כל ישראל'",
                "enTitle": "Kol Yisrael; The Opening Mishna"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "",
                "enTitle": ""
            }
        ]
    }
}