diff --git "a/txt/Mishnah/Acharonim on Mishnah/Derekh Chayim/English/Sefaria Edition 2021 by R. Francis Nataf.txt" "b/txt/Mishnah/Acharonim on Mishnah/Derekh Chayim/English/Sefaria Edition 2021 by R. Francis Nataf.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/txt/Mishnah/Acharonim on Mishnah/Derekh Chayim/English/Sefaria Edition 2021 by R. Francis Nataf.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,1189 @@
+Derekh Chayim
+דרך חיים
+Sefaria Edition 2021 by R. Francis Nataf
+Nataf translation
+
+Derekh Chayim
+
+Introduction
+
+
+
+Kol Yisrael; The Opening Mishna
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<i>Ben Zoma says, "Who is the wise one? He who learns from all men, as it is stated (Psalms 119:99), 'I have acquired understanding from all my teachers.' Who is the mighty one? He who conquers his impulse, as it is stated (Proverbs 16:32), 'slowness to anger is better than a mighty person and the ruler of his spirit than the conqueror of a city.'  Who is the rich one? He who is happy with his lot, as it is stated (Psalms 128:2), 'When you eat [from] the work of your hands, you will be happy, and it will be well with you.' 'You will be happy' in this world, and 'it will be well with you' in the world to come. Who is honored? He who honors the creatures, as it is stated (I Samuel 2:30), 'For those who honor Me, I will honor; and those who despise Me will be held in little esteem.'"</i>
+<b>Ben Zoma:</b> He is called, Ben Zoma, since they said at the end of the first chapter of Sanhedrin (17b), "'Those who deliberated in front of the sages' [is a reference] to Shimon ben Azzai and Shimon ben Zoma, who would sit in front of the sages and challenge the sages with questions." And this thing was with them in their youth, before they reached the realm of maturity - yet their names were noted for their wisdom. And that is why they were called by the names of their fathers, for they did not have [established] names of their own in their youth. So even after they matured, this name - that they were called Ben Zoma and Ben Azzai - stuck to them. And even though there are also others that were noted there as having sat in front of the sages, they were the sharpest and most analytical. And that is why they [in particular] were called these names. And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained (Rashi on Avot 4:1) that they did not come to the realm of maturity (they died young), and that is why they were called by the names of their fathers. But according to what appears, there is no need [to say this]. For it was because their names were noted in their youth that they were called by the names of their fathers, [and] these names stayed with them. So does it appear. 
+<b>Who is the wise one, etc.:</b> It may be asked [about] that which he said - "Who is the wise one? He who learns from all men" - why should one who knows much Torah not be [noted here as] wise? Moreover, that which he said - "As it is stated (Psalms 119:99), 'I have acquired understanding from (<i>mi</i>, which can also mean, more than) all my teachers'" - why did he explain it thus? As it appears that the explanation of, "<i>mi</i> all my teachers," is: More than all my teachers, those that taught me, I have acquired understanding. It is like, "They are desirable <i>mi</i> gold and <i>mi</i> much fine gold" (Psalms 19:11). And also, that which he said, "Who is the rich one? He who is happy with his lot": Even though it is certainly appropriate to say that one who is happy with his lot is also rich - as he is self-sufficient - nevertheless, the expression, "who is the happy one," implies that specifically the one who is happy with his lot is rich, and no one else is rich. And this thing is certainly difficult. For why shouldn't someone who has a hundred fields and a hundred vineyards and a hundred servants working them be rich, as it is found in the second chapter of Shabbat (25b)? Moreover, "Who is honored? He who honors the creatures," from its being written (I Samuel 2:30), "For those who honor Me, I will honor" - but what proof is this that one who honors the creatures is honored? And a further difficulty - why did he come to explain specifically these four characteristics and not come to explain other characteristics?
+<b>The explanation of this statement</b> is that Ben Zoma came to give ethics about the virtues that a man has. And because he came to teach about a thing that is comprehensive - meaning that they are relevant to a person, in that he is a person - that is the reason the teacher placed the words of Ben Zoma at the beginning of the chapter, as we explained in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Omer (Derekh Chayim 2:1), and in the chapter [entitled] Akavia (Derekh Chayim 3:1) - as they were also coming to teach comprehensive ethics. And Ben Zoma came to teach about these virtues that he mentioned, which are specifically connected to a person. For these four things are connected to a person and fit in with the delineation of man. As wisdom is for the intellect of a man, which is the person; and might is for the spirit of a man, which is the person; and wealth is the acquisitions of a man, which are impossible for a person to be without; and likewise honor is for the man himself, as will be explained. That is the reason he said [this]; for these four things are appropriate to be for a person from the angle of himself - since they are connected to a person - and not from the angle of something besides him. 
+And that which he said, "Who is the wise one? He who learns from all men" - it is because the word, wise, describes the man himself who is called, wise. And since the word, wise, is a description of the man; it is inappropriate to describe the man with it, when the description is not from the angle of himself (intrinsic to him). For [in the case of] a man who has a house, since the house is not a description of the man himself - it is just that he lives there - the man is not described by it. And even if a man was described with this - even though the description about the man does not come from the angle of himself - it is nevertheless not a complete description of the man, since it does not come from the angle of himself. Hence it is inappropriate that a man be described by wisdom that is outside of the man, and [that] the wisdom not be his from the angle of himself.
+And that is what he said - "Who (literally, Which) is the wise one," who is appropriate that he be called, wise? That is the one "who learns from all men." Meaning to say that he craves wisdom from the angle of himself, to the point that he learns from all men. Behold, it is certainly appropriate to call a man like this, wise - for wisdom does not come to him by chance. Rather, since he craved wisdom to the point that he learned from all men, the wisdom is considered to be from the angle of himself - since he craved the wisdom. But if one did not learn from all men, but rather only from a teacher who is a great sage, his wisdom is surely also dependent upon the teacher - which is external and not from the angle of himself. As note that it was because of the significance of the teacher that he received the wisdom; so it is inappropriate that a person like this be called wise. For this word comes upon a man from the angle of himself, such that the description [truly] comes about him. Hence the one that is appropriate to call wise is the one who learns from all men. For all are the same for [this] recipient, since he learned from all. If so, the wisdom is dependent upon the recipient, so it is fitting that he be called wise. For [only] then is he considered a recipient of wisdom - when he learns from all men, without any distinction between great and small.  
+<b>And you should also know</b> that wisdom is separated from man, since he is [only] the bearer of wisdom. And we have explained this thing several times - that the wisdom of a man, who has a body - is separated from him. Yet the word, wise, comes about the man from the angle of himself. Hence it is inappropriate that a man be called, wise, because of the wisdom in him. For what relation does the man - who has a body - have to wisdom? Rather it is only because he had craved to receive wisdom [that it becomes possible to describe him as wise]. And when wisdom is with a man in this way; the bearer - who is the man that receives [it] - becomes actualized with the wisdom that he receives. [This is] like matter - which is the bearer - becoming actualized with the form that it receives. But if the bearer - which is the matter - did not crave for the reception of this form, it is as if there is no complete reception of the form. So it is necessary that there be craving to receive the form here. And that which the craving of the matter for the form was hinted to, is in the verse (Genesis 3:16), "and towards your husband will be your yearning"; and in the words of the Sages that know wisdom (Yevamot 113b), "More than the man wants to marry, the woman wants to be married." And all of this is the craving of the matter to receive the form, to be actualized by it. And that is what it said here, "Who is the wise one? He who learns from all men" - for once he had the craving for wisdom, it is appropriate that he be called wise; since it [then] comes regarding the man from the angle of himself.   
+<b>And he brought a proof</b> from its being written (Psalms 119:99), "I have acquired understanding from (or, more than) all my teachers." And its explanation is certainly that he desired Torah [knowledge] to the point that he had many teachers. As it is not appropriate to disparage his teacher and say that he acquired more wisdom than his teacher who taught him wisdom. Moreover, [had that been the case,] why did he not say, he acquired more wisdom than all of the sages; and why did he mention that he acquired more wisdom than his teachers? As his teachers are certainly not wiser than other sages, such that he should say specifically, "I have acquired understanding more than all my teachers." As there is no relationship of the teacher to this! For this is not considered a novelty if he acquired more wisdom than the one who taught him wisdom; as this is very [common]. And if he was wiser than the other sages, why wouldn't he also be wiser than his teachers? For it is certainly the way of a person when he has been taught, that he acquires wisdom on his own; and this is no novelty at all. Rather, its explanation is [that] he received and acquired wisdom from all who taught him. And it is coming to say that he desired and greatly craved for Torah, to the point that he learned from all men. And he said (in the continuation of the verse), "for Your testimonies are my speech" - meaning to say that all of his speech and give and take was in Torah. And the proof he brought from this is only that [in the case of] one who learned from all men does it show that he desired and craved for Torah. For if not, what did he come to say, that he learned from all men? But since he craved for Torah, it is appropriate that he be called wise - as the wisdom is actualized in him.
+<b>And he also said, "Who is the mighty one, etc.":</b> Meaning to say, it is appropriate that all of the virtues be present from the angle of himself - of the one with the characteristic - and not from the angle of something besides him. And if one who had vanquished another would be called, mighty - if so, his virtue would be from the angle of the one vanquished. But this is not an indication of the vanquisher; and that which he vanquished another, is not from the angle of himself. And even if he conquered several cities - the word, mighty, [only] comes upon the person himself. Yet this thing - that he conquered many cities - is from the angle of the vanquished, who is besides him; and nothing is confirmed about the vanquisher. But it is appropriate that the virtue be intrinsic to the one with the description, not from another angle. And that which he conquered cities - there would be no might here if not for the vanquished. And [it is] also [the case], since it is perhaps that the constellation (fortune) of the vanquished is so bad, to the point that he vanquished him. For that reason, this might is not from the angle of the man himself, such that he should be considered mighty because of this mighty deed. For we have already said that it is appropriate that the word, mighty, come upon the man himself; whereas this is not from the angle of the man himself, only from that which is besides [him], that being the vanquished. But one who conquers his impulse - that is from the angle of the man himself and not from the angle of that which is besides [him]! And because of that, it is appropriate to call him, mighty. Hence it said, "Who is the mighty one? He who conquers his impulse" - since the might is with him even if he did not vanquish another. So then the word, mighty, should be placed upon him. 
+<b>And he brought a proof</b> - "slowness to anger is better than [...] the conqueror of a city" (Proverbs 16:32). And he wants to say [that] since it compares being slow to anger - which is conquering anger - with the conqueror of a city, who is certainly mighty; if so, the [conqueror] of one's impulse (which includes anger) is also mighty. And since he is called mighty, and this might is with himself - and not from the angle that he is the conqueror of a city, about which that might is from the angle of another - that is the reason it is appropriate that he be called mighty when he conquers his impulse.
+<b>Also, it is not appropriate</b> that one who did something mighty and vanquished another be considered mighty, as this faculty is also [even] more in an animal than a person. And this is not a virtue for a man from the intrinsic angle of his being a man. But one who conquers his impulse is from the angle of knowledge and wisdom which is unique to a man, in that he is a man who has a mind and wisdom. So he is appropriate to be called mighty.
+<b> And he said, "Who is the rich one?":</b> And it can be said that it is inappropriate when someone who has much money, which is in the treasury or in his chest, that he be described with the word, rich. For this thing is not connected to the person; and the wealth is not from the angle of himself. So it is inappropriate that he be called, rich, on account of this. Rather, it is the one who is  happy with his lot. For when he is happy with his lot, he is rich in [his] mind - then he is happy from the angle of himself. And he brought a proof from the verse (Psalms 128:2)  that said, "you will be happy." For the expression, "you will be happy," means that he has complete preservation (<i>kiyum</i>). And preservation is said about wealth; as it is referred to, with the expression, <i>yakum</i> - like it is written (Deuteronomy 11:6), "and all the <i>yakum</i> (wealth) at their feet." And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained (Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:6), "This is the wealth that stands a person on his feet." And it said [that] when you eat from the work of your hands, you will then have the virtue of complete wealth; since you will have preservation, like there is with wealth. And that is [the meaning of], "you will be happy (<i>ashreikha</i>)"; from [the same usage] as, "his <i>ashur</i> (steady steps) will not falter" (Psalms 37:31). And from this, he shows that one who benefits from the work of his hands is completely rich - for he has preservation.
+<b>He also brought a proof,</b> since the verse praises this one who suffices by himself. And that is because he does not lack, such that it is the reason that he acquires this world and the next world, as will be explained. And if so, he is richer than all of the rich. For every rich person is lacking. As even if he has several thousands, behold he is lacking relative to one who has more. But one who suffices with what he has, does not lack. And since he does not lack, it is impossible that he be more [rich] than that. And this is the reason he is rich. 
+<b>And that you not say</b> that it is just the opposite, that it is not appropriate that one be rich in [his] mind and be happy with his lot as if he were rich; for behold, he is not rich and he would be 'wearing a cloak that is not his,' saying that he is rich - rather, he should be happy according to his wealth which God, may He be blessed, gave him: That is why he brought the verse that says (Psalms 128:2), "When you eat [from] the work of your hands, you will be happy, and it will be well with you." For since the verse said, "When you eat [from] the work of your hands," it is speaking about one who benefits from the work of his hands and is happy with [that] portion. For if it were not so, why did it say, "When you eat [from] the work of your hands?" It should have [then] said, "When you eat from  your own." Rather its explanation is that it is when a man benefits [specifically] from the work of his hands; and that is what is called (this) that he eats from the work of his hands. For this eating is that he benefits from the work of his hands. And this is the one who is happy with his lot, meaning that he is happy with the thing that is his; for the work of his hands is more his [than other things that belong to him] - when the thing came to him by the work of his hands. Hence only the one who benefits from his work is the one who is happy with his lot. And about this did it say, "you will be happy, and it will be well with you."
+<b>In the first chapter of Berakhot (8a), they said:</b> Greater is the one who benefits from the work of his hands than one who fears Heaven. As with the one who fears Heaven, it is written (Psalms 112:2), "Happy is the man who fears the Lord"; whereas with one who benefits from the work of his hands, it is written (Psalms 128:2), "you will be happy, and it will be well with you." - "you will be happy" in this world, and "it will be well with you" in the world to come. To here [is the Gemara]. And the explanation is not that one who fears Heaven does not [receive] reward in [both] this world and in the world to come. As he certainly [does]. Rather the difference is this: That with one who fears Heaven, the verse included everything in the expression, "happy"; but with one who benefits from the work of his hands, it is written, "you will be happy, and it will be well with you." That is to say that he has a stature in this world, and there is an additional unique supernal level beyond that stature in the world to come. So behold, it is specifically for him in the world to come. And it is not similar to one who fears Heaven, as it is all one [for him] - he will be happy in this world and in the world to come; and it is all included in one expression. And because of this, there is nothing specifically for him in the world to come - in that it is a specific world - like there is with one who benefits from the work of his hands, about whom it is written, "you will be happy, and it will be well with you."
+And the reason is that the one who benefits from the work of his hands is separated from the physical. For the physical is what is always lacking, so it receives from another - as has been explained many times about the matter of the physical lacking and receiving from another for that reason. So one who is happy with his lot and is not lacking - this thing is from the level of the complete removal of the physical. And this is the meaning of his saying, "happy in this world" - for he is detached from the physical; that is the reason, "'you will be happy' in this world." And how [much more] in the world to come! As there is complete removal from the physical there, such that it will be completely good for him there. And this is certainly the highest stature. And earlier (Derekh Chayim 1:10) - regarding "love work" - we also explained  this; and this explanation is completely choice without any doubt.
+And we also explained above (Derekh Chayim 2:9) - regarding "one who borrows and does not repay" - that [in the case of] one who is lacking to the point that he receives [from others]: This thing veers from the delineation of simplicity. But this one who is happy with his lot only wants that which is his - that is the level of simplicity; when he is not lacking and does not receive from another. And it is certainly appropriate to say about this, "'You will be happy' in this world, and 'it will be well with you' in the world to come." For the world to come is specifically for him, since he is completely separated from the physical. And how deep were the words of the Sages, who expanded upon this, regarding the matter of this characteristic! And it will be further explained at great length, with God's help, in the book, Netivot Olam (Netiv HaOsher 1), with God's help. So that which he said, "Who is the rich one? He who is happy with his lot," has been explained to you.
+<b>And he said, "Who is honored? He who honors the creatures":</b> And he means to say also as we said: That it should not be said that one who is honored by the creatures be called honored. Behold it is not fitting that he should be called honored because of this. For this thing is not [derived] from the one being described himself. As note that the honor is in the hands of others who honor him. And on account of others honoring him, the virtue of honor is not found in the man himself; yet it is appropriate that the virtue be in the man himself. And that is the reason that he said, "Who is honored? He who honors the creatures." And this one is considered honored; as the honor is with him. For when he honors the creatures, behold the honor is with him. That is the reason our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Tanchuma, Vaera 8), "God, may He be blessed, is called the 'King of Honor' (Psalms 24:7-10), since He distributes honor to those that fear Him." For the honored one distributes honor to another; and this honor is from the angle of himself, not from the angle of another. And he brought a proof from that which is written (I Samuel 2:30), "For those who honor Me, I will honor; and those who despise Me will be held in little esteem." And what is the reason of, "For those who honor Me, I will honor?" And it should not be explained that it is measure for measure. For [then] it should not have been written specifically regarding honor; since this is [generally] the trait of the Holy One, blessed be He. Rather, this is its explanation: "For those who honor Me" - in that they are honoring Me, they possess honor. And since they possess honor, I will also honor them. And from this, you see that one who honors another possesses honor, and it is fitting to honor him. 
+<b>Then you should note</b> that he mentioned specifically these four characteristics - and did not mention other characteristics - because it is specifically these four characteristics with which a man is described but are [in practice, generally] not from the angle of the man himself. And that is the reason he said, "Who is the one who is appropriate to [actually] be called a wise one? He who learns from all men." For it is appropriate to call this one wise, as he is wise from the angle of himself. And likewise, "Who is appropriate to be called mighty? He who conquers his impulse," as he is mighty from the angle of himself; not one who conquers and vanquishes another. For this might is not from the angle of himself. And likewise, wealth - [it is not] one who has money in his chest. For this one is not rich from the angle of himself. Rather it is he who is happy with his lot, such that the characteristic of wealth which is with him is from the angle of himself. And likewise, the honored one; it is the one who honors others who is truly called honored - since the honor is found with him. But when one is honored by others, he is not called honored. For this thing is from the angle of others, not from the angle of he who is called honored, himself. So there is one explanation to all of the four characteristics.
+<b>And Ben Zoma mentioned</b> these four characteristics, since you will also find that Scripture spoke about them (in Scripture) in the order that Ben Zoma mentioned them - as it is stated (Jeremiah 9:22), "Let not a wise man glory in his wisdom; and let not the mighty man glory in his might; let not a rich man glory in his wealth." Then you should note that the prophet mentioned these three things together in this order. For these three things are connected to a person; as a person has an intellect in him, he has a spirit in him and he has wealth. And it is impossible for a person [to survive] without these three. And he said, the wise should not glory in the intellectual virtues that are with him, for it is one part of the parts of a person. And he should not glory in might, which is a virtue of the spirit - since might is from the angle of the faculty of the spirit. And there is yet a third thing which is also connected to a person; and that is wealth, being the acquisitions that belong to a person. For it is impossible for him without this; but it is not from the man himself, like the intellect and the spirit which are to a person. So he should also not glory in the acquisitions which belong to a person. For glory is relevant to these three things; as they are to a man from the angle of his being a man. And because of this [above distinction] - regarding might, it is written, "and let not the mighty man glory in his might," with an, "and." For the intellect and the being are connected together. Whereas wealth is completely removed from man. Hence, it is written, "let not the rich man glory in his wealth" [without being preceded by, and]. And regarding the mighty man, he added the definite article, <i>hay</i> (the) - because it is the way of the mighty man, that his name becomes known in the world as a result of the mighty deeds he performs against others. Hence, he said, "and let not the mighty man glory in his might" - even though his name becomes known everywhere. 
+So the sage, Ben Zoma, mentioned these three characteristics: The first is the virtue of the intellect; the second is the virtue of the spirit - as they are parts of a person - and the third is a person's acquisitions. And he added, "Who is honored" - because each one of these three characteristics is an individual virtue on its own, but honor includes all three of them. For honor is found particularly in these three. Since there is honor with the wise one, as it is stated (Proverbs 3:35), "The wise shall inherit honor [...]." And likewise might - when one vanquishes [another] and rules over him - has the greatest honor with it. As behold, that is why he said, "the mighty man," with the definite article, <i>hay</i>; and as it is written (2 Samuel 23:22), "and he had a name among the mighty men." And so is there honor in wealth - behold the sons of Lavan said (Genesis 31:1), "and from that which was our father’s has he made all of this honor." And in the chapter [entitled] (HaOmer) [HaEsh HaMekadesh] (Kiddushin 49b): "Who is rich? Anyone who the people of the city honor because of his wealth." And we have already explained this (see Netivot Olam, Netiv HaNedivut 1). Hence honor is specifically in these three characteristics.  
+<b>And also in the same way</b> that wisdom is of the intellectual faculty, might is of the faculty of the spirit and wealth is the acquisition of man and connected to a man; so too is honor - the clothing of a person - connected to a person. As a person is clothed by honor; so honor is considered like clothing for a person. It is as it said in the chapter [entitled] Elu Kesharim (Shabbat 113a), "'And you honor it by not going your own way' (Isaiah 58:13) - 'and you honor it,' that your clothing on Shabbat should not be like your clothing during the week. This is like that of Rabbi Yochanan, who would call his clothing, my honor." And it said there further (Shabbat 113b), "'And under his honor' (Isaiah 10:16) - but not his actual honor. This is like that of Rabbi Yochanan, who would call his clothing, my honor." Then you should note that clothing is [a person's] honor. Hence honor is also considered like clothing for a person; and as it is written (Genesis 20:16), "here, it shall serve you as a covering for the eyes" - and Onkelos translates [it as], "here, it shall serve you as a cloak of honor, etc." Note that honor is also called, a cloak. Hence these four things that Ben Zoma mentioned are things that are connected to a person. For we have have already said that these three things - wisdom, might and wealth are connected to a person. And honor is also connected to a person, and it is considered like the clothing of a person. And this explanation is very choice, to the point that there is no doubt about it at all for the one that understands the depths of wisdom and understands the order of these four characteristics. As they are very much according to wisdom.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<i>Ben Azzai says, "Run to do an easy commandment as to a difficult one, and flee from sin; since a commandment leads to [another] commandment, and a sin leads to [another] sin; since the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment, and the reward for a sin is [another] sin."</i>
+<b>Ben Azzai says, etc.:</b> We have already explained to you many times that the way of the teacher [who redacted Pirkei Avot] is to teach [the teachings of] the sages that were in one generation together. And the mind tells [us] this. As you will find that the teacher began to order the transmission in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel (Avot 1:1) and ordered their words of ethics according to that which was in one generation and, as they were, one [generation] after [another]. Hence in each place when there were two sages in one time, he ordered their words together. For [in this way,] the teacher is coming to say that these sages, who were the fathers of the world, taught ethics to the children - as it is written (Proverbs 1:8), "My son, heed the ethic of your father." And when there were two [sages] in one generation, and they were the fathers of the world in their time, it is appropriate to order their words together - in that they were fathers together - and not only this one on his own and that one on his own. And Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma were colleagues at one time (Sanhedrin 17b). So how could their words not be mentioned together? And this is certainly  the correct [reason].
+<b>Nevertheless</b> it can be explained that these statements were connected together. And that is because Ben Zoma made an ethic from the four things that are connected to a person, as was explained (Derekh Chayim 4:1). But Ben Zoma did not mention [a person's] actions, [even though] the actions are connected to a person. However they are not relevant to the matter that Ben Zoma was speaking about, as we said. Hence Ben Azzai, his colleague, came to complete the person in his actions and said, "Run, etc." As with this, he gave an ethic for the actions of a person - that he should run to a commandment. And with this, he completed the whole person to the point that he be complete in everything. For a person certainly needs to be complete in his actions.
+<b>And one should be precise</b> with the words of Ben Azzai - that he said, "Run to do an easy commandment [...], and flee from sin," and he did not say, "from an easy sin." Moreover, the statement, "since the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment, and the reward for a sin is [another] sin" - what more did it come to add? Behold, he already said, "since a commandment leads to [another] commandment!" So why did he need to say, since the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment, and the reward for a sin is [another] sin?" And also, from where [do we know] that "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment, and the reward for a sin is [another] sin?" Perhaps the reward for a commandment is the good that the Holy One, blessed be He, does for him and the reward for a sin is his punishment that God, may He be blessed, brings upon him.
+<b>And the explanation of this thing</b> is that the teacher said that a person should run to do a commandment that is easy for a person to do. That is to say that if the commandments are heavy upon a person, he should run to do a commandment that is easy for him; and then he will be drawn to the other commandment as well. But this is not relevant about sin. For all sins are easy to do, and all of the [ones he would do] are enjoyable for a person. So this thing is not relevant.
+<b>And the explanation of this thing</b> that he said,  "since a commandment leads to [another] commandment," is that it is because the commandments - which are 613 (Makkot 23b) - are all one thing. And that which it said (Proverbs 6:23), "For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is a light," should be explained like this: It is meaning to say, you should not think that the commandment is a lamp and the Torah - which includes all of the 613 commandments - is many lamps. Rather the thing is not like that. For while the commandment is one lamp, the Torah - in which there are all of the 613 commandments - is not many separated lamps, such that each lamp is by itself. Rather, the Torah that has all of the commandments is one light. As the lamps combined and became one big light, for the Torah is one. And we have already explained that the Torah is one in its place (Tiferet Yisrael). And the hint comes in the word, (the) Torah, which has a numerical count (<i>gematria</i>) of 611, and we heard [the other two commandments], "I am," and "You shall not have" (Exodus 20:2-3), from the mouth of the Omnipotent. So all of the 613 commandments come with the word, Torah - to say that the Torah is one and all of the commandments are connected, to the point that they are completely one concept. And this thing is choice. 
+And that which he said, "since a commandment leads to [another] commandment," is meaning to say that the doing of one commandment is also the beginning of another one, since all of the commandments are one thing. Hence one commandment leads to [another] commandment. For anything that is one is not divisible at all. So when he does a commandment - which is half a thing - that commandment leads to another; until he does all of the commandments, which are one thing. And since the whole Torah is one thing, sins - which are the opposite of the commandment - are also one thing. [So] in the same way that a commandment leads to [another] commandment, so too does a sin lead to [another] sin.
+<b>And he also said that "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment, and the reward for a sin is [another] sin":</b> The explanation is that it is so that you don't say that what he said - "a commandment leads to another commandment" - is from this angle, that all beginnings are hard. And that is like they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:5:1 on Exodus 19:5): "If you will surely hear" (literally, "if you hear, you will hear") - if a person hears a little, they will have him hear much. From here, [we see] that all beginnings are hard. And likewise [could we understand], "a sin leads to [another] sin" - if he transgressed one sin, he will come to transgress other sins, in the way of (Deuteronomy 8:19), "if you surely forget" (literally, "if you forget, you will forget") - if he forgot a little, [he] will forget much. So he said that the thing is not like this. Rather, here there is a different mode - that the reward of a commandment is a commandment. And this is like we said, that when he begins with a commandment, it is appropriate that he completes the thing. For something that is one is not divisible, but rather unified. And that is the reason he said that the reward for a commandment that God, may He be blessed, gives to him, is that he will do another commandment. And likewise the punishment for a sin that he did is that he will do another sin; and, in the end, he will pay for it all together.
+<b>And you should know</b> that all payments for an action that one did - whether for good or for bad - the payments and the action are one thing, so [the payment] is drawn after the action. For there is no good action without good payments, and there is no bad action without bad payments. And that is why restitution is called <i>tashlumin</i> (the root of which is <i>shalem</i>, complete) - because the action without restitution is half a thing. As behold, one must give him his reward; so the reward for this is the completion (<i>hashlamah</i>) of the action that he did. And for that reason, restitution is referred to by the expression, completion - for it completes that which is connected to the action. And likewise if he borrows from [someone] - when he makes restitution to him, he completes what is required by the loan that he borrowed from him. And this thing is simple. Hence, he said that "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment" - meaning to say that just like the reward is the completion of an action that he did, so too is the other commandment the completion of the commandment that he already did. For the first commandment [together] with this commandment are one thing, to the point that the other commandment is the reward and completion of the first commandment. And this is the explanation of, "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment." 
+And even though the expression, reward (<i>sakhar</i>), [is used] in every place for a good that is paid to the doer - here, because the one who does the commandment desires the doing of the commandment, he said about this that the reward of his deed and his payment is another commandment. And likewise is it said with a sin, that "the reward for a sin is [another] sin." And he means to say that since he desires the sin - and for this sinner, the act of a sin is good for him - he is given another sin as his reward and payment. So it is according to the thought of the sinner that he said this - "the reward for a sin is [another] sin." Since the other sin is the reward and completion of the first sin; as the first sin is one thing [together] with the other sin.
+<b>And also (another explanation)</b> is that it is because it is not relevant to give the reward until the measure has been filled. As it is [only] then appropriate to give the reward. And likewise does the Holy One, blessed be He, not take restitution from the wicked until the measure has been filled. And that is why "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment" - because the one commandment is waiting [so long as] the measure has not been filled. And that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, enables him to do still another, until the measure is filled. For it is then that it is appropriate to receive the reward; and the Holy One, blessed be He, then pays the reward. And likewise is it with punishment. And that is why he said, "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment and the reward for a sin is [another] sin." And this is also correct; and you should understand this, for it is a choice explanation when you understand [it]. And the teacher came to have us understand this.
+And perhaps you will find it difficult: If so, why was it necessary to say (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:5:1 on Exodus 19:5), "if you will surely hear" (literally, "if you hear, you will hear") - if a person hears a little, they will have him hear much. Learn it without this - behold "a commandment leads to [another] commandment!" [But] this is not a difficulty. For that which "a commandment leads to [another] commandment," means a commandment that is similar to the first one; and likewise with a sin. And it is with this that leading (<i>gereirah</i>, literally towing) is relevant; but not [with] any commandment that is not similar to it at all. Nevertheless, "they will have him hear much" - meaning that he will hear other commandments. And likewise concerning forgetting - that if he forgets one, he will come to this that he will forget many. 
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<i>He would say, "Do not disparage any person, and do not shun any thing. For you have no man who does not have his hour, and you have no thing that does not have its place."</i>
+<b>He would say, etc.:</b> [This mishnah follows the previous one] since Ben Azzai said (Avot 4:2), "Run to do an easy commandment [...], and flee from sin; since a commandment leads to [another] commandment" - and with this we learned that each and every commandment is something unique on its own. For if there were two commandments that were one like the other, it would not be relevant for one commandment to lead to another, according to the reason that we said - that a commandment leads to [another] commandment because one thing is not divisible into two, and all the commandments are one thing. And that is the reason that one commandment leads to another. For that is only relevant when each commandment is on its own, such that they connect together. But if one [commandment] is like the other, one is not half a thing (there is nothing else that can make it more complete). Hence it is impossible not to say that each and every commandment is unique, but that they nevertheless combine together. So when he does [only] one commandment, it is considered like one thing that is divided. And therefore one commandment leads to another. And from this you know that every commandment has its own place. And this thing is the virtue of a commandment - that each commandment has its unique function.
+Hence he strengthened his words to bring a proof. And he placed it adjacently afterwards: Just like it is with commandments, so too is it with people, and with all the creations in the world - that they have this exact same thing, that they each have their unique place. That is why he said, "Do not disparage any person" - to say that this person has no significance and is considered extra in the world, and he has no part in the world at all. And likewise, "do not shun any thing" - and that is the other things that are created in the world - that a person might distance it, that it is not to be considered as being from that which [truly] exists in this world. One should not do this thing, "For you have no man who does not have his hour" - meaning to say, every person has his unique hour (at which time he was born and which determines his astrological fortune). Even though we have found [that a person may have an (almost) exact] contemporary, it [only] means that they are close in their constellation. But each one certainly has his own unique constellation. For it is impossible that two people would have the complete same constellation. As even two hairs do not draw sustenance from [the same] follicle (Bava Batra 16a); all the more so, do two people not have the same constellation. And since each one has his own constellation - which another does not have - behold, he is from that which exists in the world. As the world is certainly arranged by the constellations. So, in that which every one has his unique constellation, each and every one is surely considered to be from that which exists in the world and completes the world; to the point that it is from the angle of all people in the world that the world is complete. And this thing is similar to the commandments of the Torah, since all of the commandments of the Torah complete the one Torah; and [then] the whole Torah is one complete concept, without a lack and without anything missing. And likewise, every person that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the earth - every one completes the world. And that is why he placed this statement adjacently after the statement, "a commandment leads to [another] commandment, and a sin leads to [another] sin" - as both statements are one matter. And he said, "and you have no thing that does not have its place" - he said this thing corresponding to the other things that are ordered in the world
+And because it is specifically man that has a constellation - and as it is found in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (2b), "A person is different, as he has a constellation" - that is why he said, "you have no man who does not have his hour," meaning a constellation [under which he was born]. Yet all things that are in the world have their place - since they are ordered by God, may He be blessed, each one in its place. And with man, it is relevant to say,  "Do not disparage" - since honor is relevant to man. And that is why he said,  "Do not disparage any person," to treat him with the opposite of honor. But with other things, shunning is what is relevant. And this thing is understood.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<i>Rabbi Levitas, a man of Yavneh, says, "Be very, very humble in spirit, for the hope of mankind is worms." Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says, "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly. There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name."</i>
+<b>Rabbi Levitas, a man of Yavneh, says, etc.:</b> It appears that it should be explained that [the redactor] also ordered this statement here because this sage was together with the previous sages at the same time, or one after the other - as we have explained. And that is the main explanation, as I [just] explained. But it is [also] possible to say that it is because it said before this (Avot 4:3), "Do not disparage any person," [that] he said that this thing is that one should not disparage the other; but one should disparage himself. And about this, he said, "Be very humble in spirit, for the hope of mankind is worms." And there is nothing more lowly and denigrated than worms. And accordingly should he be in his [own] eyes. And the order of this mishnah [after] the one before it will be further explained proximately (Paragraph 5). 
+<b>And it can be asked about this:</b> That which he said, "Be very humble in spirit, for the hope of mankind is worms" - is man's hope not that his soul will be attached under the Throne of Glory? So why did he say, "for the hope of mankind is worms?" And it should also be asked, "And is his hope, worms?" For man does not hope for this, and the expression, hope, is said about something that a man [actually] hopes for. And another difficulty: That he began to speak in second person, ""Be very humble in spirit"; but he concluded in third person, "for the hope of mankind is worms" - whereas he should have said, "for your hope is worms."
+<b> The explanation of this statement:</b> Even though a man certainly hopes for a good end, and 'the end of a man is peace' - nevertheless it is not appropriate for a person to be proud in this world. For, from the angle of this world, his hope is worms. As that which the soul of man is attached with the Binding of Life - that is not from the angle of this world. As in this world, he is called, <i>adam</i> - based on the word, <i>adamah</i> (earth). Hence even if he will have a great end and culmination, he should nevertheless not be proud in this world; as he has a body [that will be consumed by] worms and vermin. And [even] if he will have a [great] end - from the angle of this world, he is nevertheless called, <i>adam</i>, based on the word, <i>adamah</i>. [So] if he is not humble of spirit, he will be proud about something that is not appropriate for him.
+<b> And it can also be said</b> that since Ben Azzai said (Avot 4:3), that one should not disparage any person, Rabbi Levitas added to say, [that] it is not that one should not disparage any person; but rather that he should be humble in spirit and submissive before every person. And he said (Editor's note: This is according to a different textual version of this mishnah), "before every person" - meaning to say that even if that person is lowly and denigrated, he should regardless be lowly also before such a person. 
+<b>And he said, "for the hope of mankind is worms":</b> He meant to say that the end of a person is death, as death is appropriate for a person. And it is like they said in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 2:4), "Anyone about who it is said, 'and he was,' is projected for something: 'Behold, the man was' (Genesis 3:22), he was projected for death. 'And the snake was' (Genesis 3:1), it was projected for punishment." Such that you see from this that the essence of man is to be appropriate for death. And about anyone that is projected for something, it is relevant to say that he hopes for it, even though he does not [actually] hope for it. However from the angle that his essential condition hopes for this and is projected for this, it is relevant to say that his hope is for this. For [the word,] hope is relevant to anything that is waiting for something and prepared for it. He therefore said, "for the hope of mankind is worms," and he did not say, "your hope is worms." For the hope of a [specific] man is not for this. He rather said this about the general human condition - not about the person that is present (and fit for the use of second person) - that he hopes [for] degeneration. And likewise did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Berakhot 17a), "The end of a [domesticated] beast is to be slaughtered; the end of a person is death." As you see from this, that this is his hope from the angle of his essential condition. And this thing is well understood.  
+<b>And that which he said, "Be very, very humble in spirit":</b> It is because he needs to be the most humble, to the point that it is impossible to be more [humble]; so you should not say that he should [just] be somewhat humble. Rather he needs to be completely humble in spirit. For behold, "the hope of mankind is worms." And since the hope of mankind is worms, he needs to be completely humble in spirit, to the point that it is impossible to be more [humble]. 
+<b>But he did not say,</b> "the hope of man (<i>adam</i>) is worms." And that is because, he is called, <i>adam</i>, based on the word, <i>adamah</i> (earth); and from the angle that he is of earth, he is not of worms. For behold there are no worms in earth [itself]. Rather it is from the angle that flesh rots; but the earth does not have worms. And he did not say, "the hope of a man (<i>ish</i>) is worms" - as the word, <i>ish</i>, is said in every place about strength. And in that a man has strength, he does not have worms. As you will find that the word, <i>ish</i>, comes about this in every place: "A Man of war" (Exodus 15:3); "Are you not a man" (1 Samuel 26:15). And from the angle that a man has strength, he [also] does not have worms. Rather man has worms from the angle of both of them together - in that there is in man this thing that his strength is embedded in the physical. So from the angle of both of them [together], he has worms. For this thing is degenerating - in that man's strength is embedded in the physical. And [when] man is called, mankind (<i>enosh</i>), it is from the angle that man's strength is embedded in the physical. 
+So behold that there are three words for man: Man (<i>adam</i>); a man (<i>ish</i>); and mankind (<i>enosh</i>). The word, <i>ish</i>, is said about strength by itself; the word, <i>adam</i>, is said about earth by itself; and the word, <i>enosh</i> is for both of them - the strength and the earth together, his strength embedded in the physical. And you should know this thing: As the [numerical equivalent of the] word, <i>enosh</i> is like the number of <i>adam ish</i> (Editor's note: It is actually off by one, see Hebrew note 309 by R. Y. Hartman.) For he is called, <i>adam</i> because of the earth and <i>ish</i> because of the strength; whereas <i>enosh</i> appears about the connection of the strength and the earth together. And that is why the number of <i>enosh</i> is like the number of <i>adam ish</i>. Hence he said, "the hope of mankind <i>enosh</i> is worms."
+<b>"Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven, etc.":</b> The explanation of the desecration of the name of Heaven is like it is explained in the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Yom HaKippurim (Yoma 86a) - that any Torah scholar who does a sin, such a thing is called a desecration of [God's] name. For the Torah scholar knows and recognizes his Master, so he causes the creatures to say that there is certainly 'no law and no Judge' (Vayikra Rabba 28:1). For behold he is a sage that knows and [yet he] sins! But if so, there is a difficulty: How is it possible to desecrate the name of Heaven secretly? As behold, [if it happens] secretly, no one sees it that they should say this! And it can be answered that there were ten Torah scholars in one house and one of them stole something but it is not known which one. Or also (another possibility): There were ten Torah scholars sitting [together] and one of them entered a house of prostitutes but it is not known which. As this one desecrates the name of Heaven secretly; since it is not known that he sinned. And "they punish him publicly" - is that who the sinner was becomes known and publicized. Or also (another possibility of how to resolve the difficulty): That which it said, "secretly," is not to say that it is [completely] secret, but rather that not many know about it. So the Holy One, blessed be He, publicizes it to everyone, such that all will know. And that is called, secretly; because afterwards, he said, "they punish him publicly" - meaning publicized to all the creatures.
+<b>And we have already explained to you</b> that [the redactor] ordered the sages - the ones that were in the same time or close to one another - together. And this thing is correct. But if you want to connect this statement to the one before it, you could say it is because Ben Azzai said (Avot 4:3), "Do not disparage any person" - such that it is not appropriate to treat any creature disparagingly - whereas Rabbi Levitas said [that] he should however not seek his own glory at all, but rather be humble in spirit before every person in the world. So afterwards, he ordered: But he should worry about the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He - that he should not, God forbid, desecrate the glory of the Omnipresent. For this sin is more severe than all of the sins. As one who desecrates the name of Heaven desecrates His glory, may He be blessed. And if one is warned about the honor of a person - that one should not disparage any creature - how could he desecrate the glory of the Omnipresent, whose 'glory fills the world?'  
+<b>And it could be asked</b> about this statement - "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven, secretly, etc.": What is the difference between the sin of desecrating the name of Heaven and all [other] sins, that a person be punished publicly? Moreover that which he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - why should it have this strictness, such that unintentional and intentional be considered [the same] with the desecration of God's name, [something] that you will not find with any of the other sins. 
+<b>We have already said</b> that the desecration of the name of Heaven is that he desecrates His glory, may He be blessed and may He be exalted. And even though, when a person sins, what does he impact on God, may He be blessed; [still] is not this thing - that he sins with the desecration of [God's] name - not the greatest of sins, even [more] than heresy. [But] from what angle is the sin of the desecration of [God's] name greater? It is because with heresy - in that thing, it is relevant to say that if he sinned intentionally, it is appropriate that he be repaid according to his evil; but if he was unintentional, it is not appropriate that it be considered so much of a sin for him - as he did not do it willingly and with intention. Of course, it is still considered a sin for him [when he was] unintentional - that is, that he should have been more careful not to sin - but he was [still] unintentional, so the Torah was not so stringent.
+As we have not found [elsewhere] that the Torah is stringent upon one unintentional except about one who kills a being, due to the reason that, at the end of the day, he killed him and performed a major act. And because of that, the Torah was stringent upon him, that he should be exiled. And it was also stringent in all injuries, since we say (Bava Kamma 26a), "A person is always forewarned - whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether [accidentally or knowingly]." And all of this is because, at the end of the day, he caused injury to the other.  
+And likewise one who desecrates the name of Heaven: Behold His glory fills the world; and at the end of the day, it is the same whether he was unintentional or intentional - behold, he desecrated His glory, which fills the world, may He be blessed. And when an impact is made - even with a person regarding injuries - when there is an impact, the Torah does not say to be lenient with him like with other [cases of being] unintentional. For other sins - and even one who has intercourse with someone sexually prohibited - (and) if he was unintentional about it; once he repents, that thing is his reparation, since no impact was made with it. And that is why if he was intentional, he is certainly evil, to die; but if he was unintentional, he has atonement with a sacrifice. But it is not like this when he made an impact with killing or injuring his fellow - about which the Torah was very strict with one unintentional. And so too is it with the desecration of [God's] name - it should be strict with one unintentional. For, at the end of the day, a desecration and a negation of glory occurred.  
+<b>And the explanation</b> is not at all that unintentional and intentional are [completely] the same with the desecration of [God's] name. For this is not so at all! As it is impossible that unintentional and intentional be the same; and [God's] trait of justice would not allow that unintentional and intentional be the same. Rather, it is going on what is above - "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly" - that [even if he was unintentional,] they punish him publicly.
+<b>And the reason for this</b> is in order to rectify His glory, may He be blessed. For when God, may He be blessed, takes vengeance against the sinners, his glory is aggrandized. And it is as they expounded in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 14:4): Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said, "The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is only aggrandized in the world when he executes judgement against the wicked; and we have many verses: 'And I will punish him (Gog) with pestilence and with blood' (Ezekiel 38:22), and afterwards it is written (Ezekiel 38:23) 'And I will be aggrandized and I will be sanctified.' 'There He broke the flying bows' (Psalms 76:4). What is written after it? 'God is known in Judah, His name is great in Israel' (Psalms 76:2). 'And I will be glorified through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and all of his host, and Egypt will know that I am the Lord, etc.' (Exodus 14:4). 'Thus said the Lord, "The toil of Egypt and [...] of Cush, etc. You are a God who conceals Himself"' (Isaiah 45:14-15). 'And the power of the Lord shall be revealed with His servants; but He shall rage against His foes' (Isaiah 66:14); 'Therefore [...] I will make known to them this once' (Jeremiah 16:21). 'But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment'" (Isaiah 5:16). To here [is the Midrash]
+Then you should note that when God, may He be blessed executes justice upon the wicked, His glory is aggrandized. And it is appropriate that God, may He be blessed, execute justice upon one who has desecrated the name of His glory, may He be blessed - in order to aggrandize His glory, may He be blessed, corresponding to this one who had desecrated the name of Heaven. So with this judgement, His glory returns to be aggrandized [once more]. Hence "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly" - in order that everyone will know that God, may He be blessed, executes judgement upon this sinner who desecrated the name of His glory, may He be blessed. And when God, may He be blessed, comes to exact retribution from him - God, may He blessed, comes to cause it that it be known that he sinned and desecrated the name of His glory. So then He exacts retribution from him and executes justice against this sinner; and then His glory is aggrandized in the world, corresponding to that which he desecrated His glory, may He be blessed. And that is the explanation of, "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly." And about this it said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - meaning to say, there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name, such that they punish him publicly.
+<b>However, the language,</b> "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name," [would then be] superfluous. As it should have said: "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly. There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional." And there was no need to repeat and say, "when it comes to desecration of [God's] name." So it appears that this is its explanation: "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - meaning to say that the stringency that there is in the desecration of [God's] name over other sins is the same when unintentional as when  intentional. And had it only said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional," it would have only referred to that stringency that they punish him publicly; but not to the rest of the stringency. That is why it comes to make us understand, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - in all of the stringency that there is with the desecration of [God's] name.
+And so it is shown in the first chapter of Kiddushin (40a): "We learned [in a mishnah] there, 'Credit is not given with regard to the desecration of God’s name, whether one sinned unintentionally or intentionally.'" And the Gemara says, "(We learned there) [What is], 'Credit is not given?' Mar Zutra says, 'That [God] does not act like a storekeeper and provide credit.' Mar, son of Ravina, said, 'That if [one’s merits and sins were] equal, [this sin] is determinant [of the outcome].'" And Rabbenu Channanel, may his memory be blessed, explained, "That which it said, 'We learned there,' is [referring to] a mishnah in Avot." And Tosafot (on Kiddushin 40a, s.v. Ein) explained: Perhaps it is that which was learned, "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly." But [then] the expression of, "credit is not given," is difficult. To here are the words of Tosafot. But [even] without this, it is difficult!  For how can it be understood from that which we learned, "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly": Whether its explanation is that they do not act like a storekeeper and provide credit, or it is like the one that said that if he was equal, it is determinant - this is not implied from that which it said, "they punish him publicly!"   
+So it appears that the explanation of, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name," is that in all of the stringency that there is to the desecration of [God's] name, which you will not find in other sins - in that thing they are the same - there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional. And since it is implied from the mishnah that the desecration of [God's] name is not similar to other sins - that is why it said (Kiddushin 40a), "We learned there, 'Credit is not given (<i>makkifin</i>) with regard to the desecration of God’s name.'" Meaning that we are not <i>makkifin</i> the sin of the desecration of [God's] name to other sins. For behold, it is learned, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - meaning the stringency that there is with the desecration of [God's] name over other sins is that there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional - it is equal in this stringency. And hence we learned that we are not <i>makkifin</i> the sin of the desecration of [God's] name to other sins. And the expression, <i>makkifin</i>, that it [used] is like, "We are not <i>makkifin</i> cysts" (Chullin 46b) - meaning we do not bring them close to one another; and like, "We are not <i>makkifin</i> two barrels" (Beitzah 32b) - the explanation of which is, we do not bring two barrels close [to each other]. And what [the Gemara in Kiddushin] meant is that we do not bring the desecration of [God's] name close to other sins. And that which Mar Zutra said is that [God] does not act like a storekeeper who provides credit and who waits until he owes him more and collects it all together, such that he brings the debts close to each other. But this is not done with the desecration of [God's] name - that the sin of the desecration of [God's] name be brought close to other sins, that all should be collected together in the way that a storekeeper brings all of his debts together. Rather it is collected immediately. And with this, the desecration of [God's] name distinguishes itself from other sins. But according to Mar, son of Ravina, [it is] that if [one’s merits and sins were] equal, it is determinant - meaning to say that the desecration of [God's] name does not join the other sins. As behold, if the scales were even, the desecration of [God's] name is [nevertheless] determinant. And if so, the desecration of [God's] name is not similar to other sins.
+And that which credit is not given like a storekeeper with the sin of the desecration of [God's] name is because of the reason, as was explained above (Paragraph 18); because God, may He be blessed, collects from the sinner in order to glorify His name, may He be blessed. For this one disparaged the name of His glory. Hence it should not be delayed with this, such that the desecration not continue - given that what was meted out is the rectification of the desecration that desecrated His glory. And likewise if he was even, it is determinant - it is that the sin of the desecration of [God's] name is not similar to other sins. For other sins are only from the angle of the doer - as behold, 'what will they do to God,' may He be blessed? But this one who desecrated His glory - there is surely more substance to this sin than any [other] sin. For, at the end of the day, he desecrated His glory. And that is why if he was even, it is determinant. And even though we said that killing is also [like this] - since he killed a being - it is [still] not similar to the sin of the desecration of [God's] name. As man is himself subject to death, and his end is to die. But His glory, may He be blessed, is forever and ever. Hence this sin - which is the desecration of His name - is unique, since there is substance to this sin. Hence it is determinant. So must this mishnah be explained; and it is a proper explanation. 
+<b>And you should know</b> that we have also explained great things about the desecration of [God's] name - that which he said, "they punish him publicly"; and likewise what he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name." And that is because a name is the revelation of the one with the name, For everyone is publicized and known in the world by his name - like (Malachi 1:11), "My name is great among the nations." And it is through His name that He is publicized and known. Hence he said, "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly" - because He desecrated His name which is revealed and known to all. And it is as it is written (Jeremiah 16:2), "and they shall know that My name is the Lord." And that is why they punish him publicly - that it be known and revealed to the public that he sinned with the desecration of [God's] name. For it is through His name that God, may He be blessed, is revealed in the world. Hence even if he desecrated [God's] name secretly - at the end of the day, he sinned with His name, through which He is known and revealed in the world. Hence they punish him publicly
+<b>And he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name":</b> This thing is another matter that distinguishes this sin from other sins: For when he desecrates [God's] name, may He be blessed - it is the name that indicates the nature of something and the essence that distinguishes it from that which is besides it. And because of this, it is appropriate that, "there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name." And that is because an unintentional sin relates to the body. For something unintentional is relevant to the body when the intellect is removed from it; but had the intellect been with him, the unintentional and mistaken would not have been relevant at all. As the unintentional is only when the intellect is separated from him, and he becomes a bodily thing. So that is why the unintentional sin is not on the level of the intentional, since [the latter] is a sin when a person is with his mind and intellect. And this thing is relevant to all [the other] sins: For inasmuch as a person is a bodily thing, the sin is not from the angle of the separated level, but rather from the bodily level. But with the sin of the desecration of the name - since the name is the abstract essentiality [of something], behold it is impossible to say that the sin is anything but with the supernal separated level. For that is the nature of a name, that it comes regarding the abstract essentiality. Hence he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name": That just like the sin of one who sins intentionally is certainly a big sin - as behold, his sin was from the angle of the intellect, which is separated, not material - so too does one who unintentionally sins with desecration of the name, sin with the separated level. For behold, a name comes only about the abstract spiritual essentiality.
+And this thing will be explained proximately (Derekh Chayim 4:13) concerning, "an error in study is considered an intentional transgression" - that the unintentional is light, because one did not sin with the level that is separated from the material. For one who sins unintentionally does the sin without the mind or intellect. So this is only attributed to the material body and the low level - that being, the material level. Hence this sin is not so stringent. But a sin with the separated level - which is the most elevated level - that is when he sins intentionally or sins with desecration of the name. And about this, it is relevant to say, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name"; and even though a person does it unintentionally, the sin is nevertheless with something that is abstract, so the unintentional is not relevant to this. For the unintentional is only from the angle of the material level alone, as was explained. But that is not the elevated level of the name. Hence, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name." And this thing is a choice explanation - there is no doubt about its truth; and we also explained it in another place (Tiferet Yisrael  39), about the commandment, "You shall not take [God's name]" (Exodus 20:7). There we explained it according to all that is required, but here is not the place to elaborate.
+And from this itself we can understand the stringency that there is in desecration of the name - [that] for Mar Zutra (Kiddushin 40a), credit is not given with regard to the desecration of God’s name, like it is done by a storekeeper. And so did they say in Shevuot (39a) in the chapter [entitled] Shevuot HaDayanin concerning a vain oath, that all sins have [the possibility of having the punishment] held up by merit, but a vain oath is punished immediately and no credit is given. And that is because with other sins, the sin was not completely on the separated level; and [except for that level,] all things are beneath time - so the punishment of the sin does not go out immediately. Rather the punishment goes out in time. But [regarding] a sin with His name, may He be blessed - since the name comes regarding the removed abstract essentiality [of something] and time is not relevant to this thing at all, hence no credit is given with desecration of the name. And the punishment goes out into actuality immediately. For he sinned on the level that is not beneath the continuum of time at all. And we have already explained this thing (Derekh Chayim 1:12).
+And it is likewise for Mar, son of Ravina, that if [one’s merits and sins were] equal, it is determinant [of the outcome]. For this sin is not similar to other sins at all from the angle that [with this,] he sins completely on the supernal level. Hence if he was even, it is determinant. And this thing is clear, since this sin that he sins is against His name, may He be blessed. For the name comes regarding the abstract spiritual essentiality [of something]. However this sin only has the stringency that it is determinant. For this sin [itself] is considered like the performance of any [other] sin. It is just that there is somewhat of an addition here, that the sin reaches to the highest level. And that thing is determinant if the pans of the scales are even, even when there is also a commandment on the other pan. And the determination is from this angle, in that he sins on the supernal level - for the name is spiritual. And with that, he sins on this supernal level. But this stringency only serves to determine [something even]. For the stringency of this addition - that he sins on the supernal level - is not to weigh [more] than what is across it. Rather its stringency is only to determine [the balance when it is otherwise even]. For the balance itself is dependent upon the body of the sin and the body of the commandment, whereas the stringency of this is not the body of the sin. Hence it only serves to determine. And in truth, these things are very deep and it is impossible to explain more. And they are choice and precious things when you understand them; and we have explained them in another place. We have written at length about this in view of the greatness of the sin that there is in this - as it is found in Tractate Yoma (66a).
+<b>And according to the law</b> in the chapter [entitled] Yom HaKippurim (Yoma 86a) - according to the words of all - the desecration of [God's] name is dependent upon it being with a Torah scholar, as it is found there: What is it like - the desecration of [God’s] name? Rav said, "For example, like me [if] I take meat from a butcher and do not give him money immediately." [...] And these words [apply] only in a place where [butchers] do not ask for money. Rabbi Yochanan said, "For example, like me [if] I would walk four cubits without Torah and without tefillin." Rabbi Yitzchak bar Rav Dimi said, "For example, when one’s friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation." What is it like? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, "For example, when people say, 'May his Master forgive x.'" Abbaye said, "As it was taught [in a baraita], '"And you shall love the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 6:5) - that you will make the name of Heaven beloved.'" [This is] as it cited in the first chapter (Derekh Chayim 1:10). 
+Behold the first two sages reason that desecration of [God's] name is [even] with something very small, when a Torah scholar is not careful. That is why Rav said, "For example, like me - even though I do not intend [to do] a sinful thing, God forbid, and it is a very small thing" - that it causes others to suspect him, that he did not pay a butcher. Though this thing is only a small suspicion, it is nevertheless included in the desecration of [God's] name. But Rabbi Yochanan does not reason that there is a desecration of God's name in this thing, which is only a suspicion - since there is no sin here. Rather it is with a small thing [that is more than a suspicion] - like that which he would walk four cubits without Torah and without tefillin - that it is impossible that there be something smaller than this. Even so, it is called a desecration of [God's] name, so much should one be careful about the desecration of God's name. But Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi reasons that there is only a desecration of [God's] name when a Torah scholar does a thing that is a disgrace with other Torah scholars. For since it is a disgrace with other Torah scholars, the glory of the Omnipresent is desecrated with this. And hence he said it is called a desecration of [God's] name when one’s friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation. So when one's friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation, [that is when] there is a desecration of [God's] name; but something small like [the case of Rabbi Yochanan] is not called a desecration and nullification of glory. And Abbaye reasons that the desecration of [God's] name is when a Torah scholar does not behave in a proper way and correctly with people: When his speech is not pleasant with the creatures, his buying and selling in the marketplace is not pleasant and he gives and takes without trustworthiness, to the point that the creatures say, "Woe to x who studied Torah, woe to his father who taught him Torah, woe to his teacher who taught him Torah, fortunate are the people who have not studied Torah, etc." And this thing is called a desecration of [God's] name; not when someone does a sin. As that thing is not with the creatures, whereas desecration of [God's] name is with the creatures. Hence one whose ways is not proper with the creatures - that is called a desecration of [God's] name.
+<b>The general rule about this</b> is that the Torah scholar has life and death in front of him: It can be life when he makes the name of Heaven beloved. But there is death across from it - that is the great sin, desecration of [God's] name. And King David said (Psalms 19:13-14), "Who can discern errors; cleanse me from secret ones. Also keep back Your servant from willful sins; let them not have dominion over me; then shall I be upright, and I shall be clear of great transgression." He said, "Who can discern errors," corresponding to unintentional sins; and he said, "cleanse me from secret ones," corresponding to one who says [that something forbidden is] permissible (Makkot 7b) - such that the sin was hidden from the eyes of his intellect. And there is no doubt that one who says, permissible, is not considered unintentional like the one who does [it] without knowledge. For one who says, permissible, should have learned [better, and known that it was actually forbidden]. And afterwards, he said, "keep back Your servant from willful sins," corresponding to an intentional sin - that God, may He be blessed, should atone for what he did intentionally. And this is corresponding to negative commandments, since they require atonement. And afterwards, he said, "let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright" - corresponding to the stringent sins, and they are [those punished with] excision and death penalties of the court. And that which he said, "let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright," is because these sins dominate the body - they bring afflictions upon it, as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Yom Hakippurim, regarding the four categories of atonement (Yoma 86a).    And afterwards, he said, "and I shall be clear of great (<i>rav</i>) transgression" - that is the great (<i>rav</i>) sin, desecration of [God's] name. And he said, "<i>rav</i> transgression," [to mean], what the one who is called a rabbi [or great one] (<i>rav</i>) did. And so did they, may their memory be blessed, explain in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 62b), "'And He said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough (<i>rav</i>) [for you]"' (II Samuel 24:16). Rabbi Elazar said, 'The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel, "Take a great one (<i>rav</i>) from among them, who has [the capacity] to repay several debts." At that moment, Avishai ben Tzeruyah, who was equivalent to the majority of the Sanhedrin, died.'" And likewise in many places did they expound the expression, <i>rav</i>, like this.
+And behold that David ordered all of the sins - which are the four categories of atonement that Rabbi Yishmael expounded (Yoma 86a): 1) Positive commandments; 2) Negative commandments; 3) Excisions and death penalties of the court; and 4) Desecration of [God's] name. However he did not mention positive commandments here, since repentance atones [for it] immediately - as they said, "If he transgressed a positive commandment and repented, he does not move from there until they forgive him." Rather he was [only] seeking mercy [regarding] the other sins, [the punishment of] which repentance holds up, in [their] order. And regarding the last, he mentioned, "and I shall be clear of great (<i>rav</i>) transgression" - that is the desecration of [God's] name, which is the sin of the one who is called a rabbi [or great one] (<i>rav</i>), which is a great (<i>rav</i>) sin. But it should not be elaborated here - as it will, with God's help, be explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTeshuvah 3). 
+And because of this, it is appropriate only to rely to call someone, rabbi, who makes the name of Heaven beloved on his account; not someone through which the glory of [God's] name is desecrated. More than this - [if one does so], he gives the Torah's glory to someone who is not suitable for it. And in the Midrash (Pesikta Rabbati 22): Rabbi Menachma in the name of Rabbi Tanchum bar Hiyya [and] Rabbi Yose ben Zevida - "But one who commits adultery with a woman lacks a heart" (Proverbs 6:32) - anyone who accepts authority in order to derive pleasure from it is nothing but one who is like an adulterer, who derives pleasure from a woman's body - "only one who would destroy himself does such a thing." It is like Moshe, as it said (Exodus 32:32), "Now if You would bear (forgive) their sin; and if not, blot me out from Your book that You have written." It is like Yehoshua (Joshua 7:8), as it said, "It is in (Pardon) me, O Lord" - it is in me, not in them. It is like David, as it said (1 Chronicles 21:17), "let Your hand fall upon me and my father’s house, and let not Your people be plagued!" Rabbi Menachma bar Yaakov brings it from this here: "Do not go out hastily to quarrel (<i>lariv</i>)" - [but] it is written, "for a rabbi (<i>lerav</i>)." Truly, do not run after authority, on account of, "lest you know not what to do in the end thereof, when your fellow puts you to shame" - when, tomorrow, they will come and ask you questions, what will you answer them? Rabbi Zeira brings it from this here: "You shall not take" (Exodus 20:7). If Scripture is speaking about a vain oath; behold it already said (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not swear falsely by My Name." So what do we learn to say [from], "You shall not take" - that you not accept authority upon yourself when you are not suitable for authority. Rabbi Abbahu said, "I have been called, holy, and you have been called, holy: Behold, if you don't have in you the traits that I have in Me, don't accept authority upon yourself." 
+And the explanation of this is that it is not appropriate that any authority be for one's pleasure. And this is as it was explained (Derekh Chayim 1:13) regarding, "And one who makes use of the crown [of learning] passes away" - that one who derives benefit from the Torah is liable for death. And we explained the reason - since he is deriving benefit from something holy, as we elaborated there; see there. And he [referred] to holiness with the expression, crown, so that you learn from this that every crown has holiness to it. And that is why they would anoint the kings, as [with] a type of crown anointed with anointing oil; and we explained this thing earlier. And any authority in the world also has an angle of holiness to it, in that they are separated from the rest of the people. Hence he said that one who derives pleasure from authority is similar to an adulterer, who derives pleasure from the body of a woman. That is to say that a prostitute woman is without sanctification (<i>kiddushin</i>, i.e. marriage), only harlotry. And this thing is a completely bodily matter, when he has sexual relations with the prostitute without sanctification. As sanctification is called, <i>kiddushin</i>, because it is holy (<i>kadosh</i>) (Kiddushin  2b, and Tosafot there). And one who has sexual intercourse with a prostitute without sanctification - this thing is solely a bodily desire. And so too is one for whom authority is for his pleasure - since authority is holy, as we said. 
+And he said that Moshe did not derive pleasure from authority. Rather, he gave over his life to die for the people above which he was an authority. And this thing was complete authority of holiness; in that he negated his body completely, to give over his body to Israel. So behold [that] in this authority, there is no bodily pleasure at all present. It is rather total and absolute holiness; without there being a portion to the body at all. And Rabbi Tanchuma expounded [it] from, "Do not go out hastily to quarrel (<i>lariv</i>)" (Proverbs 25:8). And it appears that it [used] an expression of quarreling, when it wrote that one should not accept authority [if he is not suitable], because this thing - which is the acceptance of authority when one is not suitable for it - brings quarreling. For he wants that people should honor him because of his authority, yet the world is not treating him with honor; as they will say that authority is not suitable for him. And because of this, quarreling is generated; and our eyes see that this thing is like that.
+Rabbi Zeira brings [it] from, "You shall not take (<i>Lo tissa</i>) the name of the Lord, your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7) - as its explanation is that he should not accept the name of the Lord in vain. For <i>lo tissa</i> is an expression of acceptance in every place. And all authority is from [God's] name, may He be blessed; and He gives to man from His greatness. And it is as they, may their memory be blessed, said in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 58a), "One who sees kings of Israel says, 'Blessed…who has shared of His glory with those who revere Him.' [However] one who sees kings of the [other] nations of the world says, 'Blessed…who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.'" And this distinction is, that to Israel He shared from His own glory, to the point that He gave them a part of His glory; whereas to the nations, it did not say that He shared, but rather that He gave [it] to them - like one who gives a gift to another. But He did not share from that which is His own. Hence, just like God, may He be blessed, is called, holy; so too did He call, Israel, holy - since He shared from His glory with them. Therefore one who accepts authority but is not suitable for it - behold, he is dressing himself with His name, may He be blessed, in vain. For he is called by His name in vain. And there is no greater, "<i>Lo tissa</i> the name of the Lord, your God in vain," than this. And behold, God, may He be blessed, is called, <i>Rav</i>, as it is written (Psalms 25:11), "forgive my iniquity for it is great (<i>rav</i>)." And they expounded (Yalkut Shimoni on Nach and Rashi on Psalms 21:11), "It is fitting for a great God to forgive a great iniquity." So if a man is called by the name, <i>Rav</i>, and it is not suitable for him - behold, His name, may He be blessed, is applied to him in vain. And likewise, all the names of greatness. So he certainly transgresses, "<i>lo tissa</i>. And that which he said, that God, may He be blessed, is called, holy, is meaning to say that God, may He be blessed, is suitable for authority because of His holiness - since anyone with authority is holy. And if you don't have all of these traits which are suitable for holiness, do not accept authority upon yourself, as you are transgressing, "<i>Lo tissa</i> the name of the Lord, your God in vain"
+<b>But now,</b> with our great sins in this generation - it is not enough for us that those who are called by the name, Rabbi (<i>Rav</i>), are [liable for] the punishment for desecration of [God's] name; but they add [to this] to rely and call people, Rabbi and colleague, who have not seen the light of Torah. [People] upon whom the lamp of the commandment has not shone, but are rather 'small foxes.' So 'anyone who wants to take the name, takes [it]; and this crown of Torah is before everyone [to take. This exists] to the point that this thing is a cause for the casting down of the glory of the Torah to the dirt and the amplification of the desecration of [God's] name through these people. So in this generation - on account of the glory of His name, may He be blessed, and His Torah - it would have been appropriate that only the one most outstanding in wisdom and age should be called, Rabbi - so as to minimize the desecration of the name, such that they do not say that [something improper] was a 'story of (something that actually happened with) a rabbi' [and a lesson in how to act]. But [instead] they rely to call with the name, Rabbi, anyone who has just been initiated; who has only began to chirp with the voice of the Talmud.
+And in addition to this, it is the reason - with our sins - that the Torah will be forgotten from Israel. As [on account of this], not all people's intention in their study of the Torah is for the sake of the name of Heaven, especially before they are older. And were it only that 'from the not for its sake, they would reach the for its sake.' But once he has already merited the name (Rabbi), he will say, "'What is the advantage of the sage over the fool?' So why should I toil and take sleep away from my spirit? For 'we go after the name' and 'the name is the cause'; so 'why should I grow wiser?'" [This occurs] to the point that people will think that the virtue of Torah is acquired with the calling of the [title]. All of this have I seen with my [own] eyes. And to me, it is the greatest of the reasons that cause Torah to be forgotten from Israel. And [this happens] even though the elders who are masters of Torah have already objected to this ordination, as is found in many responsa. And this custom was certainly [established] in order to [engender] honor in the treatment of those who study Torah, in that [such] is appropriate. But now this thing has been a cause for the devaluation of the honor of the Torah and the casting down of its beauty to the depths. Hence they should be concerned with the honor of their Maker and the honor of the Torah; the coals of Torah almost having been completely extinguished with our sins. And may He, in His mercies, may He be blessed, remove every obstacle and guide us in the straight and true path!
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<i>Rabbi Yishmael his son says, "One who studies Torah in order to teach will be given the opportunity to study and to teach. One who studies in order to practice will be given the opportunity to study, to teach, to observe and to practice." </i>
+<i>Rabbi Tzadok says, "Do not make [the Torah] into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself, and not into a spade with which to dig." And so would Hillel say: "And one who makes use of the crown [of Torah] passes away." Behold, you have learned that any one who derives benefit from the words of the Torah removes his life from the world.</i>
+<b>One who studies Torah in order to teach, etc.:</b> It may be asked [about] that which he said - "One who studies Torah in order to teach will be given the opportunity to study and to teach" - "If it is also the case in every commandment that if he wrote a Torah scroll, he will be given the opportunity to study from it; if he built a synagogue to pray [in it], he will be given the opportunity to pray there; and likewise other commandments; if so, what is the difference [here], that they said this about Torah study?" And if the thing is not like this with other commandments, what is the reason that it would be so with Torah study? Moreover, [from] the first part, it is implied that [such a person's] intention is only to study, and [that] he is not seeking to do the commandments - so it would be appropriate to compare him to [the case of] someone "whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring" (Avot 3:9). But here we say that "he will be given the opportunity to study and to teach." And also what is the reason [that] one who studies in order to practice will also be given the opportunity to study and to teach; whereas one who studies in order to teach will not be given the opportunity to practice? And another difficulty: Why did it not say, "One who studies will be given the opportunity to study" - such that if he wanted to study a tractate, he would be given the opportunity to study that tractate that he wants to learn?
+<b>It has already been explained to you</b> that the order of these statements is according to the sages that were at the same time or close to being at the same time. And there is no need for more [to explain the order]. But if you want to say that the order of the statements is from the angle of their own [content], you could say that it is since it mentioned the great sin of the desecration of [God's] name before this, here it mentioned the reward for one whose actions are for the sake of His name, may He be blessed, and for His glory. Hence he began [by] saying, "One who studies [Torah] in order to teach," or "one who studies in order to practice" - since the intention of these two is for the sake of Heaven. [But] not one who studied in order to acquire the information. For that does not indicate that he is doing [it] for the sake of Heaven, for the glory of God, may He be blessed. For every person wants to understand and know, as everyone longs for wisdom; and [that is] not for its sake - for the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He. And all the more so, if it is in order that he will be called, Rabbi. But one who studies in order to teach others or to practice - such that his intention is certainly for the sake of Heaven, and not just to know - he will resultantly be given opportunity according to that which was his thought. For since his intention was for the sake of Heaven, they assist him from above. So should it be explained. 
+<b>However there is another reason:</b> It is because, from the angle of itself, it is more appropriate that the Torah exist in the world than that material things exist in the world - such that their existence is not as appropriate as something spiritual. For existence is appropriate for the Torah. And that is because the Torah is good itself, as it is stated (Proverbs 4:2), "I give you a good doctrine." And it is appropriate that good exist, as we have written (Derekh Chayim 1:2). For that is why it is stated in all of the story of creation (Genesis 1), "that it was good" - to tell you that it is appropriate for the good to exist. Moreover, it is because it is most appropriate for spiritual things to exist. And we have explained this thing in several places as well: It is because absence does not cling to spiritual things. So behold, it is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 30:20), "for it is your life and the length of your days." And if so, existence is appropriate for the Torah, in that it is what gives existence. It is just that from the angle of this world, which is material - so this world is far from the spiritual - that is why the spiritual Torah is not found in this material world [so much]. But soon, 'before we call out,' the lower beings will be aroused to the spiritual Torah, 'and it will answer,' "Here I am!" As existence is appropriate for spiritual things.
+And this does not contradict that which they said (Chagigah 15b) that words of Torah are as difficult to acquire as gold and fine gold: This thing is also from the angle of man, in that he has a body. But from the angle of the Torah [itself], existence is certainly most appropriate for the Torah. Hence, he said, "One who studies [Torah] in order to teach will be given the opportunity to study and to teach." For in that his intention is that the Torah be in the world - given that it is truly appropriate that Torah be in the world - he will be given the opportunity to study and to teach, according to his intention [of that which] he wanted. And we have already explained in the chapter before this (Derekh Chayim 3:14); that a spiritual thought has impact. And this is not similar to that which they said (Sanhedrin 26b), "Thought is effective [in negating] even words of Torah" - that is when one did not begin to study. But when he began to study in order to teach others, the intellect certainly causes it to have an impact. As the Torah causes this by itself, since the intellect is what causes impact, until it is actualized. And see above (Derekh Chayim 3:14) regarding, "Beloved are Israel, since a precious instrument has been given to them."
+<b>And he said</b> that he will also be given the opportunity to study. As in order to teach others, a person needs to know the Torah [very well] - so that he will know [what] to answer that which his student asks him. And that is what he said - that "he will be given the opportunity to study and to teach." This means to say that he will be given the opportunity to study to the point that he can teach others. But if he wants to study a little of a given tractate, he will not be given the opportunity to study the whole tractate. For even [the study of] only one letter is called, Torah study. But to teach others, it is necessary that he would know much, as we explained. Also, if he does not possess much Torah [knowledge], people will not come to him to study. And that is why one who studies in order to teach others is given the opportunity to study much - to the point that he can teach others.
+<b>But he is not given the opportunity to practice.</b> For practice - which is action - does not become actualized immediately in the way that teaching others is actualized. As that is only study alone. But practice, which is action, is something that is more distant [from study]. Hence he did not say that he merits to practice. But if studied in order to practice, such that the Torah is actualized in action - which is complete actualization - the actualization in study, meaning to teach others, will certainly precede it. As that is no action at all. Therefore "one who studies in order to to practice is given the opportunity to study, to teach, to observe and to practice."
+<b>And certainly it is also </b> since if he wants to teach others and be a rabbi to others, his study is certainly before this. Hence if he wants to teach others, his study precedes this, until he becomes a great sage. Therefore, he is given the opportunity to study and to teach. But if he wants to study a tractate, he is not given the opportunity to study the whole tractate on account of this. For when he studied one chapter, behold he has already studied [Torah]. And likewise one who studies in order to practice; the teaching to others is also before the action. For study brings to action (Kiddushin 40b). But at the end of the day, study is first; and if he studies in order to practice - to study and to teach precedes it.
+<b>And that which he said,</b> "One who studies [Torah] in order to teach" - the explanation is not that he studies in order to teach and not to do. God forbid - 'there should not be like this in Israel!' Rather his study is for the purpose of teaching alone; [so] his study is not for the sake of practicing. Yet his actions are certainly proper. It is just that his study is not for the sake of practicing, but he certainly practices everything that he knows and does not transgress. 
+<b>It has been explained to you</b> with this that it is appropriate that the Torah exist in the world. However because of the stature of Torah and the lowliness of this world, the Torah is distant from the world. Nevertheless, when a person begins to actualize Torah in this world, it is finished by him. As it is appropriate that it be like this from the angle of the Torah [itself]. Hence he is given opportunity in accordance with his thought.  
+<b>Do not make [the Torah] into a crown:</b> Because before this, it mentioned, "One who studies [Torah] in order to teach," or "one who studies in order to practice"; it mentioned this statement after it: That one should not study Torah to aggrandize himself with it; as if he will do this, he would be removing his life from the world. And we can be precise [about] the repetitive language, since he said, "Do not make it into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself, and not into a spade with which to eat." And it appears that it can be said that if he had only said, "Do not make it into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself"; and he had not said, "and not into a spade with which to eat" - it would have certainly implied that [only the first thing] has no connection with Torah. But as a spade with which to eat - behold, 'if there is no Torah, there is no flour.' Then if so, the Torah brings sustenance to a person; and since the Torah brings a person's sustenance, he may make the Torah into a spade with which to eat. But even so, it is forbidden. As that which it said (Avot 3:17), "If there is no Torah, there is no flour," means that God, may He be blessed, brings him profit, such that he has flour. But that he should buy flour by way of Torah, to say, "Because I am a master of Torah, it is incumbent upon you to sustain me" - he should certainly not do this. And had it only let us hear, "a spade to eat," I would have thought, only a spade to eat, since this is a denigration and disgrace to the Torah - when he receives sustenance from another [on account of his Torah knowledge]. But "a crown with which to aggrandize" - since that is prestigious, I would have thought it is permissible. [Hence] it is taught to us [otherwise].
+<b>And that which it said, "And so would Hillel say, etc.":</b> We explained this earlier (Derekh Chayim 1:13), regarding "And one who makes use of the crown [of Torah] passes away" - that he means to say that the Torah is [something] spiritual [that is] separated from this material world, as it is Godly wisdom. And that is why the Torah is called a crown - since a crown indicates kingship; and a king is separated from the people, and has no commonality with the rest of the people. And likewise is the Torah separated from this world. So when one uses something separated from this world for a matter of this world - behold he encounters loss, such that one who derives benefit from the holy is liable for death. And that is because something that is holy is separated from this world, whereas he used and derived benefit in this world from something separated from this world. So he is liable for death. For this world has no existence at all on the level of holiness [that is] separated from this world. Hence if it connects to the level of holiness, it receives absence - since there is no existence for this world with the level of holiness. And we elaborated much about this earlier.  
+And let [the following] not be difficult to you: If so, how does the Torah exist with man, and how does a separated thing connect with material man? This thing is certainly not a difficulty. For there is no mixture here at all. Rather there is only a connection of [parallel] existence here - not a connection of mixture at all. But one who uses the Torah for his needs and his material benefit is certainly deriving benefit from the holy and connects something bodily with something holy that is separated from it. And about him is it said, "And one who makes use of the crown [of Torah] passes away." And that which he said, "passes away (<i>chalaf</i>)" - and not, "liable for death," or "takes his [own] life" - is because the expression, passes, is said about quickness. It is like, "as grass, he passes. In the morning it flourishes, and [then] passes" (Psalms 90:5-6) - which appears as if it changes its nature in an instant. And that is the expression, "change (<i>chechlif</i>)," in every place. And likewise is one who uses something that is separated from the body. For anything that is holy and separated from the body is not subject to time at all. For time proceeds, one part after another; but something that is separated is not like this. And that is why he passes away in one instant. 
+<b>And in Tosafot in the chapter [entitled] Hayah Koreh (Berakhot 17a),</b> on that which it said there, "Anyone who occupies himself with Torah not for its sake - it is better for him not to be created": So Tosafot (s.v. HaOseh) asked - behold, Resh Lakish said in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), "Always should a person occupy himself with Torah and commandments, even not for its sake - for from 'not for its sake,' one comes to 'for its sake.'" And Tosafot answered, that here it is speaking about when one is only studying in order to attack his fellow, whereas there it is speaking about when he is studying in order that they honor him. To here [are their words]. But that is difficult! For here (in our mishnah), it is also speaking about on account that they will honor him; and he nevertheless said, "And one who makes use of the crown [of Torah] passes away." However in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), Tosafot (s.v. VeKan) answered in a different way. As there, they said that [the discussion] in the chapter [entitled] Hayah Koreh is talking about when one is studying to be proud and to attack, whereas in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu, it is speaking about a case when he is not doing it for any evil, and speaking about something similar to what it said before this - that he does not do work on days that he does not have to do it, on account of laziness. And they mean to say that it is speaking about one who is studying to know the content of the Torah. For many people desire to know all things. And about this is it relevant to say, "Always should a person study Torah, even not for its sake, etc." And with that, the difficulty from here is answered. As it is possible to say that if he studied in order that they should honor him, that too is considered something evil - when one runs after after honor. So it is only relevant to say,  "Always should a person study Torah, even not for its sake, etc.," when he is studying to acquire the information. As this is not an evil thing at all.
+However I do not know what is difficult. For that which he said, "Always should a person occupy himself with Torah, even not for its sake - for from 'not for its sake,' one comes to 'for its sake'": That is because certainly if he does not study not for its sake, he will not study for its sake. And it is certainly better that he study even not for its sake than he not study at all. Since for from 'not for its sake,' etc. As, certainly, if he does not study [at all], all the more so and a fortiori is it better for him not to be created and not to be at all; and it is [even] permissible to stab an ignoramus on Yom Kippur (Pesachim 49b)! And that which he said, "One who makes use of the crown [of Torah] passes away" - certainly one who studies not for its sake is not good, and it is better that he not be created; however it is better than his not studying Torah at all. For if it is because he said here, "One who makes use of the crown passes away" - all the more so is one who does not study [at all] liable for death! As it said in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel Torah (Avot 1:13), "one who does not study [Torah] is liable for death." And if so, there is no difficulty at all. For this is what he was saying: Even though he does not study for its sake, nevertheless he should study - as from 'not for its sake,' one comes to 'for its sake.' So there is no difficulty at all.
+And the version of Rashi is, "Anyone who (derives benefit) [benefits (<i>haneot</i>)] from words of Torah removes his life from the world." And that is certainly the correct version. As "Anyone who (derives benefit) [benefits (<i>haneot</i>)] from words of Torah removes his life from the world," is like, "and we do not benefit (<i>neotin</i>) from it" (Shabbat 42b). And there is [also] a version: "Anyone who eats benefits." But I do not know how to reconcile this language, unless that version is, "Anyone who eats and benefits" - meaning to say, one who eats, that is that he is sustained through it; and one who benefits, that is that he is honored through the Torah.
+<b>And you should know that</b> all of these things are only said when he studies to aggrandize himself or he studies in order that they will give him reward, or that he benefits from the Torah, like the story of Rabbi Tarfon in Nedarim (62a) - as we brought earlier, in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel Torah (Derekh Chayim 1:13). However if they bring him a present or they support him [on their own], it is not included in one who 'uses the crown' nor is it included in a 'spade to eat.' For if so, the great reward that they said in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 99a) and in several places, for 'one who benefits a Torah scholar from his possessions' - from what angle could that be? Rather only when one [requests] to benefit on account of Torah [knowledge] - like the story of Rabbi Tarfon, who said, "Woe is to Tarfon, that this man is killing him" - is it included in 'using the crown.' As his intention was that that man know that he was Rabbi Tarfon, such that he would release him. And that is why he said, "Woe is to me, since I used the crown of Torah." But [that it would be forbidden] because the other released him - as that man recognized him - there is no logic [to that] at all. Rather it was only because he said, such and such, in order that that man release him. And [it is like] that which we say [in] the story in Tractate Bava Batra (8a): Rabbi opened his storehouses during years of drought. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram entered, and said to him, "Rabbi, sustain me." He said to him, "Have you read the Bible; have you studied Mishna?" He said to him, "No." He said to him, "If so, by what should I sustain you?" He said to him, "Sustain me like a dog and like a raven." So he gave him [provisions]. After a time, Rabbi said, "Woe is to me, that I have given benefit from my possessions to an ignoramus." His students said to him, "Perhaps it was Yonatan ben Amram, who does not want to benefit from honor for the Torah?" To here [is the Gemara]. This too is because if he had said, "I read Bible and studied Mishnah, therefore you should sustain me" - he would certainly be deriving benefit from Torah. But if [others] give him benefit or give him gifts on account of the honor for the Torah, this is not included in deriving benefit from the Torah. As behold the Torah scholar himself did not say a thing, that they should sustain him - such that he would then have been deriving benefit from the Torah. It is just that it is appropriate to distance [oneself from this], because of that which is stated (Proverbs 15:27), "one who hates gifts shall live."
+And the stipend that they give to a rabbi or that which he receives from a wedding - it is possible that this is compensation for idleness [from other work]. As on account of this, he is tied to teach others - hence he does not occupy himself with a trade. And there is no prohibition here of, "Just like [God taught Torah] for free, so too you [must teach it] for free" (Nedarim 37a). For the wage does not come on account of Torah, but rather only because of the idleness from his [other] work. And we do not need [the condition of] evident idleness here [such that there is specific work that he would otherwise do]. For this is only relevant with idleness for a [specific] time, as it is possible that he would not be doing anything [else then]. But that he always be idle, it is impossible that he not [otherwise] have something from which to possibly profit. So, in this way, he does not need evident idleness. 
+And the Rambam on this chapter (Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 4:5) elaborated and added to be very, very strict. However it appears that one who is appointed for the sake of [being an] authority over the public - meaning something that is from the community - this thing is permissible. For behold, we say (Kiddushin 70a), "Once someone is appointed an officer over the public, it is forbidden [for him] to do work in front of three [others]"; and it is impossible for him to always do work secretly. Rather certainly, once they appointed him [to be an] authority, it is incumbent upon the community to also sustain him honorably. This is what appears [correct].
+But in this generation, were it only that they would not be strict upon themselves, but also not be too lenient to the point that heads of households think that this is the essence of those who study - to derive benefit from [the property] of others, and that they should even request [it]. And with this, they have lowered and denigrated the honor of the Torah to the ground. Yet there is nothing to be concerned about in this generation, in which - on account of our iniquities - no Torah scholar is to be found.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<i>Rabbi Yose says, "Anyone who honors the Torah, his body will be honored by the created beings; and anyone who desecrates the Torah, his body will be desecrated by the created beings."</i>
+<b>Anyone who honors the Torah, etc.:</b> The reason that this statement is adjacent to the statement before this is understood: It is because the statement before it is, "Do not make [the Torah] into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself, etc." - for that thing is certainly a disgrace to the Torah. So that is why it placed after it, "Anyone who honors the Torah, his body will be honored by the created beings; and anyone who desecrates the Torah, his body will be desecrated by the created beings."
+<b>And the explanation of this matter:</b> Know that the Torah is the essence of honor, as it is written (Proverbs 3:16), "In her right hand is length of days; in her left, riches and honor." And it is also written (Proverbs 3:35), "The wise shall inherit honor." And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 935:15): "The wise shall inherit honor" - these are Torah scholars. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, "Read from the beginning of the Book of Chronicles: 'Adam, Shet, Enosh,' until, 'and Yavetz' - and you will not find a name of honor. But when you come to Yavetz, it is written (I Chronicles 4:9), 'And Yavetz was more honored than his brothers' - because he occupied himself with Torah. This is [the meaning of], 'The wise shall inherit honor.'" To here [is the midrash].
+And that is because when a person connects to something else - behold, some of the thing to which he connects certainly comes to him. And we have already said that the Torah is the essence of honor. And with this - that one gives honor to the Torah - he has a connection with honor; and he also receives honor, since he connects with honor. But it is not similar to when one honors another person: With this, he does not connect to honor, since man is not honor. And likewise, even if one studied Torah and connected to the Torah, he did not connect to the Torah in this way - from that which the Torah is honor. And it is only called connecting with honor, when he [also] honors the Torah and gives it honor. He [then] has a connection to honor through honor, and "his body will be honored by the created beings." And likewise the opposite of this - "one who desecrates the Torah": And with this thing, he is the opposite of honor. So how would there be honor to one who is the opposite of honor? Hence, "his body will be desecrated by the created beings" - since he is far from honor. The general principle of the thing is [that] one who connects with honor will receive honor; and one who is the opposite of honor, will be distanced from honor.
+And you should not ask: If so - all the more so should honor come to one who runs after honor! As this is not the case. For one who runs after honor is not considered connected to honor. As it is just the opposite - he pushes honor away, even though he wants honor. For running after honor is not called, connection with honor, such that they would honor him. But this is not the place [for] this.
+<b>And Rashi, may his memory be blessed,</b> explained (Rashi on Avot 4:6), "'One who honors the Torah,' such that he only places it in a holy place." But this is a wonder in my eyes! Why should its explanation not be like that in the chapter [entitled] Kol Kitvei (Shabbat 119a): "With what do the rich people of Babylonia [earn] merit? Because they honor the Torah." And the explanation there is not because they are placing [Torah scrolls] in a holy place. For if so, what did he ask afterwards, "And in other lands, with what do they [earn] merit?" And why would they not also [earn] merit with that which they honor the Torah [in this way]? Rather, it was because there were no Torah scholars in the other lands [in order] to honor them. Only in Babylonia were there sages. And that is why he asked, "And in other lands, with what do they [earn] merit?" And it is possible that Rashi, may his memory be blessed, was [making a point]: That even if one honored the Torah with this thing - that he place it in a holy place - that is called, honoring the Torah. But all the more so, [if one honored] Torah scholars themselves. And it is like we say in Tractate Makkot (22b): How foolish are those men who rise before a Torah scroll, but do not rise before a great man. To here [is the Gemara].
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<i>Rabbi Yishmael, his son, says, "One who withholds himself from judging - removes from himself enmity, theft and the false oath. One who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions is an imbecile, wicked and arrogant in spirit."</i>
+<b>Rabbi Yishmael bar R. Yose says, etc.:</b> And in this we see that the order of the statements is according to [the sequence of] the generations. So that is why the words of Rabbi Yishmael bar R. Yose were placed after his father. But if you want to have the statements adjacent from the angle of their own [content], it can be said that it had the words of Rabbi Yishmael bar R. Yose adjacent after his father because this one is also desecrating the honor of the Torah - one who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions; who says that the Torah is known to him, as if the Torah was not so deep. And this is not honoring the Torah.
+For due to the depth of the Torah's words, a person cannot master them and a person is likely to stumble in the Torah's words. So that is why he should prevent himself from giving legal decisions. And this is certainly honoring the Torah; when he would say that I have not reached [the level of] giving legal decisions - whether from the angle of the shortcomings of the one [trying to] grasp it, or whether from the angle of the depth of what [he is trying to] grasp. And it is like David said (Psalms 119:19), "I am only a sojourner (<i>ger</i>, which can also mean, convert) in the land; do not hide Your commandments from me." And in the Midrash (Midrash Tehillim 119:9): And was David a convert? Rather, David said, "Just like one who is converting does not know anything; so too are the eyes of a person open, but he does not know anything [in the Torah]." And if David, King of Israel - who said many poems and praises and all of these hymns - said, "'I am a convert,' and I don't know anything"; us, all the more so. And likewise did he say (I Chronicles 29:15), "For we are sojourners (<i>gerim</i>) with You, transients like all our fathers; our days on earth are like a shadow." To here [is the midrash]. And the explanation of this is that a person is considered a sojourner with Torah, since the Torah is from the eternal world. Hence, relative to the eternal Torah, man - who is something that comes into being and decays - is considered like a sojourner with it. [He is] like the convert, who is considered a sojourner compared to those whose ancestors dwelt [there] forever, whereas the convert is only with them for an instant. So when man connects with the eternal Torah for an instant, this thing is certainly called, sojourning. Then you should note how much a person should consider himself as not knowing anything in Torah. And there is no doubt that this is because of the depth of what [he is trying to] grasp, such that its statutes are deeper 'than the sea.' And all the more so with judgement - as we have found many great sages, who said, "[I am] not wise in judgement" (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:1). Hence one who is hasty to decide and to give legal decisions - this thing is certainly not honoring the Torah.  
+<b>And he said, "One who withholds himself from judging":</b> And we should be precise. As he should have also said that he removes the yoke of a negative commandment in the Torah - "You shall not pervert justice" (Deuteronomy 16:19). For theft [which is mentioned] is a thing by itself and falsification of justice is a thing by itself. And it appears that [it is because] sometimes a judge wants to judge because the world stands upon justice (Avot 1:18). And it is about this that it said that he is chasing one thing - meaning, justice, upon which the world stands; but justice is only one pillar upon which the world stands. But it is possible that he will destroy all three things upon which the world stands - which are justice, truth and peace. So the one who prevents himself from [judgement] removes the destruction of all these three things from upon himself: As theft is the opposite of justice. For behold, a judge restores the theft; whereas this one steals. Hence theft is the opposite of justice. And sometimes the judge extracts money not in accordance with justice; so the [affected] litigant will become an enemy of the judge because of that - and that is the opposite of peace. And a false oath is the opposite of truth. Hence a judge should see that he is coming to preserve one pillar of the pillars of the world, but it is possible that he is destroying [all] three of them. As the world does not only stand upon justice; but rather, "Upon justice, upon truth and upon peace." And it is possible that the judge will do the opposite of all three. And that is why he only [mentioned] these three [obstacles in our mishnah here]. Even though there is [also], "You shall not pervert justice" - behold, he only came to just say that he is doing the opposite of justice. So he only mentioned one [of the two ways in which he is doing that].
+<b>However there is no difficulty [here]</b> at all. As, "You shall not pervert justice," is irrelevant here, since it is inadvertent and he does not do it intentionally [here]. Hence there is is no [instance of], "You shall not pervert justice," here. For, "You shall not pervert justice," is only relevant when it is intentional. It is then that he transgresses, "You shall not pervert justice." And, You shall not pervert," implies that he knows [that he is perverting justice]. But when he does not know (Sanhedrin 6b), 'the judge only has what his eyes see.' However one is liable for theft even when inadvertent, so [being] inadvertent is irrelevant concerning theft. [For] sometimes the judges [incorrectly] takes [the indemnity] and gives it by hand: [As] when the accused does not want to pay, he takes [it from him] by hand. And this thing is complete theft. 
+And likewise with a false oath - even though he is inadvertent, behold the one who is made to swear knows that he is testifying falsely. And we say in Tractate Shevuot (39b), in the chapter [entitled] Shevuot HaDayanim, "When he wants to make an oath, those standing there say, 'Please get away from the tents of these evil men." And the Gemara says: Granted that one who is taking the oath stands [to transgress] the prohibition; but why the one pressing the oath? It is like that which is taught - Rabbi Tarfon says, "'The oath of the Lord shall be between them both' (Exodus 22:10), teaches that [the punishment for] the oath applies to both." To here [is the Gemara]. And Rashi there explains the reason - that he should not have given over his money  to the hand of someone else until he knows about him, that he is trustworthy. But according to my opinion, there is no need [for this explanation]. For behold that the punishment is [also] upon the family [of the one who swore falsely], as it is found there (Shevuot 39a) - "that it is collected from him and from his family." And that is because they are close to the one that makes the oath; since the oath affects all those that are attached to the sinner. And all the more so is the claimant here attached to the one making the oath in this matter. For behold the oath comes on account of both of them. And this is what it said - "[It] teaches that [the punishment for] the oath applies to both": For both of them are connected to the oath; and [with] a false oath, the punishment comes upon all those attached. So can it [also] be said about the judge; for behold, the judge determined the oath. And behold, those standing there should get away from there, that they not be attached to a false oath, that they not be among those present at all. And all the more so the judge, since it is impossible for him to get away from there, as the oath comes on account of him. And the reason is clear. It is because He, may He be blessed, is known to everyone through His name, not only to the one that mentions it - as we wrote above (Derekh Chayim 4:4). Hence we say to everyone, "Get away from these sinful men" - so that they not, God forbid, hear the desecration of [His] name. Nevertheless, if the judge made a true decision, he is not included in this; as he needs to decide the case. However sometimes the judge errs and determines an oath incorrectly, and [the defendant] swears falsely. Behold the sin of a false oath depends on the judge, since he decided incorrectly; and the false oath comes through this. 
+<b>And Rashi, may his memory be blessed,</b> explained, "Withhold yourself from judging" - it meant to say he should always make a compromise, and distance himself from judging as much as is possible. And about this did it say, "One who withholds himself from judging, etc." But to me, it appears that it is speaking about when there is someone grater than him [who can judge instead]. So he is not doing a commandment [were he to judge in such a case]. Hence it said [that] if he prevents himself from judging, he will, "remove from himself," etc. 
+<b>And he said, "One who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions is an imbecile, wicked, and arrogant in spirit":</b> Its explanation is that it is a sign of foolishness that is found with him, as he is hasty to bring out a legal decision from himself. This is a sign of an imbecile. And it is the opposite of this when he is not hasty to bring out words - that is a sign of wisdom. And we explained this thing above (Derekh Chayim 1:17), concerning, "One who increases words, increases foolishness": For hastiness to speak indicates a lack of wisdom, but keeping words inside oneself indicates wisdom. And it is as it said in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 80:6),    "'And Yaakov remained silent until they returned' (Genesis 34:5); 'And a prudent man remains silent' (Proverbs 11:12)." For with a wise person, the spiritual is the essence, such that the spiritual power negates the power of speech - which is a material power, as we explained above at length: That when one has much spiritual power, it negates the actions of the material power of speech. Hence "one who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions," and is hasty to bring them out - that is a sign of foolishness. And he is wicked, as he does not fear that maybe he erred in the legal decision. And he is arrogant in spirit. For if he were not arrogant in spirit - even if he was wicked, nevertheless, why does he need this pain, to be hasty in legal decisions. It is only to show his arrogance; that all of the Torah is clear to him and that he is a master of legal decisions.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<i>He would say, "Do not judge alone, for there is no lone judge aside from One. And do not say, 'Accept my opinion,' for they are permitted and not you."</i>
+<b>Do not judge alone, etc.:</b> It may be asked that he should have said, "for there is no lone judge aside from the Holy One, blessed be He"! So why did he say, "for there is no lone judge aside from One?" Note that also this ethical teaching is coming to teach that one not be haughty in legal judgements, to judge alone. So the explanation of, "for there is no lone judge aside from One," is meaning to say, the Holy One, blessed be He, who is One; and because He is One, it is appropriate for Him to judge alone. But man - it is inappropriate for man to judge alone, since man is not alone. But it should not be asked: If so, we should also say that a man should not study alone, since only the Holy One, blessed be He, does this! And if so, he should not do anything alone, as only the Holy One, blessed be He, does this! Rather, the explanation of this is that law - because it is rectitude and justice - is only appropriate with something that is completely appropriate according to rectitude. And according to rectitude, it is only appropriate that one who is alone judge alone; but it is inappropriate for man - who is not alone - to judge alone. For since he is engaged in law, he should not do something that is inappropriate and not rectitude. Rather he should do everything according to rectitude. But that is not relevant with [any] other thing.  
+<b>And you should also know</b> that it is because a judge is called, powers (<i>elohim</i>, which is also used to mean, God); and it is written (Deuteronomy 1:17), "and justice is to God (<i>Elohim</i>)." Hence he should not judge alone. For if so, he is wanting to completely resemble the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Godliness: Since a judge is called <i>elohim</i> and he is judging alone, as if he has complete Godliness, in being one. So that which it says, "there is no lone judge aside from One," means to say: It is appropriate for One who is One in His Godliness to judge alone, but not for man.
+<b>And when you understand more,</b> you will know to understand that which he said here, "For there is no lone judge aside from One." For you should know that a judge is separated from those whom he judges. And if he was not separated from them, it would not have been appropriate for him to judge them. So a judge is called <i>elohim</i>; and this name comes upon one who acts [upon another]. Hence the name, <i>Elohim</i>, comes in the creation story (Genesis 1), when He was acting [upon] the world. For one cannot act upon oneself, but rather only upon someone besides oneself. And this is that which he said, "For there is no lone judge aside from One." For that which He, may He be blessed, is One is itself the cause of His judging alone - since He is One separated from those in existence and does not have [any] partnership with another. As, behold, He is One; and if He had a partnership, He, God forbid, would not be One. And it is exactly in that He is separated from those besides Him, that He judges those besides Him. For one can only judge another if one is separated from him. And we have explained this thing in many places. As that is the reason that the Torah disqualified relatives from judging [one another] (Niddah 49b): Because a person is not separated from his relatives. And that is why God, may He be blessed, has the power to judge - from the angle that He has no partnership with those besides Him. But it is inappropriate for one who is not One to judge alone. For a man who is alone is not separated from those besides him. For behold, "Two are better than one" (Ecclesiastes 4:9); and "a threefold cord is not readily broken" (Ecclesiastes 4:12). So since a man is not separated from those besides him - and likewise, two, until they are three - hence he should not judge alone. For the individual does not have this special quality - that he is separated from those besides him. So it has already been explained that it is appropriate for the judge to be separated from the litigants, and [that] a man who is [alone] is not separated from [other] people - and that is why he should not judge alone: For litigants are also people, and there is an attachment of a man who judges alone with other people. However when [the judges] are three, it can be said that they are separated from other people. And this is a very clear explanation for one who understands words of wisdom.
+And even though they said (Sanhedrin 5a), "An expert individual may judge alone" - is this not also because once the expert has intellect, which is separated intellect, it is possible for him to judge alone on account of the separated intellect that is in him? And because of this, an expert man may judge the litigants alone. Nevertheless, since an individual is not completely separated from those besides him but is only separated because of the intellect in him, it is ethically inappropriate for him to do [so]. And it [belongs to] the trait of piety [to refrain from it]. It is like they said (Bava Kamma 30a), "One who wants to be pious, let him fulfill the words of Avot." So the wording, "For there is no lone judge aside from One," has been explained to you.
+<b>Accept my opinion, etc.:</b> It appears that that which he said, "Accept my opinion, etc.," is not going on the judge. As why would he need to say, "Accept my opinion" - as they need to accept his opinion! Moreover, that which he said, "For they are permitted and not you" - why are they permitted? For even 'one who has his cloak taken away from him in the court should go and sing' (be happy). Rather its explanation is [that it is speaking] about all matters when people do not want to accept one's opinion in a matter of advice - that he should not say, "Accept my opinion." And this thing is that he wants that people accept his opinion by force. So about this, he said that it is not proper behavior and the ethical way, that he should say, "Accept my opinion." "For they are permitted and not you." And he placed this adjacent to what he said before this - that a man should not judge another alone by force, for that is [only] appropriate for the Holy One, blessed be He. For He is the One who is separated from those besides Him. So, likewise, is it the ethical way that it is inappropriate to say, "Accept my opinion." For they are permitted to accept [it if they wish]; but you may not force them about this - that if they do not accept his opinion, he gets angry with them, since they refused to accept his opinion. As this thing is not the way at all.  
+<b>But it is also possible to explain</b> that it was said about the judge, that he should not say, "Accept my opinion," when he sees that the the litigants do not want to accept his opinion and think that perhaps the opinion of the judge is inclined towards the other litigant. [In such a situation,] he should not say, "Accept my opinion, as the judgement that I decided upon is proper." Rather, if he sees that a litigant suspects him - that he is inclined towards [the other] - he should explain the verdict to [that] litigant, until the litigant understand the reason for the verdict. And that which they said - "for they are permitted and not you" - means to say that they [have the option of] accepting his opinion. Even though they may not disagree with his verdict, they are nevertheless permitted to accept his opinion, but there is no obligation in this at all - to accept his opinion. It is only the verdict that they must accept, once it has been decided. "But not you" - [that] you should force them to accept [your opinion].  
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<i>Rabbi Yonatan says, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty, his end will be to implement it from wealth. And anyone who disregards the Torah from wealth, will in the end disregard it from poverty."</i>
+<b>Anyone who implements the Torah, etc.:</b> It may be asked, "How many were there that implemented the Torah from poverty - like Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa and his colleagues - and [yet] we did not find that they implemented the Torah from wealth! And [there are] also many [other] questions. But the explanation of this thing is that it is according to the manner of the world: When a person has wealth, it is most appropriate for him to study Torah, since he has everything. And it is like it is stated (Deuteronomy 28:47), "Because you would not serve the Lord, your God, in joy and with a happy heart." And the opposite of this is that poverty prevents a person from his Torah [study]. As it is impossible for him to occupy himself with Torah, as he needs to make efforts to [attain] his food and his sustenance. Hence he said, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty" - that even though he is poor, such that he is living in great distress, he occupies himself with Torah. And since he occupies himself with Torah, not according to what is customary and the nature of the world - to implement the Torah on account of poverty - since all things that are in the world return to the order of what is appropriate to be, that is why he returns to the [natural] order, to implement the Torah on account of wealth, which is according to the order. Just like all things that deviate from the order, return and come back to [their] order. And later (Paragraph 13), it will explained how it is possible that poverty would be a cause to implement the Torah - as it said, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty." But if he disregards the Torah from wealth, which is not like the order of the world, that he should disregard the Torah on account of his wealth - since it is appropriate to occupy oneself with Torah because of wealth - and this thing is not according to [its] order, that is why he returns to the order. Hence if he disregards the Torah from wealth, he returns to the order, to disregard the Torah from poverty - as that thing is in order.
+<b>And that which he said,</b> "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty, his end will be to implement it from wealth"; and he did not say, "Anyone who occupies himself with Torah from poverty" - he used [this expression] because of the end [of the mishnah], "Anyone who disregards the Torah." For he did not want to say, "All who do not occupy themselves with the Torah on account of wealth." As [then] I would have thought he does not occupy himself with Torah on account of his arrogance from his wealth. So that is why he said, "Anyone who disregards the Torah on account of wealth" - and it is this thing which prevents him from his Torah [study]. And here too, this is what it is saying - "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty," such that his affairs do not prevent him form his study, but he rather implements his study [regardless].
+However there is a difficulty with this explanation: For note that we found that wealth prevents one from his study, just like poverty. As so is it found in the third chapter of Yoma (35b), "We say to the poor person, 'Why did you not occupy yourself with Torah?' [If] he says, 'I was poor and preoccupied with my food,' we say to him, 'Were you any poorer than Hillel?' We say to the wealthy person, 'Why did you not occupy yourself with Torah?' [If] he says, 'I was wealthy and preoccupied with my money,' we say to him, 'Were you any wealthier than Rabbi Elazar ben Charsum, etc.?'" And if so, it is shown from here that both wealth and poverty prevent [one] from Torah study. And it can be answered that there, it was [speaking] about a very wealthy man, whom on account of his great wealth is prevented from Torah. But here it is talking about one who is not so very wealthy. 
+But it is difficult: As he should have [then] said, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty, his end will be to implement it from being without poverty. And anyone who disregards the Torah from being without poverty, will in the end disregard it from poverty." As what is the relation of wealth to this? But this too can be resolved. For something that is inappropriate - like this one that implements the Torah from poverty, as it is is inappropriate that he implements the Torah from poverty, and that deviates from order - it is appropriate that it return to the order: It is more appropriate that he return to the order, that he implement the Torah from wealth. That is to say, at first he had a reason  to implement the Torah, and that was poverty; now he has a reason to implement the Torah, and that is wealth. But had he said, "his end will be to implement it from being without poverty" - there is no reason here for the implementation of the Torah. Whereas wealth is appropriate in implementing the Torah - and that is when he does not have great wealth to the point that he must occupy himself with his wealth. And likewise one who disregards the Torah from wealth: As this thing is inappropriate, that the wealth be a reason to disregard the Torah; so he returns to what is appropriate - meaning that he be poor, and disregard the Torah from poverty. And that reason is appropriate in the disregard of the Torah. 
+<b>And you should also know</b> that the Torah brings wealth. And it is written in Scripture (Proverbs 3:16), "Length of days is in her right hand and in her left hand are riches and honor." And in the Gemara (Shabbat 63a), it arranges this verse, "For those who come with the right, there is length of days and, all the more so riches and honor. Whereas for those who come with the left, there are riches and honor; there is not length of days." And the explanation of this is that it is appropriate that the Torah encompasses everything, since it is above everything. And whenever something is above, it includes under it everything that is beneath it. And the level of the Torah is above everything. Hence, everything [comes] with the Torah: If he occupies himself with Torah for its [own] sake - because he is occupying himself with Torah for its sake, according to the Torah being given to occupy oneself with it - it comes out that with the Torah comes length of days, which is the world to come, and also the level of this world. For if the level of the world to come, which is above, is with the Torah; all the more so is the level of this world, which is below it, in the Torah. But for those who come to it with the left - meaning who occupy themselves with the Torah not for its sake, which is [rather] for their own benefit - this thing is only the level of this world. So according to the purpose that he intended is what he acquires through it - and that is the level of this world, meaning only wealth and honor. For they are things that are in this world. So it has been explained to you that it is appropriate that wealth be with Torah. And they said explicitly (Avodah Zarah 19b), "Anyone that occupies himself with Torah, his properties are successful, as it is stated (Psalms 1:2-3), 'But rather the Torah of the Lord is his delight [...] and everything that he does succeeds.'" 
+Hence one who implements the Torah from poverty: It is appropriate according to the order of the world that with Torah is wealth, as was explained above. For this is what is appropriate according to the order, that with the Torah be wealth; therefore when one implements the Torah from poverty - and this is the opposite of what is appropriate - in the end, he will reach the thing that is appropriate, that with the Torah is wealth. And likewise when he disregards the Torah from wealth: This thing is also not according to what is appropriate, according to the truth. For according to the order of the world, Torah and wealth are connected together, as we said. So it is inappropriate, according to the order, that wealth be a reason for the disregard of Torah. For the disregard (<i>bitul</i>, here understand as negation) of something else is only if the thing corresponds to it and is its opposite; whereas these two things - Torah and wealth - join together. Hence when he acts in deviation of the order, such that he disregards the Torah from wealth, it is appropriate that he come to the order; like anything which deviates from the order, that returns to the order. [It is like this in both cases:] When he implements the Torah from poverty, which deviates from the order, it is appropriate that he return to the order, to implement the Torah from wealth - which is appropriate according to the order. And when he is disregarding the Torah from wealth, which deviates from the order, it is appropriate that he return to the order, to disregard the Torah from poverty. For poverty of Torah and poverty of money also join together. So these two things [being] together are according to the order of the world.
+<b>And that which he did not say,</b> "One who has wealth but does not occupy himself with Torah, his end will be that he will be poor. And one who is poor but occupies himself with Torah, his end is that he will be rich"; and why he made the thing depend on that which he disregards the Torah from wealth or implements the Torah from poverty - this is not difficult. For one who is wealthy and does not occupy himself with Torah - that is not in opposition to the order of the world. For wealth without Torah is certainly plausible. Rather this thing is in opposition to the order of the world: That wealth be a reason for the disregard of Torah, whereas they are two things that are connected to one another. Moreover, it is because the Torah is a cause for the wealth, as the verse writes (Proverbs 3:16), "and in her left hand are riches and honor." So it is inappropriate that wealth should be a cause for the disregard of the Torah. And that is why it is appropriate that something like this return to the appropriate order. 
+<b>And he did not say</b>, "One who disregards the Torah from wealth, his end will be that he will become poor" - because that is not his returning to the appropriate order. For if he [then] did not disregard the Torah, but rather implemented the Torah from poverty, this is not the order. But when he [then] disregards the Torah from poverty, that is the order. And since he said, "One who disregards the Torah from wealth," he also said, "One who implements the Torah from poverty" - even though it was possible to say that if one implements the Torah and he is poor, his end will be that he will be rich. But according to the explantion that will be explained adjacently (Paragraph 12) - that the explanation of, "One who implements the Torah from poverty," is that the poverty is the reason for the Torah study - it too is [intrinsically] fine. For certainly, even though in her left, the Torah has wealth and honor - that is not called, in opposition to the order. That would only be if the poverty were the reason for the fulfillment of the Torah - that thing would be not like the order, that the poverty would be a reason for Torah, [such that] this thing would certainly return to the order. And it will be further explained; and this explanation is clear.  
+<b>However several times</b>, you will find righteous people like Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa and similar ones [who remained poor]. The Midrash said (Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 934) on the verse (Proverbs 3:16), "Length of days is in her right hand and in her left hand are riches and honor": The Torah said before the Holy One, blessed be He, "It is written, 'in her left hand are riches and honor.' On account of what are my children poor?" So the Holy One, blessed be He, answered, "'To endow those who love me, there exists' (Proverbs 8:21). Why are they poor in this world? So that they do not occupy themselves (<i>yeasku</i>) with other things and forget words of the Torah - as it is written (Ecclesiastes 7:7), 'For cheating (<i>oshek</i>) may rob the wise man.'" To here [is the Midrash]. The explanation of the midrash is that even though a perfectly righteous person will not disregard Torah from wealth, there is nevertheless no person who will not turn at all to his [business] affairs. And that thing causes a little disregard [of the Torah]. But the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to refine them completely, such that they not turn to [business] affairs at all. And that is what it is written, "To endow those who love me, there exists (<i>yesh</i>)." That is to say, that God, may He be blessed, wants to give existence to them in the world to come. And that is why he gives them nothing in this world - and that is poverty - so that they have existence (<i>yesh</i>) in the world to come. And that is why the number of worlds [to be received by the righteous (Oktzin 3:12) are like the numerical equivalent (gematria) of]  <i>yesh</i> (310), since the world to come is existence. So it is appropriate that the worlds - which are existence - are like its number. Hence it is not difficult if you see someone who is completely righteous and a Torah scholar who is poor. 
+But if we see someone who is not completely righteous and he is a poor Torah scholar, there is another reason for this - that the badness of his astrological constellation causes it. 'For the matter of lifespan, children and sustenance are not dependent upon merit' (Moed Katan 28a). And it can even be said like this about a completely righteous person - that it is because the badness of his astrological constellation causes it. And [that is,] as we find concerning Rabbi Elazar ben Padat in Tractate Taanit (25a), whose constellation was so bad, to the point that he had completely no sustenance. So that which he said here - "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty, his end will be to implement it from wealth" - is when his constellation is middling. And about this, they said, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty, his end will be to implement it from wealth."
+<b>And we can be precise</b> about that which he said, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty." For he should have said, "Anyone who implements the Torah in poverty"; not, "from poverty." For behold, the explanation of, "one who disregards the Torah from wealth," is that the wealth causes him to disregard Torah. For he is occupied with his money, so he disregards the Torah. And if so, the explantion of, "Anyone who implements the Torah from poverty," would be that he implements the Torah because he is poor; and if he had wealth, it is possible that he would not have implemented the Torah. [But] there is certainly no rationale to say that - that such a man should merit to implement the Torah from wealth. So it appears to me that the explantion of, "from poverty," is that he is poor and nevertheless studies Torah. And that is called that he is implementing the Torah completely. And likewise the explanation of, "his end will be to implement it from wealth," is meaning to say that he [will have] wealth and [will] disregard his affairs and nevertheless study Torah. And that is [also] called, implementing the Torah completely. And this appears to be [correct]. As, if not, how would you explain, "his end will be to implement it from wealth?" As it cannot be explained, that because he would have great wealth, that is why he would study Torah. For is it not [that] even without this, he would have studied Torah - even if he is poor? Rather its explanation is as we said.
+And we have already also explained above (Paragraph 9) [that] even though one is poor and occupies himself with Torah, he does not come to wealth because of it; but only if the poverty is the reason for the implementation of the Torah [study]. Because [only] that is called, "implementing the Torah from poverty" - when he studies Torah in his poverty. For that is called implementation of the Torah. But one who studies Torah and is not lacking - that is not called implementing the Torah. For sometimes [such a one] studies Torah in the way of a stroll (as a form of leisure), and that is not called, implementation of the Torah. But this is called implementation of the Torah - when he studies Torah while in duress. And that is certainly the implementation of the Torah; and likewise when one studies Torah from wealth - he has many properties, but he leaves his properties and studies Torah - this thing is called that he implements the Torah from wealth. For the poverty and the wealth are the reason for the implementation of the Torah. That is to say that without it, it is not called, implementation of the Torah. And the [letter] <i>mem</i> [which denotes] from poverty; and the [letter] <i>mem</i> [which denotes] from wealth, is coming to say that the implementation of the Torah - such that he is called [one who] is implementing the Torah - is on account of the poverty and on account of the wealth. But the explanation is not that the poverty is what causes him to study, or that the wealth is what causes him to study. Rather it is that the poverty causes that he be called one who is implementing the Torah. And likewise, the wealth causes that he be called one who is implementing the Torah. But we should not elaborate more. As everything is [already] resolved with this; and study this. 
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<i>Rabbi Meir says, "Minimize business and occupy yourself with Torah. Be humble of spirit before everyone. If you neglected the Torah, you have many neglecters against you. But if you labored in Torah, He has abundant reward to grant you."</i> 
+<b>Minimize business and occupy yourself with Torah, etc.:</b> This statement is one with the statement before it, but it requires explanation. As it may be asked, "What did Rabbi Meir come to have us understand? And did we not know that a man must minimize his business and occupy himself with Torah?" As otherwise, when will [the study of] the Torah be done? And what is the relationship of,  "Be humble of spirit before everyone," to "Minimize business," and to, "If you neglected, etc." 
+<b>And it can be explained</b> that he wanted to say that sometimes a person minimizes his business because of the effort [required] or because of laziness. But if he minimizes his business because of the effort or because of laziness and occupies himself with Torah; behold that which he minimizes his business is not on account of Torah. Rather, he should minimize his business even though the business is not an effort at all, and it is possible that he desires [it] and prefers to be occupied in his business - nevertheless, he should minimize his business and occupy himself with Torah, such that it is apparent that he is turning away from the business of the world, and minimizing the business of the world because of Torah. And through this, a man removes himself from the matter of the world and clings to the Godly level. Hence since he said, "Minimize business and occupy yourself with Torah" - which is meaning to say that when he minimizes from his business because of the Torah, and not that he minimizes his business because of the effort, as we said, it then shows that he desires the Torah; so behold he left his business and is occupying himself with  Torah - it is appropriate that he acquires Torah. For he is removing bodily things and turning away to the Torah.
+And they also said this thing (Shabbat 83b) - "The Torah is only sustained in one who kills himself over Torah, as it is stated (Numbers 19:14), 'When a man dies in a tent' (tents being associated with study halls)." And we have explained about this, [that] since man has a body, he is only suitable for the spiritual level when he completely removes the matter of his body, to the point that his body is not considered important to him at all. So he kills his body and removes himself because of the spiritual Torah, and then he is suitable for the spiritual Torah. And that is like he said here, "Minimize business and occupy yourself with Torah: That he minimizes his business - which are his needs in this world - because of the spiritual Torah. And then he is suitable for Torah. 
+<b>And he placed,</b> "Be humble of spirit before everyone," adjacently after it - since this is also a trait through which one acquires Torah, as we have explained in its place (Netivot Olam, Netiv HaTorah 2). For that is why they said (Eruvin 7a) that the Torah is not with the haughty. And they said further (Taanit 7a), "Words of Torah are likened to water: Just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low place, so too, words of Torah are only sustained by one whose spirit is lowly about himself." Hence he said after this, "Be humble of spirit before everyone." It is because, through this trait, he also removes the  material trait. It is as we have said many times, that haughtiness is a material trait. Hence they said, "It is not with the haughty." And there is no trait more separated from the material than humility. Therefore our teacher, Moshe, peace be upon him - who merited Torah - only reached it exclusively with the modesty that he had more than any man on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3). And this thing has been explained many times. Hence it is specifically with these two traits that one merits Torah.
+<b>And he said, "If you neglected the Torah, you have many neglecters against you":</b> The explanation of this is that if a man neglects Torah [study], he has many neglecters that prevent him from that which is better. As man is perfected through the Torah. And if a man is not perfected, behold the man will be a lacking reality. And something that is lacking will draw more lack and absence, since he is a master of (characterized by) lacking.  
+<b>And in the first chapter of Berakhot (5a):</b> "Rava said that Rav Huna said, 'If a person sees that afflictions have befallen him, he should examine his actions - as it is stated (Lamentations 3:40), "We will search and examine our ways, and return to God." If he examined and did not find [anything], he may attribute his suffering to neglect in the study of Torah - as it is stated (Psalms 94:12), "Happy is the man whom You punish, Lord, and teach out of Your law."'" And the explanation of this is that it is because a man is reduced through afflictions, until he gets complete absence. And the reductions that are found in a person are two: The first is a true reduction, meaning a reduction of what he has - like any sin, which is a reduction of what he has. And [the second] is a reduction in that a man not perfect [himself], like when he does not occupy himself with Torah. And this thing is also a reduction, except that it is a reduction in perfection. And this reduction is not similar to a sin, which has bad content; whereas that which he does not occupy himself with Torah is only a reduction of [his] perfection. So certainly one should first attribute it to a sin, which has evil and reduction, before he attributes it to that which he is not perfected. Hence one should attribute afflictions - which come upon a person to negate him - more to that which he is a sinner, which is a reduction in what he has; than to attribute them to neglect in the study of Torah, which is a reduction in that which he has not perfected himself according to what is appropriate. And this thing will be clarified further in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaYissurin 1).
+And this is what he said: "If you neglected the Torah" - meaning that the man did not perfect himself according to that which is appropriate that he be perfected - "you have many neglecters against you." And those are afflictions. As they are considered neglecters (negaters) - since they eliminate him - [and come upon him,] since he is a master of lacking the perfection that is appropriate to perfect, whereas they cause negation of the man himself. And this thing is clear. And he said that "if you labored in Torah, He has abundant reward to grant you" - since something perfect, will draw more perfection, and that is the reward that is granted him. And that is a clear explanation. For other lackings are drawn after the lack of Torah, and other perfections are drawn after the perfection of Torah. And so is it found in a baraita (Avot D'Rabbi Natan 29:2) - And anyone who neglects words of Torah has many neglecters against him: The lion, the wolf, the tiger, the hyena and the snake. Soldiers or thieves come and remit it from him, as it is stated (Psalms 58:12), "For there is a God who judges upon the earth." To here [is the baraita]. Behold, they explained that afflictions that come upon a person are the neglecters - since they are the negation and elimination of a man.
+And that is why he did not say, "many things that make you neglect (<i>mevatelim</i>)," which would imply, many things that make you neglect the Torah. But that which he said, "you have many neglecters (<i>betelim</i>)," is that a man has many negations (<i>bitulim</i>), which are negaters of the man. It is as if he said that the Torah encompasses much; and because of that, the absence of Torah causes many negaters, and likewise toil in the Torah causes much reward. For not a single thing in Torah is considered a particular, but it is rather equal to everything. As you will thus find the level of the Torah in every place - as they said (Peah 1:1), "And Torah study is equal to all of them." Such that you see from here that the Torah encompasses everything. And they also said (Yerushalmi, Peah 1:1), "One word of the words of Torah is equal to the whole world, as it is stated (Proverbs 3:15), 'all of your objects cannot equal her.'" And because of this, when one acquires one word from the words of Torah, he acquires the whole entire world. And likewise the opposite of this - if he neglects the words of Torah, there are many neglecters and lackings. And this will be further explained in the [next] section (of this book), in Netivot Olam (Netiv Gemilut Chasadim 2).
+
+Mishnah 11
+
+<i>Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, "One who does a single commandment acquires a single defender. One who does a single sin acquires a single prosecutor. Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment."</i>
+<b>One who does a single commandment, etc.:</b> This statement too is adjacent because Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov lived at the same time as Rabbi Meir and the ethical teaching of sages that were at the same time are placed adjacently [to one another], even if they were not completely in the same generation. And the proof to this explantion is that the ethical teachings of sages that were distant in time are not found together unless it is clearly apparent that their ethical teachings are connected to one another. Hence this explanation is clear. 
+<b>But if you say</b> that the statements are attached intrinsically, you may say [here] it is because it said (at the end of the previous mishnah, Avot 4:10), "if you labored in Torah, He has abundant reward to grant you." And we explained about it, that even if he learned one thing in Torah, it is not considered [just] one thing, but rather many. [It is] as they said in the baraita (Shabbat 127a), "These are the things which a person eats their fruits in this world and the principle remains for the world to come." And they enumerate nine things there; and with Torah [study], they are ten - and [then] they said, "and Torah study corresponds to all of them." As it wants to say, that there is a comprehensive reward with Torah - since the number, ten, is a comprehensive number. And it is as if it said that the reward for one who does a singular commandment is singular reward, whereas Torah study has comprehensive reward. And that is why it placed, "One who does a single commandment, etc.," adjacent [to it]. As it is coming to say that with a commandment, it is not so as it is with Torah - that much reward is given for Torah: Even if one only occupied himself with one thing, much reward is nevertheless given to him. But with [other] commandments, it is not like this. Rather it is [that] "One who does a single commandment acquires a single defender, etc." And that is the difference between Torah and [other] commandments.
+And there is another difference: Since with a commandment, he said that "he acquires a single defender." As a defender is a positive intercessor; but it is possible that there is a negative intercessor corresponding to the positive intercessor. And that is how it is with a commandment: As it is possible that corresponding to the commandment, which is the good defender; there is a prosecutor,  corresponding to it, which is the sin. So it negates the commandment, which is the one defender. But with Torah, he did not say that if he toils in Torah [study], he acquires a defender, or that he acquires many defenders. As correspondence is not relevant to Torah. Rather he will certainly receive much reward, and the matter of a defender has no relation to it. For that is relevant to [other] commandments. As [there,] it is possible that there will be a sin corresponding to the commandment. And that it as it is found in Tractate Sotah (21a), "'For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is light'                                                                                                                (Proverbs 6:23) - it associates the commandment with a lamp and the Torah with light." [This is] to tell you that a sin may extinguish a commandment, just like there is extinguishing for a lamp; whereas a sin does not extinguish Torah, just like light cannot be extinguished. And the reason for this thing is explained elsewhere (Tiferet Yisrael 14). But this is why he did not say, "defender," with Torah. Rather it is that "you will receive much reward." 
+<b>And that which a commandment is a defender</b> is because the commandment is good itself. For behold, all of the paths of the Torah are good. And since the commandment is a good thing, it brings good to the one that has the commandment, in the same way that a defender brings good to the one who he is defending. And likewise, the opposite: Sin is evil, so it brings evil to the one that has it.
+<b>And with a commandment,</b> he said, "defender (<i>praklit</i>)," and he did not say that he acquires an advocate (<i>sanigor</i>), like he said with a sin that he acquires a prosecutor (<i>katigor</i>). [That is] because it appears that a defender enters inside [to be] with the king and speak good, [while] the one who the defender speaks about stands outside. And the defender is the intermediary between the king and the person for whom he is interceding, since a person does not have the authority to enter there. And you will find this thing in every place, that a defender only intercedes (and does not argue the case). And likewise with a commandment - which is the good - it is an intermediary between God, may He be blessed, and man; and the good enters in front of God, may He be blessed. As without this, it could not be that a man could enter before [His] presence. It is only because of the level of the commandment that he [may] enter in front of God, may He be blessed. But this is not relevant to a sin at all. Hence, with a sin, he said, "prosecutor." And with this, he hinted to you how the commandment is good itself, such that it seeks the good of the one with the commandment, when he clings to the commandment. Therefore the commandment brings good to the one with the commandment; whereas the sin, which is evil, brings evil to the one that clings to evil. And this is clear.
+<b>And he said [that]</b> both repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment. The explanation of this is that it has already been explained (Derekh Chayim 4:10) that punishment is absence that clings to a person. And this absence is from the angle of the physical. And the Sages (Bereshit Rabbah 17:6) hinted [to] this thing - as we explained this above - that [the letter], <i>samech</i> (which is associated with the Satan) was not written until woman was created; to tell you that when woman was created, the Satan was created with her. That is because a man inclines towards the form, whereas a woman inclines towards the physical. And this absence clings to the physical - since it it lacking perfection, which is form. Hence punishment, which is absence, is from the side of the physical. It is also because the physical is prepared to change and absorb impact; whereas separated things are not prepared to change and to absorb impact. And this thing is clear.
+And that which he said here, that repentance and the good deed are like a shield in front of punishment, is because repentance is one's removal from sin. And any removal from sin is only possible on the level that is separated from the physical. And we elaborated about this thing in another place (Netivot Olam: Netiv HaTeshuvah) and we explained this thing. And the Sages hinted to it (Nedarim 39b) [saying that] repentance was created before the world was created. That is, that repentance is a supernal level that is separated from this material world, as we elaborated about this. For repentance is only the removal of sin; as the cause of sin is the physical. But if there was nothing physical, man would be like an angel and he would not have any sin in him at all. And if so, repentance is from the angle of the separated level. And likewise good deeds: For all good deeds are Godly unnatural deeds. For the deeds of the Torah are not natural deeds, but rather unnatural deeds. And there is no doubt about this thing - that the commandments of the Torah are separated [and] unnatural. That is why he said, "Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment." That is to say, that man clings to the Godly separated level through these two thing. And with this, a man has strength, [such that] he does not absorb impact at all. It is as if he has a shield against punishment, since a shield protects a man. As it is something strong that is not impacted and does not change from anything at all; and a shield is separate from a man. And so too are repentance and good deeds - such that, through them, a man clings to the level that is separated from man. And this thing is a shield, [so] that when the punishments come to a man, the man does not absorb [their] impact. And this thing is very clear to the wise of understanding; and there is no doubt about this at all for the one who understands the words of [the] Sages. As this is the explanation of their words. For they were all said with supernal knowledge, and not by approximation. Rather, it was [done] with choice intellect. And that which he said, "repentance and good deeds" - it is an exceeding a fortiori argument (<i>kal ve'chomer</i>) [from this] that Torah [study also] is like a shield against punishment.
+<b>And some ask about</b> that which he said here, "Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment"; whereas in Tractate Yoma (86a), they said, "Repentance suspends [it], and afflictions scour [it] out. And if so, repentance is not like a shield; for behold, the afflictions come upon him. But this is certainly an empty question. As there, it is speaking about a punishment that God, may He be blessed, brings on account of the sin: As since he sinned, he has a punishment from the angle of the act of the sin. And that thing is similar to when there is an injury in the man himself; as a shield does not protect against this. However a shield does protect when the injury is coming from outside of the man. And so is it when a punishment comes from the outside, not from the sin of the man himself. As we establish that there are afflictions without iniquity - as it is found in the chapter [entitled], BaMeh Behamah (Shabbat 55b). But even if there are no afflictions without iniquity - [affliction] does not require a great iniquity, just a simple iniquity. As it is shown in the first chapter of Berakhot (5b) that afflictions come for something small. And regarding that, repentance is like a shield against punishment. Whereas there (Yoma 86a) they spoke about a sin for which it is appropriate to have afflictions in order to scour out the sin. So the [reason] of their coming is to scour. And with those, repentance is not effective and good deeds are not effective. And it it only relevant that it be a protective shield when the essence of the punishment is not coming because of the sin. But here - even if there is a sin - the essence of their coming upon him is nevertheless not because of sin. Yet the sin causes the afflictions to rule over him; and if there were no sin, the afflictions would not rule. And in this way, repentance and good deeds are a shield: As through repentance and good deeds, a man has a supernal separated level, that is not material. And that is a shield against punishment, since punishment is from the angle of the physical, as we have explained.
+<i>Rabbi Yochanan the shoemaker says, "Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven, its end is to endure. And every gathering that is not for the sake of Heaven, its end is not to endure."</i>
+<b>Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven:</b> Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained, "'Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven, its end is to endure,' such that the counsel will succeed and endure." The explanation of his explanation: That which he said, "succeed ," is going on the counsel that was at the gathering, such that its end is to succeed and endure. However, it is difficult: As it should have said, "Every counsel that is for the sake of Heaven." It is [however] possible to say that he was saying a novelty: Even if there were many counselors, it it [still] only if the counsel that they gave is for the sake of Heaven that it endures. But if it is not for the sake of Heaven, it does not endure.
+<b>But it appears that that which he said,</b> "Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven," is meaning to say that God, may He be blessed, is with the gathering of Israel. And in the Midrash (Sifrei Devarim 346:1): "And He was a King in Yeshurun" - when Israel are of one counsel, His great name is exalted above, as it is stated, "And He was a King in Yeshurun." When? "when the heads of the people gathered, the tribes of Israel." And there, they also said: And so does it state (Amos 9:6) "Who builds His heights in the heavens and His bond on earth endures." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says, "This is analogous to one's bringing two ships, connecting them with braces and bars, and building palaces upon them. So long as the ships are bound, the palaces endure; once the ships separate, the palaces do not endure." To here [is the midrash].
+So behold, its explanation is that, in that which He, may He be blessed, connects and unifies the collective until they are one collective - if Israel is in agreement about one counsel, His name is then exalted. For He is a King that rules over the collective; as a king rules over the collective together. And that is what is written (Deuteronomy 33:5),  "And He was a King in Yeshurun when the heads of the people gathered, the tribes of Israel." And he brought a parable of ships [that] when they are connected, the palaces of the king then endure; but if the ships separate, the palaces then fall. And such is Israel: When they are connected, the Kingdom of God, may He be blessed, is then upon them and He rises upon them. For a king rules over the collective; hence the palaces of His Kingdom endure. But if Israel separates from one another, it is as if - as if it were possible - His Kingdom, may He be blessed, does not endure. For behold, there is no people here upon which His Kingdom should rise. And this thing is hinted by the name, Israel, since the name, El, clings to Israel (since that name is the same as the last two letters in Israel). As you see that every place that there is a gathering of Israel, God, may He be blessed, is with it.
+<b>And that which he said, "Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven endures":</b> It is because it is appropriate that every gathering that is for His name, may He be blessed - His name should make this gathering endure. For God, may He be blessed is with the collective of Israel. But if the assembly is not for His name, may He be blessed, the assembly will not endure; meaning that division and separation will appear amongst them. As it is appropriate that God, may He be blessed, be with every assembly of Israel. But [if] this assembly is not for the sake of Heaven; if so, God is not with the assembly. And since He makes the assembly endure, that is why this assembly does not endure [when He is not there]. So it is only possible that there be an assembly for Israel when the assembly is for His name, may He be blessed. 
+<b>And you should know that,</b> from the angle of themselves, people are divided parts. So that assembly is not appropriate for them at all, except from the angle that He, may He be blessed, constructs the collective and connects and unifies the collective - like a king who unifies and connects the collective. Hence if the assembly is not for the sake of Heaven, there is no preservation of this assembly. As behold that people are divided from the angle of themselves, so that they do not have assembly except from the angle of God, may He be blessed - who encompasses and unifies everything. Hence separation will appear amongst them - since, from the angle of themselves, division and separation are appropriate for them. But if the assembly is for the sake of Heaven, it endures because there is assembly from the angle of God, may He be blessed. For He unifies and connects the collective, until they are an assembly. And this thing is understood if you apply understanding. And it is explained above (Derekh Chayim 3:2), regarding (Avot 3:2), "Pray for the welfare of the government." See there.
+<b>And this statement was made adjacent to here</b> - as we have explained several times - because these sages were at one time or one after another. For behold you see that the beginning of the chapter (Avot 4:1,2) is [with] Ben Zoma and Ben Azzai, who were teachers at the time of Rabbi Akiva; and likewise, Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka (Avot 4:4) and Rabbi Yishmael (Avot 4:5) - all of them were in one generation. And mentioned after them are Rabbi Yose (Avot 4:6), Rabbi Meir (Avot 4:10), Rabbi Yochanan the shoemaker (this mishnah), Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua (Avot 4:12), Rabbi Yehudah and  Rabbi Shimon (both in Avot 4:13) - all of whom were in one generation. So you see from this that they were mentioned according to their generation. And you see this thing is clear before you. 
+But if you are coming to explain the attachment of the statements from the angle of [their content] - it appears it is because of the assembly that he mentioned; since it mentioned before this [that] "Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment." And we have explained to you that repentance is a Godly matter, and likewise good deeds are Godly commandments - and [that] this thing is like a shield against punishment. For through them, a man endures, since Godly separated things have endurance. So he added to this, saying that even though assembly is not appropriate for people, nevertheless when it is for His name, may He be blessed, the assembly also has a Godly aspect from the angle that the assembly is for the sake of Heaven. And behold, God, may He be blessed, is with the assembly. Hence this assembly has a Godly aspect; so the assembly also has endurance. And it appears that it is because of this that he [used] the expression, assembly (<i>kenissiyah</i>), and not congregation (<i>kehillah</i>) or collection (<i>assifah</i> - because [God's] name is sealed in its end (<i>Yah</i>). For God is with the assembly. And this is a clear explanation.
+
+Mishnah 12
+
+<i>Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua says, "Let the honor of your student be beloved to you as your own, and the honor of your friend like the reverence of your teacher, and the reverence of your teacher like the reverence of Heaven."</i>
+<b>Let the honor of your student be beloved:</b> The version of the books is, "Let the honor of your student be beloved to you as the honor of your friend." And it can be asked, “What is the reason for these things”: That the honor of one’s student should be beloved to him like the honor of his friend; and all the more should it be asked about that which he said that the honor of his friend should be like the reverence of his teacher, and the reverence of his teacher be like the reverence of Heaven! Moreover, if the honor of his student is like the honor of his friend, and his friend is like his teacher, and his teacher is like the reverence of Heaven – if so, the honor of his student would be like the reverence of Heaven!
+<b>But you should know</b> that two [people] are called friends when one benefits the other. And it is with this that they are friends. Hence even though the teacher teaches the student, nevertheless from a certain angle, the student is considered to be benefitting the teacher. And because of this, he said that the honor of your student be like the honor of your friend, since the teacher receives benefit from the student as well.
+<b>And you should also know</b> that any two things that have a commonality together - any  commonality and combination in the world - have some relationship; like a student and a teacher that have a commonality and combination together, as we explained above in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel, at its beginning (Derekh Chayim 1:1). And that is why he said [that] from the angle of this combination that a teacher has with the student, this combination should be considered a complete equivalence in the eyes of the teacher - to the point that he considers [the student's] honor to be like the honor of his friend, with which he has complete equivalence and combination, and as if he were his friend. Since there is combination and connection here to some extent, since they connect regarding the study - since they connect regarding the study, there is an equivalence here. Hence, "Let the honor of your student be beloved to you as the honor of your friend."
+<b>And he said,</b> "Let the honor of your friend be like the reverence of your teacher, and the reverence of your teacher like the reverence of Heaven." The explanation is that [with] two friends, each one is the other one's complement, since every two friends complement one another. And since each one is the completion of the other; behold he is, from this angle, comparable to the teacher - who is the completion of the student. And because of this, he said, "Let the honor of your friend be like the reverence of your teacher." For a student must accept reverence for his teacher, since he completes him. And likewise friends. Since they are friends together, and 'two are better than one' - behold, that each one is the completion of the other. So that is why, "Let the honor of your friend" - from this angle - "be like the reverence of your teacher, and the reverence of your teacher like the reverence of Heaven." For the teacher is similar to the reverence of Heaven also in some respect: For just as God, may He be blessed, is the determinant of a person and his cause; so too is the teacher the determinant and cause of a student - since he received his wisdom from him. Therefore, "the reverence of your teacher [should be] like the reverence of Heaven."  
+For since there is a spiritual aspect in which the student is similar to the friend, and that the friend is similar to the teacher, and the teacher is similar to the reverence of Heaven - since all of this is a spiritual aspect - therefore he should consider it as if it were completely thus with regards to honor. But not that the student be considered like the teacher; for the comparison is not that [comprehensive]. Hence it is enough that the honor of his student be considered like the honor of his friend, the honor of his friend like the reverence of his teacher and the reverence of his teacher be like the reverence of Heaven.                                                  
+<b>And there are some books</b> that have the version, "the honor of your student be like your own honor." And the expression, "beloved," implies that. For it is [more] relevant for one's own honor to be beloved, since his honor is beloved to him. But to say, "Let the honor of your student be beloved to you as the honor of your friend" - that the honor of his friend is so beloved to him is not so known. As behold in the chapter [entitled] (Moshe Kibbel) [Rabbi Omer], it said (Avot 2:10), "Let the honor of your friend be beloved to you as your own." And if so, the love for the honor of one's friend is not so known, that he should make the honor of his student depend upon it. So it should have said, "Let the honor of your student be as the honor of your friend." But if the [correct] version is, "like your own honor," it is fine. And the reason that the honor of his student should be considered like his own honor is because it already said in the chapter [entitled] (Moshe Kibbel) [Rabbi Omer], "Let the honor of your friend be beloved to you as your own honor." And that is why he said about the student here, "Let the honor of your student be beloved to you as your own."
+<b>However [regarding] that which they said,</b> "the honor of your friend like the reverence of your teacher," whereas there is no comparison between honor and reverence: Its explanation is that the honor of his friend be beloved to him and that he not attack and not profane his honor, in the same way that the reverence of his teacher is beloved to him, such that he does not profane his reverence. So the comparison comes about this thing. And that which he did not say, "Let the honor of your friend be like the honor of your teacher," is since we have have not found that one is warned about his teacher, to honor him greatly. And that is why he said, "Let the honor of your friend be like the reverence of your teacher."
+And we have already explained the topic of the proximity of the [various] statements. However, if you are coming to attach the statements intrinsically - it is because it said before this, "Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven, its end is to endure," to teach in which way there should be assembly and connection of people, which is the collective. So afterwards, it brought this statement - "Let the honor of your student be beloved to you as the honor of your friend" - to also teach in which way there should be a connection of the teacher towards his student, in which way there should be a connection together between friends and [in which way there should be] the connection of the student towards the teacher. For these are all of those to whom connection is relevant in some way. However the choice explanation has already been explained to you.
+
+Mishnah 13
+
+<i>Rabbi Yehuda says, "Be careful in study, for an error in study is considered an intentional transgression."</i>
+<b>Be careful in study, etc.:</b> Study (Talmud) is the clarification of the reason of the Mishnah, each thing according to what needs to be clarified. So if he is not careful in it and gives a reason that is not a reason; in the end, he will learn something from it that is not true. And this thing is considered an intentional transgression.
+<b>And it may be asked,</b> [about] that which he said, "Be careful in study (Talmud)," and he did not say, "Be careful in Mishnah": And is error not relevant to Mishnah as well? So why did he warn more about Talmud? Moreover, why is specifically "an error in Talmud considered an intentional transgression?" But the explanation of this thing is that Talmud is not like Mishnah. For the Mishnah does not have the complete clarification of things in it; rather it just teaches the law as it is. But the Talmud clarifies the reason, to understand the thing with intellect and with wisdom. Hence he said, "an error in Talmud is considered an intentional transgression." And that is because an error is a mistake, and that which causes [a mistake] is the physical. For without the physical, the intellect is what is active; and it has no error or mistake. Therefore error is relevant to actions; as they are connected to the physical body. And sometimes the intellect - which enlightens the physical person - is not with him, so he errs. But with intellect, error is not relevant. Hence, "Talmud is considered an intentional transgression." For since Talmud is [solely] intellect, he should not have erred. To what is the thing comparable? To a person who walks in the dark and breaks vessels that are in front of him. It is certainly relevant here for him to be inadvertent, as he did not see. But if the person has a bright lamp in his hand and walks and breaks the vessels because he did not pay attention to it, this thing is certainly considered an intentional transgression - given that he has a bright lamp in his hand and he [still] did not pay attention to it! Hence, specifically "an error in Talmud is considered an intentional transgression"; and not in Scripture or Mishnah. [As] he does not have a bright lamp in his hand when he is studying these things. But in the levels of the intellect, there is no error at all. 
+And in the chapter [entitled] Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 33b): Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, expounded, "'And declare to My people, their transgression; and to the House of Jacob, their sins' (Isaiah 58:1). 'Declare to My people, their transgression' - these people are the Torah scholars, such that even errors become like intentional transgressions for them. 'And to the House of Jacob, their sins' - these are the ignoramuses, such that even intentional transgressions become like errors for them." To here [is the Gemara]. The explanation of this is that a Torah scholar, who always has a bright lamp in [his] head - and as it is written (Ecclesiastes 2:14), "A wise man has his eyes in his head" - should not err with anything; and he should always understand with his intellect and not err. He should be careful, even with a bodily action, and not stumble at all. Hence even errors become intentional transgressions for him. And the opposite of this [with] ignoramuses - even the intentional transgressions become errors for him. And even though Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained [it] in a different manner there; yet this explanation is choice. For the punishment of the Torah scholar is greater for a mistake; since the essence with him is the intellect, and there is no mistake with the intellect. And the opposite of this [with] an ignoramus. So even his intentional transgressions are not considered so [great], since he is proximate to error; for he is a bodily man. The general principle of the thing is that error is from the angle of the physical body, and not from the intellect - as there is is no mistake and no error within its borders. Hence he said that he should be careful in Talmud, as it is the wisdom of the Torah; and every matter of the Talmud is to clarify the thing with the intellect. And there is no error within the boundaries of the intellect. Hence, "an error in Talmud is considered an intentional transgression." 
+<b>And it is possible to say that</b> the order of this statement here is to say, that that which we said above (Avot 4:12) - "the reverence of your teacher [should be] like the reverence of Heaven" - is about his teacher who taught him Talmud, which is wisdom. And it comes out like that which is in the chapter [entitled] Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 33a), "His father’s lost item and his teacher’s lost item, his teacher’s lost item takes precedence." And in the Gemara, "'His teacher,' that they said, is his teacher who taught him wisdom and not his teacher who taught him Scripture or Mishna" - these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Anyone from whom he learned most of his wisdom." He means to say - even though he taught him wisdom, it is not enough unless most of his wisdom is from him. But it is always necessary that he taught him [specifically] wisdom. But Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained differently (there) - "From whom one learned most of his wisdom: Whether Scripture, whether Mishnah [whether Gemara]." Nevertheless, regarding this - that which he said, "the reverence of your teacher [should be] like the reverence of Heaven," is only with a particular teacher who taught him wisdom, meaning Talmud. And that is why this mishnah is adjacent to here - to say that the level of Talmud is very great. For behold, "an error in Talmud is considered an intentional transgression." And it is about this (Talmud), that they said, "the reverence of your teacher [should be] like the reverence of Heaven."
+<i>Rabbi Shimon says, "There are three crowns: The crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of monarchy - but the crown of a good name rises above them."</i>
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says, "There are three crowns, etc.":</b> It may be asked [about] that which he said, "three crowns": And why did he not say, "four crowns?" And he did not count the main crown - which is the crown of a good name! And also difficult: In the Temple, there was a vessel corresponding to all the crowns, [one] hinting to each crown. For behold, there was a rim - which is a crown - on the ark symbolic of the crown of Torah. And there was a rim on the table, and that was symbolic of the crown of monarchy - it is like they say, "the table of kings." And there was a rim on the altar, symbolic of the crown of priesthood. And it is like they said in Tractate Yoma (72b) about all of these three crowns. But there was nothing in the Temple corresponding to the crown of a good name - which is above all the crowns!  
+And in Midrash [Rabbah], they said on Parshat Naso (Bemidbar Rabbah 14:10), that the menorah hints to the crown of a good name. For a good name is upon one who is a master of commandment[s]. And that is the menorah, [as it is stated] (Proverbs 6:23),  "For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is a light." Therefore the menorah indicates the crown of a good name. So that which he says, "but the crown of a good name rises above them," comes out well. For the menorah is also above these three vessels.
+However according to that which is apparent, this is not from the core midrash, but it is from the additions that attached themselves to the Midrash but are not part of the Midrash. And this is indicated from the wording; as one could ask, all the more so - you should note that there was no crown on the menorah, but it would have been appropriate for there to be a crown on the menorah! But this can be resolved: It is since the lamps would rise still further, as it is written (Exodus 27:20), "to draw up a lamp constantly." Hence it is impossible that there be a crown on the menorah; for the lamp would rise above the rim, if there was a rim. And [this] is not similar to the table, upon which the bread was lain. For rising is not relevant to bread. But even if bread would rise above the rim - since the bread would lay on the table and the rim rises above the table; behold the crown is [considered to be] above the table. But with the lamps, rising is relevant. For behold, it is written,  "to draw up a lamp constantly." Yet it is inappropriate that anything rise over the crown. And because the crown of a good name rises above everything, it is written, "to draw up a lamp constantly."
+And it is also because a crown is the culmination of a level and the height of the one with a crown. So each crown of these three crowns has a culmination and an end, for it reaches [only] up to there. Hence it is possible that a crown be indicative of these three crowns. But [regarding] the crown of a good name - there is no culmination or end to this crown. For it rises higher and higher and expands infinitely, as will be explained (Paragraph 17). Hence it is inappropriate that there would be a crown on the menorah that indicates a good name. Rather, it is written (Exodus 27:20), "to draw up a lamp constantly." For this crown rises higher and higher constantly, since there is no end to this crown. And that is why there was no crown in the Temple that indicated the crown of a good name. For if so, there would be a culmination and a limit to [this] crown.
+And in the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 7:1): Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, "A good name is more beloved than the ark of the covenant. For the ark of the covenant only went in front of them three days (Numbers 10:33). But a good name rises from [one] end of the world to its [opposite] end. From where do we [know this]? From David, as it is stated (I Chronicles 14:17), 'And David's name went forth throughout all the lands, and the Lord set his fear upon all of the nations.'" To here [is the midrash]. And the explanation of this thing is that because it is the crown of Torah - in that it is separated from man, hence the ark of the Lord's covenant could not go amongst the camp of Israel. Rather it would travel in front of them, and went before the camp. And this thing was similar to man. For the intellect is separated from the man and is not embedded in the physical man, but is separated from him. Nevertheless, there is a bond here, as the intellect is bound to the man. And that is why it is written (Numbers 10:33), "and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them a distance of three days." And one who walks three days still has a bond with the one behind him; and it is like we found that Israel said, (Exodus 5:3), "[let us] walk three days into the wilderness." And certainly that which Israel said, that they would walk three days, is that they did not want to distance themselves completely. And it is as Pharaoh said (Exodus 8:24), "just do not surely distance yourselves, etc." That is why the ark was not completely separated from them. But the crown of a good name does not have this thing at all. Rather it is from [one] end of the world to its [opposite] end, as it will be explained. For it is appropriate that a good name be from [one] end of the world to its [opposite] end. Hence it is inappropriate that there be a crown on the menorah at all. For there is no limit to this crown. Rather, it is written (Exodus 27:20), "to draw up a lamp constantly" - such that it always rises.  
+<b>Moreover, it is inappropriate</b> that there be a crown for the menorah, because this crown is different from the other crowns. As [regarding] the other crowns, the virtue is found in the one with the crown himself. For the Torah is with the Torah master, and likewise the priesthood, and likewise the monarchy - it is all visible and felt upon the one with the crown. But [regarding] one with a good name - the good name is not found with the one with the good name. For what does the one with the good name know of the good name that he has with others? Hence it is inappropriate that there be a crown to the menorah. For if so, this crown would indicate that [the virtue] is in the menorah itself - that there is a crown in the one with the crown himself. But this thing is not the case at all. For this crown of a good name is found with others, not with the one with the good name. Hence it is simple that it is inappropriate that there be a crown on [this] vessel, as it indicates the one with the crown.
+And with this, we can answer that which he said, "there are three crowns," and he did not count the crown of a good name with them. As this is its explanation: There are three crowns [that] are visible and felt for everyone to see. For the Torah is a crown that is felt by the Torah master; as the wisdom of a man and his Torah are with him. And likewise priesthood; and likewise monarchy. All of [these] crowns are visible and felt. But the crown of a good name is not felt and not recognizable. Hence there was no crown with the menorah - because the crown is not recognizable. 
+But there is another difficulty: That if the menorah indicates the crown of a good name - given that the crown of a good name rises above [the others] - why is the menorah not in the inner sanctum, like the ark which is before [His] presence? But this too is not difficult. As  the menorah was not before [His] presence because of this: It is as we learned [in a mishnah] (Avot 3:9) - that anyone whose wisdom precedes his deeds, his wisdom does not endure; but anyone whose deeds precedes his wisdom, his wisdom does endure. Hence the menorah that indicates the deed, is first; and afterwards one reaches the ark before [His] presence. And from now, all of the crowns are in proper order: First of all is the altar. And this thing is because before one knows about good and about evil, he is born into the priesthood and the law of the priest is upon him in every matter - since the adults are commanded about the children and a priest is born with his holiness. And afterwards, one reaches the doing of the commandments - and corresponding to that is the table, which is monarchy. As these two things come together - to do the commandments, and to be a king - from the time that one is obligated in the commandments. And afterwards, one reaches the level of the Torah; and that is on its own, before [His] presence. And everything is in order.
+<b>And that which he did not say,</b> "And the crown of deeds rises above them" - for behold, in every place it says (Avot 3:9, 17) "anyone whose deeds are greater than his wisdom" - so why did he say, "the crown of a good name?" It is because he is coming to say from which angle do deeds rise above everything. So he said [that] it is because deeds are a good name, and a good name rises above everything. And another difficulty: Why does the crown of a good name rise above [the other crowns]? Even though they said (Avot 1:17) - "It is not the study which is the main thing, but the deed which is the main thing"; yet certainly that which he said, "the crown of Torah" - here, he did not say it when one does not have [good] deeds. As in that way, it is not a crown at all. But when he has deeds; so he has two crowns [of Torah. If so,] it would appear that the crown of Torah is more than the [crown of] deeds! But this is not difficult. For the crown of a good name is when he has very magnificent deeds; and deeds like those bring a good name to a person and they rise above everything. And that is why, "the crown of a good name rises over them."
+<b>But the main explanation</b> [regarding] that which there was no vessel in the Temple with a rim upon it, corresponding to the crown of a good name, is because of this - [that] he said, "and the crown of a good name rises over them." And the reason that this crown rises over them is because a name - since it indicates the essence of the one with the name - is detached from the physical. For this is the concept of a name: That it is completely detached, as it is only spiritual. And this is not similar to Torah. For there is no doubt that there is a connection of wisdom to a man: Even though wisdom is separated from a man, the  body nevertheless carries the wisdom - so the wisdom has a connection to a man, who has a body. But a good name, which is detached from [its] carrier, is completely separated. And that is why it is over [the other crowns]. And that is what they said in the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 7:3) that the ark would would not go more than just three days ahead of Israel. Such that you see that the Torah has a connection to Israel. For a three day walk is not completely distant, as was explained above (Paragraph 11). It is like, when you say that x is a a three day distance from the city - it would not be said that he is completely separated and detached from the city. For he is within [a journey of] three days. And this indicates that the crown of Torah has an attachment to a man, whereas a good name is in the whole world. Since the name is completely detached, it is spiritual and indicates the essence. So it is detached from the physical and it has no connection with the body at all.
+Therefore no vessel in the Temple indicated the crown of a good name. As if a vessel in the Temple would indicate [this] crown, this crown would be in a limited place, whereas the crown of a good name does not have a limited place. For behold, it said (Kohelet Rabbah 7:1) that a good name is from [one] end of the world to its [opposite] end. And that is why it is inappropriate for a vessel in the Temple to indicate this crown. And even the ark - did it not rest in the inner sanctum (Exodus 26:34), such that it was separated from man completely? And no man entered there except for the high priest on Yom Kippur (Rashi on Leviticus 16:3). So this indicates that the crown of Torah is also separated from a man. But the crown of a good name is above them, because a good name is [even] more separated. That is why it is impossible to say that it had a vessel in the Temple upon which was [its] crown. And this is an explanation that is choice, and there is no doubt about it. 
+And it is from this reason that he said, "there are three crowns," and he did not include the crown of a good name with them - to say, "there are four crowns." It is because these three crowns resemble each other, since all of these three crowns share a commonality together. It is only the crown of a good name that is unique, because there is no limit to this crown; as it is from [one] end of the world to its [opposite] end. For this is not the case with the other crowns. As this crown is detached [and] completely separated, as was explained above (Paragraph 16). [So] this crown cannot be grouped with them. And behold even in the Temple, this crown was not together with the other crowns. And all of this is because of the stature of this crown, such that no place is relevant to it - since place is [only] connected to something physical. [And] even though the Torah is [also] spiritual, there is nevertheless some angle here that relates to the physical. For behold Torah is with a person who has a body, whereas a name is not like this. Hence the crown of a good name cannot be grouped with these three crowns at all. 
+<b>But that which we explained above (Paragraph 12) is also correct:</b> That the explanation of that which he said, "There are three crowns," is that there are crowns that are crowns in front of you. But the crown of a good name is not a crown that is in front of you; since it is with those who absorb and hear his name. So this is its explanation: There are three crowns that are known and visible in front of you; but there is another crown that is unfelt. And that is the crown of a good name [which] rises above them. And from this, you can understand that which he said, "the crown of a good name rises above them." For this crown is over them, from the angle that this crown is completely separated and has no connection with the body, which is [rooted in] the ground (Genesis 2:7) [and] does not rise so much. And that is why the crown of Torah - which has a connection with the body - does not rise above like this crown, which is the crown of a good name.
+<b>And it may be asked,</b> “Why do [I] have a number,” such that he said, "there are three crowns" - why do I need the number? But you should know that these three crowns that he mentioned here that God, may He be blessed, gave to Israel - Torah, monarchy and priesthood - correspond to man. For man has three parts: The first part is the intellect that is in man, the second part is the spirit and the third part is the body. And these three parts are all the parts of man; and these three crowns correspond to these parts. For the crown of the Torah corresponds to the intellect. And the crown of the priesthood corresponds to the spirit. For the priesthood is the virtue and the holiness of the body. As behold, a priest is born with holiness; and [an individual's] priesthood depends on the drop [of semen] that comes from the priest. And that is the distinction there is between the priesthood and the crowns of monarchy and Torah. For the crown of priesthood is sanctity of the body; and therefore one who is born from the body [of a priest] is also holy unless he profanes his seed. But the king is not like this. For it is possible that his son is not a king. And all the more so with Torah, as the son of a Torah scholar is not [necessarily] a Torah master. And the father that has this stature does not give the spirit or the intellect to the son. But the body is from the father - that is the drop, as is explained in the chapter [entitled] HaMapalet (Niddah 31a). Hence a son inherits the priesthood. 
+So behold the crown of the priesthood that God, may He be blessed, gave to Israel corresponds to the holiness of the body that there is in man. Hence blemishes are a disqualification with priests. And that is because the priest is holiness of the body. So when there is a blemish in [his] body, he is disqualified from the [Temple] service. And from this you can understand that which they said in Ketuvot (72b), that all the blemishes that disqualify with priests, disqualify with women. But what is their connection together? Rather its explanation is that a woman is also more physical than a man. For a man is similar to the spirit which rules - as it is written (Genesis 3:16), "but he will rule over you" - whereas a woman is similar to the body. And that is why the blemishes that disqualify with priests [also] disqualify with women. 
+However it is appropriate for you to understand this thing that we have said, that the priests have holiness of the body: As the intention about this is that their body is drawn from a supernal Godly level; since even the body of a man has a supernal level, when you know and understand about the 248 limbs of a man. And the priest that was the first righteous priest was Avraham, our father; and Scripture said about him (Psalms 110:4), "You are a priest forever." So his number (the numerical value of the letters of his name) was 248, like the number of the limbs of a person (Nedarim 32b). And all of these things are magnificent in wisdom, but we may not elaborate.
+<b>However the monarchy</b> corresponds to the spirit. And it is known that the spirit is the leader of all the limbs of a person, and that a person receives its leadership from the spirit. Hence God, may He be blessed, granted [that there be] a king, as he is the leader and ruler of  the whole nation. But the body does not act, nor does the intellect. Rather what acts is the spirit; so it is similar to a king who acts and rules. And this is what Scripture said (Proverbs 12:10), "the heart of the king(s) is in the hand of the Lord." And that is because the king is similar to the heart, in which there is the vital spirit. And it is written (Job 12:10), "(For) in Your hand is the spirit of all that lives." And we have already explained (Derekh Chayim 3:16) above that the spirit is in the hand of God - as they said in the Midrash Rabbah (Vayikra Rabbah) on Vayikra 4:1, "And when a spirit sins." And that is why the heart of the king - which is the king of the king - clings to the hand of God. For it is the holy of holies. And that is why it is in the hand of God. And it is also stated (Proverbs 23:3), "The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unfathomable." And the explanation of this is that even though the heaven has great heights and the earth has great depths, nevertheless - because they are physical, and everything that is physical has a limit and an end - the heart of the king cannot be fathomed; meaning that it has no limit. This is because the king is similar to the heart, as was explained; so the heart of the heart has a level that is completely separated. 
+And from this you will know that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Horayot 13a) - that the king precedes the high priest, and the sage precedes the king. And this thing is according to the order of the statures and levels of the things that these three correspond to in a man. For the spirit in the man is greater than the body; and the intellect is more elevated than the spirit. Moreover, they said, "Even a <i>mamzer</i> (a man born from a forbidden union) Torah scholar precedes an ignoramus high priest." And it means to say that the stature of a <i>mamzer</i> Torah scholar - [though] he is [from] a disqualified drop - is nevertheless, from the angle of the intellect that he has, greater than an ignoramus high priest. Even though the high priest is [from] a completely holy drop - this is only physical stature, and it is not comparable to spiritual stature. Hence, "a <i>mamzer</i> Torah scholar precedes an ignoramus high priest."
+<b> And you should understand great things:</b> That it is inappropriate that two of these three crowns - being the crown of the priesthood and the crown of monarchy - be found together. And so is it in the Yerushalmi (Talmud Yerushalmi Horayot 3:5) - and Ramban, may his memory be blessed, brings it on Parashat Vayechi (Ramban on Genesis 49:10) - "We do not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Yehudah Anturya said, 'This is on account of, "The sceptre shall not depart from Yehudah."' Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said [that Scripture states concerning the king], '"To the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel." Now what is written afterwards? "The priests the Levites … shall have no portion."'" This means to say that the priests do not have a share in the monarchy, that Scripture mentioned before this. And it may be asked as to what is the reason for this - it is better all the more so! As 'how good and how pleasant is it for brothers - these two crowns - to dwell together!' But the choice explanation about this is that these two crowns are not like one another, but are distinct. For the crown of the priesthood is bodily holiness, whereas the crown of the monarchy is spiritual holiness. So behold, they are distinct. And one who is apt for one of them is not apt for the other. For it is its opposite, given that they are distinct.  
+And this is not a difficulty with the crown of the Torah: Even though it is distinct from the crown of priesthood and the crown of monarchy, it should not be said that what is apt for the one is not apt for the other. As this thing would have been difficult if the crown of Torah was not separated from a man. But the crown of Torah is separated from a man. And even though we said that the Torah is situated in a man, that is that the intellect has a connection of existence - meaning that it is with the man. Nevertheless, the intellect is separated from the man. So it does not follow to say about this, that what is apt for one is not apt for another. As this thing is not relevant when they are separated from one another.
+And this thing is hinted to in the Torah - in that which, with the crown of of the table it is written (Exodus 25:24), "and you shall make for it"; and with the rim of the altar, it is also written (Exodus 30:3), "and you shall make for it." Whereas with the ark, it is written (Exodus 25:11), "and you shall make upon it." And it is known that the expression, "upon it (<i>alav</i>)," implies that it is separated from it; but the word, "for it (<i>lo</i>)" is a word of acquisition - [meaning] that it is its, it is not separated from it. Hence it should certainly not be said that a man be apt for the crown of monarchy and the crown of priesthood, since they are distinct. For they are [both] situated in man. And because of that, one who is apt for the one is not apt for the other. However the intellect is separated from a man, it is not relevant to say this about it. And this is something clear. 
+And this is what they said (Yoma 72b), "The crown of priesthood, Aharon and his offspring merited; the crown of monarchy, David and his offspring merited; [but] the crown of Torah - it is sitting, anyone who wishes to merit it may merit it." And the explanation of this is that it is because the crown of priesthood requires special aptness - that is why Aharon and his offspring merited it. As they are apt specifically for this. And likewise the crown of monarchy - this crown requires a particular aptness. So David and his offspring merited it, since they were apt for it. And because of that, the one that is apt for this crown is not apt for the other; as they are distinct. But the crown of Torah does not require aptness for it, because this crown is the intellect that is separated from the man. So because of this, it is sitting in front of everyone; as it does not require aptness. And it is all hinted in that which it is written, "upon it," about this crown And from this you can understand the things we explained in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Omer, regarding "Yose HaKohen is a pious one" (Derekh Chayim 2:8).
+So the matter of these three crowns has been explained to you. And this is why the crown of a good name corresponds to the essence of a person. For the name arises about the essence that is detached from the physical. Just like [with] these three crowns, each one of them corresponds to one of the parts of a person; so too does the crown of a good name correspond to the essence of a person. As from this you will understand that all three of these crowns correspond to a person. And that is why he said, "three crowns" - meaning to say that it is appropriate that there be three, no less and no more. "But the crown of a good name rises above them." For these three correspond to a person in his parts, whereas the crown of a good name corresponds to the essence of a person. For a name arises about the detached essence. The main principle of the thing - these three crowns: Since a person has a singular part - that being the body - God, may He be blessed, selected one [entity] and gives him the particular stature in this, and gave him holiness of the body. And that is the offspring of Aharon. And corresponding to the spirit that there is in a person, God, may He be blessed, selected one [entity], and gave him [this] particular stature in this. That is the crown of monarchy; and David and his offspring merited this. And corresponding to the intellect that is in a person, He gave the Torah to the collective of Israel; that from all the nations, they should acquire this particular stature in this. 
+And from this, it is further answered to you [why] it is not reasonable to say, "four crowns," and to count the crown of a good name among them. For how could you group these - which only correspond to the parts of the person - along with the crown of a good name? As a name appears about the spiritual essence, the detached core. So the part cannot be grouped with the essence and they are not related to one another. And it [is like it] cannot be said that there are four parts to a tree: The fruits, the leaves, the branches and the essence of the tree. Rather the spiritual essence is by itself; it is not grouped with those [things] that are only parts. So this thing is clear. And you will still understand the secret of these three crowns and the crown of a good name, according to wisdom.
+<b>And you can say that</b> this statement of the three crowns follows that which is before it - "an error in study is considered an intentional transgression." And we have already explained (Paragraph 3-4) that the reason is that an error is only with something that is physical, as was explained; but not with something that is not physical. Hence it placed the statement of the three crowns after it. As a crown indicates a level that is not physical. For that is why the crown is an ornament above the head. As something that is separated [and] not physical is above a person, it rises above him; similar to the intellect, which is separated from the physical, that is in the head of a person. That is why these three crowns were in the Temple, which is holy; whereas the crown of Torah is the holy of holies, which is more separated from the body, and that is why this crown was in the holy of holies (the inner sanctum). And because of this, "an error in study (Talmud) is considered an intentional transgression." For there is no error on the level of that which is not physical, which is the Torah. And the essence of this crown is specifically the Talmud. As it is fitting that this be called the crown, not Scripture and not Mishnah. So that is why it made this adjacent above, to indicate this. And it is correct to say like this, but we have already said the choice explanation. So understand these things that we have told you; as they are very choice things.
+
+Mishnah 14
+
+<i>Rabbi Nehorai says, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah, and do not say that it will follow after you, that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand; and do not rely on your understanding."</i>
+<b>Rabbi Nehorai says, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah, etc.":</b> This statement belongs to Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh. And he is called, "Rabbi Nehorai (Lightful)," as it is found in Tractate Shabbat (147b): "Because he would light up the eyes of the sages, he was called, Rabbi Nehorai." And it can be asked about this statement - that which he said, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah, and do not say that it will follow after you" - why was it necessary to say, "and do not say that it will follow after you?" As from that which he said, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah," we understand that he should not depend on it following him. For if it were not so, why should he exile himself to a place of Torah? Moreover, it should have said, "And do not rely upon it following after you"; like it says afterwards, "and do not rely on your understanding."
+<b>And it appears that he is coming to say</b> that it is not the nature of Torah to follow after a person; which is not the case with wealth and other virtues. For  an [astrological] constellation causes one to become wealthy, even though he did not toil for the wealth. As it is possible that he will find a lost object, and that which is similar to it - even though he did not toil for the wealth, it comes to this one. But it is not like this with Torah. As when it is decreed that one will become rich, wealth seeks him out in order that the decree that he become rich be fulfilled. And likewise is it relevant to say this about all [other] things. But Torah is not like this. For it will only come to a person through the actions of man. 
+And in the first chapter of Megillah (6b): Rabbi Yitzchak said, "If a person should tell you, 'I have toiled, but I have not found,' do not believe [it]; 'I have found, but I have not toiled,' do not believe [it]." And these words are for matters of Torah. But [regarding] give and take (business), it is the help of the Heavens. To here [is the Gemara]. And the explanation is like that which we said. For Torah is completely above an [astrological] constellation. Hence if one says, "I have toiled, but I have not found," do not believe [it]. As if he toiled and did not find, you need to say that the constellation is the cause that he does not learn. But this is not so; for the Torah is not under the constellation, such that the constellation be behind this. And likewise, if one said, "I have found, but I have not toiled," do not believe [it]. As is it possible to say that he found, but he did not toil? Is so, the constellation would be the cause. But that is not so. For the constellation is not the cause of this, since the Torah is not under the constellation. But with give and take, one can say, "I have toiled, but I have not found" - as the constellation is behind it; that he not become rich, even if he toiled. And it is possible to say, "I have found, but I have not toiled," since it was the constellation that [did this].  
+And that which they said in the last chapter of Shabbat (156a), "the constellation wizens," is that the constellation determines that the person will toil and seek the Torah. And behold, that helps for wisdom. And this is "the constellation wizens," that it said; not that it completely causes wisdom. Rather that it helps him, meaning that it causes him to exert himself in pursuit of Torah. Or also, that over there, "wizen," is that he be wise with all the other wisdoms. But Torah is greater than wisdom. For anything intellectual is called wisdom, whereas the Torah of Moshe is Godly. So it is certainly higher than wisdom. As even the nations are [sometimes] called wise, but they are not called masters of Torah. And likewise did they say in the Midrash (Eichah Rabbah 2:13), "If they say to you that there is no wisdom among the nations, do not believe it, as it is sated (Obadiah 1:8), "I will make the wise vanish, etc."; there is Torah among the nations, do not believe it, as it is written (Lamentations 2:9), "[among the nations,] there is no Torah." But with the Torah of Moshe, constellation and the help of the Heavens are irrelevant. Rather, a person must exert himself in pursuit of Torah. 
+And that is what he said here - that one should exile himself to a place of Torah; that one should exert himself in pursuit of Torah. And so that a person not think that perhaps it is with Torah like it is with other acquisitions - such that they come after him from the power of the help of the Heavens - about this, he said, "and do not say that it will follow after you," from the power of the help of the Heavens. For this thing is not relevant to Torah at all. If so, a person should exile himself to a place of Torah. 
+<b>And he said, "that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand."</b> The explanation is that even if there is no teacher here, you are able to learn from the colleagues, who are coming from a place a Torah and will bring the Torah with them in their hands. As this thing is not so; rather he must go to a teacher to learn. And he [used] the language,  "preserve it in your hand" - and he did not say, "they will teach you" - since colleagues certainly do not teach one. Rather he will learn [it] on his own; and that which is a question for him, they will preserve in his hand. As he will ask them about that which he is in doubt. 
+And it should not be asked, "If so - even if the teacher is in the city, he should [still] exile himself to a [different] place of Torah, 'and do not say that it will follow after you.'" As this is not so. For this thing is [also] called that he is exiling himself to a place of Torah - when he goes before his teacher [in the same city] to learn. But it is not relevant to say that he go to his colleague to learn, since his colleague comes to him many times; such that this is considered [as if] the Torah is following him. Hence it said, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah, and do not say that it will follow after you" through your colleagues, such that you do not want to exert yourself in pursuit of it. For you should not say this, as the Torah will not pursue you. 
+<b>And he said, "and do not rely on your understanding":</b> That you should say that  there is no need to learn - "since I am understanding, I can extract the words of the Torah from my heart and from my intellect." That is why he said about this, "do not rely on your understanding": Because the Torah is the wisdom that is most distant from understanding. Hence, do not rely on your understanding.
+<b>And also it is because</b> that which he said, "and do not say that it will follow after you," is meaning to say that it is not fit for the level of the Torah that it should follow after a person. As the Torah is separated from man, as we have told you very many times. For if the Torah did not have this level, it would have certainly been possible that it would follow a person. As it would have been drawn after something to which the Torah relates, given that everything is dragged by that with which it joins together and becomes one thing. But the Torah is not like this, since the Torah is separated from a person. Hence, "do not say that it will follow after you." Rather a person must exile himself after it, as one would exile himself to something that is separated from him. And do not say, "But surely the Torah is with me, as I am able to extract the thing from my intellect; for behold, one with understanding can extract one thing from another thing." About this he said, "do not rely on your understanding" - and as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:13) about the crown of Torah: Because of the level and the stature of this crown, it is written with the rim of the ark (Exodus 15:11), "upon it"; and it is not written, "its," as it is written about the rim of the table (Exodus 25:24) and about the rim of the altar (Exodus 30:3) - in order to teach that the Torah is separated from the one who has the crown. For the intellect is separated from a person; and "upon it," is relevant about this. And likewise for this very reason does the Torah not follow after one. For the Torah does not have a binding and connection with a person at all, such that the Torah be bound with a person. And that is why they said (Megillah 6b), "'I have found and I have not toiled,' do not believe." For the Torah is not drawn after a person. Rather a person must draw himself after it. However [with] two things that are connected, one to the other, the one is certainly drawn after the other.
+<b>And in the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Chavit (Shabbat 147b):</b> Rabbi Chelbo said, "The [appeal in exile of the] water of the Deyomset and the wine of Perugaita severed the ten tribes from Israel." Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh happened to come there and he was drawn after them, and his Torah learning was uprooted. He stood to read from a Torah scroll and was supposed to read (Exodus 12:2), "<i>HaChodesh hazeh lakhem</i> (This month shall be for you)." [Instead] he read, "<i>HaCheresh haya libbam</i> (Have their hearts become deaf)." The Sages prayed and asked for mercy on him, and his learning was restored. And that is what we learned [in a mishna] that Rabbi Nehorai says, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah [and do not say that it will follow after you, that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand; and do not rely on your understanding]." It was taught, Rabbi Nehorai was not his name, but rather Rabbi Nechemiah was his name; and some say that Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called Rabbi Nehorai? It was because he would light up (<i>manhir</i>) the eyes of the sages. To here [is the Gemara]. And I did not know how to resolve what this proof was, that it brought from that which we learned [in a mishna] that Rabbi Nehorai says, [etc.]. Behold Rabbi Nehorai only came to let us understand that one should not say that the Torah will follow after him, whereas Rabbi Elazar was drawn after water of the Deyomset and the wine of Perugaita. And we do not find that he said that the Torah would follow after him; and it was not because of that that his Torah learning was uprooted. Rather it was because he was drawn after the water of the Deyomset and the wine of Perugaita. 
+Hence it appears that that which he said, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah," is that he be in a place where there is much Torah, and not be in a place where there is no Torah. For [the people of the latter] are drawn after desires; and those are the opposite of Torah. That is why he said, "The water of the Deyomset and the wine of Perugaita severed the ten tribes from Israel." For when the ten tribes were excessively pursuing after [their] desires - this thing is called their being severed from Israel. As it is not fitting that Israel be inclining towards excessive desires. As this is the matter of the stature of Israel - that they are holy and ascetic and separated. And that is why he said, "The water of the Deyomset and the wine of Perugaita" - as they are two things, the water and the wine. For these two things: The water is for bathing the body and its pleasure; whereas wine is for the spirit. As 'wine gladdens the heart of a man.' [This is] to the point that with these two things, a person has an inclination towards the desires of the body and the spirit. And this thing severed the ten tribes from Israel. For this thing is not fitting for Israel, since they are ascetic and separated from the desires.
+And that is why it said that Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh happened to come there: So even with his wisdom, his learning was uprooted when he inclined after the desires [of that place]. And this thing detaches the spiritual Torah, since [Torah] is the opposite of desires. And this is that which they said, "And that is what we learned [in a mishna] that Rabbi Nehorai says, 'Exile yourself to a place of Torah'": That a person should only live in a place of Torah (Avot 6:8), and not in a place that does not have Torah. For people are drawn there after things pertaining to matters of this world. And with that, the Torah is removed from him - as happened to Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, since he lived in a place where there were desires and he was drawn after them.
+And that which it said after it, "and do not say that it will follow after you," is meaning to say that [you may think that] you do not need to exile yourself to a  place of Torah, because the Torah will follow you through the colleagues who will preserve it in your hand. As you will have colleagues with whom there is Torah learning. So the Torah will come to your place through this, to the point that you will say you don't need to exile yourself to a place of Torah and you will [still] not follow after the desires. This is not so. As once a person does not live in a place of Torah, behold the person is drawn after matters of this world and will forget the Torah. And it should not be asked, "Even if a teacher is there - if the place is not a place of Torah, he will [still] be drawn after them!" This is not so. For if there is a teacher there, that teacher will certainly spread the Torah to many students, so it will certainly be a place of Torah. And that is why he said that you should not say that it will follow you, that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand. And the explantion of, "and do not rely on your understanding," is that he say that he is completely understanding, that he is a spiritual man that is drawn after the intellect, and he is not not drawn after the desires. Hence the Torah will not turn away from him even if he does not exile himself to a place of Torah. About this, he said, "and do not rely on your understanding." And now the language, "that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand" - and that he did not say, "that they will teach you" - works well. As he means to say that you have colleagues that have the possibility of preserving the Torah in your hand, such that you will not forget. Nevertheless, he will certainly come to forgetting when he is not in a place of Torah. For he will be drawn after matters of the body; and his understanding and his great wisdom will not help him. And this explanation appears [correct]. 
+<b>But Rashi in Tractate Shabbat (147b) explained that</b>, "that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand," refers to that which is earlier - when he said, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah." Such that if you exile yourself to a place of Torah, your colleagues will preserve it in your hand. As you will be with them regularly; and when you are reviewing one tractate and they, another, you will hear [the other] and it will be 'arranged in your mouth.' To here [is Rashi]. But the explanation that we said (in the previous paragraph) appears [more correct].
+<b>And behold the explanation</b> of that which he said, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah," is that a person live in a place where there is very much Torah there. For if not, he will be drawn after matters of this world and he will not incline [himself] towards Torah. For a material  person inclines most towards these things, which are the desires. 'Will you set your eyes upon it; it is gone.' Hence he should be in a place in which there is Torah, even if he needs to exile himself from his place - and that is difficult for a person. But he should not rely upon his understanding - since he is a great sage and is not a person who is drawn after the body; so that, because of this, he is drawn to the Torah. For the thing is not so. As a person, who nevertheless has a body, is drawn after matters of this world if he is not in a place where there is plenty of Torah. And this is the correct explanation. 
+<b>And we can say that it is because of this</b> that this statement was placed adjacent to that which it said (Avot 4:14), "There are three crowns, etc.": So that it placed, how he can merit the crown of Torah, adjacent to it. And it is saying that if he exiles himself for words of Torah, he will merit the crown of Torah. For exile is a disgrace, since a person is only honored in his [own] place. But when he exiles himself and abases himself for words of Torah, he is exalted. And so did they say in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 63b): Rabbi Yehudah said that Rav said, "Anyone who abases himself over words of Torah will be exalted - as it is stated (Proverbs 30:32), "If you have done foolishly in lifting yourself up." To here [is the Gemara]. And in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 81:2): "Ben Azzai and Rabbi Akiva - Ben Azzai says, 'If you have abased yourself over words of Torah, you will in the end be exalted by them.' And Rabbi Akiva says, 'Who caused you to be abased over words of Torah? Because you elevated yourself with them.'" And it is [adjacent] also because of that which we said (Paragraph 10): That this itself - that the Torah is a crown - is why a person must exile himself to a place of Torah. For the Torah is a crown, and this crown does not come to a person - since the crown indicates a supernal separated level, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:13:31). And that is why he needs to exile himself to a place of Torah, such that he be drawn to the Torah. But we have already said the explanation of the proximity of the statements to the words of Rabbi Nehorai here: For according to the first rendition in the baraita (Shabbat 147b), Rabbi Nehorai is Rabbi Nechemiah; and he is always arguing with the words of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon who are mentioned before this (Avot 4:13). So this is correct.
+
+Mishnah 15
+
+<i>Rabbi Yanai says, "It (the ability) is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked or even the afflictions of the righteous."</i>
+<b>It (the ability) is not in our hands, etc.,</b> as the matter is not known. The explanation of, "it is not in our hands," is the comprehension of this. It is like, "it was not in his hand," that they mention in the Talmud. And hence it says this comprehension is not in our hands – to understand the tranquility of the wicked or the afflictions of the righteous.
+<b>And it may be asked:</b> In the first chapter of Berakhot (7a), Rabbi Yochanan said, "Moses requested three things from the Holy One, Blessed be He, all of which were granted him. He requested that the Divine Presence rest upon Israel, and He granted it to him, requested that the Divine Presence not rest upon the nations of the world, and He granted it to him. He requested that His ways be revealed to him: Why is it that the righteous prosper, the righteous suffer, the wicked prosper, the wicked suffer?" And the Gemara explains: The righteous who prospers is a completely righteous person; the righteous person who suffers is one who is not a completely righteous person; the wicked person who prospers is one who is not a completely wicked person; the wicked person who suffers is a completely wicked person. To here [is the Gemara]. But if so, the security of the wicked and the afflictions of the righteous are very well in our hands! But it can be answered that Rabbi Yannai reasons like Rabbi Meir. As over there, it says: And he disagrees with that of Rabbi Meir. As Rabbi Meir said, "Two were granted to him, and one was not granted to him. As it is stated (Exodus 33:19), 'and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,' even though he is not worthy; 'and I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy,' even though he is not worthy." To here [is the Gemara]. Nevertheless, that which he said, "It is not in our hands," is difficult. For [Rashi] there explained: "Upon whom I will be gracious," is the one upon whom there will be mercy for a time, even though he is not worthy. To here [is Rashi]. If so, it is also in our hands - that God, may He be blessed, has mercy upon him for a time. However even there, there is what to ask on the explanation of Rashi, may his memory be blessed. For Rabbi Meir said He did not answer him about [this] one. But according to this - that He said that I have mercy upon him for a time - behold, He answered him! However it appears that it is not difficult: Even thought the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious," even though he is not worthy, Moshe was [still] not able to master the reason. As certainly this thing is not permanent and only for a time; but he did not know the nature of the time and why specifically this time. And about this he said, "It is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked." And this thing He did not inform Moshe. 
+ And in the Midrash Rabbah (Shemot Rabbah 45:6): "And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious" (Exodus 33:19) - at that time, the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him all the treasures prepared [for the righteous] as the giving of reward. [Moshe] asked, "Who is this treasure for?" So [God] said, "It is of those who do commandment[s]." "Whose treasure is this?" So [God] said, "It is of those who raise orphans." And likewise with each treasure. Afterwards he saw a giant treasure. He said, "Whose treasure is this?" He said to him, "To him who has, I will give him from what he has. But to the one who has none, I will give him a gift for nothing (<i>chinam</i>)." As it is stated, "and I will be gracious (<i>chanoti</i>) to whom I will be gracious (<i>achon</i>)," to the one whom I seek to be gracious; "and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy," to the one whom I seek to show mercy. To here [is the Midrash].
+And it can be wondered - why was the treasure of the free gifts bigger than the other treasures? And does He give more for free than [to] the one to whom He gives [it] as his reward? Rather the explanation is that the free treasure is a treasure that is not limited. For the treasure of the one who does commandments is limited, since those who do commandments are few; and likewise are those that raise orphans few. But the free; given that it is not because of the act of the recipient, but only from the angle of God, may He be blessed, hence this treasure is big. Moreover, it is since it is only from the angle of God, may He be blessed - and not from the angle of the receiver - and the goodness of God, may He be blessed, is very great. And because His goodness is great, that is why this treasure is large. And for this reason, Moshe was not able to master it. For something that is from God, may He be blessed, is difficult to master; as it is dependent upon the truth of His comprehension, may He be blessed. And this makes sense, since Moshe was able to master that which was from the angle of the world. But something that is completely from the angle of God, may He be blessed - something that is not from the angle of this world - there is no mastery of it at all. This is what appears [correct].
+<b>Nevertheless, that which he said</b>, "It (the ability) is not in our hands [to explain...] the afflictions of the righteous," is difficult. For behold we know the afflictions of the righteous are when they are not completely righteous, as it is found there (Berakhot 7a).    But it appears that the explanation of, "or even the afflictions of the righteous," is that there are afflictions upon the righteous without a sin, as it is found in the first chapter of Berakhot (5a). And even though they are afflictions of love, he nevertheless said, "It is not in our hands" - meaning because there are righteous ones for whom [these] afflictions are not agreeable, and as it is found there (Berakhot 5b): Rabbi Yochanan fell ill. So Rabbi Chanina went up to [visit] him. He said to him, "Are the afflictions dear to you?" [Rabbi Yochanan] said to him, "Neither they nor their reward." Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, fell ill. So Rabbi Yochanan went up to [visit] him. He said to him, "Are the afflictions dear to you?" [Rabbi Chiya] said to him, "Neither they nor their reward." To here [is the Gemara]. As from this you see that afflictions are difficult for the righteous, even though they are [from] love, to increase their reward. And that is why he said, "It is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked" - as we said, since even Moshe did not [understand] the tranquility of the wicked - "or even the afflictions of the righteous." And that is why he said [it]: Because even though we know [the usual reason for] the afflictions of the righteous, there are nevertheless afflictions of love; and we do not know [the reason for] those afflictions. For the righteous one said, "Neither they or their reward." And this is not in our hands. 
+<b>And it also appears</b> that it can be said that he is not coming to say that we do not know why the wicked are in tranquility and the righteous [have] afflictions. Rather he is [only] coming to say that there are some wicked ones in tranquility and some righteous ones with afflictions. And he said this so that if a person sees a wicked one in tranquility, he should not say that his deeds are good and righteous, and I will also do like that; or if he sees a righteous one being destroyed in his righteousness, that he say his deeds are not good - as if they were good, he would not be with afflictions. And about this he said, "It is not in our hands, the tranquility of the wicked or even the afflictions of the righteous." For there [actually] is a righteous one being destroyed in his righteousness and there [actually] is a wicked one who continues along in his wickedness. Hence we should not wonder about this at all. And that which he said, "it is not in our hands," means to say that perforce we must accept this, not to our [liking]. And that is the expression, "it is not in our hands," meaning that this is not according to our will, but rather against our will. And that is why one should not determine about an evil act that it is good, to do like him.
+<b>And "it is not in our hands,"</b> can [also] be explained according to its plain sense - meaning that this thing is not in [the ability] of all of the creatures: The tranquility of the wicked or the afflictions of the righteous. Even though it is known, nevertheless which sin the righteous one did that he should have so much affliction is not known; or what commandment did the wicked one do that he should be in such tranquility and goodness. And this is correct. But the essence of the matter is coming to inform [us] that there is [sometimes] tranquility to the wicked and afflictions to the righteous, and as we explained. Such that one not say that I will also do this - like the wicked one - since he has tranquility. 
+<b>And it is because it said above (Avot 4:14),</b> "Exile yourself to a place of Torah," and it did not say, "Go to a place of Torah" - meaning to say, even though you are exiling yourself from your place, and exile is an affliction. So the righteous one will be with affliction and the wicked one will be in tranquility in his home. It is even though it is not reasonable that the righteous one be exiled for the sake of His Torah, may He be blessed, and the wicked one be with tranquility, so that he be jealous of the sinners - such that this thing is inappropriate. And about this he said, "It is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked." Even though they are [actually] in tranquility, this thing is [still] not in our hands. And not only that - even the afflictions of the righteous, that the Holy One, blessed be He, brings afflictions upon them. All of this is not in our hands. But we have already explained the main explanation [about the proximity of the various mishnahs].
+<i>Rabbi Mattia ben Charash says, "Be the first to greet every person, and be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes."</i>
+<b>Be the first to greet, etc.:"</b> He mentioned three things - how a person should act with the matter of preeminence; how he should act with the trait that is the opposite of preeminence, with the trait of lowliness; and how he should act among people who are similar and equal. So he said that the behavior with people similar [to one] is that he first greet every person. And this thing is humility, to first greet every person - and not to wait until the other greets him, and then greet him back. Rather he should first greet every person. And this is an indication that no other person is lowly in his eyes. For one for whom people are lowly in his eyes will not greet others except if they greet him first; then he returns their greeting. So ordinary people should be significant to him, such that he not distance them, but rather bring them close. 
+Moreover, it is because there is one who greets first, seeking peace; and there is another who answers a greeting when another begins. And [the latter] is not completely one who has peace with him. For behold, he only answers the greeting when others begin it with him. But [with] the one who greets first, peace is found with him essentially and initially. For behold, he seeks [it] and greets first. Hence he said, "Be the first to greet every person," to the point that it is apparent that peace is with him essentially. And there is a big difference between one who begins the greeting and one who answers a greeting. For one who begins a greeting - even though he does not know if the other one is at peace with him - is called a master of peace. But one who returns a greeting - behold the other is already prepared and has greeted him. So even if he returns the greeting, this is not called that he is a master of peace. Moreover, one must pursue peace; and when one begins the greeting, that is called pursuing. For behold, he is quick and begins the greeting. But once the other is already prepared and has greeted him - if he answers him, it is not pursuing peace at all. He is only responding to what the other already began. And this thing is understood.
+<b>And afterwards he said</b> - corresponding to the trait of lowliness - that he should choose to be a tail to lions; that he should be lowly relative to others who are great. And corresponding to the trait of preeminence, he said that one should not seek to be the head of lowly ones. And that is because if he is the tail of lions; the name, lion, is nevertheless called upon everything together. For the name, lion, applies even to the lion's tail. And he should not be a head to foxes, since the name, fox, even applies to the head. Hence he should be the tail of lions and he should not be the head of foxes. And do not ask, "'What did you see' - as maybe since it has the name, tail, it is worse?" As this is not so. For the name, tail, which is its lowliness - since the tail is auxiliary to the whole lion - behold some of its lowliness is negated. As the auxiliary matter is negated by the main part. And the opposite of this [is the case with] significance, that he is called the head of the foxes - behold the head of the fox is negated by the fox; so behold, its significance is negated. Hence it is better that he be the tail of lions. For behold, he is called a lion, so a name of significance is upon him. And as far as the name of its lowliness - that it is called, a  tail - behold the tail is not the main part, so it is negated by the main part, to the point that the lowliness is detached from this angle. And the opposite of this [is the case] if he is called the head of foxes: The lowliness that he is called with the name, fox, is the main thing and it is not negated. Whereas the name of significance - that which he is called, head, is negated with the name, fox - which is the main part. So this significance is not anything. And that is why he said, "be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes." And this explanation is choice. 
+<b>And it may be said that</b> this is why he placed this statement adjacent to the one before it. For before this, he said, "It (the ability) is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked, etc." So he [now] said, "Be the first to greet every person" - meaning whether he is not wicked or whether he is wicked. As the one who is not wicked - it is appropriate to greet him first, as has been explained. But he should even greet the wicked one first. For if he does not greet the wicked one first - behold the wicked does not consider himself wicked. So if he does not greet him first, the wicked one will think that he is disgracing the creatures, and that the creatures are not significant to him. And that is why he should greet even a wicked person first. And it should not be asked, "But at the end of the day, behold he is blessing a wicked one!" As this is not difficult: For they said in the chapter [entitled] Elu Neemarim (Sotah 41b): Rabbi Yehudah of the West - and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi - taught, "It is permitted to flatter wicked people in this world, as it is stated (Isaiah 32:5) 'The vile person shall no longer be called generous, nor shall the churl be said to be noble.' By inference, this indicates that in this world, it can be said." To here [is the Gemara]. And that which is written (Isaiah 48:22) - "There is no peace, says the Lord, for the wicked" - that thing is not about this world. As it is found in the chapter [entitled] HaShoel (Shabbat 152b), that it was said about the soul of the wicked after [their] death. But in this world, there is peace for the wicked, as we said before this: "It is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked, etc." However we have already explained the proximity [of the mishnahs more generally].
+
+Mishnah 16
+
+<i>Rabbi Yaakov says, "This world is like a hallway before the world to come; fix yourself in the hallway so you may enter the drawing room."</i>
+<b>This world is like a hallway, etc.:</b> We should ask - that it should not have said, "This world is like a hallway." Rather it should have said, "Fix yourself in the hallway so you may enter the drawing room." [Alternatively,] it should have said, "The world to come is like a drawing room."
+<b>The explanation of this thing is deep.</b> But because this is something [through which] man knows his purpose, behold we will explain this thing: You should know that it is a tradition of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, from the prophets, that there is a world to come. And no one disagrees with this or has doubts about it, even among the [other] nations; a wise man who understands wisdom and knowledge will find this thing on his own. And we have already explained this thing at length (Gevurot HaShem, Introduction). And the explanation of the world to come is the world after the resurrection [of the dead]. So that is called the world to come; nothing besides it. And you should not have any doubt or objection about this thing - that the world that comes after the resurrection is called the world to come.
+And behold in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 90a): "All of Israel has a share in the world to come. But these are those who do not have a share in the world to come - one who denies the resurrection of the dead." And the Gemara explains the reason - "Since he denied the resurrection of the dead, he will not have a share in the resurrection of the dead." And there it is explained that it is speaking about the resurrection when the dead will rise. And so is it found there (Sanhedrin 90b). Behold it is explicit that it will be the world that will be after the resurrection and after He will judge those that will be resurrected, such that these will go to life in the world to come and those will go to eternal mortification. You should then note that the world to come is the one that will be after the resurrection of the dead. Hence it said, "he denied the resurrection of the dead, so he will not have a share in the resurrection of the dead" - and that is the world to come. And in the last chapter of Chullin (142a): "Rabbi Akiva said, 'There is no commandment in the Torah whose reward is stated alongside it, which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead. With regard to honoring one’s father and mother, it is written (Deuteronomy 5:16), "that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you." With regard to the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, it is written (Deuteronomy 22:7), "that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days." [Yet] there was one whose father said to him, "Climb to the top of the building and bring me fledglings"; and he climbed to the top of the building and sent away the mother bird and took the offspring, but as he returned he fell and died. Where is the length of days of this one? And where is the goodness of the days of this one? Rather, "that your days may be long” is referring to the world that is entirely long; and “that it may be well with you," means in the world where all is well.'" Behold that the reward of the commandments is after the resurrection. And there is no doubt that the world to come is the world in which there will be reward for the commandments. And this thing is called the world to come. And that is after the resurrection. For were it not like that, how is it possible to prove that the [reward for the] commandments is dependent upon the resurrection of the dead - if there was another reward after the resurrection?
+<b>Hence it is simple and clear</b> and there is no doubt about this at all. For then the world will be complete in perfection. As this is something required by reason, that it be a perfect action (result) - meaning the world - from an Actor that is perfect, which is God, may He be blessed. For according to the level of the actor, so too is the action. And if there was only this world and this world would be lacking, this action would not have been appropriate for the perfect Actor, God. As He is God, may He be blessed, who is perfect with the most complete perfection. For it has been explained with clear proofs that the action has a relationship to the actor; as you can see from natural things that an action has a relationship to [its] actor: For an actor that is hot produces heat, and an actor that is cold produces cold. So each one produces that which is similar to it, and that which is like it. And with this, how is it possible that only this world be from God, may He be blessed, when it is not similar and related to Him? For the creatures in it all die, whereas He, may He be blessed, is an Actor that lives and exists forever. And the creatures in this world have eating and drinking and reproduction there, whereas the Actor - who is God, may He be blessed - does not have any of these characteristics. And even if you will say that it is impossible that there be a creature, God forbid, similar to the Creator - nevertheless, something like this (life in this world), that has no relationship [to Him at all], this thing is impossible!
+And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 672): "I will walk among you" (Leviticus 26:12) - there is a [relevant] parable about a king that came to his vineyard and his sharecropper hid from him. The king said to him, "Why are you afraid, behold I am like you!" And so [too] in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will walk among the righteous; and the righteous will shudder before Him. But the Omnipresent says to them, "Why are you shuddering, behold I am like you!" One might think [then] that My fear (reverence) will not be upon you. [Hence] we learn to say, "but I will be your God." To here [is the Midrash]. So behold they explained that in the future there will be a relationship between the righteous and the Holy One, blessed be He - according to that which is appropriate between an action and [its] actor. But alongside this, God, may He be blessed - who is the Actor - is separated from them. And that is why it said that His fear will be upon them, as is the way with the caused towards the cause. And that is why perfect reason obligates that there be a world to come; so that in that world, the action be similar to its Former. And that is what our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, brought to say - as we said above (Derekh Chayim 3:16, citing Berakhot 17a) - "The world to come does not have eating or drinking or reproduction or commerce." And all of this is so that the action relates somewhat to its Creator. For without [the existence of the world to come, the relation] is impossible!
+And do not a let man fool you, saying that the elevated beings, meaning the angels, are His [main] action. For the matter is not so. As if the matter was so, when He recounted the story of creation in Parashat Bereishit (Genesis 1), why did He not recount the creation of the angels - if they are the essentials of the world? Rather the essence of the world is His action, may He be blessed, meaning man. So it is impossible not to say that there is a world to come. Because then, everything is complete; and there it will be found that the action is similar to the Actor - as we said. And this world that the Holy One, blessed be He, created is a preparation for the world to come; but the world to come is the main [one]. And just like the drawing room is the main [one] and the hallway is auxiliary to it; so too is this world auxiliary to the world to come.  
+And let it not be difficult to you: Why is there a need for this world? Let Him only create the world to come. For this thing is not difficult. As the lack of that which is caused (man) is seen in the world, which is the beginning; and it is perfect [only] afterwards. For even though it is appropriate, from the angle of the Actor, that every action be appropriate to relate to the Actor - since it is appropriate for every action to relate to [its] actor - yet, from the angle of the action, which is what is caused, it is appropriate that it be lacking. For behold it exists after it was not. Hence the beginning of its coming out to actuality is in lacking - and that is this world - to the point that there is closeness of the action and absence, which is fitting from the angle of itself. Hence man is born from a putrid drop, to the extent that man is close to absence; and absorbs absence, which is death. And that is this world. And afterwards, there is the world to come, and then there is a relationship of the action to the Actor. And similar to this is a person when he is born. As he comes to the world after he did not exist at all. And since he came to the world after he was absent, it is enough for him him to be small and lowly. And later he begins to grow, until he flourishes afterwards. And likewise is the world: It is inappropriate that the world to come be at the beginning. And is it possible that there be the creation of a person in his fullness from his beginning; or that a tree grow to its full growth at its beginning? Rather, at the beginning, it is small and it does not have the stature that comes to it at the end.  
+But perhaps one may ask, "If so, it was inappropriate for him to absorb death; and he should have reached his stature at the end [of his life in this world], and not that they die and return to being alive!" This is not difficult at all for the one who understands [the] matter. For this thing indicates supernal stature; to remove the original process completely. Since man is created from flesh and blood, from a putrid drop; how is it possible for him to have a supernal stature? Since, at the end of the day, he is flesh and blood! Hence this thing must be removed through death; and then they will live [again]. And these things are choice for the enlightened ones. But this is not its place; yet maybe we will merit to explain this, with the help of the One who resurrects the dead.  
+So behold that which it said, "This world is like a hallway before the world to come; fix yourself in the hallway so you may enter the drawing room," has been explained to you. For we have already explained that it is impossible that the world to come be at the beginning of creation. As, since the world was created after [its] absence, behold it is similar to absence - which is lacking. And because of that he said, "This world is like a hallway," since a hallway is only [at] the beginning of the drawing room. As it is inappropriate to build a drawing room on the outside [of a house] and that there not be something in front of it at all. Rather one should build something in front of the drawing room, and then the drawing room. And this is a proof and a sign about this world, that it is only the beginning. Since the world to come is not the beginning, rather this world is the beginning. And this beginning is from this world, in which it is possible to fix oneself so that he reaches the next world. Hence, he said, "fix yourself in the hallway, etc." And this thing is because every fixing is the beginning of what will be afterwards. So because this world is the beginning, and the world to come is the end - that is why he said, "fix yourself in the hallway," which is the beginning; that "you may enter the drawing room," which is the end. For it is inappropriate that the fixing be in something that is the conclusion and the end. Rather it is in the hallway, which is the beginning. So this thing is clear.
+
+Mishnah 17
+
+<i>He would say, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come. And one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world."<i></i></i>
+<b>One hour of repentance is better, etc.:</b> It may be asked, [about] that which he said, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come." For these two things are not related, one to the other. So how is it relevant to say, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come?" As repentance and good deeds are not related to [time], and they have no relationship [to it] at all. So it cannot be said about this, that this thing is more than that; since they are not related to one another. Moreover, what is the reason that repentance and good deeds are specifically in this world, and not in the world to come. And even though they said (Eruvin 22a), "'Today to do them' (Deuteronomy 7:11): Today to do them, and not tomorrow to do them; today to do them, and tomorrow to receive their reward" - and these are [actually] the same things that were said here - nevertheless this thing needs a reason. And also, he should have said, "One hour in the world to come is better than all the time in this world." And another difficulty - that he said, "refreshment of the spirit," since this does not imply so much delight. As refreshment of the spirit is said even when there is no delight. So he should have said, "Better is the delight," which is the language of Scripture.
+However we have already said (Derekh Chayim 4:16) [the answer] to what is the reason that repentance is specifically connected to this world. As we already said that this is why this world is called a hallway, as he said (Avot 4:16), "fix yourself in the hallway." That is to say that this world is only the beginning, just like a hallway is a beginning [to something else]. And it is at the beginning that fixing is relevant, as it is in this world; not in something that is a conclusion and an end, as it is in the world to come. And all rest is at the conclusion. For the fixing is what brings the rest at the conclusion. Hence the fixing is in this world, which is the beginning; and the rest and the completeness is in the world to come, which is the conclusion. And this thing is certainly appropriate to say.
+<b>And you should also know</b> that it is because of that which man is physical in this world, since there are two aspects to the physical: The first aspect is that the physical is capable of change and replacement and is not established in one way without change. And the second is that the physical is always in potential and not actualized. And these two things are well known and there is no doubt about them - that the physical is capable of change and is potential absorbing a form. Hence, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better." Repentance - because a person changes his matters from bad to good, and that is only relevant in this world, when man is a physical being and change and replacement are relevant. But the world to come - which is separated from the physical - is not connected to repentance at all. For repentance is change, and that is not relevant to something that is not physical - as is the case with the world to come. And likewise are good deeds only relevant to this world. For it is in this world that man is physical, such that the physical is potential and not actualized, and always absorbs form and completion. And that is why it is possible that a person absorbs completion through good deeds; since man is completed by way of good deeds and they are the form of a man. But [because] in a world in which man is not physical and is no longer potential, it can [not] be said that he will absorb completion; then "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world" - given that they are possible specifically in this world - "is better than all the time in the world to come."
+<b>And the explanation</b> of that which he said, "than all the time in the world to come," and what is their relationship together: You need to know how repentance and good deeds are better than all the time in the world to come, and it is a deep matter. And it is that, from the angle of repentance and good deeds, which are in this world, a person rises from this material world towards God, may He be blessed. And behold that a person moves towards God, may He be blessed, when the person is a penitent. And when one moves towards something, he is considered to be the most completely together with it. For movement towards something, from the angle of the thing towards which he is moving, is as if he is one thing with that towards which he is moving.
+And the sages of truth already hinted to these things in the chapter [entitled] Kol Kitvei (Shabbat 118b): Rabbi Yosei said, "May my portion be with those who die on the path to a commandment." To here [is the Gemara]. So why did he say, "with those who die on the path to a commandment"; and not, "with those who do a commandment?" Rather those who die on the path to a commandment - behold [such a one] is moving completely towards God, may He be blessed! And when he is moving towards God, may He be blessed, he is considered as if he is completely with God, may He be blessed. For movement towards something is like being at one with it; which is not the case of one who has already fulfilled the commandment and acquired it. Surely, he has acquired the level of those who do commandments; but it cannot be said about him that he is rising to completely cling to Him, may He be blessed. However, when he dies on the path to a commandment and he was rising to cling to Him, and dies amidst this, behold he is clinging to God, may He be blessed.
+And so too exactly is this thing. For in this world, where there is repentance and good deeds and a person always does the commandment to repent to God, may He be blessed - this thing is considered clinging more to God, may He be blessed, from this angle, than all the time in the world to come. For this thing that he has with the time in the world to come - he already arrived to his level that is appropriate for him in the world to come. But this thing is not like the one who is a penitent and has good deeds, as he is one returning to God, may He be blessed. As from the angle that he is rising towards God, may He be blessed, he is completely with God, may He be blessed. And that is what they said above (Avot 2:10), "And repent one day before your death." For it is appropriate for death to be amidst repentance. And you should understand these things very well, how repentance and good deeds - [through] which a person rises towards God, may He be blessed - is greater than the time in the world to come of the one who has already acquired the level for himself. [This is] like that one who dies on the path to a commandment and did not do the commandment is considered greater than one who did the commandment and died immediately.
+<b>But behold,</b> that which he said, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come": Its explanation is not, than all that is in the time of the world to come - meaning than the pleasure of the world to come. For the matter is not like this at all. Rather the explanation is that the stature of the world of repentance and good deeds which is in this world is better than all of the stature of the time in the world to come. But it can [also] be explained according to its straightforward understanding - meaning to say that one hour in this world is better, from the angle of there being repentance and good deeds in this world, than all of the time in the world to come. That is to say, that there is no acquisition of stature in the world to come. So from the angle of the acquisition of stature, this world is of greater value than the world to come. So that [which] he said, "than all the time in the world to come," is [actually] all of the time in the world to come; and it is because he said, "Better is one hour," which is only an hour - meaning one hour in this world is better because repentance and good deeds are found in that hour - that he said, "than all the time in the world to come." This is to say that you should not say repentance and good deeds are not found at this hour, but [they] will be found at a different hour. Rather the thing is not so. For repentance and good deeds are not found in all of the time in the world to come. 
+So now, that which he said, "And one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world," also comes out well. As he should have [otherwise] only said,  "And one hour in the world to come is better than all the time in this world." But this is its explanation: Better is the refreshment of the spirit that there is in one hour in the world to come than all of the time in this world - meaning to say that in all of the time in this world, there will not be found the refreshment of the spirit that there is in one hour in the world to come. And from this, the explanation of, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come," is with regards to repentance that is found in this world, whereas it is not found in the world to come. "And one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world," is with regards to refreshment of the spirit.  
+And it should not be asked at all - how is [this] said about two things that are completely different? And is there any relation or measurement common to this world and the world to come, such that it can be said that this is more than that, as if there were a common measurement between them? As according to the explanation we said above, it is the opposite! He is [precisely] coming to say that there is no comparison or equivalence between them. As behold, the explanation of, "one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world," is that there is no refreshment of the spirit to be found in this world at all. And its explantion is not [that] one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the refreshment of the spirit in this world. Rather its explanation is like what he said, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come" - meaning that repentance is not relevant to the world to come at all. So too is the explanation of, "one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world," that there is no refreshment of the spirit in this world at all. As had he said, "One hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all refreshment of the spirit in this world" - it would have come to let us know that this delight is better than that delight - that would have been difficult. As it would have implied that there is a relationship between them. But there is no relationship at all. Rather he said that "one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world." And he meant to say that one hour in the world to come is better - since refreshment of the spirit is found there, whereas no refreshment of the spirit is found in this world. Behold there is no relationship at all. And [even] without this, it is not difficult. For the [author of this mishnah] already explained himself that there is no relationship. As he said that one hour "is better than all the time in the world to come." And if so, there is no relationship here.
+<b>And [the following is the reason]</b> that the teacher used the expression, "refreshment of the spirit"; and did not say, "the delight of the world to come" - [even though] refreshment of the spirit is said about everything, even if it is not complete delight: Behold you should know that with the expression, refreshment of the spirit, the teacher revealed the content of the world to come and its stature. And that is because refreshment of the spirit is said only about relaxation - when one [experiences] refreshment of the spirit, his mind is at ease. As refreshment is connected to the spirit; since it is said about the spirit (Genesis 41:8), "his spirit was stirred up (inside him)." So you see that the spirit sometimes does not [experience] relaxation. And about the spirit, it also says, relaxation - when it relaxes from something about which it was not relaxed from the beginning, it is said that his spirit relaxes. And that is the refreshment of the spirit that the teacher mentioned [here] - it is when his spirit relaxes. And that is the content of the world to come, since the relaxation is there. But relaxation is the opposite of this world, in which there is no rest; and this thing is elicited by the level of this world. As we have already said (Paragraph 4) that the level of this world is that it is capable of change and does not stay with any one matter. It is in potential, that goes out to actualization. And from that angle, there is no relaxation in this world. So anything that is in this world is capable of change; and because of that, it is not capable of relaxation. 
+And the Sages hinted to this in Tractate Megillah (10b): "Every place that it is stated, '<i>vayehi</i> (and it was) in the days of,' it is always an expression of distress." But why is there distress in that which is written, "<i>vayehi</i> in the days of?" And in the Midrash Rabbah (Bereishit Rabbah 42:3), they said, "Every place that it is stated, '<i>vayehi</i>,' it is always an expression of distress; '<i>vehaya</i> (and it shall be),' it is an expression of joy." But the explanation of this is that when you remove the [letter], <i>vav</i> of the conversive, it is [just] <i>yehi</i>, which is an expression of the future. So there is no relaxed existence [here], and this thing is a matter of distress. But with <i>vehaya</i>, when you remove the [letter], <i>vav</i> of the conversive, it is [just] <i>haya</i> (was), which is relaxed existence, and that is joy. And also (another explanation), it is because <i>vayehi</i> itself, with a conversive <i>vav</i>, is existence without relaxation. For <i>yehi</i> is an expression of the future, and there is no beginning to [this] existence at all [yet]. But <i>vayehi</i> is speaking about existence that has started but has not [yet ceased]. As this is the explanation of <i>vayehi</i> according to the [rules of] grammar, as you will find in the words of the grammarians. And any existence that does not relax - this thing is certainly a distress. But <i>vehaya</i> - even though the <i>vav</i> in the expression of <i>vehaya</i> transforms it from past to future - there is no beginning of the existence at all [yet]. So it is not existence that does not relax, as it is with the expression, <i>vayehi</i>. Just the opposite - it is as if he said that, in the future, there will be an existence that will be relaxed. For behold, <i>haya</i> is relaxed existence; and the <i>vav</i> transforms it from the past to the future, such that there will be relaxed existence in the end (later). Hence specifically <i>vehaya</i> is joy, but <i>haya</i> alone implies existence that has [already] passed. And there is no joy in that which has passed. And likewise specifically <i>vayehi</i> is distress, since it indicates existence without relaxation. But not the expression, <i>yehi</i>, which is an expression of the future in which there is [presently] not the beginning of existence. And this is choice, and it is also very deep. But according to our Talmud (Megillah 10b), there is nothing that differentiates between the expression, <i>vayehi</i>, and the expression, <i>vehaya</i> - to say that <i>vayehi</i> appears about relaxed existence, and that is why it is joy; and <i>vehaya</i> appears about existence that is not relaxed, and that is why it is distress. But when it says, "<i>vayehi</i> in the days," such that he said the existence is in time - and any existence that is in time is existence that is not relaxed, since time is dependent upon movement that does not relax - any place that it is said, "<i>vayehi</i> in the days," that it makes the existence depend upon time, there is no relaxation. And any existence that is not relaxed is one of distress. So are the words of the Sages in truth.
+And because this world is the world of existence; hence there is no relaxation there at all. And that is why refreshment of the spirit is not found in it at all - since it is not able to have relaxation. And that is why he said, "And one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world." And we should not elaborate any more. 
+<b>And it is possible</b> to append this statement to the first statement (Avot 4:15), which said, "It (the ability) is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked or even the afflictions of the righteous"; after which the statement, "Be the first to greet every person," appeared - as was explained above: So now it is coming back to explain the mishnah - that the afflictions of the righteous are to give the righteous the world to come. For "This world is like a hallway, etc." (Avot 4:16). Hence the afflictions of the righteous are in this world, such that the righteous may acquire the world to come. And it is saying further, "One hour in this world is better, etc." And all of this is because repentance and good deeds are specifically in this world. And likewise are afflictions appropriate in this world, until one acquires the world to come. So after that, it explains the stature of the world to come - "one hour is better, etc." Thus should it be explained.
+<b>And it can also be said</b> that it said (Avot 4:15), "be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes," and then appended to it (Avot 4:16), "This world is like a hallway, etc." - because that which it said, "be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes," is since the lowly thing which is the tail of the lion is more significant that the most significant thing in the fox, which is the head. So likewise, do not seek the supernal level of the important one in this world, since that is considered the head of the foxes. And better is the level of the smallest of the righteous - as it said, "one hour of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come is better than all the time in this world." So automatically, the smallest level in the world to come is more than the greatest level in this world; so it is appropriate for a person to seek to have the level of someone small in the world to come, and not be the head of the foxes that is had by someone great in this world. So if a person sees evildoers in this world that are [viewed as being] important and having greatness, his heart should not be jealous of [those] sinners. For God, may He be blessed, gave them this world to expel them from the world to come.
+And also because of that is this statement, "be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes" (end of Avot 4:15), appended to what is before it - that it said, "It (the ability) is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked or even the afflictions of the righteous" (beginning of 4:15).  So, about this, it said that even though evildoers are very elevated in this world and the righteous are on a lowly level - it is about this that it said, "be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes." For elevation in this world is the head of foxes. And given that one acquires the world to come through afflictions, it is enough for one if he is the tail of lions. So the statements are organized like this: At the beginning, it said, "It is not in our hands [to explain] the tranquility of the wicked or even the afflictions of the righteous." And it appended after this, "Be the first to greet every person," and "be a tail to lions, and do not be a head to foxes." Meaning to say, one's heart should not be jealous of the sinners upon whom fortune is now shining. For together with their great stature, their greatness is considered the head of foxes; such that a person should not seek it. But better is the stature that will be had by the small ones of the righteous in the future. So a person should seek this. And afterwards, it explains why this is and what this is about. And that is why it appends after it, "one hour [of refreshment of the spirit in the world to come], etc." That is to say, that is why the greatness of this world is considered a fox. And about this is it said, "do not be a head to foxes." Whereas the stature of the world to come is considered like a lion. And about this is it said, "be a tail to lions." However we have already explained our opinion about this (the order of the statements in Avot).
+
+Mishnah 18
+
+<i>Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, "Do not assuage the anger of your friend at the time of his anger; do not console him at the time when his deceased lies before him; do not question him at the time of his vow; and do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation."</i>
+<b>Do not assuage the anger of your friend at the time of his anger, etc.:</b> One may wonder, what is the relation of the four things to one another. [Hence] it should be known that these four things are one matter: That a person be careful not to do something with the intention to improve [something] and his improvement bring the opposite of the intent that he wanted to [bring about]. Such that this is complete foolishness, when it brings him to the opposite of the intention. Hence he said, "Do not assuage [him] at the time of his anger." For when you come to assuage him at the time of his anger, he adds fury to his fury. As when he is at the ascent of the anger and you come to assuage him, he adds fury to his fury. And likewise, "do not console him at the time when his deceased lies before him." For in this as well - when he is in grief and great mourning, if you come to console him - he will add to and become [even] more entrenched in his mourning, when [the other] comes to negate his grief. For anyone who is in ascent with a thing - if a person comes against him to negate this thing from him, he will add still more to it against the one [seeking to] negate [it].
+<b>And he also said,</b> "Do not question him at the time of his vow" - if he is vowing also about this (any given aspect which can be included in the category). And he asks and does this, so that [the one vowing] will not forget, reasoning that his intention was also about this. [For as a result, the one vowing] will need to be stringent, since one must be stringent about a vow in doubt. And behold he is doing this to lighten the vow upon him (so that he will remember it more easily), but this thing causes that he will additionally vow about this, if he did not already vow [about it].  Hence he will bring about the opposite of the intention that he wanted to [bring about]. But it can be explained even more [that] "Do not question," is like it is in every place: That we ask if he regrets the vow; and [the questioner] wants to permit the vow [through this mechanism]. Such that he adds more anger - since he comes to ask if he regrets the vow, whereas he [will] become more entrenched and add to his vow.
+<b>And do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation</b> - since he is distressed about [his friend's] humiliation, and he wants to see [how] he is doing. Yet this thing is more distressing to him. For people - that they should see his humiliation - are a burden to one who is humiliated. As he is separated from other people through this humiliation. For his humiliation is his lacking, and a person does not want others to see his humiliation. But [the friend] intended that he be a comfort to his spirit - that which he is also distressed about his humiliation. But behold, it is the opposite of this. For he is more distressed when his humiliation is seen by another. So behold these things are one matter. 
+
+Mishnah 19
+
+<i>Shmuel the Little says, "When your enemy falls, do not be happy, and when he stumbles, let your heart not rejoice. Lest God see and it be bad in His eyes and He turn His anger from him [the enemy]" (Proverbs 24:17-18).</i>
+<b>Shmuel the Little says, etc.:</b> The words of Shmuel the Little were appended to here because it said before this (Avot 4:18), "and do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation" - and it is implied that it is because he is happy about [the other's] humiliation, and that is why he is coming to see him; so it is about this that he said that he should not seek to see him. So it is implied that it is specifically that he not seek to see him, since he distresses him with this - when he sees that others are joyful about his distress and humiliation. But the joy [itself] would be permitted. And about this, [Shmuel the Little] said that it is certainly not speaking about his coming to see him because he is happy about his humiliation, as that is forbidden. For, "When your enemy falls, do not be happy" (Proverbs 24:17). And if so, it should not be done - even without seeing [him]. Rather the explanation of that which it said, "do not seek to see him," is that he is coming to see how he is doing, and not that he will rejoice. But even if he is grieving with him, [it is still forbidden]. For this thing certainly causes additional distress to the one humiliated.   
+<b>But behold,</b> Shmuel the Little is from the students of Rabban Gamliel - as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Echad Dinei Mammonot (Sanhedrin 11a) - and was much earlier. And this thing is a bit of a disgrace, to call him, "the Little." But they explained in the Yerushalmi (Sotah 9:13) that its explanation is that there were two who were called Shmuel, Shmuel the prophet and this Shmuel. So he is the little [of the two]. But it is implied that he was [only] littler than Shmuel the prophet, but he was greater than other people. As since there is a need for a distinguishing sign between him and Shmuel the prophet, you know from this that he was very great. And it would have been appropriate to order his words earlier [according to when he lived]. But since it said (Avot 4:18), "and do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation," it ordered after it, the words of Shmuel the Little, who said "When your enemy falls, do not be happy"; so that you not err to explain that which he said  -  "and do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation" - [as being] because he is coming to rejoice, and as we explained (in the previous paragraph). 
+<b>And it can [also] be explained that,</b> that which he said, "and do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation" - [is that] certainly, even though he is coming to see how he is doing, it is [still] forbidden, because the humiliated one will think that he is happy about his humiliation, and will be more distressed. So it appended the words of Shmuel the Little after this. For sometimes - even though he does not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation, and the humiliated one is not distressed [by him] and the humiliated one [even] sent for him for some matter - given that he may come to joy since he is his enemy, he should not go to him so that he not come to the prohibition of, "When your enemy falls, do not be happy."
+<b>And if you want to order</b> the statement of, "Do not assuage the anger of your friend at the time of his anger" (Avot 4:18), with the statement before it (Avot 4:17) intrinsically from the angle of the statements - and you do not say that the statements are according to [the chronological order of] the sages - you may say it is because he said before this, "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come." For it is is implied that it is coming to give stature to this world from the angle of repentance and good deeds. For that is what he said - "One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come." That is to say that this world is good and praiseworthy from the angle that there is repentance and good deeds in it. But now, what is the virtue of this world, such that it has a rectification for the evildoers with repentance? 'Let the evildoers be destroyed and there will be joy!' So why is this world good with this? And that is why he said that it is not like this. That this world is certainly good from the angle that there is a rectification for the evildoers. For this characteristic - being the characteristic of humiliation - is not good at all. That is why the Holy One, blessed be He, established repentance for a person in this world, so that the evildoer not be humiliated.
+And that which it is written (Proverbs 11:10), "when the evildoers are destroyed, there will be joy," is that when an evildoer is destroyed, there is [reason] to rejoice because of the glory of the Omnipresent. But God Himself, may He be blessed, does not rejoice about the downfall of evildoers - since a calamity is not good. And so is it found in the first chapter of Megillah (10b): "'As they went out before the army, and say, "Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness endures forever"' (II Chronicles 20:21) - Rabbi Yochanan said, 'For what reason was, "for He is good," not said in this statement of thanksgiving? Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked.' Rabbi Yose beRabbi Chanina said, 'He does not rejoice, but He causes others to rejoice.' As it is written (Deuteronomy 28:63), 'so the Lord will cause joy (<i>yasis</i>), to destroy you.' And it is not written, 'so He will rejoice (<i>yasus</i>),' but rather 'so He will cause joy.'" And the reason is that there is certainly joy when evil is removed from the world; and that is because of the glory of God, may He be blessed. Hence there is [reason] to rejoice. But the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rejoice. Because, at the end of he day, there is humiliation; and there is no [ultimate] joy to anything that is a humiliation. Hence the value of this world is that it is a rectification for the evildoers, since God, may He be blessed, does not want any calamity.  
+<b>And it also appears (a different approach is)</b> that the verse that is written (Proverbs 24:17), "When your enemy falls, do not be happy" is even if he is wicked - even so, do not rejoice. And so is it shown in the first chapter of Megillah (16b), since Haman said to Mordekhai, "But behold, it is written, 'When your enemy falls, do not be happy!'" And it is said, "These words apply to Israel, but not to the nations of the world." So it is implied that if he was [of] Israel, it would be forbidden to rejoice even though Haman was wicked. It is understood from this that one should not rejoice even when a wicked one falls. For there is no joy in any calamity.
+And so is it shown - as behold it is written (Proverbs 24:17), "When your enemy falls, do not be happy!" And if he did not see some evil in him, is it permissible to hate him? For behold, it is written (Leviticus 19:17), "You shall not hate your brother in your heart." For so does [the Talmud] infer (Pesachim 113b) about that which it is written (Exodus 23:5), "If you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden." And it establishes it [to be talking about] when he saw a sinful thing with him. And if so, the verse from here is also talking about a wicked one; and nevertheless it is forbidden (to hate him) [to rejoice about his fall]. And that which it is written (Proverbs 11:10), "when the wicked are destroyed, there will be joy," is when the destruction comes because of the evil; such that the court was sentencing him to death because of his evil in order to remove the evil from the world. But if it was not for the evil, but rather another fall happened to a wicked one, it is forbidden to rejoice. And so is it shown that this verse of, "when the wicked are destroyed, there will be joy," is talking about this. As over there (Sanhedrin 37b), this verse is brought about witnesses that testified about someone who is liable for death: And if you will say, "What do we [need] this distress for?" [Hence] we learn to say, "when the wicked are destroyed, there will be joy." And likewise that which is found in the first chapter of Berakhot (10a), "He saw the fall of the wicked and recited song, as it is stated (Psalms 104:35), 'Sinners end from the earth and evildoers are no longer, etc.'" And this thing was talking about the fall of the wicked, to remove the evil from the world. And David saw this with the holy spirit - the removal of evil - and he rejoiced about it; and this thing is certainly good and fine. But if the destruction did not come because of this - to remove the evil - behold this thing is certainly not good, and even if it is to a wicked one. So there is no [reason] to rejoice, and it is fully prohibited. 
+Hence this world, which is the [potential] rectification for the wicked through repentance, such that they not be destroyed, is certainly most very good. Therefore it appended this statement - which says that there is no [reason] to rejoice with the calamity and fall of the enemy - after the statement, "One hour is better, etc." (Avot 4:17). And that which they said (Megillah 10b), "He causes others to rejoice" - its explanation is not that there is [reason] to rejoice when the Holy One, blessed be He, brings punishment upon the wicked. Rather, its explanation is that the Holy One, blessed be He, causes the nations to rejoice when punishment comes to the enemies of Israel (a euphemism for Israel). As behold, it is talking about this [in this section of the Torah].
+<b>But it may be asked,</b> "What is Shmuel coming to make us understand? As behold, the verse [already] writes (Proverbs 24:17), 'When your enemy falls, etc.!'" And [this is a question] even if we have the version - as it is implied that the Rambam had, may his memory be blessed - to select the version, "'The fury of His anger,' is not stated, but rather, 'His anger'; such that we forgive him all of his iniquities." As he is not coming to make us understand this matter - that we forgive him - but rather to make us understand that one not rejoice about the fall of his enemy. And from the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, it is implied that this ethical teaching was regularly in [Shmuel the Little's] mouth. So he is coming to make us understand that this is a great ethical teaching, because the world was not careful about it. That is why it was his way to always say this ethical teaching - so that they would not stumble because of it.  
+<b>And it appears</b> in the words of Rashi (Rashi on Avot 4:19) that, that which Scripture said (Proverbs 24:18), "and He turn His anger from him [the enemy]," is that He turn His anger from the one falling and it come to the one rejoicing. And that is what Shumuel the Little said, "When your enemy falls, do not be happy." Meaning to say that if you will rejoice, you will not have joy. Rather troubles will come upon you. And this is shown from the verse. For what is the reason for saying, "Lest God see, etc.?" For at the end of the day, what does the one rejoicing lose if He turns His anger from [his enemy]? And just the opposite, Scripture should have said that he rejoice, so that He turn His anger from him! And why should he not rejoice so that He turn the fury of His anger from him? Moreover [we can see that this is the case], since it should have [otherwise] said, "Lest the Lord see and it be bad in His eyes, and He remove His anger from him," or "withdraw His anger from him." Why [say], "and turn His anger from Him?" Rather, the explanation is "and turn His anger" upon you, "and turn it from him." And that is why Shmuel said, "When your enemy falls, do not be happy." And this reason is choice. For it is appropriate that He turn His anger upon him, as it is written (Proverbs 17:5), "he who rejoices over a misfortune will not go unpunished." For someone who rejoices in the bad, desires the bad. For if he did not desire the bad, he would not have even desired the bad for his enemy. But since he desires the bad, he takes bad unto himself. And this is also [the explanation of] "he who rejoices over a misfortune will not go unpunished": Because he desires the bad, that is why the bad comes to him. 
+And also even without this: Since it is written, "and He turn His anger from him" (Proverbs 24:18) - if so, the one that rejoiced inappropriately did something against the law to his fellow. And if so, he certainly gets a punishment for it. 
+
+Mishnah 20
+
+<i>Elisha ben Abuyah says, "One who learns as a child is compared to what? To ink written on new parchment. And one who learns as an elder is compared to what? To ink written on scraped parchment."</i>
+<b>Elisha ben Abuyah [says], "One who learns as a child, etc.":</b> We should ask: At the beginning he said, "One who learns as a child is compared to ink written on new parchment"; but at the end, he says, "And one who learns as an elder is compared to ink written on scraped parchment." Whereas it should have also said at the end, "old parchment" - just like it said, "new parchment," at the beginning. And it appears that he used [this phrase] because he wanted to say two things completely removed [from one another]. And new parchment has certainly not had anything written upon it and it is not smudged at all; and scraped parchment is the opposite of this, for it is completely scraped. Whereas just old parchment is not completely the opposite; for old parchment is not completely smudged. But scraped parchment is completely smudged. And that which it did not say that one who learns as an elder is compared to ink that is written on old scraped parchment - that is certainly not difficult: As once the parchment is scraped, the parchment is completely smudged, even if it is new. So because the matter is not dependent upon new parchment or old [parchment] - rather that it is clean, such that it was not written upon - and he wanted to say something and its opposite about it; [that is why] he said this.
+And that which he said, "new parchment" - that is to say that nothing has been written on it at all. And he did not say, "to ink that is written on parchment that is not scraped" - since sometimes even though it is not scraped, it is smudged, since [many people] were touching it. Hence he said, "new parchment" - as since it is new, nothing came upon it. For if something was written upon it and scraped, it is not called, new. Therefore when he came to say the opposite of new - that is, that it is smudged - he needs to say, "scraped parchment." For since it is scraped, it is completely smudged and cannot absorb another imprint. And that which he does not compare it to written parchment - and why scraped parchment - is because parchment that is written upon can absorb an imprint in the place where it is not written, like between the letters. For it is impossible for it to be completely written upon. And that is why he compares it to scraped parchment. 
+<b>And you may say,</b> "But what is the relationship of the analogy to the analogue - such that he compares an elder to scraped parchment; and what does scraping have to do with a person?" [Then] you should know that the faculty of memory absorbs an imprint of things; until they are imprinted onto the faculty of memory, just like writing is engraved upon a tablet. And when the carrier - which is the faculty of memory - is clean and detached from excesses, then the faculty of memory that absorbs the imprint absorbs the thing with a clear imprint that is difficult to remove. And that is why he compares one who teaches a child to ink that is written on new parchment; since parchment that is new completely absorbs an imprint. And when it is completely imprinted, [its] removal afterwards is difficult. But one who teaches to elders - because elders have excess humors, their faculty of memory is not clean. Rather, their faculty of memory, which absorbs the image of things, is smudged. And because it is smudged, it does not absorb a clear image. And that it is why it is easy to remove [the image]. So that is why he compares it to ink written on scraped parchment, such that the parchment is smudged and does not absorb a clear imprint. The general principle of the matter is that the faculty of memory that absorbs things is comparable to an image that is imprinted upon something. Hence he compares when one teaches a child to engraving [something] upon new parchment; and one who teaches an elder to scraped parchment. For since the parchment is not clean, the parchment does not absorb the engraving. And so is the elder - his faculty of memory is smudged and does not absorb the engraving.
+<b>And that which they said</b> that he is comparable to ink that is written on new parchment; and, also at the end, to ink on scraped parchment - but according to the syntax, he should have said, "to writing on new parchment," and "writing on scraped parchment." For behold he is speaking about the teacher teaching the child or teaching the elder. This thing is not difficult. For the teacher is only teaching the wisdom to the student. So the teacher is not giving the student the actual wisdom, such that the person is [actually] absorbing it on his own. And it is comparable to someone who is showing someone else an image upon a wall: That even though the [other one] absorbs the image in his imagination, it is not resultantly said that the one who shows the image engraves the image into the imagination of the one absorbing it. And so too, one teaching to another - it should not be related about him, that he is engraving it onto his faculty of memory. Rather it is engraved on its own. So there is no angle of comparison between a teacher and a writer. For a writer is one who accomplishes the writing upon that which absorbs it. And an instructor does not do this; as a person absorbs it on his own. And this is a simple thing.
+<b>And it is possible that</b> it ordered this statement after the one before it (Avot 4:18), since the statement before this came to say that a person not do an act, from which the opposite action of what the actor intended is drawn, as it was explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:18). For the opposite action of what the actor intended was drawn after all of those things [in Avot 4:18]. So too, a person should not do an action the intention of which is not drawn after it, even if the opposite action is not drawn after it, but that it is rather an action that nothing is drawn after - like teaching an elder. For it is comparable to writing on scraped parchment, such that the writing is ineffective. And all the actions of a sage should be such that there not be a vain action. For it is inappropriate for a wise actor to do a vain act that has no substance. 
+<i>Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, man of Kfar HaBavli, says, "One who learns from young ones is compared to what? To one who eats sour grapes and drinks wine from its press. And one who learns from elders is compared to what? To one who eats ripe grapes and drinks aged wine."</i> 
+<b>One who learns from (elders) [young ones], etc.:</b> We should ask, why is there a need for two descriptions - that he is comparable to one who eats sour grapes and drinks wine from its press? But you should know that there are two wisdoms: One is revealed wisdom, which is similar to a grape, since a grape has coarseness and a grape is not something that is fine - like wine which is clear (translucent). Moreover, [the grape] is revealed in itself. And the second wisdom is fine hidden wisdom - this thing is similar to wine because of the fineness of wine. And we have already explained this thing - that the liquid, which is fine, indicates fine wisdom. Moreover it is because wine comes from what is hidden in the grape. Hence the hidden wisdom is comparable to wine. As wine (<i>yayin</i>) has a numerical value (<i>gematria</i>) of secret (<i>sod</i>, Eruvin 65a). And that is a hint to the secrets of the Torah. So this thing is clear.
+<b>And that which he said,</b> that he is comparable to one who eats sour grapes is because there is a difference between a ripe grape and a grape that is unripe. As a grape that is ripe, its potential is not embedded in the substance of the grape; whereas the strength of the unripe grape is still embedded in the substance of the fruit. So its taste and strength have not been actualized. Hence the grape is sour until it ripens. And then the strength and taste are completely actualized, and the taste and the strength are no longer embedded in the substance of the fruit. And likewise, wine in the press - the wine is still mixed up with the sediments. So the wine is not completely separated, that it should be clear from its cloudiness.
+And the intellect of children is comparable to this. For their intellect is embedded in the physical; and the intellect has not been actualized to be separated from the body. And that is at the time of a person's youth. For at the time of his youth, the intellect is embedded in the body and a person's wisdom is not wisdom that is separated from the imagination. But the intellect of the elder is completely separated. For at the time of maturity, the strength of the body is weakened and the strength of the intellect becomes stronger until the intellect becomes completely separated. And it is like the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 152b), "The elders of the Torah scholars - the whole time they grow older, their knowledge increases." For the actualized intellect is separated from the body. And in this, the intellect is similar to a grape that has ripened - as the taste has already gone from the substance of the fruit to complete actualization, so the strength and the taste are [no longer] embedded in the substance of the fruit. And just like old wine that is separated from the sediments - and that is wine that is clear from mixture - so too is the intellect of the elder separated and not embedded and mixed with the physical. And understand this analogy, as it is a completely choice analogy: To compare the intellect of children, which is embedded in the physical, to a grape that is not ripe, such that the strength and taste of the grape have not gone out to be separated from the substance of the fruit; and to wine that is in the press, which is mixed up and embedded in cloudiness and is not clear. And it compares the intellect of the elders to a grape that is ripe, such that the taste and the strength of the fruit are already separated from the grape; and to old wine, which is separated from the sediments and from mixture. And this thing should be understood. 
+<b>But you should also know that</b>, that which it said two things, that he is similar to one who eats sour grapes and drinks wine from its press: This thing is since two things are found with a person at the time of his youth: The one is that his intellect is embedded in the physical body, so it is not separated, as we explained. And the second is that - because of the turbulence of the heat at the time of his youth and his childhood, such that he is not calm - his intellect is mixed up. So corresponding to the first, such that his intellect is not separated from the body, he said that he is comparable to one who eats sour grapes. As it has already been explained that the taste of a grape that has not ripened is not separated from the substance of the fruit. And corresponding to the second - that the intellect of children, because of the turbulence inside them, their mind is not calm and their intellect is not clear - they are comparable to wine in the press, which is mixed up when it is fermenting and the turbulence rises. And the opposite of this is with elders, such that their intellect is separated from the physical and their turbulence is already calm and at ease. Hence their intellect is clear. And this explanation is understood and correct. And there is no need to explain the appending of this statement [to the previous statement], as it is known from itself.
+<i>Rebbi says, "Do not look at the jug but rather at what is in it. For there are new jugs full of old, and old [ones] that do not have even new within them."</i>
+<b>Do not look, etc.:</b> If this statement is coming to inform us that one not look at the appearance of a person, such that if the person is handsome and tall, one should not determine about him that he is certainly a sage, but one should rather not look at his appearance and his height - does this thing need to be said? Is it not that this thing need not be said at all? And even if it is coming to explain that which it said before this: One who learns from children and one who learns from elders, that it said that the wisdom of children is not considered wisdom, whereas the wisdom of elders is considered wisdom for the reason explained above; and that is why he said that even according to the nature of the world [by which] the intellect of a person is embedded in the physical in his youth - this thing is only according to [what is usual], but not that it is always [so]. Since sometimes God, may He be blessed, gave wisdom to a person [even as a youth]. For He, may He be blessed 'gives wisdom and knowledge from His mouth.' Such that one should not ask about the vessel, which is the person. And also the opposite; sometimes an older person - and he is an old vessel - but there is nothing in him, such that there is not in him even the wisdom that is appropriate for a person when he is a child. And this thing is because the intellect is in the hands of God, and He flows the intellect to the one that He wants. This too is difficult. As it is a simple and revealed thing that there are older people that are ignoramuses and nothing is found in them, and that there are children that are great sages (prodigies)!
+<b>So it appears</b> that it can be said that he is coming to say that you should not say that it happened by chance that a young person has the intellect of an elder; and sometimes it is also by chance that an older person has no wisdom at all and it happened only by chance. As according to the way of the world, it is inappropriate that a child have wisdom and it is appropriate that an elder always have wisdom. So if it is not found to be like this - that an elder without wisdom is found - it happened by chance. And it is about this that he said, "Do not look at the jug, etc." - meaning he should not look at the jug at all. For it is just the opposite, that according to the way of the world, there are many children found who are great sages and many elders who do not have wisdom. As wisdom is not according to the jug at all. For it is by the intellect that people are differentiated, since the mind of this one is not like that one. But if there was a determination from the jug - which is the body - the minds of all people would be completely the same. For from the angle of the bodies, all people are the same with them. And the differentiation that one person has from another is from the angle of the intellect and the mind, since they are differentiated by their minds. And this thing - that differences of the intellect and the mind are found in the world - is not by chance. For something that is by chance is not common, but rare. But here you find that it is so in most of the world, and [even] in all of it.
+And in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh, it said (Berakhot 58a): The Rabbis learned, "One who sees masses of Israel says, 'Blessed is the Sage of the secrets,' because their minds are not the same and their faces are not the same." To here [is the Gemara]. And it is teaching - not [only] this, but also that - that even their faces are not the same, all the more so is it not appropriate that their minds be the same. And this thing is a deep matter related to the multiplicity of individuals. But since they have multiplicity, it is necessary that there be a difference and distinction between them. 
+Hence he said, "Do not look at the jug but rather at what is in it." [As, otherwise,] he would only have needed to say, "For there are new jugs, etc." So why did he need to say, "Do not look at the jug?" Rather, he came to say that there should not be any looking at the jug at all. For people are [only] different in their minds. And this is understood from wisdom and knowledge - that they are different with the mind. And if so, there is no distinction or [indication] at all from the jug, since this jug is the same for every person, and the only difference between them is youth or elderliness. But people are different in their minds.
+<b>And it is not that he is coming to argue</b> on the words of Rabbi Yose. As Rebbi certainly agrees that the wisdom of children is not like the wisdom of elders and that there is more wisdom to a person in maturity than there is in childhood. But that there be looking at the jug, which is the person, and to judge about the child that he has no wisdom with him and about the elder that there is wisdom with him - this thing is not so. "For there are jugs, etc.," and it is not relevant to say that it was like this by chance. Rather it is appropriate for it to be like this according to nature and to the order [of things]. And this thing is clear.
+
+Mishnah 21
+
+<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] what 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 several times (see Derekh Chayim 2:9). 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 is the physical faculties, the second section is the faculties of the spirit and the third section is 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, will 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 faculty of the spirit.
+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 that which is intellectual. And it is written (Isaiah 24:23), "and across from His elders is honor," such that you see that honor is for the elders, since 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 the 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 come 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 is appropriate for the spirit. Hence he used the expression, "remove 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: Observe that these three things are apt for this and that they [actually] 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. That 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," corresponds 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 "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 to the tree of knowledge, such that these three things were removing the man from the world. 
+<b>And this is</b> 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, which is the source of 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 [the tree] 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 me 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 it 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! [However,] the excess of intellect that the first man had was a lack for him. For when a person is innocent (<i>tamim</i>), he is drawn after God, may He be blessed, like that which 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 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 caused 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 that is what caused death to man. And that corresponds 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 corresponds 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. And 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, such that 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 decisive. 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.
+<b>And in Bereishit Rabbah (15:7),</b> 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 he said [the tree] was an <i>etrog</i>. For an <i>etrog</i> is called <i>etrog</i>, 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 between 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 me 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</b> that 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 [person], 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 and Kayin became angry" (Genesis 4:5). And this thing was because of envy. And I say that this is why he is called Kayin (<i>kof, yod, nun</i>), from the expression, <i>kinah (kof, nun, alef)</i>; since <i>yod</i> interchanges with <i>alef</i>. For they are from the interchangeable letters, <i>alef, hey, vav, yod</i>. But Hevel corresponds to lust. As that is why he is called, <i>hevel</i> (emptiness). As the faculty of lust is emptiness, and there is no substance to it. And it is as it is written (Proverbs 31:30), "Grace is falsehood and beauty is emptiness." And that is why Hevel sacrificed, "from the firstborn of his flock, and from their fats" (Genesis 4:4) - for this thing is good for food, and that is for lust. So the first man had two sons, overstepping the equilibrium like [can be done with] these two faculties. Since even Adam himself had already overstepped the limit and [went] over the measure with these two faculties; all the more so [was that so] with the offspring that came after him. Hence, in the same way that there is no preservation and no endurance in the world for lust and envy, so too was there no preservation and endurance in the world for Kayin and Hevel. 
+But a son corresponding to the third faculty - which is the intellectual faculty - was not born to him [immediately]. For the intellectual faculty is not relevant to man, in that man is physical. And he is called, <i>adam</i>, [based on] the word, earth (<i>adamah</i>, Bereishit Rabbah 17:4). Hence he did not have a son corresponding to this third faculty at first, since man does not have this faculty, like the other two faculties. For this faculty - being the intellectual faculty - is supernal in its stature. [This was so] until he also had assistance from God. Then he had a third child, who was Shet. And because of this, this son was not comparable to the first two, as they were not proper. For God, may He be blessed, was particularly joined to this son; and because of that, this offspring was proper. And Chava hinted this when she called him Shet, "because God has granted (<i>shat</i>) me another offspring" (Genesis 4:25). As it is certain that God granted this offspring; for He, may He be blessed, actualizes this intellectual faculty, and this son is corresponding to the intellectual faculty. Hence she said, "Because God has granted me another (<i>acher</i>, which can also be understood as different) offspring." For he was certainly a different offspring. So we have explained great and deep things to you. 
+<b>However that which he said,</b> "Envy, lust and honor," can also be explained [as follows]: Envy corresponds to the spirit of man, upon which envy depends. And lust comes from the body; and when man inclines towards lust - meaning completely towards the extreme of the body - then this thing removes him from the world. [For] anything that goes over to one extreme removes one from the world. And likewise, when he inclines towards envy - such that this faculty of envy is from the spirit - he inclines towards the extreme and [it] removes him from this world, as was explained in the chapter [entitled] Akavia (Derekh Chayim 3:10). And honor is a third thing that is relevant to man, in that he is a man - as it is stated, "Let us make man in our image." And honor and disgrace are relevant to this image, which is the image of God. And it like the Rambam wrote in the Guide for the Perplexed (1:1) about the homonymity of the word, image; and as it is written (Psalms 73:20), "in arousal, You disgrace their image." And the opposite of this is also [the case], since the image is appropriate for honor. And because of that, they said in Sifrei (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:26), "If the Torah said [about] stones which do not see and do nor hear, 'Do not go up to My altar with steps, etc.'; all the more so should you not treat your fellow in the manner of disgrace." Note that honor is relevant to man because he is the image of God. But if he inclines and chases after honor because of this image, he is also inclining towards the extreme, [just] like when he inclines towards lust and towards envy - as was explained. And that is why it removes man from the world. And this explanation is choice, if you understand words of truth and wisdom. And it is exactly [the same as] the first explantion, if you understand the things that we said above about the matter of the image. 
+<b>And you should know</b> that the words of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar (our mishnah) are the [same as the] words of Rabbi Yehoshua (Avot 2:11). And just like Rabbi Yehoshua said, "The evil eye," Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said, "envy; and the evil eye and envy are the same thing. And that which Rabbi Yehoshua said, "the evil inclination," Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said, "lust." And that which Rabbi Yehoshua said,  "hatred of the creations" - and we have already explained that this sin is that he hates man who was created in the image of God, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 2:11) - is nevertheless one matter; this one hates the creatures that were created in the image of God and that one chases after more honor than is appropriate from the angle of [that] image. And behold that the sin is also one matter. It is only that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar adds [to what Rabbi Yehoshua said]. For envy is not [completely] like the evil eye; or lust like the evil inclination; or one who chases after honor [completely] like hatred of the creations. And this is enough if you understand [these] things.
+<b>And it is because it [just] said (Avot 4:20),</b> "Do not look at the jug but rather at what is in it. For there are new jugs full of old, and old [ones] that do not have even new within them" - because of that, when one is young but wise, he seeks the most honor and grandeur, as is the way of children; for they pursue honor. All the more so, envy - as they are envious of others. And that is why he said these things remove a person from the world. And that is why [a young but wise person] should not do this.
+
+Mishnah 22
+
+<i>He would say, "Those who are born are to die, and those who are dead are to be revived, and the living are to be judged. [It is necessary] to know, to inform, and to become aware that He is God, He is the Maker, He is the Designer, 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 formed, 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 who are born, etc.":</b> It may be asked about this statement, that he said, "Those who are born are to die": Why did he make it depend on, "those who are born," and not say, "People are to die"; or "The living are to die?" Moreover, what is he coming to make us understand? As who does not know that those who are born will die? Also [about] that which he said, "and those who are dead are to be revived, and the living are to be judged" - as he should have first said, "The living are to be judged," and then, "those who are born are to die, and those who are dead are to be revived." And also [about] that which he said, "and the living are to be judged" - from this it can be known that "He is the Maker, He is the Designer": 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 came to also 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 are to die," and he did not say, "Those that are created are to 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 naught, so too does he [become naught and] leave this world. Hence he said, "Those who are born are to die," and he did not say, "Those who are created are to 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 [being] born. So it is impossible to say that he be preserved forever, since he was born from a father and a mother. Hence it is possible that a man live and and not die regarding the revival of the dead - 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 are to 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 generations of the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 2:4) - everything that has generations withers and dies, and everything that does not have generations does not wither and does not die. But here is not the place to elaborate.
+<b>And that which he said</b> - "and those who are dead are to be revived," which implies that the dead are going to be revived; such that he did not say, "and those who are dead will live," but rather, "and those who are dead are to be revived" - is because its explanation is that just like those who are born are going to die, so too those who are dead are going to be revived. For the Holy One, blessed be He, revives them. As had the noun, dead, been said about something that is completely absent, absence certainly does not return to exist. And had the noun, dead, been said about that which completely exists, that which exists does not exist again after it already existed. Rather, the noun, dead, is said about that which is lacking life, [but] the way of which is to have life. And it is impossible that the lack of something, which is appropriate for it to have, not be filled. So the noun, dead, goes on one who is lacking life, [but] the way of which is to have life in it - such that it is impossible that it not be filled. And it cannot be said that man is lacking flying, for it is not his way to have [something] like this. And about that which is similar to this, lack is not relevant. So this will certainly not be filled, since it is not called a lack; because it is not its way to have it in it. And that is why, he said, "and those who are dead are to be revived." 
+However let it not be difficult for you - that behold it is also written, "when it dies," about the animals and the fowl! But there is a difference - for it not called, the dead; like man is called by the noun, the dead: "The dead will not praise God" (Psalms 115:17); "When a dead one dies" (Numbers 6:9); "And for dead people" (Leviticus 21:11); "And one who touches the dead" (Numbers 19:11) - behold, he is called, the dead. And I have not found this about an animal, except for, "that this dead dog curse" (II Samuel 16:9). But there was no dead dog there; rather it was said about a man. And there also, it is not just called the dead, but rather [dead] dog. And that noun (dog) is the main one and it is not called, the dead, by itself. For I have not found in any place that [something] be called just, the dead, except for man. So the noun, dead, is coming about one who is lacking life, [but] that its way is that it be found in it. And understand this well. So because of this [it says], "and those who are dead are to be revived."   
+<b>And he said,</b> "and the living are to be judged" - meaning that, from the angle that they are living, God, may He be blessed, will judge them. For the living have proximity to God, may He be blessed, since He is a living God (Deuteronomy 5:23). And because of this, they receive judgement from Him, may He be blessed. For it is stated (Psalms 50:3), "it stormed around Him fiercely." But it is not so with the dead. For, from the angle of their being dead, the dead are not with God, may He be blessed. And even though the righteous ones are certainly with God, may He be blessed - under His throne of glory - that thing is since the righteous ones are called, living, even in their death (Berakhot 18a). However, from the angle of their being alive, the aggregate of the living are certainly clinging to God, may He be blessed. For He is alive; hence they receive judgement from Him. As this thing is choice - that all who are proximate to Him receive judgement first. Therefore he said, "and the living will be judged." And whether these are those living now or those that are living after the resurrection - nevertheless, from the angle that they are living, they will receive the decree first.
+<b>But, "and the living are to be judged,"</b> can also be explained as meaning to administer what they need, to them. And that is called judgement - as [in], "to make the judgment of His servant" (I Kings 8:59). For there is a need for judgement about this - whether a person is fit for this thing or not fit. And this is relevant to the living, and it is correct.
+<b>However that which they said (Eruvin 2:11),</b> "The judgement of the wicked in Geihinnom is twelve months" - and the other sinners that are judged in Geihinnom - is not similar to this at all. For that which he said, "and the living will be judged," is meaning that the main judgement will be when one is still alive. But the wicked that are judged - their judgement is not decreed upon them by God, may He be blessed, after death; but he is rather judged to Geihinnom at the time of his death. So behold they receive the punishment itself after death. That is why he said, "and the living are to be judged." For God, may He be blessed, specifically judges the living.
+<b>And you will understand this thing</b> (discussed earlier in Paragraph 6) [through] the day of judgement being on Rosh Hashanah. For these are days of closeness to the world for God, may He be blessed - like our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 18a) [about this time period], "Seek the Lord while He can be found; call to Him while He is near" (Isaiah 55:6). For the closeness of God, may He be blessed, to the world brings judgement. And that is why, [regarding] the king and the public, the king enters judgement first, as it is written (I Kings 8:59), "to make the judgment of His servant and the judgement of His people Israel" (Rosh Hashanah 8b). And that is what it means, "It is not the way of the world that a king stands outside" (Rosh Hashanah 8b). For due to his level and his stature, he is close to God, may He be blessed; and one closer is judged first.
+<b>In any case,</b> according to the explanation (Paragraph 7) that we said, that this judgement is that a person is judged all the time about the things that he needs for life - whether he is fit for this - there is no difficulty. For the judgement of life is constant, whereas the judgement of the wicked is not all the time. 
+<b>And all of this</b> is coming to say that everything is in the hands of God, may He be blessed. For "Those who are born are to die" - meaning to say that He, may He be blessed, brings death to those who are created. And He revives the dead, as he said, "and those who are dead are to be revived." And he said that when they are alive, he administers them in justice. So behold with this, you will know that everything is in the hands of the Designer. For He alters the world: He alters those who are born to death; and alters the dead, with the opposite of this, from death to life. And because this thing is a thing and its opposite, it indicates that everything is in the hands of God, may He be blessed. For behold He destroys the ones created and also revives those who are the opposite of this. And that is why he juxtaposed them together and said afterwards, "and the living will be judged." As with this, it is apparent that everything is in the hands of God, may He be blessed. For He rules over them from every angle - whether when they exist, he brings them to death; or whether when they are dead, he revives them; and when they are living, He, may He be blessed, judges them.
+<b>And therefore it is for you, "to know, to inform, and to become aware":</b> It appears that he mentioned these three expressions [as follows]: As a person may know this thing on his own if he is someone who is understanding. But he said that even if he is not a sage who understands from his own mind, he can be informed of this thing until he knows [it]. And this is, "to inform." But perhaps there will be someone who will be stubborn about this thing - as he does not want to accept the thing because of his imagination. Corresponding to this one, he said, "and to become aware." For even if he wants to be stubborn, a person can force this thing, until he becomes aware of this against his will - the thing being so revealed and compelling.
+<b>And it is also because</b> he is coming to say that this information is compelling, and it is impossible that it is not like this. That is why he mentioned the three expressions. For there are three [types of] information, and the information that is most known is compelling information. Corresponding to this, he mentioned three expressions. This is that one [type of] information is information that is [only] possible. And that is like you say, "Reuven is in house x," and the truth is that he is in house x. But he is found there by chance, as it is not apt that he be found specifically there. And the second [type of] information is information of that which is apt that it be like this. This is like that he knows that a person has hands; and that is information that is apt - nevertheless it is possible that the person be without hands. That is why this is information that is not compelling. The third [type of] information is compelling information, such that it is impossible that it be different than how it was; like the information that a man does not move without the breath of life. And that thing is compelling information. So the information that is possible that it be otherwise is not complete information. And that is why this information is [only] called, to know. But information about what is apt to be is greater information - this is called, to inform. For when one informs others, this thing is greater information. And corresponding to the information that is compelling information - and that is [even] greater information - about this he said, and to become aware. For the expression, "to become aware," implies against his will to the point that it is something compelling; until it is impossible in any other way - since He, may be blessed, "is God, [...], He is the Judge, etc." Hence he mentioned the three expressions. This appears to be simple and correct. 
+<b>And it is [also] possible to say</b> that to know, means to say that a person knows for himself; and to inform is to others; and to become aware is to everyone - not only to some, but rather to everyone. And that is why, he said, "and to become aware." For this expression implies that it is known to everyone - that this information spreads to everyone. Or also (another possibility) - that he mentioned these three expressions in order to strengthen the matter. For three times strengthens a thing. And likewise in several places do you find that three expressions appear in order to strengthen the speech: "The Chamber of the Lord, the Chamber of the Lord, the Chamber of the Lord" (Jeremiah 7:4), was mentioned three times to strengthen [it]. And this thing is frequent; and so have the commentators explained. And since he is coming now to say how everything is from God, may He be blessed - to the point that "He is the Judge, He is the Witness and He is the Litigant" - he says further, "against your will you were created [...], and against your will you live, etc." As God, may He be blessed, compels all these things according to His will, and nothing is from a person. Rather everything is from God, may He be blessed. And that is why He said, "to know, to inform, and to become aware," three times. Meaning to say that it is completely like this, without any other angle. Rather everything is against a person's will. And this thing is clear. 
+<b>And he said, "that He is God (<i>El</i>),"</b> meaning to say that He is first. And that is why it is written (Isaiah 43:10), "Before Me, no god (<i>el</i>) was formed." So this name indicates that He is first. For the first letter is <i>alef</i>, which is the beginning of the alphabet; and the second letter is a <i>lamed</i>, which is the beginning of the second half of the alphabet. The means to say that He, may He be blessed, is the beginning of the supernal creations and the lower creations. Also, the <i>alef</i> and the <i>lamed</i> come one instead of the other (interchange) in <i>a-l-b-m</i> (a letter scheme in which letters in the first half of the alphabet are exchanged with their match in the second half). And that is why both of them indicate the beginning. Hence the name, <i>El</i> indicates that He is the beginning. It is not that it is coming to say this - that He, may He be blessed, is the beginning. As who does not know this thing? Rather, he wants to say that all things flow from the beginning - that is to say, [since] He is the beginning.
+<b>And just like He, may He be blessed,</b> is the beginning, so too does He finish everything to the end. That is why he said,  "He is the Designer (<i>Yotzer</i>)" - meaning to say, that He makes a form (<i>tzar tzurah</i>) into the physical. And it is from the expression, <i>tzurah</i>, which appears about a form that is embedded. And he said, "He is the Creator" - that is something Godly that clings to the creations, but it is not embedded in the physical; it is not like the embedded form. Hence these two expressions, "He is the Designer, He is the Creator," correspond to the higher creations and the lower creations. For the lower creations - their form stands in the physical; but creation, that he said, [is] about the higher creations. Hence you will only find the expression, creation, [among the lower creations] with man; since man has a Godly matter. And likewise is it written with the sea monsters - as it is written (Genesis 1:21), "And God created the great sea monsters." And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, this is the leviathan and his spouse (Bava Batra 74b). And certainly a Godly matter clung to this creation, being the leviathan. So creation is relevant to these two. And likewise is the expression, creation, relevant about the heavens and the earth as a collective, because of this. And this thing will be explained further later (Derekh Chayim 6:11 at the end), regarding "Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, etc." - see there. And he said that, "He is the Understander" - meaning to say that he understands the acts of people and oversees them.
+<b>And He is the Witness:</b> You should know the matter of testimony - as you should not say that the matter of testimony is that the judge needs to know [what happened]. For if so, why can a witness not become a judge [in the case that he witnessed] (Rosh Hashanah 26a)? Behold, the judge knows [what happened]! And if you say the reason that a witness cannot become a judge is that we need to [have the ability to] establish refutation; and if the witness becomes the judge, the judge will not want to accept refutation against himself. If so, you will have a difficulty with that which we have established - judges who see someone who kills a person (and are therefore witnesses) can become judges, since hearing should not be greater than seeing. But behold they would not accept refutation about themselves! Yet if they saw [the crime] at the time that they were disqualified from judgement - for example, they saw [it] at night - they cannot become judges (Rosh Hashanah 25b). But what is the difference? For even if they saw [it] at night, the judges know the thing, just like [if] they saw it during the day! Rather the judgement only takes effect when the thing is actually revealed before the judge; and then it is possible for him to judge. So the witness is the one that actualizes the thing in front of the judge, so that the judge is able to judge. And that is why a witness can [generally] not become a judge. As behold, he needs to actualize the thing in front of the judge. But if the witness becomes the judge, no one actualized the testimony in front of the judge so that the judgement can take effect. And that is why even if the knows the thing - since the witness did not actualize the testimony in front of the judge, there is no judgement here. But if he saw [the murder] during the day, then the thing was actualized in front of the judge. And this is a magnificent thing, [but] this is not the place [for] it. And he said that He, may He be blessed, actualizes things. That is why He is the Witness.
+And likewise, "He is the Litigant," is that there must be someone who is claiming justice and who seeks justice here. And if there is no one claiming justice here - meaning that if the thing that the judgement is about is not against another - there is no judgement. So God, may He be blessed, is the Litigant, such that if one sinned, he sinned against God, may He be blessed. So He seeks justice. And just like He is the Judge now, so too will He be the Judge forever. 
+<b>And he said, "Blessed be He, etc.:</b> He ascribed four things to God, may He be blessed, and they are all connected to judgement. And likewise do you find four characteristics about judges in Scripture, as it is written (Exodus 18:21), "capable men who fear God, men of truth who hate ill-gotten gain." And the explanation of, "capable men," is that it is one who is alacritous to save the oppressed from the hands of his oppressor. And that is called, capable men. "Who fear God," is that they fear God, may He be blessed, in judgement, and do not fear man. And that is called, fear of God. For if he does not fear God, he will be afraid of enforcing judgement against people. "Men of truth," is that he loves the truth. And he will not cease from this until he knows the true judgement, and he will not [settle] for an estimation. Rather he wants to judge truthfully. "Who hate ill-gotten gain" - as if he loves money, perhaps he will have some benefit in the case and he will not be able to ascertain the judgement truthfully.
+So corresponding to, "capable men," he said, "who has before Him no forgetfulness." For He, may He be blessed, is alacritous; that is why there is no forgetfulness before Him at all. As forgetfulness is because of laziness. And corresponding to, "who fear God," and that he does not fear man - here he mentioned, "no respect of persons." And corresponding to, "who hate ill-gotten gain" - here he mentioned, "no taking of bribes." And the matter of respect of persons is meaning to say even if [the litigant] is the king, he does not favor him to say that since he is the king, one must pay attention to him. So this thing is respect of persons. And "no taking of bribes," is meaning to say that all of the creations are created for His glory, may He be blessed. And hence He [ostensibly] should not judge man, since He receives glory from man. And about this he said that there is no taking of bribes in front of Him at all, to say that there is [actually] glory to Him from man. For everything is His, so man does not give Him anything. As everything in existence is for Him, may He be blessed. But it cannot be explained like its literal sense. As this thing need not be said - and is it [even] relevant to say this thing about God, may He be blessed? And that which is found in Tractate Berakhot (28b), "At the time of his death, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was crying, etc." to "he cannot bribe Him with money nor appease Him with words, etc." - these words are certainly not a proof [to the contrary]. As he meant to say [that] with a king, all these things are relevant - that he can bribe him with money and appease him with words; nevertheless one is afraid. All the more so with the King of kings of kings, should he be afraid - since that thing is not relevant. And that which Onkelos translated, "He is not one who shows favor or one who takes bribes" (Deuteronomy 10:17), as "who does not show favor and does not take bribes" - it should certainly be explained as we said. As he was only translating the language of Scripture. About this he said [that] there is no taking of bribes in front of Him at all.
+<b>And that which he said,</b> "for all is His," is referring to everything that he said. As   "He is the Judge" of all the world; for behold, everything is His. Hence He has the ability in His hands to judge that which is His. "And He is the Witness and He is the Litigant" - all this is because everything is His. So about something that is His - He may testify about it and be the Litigant against one. And likewise, "who has before Him no wrong" - why should He do wrong to something that is His? And likewise, "who has before Him no forgetfulness" - as given that everything is His, nothing is hidden from Him. For if they were detached from Him, and not everything was His; hiddenness would have thus been relevant. But because everything is His, there is no hiddenness or forgetfulness with Him. For nothing is detached from Him. (And likewise, "who has before Him no wrong" - why should He do wrong to something that is His?) And likewise, that He has no respect of persons - even though He is a king - as given that it is His, there is no respect of persons to One like this. For one is not significant before Him; as behold he is His. And all the more so is there no taking of bribes before Him. For even if those that exists are for His glory, may He be blessed - that He should take bribes is not relevant with this, such that He cannot judge him due to this. As He is not taking from another, since everything is His, may He be blessed. So the glory that he gives to God, may He be blessed - he is giving Him from that which is His, may He be blessed. So there is no taking bribes with this; only when one takes something that does not belong to him. So receiving is relevant to this when he receives [something] from someone else, and then he cannot [give] judgement against him, as will be explained adjacently. For it is inappropriate for anyone who receives [something] from someone else to judge him. But because everything is His, and the glory that one gives Him is from God, may He be blessed - hence the taking of bribes is not relevant with Him.
+<b>And the Rambam,</b> may his memory be blessed, explains (Commentary on the Mishnah on Avot 4:22) what is written, "no taking of bribes" - that its content is not that he does not take a bribe to sway the judgement. As this is from the foolishness that is distant from God, may He be blessed, something which cannot be depicted and cannot even be imagined. As how can one give Him a bribe; and what would the bribe be? Rather its content is that He does not take goodnesses as a bribe: Like [in a case] where a person does a thousand goodnesses and one evil, such that God, may He blessed will not forgive him that sin, due to all of his goodnesses, and subtract one or more of his goodnesses. Rather, He will punish him for this one evil and reward him for all of those goodnesses. And this is, "no respect of persons" - that He will punish the one of great stature for a small thing, just like Moshe, our teacher, was punished, etc.
+And there are some that ask about his words [from] that which they said in Tractate Sotah (21a), "A sin extinguishes a commandment; all the more so does a commandment extinguish a sin" - and this is not like the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, who said that the Holy One, blessed be He, will not forgive a sin to him because of his many  goodnesses. For behold, a commandment extinguishes a sin! But this is an empty question. As that which a commandment extinguishes a sin means that when the Holy One, blessed be He, gives him reward on account of a commandment - or that he protects him because of a commandment - He extinguishes the punishment of the sin with this. And so too the opposite - a sin extinguishes a commandment - such that if a goodness is appropriate to come to him because of a commandment, the punishment that comes because of the sin will extinguish the goodness. Even though this thing oftentimes causes that the goodness does not come to him and the bad does not come to him, and he stays in between, this thing is nevertheless not  that the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the commandment instead of the punishment. Rather it is that, from the angle of the commandment, it is appropriate that he get reward; and from the angle of the sin, it is appropriate that he get a punishment - and the one extinguishes its fellow, so that he will remain without goodness and without bad. And it should not be asked, "At the end of the day, the commandment comes in place of the sin." This thing is not difficult. For this measure is with a middling person. But if he is not a middling person, but a righteous one - such that the Holy One, blessed be He, pays the righteous one [for] his sins in this world, and the reward of his commandments in the next world - the commandment does not extinguish the sin. For the Holy One, blessed be He, does not give him the reward of the commandments in this world. And it is about this one that [Rambam] said that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not subtract one of his commandments - which are [saved] for him in (this) the world [to come] - corresponding to the sin, to not bring his punishment in this world [into the next world] for one of his sins. 
+And also, that which a commandment extinguishes a sin - its explanation is not that it extinguishes the sin completely. Rather the commandment remains and the sin also remains. So if he does a sin and a commandment, they make him a good day on account of the commandment and a bad day on account of the sin. But if there were not the sin, it would have been all good for him because of the commandment. And if there were not the commandment, it would have been all bad because of the sin. Now they make for him a good and a bad day, as it is found in the first chapter of Kiddushin (39b). For it says that they make for him a good day and a bad day. Even though Rashi, may his memory be blessed, did not explain like this; nevertheless this is the main explanation. It is about this that he said that the Holy One, blessed be, does not take the commandment, such that He not make a bad day at all, or not a good day at all. And if so, He would be taking the commandment corresponding to the sin.                                                                                                                                                                           
+<b>But there is a question about [the Rambam's] words:</b> As what is, "for all is His," that he said? For this is certainly the reason given also about, "and no taking of bribes." But according to the explanation that we said (Paragraph 20), it is that the bribe is meaning to say that there is glory to God, may He be blessed, from all of the created beings. For 'He created everything for His glory' (Ketuvot 8a). So it is about this that he said that He does not take a bribe - to exempt one from judgement.  
+And it should not be difficult to you - that all bribes are because of judgement, whereas this bribe is not because of judgement. For even if the bribe comes not because of a judgement, it is also a bribe. [This is] like, "[The litigant] saw that a feather floated upon [the judge] and removed it" - that even though the litigant did not intend it for a bribe, it is called a bribe. So [that judge] is disqualified from judging, as he is now receiving benefit from him. And the glory that the created beings give to God, may He be blessed - they give this glory to God, may He be blessed, even at the time of the judgement. But He judges them nevertheless.
+<b>But that which he said,</b> "for all is His" - meaning to say, that he does not give anything to God - is still difficult. [For] it is implied that if it were possible to give Him something, He would take bribes. And how is it possible to say that God, may He be blessed, not do justice? For even if he would give Him something, he would still conduct justice. And you must know the answer to this question. It is because a bribe that one takes from another makes him one with him, since he is receiving it from him. And that is why it is called, <i>shochad</i> - as he is one (<i>she hu chad</i>), meaning to say that he and the judge are [now] one. And then judgement cannot be found from the judge. For there is only [true] judgement when the judge is separated from the litigant. As then, he judges him. But when he becomes one with him, behold the judge is not separated from the one he is judging. And this would not be judgement at all, since the judge cannot act upon something with which he is one. For something cannot [truly] act upon itself. Hence it can be thought that He, may He be blessed, receives glory from man and becomes one with him. So there would not be judgment here since he receives glory from man. Even though He is the true judge, at the end of the day, there is no [true] judgement here. And that is why he said that the thing is not like this. As behold, "all is His" - there is no bribe here, such that He would become one with the litigant. For even if the created beings give glory to God, may He be blessed; there is no receiving from someone else, such that He should not judge him from the angle that He has become one with him and there not be judgement.  
+And likewise exactly is that which he said, that He [has] "no respect of persons." For a judge who favors persons is because he does not have the strength to judge someone as great as this one. And that is why he respects this person, as he does not have the ability to judge him, even if he is a truthful person. And it is about this that he said that towards another, God, may He be blessed, does not favor persons. For everything is His, and there is no importance towards the Above. And such is the explanation of  "[the God who] does not take bribes" (Deuteronomy 10:17). For the one who takes from someone else becomes one with him, to the point that he cannot judge him. For a judge needs to be separated from the litigant; but anyone who takes a bribe becomes one with him. So about this, he said that this thing is irrelevant to God, may He be blessed - "for all is His," as was explained. 
+<b>And [the following is] that which they said in Midrash Tehillim (Midrash Shocher Tov 17:2):</b> "Let my judgement come forth from Your presence" (Psalms 17:2) - The Holy One, blessed be He said to David, "Did I create a Great Court (Sanhedrin) for nothing? Go and judge in front of them!" He said in front of Him, "Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah, (Deuteronomy 16:19), 'and you shall not take bribes.' Yet you take bribes from the wicked, as it is stated (Proverbs 17:23), 'A wicked man takes a bribe out of the bosom.'" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "My children, while the gates of repentance are open, repent; for I take bribes in this world. But from when I sit in judgement in the world to come, I do not take bribes - as it is stated (Proverbs 6:35), 'He will not have regard for any ransom; He will refuse your bribe, however great.'" To here [is the Midrash]. But from here, there is a difficulty. As behold, God, may He be blessed, takes the bribes of repentance and good deeds! But you should know that [which] repentance and good deeds are called, bribes, is meaning to say that He, may He be blessed, wants repentance and good deeds from a person. Hence this thing is called a bribe to God, may He be blessed. So it is certainly not a difficulty, even according to the explanation of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, who explained [that], "[the God who] does not take bribes" (Deuteronomy 10:17) is stated about commandments. [As] it is not comparable. For that which is stated, "[the God who] does not take bribes" (Deuteronomy 10:17), is that He does not take a bribe to exempt the litigant from the judgement  because He takes [something] from someone else. But repentance is rectifying the judgement itself; and likewise do good deeds rectify the judgement itself. And that is because before he did good deeds, he was mostly liable, and he had a heavy judgement upon him; since 'all is in accordance to the majority of the deed.' But when he did good deeds, he became mostly meritorious. So the original judgement, that he was judged as completely evil, is no [longer] here. And with repentance, he is exempted from the sin completely; however with good deeds, he is not [fully] exempted from the judgement, meaning from the sin that he did.
+And that which repentance and good deeds are called bribes is because they are bribes relative to a [human] court. For if one did a sin - even if he did many, many commandments - the [human] court does not change the judgement. But with God, may He be blessed, it is not so (rather) when he rectifies his deeds themselves. So repentance and good deeds are called complete bribes. For through repentance and good deeds, a person becomes completely one with God, may He be blessed; and there is no judgement against someone who clings to Him, may He be blessed, and becomes completely one with Him. Yet this thing - that is, repentance and good deeds - is a rectification of the person himself, to the point that he extricates himself from the judgement. For he becomes innocent after being guilty. So behold He does not take a bribe from someone guilty so that the judgement does not come against him. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, certainly takes this bribe - that he is actually innocent. So through repentance and good deeds, he is detached from sin; and there is no need for explanation.  
+<b>And he said, "And do not let your [evil] impulse assure you that the netherworld is a place of refuge for you, etc.":</b> Meaning to say, since we have already said, "and the living are to be judged"; so since he is in the netherworld and the netherworld is separated from God, may He be blessed - if so, a person might think that the netherworld is a place of refuge from judgement for the wicked, as if they were separated from the Holy One, blessed be He. [So they might think] that judgement is only for the living, but not for those who are distant from God, may He be blessed - those who are in the netherworld. And even though, "those who are dead are to be revived," [he would think that] this is only [for] those righteous ones to whom He will give reward, but not for the wicked. So about this, he said, "and against your will you were formed," that is the formation in his mother's belly; "and against your will you were born," that he came out to the atmosphere of the world, "and against your will you live" - meaning to say that the thing does not proceed from the receiver at all, but rather from God, may He be blessed. For He does everything. Hence man lives against his will, not from the angle of himself. And likewise, "against your will you die" - since everything is necessitated by God, may He be blessed. And so too, "against your will you are destined to give account and reckoning before the Holy One, blessed be He." And all of this is because there is nothing from the angle of the creation itself. Rather everything is from God, may He be blessed. For He, may He be blessed, is everything. And since He is everything, that is why everything is from Him, may He be blessed; and against man's will, not from the angle of man. And this thing is clear.
+<b>The chapter [entitled] Ben Zoma has been finished with the help of the Heavens.</b>
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<i>With ten utterances the world was created. And what is learned - couldn't it have been created by one utterance? Rather, [it was] in order to punish (literally, to collect from) the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances and to give a goodly reward to the righteous who sustain the world that was created with ten utterances.</i>
+<b>With ten utterances, etc.:</b> In the chapter [entitled] HaKoreh (Megillah 21b), it asks, "These are [only] nine, etc." And it answers, "'In the beginning' (Genesis 1:1) is also an utterance, as it is stated (Psalms 33:6), 'By the word of the Lord the heavens were made.'" And we can ask - since, "In the beginning," is also an utterance, why was it not written, "And God said, 'Let there be the heavens and the earth?'" And it appears that it is because it is forbidden to tell what happened before the world was created (Chagigah 11b), and this utterance was before the world was created. So that is why it is written, "In the beginning (<i>Bereishit</i>), God created," beginning with creation (and not with, "And God said"). 
+And we can also answer that even though, "In the beginning," is also an utterance, the utterance of, "In the beginning," is dissimilar to the other utterances. For the expression, "utterance (<i>amirah</i>)," appears about speech that is specific - when one is speaking about [a specific] thing. But when He created the heavens and the earth, all of the world was included in it. And that is not a specific thing, since everything was created on the first day (following the opinion of the Rabbis in Chagigah 12a and of Rabbi Nechemiah in Bereshit Rabbah 23:4). And so, utterance is not applicable - as its understanding would be that the heavens and the earth were created with this [particular] statement and will that He expressed. As - in every place - utterance only appears about a specific thing. And it would imply that there is another utterance in the matter of creation, as there is in the other [cases of], "And He said" - meaning to say, with this utterance he created this thing; and with another utterance, He created another thing. But when He created the heavens and the earth - which is the totality of the world - there was no other utterance. And so the expression, "and He said," is not applicable. For the heavens and the earth are everything, since [the participles in the phrase], "<i>et</i> the heavens and <i>et</i> the earth" (Genesis 1:1) are to include their multitudes.
+And the proof of this explanation is that it is written (Psalms 33:6), "By the word (<i>devar</i>) of the Lord the heavens were made." And it is known that the expression, speech (<i>dibbur</i>), is not the same as the expression, utterance (<i>amirah</i>). For utterance appears about a specific matter. Therefore, it is written in every place, "And the Lord spoke, saying (<i>laemor</i>)." As "speech" appears about just making sounds - as with [the term], "a living speaking being" - but it does not appear about specific content. But the "saying" that comes after it is coming about speech of specific content. And that is why it is written, "By the word (<i>devar</i>) of the Lord the heavens were made" - meaning to say that the heavens were made from the speech that the Holy One, blessed be He, emitted from His mouth. But the understanding of utterance is that he said [a specific] thing; and that indicates that there is something else [besides it]. But [here] the matter is not like this: Since everything was created on the first day, there [can be] no other utterance. 
+And it is not written, "And God spoke, 'Let there be the heavens and the earth'" - for the expression, speech, only comes about speech [itself], which is only the emitting of sounds. And the heavens and the earth were not created by this. Rather they were only created by [the words that were] heard in the speech - that they would be created - and that is utterance. But his is not what is indicated by the expression, speech. And also because speech does not have a recipient. And the proof of this is that you do not find the term, "to me" or "to him," with speech. And in any place where, "to me" or "to him," is written with speech, its meaning is, "about me" or "about him" - as Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained regarding, "spoke to you" (Rashi on Genesis 28:15). And the reason is clear: It is that speech - which is only the emitting of sounds - has no recipient. Rather only utterance - which is the content of what is said - has a recipient. So, "to me," "to you," "to him" and "to them," are only [said] with utterance. And hence it is not applicable to use an expression of speech here, since God, may He be blessed, decreed that there should be creations. And any decree necessitates a recipient - as it is written (Isaiah 48:13, regarding the creation of the heavens), "I call unto them, let them stand up." And this thing is not relevant to expressions of speech, since speech has no recipient. And that which is written, "By the word (<i>devar</i>) of the Lord the heavens were made," means to say that everything was created without strain or effort - as it is written (in the same verse), "by the breath of His mouth, all their host." And that is why it is not written, "And God spoke, 'Let there be the heavens.'" For an expression of speech cannot appear about this. And this explanation is choice.
+<b>"And couldn't it have been created by one utterance?:"</b> The language here is difficult. For if it came to say that it was possible to create it with one utterance but He created it with ten utterances - it should have said, "So why did He create it with ten utterances?" And also how is it pertinent to say that it was possible for it to be with one utterance, but He created it with ten utterances on account of the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked? For this is similar to a person that says, "I can build this house for a hundred dinar. Nevertheless, I will squander up to a thousand [dinar] upon it - so that if the house burns down, you will pay me a thousand." And is [one who burnt down the house] liable to pay a thousand, on account of his spending a thousand? And was he not able to have built it for a hundred? And the same is true in this matter: Since He could have created the world with one utterance but He created it with ten utterances, should the reward of the righteous, and the punishment of the wicked be [any] greater? Moreover, toil is not applicable to the Holy One, blessed be He; and God did not create His world with toil and effort. If so, what is the difference between one utterance and ten utterances?
+And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained (Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 5:1) that it was possible to write [about] the whole creation with one utterance, and not to write ten utterances. But also with this, [the wording,] "And couldn't it have been created by one utterance," does not come out properly. For it should have said, "And couldn't it have been written with one utterance?" Nor can the question be: "And was it not possible to create it with one utterance? And since it was possible to create it in one utterance, let it write one utterance - for certainly if it was not possible to create it with one utterance, it would be necessary to write ten utterances; but since it would have been possible to create it with one utterance, why was it necessary to write ten utterances?" It is impossible to say this! For, if so, it would still be difficult: Since it was possible to create it with one utterance, why did He create it with ten? And if there is a reason that He created it with ten utterances - and not with one utterance - that would also be the reason that He wrote ten utterances. 
+<b>But it appears that this is its explanation:</b> "With ten utterances, etc." - And since it said, "And what is learned," from that which it was created with ten utterances, it [was saying] about this, "But why is there something to learn? For what is difficult about it, such that you say there is something to learn from it?" And it said - "Couldn't it have been created by one utterance" - yet it was created with ten utterances. So it said that what is learned from that which it was created with ten utterances was that, "[it was] in order to punish the wicked, etc." But the explanation is not that this is why the Holy One, blessed be He, created it with ten utterances - though he could have created it with one utterance - in order to punish the wicked. And that is why it [expresses this question with the lengthier phrase], "And what is learned." As this is not asking about the creation, why it was created with ten utterances; but it is rather asking, what is learned from it - answering that what is to be learned is, "to punish the wicked [etc.]." And the reason it did not say, "to teach you to punish the wicked," is because, "to teach you," is only said about a verse that is [itself] coming to teach. Then, it is applicable to say, "to teach you." Whereas here, since it says, "And what is learned" - meaning to say, what can you [yourself] learn from this - it is not applicable to say, "to teach you." Such that this is what it is saying: What do you learn from that which it was created with ten utterances? And it [answered], it is this thing that you learn - "to punish the wicked [etc.]." And the explanation of this is that if it had been created with one utterance, the world's value would not have been imbued with as much significance as it is now - since it was created with ten statements, which is important, as will be explained.    
+And you should know that that which the world was created with ten utterances, and not one, indicates that this world has a supreme value; and that the Divine Presence of God, may He be blessed, is in this world. And the number ten indicates this, for the Divine Presence is always [present] with ten, and never less than ten - as we explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 3:6) regarding, "when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah," that the Divine Presence is [present] with ten. As from this, you know that the number ten receives the glory of the Divine Presence, for ten contains holiness. And therefore if the world had been created with one utterance, the world would not have had this supreme value. But now that the world was created with ten utterances, the world has a supreme holy value.  For we have already explained (Derekh Chayim 3:6) that ten contains holiness, since every thing that is a matter of holiness (in prayer) requires ten.
+And it is all hinted to in that which is written (Isaiah 26:4), "for in <i>Yod-hey</i>, the Lord, you have an everlasting Rock": The world to come was created with a <i>yod</i>, since the numerical equivalent of <i>yod</i> is ten. As the number ten is applicable to everything that has holy value. Hence the Divine Presence is with this number. However this world was created with a <i>hey</i>. For the <i>hey</i> is built from two parts, to hint that this world has two qualities: It is a physical world, but a supreme holy value nevertheless cleaves to it. As the <i>hey</i> is a <i>dalet</i>; but within the <i>dalet</i>, there is a <i>yod</i>.
+And one should know that the <i>dalet</i> indicates width and length, in that the form of the <i>dalet</i> is a line that extends horizontally and a line that extends vertically - and that is width and length. And this thing indicates the expansion of a surface horizontally and vertically. And we have explained this thing in several places in the book, Gevurot Hashem - that the <i>dalet</i> indicates the expansion of a surface horizontally and vertically, which is the beginning of this physical world, as it is explained adjacently (in the next paragraph) regarding the expansion of this world. And there is a dot that is within the <i>dalet</i>, from which it becomes the letter <i>hey</i>. But the dot, which is the <i>yod</i>, is separated from the <i>dalet</i>, to the point that the <i>hey</i> has two parts, a <i>dalet</i> as well as a <i>yod</i>. [The <i>dalet</i>] indicates the beginning of physical expansion, whereas the <i>yod</i> indicates that this world receives supreme transcendent value, such that this world in not completely and totally physical. |And that is why the <i>yod</i> is within the <i>dalet</i> and the <i>dalet</i> takes in the <i>yod</i>. However the <i>yod</i> is not touching, since something transcendent cannot be mixed with the physical. And so the <i>yod</i> is separated from the <i>dalet</i>, and does not touch [it]. And, accordingly, the world to come was created with a <i>yod</i>. And this explanation is choice. And that is why the world was created specifically with ten utterances. For if it were not to have been created with ten utterances, it would have been on a lower level. But now that it has been created with ten utterances, it indicates the supreme holy value possessed by the world. And that is why it says that from that which the world was created with ten utterances - therefore the wicked, who destroy the world that possesses a level of holiness, will have to give an accounting for it. And that is why the reward of the righteous for sustaining the world that was created with ten utterances - indicating that there is supreme holy level to the world - will be very great. 
+And also know that that which the world was created with ten utterances is something that indicates the value of the world and its perfection. For the content of the number ten has already been explained to you at length in the chapter [entitled] Akavia (Derekh Chayim 3:6, 13). And there you can see how to understand the value of ten - as it is explained there. And from that, you will know to understand these things - that it is appropriate for this world to be created with ten utterances: For this world is created from God, may He be blessed, who is One (Deuteronomy 6:4). And hence it is impossible for His effect to not also be one. For every effect is similar to its cause, as we have explained this matter in many places. And therefore it is necessary that the effect - which is the world - be one. Its second aspect comes from multiplicity, which is appropriate for the world to have in terms of itself, meaning the effect itself. As it is impossible for the world not to have an aspect that is also from itself. And that aspect is multiplicity, since only God, may He be blessed, is One. And the multiplicity is the parts of the world; and they are called the individual parts. And it is appropriate that they be nine, since that is all of the [possible] parts - as this matter is explained earlier, in the chapter [entitled] Akavia (Derekh Chayim 3:13 - there Maharal explains that the origin, the width and breadth all have the three aspects of beginning, middle and end, making for a total of nine). Such that there is unity to the effect from the angle of the cause which is one, but it has multiplicity from the angle of the effect itself - since it expands (multiplies), as was explained above. The illustration for this is a tree, since it has many different branches, but they are [still] parts of the tree. The tree has one trunk that connects and unifies all of the parts. And this aspect is from the effects coming from the cause, which is one; and so there is also unity to the effects. But the other aspect is from the angle of the effects [themselves]; since the effects are not unified from themselves, but rather multiple - such that [in total] there are ten here. And hence it is appropriate for the number to be ten; since the only complete number is ten, as is explained earlier - see there. And hence the world was created with ten utterances, as it is appropriate for an effect that has an aspect from the angle of the effect itself, and another aspect from the angle of the cause. And the aspect that is from the angle of itself is multiplicity, which is nine; whereas the angle of the cause is the tenth, corresponding to the cause [itself]. So note that the ten utterances with which the world was created are an indication of the world's perfection, and that the world can receive holiness from God, may He be blessed - as is appropriate for the number ten. 
+And you can understand from this that there are nine [cases of], "And He said"; and the tenth is "In the beginning," which includes everything - corresponding to the tenth, which connects and unifies all of the parts; and the potential of everything is in it. And that is why you will find nine [cases of], "And He said" in the verses. For, "And He said," appears about something specific, as explained above (Paragraph 3). And the tenth utterance is, "In the beginning," which includes everything, as explained above. For that is why, "And He said," was not said about this, for the heavens and the earth includes everything, as we explained above. And so, "In the beginning," corresponds to the tenth, which is what connects everything and includes everything. And it corresponds to the aspect that is from the angle of the cause; and that is God, may He blessed - who is One, that includes everything. And hence they said that everything was created on the first day - and see the chapter [entitled] Akavia (Derekh Chayim 3:13). From that, you will understand that the tenth has the potential for everything, and it is the foundation and beginning of everything. And hence it is not written, "And He said," on the first day, as everything was created on the first day. And this is the value of a world that was created with ten utterances.
+<b>And that which</b> the questioner [in the mishnah] does not ask, "Couldn't He have created the world without any utterance at all - as behold, 'In the beginning,' is an utterance, yet it is not an utterance at all" - this matter is not difficult. For the intention [of the question that was asked] is only that it was not necessary to create each and every creation on its own, but [it could have] rather all [been created] together. But certainly the heavens and the earth were also created from God's decree, may He be blessed. And that is the meaning of that which [the Gemara] (Megillah 21b) answered, "'In the beginning' (Genesis 1:1) is also an utterance," as above (Paragraph 2). 
+<b>And that which it said, "Rather, [it was] in order to punish the wicked":</b> We have already explained (Paragraph 6) that the explanation is not that this is why the world was created with ten utterances - in order to punish the wicked. As there is no rationale at all to say that this is why the world was created with ten utterances - in order to punish the wicked. Rather we said that we can learn from this - since the world was created with ten utterances, yet it was possible for it to be created with one utterance, though the world would not have such a supreme holy level: From that which it was created with ten utterances, it is learned that God, may He blessed, punishes the wicked greatly. For they destroy the world that was created with ten utterances. And He [likewise] gives a great reward to the righteous who sustain the world that was created with ten utterances. And accordingly, that which it said after this (Avot 5:2), "to demonstrate the great extent of [God's] patience" - the understanding is not that this is why the ten generations existed - to demonstrate this thing. Rather that which there were ten generations from Adam to Noach makes us know that He, may He be blessed, is patient. And I have explained more [about this] in another place (Netivot Olam, Netiv HaTorah 1).
+<b>And you can also know to understand it</b> - that from the angle of God, may He be blessed, who is One, it would have been appropriate to create the world with one utterance - since He, may He be blessed is One. It is just that since the world is fragmented - from the angle of the recipient which is the world - it was created with ten utterances. [This is] according to the nature of the recipient, since it is divided into parts. And that is why it said, "couldn't it have been created by one utterance?" But if so, [this is the] difficulty: If from the angle of God, may He blessed, it could have been created with one utterance - if so, why did He write ten utterances; "and what is learned," from that which He wrote ten utterances. And even though from the angle of the world - the recipient - it was appropriate that it be created with ten utterances; nevertheless from the angle of God, may He be blessed, it certainly could have been created with one utterance. And it should not be asked - at the end of the day, the world was created with ten utterances from the angle of the recipient!?! For the speech of the Lord is 'like a hammer that explodes a rock' - it divides into parts. Hence even if He had written one utterance, that utterance would be divided into several [parts]. And that is why it asks, "couldn't it have been created by one utterance?" And it answers about this, "in order to punish the wicked, etc."
+And this is shown in Bereshit Rabbah (Bereshit Rabbah 10:9) and this is [what it says]: "'And He rested from all of His work' (Genesis 2:3) - the Holy One, blessed be He did not create His world with toil and effort [...]. Rather it was in order to punish the wicked that destroy the world that was created with toil and effort." And it is difficult: At first, it said that the world was created without toil and effort; and afterwards it said, "that was created with toil and effort!" However this is its explanation: There was no toil and effort from the angle of God, may He be blessed; but the toil and effort were rather from the angle of the recipient, such that it was only created in a continuum of time, and also with ten utterances - and that is with toil and labor. For that which God, may He be blessed, caused the world [to exist] in time was not from the angle of the Cause. For He, may He be blessed, can cause everything without a time continuum at all. Rather he needed a time continuum for the recipient. For how is it possible for the ground to receive its creation and the sprouting of the plants together? So the order of the creation is like this: The ground [that is first created] sprouts plants; and so too with all things. And hence was there a need for a time continuum for the creation of the world. So just like the time of the creation was from the angle of the recipient, so too was rest and the cessation [of work] from the angle of the recipient - since the recipient would be tired and worn by receiving it all at once. And rest on the seventh day was for this thing. And that is why it said, "in order to punish the wicked that destroy the world that was created with toil and effort." Since at the end of the day, the world was created in a time continuum and with ten utterances. And that is why the evil who destroy the world will have to give an accounting in the future.  
+And that is the same as that which we have learned, "With ten utterances the world was created. And couldn't it have been created with one utterance?" And the understanding of this is like we have said. Since from the angle of the Cause, it was certainly possible that it be created without a time continuum and without ten utterances. And if it was created with ten utterances, this was from the angle of the recipient, as was explained. But, if so, why did He write ten utterances, as if He, God forbid, could only have created it with ten utterances. And it should not have written ten utterances, since the verse mentions the Cause - God, may He be blessed. And from the angle of God, may He be blessed, He could have created it with one statement. And it answers that this is why it was written with ten utterances: To make known that, at the end of the day, the world was created with ten utterances from the angle of the recipient. And through this, it teaches you that there is a great punishment for the wicked who destroy the world, since they destroy the world that was created with ten utterances; and that He will give a goodly reward to the righteous who sustain the world that was created with ten utterances. Since one's punishment is according to the level and value of the thing that he destroys. And likewise is one's reward according to the level and value of the thing that he sustains. And this thing is clear. And this explanation is also correct; and it is [all] one matter.
+<b>And it also appears</b> that what it said, "in order to punish the wicked, etc.," does not mean to say, to punish [them] more because the world was created with ten utterances, such that they bring great destruction to the world. Rather its explanation is that if the world was created with one utterance - since the world would not have been on a supreme level of significance - there would not have been a punishment [at all] here. An illustration of this is that one who kills or destroys an animal does not [receive] a punishment; whereas one who kills a person - who is created in the image of God - is liable for death, since there is a divine quality to man. And that is the meaning of what they said here - it was because the world was created with ten utterances. And we have already discussed the idea of the number ten, which indicates that the world has a supreme divine value. As this is what the number ten indicates; and that the world is not completely physical. [As had it been completely physical,] there would be no reward or punishment. And hence He punishes the wicked who destroy the world; and gives the righteous who sustain the world a goodly reward. And without this - that it was created with ten utterances - there would not have been punishment or reward here. Such is the explanation of this mishnah. And everything is explained well. 
+And regarding that which [some commentators] asked - what is the difference between one who steals one dinar or ten dinar: There is certainly no substance to this [question]. For what is created in ten utterances is on a supreme divine level. And there is certainly a difference between one who steals a coin and one who steals the king's crown! And all the more so according to that which we said (in the previous paragraph) that if it had not been created with ten utterances, there would not have been punishment or reward at all. And this is the true  understanding. For what causes the reward and punishment is that it was created with ten utterances.
+And likewise regarding that which they asked about this mishnah - how is it possible that it be created with one utterance; and does the difference in the creations not bring multiple utterances, since everything needs an utterance for itself: This is certainly not a question. For we have already explained that the intention is not that the creation would [still] be on such a level as it is now [had it been created with one utterance]. So [had it been created with one utterance,] the creations would have been very similar to each other and related to one another, as they would [all] be inclined towards physicality - which is one. For all the different creations are of one substance. Even though they said that the heavens are [made] of special material, they are nevertheless the same, in that they are physical. And [the mishnah] is only coming to make known that if the world was not on a divine level, the world would have been created with one utterance. And regarding that which they asked - since the world was created over different days, there would have been a need for multiple utterances: All of this is nothing. For the explanation is that the world would then have been created with one utterance. And since it would not have been in the same [amount of] time and in the same fashion as when it was created with ten utterances - at the end of the day, the creation of the world would have been possible with one utterance. 
+And that which it was created with ten utterances indicates its supreme level. And the understanding is not that it is because of the strain and the toil of the Holy One, blessed be He, given that He created it with ten utterances. The thing is not like this. Rather it is as we have said: That that which it was created with ten utterances indicates the elevation of the world and its level, as has been explained. And even as they explained that the world was created with toil and effort, the toil and effort are not from the Holy One, blessed be. Rather it is as I explained - that the toil and effort is from the angle of the world, which is the recipient. And this explanation is choice in order to understand this mishnah.
+<b>"Who destroy the world":</b> It may be asked, how is it possible that the wicked destroy all ten utterances - how do they destroy the sun, the moon, the stars and the constellations? But this is not difficult. For the wicked transgress commandments that the world is dependent upon. For the world is dependent upon man, since everything was created for his sake. And man is not able to be without commandments; for without commandments, man is void. So we find at the beginning when man was created, he was commanded seven commandments. Such that you see from here that the seven commandments that Noachides are commanded  (Sanhedrin 56a) are relevant to creation. As the day he was created, he was commanded the seven commandments on that same day. And we have already explained in its place (Tiferet Yisrael 16) that the idea of these commandments are related to his creation. For the commandments are [the tool for] man's refinement, through which he becomes man. Hence man was immediately commanded. And just like the seven commandments relate to the Noachides, since they are [the tool of] man's perfection; so too are the 613 commandments, the perfection of the Jews - upon whom the world is dependent. And were there not to be commandments, the world would be void.
+And hence the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 88a), "He added a <i>hey</i> to the sixth day (the definite article, which does not appear with any of the other days of creation), because He made a condition with the acts of creation: If Israel accepts the Torah on the sixth day of Sivan, it is good; but if not, they will return to chaos and void." For the Torah is the [tool for the] perfection of creation, since all of the creations are dependent upon man, as all of them serve him. And it is like it is shown in [the chapter entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 108a). As there, they said, "If man sinned during the generation of the flood, in what way did the domesticated animals, the wild animals and the birds sin? Rather since the whole world was created for man - if there is no man, what is the need for these?" And the perfection of man is through the Torah, as has been explained. And therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, made a condition with the acts of creation. For if there is no Torah, the Jews are void. And if there are no Jews, the creation would not be appropriate for other people. And if there is no man, what is the reason for the rest of the creations? And this is explained above (Derekh Chayim 1:2). And hence the wicked that transgress the Torah destroy the whole world that was created with ten utterances; whereas the righteous sustain the world that was created with ten utterances. 
+And we cannot ask - even if the wicked destroy the world that was created with ten utterances, are there not righteous people besides them that sustain it; so behold the world is not destroyed!?! At the end of the day, since the world receives destruction from the angle of this evil one, he has the status of someone who destroys the world. For he destroys the world that is with him. And it has already been explained regarding, "Pray for the welfare of the government" (Derekh Chayim 3:2) that the world was created for each and every individual - as it is explained over there. And this is something understood.
+<b>To give a goodly reward to the righteous:</b> And it did not say, "To repay the righteous a goodly reward," as it said with the wicked - because such an expression, "repay," would not be respectful [here]. For it implies that God, may He be blessed, has a debt that He needs to repay. Since even if [a man] serves his Creator - that which God, may He be blessed, repays him is not in the way of a debt. Rather it is only from the kindnesses of the Omnipresent. For there is no debt that a creature can claim from its creator, such that God, may He be blessed, should repay [the righteous man]. Rather it is only from the kindnesses of the Omnipresent. And we have explained this in several places. And hence it says, "to give a reward." For God, may He be blessed, gives the reward by way of grace - which is exclusively kindness, and not repayment. And so did the verse (Deuteronomy 7:9-10) say, "who keeps the covenant and kindness with those who love Him [...]. And repays them that hate Him to their face." For, "repays," is applicable for evil, such that the repayment is certainly from the attribute of justice. But the giving of reward is not from the attribute of justice.  
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<i>There were ten generations from Adam to Noach, to demonstrate the great extent of [God's] patience, for each one of those generations provoked [God] continually until [God] brought the waters of the flood upon them. There were ten generations from Noach to Avraham, to demonstrate the great extent of [God's] patience, for each one of those generations provoked [God] continually, until Avraham came and received the reward of them all.</i>
+<b>There were ten generations, etc.:</b> The explanation is: From the first Adam until Noach - and Adam and Noach were also included in the ten generations. And this is dissimilar to that which it said afterwards, "There were ten generations from Noach to Avraham," as Noach was not included in [those] ten generations. As this is the way of the teacher: Since he said, "ten generations [...] to Noach," he [then] said, "There were ten generations from Noach" - that is, from the generation after Noach. However later (Paragraph 15), it will be explained further why it said, "from Noach to Avraham," even though Noach was not included in the ten. And that which it said, "to demonstrate," means to say: This thing - that they were ten generations - demonstrates to us the great patience of God, may He be blessed. But it is [also] possible to say that that which the teacher said, "to demonstrate," is [referring to] it being written in the Torah, and this is its explanation: Scripture recounts ten generations from Adam to Noach (Genesis 5). But why did it need to recount these generations? It was "to demonstrate." And likewise, the ten generations that Scripture recounts from Noach to Avraham (Genesis 11). However we cannot explain that which it says afterwards (Avot 5:3), "With ten tests Abraham, our father, was tested," like this. Yet it is [actually] possible that its explanation is also that it is for this that the tests were written in the Torah. As [on some level,] they are all written in the Torah. And [regarding] that which he was thrown into a fiery furnace - even though it was not written explicitly, it was nevertheless hinted to by that which it stated (Genesis  15:7), "I am the Lord who took you out of Ur (which can mean the fire] of the Chaldeans."
+<b>And we can ask,</b> why is it that He was patient in the generations of Noach and Avraham specifically for ten generations - no less and no more? We have already explained above (Derekh Chayim 3:6, 13) that there is no number that is above ten. And from this you will know that every number within ten has its own difference and aspect, as is explained earlier very well. And therefore God, may He be blessed, was patient for ten generations. For until ten generations, we can say that perhaps this generation - which is a unique generation - will be a righteous one. And likewise with each and every one of the ten generations. And Hence God, may He be blessed, had patience for ten generations on the possibility that this generation would be a righteous one. And we have already said that after the number ten, it completely returns to the beginning, and there is no [further] variation. And therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, did not have patience for all generations, once the wicked got to the number ten. For until that number, there are different numbers; as two is a different number than one, and likewise three and likewise four, up until ten - but not more. For behold after ten, the count begins, as at first, eleven (which in Hebrew is one [and] ten). And since there was no change in these generations - which were ten, such that it would be appropriate for there to be a change - all the more so would there not be a change from then on. For the number goes back as at first, such that the world is already destroyed. And hence the Holy One, blessed be He punished the wicked and destroyed them from the world. And likewise that which the Holy One, blessed be He, had patience for the generations from Noach until Avraham is also on account of this very thing - that the Holy One, blessed be He would be patient for ten generations on the possibility that a generation would be found that would be different from the earlier ones. But this is up to ten generations; since from then and on, it [just] goes back to its beginning.
+And because of this, it placed this after it said, "With ten utterances the world was created." For it said that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world with ten utterances so that none of the divisions be missing in the world, such that it would be completely perfect. And hence the world was created with ten utterances, such that it include everything. And for this very reason did the Holy One, blessed be He, test Avraham with ten tests (Avot 5:3) - so that Avraham would be tested with all of the different types of tests. For sometimes one faces a particular test, but does not face another test. But the Holy One, blessed be He, tested Avraham with all the categories of tests. For the different categories reach ten, and no more. For after ten, it returns to one. And in this way, he was tested with all tests. And likewise, "Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt" (Avot 5:4), because the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to do miracles for them in all of the categories. For not all miracles are the same; and God, may He be blessed, wanted to do miracles from all the categories, which come to ten. And the miracles that were done for Israel were the plagues with which the Holy One, blessed be He, smote Egypt - as He wanted to smite Egypt with all the types of plagues. And it is like the Philistines said when a plague came to them, "(Is this not) the God that struck Egypt with every plague" (I Samuel 4:8) - meaning to say that all the types of plagues came to them. And it is explained in its place (Gevurot Hashem 34, et. al.) how these plagues included all the plagues. And likewise with the ten miracles at the sea (Avot 5:4), such that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to do miracles for the Jews with all the different types of miracles. As differentiation [only] reaches ten. And likewise, "ten trials did our ancestors test the Omnipresent" (Avot 5:4), was also that they tried the Holy One, blessed be He, from every angle and with all types of trials with which it is possible to test the Omnipresent. And that is why there were ten trials. And likewise, "Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in the Temple" (Avot 5:5), is also this [idea]: That these ten miracles that were performed for our forefathers in the Temple were all of the miracles. For all the types of miracles are included in ten. And that is why the teacher organized these mishnahs, one after the other, in order. Yet certainly the mishnah (Avot 5:6) of, "Ten things were created on the eve of the [first] Shabbat at twilight," should have been been ordered in its place (after the first mishnah, in chronological order). For there is no doubt that this mishnah of, "Ten things were created on the eve of the [first] Shabbat at twilight," is coming to say that there were ten different thing that were created at twilight, such that these ten also include all the categories, as is explained adjacently (Derekh Chayim 5:6). And it appears that we can [answer that] it is because there is a disagreement in that mishnah, whether we add to [the ten]. And hence he taught together all of the mishnahs that did not have a disagreement about them; and afterward taught the mishnah that had a disagreement about it.
+However it appears that it is not a question to begin with. For the teacher arranged the order according to the creation. And that is why he started with, "With ten utterances the world was created" - that is the beginning of creation. And then, "There were ten generations from Adam to Noach," and likewise, "There were ten generations from Noach to Avraham," is all the continuation of the order of the world. And likewise, "With ten tests Avraham, our father, was tested," was from the continuation of the order of the world. And likewise, "Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten miracles were performed at the [Reed] Sea," is all from what was the continuation of the order of the world. And likewise, "[With] ten trials did our ancestors test the Omnipresent [in the Wilderness]," and likewise, "Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in the Temple" - all these things were what occurred, happened and was novel according to the progression of the order of the world that the Holy One, blessed be He, created. But, "Ten things were created on the eve of the [first] Shabbat at twilight," is a creation of that which departs from the order of the world. So this is not the order of the world, and it is not called by the name, creation. And that is why it said that they were created at twilight, as they were not considered matters of this world which were created in the six days of creation, as will be explained (Derekh Chayim 5:6). For all of these ten things are not from this world, but are rather separated from the world. And hence, he counted them last, since they are not connected to the world. And they are dissimilar to the other miracles; as even though a miracle is not a matter of the world, since they are not natural - nevertheless they are only temporary. And that is not called departing from the order of the world. But the things that were created at twilight were not temporary. Rather they were created from the beginning of creation, just like that which was created during the six days of creation. So these things departed from the order of the world; and it is as if they are a world of their own - since they are not connected to the world. And hence he placed them last. 
+And know also that all these mishnahs came after that which it said that the world was created with ten utterances (Avot 5:1). And we have already explained that the world was created with ten utterances, which indicates that [the world] cleaved to the world of supreme divine value, which the number ten indicates. And exactly the same is [the basis for] which God, may He be blessed, was patient for ten generations; it was because of the supreme value possessed by the world. Corresponding to this - one should be patient, not to destroy it quickly. And that is why He was patient with them for ten generations. And likewise, that which it said (Avot 5:3), "With ten tests Avraham, our father, was tested," was all because Avraham possessed this supreme level, as will be explained. And likewise, "Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten miracles were performed at the [Reed] Sea" (Avot 5:4); and likewise, "[With] ten trials did our ancestors test the Omnipresent [in the Wilderness]" (Avot 5:4) - all of it follows from this thing, that He created the world with ten utterances. And likewise [regarding], "Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in the Temple" (Avot 5:5), as will be explained.
+<b>It may be asked:</b> [Regarding] that which it said, "There were ten generations from Noach to Avraham, [to demonstrate the great extent of [God's] patience]" - behold this can already be learned from the ten generations from Adam to Noach. So why is more required? And it is also difficult, [regarding] that which it says, "until Avraham came and received the reward of them all" - from where [do we know] that he received the reward of them all? And why did Avraham receive the reward of them all?
+However the explanation of this thing is that the patience of the Holy One, blessed be He, is divided into two categories: The first is that He is patient not to destroy - like He did in the generation of the flood, when He destroyed everything. And the second is that He is patient on account of the righteous, as was the case with the ten generations from Noach to Avraham, when He was patient on account of Avraham, who would be born. And so there are two [types of] patience, since they are dissimilar: The patience from Adam to Noach, not to destroy; as opposed to the patience from Noach to Avraham, such that Avraham would be born and receive the reward of them all. And because of this righteous person, He was patient and did not bring any punishments.
+And [regarding] that which it said that Avraham received the reward of them all, that is a very deep matter. It is because these generations that were from Noach to Avraham were all of futility and chaos. They had no existence, but were rather all considered chaos. And it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 9a), "Two thousand years of chaos" - that is, until Avraham arrived, such that Avraham was the beginning and head of creation. And because of this, that Avraham was the beginning, he was considered to exist more than all the people of the world - because he was the beginning. And the beginning is the essence of existence and the essence of the world. Whereas the generations before Avraham were the opposite of Avraham. For all of those generations did not have any substance to them, while Avraham was the foundation and the essence of the whole world. And because of this, he received the reward of them all; for the opposite of something receives that which is across from it. And so if fire and water - which are opposites - were produced from something that was (hot) [dry] and wet, the fire would certainly draw the dry part from the part of the object that would have gone to the water; and the water would draw the wetness from the part of the object that would have gone to the fire. And therefore since Avraham and [these] generations were opposites - and [the latter] were ten generations altogether, such that they were a complete unit - and these generations angered Him; hence Avraham received the reward of all ten generations, whereas all of the generations were [just] chaos. But regarding Noach, he did not have this virtue, to be the beginning of existence, as did Avraham. So it is not applicable to say about him that he received the reward of them all.
+And on account of this, we can answer why destruction did not come to the generation that was in the days of Avraham: For behold, Noach was not able to save his generation, since there were not ten people in his generation who were righteous. And therefore Avraham did not pray for Sodom [based on] less than ten [righteous people. Yet] here it is implied that all of the generations were angering [Him]. So how was the world able to survive? Because Avraham was different. Since he received the reward of them all, he was considered as if there were ten generations of righteous people here, since he stood in the place of the righteous people. And hence there was existence for the world. But regarding Noach, who did not receive the reward of them all - he therefore did not stand in the place of all of them. And this is correct.
+<b>It may be asked:</b> Why were specifically the generations from the beginning of the creation such sinners? For these generations from Adam to Noach were specifically from the beginning of creation. And you should know from the things that we explained above, regarding, "Anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom," (Derekh Chayim 3:17), that everything follows after the body of a person, which is considered his foundation and essence. And when this foundation is according to what it is appropriate for it to be - removed from smallness - he subsequently increases and rises higher and higher, until he acquires the supreme level. And this thing is similar to the strong root of a tree, such that it grows and rises higher and higher. But when [a person's] growth is not from the angle of the root, but rather that the essence of his value is from the angle that he receives supreme value, but the value is not from the root - this thing is not considered a value. And usually, he comes to a complete loss, as is explained above (Derekh Chayim 3:17). For it is similar to a tree, the branches of which are greater than its roots, such that there is no existence and duration to this tree. And just the opposite, when the branches are more than the root, it is destroyed and corrupted - since the branches are more than the root. As it is necessary that the root and the foundation correspond to the branches of the tree.
+And on account of this you will understand these things. It is because the first Adam was created with the image of God (Genesis 1:27), such that He received a supreme level. And likewise all of the generations from Adam to Noach were close to this supreme level. But they did not have, for this great level that they possessed, a foundation that accorded to the weight of this stature. And hence they were similar to a tree whose branches are greater than its roots, such that this surplus is a lack, as we have explained. And you should understand that each of these three (Adam, Noach and Avraham) had his own specific level. And you will find that regarding the first Adam, he had the image of God, as it is explained earlier about the matter of the level of this image. And below this level is the level of the form, which is not the image. Rather the identity of the form is that which allows man to be a living speaking man. And below this level is man's body. These are the three levels. And [the problem] was that Adam had the level of this image, which is the image of God with which Adam was created - and as the Sages recounted about him, about the light of the first Adam - but Adam did not have the foundation and root for this stature. And that is certainly a lack, like when the branches are greater than the root. And hence [this] lack was attached to the first Adam and his generations.
+And afterwards, Noach had the level of the form. And this is understandable, since that is why Noach was called (Genesis 9:20), "a man (<i>eesh</i>) of the land." As we have explained in a different place, that a man (as opposed to a woman) is the form. And Noach is called, "a man of the land," since land is physical, and he is a man of the land (the form that shapes the physical substance). And he too did not have a complete foundation and root for this level; and all the more so, his ten generations. And the lessening and lack followed from this.
+And Avraham was afterwards; and he possessed the level of the body completely. So the numerical value of Avraham is 248, which corresponds to the 248 limbs in a man. And it is as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 32b) that the Holy One, blessed be He crowned him upon the 248 limbs; and so He gave him circumcision (Genesis 17:10) on the human body. And this is the supreme stature. For once man is complete from the angle of his physical body - which is considered his foundation and essence - he can then receive the level of the form with completeness, which is like an extension of the completeness of his body. And [then] he receives his majesty, which is the divine image, according to the supreme level that is appropriate for it. And then the spiritual level rides atop the physical. For Avraham would ride on the donkey (<i>chamor</i>, which here, however, is being used as an allusion to <i>chomer</i>, physicality) - as will be explained in this chapter (Derekh Chayim 5:19), with God's help, may He be blessed - and he would continuously rise higher. So Avraham was the opposite of all the earlier generations. For Avraham was similar to a tree, the roots of which were greater than its branches; whereas the other generations were similar to a tree the branches of which were greater than its roots. And hence Avraham was the foundation of the whole world - it was all because his roots were great.  
+And because of this, you will know how to understand that which it said here - that there were ten generations from Adam to Noach, and ten generations from Noach to Avraham. For each one had a supreme level of his own, which grouped ten generations. And Noach was included in the ten generations of Adam, but Avraham was not included in the ten generations of Noach. And that is because Adam possessed the level of the image, and Noach the level of the form - and these are connected to one another. And that is why Noach was included in the ten [from Adam]. But Avraham's level was completely separate. So he was not included in the ten generations from Noach to Avraham. However since these levels - meaning the image of God in Adam, the level of the form which Noach possessed and the level of completeness and the level of the body which Avraham possessed - are found in every person, the teacher used this language: "There were ten generations from Adam to Noach [… and] there were ten generations from Noach to Avraham." As this language connects the three of them together, even though [the two groups] are not similar: For, "from Adam to Noach," includes Noach in the ten generations, whereas, "from Noach to Avraham," does not include Avraham with the ten generations. 
+And because of this, we can understand why all ten generations from Adam to Noach angered God, may He be blessed; and likewise, the generations from Noach to Avraham. It was because the ten generations from Adam to Noach, which was the level of the image of God, did not have the foundation for this level, as was explained above; and a lack followed from this. And likewise the ten generations from Noach to Avraham - it was because those ten generations had the level of the form, but did not have a foundation appropriate for this level. Hence their being close to creation is exactly what caused them their lack. And these things are very choice and they are secrets of wisdom. However it is impossible to be lengthy about it. Instead we have only opened a door to wisdom. Yet do not have a doubt about these true things.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<i>With ten tests Avraham, our father, was tested - and he withstood them all; in order to show how great was the love of Avraham, our father - peace be upon him.</i>
+<b>With ten tests Abraham, our father, was tested, etc.":</b> It may be asked why Avraham was tested more than Yitzchak and Yaakov. And even if we find that Yitzchak and Yaakov were also tested - as is found in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 107a, 111a) - we have nevertheless only found it explicitly with Avraham. And another difficulty - what is the content of the test? He, may He be blessed, knows everything - why would He need to test the righteous one?
+You should know that a test with which the Holy One, blessed be He, tests a righteous person - is in order that the actualization of his righteousness be revealed, such that he not be a hidden righteous person. And Avraham was only fit for all of the virtues that God, may He be blessed, gave to him when his righteousness was actualized. And that is why it says with the test (Genesis 22:1), "and God tested Avraham"; and it was not written, "and the Lord tested Avraham" (the first appellation being associated with strict justice and the second with mercy). For the test was that, God, may He be blessed, wanted the knowledge of the righteousness of Avraham to be with the attribute of justice, and not with the attribute of mercy. And knowledge with the attribute of justice is only when its actualization is completely revealed. And then the knowledge of his righteousness is with the attribute of justice; and it is certainly a good thing for him when the knowledge of his righteousness is with the attribute of justice.
+And that is the meaning of that which is stated (Genesis 22:112), "for now I know that you fear God." Its explanation is, "now I know" - completely with the attribute of justice - "that you fear God." And that is the meaning of their saying in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 56:7) - and Rashi, may his memory be blessed, cites it in his commentary on the Pentateuch (Rashi on Genesis 22:12) - "to reply to Satan and to the nations of the world, who prosecute against you, 'What is the love that I bear you?'" They mentioned Satan and the nations of the world, because God, may He be blessed, destroys the nations before Avraham. Therefore, Satan and the nations prosecute with the attribute of justice [and say], "What is this thing, to destroy the nations before Avraham" - and they prosecute with the attribute of justice. And through the test, there is what to answer with the attribute of justice. For a test makes something's actualization completely revealed. And something that is completely actualized provides an answer even for the attribute of strict justice. 
+And since the essence of [a] test is to bring the righteousness of the righteous to revealed actualization, it was specifically Avraham who was appropriate for a test. As the generation he was in was complete chaos and darkness, such that they had no existence. And He, may He be blessed, wanted that Avraham be the beginning of the light of existence in the world. And with Avraham's being tested with ten tests, and his righteousness completely actualized, Avraham became the light of existence. And hence it was specifically Avraham that was tested with ten tests. For since Avraham had a connection with the generations that were all darkness and not light, God, may He be blessed, wanted to separate between them - such that Avraham's light of existence be actualized. That is why he was tested.
+And accordingly, they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 95:8), "'And God tested Avraham' (Genesis 22:1) - this is the meaning of that which the verse said (Psalms 60:6), 'You have given a banner to those who fear You, that it may be displayed forever': 'A banner that it may be displayed (<i>lehitnoses</i>)' - to raise them (<i>lenasotam</i>) in this world like the standard of a ship. And why so much? 'Because of  the truth (<i>koshet</i>) forever' - so that the attribute of justice may be justified (<i>titkashet</i>) in the world. Thus, if one says, 'Whom God wishes to enrich, God enriches; to impoverish, God impoverishes; whom God desires, God makes into a king; when God wished, God made Avraham wealthy, and when God wished, God made him a king!' Then you can answer that person and say, 'Can you do what Avraham, our father, did? Avraham was a hundred years old, when his son, Yitzchak, was born to him (Genesis 21:5); yet after all this pain, it was said to him, "Take, please, your son, your only son" (Genesis 22:2), but he did not refuse.' This is, 'The Lord examines the righteous man, but loathes the wicked one who loves injustice' (Psalms 11:5). A potter does not strike defective jugs, because he cannot give them a single blow without breaking them. Rather, he strikes strong jugs, for he will not break them even with many blows. When a flax worker [knows that his flax is good], each time he beats it, it improves. Similarly, the Holy One, Blessed, be He, only tests the righteous. When a man possesses two cows, one strong and the other weak, on which one does he put the yoke? Surely on the strong one. Similarly, the Holy One, Blessed, be He - He only tests the righteous." To here is the midrash. Behold you have it that the test for the righteous is because of the attribute of justice; such that his righteousness be with the attribute of justice. And hence his actualized righteousness will be completely revealed. So then his righteousness is with the attribute of justice. And this thing is understood.
+And the explanation of the midrash is that which the verse says - "The Lord examines the righteous person" (Psalms 11:5), which implies that the Holy One, blessed be He, only tests the righteous. And therefore it brought these metaphors [that show] that it is only appropriate to test a righteous person. For a test has three sides: The first is from the angle of the attribute of strict justice, such that his righteousness be completely activated, and not [just] be potential. And from this angle, it is appropriate  for the Holy One, blessed be He, to specifically test a righteous person - in order to bring his righteousness to actualization. For the wicked cannot hold up in [a test]. For even if he possesses a few righteous deeds, it is impossible for him to bring out more of his righteousness to actualization. And hence, it compares it to a potter who strikes jugs - he does not at all strike the ones that he knows will not hold up when he strikes them. Rather he strikes the ones that will possibly hold up and not break when he strikes them. So too, the Holy One, blessed be He, only tests the righteous, to bring out their righteousness to actualization - so that they be righteous according to the attribute of justice.
+And there is another [type of] test with which the Holy One, blessed be He, tests the righteous - that He brings, 'afflictions of love,' to cleanse him by way of the afflictions, to purify his soul. And these are that which are called, afflictions of love (Berakhot 5a). And this too is only applicable to the righteous, whose soul, God, may He be blessed, wants to cleanse - as is explained regarding the matter of 'afflictions of love,' in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaYissurin 1). Hence it brings a proof from the flax worker, who only pounds the flax that is good. And when he does strike it, it becomes white and shiny. So too, when afflictions come to the righteous person, his soul becomes clean and pure. And you should understand this metaphor, as it is a very glorious metaphor.
+And it brought yet another metaphor of someone with two cows because sometimes afflictions and a test come when God, may He be blessed, wants to bring harsh decrees to the world. [Instead] He brings them to the righteous person, such that he suffer the decree for the sake of the whole world. So did we find with Yechezkel (Ezekiel 4:4), "Then lie on your [left] (right) side, and [let it] bear the punishment of Israel, etc." And this is what is compared to the two cows, in which he places the yoke on the strong cow. So too when the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to bring the yoke of his decree on account of a sin that is in the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, brings it on the good ones, since they are able to hold up under His decree and His yoke, may He be blessed. Behold that the matter of the test that the Holy One, blessed be He, tested Avraham ten times, has been explained to you 
+<b>However according</b> to the Sages, may their memory be blessed, all of the forefathers were tested, as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 107a, 111a) - it is just that it was explicit with Avraham. And this is a magnificent thing. For the forefathers - in that they are forefathers - are not like other natural people. Rather they are spiritual people and that is why they were tested. For the term, test (<i>nesayon</i>), is always from the term, miracle (<i>nes</i>). For just as a miracle is not natural, so too is a test not natural. For if someone tested does not act in a way that is not natural , he is not able to hold up in the face of the test. For nature does not allow for a man to slaughter his son. And likewise is it for all of the tests. And therefore it is impossible for the forefathers not to have been tested - since they were not natural people, like other people. But had they behaved according to the way of nature, they would not have been appropriate for that supreme level.
+But Avraham - who was the beginning of the forefathers - was even more special than the other forefathers. For Avraham was above nature; meaning that Avraham would rise above the natural world. This is like the verse hinted with that which Avraham was riding on the donkey (Genesis 22:3); and, in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 30, [that] this donkey was created at twilight [at the end of the six days of creation]. And we explained in the book, Gevurot Hashem (Chapter 29), that this whole matter is that Avraham was riding upon the natural world. And this thing is explained further (Derekh Chayim 5:19) regarding, "Anyone who has these three things, etc." And therefore the test is written explicitly [specifically] with Avraham. For there was a need for him to act not according to nature. And that is why he merited this supreme level. 
+And David also had a certain aspect of this level, such that his behavior would be above nature - as is known about the level of David. And that is why He wanted him to be tested like the forefathers. But he did not withstand the test, as his trait was close to the behavior of the natural world, as is known to someone with wisdom and understanding about the level of David. And that is why he did not withstand the test. Nevertheless, because he had a certain [aspect] of it - such that he was not completely natural - he was tested. And these things are very magnificent [ideas] of wisdom. And nevertheless, see [from this] that tests are applicable specifically to the forefathers. For they are completely spiritual people that are not natural. Hence tests are applicable to them. And this thing is understood. 
+<b>And we have already explained</b> to you why there were ten tests - that with ten, you have [all] the different categories, such that one is not like the other. For there is someone who withstands this test, but does not withstand another. But with ten, he was tested with all tests. And this thing is understood. And also, just like the world was created with ten utterances because the world possesses a supreme separated level  indicated by the number ten; likewise was Avraham tested with specifically ten tests. For it is through these tests that Avraham was also made completely separate from nature. For this is the matter of a test, as has been explained (Paragraph 10). And likewise with all the mentions of the number ten; since they all come to explain this thing - as will be further explained (Derekh Chayim 5:4, 5). 
+And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, wrote the content of these ten tests in the name of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer (Chapters 26-30). And that is the correct [understanding], as we should not budge from the words of the received tradition. And this is his language: At first, Nimrod sought to kill him and he hid in the ground for thirteen years; than they threw him into the fiery furnace in Ur Casdim; [God] exiled him from his birthplace; the Holy One, blessed be He, brought famine in his days (Genesis 12:10); Sarah was taken to the house of Pharaoh (Genesis 12:15); the kings came and exiled Lot, his nephew (Genesis 14:12); between the pieces, [God] showed him the subjugation of the empires that would rule over his children (Genesis 15:13); He commanded him to circumcise himself and his son (Genesis 17:9); He told him to send away his son, Yishmael, with his mother (Genesis 21:12); and He told him to slaughter his son, Yitzchak (Genesis 22:2). To here is his language. 
+And it may not be asked about this, why Sarah being taken to the house of Avimelekh (Genesis 20:2) was not also counted. For according to what we have explained, it is not difficult. As we have said that the tests needed to be different, and that is why there were ten. But that which Sarah was taken to the house of Pharaoh and also to the house of Avimelekh is all one. So Avraham trusted that the Holy One, blessed be He, who saved her from the house of Pharaoh, would also save her from the house of Avimelekh. So this was not considered a test.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<i>Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten [miracles were performed] at the [Reed] Sea.</i> 
+<b>"Ten miracles, etc.":</b> These ten miracles that were performed for our ancestors in Egypt are the ten plagues that He brought for the sake of the Jews in order to take them out of the Land of Egypt. That is why the Holy One, blessed be He, brought the plagues upon them. And therefore the same plagues that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians are the miracles that were done for our ancestors, etc. And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed (here in the Commentary on the Mishnah) explained that the miracles that the Holy One, blessed be He, performed for our ancestors in Egypt are that the Jews were saved from the ten plagues that came upon the Egyptians. For the Holy One, blessed be He, brought frogs upon the Land of Egypt, not just upon the Egyptians. And hence it was also a miracle for the Jews, when they were saved from this. And the proof to this is that it is surely not applicable to say that darkness was only upon the Egyptians, for behold the Jew and the Egyptian dwelled together. Yet there was light for the Jew and darkness for the Egyptian (Exodus 10:23). And from this we can see that God, may He be blessed, performed a miracle for the Jews, by saving them from darkness. So too with all of the miracles - the Holy One, blessed be He, saved the Jews from the plagues. And from this we have an answer for why the teacher [of this mishnah] needed to teach, "Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt," given that it was surely already written explicitly in the the Torah that these plagues did not occur to the Jews. And those ten [miracles that were performed] at the Sea were enumerated by the Rambam, may his memory be blessed; and also Rashi, may his memory be blessed, enumerated them in his way. So they are explained and understood; there is no reason to elaborate on them.
+<b>And we can ask:</b> Since the Holy One, blessed be He, performed ten miracles in Egypt, why did He need to perform [ten miracles] at the Sea. And it appears that it can be said that it is since God, may He be blessed, performed miracles for Israel in order that they be completely His. And it is as the verse (Exodus 20:2) says, "I am the Lord, your God, who took you out of the Land of Egypt" - that because, "I took you out of the Land of Egypt," it is appropriate that God, may He be blessed, be your God. And it is because the salvation was with two [things]: The first was salvation from a human opponent, who has freewill and intellect. And the second opponent was nature. And from one angle, the human opponent who has intellect is more daunting than the natural one - since that opponent always uses his wisdom to think of  how to overcome his opponent. And hence from one angle, he is more daunting than something natural which [only] goes according to its nature; and also because man has supreme value beyond nature. But from another angle, he is not so daunting - for it is possible for him to change his mind and desist from that which he opposed. But nature is not like this, for it always stays fixed. And hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, took the Jews out of Egypt with miracles and saved the Jews from the opponent with intellect - which was Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who were coming against them with power and courage, and standing in front of them, that they not leave from amongst them. Yet God, may He be blessed, took them out. But He also did miracles for them at the Sea, which was against the opponent of nature, once they were no longer under the control of Pharaoh. So He took the Jews out from within the Sea. And on their behalf, He split the natural sea that stood before them. So He surely saved them from a natural opponent and an opponent with intellect. And in this way, God, may He be blessed, completely acquired the Jews to be His. And so these two things are of the same worth - the going out of Egypt and the going out from the Sea. So each one of them had ten miracles with it.
+<b>And you should also know and understand</b> that there is [another] difference: When the Holy One, blessed be He, took the Jews out of Egypt, it was [only] from the Pharaoh of that time. But He did not yet take them out of Egypt [fully] - meaning from the whole nation. As since they were under them - even when they left the control of those Egyptians, they did not leave the whole of Egypt, which includes those of that time and those who would be in the future. And that [only] occurred with the splitting of the Reed Sea; that Israel left the whole of the country by way of the miracles at the Sea, such that all of Egypt sunk into it all at once. And with this, they left Egypt as a whole. And hence only the singular is mentioned with the splitting of the Sea - "and behold Egypt was moving behind them" (Exodus 14:10); and likewise the entire section. As this was because this [happened] to the whole of Egypt, in that they are the Egyptian people. And according to this secret, our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Shemot Rabbah 21:5), "and behold Egypt was moving behind them" - that the Jews saw the ministering angel of Egypt that came to help Egypt. And hence, "they feared greatly." And all of this is because this vanquished one was not [only] these Egyptians, but rather the whole of the nation who are under their ministering angel. And hence the ministering angel came to help them. And because of this, they vanquished the whole of the nation. And all of the splitting of the Reed Sea comes about this thing. So it is therefore written (Exodus 14:123), "for as you have seen Egypt this day, you shall not see them again any more for ever." And, if so, this departure (at the Reed Sea) from Egypt was total, even for the future. But we should not elaborate [on this] in this place (see Gevurot Hashem 58).
+<b>And we have already explained to you</b> (Derekh Chayim 5:3), the reason for the number ten is that God, may He be blessed wanted to do miracles for Israel from every angle that is possible. For not all miracles are the same. As because miracles are changes in nature, not all things are the same: There is one thing the nature of which is more readily changeable from one angle, but more difficult from another. And there is another thing the nature of which is more readily changeable from another angle, but more difficult from a different angle. Yet with ten, there are all of the categories - such that when the Holy One, blessed be He performed ten miracles in Egypt, the Jews knew fully that God, may He be blessed, performs miracles for them and operates with them beyond nature in all things. And likewise did the Holy One, blessed be He, perform miracles for Israel (in Egypt) [at the Sea] to show that He performed miracles for Israel in all of the categories - which are ten. As all miracles are included by this. And likewise should one understand every number [ten] that was mentioned: For God, may He be blessed, created the world with ten utterances (Avot 5:1) in order that the world not lack anything and it have all of the categories, which are ten. And there were ten generations from Adam to Noach and from Noach to Avraham (Avot 5:2) because God, may He be blessed was patient on the possibility that there be a different generation than the previous one, up until ten generations - as we explained above. And likewise, the ten trials with which our ancestors tested the Holy One, blessed be He, is that they tested Him with all types of trials. And likewise, the ten things that were created at twilight (Avot 5:6) was because the things that were created at twilight depart from the order of the world and its norm. And with this number all [such] categories - in which one is not like the other - are present, such that this number includes everything.
+However in the Midrash, it is shown that that which it mentioned these things is because it said that the world was created with ten utterances. For this number indicates that the world possesses a supreme level, which is indicated by the number ten. And that is why the number ten is found in the world in all of these [cases] that it mentioned - as God, may He be blessed, runs the world according to the supreme trait that includes ten. And so did they say in the Midrash (see Hebrew note 431 of R. Yehoshua Hartman on the unclear identity of this midrash), that Avraham was tested with ten tests corresponding to the ten utterances with which He created the world, to make known that the whole world exists in the merit of Avraham, who was also tested with ten tests. And they also said (Shemot Rabbah 15:27) that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought ten plagues on the Egyptians because of the merit of Avraham, who was tested with ten tests and withstood them all. And the explanation of this midrash is that it was because Avraham was the beginning of the world, and - as we said above (Derekh Chayim 5:2) - that everything was chaos until Avraham arrived. And likewise did they say in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 12:9), "'These were the generations of the heavens and the earth in their being created (<i>behibaram</i>)' (Genesis 2:4) - in the merit of Avraham [the letters of Avraham (<i>beAvraham</i>)]." And its explanation is that all was chaos and not considered to be existence at all until Avraham arrived. And therefore the world was created for his sake; and God, may He be blessed, gave the world to him. And likewise did they say in the first chapter of Berakhot (13a), "At first, he was the father of Aram, and afterwards of the whole world." So because the world possesses its supreme level, [it was necessary] that Avraham be tested with ten tests to purge him until he would be separated from nature and be completely spiritual. For every test was to try him, whether he would go after his nature, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 5:3 at the end). For the expression, <i>nisayon</i> (test), comes from the expression, <i>nes</i> (miracle). And once he was tested with ten tests, it was shown that he did not follow nature, but was rather separated from nature. So it was fit that the world, which was created with ten utterances, be for Avraham - since the whole world receives a level that is separated and not natural, as was explained above. And likewise are the ten miracles in Egypt corresponding to the ten tests of Avraham. For a test is not natural, as we said. For that is the test itself, whether a man will follow his nature or not. And since Avraham withstood the ten tests and did not follow his nature, God, may He be blessed, also did miracles, not according to the nature and norm of the world, for Avraham's children - just as Avraham had been with God, may He be blessed, not according to the nature and norm of the world.
+<b>And it was appropriate</b> that He should do it with Israel when they left Egypt for the sake of Avraham, since the subjugation of Egypt was very similar to the reality of Avraham; and his children inherited the actions of their father, Avraham. And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, already wrote at length in his commentary on the Torah to Parashat Lech Lecha (Ramban on Genesis 12:10), that Avraham was a signpost for [what would occur to] his children. And just like the Holy One, blessed be He, took him out of Ur Kasdim after he was pursued by Nimrod; so [too] did the Holy One, blessed be He, take Israel out of Egypt. And hence at the beginning of the section in which He informed Avraham about the subjugation to Egypt, it is written (Genesis 15:7), "I am the Lord who took you out of Ur Kasdim, etc." - to say to you, that your children will inherit [this] from you: Like I took you out from Ur Kasdim to give you the Land [of Israel], so will it be with your children; I will take them out of the Land of Egypt to give them the Land [of Israel]. For it is appropriate for the beginning of Israel to be similar to Avraham, who is the beginning of all of the forefathers. And therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed the subjugation to Egypt specifically to him, as it is stated (Genesis 15:13), "Know surely that your seed shall be a stranger, etc." And all of this is because it is appropriate that the beginning of his children should be similar to the reality of Avraham, who was the beginning of the forefathers. So we find with Avraham, that they flung him to the fiery furnace to destroy him, and God, may He be blessed, took him out of it (Pesachim 118a). And so too was it with Israel in Egypt - that they flung their sons to the Nile River (Exodus 1:22), and God, may He be blessed, took them out from among them. 
+And just like the Holy One, blessed be He, showed the subjugation to Egypt and the salvation [from it] to Avraham, so [too] did He show the end of all of the exiles to Yaakov - as they said (Bereshit Rabbah 96:1), "Yaakov sought to reveal the end to his children, [but] the Divine Presence withdrew from him. And that is because Yaakov is the end of the patriarchs. Since just as Avraham was the beginning of the patriarchs, so was Yaakov the culmination of the patriarchs and their end. And therefore Israel inherited its culmination and end from Yaakov - since Yaakov was the culmination of the forefathers, such that the children inherited his reality.
+And know about these forefathers: Avraham's beginning was with pain, as he was pursued by Nimrod. But afterwards all of his days were with goodness and blessing. It was only in the days of his youth that he was in pain - before God, may He be blessed, acquired Avraham. But from the time that God, may He be blessed, acquired Avraham, he had goodness all of his days. And that is why at the beginning - before God, may He be blessed, acquired them as a people, when they were in Egypt - Israel was in pain; but when God, may He be blessed, acquired them as a people, Israel had blessing all the time of their beginning. And Yitzchak's beginning was with goodness and blessing; but at the end, his eyes dimmed from seeing. And in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 65:9): "Yitzchak originated afflictions, as it is stated (Genesis 27:1), 'And when Yitzchak grew old, and his eyes were dimmed, etc.'" And this shows about Israel that at first they would be with goodliness; but at the end, their eyes would dim as a result of the exile and the subjugation under the nations. And Yaakov also had a unique trait, as most of his days were with pain. And that is that which it states (Genesis 43:14), "And God, the Omnipotent (<i>Sha-ddai</i>)" - the One who said, "Enough" (<i>sheamar, dai</i>) to His world - should say, "Enough," to my distress (Rashi on Genesis 43:14); and as he said to Pharaoh, "the days of my years have been few and bad" (Genesis 47:9). However at the end of his days, when he came to Yosef, he was already restored from all of his distress. And this too is the reality of the end of Israel. For the exile will be very long; but at the end of days, the exile will recede and they will have goodness.
+So the way of these three forefathers has been explained to you: That Avraham was the beginning. And the beginning of the forefathers indicates the beginning of Israel - that Avraham had goodness all of his days and died "in a good old age" (Genesis 25:8). He was only in pain before this, as was explained (in the previous paragraph). So too was the beginning of Israel in pain, but the end was with goodness. And Yitzchak who was the middle of the forefathers, indicates the middle of Israel. So Yitzchak had goodness at his beginning; but at the end, his eyes dimmed and afflictions came to him. And this thing indicates the darkness of the exile, and the removal of the light of Israel. And also the Temple is called, light - as they, may their memory be blessed, said, "He extinguished the (candle) [light] of the world," as it is written in the first chapter of Bava Batra (4a). And Yaakov who was the culmination and end of the forefathers indicates the end and culmination of Israel. And Yaakov was the opposite [of Yitzchak], since all of his days were with distress - since he was pursued. Until, at the end, he was restored from his distress. And it is from him that the culmination and end of Israel would be similar to this.
+And perhaps you will say, "If so, it would be appropriate that the goodness of Yaakov, which indicates the end of Israel, should be very great; and yet, see, that the goodness of Yaakov at the end was only a little, and this is not similar to the end of Israel, which will be eternal!" However that is why they said (Taanit 5b), "Our father, Yaakov, did not die." For behold he is in eternal goodness which will not recede at all - which indicates the goodness of Israel, which will be eternal. And because the [next] world is completely spiritual - as is explained in several places - hence this teaches about that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that Yaakov did not die. So there is no doubt that the life of Yaakov now is spiritual - not like this natural life. And this thing is understood.
+And therefore with the redemption from Egypt, He makes Avraham central and mentions Avraham first - "And I appeared to Avraham, etc." (Exodus 6:3); and likewise, "and God remembered His covenant with Avraham, etc." (Exodus 2:24). But with the final redemption, He has Yaakov precede - "And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov" (Leviticus 26:42). For Avraham indicates the first redemption; whereas Yaakov, the final one. And behold that Avraham was shown about the redemption, as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "And I will also execute judgment on the nation they shall serve" (Genesis 15:14); and the redemption was also revealed to Yaakov, except that the end withdrew from him; however Yitzchak indicated exile - since his eyes dimmed at the end of his days, which indicates exile - and hence no redemption was revealed to him. And hence since the redemption from Egypt was from the angle of Avraham, who was the beginning of Israel; therefore in the same way that Avraham was tested with ten tests - and it has already been explained that a test is something that is not natural, since that is why the Holy One, blessed be He tests the righteous, to [see] if he will withstand the test and not go after his nature - the Holy One, blessed be He, did ten miracles for Israel that were not like nature and the norm of the world.
+<b>And it follows</b> that the sequence of the mishnahs [is as follows]: At the beginning (Avot 5:1), it taught, "With ten utterances the world was created." And corresponding to this, God, may He be blessed, had patience not to destroy his world up to ten generations (Avot 5:2) - because He had pity for the World that has supreme value, as it was created with ten utterances. And He also had had pity on His world that was created with ten utterances, up until ten [other] generations, for the sake of the righteous one that would arise and receive the reward of them all. And there were therefore ten generations from Noach to Avraham. And because the world was created with ten utterances, Avraham was tried with ten tests (Avot 5:3) - as was explained before this. And because Avraham was tested ten tests, the Holy One, blessed be He, did ten miracles for Israel in Egypt and [ten] at the Sea - everything as it is explained above. And therefore even if Israel tried the Holy One, blessed be He, with ten tests (our mishnah) and it would have been appropriate to finish Israel off, God forbid, the merit of Avraham, who was tested with ten tests, was the cause that they would not be finished off, as will be explained. 
+And afterwards is "Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in the Temple" (Avot 5:5). And this was also in the merit of Avraham. For these ten miracles were specifically in the First Temple and not in the Second Temple, since the Divine Presence was not found there. This is shown in the first chapter of Yoma (21b): Since it asks, "(And did the rains not extinguish the arrangement of wood;) And was there smoke? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita, 'There were five matters stated with regard to the fire of the arrangement of wood: It crouched like a lion; and it was as clear as the sun; [and it had substance; it consumed wet wood like dry wood; and it did not raise smoke]?'" And since it did not answer, "That was in the First Temple, but this is in the Second Temple" - since, "it crouched like a lion," was in the First Temple, as it is concluded clearly there (and presumably everything listed in that baraita was in the First Temple) - it must be that all of these ten miracles [listed in the mishnah in Yoma] were [only] in the First Temple. This is what appears [correct].
+And the First Temple was in the merit of Avraham, the Second Temple was in the merit of Yitzchak and the Third Temple [will be] in the Merit of Yaakov. And this is the meaning of that which they said in Pesachim (88a), "Not like Avraham, who called it, mount - as it is stated (Genesis 22:14), 'on the mount where the Lord is seen.' And not like Yitzchak who called it, field (Genesis 24:63). Rather like Yaakov, who called it, house - as it is stated (Genesis 28:19), 'this is none other than the house of God.'" And this is the meaning of that which it said (Isaiah 2:3), "Come, Let us go up to the mount of the Lord, to the house of the God of Yaakov." And it meant to say that Avraham called it, mount, which indicates destruction - as the First Temple was to be destroyed in the future. And likewise, Yitzchak called it, field, which [also] indicates destruction. But Yaakov called it, house, which indicates permanent dwelling - and that is the Third Temple. And behold that the first two Temples were in the merit of Avraham and Yitzchak. And we have already explained this thing in its place as well (Netzach Yisrael 55) - that this is why the First Temple was called, Ariel (the lion of God), for a lion is from the right side, and that was the trait of Avraham. And we discussed this at length in the other place. And hence the ten miracles in the Temple were also in the merit of Avraham, who was tested with ten tests. For the test indicates that Avraham was a spiritual man, and that he was separated by his worth; and he therefore withstood ten tests. So too were there ten miracles that were not natural in the First Temple.
+And all of these statements follow in order and are coming to tell how great are the righteous who sustain the world that was created with ten utterances; and the opposite of this with the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances. For all of these things that the teacher [of these mishnahs] said one after the other - it was all because the world was created with ten utterances; and [so he informed us of] how great is the punishment of the one who destroys the world with ten statements, and how great is the reward of the righteous who sustain the world. And everything is in order. And therefore all of these things are connected to words of ethical instruction - as the teacher came to tell how great is the reward of the righteous who sustain the world, and how [great] is the punishment of the evil who destroy the world. And also that which he said  - "Ten things were created on the eve of the [first] Shabbat at twilight" (Avot 5:6) - it too indicates the level of this world: That this world is close to the highest spiritual level. For behold ten things were created at twilight; and all of these things are things that depart from the natural norm, and they are spiritual things. And all of them were made at twilight, which is close to the six days of creation - through this you can see the closeness of this world to the highest level, which is beyond nature. And with this, everything is arranged as is appropriate. 
+<i>[With] ten trials did our ancestors test the Omnipresent, blessed be He, in the Wilderness, as it is said (Numbers 14:22), "Yet have they tested Me these ten times, and have not hearkened to My voice."</i>
+<b>[With] ten trials did [our ancestors] test, etc.:</b> In the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Yesh BaArakhin (Arakhin 15a-b): It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehudah said, "Our ancestors tried the Holy One, Blessed be He with ten trials and these are them: Two at the sea, and two with water, two with the manna, two with the quail, one with the golden calf, and one in the wilderness of Paran." Two at the sea: One when they descended, and one when they ascended from the sea. The Jews tried God when they descended, as it is written, "And they said to Moshe, 'Were there were no graves in Egypt'" (Exodus 14:11). When they ascended is in accordance with Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says, "The Jewish people of that generation were of little faith, and they said, 'Just as we are ascending from one side, so too are the Egyptians ascending from the other side.' So the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the ministering angel of the sea, 'Spew them out onto dry land, etc.'" [...] Two with water: At Mara and at Refidim. At Mara, as it is written (Exodus 15:23), "And when they came to Mara, they could not drink of the waters of Mara"; and it is written (Exodus 15:24), "And the people  complained against Moshe." At Refidim, as it is written (Exodus 17:1), "and they encamped in Refidim; and there was no water to drink"; and it is written (Exodus 17:2), "And the people fought with Moshe." Two with manna, as it is stated (Exodus 16:25), "Do not go out"; but it is written (Exodus 16:27), "and they went out." [The verse also states,] "Let no man leave any of it" (Exodus 16:19); but "they left of it" (Exodus 16:20). The two trials with the quail: With the first quail, and with the second quail. The first [trial of the] quail was, "when we sat by the meat pot" (Exodus 16:3); and the second [trial of the] quail was, "And the mixed multitude that was among them desired greatly (Numbers 11:4)." The golden calf, as it is found; and in the wilderness of Paran (the spies), as it is found. To here [is the citation] 
+And it appears curious that the teacher [of the mishnah] brought this, since it is a disgrace for Israel - and what difference is there with this (that would require it to be said)? But according to the explanation that we have given - that [the mention of the trials] was to speak [about] the merit of Avraham, whose merit protected them - it is appropriately arranged.  For Israel tried (<i>nasu) </i> the Holy One, blessed be He; and the expression, <i>nisayon</i> (test) always comes from the expression, <i>ness</i> (miracle), since it is something that departs from the order of the world. And their sins departed from the custom of the world - hence it called their sins, in this place, <i>nisayon</i>, from the expression, <i>nes</i>. And the merit of Avraham would protect [them] from this, since he was tested with ten tests that departed from the norm of the world, and he withstood them all. And with this, there is an answer to why these things were called a test. As the expression, test, [otherwise] implies that it tests the Holy One, blessed be He, whether He is able to do it. And what test [to God] is there in the golden calf and that which is similar to it? As it was only a sin; and is every sin that one does called a test? But the sins of Israel that they should not have [normally] done is called a <i>nisayon</i>, from the expression, <i>nes</i> - since [the latter] is not according to the norm of the world. [This is] like when one tests someone else with something that departs from the norm. And the people were acting towards God, may He be blessed, not according to the norm and not according to the order [of things]. So they were testing Him with this: Even though they certainly did not have the intention to test the Holy One, blessed be He, their sin was nevertheless called a test of the Holy One, blessed be He - specifically when the sin was not like the norm of the world, such that it was not appropriate for them because of all of the good that He did for them, that they should sin.
+<b>And it is also possible to say</b> that it was called a test when all of Israel did the sin, and it was called a test to the Holy One, blessed be He, [to see] if He was able [to respond] to it. For when they sinned with the calf, Israel was in doubt whether He oversaw the world and there is none else besides Him. And likewise when they sinned with the manna - such that He said to them, "No man may go out of his place" (Exodus 16:29) - they were in doubt about whether even if the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded this, perhaps, as it if were possible, there is variance (changing His mind) with Him. And likewise all of the sins - all of them - are tests to the Holy One, blessed be He. Whether or not they had intention for it, at the end of the day, it was a test. And it is likely that they did think [that it was meant as a test]; and therefore it is called a bona fide test. But certainly a sin done by an individual is not called a test. For even if an individual sins, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not [necessarily] rebuke him for the sin - why did he do the sin. Hence the sin of an individual is certainly not called a test. But specifically with [all of] Israel, it is impossible to say like this. For behold, you find that when they tested the Holy One, blessed be He, with these ten tests, the response came about it; and they knew the responses to their test with which they were testing God, may He be blessed. And had the Holy One, blessed be He, not rebuked them, they would have said that that which was in their hearts when they sinned, is what was [actually the case]. For with the calf, they were saying that if He did not punish them, there is - God forbid - substance to idolatry. For behold, [had that been the case, that would have been why] He did not rebuke them for their sin. And it is likewise with all of [these] other sins. And that is why the sin of Israel is called a test: Whether He is able to [respond] to the sin and rebuke them. For such is the trait of God, may He be blessed, to rebuke the sin. Hence they are are all true tests.
+And the teacher spoke about this here for the glory of the Omnipresent (even though it was a disgrace for Israel). For certainly when these sinners sinned to God, may He be blessed, they certainly had bad intentions - as they reasoned that, with these things, they would find out [the truth of] that which they had evilly thought. And there is no doubt [about this]; given that this was an act of Satan, who was inciting and instigating them. And their test was answered - [it showed] that they were sinning and rebelling against God, may He be blessed. And when they tested God, may He be blessed, with all types of tests, it was clarified to them that 'the ways of God are straight' and there is no perverseness in the ways of God. And according to this, the expression, test, is referring completely to Israel. But the first explanation is correct - that they were testing the Holy One, blessed be He, with their tests, which were not like the norm of the world - as was explained above. That is the explanation of it.
+<b>And we can be precise</b> that the tests were pairs, just like they mentioned them (in the Midrash, Paragraph 18) as pairs. And such is appropriate, since ten in every place is five that correspond to five. And it is like you would find with the hands, which have ten fingers that are five that correspond to five; and likewise the toes, are five that correspond to five. And the tablets which have the ten commandments - they are five on this tablet and five on that tablet, and the [first] five correspond to the [second] five, as is explained in the Midrash (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:1), [and] as you will find in the commentary of Rashi, may he be blessed, on Shir HaShirim (Rashi on Shir HaShirim 4:5). And we have explained the reason for this in another place (Derekh Chayim 2:7). And you will find that the [sins of] the calf and of Paran (the spies) are also one matter. Accordingly, you will find the verse hinted to the sin of the spies, with the calf: As it stated (Exodus 32:34), "but on the day when I take account of them, I will take into account" - the explanation of which is, "on the day I take account" of the spies, "I will take into account" the sin of the calf. And it is written (Numbers 14:34), "you will bear your iniquities" - in the plural - which is the sin of calf and the sin of the spies, and as Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained in Parashat Shelach (Rashi on Numbers 14:34). And the reason is because the sin of the calf is [that they acted] as if there were, God forbid, other gods besides God, may He be blessed, and that is why they said (Exodus 32:1), "make us gods that will go before us"; and the spies said (Numbers 13:31), "because it is stronger than us (<i>mimenu</i>, which, if vocalized differently, can also be read as, than Him)" - as if He, may He be blessed, did not have the ability, God forbid, to remove [the Canaanites from the land]! And this is as it is found in Tractate Arakhin (15a), "Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa said, 'The spies said an [audacious] thing at that time - as if the Owner could not remove his vessels from there.'" So behold that the sin of the spies is like the sin of the calf - just that with the calf they said that there are other gods besides him, God forbid; and with the spies, they said that not everything is in His power, God forbid. [However] this is one matter, when you understand [it]. 
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<i>Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in the Temple: No woman had a miscarriage from the scent of the consecrated meat; and no consecrated meat ever went putrid; and a fly was not seen in the room of slaughtering; and a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur; and rain did not extinguish the fire of the wood pile; and the wind did not overpower the pillar of smoke; and there was not found a disqualification in the omer (a special barley offering, offered the day after Pesach, which permits grain harvested in the new harvest to be eaten) or in the two breads or in the showbreads; they would stand up crowded and bow down with [enough] space; and a snake or scorpion never hurt a person in Jerusalem; and a person did not say to his fellow, "The place is too cramped that I should lodge in Jerusalem."</i>
+<b>Ten miracles were performed in the Temple, etc.:</b> It may be asked why the teacher [of the mishnah] listed these ten miracles - and likewise he explains what the ten things that were created at twilight were (Avot 5:6) - but he does not explain [what] the ten miracles that were performed at the Sea [were], nor does He explain the ten trials with which our ancestors tested the Omnipresent. Although that which it was necessary to enumerate the ten things that were created at twilight is because there are some [Rabbis] that add to them. And that is why it was necessary to elucidate. And that which it does not [just] say, "And some say, 'thirteen'; and some say, 'fourteen'" - is because he wanted to elucidate what they were arguing about. However in this mishnah that elucidates the miracles that were performed in the Temple - it is difficult - why was it necessary to elucidate [them]? And it can be answered that those [other cases] that were not enumerated were [already] clear from Scripture. For the ten miracles that were performed at the Sea according to the explanation of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, which we mentioned above - and likewise according to the explanation of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed - were hinted to in Scripture. And even if they were not all hinted to, some of them were hinted to - so at the end of the day, they were hinted to in Scripture. But not even one of these [listed in this mishnah] was hinted to in Scripture. And therefore it was necessary to elucidate [them], as we do not know them [otherwise]. But [in cases] when they were hinted to in Scripture, [the teacher of the mishanh] did not concern himself to elucidate them. However not one of the miracles in the Temple or of the ten things that were created at twilight was mentioned in Scripture - [so] it was necessary to explain them explicitly.
+<b>And the explanation</b> of the ten miracles that were performed in the Temple and why miracles were performed in the Temple: You should know that it is impossible that there would not be ten miracles in the Temple, since the Temple is holy and His name, may He be blessed, was in the Temple. Had there not been miracles in it, it would have been the same as other places. And such a thing is impossible - that the Temple be the same as other places. For behold that it is why it is called, Mikdash - as it is holy (<i>kadosh</i>) and separated from nature. And since it was holy - hence ten miracles were performed in it. For we have already said above, that the specific number, ten, indicates the level of separation from the natural world. And there were therefore ten miracles in the Temple. And all things with the number ten that were taught by the teacher are all supernal things that are separated from nature. And that is why they have the number ten, as was explained. The number ten also indicates that there was complete holiness in everything there; not partial holiness in some specific thing. That is why ten miracles were performed - since the number ten is a categorical number. For the holiness of the Temple was a supernal holiness.
+<b>And it may be asked</b> about the miracles that were preformed in the Temple - why were specifically these miracles performed in the Temple? And you should know that this world is a world of existence and degeneration. But it is appropriate that all of the merits of the Temple - which has higher worth than the world of existence and degeneration - and the miracles that were performed in it, be removed from degeneration. For we have already explained many times that this lacking that we have mentioned is something that only attaches itself to the physical. However things that are separated do not have degeneration. And hence it is appropriate that the Temple, which had holiness, be removed from the degeneration that is drawn after natural physical things and that which is not separated. Moreover, it is because the Temple is the essence of the world's existence; and it is called, the light of the world. This is like they, may their memory be blessed, said in the first chapter of Bava Batra (4a), "He extinguished the light of the world; let him go and occupy himself with the light of the world." And it has already been explained that light is existence, and that is the opposite of degeneration. And therefore all of the miracles that were performed in the Temple were distancing from degeneration - starting with the big and ending with the small - such that there was no degeneration or absence there whatsoever. 
+And behold the first miracle was that "no woman had a miscarriage from the [scent] of the consecrated meat." For the miscarriage of a woman is total degeneration, such that the embryo - which is an individual person - degenerates; and he said that there was no degeneration like this. And this is a separate topic - as this is the degeneration of a person - and that is a total loss. And afterwards, he also mentioned another degeneration - "that no consecrated meat [or holy sacrifice] ever went putrid." And even though this thing is not considered a total loss - such that we should consider the degeneration to be like a woman that has a miscarriage, which is the loss of a person - yet even this thing did not occur in the Temple. And more than this - there was no degeneration of the meat decaying, such that flies would be drawn to it. Even though this is not called a total loss, there was nevertheless no meat decaying - to the point that no fly was seen in the room of slaughtering on account of the decay. For it is customary that flies be born in a room of slaughtering from the decay [there]. And this thing that is called less degeneration was also not found in the Temple. And afterwards, "a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur," since this thing is the degeneration of seed; and this thing is not as much of a loss as the earlier ones. For at the end of the day, the putridity in a room of slaughtering is putridity, which is degeneration. But that a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur, in the way that is customary in nature, is not called a loss like the earlier ones - as those are all considered degeneration. Nevertheless, this too involves some degeneration - that is that the seed degenerates. And this also did not occur in the Temple.
+But the next three that were mentioned afterwards - "rain did not extinguish the fire of the wood pile; and the wind did not overpower [the pillar of smoke]; and there was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads or in the showbreads" - these things are not matters of degeneration. Given that the degeneration does not come from itself, but rather from the angle of the rain, the wind and the impurity that touches [them], this is not intrinsic degeneration. For intrinsic degeneration indicates total loss that comes from itself, such that it has no existence. But all of these three do not have intrinsic degeneration. For that which the rain did not extinguish the wood pile and the wind did not overpower the pillar of smoke all involve external degeneration. And this is not intrinsic degeneration at all. And this is how the first (three) [four] are different from these three. And even with these three, this one is not like that one: For the extinguishing of the fire of the pile is complete extinguishing. And it stands to reason that this thing would not be in the Temple, as will be explained. But that the wind did not overpower [the pillar of smoke] - that the wind did not diffuse the smoke - this thing is only diffusion of smoke and it is not total negation. [Yet] even this was not found in the Temple. And that there was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads: Even though this was not negation at all - given that this thing is not at all perceivable - [yet] even this thing was also not [there]. And these are the three middle ones.
+And the last three are even though there is no negation but rather just congestion and pain. For with the three middle ones - at the end of the day, there is negation and degeneration. So it is not such a novelty if [they] would not be found in the Temple. But the last three do not involve negation at all. For if they did not bow down with [enough] space, they would be crowding each other and it would be impossible for them not to cause each other injury. And afterwards - that a snake or a scorpion never hurt - that thing is also only injury. For it did not say, "and a snake or a scorpion did not kill," but rather, "did not hurt." This means to say, there was not even the pain of a [non-lethal] bite. "And a person did not say, 'The place is too cramped'" - also this thing, when the place is cramped for him, is only a little congestion and a little injury. Also with these last three - each one is less damage [than the one before it]. For if they would bow down when they were standing crowded, they would injure each other with much damage. Since they are standing crowded, they would [all] injure each other. And this is more damage than that which he mentioned after it, "a snake or a scorpion never hurt." For a snake bites the foot, but he said that it would not cause even a small injury [such as this] at all. And it only mentioned, "a snake or a scorpion," because the injury of a snake and a scorpion is common, and therefore there was a need for a miracle - as it will be explained later (in the next paragraph), that these miracles were with things that happened with regularly. And nevertheless, it wanted to say that there was not even a small injury [like this]. And know about the injury of a snake and a scorpion - since the Holy One, blessed be He, said at the beginning of creation, "I will put enmity between you and (him)" (Genesis 3:15), it is as if it is part of the order of the world. As God, may He be blessed, placed this into the order of the world, such that it is not considered degeneration at all, since this is in accordance with the creation. But this thing was nevertheless not found in (the Temple) [Jerusalem]. And afterwards, he said, "And a person did not say, 'The place is too cramped'" - since this thing is not a loss at all. [Yet] even this was not found. Behold it first began with, "No woman had a miscarriage," since this thing is a total loss. It is the miscarriage of the creation of a person, and that is a total loss. And it ended with, "And a person did not say, 'The place is too cramped,'" which is only a mere discomfort.
+<b>And that which it mentioned,</b> "There was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads or in the showbreads," but not in the other sacrifices - and likewise with the other miracles, why specifically these - was because everything with which a miracle was done had a greater need for them. And that is that if a woman would have had a miscarriage from the smell of the consecrated flesh, this would have occurred the whole year; and likewise that which flies were not found in the room of slaughtering was [applicable] the whole year. And [regarding] "a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur" - even though this was only once a year, is this day not connected to the whole year, to atone for the iniquity of the whole year? Hence if a High Priest had had an accidental emission on Yom Kippur, which comes to atone for the whole year, it is considered a mishap for the whole year. And accordingly, that which the the rain did not extinguish the fire of the wood pile and the wind did not overpower [the pillar of smoke] was because this thing is always applicable - since the fire would never cease from the altar, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:6), "A perpetual fire shall be kept burning (on it)." And likewise the omer and the two breads - even though they were only once a year, nevertheless, since the omer came to permit the grain of the whole year (Leviticus 23:14), behold it was considered something connected to the whole year; and the two breads also came to permit grain-offerings from the new grain in the Temple for the whole year (Rashi on Leviticus 23:17). Hence a miracle was performed with something connected to the whole year. And likewise the showbreads, about which it is stated (Exodus 25:30), "perpetually." As the table was never without bread, even for an instant (Chagigah 26b) - as these [priests] would be pulling off [the old ones], and those [priests] placing [the new ones]. And likewise, they would stand up crowded and bow down with [enough] space; and likewise a snake or scorpion never hurt; and likewise [no one] said, "The place is too cramped" - all of these are common and happened with regularity, so they required a miracle. So should it be explained, and it is very correct. And because these miracles are in order [based on the severity of the injury caused], that is why the teacher mentioned them explicitly.  
+<b>However if you want to gain mastery</b> about these ten miracles, know that their order is according to the [esoteric, mystical] wisdom. For these miracles begin from the lowest level to the highest level over everything. And that which [the teacher of the mishnah] began with a woman, saying, "No woman had a miscarriage from the scent of the meat," and ended with, "and a person did not say, 'The place is too cramped that I should lodge in Jerusalem'" - behold it ended with the Place, which is the Aggregate that encompasses everything. For these ten miracles correspond to the ten sefirot of the expanse, starting with the last one. Hence it said, "No woman had a miscarriage from the scent of the meat." For a woman (a reference to kingship, <i>malkhut</i>) is the last, since she receives from another. And nevertheless she had strength and did not have a miscarriage - and this thing is well-known. And afterwards, it said, "and no consecrated meat ever went putrid" - rather it remained in existence, keeping its form and existence in the Temple. And the things in the Temple did not experience degeneration. Rather they received existence and foundation (<i>yesod</i>, which is the second sefirah going up). And understand this. And afterwards, it said, "and a fly was not seen in the room of slaughtering." Know that the fly is disgusting and disgraceful, and that is one matter - [the prevention of] which is the majesty (<i>hod</i>) and beauty of the Temple. "And a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur" - this is impurity, such that he would stand in purity and endurance (<i>netzach</i>). And that is the second matter (in relation to <i>hod</i>). 
+And these two things are [parallel], each on its own. For there is nothing as disgusting as a fly; and there is nothing more impure than an accidental emission. And he means to say that the worth of the Temple would not veer to the right or to the left, outside of its level of holiness. For this thing of disgust and impurity is the distancing from holiness towards the left and towards the right - as is known to the one who delves into wisdom. And we have explained this in Berakhot (10b), concerning, "It is a holy man who passes by us" (II Kings 4:9), [about which] Rav and Shmuel disagreed. "One said, 'She never saw a fly over his table'; and the other said, 'She never saw a seminal emission on his bed.'" Hence after he said, "and no consecrated meat ever went putrid," it said, "and a fly was not seen in the room of slaughtering, and a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur." For in this place (meaning, <i>foundation</i>) is the beginning of the veering to the left and to the right (the sefirot began to split to the left and the right). And so he said about this, that the worth of the Temple did not veer from the level of its holiness. So "a fly was not seen in the room of slaughtering," which [would have been] disgust; "and a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur," which [would have been] impurity. Rather the Temple maintained its holiness.
+And afterwards he said, "and the wind did not overpower the pillar of smoke," since it is drawn with balance - rising and ascending like a staff that moves evenly and in the middle (a reference to beauty, <i>tiferet</i>). So the wind did not overpower this smoke - and this thing is also known. And afterwards, he said, "and rain did not extinguish the fire of the pile." For the power of the fire was a great and strong power of fire from above (a reference to strength, <i>gevurah</i>). And therefore it did not extinguish it. So too, "there was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads." For these two are are the beginning and the head of the grain harvest. As the omer is the head of the barley harvest - and the two breads are the beginning of the wheat harvest - as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:9), "when the sickle is first put to the standing grain." And hence after he mentioned the fire of the pile - which is the supernal fire - he said, "and there was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads" - corresponding to the head and beginning of the world (a reference to kindness, <i>chessed</i>).
+But this is according to the textual variant of our books. But according to that which is shown in the first chapter of Yoma (21a), we should not read [the words], "and the wind did not overpower the pillar of smoke; and rain did not extinguish the fire of the pile," but rather just, "and there was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads or in the showbread." And they are three [different] things. The omer is one loaf, the two breads are two loaves and the showbread is twelve loaves. And these things are known to the one who delves into wisdom. And it is known that Avraham (who is associated with kindness) only brought out one son from the matron; Yitzchak (who is associated with strength) two; and Yaakov (who is associated with beauty/balance) twelve. And hence the omer is one <i>issaron</i>-measure, the two breads are two and the showbread are twelve. And therefore the twelve loaves were six loaves to each arrangement (Leviticus 24:6). And understand this. 
+And he said, that "they would stand up crowded and bow down with [enough] space." And this thing is also known from that which it is written (Psalms 118:5), "Out of the straits I called upon the Lord (<i>Yod-hey</i>); He answered me with the broadness of the Lord (<i>Yod-hey</i>)." As from this you know that God, may He be blessed, provides broadness from duress. And bowing down is to <i>Yod-hey</i> (understood here as a reference to understanding, <i>binah</i>) - as they said (Sukkah 53b), "To  <i>Yod-hey</i> do we bow down, to <i>Yod-hey</i> do we thank." And since they were bowing down to the name, <i>Yod-hey</i>, may He be blessed, and this name provides broadness from duress - therefore they would bow down with space. For they were bringing broadening from the Place of broadness.
+And afterwards, he said, "And a snake or scorpion never hurt a person in Jerusalem." For God, may He be blessed, further broadened [the space] between the pests and man - to the point where they did not pass the borders of man. And this too is a broadening from God, may He be blessed, such that they had no opponents, disturbances or bothers. That is the snake and the scorpion who disturb man; but God, may He be blessed, provided broadness for them. And these things did no damage in Jerusalem.  
+And afterwards, he said, "And a person did not say to his fellow, 'The place is too cramped that I should lodge in Jerusalem.'" The understanding is that there was no place in Jerusalem - which was the place for those residing there (during the holidays) - that was cramped. For according to its level, there was enough room in the Place to encompass [what was required], according to that which is appropriate for the Place. And this thing is the supernal level that encompasses everything (a reference to the crown, <i>keter</i>). And behold it began with the small and ended with the great, which is the One which encompasses everything. And everything is mentioned in order, when you understand [it].
+And you should understand that these last miracles - meaning, "they would stand up crowded and bow down with space"; and likewise, "and a snake or scorpion never hurt [...]; and one did not say, 'The place is too cramped'" - are all the spreading out of things that bother one another. As when there were two [people] standing crowded, they would bother each other; but [when] they would bow down with space, they would not bother and disturb each other. And likewise the snake and man disturb and bother each other - since they are enemies that oppose and bother each other. And likewise, no one would make a place crowded for another in Jerusalem. Behold the three top ones were all miracles in which God, may He be blessed, spread [something] out. For from the angle of the three highest sefirot, there is no cramping or bother at all. Rather everything is with broadness. That is why these were the three highest miracles. And according to this, you have an answer as to why the teacher explained these ten miracles - as they correspond to the ten sefirot of the expanse. And these things are very choice.
+<b>And it may be asked </b> that, "a snake or scorpion never hurt [...]; and one did not say, 'The place is too cramped in Jerusalem,'" were not specifically in the Temple, but rather in [all of] Jerusalem. And you can also understand this according to the things that we said above. For there is greater expansion with the higher sefirot, as was explained above. And therefore there was an expansion of the miracle of "a snake or scorpion never hurt," [that it be] in Jerusalem and not not just in the Temple. And likewise, a place was not cramped in all of Jerusalem. However, it can nevertheless be said according to its simple meaning that snakes and scorpions are not relevant to the Temple; yet according to what we said, the miracle was certainly appropriate to be with snakes and scorpions, as was explained. And hence it was necessary for it to be in Jerusalem (as it was the closest place where there could have been snakes and scorpions). And likewise, "no one said, 'The place is too cramped,'" is also not relevant to the Temple. And therefore it was in Jerusalem.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<i>Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and these are they: The mouth of the earth; and the mouth of the well; and the mouth of the donkey; and the rainbow; and the manna; and the staff [of Moshe]; and the <i>shamir</i>; and the letters; and the writing; and the tablets. And some say, "Also the demons; and the grave of Moshe; and the ram of Avraham, our father." And some say, "And also tongs made with tongs."</i> 
+<b>Ten things were created at twilight:</b> It may be asked why these things were grouped together to be created at twilight and not during the day; and why specifically the twilight of Shabbat eve? 
+<b>And the Rambam,</b> may his memory be blessed, (in his Commentary on the Mishnah here) explains something about this mishnah that the Sages did not have in mind. As he wanted to say that the opinion of the Sages was that His will does not diverge at any time. Rather (according to the Rambam), their opinion was that God, may He be blessed, placed into the nature of things on the six days of creation to do a given miracle, such that a miracle could be done and there would not be a divergence in His will. And he said that this is also their opinion in that which they said in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5), "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated a condition with the acts of creation, such that the sea should split, and the fire should not burn Channaniah, Mishael, etc.'" And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote in his book (Guide for the Perplexed II:29) that it was exceedingly difficult for [the Sages] that nature would change after the creation, or that there would be a divergence in [His] will after it was set like this. And that is why they said that the Holy One, blessed be He, placed into nature from the beginning of creation that a miracle would occur at a certain time - such that He [already] did the miracle and there would not be any change of [His] will here. That is how he explains the words of the Sages.  
+And the Sages certainly did not have in mind - not in this mishnah and not in the words of the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5) - that God, may He be blessed, placed into the creation on the six days of creation that a miracle would occur at its time because this would [otherwise] be a change of [God's] will. For these things do not have a basis or foundation at all. As how can we explain this mishnah - given that behold, it said, "Ten things were created at twilight": For why were these miracles not done like the other miracles that He placed into the nature of things when He created them, such that the miracle would occur with them at their time? And when He created water on the second day, he put into its nature that it would split when Israel would come to the Sea, and likewise with the other miracles. So too would it have been appropriate on the day that He created the earth (Genesis 1:1), that there be an opening made for when Korach would argue about the priesthood (Numbers 16:32). And likewise, the other things that were mentioned here that were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And likewise, should the words of the Midrash not be understood like this at all - that this is why the Holy One, blessed be He, made a condition with the sea that it should split: Because the Sages, may their memory be blessed, found it difficult that there be a change in nature or a change in [His] will. This is not so. For if it were that a change in [His] will was what was difficult for them, they would not have said this about miracles alone. Rather [they] would also have said this about what was not a miracle - that the Holy One, blessed be He, ordered it from the creation, so that there would not be a change here, but rather that the Holy One, blessed be He, had wanted to do it from the six days of creation. But according to this, that which it is written (Exodus 32:14), "And the Lord renounced the punishment He had said to bring upon His people," would be nullified. For God, may He be blessed, changed His will.  
+Yet if it is [only] because divergence in nature was difficult for them, about that thing it should be admitted that it was difficult for them. However, if he wanted to say that it was because God, may He be blessed, is not able to change nature - like those who believed in the pre-existence (eternity) of the world believed - that was certainly not the opinion of the Sages. For if we say that change in nature was difficult in the eyes of the Sages, then how is it an answer that God, may He blessed placed it into nature on the six days of creation that there be a change? So what? At the end of the day, how is it possible that God, may He be blessed did a miracle - whether God put a change in nature during the creation during the six days of creation or afterwards? And if God, may He be blessed, can change nature and put it into the nature of water that it can split and that of fire that it not burn - if so, then the Holy One, blessed be He, can also do this at the time of the miracle. So why should He do it specifically during the six days of creation? For it cannot be said that since this potential was placed into them on the six days of creation, this thing becomes nature. For how could it be something natural for fire not to burn? Rather it is impossible not to say that this is not natural. And, if so, He can also [do] it not on the six days of creation. 
+But if his opinion is that for [the following] was it placed into the nature of things on the six days of creation that they would change - not because the Holy One, blessed be He, is not able to do what He wants; but rather his opinion was that it is because God, may He be blessed, made the world complete, and 'there is nothing new under the sun,' that God, may He be blessed, make a new creature in the world [- such a view would be acceptable]. For [a diversion from this order in the world] is not appropriate, as it would be considered the destruction of the world along with its preservation. And it would be as if the two opposites would be together - as the preservation of the world would also be found with its destruction. So there is no doubt that if God, may He be blessed, had not placed into the potential of the world to accept a change like this, there would have been a destruction of the world. And it is completely impossible to say something like that. And therefore they said, "The Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated a condition with the acts of creation." As He did not make a condition only with those mentioned - because God, may He be blessed, knew that Israel would need this miracle in the end - as the matter is not like this. Rather, he made a condition with the [entire] natural world: That sometimes, God, may He be blessed, will act not according to nature.  
+And this condition is that this natural world is connected with the separated world. So because this world is connected with the separated world and there is no partition made between them, [a miracle] is subsequently not considered destruction to the natural world at all. For this is why this world was connected with the separated world: Because at a time of need, this world clings to the separated world and a miracle occurs. And He did not leave this world completely in the hands of nature; as then, there would have been a change in the world when there was a miracle. But God, may He be blessed, 'established the world upon its foundations.' And hence it said, "A condition, etc." - meaning to say, that He did not give over the world completely to nature. Rather he connected the natural world with the separated world, such that there would be the potential to change it without there being a change in creation - such that the miracle would also be in this world that God, may He be blessed, created on the six days of creation. And that is the explanation of the words of the Sages. But that change in nature be difficult to them from the angle that He is not able, God forbid, to change [things] - this thing is not the case at all. Rather it is that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not destroy the order of His world. So the Holy One, blessed be He, made a condition with the world - meaning to say, that He did not completely give over the world to nature. Rather at a time of need, the Holy One, blessed be He, would generate wonders according to His will. And with this, there is no destruction to the world that the Holy One, blessed be He, created. 
+<b>Or [if Rambam meant]</b> that a change in [God's] will would be difficult for [the Sages], such that God, may He be blessed, diverge from [one] will to [another], as he said - this is [also] not the case. And because the opinion of the philosophers is that His intellect and His will are His essence, if there was a change in His will, there would be a change in His essence - [so] they said that there is no change in [His] will. And how very far are these things from knowledge! For, if so, why would Israel have needed prayer at the time of the splitting of the Reed Sea (Exodus 14:10)? If it had been placed into nature to split the Sea for them, behold it would be necessary that this happen; and if it had not been placed into the nature of the sea, it would not happen. Yet about this and that which is similar to it, the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, said that His knowledge, may He be blessed, does not determine [the outcome of] what is possible in nature. Even though He, may He be blessed, knows everything with His prescient Will, His knowledge does not determine [what happens]. And even though we cannot know in our mind how this thing can be configured - is His knowledge, may His Name be blessed, not His essence? And since we cannot know His essence, we cannot know His knowledge. And with this, he removed all of the arguments, which are necessitated by this, against him - if we say that everything is arranged before [one] arrives. And all of this is because of this convention, that His knowledge is His essence, may He be blessed - as has been explained. But we say that they have loaded upon themselves something that will not yield the knowledge of truth; and this thing is not found in the words of the Sages. And we have already elaborated at length about this in the book, Gevurot HaShem, in the (second) introduction - that it should not be said that His knowledge is His essence. And we brought a proof from the words of the Torah and from the words of the Sages that knowledge is from the actions of God, may He be blessed - as it is found in the usage, "and God knew" (Exodus 2:25). If so, knowledge is from His actions, and not His essence. So why should we contradict that which is written in every place? 
+And [these are our words] there: "And when we say that His knowledge is not His Essence, it will no longer be difficult to you that His knowledge (is His essence) [changes], such that His essence changes - for His essence is not His knowledge." Behold we have explained with this that it should not be said - like the philosophers said - that His essence is His knowledge. Rather knowledge is is one of His actions, may He be blessed. And it is like it is with the soul. For knowledge is necessitated by the soul, but the essence of the soul is not knowledge. As this thing is not so. Rather, the soul effectuates knowledge. And the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed - the masters of truth - compared the soul to God, may He be blessed. As they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (10a), "Just like the soul sees and is not seen, etc." Hence we said that His essence is not knowledge. And we have not diminished anything at all on account of our saying His essence is not His knowledge. And hence we said there, "And maybe they will say, 'If His essence is not physical or spiritual - if so, what is His essence?" We would [then] answer them, 'And is a person able to understand the true [nature] of the soul inside the body?'" You must note that which we have said, that a person should learn from the soul in man. And these are actually the words of the Sages, who compare God, may He be blessed, to the soul - as we can see from their words in the Gemara in Berakhot (10a), and in several places in the Midrash of the Sages. And a person should learn from their understanding, for they knew the inner recesses of wisdom. Yet there is no person who would say that the essence of the soul is the knowledge of things. Rather the soul grasps and knows [things]. And behold they said that we cannot know His nature; so they said, "If I knew Him, I would be Him." 
+And by saying that His knowledge is not His essence, we have not, God forbid, gone out to say that there is a matter of multiplicity in Him that would go beyond the root of unity or that there would, God forbid, be some addition. For the matter is not like this at all. But this is rather like the other actions that come from Him, [all of] which do not necessitate multiplicity. For, "knows," and, "is able," and those descriptions which are similar to it, do not necessitate His multiplicity, since they are all actions; and [the philosophers] have already agreed that descriptions of an action do not necessitate multiplicity at all. And when God, may He be blessed, knows that something is like this; and afterwards when it changes, He knows that it is not like this - as with a man who is righteous and God, may He be blessed, knows that he is righteous; but He knows afterwards that he is evil when he becomes evil, and likewise all things that change - it would not be said about it, that there is a change in His knowledge. Rather it would be said that the actions have changed - like when He does one action and afterwards an action different from [the first]. So too when He knows something now that it is like this; and afterwards He knows it to be different when the thing has changed - that is a change in action. And this change is from the angle of the recipient [of the action]. It is like when God, may He be blessed creates one [creature] male and [another] female - that is also from the angle of the recipient: When the recipient is prepared to receive the form of a male, it is made into a male; and when it is prepared to receive the form of a female, it is made a female. And likewise in that very case, when the recipient is like this, the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, is that it is like this; and when it is different, the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, is that it is different. Nevertheless, that knowledge is one of His actions - as Scripture writes (Exodus 2:25), "and God knew." [This is obvious] to the point that I say that those people [who understood it as a change in His essence] did not see clear light.  
+<b>And behold I heard</b> that there was a certain man in Poland who, when he read my words in Gevurot HaShem (the second introduction), assembled the masses and 'expanded his mouth without measure' - [to say] that this thing departs from the Faith. And he spoke many words of emptiness and foolishness - all of this to become great and honored in front of people that do not know. They are like the people of this generation of ours who read books that the spirit of the Sages did not find pleasing and are from the third temperament among those who sit before the Sages (Avot 5:15, i.e. "the strainer, which lets the wine out and retains the sediment.") And he made all this noise against me, since I said that His knowledge is not His essence, but from His actions. And behold this 'expander' - why did he not 'expand his mouth' and question the words of the Zohar (1:81b, 3:109b) and all of the honored books authored by the masters of the Kabbalah. And do they say that His essence is the intellect? Rather behold they only compared the Holy One, blessed be He, to the soul, from which come all of the capabilities. And you will find this in all of their words, and it is the opinion of the Rabbis, may their memory be be blessed, as we said above (Paragraph 9). And our honorable teacher, the rabbi, Rabbi Meir (Gabbai), may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Avodat Hakodesh) in the Section on Unification in Chapter (11) [12] - and this is his language: "And the sages of the truth (Kabbalah) called the Holy One, blessed be He, Soul - for He is the soul to all of His characteristics, etc." Behold you see that He, may He be blessed, is the soul of His characteristics - which are the emanations. And this thing indicates to you that it should not be said that His knowledge - which is the wisdom (<i>chokhmah</i>) and the understanding (<i>binah</i>) - are His essence. So according to those that say that His knowledge is His essence, there is no room for the words of the Kabbalists. And we should not elaborate [about this] in this place. The general principle of [these] words is that these people are disagreeing with all of the words of the Kabbalah - such that anyone who understands things about this topic will know that it is all based on the wisdom of the Kabbalah. As the whole opinion of those who disagree is only that everything is His essence, may He be blessed, yet no description can be given to Him, as is explained in their words. 
+And people who have heard their words, which - on account of our many iniquities - have spread, [situate these words of theirs as if the thing was in the Torah of Moshe, peace be upon him; such that they are bewildered when a man says something against it. However, when [one of them] studies the words of Kabbalah, he also gives them a place and instructs them, since they are words of truth. But given that [he thinks the previous idea is also] true, he does not know that he is gathering two things together, one of which contradicts the other. [He will then think] it is only the language that differentiates them - this is said in the language of the sages of the Kabbalah and that is said in the language of the philosophers - as if that resolved the contradictions found between them. And all of this is from the foolishness of the intellect of people who will not understand. For if one knows and understands the things, he will then know that they are as distant from one another as can be. And would it cross a person's mind to say that, according to the sages of the Kabbalah, everything would be His essence, and that there could be no description of Him, may He be blessed? And if so, what are His attributes? And if there can be no description of Him besides negations (i.e. He is not x), what would the word, emanations, refer to? And who is the one who would have this enter his mind, to make a comparison between these two things? And those that follow the philosophers thought that this is complete unity, and it is on account of this that they said these things. So people think that one who veers from these words of theirs is, God forbid, against [God's] unity. Yet all of this has no substance at all. For such a thing is not at all against His unity, may He be blessed. But this is not the place for this.              
+And I said at the beginning of my words in the Book, Gevurot HaShem (the second introduction), that for us - the students of our teacher, Moshe, peace be upon him - the matter is not like this. And it is certainly not like this. For we cannot say that His knowledge is His essence, may He be blessed. And note that this thing can be seen from all the words of the Sages, as we said above. And the wonderous rabbi wrote further - and this is his language in the Section on Unification in Chapter 12 (at the beginning): "The diversity of [His] names and the number of the sefirot do not necessitate multiplicity in God, etc.... And they are called many names according to the variation of the aspects combined with His actions, according to the variation of the recipients; and they say about them, that they are the ten sefirot. And the proof of this is what they said in  Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, etc." This is testimony that the multiplicity of the sefirot is from the angle of the multiplicity of His actions, may He be blessed. Behold you should note that the multiplicity of sefirot - among which wisdom (<i>chokhmah</i>) and understanding (<i>binah</i>) are counted - is according to the multiplicity of actions. And you will find this thing in all of his chapters - that the sefirot are according to His actions - as you will find in Chapter 9, and in all of the chapters of the Section on Unification. It is just that the listeners are bewildered when they are told that He is a simple Unity; and that anyone who does not accept their words is as if he, God forbid, is veering from [His] unity. But the matter is not like this. For one can master this with complete understanding from the words of the Sages, and not gather together two opposites. Yet behold, they say that God, may He be blessed is a simple Oneness and He does not have any positive description, only negative [ones]. But what help are these words that are [only] said with the mouth? As behold He, may He be blessed, is the Cause of this world and its Mover. And is it possible to say in any way that this thing - that He is the Creator of the world and the Master of the world - is not some type of description? And what help will it be when we say that He has no description and that the descriptions of God, may He be blessed, are [only] negative? They say this; yet the descriptions of God, may He be blessed, exist by virtue of His creating the world. And this is impossible unless the world refers back to God, may He be blessed, with a description, by virtue of His creating the world. 
+And the rabbi, Rabbi Chasdai (Crescas) already critiqued this - his words cited by the author of Neveh Shalom, Essay 12, Teaching 1. Even though the author of Neveh Shalom dismisses the words of the aforementioned rabbi, the words of the rabbi, Rabbi Chasdai are [correct]. And why did [Maharal's critic, see Paragraph 11] not 'expand his mouth' against the [anonymous commentary on the] book Maarakhet Elokut, [who wrote] in the ninth chapter, and these are his words: "Know that descriptions are dependent upon a subject. So no activity (a type of description) can have existence without a doer (a type of subject). Whereas the subject does not depend on it, it depends on the subject. And so (since a description can be understood as an appendage or an addition,) the sages of [philosophical] inquiry completely distanced descriptions from God, may He be blessed. However the Kabbalists attached descriptions - that do not add - to God, may He be exalted. [This is] similar to the sun and its rays. For the sun is called, the sphere of the sun or the great light, and its rays are called, sun. And it is known that the rays are not something that adds to the sphere. And it has two names, such that [the rays] are descriptions that do not add. So the Kabbalists attached to Him, names that do not add to Him. And the Kabbalists gave these descriptions a general name - and that is the expression, sefirot." You should note that the sages of the Kabbalah disagree with the philosophers about this very thing: For according to the words of the Kabbalists, there are direct descriptions of Him, may He be blessed. And if so, according to the words of [the commentary on] the Maarakhet, the sefirot - which are wisdom and understanding, and the other sefirot - are only just descriptions. But it should not be said that they are His essence at all. And [about] that which he wrote, that [the philosophers] distanced descriptions from God, may He be blessed, since if He had descriptions, it would add to His essence - the rabbi, Rabbi Chasdai already dismissed this matter with clear intelligence, as it is explained in the book, Neveh Shalom.  
+And we wrote there that those who say that His essence is His intellect are the ones that are giving Him limits. For intellect is the knowledge of something with the intellect, as it [actually] is - outside of the intellect. So behold, they are giving him limits, whereas He, may He be blessed, has no limits at all. And therefore we said that He, may He be blessed, is completely simple, such that He cannot be limited by anything; and that knowledge is from the actions, such that no change [to God] is necessitated from it at all, when knowledge changes. 
+And let it not be difficult to you that [even though with] the actions that are necessitated by God, may He be blessed, the actions do not exist within Him - such that this thing does not require a change or addition or expansion in Him - however knowledge exists within the knower; such that if there is a change in His knowledge, that change would be a change within Him, may He be blessed. For this is certainly not a difficulty! As He, may He be blessed, knows, is powerful and is able - all of it with one ability - which is Himself from which all of these things are necessitated. And hence when He knows something; and afterwards knows that the matter is not like that - this is not a change in Himself. For He, may He be blessed, is what knows what He, may He be blessed, knows and is capable. But His essence is not the knowledge. For then, if that knowledge would change, that thing would be a change in His essence. But we will not say that. Rather we say that He knows, and is capable and all of the other propensities. And if so, there is no change in Him, may He be blessed, at all. Rather everything is necessitated by His essence. But because they say that His essence is His intellect - and according to that, his knowledge is His essence - because of that, it was difficult for them. As if so, it would be a change in His essence, may He be blessed. But the matter is not like this at all. For He, may He be blessed, knows and is capable and alive - all of it from One ability, may He be blessed, His self. But his knowledge is not His self; rather He knows. And because this knowledge is that He knows something besides Him, and that which He knows something besides Him [can] not be Himself - given that the essence of a thing cannot be outside of it - there is no change of knowledge in Him here, and it does not necessitate a change in Him at all. For He, may He be blessed is completely simple and, as a result, includes everything. For this is the matter of simplicity (as opposed to multiplicity) - that it is not defined by any specific thing. And because of this, it includes all knowledge. There is nothing outside of Him, and He knows everything. 
+And that which it stated (Psalms 94:3), "How long shall the wicked," in which [the wicked] say (Psalms 94:7), "The Lord (<i>Yod-hey</i>) does not see, the God of Yaakov does not pay heed" - why does it mention this name of "<i>Yod-hey</i>," and why, "the God of Yaakov?" However the explanation is that it is because the name, <i>Yod-hey</i>, indicates that He is everything. As all of the names are included in the explicit name [of God], and the name, <i>Yod-hey</i>, includes the explicit name. And when spelled out in full (spelling out the letters), it is, <i>Yod-vav-dalet-hey-alef</i>, and that is [a numerical count] of twenty-six, like [that of] the explicit name. That is why it is wondering about the wicked: Since He is everything, it is impossible that something be hidden from Him. For if so, that thing that He does not know would be separated from Him, and He would not be everything. And it said, "the God of Yaakov does not pay heed" - meaning to say, that He, may He be blessed, is the separated Holy One. That is why He is called the God of Yaakov [here], as it has been explained several times. For Yaakov had this characteristic, to be a separated holy one - as it is written (Isaiah 29:23), "and they will sanctify the Holy One of Yaakov." So how could it be that the One who is separated and simple, who has no limits at all, not understand? Since He is completely simple, it is impossible to say this about Him. For if so, He would not be simple. Rather, He would have a limit - that He knows this thing, but does not know that thing. However since He is completely simple, it could not be said about Him that He knows this but does not know everything. Rather He knows everything from the angle of His simplicity, such that He is not limited by anything specific. And that which He knows that this thing is so, and that it is different when it changes - this change is only from the angle of the recipient [of his knowledge]. But regarding God, may He be blessed, there is no change here. For He is completely simple; and from that angle, He knows everything. And if so, how could this thing necessitate multiplicity or complexity? For, just the opposite - the knowledge that He knows is from the angle of His simplicity, as the verse (in Psalms) stated. And so long as we attribute that simplicity to Him, it is necessary that He have a knowledge that knows everything, and nothing be hidden from Him. And this thing is very clear, but we should not elaborate about it in this place at all. And perhaps we will merit - with the help of the One that gives life to all in His kindness, may He be blessed - to explain all of these things in a place designated for this (it appears that the reference is to a book that he did not have the chance to write). It is just because of some people that lack knowledge that I have needed to explain the thing - that a person should not hear about things like this, that they are like the words of the Sages, the masters of fear of the Master of Truth. 
+And behold this man that 'expanded his mouth,' placed a blemish on himself, when he expressed words from his mouth. [But I am writing] to remove an obstacle - even though I say there will not be any people who are from the children of Avraham, the head of the believers, those that received the Torah of [our teacher] Moshe, peace be upon him, who will take his words to heart; and only, "Go away," must be said to his words. However, perhaps lest there be one that, God forbid, will turn to his words, it is appropriate to remove this obstacle. Behold he (Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi in Maaseh HaShem) wrote in Chapter 21 of the section he called, Maaseh Avot, and this is his language: And now I will tell you what can be said about this - according to what I will tell you in a very few words, and you will will illustrate them yourself. And that is that when we said that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not able to make another like Him, and the other impossibilities, it is not considered a lack in the nature of His ability. For impossibilities are not included in abilities. Likewise should it not be considered a lack in His knowledge, may He be blessed, when we say that once He created man and knew that he has free will, that His knowledge did not encompass that which [man] would actually do. For if it did encompass it, that knowledge would surely contradict His original knowledge that He knew that at the time of the creation of man, that he would have complete free will. And in my opinion, the intent of Rivash, may his memory be blessed, (Paragraph 118) was in this direction, even if he did not say the words according to this precise formula. To here is his language. And 'would only [the critci's] lips be struck dumb - lips of dishonesty that speak falsehood about the Righteous One of the world.' And can any man be found like this who does not concern himself with the honor of his Maker, to express words like these; to remove the knowledge of the future for that which has not been actualized, from God, may He be blessed? Yet in the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 90b): "The Romans asked, 'From where [do we know] that the Holy One, blessed be He, revives the dead and knows what will be in the future, etc.,'" as it is explained there. Then you should note that this is the belief of the Sages - that God, may He be blessed, knows the future! 
+And what can be answered to words like these that have no grasp or footing, and which have no place? Yet a man like this came to speak such words - as he said that there is no lack in His nature when His knowledge does not encompass that which has not been actualized. For if so, that knowledge would contradict His first knowledge, such that He knew at the time of his creation that man would have free will. Yet if knowledge is part of ability and perfection - as is known and clear, since (but) knowledge is a perfection and ignorance a lack - so it necessarily comes out from this that no knowledge should be removed from Him, and man should not be created with free will. For knowledge is more immediate to Him [than man's free will]. And are these words fitting for one with intelligence: That the knowledge of the creation of man - that he have free will - should be a cause of a lack and of ignorance, such that He would not know something that is in His ability to know? For that which He, may He be blessed is set apart from lack is from His essence, may He be blessed, without any cause. For He has no cause. And because He created man and he would have free will, that thing should activate ignorance in Himself? Just the opposite, His perfection and ability should necessitate that He know everything, and man not have free will at all! It is rather necessary that He knows like this, and not the opposite - that the creation of man with free will remove knowledge from Him, may He be blessed - since lack of knowledge would be a lack in Himself, God forbid. Is it not complete ignorance to express such words about Him? But His glory, may He be blessed, is in its place - blessed be He, and 'blessed be the name of His glory forever and ever, amen and amen.' And [regarding] that which he supported himself 'with cords of falsehood, and with cartropes of sin,' to a great tree (scholar) - meaning the Rivash, may his memory be blessed - we need not answer this. For it is obvious in front of everyone that there is no angle of content to his words. Just the opposite, [Rivash's] words are the opposite of this, as is obvious to all. God forbid to say like this about him!   
+<b>And the explanation of this mishnah:</b> The cause that necessitated the Sages to say that there were things created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight - was this time of the eve of Shabbat at twilight. That is because the other twilights - which are not day and not night [but rather a doubt as to which it is] - what difference does it make? If it is day, behold, it is the time of the six days of creation; and if it is night, it is also the time of the six days of creation - so there is no novelty [in it being twilight]. But on the eve of Shabbat at twilight - since it is the twilight of holiness, it has a greater level than the other days of nature, which are not so much on a level. Yet it is impossible to say that nothing would be created, since it is not completely Shabbat. But it is [also] impossible to say that what would be created on it would be like that which was created on the six days of creation, since it is also not completely [from] the days of the week. And therefore on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, things that were above nature were created. And they were not natural like [those] that were created on the six days of creation. For all of these things are not natural. And all of this is because twilight on the eve of Shabbat is above the six days of nature, just as Shabbat - due to its holiness - is above the six days of creation. Hence it is impossible that the twilight of the eve of Shabbat be without creation, since Shabbat - which is complete rest - had not yet began. But it is [also] impossible that natural things would be created on it, since it is on more of a level than the six days of creation. And therefore these things were created which were not completely natural, but they were close to nature. For all of these things were physical things. So from the angle of their being physical, they are natural things. But from the angle of their not being like other natural things, they depart from nature. And we say about this that they were created at twilight on the eve of Shabbat.  
+<b>And it has already been explained</b> that the number ten is appropriate for anything that has holiness; and 'there is no holiness with less than ten' - as has been explained above several times. And it is something that is very understood. So therefore, they taught in the mishnah, "Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight" - because there is an aspect of holiness to the time of the eve of Shabbat at twilight, in that it departs from the six days of creation, which are mundane. And hence ten things were created at this time by itself. [This is] like the world being created though all of the six days of creation with ten utterances (Avot 5:1), from the angle of the world clinging to the highest level, which is indicated by the number ten - as it has been explained. And likewise were ten things created [at this time] from the angle of the time of twilight - since it has holiness from the angle of it being twilight [on the eve of Shabbat]; and ten is applicable to all holiness.  
+ <b>And in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu (Pesachim 54a), it is written:</b> And was our fire [created] at the (eve) [conclusion] of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught [in a baraita], "Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and these are they: The well; and the manna; and the rainbow; and the letters; and the writing; and the tablets; and the grave of Moshe; and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood; and the opening of the mouth of the donkey; and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow up the wicked. Rabbi Nechemiah said in the name of his father, 'Also fire; and the mule.' Rabbi Yoshiyah said in the name of his father, 'Also the ram (found and slaughtered by Avraham); and the <i>shamir</i>.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Also the tongs.'" He would say, "Tongs can be made [only] with tongs, [so] who made the first tongs? Indeed, it was made by the hands of the Heavens." They said to him, "It is possible to make tongs with a mold and align it." To here [is the Gemara]. And also there: Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and these are they: The well; and the manna; and the rainbow; and the letters; and the writing; and the tablets; and the grave of Moshe; and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood; and the opening of the mouth of the donkey; and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow up the wicked. And some say, "Also the staff of Aharon, its almonds and its blossoms." And some say, "Also the demons." And some say, "Also the garments of the first Adam." To here [is the Gemara]. And in our mishnah, not all the versions are the same. For in some texts, it is written, "And some say, 'Also the demons; and the grave of Moshe; and the ram of Avraham.' And some say, 'Also tongs made with tongs.'" And in some versions, it is written, "And some say, 'The ram of Yitzchak; and the grave of Moshe.' And some say, 'Also the demons; and the tongs.'" And I did not know how to understand this, as it connects two things together that have no connection. For that which it said in the baraita - "Also the ram; and the <i>shamir</i>" - they are two comparable things, as they are both creatures. So they are comparable and similar. And "the fire; and the mule" - even though it appears that they are not comparable - are certainly comparable, as it says there: Rabbi Yosei says, "Two things arose in thought to be created on Shabbat eve, but were not created until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, blessed be He, granted Adam, the first man, understanding similar to divine knowledge, and he brought two rocks and rubbed them against each other, and fire emerged from them. [Adam also] brought two animals and mated them with each other, and a mule emerged from them." To here [is the Gemara]. Behold that these two things are comparable - for their completion is by the hands of man. Because with fire, it was man that actualized it; since the fire was only in potential, meaning in the rock from which the fire emerged. And likewise the mule, was only a potentiality in the animals - meaning in the male and in the female. But he joined them together, and a mule emerged from them - as with the joining of the stones. And we have already elaborated [on this] in a different place (Beer HaGolah 2); and this is not its place. But demons and tongs are not similar. And likewise if the [correct] version is, "the demons; and the grave of Moshe, and the ram of Avraham" - these three have no connection to each other. 
+<b>And therefore I say</b> that the correct version [should be]: "The ram of Yitzchak; and the grave of Moshe" - since the ram and the grave are comparable - since they were both needed by great righteous men, as will be explained. "And some say, 'Also the demons.' And some say, 'Also tongs made with tongs.'" And so does the [correct] version appear to be. And then the mishnah is comparable to the baraitas. For you will find in the two baraitas equally, that it adds three things to the ten things. As in the first baraita, Rabbi Nechemiah adds in the name of his father, "Also fire; and the mule"; Rabbi Yoshiyah says, "Also the ram; and the <i>shamir</i>"; and Rabbi Yehudah says, "Also the tongs." And in the second baraita, some say, "Also the staff of Aharon, its almonds and its blossoms"; and some say, "Also the demons"; and some say, "Also the garments of the first Adam." You should note that you always find three additional opinions.  
+And this thing does not at all appear to be a coincidence. Rather it is a great and magnificent thing. For we have already said that the creation of twilight was when the [main] part of the day had passed, so that it is not considered from the [main part of the] day. And we have explained to you why it was ten things that were created at twilight. And according to the opinion of all, it is impossible that there be less than ten things that were created at twilight. And that is because of the matter of the time, which is the twilight of the eve of Shabbat. However there are several times that are between the two days: As you say that promptly and immediately after the sun has set, the daytime has gone. Even though it has not reached twilight completely - nevertheless, since the full power of the day is not found, it is somewhat called twilight. And when it reaches it more, it is [fully] called twilight; until the end [of it] - which is the main twilight - during which it would be appropriate that ten things would be created, due to the elevation of this time. Do you not see - in the Gemara, there is a disagreement about [what is legally considered] twilight? And this is what we say there (Shabbat 34b): And what is twilight? "From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddening" These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Nechemiah says, "Enough for a person to walk half a <i>mil</i> after the sun sets." Rabbi Yosei says, "Twilight is like the blink of an eye; this enters and that leaves, and it is impossible to calculate it." To here [is the Gemara]. You should note that it is explicit that there are several twilights: Rabbi Yosei said that "twilight is like the blink of an eye; this enters and that leaves" - that is the last twilight, such that it be impossible that anything less be twilight. And during this twilight - that it is impossible that there be less than it and it is as if it does not extend to any time at all - the ten things that were taught in the mishnah were created. For this twilight is completely close to Shabbat; hence the ten things were created during it. And the other twilights - up to three time periods - came as additions.  
+And this is as we have said. As the first [opinion that adds to the ten things created] holds that even though the main twilight is completely between the days - and the ten things were created during it, and it is as if it does not extend to any time at all, given the closeness that it has to Shabbat - nevertheless the time that is next to (before) it is also twilight. And therefore, during that twilight as well, the ram of Yitzchak and the grave of Moshe were created. But there is another twilight and it is further (earlier), but it is [still] somewhat close. And because of that, they added, "Some say, 'Also the demons.'" Yet there is [still] another twilight immediately after sunset, but it is further (earlier) [still]. But nevertheless, since it is after sunset, it should also be added to twilight. So they also added the tongs to this - that it was also created at twilight. And they added specifically up to three, to the last twilight. And that is because once the day before it has already passed, [time] begins to approach the Shabbat. And anything that approaches [something else] is divided into three parts: The beginning of the approach, the middle of the approach and the end of the approach. [This is] aside from the last twilight, which is considered as if it does not contain any time at all and is considered like the present. For the present connects together the time of the past with the time of the future. And likewise is the last twilight only like the present, which is the end of the time of the past and the beginning of the time of the future; and there is no extension here of any time at all. 
+But perhaps you will find it difficult: If so, how is creation applicable to it at all? For all existence is only within time! However this is not difficult. For if the creation was [of] physical things, all physical existence certainly does require time; but these things are not physical things that require time at all. For even if they are physical things, their essence is only that which is not natural; and that is what was created at twilight. As they were not completely created in actuality. Rather [their existence] was only decreed, as [discussed] later (Paragraph 30). And so this twilight is not considered time that is dependent upon the physical. And also - even if it is time - it is not considered to be time at all; for it is only an instant, about which Rabbi Yosei said, "It is impossible to calculate it" (Shabbat 34b).  
+And hence ten things were created during it, as it has been explained several times; whereas the other twilights are not so much on a level. And every, "And some say," adds the time that is [progressively] more distant. So, in fact, the last addition is closer to nature - as it is closer to the time of the six days of creation. That is why the mishnah added, "tongs made with tongs," [as] the last addition. And it is something similar to the way of nature - to the point that the Sages argue and say (Pesachim 54a) that it is something completely created by man, such that it is like the other creations. And these words are words of much wisdom. However there is another reason for these additions upon the ten things. And that thing may be understood from the content of twilight; however we many not elaborate on things like these. And it should also be said that each [opinion] is adding on the previous, until they are three - but they are not arguing at all. And so is it shown in the discussion (Pesachim 54a), which asks, "And was fire [created] at the (eve) [conclusion] of Shabbat, etc.?" And it answered from [the opinion of] Rabbi Nechemiah. And what does it answer from Rabbi Nechemiah? Behold [we would otherwise say], we do not hold like that! But rather, each and every one came to add, and not to disagree at all. And that is correct. 
+<b>And you may say:</b> Behold these baraitas are difficult with relation to our mishnah! For here others [different creations] were [listed]. And the baraitas also [list] different ones [from each other]. And with the additions also - the two baraitas are disparate, as you [see] in front of you. And the mishnah also does not agree about the additions with the baraitas. But it appears that none of this is difficult. For according to all, ten things were created at twilight; and they added other things onto the ten things - from the reason that was explained above - which correspond to the time that twilight extends on the eve of Shabbat. And all agreed about this thing. It is just that the mishnah here holds that the ten things that the mishnah listed are furthest from nature. And therefore, these should be situated as the ten things that were created at twilight. As these ten things are all the furthest from nature, as we explained above. And, [according to the mishnah,] the ram of Yitzchak and the grave of Moshe, our teacher, are not as distant from nature as the ten. However they are further from nature than the demons that are mentioned after this. And the demons are further than the tongs - as behold, "It is possible to make tongs with a mold and align it" (Pesachim 54a). That is the opinion of the mishnah. And likewise do the bariatas in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu hold that those things [that they list] are appropriate to list as the ten things, because they are the furthest from nature. And the things that, "Some say," added are appropriate to [only] add on, since they are not so distant from nature. But fire and the mule are further from nature than the ram and the <i>shamir</i>; and these two are further than the tongs. And for the other baraita, the staff of Aharon should be placed [first] in the additions; and afterwards the demons; and afterwards, the garments of the first Adam. That is because they were Adam's garments, who was created on the six days of nature - and garments have a relation and connection to the one that wears them. Hence they are close to nature. 
+<b>And the explanation of these ten things:</b> In the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu (Pesachim 54a), Rashi wrote: The well - the well of Miriam, and that is the boulder from which water emerged by way of Moshe and Aharon. And it was round like a sieve, and rolled with them in every place that they went. To here is his language. And it does not appear to me that the intention of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, was that the boulder would roll and go with them. For if so, why is there no mention of the miracle that the boulder gave water when detached from the ground? For since it was rolling with them, it was detached. However it only said, "the mouth of the well." Rather it appears that we can say that in every place they went, the well would rise up and gush water. And a mouth (an opening) was created for this well, such that the water would come out in each place that they went. And that is why it said, "the mouth of the well" - since God, may He be blessed, gave a mouth to the well in every place that they encamped - and water came out [through it]. And [regarding] that which Rashi explained, that "it was round like a sieve" - that is what they said in the Midrash (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 21): "Overlooking the wilderness" (Numbers 21:20) - for it was hidden (emptied) in the Sea of Tiberias, and one who stands by the wilderness may look and see a kind of sieve in the sea, and that was the well. To here is the language of Rashi in Parashat Chukat (Rashi on Bemidbar 21:20) from the Midrash. And "a sieve" is a circle (something round) - so does it appear. 
+<b>The letters and the writing (<i>ketav oumikhtav</i>):</b> Rashi explained (Pesachim 54a): <i>Ketav</i> is reading the name of the letters; and the <i>mikhtav</i> is the inscribing of the letters. This is what I have heard. But it appears to me that <i>ketav</i> is the inscribing of the letters; and the <i>mikhtav</i> is the stylus with which He wrote the engraving on the tablets - like that in Tractate Kiddushin (21b), "From where [do we know] to include a sharp thorn, a thorn and a <i>mikhtav</i>." And my words appear [correct]; as reading is not called <i>ketav</i> To here [are his words]. But it is a wonder - behold, it is written (Exodus 31:18), "written (<i>ketuvim</i>) with the finger of God." And if so, they were not written with a stylus! So it appears that <i>ketav</i> is the shape of the letter; and the <i>mikhtav</i> is the reception of the writing - but the <i>ketav</i> is independent. And it should not be asked: Behold, without the reception of the writing, there is nothing at all; and how is creation relevant to something that has no substance? But this is not a question. For the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed on the eve of Shabbat that the form of the letter be such and such; yet there was still nothing to receive the form until He decreed about the reception of the <i>ketav</i>. For the creation of the ten things that were created at twilight was not an actual creation. It was rather that at twilight, He decreed the creation. For it does not appear that the ram of Yitzchak was alive from the six days of creation until Avraham. Rather He decreed its creation - and that is its creation. So too did He decree the letters according to what they were; and also decreed the reception of the letters. [This is] like the fire and the mule, according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah. As it says in the Gemara (Pesachim 54a) that [fire] was created at twilight on the eve of Shabbat; and in the Gemara, they establish it to have gone up in [God's] thought on the eve of Shabbat. And for this [reason], it is said that it was created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. So too, [regarding] the creation of the <i>ketav</i> - meaning the shape of the writing: God, may He be blessed, decreed it at twilight; [as well as] the <i>mikhtav</i> - the reception of the inscription. And since it did not say, "the tablets and the <i>ketav</i>," it is not talking about the <i>ketav</i> and the <i>mikhtav</i> only on the tablets. Rather it is all <i>ketav</i> and all <i>mikhtav</i> that was created at twilight; just like the fire and the mule that Rabbi Nechmiah said, was speaking about all fire and mules. So behold that all <i>ketav</i> and <i>mikhtav</i> was created at twilight on the eve of Shabbat. And the reason it was necessary to create the <i>ketav</i> and the <i>mikhtav</i> on the eve of Shabbat at twilight was because of the <i>ketav</i> of the tablets and of the [original] Torah scroll. For it is inappropriate for these things to be written by things that were arranged by men. And therefore it is necessary to say that they were the work of God, may He be blessed. And this thing is not similar to natural things that were created on the six days of creation. Si therefore we say that their creation was on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, which is appropriate for things that are completely not natural. And it meant to say that God, may He be blessed, decreed the writing and the reception of the writing and arranged it. And when it was actualized, that was what had been created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. 
+And our mishnah did not list the grave of Moshe and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood, because it held that it is more [fit] to list the staff and the <i>shamir</i> in their place. As what the staff was doing and what the <i>shamir</i> was doing were great things that were being done. And hence these two should be listed, and not the grave of Moshe and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood. But the baraita held that it was more [fit] to list the grave of Moshe, the place of which was not known to any man (Deuteronomy 34:6). And likewise, the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood - as its place testifies for it, since it was on the Mountain of God (Mount Sinai). And therefore these two should be listed. And this is what they disagree about. And [regarding] that which it said, "Also tongs made with tongs" - we have already explained that its understanding is not that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the tongs on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed the [making of the] tongs on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. For God, may He be blessed, created, the world with perfection; and there is no lack in the world. And the craft of metalwork is needed for the world. But since this craft needs to have tongs, and the first tongs is not the work of people - God, may He be blessed, necessarily decreed that this would be made. And since this work is not a natural act, it was therefore created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And with this, the world would not be lacking - as God, may He be blessed, completed the world. And therefore the creation of the tongs fell out on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And this explantion is known and we should not elaborate - and there is no other explanation. And we have already said that this is why this statement is last - on account of it it being appropriate that something departing from the acts of creation should be last, and not first. For the order of nature is first, and this comes afterwards. So everything is understood. 
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<i>Seven things are [found] in an unformed person and seven in a wise man. A wise man does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him in wisdom or in number; and he does not interrupt the words of his fellow; and is not impulsive in answering; and he asks to the point and answers as is proper; and he speaks to the first [point] first and the last [point] last; and about that which he has not heard [anything], says, "I have not heard [anything]"; and he concedes to the truth. And their opposites [are the case] with an unformed person.</i>
+<b>Seven things are [found], etc.:</b> The explanation of these seven things that are found in an unformed person and seven in the wise man - first you need to know that all of the seven that are stated here are what exists with intellect. That means that it is that which does not veer from the appropriate order necessitated by intelligence. And the intellect necessitates all of these things and limits them. And there is no doubt that one who veers from the appropriate order, veers from the intellect. For order is the essence of the intellect. And hence all the content of the wise man and his traits are evaluated and ordered.
+And therefore it said, "A wise man does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him." This thing is appropriate according to order, the order that is necessitated by the intellect. And likewise, "he does not interrupt the words of his fellow" - for this would not be order at all, when one would interrupt the words of his fellow. "And is not impulsive in answering" - because if he was impulsive in answering, he would answer with quickness; and this is not order. And he "asks to the point and answers as is proper" - it is all because of order. For if he would ask not to the point, that thing would be called, veering from order. And that is why he asks to the point. And likewise that which it said, "he speaks to the first [point] first and the last [point] last" - is all according to order; the order and evaluation that is necessitated by the intellect. And [also,] "about that which he has not heard [anything], says, 'I have not heard [anything]." Otherwise, it would be veering from order. And likewise, that which "he concedes to the truth" and does not turn truth into falsehood - you will not find a greater veering [from order] than if he were to do this. And the opposite of this is with an unformed person. As an unformed person is physical and lacks the intellect from which there is evaluation and order. And hence it said, "And their opposites with an unformed person" - as he always veers from order.
+<b>And we have already told you many times</b> that the words of the Sages should not be explained only by approximation. Rather, since it said, "there are seven characteristics in a wise man," it is certain that the number is meant to teach us that it is specific. For it is appropriate that there be seven traits with a wise man, not less and not more. And that it is because it is coming to say that the intellect is [properly] ordered. And that is why it said that it has seven characteristics. For something is [properly] ordered by seven things, not less and not more. And with them, he is completely ordered. And since it said that the wise man is [properly] ordered - as it appropriate for the intellect - it said that he has seven traits through which he is ordered. And that is because all order is balance. As if order did not have balance, it would not be order. And that which veers from order, completely veers from balance. And total balance is the center that does not sway towards any side. And the order of the center is with seven and by that which it stands in the center. It does not sway towards the top, the bottom, frontwards, backwards or to the sides - such that the order of any center is [defined by] seven. For behold that which there is no swaying to the right or to the left or to any side of the six [directions] - which is only the case with the center - is fully seven things. And corresponding to this, it said that the wise man has seven things - all of which indicate order, to the point that he is completely ordered. 
+And you must understand that it mentioned seven things, all of which do not veer from appropriate order, but rather remain in order; but in the seventh, it said, "he concedes to the truth" - and that corresponds to the center itself. For truth is similar to the center itself, as that is the essence of truth - not to veer from the central point at all. And you can understand this from the letters [that spell out truth in Hebrew], <i>alef-mem-tav</i>. For the first letter is at the head of alphabet, the middle letter is <i>mem</i> - which is in the middle of the alphabet - and the [last] letter, <i>tav</i>, is at the end of the alphabet. And you should know well the great things that are hinted to in the word, truth: For the middle - which is the complete truth - is connected to the two edges. And when there is truth, the truth carries the edges, such that the truth carries everything. And this thing is similar to Israel, which are 'all the true seed.' The edges - which are the nations of the world, since they are auxiliary to the truth - depend upon them. And because of this, all exists, even that which leans from the center which is the actual truth. Hence the  <i>alef</i> and the <i>tav</i> - which are the edges - rely upon the letter, <i>mem</i>, which particularly indicates truth. For <i>mem</i> is in the center of the alphabet; [and] the center is the truth. And with this, you will know that truth carries everything, for behold it carries the edges. And therefore the nations, that lean away from the truth, stand in the merit of Israel - who are the 'true seed.' And that which the truth is similar to the center, we have explained it above. For the truth has no leaning from fairness at all. And that is the content of the middle - that it does not lean away from fairness. As behold that it is truth itself, such that no leaning is applicable. But falsehood leans away from fairness. And therefore the letters [that spell out falsehood in Hebrew], <i>shin-kof-reish</i> are at the edge of the alphabet (Shabbat 104a). All of this is because falsehood leans away from fairness.
+And you should also know that falsehood does not exist and its essence is absence, whereas truth is the opposite. For there is no absence in truth. Rather it exists; and falsehood does not exist. And hence truth is similar to the center. As the center is far from the edge. For since the edge is the edge, it is close to absence. However truth - which has existence and exists - is similar to the center. As any center is far from absence. But falsehood is similar to the edge, because an edge is close to absence - as the end is absence. Hence the <i>mem</i>, which is the middle letter of the alphabet, indicates the truth, whereas the edges are auxiliary to the center. And the opposite of this are the letters, <i>shin-kof-reish</i>, which completely lean to the end - for they are at the end of the alphabet. And [regarding] that which there is no <i>tav</i> - which is more at the end - it is because truth and falsehood are opposites. And it would not be appropriate for a letter from truth to be included in falsehood, given that they are opposites. And it is also because - even though the <i>tav</i> is at the end - it is not considered the edge. Since what stands at the border and limits the alphabet is not called an edge. Rather they stand at the border. Hence the  <i>alef</i> and the <i>tav</i> - which are the letters that are on the border - are found in truth. For truth does not go beyond the border; whereas the letters, <i>shin-kof-reish</i>, lean to the edges that have no border. And this thing is very clear to one who understands. Also, the letters, <i>shin-kof-reish</i>, are backwards and mixed up. First is the <i>shin</i> (which is the third of the three in alphabetical order), and then the <i>kof</i> (which is first) and then the <i>reish</i> (which is second). And this is no order, frontwards or backwards - as there is no order to falsehood at all. However the letters of truth are ordered, since truth is in order. And this thing is understood. And it is because of this that [the mishnah] mentioned the number. As it is fitting that [the wise man] have specifically seven traits.
+<b>And [regarding] that which it said,</b> "Seven things are in an unformed person (<i>golem</i>)," and it did not say, "in an ignoramus (<i>am haarets</i>)": It is since an unformed person means to say that he has no human wisdom; whereas, ignoramus, means to say that he has no Torah [learning]. And that is not what it means to say here, but rather that he has no human wisdom. And we should not elaborate here. 
+<b>"And is not impulsive in answering":</b> As he does not answer quickly, to the point that he answers impulsively. Rather he answers calmly with composure. And the explanation of, "he asks to the point," is that he is exacting to ask with reasoning, such that he gives a reason for his words. And accordingly, that which it says, "and answers as is proper (literally, like the law)," is that he answers things that are close to the truth, to the point that they are the law. And it did not say, "and answers to the point," which would have only implied that he gave reasoning for his words, and not that they are completely close to the law. And it is not applicable to say, "he asks like the law," but rather, "he asks to the point." This means to say that he asks according to what is appropriate for the reasoning, to the extent that the question is appropriate to ask regarding the point. And also called, "he asks to the point (literally, like the topic)," is to ask about the tractate that they are on. This thing is called, "to the point" - meaning that he asks according to the give and take that there is about this topic. But if he asks about another tractate - even if he asks intelligently - it is called, "he asks not to the point." For this is not the topic that they are on. And asking and answering are one thing - as we have said. And that is why they are seven things and not more (since they would be eight, if we counted them separately).
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<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 instruct the Torah counter to the accepted law.</i>
+<b>Seven kinds of punishment, etc.:</b> We have already mentioned (see Derekh Chayim 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 (Derekh Chayim 5:7:4). And therefore, adjacent to it is, "Seven kinds of punishment." As this thing is the opposite of the first - that "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 at 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 punishments are the veering from the order. And that is why it said, "Seven kinds of punishments, etc."
+<b>And the explanation 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 [the Jews] 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 this 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 satiates 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 take the tithe, there is drought and famine in the world - since it is possible to satisfy a man who he is to give it 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 (<i>terumah</i>) 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. Whereas 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 [too] is 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 others from their goods, it would not have been appropriate for Him to create the world and to benefit [people] with what they need. For this trait is connected to the trait of kindness, such that it is only appropriate to do kindness to 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 this] is that [regarding] 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 (Derekh Chayim 1:18) in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel Torah, on, "The world stands on three things, etc."
+And [the first item mentioned in the Midrash] 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 [only] 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 - 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 - are 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. Yet 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 man, things that - even though they do not give livelihood and sustenance to man, they are nevertheless necessary to fill the lacks of man. [So it means,] 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 for man. And hence, they ordained [for it, the blessing], "who creates many souls and their lacks." And they likewise ordained it [for] 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 [understanding of the] language, "beyond all which You created, etc." For the sustenance of man is certainly first.
+And regardless, these three things are because man benefits all the categories of good to others. 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 (Paragraph 6). And therefore on account of the tithe - when they do not give the tithe - famine comes to the world.
+<b>And you should also know</b> 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 [to it] not to give the tithes - as this thing is not applicable. 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 [to it], 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 said here that famine comes because of the tithes and the dough, it is on account of that when famine is in the world - that 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 beshvil she'titasher</i>)." And this has already been explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 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 choice 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 as <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 opposed to 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 (it is) 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," are 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 individually, 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 ordeals. 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. For 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, a famine from drought, a famine from tumult and a famine of annihilation are 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 [the 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 relation 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 the produce of the Sabbatical year - as behold, it is permitted to eat it. Yet He commanded about them to destroy them from the world when it is the time of [their] destruction. And this destruction in which one 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 Sabbatical 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 of the Sabbatical year from the world and that it be ownerless to all - whether to men or to animals. And when man does not do this, man becomes completely ownerless [in the eyes of] the angel of destruction, such that he not distinguish between the good and the bad. And this thing is understood.
+And you should understand that there are two things [unique to] pestilence. The first is that the angel destroys with a strong hand, as it is written [when God ordered the angel of destruction to desist from pestilence] (II Samuel 24:16), "and He said to the angel, '[...] soften your hand.'" And the second is that people are made ownerless in front of the destroyer, such that he does not distinguish between good and bad. And about this, they said that if they do not administer the death penalties of the court set forth in the Torah - such that they are obligated to kill with the power of law, yet they do not do [so] - the angel comes and destroys with power. So pestilence, which comes with great power, is similar to the judgement of a court - since every judgement of a court is with power, given that the court must perform an act and kill. And if they do not make the produce of the Sabbatical year ownerless to all, they will become ownerless to all that destroys them. And therefore it said that pestilence comes to the world for the death penalties that are not given over to the court and for the produce of the Sabbatical year. For when they transgress these two sins that have these two aspects, pestilence - that has these two things - comes against them. And it can also be explained that pestilence comes because they did not make the produce of the Sabbatical year ownerless, such that there be no one [left] there to eat it. And so the produce will automatically rot, like the law of the produce of the Sabbatical year. So the pestilence comes to mete out the law of the produce of the Sabbatical year as is fit. But this does not appear [correct] - for this measure is not exact. As if the sword (war) had come against them and they would die by the sword, the produce would [also] rot. Nevertheless, it could be [answered] that the enemies would take the fruit [and so it would not rot]. However the first [approach] is correct for the one who understands words of wisdom concerning pestilence. And this thing is understood.  
+<b>[The] sword comes to the world:</b> You should know that judgement is called, the sword - because it 'cuts' and 'snips' (this is the literal translation of these two words, though they are usually understood more figuratively) the sentence, just like the sword cuts and snips. And hence if judgement is prevented - and [the court] does not 'cut' and 'snip' the sentence - the sword comes. And the Sages used this expression in every place, saying, "the 'cut' sentence," [and] "the sentence was 'severed' according to them" - such that you see explicitly that severing and cutting are connected to judgement. And hence if [the court] delays the sentence and does not 'sever' it, or it 'severs' the sentence inappropriately or it instructs the Torah in opposition to the accepted law - for one who instructs a decision also 'cuts' and 'severs' the decision - since it is abusing with 'cutting,' the punishment will be measure for measure: So the sword will come to the world. For all of the traits of the Holy One, blessed be He, are measure for measure (Sanhedrin 90a). And there is no greater measure for measure than this. So also this thing is understood.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<i>Destructive animals come to the world because of false oaths and because of the desecration of God's name. Exile comes to the world because of the worshipers of idols, because of sexual immorality, because of the spilling of blood and because of [the violation] of the resting of the land [on the Sabbatical year].</i>
+<b> And it said, "Destructive animals come to the world, etc."</b> It can be strongly asked about this: As what is relation of this punishment to false oaths and the desecration of God's name? And it is possible that the hint is in that which it said, "destructive animals." In Scripture, the [conquering] empires are called, animals. So it said that when there are false oaths and the desecration of God's name in the world and they do nor fear His great name - 'destructive animals' come, and they will fear from them. Instead of their fearing from the name of the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He; they will fear from a king of flesh and blood. And you should know that the Sages hinted with this that one should fear from His great name. And therefore, if they do not fear from His great name, destructive animals come to the world. As fear is only with destructive animals, since man fears from a [wild] animal, as it is an unusual creature. So fear is more applicable to this than it is is applicable to the sword. And hence it said, "Destructive animals come to the world because of false oaths and because of the desecration of God's name." For these [people] sin on account of their treating the honor of His name lightly. As if one was not treating His name lightly, he would not transgress [making] a false oath and he would not have desecrated His great name. And that is why the punishment of destructive animals comes specifically for these two sins. So behold, the truth of this understanding of that which it said, "Destructive animals come to the world because of false oaths and because of the desecration of God's name," has been explained to you. And this explantion is understood, such that there is no doubt about it. And let Him, may He be blessed, save us from this iniquity and atone on our behalf. 
+<b>Exile comes to the world, etc.</b> It can be strongly wondered [about] that which the exile comes on account of [these] four things. For what is the relation of these four things to exile from the land? You need to know and understand these things very [well]; so focus your eyes and your heart on these things which I will explain to you. For if you investigate, you will find that there are three descriptions of the Land of Israel: The first is that His name, may He be blessed, is called upon the land, such that He is the God of the Land. And it is an explicit verse - "and this people will rise up, and go astray after the gods of/that are the stranger of the land." And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, explained: The gods that are foreign to this Land; for the glorious God is called the God of the Land, as it is stated (II Kings 17:26), "because they know not the manner of the God of the Land." And likewise (II Chronicles 32:19), "And they spoke of the God [of Jerusalem], as concerning the gods of the peoples of the earth." And it is written (Hosea 9:3), "They shall not dwell in the Land of the Lord." To here is the language of the Ramban. And this is explained well in the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed. To the point that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 110b) - and Rashi brings it in Parshat Lech Lecha (Genesis 17:8) [on], "to give you the land to be for you as God" (see Leviticus 25:38) - "For the one who lives in the Land of Israel, I am a God to him; but for the one who does not live in the Land of Israel, I am not a God to him." See there. And accordingly, David said, "for they have driven me out today, so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession, but am told, 'Go and worship other gods'" (I Samuel 26:19). But who told David, "Go and worship other gods?" Rather, since they drove him out of the Land of Israel, it is as if they told him, "Go and worship other gods" (Ketuvot 110b). And this thing is understood. For all of the lands are under the dominion of the upper ministering angels. So there is no [land] upon which the name of God is called other than the Land of Israel. And the second description that the Land has, is that it is called, [the] Holy Land. And this thing is understood.
+The third is that it is called, The Land of the living, as it is written (Ezekiel 26:20), "and I shall set up my ornament in the Land of the living." And at the end of Ketuvot (111a), "'The Land of the living' - that its dead will live in the future to come." And the reason that it is called, the Land of the living, is because the Land of Israel is at the center of the world (Midrash Tanchuma, Kedoshim 10) - as we have explained in several places - and anything that has the level of the center and does not lean to the edge, relates to life. For the edge has an end and a culmination. And that is the content of death; for death is the end and the culmination.
+And because of this did it say that because of [these] three transgressions and sins is Israel exiled from the Land. For if they are worshipping idolatry, it is certainly not appropriate to be in the Land. As He, may He be blessed, is the God of the Land - so how could there be those that worship idolatry in His Land? And the second, the spilling of blood, is because the Land is called, the Land of the living: If they are spilling blood, it is inappropriate that they should be in the Land at all - since they are spilling blood within it, it is not called, the Land of the living. The third, sexual immorality, is from the angle of the Land of Israel, being called, holy. And the opposite of holiness is sexual immorality.
+And this thing is explained in several places - that the adversary of holiness is sexual immorality. And it is like our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Sifra on Vayikra 19:2) - as Rashi cited in Parashat Kedoshim (Rashi on Leviticus 19:2) - that this is why [the Torah] has Parashat Kedoshim (Holy Ones) adjacent to the the section about sexual immorality (Leviticus 18), to tell you that they should be holy and removed from sexual immorality; for wherever you find a fence against sexual immorality, there you will find holiness: "They shall not take a wife that is a harlot, or a profaned woman [...] for I am the Lord, who sanctifies you" (Leviticus 21:7-8); "Neither shall he profane his seed [...] for I, the Lord, do sanctify him" (Leviticus 21:15); "They shall be holy… they shall not take a harlot or a profaned woman" (Leviticus 21:6-7). To here [are their words]. And we have explained the reason in very many places: For sexual immorality and harlotry is the most bodily desire; and all holiness is separated from the physical. And hence we sanctify God, may He be blessed, as He is separated from the bodily. And we have explained this a great deal - that the there is no content to holiness besides being separated from the physical. And the Sages hinted to this in what they, may their memory be blessed, said [about] why the sacrifice of the <i>sotah</i> (woman suspected of adultery) is barley: They said (Sotah 14a), "She did an animal act; hence her sacrifice is the food of an animal." You should then note that harlotry is a [totally] physical act. And it is known that harlotry is [totally] physical [and] bodily. And hence if they, God forbid, lean towards harlotry, they are exiled from the Land. 
+However the resting [on the Sabbatical year] is [an obligation] towards the Land, something which is not found in any [other] land. And this thing is from the angle of the Land itself; as it is appropriate that the Land have resting. And that is because the Land of Israel does not lack anything in it, and it is a land that is complete in everything - as the verse (Deuteronomy 8:9) stated about it, "A land where [...] you will lack nothing in it." And this thing is as opposed to the other lands, which are lacking. However only the Land of Israel is not lacking; and it is complete. And resting and stillness is appropriate for something that is complete. And this thing is similar to [the people of] Israel - for it is from the angle of their completeness that they have resting and stillness. And this matter was explained above (Derekh Chayim, Kol Yisrael; The Opening Mishnah) - the matter of resting for Israel: For anyone who does not have stillness has not reached completeness - and that is why he is in motion. As it has already been explained with, "If you have learned much Torah" (Derekh Chayim 2:8)," that one in motion is potential; and that one that has been completely activated does not have motion. As [motion] is applicable to potential, but what is complete is [already] activated. And hence so long as the world was not completed and it was not activated, it did not acquire stillness (Shabbat, the seventh day) - until it was completed. And then it was [no longer] potential; then it acquired stillness. You should then note that stillness is applicable to something that is completed and actualized - and then it is something that can have stillness. But when it is not completed and is not activated, movement is applicable to it. And that thing is appropriate for the nations - as their existence is not totally complete, and they are potential and not activated. Hence constant motion is also appropriate for them.
+<b>And that is [the meaning of]</b> their, may their memory be blessed, saying in Tractate Sanhedrin (58b), "A Noachide (non-Jew) who observes Shabbat is liable for the death penalty, as it is stated (Genesis 8:22), 'day and night, they shall not cease.'" And it may be asked, "Why should he be liable for death for this?" However it is because resting is not appropriate for a Noachide, since rest indicates activated completeness. And that thing is not appropriate for a Noachide. Rather they are potential and not activated. Hence is it appropriate for them to only be in motion. And [the difference between the Land of Israel and others] is like the difference between [the people of] Israel and the Noachides, from the angle of resting. For Israel is required to come to the category of resting. For if it did not come to the category of resting but rather always have work - which is motion - it would be considered as if it did not have completeness. As if it had completeness, it would have come to stillness. And likewise must the Land rest. For if there were to be continual work in it, that would indicate that it is lacking completeness. And that is why it has continual work, so it would not come to the category of stillness. And that is why it is written (Leviticus 25:4), "it shall be a year of complete rest (<i>Shabbat shabbaton</i>) to the land" - that there be resting of the Land itself. And this thing makes known the worth of the Land.
+Moreover, we have explained that it is appropriate for anything that has holiness - like the Land of Israel - to come to the category of stillness and resting. As motion is for the material - for it is known about the topic of motion, that it is with the material. And hence if Noachides, who are physical and material, want to rest - something which is not appropriate for something that is material, yet they want to clothe themselves in the level of separation - they are liable for death. But it is appropriate for Israel - who has a level of holiness, that is not physical - to have rest from motion, meaning work. For other motion is not called motion, since motion by itself is not an effort to a person at all. Rather work is called motion and effort. And He therefore gave a day of holiness and resting to Israel, who are holy. And likewise the Land: If a man were to constantly work it, the Land would not have holiness. And hence the Torah said to rest on the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4). For this thing indicates the holiness of the Land itself. And so if they do not do this, they are exiled from the Land for the iniquity of the resting. So behold it has been explained to you clearly why they are exiled from the Land for these four things.
+<b>And you can also say</b> that those [first] three are all because the Land is holy and all holiness is the opposite of impurity. And it is known that impurity negates and destroys holiness. So the holiness of anything that is holy is immediately negated when it touches impurity. And impurity is only found in these three things, which are specifically called impurity - as it is written in the first chapter of Shevuot (7b), and as it is explained above (Derekh Chayim 5:8:12). And hence these three things are the opposite of the Land, since it is holy. And you should understand well why specifically these three things are called, impurity - as these are things of very deep wisdom. And likewise exactly with the fourth matter, which is the resting [of the Land] - which is from the angle of the holiness of the Land. For behold, it is written (Leviticus 25:12), "For it is the Jubilee; it shall be holy to you - out of the field, etc." And so too is the [Sabbatical year of] resting certainly holiness for the Land. As behold, the fruits of the Sabbatical year have the designation of holiness upon them. Moreover, the Sabbatical year is [considered] Shabbat - and about Shabbat, it is written (Exodus 31:14), "it is holy to you." And Scripture commanded to treat the Land with holiness - not to work it - to the point that it be holy, like on Shabbat. And the reason has already been explained. And therefore, it said that Israel is exiled for these things. As the three things - which are idolatry, the spilling of blood and sexual immorality - are impurity; so they impurify and negate holiness. And the fourth, the resting, is the holiness itself that the Land has. So when the Land is not treated with holiness, the Land does not tolerate these things, and they are exiled from it. And this explanation is choice.
+<b>And so that you can better master these things:</b> You should know that God, may He be blessed, gave the Land to Israel in the merit of the three forefathers. For behold, He promised Israel through Avraham that He would give their children the Land. And likewise did He promise to Yitzchak (Genesis 26:3) and likewise to Yaakov (Genesis 28:13). And if there had not been an oath to the forefathers, the Land would not have been Israel's. So the Land is specifically connected to the forefathers, and that is why He gave it specifically to the forefathers. And likewise does Scripture show - as it stated (Leviticus 26:42), "And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov; I will remember also My covenant with Yitzchak, and also My covenant with Avraham; and the Land will I remember." He said that He would remember the Land for the sake of the forefathers; and that is because the Land is connected to the forefathers. But it would have been fitting for the verse to state, "and I will remember the Land" - meaning to say that for the sake of the forefathers, I will remember the Land. But it said, "and the Land will I remember" - meaning to say that there is a remembering of the Land, just like there is a remembering of the forefathers. And in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 36:5): Why does it mention the Land with them? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, "There is a parable about a king who had three daughters, and a maidservant who was raising them. Every time the king was asked about the welfare of his daughters, he would say, 'Ask me about the welfare of the one raising them.'" To here [is the midrash]. And the understanding of this matter - that which it said, "and a maidservant who was raising them" - is that the virtue of the forefathers was specifically from the angle of the Land. For had there been no Land, the forefathers would not have gotten to the highest holiness. And so the Land is the one that raised them. And from this you will know that the Land is connected to the forefathers. So therefore, when it mentions the merit of the three forefathers, it also mentioned the Land with them - as they are one matter.
+And when Israel are similar to, and act like, the forefathers - to whom the Land was given and to which the Land is connected - they then have the Land. But when they veer from the trait of the forefathers - to the point that they are not similar to them - then Israel does not have the Land, and are exiled from it. And likewise are they exiled from it, if they do not tend the Land according to what is appropriate for it from its own angle. And by way of these three sins, they completely veer from the trait of their forefathers. For you find watchfulness about sexual prohibitions with Avraham. As he was separated with the utmost holiness, such that there was none like him. And it is like they said in Tractate Bava Batra (16a) in the first chapter, "[Job said], 'I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a virgin?' (Job 31:1). Dust should be put in the mouth of Job; he did not look at other women, yet at his [own wife] he did look. But Abraham did not even look at his [own wife], as it is stated (Genesis 12:11), 'Behold, now I know that you are a beautiful woman' - such that up until now, he did not know her beauty." And because of an event, he now knew, as Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explains (Rashi on Genesis 12:11). And hence when Israel are not careful about sexual immorality, they veer from the trait of Avraham, and they are the opposite of Avraham to whom the Land was given. And if, God forbid, they worship idolatry, it is not fit that they be considered the children of Yitzchak, to whom the Land is particularly connected. For behold Yitzchak completely sacrificed his body to the Heavens and was so greatly clinging to the service of the Holy One, blessed be He - yet this one is sacrificing to another god? This thing is the complete opposite of the trait of Yitzchak.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
+And likewise, by spilling blood, are they the opposite of Yaakov. For we have not found anyone who was as much the opposite of spilling blood as Yaakov. And this is an amazing matter. For we say in Tractate Niddah (13a) in the chapter [entitled] Kol HaYad, "One who emits semen for naught is considered as though he sheds blood - as it is stated (Isaiah 57:5), 'You that inflame yourselves among the terebinths, under every leafy tree, those who squeeze (<i>sochatei</i>) the children!' Do not read it as '<i>sochatei</i>'; rather, read it as <i>'shochatei</i> (those who kill) the children.'" And since Yaakov was far from the spilling of blood, Yaakov did not see an inadvertent emission all of his days - as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yevamot 76a) upon the verse (Genesis 49:3), "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might, and the first of my strength." Even though this is beyond one's control, he was so far from the spilling of blood that no inadvertent emission - which is connected to formation - came from him. And all of this is known to those that understand, as Yaakov and Esav are opposites: Esav was called, "ruddy" (Genesis 25:25), and he was a man of blood (Rashi on Genesis 25:25); whereas life was with Yaakov. And hence Yaakov also never died (Taanit 5b), as is known to one who stood in the council of the holy ones. These things are all appropriate for the forefathers from the angle of their level and their highest virtue. And therefore if [the Jews] lean towards the spilling of blood, they would be veering from the trait of Yaakov, who was fit for the Land, and they would be exiled from it.
+The general principle of the thing is that God, may He be blessed, 'gave the Land to people,' and 'He did not create it for emptiness.' Rather He gave it to people. And the ones that were the most first to the Land were the forefathers, to whom specifically He gave the Land. So if Israel resembles their forefathers - to whom the Land was connected - the Land is appropriate for them, just like it was appropriate for the forefathers. But if not, they are exiled from it. And the fourth thing is from the angle of their not keeping what is appropriate for the Land from the angle of itself - which is the resting [of the Sabbatical year]. As there is no doubt that the resting is for the Land, as it is written (Leviticus 25:2), "and the Land shall rest a Shabbat to the Lord." You should then note that [regarding] three things - which are idolatry, sexual immorality and the spilling of blood - if they sin with them, it is as if they were not the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, to which the Land was given. And the fourth sin, which is sinful against the Land itself, is the resting that belongs to the Land, as we explained above (Paragraph 7). For the resting is appropriate for the Land, such that they are exiled from it for this sin. And it is as it is written (Leviticus 26:42), "And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov, etc." And these things are understood. And behold we have elaborated on the understanding of this mishnah for you, and all of it comes to one very correct approach.
+<b>And from here,</b> you will not find it difficult that all of these four sins are called one sin. As they are certainly considered one sin - meaning to say, the negation of the holiness of the Land. And it is as if it said that they are exiled for the sin of the negation of the holiness of the Land; and the negation of the holiness of the land is by means of idolatry, sexual immorality, spilling of blood and the negation of the resting [of the Sabbatical year]. Or its understanding is, for the sins of the corruption of the Land; and these four sins that corrupt the Land are considered one. So it is not difficult at all. And if you have the heart to understand, you will find that these are the seven punishments for the seven categories of sin: Three of them are famine; and afterwards the destructive animals; pestilence; the sword; and exile. For these four punishment are general - such that through them; the world departs from the appropriate order for the world. And a wise person will understand from his [own] knowledge.
+<i>At four periods of time does pestilence increase: In the fourth [year], in the seventh [year], after the seventh [year] and after the holiday (Sukkot) in every single year. In the fourth [year], it is because of [negligence] of the tithe to the poor in the third [year]. In the seventh [year], it is because of [negligence] of the tithe to the poor in the sixth [year]. And after the seventh [year], it is because of [negligence] with the produce of the Sabbatical year. And after the holiday (Sukkot) in every single year, it is because of the theft of gifts to the poor [during the harvest before Sukkot].</i>
+<b>At four periods of time, etc.:</b> This mishnah was taught here after it said above (Avot 5:8), "Pestilence comes to the world, etc."; it [now] said that pestilence also increases at four periods of time because of these four things. And it should not be asked: Since it said above that pestilence comes because of the four death penalties that are not given over to the court and for produce of the Sabbatical year; yet here it said that, at four time periods, pestilence increases for other things! And an additional question [that should not be asked] is why it did not also mention the theft of the priestly tithe, the [main] tithe and the second tithe?
+And it can be answered that here it said, "At four periods of time does pestilence increase." And the understanding is that it increases more than it is customary for it; but it is not that a great pestilence comes to the world. Whereas above, it said, "Pestilence comes to the world" - which is that a great pestilence comes to the world. And it appears that the reason why pestilence increases [specifically] because of the tithe to the poor, the theft of gifts to the poor and the produce of the Sabbatical year - is because all of these are connected to the poor. And the poor person's sustenance depends on these things, through which he sustains his being. And stealing from a poor person is not the same as stealing from a rich person. For one who steals from the poor - even if he only steals the worth of a small coin - is as if he stole his being, as it is stated (Proverbs 22:22-23), "Do not rob the poor, because he is poor: nor oppress the afflicted in the gate. For the Lord will plead their cause, and steal the being of those who steal from them." But how is he stealing his being? Rather, this thing is because he is stealing something through which he sustains his being. For the poor person sustains himself with all that he has - as he only has money to sustain his being - so it is considered as if he took his being. And hence the Holy One, blessed be He, also takes his being from him. And therefore the punishment is measure for measure, such that pestilence comes upon them and takes their being.
+And even though the sword also kills, it is not measure for measure; since they only prevented life - which is sustenance, as it sustains being. And so pestilence comes and takes the life, but the body remains. Not so the sword, which kills the body, but not the being. Only pestilence takes the being. And all of these are connected specifically to the poor; for behold, they are gifts to the poor. And the produce of the Sabbatical year is also for the poor, as it is written (Exodus 23:11), "But on the seventh [year] you must let it rest, and abandon it, and let the destitute of your people eat it." Behold that all of these things are for the poor. So that one who takes this thing takes his life and being. But the priestly tithe and the second tithe are not only for the (priest) [poor]. Hence it is not applicable to say this about it.
+And because the poor person yells out - for this the pestilence increases immediately in that period of time itself; and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not delay it at all. For behold the poor person yells out and pestilence comes to the world immediately. And that is why it said, "pestilence increases" - meaning to say, that it is added to what is appropriate on account of these things at that period of time itself. But because of the death penalties that are not given over to the court and produce of the Sabbatical year - for which there is no crying out of the poor, but he rather did not do the commandment; as he was supposed to make [them] ownerless for the poor - for this thing, pestilence [eventually] comes to the world. For the pestilence does not come immediately, as it is when the poor person yells out. Rather God, may He be blessed, is patient with them and collects his debt at a different time. And it is to this that, "pestilence comes to the world," is relevant. 
+And you should also understand that above when it said, "Pestilence comes to the world,"  we have already said that the sin in the thing - that is the death penalties of the court, though which they were to kill with the power of judgement; and also the produce of the Sabbatical year that they were supposed to destroy, and they did not do [it] - was similar to pestilence itself. That is why [the actual] pestilence comes with the power of justice. But these that do not give the gifts of the poor, and take their sustenance - there is no relation to pestilence itself here, and it is only death. So with this, pestilence [only] increases - meaning that it brings death to the world. And this thing is understood.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<i>There are four temperaments among men: The one who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" - that is an [average] temperament. And there are some who say, "That is the temperament of Sodom." [A second type is one who says,] "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" - [that is an] <i>am haarets</i> (ignoramus). [A third type is one who says,] "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" - [that is a] pious person. [A final type is one who says,] "What is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine" - [that is a] wicked person.</i>
+<b>There are four temperaments among men, etc.:</b> It is possible to say that it placed this mishnah adjacent to here, because it said above (Avot 5:9) that pestilence comes to the world because of the theft of gifts to the poor. And that trait comes from when he says, "What is yours is mine." And so he steals from the poor, since he is not careful with the money of his fellow and is a wicked person. And it can also be said that someone with this trait - who does not want to give gifts to the poor - could also say, "In the same ways as I do not want the money of someone else, so too will I not give from mine." And hence it placed, "There are four temperaments among men, etc.," after [the previous mishnah]. 
+<b>And it may be asked</b> [regarding] what it said, "'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine' - [that is an] <i>am haarets</i> (ignoramus)": Why is this trait called, "an ignoramus" - when he says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine?" And why is that not an [average] temperament, like "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours?" And the understanding of this thing is that when he says, "What is mine is yours" - this trait is not that he is saying, "What is mine is yours," because he is generous and broad-hearted; and that is why he says, "What is mine is yours." For a generous person does not request anything from others, saying, "And what is yours is mine." Rather it is as if he is saying, "What is mine is yours," so that it also be that "What is yours is mine" - and my money will be your money and your money will be my money. And it is about this that it said that this trait is the trait of an ignoramus. For if he had intelligence and wisdom, intelligence and wisdom would dictate that everything that belongs to a man is his. But that which he said, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine," and did not make limits and a distinction between his money and the money of others - but rather that it is all equal, this like that - this thing is certainly a departure from the bounds of wisdom. As wisdom assesses everything according to what is appropriate for it and creates limits for each and every thing. And hence one who says, "'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine' is an ignoramus" - for he does not have any wisdom at all. And that is why he does not have assessment or limits. And we have already also told you earlier (Derekh Chayim 2:5, 4:1) that a person who receives from others has a physical level; for it is the physical that receives. And hence one who says, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine" - meaning to say I should receive from you and you will receive from me, each one should receive from the other - is someone physical. For the entire content of the physical is that it is always receiving, as we explained (Derekh Chayim 4:1) with, "Who is the rich one? He who is happy with his lot." And that is why it said that the one who says, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine," is the temperament of an ignoramus. For intelligence is simple, [so it] does not receive from anything besides it. Rather it stands by itself. And this explanation is very choice. 
+<b>And it also said, "'What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours' - that is an [average, literally, intermediate] temperament":</b> For he has a good virtue, that he does not want the money of another; but he [also] has a bad trait, that he does not want to benefit another. And therefore it is an intermediate temperament. And it did not say here, "his gain is canceled by his loss" - since it is not applicable in this matter to say this. It is only applicable later (Avot 5:11) to say, "his gain is canceled by his loss," or, "his loss is canceled by his gain," when the gain itself brings the loss or the less brings the gain - as will be explained later. But here it is not that which he says, "What is mine is mine," that brings the trait that says, "what is yours is yours"; nor that which he says, "what is yours is yours," that brings the trait that says, "What is mine is mine." Hence it said that this - that he does not desire the money of others - is an intermediate temperament. And it is also because he bases his words on the law. So he does not waive (go beyond) the law, to be called a pious one; but he does not subtract from the law, to be called, wicked. And so he is intermediate. And that is correct.
+<b>And there are some who say, "That is the temperament of Sodom":</b> It appears that the 'some who say,' reason that one who says, "What is yours is yours" - it is in order that others not come and also request [something] from him. That is why he said, "What is yours is yours" - so that the can say, "What is mine is mine." For it is impossible for a [reasonable] person to request something like this, to say, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine." And hence he says, "What is yours is yours" - so that you will not request [anything] of mine. And this thing is certainly the temperament of Sodom, as they did not at all want to give benefit to others from what was theirs. And they would distance themselves from benefiting others, to the point that they did not want to benefit from others - since they were afraid lest others would also come to benefit from them. And hence this temperament - that he says, "What is yours is yours, and what is mine is mine," is the temperament of Sodom. And they are arguing about [the following]: [According] to the first [opinion], one does not say, "What is yours is yours," in order that others will not benefit from him, etc. And if his fellow would want to borrow something, [the nature of which is] that this one benefits and this one does not lose (Bava Kamma 20a), he would do so. But according to those that say [it is like Sodom], he would not do so. For that which he said, "What is yours is yours," is even with something that his fellow would not lose anything [by lending] it. And all of this is so that no person will come to benefit from it. And since he goes this far, he certainly does not want others to benefit from him at all, not even with something with which he will not lose [anything]. And it should not be asked: From where do those that say [this, know] to say that this is why he does not want to benefit from others, that it is in order that others not benefit from him? Maybe it is an intermediate temperament? But it appears that [they] hold that it is more [reasonable] to say that that which he said, "What is yours is yours and what is mine is mine," is all one trait: It is because of this that he said, "What is yours is yours" - so that he could say, "What is mine is mine," as above. So you should not say that that which he said, "What is yours is yours," is because he does not want to benefit [from others], which is a good trait; but "What is mine is mine," is a bad trait. This thing is not so reasonable; and it is more [reasonable] to say that it is all one trait.
+<b>And it said further, "[One who says,] 'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours' - [that is a] pious person":</b> There are those that ask how it is possible to say, "[One who says,] 'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours' - [that is a] pious person." Should he not be concerned about what is his and give everything that he has to others? But there is no substance in all of this. As the Sages were certainly not speaking about one who yields too much. For they already said (Ketuvot 50a), "One who [scatters] should not [scatter] more than a fifth, so that he not become needy from the creatures." Rather, that which they said here, "'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours' - is a pious person," is that he yield up to a fifth, or as much as he wants according to what is appropriate. But it is not coming to say that he says this about everything he has. For it it is certainly not appropriate to say such a thing. And there is no need to elaborate about this at all and it is obvious. 
+
+Mishnah 11
+
+<i>There are four temperaments among dispositions: [A person who is] easy to anger and easy to appease - his gain is canceled by his loss. [A person who is] hard to anger but [also] hard to appease - his loss is canceled by his gain. [A person who is] hard to anger, but easy to appease - [that is a] pious person. [A person who is] easy to anger and hard to appease - [that is a] wicked person.</i>
+<b>There are four temperaments, etc.:</b> This misnhah was placed adjacent to here to say that we have found other traits in which some of the [temperaments] are good, some of them are bad and some of them are intermediate - as it said in the mishnah before this. 
+<b>And it may be asked:</b> What is the relation of piety to the one that is "hard to anger, but easy to appease?" And also why is the one who is easy to anger and hard to appease called, a wicked person? And also difficult - why did it not say, "[A person who is] easy to anger and easy to appease - that is an [average, literally, intermediate] temperament," as it said above (Avot 5:10), when one side was for the good and one side was for the bad, that this is an [average] temperament?
+<b>And you should know</b> that you will find that there are people that are rigid by nature. So because of their rigidity, they are not easy to anger. But [also] due to their rigidity, they are  not easy to appease. And there are people that, by nature, are malleable towards everything. So they are easy to anger and easy to appease. The principle of the thing is that one is either rigid towards everything or malleable towards everything. But it is not natural that one would be easy to anger and that he would be hard to appease - that he have both traits. That is not so. And hence it said that if he is easy to anger and easy to appease, "his loss" - that which he is easy to anger - "is canceled by (<i>yatzah be</i>, which can also be understood as, emerged with) his gain." That is to say that that which he himself is malleable and easy brings him the reward and the loss that he has. For it is from that which he is easy to anger that his reward emerges, such that he is easy to appease. And that is why it said, "his loss emerged with his gain" - since that which he is easy to anger is that which causes him to be easy to appease. For, by nature, he is easy towards everything. And likewise if he is "hard to anger and hard to appease, his reward" - meaning that he is hard to anger - "emerged with his loss" - that he is hard to appease. And that is why it said, "hard to anger, but easy to appease - [that is a] pious person." As certainly if he is hard to anger, his nature is rigid, and it is because of this that he is hard to anger. Yet that which he is easy to appease is certainly because he loves the creatures. And that is why he is easy to appease, so he overcomes his nature. Or it is the opposite: That he is malleable by nature, and that is why he is easy to appease. But that which he is hard to anger is only because he overcomes his nature, not to get angry at the creatures - from his love of the creatures, and [because he] concerns himself with the honor of the creatures. And that is why he is certainly a pious man. And similarly if he is, "easy to anger but hard to appease." It is certainly either that his nature is certainly malleable, and that is why he is easily angered. But, if so, why is he not easy to appease - except that he hates the creatures. So that is why he is not easy to appease - because of his wickedness. Or it is the opposite - that he is rigid by nature, and that is why he is hard to appease. But, if so, why is he not hard to anger - except that he hates the creatures. So that is why he is easy to anger, and that is why he is a wicked person.
+<b>However that which it said here,</b> "easy to anger but hard to appease," is a wicked person, and also that which it said, "hard to anger but easy to appease," is a pious person can be explained according to its simple understanding. So it would be as we say in Chapter (4) [3] of Nedarim (22b): Rav Nachman said, "Anyone who gets angry, it is known that his iniquities are more numerous [than his merits], as it is stated (Proverbs 29:22), '[...] and a wrathful man abounds in transgression.'" To here is the Gemara. You should then note that one who is easy to anger, "abounds in transgression" - as the verse said. And this thing certainly has a reason that is very magnificent in [its] wisdom. For all anger is a departure from the equilibrium with intensity, when he is being an angry and wrathful person - which is a departure from the appropriate measure. And this thing indicates transgression and sin. For a man who has [mostly] merits will not veer from the equilibrium. Just the opposite - he remains balanced. For he is called righteous and straight, since he retains exact straightness, without veering from total straightness. But this one, who is someone with much wrath, is one who veers with fury from straightness and equilibrium - [which indicates that] he is certainly someone with transgressions. For someone with transgressions veers from straightness and from equilibrium. And because of this, it said here, one that is easy to anger but hard to appease is surely close to anger and wrath, and to being situated in wrath and anger. And that is certainly a departure from equilibrium and straightness. And so too, the opposite: If he is hard to anger but easy to appease, such a person is certainly someone with equilibrium and someone with straightness. And therefore it is hard for him to veer from the equilibrium. But if he does veer, it is easy for him to return to the equilibrium, which is his place - since he is righteous and straight. For anger is a departure from the equilibrium with the intensity of wrath. And this thing is understood.
+
+Mishnah 12
+
+<i>There are four temperaments among students: Quick to understand and quick to forget - his gain is canceled by his loss. [A student who is] slow to understand and slow to forget - his loss is canceled by his gain. [A student who is] quick to understand and slow to forget - he is a sage. [A student who is] slow to understand and quick to forget - that is a bad portion.</i>
+<b>There are four temperaments among students, etc.:</b> It appears that it can be said [about] that which it said here, "Quick to understand and quick to forget - his gain is canceled by his loss"; and it did not say, "that is an intermediate portion," like it said, "that is a good portion," and "that is a bad portion," such that it should have said, "an intermediate portion": That which it said, "his gain is canceled by (<i>yatzah be</i>, which can also be understood as, emerged with) his loss" - this thing is [that] when the loss comes from the gain, it can be said, "his gain emerged with his loss"; and when the gain comes from the loss, it can be said, "his loss emerged with his gain" - and as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 5:11:4). 
+But here, why does that which he is quick to forget come from that which he is quick to understand? And likewise regarding [the opposite] - such that it said, "his loss emerged with his gain." And it appears that certainly when a person is quick to understand, the words are not highly inscribed in his being, as [is the case] with one who is slow to understand. For that is, that which he is slow to understand - that he toiled a great deal. Hence it cannot be said about him, 'A matter that is not upon his mind, a person will not bring up' - and he will not remember. As behold he toiled upon it a great deal, and he arrived at it with much great toil; so he will bring it up much. And in this way, it is applicable to say that he remembers more. But one who understands quickly, arrived at it quickly and did not toil - he will certainly not remember so much. For it came to him easily. And hence one who understands quickly and forgets quickly, his gain here - that he understands quickly  - emerges with his loss, which is that he quickly forgets. For since he receives the words without toil, it is as if it came to him on its own. Hence it is 'not on his mind,' and he will not remember. And so too is it with the opposite - slow to understand and slow to forget - his loss emerges with his gain: Since he is slow to understand, he certainly toiled a great a deal and placed his mind and his heart to the words. And because of this, they will stay with him.
+
+Mishnah 13
+
+<i>There are four temperaments among givers of charity: One who wishes to give, but [that] others not give - he has an evil eye with respect to others. [One who wishes that] others give, and he [himself] not give - he has an evil eye with respect to himself. [One who wishes to] give and [that] others give - [that is a] pious person. [One who wishes] not to give and [that] others not give - [that is a] wicked person.</i>
+<b>There are four temperaments among givers of charity:</b> It may be asked [about] that which it said, "There are four temperaments among givers of charity," and afterwards [listed], "not to give and [that] others not give": If so, he is not a giver of charity. And [there is] another difficulty, in that it said, "One who wishes to give, but [that] others not give" - there is no rationale, such that he wishes to give, but that others not give. For if he wants to give, all the more so does he wants others to give. And the explanation of [the first question] is that that which it said, "among givers of charity," is meaning to say, ones upon whom it is incumbent that they give charity (Deuteronomy 15:8). So they are called, "givers of charity," in that charity is incumbent upon them. 
+And it appears that one should not explain that which it said, "One who wishes to give, but [that] others not give," [as being] because he does charity for haughtiness and simply for honor, and that is why he does not want others to give. For [about] this one, it is not applicable to say, "he has an evil eye with respect to others." As note that his eye is evil with respect to himself also - it is just that he says that he will give, simply because of haughtiness. But without this, his eye would be evil [about] himself also. Rather this is its explanation: That he is a man who benefits others. And because of this, his eye is evil that others should give - since he always benefits others: If they would give, they will be lacking. And hence it said that he loves others so much, to the point that he has an evil eye if they give to others. But he [himself] wants to give. And it can also be explained that he sometimes has two temperaments - that he is [also] very generous, such as with regards to giving to that which is sanctified. For an evil eye is not applicable to this - since an evil eye is applicable to saying that his eye is evil, not to benefit others at all from [that which is] his. And so his eye is evil in giving charity to others, but sometimes he is so generous that his generosity overcomes his temperament of [having] an evil eye. But his eye is [always] evil with that of others. However he [himself, sometimes] wants to give, but he does not want others to give. As generosity is not applicable to when others give, and [the default is that] he has an evil eye. Therefore he does not want others giving, because of the evil eye that he has. And now, "One who wishes to give, but [that] others not give - he has an evil eye with respect to others," works well.
+<b>And it is difficult:</b> Why is, "[that] He [himself] not give but others give, he has an evil eye with respect to himself?" And why is he not called, wicked? As note that he prevents himself from [giving] charity. And is it because he wants others to give; and does he remove himself from his wickedness [merely] on account of this? But this is also not difficult. For the intention is not that he [just] says that others should give. Rather he makes efforts with all of his abilities and troubles himself greatly, that others should give. And [if the acts] in this manner, it is not appropriate for him to be called, wicked. For only one who is evil towards the creatures is called wicked; whereas this one is not wicked to the creatures. Rather he is good to the creatures, since he toils a great deal that others give. However his eye is evil concerning that which is his, and he does not want to give because of that. But it is not applicable to call him, wicked - since he makes efforts that others give.
+<b>And there are some that ask</b> about the end [of this mishnah], in that it says, "[that] he give and [that] others give - [that is a] pious person": What piety is there here? Behold, he is obligated to give charity! And [if only] because he fulfills the commandment of charity, it is not applicable to call him, a pious person - just that he is not wicked. But according to what I have explained (in the previous paragraph), it is not difficult at all. For that which it said, "[that] he give and [that] others give," is that he makes efforts with all of his abilities that others should give; and that he pushes and moves others to give. And it would have been sufficient that he say, "I will give that which God, may He be blessed, commanded me; but [not] to trouble myself that others give - as I have already done what is incumbent upon me." And he is not obligated [to give and to move others to give] in this manner. Rather it is the way of the pious. It is obvious that if he does not give - even though he troubles himself that others should give - it is inappropriate to call him, a pious person. For what piety is there here, as behold he does not give! And hence, it says, "he has an evil eye with respect to himself."
+<b>And there are some that ask</b> - it should have just said, "he has an evil eye"; and that it is not applicable to say, he has an evil eye with respect to himself (<i>be-shelo</i>, literally, against what is his)." As his eye is not evil against what is his, but rather his eye is evil against the other, such that he does not want to give to him. And that is as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:9), "and your eye be evil against your brother (<i>be-achikha</i>)." But this is not a difficulty, for the [letter] <i>bet</i> serves the function of, with - such that it is a <i>bet</i> [signifying] the means - as in, "with a stone (<i>be-even</i>) in the hand [...] he strikes him" (Numbers 35:17). So it means to say that he has an evil eye with (by means of) his money. And likewise, "he has an evil eye with respect to others (<i>be-shel acherim</i>, literally, against that of others)," is that he behaves with an evil eye with (by means of) the money that is of others. And the explanation is not that he puts an evil eye into that which is his. Rather the explanation is that he has an evil eye with what is his. For if he had a goodly eye, he would give to the other. Rather he has an evil eye with what is his; hence he does not give to the other.
+<b>It is appropriate for this mishnah</b> to be after the four temperaments, "What is mine, is mine, etc." (Avot 5:10) - for it too is speaking about this topic. However the divisions that the teacher made in the two previous mishnahs are exactly the same - in both of them, it said, "his gain is cancelled by his loss." And because they are exactly the same, he ordered them together. 
+
+Mishnah 14
+
+<i>There are four temperaments among those who go to the house of study: [One who] goes but does not do, obtains the reward for going. [One who] does but does not go, obtains reward for doing. [One who] goes and does, is a pious person. [One who] neither goes nor does, is a wicked person.</i>
+<b>There are four temperaments among those who go to the house of study, etc.:</b> This mishnah that is learned here is also similar to the mishnahs that are before it. For they [all] have a four-fold division: The good, the bad and two intermediary ones. And that which it was not taught after, "There are four temperaments among students" (Avot 5:12), is because this mishnah of the four temperaments among those who go to the house of study is not exactly similar to the previous four temperaments. As here, even though it says, "obtains reward for doing," it is nevertheless also a commandment. So it is not like those above, in which the intermediate temperament has nothing good in it at all. And just the opposite, "his gain is canceled by his loss," because there is a bad side and a good side there (which cancel each other out). And likewise, with the four temperaments among givers of charity (Avot 5:13), the middle temperament has a good side and a bad side - as it said, "he has an evil eye with respect to himself," or, "he has an evil eye with respect to others." So in each one of them, there is a good side and a bad side. And therefore they are more fit to be together, than if this mishnah were learned [before the previous mishnah] - as it says, "obtains the reward for going," or "obtains the reward for doing." [That is,] even though he is not completely good, he nevertheless performs the commandment. And therefore there is more [reason] to learn the mishnah of the four temperaments among the givers of charity after the above mishnah (Avot 5:12), than to learn this mishnah of the four temperaments among those who go to the house of study [there].
+<b>And the explanation of</b> "There are four temperaments among those who go to the house of study" is: [Among those] that are fit to go to the house of study. That is to exclude [the case of] if he is incapable - such as an ignoramus, [about whom], it is not applicable to say, "he who neither goes nor does"; [or] a wicked person. As why would he go there? For he does not understand a thing! It is only speaking about someone who should go to the house of study.
+<b> And [about] that which it said,</b> "[One who] goes but does not do, obtains the reward for going," we should ask, "How is [it] different from other commandments - that about going to the house of study, it says, 'obtains the reward for going?'" For it should have [otherwise] also said, "If he went to give charity, but does not do it, he obtains the reward for going." And also - since he did not do the commandment, "he obtains the reward for going," is certainly not applicable here! And a further difficulty [about] it having said [about the one who does not go and studies at home], "he obtains the reward for doing": In what was his effect diminished, because he studied in his home? What difference is there if he studied in his home or studied in the house of study? 
+And the explanation of this thing is that other commandments are not like Torah [study]. For he is going to hear the Torah from someone else who is teaching it. For the Torah is not with him, but rather with the one teaching the Torah; so he goes to receive the Torah. And that is why the commandment here is with going more [than other commandments] - for when he goes to the house of study, going is a total preparation. But with other commandments, it does not appear applicable to say, "he obtains the reward for going." For even if he goes to buy a lulav, because he does not have a lulav - it is nevertheless possible for the commandment to be in his [own] power. But the Torah is not like this. For the essence of the beginning of [one's study of] the Torah requires receiving from someone else. And likewise, with a synagogue, they said (Sotah 22a) that if he goes to a synagogue, he obtains the reward of the footsteps - because this thing is the commandment: That he go from his place to the synagogue, which is the place of the public together. So the reward of going is applicable also with that. And that is why it said, "[One who] goes but does not do, obtains the reward for going" - since he prepared himself to study Torah, he obtains the reward for going, which is the preparation [for the commandment]. For it is impossible that the preparation for a commandment such as this not be a commandment on its own [as well].  
+And also because [by] going for the sake of Torah, he is doing something with his body, whereas the study is not with his body. So behold, when he goes to study Torah, he is occupied with the commandment with his body and with his intellect. As the going is with his body and the study is with his intellect - and each one is a separate thing. But one who goes to do [a different] commandment is not like this - it is not a separate thing. For everything is with his body. It is only with going to [study] Torah that there is reward for going and reward for study - each one separately. And hence in the baraita of, "These are the things that a person eats their fruits in this world" (Shabbat 127b), it states, "and arriving early to the house of study, and Torah study." That is to say, going is something on its own, and study is also something on its own. For these two things - the going and the study - are two distinct things, as we have explained. And therefore there is reward for each one. But this thing is not applicable with [another] commandment. And this is all correct.
+<b>And the explanation of</b> "[One who] goes but does not do" is: That he did not understand the study, because it is difficult to understand. For it should not be understood [as saying] that he did not want to understand - if so, he would also be a wicked person! Rather it was accordingly difficult to understand; but nevertheless if he had toiled much and pained himself over the study, he would have understood. And that which it used the expression, "but does not do," and did not say, "[One who] goes but did not study," is because it would have been implied that he studied and immediately forgot what he studied. And even if he understood but it did not stay with him, it is considered to be, that "he did not study." And hence it said, "[One who] goes but does not do" - meaning he did not do anything. And also, that "he did not study," implies that [while] he did not understand, he nevertheless recited the teaching with his mouth, even though he did not understand [it]. And that is why it said, "but does not do" - meaning that he did nothing at all. For he is not even able to recite; but in spite of this, he obtains the reward for going. However also (another explanation is) that it is for this that it said, "[One who] goes but does not do": Because if it said, "[One who] went but did not study," it would have needed to say at the end [of the mishnah], "[One who] did not go but studied," and it would have implied that he studied from someone else. For the expression, "studied," implies that he studied from someone else; but if he studied by himself, it would have been nothing. And hence, it said the expression, "do" - meaning to say, that he did Torah on his own; and nevertheless, he has reward. And we therefore recite the blessing [with the wording of], "to be occupied with Torah," and not "to study Torah." For the expression, "to study," implies studying from someone else. And we do not make a blessing about this [specifically], but rather that he is involved with Torah [more generally].
+<b>And they ask about</b> that which it said, "[One who] goes and does, is a pious person": What piety is there in this; is one not obligated to study Torah? But according to what we have explained, it is not difficult. For it is possible for him to study in his home; yet he [still] comes to the house of study. And this is certainly preferable, as we have explained. For he troubles himself with his body, so he receives reward for this separately. And hence he is a pious person. Moreover, one who studies in a group is more preferable; and it is not necessary to explain this. For the Torah that he studied in his house is not similar [to that which] he studied in the company of colleagues.
+<b>And that which it said,</b> "[One who] neither goes nor does, is (called) a wicked person," is because there is no creature in which there is not some completeness to be found. So if there is no completeness found in him at all, it is appropriate that he be called, a wicked person: Since there is no completeness appropriate for a generic man found in him at all, he has left the parameters of [being] a generic man.
+
+Mishnah 15
+
+<i>There are four temperaments among those who sit before the sages: The sponge, the funnel, the strainer, and the sieve. The sponge - because it absorbs everything. The funnel - because it lets in at [one end] and lets out at [the other]. The strainer - because it lets the wine out and retains the sediment. The sieve - because it lets out the [inferior] flour and retains the fine flour.</i>
+<b>There are four temperaments, etc.:</b> It can be asked about these temperaments: If that which it said, "The sponge - because it absorbs everything" - meaning that the words stay with him like the things that a sponge receives stay with it; if so; it is [the same] as that which we said above (Avot 5:12), that he is slow to forget. And likewise, if, "The funnel - because it lets in at [one end] and lets out at [the other]," is that he forgets; this thing was said above with the four temperaments among students. And also, why did it say, "four temperaments among students," above; and here it said, "among those who sit before the sages?"
+However the explanation of this thing is that it said, "There are four temperaments among those who sit before the sages," since they are listening to wisdom: There is one who absorbs everything - "X said this, and y said that" - and he absorbs the words of everyone and does not distinguish the law from that which is not the law. And because of this, he is compared to a sponge, since he soaks up everything and preserves everything within himself. And there is another [type, the funnel,] who lets everything out and nothing stays with him, because he is not able to clarify what is the law from what is not the law; but it it also because it is impossible for things that are mixed up - that this one says this and that one says that - to stay with him. And this thing is because he cannot tolerate the multiplicity of opinions; so this thing is not because of forgetfulness. Rather, things (that are) difficult do not stay with a person - hence they recede from him. 
+And there is one who is similar to the strainer - "because it lets the wine out and retains the sediment." And that is because his mind is not lucid. So when this one wants to distinguish among the opinions of the sages - since his intellect is not clear - when he hears something that is clear and is the law and he hears something that is not the law, his mind will incline towards that which is not the law. And this is about the majority [of people]. For there are many people whose intellect is not transparent and clear, for which that which diverts from the clear intellect finds favor in their eyes because it is not clear. And therefore he rejects the clear intellect and welcomes the intellect that is not clear. And then there are some whose intellect is the clearest - they are like a sieve - "because it lets out the [inferior] flour and retains the fine flour." The explanation is that when they would make fine flour for the meal-offerings (Menachot 76b), they would [first] remove the bran and the heavy bran with a coarse sieve, and the flour would come out. Afterwards, they would pass [that flour] through a very fine sieve, and the thin flour which was like dust would fall through the fine sieve, and the fine flour which was thick and beautiful would remain; and one would [then] grind the fine flour. And this is that which it says here, "it lets out the [inferior] flour and retains the fine flour." And this thing is [like] the one who has a transparent and clear intellect, who distinguishes between something that is completely the law and very clear and the thing which is not clear, [which] he lets out. 
+<b>And behold, you see</b> that the teacher [of the mishnah mentioned] the number, ten, several times; and likewise did he [mention] the number, seven; and likewise did he [mention] the number, four, several times. Yet you will not find that he [mentioned] the other numbers.  And we have already warned not to explain the words of the Sages only [as] words of logic and approximation. For whoever delves into the words of the Sages will find deep wisdom in them. And even if it seems forced upon first examination, the more one delves into them - are the things not revealed like a clear light, until there is no doubt about them? For how could it arise in our thoughts that they [randomly] mentioned the number, ten, specifically several times; and several times the number, seven; and several times the number, four? And is it possible to say that all of this is by chance - that which they did not mention any other number? 
+But we should know that this is not by chance. Rather it was because they said at the beginning of the chapter (Avot 5:1), "With ten utterances the world was created, etc.," and they came to make known with these numbers that the wicked people that are destroying the world - it is not only this world, but rather all of the three worlds. These are the higher separated world, the middle world - which is the world of the spheres - and the lower world. So he destroys everything. And it has already been explained above that all three worlds are included in this man that God, may He be blessed, created in this world. And he connects the three worlds, to the point that the world is one and completely connected - as it was explained in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel (Derekh Chayim 1:18); and [there] we brought a proof from the words of the Sages. And behold the thing is understood - for man is above and below, as it is explained in Scripture. And there is no need to elaborate about this at all. And therefore when man is corrupted and lost, it is surely a corruption of all three worlds. For behold it is this man that connects everything. And when the connection is removed, everything is corrupted. For these three worlds are connected and united by man.
+And with this [we may] answer the question of how it is possible that the evil people are destroying the world that was created with ten utterances - for was it not that with one of these utterances, the sun, the moon and the stars were created (Genesis 1:14)? But the explanation of this is that this loss is certainly considered [as affecting] every [utterance], since man connects all three worlds. And if man is corrupted, all of the world absorbs the difference and it is not as it is fit to be. And we explained this in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel (Derekh Chayim 1:18), and we should not repeat the things [here]. And in any case, there is no need for it, as there is no difficulty [here] - as is explained above.
+And we have already explained above that that which the world was created with ten utterances indicates that the world receives [emanation] from the separated supernal world - as we elaborated at the beginning of the chapter. And likewise the number seven - which is in this world - indicates that the world receives [emanation] from the middle world, for all of its content is seven. For they, may their memory be blessed, said (Hagigah 12b), "There are seven firmaments." And even though according to the sages of astronomy, there are more - this is not a difficulty at all for the one who delves into this thing. For the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, hold that all of these firmaments are considered to be one; so they count seven firmaments, according to their wisdom - as we explained there. But here is not its place. And it is appropriate for the middle world to be seven, since seven is between ten and, four - upon which the lower world is established. And therefore there are things in the world that have the number seven, from the angle that the lower world receives from the middle world; just like there are things in the world with the number ten, from the angle that the highest level of ten is [also] found in the world; and it will be explained further. And there are likewise things found in the world with the number four, since the number four indicates the lower world itself. For just as the middle world contains seven firmaments; behold the essence of this lower world is that it has four elements in it. Behold [then] that the whole content of the lower world is four. And therefore the teacher [of the mishnah] ordered the number ten, and afterwards the number seven, and afterwards, the number four - since they indicate the three worlds. And the wicked people destroy everything, and the righteous sustain it - as was explained.
+<b>And in order that you understand</b> the words of the Sages even more deeply, behold we will explain the content of these numbers [differently], even though [this and the previous explanation are] completely one approach. As you should know that these numbers only came to indicate the order of the world - as it began (Avot 5:1), "With ten utterances the world was created." And even if the things are deep and man loves the shortest path - that which appears [correct] at a man's first glance - it is nevertheless inappropriate to withhold these things from someone who loves the Torah and the words of the Sages. For these are very choice words: And that is that this world has levels, one above the other. The lowest level is the material level; and that is the inferior lowest level. The level over this is one that is not completely material, yet also not completely separated; it is the level of the form that is with the physical. For it is impossible for form to be without the physical; rather it is [together] with the physical. Or it is the level of the spiritual which is with the physical. And it is impossible for the spiritual to be without the physical; rather it is with the physical. And the third level is the supreme separated level which is completely Godly [and] removed from the physical. And certainly even though this world is material, there are [also] separated things in the world, such as the Torah - which is completely separated - and likewise several [other] things. 
+And these numbers - which are ten, seven and four - indicate these three levels that are in this world. And we have already told you that the number ten indicates the supreme level that is separated from the material. For that is the content of the number ten - as the Divine Presence does not dwell with less than ten; and there is no holy thing with less than ten, as was explained at the beginning of the chapter (Derekh Chayim 5:1:9). And we explained like this there (Derekh Chayim 5:1:10) - that the number four indicates the material level of the world in, "for in <i>Yod-hey</i>, the Lord, you have an everlasting Rock" (Isaiah 26:4) - see above. And this is especially since the number four only has dispersion and no unity at all - since it corresponds to the four directions, which are totally divided. And there is no [other] number like this. And it is known that division is only from the angle of material alone - as division is in it. Whereas unity is from the angle of the form, since there is no division in it at all. Behold that the number four is the opposite of the number ten: For the number ten is the supreme separated level, whereas the number four indicates the material level. However the number seven corresponds to the middle level; for seven is in the middle, between ten and four. As between ten and four is seven, since the number seven is three more than four and it is three less than ten. So behold this number, which is between them, indicates the middle level which is not completely material and not completely separated, such that it has both of them - as was explained above (in the previous paragraph). And that is why the teacher placed these numbers after the number ten: To tell you that the wicked people are destroying - and the righteous sustaining - all of these levels, which make up the world. And that is why no other number appeared [in this chapter].
+And so that you will understand the main principles of these things more: We have already explained about the number ten, that it indicates the supreme separated level; and that (the level) [the number] four indicates the material level; and that the number seven indicates the level that connects the material and immaterial together. [In addition to this,] it is known that the number seven corresponds to the six extremities (up, down, north, west, south and east) and the center - which is called the Holy Chamber - that is between them. And this thing is known to those who understand - that the number seven corresponds to the six extremities and the Holy Chamber that is between them. And it is known that the six extremities relate the most to the material. For they surely have distance; and distance is connected to the material. Whereas the middle does not have distance at all, as distance is not applicable to the middle. And that is why [the center] relates to that which is immaterial. And that is why they called the middle, the Holy Chamber which is within the six extremities - because it is separated from the material. And that is its holiness. 
+And it has been explained to you very well that the number seven indicates a lower level than [ten]; as it indicates a level that is immaterial that stands in the material. And hence you will find in everyplace that the number seven contains mundane and holy: Seven days of the week - six mundane days and the seventh is holy (Exodus 31:14). And with the months, the seventh - which is the month of Tishrei - is also holy. And with the years, there are seven years of work, and the seventh is the sabbatical year (Exodus 23:11) - and that is a holy year. And all of this is because the number six is mundane, which corresponds to the six extremities of the material; and the seventh corresponds to the Holy Chamber, which is the seventh and is in the center. And this thing is known. And behold the seventh combines with the six in every place - so is it with days, so is it with years. Behold, the number seven indicates the level which is below the first; so this matter is understood beyond a doubt. For when there is seven, there is a connection between the holy and the material. And that is the reason this thing is a level that is lower than ten, which indicates the Godly level. And it has already been explained above (Paragraph 10) that the number four in particular indicates the material. And all of these things are words of much wisdom; and they are true words - that these three levels are in the world.
+And Scripture has already mentioned these three things in one verse - as it is stated (Isaiah 43:7), "Everyone that is called by My name; for I have created him for My glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him" - as it will be explained in its place (Derekh Chayim 6:10) with the help of God, may He be blessed. For it mentioned creation for the Godly level that clings to the creatures; formation corresponding to the form, which is the form of the material; and making, which is connected to the material. And see later [the discussion of], "Everyone that is called by My name" - is it not explained there well, until there is no doubt about this? And corresponding to this did it mention in the section of, "And He completed all of His work" (Genesis 2:1-3), "His work,"  three times: "And God finished His work" (Genesis 2:2); "and He rested from all of His work" (Genesis 2:2); and "from all of His work that He created" (Genesis 2:3). And likewise is, making, [mentioned] three times: "His work that He made" (Genesis 2:2); "from all of His work that He made" (Genesis 2:2); and "God created, to make" (Genesis 2:3). And understand how the third [usage of the word] is, "to make" - which corresponds to the material, which is always ready for making; and it is never [permanently] actualized, such that it can be said about it, "that He made."
+And we have explained at length the words of the sages of truth about this, who hinted to a great deal here with these numbers. And it is impossible to write more than a drop in the ocean about this, as these things are deep - that which the teacher mentioned the number ten first, and afterwards the number seven and afterwards the number four. They emerge from the supreme inner wisdom: For you have already known that the number ten is connected to the trait that is above the world - since 'God understands its way; He knows its place.' And the number seven is the six extremities and the Holy Chamber which is between them. And the number four corresponds to that which the verse stated (Genesis 2:10), "and from there it divides and becomes four branches." And all of these things are known with the supreme wisdom, so it is impossible to explain more. But behold one should understand these words in their truth, as one may not elaborate. Yet these things will be explained further, for all of the things are connected [and] testify about each other - as will be explained to you in the commentary. So place your eyes and your heart to [these] things.
+And because of this you will understand why it began to [mention seven by saying], seven things are said about a wise man (Avot 5:7). And that is since we already said that the number seven indicates the combination of something immaterial with something material, as was explained (Paragraph 12). And that is the level of a wise man - for the spirit of the wise man is combined with the material - the content of which is indicated by the number seven. And it began the number four with, "At four periods of time does pestilence increase" (Avot 5:9). And we have explained this thing: It is because the numeration of four indicates the lacking, material lowest level. And because of that, absence clings to material - as we have explained several times. And hence, it said, "At four periods of time does pestilence" - which is absence - "increase." As pestilence is applicable to this level.
+And you should also understand that the teacher mentioned the number ten in eight ways and the number seven in two ways - for that which he said, "Seven things are [found] in an unformed person and seven in a wise man" (Avot 5:7), is all one thing; just that it is the thing and its opposite - and [taught] seven numerations of four. And everything is according to that which is appropriate: For the number ten has different aspects, up to eight - for the number [ten] is the place of understanding (<i>binah</i>, the eighth sefirah from the bottom). As the world was created and exists from there, as is known to those who understand. And that is why this number extends to eight, for it is the eighth [sefirah]. Whereas the number seven has only two aspects, only for good and for bad. For this number - which is seven - is the Holy Chamber, which is in the center, and opposite it is only externality. For the evil is opposite the good. And therefore there are only two numerations of seven: One is good - as it said, "seven in a wise man." And across from this is, "Seven kinds of punishment come to the world" (Avot 5:8). And you must understand these clear words. But the number four is [mentioned] seven times because this number is the last, as explained above - and is known to those who understand. And four (<i>malkhut</i>) rises to seven (sefirot). And therefore the number four is mentioned seven times. And these things are very clear, when you understand them - and it is the opinion of the Sages. And although we have elaborated greatly with things like this, we have already said that all of this is so that a person should not make the words of the Sages into words of reasoning and approximation. Rather all of their words are [formulated] with supreme wisdom. And a proof for this will still be explained.
+
+Mishnah 16
+
+<i>Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is to endure. But if it is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name - its end is not to endure. Which is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Hillel and Shammai. Which is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Korach and all of his congregation.</i>
+<b>Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, etc.:</b> It may be asked, "What is the connection of this statement with the statements before it?" And also that which it said, "Which is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name": How is this a relevant question - to ask, "Which is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name?" Every argument in which one argues and his intention is for [the sake of] Heaven's name is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name! And was the argument of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah and the other early teachers not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, God forbid? Moreover, do the words not appear contradictory? As it said, "Which is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Hillel and Shammai." If so - [that] all other arguments are not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, why did it say immediately after it, "Which argument is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Korach and all of his congregation?" And it is known about Korach and his congregation, that they argued against God Himself, may He be blessed. So it is implied that other arguments that are not arguing against God Himself, may He be blessed - its end is to endure. But if so, the beginning [poses a] difficulty to the end! And another difficulty: That which it said, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is to endure" - behold it is impossible that both parts of a contradiction be true, such that both of them would endure. Certainly one of them will be negated and the other will endure! And if so, why did it say, "its end is to endure?" 
+And it should be explained that that which this statement was appended here is because it said before this (Avot 5:15), "There are four temperaments among those who sit before the sages" - and we explained it to be about those that sit in front of the sages and listen to the opinions of the sages. And the whole statement about [these] four temperaments was about there being some students that collect the two opinions that are arguing and contradictory, and they are called, a sponge; and there are some that cannot absorb even one opinion, and they are called, a funnel; and there are some that absorb the opinion that is not the law and leave over the opinion that is the law, and they are called, a strainer; and there are some that absorb the law and leave over that which is not the law, and they are called, a sieve. And about this, it said that if the argument of the sages, the opinions of which the students are absorbing, is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is to endure.
+And the explantion of this endurance is, in fact, that during the days of those that are arguing, there will be no dissolution of the argument. And even if you say that sometimes there is a dissolution even during the life of one who is arguing, the explanation of, "its end is to endure," is not that it will certainly endure and it is necessary that it will endure. Rather the explanation of, "its end is to endure," is that the endurance of this argument is possible. And it means to say that even though argument is very hated in front of the Holy One, blessed be He - and since argument is hated in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no endurance for arguments - nevertheless it is possible that an argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name will have endurance. So God, may He be blessed, will not cause the dissolution of this argument, like He [does] with an argument that is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name. As God, may He be blessed, causes the dissolution of an argument that is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, such that the argument not exist there. For argument is distanced from God, may He blessed - as they said (Derekh Eretz Zuta 9), "Beloved is peace, and hated is argument." And more than this, God, may He blessed, [even] upholds an argument when it is completely for [the sake of] Heaven's name. And it did not [just] say, "An argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name endures" - because this is its explanation: That you should not say that that which it says, that the argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name endures, is at its beginning; but not at its end. So about this it said, even "its end is to endure." But an argument that is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name; even though it sometimes endures - as surely quite a few [such] arguments endured a certain time - nevertheless its end is to be dissolved. For God, may He be blessed, causes the dissolution of the argument.
+And we should not ask, "How is it possible that two contradictory parts endure?" As this is not difficult. For even if the argument was dissolved from the angle of people mastering [both] opinions and deciding the law like one of the opinions, this is not included in, that which "its end is not to endure." For God, may He be blessed, did not dissolve this argument. As the explanation of, "its end is not to endure," is meaning to say that its end will not endure because of God, may He be blessed. And [regarding] the argument of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai - even though a heavenly voice (<i>bat kol</i>) went out [and said], "The law is like Beit Hillel" (Eruvin 13b), the heavenly voice was not dissolving the argument because argument is hated. For how beloved was this argument! Rather it was to teach them the law, since they wanted to know the law. And just the opposite, the heavenly voice said, "These and those are the words of the living God," and it upheld those arguing. So it did not dissolve the argument. And therefore [this mishnah] appended this statement to the one before it - to say that if the intention of those arguing was for [the sake of] Heaven's name, the opinions of those arguing will not be dissolved. And those students that were absorbing their words - it is not in order that it would be dissolved that they absorbed [such] an opinion. But if the argument was not for [the sake of] Heaven's name but rather to be victorious, their argument would be dissolved - and that which the students absorbed their words would all be be dissolved and negated. Thus should it be explained. However it will be further explained adjacently.
+And it said, "Which is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Hillel and Shammai." For their argument was completely for [the sake of] Heaven's name; such that you could not say about them [from] any angle, that it was not for [the sake of] Heaven's name. For it is is impossible to say that if they had troubled themselves more with the law to master the thing or had gone to ask, the argument would not have been necessary for them; and if so, it would not be completely for the sake of Heaven's name here. As this thing is not [the case]; for behold, 'these and those are the words of the living God.' And since these and those are the words of the living God,' it is impossible to say that it was possible for them to [better] master the truth and to negate the words of the living God. So such an argument is certainly completely for [the sake of] Heaven's name. But other arguments - even though they were for [the sake of] Heaven's name - there will certainly be found an angle and an aspect that is not completely for [the sake of] Heaven's name. For it was possible that they could have dissolved the argument with much analysis, or [by] asking many sages or that which is similar to this. Even though the intention was certainly for [the sake of] Heaven's name, [the mishnah] was saying about the actual argument [that] it was not completely for [the sake of] Heaven's name. For it is something that is possible without it; such that it is not similar to the argument of Hillel and Shammai, which was certainly for [the sake of] Heaven's name. For just the opposite, God, may He be blessed, desired this argument - since each one of the groups was revealing words of the living God. Hence specifically this argument, from all of the arguments that have been in the world, was for [the sake of] Heaven's name.  
+And afterwards, it said, "Which is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Korach and all of his congregation": The explanation is that it was completely not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, to the point that there was no, 'for [the sake of] Heaven's name,' at all in the matter. For sometimes there is an argument [that], even though it was for the sake of haughtiness, there is nevertheless in the argument itself something that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name. Such that one say, "This is appropriate to do" - and there is a certain angle in it that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, and that is good. So each one [can] say, "'I am for God.'" But there was no angle at all of, 'for [the sake of] Heaven's name,' with the argument of Korach and his congregation. As behold, it is written (Numbers 26:9), "when they strove against the Lord." For that which they argued against Moshe and Aharon - this argument was against God, may He be blessed. And hence this argument was completely not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, such that there was no endurance to this argument at all. 
+And we should no longer ask, "The beginning [poses a] difficulty to the end." As it is certainly not difficult. Regarding the argument of Korach and his congregation, his argument was completely not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, such that there was no endurance to it at all; as you can see that the ground opened its mouth and swallowed them alive (Numbers 16:32). And this thing, which is total swallowing, is appropriate for their argument - since it was completely not for [the sake of] Heaven's name. But other arguments - that have an angle of, 'for [the sake of] Heaven's name,' and are not completely not for [the sake of] Heaven's name - even though their end is certainly not to endure, the dissolution is nevertheless certainly not in this manner. The principle of the matter is - according to how [much] the argument is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name is its dissolution. And so too with the beginning [of the mishnah] as well: According to how [much] the argument is for [the sake of] Heaven's name is its endurance. For the other arguments that were not completely for [the sake of] Heaven's name - their endurance was not as [great] as that which it was with the argument of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. For God, may He be blessed, certainly made their argument endure, since this argument was loved in front of God, may He be blessed, as was explained. And now all of the difficulties have been explained, and there is no doubt about this explanation. So there is no need to force anything.   
+<b>But it can be asked further,</b> "What is the reason that an argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, its end is to endure; but if it is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name - its end is not to endure?" And even though argument is certainly hated, [the question] is nevertheless difficult: For it does not even say this about other things that are hated in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. But in order for you to understand the explanation of the words of the Sages [here] - and from these words, the clear explanation of why this statement is appended to the statements before it - it is necessary to elaborate a little, so that that this statement will be understood in truth: Know that it is impossible for an argument to endure. And that is because an argument is about things that are opposites. And in the existence of fire, something that is its opposite - which is water - will not be found at all. And likewise in the existence of water is there no existence of its opposite, which is fire. And hence it is impossible for two things that are in opposition to stand together. For if so, there would be two opposites in one subject. 
+And maybe you will say, "Each one can stand on its own. For behold, fire and water are opposites and each one endures by itself. So too can each one in the argument stand on his own." Such a thing is certainly not similar. For water and fire are certainly two opposites in two  different subjects. And since they are opposites in two subjects, that is why endurance is possible for each one of them. But creatures, who are the descendants of Adam - even though they are different individuals - are surely one aggregate. And all the more so, Israel, who are completely one people - such that it is impossible that they be two subjects: If there would be endurance to the arguments - in which one is the opposite of the other - they would be two opposites in one subject. And therefore its end is not to endure.
+And it can also be said that fire and water are also in one subject, which is the world - in that it is one. For the world is not divided, since it is from God, may He be blessed, who is One (Deuteronomy 6:4). And hence the world is one. And so it is impossible that there be contradictions in the world, since it is one [subject]. However that which there is endurance to fire and water - which are two opposites - is because of that which it said afterwards (see note 1714 in the Hebrew), "Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, its end is to endure." And the explanation of this thing is that the opposition between fire and water is for [the sake of] Heaven's name. For God, may He be blessed, created each one; and each one does His will - fire on its own, and water on its own. So this thing is certainly included within [the concept of] argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name. And hence it has endurance. Because that is why an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name has endurance, even if [its parts] are divided and opposites. For He, may He be exalted and may He be blessed, is That which unites the two opposites. For even if they are divided and opposites in themselves, they are nevertheless united from the angle of God, may He be blessed. As He, may He be blessed - who is One - is the cause of both of the opposites. And that which He is the cause of two opposites - that thing itself is His Unity, may He be blessed. For had He been the cause of only one [of these things], such as if you would say that He is the cause of fire; and if so, there would, God forbid, be another cause for the opposite of fire - which is water, since it is the opposite of fire. (In that case, He would not be One.) But since He is the cause of opposites, He, may He be blessed, is One. For behold there is nothing besides Him, as He is the cause of everything, even though they are opposites. So behold that on account of the opposites of which He is their cause, He, may He be blessed is One. And we have explained this thing in many places in the book, Gevurot Hashem - that God, may He be blessed, who is One, is the cause of opposites.
+And therefore an argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name - even though the argument is divided from the angle of itself, and it is impossible for opposites to exist together from the angle of themselves - however from the angle of God, may He be blessed, who is the cause of opposites, behold those two opposites are one. For towards God, may He be blessed - who is One - they are one. And He acts and does His will that He desires though both of them, may He be blessed. Hence these opposites, that are impossible that they be together, are unified from the angle of God, may He be blessed - who encompasses everything - even if they are opposites. And this is [the meaning of] their saying here, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, its end is to endure." And they said, "Which is an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name? The argument of Hillel and Shammai" - since it is for [the sake of] Heaven's name. Because even if they are opposites from the angle of themselves - for these deem [something] invalid and these deem [it] valid (Yevamot 13b), and these are two opposites with people - nevertheless from the angle of God, may He be blessed, from that angle they are one. For this argument is for the sake of His name, may He be blessed, who encompasses opposites, may He be blessed. And the opposites come from God, may He be blessed. From that angle they are one.
+<b>And this is what they said</b> in the first chapter of Chagigah (3b): "Composed in collections (<i>ba’alei asufot</i>)" (Ecclesiastes 12:11) - these are Torah scholars who sit in many groups (<i>asufot</i>) [and engage in Torah study]. These render [something] impure and these render [it] pure; these prohibit [something] and these permit [it]; these deem [something] invalid and these deem [it] valid. Lest a person say, "Since these render [something] impure and these render [it] pure; these prohibit [something] and these permit [it]; these deem [something] invalid and these deem [it] valid - how can I study Torah now?" [Hence] we learn to say, "all given from one shepherd." One God gave them; one leader (Moshe) said them from the mouth of the Master of all the creations, as it is stated (Exodus 20:1), "And God spoke all these words, saying." To here [are the words of the Gemara].
+And behold you must reflect how it is possible to say that even though they are complete opposites, it can be said, "One God said them." And also, why was it necessary to say, "from the mouth of the Master of all the creations?" As it is not relevant here. However its explanation is that God, may He be blessed, is One; and since He is One God, it is impossible that not all of the creations that are opposites be from Him, as we have explained. And just like He is the Master of all the creations - for water and fire are two opposites from the angle of themselves [and] both of them are nevertheless the will of God, may He be blessed, for He desires the fire and He desires the water - so too are the words of the Sages: Even though they are opposites - these deem [something] invalid and these deem [it] valid - they are both surely from the mouth of God, may He be blessed. For from this angle - meaning for this reason - it should be valid. But from that angle - meaning for that reason - it should be invalid. And these two angles, which are the two reasons, are from God, may He be blessed. For there is a reason for this and a reason for that; and the reasons are from God, may He be blessed. For what it said, "One God said all of them" - its explanation is not at all [that He] just [said], "Valid," and, "Invalid." Rather its explanation is [that He said], "Because of this reason it is invalid," and, "Because of that reason it is valid." And both reasons are the truth from the Holy One, blessed be He. Since from this angle, it is invalid; and from that angle it is valid - for each reason is separate. And, 'can there be a doubt before the Heavens,' is not relevant [here]. For it is only applicable to ask this regarding [a case like] the concubine in Giveah (Gittin 6b). Since it was about one act, it is applicable to ask, "Can there be a doubt before the Heavens?" But with valid and invalid, and with impure and pure - they are both from God, may He be blessed. For the reasons are from God, may He be blessed.
+And even though concerning the law, how can a person do opposites, and it is impossible that they both be practiced - the two things and the two reasons are both from God, may He be blessed, who encompasses opposites. So if one studied two opinions, one surely studied Torah that is from the mouth of God, may He be blessed [with both opinions] - that of the one who renders invalid and that of the one who renders valid. And when we decide the law, this is only the practical law - what a person should do. For certainly even though each one of these two things has a reason, it is possible that one is more the law. And so too do you find in creations that are opposites - even though the opposites are both from God, may He be blessed - one is nevertheless closer than the other to God, may He be blessed. However each one has a reason, such that both of them have reasons that - even as they are opposites - are from God, may He be blessed. But the legal decision is from the angle of a level that is higher than argument. But it is all from God, may He be blessed: Whether the body of of the argument - that this one renders invalid and this one renders valid, and each one has its own reason - or whether the clarification of the argument, which is the law. And that is from the angle of the simple intellect, which is total intellect. For argument is not applicable to intellect that is totally simple. Nevertheless it is all from God, may He be blessed, as everything is from Him. And this thing is obvious.
+<b>But maybe it will be difficult for you:</b> If so, why did a heavenly voice say, "These and those are the words of the living God" (Eruvin 13b), specifically about Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel? Is not every argument of the Sages in the world like this, since they are both 'from the mouth of the Master of all the creations?' [However] this thing is not difficult, as there is a difference: For when you understand the expression, "these and those are the words of the living God" - that with which it said, "the living God," hints to a great thing: For [regarding] other arguments, even though everything is from God, may He blessed - for when two Sages argue about the law, even though both things are from God, may He be blessed - nevertheless one is closer to God, may He be blessed, as we have explained. For even though this too is from God, may He be blessed; nevertheless, one is closer than the other to God, may He be blessed - just like with the creations also, one of them is closer to God, may He be blessed. Even though they are all His creations, may He be blessed, one is nevertheless closer. And so too is it with reasons: Even though both of them are from God, may He be blessed, nevertheless one is closer to God, may He be blessed, than the other. But with Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, both of them are completely equal in being, "the words of the Living God." And that is why it said, "the words of the Living God." 
+The one who understands will understand that that which it said, "the living God," means to say that both of them are close to the truth of God, may He be blessed. That is why it said, "the living God - for life is the truth of existence. For when it is said, "This is living," it means to say that it exists; whereas what is absent has no life. And hence it is saying that both of them are [equally] close to the truth of His existence. And you should also understand that the expression, living (<i>chayim</i>), is in the plural, indicating two. With this, you can understand the argument of Hillel and Shammai. But with the other Sages, they said (Chagigah 3b), "from the mouth of the Master (which is singular) of all the creations." As life extends to the right and to the left, and it is from this that Hillel and Shammai absorbed [their reasons]. And therefore, 'these and those are the words of the living God.' And understand this, for it is choice.
+And it is very wonderous in my eyes: What is difficult in that which they said, "These and those are the words of the Living God" - to the point that the commentators gave many [explanations], and some [even] explained this in the way of that which is hidden (mystically). For when God, may He be blessed, said, "Valid," or, "Invalid," it is only from the angle of the reason. For there is nothing in the Torah that does not have a reason. But when the reasons are completely equal - that there is a reason to render valid and a reason to render invalid, to the point that the reasons carry the same weight - it is said about it, "These and those are the words of the living God," as has been explained. So there is no difficulty here at all. And so was the argument of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. But other arguments of the Sages are not like this: Even though each one has a sound reason - to the point that from this angle, it is said that this thing is also from God, may He be blessed - nevertheless when the matter is refined from the angle of the simple intellect, the opinion of one overpowers the opinion of the other. And this is the legal decision. Nevertheless, they both have a reason. For in the same way as the simple intellect is from God, so is the intellect that is not simple - it is just that the simple intellect is on the highest level. But regardless,  the reason has been explained to  you - why an argument for [the sake of] Heaven's name endures and [one] not for [the sake of] Heaven's name does not endure: For opposites cannot stand together, as one is the opposite of the other.
+<b>However there is something else</b> in this for which it is inappropriate that there be endurance to an argument. And it is because there is nothing in the world that a man is drawn towards more than argument; yet there is nothing in the world whose end is as evil as argument. And this thing needs to be explained, such that a person will know and be vigilant from the punishment [that results] from argument. And it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bereishit Rabbah 4:6) that Geihinnom and argument were created on the second day. From this you know that the content of Geihinnom and the content of argument are the same thing. And it is known that there in Geihinnom is the place of man's destruction; such that the place of one for whom destruction is appropriate is Geihinnom. So you see that Geihinnom is destruction itself. And so too exactly is it with argument, as argument (<i>machloket</i>) is only destruction. And that is because when something is divided (<i>nechlak</i>) into two - like a vessel that is divided into two - there is no doubt that this thing is destruction and breaking; and that its endurance is when it is one. And for this reason, argument and Geihinnom - which are the destruction of that which exists - were created on one day. For they have the same content, since separation and division are the beginning of destruction. For when anything in the world is whole, it is strong, such that it does not absorb breakage and destruction. However from the angle of division and separation [that can occur], there is nothing complete here at all. And this thing is complete destruction, for it is surely divided and broken. So that which they said, "Any argument that is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is not to endure," is because - how can something that is divided and broken endure? And for that reason, dissolution comes to it. So this thing is also true and clear; and it all comes to one matter.
+<b>And you should know</b> that because of this was this statement appended to the statements before it: For the statements that preceded spoke of the number ten (Avot 5:1-6); and then of the number seven (Avot 5:7-9); and then of the number four (Avot 5:9-15) - as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 5:15). And therefore did it append afterwards, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, etc." And this thing is to make known the virtue of unity, which is not a number. As it is appropriate - after it mentioned all the numbers, it mentioned the matter of unity and its virtue. For one is not a number and is not included in numbers. And for that reason did it say, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is to endure. But if it is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name - its end is not to endure." For argument departs from unity; and [its sides] are opposites - and opposites may not exist together. And do not let your [evil] impulse assure you that these opposites are in different subjects. Have we not already said that this is not applicable to an argument that is with people? And also that the world is one [subject], so that it cannot be said that two opposites are found in the world, except if their argument is for [the sake of] Heaven's name. And all of the opposites that endure in the world - they are all for [the sake of] Heaven's name, to do the will of God, may He be blessed; as He is One. But opposites that are not like this - like the argument of Korach - such a thing has no endurance at all. And all the more so, since argument is division and separation - something that is complete destruction, as was explained. And hence after it mentioned the matter of all the numbers, it mentioned the level of one, which is not a number. Yet it is the foundation and beginning of numbers, which is the endurance of the world. For it is only possible if everything is one. And this is certainly the endurance of the world - when it does not separate and does not divide. 
+
+Mishnah 17
+
+<i>Any love that is dependent on something, when that thing perishes, the love perishes. But [a love] that is not dependent on something does not ever perish. What is a love that is dependent on something? That is the love of Amnon and Tamar. And [a love] that is not dependent on something? That's the love of David and Jonathan.</i>
+<b>And in most books,</b> the text has, "Any love that is dependent on something, etc.," first [before the previous mishnah]. And that thing demonstrates the explanation that we said (Derekh Chayim 5:16:20) even more - that it comes to make known the matter of unity: That it is so strong, to the point that any love that is not dependent on something endures forever. That just like there is no endurance to argument; so too is the opposite [true of its opposite] - that is, that love, which is connection, does have endurance. And this thing is because unity is endurance itself. For when something is complete, without division, that is its endurance. And also because the dissolution of something comes from the angle of the opposition, which opposes the thing. But when there is connection and not division, there is only unity - there is no opposition at all. And that is the endurance of the thing, as you can understand from the things that we said. The principle of the matter is that there is no dissolution to something that is one in essence, from anything. And therefore it endures without change. And that is what it said, "Any love that is not dependent on something, does not ever perish." For since it is not dependent on something, this is surely complete unity; such that endurance is most appropriate for unity. 
+<b>And it is not necessary here</b> that the love be for [the sake of] Heaven's name, like it is with argument. For with argument, if the argument is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, there is certainly no endurance to the argument from the angle that two opposites do not have endurance together, and they are two opposites in one subject. Also since division and separation are the beginning of destruction, since it is not complete. And therefore the argument needs to be for [the sake of] Heaven's name - since He, may He be blessed, unifies opposites, as was explained. But love that is not dependent on something does not ever perish, since it is unity, which is appropriate for endurance from the angle of itself - which is the opposite of argument. Only the one that is dependent on something certainly perishes, when that [thing] that was the reason of the love and the connection perishes
+And because of that was this statement appended there: After the teacher mentioned the matter of numbers, the teacher mentioned the virtue of unity that is in the world, and the pushing away of duality. And hence, he ordered, "Any love that is dependent on something," and afterwards, "Every argument." But whether we have the text with first, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name," and afterwards, "Any love"; or we have the text with first, "Any love that is dependent on something," and afterwards, "Every argument" - this is its explanation: That the teacher is coming to teach us the level of unity and connection that is in the world.
+<b>And that which it began with,</b> "Any love that is dependent on something," and did not have, "Any love that is not dependent on something," first - since this thing should precede, as [the latter] is the main matter, as it is coming to teach us [about] love that is not dependent upon something: However it had, "Any love that is dependent on something," first in order to have, "Any love that is not dependent on something," adjacent (according to the standard edition referenced in Paragraph 2) to, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name" - to say that both of them have one reason. For love that is not dependent on something never perishes because of the unity that there is in love. And that is why it never perishes. And likewise, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is to endure," is because of this very same reason - because He, may He be blessed, unites and combines opposites, as was explained above. And it is all explained well. And this explanation is the choice one - and this thing will be further explained - and this is also a proof for this explanation.
+<b>And we should also ask</b> about its saying about this, "What is a love that is dependent on something? That's the love of Amnon and Tamar" - and it implies now [that] undifferentiated love is not dependent on something. But afterwards, it said, "And [a love] that is not dependent on something? That is the love of David and Yehonatan" - and that implies undifferentiated love is dependent on something. And its explanation is also like we said above (Derekh Chayim 5:16:6-7): That the love of Amnon and Tamar is a love that is completely dependent on something, and there is no angle about it that is not dependent on something. For there is love [that], even though it is dependent on something, it is nevertheless not completely dependent on something. As even if there was not this thing, there would [still] be love here. Even though the thing that the love depends upon causes greater love, it is nevertheless not said about this [that it is] completely love that is dependent upon something. And hence it said, "What is a love that is dependent on something" - that has no angle of love at all, but is rather only because of the thing that the love depends upon? "That is the love of Amnon and Tamar" - that did not have an angle of love, but rather that Amnon loved Tamar [only] because of sex. And once this happened, there was great hatred. And the love of David and Yehonatan is a love that was not dependent on something at all. But other loves are not completely not dependent on something. Rather it is love that is somewhat dependent on something and that is somewhat not dependent on something. And such a love does not perish right away, like the love of Amnon and Tamar; but it also does not completely endure, like the love of David and Yehonatan. 
+<b>And that which Scripture</b> stated (II Samuel 1:26), "your love was more wondrous to me than the love of women," is because the love of women is dependent on something - as woman is 'a helpmate across from him' (Genesis 2:18). But it is not completely dependent on something, since the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world like this, that they be one flesh - as it is written in Scripture (Genesis 2:24), "Hence a man leaves, etc." And certainly Scripture is not saying that he leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife for his benefit. Rather Scripture is saying that this is the nature of creation, that a man clings to his wife. And if so, the essence of the love is not dependent on something. So it said that, "your love was more wondrous to me than the love of women," because at the end of the day, there is an angle of the love of a man for a woman that is dependent on something. For a woman is a 'helpmate' to him. Though when she is, 'across from (contrary to) him,' the love that is in the nature of creation perishes. But the love of David and Yehonatan was without any angle of an aspect that would be dependent upon something at all. And that which it stated, "than the love of women," when it should have said, "than the love of a woman" - is because sometimes a man does not love a woman, because it is impossible that there not be something that distances him a little from the love. And therefore it stated, "wonderous than the love of women" - meaning to say, than love that there is for women in the order of the world, [and] not a specific woman. For it is possible that there be an unseemly thing with a specific woman. Rather it is, "than the love of women," which is in the order of creation. 
+And it can also be said that the explanation of, "than the love of women," is because the love of a man for a woman is because they [become] one flesh, as it is written in the verse (Genesis 2:24), "and they will be one flesh." But the love and the connection with that which they [become] one flesh is not so great, like the love of friends, such that the soul of [one friend] is connected to the soul [of the other friend]. For this - that his soul is connected to his [friend's] soul - is certainly greater than that which they [become] one flesh. For how can the unity and connection that is applicable to souls - as they are completely connected - be applicable to flesh? And this is apparent.
+<b>And you should not ask,</b> "Why did the teacher need to explain this thing; and what have we learned from this?" For we have already said that the teacher came to teach us how great is the level of unity in the world. And to the extent that argument - which is the opposite of unity - is hated, such is unity loved. And [unity] is love that is not dependent on something.
+<b>And it may also be said</b> that that which it said, "But [a love] that is not dependent on something does not ever perish," comes to make known the hope and faith of Israel [when they are] in exile: For it is impossible that the love with which God loves Israel ever perish. For behold the love that God, may He be blessed, has for Israel was not dependent on something at all. And since the love is not dependent on something, the love will not perish. And this thing is apparent. For Scripture states (Genesis 12:1), "And the Lord said to Avraham, 'Get yourself out from your land, etc.'" And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, asked in this commentary on the Pentateuch (Ramban on Genesis 12:2), [why] Scripture did not recount the virtue of Avraham and his righteousness, as a result of which the [prophetic] word came to him and said, "Get yourself out from your land, etc." And it would have been appropriate that it should first preface [this with] the virtue of Avraham and his righteousness. This is something lacking. For why was [God's] word revealed to him - we still do not know his virtue. And behold you see [this] when the [prophetic] word was revealed to Noach (Genesis 6:13-21): And it was written before this (Genesis 6:8), "And Noach found favor in the eyes of the Lord"; and afterwards, it was written that the word was revealed to him. But with Avraham, about whom it was possible to recount his many righteous deeds, why did it not write [about] his righteousness before this? And we have explained (Netzach Yisrael 11) the reason is because Avraham is the head of our ancestry, and through him was the choice with which God, may He be blessed, chose Israel - as it is written (Nehemiah 9:7), "You are God, who chose Avram." But had it first written the righteous deeds of Avraham, it would come to mind that it was because of the righteous deeds of Avraham that He chose him and his descendants after him. So it would have been a love dependent on something - that being the righteous deeds - and now that his children are not righteous, the love would perish. However now that it did not preface [His choice of Avraham], to mention the righteous deeds of Avraham - it wants to say, it is not because of the righteous deeds of Avraham that He chose Avraham and his descendants. Rather He chose Avraham and his descendants from the angle of themselves, and not because of something. For it would [otherwise] have have possible to say that when that thing perished, the love would [also] perish. And we have explained this in another place, that this is something of very reliable testimony. But we shall not elaborate [here].
+
+Mishnah 18
+
+<i>Anyone who brings merit to the many, sin does not result from him. And anyone who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent. Moshe was meritorious and brought merit to the many; the merit of the many is appended to him, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 33:21), "He fulfilled the righteousness of God and His statutes with Israel." Yerovam sinned and caused the many to sin; the sin of the many is appended to him, as it is stated (I Kings 15:30), "for the sins of Yerovam that he sinned and that he caused Israel to sin."</i>
+<b>Anyone who brings merit to the many, etc.:</b> It may be asked, what is the reason of this thing - that sin does not result from him? And all the more so the [next part], that says that "anyone who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent" - why should the door of repentance be prevented from him because he caused the many to sin? And another difficulty: That which it said after it, "Moshe was meritorious and brought merit to the many; the merit of the many is appended to him.  Yerovam sinned and caused the many to sin; the sin of the many is appended to him." But it should have also said like this: "Anyone who brings merit to the many, the merit of the many is appended to him. And one who causes the many to sin, the sin of the many is appended to him." And also, what is the relation of this statement to the one that is before it?
+It has already been explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:17) with, "One hour of repentance is better, etc.," that repentance is applicable specifically to this world, in that man is in this physical material world. And since man is in this material world, he is able to change his deeds, for the physical is subject to change. But change is not applicable to the next world - because it is separated, as is explained above - not from good to evil, and not from evil to good. For change is for the physical and for the physical forces; not towards something that is separated.
+And because of this you will understand that the statement that said, "Anyone who brings merit to the many, sin does not result from him," is because sin is a change in a person, who changes from good to evil. And therefore it said that "Anyone who brings merit to the many, sin does not result from him." For the many are one collective, and change does not come to this thing. For change [happens] to something from the angle of individuality; whereas collectives stand firm, and change is not applicable to them. (For) behold in front of you, that individuals absorb change and transformation, while the collective stands firm forever. And hence if he brings merit to the many - since the many are considered one collective, and a collective is without change; therefore sin does not result from him, such that he be someone that changes, as is applicable with an individual man. For because he brought merit to the many - who are are a collective that stands firm without change - sin does not result from him, that it should change him. 
+And let it not be difficult to you: If so, how did we find that the many themselves sinned, as it is written (I Kings 15:30), "that he sinned and that he caused Israel to sin?" This thing is not a difficulty at all: For each one in the collective is [also] separately an individual. And therefore sin is applicable in the collective - that is that sin is applicable to each person separately, for there is certainly change with an individual. And we have already explained above in the chapter [entitled] Moshe Kibbel (Derekh Chayim  1:2) that change is not applicable to the collective and that the collective stands firm, and that [only] the individual is able to change. But one who brings merit to the many does not bring merit to them from the angle that they are individuals, but rather from the angle that they are a collective. So the Torah was given through Moshe to all of Israel, and he surely brought merit to the collective - in its being a collective. And Yerovam caused Israel to sin - in that they were a collective. For he made calves that Israel would worship as a collective. And therefore both one who brings merit to the many or causes the many to sin - it is all from the angle of the collective. And it has already been explained that there is no change in the collective. And hence if one brought merit to the many and became connected to this supernal level that has no change, sin does not result from him. And likewise if one caused the many to sin and cleaved to this level that has no change - which is the level of the many - that is why he is not given enough [time] to repent, such that he could change himself from bad to good. And this is a glorious explanation when you understand [it].
+<b>And this is the explanation</b> [of the words]: "Moshe was meritorious and brought merit to the many" - and because of that, "the righteousness of the many is appended to him." And do not say that Moshe brought merit to each one separately, and if so, that is not called, 'the merit of the many.'" For since it is written (Deuteronomy 33:21), "and His statutes with Israel" - if so, Scripture appended the merit of the many to him, and not that of every individual. For behold it is written, "and His statutes with Israel," which is the collective nation together. And likewise one who causes the many to sin, do not say that he causes each one to sin separately; and that this is not called, "the sin of the many is appended to him" - since he caused each one to sin separately. And that [you not say this] is why it brings a proof: It is written (I Kings 15:30), "and that he caused Israel to sin." It appended to him the sin of the collective of Israel - from that which it is written, "and that he caused Israel to sin." And if one brings merit to the many, the merit of the many is appended to him; and one who causes the many to sin, the sin of the many is appended to him. And you are not able to say that one who brings merit brings merit to each one, and that one who causes [the many] to sin, causes each one to sin. Because then they would not be considered, the many. And that is why automatically sin does not result from the one who brings merit, for the collective stands firm without any change at all. And thus, "One who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent" - for there is no change for him. And since he became connected to a level that has no change - whether to the evil or to the good - hence there is no change for him. Rather he remains static like this. 
+<b>And in the Gemara</b> in the chapter [entitled] Yom Hakippurim (Yoma 87a): Anyone who brings merit to the many, etc. What is the reason? That he will not be in Geihinnom while his students are in the Garden of Eden, as it is stated (Psalms 16:10), "For You will not abandon my soul to the nether-world; neither will You suffer Your Godly one to see the pit." And one who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent, so that he will not be in the Garden of Eden while his students are in Geihinnom, as it is stated (Proverbs 28:17), "A man who is laden with the blood of any person shall hasten his steps to the pit; none will support him." To here [is the Gemara]. The explanation is not that this thing is the cause that sin does not result from the one who brings merit to the many, and that one who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent. For if so, it would be difficult: Even [regarding] one who causes individuals to sin, it can also be said, "That he will not be in the Garden of Eden while his students are in Geihinnom." And what is the difference of the many that was mentioned? And also difficult: Behold if the many repented and the students would also be in the Garden of Eden, why should there not be repentance for the one who caused [them] to sin? But it is implied that [it is talking about] anyone who causes the many to sin - even if they repent. Rather, it is certainly as we have said - even if the many repent, repentance is not effective for the one who caused them to sin; and the reason that he "is not given enough [time] to repent," is because the power of the many is so great. And even if the many repented, behold each one repented separately. So it therefore mentioned specifically, the many - and not an individual - as we explained.
+And that which it was necessary to say, "that  his students not be in the Garden of Eden while he is in Geihinnom; that his students not be in Geihinnom while he is in the Garden of Eden," is so that you not say, "What is the relation of the one who brings merit, to the many? For even if he brought merit to the many, nevertheless what is his relation to these many?" And about this it answered, that the merit of the many is certainly with him, such that his students not be in the Garden of Eden while he is in Geihinnom. And because of that, the merit of the many and the sin of the many is appended to the one [that causes it] - and he has a binding and a connection with his students. And it brings a verse [to support] this matter. But [regarding,] that sin does not result from him; and likewise that he is not given enough [time] to repent - the reason is certainly like we said - because the power of the many is great, when he connects to this supernal level in which there is no change - whether with his sin or with his righteousness. This appears correct; and now everything is answered.
+<b>And in any case</b> it can be answered, that it is not similar: It is inappropriate that a teacher be drawn after [one] student. But [regarding] his students who are many, and an individual - being the teacher - the individual is drawn after the many. For this is the rule - that the individual is drawn after the many. And therefore only when the students are many is it appropriate that the teacher be drawn after them; but not that an individual be drawn after an individual. And also, because he is not called a teacher to one student. For a teacher is a teacher to many students. And the binding of the teacher with the students is specifically when there are many students to one teacher. And then it is said about them that the teacher has a singular binding and connection with his students, such that it be inappropriate that the teacher be separated from the students and the students from the teacher. But regarding a teacher and individual students, there is no rule about the student and the teacher, such that they be bound together at all - that it be said that his students not be in the Garden of Eden and he be in Geihinnom.
+<b>And the first question</b> - if they repented, why should he be in Geihinnom - can also be answered: It can be said that it is not speaking about when they repented. As if the many repented, it is certainly not applicable [to say] about it that the one who caused [them] to sin "is not given enough [time] to repent." So that which they said here, "Anyone who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent," is when they did not repent. And, "Anyone who brings merit to the many, sin does not result from him," is when they remain in their righteousness. Then is there a binding of the student with the teacher, and of the teacher with the student.  
+<b>And that which this statement is appended here</b> can be explained [as follows]: Since it said before this, "A love that is not dependent on something will not perish" (Avot 5:17) and will remain forever; and likewise, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] Heaven's name, its end is [also] to endure" - it appended after it, "Anyone who brings merit to the many, sin does not result from him," and his righteousness does not ever perish; and its opposite, "And anyone who causes the many to sin is not given enough [time] to repent," and he remains wicked all of his days. And that is why it appended these statements [here].  
+<b>However this explanation</b> which is apparent is [actually] very choice - since it follows from the numbers mentioned above. So after [the Mishnah] mentioned all the numbers, it mentioned, "A love that is not dependent on something," which is the level of unity that is in the world. That is why it mentioned after this, the level of the collective which is in the world, which is a distinct level. And that is because the Sages have already mentioned the level of the community in several places - and it is like we also explained above the content of the community with, "All who work for the community" (Derekh Chayim 2:2) - such that this thing is the supernal level that is in the world that is not mentioned at all, which is the level of the community. So that is the last thing [and it follows the other topics]. And all of these words are choice and transparent without a doubt to the one who knows how to understand the words of the Sages, which are great and profound. And the witness to this explanation is the statement that comes after it. As you will find in all of these statements - each statement testifies about itself and about the explanation of that which is before it.
+
+Mishnah 19
+
+<i>Anyone who has these three things is from the students of Avraham, our father; and [anyone who has] three other things is from the students of Bilaam the evildoer: [One who has] a good eye, a humble spirit and a small appetite - is from the students of Avraham, our father. [One who has] an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a broad appetite - is from the students of Bilaam the evildoer. What [difference] is there between the students of Avraham, our father, and the students of Bilaam the evildoer? The students of Avraham, our father, eat in this world and inherit the world to come, as it is stated (Proverbs 8:21), "There is what for those that love Me to inherit, and their treasuries will I fill." But the students of Bilaam the evildoer inherit Geihinnom and go down to the pit of destruction, as it is stated (Psalms 55:24), "And You, God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; the people of blood and deceit, they will not live out half their days; and I will trust in You."</i>
+<b>Anyone who has these three things, etc.:</b> It may be asked [about] that which it said, "Anyone who has these three things is from the students of Avraham, our father": And the count is difficult - why do I need to say, three (it is understood)? And also - did Avraham not have more than these three thing? For behold he had several virtues and did deeds of lovingkindness and that which is similar to it. So how does it say [only] because of these three things is one from the students of Avraham? And likewise with Bilaam: And did Bialaam not have more bad traits than these? And also - that which it said, "What [difference] is there between the students of Avraham, our father, and the students of Bilaam the evildoer" - and do we not know that the students of Avraham inherit the Garden of Eden and that the students of Bilaam the evildoer inherit Geihinnom? And also, were there not more evildoers than Bilaam? So why did it append the corruption specifically to this corrupt one?
+And first you must know the concept of Avraham and the concept of Bilaam: You must know that Avraham was the head of the Israelite nation; and in the same way that Avraham was the head of the Israelite nation, so too was Bilaam the head of the [other] nations of the world - for he was a prophet to the nations of the world. And because the head and the top has the most elevation - since the head rises over everything - hence two things were found equally with Avraham and with Bilaam. With Avraham, it is written (Genesis 22:3), "and he saddled his donkey"; and with Bilaam, it is written (Numbers 22:21), "and he saddled his donkey." And with Avraham, it is written (Genesis 22:3), "and his two lads were with him"; and with Bilaam, it is written (Numbers 22:22), "his two lads were with him." And the explanation of this thing is, that since Avraham was fit to be elevated from the angle of his being a head and the 'father of many nations' (Genesis 17:5), it is written with him, "and he rode upon his donkey (<i>chamoro</i>)" - which means to say that he is elevated over the level of the physical (<i>chomerit</i>). And likewise with Bilaam, it is written, "and he rode on his donkey (<i>atono</i>, a jenny).
+But there is a difference [in this] between Avraham and Bilaam: As with Avraham, it is written, "<i>chamor</i>" - which is a male. And this thing is a proof that Avraham has no attachment at all with the physical level. Rather he rides upon it and is most highly elevated over it, as is appropriate for his level. That is why the donkey was a male, since [Avraham] has no connection or attachment to a male. And thus was Avraham separated from the physical level. Instead, he was elevated over it. However Bilaam would ride on his <i>aton</i>, which was a female. And there is no doubt that the male has a connection from God, may He be blessed, to the female. And thus was Bilaam connected to the physical on his level. And that is [the meaning of] what they said (Avodah Zarah 4b), "Bilaam had intercourse with his donkey, as it is stated (Numbers 22:30), 'was it ever my habit to do this (<i>hahasken hiskanti</i>) to you'" - from the usage (in I Kings 1:4), "and she became the king's attendant (<i>sokhenet</i>)." And [in this way,] they hinted to the great difference that there was between Avraham and Bilaam. As Avraham was separated from the physical and Bilaam was connected to the physical. And hence they said that he had intercourse with his donkey, in that Bilaam had a connection to his donkey. 
+And you should know that from this angle, Avraham - and likewise Bilaam - is similar to man. For the intellect that this man has rides upon the bodily substance; and there are two powers that serve the intellect - and this has been explained earlier (Derekh Chaim 2:9). And there is no doubt that Avraham is similar to the intellect, since Avraham fulfilled the whole Torah from his [own] intellect. And that [is the meaning of that] which it states (Genesis 22:3), "and his two lads were with him," and he said to his two lads (Genesis 23:5), "abide here with the donkey (<i>im hachamor</i>)" - a people that is similar to a donkey (<i>am hadomeh lechamor</i>) (Yevamot 62a). For these powers - which are physical powers - are a people that is similar to a donkey. And when Avraham went to serve God, may He be blessed, to sacrifice his son - to overcome his [evil] impulse, which is with the body - he then removed the physical and the physical powers from himself. So he said to them, "Abide here with the donkey" - a people that is similar to a donkey - "and the lad and I, we will go to there, bow down and return." For the whole time that the physical powers are with the intellect, they impede the bowing down to God, may He be blessed - to be humbled in front of God, may He be blessed. But when he removes the physical and the faculties, he goes to serve God, may He be blessed. Yet he nevertheless said, "and we will return to you." For man cannot become totally separated. Rather he serves God, may He be blessed; and afterwards he goes back to his needs, so he returns to his body and his faculties.
+And because of this it states, "<i>emo</i> (with him)," with Avraham. For <i>emo</i> is said about two things that are not completely together, but just that one is with the other. But <i>eto</i> (another way of saying with him) is like <i>oto</i> (himself), such that this expression is stated when two things totally connect. [This is] like Rashi (Rashi on Genesis 19:33) explained from the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed (Tanchuma, Balak 17): In Parashat Vayera, it is written concerning the elder (Genesis 19:33), "and she lay <i>et</i> her father"; but with the younger, it is written (Genesis 19:35), "and she laid <i>emo</i>" - [because] the younger did not originate the licentiousness but her sister taught it to her, Scripture glosses over her and does not publicize her disgrace; but since the elder originated the licentiousness, Scripture publicizes it explicitly. To here is his commentary. For that which it is written, "<i>emo</i>" - the expression, <i>emo</i>, is only that two are sleeping in the bed. So it did not talk explicitly about the connection. But with the elder, the expression, <i>et</i> her father," is written - such that the expression implies a complete connection. So since Avraham was separated from the physical powers - and they were only with him - it is written, "and his two lads were <i>imo</i>." But with Bilaam - who had a connection with them and was involved with them - it is written,  "<i>eto</i>," which is an expression of complete connection. And because of this, Avraham had three traits that inclined towards the separated being, which is separated from the physical that is material; but Bilaam had three things that indicate that his being was drawn after the physical - like that which we explained [concerning the meaning of] his having intercourse with the donkey (Paragraph 4).
+So it said, "[One who has] a good eye, a humble spirit and a small appetite - is from the students of Avraham, our father. [One who has] an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a broad appetite - is from the students of Bilaam the evildoer." And we found these three traits with Avraham as praise: As behold, you find a good eye with Avraham, in that which he brought in guests and did acts of lovingkindness - and that is certainly from the trait of a good eye. And you find the trait of humility with him - which is a humble spirit - for he said, "I am dust and ashes" (Genesis 18:27). And [he had] the trait of a small appetite. [This] is to mean that he sufficed with what he had, and did not pursue desire at all - and that is from the trait of a small appetite. As behold he said, "If from a thread even to a shoelace, etc." - behold, he did not want what was appropriate for him; and all the more so, did he not want what was inappropriate for him.
+And the opposite of this is with Bilaam. So the Midrash explains (Bemidbar Rabbah 20:10): "An evil eye" - "Bilaam raised his eyes and saw Israel encamped according to its tribes" (Numbers 24:2), he sought to place the evil eye upon them. "A haughty spirit" - "the Lord refuses to allow me to go with you" (Numbers 22:13), but rather with more important ones than you. And hence Balak persisted in sending more important ministers than these. "And a broad appetite" - "If Balak would give me silver and gold enough to fill his house" (Numbers 22:18), as Rashi explains in [his] Commentary on the Torah (Rashi on Numbers 22:18). And all of these three evil traits were drawn after Bilaam's being, since he would ride the donkey and had intercourse with the donkey, as we said. For since his being had a connection to the physical, he had all these traits in him. It is known that absence clings to the physical - as this thing has been explained several times. And because of this, he had an evil eye. For absence clings to the evil eye, until it removes everything from the world. And that is why it is called the evil eye. And a haughty spirit accordingly indicates lack, which is connected to the physical. And that is their saying in the chapter [entitled,] (Rabbi Akiva) [Bnei Hair] (Megillah 29a), "The man that is haughty is blemished, as it is stated (Psalms 68:17), 'Why do you look askance, O high-peaked mountains (<i>gavnunnim</i>)?' And <i>gavnunnim</i> is nothing other than one blemished, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:20), 'Or crookbacked (<i>gibben</i>) or a dwarf.'" And the explanation of this is that all the tall mountains, like Tabor and Carmel, were considered blemished compared to Sinai - which was not so tall. For they were taller than appropriate. And because of that, the Torah was not given upon them. For great height is a blemish and a lack. And the reason for this thing is that just like a lack is a blemish, so too any excess or addition is like something removed (Chullin 58b). And therefore an addition is a blemish and a lack, just like someone that is actually blemished. And you should note that here is the evil eye itself and here is the haughty spirit. And likewise was that which Bilaam had a broad appetite, to accept the money of another, a lacking. For one who is not lacking, and suffices with his own, does not accept anything from another - as he is complete on his own. You see then, all of these three traits indicate lack and absence, which [comes] from the angle of the physical.
+And because Bilaam had intercourse with his donkey, he was connected to the donkey (<i>chamor</i>), which is the physical (<i>chomer</i>). And therefore he had all of his traits - because he was someone with lack and absence. And the trait of Avraham was the opposite of this - as he rode on his donkey, separately from the donkey. And he was hence complete on his own, and he did not have a lack. As that which he had a good eye [is that] evil - which is absence and lack - was removed from him. And he was humble, since someone with humility does not have haughtiness - which is absence and lack. And he had a humble spirit that sufficed with itself. As anyone who suffices with himself does not lack. For if he lacked, he would desire the money of another.  
+<b>And this is what it said, "What [difference] is there between the students of Avraham, our father, and the students of Bilaam the evildoer?" The students of Avraham - because there is no lack in them, but they rather have completeness, are fit to eat in this world and to inherit the world to come from the angle of the completeness that they have in them. For behold, they have no lack and absence. And since they are removed from absence, they are fit for this world and the world to come. And this is what Scripture (Proverbs 8:21) stated, "There is what for those that love Me to inherit." As, "there is," is the opposite of absence and lack. "And their treasuries will I fill" - this thing is said about the storehouse that is hidden from the eye, and that is for the world to come; and that thing will be filled for them. And it is all because of the completeness and wholeness that they have, without a lack.</b>
+"But the students of Bilaam the evildoer inherit Geihinnom and go down to the pit of destruction." And this thing follows their traits. For since they have lacks - as all of the traits that it said above [about them] are all lacking - because of that, Geihinnom is fit for them, since it is absence and lack. For behold it is called, drought, darkness and waste. And the word, drought, is said about that which is lacking and removed from existence. "And they go down to the pit of destruction," is [that on] the great day of judgement they descend further into the pit of destruction - and that is more than Geihinnom. And corresponding to that which it said, "the students of Avraham eat in this world and inherit the world to come," it said that the students of Bilaam the evildoer [have] the opposite of this.  
+And it brought a proof from Scripture (Psalms 55:24), "And You, God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; the people of blood and deceit, they will not live out half their days." The explanation is that the entire concept of Bilaam is that absence cleaved to him - as we have explained about the concept of Bilaam. And therefore his students were called, "people of blood" - since they want to swallow up others. And it is all because of the absence and lack that clings to them. And it called them, "[people of] deceit" - meaning to say, that their trait diverts from straightness. And hence they are called, people that have deceit. For deceit is divergence from perfection, which is the trait of straightness. And therefore Scripture stated, "they will not live out half their days" - according to their trait - since absence clings to them completely, as was explained. For if they would come to half, they would be entering existence - which is, "there is" - which is not fit for them. Rather since they are people with absence and lack, it is not fit that they live out half their days. And in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 106b), they said there that Bilaam was thirty-three when he was killed - to fulfill, "they will not live out half their days." And that is why Scripture said, "You will bring them down to the pit of destruction" - for there, they are destroyed and lost, everything according to their trait. For this is what is fit for them.
+And everything is hinted to in the name, Avraham, and in the name, Bilaam. As he was called Avraham, since he was the father of many (<i>av hamon</i>) nations (Genesis 17:5) - and a father is one who gives existence. For Avraham gives existence even to the [other] nations. And that is why he is called, the father of many nations. And Bilaam is the opposite of this, as he was swallowing up a nation (<i>bolea am</i>). And so did they say in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 105a), "'Bilaam,' is <i>bala am; 'beno Beor</i> (the son of Beor),' is that <i>ba al beir</i> (he had intercourse with a beast)." It was hinted in his name, in that which he was called, Bilaam the son of Beor, that he wanted to swallow up a nation, and that absence cleaved to him completely. And that was because he had intercourse with his donkey; and that is, the son of Beor - that he had intercourse with a physical animal. And it was this thing itself that caused him to cleave to absence. Behold, that everything we said above is hinted in the name, Avraham, and in the name, Bilaam. For Avraham was unique, in that the absence that clings to the physical did not cling to him. And because of this, he gave existence to himself and to the nations. Whereas absence clung to Bilaam, and that is why he was swallowing up a nation. And all of this is because he was the, "son of Beor" - that he had intercourse with a physical animal - and absence clung to him to the point that he was swallowing up a nation. And understand these things and master the level of Avraham and his virtue, and the concept of Bilaam and his lowliness.
+And the teacher mentioned the number - three things were with Avraham and three were with Bilaam: And this thing [is clear] when you understand that there were three types of lacking in Bilaam, to the effect that these types of lacking include all types of lacking. And that is because the one is from the angle that he was intrinsically evil in himself. And there is nothing that is lacking like that which is evil in itself. And that which he had an evil eye indicates this; as an evil eye follows evil in itself. And the second is from the angle of the excess in him, as any addition is a lack - as they said  (Megillah 29a), "The man that is haughty is blemished." And the third is from the angle that his being was lacking. That is why he had a broad appetite (literally, being), to desire the money of another. And the opposite of this was with Avraham - that he was intrinsically good in himself; that his being was not lacking; and that he did not have any excess - and that is total completeness. And that is why it said that Avraham was someone with a good eye, such that this indicates intrinsic good in himself; and he was someone with humility, such that he did not have excess; and that he had a small appetite (literally, being), such that he did not desire the money of others, since his being was not lacking - and with this, he was totally complete. And this is what is hinted by that which the teacher mentioned the number [three] with each one.
+<b>And in order that you better understand</b> the depths of the words of the Sages and their riddles, you must surely understand that these three things that they mentioned here - a good eye, a humble spirit and a small appetite - these three things are in the parts of the being, which are three. [This] is as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:13 and 4:21) with, "There are three crowns," and with, "Envy, lust and honor." And all the parts - which are three, as we mentioned - of the being of Avraham, who rode on the donkey, are complete. And [this is] like that which Scripture stated (Genesis 22:3), "and he took his two lads with him." For because Avraham had a separated being riding on the donkey, he had two lads - which are his two faculties. Such that these are the three parts of the being: The one rises above and rides on the donkey - that is the separated intellectual faculty - and the two others are close to the body. And so was it with Avraham - as he would ride on the donkey, separated from the physical, and his two lads were with him.
+And note that the lads were with Avraham until he saw the place from afar. And then he said to them (Genesis 23:5), "abide here with the donkey." But the whole time that he did not see the place from afar, the lads were with him. And this thing indicates to you that the separated faculty riding is the one that rides upon the body, he is the one that leads these two faculties - and they are with him to the extent that these two faculties absorb from the holiness and virtue of the one riding on the donkey. It is only when the separated faculty comes to cling to the highest stature - with his separated stature that is separated from the physical beings - that they are then unable [to remain with it] and they stay with the body. And therefore when Avraham saw the place in which Avraham would cleave to his highest stature, he said to his two lads (Genesis 23:5), "abide here with the donkey." But all the time that he was not cleaving to this stature, his lads were with him and they were cleaving to him then. 
+And therefore these three things that are mentioned here are the parts of the being. And they themselves correspond to envy, lust and honor - which we explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 4:21), are the three parts of the being, as was explained. And behold the evil eye is the faculty of envy itself; and honor is the haughtiest spirit and it corresponds to the intellectual faculty that seeks honor - as it is all explained above with, "Envy, honor and lust." And a broad appetite is the love of money; and that too is lust - not only the lust for sex. For it is written (Deuteronomy 5:18), "and you shall not lust for the house of your fellow." And behold with Avraham, his lads were two, with the intellectual faculty - and absorbing from it - to the extent that these three things [existed] in holiness. But with Bilaam, it is written (Numbers 22:22), "his two lads were <i>ito</i> (with him)," such that they would absorb filth from him, to the extent that the three were disgusting - the opposite of holiness. And therefore they said, "Anyone who has these three things is from the students of Avraham" - as Avraham has students and scions. And Bilaam - who is inclined towards impurity - [also] has students and scions. That is why it said the number - because the number indicates that these things includes all the parts, since they are about the three faculties of a being that we explained above. The general principle of the thing is that Avraham became elevated with all of the faculties of his being with the highest separated virtue - and [these faculties] are three, as was explained. And through this, Avraham acquired three holy virtues. For each virtue - meaning a good eye, a lowly spirit and a small appetite - is a level that is separated from the physical. And all of this is since Avraham became elevated over the physical. And the opposite of this was elevated by Bilaam with his potential, which was for lowliness and impurity - and that was cleaving to evil. And you should understand these things that the Sages hinted here.
+<b>And we have already explained to you above</b> that all of the things from the beginning of the chapter that began, "With ten utterances the world was created," continuously mention the levels of the world, one after another. And all of the statements are mentioned without the mention of any speaker, so that you will see from this that it is all one thing. And now it ends its words by saying, "Anyone who has these three things is from the students of Avraham, our father, and [anyone who has] three other things is from the students of Bilaam the evildoer." So after it mentioned the level of the many, like it said (Avot 5:18) - one who brings merit to the many, and one who makes the many to sin - it mentions the level of Avraham, which is the highest, to the extent that he was the father of many nations (Genesis 17:5). For they are many and he is their father. And he was considered the beginning of the whole world. And we have already explained (Derekh Chayim 2:2) with, "Those who work for the community, let them work for the [sake of the] Heaven's name; for the merit of their fathers sustains them," that the fathers are the beginning of the many - see above. And that is why it mentioned the level of Avraham after [the previous mishnah]. And he rode upon the donkey, such that the level of Avraham was separated. But without a doubt, this level is connected to the world, given that Avraham was the beginning of the world - as we have explained in very many places. And therefore the teacher finished the order of the world (in this chapter) with the level of Avraham, which is the highest level that is in the world, such that the level of Avraham is bound to the Garden of Eden - so great is this highest level of his. And it also mentioned the opposite, for there is a level in the world that is the opposite of this - that is the concept of Bilaam, who is the opposite of Avraham - for the evil is parallel to the good. And it is also to make known that the level of Avraham is the highest level and that it is the complete good, to the extent that there is complete lack and evil - which is completely connected to Geihinnom - corresponding to it. And with this thing, it completed the content of the world as a whole and the design of existence - when you understand these things in their order and their connection. That is why no stranger came between them. Rather everything is connected with a powerful and strong connection. For it is all the order of the world and the design of existence - which the teacher began with, "With ten utterances the world was created," at the beginning of the chapter (Avot 5:1). And there is no doubt that it is impossible to explain the depth of these things that the teacher mentioned. For, from the beginning of the chapter until the end, it is all the order of existence and its connection. But is the matter not very revealed to one with wisdom? So put your eyes and your heart well to these things that we have explained. And it will be explained further.
+
+Mishnah 20
+
+<i>Yehudah ben Teimah says, "Be brazen like the leopard, light like the eagle, swift like the deer, and mighty like the lion to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens." He used to say, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom (Purgatory), and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden. May it be Your will, Lord, our God and the God of our forefathers, that Your city be rebuilt, speedily and in our days, and grant us our share in Your Torah."</i>
+<b>Yehudah ben Teimah, etc.:</b> It may be asked, "What is the relationship of this statement to that which is before it?" And we can explain that it is because it said before this, "[One who has] an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a broad appetite - is from the students of Bilaam the evildoer. What [difference] is there between the students of Avraham, our father, and the students of Bilaam the evildoer? The students of Avraham, our father, eat in this world and inherit the world to come. But the students of Bilaam the evildoer inherit Geihinnom and go down to the pit of destruction." So now it said that there is someone else who gets Geihinnom - and that is one who is brazen-faced. For his trait is one that descends into Geihinnom - as will be explained, as to why it is fit to descend to Geihinnom. 
+<b>And strictly speaking, </b> it should have had this statement of, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom (Purgatory), and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden," precede - except that he wanted to have, "Be brazen like the leopard," precede, as will be explained. For he is coming to say that even though it is inappropriate to be brazen-faced - since it is someone who has Geihinnom - nevertheless in the service of the Omnipresent, it is appropriate for one to be brazen-faced. And so it was appropriate to have it proceed, so that if someone learned this statement of, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom" - and people do not always learn the whole tractate at once, but rather learn one statement at a time - and it is possible that he would learn this statement and a commandment would come to him before he would learn the second statement; such that if he would not be brazen-faced to do the commandment in front of those mocking [it], he would not do the commandment but [rather] negate the commandment. Therefore it had, "Be brazen like the leopard [...] to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens," precede - such that he will now already have learned that he should be brazen in the service of the Omnipresent. And that is why it started with, "Be brazen like the leopard, etc."; and afterwards taught, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom." And also, if we first hear, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom," and  afterwards, "Be brazen like the leopard," it would have been implied that the teacher did not come to teach that one should be brazen-faced about the commandments of God, may He be blessed, and be obligated to act [like that]; but rather - because he taught, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom," he said afterwards that it is permitted to be brazen about the commandments of God, may He be blessed. So if it is impossible to fulfill the commandment without the need to be brazen, it is permissible to be brazen - as this is what is implied - but if it is nevertheless possible to fulfill the commandment without brazenness, such that he do the commandment away from the mockers, that is preferable. But this is not the case. Rather he should be brazen in front of those mocking [it] and brazen-faced before them. And even if it is possible to do the commandment away from the mockers, he must be brazen about the service of the Omnipresent and not give attention to the mockers. And that is what is implied when he first teaches, "Be brazen like the leopard" -  as it does not imply that it is coming to permit brazenness that is [otherwise] forbidden. For it did not yet let us hear the prohibition of brazenness, such that the teacher would come to permit brazenness in the service of the Omnipresent. But the main explanation will be elucidated later (Derekh Chayim 5:22), and it will testify to the earlier explanation.
+<b>It may be asked:</b> "Regarding what should he be brazen like the leopard?" And why should he be, "light like the eagle, swift like the deer, and mighty like the lion"; and it not have sufficed with one of them. And our teacher, Rabbi Yaakov Baal HaTurim, may his memory be blessed, has already explained this at length in the introduction to his book, Orach Chaim. And it is not worthwhile for someone to rebut his words. But now you should know and understand the explanation of this statement: It is that one who is embarrassed becomes moved, because of another, on account of embarrassment. And if he is moved, he will not come to the category of [doing] any action. And about this, he said,  "Be brazen like the leopard," such that he not get moved; so that he be able to do what he wants, to serve God, may He be blessed. But brazenness is not any act at all, [as opposed to] the other [parts of the statement]. Rather brazenness is that he not be embarrassed, such that he not come to any action like these.    
+And after this, every process and every deed is done through three things: The first is when he begins to do it, even though he has not [yet] approached the action - this is only the beginning. For example, if he is sitting and he gets up - behold the standing does not have him approach the action, but is only a beginning. And after the beginning, there is the approach to the action, and that is something separate; and the action itself is something separate [as well]. And it is because Yehudah ben Teimah wanted to warn a person about which way he should come to do a commandment. So he began that he be brazen like a leopard. For if he should not have brazenness, he will not act at all in the service of the Creator, as we said (in Paragraph 3). For one who is embarrassed will not come to [do] anything. Hence he must be brazen. And afterwards, he warned a person about the service that corresponds to the beginning; such that he not be lethargic, but that he be alacritous at the beginning. And about this he said, "Be light like the eagle." And lightness is relevant to something that is a beginning; such that if one is light, his nature will not make him too lethargic to stand up when he is sitting. And that is the gift of the eagle, as its nature does not make it lethargic. And that is why he said, "Be light like the eagle." And corresponding to the thing that is after the beginning, he said, "swift like the deer." For that which he runs on the path after he stands up, has him approach the action itself; so he said that he should have the greatest alacrity [about that]. And that is why he said, "Be bold like a leopard," such that he not be embarrassed but arouse himself to act; then begin the process and approach the action itself - which is the service. And he should also have alacrity to complete the deed; and about this, he said, "and mighty like the lion." This is the explanation of the words of Yehudah ben Teimah.
+<b>And now open your eyes,</b> even though it is one explantion with that which was [just] mentioned: It is that Yehudah ben Teimah came to perfect man in the service of the Creator, since the creation of man was for this purpose - to serve his Creator. And since man is a physical being, he is like an inanimate rock and does not desire anything. And about this, he said, "Be brazen like a leopard." For one who has brazenness is not like an inanimate rock to the point that he has no desire or passion, but is rather brazen like a leopard. For since a leopard is brazen-faced, it puts its face into everything on account of [its] brazenness - which is in the face. And it does not distance itself from anything; and that is because of its brazenness. And about this he said that he not be considered like a person sleeping through the service to his Creator, but rather be considered brazen in the service of His creator - to the point that he puts his face into everything, from the faculty of his brazenness. Nevertheless, sometimes [even with this], he does not have the energy to arouse himself to act. For you will find some people that very much want something - and you can see that they have brazenness - but they do not have the energy to arouse themselves to [do] the thing. And that is due to the lethargy of their nature. And corresponding to this he said, "light like the eagle" - that his nature not make him lethargic about the service to his Creator. Rather he should arouse himself to the point that he be light in the service to his Creator, such that his nature not impede him from this. And afterwards, when he has the energy to arouse himself, behold he still needs the preparation to move him to the commandment. And about this he said, "swift like the deer" - which is movement towards the commandment. But this is not fully doing the commandment, but rather the movement towards the commandment. And so corresponding to the performance of the commandment itself, it said, "and mighty like the lion to do the Will of your Father Who is in the Heavens." And this thing is when a person does all of these things with energy and great alacrity.
+And Yehudah ben Teimah warned about all these things that correspond to a person's physicality - as that is what impedes a person from action. For physicality has no action, and physicality therefore impedes man from the service of the Omnipresent. And that is why he began with, "brazen like the leopard" - since this is the beginning - so that he not be like one dozing and like one sleeping, such that he not even have any passion or desire to act. Rather he should be brazen-faced, such that he have desire and passion to act. And afterwards, he should not be impeded by the lethargy of his physical nature to the point that he be lacking the energy to arouse himself - which is what arouses a person to do deeds and actions. And about this, he said that he should be light, similar to the eagle. And afterwards, he said, "swift like the deer" - that is movement towards the commandment. And the movement is the beginning of actualizing the potential. And about this he said that he should be "swift like the deer." And corresponding to the deed - which is the actualization of the actual commandment - he said, "and mighty like the lion to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens." And that which he said, "to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens" - and he did not say, "to do the will of the Holy One, blessed be He - is coming to say that this is what man was created for, from the beginning of creation: That he serve the Holy One, blessed be He. And that is why he said - since He is your Father and He is your Creator, behold because of this, you should do so.
+<b>And because he said here</b> that a person not be like one sleeping and that his nature make him too lethargic to act, but that he should rather be a man of action and full of alacrity in order to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens," he said that all of this that we said - that he should be brazen and mighty in his actions - is to do the will of your Father. But others things besides this are not like this. Rather it is that, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden." So that is why he placed adjacent to it,  "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden."
+<b>And if you will ask the reason for this thing:</b> Why is brazen-facedness fitting for Geihinnom; and shamefacedness for the Garden of Eden? And is it not that you can understand that because balance is appropriate for this world, "[the] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom?" And when a man is brazen, he is connected to fire on account of the brazenness and the power - as it is found in the chapter [entitled] (HaMevi) [Ein Tzadin] (Beitzah 25b): It is taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir, "For what reason was the Torah given to the Jewish people? It is because they are brazen, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 33:2), 'From His right hand went a fiery law for them.'" And it is taught in a baraita, Rabbi Yishmael said, "These are fit to be given a fiery law." Some say, "The ways of these people are fire - as, were it not that the Torah was given to the Jewish people, no nation nor tongue could withstand them." To here [is the Gemara]. And Rashi, may he be blessed, explained: "The ways of these people" - the customs of these people are fire, for they are as brazen as fire. To here [are his words]. And that is because everything is drawn to its place. As you see that the fire returns to, and goes to, the element of fire; the water returns and goes back to water; the wind returns to wind; and the dust to dust - for each one returns to its place. And therefore, the natural place - that is the place that is specifically for him - of one who is brazen-faced, which is fire, is Geihinnom, which is [also] fire. And it is called, "the fire of Geihinnom" (Midrash Tanchuma, Chaye Sarah 3), on account of the great power and might with which the evildoers cling to it - since they departed from balance and straightness. And that is why they are are clinging to this power, which is a brazen power that departs from balance. But there is no room [here] to elaborate about this. Nevertheless, it has been explained that Geihinnom is a place that departs from balance with its might, and that the evildoers cling to this power. And hence brazen-facedness is for Geihinnom.
+And the shamefaced, which are its opposite, are for the Garden of Eden. For since the brazen-faced are for Geihinnom - from this thing, we learn that the place of the opposite of brazen-facedness, which is shamefacedness, is in its opposite, which is the Garden of Eden. For it is well known that there is quiet and tranquility there, in the Garden of Eden. And it is already known about the nature of shamefacedness, that it is not subject to action. Just the opposite, it is lacking action, as was explained above (Paragraph 4). And hence the place of the shamefaced is in the Garden of Eden. For it is called, Eden; and Eden [means] quiet, rest and tranquility. And this is also because of the trait of simplicity that the shamefaced have - which does not depart from balance; as opposed to one brazen-faced, who departs from balance with his brazenness. And that is why the Garden of Eden is appropriate for [the shamefaced], as it is a level of simplicity that is separated. And understand this. So it is hence appropriate that his place be in the Garden of Eden.
+<b>And you should understand</b> how the teacher could say that with regard to doing the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, one should be, "brazen like a leopard" - such that he be a man of action - but in worldly things, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden." And this thing is because brazenness departs from order and from balance. But with the service of God, may He be blessed, anyone who adds [to it] is not departing from order and from what is appropriate. For this is what is appropriate and in order: To be very alacritous about the commandments of God, may He be blessed - for that is what is straight and what is correct. And hence he said, "Be brazen as a leopard, etc." However, if he departs with brazenness from the order with matters of the world, he is someone that has Geihinnom. And you should understand this thing well, for they are choice things.  
+<b>And afterwards he said, "May it be Your will, etc.":</b> And we may wonder - what is the relation of these two things together, to say, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom (Purgatory), and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden. May it be Your will, etc." However the explanation of this is that when he said, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom" - because of that, Geihinnom is very close. For there are more who are brazen-faced than shamefaced in the world, especially with Israel - as we said above (Beitzah 25b), "There are three brazen ones, and Israel is the brazen one among the nations" - to the point that we should be concerned, God forbid, that Geihinnom would rule over the offspring of Avraham. And it is about this that he said, "May it be your will that [the Temple] be rebuilt, speedily and in our days, and grant us our share in Your Torah." For these two things are designated to extract Israel from Geihinnom. And this thing is revealed in the midrash on Parashat Lech Lecha (Bereishit Rabbah 44:21): Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "The Holy One, blessed be He, showed him four things: Geihinnom; the [conquering] empires; the giving of the Torah and the Temple. He said to him, 'All the time that your children are occupied with two, they are saved from two. When they separate from two, they stumble in two.'" To here [is the midrash].
+And we explained this midrash in the book, Gevurot Hashem (at the end of Chapter 8). And there we explained this thing - that the Temple and the Torah are the essence of the world: For it is like, that in a man, the heart and the brain are the essence of the man - the heart, from which there is life; and the brain in which there is the intellect. And accordingly in the macrocosm, there is the Temple and the Torah, which are the essence of the world. As just as all the limbs receive life from the heart, which is in the center of the human body - and the heart receives sustenance first, and afterwards the other limbs receive [sustenance] from it, since the heart sends sustenance to all of the limbs - so too, the entire world drinks from the concentration of the Land of Israel, since the Land of Israel drinks first; and the Temple is the essence of the Land of Israel and in the center of the Land of Israel. And just like the human intellect is there in the brain, so too is the Torah the intellect of the world. And therefore the Temple and the Torah are joined together. It is because the Temple is the holiness of this world, and the Torah ascends to the elevated. And through the Temple which is on the ground, and the Torah which reaches to the supernal world, the world has 'a ladder that stands on the ground and reaches above the heavens.' Hence it said that when Israel is occupied with the Temple and with Torah, they will be saved from Geihinnom. And you can understand this thing from the things that we have [just] explained to you. For when it is occupied with these two, it is occupied with something that is the essence. As the Temple and the Torah correspond to the heart and the brain - which are the essence of man - so too are these two the essence of the world. And because of this, they are saved from Geihinnom, as Geihinnom is nothing. Rather man can be lost there, but it is not within the category of existence, since it is darkness and destruction.
+And there is more than this. For we say in Bava Batra (4a) in the first chapter, about Herod who extinguished the light of the world, since he killed the sages [of his day] and extinguished the light of the Torah, "Let him go and be occupied with the light of the world" - that is the Temple, which is called the light of the world, like it is found there. But why are these two called the light of the world? Because these two are the essence of the world's existence. This is just like darkness is the absence of existence, since nothing exists in darkness, as we have explained this thing many times earlier. Such that [darkness] is called, <i>chosekh</i>, from the expression, "and I will also spare (<i>echsokh</i>) you from sinning to me" (Genesis 20:6); and "and you did not spare (<i>chasakhta</i>) your son, your only one" (Genesis 22:12) - which is an expression of absence. And hence these two - meaning the Temple and the Torah - are one concept [consisting of] two levels, one above the other. And so when a person is occupied with the the light of the world - which is the Temple and the Torah - he is saved from the darkness of Geihinnom, as they said in the midrash. For one who is occupied with the essence of the world's existence is saved from the absence of existence - which is Geihinnom. And therefore after he said, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom, and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden," he said, May it be Your will that it be rebuilt, etc." So then Israel will be saved from Geihinnom. And when you understand them, these words are very choice. 
+And contemplate how one who is occupied with the Temple and the Torah is saved from Geihinnom: For after he has ordered the left side, which is Geihinnom; and the right side, which is the Garden of Eden; he ordered the middle between the two ends, which is the Temple and the Torah, which are between them. And understand these things well. 
+
+Mishnah 21
+
+<i>He used to say, "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture, Ten [is the age] for [the study of] Mishnah, Thirteen [is the age] for [observing] commandments, Fifteen [is the age] for [the study of] Talmud, Eighteen [is the age] for the [wedding] canopy, Twenty [is the age] for pursuit, Thirty [is the age] for power (koach), Forty [is the age] for understanding, Fifty [is the age] for [giving] counsel, Sixty [is the age] for mature age, Seventy [is the age] for a hoary head, Eighty [is the age] for [superadded] strength, Ninety [is the age] for [a] bending [stature], One hundred, is [the age at which one is] as if dead, passed away, and ceased from the world."</i>
+<b>He used to say, "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture, etc.:</b> In this statement, he came to explain the content of man, from his beginning to his end. And man has a similarity to the Temple - for the Sanctuary was one hundred ells (Middot 4:6); and so is the life of a man. Even though, 'the days of his life are seventy years,' from the angle of merit he can reach one hundred. But why does he reach one hundred? Because man is the 'design of the Sanctuary.' And they explained this thing further in (the chapter [entitled] Chelek, Sanhedrin 100a) [Ein Yaakov, Chagigah 12a], "And the first Adam was from the ground to the firmament. Once he became corrupted, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, leaving him at one hundred ells." And they also said in (the chapter [entitled] Chelek) [Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 672 at the end], "And I made you go upright (<i>komemiyyut</i>, which also means two floors)" (Leviticus 26:13) Rabbi Yehudah says, "Two hundred ells." Rabbi Meir says, "One hundred ells, like the first Adam." I only know of men; from where [do we know about] women? Hence we learn to say, "our daughters as cornerstones, carved in the fashion of a chamber" (Psalms 144:12). How big was the Chamber? One hundred ells. To here [is the Gemara]. Note that they learned the size of man from the height of the Sanctuary - which was one hundred ells - since they have the same statute and the same [mode of] creation: For just as man is separated from all of the creatures on the face of the ground by his holiness - since he has a separated soul - so too is the Temple separated from all of the ground by its divine holiness. 
+And this is that which they said in Tractate Berakhot (33a), "Rabbi Elazar said, 'Any person who has mind (<i>deah</i>) - it is as if the Temple was built in his days." And the explanation of this is that man resembles the Temple: As just like the Temple is separated from all of the ground, so too is man separated from all of the creatures that are on the face of the ground. But if a person has physicality, he does not resemble the Temple, which is separated by its holiness. But if he has mind - which is the separated intelligence - then man is separated by his holiness from all of the creatures that are on the face of the ground; like the Temple which is also separated from all of the ground by its holiness. And this is why it is considered as if the Temple was built in his days: Since man himself resembles the Temple, as was explained. And we have already explained this in another place (Netivot Olam, Netiv HaTorah 9) as well. So he came to say that man resembles the Temple; and therefore a man should sanctify himself so that he too be holy, to the point that he be completely like the Temple. And also, it is that he said (Avot 5:20), "May it be your will that [the Temple] be rebuilt, speedily and in our days, etc." - so he said that now that there is no Temple, behold that man himself is the Temple, as we explained above. And a secret about these statements will also be explained adjacently (Derekh Chayim 5:23).
+<b> "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture, etc.:</b> It may be asked: There is no doubt that these measurements have a reason and that they would not have said these things without a reason. Hence we must give a reason for these things. And that is that he mentioned these three things one after another - Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud. And these three things are different [types of] comprehension. Scripture is partial comprehension, but the comprehension is not complete and clear; but Mishnah is clear knowledge; and Talmud is to understand the reason for the thing - which is not at all found in Mishnah. And therefore these three things are divided. And we have already said (Tiferet Yisrael 56) that Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud correspond to wisdom, knowledge and understanding. For there is wisdom in Sculpture, but the Mishnah is complete knowledge - to understand everything according to that which it is, distinguishing all things from one another until one understands the thing clearly. For this is the concept of knowledge, that one know to distinguish between one thing and another; and that is the content of the Mishnah. And Talmud is understanding - to extract one thing from another by way of argumentation. All of that is called, Talmud. 
+<b>And he said, "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture":</b> For you need to understand that the Sages gave a separate level to a man every ten years in the years of his life. And whether you say that 'the days of his life are seventy years,' or whether according to what he calculated here until one hundred - at the end of the day, this thing is very appropriate, just like there is a change in the number from twenty to thirty, [as] that is a completely different number. And twenty-five or twenty-seven is not like this - there is no change in the twenty, for he mentions twenty with it. But twenty, thirty forty - each one is a distinct number. And hence a man has a different level for each one. And therefore the teacher explains the novelty because of the number ten that occurs with each of the tens. 
+And [about] these three - meaning Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud - he gave the measure, "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture, Ten [is the age] for [the study of] Mishnah, Fifteen [is the age] for [the study of] Talmud." And that is because when man is born, he is without intellect at all; but when he is five, intellect begins in a man. And that is because half a decade, within which the person changes, has passed. But here we do not say that that one requires ten. For [with] all of the others that are taught, the novelty comes on it own - "Twenty [is the age] for pursuit, Thirty [is the age] for [full] strength, Forty [is the age] for understanding" - hence ten is required. But [with] Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud - in which the thing does not come from himself, since he needs a teacher who will teach him - he does not need to wait until ten, but rather only five. For you can take five on the teacher and five on himself. As it is possible to teach him when he has passed the majority of ten - which is five years - and [then] teach him Scripture immediately. And likewise Mishnah - it would have been appropriate that he would start ten years after Scripture. However the teacher helps, since half is upon him. Hence he only needs five afterwards [for] Mishnah. And because of this, he also does not need to wait ten for Talmud, but rather only half of ten. Hence, "Fifteen [is the age] for [the study of] Talmud." And it is also because these three - Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud - are not completely different, like the rest are. And Scripture itself helps for Mishnah; and Mishnah helps for Talmud. And hence the difference between them is not completely ten, as it is with the others. For even though these three are different, they are considered like one thing; and each helps for the other. And hence, "Five years for [the study of] Scripture, Ten for [the study of] Mishnah, Fifteen for [the study of] Talmud," [is meant only] according to [this] order: Even though it would have been appropriate for fifteen to be for Mishnah - meaning ten years after Scripture - Scripture nevertheless helps, such that he only needs five years afterwards [for] Mishnah. And likewise Talmud would have been appropriate ten years after Mishnah, but Mishnah helps, such that he only needs five years. And also because these three - Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud - even thought he begins with wisdom, this is not complete wisdom. As behold, "Forty [is the age] for understanding!" Rather he is just able to absorb some wisdom [at five]. So the thing is not with full completeness like with the rest, which are with completeness. And hence it is enough for these three things with half of ten - "Five years for [the study of] Scripture, Ten for [the study of] Mishnah, Fifteen for [the study of] Talmud."
+<b>And regarding that which we say</b> in the chapter [entitled] Naarah (Ketuvot 50a) - "Shmuel said to Rav Yehudah bar Shilat, 'Until six, do not accept; from six, accept, etc.'" - it appears that there, it is speaking about bringing him into the house of study; since we force him to learn [there]. As we say, "and stuff him like an ox." And because of that, we do not accept [one] less than six. 
+<b>And he said, "Thirteen [is the age] for [observing] commandments":</b> And this thing is because the entire time that one is a minor, it is inappropriate that he be obligated [to do] the commandments, until he reaches the category of, "a man." For the commandments are the decrees upon a man; as a man is obligated with them. However  command and prohibition are only relevant to one who is a man - to him is a prohibition relevant. But one who is not a man does not accept a command or a warning, like words of the Torah. However there is a commandment to speak with an infant softly, and to educate him. And the time he is a man is [when] he is thirteen; and that is because when he is thirteen, he grows two hairs (Niddah 46a). And this thing indicates that he is a man - when he grows two hairs in the pubic area. So it is appropriate that he accept a decree and warning per force - 'for according to the man is his strength' - and he accepts the decree from God, may He be blessed, with strength and might.
+<b>And he said, "Eighteen [is the age] for the [wedding] canopy":</b> The explanation of this thing is that the growth of a person to his height is not until he is eighteen. Then, when he is eighteen, his growth ends. And from then, he must complete himself additionally with a wife. For so long as he has not married, he is not a complete man. As we say in the chapter [entitled] Haba al Yivimto (Yevamot 63a), "Rabbi Elazar said, 'Any man that does not have a wife is not a man, as it is stated (Genesis 5:2), "Male and female He created them [...] and He named them, man."'" But so long as he is not eighteen, the height of his own body is not complete. For that reason, he does not need to complete himself with a wife; for a wife is an addition beyond himself. But when he is eighteen - and he has already become completed in his body - he must complete himself with a wife, which is an addition to himself. 
+And even though this thing - that a man's growth is until he is eighteen - is apparent to the eyes, it is nevertheless also seen in the creations: Do you not see that the orbit of the sun and all of the stars is twenty-four hours? And in six hours, they rise and grow over the earth until they are at their height. And it is known that seventy years are the days of a man, and a quarter of seventy is eighteen years minus a half year. And hence the rising and growth of a man is a quarter of his time - until he is eighteen years - and he is then at his height. And it is also because the height of a man is eighteen handbreadths. For behold, in every place, the Sages estimated the height of a man to be three ells, which is eighteen handbreadths (Menachot 98a). So a man reaches these eighteen handbreadths - which is the height of a man - in eighteen years. 
+But there is another reason for this: Since these eighteen years to the canopy correspond to the eighteen ribs in a man - twelve large ones and six small ones - and woman was taken from his ribs (Genesis 2:21). So when a man is eighteen years - corresponding to his eighteen ribs - the other rib that was taken from him should be returned to him. And behold, the woman is called, "his rib." And even though Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained (Rashi on Genesis 2:21) "of his ribs," to be, "from his sides; as in, 'and the side (<i>tselaa</i>, the same word used in Genesis) of the tabernacle' (Exodus 26:20)" - behold, Onkelos (Onkelos Genesis 2:21) translated [it as], "<i>meealaohi</i>, and that is an expression [meaning] rib. And this is likewise shown from the words of the Sages, may their memory be blessed. But this is not the place for this. And there is another reason for this, and it will be explained adjacently.
+<b>And he said, "Twenty [is the age] for pursuit":</b> Its explanation is to pursue others. For until twenty years, he is not quick to pursue [others]. The explanation is that he pursues another to rule over him. And hence in a war - in which a man has to pursue his enemies and rule over them, as it is written (Leviticus 26:8), "And five of you shall pursue a hundred, etc."; (Deuteronomy 32:30), "How can one pursue a thousand, etc.?" - a man does not go out to war until he is twenty years. For then a man seeks to defeat, and rule over, others. And that is specifically when he is twenty; for that is when this power - seeking to rule - emerges in him. For when the body is at its complete growth, then the form is complete and the form is [no longer] ensconced in the physical as it was before this - the form ensconced in the physical. But now it has the nature of the form. And just like the body is complete when he is eighteen years, so too is the form complete when he is twenty years.
+And this is their saying (Kiddushin 29b) that "Until twenty years, God, may He be blessed, sits and waits for a man [...] If has not married a woman, He says, 'Let his bones swell.'" And why does He wait these two years? It is rather because when he is twenty years, his form is complete and it is appropriate that he marry a woman - for man is the form for a woman. And that which they said here - that "eighteen [is the age] for the canopy" - is because the canopy is only at the beginning of marriage. For this is the beginning of the time that he should marry, and it is appropriate that the canopy be in these two years, as it is only the beginning. And that is why they said, "Eighteen [is the age] for the canopy." Regardless, regarding the punishment, he is only punished after he is twenty and the form is completed, such that it be appropriate that he be the form for a woman. And since the form is complete when he is twenty, and the form seeks to control everything - for this is something that is certainly drawn to the form; since it is written about a man [regarding his wife] (Genesis 3:16), "and he shall rule over you" - behold, domination is appropriate for the man, who is compared to the form. And this is that which he said, "Twenty [is the age] for pursuit." 
+And therefore the supernal court does not punish one until he is twenty (Shabbat 89b). For the supernal court does not punish until the form of a person is complete, not ensconced in the physical. As this is appropriate for the supernal court - for with them, everything is with completeness, not ensconced in the physical. And since everything is with completeness with them, they do not punish a person until he is a creature that has a complete form. But the earthly court - in which not everything is with completeness - is rather only the beginning of completeness; and when a person is thirteen, he begins to be a man; so we can punish a man.  
+<b>And in the chapter [entitled] HaArel</b> (Yevamot 80a), Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue: As, for Beit Shammai, a male who has not grown two hairs until he is eighteen is surely a eunuch; and a female who has not grown two hairs until she is (twenty) [eighteen] is certainly a sexually underdeveloped woman. But for Beit Hillel, it is until twenty. And they are arguing about this - as, for Beit Shammai, since the growth of a person is until eighteen, as we said above, if we do not see that he is a man when his growth has already finished, he is surely not a man. And this is even though most become men when they are thirteen. However sometimes the thing continues until the end of a man's growth, which is eighteen. So [if he still does not have two hairs,] he is then considered a eunuch. But for Beit Hillel, it is until twenty. For even though the end of a person's growth is until eighteen, nevertheless when he is twenty, there is the completion of a man's form. As a man is completed in his form after the growth of the body. For before the growth of the body [is finished], the form is not complete, since the form is [then] ensconced in the physical. And therefore after the body is in the completeness of its growth - and that is when it is eighteen years - then afterwards, when he is twenty, the person can be in the completeness of his form, without being ensconced in the physical. And that is why, for Beit Hillel, it is up to twenty.
+<b>And he said afterwards, "Thirty [is the age] for power (koach)":</b> Since after he said that, "Twenty [is the age] for pursuit" - meaning that a man is then in the completeness of his form - so when he is thirty, his personal powers are complete. And hence, "Thirty [is the age] for power." And the Levites would come to serve when they were thirty, for their being and its faculties were then complete. And it is possible to say that being has three powers, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 2:9) - and therefore (since 30 is 3 x 10), "thirty is for power." But there is no need for this. Since once he is twenty, his form is then complete. Therefore once he is thirty, his personal faculties are [obviously] complete.
+<b>And he said, "Forty [is the age] for understanding,":</b> Since understanding is completeness of the intellect, it therefore needs ten more years after the personal faculties are complete until the the intellect is in greater completeness. And always anything that is separated - and that is the spiritual - is not speedily completed. And hence, "Twenty [is the age] for pursuit, Thirty [is the age] for power (<i>koach</i>), Forty [is the age] for understanding."
+<b>And he said, "Fifty [is the age] for [giving] counsel":</b> Counsel is considered greater wisdom, since not all wisdom is the same. For there is wisdom that is not so deep. About this, it said, "Forty [is the age] for understanding, Fifty [is the age] for counsel" - that being, deep counsel. And it is as if he said, "Forty is for the grasping of things that a person brings out from the power of his being and his insight, and that thing is called, understanding; 'Fifty is for counsel' - the explantion of which is deep counsel that masters hidden things" - and that is called, "Fifty for counsel." And counsel is deep, for it is written (Proverbs 20:5), "[deep] is counsel in the heart of a man." And this is said about things that are completely hidden. For even if understanding extracts one thing from another - as they said (Sanhedrin 93b), "Who is one with understanding? One who extracts one thing from another thing" - nevertheless, that thing is not from the hidden things. So [counsel] is a separate level of the intellect.
+<b>And he said, "Sixty [is the age] for mature age":</b> The explanation is that he is an elder, and that he is an even greater sage. For when he is old and the material faculties weaken, the spiritual power then increases more and more. And it is as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 32b), "An elder is none besides one who has acquired wisdom." It is shown from this that an elder is the one for whom wisdom is appropriate, as was explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 4:20) regarding, "one who learns from elders." As wisdom is appropriate for an elder. It is as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 152a), "All the time that Torah scholars age, their intelligence increases upon them." And all of this is because, with the weakening of the bodily faculties, the spiritual faculties becomes more dominant. For man is then endowed with a completely separated intellect. Behold, there are three levels for the intellect here. And the Ritva, may his memory be blessed, wrote, "And some have the version, 'Sixty [is the age] for wisdom,' as it is stated (Job 12:12), 'With aged men is wisdom (<i>Biyeshishim chokhmah</i>),' an acronym for, 'Sixty [is the age] for wisdom (<i>Ben shishim chokhmah</i>).'" The principle of the thing - as you will find this in every place, and with all - is that the intellect has one level upon another, until they reach three levels, which are known by their names. But we shall not write at length [here]. 
+<b>And he said, "Seventy [is the age] for a hoary head":</b> The explanation is that he is complete with days, since 'our years are seventy years.' And it appears that the letters, <i>aleph, chet, hay, ayin</i> are interchangeable, and the explanation of hoary head (<i>seivah</i>) is from the expression, satiation (<i>seviah</i>, which replaces the letter, <i>hay</i>, with <i>ayin</i>) - since he is satiated with days. And that is because the number is the complete number of days and years, which always repeats itself. And therefore, this number is called, <i>sheva</i>, from the expression, satiation (<i>seviah</i>). For everything that is seven is complete. And that is why he said, "Seventy [is the age] for <i>seivah</i>" - for now he has days with completeness and satiation, since the years of a man are seventy years. And although the limit of human life is up to one hundred, that is when he has an addition to the satiation. For there is satiation, and more than satiation. Therefore satiation is until seventy; and more than enough for satiation is until one hundred.
+<b>And he said, "Eighty [is the age] for [superadded] strength":</b> This is to say, if a man is powerful and has strength, he has power until eighty years. And that is because sometimes a man has more strength than there  is with other men. And from that angle, he has power and his days will then be eighty years. But this is not [so] with a common person.
+<b>And he said, "Ninety [is the age] for [a] bending [stature]":</b> The explanation is that he is a man that is lacking, so he walks bent down. And that is because you will find that only man - compared to all of the other animals - walks with an erect posture, as we explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 3:14), regarding, "Beloved is man, since he is created in the image [of God]." And you learn from this that man has this - that he walks with an erect posture - from the angle of his completeness. And we have already explained this reason - that it is because man is the king of the lower creatures, such that he walks with an erect posture. This is comparable to a king, whereas the other creatures walk bent down before him. But when he is ninety, he is a man that is lacking - for he is not in his completeness - and begins to walk bent down. And this thing is as if he is no longer a complete man, given that the level of man is his erectness. So he no longer has the image of God. And now, as this thing is lacking, he is a man that is lacking.
+<b>And "one hundred, is [the age at which one is] as if [...] passed away, and ceased from the world":</b> For we have already said that human life reaches up to one hundred years, but no more. And so did Scripture say, "If he would live to a hundred." Then you should note that human life reaches up until one hundred years. But more than this, "is as if [...] he passed away, and ceased from the world." 
+
+Mishnah 22
+
+<i>Ben Bag Bag says, "Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it. And in it should you look, and grow old and be worn in it; and from it do not move, since there is no characteristic greater than it." Ben Hey Hey says, "According to the pain is the reward."</i>
+<b>"Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it:</b> This thing needs explanation, how everything is found in the Torah. And they hinted to this thing in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 1:1): "And I was a nursling" (Proverbs 8:30) - do not read it as nursling (<i>amon</i>), but rather craftsman <i>omen</i>). For the Holy One, blessed be He, would look in the Torah and create the world. To here [is the midrash]. And we have already explained (Derekh Chayim 3:14) that the Torah is the spiritual order with which God, may He be blessed, ordered the running of the world; and that this order was necessary from Him from the beginning. And that is why the Torah - which is the order of the world - is called the beginning, as it is stated (Proverbs 8:22), "The Lord created me as the beginning of His way." And God, may He be blessed, ordered the world according to the order of the Torah, to the point that everything follows the Torah. For so is it appropriate, since man is of a higher stature than the whole world, since everything was created for man. And hence the order of the world follows the Torah of man, and his order. For God, may He be blessed, created the world according to what is appropriate for the order of man. And that which it said that He looked into the Torah and created the world is because the order of the world follows the order of the Torah. And that which he said, "search in it, since everything is in it" - that means when one grasps something in the Torah, he grasps something about the entire order of reality, since the ways of this world emerge from the ways of the Torah. And the ways of the world are tied to the ways of the Torah, to the point that everything emerges from the Torah, which is the order of man. It comes out that everything is in the Torah. And even though when one is engaged in Torah [study], he does not understand all of these things - how everything emerges from the Torah - at the end of the day, he is engaged with something that has the highest stature, "since everything is in it." 
+And we have already written at length (Tiferet Yisrael 10) that the importance and stature of an idea is according to the stature of the subject and everything is certainly dependent upon this. For if one would exert himself greatly and acquire greater understanding than all the people of the East to create a craft and wisdom like that of the mill for grinding - even though it is a wisdom which none of the people East will acquire - there is no doubt that this is not considered anything in comparison to the smallest insight about the host of the heavens. For according to the stature of the subject of the wisdom is the importance - [and] the subject of the craft of mills does not have an important subject. And precisely like this, when one understands something in the Torah - which is the Torah of man - with a small insight: Since everything is in it, behold the subject is important. For it is the opinion of our Sages, who are true sages, that man is of greater stature than the heavens and than all of their hosts - as we have written at length about this in several places. And hence they said that He looked in the Torah and created the world, to say that the order of the whole world follows the order of man. And therefore he said, "search in it, since everything is in it."
+<b>And another explanation</b> - "search in it and search in it, since everything is in it"; and since "everything is in it," you will certainly find a novelty every day, as everything is in it. For since everything is in it, it is impossible for there not to be a novelty. And he said, "search in it and search in it" - a double expression - as he wanted to say, even though he searched in it and already found a novelty, "Search more and you will find another novelty!" For everything is in it. 
+<b>And there are some books</b> that have the version, "And in it should you look" - meaning, that all of one's pastimes be in the Torah. And that is the [meaning of the] expression, "And in it should you look" - for a person seeks to see the words of sages and those with understanding. And about this they said, "And in it should you look" - that all of his pastime should be in the Torah. But some have the version in which they have the textual variant, "And in it should you be" - meaning, that he should make his being cling to the Torah. And he said, "and grow old and be worn in it": He meant to say that even if he grows old, he should not veer from the Torah, even though he does not have much strength. And even if his strength is completely weakened, he should not veer from it - and that is, "and be worn in it... Since there is no characteristic greater than it": The explantion is that the Torah is above everything, for it is the thing that particularly brings [one] to God, may He be blessed, to cleave to Him, more than anything. And that is not the case with the other wisdoms. And if the people who sit in the dark would know what [Ben Bag Bag] hinted here, they would not be wearing out their days with the words of the wisdoms of the nations, and leaving the Torah - the Torah of truth, in the shade of which we live.
+
+Mishnah 23
+
+<b>"According to the pain is the reward."</b> The explanation of this thing is that according to the magnitude of the pain is the reward. And it may be asked, "From where did the teacher [know] this? And the explanation is certainly not that everything is according to the pain; and besides that, all of the commandments are the same - only if there is more exertion in the commandment is there more reward. For, if so, there would be a difficulty with that which they said (Avot 2:1), "For you do not know the reward given [for the fulfillment] of [the respective] commandments." As behold we [would then] certainly know the reward given for the commandments - for it is according to the exertion and the pain involved with the commandment! Rather that which he said, "According to the pain is the reward," is all speaking about a single commandment: That if one did the commandment with pain, there is more reward than if he did the commandment without pain. But the reward of each commandment is certainly [only known to] God, may He be blessed, and we have already explained this earlier (Derekh Chayim 2:1). But because [someone] might say that God, may He be blessed, commanded to do the commandment and determined the reward for the commandment, and it is all the same whether one does the commandment with pain or without pain - about this, they said that when one performs the commandment with pain, the reward is greater. This is as is found in Yoma (69b) in the chapter [entitled] Ba Lo, and in Sanhedrin (64a), "It is for naught that You have given us the evil impulse, except to receive reward. We do not want it, and we do not want its reward!" As you see from this that since one performs the commandment with the pain of the evil impulse, his reward is greater.
+And the answer to this thing is that the reward from God, may He be blessed, to those who worship His commandments and do His will is because a person [thereby] brings himself closer to Him, may He be blessed. For certainly one who serves a king brings himself closer to him; and when he brings himself closer to him, it is appropriate that [the king's] goodness and sovereignty come to him - since [such people] are with him and cling to him - and not to those who are distant. And when we will explain that a person who performs the will of the Omnipresent with pain is closer to Him than one who performs His will without pain, it will thereby be explained that the reward is according to the pain. And this thing is because, when there is an impediment preventing a person from approaching another and he pushes away that impediment with his power, his might and his strong arm, and approaches - you see from this how much his power is to cling there and how close he is to the one he approaches. For behold he pushed off the impediment and approached. And when a person fulfills a commandment even with pain, he brings himself closer to God, may He be blessed, with power and with his might, even in opposition to the impediment. And this thing indicates the great closeness that he has with God, may He be blessed. And when he has great closeness to God, may He be blessed, there is no doubt that the reward will be greater, since reward is only according to the closeness that one has with God, may He be blessed, such that he receives his reward from Him. And this is what he said here, "According to the pain is the reward" - according to the pain is the closeness to God, may He be blessed. For so long as he has pain from the commandment and does the commandment [regardless], the reward is greater. But if he wants to perform the commandment with pain even though he can perform it without pain, it appears that there is no greater reward here. For we have only spoken here about the pain [attached to] an impediment from performing the commandment that he overcomes and [thereby] brings himself closer. And this thing is explained.
+<b>And behold that the juxtaposition of these statements is known:</b> Because the teacher began (Avot 5:20), "Yehudah ben Teimah says, 'Be brazen like the leopard, light like the eagle [...] to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens'" - which is speaking about the act of service - he concluded his words with the words of Ben Bag Bag, that there is something even higher than service, and that is the Torah. For Torah is above service. As note (Moed Katan 9b): "It is written [about the Torah] (Proverbs 3:15), 'and all of your desires are not to be compared to her' - but the desires of the Heavens (i.e., commandments) can be compared to her. But [elsewhere] it is written (Proverbs 8:11), 'and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it' - even the desires of the Heavens. It is not a difficulty - here, with a passing commandment, the desires of the Heavens can be compared to her; there, with a commandment that is not passing, the desires of the Heavens cannot be compared to her." And in the first chapter of Kiddushin (40b): "They were counted and concluded, 'Study is greater, as it leads to practice.'" And hence he juxtaposed after it, [the words of] Ben Bag, "Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it" - to say that there is [something of] a stature even greater than service. And afterwards, he juxtaposed the words of Ben Hey Hey, "According to the pain is the reward" as this is the last end of man - being the reward in the world to come. And behold the statements are juxtaposed in [proper] order.
+<b> And I say - and it is so - that this is why</b> specifically these two statements are in the language of translation (Aramaic, which is not understood by the angels - see Shabbat 12b): It is because these last two virtues are not found with the angels. For that which Yehudah ben Teimah said, "Be brazen like the leopard, light like the eagle, etc." - the angels are especially adept at that, as they do the will of their Maker with love and fear; and they are happy and rejoice to do the will of their Maker (Sanhedrin 42a). But these last two levels - being the Torah and the receiving of reward - the angels do not have at all. For the Torah was not given to the angels, as is found in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Akiva (Shabbat 88b). And the receiving of reward is also not applicable to the angels. For reward is only relevant to people, since they acquire more stature than what they had before, so they acquire the world to come. But the angels do not have this level. And that is why it concluded [with] the statement, "According to the pain is the reward." But angels do not have any pain at all when they do the will of their Maker. Hence they do not have anything more than what they were created.
+And it has already been explained that the teacher began (Avot 5:1), "With ten utterances," and ordered all the levels of the world - one after the other - as we have explained above with a fine explanation. And now it is coming to mention the level of the Torah - which is above the world - at the end of the chapter that began, "With ten utterances the world was created." And that is why he taught them in the language of translation. For the Torah has two aspects: As the Torah was given to this world - and from the angle of its being given to this world, it is in the holy tongue (Hebrew), such that this world was created in the holy tongue (Rashi on Genesis 2:23). But from the angle of the Torah being from the higher world, it is [also] in the language of translation, as will be explained.
+<b>And we have already explained</b> (Tiferet Yisrael 13) that this is the reason for [the commandment to study the weekly parasha,] 'Scripture twice and translation once.' And that is because the Torah, which is from the supernal world, must be read three times corresponding to the lower world, corresponding to the middle world and corresponding to the supernal world. And because of this, the statement, "Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it," is in the Aramaic language. For that is why, "everything is in it" - because the Torah is from the supernal world, "everything is in it." And accordingly did they write all of the Talmud in the Aramaic language. And that which they say, that it was established in the Aramaic language because they were in Babylonia and that was their language - that is not so. For the Talmud Yerushalmi is also in Aramaic, and their language in the Land of Israel was not the language of translation. And how is this thing: That the Mishnah, which is also for youths, is in the holy tongue; but the Talmud is in the language of translation? Rather the thing is as we have explained. But this is specifically the Talmud; however the Mishnah is in the holy tongue. And that is because the Talmud is to clarify the statutes of the Torah and to elucidate how it is all found in the Torah. And this thing is because the Torah is from the supernal world - and that is why everything is in the Torah - and the Talmud is specifically the stature of the Torah. So that is why it is in the Aramaic language.
+And perhaps someone will question [this and say] that there is no rationale for [Aramaic] to correspond to the supernal world, for it is not considered a language! Is it not that this is not a question? For that is the cause that this world is created in the holy tongue; and that is why the holy tongue indicates this world. But the Targum is not for this world; and hence it is in the language of [Aramaic], which is not connected to this world. And it is precisely because of this that the angels do not understand Aramaic (Shabbat 12b) - for this language is not a part of the order of this world. And these are great things, and they are choice. And since this chapter ordered this world, one [level] after the other - as we have explained - it ordered the level of Torah last, to say that it is of the supernal world and hence everything is in it. And likewise, the reward that is in the Torah reaches up to the supernal world. And this is why these two statements are in the language of translation. 
+<b>And all the more so [should the last two statements be in Aramaic]</b> according to the explanation of the Rashbam from his uncle, Rabbenu Yitzchak bar Asher, may his memory be be blessed: That which he said, "Ben Bag Bag," (the numerical count of the letter in Bag is) is with the number, five, and that is the number of [the letter], <i>hey</i>. And he meant to say, a son of Avraham and a son of Sarah - to both of whom , a <i>hey</i>, was added - and he was son of converts. And likewise Ben Hey Hey was the son of converts, and that is why he was called, "Ben Hey Hey." So it is for this reason that this statement is in the Aramaic language, for it is a language of converts; and not in the holy tongue which is the language of Israel. 
+And you should know that it is appropriate that the son of a convert should be called, "Ben Hey Hey," since the [letter] <i>hey</i> is the power of conversion - as there is no more spiritual letter than <i>hey</i>. And that is what is stated (Genesis 2:4), "in their being created (<i>behibaram</i>)" - with <i>hey</i>, did He create them (<i>behey baram</i>) (Menachot 29b) - meaning with a letter that is a letter of only breath, which is not the case with the other letters. And when a convert comes to accept conversion and the power of holiness - which is the power of Israel, as they have they have the greatest spiritual power of all the nations - upon himself, a <i>hey</i> is therefore added upon him, upon the convert. And likewise when the Holy One, blessed be He, made [a covenant] with Avraham (Genesis 17:4-5) - and then a holy spiritual power was added to Avraham and Sarah - a <i>hey</i> was added to the names of each one of them. And this explantion is understood by sages and those with understanding. And hence it is appropriate that the son of converts be called, "Ben Bag Bag," as well as, "Ben Hey Hey."
+But the first explanation is the correct one, and it is the choice one. For it is certainly for this that the last two statements are in the Aramaic language. For that language indicates the supernal level that the Torah has, and we have explained this thing in several places. And that is their saying (Berakhot 8a), "A person should always triplicate his parashas, Scripture twice and translation once" - as we have explained in another place (Netivot Olam, Netiv HaAvodah 13). And likewise Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud - and understand these things - for the third is always in the language of translation. As Scripture and Mishnah are in the holy tongue, and the Talmud is in the language of translation. But we may not elaborate here. 
+And because of this very reason is it appropriate that this statement be by a son of converts. For the level of the Torah is truly the most [connected to] the power of converts. And we have explained this in the book, Gevurot Hashem (Chapter 42) - regarding, "What tiding did Yitro hear? He heard the giving of the Torah and came to convert" (Zevachim 116a) - that so supernal is the power of the Torah that it includes all, to the point that all share it; since it includes everything, even the [other] nations. For this is why the Torah was given in the desert, in a place unowned, such that even the nations are connected to the Torah. And all of this is because of the level and stature of the supernal Torah, which is above all and for all - if the nations wanted to accept the Torah. However they did not want the Torah (Avodah Zarah 2b). But from the side of the Torah's Giver, it is connected to all, as explained there. And from here you see that conversion in particular indicates the stature of the supernal Torah. And this thing is known in Wisdom. And therefore when it came to speak of the supernal level of the Torah, the statement was in Aramaic and by converts. And if the stature of the Torah was not so [great], converts would not have been able to convert. And that is their saying, "What tiding did he hear? He heard the giving of the Torah" - and as it is explained over there in its place. And hence it is appropriate that specifically converts would teach about the stature of the Torah and that is [why] these two last statements in particular were by converts. And these things are choice for the one who understands them.
+<b>And he ordered this chapter from its beginning to its end:</b> As it has been explained to you that the teacher begins with the creation of the world with ten utterances (Avot 5:1) and continues to order the levels of the world, one after another - as it has been explained about the order of levels connecting the world, to the point that the world be one, as was explained with "Any love that is dependent on something" (Derekh Chaim 5:17); and the opposite of this is the distancing of argument (Avot 5:16). And then he ordered the level of the general power in the world - and that is, "Anyone who brings merit to the many" (Avot 5:18). And then he ordered a stature even higher than this, and that is the level of Avraham (Avot 5:19), such that he was the father and cause of a people as a whole. And do not let the level of Avraham be [considered] a small level. As behold, they said (Bereishit Rabbah 12:9), "'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, in their being created (<i>behibaram</i>)' (Genesis 2:4) - for the sake of Avraham (<i>bishvil Avraham</i>) did He create the world." And we have explained this thing in many places. And he also ordered the opposite of this - the concept of Bilaam, which is the opposite of this. Since just as there is a supernal level in the world - which is the level of Avraham that is the beginning of the world, and his students therefore inherit the Garden of Eden; the opposite of this are the students of Bilaam [that] inherit Geihinnom, which is loss in the world. Everything is as it was explained above (Derekh Chayim 5:19).
+And because these things are the order of the world as a whole, that is why no teacher was mentioned by his particular name, until Yehudah ben Teimah. For, from there onwards, it is speaking about the level of a specific person - not like at first, such that it was talking about the order of the world. As, [about] the level of Avraham, it has already been explained that the world was created for the sake of Avraham. And hence all of the things that were said, from, "with ten utterances was the world created" (Avot 5:1), until here (Avot 5:19) - it is all about the content of the world. However, from Yehudah ben Teimah (Avot 5:20) and onwards, it is speaking about the individual person - after he has ordered the world as a whole. For, even if he mentioned, "There are four temperaments among givers of charity" (Avot 5:13), and those things which are similar to it, this is only from the angle of the giving of charity which is in the world, about which there are four temperaments. And likewise, "among those who go to the house of study" (Avot 5:14) - and all of the things - even though the things are certainly relevant to people, it nevertheless only came to demarcate the going to the house of study that is in the world; and it is not from the angle of the person. However from Yehudah ben Teimah (Avot 5:20), he begins to speak about the individual person - how he is to behave in the service of his Creator, may He be blessed. And hence you will only find expressions of prohibition and command spoken in second person from here and onwards - "Be brazen like the leopard," which is in second person. And because it is speaking about the specific person, he attributed this statement to a a particular person; not like all of the earlier statements - which are not attributed to a specific teacher - as they are statements about the world as a whole. That is only from Yehudah ben Teimah and onwards, as it is speaking about a person as an individual. That is why he also attributes it to a specific individual. And you should not consider this explantion as anything but a very choice explanation for the one who understands the words of the Sages.
+And because the words of Yehudah ben Teimah are about the individual person - and this person is from the upper beings and the lower beings, his body is of the lower beings and his soul is of the upper beings - that is why he said two statements (Avot 5:20): "Be brazen like the leopard," something corresponding to man's body - such that man needs to overcome his body, for the body impedes him from action, which is the service of God, may He be blessed - and that is why he mentioned, "Be brazen like the leopard." And afterwards, corresponding to the soul, he mentioned, "[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Geihinnom" - as brazenness is in a person's soul, as is known. As from the angle of his body, man is timid and not active, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 5:20). And it is from the angle of his soul that he has brazenness and might, and that he is active. And corresponding to this, he said, that he should not be excessively brazen. For if he is brazen-faced, he is for Geihinnom. And let not a person - who is a composite from a body and a soul - incline excessively towards the body, and be completely physical; and let him only be active in the service of God. And he said, "Be brazen like the leopard [... to do the will of your Father who is in the Heavens]" - meaning to say that he should not incline completely towards the soul regarding matters of this world, such that he be excessively active until he be brazen-faced - for then he would be someone with Geihinnom. Rather, he should be brazen-faced in service to Him, may He be blessed, and be timid regarding matters of this world. 
+And afterwards, he added to say (Avot 5:21), "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture, etc." - to make known the content of man and the continuation of his existence and goal, until his end - it is all to elucidate the content of this individual person. So afterwards, he mentions the level of a person, from the angle of the Torah [that he studies]. For this thing is higher than the level of man alone; for the Torah is completely above the world, as we have explained. And this will be explained further in the chapter [entitled] Shanu (Derekh Chayim 6:2). As from the angle of man himself, death is necessitated by man; but the Torah is above this. For it is the life of man - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 30:20), "for it is your life and the length of your days." And that is why he placed this statement of, "Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it," after he said, "one hundred, is [the age at which one is] as if [...] passed away, and ceased from the world." [Hence] he mentioned the three parts of man, one after the other - meaning, corresponding to his body, to his soul and to his intellect, which is the Torah. For these three things are 'all of man.' And afterwards, he ordered the final goal that man has, which is reward. So he said, "According to the pain is the reward" - and that thing is the goal of man. And all of these things are very orderly.
+<b>And in some books,</b> the statement of, "Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture, etc.," is written at the end, after, "According to the pain is the reward." And according to this, it appears that after he ordered the actions of a person - how he should behave and act - and ordered his end, he went back to order the end of man, which is his death. And because of this, he began with the beginning and ended with the end - which is his death, and that is the end of man. And both versions are correct: As according to the first version, he fixed the continuation of his existence and the end of his life first; and afterwards, "Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it" - because the Torah is higher than the life of man, and it is what gives man life and saves him from death, and it even gives him life in the world to come after his death. And this is the Sepharadi version. But the Ashkenazi versions are: After he ordered, "Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it," and, "According to the pain is the reward" - such that a person should occupy himself with Torah, even if it be with pain in the world, [for] is his reward not very great at the end - he ordered afterwards, the days of his life until his end, for 'that is all of man.' And he thereby ordered all of man's activity in order. But the first version is the [more] correct one. 
+<b>And you must understand very, very well</b> that the teacher began the tractate with Torah (Avot 1:1) - "They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples and make a fence for the Torah" - as we explained earlier (Derkeh Chayim 1:1). And he finished his words with Torah and with the reward of Torah. And that is because the Torah is the beginning of everything and the end of everything - for through the Torah, a person merits his final end and reaches it. So a person should give further attention to the things that we have said; and with these things, he will add wisdom, understanding and knowledge.
+<b>The chapter [entitled] BeAsarah has been finished with the help of the Heavens - its 'light is wrapped like a robe.'</b> 
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<i>The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah. Blessed be He who chose them and their teaching.</i>
+<b>The Sages taught:</b> This chapter is not [made up] of mishnahs, for there are only five chapters of mishnahs: The chapter [entitled], Moshe Kibbel (Avot 1); the chapter [entitled], Rabbi Omer (Avot 2); the chapter [entitled], Akavia ben Mehalalel (Avot 3); the chapter [entitled], Ben Zoma (Avot 4); and the chapter [entitled], BeAsarah (Avot 5). And you should know that the teacher put down these five chapters corresponding to the five [books] of the Torah. For just as the Torah has five [books], so too are there five chapters of <i>derekh erets</i> (proper conduct, literally, the way of the world) - which are words of ethical teaching. For, 'if there is no Torah, there is no <i>derekh erets</i>; and if there is no <i>derekh erets</i>, there is no Torah. And therefore they depend upon one another; and it is appropriate that two things that depend upon one another be considered like one another. And he hence put down five chapters of <i>derekh erets</i> as well; just as there are five [books] of the Torah. And just like the Torah began with the order of descendance from Genesis and ordered the story of the generations, one after the other; this correspondingly began (Avot 1:1), "Moshe received the Torah," and the continuation of the chapter tells the continuation of the transmission of the words of ethical teaching until the end of the chapter - and there are therefore five chapters. And the words of all of the five chapters only relate to ethical teachings. So, even if in a few places, they spoke with regard to Torah [study], is it not that this thing is not at all that which is central [in these teachings], but rather just dragged along (tangentially)?
+And therefore in this baraita, it comes to elucidate the stature of the Torah, in order to completely connect the Torah with <i>derekh erets</i>. So all of this baraita - it is all speaking about the Torah, and it is  in order to make known that the stature of the Torah is above <i>derekh erets</i>. However since the main teaching (in Avot) is about ethical teaching, which is <i>derekh erets</i>, so it only taught five chapters of ethical teaching; and [only] taught the stature of Torah [study] in the baraita - which is an addition - and only added it as an addition. 
+And that which it said, "The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah," is because this baraita was taught completely in the language of the Mishnah. For the way of the Baraita is to elaborate, and not to teach quickly like the Mishnah. Moreover, the way of the Baraita is to cite teachings from the verses. And that is the nature of the Baraita, to learn from Scripture, and not to teach things [independently of it], like the Mishnah. And because this baraita was taught to add to the Mishnah, it said, "The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah" - such that this be an addition to the Mishnah.
+<b>And because it said,</b> "The Sages taught [in the language of the Mishnah]," and all of the chapters are words of piety - for, "One that wants to be pious, let him occupy himself with the words of Avot (Bava Kamma 30a) - and one trait of piety is to love the Sages and to mention them for praise; for that reason, it said, "Blessed be He who chose them." And its explanation is, "Blessed be" God, may He be blessed, "who chose" the Sages - for behold, he said (Deuteronomy 17:11), "you shall not veer [...] right or left" - and who chose "their teaching." As behold, they said in Tractate Eruvin (21b), "The words of the scribes are more beloved than the words of the Torah." So here He chose their teachings. And it should not be understood - "blessed" be the person who chose them, and chose their teaching." For, if so, it should have said, "Blessed be the one who chose." Moreover, leave alone, "who chose their teaching"; but how is, the choice here of, "chose them," applicable? And also, it [otherwise] needs to be, "who studies their teaching."
+<i>Rabbi Meir says, "Anyone who involves himself in Torah for its sake merits many things. Moreover the entire world is worthwhile for his sake; He is called 'companion,' 'beloved,' 'lover of the Omnipresent,' 'lover of [all] creatures'; rejoices the Omnipresent and rejoices [all] creatures. He is clothed in humility and fear; it prepares him to be righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy; and it distances him from sin and draws him near to merit. We enjoy from him counsel and comprehension, understanding and strength, as it is said (Proverbs 8:14), 'Mine is counsel and mine is comprehension, I am understanding, mine is strength.' It gives him kingship and dominion, and [the ability to] investigate in judgement, and the secrets of the Torah are revealed to him, and he becomes like an ever-strengthening spring, and like a river that does not stop. He is modest and long-tempered, and forgives his insult; And it enlarges him and raises him above all [that God] made."</i>
+ <b>"Anyone who involves himself in Torah for its sake, etc.":</b> And that which it said specifically, "for its sake" - it is because when he studied for its sake, he has the stature of the Torah, since he is studying for its sake. But when he is studying not for its sake, he does not have the stature of the Torah at all. Since his study is surely not for its sake - but rather to acquire honor or that which is similar to it - he does not have the stature of the Torah according to that which is appropriate. And all of the virtues that are mentioned here are all from stature of the Torah itself. And hence if his study of the Torah is for its sake, a person will have the stature that is appropriate for the Torah itself. But if his study was not for its own sake, he does not have the stature that is appropriate for the Torah itself. For behold his study is not for its sake.
+<b>And he said that he "merits many things.":</b> And it should not be understood that he meant to say those things that he continues to recount - for behold, afterwards he said, "Moreover" - and that is a separate matter. But rather the explanation of that which he said, "merits many things," is that many good things are appropriate for him. Whether it is length of days or whether it is wealth and honor and all of the good things - it is all appropriate for him. And after he said that he "merits many things" - which are all of the good things - he said, "Moreover," that he should acquire the highest stature by way of the Torah. And that is all of the virtues that he mentioned afterwards. For they are particularly appropriate for one who is occupied with Torah. 
+<b>And he said, "the entire world is worthwhile for his sake":</b> The explanation is that the entire world is appropriate for the one who occupies himself with Torah for its own sake. And that is because the Torah is above the natural world - and we have explained this many times, how the Torah is above the world, and see above (Derekh Chayim 5:22), regarding, "search in it, since everything is in it." And the Torah hinted to this: For the beginning of the creation of the world is with a [letter], <i>bet</i>, whereas the beginning of the Torah is with an <i>alef</i> - as it is stated (Exodus 20:2), "<i>Anokhi</i> (I) am the Lord, your God - to make known that the Torah is first. And David hinted to this in the Psalm, "The Heavens recount the glory of God," (Psalms 19). For this Psalm has seven verses - "For the choirmaster, a psalm of David; The Heavens recount the glory of God" (Psalms 19:1-2), and they [continue] for seven verses, until, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect" (Psalms 19:8); with, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect," as the eighth. And it is known that this world is contained by seven - which are the seven days of creation - but the Torah is above the world. And so he ordered the verse, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect" - which is speaking about the Torah - in the eighth verse. And that is the reason that there are eight verses (for each letter) in the eightfold Psalm (Psalms 119). Because the whole Psalm is based on the Torah, which is above this world that is contained by the number, seven - which are the seven days of creation; whereas the Torah is above the world. And that is why eight is an appropriate number for it. And these things have been explained in the book, Tiferet (Yisrael 2), and in other places.
+And in the Yerushalmi Peah 1:1: Rabbi Berakhiah and Rabbi Chiyah of Kefar Techumi - One said, "Even the entire world cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah." And the other one said, "Even all of the commandments of the Torah cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah." Rabbi [Ab]Ba said in the name of of Rav Acha, "It is written [about the Torah] (Proverbs 8:11), 'and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.' But [elsewhere] it is written (Proverbs 3:15), 'and all of your desires are not to be compared to her.' 'Your desires,' that is precious stones and pearls; 'and all of your desires,' these are words of the Torah, as it is stated (Jeremiah 9:23), 'for it is for these that I desired.''' To here [is the Yerushalmi]. And you see from this that the Torah is separated from this world. For the Torah is spiritual, whereas the entire world is material. And therefore the entire world cannot be compared to a single word from the Torah. As even though the world has wisdom, it does not have supernal wisdom - which is complete intellect - but rather just what is called, human intellect. But the Torah is supernal wisdom, complete wisdom. And therefore the entire world cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah.
+And according to the one that says even the commandments [cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah] - it is because the commandments are [performed] by the actions of material man. And therefore all of the commandments of the Torah - which are the actions of material man - cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah. For even though all of the commandments of the Torah have wisdom in them, nevertheless the commandment is [performed] by a material act; whereas the Torah is only wisdom - and this will be explained further. Hence he said here that the entire world is worthwhile for his sake - meaning to say, that this world is worthwhile, such that there be someone who involves himself in Torah for its sake. For the entire world is under him.
+<b>"He is called companion, etc.":</b> The explanation is that he is a companion of the Holy One, blessed be He, and he is also a companion of the creatures. And the word, companion, applies to two [entities] that have commonality and connection. For when one says that Reuven is Shimon's companion - automatically, Shimon is also Reuven's companion. For this word appears about two companions together. And regardless, the expression, companion, is only about two that have commonality and connection together. And to some extent, love can be more - as one's soul is connected with the one loved. And you should know [this], since it is written (Leviticus 19:18), "and you shall love your companion like yourself." If so, the expression, love, is greater than the expression, companion. For love is a complete connection of the soul with the one that is loved, to the point that he is considered like him. Nevertheless, the expression, companions, is said about two things that have a connection together - this one to that one, and that one to this one. Whereas it is possible that Reuven loves Shimon, but Shimon does not love Reuven - unless it is said that Reuven is Shimon's beloved friend (<i>ohavo</i>). For this expression is certainly used when Reuven is Shimon's beloved friend, and Shimon is also Reuven's beloved friend; and not when Reuven loves Shimon, but Shimon does not love Reuven. But even when Reuven loves Shimon and Shimon loves Reuven, they are nevertheless not called, companions. As the expression, companion, is only because they have commonality and companionship together. And hence he said that someone who involves himself in Torah for its sake is called, a companion to the Omnipresent and to the earthly ones. And from this angle, he is a companion to God, may He be blessed, and to the earthly ones.
+<b>And he said, "beloved, lover of the Omnipresent, lover of [all] creatures, etc.":</b> It has already been explained that love is a connection of the soul with the one loved and complete unification. So one who studies Torah for its sake - behold he has a connection and clinging with God, may He be blessed, and God, may He be blessed, with him. And likewise does he have a connection with all that exist. And this thing is clear - how all that exist have a connection with the Torah, and the Torah with God, may He be blessed. For the Torah is the order of those that exist, which God, may He be blessed, arranged. And this is that which they said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:1) - that the Holy One, blessed be He, looked into the Torah and created the world. And because of this, all that exist have a connection to the Torah, with which (whom) everything was created. And the Torah is the order that was arranged and obligated by God, may He be blessed. And hence when he occupies himself with Torah for its sake - since he is occupied with Torah for its sake and the Torah has a connection with God, may He be blessed - because of this, he is called a companion of the Omnipresent. And likewise is he called a companion to the creatures, from this angle. And this has already been explained above in the chapter [entitled] BeAsarah. 
+<b>And in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 99b):</b> Anyone who occupies himself with Torah for its sake introduces peace between the entourage above and the entourage below, as it is stated (Isaiah 27:5), "Or let him take hold of My stronghold, that he may make peace with Me; and he shall make peace with Me." Rav says, "It is as though he built a palace from above and a palace from below, as it is stated (Isaiah 51:16), 'to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth.'" Rabbi Yochanan says, "He also protects the world, as it is stated, 'and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand.'" And Reish Lakish says, "He also advances the redemption, as it is stated, 'and say to Zion, you are My people.'" To here [is the Gemara]. 
+And these Sages all came to explain the value of Torah [study] for its sake. And [the first opinion] said that if there were no Torah [study] for its sake, the higher ones and the lower ones would have been divided. For there is no doubt that the higher ones are divided from the lower ones, in that these are higher ones and those are lower ones. But from the angle that all that exist, the higher ones and the lower ones, connect to Torah - in that Torah is from the higher ones for the lower ones - therefore, the Torah introduces peace between the entourage above and the entourage below. This, to the point that all that exist combine and connect together. Hence one who studies Torah for its sake introduces peace between the entourage above and the entourage below. And this is the companion about whom they said that he is called a companion of the higher ones and of the lower ones, and is called a companion of the Holy One, blessed be He. 
+And Rav reasons that it is as though he built a palace from above and a palace from below. And that is because when there is a split between the higher ones and the lower ones, there would not be a complete world - since the world cannot exist in fractions. And hence if the world is one, it will be 'said to the soldering, "Good"'; and to the connection, "Unify" - so the One supports the one, from the angle that the world is one. But if this world is not one connected [entity], it will not be preserved. And because of this, when one occupies himself with Torah for its sake, he will connect the retinue above and the retinue below - behold, this thing is considered as if he built the palace from above and the palace from below. Moreover, it is because the Torah is the foundation of the higher ones and the lower ones. For since the higher ones and the lower ones have a connection to the Torah, this thing itself is the foundation of the higher ones and the lower ones - since there is no preservation of the world without it being through the Torah. And hence he said, it is as if he built a palace above and below.
+And Rabbi Yochanan, who said that he protects the world, means to say that through the Torah, the world clings to Him, may He be blessed. And because of that, the world lounges in the shadow of the Holy One, blessed be He - as [indicated by] the verse that he cites (Isaiah 51:16), "and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand." And this thing is clear - for through the Torah, the world clings to God, may He be blessed; and because the world clings to Him, may He be blessed - because of that, He protects the whole world.
+ Resh Lakish says, "He also advances the redemption": And this thing is like that which they said in this [chapter] (Avot 6:2), "For there is no free man except one who occupies himself with Torah, as it is stated (Exodus 32:16), 'graven upon the tablets' - do not read 'graven (<i>charut</i>),' but rather 'freedom (<i>charut</i>).'" And how would this not be [the case]? For the power of the nations is only in this world alone - as the reign of the empires is in this world, and the level and the stature of the Torah is [also] in the world. Hence one who occupies himself with Torah is a man free from the subjugation of the empires, as will be explained later (Derekh Chayim 6:2). For the reign of the nations does not reach to there. As they only have specifically this world. And that which he said here, "He also advances the redemption," to exit from [the domination of] the empires - is because the redemption is only when it is appropriate for Israel to exit from the nations. And one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake acquires a separated spiritual level. And because of that, Israel will exit from the physical nations. Hence he said that he advances the redemption.
+And understand that each of [these] Sages adds value. And hence each one said the expression, "even." And that which Reish Lakish said - that it advances the redemption - is more than all [of them]. For the first only said that the Torah is the connection of the whole world; and Rav added that the Torah is the foundation of the whole world. Hence he said, "as though he built a palace from above and a palace from below." And Rabbi Yochanan added that on account of the Torah, the world is underneath the Holy One, blessed be He; and this thing is more of a value and a connection to God, may He be blessed. And Reish Lakish added that he advances the redemption, since he removes Israel from the domain of the nations, [so as] to cling to Him, may He be blessed. And this is the highest value, such that the one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake ascends higher and higher. And understand this well. And this explanation is choice to the one who understands the words of the Sages. 
+<b>So behold it has been clarified</b> that one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake connects the higher ones and the lower ones. And that is what it said here - that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved.' And it said undifferentiated that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved; and it did not say, "He is called 'companion' and 'beloved,' to the Omnipresent, because it wanted to say that he is a companion to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. And hence it said undifferentiatedly that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved'; and through that which it said undifferentiatedly that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved' - included in it is [that it is] to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. But regarding a lover, it is not appropriate to say, "He is called a 'lover,'" as others call him the name; such as when others love him and called him, 'beloved,' or he is called a 'companion' among them - included in this is, to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. But with 'lover' - others do not call him, 'lover.' And hence, 'lover of the Omnipresent' and 'lover of [all]' cannot be included in this; so it was necessary to say explicitly, "'Lover of the Omnipresent,' 'lover of [all].'" And the distinction that there is between a companion and a beloved has already been explained (Paragraph 12), since both of them are connected to one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake. For the connection and the relationship of the Torah is to God, may He be blessed, and all that exists has a relationship and an interaction with the Torah. And therefore one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake is called a companion to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. And from the angle of the love that the one who is occupying himself with Torah has, "He is called, 'beloved,' 'lover of the Omnipresent.'"
+<b>And he said that he, "rejoices the Omnipresent and rejoices [all] creatures":</b> And the explanation of this thing is that joy comes from the angle of completeness, and we have explained this thing in several places. And just like one is a mourner when he has a loss and a lacking; it is such that when one has completeness, joy is found [with him]. And so a person is joyful when completeness comes to him. And that is what it said -  that he "rejoices the Omnipresent," since the Torah is the completeness of man, and the completeness of everything is through the Torah. And when what exists is in [a state of] completeness, it is said [that] 'the Lord rejoices in His creatures' - for they are complete. And hence one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake rejoices the Omnipresent. As there is no characteristic greater than this for the completeness of what exists than [that which comes] through the Torah. And therefore he rejoices the Omnipresent. And through this very thing does he rejoice the creatures from the completeness that he has. And do not let it be difficult for you - what is his connection to the creatures, that he should rejoice the creatures? For this thing is not difficult, since we already said that the Torah is the completeness of the whole world. Hence it is appropriate that one who occupies himself with Torah rejoice the creatures.
+<b>And he said, "He is clothed in humility":</b> We have explained this things in several places above - that humility is a separated trait and value. And coarse-spiritedness - which is a trait that is appropriate for someone who is physical - is the opposite of this. And like it's name, so is it. For coarseness is connected to the physical, which is coarse. And we have explained this above (Derekh Chayim 4:10) - that our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, who was a man of God (Deuteronomy 12:3), to the point that he was completely removed from the physical and had the trait of modesty, "more than any man that is upon the face of the earth" (Numbers 12:3). Such that you can see from this that humility is a trait that is removed from the physical. And Moshe only merited the Torah because of modesty. And it is as they said in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Akiva (Shabbat 89a), "Since you have reduced yourself, [the Torah] will be called by your name." [So] it is shown that Moshe merited the Torah because of humility. And so does the Torah itself lead to humility, for they are two things that depend upon one another - the Torah upon humility, and humility upon the Torah. And in the section on humility (in Netivot Olam), this thing is explained at length - how one with humility is more removed from the physical than [with] any of the characteristics. And this thing is also explained earlier.
+<b>And he said, "And fear":</b> He meant to say, fear of the Heavens. This thing is explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 3:17) concerning, "If there is no wisdom, there is no fear; if there is no fear, there is no wisdom"; and likewise (Derkeh Chayim 2:5) concerning, "A boor cannot fear sin. An ignorant person cannot be pious." For fear [of God] and wisdom are two things that depend upon one another. So with wisdom, there is fear; and with fear, there is wisdom. But we should not repeat things, for they are explained in their place. 
+<b>And he said, "He is clothed in humility and fear":</b> Because these traits are important and splendorous, they give a person the garment of splendor. For so are all of the important traits, splendor for the one with the trait. It is as they said (Avot 2:1), "Which is the straight path [...]? Whichever is splendor for the person adopting it." And that is the reason he said, "He is clothed." Moreover, being clothed is relevant to these two traits because of the greatness of  stature of the traits - meaning humility and fear - to the point that they are supernal values, as is known about the concept of humility and fear. As a garment is on a person outside. For specifically these two traits are Godly traits to the point that they are not human - as is known to those who understand their stature - so that being "clothed" is applicable. And it is as Scripture said (Proverbs 22:4), "The effect of humility is fear of the Lord." And as it made wisdom, a crown to its head - as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "The head of wisdom is the fear of the Lord" - it made humility the heel of its sole, as it is written, "The effect (<i>Ekev</i>, which can also mean, heel) of humility is fear of the Lord." Note that these two traits are supernal. And because of their stature, he said, "He is clothed" - since a garment is on a person.
+<b>But about [being], righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy,</b> he said, "and it prepares him to be righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy." Behold there are four descriptions here, such that one is not like the other. And the explanation is that man is called by these four traits: He is righteous when he does something that is appropriate to do - for 'the righteous (<i>tsadik</i>) of the Lord loved charitable acts (<i>tsedakot</i>).' And it is known that is appropriate to give charity to a poor person, for he is in [a state of] nakedness and total lack - so how could one not give him charity? However a devout person is one who goes beyond the letter of the law. And when he goes beyond the letter of the law, he does this thing from the angle of piety and the good. And that is the trait of the devout person. And there is something that warrants the doing of uprightness and justice - and that is called, uprightness. And that is the third trait. However there is another trait - and that is that he is trustworthy, such that he does not falsify and does not lie, due to his faithfulness.
+And these four traits include all the traits. For there is something that is appropriate to do from the angle of kindness and going beyond the letter of the law, from the angle that it is appropriate for a person to be a good and devout person. And there is that which is appropriate to do from the the angle that such is appropriate. And this trait is between the devout and the upright. For the devout person goes completely beyond the letter of the law; and the upright person does not veer from a legal matter at all. Whereas the righteous person does what is appropriate, even though it is not justice; but it is not completely piety, which is beyond the letter of the law. And that is like the trait of charity. As charity is not [merely] kindness. For since it is for the poor person, it is inappropriate for one not to have pity on the poor person. But it is also not completely justice, for he has no obligation at all. Rather, it is [merely] appropriate that he give charity. And that is what he mentions here - "righteous, devout, upright." 
+And these three traits are mentioned concerning God, may He blessed, with regard to His running His world: "For I, the Lord, do kindness, justice and righteousness in the world" (Jeremiah 9:23). You should note that He, may He be blessed, runs His world with these three traits - and these are the ones that are also mentioned here. And sometimes you will find a person who is devout to do something that is beyond the letter of the law - from the angle that he is a good and conciliatory person - but he will not do something that is the law and statute. For that is from the angle of a different trait - which is uprightness. And there is someone who does the good and the kind, which is beyond the letter of the law; and also does that which the letter of the law warrants, which is justice - but he does not do that which is appropriate to do, like charity, and that which is similar to it from the things that are appropriate to do. However everything is included in these three traits - the devout, the upright and the righteous.
+And the fourth trait is that he is trustworthy, that he holds up in his steadfastness. All three of the first ones are human traits, and a trait is not something essential to a person, except when a person is trustworthy. That thing is considered to be an essential matter. For one who is trustworthy indicates that he is a strong presence, and that is why he holds up in his steadfastness. And that is, "the righteous will live in his steadfastness" (Habakuk 2:4). For when he is someone with steadfastness and he holds up by the strength of his steadfastness without changing - and this indicates that he is a strong presence in his essence - that is why he lives in this steadfastness, to the point that he holds up to persist. And hence when he mentioned the three traits that are descriptions of a person - and they included all of the traits, for there are some things that he does from the angle of kindness and going beyond the letter of the law, and some from the angle of justice which is upright and it is obligatory to do and some from the angle that it is appropriate to do, and that thing is the median between justice and kindness - he afterwards mentioned the essential stature of a person, which is trustworthiness. And one who understands the words of the Sages and knows the trait of kindness and the trait of justice and the trait of righteousness and the trait of trustworthiness will surely know and understand these four descriptions. And all four of them are dependent upon the Torah, from which everything [emerges]. And this is understood.
+And hence he said, "clothed," about the trait of humility, as we explained above (Paragraph 24). For humility and fear are the garment of a person, in that which they are on the person; which is not the case with [being] righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy. Since these traits are descriptions of a person - here he did not say, "And he is clothed in righteousness, piety, uprightness and trustworthiness." And this thing is understood by those who understand wisdom.  
+<b>"And it distances him from sin and draws him near to merit:</b> After he mentioned that which the Torah gives him humility, fear, piety, uprightness, righteousness and trustworthiness - and these are traits that are appropriate for a person from the angle of being a person, and that is why he used an expression of wearing with these traits, since clothing is connected to a person; and all the more so, his using the expression, "and it prepares him," meaning to say that it prepares him until he is completely refined - he said afterwards that there is more in the Torah that draws him near to merit in the world, and likewise distances him from any sin in the world.
+<b>And the explanation of, "it distances him from sin":</b> The explanation is that he does not even come to sin inadvertently; so the Torah guards him, such that he does not come to sin. Since he clung to the Torah, the Torah does not allow him to go on a crooked path at all, but rather guards him from sin. And that is what he said - "and it distances him from sin." And hence this will not be difficult to you: It is obvious that the Torah will distance him from sin, since it already said that he is righteous, etc.!? Rather, it is that sin does not result from him. And likewise that which he said, "and draws him near to merit": Even if his mind was not upon it, it draws him near towards merit. And in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 35:1): "When I consider my ways, I turn my steps to Your testimonies" (Psalms 119:59) - David said, "Master of the Universe, every single day, I would consider and say, 'I am going to this place and to that house,' but my legs would take me to synagogues and study halls." This is that which is written, "When I consider my ways, I turn my steps to Your testimonies." To here [is the midrash]. You should note that the legs of the devotees of God, may He be blessed, take them to the good and to merit. And that is what he said here, "and draws him near to merit" - that his legs always bring him to merit, even when his mind was not upon this at all. And likewise, 'He guards the legs of His devotees' from sin. 
+<b>And he said, "We enjoy from him counsel and comprehension, understanding and strength":</b> He did not say that counsel, comprehension, understanding and strength are found with him, because he wanted to say that we enjoy from him everything that we ask from him. And had he said, "Counsel and comprehension are found with him," it would have been possible to say that counsel and comprehension are found [only] for himself, since a person requires more counsel when the counsel is for himself. That is why he said, "We enjoy from him counsel and comprehension" - for anyone who needs counsel enjoys counsel from him. [Furthermore, to have said,] "learn [from," instead of "enjoy from"] is not relevant with strength. And the explanation of strength is that he wanted to say that the words [of the one who studies Torah for its sake] strengthen a person; and it gives a person strength and energy when he listens to his words. And otherwise it would be difficult - how do we enjoy strength from him? And regarding this, it is not relevant to use an expression of learning, but rather only, "we enjoy." But, "we enjoy from him strength," can [also] be explained, [such] that it is actual strength. For God, may He be blessed, is with one who occupies himself with Torah, so he overcomes all. Just as, "we enjoy from him counsel," is that God, may He be blessed, is with his counsel; likewise, "we enjoy from him strength," is that God, may He be blessed, is with him until he overcomes his enemies. And it is like Avraham. As he took Torah scholars with him for that reason, as it is stated (Genesis 14:14), "he armed his trained servants, who were born in his household" - as it is [explained] in Nedarim (32a). And he was punished for this, for having conscripted Torah scholars. And that is correct.
+<b>And that which Scripture (Proverbs 8:14) said,</b> "Mine is counsel and mine is comprehension, I am understanding, mine is strength" - mentioning the word mine (possessed by wisdom) with each one - is because counsel [here] is very deep counsel. And likewise, comprehension (<i>tushia</i>) is the fathoming of deep things, the fathoming of which weakens (<i>mateshet</i>) a person's strength. And it is like this, that all deep spiritual wisdom weakens the bodily strength of a person. So that is why deep fathoming is called <i>tushia</i>. And because of that, it used the expression, "mine" - as this fathoming is not wisdom itself. So it is not similar to understanding, which is wisdom itself; and that is why, "I am understanding," is applicable to it. But comprehension - due to its stature - is not wisdom itself. Rather, it is even higher than wisdom, such that it is separated wisdom. So it is applicable to say about it, "mine is comprehension." And the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that the Torah is called comprehension. As they said (Sanhedrin 26b), "Why is it called <i>tushia</i>? Since it weakens a person's strength." And the Torah, which is Godly, is above wisdom. And with the Torah, it is applicable to say, "mine is comprehension." For one who merits to [have] understanding, receives the Torah. And that is, "and mine is comprehension." So this thing is understood. And all the more [is this the case] with strength, since it is not true wisdom. And that is why it said the expression, "mine," with counsel, with comprehension and with strength - meaning to say that they are connected to wisdom, even if it is not the essence of wisdom. But with understanding - which is wisdom itself - it is applicable to say, "I am understanding." 
+<b>And that which strength is found</b> with someone who has Torah is because there is nothing stronger than the intellect. And it is the physical which is weak. Hence "we enjoy from him, counsel, comprehension, understanding and strength" - from one who occupies himself with Torah. And that is as it has been explained - for it is appropriate that strength come from the Torah, since strength is connected to the Torah. And hence it is appropriate that all these things be found from one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake.
+<b>"And it gives him kingship and dominion":</b> For it is known that kingship is appropriate for the Torah - as we say in the chapter [entitled] HaNizakin (Gittin 62a), "Who are kings? The rabbis, as it is stated (Proverbs 8:15), 'Through me kings reign.'" And the reason is understood: As the king is separated from the people; and because of that, he rules over the people. And this is also the concept of the intellect; since it is separated from the physical, it rules over it. And therefore when the spiritual level is found in him, he is certainly a king. And it is known that the king is separated from the people and that, because he is separated from the people, there is fear of the king. It is as they said (Avot 3:2), "If not for fear of the monarchy, one man would swallow his fellow alive." And likewise the Torah scholar who has the stature of the separated intellect, as was explained. So for that reason, they have fear towards him, like they have fear of the monarchy. It is as it said (Pesachim 22b), "'Fear <i>et</i> the Lord' - [the word, <i>et</i> is] coming to include Torah scholars." And [the meaning of] dominion is that he makes decrees over people, and they must fulfill [them]. And that is the dominion that he has. And it is all appropriate for Torah scholars, since he has the spiritual Torah. And the intellect (spirit) has kingship and dominion in it, as we have said. And it is as if he said that "it gives him kingship and dominion" - to the one who studies Torah for its sake - meaning the fear of the monarchy; and the dominion, to [have to] accept their decrees.  
+ <b> And he said, "it gives him [the ability to] investigate in judgement":</b> The explanation is that he delves into the depths of judgment, even though judgment has depth which is concealed from people. And that is as they said in Tractate Pesachim (54b), "Seven things are concealed from people: The depths of justice." And there is more than this - since judgement is not like Torah. For it is possible to study Torah and acquire it from one's teacher; whereas judgement is according to events all the time, according to changing things. And about this did he say, "it gives him [the ability to] investigate in judgement," to master the depth of the judgement. And this thing is because one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake has clung to the essence of the stature of the Torah. And from the essence of the stature of the Torah, he masters all the things that are connected to the Torah. And it is as they also said afterwards, "and the secrets of the Torah are revealed to him." So behold, because he occupies himself with Torah for its sake - meaning that he studies Torah for the sake of the Torah itself, and not for the sake of his honor - because of that, the secrets of the Torah, which are the mysteries of the Torah, and the essence of the Torah, are revealed to him. 
+ And "[the ability to] investigate in judgement," can also be explained as being that he masters judgement, as [with] the two prostitutes that came before King Shlomo (I Kings 3:16), such that Shlomo investigated the judgement to its truth - which for other people is impossible. Whereas he investigated the judgment to its truth. So the expression, "investigate in judgment," would be fit, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 13:15), "And you shall investigate and inquire." And this thing is because he occupies himself with Torah for its sake, since the Torah is truth itself. And because of that, he reaches the truth in order to bring out the true judgement - since he has clung to the truth.
+<b>And he said, "and he becomes like an ever-strengthening spring, and like a river that does not stop":</b> And he wanted to say that he has two things: That he says something and gives a proof to his words; and about his proof, he brings another proof, and so on. So [about the first] thing, it is applicable to say, "like an ever-strengthening spring" [that] always gushes. And concerning the multitude of proofs that are found with him for his words, it is applicable to say, "like a river that does not stop," but continues with a multitude of water to the point that it is overwhelming and continues [its path]. So too does he overcome with a multitude of Torah, to bring a great many proofs and demonstrations for his words - such that he overcomes [the counter-arguments] with them. And all of this is because he learns Torah for its sake - and the Torah itself has no beginning and it has no culmination or end. And therefore, he also becomes like "an ever-strengthening spring, and like a river that does not stop." 
+<b>And he said, "He is modest":</b> Modesty is appropriate for Torah. And this thing is commensurate to the level of Torah, which comes from the supernal world that is hidden and modest. Hence one who learns Torah for its sake is hidden and modest in all of his actions, as he is not someone revealed. Rather, he is modest in all of his actions.
+<b>And he said, "and long-tempered":</b> Also this trait is according to the supernal level of the Torah, which is spiritual. As an angry person is stupid, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 7:9), "for anger abides in the breasts of fools." But one who holds [his] temper indicates with this that he is a complete intellect. And you should know further that God, may He be blessed, who has the supernal stature over everything, has complete fulfillment with Him. For [due] to his littleness and his lack, man does not have complete fulfillment; and so he is easy to anger and to lose his temper. But God, may He be blessed, has fulfillment with Him, according to His supernal level. And according to the complete fulfillment that is with God, may He be blessed, He holds [His] temper from letting [His] anger out. Such that you can see from this that anger does not get out easily [when it is] in accordance with a supernal level. And likewise one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake - it is not appropriate that he find anything but fulfillment, according to the supernal level that he has - since he has clung to the Torah itself. And therefore he holds [his] temper from letting out [his] anger. And this thing is understood.
+<b>And he said, "and forgives his insult:"</b> And the explanation of, "forgives his insult," is that when someone who insulted him requests that he forgives him and placates him, he should then forgive his insult. And it is like it is found in the chapter [entitled] BaRishonah (Yoma 22b-23a): And Rabbi Yochanan said, "Any Torah scholar who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake is not a Torah scholar." [And we ask there:] But didn’t Rava say, "Whoever forgoes his reckonings (<i>middotav</i>, literally, his measurements), [the heavenly court in turn] forgoes punishment for all his sins?" When he is appeased, he should allow himself to be appeased. To here [is the Gemara]. And here too, that which he said, "and forgive his insult," is when when they appease him. Then should he forgive and overlook [the other's] sins. And hence it should not be difficult to you: Behold, above he said, "And he is clothed by humility!" For this is not difficult. For even though the Sages said that a Torah scholar should be humble, he should not forego his honor. For behold they said [that if he does], he is not a Torah scholar! And hence one must say that [here it is only speaking about] if they appease him, [then] he should forgive.
+And this thing is appropriate for someone who occupies himself with Torah for its sake, so he is detached from material things. But the one who insists on the reckoning (<i>middah</i>) is related to the material. For behold, reckoning is connected to the material. As that is why it is called, <i>middah</i>, which is a measurement. And any measurement is material; whereas measurement is not at all applicable to simplicity. And hence they said, "Whoever forgoes his reckonings , [the heavenly court in turn] forgoes punishment for all his sins." And that means to say, when he foregoes his reckonings and is removed from the measures that are with him, which relate to the material - as behold he foregoes his measures, and no measure is found with him - therefore they forego all of his sins as well. This means that he is detached from his sins, since sins belong to a man from the material side. For one who is detached from the material has no sin and transgression. Hence they remove all of his sins from him, just as he is detached from his <i>middot</i>. And this thing is explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTeshuvah 7). And that too is when he occupies himself with Torah for its sake from the angle of the intellect which is removed from the material. And because of this, he is removed from his <i>middot</i>, given that <i>midda</i> relates to the material. And this should also be understood. As it is true and it is very choice for the one that understands this. And hence he said, "and forgives his insult."
+<b>And he said, "And it enlarges him and raises him above all [that God] made":</b> And this thing is certainly because the Torah is above all that exists, and rises above them. Hence "it enlarges him and raises him above all that is made." And you should contemplate these things that have been explained that are merited by one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake. For all of them are dependent upon it, as has been explained.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<i>Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "Each and every day a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev, and announces and says, 'Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah'; for anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called, 'rebuked,' as it is said (Proverbs 11:22), 'A ring of gold in a swine's snout is a beautiful woman who turns from good taste,' and it says (Exodus 32:16), 'And the tablets were the work of God, and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets,' do not read 'graven (charut),' but rather 'freedom (cherut),' for there is no free man besides one who occupies himself with Torah; and anyone who occupies himself with Torah is elevated, as it is stated (Numbers 21:19), 'and from Mattanah (a place name that means 'gift,' and so can refer to the gifting of the Torah), Nachaliel; and from Nachaliel, Bamot (a place name that means 'high places').'"</i>
+<b>"A heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev":</b> And it may be asked, "Why does the heavenly echo go out from Mount Chorev - and is it not that no person hears this sound? And also from where does he [know] this, that the echo goes out? And to say, that he heard this heavenly echo, is forced. And another difficulty: Why did he say, "from Mount Chorev"; and he did not say, "from Mount Sinai?" Moreover, what is the proof about this thing that he brought from, "a beautiful woman who turns from good taste" (Proverbs 11:22), that anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called, "rebuked"; and all the more so, the proofs that he brought afterwards - "and it says (Exodus 32:16), 'and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets'" - what is the content of these proofs? As they are not connected to here. 
+<b>And you should know that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi</b> came to make known [the reason for] which Mount Sinai is called Mount Chorev (Desolation) (Exodus 33:6). As since the Torah - which is the construction of the world - was given on Mount Sinai, it should not have been called, "Mount Desolation," but rather, "Mount Construction." But it is called, "Mount Desolation," because, that which the Torah was given on this mountain is what brings destruction (<i>churban</i>) to people that distance the Torah. And therefore, from this angle  it is appropriate to call its name, "Mount Desolation." And even though one who brings himself close to the Torah acquires perfection and construction, the mountain is nevertheless called more according to the destruction than it is called according to the one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake, who has all of the virtues that are explained above (Avot 6:2) - since [the first] thing is felt more in the world. For one who [knows] two people, one is his enemy and one is his friend - he gets angry at his enemy and, just the contrary, he finds fulfillment from this friend: Yet the impression of the hatred with which he hates his enemy is more pronounced than the love and satisfaction that he has with his friend. For hatred makes an impact and an impression. But love is not like this, such that no impression is made from it. Therefore the name of the mountain is called, "Desolation," according to the destruction that comes to, and is found with, others. So it is more appropriate that it be called, "Mount Desolation," than that it be called by the name, "Construction." And that which he said, "a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev," in this place - is because he came to say, "Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah, etc." So it is relevant to say that this thing is decreed from, "Mount Desolation" - as it is the mountain from which destruction goes out to the world to those who distance themselves from the Torah. 
+But in the chapter [entitled] Haya Koreh (Berakhot 17b), it also says, "A heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev and says, 'The whole world is nourished because of Chanina, my son, etc.'" - and there, no destruction is mentioned. So it is shown that it is because every heavenly echo is with the trait of [strict] justice (<i>middat hadin</i>). As behold, all expressions of speaking (<i>dibbur</i>) are a harsh language, such as, "The man, the master of the land, spoke to us harshly" (Genesis 42:30). And that is why he said, "a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev." For this name - that which Mount Sinai was called, "Mount Desolation" - indicates the trait of justice. This is as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Akiva (Shabbat 89b), "Mount Desolation - as destruction came from it to the nations of the world." Note that the name, "Desolation," is given to Mount Sinai, because destruction and devastation come to the nations of the world from it. And because it is called, "Mount Desolation," on account of the trait of justice which comes from it, he said, "Desolation" - which indicates the trait of justice - regarding the heavenly echo. As it is not applicable to explain there like here (in the previous paragraph). So this is certainly the main explanation. 
+And even though this heavenly echo is not heard, it is nevertheless sensed, and it makes an impression on the world for those that do not occupy themselves with the Torah. And 'even though he did not hear it, his constellation heard it.' So his constellation impels him to the Torah. And hence he said, "A heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev." For once the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, 'it was a drug of life for those who are right-handed with it and a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it.' And it is as we say in Tractate Shabbat (88b) in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Akiva: Rav Chanina said to Rav Pappa, "[Regarding] that which is written (Proverbs 8:6), 'Listen, for I will speak royal ones.' Why are matters of Torah likened to a royal one? Just as this royal one is able to kill and to grant life; so too, matters of Torah are able to kill and to grant life." This is as Rava said, "It is a drug of life for those who are right-handed with it and a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it." To here [is the Gemara]. Its explanation is that the Torah has this thing: That just like the royal one - the one who draws close to him and does his will, the royal one raises him and exalts him; and the opposite - in accordance with the greatness of the royal one - if a person transgresses his will, the royal one denigrates him and brings him down. So too, the words of Torah - in accordance with their stature and their level - if one does not act with them according to that which is appropriate, there is punishment and lowliness upon him. And it is because Mount Sinai was apt that the words of Torah would descend from it to the world, and it was also apt that this decree should go out to the world - that is the heavenly echo that says, "Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah." For 'it is a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it.' And that is what they also said there (Shabbat 89b) - "It is called, 'Mount Desolation,' as destruction came from it to the nations of the world." And that is because the nations are distanced from the Torah; and that is the trait of the Torah for those who left-handed with it - it is a drug of death. And this is the heavenly echo that goes out from Mount Chorev and says that anyone who does not occupy himself with Torah is called, "rebuked." The explanation is that he is distanced from God, may He be blessed - just like any rebuke is a distancing. So too, one who does not occupy himself with Torah is rebuked for the Omnipresent. 
+<b>And he brought the proof,</b> "A ring of gold in a swine's snout is a beautiful woman who turns from good taste" (Proverbs 11:22). And he meant to say that if a gold ring - which is a very praiseworthy thing - is in a swine's snout, it is disgraceful from the angle of the carrier, which is the swine. And so too is, "a beautiful woman who turns from good taste": That is to say that this beauty, along with its significance, is disgraceful and disgusting with one who turns from good taste. Even though good taste is not visible to a person and the woman is the most beautiful, nevertheless this beauty is disgusting. And the "beautiful woman," that he mentioned is meaning to say, a spiritual man. As he is called a beautiful woman, who has beauty, which is radiance. And that is similar to wisdom in every place - as wisdom is light and radiance; as it is stated (Ecclesiastes 8:1), "a man’s wisdom lights up his face." And it is as it is found in Tractate Bava Batra (4a) with Herod, "He extinguished the light of the world (by killing Torah scholars), let him occupy himself with the light of the world." And he called the physicality of a person, "who turns from good taste" - because putridity is lowliness, like feces and that which is similar to it. And the physicality of a person has lowliness.
+The general principle of the thing is that when "a ring of gold," which is clean and pure, is placed "in a swine's snout," given that the swine's snout burrows in the garbage, it is disgusting and loathsome. And through this, the pure ring is disgraced. And so too is "a beautiful woman who turns from good taste." And he wanted to say [that] so too is a person with intellect who does not occupy himself with Torah: For the intellect is found in the physical body - that has lowliness - of a person, and occupies itself with lowly physical things; so the pure intellect disgraces itself through this. However if he occupies himself with Torah, his intellect is separated from the physical and it does not have the lowliness of the physical. And we have already said that a [spiritual] person is called, "a beautiful woman," on account of the radiance of the intellect. But it "turns from good taste" - meaning that the intellect is found in the body that has the lowliness of the physical. And just like the ring: If it is in the corrupted swine's snout, it is not worth anything; so too exactly is the intellect in a corrupted man. And it is completely wasted, when it does not occupy itself with Torah, but rather goes after material things. In this, it is similar to a swine that has a gold ring in its snout and burrows in the garbage. So too is the wisdom inside a wise person when he occupies himself with lowly physical things. But when he occupies himself with Torah - behold it is considered as if he does not have the lowliness of the physical.
+And understand this metaphor that compares a man when he is lacking Torah to a swine: For the swine pursues the matter of its body and its desires the most, and there is nothing like it. For other [animals] are not so disgusting. As other animals seek some honor naturally, as they said (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 243), "There are four proud ones - the ox among beasts, the lion among animals, etc." And likewise is boldness mentioned about some animals. But the swine only [exists] to seek its material food by way of what is disgusting and by way of filth. So too is a man who leaves the spiritual Torah, and only goes after his material desire - he is similar to a swine. And that is why above (Avot 3:3), it compared a table upon which there are no words of Torah, to their eating vomit and feces. And that is what he said: That anyone who does not occupy himself with Torah is called, "rebuked" - meaning that he is distanced. For behold, because of the lowliness of the physical, he is distanced. And this thing is understood. 
+<b>And that which he said, "for anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah"</b> - which implies that it is a proof to what is before, "Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah" - is not referring to what he said, "for disparaging the Torah." Rather it is referring to the the word, "Woe." For he said that "anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called, 'rebuked.'" And hence, woe to them. And that which he said, "disparaging the Torah," is meaning to say it is specifically when the Torah is disparaged - which is when it is possible for him to occupy himself with Torah and he does not occupy himself [with it]. But without this, no. For there is no disparagement here, since it is not possible for him to occupy himself with Torah. 
+<b>"And it says (Exodus 32:16), 'and the script, etc.'":</b> And he brought a proof that one who does not occupy himself with Torah is called, "rebuked." As we already said that the Torah is a drug of life for those who are right-handed with it, a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it (Shabbat 88b). And because you find that those who are right-handed with it are free men - from that, you know that when [people] distance themselves from the Torah, they are lowly, denigrated and inferior. And that is why he brings a proof - that it is stated (Exodus 32:16), "'and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets,' do not read, 'graven (<i>harut</i>),' but rather 'freedom (<i>herut</i>).'" But nevertheless, according to the discussion, it should more be understood that he does not bring a proof about his being distanced from God, may He be blessed, but rather even more then this - that he is not called a free man, but is rather called, subjugated. "For there is no free man except one who occupies himself with Torah." And there is no doubt that someone who is not a free man is more denigrated. For one rebuked is only distanced from God, may He be blessed. But he said that it is more than this - that he is not called a free man at all. And this explantion is correct. And Rabbi Yitzchak Abrabanel wrote (here) that he found like this in the Baraita (Kallah 8) - that it means to say that it is not only that he is rebuked, but that one who does not occupy himself with Torah is also called, subjugated.
+<b>And that which he said, "do not read, 'graven (<i>charut</i>)'":</b> According to what is apparent, this is a very far-fetched teaching. For what is the relation of this to that which the verse (Exodus 32:16) said, "and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets" - that it should hint in this place, that the one who occupies himself with Torah is a free man. But this thing is like the other words of the Sages that appear very far-fetched to someone who is lacking knowledge. But they hinted to something very magnificent here. And that is that the intellect is the design of reality; and likewise is the whole Torah, the design of reality. And likewise the script, which is the form and design of the writing. And any etching of writing is designated by the expression, "engraved (<i>charut</i>)" - because script has a form. And that is the concept of script - even though it has a material form, it nevertheless has the name, "form," upon it. And it is appropriate to call anything that is form, with an expression of freedom (<i>cherut</i>). And we have explained this thing many times - that subjugation is from the the angle of the physical. As from the angle of form, there is  no subjugation. And they, may their memory be blessed, hinted to this regarding a Canaanite (gentile) slave (Yevamot 62a) - "'Remain here with the donkey' (Genesis 22:5) - a nation comparable to a donkey (<i>chamor</i>)." As, from the side of the subjugation that it has, it is similar to the physical (<i>chomer</i>). For that which is subjugated is acted upon by another. And this is the content of the physical, that it is acted upon. But with a form - since there is no acting upon a form at all - it is not applicable to say, subjugation, about a form, but rather only freedom. And this thing is understood. 
+And since the words of Torah are detached, completely removed from the physical - for that reason, the verse hints to the form of the letters on the tablets, which indicates the spiritual form of the Torah, which is completely detached. And it is intellect without any combination of the physical, by way of the expression, <i>charut</i> - and not the expression, etched - to tell you that the Torah is complete freedom and completely free. As form is freedom - as will be explained - and all the more so, Torah, which is a completely detached spiritual form. Hence the script of the tablets were seen from both of their sides (Exodus 32:15); such that this etching be a complete etching. And that is complete form, not like other etchings that are on a tablet - even though they are etched, they are not etched from one side to the other. As behold, the carrier that the form is upon is preserved, so that it is similar to a form that is upon the physical. But the form of the script of the tablets is such that the form indicates the spiritual form of the Torah. And it is complete design without a carrier at all. And so the the script of the tablets is etched from both sides, to the point that the form of the letters was a complete form. And this thing is certainly complete freedom, since here there is completely nothing physical in which there is subjugation. And that is why with this - about which it is written that the script was from both of their sides - it is written for you (Exodus 32:16), "engraved (<i>charut</i>) upon the tablets," which is an expression of freedom (<i>cherut</i>). For that which it was from both of its sides - this thing is complete form without the physical. So this indicates the complete freedom that there is in the Torah, in that the wisdom of the Torah is a detached completely spiritual form. And from here you know that they said truthfully and faithfully, "Do not read 'graven (<i>charut</i>),' but rather 'freedom (<i>cherut</i>).'"
+And the matter of this freedom that there is in Torah - even though we have found many Torah masters that have not been free men, nevertheless, this statement here is only that he is a free man in truth, according to the order of reality. But sometimes sin causes [things] from another side. In any case, according to the intellect, "there is no free man besides one who occupies himself with Torah."
+<b>And he said, "for there is no free man besides one who occupies himself with Torah":</b> For even a king - who is a free man - is not called a free man, in comparison to one who occupies himself with Torah. And this is as they said (Avot 6:5), "And do not desire their tables [of kings] since your table is greater than their tables and your crown is greater than their crowns." For the king - even though he is a king - he is afraid lest the people of his kingdom will rebel. And because of this, he is not a completely free man. As one is not called a free man except when there is no angle of a possibility of subjugation. And that is only found in Torah - that he is a completely free man, as we explained. For the intellect is free - subjugation is not applicable to it. 
+<b>And he said, "anyone who  occupies himself with Torah learning is elevated":</b> This means to say that it is not only that he is a free man, but he is also elevated - and that is that he is elevated from this lowly world. And that is why he said that "anyone who occupies himself with Torah is elevated, as it is stated (Numbers 21:19), 'and from Nachaliel, Bamot.'" And this verse is expounded about Torah in Tractate Eruvin (54a) in the chapter [entitled] Keitsad Mearavin. But here is not the place to elaborate; as this will be explained, with God's help, in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTorah 2) - and we should not elaborate in this place.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<i>One who learns from his fellow one chapter or one law or one verse or one utterance or even one letter must treat him with honor, as we found it to be thus with David, King of Israel, who learned only two things from Achithophel, [yet] called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate, as it is stated (Psalms 55:14), "But it was you, a man my equal, my guide, and my intimate." And is it not an a fortiori argument? If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achithophel called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate; how much more must one who learns one chapter or one law or one verse or one utterance or one letter from his fellow treat him with honor. And there is no honor except Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 3:35) "The wise shall inherit honor," and "the whole-hearted shall inherit good" (Proverbs 28:10), and there is no good except Torah as it is stated (Proverbs 4:2), "I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah."</i>
+<b>One who learns from his fellow, etc.:</b> It may be asked - that this is a [refutable] a fortiori argument: For from where do we learn, even "one utterance or even one letter?" Moreover, we did not find that David called Achithophel, his teacher. Rather [he only said] (Psalms 55:14), "my guide, and my intimate" - but that he called him, "my teacher," was not found by us. Furthermore, that which it said, "there is no good except Torah" - there is no need to bring this here, for this is not its place. 
+<b>And the explanation of this thing, that he brought this thing in this baratia:</b> It is because it said before this (Avot 6:3 at the end), "anyone who occupies himself with Torah is elevated" - it brought after this, how great this elevation is. For it is applicable for one who learned even one letter from his fellow to treat him with honor. And this thing is certainly an elevation. 
+<b>And it can be explained that this is how it brought a proof:</b> That thus did we see with David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel. And these two things are found in the Midrash, as Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explains (Rashi on Avot 6:3): Such that Achitophel had found David, that he was sitting alone and occupying himself with Torah [study]. He said to him, "Why are you studying alone? And has it not already been stated (Jeremiah 50:36), 'A sword is upon the fabricators (<i>badim</i>) and they shall become foolish' [interpreted as, 'A sword is upon Torah scholars that study one by one (<i>bad bevad</i>)]?" And this is that which is written (Psalms 55:15), "Which together we sweetened counsel." He again found him entering his house of study with an upright posture. He said to him, "And has it not already been stated (Leviticus 19:30), 'and revere My holy place' - that a man should enter there with reverence, so that the fear of the Divine Presence be upon him." And so it states (Psalms 55:15), "in the house of God shall we walk with emotion (<i>beragesh</i>)" - [which is here] an expression of awe and fear. To here [is Rashi]. But Rambam, may his memory be blessed, does not have the version, "And has it not been written (Leviticus 19:30), 'and revere My holy place.'" As it is not speaking [here] about the Temple. Rather he has the text, that "he needs to enter with bowing."
+And he called him, "his teacher," as it is written (Psalms 55:14), "But it was you, a man my equal" - meaning to say [that] you are certainly my equal in value. For if I am the king and you must treat me with honor because of the monarchy, you have that which is corresponding to this - that you are my teacher, and I must treat you with honor on account of your being my teacher. This means, one who taught him wisdom. And "his guide (<i>aluf</i>)": Which is that he was greater than him - and that is the expression, <i>aluf</i>, in every place. For the honor of the Torah is greater than the honor of the monarchy (Avot 6:5, 6). And "his intimate," is that David knew him, so his fear was always upon him. That is the reason he is called, "his intimate" - that he always knew him.
+And it also learned well [in the a fortiori argument] - "If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel": For these two things are not in the Torah. As that which he taught him, that a person should not study by themselves; and likewise that which he taught him that a person should go with submission to the study hall - that is only a good thing. But it in not an utterance in the Torah. And nevertheless, he "called him, his guide, and his intimate." All the more so, one who teaches him a chapter of words of the Torah - meaning the commandments of the Torah - or one law or one verse or one utterance or even one letter. That is, that he taught him one letter of the Torah. For something that is in the Torah is certainly greater. Then he certainly, certainly needs to treat him with respect. And such is implied in the chapter [entitled] Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 33a), "The Rabbis taught [in a baraita (Tosefta Bava Metzia 2:13)], 'His teacher (that is mentioned in Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:11, as coming before his father) is his teacher who taught him wisdom, and not his teacher who taught him Bible or Mishnah' - this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, 'From whom one learned most of his knowledge.' Rabbi Yosei says, 'Even if he enlightened his eyes in one mishnah.'" And it appears that according to all, it is specifically teachings, which are laws (halachot). But if he enlightened his eyes with other words, which are not commandments of the Torah, he is not included as his teacher [in that context]. So he learned the a fortiori argument as follows: "If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel" - and they were not words of Torah - and he nevertheless treated him with honor; [in the case of] one who did teach him, etc.  
+<b>But it can also be explained that,</b> that which he said, "One who learns from his fellow one chapter or one law or one verse or one utterance or even one letter," is from the power of his own reasoning (and not connected to the central a fortiori argument): For in Torah, there is no distinction between a chapter and a law or a verse or an utterance or a single letter. As at the end of the day, it is Torah, and there is no distinction. For sometimes a letter is considered a great deal; so there is certainly no distinction. And that which he said, "If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel" - which implies that there is a novelty in that he did not teach much - if so, from where do we [know] to say, "even one letter?" Rather it is that you should not say that Achitophel was his particular teacher. For if he was his particular teacher, one's particular teacher is [in a] different [category]. And about this, he was saying that he was certainly not his particular teacher - as he only learned two things from him. For certainly if he had been his particular teacher, it would have been possible to distinguish [this case] and say, that one was only obligated to treat one's particular teacher with honor. But this one was not [David's] particular teacher, and he nevertheless called him his teacher; all the more so, [must] someone else [who is not a king to this]. So he learns this thing from an a fortiori argument. And [regarding] that which he said, "or one law, etc." - these are the words of the teacher [of this mishnah], and he said them from his own reasoning (beyond the central a fortiori argument) - that there is no distinction between a law and a verse or an utterance and a single letter. So that which he said, "how much more" - is meaning to say that since David who is king, "called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate"; all the more so, someone else who is not a king. And this explanation is correct.
+<b>And that which he said, "there is no honor except to the wise,"</b> this is a separate matter, referring to that which was earlier (Avot 6:3), when he said that one who occupies himself with Torah is elevated. And about that he had [also] said that one who learns from his friend, etc. must treat him with honor. Then he said, even if he did not learn from him - if he is wise, he must treat him with honor. For this reason he said, "there is no honor except to the wise." And so that you do not say, "From where [do we know] that [the prooftext (Proverbs 3:35)] is speaking about Torah? Maybe the verse is speaking about other wisdoms." About this, he said, "And there is no good except Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 4:2), 'I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah.'" And if so, the [intermediary] verse (Proverbs 28:10) is speaking about Torah. And for that reason, "The wise shall inherit honor" (Proverbs 3:35), is also talking about Torah (since both this and the intermediate verse speak about an inheritance).
+<b>And [about] that which honor is appropriate for the sages of the Torah,</b> we have explained this in several places: For honor is appropriate for the intellect, since it is removed from the lowliness that clings to the physical. And for that reason, it said, "The wise shall inherit honor" (Proverbs 3:35). As since they are removed from the lowliness of the physical - which is low - honor is appropriate for them. And this is from the angle that the intellect is removed from the lack that clings to the physical. And therefore the sages are whole-hearted and complete. And from that angle, they inherit the good; since they are removed from lack, which is bad.
+<b>But it can [also] be explained</b> that because he said that one needs to treat him with honor, he said from where [do we know] that it is because of honor that he called him, "my guide, my intimate." Perhaps this is the truth - that one who teaches his fellow something is his teacher, and he is his guide and his intimate. So about this he said, "There is no honor except to the wise" - meaning to say, since honor is specifically for the wise, it should be learned from the power of reasoning that, that which David "called him his teacher, his guide and his intimate," is not that he [actually was] his teacher and his guide, but rather that he treated him with honor. So it was not because he was his teacher, his guide and his intimate. And in some books, we have the version, "he made him his teacher, his guide and his intimate," and not, "he called him" - because it is coming to say that he made him his teacher. Even though he was not his teacher, he made him his teacher by way of honor. And hence it brought a proof that this is the way of honor - since honor is applicable to the wise, etc.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<i>This is the way of Torah: Eat bread with salt and drink a small amount of water and sleep on the ground and live a life [whose conditions will cause you] pain and in Torah you toil; if you do so, "happy shall you be, and it shall be good with you" (Psalms 128: 2) - happy shall you be in this world, and it shall be good with you in the world to come.</i>
+<b>This is the way of Torah, etc.:</b> Rashi (Rashi on Avot 6:4), may his memory be blessed, explained [that] it is not saying to the wealthy, that he should subsist in pain in order to study Torah. Rather this is what it is saying: Even if a person only has "bread with salt, etc." So the expression, "This is the way of Torah," requires investigation. As it implies that this is its [only] way and that this is [always] appropriate.
+But it appears that it wants to say, "This is the way of Torah" - and it is what they said in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Akiva (Shabbat 83b) - Reish Lakish said, "The Torah is only preserved with one who kills himself over it, as it is stated (Numbers 19:14), 'This is the Torah (law) - when a person dies in a tent.'" To here is [the Gemara]. And the explanation of this thing is that the Torah is spiritual, whereas a person has a physical body. And there is no doubt that the intellect (spirit) and the body are opposites that oppose one another. Hence there is no preservation of the Torah in a physical body. For how can there be preservation of the Torah, which is intellect, in a physical body? As they are opposites, and there is no permanence of opposites when they are together. And so he said that the Torah is only preserved if one kills himself over the Torah. For when he kills himself over the Torah to the point that he removes his body completely for the sake of the Torah - so it comes out that his essence is the intellect, not the body - then there is preservation of the Torah. For the physical body does not impede the Torah at all when the person removes the physical body as if it does not exist. And that which it is written, "This is the Torah (law) - when a person dies in a tent" - is that a person, who is someone of earth, must remove his body, until it is fit to return to the earth. Then there is preservation of the Torah, and there is no opposition to the Torah. For behold, the body is [then] in a state of being removed for Torah, so that it is not in opposition to the Torah at all - when the body is removed for the sake of the Torah. And because of that, it said here, "This is the way of Torah." For this is what is appropriate for Torah - in that it is a spiritual Torah, such that one not be drawn after delights at all, as they are a desire of the body. But regardless, this thing is speaking about someone who is able to withstand [it], and the weakness of his strength does not prevent him from it.
+But the explanation is not that if he is a man of great wealth, that he is obligated to kill himself. For behold, they only said, "The Torah is only preserved with one who kills himself over it" - [which] implies that he is doing it for the Torah. But if it is possible for him to [be] like other people and [still] occupy himself with Torah, [yet] he dips his bread in salt - this is not called that he is killing himself over the Torah. For this thing is not necessary for the Torah. However the explanation of, "This is the way of Torah," is that he kills himself for the Torah. But if he is wealthy and he does not need eat to eat bread with salt for it, and he eats meat - even though this is not the way of the Torah, regardless, what can he do? For if he would eat bread with salt for no need, that would not be called that he is killing himself over the Torah. It is only if one leaves his wealth and all of his business affairs for the sake of the Torah - that thing indicates that a person is killing himself over the Torah.  
+<b>And from what Rava said to his students (Berakhot 35b),</b> "I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, do not come to the study hall, etc.," it is implied that a person should dispense with his Torah [study] for the sake of his livelihood. But here - "This is the way of Torah" - it is implied that even if he only has bread to eat, he should not dispense with Torah. This is not difficult. As even without this, there is a difficulty. As in the chapter [entitled] Seder HaTaanit (Taanit 21a) it is said that Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan studied Torah together, and they became very hard-pressed. They said, "Let us get up and go and engage in commerce, and we will fulfill, with regard to ourselves, the verse (Deuteronomy 15:4), 'Although there should be no needy among you.'" Until two ministering angels arrived and said, "Let us kill them, as they dispense with eternal life and occupy themselves with temporal life." It is implied that one should not dispense with Torah for the sake of temporal life. So we must distinguish [between the situations]: That certainly where there is a limit to the dispensation - that is, a month or two - he should dispense with his Torah [study]. But where there is no limit to his dispensation, he should definitely not dispense [with Torah study].
+<b>"And that which it said, "happy (<i>ashrei</i>) shall you be in this world, and it shall be good with you in the world to come:"</b> It is because when the bodily physicality - from which all of the lack comes - is removed from him in this world, it is said about him, "<i>ashrei</i> shall you be in this world." Even though he does not have "good" in this world, it is nevertheless said about him, "<i>ashrei</i> shall you be." For the expression, "<i>ashrei</i> shall you be," is from [the same usage] as, "his <i>ashur</i> (steady steps) will not falter" (Psalms 37:31). And it is [like] the expression of the Sages, "And we strengthened it with a ratification (<i>asharnohi asharta</i>) of the judges," which is an expression of preservation and strengthening. And he is preserved in this world. But it shall be good with him in the world to come, since he was not drawn after the body in this world. Rather he was completely separated. And therefore in the world to come, in which there is no material eating or drinking, it will then be good for him. For this person was completely separated from the physical. And in the world to come - which is separated - it will be good for him there.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<i>Do not seek greatness for yourself, and do not covet honor. More than your study, do. And do not desire the tables of kings since your table is greater than their tables and your crown is greater than their crowns. And your Employer is trustworthy to pay you the wages of your labor.</i>
+<b>Do not seek greatness, etc.:</b> In some books, we have the version, "Do not seek greatness for yourself." And we should be precise [about] why [here] it said, "for yourself," and it did not say this with honor. But the explanation is that greatness - when he is a leader or a minister - is something essential about the person. It is that he is an important creature and he is not a lowly creature. So he said a novelty: Even though greatness is something essential about a man, do not seek this thing. However [regarding] honor, others treat him with honor; and it is not something essential about a person, like greatness, which is something essential.  
+<b>And it may be asked:</b> That which it said, "do not covet honor more than your study" (editor's note: Maharal had a different version than the standard text found in Paragraph 1 above, to which he refers in Paragraph 7 below) - it implies that he should covet honor according to his study. And this thing is difficult. For how should he covet honor? As, if so, he would only be doing [it] for the sake of honor. So it appears that the explantion is this: Do not seek greatness; and do not covet any extraneous honor, for you have enough honor from your study. For it is the essence of honor, as it said above (Avot 6:3), "The wise shall inherit honor" (Proverbs 3:35). Therefore why should you covet honor - as you have enough honor. And it also said this against the evil impulse: As if his impulse should overpower him for honor, he can say to his impulse that he has enough honor with Torah.
+<b>And it said, "And do not desire the tables of kings since your table is greater than their tables":</b> And it said three things - do not seek greatness, do not covet honor and do not desire the tables of kings - corresponding to three things. They are: Greatness, such that a person  has power over another, and that is called, greatness. And that which others treat one with honor, and honor him, is called honor. So sometimes they treat him with honor although he does not have power over others. And the third is wealth. With greatness, it said, "do not seek"; with honor, the expression, covet - as honor is coveted by appearance - and with wealth it [used] an expression of desire, as a person desires wealth.
+<b>And that which it said, "And do not desire the tables of kings,"</b> is that you not desire the wealth of kings. For the essence of monarchy is wealth. And hence they said, "the table of kings" - and it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Bava Batra (25b), "One who wants to become wealthy should go north; and your mnemonic is, the table is in the north." Behold the table is a symbol for wealth. For a king has cities and provinces and gold and silver. And about this it said, "And do not desire the tables of kings." As even if kings have much wealth, the Torah nevertheless has more wealth. And that is like they said in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 33:1): "For I have given you a good portion" (Proverbs 4:2): When you have a person that makes a purchase, it has gold but no silver; silver but no gold. But this purchase that I have given to you has silver and it has gold, as it is stated (Psalms 19:11), "More lovely than gold and than much fine gold"; and it is stated (Psalms 12:7), "The sayings of God are sayings pure like silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold." When a person makes a purchase, it has fields but it does not have vineyards; vineyards but not fields. But this purchase has both vineyards and fields in it, as it is stated (Song of Songs 4:13), "Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates." To here [is the midrash]. And behold that this is understood - that the wealth of the Torah is more than the wealth of silver and gold, fields and vineyards. And we have explained this in the book, Tiferet (Tiferet Yisrael 46). And [Torah] is more than it, since it is appropriate that the wealth of the Torah be more. For the Torah is something preserved and eternal, whereas the wealth of properties is not permanent. And about this it said, "your table" - meaning your wealth - is greater than the wealth of kings. For all the wealth of kings is something to which decay applies, whereas decay does not apply to Torah. And when one has possessions, it is called wealth. But since the end of the possession of kings is for loss, this is not called wealth, like that of someone who has Torah. And this was explained further above (Derekh Chayim 5:22) regarding, "search in it, since everything is in it." And note that the Torah is wealth, "since everything is in it."
+<b> And it said, "and your crown is greater than their crowns":</b> The explanation is that a king certainly has a divine stature - and we have explained this above (Derekh Chayim 1:1). Hence kings are anointed with anointing oil (Horayot 11b). And if the monarchy did not have an angle of divine holiness, it would not have been appropriate that kings be anointed with the oil of holiness. And this thing is indicated by the crown. As a crown is an ornament of honor on the head; since separated stature is appropriate to be on the head, which is the highest [part] of a person; and the soul, which is separated, is there. Hence an ornament of honor is appropriate for the head. So that is the reason that they would also anoint the head of the king with the oil of holiness (I Samuel 10:1). And about this, it said that the divine stature of one who occupies himself with Torah is more than the crown of kings. For the crown of kings is attached to a material person. And even though monarchy has divine holiness, that holiness has an attachment to the body. But the crown of Torah, which is the divine intellect - meaning the separated stature possessed by one with Torah - is completed separated from the material. And Scripture indicates this thing: For with the diadem of the altar [that] hints to the crown of the priesthood (Yoma 72b), it is written (Exodus 30:3), "and you shall make for it." And likewise with the table, it is written (Exodus 25:24), "and you shall make for it." But with the ark, it is written (Exodus 25:11), "[and you shall make] upon it." As this thing hints that the crown of Torah is completely separated from the material person who carries this crown. And we have already explained this (Derekh Chayim 4:14). And that is its saying here, "and your crown is greater than their crowns." For this crown is certainly the greatest.  
+<b>And it said, "And your Employer is trustworthy, etc.":</b> The explanation is even if a person is in pain because of Torah - as it said before this (Avot 5:4), "This is the way of Torah, etc." - is not "your Employer trustworthy to pay you the wages of your labor" in the world to come? As 'according to the pain is the reward.' Hence he should not regret the toil of Torah. But the language is forced: As it said, "And your Employer is trustworthy"; but before this, it did not at all say that he should occupy himself with Torah. Rather it only said, "Do not seek greatness [...] and do not covet honor, etc." But we did not find that it said that the should occupy himself with Torah. And therefore the version of the books appears [correct]: "More than your study, do; and do not desire the tables of kings." And its explanation is, "do," in Torah [study], and do not desire the tables of kings. And it said it with the expression, "do, and do not desire the tables of kings" - because sometimes a person is jealous of the tables of kings and that which is similar to it and thinks, "Why should I exert myself in Torah? Is it not that I will not be able to arrive at something with a great and exalted result, like the tables of kings?" And about this, it said, "You - do, in Torah, do it always and do not be lazy; 'and do not desire the tables of kings.'" For "your table is greater than their tables." And for that reason, you should occupy yourself with Torah. So about this, it said, "And your Employer is trustworthy, etc." As you will receive great reward for this.
+<b>And some explain, "More than your study, do":</b> This means to say that one's actions be greater than his wisdom. But this does not appear [to be correct] at all - that this should be interjected between that which it said before this, "Do not seek greatness for yourself;" and "Do not desire the tables of kings," which is something different [from it]. So it would interject with something different. Moreover, we have already explained (Derekh Chayim 6:1) that this chapter only speaks about Torah; not about the performance of the commandments, that it should say, "More than your study, do." Rather the explanation is as we have said - that he wanted to say, do in Torah and do not desire their tables.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<i> Greater is Torah than priesthood and kingship, for kingship is obtained with thirty virtues, and priesthood with twenty-four, and Torah is obtained with forty-eight things. And these are them: Learning, listening of the ear, preparation of speech, understanding of the heart,  reverence, awe, humility, joy, purity, service of sages, exactitude of colleagues, debate of the students, deliberation, Scripture, Mishnah, minimization of trade, minimization of worldly occupation, minimization of pleasure, minimization of sleep, minimization of conversation, minimization of laughter, patience, generosity, trust of the sages, acceptance of afflictions, knowing one's place, joy in one's portion, erection of a fence to one's words, not crediting favor to oneself, being beloved, loving of the Omnipresent, love of the creatures, love of righteous deeds, love of the upright, love of rebuke, distancing from honor, lack of arrogance in instruction, lack of joy in issuing legal decisions, carrying a burden with one's friend, judging him with the benefit of the doubt, placing him with the truth, placing him with peace, deliberation in study, asking and answering, listening and adding, learning in order to teach and learning in order to act, making one's master wiser, understanding one's teaching, saying [a thing] in the name of the one who said it; for you learned that one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world, as it says (Esther 2:22): “Esther told the king in Mordekhai’s name.”</i>
+<b>Torah is greater, etc.:</b> The explanation is that, according to the stature of a thing and its elevation (and its stature), is there a need to acquire it with virtues. And therefore it said, “The Torah is greater” - as Torah is acquired with forty-eight virtues, whereas the priesthood is acquired with twenty-four virtues, and kingship is acquired with thirty virtues. And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained: Those that are written in the Section of Shmuel (I Samuel 8:11-17) when Israel sought a king, and he said to them, “Know, that such and such is the statute of a king.” And when you check there, they are thirty things, together with those that are taught in Sanhedrin (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2-5) - the king does not judge and he is not judged. And the twenty-four gifts of the priesthood consist of ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten outside of Jerusalem. To here [is Rashi]. And in the Baraita (Tractate Kallah Rabbati 8), it explains the thirty virtues by which kingship is acquired: Silver, gold, wives, slaves, maidservants, houses, (fields,) vineyards, gardens, orchards, the proprietary royal house, provinces, male singers, female singers, male demons, female demons, horses, chariots, the sword, garments, weaponry, soldiers, perfumes, (parables), scouts, justice, kindness and charity. And this explanation seems [more likely], because these are all such that, if one has them, then one is a king. For these things are his kingship, applicable to a king. But it is not so [with] those things that are learned in the Mishnah, as they do not all [constitute] the eminence of a king. As that which he does not judge and is not judged is not [constitutive of] the eminence of a king; and likewise, “he shall not have an abundance of wives [...] and silver and gold, he shall not have an abundance” (Deuteronomy  17:17), and “he shall not have an abundance of horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16); and likewise, that he should write two Torah scrolls for himself (Sanhedrin 21b). All of these are not appropriate, that they be called virtues, as it said here. Rather they are called commandments to the king; and commandments that the king is obligated should not be considered virtues. Rather, virtues are when he has things that are appropriate for a king. So too, the twenty-four virtues of priesthood - these twenty-four things all [constitute] the stature and the eminence of the priesthood; and that is the reason it included them. And because of this, it changes its language to say, “things,” regarding Torah; whereas regarding the priesthood and regarding kingship, it said, “virtues” - to say kingship [is acquired] with thirty virtues, and priesthood with twenty-four virtues. For these are all virtues, eminence and authority. But with Torah, [material] eminence is not applicable; rather they are forty-eight “things.” And it did not use the word, “virtues,” for there is no eminence with the Torah, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 6:4). And the teacher did not enumerate the twenty-four virtues of priesthood, nor likewise the virtues of a king, because all of this chapter is only talking about the Torah; so it is not coming to tell with what the priesthood is acquired in twenty-four virtues, nor the kingship in thirty. It only [brings these at all] to say that the Torah is greater than the two of them.
+<b>And it seems [correct] to say</b> that there is a hint about these virtues: As the altar had a diadem upon it (Exodus 30:3), and that is a symbol of the crown of priesthood (Rashi on Exodus 30:3). And the altar was one ell by one ell (Exodus 30:2). So when you wrap a string around the altar which was one ell by one ell - that is that the string wraps around the altar - the string that goes around [it] is twenty-four handbreadths, corresponding to the virtues of priesthood. As [each] ell is six handbreadths (Menachot 98a). And the table, on which is a diadem (Exodus 25:24), is a symbol of the crown of kingship (Rashi on Exodus 25:24): It was one and a half ells tall and one ell wide (Exodus 25:23); if you wrap a string around the table - which is to say its height and it's width - behold the string is thirty handbreadths, corresponding to the virtues of kingship, which are thirty. And the ark was two and a half ells long and one and a half ells wide and one ell tall (Exodus 25:10). If you wind a string around the ark, the string will be forty-eight handbreadths. As two and a half ells from the two sides are thirty handbreadths, and the width on each side is nine handbreadths - thus, forty-eight handbreadths. And that which we did not wrap the table from above (from a bird’s eye view, meaning by its length and width), which would make it thirty-six handbreadths, is since one certainly needs to wrap it in the shortest direction. And if you wrap the table in the short direction, it is the height and the width. So the shortest possible [measure] for the table will be thirty handbreadths. And likewise with the altar, one needs to wrap [it in] the shortest [way]. However with the ark, the string that goes around the length and the width is the shortest - because if you wrap its height, you also have to wrap the cover, and the two cherubs are on it; so that thing is much more. Therefore the string that circles the length and the width is the shortest for the ark; the string that circles the height and the width is the shortest for the table; and the string that circles the length and the width is the shortest for the altar. Thus all three [numbers] of these virtues were included in the three vessels which had the symbols of the crowns upon them.
+And perhaps it troubles you that the thirty things by which kingship is acquired are not spiritual things, such that Scripture would hint to these things with the table. And because of that, [others] forced the interpretation of these thirty virtues, not in accordance with the Baraita (Tractate Kallah Rabbati 8 cited in Paragraph 2), but rather in a different way; such that all the thirty levels would also be commandments - as it is with the priesthood and with the Torah. But this is not difficult. As these thirty things are an indication about the greatness and eminence of kingship - that the king has thirty virtues. And the virtue is not in those things themselves, but rather that they indicate that the king has an elevated and eminent level - and therefore, he has thirty eminent things. And the kingship is more eminent than the priesthood, but the Torah is more eminent than the kingship. And that is what we say in the chapter [entitled] Kohen Mashiach (Horayot 13a), “A scholar precedes a king […] and a king precedes a high priest,” as it is found there. Therefore it said, “Greater is Torah than priesthood and kingship, for kingship is obtained with thirty virtues, and priesthood with twenty-four virtues, and Torah is obtained with forty-eight things.” This is to say - through this, you see that the Torah has more of a level than kingship and priesthood - in that the virtues of the priesthood are twenty-four; of the kingship, thirty; and of the Torah, forty-eight. For the more eminent [something is], the more numerous its virtues.
+<b>And you should understand</b> that regarding that which the Torah is acquired with forty-eight things, we say corresponding to this in Tractate Sofrim (2:6) that one should not make a column of the Torah fewer than forty-eight lines. That is because the Torah is the wisdom that is in the brain (<i>moach</i>, which can be spelled in such a way that its letters have a numerical value of forty-eight) of a person. And understand these things.
+And the virtues of kingship, being thirty virtues, correspond to three negative commandments - “he shall not have an abundance of wives” (Deuteronomy  17:17); “he shall not have an abundance of horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16); “and silver and gold, he shall not have an abundance” (Deuteronomy 17:17). And corresponding to each commandment, he has ten virtues. And you should also know that the virtues of the king are thirty - as you see that the letter, <i>lamed</i> ל, (which has a numerical value of thirty) is taller than all the other letters in the alphabet - since thirty is appropriate for kingship's tallness and elevation. And this reason is because up until ten is considered low, twenty is considered middle, and thirty is considered completely the highest. Thus the letter whose number is thirty is elevated over all.
+And maybe you will say, “If so, it is appropriate that the rest of the letters, the numbers of which are greater, should be even taller.” [But] this thing is not so. As it is only thirty, because this thing has elevation that is appropriate for it to be - so this matter is called, elevation that is appropriate. But more than this would be a complete lack. And it is as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded in Tractate (Sotah) Megillah (29a) [about] (Psalms 68:17), “Why do you look askance, O high-peaked mountains” - that it was stated about Tabor and Carmel (Rashi on Sotah 5a), which are considered blemished, compared to Sinai. And that is because Sinai did not stand out from the standard, but rather according to what is appropriate. But Tabor and Carmel [stood out] more than what is appropriate. And this thing is called a blemish. As any addition is surely like something taken away (Chullin 58b). Therefore the essence of height is the <i>lamed</i> in particular, not the rest of the letters. Hence kingship is acquired by specifically thirty virtues; for the king is elevated by thirty.
+And you find in the writing of the word king (<i>mem-lamed-kaf</i>), the letter, <i>lamed</i> - which indicates kingship - is in the middle of the word, since the king rises from his brothers in Israel. And it hints about the king, that he should not be separated from his brothers in Israel - as it is written (Deuteronomy 17:20), “so that his heart shall not be raised from his brothers,” so he should not be separated from them. And therefore the letters, <i>mem</i> and <i>kaf</i> - which are brothers of <i>lamed</i> (they appear adjacent to it in the order of the alphabet) - cling to the king, so that he should not be separated from them but rather connected to them, with the <i>lamed</i> in the middle. And it is also because this is the way of kingly honor, for the king to be in the middle and the people surrounding him; so this is appropriate. And it is also since it is explained elsewhere (Chiddushei Aggadah on Bekhorot 57b) that everything that is raised up is in the middle. And a [memory device] for this is that the land of Israel is higher than all the lands (Kiddushin 69a), and it is in the middle of the world (Tanchuma, Kedoshim 10). Hence the letter, <i>lamed</i>, is also in the middle of the alphabet. And from this, you can also understand that the king is appropriate for thirty values specifically. As the king is separated in [his] stature from all. Yet there are two [other] great statures: One is [of] the high priest, and the second is [of] the prophet. But the king is greater than both of them. Thus they said, “A king precedes a high priest and a high priest precedes a prophet” - as it is [found] in Horayot (13a). And the priest is on the right, the prophet is on his left and the king is in the middle, elevated over both of them. And you should understand this matter well. As, according to the wisdom, the king rises to the third stature. Therefore, there are three [negative] commandments for the king, as was explained. And corresponding to this is the kingship acquired with thirty virtues; as the third stature includes thirty. And understand this.
+<b>The first is with learning:</b> The explanation is that one should learn from one's teacher, and not rely upon his [own] wisdom;
+<b>The second is with listening of the ear:</b> That one should incline his ear to listen. Because sometimes if one does not hear one statement or one word, it ruins the whole matter. Therefore, listening of the ear is relevant to this.
+<b>The third is preparation of speech:</b> As if one brings out [his speech] with a very prepared language, it is more effective for understanding the matter well - and not like when one learns by himself - and all the more so will it not be forgotten quickly. It is as they said  (Eruvin 54a:1), “‘Prepared in all, and preserved’ (II Samuel 23:5) - that if it is prepared on his lips, it is preserved in the 248 limbs.”
+<b>The fourth is with understanding of the heart:</b> That one should put his mind and his heart to the matter being learned, and understand [it] well in his heart.
+<b>The fifth is with reverence:</b> That one must sit in reverence before one's teacher. And it is like that which they said (Shabbat 30b.6), “Every student who sits before his teacher and his lips do not drip bitterness will not see a good sign in his learning, as it is stated (Song of Songs 5:13) ‘his lips are [lilies dripping] flowing myrrh’ - do not read, ‘flowing myrrh (<i>mor</i>),’ but rather ‘flowing bitterness (<i>mar</i>).’” And the reason is that he needs to have the preparation to receive. And this thing is, that if one has reverence for his teacher, then he has the character of one who is receiving from his teacher. For if he has reverence for his teacher, he is thought of as a receiving student. But if the student does not sit in reverence, he does not have the character of a receiving student. So then he does not see a good sign in his learning to receive - given that he does not have the preparation to receive. And accordingly, it says, “with reverence.”
+<b>The sixth is with awe:</b> The difference between reverence and awe is that reverence comes when one sees the greatness of his teacher; and on account of this, he has reverence towards him. But awe is [that] when one views his own smallness and lowliness, he is awed. For a person should be awed before someone who is great - even someone who is not small is awed in front of a great one. But one who is small is awed even by someone who is not very great. Therefore a student should sit in reverence and in awe, that he should recognize the worth of the loftiness and greatness of his teacher, and also recognize the smallness of his own worth.
+<b>But it is more likely with regard to “reverence and awe,”</b> that it should be explained that [it means] one should have reverence and awe from God, may He be blessed; such that one should recognize the value of the loftiness of God, may He be blessed, and His greatness, may He blessed; and recognize the lowliness of one’s [own] worth. And that is “with reverence and awe.” And so did they say regarding the angels (Yotzer, Morning Prayer), “they do, in reverence and awe, the will of their Maker.” So too is the explanation here of “with reverence and awe.” For a person must be prepared to receive, and that is when one is thought of as something caused. But one who is eminent and of high stature in his [own] eyes does not have the preparation to receive at all.
+<b>The seventh is with humility:</b> And we already discussed this thing several times - that humility is the first cause of Torah. And it is as it was regarding Moshe - that all of his virtues were not the cause of his Torah; rather [only] humility. And they said in the chapter [entitled] HaIsh HaMekadesh (Kiddushin 49b:8), “A sign of arrogance is poverty.” And there, they explain poverty as being, poverty of Torah. And from this, we learn the opposite - that a sign of humility is Torah. And in Tractate Taanit (7a:15): Rabbi Hanina bar Idi said, “Why are words of Torah compared to water? Just like water leaves a high place and flows to a low place; so too, are words of Torah only preserved with one who has a lowly temperament.” To here [is the Gemara]. And this thing will be explained in the second part (Netivot Olam, Netiv HaAnavah 8), with God’s help, may He be blessed.
+<b>The eighth is with joy:</b> As joy is a great trait. For when a person is joyful, he has completeness. And through that, he receives the Torah, which is the completeness of man. But when a person is in distress, he is then lacking [and] cannot receive the Torah, which is the completeness of man. The general rule is that this Godly completeness - which is the Torah - is only appropriate for a person through joy, which is the soul’s completeness. So when a person's soul is joyful, it is then appropriate that his soul receive the completeness of the Torah.
+And without this, it is because one's mind needs to be clear for the depth of the Torah. And that is what they said in the chapter [entitled] HaDar (Eruvin 65a:11), “Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said, ‘A deliberation needs clarity like a day with a cold wind.’” The explanation is that one must be clear in one’s mind like a day in which a north wind blows - which is a highly pure and clear day. And this matter does not require a proof - for when a person’s mind is clear, his heart is more open. And in the chapter [entitled] HaMotzi (Shabbat 77b:8): Rav Ada found Rav Yehuda standing at the entrance of his father-in-law's house, and he saw that he was in a cheerful mood; and if he asked him about anything in the world, he would tell him. To here [is the Gemara]. Then you should note that being in a cheerful mood is a great cause of Torah study. But [regarding] what it says, “with joy,” the first explanation seems [correct]: Because it is only appropriate to receive the stature of Torah - which is the completeness of a person’s soul - through joy, which is completeness of the soul. And that a person needs a clear mind - that is what is said below, “with deliberation,” meaning with a composed mind, which is clarity.
+<b>The ninth is with service of sages:</b> That one should serve sages; and then one is suited to receive the Torah. And in the first chapter of Berakhot (7b.26): Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, “Its service is greater than its learning, as it is stated (2 Kings 3:11), ‘Here is Elisha ben Shafat, who poured  water on the hands of Eliyahu.’ It did not say, ‘learned,’ but rather, ‘poured.’” To here [is the Gemara]. And the explanation of this thing is that [when] one serves a Torah scholar, the student surely connects with the teacher by dint of their service of the Torah - and the student thereby receives from the teacher. As there is no doubt that when a wick gets close to a candle, the candle will ignite the wick. So too, when the student draws close to the teacher - by dint of [the Torah’s] service - the Torah will flow upon him. But it is not like this when the student [only] learns from the teacher. For there is no drawing close to the teacher when he learns from him, as there is when he serves the Torah scholar - which is itself drawing close to the Torah scholar, such that he receives from him. As coming to learn from the teacher is not a connection with him. Rather this thing is a connection with him - when he serves him. And this matter will be explained further in Netivot Olam.
+<b>The tenth is with exactitude of colleagues:</b> Because when a person is alone, he does not receive Torah. And in the first chapter of Taanit (7a:10-11), “Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said, ‘What does it mean (Jeremiah 50:36), “A sword is upon the fabricators (<i>badim</i>) and they shall become foolish?” A sword is upon Torah scholars that study one by one (<i>bad bevad</i>). And not only that, they [also] become foolish, as it is stated, “and they shall become foolish”; and it is written there (Numbers 12:11), “that which we were foolish and that which we sinned.”’” And we have also explained this thing above (Derekh Chayim 3:2) regarding two who sit and occupy themselves with Torah - that the essence of Torah is specifically through two. For - in that which he himself is physical - it is appropriate that a person transmits the intellect to another. Then it is a separated intellect, which is not situated in the body of a person. But when he occupies himself [with Torah], ‘one by one,’ and does not transmit the intellect to another - to be an intellect that is separated from the body - he does not become wise at all. “And not only that, but they become foolish.” And this thing is because when one is not occupying himself with Torah, he then stands - according to what is appropriate for someone who is physical - to grasp and to know that which relates to one who is physical, what one grasps about matters of the material world. But when he occupies himself with Torah and wants to grow wise in Torah - which is completely removed intelligence, as we explained above regarding two who sit and occupy themselves with Torah - the separated intellect will certainly be specifically with two. Hence if he occupies himself with Torah by himself, he becomes foolish. As this is not at all intellect that is suited for Torah, which is separated intellect - it is only foolishness. For when the separated intellect connects and collaborates with the physical, it is foolishness. And this thing will be further explained (Netivot Olam, Netiv HaTorah 6), with God’s help, may He be blessed.
+<b>The eleventh is with debate of the students:</b> And this is because colleagues make one another wise and, likewise, make their teacher wise. And in the first chapter of Taanit (7a:12): Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, “Why are words of Torah compared to wood, as it stated, (Proverbs 3:18) ‘It is a tree of life to those who hold it?’ Just as a small piece of wood ignites a big one, so do small words of Torah sharpen big ones.” And this is also as Rabbi Hanina said, “I learned much Torah from my teachers; from my colleagues, more; and from my students, more than all of them." To here [is the Gemara]. And the reason is very understandable. As it is similar to a tree that does not absorb fire. So too is a great Torah scholar - since his comprehension is very great, he therefore does not begin to ask and to debate in wisdom. In accordance with the greatness of his comprehension and the simplicity of his intelligence, there is no debate - which is questioning - with him. And there is a need for a question to every debate, [thereby] excluding the great ones - they do not have a question. And hence he said that “the little ones sharpen the great ones” - because they ask more, and then the sage has to answer. And he compared this to the small piece of wood which ignites the big one, since the small catches fire more. So too is the lesser one, the beginning of the questioning and the debate. And that is why it says, “with the debate of students” - as the essence of debate comes from students, as they properly pose difficulties and ask. And hence, he said, “I learned a lot of Torah from my teachers,” because they passed down the wisdom to me; “from my colleagues, more [than them],” because they ask one another and master the essence of wisdom; “and from my students more than all of them,” because they debate and sharpen [knowledge] more with their questioning from difficulties - and the law is expanded through difficulties. And this thing is understood.
+<b>The twelfth is with deliberation:</b> The explanation is that it is with a composed mind. As if one's mind is not composed, he cannot learn.
+<b>The thirteenth is with Scripture.</b>
+<b>The fourteenth is with Mishnah.</b>
+<b>The fifteenth is with the way of the world (<i>derekh eretz</i>):</b> [That is] the good character traits - as they, may their memory be blessed, said, (Avot 3:17) “If there is no <i>derekh eretz</i>, there is no Torah,” as above (Derekh Chayim 3:17.1).
+<b>The sixteenth is with patience:</b> For if one gets angry, his wisdom withdraws from him; as it is found in Pesachim in the chapter [entitled] Elu Devarim (Pesahim 66b:7), “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, ‘Anyone who gets angry - if he is wise, his wisdom withdraws from him.’” And this thing will be explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaKaas 2).
+<b>The seventeenth is with a good heart:</b> As Torah is called, “good.” And because Torah is called, “good,” Torah will only be found with someone who is good - which is to say, one who has a good heart. And when he has a good heart, he then receives the Torah, which is good. For how could the Torah - which is good - situate itself with someone who has a bad heart?
+<b>The eighteenth is with faith in the sages:</b> Since when one believes in the words of the sages, then he cleaves to the sages - as he believes in them - and it is inappropriate that he acquires the wisdom of the sages and be included among the sages. But if one does not believe in the words of the sages, how will he be a sage? And they said so in the chapter [entitled] BeMeh Madlikin (Shabbat 23b) - “One who stands in awe of the rabbis will himself become a Torah scholar.” And it will be explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv Yirat Hashem 5), with God’s help, may He be blessed.
+<b>The nineteenth is with acceptance of afflictions:</b> As when one accepts afflictions, he is suited for Torah. And they said so in the first chapter of Berakhot (5a:20-21) - “Three good gifts were given to Israel, and all of them were only given through afflictions [...] Torah [...], as it is written (Psalms 94:12), ‘Happy is the one whom God afflicts, and whom You teach from your Torah,’ etc.” - and as was explained in the introduction and as was [also] explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaYissurin 2:1). For the Torah, in particular, is intellect and wisdom, which is not a bodily characteristic. Therefore one can only reach [its] non-bodily stature by reducing the bodily. And afflictions reduce the bodily, until one is able to reach the level of the intellect. And that which it said here, “acceptance of afflictions,” is that he accepts upon himself the reduction of the material body and, thereby, to remove its lowliness. For afflictions remove the lowliness of the body. And it is like they said there (Berakhot 5a:19), “Reish Lakish said, ‘It is stated (Numbers 18:19), “an eternal covenant of salt”; and it is stated (Deuteronomy 28:69), “a covenant of afflictions.” Just like the covenant that is said of salt, sweetens the meat; so too the covenant that is said of afflictions, scours’” the lowliness of his body and his flesh - until he is appropriate for the trait of the intellect. 	 
+<b>The twentieth is with minimization of sleep:</b> Since if one has sleep, he will not learn what is suited for his learning - as it is written (Joshua 1:8), “but meditate on it day and night.” For that is the way of the Torah, to occupy oneself with it day and night. And you should also know that sleep is a very bodily matter, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 3:10) regarding, “morning sleep” - see there, how sleep is a bodily matter. So when a person is drawn to sleep, he is very much drawn to the body and distances himself from that which pertains to the intellectual. And this explanation is choice.
+<b>The twenty-first is with minimization of trade:</b> That is to say that one may not be a master of buying and selling, transporting merchandise. As they said so in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearvin (Eruvin 55a), “‘[The Torah] is not across the ocean’ (Deuteronomy 30:13) - (Rava) [Rabbi Yochanan] said, ‘You will not find the Torah among traders and merchants.’” And we already explained this also in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTorah 2), as well as explaining this at length above (Derekh Chayim 2:5:4), regarding “Not all who engage in a lot of business become wise.” And there is no room to elaborate here.
+<b>The twenty-second is with minimization of conversation:</b> This has been explained above (Derekh Chayim 1:17) - that one who multiplies words multiplies foolishness. And we elaborated in its place regarding, “and I have found nothing better for a person than silence.” For silence is an indication of wisdom. So one who multiplies conversation does not have an indication of wisdom. As conversation negates the activity of the intellect. Therefore this thing - which is the minimization of conversation - is a great foundation for wisdom.
+<b>The twenty-third is with the minimization of pleasure:</b> This thing is because one who chases after bodily pleasures is bodily and physical and not suited for acquiring wisdom - which is the opposite of the body - as we explained above (Derekh Chayim 6:4:1) regarding, “This is the the way of Torah.” But one might challenge - as it is implied, specifically the minimization of pleasure; but common pleasure would be permissible. Yet behold, they (we) said above (Avot 6:4), “This is the way of Torah: Eat bread with salt, etc.” However this is not difficult at all. As we have already discussed, the meaning is not that one has to afflict himself. As they only said (Shabbat 83b), “The Torah is only preserved with someone who kills himself over it,” when he does it for the sake of the Torah. That means that if he is only able to study if he eats bread with salt (rather than spending his time earning more money to buy better food) and all of the things that are explained above, he must do [so]. But they did not say [it, when it is] for nothing. Nevertheless he should not have too much pleasure, since he inclines with this towards the bodily appetites. And that is the opposite of Torah.
+<b>The twenty-fourth is with minimization of laughter:</b> And one may ask, is it not that it is forbidden to fill one's mouth with laughter in this world? As it is found in the chapter [entitled] Ein Omdin (Brachot 31a:4), “Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, ‘It is forbidden to fill one's mouth with laughter in this world, as it is stated (Psalms 126:2), “Then will our mouths be filled with laughter.”’” But this is not difficult. For it is talking about filling the mouth with laughter, which is too much laughter; but it does not say, common laughter [is forbidden]. However, regarding Torah, one should reduce laughter completely. But even without this, it is [still] not difficult. As even if it were completely forbidden, [this] would nevertheless inform us that if one multiplies laughter, he does not merit Torah. And the reason is because laughter that is expansive is the opposite of thought, which is intellect. Therefore laughter negates intellect. And you can understand this thing - since laughter is only generated from joking and clowning; and there is no doubt that joking and clowning are the opposite of intellect. As clowning is something that does not have substance but is only joking; while the intellect is that which is appropriate according to the truth. Therefore laughter negates intellect. And laughter is not similar to joy, for the essence of joy is only in the heart; whereas laughter is not only in the heart, but also in actions.
+<b>The twenty-fifth is with minimization of worldly occupation (<i>derekh eretz</i>):</b> This means to say, even though “all [study of the] Torah in the absence of a worldly occupation comes to nothing,” nevertheless one should not make his work central. This is as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mevarachin (Berakhot 35b), “Rabbah bar bar Chana said Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah bar Illai, ‘The earlier generations made their Torah constant and their worldly occupation transient, and both were preserved in their hands. The later generations made their work constant and their Torah transient, and both were not preserved in their hands.’” And even though it already informed us above (Paragraph 31), “with the minimization of trade” - this is not difficult. As I may have thought that a worldly occupation (<i>derekh eretz</i>) is different - since it said (Avot 3:17), “If there is no <i>derekh eretz</i>, there is no Torah.” And that is why it is necessary to say, “with minimization of worldly occupation.” But “with the minimization of trade,” informs us [that] even though it is only buying and selling, he should nevertheless not do [it]. Even if the buying and selling is not continual - like work (a craft) which is continual - he should nevertheless not make buying and selling central. And that is why it had to mention both of them.
+<b>The twenty-sixth is knowing one’s place:</b> The explanation is that one knows the extent of his stature and his lack. But if he considers himself to be more eminent than what he is, and is mistaken about himself (and), it is not appropriate that the Torah be in an erroneous place. It is rather a ‘Torah of truth.’ For that reason, he needs to know his place and not be mistaken about himself. Moreover, if he is mistaken about himself, he will be mistaken like this about several things in words of the Torah. Whereas one who knows his place and his stature - if he sees the lack in himself, he will also know all the lackings in his study and he will not absorb any fraud about anything. But it can also be explained that when one knows his place - that he is lacking Torah - he is suited to absorb Torah. But if he is mistaken about himself and considers himself a sage and one who is complete - someone who is complete does not need completion in Torah, so he will not merit to receive Torah. Hence knowing one’s place is a great foundation for Torah.
+<b>The twenty-seventh is joy in one's portion:</b> As we have explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:1), that he is not lacking in himself. As if he was not joyful in his portion, such a person would not absorb completion in Torah. For behold, the Torah is for a person to perfect himself, but this one is always lacking. And these two things - “knowing one’s place,” and “joy in one’s portion” - are adjacent together, because the Torah is the completion of man. Hence it is appropriate for a person to be in such a way that he is suitable for completion; and he is only suitable for completion if he was lacking before the completion, and was completed afterwards. But if he does not know his place, why would he need completion in Torah? Behold, according to his opinion, he is already complete! And we have already said that only a person who is not already complete is suitable for Torah. And if he is not joyful in his portion - even if he is completed in Torah - he [still] will not be complete with this. As he is not joyful in his portion. And if so, what is this completion for? However according to the explanation that we said that one who knows his place is a truthful person - such that he does not even err and lie about himself, all the more so about other things - and this trait is certainly appropriate for Torah, since only truth is appropriate for Torah; it said afterwards, “joy in one’s portion,” as this trait is also very appropriate for Torah, as we explained at the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Ben Zoma (Derekh Chayim 4:1). For it is a spiritual trait, like truth. See there. Hence the two of these were placed adjacently together.
+<b>The twenty-eighth is the erection of a fence to one's words:</b> The explanation is that one erects a barrier to his words, such that he does not make a mistake in his words. For all barriers and fences are so that one does not err. They said in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearvin (Eruvin 53a): Rav Yehudah said that Rav said, “The people of Judea, who were particular in their speech, their Torah was preserved with them; the people of the Galilee, who were not particular in their speech, their Torah was not preserved with them.” To here [is the Gemara]. And this reason is understood. As confused words bring confusion of the intellect. Hence it said that he makes a fence to his words, so that he does not say something that may bring about an error. For if he does not do this, he will in the end come to error and forgetting. And this thing is a very great barrier and fence to the Torah. 
+<b>The twenty-ninth is not crediting favor to oneself:</b> For if he credits favor [to himself] - in the end, he will cease from the words of Torah - since he says that his occupying himself with Torah is beyond the letter of the law. But if he does not credit favor to himself and says that he was created for this reason, to study Torah, he will not come to cease. And it is like they said (Avot 2:8), “If you have learned much Torah, do not credit it favorably for yourself, because for this you were created.” Hence one should not credit favor to himself; as this trait is also necessary for Torah study. For that which he credits it to himself that he occupied himself with Torah; and he will think that he is not obligated to toil in Torah and to receive Torah - for something that is not obligatory does not require so much to be received - hence he [will] not receive Torah. But one who does not credit favor, and [thinks] that someone like him was created for this, is suited for receiving Torah - since he will think that he was created to receive Torah. And that is why he comes to receive Torah.
+<b>The thirtieth is being beloved:</b> The explanation is that he is beloved by God, may He be blessed, and also by the creatures. As certainly, if he is not beloved in the eyes of God, may He be blessed, He will not give him of His Torah. And likewise must he be one beloved and acceptable to the creatures. As also through this is he close to the Torah. For behold, ‘anyone from whom the spirit of creations finds pleasure, from him the spirit of the Omnipresent finds pleasure.’ And when the spirit of the Omnipresent finds pleasure from him, then wisdom flows upon him from God, may He be blessed. It is also because he needs to be within the collective. And by being beloved, he is within the collective, as will be explained (in the next paragraph).
+<b>The thirty-first is loving:</b> This means to say that he loves God, may He be blessed [and] clings to Him, may He be blessed. So it is appropriate that he should acquire God’s Torah, may He be blessed. And likewise, it is necessary that he loves the creatures. For when he loves the creatures, behold he is within the collective of creatures and suited for the Torah that was given to the collective. But if he does not love the creatures, behold he is separated from the collective. So how should he merit the Torah? For the Torah is to the collective, but he is an individual by himself; and the Torah was not given to an individual. And it is also because Torah is intellect - such that the intellect is not private, as its grasp is collective. So if a man is separated to the point that he is [only] an individual, he is not suited for what is grasped by the intellect. As its grasp is collective, not individual. And this thing is understood.
+<b>The thirty-second is bringing joy to the Omnipresent, bringing joy to the creatures (this differs from the standard text of Avot,  which has, love, instead of, bringing joy):</b> As he brings joy to the Omnipresent from the angle of his stature. Hence he is suitable for Torah, as will be explained. And there is a difference between, “beloved,” and “bringing joy to the Omnipresent, bringing joy to the creatures.” For one is beloved who does actions that are desired by the Omnipresent - so the Omnipresent loves him. And likewise, one who does actions that are desired by the creatures - hence the creatures love him. But one who brings joy to the Omnipresent [and] brings joy to the creatures - that is a separate thing to itself. It is from the angle of his stature, to the point that it brings joy to the Omnipresent that He has such a creature in His world. And likewise the creatures are joyful that a person of stature like this one is with them. Hence he is also suited to receive the Torah. For all derive enjoyment from, and are close to, a person like this. Hence the Torah is also close to him, and he receives it.  
+<b>The thirty-third is love of righteous deeds.</b> 
+<b>The thirty-fourth is love of the upright.</b> 
+<b>The thirty-fifth is love of rebuke:</b> Because the Torah is built upon these three foundations: ‘For upright are the ways of the Lord’; and the Torah also has rebuke - as in many commandments, if he does that thing, he will [face] lashes, a sacrifice, death or exile, and that thing is a rebuke - and several commandments are righteous acts, such as that one is obligated to honor one’s father and mother [and] to give charity. This is to the point that these three things include all the paths of the Torah. For there is a path in the Torah that is uprightness, such that he should act and refrain from acting according to the statute. And there is [a path] that is righteousness and kindness. And there is one that is rebuke - for there are many rebukes in the Torah. Hence if he does not love these three things, he will not be successful in Torah. For these three are the foundations of the Torah, and they are the paths of the Torah. 
+<b>The thirty-sixth is distancing from honor, and he does not chase after honor:</b> And this thing is understood from that which they said (Tanchuma, Vayikra 3) that one who chases honor, honor runs away from; but one who runs away from honor, honor chases after him. And ‘there is no honor except Torah’ - as through Torah, one inherits complete honor. Hence if he runs away from honor, he inherits the honor of the Torah - which is the essence of honor. And we have already explained this at length (Derekh Chayim 4:6) regarding, “one who honors the Torah.” But if he does not run away from honor, he is not suited for the honor of the Torah, so it runs away from him.
+<b>The thirty-seventh is lack of arrogance in instruction:</b> For one who is arrogant in instruction is an ’imbecile, wicked, and arrogant in spirit.’ And from that which he is an imbecile; you know from that, that he is not suitable for wisdom. And we have already explained this thing above (Derekh Chayim 4:7) - that one who is arrogant to decide quickly is an imbecile. As this indicates a lack of modesty. For someone who is modest in his ways does not rush in deciding, as he is modest about wisdom. And it is written (Proverbs 11:2), “and with the modest is wisdom.” So automatically, if he is not modest, he is a fool and he is not suitable for wisdom. And it is also because when he is arrogant in instruction, he is included in, ‘one who increases words, increases foolishness.’   
+<b>The thirty-eighth is carrying a burden with one's friend:</b> The explanation is if something happens to his friend, and that thing is a burden such that his friend must toil until he is saved from the burden; then he should carry that burden with his friend. And this thing indicates that he is a good person - when he carries the burden with his friend to save him from that distress. Moreover, this thing indicates that he is not separated from the collective, in that he carries the burden with his friend. So he is suited for Torah, which is for the collective - as was explained (in Paragraph 41). Likewise, the thirty-ninth - that he does good to his friend - since he is judging his friend with the benefit of the doubt. For if he sees something with his friend that [leans] towards guilt, he makes efforts towards his friend to judge him favorably. And even more the fortieth - that he makes efforts with his friend to bring him to the truth. And even more than this, the forty-first, in that he makes efforts to place his friend in peace. And this thing is even greater.
+And all of these traits [also make him suitable], in that he increases merit, truth and peace in the world. As that which he carries the burden with his friend - being, that something difficult comes to [the friend] and he carries the burden with him in order to remove from him that which comes from it - is because he desires the good. And he judges him favorably, brings him to the truth and to peace - as is appropriate for a Torah scholar to increase peace in the world, as they said (Berakhot 64a), “Torah scholars increase peace in the world.” And not just peace, but every good thing like knowledge and truth. And such a person is suited for Torah, since it is good - as it is written (Proverbs 4:2), “I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah.” So when he acts towards his friend with these traits, he indicates that he is good in himself, and suited to possess Torah - which is good. For something will always go to that which is similar to it. But if he is not good, how can he possess Torah, which is good? And even though it said above (Acquisition 17), “with a good heart,” that is that he does a good thing to his friend and gives him benefit, because he has a good heart. But this thing - that he increases peace in the world - is since he loves the good. And that is why it said these four things - meaning carrying a burden with one's friend, judging him with the benefit of the doubt and placing him with the truth and with peace - which include everything.
+And one needs to understand these four things. Such that this is why they said in Tractate Menachot (53b), “Let the good one come and receive the good from the Good for the good ones: Let the good one come - this is Moshe, as it is stated (Exodus 2:2), ‘And when she saw him that he was a goodly child.’  And receive the good - this is the Torah that is called good, as it is written (Proverbs 4:2), ‘I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah.’ From the Good - this is the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is written (Psalms 145:9), ‘The Lord is good to all.’ For the good ones - that is Israel, as it is written (Psalms 125:4), ‘Do good, Lord, to the good ones.’” Then you should note that the good is suited to the good. And hence Moshe, who is good, is suited to receive the Torah and to give it to Israel, in that they are good. Moreover, as we have explained (Paragraph 48), it is because when he connects with his friend, he has a connection to the collective and is not separated from it. So he is suited for the Torah, as was explained.
+<b>The forty-second is deliberation in study:</b> The explanation is that he does not jump to dialectics before he first properly deliberates in his study, and does not engage in his study in a hasty fashion. And that is what is called deliberation in study. And this thing does not need explanation.
+<b>The forty-third is asking and answering, listening and adding:</b> It is all one. Since if he has what to ask and he does not ask, he is not resolute about the question. And likewise if others ask and he does not seek to answer, he will not reach the level of Torah. Rather it is essential that he asks and that he answers those who ask. And he must listen - meaning to say, he should put what his friend says to his heart and add to his words. And by this that he asks and answers, he broadens the Torah; and likewise when he listens and adds. For all of these things broaden and add to the Torah. And through this, he reaches the Torah. But if he does not ask, he does not reach the level of Torah.
+<b>The forty-fourth is learning in order to teach:</b> This thing is because it is the essence of Torah that he should also teach it to others. And the Torah was not meant to stay with him. Rather, the Torah was given to teach it to others. And we explained this a great deal above - as the essence of the Torah is that he teaches it to others.
+<b>And accordingly, the forty-fifth is learning in order to act:</b> This thing is also the essence of the Torah. For study is not the essence, but rather action is the essence. And hence if his study is not in order to teach others or to act, such a one is not suited for Torah. For the Torah was given to man in order to teach it to others - just as God, may He be blessed, gave the Torah to Moshe, and Moshe taught it to Israel. For an individual is not appropriate for the Torah, given its worth. And so the essence of Torah study is to teach it to others. And it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said in Nedarim (37b) in the chapter [entitled] Ein bein HaModer, “‘See, I have taught you statutes and judgements’ - just like I [did it] for free, so must you [do it] for free.” Then you should note that man is commanded to pass on the Torah to others for free. And all the more so must he study in order to act - since the study is not the essence. And if he does not do [the commandments of the Torah], he is not suited to receive the Torah.
+<b>The forty-sixth is making one's master wiser:</b> The explanation is that he sharpens his master. And this thing is like we also said above (Paragraph 21). For the nature of Torah is like this - that the small wood ignites the larger wood, as was explained. And since this is the way of Torah - if he does not do this, he is not appropriate for Torah. And that which it said above (Acquisition 43), “ask and answer,” - its explanation is that he asks what he has to ask about that which is unclear; but it is not speaking about refinement and dialectics at all.  
+<b>The forty-seventh is understanding one's teaching:</b> It means to say when he hears something in his study, he understands [that] teaching; and he does not accept the teaching until he understands it. And it is not like some students who accept something even though they do not understand; and they say, “Is this not what I received?” This thing is not like that - as he must understand the teaching that he heard and master the words that he heard. And that which it said above (Acquisition 4), “with understanding of the heart,” is that he should pay attention when he receives [a teaching] from his master; and if he does not do [this], he does not absorb wisdom. But here, it says, “understanding one’s teachings” - that he needs to master the teaching, and not accept the teaching that he has until he understands it. And they are two [different] things: For if it is something that is hard to understand - even though he paid attention to it and fulfilled, [having] “understanding of the heart” - he needs this trait, not to accept the teaching until he masters the teaching. Yet if he has this trait not to accept any teaching until he understands - if he does not pay attention to understand when he is receiving it from his master, he will not understand. And hence they are two things.
+<b>The forty-eighth is saying [a thing] in the name of the one who said it:</b> As this is also very relevant to Torah. For he should say the thing in the name of the one who said it and not steal Torah from the one who said it. And even the Holy One, blessed be He, says a thing in the name of the one who said it - as it is found in the first chapter of Gittin (6b), “This is what Aviatar, My son, says.” And they also said in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Chukat 8), “At the time that Moshe ascended on high, he heard the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, who was sitting and involving Himself with the discussion of the red heifer. And He said, ‘So did My son, Eliezer, say - “a heifer is to be two years old.”’ He said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the world, do not the realms above and below belong to You? Now You are citing a law in the name of flesh and blood?’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moshe, a righteous man is going to arise in My world and is first going to begin [his teaching] with the discussion of the heifer, Rabbi Eliezer says, “The heifer is to be two years old, etc.”’”
+And it may be asked about this - what answer did the Holy One, blessed be He, give to Moshe, [about that] which the Holy One, blessed be He, said a law in the name of flesh and blood? However the explanation of this - that He said, “He is first going to begin [his teaching] with the discussion of the heifer” - is to say that this thing indicates that concepts are according to the intellect, which is in accordance with each [person]. Hence He said that this concept is specific to Rabbi Eliezer according to the greatness of his intellect. And the red heifer is a deep concept that is appropriate for Rabbi Eliezer the Great. And hence he first began to say, “The red heifer is to be two years old.” And God, may He be blessed, ordered all that exists and gave the intellect to every [person] according to that which is appropriate. And hence He said a law according to Rabbi Eliezer - meaning to say, “I created a righteous and wise man in My world, whose intellect is specifically geared to the red heifer; to comprehend this concept with such clarity as to say, ‘The heifer is to be two years old.’” And because of [the following], the Holy One, blessed be He, said a law in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Just like He, may He be blessed, created all that exists and gave the nature of each one to them, so too did He give each person his intellect and his mind - such that the comprehension is according to the mind of the one who speaks that which God, may He be blessed, arranged. For this reason did He say a law according to the one who said it.  
+And they did not say this about this [case] alone. As they said this in the chapter [entitled] Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 15b) - that the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and says the law is like all of the sages except for Rabbi Meir, since [the latter] learned from Elisha Acher (the Other). And this means to say [that] it is since Elisha Acher left the collective; left the order that God, may He be blessed, arranged. And that is why he was called, “Other” (Chagigah 15a) - as he was other and outside. And because of that, it is not appropriate that God, may He be blessed, say a law according to Rabbi Meir - since he learned from Elisha Acher. And that which the Midrash said, that the Holy One, blessed be He, said a law specifically from Rabbi Eliezer is because only Rabbi Eliezer had that concept. It was not so with the other laws, which were not specific to only one [person]; and many said it. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said the law in the name of the many. It was only this thing - according to the greatness of the concept of the red heifer - that was specific to Rabbi Eliezer. As they said in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Chukat 8) that he came forth from the loins of Moshe, to whom alone the secret of the red heifer was revealed - as it is written (Numbers 19:2), “and they shall take to you.” And Rabbi Eliezer inherited it from him, to the point that Rabbi Eliezer was unique in this. And that which astounded Moshe was that He would say a law according to an individual.
+Nevertheless, every law is specific to the one who says it. And it is therefore appropriate to also attribute every concept in Torah to the one who said the teaching. For that concept is suited to him. And if one does not do this, he changes that which He arranged for each [person] in Torah. Rather he should attribute everything to the one that said it. And then he will not change the Torah - when he attributes every word of Torah to the one who said it. And it is found in the Midrash (see Sifrei Devarim 188:3), “Anyone who changes the words of Rabbi Eliezer to the words of Rabbi Yehoshua or changes the words of Rabbi Yehoshua to the words of Rabbi Eliezer - it is as if he destroys the world.” And these are exactly the words we have said. For the comprehension of Rabbi Eliezer is specific to Rabbi Eliezer; and the comprehension of Rabbi Yehoshua is specific to Rabbi Yehoshua. As they are different in their comprehension; and God, may He be blessed, arranged this mind for Rabbi Eliezer and that mind for Rabbi Yehoshua. So when he changes their words, he surely changes the order of the Torah that God, may He be blessed, arranged for the Sages. And this thing is a destruction of the world - when there is change in the order of the Torah. 
+<b>And it is possible to [also] explain</b> that which it said - that he should say a thing in the name of the one who said it: For if he is not exact about this, he will also not be exact about the essence of the teaching and come to change it. And so is it shown in another place.
+<b>And about that which it said</b> - “For you learned that one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world” - it may be asked, “From where [do we know] that it was because of this that redemption came through Esther?” Moreover, all the traits of the Holy One, blessed be He, are measure for measure (Sanhedrin 90a). So what is the [corresponding] reason for which one who says something in the name of the one who said it merits to bring redemption? And it should be known that when the Holy One, blessed be He, brings redemption - God, may He be blessed, wants [people] to know that He, may He be blessed, did [it]; and [that] they should not say, “It is not God, may He be blessed, that did all this. Rather it was their wisdom and the power of their hand.” Accordingly, you will find with the redemption from Egypt that it is written (Exodus 29:46), “And they shall know that (My Name is the Lord, in that I) brought them out from the Land of Egypt.” And hence if Esther did not have this trait to attribute the thing to the one who was appropriate to attribute it to; and she, God forbid, had said to Israel, “I did this in my great wisdom” - in order to aggrandize herself and boast - she would not have been suited for the redemption to come through her. For God, may He be blessed, wants to make known the kindness and the good that He, may He be blessed, does for Israel. But since Esther told King Ahashverosh in the name of Mordekhai (Esther 2:22) - and it was possible for her to say to the king, “I did this,” to find favor in the eyes of the king; yet she did not do this, but rather said what Mordekhai did, in his name - because of this, she was also suited to bring redemption to the world. As from this, [it is seen] that she would only attribute the thing to God, may He be blessed. For Esther certainly knew that everything that occurred was from God, may He be blessed.
+It is because it was not necessary for Scripture to write (Esther 2:22), “and Esther reported it to the king in Mordekhai’s name.” For the crux of the verse is only coming to teach that the thing was made known to the king in the name of Mordekhai; since as a result of that, Achaveshorsh said, “What honor or advancement has been conferred on Mordekhai for this?” But it was not necessary to write who was the one who told [him]. However Scripture is coming to teach on what account Esther merited that the redemption was through her. And the verse hints to you that it was because she said the thing in the name of the one who said it, and she did not attribute it to herself. So she would likewise attribute the redemption to the One that brought the redemption, and not to herself.
+And specifically with this redemption did Scripture hint that Esther was suited to the redemption, specifically because she said something in the name of the one who said it. And that is, as we have said, because God, may He be blessed, wants that it be known that the redemption came from Him. And [with] the redemption [from] Egypt, it was certainly known about the redemption that it came from God, may He be blessed. For great signs and wonders were done during that redemption until His name, may He be blessed, was known. But in this redemption, there were no signs and wonders at all. And if so, it can be entertained that it would be said that the redemption was not from God, may He be blessed. So it would have been possible for Esther to say that she did it. Even in the days of the Hasmoneans, when He redeemed them from the hand of Greece, there was a visible miracle - meaning the lights - so that they would know that God, may He be blessed, gave them power over the Greeks; and [that] they would not say [that] their ‘power and the strength of their hand did this.’ But here, with Achashverosh, there was no revealed miracle. And this thing is because they were in exile, and they were in [a situation of] divine concealment. So it was not applicable to have an open miracle, like at the time of the Greeks - which was during the time of the Second Temple - as we explained in its place (Ohr Chadash). For this reason, the name of the redeemer was Esther - since the redemption was hidden (<i>behester</i>) and not at all revealed. Hence if Esther had not said the thing in the name of the one who said it, she would not have been suited to bring the redemption.
+And you will accordingly not find the name [of God] explicitly in the Scroll [of Esther], since the miracle was with divine concealment from Israel. So that which it said, “Any one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world,” has been explained to you.
+<b>And according to this,</b> [the following] will not be difficult to you - behold, many have said a thing in the name of the one who said it, and they did not bring the redemption!?! For the explanation is not that he will certainly bring redemption to the world. Rather, [it means that] when He needs to bring redemption to the world, He will bring it through [someone] who says something in the name of the one who said it, for the reason that we explained. And without this, it is [still] not difficult, since Israel needs redemptions all the time; and the Holy One, blessed be He, brings them through one who says something in the name of the one who said it. 
+<b>And you should know more</b> [about] that which it said that one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world: As there is another magnificent reason for this. And that is that the one who says something in the name of the one who said it also brings redemption to the world when he brings back the words that were in the hands of someone else - these words that were with him, he brings back to the one whose words they were. And hence the redemption of Israel is also in his hands, since Israel was in the hands  of others. So it is appropriate that Israel be returned to the One to whom they belong through his hands. And Israel certainly only belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. Hence, because when he says something in the name of the one who said it, he brings back the words from another domain to the domain of the one whose words they were - it is also appropriate that the redemption be through him and that Israel go out from the domain of others to the One to whom they belong. And if he does not bring a complete redemption, he surely brings something of comfort. For any comfort from the hands of the nations and from the hands of the rulers - it is all redemption. And according to the significance of this thing that we said - that God, may He be blessed, ordered the mind and specific wisdom of every [person], such as was explained above (Paragraph 58) - when the words leave the domain of another to the domain of the one that said them, that thing is a very lofty redemption. And that is why, “one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world.” And this explanation should be understood well. 
+<b>Yehudah ben Betzalel</b> (may his memory blessed for life in the world to come) said: After all of these forty-eight things with which the Torah is acquired have been explained to you, we should investigate the matter of study in this generation - if these forty-eight things through which the Torah is acquired are needed for the Torah [study] of this generation. And behold, even with our great and powerful lackings, [it would appear that] we do not need all of these virtues, not even one [of them]; as the sages of this generation are nevertheless held in esteem. So our lackings come out to be of great profit. But in truth, this comfort is suited to be a lament. And to begin, it is with my broken spirit and heart within me and with prostration and bowing before the great and the small in Israel [that I write this]: The truth and the faith is that it is not from holding myself to be appropriate for rebuking; or that I say that the words that I say and that I speak are not [also found] with me. For I also began like them - and even more than them - in my study. But because of this, I saw the great lacking that is with me. Hence it is appropriate for me to lament and cry about this the most. Maybe the proper students who have the power to be strong like a lion in the Torah will arise more and more, until all of the sages of the generation will be considered like garlic peels in comparison to them. And do not turn [for support against what I say] to our custom, which is bad and bitter, ‘to go after emptiness and become empty.’ So what shall we do about our end, in our coming in front of the King, the King of kings, ‘naked and lacking everything’ - naked of deeds and lacking wisdom - like the comportment of this generation. For not one of us seeks to preserve his study, such that he reviews his study - whether it be Scripture, it be Mishnah or it be Talmud.
+And if in truth it was not appropriate to say, Mishnah - since they completely pay no attention to the Mishnah - yet we do not [even] concern ourselves with the words of the Sages in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 99a): “Because he has disgraced the word of the Lord” (Numbers 15:31) - Rabbi Natan says, “[This is] all who do not concern himself with the Mishnah.” To here [is the Gemara]. And this is exactly the deed of this generation. As no one concerns himself with the Mishnah, saying that he will only be called a sage by way of the Talmud - which is analysis and back and forth. And the heart of a man is drawn to this, so they ignore the Mishnah. For that reason, it is said about him, “Because he has disgraced the word of the Lord.” And that is because “the word of the Lord” is said about the body of the commandment. Hence it is said about one who does not pay attention to the Mishnah, “Because he has disgraced the word of the Lord.” Since his study is only because of the wisdom - as a man naturally seeks to become wise - but does not seek to know the actual commandments of the Lord, which are the Mishnah. 
+And also in that which one does not review his study - so today his study is according to its state, but tomorrow it is forgotten by him - is likewise included in “he has disgraced the word of the Lord,” as it is shown there (Sanhedrin 99a). For it says in that baraita, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord” [and that is followed by this passage]: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says, “Anyone who studies Torah and does not review it is comparable to a person who sows and does not reap.” Rabbi Yehoshua says, “Anyone who studies Torah and causes himself to forget it is similar to a woman who gives birth and buries [the child].” Rabbi Akiva says, “Sing every day, sing every day.” Rav Yitchak [bar Avudimi] says, “What is the verse [of its derivation]? As it is stated (Proverbs 16:26), ‘The toiling spirit will have toiled for itself.’ He toils in this place, and his Torah toils for him in another place.” Rabbi Elazar says, “Man was created for toil, as it is stated (Job 5:7), ‘Man is born for toil’” - as we explained in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Said (Derekh Chayim 2:8), regarding, “If you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself.” To here [are the words] of the Gemara. And if it was not that these teachers were coming to explain the verse, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord” - like the teachers before this - what is the relation of this to that, that [one] should say, “Anyone who studies Torah and does not review it is comparable to a person, etc.” Rather, he is coming to say that this is called, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord” - “one who studies Torah and does not review it is comparable to a person who sows and does not reap.” And there is no greater disgrace than the one who sows and leaves it to the birds of the skies to eat. Behold there is no doubt that he disgraces the seed when, after sowing it, he leaves it to the birds of the skies to eat. And likewise does one who studied but does not review his learning disgrace the Torah. And likewise for Rabbi Yehoshua, “Anyone who studies Torah and causes himself to forget it is similar to a woman who gives birth and buries [the child]” - and it is as if the beginning of its birth was for its loss and burial. So too is someone who causes himself to forget his learning as if the beginning of his study was to forget. And with this, he is certainly considered one that disgraces the word of the Lord.
+And understand the words of the Sages - how one who does not review his study is comparable to someone who sows but does not reap. And the explanation of this thing is that the absorption of a teaching is comparable to sowing. And that is because [with] sowing in the ground, the seed is nullified by the ground. As behold it is sown in the ground - and anything that is attached to the ground is like the ground (Shabbat 82a). And when he reaps, he then separates and detaches the seed from the ground - but not before. And so too is man at first considered earth for the absorption of wisdom. Since the recipient is man - who has a body - the speech of wisdom is considered nullified by the body that absorbs [it]. Hence someone who does not review his studies is considered  someone who sows but does not reap, since the seed is nullified in the ground. So too is the speech of Torah that one absorbs nullified with the body. And once it was absorbed by man, who has a body, it is no [longer] intellect that is detached from the physical. But when he reviews his studies, that speech is considered intellect that is completely separated from the physical. So it is [then] comparable to one who reaps the produce from the ground, since he separates and detaches the produce from the earth. And understand this well. 
+And Rabbi Yehoshua added, [by] saying that one who studies Torah and causes himself to forget it is similar to a woman who gives birth and buries [the child]. And the explanation of this thing is that when one forgets Torah, it should not appear to you to be as if he forgot ordinary things. For Torah is a divine creation from God, may He be blessed, just like the birth - which is a creation from God, may He be blessed. So when a woman gives birth and buries [the child], behold she loses a Godly creature. And this thing is a great disparagement - that a Godly creature goes to waste and become lost. So too, one who forgets words of Torah. For the Torah - [which] is a Godly creation - is going to waste; and that is a great disparagement. And this is [the meaning of] their saying (Avot 3:8) that one who forgets something from his learning becomes liable for the death penalty - because he causes the Godly Torah to be wasted. So this one is considered like one who wastes and loses a divine soul in man. And because of this, these two teachers reason that it is included in, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord.” As if he does not review his studies - and likewise if he forgets his Torah - this thing is a great disgrace.
+And Rabbi Akiva added that he should review his studies; and hence he said, “Sing every day, sing every day.” For even though he studied his section yesterday, he should review it today and, likewise, every day. And that is what Scripture (Proverbs 16:26) stated, “The toiling spirit will have toiled for itself.” And the content of this toil is like we explained above regarding, “If you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself” - that man is created for toil - which is to bring out the speech of Torah to actuality. Hence Rabbi Akiva said, “Sing every day, sing every day” - that a person should be toiling and bring out the words of Torah to actuality. And even if he does not originate anything and reviews the things he learned yesterday - is not the level of man, that he just be a man that toils? It is not that he gets to the end, that he is perfect in actuality. For were a man’s perfection to be in actuality, it would have been appropriate to say that if he did not learn a novelty each day, he would not come to his purpose, which is completeness in actuality. But the matter is not like this. For he does not reach this - that his perfection be in actuality. Rather he should be here with toil, without his perfection completely reaching actuality. Hence he said, “Sing every day.” As with this thing, there is toil in a man’s study. And that is as it is stated (Job 5:7), “Man was created for toil,” as we explained above in the chapter [entitled] Rabi Said (Derekh Chayim 2:8) - that man always remain in potential and never come to the end of perfection, such that it be in actuality. Rather he always remains with his toil. And these words are very choice words.
+<b>And these words are the words</b> of the first Tannaim - to whom there is none compared regarding the virtue of wisdom - like Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva. And they are the ones that warned about reviewing studies every day. So how is it that those [today] are empty of knowledge to the point that they do not resemble creatures of the world? But there is no doubt that it is this thing that caused the complete neglect of Torah in these lands. For even in the previous generations - and not the generations of the Tosafists, but rather in generations much later - it is plainly evident that they were experts in the Torah, in all six orders of the Mishnah and all the Talmud, as is seen in the responsa [in which] they bring proofs from all [these] places. And this thing is because they would review their studies constantly, and ‘their recitation would never cease from their mouths’ at all - evening, morning and afternoon.
+<b>But it is [worse] than that,</b> since they do not pay attention to the essence of reward for Torah study. As this is what we say in Pesachim (50a) in the chapter [entitled] Elu Overin, “And I heard that they were saying, ‘Those executed in Lud [enjoy such an exalted status that] no creature can stand in their enclosure; and happy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand.’” And in the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 9:10): Zavdi ben Levi desired to see the face of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was dead). He appeared to him; he showed him people with their faces up [and] people with their faces down. He said to him, “Those with their faces up, their studies are in hand; those with their faces down, their studies are not in hand.” To here [is the midrash]. Behold that the Talmud and the Midrash are the same about this thing - that [these two groups] are two neighbors together: Those executed by the government, the enclosure of which no man can enter; and one who comes here with his studies in hand. And this thing is truly something of magnificent wisdom. As those that were executed by the government gave up their lives for the sanctification of [God’s] great name, and a man like that becomes completely separated from the material world - to the point that he gives himself over to execution for the sanctification of His name. Hence no creature can stand in their enclosure, since there is no connection for the material man to this separated level. But after it, he said, “Happy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand” - as this one is also comparable to him, since he is the master of the spiritual Torah and he comes here with his studies in hand. But if his studies are not in hand, he has no other name besides man; as he inclined towards the material. So how will he merit the world that is separated, since he is [but] a material man?
+And he said (Kohelet Rabbah 9:10), “Those with their faces up, their studies are in hand.” The explanation is that those whose Torah is with them are not embarrassed to stand in the separated world, given that their Torah is with them. But those whose Torah is not with them are embarrassed to stand in the council of the elevated beings who are separated, whereas they are people who have bodies - given that their Torah is not with them. Hence their faces are down, like a man who is embarrassed to stand in the enclosure of the holy elevated beings.
+<b>And there is another</b> wondrous matter in that which the faces of those whose Torah is with them are up, and the faces of those whose Torah is not with them are down. And that is because a person is recognized and exists [to be] what he is through the face. Hence those whose Torah is with them have complete existence, given that Torah is what gives existence to a person. And we have explained this thing much - how the spiritual Torah gives existence; and that the one who inclines towards the body and towards the physical does not have existence in complete actuality. Hence those with their faces up are those whose Torah is with them. And so their faces - which is their existence - is revealed and exist in complete actuality. But those whose Torah is not with them are those with their faces down - meaning that they do not have complete existence in actuality. As a person is known and exists with his face, to the point that the face of a person is his existence. Hence the face of those whose Torah is with them is up and the face of those whose Torah is not with them is down. But we may not elaborate.
+And how will we not cover the shame and the humiliation of our faces? And to where will we take our degradation, that we come empty and there is nothing in our hands? Is it not, that there was never such a thing from the day the Torah was given on Mount Sinai? And it is [worse] than this - as the earlier ones would fulfill the Torah in great difficulty and with the pressure of the nations, while we now sit in our homes, each one at ease and in tranquility. And when a case comes in front of us, or a teaching, we ‘search in the holes and cracks’ - more than with the disposal of chametz - to find something. And we look in the <i>simanim</i> (paragraphs of the codes) until one finds what he is seeking, or what is similar to it, as it appears to him. And then one says (Megillah 6b), “‘I have exerted myself and I have found’ - believe it.” And on account of this, he will say, “The Torah is only found with <i>simanim</i> (which also means memory devices),” as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearavin (Eruvin 54b) - however he will err in its meaning. 
+And a shortcut was originated, such that the table be set (Shulchan Arukh) in front of a person (see Rashi on Exodus 21:1). They will say, “This is the table that is in front of the Lord.” And the great and the small are called and invited in front of the table, ‘a noble one is not recognized before a lowly one.’ ‘And all merit the table of the elevated.’ [But by only looking at the Shulchan Arukh], they know neither the reason nor the reasoning - they instruct the law based on the “Mishnah.” And in the chapter [entitled] Notel (Sotah 22a), “It is taught, ‘The Tannaim wear out the world.’ Does it come to your mind that they [really] wear out the world? Rava said, ‘Because they instruct the law from their Mishnah.’” And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explains that they wear down the world with mistaken instruction. Because they do not know the reason of the Mishnah, they sometimes compare it to something that is not comparable. To here are his [words]. And there is certainly this thing also in this [shortcut]. But according to what appears, the expression, “wear out the world,” does not imply this. Rather it appears that it is because those that instruct the law from their Mishnah do not pay attention to the Talmud, which is the essence of the Torah. And because of that, they wear out the world - since they remove the Talmud from the world. And the Mishnah was not taught for this, to decide the law from the Mishnah. It was rather taught in order to explain the reason of the Mishnah in the Talmud, and to decide the law from the Talmud; not from the Mishnah. For ‘both of them together are good.’ And this thing certainly wears out the world, as we can see with [our own] eyes.
+And when a wise man would consider our custom, it would be appropriate for him to be dumbfounded about it - ‘how did God do wonders with our plagues, so that the wisdom of the wise get lost.’ For we have been ‘backwards, and not forwards.’ As the early ones - the Tannaim, the Amoraim and the Geonim - and all the later ones began with an organized order, to first study Scripture, and afterwards Mishnah and afterwards Talmud. But in this generation, they start with Talmud. For they educate a youth of six or seven with Talmud; and at the end, he graduates to Mishnah. But it is not to study [it]; rather it is to search for the decided laws, as we said. And behold they begin with the Talmud and they end with the Mishnah! But they should have thought - since the end is to come to this measure - they should have learned Mishnah first. Then the Mishnah would have remained with them. Now the Talmud does not remain with them, nor any law nor any instruction - only by searching. 
+However the cause that produces this great distortion is that the falsehood at the beginning generates the crookedness and distortion at the end. And that is because they begin to analyze the law with empty words - about which they know that their mouths should not speak like this - and reveal interpretations of the Torah that are not so. But they would say, “[It is because] we need to sharpen [ourselves].” And though such a thing, God forbid, ‘should not be in Israel’ - to sharpen [ourselves] with false words, and to kill time with falsehood, whereas the Torah is a ‘Torah of truth’ - how could [something] like this come to the mind of a person? Is it not appropriate that a man should tear his heart about this - to turn the truth into falsehood and say,  “We need to sharpen [ourselves].” But it is [worse] than this - as their words are nothing at all. For if false and empty analysis resembled true analysis, it would have been possible to say that at the end of this analysis that has no substance, true analysis would come. But the thing is not like this, for they are not similar with any similarity at all - not the questions and not the answers. So how could one sharpen himself with such an analysis? Just the opposite - knowledge tells [us] the opposite of this. For it makes one silly and not wise; as he becomes used to this analysis that is not similar to any wisdom at all. So how could one be a lesson for the other? And we see this with our own eyes, and not [those of] another!
+But perhaps one would say, “At the end of the day, it is [still] sharpening] - even if it is not similar to true analysis.” If so, it would be better to study the craft of carpentry or other crafts. Or comedy, which is known to have wise and tricky sharpness in it; so he could also sharpen himself with that. And that would be more appropriate than revealing interpretations of the Torah that are not like the law; and [than to] ‘conceive trouble and bear falsehood.’ For when a person habituates himself to falsehood - like this thing is, as it is known and intended as falsehood - all of his actions are drawn after falsehood. So he is also false in his actions, since falsehood is accustomed to be on his lips. So how will falsehood produce something true? And among the forty-eight things enumerated by the Sages with which the Torah is acquired are love of the upright (Acquisition 34) - which is a distancing from falsehood - and placing his friend with the truth (Acquisition 40). All the more so should he [himself] insist upon the truth. And all of these are good and straight traits. But to twist words of Torah in order to sharpen analysis and rhetoric that is not similar and has no vantage point towards true analysis - can there be such a thing? I read out about them, “Moreover, I gave in front of them [laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live]” (Ezekiel 20:25).
+And you, precious students, whom God has given to you an understanding heart and a mind to absorb - ‘your strength should be for Torah!’ And do not give your strength to foreign things and to false words. But bring your end to your minds - how great is the reward for masters of Torah. So why should you spend your days on things like this; and why are you exerting yourselves with empty things for which there is no reward? And does it enter your minds that [you] will be receiving reward for this? But you, yourselves, know that they are words ‘for which there shall be no dawn.’ Should there not be concern for your souls on account of ‘disparaging the Torah?' And do not let your [evil] impulse - or the one teaching you - promise you that this thing is good. For he is promising you about this in vain. And who will [assure us] that the reward of the teacher will not be outweighed by his loss? And if only it can be so!
+And I have seen boys whose minds are like the entrance of [the Temple] hall, to the point that they are suited to absorb the entire Torah; but in the end they are lost and become like the other ignoramuses. As the Lord of Hosts lives - is it not appropriate to tear [in mourning] for this, like for a Torah scroll that was burnt? And it is like they said (Shabbat 105b), “One who stands over the departure of a soul is obligated to tear.” And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained [that] the reason is that he had the potential to learn more Torah, and that is now nullified with this death. And all the more so is there a nullification and a loss of Torah here with these. So it is appropriate to tear about this like for a Torah scroll that was burnt. And one who separates himself from this false path and decides upon the true and straight path [for] himself and others with him - about him, is it stated (Jeremiah 15:19), “If you produce what is noble out of the worthless, you shall be My spokesman.” And the Torah will protect him in this world and in the world to come.
+<b>And afterwards</b> I found in the words of the pious one, who composed the Book of Traits (Orachot Tzaddikim), that he also elaborated very very much in the chapter about Talmud Torah to explain the lack of the generation and its blemish, and that they do not review their studies. However, in his generation there was not also this great distortion and obstacle, to sharpen [themselves] with something false and frivolous. And they also produce difficulties in the words of Rashi and call them a lack - the lack and blemish is with them! ‘Woe to the ears that have heard this.’ But, in my great iniquities, I did not merit to see the words of the book of the pious one [earlier]. For he would have removed me from this obstacle that was in my hands more than anyone. My pain should be my atonement and the redress of the sin that I sinned. 
+And if we would come to write how this thing is an obstacle and a cause of stumbling for this generation - is it not that the time would not suffice us? However I am certain of these things. For the thing is not like this and it has no legs [to stand on]. And all the more so, ‘since the staff of falsehood will not rest upon the portion of the truth’ - it is ‘a Torah of truth that God, may He be blessed, gave to us.’ He will be the cause that ‘true speech is established for always and forever’; and He will remove from us ‘those who turn justice into wormwood’ - ‘who call the bitter, sweet.’ Amen.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<i>Great is Torah, for it gives life to those who do it in this world and in the next world, as it is stated (Proverbs 4:22), "For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all his flesh"; and it says (Proverbs 3:8), "It will be healing for your navel, and tonic to your bones." And it says (Proverbs 3:18), "It is a tree of life to those who hold on to it, and those who grasp it are happy." And it says (Proverbs 1:9), "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head, and a necklace for your throat."  And it says (Proverbs 4:9), "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you." And it says (Proverbs 9:11), "For by me your days will be multiplied, and you will be given additional years of life." And it says (Proverbs 3:16), "Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left is wealth and honor"; and it says (Proverbs 3:2), "For length of days and years of life and peace will be added to you"; and it says (Proverbs 3:17), "her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace."</i>
+<b>Great is Torah, etc.:</b> And it may be asked - why did it bring these seven verses (Editor's note - based on a different text of Avot then the one above) here, and was one not enough? Moreover, what is the proof from the verse (Proverbs 1:9), "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head, and a necklace for your throat"? And likewise (Proverbs 4:9), "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you" - what is the proof from this? Know that it brought seven verses, and with these seven verses, it came to explain that the Torah has eternal life. For there is life that is above life - there is short [life], longer [life] and even [longer life], until eternal life. And it is coming to explain that through Torah, he acquires eternal life; hence it brings seven verses, corresponding to seven levels, each one of which is more [than what is before it]. And when there are seven, it indicates about this that there is nothing above it. As seven levels that are one upon another always indicate that there is nothing above this. For God, may He be blessed, who is 'Guardian of the height upon the height,' who has nothing above and sits high and elevated, has seven firmaments - which are a height over a height to the last level. Behold that the number, seven, indicates the highest level. And likewise do you always find that the levels and the virtues, that are one above the other, are seven. And this thing is understood, and we have explained it in a different place (Netiv HaTorah 12).
+And these seven virtues and levels begin from life in this world, with something that is on the bottom level and ends with the highest level, which is eternal life in the world to come. Hence the first three verses teach about life in this world, the last three verses teach about life in the world to come and the middle verse is the level between this world and the world to come - as will be explained.
+<b>And first we must explain the reason that the Torah is unique,</b> in that man reaches life in this world and life in the world to come with the Torah. And you should know - and this is something that we have explained in the earlier chapters many times - that He, may He be blessed, is One and there is none besides Him; hence the existence and life that a person and all that exists have is because He, may He be blessed, gives life to those that cling to Him. And what exists has nothing from the angle of themselves except that which flows to them from God, may He be blessed. And with this, God, may He be blessed, is One and there is nothing besides Him. And that which it said (Psalms 36:10) - "With You is the source of life; by Your light do we see light" - is because a source does not have any interruption at all. And this source flows to all that exists. And this thing is from the angle of their clinging that they cling to Him, may He be blessed. So if they remove this clinging, by sin and iniquity - that is excision that is written in the Torah (for example, Leviticus 18:29). And it comes with the expression, excision (<i>karet</i>), because it is the thing we spoke about above. For life only comes to that which exists from the angle of their clinging to Him, may He be blessed. But through sin, they are excised from that clinging. Hence "life" is mentioned with the clinging, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:4), "But you who cling to the Lord, your God [are all alive today]" - the God of life. And that is because the clinging causes life. For He, may He be blessed, is called the Root (<i>Ikar</i>), like when they said that one denies the <i>Ikar</i> (Sanhedrin 38b). And it is well-known that the tree and branches have their life from the root when they are clinging (attached) to the root. But if the body [of the tree] is separated from the root, it immediately does not have life.
+And that is the explanation of the verse (Proverbs 3:18), "(For) it is a tree of life to those who hold on to it." And that is because the Torah is the clinging of man to his Creator. And this thing is explained in several places above. And we have spoken at length about this, for you do not have anything that is as close to God, may He be blessed, as the Torah - since it emanates from God, may He be blessed. And that is why the Torah is called a tree. As a tree comes out of the root and emanates from the root. And so too does the Torah emanate from God, may He be blessed. So the tree that is grounded by the root receives [sustenance] from the root. So too does the Torah receive [sustenance] from the Root, which is the living God, may He be blessed. Hence when one grabs onto and holds fast to the Torah - it is a tree of life for him. And through it, life flows to him from God, may He be blessed. So this thing is understood. Hence it said, "Great is Torah, for it gives life to those who do it in this world and in the next world." And understand the word, "Great" is Torah, that is said here - as it comes to indicate the virtues of the Torah. 
+<b>And it first brought a proof:</b> As it is stated (Proverbs 4:22), "For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all his flesh." And the explanation is - living is the one who finds the words of Torah; and he receives life though this. And that which it said, "to those who find them," and not, "to those who study them," is coming to indicate the stature of the Torah: When it is said, "x found this thing," [it shows] that this thing that is with him is not [otherwise] available to him. For if it was available, finding would not be applicable to it. So too is the Torah with a person, since it has a supernal level - to the point that it is called, that he found the words of Torah and got to something that is not [otherwise] with him. And because of this level and this stature, the Torah is life to man. For it brings life to man from above; from God, may He be blessed, who is the 'Source of life.' However in the Gemara, in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearvin (Eruvin 54a), they said, "Do not read, 'to those who find them (<i>lemotzeihem</i>),' but rather 'to those who express them (<i>lemotzi’eihem</i>),' with their mouth."
+But since the verse only said, "For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all his flesh" - and this thing is certainly partial life, meaning that it gives some life, which is only to the flesh, as it stated, "and healing to all his flesh," which is that some spark of life flows to man because of Torah, and this is only life of the flesh - hence it also adds and brings the verse after it: "It will be healing for your navel, and tonic to your bones" (Proverbs 3:8). And with this, all of man's life is included. And that is because the navel is the origin of the entire person, and the beginning of man's creation is from his navel - as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Eglah Arufah (Sotah 45b). And when it stated, "It will be healing for you navel," it is to say that the Torah is healing for the beginning of man; such that with this, the entire body receives healing. For when the beginning receives healing, the whole body receives healing - for it is all drawn after [the beginning]. And it also said, "and tonic to your bones," because the bones do not receive so much healing from the navel. For the bones have marrow inside, which does not receive so much healing. So about this, it said, "and tonic to your bones." For the Torah is tonic, and it is marrow for the bones (Rashi on Proverbs 3:8) - meaning that it gives life to all of the person. 
+And [the next verse was included so] that you will not say that even though the Torah gives life, that is that the Torah gives life until a person is whole and healthy all of his days that he is in the world; but we do not hear from the verses [about] length of days. For behold it stated, "It will be healing for your navel, and tonic to your bones" - that is that the Torah heals a person, so that he not be considered half-dead while he is still alive. Hence it brings the verse (Proverbs 3:18), "It is a tree of life to those who hold on to it, etc." And this thing indicates that the Torah is a 'tree of life' - since a tree exists the longest, as it is written (Isaiah 65:22), "for the days of My people shall be as the days of a tree." As from this, it is learned that a tree exists a long time. And this [type of life] is an even greater value.
+And because we still do not understand that the Torah gives good spiritual life that the soul receives - which is life from the world to come - because of this, it brought the verse (Proverbs 1:9), "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head, and a necklace for your throat." The explanation of this is that the Torah gives the soul a spiritual level. And that which it said, "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head," is because the Torah gives an accompaniment of grace - meaning a connection of grace (Rashi on Proverbs 1:9) - to the head, in which there is the Godly soul. And grace is not a material thing. Rather it is something completely separated. For behold it is not an actual thing, but rather grace that is upon the eyes - and that is not something material at all. Then it said, "and a necklace for your throat"- the explanation of "your throat" is that the throat is that from which the speech of man goes out. And we have explained many times that the speech of a person is the life of a person in this world. For behold, man is a speaking animal, as we have explained [many] times. For Onkelos (Onkelos Genesis 2:7) translated, "and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7), as "and it was for a speaking spirit in man." So from this you know that the essence of man is that which he is a speaking being.
+And the verse said that the Torah gives two things to a person: That it gives a separated level to the soul, which is in the head - and that is "an accompaniment of grace." For through this a person has a connection to God, may He be blessed. Hence the Torah is an accompaniment of grace. And it gives the power of speech to a person, which is also the life of a person - a separated level. Therefore it said, "and a necklace for your throat." As a necklace is an ornament. And any ornament is like that which we explained above (Derekh Chayim 6:5), regarding, "(since) your crown is greater than their crowns": That an ornament indicates a separated level, since something that is physical has lowliness and denigration. But something that is separated is the opposite, in that it has ornamentation and glory. And this thing is understood. And understand how it said, "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head - for with the head, in which there is the separated soul, it said, "an accompaniment of grace," since grace is something completely separated. But with the throat - which is the power of speech that is not so valued - it said,  "and a necklace for your throat"; and it did not write, "a necklace of grace for your throat."
+<b>And this level that the Torah gives to a person in this world</b> is akin to the world to come - which is like Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, as He gave them a life of goodness, tranquility and rest. And behold Shabbat is also akin to the world to come. And it is like they said in Tractate Bava Batra (16b), "[The Holy One, blessed be He,] had three taste that which is akin to the world to come, in this world - Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov." And it is also possible to say this about the other righteous ones. As that which it only enumerated Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov is since He had them taste something akin to the world to come completely in every matter. But it is possible that he had [other] righteous ones taste some of that which is akin to the world to come. And Tosafot wrote accordingly there (Tosafot on Bava Batra 17a at the top): As it was difficult for Rashba - let Iyov (Job) also be counted, as we say (Bava Batra 15b), "'And the asses were feeding beside them' (Job 1:14). This teaches that [the Holy One, Blessed be He, had Iyov] taste something akin to the world to come." But it can be said that Iyov [had this] in only one matter, [whereas] He had Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov taste from all of it. To here [are their words].
+But it appears that it is not difficult: For the [portion of] the world to come of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov was so great that He had them taste from that portion that they had in the world to come - some of it reached them in this world. And this is implied by the language, "He had three taste that which is akin to the world to come, in this world" - meaning, when they were still in this world, He showed them, and had them taste, that which they would have in the future. But the Holy One, blessed be He, had Iyov taste that which is akin to the world to come - meaning that He gave him that which was akin to the world to come, but not that this was his [portion in the] world to come. And just the opposite, Iyov did not have a portion in the world to come (see Bava Batra 15b). So there is a big difference in this. In the matter of Iyov, there is cessation, and it was only one time. But with the forefathers, there was no cessation, in the same way that there is no cessation to the world to come. For they merited [what they tasted] from the world to come.
+<b>And this verse that it brought fourth</b> is between the first three which are all about life in this world, and the last three which are about life in the world to come. And this fourth verse is like something that is a midpoint between the two of them. And these words are very choice in front of you; and these words should be understood.
+<b>And afterwards,</b> it brought another [verse] so that you not say that the Torah does not have the ability to give actual life in the world to come to the soul. Hence it brought another verse (Proverbs 4:9) - "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you." And with this verse, it did not say, "and a necklace for your throat"; rather it only mentioned, "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace." And because of this, you should understand that it certainly comes to make known that the Torah gives the Godly soul, which is in the head, an accompaniment of grace - which is an ornament and great glory, so that he merits the actual world to come with it. Moreover [is this so,] since this verse adds to say, "with a crown of glory she will protect you." So this thing indicates the value of the world to come. And this was already explained in the words of the Sages - and we explained it above (Derekh Chayim 3:16) - that which they said in Tractate Berakhot (17a), "The world to come - there is no eating and drinking in it. Rather the righteous ones sits with their crowns on their heads." And this is exactly what it said here, "with a crown of glory she will protect you."
+But it still did not give a proof that Torah gives one life that is long life in the world to come. As here it only said , "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you." And even though the world to come is certainly long, [we might think that] Torah only has the power that he should merit the world to come through it; but that he requires [performance of the] commandments and good deeds so as to merit length of days [there]. Hence it brings the verse (Proverbs 3:16), "Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left is wealth and honor." And it is impossible to explain that which it said, "Length of days," as anything but the world to come - as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Shiluach HaKen (Chullin 142a). For if it is in this world, behold one dies! And that is not considered length of days - and even if he lives a hundred years, behold that is called, "shortness of days" (Job 14:1). And David said, (I Chronicles 29:15), "for our days are like a shadow over the earth." So how is that called, "length of days?" Rather, the verse is speaking about the world to come - which is long.
+And [this is] also because the explanation of the verse that said, "Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left is wealth and honor," is in the way that the Sages said (Shabbat 63a): "For those who approach it from the right (properly), there is length of days; and all the more so are there riches and honor. For those who approach it from the left (improperly), there are riches and honor; there is not length of days." And the reason of the thing is because one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake is suited to have length of days in the world to come, since he does it for the sake of Torah. For the Torah is above this material world, since it is a spiritual Torah. Hence it is appropriate that he have the level of the world to come, which is length of days. And all the more so is it suited for him to have the lower level that is below this, which is the good in this world. For this world is below the level of the world to come. But for those that approach it from the left: If he occupied himself with Torah to become honored with the Torah or that it be a spade with which to eat (earn his livelihood) - and these are benefits that are in this world - it is appropriate that he should have this world be according to that which he occupied himself with Torah, for the sake of benefit in this world. But that he should acquire the level of the next world, he does not acquire it with this. Hence, "there is not length of days." And we already explained this above (Derekh Chayim 4:9). So, regardless, the verse is perforce speaking about length of days in the world to come. 
+But we have still not learned from Scripture that one will merit eternal life from Torah. For behold, it only stated, "length of days" - and eternity is not implied by that. So [we may think,] if he merits eternity, it is not only from Torah, but he must rather adjoin to it the [performance of the] commandments and other good deeds - since "days" does not imply so much. And likewise is it found in the chapter [entitled] HaOreg (Shabbat 105a), "Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a sage does not live a long life - measure for measure - as it is stated (Isaiah 27:8), "In full measure (<i>Besase’a</i>), when You send her away, You contend with her.'" Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yochanan, 'And the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Yehoshua and all the days of the Elders, who had length of days after Joshua' (Judges 2:7)!" The explanation is that there we say that they were lazy in the eulogy of Yehoshua, but they nevertheless had length of days. "He said to him, 'Babylonian, they had length of days; they did not have length of years!'" Then you should note that days does not imply so much [time], only a certain length of days. And so, [the baraita here in Avot] brings the verse (Proverbs 9:11), "For by me your days will be multiplied, and you will be given additional years of life." And from it's being written, "years of life," [we understand that] it is eternal life. Then you should note that it began with the lowest level and ended with the highest level - and that is eternal life in the world to come. And this thing is understood.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<i>Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah, in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, says, "Beauty, strength, wealth, honor, wisdom, maturity, hoary head and children are fitting for the righteous and fitting for the world, as it is stated, 'The hoary head is a crown of glory, it will be found in the way of righteousness' (Proverbs 16:31). And it says (Proverbs 20:29), 'The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head.' And it says (Proverbs 14:24), 'The crown of the wise is their wealth.' And it says (Proverbs 17:6), 'Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.' And it says (Isaiah 24:23), 'Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His elders shall be honor.'" Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says, "These seven qualities enumerated by the Sages about the righteous were all fulfilled in Rabbi (Yehudah haNasi) and his sons."</i>
+<b>Beauty, strength, riches, etc.:</b> It may be asked - why did he say about these seven traits (Editor's note - this reflects a different version of the Avot text than the one above), that they are fitting for the righteous. The second [question]: Is it not that he does not bring a proof for riches or wisdom? Moreover, that which he said, "it is fitting for the righteous and fitting for the world" - how is this thing fitting for the world; as what does the world benefit from this? And also, what is the proof that it is fitting specifically for the righteous?
+<b>And you should know that he means to say</b> that all of the virtues are fitting for the righteous. And we have already explained that the number, seven, indicates all the different virtues. For the number, seven, always indicates this. And Scripture shows this - as it stated (Deuteronomy 28:7), "they will go out against you in one path, but flee from you in seven paths," meaning to say that even if they went out in one path, they will flee in the maximum of different paths. So you see that the plural number that includes all of the parts is seven. And this thing is found a great deal, and it is explained in a different place (see Netiv HaAvodah 1 in Netivot Olam). It is as if he said that all the virtues are fitting [for the righteous]. And it is, as will be explained adjacently, why these virtues include all of the virtues. 
+<b>And he said, "It is fitting for the righteous and fitting for the world":</b> The explanation is that it is fitting for one who is good to ascend higher and higher. And because of that, he said, "it is fitting for the righteous." For it is fitting and proper when the virtue is upon one who is fitting for the virtue. And he said, "it is fitting for the world" - since if God, may He be blessed, gives these seven virtues to the wicked, they would lord it over the world. So that - in their arrogance - they would destroy others with their 'upraised arm.' Hence it is not fitting for the world. But when the righteous have the virtue, they provide of their blessing and their goodness to the world. Moreover, when these seven virtues are with the righteous, the world runs according to the appropriate order [of things]. And how very proper is it when the world runs orderly! But if the virtues are with the wicked, the world would not be orderly. And that which he said - that "it is fitting for the world" - is when the world runs orderly to the point that the one who is suited for a virtue has the virtue. And it is certain that this thing is a great benefit and a great enhancement for the world - when the world runs according to its order. For every order is fitting and proper; and that which diverts from the order is disgraceful. 
+<b>And these seven virtues include all of the virtues.</b> And that is because beauty is a virtue for the body, when it is beautiful. And this thing is a bodily virtue, and this is why he begins with this virtue. And afterwards, he said, "strength," which is a virtue of being, for being is strength. And afterwards, he mentioned, "wealth," since wealth is an acquisition of a person, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 1:18). For after he mentioned beauty and strength - since these two virtues are for the body and being, which are the person - he mentioned, wealth, which is an acquisition of a person, as we we have explained many times. And afterwards, he mentioned, "wisdom," since wisdom is also an acquisition of a person. For a person must acquire wisdom, like he acquires wealth. And that is why a sage is called an elder (<i>zaken</i>), as they said (Kiddushin 32b), "A <i>zaken</i> is nothing other than one who has acquired (<i>zeh she'kana</i>) wisdom. So then you should note [about] these four virtues, each one is a virtue by itself.
+And afterwards (Editor's note - according to his version of the baraita) he mentioned,  "children," since they are one's offspring, but they are also their own acquisition. So this thing is an intermediate concept between an acquisition and something that is of the self. For since the child is not the father himself, he is his acquisition. But since he is 'the flesh of his flesh,' the son is [also] something of [the father] himself. 
+And afterwards, he mentioned, "maturity." As the virtue of maturity is the completion of a person, when his years are completed - like we explained in the chapter [entitled] BaAsarah (Derekh Chayim 5:21). And this thing is a level of its own - when a man is complete and satiated with days, without a lack. Moreover, when a person is old, he is not material in the way that youngsters are ensconced in physicality. And that is a virtue of its own - when a person is separated from the material, like the elderly are, since their body is weakened.
+And the seventh is, "honor." For when honor is from God, may He be blessed, it is a spiritual virtue. It is as Scripture (Proverbs 3:35) says, "The wise shall inherit honor" - such that you see that honor is specifically suited to sages. And that is because when it is from God, may He be blessed, honor is a high supernal value - and we have already explained this thing (Derekh Chayim 4:22). Hence honor is a virtue on its own. And these seven virtues are differing, such that this one is not like that one. But other virtues all fall under one of these seven virtues or that which is similar to them. 
+<b>And he first brings, "The hoary head is a crown of glory, it will be found in the way of righteousness" (Proverbs 16:31):</b> And it means to say that one who walks in the way of righteousness - meaning the righteous one - has a crown of glory, which is a hoary head. And a crown is wealth - for a king, who has a crown, has wealth; glory is beauty; and a hoary head is maturity. Behold that these three - meaning beauty, wealth and maturity - are appropriate for the righteous; as it is written, "it will be found in the way of righteousness." And afterwards he brings [a proof] that strength and wisdom are also appropriate for him. For behold it is written (Proverbs 20:29), "The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head." And, "old men," that is written here means sages. For it is impossible to understand [it] literally as old men. As if so, how could it say, "and the beauty of old men is the hoary head?" Behold, an old man is the same as a hoary head! Rather this is the explanation: That the beauty of old men - which are sages - is a hoary head, which is actual old age. And we have already learned that a hoary head is specifically appropriate for the righteous one. For behold it is written, "The hoary head is a crown of glory, in the way of righteousness." And, if so, what it said is that the hoary head and wisdom are also appropriate to be together. Then note that it is all appropriate for the righteous. For otherwise, how is it possible that the hoary head is appropriate specifically for the righteous? As behold, it is also appropriate for the sages! Then how could it say that the hoary head is found specifically in the way of righteousness? Rather it is that being a sage is also specifically appropriate for the righteous.  
+Likewise, that which it stated (Proverbs 20:29), "The glory of young men is their strength," is also appropriate for the righteous: Just like the hoary head that it mentioned here is about the righteous; so too is, "The glory of young men is their strength," [referring to] the righteous. For there is no distinction between [the two parts of the verse]. Rather that which it said, "The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head," is meaning to say that strength is glorious for the young man - and if he is a sage - a hoary head is beautiful for him. Nevertheless, they are both speaking about a righteous person. And afterwards, he brings the proof, "Children's children are the crown of old men" (Proverbs 17:6). And we have already explained that old age is relevant to the righteous. And, if so, grandchildren are also connected to the righteous. For behold it said,  "Children's children are the crown of old men." Then he brought a proof about honor - "and before His elders shall be honor" (Isaiah 24:23). And it has already been explained that old age is appropriate for the righteous. And hence, what it said here, "and before His elders shall be honor," is also about the righteous. So behold, all is understood. And in some books (Editor's note: the standard text) [the baraita reads], "a hoary head and maturity. "But they are certainly the same thing. It is only because the verses that he brought once write, "a hoary head" - as it is written (Proverbs 16:31), "The hoary head is a crown of glory, it will be found in the way of righteousness" - and [once], "oldness," in the verse (Proverbs 17:6), "Children's children are the crown of old men." As, "Children's children are the crown of old men," should not be understood as being [about] sages. For what is the relation of grandchildren to sages? Hence the understanding [here] of, "old men" (<i>zekenim</i>), is literally [about] oldness. For grandchildren are relevant to old men. But since once it is written, "oldness"; and once it is written, "a hoary head" - that is why he said (according to this version of the baraita), "a hoary head and maturity." But it is the same thing.
+<b>And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said, "These seven qualities enumerated by the Sages about the righteous were all fulfilled in Rabbi (Yehuda haNasi) and his sons"</b> - for they were righteous. And this statement was placed adjacent to this, because it is shown from this that one who merits Torah merits all of these seven virtues. For behold wisdom is appropriate specifically for someone righteous. So if there is wisdom, it is certain that he is righteous. For if there is no fear [of God], there is no wisdom. But when he is righteous, all of the seven virtues enumerated by the Sages are drawn after it. 
+And it is because we said before this (Derekh Chayim 6:7) that one who occupies himself with Torah merits life in this world and in the world to come. And we explained above that they are the seven virtues and levels, one on top of the other; so that the highest level - which is life in the world to come - is that which comes last. So now it comes [to say], that just as he merits the highest level - which is the seventh level, meaning life in the world to come - through the Torah; so too does he merit all the virtues, which are the seven virtues, through the Torah. Then he brings a proof that the seven virtues that the Sages enumerated were all fulfilled in Rabbi and his sons - as they were all wise in Torah; so they merited these seven virtues.
+<b>And that are some that raise the difficulty:</b> Since Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya also said the statement before this, it should have said, "He would say." (Editor's note - this is according to the version of the baraita that he had, as opposed to our version which has R. Shimon b. Yehudah saying the previous statement.)  But this is not a difficulty, since the first statement is in the name of Rabbi Meir, whereas this is in his own name.
+<b>And when you understand wisdom,</b> you will understand that which it is said, that the seven virtues are fitting and proper for the righteous. For the righteous one is the foundation of the world, which has seven virtues. And this thing should be understood. So these things are choice to those who understand them.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<i>Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said, "One time I was walking on the road, and a man met me, and greeted me, and I returned the greeting. He said to me, 'My teacher, from which place are you?' I said to him, 'I am from a great city of sages and scribes.' He said to me, 'My teacher, do you wish to live with us in our place, and I will give you a thousand thousands of golden Dinarim, and precious stones and pearls?' I said to him, 'If you were to give me all the silver, gold, precious stones and pearls in the world, I would only live in a place of Torah.' And so it is written in the book of Psalms by David, King of Israel (Psalms 119:72), 'The law of Your mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.' Moreover, that at the time of a person's passing, nothing accompanies him - neither silver, nor gold, nor precious stones nor pearls - except Torah and good deeds alone, as it is stated (Proverbs 6:22), 'When you walk, it shall lead you, when you lie down, it shall guard you; and when you awake, it shall be your conversation'; 'When you walk, it shall lead you' - in this world; 'when you lie down, it shall guard you' - in the grave; 'and when you awake, it shall be your conversation' - for the world to come. And it says (Haggai 2:8), '"Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold," proclaims the Lord of hosts.'"</i>
+<b>Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said, etc.:</b> It may be asked [here] - what difference comes out of it, if the story was in the city or on the road? The second [question] - why did he need to say that [the man] greeted him and he returned his greeting. As what difference comes out of that? For this thing is not essential for the main part of the story. Moreover, why did the man greet him first; Rabbi Yose should have began [the interchange]. For behold they said (Berakhot 17a) about Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that no person preceded him in greeting him. And also, why was he required to add, "with us?" He should have only said, "Do you wish to live in our place?" Moreover, [R. Yose] should have only said, "I am from place x." As he did not ask about the sages in his place. Additionally, who told him him that [the other man's] place was not a place of Torah, such that he said that, "If you were to give me all the silver, gold, precious stones and pearls in the world, I would only live in a place of Torah?" For perhaps [the man's] place is also a place of Torah. And also the Biblical phrases that he brought: "When you walk, it shall lead you" - the understanding being, in this world; "when you lie down, it shall guard you" - in the grave; "and when you awake, it shall be your conversation" - for the world to come. Why about this world, would it have said, "it shall lead you"; about the grave, said, "it shall guard you"; and about the world to come, said, "it shall be your conversation?" Additionally, that which he brought the verse (Haggai 2:8), "Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, etc." - what is the relation of the verse to this? And there are a few more questions that they asked here, but they are not to the point. Yet they will be explained as well.
+<b>The explanation of this thing is that,</b> that which he said was that he was walking (<i>mehalekh</i>) on the road alone, such that he would certainly be obligated to occupy himself with Torah - as he was alone. It is like they said in Eruvin 54a, "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "One who is walking on the road and does not have accompaniment (<i>levayah</i>) should occupy himself with Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 1:9), 'For they shall be a graceful wreath (<i>livyat chen</i>) for your head, etc.'" Then you should note that one who is walking on the road alone needs to occupy himself with Torah. And when he occupies himself with Torah on the road alone, he occupies himself with Torah with heightened concentration; not like when he is occupied [with it] in his house. Even though he studies [there] with great industriousness, it is not like the concentration of one who is occupied with it on the road alone; for he is concentrating completely. And as a result of this, his thought is completely absorbed in Torah. And he used the expression,"<i>mehalekh </i>on the road" - and not, "<i>holekh </i>on the road" - because that is the expression [commonly used in the Talmud]. It is like they said, "One who is <i>mehalekh </i>on the road and does not have accompaniment"; "one who rides is similar to one who is <i>mehalekh</i>" (Kiddushin 33b). And it is like this in every place [in the Talmud], because <i>holekh</i> is [also] an adjective, whereas <i>mehalekh</i> is [never] an adjective.
+And because of his absorption in Torah on the road, it caused him to say, "If you were to give me all the silver and gold [...] in the world, etc." For since he was concentrating so much on Torah on the road, he was completely absorbed in it - to the point that he did not want to separate from it even if they would give him all the silver and gold in the world. And to indicate the greatness of the concentration that he had in the Torah, he did not see the man that came towards him, so as to precede him in greeting him. And even if he did see him, he did not pay attention to him, until the [other] preceded him and greeted him. So then he returned his greeting. For even though he was concentrating on the Torah, he had to answer him; and he should not say, "Since I am occupied with Torah, I do not need to interrupt [it]." Rather he must interrupt [it] to answer his greeting. But it is possible that this is the law [even had he been aware of the other man's presence]. So even though the Sages said that one must precede to greet [someone] - since he was occupied with Torah, he did not want to stop until [the other man] greeted him. And then he is obligated to answer his greeting. But he did not want to greet him first. And this explanation appears more [correct]. And this answers why he needed all this - to say that he greeted him and he returned his greeting. [It was] in order to explain that he was concentrating on the Torah.
+But without this [answer], it is still not difficult. As it came to say that [the man] was a proper and correct man. For, if not, even if he said that he would give him "a thousand of thousands" - perhaps it is [only] words, and there was no substance to it. But since he preceded to greet him, [he knew that] he was a correct man. And also that he preceded him to say these thing [indicates] that he certainly spoke truth and rectitude. For were it not so, why should he precede? It would be enough for him to ask it of [R. Yose after the latter had greeted him], and he would have [then] promised him about it. But to precede to speak these things with him [indicates that] he certainly spoke the truth. And the [following is the] reason he said, "and a man met me"; and he did not say, "and I met a man": As he did not pay attention to his meeting him. For had he paid attention, he would have greeted him first.
+<b>And [the following] answers</b> [why] he asked him,  "From which place are you?" For why did he need to ask him, "From which place are you?" Rather it is because that man saw that Rabbi Yose was very occupied with Torah; and because of that, he only needed to ask, "From which place are you?" And he did not need to ask him, "Who are you" - as he saw that he was concentrating on the Torah, so he knew that he was a great Torah scholar. And he asked him, "From which place are you" - as if he was not from a place of Torah, he would would have plainly asked him to live near him, without silver or gold. But if he would say that he is from a place of Torah, he would need to compensate him. And Rabbi Yose understood this thing immediately. For if it were not like this, what was his need to ask [about his place]? Rather that was certainly why he asked him, "From which place are you?" As [the man] knew that the place that he came from was not a place of a sages, but perhaps the place [of Rabbi Yose] was a place of Torah, so he would not want to [move] from there. And that is why he immediately answered, "I am from a great city of sages and scribes" - meaning to say, "and I do not want to live with you in your place."
+<b>And then he said,</b> "My teacher, do you wish to live with us in our place, and I will give you a thousand thousands, etc." And he needed to say, "with us" - meaning to say, because we need a teacher for his counsel. [It is] as we said above (Avot 6:1), "And people benefit from his counsel and sound knowledge." So that is why he added, "with us." And certainly if they had wanted him to teach them Torah, he would have chosen to be among them in their settlement. But they did not want [this]. Rather it was that they needed him [for advice alone]. And that is why he said, "with us" - to make themselves the main thing. For were it not so, but they were only coming to learn from him; [the man] should have said, "Do you wish to live near us?" For the expression, "with us," is that they are the main thing and he is secondary to them. So that is why he answered them like this. And we already said that all of this happened to him from the angle that he was walking on the road, so his thoughts were completely on Torah. Hence because of his love, such that his soul was attached to Torah, he answered him like this.
+<b>And he said</b> that "at the time of a person's passing, nothing accompanies him - neither silver nor gold [...] - except Torah and good deeds alone." And some have a version (Editors note: That is the standard version used above in Paragraph 1), "Moreover, [...] that nothing, etc." - so it is a matter unto itself. [This is] meaning to say [that] in this world, a person merits all of the blessings, that are more important than silver and gold, on account of Torah. Moreover, "at the time of a person's passing, nothing accompanies him, etc." - meaning, that the Torah is also in the world to come, which is not the case with silver and gold. As [they] are only in this world and not in the world to come at all. And there are some books that have the version, "Since at the time of a person's passing, etc." - so it is one thing; and he only mentioned its advantage in the world to come: Because "nothing accompanies him - neither silver nor gold."
+<b>And he mentioned good deeds.</b> Even though, 'who mentioned the name of good deeds' - he said, "good deeds," because it is the truth of the matter: That just like Torah accompanies one, so do good deeds accompany him. Additionally (another explanation is) because Torah without deeds is nothing. But since there are also deeds here, Torah also accompanies him. And that which he did not say, "I would only live in a place of Torah and good deeds," is because a place does not cause good deeds (according to Sotah 45b); so one can do [them] in any place that he lives. But Torah is not like this, since a sage [is needed to] teach Torah to the masses.
+<b>And he gave a proof,</b> as it is stated (Proverbs 6:22), "When you walk, it shall lead you, etc." But he did not bring a proof that silver and gold and pearls do not accompany him; as this does not need proof. For it is a simple thing that silver and gold do not accompany a man. And he could have certainly brought a proof from that which it is written (Psalms 49:17-18), "Do not be afraid when a man becomes rich; […] his glory cannot follow him down." But there is no need for a proof at all about this thing. And that which he said that, "nothing accompanies him - neither silver nor gold, etc." - how is it that you would think that gold and silver would accompany him? And he should have said that, "nothing accompanies him except Torah and good deeds alone!" It may be answered that he wanted to say that that which made [him] successful in this world - and he had success with these things from it in this world - does not accompany him. And you might think that this thing would accompany him after his death. And about this, he said that these things - even though they are considered success in this world, these things [of] this success - do not accompany him after his death. And that constellation [that was its cause] is no longer [effective] at the time of his passing.
+<b>But I say also (another explanation):</b> It is because it is coming to say that when a man absorbs death, he should not place his trust in that he will have his completeness, such that he receive retention from the angle of this lower world or from the angle of the middle world - which is the world of the celestial spheres. But this thing will not give a person his completeness, even though a man truly has something from all three worlds, as we explained in a different place (Derekh Chayim 1:18). For a man has something from all three worlds; but there is no purpose in any of them for him besides through the Torah, which is from the supernal world, which is the world to come. And that which he said is that from the angle of the lower world, the completeness of the lower world that he had in his life does not accompany him. For the completeness of the lower world is the unadulterated and refined matter. And that is called, silver, because [silver] is unadulterated and refined. And the simple pure form is called, gold. It is appropriate that he call the pristine matter, silver, as it is pristine; and the pure form, gold, since it is pleasant to see. For the form makes a thing actually visible. And afterwards, corresponding to the middle world - and it also has matter and form - its form, which is of a higher value, is called a precious stone, since a precious stone is like gold, pleasant to see. And he called its matter, a pearl, which is more unadulterated and clean than silver. And he means to say that even though a man has this thing in this world and in the middle world, they do not accompany him and they do not give him any preservation at all for his body and for his soul.
+And you should know that gold shines; and likewise do precious stones shine. But the white (of the silver and the pearls) does not shine, so it is the form  which makes the thing actually visible. Hence form and light are completely one matter. For the form actualizes the thing, and likewise does the light make the thing actually visible. And so he called the form that is in this world, gold, as it is a bright light; and in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 103b), it says over there - "we have <i>parvayim</i> gold that lights up for us." But precious stones light up more. And hence he called the form that is in the middle world, precious stones, since they shine more; the unadulterated simple matter that is in this world, silver, as it is unadulterated; and those that are in the middle world, pearls, as they are [even] more unadulterated.
+However Torah and good deeds do accompany a person, since the preservation that a person absorbs that is from the supernal world - being the world to come - is the Torah, which is from the supernal world. So the Torah is the completeness of the soul, which is the form; and the good deeds are the completeness of the body, since a person does them with his body. For actions are dependent upon his body, so that this thing is the preservation of his body, which is his matter. And this thing shows that the world to come is for the body and the soul. And it is appropriate to say thus; and it is accordingly the truth - as it is explained in a different place (Derekh Chayim 4:17). And it is appropriate that it be thus, for it is only appropriate that the level of the world to come be through Torah and good deeds. As the Torah is from the supernal world; and good deeds - which are the actions of the Torah's commandments - are [also] from the supernal world. So through them, a person merits preservation. And according to this explanation, why good deeds is mentioned here is also answered.
+<b>And he brought these verses:</b> The first was, "When you walk, it shall lead you" (Proverbs 6:22) - in this world. And it is well known that it is this world about which it is called that a man is walking; since one walking is moving to come to a certain place and will rest there. And it is likewise because this world is an antechamber to refine oneself and prepare oneself for the world to come (Avot  4:17). And they are three expressions: This world is called walking, because the walking is the preparation and refinement for something that comes at the end of walking, which is the rest and the sitting; and likewise is this world refinement for the world to come. And [being] in the grave is called lying down, since this expression is appropriate for the grave. And sitting is appropriate for the world to come - like they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (17a), "The righteous sit with their crowns on their heads." And that is because sitting indicates preservation - when one sits. But walking is not something that endures, since one does not continue walking forever. And lying down is [also] not something enduring. Rather sitting  - when one sits, that thing indicates preservation. And since perpetual preservation is there in the next world, it is appropriate to say, sitting [about it].
+And therefore he said, "'When you walk, it shall lead you' (Proverbs 6:22) - in this world." For the Torah is what brings a man to the 'place of his wish,' to where it is appropriate for a person to go - that is the world to come. And we have already explained this in its place (Tiferet Yisrael 9). And that which he said, "When you walk, it shall lead you," can [also] be explained as being this world. For this world - where there are the actions of a person - is called, walking. For walking is action. But in the world, it is [also] possible for a man to do something that is opposed to himself, and that is bad for himself. And it is as Scripture stated (Proverbs 14:12), " There is a path that seems right to a man, [but its end are the paths of death]." For this reason, it stated, "When you walk," in the world, "it shall lead you." It is as if it said, in your actions, it shall bring you to that which is appropriate to do. And this is saying [that] regarding every action and deed that he does in this world, it is relevant to say, "It shall lead you" - that he not do something that is opposed to himself and bad for himself. Nevertheless, it is shown in Tractate Sotah (21a) to be like the first explantion. And we have explained it in the book, Tiferet [Yisrael  (14)].
+<b> And he said, "'When you lie down, it shall guard you' - in the grave":</b> Guarding is relevant there; as it guards one from <i>Geihinnom</i> and from the 'affliction of the grave.' 
+<b>"'And when you awake, it shall be your conversation' - for the world to come":</b> We have already explained above (Derekh Chayim 6:7:9) that life is called, speech. And it is as Onkelos (Onkelos Genesis 2:7) translated, "and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7), as "and it was for a speaking spirit in man." And [R. Yose] hinted to this as well. For behold, the dead are called, "those that descend to Dumah" (Psalms 115:17), from the expression, <i>demimah</i> (silence). And even more than this; since the name of the angel that is appointed over the spirits - which are the dead - is Dumah, as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 94a). And all of this is because speech is lacking from the dead. And in the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 9:10): Rabbi Ashian said, "There is no [difference] between the righteous [who have died] and us besides speech alone." Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, "There is no [difference] between the righteous [who have died] and us besides the [power of] speech alone." To here [is the midrash]. Then note that the dead do not have speech.
+And this reason is known to the enlightened. As through speech, man is completely actualized in his entirety. And the Sages hinted to this (Bava Batra 16b) - "as the mourner has no mouth." And silence is for the mourner, since death has come to the kin of his flesh and it is as if death has come to him - and the dead have no mouth. And for that reason, the mourner has no mouth. And it is not appropriate for him to bring speech out to actualization, such that it be complete. For there is nothing that is taking potential to actualization like speech. As he opens his mouth and takes speech to actualization; but when his mouth is shut, [the speech] is only in potential. Hence silence is appropriate for the mourner, and speech for the one who has a joyful occasion. And that is what they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (6b), "The reward for [attending] a <i>bei tamia</i>" - which is a house of mourning - "is [for] the silence; [...] the reward for [attending] a wedding is [for] the words." Note that silence and quiet are relevant to a house of mourning; and the opposite of this - words - are relevant to a wedding. For everything is joyful there, so it is appropriate to bring out speech to actualization there. And through Torah, a person merits resurrection. So for that reason, it said, "it shall be your conversation" - since the Torah is giving him speech. And through speech, man is completely actualized, as is appropriate.  And these words are very choice.
+<b>And it says (Haggai 2:8), "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord of hosts":</b> It appears that he brings this verse as another proof that there is a difference between gold and silver, and between Torah. For silver and gold belong to God, may He be blessed - as it is written, "Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold" - whereas Torah is man's. For behold they said in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (19a), "Rava said, 'Initially the Torah was called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is stated (Psalms 1:2), "But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord." But ultimately it is called by the name [of the one who studies it], as it is stated, "and in his Torah, he meditates day and night."'" Then you should note that it is made clear that the Torah is man's. Whereas silver and gold is considered to belong to the Holy One, blessed be He, and it is not man's. You should know this - as in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (2b), they said that in the future to come, The Holy One, blessed be He, will ask the Fourth Empire (Rome), "With what did you occupy yourselves?" And they say, "We have increased much silver and gold. And we did all of this only so that Israel would occupy themselves with Torah." And the Holy One, Blessed be He, answers them, "The silver and gold is Mine, as it is stated, '"Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold," proclaims the Lord.'" But if so, there is a difficulty - the Torah also belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He! However, silver and gold are certainly different, because silver and  gold are not the person himself. Rather, they are the money of a person and his acquisition. And the Holy One, blessed be He, will say [that] the silver and the gold nevertheless belongs to God, may He be blessed. But the Torah is man's. For behold, the Torah is his wisdom and his intellect; and from that angle, the Torah is man's. Hence he brings this verse - "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord" - meaning to say, and silver and gold is not man's, that man should consider it man's virtue.  But regarding God, may He be blessed, it is considered a virtue. For, at the end of the day, it is an important item and it belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He.
+<b>And you should further understand</b> that which Scripture stated, "Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold," and it did not say like this about other things that exist. As [domesticated] beasts and the fowl of the skies are certainly under the control of man, as it is written (Genesis 1:26), "and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky [and the beasts]." But there is no doubt that there is something of value in silver and in gold. For if not, gold and silver would not be more significant than stones. Hence it is necessary to say that there is something of value in gold, and likewise in silver, which is not found in other things. And that thing is not under the control of man. For only material things are under the control of man. But since silver and gold have more significance, they are not under the control of man. And hence it said, "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord." And the explanation of this, is that "Mine is" that which is unusual in "silver," and "Mine is" that which is unusual in "gold" - that which has worth - that is what belongs to God, may He be blessed. And it does not belong to man; for only material things are under man. And this is a simple and choice explanation to one who understands these things.  
+And it has silver precede and gold afterwards - for we do not praise someone with something significant and then praise [him] with [something] less significant than it. Rather we praise [him] with something that is not so significant, and afterwards with [something] more significant. But you should also know that that which silver precedes gold is because silver is more anterior to the Holy One, blessed be He, because of its complete simplicity and purity - as it is stated (Psalms 13:7), "silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold." For whiteness is not tinted at all, and that indicates complete simplicity. But the redness that is in gold is a tint; so here there is no simplicity like there is with silver. Hence they chose to make the calf of gold (Exodus 32:3) [and not of silver]. As simplicity is [only] appropriate for God, may He be blessed. And therefore [the high priest] would not go [into the inner sanctum] with the gold clothes. But this is not the place [to discuss this]. Hence it has the silver precede because of its simplicity. So there is no difficulty about this at all.  
+<b>And it also appears that</b> that which he said, "and a man met me" - its explanation is that someone appeared to him with the appearance of a man, and that was the Satan. As it is the way of the Satan to sometimes incite a person by appearing like a man, and sometimes like a bird of the skies - all according to the situation. And it is like they said in the Gemara, in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 107a) concerning David, "he appeared to him as a bird." But here he appeared to him as a man. And that which he said, "and a man met me" - and he did not say, "I met a man," but rather, he "met me" - is that this thing is called meeting: When something [damaging] like this meets him. As because the Satan saw that Rabbi Yose was concentrating very much on the road, he appeared to him as a man to incite him and to divert him from the Torah, by saying to him, "My teacher, do you wish to live with us in our place, and I will give you a thousand thousands, etc." And this is certainly the act of the Satan, to incite the righteous ones.
+And it is also possible to say that it was the prophet, Eliyahu - may his memory be for the good - who came to increase his reward. For he knew that he would answer this and that. And likewise in the Gemara, in the third chapter of Taanit (20b), concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar - as we say, "and a man met him." So Tosafot explained (s.v. <i>nizdamen</i>) in the name of Tractate Derekh Eretz, that it was also the prophet, Eliyahu; and he wanted to show him not to accustom himself to [what he was doing]. And it is possible that it was the [same] Rabbi Yose of the first chapter of Berakhot (3a), who said, "One time, I went into a ruin and the prophet, Eliyahu, came and waited for me at the entrance, etc." And he appeared to him here in order to give him merit, such that he would say these things to him. And these words appear [correct]. And then many of the questions are answered for you also [according to this approach]: That which Rabbi Yose did not greet him first is because [the man] came to him suddenly, and [R. Yose] did not see him until [the man] greeted him. And that is why he needed to also say that he greeted him, etc. - it all came to elucidate that he was not a regular man. For had he been a regular man, Rabbi Yose would have greeted him first. And that is why he did not ask Rabbi Yose, "Who are you?" Since the Satan certainly knew him. Rather, he only asked him, "From which place are you," in order to enter into conversation with him. And this is understood.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<i>Five possessions has the Holy One, Blessed be He, acquired for Himself in His world, and these are them: The Torah [is] one possession, Heaven and earth [are] one possession, Avraham [is] one possession, Israel [is] one possession [and] the Temple [is] one possession. From where [do we infer that] the Torah [is one possession]? For it is written (Proverbs 8:22), “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, the first of His of old.” From where [do we infer that] heaven and earth [are one possession]? For it is written (Isaiah 66:1), “Thus says the Lord, ‘The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; which house might you build for Me, and which place might be My resting-place?’” And it [also] says (Psalms 104:24), “How manifold are Your works, O Lord; in wisdom have You made them all, full is the earth with Your possessions.” From where [do we infer that] Avraham [is one possession]? For it is written (Genesis 14:19), “And [Melchizedek] blessed him, and said, ‘Blessed be Avram of God most high, Maker of heaven and earth.’” From where [do we infer that] Israel [is one possession]? For it is written (Exodus 15:16), “Till Your people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over whom You have acquired (<i>kanita</i>).” And it [also] says (Psalms 16:3), “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire.” From where [do we infer that] the Temple [is one possession]? For it is written (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And it is [also] said (Psalms 78:54), “And He brought them to His holy border, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed.”</i>
+<b>Five possessions, etc.:</b> It may be asked, “Why do I need a count” (why mention the number)? And also, behold all things are possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is written (Psalms 24:1), “To the Lord is the earth and all that fills it.” Moreover - that which it brought a proof for heaven and earth, “For it is written (Isaiah 66:1), ‘Thus says the Lord, “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool”’” - it should have rather brought a proof from that which it is written (Genesis 14:19), “Maker (<i>Koneh</i>, which is also used in the mishnah to mean, acquirer) of heaven and earth.” And more difficult is that it brings it as a proof that Avraham is a possession, whereas the verse only mentions heaven and earth, but not Avraham. And also why did it not count heaven by itself and the earth by itself, but mentioned heaven and earth [as one]? For they are two! And in the verse, it is written, “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool” - each one by itself! And another difficulty - behold everything that is in the earth is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written (Psalms 104:24), “the earth is full of Your possessions.” And in some books (Editor’s note: That is the standard version in Paragraph 1 here), after it brings the verse, “The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool,” it also brings the verse (Psalms 104:24), “How manifold are Your works, O Lord; in wisdom have You made them all, full is the earth with Your possessions.” And that is more difficult, for this is not a proof for heaven and earth, but rather [for] all that is in the earth! And it may also be asked - after it brings a proof from that which it is written (Exodus 15:16), “Till Your people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over whom You have acquired (<i>kanita</i>),” it brings another verse (Psalms 16:3): “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire.” But no possession is mentioned in this verse at all! And another difficulty is that it brings a proof from (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And is it not that no possession is mentioned there? Moreover, in this baraita, five possessions are reckoned; whereas in Tractate Pesachim (87b), it only reckons four possessions - it does not mention Avraham at all.   
+<b>And you should know</b> that possession is said about several things that are one’s possession. But that which is called a complete possession is when it is completely acquired by the possessor, to the point that it is impossible for him to acquire it more. And that is that when it is partially possessed - like a slave that is acquired by his master [only] for the work of his hands but is not completely acquired - this thing is not an undifferentitated possession. And likewise any possession about which it can be said that it is only a possession from a certain angle, is not a complete possession. Rather [it is the case] only when this possession is from every angle. And that is what is called by the name, possession; but it is not so when the possession is from a certain angle. For the virtue of possession is in that which it is completely in the domain of the possessor - without it veering from him, the possessor, from any angle. But if it had left the domain of the possessor in any way, it would not be called a complete possession. Hence we said that it is not fitting that a slave that is only indentured for the work of his hands be called a man’s possession. For he is not completely in his domain. And this thing requires that the possession that is a complete possession be designated to the possessor. For then it is possible to say that it is completely in the possession of the possessor, such that it not leave the possessor at all. But if there are two [things] that are acquired for one function - like if there are two slaves for a master, the one serves him today and the other on the second day; or one serves him part of the day and the other the other part of the day; or one serves to walk with him and one serves him for the needs of his house - one cannot say about this, that he is the completely acquired possession of the master, such that he is in the domain of the possessor. As behold, he leaves his domain in that which he is not completely his master, meaning when he uses the other slave. If so, [at that time] he does not want this one. So the name, possession, is not on [either of] them. As an undifferentiated possession is when it is completely acquired for him, not [only] from a certain angle.
+And that is that which they said here, “There are five possessions that (are for) the Holy One, Blessed be He”: And it means to say that it is not called an undifferentiated possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, until it is completely acquired for Him, without any removal or lack for Him at all. Rather it is completely in His domain. And you only find five [such] things, that each one is completely designated for its function. But other things are not suited to be called the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. And that is because even though all things are for the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is stated (Psalms 95:5), “His is the sea, He made it; and the dry land, which His hands fashioned,” and, if so, the sea and the dry land, both of them are for the Holy One, blessed be He; and it is likewise written (Haggai 2:8), "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord," since both of them are for the Holy One, blessed be He - nevertheless, neither of them is an undifferentiated possession, as we explained. That is because there are two things here, the sea and the dry land; the silver and the gold, so that one alone is not designated for the Holy One, blessed be He. And when they are two things and neither one is [by itself] for the Holy One, blessed be He, neither one has the name, possession, upon it, such that it be completely for the Holy One, blessed be He. As the sea and the dry land are two things. And in that which this one is to the Holy One, blessed be He, that one is not to the Holy One, blessed be He. And it is impossible that either one be a possession of God, may He be blessed - such that it be completely for Him to the extent that it does not leave the Owner of the acquisition at all - when there is another with it. And it is impossible to say that both of them together are a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, because they are two things and not one thing, such that this could be said about them. Hence neither of them has the name of an undifferentiated possession upon them. And likewise silver and gold, since they are two things; and it said about the two of them that “Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold.” And regarding that which silver is for God, may He be blessed, gold is not for God, may He be blessed; and regarding that which gold is for God, may He be blessed, silver is not for God, may He be blessed. For they are two things - each one something unto itself used [for] something singular. So behold, in that which they are two things - each of which is used for something singular - neither of them is in the domain of the Possessor to the point that there is no veering from Him. And that is why there are five possessions for the Holy One, blessed be He, that do not have any partnership with them; but each one is rather completely dedicated, such that there is nothing together with them in their function for which they are completely dedicated. And since they are dedicated, they are completely for the Possessor without any lacking at all for the Possessor, as we have said.
+<b>And you should also know that, that which the teacher said, “five possessions”</b> - he called a possession something that is completely connected to the owner of the possession. Such that it is appropriate to call a house a man’s possession, since he needs it for his residence and for his being. As every person needs a house for himself. But a slave and vessels are not like this. Even though he needs them, they are not called a possession, since they are only used by the owner of the possession for a certain thing. But a [true] possession is something that is impossible without it. For that reason, it is called a possession (<i>kinyan</i>, an acquisition). Since if he does not have that thing, he must acquire it - as he cannot endure without it. Hence it is called an acquisition.
+And all of these five things are things that serve His divinity, may He be blessed; so His divinity, may He be blessed, is upon them. Hence they are called a possession. For the Torah is the decree of His mastery, may He be blessed, over the creatures - as [the presentation of] the Torah opens (Exodus 20:20), “I am the Lord, your God, who took you out of the Land of Egypt.” Heaven and earth - they are the world; and His name, may He be blessed, is called upon them. As He is called thus - “the God of heaven and the God of the earth” (Genesis 24:3). Avraham - behold His name is called upon him. And even though His name is called upon all of the forefathers - saying, “the God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchak and the God of Yaakov” - behold that we start with Avraham; and we conclude [by] saying, “the shield of Avraham.” And this is not so with the other forefathers. For note that they said (Pesachim 117b), “They conclude with you (Avraham), and not with them (the other forefathers).” Israel - His name is called upon them, saying, “the God of Israel.” And [even] before they were created, the angels would say, “Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, etc.” (Midrash Tanchuma, Kedoshim 2 on Psalms 41:14) Note that the name of His divinity is called upon them, but we should not elaborate about this. The Temple - His name is called upon the Temple, as it is written (I Kings 8:43), “for Your name is called upon this House.” Behold these are the five things - just like He, may He be blessed, is the God of the world, so does He use these things [completely]. That is why they are called possessions. And likewise in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 309:5-6 on Deuteronomy 32:6): "Is He not your Father, your Owner?" - Moshe said to Israel, “You are beloved: You are a possession, and you are not an inheritance.” This is one of three things that are called a possession for the Omnipresent, etc.
+Hence these things are called a possession, since they are for God Himself, may He be blessed, for His mastery. It is like one who acquires something - if he did not need it completely, he would not acquire it. And hence the Torah was created for Himself, may He be blessed, as it is the decree of His mastery over the creatures. And likewise, heaven and earth were created for Himself, may He be blessed, since He is “the God of heaven and the earth.” And likewise, the Temple, in which His Divine Presence resides, was created for Himself, may He be blessed; so His name is called upon the Temple. And thus was Israel created for Himself, may He be blessed - meaning that His mastery depends upon Israel, since His name, may He be blessed, is called upon Israel. And that is what Scripture says (Joshua 7:9) - “they will wipe out our name from the earth; and what will You do about Your great name?” Behold all these things are a possession - as anything that a person needs very much since it serves him, he acquires for himself. And likewise did they say in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 309:5), “A parable [that compares it to] one whose father bequeathed him ten fields, and he acquired one field; and that one he loved more than all the fields that his father bequeathed him.” And the explanation of this thing is also that something that is completely for himself, he acquires - not something that he does not need so much. As he does not acquire that thing. Yet it is possible that something that he does not need so much will come to him as an inheritance. However it can also be explained according to the first explanation: Something that is one, and there is nothing with it - that thing is very needed by him. As behold there is no other one, hence he needs it very much. For if there had been something with it, he would not have needed it so much. Now that it is [only] one, it is very much needed by him.
+<b>And it said, “Torah [is] one possession”:</b> Behold the Torah is one exclusive matter. That is why it is a possession of God, may He be blessed. And we have already explained above (Derekh Chayim 3:2) that Torah is completely one. As the Ten Commandments therefore began with an <i>alef</i> [at the beginning of its first word], whereas the world was created [with a word starting] with a <i>bet</i> - to say that there is nothing more singular than the Torah. It is like they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 1:1), “I am one, and the Torah is one and the <i>alef</i> is one.” Hence the Torah [that the Jews first heard at Mount Sinai] began with an <i>alef</i>. And how could the Torah not be one? For the Torah is comprehensive, and everything is in it. And, if so, it is impossible that there be something besides it. For it is possible [with] something that is only a part, for there to be something else which is a second part. But [with] something that is everything, it is impossible that there be yet another with it. And since the Torah is one, it is completely a possession of God, may He be blessed. As you can not say that the Torah is not completely for God, may He be blessed, since there is something else with it. For there is no other thing with the Torah.
+<b>And likewise is heaven and earth singular</b>, for there is no partnership with them at all. For the host of heaven and the host of the earth - their hosts do not have a partnership with [the heaven and the earth] at all, since they are called their hosts. It is as it is written (Genesis 2:4), “These are the generations of heaven and earth”; (Genesis 2:1) “And He finished the heaven and the earth and all of their hosts.” So they certainly do not have a connection to them. Rather the heaven and the earth are singular to themselves. And it should not be said, “Are heaven and earth not themselves divided [from one another]?” This thing is not difficult. For heaven and earth are connected together, like a circle and the center inside the circle. Hence the Sages said that heaven and earth were created together, and there is not one without the other - as it is written (Isaiah 48:13), “I call unto them, let them stand up together.” This is as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 12a) - that there is not one without the other, like a circle and [its] center are one thing together. And this is, as will be explained adjacently, that they are one thing together. Hence heaven and the earth are singular. And it is relevant to say about something singular that it is completely a possession of God. As behold, there is nothing with them, such that you could say that there is another thing with them. 
+<b>And let not [the following] be difficult for you:</b> Behold, the Torah is also the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, and there are five possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He! But, if so, how is there a singular possession here? Is this thing not completely irrelevant? For these two things - the Torah and heaven and earth - are not connected to each other at all; and each one is singular for its function, by itself. And that which we said - that when there are two things, neither of them is singular - that is when they are connected to one another; like two slaves, when this one serves today and that one serves tomorrow. That is when neither one of them is completely possessed by [the master]. However he can certainly say that he has a singular house and a singular slave; for these are not two things that are connected to one another. As the house is for his residence, and the slave is not relevant to this. And the slave is to do his needs, and the house is not relevant to that. 
+Therefore heaven and the earth are one thing together, and it is thereby relevant that they be completely one possession of God, may He be blessed. And because of that, it did not want to bring the verse (Genesis 14:19), “Maker (<i>Koneh</i>) of heaven and earth.” As from there, it could be rejected - since it is possible to say that each one is not a possession, given that they are two partial things. For behold, it is written,  “Maker (<i>Koneh</i>) of heaven and earth.” But from that which it is written (Isaiah 66:1), “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool” - it is known that a throne and a footstool are completely one thing, both of them together effectuate the sitting. So they are called a possession, given that they are one [singular] possession. For there is not one without the other. So behold they are one thing, as has been explained. Hence it was necessary to bring [a proof] from that which is written, “Heaven is My throne, etc.” And the proof that it brought from this is that since heaven and earth are singular for the sitting of the Holy One, blessed be He - they are thereby the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, such that they attach themselves to God, may He be blessed. 
+Nevertheless, since an expression of possession (<i>kinyan</i>) is not written explicitly, it [also] brings the verse (Psalms 104:24), “full is the earth with Your possessions (<i>kinyanekha</i>).” And “Your possession” is referring to the earth - the earth, which is full, is Your possession (<i>kinyankha</i>). So, automatically, heaven is also the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. For behold the earth is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is His footstool - as it is written in the previous verse. And there is no footstool without a chair (throne). And “Your possession[s]” [in this verse] should not be understood as what is on the earth. For behold, “Your possession[s]” is singular, and it should have [otherwise] been written, “<i>kinyanecha</i>,” with a <i>yod</i>, which is the plural form - since it would be referring to [the previous phrase in the verse,] “all of them with wisdom.” (Editor’s note: In fact, even without the <i>yod</i>, the word can be read as either plural or singular; but it is traditionally read here as plural - see note 1657 in the Hebrew commentary of R. Y. Hartman.) But even if it is referring to those things that are on the earth, they are nevertheless only considered possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the angle of the earth. As since they are on the earth, they are connected to the earth; and the earth is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He - if so, it is through this that they are considered, possessions. However they are nevertheless not called possessions on their own, only the earth [is called that]. Furthermore, “Your possession[s],” should not be understood as referring to the things that are on the earth, since it should have [then] written, “the earth and all of its fullness is Your possession” - like it is written (Psalms 24:1), “To the Lord is the earth and its fullness.” Rather the earth is not the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, by itself; and that which exists on the earth are not the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He, by itself, but they are His possessions from the angle of the earth. So the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, with all that exists on it. Hence it is written, “the earth, which is full, is Your possession.”
+<b>And afterwards it said, “And Avraham [is] one possession.”</b> And that is because Avraham was the first righteous person. For so did they say in the Gemara - in Tractate Avodah Zarah 9a - that two thousand years were emptiness until Avraham came, and as we explained above in the chapter [entitled] Asarah (Derekh Chayim 5:2). And he was the first one who was a [true] creation among the human species. From this angle, therefore, he was [singularly] one. And so is it written explicitly (Isaiah 51:2), “Look back to Avraham your father and to Sarah who brought you forth, for I called him one.” And we have already elaborated about this greatly in the book, Gevorot Hashem (Chapter 5) - that Avraham was a start; and any start, in that it is a start, is one. Hence it said, “for I called him one.” And we have not found with any of the forefathers besides Avarham that he was called such a name, “one.” Hence it is said about him that he was the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the angle of himself - because he was one. So he was the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He.
+And this is what they said in Tractate Pesachim (117b), “‘And you shall be a blessing’ (Genesis 12:2) - they conclude with you (Avraham), and not with them (the other forefathers).” But why should they conclude with Avraham? Rather it is because it is only appropriate to conclude with one, as we do not conclude with two - as it is found in its place (Berakhot 49a). And therefore one should only conclude with Avraham exclusively - since Avraham was the start. And anything that is a start is [singularly] one.
+And it brought a proof from that which it is written (Genesis 14:19), “Blessed be Avram of God most high, Maker (<i>Koneh</i>) of heaven and earth.” Even though an expression of possession (<i>kinyan</i>) is only written about heaven and earth, it would nevertheless not have written, “Maker (<i>Koneh</i>) of heaven and earth,” adjacent to Avraham if he were not also a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. For what relationship would it have to here? Rather this is its explanation: “Blessed be Avram of God most high, Maker (<i>Koneh</i>) of heaven and earth” - just like He possessed (<i>kanah</i>) heaven and earth, so [too] did He possess Avraham to Himself.
+<b>And it said, “Israel [is] one possession:</b> For behold, Israel is certainly one people, as it is written (II Samuel 7:23), “who is like Your people, Israel, one nation?” Nothing would have a partnership with Israel. And about anything that is [singularly] one, behold it is possible to say that it is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, as was explained above. But about something that is not [singularly] one, it cannot be said that it is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. And because of [this], there is no [complete] proof that they are the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the verse (Exodus 15:16), “the people whom You have acquired (<i>kanitah</i>).” As it is possible to explain, it is because He redeemed them from Egypt; [as the phrase,] “You acquired,” is relevant to this - [such that] they would nevertheless not be called a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, on account [of that verse]. And because of that, it brings a proof - that it is written (Psalms 16:3), “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire.” Since it said, “in whom is all My desire,” there is no greater possession than this - since all of the desire of the Holy One, blessed be He, is in Israel. Nevertheless, it is proper for it to also bring the verse, “the people whom You have acquired (<i>kanitah</i>)” - since an expression of possession (<i>kinyan</i>) is written explicitly [in it]. And now that it is written, “they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire,” we should explain, “the people whom You have acquired,” according to its [usual] meaning - that Israel are the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He.
+<b>And afterwards it said, “The Temple [is] one possession”:</b> For there is no doubt that the Temple is one, and that there is no other Temple in the world. Only the one Temple that is for Israel, as altars were immediately prohibited when the Temple was built. And therefore the Temple is one. Hence it is also appropriate to call the Temple a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. And it brought a proof from (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And this proof is because the Temple is considered greater than heaven and earth. [This is] as it is found in the first chapter of Ketuvot (5a): Bar Kappara taught, “The handiwork of the righteous is greater than the making of heaven and earth; as with regard to the creation of heaven and earth, they were created with one hand, as it is written (Isaiah 48:13), ‘My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens.’ Whereas with regard to the handiwork of the righteous it is written, ‘the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.’” Two [hands] are implied, as it is found there. And since heaven and earth are called a possession, as above - if so, all the more so is the Temple called a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, even more. As it is even closer to God, may He be blessed. 
+And you can also understand the proof that it brought from that which was written (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established,” [as follows]: Since with this itself - that the Temple was built with two hands - it indicates that the Temple is one. For something is called one when there is no other with it. And had the Temple been built with one hand, it would have been possible for you to say that the Temple, which is only a part, was built with one hand and something that is also with it was built with the other hand. This is like it is with heaven and earth. For heaven was built with His right hand and the earth was built with His left hand, as it is written (Isaiah 48:13), “My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens.” But [that] the Temple was built with two hands indicates that there is no other thing with it and that it is one. For behold, it was created with two hands. And it has already been explained that everything that is one is called the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, because it is completely in the domain of the owner of the possession. Hence it brings the verse, “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And it is a complete choice proof for the one who understands these things that have no doubt about them. And we explained this thing in the introduction (the commentary on “Kol Yisrael”), concerning, “the crown of My plantings, the work of My hands to be glorified.” See there and you will find it explained. And even heaven and earth - since each one was created with one hand - if it were not that they connect together to be one thing, they would not be called a possession. As was explained above (Paragraph 8), heaven and earth are similar to a circle and the center inside the circle and, therefore, they are one thing. For both of them were created with two hands together, as we explained above.
+But since “possession (<i>kinyan</i>)” is not written explicitly concerning the Temple, it [also] brought a proof from that which is written (Psalms 78:54), “the mountain, which His right hand had possessed.” Nevertheless, it is not enough with this verse, since, “the mountain, which His right hand had possessed,” implies that it refers to all of the Land of Israel - as it is written (Exodus 15:17), “You will bring them and plant them in Your own mountain.” So you should note that [all of] the Land of Israel is called, mountain. But since it is written, “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established”; the verse of  “the mountain, which His right hand had possessed,” should be established to be about the Temple. And when it needs two verses, and one [of them] is from the Torah, it brings the Scripture from the Torah first.  
+<b>So it has been explained</b> to you [that] these are the five possessions that are called the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He, because they are complete possessions of the Owner of the possessions, and they are completely in the domain of the Owner of the possessions. Hence they are called possessions. And this thing is only possible when the thing that is a possession is one, and there is nothing with it for the owner of the possession that is attached. Only with such a thing exclusively is [true] possession relevant. And it has already been explained to you that each one of these five things is singular, without there being any connection to it with anything. And each one of these five things - each and every one - is also autonomous, and none of them has a connection with another. Such that each one is completely singular. And through this, possession is relevant, since it is in the domain of the Owner of the possession. And know how each one is an autonomous possession: It is because the Torah is spiritual. And behold the Torah is singular on the level of the spiritual, without there being an addition or connection to the spiritual Torah. And then heaven and earth - they are the physical world. So from the angle of the physical world, there is no connection to heaven and earth. And then Avraham, and that is with the human species - for Avraham was the [true] beginning of the human species. And because he was the beginning of the human species, Avraham was called, “father of many” (Genesis 17:5) - meaning to say, the beginning of the collective of nations. And behold this is an autonomous level. And then, Israel - and it is also an autonomous level. For they were chosen from the collective of nations to be for God, may He be blessed. And they are [singularly] one in this thing. And the fifth level is the Temple, as the Temple was chosen from all of the places of earthly inhabitation. Hence each of these five is singular, as there is no connection or partnership with it.
+<b>And in the Gemara, in the chapter [entitled] HaIshah (Pesachim 87b),</b> it only said four things are the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He: Torah, heaven and earth, Israel, and the Temple. But it did not mention Avraham, because our Talmud (as opposed to Pirkei Avot) reasons that it is appropriate that only Israel be called a possession. As Avraham is the start of Israel and he is their head. So Avraham should not be considered an independent possession, but should be included in the collective of Israel. And hence [he] is not a complete possession.
+And when you understand, these four things are words of wisdom: It began with Torah, which is the highest level; and then heaven and earth; and then Israel; and then the Temple. All of these things are very orderly. Hence it is suitable that they are the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He. And it is appropriate for you to understand the things we have hinted here, as they are very choice things - there is no doubt about this explanation. And in the commentary here of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, it is implied that [his] version in Pesachim (87b) is: Torah; heaven and earth; and the Land of Israel - and these are three things. And likewise is it found in some midrashim - that three possessions has the Holy One, Blessed be He, acquired for Himself in the world. And there is a reason for this midrash also - that the possessions are only exclusively three. However, we must not elaborate here. Also because Rashi, may his memory be blessed, recanted from this in Tractate Pesachim (87b) - hence we should not elaborate. 
+<b>And you should also know:</b> Even though the [previous] explanation is choice [and] there is no doubt about it; in order for you to understand this statement more, you should know that possession (<i>kinyan</i>, also understood as an acquisition) is that when one acquires something from another, the thing is given over to him and it becomes separated from others and enters into his domain. So it means to say that these five things are separated from existence and entered the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. Hence it is appropriate that they be called possessions because of this - given that they are separated from another and came to the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And silver and gold, and anything that a person has, is his possession even if he does not acquire it from someone else. It is called his possession because it was separated and arrived into his domain. Hence it is called his possession, just like something that arrived to him from someone else is called a possession. As there is no doubt that, because of their importance and their value, all of these five things are separated from the rest of existence and entered into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. So it is appropriate that they be called possessions. 
+<b>And you should understand</b> how all of these five things have one thing on account of which they were separated from the rest of existence - on account of their importance and their value - and entered into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And that is since you will find that everything that is the beginning of something else is separated from that thing that it is the beginning of, and enters into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He, on account of its importance and stature, in that it is called, a beginning. And you will find this often in the Torah, such that every beginning that is commanded in the Torah is to be separated from the rest and be for God, may He be blessed - such as with the priestly tithe, which is called beginning (Deuteronomy 18:4); the hallah-tithe [which] is called beginning (Numbers 15:20); the first-fruits [which] are called beginning (Exodus 23:19); and a firstborn [which] is called beginning (Deuteronomy 21:17). And all of them are separated from the rest and enter the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. As behold that the holiness of God, may He be blessed rests upon all of them. And through this you can see that they are separated from the rest and enter into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And the intellect necessitates this. For the beginning, in that it is the beginning of another, does not share that with it - such that it is separated. As it is called, beginning; whereas the other is not called, beginning. And this thing is clear, we need not elaborate.
+And behold you will find that all of these five things are called, beginning. As from this you will understand that because of this stature, they are separated from the rest of existence and enter into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He - like all beginnings. For the Torah is called, beginning, as it is written (Proverbs 8:22), “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way”; and the Torah is the beginning of all the commandments. Heaven and earth are a beginning, as it is written (Genesis 1:1), “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”; and they are the beginning of this material world. There is no doubt that Avraham was a start and a beginning, because Avraham was considered the beginning of the world. For until Avraham, everything was chaos (Avodah Zarah 9a), and he was the start and beginning of existence. And on account of Avraham, the world was created, as we said above (Derekh Chayim 5:2, 22): "'These were the generations of the heavens and the earth in their being created (<i>behibaram</i>)' (Genesis 2:4) - in Avraham (<i>beAvraham</i>, meaning with the letters, of “in Avraham”), the world was created" (Bereshit Rabbah 12:9). Behold that Avraham was the beginning of the world. And it has already been explained that the beginning is separated by its stature from the [rest], in that it is the beginning and the start. Israel is called beginning, as it is written (Jeremiah 2:3), “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first-fruits of His harvest”; and they are the first of all the nations. And through this, they are separated from the rest, in accordance with the nature of every beginning. The Temple is called first, as it is written (Jeremiah 17:12), “O Throne of Glory exalted from first, the place of our Sanctuary.” For the Temple is the first and beginning of all places and inhabitation of the earth. And on account of its being first, it is separated from the rest and enters the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And because of that, it is called the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. As every possession is taken from another for the owner of the possession. Hence these five are appropriate to be called, possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He. 
+<b>And also through this</b> can we explain the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 309:5) above (Paragraph 6): For something that reaches Him from another, like these things that were separated from other things, and He took them for Himself - that is called a possession, since they belong completely to God, may He be blessed, as will be explained. But something that comes through an inheritance [to a person] - such a thing is connected to him from his father. Only something that is separated from the rest is called his possession and is beloved to him. As something that is separated from another and entered into the domain of the elevated, enters completely into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And understand this.
+<b>And you should know to understand</b> that this baraita counted Avraham among the possessions, not like the Gemara from Pesachim (87b), that did not count Avraham. And [the latter] is since Avraham was the start of Israel specifically, as he was their forefather and their start. And in that Israel was also called a possession from the reason that we said, it is not appropriate that Avraham be called a possession. For a possession is separated from that which is besides it. And from this angle, that Israel themselves are considered a possession that is separated from the rest, it is not relevant to say that Avraham was separated from everything to the point that the word, possession, would apply to him. For if so, this thing would negate that which Israel is called a possession - as Avraham is the beginning of Israel. Hence Avraham is included in Israel, and it is appropriate to consider it all one possession. And we have already said that that which these are called, beginning or first, indicates that they are a possession, separated from the rest.
+And you will not find this expression explicitly concerning Avraham, like it is found in all of the [four others]. But to understand the root of all these things, behold you must know and understand the order that we hinted to you above (Paragraph 22): First of all, the Torah; then heaven and earth; then Israel; and then the Temple, which is below it. And they all enter into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. But according to this baraita, Avraham is also a possession, in that he is a start, as we hinted above. And it is impossible to explain more. Rather the one who understands will understand the true words of the Sages.
+
+Mishnah 11
+
+<i>Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory, as it is stated (Isaiah 43:7), "Every one that is called by My name and for My glory, I have created him, I have formed him, I have even made him." And it says (Exodus 15:18), "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever."</i>
+<b>Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, etc.:</b> This whole chapter speaks about Torah [study]. But according to that, it was not appropriate to append this statement here. Yet it is possible to say that it is since the whole chapter deals with Torah study, and Torah study is needed to keep and observe the commandments of one’s Creator; and this is the glory of God - and not that one intend [it] for his own glory. For everything that God, may He be blessed, created, He created for His glory. Hence it said, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, etc.” And even though it already said, at the beginning of the chapter (Avot 6:1), “One who studies Torah for its sake, etc.” - that only makes us understand [that] one who studies Torah for its sake merits many things. And it is implied that if it is not for its sake, he does not merit many things. But it does not make us understand that this is the main desire of God, may He be blessed - that he learns for its sake. And about this did it say, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory.” And if so, one who does not learn Torah for its sake - it is better that he not have been created. For behold, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory” - but this one is occupying himself with Torah for his [own] glory. Therefore it is better that he not have been created at all. And so did they say (Berakhot 17a), “One who occupies himself with Torah not for its sake, it is better that he not have been created” - as we explained this matter at length above (Derekh Chayim 4:5). And this is [the reason] that it placed, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory,” at the end of the chapter.
+<b>It also comes to say</b> that a person should study Torah [in such a way] that, through it, there will be glory to God, may He be blessed: Even though he occupies himself with Torah for its sake, there must also proper behavior with it, so that there will be glory to God, may He be blessed, in his Torah [study]. And in the chapter [entitled] Yom HaKippurim (Yoma 86a): “And you shall love the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:5) - that you shall make the name of Heaven beloved. In that he reads and learns and serves Torah scholars; and his speech be pleasant with people, his buying, selling [and giving in the marketplace be pleasant and he gives and takes with people] with trustworthiness; what do people say about him? [Fortunate is x who studied Torah,] fortunate is his father who taught him Torah, fortunate is his teacher who taught him Torah, woe to the people who have not studied Torah. X, who studied Torah, see how pleasant are his ways, how proper are his deeds. About him Scripture states (Isaiah 49:3), “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” To here [is the Gemara]. So behold this is something on its own - that the Torah [study] of someone who is a Torah scholar be such that God, may He be blessed, will be glorified by it, when his actions and behavior are glorious. And that is the glory that God, may He be blessed, has from the Torah [study]. So should it be explained; and it is correct.
+<b>However it appears that it finished with this statement</b> because it wanted to finish with something that is the end of man - and that is the Holy One, blessed be He, since He is the end of everything. As “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory.” And it is as if it said that the end of all is the Holy One, blessed be He - for behold all of the creations were only created for His glory, may He be blessed. And if so, the end of everything is God, may He be blessed; and there is nothing besides Him. And since this thing is the end of all creatures, it also made this thing the end of the chapter and the conclusion of everything (all of Pirkei Avot). And likewise when King Shlomo, peace be upon him, finished the words of Ecclesiastes - which are words of ethical teachings - he concluded his words (Ecclesiastes 12:13), “The sum of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole of man.” This means to say that the whole world was created only for this. For behold everything was created for man, and man was created so that he would fear God, and to observe His commandments. And all of the book of Ecclesiastes speaks about words of ethical instruction, and it finishes with ethical instruction - as this is the end of all the creatures. And likewise did the teacher conclude [this] chapter of ethical instruction with this thing, to say that this is the end of all creatures. And since it is the end of all the creatures, he fixed this ethical instruction at the conclusion and end of the words of ethical instruction. And it is like he is rebuking his child and teaching him words of ethical instruction to help him; and at the conclusion, he says to him, “What can I teach you - behold this thing is the end of everything.” And this is what King Shlomo did, peace be upon him. He concluded his words and said, “This thing is the end of all:  ‘Fear God and keep His commandments’ - that is why this thing is the end of my words.” And the teacher also did this at the conclusion of his words of instruction. He said this is the end of all - that "everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created it for His glory.” Hence a person should make this thing his end - since the entire end of man and the whole world is this thing.
+<b>And the explanation of,</b> "Every one that is called by My name and for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7), is meaning to say [that] the “one called by My name” is the human species, which is called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. And in Tractate Bava Batra (75b): The righteous are called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated,  "Every one that is called by My name.” And it means to say [that] just like the Holy One, blessed be He, is called Holy; so too are the righteous called holy. And likewise the other names of the Holy One, blessed be He: The Holy One, blessed be He, is called righteous, and the righteous are also called this. Hence the righteous are called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. And the explanation of, “for My glory,” is everything that is for My glory. And those are the other things that exist. As they are for the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, even though they are not completely called by His name, like the righteous. Nevertheless, they are for His glory, may He be blessed. As behold, all the creations are for His glory, may He be blessed.
+<b>And it said, “I have created him, have formed him, I have even made him":</b> It mentioned three expressions, creation, formation and making. And it may be asked, “What are these three things?” But when you analyze the creation story, you will find these three expressions are [found] with the creations: You will find an expression of creation with heaven and earth, “God created heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1); “And God created the giant sea-creatures” (Genesis 1:21). And likewise with man is it written (Genesis 1:27), “And God created man.” In these three, an expression of creation is mentioned. And an expression of formation is said with the [domesticated] beasts and [wild] animals - “And [...] God formed [... every] animal (of the earth according to its species)“ (Genesis 2:19). And an expression of formation is also said about man, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). But no more are found. And the expression of making is found with the firmament, as it stated (Genesis 1:7), “And God made the firmament”; with the luminaries, as it is written (Genesis 1:16), “And God made the two luminaries”; with the animals of the earth, “And God made the animals of the earth” (Genesis 1:25); and with man, “Let us make man in Our image” (Genesis 1:26).
+And the explanation is that an expression of creation is said about a separated Godly form that becomes attached to the creations. And that is since with man, it is written explicitly (Genesis 9:6), “in the image of God did He make man” - such that you know from this that Godly content was attached to the form of man. And likewise with heaven and earth - which are the collective of the world - there is no doubt that Godly content was attached to them. And for this reason, an expression of creation was written [about them]. And so too, the giant sea-creatures, since Scripture explains that they are “giant sea-creatures” (Genesis 1:21). And according to their giantness - to the point that they are an amazing creature - Godly content was attached to them. [Hence] an expression of creation was said about them. As there is this thing with all the creations, as will be explained. However the Torah used an expression of creation [specifically] with these three, because it is famous and completely, visibly revealed with these three; whereas with other things, it is not revealed.
+And an expression of formation is said about a form that is imprinted in substance. And that is [the root of] the expression, formation (<i>yetzirah</i>) - as it is from the [usage] (Berakhot 10a), cast a form (<i>tzar tzurah</i>) - such that it is not possible for the form to endure without the substance, which is [its] bearer. Hence, it is relevant to say an expression of formation about a form that is in substance. Therefore it is relevant to say an expression of formation with beast and man. For it is known and revealed that [domesticated] beasts and [wild] animals have a form that is imprinted in substance. Hence an expression of formation is said about it. And likewise does man have a form that is imprinted in substance. Even though he has a Godly separated form, man nevertheless also has a physical form, which is the form that is imprinted in substance. For about that form, the expression, “And […] God formed” (Genesis 2:7), is written. And the understanding is not that this is only relevant with man and with beast. For there is a form inscribed in substance to all creations. Rather, it is more visible with man and with beast. [For that reason], it wrote this expression specifically with them.  
+And it wrote an expression of making with the firmament and with the luminaries because these have a shining body and their essence is their body. Hence, it wrote the expression, “and He made,” about them - since this expression is said about the body. And likewise with the animals that have substance and form. But their substance and form are equally recognizable; hence expressions of making and formation are said about them. And the three of them are said about man - creation, formation and making - because the three of them are equally recognizable in man. Hence the three of them are said about (them) [him]. Here you have the three things that are said about creation.
+<b>And in the chapter [entitled] Elu Tereifot (Chullin 60a):</b> Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “All the acts of Creation were created in their height; they were created with their knowledge; they were created with their character. As it is stated (Genesis 2:1), ‘And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all of their host.’ Do not read, ‘their host (<i>tzeva’am</i>)’; but rather, ‘their character (<i>tzivyonam</i>).’” And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained (there in Chullin): Their character - with the image that they chose for themselves. To here [is Rashi]. And he also explained, “with their knowledge,” that He informed them that they would be created, and they were agreeable to this. And this is a very far-fetched explanation.
+Rather you should know that the choice explanation is that it wanted to say that all the creations were created with their complete height; not that you should say that at first they were small, and afterwards they became big, like a calf that becomes an ox (Bava Kamma 65b). Rather, it was created an ox from the beginning. And the explanation of “with their knowledge,” is that when the first man, Adam, was created, he was immediately created with his intellect; and not like a baby that does not have knowledge. And also the calf and the lamb do not have the knowledge at the beginning of their creation, like they have when they become an ox or a ram. And a fox does not have the knowledge when he is born, like he has afterwards. And so too, all of them. But in the creation story - what they have at the end, they had at the beginning of their creation. And the understanding of “their character” is their beauty. For every animal has its splendor. And there is no doubt that afterwards when it has already grown, it has more splendor than what it had at the beginning of its creation. And he said that the elegance and splendor that was suitable for each one afterwards, it had from the beginning - when each one was created. So they had all of this immediately. And with man, this thing is called the image of God - as will be explained.  
+And he mentioned these three things corresponding to the substance and the form, and corresponding to the Godly content that is attached to the creations - as this [content] does not have any mixture with the substance that all creations have. Hence he said, “they were created in their height.” And that corresponds to the body that receives physical height, since distances apply to the material. And he said, “with their knowledge,” corresponding to the form, because it is from the angle of this form that all animals have knowledge. And there is no doubt that knowledge is perfection of the being - as it is the form of all that exists - just like the height is the perfection of the body. Also, ‘a being without knowledge is not good.’ Hence he said, “they were created with their knowledge.” And the splendor and beauty is something which is from the angle of the Godly content that is in the creatures. As beauty is not related to the material at all, and we have already explained this: That beauty and splendor are related to that which is not material; and we have explained this many times. So he said that they were created in their completeness whether from the angle of their bodies, whether from the angle of their forms - which is their being - or whether from the angle of the Godly content that is attached to the creations. And [the latter] is their beauty. Hence he only brought a proof that they were created with their character, which is their splendor. As since they were created with their splendor, which is the last and highest level of the creations - and were even created with the completeness of that highest level - all the more so were they created with knowledge, which is before this. And all the more so were they created in their height, which is before everything. And this is the creation, the formation and the making that is mentioned here - corresponding to these three things. And these are very choice words, and there is no doubt about this at all. And they correspond to the three times, “His work,” is mentioned in (the passage known as) <i>Vayekhulu</i> (Genesis 2:1-3): “And God finished [...] His work […] and He rested […] from all of His work […] for He rested on it from all of His work that He created.” 
+<b>And that which it said here (Isaiah 43:7),</b> “I have even made him,” is so that you not say that a body is not relevant to Him, may He be blessed; and since He is not a body, He would have had no involvement with the body of the creations. About this it said, “I have even made him.” This means to say, it is true that He, may He be blessed, has no body or material, but He nevertheless made the body - such that He created everything. And if so, the understanding of the verse is, “Every one that is called by My name,” is man - since if a man is righteous, he is completely called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. “And for My glory,” means the other creatures; for they are for His glory - as they affixed  in the marriage blessings (Ketuvot 8a), “who created everything for His glory.” “I have created him, I have formed him, I have even made him,” that he be called by My name and for My glory. And note that there is a proof from this that everything that God, may He be blessed, created in His world, He created only for His glory. And this is understood.
+<b>And it brought another proof,</b> such that you not say that they were created for His glory because of this: That from them you could see how great is the power of the Creator - as it is written (Psalms 104:24), “How great are your works, O Lord, You have made all of them with Your wisdom, etc.” - and that this is His glory. But about this, it brings a proof that it is not from this angle; rather they are intrinsically His glory, may He be blessed. As it is written (Exodus 15:18), "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever." And since He, may He be blessed, is the King; if so, all of the creatures are for His glory. For without the creatures, it is not relevant to say, “King.” And it is like that which they said in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (31a), “On the sixth day, what (does he) say? ‘The Lord reigns, He is clothed with grandeur’ (Psalms 93:1), because on that day He completed His [deeds] and ruled over them.” Then you should note that the grandeur of Kingship is from the angle of the creations; and it is from the angle of the creations that He is King. Hence it brings this as a proof that all that He created in the world is for His glory. For behold, He, may He be blessed, is the King, and the Kingship is from the angle of the creatures; and this is the glory. So behold the creatures are the glory of His Kingship, as it said, "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever." 
+<b>And you should know that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed,</b> wrote at great length about this in his book in Part 3, Chapter 13 (Guide for the Perplexed 3:13) - about that which the Sages said that man is created for the glory of his Creator. And that is like they wrote at the end of Kiddushin (82a) - that all the creatures were created to serve man, and man was created to serve his Creator. As it appears from the words of the Sages that what they said here, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory,” is like its plain sense - that there is glory to God from the creatures. But [Rambam] responded to them that Scripture says (Job 38:6-7, the actual verses being in the opposite order), “If you are righteous, what do you give Him […] If (man) sins, what does (it) do to Him” - as the Sages affixed in the closing [prayer service] of Yom Kippur. Hence he, may his memory be blessed, explained that which it is written, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory,” as meaning that everything was created according to His will - that God, may He be blessed, wanted that it be created. And it should not be asked why God, may He be blessed, wanted its creation; for His will is His essence, may He be blessed. And just like, “Why,” should not be asked about His essence, so too should it not be asked about His will, may He be blessed, “Why did He want this thing?” And this is what it said, (Isaiah 43:7), "Every one that is called by My name and for My glory, I have created him”: Meaning to say, “I created him according to My will” - since [His] will is His essence. And this is the understanding of, “and for My glory.” It is as if it said, “according to My will, which is My essence.” It is like Scripture (Exodus 33:18) said, “Please show me Your glory,” which meant to say, “Show me Your essence.” And so did he understand, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory” -  meaning, according to His will, since [His] will is His essence; and that is His glory. And he also explained, “The Lord did everything for His sake” (Proverbs 26:4), like this - as for the sake of His essence. Thus did the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, strain. And it was all because of this difficulty - that God, may He be blessed, does not get glory from anything besides Himself at all. And on account of this, he explained it like this.
+And we have already said that this is not the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed. As they explicitly said that man is created to serve his Creator. And the words of the Sages are like their plain sense - that man was created to serve his Creator. And that which was difficult to [Rambam] - that He, may He be blessed, does not get glory from anything besides Himself - it is in fact true that He, may He be blessed, does not get glory from anything besides Himself. And certainly, ‘if man is righteous, what do he give Him, if he sins, what does it does to Him?’ Rather man is created so that God, may He be blessed, rule over him. But it is not that the King receives the glory that the people give to Him. Rather the glory is from the angle of rulership, that He rules over them without benefit to Himself and governs them. And if a person is righteous, He is his King when He gives him his reward; and if he is not righteous, He is his King when He pays him back. As when the Holy One, blessed be He, takes revenge upon those that transgress His will, His name is also exalted and sanctified. It is just that, [being] good, He, may He be blessed, wants man to do the good. Nevertheless, His glory that He has from the creations is not at all dependent upon man. Rather it is that God, may He be blessed, created the creations and rules over them; and that is the glory of his Kingship. And it is like it [is stated in] the verse (Exodus 15:18) it brought - "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever."
+And it was because of this itself - that which was difficult for the Rambam, may his memory be blessed: Can it be that God, may He be blessed, gets glory from man - that the Sages said (Avot 4:23), “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 the kings of kings.” It is all to make known that nothing is from the angle of man himself, but rather everything is from God, may He be blessed. And if so, God, may He be blessed, does not get anything from man. But if it were not that everything was against man’s will, God, may He be blessed, would get glory from man. But the thing is not like this. Rather everything with man is against his will. Hence it is not relevant to say that God, may He be blessed, gets [something] from man. But man gets [everything] from God, may He be blessed. And this is that which he said (Kiddushin 82a), that man was created to serve his Creator - meaning, that His Kingship is over man. And if one would say, "At the end of the day, God, may He be blessed, does get glory from the creations" - the thing is not like this at all. As since everything is from the angle of God, may He be blessed - and not from the angle of man - it is not considered that He gets anything.
+And it should not be said, “Why was the world created; the glory of God, may He be blessed, is in His essence, so He does not need this glory. And if so, why were they all created?” This question too does not have any substance at all. For God, may He be blessed, is complete perfection to the point that it is impossible for His perfection to lack [anything]. But there is no doubt that something activated is more perfect than something in potential. Hence even though God, may He be blessed, could have potentially done [anything] according to His will, this thing is only potential. But when it is activated into existence, this thing is considered complete perfection - as it is activated. Hence God, may He be blessed, made the world in actuality, to the point that His Kingship, may He be blessed, was activated and it would not only be potential. So there is no need for the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed. Rather, the words of the Sages are choice and pure, and there is no doubt about them. But we can not elaborate [about it] here.
+And I say that it is because in the generation of the [Rambam], may his memory be blessed, they were drawn after the opinion of the gentile sages upon whom the light of Torah did not shine - these were the philosophers. So if he did not explain Scripture to them according to their reasoning, there would be a concern for something more destructive - that they would not, God forbid, give standing to Scripture [at all]. Hence he explained Scripture to them according to their opinion. But the main understanding is not concealed from anyone who is wise-hearted. Blessed is the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever. Amen and Amen.
+<i>Rabbi Chananya ben Akashia says, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments, as it is stated (Isaiah 42:21), ‘The Lord desired, for the sake of His righteousness, to make the Torah great and glorious.’” </i>
+<b>The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel, etc.:</b> We have already explained in the Introduction, that which they fixed this statement after each and every chapter (of Avot), and fixed the mishnah of, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1), before the chapter. Everything is from the reason that was explained in the Introduction. And it is a very clear explanation for the one who delves [into it].
+<b>And I saw that some question</b> the words of the teacher, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments”: The intellect leads to the opposite of this. That on account of the merit of the good for Israel, He should have given them few commandments, and not many commandments. For with many commandments, there is a concern lest one transgress. So what merit is there for them when He multiplied His commandments for them? And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained this mishnah and [these are his words] (Commentary on the Mishnah, Rambam on Makkot 6:11): It is among the fundamental principles of the Torah that when an individual fulfills one of the 613 commandments in a fit and proper manner - not combining with it any aspect of worldly benefit at all, but rather doing it for its own sake, out of love - he merits the world to come through it. And about this, he said that in their being many, it is impossible that one not do a single one in a full and proper manner; and in doing that commandment, he will give life to his soul. To here [are his words]. And likewise did the author of the Ikkarim (R. Yosef Albo) write in Part (2) [3], Chapter 29 - that the explanation is that this is why the Holy One, blessed be He, multiplied the commandments upon Israel. So that if he does one of them, he will merit life in the word to come - as he elaborated upon in that chapter. But the intellect does not tolerate these words. And about this also, it appears that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote these words to draw the hearts of the people to the Torah, as we explained before this (Paragraph 19). And because of this, a person would fulfill the commandments - since through one commandment a person would merit the world to come. 
+And it is certainly appropriate to accept these words, that one merits the world to come with one commandment. And I say even more than this - that one does not even need one commandment if he did not do a sin and he is not obligated in commandments, like a minor. As we say in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 110b), “A minor [who dies] - from when does he come to the world to come? Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi [argue]. One says, ‘From the time he is born’; and one says, ‘From the time he talks.’” But even according to the one that disagrees the most - he said, until he says, “Amen,” whereas the minor is not obligated in commandments at all. And we explained this thing above (Derekh Chayim, Introduction). And adjacent to this (Sanhedrin 111a), they said: “Therefore, the netherworld has enlarged itself and opened its mouth without measure (<i>livli chok</i>)” (Isaiah 5:14) - Reish Lakish said, “[It is about] even one who leaves one statute (<i>chok</i>).” Rabbi Yochanan said, “It is not satisfactory to their Master, that you said this about them. Rather, even if one (did) only one statute [such a punishment would not apply].” To here [is the Gemara]. But this thing is talking about someone who is already obligated in the commandments: Since he is already obligated in the commandments, he needs to have [done] one statute. 
+Nevertheless the understanding is not that if he transgressed several commandments and fulfilled one commandment, that he will merit the world to come on account of that commandment. For this thing is impossible to say - that one who is mostly transgressions would merit life in the world to come! And in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b), it is clear - “It was taught, [Beit Shammai says], ‘There will be three groups on the Day of Judgment: One of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written and sealed for life in the world to come. Wholly wicked people will immediately be written and sealed for Geihinnom, as it is stated (Daniel 12:2), “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Middling people descend to Geihinnom and cry out and ascend, as it is stated (Zechariah 13:9), “And I will bring the third part through the fire.”’ Beit Hillel says, ‘[He is] “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness.’” It is clearly implied that with mostly transgressions, one is sealed for Geihinnom. And it should not be said that when he does one commandment with intention, not combining with it any intention of worldly benefit, that this thing would be more than if he did many commandments not in this way. Moreover, it spoke undifferentiated [in the Gemara] - in whatever way he did the commandment - once he is mostly transgressions, he descends to Geihinnom. 
+Moreover, this group - when one does one commandment and does not combine any other intention with it - is not found at all in any of the groups that the baraita mentions. As this group is certainly not called by the name, “wholly righteous.” And one should not understand there that one is called middling if one is not wholly wicked; and that if he did one commandment [properly], he is called middling. This is not the case. For it is clearly implied, that when he is mostly transgressions, he has no rectification. As it rebuts Beit Hillel, who says, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness”: But isn’t it written (Zechariah 13:9), “And I will bring the third part through the fire?” And it answers, There, [it is referring to] (the transgression of) the Jews who rebel with their bodies. But didn’t you say that they have no rectification? There it is when he is mostly transgressions. [Here] he is half transgressions and half meritorious deeds and [also included in the transgressions] is the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies. It is not sufficient that they are not [subject to], “And I will bring the third part through the fire.” To here [is the Gemara]. And from this - if the "middling" there was mostly sins, why does he have no rectification if he has with this, the sin of the Jews who rebel [with their bodies]? Behold they have several commandments [that may have been performed properly]! And if he is considered middling on account of [these] few commandments concerning, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness” - he should have been considered middling concerning this matter, [even] if he had the sin of the Jews who rebel [with their bodies] with [the other sins]. And they would [then] be included in, “And I will bring the third part through the fire,” even though they are mostly transgressions. And likewise did Rashi (on Rosh Hashanah 16b), may his memory be blessed, explain “wholly wicked” - mostly transgressions. To here [are his words]. It is [hence] shown that one who is mostly transgressions - even if he did a few commandments [perfectly] - is written and sealed immediately for Geihinnom. 
+And it should not be asked, “If so, that which it said (Rosh Hashanah 17a), ‘When he is mostly transgressions and there is [also] the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies, they have no rectification’ - behold, also when there is not the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies, they [still] have no rectification when he is mostly transgressions!?! As those who are mostly transgressions are immediately written and sealed for Geihinnom!” It is [however] not similar. As behold, after twelve months, the bodies of [the former] cease and their souls burn, as it is found there. Whereas the completely evil [who do not have the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies] - even though they descend to Geihinnom - they nevertheless arise after they have received their punishment. And so did they say in Tractate Eruvin (19a) in the chapter [entitled] Osin Passin: Reish Lakish said, “[Regarding] the sinners of the Jewish people, the fire of Geihinnom has no power over them.” And it rebuts: What about that which is written (Psalms 84:7), “Those who pass through the valley of weeping turn it into a water spring” - “valley (<i>emek</i>) of weeping,” [such] that Geihinnom is deepened (<i>ma’amikin</i>) for them; “turn it into a water spring,” [such] that they make tears flow like (water)? That is that they are liable that one time for judgment in Geihinnom, but our father Abraham comes and receives them. To here [is the Gemara]. And this thing is said about someone who is mostly transgressions; as it is shown there that he [nevertheless] has several commandments. As behold, [there] it is said, “[If it is true of the golden altar,] all the more so does the fire of Geihinnom have no power upon the sinners of Israel that have several commandments.” If so, one who has mostly transgressions and a few commandments descends to Gehinnom, but Avraham raises him up. And thus is it [also] shown from the words of the Ran on the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah, see there.
+And that which it says specifically about half and half, and that is the third group, “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and I will purge them as one purges silver” (Zechariah 13:9) - which implies however that the wicked that descend to Geihinnom do not arise from there - that is not difficult. As there, concerning the third group, they only descend there in order to purge them. As half meritorious deeds and half liabilities [together with] some purging helps them. But the completely wicked do not go down to Geihinnom for the sake of purging, that we should say that they quickly and immediately arise. As that is not so. Rather they have time that they are to be in Geihinnom according to the sin. And then Avraham is the one that raises them up, as it said there. And if so, it should not be said that we can merit life in the world to come with one commandment even if [one] has many transgressions. As that is certainly not so.
+<b>But even if you say that the opinion</b> of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit,” [means] that He gave them (several) [many] commandments, such that if he did one of them - even though he has very many sins, since he did one commandment, the fire of Geihinnom does not have power over him; and if He had not given him many commandments, perhaps he would not [even] do one, and the fire of Geihinnom would have power over him: Nevertheless [the difficulty] is not resolved. For what merit is there to Israel? And just the opposite, it is a liability for Israel. As if He had not given them many commandments, it is possible that one would not transgress most of them and he would be included in the completely righteous that do not descend to Geihinnom. So this explanation does not help at all, since the difficulty returns to its place - as that which He gave many commandments to Israel is not a merit at all. For we cannot say that through one commandment, even if he is mostly transgressions, he does not descend to Geihinnom at all. 
+And likewise if the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is [that] when he did one commandment, and that is that he did not do any sin - in this manner, it would certainly be enough for him with one commandment - it would nevertheless still be difficult. The difficulty would not be resolved, as behold his gain would be negated by his loss. For sometimes one would inherit Geihinnom on account of the multiplicity of commandments, as we said - when he is mostly transgressions, as was explained. And if the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that He did not want to bring merit to the wicked: That if one was wicked and he did not want to fulfill the commandments, he would be lost. So it is only speaking about someone who wants to do the commandments; and He multiplied commandments for him, so that he would merit with one of them alone. And this merit is that He multiplied the commandments for him; as sometimes he is not able to perform the commandment, like the sacrifices and the commandments that are dependent upon the Land [of Israel]. And had He not multiplied commandments for him, it is possible that sometimes he would not fulfill any commandment. And that is why He multiplied commandments for him - and even if [Rambam's words] do not lend themselves to this at all. But [even] with this, it is difficult: Who forced him to this explanation, and not to explain it according to its plain sense - that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give merit to the righteous ones, the ones that want to do commandments, that they should fulfill many commandments and they would [then] have much reward because of this, as will be explained later. It was only that it was difficult to him - that it was a liability for ordinary people who are not situated under the yoke of the commandments. And if so, it should not be explained that he is speaking about the one who desires the commandments. Moreover, if one did not do a sin at all, he does not need any commandment whatsoever. For all of Israel intrinsically have a share in the world to come, without any commandment - so long as he is not wicked - simply because he is from the seed of Israel. And if this is so, the [Rambam], may his memory be blessed, came to bring merit to Israel, but ‘took his goodness and placed it on the thorns.’ And perforce one must say this. As a minor [who dies] also certainly has a share in the world to come (Sanhedrin 110b). Hence it is impossible to say that this would be the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed. 
+So it is possible that the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is [nevertheless] that it is a merit for Israel, since he will not be lost from the world to come as a result of the multiplicity of commandments - as it is impossible that one not do one commandment. And we have already said that on account of one commandment, the fire of Geihinnom does not have power over him and he merits the world to come with [that] one commandment. And even though he can now go to Geihinnom on account of this, it is nevertheless their benefit - that he not be lost from the world to come. Even though he descends to Geihinnom; behold this will only be temporary, as it said there (Eruvin 19a) clearly.
+And that which Rabbi Yochanan said (Sanhedrin 110a), it is precisely even if one (did) only one statute [that such a punishment would not apply] - so it is implied that even though he is mostly transgressions; when he did one statute, that is enough. It should not be answered that there it is [only] referring to this with regards to the fire of Geihinnom not having power over him. For if so, Reish Lakish reasons that the fire of Geihinnom does have power over him even if he leaves only one statute. For this is not so. As if so, Reish Lakish would [seem to be contradicting himself]. As behold it was Reish Lakish who said that the fire of Geihinnom does not have power even on the sinners of Israel who are mostly transgressions! All the more shall we not say that if he leaves one statute, that the fire will have power over him. However even without this, it would be difficult. For how could Reish Lakish reason that someone who leaves one statute would be punished in Geihinnom? For behold, he is completely righteous! As note that Beit Hillel holds even a middling person, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness.” Rather, Reish Lakish was only speaking about the verse (Isaiah 5:14), “[the netherworld] has opened its mouth without measure.” And this expression does not imply the [true] punishment of Gehinnom, but rather only that he will receive a slight punishment from Geihinnom. But he did not at all say that he descends to Geihinnom. And it is to this that Rabbi Yochanan responded, “It is not satisfactory to their Master, that you said this about them” - that that which it is stated, “[the netherworld] has opened its mouth,” be said about one who is completely righteous but left over one commandment. Rather this thing is said about one who did not fulfill even one statute. And the verse wanted to say that Geihinnom has complete power over those sinners of Israel. As we do not say that Geihinnom has no power over them, except when they have commandments. But if they have no commandments at all, the fire of Geihinnom certainly has power over them. 
+Thus does it appear to be understood. So the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, are upheld - that which he said that with one commandment, one merits life in the world to come even though he has mostly transgressions. But with the commandment [that he did], the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him and he merits the world to come after the judgment that he receives. Or the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that he merits life in the world to come when he does not do a sin. And it should not be difficult to you - his gain is offset by his loss!?! As it is possible that with the multiplicity of commandments, he will sometimes be judged in Geihinnom. Fir it is nevertheless more of a merit; as he will regardless come to the world to come, even though he will temporarily be punished in Geihinnom. 
+However when you are precise, [it is clear that] the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is not like this. For if so, why did he need to say that one fulfill the commandment with love, such that he not have any other intention with it? For why does he [need] this? As since he did not do a sin, why should he not merit the world to come regardless, with any [way of fulfilling the] commandment that he did; or that the fire of Geihinnom not have power over him because of the one commandment? As, at the end of the day, he did a commandment! Rather it is certainly clear that his opinion is that one merits life in the world to come through one commandment without any punishment at all. Yet this thing is not possible at all! And it may have been possible to say that the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that when one fulfills the commandment with love, such that he not have any other intention - then with this, he acquires a high level of the world to come; even though he also reasons that if he did one commandment commonly in the way of people and he is not mostly transgressions, with this he acquires a share in the world to come. But when he does the commandment completely, as intended, he acquires a great level of the world to come. Yet it does not appear like this from his words. For note that he is coming to explain the mishnah of, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come.” And that mishnah is only speaking about a share in the world to come, not about a high level of the world to come. And therefore it appears that the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, are about every man, even if he is mostly transgressions - nevertheless he merits life in the world to come with one commandment when he does it as intended. But from those proofs that we brought above, this thing does not seem so at all. For one who is mostly transgressions is punished in Geihinnom. 
+<b>And regarding that</b> which he (Commentary on the Mishnah, Rambam on Makkot 3:16) brought a proof from when Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradiyon asked Rabbi Yose ben Kisma (Avodah Zarah 18a), “What will be of me regarding life in the world to come,” [and] he answered him, “Have you ever done anything,” meaning, have you had the opportunity to do one of the commandments properly?” He answered [back] that he once had the opportunity to give charity in a complete fashion, as much as possible; and it was through this that he merited life in the world to come. To here [are his words]: It is a wonder! As what proof is there here? For even if we explain this passage like his words, it is nevertheless an empty proof! As Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradiyon knew that he was not wicked, such that he be counted, God forbid, among the sinners of Israel. As in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 61b), Rabbah said, “A person knows about himself if he is righteous or he is wicked.” And Rabbi Haninah ben Tradiyon only asked, “What will be of me regarding life in the world to come” - meaning, that he be invited to the world to come and his portion in the world to come be great. And it is to this that he answered, “Have you ever done anything, etc.” This means to say, “Since there is certainly not, God forbid, mostly transgressions here, but rather mostly meritorious deeds and you have done one of the commandments completely properly - through this, you merit a high level of life in the world to come, as when one does one commandment completely, as it was intended.” Yet the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, are on the mishnah of, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come” - our mishnah is only speaking about a portion! So either way it is difficult: If it speaking about one with mostly liabilities, the intellect does not at all allow that if he does mostly transgressions, that he acquire a share in the world to come with one commandment, even though he does [the] one commandment as it was intended - as he is wicked. And if he is mostly meritorious deeds, why does he [need] to do a commandment as it was intended? And if it is that through this commandment, he will be half meritorious deeds and half liabilities, even with this, we [hold] like Beit Hillel, that “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness” (Rosh Hashanah 16b). And if so, in what [case] can we situate this? But that [story] of Rabbi Chanina was to acquire a great level in the world to come. For not all portions are the same, as there is a big portion and a small portion. 
+And likewise all the stories that the author of the Ikarrim, may his memory be blessed, brought in Chapter 29 in Section 3: From that launderer in the chapter [entitled] HaNosei (Ketuvot 103b) who was in the neighborhood but was not at the funeral of Rabbi, and he ascended to the roof and fell to the ground and died out of grief that he was not [present] at the death of the sage, and a heavenly voice emerged and said that he was invited to life in the world to come; and likewise in Tractate Avodah Zarah (18a) about that guard that was appointed to kill Rabbi Chaninah, and because he hastened his death [so as to minimize his suffering], a heavenly voice emerged, that he was invited to life in the world to come. All of these things do not have an aspect of proof at all. Since, there the main merit is certainly that they gave themselves to die for this thing. And there is no doubt that afflictions like these atone (Berakhot 5a). And they did not say, “share in the world to come,” there; but rather, “invited to life in the world to come.” And likewise about all of the stories that are mentioned in Tractate Taanit (22a), those about which Eliyahu says that they are invited to life in the world to come - all of these stories are not at all talking about wicked people who have mostly liabilities. So Eliyahu was only saying that these have a share in the world to come - a large share. And it is speaking about that matter there. But there is no proof that a person will merit life in the world to come from one commandment if he is mostly transgressions. 
+<b>The essence of the matter is</b> that the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, have no support. Rather the things are as we have explained: That if one is mostly meritorious deeds, he is not punished in Geihinnom. As since he is mostly meritorious deeds, the Holy One, blessed be He, repays him his punishment in this world, as it is found in Tractate Kiddushin (40b) in the first chapter, and in Tractate Taanit (11a) in the first chapter. But one who is mostly transgressions is judged in Geihinnom on the Judgment Day, as it is found in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b). But regardless, Reish Lakish reasons that the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him if he has a commandment, and Avraham comes and raises him up (Eruvin 19a). And in this manner, it is possible to say that after he is judged in Geihinnom and receives his punishment, that he has a share in the world to come. But there is no need about this that he do the commandment as it was intended, with love. As at the end of the day, he did the commandment. And the rest of the things are clear. 
+And in this fashion, it is possible to explain the mishnah that said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments” - as will be explained: That He multiplied the commandments for the merit of Israel, since it is impossible that one not do one commandment. [So] even though he will descend to Geihinnom, he has a rehabilitation. And this is more of a merit for him than had He not had a multiplicity of commandments, and he would have been completely lost. 
+<b>Yet, in any event,</b> this reasoning about the sinners of Israel - meaning with mostly transgressions - does not appear [correct] at all; that they should merit life in the world to come on account of one commandment, even if they received their punishment in Geihinnom. As if so, in the first chapter of Kiddushin (39b) [about] that which we learn in the mishnah, “Anyone who performs one commandment has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land” - it was rebutted about this mishnah, “But behold, ‘These are the things that a person enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the world to come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, etc.’” These yes, others not! And it answers, “This is what it is saying: Anyone who performs one commandment in addition to his other merits has goodness bestowed upon him, [his life] is lengthened, etc.” And it rebuts [further], “It is implied that [with regard] to these, even for one” - meaning to say, it is implied that [with regard] to these, which are acts of loving kindness, [etc.]; even if he only did one and also even if he is mostly liabilities, he [still] enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the world to come. And since the Talmud wonders [about this] like that, we understand from it that there is no possibility in the world that one would merit the world to come with mostly liabilities. But it is possible to resolve this as well: That over there, this is what it was saying, “It is implied that [with regard] to these, even for one” - its understanding is that even with one, and he did not receive any punishment, he still merits the world to come. For perforce, over there it is speaking about him not receiving any punishment in Geihinnom. For if he received punishment in Geihinnom - even with the other commandments, if he received the punishment in Geihinnom, he merits the world to come! So perforce it is talking about when he did not receive his punishment. And then, he certainly rebutted well. For when he did not receive punishment, there is no logic to say at all that he would merit the world to come. 
+Nevertheless, it is not resolved well. As it is implied in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 90a) that it is not a bit dependent on a commandment at all. Rather, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come” - from the angle that one is an Israelite. So if he is mostly transgressions, and the transgressions are removed from him by the punishment of Geihinnom - if so, what is this that He “wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them [...] commandments?" As behold, a minor merits life in the world to come even though he has not done a commandment at all (Sanhedrin 110b)! If so, it is not dependent on a commandment - so how did it say, “He wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them [...] commandments?” As without the punishment of Geihinnom, one does not merit the world to come if he is mostly liabilities. But through Geihinnom, once he is considered to be cleansed from the sins by Geihinnom, it does not depend upon a commandment at all! But if we force [it] greatly, [we can say] this is its explanation: “The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them [...] commandments.” This means to say that if He had not multiplied commandments, it would be possible that one would not have a single commandment in his hand, and the fire of Geihinnom would have power over him. [But] now that there is a multiplicity of commandments, the fire of Geihinnom will not have power over him. And since the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him, he has a share in the world to come, because all of Israel intrinsically have a share in the world to come. But according to this, it should have said,  “The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to not make Israel liable.” As the commandment only causes that the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him. Even though as a result of it, he merits life in the world to come; this thing is nevertheless not through the commandment. Rather it is because an Israelite intrinsically has a share in the world to come. 
+<b>And [regarding] that</b> which we said that Israel intrinsically merit life in the world to come - for behold a minor has a share in the world to come, as we said - let not our mishnah in the first chapter of Kiddushin (39b), “Anyone who performs one commandment has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land,” be difficult to you. [You might think,] if so, it is implied only if he does a commandment; but not without a commandment. And it certainly would be difficult to you if the understanding of this mishnah was like the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained it (Editor’s note: Maharal must have had a variant text of Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Kiddushin) - that the whole mishnah is speaking about the world to come. As he explained, “has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened,” in the next world; “and he inherits the land,” the land of the living (eternally). For all of Israel merit the world to come intrinsically, not from the  commandments [they do]! However if you have been exacting in the discussion there, it is impossible to explain our mishnah there as speaking only about the world to come. For if so, this baraita would not have been posed as a difficulty at all: It is taught, “Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished, and he appears like one who burned the entire Torah!” But certainly that, “punished,” that it said, is punished in this world (Rashi on Kiddushin 39b). But if our mishnah of, “Anyone who performs one commandment,” is speaking about the world to come - if so, there is no difficulty at all! And likewise that with which it answers it, that this baraita is [according to] Rabbi Yaakov, who holds that there is no reward in this world; what does he answer with this if our mishnah is speaking about the world to come? But Rashi explains the mishnah, “has goodness bestowed upon him - implies this world; and he inherits the land - implies the world to come.” And [according to this,] the discussion is fine. So it is certainly impossible that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained the mishnah to only be about the world to come. Even though he explained that it was about the world to come, he meant to say that it also speaks about the world to come and, all the more so, about this world. So it would come out like its simple meaning. And it is certain that the explanation of the mishnah is this, that it is speaking about this world and the next world. 
+<b>And it mentioned three levels:</b> “Has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land.” And these three things, which are levels of the world to come, are known to the sages and to the understanding. As that which it said, “has goodness bestowed upon him,” is the full goodness; “his life is lengthened,” is life that is completely eternal; “and he inherits the land,” is meaning to say that he will have in the world to come, that which includes everything. And hence it said, “and he inherits the land” - as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:9), “A land [...] in which you will lack nothing.” Such that he will have the complete good, which is mentioned in that which it said, “has goodness bestowed upon him”; and he will have eternal life which is hinted to in that which it said, “his life is lengthened”; and [he will have] the good that encompasses everything that is hinted to in that which it said, “and he inherits the land” - about which it is stated, “A land [...] in which you will lack nothing.” And it is as it is written with Avraham (Genesis 24:1), “and the Lord blessed Avraham with everything”; and with Yitzchak (Genesis 27:33), “and I ate of everything”; and with Yaakov (Genesis 33:11), “I have everything.” And in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (16b), they said about this, “Three were given a taste of the world to come,” as it is found there. Such that from this you learn that the world to come is everything, and there is nothing to add upon these three things - if there is complete good, if there is eternal life and if there is good that encompasses everything. And behold length of days is clinging to the supernal level, from which there is length of days. And the bestowing of good is the clinging to the level of good, as is known. “And he inherits the land,” is the holy Land of Israel that encompasses everything. And just like they hint to the world to come, so too do they hint to the levels of this world. So from this, the whole discussion [in the Gemara] is like its plain sense. 
+<b>And hence he said</b> that one who merits the good of this world, it is impossible that there not be one commandment above his merits (to tip the scales in his favor in this world). However, certainly for the world to come - he merits life in the world to come without a commandment, as it said (Sanhedrin 90a), “All of Israel have a share in the world to come.” And you should know that it is so; for if not, what is the need for one commandment above his merits? As behold we hold in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b) that [regarding] middling people, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness” (Rosh Hashanah 16b). Rather, that [statement] from there is speaking about the world to come alone. Or also (another explanation is), that here it is a different matter: That it concerns his acquiring the virtues that are mentioned here - meaning that he “has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land.” For this matter, he needs that there be one extra commandment. For we have already said that not all shares are the same at all, as we said before this (Paragraph 34). And with this, all of the things have been explained according to their plain sense, without forcing at all. 
+<b>And I have not known</b> what the proof is from the mishnah that said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit.” As its explanation is not that this is why he gave them many commandments; as he could merit [the world to come] with even one. Rather its explanation is like its plain sense: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments.” Even though now it is possible that one will be mostly transgressions on account of the multiplicity of the commandments, what about it? The Holy One, blessed be He, wants to bestow good on the good. And since there is more merit to the good with the multiplication of the commandments - as they will then be complete with 613 commandments - God, may He be blessed, wanted to give merit to the good. And it should not be asked, “Let Him give them less, and [still] have the merit that they have now with the multiplicity of commandments.” It is irrelevant to say this thing, for it is all according to the commandments that a person does. And how could we say that He should give less commandments, and they merit as if they did many commandments? This thing is impossible. For the reward is according to the commandments. So why should we force [such a thing]?  
+The explanation is also not at all like they thought - that God, may He be blessed, wanted to do good to Israel, therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments. And it is because of this that it was difficult for them - since this is not good: As if they do not fulfill the multiplicity of the commandments, they get a punishment. For if the explanation was like they explained, you would find a difficulty in what they said in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (28a), “One who vows not to benefit his fellow is permitted to blow the shofar for him,” and the reason is explained - that commandments are not given for gain. As it is implied from this that the commandments are as a yoke on a person, since they are the decree of the King (Rashi on Rosh Hashanah 38a). And if so, why does it say here that the commandments are for the good of a person and for his gain. And we have already explained this thing (Tiferet Yisrael 5, 6) - that the explanation is not that He did this thing for the good of Israel, such that He wanted to do good to them. For if so, they would have said, ‘Not them and not their reward!’ But God forbid, to say this! Rather the explanation is that God, may He be blessed, wanted to give Israel merit against their will. Because He, may He be blessed, is righteous (Deuteronomy 32:4), He wants that a person be very meritorious and have much merit. That is why He multiplied the Torah and the commandments. Hence it is impossible to say, ‘Not them and not their reward!’ As God, may He be blessed, wants that they merit against their will. So it did not say, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to do good to Israel, therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments.” For this would have implied that He would have done this for the sake of the good of Israel. And if they did not want [it], they could have said, ‘Not them and not their reward!’ But the matter is not like this. Rather it said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit” - meaning to say that they be meritorious with their deeds. For, He, may He be blessed, is righteous and desires the meritorious and the righteous. 
+<b>And perhaps you will find it difficult:</b> That, if so, the commandments nevertheless [come] as a decree from God, may He be blessed, upon man. [Then] why is it not said that the commandments are a decree, like [that of] a king that makes decrees upon his people? And who forces us to say that they are to give Israel merit? So we should have said that the commandments are decrees. And from where do we [know] that the commandments are to give Israel merit? [But] this is not difficult. As behold, it is written (Isaiah 42:21), “The Lord desired, for the sake of His righteousness” - which means to say, because He is righteous, He wants that His children, Israel, also be righteous. ‘For the Lord is righteous; He loves righteous deeds.’ And that is why “He multiplied for them Torah and commandments” - to give them merit and to make them righteous. And that which it said, “Torah and commandments,” is because it is written, “to make the Torah great and glorious.” Corresponding to His multiplying the Torah for them, it said, “to make the Torah great”; and corresponding to the multiplicity of the commandments, it said, “and glorious.”
+<b>Blessed is the Merciful One who has helped us from the beginning until now.</b>
+And its completion shall be on the first working day - may He command peace and blessing to be with us - of Parashat [Reeh], “for the Lord, your God, will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands; and you shall be <b>only joyful</b>” (Deuteronomy 16:15): The shortened [numerical] value (of which is 5357, the year this book was completed). Amen, may it be His will!
+<b>The book, Derekh Chayim, is complete and finished.</b>
\ No newline at end of file