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.'"

Ben Zoma: 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.

Who is the wise one, etc.: 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 (mi, which can also mean, more than) all my teachers'" - why did he explain it thus? As it appears that the explanation of, "mi all my teachers," is: More than all my teachers, those that taught me, I have acquired understanding. It is like, "They are desirable mi gold and mi 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?

The explanation of this statement 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.

And you should also know 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.

And he brought a proof 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.

And he also said, "Who is the mighty one, etc.": 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.

And he brought a proof - "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.

Also, it is not appropriate 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.

And he said, "Who is the rich one?": 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 (kiyum). And preservation is said about wealth; as it is referred to, with the expression, yakum - like it is written (Deuteronomy 11:6), "and all the yakum (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 (ashreikha)"; from [the same usage] as, "his ashur (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.

He also brought a proof, 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.

And that you not say 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."

In the first chapter of Berakhot (8a), they said: 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.

And he said, "Who is honored? He who honors the creatures": 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.

Then you should note 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.

And Ben Zoma mentioned 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, hay (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, hay; 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.

And also in the same way 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.

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."

Ben Azzai says, etc.: 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].

Nevertheless 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.

And one should be precise 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.

And the explanation of this thing 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.

And the explanation of this thing 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 (gematria) 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.

And he also said that "the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment, and the reward for a sin is [another] sin": 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.

And you should know 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 tashlumin (the root of which is shalem, 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 (hashlamah) 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 (sakhar), [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.

And also (another explanation) 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 (gereirah, 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.

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."

He would say, etc.: [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.

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."

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Yavneh, says, etc.: 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).

And it can be asked about this: 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."

The explanation of this statement: 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, adam - based on the word, adamah (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, adam, based on the word, adamah. [So] if he is not humble of spirit, he will be proud about something that is not appropriate for him.

And it can also be said 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.

And he said, "for the hope of mankind is worms": 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.

And that which he said, "Be very, very humble in spirit": 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].

But he did not say, "the hope of man (adam) is worms." And that is because, he is called, adam, based on the word, adamah (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 (ish) is worms" - as the word, ish, 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, ish, 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 (enosh), it is from the angle that man's strength is embedded in the physical.

So behold that there are three words for man: Man (adam); a man (ish); and mankind (enosh). The word, ish, is said about strength by itself; the word, adam, is said about earth by itself; and the word, enosh 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, enosh is like the number of adam ish (Editor's note: It is actually off by one, see Hebrew note 309 by R. Y. Hartman.) For he is called, adam because of the earth and ish because of the strength; whereas enosh appears about the connection of the strength and the earth together. And that is why the number of enosh is like the number of adam ish. Hence he said, "the hope of mankind enosh is worms."

"Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven, etc.": 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.

And we have already explained to you 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?'

And it could be asked 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.

We have already said 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.

And the explanation 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.

And the reason for this 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.

However, the language, "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 (makkifin) with regard to the desecration of God’s name.'" Meaning that we are not makkifin 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 makkifin the sin of the desecration of [God's] name to other sins. And the expression, makkifin, that it [used] is like, "We are not makkifin cysts" (Chullin 46b) - meaning we do not bring them close to one another; and like, "We are not makkifin 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.

And you should know 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

And he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name": 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).

And according to the law 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.

The general rule about this 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 (rav) transgression" - that is the great (rav) sin, desecration of [God's] name. And he said, "rav transgression," [to mean], what the one who is called a rabbi [or great one] (rav) 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 (rav) [for you]"' (II Samuel 24:16). Rabbi Elazar said, 'The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel, "Take a great one (rav) 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, rav, 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 (rav) transgression" - that is the desecration of [God's] name, which is the sin of the one who is called a rabbi [or great one] (rav), which is a great (rav) 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 (lariv)" - [but] it is written, "for a rabbi (lerav)." 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 (kiddushin, 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, kiddushin, because it is holy (kadosh) (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 (lariv)" (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 (Lo tissa) 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 lo tissa 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, "Lo tissa the name of the Lord, your God in vain," than this. And behold, God, may He be blessed, is called, Rav, as it is written (Psalms 25:11), "forgive my iniquity for it is great (rav)." 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, Rav, 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, "lo tissa. 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, "Lo tissa the name of the Lord, your God in vain"

But now, with our great sins in this generation - it is not enough for us that those who are called by the name, Rabbi (Rav), 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!

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."

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.

One who studies Torah in order to teach, etc.: 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?

It has already been explained to you 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.

However there is another reason: 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."

And he said 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.

But he is not given the opportunity to practice. 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."

And certainly it is also 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.

And that which he said, "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.

It has been explained to you 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.

Do not make [the Torah] into a crown: 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].

And that which it said, "And so would Hillel say, etc.": 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 (chalaf)" - 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 (chechlif)," 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.

And in Tosafot in the chapter [entitled] Hayah Koreh (Berakhot 17a), 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 (haneot)] from words of Torah removes his life from the world." And that is certainly the correct version. As "Anyone who (derives benefit) [benefits (haneot)] from words of Torah removes his life from the world," is like, "and we do not benefit (neotin) 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.

And you should know that 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.

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."

Anyone who honors the Torah, etc.: 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."

And the explanation of this matter: 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.

And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, 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].

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."

Rabbi Yishmael bar R. Yose says, etc.: 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 (ger, 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 (gerim) 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.

And he said, "One who withholds himself from judging": 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].

However there is no difficulty [here] 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.

And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, 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.

And he said, "One who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions is an imbecile, wicked, and arrogant in spirit": 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.

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."

Do not judge alone, etc.: 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.

And you should also know that it is because a judge is called, powers (elohim, which is also used to mean, God); and it is written (Deuteronomy 1:17), "and justice is to God (Elohim)." 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 elohim 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.

And when you understand more, 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 elohim; and this name comes upon one who acts [upon another]. Hence the name, Elohim, 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.

Accept my opinion, etc.: 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.

But it is also possible to explain 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].

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."

Anyone who implements the Torah, etc.: 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.

And that which he said, "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.

And you should also know 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 (bitul, 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.

And that which he did not say, "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.

And he did not say, "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.

However several times, 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 (yeasku) with other things and forget words of the Torah - as it is written (Ecclesiastes 7:7), 'For cheating (oshek) 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 (yesh)." 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 (yesh) 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] yesh (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."

And we can be precise 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] mem [which denotes] from poverty; and the [letter] mem [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.

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."

Minimize business and occupy yourself with Torah, etc.: 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."

And it can be explained 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.

And he placed, "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.

And he said, "If you neglected the Torah, you have many neglecters against you": 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.

And in the first chapter of Berakhot (5a): "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 (mevatelim)," which would imply, many things that make you neglect the Torah. But that which he said, "you have many neglecters (betelim)," is that a man has many negations (bitulim), 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).

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."

One who does a single commandment, etc.: 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.

But if you say 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."

And that which a commandment is a defender 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.

And with a commandment, he said, "defender (praklit)," and he did not say that he acquires an advocate (sanigor), like he said with a sin that he acquires a prosecutor (katigor). [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.

And he said [that] 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], samech (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 (kal ve'chomer) [from this] that Torah [study also] is like a shield against punishment.

And some ask about 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.

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."

Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven: 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.

But it appears that that which he said, "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.

And that which he said, "Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven endures": 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.

And you should know that, 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.

And this statement was made adjacent to here - 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 (kenissiyah), and not congregation (kehillah) or collection (assifah - because [God's] name is sealed in its end (Yah). For God is with the assembly. And this is a clear explanation.

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."

Let the honor of your student be beloved: 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!

But you should know 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.

And you should also know 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."

And he said, "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.

And there are some books 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."

However [regarding] that which they said, "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.

Rabbi Yehuda says, "Be careful in study, for an error in study is considered an intentional transgression."

Be careful in study, etc.: 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.

And it may be asked, [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."

And it is possible to say that 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."

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."

Rabbi Shimon says, "There are three crowns, etc.": 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.

Moreover, it is inappropriate 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.

And that which he did not say, "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."

But the main explanation [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.

But that which we explained above (Paragraph 12) is also correct: 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.

And it may be asked, “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.

However the monarchy 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 mamzer (a man born from a forbidden union) Torah scholar precedes an ignoramus high priest." And it means to say that the stature of a mamzer 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 mamzer Torah scholar precedes an ignoramus high priest."

And you should understand great things: 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 (alav)," implies that it is separated from it; but the word, "for it (lo)" 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.

And you can say that 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.

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."

Rabbi Nehorai says, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah, etc.": 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."

And it appears that he is coming to say 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.

And he said, "that your colleagues will preserve it in your hand." 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.

And he said, "and do not rely on your understanding": 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.

And also it is because 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.

And in the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Chavit (Shabbat 147b): 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), "HaChodesh hazeh lakhem (This month shall be for you)." [Instead] he read, "HaCheresh haya libbam (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 (manhir) 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].

But Rashi in Tractate Shabbat (147b) explained that, "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].

And behold the explanation 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.

And we can say that it is because of this 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.

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."

It (the ability) is not in our hands, etc., 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.

And it may be asked: 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 (chinam)." As it is stated, "and I will be gracious (chanoti) to whom I will be gracious (achon)," 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].

Nevertheless, that which he said, "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.

And it also appears 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.

And "it is not in our hands," 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.

And it is because it said above (Avot 4:14), "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].

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."

Be the first to greet, etc.:" 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.

And afterwards he said - 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.

And it may be said that 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].

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."

This world is like a hallway, etc.: 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."

The explanation of this thing is deep. 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?

Hence it is simple and clear 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.

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."

One hour of repentance is better, etc.: 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.

And you should also know 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."

And the explanation 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.

But behold, 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.

And [the following is the reason] 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, 'vayehi (and it was) in the days of,' it is always an expression of distress." But why is there distress in that which is written, "vayehi in the days of?" And in the Midrash Rabbah (Bereishit Rabbah 42:3), they said, "Every place that it is stated, 'vayehi,' it is always an expression of distress; 'vehaya (and it shall be),' it is an expression of joy." But the explanation of this is that when you remove the [letter], vav of the conversive, it is [just] yehi, which is an expression of the future. So there is no relaxed existence [here], and this thing is a matter of distress. But with vehaya, when you remove the [letter], vav of the conversive, it is [just] haya (was), which is relaxed existence, and that is joy. And also (another explanation), it is because vayehi itself, with a conversive vav, is existence without relaxation. For yehi is an expression of the future, and there is no beginning to [this] existence at all [yet]. But vayehi is speaking about existence that has started but has not [yet ceased]. As this is the explanation of vayehi 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 vehaya - even though the vav in the expression of vehaya 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, vayehi. Just the opposite - it is as if he said that, in the future, there will be an existence that will be relaxed. For behold, haya is relaxed existence; and the vav transforms it from the past to the future, such that there will be relaxed existence in the end (later). Hence specifically vehaya is joy, but haya alone implies existence that has [already] passed. And there is no joy in that which has passed. And likewise specifically vayehi is distress, since it indicates existence without relaxation. But not the expression, yehi, 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, vayehi, and the expression, vehaya - to say that vayehi appears about relaxed existence, and that is why it is joy; and vehaya appears about existence that is not relaxed, and that is why it is distress. But when it says, "vayehi 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, "vayehi 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.

And it is possible 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.

And it can also be said 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).

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."

Do not assuage the anger of your friend at the time of his anger, etc.: 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].

And he also said, "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.

And do not seek to see him at the time of his humiliation - 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.

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).

Shmuel the Little says, etc.: 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.

But behold, 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).

And it can [also] be explained that, 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."

And if you want to order 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 (yasis), to destroy you.' And it is not written, 'so He will rejoice (yasus),' 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.

And it also appears (a different approach is) 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].

But it may be asked, "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.

And it appears 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.

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."

Elisha ben Abuyah [says], "One who learns as a child, etc.": 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.

And you may say, "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.

And that which they said 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.

And it is possible that 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.

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."

One who learns from (elders) [young ones], etc.: 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 (yayin) has a numerical value (gematria) of secret (sod, Eruvin 65a). And that is a hint to the secrets of the Torah. So this thing is clear.

And that which he said, 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.

But you should also know that, 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.

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."

Do not look, etc.: 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)!

So it appears 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.

And it is not that he is coming to argue 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.

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says, "Envy, lust and honor remove a person from the world."

Envy, lust and honor, etc.: 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?

You should know 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 (ruach), the spirit (nefesh) and the soul (neshamah). 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.

And in order 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.

And this is what they are arguing in the chapter [entitled] Ben Sorer OuMoreh (Sanhedrin 70a): "Rabbi Meir says, 'The tree from which the first man ate was a grapevine, as nothing brings wailing to the world like wine.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'It was wheat, as an infant does not know to call his father or mother until he tastes the taste of grain.' Rabbi Nechemiah says, 'It was a fig tree; with the thing with which they sinned, they were rehabilitated.'" Behold, they are arguing which thing is the main thing that brought death to Adam.

As according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the main thing is the faculty of the spirit, 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 kiddush 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 (tamim), 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 (tamim) 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.

And in Bereishit Rabbah (15:7), it brings these three opinions, but it also adds, "Rabbi Abba from Akko says, 'It was an etrog (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 etrog. For an etrog is called etrog, from the [Aramaic term for] desire, which is the expression, regig, 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 etrog. 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 etrog: As it is certainly good for food. And it is tempting to the eyes; for behold it is a lovely fruit (pri hadar). 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.

And in order 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 (kof, yod, nun), from the expression, kinah (kof, nun, alef); since yod interchanges with alef. For they are from the interchangeable letters, alef, hey, vav, yod. But Hevel corresponds to lust. As that is why he is called, hevel (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, adam, [based on] the word, earth (adamah, 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 (shat) 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 (acher, 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.

However that which he said, "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.

And you should know 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.

And it is because it [just] said (Avot 4:20), "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.

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."

He would say, "Those who are born, etc.": 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?

Know that 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.

And that which he said - "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."

And he said, "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.

But, "and the living are to be judged," 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.

However that which they said (Eruvin 2:11), "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.

And you will understand this thing (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.

In any case, 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.

And all of this 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.

And therefore it is for you, "to know, to inform, and to become aware": 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.

And it is also because 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.

And it is [also] possible to say 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.

And he said, "that He is God (El)," meaning to say that He is first. And that is why it is written (Isaiah 43:10), "Before Me, no god (el) was formed." So this name indicates that He is first. For the first letter is alef, which is the beginning of the alphabet; and the second letter is a lamed, 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 alef and the lamed come one instead of the other (interchange) in a-l-b-m (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, El 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.

And just like He, may He be blessed, is the beginning, so too does He finish everything to the end. That is why he said, "He is the Designer (Yotzer)" - meaning to say, that He makes a form (tzar tzurah) into the physical. And it is from the expression, tzurah, 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.

And He is the Witness: 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.

And he said, "Blessed be He, etc.: 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.

And that which he said, "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.

And the Rambam, 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.

But there is a question about [the Rambam's] words: 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.

But that which he said, "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, shochad - as he is one (she hu chad), 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.

And [the following is] that which they said in Midrash Tehillim (Midrash Shocher Tov 17:2): "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.

And he said, "And do not let your [evil] impulse assure you that the netherworld is a place of refuge for you, etc.": 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.

The chapter [entitled] Ben Zoma has been finished with the help of the Heavens.