The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah. Blessed be He who chose them and their teaching.

The Sages taught: This chapter is not [made up] of mishnahs, for there are only five chapters of mishnahs: The chapter [entitled], Moshe Kibbel (Avot 1); the chapter [entitled], Rabbi Omer (Avot 2); the chapter [entitled], Akavia ben Mehalalel (Avot 3); the chapter [entitled], Ben Zoma (Avot 4); and the chapter [entitled], BeAsarah (Avot 5). And you should know that the teacher put down these five chapters corresponding to the five [books] of the Torah. For just as the Torah has five [books], so too are there five chapters of derekh erets (proper conduct, literally, the way of the world) - which are words of ethical teaching. For, 'if there is no Torah, there is no derekh erets; and if there is no derekh erets, there is no Torah. And therefore they depend upon one another; and it is appropriate that two things that depend upon one another be considered like one another. And he hence put down five chapters of derekh erets as well; just as there are five [books] of the Torah. And just like the Torah began with the order of descendance from Genesis and ordered the story of the generations, one after the other; this correspondingly began (Avot 1:1), "Moshe received the Torah," and the continuation of the chapter tells the continuation of the transmission of the words of ethical teaching until the end of the chapter - and there are therefore five chapters. And the words of all of the five chapters only relate to ethical teachings. So, even if in a few places, they spoke with regard to Torah [study], is it not that this thing is not at all that which is central [in these teachings], but rather just dragged along (tangentially)?

And therefore in this baraita, it comes to elucidate the stature of the Torah, in order to completely connect the Torah with derekh erets. So all of this baraita - it is all speaking about the Torah, and it is in order to make known that the stature of the Torah is above derekh erets. However since the main teaching (in Avot) is about ethical teaching, which is derekh erets, so it only taught five chapters of ethical teaching; and [only] taught the stature of Torah [study] in the baraita - which is an addition - and only added it as an addition.

And that which it said, "The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah," is because this baraita was taught completely in the language of the Mishnah. For the way of the Baraita is to elaborate, and not to teach quickly like the Mishnah. Moreover, the way of the Baraita is to cite teachings from the verses. And that is the nature of the Baraita, to learn from Scripture, and not to teach things [independently of it], like the Mishnah. And because this baraita was taught to add to the Mishnah, it said, "The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah" - such that this be an addition to the Mishnah.

And because it said, "The Sages taught [in the language of the Mishnah]," and all of the chapters are words of piety - for, "One that wants to be pious, let him occupy himself with the words of Avot (Bava Kamma 30a) - and one trait of piety is to love the Sages and to mention them for praise; for that reason, it said, "Blessed be He who chose them." And its explanation is, "Blessed be" God, may He be blessed, "who chose" the Sages - for behold, he said (Deuteronomy 17:11), "you shall not veer [...] right or left" - and who chose "their teaching." As behold, they said in Tractate Eruvin (21b), "The words of the scribes are more beloved than the words of the Torah." So here He chose their teachings. And it should not be understood - "blessed" be the person who chose them, and chose their teaching." For, if so, it should have said, "Blessed be the one who chose." Moreover, leave alone, "who chose their teaching"; but how is, the choice here of, "chose them," applicable? And also, it [otherwise] needs to be, "who studies their teaching."

Rabbi Meir says, "Anyone who involves himself in Torah for its sake merits many things. Moreover the entire world is worthwhile for his sake; He is called 'companion,' 'beloved,' 'lover of the Omnipresent,' 'lover of [all] creatures'; rejoices the Omnipresent and rejoices [all] creatures. He is clothed in humility and fear; it prepares him to be righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy; and it distances him from sin and draws him near to merit. We enjoy from him counsel and comprehension, understanding and strength, as it is said (Proverbs 8:14), 'Mine is counsel and mine is comprehension, I am understanding, mine is strength.' It gives him kingship and dominion, and [the ability to] investigate in judgement, and the secrets of the Torah are revealed to him, and he becomes like an ever-strengthening spring, and like a river that does not stop. He is modest and long-tempered, and forgives his insult; And it enlarges him and raises him above all [that God] made."

"Anyone who involves himself in Torah for its sake, etc.": And that which it said specifically, "for its sake" - it is because when he studied for its sake, he has the stature of the Torah, since he is studying for its sake. But when he is studying not for its sake, he does not have the stature of the Torah at all. Since his study is surely not for its sake - but rather to acquire honor or that which is similar to it - he does not have the stature of the Torah according to that which is appropriate. And all of the virtues that are mentioned here are all from stature of the Torah itself. And hence if his study of the Torah is for its sake, a person will have the stature that is appropriate for the Torah itself. But if his study was not for its own sake, he does not have the stature that is appropriate for the Torah itself. For behold his study is not for its sake.

And he said that he "merits many things.": And it should not be understood that he meant to say those things that he continues to recount - for behold, afterwards he said, "Moreover" - and that is a separate matter. But rather the explanation of that which he said, "merits many things," is that many good things are appropriate for him. Whether it is length of days or whether it is wealth and honor and all of the good things - it is all appropriate for him. And after he said that he "merits many things" - which are all of the good things - he said, "Moreover," that he should acquire the highest stature by way of the Torah. And that is all of the virtues that he mentioned afterwards. For they are particularly appropriate for one who is occupied with Torah.

And he said, "the entire world is worthwhile for his sake": The explanation is that the entire world is appropriate for the one who occupies himself with Torah for its own sake. And that is because the Torah is above the natural world - and we have explained this many times, how the Torah is above the world, and see above (Derekh Chayim 5:22), regarding, "search in it, since everything is in it." And the Torah hinted to this: For the beginning of the creation of the world is with a [letter], bet, whereas the beginning of the Torah is with an alef - as it is stated (Exodus 20:2), "Anokhi (I) am the Lord, your God - to make known that the Torah is first. And David hinted to this in the Psalm, "The Heavens recount the glory of God," (Psalms 19). For this Psalm has seven verses - "For the choirmaster, a psalm of David; The Heavens recount the glory of God" (Psalms 19:1-2), and they [continue] for seven verses, until, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect" (Psalms 19:8); with, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect," as the eighth. And it is known that this world is contained by seven - which are the seven days of creation - but the Torah is above the world. And so he ordered the verse, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect" - which is speaking about the Torah - in the eighth verse. And that is the reason that there are eight verses (for each letter) in the eightfold Psalm (Psalms 119). Because the whole Psalm is based on the Torah, which is above this world that is contained by the number, seven - which are the seven days of creation; whereas the Torah is above the world. And that is why eight is an appropriate number for it. And these things have been explained in the book, Tiferet (Yisrael 2), and in other places.

And in the Yerushalmi Peah 1:1: Rabbi Berakhiah and Rabbi Chiyah of Kefar Techumi - One said, "Even the entire world cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah." And the other one said, "Even all of the commandments of the Torah cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah." Rabbi [Ab]Ba said in the name of of Rav Acha, "It is written [about the Torah] (Proverbs 8:11), 'and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.' But [elsewhere] it is written (Proverbs 3:15), 'and all of your desires are not to be compared to her.' 'Your desires,' that is precious stones and pearls; 'and all of your desires,' these are words of the Torah, as it is stated (Jeremiah 9:23), 'for it is for these that I desired.''' To here [is the Yerushalmi]. And you see from this that the Torah is separated from this world. For the Torah is spiritual, whereas the entire world is material. And therefore the entire world cannot be compared to a single word from the Torah. As even though the world has wisdom, it does not have supernal wisdom - which is complete intellect - but rather just what is called, human intellect. But the Torah is supernal wisdom, complete wisdom. And therefore the entire world cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah.

And according to the one that says even the commandments [cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah] - it is because the commandments are [performed] by the actions of material man. And therefore all of the commandments of the Torah - which are the actions of material man - cannot be compared to a single word of the Torah. For even though all of the commandments of the Torah have wisdom in them, nevertheless the commandment is [performed] by a material act; whereas the Torah is only wisdom - and this will be explained further. Hence he said here that the entire world is worthwhile for his sake - meaning to say, that this world is worthwhile, such that there be someone who involves himself in Torah for its sake. For the entire world is under him.

"He is called companion, etc.": The explanation is that he is a companion of the Holy One, blessed be He, and he is also a companion of the creatures. And the word, companion, applies to two [entities] that have commonality and connection. For when one says that Reuven is Shimon's companion - automatically, Shimon is also Reuven's companion. For this word appears about two companions together. And regardless, the expression, companion, is only about two that have commonality and connection together. And to some extent, love can be more - as one's soul is connected with the one loved. And you should know [this], since it is written (Leviticus 19:18), "and you shall love your companion like yourself." If so, the expression, love, is greater than the expression, companion. For love is a complete connection of the soul with the one that is loved, to the point that he is considered like him. Nevertheless, the expression, companions, is said about two things that have a connection together - this one to that one, and that one to this one. Whereas it is possible that Reuven loves Shimon, but Shimon does not love Reuven - unless it is said that Reuven is Shimon's beloved friend (ohavo). For this expression is certainly used when Reuven is Shimon's beloved friend, and Shimon is also Reuven's beloved friend; and not when Reuven loves Shimon, but Shimon does not love Reuven. But even when Reuven loves Shimon and Shimon loves Reuven, they are nevertheless not called, companions. As the expression, companion, is only because they have commonality and companionship together. And hence he said that someone who involves himself in Torah for its sake is called, a companion to the Omnipresent and to the earthly ones. And from this angle, he is a companion to God, may He be blessed, and to the earthly ones.

And he said, "beloved, lover of the Omnipresent, lover of [all] creatures, etc.": It has already been explained that love is a connection of the soul with the one loved and complete unification. So one who studies Torah for its sake - behold he has a connection and clinging with God, may He be blessed, and God, may He be blessed, with him. And likewise does he have a connection with all that exist. And this thing is clear - how all that exist have a connection with the Torah, and the Torah with God, may He be blessed. For the Torah is the order of those that exist, which God, may He be blessed, arranged. And this is that which they said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:1) - that the Holy One, blessed be He, looked into the Torah and created the world. And because of this, all that exist have a connection to the Torah, with which (whom) everything was created. And the Torah is the order that was arranged and obligated by God, may He be blessed. And hence when he occupies himself with Torah for its sake - since he is occupied with Torah for its sake and the Torah has a connection with God, may He be blessed - because of this, he is called a companion of the Omnipresent. And likewise is he called a companion to the creatures, from this angle. And this has already been explained above in the chapter [entitled] BeAsarah.

And in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 99b): Anyone who occupies himself with Torah for its sake introduces peace between the entourage above and the entourage below, as it is stated (Isaiah 27:5), "Or let him take hold of My stronghold, that he may make peace with Me; and he shall make peace with Me." Rav says, "It is as though he built a palace from above and a palace from below, as it is stated (Isaiah 51:16), 'to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth.'" Rabbi Yochanan says, "He also protects the world, as it is stated, 'and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand.'" And Reish Lakish says, "He also advances the redemption, as it is stated, 'and say to Zion, you are My people.'" To here [is the Gemara].

And these Sages all came to explain the value of Torah [study] for its sake. And [the first opinion] said that if there were no Torah [study] for its sake, the higher ones and the lower ones would have been divided. For there is no doubt that the higher ones are divided from the lower ones, in that these are higher ones and those are lower ones. But from the angle that all that exist, the higher ones and the lower ones, connect to Torah - in that Torah is from the higher ones for the lower ones - therefore, the Torah introduces peace between the entourage above and the entourage below. This, to the point that all that exist combine and connect together. Hence one who studies Torah for its sake introduces peace between the entourage above and the entourage below. And this is the companion about whom they said that he is called a companion of the higher ones and of the lower ones, and is called a companion of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And Rav reasons that it is as though he built a palace from above and a palace from below. And that is because when there is a split between the higher ones and the lower ones, there would not be a complete world - since the world cannot exist in fractions. And hence if the world is one, it will be 'said to the soldering, "Good"'; and to the connection, "Unify" - so the One supports the one, from the angle that the world is one. But if this world is not one connected [entity], it will not be preserved. And because of this, when one occupies himself with Torah for its sake, he will connect the retinue above and the retinue below - behold, this thing is considered as if he built the palace from above and the palace from below. Moreover, it is because the Torah is the foundation of the higher ones and the lower ones. For since the higher ones and the lower ones have a connection to the Torah, this thing itself is the foundation of the higher ones and the lower ones - since there is no preservation of the world without it being through the Torah. And hence he said, it is as if he built a palace above and below.

And Rabbi Yochanan, who said that he protects the world, means to say that through the Torah, the world clings to Him, may He be blessed. And because of that, the world lounges in the shadow of the Holy One, blessed be He - as [indicated by] the verse that he cites (Isaiah 51:16), "and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand." And this thing is clear - for through the Torah, the world clings to God, may He be blessed; and because the world clings to Him, may He be blessed - because of that, He protects the whole world.

Resh Lakish says, "He also advances the redemption": And this thing is like that which they said in this [chapter] (Avot 6:2), "For there is no free man except one who occupies himself with Torah, as it is stated (Exodus 32:16), 'graven upon the tablets' - do not read 'graven (charut),' but rather 'freedom (charut).'" And how would this not be [the case]? For the power of the nations is only in this world alone - as the reign of the empires is in this world, and the level and the stature of the Torah is [also] in the world. Hence one who occupies himself with Torah is a man free from the subjugation of the empires, as will be explained later (Derekh Chayim 6:2). For the reign of the nations does not reach to there. As they only have specifically this world. And that which he said here, "He also advances the redemption," to exit from [the domination of] the empires - is because the redemption is only when it is appropriate for Israel to exit from the nations. And one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake acquires a separated spiritual level. And because of that, Israel will exit from the physical nations. Hence he said that he advances the redemption.

And understand that each of [these] Sages adds value. And hence each one said the expression, "even." And that which Reish Lakish said - that it advances the redemption - is more than all [of them]. For the first only said that the Torah is the connection of the whole world; and Rav added that the Torah is the foundation of the whole world. Hence he said, "as though he built a palace from above and a palace from below." And Rabbi Yochanan added that on account of the Torah, the world is underneath the Holy One, blessed be He; and this thing is more of a value and a connection to God, may He be blessed. And Reish Lakish added that he advances the redemption, since he removes Israel from the domain of the nations, [so as] to cling to Him, may He be blessed. And this is the highest value, such that the one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake ascends higher and higher. And understand this well. And this explanation is choice to the one who understands the words of the Sages.

So behold it has been clarified that one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake connects the higher ones and the lower ones. And that is what it said here - that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved.' And it said undifferentiated that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved; and it did not say, "He is called 'companion' and 'beloved,' to the Omnipresent, because it wanted to say that he is a companion to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. And hence it said undifferentiatedly that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved'; and through that which it said undifferentiatedly that he is called 'companion' and 'beloved' - included in it is [that it is] to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. But regarding a lover, it is not appropriate to say, "He is called a 'lover,'" as others call him the name; such as when others love him and called him, 'beloved,' or he is called a 'companion' among them - included in this is, to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. But with 'lover' - others do not call him, 'lover.' And hence, 'lover of the Omnipresent' and 'lover of [all]' cannot be included in this; so it was necessary to say explicitly, "'Lover of the Omnipresent,' 'lover of [all].'" And the distinction that there is between a companion and a beloved has already been explained (Paragraph 12), since both of them are connected to one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake. For the connection and the relationship of the Torah is to God, may He be blessed, and all that exists has a relationship and an interaction with the Torah. And therefore one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake is called a companion to the Omnipresent and to the creatures. And from the angle of the love that the one who is occupying himself with Torah has, "He is called, 'beloved,' 'lover of the Omnipresent.'"

And he said that he, "rejoices the Omnipresent and rejoices [all] creatures": And the explanation of this thing is that joy comes from the angle of completeness, and we have explained this thing in several places. And just like one is a mourner when he has a loss and a lacking; it is such that when one has completeness, joy is found [with him]. And so a person is joyful when completeness comes to him. And that is what it said - that he "rejoices the Omnipresent," since the Torah is the completeness of man, and the completeness of everything is through the Torah. And when what exists is in [a state of] completeness, it is said [that] 'the Lord rejoices in His creatures' - for they are complete. And hence one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake rejoices the Omnipresent. As there is no characteristic greater than this for the completeness of what exists than [that which comes] through the Torah. And therefore he rejoices the Omnipresent. And through this very thing does he rejoice the creatures from the completeness that he has. And do not let it be difficult for you - what is his connection to the creatures, that he should rejoice the creatures? For this thing is not difficult, since we already said that the Torah is the completeness of the whole world. Hence it is appropriate that one who occupies himself with Torah rejoice the creatures.

And he said, "He is clothed in humility": We have explained this things in several places above - that humility is a separated trait and value. And coarse-spiritedness - which is a trait that is appropriate for someone who is physical - is the opposite of this. And like it's name, so is it. For coarseness is connected to the physical, which is coarse. And we have explained this above (Derekh Chayim 4:10) - that our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, who was a man of God (Deuteronomy 12:3), to the point that he was completely removed from the physical and had the trait of modesty, "more than any man that is upon the face of the earth" (Numbers 12:3). Such that you can see from this that humility is a trait that is removed from the physical. And Moshe only merited the Torah because of modesty. And it is as they said in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Akiva (Shabbat 89a), "Since you have reduced yourself, [the Torah] will be called by your name." [So] it is shown that Moshe merited the Torah because of humility. And so does the Torah itself lead to humility, for they are two things that depend upon one another - the Torah upon humility, and humility upon the Torah. And in the section on humility (in Netivot Olam), this thing is explained at length - how one with humility is more removed from the physical than [with] any of the characteristics. And this thing is also explained earlier.

And he said, "And fear": He meant to say, fear of the Heavens. This thing is explained earlier (Derekh Chayim 3:17) concerning, "If there is no wisdom, there is no fear; if there is no fear, there is no wisdom"; and likewise (Derkeh Chayim 2:5) concerning, "A boor cannot fear sin. An ignorant person cannot be pious." For fear [of God] and wisdom are two things that depend upon one another. So with wisdom, there is fear; and with fear, there is wisdom. But we should not repeat things, for they are explained in their place.

And he said, "He is clothed in humility and fear": Because these traits are important and splendorous, they give a person the garment of splendor. For so are all of the important traits, splendor for the one with the trait. It is as they said (Avot 2:1), "Which is the straight path [...]? Whichever is splendor for the person adopting it." And that is the reason he said, "He is clothed." Moreover, being clothed is relevant to these two traits because of the greatness of stature of the traits - meaning humility and fear - to the point that they are supernal values, as is known about the concept of humility and fear. As a garment is on a person outside. For specifically these two traits are Godly traits to the point that they are not human - as is known to those who understand their stature - so that being "clothed" is applicable. And it is as Scripture said (Proverbs 22:4), "The effect of humility is fear of the Lord." And as it made wisdom, a crown to its head - as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "The head of wisdom is the fear of the Lord" - it made humility the heel of its sole, as it is written, "The effect (Ekev, which can also mean, heel) of humility is fear of the Lord." Note that these two traits are supernal. And because of their stature, he said, "He is clothed" - since a garment is on a person.

But about [being], righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy, he said, "and it prepares him to be righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy." Behold there are four descriptions here, such that one is not like the other. And the explanation is that man is called by these four traits: He is righteous when he does something that is appropriate to do - for 'the righteous (tsadik) of the Lord loved charitable acts (tsedakot).' And it is known that is appropriate to give charity to a poor person, for he is in [a state of] nakedness and total lack - so how could one not give him charity? However a devout person is one who goes beyond the letter of the law. And when he goes beyond the letter of the law, he does this thing from the angle of piety and the good. And that is the trait of the devout person. And there is something that warrants the doing of uprightness and justice - and that is called, uprightness. And that is the third trait. However there is another trait - and that is that he is trustworthy, such that he does not falsify and does not lie, due to his faithfulness.

And these four traits include all the traits. For there is something that is appropriate to do from the angle of kindness and going beyond the letter of the law, from the angle that it is appropriate for a person to be a good and devout person. And there is that which is appropriate to do from the the angle that such is appropriate. And this trait is between the devout and the upright. For the devout person goes completely beyond the letter of the law; and the upright person does not veer from a legal matter at all. Whereas the righteous person does what is appropriate, even though it is not justice; but it is not completely piety, which is beyond the letter of the law. And that is like the trait of charity. As charity is not [merely] kindness. For since it is for the poor person, it is inappropriate for one not to have pity on the poor person. But it is also not completely justice, for he has no obligation at all. Rather, it is [merely] appropriate that he give charity. And that is what he mentions here - "righteous, devout, upright."

And these three traits are mentioned concerning God, may He blessed, with regard to His running His world: "For I, the Lord, do kindness, justice and righteousness in the world" (Jeremiah 9:23). You should note that He, may He be blessed, runs His world with these three traits - and these are the ones that are also mentioned here. And sometimes you will find a person who is devout to do something that is beyond the letter of the law - from the angle that he is a good and conciliatory person - but he will not do something that is the law and statute. For that is from the angle of a different trait - which is uprightness. And there is someone who does the good and the kind, which is beyond the letter of the law; and also does that which the letter of the law warrants, which is justice - but he does not do that which is appropriate to do, like charity, and that which is similar to it from the things that are appropriate to do. However everything is included in these three traits - the devout, the upright and the righteous.

And the fourth trait is that he is trustworthy, that he holds up in his steadfastness. All three of the first ones are human traits, and a trait is not something essential to a person, except when a person is trustworthy. That thing is considered to be an essential matter. For one who is trustworthy indicates that he is a strong presence, and that is why he holds up in his steadfastness. And that is, "the righteous will live in his steadfastness" (Habakuk 2:4). For when he is someone with steadfastness and he holds up by the strength of his steadfastness without changing - and this indicates that he is a strong presence in his essence - that is why he lives in this steadfastness, to the point that he holds up to persist. And hence when he mentioned the three traits that are descriptions of a person - and they included all of the traits, for there are some things that he does from the angle of kindness and going beyond the letter of the law, and some from the angle of justice which is upright and it is obligatory to do and some from the angle that it is appropriate to do, and that thing is the median between justice and kindness - he afterwards mentioned the essential stature of a person, which is trustworthiness. And one who understands the words of the Sages and knows the trait of kindness and the trait of justice and the trait of righteousness and the trait of trustworthiness will surely know and understand these four descriptions. And all four of them are dependent upon the Torah, from which everything [emerges]. And this is understood.

And hence he said, "clothed," about the trait of humility, as we explained above (Paragraph 24). For humility and fear are the garment of a person, in that which they are on the person; which is not the case with [being] righteous, devout, upright and trustworthy. Since these traits are descriptions of a person - here he did not say, "And he is clothed in righteousness, piety, uprightness and trustworthiness." And this thing is understood by those who understand wisdom.

"And it distances him from sin and draws him near to merit: After he mentioned that which the Torah gives him humility, fear, piety, uprightness, righteousness and trustworthiness - and these are traits that are appropriate for a person from the angle of being a person, and that is why he used an expression of wearing with these traits, since clothing is connected to a person; and all the more so, his using the expression, "and it prepares him," meaning to say that it prepares him until he is completely refined - he said afterwards that there is more in the Torah that draws him near to merit in the world, and likewise distances him from any sin in the world.

And the explanation of, "it distances him from sin": The explanation is that he does not even come to sin inadvertently; so the Torah guards him, such that he does not come to sin. Since he clung to the Torah, the Torah does not allow him to go on a crooked path at all, but rather guards him from sin. And that is what he said - "and it distances him from sin." And hence this will not be difficult to you: It is obvious that the Torah will distance him from sin, since it already said that he is righteous, etc.!? Rather, it is that sin does not result from him. And likewise that which he said, "and draws him near to merit": Even if his mind was not upon it, it draws him near towards merit. And in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 35:1): "When I consider my ways, I turn my steps to Your testimonies" (Psalms 119:59) - David said, "Master of the Universe, every single day, I would consider and say, 'I am going to this place and to that house,' but my legs would take me to synagogues and study halls." This is that which is written, "When I consider my ways, I turn my steps to Your testimonies." To here [is the midrash]. You should note that the legs of the devotees of God, may He be blessed, take them to the good and to merit. And that is what he said here, "and draws him near to merit" - that his legs always bring him to merit, even when his mind was not upon this at all. And likewise, 'He guards the legs of His devotees' from sin.

And he said, "We enjoy from him counsel and comprehension, understanding and strength": He did not say that counsel, comprehension, understanding and strength are found with him, because he wanted to say that we enjoy from him everything that we ask from him. And had he said, "Counsel and comprehension are found with him," it would have been possible to say that counsel and comprehension are found [only] for himself, since a person requires more counsel when the counsel is for himself. That is why he said, "We enjoy from him counsel and comprehension" - for anyone who needs counsel enjoys counsel from him. [Furthermore, to have said,] "learn [from," instead of "enjoy from"] is not relevant with strength. And the explanation of strength is that he wanted to say that the words [of the one who studies Torah for its sake] strengthen a person; and it gives a person strength and energy when he listens to his words. And otherwise it would be difficult - how do we enjoy strength from him? And regarding this, it is not relevant to use an expression of learning, but rather only, "we enjoy." But, "we enjoy from him strength," can [also] be explained, [such] that it is actual strength. For God, may He be blessed, is with one who occupies himself with Torah, so he overcomes all. Just as, "we enjoy from him counsel," is that God, may He be blessed, is with his counsel; likewise, "we enjoy from him strength," is that God, may He be blessed, is with him until he overcomes his enemies. And it is like Avraham. As he took Torah scholars with him for that reason, as it is stated (Genesis 14:14), "he armed his trained servants, who were born in his household" - as it is [explained] in Nedarim (32a). And he was punished for this, for having conscripted Torah scholars. And that is correct.

And that which Scripture (Proverbs 8:14) said, "Mine is counsel and mine is comprehension, I am understanding, mine is strength" - mentioning the word mine (possessed by wisdom) with each one - is because counsel [here] is very deep counsel. And likewise, comprehension (tushia) is the fathoming of deep things, the fathoming of which weakens (mateshet) a person's strength. And it is like this, that all deep spiritual wisdom weakens the bodily strength of a person. So that is why deep fathoming is called tushia. And because of that, it used the expression, "mine" - as this fathoming is not wisdom itself. So it is not similar to understanding, which is wisdom itself; and that is why, "I am understanding," is applicable to it. But comprehension - due to its stature - is not wisdom itself. Rather, it is even higher than wisdom, such that it is separated wisdom. So it is applicable to say about it, "mine is comprehension." And the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that the Torah is called comprehension. As they said (Sanhedrin 26b), "Why is it called tushia? Since it weakens a person's strength." And the Torah, which is Godly, is above wisdom. And with the Torah, it is applicable to say, "mine is comprehension." For one who merits to [have] understanding, receives the Torah. And that is, "and mine is comprehension." So this thing is understood. And all the more [is this the case] with strength, since it is not true wisdom. And that is why it said the expression, "mine," with counsel, with comprehension and with strength - meaning to say that they are connected to wisdom, even if it is not the essence of wisdom. But with understanding - which is wisdom itself - it is applicable to say, "I am understanding."

And that which strength is found with someone who has Torah is because there is nothing stronger than the intellect. And it is the physical which is weak. Hence "we enjoy from him, counsel, comprehension, understanding and strength" - from one who occupies himself with Torah. And that is as it has been explained - for it is appropriate that strength come from the Torah, since strength is connected to the Torah. And hence it is appropriate that all these things be found from one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake.

"And it gives him kingship and dominion": For it is known that kingship is appropriate for the Torah - as we say in the chapter [entitled] HaNizakin (Gittin 62a), "Who are kings? The rabbis, as it is stated (Proverbs 8:15), 'Through me kings reign.'" And the reason is understood: As the king is separated from the people; and because of that, he rules over the people. And this is also the concept of the intellect; since it is separated from the physical, it rules over it. And therefore when the spiritual level is found in him, he is certainly a king. And it is known that the king is separated from the people and that, because he is separated from the people, there is fear of the king. It is as they said (Avot 3:2), "If not for fear of the monarchy, one man would swallow his fellow alive." And likewise the Torah scholar who has the stature of the separated intellect, as was explained. So for that reason, they have fear towards him, like they have fear of the monarchy. It is as it said (Pesachim 22b), "'Fear et the Lord' - [the word, et is] coming to include Torah scholars." And [the meaning of] dominion is that he makes decrees over people, and they must fulfill [them]. And that is the dominion that he has. And it is all appropriate for Torah scholars, since he has the spiritual Torah. And the intellect (spirit) has kingship and dominion in it, as we have said. And it is as if he said that "it gives him kingship and dominion" - to the one who studies Torah for its sake - meaning the fear of the monarchy; and the dominion, to [have to] accept their decrees.

And he said, "it gives him [the ability to] investigate in judgement": The explanation is that he delves into the depths of judgment, even though judgment has depth which is concealed from people. And that is as they said in Tractate Pesachim (54b), "Seven things are concealed from people: The depths of justice." And there is more than this - since judgement is not like Torah. For it is possible to study Torah and acquire it from one's teacher; whereas judgement is according to events all the time, according to changing things. And about this did he say, "it gives him [the ability to] investigate in judgement," to master the depth of the judgement. And this thing is because one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake has clung to the essence of the stature of the Torah. And from the essence of the stature of the Torah, he masters all the things that are connected to the Torah. And it is as they also said afterwards, "and the secrets of the Torah are revealed to him." So behold, because he occupies himself with Torah for its sake - meaning that he studies Torah for the sake of the Torah itself, and not for the sake of his honor - because of that, the secrets of the Torah, which are the mysteries of the Torah, and the essence of the Torah, are revealed to him.

And "[the ability to] investigate in judgement," can also be explained as being that he masters judgement, as [with] the two prostitutes that came before King Shlomo (I Kings 3:16), such that Shlomo investigated the judgement to its truth - which for other people is impossible. Whereas he investigated the judgment to its truth. So the expression, "investigate in judgment," would be fit, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 13:15), "And you shall investigate and inquire." And this thing is because he occupies himself with Torah for its sake, since the Torah is truth itself. And because of that, he reaches the truth in order to bring out the true judgement - since he has clung to the truth.

And he said, "and he becomes like an ever-strengthening spring, and like a river that does not stop": And he wanted to say that he has two things: That he says something and gives a proof to his words; and about his proof, he brings another proof, and so on. So [about the first] thing, it is applicable to say, "like an ever-strengthening spring" [that] always gushes. And concerning the multitude of proofs that are found with him for his words, it is applicable to say, "like a river that does not stop," but continues with a multitude of water to the point that it is overwhelming and continues [its path]. So too does he overcome with a multitude of Torah, to bring a great many proofs and demonstrations for his words - such that he overcomes [the counter-arguments] with them. And all of this is because he learns Torah for its sake - and the Torah itself has no beginning and it has no culmination or end. And therefore, he also becomes like "an ever-strengthening spring, and like a river that does not stop."

And he said, "He is modest": Modesty is appropriate for Torah. And this thing is commensurate to the level of Torah, which comes from the supernal world that is hidden and modest. Hence one who learns Torah for its sake is hidden and modest in all of his actions, as he is not someone revealed. Rather, he is modest in all of his actions.

And he said, "and long-tempered": Also this trait is according to the supernal level of the Torah, which is spiritual. As an angry person is stupid, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 7:9), "for anger abides in the breasts of fools." But one who holds [his] temper indicates with this that he is a complete intellect. And you should know further that God, may He be blessed, who has the supernal stature over everything, has complete fulfillment with Him. For [due] to his littleness and his lack, man does not have complete fulfillment; and so he is easy to anger and to lose his temper. But God, may He be blessed, has fulfillment with Him, according to His supernal level. And according to the complete fulfillment that is with God, may He be blessed, He holds [His] temper from letting [His] anger out. Such that you can see from this that anger does not get out easily [when it is] in accordance with a supernal level. And likewise one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake - it is not appropriate that he find anything but fulfillment, according to the supernal level that he has - since he has clung to the Torah itself. And therefore he holds [his] temper from letting out [his] anger. And this thing is understood.

And he said, "and forgives his insult:" And the explanation of, "forgives his insult," is that when someone who insulted him requests that he forgives him and placates him, he should then forgive his insult. And it is like it is found in the chapter [entitled] BaRishonah (Yoma 22b-23a): And Rabbi Yochanan said, "Any Torah scholar who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake is not a Torah scholar." [And we ask there:] But didn’t Rava say, "Whoever forgoes his reckonings (middotav, literally, his measurements), [the heavenly court in turn] forgoes punishment for all his sins?" When he is appeased, he should allow himself to be appeased. To here [is the Gemara]. And here too, that which he said, "and forgive his insult," is when when they appease him. Then should he forgive and overlook [the other's] sins. And hence it should not be difficult to you: Behold, above he said, "And he is clothed by humility!" For this is not difficult. For even though the Sages said that a Torah scholar should be humble, he should not forego his honor. For behold they said [that if he does], he is not a Torah scholar! And hence one must say that [here it is only speaking about] if they appease him, [then] he should forgive.

And this thing is appropriate for someone who occupies himself with Torah for its sake, so he is detached from material things. But the one who insists on the reckoning (middah) is related to the material. For behold, reckoning is connected to the material. As that is why it is called, middah, which is a measurement. And any measurement is material; whereas measurement is not at all applicable to simplicity. And hence they said, "Whoever forgoes his reckonings , [the heavenly court in turn] forgoes punishment for all his sins." And that means to say, when he foregoes his reckonings and is removed from the measures that are with him, which relate to the material - as behold he foregoes his measures, and no measure is found with him - therefore they forego all of his sins as well. This means that he is detached from his sins, since sins belong to a man from the material side. For one who is detached from the material has no sin and transgression. Hence they remove all of his sins from him, just as he is detached from his middot. And this thing is explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTeshuvah 7). And that too is when he occupies himself with Torah for its sake from the angle of the intellect which is removed from the material. And because of this, he is removed from his middot, given that midda relates to the material. And this should also be understood. As it is true and it is very choice for the one that understands this. And hence he said, "and forgives his insult."

And he said, "And it enlarges him and raises him above all [that God] made": And this thing is certainly because the Torah is above all that exists, and rises above them. Hence "it enlarges him and raises him above all that is made." And you should contemplate these things that have been explained that are merited by one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake. For all of them are dependent upon it, as has been explained.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "Each and every day a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev, and announces and says, 'Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah'; for anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called, 'rebuked,' as it is said (Proverbs 11:22), 'A ring of gold in a swine's snout is a beautiful woman who turns from good taste,' and it says (Exodus 32:16), 'And the tablets were the work of God, and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets,' do not read 'graven (charut),' but rather 'freedom (cherut),' for there is no free man besides one who occupies himself with Torah; and anyone who occupies himself with Torah is elevated, as it is stated (Numbers 21:19), 'and from Mattanah (a place name that means 'gift,' and so can refer to the gifting of the Torah), Nachaliel; and from Nachaliel, Bamot (a place name that means 'high places').'"

"A heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev": And it may be asked, "Why does the heavenly echo go out from Mount Chorev - and is it not that no person hears this sound? And also from where does he [know] this, that the echo goes out? And to say that he heard this heavenly echo. is forced . And another difficulty: Why did he say, "from Mount Chorev"; and he did not say, "from Mount Sinai?" Moreover, what is the proof that he brought about this thing from, "a beautiful woman who turns from good taste" (Proverbs 11:22), that anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called, "rebuked"; and all the more so, the proofs that he brought afterwards - "and it says (Exodus 32:16), 'and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets'" - what is the content of these proofs? As they are not connected to here.

And you should know that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi came to make known [the reason for] which Mount Sinai is called Mount Chorev (Desolation) (Exodus 33:6). As since the Torah - which is the construction of the world - was given on Mount Sinai, it should not have been called, "Mount Desolation," but rather, "Mount Construction." But it is called, "Mount Desolation," because, that which the Torah was given on this mountain is what brings destruction (churban) to people that distance the Torah. And therefore, from this angle it is appropriate to call its name, "Mount Desolation." And even though one who brings himself close to the Torah acquires perfection and construction, the mountain is nevertheless called more according to the destruction than it is called according to the one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake, who has all of the virtues that are explained above (Avot 6:2) - since [the first] thing is felt more in the world. For one who [knows] two people, one is his enemy and one is his friend - he gets angry at his enemy and, just the contrary, he finds fulfillment from this friend: Yet the impression of the hatred with which he hates his enemy is more pronounced than the love and satisfaction that he has with his friend. For hatred makes an impact and an impression. But love is not like this, such that no impression is made from it. Therefore the name of the mountain is called, "Desolation," according to the destruction that comes to, and is found with, others. So it is more appropriate that it be called, "Mount Desolation," than that it be called with the name, "Construction." And that which he said, "a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev," in this place - is because he came to say, "Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah, etc." So it is relevant to say that this thing is decreed from, "Mount Desolation" - as it is the mountain from which destruction goes out to the world to those that distance themselves from the Torah.

But in the chapter [entitled] Haya Koreh (Berakhot 17b), it also says, "A heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev and says, 'The whole world is nourished because of Channina, my son, etc.'" - and there, no destruction is mentioned. So it is shown that it is because every heavenly echo is with the trait of [strict] justice (middat hadin). As behold, all expressions of speaking (dibbur) are a harsh language, such as, "The man, the master of the land, spoke to us harshly" (Genesis 42:30). And that is why he said, "a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev." For this name - that which Mount Sinai was called, "Mount Desolation" - indicates the trait of justice. This is as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Akiva (Shabbat 89b), "Mount Desolation - as destruction came from it to the nations of the world." Note that the name, "Desolation," is given to Mount Sinai, because destruction and devastation come to the nations of the world from it. And because it is called, "Mount Desolation," on account of the trait of justice which comes from it, he said, "Desolation" - which indicates the trait of justice - regarding the heavenly echo. As it is not applicable to explain there like here (in the previous paragraph). So this is certainly the main explanation.

And even though this heavenly echo is not heard, it is nevertheless sensed, and it makes an impression on the world to those that do not occupy themselves with the Torah. And 'even though he did not hear it, his constellation heard it.' So his constellation impels him to the Torah. And hence he said, "A heavenly echo goes out from Mount Chorev." For once the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, 'it was a drug of life for those who are right-handed with it and a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it.' And it is as we say in Tractate Shabbat (88b) in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Akiva: Rav Chanina said to Rav Pappa, "[Regarding] that which is written (Proverbs 8:6), 'Listen, for I will speak royal ones.' Why are words of Torah likened to a royal one? Just as this royal one is able to kill and to grant life; so too, words of Torah are able to kill and to grant life." This is as Rava said, "It is a drug of life for those who are right-handed with it and a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it." To here [is the Gemara]. Its explanation is that the Torah has this thing: That just like the royal one - the one who draws close to him and does his will, the royal one will raise him and exalt him; and the opposite - in accordance with the greatness of the royal one - if a person transgresses his will, the royal one denigrates him and brings him down. So too, the words of Torah - in accordance with their stature and their level - if one does not act with them according to that which is appropriate, there is punishment and lowliness upon him. And because Mount Sinai was apt that the words of Torah would descend from it to the world, and apt that this decree should go out to the world - that is the heavenly echo that says, "Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah." For 'it is a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it.' And that is what they also said there (Shabbat 89b) - "It is called, 'Mount Desolation,' as destruction came from it to the nations of the world." And that is because the nations are distanced from the Torah; and that is the trait of the Torah for those who are left-handed with it - it is a drug of death. And this is the heavenly echo that goes out from Mount Chorev and says that anyone who does not occupy himself with Torah is called, "rebuked." The explanation is that he is distanced from God, may He be blessed - just like any rebuke is a distancing. So too, one who does not occupy himself with Torah is rebuked for the Omnipresent.

And he brought the proof, "A ring of gold in a swine's snout is a beautiful woman who turns from good taste" (Proverbs 11:22). And he meant to say that if a gold ring - which is a very praiseworthy thing - is in a swine's snout, it is disgraceful from the angle of the carrier, which is the swine. And so too is, "a beautiful woman who turns from good taste": That is to say that this beauty, along with its significance, is disgraceful and disgusting with one who turns from good taste. Even though good taste is not visible to a person and the woman is the most beautiful, nevertheless this beauty is disgusting. And the "beautiful woman," that he mentioned is meaning to say, a spiritual person. As he is called a beautiful woman, who has beauty, which is radiance. And that is similar to wisdom in every place - as wisdom is light and radiance; as it is stated (Ecclesiastes 8:1), "a man’s wisdom lights up his face." And it is as it is found in Tractate Bava Batra (4a) with Herod, "He extinguished the light of the world (by killing Torah scholars), let him occupy himself with the light of the world." And he called the physicality of a person, "who turns from good taste" - because putridity is lowliness, like feces and that which is similar to it. And the physicality of a person has lowliness.

The general principle of the thing is that when "a ring of gold," which is clean and pure, is placed "in a swine's snout," given that the swine's snout burrows in the garbage, it is disgusting and loathsome. And through this, the pure ring is disgraced. And so too is "a beautiful woman who turns from good taste." And he wanted to say [that] so too is a person with intellect who does not occupy himself with Torah: For the intellect is found in the physical body - that has lowliness - of a person, and occupies itself with lowly physical thing, so the pure intellect disgraces itself through this. However if he occupies himself with Torah, his intellect is separated from the physical and it does not have the lowliness of the physical. And we have already said that a [spiritual] person is called, "a beautiful woman," on account of the radiance of the intellect. But it "turns from good taste" - meaning that the intellect is found in the body that has the lowliness of the physical. And just like the ring: If it is in the corrupted swine's snout, it is not worth anything; so too exactly is the intellect in a corrupted man. And it is completely wasted when it does not occupy itself with Torah, but rather goes after material things. In this, it is similar to a swine that has a gold ring in its snout and burrows in the garbage. So too is the wisdom inside a wise person when he occupies himself with lowly physical things. But when he occupies himself with Torah - behold it is considered as if he does not have the lowliness of the physical.

And understand this metaphor that compares a person when he is lacking Torah to a swine: For the swine pursues most the matter of its body and its desires, and there is nothing like it. For other [animals] are not so disgusting. As other animals seek some honor naturally, as they said (Yalkut Shimoni on the Torah 243), "There are four proud ones - the ox among beasts, the lion among animals, etc." And likewise is boldness mentioned about some animals. But the swine only [exists] to seek its material food by way of that which is disgusting and by way of filth. So too is a man who leaves the spiritual Torah, and only goes after his material desire - he is similar to a swine. And that is why above (Avot 3:3), it compared a table upon which there are no words of Torah, to their eating vomit and feces. And that is what he said: That anyone who does not occupy himself with Torah is called, "rebuked" - meaning that he is distanced. For behold, because of the lowliness of the physical, he is distanced. And this thing is understood.

And that which he said, "for anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah, which implies that it is a proof to what is before, "Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah," is not referring to what he said, "for disparaging the Torah." Rather it is referring to the word, "Woe." For he said that "anyone who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called, 'rebuked.'" And hence, woe to them. And that which he said, "disparaging the Torah," is meaning to say it is specifically when the Torah is disparaged - which is when it is possible for him to occupy himself with Torah and he does not occupy himself [with it]. But not without this. For there is no disparagement here, since it is impossible for him to occupy himself with Torah.

"And it says (Exodus 32:16), 'and the script, etc.": And he brought a proof that one who does not occupy himself with Torah is called, "rebuked." As we already said that the Torah is a drug of life for those who are right-handed with it, a drug of death for those who are left-handed with it (Shabbat 88b). And because you find that those who are right-handed with it are free men - from that, you know that when [people] distance themselves from the Torah, they are lowly, denigrated and inferior. And that is why he brings a proof - that it is stated (Exodus 32:16), "'and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets,' do not read, 'graven (harut),' but rather 'freedom (herut).'" But nevertheless, according to the discussion, it should more be understood that he does not bring a proof about his being distanced from God, may He be blessed, but rather even more then this - that he is not called a free man, but is rather called, subjugated. "For there is no free man except one who occupies himself with Torah." And there is no doubt that someone who is not a free man is more denigrated. For one rebuked is only distanced from God, may He be blessed. But he said that it is more than this - that he is not called a free man at all. And this explantion is correct. And Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel wrote (here) that he found like this in the baraita (Kallah 8) - that it means to say that it is not that he is rebuked, but that one who does not occupy himself with Torah is also called, subjugated.

And that which he said, "do not read, 'graven (charut)'": According to what is apparent, this is a very distant teaching. For what is the relation of this to that which the verse (Exodus 32:16) said, "and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets" - that it should hint in this place, that the one who occupies himself with Torah is a free man. But this thing is like the other words of the Sages that appear very distant to someone who is lacking knowledge; and they hinted to something very magnificent here. And that is that the intellect is the design of reality; and likewise is the whole Torah, the design of reality. And likewise the script, which is the form and design of the writing. And any etching of writing is designated by the expression, "engraved (charut)" - because script has a form. And that is the concept of script - even though it has a material form, it nevertheless has the name, form, upon it. And it is appropriate to call anything that is form, with an expression of freedom (cherut). And we have explained this thing many times - that subjugation is from the the angle of the physical. As from the angle of form, there is no subjugation. And they, may their memory be blessed, hinted to this regarding a Canaanite slave (Yevamot 62a) - "'Remain here with the donkey' (Genesis 22:5) - a nation comparable to a donkey (chamur)." As, from the side of the subjugation that it has, it is similar to the physical (chomer). For that which is subjugated is acted upon by another. And this is the content of the physical, that it is acted upon. But with a form - since there is no acting upon a form at all - it is not applicable to say, subjugation, about a form, but rather only freedom. And this thing is understood.

And since the words of Torah are detached, completely removed from the physical - for that reason, the verse hints to the form of the letters on the tablets, which indicates the spiritual form of the Torah, which is completely detached. And it is intellect without any combination of the physical, by way of the expression, charut - and not the expression, chakikah (etched) - to tell you that the Torah is complete freedom and completely free. As form is freedom - as will be explained - and all the more so, Torah, which is a completely detached spiritual form. Hence the script of the tablets were seen from both of their sides (Exodus 32:15); such that this etching be a complete etching. And that is complete form, not like other etchings that are on a tablet - even though they are etched, they are not etched from one side to the other. As behold, the carrier that the form is upon remains, so that it is similar to a form that is upon the physical. But the form of the script of the tablets is such that the from indicates the spiritual form of the Torah. And it is complete design without a carrier at all. And so the script of the tablets is etched from both sides, to the point that the form of the letters was a complete form. And this thing is certainly complete freedom, since here there is completely nothing physical, in which there is subjugation. And that is why with this - about which it is written that the script was from both of their sides - it is written for you (Exodus 32:16), "engraved (charut) upon the tablets," which is an expression of freedom (cherut). For that which it was from both of its sides - this thing is complete form without the physical. So this indicates the complete freedom that there is in the Torah, in that the wisdom of the Torah is a detached completely spiritual form. And from here you know that they said truthfully and faithfully, "Do not read 'graven (charut),' but rather 'freedom (cherut).'"

And the matter of this freedom that there is in Torah - even though we have found many Torah masters that have not been free men - nevertheless this statement here is only that he is a free man in truth, according to the order of reality. But sometimes sin causes [things] from another side. In any case, according to the intellect, "there is no free man besides one who occupies himself with Torah."

And he said, "for there is no free man besides one who occupies himself with Torah": For even a king - who is a free man - is not called a free man, in comparison to one who occupies himself with Torah. And this is as they said (Avot 6:5), "And do not desire their tables [of kings] since your table is greater than their tables and your crown is greater than their crowns." For the king - even though he is a king - is afraid lest the people of his kingdom will rebel. And because of this, he is not a completely free man. As one is not called a free man except when there is no angle of a possibility of subjugation. And that is only found in Torah - that he is a completely free man, as we explained. For the intellect is free - subjugation is not applicable to it.

And he said, "anyone who occupies himself with Torah learning is elevated": This means to say that it is not only that he is a free man, but he is also elevated - and that is that he is elevated from this lowly world. And that is why he said that "anyone who occupies himself with Torah is elevated, as it is stated (Numbers 21:19), 'and from Nachaliel, Bamot.'" And this verse is expounded about Torah in Tractate Eruvin (54a) in the chapter [entitled] Keitsad Mearavin. But here is not the place to elaborate; as this will be explained, with God's help, in Netivot Shalom (Netiv HaTorah 2) - and we should not elaborate in this place.

One who learns from his fellow one chapter or one law or one verse or one utterance or even one letter must treat him with honor, as we found it to be thus with David, King of Israel, who learned only two things from Achithophel, [yet] called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate, as it is stated (Psalms 55:14), "But it was you, a man my equal, my guide, and my intimate." And is it not an a fortiori argument? If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achithophel called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate; how much more must one who learns one chapter or one law or one verse or one utterance or one letter from his fellow treat him with honor. And there is no honor except Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 3:35) "The wise shall inherit honor," and "the whole-hearted shall inherit good" (Proverbs 28:10), and there is no good except Torah as it is stated (Proverbs 4:2), "I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah."

One who learns from his fellow, etc.: It may be asked - that this is a [refutable] a fortiori argument: For from where do we learn, even "one utterance or even one letter?" Moreover, we did not find that David called Achithophel, his teacher. Rather [he only said] (Psalms 55:14), "my guide, and my intimate" - but that he called him, "my teacher," was not found by us. Furthermore, that which it said, "there is no good except Torah" - there is no need to bring this here, for this is not its place.

And the explanation of this thing, that he brought this thing in this baratia: It is because it said before this (Avot 6:3 at the end), "anyone who occupies himself with Torah is elevated" - it brought after this, how great this elevation is. For it is applicable for one who learned even one letter from his fellow to treat him with honor. And this thing is certainly an elevation.

And it can be explained that this is how it brought a proof: That thus did we see with David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel. And these two things are found in the Midrash, as Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explains (Rashi on Avot 6:3): Such that Achitophel had found David, that he was sitting alone and occupying himself with Torah [study]. He said to him, "Why are you studying alone? And has it not already been stated (Jeremiah 50:36), 'A sword is upon the fabricators (badim) and they shall become foolish' [interpreted as, 'A sword is upon Torah scholars that study one by one (bad bevad)]?" And this is that which is written (Psalms 55:15), "Which together we sweetened counsel." He again found him entering his house of study with an upright posture. He said to him, "And has it not already been stated (Leviticus 19:30), 'and revere My holy place' - that a man should enter there with reverence, so that the fear of the Divine Presence be upon him." And so it states (Psalms 55:15), "in the house of God shall we walk with emotion (beragesh)" - [which is here] an expression of awe and fear. To here [is Rashi]. But Rambam, may his memory be blessed, does not have the version, "And has it not been written (Leviticus 19:30), 'and revere My holy place.'" As it is not speaking [here] about the Temple. Rather he has the text, that "he needs to enter with bowing."

And he called him, "his teacher," as it is written (Psalms 55:14), "But it was you, a man my equal" - meaning to say [that] you are certainly my equal in value. For if I am the king and you must treat me with honor because of the monarchy, you have that which is corresponding to this - that you are my teacher, and I must treat you with honor on account of your being my teacher. This means, one who taught him wisdom. And "his guide (aluf)": Which is that he was greater than him - and that is the expression, aluf, in every place. For the honor of the Torah is greater than the honor of the monarchy (Avot 6:5, 6). And "his intimate," is that David knew him, so his fear was always upon him. That is the reason he is called, "his intimate" - that he always knew him.

And it also learned well [in the a fortiori argument] - "If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel": For these two things are not in the Torah. As that which he taught him, that a person should not study by themselves; and likewise that which he taught him that a person should go with submission to the study hall - that is only a good thing. But it in not an utterance in the Torah. And nevertheless, he "called him, his guide, and his intimate." All the more so, one who teaches him a chapter of words of the Torah - meaning the commandments of the Torah - or one law or one verse or one utterance or even one letter. That is, that he taught him one letter of the Torah. For something that is in the Torah is certainly greater. Then he certainly, certainly needs to treat him with respect. And such is implied in the chapter [entitled] Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 33a), "The Rabbis taught [in a baraita (Tosefta Bava Metzia 2:13)], 'His teacher (that is mentioned in Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:11, as coming before his father) is his teacher who taught him wisdom, and not his teacher who taught him Bible or Mishnah' - this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, 'From whom one learned most of his knowledge.' Rabbi Yosei says, 'Even if he enlightened his eyes in one mishnah.'" And it appears that according to all, it is specifically teachings, which are laws (halachot). But if he enlightened his eyes with other words, which are not commandments of the Torah, he is not included as his teacher [in that context]. So he learned the a fortiori argument as follows: "If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel" - and they were not words of Torah - and he nevertheless treated him with honor; [in the case of] one who did teach him, etc.

But it can also be explained that, that which he said, "One who learns from his fellow one chapter or one law or one verse or one utterance or even one letter," is from the power of his own reasoning (and not connected to the central a fortiori argument): For in Torah, there is no distinction between a chapter and a law or a verse or an utterance or a single letter. As at the end of the day, it is Torah, and there is no distinction. For sometimes a letter is considered a great deal; so there is certainly no distinction. And that which he said, "If David, King of Israel, who only learned two things from Achitophel" - which implies that there is a novelty in that he did not teach much - if so, from where do we [know] to say, "even one letter?" Rather it is that you should not say that Achitophel was his particular teacher. For if he was his particular teacher, one's particular teacher is [in a] different [category]. And about this, he was saying that he was certainly not his particular teacher - as he only learned two things from him. For certainly if he had been his particular teacher, it would have been possible to distinguish [this case] and say, that one was only obligated to treat one's particular teacher with honor. But this one was not [David's] particular teacher, and he nevertheless called him his teacher; all the more so, [must] someone else [who is not a king to this]. So he learns this thing from an a fortiori argument. And [regarding] that which he said, "or one law, etc." - these are the words of the teacher [of this mishnah], and he said them from his own reasoning (beyond the central a fortiori argument) - that there is no distinction between a law and a verse or an utterance and a single letter. So that which he said, "how much more" - is meaning to say that since David who is king, "called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate"; all the more so, someone else who is not a king. And this explanation is correct.

And that which he said, "there is no honor except to the wise," this is a separate matter, referring to that which was earlier (Avot 6:3), when he said that one who occupies himself with Torah is elevated. And about that he had [also] said that one who learns from his friend, etc. must treat him with honor. Then he said, even if he did not learn from him - if he is wise, he must treat him with honor. For this reason he said, "there is no honor except to the wise." And so that you do not say, "From where [do we know] that [the prooftext (Proverbs 3:35)] is speaking about Torah? Maybe the verse is speaking about other wisdoms." About this, he said, "And there is no good except Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 4:2), 'I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah.'" And if so, the [intermediary] verse (Proverbs 28:10) is speaking about Torah. And for that reason, "The wise shall inherit honor" (Proverbs 3:35), is also talking about Torah (since both this and the intermediate verse speak about an inheritance).

And [about] that which honor is appropriate for the sages of the Torah, we have explained this in several places: For honor is appropriate for the intellect, since it is removed from the lowliness that clings to the physical. And for that reason, it said, "The wise shall inherit honor" (Proverbs 3:35). As since they are removed from the lowliness of the physical - which is low - honor is appropriate for them. And this is from the angle that the intellect is removed from the lack that clings to the physical. And therefore the sages are whole-hearted and complete. And from that angle, they inherit the good; since they are removed from lack, which is bad.

But it can [also] be explained that because he said that one needs to treat him with honor, he said from where [do we know] that it is because of honor that he called him, "my guide, my intimate." Perhaps this is the truth - that one who teaches his fellow something is his teacher, and he is his guide and his intimate. So about this he said, "There is no honor except to the wise" - meaning to say, since honor is specifically for the wise, it should be learned from the power of reasoning that, that which David "called him his teacher, his guide and his intimate," is not that he [actually was] his teacher and his guide, but rather that he treated him with honor. So it was not because he was his teacher, his guide and his intimate. And in some books, we have the version, "he made him his teacher, his guide and his intimate," and not, "he called him" - because it is coming to say that he made him his teacher. Even though he was not his teacher, he made him his teacher by way of honor. And hence it brought a proof that this is the way of honor - since honor is applicable to the wise, etc.

This is the way of Torah: Eat bread with salt and drink a small amount of water and sleep on the ground and live a life [whose conditions will cause you] pain and in Torah you toil; if you do so, "happy shall you be, and it shall be good with you" (Psalms 128: 2) - happy shall you be in this world, and it shall be good with you in the world to come.

This is the way of Torah, etc.: Rashi (Rashi on Avot 6:4), may his memory be blessed, explained [that] it is not saying to the wealthy, that he should subsist in pain in order to study Torah. Rather this is what it is saying: Even if a person only has "bread with salt, etc." So the expression, "This is the way of Torah," requires investigation. As it implies that this is its [only] way and that this is [always] appropriate.

But it appears that it wants to say, "This is the way of Torah" - and it is what they said in the chapter [entitled] Rebbe Akiva (Shabbat 83b) - Reish Lakish said, "The Torah is only preserved with one who kills himself over it, as it is stated (Numbers 19:14), 'This is the Torah (law) - when a person dies in a tent.'" To here is [the Gemara]. And the explanation of this thing is that the Torah is spiritual, whereas a person has a physical body. And there is no doubt that the intellect (spirit) and the body are opposites that oppose one another. Hence there is no preservation of the Torah in a physical body. For how can there be preservation of the Torah, which is intellect, in a physical body? As they are opposites, and there is no permanence of opposites when they are together. And so he said that the Torah is only preserved if one kills himself over the Torah. For when he kills himself over the Torah to the point that he removes his body completely for the sake of the Torah - so it comes out that his essence is the intellect, not the body - then there is preservation of the Torah. For the physical body does not impede the Torah at all when the person removes the physical body as if it does not exist. And that which it is written, "This is the Torah (law) - when a person dies in a tent" - is that a person, who is someone of earth, must remove his body, until it is fit to return to the earth. Then there is preservation of the Torah, and there is no opposition to the Torah. For behold, the body is [then] in a state of being removed for Torah, so that it is not in opposition to the Torah at all - when the body is removed for the sake of the Torah. And because of that, it said here, "This is the way of Torah." For this is what is appropriate for Torah - in that it is a spiritual Torah, such that one not be drawn after delights at all, as they are a desire of the body. But regardless, this thing is speaking about someone who is able to withstand [it], and the weakness of his strength does not prevent him from it.

But the explanation is not that if he is a man of great wealth, that he is obligated to kill himself. For behold, they only said, "The Torah is only preserved with one who kills himself over it" - [which] implies that he is doing it for the Torah. But if it is possible for him to [be] like other people and [still] occupy himself with Torah, [yet] he dips his bread in salt - this is not called that he is killing himself over the Torah. For this thing is not necessary for the Torah. However the explanation of, "This is the way of Torah," is that he kills himself for the Torah. But if he is wealthy and he does not need eat to eat bread with salt for it, and he eats meat - even though this is not the way of the Torah, regardless, what can he do? For if he would eat bread with salt for no need, that would not be called that he is killing himself over the Torah. It is only if one leaves his wealth and all of his business affairs for the sake of the Torah - that thing indicates that a person is killing himself over the Torah.

And from what Rava said to his students (Berakhot 35b), "I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, do not come to the study hall, etc.," it is implied that a person should dispense with his Torah [study] for the sake of his livelihood. But here - "This is the way of Torah" - it is implied that even if he only has bread to eat, he should not dispense with Torah. This is not difficult. As even without this, there is a difficulty. As in the chapter [entitled] Seder HaTaanit (Taanit 21a) it is said that Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan studied Torah together, and they became very hard-pressed. They said, "Let us get up and go and engage in commerce, and we will fulfill, with regard to ourselves, the verse (Deuteronomy 15:4), 'Although there should be no needy among you.'" Until two ministering angels arrived and said, "Let us kill them, as they dispense with eternal life and occupy themselves with temporal life." It is implied that one should not dispense with Torah for the sake of temporal life. So we must distinguish [between the situations]: That certainly where there is a limit to the dispensation - that is, a month or two - he should dispense with his Torah [study]. But where there is no limit to his dispensation, he should definitely not dispense [with Torah study].

"And that which it said, "happy (ashrei) shall you be in this world, and it shall be good with you in the world to come:" It is because when the bodily physicality - from which all of the lack comes - is removed from him in this world, it is said about him, "ashrei shall you be in this world." Even though he does not have "good" in this world, it is nevertheless said about him, "ashrei shall you be." For the expression, "ashrei shall you be," is from [the same usage] as, "his ashur (steady steps) will not falter" (Psalms 37:31). And it is [like] the expression of the Sages, "And we strengthened it with a ratification (asharnohi asharta) of the judges," which is an expression of preservation and strengthening. And he is preserved in this world. But it shall be good with him in the world to come, since he was not drawn after the body in this world. Rather he was completely separated. And therefore in the world to come, in which there is no material eating or drinking, it will then be good for him. For this person was completely separated from the physical. And in the world to come - which is separated - it will be good for him there.

Do not seek greatness for yourself, and do not covet honor. More than your study, do. And do not desire the tables of kings since your table is greater than their tables and your crown is greater than their crowns. And your Employer is trustworthy to pay you the wages of your labor.

Do not seek greatness, etc.: In some books, we have the version, "Do not seek greatness for yourself." And we should be precise [about] why [here] it said, "for yourself," and it did not say this with honor. But the explanation is that greatness - when he is a leader or a minister - is something essential about the person. It is that he is an important creature and he is not a lowly creature. So he said a novelty: Even though greatness is something essential about a man, do not seek this thing. However [regarding] honor, others treat him with honor; and it is not something essential about a person, like greatness, which is something essential.

And it may be asked: That which it said, "do not covet honor more than your study" (editor's note: Maharal had a different version than the standard text found in Paragraph 1 above, to which he refers in Paragraph 7 below) - it implies that he should covet honor according to his study. And this thing is difficult. For how should he covet honor? As, if so, he would only be doing [it] for the sake of honor. So it appears that the explantion is this: Do not seek greatness; and do not covet any extraneous honor, for you have enough honor from your study. For it is the essence of honor, as it said above (Avot 6:3), "The wise shall inherit honor" (Proverbs 3:35). Therefore why should you covet honor - as you have enough honor. And it also said this against the evil impulse: As if his impulse should overpower him for honor, he can say to his impulse that he has enough honor with Torah.

And it said, "And do not desire the tables of kings since your table is greater than their tables": And it said three things - do not seek greatness, do not covet honor and do not desire the tables of kings - corresponding to three things. They are: Greatness, such that a person has power over another, and that is called, greatness. And that which others treat one with honor, and honor him, is called honor. So sometimes they treat him with honor although he does not have power over others. And the third is wealth. With greatness, it said, "do not seek"; with honor, the expression, covet - as honor is coveted by appearance - and with wealth it [used] an expression of desire, as a person desires wealth.

And that which it said, "And do not desire the tables of kings," is that you not desire the wealth of kings. For the essence of monarchy is wealth. And hence they said, "the table of kings" - and it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Bava Batra (25b), "One who wants to become wealthy should go north; and your mnemonic is, the table is in the north." Behold the table is a symbol for wealth. For a king has cities and provinces and gold and silver. And about this it said, "And do not desire the tables of kings." As even if kings have much wealth, the Torah nevertheless has more wealth. And that is like they said in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 33:1): "For I have given you a good portion" (Proverbs 4:2): When you have a person that makes a purchase, it has gold but no silver; silver but no gold. But this purchase that I have given to you has silver and it has gold, as it is stated (Psalms 19:11), "More lovely than gold and than much fine gold"; and it is stated (Psalms 12:7), "The sayings of God are sayings pure like silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold." When a person makes a purchase, it has fields but it does not have vineyards; vineyards but not fields. But this purchase has both vineyards and fields in it, as it is stated (Song of Songs 4:13), "Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates." To here [is the midrash]. And behold that this is understood - that the wealth of the Torah is more than the wealth of silver and gold, fields and vineyards. And we have explained this in the book, Tiferet (Tiferet Yisrael 46). And [Torah] is more than it, since it is appropriate that the wealth of the Torah be more. For the Torah is something preserved and eternal, whereas the wealth of properties is not permanent. And about this it said, "your table" - meaning your wealth - is greater than the wealth of kings. For all the wealth of kings is something to which decay applies, whereas decay does not apply to Torah. And when one has possessions, it is called wealth. But since the end of the possession of kings is for loss, this is not called wealth, like that of someone who has Torah. And this was explained further above (Derekh Chayim 5:22) regarding, "search in it, since everything is in it." And note that the Torah is wealth, "since everything is in it."

And it said, "and your crown is greater than their crowns": The explanation is that a king certainly has a divine stature - and we have explained this above (Derekh Chayim 1:1). Hence kings are anointed with anointing oil (Horayot 11b). And if the monarchy did not have an angle of divine holiness, it would not have been appropriate that kings be anointed with the oil of holiness. And this thing is indicated by the crown. As a crown is an ornament of honor on the head; since separated stature is appropriate to be on the head, which is the highest [part] of a person; and the soul, which is separated, is there. Hence an ornament of honor is appropriate for the head. So that is the reason that they would also anoint the head of the king with the oil of holiness (I Samuel 10:1). And about this, it said that the divine stature of one who occupies himself with Torah is more than the crown of kings. For the crown of kings is attached to a material person. And even though monarchy has divine holiness, that holiness has an attachment to the body. But the crown of Torah, which is the divine intellect - meaning the separated stature possessed by one with Torah - is completed separated from the material. And Scripture indicates this thing: For with the diadem of the altar [that] hints to the crown of the priesthood (Yoma 72b), it is written (Exodus 30:3), "and you shall make for it." And likewise with the table, it is written (Exodus 25:24), "and you shall make for it." But with the ark, it is written (Exodus 25:11), "[and you shall make] upon it." As this thing hints that the crown of Torah is completely separated from the material person who carries this crown. And we have already explained this (Derekh Chayim 4:14). And that is its saying here, "and your crown is greater than their crowns." For this crown is certainly the greatest.

And it said, "And your Employer is trustworthy, etc.": The explanation is even if a person is in pain because of Torah - as it said before this (Avot 5:4), "This is the way of Torah, etc." - is not "your Employer trustworthy to pay you the wages of your labor" in the world to come? As 'according to the pain is the reward.' Hence he should not regret the toil of Torah. But the language is forced: As it said, "And your Employer is trustworthy"; but before this, it did not at all say that he should occupy himself with Torah. Rather it only said, "Do not seek greatness [...] and do not covet honor, etc." But we did not find that it said that the should occupy himself with Torah. And therefore the version of the books appears [correct]: "More than your study, do; and do not desire the tables of kings." And its explanation is, "do," in Torah [study], and do not desire the tables of kings. And it said it with the expression, "do, and do not desire the tables of kings" - because sometimes a person is jealous of the tables of kings and that which is similar to it and thinks, "Why should I exert myself in Torah? Is it not that I will not be able to arrive at something with a great and exalted result, like the tables of kings?" And about this, it said, "You - do, in Torah, do it always and do not be lazy; 'and do not desire the tables of kings.'" For "your table is greater than their tables." And for that reason, you should occupy yourself with Torah. So about this, it said, "And your Employer is trustworthy, etc." As you will receive great reward for this.

And some explain, "More than your study, do": This means to say that one's actions be greater than his wisdom. But this does not appear [to be correct] at all - that this should be interjected between that which it said before this, "Do not seek greatness for yourself;" and "Do not desire the tables of kings," which is something different [from it]. So it would interject with something different. Moreover, we have already explained (Derekh Chayim 6:1) that this chapter only speaks about Torah; not about the performance of the commandments, that it should say, "More than your study, do." Rather the explanation is as we have said - that he wanted to say, do in Torah and do not desire their tables.

Greater is Torah than priesthood and kingship, for kingship is obtained with thirty virtues, and priesthood with twenty-four, and Torah is obtained with forty-eight things. And these are them: Learning, listening of the ear, preparation of speech, understanding of the heart, reverence, awe, humility, joy, purity, service of sages, exactitude of colleagues, debate of the students, deliberation, Scripture, Mishnah, minimization of trade, minimization of worldly occupation, minimization of pleasure, minimization of sleep, minimization of conversation, minimization of laughter, patience, generosity, trust of the sages, acceptance of afflictions, knowing one's place, joy in one's portion, erection of a fence to one's words, not crediting favor to oneself, being beloved, loving of the Omnipresent, love of the creatures, love of righteous deeds, love of the upright, love of rebuke, distancing from honor, lack of arrogance in instruction, lack of joy in issuing legal decisions, carrying a burden with one's friend, judging him with the benefit of the doubt, placing him with the truth, placing him with peace, deliberation in study, asking and answering, listening and adding, learning in order to teach and learning in order to act, making one's master wiser, understanding one's teaching, saying [a thing] in the name of the one who said it; for you learned that one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world, as it says (Esther 2:22): “Esther told the king in Mordekhai’s name.”

"Torah is greater than, etc." The meaning is: According to the levels of the thing, and its elevations, and the level needed to acquire its level, and therefore [the Mishna] says Torah is greater, as Torah is acquired in forty-eight levels, and the priesthood is acquired in twenty-four levels, and the kingship is acquired in thirty levels. And Rash"i za"l explains: Those [the levels of kingship] are written in the portion of Samuel (Samuel 1:8), when Israel demanded a king, and they were told 'be aware, that such and such are the rules of a king', and if you check there, there are thirty things, the same which are recited in [Mishna] Sanhedrin: [things for which] the king does not judge and he is not judged. And the twenty-four gifts of the priesthood include ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten outside of Jerusalem, and that's it. And in a Baraita, it explains that the thirty levels by which kingship is acquired are: silver, gold, wives, and concubines, and houses, fields, and vineyards, gardens, orchards, the proprietary royal house, provinces, ministers (m) and ministers (f), field and fields, horses, chariot, sword, dresses, weaponry, soldiers, perfumes, scouts, parables, justice, lovingkindness, and charity. And this explanation seems [more likely], because these are all such that if one has them, then one is a king, because these things are his kingship, and it is not so for those things that are recited in the Mishna, which are not all important to the king. Because the things for which he does not judge and he is not judged, is not important for the king: and thus is 'he shall not have an abundance of wives and silver and gold, he shall not have an abundance, he shall not have an abundance of horses', and thus 'he shall write two Torah scrolls'; all of these it is not fitting to call levels, as we said here, but are called commandments to the king, and it doesn't make sense to think of commandments that the king is required. But the levels are that he has things that are fitting for a king. Meanwhile, the twenty-four levels of priesthood are surely those twenty-four things; they are all the level and importance for priesthood, and that's why they are referenced. And because of this, the Mishna says in its language, that kingship [is acquired] in thirty levels, and priesthood in twenty-four levels, because all fo them are levels of importance and authority, but with Torah, [the notion of] 'importance' is not relevant, rather they are forty-eight 'things', and it didn't use the word 'levels', because the Torah does not relate to importance, as explicated above. And the Mishna does not present the twenty-four levels of priesthood, nor levels of the king, because the whole chapter doesn't treat on anything but the Torah, and its purpose is not to tell how the priesthood is acquired in twenty-four levels, or the kingship in thirty, it only [brings these at all] to say that the Torah is greater than those two.

And it seems right to say that there is a hint for these levels: The altar had on it a molding, which is a symbol of the crown of priesthood, and the altar was one cubit by one cubit, so if you wrap a string around the altar which was one cubit by one cubit, such that the string wraps around the alter, the string will go around twenty-four handsbreadths, corresponding to the levels of priesthood---as a cubit is six handsbreadths. And the table, on which is a molding, symbol of the crown of kingship, was one and a half cubits tall and one cubit wide; if you wrap a string around the table, which is to say its height and it's width, then the string will be thirty handsbreadths, corresponding to the levels of kingship, which are thirty. And the ark was two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide and one cubit tall, if you wind a string around the ark, the string will be forty-eight handsbreadths, because two and a half cubits from the two sides are thirty handsbreadths, and the width on each side is nine handsbreadths: thus, forty-eight handsbreadths. And why didn't we also wrap the table from above, which would make it thirty-six handbreadths? Because certainly one has to wrap it in the shortest direction, and if you wrap the table in the short direction, it is the height and the width, and the shortet possible length for the table will be thirty handsbreadths, and also for the altar, one has to wrap the shortest, but for the ark, the string goes around the length and the width, which is the shorter distance, because if you wrap vertically, you also have to wrap the cover, and on it are the two cherubim, and that is a lot more, and for that reason the string circles the length and the width, which is the shorter for the ark, and the string circles the height and the width, which is the shorter for the table, and the string circles the length and the width, which is the shorter for the altar; thus we have differentiated all three levels in the vessels which had on them the symbols of the crowns.

In case it troubles you that the thirty things by which kingship is acquired are not godly things (the things which the text hings to with the table), and because of that we will be forced to interpret the thirty levels, which were not found in the Baraita in a different way, such that all the thirty levels will also be commandments, as it is with the priesthood and with the Torah. But this is no trouble, because these thirty things are a lesson about the greatness and importance of kingship, that the king has thirty levels, and the level is not in those things themselves, rather they just teach that the king is on an elevated and important level. Therefore, he has thirty important things, and the kingship is more important than the priesthood, and the Torah is more important than the kingship. And that's why it says in the chapter 'anointed priest' (Talmud Bavli Horayot 13a): 'the scholar has precedence over the king....the king has precedence over the high priest' as we have there, and therefore it says that Torah is greater than the priesthood and than the kingship, that priesthood is acquired in twenty-four levels and the kingship in thirty levels and the Torah in forty-eight things, which is to say in this you will see that the Torah has more rank than kingship and priesthood, as the level of the priesthood is twenty-four, and the kingship, thirty, and the Torah, forty-eight, because the more important as more levels.

And you can also understand that the Torah is acquired in forty-eight things, corresponding to this, it is said in Masechet Sofrim [Scribes] (see Chapter 1 [this is an inaccurate reference, it should be Sofrim 2:6, and it is also to a non-standard version of Mas. Sofrim]), that one shouldn't make a column of the Torah fewer than forty-eight lines, because the Torah is wisdom that is in the mind of man and understands these things.

And the level of kingship of thirty levels correspond to three negative commandments: he shouldn't have too many wives; he shouldn't have too many horses; he shouldn't have too much gold and silver, and corresponding to each and every commandment are ten levels. And you should also know that the levels of the king are thirty as you see that the letter lamed ל [corresponding numerologically to thirty] is taller than all the other letters in the alphabet, thus thirty is appropriate for kingship's largeness and elevation, and the reason is because until ten is considered low, twenty is considered medium, and thirty is considered the highest, and thus the letter whose number is thirty is elevated over all.

And maybe you will say if so, the rest of the letters with even higher numbers should be even taller, but it is not so, because it is thirty/lamed, because for this matter the goal is to rise as is proper, and this matter is called proper elevation, but more than ths would be a lessening, just as the sages interpreted in Bavli Masechet Megillah (29a), Why do you look askance, tall mountains, as it was said about Tabor and Carmel, which are considered flawed with respect to Sinai, and that was because Sinai didn't stand out from the standard, stayed with what was proper, but Tabor and Carmel were greater than what was proper, and this is called a flaw, because any addition is like a dumb load, and therefore the essential height is the lamed in particular, not the rest of the letters. And therefore kingship is acquired in thirty levels in particular, because at the hands of thirty, the king is raised.

And you see the letter lamed in the middle of the word king (מלך, mem-lamed-kaf sofit), because the king rises from his siblings of Israel, and it hints at the king who shouldn't be separated from his siblings of Israel, as it says (Deuteronomy 13 [this is not an accurate quote, the closest I could find is Deuteronomy 17:20]) so that his heart shall not be raised from his siblings, and he shall not be separated from them, and therefore the letters mem מ and kaf sofit ך, which are siblings of lamed [they appear before and after the lamed in the order of the alphabet], are stuck to the king, that he shouldn't be separated from them, rather connected to them, with the lamed in the middle. And also, that the king, for this is the way of kingly honor, that he is in the middle, with the nation surrounding him, and that is proper. And also, as it is explicated elsewhere, that everything that raises up is in the middle, and a symbol of this, the land of Israel is higher than all the lands, and it is in the middle of the world, and accordingly, the letter lamed is also in the middle of the alphabet [twelfth out of 22 letters]. And from this you can also understand that the king is suited to thirty levels, in particular because the king is separated in level from all, and there are two enlarged levels: one is the high priest, and the second is the prophet, and the king is greater than both of them, and that's why it says that a king comes before the high priest and the high priest comes before the prophet, as it says in Horayot (13a), and the priest on the right and the prophet on the left and the king in the middle, rising above both of them. And you should really understand this matter, because according to the wisdom, the king rises to the third level, and according to that the three commandments for the king, as was explicated, and corresponding to this the kingship is acquired in thirty levels, because the third level includes thirty: understand this.

The first, "in study", which means one should learn from one's teacher, and not trust in one's own wisdom;

the second, "with the hearing of the ear", that one should incline one's ear to hear, because sometimes if one doesn't hear one statement or one word, it ruins the whole idea, and therefore, this includes the hearing of the ear.

The third, "in preparation of lips", that if one brings out in a more prepared language [=lip], it is more effective for understanding the matter well, and not like when one learns it internally; and as such so that it will not be forgotten quickly, like [it says in Bavli Eruvin 54a:1] 'prepared in all, and preserved', that if it is prepared on ones lips, it is preserved in the 248 organs.

The fourth, with understanding of the heart, that one should give one's intelligence and one's heart to the matter being learned, and understand well in one's heart.

The fifth, in awe, that one must sit in awe before one's teacher, as they said (in Bavli Shabbat 30b.6): every student who sits before their teacher, and their lips do not drip bitterness, will not see a good sign in their recitation, as it says [in Song of Songs 5:13] His lips are [lilies dripping] flowing myrrh" don't read flowing myrrh (mor over, מור עובר) rather flowing bitterness (mar over, מר עובר) [and don't read lilies, rather reciters], and the reason is that one needs to be prepared to receive, and this ideas is that if one has awe for one's teacher, then one can be judged as receiving from one's teacher, because if one has awe for one's teacher, one is thought of as a receiving student, and if the student does not sit in awe, one cannot be judged a student who receives, and then one doesn't see a good sign in one's recitation, as one isn't ready to receive, and accordingly, it says in awe.

The sixth, in fear, the difference between awe and fear is that awe comes when one sees the greatness of one's teacher, and from this one has awe; fear comes when one views one's own smallness and lowliness, one fears before the great, and one who is small fears even someone who isn't very great. Accordingly, a student should sit in awe and in fear, that one should recognize the value of the loftiness and greatness of one's teacher, and also one should recognize the smallness of one's own value,

and moreover one can interpret awe and fear, that one should have awe and fear of the Holy One, Blessed Be, that one should recognize the value of the loftiness of the Holy One, Blessed Be, and the greatness of the Blessed One, and also know one's own lowly value, and that is in awe and fear. And it is said of the angels [as referenced in the morning prayers before shma] : they do in awe and in fear the will of their master, and thus the explanation here of in awe and in fear, because one must be ready to receive, and that's when one is thought of as capable, but one who is important and of high standing in one's own eyes, that is not a preparation to receive anything.

The seventh, with humility, and this matter we already discussed several times, because humility is the first reason for the Torah, like with Moses, that all the levels that he had were not the reason for his Torah except for humility. And they said in the Chapter of "The Man Sanctifies" (Bavli Kiddushin 49b.8), a sign for arrogance is poverty, and there they explain poverty as being of Torah, and from this we learn the opposite, that a sign for humility is Torah. And in Mas. Taanit (Bavli Taanit 7a.15 [there is an error in the Hebrew citation]), R Hanina bar Idi said: why are words of Torah compared to water? What is water? One places it in a high place, and it flows to a low place, so too, words of Torah are not found except in whoever has a lowly temperament, and we will explicate this matter, God willing, in the second part.

The eighth, with joy, because joy is a great attribute, because when a person is happy, one is whole, and thus attains Torah, which is the wholeness of humanity, and when a person is in distress, then one is lacking, and doesn't attain Torah, which is the wholeness of humanity; the general rule is that Torah, which is divine wholeness, is not proper for someone except at the hands of joy, which is the soul's wholeness, and when a person's soul is happy, then it is proper for one's soul to receive the wholeness of the Torah.

And without this, because for the depth of the Torah, one's mind needs to be clear, and that's what they said in the chapter of the Splendor (Bavli Eruvin 65a.11, [a slightly different version than the one we have]): R Nahman bar Yitzhak said, legal discussion needs clarity like a day with a north wind, the meaning is that one's mind must be clear like a day that a north wind blows, which is a very clear day, and this matter doesn't require evidence, because when a person is of clear mind, one's heart is more open, and in the chapter of Taking Out (Bavli Shabbat 77b.8), Rav Ada found R Yehuda standing in the door of his father-in-law's house, and he saw that he was in a cheerful mood, and if he asked him any question in the world he would answer him, etc. There you have it, because being in a cheerful mood is a great reason for learning Torah. But what it says in joy seems to be the first explanation, that one needs to be happy because it is not proper to attain the level of Torah, which is the wholeness of a person's soul, except at the hands of joy, which is wholeness of the soul. And the fact that a person needs a clear mind, that is what is said later, בישוב, settled, which is to say settlement of mind, which is clarity.

The ninth, with the service of sages: that one should serve sages, and then one is prepared to receive Torah, and in the first chapter of Brachot (Bavli Brachot 7b.26), "R Yohanan said in the name of Rashb"i, its service is greater than its learning..., as it says (2 Kings 3:11): 'Here is Elisha ben Shafat, who poured water on the hands of Eliyahu' it didn't say learned, it only said poured." And the interpretation is because one who serves 'a student of sages', the student connects with the teacher [who is the 'student of sages'], by dint of their service of the Torah, and and by this means the student receives from the teacher, because without a doubt, when a wick gets close to a candle, the candle will ignite the wick, and thus when the student draws close to the teacher, by dint of their service, the Torah will influence them. And it is not like that when the student learns from the teacher without drawing close to the teacher, that they will learn from them as when they serve the 'student of sages', which is itself drawing close to the 'student of sages', and thus receives from them, because coming to learn from the teacher isn't connection to them, only serving them is connection to them, and this matter will be further elucidated in Netivot Olam.

The tenth, in clinging to colleagues, because a person when they are alone, does not receive Torah, And in the first chapter of Taanit (Bavli Taanit 7a:10-11), R Yosi bar Hanina said: what does it mean (Jeremiah 50:36) "a sword upon the boasters [badim]; they shall be made fools"? A sword upon the haters of the scholars [a euphemism for the scholars themselves], who busy themselves with Torah alone [bad bevad], and not only that, but they become stupid, as it says "they are made fools", ... and it says there (Numbers 12:11) "that we were made fools and that we sinned." And also this matter we discussed above when we talked about two who sit and busy themselves with Torah, because the essence of Torah is at the hands of specifically two. Because a person, of that which they are themselves a master of the material, it is proper to bring out the intelligence to another, and then it is a distinguished/spiritual intelligence, which does not stand in the body of the person; but when one busies oneself all alone, and one doesn't bring out the intelligence to another, to be an intelligence distinguished from the body, one doesn't become wise at all. And not only that, but one becomes stupid, and this is because when one isn't busying oneself with Torah, then one stands according to what is right for someone who is a master of material, to acquire and to know that which relates to the one who is master of the material, what one acquires in matters of the physical world; but when one busies oneself with Torah, and wants to grow wise in Torah, which is totally distinguished intelligence, (as we discussed above in the matter of two who sit and busy themselves with Torah), of course the distinguished intelligence is with two specifically, and therefore if one busies oneself with Torah alone, one grow stupid, because this is not intelligence at all suitable for Torah, which is distinguished intelligence---it's only stupidity, and we will discuss this matter further, God willing.

The eleventh, by debate of students, and this is because colleagues imitate one another, and thus they imitate their teacher; in the first chapter of Taanit (Bavli Taanit 7a:12), "Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: why are words of Torah compared to wood, as it says, (Proverbs 3:18) 'it is a tree of life to those who hold it'? As a small piece of wood ignites a big one, so small words of Torah sharpen big ones; and this is also as Rabbi Hanina said, I learned a lot of Torah from my teachers; from my colleagues I learned more; from my students I learned more than all of them." And the reason is very clear, because it is similar to a tree that doesn't get lit, and thus is a great scholar, as their accomplishment is very great, so they don't begin to ask and to debate in wisdom according to the greatness of their accomplishment, and the simplicity of their intelligence there is no debate, which is questioning, and one needs for every debate a question to exclude---the great ones don't have the question, and because of this it says that the little ones sharpen the great ones, because they ask more, and then the scholar has to answer, and this is likened to the small piece of wood which ignites the big one, as the fire catches more with the small, and thus the lesser one is the beginning of the questioning and the debate, and that's why it says in the debate of students, because the essence of debate comes from students. And for that reason it says I learned a lot of Torah from my teachers, because they handed the wisdom on to me, and from my colleagues more, because they ask each other and stand on the essence of wisdom, and from my students more than all of them, because they debate and sharpen more with questioning, and this matter is clear.

The twelfth: settled, which means that one's mind should be settled, because if one's mind is not settled, one cannot learn.

The thirteenth: by reading (from the Scripture).

The fourteenth: by recitation.

The fifteenth: with the ways of the land, those are the good principles, as the sages said, (Mishna Avot 3:17.1) if there aren't the ways of the land, there isn't Torah, as above (Derekh Hayim 3:17.1).

The sixteenth: with patience [lit. distance from anger], that if one gets angry, one's wisdome abandons one, as it says in Pesahim in the chapter 'These are the things' (Bavli Pesahim 66b:7), "R Shimon ben Lakish said, every one who is angry, if they are wise, their wisdom abandons them," and this matter is exlicated in the Netivot Olam.

The seventeenth, with a good heart, as Torah is called 'good' and because Torah is called 'good', Torah will not be found except in one who is good, which is to say one who has a good heart, and when one has a good heart, then one receives the Torah, which is good, because how will the Torah, which is good, stand in one who has a bad heart.

The eighteenth, with faith in the sages, because when one believes in the statements of the sages, then one cleaves to the sages as one believes in them, and it is fitting for one to acquire the wisdom of the sages, and to be included among the sages, but if one doesn't believe in the statements of the sages, how will one get wise? And that is what they said in the chapter "what to light" (Bavli Shabbat 23b), that those who revere their teachers will be themselves a 'student of sages', and this will be explicated in Netivot Olam, God willing.

The nineteenth: acceptance of afflictions, because when one accepts afflictions, one is suited for Torah, and that is what they said in the first chapter of Brachot (Bavli Brachot 5a:20-21): Three good gifts were given to Israel, and all of them were not given except at the hands of afflictions... Torah... as it is written (Psalms 94:12) 'happy is the one whom God afflicts, and from your Torah teach' c. and as we discussed in the introduction and in the Netivot Olam (Netiv Hayisurin 2:1). Because Torah is particular to the intellect, and wisdom is not a bodily feature, and therefore one can only reach the non-bodily heights by reducing the bodily, and afflictions reduce the bodily until one is able to reach the intellectual level, and that is why it says here acceptance of affliction, that one accepts on oneself the reduction of the material body, and to banish thus its inferiority. Because afflictions banish the body, like they said there (Bavli Brachot 5a:19) Reish Lakish said, it says a covenant of salt of the world and it says a covenant of afflictions, these are the words of covenant, what is covenant that is said of salt: sweetens (mtk root) the meat/flesh, so too covenant that is said of afflictions scours (mrk root) the inferiority of one's body and one's flesh/meat until one is suited for the intellectual quality.

The twentieth, with reduction of sleep, because if there is sleep there is no learning, as is written (Joshua 1:8) 'meditate on it day and night', because Torah, that is the way to busy yourself with it, day and night. And know that sleep is a most bodily matter, and as we explicated above (Derech Chaim 3:10) with regard to morning sleep, see there how sleep is a bodily matter, and when a person is very drawn after the body, they distance themselves from the intellectual, and the meaning of this is clear.

The twenty-first: with reduction of business, which is to say, that one should not be a person of trading merchandise, that they said in the 'how to extend' chapter (Bavli Eruvin 55a): '[The Torah] is not across the ocean' (Deuteronomy 30:13) Rava [this is a different version than the common one today, in which this statement is cited to R Yohanan] said you will not find the torah among traders and merchants, and we already discussed this both in Netivat Olam and above we discussed it at length (Derech Chaim 2:5:4), in reference to 'not all who engage in business become wise', and there is not room here to expand.

The twenty-second, with reduction of conversation, this has been discussed above (Derech Chaim 2:17), because 'one who multiplies words multiplies nonsense', and we expanded in the place where it says: I did not find good for the body except with silence, because silence is an indication of wisdom, and one who multiplies conversation, that is not an indication of wisdom, because conversation cancels the activity of the intellect, and because of that, this matter, which is the reduction of conversation, is a significant basis for wisdom.

The twenty-third: with reduction of enjoyment, this is because one who chases after bodily enjoyment is a person of the body and materiality, and is not suited for acquiring wisdom, which is the opposite of the body, as we discussed above in discussing 'this is the the way of the Torah...' (Derech Chaim 6:4:1). And one might challenge the implication of the particular phrasing 'reduction of enjoyment': enjoyment is allowed at all? and we said above 'this is the way of Torah: eat bread with salt, etc. And this is not a challenge at all, as we already discussed, the meaning is not that one has to impoverish one's life, ... In any case, one shouldn't have too much enjoyment, because one incites in this the bodily appetites, and this is the opposite of Torah.

The twenty-fourth: with reduction of laughter. And one might ask, isn't one not allowed to fill one's mouth with laughter in this world, as it says in the chapter 'one doesn't stand' (Bavli Brachot 31a:4) R Yochanan said in the name of R Shimon b Yochai, it is forbidden to fill with laughter one's mouth in this world, as it says (Psalms 126:2) 'then will our mouths be filled with laughter', and this is not a challenge, because there it is talking about filling the mouth with laughter, which is too much laughter, but laughter in general, it doesn't say, and for matters of Torah, one should reduce laughter completely. And even if it were not so, it still wouldn't be a challenge, as even if it were completely forbidden, even so, we would learn from this that if one multiplies laughter, one doesn't merit Torah, and the reason is because laughter which is exaggerated is the opposite of thought, which is intellect, therefore laughter cancels intellect. And this matter you can understand because laughter renews only from joking and clowning, and there is no doubt that joking is the opposite of intellect.

The twenty-fifth: with less worldly occupations. In other words, even though all Torah that does not have a worldly occupation, its end is to be nullified, nevertheless don't make your work central (to your life) as it says in Brachos (35b), Rabbah bar bar Chana said R' Yochanan said because of Rebbi Yehuda bar Illai, the earlier generations made their Torah fixed and their worldly occupation temporary, and both existed in their hands. (In Contrast) The later generations made their work fixed and their Torah temporary, and both didn't exist in their hands. And even though it was already taught in the mishna to limit your involvement with sales, this is not a difficulty, as one may have thought that derech eretz is different as we had an earlier mishna say without derech eretz there is no Torah .

The twenty-sixth is knowing one’s place: The explanation is that one knows the extent of his stature and his lack. But if he considers himself to be more eminent than what he is, and is mistaken about himself (and), it is not appropriate that the Torah be in an erroneous place. It is rather a ‘Torah of truth.’ For that reason, he needs to know his place and not be mistaken about himself. Moreover, if he is mistaken about himself, he will be mistaken like this about several things in words of the Torah. Whereas one who knows his place and his stature - if he sees the lack in himself, he will also know all the lackings in his study and he will not absorb any fraud about anything. But it can also be explained that when one knows his place - that he is lacking Torah - he is suited to absorb Torah. But if he is mistaken about himself and considers himself a sage and one who is complete - someone who is complete does not need completion in Torah, so he will not merit to receive Torah. Hence knowing one’s place is a great foundation for Torah.

The twenty-seventh is joy in one's portion: As we have explained above (Derekh Chayim 4:1), that he is not lacking in himself. As if he was not joyful in his portion, such a person would not absorb completion in Torah. For behold, the Torah is for a person to perfect himself, but this one is always lacking. And these two things - “knowing one’s place,” and “joy in one’s portion” - are adjacent together, because the Torah is the completion of man. Hence it is appropriate for a person to be in such a way that he is suitable for completion; and he is only suitable for completion if he was lacking before the completion, and was completed afterwards. But if he does not know his place, why would he need completion in Torah? Behold, according to his opinion, he is already complete! And we have already said that only a person who is not already complete is suitable for Torah. And if he is not joyful in his portion - even if he is completed in Torah - he [still] will not be complete with this. As he is not joyful in his portion. And if so, what is this completion for? However according to the explanation that we said that one who knows his place is a truthful person - such that he does not even err and lie about himself, all the more so about other things - and this trait is certainly appropriate for Torah, since only truth is appropriate for Torah; it said afterwards, “joy in one’s portion,” as this trait is also very appropriate for Torah, as we explained at the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Ben Zoma (Derekh Chayim 4:1). For it is a spiritual trait, like truth. See there. Hence the two of these were placed adjacently together.

The twenty-eighth is the erection of a fence to one's words: The explanation is that one erects a barrier to his words, such that he does not make a mistake in his words. For all barriers and fences are so that one does not err. They said in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearvin (Eruvin 53a): Rav Yehudah said that Rav said, “The people of Judea, who were particular in their speech, their Torah was preserved with them; the people of the Galilee, who were not particular in their speech, their Torah was not preserved with them.” To here [is the Gemara]. And this reason is understood. As confused words bring confusion of the intellect. Hence it said that he makes a fence to his words, so that he does not say something that may bring about an error. For if he does not do this, he will in the end come to error and forgetting. And this thing is a very great barrier and fence to the Torah.

The twenty-ninth is not crediting favor to oneself: For if he credits favor [to himself] - in the end, he will cease from the words of Torah - since he says that his occupying himself with Torah is beyond the letter of the law. But if he does not credit favor to himself and says that he was created for this reason, to study Torah, he will not come to cease. And it is like they said (Avot 2:8), “If you have learned much Torah, do not credit it favorably for yourself, because for this you were created.” Hence one should not credit favor to himself; as this trait is also necessary for Torah study. For that which he credits it to himself that he occupied himself with Torah; and he will think that he is not obligated to toil in Torah and to receive Torah - for something that is not obligatory does not require so much to be received - hence he [will] not receive Torah. But one who does not credit favor, and [thinks] that someone like him was created for this, is suited for receiving Torah - since he will think that he was created to receive Torah. And that is why he comes to receive Torah.

The thirtieth is being beloved: The explanation is that he is beloved by God, may He be blessed, and also by the creatures. As certainly, if he is not beloved in the eyes of God, may He be blessed, He will not give him of His Torah. And likewise must he be one beloved and acceptable to the creatures. As also through this is he close to the Torah. For behold, ‘anyone from whom the spirit of creations finds pleasure, from him the spirit of the Omnipresent finds pleasure.’ And when the spirit of the Omnipresent finds pleasure from him, then wisdom flows upon him from God, may He be blessed. It is also because he needs to be within the collective. And by being beloved, he is within the collective, as will be explained (in the next paragraph).

The thirty-first is loving: This means to say that he loves God, may He be blessed [and] clings to Him, may He be blessed. So it is appropriate that he should acquire God’s Torah, may He be blessed. And likewise, it is necessary that he loves the creatures. For when he loves the creatures, behold he is within the collective of creatures and suited for the Torah that was given to the collective. But if he does not love the creatures, behold he is separated from the collective. So how should he merit the Torah? For the Torah is to the collective, but he is an individual by himself; and the Torah was not given to an individual. And it is also because Torah is intellect - such that the intellect is not private, as its grasp is collective. So if a man is separated to the point that he is [only] an individual, he is not suited for what is grasped by the intellect. As its grasp is collective, not individual. And this thing is understood.

The thirty-second is bringing joy to the Omnipresent, bringing joy to the creatures (this differs from the standard text of Avot, which has, love, instead of, bringing joy): As he brings joy to the Omnipresent from the angle of his stature. Hence he is suitable for Torah, as will be explained. And there is a difference between, “beloved,” and “bringing joy to the Omnipresent, bringing joy to the creatures.” For one is beloved who does actions that are desired by the Omnipresent - so the Omnipresent loves him. And likewise, one who does actions that are desired by the creatures - hence the creatures love him. But one who brings joy to the Omnipresent [and] brings joy to the creatures - that is a separate thing to itself. It is from the angle of his stature, to the point that it brings joy to the Omnipresent that He has such a creature in His world. And likewise the creatures are joyful that a person of stature like this one is with them. Hence he is also suited to receive the Torah. For all derive enjoyment from, and are close to, a person like this. Hence the Torah is also close to him, and he receives it.

The thirty-third is love of righteous deeds.

The thirty-fourth is love of the upright.

The thirty-fifth is love of rebuke: Because the Torah is built upon these three foundations: ‘For upright are the ways of the Lord’; and the Torah also has rebuke - as in many commandments, if he does that thing, he will [face] lashes, a sacrifice, death or exile, and that thing is a rebuke - and several commandments are righteous acts, such as that one is obligated to honor one’s father and mother [and] to give charity. This is to the point that these three things include all the paths of the Torah. For there is a path in the Torah that is uprightness, such that he should act and refrain from acting according to the statute. And there is [a path] that is righteousness and kindness. And there is one that is rebuke - for there are many rebukes in the Torah. Hence if he does not love these three things, he will not be successful in Torah. For these three are the foundations of the Torah, and they are the paths of the Torah.

The thirty-sixth is distancing from honor, and he does not chase after honor: And this thing is understood from that which they said (Tanchuma, Vayikra 3) that one who chases honor, honor runs away from; but one who runs away from honor, honor chases after him. And ‘there is no honor except Torah’ - as through Torah, one inherits complete honor. Hence if he runs away from honor, he inherits the honor of the Torah - which is the essence of honor. And we have already explained this at length (Derekh Chayim 4:6) regarding, “one who honors the Torah.” But if he does not run away from honor, he is not suited for the honor of the Torah, so it runs away from him.

The thirty-seventh is lack of arrogance in instruction: For one who is arrogant in instruction is an ’imbecile, wicked, and arrogant in spirit.’ And from that which he is an imbecile; you know from that, that he is not suitable for wisdom. And we have already explained this thing above (Derekh Chayim 4:7) - that one who is arrogant to decide quickly is an imbecile. As this indicates a lack of modesty. For someone who is modest in his ways does not rush in deciding, as he is modest about wisdom. And it is written (Proverbs 11:2), “and with the modest is wisdom.” So automatically, if he is not modest, he is a fool and he is not suitable for wisdom. And it is also because when he is arrogant in instruction, he is included in, ‘one who increases words, increases foolishness.’

The thirty-eighth is carrying a burden with one's friend: The explanation is if something happens to his friend, and that thing is a burden such that his friend must toil until he is saved from the burden; then he should carry that burden with his friend. And this thing indicates that he is a good person - when he carries the burden with his friend to save him from that distress. Moreover, this thing indicates that he is not separated from the collective, in that he carries the burden with his friend. So he is suited for Torah, which is for the collective - as was explained (in Paragraph 41). Likewise, the thirty-ninth - that he does good to his friend - since he is judging his friend with the benefit of the doubt. For if he sees something with his friend that [leans] towards guilt, he makes efforts towards his friend to judge him favorably. And even more the fortieth - that he makes efforts with his friend to bring him to the truth. And even more than this, the forty-first, in that he makes efforts to place his friend in peace. And this thing is even greater.

And all of these traits [also make him suitable], in that he increases merit, truth and peace in the world. As that which he carries the burden with his friend - being, that something difficult comes to [the friend] and he carries the burden with him in order to remove from him that which comes from it - is because he desires the good. And he judges him favorably, brings him to the truth and to peace - as is appropriate for a Torah scholar to increase peace in the world, as they said (Berakhot 64a), “Torah scholars increase peace in the world.” And not just peace, but every good thing like knowledge and truth. And such a person is suited for Torah, since it is good - as it is written (Proverbs 4:2), “I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah.” So when he acts towards his friend with these traits, he indicates that he is good in himself, and suited to possess Torah - which is good. For something will always go to that which is similar to it. But if he is not good, how can he possess Torah, which is good? And even though it said above (Acquisition 17), “with a good heart,” that is that he does a good thing to his friend and gives him benefit, because he has a good heart. But this thing - that he increases peace in the world - is since he loves the good. And that is why it said these four things - meaning carrying a burden with one's friend, judging him with the benefit of the doubt and placing him with the truth and with peace - which include everything.

And one needs to understand these four things. Such that this is why they said in Tractate Menachot (53b), “Let the good one come and receive the good from the Good for the good ones: Let the good one come - this is Moshe, as it is stated (Exodus 2:2), ‘And when she saw him that he was a goodly child.’ And receive the good - this is the Torah that is called good, as it is written (Proverbs 4:2), ‘I give you a good doctrine, do not forsake my Torah.’ From the Good - this is the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is written (Psalms 145:9), ‘The Lord is good to all.’ For the good ones - that is Israel, as it is written (Psalms 125:4), ‘Do good, Lord, to the good ones.’” Then you should note that the good is suited to the good. And hence Moshe, who is good, is suited to receive the Torah and to give it to Israel, in that they are good. Moreover, as we have explained (Paragraph 48), it is because when he connects with his friend, he has a connection to the collective and is not separated from it. So he is suited for the Torah, as was explained.

The forty-second is deliberation in study: The explanation is that he does not jump to dialectics before he first properly deliberates in his study, and does not engage in his study in a hasty fashion. And that is what is called deliberation in study. And this thing does not need explanation.

The forty-third is asking and answering, listening and adding: It is all one. Since if he has what to ask and he does not ask, he is not resolute about the question. And likewise if others ask and he does not seek to answer, he will not reach the level of Torah. Rather it is essential that he asks and that he answers those who ask. And he must listen - meaning to say, he should put what his friend says to his heart and add to his words. And by this that he asks and answers, he broadens the Torah; and likewise when he listens and adds. For all of these things broaden and add to the Torah. And through this, he reaches the Torah. But if he does not ask, he does not reach the level of Torah.

The forty-fourth is learning in order to teach: This thing is because it is the essence of Torah that he should also teach it to others. And the Torah was not meant to stay with him. Rather, the Torah was given to teach it to others. And we explained this a great deal above - as the essence of the Torah is that he teaches it to others.

And accordingly, the forty-fifth is learning in order to act: This thing is also the essence of the Torah. For study is not the essence, but rather action is the essence. And hence if his study is not in order to teach others or to act, such a one is not suited for Torah. For the Torah was given to man in order to teach it to others - just as God, may He be blessed, gave the Torah to Moshe, and Moshe taught it to Israel. For an individual is not appropriate for the Torah, given its worth. And so the essence of Torah study is to teach it to others. And it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said in Nedarim (37b) in the chapter [entitled] Ein bein HaModer, “‘See, I have taught you statutes and judgements’ - just like I [did it] for free, so must you [do it] for free.” Then you should note that man is commanded to pass on the Torah to others for free. And all the more so must he study in order to act - since the study is not the essence. And if he does not do [the commandments of the Torah], he is not suited to receive the Torah.

The forty-sixth is making one's master wiser: The explanation is that he sharpens his master. And this thing is like we also said above (Paragraph 21). For the nature of Torah is like this - that the small wood ignites the larger wood, as was explained. And since this is the way of Torah - if he does not do this, he is not appropriate for Torah. And that which it said above (Acquisition 43), “ask and answer,” - its explanation is that he asks what he has to ask about that which is unclear; but it is not speaking about refinement and dialectics at all.

The forty-seventh is understanding one's teaching: It means to say when he hears something in his study, he understands [that] teaching; and he does not accept the teaching until he understands it. And it is not like some students who accept something even though they do not understand; and they say, “Is this not what I received?” This thing is not like that - as he must understand the teaching that he heard and master the words that he heard. And that which it said above (Acquisition 4), “with understanding of the heart,” is that he should pay attention when he receives [a teaching] from his master; and if he does not do [this], he does not absorb wisdom. But here, it says, “understanding one’s teachings” - that he needs to master the teaching, and not accept the teaching that he has until he understands it. And they are two [different] things: For if it is something that is hard to understand - even though he paid attention to it and fulfilled, [having] “understanding of the heart” - he needs this trait, not to accept the teaching until he masters the teaching. Yet if he has this trait not to accept any teaching until he understands - if he does not pay attention to understand when he is receiving it from his master, he will not understand. And hence they are two things.

The forty-eighth is saying [a thing] in the name of the one who said it: As this is also very relevant to Torah. For he should say the thing in the name of the one who said it and not steal Torah from the one who said it. And even the Holy One, blessed be He, says a thing in the name of the one who said it - as it is found in the first chapter of Gittin (6b), “This is what Aviatar, My son, says.” And they also said in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Chukat 8), “At the time that Moshe ascended on high, he heard the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, who was sitting and involving Himself with the discussion of the red heifer. And He said, ‘So did My son, Eliezer, say - “a heifer is to be two years old.”’ He said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the world, do not the realms above and below belong to You? Now You are citing a law in the name of flesh and blood?’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moshe, a righteous man is going to arise in My world and is first going to begin [his teaching] with the discussion of the heifer, Rabbi Eliezer says, “The heifer is to be two years old, etc.”’”

And it may be asked about this - what answer did the Holy One, blessed be He, give to Moshe, [about that] which the Holy One, blessed be He, said a law in the name of flesh and blood? However the explanation of this - that He said, “He is first going to begin [his teaching] with the discussion of the heifer” - is to say that this thing indicates that concepts are according to the intellect, which is in accordance with each [person]. Hence He said that this concept is specific to Rabbi Eliezer according to the greatness of his intellect. And the red heifer is a deep concept that is appropriate for Rabbi Eliezer the Great. And hence he first began to say, “The red heifer is to be two years old.” And God, may He be blessed, ordered all that exists and gave the intellect to every [person] according to that which is appropriate. And hence He said a law according to Rabbi Eliezer - meaning to say, “I created a righteous and wise man in My world, whose intellect is specifically geared to the red heifer; to comprehend this concept with such clarity as to say, ‘The heifer is to be two years old.’” And because of [the following], the Holy One, blessed be He, said a law in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Just like He, may He be blessed, created all that exists and gave the nature of each one to them, so too did He give each person his intellect and his mind - such that the comprehension is according to the mind of the one who speaks that which God, may He be blessed, arranged. For this reason did He say a law according to the one who said it.

And they did not say this about this [case] alone. As they said this in the chapter [entitled] Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 15b) - that the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and says the law is like all of the sages except for Rabbi Meir, since [the latter] learned from Elisha Acher (the Other). And this means to say [that] it is since Elisha Acher left the collective; left the order that God, may He be blessed, arranged. And that is why he was called, “Other” (Chagigah 15a) - as he was other and outside. And because of that, it is not appropriate that God, may He be blessed, say a law according to Rabbi Meir - since he learned from Elisha Acher. And that which the Midrash said, that the Holy One, blessed be He, said a law specifically from Rabbi Eliezer is because only Rabbi Eliezer had that concept. It was not so with the other laws, which were not specific to only one [person]; and many said it. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said the law in the name of the many. It was only this thing - according to the greatness of the concept of the red heifer - that was specific to Rabbi Eliezer. As they said in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Chukat 8) that he came forth from the loins of Moshe, to whom alone the secret of the red heifer was revealed - as it is written (Numbers 19:2), “and they shall take to you.” And Rabbi Eliezer inherited it from him, to the point that Rabbi Eliezer was unique in this. And that which astounded Moshe was that He would say a law according to an individual.

Nevertheless, every law is specific to the one who says it. And it is therefore appropriate to also attribute every concept in Torah to the one who said the teaching. For that concept is suited to him. And if one does not do this, he changes that which He arranged for each [person] in Torah. Rather he should attribute everything to the one that said it. And then he will not change the Torah - when he attributes every word of Torah to the one who said it. And it is found in the Midrash (see Sifrei Devarim 188:3), “Anyone who changes the words of Rabbi Eliezer to the words of Rabbi Yehoshua or changes the words of Rabbi Yehoshua to the words of Rabbi Eliezer - it is as if he destroys the world.” And these are exactly the words we have said. For the comprehension of Rabbi Eliezer is specific to Rabbi Eliezer; and the comprehension of Rabbi Yehoshua is specific to Rabbi Yehoshua. As they are different in their comprehension; and God, may He be blessed, arranged this mind for Rabbi Eliezer and that mind for Rabbi Yehoshua. So when he changes their words, he surely changes the order of the Torah that God, may He be blessed, arranged for the Sages. And this thing is a destruction of the world - when there is change in the order of the Torah.

And it is possible to [also] explain that which it said - that he should say a thing in the name of the one who said it: For if he is not exact about this, he will also not be exact about the essence of the teaching and come to change it. And so is it shown in another place.

And about that which it said - “For you learned that one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world” - it may be asked, “From where [do we know] that it was because of this that redemption came through Esther?” Moreover, all the traits of the Holy One, blessed be He, are measure for measure (Sanhedrin 90a). So what is the [corresponding] reason for which one who says something in the name of the one who said it merits to bring redemption? And it should be known that when the Holy One, blessed be He, brings redemption - God, may He be blessed, wants [people] to know that He, may He be blessed, did [it]; and [that] they should not say, “It is not God, may He be blessed, that did all this. Rather it was their wisdom and the power of their hand.” Accordingly, you will find with the redemption from Egypt that it is written (Exodus 29:46), “And they shall know that (My Name is the Lord, in that I) brought them out from the Land of Egypt.” And hence if Esther did not have this trait to attribute the thing to the one who was appropriate to attribute it to; and she, God forbid, had said to Israel, “I did this in my great wisdom” - in order to aggrandize herself and boast - she would not have been suited for the redemption to come through her. For God, may He be blessed, wants to make known the kindness and the good that He, may He be blessed, does for Israel. But since Esther told King Ahashverosh in the name of Mordekhai (Esther 2:22) - and it was possible for her to say to the king, “I did this,” to find favor in the eyes of the king; yet she did not do this, but rather said what Mordekhai did, in his name - because of this, she was also suited to bring redemption to the world. As from this, [it is seen] that she would only attribute the thing to God, may He be blessed. For Esther certainly knew that everything that occurred was from God, may He be blessed.

It is because it was not necessary for Scripture to write (Esther 2:22), “and Esther reported it to the king in Mordekhai’s name.” For the crux of the verse is only coming to teach that the thing was made known to the king in the name of Mordekhai; since as a result of that, Achaveshorsh said, “What honor or advancement has been conferred on Mordekhai for this?” But it was not necessary to write who was the one who told [him]. However Scripture is coming to teach on what account Esther merited that the redemption was through her. And the verse hints to you that it was because she said the thing in the name of the one who said it, and she did not attribute it to herself. So she would likewise attribute the redemption to the One that brought the redemption, and not to herself.

And specifically with this redemption did Scripture hint that Esther was suited to the redemption, specifically because she said something in the name of the one who said it. And that is, as we have said, because God, may He be blessed, wants that it be known that the redemption came from Him. And [with] the redemption [from] Egypt, it was certainly known about the redemption that it came from God, may He be blessed. For great signs and wonders were done during that redemption until His name, may He be blessed, was known. But in this redemption, there were no signs and wonders at all. And if so, it can be entertained that it would be said that the redemption was not from God, may He be blessed. So it would have been possible for Esther to say that she did it. Even in the days of the Hasmoneans, when He redeemed them from the hand of Greece, there was a visible miracle - meaning the lights - so that they would know that God, may He be blessed, gave them power over the Greeks; and [that] they would not say [that] their ‘power and the strength of their hand did this.’ But here, with Achashverosh, there was no revealed miracle. And this thing is because they were in exile, and they were in [a situation of] divine concealment. So it was not applicable to have an open miracle, like at the time of the Greeks - which was during the time of the Second Temple - as we explained in its place (Ohr Chadash). For this reason, the name of the redeemer was Esther - since the redemption was hidden (behester) and not at all revealed. Hence if Esther had not said the thing in the name of the one who said it, she would not have been suited to bring the redemption.

And you will accordingly not find the name [of God] explicitly in the Scroll [of Esther], since the miracle was with divine concealment from Israel. So that which it said, “Any one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world,” has been explained to you.

And according to this, [the following] will not be difficult to you - behold, many have said a thing in the name of the one who said it, and they did not bring the redemption!?! For the explanation is not that he will certainly bring redemption to the world. Rather, [it means that] when He needs to bring redemption to the world, He will bring it through [someone] who says something in the name of the one who said it, for the reason that we explained. And without this, it is [still] not difficult, since Israel needs redemptions all the time; and the Holy One, blessed be He, brings them through one who says something in the name of the one who said it.

And you should know more [about] that which it said that one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world: As there is another magnificent reason for this. And that is that the one who says something in the name of the one who said it also brings redemption to the world when he brings back the words that were in the hands of someone else - these words that were with him, he brings back to the one whose words they were. And hence the redemption of Israel is also in his hands, since Israel was in the hands of others. So it is appropriate that Israel be returned to the One to whom they belong through his hands. And Israel certainly only belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. Hence, because when he says something in the name of the one who said it, he brings back the words from another domain to the domain of the one whose words they were - it is also appropriate that the redemption be through him and that Israel go out from the domain of others to the One to whom they belong. And if he does not bring a complete redemption, he surely brings something of comfort. For any comfort from the hands of the nations and from the hands of the rulers - it is all redemption. And according to the significance of this thing that we said - that God, may He be blessed, ordered the mind and specific wisdom of every [person], such as was explained above (Paragraph 58) - when the words leave the domain of another to the domain of the one that said them, that thing is a very lofty redemption. And that is why, “one who says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world.” And this explanation should be understood well.

Yehudah ben Betzalel (may his memory blessed for life in the world to come) said: After all of these forty-eight things with which the Torah is acquired have been explained to you, we should investigate the matter of study in this generation - if these forty-eight things through which the Torah is acquired are needed for the Torah [study] of this generation. And behold, even with our great and powerful lackings, [it would appear that] we do not need all of these virtues, not even one [of them]; as the sages of this generation are nevertheless held in esteem. So our lackings come out to be of great profit. But in truth, this comfort is suited to be a lament. And to begin, it is with my broken spirit and heart within me and with prostration and bowing before the great and the small in Israel [that I write this]: The truth and the faith is that it is not from holding myself to be appropriate for rebuking; or that I say that the words that I say and that I speak are not [also found] with me. For I also began like them - and even more than them - in my study. But because of this, I saw the great lacking that is with me. Hence it is appropriate for me to lament and cry about this the most. Maybe the proper students who have the power to be strong like a lion in the Torah will arise more and more, until all of the sages of the generation will be considered like garlic peels in comparison to them. And do not turn [for support against what I say] to our custom, which is bad and bitter, ‘to go after emptiness and become empty.’ So what shall we do about our end, in our coming in front of the King, the King of kings, ‘naked and lacking everything’ - naked of deeds and lacking wisdom - like the comportment of this generation. For not one of us seeks to preserve his study, such that he reviews his study - whether it be Scripture, it be Mishnah or it be Talmud.

And if in truth it was not appropriate to say, Mishnah - since they completely pay no attention to the Mishnah - yet we do not [even] concern ourselves with the words of the Sages in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 99a): “Because he has disgraced the word of the Lord” (Numbers 15:31) - Rabbi Natan says, “[This is] all who do not concern himself with the Mishnah.” To here [is the Gemara]. And this is exactly the deed of this generation. As no one concerns himself with the Mishnah, saying that he will only be called a sage by way of the Talmud - which is analysis and back and forth. And the heart of a man is drawn to this, so they ignore the Mishnah. For that reason, it is said about him, “Because he has disgraced the word of the Lord.” And that is because “the word of the Lord” is said about the body of the commandment. Hence it is said about one who does not pay attention to the Mishnah, “Because he has disgraced the word of the Lord.” Since his study is only because of the wisdom - as a man naturally seeks to become wise - but does not seek to know the actual commandments of the Lord, which are the Mishnah.

And also in that which one does not review his study - so today his study is according to its state, but tomorrow it is forgotten by him - is likewise included in “he has disgraced the word of the Lord,” as it is shown there (Sanhedrin 99a). For it says in that baraita, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord” [and that is followed by this passage]: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says, “Anyone who studies Torah and does not review it is comparable to a person who sows and does not reap.” Rabbi Yehoshua says, “Anyone who studies Torah and causes himself to forget it is similar to a woman who gives birth and buries [the child].” Rabbi Akiva says, “Sing every day, sing every day.” Rav Yitchak [bar Avudimi] says, “What is the verse [of its derivation]? As it is stated (Proverbs 16:26), ‘The toiling spirit will have toiled for itself.’ He toils in this place, and his Torah toils for him in another place.” Rabbi Elazar says, “Man was created for toil, as it is stated (Job 5:7), ‘Man is born for toil’” - as we explained in the chapter [entitled] Rabbi Said (Derekh Chayim 2:8), regarding, “If you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself.” To here [are the words] of the Gemara. And if it was not that these teachers were coming to explain the verse, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord” - like the teachers before this - what is the relation of this to that, that [one] should say, “Anyone who studies Torah and does not review it is comparable to a person, etc.” Rather, he is coming to say that this is called, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord” - “one who studies Torah and does not review it is comparable to a person who sows and does not reap.” And there is no greater disgrace than the one who sows and leaves it to the birds of the skies to eat. Behold there is no doubt that he disgraces the seed when, after sowing it, he leaves it to the birds of the skies to eat. And likewise does one who studied but does not review his learning disgrace the Torah. And likewise for Rabbi Yehoshua, “Anyone who studies Torah and causes himself to forget it is similar to a woman who gives birth and buries [the child]” - and it is as if the beginning of its birth was for its loss and burial. So too is someone who causes himself to forget his learning as if the beginning of his study was to forget. And with this, he is certainly considered one that disgraces the word of the Lord.

And understand the words of the Sages - how one who does not review his study is comparable to someone who sows but does not reap. And the explanation of this thing is that the absorption of a teaching is comparable to sowing. And that is because [with] sowing in the ground, the seed is nullified by the ground. As behold it is sown in the ground - and anything that is attached to the ground is like the ground (Shabbat 82a). And when he reaps, he then separates and detaches the seed from the ground - but not before. And so too is man at first considered earth for the absorption of wisdom. Since the recipient is man - who has a body - the speech of wisdom is considered nullified by the body that absorbs [it]. Hence someone who does not review his studies is considered someone who sows but does not reap, since the seed is nullified in the ground. So too is the speech of Torah that one absorbs nullified with the body. And once it was absorbed by man, who has a body, it is no [longer] intellect that is detached from the physical. But when he reviews his studies, that speech is considered intellect that is completely separated from the physical. So it is [then] comparable to one who reaps the produce from the ground, since he separates and detaches the produce from the earth. And understand this well.

And Rabbi Yehoshua added, [by] saying that one who studies Torah and causes himself to forget it is similar to a woman who gives birth and buries [the child]. And the explanation of this thing is that when one forgets Torah, it should not appear to you to be as if he forgot ordinary things. For Torah is a divine creation from God, may He be blessed, just like the birth - which is a creation from God, may He be blessed. So when a woman gives birth and buries [the child], behold she loses a Godly creature. And this thing is a great disparagement - that a Godly creature goes to waste and become lost. So too, one who forgets words of Torah. For the Torah - [which] is a Godly creation - is going to waste; and that is a great disparagement. And this is [the meaning of] their saying (Avot 3:8) that one who forgets something from his learning becomes liable for the death penalty - because he causes the Godly Torah to be wasted. So this one is considered like one who wastes and loses a divine soul in man. And because of this, these two teachers reason that it is included in, “he has disgraced the word of the Lord.” As if he does not review his studies - and likewise if he forgets his Torah - this thing is a great disgrace.

And Rabbi Akiva added that he should review his studies; and hence he said, “Sing every day, sing every day.” For even though he studied his section yesterday, he should review it today and, likewise, every day. And that is what Scripture (Proverbs 16:26) stated, “The toiling spirit will have toiled for itself.” And the content of this toil is like we explained above regarding, “If you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself” - that man is created for toil - which is to bring out the speech of Torah to actuality. Hence Rabbi Akiva said, “Sing every day, sing every day” - that a person should be toiling and bring out the words of Torah to actuality. And even if he does not originate anything and reviews the things he learned yesterday - is not the level of man, that he just be a man that toils? It is not that he gets to the end, that he is perfect in actuality. For were a man’s perfection to be in actuality, it would have been appropriate to say that if he did not learn a novelty each day, he would not come to his purpose, which is completeness in actuality. But the matter is not like this. For he does not reach this - that his perfection be in actuality. Rather he should be here with toil, without his perfection completely reaching actuality. Hence he said, “Sing every day.” As with this thing, there is toil in a man’s study. And that is as it is stated (Job 5:7), “Man was created for toil,” as we explained above in the chapter [entitled] Rabi Said (Derekh Chayim 2:8) - that man always remain in potential and never come to the end of perfection, such that it be in actuality. Rather he always remains with his toil. And these words are very choice words.

And these words are the words of the first Tannaim - to whom there is none compared regarding the virtue of wisdom - like Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva. And they are the ones that warned about reviewing studies every day. So how is it that those [today] are empty of knowledge to the point that they do not resemble creatures of the world? But there is no doubt that it is this thing that caused the complete neglect of Torah in these lands. For even in the previous generations - and not the generations of the Tosafists, but rather in generations much later - it is plainly evident that they were experts in the Torah, in all six orders of the Mishnah and all the Talmud, as is seen in the responsa [in which] they bring proofs from all [these] places. And this thing is because they would review their studies constantly, and ‘their recitation would never cease from their mouths’ at all - evening, morning and afternoon.

But it is [worse] than that, since they do not pay attention to the essence of reward for Torah study. As this is what we say in Pesachim (50a) in the chapter [entitled] Elu Overin, “And I heard that they were saying, ‘Those executed in Lud [enjoy such an exalted status that] no creature can stand in their enclosure; and happy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand.’” And in the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 9:10): Zavdi ben Levi desired to see the face of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was dead). He appeared to him; he showed him people with their faces up [and] people with their faces down. He said to him, “Those with their faces up, their studies are in hand; those with their faces down, their studies are not in hand.” To here [is the midrash]. Behold that the Talmud and the Midrash are the same about this thing - that [these two groups] are two neighbors together: Those executed by the government, the enclosure of which no man can enter; and one who comes here with his studies in hand. And this thing is truly something of magnificent wisdom. As those that were executed by the government gave up their lives for the sanctification of [God’s] great name, and a man like that becomes completely separated from the material world - to the point that he gives himself over to execution for the sanctification of His name. Hence no creature can stand in their enclosure, since there is no connection for the material man to this separated level. But after it, he said, “Happy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand” - as this one is also comparable to him, since he is the master of the spiritual Torah and he comes here with his studies in hand. But if his studies are not in hand, he has no other name besides man; as he inclined towards the material. So how will he merit the world that is separated, since he is [but] a material man?

And he said (Kohelet Rabbah 9:10), “Those with their faces up, their studies are in hand.” The explanation is that those whose Torah is with them are not embarrassed to stand in the separated world, given that their Torah is with them. But those whose Torah is not with them are embarrassed to stand in the council of the elevated beings who are separated, whereas they are people who have bodies - given that their Torah is not with them. Hence their faces are down, like a man who is embarrassed to stand in the enclosure of the holy elevated beings.

And there is another wondrous matter in that which the faces of those whose Torah is with them are up, and the faces of those whose Torah is not with them are down. And that is because a person is recognized and exists [to be] what he is through the face. Hence those whose Torah is with them have complete existence, given that Torah is what gives existence to a person. And we have explained this thing much - how the spiritual Torah gives existence; and that the one who inclines towards the body and towards the physical does not have existence in complete actuality. Hence those with their faces up are those whose Torah is with them. And so their faces - which is their existence - is revealed and exist in complete actuality. But those whose Torah is not with them are those with their faces down - meaning that they do not have complete existence in actuality. As a person is known and exists with his face, to the point that the face of a person is his existence. Hence the face of those whose Torah is with them is up and the face of those whose Torah is not with them is down. But we may not elaborate.

And how will we not cover the shame and the humiliation of our faces? And to where will we take our degradation, that we come empty and there is nothing in our hands? Is it not, that there was never such a thing from the day the Torah was given on Mount Sinai? And it is [worse] than this - as the earlier ones would fulfill the Torah in great difficulty and with the pressure of the nations, while we now sit in our homes, each one at ease and in tranquility. And when a case comes in front of us, or a teaching, we ‘search in the holes and cracks’ - more than with the disposal of chametz - to find something. And we look in the simanim (paragraphs of the codes) until one finds what he is seeking, or what is similar to it, as it appears to him. And then one says (Megillah 6b), “‘I have exerted myself and I have found’ - believe it.” And on account of this, he will say, “The Torah is only found with simanim (which also means memory devices),” as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearavin (Eruvin 54b) - however he will err in its meaning.

And a shortcut was originated, such that the table be set (Shulchan Arukh) in front of a person (see Rashi on Exodus 21:1). They will say, “This is the table that is in front of the Lord.” And the great and the small are called and invited in front of the table, ‘a noble one is not recognized before a lowly one.’ ‘And all merit the table of the elevated.’ [But by only looking at the Shulchan Arukh], they know neither the reason nor the reasoning - they instruct the law based on the “Mishnah.” And in the chapter [entitled] Notel (Sotah 22a), “It is taught, ‘The Tannaim wear out the world.’ Does it come to your mind that they [really] wear out the world? Rava said, ‘Because they instruct the law from their Mishnah.’” And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explains that they wear down the world with mistaken instruction. Because they do not know the reason of the Mishnah, they sometimes compare it to something that is not comparable. To here are his [words]. And there is certainly this thing also in this [shortcut]. But according to what appears, the expression, “wear out the world,” does not imply this. Rather it appears that it is because those that instruct the law from their Mishnah do not pay attention to the Talmud, which is the essence of the Torah. And because of that, they wear out the world - since they remove the Talmud from the world. And the Mishnah was not taught for this, to decide the law from the Mishnah. It was rather taught in order to explain the reason of the Mishnah in the Talmud, and to decide the law from the Talmud; not from the Mishnah. For ‘both of them together are good.’ And this thing certainly wears out the world, as we can see with [our own] eyes.

And when a wise man would consider our custom, it would be appropriate for him to be dumbfounded about it - ‘how did God do wonders with our plagues, so that the wisdom of the wise get lost.’ For we have been ‘backwards, and not forwards.’ As the early ones - the Tannaim, the Amoraim and the Geonim - and all the later ones began with an organized order, to first study Scripture, and afterwards Mishnah and afterwards Talmud. But in this generation, they start with Talmud. For they educate a youth of six or seven with Talmud; and at the end, he graduates to Mishnah. But it is not to study [it]; rather it is to search for the decided laws, as we said. And behold they begin with the Talmud and they end with the Mishnah! But they should have thought - since the end is to come to this measure - they should have learned Mishnah first. Then the Mishnah would have remained with them. Now the Talmud does not remain with them, nor any law nor any instruction - only by searching.

However the cause that produces this great distortion is that the falsehood at the beginning generates the crookedness and distortion at the end. And that is because they begin to analyze the law with empty words - about which they know that their mouths should not speak like this - and reveal interpretations of the Torah that are not so. But they would say, “[It is because] we need to sharpen [ourselves].” And though such a thing, God forbid, ‘should not be in Israel’ - to sharpen [ourselves] with false words, and to kill time with falsehood, whereas the Torah is a ‘Torah of truth’ - how could [something] like this come to the mind of a person? Is it not appropriate that a man should tear his heart about this - to turn the truth into falsehood and say, “We need to sharpen [ourselves].” But it is [worse] than this - as their words are nothing at all. For if false and empty analysis resembled true analysis, it would have been possible to say that at the end of this analysis that has no substance, true analysis would come. But the thing is not like this, for they are not similar with any similarity at all - not the questions and not the answers. So how could one sharpen himself with such an analysis? Just the opposite - knowledge tells [us] the opposite of this. For it makes one silly and not wise; as he becomes used to this analysis that is not similar to any wisdom at all. So how could one be a lesson for the other? And we see this with our own eyes, and not [those of] another!

But perhaps one would say, “At the end of the day, it is [still] sharpening] - even if it is not similar to true analysis.” If so, it would be better to study the craft of carpentry or other crafts. Or comedy, which is known to have wise and tricky sharpness in it; so he could also sharpen himself with that. And that would be more appropriate than revealing interpretations of the Torah that are not like the law; and [than to] ‘conceive trouble and bear falsehood.’ For when a person habituates himself to falsehood - like this thing is, as it is known and intended as falsehood - all of his actions are drawn after falsehood. So he is also false in his actions, since falsehood is accustomed to be on his lips. So how will falsehood produce something true? And among the forty-eight things enumerated by the Sages with which the Torah is acquired are love of the upright (Acquisition 34) - which is a distancing from falsehood - and placing his friend with the truth (Acquisition 40). All the more so should he [himself] insist upon the truth. And all of these are good and straight traits. But to twist words of Torah in order to sharpen analysis and rhetoric that is not similar and has no vantage point towards true analysis - can there be such a thing? I read out about them, “Moreover, I gave in front of them [laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live]” (Ezekiel 20:25).

And you, precious students, whom God has given to you an understanding heart and a mind to absorb - ‘your strength should be for Torah!’ And do not give your strength to foreign things and to false words. But bring your end to your minds - how great is the reward for masters of Torah. So why should you spend your days on things like this; and why are you exerting yourselves with empty things for which there is no reward? And does it enter your minds that [you] will be receiving reward for this? But you, yourselves, know that they are words ‘for which there shall be no dawn.’ Should there not be concern for your souls on account of ‘disparaging the Torah?' And do not let your [evil] impulse - or the one teaching you - promise you that this thing is good. For he is promising you about this in vain. And who will [assure us] that the reward of the teacher will not be outweighed by his loss? And if only it can be so!

And I have seen boys whose minds are like the entrance of [the Temple] hall, to the point that they are suited to absorb the entire Torah; but in the end they are lost and become like the other ignoramuses. As the Lord of Hosts lives - is it not appropriate to tear [in mourning] for this, like for a Torah scroll that was burnt? And it is like they said (Shabbat 105b), “One who stands over the departure of a soul is obligated to tear.” And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained [that] the reason is that he had the potential to learn more Torah, and that is now nullified with this death. And all the more so is there a nullification and a loss of Torah here with these. So it is appropriate to tear about this like for a Torah scroll that was burnt. And one who separates himself from this false path and decides upon the true and straight path [for] himself and others with him - about him, is it stated (Jeremiah 15:19), “If you produce what is noble out of the worthless, you shall be My spokesman.” And the Torah will protect him in this world and in the world to come.

And afterwards I found in the words of the pious one, who composed the Book of Traits (Orachot Tzaddikim), that he also elaborated very very much in the chapter about Talmud Torah to explain the lack of the generation and its blemish, and that they do not review their studies. However, in his generation there was not also this great distortion and obstacle, to sharpen [themselves] with something false and frivolous. And they also produce difficulties in the words of Rashi and call them a lack - the lack and blemish is with them! ‘Woe to the ears that have heard this.’ But, in my great iniquities, I did not merit to see the words of the book of the pious one [earlier]. For he would have removed me from this obstacle that was in my hands more than anyone. My pain should be my atonement and the redress of the sin that I sinned.

And if we would come to write how this thing is an obstacle and a cause of stumbling for this generation - is it not that the time would not suffice us? However I am certain of these things. For the thing is not like this and it has no legs [to stand on]. And all the more so, ‘since the staff of falsehood will not rest upon the portion of the truth’ - it is ‘a Torah of truth that God, may He be blessed, gave to us.’ He will be the cause that ‘true speech is established for always and forever’; and He will remove from us ‘those who turn justice into wormwood’ - ‘who call the bitter, sweet.’ Amen.

Great is Torah, for it gives life to those who do it in this world and in the next world, as it is stated (Proverbs 4:22), "For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all his flesh"; and it says (Proverbs 3:8), "It will be healing for your navel, and tonic to your bones." And it says (Proverbs 3:18), "It is a tree of life to those who hold on to it, and those who grasp it are happy." And it says (Proverbs 1:9), "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head, and a necklace for your throat." And it says (Proverbs 4:9), "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you." And it says (Proverbs 9:11), "For by me your days will be multiplied, and you will be given additional years of life." And it says (Proverbs 3:16), "Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left is wealth and honor"; and it says (Proverbs 3:2), "For length of days and years of life and peace will be added to you"; and it says (Proverbs 3:17), "her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace."

Great is Torah, etc.: And it may be asked - why did it bring these seven verses (Editor's note - based on a different text of Avot then the one above) here, and was one not enough? Moreover, what is the proof from the verse (Proverbs 1:9), "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head, and a necklace for your throat"? And likewise (Proverbs 4:9), "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you" - what is the proof from this? Know that it brought seven verses, and with these seven verses, it came to explain that the Torah has eternal life. For there is life that is above life - there is short [life], longer [life] and even [longer life], until eternal life. And it is coming to explain that through Torah, he acquires eternal life; hence it brings seven verses, corresponding to seven levels, each one of which is more [than what is before it]. And when there are seven, it indicates about this that there is nothing above it. As seven levels that are one upon another always indicate that there is nothing above this. For God, may He be blessed, who is 'Guardian of the height upon the height,' who has nothing above and sits high and elevated, has seven firmaments - which are a height over a height to the last level. Behold that the number, seven, indicates the highest level. And likewise do you always find that the levels and the virtues, that are one above the other, are seven. And this thing is understood, and we have explained it in a different place (Netiv HaTorah 12).

And these seven virtues and levels begin from life in this world, with something that is on the bottom level and ends with the highest level, which is eternal life in the world to come. Hence the first three verses teach about life in this world, the last three verses teach about life in the world to come and the middle verse is the level between this world and the world to come - as will be explained.

And first we must explain the reason that the Torah is unique, in that man reaches life in this world and life in the world to come with the Torah. And you should know - and this is something that we have explained in the earlier chapters many times - that He, may He be blessed, is One and there is none besides Him; hence the existence and life that a person and all that exists have is because He, may He be blessed, gives life to those that cling to Him. And what exists has nothing from the angle of themselves except that which flows to them from God, may He be blessed. And with this, God, may He be blessed, is One and there is nothing besides Him. And that which it said (Psalms 36:10) - "With You is the source of life; by Your light do we see light" - is because a source does not have any interruption at all. And this source flows to all that exists. And this thing is from the angle of their clinging that they cling to Him, may He be blessed. So if they remove this clinging, by sin and iniquity - that is excision that is written in the Torah (for example, Leviticus 18:29). And it comes with the expression, excision (karet), because it is the thing we spoke about above. For life only comes to that which exists from the angle of their clinging to Him, may He be blessed. But through sin, they are excised from that clinging. Hence "life" is mentioned with the clinging, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:4), "But you who cling to the Lord, your God [are all alive today]" - the God of life. And that is because the clinging causes life. For He, may He be blessed, is called the Root (Ikar), like when they said that one denies the Ikar (Sanhedrin 38b). And it is well-known that the tree and branches have their life from the root when they are clinging (attached) to the root. But if the body [of the tree] is separated from the root, it immediately does not have life.

And that is the explanation of the verse (Proverbs 3:18), "(For) it is a tree of life to those who hold on to it." And that is because the Torah is the clinging of man to his Creator. And this thing is explained in several places above. And we have spoken at length about this, for you do not have anything that is as close to God, may He be blessed, as the Torah - since it emanates from God, may He be blessed. And that is why the Torah is called a tree. As a tree comes out of the root and emanates from the root. And so too does the Torah emanate from God, may He be blessed. So the tree that is grounded by the root receives [sustenance] from the root. So too does the Torah receive [sustenance] from the Root, which is the living God, may He be blessed. Hence when one grabs onto and holds fast to the Torah - it is a tree of life for him. And through it, life flows to him from God, may He be blessed. So this thing is understood. Hence it said, "Great is Torah, for it gives life to those who do it in this world and in the next world." And understand the word, "Great" is Torah, that is said here - as it comes to indicate the virtues of the Torah.

And it first brought a proof: As it is stated (Proverbs 4:22), "For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all his flesh." And the explanation is - living is the one who finds the words of Torah; and he receives life though this. And that which it said, "to those who find them," and not, "to those who study them," is coming to indicate the stature of the Torah: When it is said, "x found this thing," [it shows] that this thing that is with him is not [otherwise] available to him. For if it was available, finding would not be applicable to it. So too is the Torah with a person, since it has a supernal level - to the point that it is called, that he found the words of Torah and got to something that is not [otherwise] with him. And because of this level and this stature, the Torah is life to man. For it brings life to man from above; from God, may He be blessed, who is the 'Source of life.' However in the Gemara, in the chapter [entitled] Keitzad Mearvin (Eruvin 54a), they said, "Do not read, 'to those who find them (lemotzeihem),' but rather 'to those who express them (lemotzi’eihem),' with their mouth."

But since the verse only said, "For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all his flesh" - and this thing is certainly partial life, meaning that it gives some life, which is only to the flesh, as it stated, "and healing to all his flesh," which is that some spark of life flows to man because of Torah, and this is only life of the flesh - hence it also adds and brings the verse after it: "It will be healing for your navel, and tonic to your bones" (Proverbs 3:8). And with this, all of man's life is included. And that is because the navel is the origin of the entire person, and the beginning of man's creation is from his navel - as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Eglah Arufah (Sotah 45b). And when it stated, "It will be healing for you navel," it is to say that the Torah is healing for the beginning of man; such that with this, the entire body receives healing. For when the beginning receives healing, the whole body receives healing - for it is all drawn after [the beginning]. And it also said, "and tonic to your bones," because the bones do not receive so much healing from the navel. For the bones have marrow inside, which does not receive so much healing. So about this, it said, "and tonic to your bones." For the Torah is tonic, and it is marrow for the bones (Rashi on Proverbs 3:8) - meaning that it gives life to all of the person.

And [the next verse was included so] that you will not say that even though the Torah gives life, that is that the Torah gives life until a person is whole and healthy all of his days that he is in the world; but we do not hear from the verses [about] length of days. For behold it stated, "It will be healing for your navel, and tonic to your bones" - that is that the Torah heals a person, so that he not be considered half-dead while he is still alive. Hence it brings the verse (Proverbs 3:18), "It is a tree of life to those who hold on to it, etc." And this thing indicates that the Torah is a 'tree of life' - since a tree exists the longest, as it is written (Isaiah 65:22), "for the days of My people shall be as the days of a tree." As from this, it is learned that a tree exists a long time. And this [type of life] is an even greater value.

And because we still do not understand that the Torah gives good spiritual life that the soul receives - which is life from the world to come - because of this, it brought the verse (Proverbs 1:9), "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head, and a necklace for your throat." The explanation of this is that the Torah gives the soul a spiritual level. And that which it said, "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head," is because the Torah gives an accompaniment of grace - meaning a connection of grace (Rashi on Proverbs 1:9) - to the head, in which there is the Godly soul. And grace is not a material thing. Rather it is something completely separated. For behold it is not an actual thing, but rather grace that is upon the eyes - and that is not something material at all. Then it said, "and a necklace for your throat"- the explanation of "your throat" is that the throat is that from which the speech of man goes out. And we have explained many times that the speech of a person is the life of a person in this world. For behold, man is a speaking animal, as we have explained [many] times. For Onkelos (Onkelos Genesis 2:7) translated, "and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7), as "and it was for a speaking spirit in man." So from this you know that the essence of man is that which he is a speaking being.

And the verse said that the Torah gives two things to a person: That it gives a separated level to the soul, which is in the head - and that is "an accompaniment of grace." For through this a person has a connection to God, may He be blessed. Hence the Torah is an accompaniment of grace. And it gives the power of speech to a person, which is also the life of a person - a separated level. Therefore it said, "and a necklace for your throat." As a necklace is an ornament. And any ornament is like that which we explained above (Derekh Chayim 6:5), regarding, "(since) your crown is greater than their crowns": That an ornament indicates a separated level, since something that is physical has lowliness and denigration. But something that is separated is the opposite, in that it has ornamentation and glory. And this thing is understood. And understand how it said, "For they are an accompaniment of grace for your head - for with the head, in which there is the separated soul, it said, "an accompaniment of grace," since grace is something completely separated. But with the throat - which is the power of speech that is not so valued - it said, "and a necklace for your throat"; and it did not write, "a necklace of grace for your throat."

And this level that the Torah gives to a person in this world is akin to the world to come - which is like Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, as He gave them a life of goodness, tranquility and rest. And behold Shabbat is also akin to the world to come. And it is like they said in Tractate Bava Batra (16b), "[The Holy One, blessed be He,] had three taste that which is akin to the world to come, in this world - Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov." And it is also possible to say this about the other righteous ones. As that which it only enumerated Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov is since He had them taste something akin to the world to come completely in every matter. But it is possible that he had [other] righteous ones taste some of that which is akin to the world to come. And Tosafot wrote accordingly there (Tosafot on Bava Batra 17a at the top): As it was difficult for Rashba - let Iyov (Job) also be counted, as we say (Bava Batra 15b), "'And the asses were feeding beside them' (Job 1:14). This teaches that [the Holy One, Blessed be He, had Iyov] taste something akin to the world to come." But it can be said that Iyov [had this] in only one matter, [whereas] He had Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov taste from all of it. To here [are their words].

But it appears that it is not difficult: For the [portion of] the world to come of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov was so great that He had them taste from that portion that they had in the world to come - some of it reached them in this world. And this is implied by the language, "He had three taste that which is akin to the world to come, in this world" - meaning, when they were still in this world, He showed them, and had them taste, that which they would have in the future. But the Holy One, blessed be He, had Iyov taste that which is akin to the world to come - meaning that He gave him that which was akin to the world to come, but not that this was his [portion in the] world to come. And just the opposite, Iyov did not have a portion in the world to come (see Bava Batra 15b). So there is a big difference in this. In the matter of Iyov, there is cessation, and it was only one time. But with the forefathers, there was no cessation, in the same way that there is no cessation to the world to come. For they merited [what they tasted] from the world to come.

And this verse that it brought fourth is between the first three which are all about life in this world, and the last three which are about life in the world to come. And this fourth verse is like something that is a midpoint between the two of them. And these words are very choice in front of you; and these words should be understood.

And afterwards, it brought another [verse] so that you not say that the Torah does not have the ability to give actual life in the world to come to the soul. Hence it brought another verse (Proverbs 4:9) - "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you." And with this verse, it did not say, "and a necklace for your throat"; rather it only mentioned, "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace." And because of this, you should understand that it certainly comes to make known that the Torah gives the Godly soul, which is in the head, an accompaniment of grace - which is an ornament and great glory, so that he merits the actual world to come with it. Moreover [is this so,] since this verse adds to say, "with a crown of glory she will protect you." So this thing indicates the value of the world to come. And this was already explained in the words of the Sages - and we explained it above (Derekh Chayim 3:16) - that which they said in Tractate Berakhot (17a), "The world to come - there is no eating and drinking in it. Rather the righteous ones sits with their crowns on their heads." And this is exactly what it said here, "with a crown of glory she will protect you."

But it still did not give a proof that Torah gives one life that is long life in the world to come. As here it only said , "She will give your head an accompaniment of grace; with a crown of glory she will protect you." And even though the world to come is certainly long, [we might think that] Torah only has the power that he should merit the world to come through it; but that he requires [performance of the] commandments and good deeds so as to merit length of days [there]. Hence it brings the verse (Proverbs 3:16), "Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left is wealth and honor." And it is impossible to explain that which it said, "Length of days," as anything but the world to come - as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Shiluach HaKen (Chullin 142a). For if it is in this world, behold one dies! And that is not considered length of days - and even if he lives a hundred years, behold that is called, "shortness of days" (Job 14:1). And David said, (I Chronicles 29:15), "for our days are like a shadow over the earth." So how is that called, "length of days?" Rather, the verse is speaking about the world to come - which is long.

And [this is] also because the explanation of the verse that said, "Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left is wealth and honor," is in the way that the Sages said (Shabbat 63a): "For those who approach it from the right (properly), there is length of days; and all the more so are there riches and honor. For those who approach it from the left (improperly), there are riches and honor; there is not length of days." And the reason of the thing is because one who occupies himself with Torah for its sake is suited to have length of days in the world to come, since he does it for the sake of Torah. For the Torah is above this material world, since it is a spiritual Torah. Hence it is appropriate that he have the level of the world to come, which is length of days. And all the more so is it suited for him to have the lower level that is below this, which is the good in this world. For this world is below the level of the world to come. But for those that approach it from the left: If he occupied himself with Torah to become honored with the Torah or that it be a spade with which to eat (earn his livelihood) - and these are benefits that are in this world - it is appropriate that he should have this world be according to that which he occupied himself with Torah, for the sake of benefit in this world. But that he should acquire the level of the next world, he does not acquire it with this. Hence, "there is not length of days." And we already explained this above (Derekh Chayim 4:9). So, regardless, the verse is perforce speaking about length of days in the world to come.

But we have still not learned from Scripture that one will merit eternal life from Torah. For behold, it only stated, "length of days" - and eternity is not implied by that. So [we may think,] if he merits eternity, it is not only from Torah, but he must rather adjoin to it the [performance of the] commandments and other good deeds - since "days" does not imply so much. And likewise is it found in the chapter [entitled] HaOreg (Shabbat 105a), "Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a sage does not live a long life - measure for measure - as it is stated (Isaiah 27:8), "In full measure (Besase’a), when You send her away, You contend with her.'" Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yochanan, 'And the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Yehoshua and all the days of the Elders, who had length of days after Joshua' (Judges 2:7)!" The explanation is that there we say that they were lazy in the eulogy of Yehoshua, but they nevertheless had length of days. "He said to him, 'Babylonian, they had length of days; they did not have length of years!'" Then you should note that days does not imply so much [time], only a certain length of days. And so, [the baraita here in Avot] brings the verse (Proverbs 9:11), "For by me your days will be multiplied, and you will be given additional years of life." And from it's being written, "years of life," [we understand that] it is eternal life. Then you should note that it began with the lowest level and ended with the highest level - and that is eternal life in the world to come. And this thing is understood.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah, in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, says, "Beauty, strength, wealth, honor, wisdom, maturity, hoary head and children are fitting for the righteous and fitting for the world, as it is stated, 'The hoary head is a crown of glory, it will be found in the way of righteousness' (Proverbs 16:31). And it says (Proverbs 20:29), 'The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head.' And it says (Proverbs 14:24), 'The crown of the wise is their wealth.' And it says (Proverbs 17:6), 'Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.' And it says (Isaiah 24:23), 'Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His elders shall be honor.'" Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says, "These seven qualities enumerated by the Sages about the righteous were all fulfilled in Rabbi (Yehudah haNasi) and his sons."

Beauty, strength, riches, etc.: It may be asked - why did he say about these seven traits (Editor's note - this reflects a different version of the Avot text than the one above), that they are fitting for the righteous. The second [question]: Is it not that he does not bring a proof for riches or wisdom? Moreover, that which he said, "it is fitting for the righteous and fitting for the world" - how is this thing fitting for the world; as what does the world benefit from this? And also, what is the proof that it is fitting specifically for the righteous?

And you should know that he means to say that all of the virtues are fitting for the righteous. And we have already explained that the number, seven, indicates all the different virtues. For the number, seven, always indicates this. And Scripture shows this - as it stated (Deuteronomy 28:7), "they will go out against you in one path, but flee from you in seven paths," meaning to say that even if they went out in one path, they will flee in the maximum of different paths. So you see that the plural number that includes all of the parts is seven. And this thing is found a great deal, and it is explained in a different place (see Netiv HaAvodah 1 in Netivot Olam). It is as if he said that all the virtues are fitting [for the righteous]. And it is, as will be explained adjacently, why these virtues include all of the virtues.

And he said, "It is fitting for the righteous and fitting for the world": The explanation is that it is fitting for one who is good to ascend higher and higher. And because of that, he said, "it is fitting for the righteous." For it is fitting and proper when the virtue is upon one who is fitting for the virtue. And he said, "it is fitting for the world" - since if God, may He be blessed, gives these seven virtues to the wicked, they would lord it over the world. So that - in their arrogance - they would destroy others with their 'upraised arm.' Hence it is not fitting for the world. But when the righteous have the virtue, they provide of their blessing and their goodness to the world. Moreover, when these seven virtues are with the righteous, the world runs according to the appropriate order [of things]. And how very proper is it when the world runs orderly! But if the virtues are with the wicked, the world would not be orderly. And that which he said - that "it is fitting for the world" - is when the world runs orderly to the point that the one who is suited for a virtue has the virtue. And it is certain that this thing is a great benefit and a great enhancement for the world - when the world runs according to its order. For every order is fitting and proper; and that which diverts from the order is disgraceful.

And these seven virtues include all of the virtues. And that is because beauty is a virtue for the body, when it is beautiful. And this thing is a bodily virtue, and this is why he begins with this virtue. And afterwards, he said, "strength," which is a virtue of being, for being is strength. And afterwards, he mentioned, "wealth," since wealth is an acquisition of a person, as was explained above (Derekh Chayim 1:18). For after he mentioned beauty and strength - since these two virtues are for the body and being, which are the person - he mentioned, wealth, which is an acquisition of a person, as we we have explained many times. And afterwards, he mentioned, "wisdom," since wisdom is also an acquisition of a person. For a person must acquire wisdom, like he acquires wealth. And that is why a sage is called an elder (zaken), as they said (Kiddushin 32b), "A zaken is nothing other than one who has acquired (zeh she'kana) wisdom. So then you should note [about] these four virtues, each one is a virtue by itself.

And afterwards (Editor's note - according to his version of the baraita) he mentioned, "children," since they are one's offspring, but they are also their own acquisition. So this thing is an intermediate concept between an acquisition and something that is of the self. For since the child is not the father himself, he is his acquisition. But since he is 'the flesh of his flesh,' the son is [also] something of [the father] himself.

And afterwards, he mentioned, "maturity." As the virtue of maturity is the completion of a person, when his years are completed - like we explained in the chapter [entitled] BaAsarah (Derekh Chayim 5:21). And this thing is a level of its own - when a man is complete and satiated with days, without a lack. Moreover, when a person is old, he is not material in the way that youngsters are ensconced in physicality. And that is a virtue of its own - when a person is separated from the material, like the elderly are, since their body is weakened.

And the seventh is, "honor." For when honor is from God, may He be blessed, it is a spiritual virtue. It is as Scripture (Proverbs 3:35) says, "The wise shall inherit honor" - such that you see that honor is specifically suited to sages. And that is because when it is from God, may He be blessed, honor is a high supernal value - and we have already explained this thing (Derekh Chayim 4:22). Hence honor is a virtue on its own. And these seven virtues are differing, such that this one is not like that one. But other virtues all fall under one of these seven virtues or that which is similar to them.

And he first brings, "The hoary head is a crown of glory, it will be found in the way of righteousness" (Proverbs 16:31): And it means to say that one who walks in the way of righteousness - meaning the righteous one - has a crown of glory, which is a hoary head. And a crown is wealth - for a king, who has a crown, has wealth; glory is beauty; and a hoary head is maturity. Behold that these three - meaning beauty, wealth and maturity - are appropriate for the righteous; as it is written, "it will be found in the way of righteousness." And afterwards he brings [a proof] that strength and wisdom are also appropriate for him. For behold it is written (Proverbs 20:29), "The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head." And, "old men," that is written here means sages. For it is impossible to understand [it] literally as old men. As if so, how could it say, "and the beauty of old men is the hoary head?" Behold, an old man is the same as a hoary head! Rather this is the explanation: That the beauty of old men - which are sages - is a hoary head, which is actual old age. And we have already learned that a hoary head is specifically appropriate for the righteous one. For behold it is written, "The hoary head is a crown of glory, in the way of righteousness." And, if so, what it said is that the hoary head and wisdom are also appropriate to be together. Then note that it is all appropriate for the righteous. For otherwise, how is it possible that the hoary head is appropriate specifically for the righteous? As behold, it is also appropriate for the sages! Then how could it say that the hoary head is found specifically in the way of righteousness? Rather it is that being a sage is also specifically appropriate for the righteous.

Likewise, that which it stated (Proverbs 20:29), "The glory of young men is their strength," is also appropriate for the righteous: Just like the hoary head that it mentioned here is about the righteous; so too is, "The glory of young men is their strength," [referring to] the righteous. For there is no distinction between [the two parts of the verse]. Rather that which it said, "The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head," is meaning to say that strength is glorious for the young man - and if he is a sage - a hoary head is beautiful for him. Nevertheless, they are both speaking about a righteous person. And afterwards, he brings the proof, "Children's children are the crown of old men" (Proverbs 17:6). And we have already explained that old age is relevant to the righteous. And, if so, grandchildren are also connected to the righteous. For behold it said, "Children's children are the crown of old men." Then he brought a proof about honor - "and before His elders shall be honor" (Isaiah 24:23). And it has already been explained that old age is appropriate for the righteous. And hence, what it said here, "and before His elders shall be honor," is also about the righteous. So behold, all is understood. And in some books (Editor's note: the standard text) [the baraita reads], "a hoary head and maturity. "But they are certainly the same thing. It is only because the verses that he brought once write, "a hoary head" - as it is written (Proverbs 16:31), "The hoary head is a crown of glory, it will be found in the way of righteousness" - and [once], "oldness," in the verse (Proverbs 17:6), "Children's children are the crown of old men." As, "Children's children are the crown of old men," should not be understood as being [about] sages. For what is the relation of grandchildren to sages? Hence the understanding [here] of, "old men" (zekenim), is literally [about] oldness. For grandchildren are relevant to old men. But since once it is written, "oldness"; and once it is written, "a hoary head" - that is why he said (according to this version of the baraita), "a hoary head and maturity." But it is the same thing.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said, "These seven qualities enumerated by the Sages about the righteous were all fulfilled in Rabbi (Yehuda haNasi) and his sons" - for they were righteous. And this statement was placed adjacent to this, because it is shown from this that one who merits Torah merits all of these seven virtues. For behold wisdom is appropriate specifically for someone righteous. So if there is wisdom, it is certain that he is righteous. For if there is no fear [of God], there is no wisdom. But when he is righteous, all of the seven virtues enumerated by the Sages are drawn after it.

And it is because we said before this (Derekh Chayim 6:7) that one who occupies himself with Torah merits life in this world and in the world to come. And we explained above that they are the seven virtues and levels, one on top of the other; so that the highest level - which is life in the world to come - is that which comes last. So now it comes [to say], that just as he merits the highest level - which is the seventh level, meaning life in the world to come - through the Torah; so too does he merit all the virtues, which are the seven virtues, through the Torah. Then he brings a proof that the seven virtues that the Sages enumerated were all fulfilled in Rabbi and his sons - as they were all wise in Torah; so they merited these seven virtues.

And that are some that raise the difficulty: Since Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya also said the statement before this, it should have said, "He would say." (Editor's note - this is according to the version of the baraita that he had, as opposed to our version which has R. Shimon b. Yehudah saying the previous statement.) But this is not a difficulty, since the first statement is in the name of Rabbi Meir, whereas this is in his own name.

And when you understand wisdom, you will understand that which it is said, that the seven virtues are fitting and proper for the righteous. For the righteous one is the foundation of the world, which has seven virtues. And this thing should be understood. So these things are choice to those who understand them.

Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said, "One time I was walking on the road, and a man met me, and greeted me, and I returned the greeting. He said to me, 'My teacher, from which place are you?' I said to him, 'I am from a great city of sages and scribes.' He said to me, 'My teacher, do you wish to live with us in our place, and I will give you a thousand thousands of golden Dinarim, and precious stones and pearls?' I said to him, 'If you were to give me all the silver, gold, precious stones and pearls in the world, I would only live in a place of Torah.' And so it is written in the book of Psalms by David, King of Israel (Psalms 119:72), 'The law of Your mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.' Moreover, that at the time of a person's passing, nothing accompanies him - neither silver, nor gold, nor precious stones nor pearls - except Torah and good deeds alone, as it is stated (Proverbs 6:22), 'When you walk, it shall lead you, when you lie down, it shall guard you; and when you awake, it shall be your conversation'; 'When you walk, it shall lead you' - in this world; 'when you lie down, it shall guard you' - in the grave; 'and when you awake, it shall be your conversation' - for the world to come. And it says (Haggai 2:8), '"Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold," proclaims the Lord of hosts.'"

Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said, etc.: It may be asked [here] - what difference comes out of it, if the story was in the city or on the road? The second [question] - why did he need to say that [the man] greeted him and he returned his greeting. As what difference comes out of that? For this thing is not essential for the main part of the story. Moreover, why did the man greet him first; Rabbi Yose should have began [the interchange]. For behold they said (Berakhot 17a) about Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that no person preceded him in greeting him. And also, why was he required to add, "with us?" He should have only said, "Do you wish to live in our place?" Moreover, [R. Yose] should have only said, "I am from place x." As he did not ask about the sages in his place. Additionally, who told him him that [the other man's] place was not a place of Torah, such that he said that, "If you were to give me all the silver, gold, precious stones and pearls in the world, I would only live in a place of Torah?" For perhaps [the man's] place is also a place of Torah. And also the Biblical phrases that he brought: "When you walk, it shall lead you" - the understanding being, in this world; "when you lie down, it shall guard you" - in the grave; "and when you awake, it shall be your conversation" - for the world to come. Why about this world, would it have said, "it shall lead you"; about the grave, said, "it shall guard you"; and about the world to come, said, "it shall be your conversation?" Additionally, that which he brought the verse (Haggai 2:8), "Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, etc." - what is the relation of the verse to this? And there are a few more questions that they asked here, but they are not to the point. Yet they will be explained as well.

The explanation of this thing is that, that which he said was that he was walking (mehalekh) on the road alone, such that he would certainly be obligated to occupy himself with Torah - as he was alone. It is like they said in Eruvin 54a, "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "One who is walking on the road and does not have accompaniment (levayah) should occupy himself with Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 1:9), 'For they shall be a graceful wreath (livyat chen) for your head, etc.'" Then you should note that one who is walking on the road alone needs to occupy himself with Torah. And when he occupies himself with Torah on the road alone, he occupies himself with Torah with heightened concentration; not like when he is occupied [with it] in his house. Even though he studies [there] with great industriousness, it is not like the concentration of one who is occupied with it on the road alone; for he is concentrating completely. And as a result of this, his thought is completely absorbed in Torah. And he used the expression,"mehalekhon the road" - and not, "holekhon the road" - because that is the expression [commonly used in the Talmud]. It is like they said, "One who is mehalekhon the road and does not have accompaniment"; "one who rides is similar to one who is mehalekh" (Kiddushin 33b). And it is like this in every place [in the Talmud], because holekh is [also] an adjective, whereas mehalekh is [never] an adjective.

And because of his absorption in Torah on the road, it caused him to say, "If you were to give me all the silver and gold [...] in the world, etc." For since he was concentrating so much on Torah on the road, he was completely absorbed in it - to the point that he did not want to separate from it even if they would give him all the silver and gold in the world. And to indicate the greatness of the concentration that he had in the Torah, he did not see the man that came towards him, so as to precede him in greeting him. And even if he did see him, he did not pay attention to him, until the [other] preceded him and greeted him. So then he returned his greeting. For even though he was concentrating on the Torah, he had to answer him; and he should not say, "Since I am occupied with Torah, I do not need to interrupt [it]." Rather he must interrupt [it] to answer his greeting. But it is possible that this is the law [even had he been aware of the other man's presence]. So even though the Sages said that one must precede to greet [someone] - since he was occupied with Torah, he did not want to stop until [the other man] greeted him. And then he is obligated to answer his greeting. But he did not want to greet him first. And this explanation appears more [correct]. And this answers why he needed all this - to say that he greeted him and he returned his greeting. [It was] in order to explain that he was concentrating on the Torah.

But without this [answer], it is still not difficult. As it came to say that [the man] was a proper and correct man. For, if not, even if he said that he would give him "a thousand of thousands" - perhaps it is [only] words, and there was no substance to it. But since he preceded to greet him, [he knew that] he was a correct man. And also that he preceded him to say these thing [indicates] that he certainly spoke truth and rectitude. For were it not so, why should he precede? It would be enough for him to ask it of [R. Yose after the latter had greeted him], and he would have [then] promised him about it. But to precede to speak these things with him [indicates that] he certainly spoke the truth. And the [following is the] reason he said, "and a man met me"; and he did not say, "and I met a man": As he did not pay attention to his meeting him. For had he paid attention, he would have greeted him first.

And [the following] answers [why] he asked him, "From which place are you?" For why did he need to ask him, "From which place are you?" Rather it is because that man saw that Rabbi Yose was very occupied with Torah; and because of that, he only needed to ask, "From which place are you?" And he did not need to ask him, "Who are you" - as he saw that he was concentrating on the Torah, so he knew that he was a great Torah scholar. And he asked him, "From which place are you" - as if he was not from a place of Torah, he would would have plainly asked him to live near him, without silver or gold. But if he would say that he is from a place of Torah, he would need to compensate him. And Rabbi Yose understood this thing immediately. For if it were not like this, what was his need to ask [about his place]? Rather that was certainly why he asked him, "From which place are you?" As [the man] knew that the place that he came from was not a place of a sages, but perhaps the place [of Rabbi Yose] was a place of Torah, so he would not want to [move] from there. And that is why he immediately answered, "I am from a great city of sages and scribes" - meaning to say, "and I do not want to live with you in your place."

And then he said, "My teacher, do you wish to live with us in our place, and I will give you a thousand thousands, etc." And he needed to say, "with us" - meaning to say, because we need a teacher for his counsel. [It is] as we said above (Avot 6:1), "And people benefit from his counsel and sound knowledge." So that is why he added, "with us." And certainly if they had wanted him to teach them Torah, he would have chosen to be among them in their settlement. But they did not want [this]. Rather it was that they needed him [for advice alone]. And that is why he said, "with us" - to make themselves the main thing. For were it not so, but they were only coming to learn from him; [the man] should have said, "Do you wish to live near us?" For the expression, "with us," is that they are the main thing and he is secondary to them. So that is why he answered them like this. And we already said that all of this happened to him from the angle that he was walking on the road, so his thoughts were completely on Torah. Hence because of his love, such that his soul was attached to Torah, he answered him like this.

And he said that "at the time of a person's passing, nothing accompanies him - neither silver nor gold [...] - except Torah and good deeds alone." And some have a version (Editors note: That is the standard version used above in Paragraph 1), "Moreover, [...] that nothing, etc." - so it is a matter unto itself. [This is] meaning to say [that] in this world, a person merits all of the blessings, that are more important than silver and gold, on account of Torah. Moreover, "at the time of a person's passing, nothing accompanies him, etc." - meaning, that the Torah is also in the world to come, which is not the case with silver and gold. As [they] are only in this world and not in the world to come at all. And there are some books that have the version, "Since at the time of a person's passing, etc." - so it is one thing; and he only mentioned its advantage in the world to come: Because "nothing accompanies him - neither silver nor gold."

And he mentioned good deeds. Even though, 'who mentioned the name of good deeds' - he said, "good deeds," because it is the truth of the matter: That just like Torah accompanies one, so do good deeds accompany him. Additionally (another explanation is) because Torah without deeds is nothing. But since there are also deeds here, Torah also accompanies him. And that which he did not say, "I would only live in a place of Torah and good deeds," is because a place does not cause good deeds (according to Sotah 45b); so one can do [them] in any place that he lives. But Torah is not like this, since a sage [is needed to] teach Torah to the masses.

And he gave a proof, as it is stated (Proverbs 6:22), "When you walk, it shall lead you, etc." But he did not bring a proof that silver and gold and pearls do not accompany him; as this does not need proof. For it is a simple thing that silver and gold do not accompany a man. And he could have certainly brought a proof from that which it is written (Psalms 49:17-18), "Do not be afraid when a man becomes rich; […] his glory cannot follow him down." But there is no need for a proof at all about this thing. And that which he said that, "nothing accompanies him - neither silver nor gold, etc." - how is it that you would think that gold and silver would accompany him? And he should have said that, "nothing accompanies him except Torah and good deeds alone!" It may be answered that he wanted to say that that which made [him] successful in this world - and he had success with these things from it in this world - does not accompany him. And you might think that this thing would accompany him after his death. And about this, he said that these things - even though they are considered success in this world, these things [of] this success - do not accompany him after his death. And that constellation [that was its cause] is no longer [effective] at the time of his passing.

But I say also (another explanation): It is because it is coming to say that when a man absorbs death, he should not place his trust in that he will have his completeness, such that he receive retention from the angle of this lower world or from the angle of the middle world - which is the world of the celestial spheres. But this thing will not give a person his completeness, even though a man truly has something from all three worlds, as we explained in a different place (Derekh Chayim 1:18). For a man has something from all three worlds; but there is no purpose in any of them for him besides through the Torah, which is from the supernal world, which is the world to come. And that which he said is that from the angle of the lower world, the completeness of the lower world that he had in his life does not accompany him. For the completeness of the lower world is the unadulterated and refined matter. And that is called, silver, because [silver] is unadulterated and refined. And the simple pure form is called, gold. It is appropriate that he call the pristine matter, silver, as it is pristine; and the pure form, gold, since it is pleasant to see. For the form makes a thing actually visible. And afterwards, corresponding to the middle world - and it also has matter and form - its form, which is of a higher value, is called a precious stone, since a precious stone is like gold, pleasant to see. And he called its matter, a pearl, which is more unadulterated and clean than silver. And he means to say that even though a man has this thing in this world and in the middle world, they do not accompany him and they do not give him any preservation at all for his body and for his soul.

And you should know that gold shines; and likewise do precious stones shine. But the white (of the silver and the pearls) does not shine, so it is the form which makes the thing actually visible. Hence form and light are completely one matter. For the form actualizes the thing, and likewise does the light make the thing actually visible. And so he called the form that is in this world, gold, as it is a bright light; and in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 103b), it says over there - "we have parvayim gold that lights up for us." But precious stones light up more. And hence he called the form that is in the middle world, precious stones, since they shine more; the unadulterated simple matter that is in this world, silver, as it is unadulterated; and those that are in the middle world, pearls, as they are [even] more unadulterated.

However Torah and good deeds do accompany a person, since the preservation that a person absorbs that is from the supernal world - being the world to come - is the Torah, which is from the supernal world. So the Torah is the completeness of the soul, which is the form; and the good deeds are the completeness of the body, since a person does them with his body. For actions are dependent upon his body, so that this thing is the preservation of his body, which is his matter. And this thing shows that the world to come is for the body and the soul. And it is appropriate to say thus; and it is accordingly the truth - as it is explained in a different place (Derekh Chayim 4:17). And it is appropriate that it be thus, for it is only appropriate that the level of the world to come be through Torah and good deeds. As the Torah is from the supernal world; and good deeds - which are the actions of the Torah's commandments - are [also] from the supernal world. So through them, a person merits preservation. And according to this explanation, why good deeds is mentioned here is also answered.

And he brought these verses: The first was, "When you walk, it shall lead you" (Proverbs 6:22) - in this world. And it is well known that it is this world about which it is called that a man is walking; since one walking is moving to come to a certain place and will rest there. And it is likewise because this world is an antechamber to refine oneself and prepare oneself for the world to come (Avot 4:17). And they are three expressions: This world is called walking, because the walking is the preparation and refinement for something that comes at the end of walking, which is the rest and the sitting; and likewise is this world refinement for the world to come. And [being] in the grave is called lying down, since this expression is appropriate for the grave. And sitting is appropriate for the world to come - like they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (17a), "The righteous sit with their crowns on their heads." And that is because sitting indicates preservation - when one sits. But walking is not something that endures, since one does not continue walking forever. And lying down is [also] not something enduring. Rather sitting - when one sits, that thing indicates preservation. And since perpetual preservation is there in the next world, it is appropriate to say, sitting [about it].

And therefore he said, "'When you walk, it shall lead you' (Proverbs 6:22) - in this world." For the Torah is what brings a man to the 'place of his wish,' to where it is appropriate for a person to go - that is the world to come. And we have already explained this in its place (Tiferet Yisrael 9). And that which he said, "When you walk, it shall lead you," can [also] be explained as being this world. For this world - where there are the actions of a person - is called, walking. For walking is action. But in the world, it is [also] possible for a man to do something that is opposed to himself, and that is bad for himself. And it is as Scripture stated (Proverbs 14:12), " There is a path that seems right to a man, [but its end are the paths of death]." For this reason, it stated, "When you walk," in the world, "it shall lead you." It is as if it said, in your actions, it shall bring you to that which is appropriate to do. And this is saying [that] regarding every action and deed that he does in this world, it is relevant to say, "It shall lead you" - that he not do something that is opposed to himself and bad for himself. Nevertheless, it is shown in Tractate Sotah (21a) to be like the first explantion. And we have explained it in the book, Tiferet [Yisrael (14)].

And he said, "'When you lie down, it shall guard you' - in the grave": Guarding is relevant there; as it guards one from Geihinnom and from the 'affliction of the grave.'

"'And when you awake, it shall be your conversation' - for the world to come": We have already explained above (Derekh Chayim 6:7:9) that life is called, speech. And it is as Onkelos (Onkelos Genesis 2:7) translated, "and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7), as "and it was for a speaking spirit in man." And [R. Yose] hinted to this as well. For behold, the dead are called, "those that descend to Dumah" (Psalms 115:17), from the expression, demimah (silence). And even more than this; since the name of the angel that is appointed over the spirits - which are the dead - is Dumah, as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 94a). And all of this is because speech is lacking from the dead. And in the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 9:10): Rabbi Ashian said, "There is no [difference] between the righteous [who have died] and us besides speech alone." Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, "There is no [difference] between the righteous [who have died] and us besides the [power of] speech alone." To here [is the midrash]. Then note that the dead do not have speech.

And this reason is known to the enlightened. As through speech, man is completely actualized in his entirety. And the Sages hinted to this (Bava Batra 16b) - "as the mourner has no mouth." And silence is for the mourner, since death has come to the kin of his flesh and it is as if death has come to him - and the dead have no mouth. And for that reason, the mourner has no mouth. And it is not appropriate for him to bring speech out to actualization, such that it be complete. For there is nothing that is taking potential to actualization like speech. As he opens his mouth and takes speech to actualization; but when his mouth is shut, [the speech] is only in potential. Hence silence is appropriate for the mourner, and speech for the one who has a joyful occasion. And that is what they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (6b), "The reward for [attending] a bei tamia" - which is a house of mourning - "is [for] the silence; [...] the reward for [attending] a wedding is [for] the words." Note that silence and quiet are relevant to a house of mourning; and the opposite of this - words - are relevant to a wedding. For everything is joyful there, so it is appropriate to bring out speech to actualization there. And through Torah, a person merits resurrection. So for that reason, it said, "it shall be your conversation" - since the Torah is giving him speech. And through speech, man is completely actualized, as is appropriate. And these words are very choice.

And it says (Haggai 2:8), "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord of hosts": It appears that he brings this verse as another proof that there is a difference between gold and silver, and between Torah. For silver and gold belong to God, may He be blessed - as it is written, "Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold" - whereas Torah is man's. For behold they said in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (19a), "Rava said, 'Initially the Torah was called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is stated (Psalms 1:2), "But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord." But ultimately it is called by the name [of the one who studies it], as it is stated, "and in his Torah, he meditates day and night."'" Then you should note that it is made clear that the Torah is man's. Whereas silver and gold is considered to belong to the Holy One, blessed be He, and it is not man's. You should know this - as in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (2b), they said that in the future to come, The Holy One, blessed be He, will ask the Fourth Empire (Rome), "With what did you occupy yourselves?" And they say, "We have increased much silver and gold. And we did all of this only so that Israel would occupy themselves with Torah." And the Holy One, Blessed be He, answers them, "The silver and gold is Mine, as it is stated, '"Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold," proclaims the Lord.'" But if so, there is a difficulty - the Torah also belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He! However, silver and gold are certainly different, because silver and gold are not the person himself. Rather, they are the money of a person and his acquisition. And the Holy One, blessed be He, will say [that] the silver and the gold nevertheless belongs to God, may He be blessed. But the Torah is man's. For behold, the Torah is his wisdom and his intellect; and from that angle, the Torah is man's. Hence he brings this verse - "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord" - meaning to say, and silver and gold is not man's, that man should consider it man's virtue. But regarding God, may He be blessed, it is considered a virtue. For, at the end of the day, it is an important item and it belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He.

And you should further understand that which Scripture stated, "Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold," and it did not say like this about other things that exist. As [domesticated] beasts and the fowl of the skies are certainly under the control of man, as it is written (Genesis 1:26), "and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky [and the beasts]." But there is no doubt that there is something of value in silver and in gold. For if not, gold and silver would not be more significant than stones. Hence it is necessary to say that there is something of value in gold, and likewise in silver, which is not found in other things. And that thing is not under the control of man. For only material things are under the control of man. But since silver and gold have more significance, they are not under the control of man. And hence it said, "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord." And the explanation of this, is that "Mine is" that which is unusual in "silver," and "Mine is" that which is unusual in "gold" - that which has worth - that is what belongs to God, may He be blessed. And it does not belong to man; for only material things are under man. And this is a simple and choice explanation to one who understands these things.

And it has silver precede and gold afterwards - for we do not praise someone with something significant and then praise [him] with [something] less significant than it. Rather we praise [him] with something that is not so significant, and afterwards with [something] more significant. But you should also know that that which silver precedes gold is because silver is more anterior to the Holy One, blessed be He, because of its complete simplicity and purity - as it is stated (Psalms 13:7), "silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold." For whiteness is not tinted at all, and that indicates complete simplicity. But the redness that is in gold is a tint; so here there is no simplicity like there is with silver. Hence they chose to make the calf of gold (Exodus 32:3) [and not of silver]. As simplicity is [only] appropriate for God, may He be blessed. And therefore [the high priest] would not go [into the inner sanctum] with the gold clothes. But this is not the place [to discuss this]. Hence it has the silver precede because of its simplicity. So there is no difficulty about this at all.

And it also appears that that which he said, "and a man met me" - its explanation is that someone appeared to him with the appearance of a man, and that was the Satan. As it is the way of the Satan to sometimes incite a person by appearing like a man, and sometimes like a bird of the skies - all according to the situation. And it is like they said in the Gemara, in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 107a) concerning David, "he appeared to him as a bird." But here he appeared to him as a man. And that which he said, "and a man met me" - and he did not say, "I met a man," but rather, he "met me" - is that this thing is called meeting: When something [damaging] like this meets him. As because the Satan saw that Rabbi Yose was concentrating very much on the road, he appeared to him as a man to incite him and to divert him from the Torah, by saying to him, "My teacher, do you wish to live with us in our place, and I will give you a thousand thousands, etc." And this is certainly the act of the Satan, to incite the righteous ones.

And it is also possible to say that it was the prophet, Eliyahu - may his memory be for the good - who came to increase his reward. For he knew that he would answer this and that. And likewise in the Gemara, in the third chapter of Taanit (20b), concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar - as we say, "and a man met him." So Tosafot explained (s.v. nizdamen) in the name of Tractate Derekh Eretz, that it was also the prophet, Eliyahu; and he wanted to show him not to accustom himself to [what he was doing]. And it is possible that it was the [same] Rabbi Yose of the first chapter of Berakhot (3a), who said, "One time, I went into a ruin and the prophet, Eliyahu, came and waited for me at the entrance, etc." And he appeared to him here in order to give him merit, such that he would say these things to him. And these words appear [correct]. And then many of the questions are answered for you also [according to this approach]: That which Rabbi Yose did not greet him first is because [the man] came to him suddenly, and [R. Yose] did not see him until [the man] greeted him. And that is why he needed to also say that he greeted him, etc. - it all came to elucidate that he was not a regular man. For had he been a regular man, Rabbi Yose would have greeted him first. And that is why he did not ask Rabbi Yose, "Who are you?" Since the Satan certainly knew him. Rather, he only asked him, "From which place are you," in order to enter into conversation with him. And this is understood.

Five possessions has the Holy One, Blessed be He, acquired for Himself in His world, and these are them: The Torah [is] one possession, Heaven and earth [are] one possession, Avraham [is] one possession, Israel [is] one possession [and] the Temple [is] one possession. From where [do we infer that] the Torah [is one possession]? For it is written (Proverbs 8:22), “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, the first of His of old.” From where [do we infer that] heaven and earth [are one possession]? For it is written (Isaiah 66:1), “Thus says the Lord, ‘The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; which house might you build for Me, and which place might be My resting-place?’” And it [also] says (Psalms 104:24), “How manifold are Your works, O Lord; in wisdom have You made them all, full is the earth with Your possessions.” From where [do we infer that] Avraham [is one possession]? For it is written (Genesis 14:19), “And [Melchizedek] blessed him, and said, ‘Blessed be Avram of God most high, Maker of heaven and earth.’” From where [do we infer that] Israel [is one possession]? For it is written (Exodus 15:16), “Till Your people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over whom You have acquired (kanita).” And it [also] says (Psalms 16:3), “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire.” From where [do we infer that] the Temple [is one possession]? For it is written (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And it is [also] said (Psalms 78:54), “And He brought them to His holy border, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed.”

Five possessions, etc.: It may be asked, “Why do I need a count” (why mention the number)? And also, behold all things are possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is written (Psalms 24:1), “To the Lord is the earth and all that fills it.” Moreover - that which it brought a proof for heaven and earth, “For it is written (Isaiah 66:1), ‘Thus says the Lord, “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool”’” - it should have rather brought a proof from that which it is written (Genesis 14:19), “Maker (Koneh, which is also used in the mishnah to mean, acquirer) of heaven and earth.” And more difficult is that it brings it as a proof that Avraham is a possession, whereas the verse only mentions heaven and earth, but not Avraham. And also why did it not count heaven by itself and the earth by itself, but mentioned heaven and earth [as one]? For they are two! And in the verse, it is written, “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool” - each one by itself! And another difficulty - behold everything that is in the earth is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written (Psalms 104:24), “the earth is full of Your possessions.” And in some books (Editor’s note: That is the standard version in Paragraph 1 here), after it brings the verse, “The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool,” it also brings the verse (Psalms 104:24), “How manifold are Your works, O Lord; in wisdom have You made them all, full is the earth with Your possessions.” And that is more difficult, for this is not a proof for heaven and earth, but rather [for] all that is in the earth! And it may also be asked - after it brings a proof from that which it is written (Exodus 15:16), “Till Your people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over whom You have acquired (kanita),” it brings another verse (Psalms 16:3): “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire.” But no possession is mentioned in this verse at all! And another difficulty is that it brings a proof from (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And is it not that no possession is mentioned there? Moreover, in this baraita, five possessions are reckoned; whereas in Tractate Pesachim (87b), it only reckons four possessions - it does not mention Avraham at all.

And you should know that possession is said about several things that are one’s possession. But that which is called a complete possession is when it is completely acquired by the possessor, to the point that it is impossible for him to acquire it more. And that is that when it is partially possessed - like a slave that is acquired by his master [only] for the work of his hands but is not completely acquired - this thing is not an undifferentitated possession. And likewise any possession about which it can be said that it is only a possession from a certain angle, is not a complete possession. Rather [it is the case] only when this possession is from every angle. And that is what is called by the name, possession; but it is not so when the possession is from a certain angle. For the virtue of possession is in that which it is completely in the domain of the possessor - without it veering from him, the possessor, from any angle. But if it had left the domain of the possessor in any way, it would not be called a complete possession. Hence we said that it is not fitting that a slave that is only indentured for the work of his hands be called a man’s possession. For he is not completely in his domain. And this thing requires that the possession that is a complete possession be designated to the possessor. For then it is possible to say that it is completely in the possession of the possessor, such that it not leave the possessor at all. But if there are two [things] that are acquired for one function - like if there are two slaves for a master, the one serves him today and the other on the second day; or one serves him part of the day and the other the other part of the day; or one serves to walk with him and one serves him for the needs of his house - one cannot say about this, that he is the completely acquired possession of the master, such that he is in the domain of the possessor. As behold, he leaves his domain in that which he is not completely his master, meaning when he uses the other slave. If so, [at that time] he does not want this one. So the name, possession, is not on [either of] them. As an undifferentiated possession is when it is completely acquired for him, not [only] from a certain angle.

And that is that which they said here, “There are five possessions that (are for) the Holy One, Blessed be He”: And it means to say that it is not called an undifferentiated possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, until it is completely acquired for Him, without any removal or lack for Him at all. Rather it is completely in His domain. And you only find five [such] things, that each one is completely designated for its function. But other things are not suited to be called the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. And that is because even though all things are for the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is stated (Psalms 95:5), “His is the sea, He made it; and the dry land, which His hands fashioned,” and, if so, the sea and the dry land, both of them are for the Holy One, blessed be He; and it is likewise written (Haggai 2:8), "'Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold,' proclaims the Lord," since both of them are for the Holy One, blessed be He - nevertheless, neither of them is an undifferentiated possession, as we explained. That is because there are two things here, the sea and the dry land; the silver and the gold, so that one alone is not designated for the Holy One, blessed be He. And when they are two things and neither one is [by itself] for the Holy One, blessed be He, neither one has the name, possession, upon it, such that it be completely for the Holy One, blessed be He. As the sea and the dry land are two things. And in that which this one is to the Holy One, blessed be He, that one is not to the Holy One, blessed be He. And it is impossible that either one be a possession of God, may He be blessed - such that it be completely for Him to the extent that it does not leave the Owner of the acquisition at all - when there is another with it. And it is impossible to say that both of them together are a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, because they are two things and not one thing, such that this could be said about them. Hence neither of them has the name of an undifferentiated possession upon them. And likewise silver and gold, since they are two things; and it said about the two of them that “Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold.” And regarding that which silver is for God, may He be blessed, gold is not for God, may He be blessed; and regarding that which gold is for God, may He be blessed, silver is not for God, may He be blessed. For they are two things - each one something unto itself used [for] something singular. So behold, in that which they are two things - each of which is used for something singular - neither of them is in the domain of the Possessor to the point that there is no veering from Him. And that is why there are five possessions for the Holy One, blessed be He, that do not have any partnership with them; but each one is rather completely dedicated, such that there is nothing together with them in their function for which they are completely dedicated. And since they are dedicated, they are completely for the Possessor without any lacking at all for the Possessor, as we have said.

And you should also know that, that which the teacher said, “five possessions” - he called a possession something that is completely connected to the owner of the possession. Such that it is appropriate to call a house a man’s possession, since he needs it for his residence and for his being. As every person needs a house for himself. But a slave and vessels are not like this. Even though he needs them, they are not called a possession, since they are only used by the owner of the possession for a certain thing. But a [true] possession is something that is impossible without it. For that reason, it is called a possession (kinyan, an acquisition). Since if he does not have that thing, he must acquire it - as he cannot endure without it. Hence it is called an acquisition.

And all of these five things are things that serve His divinity, may He be blessed; so His divinity, may He be blessed, is upon them. Hence they are called a possession. For the Torah is the decree of His mastery, may He be blessed, over the creatures - as [the presentation of] the Torah opens (Exodus 20:20), “I am the Lord, your God, who took you out of the Land of Egypt.” Heaven and earth - they are the world; and His name, may He be blessed, is called upon them. As He is called thus - “the God of heaven and the God of the earth” (Genesis 24:3). Avraham - behold His name is called upon him. And even though His name is called upon all of the forefathers - saying, “the God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchak and the God of Yaakov” - behold that we start with Avraham; and we conclude [by] saying, “the shield of Avraham.” And this is not so with the other forefathers. For note that they said (Pesachim 117b), “They conclude with you (Avraham), and not with them (the other forefathers).” Israel - His name is called upon them, saying, “the God of Israel.” And [even] before they were created, the angels would say, “Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, etc.” (Midrash Tanchuma, Kedoshim 2 on Psalms 41:14) Note that the name of His divinity is called upon them, but we should not elaborate about this. The Temple - His name is called upon the Temple, as it is written (I Kings 8:43), “for Your name is called upon this House.” Behold these are the five things - just like He, may He be blessed, is the God of the world, so does He use these things [completely]. That is why they are called possessions. And likewise in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 309:5-6 on Deuteronomy 32:6): "Is He not your Father, your Owner?" - Moshe said to Israel, “You are beloved: You are a possession, and you are not an inheritance.” This is one of three things that are called a possession for the Omnipresent, etc.

Hence these things are called a possession, since they are for God Himself, may He be blessed, for His mastery. It is like one who acquires something - if he did not need it completely, he would not acquire it. And hence the Torah was created for Himself, may He be blessed, as it is the decree of His mastery over the creatures. And likewise, heaven and earth were created for Himself, may He be blessed, since He is “the God of heaven and the earth.” And likewise, the Temple, in which His Divine Presence resides, was created for Himself, may He be blessed; so His name is called upon the Temple. And thus was Israel created for Himself, may He be blessed - meaning that His mastery depends upon Israel, since His name, may He be blessed, is called upon Israel. And that is what Scripture says (Joshua 7:9) - “they will wipe out our name from the earth; and what will You do about Your great name?” Behold all these things are a possession - as anything that a person needs very much since it serves him, he acquires for himself. And likewise did they say in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 309:5), “A parable [that compares it to] one whose father bequeathed him ten fields, and he acquired one field; and that one he loved more than all the fields that his father bequeathed him.” And the explanation of this thing is also that something that is completely for himself, he acquires - not something that he does not need so much. As he does not acquire that thing. Yet it is possible that something that he does not need so much will come to him as an inheritance. However it can also be explained according to the first explanation: Something that is one, and there is nothing with it - that thing is very needed by him. As behold there is no other one, hence he needs it very much. For if there had been something with it, he would not have needed it so much. Now that it is [only] one, it is very much needed by him.

And it said, “Torah [is] one possession”: Behold the Torah is one exclusive matter. That is why it is a possession of God, may He be blessed. And we have already explained above (Derekh Chayim 3:2) that Torah is completely one. As the Ten Commandments therefore began with an alef [at the beginning of its first word], whereas the world was created [with a word starting] with a bet - to say that there is nothing more singular than the Torah. It is like they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 1:1), “I am one, and the Torah is one and the alef is one.” Hence the Torah [that the Jews first heard at Mount Sinai] began with an alef. And how could the Torah not be one? For the Torah is comprehensive, and everything is in it. And, if so, it is impossible that there be something besides it. For it is possible [with] something that is only a part, for there to be something else which is a second part. But [with] something that is everything, it is impossible that there be yet another with it. And since the Torah is one, it is completely a possession of God, may He be blessed. As you can not say that the Torah is not completely for God, may He be blessed, since there is something else with it. For there is no other thing with the Torah.

And likewise is heaven and earth singular, for there is no partnership with them at all. For the host of heaven and the host of the earth - their hosts do not have a partnership with [the heaven and the earth] at all, since they are called their hosts. It is as it is written (Genesis 2:4), “These are the generations of heaven and earth”; (Genesis 2:1) “And He finished the heaven and the earth and all of their hosts.” So they certainly do not have a connection to them. Rather the heaven and the earth are singular to themselves. And it should not be said, “Are heaven and earth not themselves divided [from one another]?” This thing is not difficult. For heaven and earth are connected together, like a circle and the center inside the circle. Hence the Sages said that heaven and earth were created together, and there is not one without the other - as it is written (Isaiah 48:13), “I call unto them, let them stand up together.” This is as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 12a) - that there is not one without the other, like a circle and [its] center are one thing together. And this is, as will be explained adjacently, that they are one thing together. Hence heaven and the earth are singular. And it is relevant to say about something singular that it is completely a possession of God. As behold, there is nothing with them, such that you could say that there is another thing with them.

And let not [the following] be difficult for you: Behold, the Torah is also the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, and there are five possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He! But, if so, how is there a singular possession here? Is this thing not completely irrelevant? For these two things - the Torah and heaven and earth - are not connected to each other at all; and each one is singular for its function, by itself. And that which we said - that when there are two things, neither of them is singular - that is when they are connected to one another; like two slaves, when this one serves today and that one serves tomorrow. That is when neither one of them is completely possessed by [the master]. However he can certainly say that he has a singular house and a singular slave; for these are not two things that are connected to one another. As the house is for his residence, and the slave is not relevant to this. And the slave is to do his needs, and the house is not relevant to that.

Therefore heaven and the earth are one thing together, and it is thereby relevant that they be completely one possession of God, may He be blessed. And because of that, it did not want to bring the verse (Genesis 14:19), “Maker (Koneh) of heaven and earth.” As from there, it could be rejected - since it is possible to say that each one is not a possession, given that they are two partial things. For behold, it is written, “Maker (Koneh) of heaven and earth.” But from that which it is written (Isaiah 66:1), “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool” - it is known that a throne and a footstool are completely one thing, both of them together effectuate the sitting. So they are called a possession, given that they are one [singular] possession. For there is not one without the other. So behold they are one thing, as has been explained. Hence it was necessary to bring [a proof] from that which is written, “Heaven is My throne, etc.” And the proof that it brought from this is that since heaven and earth are singular for the sitting of the Holy One, blessed be He - they are thereby the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, such that they attach themselves to God, may He be blessed.

Nevertheless, since an expression of possession (kinyan) is not written explicitly, it [also] brings the verse (Psalms 104:24), “full is the earth with Your possessions (kinyanekha).” And “Your possession” is referring to the earth - the earth, which is full, is Your possession (kinyankha). So, automatically, heaven is also the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. For behold the earth is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is His footstool - as it is written in the previous verse. And there is no footstool without a chair (throne). And “Your possession[s]” [in this verse] should not be understood as what is on the earth. For behold, “Your possession[s]” is singular, and it should have [otherwise] been written, “kinyanecha,” with a yod, which is the plural form - since it would be referring to [the previous phrase in the verse,] “all of them with wisdom.” (Editor’s note: In fact, even without the yod, the word can be read as either plural or singular; but it is traditionally read here as plural - see note 1657 in the Hebrew commentary of R. Y. Hartman.) But even if it is referring to those things that are on the earth, they are nevertheless only considered possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the angle of the earth. As since they are on the earth, they are connected to the earth; and the earth is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He - if so, it is through this that they are considered, possessions. However they are nevertheless not called possessions on their own, only the earth [is called that]. Furthermore, “Your possession[s],” should not be understood as referring to the things that are on the earth, since it should have [then] written, “the earth and all of its fullness is Your possession” - like it is written (Psalms 24:1), “To the Lord is the earth and its fullness.” Rather the earth is not the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, by itself; and that which exists on the earth are not the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He, by itself, but they are His possessions from the angle of the earth. So the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, with all that exists on it. Hence it is written, “the earth, which is full, is Your possession.”

And afterwards it said, “And Avraham [is] one possession.” And that is because Avraham was the first righteous person. For so did they say in the Gemara - in Tractate Avodah Zarah 9a - that two thousand years were emptiness until Avraham came, and as we explained above in the chapter [entitled] Asarah (Derekh Chayim 5:2). And he was the first one who was a [true] creation among the human species. From this angle, therefore, he was [singularly] one. And so is it written explicitly (Isaiah 51:2), “Look back to Avraham your father and to Sarah who brought you forth, for I called him one.” And we have already elaborated about this greatly in the book, Gevorot Hashem (Chapter 5) - that Avraham was a start; and any start, in that it is a start, is one. Hence it said, “for I called him one.” And we have not found with any of the forefathers besides Avarham that he was called such a name, “one.” Hence it is said about him that he was the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the angle of himself - because he was one. So he was the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And this is what they said in Tractate Pesachim (117b), “‘And you shall be a blessing’ (Genesis 12:2) - they conclude with you (Avraham), and not with them (the other forefathers).” But why should they conclude with Avraham? Rather it is because it is only appropriate to conclude with one, as we do not conclude with two - as it is found in its place (Berakhot 49a). And therefore one should only conclude with Avraham exclusively - since Avraham was the start. And anything that is a start is [singularly] one.

And it brought a proof from that which it is written (Genesis 14:19), “Blessed be Avram of God most high, Maker (Koneh) of heaven and earth.” Even though an expression of possession (kinyan) is only written about heaven and earth, it would nevertheless not have written, “Maker (Koneh) of heaven and earth,” adjacent to Avraham if he were not also a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. For what relationship would it have to here? Rather this is its explanation: “Blessed be Avram of God most high, Maker (Koneh) of heaven and earth” - just like He possessed (kanah) heaven and earth, so [too] did He possess Avraham to Himself.

And it said, “Israel [is] one possession: For behold, Israel is certainly one people, as it is written (II Samuel 7:23), “who is like Your people, Israel, one nation?” Nothing would have a partnership with Israel. And about anything that is [singularly] one, behold it is possible to say that it is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, as was explained above. But about something that is not [singularly] one, it cannot be said that it is the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. And because of [this], there is no [complete] proof that they are the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the verse (Exodus 15:16), “the people whom You have acquired (kanitah).” As it is possible to explain, it is because He redeemed them from Egypt; [as the phrase,] “You acquired,” is relevant to this - [such that] they would nevertheless not be called a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, on account [of that verse]. And because of that, it brings a proof - that it is written (Psalms 16:3), “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire.” Since it said, “in whom is all My desire,” there is no greater possession than this - since all of the desire of the Holy One, blessed be He, is in Israel. Nevertheless, it is proper for it to also bring the verse, “the people whom You have acquired (kanitah)” - since an expression of possession (kinyan) is written explicitly [in it]. And now that it is written, “they are the excellent ones in whom is all My desire,” we should explain, “the people whom You have acquired,” according to its [usual] meaning - that Israel are the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And afterwards it said, “The Temple [is] one possession”: For there is no doubt that the Temple is one, and that there is no other Temple in the world. Only the one Temple that is for Israel, as altars were immediately prohibited when the Temple was built. And therefore the Temple is one. Hence it is also appropriate to call the Temple a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. And it brought a proof from (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And this proof is because the Temple is considered greater than heaven and earth. [This is] as it is found in the first chapter of Ketuvot (5a): Bar Kappara taught, “The handiwork of the righteous is greater than the making of heaven and earth; as with regard to the creation of heaven and earth, they were created with one hand, as it is written (Isaiah 48:13), ‘My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens.’ Whereas with regard to the handiwork of the righteous it is written, ‘the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.’” Two [hands] are implied, as it is found there. And since heaven and earth are called a possession, as above - if so, all the more so is the Temple called a possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, even more. As it is even closer to God, may He be blessed.

And you can also understand the proof that it brought from that which was written (Exodus 15:17), “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established,” [as follows]: Since with this itself - that the Temple was built with two hands - it indicates that the Temple is one. For something is called one when there is no other with it. And had the Temple been built with one hand, it would have been possible for you to say that the Temple, which is only a part, was built with one hand and something that is also with it was built with the other hand. This is like it is with heaven and earth. For heaven was built with His right hand and the earth was built with His left hand, as it is written (Isaiah 48:13), “My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens.” But [that] the Temple was built with two hands indicates that there is no other thing with it and that it is one. For behold, it was created with two hands. And it has already been explained that everything that is one is called the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He, because it is completely in the domain of the owner of the possession. Hence it brings the verse, “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established.” And it is a complete choice proof for the one who understands these things that have no doubt about them. And we explained this thing in the introduction (the commentary on “Kol Yisrael”), concerning, “the crown of My plantings, the work of My hands to be glorified.” See there and you will find it explained. And even heaven and earth - since each one was created with one hand - if it were not that they connect together to be one thing, they would not be called a possession. As was explained above (Paragraph 8), heaven and earth are similar to a circle and the center inside the circle and, therefore, they are one thing. For both of them were created with two hands together, as we explained above.

But since “possession (kinyan)” is not written explicitly concerning the Temple, it [also] brought a proof from that which is written (Psalms 78:54), “the mountain, which His right hand had possessed.” Nevertheless, it is not enough with this verse, since, “the mountain, which His right hand had possessed,” implies that it refers to all of the Land of Israel - as it is written (Exodus 15:17), “You will bring them and plant them in Your own mountain.” So you should note that [all of] the Land of Israel is called, mountain. But since it is written, “the Sanctuary, O Lord, that Your hands have established”; the verse of “the mountain, which His right hand had possessed,” should be established to be about the Temple. And when it needs two verses, and one [of them] is from the Torah, it brings the Scripture from the Torah first.

So it has been explained to you [that] these are the five possessions that are called the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He, because they are complete possessions of the Owner of the possessions, and they are completely in the domain of the Owner of the possessions. Hence they are called possessions. And this thing is only possible when the thing that is a possession is one, and there is nothing with it for the owner of the possession that is attached. Only with such a thing exclusively is [true] possession relevant. And it has already been explained to you that each one of these five things is singular, without there being any connection to it with anything. And each one of these five things - each and every one - is also autonomous, and none of them has a connection with another. Such that each one is completely singular. And through this, possession is relevant, since it is in the domain of the Owner of the possession. And know how each one is an autonomous possession: It is because the Torah is spiritual. And behold the Torah is singular on the level of the spiritual, without there being an addition or connection to the spiritual Torah. And then heaven and earth - they are the physical world. So from the angle of the physical world, there is no connection to heaven and earth. And then Avraham, and that is with the human species - for Avraham was the [true] beginning of the human species. And because he was the beginning of the human species, Avraham was called, “father of many” (Genesis 17:5) - meaning to say, the beginning of the collective of nations. And behold this is an autonomous level. And then, Israel - and it is also an autonomous level. For they were chosen from the collective of nations to be for God, may He be blessed. And they are [singularly] one in this thing. And the fifth level is the Temple, as the Temple was chosen from all of the places of earthly inhabitation. Hence each of these five is singular, as there is no connection or partnership with it.

And in the Gemara, in the chapter [entitled] HaIshah (Pesachim 87b), it only said four things are the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He: Torah, heaven and earth, Israel, and the Temple. But it did not mention Avraham, because our Talmud (as opposed to Pirkei Avot) reasons that it is appropriate that only Israel be called a possession. As Avraham is the start of Israel and he is their head. So Avraham should not be considered an independent possession, but should be included in the collective of Israel. And hence [he] is not a complete possession.

And when you understand, these four things are words of wisdom: It began with Torah, which is the highest level; and then heaven and earth; and then Israel; and then the Temple. All of these things are very orderly. Hence it is suitable that they are the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He. And it is appropriate for you to understand the things we have hinted here, as they are very choice things - there is no doubt about this explanation. And in the commentary here of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, it is implied that [his] version in Pesachim (87b) is: Torah; heaven and earth; and the Land of Israel - and these are three things. And likewise is it found in some midrashim - that three possessions has the Holy One, Blessed be He, acquired for Himself in the world. And there is a reason for this midrash also - that the possessions are only exclusively three. However, we must not elaborate here. Also because Rashi, may his memory be blessed, recanted from this in Tractate Pesachim (87b) - hence we should not elaborate.

And you should also know: Even though the [previous] explanation is choice [and] there is no doubt about it; in order for you to understand this statement more, you should know that possession (kinyan, also understood as an acquisition) is that when one acquires something from another, the thing is given over to him and it becomes separated from others and enters into his domain. So it means to say that these five things are separated from existence and entered the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. Hence it is appropriate that they be called possessions because of this - given that they are separated from another and came to the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And silver and gold, and anything that a person has, is his possession even if he does not acquire it from someone else. It is called his possession because it was separated and arrived into his domain. Hence it is called his possession, just like something that arrived to him from someone else is called a possession. As there is no doubt that, because of their importance and their value, all of these five things are separated from the rest of existence and entered into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. So it is appropriate that they be called possessions.

And you should understand how all of these five things have one thing on account of which they were separated from the rest of existence - on account of their importance and their value - and entered into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And that is since you will find that everything that is the beginning of something else is separated from that thing that it is the beginning of, and enters into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He, on account of its importance and stature, in that it is called, a beginning. And you will find this often in the Torah, such that every beginning that is commanded in the Torah is to be separated from the rest and be for God, may He be blessed - such as with the priestly tithe, which is called beginning (Deuteronomy 18:4); the hallah-tithe [which] is called beginning (Numbers 15:20); the first-fruits [which] are called beginning (Exodus 23:19); and a firstborn [which] is called beginning (Deuteronomy 21:17). And all of them are separated from the rest and enter the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. As behold that the holiness of God, may He be blessed rests upon all of them. And through this you can see that they are separated from the rest and enter into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And the intellect necessitates this. For the beginning, in that it is the beginning of another, does not share that with it - such that it is separated. As it is called, beginning; whereas the other is not called, beginning. And this thing is clear, we need not elaborate.

And behold you will find that all of these five things are called, beginning. As from this you will understand that because of this stature, they are separated from the rest of existence and enter into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He - like all beginnings. For the Torah is called, beginning, as it is written (Proverbs 8:22), “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way”; and the Torah is the beginning of all the commandments. Heaven and earth are a beginning, as it is written (Genesis 1:1), “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”; and they are the beginning of this material world. There is no doubt that Avraham was a start and a beginning, because Avraham was considered the beginning of the world. For until Avraham, everything was chaos (Avodah Zarah 9a), and he was the start and beginning of existence. And on account of Avraham, the world was created, as we said above (Derekh Chayim 5:2, 22): "'These were the generations of the heavens and the earth in their being created (behibaram)' (Genesis 2:4) - in Avraham (beAvraham, meaning with the letters, of “in Avraham”), the world was created" (Bereshit Rabbah 12:9). Behold that Avraham was the beginning of the world. And it has already been explained that the beginning is separated by its stature from the [rest], in that it is the beginning and the start. Israel is called beginning, as it is written (Jeremiah 2:3), “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first-fruits of His harvest”; and they are the first of all the nations. And through this, they are separated from the rest, in accordance with the nature of every beginning. The Temple is called first, as it is written (Jeremiah 17:12), “O Throne of Glory exalted from first, the place of our Sanctuary.” For the Temple is the first and beginning of all places and inhabitation of the earth. And on account of its being first, it is separated from the rest and enters the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And because of that, it is called the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He. As every possession is taken from another for the owner of the possession. Hence these five are appropriate to be called, possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And also through this can we explain the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 309:5) above (Paragraph 6): For something that reaches Him from another, like these things that were separated from other things, and He took them for Himself - that is called a possession, since they belong completely to God, may He be blessed, as will be explained. But something that comes through an inheritance [to a person] - such a thing is connected to him from his father. Only something that is separated from the rest is called his possession and is beloved to him. As something that is separated from another and entered into the domain of the elevated, enters completely into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. And understand this.

And you should know to understand that this baraita counted Avraham among the possessions, not like the Gemara from Pesachim (87b), that did not count Avraham. And [the latter] is since Avraham was the start of Israel specifically, as he was their forefather and their start. And in that Israel was also called a possession from the reason that we said, it is not appropriate that Avraham be called a possession. For a possession is separated from that which is besides it. And from this angle, that Israel themselves are considered a possession that is separated from the rest, it is not relevant to say that Avraham was separated from everything to the point that the word, possession, would apply to him. For if so, this thing would negate that which Israel is called a possession - as Avraham is the beginning of Israel. Hence Avraham is included in Israel, and it is appropriate to consider it all one possession. And we have already said that that which these are called, beginning or first, indicates that they are a possession, separated from the rest.

And you will not find this expression explicitly concerning Avraham, like it is found in all of the [four others]. But to understand the root of all these things, behold you must know and understand the order that we hinted to you above (Paragraph 22): First of all, the Torah; then heaven and earth; then Israel; and then the Temple, which is below it. And they all enter into the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. But according to this baraita, Avraham is also a possession, in that he is a start, as we hinted above. And it is impossible to explain more. Rather the one who understands will understand the true words of the Sages.

Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory, as it is stated (Isaiah 43:7), "Every one that is called by My name and for My glory, I have created him, I have formed him, I have even made him." And it says (Exodus 15:18), "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever."

Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, etc.: This whole chapter speaks about Torah [study]. But according to that, it was not appropriate to append this statement here. Yet it is possible to say that it is since the whole chapter deals with Torah study, and Torah study is needed to keep and observe the commandments of one’s Creator; and this is the glory of God - and not that one intend [it] for his own glory. For everything that God, may He be blessed, created, He created for His glory. Hence it said, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, etc.” And even though it already said, at the beginning of the chapter (Avot 6:1), “One who studies Torah for its sake, etc.” - that only makes us understand [that] one who studies Torah for its sake merits many things. And it is implied that if it is not for its sake, he does not merit many things. But it does not make us understand that this is the main desire of God, may He be blessed - that he learns for its sake. And about this did it say, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory.” And if so, one who does not learn Torah for its sake - it is better that he not have been created. For behold, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory” - but this one is occupying himself with Torah for his [own] glory. Therefore it is better that he not have been created at all. And so did they say (Berakhot 17a), “One who occupies himself with Torah not for its sake, it is better that he not have been created” - as we explained this matter at length above (Derekh Chayim 4:5). And this is [the reason] that it placed, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory,” at the end of the chapter.

It also comes to say that a person should study Torah [in such a way] that, through it, there will be glory to God, may He be blessed: Even though he occupies himself with Torah for its sake, there must also proper behavior with it, so that there will be glory to God, may He be blessed, in his Torah [study]. And in the chapter [entitled] Yom HaKippurim (Yoma 86a): “And you shall love the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:5) - that you shall make the name of Heaven beloved. In that he reads and learns and serves Torah scholars; and his speech be pleasant with people, his buying, selling [and giving in the marketplace be pleasant and he gives and takes with people] with trustworthiness; what do people say about him? [Fortunate is x who studied Torah,] fortunate is his father who taught him Torah, fortunate is his teacher who taught him Torah, woe to the people who have not studied Torah. X, who studied Torah, see how pleasant are his ways, how proper are his deeds. About him Scripture states (Isaiah 49:3), “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” To here [is the Gemara]. So behold this is something on its own - that the Torah [study] of someone who is a Torah scholar be such that God, may He be blessed, will be glorified by it, when his actions and behavior are glorious. And that is the glory that God, may He be blessed, has from the Torah [study]. So should it be explained; and it is correct.

However it appears that it finished with this statement because it wanted to finish with something that is the end of man - and that is the Holy One, blessed be He, since He is the end of everything. As “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory.” And it is as if it said that the end of all is the Holy One, blessed be He - for behold all of the creations were only created for His glory, may He be blessed. And if so, the end of everything is God, may He be blessed; and there is nothing besides Him. And since this thing is the end of all creatures, it also made this thing the end of the chapter and the conclusion of everything (all of Pirkei Avot). And likewise when King Shlomo, peace be upon him, finished the words of Ecclesiastes - which are words of ethical teachings - he concluded his words (Ecclesiastes 12:13), “The sum of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole of man.” This means to say that the whole world was created only for this. For behold everything was created for man, and man was created so that he would fear God, and to observe His commandments. And all of the book of Ecclesiastes speaks about words of ethical instruction, and it finishes with ethical instruction - as this is the end of all the creatures. And likewise did the teacher conclude [this] chapter of ethical instruction with this thing, to say that this is the end of all creatures. And since it is the end of all the creatures, he fixed this ethical instruction at the conclusion and end of the words of ethical instruction. And it is like he is rebuking his child and teaching him words of ethical instruction to help him; and at the conclusion, he says to him, “What can I teach you - behold this thing is the end of everything.” And this is what King Shlomo did, peace be upon him. He concluded his words and said, “This thing is the end of all: ‘Fear God and keep His commandments’ - that is why this thing is the end of my words.” And the teacher also did this at the conclusion of his words of instruction. He said this is the end of all - that "everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created it for His glory.” Hence a person should make this thing his end - since the entire end of man and the whole world is this thing.

And the explanation of, "Every one that is called by My name and for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7), is meaning to say [that] the “one called by My name” is the human species, which is called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. And in Tractate Bava Batra (75b): The righteous are called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated, "Every one that is called by My name.” And it means to say [that] just like the Holy One, blessed be He, is called Holy; so too are the righteous called holy. And likewise the other names of the Holy One, blessed be He: The Holy One, blessed be He, is called righteous, and the righteous are also called this. Hence the righteous are called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. And the explanation of, “for My glory,” is everything that is for My glory. And those are the other things that exist. As they are for the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, even though they are not completely called by His name, like the righteous. Nevertheless, they are for His glory, may He be blessed. As behold, all the creations are for His glory, may He be blessed.

And it said, “I have created him, have formed him, I have even made him": It mentioned three expressions, creation, formation and making. And it may be asked, “What are these three things?” But when you analyze the creation story, you will find these three expressions are [found] with the creations: You will find an expression of creation with heaven and earth, “God created heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1); “And God created the giant sea-creatures” (Genesis 1:21). And likewise with man is it written (Genesis 1:27), “And God created man.” In these three, an expression of creation is mentioned. And an expression of formation is said with the [domesticated] beasts and [wild] animals - “And [...] God formed [... every] animal (of the earth according to its species)“ (Genesis 2:19). And an expression of formation is also said about man, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). But no more are found. And the expression of making is found with the firmament, as it stated (Genesis 1:7), “And God made the firmament”; with the luminaries, as it is written (Genesis 1:16), “And God made the two luminaries”; with the animals of the earth, “And God made the animals of the earth” (Genesis 1:25); and with man, “Let us make man in Our image” (Genesis 1:26).

And the explanation is that an expression of creation is said about a separated Godly form that becomes attached to the creations. And that is since with man, it is written explicitly (Genesis 9:6), “in the image of God did He make man” - such that you know from this that Godly content was attached to the form of man. And likewise with heaven and earth - which are the collective of the world - there is no doubt that Godly content was attached to them. And for this reason, an expression of creation was written [about them]. And so too, the giant sea-creatures, since Scripture explains that they are “giant sea-creatures” (Genesis 1:21). And according to their giantness - to the point that they are an amazing creature - Godly content was attached to them. [Hence] an expression of creation was said about them. As there is this thing with all the creations, as will be explained. However the Torah used an expression of creation [specifically] with these three, because it is famous and completely, visibly revealed with these three; whereas with other things, it is not revealed.

And an expression of formation is said about a form that is imprinted in substance. And that is [the root of] the expression, formation (yetzirah) - as it is from the [usage] (Berakhot 10a), cast a form (tzar tzurah) - such that it is not possible for the form to endure without the substance, which is [its] bearer. Hence, it is relevant to say an expression of formation about a form that is in substance. Therefore it is relevant to say an expression of formation with beast and man. For it is known and revealed that [domesticated] beasts and [wild] animals have a form that is imprinted in substance. Hence an expression of formation is said about it. And likewise does man have a form that is imprinted in substance. Even though he has a Godly separated form, man nevertheless also has a physical form, which is the form that is imprinted in substance. For about that form, the expression, “And […] God formed” (Genesis 2:7), is written. And the understanding is not that this is only relevant with man and with beast. For there is a form inscribed in substance to all creations. Rather, it is more visible with man and with beast. [For that reason], it wrote this expression specifically with them.

And it wrote an expression of making with the firmament and with the luminaries because these have a shining body and their essence is their body. Hence, it wrote the expression, “and He made,” about them - since this expression is said about the body. And likewise with the animals that have substance and form. But their substance and form are equally recognizable; hence expressions of making and formation are said about them. And the three of them are said about man - creation, formation and making - because the three of them are equally recognizable in man. Hence the three of them are said about (them) [him]. Here you have the three things that are said about creation.

And in the chapter [entitled] Elu Tereifot (Chullin 60a): Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “All the acts of Creation were created in their height; they were created with their knowledge; they were created with their character. As it is stated (Genesis 2:1), ‘And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all of their host.’ Do not read, ‘their host (tzeva’am)’; but rather, ‘their character (tzivyonam).’” And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, explained (there in Chullin): Their character - with the image that they chose for themselves. To here [is Rashi]. And he also explained, “with their knowledge,” that He informed them that they would be created, and they were agreeable to this. And this is a very far-fetched explanation.

Rather you should know that the choice explanation is that it wanted to say that all the creations were created with their complete height; not that you should say that at first they were small, and afterwards they became big, like a calf that becomes an ox (Bava Kamma 65b). Rather, it was created an ox from the beginning. And the explanation of “with their knowledge,” is that when the first man, Adam, was created, he was immediately created with his intellect; and not like a baby that does not have knowledge. And also the calf and the lamb do not have the knowledge at the beginning of their creation, like they have when they become an ox or a ram. And a fox does not have the knowledge when he is born, like he has afterwards. And so too, all of them. But in the creation story - what they have at the end, they had at the beginning of their creation. And the understanding of “their character” is their beauty. For every animal has its splendor. And there is no doubt that afterwards when it has already grown, it has more splendor than what it had at the beginning of its creation. And he said that the elegance and splendor that was suitable for each one afterwards, it had from the beginning - when each one was created. So they had all of this immediately. And with man, this thing is called the image of God - as will be explained.

And he mentioned these three things corresponding to the substance and the form, and corresponding to the Godly content that is attached to the creations - as this [content] does not have any mixture with the substance that all creations have. Hence he said, “they were created in their height.” And that corresponds to the body that receives physical height, since distances apply to the material. And he said, “with their knowledge,” corresponding to the form, because it is from the angle of this form that all animals have knowledge. And there is no doubt that knowledge is perfection of the being - as it is the form of all that exists - just like the height is the perfection of the body. Also, ‘a being without knowledge is not good.’ Hence he said, “they were created with their knowledge.” And the splendor and beauty is something which is from the angle of the Godly content that is in the creatures. As beauty is not related to the material at all, and we have already explained this: That beauty and splendor are related to that which is not material; and we have explained this many times. So he said that they were created in their completeness whether from the angle of their bodies, whether from the angle of their forms - which is their being - or whether from the angle of the Godly content that is attached to the creations. And [the latter] is their beauty. Hence he only brought a proof that they were created with their character, which is their splendor. As since they were created with their splendor, which is the last and highest level of the creations - and were even created with the completeness of that highest level - all the more so were they created with knowledge, which is before this. And all the more so were they created in their height, which is before everything. And this is the creation, the formation and the making that is mentioned here - corresponding to these three things. And these are very choice words, and there is no doubt about this at all. And they correspond to the three times, “His work,” is mentioned in (the passage known as) Vayekhulu (Genesis 2:1-3): “And God finished [...] His work […] and He rested […] from all of His work […] for He rested on it from all of His work that He created.”

And that which it said here (Isaiah 43:7), “I have even made him,” is so that you not say that a body is not relevant to Him, may He be blessed; and since He is not a body, He would have had no involvement with the body of the creations. About this it said, “I have even made him.” This means to say, it is true that He, may He be blessed, has no body or material, but He nevertheless made the body - such that He created everything. And if so, the understanding of the verse is, “Every one that is called by My name,” is man - since if a man is righteous, he is completely called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. “And for My glory,” means the other creatures; for they are for His glory - as they affixed in the marriage blessings (Ketuvot 8a), “who created everything for His glory.” “I have created him, I have formed him, I have even made him,” that he be called by My name and for My glory. And note that there is a proof from this that everything that God, may He be blessed, created in His world, He created only for His glory. And this is understood.

And it brought another proof, such that you not say that they were created for His glory because of this: That from them you could see how great is the power of the Creator - as it is written (Psalms 104:24), “How great are your works, O Lord, You have made all of them with Your wisdom, etc.” - and that this is His glory. But about this, it brings a proof that it is not from this angle; rather they are intrinsically His glory, may He be blessed. As it is written (Exodus 15:18), "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever." And since He, may He be blessed, is the King; if so, all of the creatures are for His glory. For without the creatures, it is not relevant to say, “King.” And it is like that which they said in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (31a), “On the sixth day, what (does he) say? ‘The Lord reigns, He is clothed with grandeur’ (Psalms 93:1), because on that day He completed His [deeds] and ruled over them.” Then you should note that the grandeur of Kingship is from the angle of the creations; and it is from the angle of the creations that He is King. Hence it brings this as a proof that all that He created in the world is for His glory. For behold, He, may He be blessed, is the King, and the Kingship is from the angle of the creatures; and this is the glory. So behold the creatures are the glory of His Kingship, as it said, "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever."

And you should know that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote at great length about this in his book in Part 3, Chapter 13 (Guide for the Perplexed 3:13) - about that which the Sages said that man is created for the glory of his Creator. And that is like they wrote at the end of Kiddushin (82a) - that all the creatures were created to serve man, and man was created to serve his Creator. As it appears from the words of the Sages that what they said here, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory,” is like its plain sense - that there is glory to God from the creatures. But [Rambam] responded to them that Scripture says (Job 38:6-7, the actual verses being in the opposite order), “If you are righteous, what do you give Him […] If (man) sins, what does (it) do to Him” - as the Sages affixed in the closing [prayer service] of Yom Kippur. Hence he, may his memory be blessed, explained that which it is written, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory,” as meaning that everything was created according to His will - that God, may He be blessed, wanted that it be created. And it should not be asked why God, may He be blessed, wanted its creation; for His will is His essence, may He be blessed. And just like, “Why,” should not be asked about His essence, so too should it not be asked about His will, may He be blessed, “Why did He want this thing?” And this is what it said, (Isaiah 43:7), "Every one that is called by My name and for My glory, I have created him”: Meaning to say, “I created him according to My will” - since [His] will is His essence. And this is the understanding of, “and for My glory.” It is as if it said, “according to My will, which is My essence.” It is like Scripture (Exodus 33:18) said, “Please show me Your glory,” which meant to say, “Show me Your essence.” And so did he understand, “Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created only for His glory” - meaning, according to His will, since [His] will is His essence; and that is His glory. And he also explained, “The Lord did everything for His sake” (Proverbs 26:4), like this - as for the sake of His essence. Thus did the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, strain. And it was all because of this difficulty - that God, may He be blessed, does not get glory from anything besides Himself at all. And on account of this, he explained it like this.

And we have already said that this is not the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed. As they explicitly said that man is created to serve his Creator. And the words of the Sages are like their plain sense - that man was created to serve his Creator. And that which was difficult to [Rambam] - that He, may He be blessed, does not get glory from anything besides Himself - it is in fact true that He, may He be blessed, does not get glory from anything besides Himself. And certainly, ‘if man is righteous, what do he give Him, if he sins, what does it does to Him?’ Rather man is created so that God, may He be blessed, rule over him. But it is not that the King receives the glory that the people give to Him. Rather the glory is from the angle of rulership, that He rules over them without benefit to Himself and governs them. And if a person is righteous, He is his King when He gives him his reward; and if he is not righteous, He is his King when He pays him back. As when the Holy One, blessed be He, takes revenge upon those that transgress His will, His name is also exalted and sanctified. It is just that, [being] good, He, may He be blessed, wants man to do the good. Nevertheless, His glory that He has from the creations is not at all dependent upon man. Rather it is that God, may He be blessed, created the creations and rules over them; and that is the glory of his Kingship. And it is like it [is stated in] the verse (Exodus 15:18) it brought - "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever."

And it was because of this itself - that which was difficult for the Rambam, may his memory be blessed: Can it be that God, may He be blessed, gets glory from man - that the Sages said (Avot 4:23), “Against your will you were born, and against your will you live, and against your will you die and against your will you are destined to give account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings.” It is all to make known that nothing is from the angle of man himself, but rather everything is from God, may He be blessed. And if so, God, may He be blessed, does not get anything from man. But if it were not that everything was against man’s will, God, may He be blessed, would get glory from man. But the thing is not like this. Rather everything with man is against his will. Hence it is not relevant to say that God, may He be blessed, gets [something] from man. But man gets [everything] from God, may He be blessed. And this is that which he said (Kiddushin 82a), that man was created to serve his Creator - meaning, that His Kingship is over man. And if one would say, "At the end of the day, God, may He be blessed, does get glory from the creations" - the thing is not like this at all. As since everything is from the angle of God, may He be blessed - and not from the angle of man - it is not considered that He gets anything.

And it should not be said, “Why was the world created; the glory of God, may He be blessed, is in His essence, so He does not need this glory. And if so, why were they all created?” This question too does not have any substance at all. For God, may He be blessed, is complete perfection to the point that it is impossible for His perfection to lack [anything]. But there is no doubt that something activated is more perfect than something in potential. Hence even though God, may He be blessed, could have potentially done [anything] according to His will, this thing is only potential. But when it is activated into existence, this thing is considered complete perfection - as it is activated. Hence God, may He be blessed, made the world in actuality, to the point that His Kingship, may He be blessed, was activated and it would not only be potential. So there is no need for the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed. Rather, the words of the Sages are choice and pure, and there is no doubt about them. But we can not elaborate [about it] here.

And I say that it is because in the generation of the [Rambam], may his memory be blessed, they were drawn after the opinion of the gentile sages upon whom the light of Torah did not shine - these were the philosophers. So if he did not explain Scripture to them according to their reasoning, there would be a concern for something more destructive - that they would not, God forbid, give standing to Scripture [at all]. Hence he explained Scripture to them according to their opinion. But the main understanding is not concealed from anyone who is wise-hearted. Blessed is the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever. Amen and Amen.

Rabbi Chananya ben Akashia says, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments, as it is stated (Isaiah 42:21), ‘The Lord desired, for the sake of His righteousness, to make the Torah great and glorious.’”

The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel, etc.: We have already explained in the Introduction, that which they fixed this statement after each and every chapter (of Avot), and fixed the mishnah of, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1), before the chapter. Everything is from the reason that was explained in the Introduction. And it is a very clear explanation for the one who delves [into it].

And I saw that some question the words of the teacher, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments”: The intellect leads to the opposite of this. That on account of the merit of the good for Israel, He should have given them few commandments, and not many commandments. For with many commandments, there is a concern lest one transgress. So what merit is there for them when He multiplied His commandments for them? And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained this mishnah and [these are his words] (Commentary on the Mishnah, Rambam on Makkot 6:11): It is among the fundamental principles of the Torah that when an individual fulfills one of the 613 commandments in a fit and proper manner - not combining with it any aspect of worldly benefit at all, but rather doing it for its own sake, out of love - he merits the world to come through it. And about this, he said that in their being many, it is impossible that one not do a single one in a full and proper manner; and in doing that commandment, he will give life to his soul. To here [are his words]. And likewise did the author of the Ikkarim (R. Yosef Albo) write in Part (2) [3], Chapter 29 - that the explanation is that this is why the Holy One, blessed be He, multiplied the commandments upon Israel. So that if he does one of them, he will merit life in the word to come - as he elaborated upon in that chapter. But the intellect does not tolerate these words. And about this also, it appears that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote these words to draw the hearts of the people to the Torah, as we explained before this (Paragraph 19). And because of this, a person would fulfill the commandments - since through one commandment a person would merit the world to come.

And it is certainly appropriate to accept these words, that one merits the world to come with one commandment. And I say even more than this - that one does not even need one commandment if he did not do a sin and he is not obligated in commandments, like a minor. As we say in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 110b), “A minor [who dies] - from when does he come to the world to come? Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi [argue]. One says, ‘From the time he is born’; and one says, ‘From the time he talks.’” But even according to the one that disagrees the most - he said, until he says, “Amen,” whereas the minor is not obligated in commandments at all. And we explained this thing above (Derekh Chayim, Introduction). And adjacent to this (Sanhedrin 111a), they said: “Therefore, the netherworld has enlarged itself and opened its mouth without measure (livli chok)” (Isaiah 5:14) - Reish Lakish said, “[It is about] even one who leaves one statute (chok).” Rabbi Yochanan said, “It is not satisfactory to their Master, that you said this about them. Rather, even if one (did) only one statute [such a punishment would not apply].” To here [is the Gemara]. But this thing is talking about someone who is already obligated in the commandments: Since he is already obligated in the commandments, he needs to have [done] one statute.

Nevertheless the understanding is not that if he transgressed several commandments and fulfilled one commandment, that he will merit the world to come on account of that commandment. For this thing is impossible to say - that one who is mostly transgressions would merit life in the world to come! And in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b), it is clear - “It was taught, [Beit Shammai says], ‘There will be three groups on the Day of Judgment: One of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written and sealed for life in the world to come. Wholly wicked people will immediately be written and sealed for Geihinnom, as it is stated (Daniel 12:2), “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Middling people descend to Geihinnom and cry out and ascend, as it is stated (Zechariah 13:9), “And I will bring the third part through the fire.”’ Beit Hillel says, ‘[He is] “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness.’” It is clearly implied that with mostly transgressions, one is sealed for Geihinnom. And it should not be said that when he does one commandment with intention, not combining with it any intention of worldly benefit, that this thing would be more than if he did many commandments not in this way. Moreover, it spoke undifferentiated [in the Gemara] - in whatever way he did the commandment - once he is mostly transgressions, he descends to Geihinnom.

Moreover, this group - when one does one commandment and does not combine any other intention with it - is not found at all in any of the groups that the baraita mentions. As this group is certainly not called by the name, “wholly righteous.” And one should not understand there that one is called middling if one is not wholly wicked; and that if he did one commandment [properly], he is called middling. This is not the case. For it is clearly implied, that when he is mostly transgressions, he has no rectification. As it rebuts Beit Hillel, who says, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness”: But isn’t it written (Zechariah 13:9), “And I will bring the third part through the fire?” And it answers, There, [it is referring to] (the transgression of) the Jews who rebel with their bodies. But didn’t you say that they have no rectification? There it is when he is mostly transgressions. [Here] he is half transgressions and half meritorious deeds and [also included in the transgressions] is the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies. It is not sufficient that they are not [subject to], “And I will bring the third part through the fire.” To here [is the Gemara]. And from this - if the "middling" there was mostly sins, why does he have no rectification if he has with this, the sin of the Jews who rebel [with their bodies]? Behold they have several commandments [that may have been performed properly]! And if he is considered middling on account of [these] few commandments concerning, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness” - he should have been considered middling concerning this matter, [even] if he had the sin of the Jews who rebel [with their bodies] with [the other sins]. And they would [then] be included in, “And I will bring the third part through the fire,” even though they are mostly transgressions. And likewise did Rashi (on Rosh Hashanah 16b), may his memory be blessed, explain “wholly wicked” - mostly transgressions. To here [are his words]. It is [hence] shown that one who is mostly transgressions - even if he did a few commandments [perfectly] - is written and sealed immediately for Geihinnom.

And it should not be asked, “If so, that which it said (Rosh Hashanah 17a), ‘When he is mostly transgressions and there is [also] the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies, they have no rectification’ - behold, also when there is not the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies, they [still] have no rectification when he is mostly transgressions!?! As those who are mostly transgressions are immediately written and sealed for Geihinnom!” It is [however] not similar. As behold, after twelve months, the bodies of [the former] cease and their souls burn, as it is found there. Whereas the completely evil [who do not have the transgression of the Jews who rebel with their bodies] - even though they descend to Geihinnom - they nevertheless arise after they have received their punishment. And so did they say in Tractate Eruvin (19a) in the chapter [entitled] Osin Passin: Reish Lakish said, “[Regarding] the sinners of the Jewish people, the fire of Geihinnom has no power over them.” And it rebuts: What about that which is written (Psalms 84:7), “Those who pass through the valley of weeping turn it into a water spring” - “valley (emek) of weeping,” [such] that Geihinnom is deepened (ma’amikin) for them; “turn it into a water spring,” [such] that they make tears flow like (water)? That is that they are liable that one time for judgment in Geihinnom, but our father Abraham comes and receives them. To here [is the Gemara]. And this thing is said about someone who is mostly transgressions; as it is shown there that he [nevertheless] has several commandments. As behold, [there] it is said, “[If it is true of the golden altar,] all the more so does the fire of Geihinnom have no power upon the sinners of Israel that have several commandments.” If so, one who has mostly transgressions and a few commandments descends to Gehinnom, but Avraham raises him up. And thus is it [also] shown from the words of the Ran on the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah, see there.

And that which it says specifically about half and half, and that is the third group, “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and I will purge them as one purges silver” (Zechariah 13:9) - which implies however that the wicked that descend to Geihinnom do not arise from there - that is not difficult. As there, concerning the third group, they only descend there in order to purge them. As half meritorious deeds and half liabilities [together with] some purging helps them. But the completely wicked do not go down to Geihinnom for the sake of purging, that we should say that they quickly and immediately arise. As that is not so. Rather they have time that they are to be in Geihinnom according to the sin. And then Avraham is the one that raises them up, as it said there. And if so, it should not be said that we can merit life in the world to come with one commandment even if [one] has many transgressions. As that is certainly not so.

But even if you say that the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit,” [means] that He gave them (several) [many] commandments, such that if he did one of them - even though he has very many sins, since he did one commandment, the fire of Geihinnom does not have power over him; and if He had not given him many commandments, perhaps he would not [even] do one, and the fire of Geihinnom would have power over him: Nevertheless [the difficulty] is not resolved. For what merit is there to Israel? And just the opposite, it is a liability for Israel. As if He had not given them many commandments, it is possible that one would not transgress most of them and he would be included in the completely righteous that do not descend to Geihinnom. So this explanation does not help at all, since the difficulty returns to its place - as that which He gave many commandments to Israel is not a merit at all. For we cannot say that through one commandment, even if he is mostly transgressions, he does not descend to Geihinnom at all.

And likewise if the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is [that] when he did one commandment, and that is that he did not do any sin - in this manner, it would certainly be enough for him with one commandment - it would nevertheless still be difficult. The difficulty would not be resolved, as behold his gain would be negated by his loss. For sometimes one would inherit Geihinnom on account of the multiplicity of commandments, as we said - when he is mostly transgressions, as was explained. And if the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that He did not want to bring merit to the wicked: That if one was wicked and he did not want to fulfill the commandments, he would be lost. So it is only speaking about someone who wants to do the commandments; and He multiplied commandments for him, so that he would merit with one of them alone. And this merit is that He multiplied the commandments for him; as sometimes he is not able to perform the commandment, like the sacrifices and the commandments that are dependent upon the Land [of Israel]. And had He not multiplied commandments for him, it is possible that sometimes he would not fulfill any commandment. And that is why He multiplied commandments for him - and even if [Rambam's words] do not lend themselves to this at all. But [even] with this, it is difficult: Who forced him to this explanation, and not to explain it according to its plain sense - that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give merit to the righteous ones, the ones that want to do commandments, that they should fulfill many commandments and they would [then] have much reward because of this, as will be explained later. It was only that it was difficult to him - that it was a liability for ordinary people who are not situated under the yoke of the commandments. And if so, it should not be explained that he is speaking about the one who desires the commandments. Moreover, if one did not do a sin at all, he does not need any commandment whatsoever. For all of Israel intrinsically have a share in the world to come, without any commandment - so long as he is not wicked - simply because he is from the seed of Israel. And if this is so, the [Rambam], may his memory be blessed, came to bring merit to Israel, but ‘took his goodness and placed it on the thorns.’ And perforce one must say this. As a minor [who dies] also certainly has a share in the world to come (Sanhedrin 110b). Hence it is impossible to say that this would be the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed.

So it is possible that the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is [nevertheless] that it is a merit for Israel, since he will not be lost from the world to come as a result of the multiplicity of commandments - as it is impossible that one not do one commandment. And we have already said that on account of one commandment, the fire of Geihinnom does not have power over him and he merits the world to come with [that] one commandment. And even though he can now go to Geihinnom on account of this, it is nevertheless their benefit - that he not be lost from the world to come. Even though he descends to Geihinnom; behold this will only be temporary, as it said there (Eruvin 19a) clearly.

And that which Rabbi Yochanan said (Sanhedrin 110a), it is precisely even if one (did) only one statute [that such a punishment would not apply] - so it is implied that even though he is mostly transgressions; when he did one statute, that is enough. It should not be answered that there it is [only] referring to this with regards to the fire of Geihinnom not having power over him. For if so, Reish Lakish reasons that the fire of Geihinnom does have power over him even if he leaves only one statute. For this is not so. As if so, Reish Lakish would [seem to be contradicting himself]. As behold it was Reish Lakish who said that the fire of Geihinnom does not have power even on the sinners of Israel who are mostly transgressions! All the more shall we not say that if he leaves one statute, that the fire will have power over him. However even without this, it would be difficult. For how could Reish Lakish reason that someone who leaves one statute would be punished in Geihinnom? For behold, he is completely righteous! As note that Beit Hillel holds even a middling person, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness.” Rather, Reish Lakish was only speaking about the verse (Isaiah 5:14), “[the netherworld] has opened its mouth without measure.” And this expression does not imply the [true] punishment of Gehinnom, but rather only that he will receive a slight punishment from Geihinnom. But he did not at all say that he descends to Geihinnom. And it is to this that Rabbi Yochanan responded, “It is not satisfactory to their Master, that you said this about them” - that that which it is stated, “[the netherworld] has opened its mouth,” be said about one who is completely righteous but left over one commandment. Rather this thing is said about one who did not fulfill even one statute. And the verse wanted to say that Geihinnom has complete power over those sinners of Israel. As we do not say that Geihinnom has no power over them, except when they have commandments. But if they have no commandments at all, the fire of Geihinnom certainly has power over them.

Thus does it appear to be understood. So the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, are upheld - that which he said that with one commandment, one merits life in the world to come even though he has mostly transgressions. But with the commandment [that he did], the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him and he merits the world to come after the judgment that he receives. Or the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that he merits life in the world to come when he does not do a sin. And it should not be difficult to you - his gain is offset by his loss!?! As it is possible that with the multiplicity of commandments, he will sometimes be judged in Geihinnom. Fir it is nevertheless more of a merit; as he will regardless come to the world to come, even though he will temporarily be punished in Geihinnom.

However when you are precise, [it is clear that] the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is not like this. For if so, why did he need to say that one fulfill the commandment with love, such that he not have any other intention with it? For why does he [need] this? As since he did not do a sin, why should he not merit the world to come regardless, with any [way of fulfilling the] commandment that he did; or that the fire of Geihinnom not have power over him because of the one commandment? As, at the end of the day, he did a commandment! Rather it is certainly clear that his opinion is that one merits life in the world to come through one commandment without any punishment at all. Yet this thing is not possible at all! And it may have been possible to say that the opinion of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, is that when one fulfills the commandment with love, such that he not have any other intention - then with this, he acquires a high level of the world to come; even though he also reasons that if he did one commandment commonly in the way of people and he is not mostly transgressions, with this he acquires a share in the world to come. But when he does the commandment completely, as intended, he acquires a great level of the world to come. Yet it does not appear like this from his words. For note that he is coming to explain the mishnah of, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come.” And that mishnah is only speaking about a share in the world to come, not about a high level of the world to come. And therefore it appears that the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, are about every man, even if he is mostly transgressions - nevertheless he merits life in the world to come with one commandment when he does it as intended. But from those proofs that we brought above, this thing does not seem so at all. For one who is mostly transgressions is punished in Geihinnom.

And regarding that which he (Commentary on the Mishnah, Rambam on Makkot 3:16) brought a proof from when Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradiyon asked Rabbi Yose ben Kisma (Avodah Zarah 18a), “What will be of me regarding life in the world to come,” [and] he answered him, “Have you ever done anything,” meaning, have you had the opportunity to do one of the commandments properly?” He answered [back] that he once had the opportunity to give charity in a complete fashion, as much as possible; and it was through this that he merited life in the world to come. To here [are his words]: It is a wonder! As what proof is there here? For even if we explain this passage like his words, it is nevertheless an empty proof! As Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradiyon knew that he was not wicked, such that he be counted, God forbid, among the sinners of Israel. As in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 61b), Rabbah said, “A person knows about himself if he is righteous or he is wicked.” And Rabbi Haninah ben Tradiyon only asked, “What will be of me regarding life in the world to come” - meaning, that he be invited to the world to come and his portion in the world to come be great. And it is to this that he answered, “Have you ever done anything, etc.” This means to say, “Since there is certainly not, God forbid, mostly transgressions here, but rather mostly meritorious deeds and you have done one of the commandments completely properly - through this, you merit a high level of life in the world to come, as when one does one commandment completely, as it was intended.” Yet the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, are on the mishnah of, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come” - our mishnah is only speaking about a portion! So either way it is difficult: If it speaking about one with mostly liabilities, the intellect does not at all allow that if he does mostly transgressions, that he acquire a share in the world to come with one commandment, even though he does [the] one commandment as it was intended - as he is wicked. And if he is mostly meritorious deeds, why does he [need] to do a commandment as it was intended? And if it is that through this commandment, he will be half meritorious deeds and half liabilities, even with this, we [hold] like Beit Hillel, that “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness” (Rosh Hashanah 16b). And if so, in what [case] can we situate this? But that [story] of Rabbi Chanina was to acquire a great level in the world to come. For not all portions are the same, as there is a big portion and a small portion.

And likewise all the stories that the author of the Ikarrim, may his memory be blessed, brought in Chapter 29 in Section 3: From that launderer in the chapter [entitled] HaNosei (Ketuvot 103b) who was in the neighborhood but was not at the funeral of Rabbi, and he ascended to the roof and fell to the ground and died out of grief that he was not [present] at the death of the sage, and a heavenly voice emerged and said that he was invited to life in the world to come; and likewise in Tractate Avodah Zarah (18a) about that guard that was appointed to kill Rabbi Chaninah, and because he hastened his death [so as to minimize his suffering], a heavenly voice emerged, that he was invited to life in the world to come. All of these things do not have an aspect of proof at all. Since, there the main merit is certainly that they gave themselves to die for this thing. And there is no doubt that afflictions like these atone (Berakhot 5a). And they did not say, “share in the world to come,” there; but rather, “invited to life in the world to come.” And likewise about all of the stories that are mentioned in Tractate Taanit (22a), those about which Eliyahu says that they are invited to life in the world to come - all of these stories are not at all talking about wicked people who have mostly liabilities. So Eliyahu was only saying that these have a share in the world to come - a large share. And it is speaking about that matter there. But there is no proof that a person will merit life in the world to come from one commandment if he is mostly transgressions.

The essence of the matter is that the words of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, have no support. Rather the things are as we have explained: That if one is mostly meritorious deeds, he is not punished in Geihinnom. As since he is mostly meritorious deeds, the Holy One, blessed be He, repays him his punishment in this world, as it is found in Tractate Kiddushin (40b) in the first chapter, and in Tractate Taanit (11a) in the first chapter. But one who is mostly transgressions is judged in Geihinnom on the Judgment Day, as it is found in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b). But regardless, Reish Lakish reasons that the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him if he has a commandment, and Avraham comes and raises him up (Eruvin 19a). And in this manner, it is possible to say that after he is judged in Geihinnom and receives his punishment, that he has a share in the world to come. But there is no need about this that he do the commandment as it was intended, with love. As at the end of the day, he did the commandment. And the rest of the things are clear.

And in this fashion, it is possible to explain the mishnah that said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments” - as will be explained: That He multiplied the commandments for the merit of Israel, since it is impossible that one not do one commandment. [So] even though he will descend to Geihinnom, he has a rehabilitation. And this is more of a merit for him than had He not had a multiplicity of commandments, and he would have been completely lost.

Yet, in any event, this reasoning about the sinners of Israel - meaning with mostly transgressions - does not appear [correct] at all; that they should merit life in the world to come on account of one commandment, even if they received their punishment in Geihinnom. As if so, in the first chapter of Kiddushin (39b) [about] that which we learn in the mishnah, “Anyone who performs one commandment has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land” - it was rebutted about this mishnah, “But behold, ‘These are the things that a person enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the world to come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, etc.’” These yes, others not! And it answers, “This is what it is saying: Anyone who performs one commandment in addition to his other merits has goodness bestowed upon him, [his life] is lengthened, etc.” And it rebuts [further], “It is implied that [with regard] to these, even for one” - meaning to say, it is implied that [with regard] to these, which are acts of loving kindness, [etc.]; even if he only did one and also even if he is mostly liabilities, he [still] enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the world to come. And since the Talmud wonders [about this] like that, we understand from it that there is no possibility in the world that one would merit the world to come with mostly liabilities. But it is possible to resolve this as well: That over there, this is what it was saying, “It is implied that [with regard] to these, even for one” - its understanding is that even with one, and he did not receive any punishment, he still merits the world to come. For perforce, over there it is speaking about him not receiving any punishment in Geihinnom. For if he received punishment in Geihinnom - even with the other commandments, if he received the punishment in Geihinnom, he merits the world to come! So perforce it is talking about when he did not receive his punishment. And then, he certainly rebutted well. For when he did not receive punishment, there is no logic to say at all that he would merit the world to come.

Nevertheless, it is not resolved well. As it is implied in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 90a) that it is not a bit dependent on a commandment at all. Rather, “All of Israel have a share in the world to come” - from the angle that one is an Israelite. So if he is mostly transgressions, and the transgressions are removed from him by the punishment of Geihinnom - if so, what is this that He “wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them [...] commandments?" As behold, a minor merits life in the world to come even though he has not done a commandment at all (Sanhedrin 110b)! If so, it is not dependent on a commandment - so how did it say, “He wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them [...] commandments?” As without the punishment of Geihinnom, one does not merit the world to come if he is mostly liabilities. But through Geihinnom, once he is considered to be cleansed from the sins by Geihinnom, it does not depend upon a commandment at all! But if we force [it] greatly, [we can say] this is its explanation: “The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them [...] commandments.” This means to say that if He had not multiplied commandments, it would be possible that one would not have a single commandment in his hand, and the fire of Geihinnom would have power over him. [But] now that there is a multiplicity of commandments, the fire of Geihinnom will not have power over him. And since the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him, he has a share in the world to come, because all of Israel intrinsically have a share in the world to come. But according to this, it should have said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to not make Israel liable.” As the commandment only causes that the fire of Geihinnom has no power over him. Even though as a result of it, he merits life in the world to come; this thing is nevertheless not through the commandment. Rather it is because an Israelite intrinsically has a share in the world to come.

And [regarding] that which we said that Israel intrinsically merit life in the world to come - for behold a minor has a share in the world to come, as we said - let not our mishnah in the first chapter of Kiddushin (39b), “Anyone who performs one commandment has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land,” be difficult to you. [You might think,] if so, it is implied only if he does a commandment; but not without a commandment. And it certainly would be difficult to you if the understanding of this mishnah was like the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained it (Editor’s note: Maharal must have had a variant text of Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Kiddushin) - that the whole mishnah is speaking about the world to come. As he explained, “has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened,” in the next world; “and he inherits the land,” the land of the living (eternally). For all of Israel merit the world to come intrinsically, not from the commandments [they do]! However if you have been exacting in the discussion there, it is impossible to explain our mishnah there as speaking only about the world to come. For if so, this baraita would not have been posed as a difficulty at all: It is taught, “Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished, and he appears like one who burned the entire Torah!” But certainly that, “punished,” that it said, is punished in this world (Rashi on Kiddushin 39b). But if our mishnah of, “Anyone who performs one commandment,” is speaking about the world to come - if so, there is no difficulty at all! And likewise that with which it answers it, that this baraita is [according to] Rabbi Yaakov, who holds that there is no reward in this world; what does he answer with this if our mishnah is speaking about the world to come? But Rashi explains the mishnah, “has goodness bestowed upon him - implies this world; and he inherits the land - implies the world to come.” And [according to this,] the discussion is fine. So it is certainly impossible that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained the mishnah to only be about the world to come. Even though he explained that it was about the world to come, he meant to say that it also speaks about the world to come and, all the more so, about this world. So it would come out like its simple meaning. And it is certain that the explanation of the mishnah is this, that it is speaking about this world and the next world.

And it mentioned three levels: “Has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land.” And these three things, which are levels of the world to come, are known to the sages and to the understanding. As that which it said, “has goodness bestowed upon him,” is the full goodness; “his life is lengthened,” is life that is completely eternal; “and he inherits the land,” is meaning to say that he will have in the world to come, that which includes everything. And hence it said, “and he inherits the land” - as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:9), “A land [...] in which you will lack nothing.” Such that he will have the complete good, which is mentioned in that which it said, “has goodness bestowed upon him”; and he will have eternal life which is hinted to in that which it said, “his life is lengthened”; and [he will have] the good that encompasses everything that is hinted to in that which it said, “and he inherits the land” - about which it is stated, “A land [...] in which you will lack nothing.” And it is as it is written with Avraham (Genesis 24:1), “and the Lord blessed Avraham with everything”; and with Yitzchak (Genesis 27:33), “and I ate of everything”; and with Yaakov (Genesis 33:11), “I have everything.” And in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (16b), they said about this, “Three were given a taste of the world to come,” as it is found there. Such that from this you learn that the world to come is everything, and there is nothing to add upon these three things - if there is complete good, if there is eternal life and if there is good that encompasses everything. And behold length of days is clinging to the supernal level, from which there is length of days. And the bestowing of good is the clinging to the level of good, as is known. “And he inherits the land,” is the holy Land of Israel that encompasses everything. And just like they hint to the world to come, so too do they hint to the levels of this world. So from this, the whole discussion [in the Gemara] is like its plain sense.

And hence he said that one who merits the good of this world, it is impossible that there not be one commandment above his merits (to tip the scales in his favor in this world). However, certainly for the world to come - he merits life in the world to come without a commandment, as it said (Sanhedrin 90a), “All of Israel have a share in the world to come.” And you should know that it is so; for if not, what is the need for one commandment above his merits? As behold we hold in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b) that [regarding] middling people, “[He is] ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exodus 34:6) - He tilts (His hand) in favor of kindness” (Rosh Hashanah 16b). Rather, that [statement] from there is speaking about the world to come alone. Or also (another explanation is), that here it is a different matter: That it concerns his acquiring the virtues that are mentioned here - meaning that he “has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land.” For this matter, he needs that there be one extra commandment. For we have already said that not all shares are the same at all, as we said before this (Paragraph 34). And with this, all of the things have been explained according to their plain sense, without forcing at all.

And I have not known what the proof is from the mishnah that said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit.” As its explanation is not that this is why he gave them many commandments; as he could merit [the world to come] with even one. Rather its explanation is like its plain sense: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments.” Even though now it is possible that one will be mostly transgressions on account of the multiplicity of the commandments, what about it? The Holy One, blessed be He, wants to bestow good on the good. And since there is more merit to the good with the multiplication of the commandments - as they will then be complete with 613 commandments - God, may He be blessed, wanted to give merit to the good. And it should not be asked, “Let Him give them less, and [still] have the merit that they have now with the multiplicity of commandments.” It is irrelevant to say this thing, for it is all according to the commandments that a person does. And how could we say that He should give less commandments, and they merit as if they did many commandments? This thing is impossible. For the reward is according to the commandments. So why should we force [such a thing]?

The explanation is also not at all like they thought - that God, may He be blessed, wanted to do good to Israel, therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments. And it is because of this that it was difficult for them - since this is not good: As if they do not fulfill the multiplicity of the commandments, they get a punishment. For if the explanation was like they explained, you would find a difficulty in what they said in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (28a), “One who vows not to benefit his fellow is permitted to blow the shofar for him,” and the reason is explained - that commandments are not given for gain. As it is implied from this that the commandments are as a yoke on a person, since they are the decree of the King (Rashi on Rosh Hashanah 38a). And if so, why does it say here that the commandments are for the good of a person and for his gain. And we have already explained this thing (Tiferet Yisrael 5, 6) - that the explanation is not that He did this thing for the good of Israel, such that He wanted to do good to them. For if so, they would have said, ‘Not them and not their reward!’ But God forbid, to say this! Rather the explanation is that God, may He be blessed, wanted to give Israel merit against their will. Because He, may He be blessed, is righteous (Deuteronomy 32:4), He wants that a person be very meritorious and have much merit. That is why He multiplied the Torah and the commandments. Hence it is impossible to say, ‘Not them and not their reward!’ As God, may He be blessed, wants that they merit against their will. So it did not say, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to do good to Israel, therefore He multiplied for them Torah and commandments.” For this would have implied that He would have done this for the sake of the good of Israel. And if they did not want [it], they could have said, ‘Not them and not their reward!’ But the matter is not like this. Rather it said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to give Israel merit” - meaning to say that they be meritorious with their deeds. For, He, may He be blessed, is righteous and desires the meritorious and the righteous.

And perhaps you will find it difficult: That, if so, the commandments nevertheless [come] as a decree from God, may He be blessed, upon man. [Then] why is it not said that the commandments are a decree, like [that of] a king that makes decrees upon his people? And who forces us to say that they are to give Israel merit? So we should have said that the commandments are decrees. And from where do we [know] that the commandments are to give Israel merit? [But] this is not difficult. As behold, it is written (Isaiah 42:21), “The Lord desired, for the sake of His righteousness” - which means to say, because He is righteous, He wants that His children, Israel, also be righteous. ‘For the Lord is righteous; He loves righteous deeds.’ And that is why “He multiplied for them Torah and commandments” - to give them merit and to make them righteous. And that which it said, “Torah and commandments,” is because it is written, “to make the Torah great and glorious.” Corresponding to His multiplying the Torah for them, it said, “to make the Torah great”; and corresponding to the multiplicity of the commandments, it said, “and glorious.”

Blessed is the Merciful One who has helped us from the beginning until now.

And its completion shall be on the first working day - may He command peace and blessing to be with us - of Parashat [Reeh], “for the Lord, your God, will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands; and you shall be only joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:15): The shortened [numerical] value (of which is 5357, the year this book was completed). Amen, may it be His will!

The book, Derekh Chayim, is complete and finished.