הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ב

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 2 – The Mitzvos of Loving God and Fearing God

Introduction: Overview of the First Four Mitzvos

The holy Rambam says, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 2. Says Rabbeinu – extraordinary. Chapter 2.

We are going to learn the third and fourth mitzvos with which the Rambam began Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. He began with knowing God, the mitzvah of "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" – knowing that there is a Creator. And now we are going to learn the mitzvah of loving God (ahavas Hashem) and fearing God (yiras Hashem).

The first two mitzvos were knowing that there is a Creator, and the prohibition related to that same topic (lav she'b'oso inyan), that one should not, God forbid, have errors, and one should not make any – "shelo ya'aleh b'machshavah she'yesh sham elohah acher zulasi Hashem" – that one should not entertain the thought that there is another god besides God. And also the mitzvah of God's unity (achdus). So we actually learned two mitzvos. Correct?

Now we are going to learn the next two mitzvos, which are loving God and fearing God.

---

The Story with the Yismach Moshe and the Rambam's Yirah

The holy Rambam says as follows. It is well known that the Yismach Moshe (R' Moshe Teitelbaum, author of the work "Yismach Moshe") prayed to God that he wanted to have the fear of Heaven of the Rambam. And he began to be so terrified and to throw himself on the ground from fear, as the story is told, as I heard it in my younger years. He literally threw himself on the ground from fear, until he begged that this fear be taken away from him because he could not endure it.

So here we are going to learn where the Rambam's fear came from. What was the Torah behind the fear? Fear of God and love of God.

---

Halachah 1 – "This honored and awesome God – it is a mitzvah to love Him and to fear Him"

The Rambam's Text

The holy Rambam says: "Ha'Kel ha'nikhbad v'ha'nora ha'zeh" – the Creator who is honored and awesome, the extraordinary, honored, and awe-inspiring Creator. "Ha'Kel ha'nikhbad v'ha'nora ha'zeh, mitzvah l'ahavo u'l'yirah oso."

Explanation: "Nikhbad v'Nora" – The Distance of the Creator

It says below in my notes that "Ha'Kel ha'nikhbad v'ha'nora ha'zeh" is the language of a verse. But here in the Rambam it apparently has an additional meaning, referring to the God whose existence and unity he had been explaining in the previous chapter.

> [Chiddush] But I believe that "nikhbad v'nora" means both that it is something distant from us. We have honor, an awe of honor (yiras ha'kavod), because we can barely comprehend Him. Just as the Rambam said that we can barely comprehend – as long as one has a body, one cannot comprehend His existence, blessed be He (metzi'uso yisbarach).

Let's see. "Nora" means fear, the thing that we have dread and awe of. God is very distant from us, the essence of the Creator (mahus ha'Boreh). His works, as we will see, His works are closer to us, but the essence of God is nikhbad v'nora, is very separated from us.

The Verses for Love and Fear

It is a mitzvah – the Creator is "mitzvah l'ahavo u'l'yirah mimenu" – to love and to fear Him. "She'ne'emar" – he brings the verse that we say every day in the Shema prayer – "V'ahavta es Hashem Elokecha" (Deuteronomy 6:5: "And you shall love the Lord your God"), to love the Creator. "V'ne'emar" – that is the mitzvah of love, and the mitzvah of fear is the verse "Es Hashem Elokecha tira" (Deuteronomy 10:20: "The Lord your God you shall fear"), to fear the Creator.

Love = Closeness, Fear = Distance – Both at Once

> [Chiddush] It looks a bit like... it's a small point but – it appears that fear is a matter of distancing, like I am afraid of this, so it is a matter of distancing, and love is a matter of closeness. So there is something here... both at once. The Rambam is going to explain what this means.

---

Halachah 2 – "And what is the path to loving Him and fearing Him?"

The Rambam's Question

"V'hi'ach hi ha'derech l'ahavaso v'yiraso?" – How can a person come to love and fear God? We know that we don't understand Him, we know that God is so distant from us, we don't understand His existence. But what can we do?

Chiddush: "V'hi'ach hi ha'derech" – A Definition, Not Advice

> [Chiddush] "V'hi'ach hi ha'derech l'ahavaso v'yiraso" – I don't think it means that there is a mitzvah to love, and the question is "find a trick." I believe "v'hi'ach hi ha'derech" means to say: What does love and fear consist of? What is it? Because I don't see that there is advice here. It looks to me more like a definition.

>

> I remember that we learned yesterday that sometimes the Rambam first states what the mitzvah is, and then that there is a mitzvah. Here is one of the places where he first says there is a mitzvah, and then he explains what the mitzvah is. Just as you could say: "The mitzvah is to put on tefillin – v'hi'ach hi ha'derech la'asosah?" – and he sets up a structure that it should be ten tefachim, etc. It seems to me that the same approach applies here. "V'hi'ach hi ha'derech" does not mean "find a trick to have fear." "V'hi'ach hi ha'derech" means "What does love and fear mean?"

---

Love: Contemplation of Creation Brings a Desire to Know More

"B'sha'ah she'yisbonen ha'adam b'ma'asav u'vru'av ha'nifla'im ha'gedolim" – When a person contemplates the works of God, the wondrous and great creations that God created, the creations – "v'yireh mehem chochmaso she'ein lah erech v'lo ketz" – and he sees from them His wisdom which has no measure and no limit – "miyad" – when a person contemplates this – "hu ohev" – he loves God – "u'meshabe'ach u'mefa'er" – and he begins to thank and praise God – "u'mis'aveh ta'avah gedolah leida ha'Shem ha'gadol" – and then a great desire seizes him to know more about God.

"K'mo she'amar David" – as King David said – "Tzam'ah nafshi l'Elokim l'Kel chai" (Psalms 42:3: "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God") – my soul is thirsty, just as a person is thirsty for water, my soul is thirsty to know more, to understand more, to become closer – "l'Elokim l'Kel chai" – to the living Creator.

So this is apparently love.

Knowing Brings More Knowing – An Ascending Process

> [Chiddush] Although the meaning of love is "wanting to know God" – how do you come to want to know? Obviously, through contemplation of His works. You could say that this is what you said, that one cannot know God Himself. I'm not entirely sure about this.

Before we go further, it's simply like this: knowing more about God is itself more love, so one must begin with knowing a little, and when one knows a little, one gets a curiosity to want to know more. So knowing brings more knowing, yes? This is contemplation, and afterward there is a great and abundant love to know much more.

---

Halachah 3 – Fear: "And when he thinks about these very things – immediately he recoils backward"

Chiddush: "These very things" – The Same Contemplation Brings Both Love and Fear

And he continues: "U'ch'she'machshev ba'devarim ha'eilu atzman" – when he thinks more deeply into these things... What is the "atzman" (themselves)? It doesn't say deeper. The Rambam says "k'she'machshev" – he thinks into it, he contemplates, and then "contemplates." Okay, on the contrary, I would like to hear how to explain it.

> [Chiddush] And here it says "v'hi'ach hi ha'derech l'ahavaso v'yiraso." And then, what is fear? Think about the same things. That means, there aren't specifically different things that you should contemplate from which love and fear emerge. The "devarim eilu atzman," the same words, the "ma'asav u'vru'av ha'nifla'im" – in the same thought, and from this also comes the fear. That is how I read what he is saying.

"Nirtah l'achorav" – The Person Falls Back

"U'ch'she'machshev ba'devarim ha'eilu atzman, miyad hu nirtah l'achorav" – he becomes... a great fear seizes him and he falls back, just as a person who is afraid moves backward. Just as we just learned in the parshah: "Va'yar ha'am va'yanu'u va'ya'amdu me'rachok" (Exodus 20:15: "And the people saw and trembled and stood from afar") – when the Jews saw God, they fell back, moved backward. Yes, I would say backwards. "Va'yar ha'am va'yanu'u" – "va'yar" is fear.

> [Chiddush] Fear (pachad) doesn't mean being afraid (mora). Fear means the "nirtah l'achorav" – the recoiling backward.

"A small, lowly, dark creature, standing with slight and meager knowledge"

"V'yeida" – and he will know... "V'yeida" – not he will know, and he knows. "V'yeida"? Okay, the other version reads "v'yeida"? I thought there are variant readings.

"V'yeida she'hu briyah ketanah shefalah afelah" – he already used this language earlier – yes, he will know that he is a small, lowly, dark creature. "Omedes b'da'as kalah mu'atah" – he stands, what makes him stand is his mind (da'as), but he stands with a small mind, a kalah – a light and a small one, both in quantity and quality – both how little it is and also what he does have is weak – "lifnei temim de'os" (Job 37:16: "the Perfect in knowledge") – compared to God who is the perfection of knowledge.

"When I behold Your heavens – what is man that You are mindful of him?"

"K'mo she'amar David" – as David said – "Ki ereh shamecha" (Psalms 8:4-5) – when I behold the heavens and the creation of God – there it says he becomes excited, he becomes filled with love, but then he gets fear and he sees how small he is, and he says further: "Mah enosh ki tizkerenu" – then I see how small a person is, compared to the greatness of the Creator and His creation, I see how small the person is. "Mah enosh ki tizkerenu" – "What is man that You are mindful of him?" Very good.

Chiddush: Grammatical Precision – "When I behold Your heavens" not "When I behold God"

> [Chiddush] It doesn't say "ki ereh Hashem" – the person looks at the heavens, he sees the angels, he sees what kinds of things exist, and he grasps that he is quite a weak piece of news.

---

Summary: Love = Wanting to Know More; Fear = Understanding How Small One Is

This is the meaning of love and fear. Love means wanting to know more, and fear means understanding how small I am, that a person is not such a great thing. This comes out from knowing the creation. You can call this the greatness of God (gadlus Hashem), but in a certain sense this is the greatness of the Creator (gadlus ha'Boreh).

They spoke yesterday about how we are lowly, small, and dark creatures, but there are luminous, elevated, and great creatures, and God is the wisdom that made all these things – imagine what that means about Him. So consequently, when a person contemplates reality, he sees how small a person is. This is "ki ereh shamecha" – it doesn't say "ki ereh Hashem" – the person looks at the heavens, he sees the angels, he sees what kinds of things exist, and he grasps that he is quite a weak piece of news.

Chiddush: Two Levels of Smallness – Body and Intellect

> [Chiddush] He perhaps said it this way: when he sees the great creation, he sees how small he is, how small his body is. But then he thinks: "But I have a mind, I have an intellect, so I do have something." But then he grasps that his intellect is very small compared to the great intellect, the Perfect in Knowledge (temim de'os).

>

> It's not even a hava amina (initial assumption) that the body is great – it's not even a hava amina, I mean. But "briyah ketanah shefalah va'afelah" means it is a tiny little body. How does he know this? Compared to the great mountains and the great creatures. But that doesn't seem to be the point. How does he know that he is... he has a piece of knowledge. I don't believe that is even a hava amina. It could be, I thought that it's not a hava amina.

---

Chiddush: Fear Without Love Is Not True Fear – The Dynamic Process

The Rambam says, let's read a bit from here, because here it's going to get a bit complicated, and we'll see what we can do.

And this is the mitzvah of love and fear. The mitzvah of love and fear is to contemplate the creation, and one sees how... one wants to know more, because it looks so interesting, so great, I always have a desire to know more. Very simple.

Parallel to Torah Learning and Wisdom

Alright. The wise person, anyone who has ever looked into a book or into science, or into any matter of wisdom, any thing of creation, always has these two feelings. He sees something so extraordinary – I want to learn. I look even at the Torah, you can say the same thing. Yes, it's so extraordinary. Suddenly I look – I barely know three verses compared to the thousands of millions that exist. He feels small, he feels "nirtah l'achorav" – recoiling backward. What is he? A drop from the sea (tipah min ha'yam).

The Process: Love → Fear → Strengthening → Love Again

> [Chiddush] So what's interesting: first one needs to have the love, yes, to want to learn, and then one catches the fear of how small one is, and one needs to strengthen oneself again and contemplate again, yes, to learn.

>

> I mean it this way, because if one won't want to, then there's nothing... The fear is only a blow because one had wanted. If someone has no desire to know God (ratzon leida es Hashem), and you tell him: "But you can't know, you're so small" – "I didn't want to, I'm happy." If someone gives up entirely, he has no fear. He just has a plain fright.

The "Struggle" – Despair and Strengthening

> [Chiddush] This is the struggle. The struggle is knowing, and after beginning to know there is a despair that I can never know anything anyway. But he strengthens himself and says: "There is no option not to know." So he pushes himself again to know more and more.

>

> And so it says further... The Rambam doesn't say that it's a struggle. It's more modern people who have struggles. He said it this way: "Nirtah l'achorav v'yira v'yifchad" – because it is so far away, one wants to know everything. Because it is after all from the same thing.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Know at All

It's very important, the "ba'devarim ha'gedolim mimenu" – in matters greater than him. Someone who doesn't feel that the wisdom is greater than him doesn't understand the wisdom, because it truly is greater than him. But someone who doesn't want to know the wisdom at all is simply an adult who knows nothing. It's not a contradiction, it's not a problem. Why should it be a problem? But the "nirtah l'achorav" can make a person say: "Okay, I don't want to know anyway."

The Rambam Is Not an Inspirational Book

And he says here, he comes to the point that one knows it's a mitzvah, one goes further, and do I need to spend a year going into the reasons? I think that's foolish. As far as I'm concerned, it's foolish. Others have said – the Rambam is not an inspirational book (chizuk-sefer), he is not concerned about foolish people who have small foolish problems in their heads. They want to say what – the fact that a person with problems goes to R' Nachman of Breslov, he'll be a year anyway. Okay.

---

Anyway, the Rambam says that the liturgical poem of Ben Ali now stands...

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah Chapter 2 (Continued) – Great Principles from the Works of the Master of the Universe

"His Soul Does Not Desire" – The Rambam Is Not an Inspirational Book

The Rambam did not say that it's a struggle — that's more modern people who have a struggle. But he said "nafsho lo chaftzah v'yira v'yira," because it is so far from knowing everything.

What is after all from the same thing — it's very important, the "b'zadon al atzmo." Someone who doesn't feel that the wisdom is greater than him doesn't understand the wisdom, because it truly is greater than him. But someone who doesn't want to know the wisdom at all, he simply knows that he knows nothing — it's not a contradiction, it's not a problem. I'm not saying it's a contradiction, but the "nafsho lo chaftzah" can make a person know: "Okay, I don't know, I won't know anyway."

It's not a plan. People say: "You can have a problem, but you know it's a mitzvah, so you keep going." You do indeed need to have a mitzvah. I think it's foolish, just as someone said: "I despair of foolish people," and then he said "other approaches." The Rambam is not an inspirational book; he's not talking about foolish people who have small, trivial problems. He wants to state what the fact is. As a problem — it's a problem, go to Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, he'll solve your despair for you.

---

Halakha 4 – "And according to these things, I will explain great principles"

"Great principles of the works of the Master of the worlds" – Two Interpretations

Okay, anyway, the Rambam says: "And according to these things" — it does say, I will tell you more. According to what I have now said, that this is the only way to have love and awe (ahava v'yira), to contemplate the wondrous works of the Creator — "I will inform you of great general principles of the works of the Master of the worlds" (ani modi'akha klalim g'dolim mi'ma'aseh ribon ha'olamos). I will explain "in a general manner" — the "great principles" means to say: I cannot explain all the details (pratim), it would take forever if I were to explain everything precisely.

But "great principles" — I think it can be interpreted two ways:

1. These are the great principles — the most important, main principles.

2. These are very large principles — meaning enormous things, bringing the entire world at once. You have a small principle that is a defined matter standing at once — a great principle is the entire world at once.

[Insight] That these are great principles — both are true. Great principles of the works of the Master of the worlds, the spheres, the worlds.

"An opening for the one who understands to love God"

Why does he do this? "So that they will be an opening for the one who understands" (k'dei she'yihyu petakh la'mevin) — it's not going to be the test itself, it's not yet the test. The test is for whoever truly learns. But the principles that the Rambam is about to state are an "opening for the one who understands" — whoever will understand, it will be an opening "to love God" — he will be able through this to love the Almighty, that's what he means by "to love God."

And he brings a statement from the Sages (Chazal): "As the Sages said regarding love" — just as the Sages said about love, as it says in the Sifrei, how can one have love? The Sages said — so the Rambam brings in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah — "through this you come to know the One who spoke and the world came into being" (she'mitokh kakh ata makir es mi she'amar v'haya ha'olam). Learning how the Almighty operates in the world, so that you should know "the One who spoke and the world came into being."

What does "the One who spoke and the world came into being" mean? You should understand the wisdom of the world (khokhmas ha'olam), which is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, so that you should know Him.

The Scope of the Next Three Chapters

Therefore, the Rambam says, he will indeed do this in the next three chapters, more or less — these are the Rambam's great principles, the general principles of existence (klalei ha'metzi'us). He is going to map everything that exists, and through that one can have love of God.

[Insight] He says he's going to relate matters about creation, but it appears to be only what is relevant to bringing about love of God. Yes — everything brings about love of God! What doesn't bring about love of God? He goes through the entire Wikipedia that existed until today, and he makes a summary — the highest-level summary one can make of the entire Wikipedia. Everything in the world brings about love of God. I don't see that there's a narrowing down to certain things. He only means to say that I can't tell you, I can't teach you all the wisdom at once, it's too lengthy. But I do want to make a bit of an opening for the one who understands — it's a calculation: I'm telling you the general manner, to learn more precisely and in depth you'll have to go learn on your own. That's it.

---

Halakha 5 – "Everything that God created in His world is divided into three parts"

So, yes, fine, you disagree. And the Rambam begins and makes the general principle, he states the principle. The principle goes like this: "Everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world is divided into three parts" (kol ma she'bara ha'Kadosh Barukh Hu b'olamo nekhlak li'shlosha khalakim). Everything revolves around — meaning everything that exists — there are three types of things in the world. So.

Part 1 – The Lower World: Matter and Form, Coming into Being and Passing Away

The first part is — yes, my numbers are correct — the first part is: "Creatures that are composed of matter and form, and they are constantly coming into being and passing away, like the bodies of humans, animals, plants, and metals" (b'riyos she'hen m'khubros mi'golem v'tzura, v'hen hovos v'nifsados tamid).

This is the first type of thing, these are things that we know. They are things that are created from two things, meaning, the Rambam calls it matter and form (golem v'tzura).

Golem is the Rambam's term in the holy tongue, which at other times is called material (khomer). Material means the thing it's made of, in a simple sense.

For example: a table is made of wood — and it also has a form (tzura), it looks like a table. It's a table, it's not just wood. If you say "what is a table?" — a table is not wood. A table is what it's made of and what it is. That is matter and form, or golem and tzura, as it says in the Rambam. And not only a table is like this, but all things — a person, an animal, everything. A person is made from dust of the earth (afar min ha'adama), whatever — we'll see shortly — and it has a form, he is a person and not just sand, etc.

And secondly — that's one thing. Secondly, all these things that we know, which we call in the lower world (b'olam ha'shafel), in this world, also that they are coming into being and passing away (hovos v'nifsadim) — they become and they cease to be. Yes, a person is born and he dies. Even a stone — we'll see shortly — it doesn't always remain a stone, it constantly changes.

So everything — this is the first category, the first type of thing that exists — is both the combination of matter and form, and also coming into being and passing away, it keeps becoming and ceasing, it doesn't last, it really doesn't last.

Part 2 – The Middle World: The Spheres

Then there is a second type. The second type of creation: "Creatures that are composed of matter and form" — it's also made of something, you can say it has a body — yes, golem is basically what makes a body. It's made of something and it is something, that is matter and form.

"But they do not change from body to body and from form to form like the first ones" — but it's different. They don't constantly change from one body. Yes, a person is made from dust, tomorrow he dies, his dust goes into the sand, and from that comes worms and maggots (rima v'tole'a), whatever. The body changes to a second body, it gets a different form. That's the first type of thing.

Then there is a second type of thing, which doesn't change. "Rather, their form is fixed in their matter forever and they do not change like those" — their form is permanent in their matter, in their material, forever. It's a physical thing, but it remains forever — at least as long as the world exists.

"And what things are these? The spheres" (ha'galgalim) — the spheres, the things upon which the stars and planets rest. This is what we learned yesterday, that the force upon which all the stars stand, which is the Almighty directing constantly... not the force, it's a thing, a body. It's not just a force, it's literally a sphere, a ball, upon which the stars rest. The stars are not in the air.

It's a body, but "their matter is not like other matter and their form is not like other forms" (v'ein golmam ki'sh'ar golamim v'lo tzurasam ki'sh'ar tzuros). It's not the same type of material as you, it doesn't have the same type of form as you. What's the difference? He doesn't last — he dies. It lives forever.

[Insight] So in some way it must be that it's made of something different. That is perhaps a huge reason why a person cannot live forever — because we will see that he is made of the four elements (daled yesodos) which disintegrate. Whereas this is made of something else, a type of element, it's stronger, it lasts forever.

The Secret of Matter and Form in the Spheres

[Insight] The Rambam says that this is a great secret (sod), because normally we know that something is composed of matter and form precisely from seeing that it begins at some point and ends. We think — ah, there were molecules, I don't know what, particles, whatever, for a person as you say — and a human form is put on through the soul, the form. But something that is eternal, we wouldn't... one needs the Rambam's wisdom to innovate for us that it too is composed of matter and form.

Yes, true, it's esoteric knowledge (pardes), to understand what this reaches — this is a piece of pardes, what it means that it's composed of matter and form. The whole idea of matter and form was to explain, as you say, that a person — what he's made of — can be something else.

Okay, this is one of those things that isn't from the plain meaning (pshat). At some point, if one will learn in depth (b'iyun) and understand the Torah, how one understands this, until one knows it — true. But it's not something lying on the table; the Rambam says that this is a secret. The Rambam states the conclusion (maskana) of many investigations (khakiros).

---

Halakha 6 – Part 3: The Upper World – The Angels

I believe it's in the third part: "And among them are creatures of form without any matter at all, and they are the angels, for the angels are not body or physical form, but rather separate forms, one from another" (u'mehem b'ru'im tzura b'lo golem klal, v'hem ha'malakhim).

There are things that are only a thing, it is something, but it's not made of anything — not made of any material. "And they are the angels" — these are the angels (malakhim). "For the angels are not body or physical form, but rather separate forms, one from another" — an angel is a form, distinct from one another.

There is more than one angel. Shortly we'll see how there can be more than one angel, because normally two things — we already learned this yesterday, right? — what separates them is the body. And if there is no body, what separates them? We'll see shortly. We already saw this yesterday — just as all tables are only different tables because they have a different piece of wood, otherwise it's all one table. Table is the form — that it has a top with four legs.

What Does "Form Without Matter" Mean?

[Insight] What you said, that there's only one angel — but no, there are many angels. They have no material, they only have a form. The form means it is something. This is also the simple meaning, as much as I can try to say — it is something. It's not just intellect (sekhel), the idea of something. It's a thing. It's an intellect that has become actualized. It's the actual thing.

He says it's not an intellect. When we think of intellect, we think of something — an idea in my head. No. He's talking about the idea itself. It's a thing. When one says that the form is the "is-ness" of it — it is, but it's not made of anything. That is the angel.

True, it's hard to understand this. The Rambam knows it's not easy to understand. He says it only in a general way (b'derekh klalus).

---

The Three Worlds – The Most General Principle

But this is now — okay, up to here is the general principle of creation (klal ha'b'ri'a). This is the first principle, the most general principle. The entire world has three parts. This is learned in the Rishonim (early medieval authorities). Many times one sees that there are three worlds (olamos).

In Kabbala it says there are four worlds — that needs to be understood. But many times — the Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim, one finds very many times, even in the Zohar sometimes, in the Ramban — that there are three worlds. These are the three worlds:

1. The upper world (olam ha'elyon) — is the angels, which are form without matter, only intellect.

2. The middle world (olam ha'emtza'i) — as it's often called in the Rishonim — is the stars (kokhavim). They are matter and form, but they don't change. "He set a law that shall not be transgressed" (khok nasan v'lo ya'avor) (Psalms 148:6) — this is said about the stars, as it says in Psalms, referring to the heavens. Also "He gave them a law and a time that they should not change their function" (khok u'zman nasan lahem she'lo y'shanu es tafkidam) — this is said in the blessing of the new moon (Kiddush Levana). It travels on one thing, it doesn't die. It lives forever. The sun and the moon, since the six days of creation (sheshes y'mei b'reishis), the same thing continues. This is the middle world.

3. The lower world, the lowly and dark world (olam ha'takhton, olam ha'shafel v'ha'afel) — it is both matter and form, and also it dies constantly, it keeps changing.

These are the three worlds. This is the most general principle. Everything we are going to learn is now details of this principle.

---

The Human Being's Place – The Weakest Category

[Insight] We already have here a reason why a person should "recoil backward" (nirta l'akhorav) — because he understands that he is the weakest category of the three categories. He is matter and form — which is weaker than form alone — and on top of that he is also constantly coming into being and passing away (hoveh v'nifsad tamid).

But somewhere we will see that the matter and form, the weakest, is actually the one who can reach further toward the Almighty and love the Almighty. He is very good, but he is indeed the weakest. Shortly we will see that a person has a soul (n'shama), which is also more complicated.

The Rambam Does Not Hold That a Person Is Higher Than Angels

But yes, finally — [Insight] the Rambam does not hold that a person is higher than the angels, for example. The essence of what he says about closeness to God (kirvas Hashem) is as you say — that a person knows himself and his place (makiro u'mkomo), he knows that he's not so great. However small he is, he can do great things. How? According to his level (l'fi godlo), not greater than what he can.

That's said in a Chassidic manner. But the Rambam says it clearly. Alright, I won't get into the politics. There is indeed a bigger debate about this.

Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 2 (continued) – Angels: Form Without Body, Parables from Verses, and the Hierarchy of Angels

---

Whether a Person Is Higher Than Angels – A Brief Remark

That's very good, but I hold that it's weak. Because once you've seen that a person has a soul (neshama), it's also not more complicated. But yes, true. The Rambam does not hold that a person is higher than the angels, for example. Part of what he says about fear of God (yiras Hashem) is as you say — that a person is limited, and he knows that he is nothing. Because he is small, he can do great things according to his capacity (l'fi godlo), not greater than what he can.

That's said in a Chassidic manner, but the Rambam doesn't say this at all. Alright, I won't get into the politics, but there is a big debate about this.

---

The Maharal on Learning Rambam

Now, when one learns Rambam — the Maharal says that one may not learn Rambam, perhaps because of this. Because first one learns what the Rambam says.

---

Halakha 7 – Angels Are Not Physical: The Question from Verses

The Difficulty: Prophets Saw Angels with Bodily Characteristics

Now this is very interesting. Remember that yesterday we had a discussion that God is not a body, and there were difficulties (kushyos) that there are many verses (pesukim) that say God is a body — what do we do with them? Seemingly here we have the same difficulty.

The Rambam, you can see, says that the angels are not bodies. The Rambam says that the angels are form alone without a body (tzura bilvad). He then asks a difficulty on himself: "What is this that the prophets say they saw the angel as fire and with wings?" — and these are characteristics (tekhunos) of a body.

The Answer: Everything Is in a Prophetic Vision and by Way of Allegory

The Rambam gives the same answer (terutz) that he gave yesterday regarding the previous difficulty. He says that everything — all the verses where we see what angels look like, made of fire (esh) and with wings (ba'al kenafayim) — is in a prophetic vision (b'mar'eh ha'nevuah). That is what they saw. It's the visualization, the representation of the angels. That means they didn't see the angel itself, but rather they saw something that represents (medameh) an angel, something that helps them understand an angel. And it is by way of allegory (derekh khida).

Two things: a prophetic vision and by way of allegory.

---

Novel Insight: "Prophetic Vision" and "By Way of Allegory" Are Two Separate Concepts

It would seem that prophetic vision and by way of allegory are two things. Prophetic vision is an allegory — let's say it's a fact [the fact of the vision]. Why did they see fire? Why specifically fire? Why is fire a good metaphor (mashal)?

---

Why Specifically Fire as a Metaphor for Angels

Fire — A "Partial Body"

Because fire is a good metaphor. Fire is also a kind of body on its own. In what way is fire a kind of body on its own? Because it has a certain permanence (kevi'us). A body that has permanence, but it doesn't have weight, it's very different from ordinary bodies.

That means, the prophecy is to create something that essentially is — it has various characteristics by which it is indeed a body, but it's not really the body as we know it — that is fire. Because the intent is that it should convey: this is not the regular body that you know.

A Human Being Cannot Understand "Totally Not a Body"

But you can't show a human being — who is, as you learned yesterday, a body with a soul that also has a body — you can't show something that is totally not a body. So you bring him fire, which is the closest thing to "not a body."

An angel is not a body at all, but fire is a sort of body. A sort of body that is not heavy (kaved). It lacks one thing that most bodies have — that it falls down, it's heavy. It's not heavy, it goes upward. So consequently, this is like a metaphor. It's not a complete theory of physicality (toras ha'makom), you can walk through it just like...

The Essence of the Metaphor: A Negation

This means not a body. Body means you can't walk through it. Fire is a body, partially a body. It's only a light body. It's a light body — like one who doesn't have a body that is heavy.

Only as a metaphor — he brings a place where we see that God too, whom we know certainly does not have a body, and God is represented for the same reason as fire. As it says "For the Lord your God is a consuming fire" (Devarim 4:24). Because the intent is also to convey that He is not a body. So not a body — they tell us that it is the furthest thing from a body that humans can understand.

The Logical Progression: From Body to Abstraction

Perhaps I said it this way. A body — what does body mean? Let's say, a body means many things. A body is heavy, a body is such that you can't pass through it, a body has various characteristics.

Now, truly — a body means something not all these characteristics. There is a definition (hagdara) of what is called a body, which includes all worlds (olamos), that even the sun is a body.

But when you want to say that something is not a body — you're a human being, I'm going to tell you straight away the complete abstraction (hafshata gemura) — "has no body" — you won't understand it. So you take one of the characteristics of a body, and you say that it doesn't have that.

Fire is a body, but another characteristic of a body it doesn't have — it's not heavy. So the essence is more the negation (shlila). When you say fire, you mean to say "not heavy." Also not exactly... yours also not. But fire means not heavy, it's high.

So consequently it's a metaphor. It's a novel concept for an "embodied being" (eingeguft'n). For someone who certainly cannot understand completely — being embodied he cannot understand — fire is indeed something he understands, that there is such a thing that is not really a body the way he knows, and one takes it as a metaphor.

---

Proofs from Verses That Descriptions of Angels Are Metaphors

Proof One: "And Fire Is One of the Servants of God"

He says that he brings a proof (ra'aya) that it's a metaphor. He says "and fire is one of the servants of God" — one of the angels. An angel is not fire, rather it's a metaphor.

Proof Two: "He Makes His Angels Winds"

He says further, he brings another proof. From another place it says "He makes His angels winds" (Tehillim 104:4) — angels are like winds (rukhos), like winds.

Why winds? Because winds are also something that has an aspect of being a body, but it's not heavy, it doesn't have weight.

The Logical Proof: Two Contradictory Verses

We see that he simply wants to bring a certain metaphor — to bring bodies that are different from ordinary bodies, in order to understand that an angel is even further from an ordinary body.

---

Parallel to Yesterday's Lecture: "Merciful and Gracious"

It could also be like what we learned yesterday — I'm thinking now. Yesterday, remember, the Talmud brings a metaphor that "merciful and gracious" (rakhum v'khanun) is only a metaphor, because sometimes it says the reverse "gracious and merciful" (khanun v'rakhum), sometimes it says that God is a merciful one (rakhman) sometimes.

It's the same thing — an angel. One says that an angel is fire, it's after all a verse. Yes, but what do you do with the verse "He makes His angels winds"? Necessarily (al korkhakh) it means a metaphor.

It's not that this is the proof. It doesn't say clearly, one could take...

---

Digression: Is Wind/Air a Body?

And yet — is wind indeed a body? Wind is simply... A body, what we mean to say: a body means a body, a thing, something, a thing. A thing that is a body.

Simply, wind (ruakh) is — air that moves faster. Air is a body, it's a body that has a certain form (tzura). Every body has a certain form, but it's a body — is it not?

---

Halakha 8 – How Can There Be Different Angels If They Are All Form Without a Body?

Overview of the Topic

It's lengthy. Now we're going to learn... We discussed that angels are form without matter (khomer). There are two difficulties in total.

The Rambam comes out with a great novel insight (khidush). The topic of angels has gotten "stuck" a bit, because people have many ideas about angels.

The Three Categories of the World: Humans, Stars, and Angels

We discussed the three categories (klalim) of the world: humans, stars, and angels. Oops — not a simple thing, right? Humans, stars, and angels.

Now, humans we know — it's no novelty, everyone knows that humans are what they are. Stars too, more or less you can see. Angels are a novelty. Not only is it a novelty — it has various difficulties.

Two Types of Difficulties Regarding Angels

There are difficulties from the Torah — seemingly the Torah states that angels do have bodies.

There are also the analytical/scholarly (lamdanishe) difficulties. Once you've said it's a form, the difficulty immediately becomes hard:

The Analytical Difficulty: How Can There Be Multiple Forms Without a Body?

Granted, God is not a problem — God is not really a form, but God is an entity (davar) that is not a body (eino guf), and there is indeed only one. As we learned yesterday — if there were two, He would be a body [because two things of the same kind require a body to differentiate them].

But angels — you say there are many of them! He says after all that it's not a body, and yet one must say there is more than one. As a difficulty — this is the distinction (khiluk) between an angel and God, one great distinction, yes? God — there is only one, but angels — it's difficult: By what are these forms separated from one another, if not by a body? — what divides them one from the other, they don't have bodies?

---

The Rambam's Answer: Hierarchy of Existence

Each Angel Exists from the Power of the Higher One

The Rambam says in his Torah [i.e., in his Mishneh Torah] as follows: "Because they are not equal in their existence" — they don't have the same type of existence, they are different forms.

What is the distinction? What does it mean different forms? They're all forms!

He says as follows: "That each one of them is below the level of its fellow" — each one is lower than the other previous angel. We'll go in a minute into what "lower" means.

"And it exists from its (the higher one's) power" — it exists from the power of the other one. "The one above this level, and all exist from the power and goodness of the Holy One, blessed be He" — altogether, the top of the ladder, as it were, is God.

Novel Insight: The Distinction Between Angels Is a Distinction in Existence, Not in "Rank"

What the Rambam is saying is a simple thing. When I say that one angel is different from the other, we simply mean to say that this angel came into being from the other angel.

For example, the first angel — it makes the second angel. Not entirely on its own, as he says after all "all exist from the power of the Holy One, blessed be He" — because only God has existence, and He gives existence to each one. But God first gave existence to the first angel. The first angel, it makes as it were — not that it makes entirely the way God makes — but it makes the next angel.

So consequently there is a distinction, because the first angel has a direct existence from God, let's say. In contrast (misha'kein), the second angel already has an existence that needs to come through the first angel.

Novel Insight: The Dependency Structure — Parallel to God

One can say the same thing that is said about God — that without God, nothing exists, but if nothing exists, God doesn't cease to exist.

The same thing applies regarding the second angel. The second angel — if it ceases to exist, the first angel doesn't cease to exist. But if the first angel were to cease to exist, the second angel would indeed cease to exist.

It turns out that they are dependent on one another (talui zeh b'zeh). So the lower angels are dependent on very many levels of predecessors, and one doesn't make the first angel at all. And this creates a distinction between one angel and the other angel.

Novel Insight: Among Angels There Is No "Horizontal" Difference — Only "Vertical"

There isn't — one can say that there is no horizontal difference among angels the way there is among humans. You and I are, let's say, equal. But what makes a difference in our bodies?

Yes, it says in the Tanya that the soul of everyone is all just one soul, but the bodies make us different. That is... but we are both the same existence (metzi'us).

An angel is not like that. Rather there it's like fathers and sons. There cannot be two angels unless one is, as it were, a father and one is like a son. Because if there is no way to be different, can you say it's a — you know what — an angel? An angel. This is the Rambam, what the Rambam says.

---

Open Question: Do Angels Create Other Angels Intentionally?

It's not so clear whether the angels bring into existence (mamtzi) other angels intentionally, or as if God created them all, or He made it in a natural manner (b'oifen tiv'i) that until...

Okay, we don't need to go into all the words that he doesn't say — there will be problems. What does intentionally mean? Deep matters.

We're just saying what we heard simply, what it says.

---

Remark About the Rambam's Writing Style

The Rambam was a great expert (mumkhe) at saying simple things. One can understand all the words in these chapters. If there are words one doesn't know, one needs to give the translation (taitsh). But one can understand all the words in these chapters, and all the difficulties are good difficulties, they are deep matters, but the basics of them one can repeat.

But the words — the Rambam was very good at putting things into words where one can say everything. The sentence works, you know what it says.

---

The Verse "For One Higher Than the High Watches" — King Solomon's Hint

The Rambam's Proof from Koheles

So the Rambam says: "And this is what Solomon hinted at in his wisdom." This is what King Solomon (Shlomo HaMelekh) hinted at. When he speaks about angels, he wanted to answer for us the difficulty: how can there be different forms if they are all just a form?

He says, this is because "For one higher than the high watches" (Koheles 5:7) — that angels are on a level of one higher above the other (gavo'ah me'al gavo'ah), they are in a hierarchy, they are one higher than the other.

What Does "Watches" Mean?

"Watches" (shomer) — is that a name for angels? I don't know. How did the Rambam connect angels with guarding (shmira)?

No — perhaps he means to say that the higher one guards the lower one, because it gives it its existence.

Remark: The Plain Meaning of the Verse

The plain meaning (pashut pshat) of the verse is not speaking about angels — it's a metaphor. One needs to know how the Rambam derived the meaning from this verse, but it's a good verse that brings out the topic of a hierarchy — one higher above the other.

"One higher above the other" doesn't mean what we use it for nowadays — "very very high." No, it actually means one thing higher than the other.

---

Levels of Angels in Prayer

It's interesting, because when we speak about angels, we usually do mention levels. For example, in prayer (davening) we say "Seraphim, Ophanim, and Holy Chayos." We've mentioned three levels of angels.

True, but the idea of levels of angels comes from the Rambam. The Rambam introduced this. I mean, the clearest place where it says that one angel is higher...

---

Halakha 9 – "Below Its Level": What Does "Level" Mean Regarding Angels?

"Levels" Means Priority in Existence

Now the Rambam is going to say what the levels mean, though. A very important point. Levels doesn't mean here that one has a greater rank (madreiga). It is a greater rank, but what "greater rank" means is that it is prior in existence (kodem ba'metzi'us). It is prior in existence? Yes.

The Rambam says — yes, can you tell me? This is what the Rambam is going to say.

Discussion: "Below Its Level of Place" — Does That Mean a Physical Place?

Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam says "below its level." Doesn't it mean that they are placed in different locations?

Speaker 1: Does it mean that Adam, the first man (Adam HaRishon), sat above his fellows?

Speaker 2: He needs to stand on a higher floor?

Speaker 1: There is no floor. It's all in forms (b'tzuros). It's all form. As you say — form does not occupy space (tofes makom), seemingly.

Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 2 (Continued) – "Above and Below" Regarding Angels: Level, Not Place

---

Halakha 9 – "Above and Below" Does Not Mean Place

This is the correct point. "Levels" doesn't mean here that one has a greater rank — but what "greater rank" means is that it is prior in existence, it precedes in existence. Yes, so says the Rambam. Yes, can you tell me:

"And what we said 'below its level,' does not mean a level of place" – it doesn't mean that they lie in different places. "Like a person who sits above his fellow" – that he stands higher. There is no floor, it's all in forms [b'tzuros]. It's all forms, as you say – forms don't occupy space [tofes makom], seemingly. He hasn't said it here yet, but yes, that's how one needs to understand it. Place only applies to matter [chomer].

---

Parable 1: Two Sages – "Above" Means a Higher Level

So what then does "above" and "below" mean? There is no above and below if there is no place. Rather – what then? "Like when one says about two sages, that one is greater than the other in wisdom, that he is above the level of the other" – just as one says about two sages where one of them is greater than the other in wisdom, one says "he is above the level of the other."

Obviously one doesn't mean to say that he lives on a higher floor or that he is physically taller. Rather, "he is higher" means to say that he has a certain quality, he has certain qualities that the other one doesn't have, or his wisdom is greater.

---

Parable 2: Cause and Effect – "Higher" Means the One Who Caused It to Happen

Or another example: "And like when one says about a cause that it is above the effect" – just as one says about something that is caused by another thing. When there is a cause [ilah] and an effect [alul] – what does ilah mean? Something happened, and through that we say it is lower than the one who caused it to happen.

But he does explain the meaning – not everyone knows what the word ilah means. I don't know either. Ilah means a reason/cause [sibah], just another word for sibah. Ilah means a cause. Just as one says: the ilah is the one who made it, and the alul is the one that was made. Consequently, it is lower in the level of the one who did it.

So, furthermore this is not... the ilah and the alul are both on the same horizontal, as you said, that they are both on the same floor – only it is weaker in level, it is less. It was caused.

---

Novel Insight: Why Two Parables? – Two Stages of "Level"

Consequently, we call it "higher." He only wants to say that there is no name for the Almighty – yes, so the word for saying "the Almighty" [der Eibershter] is "the Uppermost One" [der Oibershter], yes, "the Almighty" is "the Higher One." Just as it says "Moshe and Aharon are equal to one another" [Moshe v'Aharon shekulin k'echad] – yes, there was such a joke that one needs to have a hair that should be very straight, because they weigh the same. No, they don't weigh the same – it means that they have the same level in spirituality.

It is because the two parables that the Rambam seizes upon – the reason he seizes upon them is because to say that "level" doesn't mean in place. But both share the concept that one is influenced/emanated [nishpa] from the other. That is, the one who is smaller in wisdom receives wisdom from the one who is greater than him in wisdom. And this is seemingly also the concept of the angels, that the greater angel gives to the lesser angels.

I would say it like this, yes – just as it says "they lovingly give permission to one another" [nosnim b'ahavah reshus zeh la'zeh] – as if the greater angel influences the lesser angels. I would say that both examples are examples where the cause is like the creator [yotzer] of the effect, and the lesser sage is a student, he is influenced by the greater sage.

I would say that with the sage it doesn't have to be so – he could still be a student of someone else. But he only brings out two things. I would say that there are two stages:

- With the sage he brings out that when one says "above all of them," "above" is "higher than him" – one doesn't mean he stands on his head, one doesn't mean that he is six feet and the other is eight feet. Yes, it only means that he is a higher level. "Level" means –

- And with cause one sees the second point, that "higher" means to say that he – just as a father is higher than a son. This should always be "above all of them." A father is higher than a son – it could be that the son is bigger, that's not what it means. It means that he is the cause, the ilah of the son who is the alul.

---

Halacha 10 – Ten Names of Angels: "The Different Names of Angels Are According to Their Levels"

Until here the Rambam has been explaining what the concept of an angel is and what the concept of levels of angels is. Now you will understand, says the Rambam:

I just wanted to say – do you maybe want to take a break? Yes, already.

---

Why Different Names?

The Rambam says: Now that I have explained to you that there are ten types of angels, each one has a different level – now you also understand why there are different names for angels. That is, we know one name: malach. "Malach" is perhaps a general name for all of them too. But when one looks into the Chumash one sees that there are different types of names.

The Rambam says: I searched in the Chumash and I found exactly ten names of angels. So says the Rambam. Consequently the Rambam says: there are ten levels – from the Almighty down to us, to the human being – and in between there are ten levels, ten angels, and they all have a name. Each one of the names can be found in the Tanach, in the Prophets.

---

Novel Insight: The Name Is for the Level, Not for the Angel

Consequently he says as follows: "The different names of the angels are according to their levels" – why do they have different names? According to their level. A name is simply, with two people – a name is simply because his father gave him a name. But in the Torah a name stands for something, the meaning is that it points to something. Why are there two names of angels? The meaning is that there are two levels of angels.

This is already even to say that they are two different beings, because they have different names. Angels are not divided in form – there is no difference. Rather, the difference is only according to the level. So also, each angel has a different name because of the level – they have different names.

It is – you can say it another way: that the name is not for the angels, rather the name is for the level. That is what divides the angels – not their body, like a person whose name is also for his body.

---

The List of Ten Names

Why are they called... okay, it is – one can ask the question. Why are they called this way?

1. Chayos HaKodesh – the Rambam says: "and they are above all" – they are the highest level. He doesn't explain the word – what does "Chayos HaKodesh" mean? That their vitality comes from holiness, or... okay.

There is a bit of a question here: what does "chayos" [plural] mean? According to the Rambam there can only be one chaya [if each level is one form]. But it says "Chayos HaKodesh" – the living holy creatures. Just as the Chassidim always explain that "the vitality of holiness" – as if their vitality is holiness. That is seemingly an even better question.

2. Ofanim

3. Erelim

4. Chashmalim

5. Serafim

6. Malachim – it's interesting: the general name [shem hakolel] is "malachim," but it is also a specific name [shem prati] for one level.

7. Elohim – also a name of an angel.

8. Bnei Elohim – it's interesting, because yes, "Elohim" is like the father of the "Bnei Elohim." Yes, but we discussed that each lower level is influenced by the level above it.

9. Keruvim

10. Ishim – and the tenth level of angels, the weakest level of angels, is called Ishim.

---

Question: Plural Language in the Names of Angels

It's interesting, because I would have always thought that they have plural forms – they are called in plural language because there are multiple ones. Right? It appears here like it is a category of angel. It's a question – I don't have an answer to this question. It is – let's put it into the list of questions.

---

Halacha 11 – Chayos HaKodesh: "Beneath the Throne" / Ishim: "Their Level Is Close to the Level of Human Knowledge"

The Maharal on Ten Levels

Now the Maharal explains here two points about the levels that we just learned:

"And all these ten names by which the angels are called, are according to their ten levels" – why are there these ten extra names? According to the ten levels, which makes them separate entities [devarim nifradim], which makes them distinct.

Ah, here he adds... I asked what the Tiferes Yisrael [the Maharal's work] adds. Seemingly, here he adds that there are indeed ten levels of the angels, and because of that there are ten – exactly ten. Don't think it's just a random number. No, the Rambam says here precisely ten. The Rambam took it from the Zohar, and almost all the sefarim that I have seen all agree to go with the Rambam's list, that there are ten levels of angels. The Zohar says that there are ten sefiros [divine emanations] and the like, but one follows this order and these names.

---

Chayos HaKodesh – "Beneath the Throne"

And consequently the Rambam says, now you can understand two things that we saw in the previous list. We saw that the first is called Chayos HaKodesh, and the last is called Ishim. You can understand why.

He says as follows, listen to what he says: "And the level above which there is no level except the level of God, blessed be His name, is the level of the forms called Chayos" – this is the language of the Rambam: "the level of the forms called Chayos." "Called" [singular] – not "called" [plural]. That is, the level, the rank, is called "Chayos."

"Therefore it is said in prophecy that they are beneath the Throne" – what does "beneath the Throne" mean? They don't occupy space – we said that earlier. They don't occupy space. But what he means to say is that they are one level beneath, so to speak, the Almighty Himself. That is, their existence is not influenced by, not dependent on, anything other than the Almighty Himself alone – consequently they are directly "beneath the Throne."

Novel Insight: "Throne" as an Appellation for the Almighty

And the Almighty Himself is called "Throne" [kisei]. Interesting – can you say that "Throne" is yet another angel? No, "Throne" is an appellation [kinui] for the Almighty. But he sees it this way.

About the other angels one can say that they are also "beneath the Throne," but they are levels below the Throne, because they are also beneath the other levels.

---

Ishim – "Their Level Is Close to the Level of Human Knowledge"

"And the tenth level" – the weakest – "is the tenth level that is called" – here he does say "tenth" in singular form – "that is called Ishim." "And they are the angels" – again plural language – "and they are the angels who speak with the prophets" – these are the angels who are in touch with human beings, the highest level of human beings – the people who are prophets, people who merit to speak with forms.

"And they appear to them in the prophetic vision" – the "Ishim" are the ones who reveal themselves in the prophetic vision [b'mar'eh ha'nevuah].

"And therefore they are called Ishim" – because of this they are called "Ishim," because they have the most connection to "man" [ish] – "because their level is close" – their level is the closest, one level higher – "to the level of human knowledge."

---

Discussion: Plural Language with Ishim – How Can One Form Have Many Representations?

It could be, why the Rambam says here plural language and singular language – and I asked you this question, and others bring that there are very many angels – is that "many" is also the concept of separate forms. But if it is only one form, they can be in very many places at once, because they are not subject to spatial location [tachas makom].

It is again by way of parable, because I can say to myself that the angel called Chashmalim is in millions of places at once, or it performs millions of actions at once. So, from the eyes of a simple person there will be thousands of angels called Chashmalim, but in reality – because they are only a form – they are only one form, because they are only one level, only one rank. It could be.

I am still of the opinion that the questions are better than the answers. There isn't time to go into this.

But what you say about the tenth angel makes sense, because an intellectual concept can certainly be that many prophets receive prophecy at once. Think: many prophets had prophecies, and each one saw a different form – but he surely would have said that they are speaking with different angels. But the Rambam says: no, they are speaking with one level of angels. Only what then? Since they are not matter, it is certain that what he knows from the angel is only certain intellectual concepts that he knows.

It could be that whenever one speaks about multiple angels, one means to say the angel that is one form, and it has many representations or many ways in which a person can imagine it. It is like it says "one angel does not perform two missions" [malach echad eino oseh shtei shelichuyos] – meaning one level of angel.

Let's not go into it. Yes, I'm telling you, it's much better to believe and not to believe.

---

Acknowledging Difficulties

To know the words that the Rambam says here – because all these questions are good things, but one needs to understand differently. But the Rambam was a great expert. What he says is correct, worked out, or indeed needs to be understood precisely.

---

"Malach" – The General Name: A Messenger

In Rashi for example, and other places, you see that an angel is called a malach because he is a messenger [shaliach]. This is the general name of angels – that is, one can remove and call all angels "malach" because they are all emissaries of the Almighty. Right, it could all be.

---

Okay, now he goes into a very interesting topic.

Form, Intellect, and Knowledge: The Hierarchy of Knowing Among Angels and the Almighty

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 2 (continued)

---

The Concept "Form" = "Intellect" = "Angel"

Yes, I'm telling you, we are better off believing and not believing, but knowing the words that the Rambam says here. Because all these questions are good things, but one needs to properly understand. But the Rambam was a great expert — what he says is correct, thoroughly worked out, only one needs indeed to understand precisely.

Another small point is: in "Rosh Olam" which is another world, that is, it is called a malach [angel], because it is a messenger [shaliach]. Yes, it can still be. And this is the general name [shem hakolel] of angels. So it can additionally mean all angels, because they are called malachim, because they are all emissaries [shluchim] of the Almighty.

---

Introduction to the Topic of Knowledge of the Forms

Okay, now we are going into a very interesting topic. It's a two-level — the topic is very difficult, I don't know that one will be able to even say it clearly by oneself. But what he is talking about now, and the next sections until the end of the chapter, is the topic of the knowledge of the forms [tzuros].

Form = Intellect

Only you need to remember that when we say "the forms," the Rambam doesn't insist on language, and he only says the term tzura [form] or malachim [angels]. Another term that we know the Rambam uses in other places is the term seichel [intellect]. That is, you want to understand what an angel is, what we call form without matter [tzura b'lo chomer] — that is an intellect.

Intellect Is Not a Brain

Intellect doesn't mean a brain — a brain is matter [chomer] in which intellect resides. Intellect is — one can say — the idea [the idea]. The idea is not the idea that we think, or the one who can think of an idea, but the idea itself.

Knowledge: The Subject and Object Are One

So, what does knowledge [yedia] mean? That he knows something, right? Consequently, if one wants truth, if one wants to talk about the... knowledge means that he knows something, but the knowledge is the science. A brain [moach] is the one who knows, but he knows through halacha. But you should know a thing that I mean knows.

But the point is — I can't explain it now — but you can say it is a subject and an object together. But I mean how this is to be understood better, deeper we don't have here to explain it. But in other shiurim and other places one can try to delve into understanding this matter. But the point is: you can call it like the thing that knows and is known.

---

"Life" Among Angels — Not Bodily Life but Knowledge-Life

Now there is another thing called life [chaim]. And they discussed last night that the Almighty does not live with the life of a living body [b'chaim shel chai b'guf]. Life of a body means what keeps the body alive — life versus coming into being and passing away [havaya v'nefsad]. That stands — a period, when one lives, that is the life. Right? That is the life of a body.

An Intellect Also Lives — But Differently

But when it pertains to an intellect, we also call it alive. Because a living thing does — it also does something. It constantly knows. That is what it does. Life means actively doing something. An intellect does even more than a body.

But this is once again something that is very difficult to understand. The Rambam constantly emphasizes that understanding intellect is a very difficult matter — what we call intellect is not truly intellect. But I'll frame it: He lives — He certainly lives. But not the kind of life that we call life, rather the true meaning of what life is.

---

Halacha 12 — All the Forms Are Alive and Recognize the Creator

So the Rambam says: of all the forms — all the angels — are alive — they all live. So they live — does that mean they breathe? No. Breathing is only the way the body — it's a much weaker kind of life. They live the way the Almighty lives — it's like a knowledge-life.

**And all these forms are alive and recognize the Creator and know Him with exceedingly great knowledge**

They know the Creator. Knowledge — they know, they understand the Almighty. And they know Him with great, immense knowledge — a very good, a great understanding (havana).

**Each form according to its level**

Each one knows it according to its level (maala), according to its level.

Novel point: "According to its greatness" — not according to God's greatness

Not according to His greatness — none of them knows according to the Almighty's greatness. Each knows according to its own greatness — not according to the Almighty Himself. No one knows the Almighty the way He knows Himself. Because to know the Almighty the way He knows Himself would mean being the Almighty. You can know the Almighty as the One who made you — because that is your connection (kesher).

---

The Hierarchy of Knowledge Among Angels

And each angel, according to how great it is, that's how it understands the Almighty. It knows Him from a more distant vantage point.

Even the first level doesn't understand the Almighty

But consequently, even the first level, even the angel Chayos HaKodesh, cannot grasp the truth of the Creator as He is (eino yachol l'hasig amitas haBore k'mo she'hu). It can only know the Creator as it understands Him — it receives (m'kabel) its existence (m'tzius). But the Almighty Himself is the cause (gorem) of it, so the Almighty Himself knows Himself, so to speak, better than even the first angel knows the Almighty Himself. It knows only that it is a creation (nivra) of the Almighty.

**Rather, its knowledge is according to its own form**

Yes, its knowledge, and just as its existence is lesser than the Almighty's existence, so its knowledge is lesser than the Almighty's existence.

Halacha 13 — Each level knows more than the lower ones

But nevertheless, it grasps in its knowledge more than what is grasped in the knowledge of the one below it — and it knows more than the previous ones. And so each and every level — each level knows more than the previous one and less than the higher one.

The tenth level — the Active Intellect

Until the tenth level — until the tenth level — it too knows the Creator with a knowledge that human beings don't have the capacity for (she'ein koach bnei ha'adam). Ah, because a person is made of matter and form (golem v'tzura), and it is a form without matter (tzura b'li golem), and that is a better kind of knowledge. So no single person can know as much as the tenth angel.

Yes, and this angel is called in another place the Active Intellect (seichel hapo'el).

And all of them do not know the Creator the way He knows Himself — none of them knows the Almighty the way He knows Himself.

---

Novel point: The connection back to "thoughts about the Creator above" — Halachos 2-3

And this goes back to what he said earlier: that when a person grasps what great creations (brios) exist above him, and he grasps how small he is, then he grasps how small his knowledge is. So — the knowledge of the Perfect in Knowledge (daas tamim de'im, Iyov 37:16).

Knowledge is the result of existence

Because knowledge is essentially the result of existence. Knowledge — one can understand it — it's a very good question. I'm saying that simply one understands knowledge is a thing, I don't know what, forty days or something. But knowledge is really to know the cause (siba) of something.

What does that mean? A wisdom (chochma), when one knows where something comes from. So how far you are from the cause, that's how far your knowledge actually is. If a person is barely such a thing — he lives for a few weeks — then his knowledge is approximately according to a few weeks, if one can imagine it that way.

Why does the Rambam bring this here?

I don't know exactly why the Rambam says this whole teaching about knowledge. I mean, it looks like it's very basic, but it's very hard to understand, and who will arrive at it I don't know clearly.

The connection to "thoughts about the Creator above"

It could be that it goes back to the thoughts about the Creator above (machshavos Bore maala). Exactly — this is the thing with which one thinks and grasps a sense of awe (pachad). It's the thinking — when one knows this, this is the thought that makes a person feel awe.

A person can think — you need to hold out a bit — I don't know if by learning this chapter one can easily hold it out — but a person can think: even the first angel doesn't understand the Almighty — who am I? That is perhaps the point (nekuda).

Novel point: Not just "who am I?" — but to keep thinking further

But now he arrives at the Almighty Himself — that is perhaps another point. Yes, he doesn't just need to say "who am I?", rather he needs to keep thinking about the Almighty. Because if not — you are truly nothing at all.

So, even though you are a million levels weaker than the angel, but you are still in the world of knowledge — in the world of knowing and wanting to know. Someone who is nothing at all in the world of knowledge is truly just a body — he is dust from the earth (afar min ha'adama). If he uses his intellect, he is a piece of an angel. We will talk about this later.

---

Halacha 14 — The Almighty Knows Everything Through Knowing Himself

The hierarchy of knowledge — the Almighty at the top

Now the Rambam says yet another important thing. Now that you understand that there is a hierarchy, just as there is a hierarchy of existence where the top is the Almighty, so too there is a hierarchy of knowledge.

Now one can already speak a bit about God's own knowledge (yedias Hashem atzmo). This is apparently very important, because one of the principles of faith (ikkarim) is to know that the Almighty knows everything — everything is His handiwork (hakol ma'aseh yadav), as it says in the 13 Principles of Faith. So I think that this is perhaps a reason why it comes in here as very important.

Each thing knows according to its level in existence

So the Rambam says: you understand that each thing knows according to its level in existence. Yes, I know my cup (kos), and I perhaps also know what I cause. Yes, he can also say that the higher levels know the lower levels, because they cause them to exist.

**All that exists aside from the Creator, from the first form to a tiny gnat at the center of the earth**

So the Rambam says: everything aside from the Almighty — yes, the Almighty is an entirely different category from everything — everything aside from the Almighty, from the first form to a tiny gnat at the center of the earth (mi'tzura harishona ad yatush katan she'yihyeh b'tabur ha'aretz) — from the first angel, the first Chaya, to a tiny gnat that is in the depths of the earth — the smallest bug somewhere in the middle of the world, so to speak, the furthest from the Almighty —

**Everything is from the power of His true existence**

Everything was made by Him, and somewhere there everything begins.

Novel point: "Through knowing Himself — He knows everything"

Rather, since He knows Himself — the Almighty knows Himself.

What does it mean that the Almighty knows Himself? We'll see in a second. It doesn't mean that the Almighty thinks and knows Himself the way we think. But this — that He is a kind of knowledge, so to speak —

And consequently grasps His true greatness and splendor — He knows Himself, He knows that the Almighty... only the Almighty knows how great the Almighty is.

And consequently He knows everything — since the Almighty knows Himself, and what is the Almighty Himself? That is what causes everything. So to know the Almighty is also to know that everything came from Him.

The explanation: To know something is to know what it is

It's cool — he's saying a very simple thing. He says it's very deep, but the basic language is very simple. To know something is to know what it is. What is the Almighty? What He is for Himself I don't know, but what does He do, so to speak? He is the cause of everything — everything. So the Almighty, in that He knows Himself — through knowing Himself He already knows everything.

The same thing — if, so to speak, a person could know the Almighty the way He knows Himself, he would also know everything. But it's not possible — a person is a composite (murkav) of matter and form, etc.

Analogy: To know a father is already to know his son

Just as I can say: to know a father is already to know his son — because a father is a thing that makes a son. And the Almighty is a thing that makes everything.

The Chayos HaKodesh knows all the angels, and people. Let's say the first man — Adam HaRishon knows... Adam HaRishon is not truly the cause of all people. But the Almighty is — since He is the cause of everything, He knows everything.

Conclusion

So — from knowledge of Himself, knowledge of everything necessarily follows (mitoch yedias atzmo iz muchrach yedias hakol).

---

Halacha 15 — The Distinction Between the Almighty's Knowledge and Our Knowledge

Our knowledge is a change — the Almighty's knowledge is not

But knowing from the Almighty doesn't mean the way we know — that one became aware. Our knowledge is: before there was a lack of knowledge (choser yedia), and afterward one became aware — it's a change (shinui). The Almighty has a different kind of knowledge. He goes on to explain this further.

**The Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes His truth and knows it as it is**

The Rambam says — here is the distinction (chiluk), yes, the distinction between the Almighty's knowledge and our knowledge. Don't make the mistake that the Almighty knows the same way we know. No.

The Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes His truth and knows it as it is — He knows it as it is, not the way we know — not even the way the greatest one who comprehends (masig) the Almighty does. He is not our collective — He is not alone.

**And He does not know with a knowledge that is external to Him, as we know**

But another thing: And He does not know with a knowledge that is external to Him (v'eino yodea b'deya she'hi chutz mimenu). The Almighty does not know with a knowledge that is outside of Him — as we know (k'mo she'anu yod'im). He brought this out very well.

Halachos 15–17: God's Knowledge — He is the Knower, the Known, and the Knowledge

The Almighty's knowing is not like our knowing

One should not make the mistake that the Almighty knows the same way we know. No. The Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes His truth — He knows His true reality — and knows it as it is — He knows it as it is, not the way we know. Even the greatest — the Almighty knows as He is the Almighty, yes, as He is. Our mind, however — it is not alone, you see.

But another thing: And He does not know with a knowledge that is external to Him — the Almighty does not know with a knowledge that is outside of Him — as we know — the way we know.

He brought out very well: as we know — we know. When we know, we and the knowledge are not the same thing. Why? Because yesterday I didn't know — so it must be that there is a "me" apart from the knowing. And even after I know, the knowledge is still not entirely me, because you see that yesterday it wasn't there.

So consequently: we and our knowledge are not one — we, Yitzchak, and Yitzchak's knowledge — two things. It's connected with me, it's mine in some way, but it's not a part of me — it's a different thing.

---

He and His Knowledge and His Life Are One — The Foundation of God's Unity

But the Creator, blessed be He, He and His knowledge and His life — which we discussed, "His life" also means the knowledge — are one from every side and every corner — from every side you look, so to speak. There is no side, I'm just saying it as an analogy, but from every side and way that you should look at this, know that it is one.

In other words, simple: there is only knowledge, or essence. Another way of saying this would be: to say that the Almighty is a Knower, or to say that the Almighty is alive, or to say that He exists — it's the same thing, it's just different words for the same thing. And that is stated in "One." Yes.

---

If He were alive with a life — there would be multiple gods

If He were alive with a life — says the Rambam, if He would live with a life like ours — I can be dead, so to speak, my body can be dead, now I live — that's two things. And would know with a knowledge — there would be multiple gods — there would be many gods, God would be more than one thing. He and His life and His knowledge would be three gods — just as there are people who say. For someone who is an idol worshipper, but it's not true. Rather, one from every side and every corner and in every way of unification — from every side, every corner, every way one can unify, the Almighty is one.

---

He is the Knower and He is the Known and He is the Knowledge Itself — Explanation of the Three Expressions

But now the Rambam is going to say: if we haven't understood this until now, he will give us an analogy from ourselves, and he will explain that it's simple — but it's not so. And he says: to understand this is a deep matter. The Rambam is going to explain.

And he says as follows: If it were possible to understand this matter — if it is possible to understand this — He is the Knower — He is the one who knows — and He is the Known — He is the thing that He knows.

Because we said: the Almighty — what does the Almighty know? He knows the Almighty. Because He and His knowledge are one — He knows the Almighty. We know — that is another way of saying the Almighty.

The analogy from a person — three separate things

Because what you think, when you say that I and my knowledge are two things — what do I know? Knowledge is the thing one knows, right? The knowledge, that is the thing one knows. Yes, let's not use big words, because there's really nothing to make complicated.

When I know — the Rambam uses this analogy in one place — I know a tree, yes? What do I know? The tree. Is the tree me? No, I am not the tree. So "me" and the thing I know — are two things.

There is the "I," there is the thing I know, the knowledge is me, the knowledge is the thing I know, and the knowledge, the knowing — that is that I know it. For me these are three things.

With the Almighty — everything is one

The Almighty, however — what does He know? He knows everything. But why does He know everything? No — He knows Himself. And through knowing Himself He knows everything (u'v'yedias atzmo yodea es hakol).

The Almighty doesn't know anything that is not Him, because He is the source (makor) of everything. We can say that He is everything, if we want, in this language — and that is indeed a Chassidic expression, and he says this. The Chassidim use this a lot: through knowing Himself He knows everything.

But when I know something else, it is separate (nifrad) from me, because it's another thing. But the Almighty — everything He knows is included (kalul) in knowledge of Himself.

So: He is the Knower — He is the one who knows. And He is the Known — He also knows Himself. And He is the Knowledge — so there is a piece of wisdom that doesn't exist as something extra beyond all these things. The knowledge is that He is the Almighty. What does the Almighty know? That He is the Almighty, right? So the knowledge is also the Almighty.

The Almighty is He is the Knower, and He is the Known, and He is the Knowledge itself — all is one. And this is a deep concept that the Rambam explains in other places at greater length, but this is the meaning of the three expressions.

---

"There is no power in the mouth to express it" — Why one cannot articulate this

Why is it impossible to understand this? Why does he say "there is no power in the mouth to express it"? Can't you just say a simple thing?

Because I'm saying three words: He is the Knower, and He is the Knowledge, and He is the Known. What are three words already? You've already said three things. But I want you to understand that it's one thing, right?

So it follows: "There is no power in the mouth to express it, nor in the ear to hear it" — right? Just as it says "male and female He created them" [Bereishis 1:27] — yes, one entity. But a person cannot hear one thing all at once.

"Nor in the heart of man to know it thoroughly."

Precision: Three bodily things — mouth, ear, heart

I have here three bodily things, because he wants to say that the reason we cannot understand it is because we are a body.

- Mouth — I should understand that "mouth to express it" is simple: a mouth says a word, I cannot say one word. The Rambam says in one place: if we had one word that means all these things simultaneously, we could say it. But we are, after all, human beings — we understand one word at a time.

- Ear — the same thing.

- Heart — I believe it doesn't say in the Rambam "there is no power in the heart of man to know" — I need to check that.

Novel insight: "to know it thoroughly" — not "to know it at all"

Because an intellect cannot understand two things at once in part. A person can understand a concept where, while meaning the same thing, one says a different word, and the mind can understand it. It goes without saying, the Almighty understands — the intellect is a very deep matter. But to know it thoroughly — clearly, the way the Almighty understands, one cannot understand that way. The Almighty cannot be truly understood in that same manner.

But it doesn't say "the heart of man cannot know at all" — yes? Did you notice?

This is an important precision in my opinion: one can perhaps grasp it a little bit. Say it one can never do, because words are limited — words say one thing at a time. Understand it one can perhaps, but not thoroughly — certainly not the way the Almighty does, and not even the way the angels do.

---

Halakha 16: Proof from "as God lives" versus "as Pharaoh lives" — the difference in vowelization

Here the Rambam brings a proof for this. There are quite lengthy matters — for every point here the Rambam brings a proof from a verse or from the Sages.

The Rambam says: I have a proof for you. "Therefore they say" — for this reason, when one speaks of the Almighty, one speaks differently than when one speaks of the Almighty's life — which is His essence — one speaks differently than when one speaks of a person's life.

"Chei Pharaoh" with a tzeirei — the life of Pharaoh

When one says "chei Pharaoh" [Bereishis 42:15], one says it with a tzeirei. "Chei" — as in the Holy Language there is a tzeirei. "Chei Pharaoh" means: the life of Pharaoh. That is not Pharaoh — and his life is not one with him. It's a contraction of "chayei Pharaoh" — yes, this is explained, it's a construct state, it's called "chei." But "chei Pharaoh" is "the life of Pharaoh" — the life of Pharaoh was such. Or even when one says "chei nafshekha" [Shmuel I 1:26] — your life. Your life. Yes?

"Chai Hashem" with a patach — as the Almighty lives

When one speaks of the Almighty, one never says — as the Rambam says — one never says "chei Hashem" with a tzeirei. Rather, because it is written "chai Hashem" [Shoftim 8:19]. One doesn't say "chei Hashem" with a tzeirei — rather "chai Hashem" with a patach.

"Chai Hashem" means: as the Almighty lives. That the Almighty lives — that one can say. But not that the Almighty "has" a life.

This is the distinction — it's a slightly different distinction: it's not that the Almighty exists and life is added to Him, rather the meaning is that His life is Him.

What about an angel?

A word in passing: "chei nafshekha," "chei achikha," "chei ha'melekh" — even the king. Because you might think: the king — what about "chai" regarding the Almighty? That is the existence of the Almighty, right? The Almighty cannot "not be"? No — it's not that He exists and He "has" that.

But the angel — the angel could not exist, the Almighty created him. Yes? So the Almighty... life with Him is the same thing. That's what we're talking about.

One says "chai Hashem" — just as one swears in God's name — "chai Hashem" — as the Almighty lives, as the Almighty is. That the Almighty is, I can say... One cannot say "the life of the Almighty." There is no such thing as "the life of the Almighty." The life of the Almighty doesn't exist as a separate thing. A person has a life — he didn't live before, now he lives. But the Almighty is life. He doesn't have life — He is life.

This is the foundation of the unity of God.

---

Halakha 17: God's knowledge of created beings — from His own essence, not from creation

Therefore — consequently, seemingly he's repeating here, one needs to understand it better.

Now he explains God's knowledge: since the Almighty is He is the Knower and He is the Known and He is the Knowledge itself — everything is one — the knowledge of those who know from created beings is not comparable to how they know. We, when we know something, we know it because it's a created being, from the side of creation.

But the Almighty — from His own essence He knows them. The Almighty knows creation not from the side of creation, but from the side of the Creator. "Because He knows Himself, therefore He knows everything, for everything depends on Him for its existence" — everything in the world is dependent on the Almighty's existence.

So: when the Almighty knows from knowing Himself, He knows everything that is dependent on Him, everything that relies on His existence. That the Almighty doesn't only know the Almighty — but because of that He knows everything.

The difference between God's knowledge and the knowledge of created beings

We know the Almighty through creation — we know the Almighty from within the created beings. One cannot know the reality from within itself. So no matter how well one can know the Almighty — even the greatest created being can only know from the perspective of a created being, it cannot be a knowledge as good as the Almighty's knowledge.

The Almighty's knowledge of another created being — is only because it is a created being, it exists. After it exists, He knows that it exists. But the Almighty knows everything before it exists, because He knows everything that comes from Him.

Novel insight: The Almighty knows everything — and it still remains one

This is the distinction. Up to here is the explanation of God's knowledge.

Consequently, the Almighty knows everything. But as people have asked the question: if the Almighty knows everything, it turns out that the Almighty has something in His mind — which is Him and two things?

The Rambam says: No. The Almighty knows everything, and it still remains one knowledge, it still remains God. Because He knows Himself, and through knowing Himself He knows. Because the Almighty — both Himself and everything else — the Almighty knows better than anything else.

This is a great novel insight of the Rambam — I mean, perhaps it's stated before and so on, but it's a very deep concept.

So says the holy Rambam. You didn't understand a word of what I just said? Very good. You indeed don't need to understand.

---

Halakha 18: "A drop from the sea" — Ma'aseh Merkavah

So the Rambam says: "These two chapters" — and they have now learned the two chapters — "are like a drop from the sea."

"Like a drop from the sea, of what needs to be explained in this matter" — I have only given you like a drop from the sea of what needs to be explained in this subject.

"And the explanation of all the principles in these two chapters is what is called ma'aseh merkavah" — explaining all the principles of the two chapters — that is what is called "ma'aseh merkavah" [the Work of the Chariot].

What does "ma'aseh merkavah" mean?

Now, what does the term "ma'aseh merkavah" mean? Is "merkavah" named after Ezekiel's Chariot vision, or does the Rambam say that it means the essential understanding of God is what "ma'aseh merkavah" means?

True, true. It's somewhat of a contradiction — one needs to reconcile it. Because the Almighty is not composite, is not... "merkavah" doesn't mean "composite" — "merkavah" means a chariot, yes.

It means: the Rambam's interpretation is — it's a parable, seemingly. Because... you want to know, I'm not going to explain what I'm saying, but the Rambam in the Moreh Nevukhim, chapter 1, part 1, explains that "merkavah" is a parable: just as the rider drives the horses that he drives, so the Almighty drives the entire world. The Almighty is "He who rides the heavens" — because He drives the world, it is called, as it were, that the world is a merkavah.

Okay, that's the simplest explanation — that Ezekiel's prophecy brings out the most parables, the most visualization of, as it were, and therefore it's called that. But the Rambam understood it a bit differently.

---

Halakha 19: The prohibition of teaching ma'aseh merkavah publicly

"The early Sages commanded" — the Sages in the Gemara, the first Sages, already the masters of the Mishnah, the masters of the Mishnah.

They said: "One should not expound on these matters" — one should not go deep into these matters — "except to one person alone" — only to one person.

No, one shouldn't discuss it at all. It doesn't mean that the Rambam means one may not teach a shiur in Rambam. First of all, let's see what it says — to ask questions.

"One should not expound on these matters except to one person alone" — one should not speak about these things except to one person.

The conditions for the student

"And he" — another thing. Another condition, right? One condition: only one person. You may not learn this Rambam publicly. Can't help it. That's what it says here.

"And he" — another condition: the person must already be "wise and understanding on his own." Essentially, the person must already have the foundation because he understands it on his own? No. "Understanding on his own" means that he is a substantive person, who when he learns he understands, he grasps the brief points. So says the Rambam, read what it says.

Condition 3: Only chapter headings

"And afterward one transmits to him the chapter headings." Another condition — after one sees that the person is wise and understanding on his own, even for that person one does not explain properly. "And one only explains to him the chapter headings, and informs him a bit of the matter" — one informs him a little of the thing.

"Chapter headings" — this is a term that appears in the Gemara, "one transmits to him chapter headings." The Rambam explains, what does chapter headings mean? "And one informs him a bit of the matter, and hints to him a hint" — just as the Rambam says, "a drop from the sea." And afterward — "and he understands on his own and knows the end of the matter and its depth" — he is wise, he will arrive at the conclusion on his own.

---

A major question on the Rambam: Why did he write it?

So, according to what the Rambam rules here — ma'aseh bereishis and ma'aseh merkavah one may not say even to one person, not even the chapter headings. Because you can read two approaches in the Gemara, there is a dispute among the early authorities. But the Rambam says here: even the chapter headings one may only say to one person, and there's another condition — that person must be understanding on his own, and consequently he will complete from the chapter headings to the end of the matter. But even the chapter headings one may not say except to one person.

So there is indeed a very great question on these halakhos of the Rambam — why did he write it, since it's not just for one person!

[Novel insight] I'm not answering the question, I don't have an answer. The question is better than the answer. I believe there is an answer, but this is what it says.

Discussion: Can one interpret the Rambam differently?

Speaker 2: Do you agree? I believe that's what he's saying. There's no other interpretation.

Speaker 1: You know, perhaps the Rambam understands that "one should not expound on these matters" means the deeper level.

Speaker 2: But that can't be, because he says there's a distinction of chapter headings — which is the "bit of the matter" — and the deeper level he doesn't say even to the wise and understanding person. Even to the wise and understanding person one doesn't say the deeper level. That's what it says explicitly in the Rambam.

Speaker 1: But the Rambam also said that this itself is a mitzvah to know.

Speaker 2: And you're asking a question that these are the basics — a bit of the things that one doesn't articulate.

Discussion: Can one expound on these matters?

Speaker 1: Another good question — so can it be that one may expound on these matters, one may hint at these things? Expound?

Speaker 2: How so? That can't be! He just said — it says here that one may not even say chapter headings except to one person. It can't be that there are lesser chapters that one may share with everyone.

Two questions on the Rambam

Speaker 1: But the Rambam said that knowing the matter is itself a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: I've asked you — there are two good questions:

Question 1: How can there be a mitzvah to know things that one may not articulate? This is not a very great question, because the answer is — there are levels. He wants that on the simple level it's a mitzvah to know, and because we learned yesterday that one can derive from "a simple portion" — that from the simple creation one discovers the true meaning.

Question 2: This is a somewhat greater question — if the Rambam said all these things, if he himself says that one may not — that's a tremendous question! One can even say that what he writes is only chapter headings, it's still not a good answer. He himself says — even chapter headings one may only say to one person.

The answer from the Moreh Nevukhim

And I believe the answer is the same answer that the Rambam himself gives at the beginning of the Moreh Nevukhim — exactly the same answer: there is a need of the generation that one should indeed say chapter headings to everyone. But there is still one level that one may not say, and the Rambam understands that there is a need. It's not so difficult — that's approximately the answer one can give, there's nothing else one can say, and the Rambam himself gives that answer.

---

Halakha 20: Verses and statements of the Sages regarding the secret of wisdom

"Lambs for your clothing" — deep matters should remain internal

Okay, and now one more thing. How so — the Rambam says what one may not learn, but also to know:

"And these matters are exceedingly deep, and not every mind is fit to bear them" — these are very deep things, and not every intellect can bear and absorb them. Not everyone can understand them.

"And about them Solomon said in his wisdom by way of parable: 'Lambs for your clothing'" [Mishlei 27:26] — about these things King Solomon said by way of parable...

And what is the meaning? "So said the Sages in explaining this parable" — what did the Sages say? The Sages say: "Things that are the hidden secrets of the world should be your clothing" — things that are hidden and concealed.

"Kavush" means deep things, very inner (p'nimi'sdige) things. We call it "p'nimi" — inner. P'nimi means when something is surrounded — it's the innermost layer of a bunch of layers. To reach it, you have to open many, many layers.

This is "things that are the secrets of the world should be your garment" — meaning, "they should be your garment" — it should be only your own garment (malbush), "for you alone" — it should be for you, "and do not expound upon them in public" — you should not expound upon them publicly.

"They shall be for you alone, and no strangers with you"

"And about them it says" — and about this the verse (pasuk) says: "They shall be for you alone, and no strangers with you" (Proverbs 5:17) — that the wisdom should be for you alone, you should not bring in any strangers (zarim) with it.

"Honey and milk under your tongue"

"And about them it says" — and about this there is another place where we see the same idea: "Honey and milk under your tongue" (Song of Songs 4:11). "So the early sages explained" — about this the Gemara says: "Things that are like honey and milk should be under your tongue" — things that are like honey and milk (d'vash v'chalav), you should keep under your tongue — you should keep them secret (b'sod).

Milk is very sweet, it's very delicious things, but you shouldn't give it to anyone.

---

The Holy Zohar: "Her husband is known in the gates" — Perception of the Divine is a personal secret

One should be happy, and one knows that every Jew has a certain perception of the Divine (hasagas Elokus). He has a certain... The holy Zohar (Zohar HaKadosh) on the verse "Her husband is known in the gates" (noda ba'she'arim ba'alah) (Proverbs 31:23) says that the knowledge (yedi'ah) with which a person grasps (masig) the Almighty is a secret (sod), it's a secret, a mystery (raz) that he must keep to himself. It's a certain feeling (hargasha) — just as a person has a very deep love (ahavah), it's not something he speaks about publicly.

Okay, that's a different level.

---

Why the Rambam did write it — a resolution

But now it comes out that the Rambam says that the understanding (havanah) — when a person begins to understand what creation (yetzirah) means, what intellect (seichel) means, what the intellect that knows itself (ha'seichel ha'yodei'a es atzmo) means — these are deep things, and therefore it's difficult to speak about them with other people.

But the Rambam did tell us about it, because this is the mitzvah — one should indeed know it.

I'm just concluding with this, that one thing the Rambam means is — that it's forbidden to tell another person, because he won't understand it, he'll misunderstand it, and so on.

---

An ethical (mussar) point: Why one shouldn't share

Level A: The other person will distort it

And I also think this is a matter of ethical teaching (mussar) — that generally the nature (teva) of a person is that whatever he knows, he wants to share. It's a very strong drive (d'chifah) in a person. And many times when he shares — not everything can be shared — when he shares it, the other person will distort it and won't understand it.

Therefore the verse says: it is indeed honey and milk — be happy that you know it, be silent (shtikah) and move on, don't tell anyone.

Level B: Silence is a vessel for deeper perception

[Novel insight] I think perhaps there's another level: that when a person knows something and he has already told it over — it's already finished. He has already "sealed" it, he has already found the words to convey it, he won't think deeper into it anymore.

But when it's still an open wisdom (chochmah) that he hasn't yet shared, he hasn't yet specifically put it into words and parables (meshalim) — he still has a chance to dig deeper into it.

So that's also a level. These are all more beautiful Torah teachings, they are also true things.

---

Conclusion: We have finished Ma'aseh Merkavah

Well, thank God, we have finished Ma'aseh Merkavah — the entire Ma'aseh Merkavah.

Now, if anyone wants — we said that we are going to learn the entire Torah (kol ha'Torah kulah). The entire Torah also included Ma'aseh Bereishis and Ma'aseh Merkavah.

It's good that you should know that the Vizhnitzer Rebbe taught us today the entire Ma'aseh Merkavah — today and yesterday. Of course we only learned the chapter headings, but the entire Rambam is only chapter headings — it's no different.

So one can consider — whoever learns Rambam also fulfills (yotzei) the mitzvah.

It says in Midrash Mishlei (Midrash on Proverbs) — a very famous Midrash Mishlei — that when one comes to Heaven, they ask a person why he didn't learn Ma'aseh Merkavah.

Thank God, may we have merited to learn Ma'aseh Merkavah.

The next shiurim will be on Ma'aseh Bereishis.

Very good. Wonderful.