Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 4 (Auto Translated)

Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah – Chapter 4: Things Composed of the Four Elements and Form

Introduction to the Chapter

Gentlemen, we are going to learn the fourth chapter of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. Baruch Hashem, all the listeners — we have already pulled through three difficult chapters with a bunch of introductions and the enumeration of the commandments (minyan hamitzvos), and this is where we are now.

The chapter heading was composed by Rabbi Yitzchak: “Things composed of the four elements and form.” The Rambam (Maimonides) is going to explain what matter (chomer) is made of.

Not exactly what matter is made of, but rather what the things we have been discussing — that there are three types of things in the world:

1. Form without matter (tzurah b’li chomer) — i.e., angels/separate intellects

2. Form with matter, but a type of matter that endures forever — it doesn’t change, doesn’t perish — i.e., the celestial spheres

3. Form with matter — and what kind of matter? Matter that is made of four types of matter: water, air, fire, and earth

These four things we already learned at the end of the previous chapter — these are the four elements (daled yesodos). The four elements are themselves already matter and form (chomer v’tzurah), but all things that we have are double: their matter is made from the form of the four elements, called fire, water, wind, and earth, and besides that they have a form. These are the things we are discussing, and the chapter deals with this.

—

Why Do People Die? — The Motivation of the Chapter

Now, the matter of things that are matter and form that are perishable (kaleh) — are from the four elements. The matter of stars (kochavim) and others are from a different matter, and not from any of the four elements.

It’s not as some have said that the philosophers said that the stars are made from one of the four elements — as if all stars are made of fire, or something like that. The Rambam teaches: No, fire is the thing that exists down here below. The stars are made from an entirely fifth thing, and not at all from any of the four elements.

[Chiddush (novel point):] What makes us into perishable matter (chomer v’kaleh) — is because the four elements are perishable matter.

We are going to learn exactly in this chapter why people die. Whoever has wondered why it is that people die — go learn this chapter. Everyone has struggled with this at some point. You’ve surely wondered: why is it that people die?

Not only is that one question — there’s more: you can see that stars don’t die, the sun doesn’t die. Why do our vessels (keilim) wear out?

“V’ha’aretz l’olam omades” (Koheles/Ecclesiastes 1:4: “and the earth endures forever”). Very well. People — “Dor holeich v’dor ba, v’ha’aretz l’olam omades” (a generation goes and a generation comes, and the earth endures forever). People — a generation goes and a generation comes. The world, the stars, even the world itself — it endures forever. What’s going on? It’s very strange. Let’s go find out the answer. Right. Very good.

—

“V’ha’aretz L’olam Omades” — What Does It Mean?

The matter of the earth (chomer ha’aretz) is not the same as the… even the matter of the earth endures forever, but it goes through changes. It has a vitality (chiyus), so even the earth becomes — it becomes renewed (mischadesh) again. But — a person is not “the earth endures forever.” Even “the earth endures forever” — but the people who are made from the earth plus other things, that is not “endures forever.”

[Chiddush:] It would seem (l’chorah) — the form of the earth (tzuras ha’aretz) endures forever. The matter apparently is indeed a type of perishable thing (mischaleh).

—

Structure of the Chapter — Two Parts

They wanted — the chapter apparently is built on two parts. I tentatively wrote: “The four elements and form,” because it turns out — all these things:

1. First part: One needs to learn how the four elements combine (markiv), connect one with another, come together to become things, and they also have a form.

2. Second part: Will be a bit more about the form that some of these things have. For example, the person who has a certain form that we call a soul (neshamah), or the Rambam calls it a nefesh (soul/life-force) — we’ll see this later on. And this is the topic of the form — it maintains a form that resides in one of the derivatives (toldos), at least as long as a person lives here in this world.

—

Halachah 1 — All Things Below the Firmament Are Made from the Four Elements

The Meaning of “Gufim” (Bodies)

“Gufim” — here it means objects, things. All things are… but “gufim” not in the sense of “the human body” (guf ha’adam). “Guf” — things. The four… well, they are bodies, they are gufim. They are gufim literally (k’pshuto) — physical things (devarim gashmiyim), where “geshem” just means “body.” Things that are existent (nimtza), things that have a size, that are existent — “existent” is also a form, but things that have a weight and…

The Rambam’s Words

The four bodies — yes, these are the four elements. They are yesodos literally — they are fundamentals, foundations:

> “Arba’ah gufim halalu she’hein eish v’ruach u’mayim v’aretz — heim yesodos kol hanivra’im l’matah min harakia” (These four bodies — fire, wind, water, and earth — are the foundations of all created things below the firmament).

All created things (devarim nivra’im) that are below the firmament (rakia) — that means below the first firmament where the moon (levanah) resides — below them, all things are made from the four elements.

The four elements have their place — we already learned that, we’re going to learn a bit more — but all things are made from them, that we haven’t yet learned. We previously only learned that there are four elements. Now we learn that everything that exists here below the heavens is made from them.

Everything Is Made from the Four Elements

> “V’chol she’yihyeh — me’adam, u’mi’beheimah, v’of, v’remesh, v’dag, v’tzemach, u’mateches, va’avanim tovos u’margaliyos, u’she’ar avnei binyan, v’harim, v’gusei afar — hakol galmo mechubar me’arba’ah yesodos halalu”

This means: whether a person (adam), whether a human being, whether an animal (beheimah), whether a bird (of), whether a creeping thing (remesh), whether a fish (dag), whether a plant (tzemach), whether a metal (mateches), whether precious stones and pearls (avanim tovos u’margaliyos) — diamonds, whether other building stones that one finds, that one builds with, whether mountains and clumps of earth (harim v’gusei afar) — just sand, dirt.

Everything — all these things — their golem — their matter, their material, what they are made of — is from the combination of these four elements — made from the four elements.

—

Chiddush: A Clump of Earth Is Already a Combination

[Chiddush:] It says that a clump of earth (gush afar) is not the element of earth itself. A clump of earth is already a combination. Perhaps the greatest, the most dominant force in it is earth, but it also has the others. This is how the Rambam apparently understood it.

—

The Unknown Commentator — Is Everything from All Four?

And a bit later, perhaps a precise inference (diyuk) here — chapter 7. One should mention that we haven’t yet noted that there is a commentator (mefaresh) on Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, specifically on these chapters. We don’t know who it is — I don’t remember if it’s known, perhaps today it is known, but I don’t know. It doesn’t say on the page who it is, it just says “mefaresh.”

And he says that it is indeed possible that there are things made from only one or two elements, but he says in general (b’ofen klali) — most things are made from four elements.

[Chiddush:] It could be the Rambam did not hold like him. It could be the Rambam indeed held that everything is made from four elements.

—

Discussion: Elemental Fire Versus the Fire We See

Question: Fire and wind — the composition of the four elements?

It could be the Rambam won’t argue with this. The Rambam doesn’t need this. He doesn’t have to say that ash is fire with wind, but ash is a derivative (toldah) of fire — it’s from the family of fire. Not necessarily that fire itself is composed of the four elements. Fire is one of the four elements.

Question: So alone by itself?

It could be yes, it could be no. The sound of what the Rambam says is — no, elemental fire (eish ha’yesodos) is not necessarily fire as you see it.

[Chiddush:] On the contrary, this is what I want to say that the Rambam said: because elemental fire resides up in the heavens, above the wind, as we learned [in chapter 3]. That means it’s not the fire that we have.

It could be — not asked here. He accepts, it turns out… but what I mean to say is: it could be that the commentator is not necessarily right — the Rambam says specifically otherwise. It could be, and it could be not, and we don’t have enough. Because the substances they grasp are very close to the elements. We don’t yet have enough information to say one way or the other — so we just don’t know.

—

Discussion: What Makes an Animal Different from an Apple?

Question: The thing that makes the animal different from the apple, for example — is that the elements are different…

Let’s see… the puzzle of the elements is put together differently. Apparently, it should also have a different form. Besides the form — the materials themselves in general. That means, the form belongs outside of the four elements themselves, which are also below the firmament.

—

Halachah 2 — Golem and Tzurah: What Is from the Four Elements?

> “Nimtze’u kol hagufim she’l’matah min harakia, chutz me’arba’ah yesodos halalu — mechubarim mi’golem v’tzurah, v’golem shelahem mechubar me’arba’ah yesodos halalu. Aval kol echad me’arba’ah yesodos — eino mechubar ela mi’golem v’tzurah bilvad”

They are composed — put together — of golem and tzurah, of raw matter and form (chomer v’tzurah). And what is made from the four elements that he just mentioned? Their golem — not their form. Only their golem is made from the four elements he just mentioned. Very good.

The Four Elements Themselves — Golem and Tzurah Only

But each one of the four elements — the four elements themselves — are not composed of four elements. Rather, the elements themselves — each element is its own thing, and doesn’t have from the others. So it is composed only of golem and tzurah alone — just the golem itself, the golem of fire let’s say, with the form of fire (tzuras ha’eish). Very good.

—

Chiddush: Less Compound = Stronger/More Significant

Now I’m going to tell you an interesting thing. We learned — you should remember — it’s interesting!

It appears here as a small point that — the more simple, the less put together, the less compound (murkov) — the more significant (chashuv) or more powerful something is:

– Because the King (i.e., God) is the least compound, because He is pure form (tzurah).

– And the celestial spheres (galgalim) are already…

– The less compound something is — the stronger.

– The four elements are also much less compound. True — because they are much more basic. True. Makes sense.

– The Almighty (the Eibershter) is even more simple — simple in the ultimate simplicity (pashut b’sachlis hapshitus).

—

The Four Elements Have “Teva’im” (Natural Tendencies) — They Do Things

Introduction: Everything in the World Does Something

We learned that all these things do things. We need to remember that everything in the world has… does something. There is nothing that is completely dead — except for nothing. Perhaps the matter, the prime matter (chomer rishon/hyle) from which everything is made. But besides that — all things do things.

The Distinction: Spheres Move with Knowledge, Elements — Without Knowledge

But we learned an interesting distinction (chiluk) in the previous chapter: that for example the heaven travels, the heaven does something — it moves, movement (tenuah), it moves. That is one basic thing about doing — the most basic thing about doing is moving.

But how does it do it? With its knowledge (da’as). It moves because it knows that here is better. It understands that there is a certain desire (teshukah), one can call it… it moves with a will (ratzon) and with knowledge — it knows what it’s doing.

Chiddush: “Dead Bodies” Doesn’t Mean They Do Nothing

Now, the four elements for example — they were called dead bodies (gufim meisim), remember? It was said that they are dead. The Rambam said “gufim meisim” — they are like dead bodies (k’gufim meisim).

But one needs to know that this still doesn’t mean they do nothing. It’s very interesting — it doesn’t mean at all that they do nothing. They do indeed do something.

You think that the four elements — you imagine earth, water, such things — do… things can be done to them. In other words, a living creature (ba’al chai), something that has some vitality, where vitality is the power of movement (ko’ach hatenuah) — it does something to them. You can move water, you can move things, but water itself we imagine does nothing.

Sometimes we even say that there’s gravity that does things to them, and who is gravity… anyway, that’s not our discussion.

But in any case, we think they do nothing. The Rambam doesn’t say that exactly. All four elements themselves — the things made from them depend on what kind of things are made from them — but the four elements themselves also do things. They have, as the Rambam’s language puts it — “teva’im” (natural tendencies/natures) — they do things, they perform actions, they move.

Halachah 3 – The Movement of the Four Elements: Up and Down

“Dead Bodies” – Does That Mean They Do Nothing?

Now, the four elements (arba yesodos) for example, they were called “dead bodies” (gufim meisim), remember? It was said that they are dead, that the four elements are like dead bodies.

But I need you to know that this still doesn’t mean they do nothing. It’s interesting — it doesn’t mean at all that they do nothing, they do indeed do something. You think that the four elements, you imagine them like water (mayim), a thing that things are done to, that you can do to it. In other words, a living creature (ba’al chai), something that has some vitality (chiyus), where vitality is the power of movement (ko’ach hatenuah) — it does something to it. You can move water, you can move things, but water itself we imagine does nothing. Sometimes we even say that there’s gravity that does things to them, and who is gravity — anyway, that’s not our discussion.

[Chiddush:] On the face of it, we think they do nothing, and the Rambam doesn’t say that exactly. All four elements themselves, the things made from them depend on what kind of things are made from them, but the four elements themselves also do things. They have what is called nature (teva). They do things.

“The Basic Act Is Moving”

They do — you mean they move? They move, exactly, they also move. The basic act is moving. Everything we do is more complicated moving — one thinks into it — but the basic act is moving. They move on their own.

So then, what does it mean when it was said that they are dead? Dead means simply that they don’t know that they are moving! They move in a nature that is embedded in them (tevi’ah bahem) — they cannot change, they cannot question themselves, and cannot explain themselves, as was said. But they move on their own.

The Distinction in Movement: Four Elements, Spheres, Living Creatures

Now, another distinction. They move, but differently from the celestial spheres (galgalim) and differently from people or living creatures, which is understandable. Why is their movement different?

For example, the celestial spheres rotate all the time — that is the movement (tenuah) of the spheres. They rotate in a circle, they constantly return to where they once were. To be able to make such a movement, one needs to have intellect (seichel). Why? That’s how it is.

Now, in contrast (mah she’ein kein), the four elements move only one way. What is one way? Up and down. They have only two motions — they can only go up or down. And even that they don’t both do: some of the elements go up, and some go down. That’s all, that’s what they can do, that’s what they do. That’s why we see that some of the elements fall down, some go up.

“Up” and “Down” — Not Absolute, But Relative

Now, another detail. Up and down doesn’t mean up and down as we think of it. We always imagine that up means higher, and it’s as if, we imagine that there is such a thing as absolute up and down, and the whole world — we think for example that Australia is below us.

[Chiddush (novel insight):] The Rambam says this is not correct. We look at things from where we stand, and above us is “up,” and below us is “down.” It is, at the very least, that we think there is such a thing as absolute up and down. There really is such a thing as up and down. So, it’s true that we convince ourselves that where we are is the absolute reference point, but aside from us thinking that, so do they. And the Rambam explains that this is not correct.

Up = outside, Down = inside

“Up” simply means — remember that the entire world is a circle, the world is not flat. So, “up” in the world means more “outside,” and “down” means more “inside.” Because “toward the firmament” (klappei harakia) means up, and “toward the earth” (klappei ha’aretz) means down. That’s all.

So, the things that go up always go — unlike what we say — “up” only means closer to the heavens, and “down” only means closer to the earth. So, the things that go up, they go closer to the heavens; the things that go down, go closer to the earth.

That concludes halachah 3. Let’s read what it says — you can read what it says in the Rambam.

Reading the Rambam – Halachah 3

“The way of fire and air is that their movement goes from below, from the navel of the earth — upward, toward the firmament” — they go outwards from the navel of the earth (tabur ha’aretz) to the outside, toward the firmament. Just as we know — fire, heat, wind/air (ruach), all these things go upward.

“And the way of water and earth is that their movement goes from beneath the firmament toward the earth” — the opposite, they come down, they fall down. Meaning, they come from beneath the firmament, they come toward below, toward us, toward where we are in the middle —

“For the middle of the firmament is the lowest point, below which there is nothing lower” — we are in the middle of the firmament, yes, with the calculation that the firmament revolves around us. We are in the middle of the firmament. There is something even more inward — the earth. If one were to dig into the earth, you would go even deeper. Eventually, if they were to go as deep as possible into the earth, that’s where the water would fall in, so to speak. The water in the earth, I mean, the earth stops it, blocks it. But…

“Below” doesn’t mean “down” — it means inward, it means “inside.” Not “inwardness” in a spiritual sense — it’s a funny word, I’m saying it again because it’s funny. But “below” means “inside.” These are the things that go down — that is their way.

Da’as and Cheifetz — Two Levels of Awareness

And see, yes, you can elaborate.

“And their movement is not with knowledge (da’as)” — their way of moving is not with awareness, “and not with desire (cheifetz)” — or not with desire, their own will (ratzon). Da’as and nefesh (soul) we have already discussed.

Da’as — Intelligent, Calculated Movement

Da’as can mean even when someone else does it for them, but knowing that the other one is doing it for me. That’s what we meant by da’as, right? No — da’as means that I go, I make a kind of movement that only makes sense because I know that this is better. As I say, a person — I’m traveling to New York. So I also have a desire to travel to New York, but it’s not something that pushes me to go there. I can go there because I know the way, because I understand that I need to get there, and I figure out how I need to travel. That is da’as.

You’re saying what I mean — you can’t quiz me because I know what I mean. That is da’as. Da’as means a kind of movement that you can only accomplish with knowledge.

Cheifetz — Desire Without Intellectual Calculation

Cheifetz is — even an animal (beheimah) can go somewhere with a certain desire — it wants to get to food. But it doesn’t put into it something that it needs to intellectually figure out the path, it needs to figure out such a movement — it wouldn’t understand. That is the distinction between da’as and cheifetz here.

The Four Elements — Not Da’as, Not Cheifetz, Only Nature (Teva)

“Rather, it is a pattern that was fixed in them” (minhag shenikba bahem) — yes, let’s make it very clear: fire and air, the four elements, they have neither this nor that. So what do they have? Rather, their movement, the way they go, is “a pattern that was fixed in them and a nature that was embedded in them” (teva shenit’ba bahem).

The Concept of “Teva” (Nature) — Etymology and Meaning

I think the two words — many times the Rambam uses two words that mean the same thing. Teva is simply a word; he says “a nature that was embedded.”

Etymology of “Teva”

I think the word teva originally comes from — there is one way it comes about — it comes from Arabic. So says R. Shmuel ibn Tibbon in his book. But teva comes from tvi’ah (sinking/embedding), as we see here, like something sunken in. It simply means that it is a psychology or a pattern, a custom, that is sunken into it. As he says, it’s not from the outside — nobody is pushing it.

The Opposite of Teva = Melachuti (Artificial)

Let me put it this way: what is the opposite of teva? The opposite of teva is… what is the opposite of teva?

It could be that the opposite of teva is ratzon (will), because I already know that the opposite of teva is really ratzon, because it could be that a person’s nature goes against his will — that’s still not the opposite.

[Chiddush:] A clearer opposite of teva is “artificial,” or what we call melachuti in Hebrew, and in the classical texts it says melachuti. The opposite of teva is: if I do something to an object, if I make a table — a table is not a natural thing. Because being a table is not embedded in the table. There is nothing in the table that makes it a table. A person made it into a table. From the outside of it, there is a force that makes it into what it is.

Teva is: the four elements themselves, for example the fact that they fall down or rise up — not because something pushes them from the outside, but because they themselves have within them such a force, such a pattern to go up or down, etc. That is the clearer distinction of teva, and the opposite of teva is “artificial.”

When a Person Falls Down — Teva, Not Da’as

To say further: the analogy of the four elements can be applied to many things. For example, heavy things fall down and light things float around. That is a teva — it means this: in the laws of creation, the Almighty set it up that light things don’t fall as much. Others today call it gravity, whatever that means.

So that’s what “a pattern that was fixed” means, and we see that the thing is not aware of it. So when a person falls down, he is also — he is not doing something with da’as, he is doing it by teva. That is: when a person falls down, he doesn’t do it because he is aware, or he doesn’t do it with a ratzon, he can’t stop it.

“Laws of Nature” (Chukei HaTeva) vs. “Customs of Nature” (Minhagei HaTeva)

So, just to remind ourselves: “chukei teva” (laws of nature) is never a term that appears in the Rambam — which means something different. The same thing, gravity — not something that anyone knows what it means, but the Rambam certainly didn’t know what it means. So we would learn it better by learning how he understood it. And the word is that things have within themselves something that makes them fall down or rise up or do all the things they do.

Natural Composition vs. Artificial Composition

The same thing — there is a teva of a living creature. I say for example, the four elements can be combined (markiv zayn) in various ways. We said earlier, I can combine them in two ways.

[Chiddush:] So, an important thing to grasp: the combinations (harkavos) of the four elements are teva. For example, a living creature or a person or a plant — is it connected with the four elements in a way that is a natural connection, or is there some essence (mahus) or source (makor) in the living creature itself that makes it be such a combination of the four elements? It’s not that someone stands from the outside and makes a kugel and makes it.

Proof from Reproduction — “Tables Don’t Have Babies from Tables”

For this, for example, one thing you can see: a living creature produces another living creature from itself. That is the teva of a living creature, that it produces offspring similar to itself (molid k’domeh lo) and the like. Even a plant (tzomei’ach) reproduces, yes?

In contrast, for example, a table. A table — there is no such thing as “tables” in nature. A table is not a natural thing. What is the proof? Tables don’t have babies from other tables, right? That’s one of the proofs. A table is wood to which a form (tzurah) has been applied.

Natural Form vs. Artificial Form

A person is also four elements to which a form has been applied. No — here is the distinction. The distinction is a different kind of form. The form of a table is an artificial form, a melachuti form. The form, the thing that you see, lies in the person who made it, you could say. Something like that. The person made the form.

But this [with a living creature] is something that happens on its own, so to speak. Not on its own, but from the… from itself, yes, from itself, yes. From the force that… it’s the mother of the tree, the father of the tree, the seed (zera) of the tree.

Yes, good, but this is… the tree creates an entire seed of trees — they have some teva that makes the trees this way. In contrast, the seed of tables — there is no seed of tables. Because every time you have to make it again. So it is the da’as of the person who makes tables.

Minhag Shenikba Bahem — Two Words, One Meaning

So, I think teva expresses this well. Minhag is simply — it’s a custom, it conducts itself this way. It’s a fixed custom, always this way. But… yes.

“Minhagei HaTeva” Not “Chukei HaTeva”

It’s interesting, by the way, because if you recall the term “chukei hateva” (laws of nature), you’ll recall that the Rambam calls it — he says it doesn’t have “chukei hateva,” it has “minhagei hateva” (customs of nature). It’s interesting what the difference is between chukim (laws) and minhagim (customs). Nature has customs, it doesn’t have laws. A custom can be broken/changed.

Discussion: Celestial Bodies — Their Movement in the Spheres

So it’s a bit interesting. The celestial bodies (garmei hashamayim) travel on the spheres (galgalim), but they go a different way. They do go with awareness, with will and desire. In contrast… the spheres are fixed, they are at rest within the spheres. So says the Rambam — I don’t understand why, because the spheres carry them. But in practice, the Rambam did say that they are possessors of a soul (ba’alei nefesh). So it would seem to mean that they are indeed part of the spheres.

Study partner: But it could also be, since the stars have what’s within the sphere, they could move freely here and there, no?

Speaker 1: No, no, not at all. You just call it another sphere that rotates them.

Study partner: Within the sphere there’s another small sphere?

Speaker 1: They don’t have any freedom. This here doesn’t mean freedom. It doesn’t mean freedom like our sphere.

Chapter 4 — Properties of the Four Elements: Hot/Cold, Moist/Dry

Continued Discussion: “Da’as” Regarding Spheres and Stars

So, the Rambam says — I don’t understand why — because the stars carry them. But the Maharsha and the Ramban did say that they are possessors of a soul (ba’alei nefesh). It would seem to mean, apparently, part of the spheres (galgalim).

What does that mean? But it could also be, since the stars have free choice (bechirah) within the sphere, they could move freely here and there, no?

No, you need another sphere that rotates them. Within the sphere there’s another small sphere. They don’t have any freedom.

Chiddush: What Does “Da’as” Mean Regarding the Elements?

Da’as here doesn’t mean freedom — it doesn’t mean freedom the way we think, that you can get up in the morning and do differently. I’ll tell you what it means. It means that you do something that can only be done with da’as (knowledge/awareness). There is a kind of thing that you can do like — you can do it, it fell down.

Analogy: Falling vs. Dancing

So you say, when a person falls down, he doesn’t need to plan how he wants to fall down. He falls down because he is made of the four elements (arba yesodos) that fall down — not as a person, right? When a person falls down, he doesn’t fall down as a person. There was a good analogy (mashal): A person falls down as four elements.

But when a person dances, or a person goes through some process (mahalach) that one needs to understand in order to do it — awareness and all those words don’t come into play here. It’s very simple. There are processes like a dance — one needs to understand them in order to be able to do them.

In other words, I can teach you to dance, right? I teach you the dance, and according to that you dance. I can’t teach you to fall. I don’t need to teach you — that’s nature (teva).

Principle: One Who Ascends and One Who Descends

When a person is not an oleh (one who ascends), he becomes a yored (one who descends), because when he doesn’t do things with his da’as and control, nature does its thing. He falls into his nature, or even the animal nature (teva habehemi) of the person.

—

Note About Numbering of Halachos

Okay, let’s go back to the four elements. Halachah 4, in my halachah 4.

By the way, the halachos are not always — they don’t match the printed editions, because I’ve already discussed that the printer made halachos on his own, and details, and the halachah numbering is not always so important. The Rambam only made chapters. The Rambam made chapters in the halachos, he taught this in the introduction (hakdamah), but he did not make numbers for the halachos. He only placed two dots, and if you look in the precise editions, as R. Frankel and the others write, where there are two dots it is precise according to the manuscripts (kisvei yad) that they know. But the numbers were made by the printer, and many times he placed the number in the wrong place.

Okay, so in the halachah — we mark it, it’s important to know that we mark according to the numbers, but here it’s simply very confused because he didn’t always understand the science. Because already — how is the number a new thing? It’s not a new thing, even in the Rambam it’s not a new thing, but sometimes he errs occasionally.

—

Halachah 4 — Properties of the Four Elements

Introduction: Two Pairs of Opposites in the World

Let’s go back to the four elements. We have now learned one principle about the four elements — a distinction: two of them that go up and two of them that go down. And after that we will learn another interesting nature of the four elements.

To understand this, one needs to make a small introduction, and one needs to remember that all physical bodies that we see in the world have two opposites, two contradictions — one is the reverse of the other side, and one can think that everything in the world is essentially a certain composition (harkavah) or a certain in-between of both of these two things. “Combination” is not a good word — it’s more like it lies in the middle.

Opposition #1: Hot and Cold

What are the two things? The first thing is: everything in the world is either hot or cold. Have you thought about that? Or somewhere on the spectrum between hot and cold — it’s a bit hot, a bit cold. The hotness exists in more or less degrees.

So this means, hot and cold are like an opposite (hefech), a contradiction (nigud) — one is against the other. The hotter it is, the less cold; the colder it is, the less hot. All things are somewhere on this — a bit hot, a bit cold, somewhere in between.

Opposition #2: Dry and Moist

Another interesting thing is: everything in the world is either dry or moist. Have you noticed that? You haven’t noticed? Yes, simply. Everything in the world is either dry or moist. Can you think of things that are neither dry nor moist? No.

So everything in the world is either dry or moist. And the same thing — the moister it is, the less dry, and the less dry, the less moist.

The Four Combinations

So the Sages said that one can see that the four elements, if you divide them up, it turns out that there are four ways. I made a chart somewhere. Where is my chart? Ah, look.

You can see that if every thing can be either cold or hot, or wet or dry — called kar v’cham, yavesh v’lach (cold and hot, dry and moist) — you can see that you can divide this into four, because you have here:

– kar v’yavesh (cold and dry)

– cham v’lach (hot and moist)

– lach v’kar (moist and cold)

– cham v’yavesh (hot and dry)

Right?

So the sages (chachamim) said that you can see that the world, the four elements (yesodos), each one of them — the four elements, when they are pure, are entirely one of the four boxes.

—

The Element of Earth: Cold and Dry

So earth, for example — look, think deeply about earth. Not earth that we’ve already mixed with ordinary… ah, from this you can see that ordinary dirt is not the element of earth (yesod he’afar), because it’s usually already a bit moist. That means it has a bit of water in it. But earth itself is entirely dry, and it is also entirely cold.

You understand, it makes sense to think that…

Discussion: The Difference Between an Element and a Property

Chavrusa: So for example, when you say there is a force of fire (ko’ach ha’esh), for example the earth we have under the sink, or earth that has absorbed water, that’s already earth that is wet or hot. But earth alone, as it is an element, is not wet, because it has no water (mayim), and it’s not hot, because it has no fire (esh).

Maggid Shiur: Exactly. Well, I don’t know if fire and water make moist and cold. I mean that it’s still a property (techunah). One shouldn’t confuse — it’s not the same thing. This is a property of fire and water. Fire and water, the four elements, are simply four bodies (gufim).

Chavrusa: But you see that it makes everything.

Maggid Shiur: No, they don’t. It makes — because it has a great deal of that property in it. On the contrary, it’s backwards. The property is in the four elements, because the four elements have the properties. So that is the property of the four elements. It’s not the same thing — the body of the four elements.

Discussion: Is Fire = Heat, or Does Fire Have Heat?

Chavrusa: Is fire heat (chom), or does fire have heat?

Maggid Shiur: Exactly.

Chavrusa: So can there be fire that doesn’t have heat? It could be that it’s not the same thing.

Maggid Shiur: No, I mean it could be, but it’s not… I mean it could be, because that is the property of fire. Perhaps that makes it fire, or perhaps that is the form (tzurah) of fire which makes the material component (chelek hachomer) of fire.

Chavrusa: That’s not the fire in it, that’s the heat in it.

Maggid Shiur: Chaim needs to think about this, but this is seemingly… you might be right, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the same thing, perhaps not. I see that all the time it’s discussed as two things, so let’s say it’s the property.

—

The Four Elements and Their Properties

So every thing has a property, and:

– Earth (afar) — property: dry and cold (kar v’yavesh)

– Water (mayim) — cold and moist (kar v’lach). It’s not hot, but it’s not dry.

– Fire (esh) — everyone understands, it’s dry, it also dries things out, you can see, and it’s hot. So fire is hot and dry (cham v’yavesh).

– Air (ru’ach) — is in between. Air is hot and moist (cham v’lach).

Discussion: Why Is Air Warm?

Air is warm? Yes, generally.

Okay, I see — I’m saying that the air you already see, anyway, that the air already carries with it the coldness of water. Even when it’s… I mean the idea is perhaps when you think ideally — if you think of air alone, it’s to think that there’s no reason it must be cold or warm, one of them.

Ah, it’s neutral? No, it’s not neutral. When a cold wind or a hot wind comes, it has to do with the fire or with the water. No, it’s hot. But of course, it can be more or less hot, because it’s already mixed, exactly. But air itself is hot. I don’t know why they actually say this.

But the fact that it’s also moist — is that it often receives the moisture (lechah), the wind has a… it brings with it small… an equal — humidity. It brings with it small droplets of water. Yes.

Discussion: Air Is Hot and Moist — Without Water

That was… but these are the properties of the basic bodies, okay?

So let’s go back to… The nature of fire is hot and dry (teva ha’esh cham yavesh). No, good. It’s interesting, because it also makes — both, dry and it makes hot. Because that’s what it itself is. Every thing makes what it is.

Air — the lightest of all (kal mikulam)? It doesn’t weigh, it has no weight. It’s nothing, it’s the least of them. And air — hot and moist (cham lach). Good.

And water (u’mayim)… what’s interesting is that he says air is hot and moist. You just said that air when it carries humidity with it, but he says that air itself is hot and moist. Yes, that’s how one must say it. He says that air is moist.

I really don’t know why. I don’t know what he’s saying here, this person. He doesn’t say. Okay, it was all accepted. One needs to… there is a reason for this. I don’t remember right now what the reason is. Okay.

Novel Point: Air Itself Has the Property of Moisture — Without Water

And water — it’s interesting, because if there were no water it would still have been hot and moist, it seems. It’s interesting. If there hadn’t been any… if there had only been air, it would have been hot and moist.

Right, I’m telling you, that’s what you need to understand. That’s what I told you. These are properties of the elements. It’s not merely that the elements are. Moisture (lachut) is not water. Moist is a property that water has.

But it’s interesting — he’s saying now that if there had only been, let’s say, a high temperature where there was only air, it would also have been hot and moist. The air doesn’t need the water to make it moist, or the fire to make it hot. It has the property itself. Okay.

Note About Ice — Water Without Moisture?

But many people have thought yes, or they’ve thought differently, and they say that water has a property which is wet. One can explain — we’ve said now, this isn’t science anymore. When water doesn’t freeze completely, it is indeed moist — when it’s ice it’s not moist — but it’s still water.

Heaviness and Lightness of the Elements

And the heaviest of all (v’chaved mikulam) — it’s the heaviest of them. Yes, that’s right, because that is the heaviest. The heaviness — I’m not clear if the heaviness is a result (totzaah) of this, or it’s another thing. I don’t know.

In any case, since we’ve now seen that fire is lighter than air — yes, because fire goes up, air doesn’t go up as high — that means it’s lighter. Fire goes up higher than air. And water is less heavy than earth. Okay, it’s very simple.

—

How the Properties Explain the Order of the Elements

So consequently you see that… let’s understand what this whole piece is coming to. Consequently, one can work out and understand why each thing lies in its place. We learned earlier in the last chapter that fire lies on top, then comes air, then comes water, then comes earth — like the four elements that surround the earth.

Now, according to this you immediately understand:

– If fire is the lightest of all — it is certainly the highest.

– If earth is dry and the heaviest of all — it is the lowest, which is the most heavy, it goes down the most.

Now, what about the two in between? The two in between, the Rambam says:

“Water is lighter than it, therefore it is found above the earth” — water is lighter than earth, so it lies on top.

“And air is lighter than water, therefore it hovers over the face of the waters” — air is lighter than water, so it hovers over the face of the waters (merachef al pnei hamayim).

Novel Point: “And the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters”

This is the “the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters” (ru’ach Elokim merachefes al pnei hamayim — Bereishis 1:2). And this is the spirit of the Almighty, which is the wind that the Almighty made.

“And fire is lighter than air” — fire is lighter than air, therefore it is even higher — so it is even higher.

The Four Elements: Combination, Properties, and the Difference from Materialism

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 4 (continued)

—

Halacha 4 (continued) – The Order of Lightness

Now, what about the two in between? The two in between, the Rambam says: “And water is lighter than it” — water is lighter than earth — “and therefore they are above the earth.” Very good. “And air is lighter than water, and therefore it hovers over the face of the waters.”

That “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Bereishis 1:2) — that is a spirit from the Almighty, not just wind. A wind that the Almighty spoke, that the Almighty directs, that the Almighty made.

“And fire is lighter than air” — so it is even higher. Very good.

—

Summary of What We’ve Learned So Far — The Four Elements: Properties, Movement, and Order

Up to here we have learned what the four elements are, that everything is made from them, and two or three very important properties of the elements. The nature of the four elements:

1. One — that each one of them has a place where it goes up or down. Two of them go up, two of them go down.

2. Two — we learned the distinction of their properties. The properties, one calls it the quality (eichut), the quality of the four elements: hot and dry, hot and moist, cold and moist, cold and dry.

3. Three — and consequently we also saw their placement, that there is an order. Why does it go in this order? Because one is higher than the other. Therefore: fire, air, water, earth — that is the levels of how light they are.

—

Halacha 5 – How the Elements Become Other Bodies

Now we are going to learn how the elements become other things for us, become bodies. Yes. This means elements — that they are the building blocks of all other things, that one combines them in certain ways and that creates other materials.

Not a “Salad” — Not Atomism

But one does make a bit of an error and think that this means that everything in the world is a salad — that it’s like building blocks, like one imagines building blocks. The answer is that it’s not so. Rather what? We will read.

The Rambam’s Words

He says: “And since these are the elements of all the bodies beneath the firmament” — if they are elements, it comes out — “it is found that every single body, whether human, animal, beast, bird, fish, plant, metal, or stone, its raw material (golmo)” — the raw material of it, the substance of it — “is from the combination of the four, and the four become mixed together.”

“And each one of them changes at the time of mixing” — that means, the elements themselves become changed during the mixing — “until the compound of the four does not resemble any one of them when it is by itself” — that means, the thing that comes out of the four elements does not look like any one of the four elements, it looks like a new thing.

“And one cannot separate from them even a single part that is fire by itself” — which is not something that can then be divided back. As he says, it’s not a salad that one can then take back, take out — “or earth by itself, or water by itself, rather everything has changed and become one body.”

Explanation: A New Thing, Not an Assembly

That means, the Almighty created that once there is a creation that is composed of the four elements, the meaning is not that you can now squeeze out the water component, leaving only three elements of it, or that you can remove the earth. Rather, they are all changed and become one body (hakol nishtaneh v’na’aseh guf echad).

Not only can you not remove them — that’s also not what it means. In other words, when one says that everything is made of four elements, one does not mean that there are pieces, that everything is made of small pieces — that would be atomism, that everything is made of small pieces, there are four kinds of small pieces. No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means a different kind of thing.

It means that the four elements become the material for other things, and when they enter, they become mixed, it becomes a fifth thing, a third thing, and there remains no fire in it at all.

[Novel Point] Answer to the Question: Why Doesn’t a Person Burn?

According to this, it comes out to answer the question: someone said that a person is made of fire, so he asks a question — fire has a nature that it burns things, why doesn’t the person burn?

According to this he would say: a person is made of fire means that it’s an element, one of the elements one takes is fire, but the element is no longer fire. The fire that burns is when the element of fire is by itself, or perhaps when it’s closer to being by itself. But when it’s in the person, it’s no longer fire — it’s only that which was once fire, and now it has become a part of the four elements, a part of the compound material, and it has become a new thing.

Discussion: Are the Four Elements Themselves Compound?

Question: Are the four elements themselves compound, or are they… does air have only air?

Answer: He says, only water, only air. It could be that in them there is nothing, only air. Either yes or no, perhaps yes, perhaps no, but that is not compound.

Two Negations — Not from Outside, Also Not from Inside

That means: in a person there is no such thing as a person being not from the four, and there is no such thing as seeing the four within a person, because one only sees the person. Not only a person — any thing, any body, any thing.

—

Halacha 6 – Every Body Has All Four Properties

And consequently it also comes out: “And from every compound body” — if we have learned that the four elements have the four properties — cold, heat, moisture, dryness — it also comes out that if everything is mixed from them, it comes out that every body also has all four properties. Every body, every body that is composed of the four — “there will be found in it” — there exists in it — “cold and heat, moist and dry together.”

Not simply that you can search for a bit of moisture and a bit of dryness. Rather what? “But” — however — “there are among them bodies in which the element of fire is stronger” — because the element of fire is more dominant, is a stronger force — “such as living creatures” — which have warmth — “therefore the heat is more visible in them.”

Living things, everything that has a living soul (neshamah) and a living spirit (nefesh), it lives — everyone can see that almost all living things are warm. He says, why? Because the element of fire is stronger in living creatures.

There is the opposite: “And there are among them bodies in which the element of earth is stronger, such as stones, therefore much dryness is visible in them.” That means, although it has all four elements, the most dominant one is the element of earth.

—

[Elaboration] The Difference Between the Old Understanding of “Properties” and the Modern Materialistic Understanding

Matter Is Not What One Imagines

And I wanted to further clarify. We are very accustomed to a certain materialistic way of accepting what the world is. I cannot explain enough, I will just state the general principle, and one will perhaps be able to use it as a reference point (mareh makom) to know what we’re talking about.

In other words, we think that to explain something is to state the parts, the physical parts that it’s made of. That is what is accepted among us, and in the science called modern science, in the new science, that is what is accepted.

And one must remember that everything written here, even what is written about matter (chomer), is all more abstract (mufshat), all more, as it were, spiritual, or all more conceptual than that. When the Rambam says that a thing is made of things, he does not mean — as he will say — that one can take them apart, made of those things. It’s a more theoretical thing than that.

The same thing: the concept (musag) of matter is something that things can be something else — it is not a thing that one can see. Matter is not a thing that one can see, even matter is not a thing that one can see, or feel, or even count.

Properties (Qualities) Are Real Things, Not Subjective

Now, the same thing. Another important distinction which is very clear — what I’m saying is not novel, it’s not novel at all. Whoever studies how science changed in the modern era, in the new modern time, approximately from when the generation of the Baal Shem [Tov] came, will need to know that one of the great distinctions is how they understood properties, their qualities.

In other words, things like heat, cold, moisture, and so on. What the Rambam states — moisture is not a physical thing. In other words, it’s not something you can feel. Of course you can feel it, but if you think deeply about what moisture actually is, you see that moisture is a certain reality.

Moisture is not a… Here I want to say clearly that moisture — yes, we sense it. But senses don’t only sense physical things. Because the thing is only the body — that which is a body, that which takes up space, you can say… or space is that a body has a certain size. But the moisture is a property of it, a quality of it.

We, for example, are accustomed to saying that moisture is simply how much water is present. If so, there’s no such thing as moisture — there’s just more or less water. But no, they thought — as we began to say earlier, but now I realize that this is the key point — that moisture is a thing.

And they said clearly: moisture is the kind of thing that the Rambam would perhaps call a “force within a body” (ko’ach b’guf). It’s not a body, it resides in a body, it’s not a spiritual thing (davar ruchani), it’s not an abstract thing (davar mufshat). But it’s an abstract-type thing that is nevertheless part of the world. It’s not something you can count or see in a laboratory.

Discussion: You Can’t Separate the Four Elements with Any Machine

Question: You mean to say that even if we had the most powerful machine, the best technology, computers, we wouldn’t be able to separate the four elements back out from a person? We can separate the proteins, the whatever, the atomic composition, but the four elements are much more basic — they are the basics of each one of those things that can be separated.

Answer: Yes, according to the theory, yes. The four elements — this is a version of Aristotelian theory as the concepts he teaches here. One would need to know whether it’s really the four elements or not. But the idea of, for example, moisture as well — you can’t find moisture anywhere, but that doesn’t mean moisture doesn’t exist. Moisture is a property of the elements or of a body that is composed of the elements.

Discussion: Moisture — Subjective or Objective?

Question: Cold and heat and dryness and moisture are much more basic than human beings, because they are properties of the four elements.

Answer: Perfect, correct. This is what they [modern science] said — that there is no moisture in the world, there are only the elements themselves, so to speak, or even not those elements, other elements, it makes no difference. Just the elements themselves — this was indeed said, as you correctly state: if so, what is moisture? Moisture is a subjective thing, it resides in the soul (nefesh).

And then there becomes a whole problem of where the soul comes from, and everyone has presumably heard of the mind-body problem, from Descartes, how the mind can connect with the world. This all came from the fact that he assumed that these kinds of things don’t exist in the world.

But the Rambam and those before him assumed that these kinds of things do exist in the world. Moisture — even though these aren’t truly physical things, you can’t separate them, you can’t send moisture somewhere. True, moisture is always in something. You can’t send moisture alone — you can only send water that is wet, something that has some moisture in it.

The Difference Between Fire and Heat

Okay, that’s enough, at least so we can grasp a bit of what we’re talking about here. I don’t want to decide what’s correct, not really get into it, but one should understand that when we say “cold and moist,” it’s not simply the same thing as water. Moist is a property that water has, and it’s indeed a real property, a property that resides in the water. Just as we said that fire has the property of being hot — not that fire itself is heat.

—

Halacha 7 – Degrees of Properties in Various Bodies

One Hot Thing Hotter Than Another

And in this manner, the Rambam continues and explains: it turns out, as we said, that nothing in the world is purely one of the elements, the same thing — nothing in the world is only cold or only moist. And because there are things, or that “yimatzei guf cham yoser mi’guf acher cham” — one can be hotter than another. Why? Because the fire component is more dominant in that thing.

And also because the heat — the classic question: if there is such a thing as heat, how can one hot thing be hotter than another hot thing? The answer is that the other one has a bit of coldness in it.

Fever — When the Fire Force Becomes Overactive

It’s an interesting thing: when the Rambam wants to say there that when a person has a fever or when a person is hot, he says that the fire force has become overactive in him.

Question: Yes, it’s too hot. But he says even the opinions that it’s too hot — the person has the same amount of the four elements in him forever. How did one force become more dominant just now?

Answer: No, it’s not like that. Bitterly said, bitterly said — we should always be the same, on the contrary, we should learn. But this is again, we’re getting very advanced. We’ve gotten into science here that we know a bit better.

Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 4 (continued) – Mixtures of Elements, Destruction of Bodies, and “For You Are Dust and to Dust You Shall Return”

—

The Concept of “Mezeg” (Temperament) – Fever and Illnesses According to the Elements

Speaker 1: The Rambam would say that when a person has a fever, or when a person is hot, this means that the force of fire has become overactive in him? Yes, it’s hot. But he says that even what is too hot, the person has the same amount of fire from the four elements in him forever. How did one force become more dominant just now?

Speaker 2: No, no, it’s as you said, as you said. There are others who say the opposite. They say — we’re getting very advanced — we’re getting into science that we know a bit better. But for them, this was once an analogy of the concept of mezeg (temperament/mixture), right? Mezeg avir (weather/climate) is still spoken of today in Hebrew, but mezeg means to say. And they, on the contrary — they learned that illnesses are exactly this, that the balance of the elements… that one fire became more ignited.

It’s interesting, we learned this a bit in the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed), that the Moreh Nevuchim holds that this is… this is already in the moral realm (olam hamusar), yes.

—

No Element Exists “In Its Pure Form” — Not Even Fire

Speaker 1: But he wants to tell us that there is no pure fire. If everything that is hot were entirely fire, entirely hot, there couldn’t be something hot that is hotter than hot. Rather, what is it (ela mai)? It has a bit of cold. One has a bit more heat and a bit less cold, another has a bit more cold and less heat.

Speaker 2: It’s interesting, because indeed fire itself can also be a hotter fire and a weaker hot fire.

Speaker 1: Yes, even hot things. It’s as if you want to say that our fire is also not fire in its pure form (b’taharaso), but it’s fire with all kinds of fragments, a bit of others.

—

Halacha 7 (continued) – Bodies Where Only One or Two Properties Are Visible

Speaker 1: “And there are bodies in which only cold is apparent, and bodies in which only moisture is apparent.” That means, bodies that are only cold — for example, ice. You see only cold, very cold air. Perhaps they truly also have heat, because the only coldness is less cold. But there is — you see only the coldness. Or you see only the dryness.

Or what you see is both — you see cold and dryness equally (kor v’yovesh b’shaveh), meaning it’s even, it’s moderate. Oh — heat and moisture together equally (chom v’lach k’echad b’shaveh), or you see that it’s wet and cold at the same time, or wet and hot at the same time.

—

The Principle: The Dominant Property Shows Which Element Is Strongest

Speaker 1: Oh yes — heat and moisture together equally. According to the proportion of the element that was dominant in the original mixture — according to how much of that element is present in the body that is a mixture of all these things — the nature of that element will be apparent in the compound body. What you see, you see that the heat is very strongly dominant, is a sign that in that body there is a stronger amount of the element of fire.

—

Halacha 8 – Why People Die: The Destruction of Bodies

Transition: From Coming Into Being to Destruction

Speaker 1: And until now we’ve learned how everything is made — it’s called havayah (coming into being) — how everything is made from the four elements. Now we’re going to learn a novel insight (chiddush). Earlier we said that we’re going to find out why people die. So let’s now find out why people die.

We’re going to learn how the four elements go back — they take two parts. But this is all like a loan (halva’ah). The things are made from four elements — it’s not a purchase (mekach), it goes back like the Jubilee year (yovel), I don’t know what. It’s more like a loan that must be repaid.

The Rambam’s Words: Everything That Is Composed Must Eventually Separate

Speaker 1: The Rambam says: “Since all the bodies we see are composed of these four elements, and everything composed of these four elements will ultimately separate.” When the body ceases to exist, it doesn’t mean it became nothing, but that the four elements went apart — they became separated back into four elements.

As I remember the language of the Sages (Chazal) that the Almighty returns the world to primordial chaos (tohu va’vohu). In order — the world goes back to the elements, that’s one thing. Not tohu va’vohu, but I’m telling you something — it goes back to… Tohu va’vohu is more basic than the four elements. It goes back to how it was before, how it came about.

Some Last Long, Some Last Briefly

Speaker 1: There are — but not all in the same way. “Some separate after a few days” — that after the body has ceased to exist, after its composition has ended, then it takes a few days until it becomes separated.

Speaker 2: No, then it is separated. Separated is the same thing. Separated means the body is destroyed.

Speaker 1: Ah, when the composition is divided. There are simple bodies that last a few days — like, I don’t know, a little ant, a simple little thing you have at home that disintegrates. And there are things that take many years, it makes no difference. There are “some that last long and some that last briefly.”

The Principle: Everything That Is Composed Must Separate

Speaker 1: But the main point, the principle is: “And everything composed of them cannot avoid separating back into them.” It’s not possible that…

Speaker 2: Because all bodies are things that come into being and perish (dvarim havim v’nifsadim).

Speaker 1: You’re saying it backwards. You’re saying they come into being and perish because they can’t… because they get divided back. That is the reason why they come into being and perish. That’s what it means — not two things, it’s the same thing.

> [Novel insight: “Coming into being and perishing” (havim v’nifsadim) is not two separate facts, but one thing — the fact that they are composed of elements (havim) is itself the reason why they must separate (nifsadim).]

“Even Odem” — Even the Hardest Material

Speaker 1: Ah, he says: “Even odem” [a very hard substance], “it cannot avoid separating back into them” — it can’t, it can’t hold itself together.

Speaker 2: Have you actually seen shamir [a legendary stone-cutting substance]? Try this, it’s interesting. “Even odem” — is odem a type of metal?

Speaker 1: I think it’s like the dvarka — he means like the witnesses in the Dvarka [a reference to something very hard/enduring]. I mean, he gives an example of things that appear very strong. It sounds like it survives in fire — like a strong material.

“But it is impossible that it should not perish” — that it should not be destroyed, that it should not be consumed, that it should not disintegrate — “and it returns to its elements.”

And what happens then? “Part of it returns to fire, part to water, part to wind, and part to earth.”

Speaker 2: It sounds like what you said earlier, that the four elements are not a salad that goes back, but when it is destroyed, automatically each one returns to its place where they belong. The sphere of wind (olam haru’ach) to the sphere of wind.

Speaker 1: He goes on in a later well-known halacha to say a bit about how we see this. Or it’s not simple, not that one day you go and see that the gold has become that type of earth. It’s more complicated, but in the end that’s what happens.

—

Halacha 9 – “For You Are Dust and to Dust You Shall Return”: Question and Answer

The Question: Why Does It Only Mention Dust?

Speaker 1: Now there’s a question (kushya), can I ask the question? Okay. Now there’s a difficult question. We learned the principle, a great principle in Torah (klal gadol b’Torah): everything made from fire, water, wind, and earth returns to become fire, water, wind, and earth. It doesn’t last forever. It becomes back into the raw materials of the four elements. It goes.

Now there’s a difficult question, a big question. There’s a verse (pasuk) — I remember that one of the things he does throughout the Rambam is, he reminds us of verses that would have been difficult according to his view and he answers them.

I remember that there’s a verse: why does a person die? It says in the Torah as follows: “For you are dust and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). First of all, it sounds very similar to the Rambam’s discussion. It sounds very similar, because — you are made from this, so you go back to this.

> [Novel insight: The verse “for you are dust and to dust you shall return” sounds very similar to the Rambam’s entire foundational principle — “you are made from this, so you go back to this.” The Torah itself says the same idea as the Rambam.]

I have a question. I told you — okay, it’s not only dust. So why does the Rambam say… One can ask the question even before that: why does it say “for you are dust”? A person is not only dust, a person is four elements. True? But apparently he also wants to hint here at the idea — why does a person die? Do people know why people die? The Torah itself says: “For you are dust and to dust you shall return” — because you are made from dust, you go back to the basic elements.

If so, it’s difficult: why does it only mention dust? Why does it only mention dust? If everything that separates, separates back to them — it gets divided back into the four elements — why does it only say that a person returns to the one element of dust?

The Answer: “Because the Majority of His Structure Is from Earth”

Speaker 1: He says that the beginning of the verse answers it: “For you are dust” — because the most dominant force in a person is earth, “because the majority of his structure is from earth” (ki rov binyano me’afar). Or it says here in the verse that the Almighty took dust from the ground (afar min ha’adamah) (Genesis 2:7). He doesn’t answer “because the majority of his structure is from earth” — or it says that the Almighty took dust from the ground, and that is the greatest force of the person. And since “the majority of his structure is from earth,” therefore the Torah calls it that way. But in reality, the other three elements that the person also has from them also return to their elements.

Summary of the Answer

Speaker 1: He wants to emphasize here, so he says — he’s already summing up the whole matter — that this is simply the plain meaning of the verse. But he only answered me why it says “dust” and not the others — because it’s the majority.

Speaker 2: There he basically said that according to how much the majority of it is dust, it only has a small bit of the others.

Speaker 1: We already learned this, that there is a portion that is…

Speaker 2: Yes, he said that one is more dominant.

Speaker 1: Yes, he said in the order of heat or…

Speaker 2: Yes.

—

Halacha 9 (continued) – The process of decay is not instantaneous

The Rambam’s words: “it decays and becomes something else”

Speaker 1: Another important point — it doesn’t mean this, as I already said. It doesn’t mean that it immediately… “and when it perishes, it does not immediately return to the four elements” — not that when something decays, when it ceases to exist, it immediately goes… becomes… “rather it perishes and becomes something else… and something else… and something else…”

The meaning is, for example — let’s say you bury an animal, it goes and decomposes in the earth, and it becomes a piece of dust, and something grows from it. But ultimately — “rather it perishes and becomes something else,” yes?

Discussion: What does “returning to its elements” actually mean in practice?

Speaker 2: But what he’s saying is very simple. We said that everything breaks down into its elements. Now, it doesn’t mean that… I mean it means like this — let’s think about it this way. It seemingly means this. We imagine it when you say the plain meaning, but as we said, nothing here is simple, everything here is a bit more theoretical than basic.

The glass analogy: How decay actually works in practice

Speaker 2: So he says for example — let’s not talk about animals, because animals are more complicated. Okay? A cup, a piece of glass, a glass, is made from sand and water, with all four things.

Speaker 1: No, it’s made with all four things.

Speaker 2: Now, the Rambam says, it will have to — it must become separated, and consequently it will go back to being fire, water, air, and earth. Okay? But it has never happened in the world that a piece of glass suddenly became a bit of fire, a bit of air, a bit of water, a bit of earth. That’s not what it means.

What happened? The glass broke. Gradually it becomes sand. Gradually the sand becomes a bit part of the water. Gradually it becomes… it broke, someone made from it some third thing, and so on and so forth.

> [Insight: “And ultimately things return” does not mean a literal, instantaneous return to pure elements. It means a long chain of transformations — from one thing to another, to yet another — until eventually one arrives back at the basic elements.]

The main insight: “And ultimately things return” does not mean a literal return

Speaker 2: It doesn’t mean that in the end everything will simply be fire, water, air, and earth. It simply means that when you think deeply about what remains among all these mixtures — what are the basics that are changing here, simply their compositions a bit more or a bit less? It’s the four things.

It doesn’t mean that in the end, after a few thousand years, the world will be left with chaos and void, air and earth. That’s not how it works. It simply means — we see that things die and they change to become other things, but how do they change? They change through the different combinations of fire, water, air, and earth.

Discussion: Does broken = more air?

Speaker 1: The meaning is that when one thing becomes another thing, it still remains composed of fire, air, and water — the new thing, for example what you’re saying, the glass that broke, received a new form of fire, air, and water, but it’s still composed of fire, air, and water.

Speaker 2: Why should we say that broken means it has more air? Because it’s broken, should you say it has more air in it? Whatever, etc., it has a bit of air. That’s how things become broken. You could say this — they become broken because the four elements are almost never fully in balance.

Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 4 (continued) – The four elements change into one another, the celestial sphere as the cause of change, and matter and form

—

Review: When one thing becomes another thing

Speaker 1: The meaning is that when one thing becomes another thing, the plain meaning is that it still remains composed of fire, water, air, and water. The new thing, for example what you said about the glass that broke, it received a new form of fire, water, air, and water, because it’s still composed of fire, water, air, and water.

[Insight] Perhaps one can say that the broken glass has more of the element of air, because it’s crumbled, broken, it has more air inside.

Whatever, there’s a difference, it’s a bit…

—

Discussion: How do things become broken?

Speaker 1: How do things become broken? [Insight] Perhaps one can say this: they become broken because the four elements are never entirely at peace — they always have a bit of conflict and are opposing one another. Consequently, sometimes one brings its friends and they… I’m giving an analogy.

Speaker 2: It’s not — one of the elements becomes dominant, as if, it becomes more dominant, and that makes a difference between how it was before and how it became afterward.

—

Halachos 10-11: The four elements themselves change into one another

Speaker 1: Now he adds “all things return in a cycle.” One can even say that the dust of the person becomes dominant and then he returns to dust. But the Rambam doesn’t say the elements. I’m thinking now that perhaps one can say this.

Now, besides this, the interesting thing — we’re talking here about “all things return in a cycle.” “Chalilah” means it goes round and round. Just as he also used the word “chozer chalilah” regarding the celestial spheres, that they revolve around. And it’s well known — it doesn’t say it here, but in chapter 12 the Rambam says that just as the spheres revolve in a cycle, in a certain sense, also the things, substances, matter and form, all the elements revolve in a cycle, because the piece of earth that was once this, eventually comes back, and so on — returning in a cycle.

—

The elements themselves change — a proof for shared matter

Speaker 1: Good. Now we’re going to learn that not only do the things made from the elements change into one another, but the elements themselves also change.

[Insight] This is a proof that the elements themselves are built from one shared matter, of which a part simply became… In truth, the elements themselves can become one another. And the Rambam is going to say this in halachos 11 and 12.

—

The Rambam: **”These four elements constantly change into one another”**

Speaker 1: The Rambam says: “These four elements” — the four elements — “constantly change into one another, every day and every hour.” They keep on — they are vibrant, they are boiling, as it were, they keep changing into one another. One becomes the other. He’s going to say.

Not the entire force of fire becomes another, but within the force of fire there are parts that become another element. “Not their entire body” — not the entire body of fire or of the four elements goes to the side.

—

The change at the boundaries of the elements

Speaker 1: So he explains: “Some of the earth that is close to the water” — “min” always means “near” — at the edge of earth, there where the sea and the dry land meet, where heaven and earth kiss, there where the sea and the dry land meet, the two elements come together: the earth is primarily from the element of earth, and the water is primarily from the element of water. And there is where the sand becomes more and more wet and marshy and becomes part of the water, and also the water disappears within the earth and becomes dry and becomes earth.

This is interesting, because he said that when water changes, it “crumbles and becomes water.” He didn’t say that the water becomes earth. Here he does say so.

—

The cycle in both directions

Speaker 1: “And similarly, some of the water that is adjacent to the air changes, dissolves, and becomes air.” That is where water becomes… air. Air means wind. Yes, for example, what you see as a cloud is water that has gone into the air, and it becomes — the water from it becomes smaller and smaller, but it becomes just air.

“And similarly, the air — some of it that is adjacent to fire changes, swirls, and becomes fire.”

—

Discussion: What does “mischolel” mean?

Speaker 1: “Mischolel”? A new word.

– “Misporer” — is what happens when earth crumbles, yes, it becomes water.

– “Mismoises” — is it dissolves, it becomes air, it becomes like that.

– And “mischolel”? I don’t know what that word means. Is that a verb for when air becomes fire.

Maybe one of the group wants to offer a translation?

Speaker 2: “Cholel” means light… it means becoming a fire. Becoming a fire.

Speaker 1: Do you know what it means? I think that fire is star-like, fire is hot. “Cholel,” he says, means “coming into being anew.” It becomes as if “my creator who brings forth the perfect” — it becomes recreated.

Yes, that’s the meaning. That’s not the meaning as the commentators say “coming into being anew.” It means that this is the process that makes it happen. So I don’t know.

I see that the whole process is the process of things becoming more refined, yes, more cold as he says. It becomes, it goes — sometimes it’s more of a coarse thing, and afterward it goes back again.

Speaker 2: “Mishtaneh” means it evaporates, it becomes… “mischolel” means it becomes even less coarse, even more fiery.

—

The reverse direction: “miskanes” (condensing)

Speaker 1: “And similarly, the fire — some of it that is adjacent to the air changes, condenses, and becomes air.” He said the reverse of what I said earlier. He’s going to present the entire cycle all at once.

“And similarly, the fire — some of it that is adjacent to the air changes, condenses, and becomes air” — it stops being fire, it becomes air. “Miskanes” — “miskanes” means it gathers together, it becomes more compressed, yes, more — how do you say — dense.

Speaker 2: Air is denser than fire?

Speaker 1: That’s the principle I mentioned earlier again.

“And similarly, the air — some of it that is adjacent to the water changes, condenses, and becomes water” — it becomes water.

“And similarly, the water — some of it that is adjacent to the earth changes, condenses, and becomes earth.”

—

Debate: How it looks — old science vs. modern science

Speaker 2: Because with water, one would have said that the water gets dried out and only earth remains.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s what you’re saying, but he didn’t say it that way, and not because he was a fool who didn’t understand mechanics. No, rather he says it as it appears on the surface.

Speaker 2: It doesn’t appear that way on the surface.

Speaker 1: It doesn’t appear that way on the surface, but you’re looking at it today after we’ve learned a certain way for a few hundred years, and we’re brainwashed to look at things that way. It looks exactly the same, it actually looks more like this.

Speaker 2: It looks exactly the opposite.

Speaker 1: There is no dispute whatsoever that modern science is less like how things appear than the science of that time. Okay.

—

**”And this change happens gradually over the course of many days”**

Speaker 1: “And this change happens gradually over the course of many days” — it takes a long time. The change requires time, over the course of many days. This alone is a very long change. For example, the change of a glass breaking, that you can see in a few weeks. But for water to become earth, that takes a long time.

And all these changes also happen as he said earlier — without awareness or intention. Not that they consciously nullify themselves.

Speaker 2: Exactly.

—

No element ever becomes completely nullified

Speaker 1: “And not the entire element changes” — it happens, but never that one of the elements should become dissolved. Not the entire element becomes changed. “Until all the water becomes air, or all the air becomes fire.” Why? “Because it is impossible for one of the four elements to be nullified.”

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: “Rather, some changes from fire to air” — a bit of the element, from one element can become the other element — “and some from air to fire, and similarly between each and every one, and among its companions the change is found among all four of them, and they return in a cycle” — afterward they come back.

—

Discussion: The balance of the four elements

Speaker 2: So, it’s very important that it always remains — the “between all”… that is, that there is fire, water, air, and earth — that always remains. The only question at the end is… and how much of each remains? But there is never — he never needs a word for “there isn’t.” There isn’t — there is an important principle: all four must always remain, it wouldn’t work otherwise. The thing he’s saying is that they alone, those four alone, are not fixed. A part of it — it’s simply the cyclical return. It doesn’t change anything. It’s not simply that one day the air will win and there will be only air. It will never win.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: It’s always like what it says — borrowing and repaying. It borrows and it pays back.

—

Halacha 13: The celestial sphere as the cause of change

The three levels of the world

Speaker 2: So, earlier it was said that the four elements are found on a sphere.

Speaker 1: No, beneath a sphere.

Speaker 2: Beneath a sphere.

Speaker 1: Beneath the spheres. Now we’re going to learn an important thing that will be stated briefly on page 5. A real thing. We learned that there are three levels in the world, right?

– There are the spheres. Or from the normal categories: there are the angels.

– There are the spheres.

– There is the lower world — the lowly and dark.

Now you’re going to learn the secret of the connection between the three levels.

—

The change of elements — the basic change

Speaker 2: You know, they just discussed how the world works going forward. It is — the elements change, then the compounds change, things with the compositions of the elements, and then everything changes — people live and die and are born — everything revolves around the changes of the elements. Now you’re going to learn a secret…

Speaker 1: How does this happen? That’s what he says…

Speaker 2: How does what happen?

Speaker 1: From this change.

Speaker 2: This change — he says the change, one must think that this change causes all changes. This is the basic change: that a bit of water becomes air, and so on, and then the water mixes into the air. He doesn’t say this here, but that’s…

Speaker 1: He does say it, he says it in halacha 14.

—

The sphere mixes around the elements

Speaker 2: From this change — who causes it to change? Why indeed? Why does one push into the other?

The Rambam says as follows: “And this change occurs through the revolution of the celestial sphere” — since the sphere revolves, somehow it makes everything revolve a bit. So the fact that the sphere revolves, it also causes the air and the water to revolve into one another. There is a technical explanation of how this works, but he doesn’t say it here.

“And from its revolution the four elements combine” — from the spinning of the… everything is a spinning top. The spinning of the sphere becomes the four sides of the spinning top, of the four elements that the top spins.

“And from them human beings are composed” — from them comes… because if nothing were spinning, if things would have stayed in one place, each element would have remained by itself.

How do human beings come about, and living creatures (nefesh chayah) — meaning animals (ba’alei chaim) — and vegetation (tzomeach), and stone and metal (even u’mateches)? Yes, what is that which is often called the inanimate (domem). The Rambam doesn’t actually write “domem” at all, but I recall, it always says stones and metals. Those are the inanimate things.

This comes about because all things are compounds of the four elements — it comes about through the sphere rotating. The sphere mixes up the elements: sometimes they mix a bit more, sometimes they mix a bit less. From all these various mixtures come human beings and animals, etc., etc.

—

**[Novel Insight]** The Sphere Doesn’t Mix Intentionally — It’s a Byproduct

Speaker 2: It’s interesting, because the sphere rotates with life and with awareness (da’as). You can restate it that the sphere, which is next to the four elements, mixes around the four elements. It is the one that stands and stirs the great pot. But it doesn’t mix in order to create the four elements — it doesn’t mix for the sake of its own revolution (sivuv), but as a result of it there is a byproduct (po’el yotzei) — the four elements get mixed around.

—

Halacha 13 (Continued): Matter and Form — God Gives the Form

Two Distinctions Between Creations: Matter and Form

Speaker 2: Now, all of this is to explain how the matter (chomer) comes about. The matter is the matter. But what about the form (tzurah)? Every thing must have its form.

There are humans and animals (behemos) and cows and inanimate things. They are all from the four elements. The difference between a human being and a living creature — both are a combination of the four elements. So what makes one different from the other?

There are two distinctions:

1. One is in the matter — it could be that an animal has a different combination. Matter alone can have a different combination.

2. And one is in the form — besides the fact that it needs to have a different form, that is a separate matter.

So one still needs to understand how the forms come about.

—

**And He Gave Each Body the Form Appropriate to It**

Speaker 2: He says as follows: The form — “and God gives each body the form appropriate to it” (v’ha-Kel nosen l’chol golem v’golem tzurah ha-re’uyah lo). Every raw body (golem) needs to have a form that belongs to a particular body.

For example, the mixed flour with sugar — you can’t make a person out of it — you can make a cake out of it. The form of a cake can apply to it, not the form of a human being. Every body, every combination of the four elements, from which a different type of creature comes about, needs to receive a different type of form. It doesn’t happen on its own.

God is the One who gives — for a particular body, from a particular combination of the four elements, He gives a form appropriate to it. This is not for just any one — because there is a certain matter for which it is fitting, it has the right combination.

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 4 (Continued) — Forms, Matter and Form, and the Form of Man

Halacha 13 (Continued) — The Angel “Ishim” Gives the Forms

The form of a cake can apply to this, not the form of a human being. In order for there to be a human form, there needs to be… Every body, every combination of the four elements, from which a different type of creature comes about, needs to receive a different type of form. It doesn’t happen on its own.

What happens here? God is the One who gives — for a particular body, for a particular combination of the four elements, He gives a form appropriate to it (tzurah ha-re’uyah lo). “Appropriate to it” — it is fitting for a particular one, because there is a certain matter that is fitting for a form. The matter for which it is fitting, it has the right combination of the four elements, from which a good person can come about — God gives it the form appropriate to it.

What is “appropriate to it”? Through whom? Through an angel (mal’ach), which is the tenth angel, “which is the form called Ishim” (she-hi ha-tzurah ha-nikre’es ishim). The tenth, the lowest one. The tenth, which is close to the earth (eretz), which the angel sees — is the… just as it says “and the man Gavriel” (Daniel 9:21), “ish” is a name for an angel.

When the angel called Ishim or Ish — it gives the forms for everything that has forms. All the things that have forms in the world, everything comes from the angel called Ishim, which of course originates from God. Everything is from God.

This means, the lowest sphere mixes around the four elements, and the lowest of the angels is the one who is appointed (memuneh) to give the forms.

—

Novel Insight: The Higher Angels Are Not Occupied with the Lower Beings

Interesting. What do the ones higher than this do? They are busy with themselves. The spheres higher than this and the angels higher than this are not busy with those below (tachtonim). No one is busy with them. The tenth angel is also not busy with them. It’s simply because it is the closest.

Novel Insight: The Angel Ishim Has No Intention to Create

It doesn’t act — you have to remember — the intention of the higher beings (elyonim) is not the lower beings (tachtonim). But God does it. God does everything, that’s not the point.

Fine, but what do you mean to say? It doesn’t do it with intention? The Ishim does it… its intention is not that. It doesn’t mean that the Ishim thinks “I want to make people.” The only One who thinks is God alone. Even that is perhaps not so simple.

But the Ishim — its power is what gives there, that’s all. It is simply the closest. Why does one say that it gives it? Because it is the closest. Not that the higher one gives it to it. It arrives at this point, this is the next one, one step before the human being or before all the things that exist in the world — is the tenth angel. It transmits and it arrives at its level.

That’s all. Not that it gives because it stands beneath it. That would be a very materialistic (megushom’dige) way of thinking.

—

Halacha 14 — Matter and Form Are Not Separable in the World, Only in the Mind

Introduction: What Is the Rambam Going to Say?

Okay. What is the form? Not what is the form. Yes, one can say what the form is, but every thing has a form. Now the Rambam is going to state a principle, a great principle regarding matters of form and matter, an important thing.

So now the Rambam has explained what matter is — matter is a combination of the four elements. Now he is going to explain what the form of matter is. He has already said who gives the form, and now he is going to say…

He is not going to say what form is. He is not going to say something about form. He is going to say things about form. What is he going to say about what it is? He is not going to say what it is. He is going to say what the form of a human being is — that he is going to say, an important thing. But he is not going to say what form is.

Form is simple, straightforward. He hasn’t explained the meaning of the word “form,” or the meaning of the word “body” (golem). Form is what a thing is, that’s all. No more and no less.

The Principle: One Never Sees Matter Without Form or Form Without Matter

But he says an important thing, and it’s understandable, this is because apparently it’s an introduction… I already know why this is an introduction. This is a very necessary introduction for everything that is discussed regarding matter and form.

Chapter 14, the Rambam says, let’s read it for a second:

“You never see matter without form or form without matter” (le-olam ein atah ro’eh golem b’lo tzurah o tzurah b’lo golem).

The Rambam says, remember an important thing: you cannot see, you have never seen — neither matter without a form. People think that what you see is matter — that’s not correct. You don’t see any matter without a form, and certainly not a form without matter. You have never seen either of them.

So how do you know? Why do you divide it? One only sees the combination of both together. Matter that is in a form, that is what one sees. Matter that has a form — matter that has a form together, and one only sees both together. Everything you see is matter that has a form.

Novel Insight: The Division Between Matter and Form Is Only “In His Mind” — In the Intellect

So why did you ever think of the idea that you have matter and a form? How is there a division? How do you divide it into two things, that this comes from here and that comes from there?

Rather — “rather, the human mind divides the body that exists in his thought” (ela lev ha-adam hu she-mechalek ha-guf ha-nimtza b’da’ato) — this means, in my mind, “in his thought,” I see a body, so now in my mind there is a body, right? When I see something, I now have an internal concept of it, and I divide it. I can see that the body, for example the carriage, could be something else. I understand that this can be matter and this can be form.

And because I divide the body, an entity that exists in my mind — “and knows that it is composed of matter and form” (v’yodei’a she-hu mechubor mi-golem v’tzurah) — I can know that it is composed of matter and form, but I can never see one without the other.

Novel Insight: “That Exists in His Thought” — Not “That Exists to My Senses”

And not only that, he also knows — “that there are simple bodies” — this too he knows from contemplation (hisbonenus).

The meaning is again, the words “that exists in his thought” — what is found in my mind, not that one divides the body. You mean to say that the body that I am touching, the body that I see — in my mind I divide its matter and form? He means to say that I cannot even divide a body that exists to my senses (ha-nimtza le-chushay), in my senses, and divide it — only in your mind can you see and separate the matter and the form.

Furthermore, I think of a body, I have in my mind a picture of that body or a concept of that body — the picture, the concept, I can divide. I cannot take a body itself and divide it into matter and form — that I cannot do. We are only speaking of the concept.

Novel Insight: All Concepts Until Now Are Intellectual Constructs

And not only that, the same thing — the four elements — is very important. All these things, all these things — this is my greatest observation that I have been saying the entire time — that all these things are intellectual constructs (musagim machshava’ti’im), all these things are in the mind. Nothing of the concepts that we have learned until now is something that one can see.

The results, the outcomes one can see — that things change and the like — but the essential concepts… the same thing with the four elements, as I have also never seen any one of the four elements externally, apparently. I said that this is not clear to me, but it appears that the Rambam is saying it here.

Three Levels of Bodies

“And knows that there are bodies whose matter is composed of four elements” (v’yodei’a she-yesh sham gufim she-ha-golem shelahem mechubor me-arba’ah yesodos) — these are all the things that we see. How do we know? Because we see that they change.

“And bodies whose matter is simple and not composed of another matter” (v’gufim she-ha-golem shelahem pashut v’eino mechubor mi-golem acher) — these are the bodies of the moon (levanah) and the celestial spheres (galgalim), their matter is simple. Simple means that it is simple, it is made of only one thing, not composed of two types of matter, but it is also matter.

Forms Without Matter — Angels

And what about the forms that have no matter at all? We have never seen them, not that they were separated from something.

They are called angels — “and the forms that have no matter are not visible to the eye, but are known through the ‘eye of the heart'” (v’ha-tzuros she-ein lahem golem einam nir’im la-ayin, ela b’ein ha-lev) — with the eyes of your heart you can see it — “just as we know the Master of all without seeing with the eye” (k’mo she-yodim adon ha-kol b’lo re’iyas ayin) — just as one can know God without seeing Him.

See? How? From understanding. That means, we can know the angels without seeing them. Understanding that there must be angels. Yes. And also what they are — what sort of thing they must be.

Up to here, this is a great principle regarding the matter of matter and form, regarding the levels of the ladder (alei sulamos), and all three levels that we have now learned.

—

Halacha 15 — The Soul of All Flesh Is Its Form; The Form of the Complete Person in His Knowledge

Introduction: What Is a Human Being?

Now comes an entirely new chapter, one could say. Before that I mean — this section perhaps I placed here under the form of man, but it could be that it is in the sense of presenting the general principles first (b’chinas makdim ha-klalus). Perhaps we covered it last week, I don’t know.

Now we are going to learn what a human being is. A very important section, but also a great deep matter (sod), the Rambam is very brief (mekatzar). So, yes, let’s read until the end of the line. Yes. Don’t turn off a light, we’ll see.

Soul = Form of a Living Thing

I want to say as follows: The soul of all flesh (nefesh kol basar) — the soul. We spoke earlier that there are living beings (ba’alei nefesh), yes, a living thing. Ba’alei nefesh simply means — let us remember — nefesh stands for whatever it is that makes a living thing a living thing, no less and no more (lo pachos v’lo yoser).

So now, we have seen that every thing has a form. We said that every thing has something that makes it what it is. So if it is something — it’s not just wood, it’s a table. So it has a form.

Now, however, there are living things, which have a more complicated form. Therefore they are called ba’alei nefesh (living beings).

“The soul of all flesh is its form that God gave it” (nefesh kol basar, hi tzuraso she-nasan lo ha-Kel). We learned earlier through the appointed angel, but God directly — in the end, the higher a thing is, the closer it is to God directly.

God gives the soul of every thing — that is simply its form. That is the soul of a living creature (ba’al chai). It’s as much as saying about a very simple thing: you could say that if one would have called a table something with a soul, one would have said that the soul is the table-ness in it — the format, the way it is put together. The table-ness in it, the table — that is the soul.

But a table doesn’t have a soul, because a table doesn’t do anything. So it doesn’t have that sort of form, it has a lower level form, you could call it. A living thing — it needs many things, it’s complicated — so it has a soul. That is the distinction. Soul is a name for the form of a living thing. And we say that God gives it, God gives the forms of everything, as we learned earlier.

—

“Extra Knowledge” — What Makes a Human Being a Human Being

Now, what is the meaning? Here we are going to say that a human being doesn’t just have a soul called the animal soul, as we said “the soul of all flesh,” “the soul of all living things.” A human being has an even greater soul.

The Rambam says: “And the extra knowledge/intellect found in the soul of a person” (v’ha-da’as ha-yeseirah ha-metzuyah b’nafsho shel adam) — in the soul of a person there is additional knowledge, extra knowledge (da’as yeseirah), more than what exists in a living creature, in another living creature, not a human being.

This is “the form of the person who is complete in his knowledge” (tzuras ha-adam ha-shalem b’da’ato).

Novel Insight: “The Complete Person” — Not Just Any Person

This means, which person are we talking about? Not just any person. There is a person who is not complete, an incomplete person, a minor, or someone who doesn’t truly have this knowledge, he doesn’t have the extra knowledge (da’as yeseirah). But the form of the person who is complete in his knowledge…

In other words, one asks: What is a person? Is the form the answer? This is yet another meaning of the word “form” (tzurah). Or it’s the same meaning — I’ve been saying the whole time, you ask about something: What is it? What is a person?

So it’s like this — it depends which person. A person who doesn’t have much intellect — the answer is, he is basically an animal. An animal that has a bit more knowledge (da’as). Okay, no problem.

But there is a person, an “adam ha-shalem b’da’ato” (a person who is complete in his knowledge), who knows everything, he knows everything that a person can know. This is the extra knowledge (da’as yeseirah) that makes him a person. Because what is he? He is a thing that knows. A thing that knows completely.

The humanity within him is the knowledge within him. But only a person who is an adam ha-shalem, not just any person.

That means, a person who is an adam ha-shalem has more humanity within him. He is the true person. The other one still has a long way to go to become a complete person. He is a person in potential. The entire work of a person is to become a person — as it says “na’aseh adam” — “let us make man” (Bereishis 1:26).

—

“In Our Image, In Our Likeness” — Like the Likeness of the Angels

“And regarding this form” — that is, the form, in other words, the extra knowledge (da’as yeseirah), which is the form of the complete person (tzuras ha-adam ha-shalem) — regarding this form, that is, in other words, what it truly means to be a person — “it is stated in the Torah, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness'” (Bereishis 1:26).

“Meaning that he should have a form that knows and grasps ideas that have no matter, until he resembles them” (kelomar she-tihyeh lo tzurah ha-yoda’as u-masheges ha-dei’os she-ein lahem golem ad she-yidmeh lahen).

In other words, the Rambam apparently learns that “in our likeness” (ki-d’museinu) means like the likeness of the angels (ki-dmus ha-mal’achim), yes, not God Himself. Or at any rate, it does say that God speaks to the angels. “In our image, in our likeness” means like us — the word “Elokim” here means angels. Like us, like the form that has no matter within them.

Or it could be God Himself, who also has no matter. So in a certain sense, he is also similar to God Himself.

Two Aspects of Resemblance to Angels

A person has such a form that he understands — just as an angel can understand without a body, a person can also understand without a body. A person understands things without a body.

It could be that he even understands it without a body — that’s yet another thing.

The Holy One, Blessed Be He — here it says that he understands things that have no body, have no matter (golem), and in this he is similar (domeh) to them. Just as they have no matter, a form is not matter, a person’s form, a person’s knowledge (da’as) is also not matter, and he also comprehends non-material things.

But it’s important to know, a Jew once again, that he is similar to them when he grasps (masig) the—

Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 4 (continued) – The Form of Man, the Image of God, and the Distinction Between Soul and Intellect

The Person’s Intellect Is a Comprehension of Form Without Matter — Similar to Angels

Speaker 1: A person understands things without a body. It could be he even understands it without a body — that’s yet another thing.

The form without matter? With that he is similar to them. And does he also grasp it with his intellect (da’as)? Does he not grasp it with his matter? With his physical hand?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: With that he is similar. Just as they are form without matter, so too the intellect (da’as) of a person is a comprehension of form without matter. The complete person (adam ha-shalem).

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s what I mean.

Discussion: Is the Intellect a Physical Thing?

Speaker 2: But, doesn’t it depend on… this is indeed an intellect and a body!

Speaker 1: No, no. The answer is coming. Because it doesn’t properly stand here. But the answer is coming.

Key insight: The intellect that understands — the intellect is not a physical thing. We are very accustomed to a superficial and physical way of thinking, as if only something that is a body can understand. Understanding is inherently not a physical thing! Even — I said this earlier — it doesn’t even hear physical things.

Speaker 2: It resides in the brain, yes?

Speaker 1: It doesn’t reside in the brain. One needs a chamber of a brain to function from — but perhaps not a dwelling place of knowledge. But now, we just want to have it in a vessel. It happens to be in the brain, but it’s not truly in the brain. Why? There are proofs that it can live without the brain, as we will see.

—

The Distinction Between “Form” and “Appearance” — Understanding “Let Us Make Man in Our Image”

Speaker 1: Rather the opposite — turn it around. Therefore, the Rambam already says, and we haven’t gone around buying foolishness with proofs, but this is how he understands it.

For some — but the important thing here is simply, for some — I remember that one of the points here is that there are certain verses that people have errors about. People can have an error, people can say, it says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Bereishis 1:26), and a person understands it as, at least, like a king, perhaps like God Himself. It seems driven — no, you don’t understand at all what you’re positing. For some —

Two Meanings of “Form”

Speaker 1: So, form (tzurah) is like “that which is visible to the eyes” (ha-nikeres la-einayim). A person has two forms. The word “form” (tzurah) can have two meanings:

– Form (tzurah) can mean the shape, or form, that one can see with the eyes — the impression and the stamp and its effects — it is an imprint of the body, how the body looks.

It is not about this that the Torah says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.”

He therefore says why — because this doesn’t mean “image” (tzelem) at all. “Image” (tzelem) in the Torah means “form” (tzurah) — not in the sense of “form” that is visible to the eyes, but rather a form that is not embodied (tzurah she-einah glumah). Why? Because there is indeed an “eye of the mind” (ein ha-lev).

“Appearance” vs. “Image” — The Rambam’s Distinction

Speaker 1: But we find that the form visible to the eyes — says the Rambam — is not called “form” (tzurah) in the Holy Tongue. It is called “appearance” (to’ar). For that the term is “to’ar,” as it says “beautiful of form” (yefas to’ar — Devarim 21:11). “Beautiful of form” doesn’t mean someone who has a beautiful intellect — it means someone who has a beautiful body. That is specifically his body, the form visible to the eye — that is called “to’ar.”

Key insight: But the Torah does not say “let us make man in our *appearance*” (b’sa’areinu) — because neither man nor the angels have an “appearance” (to’ar). What does a person have? “In our image” (b’tzalmeinu) — in other words, a form. What is that? The intellect (da’as). That is what a person has.

Speaker 2: Right? Very good.

—

The Person Has Two Forms — Two Levels of Matter and Form

Speaker 1: This means that a person has two forms, one can say. He has the form that is the form of the matter, and after he has the form of the matter, he has a form — or not that he has a form, but there is a form that has some connection with the composition of the body and soul.

Every thing has two forms in this sense. Almost everything has an appearance and also has what it is — it’s not the same thing. The word “form” (tzurah) has two meanings.

Speaker 2: There is form in the sense of appearance (to’ar), but there is also matter and form (chomer v’tzurah). A person has matter and form, but he also has, you’re saying, something called intellect (da’as), and that is also called form.

Speaker 1: That’s what we’re going to learn in the next section — the distinction you’re making. You’re right, but for now we’re still holding at one section.

Halachah 15 — The Form of the Person Complete in His Knowledge

Speaker 1: For now he says this: that what a person is — that the essence of the complete person (adam ha-shalem) is his intellect (da’as) as his essence. That is the meaning of “person.” Therefore the intellect, that which is the meaning of “person,” that is “in the image of God” (b’tzelem Elokim) — he is in the image of the angels.

Halachah 16 — The Image Is Not the Soul Found in Every Living Being

Speaker 1: Then he says — and you are right — that it’s true that besides this, a person also has an animal form, he is after all a living thing. He says, but this is a perfect work of God and very good.

Speaker 2: Why does he need to let himself learn this?

Speaker 1: Because you’re asking me good questions. It’s not such a difficult question —

Speaker 2: No, it’s true, because a person also has two matters and forms, there are different levels.

Speaker 1: Why does he say this? Why isn’t the soul found in every living being (nefesh ha-metzuyah l’khol nefesh chayah) — this that you’re saying here, that about this it says “image of God” (tzelem Elokim) — that a person has an image, some higher level of image, but isn’t that the basic image?

Discussion: Is the “Soul” the “Image”?

Speaker 2: That the soul which becomes… again, the image is also called soul (nefesh).

Speaker 1: No. Because we say that a person is a living being with a soul (chai b’nefesh) — it’s the same thing as saying that a person is matter and form.

Speaker 2: Again, again, again — I don’t know when to say it.

Speaker 1: The person, the intellect about which it says “image of God” (tzelem Elokim) — that is the form of the person complete in his knowledge (tzuras ha-adam ha-shalem b’da’ato). That is the meaning of “image of God.” That is not — it’s not the form visible to the eyes, and it’s also not the form or the soul that a person has as any living being, as an animal. Right?

What does “the soul found in every living being” mean? “Through which one eats, drinks, reproduces, senses, and thinks” (she-bah okhel v’shoseh u-molid u-margish u-meharher) — he feels, he thinks. Yes, all these things. “Living soul” (nefesh chayah) because animals have this too, animals have this too. It is not about this that “image of God” (tzelem Elokim) is stated!

Rather — “rather, the intellect, which is the form of the soul” (ela ha-de’ah she-hi tzuras ha-nefesh). The form of the form, as it were (tzuras ha-tzurah k’ilu).

The Soul Is the Form of the Matter — The Intellect Is the Form of the Soul

Speaker 1: The soul (nefesh) is the form of the matter — one can interpret it so, yes. There are places where the Rambam says this explicitly. Not Shemonah Perakim (the Rambam’s introduction to Pirkei Avos), explicitly — and I remember the Rambam says explicitly that the human intellect (da’as ha-adam) is like a form for the matter.

Key insight: What this means — always matter and form have a level, where above all the derivatives are a form, and they become the matter for the thing that is made. The same thing can be that the animal soul (nefesh ha-behami) of a person is the matter for the form of the person, which is the form of the soul (tzuras ha-nefesh) — which is the image of God (tzelem Elokim).

Speaker 2: Yes.

—

Caution Regarding Homonymous Terms — “It Should Be Understood from Its Context”

Speaker 1: Good. He says “even though the form of the soul” — first, therefore he says it twice, one needs to understand why. Okay.

He says, many times one calls — as in the Torah, or what does one call — the intellect is called “soul” (nefesh) or “spirit” (ruach), and people can think that we’re talking here about the basic soul or spirit, which simply makes a person live and drink and eat — the simple life force (koach ha-chayim).

“So that you should not err regarding homonymous terms, and each term should be understood from its context” (kedei she-lo tit’eh bi-shemos ha-meshutafim, v’khol shem va-shem yilamed me-inyano).

Speaker 2: Yes, he’s saying here as a general rule, that when the Torah says “soul” (nefesh), we need to know “from its context” (me-inyano) — from the context, apparently.

Speaker 1: Yes, “inyano” means context?

Speaker 2: Like here “it should be understood from its context” (yilamed me-inyano), yes? From the context.

Summary — The Rambam’s Distinction Between “Living Soul” and “Image”

Speaker 1: From the context. Okay, let’s finish, and let’s once more quickly make a quick summary.

The Rambam says here altogether what I’m telling you. He said two terms:

– He said a term “living soul” (nefesh chayah) — this is the living soul that all living creatures have.

– And he took here “image” (tzelem) — which is the “form of the complete person” (tzuras adam ha-shalem).

The Rambam says, you should not think that the Torah always insists on calling these two things by these two names. Many times it can say “soul” (nefesh) and it means the form, or perhaps the reverse. The reverse perhaps not. But many times it can say “soul” and it means the form.

So one must be careful with the names, the words that one sees, and understand from the context what is meant. Just as we said a desecration of God’s Name (chillul Hashem) — from diminishing God from His greatness — one must also not make a desecration of the name of man, by thinking that he only has a soul, only a basic soul. Rather, one must remember that he has a higher soul, a form-like soul.

—

Halachah 17 — Why the Intellect Does Not Die

The Intellect Is Not Composed of Elements

Speaker 1: “And this form of the soul…” — now I can understand why a person lives forever. He told me earlier that in this chapter we will understand why people die. I thought we were going to understand why people die. But we’re also going to understand which part of a person doesn’t die — why people die and why the soul (neshamah) doesn’t die.

He says a simple thing: “And this form of the soul” — he already says. We learned earlier that what causes death is that the elements become separated back to their… they cycle back, they return under a new combination of elements.

But he says, the form of the soul, the intellect (da’as) that a person can grasp as form — as he said — “it is not composed of the elements” (einah mechuberes min ha-yesodos) — it is not composed of elements. It’s not a body, it’s not composed of the four elements so that they should separate from each other — therefore it is not something that must die.

The Intellect Is Not from the Power of the Life-Force

Speaker 1: He says, “and it is not from the power of the soul/life-force” (v’einah mi-koach ha-neshamah) — it’s also not from the power of the life-force. He means the life force (koach ha-chayim), the soul that he has until now been calling “nefesh.” It’s not from the power of the life-force, from the force that lives in the person, that the intellect should need the life-force — “as the soul needs the body” (k’mo she-ha-neshamah tzrichah la-guf). The life force can only live in a body — it’s a life force that gives life to the body and lives in the body. But the intellect doesn’t need the life-force.

As long as a person lives it is connected, it’s something put together, but it doesn’t reside in the life-force — “rather, it is from God, from the heavens” (ela me-eis Hashem min ha-shamayim hi) — it’s directly from heaven.

Just as he says “form” — all forms are dependent on a form, which is a form for the body. This is a form that is not a form for the body.

What Happens at Death — Three Parts

Speaker 1: Therefore, “when the material body which is composed of the elements separates” (k’she-yipared ha-golem asher hu mechubor min ha-yesodos) — when the material part of a person, the material component of the person which is composed of elements, becomes separated —

And also so, and also yes, the soul thereof, the form thereof, is lost — “and the soul/life-force is lost” (v’to’vad ha-neshamah). The soul that gave life to that material body is lost.

Why is it lost? “Because it only exists with the body, and needs the body for all its functions” (l’fi she-einah metzuyah ela im ha-guf, u-tzrichah la-guf b’khol ma’aseha) — it is only a force that gives life to the body. Both — just as the body needs it, and it needs the body. That’s a little weird way to say it, but anyway —

So when this happens, that the elements become separated back, and the life-force is lost — he doesn’t say here where it goes, it is lost. It doesn’t go anywhere, it is lost.

Key insight — parable: Where does the “table-ness” of a table go when you break a table? It doesn’t go anywhere, it is lost.

The Intellect Is Not Cut Off

Speaker 1: But that’s not everything — there is still a part that lives. The form, the intellect — “this form will not be cut off” (lo tikares ha-tzurah ha-zos) — the form is not cut off, it is not severed.

Why? “Because it does not need the soul/life-force” (l’fi she-einah tzrichah la-neshamah) — if it would have needed the life-force, when the life-force ceases, that would have ceased too. But since it does not need the life-force in its functions — the power of the intellect doesn’t need the soul and the life-force in its functions. “Its functions” (ma’aseha) means “its knowing” (da’atah) — its actions are its knowledge, yes?

Key Insight: “It Doesn’t Say That It Can — It Says That It Knows”

Speaker 1: “ela yoda’as u’masheges” [rather, it knows and apprehends] — the power of the form is that it knows and apprehends “ha’de’os ha’prudos min ha’glamim” [the ideas/intellects that are separate from material bodies] — that it can apprehend ideas that are separate from material bodies. It can apprehend angels, it can apprehend abstract things. “v’yoda’as borei ha’kol” [and knows the Creator of all] — it can know God.

Speaker 2: It’s as if he’s not saying that it *can*, he’s saying that it *knows*.

Speaker 1: It never needed — it knows. He doesn’t say that it can.

Speaker 2: You’ve been inserting the whole time that it *can* — it doesn’t say it can, it says it knows.

Speaker 1: It can, and that comes from knowing. “Einah tzrichah” — it never needed. The da’as never needed to have!

Speaker 2: So what does it do? What does it actually need?

Speaker 1: When the neshamah is not there, it can continue to exist, because from the outset it didn’t need the neshamah.

Speaker 2: Yes, what does it need then?

Speaker 1: It can continue on, and be what it is — that it is a knower, and apprehends the ideas that are separate from material bodies. It can apprehend forms.

The Conclusion — “V’omedes l’olam u’l’olmei olamim”

Speaker 1: But I mean one thing — and it knows and continues to know the Creator of all — and consequently that is the meaning of “v’omedes l’olam u’l’olmei olamim” [and it endures forever and ever].

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 4 (continued) – The Da’as Belongs to God; Ma’aseh Bereishis and Ma’aseh Merkavah

—

Halachah 17 (continued) – The Da’as Is Not “Yours”

It can, and that comes from knowing. One thing — it never needed to have a need, the da’as never needed to have the neshamah. So what does it do? What does it actually need? When the neshamah is not there, it can continue to exist, because to begin with it didn’t need the neshamah.

Yes, what then? It can continue on and be what it is — that it is a knower, and apprehends the ideas, and the Creator of worlds. One can intellectually grasp forms, and it knows and continues to know the Creator of all, and consequently it endures forever and ever.

—

Discussion: What Changed After Death?

But what did change? What changed in the da’as, seemingly? That before, the person saw the da’as as a part of himself, which had already existed, so he had some connection to the body and nefesh.

—

Novel Insight: The Da’as Doesn’t Belong to the Person — It Belongs to God

What occurs to you? I only meant with one ear. How is my da’as different from your da’as? One thinks it rests on my body and nefesh. Why is it different? It is after all… it’s not so. That is yours.

That is the da’as that was only created for the sake of the neshamah. I do have it. He says the… ha’nefesh ha’metzuyah… no, the… nefesh kol basar — formation, so that was given, it won’t help. Yes, yes. That is — he’s speaking about, I’m speaking about da’as as a formation. Nefesh within nefesh. As long as a person lives, it exists within the nefesh. It has something upon it. Nefesh — Yisrael, adam means the next level, adam. But the adam is also a separate emergence, and not… it’s very clear. It’s one of the great… it doesn’t say this anywhere in the Rambam.

This is a problem that people have had, as you say. But it never says here in the Rambam that it’s yours. And it doesn’t even make sense to say it’s yours. It’s God’s. From Hashem, from Hashem, from Hashem — when He says it. It’s your da’as.

—

Novel Insight: The Distinction Between Koach (Potential) and Po’el (Actual)

You have a whole heart saying, I want to be cautious here, because it can be very brief. You’ve put a whole heart into saying that he *can*. It never says in the Rambam that Moshe *yachol lada’as* — is able to know. It says your da’as. It’s the knowledge in actuality — that’s what he calls it, that is the knowledge. The koach [potential] is something that belongs to you. The ability perhaps belongs to you. But the actual knowing is the knowing itself.

To whom does the science of reality belong? To the distinction in the land versus the other part of the person — is it aware of the knowledge? How does one know that it’s everywhere? Where does it say here? It doesn’t say.

—

Discussion: Is the Da’as Related to an Individual Person?

In what way is this knowledge related to the person? Where does it say here that it’s related to an individual person? Have you found such a thing in this chapter? I haven’t.

That is indeed what the Rambam places into the entire study of nefesh and creation. Very good, because that’s what he means. To be a person is not to be a personality — it is to be one who knows his Creator. It’s not something that belongs to Yoelish or to Yitzchak or to any person. It belongs to God. He truly deserves to have that, just as God deserves him.

But it’s not the same way as God knows Himself, rather it’s something different. It’s the person who knows his Creator. It’s the knowledge-path. Very good, but not *a* person — *the* person.

—

Discussion: The Problem of Knowledge — How Does the Da’as Relate to Each Individual Person?

And in what way does it relate to each individual person? Have you found that it says such a thing here? I don’t understand.

It’s a great problem. The Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim [Guide for the Perplexed] mentions this problem. They say that nobody knows the answer, or one reads that it’s a difficult problem. It’s a problem of knowledge.

But one must remember that it’s not clear, it’s not so. I don’t see it. Whoever learns a bit of Chassidus, for example, knows that the whole matter of thinking about oneself is the problem of the body. A neshamah thinks about God. A neshamah doesn’t need to judge, to ask how can the neshamah receive reward? You understand? The neshamah ceases to be “you” and begins to be God or with God. Very simple.

—

Halachah 17 (end) – The Verse “V’yashov He’afar Al Ha’aretz”

Alright, but… right here. Yes, Shlomo in his wisdom… one can delve into very deep matters. Yes, one shouldn’t. Shlomo in his wisdom… very good.

Everything we’ve learned is a verse: “V’yashov he’afar al ha’aretz” [Koheles 12:7]. We’re speaking here about the person. The dust-part of the person returns to the earth, as we learned earlier that the four elements become separated again.

“V’ha’ruach tashuv el ha’Elokim asher nesanah” — here “ruach” he’s speaking about the formation, yes, the knowledge of Hashem. “V’tashuv el ha’Elokim” — it returns. So that goes back. It was something in a separate world, but in a world of bodies. Now it becomes again a part of the general world of souls. “V’tashuv el ha’Elokim asher nesanah.” Okay, one needs to understand. The Rambam explained it. That’s it for now.

—

Discussion: Does the Da’as Return to Being “Knowledge of Himself”?

Now, if we want to make a summary — it returns from knowledge of his Creator, and it becomes again knowledge of Himself?

What? Where does it say knowledge of Himself? Like God knows Himself?

No, it’s still a created thing. It can’t become a god. It knows God in the best way that a neshamah can know God.

—

Halachah 18 – “K’mar Mi’dli” – Ma’aseh Bereishis

Alright. If you haven’t understood until now what the Rambam wanted in the first place, you shouldn’t worry, because here the Rambam comes to explain to us that even though one can’t fully understand it. He says that with this, one won’t understand.

Kol ha’devarim ha’eilu she’dibarnu b’inyan zeh k’mar mi’dli hem — it’s like the little bit of moisture that drips out of the bucket, from the pail, from the bowl. A drop, a drop from the sea.

—

Novel Insight: “K’mar Mi’dli” versus “Tipah Min Ha’yam” — A Precise Distinction

Ah, interesting. Earlier by the angels it said “tipah min ha’yam” [a drop from the sea], now it says “k’mar mi’dli” [like a drop from a bucket]. Kol ha’devarim ha’eilu k’mar mi’dli — that’s what it says there. But until now he was speaking about God Himself and the world of angels, now he’s speaking about the person. The person is not as great as the sea, the analogy is a bit smaller. True.

Well, it’s still a drop, but then the drop was from the sea, and now the drop is from the bowl. Okay.

U’devarim amukim hem — deep matters. He says clearly, he wants someone no depth in this matter of chapters one and two, because there one wants to explain to us something that is so many levels above us, and that is the world of angels, the world of separate forms.

But it’s still deep matters.

—

Halachah 18 (continued) – Chapters 3–4 = Ma’aseh Bereishis

He says, u’vi’ur kol eilu ha’devarim she’b’perek shlishi u’revi’i hu ha’nikra ma’aseh bereishis. What was in chapters one and two was ma’aseh merkavah, chapters three and four is called ma’aseh bereishis.

U’chvar tzivu chachamim ha’rishonim — that not only ma’aseh merkavah should one not expound upon. There by ma’aseh merkavah there were stricter things, they said one can’t learn it at all, not even to one person. But ma’aseh bereishis — a person alone may learn it. But he goes on to say: u’chvar tzivu chachamim ha’rishonim she’ein dorshin gam bi’devarim ha’eilu ba’rabim — that also in ma’aseh bereishis one should not expound publicly. Ela l’adam echad bilvad modi’in devarim eilu u’melamdin oso — only to one person at a time does one teach these matters.

—

Discussion: The Question on the Rambam — How Can He Write Ma’aseh Bereishis in a Book?

Ah, that’s the question we had last time — how can the Rambam do this? A question on the Rambam, it’s literally a contradiction. The Rambam says now: only to one person at a time. The text writes: one person learns it at a time, one can’t learn it for more than one person at a time.

I heard from R’ Motl — he said many times that one shouldn’t learn Chassidus with a chavrusa, one should learn alone. A chavrusa makes it worse. Okay, I didn’t say it exactly right.

—

Halachah 19 – The Distinction Between Ma’aseh Merkavah and Ma’aseh Bereishis

U’mah bein inyan ma’aseh merkavah l’inyan ma’aseh bereishis? What is the halachic distinction? That one needs to learn… no, no, not “mah bein” — what?

He says: She’inyan ma’aseh merkavah afilu l’echad ein dorshin bo — even to one person one doesn’t expound upon it. Ela im kein hayah chacham u’meivin mi’da’ato — only if he is a wise person and understands on his own. V’az mosrin lo roshei ha’perakim — then one teaches him only the chapter headings, the main principles.

V’inyan ma’aseh bereishis — is a somewhat easier matter. Melamdin oso l’yachid af al pi she’eino meivin oso mi’da’ato — and modi’in oso kol she’yachol leida mi’devarim eilu.

Ah, it makes sense. Since he’s a person who needs to have things explained to him, he’s not one who understands on his own, one needs to tell him everything. Ma’aseh merkavah one only tells to someone who doesn’t need to be told everything.

—

Discussion: The Distinction Between “Dorshin” and “Melamdin”

I think it’s interesting — the terms “dorshin” and “melamdin” are two different things. I think “melamdin oso” is the simple meaning, because the one who teaches him knows the entirety of ma’aseh bereishis, so he teaches him. Ma’aseh merkavah we can only expound upon — meaning we can make chiddushim in it, we can try to learn the plain meanings, because we don’t know ma’aseh merkavah as it truly is. Ma’aseh bereishis we can know somewhat as it truly is.

Speaker 2: I think that “doresh” is… “lidrosh ba’rabim” — I think that’s the meaning, to expound publicly. I don’t mean like derashos, like learning plain meanings. I don’t mean like derashos, learning plain meanings. Because when one gives a derashah, that’s what I mean. Actually, literally it means to investigate, but something like that. So I think when it says “ein dorshin” it means one doesn’t speak about it publicly, but to an individual, yes.

Speaker 1: Why does it say here… no, you’re right, perhaps because one doesn’t expound, one doesn’t teach, one only expounds so to speak to an individual.

No, I think “doresh” means one doesn’t teach him. So, when one learns ma’aseh merkavah it’s not teaching, because you don’t know ma’aseh merkavah as it truly is. Rather you expound upon ma’aseh merkavah — you investigate, you make your own analogies to understand a bit of ma’aseh merkavah. Whereas ma’aseh bereishis you can know enough to actually teach.

—

Discussion: Does the Rebbe Know Ma’aseh Merkavah?

But it doesn’t say, it doesn’t say in the Rambam that nobody knows ma’aseh merkavah.

Speaker 2: Who is assuming that the rebbe does know? He’s already writing this whole investigation, who doesn’t know… that the rebbe expounds, from what he knows he makes a complete Torah.

Speaker 1: Where does it say that the rebbe knows? The sage, the one who stated all these halachos, it’s a big issue where not to teach. What he says — you mean you, not a phrase — because he says he has no writing to make about the first chapter on merkavah, he just says Torah insights.

—

Halachah 19 (continued) – Why Doesn’t One Teach Ma’aseh Bereishis Publicly?

Speaker 2: The Rambam says, if there is a permission for ma’aseh bereishis, one may indeed teach it to an individual — if it says so, why not to the public?

He says: L’fi she’ein kol adam yesh lo da’as rechavah l’hasig peirush u’vi’ur kol ha’devarim al buryan.

Interesting — earlier he said that every person has a da’as, but not everyone has a broad da’as. By the way, he said that tzuras ha’adam ha’shalem b’da’ato — the Rambam never said that every person has a broad da’as. Yes, every person has a neshamah… God made the option, he could have — so he can have a potential… known when it needs to be in actuality. Yes, but yes, not everyone has… not everyone has a broad da’as.

L’hasig — meaning — u’vi’ur kol ha’devarim al buryan — clearly, “al buryan” means clearly, with clarity. From the language of birur [clarification]. Yes, we understand clearly. It’s a language of the sages. One doesn’t know what he means.

Well, well, because not everyone — either through a broad da’as you’ll accomplish nothing with teaching. It’s no different from ma’aseh merkavah, where there’s a concern that a person will learn false interpretations.

Did the Rambam say that? No, I’m asking, I’m thinking. He said it himself. What did the Rambam say? One doesn’t teach, because one needs to conceal it. That’s not why. Here he gives a reason why. I don’t know. Perhaps it applies to both. Perhaps it applies to both, why one doesn’t take it publicly.

Speaker 2: Can you — did you say it applies to ma’aseh bereishis, even when one takes it for an individual?

Speaker 1: Ma’aseh bereishis doesn’t say above that one may not do it publicly. Okay.

—

Parable: A Baby Eating Meat

A certain question — it’s said like when one goes to feed a baby meat. He would say the parable of meat and wine, yes? One goes to feed a baby meat, now it will ruin him. He doesn’t — it won’t help. Yes. One needs to give milk, small things.

—

Halachah 20 – Contemplation of Ma’aseh Bereishis — Love and Fear

Well, good. So earlier there is — very old that he said because of chapter 2. In chapter 2 he said that after one contemplates ma’aseh merkavah, one arrives at a great love of God. He also says, after one contemplates ma’aseh bereishis, one arrives at a level.

He says as follows: She’yisbonen bi’devarim eilu.

Speaker 2: Chapter 1, chapter 2 he only speaks about ma’aseh merkavah, no?

Speaker 1: Ma’aseh bereishis and wonders, both.

Speaker 2: Ma’aseh bereishis and the great wonders.

Speaker 1: I think it’s the same thing.

Speaker 2: Ah, okay.

Speaker 1: No, now he’s going to tell us in actuality. Then he said that it will happen, and now he says: “Look, you see that it happened.” Something like that.

Okay, he says as follows.

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 4 (continued) – Love, Fear, and the Pardes

Halachah 20 – Love for the Omnipresent Through Seeing Wisdom in Creation

He goes to see a tremendous wisdom, mosif ahavah la’Makom. He calls God here “Makom” — to God who made possible the whole thing, the entire existence. Mah hu nafsho — his nefesh will yearn, v’yichmah besaro — his flesh, another expression for nefesh, will also yearn. He will begin a tremendous yearning le’ehov ha’Makom baruch Hu — to love God. He will love Him and he will have a thirst to love more.

Novel Insight: What “Ahavah” Means — A Matter of Essence, Not Merely Wisdom

He doesn’t say clearly what happens in the World to Come (l’asid lavo). Earlier he said that in the World to Come there is a limit. He says, yes, he will want to understand, he will love God. Perhaps love simply means… have, Sefer HaAhavah [the Book of Love, a section of the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah] speaks — yes, no. He will love God, so he says.

But does the love itself mean understanding more of the wisdom? God forbid. He will have wisdom, he will love the Almighty, he will want to love the Almighty more through more wisdom. Yes, but it could be that love is a thing of essence. Love means holding that it is good. He will know through love, he will see that the Almighty is good. That is love (ahavah).

—

Fear/Awe (Yirah) – “And he feared and was afraid” – Seeing How Small One Is

And then awe/fear (yirah): “Va’yira va’yifchad” (and he feared and was afraid). He will be in awe of His wonders and His greatness. Not fear – fear only means that one sees that one is small. Yirah is an exaltedness (rommemus). Move back, right? He will see how small he is relative to the great Almighty. “Va’yira va’yifchad mi’shifluso u’daluso u’kaluso” (and he will fear and be afraid because of his own lowliness, poverty, and insignificance).

—

A Person Evaluates Himself Relative to the Celestial Spheres and Angels

He will see himself, he will evaluate himself relative to one of the great and mighty bodies. He’s not speaking relative to the angels, because angels don’t have bodies. The holy, holy great bodies – those are the celestial spheres (galgalim).

Insight: The Rambam Calls the Sun a “Holy Body”

Did you know that the Rambam calls the sun holy? Nobody knows this. The holy Rambam says that the sun is a holy body – a holy body, holy and great bodies. It’s holy. Holy (kadosh) means separated and set apart (nifrash v’nivdal) – it is far from us. Yes, I don’t know what holy means exactly. I’m telling you that the Rambam says that the body is holy.

“V’chol she’ken l’achas min ha’tzuros ha’tehoros ha’nifrados” (and all the more so relative to one of the pure, separate forms) – when a person stands himself up relative to the celestial spheres, or all the more so he stands himself up relative to the angels that are separate from matter, “she’einan chomer v’golem klal” (that are not matter and substance at all) – he will see how small he is. “V’yimtza atzmo she’hu k’chli malei bushah u’chlimah, reik v’chaser” (and he will find himself like a vessel full of shame and disgrace, empty and lacking).

Insight: The Distinction Between “Holy” (Bodies) and “Pure” (Forms)

It’s very interesting. The bodies are holy (kedoshim) and the forms are pure (tehorim). Very interesting. Pure (tahor) apparently means clean – that which is not in matter at all. And holy (kadosh) is something like a powerful form, a powerful matter that remains forever. That’s how it appears here, seemingly.

“V’yimtza atzmo she’hu k’chli malei bushah u’chlimah, reik v’chaser.”

—

Insight: The “Da’as” Is Not Ashamed – Only the “Man of Strong Soul”

It’s interesting. Again, the intellect (da’as) that previously saw – that recognizes his Creator (makir es bor’o) – is not ashamed.

Because he recognizes his Creator. It doesn’t say here being ashamed, it says recognizing his Creator. Awe, fear. And the way of the one who recognizes is fear. He is not afraid. Rather, the man of strong soul (gever nefesh), who also recognizes the celestial spheres and the angels, he is ashamed in the awe of exaltedness (yiras harommemus).

Discussion: Is the Separate Form of Man Ashamed?

Chavrusa: Good. You’re asking about the form… In order that it never becomes anything, so it’s also nothing. You’re asking about the separate form of man…

Speaker 1: The separate form of man is not ashamed of having a trace of fear. Because he is, after all, not matter and substance, for example. When the Rambam argued about this – if not that matter is indeed a bit stuck in the world, I mean, somehow, right? It seems correct, apparently. His connection to matter is something in the world, because it sees a pair… Okay, first of all, having it is correct. And secondly, it could still be that even, for example, the tenth angel also has shame, because he is not the purest angel, right? It could still be that there are greater things there than you. True.

—

Insight: Awe of Exaltedness – Relative to Spheres and Angels, Not Directly Relative to God

But it’s very important to grasp, or it’s interesting to grasp, that when the Rambam says awe of exaltedness (yiras harommemus), he means the exaltedness of the celestial spheres and the angels. Because a person cannot grasp the greatness of God – not in proportion (lo l’fi erech). Perhaps the first angel – he who is ashamed before the greatness of God – but we may be ashamed that we are not even a sun, and even the sun is not an angel.

—

Love vs. Awe – Where Do We See Them

Good. That is the awe of exaltedness, and the love is the recognition of the wisdom of God, may He be blessed, that is in all the creations and all the levels. The wisdom of God is also here in the world, also in matter and form, right? Not only at the level of recognition.

Insight: The Da’as Sees the Almighty Himself, but the Man of Strong Soul Contemplates the Creations

It’s indeed interesting that the separate form of man, the intellect (da’as), sees the Almighty Himself, whereas we, with our strong soul (gever nefesh), can contemplate the creations.

Discussion: Does the Da’as See the Almighty Directly?

Chavrusa: [Asks a question]

Speaker 1: Nobody said such a thing. Who told you that? That he sees here directly. It doesn’t say that. You keep saying that all the time, but it doesn’t say that. It says that the intellect (da’as) of man is what enables him to know separate/abstract entities (dvarim nifradim). But it doesn’t say that he can know separate entities. He cannot know fully as long as he is in a body, so it says in the learned chapter one, right? “Ki lo yirani ha’adam v’chai” (for no man shall see Me and live). Because that is a true… He’s not speaking to the body, he’s speaking to the form of man that is in a body, or to a soul that is in a body, you can say it on two levels, because that is still altogether… He is also in awe… He is the one who thinks, the thought falls, I don’t mean that.

Chavrusa: [Responds]

Speaker 1: I think that is the straightforward understanding… No, certainly not, certainly not, because he doesn’t understand separate forms at all. He needs to elaborate on the separate forms. He needs to elaborate on the separate forms. “Lo nischaber im golem klal” (did not connect with matter at all). He is, after all, not connected with matter. And also, he is a level lower. I mean, he is indeed a level lower, he is not the same level as them. So it makes sense even for this to be within our intellect.

—

Halacha 21 – “These Four Chapters… Are What the Sages of the Gemara Call Pardes”

The Five Mitzvos of Chapters 1–4

Yes. The Rambam continues – apparently here he has fulfilled what he promised at the beginning. In chapter 2, he said that he would teach, he would explain to us precisely what the contemplation of love consists of and the contemplation of awe.

The Rambam continues: “V’hinei arba’ah perakim eilu she’bahem chameish mitzvos eilu” (and behold, these four chapters that contain these five mitzvos) – apparently he is repeating what he said – that these chapters establish the five mitzvos that the Rambam enumerated, love and awe.

What are the five mitzvos?

1. Leida she’yesh (to know that there exists [a God])

2. She’lo ya’aleh al hada’as she’yesh eloah zulaso (that it should not arise in one’s mind that there is another god)

3. Leida she’hu echad (to know that He is one)

4. Ul’ahavo (and to love Him)

5. Ul’yir’o (and to fear Him)

Pardes = Four Entered the Orchard

The five mitzvos: “Hilchos chameish mitzvos eilu hen she’chachamim harishonim kor’in osan Pardes, k’mo she’amru arba’ah nichnesu la’Pardes” (the laws of these five mitzvos are what the early sages call Pardes, as they said, “Four entered the Pardes”).

The Rambam made them into four chapters so that it should match the word “arba’ah nichnesu la’Pardes” (four entered the Pardes). Okay. It’s actually “nichnesu arba’ah” more than “arba’ah nichnesu.” Okay.

—

The Four Who Entered the Pardes – Their Errors

“V’af al pi she’gedolei Yisrael hayu” (even though they were great ones of Israel) – meaning the four who entered the Pardes. The Gemara (Chagigah 14b) tells about four Tannaim: Rabbi Akiva, Ben Zoma, Ben Azzai, and Acher – Elisha ben Avuyah (known as “Acher,” the Other). They entered the Pardes. What does this mean? And the Gemara seems to indicate that they reached some lofty perception, they contemplated the workings of the Divine Chariot (ma’aseh merkavah) and the workings of Creation (ma’aseh bereishis), and not all of them understood it.

“V’af al pi she’gedolei Yisrael hayu v’chachamim gedolim hayu, lo chulam hayah bahen ko’ach leida u’l’hasig kol ha’dvarim al buriyan” – they were both great ones of Israel and great sages. Yes, “lo chulam hayah bahen ko’ach leida u’l’hasig kol ha’dvarim al buriyan” – they also could not, even they, not all of them – Rabbi Akiva did – not all of them were able to know and grasp the matters thoroughly.

Insight: The Rambam’s Interpretation of “He Peeked and Was Stricken” – Errors in Perception

And therefore the Rambam explains here that what it says “heitzitz v’nifga” (he peeked and was stricken) or “heitzitz u’meis” (he peeked and died) or “kitzetz bin’tios” (he cut the saplings) – these are all errors that they had. They didn’t understand correctly, and consequently it caused them all these things.

For example, that “heitzitz u’meis” (he peeked and died) means that his error was – he did perceive, but the part that is connected with the body, he could not handle. It could be that he simply had such an error, and it caused him to actually die. It could be both.

—

Halacha 22 – “And I Say” – The Rambam’s Own Insight: One May Not Stroll in the Pardes Before Eating

The Rambam says: “V’ani omer she’ein ra’ui l’hitayel ba’Pardes ela mi she’nismalei kreiso lechem u’vasar” (And I say that it is not fitting to stroll in the Pardes except for one who has filled his belly with bread and meat).

Insight: “And I Say” – The Rambam’s Own Approach

Besides what he said earlier that one cannot teach it to another and so on, there is another thing even for a person himself. Very interesting, this is an “and I say.” That means, they don’t grasp what’s going on here. Until now the Rambam in this section brought the halachos. Now he goes and says an “and I say” – I say my own approach. Interesting.

Insight: The Rambam Creates a Prohibition on the Person Himself, Not Just on the Teacher

I mean, here he also says not only regarding teaching others, because that is what the Sages teach, because from those Gemaras it is implied that if a person learns on his own, one doesn’t stop him. It could also be that since the Sages know that a person has a great curiosity, especially that a person has a curiosity to understand holy things, they don’t want to tell him “don’t do it.” On the contrary, you know that he has a great curiosity – that’s a respectable thing. The decree is on the teacher – you should not teach.

Well, the Rambam does create a prohibition. The Rambam creates a prohibition on the person himself who is learning. Interesting. The person himself goes for a stroll.

Insight: The Parable of “Strolling in the Pardes” – Taking a Walk After Eating

His approach – the Rambam created an interesting approach. He innovated the parable of “Pardes” as a stroll. When does one stroll? Not before the cholent. First eat cholent, then go for a stroll. They never grasp it – look at the parable. One can’t… I’m going to succeed…

Chavrusa: People actually like to exercise before eating, but yes, that’s what the… perhaps strolling is not the same thing as exercise.

Speaker 1: Yes, strolling is taking a walk.

Chavrusa: Not a big exercise.

Speaker 1: I actually like to go for a walk after the cholent. In the Zohar, indeed, when one goes out—

Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 4 – The Parable of “Strolling in the Pardes” and General Summary of Chapter 4

—

The Parable of “Strolling in the Pardes” – What Does “Strolling” Mean?

Speaker 1: He innovated the parable of “l’tayel ba’Pardes” (to stroll in the orchard) as a walk. When does one stroll? Not before the cholent. First one eats cholent, then one goes for a stroll.

Speaker 2: They never grasp it. One looks at the parable, one can’t… People like to exercise before eating, but yes…

Speaker 1: That’s what the… perhaps “strolling” is not the same thing as exercise. Perhaps “strolling” means taking a walk. Okay, it’s more of a… a… strolling is more of a pleasure.

He says that one goes strolling afterward, after eating. And the Zohar indeed – when one enters into the secrets of the Torah (sodos haTorah), one doesn’t stroll very much afterward.

Speaker 2: Ah, good, because of that.

—

The Lesson of the Parable – **”Only One Who Has Filled His Belly with Bread and Meat”**

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, therefore, if this is the lesson (nimshal) of “l’tayel ba’Pardes” – “ela mi she’nismalei kreiso lechem u’vasar” (only one who has filled his belly with bread and meat). First one needs to eat lunch, you understand? That’s a beautiful parable. And one doesn’t go strolling until one already has a “kreiso lechem u’vasar” (belly full of bread and meat).

—

Discussion: Why Does One Need “Bread and Meat” First?

Speaker 1: And what is this bread and meat? Why not?

Speaker 2: That one gets hungry quickly and will stop the walk, right?

Speaker 1: One doesn’t get… the first… okay. You say it, you say the parable. I want you to make the parable better. I never understand it. What if one goes beforehand, then what? He’s hungry, he won’t understand the Pardes? I don’t understand a word.

Speaker 2: He won’t have the peace of mind (menuchas hanefesh) to look around nicely in the Pardes.

Speaker 1: Okay. That could also be.

Speaker 2: A Pardes that is full of fruit – yes, he won’t become… he’ll be craving an apple the whole time, he’ll eat…

Speaker 1: Ah, ah, now you’re saying it better than me! Very good, you’re saying it better than me. The Pardes is not just a stroll. A Pardes is a place where things grow… When you have the expression “k’tifas neti’os” (cutting/plucking plantings), yes – he’ll tear things off. He’ll have written in the Pardes…

Speaker 2: He’ll want to eat up the first orange he sees, and he won’t see the full…

Speaker 1: Very good! He won’t see the whole goodness, because he’ll see an orange here, an orange there. Very good.

> [Insight] The parable of Pardes is not just a stroll – a Pardes is a place where fruit grows. A hungry person will pluck the first fruit he sees, instead of seeing the whole picture. This fits with the Rambam’s expression “k’tifas neti’os” – someone who is not ready for the Pardes will “pluck” pieces of Torah without understanding the whole picture.

—

What Is “Bread and Meat” – Explanation of the Forbidden and the Permitted

Speaker 1: “Lechem u’vasar” (bread and meat), as we are, is indeed an orange. Very good. “Lechem u’vasar” should be “lechem u’vasar” meaning “leida bi’ur isur v’heter” (to know the explanation of the forbidden and the permitted).

The concise version of them (kitzua bahen) means… the simple questions that you asked in the other introduction. The halachos, the halachos, the halachos. The halachos of the rest of the mitzvos.

Speaker 2: “Bi’ur” (explanation) – doesn’t it perhaps mean the explanation of forbidden and permitted – the reason why something is forbidden and permitted?

Speaker 1: Okay. No, certainly not. “Bi’ur” doesn’t mean that. Just as the Rambam said earlier – halachah. Mitzvos, he said in the introduction. The entire work is “bi’ur ha’mitzvos” (explanation of the mitzvos) – how to fulfill the mitzvos.

—

“A Small Matter” and “A Great Matter” – Why First the Small Matter?

Speaker 1: That is what one needs to learn first. Invalid, valid, apparently – invalid, valid, the other things he enumerated – impure, pure, and the like.

“V’af al pi she’kol ha’dvarim ha’eilu ‘davar katan’ kar’u osam chachamim” (even though the Sages called all these things a “small matter”) – when a person asks a halachah – yes, the halachos of mitzvos, it’s a “small matter” (davar katan). “She’harei amru chachamim: davar gadol – ma’aseh merkavah, v’davar katan – havayos d’Abaye v’Rava” (for the Sages said: a great matter – the workings of the Divine Chariot; a small matter – the discussions of Abaye and Rava).

“Havayos” is written here – interesting. Okay. The goings-on of Abaye and Rava, the questions and answers, the halachos that one learns from Abaye and Rava. We see in today’s Gemara that yes, that ma’aseh merkavah is indeed a greater thing.

And consequently a person would think: why do I need to occupy myself with a small matter? I need to occupy myself only with the great matter!

> [Question] This is perhaps also a difficulty with his parable. His parable was that this is the comfort and this is not the comfort, this is the great thing.

—

Three Reasons Why One Needs the “Small Matter” First

Speaker 1: As we said earlier – we said earlier that he gives perhaps three reasons, apparently.

Reason 1 – To Settle a Person’s Mind First

Speaker 1: He says: “Kedei l’yashev da’ato shel adam techilah” (to settle a person’s mind first). They ground the person, they settle his mind – to know what he has to do, to know what is important. Okay.

Reason 2 – A Great Benefit for the Settlement of This World

Speaker 1: “V’od” (and furthermore) – another reason. That was the first reason. “V’od, she’hen” – the halachos – “iz a tovah gedolah she’hishpi’a HaKadosh Baruch Hu l’yishuv ha’olam hazeh, kedei lin’chol chayei ha’olam haba” (are a great benefit that the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed for the settlement of this world, in order to inherit the life of the World to Come).

Even if for you personally there is indeed ma’aseh merkavah which is a great matter, but for the settlement of the world – that people should be able to live in the world – there is the Torah and mitzvos, that this establishes a living society. Just as the Rambam says in many places: that for a person to be able to live as a community, there must be all the Torah and mitzvos.

—

Discussion: Does the Rambam Mean “Community”?

Speaker 2: Not sure that this is what he means.

Speaker 1: I think it fits very well. First, for yourself alone it is the settling of your mind, and then Torah. He doesn’t say “community,” he doesn’t say “kehillah.”

Speaker 2: But I would have thought that this is simply a true explanation. You want settlement – so you say settling of the mind and settling of the world. But settling of the world consists of settling of the mind for every person.

Speaker 1: What does settling of the mind for other people consist of?

Speaker 2: I mean that he says that since you live in a society, so first you should know the basics, and in this way the entire society should be people who know what they have to do – there should be a society.

Speaker 1: I don’t think so. Because ma’aseh merkavah takes a person out of the community. He goes into his own little world, he goes to seclude himself in the orchard outside the city.

But he doesn’t say that. I don’t know, I’m not sure. Let’s continue further.

—

Reason 3 – Equal for Every Soul

Speaker 1: And another thing – that the halachos, perhaps also the matter, the discussions of Abaye and Rava, the halachos – perhaps there is something that every single person can know, “gadol v’katan, ish v’ishah” – great and small, man and woman. “Ba’al lev rachav” – there is a person who has a great intellect, a great heart – “u’va’al lev katzar” – he has a small intellect.

So first one should do that which is equal for every soul – this is good for every single person – and only afterward can you engage in your ma’aseh merkavah.

—

Chiddush: Pardes vs. Bread – Individual vs. Group

> [Chiddush] Speaker 1: So this is an interesting thing – that pardes is something that grows only for oneself, only a person alone can draw from it. Lechem abirim – bread of the mighty – is always a group, a group of people together – one needs to have all the angels with a mouth, one needs to have intellect and an animal. So lechem abirim is what one eats in a group. Pardes is a good fruit – that which one eats outside.

Adam, the first man, lived there, he indeed lived more in an orchard, in the Garden of Eden – there were trees there, and one took – there was no agriculture. One can make a good foundation, but yes.

—

The Rambam’s Approach: 608 Mitzvos for This World

Speaker 1: Apparently what it says here, in any case in this second piece, is basically the Rambam’s story of how the Torah truly works. The Torah is indeed not only ma’aseh bereishis, ma’aseh merkavah – there are five mitzvos. But how many more mitzvos do you have?

Speaker 2: 608, yes?

Speaker 1: 608 mitzvos, yes? Is that right? 608 mitzvos are mitzvos of this world. That is what he means to say. You need to remember: how does the World to Come work? The World to Come – the Rambam told you earlier: “tzuras ha’adam hashalem b’da’ato” – the form of the person perfected in his knowledge, which is knowledge of his Creator, and he lives forever.

—

Discussion: What If One Only Does 608 Mitzvos Without the Five?

Speaker 1: What if someone does the rest of the Torah without the five mitzvos – does he only have this world and not the World to Come?

Speaker 2: You asked, if so, what is the great benefit of the Torah?

Speaker 1: That is the great benefit! Because in truth, since a person first needs to have a world, first a settled mind, in order to be able to engage in the orchard – the Almighty indeed gave the Torah to the Jewish people, on a simple level, as a great goodness – every single person can do it – so that afterward the select few should be able to have the World to Come, should be able through this to go further to the next level.

> [Chiddush] This is more or less the way the Rambam understands the Torah. Apparently this is what he says here. By the way, one needs to be more precise in every word.

—

Another Point: Halachah Is Body and Soul Connected

Speaker 2: Perhaps one more small point – it could be that halachah is the part that is body and soul connected. A person’s intellect has enough time – the intellect is forever. The intellect could have always comprehended the Creator. Okay.

Speaker 1: What do you need to grasp while you are learning the matters that are body and soul?

Speaker 2: I hear, I hear. It’s a question whether… okay, yes. It’s a question whether you need to be able to learn on your own, or you just need to have a foundation, or you already know how to learn on your own.

Speaker 1: Yes, one needs to understand this.

—

General Summary of Chapter 4

Speaker 1: Why did we learn this chapter? I’m not going to tell you what we learned. We learned…

In this chapter we learned:

1. Matter and form / raw material and form – about the things that are body and soul. Everything in the world is composed of matter and form or raw material and form.

2. The four elements – and the raw material thereof is always composed of the four elements. The Rambam went into great depth about what the four elements are – they are beneath the lowest sphere.

3. Death – and because of this, since everything is composed of the four elements, the elements become separated again or they become compounded again in a different kind of puzzle – because of this, people die. Everything dies, all bodies in the world.

4. Soul – the human being, besides having a body that is composed of the four elements, also has a soul.

5. Intellect – and afterward the Rambam said that there is another level that a person has – the intellect, the power of intellect, which remains forever.

6. Love, awe, shame – and afterward the Rambam went into the idea that when a person contemplates these things, it brings him a great love of God and a great awe of God and a shame at how small he is compared to the great spheres and angels.

7. Why not learn in public – and afterward the Rambam discussed a halachah: if this is so important, why shouldn’t one learn it in public, and why shouldn’t one even begin to engage in it – rather, first one should perfect oneself in halachah, in the world of Abaye and Rava.

Speaker 1: Yes, and this is all an explanation for why now the rest of the book is basically going to be a book of Abaye and Rava, because that is what one needs first. And after one finishes the entire book in about three years, one comes back here.

—

Chiddush: What Are These Four Chapters Really?

> [Chiddush] Speaker 1: It’s very interesting. It means that these four chapters are not yet the beginning of the orchard – it is advice to know that there is an orchard. Now we are going to go learn, now we are going to fill our bellies with bread and meat – but you must know what kind of orchard is there.

And the Rambam has given you that there is an orchard. This is the gate of the orchard, as the Rambam already says: “pesach l’meivin” – an opening for the understanding one. This is the gate of the orchard, the gate to Eden. And it seems to me that one must engage in this world, the settlement of the world, and come back to here – then one will understand it properly.

—

Source: Pardes = Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod

Speaker 1: Alright. Who is the first source that says pardes stands for pshat, remez, drash, sod? Does it appear in the holy Zohar or in the Arizal?

Speaker 2: It appears in the Zohar, Rabbi Avshalom.

Speaker 1: Yes, it fits with the Rambam’s idea, because the part of sod is the Rambam regarding the…

Speaker 2: According to remez, pardes means pshat, remez, drash, sod. But according to the simple meaning, it means the Garden of Eden or some other place, it’s uncertain.

Speaker 1: A garden – that is the parable.

Speaker 2: The parable, okay.

—

Conclusion

Speaker 1: Yasher koach. The audience should… it was a long shiur. With God’s help we will try not to make such long shiurim, because those with a broad heart and those with a narrow heart should be able to learn, because it was a long chapter and yet it is a very complicated matter.

So we therefore ask the audience: if they have held on until here, with God’s help, they should learn it in a few segments and not learn it all at once, yes.