The
Freedom
“‘Harut
[engraved]
on
the
tablets’;
do
not
pronounce
it
Harut,
but
rather
Herut
[freedom],
to
show
that
they
were
liberated
from
the
angel
of
death.”
[Shemot
Rabbah
41]
These
words
need
to
be
clarified,
for
how
is
the
matter
of
acceptance
of
the
Torah
related
to
one’s
liberation
from
death?
Furthermore,
once
they
have
attained
an
eternal
body
that
cannot
die
through
the
acceptance
of
the
Torah,
how
did
they
lose
it
again?
Can
the
eternal
become
absent?
Freedom
of
Will
To
understand
the
sublime
concept,
“freedom
from
the
angel
of
death,”
we
must
first
understand
the
concept
of
freedom
as
it
is
normally
understood
by
all
of
humanity.
It
is
a
general
view
that
freedom
is
deemed
a
natural
law,
which
applies
to
all
of
life.
Thus,
we
see
that
animals
that
fall
into
captivity
die
when
we
rob
them
of
their
freedom.
This
is
a
true
testimony
that
Providence
does
not
accept
the
enslavement
of
any
creature.
It
is
with
good
reason
that
humanity
has
been
struggling
for
the
past
several
hundred
years
to
obtain
a
certain
measure
of
freedom
of
the
individual.
Yet,
this
concept,
expressed
in
that
word,
“freedom,”
remains
unclear,
and
if
we
delve
into
the
meaning
of
that
word,
there
will
be
almost
nothing
left,
for
before
you
seek
the
freedom
of
the
individual,
you
must
assume
that
any
individual,
in
and
of
himself,
has
that
quality
called
“freedom,”
meaning
that
one
can
act
according
to
one’s
choice
of
one’s
own
free
will.
Pleasure
and
Pain
However,
when
we
examine
the
acts
of
an
individual,
we
will
find
them
compulsory.
He
is
compelled
to
do
them
and
has
no
freedom
of
choice.
In
a
sense,
he
is
like
a
stew
cooking
on
a
stove;
it
has
no
choice
but
to
cook,
since
Providence
has
harnessed
life
with
two
chains:
pleasure
and
pain.
The
living
creatures
have
no
freedom
of
choice—to
choose
pain
or
reject
pleasure.
And
man’s
advantage
over
animals
is
that
man
can
aim
at
a
remote
goal,
meaning
agree
to
a
certain
amount
of
current
pain,
out
of
choice
of
future
benefit
or
pleasure
to
be
attained
after
some
time.
But
in
fact,
there
is
no
more
than
a
seemingly
commercial
calculation
here,
where
the
future
benefit
or
pleasure
seems
preferable
and
advantageous
to
the
agony
they
are
suffering
from
the
pain
they
have
agreed
to
assume
presently.
There
is
only
a
matter
of
deduction
here—where
they
deduct
the
pain
and
suffering
from
the
anticipated
pleasure,
and
there
remains
some
surplus.
Thus,
only
the
pleasure
is
extended.
And
so
it
sometimes
happens
that
we
are
tormented
because
the
pleasure
we
received
is
not
the
surplus
we
had
hoped
for
compared
to
the
agony
we
suffered.
Hence,
we
are
in
deficit,
just
as
are
merchants.
And
when
all
is
said
and
done,
there
is
no
difference
here
between
man
and
animal.
And
if
this
is
the
case,
there
is
no
free
choice
whatsoever,
but
a
pulling
force
drawing
them
toward
any
passing
pleasure
and
rejecting
them
from
painful
circumstances.
And
Providence
leads
them
to
every
place
it
chooses
by
means
of
these
two
forces
without
asking
their
opinion
in
the
matter.
Moreover,
even
determining
the
type
of
pleasure
and
benefit
are
entirely
out
of
one’s
own
free
choice,
but
follows
the
will
of
others,
as
they
want,
and
not
he.
For
example:
I
sit,
I
dress,
I
speak,
and
I
eat.
I
do
all
these
not
because
I
want
to
sit
that
way,
or
talk
that
way,
or
dress
that
way,
or
eat
that
way,
but
because
others
want
me
to
sit,
dress,
talk,
and
eat
that
way.
It
all
follows
the
desire
and
fancy
of
society,
and
not
my
own
free
will.
Furthermore,
in
most
cases,
I
do
all
these
against
my
will.
For
I
would
be
more
comfortable
behaving
simply,
without
any
burden.
But
I
am
chained
with
iron
shackles,
in
all
my
movements,
to
the
fancies
and
manners
of
others,
which
make
up
the
society.
So
tell
me,
where
is
my
freedom
of
will?
On
the
other
hand,
if
we
assume
that
the
will
has
no
freedom,
and
we
are
all
like
machines
operating
and
creating
through
external
forces,
which
force
them
to
act
this
way,
it
means
that
we
are
all
incarcerated
in
the
prison
of
Providence,
which,
using
these
two
chains,
pleasure
and
pain,
pushes
and
pulls
us
to
its
will,
to
where
it
sees
fit.
It
turns
out
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
selfishness
in
the
world,
since
no
one
here
is
free
or
stands
in
his
own
right.
I
am
not
the
owner
of
the
act
and
I
am
not
the
doer
because
I
want
to
do.
Rather,
it
is
because
I
am
worked
upon
against
my
will
and
without
my
awareness.
Thus,
reward
and
punishment
become
extinct.
And
it
is
quite
odd
not
only
for
the
religious,
who
believe
in
His
Providence
and
can
rely
on
Him
and
trust
that
He
aims
only
for
the
best
in
this
conduct.
It
is
even
stranger
for
those
who
believe
in
nature,
since
according
to
the
above-said,
we
are
all
incarcerated
by
the
chains
of
blind
nature,
with
no
awareness
or
accountability.
And
we,
the
chosen
species,
with
reason
and
knowledge,
have
become
a
toy
in
the
hands
of
the
blind
nature,
which
leads
us
astray,
and
who
knows
where?
The
Law
of
Causality
It
is
worthwhile
taking
some
time
to
grasp
such
an
important
thing,
meaning
how
we
exist
in
the
world
as
beings
with
a
“self,”
where
each
of
us
regards
himself
as
a
unique
entity,
acting
on
its
own,
independent
of
external,
alien,
and
unknown
forces,
and
in
what
this
being—the
self—becomes
revealed
to
us.
It
is
true
that
there
is
a
general
connection
among
all
the
elements
of
reality
before
us,
which
abides
by
the
law
of
causality,
by
way
of
cause
and
effect,
moving
forward.
And
as
the
whole,
so
is
each
item
for
itself,
meaning
that
each
and
every
creature
in
the
world
from
the
four
types—still,
vegetative,
animate,
and
speaking—abides
by
the
law
of
causality
by
way
of
cause
and
effect.
Moreover,
each
particular
form
of
a
particular
conduct,
which
a
creature
follows
while
in
this
world,
is
pushed
by
ancient
causes,
compelling
it
to
accept
that
change
in
that
conduct
and
not
another
whatsoever.
This
is
apparent
to
all
who
examine
the
ways
of
nature
from
a
pure
scientific
point
of
view
and
without
a
mixture
of
bias.
Indeed,
we
must
analyze
this
matter
to
allow
ourselves
to
examine
it
from
all
sides.
Four
Factors
Bear
in
mind
that
every
emergence
occurring
in
the
beings
of
the
world
must
be
perceived
not
as
extending
existence
from
absence,
but
as
existence
from
existence,
through
an
actual
entity
that
has
shed
its
previous
form
and
has
robed
its
current
one.
Therefore,
we
must
understand
that
in
every
emergence
in
the
world
there
are
four
factors
where
from
the
four
of
them
together
arises
that
emergence.
They
are
called
by
the
names:
-
The
source.
-
The
unchanging
conduct
of
cause
and
effect
related
to
the
source’s
own
attribute.
-
Its
internal
conducts
of
cause
and
effect
which
change
by
contact
with
alien
forces.
-
The
conducts
of
cause
and
effect
of
alien
things
which
affect
it
from
the
outside.
I
will
clarify
them
one
at
a
time.
The
First
Reason:
the
Source,
the
First
Matter
A)
The
“source”
is
the
first
matter,
related
to
that
being.
For
“there
is
nothing
new
under
the
sun,”
and
anything
that
happens
in
our
world
is
not
existence
from
absence,
but
existence
from
existence.
It
is
an
entity
that
has
stripped
off
its
former
shape
and
taken
on
another
form,
different
from
the
first.
And
that
entity,
which
shed
its
previous
form,
is
defined
as
“the
source.”
In
it
lies
the
potential
destined
to
be
revealed
and
determined
at
the
end
of
the
formation
of
that
emergence.
Therefore,
it
is
clearly
considered
its
primary
cause.
The
Second
Reason:
Cause
and
Effect
that
Stem
from
Itself
B)
This
is
a
conduct
of
cause
and
effect
related
to
the
source’s
own
attribute,
and
which
is
unchanging.
Take,
for
example,
a
stalk
of
wheat
that
has
rotted
in
the
ground
and
arrived
at
a
state
of
sowing
many
stalks
of
wheat.
Thus,
that
rotten
state
is
deemed
the
“source,”
meaning
that
the
essence
of
the
wheat
has
stripped
off
its
former
shape,
the
shape
of
wheat,
and
has
taken
on
a
new
quality,
that
of
rotten
wheat,
which
is
the
seed
called
“the
source,”
which
has
no
shape
at
all.
Now,
after
rotting
in
the
ground,
it
has
become
suitable
for
robing
another
form,
the
form
of
many
stalks
of
wheat,
intended
to
emerge
from
that
source,
which
is
the
seed.
It
is
known
to
all
that
this
source
is
destined
to
become
neither
grain
nor
oats,
but
only
equalize
with
its
former
shape,
which
has
left
it,
being
the
single
stalk
of
wheat.
Although
it
changes
to
a
certain
degree
in
quality
and
quantity,
for
in
the
former
shape
it
was
a
single
stalk,
and
now
there
are
ten
stalks,
and
in
taste
and
appearance,
too,
the
essence
of
the
shape
of
the
wheat
remains
unchanged.
Thus,
there
is
a
conduct
of
cause
and
effect
here,
ascribed
to
the
source's
own
attribute,
which
never
changes.
Thus,
grain
will
never
emerge
from
wheat,
as
we
have
said,
and
this
is
called
“the
second
reason.”
The
Third
Reason:
Internal
Cause
and
Effect
C)
This
is
the
conduct
of
the
internal
cause
and
effect
of
the
source,
which
changes
upon
encountering
the
alien
forces
in
its
environment.
Thus,
we
find
that
from
one
stalk
of
wheat,
which
rots
in
the
ground,
many
stalks
emerge,
sometimes
larger
and
better
wheat
than
prior
to
sowing.
Therefore,
there
must
be
additional
factors
involved
here,
collaborating
and
connecting
with
the
force
concealed
in
the
environment,
meaning
the
“source.”
And
because
of
this,
the
additions
in
quality
and
quantity,
which
were
absent
in
the
previous
form
of
wheat,
have
now
appeared.
Those
are
the
minerals
and
the
materials
in
the
ground,
the
rain,
and
the
sun.
All
these
operate
on
it
by
administering
from
their
forces
and
joining
the
force
within
the
source
itself.
And
through
the
conduct
of
cause
and
effect,
they
have
produced
the
multiplicity
in
quantity
and
quality
in
that
emergence.
We
must
understand
that
this
third
factor
joins
the
internality
of
the
source,
since
the
force
hidden
in
the
source
controls
them.
In
the
end,
all
these
changes
belong
to
the
wheat
and
to
no
other
plant.
Hence,
we
define
them
as
internal
factors.
However,
they
differ
from
the
second
factor,
which
is
utterly
unchanging,
whereas
the
third
factor
changes
in
both
quality
and
quantity.
The
Fourth
Reason:
Cause
and
Effect
through
Alien
Things
D)
This
is
a
conduct
of
cause
and
effect
of
alien
things
that
act
upon
it
from
the
outside.
In
other
words,
they
have
no
direct
relation
to
the
wheat,
like
minerals,
rain,
or
sun,
but
are
alien
to
it,
such
as
nearby
things
or
external
events,
such
as
hail,
wind,
etc.
And
you
find
that
four
factors
combine
to
the
wheat
throughout
its
growth.
Each
particular
state
that
the
wheat
is
subject
to
during
that
time
becomes
conditioned
on
the
four
of
them,
and
the
quality
and
quantity
of
each
state
is
determined
by
them.
As
we
have
portrayed
in
the
wheat,
so
is
the
rule
in
every
emergence
in
the
world,
even
in
thoughts
and
ideas.
If,
for
example,
we
picture
some
conceptual
state
in
a
certain
individual,
such
as
a
state
of
a
person
being
religious
or
non-religious,
or
an
extreme
orthodox
or
not
so
extreme,
or
midway,
we
will
understand
that
that
state
was
established
in
that
person
by
the
four
above
factors.
Hereditary
Possessions
The
cause
of
the
first
reason
is
the
source,
which
is
its
first
substance.
Man
is
created
existence-from-existence,
meaning
from
the
minds
of
its
progenitors.
Thus,
to
a
certain
extent,
he
is
like
a
replication
from
book
to
book.
This
means
that
almost
all
the
matters
that
were
accepted
and
attained
in
the
fathers
and
forefathers
are
replicated
here,
as
well.
But
the
difference
is
that
they
are
in
an
abstract
form,
like
the
sowed
wheat
that
is
not
fit
for
sowing
until
it
has
rotted
and
shed
its
former
shape.
So
is
the
case
with
the
drop
of
sperm
from
which
man
is
born:
There
is
nothing
in
it
of
its
forefathers’
shapes,
only
abstract
force.
For
the
same
ideas
that
were
concepts
in
his
forefathers
have
turned
into
mere
tendencies
in
him,
called
“instincts”
or
“habits,”
without
even
knowing
why
one
does
what
he
does.
Indeed,
they
are
hidden
forces
he
had
inherited
from
his
ancestors
in
a
way
that
not
only
do
the
material
possessions
come
to
us
by
inheritance
from
our
ancestors,
but
the
spiritual
possessions
and
all
the
concepts
that
our
fathers
engaged
in
also
come
to
us
by
inheritance
from
generation
to
generation.
From
here
come
the
manifold
tendencies
that
we
find
in
people,
such
as
a
tendency
to
believe
or
to
criticize,
a
tendency
to
settle
for
material
life
or
desiring
only
spiritual,
moral
wholeness,
despising
a
worthless
life,
stingy,
yielding,
insolent,
or
shy.
All
these
pictures
that
appear
in
people
are
not
their
own
property,
which
they
have
acquired,
but
mere
inheritance
that
had
been
given
to
them
by
their
ancestors.
It
is
known
that
there
is
a
special
place
in
the
human
brain
where
these
hereditaments
reside.
It
is
called
“the
elongated
brain,”
or
“subconscious,”
and
all
the
tendencies
appear
there.
But
because
the
concepts
of
our
ancestors,
acquired
through
their
experiences,
have
become
mere
tendencies
in
us,
they
are
considered
the
same
as
the
sowed
wheat,
which
has
taken
off
its
former
shape
and
has
remained
bare,
having
only
potential
forces
fit
of
receiving
new
forms.
In
our
matter,
these
tendencies
will
robe
the
forms
of
concepts.
This
is
considered
the
first
matter,
and
this
is
the
primary
factor,
called
“source.”
In
it
reside
all
the
forces
of
the
unique
tendencies
he
had
inherited
from
his
progenitors,
which
are
defined
as
“ancestral
heritage.”
Bear
in
mind
that
some
of
these
tendencies
come
in
a
negative
form,
meaning
the
opposite
of
the
ones
that
were
in
the
ancestors.
This
is
why
they
said,
“All
that
is
concealed
in
the
father’s
heart
emerges
openly
in
the
son.”
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
source
takes
off
its
former
shape
in
order
to
take
on
a
new
form.
Hence,
it
is
close
to
losing
the
shapes
of
the
concepts
of
the
ancestors,
like
the
wheat
that
rots
in
the
ground
loses
the
shape
that
existed
in
the
wheat.
However,
it
still
depends
on
the
other
three
factors,
as
I
have
written
above.
Influence
of
the
Environment
The
second
reason
is
an
unchanging,
direct
conduct
of
cause
and
effect,
related
to
the
source’s
own
attribute.
Meaning,
as
we
have
clarified
with
the
wheat
that
rots
in
the
ground,
the
environment
in
which
the
source
rests,
such
as
soil,
minerals,
and
rain,
air,
and
the
sun
affect
the
sowing
by
a
long
chain
of
cause
and
effect
in
a
long
and
gradual
process,
state
by
state,
until
it
ripens.
And
that
source
retakes
its
former
shape,
the
shape
of
wheat,
but
differing
in
quality
and
quantity.
In
their
general
aspect,
they
remain
completely
unchanged;
hence,
no
grain
or
oats
will
grow
from
it.
But
in
their
particular
aspect,
they
change
in
quantity,
as
from
one
stalk
emerge
a
dozen
or
two
dozen
stalks,
and
in
quality,
as
they
are
better
or
worse
than
the
former
shape
of
the
wheat.
It
is
the
same
here:
Man,
as
a
“source,”
is
placed
in
an
environment,
meaning
in
the
society.
He
is
necessarily
affected
by
it,
as
the
wheat
from
its
environment,
for
the
source
is
but
a
raw
form.
Thus,
through
the
constant
contact
with
the
environment
and
the
society,
he
is
gradually
impressed
by
them
through
a
chain
of
consecutive
states,
one
by
one,
as
cause
and
effect.
At
that
time,
the
tendencies
included
in
his
source
change
and
take
on
the
form
of
concepts.
For
example,
if
one
inherits
from
his
ancestors
a
tendency
to
stinginess,
as
he
grows
he
builds
for
himself
concepts
and
ideas
that
conclude
decisively
that
it
is
good
for
a
person
to
be
stingy.
Thus,
although
his
father
was
generous,
he
might
inherit
from
him
the
negative
tendency—to
be
stingy—for
the
absence
is
just
as
much
inheritance
as
the
presence.
Or,
if
one
inherits
from
one’s
ancestors
a
tendency
to
be
open-minded,
he
builds
for
himself
concepts
and
draws
from
them
conclusions
that
it
is
good
for
a
person
to
be
open-minded.
But
where
does
one
find
those
sentences
and
reasoning?
He
takes
all
this
from
the
environment
unconsciously,
for
they
impart
upon
him
their
views
and
likings
in
the
form
of
gradual
cause
and
effect.
Hence,
man
regards
them
as
his
own
possession,
which
he
acquired
through
his
free
thought.
But
here,
too,
as
with
the
wheat,
there
is
one
unchanging
part
of
the
source,
which
is
that
in
the
end,
the
tendencies
he
had
inherited
remain
as
they
were
in
his
forefathers.
This
is
called
“the
second
factor.”
Habit
Becomes
a
Second
Nature
The
third
reason
is
a
conduct
of
direct
cause
and
effect,
which
affect
the
source
and
change
it.
Because
the
inherited
tendencies
in
man
have
become
concepts
due
to
the
environment,
they
operate
in
the
same
directions
that
these
concepts
define.
For
example,
a
man
of
frugal
nature,
in
whom
the
tendency
to
stinginess
has
been
turned
into
a
concept,
through
the
environment,
perceives
frugality
through
some
reasonable
definition.
Let
us
assume
that
by
this
conduct
he
protects
himself
from
needing
other
people.
Thus,
he
has
acquired
a
scale
for
frugality,
and
when
that
fear
is
absent,
he
can
waive
it.
It
follows
that
he
has
changed
substantially
for
the
better
from
the
tendency
he
had
inherited
from
his
forefathers.
And
sometimes
one
manages
to
completely
uproot
a
bad
tendency.
This
is
done
by
habit,
which
has
the
ability
to
become
a
second
nature.
In
that,
the
strength
of
man
is
greater
than
that
of
a
plant,
for
wheat
can
change
only
in
its
own
part,
whereas
man
can
change
through
the
cause
and
effect
of
the
environment,
even
in
the
general
parts,
meaning
to
completely
uproot
a
tendency
and
invert
it
to
its
opposite.
External
Factors
The
fourth
reason
is
a
conduct
of
cause
and
effect
that
affects
the
source
by
things
that
are
completely
alien
to
it
and
operates
on
it
from
the
outside.
This
means
that
these
things
are
not
at
all
related
to
the
source’s
growth
conduct
to
affect
it
directly.
Rather,
they
operate
indirectly.
For
example,
finances,
burdens,
or
the
winds,
etc.,
have
their
own
complete,
slow,
and
gradual
order
of
states
by
way
of
“cause
and
effect”
that
change
man’s
concepts
for
better
or
for
worse.
Thus,
I
have
set
up
the
four
natural
factors
that
each
thought
and
idea
that
appears
in
us
is
but
their
fruits.
Even
if
one
were
to
sit
and
contemplate
something
all
day
long,
he
will
not
be
able
to
add
or
to
alter
what
those
four
factors
give
him.
Any
addition
he
can
add
is
in
the
quantity:
whether
a
great
intellect
or
a
small
one.
But
in
the
quality,
he
cannot
add
one
bit.
This
is
because
they
are
the
ones
that
compellingly
determine
the
nature
and
shape
of
the
idea
and
the
conclusion
against
our
will,
without
asking
our
opinion.
Thus,
we
are
at
the
hands
of
these
four
factors,
as
clay
in
the
hands
of
a
potter.
Free
Choice
However,
when
we
examine
these
four
factors,
we
find
that
although
our
strength
is
not
enough
to
face
the
first
factor,
the
source,
we
still
have
the
ability
and
free
choice
to
protect
ourselves
against
the
other
three
factors
by
which
the
source
changes
in
its
individual
parts,
and
sometimes
in
its
general
part,
as
well,
through
habit,
which
endows
it
with
a
second
nature,
as
explained
above.
The
Environment
as
a
Factor
This
protection
means
that
we
can
always
add
in
the
matter
of
choosing
our
environment,
which
are
the
friends,
books,
teachers,
and
so
on.
It
is
like
a
person
who
inherited
a
few
stalks
of
wheat
from
his
father.
From
this
small
amount,
he
can
grow
many
dozens
of
stalks
through
his
choice
of
the
environment
for
his
source,
which
is
fertile
soil
that
contains
all
the
necessary
minerals
and
raw
materials
that
nourish
the
wheat
abundantly.
There
is
also
the
matter
of
the
work
of
improving
the
environmental
conditions
to
fit
the
needs
of
the
plant
and
the
growth,
for
the
wise
will
do
well
to
choose
the
best
conditions
and
will
succeed.
And
the
fool
will
take
from
whatever
comes
before
him
and
thus
turn
the
sowing
to
a
curse
rather
than
a
blessing.
Thus,
all
the
praise
and
spirit
depends
on
the
choice
of
the
environment
in
which
to
sow
the
wheat.
But
once
it
has
been
sown
in
the
selected
location,
the
wheat’s
absolute
shape
is
determined
according
to
the
measure
that
the
environment
is
capable
of
providing.
So
is
the
case
with
our
topic,
for
it
is
true
that
the
desire
has
no
freedom.
Rather,
it
is
operated
by
the
above
four
factors.
And
one
is
compelled
to
think
and
examine
as
they
suggest,
denied
of
any
strength
to
criticize
or
change,
as
the
wheat
that
has
been
sown
in
its
environment.
However,
there
is
freedom
for
the
will
to
initially
choose
such
an
environment,
such
books,
and
such
guides
that
impart
upon
him
good
concepts.
If
one
does
not
do
this
but
is
willing
to
enter
any
environment
that
appears
before
him
and
read
any
book
that
falls
into
his
hands,
he
is
bound
to
fall
into
a
bad
environment
or
waste
his
time
on
worthless
books,
which
are
abundant
and
more
accessible.
In
consequence,
he
will
be
forced
into
foul
concepts
that
make
him
sin
and
condemn.
He
will
certainly
be
punished,
not
because
of
his
evil
thoughts
or
deeds,
in
which
he
has
no
choice,
but
because
he
did
not
choose
to
be
in
a
good
environment,
for
in
this
there
is
definitely
a
choice.
Therefore,
he
who
strives
to
continually
choose
a
better
environment
is
worthy
of
praise
and
reward.
But
here,
too,
it
is
not
because
of
his
good
thoughts
or
deeds,
which
come
to
him
without
his
choice,
but
because
of
his
effort
to
acquire
a
good
environment,
which
brings
him
these
good
thoughts
and
actions.
It
is
as
Rabbi
Yehoshua
Ben
Perachya
said,
“Make
for
yourself
a
rav
and
buy
for
yourself
a
friend.”
The
Necessity
to
Choose
a
Good
Environment
Now
you
can
understand
the
words
of
Rabbi
Yosi
Ben
Kisma
(Avot,
Chapter
6),
who
replied
to
a
person
who
offered
him
to
live
in
his
town,
and
he
would
give
him
millions
of
gold
coins
for
it:
“Even
if
you
give
me
all
the
gold
and
silver
and
jewels
in
the
world,
I
will
live
only
in
a
place
of
Torah.”
These
words
seem
inconceivable
to
our
simple
mind,
for
how
could
he
relinquish
millions
of
gold
coins
for
such
a
small
thing
as
living
in
a
place
where
there
are
no
disciples
of
Torah,
while
he
himself
was
a
great
sage
who
needed
to
learn
from
no
one?
Indeed,
a
mystery.
But
as
we
have
seen,
it
is
a
simple
thing
and
should
be
observed
by
each
and
every
one
of
us.
Although
everyone
has
his
own
source,
the
forces
are
revealed
openly
only
through
the
environment
one
is
in.
This
is
similar
to
the
wheat
sown
in
the
ground,
whose
forces
become
apparent
only
through
its
environment,
which
is
the
soil,
rain,
and
sunlight.
Thus,
Rabbi
Yosi
Ben
Kisma
correctly
assumed
that
if
he
were
to
leave
the
good
environment
he
had
chosen
and
fall
into
a
harmful
environment
in
a
city
where
there
is
no
Torah,
not
only
would
his
former
concepts
be
compromised,
but
all
the
other
forces
hidden
in
his
source,
which
he
had
not
yet
revealed
in
action,
would
remain
concealed.
This
is
because
they
would
not
be
subject
to
the
right
environment
that
would
be
able
to
activate
them.
And
as
we
have
clarified
above,
only
in
the
matter
of
the
choice
of
environment
is
man’s
reign
over
himself
measured,
and
for
this
he
should
receive
reward
or
punishment.
Therefore,
one
must
not
wonder
that
a
sage
such
as
Rabbi
Yosi
Ben
Kisma
chose
the
good
and
declined
the
bad,
and
was
not
tempted
by
material
or
corporeal
things,
as
he
deduces
there:
“When
one
dies,
one
does
not
take
with
him
silver,
gold,
or
jewels,
but
only
Torah
and
good
deeds.”
And
so
our
sages
warned,
“Make
for
yourself
a
rav
and
buy
for
yourself
a
friend.”
And
there
is
also
the
choice
of
books,
as
we
have
mentioned,
for
only
in
this
is
one
rebuked
or
praised—in
his
choice
of
the
environment.
But
once
he
has
chosen
an
environment,
he
is
at
its
hands
as
clay
in
the
hands
of
the
potter.
The
Mind’s
Control
over
the
Body
Some
external
contemporary
sages,
after
contemplating
the
above
matter
and
seeing
how
man’s
mind
is
but
a
fruit
that
grows
out
of
the
events
of
life,
concluded
that
the
mind
has
no
control
whatsoever
over
the
body.
Rather,
only
life’s
events,
imprinted
in
the
physical
tendons
of
the
brain,
control
and
activate
man.
Man’s
mind
is
like
a
mirror,
reflecting
the
shapes
before
it.
Although
the
mirror
is
the
carrier
of
these
shapes,
it
cannot
activate
or
move
the
shapes
reflected
in
it.
So
is
the
mind.
Although
life’s
events,
in
all
their
manners
of
cause
and
effect,
are
seen
and
recognized
by
the
mind,
the
mind
is
nonetheless
utterly
incapable
of
controlling
the
body,
to
bring
it
into
motion,
meaning
to
bring
it
closer
to
the
good
or
push
it
away
from
the
bad.
This
is
because
the
spiritual
and
the
physical
are
completely
remote
from
one
another,
and
there
is
no
intermediary
tool
between
them
to
enable
the
spiritual
mind
to
activate
and
operate
the
corporeal
body,
as
has
been
discussed
at
length.
But
where
they
are
smart,
there
they
disrupt.
Man’s
imagination
uses
the
mind
just
as
the
microscope
serves
the
eyes:
Without
the
microscope,
we
would
not
see
anything
harmful,
due
to
its
smallness.
But
once
we
see
the
harmful
being
through
the
microscope,
we
distance
ourselves
from
the
noxious
element.
Thus,
it
is
the
microscope
that
brings
man
to
distance
himself
from
the
harm,
and
not
the
sense,
for
the
sense
did
not
detect
the
harm-doer.
And
to
that
extent,
the
mind
fully
controls
man’s
body,
to
push
it
away
from
bad
and
pull
it
toward
the
good.
Thus,
in
all
the
places
where
the
attribute
of
the
body
fails
to
recognize
the
beneficial
or
the
detrimental,
it
needs
only
the
mind’s
knowledge.
Furthermore,
since
man
knows
his
mind,
which
is
a
true
conclusion
from
life’s
experiences,
he
can
therefore
receive
knowledge
and
understanding
from
a
trusted
person
and
take
it
as
law,
although
his
life’s
events
have
not
yet
revealed
these
concepts
to
him.
It
is
like
a
person
who
asks
the
advice
of
a
doctor
and
obeys
him
even
though
he
understands
nothing
with
his
own
mind.
Thus,
one
uses
the
mind
of
others
no
less
than
one
uses
one’s
own.
As
we
have
clarified
above,
there
are
two
ways
for
Providence
to
make
certain
that
man
achieves
the
good,
final
goal:
The
path
of
suffering
and
the
path
of
Torah.
All
the
clarity
in
the
path
of
Torah
stems
from
this.
For
these
clear
conceptions
that
were
revealed
and
recognized
after
a
long
chain
of
events
in
the
lives
of
the
prophets
and
the
men
of
God,
there
comes
a
man
who
fully
utilizes
them
and
benefits
from
them,
as
though
these
concepts
were
events
of
his
own
life.
Thus,
you
see
that
one
is
exempted
from
all
the
ordeals
one
must
experience
before
he
can
develop
that
clear
mind
by
himself.
Thus,
one
saves
both
time
and
pain.
It
can
be
compared
to
a
sick
man
who
does
not
wish
to
obey
the
doctor’s
orders
before
he
understands
by
himself
how
that
advice
would
cure
him,
and
therefore
begins
to
study
medicine
by
himself.
He
could
die
of
his
illness
before
he
learns
medicine.
So
is
the
path
of
suffering
compared
to
the
path
of
Torah.
One
who
does
not
believe
the
concepts
that
the
Torah
and
prophecy
advise
him
to
accept
without
self-understanding
must
come
to
these
concepts
by
himself
by
following
the
chain
of
cause
and
effect
from
life’s
events.
These
are
experiences
that
greatly
rush
and
can
develop
the
sense
of
recognition
of
evil
in
them,
as
we
have
seen,
without
one’s
choice,
but
because
of
one’s
efforts
to
acquire
a
good
environment,
which
leads
to
these
thoughts
and
actions.
The
Freedom
of
the
Individual
Now
we
have
come
to
a
thorough
and
accurate
understanding
of
the
freedom
of
the
individual.
However,
this
relates
only
to
the
first
factor,
the
source,
which
is
the
first
substance
of
every
person,
meaning
all
the
characteristics
we
inherit
from
our
fathers
and
our
forefathers
and
by
which
we
differ
from
each
other.
This
is
because
even
when
thousands
of
people
share
the
same
environment
in
such
a
way
that
the
other
three
factors
affect
all
of
them
equally,
you
will
still
not
find
two
people
who
share
even
one
attribute.
This
is
because
each
of
them
has
his
or
her
own
unique
source.
This
is
like
the
source
of
the
wheat:
Although
it
changes
a
great
deal
by
the
three
latter
factors,
it
still
retains
the
preliminary
shape
of
wheat
and
will
never
take
on
the
form
of
another
species.
The
General
Shape
of
the
Progenitor
Is
Never
Lost
So
it
is
that
each
“source”
that
had
taken
off
the
preliminary
shape
of
the
progenitor
and
had
taken
on
a
new
shape
as
a
result
of
the
three
factors
that
were
added
to
it,
and
which
change
it
significantly,
the
general
shape
of
the
progenitor
still
remains,
and
will
never
assume
the
shape
of
another
person
who
resembles
him,
just
as
oat
will
never
resemble
wheat.
This
is
so
because
each
and
every
source
has
its
own
long
sequence
of
generations
comprised
of
several
hundred
generations,
and
the
source
includes
the
conceptions
of
them
all.
However,
they
are
not
revealed
in
it
in
the
same
ways
they
appeared
in
the
ancestors,
that
is,
in
the
form
of
ideas,
but
only
as
abstract
forms.
Therefore,
they
exist
in
him
in
the
form
of
abstract
forces
called
“tendencies,”
“nature,”
and
“instincts,”
without
knowing
their
reason
or
why
he
does
what
he
does.
Thus,
there
can
never
be
two
people
with
the
same
attribute.
The
Necessity
to
Preserve
the
Freedom
of
the
Individual
Know,
that
this
is
the
one
true
possession
of
the
individual
that
must
not
be
harmed
or
altered.
This
is
because
the
end
of
all
these
tendencies,
which
are
included
in
the
source,
is
to
materialize
and
assume
the
form
of
concepts
when
that
individual
grows
and
becomes
knowledgeable,
as
a
result
of
the
law
of
evolution,
which
controls
that
chain
and
prompts
it
ever
forward,
as
explained
in
the
article,
“The
Peace.”
Also,
we
learn
that
each
and
every
tendency
is
bound
to
turn
into
a
sublime
and
immeasurably
important
concept.
Thus,
anyone
who
eradicates
a
tendency
from
an
individual
and
uproots
it
from
him
causes
the
loss
of
that
sublime
and
wondrous
concept,
intended
to
emerge
at
the
end
of
the
chain,
for
that
tendency
will
never
again
emerge
in
any
other
body.
Accordingly,
we
must
understand
that
when
a
particular
tendency
takes
the
form
of
a
concept,
it
can
no
longer
be
distinguished
as
good
or
bad,
as
such
distinctions
are
recognized
only
when
they
are
still
tendencies
or
immature
concepts,
and
in
no
way
are
any
of
them
recognized
when
they
assume
the
shape
of
real
concepts,
as
will
be
thoroughly
explained
in
the
following
essays.
From
the
above-said,
we
learn
what
a
terrible
wrong
inflict
those
nations
that
force
their
reign
on
minorities,
depriving
them
of
freedom
without
allowing
them
to
lead
their
lives
according
to
the
tendencies
they
have
inherited
from
their
ancestors.
They
are
regarded
as
no
less
than
murderers.
Even
those
who
do
not
believe
in
religion
or
in
purposeful
guidance
can
understand
the
necessity
to
preserve
the
freedom
of
the
individual
by
watching
nature’s
systems,
for
we
can
see
how
all
the
nations
that
ever
fell,
throughout
the
generations,
came
to
it
only
due
to
their
oppression
of
minorities
and
individuals,
which
had
therefore
rebelled
against
them
and
ruined
them.
Hence,
it
is
clear
to
all
that
peace
cannot
exist
in
the
world
unless
we
take
into
consideration
the
freedom
of
the
individual.
Without
it,
peace
will
not
be
sustainable
and
ruin
will
prevail.
Thus,
we
have
clearly
defined
the
essence
of
the
individual
with
utmost
accuracy,
after
the
deduction
of
all
that
he
takes
from
the
public.
But
now
we
face
a
question:
“Where,
in
the
end,
is
the
individual
himself?”
All
we
have
said
thus
far
concerning
the
individual
is
perceived
as
only
the
property
of
the
individual,
inherited
from
his
ancestors.
But
where
is
the
individual
himself,
the
heir
and
the
carrier
of
that
property,
who
demands
that
we
guard
his
property?
From
all
that
has
been
said
thus
far,
we
have
yet
to
find
the
point
of
“self”
in
man,
which
stands
before
us
as
an
independent
unit.
And
why
do
I
need
the
first
factor,
which
is
a
long
chain
of
thousands
of
people,
one
after
the
other,
from
generation
to
generation,
with
which
we
set
the
image
of
the
individual
as
an
heir?
And
why
do
I
need
the
other
three
factors,
which
are
the
thousands
of
people
standing
side
by
side
in
the
same
generation?
In
the
end,
each
individual
is
but
a
public
machine,
ever
ready
to
serve
the
public
as
it
sees
fit.
In
other
words,
he
has
become
subordinate
to
two
types
of
public:
From
the
perspective
of
the
first
factor,
he
has
become
subordinate
to
a
large
public
from
past
generations,
standing
one
after
the
other.
From
the
perspective
of
the
three
other
factors,
he
has
become
subordinate
to
his
contemporary
public.
This
is
indeed
a
universal
question.
For
this
reason,
many
oppose
the
above,
natural
method.
Although
they
thoroughly
know
its
validity,
they
choose
instead
metaphysical
methods,
dualism,
or
transcendentalism
to
depict
for
themselves
some
spiritual
object
and
how
it
sits
within
the
body,
as
man’s
soul.
That
soul
is
what
teaches
and
operates
the
body,
and
it
is
man’s
essence
and
his
“self.”
Perhaps
these
interpretations
could
ease
the
mind,
but
the
problem
is
that
they
have
no
scientific
solution
as
to
how
a
spiritual
object
can
have
any
contact
with
physical
atoms
in
the
body,
to
bring
it
into
any
kind
of
motion.
All
their
wisdom
and
delving
did
not
help
them
find
a
sufficient
bridge
to
cross
that
wide
and
deep
crevice
between
the
spiritual
entity
and
the
corporeal
atom.
Hence,
science
has
gained
nothing
from
all
these
metaphysical
methods.
The
Will
to
Receive—Existence
from
Absence
To
move
a
step
forward
in
a
scientific
manner
here,
all
we
need
is
the
wisdom
of
Kabbalah.
This
is
because
all
the
teachings
in
the
world
are
included
in
the
wisdom
of
Kabbalah.
Concerning
spiritual
lights
and
vessels
(in
the
commentary
on
Tree
of
Life,
Branch
1),
we
learn
that
the
primary
innovation,
from
the
perspective
of
creation,
which
He
has
created
existence
from
absence,
applies
to
one
and
only
aspect,
defined
as
the
“will
to
receive.”
All
other
matters
in
the
whole
of
creation
are
not
innovations
at
all;
they
are
not
existence
from
absence
but
existence
from
existence.
This
means
that
they
extend
directly
from
His
essence,
as
the
light
extends
from
the
sun.
There,
too,
there
is
nothing
new,
since
what
is
found
in
the
core
of
the
sun
extends
outwards.
However,
the
will
to
receive
is
complete
novelty.
Prior
to
creation
such
a
thing
did
not
exist
in
reality
since
He
has
no
quality
of
will
to
receive
at
all,
as
He
precedes
everything…
so
from
whom
would
He
receive?
For
this
reason,
this
will
to
receive,
which
He
extracted
as
existence
from
absence,
is
complete
novelty.
But
everything
else
is
not
considered
an
innovation
that
could
be
called
“creation.”
Hence,
all
the
vessels
and
the
bodies,
from
spiritual
worlds
and
from
physical
worlds,
are
deemed
spiritual
or
corporeal
substance
whose
nature
is
to
want
to
receive.
Two
Forces
in
the
Will
to
Receive:
An
Attracting
Force
and
a
Rejecting
Force
You
need
to
discern
further
that
we
distinguish
two
forces
in
that
force
called
“will
to
receive”:
-
The
attracting
force.
-
The
rejecting
force.
The
reason
is
that
each
body,
or
vessel,
defined
as
the
will
to
receive,
is
indeed
limited,
meaning
how
much
it
will
receive
and
the
quality
it
will
receive.
Therefore,
all
the
quantity
and
quality
that
are
outside
one’s
boundaries
appear
to
be
against
one’s
nature;
hence,
he
rejects
them.
Thus,
that
“will
to
receive,”
although
it
is
deemed
an
attracting
force,
it
is
compelled
to
become
a
rejecting
force,
as
well.
One
Law
for
All
the
Worlds
Although
the
wisdom
of
Kabbalah
mentions
nothing
of
our
corporeal
world,
there
is
still
only
one
law
for
all
the
worlds
(as
written
in
the
article,
“The
Essence
of
the
Wisdom
of
Kabbalah,”
section
“The
Law
of
Root
and
Branch”).
Thus,
all
the
corporeal
entities
in
our
world,
that
is,
everything
within
that
space,
be
it
still,
vegetative,
animate,
a
spiritual
object
or
a
corporeal
object,
if
we
want
to
distinguish
the
unique
self
of
each
of
them,
how
they
differ
from
one
another,
even
in
the
smallest
particle,
it
amounts
to
no
more
than
that
“desire
to
receive.”
This
is
its
entire
particular
form,
from
the
perspective
of
the
generated
creation,
limiting
it
in
quantity
and
quality.
As
a
result,
there
is
an
attracting
force
and
a
rejecting
force
in
it.
Yet,
anything
that
exists
in
it
besides
these
two
forces
is
regarded
as
the
bounty
from
His
essence.
That
bounty
is
equal
for
all
creatures
and
presents
no
innovation
with
respect
to
creation
as
it
extends
existence
from
existence.
Also,
it
cannot
be
ascribed
to
any
particular
unit,
but
only
to
things
that
are
common
to
all
parts
of
creation,
small
or
large.
Each
of
them
receives
from
that
bounty
according
to
the
limit
of
its
will
to
receive,
and
this
limit
defines
each
individual
and
unit.
Thus,
I
have
evidently—from
a
purely
scientific
perspective—proven
the
self
(ego)
of
every
individual
in
a
scientific,
completely
criticism-proof
method,
even
according
to
the
system
of
the
fanatic,
automatic
materialists.
From
now
on,
we
have
no
need
for
those
lame
methods
dipped
in
metaphysics.
And
of
course,
it
makes
no
difference
whether
this
force
of
the
will
to
receive
is
a
result
and
a
fruit
of
the
material
that
had
produced
it
through
chemistry,
or
the
material
is
a
result
and
a
fruit
of
that
force.
This
is
because
we
know
that
the
main
thing
is
that
only
this
force,
imprinted
in
every
being
and
atom
of
the
“will
to
receive,”
within
its
boundaries,
is
the
unit
by
which
it
is
separated
and
distinguished
from
its
environment.
This
applies
to
both
a
single
atom
or
a
group
of
atoms,
called
a
“body.”
All
other
discernments
in
which
there
is
more
than
that
force
are
not
related
in
any
way
to
that
particle
or
group
of
particles,
with
respect
to
itself,
but
only
with
respect
to
the
whole,
which
is
the
bounty
extended
to
them
from
the
Creator,
which
is
common
to
all
parts
of
creation
together,
without
distinction
of
specific
created
bodies.
Now
we
will
understand
the
matter
of
the
freedom
of
the
individual,
according
to
the
definition
of
the
first
factor,
which
we
called
the
“source,”
where
all
previous
generations,
which
are
the
fathers
and
forefathers
of
that
individual,
have
imprinted
their
nature.
As
we
have
clarified,
the
meaning
of
the
word
“individual”
is
but
the
boundaries
of
the
will
to
receive,
imprinted
in
its
group
of
molecules.
Thus
you
see
that
all
the
tendencies
he
has
inherited
from
his
ancestors
are
indeed
no
more
than
boundaries
of
his
will
to
receive,
either
related
to
the
attracting
force
in
him,
or
to
the
rejecting
force
in
him,
which
appear
before
us
as
tendencies
to
stinginess
or
generosity,
a
tendency
to
mingle
with
people
or
to
be
a
hermit,
and
so
on.
Because
of
this,
they
really
are
his
self
(ego),
fighting
for
its
existence.
Thus,
if
we
eradicate
even
a
single
tendency
from
that
individual,
we
are
regarded
as
cutting
off
an
actual
organ
from
his
essence.
It
is
also
considered
a
genuine
loss
for
all
creation,
since
there
is
no
other
like
it,
nor
will
there
ever
be
someone
like
him
in
the
whole
world.
After
we
have
thoroughly
clarified
the
just
right
of
the
individual
according
to
the
natural
laws,
let
us
turn
and
see
just
how
practical
it
is,
without
compromising
the
theory
of
ethics
and
statesmanship.
And
most
important:
how
this
right
is
applied
by
our
holy
Torah.
Taking
after
the
Collective
Our
scriptures
say:
“Take
after
the
collective.”
This
means
that
wherever
there
is
a
dispute
between
the
collective
and
the
individual,
we
are
obliged
to
rule
according
to
the
will
of
the
collective.
Thus,
you
see
that
the
collective
has
a
right
to
expropriate
the
freedom
of
the
individual.
But
we
are
faced
with
a
different
question
here,
even
more
serious
than
the
first.
It
seems
as
though
this
law
regresses
humanity
instead
of
promoting
it.
This
is
because
while
most
of
humanity
is
undeveloped,
and
the
developed
ones
are
always
a
small
minority,
if
you
always
determine
according
to
the
will
of
the
majority,
which
are
the
undeveloped
and
the
reckless,
the
views
and
desires
of
the
wise
and
developed
in
society,
which
are
always
the
minority,
will
never
be
heard
and
be
taken
into
consideration.
Thus,
you
seal
off
humanity’s
fate
to
regression,
for
it
will
not
be
able
to
make
even
a
single
step
forward.
However,
as
is
explained
in
the
article
“The
Peace,”
section
“Necessity
to
Practice
Caution
with
the
Laws
of
Nature,”
since
we
are
ordered
by
Providence
to
lead
a
social
life,
we
have
become
obligated
to
observe
all
the
laws
pertaining
to
the
sustenance
of
society.
And
if
we
are
somewhat
negligent,
nature
will
take
its
revenge
in
us,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
we
understand
the
reasons
for
the
laws.
And
we
can
see
that
there
is
no
other
arrangement
by
which
to
live
in
society
except
following
the
law
of
“Taking
after
the
collective,”
which
sets
every
dispute
and
tribulation
in
society
in
order.
Thus,
this
law
is
the
only
instrument
that
gives
society
sustainability.
For
this
reason,
it
is
considered
one
of
the
natural
Mitzvot
[commandments]
of
Providence,
and
we
must
accept
it
and
guard
it
meticulously,
regardless
of
our
understanding.
This
is
similar
to
the
rest
of
the
Mitzvot
in
the
Torah:
All
of
them
are
nature’s
laws
and
His
Providence
which
come
to
us
from
above
downward.
I
have
already
described
(“The
Essence
of
the
Wisdom
of
Kabbalah,”
“The
Law
of
Root
and
Branch”)
how
the
whole
of
reality
seen
in
the
nature
of
this
world
is
only
because
they
are
extended
and
taken
from
laws
and
conducts
of
upper,
spiritual
worlds.
Now
you
can
understand
that
the
Mitzvot
in
the
Torah
are
but
laws
and
conducts
set
in
higher
worlds,
which
are
the
roots
of
all
of
nature’s
conducts
in
this
world
of
ours.
Hence,
the
laws
of
the
Torah
always
match
the
laws
of
nature
in
this
world
as
two
drops
of
water.
Thus,
we
have
proven
that
the
law,
“Taking
after
the
collective,”
is
the
law
of
Providence
and
nature.
A
Path
of
Torah
and
a
Path
of
Suffering
Yet,
our
question
about
the
regression,
which
had
emerged
from
this
law,
is
still
not
settled
by
these
words.
Indeed,
this
is
our
concern—to
find
ways
to
mend
this.
But
Providence,
for
itself,
does
not
lose
because
of
this,
for
it
has
enveloped
humankind
in
two
ways—the
“path
of
Torah,”
and
the
“path
of
suffering”—in
a
way
that
guarantees
humanity’s
continuous
development
and
progress
toward
the
goal
without
any
reservations
(“The
Peace,”
“Everything
Is
in
Deposit”).
Indeed,
obeying
this
law
is
a
natural,
necessary
commitment.
The
Collective’s
Right
to
Expropriate
the
Freedom
of
the
Individual
We
must
ask
further:
Things
are
justified
when
matters
revolve
around
issues
between
people.
Then
we
can
accept
the
law
of
“Taking
after
the
collective,”
through
the
obligation
of
Providence,
which
instructs
us
to
always
look
after
the
well-being
and
happiness
of
the
members.
But
the
Torah
obliges
us
to
follow
the
law
of
“Taking
after
the
collective”
in
disputes
between
man
and
the
Creator,
as
well,
although
these
matters
seem
completely
unrelated
to
the
existence
of
society.
Therefore,
the
question
still
stands:
How
can
we
justify
that
law,
which
obligates
us
to
accept
the
views
of
the
majority,
which
is,
as
we
have
said,
undeveloped,
and
reject
and
annul
the
views
of
the
developed,
who
are
always
a
small
minority?
As
we
have
shown
in
the
second
tractate
(“The
Essence
of
Religion
and
Its
Purpose,”
“Conscious
Development
and
Unconscious
Development”),
the
Torah
and
the
Mitzvot
were
given
only
to
purify
Israel,
to
develop
in
us
the
sense
of
recognition
of
evil
imprinted
in
us
at
birth,
which
is
generally
defined
as
our
self-love,
and
to
come
to
the
pure
good
defined
as
“love
of
others,”
which
is
the
one
and
only
passage
to
the
love
of
the
Creator.
Accordingly,
the
Mitzvot
between
man
and
the
Creator
are
considered
tools
that
detach
man
from
self-love,
which
is
harmful
for
society.
It
is
thus
obvious
that
the
topics
of
dispute
regarding
Mitzvot
between
man
and
the
Creator
relate
to
the
problem
of
society’s
sustainability.
Thus,
they,
too,
fall
into
the
framework
of
“Taking
after
the
collective.”
Now
we
can
understand
the
conduct
of
discriminating
between
Halachah
[Jewish
law]
and
Agadah
[legends].
This
is
because
only
in
Halachot
[plural
for
Halachah]
does
the
law,
“individual
and
collective,
Halachah
[law]
as
the
collective”
apply.
It
is
not
so
in
the
Agadah,
since
matters
of
Agadah
stand
above
matters
that
concern
the
existence
of
society,
for
they
speak
precisely
of
the
matter
of
people’s
conducts
in
matters
concerning
man
and
the
Creator,
in
that
part
where
the
existence
and
physical
happiness
of
society
has
no
consequence.
Thus,
there
is
no
justification
for
the
collective
to
annul
the
view
of
the
individual
and
“every
man
will
do
that
which
was
right
in
his
own
eyes.”
But
regarding
Halachot
that
deal
with
observing
the
Mitzvot
of
the
Torah,
they
all
fall
under
the
supervision
of
society
since
there
cannot
be
any
order
except
through
the
law,
“Take
after
the
collective.”
For
Social
Life,
the
Law,
Take
after
the
Collective
Now
we
have
come
to
a
clear
understanding
of
the
sentence
concerning
the
freedom
of
the
individual.
Indeed,
there
is
a
question:
Where
did
the
collective
take
the
right
to
expropriate
the
freedom
of
the
individual
and
deny
him
of
the
most
precious
thing
in
life,
freedom?
Seemingly,
there
is
no
more
than
brute
force
here.
But
as
we
have
clearly
explained
above,
it
is
a
natural
law
and
the
decree
of
Providence.
And
because
Providence
compels
each
of
us
to
lead
a
social
life,
it
naturally
follows
that
each
person
is
obligated
to
secure
the
existence
and
well-being
of
society.
And
this
cannot
happen
but
through
imposing
the
conduct
of
“taking
after
the
collective,”
ignoring
the
opinion
of
the
individual.
Thus,
you
evidently
see
that
this
is
the
origin
of
every
right
and
justification
that
the
collective
has
to
expropriate
the
freedom
of
the
individual
against
his
will,
and
to
place
him
under
its
authority.
Therefore,
it
is
understood
that
with
regard
to
all
those
matters
that
do
not
concern
the
existence
of
the
material
life
of
the
society,
there
is
no
justification
for
the
collective
to
rob
and
abuse
the
freedom
of
the
individual
in
any
way.
If
they
do
so,
they
are
deemed
robbers
and
thieves
who
prefer
brute
force
to
any
right
or
justice
in
the
world,
since
here
the
obligation
of
the
individual
to
obey
the
will
of
the
collective
does
not
apply.
In
Spiritual
Life,
Take
after
the
Individual
It
turns
out
that
as
far
as
spiritual
life
is
concerned,
there
is
no
natural
obligation
on
the
individual
to
abide
by
society
in
any
way.
On
the
contrary,
here
applies
a
natural
law
over
the
collective,
to
subjugate
itself
to
the
individual.
And
it
is
clarified
in
the
article,
“The
Peace,”
that
there
are
two
ways
by
which
Providence
has
enveloped
and
surrounded
us,
to
bring
us
to
the
end:
a
path
of
suffering,
which
develops
us
in
this
manner
unconsciously,
and
a
path
of
Torah
and
wisdom,
which
consciously
develops
us
in
this
manner
without
any
agony
or
coercion.
Since
the
more
developed
in
the
generation
is
certainly
the
individual,
it
follows
that
when
the
public
wants
to
relieve
themselves
of
the
terrible
agony
and
assume
conscious
and
voluntary
development,
which
is
the
path
of
Torah,
they
have
no
choice
but
to
subjugate
themselves
and
their
physical
freedom
to
the
discipline
of
the
individual,
and
obey
the
orders
and
remedies
that
he
will
offer
them.
Thus
you
see
that
in
spiritual
matters,
the
authority
of
the
collective
is
overturned
and
the
law
of
taking
after
the
individual
is
applied,
that
is,
the
developed
individual.
For
it
is
plain
to
see
that
the
developed
and
the
educated
in
every
society
are
always
a
very
small
minority.
It
follows
that
the
success
and
spiritual
well-being
of
society
is
bottled
and
sealed
in
the
hands
of
the
minority.
Therefore,
the
collective
is
obliged
to
meticulously
guard
all
the
views
of
the
few,
so
they
will
not
perish
from
the
world.
This
is
because
they
must
know
for
certain,
in
complete
confidence,
that
the
truer
and
more
developed
views
are
never
in
the
hands
of
the
collective
in
authority,
but
in
the
hands
of
the
weakest,
that
is,
in
the
hands
of
the
indistinguishable
minority.
This
is
because
every
wisdom
and
everything
precious
comes
into
the
world
in
small
quantities.
Therefore,
we
are
cautioned
to
preserve
the
views
of
all
the
individuals
due
to
the
collective’s
inability
to
sort
them
out.
Criticism
Brings
Success;
Lack
of
Criticism
Causes
Decadence
We
must
further
add
that
reality
presents
to
our
eyes
extreme
oppositeness
between
physical
matters
and
concepts
and
ideas
regarding
the
above
topic,
for
the
matter
of
social
unity,
which
can
be
the
source
of
every
joy
and
success,
applies
particularly
to
bodies
and
bodily
matters
in
people,
and
the
separation
between
them
is
the
source
of
every
calamity
and
misfortune.
But
with
concepts
and
ideas,
it
is
the
complete
opposite:
Unity
and
lack
of
criticism
are
deemed
the
source
of
every
failure
and
hindrance
to
all
the
progress
and
intellectual
fertilization.
This
is
because
drawing
the
right
conclusions
depends
particularly
on
increasing
disagreements
and
separation
between
views.
The
more
contradictions
there
are
between
views
and
the
more
criticism
there
is,
the
more
the
knowledge
and
wisdom
increase,
and
matters
become
more
suitable
for
examination
and
clarification.
The
degeneration
and
failure
of
intelligence
stem
only
from
the
lack
of
criticism
and
disagreement.
Thus,
evidently,
the
whole
basis
of
physical
success
is
the
measure
of
unity
of
the
society,
and
the
basis
for
the
success
of
intelligence
and
knowledge
is
the
separation
and
disagreement
among
them.
It
turns
out
that
when
humankind
achieves
its
goal,
with
respect
to
the
success
of
the
bodies,
by
bringing
them
to
the
degree
of
complete
love
of
others,
all
the
bodies
in
the
world
will
unite
into
a
single
body
and
a
single
heart,
as
written
in
the
article,
“The
Peace.”
Only
then
will
all
the
happiness
intended
for
humanity
become
revealed
in
all
its
glory.
But
against
that,
we
must
be
watchful
not
to
bring
the
views
of
people
so
close
that
disagreement
and
criticism
among
the
wise
and
scholarly
might
be
terminated,
for
the
love
of
the
body
naturally
brings
with
it
proximity
of
views.
And
should
criticism
and
disagreement
vanish,
all
progress
in
concepts
and
ideas
will
cease,
as
well,
and
the
source
of
knowledge
in
the
world
will
dry
out.
This
is
the
proof
of
the
obligation
to
caution
with
the
freedom
of
the
individual
regarding
concepts
and
ideas.
For
the
whole
development
of
the
wisdom
and
knowledge
is
based
on
that
freedom
of
the
individual.
Thus,
we
are
cautioned
to
preserve
it
very
carefully,
in
a
manner
that
each
and
every
form
within
us,
which
we
call
“individual,”
that
is,
the
particular
force
of
a
single
person,
generally
named
the
“will
to
receive.”
Ancestral
Heritage
All
the
details
of
the
pictures
that
this
will
to
receive
includes,
which
we
have
defined
as
the
source,
or
the
first
reason,
whose
meaning
includes
all
the
tendencies
and
customs
inherited
from
his
ancestors,
which
we
picture
as
a
long
chain
of
thousands
of
people
who
were
alive
once,
and
stand
one
atop
of
the
other,
each
of
them
is
an
essential
drop
of
his
progenitors,
and
that
drop
brings
each
person
all
the
spiritual
possessions
of
his
progenitors
into
his
elongated
brain,
called
“subconscious.”
Thus,
the
individual
before
us
has,
in
his
subconscious,
all
the
thousands
of
spiritual
legacies
from
all
the
individuals
represented
in
that
chain,
which
are
his
progenitors
and
ancestors.
Thus,
just
as
the
face
of
each
and
every
person
differs,
so
their
views
differ.
There
are
no
two
people
on
earth
whose
opinions
are
identical,
because
each
person
has
a
great
and
sublime
possession
bequeathed
to
him
from
his
ancestors,
and
which
others
have
no
shred
of
them.
Therefore,
all
those
possessions
are
considered
the
individual’s
property,
and
society
is
cautioned
to
preserve
its
flavor
and
spirit
so
it
does
not
become
blurred
by
its
environment.
Rather,
each
individual
should
maintain
the
integrity
of
his
inheritance.
Then,
the
contradiction
and
oppositeness
between
them
will
remain
forever,
to
forever
secure
the
criticism
and
progress
of
the
wisdom,
which
is
all
of
humanity’s
advantage
and
its
true
eternal
desire.
After
we
have
come
to
a
certain
measure
of
recognition
of
man’s
selfishness,
which
we
have
determined
as
a
force
and
a
desire
to
receive,
being
the
essential
point
of
the
bare
being,
it
has
also
become
thoroughly
clear
to
us,
from
all
sides,
the
original
possession
of
each
body,
which
we
have
defined
as
“ancestral
heritage.”
This
pertains
to
all
the
potential
tendencies
and
qualities
that
have
come
into
his
source
by
inheritance,
which
is
the
first
substance
of
every
person,
meaning
the
initial
seed
of
his
forefathers.
Now
we
have
found
the
door
to
resolving
the
intention
of
our
sages
in
their
words
that
by
receiving
the
Torah,
they
were
liberated
from
the
angel
of
death.
However,
we
still
need
further
understanding
regarding
selfishness
and
the
above-mentioned
ancestral
heritage.
Two
Discernments:
A)
Potential,
B)
Actual
First,
we
must
understand
that
although
this
selfishness,
which
we
have
defined
as
the
force
of
will
to
receive,
is
the
very
essence
of
man,
it
cannot
exist
in
reality
even
for
a
second.
(For
it
is
known
that
there
is
a
discernment
and
a
discernment
in
the
“potential,”
and
the
thing
we
call
“potential”
is
in
the
thought,
before
it
emerges
from
potential
to
actual,
and
is
established
only
in
the
thought.)
For
what
we
call
“potential,”
before
it
emerges
from
potential
to
actual,
exists
only
in
our
thought,
meaning
that
we
can
determine
it
only
in
the
thought.
But
in
fact,
there
cannot
be
any
real
force
in
the
world
that
is
dormant
and
inactive.
This
is
because
the
force
exists
in
reality
only
while
it
is
revealed
in
action.
By
the
same
token,
you
cannot
say
about
an
infant
that
it
is
very
strong
when
it
cannot
lift
even
the
lightest
weight.
Instead,
you
can
say
that
you
see
in
that
infant
that
when
it
grows,
it
will
manifest
great
strength.
However,
we
do
say
that
that
strength
we
find
in
man
when
he
is
grown
was
present
in
his
organs
and
his
body
even
when
he
was
an
infant,
but
that
strength
had
been
concealed
and
was
not
evident.
It
is
true
that
in
our
minds
we
could
determine
(the
powers
destined
to
manifest),
since
the
mind
asserts
it.
However,
in
the
infant’s
actual
body
there
is
certainly
no
strength
at
all,
since
no
strength
manifests
in
the
infant’s
actions,
since
no
force
was
revealed
in
the
infant’s
actions.
So
it
is
with
appetite.
This
force
will
not
appear
in
a
man’s
body
in
the
actual
reality
when
the
organs
cannot
eat,
meaning
when
he
is
full.
But
even
when
one
is
full,
the
force
of
appetite
exists,
but
it
is
concealed
within
one’s
body.
After
some
time,
when
the
food
has
been
digested,
it
reappears
and
manifests
from
potential
to
actual.
However,
such
a
sentence
(of
determining
a
force
that
has
not
yet
been
revealed
in
actual
fact)
belongs
to
the
conducts
by
which
the
thought
perceives.
However,
it
does
not
exist
in
reality,
since
when
satiated,
we
feel
very
clearly
that
the
force
of
appetite
is
gone,
and
if
you
search
for
it,
you
will
not
find
it.
It
turns
out
that
we
cannot
display
a
potential
as
a
subject
that
exists
in
and
of
itself,
but
only
as
a
predicate.
Thus,
when
an
action
occurs
in
reality,
at
that
time
the
force
manifests
in
the
action.
Yet,
we
necessarily
find
two
things
here
in
the
perceiving
process:
a
subject
and
a
predicate,
that
is,
potential
and
actual,
such
as
the
force
of
appetite,
which
is
the
subject,
and
the
image
of
the
food,
which
is
the
predicate
and
the
action.
In
reality,
however,
they
come
as
one.
It
will
never
occur
that
the
force
of
appetite
will
appear
in
a
person
without
picturing
the
food
he
wishes
to
eat.
Thus,
these
are
two
halves
of
the
same
thing.
The
force
of
appetite
must
dress
in
the
image
of
the
thing
being
eaten,
since
there
is
revealing
only
through
clothing
in
an
image.
You
therefore
see
that
the
subject
and
the
predicate
are
presented
here
as
two
halves
of
the
same
thing,
whose
appearance
and
disappearance
are
simultaneous.
Now
we
understand
that
the
will
to
receive,
which
we
presented
as
selfishness,
does
not
mean
that
it
exists
so
in
a
person
as
a
craving
force
that
wishes
to
receive
in
the
form
of
a
passive
predicate.
Rather,
this
pertains
to
the
subject,
meaning
that
it
dresses
in
an
image
of
things
he
deems
worthy
of
receiving.
It
is
like
the
force
of
appetite,
which
dresses
in
the
image
of
a
thing
worthy
of
being
eaten,
and
whose
action
appears
in
the
form
of
the
thing
being
eaten
and
in
which
it
clothes.
We
call
this
action,
“desire,”
meaning
the
force
of
appetite
revealed
in
the
action
of
the
imagination.
So
it
is
with
our
topic—the
general
will
to
receive,
which
is
the
very
essence
of
man.
It
appears
and
exists
only
through
dressing
in
shapes
of
objects
that
are
likely
to
be
received,
for
then
it
exists
as
the
subject,
and
in
no
other
way.
We
call
this
action,
“life,”
meaning
man’s
vitality,
which
means
that
the
force
of
the
will
to
receive
dresses
and
acts
within
the
desired
objects.
And
the
measure
of
revelation
of
this
action
is
the
measure
of
his
vitality,
as
we
have
explained
in
the
act
we
call
“desire.”
Two
Creations:
A)
Man,
B)
A
Living
Soul
From
the
above,
we
can
clearly
understand
the
verse:
“And
the
Lord
God
formed
man
of
the
dust
of
the
ground,
and
breathed
into
his
nostrils
the
breath
of
life;
and
man
became
a
living
[Haya]
soul
[Nefesh].”
Here
we
find
two
creations:
-
Man
himself,
-
The
living
soul
itself.
The
verse
says
that
in
the
beginning,
man
was
created
as
dust
from
the
ground,
a
collection
of
molecules
in
which
resides
the
essence
of
man,
meaning
his
will
to
receive.
That
force,
the
will
to
receive,
is
present
in
every
element
of
reality,
as
we
have
explained
above.
Also,
all
four
types
emerged
from
them:
1)
still,
2)
vegetative,
3)
animate,
4)
speaking.
In
that
respect,
man
has
no
advantage
over
any
part
of
creation.
This
is
the
meaning
of
the
verse
in
the
words,
“dust
from
the
ground.”
However,
we
have
already
seen
that
this
force,
called
“will
to
receive,”
cannot
exist
without
dressing
and
acting
in
a
desired
object,
and
this
action
is
called
“life.”
And
accordingly,
we
find
that
before
man
has
arrived
at
the
human
forms
of
reception
of
pleasure,
which
differ
from
those
of
other
created
beings,
he
is
still
considered
a
lifeless,
dead
person,
since
his
will
to
receive
has
no
place
in
which
to
dress
and
manifest
its
actions,
which
are
the
manifestations
of
life.
This
is
the
meaning
of
the
verse,
“and
breathed
into
his
nostrils
the
breath
of
life,”
which
is
the
general
form
of
reception
suitable
for
humans.
The
word
Nishmat
[breath
of]
comes
from
the
word
Samin
[placing]
the
ground
for
him,
which
is
like
“value.”
(And
the
origin
of
the
word
“breath”
is
understood
from
the
verse
(Job
33:4):
“The
spirit
of
God
has
made
me,
and
the
breath
of
the
Almighty
has
given
me
life,”
and
see
the
commentary
of
the
MALBIM
there.)
The
word
“soul”
[Neshama]
has
the
same
syntax
structure
as
the
words,
“missing”
[Nifkad],
“accused”
[Ne’esham],
and
“accused”
[Ne’eshama—female
term
of
Ne’esham].
And
the
meaning
of
the
words,
“and
breathed
into
his
nostrils”
is
that
He
instills
a
soul
[Neshama]
in
his
internality
and
an
appreciation
of
life,
which
is
the
sum
of
the
forms
that
are
worthy
of
reception
into
his
will
to
receive.
Then,
that
force,
the
will
to
receive,
enclosed
in
his
molecules,
has
found
a
place
in
which
to
dress
and
act,
meaning
in
those
forms
of
reception
that
he
had
obtained
from
the
Creator.
And
this
action
is
called
“life,”
as
we
have
explained
above.
And
the
verse
ends,
“and
man
became
a
living
soul.”
This
means
that
since
the
will
to
receive
has
begun
to
act
by
the
measures
of
those
forms
of
reception,
life
instantly
manifested
in
it
and
it
“became
a
living
soul.”
However,
prior
to
the
attainment
of
those
forms
of
reception,
although
the
force
of
the
will
to
receive
had
been
imprinted
in
him,
it
is
still
considered
a
lifeless
body,
since
it
has
no
place
in
which
to
appear
and
to
manifest
in
action.
As
we
have
seen
above,
although
man’s
essence
is
only
the
will
to
receive,
it
is
still
taken
as
half
of
a
whole,
as
it
must
clothe
in
a
reality
that
comes
its
way.
For
this
reason,
it
and
the
image
of
possession
it
depicts
are
literally
one,
for
otherwise
it
would
not
be
able
to
exist
for
even
a
moment.
Therefore,
when
the
machine
of
the
body
is
at
its
peak,
meaning
until
his
middle-age,
his
ego
stands
upright
in
all
the
height
imprinted
in
him
at
birth.
Because
of
this,
he
feels
within
him
a
large
and
powerful
measure
of
the
will
to
receive.
In
other
words,
he
craves
great
wealth
and
honor,
and
anything
that
comes
his
way.
This
is
so
because
of
the
perfection
of
man’s
ego,
which
attracts
shapes
of
structures
and
concepts
that
it
dresses
in
and
sustains
itself
through
them.
But
when
half
his
life
is
through,
begin
the
days
of
the
decline.
By
their
content,
these
are
his
dying
days.
A
person
does
not
die
in
an
instant,
just
as
he
did
not
receive
his
life
in
an
instant.
Rather,
his
candle,
being
his
ego,
withers
and
dies
bit
by
bit,
and
along
with
it
die
the
images
of
the
possessions
he
wishes
to
receive.
He
begins
to
relinquish
many
possessions
he
had
dreamed
of
in
his
youth,
and
he
gradually
relinquishes
great
possessions
according
to
his
decline
over
the
years.
Finally,
in
his
truly
old
days,
when
the
shadow
of
death
hovers
over
all
his
being,
a
person
finds
himself
in
“times
of
no
appeal,”
since
his
will
to
receive,
his
ego,
has
withered
away.
Only
a
tiny
spark
of
it
remains,
hidden
from
the
eye,
from
clothing
in
some
possession.
Therefore,
there
is
no
appeal
or
hope
in
those
days
for
any
image
of
reception.
Thus,
we
have
proven
that
the
will
to
receive,
along
with
the
image
of
the
object
expected
to
be
received,
are
one
and
the
same.
Their
manifestation
is
equal,
their
stature
is
equal,
and
so
is
the
length
of
their
lives.
However,
there
is
a
significant
distinction
here
in
the
form
of
the
yielding
at
the
time
of
the
decline
of
life.
That
yielding
is
not
a
result
of
satiation,
like
a
person
who
relinquishes
food
when
he
is
full,
but
a
result
of
despair.
That
is,
when
the
ego
begins
to
die
during
the
days
of
decline,
it
senses
its
own
weakness
and
approaching
death.
Therefore,
a
person
lets
go
and
gives
up
the
dreams
and
hopes
of
his
youth.
Observe
carefully
the
difference
between
that
and
the
yielding
due
to
satiation,
which
causes
no
grief
and
cannot
be
called
“partial
death,”
but
is
like
a
worker
who
completed
his
work.
Indeed,
relinquishment
out
of
despair
is
full
of
pain
and
sorrow,
and
can
therefore
be
called
“partial
death.”
Freedom
from
the
Angel
of
Death
Now,
after
all
that
we
have
learned,
we
find
a
way
to
truly
understand
the
words
of
our
sages
when
they
said,
“‘Harut
[carved]
on
the
stones,’
do
not
pronounce
it
Harut,
but
rather
Herut
[freedom],
for
they
have
been
liberated
from
the
angel
of
death.”
It
has
been
explained
in
the
articles,
“Matan
Torah”
and
“The
Arvut,”
that
prior
to
the
giving
of
the
Torah,
they
had
assumed
the
relinquishment
of
any
private
property
to
the
extent
expressed
in
the
words,
“a
kingdom
of
priests,”
and
the
purpose
of
the
whole
of
creation—to
adhere
to
Him
in
equivalence
of
form
with
Him:
As
He
bestows
and
does
not
receive,
they,
too,
will
bestow
and
not
receive.
This
is
the
last
degree
of
Dvekut
[adhesion],
expressed
in
the
words,
“a
holy
nation,”
as
it
is
written
at
the
end
of
the
article,
“The
Arvut.”
I
have
already
brought
you
to
realize
that
man’s
essence,
meaning
his
selfishness,
defined
as
the
will
to
receive,
is
only
half
a
thing,
and
can
only
exist
when
clothed
in
some
image
of
a
possession
or
hope
for
possession.
Only
then
is
our
matter
complete
and
can
be
called
“man’s
essence.”
Thus,
when
the
children
of
Israel
were
rewarded
with
complete
Dvekut
on
that
holy
occasion,
their
vessels
of
reception
were
completely
emptied
of
any
worldly
possession
and
they
were
adhered
to
Him
in
equivalence
of
form.
This
means
that
they
had
no
desire
for
any
self-possession,
but
only
to
the
extent
that
they
could
bestow
contentment,
so
their
Maker
would
delight
in
them.
And
since
their
will
to
receive
had
clothed
in
an
image
of
that
object,
it
had
clothed
in
it
and
bonded
with
it
into
complete
oneness.
Therefore,
they
were
certainly
liberated
from
the
angel
of
death,
for
death
is
necessarily
an
absence
and
negation
of
the
existence
of
something.
But
only
while
there
is
a
spark
that
wishes
to
exist
for
its
own
pleasure
is
it
possible
to
say
about
it
that
that
spark
does
not
exist
because
it
has
become
absent
and
died.
However,
if
there
is
no
such
spark
in
man,
but
all
the
sparks
of
his
selfness
clothe
in
bestowal
of
contentment
upon
their
Maker,
then
he
neither
becomes
absent
nor
dies.
For
even
when
the
body
is
annulled,
it
is
only
annulled
with
respect
to
self-reception,
in
which
the
will
to
receive
is
dressed
and
can
only
exist
in
it.
However,
when
he
achieves
the
aim
of
creation
and
the
Creator
receives
pleasure
from
him,
since
His
will
is
done,
man’s
essence,
which
clothes
in
His
contentment,
is
granted
complete
eternity,
like
Him.
Thus,
he
has
been
rewarded
with
freedom
from
the
angel
of
death.
This
is
the
meaning
of
the
words
of
the
Midrash
(Midrash
Rabbah,
Shemot,
41):
“Freedom
from
the
angel
of
death.”
And
in
the
Mishna
(Avot,
Chapter
6):
“Harut
[carved]
on
the
stones;
do
not
pronounce
it
Harut,
but
rather
Herut
[freedom],
for
none
are
free,
unless
they
engage
in
the
study
of
Torah.”