Hakdama 12

The Rambam starts the hakdama

משמו של מי שקיבלו את הקבלה ממשה רבינו עליו השלום. וכבוד דבריו בא כמו שנזכר במשנה דברים קצרים והכל לענין המרובה. וזהו היה בו אצלו מחמת חריפותו ובינתו המעולה. אבל למי שפחות ממנו הרי זה קשה עבורו. לפי שחכמים הקדמונים לא היו מחברים אלא לעצמם. ועל כן ראה אחד מתלמידיו והוא רבי חייא לחבר ספר וללכת בו בעקבות רבו, לבאר בו את הטעון ביאור בדברי הרב,

and that is the Tosefta.

נתכוון בו לבאר הMishnah בתוספות נידונים שאפשר לדרוש אותם מן הMishnah אך רק אחרי יגיעה. ודרשם כדי ללמדנו איך נדרוש ונסיק מסקנות מן הMishnah.

So the Rebbe's formulations in the Mishnah are extraordinarily compact. דברים קצרים והכל לענין המרובה, which worked well for him, מחמת חריפותו ובינתו המעולה, but למי שפחות ממנו was difficult to fully appreciate and that's why Rabbi Chiya sought to elaborate upon the Mishnah with the Tosefta. The question is what does this line mean when the Rambam writes לפי שחכמים הקדמונים לא היו מחברים אלא לעצמם? And what do the other translations have, how do you have it? L'nafshosam. L'nafshosam? But the same thing, חכמים הקדמונים לא היו מחברים אלא לנפשותם? Obviously the point of teaching is not to talk to oneself, right? The point of teaching is to convey, to transmit. So I don't know, we'll discuss something else בלי נדר אם ירצה השם which may or may not make a little bit of a dent in this question of what the Rambam has in mind when he says that לא היו מחברים אלא לעצמם. But let's continue just a few lines more.

וכן עשה גם רבי אושעיא, ורב גם כן חיבר ברייתא

v'hisif po Sifra v'Sifrei v'harbe zulasam, k'mo she'omrim

כי אתא רב פפא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה. אלא שלא הגיעו הברייתות האלו כולם לmesikus

leshon hamishnah, the sweetness, presumably that means the eloquence,

ולא לשכל עניינה וקוצר מליה. ועל כן נעשית היא העיקר, כלומר הMishnah, וכל אותם החיבורים משניים לה,

secondary,

והיא החשובה בעיני הכל ובהשוואתה לאותם החיבורים ראו והבינו ויאשרוה מלכים ורוזנים ויהללוה.

So the Rambam here again emphasizes the kotzer mileha, that one of the defining virtues of Mishnah is its terseness. So lechora the pshat seems to be as follows. So we learned back in Perek Beis of Hilchos Deos in Halacha Dalet where the Rambam says

וכן בדברי תורה ובדברי חכמה יהיו דברי החכם מועטים וענייניהם מרובים.

Don't think that the importance of economizing in speech is only in milei d’alma, tzorkei haguf et cetera. No, it's true בדברי תורה ובדברי חכמה as well. There too a person should economize in speech such that יהיו דברי החכם מועטים וענייניהם מרובים. Right? The content and the substance is great and the words themselves are sparing, are few.

והוא שציוו חכמים ואמרו לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה. אבל אם היו הדברים מרובים והעניין מועט,

what if it's the opposite? So then harei zu sichlus.

ועל זה נאמר כי בא החלום ברוב עניין וקול כסיל ברוב דברים.

That if you hear excessive speech, so then you're hearing the voice of a fool. So that means that for the Rambam there's a spectrum, right? So at one end of the spectrum is דברים מועטים ועניינים מרובים. Right? That's one end of the spectrum. Terse, compact, but very, very substantive, deep. And the other end of the spectrum is the opposite. Is דברים מרובים והעניין מועט. So that means that for the Rambam, every unnecessary word in expressing something adulterates, cheapens the chochma. Right? With every unnecessary word, so one moves on the spectrum from the end of again, from the beginning of the spectrum again, of דברים מועטים ועניינים מרובים towards the וקול כסיל ברוב דברים end end of the spectrum. So every word, every unnecessary word, it adulterates, it cheapens the chochma and it moves the needle towards the other end of the spectrum towards the וקול כסיל ברוב דברים end of the spectrum. It's clear that the Rambam sees in the Mishnah the embodiment of this teaching. That the Mishnah is the embodiment of this of Perek Beis Halacha Dalet here in Deos. So that l’chora is clear. Maybe, but this is maybe. Maybe that's what the Rambam means also when he says לפי שהחכמים הקדמונים לא היו מחברים אלא לעצמם. It's not that Rabbeinu HaKadosh, it's not that he set the bar impossibly high. Again, that doesn't make any sense because at the end of the day obviously Rabbeinu HaKadosh didn't compile, didn't compose and compile the Mishnah for himself, it was שלא תשתכח תורה מישראל. So it wasn't for himself. So it can't be that the bar is set impossibly high. But the question is do you set the bar at a very, very, very challenging height or do you lower it to spoon-feed? And maybe that's what it means שלא היו מחברים אלא לעצמם because to do less than that, again, is to adulterate and is to cheapen the chochma. Again, the idea is certainly what he's saying elsewhere, is does it also account for this line, ayin alav. Maybe we'll just compare also the way he expresses it in the hakdama to the Yad. So after describing that again that Rabbeinu Hakadosh composed and compiled Mishna, so the Rambam continues again now in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah:

רב חיבר ספרא וספרי לבאר ולהודיע עיקרי המשנה. ורבי חייא חיבר התוספתא לבאר ענייני המשנה. וכן רבי הושעיה ובר קפרא חיברו ברייתות לבאר דברי המשנה.

So לבאר ולהודיע עיקרי המשנה meaning the basis for the dinim in the Mishna, right? The drashos that we have in the Sifra and Sifrei are the basis for the dinim that are just presented in the Mishna without being given the source. L'vaer inyanei ha-Mishna means to explain the content and to elaborate the content, and l'vaer divrei ha-Mishna just to help taitch, explain the words of the Mishna. But everything is focused on the Mishna, meaning once Rabbeinu Hakadosh composed and compiled Shisha Sidrei Mishna, that became the embodiment of Torah She-Ba'al Peh, and all subsequent learning focused on the Mishna because that was the comprehensive embodiment of Torah She-Ba'al Peh. And that's the same thing that the Rambam is depicting here as well, that it's not that a Tosefta or a Baraita or a Sifra or a Sifrei is sort of an additional contribution. Everything is now just sort of secondary, becomes commentary, super commentary to Mishna. וכל מי שקם אחריו and this idea that we're talking about now, the Rambam again says very very clearly and sharply in this sense: וכל מי שקם אחריו meaning after Rabbeinu Hakadosh ואחר אותה החבורה הנכבדה, the chaburah including Rabbi Chiya, Rabbi Hoshaia, etcetera, לא הייתה מטרתו אלא להבין דברי המשנה. And that's the idea we just spoke about.

ולא חדלו דור אחר דור מלדון בה ולפרשה כל חכם לפי יכולת חכמתו ובינתו. ונחלקו בפירושי מקצת הלכות שבה במהלך השנים ואין חבורה שלא דנה בה והסיקה ממנה חידושי דינים ולמדה ממנה לימודים עד שהגיע הזמן לרבינא ולרב אשי והם סוף חכמי התלמוד. ולקח על עצמו רב אשי לחבר חיבור.

So in contrast to Rashi who in a couple of places attributes the chibur of Talmud Bavli to Ravina and Rav Ashi, Rambam thinks it was Rav Ashi who's responsible for Talmud Bavli.

ולקח על עצמו רב אשי לחבר חיבור וראה לעשות בדברי כל מי שהיה אחר רבינו הקדוש כפי שעשה רבינו הקדוש בדברי כל מי שהיה אחר משה וקיבץ את כל מאמרי האמוראים וחקירות החוקרים ופירוש המפרשים וביאר הקבלות וקיבצן והקיף בידו נוסח הכל במשך הזמן שחנן השם משלוות הנפש ויקר החכמה.

So just as Rabbeinu Hakadosh again had gathered all the halachos of Torah She-Ba'al Peh which had been understood, transmitted until his day, so all the subsequent discussion of Mishna was was gathered by Rav Ashi. Now the Rambam doesn't spell out, I mean, we do have things, I mean, the Rishonim will quote from the Yerushalmi that are not in the Bavli. Right, but we come across that regularly, that there's a comment in the Yerushalmi that has no analog in the Bavli. So I don't know, maybe in that Haqdama to Mishneh Torah he mentions the Yerushalmi before the Bavli.

רבי יוחנן חיבר התלמוד הירושלמי בארץ ישראל אחר חורבן הבית בקירוב שלוש מאות שנה.

So I'm not sure why he doesn't have it here because presumably I don't know why did the Rambam not mention the Yerushalmi here in the Haqdama to Peirush HaMishnayos and again sort of a I guess an extension of that question because besides that being so significant in the history of Torah she-ba'al peh isn't it also necessary to substantiate that Rav Ashi's hibur is all encompassing because he's also relying in part with what had already been gathered in the Yerushalmi? So I don't know, that's a question. V'hiber es hatalmud. Now what's shas? What's Gemara? So the Rambam again explains to us וסמך למטרה בו ארבעה דברים. There were four elements which together comprise all of Talmud Bavli.

האחד פירוש המשנה לכל עומר על הלשון שבו המשנה בפירושים שונים וטענות כל מפרש על חבירו ולברר את הטענה הנכונה וזוהי המטרה הראשית שמטרותיו.

So the main, the primary goal of Talmud Bavli is to explain the mishna when there's disagreement to present the different arguments of the Amoraim and then to try to establish who's correct, right? We'll quote a braisa, we'll quote a tosefta in support of one Amora challenging another Amora. So that's the primary goal of Talmud Bavli again is to establish definitively pshat in the mishna.

והשני פסק ההלכה כדעת אחד החולקים שהובא מחלוקתם בנוסח המשנה או בפירושה או במה שאור מדבריה ובנלמד ממנו לעניין אחר.

Okay. Halacha l'maaseh. וזוהי שמעתא אליבא דהלכתא. Either the need for that is because the mishna itself presented a machlokes or again there emerged a machlokes about what the mishna means. So psak halacha.

והשלישי החידושים שחדשו חכמי כל דור מן המשנה וביאור היסודות והראיות שלמדו מהם והסתמכו עליהם התנאים המדברים במשנה עד שנקבע מדברי מה שנקבע והגזירות והתקנות שנעשו מאחר רבינו הקדוש עד אשי.

Also the new dinim which the Amoraim were mechadesh. They were mechadesh new dinim on of two sorts. Number one again was what they sort of elicited from within the mishna and number two gzeiros and takkanos that were made after the time of Rabbeinu HaKadosh. Kegon shvuas hesset. That a kofer hakol has to take a shvua is a takkana of the hachamei hagemara. In the zman hamishna they hadn't yet made that takkana. So that type of chidush din is part of again what the third element is.

והרביעי דרשות מתאימות לעניין כל פרק המזדמן שיהא בו דרש.

And the fourth is the Agadta. That's the fourth element of Talmud Bavli. So here the Rambam has a very fascinating yesod. He says that the placement of Agadta is always contextual. The Agadta always relates to the halacha of that perek in Shas. It's not there's nothing sort of arbitrary about where you find an Agadta. So maybe just to give one example of that. What one of the Gemaras where Chazal excoriate kaas is in towards the beginning of the third perek of Nedarim where the Gemara says כל הכועס כל מיני גיהנם שולטין בו. And if you look, the placement of that, there's no obvious, again leaving without the benefit of this insight of the Rambam, there's no obvious connection to—I don't remember that it's the name of the same amora or something that sometimes you string together based on different memras based on that it's the same amora from whom we don't have that many memras in Shas or whatever. It was just injected there. כל הכועס כל מיני גיהנם שולטין בו. So the context there is it's in the sugya of hataras nedarim and it's where the Gemara says that one basis for hataras nedarim is charata and vechulanu nicharatnu bahen. Right? When we make hataras nedarim erev Rosh Hashanah we speak of charata which means that it's a legitimate basis, it's a machlokes rishonim exactly how this next point should be expressed, but it's a legitimate basis for hataras nedarim even if there was no circumstance that the person was unaware of, which is a pesach. There was no circumstance that he was unaware of when he took the neder, but he just says I have charata. My mindset now is different than my mindset then and based on that I have a charata, a charata meikara, not just a charata that I don't want to be bound by the neder mikan ulehaba. I have a charata meikara that I ever took the neder. So then that's basis for poschin becharata. That's basis for hataras nedarim. So heicha tisei because a person changes his mind? So that's no, so the omek of what charata is is that let's say a person is agitated. A person's upset. A person is angry. So not al pi din in terms of qualifying as a shoteh, but in a colloquial sense, he's not in his right mind, right? When a person is agitated, he's upset, he's not thinking clearly, he's not thinking straight. And a person will do and say things that reflect again not his best judgment, but call it kol minei geihinnom, all kinds of forces and other factors. So that Agadta which talks about again how meguna the mida of kaas is really sheds light on the din of poschin becharata that charata that the halacha is that charata can serve as a basis for hataras nedarim because the what the two have in common again is how a person's judgment is compromised by let's say in the case of kaas by the volatility of anger. So that's an example of again how the Agadta connects to the perek. Let's say in Hanizakin, right, before you have all the Agadta of the churban, so the Mishna talks about milchemes Titus in a halachic context and agav that, we have the Agadta of the churban. Ve’inyan harevi’i hazeh, this fourth element of Talmud Bavli, כלומר הדרש הנמצא בתלמוד, the Agadta. אין ראוי לחשוב שהוא במעלה נמוכה או שתועלתו מועטה. A person shouldn't denigrate this, ela.

אלא תכליתו עצומה במה שהוא כולל מן החידות העמוקות והערות הנפלאות.

The wisdom that's contained within Agadta is profound and very deep.

כי אותן הדרשות אם מעיינים בהם עיון מעמיק יובן מהן מן הטוב המוחלט שאין למעלה הימנו.

If a person delves appropriately, deeply into Agadta, so what the chochmah that he attains is of the highest, highest kind. ויגלה מהן מן העניינים האלוהיים ואמיתת עניינים. It tells us things about our understanding of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Ma'aseh Merkavah,

כל מה שבמחשבתם של אנשי החכמה וכל מה שכללו אפילו הפילוסופים בזמנם.

What philosophers struggle to understand, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly, so the truth of all these inyanim can be found if a person is zocheh to understand the Agadta in its, in its full depth. U-khshe-ta'ayen bo ke-fshuto, but if you just look at what it seems to mean on a simple level, תראה בו עניינים הרחוקים מן השכל שאין למעלה מהם. Things which are nonsense, things which are just impossible to believe. ולא עשו כן אלא לצורך עניינים נפלאים. Now the reason Chazal operated with such a veneer was for the following two, following two reasons. Ha-echad, the first reason why Chazal camouflaged the chochmah of Agadta in a way that superficially seems like just wild tales, האחד כדי להפרות את מחשבות הלומדים, to stimulate, right, to make fruitful, to stimulate the thought of those who are learning. וגם לעוור את עיני הכסילים שלא יאורו ליבותיהם לעולם. But also to keep it off-limits to those who are not ready, who are not positioned to hear and understand these truths.

ואילו היו מוצגים לפניהם האמיתות היו משחקים מהם כפי חסרון טבעיהם. שעל כמותם אומרים אין מגלים להם את הסוד.

So the Rambam gives two reasons here. Let's try to understand the first one a little bit. האחד כדי להפרות את מחשבות הלומדים. What do you have? Lehafros rayonei ha-lomdim. Also lehafros? Yeah. Yeah. Again, to stimulate. So what does it mean? So likhorah it means like this. When something is very clearly laid out, so then to a degree when we hear or when we're learning mi-toch ha-ktav, so to a degree we understand it right away because it's presented so lucidly. Right. So what's the flop? What's the downside to that? No, the Rambam says there is a downside to that. And the downside to that is that a person may not or maybe even likely will not. what's being said, what's being taught, what's being presented. When things are presented very, again, so clearly, so lucidly, so then we're sort of, we let our guard down. I understood, I understood. When things are presented cryptically, so then a person needs to think very deeply to try to penetrate and try to understand. And the need to think that deeply and to think that hard ultimately results in a fuller and deeper understanding than if it were than when it's just presented so easily and so smoothly. I have to think about that for a second. I've often thought that that was the pshat in, or, or part of the pshat, not the entire pshat, in why Rav Chaim wrote the way he did. He says as the hakdama indicates, again, the hakdama not written by Rav Chaim, but by his sons. He says tremendously deep, subtle, highly nuanced, new yesodos in a word, literally, literally. So he could have elaborated, but the more he elaborates it, the greater the danger is that one understands it more superficially than than is intended. So that's reason number one why Aggadata isn't straightforward. What's reason number two? Reason number two is to make sure that it remains inaccessible to those who can't properly relate to the truths of Aggadata. So by, again, by making it necessary to as it were decode Aggadata, so that restricts it to those who who are positioned to appreciate and and understand and and react properly to the to what's revealed in the Aggadata.

והרי החכמים עליהם השלום היו מעלימים זה מזה סודות החכמה וכבר סיפרו כי אחד מן החכמים נתבקש מאנשים שבקיאים בחכמת מעשה בראשית.

He on the other hand

והוא היה בקי בחכמת מעשה המרכבה. אמר להם למדוני מעשה בראשית ואלמדכם מעשה מרכבה.

So that's the deal. Vena'anu lo, so they took him up on the deal.

ולאחר שלמדו מעשה בראשית נמנע מללמדם מעשה מרכבה. לא עשה זאת חס ושלום מתוך צרות עין מצדו בחכמה ומרוצתו להיות לו יתרון עליהם.

It wasn't out of competitiveness.

כי המידות הללו מגונות באחד השכלים שבבני אדם כל שכן באנשים גדולים. ולא עשה זאת אלא מפני שראה עצמו ראוי לקבל מה שבידם ולא ראה אותם ראויים לקבל מה שבידו.

So nicha, nicha that he again with not with objectivity that he recognized that he could appreciate the knowledge they had, but they couldn't appreciate the knowledge that that he had, but so how did he say initially that it should be a quid pro quo? So just say teach me ma'aseh bereishit. I mean, so how can you, how can you make a deal and then and then renege? I don't know, the question is maybe the, again, it's a question not really on the Rebbi, maybe the question is on the on the Gemara. He's quoting a Gemara in Chagigah. It's not really a question on the Rambam. So I don't know, you have to look inside and see if this pshat is cogent, I'm not sure. Might it be that initially... no, initially he thinks that they are worthy, but then maybe he notices in how they share with him what they know about Ma'aseh Bereshit, so you see... no. I think the Rambam writes in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah that Ma'aseh Merkavah is something which is more challenging, more intricate than Ma'aseh Bereshit. Ma'aseh Merkavah deals with Hashem Echad, it deals with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Not what HaKadosh Baruch Hu's bri'ah, deals with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. So maybe, maybe the pshat is that, no, initially he thought that he would be able to respond, that he would be able to reciprocate. Then mitoch the learning of Ma'aseh Bereshit, he saw, no, that's their... they've maxed out in Ma'aseh Bereshit and that's why he can't then proceed to to honor what the original deal was. See... was Rabbeinu HaKadosh choshesh for this first chashash that we laid out, that people were going to take it very simply and writing the Mishnayot? He writes it in a very muktzar way, but it's not presented like aggadata. Right, no, so this is only true of aggadata, which is camouflaging things from Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkavah. In... for Rabbeinu HaKadosh, again, this... this reason, again, lehafros hamachshava, this is by the aggadata, this wasn't part of Rabbeinu HaKadosh's reason. Is it also true, though, that in Mishnayot it could be taken very simply and people wouldn't work hard to understand what it's actually saying? It is. And again, and that was sort of the tushlama we were making to Rav Chaim, but whether or not that was part of Rabbeinu HaKadosh's intent, I don't know. It sounds like the Rambam is introducing this perspective only now in terms of the aggadata. So I'm not sure. It can be true. It certainly can be true even in halacha, when a halachic concept is deep and nuanced and profound enough. And again, and that's what we were shtelling tzu to Rav Chaim, but is that what the Rambam... the idea is certainly true. Was the Rambam attributing that motivation to Rabbeinu HaKadosh? I'm not sure if you see any indication of that. ולמד ראיה על זה, and he brings proof to this discretion that a person has to have in sharing what he knows, be it Ma'aseh Bereshit or Ma'aseh Merkavah, midivrei Shlomo, דבש וחלב תחת לשונך. So what's the metaphor of dvash v'chalav?

ופירשו ז"ל עליהם השלום ואמרו שענין דברים אלו כי העניינים הערבים,

sweet, shehanefesh mit'aneget bahem. Right? That the soul delights in them,

כהתענג חוש הטעם בדבש וחלב, צריך שלא יהיו נאמרים ולא יוצאו מן הלשון כלל,

v'hu amar tachat lishonecha. Let's continue a little bit more and then just want to try to explain one more thing here, b'ezrat Hashem.

כי העניינים הללו אינם מן הנלמדים ולא נדרשים בישיבות החכמה אלא רומזים עליהם בספרים רמזים נסתרים. וכשמסיר השם החציצה מעל לב מי שרצוי לפניו ואחר השתדלותו בחכמות הוא מבין מהם לפי יכולת בינתו. ואין לו אדם מן הלימוד ובקשת החכמה וחריצות אלא להשליך יהבו על השם ולהתפלל אליו ולהתחנן שיביננהו וידריכהו ויגלה לו הסודות הטמונים בכתבי התורה כמו שמצאנו שדוד עליו השלום עשה כן,

hu amar גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך. So here's a theme that the Rambam returns to again later, that Talmud Torah requires a special siyata d'shmaya. And again, the proof to that is that David HaMelech. So David HaMelech was a pretty capable guy. And im kol zeh... Dovid Hamelech didn't think that it was enough, his tremendous diligence, charitzus, his tremendous diligence in Talmud Torah, but he davened Hakadosh Baruch Hu gal einai, right, open my eyes, va'abita niflaos mitorasecha. And that serves as a maise rav, Dovid Hamelech serves as a maise rav for anyone who again wants to understand the depth of Torah that אין לו אדם מן הלימוד ובקשת החכמה בחריצות with all the diligence and all the yegia and all the amala, so there's an element, all of which is necessary, but there's another element which is necessary as well, which is להשליך יהבו על השם ולהתפלל אליו. And again the hispallel elav for the depth, right, sheyivanehu, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu should give him the bina that he should know how to approach and that everything that's sasum should become revealed to him. The Rambam has this in the—he repeats this again in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim when he talks about Torah min hashamayim. He says every word in Torah shebichsav is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, even those which seem to be dealing with what only seem to be dealing with inconsequential matters, v'shem ishto Mehetabel is every much mipi hagevura as שמע ישראל השם אלקינו השם אחד. I—but we don't see what the significance of that is. So the Rambam says, no, everything in the Torah is chochma nifla and a person has to daven to Hakadosh Baruch Hu that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, like Dovid Hamelech did, and he quotes the pasuk there as well of גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך. So in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, the Rambam repeats this. So the shayla is, where do we do that? Do we do that? It seems inconceivable that we wouldn't. On the other hand, where do we have the tfeela of גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך? Or do we have? So lichora, the Gemara Chagiga here, the Rambam's discussion, the Gemara Chagiga provides the answer. The Gemara Chagiga, as the Rambam explains, compares something which was nistar, which is then revealed to a person, that the spiritual delight, the oneg nafshi that a person experiences, is metaphorically compared to dvash v'chalav. It's compared to something, right, dvash is the sweetest, right, is the sweetest food, the sweetest thing there is. So the pshat, the shayla, lichora pshat is like this: והערב נא השם אלקינו את דברי תורתך בפינו. So Rashi in Brachos says v'harev means that we should learn mitoch ahava. That's what v'harev means, that we ask Hakadosh Baruch Hu we should not only learn, but we should learn Torah mitoch ahava. Yitachen that according to the Rambam, the Rambam's all in favor of that, but yitachen according to the Rambam that what v'harev means is exactly this. That's where the גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך is. That's where that bakasha is, because the v'harev will come from that breakthrough from the גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך, so then the person experiences the dvash of Torah. He experiences the v'harev, and this is where we have the Rambam's again, where we fulfill what the Rambam says is the maise rav from Dovid Hamelech to ask for גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך.