Nefesh Hachaim, Shaar 1, Perek 2 & 3

Nefesh Hachaim explains what it says in the Shulchan Aruch that the kavana associated with the Shem Elokim, what the Shem Elokim expresses, ba'al hakochos kulam, doesn't simply mean that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is omnipotent, but it means that he's the exclusive ba'al koach, that nothing has, even after bri'as ha'olam, even after Hakadosh Baruch Hu was mamtzi yesh me'ayin, nothing becomes autonomous, nothing has its own intrinsic existence, nothing is a ba'al koach. Just be reading for a moment again in the Reuven edition, it's on amud beis here.

וכמו שיסדו אנשי כנסת הגדולה המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית היינו תמיד ממש בכל רגע ורגע והיא גם כן מפורשת כאמור לעושה אורים גדולים שלא אמר עשה אלא עושה.

So here this line is hard to understand. The question unfolds as follows. You have in a couple of places in the Gemara when the Gemara is talking about the matbei'a habracha. So on daf lamed cheis in Berachos, so the Gemara is discussing whether or not in the bracha, again, the bracha that we know reflecting the maskanas hagemara as המוציא לחם מן הארץ, there's a machlokes tanna'im whether that matbei'a habracha is acceptable as we say hamotzi, or whether the matbei'a habracha should be davka motzi without the hei. The Gemara explains that the machlokes between the chachamim and Rabbi Nechemia is everyone agrees that if we were to say ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם without the hei,

מוציא לחם מן הארץ, כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאפיק משמע,

that if you say motzi, it connotes the past. דכתיב אל מוציאם ממצרים, and that's what we want. We want a connotation of the past. Ki pligi, the machlokes of Rabbi Nechemia and the chachamim is be'hamotzi. When you say not מוציא לחם מן הארץ but המוציא לחם מן הארץ, רבנן סברי המוציא דאפיק משמע, it also has that past connotation and therefore it's also appropriate and even better because when you say if the matbei'a bracha would be motzi lechem, either as Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi, ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם, if the matbei'a bracha would be motzi, so then you would run the risk of eliding, of combining those two mems. Right, Melech Ha'olam motzi, so you'll have the problem that you could run those two together. Hashe'ken, if hamotzi has the same connotation, that's going to be preferable because you'll put the hei in there to be mafsik. So it's clear from this Gemara that the connotation that we want is de'apek, past. And the question is, is it only motzi that has that connotation or is it hamotzi as well? Similarly, the Gemara later in the eighth perek, the Gemara has a מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל what the correct matbei'a habracha is, again for the bracha that we know as borei me'orei ha'eish. Initially, the Gemara thinks that the מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל is that according to Beis Shammai the bracha is bara me'orei ha'eish, beis reish aleph, bara me'orei ha'eish, and according to Beis Hillel it's borei me'orei ha'eish. When the Gemara thinks that that's the machlokes, again, the Gemara says the same thing. Everyone agrees that bara has the past connotation. The question is what about borei? And the Gemara says no, that's not the מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל. Everyone agrees that borei has the past connotation. The machlokes really is do you say me'orei in the plural as we do or do you say ma'or in the singular? But what is the Gemara talking about? The Gemara says כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמוציא is de'apek mashma and כולי עלמא לא פליגי דבורא is... is mashma lesha'avar? Right, so motzi is past tense, motzi is present tense, and yotzi is future tense, and bara is created, and borei is creates, and yivra is will create. So what does the Gemara mean? What does the Gemara mean that כולי עלמא לא פליגי that motzi is appik mashma? And כולי עלמא לא פליגי on the contrary to what we thought first, no, Beis Shammai, Beis Hillel agree that borei is, excuse me, that borei is mashma shebara kevar. What do the words mean? Let's say in English you would have the following sentence. You could say the following sentence that Rav Neubert author Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa. The author Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa was a maggid shiur in Kol Torah. How do you translate that? How do you translate that sentence into Hebrew? Rav Neubert author Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa etcetera. How do you translate that into Hebrew? Rav Neubert mechaber Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa. But he's not writing Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa now. Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa was written over 50 years ago. So ella mai so what we call what we just sort of simplistically refer to as the present tense, so really in lashon hakodesh it's it's more nuanced than that. So the word mechaber can be describing someone who's sitting and writing a sefer right now. If you know someone's writing a sefer right now, someone asks you what he's doing, you can say yoshev u-mechaber sefer. And that would be a correct usage of the word. But the word mechaber also means we talk about the Mechaber, we talk about the Yosef Karo as the Mechaber. What Yoni said is a correct translation. The way to say Rav Neubert author Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa is Rav Neubert מחבר ספר שמירת שבת כהלכתה. So what we call the present really in lashon hakodesh mean obviously it has a present sense to it in the sense that Rav Neubert is still the mechaber of Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilchasa. In that sense present sense. But not present in the sense of do it. Not present in the sense that we say it of a verb that's happening now. So what we refer to as hoveh, as the present tense, so in lashon hakodesh also means what in English what we would have a phrase in apposition such as author of. So the way you say that is with the same present tense. It's klar klar that when the Gemara says that motzi is mashma lesha'avar, that borei is mashma lesha'avar, what it means is that when we make the bracha borei pri ha-etz, borei pri ha-adamah, borei pri ha-gafen, the English translation of that is not who creates. That's not the English translation. The English translation of the bracha is supposed to be creator of fruit of the tree, creator of fruit of the ground, creator of fruit of the vine, not who creates. The correct English translation is creator of. And that's what the Gemara means that motzi is mashma lesha'avar. The same way mechaber, it's absolutely correct, mechaber is mashma lesha'avar. Rav Neubert מחבר ספר שמירת שבת כהלכתה, that's mashma that's mashma lesha'avar. And it's klar that that's what the Gemara is saying that we want the brachos to have this mashma'os of lesha'avar. So that's why this Nefesh HaChaim is hard to understand. When Rav Chaim Volozhin says that re'ayaso meforeshes, again that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is mechadesh every moment, so he clearly means that Hakadosh Baruch Hu mechadesh, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is being mechadesh. But is that really... How is that proven from the pasuk of le'oseh orim gedolim? The pshat says that the translation of le'oseh orim gedolim is like in brachos, that the pshat says that the translation of the pasuk in Tehillim is הודו להשם כי טוב, Hodu l'Hashem who is the creator, the former of the great luminous bodies. It doesn't mean oseh as opposed to asah the same way borei isn't as opposed to bara in the middas habracha. That's why in the same kappitel, again, we said it in the Shabbos day p'sukei d'zimra, it says lemakeh mitzrayim bivchoreihem. So it also obviously doesn't mean that HaKadosh Baruch Hu right now is striking down the bechorei mitzrayim. So tzarich iyun what the Nefesh HaChaim, again, it's not really mamesh the question what we're not succeeding in understanding is not what Nefesh HaChaim is saying, it's really, let's point out, that's clearly what Anshei Knesses HaGedolah are saying, we're not understanding the middas habracha. I have a very basic question of grammar, it's more of a side question. In the sense that the rebbe was giving for mechaber, isn't mechaber there a noun, not a verb? And if it's a noun then that makes sense, that's why it's used in this sense. No, nami, but the point is it's the same form. It's the same form. How do you say to let's say in past tense he authored a book? Hu chiber sefer. How do you say in the future tense he will author a book? Hu yechaber sefer. How do you say that right now he's sitting at his desk and he's writing a book? Hu mechaber sefer. So the point only is that that same form means either he is authoring or he is author of. Ein hachi nami you're right, it's what when you say Rabbi Yosef Karo mechaber Shulchan Aruch, so that translates into English as an appositional phrase: Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of. But you're exactly right, but the point is that we look at this and we recognize that as oh, that's hoveh, that's a present verb, but that's not correct necessarily in terms of what it means in lashon hakodesh. So I don't know, so what's pshat over here in the Birkas Krias Shema? Okay, so I think we'll start here in the second hagah,

ואף שהוא שם משותף. ואף שהוא שם משותף בכל בעל כח שנמצא בעולם

meaning that you can have Elokim lashon kodesh but you can have Elokim lashon chol. וכל שרי מעלה ומטה נקראים Elokim because again it's not referring to HaKadosh Baruch Hu.

וכל שרי מעלה ומטה נקראים אלוהים כמו שכתוב אלוהי העמים כי כל העמים ילכו איש בשם אלוהיו כענין

and here too ויבא אלוהים דכתיב באבימלך ולבן ובלעם meaning the Nefesh HaChaim is explaining the Rambam makes the same point not necessarily arriving at the conclusion by traveling the same path that Lavan, Avimelech, and Bilaam were not amongst the people who were zocher of nevuah. So what does it mean when seemingly the so either what it means is that we attribute it's not for the Nefesh HaChaim so the pshat is that we attribute things to HaKadosh Baruch Hu not only al pi sort of the immediate cause but also al pi he's just the first cause. So let's say the Radak says in the kappitel of Tehillim, aka Ashrei, it says

עיני כל אליך ישברו ואתה נותן להם את אכלם בעתו

it doesn't mean that HaKadosh Baruch Hu is providing. is doing? No,

עיני כל אליך ישברו ואתה נותן להם את אכלם בעתו.

You, when you created the world, Ribono Shel Olam, you created a world that has ecosystems that sustain all the different briyos within the briyah. So too, that's what it means, it means that... Then the pshat would be Vayavo Elokim. According to that pshat, it would be that Hakadosh Baruch Hu through a whole chain, Hakadosh Baruch Hu made Lavan hear such and such a voice. Not nevuah. Same way as you say Hakadosh Baruch Hu makes what would make there be a clap of thunder. That's not, hearing the clap of thunder is not an experience of nevuah. So but the Nefesh Hachaim is coming to that same conclusion but with a different taitch. What it means is, hasar shelo, כי הם ממונים עליהם להנהיגם. What the pshat is that it should be a nafka mina whether it's lashon kodesh or lashon chol.

כי הם ממונים עליהם להנהיגם, וכן דייני מטה נקראין אלהים.

Like elokim lo tekalel is a lav of rachamanah litzlan being megadef, but it also is belashon elohim lo tekalel not to be mekalel a dayan. What about ויהי דבר ה' אל בלעם בן בעור? That's Bilam, it sounds like Bilam was a navi. Bilam was almost like, we could almost be misunderstood to say that you're saying that Bilam's... Bilam was not a navi. So then that medrash means... so what does that medrash mean? Something, even if we wouldn't know what it means, some things you know what it doesn't mean, even if you don't know what it does mean. It's a high madreigah to know what something doesn't mean. So sometimes even if we can't reach the madreigah to know what something does mean, we know what it doesn't mean. I mean, what Chazal tell us about Bilam, how can Bilam be a navi? Bilam was a mush'chas. Bilam would fit perfectly into, well, he would taka be a person of sorts to mamash mamash integrate perfectly and on the cutting edge of all the social change and immorality, but Bilam would be a taka be a prophet of modern times. When we say ולא קם נביא בישראל כמשה עוד ובאומות העולם קם, that the only competitor, the only equal that Moshe Rabbeinu has is Bilam haRasha. So in masechet Bava Batra it says that Moshe Rabbeinu כתב ספרו וספר בלעם. When the gemara says who wrote down the different parshiyos in the kitvei hakodesh, so it says that Moshe Rabbeinu is the one who wrote down sipro, zikui Toras Moshe, חמישה חומשי תורת משה, v'sefer Bilam. What's sefer Bilam? So Rav Chaim said that the Rebbe used to quote that what it means is as follows: there's a lot of marei d'Torah in the Chumash. The Torah tells us of the dei'os, conversations that Moshe Rabbeinu had with Paroh. So those conversations, when those words were spoken besha'ato, they weren't Torah. They weren't Torah. They were Torah when Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictated it to Moshe Rabbeinu and told him to write it down in the Torah. But they weren't Torah at the time that when Paroh said מי ה' אשר אשמע בקולו, or even when Moshe Rabbeinu said

מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה וכי אוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים,

it wasn't Torah when Moshe Rabbeinu said it, it was Torah when Hakadosh Baruch Hu then dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu, "you should write that down in the Torah". The one exception to that is the nevuos, but the other, whatever, the monologues of Bilam. When Bilam said מה טובו אהליך יעקב, so that was Torah when he pronounced it. And that's... so there was some other Chachmei Umos HaOlam who shared that in the sense that when Bilaam said Ma Tovu, it was a Cheftza Shel Torah, and that's what it means that Moshe Rabbeinu כתב ספרו ואת ספר בלעם, and that's what it means that Umos HaOlam kan. But even if we didn't have a pasuk, it's one of the, one of the dangers and it's true just venturing into Agadah, ועל אחת כמה וכמה when someone doesn't have the background depth of knowledge and a preparation for learning Kabbalah. A person at the very least has to be on a madrega, which is a high madrega, to know what things can't mean. Once, it's okay if a person doesn't know what things mean. Okay, I don't know what it means. Hashem ya'ir einai. It's okay for a person not to know what something means. But when a person's not on that madrega, when a person is not on the madrega of what things can't mean and he learns all kinds of things and he learns Pnimiyus and he learns Nistar and a person doesn't have the base of knowledge which has to be a wide and deep base to know what something couldn't mean and what something can't mean, so then a person can get all kinds of funny ideas into his head. Funny ideas about mamash, mamash, דברים העומדים ברומו של עולם. Velachen nikra'im, Nefesh HaChaim continues, velachen nikra'im Elohim acheirim. What is that phrase Elohim acheirim? So Rashi says in Parshas Yisro, which we just had, Rashi says that acheirim le'ovdeihem, that as it were they're strangers to those who worship them in the sense that they don't respond. The Ramban says that Elohim acheirim is always used in conjunction with Lo Yiheyeh Lecha and it means don't believe in other gods. That's don't you through false belief conjure up a belief of other gods. It t'aka means other gods. How can you talk about other gods? There is no such thing. There isn't. That's what it means Lo Yiheyeh Lecha, you shouldn't entertain such a, such a false belief. So Ramban translates it as other gods. Nefesh HaChaim says velachen nikra'im Elohim acheirim

רוצה לומר שאין הכח שלהם מעצמם רק מכח הגבוה ממנו.

Meaning their again the lashon El is, is means strength, right? Yesh l'el yadi, Lavan says. I really have the strength. מי כמוכה באלים ה'? Who amongst the strong ones, the titans, is like you Hashem? Eilei ha'aretz. So the lashon El and and then the lashon Elokim when it's kodesh, Elohim when it's chol, is also from that same shoresh, it means koach. So Elohim acheirim means רוצה לומר שאין הכח שלהם מעצמם. Their again using it in the lashon chol, their elohus, their koach is, is other in the sense that it's something which is it's, it's, it's, it's comes externally, it doesn't come intrinsically. The sun's ability to, to give to radiate light and heat is not something which is intrinsic to the sun but is something which Hakadosh Baruch Hu endows within the sun. Velachen nikra'im Elohim acheirim

רוצה לומר שאין הכח שלהם מעצמם רק מכח הגבוה ממנו והגבוה ממנו מושך גם כן כח מהכח שעליו,

which he'll describe in, in the ensuing perakim in a little bit more detail, the whole series of intermediate causes עד הבעל כח האמיתי של כולם הוא יתברך שמו. Velachen ne'emar the pasuk in Yirmiyahu, Hashem Elokim emes.

שהוא הבעל כוח האמיתי של כולם שכולם מקבלים כוחם ממנו יתברך שמו.

So according to the Nefesh HaChaim, that phrase in the pasuk veHashem Elokeim Emes should be punctuated veHashem, Elokeim Emes, right? Hakadosh Baruch Hu, he's the only real Elokeim, he's the only real Baal Hakochos, Baal Hakochos. And in Perek Aleph of Yesodei HaTorah, so the Rambam also quotes this pasuk from Yirmiyahu, veHashem Elokeim Emes. And the way the Rambam punctuates the pasuk is Hashem Elokeim, Emes. Emes in the sense that only Hakadosh Baruch Hu... The Rambam says in the Yad Hachazaka,

הוא שהנביא אומר והשם אלוהים אמת הוא לבדו האמת ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו.

Hashem is the only reality, the only intrinsic existence. Hashem Elokeim, hu levado ha-emes. So the way the Rambam reads the pasuk, so the punctuation is Hashem Elokeim is Emes. The way the Nefesh HaChaim reads it is Hashem, Elokeim Emes. Obviously there's no... the ideas that each one is expressing are not conflicting, but when you punctuate it differently, so you get two different ideas. So for the Rambam it's talking about that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is reality, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is existence. Hashem Elokeim, Emes.

הוא שהנביא אומר והשם אלוהים אמת הוא לבדו האמת ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו. לכן נאמר והשם אלוהים אמת שהוא הבעל כוח האמיתי של כולם שכולם מקבלים כוחם ממנו יתברך שמו זהו שכתוב ויפלו על פניהם ויאמרו השם הוא האלוהים.

Ken b'dimyon zeh. So now coming back to the question he asked, what's the significance, what's pshat in the pasuk that when we're told that we're created b'tzelem of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, so of the shemos, the shem which the Torah uses is Elokeim. Ken b'dimyon zeh

כביכול ברוך הוא יתברך העולם. והשליטו על ריבי רבבות כוחות ועולמות אין מספר.

So just as intrinsically Hakadosh Baruch Hu is the Baal Kochos Kulom, so as it were Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world in such a way that everything that happens in the world is fallout, a repercussion from our actions. And in that sense, that's what it means to be b'tzelem Elokim. והשליטו על ריבי רבבות כוחות ועולמות אין מספר. He made us shalit to rule over the all the myriad worlds, ומסר בידו שיהא הוא המדבר והמונהיג אותם. Hamidbar means like the gemara in Sanhedrin says דבר אחד לדור ואין שני דברים לדור. That Moshe Rabbeinu, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells Yehoshua, you're going to be the leader of the next generation. Dabar echad l'dor. So dabar means to lead. That's the way it is in Aramaic as well. I think Rashi points out that when you have vayikach in Chumash, so if it means to take an object, so it means nasav. So then the teitch in Onkelos is nasav. If vayikach refers to people where vayikach doesn't mean that you grab them by the ear and shlep them, so then Onkelos will say, so for instance in Korach, but for instance here in Parshas Bamidbar, ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות. So Onkelos says u-d'bar, because again it means to lead them, to exert influence, authority. So that's how the Nefesh Hachaim is using it as well, שיהא הוא המדבר והמונהיג אותם על פי כל פרטי. Again, how does how do we exert this influence over all the worlds?

על פי כל פרטי תנועות מעשיו ודיבוריו ומחשבותיו וכל סדרי הנהגותיו הן לטוב או להיפך חס ושלום

through our actions, through our speech, through our thoughts. One of the fundamental ideas and insights of the Nefesh Hachaim provides, we sort of grow up with the wisdom that sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me, which I guess has its time and place and applicability. But it insinuates something which isn't true also, or at least the way it registers with us, it insinuates that there's a certain reality to action which there isn't to speech. And kal v'chomer, if speech is not as real as action, then kal v'chomer that machshava is even less real than speech. And it's a major yesod, it's axiomatic in so much of what the Nefesh Hachaim teaches us and enlightens us with, that even though even in Din Shamayim, with the exception of machshavas avodah zarah, so a person is not held accountable. The Gemara in Kiddushin says that מחשבה רעה אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מצרפה למעשה. With the exception of machshavas avodah zarah. So even though in Din Shamayim a person isn't held accountable for machshavos, but that's not because they don't have reality. Because there is reality, and as we'll see ba-hemshach, not only is there also reality, but there's even more reality to dibbur and to machshava than there is to maaseh. And that's already reflected in what he's saying here, that על פי כל פרטי that the way that the person is sholeit על ריבי רבבות כוחות ועולמות, the way he exerts that influence is not only through tnuos maaseh, but through דיבוריו ומחשבותיו וכל סדרי הנהגותיו, and the way again everything about how a person conducts himself, הן לטוב או להיפך חס ושלום. What happens? So a little bit in Perek Daled he'll begin to explain to us how it happens and then as he continues he explains more and more of what the as it were the mechanism is how the Briyah functions but now he was just describing the what not so much the how but the what. כי במעשיו ודיבורו ומחשבותיו הטובים through again good mitzvah actions speech and thoughts hu the person is mekayem venosein koach בכמה כוחות ועולמות עליונים הקדושים umosif bam kedusha v'or k'mo shekasuv v'asem devari b'ficha and and that empowers you לנטוע שמים וליסוד ארץ u'k'ma'amaram zal

אל תקרי בנייך אלא בונייך כי הם המסדרים עולמות עליונים

kvoneh hamisader binyano ונותן בהם ברוב כח. You know some of the imagery of mesader olamos elyonim is for let's say from an Olam Hazeh mashal for things to function so not only do you need all the constituent parts but they need to be interacting correctly together right? So so we have an expression about having crossed wires. So when you have crossed wires so then things are not functioning the way they're supposed to. So that's sort of the mashal to what the nimshal of כי הם המסדרים עולמות העליונים that there shouldn't be crossed wires. ubeheipech chas veshalom ידי מעשיו ודיבוריו ומחשבותיו אשר לא טובים hu mahares rachmana litzlan כמה כוחות ועולמות עליונים הקדושים lein orech v'shiur k'mo shene'emar מהרסייך ומחריבייך ממך יצאו ומחשיך ומקטין אור קדושתם chas v'shalom umagvir middas hatuma rachmana litzlan. זהו ויברא אלקים את האדם בצלמו betzelem Elokim

כי בצלם אלקים עשה שכמו שהוא יתברך שמו האלקים בעל הכוחות הנמצאים בכל עולמות כולם

umesadram again no crossed wires umanhigam kerega kirtzono

כן השליט רצונו יתברך את האדם שיהיה הוא הפותח והסוגר של כמה אלפי ריבואות כוחות ועולמות על פי כל פרטי סדרי הנהגתו בכל עניינו בכל עת ורגע ממש

kefi shoresho ha'elyon

של מעשיו ודיבוריו ומחשבותיו כאילו הוא גם כן בעל כח שלהם

kiviyachol. So already here he's hinting at again at the how how a person's actions have these cosmic repercussions and reverberations כפי שורשו העליון של מעשיו ודיבוריו ומחשבותיו. So the mashal to try to understand that is as follows: Let's say when a person makes movements makes certain motions he turns twists lifts steps. So if he turns well twists in a responsible fashion lifts an amount which is healthy so then he's strengthening the muscles which are involved in in those motions and movements. And if he missteps if he twists in a way that that he's really not able that his body can't accommodate he tries lifting something where the weight is too great so then he damages those muscles. So if so if a person lifts a weight that's too heavy so which muscles are going to be damaged rachmana litzlan? The muscles that are involved and that are being misused that are trying to support that weight. So maybe the back muscles maybe a person's knee will also buckle because the knee is also trying to help hold up the weight it's... Those muscles that are being that are being used. If a person steps forward with his right foot and rachmana litzlan it twists it then his left elbow is going to be safe. He's not going to develop too many problems in his left elbow because he... so what's the rule in terms of which of my eivarim are going to be affected by motions and movement? It's going to be kefi shoresh hatnuah, right? If I'm if I'm moving with my knee, so then it's my knee muscle and my knee ligaments that are going to be affected by by by what I do. kefi shoresh haelyon, so if you think of that and and you think that ultimately what animates a person, what gives a person life is the neshama, so then that again, he'll explain this in in future perakim with more detail, but that's sort of the beginning of the explanation. That's what he means about kefi shoresh haelyon. So think of that as the spiritual muscle that's being exercised in in these movements or or these motions. That's why he says again in perek daled, in the second paragraph in perek daled, he's going to say again,

אומנם יבין וידע ויקבע במחשבת לבו שכל פרטי מעשיו ודיבוריו ומחשבותיו בכל עת ורגע לא עושין אבדה חס ושלום אלא מה שעושה למעלה הוא גדול ורם שכל אחת עולה כפי שורשה.

Again, the effect that that every action, thought, speech has depends upon what spiritual muscle, what shoresh is is being drawn upon, is being used. כאילו הוא גם כן again, back to here in perek gimel, כאילו הוא גם כן habaal koach shelahem kiveyachol. ואמר זו באיכה רבתי vayelechu vilo choach. Rabi Akiva b'shem... omer,

בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום מוסיפין כח בגבורה של מעלה.

kemah d'at amart b'elohim na'aseh chayil.

ובזמן רחמנא ליצלן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כביכול מתישין כח גדול של מעלה דכתיב צור ילדך תשי.

We'll come to that in a minute bli neder. לכמה מקומות בזוהר הקדוש, reading the Hebrew translation in the brackets:

חטאי דאדם עושין פגם למעלה וכן להפך כנזכר. וזהו שאמר הכתוב

tenu oz l'elohim. ubazohar,

ויהי היום ויבואו להתייצב על השם כשרוצים לעמוד לקטרג על אותן המעשים של ישראל על השם ודאי עומדים

as it were, they're standing in opposition to Hashem. Why?

שכאשר ישראל עושין מעשים שלא כשרים כביכול מתישין כחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא.

Kiveyachol, they weaken hakadosh baruch hu. On the other hand,

וכאשר עושין מעשים כשרים נותנים תוקף וכח להקדוש ברוך הוא.

They kiveyachol empower hakadosh baruch hu. ועל זה כתוב תנו עוז לאלהים במה במעשים כשרים. So says the nefesh hachayim, I think we mentioned last week, one of the remarkable things is is how just so often he shows how how these remarkably deep, profound ideas are just necessary for pshuto shel mikra. He says ולכן אמר לאלהים וכן באלהים נעשה חיל, so what it means כביכול באלהים נעשה חיל means that we create strength in hakadosh baruch hu. b'elohim. Again, what does that mean? What does that mean? It doesn't mean that we affect hakadosh baruch hu. A person has to know what things don't mean before before he knows what the what they do mean. What what it does mean is that in terms of hakadosh baruch hu's governance of the world, so the way hakadosh baruch hu created the world, that in terms of His governance of the world, in terms of what will filter down to the world, in terms of how the world will be affected, so then b'elohim na'aseh chayil and and in a similar sense tenu oz l'elohim.

ולכן אמר לאלהים וכן באלהים נעשה חיל שפירושו בעל הכוחות כולם וכנ"ל.

One of the many, many, many reasons that that we're not supposed to fast forward to mishtha without being ממלא כריסנו בשר ויין or liquor is that... One of the many many reasons besides the taharas hanefesh and the that creates that when a person should be zoche to the Siyata Di'Shmaya to be able to understand the nistar, because even the more nistar-dik it is, the more Siyata Di'Shmaya a person needs, is that the nigla serves as an anchor for what things can't mean. The nigla serves as an anchor, as boundaries for what things can't mean when a person is learning nistar. I think they say from the Kotzker, what's the peshat in the hashgacha elyona that the tradition of the Zohar HaKadosh was kept hidden from the Rambam? And the Rambam didn't know of that esoteric tradition. So I think they say beshem HaKotzker, I don't know if this is written somewhere, but I know what they say beshem HaKotzker. The Kotzker said because those who receive this tradition speak in the and uttering with the metaphorical leshonos of that tradition. Leshonos which are prone to misunderstanding, prone to mamash heretical misunderstanding. Not just misunderstanding. The moshel is, you know, when you climb on a ladder. So if you just go one step, a stepladder, you go one step up, okay, you never want to fall down. You don't want to cut your elbow, you don't want to fall down. So you go up one step on the stepladder and you fall down, nisht geferlach. You go up two steps on the stepladder and you fall down, nisht geferlach. You do the Olympic diving and you climb up however high they climb and from the top, a person makes a misstep when he's that high, the consequences are different than if a person falls off the little stepladder in the kitchen. So the Kotzker said that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, that the hashgacha ordained that the Rambam should be the counterweight. The Rambam should be the check and balance that everything in the Zohar HaKadosh shouldn't be misconstrued and shouldn't be taken with an unintended literalism. So obviously the system of Torah is perfect, but if we implement it imperfectly, then we mess up with the Torah. That's not a chisaron in the Torah, that's a chisaron in our implementation. So when a person doesn't have those checks and balances, a person doesn't know what things can't mean, so then he's going to make a, he's prone af un tzu to make a mistake on what things do mean.