BS”D

CHOVOS HALEVOVOS 1 2

A Summary

Index to the Book


Notes by Avraham Lubarsky. The body of the notes are the actual summary of the work, and the footnotes are just thoughts that came to mind as I learned the sefer. Comments are welcome. E-mail ALubarsky@613.org.


[










Index

Introduction

  1. Shaar haYichud

  2. Shaar haBechina

  3. Shaar Avodas haElokim

  4. Shaar haBitachon

  5. Yichud haMaaseh

  6. Shaar haKniah

  7. Shaar haTeshuvah

  8. Shaar Cheshbon Hanefesh

  9. Shaar Haprishus

  10. Shaar Ahavas Hashem






INTRODUCTION3



  1. “seichel hanitzal mikol pegah”

  2. sefer Torah [the other girsa is “mah shehu muchash”7]

  3. mesorah from the Neviim [Lev Tov – Torah shebaal peh]




  1. Explain Torah – explain words, inyanim like Rav Saadyah or to explain the dikduk like works of Ibn Ganach

  2. Explain halachos

  3. Explain emunos v’deos – fight off apikorsim

















  1. chovos halevavos

  2. chovos haeivarim

  3. divrei hayomim and chidos Rishonim31



(back to beginning)



SHAAR 1 – SHAAR HAYICHUD34


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1



PEREK 2



PEREK 3



PEREK 6



PEREK 10




(back to beginning)




SHAAR 2 - SHAAR HABECHINA41,42


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1



PEREK 2



PEREK 3



PEREK 4



PEREK 556






PEREK 6


  1. understand the goodness that Hashem bestows upon him

  2. based on this goodness, accept avodas Hashem [see this nekudah developed later in the seifer, especially in chapter of Avodas Elokim]



(back to beginning)



SHAAR 3 – SHAAR AVODAS ELOKIM



INTRODUCTION


- important yisod – anyone who does goodness for us, we are obligated to thank him [this is why this shaar is placed aftare shaar habechina]64

- Chovos discusses a number of relationships of people who are maitiv (father, master, baal tezedokoh) – points out that in the end of the day, there is an underlining intention for one’s own benefit (a rich man wants to remove from himself the guilt) – “ki kavanas kol meitiv lezulaso mibnei odom hi letoeles atzmo techila

- Hashem on the other hand, only does for our own good although He doesn’t need us – therefore k”v we need to be greatful to Him

- the difficulties/weaknesses that a person has which make him struggle is a chesed from Hashem “kdie sheyakir es atzmo, vayivchon bekol inyanav, vayidbak beavodas haKel al kol panim [concept of chesed of having an opportunity to earn sechar]


PEREK 1


- the fact that a person is obligated in avodas Hashem can be figured out through logic (sechel vehakarah)

- but until a person strengthens his seichel enough, he must rely on emunah and tradition

- therefore there are two elements that lead us to avodas Hashem:

    1. hearah hasichlis (h”s) - logic – takuah baseichel

    2. hearah hatoriayah (h”t) - depending on tradition – Torah – teaches us

how to do avodas Hashem


PEREK 2

- there are three advantages of h”t over h”s and in these cases we need h”t to help us out65:


  1. we start out with experiences that are gashmi (first years of life) – the seichel is years behind taavos – taava is stronger than other middos – he doesn’t have enough tools internally to deal with the taavah – he needs something external to deal with the yetzer

  2. this world is primarily gashmi – few things will help out the seichel – mitzvos tackle a lot of issues that have to do with taavos in order to bring them into check [eating, mishgal, etc.]

  3. we use taavah often in this world and seichel not – by learning Torah, a person’s seichel will become more zach, and a person will be able push off the foolishness that rules him




PEREK 3




  1. h”t may be motivated leshem Shomayim or for praise while h”s is always motivated lsh”sh [if h”s means just logic, hard to understand this point]

  2. h”t is based on sechar veonesh while with h”s a person is acting out of nedivus and internal motivateion (he wants to do it) [chosid – mischased im Hashem]

  3. h”t is seen only on the eivarim more than tzafun baleiv, while the opposite is true by h”s [from here see that chiluk can’t be only emunah peshutah vs. logic – sounds like the chiluk is simply doing because told vs. incorporating it into one’s schemas]

  4. h”t is the preparation (avodas haadamah) for h”t and the seayatah deshemaya is like rain – both are there to cultivate h”s

  5. mitzvos hatorah have a limited number but mitzvos haseichel there is an infinite number – every day be mechadesh a new obligation based on a higher understanding

  6. h”s can only happen with tremendous sy”d while h”t can be accomplished within normal parameters (eina nimnaas mimvaksha)

  7. h”t can still be nichshal but not in h”s because he’s broken the taavah (nefesh ina nifsheches eleha)


- advantages of h”t


  1. extreme gashmius or extreme prishus are bad – Torah teaches you how to balance the two67

  2. a person through his seichel can’t figure out the punishment for actions ot the gvulim of action (do chesed but when/where/how etc.)

  3. Torah allows everyone, even not wise people to do the right thing

  4. sometimes Hashem chooses a nation and gives it more and in turn that nation is obligated in extra avodah – this avodah can’t be figured out only by the seichel

  5. h”t is the introduction to h”s – through it reach level of h”s and then reach “madreigas haneviim uvchirei Elyon Chasidim” – the reward of such a person is even in olh”z that he’ll have metikus in avodas Hashem and his reward on oh”b is that “lehagiah el Ohr Haelyon asher lo nuchal lesapro velo ledamoso”

  6. the seichel can’t figure out shemiyos and “veklalim mishorshei hasichliyos” – the generation that got the Torah weakened because of “taavos habahemiyos” and thefore their seichel was weakened – thus they were instructed on both shemiyos and sichliyos

  7. h”t is basic and can easily be understood by everyone – h”s is a tosefes – the more Hashem does for the person, the greater that person’s avodah must be – a person, as he gets more from Hashem, must add on to his avodas Hashem other elements of avodas Hashem68 – a person not fulfilling his individual obligation (based on individual chesed that Hashem gave him) will eventually not do even basic obligations)


PEREK 4



PEREK 5


    1. uses Torah as his guide

    2. desires lehagiah leratzon haKel velelaalos bemaalas Chasidim (namely, desire to fulfill ratzon Hashem)79

    3. and remove from himself all the worries of the world



PEREK 6



PEREK 7



PEREK 881



PEREK 9



PEREK 10



back to the beginning



SHAAR 4 – SHAAR HABITACHON90


INTRODUCTION




- a boteach will see his money only as a pikadon given to him to be used only for a particular reason – if he has money, he must used it for av”H and if he loses it, he should accept this


- benefit of bitachon in terms of the physical life is “menuchas haleiv min hadaagos haolamiyos, vahashlva menidnud hanefesh vetzaara lechisron taavoseha hagufiyos, vehu behashket ubebitcha uveshlva beolam hazeh


PEREK 1



PEREK 2



PEREK 3





PEREK 4







PEREK 5



PEREK 6



PEREK 7



back to the beginning


SHAAR 5 – YICHUD HAMAASEH


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1



PEREK 2



PEREK 3



PEREK 4



PEREK 5111 112




PEREK 6



back to the beginning



SHAAR 6 – SHAAR HAKNIAH136


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1


PEREK 2



PEREK 3



PEREK 4



PEREK 5



PEREK 6



PEREK 7



PEREK 8



PEREK 9



PEREK 10163




back to the beginning



SHAAR 7 – SHAAR HATESHUVAH


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1


  1. takanas hoodom leavodas Hashem achar yetzioso mimenah vechet’o bo (get back on proper path)

  2. hashovas ma sheovad mimeno (fix the damage)169


  1. foolishness/lack of understanding in avodas Hashem (what to do)

  2. not realizing what one’s chiyuvim are to Hashem (the fact that have to do it)

  3. bad company



PEREK 2


  1. feels bad but when the aveirah comes he is nichshal – hasn’t truly changed himself – not his inner self (libo)171

  2. feels bad, sometimes does the right thing and sometimes the wrong thing – his yetzer constantly wants to push him off the derech – he always has to struggle

  3. completed all of the stepsteps for teshuvah – his sechel has overcome his taavoh – constant cheshbon – has been meishiv al libo greatness/consequence of aveiros – always being mischaret for the aveiros that he did – this is the greatest level172


PEREK 3


  1. to know clearly what you did/didn’t do that was wrong173

  2. to clearly understand how bad these actions were

  3. to know the punishment that one deserves

  4. all actions are recorded

  5. understand that teshuvoh is the only way out – not to ever give up hope of possibility of teshuvoh (see later)

  6. understanding that we have repaid evil to Hashem’s goodness / what did we gain by it?174

  7. clear decision to change one’s actions and inner self175



PEREK 4


  1. charoto

  2. azivas hacheit

  3. vidui/bakashas mechilo

  4. kabolo leosid – not just in action but in one’s heart not to go back to these things



PEREK 5


A. Charoto

    1. fear of punishment

    2. shviras libo concerning the consequences of the aveiro

    3. change one’s actions and clothing

    4. crying/mourning

    5. “yochiach nafsho v’yachlimeno bematzpunoh”


B. Azivo:

  1. leave evil

  2. leave those things that aren’t prohibited but lead to those things that are prohibited176

  3. fear of punishment

  4. boshes before Hashem

  5. remove all desire for the aveirah177


C. Bakashas mechilo

  1. vidui with the understanding of your lowliness and Hashem’s greatness

  2. remember the aveiros always

  3. taanis and tefiloh

  4. always ask for mechilo

  5. be mekarev others to avodas Hashem


D. Kabbolo

  1. calculate gains and losses of mitzvos

  2. fear death because of not yet completing one’s task

  3. ingratitude for chasdei Hashem – although we may say that we are grateful, with our actions we display our ingratitude – it’s as if we say that we don’t care

  4. do teshuvah for whatever you can – fix whatever you can – return the stolen objects ect.

  5. appreciate gadlus haBoreh


PEREK 6



PEREK 7




PEREK 8


  1. If a person isn’t mekayem mitzvas aseh, if he does teshuvoh, then he can stand on the same level as a tzaddik

  2. If a person transgresses a lav that doesn’t have kares/misas beis din, if he does teshuvoh, then he has an advantage over the tzaddik because he has aveiros to remind him of his shiflus – if he ever become proud, he can think about these aveiros

- some aveiros are better than mitzvos if the former lead to shiflus and the latter lead to gaavoh

  1. If a person transgresses an aveiro for which he is chayav kares/misas beis din, now he has a disadvantage in comparison to the tzaddik because he has to go through yisurin and misa to get kaparah – thus a tzadik that never had committed this aveira has an advantage over a tzadik that has181


PEREK 9



PEREK 10




back to the beginning



SHAAR 8 – SHAAR CHESHBON HANEFESH190


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1



PEREK 2



PEREK 3













PEREK 4



PEREK 5



back to beginning



SHAAR 9 – SHAAR HAPRISHUS212


INTRODUCTION



PEREK 1



PEREK 2


  1. azivas ma sh’tored a person away from Hashem

  2. hating the world and its taavos

  3. gaining inner calm and “suppressing fantasies by achieving stoic satisfaction with the minimum” [Rav Yaakov Feldman]

  4. taking only minimal food and clothing from the world and hating the rest

  5. leaving ahavas beruim and loving bdidus

  6. being modeh and accepting nisayon

  7. menias hanefesh mikol menucha vetaanug, ela hateva asher lo tuchal laamod bil’adav, veyotzi zulaso min hanefesh214




PEREK 3




PEREK 4


אבל תנאי הפרישות המיוחדת כאשר אמר קצת החסידים, הפרוש:


  1. צהלתו בפניו ואבלו בלבו

  2. לבו רחב מאד ונפשו שפלה מאד218

  3. איננו נוטר ולא חומד ולא מספר בגנות ולא מדבר מאדם

  4. מואס בגדולה ושונא השררה

  5. מיושב, זכרן, מודה, רב בשת, מעט נזק

  6. אם ישחק לא ירבה ואם יכעס לא יתקצף

  7. שחקו ריוח שפתים, ושאלתו ללמוד

  8. חכמתו רבה וענותו גדול

  9. הסכמתו חזקה

  10. לא ימהר ולא יסכל

  11. מחלוקתו נאה ותשובתו נכבדת

  12. צדיק אם יכעוס

  13. חומל אם יבוקש

  14. ידידותו זכה ואסורו חזק ובריתו נאמנה

  15. רוצה בדין הבורא

  16. מושל ביצרו

  17. לא ידבר עתק על מי שיזיקהו

  18. ולא יתעסק במה שלא יועילהו

  19. לא יתקנם לאיד ולא יזכור לאדם רעה

  20. משאו קל ועזרתו רבה

  21. הודאתו רבה בעת הרעה וסבלו ארוך בעת הנזק

  22. אם ישאלו ממנו יתן ואם יחמסו אותו ימחול

  23. ואם ימנעו ממנו יתנדב ואם ירחיקוהו יקרב


  1. רך מחמאה ומתוק מדבש. מצווה על האמת

  2. דובר צדק

  3. עוזב מאויו

  4. מצפה ליומו

  5. אומר ועושה

  6. חכם, זריז, נפשו יקרה, ובריתו נאה, גבור (ס"א גדר) בארץ, נצול מכל גנות

  7. עזרה לדל ותשועה לעשוק

  8. לא יחשוף מסתור ולא יגלה סוד

  9. צרותיו רבות ותלונתו מעוטה, כשיראה טוב יזכרנו ואם יראה רע יכסנו רצוי וזך, חברתו שמחה הרחקתו אנחה

  10. זקקתהו החכמה, ויפתהו הענוה, מכיר למשכיל, מלמד לסכל, כל מעשה אצלו זך ממעשהו וכל נפש בעיניו יותר ברה מנפשו, יודע את מומו, זוכר את עונו

  11. אוהב האלהים, רודף רצונו

  12. לא ינקם לנפשו ולא יתמיד בקצפו, חבר למזיכירים, יושב עם העניים, ואהב לאנשי הצדק, נאמן לאנשי האמת

  13. עוזר לרש, אב ליתום, בעל לאלמנה, מכבד הדלים

  14. ומתנאיה עוד קבלת כל חובות הלבבות אשר זכרנו ממה שקדם בספר הזה ואינני צריך לשנותם שלא יארכו לנו הדברים בשער הזה, ואתה דע לך:




PEREK 5


  1. things that a person has taavah for

  2. things that a person is ambivalent toward (shaatnez)

  3. things that repulse him (achilas dam)


    1. that a person leaves all kinyanei haolma except what he needs for parnasa [kinyanim]

    2. not be misaneg betaanugei haguf [hanaah]

    3. don’t want menuchot [menucha]

    4. don’t want serarot [power]

    5. not want to be mispaer behon haolam hakaleh meheira [kavod]



PEREK 6



PEREK 7



back to the beginning



SHAAR 10 – SHAAR AHAVAS HASHEM


INTRO


PEREK 1

PEREK 2


PEREK 3


PEREK 4


PEREK 5


PEREK 6


PEREK 7 (very beautiful piece – should be read frequently)














1 An important point on all the footnotes. They have been written by me, Avraham Lubarsky, as thoughts as I learned the sefer. These are not final thoughts, just thoughts at the moment based on my very limited understanding of this monumental work. The heoros are attempting to understand the sefer onto itself, understand it in context of other seforim, and understand how it could be used for avodah lemaaseh. These categories should not be mixed up because each one has its own rules. These comments are meant only for my own learning, and if the reader didn’t get my permission, please do so if you can. If you can’t and you think that you may find these notes useful, please keep in mind that these in no way are meant to be the final product. They have to be examined carefully, some thrown out, some need tziruf, and others kept as are.

2 Few points of introduction to the sefer:

  1. In order to truly understand what the sefer is saying, it is not enough to just understand it intellectually. A person must be meishev what is being said al halev. I believe that this is what the Mechaber meant in the end of the hakdamah to the sefer, that in order to understand the sefer, the reader must “vehadbek oso al libecho umatzpunecho”. Only then, says the Mechaber, can a person truly understand the sefer (and be able to find mistakes in it, if there were to be any)

  2. Chovos uses the power of a moshol in an amazing way. He makes reference to this agenda (p. 33) quoting a gemarah and Mishlei about mosholim being an important part of chochmo (look up the Chazal)

  3. Examine the proofs that the Chovos brings from pesukim and Gemarah – see how he understood these statements. Rav Feldman’s footnote deals with Ch”L analysis of the pesukim

  4. Notice the effort to present the information in an organized and clear manner. Mechaber likes to make a number of clear examples, often likes to show 10 elements of something

3 Introduction is called a “hakdama” which stems from the fact that it comes before the sefer. But its purpose is very significant. In modern Hebrew it’s called a “mavoh” – it opens up the sefer for the reader, and brings the reader into the sefer. From the few introductions that I have read in sifrei kodesh, the introduction serves as an important key not only for the beginning of the sefer, but to understand the sefer as a whole. In Chovos this is certainly true. The general introduction to this sefer provides important yesodos for the whole sefer. A hakdama should be read before the sefer, but also after learning the sefer in order to gain the overview of what the person has learned. Rav Walbe in beginning of Alei Shor talks about the importance of learning his introduction before learning the sefer, but only fully understanding it after finishing the sefer. The Mechaber also chooses to have an introduction to every shaar, and the utility of that hakdama is largely for that specific shaar (although the sefer builds on the yesodos that it develops).

4 There is a development here: Hashem’s ultimate achdus, kadmus, hatavah, created the world to show His achdus/gevurah/chochma (sounds like this is a chesed)

5 It seems that this means that Hashem created processes that create constant change and development. This state of development and flux show tremendous chochma.

6 Mechaber here tells us the purpose of creation. In Shaar haBechina says that man is the “sibah kerova” to the creation of the world. Pashtus because davka he can appreciate “achdus, gevurah…”. See other Rishonim and Achronim who discuss the purpose of creation as a whole.

7 I read an article by Rav Aviner who quoted Eim haBannim Smeicha that the metzius that we see in front of us is also a proof

8 Rav Klopt in his hakdama to the Alei Shur says that one of definitions of chochmo is that it provides clear definitions. See intro to Derech Hashem. Need to know shoroshim (the pnimius / essence) of the issue, and perakim (its details / how it plays itself out in different situation ). In Derech Hashem Ramchal quotes a Chazal that says that Divrei Torah should be kelalim and not peratim. I searched for a few minutes but didn’t find this Chazal. In the Mesilos El Derech Hashem the book puts in parenthesis that should look at Sifri Haazinu 32:2. There, R’ Yehuda says that should be machnis Torah in kelalim and be motzi it as peratim. It seems to me that what this means is that a person should learn the Torah in kelalim, but have the ability to bring out peratim from it. Reishis Chochmo (Ohr Olam) quotes this Chazal and gives a moshol of a person who has to travel, certainly he will not carry perutos rather a selah which he can change into perutos when he needs. This is seemingly what we said here. See Reishis Chochma for more. Chovos on p. 31 writes that he will not write everything that he knows about chh”l because that will make the sefer too long, but rather he will write just the shoroshim

9 See that foundation even of ch”e is chovos halevavos. See Shaar Cheshbon haNefesh Perek 3 #21 makes this point as well. See my footnote there.

10 Before Ch”L listed chovos halevovos, he listed a few chovos haeivarim, in which he included tefilah and tzom. These two mitzvos are interesting because they are very much connected to chovos halevavos (more then let’s say tefillin). Think about Rav Soloveitchik’s concept of maaseh with a kiyum shebelev.

11 Ch”L here is trying to prove that chh”l are a chiyuv. Let’s examine Ch”L list here. Some elements here are clearly mitzvos/chiyuvim, like the mitzvos that are listed. The notion that there is chiluk between shogeg and meizid is also significant halachically. Pirkei Avos seemingly isn’t a proof because it seemingly contains milei dechasidusa [B”K – whoever wants to be a chasid should learn P”A – but there the Gemarah also says to learn nezikin and berochos, which are meikkar hadin – tz”i]. This really gets into discussion whether chasidus and lifnei meshuras hadin is a chiyuv or not (see Rav Leo Levi’s book Torah Study and Rav Lichtenstein’s article on ethic outside of halacha). Rachmana liba boi is a statement that explains why a certain generation got their tefilos answered although they were not as knowledgeable in Torah than another generation, but doesn’t prove that there is a chiyuv (definitely proves that Hashem likes you more).

12 see hakdama of Mesilas Yishorim

13 see Tov Levanon (T”L) that although Chazal also dealt with all kinds of strange cases, they already had reached shleimus hamiddos, and they conjured up these cases because practical cases could be derived from them. I remember that there is a Gemarah somewhere that a certain talmid was kicked out of the Beis Medrash because he would ask crazy questions

14 This is a reoccurring theme in the hakdama – see in the end of the hakdama moshol of treasure that has to be polished off to be appreciated

15 I wonder if this gets into the issue of tabula rasa or not. Rambam in Shmoneh Perakim writes that

16 I heard someone medayek from this that in area of hashkafa there is no concept of psak. We see that we don’t ask dayanim about chovos halevavos

17 compare to Sefer Kuzari

18 Obviously mitzvos tzrichos kavanah may be an issue.

19 Malbim on the fact that the lev comes first because it determines with way the heart goes. Lev is the ratzon (what have now) while eyes are the gates that are the source that brings in the most sensual information that has the ability to change the ratzon. Blind people don’t taste food the same way. Yisa einav.

20 Ch”L understands that the mitzvah isn’t only not to go to the yad’uni, but rather to have proper emunah in Hashem (against a”z). I scanned the Meforshim on the posuk. Some stress the maaseh of not going to the astrologers to find out the future. Others (Ramban and maybe the Targumin) talked about the maaseh and emunah balev, believing in strength of Hashem, his yichud ect. I think that the Chovos learned the posuk in this way.

21 many of the proofs here involve a phenomenon of corrupt action within a religious ritual (and the performer justifies gross offences based on the fact that he thinks that he is fulfilling a religious duty)

22 I remember seeing in the name of Rav Yitzele Petersburger, I think in Alei Shor in Teshuvah, that if a person sins with tears, they turn down the heat of gehinnom for him. Nefesh heChayim Shaar 1 brings a Zohar that says that the fire of Gehinnom depends on the existence of the yetzer harah

23 in mussar, first have to incorporate yourself and then write for others. The cup has to be filled and then overflow to others. Rav Kook in Chadarav on how can a person say something to others without saying it to himself first. My idea of us being misdameh to Hashem through ana nafshai kotavtiv yahevtiv.

24 Importance of writing down one’s mussar ideas. Sefer Cheshbon Hanefesh has this idea. Tzav Veziruz 1.

25 see Rav Kook Ikvei haTzon (Pachad)

26 Some people question the proofs of Mesilas Yesharim about the ikkar of the nefesh created for Olam haBoh. We have to understand what assumptions is making in his proofs, and who he is talking to.

27 It’s interesting that Shaar haYichud actually deals with proofs for ikkarim, like the very existence of Hashem, and His achdus

28 Compare this to the moshol later in Shaar Cheshbon Hanefesh concerning a tas through which can see something that is in a hidden place. Have to polish it in order to gain a clearer vision.

29 the goal of working on oneself (as Chovos has said many times already) is to be megaleh that which already exists, and is simply covered up

30 It seems to me that there is a development here. Taamod al inyano may mean to understand it first intellectually. Next thing make sure to remember it. Then check yourself where you stand in terms of this limud. Be misamek in the limud and where you stand. Develop both the limud and your relationship to it. Then be davek to the limud. It seems to me that this idea comes up a number of times in the sefer. I will try to highlight it as we go along.

31 Seems to imply that part of t”t is study of Biblical history. I don’t know what the chiddos are. Maybe this refers to aggados of Chazal

32 see beginning of Moreh who also talks about introductory chochmos for the study of metaphysics. I would like to understand better the need for these chochmos to understand Chochmo Elokis. See Shmoneh Perakim 5, where Rambam explains that the other chochmos sharpen the mind so that person can understand chochmas Elokis. Seemingly there is nothing essentially important in this chochma beyond sharpening mind. This needs to be further explored.

33 The Mechaber speak very highly of Rav Sadya. The Mechaber quotes Rav Sadya a number of times in the sefer. See, for example, discussion in Shaar haYichud perek 10 concerning the nature of Hashem’s incomprehensibility.

34 See the introduction of Lev Tov to this Shaar about the study of Jewish philosophy (chakirah) and philosophy in general. Also see Encyclopedia Talmudis and Torah Study (by Prof. Leo Levi). I did not invest very much time into the study of this shaar. Some of the discussion in this shaar is based on assumptions of Greek and Arabac philosophy that is not prevalent today. Also, our view of the world from a scientific point of view is different. There is value to go through the shaar to see the shitah that the Mechaber uses, and apply that shitah to the knowledge of today. This is if a person holds of the shitah of chakirah altogether. I did the first 4 perakim that discussed the shitah of chakira and its chiyuv. I was also looking for the way that the Mechaber defines yichud Hashem, obviously a very important point in hashkafas haYahadus. In the middle, I looked at the famous teleological proof that the Mechaber mentions. The tenth chapter of the shaar is very important and very relevant. There, the Mechaber discusses the difference between Hashem’s etzem and Hashem’s middos. It’s also a hadracha away from improper hagshama.

35 Rambam writes this in first maamar of Moreh, that emunah is not in the words but in what one comprehends

36 Question is what is the moshol and what is the nimshal. T”L explains that just like a person who attempts to travel without a map will get lost and not reach the desired destination, so too a person who doesn’t understand true definition of yichud Hashem will not reach the proper understanding.

37 Rambam has already pointed this out in the Moreh

38 some of these pesukim, notably “ki lo raitem kol temunah” are brought by the Rambam


39 This is a very powerful and important idea that resonates in hashkafa generations later. The moshol that I always liked was that a wave can’t be seen onto itself, only on the medium through which it traveks

40 Concept of “yichud” in Judaism is crucial, as the Mechaber wrote above, and has to be mugdar carefully. Pashtus of pesukim seem to indicate that this concept means that there is no other god-entity except for Hashem. Chovos haLevavos seems to add two additional elements. Hashem is not made of parts but rather represents an ultimate unity. Also, Hashem is all-powerful, and it is therefore appropriate to serve Him alone, and give no service to anyone else.

41 Rav Feldman translates “bechina” as “reflection”. This shaar represents a major yesod in toras hamussar. Granted there has to be a hisbonenus to see the truth, but one must constantly contemplate it, to refresh its hashpaah on oneself, and to see greater amkus of the idea. It’s nmot enough to study idea, not even to understand it, not even to understand it beamkus. It has to be reflected upon, and hushav al halev. The following is what I wrote in my Tzav Veziruz notes: “The latter parts of Tzav Veziruz are some personal reflections. They are not meaty with ideas like some of the earlier parts of the sefer. There is a tendency to downplay its importance. Its importance doesn’t lie in ideas that come out, rather watching a person who has incorporated these ideas, how they play out in his life. The limud is this section is limud of hisbonenus. The person should translate it into his language, whatever makes the person connect to it. The same is true for parts of Shaar Habchina in Chovos Halevavos.”

42 tz”i what’s the difference between bechina and cheshbon hanefesh – maybe the difference is seeing chochma through tevah vs. philosophical truths – tz”i

43 see T”L and L”T on this whole point

44 I understood that the Mechaber is making the following point: Hashem creates the world that’s there to develop us (both in gashmius and ruchnius – see the rest of the shaar). But we don’t know how to use the world properly, and this causes us to abuse the world and thus be hurt by it. This is not Hashem’s fault but our own. This begins to get at the point for the reason of yesurim. According to hashkafas hayahadus, the primary reason for yesurim is that they are a result of chet. For a further discussion of yesurim, see Shaar haBitachon. We must notice, though, that the moshol has shifted away from the discussion immediately above it. Above, Mechaber told us that yesurim are really for the best. We just have to open our eyes and see that. Now Mechaber tells us that yesurim are really a result of our own actions.

45 again this notion of first understanding, and then hashava el halev

46 It seems that each moshol reflects a certain element of the nimshal. The first moshol addresses the chochma itself, although it seems monolithic, it contains with it many possibilities. The second moshol seems to address the effects of the chochma, that it can help generate many different results.

47 I don’t know whether the following is the pashat in what the Mechaber is saying, but it’s interesting to think about Ein Ayah Shabbos 1, concerning middah of “Shalom” of Hashem, an ability to take seemingly different and even cacophonous elements, and bring them all together for a common goal – tz”i

48 some of the pesukim that the Mechaber brings seem clearer proofs than others

49 The two proofs from Chazal that the Mechaber brings are chishuv tekufos and learning middos from animals. How is a proof that a person should seek chochmas Hashem in nature. It seems that the answer is that once discover chochmos in the world (astronomical order and natural morality) then will come to conclusion that a creation that seems to function through chochma was created by a Chacham. This may go back to the teleological proof mentioned earlier by the Mechaber

50 see Rashi on “vayirdu”

51 see Daas Tevunos

52 although the Mechaber himself doesn’t tell us what exactly is the utility of death, see T”L who gives two benefits.

53 see Chovos later moshol about a person who is appointed to be king for a year / my moshol with an island of diamonds

54 Medrash Tanchuma draws parallel between the world, Mishkan, and human body. See p. 108 where T”L quotes Moreh chelek 1 perek 72 who discusses this point. See Nefesh heChayim Chelek 1 who discusses this idea in length.

55 This has to be compared to othere Rishonim. This issue seems to be a machlokes between Rambam and the Ramban. As I studied the Ramban closer, this issue became much more complex.

56 Compare this perek to beginning of Emunah Ubitachon – the power of this perek isn’t per say the info but rather a reminder – in many ways this perek still instills great awe – a person can also look at seforim with modern scientific knowledge and I think be mispael even more!!

57 See my footnote in the very beginning of the introduction to the sefer concerning the question in Judaism about the purpose of the creation of the world.

58 Again, addressing reason behind yesurim. Remember beginning of Shaar Bechina, where the Mechaber made the point that people don’t appreaciate tovos of Hashem because there are yesurim. There, the Mechaber said that it’s the people’s own fault that the yesurim came upon them. Now, we are introduced to a different idea. The yesurim are good for us, to develop us.

59 When a person realizes that life’s pleasures are fleeting – today I can enjoy them but tomorrow they are gone. There is no kinyan on them. A person then looks to nitzchiyus.

60 granted that animals can communicate, but human speech goes beyond basic needs. It allows people to communicate ideas.

61 Famous statement of the Gra that kilkul depends on time while tikun depends on the person. Similar idea in Maharal in terms of why the Jews had to leave bechipazon. Here, the Mechaber presents us with a different idea, the positive side of the process element of the world. See Daas Tevunos and Derech Hashem who makes a similar point, but from a different angle. Process allows us to understand how Hashem creates and maintains the world

62 Chazal on us ultimately blessing hatov vehameitiv on rah.

63 See Shaar Cheshbon Hanefesh a beautiful piece on not being misragel to the world – keep appreciating it.

64 Rav Margolin pointed out the idea that the fact that Hashem gave me something, that means I have to be ready to give it to Him. He gave me life, so I have to give it to Him. Rav Margolin asked why this should be so. If someone gave me something, that means that I have to give him the same thing? Granted that I have to be grateful, but why should I have to give back that very same thing.

I think that there are two answers here. When a person gives me something, what does it means that he gives it to me. He has been given the koach and means from Hashem to give it to me. When Hashem gives me something, He is the true baal of the object. Secondly, if someone lends me something, then certainly I have to give it back. The world isn’t ours. It was lent to us by Hashem to use it the way that He wants it to be used. When He wants it back, then we have to give it back.

65 I saw a similar idea in Kli Yakar

66 I thought that if we were to understand this as mere logic, it’s difficult to read the hemshech of the perek, as I will point out. In the English translation, I saw hearah hasichlis translated as “self-induced”. What I think this means is that a person understands it and was meishiv al haleiv and it become his modus operendi (his Olam Haasiyah). The Mechaber defines h”t again in beginning of Perek 5 (see there).

67 This is a prominent theme in the Kuzari

68 [Rav Dessler’s concept of keilim]

69 But as the Mechaber pointed out in the beginning of the sefer, there is no such thing as just ch”e [as I was looking through my notes in a cursory way, I didn’t find where the Mechaber says this. I have to find it. It may be that this is the first time the Mechaber mentions the idea. See Shaar Cheshbon haNefesh Perek 3 point 9 (p. 380 and 384-385) where there are some pertinent issues to this diyun whether there is such a thing as just chovos haeivarim. See my summary and footnote there.

70 But when it comes to issur, can have an issur of just ch”e without ch”l. There is a maaseh issur, regardless of what a person’s kavanah was.

71 I remember in Ohr Yisroel it says that if a person can’t control his taavah, even in the realm of heter, there is no guarantee that he won’t engage in all kinds of issurim as well.

72 The Mechaber here is mechalek two categories of kitzur based on motivation why a person is mekatzer. Then Mechaber says that if are mekatzek because of greed, he says that the person is chomes guf. Seemingly, this is no longer a question of motivation but physical reality that the person is denying the body its due. But why in case of motivation for chasidus purpose do we not say that there is chamas haguf. We could suggest that motivation gufa is what decides whether the person is chomes the body or not – tz”i.

73 Rambam Iggeres haTeiman writes that some people make this comparison. Says that other religions compared to Judaism are like statues compared to human body – although there is some resemblance, but it is only on a chitzoni level.

74 Have the notion that ratzon and seichel are connected.

75 In Shaar Bitachon Perek 4, the Mechaber will explain why the Torah didn’t explicitly talk about the reward of OH”B

76 The ultimate motivation seems to be not for reward, and not even out of gratitude, but rather because of gadlus Hashem veromemuso. Interesting to trace this idea in the sefer, because often the Mechaber stresses the sechar element. For example, in Shaar Bitachon (in the end) the reason given by the Mechaber for staying away from sibbos that hurt avodah is because this hurts his OH”B. This is also the moshol of the brothers in the beginning of the sefer, and the moshol of king in Avodas Elokim Perek 9, where the question is what’s the wisest investment.

77 No sefer is a perfect fit for the person. A person must understand where he fits in the maareches of the sefer.

78 T”L explains that this means that there is hashgacha that makes sure that we are placed into circumstances in which we can develop our h”t and thus understand Hashem. See L”T.

79 See connection between ratzon and hasagah sichlis

80 R”F translates this as a diolgue between “You” and “Reason”

81 It’s interesting that the issue of Hashem’s knowledge vs. bechira is not raised her (hakol tzafui veharshus netuna). Rather, a seemingly lesser problem of gzeira vs. bechira.

82 It’s interesting that this issue is not just intellectually difficult for the nefesh, but it’s something that is preventing it in engaging in proper avodah. See introduction to the Moreh about the confused student.

83 True that it’s not up to him whether his action will be mutzlachas, but to choose what he wants and try to execute it, this is up to the person. Even this approach seems to have some limitations on bchira. Firstly, the person is limited by set rules (like laws of physics). Secondly, the person is limited by situational limitations (like another person’s bchira).

84 I wonder if this is a similar position to Rav Dessler’s nekudas habechira. I need to explore this further

85 the Mechaber doesn’t discuss the next step, namely the information that is not avaluable to the world at one point, and then become available, and Hashem’s hashgacha over such a process. Rav Kook (Ein Aya and Igeres) and the Leshem discuss this point (what some call continuous revelation). Rav Stav spoke about this.

86 Compare to the moshol of the two brothers in Shaar Bechina Perek 3.

87 See Tanchuma concerning the comparison between the makeup of person, Mishkan, and the world

88 I wonder if there is room to be medayek in the two elements of this moshol. Shilya creates an enviroment in which a person can grow. A shel does this as well, but it also serves a protection for the chic.

89 It seems to me that there is a difference of presentation of this idea here and in Orchos Tzadikkim. In O”T, there are simply two elements to the midah, a proper way to use the midah, and an improper way. This is true for the “positive” middos and for the “negative” middos. Ch”L seems to present it slightly differently. There are “good” middos, and then you enter the very dangerous area of “bad” middos, that requires a very special hadracha of the seichel.

90 Obviously a major yesod that is connected to bitachon is the question of hashgacha (and hanhaga – the Mechaber here doesn’t explicitly use these two words, but he does discuss the omniscience of Hashem, and His ability and active engagement in the world. The world hashgacha used generically includes hanhaga in it. We can also, if we need to be more precise, be mechalek hashgacha as knowledge of Hashem, and hanhaga as Hashem’s action [based on that knowledge] ). Davka in this perek the Mechaber deals with many elements of hashgacha, because a rational bitachon stems from knowledge that what a person is boteach in can actually halep him. This is the notion of emunah and bitachon of the Ch”I, namely emunah is the knowledge/belief in the maareches of hashgacha, while bitacho is the individual’s ability to say that since such a system exists, my modus operendi will be this system. In the beginning of the 7th perek (in this shaar) the Mechaber points out that a mafsid of bitachon is “sichlus beinyan haBoreh ubemidosav hatovos…vehanhagoso aleihem vehashgochoso umoshlo bohem

91 This is a very important statement in the realm of hashgacha. It is interesting that the Mechaber placed this in the category of spiritual benefit and not physical benefit. This gets us into the parsha of difference between the berocho of Yaakov and Eisav, that the physical welfare of Yaakov depends on Hashem’s hashgacha (and Yaakov’s actions).

92 Rav Hirch on nedivim in Tehillim – even if they want to help they can’t

93 This is a major yesod in avodas Hashem. Regardless where the person is, there is some avodah to be done. Not only some avodah, but the avodah that I need to be doing right now

94 Mechaber provides a story about a boteach who leaves his city to make a living, and is rebuked by a a”z priest that he should not have done so. It seems that the Mechaber is making a very extreme statement that regardless what happens, a person should stay where he is and believe thatHashem will provide for him. This greatly undermines the concept of hishtadlus. We see that the Avos would move from place to place when there was hunger (granted that some Meforshim criticize A”A for going down to Egypt during the period of hunger).

95 See the definition of “bitachon” (as opposed to “emunah”) in sefer Emunah uBitachon of the Chazon Ish

96 See T”L who is medayek in the two pesukim that Mechaber brought that what the Mechaber is saying is the following: A person sometimes rebels from Hashem out of wealth and sometimes from poverty [I never understood the Mishna in Avos that if a person is mekayem the Torah meoni he will be mekayem it meosher – what about vayishman Yeshurun?]. A boteach won’t make either mistake because he understands that everything comes from Hashem, and everything is through careful hashgacha, and nothing is guaranteed.

97 This is the shitah of many Rishonim. There is a famous dissenting view of the Ohr haChayim (see Chemda Gnuzah on this issue)

98 Rambam writes that people think that emunah is something that you say. In reality is something that you know inside yourself.

99 This has to be explained further (how it fits with hishtadlus). The Mechaber speaks about hishtadlus in Shaar haBitachon beginning of Perek 4. There the Mechaber explicitly mentions the chiyuv to turn to medicine. I think the chiluk is what the Mechaber stresses there, that although a person puts in hishtadlus, he must remember that all of the sibbos are controlled completely by Hashem. Basa saw medicine as an independent savior of sorts.

100 Theoretically, we could understand this in one of two ways. By him dying, huvrar hadavar lemafreah that he was supposed to die all along, but now he is punished for his bechira to put himself into danger. Alternatively, he was not supposed to die necessarily, but his bechira has now put him into a system in which the gzeira may have decided that he will die. If he would not have put himself into this system, he would have lived. R”F seems to indicate the former. In T”L, the beginning sounds like the latter answer, but the end sounds like the former answer. I need to think about this more.

101 the Mechaber mentions nothing of doing hishtadlus to protect oneself.

102 The Mechaber doesn’t explain the reason for this. It seems that a boteach believes that everything that Hashem does is for the best, thus he knows that this too is for the best.

103 see what I wrote in footnote at the very beginning of this shaar

104 A person doesn’t understand that it’s not just some “fluffy hashkafa” but it’s a chiyuv gamur like tefillin and tzitzis. It has to be learned like a sugyah.

105 see Daas Tevunos concerning the mistake in yichud of attributing power to nature

106 Fascinating moshol. Although here it has a different meaning, this moshol applies in an interesting way in a kabalah understanding of how shefah comes down to the world.

107 But why is this important davka after bitachon?

108 We see that the sefer is building onitself. Have to first understand that there is One Being Who has absolute control. Then be misbonen on all the goodness that He does. This obligates acceptance of His avodah and placing full trust in Him. With all these yesodos we are now ready to shape a person’s hashkafas and actions, all being directed to serve Hashem.

109 Seemingly they can’t have chonef, but they can be lo lishmo. The example is that a person gains personal satisfaction from having middos tovos – tz”i.

110 I understood these two tachbulos as the first one being mebalbel the emunha part (what is true), while the latter being mebalbel the km”l part, namely it claims that everything that one believes is true, but it tries to short circuit the actions that follow the emunah.

111 This perek is filled by many attacks by the yetzer on the person. Why are these attacks davka brought here, in a shaar of doing everything lishmo. One of the Gerer Rebbes said that the yetzer doesn’t care if people do mitzvos as long that there is no nekudah hapnimis (namely, the lishmo element). This is why the yetzer attacks with all of its power davka when a person attempts to be meyached maasav.

112 At this point you begin to appreciate the Mechaber’s thesis about importance of understanding issues with seichel. The yetzer attacks with all kinds of arguments in order to be “meames es hasheker”. A person has to be on the ball in order to naswer it properly.

113 The thrust of the whole perek seems to assume that aveiros are ultimately caused by by shibush in the seichel. In the end of this shaar, the Mechaber tells us that the aveiros are found in the leiv as well, which I will assume means in the element of the person which is involved with desire. We could say that ultimately emotional pegamim / passions are all results of an unclear view of the world. Humans want only good things for themselves, and when they do something that is detrimental to them, it’s because they think that it’s really good for them.

114 I did a little research, and it seems that this is the first place where this expression appears. I seem to remember that Rav Kahn quoted it (in his Chanukah speech) in the name of Chazal

115 At times certain statements appear in parenthesis. This text doesn’t seem to appear in other versions of Chovos that I saw. I don’t know where they are from. I will mark these sections with 2 stars.

116 The question of the paradox of shleimus and ratzon Hashem is discussed in the Kuzari.

117 Have to see the hashlachos of the argument and not just the argument itself. Denying nevuah is not just denial of an ikkar, it’s a denial of all mitzvos.

118 Unclear what is the definition of chishuv tekufos. I thought that it just meant making calculations concerning the new moon. Here it seems to mean something else entirely. It’s some kind of study of the order of the cosmos. I am not sure whether we are talking about astronomy or astrology. If it’s the former, so why have a h”a that it is kishuf. It’s interesting to think about the Chazal in light of the pshat brought here. The Gemarah says that anyone who can be mechashev must do so. If chishuv tekufos means calculating a new month, only Beis Din have to do it. Why would an individual have to make this calculation? Sounds like something else is going on here. See Meforshim on Ein Yaakov and see Ein Ayah. They explain that this cheshbon is not talking about the cheshbon of the b”d.

119 Have to make sure to answer the kashyas of one’s yetzer, because otherwise one’s position looks stupid, and this is dangerous for the person’s avodah

120 Rambam Hakdama leMishna on why rejected opinions are nevertheless recorded

121 Maspik Leeved writes that a tosefes can’t contradict the basic chov. Can’t practice prishus at the expense of kibud av v’eim

122 Cheshbon Hanefesh writes that right ways are limited while wrong ways are many times greater. The great chochma is to understand the wrong ways in order to knw how to guide people from them. I always thought that the chochmo of the people that stand above gan mevucha in M”Y is not that they only know the right way(s), but rather they know all the ways, and see the consequence of each. M”Y writes that they can be mavchin between right and wrong ways, which means understanding the wrong ways. I also thought that this koach allowed them to guide people who already have gone very far down a wrong way.

123 A little clump of dirt will ruin all of the oil. You can pour gallons and gallons of pure oil, but in the end will get only dirty oil. First have to clean the barrel and only then pour the oil.

124 Malbim writes that middas hataavah should not be studied directly because that itself is megareh the yetzer. Have to know when the defence itself becomes detrimental.

125 From Rav Kaplan’s article I thought that this was a Chazal. My search with DBS shows the Chovos to be the earliest mekor. Shlah also quotes this story in the name of Chovos.

126 This point should be reviewd by everyone at least once a week.

127 I thought that it’s simple that when it comes to chiyuvim, then it doesn’t matter how pure the kavanos are – a person must do it. It could be that even in the case of tosefes a person needs to do something in which hanaas hakavod is involved because that’s what’s needed for his avodah or the situation demands it. This is a very complicated calculation.

128 Rav Kook on importance of good gashmius to have good ruchnius. Netziv on “lachatzeinu zu dechak”

129 Rav Dessler has a variance of this idea in Kuntres haBechira 2

130 Another point here is that every moment carries with it its own opportunities and chiyuvim. Even if do something later, but you will miss this moment. In addition, maybe will get so sunk in gashmius, may never come back to ruchnius. Even if come back, the damage to one’s personal may be irreparable.

131 This section is a crucial limud in order to achieve being dan everyone lekaf zchus.

132 Chazal talk about the pig that sticks out its hooves to show that it is kosher. I seem to remember a makor that says that because of this it is a greater tumah than the other three animals. Rav Walbe on the chiluk between aveiros Bayis Rishon vs. Sheini: nodah…

133 It’s true that a person has to be careful with his health, and good health will greatly influence avodas Hashem (as the Rambam wrote in in Deos). But the cheshbon has to be made not under the influence of the yetzer but rather through a cheshbon zach.

134 T”L explains that heter and issur are equal, so might as well turn to heter (the yetzer is tricking you to think that this hanaah is only by the issur). This is similar to a quote from Rav Moshe Feinstein that I heard once, based on the Gemarah in Chulin that there is a mitzvah to find elements that are mutar who have similar hanaah as issurim.

135 See Rambam on Avos 2:9 where he identifies “lev” with what he calls “mis’orer” which from Shmoneh Perakim seem to be koach haratzon.

136 We have to be careful how we translate the world “kniah”. At first blush it means “anavah”, and this is what the Mechaber seems to be saying in the end of the 2nd perek. But in another place it seems that it has another connotation. In the beginning of the 2nd perek, the Mechaber talks about the bad kniah. Its definition is a lowly feeling caused by an ability to remove the nezek and not doing so. Hard to fit this into “anavah”. Rav Feldman translates it as “submission” which makes sense in the above example. I am (currently) work with the definition of “submission” but also assume that anavah is part of the definition as well. As I thought about it more, it seems that kniah and anava are different, albeit connected traits. It seems that the hashkafa of anava (understanding the gadlus over the other and the katnus of oneself) leads to kniah (be mevatel yourself – learn from the other, serve the other). One of the major issues that I want to understand in the shaar how kniah is used as” submission” and how it is used as “humility, and how these two definitions relate to each other.

137 In general we think that in order to get rid of gaavah, we have to destroy the hashkafos that make us think too highly about ourselves. This is a mistake. There is also an aseh tov. Can’t destroy something without building something in its place. The hashkafah of gaavah can’t be destroyed, but rather it has to be replaced with the trait of kniah

138 It starts inside and works out into actions. See Mesilas Yeshorim about actions of anava without pnimius of anava. There is a concept of starting out and working in (maasim effect our pnimius).

139 Rav Walbe explained this section as saying that in order to reach anavah, first have to understand the tremendous gadlus that you have. ani hadal understood this as saying that in order to even begin with kniah, you have to first get elevate yourself and get rid of this bad kniah, namely choosing not to help oneself when can.

140 Mechaber doesn’t explain why this is. T”L explains that without this trait it is absolutely impossible to reach kirvas Elokim. Rambam in Shmoneh Perakim writes that a person can become a navi even if he has some chisronos in middos. I don’t remember what Rambam says about gaavah (I think Rambam says that

141 Could argue that the words “so that the person could do teshuvah” is going back on why Hashem was maarich not to punish the person (see M”Y on the fact that rachamim holds of punishment in order to give a person a chance to do teshuvah). I wonder if there is another point here, that Hashem hides a person’s aveira so that he can do teshuvah. When a person’s aveiros are revealed, people begin to bemezalzel him, and his kevod atzmi is dropped. This lack of kevod atzmi is a major meakev to teshuvah.

142 Many people learn, but a person has to have sensitivity to Toras Hashem. He has to hear the voice in the Torah the calls to him. Kol yom yotze bas kol mehar Sinai. This bas kol also comes from the Torah that we learn, but we are deaf to it. This is the elbona shel Torah.

143 This is a major theme in the chovos: measure not what you accomplished, but what you had the potential to accomplish

144 The previous chapter seems to address the areas of life in which a person must exercize kniah. Now we are addressing the actual process how to acquire anavah. I wonder why not place this perek before the last one

145 Chet is a technical aveira, while michshol is a mistake in avodah, although not a technical aveira.

146 the difference between this perek and perek 4 seems to be that perek 4 deals with areas of life / life situations, while here we are dealing with specific actions. I need to make sure that this is true.

147 simcha beyesurim and kniah – simcha beyesurim requires acceptance of the situation, and realization that it is just and positive for the person – thus a person minds meaning (and thus simcha) beyesurim

148 In the beginning of the shaar the Mechaber said that he is focusing only on kniah towards Hashem. If so, why place this here? We can suggest that kniah to people leads to kniah to Hashem by shifting focus away from your own traits. We could also suggest (although doesn’t seem to be true in context of this sefer) that by seeing the pnimius of every person, the person will develop a sense of pnimius that will allow him to reach kniah to Hashem.

149 See T”L who explains that a person should value and be machshiv his ruchnius, and not say that it’s not shach for him to try to reach darchei tzadikim. Rav Kook writes in a number of places concerning keeping true to one’s penimi desire to reach high madreigos, although it seems that practically it’s not possible.

150 A person must daven for accomplishments in ruchnius. The Mechaber makes this point again later in the shaar. See Rav Pincus’s Shearim baTefilah

151 Part of kniah to a party is to fight against those who try to hurt them. Part of kniah to Hashem is to fight for Him.

152 One of them is not to sit among people who engage in foolishness, but to do so not because of gaavah. How is this part of kniah? I thought that the person is not saying that he is greater than them and thus he doesn’t want anything to do with them. Rather he is nichna to Hashem, and he determines good or bad only based on what Hashem wants, and it is detrimental for the person’s avodah to engage in these activities.

153 To the person himself so that he should know where he is holding, and to others who need to know what kind of person is he (like for the purpose of knowing whether they should learn from him)

154 Adam nikar bekaaso. We get angry when we feel passionate about something, want it go go a certain way, and it doesn’t. When someone is mevazeh a person, and the person doesn’t respond, this means that he has so identified with values of Hashem, that the bizui isn’t effecting him – he is not effected by it, he doesn’t feel passionate about kavod.

155 Rav Stav quoted Gemarah from haChovel that if someone calls you an ox, put on a yoke. Sometimes denying something makes it worse. I think that what the Chovos says should be done in one’s mind. Denying often increases the praise.

156 What is the mekor for this idea? Also, why is this fair (the mevuzeh doesn’t seem to have the right to these zechuyos – lemaaseh he didn’t do anything, he just suffered). Also, why should the mevazeh get any aveiros beyond the aveira of being mevazeh someone.

157 The nekudas hamachlokes is whether it’s just a question of what should come first in development of middos (see in later footnote that I modified what I thought was the pashat in L”T), or a more fundamental issue of what’s ikkar and what is tafel in middos. The thrust of this (short) perek seems to be that avodah can’t coexist with gaavah, thus a person must aquire the trait of kniah. This seems to sound more like L”T.

158 Granted that there are avodim that have gaavah, but that is a certain pgam in their avdus. True that on some level a person can be an eved Hashem with some gaavah, but he isn’t a oure eved. It isn’t pure avdus (in a conceptual sense of avdus)

159 This doesn’t sound so much as an issue of neither chronology of ikkar/tafel, but rather issue of what is the shoresh and what is an anaf. Upon a more careful examination of L”T, I think that this is gufa what he is saying.

160 Because as long as he can attribute what he has to someone, he can’t be misgaeh. See beginning of Derashos haRan Drash 10 on kochi veotzem yadi.

161 Rav Dessler chelek 2 end of Purim section. A person must be mis’gaeh, so the highest madreiga is to make source of your gaavah your ability to understand ratzon Hashem and do His will. Define your self-worth davka as growth in avodas Hashem.

162 This posuk may be a smach to the girsa of the Ramchal of the Baraysa of Rav Pinchas ben Yair. In Ramchal’s girsa it says “anava meviah lidei yir’as chet”.

163 the mashmaus here of “kniah” seems to be “acceptance” more than “humility”

164 It’s a question of expectations. See Peleh Yoetz (I think) under yesurim where the Mechaber says that a person must prepare for yesurim by understanding that it’s something that is roui to happen – see the powerful lashon there.

165 Don’t have to know for sure that the other person is greater. Just have to find that possibility. Dov Stark once quoted a Mabit who made this point about being kol adam lekaf zchus. Dov (I am not sure from Mabit or not) quoted the Gemarah that we see this point from the Gemarah about the worker who worked all year long and then the master told him that he had nothing to pay him – the worker assumed the best, and although his reasoning was wrong, he was right about the honesty of the one who hired him

166 The Mechaber doesn’t seem to mention the notion that beetzem a baal gaavah can’t acquire chochma – tz”i whether the Mechaber mentions this notion anywhere else

167 We see this in tfilah of hashiveinu avinu leTorosecho – see that besides our effort, we need seyata diShmaya to succeed. Rav Pincus makes this point in Shaarim beTfilah from Gemarah in Nidah about davening to become a t”ch.

168 In perek 8, Mechaber wrote that kniah is the shoresh for all middos tovos.

169 I am unclear what the Chovos means, but some ideas concerning this are important concerning teshuvah. Aveiros cause massive damage to the person, and make a person lose sensitivity to kedusha and sense of right and wrong, like concept of hutra lo.

170 Compare to Rambam in Shemoneh Perakim. In a chaburah we were discussing this idea and came out with the following concerning what is this mechanism of doing something to extreme, and then doing less: Rav Dessler has an idea that hishazkus even for a short period of time is powerful – that’s why we accept upon ourselves chumros during aseres yomei teshuvoh.

Another answer, which I think answers up the piece better is that the Mechaber isn’t talking about mitzvos/aveiros per se but rather about gashmiyus – altimately aveiros come from an incorrect relationship to gashmiyus – you have to create the right balance – like the Rambam brought above. I need to work on this more.

171 Tanya Likitei Maamarim 11 quotes Chazal that reshoim mleim charatos, which the Tanya explains means that they have enough tov in them to feel bad for doing aveiros, but they are not strong enough to change.

172 Tanya talks about two types of person that Hashem wants lehatchila: one who struggles with his yetzer and one who doesn’t.

173 Rav Yisroel says that the yetzer loves sfeikos, because then can’t pin anything down. Everything has to be clear.

174 Similar to lamentation of Yermiyahu – we left Hashem but for what!?! What did we gain?

175 The basic mehalech here seems to be to first recognize the aveira, then gain a deeper insight to the damage that he has done, and finally commit to change.

176 Mechaber talked about earlier about the problem of mosros as leading to actual aveiros. Rav Kook in Mussar Avicho talked about the fact that anything close to aveira is in itself rah.

177 Yosef Kalinski brought in the Rambam in S”P who says that there are two kinds of tzadikim: chosid and moshel berucho – the difference between them is whether they struggle with themselves or not. The Rambam says that by mitzvos sichliyos the ideal is being a chosid but by chukiyos, better to be a moshel berucho. Rambam brings a Medrash about saying that I can eat the pig but I don’t. I thought that Chovos isn’t making this chiluk. Sounds like across the board should be a chosid. I later saw that Chovos in Prishus Perek 5 says that all aveiros, even the non-sichli ones, should be disgusting in a person’s eyes.

I also thought to give a different pshat in the Medrash. Don’t says just simply give some natural explinations for mitzvos (can’t eat pig because of trichinosis) but rather say that the reason I do them is because Hashem said so. The pashat of the words sound more like the Rambam.

178 We were dan on what this means – Tov HaLevanon says that this means that if you do teshuvoh for a number of aveiros (complete teshuvoh that Ch”H talks about) and then transgress only one of those aveiros, a person is punished for everything – tz”i how this works. I suggested that what this means is that every time you do teshuvoh and then mess up, you take away the chashivus of the teshuvoh (Rav Dessler mentions this notion in his discussion on zacha sam hachayim). Make it more ok to mess up, fix it, and mess up again. (The flipside of this is when a person is sunk in aveiros, he can’t jump out in one second. Has to try to fix, fail, and try again.)

179 There is a duality here that on one hand we have to worry about tomorrow not coming, on the other hand can’t be overwhelmed by worrying about what will happen in the future. See Rav Pliskin on cerenity, especially the poem by Rav Dessler.

180 Sifsei Chayim Elul Hachana Leyom Hadin…takes this idea a step further. Quotes a Meiri that says that when do teshuvah, have to rehaul all of one’s actions, even in areas that did not do the aveira. S”Ch there is also medayek this idea from the Rambam

181 What the Mechaber seems to be saying is that since full kaparah can’t happen until death, he will never be completely metukan until after he dies. We should point out that the girsa in our Gemarah is that for aveiros that chayav kares and misa, yesurim are able to be memarek, and only chilul Hashem is the aveira that can’t be miskaperes only by death.

182 For some of us, change can become an a”z onto itself. The reason why we work on ourselves isn’t just for some philosophical idea of good middos. It isn’t just because we like to control everything around us (including our habits). It’s avodas Hashem. We need to approach it as such.

183 See Yad Hil Teshuvah

184 Rav Kook talks about the danger of yeush when teshuvah seems impossible. A person should fix whatever he can, and trust that Hashem will help him do the rest.

185 Rav Hirsh on “karov Hashem…lechol asher yikrouhu beemmes”. The sun always shines, the question is whether the person has placed himself into position to be mekabel it.

186 Rav Kahn’ story about the man who promised money for mikva, but as he walked, the amount that he decided to give lessened.

187 T”L explains that a person has to use his mind to break down life and see the stupidity of taavoh and all of the tricks that a person uses to trick himself / L” T explains that a person must be able to make a cheshbon without the interference of taavoh that colors all of our decisions. I wonder if you can read it as saying that a person should use his sechel to see what he (not someone else) in his situation must act

188 T”L says that Chachomim compare this world to a narrow corridor of a palace that eventually leads to a spacious room. Ramak on why teshuvah is “tashuv lahei”.

189 This is also a beautiful moshol for the idea of Rav Walbe that when do avodah, have to get to the shoresh hadavar, because this is where true change takes place. If deal with the symptoms, then wasting a lot of energy with minimal success.

190 Just a few comment about learning this shaar. This shaar is very lengthy. There is a lot of repetition from previous shaarim, but there is a reformulation of these yesodos in a form that a person can easily be misbonen on them. There are new aspects and mosholoim for the yesodos that have already appeared. There are some chidushimn as well. Derech avodah, it’s appropriate to do the whole shaar. But if a person wants to pull out yesodos, then the shaar should be learned selectively. I am going to be focusing on the chidushim of the shaar.

Also, notice how the term “cheshbon hanefesh” is used. In contemporary seforim, it means to examine what a person is doing right and wrong. This seems to also be part of the definition in this sefer. But the major thrust of the term the way that it is used here is to contemplate certain truths, and the chovos that they create.

191 Two basic points: work out the obligations of Torah and demands of world / see what your chovos are. Why isn’t the latter included in the former? Maybe the former is the theoretical obligation, while the latter is seeing what you have already fulfilled and what haven’t yet fulfilled.

192 Rav Kook stresses this point in a number of places.

193 Rav Kook on aveira putting the person out of harmony with the rest of creation.

194 Mechaber implied in Avodas Elokim Perek 4 (beginning) that there is no such thing as just chovos haeivarim. At first glance, he seems to say differently here. In reality, I don’t think so. Mechaber tells us that the chovos halevavos element of a purely ch”e mitzvah is different than a ch”l mitzvah. When it comes to ch”e, the ch”l part comes davka in the beginning, before the maaseh begins, but doesn’t have to last throughout. A mitzvah that is a ch”l mitzvah must have a ch”l element throughout its fulfillment. Later in this point (p. 184-185) Mechaber spells us what that kavanah before the maaseh should be.

195 Why is this not true even for ch”l mitzvos (without ch”e element)?

196 Namely, words of tefilah have to be an expression of the tefilah penimis

197 This seems to be the same idea as machshovos nimsheches achar hapeulos

198 see Ramban on “lispos es haravah im hatzmeah”

199 Mechaber has mentioned this point a number of times before. Compare this with Shaar haPrishus. The chiluk may be sameach bechelko (passive) vs. actively be poresh from the world.

200 This is the shitah of the Mechaber that there is no such concept as reshus.

201 see Sefer Cheshbon haNefesh Middas Prishus concerning the 4 stages of development of a maaseh influenced by the yetzer

202 tefilah for better avodah

203 See T”L d”h Kim’at

204 This is a fascinating statement. The explanations that I know of this maamar is that granted there is a special divine inspiration that neviim have, but chachomim have a certain advantage davka because they are working through seichel enoshi. The Mechaber implies that even alts the divine inspiration the chacham is greater. I need to examine this point again.

205 This point is made by the Mechaber in the Hakdama. Rav Walbe quotes in the introduction Even Ezra who talks about the fact that the reason why M”R was at Har Sinai so long is because the pnimius element of Torah is vast. See Rav Walbe’s words there. There is an Even Ezra Devarim 30:14 that the ikkar of maaseh mitzvos is davka the effect on the pnim. I seem to remember a Sfas Emmes on why learning about karbonos is the same as bringing them, say the same thing

206 Rambam on the fact that nevuah is based on personal work and seyata deshmaya

207 Torah provides us guidance how to live this life successfully, but there can’t be absolute love for both. Absolute love means you love this and share your love with no one else. Once share the love, it’s not absolute nor complete.

208 See Rambam Hilchos Deos. Rav Kook on this point.

209 Melochim 1:20 – Achav is told by Ben Hadad that the latter was coming to take all of the machamad libecho. From the pesukim it’s unclear what is it that Achav is willing to do and what he isn’t. Some of the Meforshim point out that he is willing to be theoretically be meshuabad to Ben Hadad, but not that Ben Hadad should actually be able to come and take something from Achav. This is often the attitude that we have towards what we have. We are willing to symbolically be meshuabad to Hashem, as long as He never actually calls on us to give something that we would like to keep.

210 story of the Chofetz Chayim having little furniture – he saw himself as a traveler

211 a reoccurring theme in Rav Kook

212 the Mechaber defines prishus broadly – in perek 6, Mechaber includes helping others in prishus (see there)

213 Taavos have to be dealt with not as diseases, but rather as positive forces that have simply gone out of control. Like the immune system that is causing pneumonia.

214 It seems like b,c,d, are very similar – g seems to be different in that it takes into account what a person needs

215 although we’ll see elements of the rest in the rest of the shaar

216 Rav Dessler on the fact that when a person corrupts himself, he corrupts the rest of the world himself. Rav Kook points this out as well (se beginning of Yerech Eitanim Yomim Noroim on teshuvah)

217 this prishus sounds like it is derech tikun

218 Kotzker on the soul of fine silk, even if body is broken. Idea of libo lemaalah veeino lematah.

219 Rambam in Shemoneh Perakim seems to disagree with this. See Rav Yisroel Salanter in Ohr Yisroel on this Rambam

220 Sounds like ok to enjoy what have without taking extra (category 2)

221 I have to be medayek in seder haprishus (starting with lashon, going to reiyah, etc.)

222 see Rav Kook’s idea on rachtza

223 see Rav Kook in Ein Ayah chelek 1 on this

224 see beginning of Maspik who discusses the interconnection between middos

225 see Maspik – he mentions that can’t leave parents when they need your help

226 Rav Yisroel on learning beiyun

227 very broad definition

228 See Orot Hatshuva 3

229 Tanya writes that every Jew has the potential to die al kiddush Hashem. Maybe there is no machlokes here. Tanya is talking about pnimius of a Jew, while Chovos is talking about lemaaseh.

230 See Rav Kook on Ein Aya Brochos Perek 1 discussing that schar of one’s avodah depends on success, while schar for working with another depends on hishtadlus.

231 Similar to _________ way of doing business.

232 Rav Kook Alos Reiya Intro makes a similar point (also found in Ein Aya)

233 Kotzker – a Jew is whose body is of broken clay but his soul is of fine silk – his eyes look down to the earth, but his heart is looking to heaven

234 The other girsa says that too much oil reduces the hod of the candle. Al pi mussar we can explain that there are two dangers of taking too much on ourselves: shviras keilim or damaged keilim

235 Maspik leEved Hashem in Hisbodedus makes this point as well.

13