Avos: 4:4

Rabbi Levitas a man of Yavneh said: be exceeding humble spirit, for the end of man is the worm. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah said: whoever profanes the name of heaven in secret, he shall be punished in the open. Unwittingly or wittingly, it is all one in profaning the name.

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Yavneh, says, "Be very, very humble in spirit, for the hope of mankind is worms." Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says, "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly. There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name." Rabbi Levitas, a man of Yavneh, says, etc.: It appears that it should be explained that [the redactor] also ordered this statement here because this sage was together with the previous sages at the same time, or one after the other - as we have explained. And that is the main explanation, as I [just] explained. But it is [also] possible to say that it is because it said before this (Avot 4:3), "Do not disparage any person," [that] he said that this thing is that one should not disparage the other; but one should disparage himself. And about this, he said, "Be very humble in spirit, for the hope of mankind is worms." And there is nothing more lowly and denigrated than worms. And accordingly should he be in his [own] eyes. And the order of this mishnah [after] the one before it will be further explained proximately (Paragraph 5). And it can be asked about this: That which he said, "Be very humble in spirit, for the hope of mankind is worms" - is man's hope not that his soul will be attached under the Throne of Glory? So why did he say, "for the hope of mankind is worms?" And it should also be asked, "And is his hope, worms?" For man does not hope for this, and the expression, hope, is said about something that a man [actually] hopes for. And another difficulty: That he began to speak in second person, ""Be very humble in spirit"; but he concluded in third person, "for the hope of mankind is worms" - whereas he should have said, "for your hope is worms." The explanation of this statement: Even though a man certainly hopes for a good end, and 'the end of a man is peace' - nevertheless it is not appropriate for a person to be proud in this world. For, from the angle of this world, his hope is worms. As that which the soul of man is attached with the Binding of Life - that is not from the angle of this world. As in this world, he is called, adam - based on the word, adamah (earth). Hence even if he will have a great end and culmination, he should nevertheless not be proud in this world; as he has a body [that will be consumed by] worms and vermin. And [even] if he will have a [great] end - from the angle of this world, he is nevertheless called, adam, based on the word, adamah. [So] if he is not humble of spirit, he will be proud about something that is not appropriate for him. And it can also be said that since Ben Azzai said (Avot 4:3), that one should not disparage any person, Rabbi Levitas added to say, [that] it is not that one should not disparage any person; but rather that he should be humble in spirit and submissive before every person. And he said (Editor's note: This is according to a different textual version of this mishnah), "before every person" - meaning to say that even if that person is lowly and denigrated, he should regardless be lowly also before such a person. And he said, "for the hope of mankind is worms": He meant to say that the end of a person is death, as death is appropriate for a person. And it is like they said in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 2:4), "Anyone about who it is said, 'and he was,' is projected for something: 'Behold, the man was' (Genesis 3:22), he was projected for death. 'And the snake was' (Genesis 3:1), it was projected for punishment." Such that you see from this that the essence of man is to be appropriate for death. And about anyone that is projected for something, it is relevant to say that he hopes for it, even though he does not [actually] hope for it. However from the angle that his essential condition hopes for this and is projected for this, it is relevant to say that his hope is for this. For [the word,] hope is relevant to anything that is waiting for something and prepared for it. He therefore said, "for the hope of mankind is worms," and he did not say, "your hope is worms." For the hope of a [specific] man is not for this. He rather said this about the general human condition - not about the person that is present (and fit for the use of second person) - that he hopes [for] degeneration. And likewise did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Berakhot 17a), "The end of a [domesticated] beast is to be slaughtered; the end of a person is death." As you see from this, that this is his hope from the angle of his essential condition. And this thing is well understood. And that which he said, "Be very, very humble in spirit": It is because he needs to be the most humble, to the point that it is impossible to be more [humble]; so you should not say that he should [just] be somewhat humble. Rather he needs to be completely humble in spirit. For behold, "the hope of mankind is worms." And since the hope of mankind is worms, he needs to be completely humble in spirit, to the point that it is impossible to be more [humble]. But he did not say, "the hope of man (adam) is worms." And that is because, he is called, adam, based on the word, adamah (earth); and from the angle that he is of earth, he is not of worms. For behold there are no worms in earth [itself]. Rather it is from the angle that flesh rots; but the earth does not have worms. And he did not say, "the hope of a man (ish) is worms" - as the word, ish, is said in every place about strength. And in that a man has strength, he does not have worms. As you will find that the word, ish, comes about this in every place: "A Man of war" (Exodus 15:3); "Are you not a man" (1 Samuel 26:15). And from the angle that a man has strength, he [also] does not have worms. Rather man has worms from the angle of both of them together - in that there is in man this thing that his strength is embedded in the physical. So from the angle of both of them [together], he has worms. For this thing is degenerating - in that man's strength is embedded in the physical. And [when] man is called, mankind (enosh), it is from the angle that man's strength is embedded in the physical. So behold that there are three words for man: Man (adam); a man (ish); and mankind (enosh). The word, ish, is said about strength by itself; the word, adam, is said about earth by itself; and the word, enosh is for both of them - the strength and the earth together, his strength embedded in the physical. And you should know this thing: As the [numerical equivalent of the] word, enosh is like the number of adam ish (Editor's note: It is actually off by one, see Hebrew note 309 by R. Y. Hartman.) For he is called, adam because of the earth and ish because of the strength; whereas enosh appears about the connection of the strength and the earth together. And that is why the number of enosh is like the number of adam ish. Hence he said, "the hope of mankind enosh is worms." "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven, etc.": The explanation of the desecration of the name of Heaven is like it is explained in the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Yom HaKippurim (Yoma 86a) - that any Torah scholar who does a sin, such a thing is called a desecration of [God's] name. For the Torah scholar knows and recognizes his Master, so he causes the creatures to say that there is certainly 'no law and no Judge' (Vayikra Rabba 28:1). For behold he is a sage that knows and [yet he] sins! But if so, there is a difficulty: How is it possible to desecrate the name of Heaven secretly? As behold, [if it happens] secretly, no one sees it that they should say this! And it can be answered that there were ten Torah scholars in one house and one of them stole something but it is not known which one. Or also (another possibility): There were ten Torah scholars sitting [together] and one of them entered a house of prostitutes but it is not known which. As this one desecrates the name of Heaven secretly; since it is not known that he sinned. And "they punish him publicly" - is that who the sinner was becomes known and publicized. Or also (another possibility of how to resolve the difficulty): That which it said, "secretly," is not to say that it is [completely] secret, but rather that not many know about it. So the Holy One, blessed be He, publicizes it to everyone, such that all will know. And that is called, secretly; because afterwards, he said, "they punish him publicly" - meaning publicized to all the creatures. And we have already explained to you that [the redactor] ordered the sages - the ones that were in the same time or close to one another - together. And this thing is correct. But if you want to connect this statement to the one before it, you could say it is because Ben Azzai said (Avot 4:3), "Do not disparage any person" - such that it is not appropriate to treat any creature disparagingly - whereas Rabbi Levitas said [that] he should however not seek his own glory at all, but rather be humble in spirit before every person in the world. So afterwards, he ordered: But he should worry about the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He - that he should not, God forbid, desecrate the glory of the Omnipresent. For this sin is more severe than all of the sins. As one who desecrates the name of Heaven desecrates His glory, may He be blessed. And if one is warned about the honor of a person - that one should not disparage any creature - how could he desecrate the glory of the Omnipresent, whose 'glory fills the world?' And it could be asked about this statement - "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven, secretly, etc.": What is the difference between the sin of desecrating the name of Heaven and all [other] sins, that a person be punished publicly? Moreover that which he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - why should it have this strictness, such that unintentional and intentional be considered [the same] with the desecration of God's name, [something] that you will not find with any of the other sins. We have already said that the desecration of the name of Heaven is that he desecrates His glory, may He be blessed and may He be exalted. And even though, when a person sins, what does he impact on God, may He be blessed; [still] is not this thing - that he sins with the desecration of [God's] name - not the greatest of sins, even [more] than heresy. [But] from what angle is the sin of the desecration of [God's] name greater? It is because with heresy - in that thing, it is relevant to say that if he sinned intentionally, it is appropriate that he be repaid according to his evil; but if he was unintentional, it is not appropriate that it be considered so much of a sin for him - as he did not do it willingly and with intention. Of course, it is still considered a sin for him [when he was] unintentional - that is, that he should have been more careful not to sin - but he was [still] unintentional, so the Torah was not so stringent. As we have not found [elsewhere] that the Torah is stringent upon one unintentional except about one who kills a being, due to the reason that, at the end of the day, he killed him and performed a major act. And because of that, the Torah was stringent upon him, that he should be exiled. And it was also stringent in all injuries, since we say (Bava Kamma 26a), "A person is always forewarned - whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether [accidentally or knowingly]." And all of this is because, at the end of the day, he caused injury to the other. And likewise one who desecrates the name of Heaven: Behold His glory fills the world; and at the end of the day, it is the same whether he was unintentional or intentional - behold, he desecrated His glory, which fills the world, may He be blessed. And when an impact is made - even with a person regarding injuries - when there is an impact, the Torah does not say to be lenient with him like with other [cases of being] unintentional. For other sins - and even one who has intercourse with someone sexually prohibited - (and) if he was unintentional about it; once he repents, that thing is his reparation, since no impact was made with it. And that is why if he was intentional, he is certainly evil, to die; but if he was unintentional, he has atonement with a sacrifice. But it is not like this when he made an impact with killing or injuring his fellow - about which the Torah was very strict with one unintentional. And so too is it with the desecration of [God's] name - it should be strict with one unintentional. For, at the end of the day, a desecration and a negation of glory occurred. And the explanation is not at all that unintentional and intentional are [completely] the same with the desecration of [God's] name. For this is not so at all! As it is impossible that unintentional and intentional be the same; and [God's] trait of justice would not allow that unintentional and intentional be the same. Rather, it is going on what is above - "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly" - that [even if he was unintentional,] they punish him publicly. And the reason for this is in order to rectify His glory, may He be blessed. For when God, may He be blessed, takes vengeance against the sinners, his glory is aggrandized. And it is as they expounded in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 14:4): Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said, "The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is only aggrandized in the world when he executes judgement against the wicked; and we have many verses: 'And I will punish him (Gog) with pestilence and with blood' (Ezekiel 38:22), and afterwards it is written (Ezekiel 38:23) 'And I will be aggrandized and I will be sanctified.' 'There He broke the flying bows' (Psalms 76:4). What is written after it? 'God is known in Judah, His name is great in Israel' (Psalms 76:2). 'And I will be glorified through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and all of his host, and Egypt will know that I am the Lord, etc.' (Exodus 14:4). 'Thus said the Lord, "The toil of Egypt and [...] of Cush, etc. You are a God who conceals Himself"' (Isaiah 45:14-15). 'And the power of the Lord shall be revealed with His servants; but He shall rage against His foes' (Isaiah 66:14); 'Therefore [...] I will make known to them this once' (Jeremiah 16:21). 'But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment'" (Isaiah 5:16). To here [is the Midrash] Then you should note that when God, may He be blessed executes justice upon the wicked, His glory is aggrandized. And it is appropriate that God, may He be blessed, execute justice upon one who has desecrated the name of His glory, may He be blessed - in order to aggrandize His glory, may He be blessed, corresponding to this one who had desecrated the name of Heaven. So with this judgement, His glory returns to be aggrandized [once more]. Hence "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly" - in order that everyone will know that God, may He be blessed, executes judgement upon this sinner who desecrated the name of His glory, may He be blessed. And when God, may He be blessed, comes to exact retribution from him - God, may He blessed, comes to cause it that it be known that he sinned and desecrated the name of His glory. So then He exacts retribution from him and executes justice against this sinner; and then His glory is aggrandized in the world, corresponding to that which he desecrated His glory, may He be blessed. And that is the explanation of, "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly." And about this it said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - meaning to say, there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name, such that they punish him publicly. However, the language, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name," [would then be] superfluous. As it should have said: "Anyone who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly. There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional." And there was no need to repeat and say, "when it comes to desecration of [God's] name." So it appears that this is its explanation: "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - meaning to say that the stringency that there is in the desecration of [God's] name over other sins is the same when unintentional as when intentional. And had it only said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional," it would have only referred to that stringency that they punish him publicly; but not to the rest of the stringency. That is why it comes to make us understand, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - in all of the stringency that there is with the desecration of [God's] name. And so it is shown in the first chapter of Kiddushin (40a): "We learned [in a mishnah] there, 'Credit is not given with regard to the desecration of God’s name, whether one sinned unintentionally or intentionally.'" And the Gemara says, "(We learned there) [What is], 'Credit is not given?' Mar Zutra says, 'That [God] does not act like a storekeeper and provide credit.' Mar, son of Ravina, said, 'That if [one’s merits and sins were] equal, [this sin] is determinant [of the outcome].'" And Rabbenu Channanel, may his memory be blessed, explained, "That which it said, 'We learned there,' is [referring to] a mishnah in Avot." And Tosafot (on Kiddushin 40a, s.v. Ein) explained: Perhaps it is that which was learned, "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly." But [then] the expression of, "credit is not given," is difficult. To here are the words of Tosafot. But [even] without this, it is difficult! For how can it be understood from that which we learned, "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly": Whether its explanation is that they do not act like a storekeeper and provide credit, or it is like the one that said that if he was equal, it is determinant - this is not implied from that which it said, "they punish him publicly!" So it appears that the explanation of, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name," is that in all of the stringency that there is to the desecration of [God's] name, which you will not find in other sins - in that thing they are the same - there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional. And since it is implied from the mishnah that the desecration of [God's] name is not similar to other sins - that is why it said (Kiddushin 40a), "We learned there, 'Credit is not given (makkifin) with regard to the desecration of God’s name.'" Meaning that we are not makkifin the sin of the desecration of [God's] name to other sins. For behold, it is learned, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name" - meaning the stringency that there is with the desecration of [God's] name over other sins is that there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional - it is equal in this stringency. And hence we learned that we are not makkifin the sin of the desecration of [God's] name to other sins. And the expression, makkifin, that it [used] is like, "We are not makkifin cysts" (Chullin 46b) - meaning we do not bring them close to one another; and like, "We are not makkifin two barrels" (Beitzah 32b) - the explanation of which is, we do not bring two barrels close [to each other]. And what [the Gemara in Kiddushin] meant is that we do not bring the desecration of [God's] name close to other sins. And that which Mar Zutra said is that [God] does not act like a storekeeper who provides credit and who waits until he owes him more and collects it all together, such that he brings the debts close to each other. But this is not done with the desecration of [God's] name - that the sin of the desecration of [God's] name be brought close to other sins, that all should be collected together in the way that a storekeeper brings all of his debts together. Rather it is collected immediately. And with this, the desecration of [God's] name distinguishes itself from other sins. But according to Mar, son of Ravina, [it is] that if [one’s merits and sins were] equal, it is determinant - meaning to say that the desecration of [God's] name does not join the other sins. As behold, if the scales were even, the desecration of [God's] name is [nevertheless] determinant. And if so, the desecration of [God's] name is not similar to other sins. And that which credit is not given like a storekeeper with the sin of the desecration of [God's] name is because of the reason, as was explained above (Paragraph 18); because God, may He be blessed, collects from the sinner in order to glorify His name, may He be blessed. For this one disparaged the name of His glory. Hence it should not be delayed with this, such that the desecration not continue - given that what was meted out is the rectification of the desecration that desecrated His glory. And likewise if he was even, it is determinant - it is that the sin of the desecration of [God's] name is not similar to other sins. For other sins are only from the angle of the doer - as behold, 'what will they do to God,' may He be blessed? But this one who desecrated His glory - there is surely more substance to this sin than any [other] sin. For, at the end of the day, he desecrated His glory. And that is why if he was even, it is determinant. And even though we said that killing is also [like this] - since he killed a being - it is [still] not similar to the sin of the desecration of [God's] name. As man is himself subject to death, and his end is to die. But His glory, may He be blessed, is forever and ever. Hence this sin - which is the desecration of His name - is unique, since there is substance to this sin. Hence it is determinant. So must this mishnah be explained; and it is a proper explanation. And you should know that we have also explained great things about the desecration of [God's] name - that which he said, "they punish him publicly"; and likewise what he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of [God's] name." And that is because a name is the revelation of the one with the name, For everyone is publicized and known in the world by his name - like (Malachi 1:11), "My name is great among the nations." And it is through His name that He is publicized and known. Hence he said, "one who desecrates the name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly" - because He desecrated His name which is revealed and known to all. And it is as it is written (Jeremiah 16:2), "and they shall know that My name is the Lord." And that is why they punish him publicly - that it be known and revealed to the public that he sinned with the desecration of [God's] name. For it is through His name that God, may He be blessed, is revealed in the world. Hence even if he desecrated [God's] name secretly - at the end of the day, he sinned with His name, through which He is known and revealed in the world. Hence they punish him publicly And he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name": This thing is another matter that distinguishes this sin from other sins: For when he desecrates [God's] name, may He be blessed - it is the name that indicates the nature of something and the essence that distinguishes it from that which is besides it. And because of this, it is appropriate that, "there is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name." And that is because an unintentional sin relates to the body. For something unintentional is relevant to the body when the intellect is removed from it; but had the intellect been with him, the unintentional and mistaken would not have been relevant at all. As the unintentional is only when the intellect is separated from him, and he becomes a bodily thing. So that is why the unintentional sin is not on the level of the intentional, since [the latter] is a sin when a person is with his mind and intellect. And this thing is relevant to all [the other] sins: For inasmuch as a person is a bodily thing, the sin is not from the angle of the separated level, but rather from the bodily level. But with the sin of the desecration of the name - since the name is the abstract essentiality [of something], behold it is impossible to say that the sin is anything but with the supernal separated level. For that is the nature of a name, that it comes regarding the abstract essentiality. Hence he said, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name": That just like the sin of one who sins intentionally is certainly a big sin - as behold, his sin was from the angle of the intellect, which is separated, not material - so too does one who unintentionally sins with desecration of the name, sin with the separated level. For behold, a name comes only about the abstract spiritual essentiality. And this thing will be explained proximately (Derekh Chayim 4:13) concerning, "an error in study is considered an intentional transgression" - that the unintentional is light, because one did not sin with the level that is separated from the material. For one who sins unintentionally does the sin without the mind or intellect. So this is only attributed to the material body and the low level - that being, the material level. Hence this sin is not so stringent. But a sin with the separated level - which is the most elevated level - that is when he sins intentionally or sins with desecration of the name. And about this, it is relevant to say, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name"; and even though a person does it unintentionally, the sin is nevertheless with something that is abstract, so the unintentional is not relevant to this. For the unintentional is only from the angle of the material level alone, as was explained. But that is not the elevated level of the name. Hence, "There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the name." And this thing is a choice explanation - there is no doubt about its truth; and we also explained it in another place (Tiferet Yisrael 39), about the commandment, "You shall not take [God's name]" (Exodus 20:7). There we explained it according to all that is required, but here is not the place to elaborate. And from this itself we can understand the stringency that there is in desecration of the name - [that] for Mar Zutra (Kiddushin 40a), credit is not given with regard to the desecration of God’s name, like it is done by a storekeeper. And so did they say in Shevuot (39a) in the chapter [entitled] Shevuot HaDayanin concerning a vain oath, that all sins have [the possibility of having the punishment] held up by merit, but a vain oath is punished immediately and no credit is given. And that is because with other sins, the sin was not completely on the separated level; and [except for that level,] all things are beneath time - so the punishment of the sin does not go out immediately. Rather the punishment goes out in time. But [regarding] a sin with His name, may He be blessed - since the name comes regarding the removed abstract essentiality [of something] and time is not relevant to this thing at all, hence no credit is given with desecration of the name. And the punishment goes out into actuality immediately. For he sinned on the level that is not beneath the continuum of time at all. And we have already explained this thing (Derekh Chayim 1:12). And it is likewise for Mar, son of Ravina, that if [one’s merits and sins were] equal, it is determinant [of the outcome]. For this sin is not similar to other sins at all from the angle that [with this,] he sins completely on the supernal level. Hence if he was even, it is determinant. And this thing is clear, since this sin that he sins is against His name, may He be blessed. For the name comes regarding the abstract spiritual essentiality [of something]. However this sin only has the stringency that it is determinant. For this sin [itself] is considered like the performance of any [other] sin. It is just that there is somewhat of an addition here, that the sin reaches to the highest level. And that thing is determinant if the pans of the scales are even, even when there is also a commandment on the other pan. And the determination is from this angle, in that he sins on the supernal level - for the name is spiritual. And with that, he sins on this supernal level. But this stringency only serves to determine [something even]. For the stringency of this addition - that he sins on the supernal level - is not to weigh [more] than what is across it. Rather its stringency is only to determine [the balance when it is otherwise even]. For the balance itself is dependent upon the body of the sin and the body of the commandment, whereas the stringency of this is not the body of the sin. Hence it only serves to determine. And in truth, these things are very deep and it is impossible to explain more. And they are choice and precious things when you understand them; and we have explained them in another place. We have written at length about this in view of the greatness of the sin that there is in this - as it is found in Tractate Yoma (66a). And according to the law in the chapter [entitled] Yom HaKippurim (Yoma 86a) - according to the words of all - the desecration of [God's] name is dependent upon it being with a Torah scholar, as it is found there: What is it like - the desecration of [God’s] name? Rav said, "For example, like me [if] I take meat from a butcher and do not give him money immediately." [...] And these words [apply] only in a place where [butchers] do not ask for money. Rabbi Yochanan said, "For example, like me [if] I would walk four cubits without Torah and without tefillin." Rabbi Yitzchak bar Rav Dimi said, "For example, when one’s friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation." What is it like? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, "For example, when people say, 'May his Master forgive x.'" Abbaye said, "As it was taught [in a baraita], '"And you shall love the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 6:5) - that you will make the name of Heaven beloved.'" [This is] as it cited in the first chapter (Derekh Chayim 1:10). Behold the first two sages reason that desecration of [God's] name is [even] with something very small, when a Torah scholar is not careful. That is why Rav said, "For example, like me - even though I do not intend [to do] a sinful thing, God forbid, and it is a very small thing" - that it causes others to suspect him, that he did not pay a butcher. Though this thing is only a small suspicion, it is nevertheless included in the desecration of [God's] name. But Rabbi Yochanan does not reason that there is a desecration of God's name in this thing, which is only a suspicion - since there is no sin here. Rather it is with a small thing [that is more than a suspicion] - like that which he would walk four cubits without Torah and without tefillin - that it is impossible that there be something smaller than this. Even so, it is called a desecration of [God's] name, so much should one be careful about the desecration of God's name. But Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi reasons that there is only a desecration of [God's] name when a Torah scholar does a thing that is a disgrace with other Torah scholars. For since it is a disgrace with other Torah scholars, the glory of the Omnipresent is desecrated with this. And hence he said it is called a desecration of [God's] name when one’s friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation. So when one's friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation, [that is when] there is a desecration of [God's] name; but something small like [the case of Rabbi Yochanan] is not called a desecration and nullification of glory. And Abbaye reasons that the desecration of [God's] name is when a Torah scholar does not behave in a proper way and correctly with people: When his speech is not pleasant with the creatures, his buying and selling in the marketplace is not pleasant and he gives and takes without trustworthiness, to the point that the creatures say, "Woe to x who studied Torah, woe to his father who taught him Torah, woe to his teacher who taught him Torah, fortunate are the people who have not studied Torah, etc." And this thing is called a desecration of [God's] name; not when someone does a sin. As that thing is not with the creatures, whereas desecration of [God's] name is with the creatures. Hence one whose ways is not proper with the creatures - that is called a desecration of [God's] name. The general rule about this is that the Torah scholar has life and death in front of him: It can be life when he makes the name of Heaven beloved. But there is death across from it - that is the great sin, desecration of [God's] name. And King David said (Psalms 19:13-14), "Who can discern errors; cleanse me from secret ones. Also keep back Your servant from willful sins; let them not have dominion over me; then shall I be upright, and I shall be clear of great transgression." He said, "Who can discern errors," corresponding to unintentional sins; and he said, "cleanse me from secret ones," corresponding to one who says [that something forbidden is] permissible (Makkot 7b) - such that the sin was hidden from the eyes of his intellect. And there is no doubt that one who says, permissible, is not considered unintentional like the one who does [it] without knowledge. For one who says, permissible, should have learned [better, and known that it was actually forbidden]. And afterwards, he said, "keep back Your servant from willful sins," corresponding to an intentional sin - that God, may He be blessed, should atone for what he did intentionally. And this is corresponding to negative commandments, since they require atonement. And afterwards, he said, "let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright" - corresponding to the stringent sins, and they are [those punished with] excision and death penalties of the court. And that which he said, "let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright," is because these sins dominate the body - they bring afflictions upon it, as it is found in the chapter [entitled] Yom Hakippurim, regarding the four categories of atonement (Yoma 86a). And afterwards, he said, "and I shall be clear of great (rav) transgression" - that is the great (rav) sin, desecration of [God's] name. And he said, "rav transgression," [to mean], what the one who is called a rabbi [or great one] (rav) did. And so did they, may their memory be blessed, explain in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 62b), "'And He said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough (rav) [for you]"' (II Samuel 24:16). Rabbi Elazar said, 'The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel, "Take a great one (rav) from among them, who has [the capacity] to repay several debts." At that moment, Avishai ben Tzeruyah, who was equivalent to the majority of the Sanhedrin, died.'" And likewise in many places did they expound the expression, rav, like this. And behold that David ordered all of the sins - which are the four categories of atonement that Rabbi Yishmael expounded (Yoma 86a): 1) Positive commandments; 2) Negative commandments; 3) Excisions and death penalties of the court; and 4) Desecration of [God's] name. However he did not mention positive commandments here, since repentance atones [for it] immediately - as they said, "If he transgressed a positive commandment and repented, he does not move from there until they forgive him." Rather he was [only] seeking mercy [regarding] the other sins, [the punishment of] which repentance holds up, in [their] order. And regarding the last, he mentioned, "and I shall be clear of great (rav) transgression" - that is the desecration of [God's] name, which is the sin of the one who is called a rabbi [or great one] (rav), which is a great (rav) sin. But it should not be elaborated here - as it will, with God's help, be explained in Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTeshuvah 3). And because of this, it is appropriate only to rely to call someone, rabbi, who makes the name of Heaven beloved on his account; not someone through which the glory of [God's] name is desecrated. More than this - [if one does so], he gives the Torah's glory to someone who is not suitable for it. And in the Midrash (Pesikta Rabbati 22): Rabbi Menachma in the name of Rabbi Tanchum bar Hiyya [and] Rabbi Yose ben Zevida - "But one who commits adultery with a woman lacks a heart" (Proverbs 6:32) - anyone who accepts authority in order to derive pleasure from it is nothing but one who is like an adulterer, who derives pleasure from a woman's body - "only one who would destroy himself does such a thing." It is like Moshe, as it said (Exodus 32:32), "Now if You would bear (forgive) their sin; and if not, blot me out from Your book that You have written." It is like Yehoshua (Joshua 7:8), as it said, "It is in (Pardon) me, O Lord" - it is in me, not in them. It is like David, as it said (1 Chronicles 21:17), "let Your hand fall upon me and my father’s house, and let not Your people be plagued!" Rabbi Menachma bar Yaakov brings it from this here: "Do not go out hastily to quarrel (lariv)" - [but] it is written, "for a rabbi (lerav)." Truly, do not run after authority, on account of, "lest you know not what to do in the end thereof, when your fellow puts you to shame" - when, tomorrow, they will come and ask you questions, what will you answer them? Rabbi Zeira brings it from this here: "You shall not take" (Exodus 20:7). If Scripture is speaking about a vain oath; behold it already said (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not swear falsely by My Name." So what do we learn to say [from], "You shall not take" - that you not accept authority upon yourself when you are not suitable for authority. Rabbi Abbahu said, "I have been called, holy, and you have been called, holy: Behold, if you don't have in you the traits that I have in Me, don't accept authority upon yourself." And the explanation of this is that it is not appropriate that any authority be for one's pleasure. And this is as it was explained (Derekh Chayim 1:13) regarding, "And one who makes use of the crown [of learning] passes away" - that one who derives benefit from the Torah is liable for death. And we explained the reason - since he is deriving benefit from something holy, as we elaborated there; see there. And he [referred] to holiness with the expression, crown, so that you learn from this that every crown has holiness to it. And that is why they would anoint the kings, as [with] a type of crown anointed with anointing oil; and we explained this thing earlier. And any authority in the world also has an angle of holiness to it, in that they are separated from the rest of the people. Hence he said that one who derives pleasure from authority is similar to an adulterer, who derives pleasure from the body of a woman. That is to say that a prostitute woman is without sanctification (kiddushin, i.e. marriage), only harlotry. And this thing is a completely bodily matter, when he has sexual relations with the prostitute without sanctification. As sanctification is called, kiddushin, because it is holy (kadosh) (Kiddushin 2b, and Tosafot there). And one who has sexual intercourse with a prostitute without sanctification - this thing is solely a bodily desire. And so too is one for whom authority is for his pleasure - since authority is holy, as we said. And he said that Moshe did not derive pleasure from authority. Rather, he gave over his life to die for the people above which he was an authority. And this thing was complete authority of holiness; in that he negated his body completely, to give over his body to Israel. So behold [that] in this authority, there is no bodily pleasure at all present. It is rather total and absolute holiness; without there being a portion to the body at all. And Rabbi Tanchuma expounded [it] from, "Do not go out hastily to quarrel (lariv)" (Proverbs 25:8). And it appears that it [used] an expression of quarreling, when it wrote that one should not accept authority [if he is not suitable], because this thing - which is the acceptance of authority when one is not suitable for it - brings quarreling. For he wants that people should honor him because of his authority, yet the world is not treating him with honor; as they will say that authority is not suitable for him. And because of this, quarreling is generated; and our eyes see that this thing is like that. Rabbi Zeira brings [it] from, "You shall not take (Lo tissa) the name of the Lord, your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7) - as its explanation is that he should not accept the name of the Lord in vain. For lo tissa is an expression of acceptance in every place. And all authority is from [God's] name, may He be blessed; and He gives to man from His greatness. And it is as they, may their memory be blessed, said in the chapter [entitled] HaRoeh (Berakhot 58a), "One who sees kings of Israel says, 'Blessed…who has shared of His glory with those who revere Him.' [However] one who sees kings of the [other] nations of the world says, 'Blessed…who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.'" And this distinction is, that to Israel He shared from His own glory, to the point that He gave them a part of His glory; whereas to the nations, it did not say that He shared, but rather that He gave [it] to them - like one who gives a gift to another. But He did not share from that which is His own. Hence, just like God, may He be blessed, is called, holy; so too did He call, Israel, holy - since He shared from His glory with them. Therefore one who accepts authority but is not suitable for it - behold, he is dressing himself with His name, may He be blessed, in vain. For he is called by His name in vain. And there is no greater, "Lo tissa the name of the Lord, your God in vain," than this. And behold, God, may He be blessed, is called, Rav, as it is written (Psalms 25:11), "forgive my iniquity for it is great (rav)." And they expounded (Yalkut Shimoni on Nach and Rashi on Psalms 21:11), "It is fitting for a great God to forgive a great iniquity." So if a man is called by the name, Rav, and it is not suitable for him - behold, His name, may He be blessed, is applied to him in vain. And likewise, all the names of greatness. So he certainly transgresses, "lo tissa. And that which he said, that God, may He be blessed, is called, holy, is meaning to say that God, may He be blessed, is suitable for authority because of His holiness - since anyone with authority is holy. And if you don't have all of these traits which are suitable for holiness, do not accept authority upon yourself, as you are transgressing, "Lo tissa the name of the Lord, your God in vain" But now, with our great sins in this generation - it is not enough for us that those who are called by the name, Rabbi (Rav), are [liable for] the punishment for desecration of [God's] name; but they add [to this] to rely and call people, Rabbi and colleague, who have not seen the light of Torah. [People] upon whom the lamp of the commandment has not shone, but are rather 'small foxes.' So 'anyone who wants to take the name, takes [it]; and this crown of Torah is before everyone [to take. This exists] to the point that this thing is a cause for the casting down of the glory of the Torah to the dirt and the amplification of the desecration of [God's] name through these people. So in this generation - on account of the glory of His name, may He be blessed, and His Torah - it would have been appropriate that only the one most outstanding in wisdom and age should be called, Rabbi - so as to minimize the desecration of the name, such that they do not say that [something improper] was a 'story of (something that actually happened with) a rabbi' [and a lesson in how to act]. But [instead] they rely to call with the name, Rabbi, anyone who has just been initiated; who has only began to chirp with the voice of the Talmud. And in addition to this, it is the reason - with our sins - that the Torah will be forgotten from Israel. As [on account of this], not all people's intention in their study of the Torah is for the sake of the name of Heaven, especially before they are older. And were it only that 'from the not for its sake, they would reach the for its sake.' But once he has already merited the name (Rabbi), he will say, "'What is the advantage of the sage over the fool?' So why should I toil and take sleep away from my spirit? For 'we go after the name' and 'the name is the cause'; so 'why should I grow wiser?'" [This occurs] to the point that people will think that the virtue of Torah is acquired with the calling of the [title]. All of this have I seen with my [own] eyes. And to me, it is the greatest of the reasons that cause Torah to be forgotten from Israel. And [this happens] even though the elders who are masters of Torah have already objected to this ordination, as is found in many responsa. And this custom was certainly [established] in order to [engender] honor in the treatment of those who study Torah, in that [such] is appropriate. But now this thing has been a cause for the devaluation of the honor of the Torah and the casting down of its beauty to the depths. Hence they should be concerned with the honor of their Maker and the honor of the Torah; the coals of Torah almost having been completely extinguished with our sins. And may He, in His mercies, may He be blessed, remove every obstacle and guide us in the straight and true path!