כאשר התברר לי בבינה מדע השכל אמרתי בלבי שמא הענין הזה אינו כתוב בספר תורתנו ועל כן הניחו לחברו בספר שיורנו אותו ויראנו ענינו אלא שבקשתי בספר התורה ומצאתי שנזכר בו פעמים רבות כמו שנאמר ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך ואמר לאהבה את ה' אלהיך ולשמרו ולדבקה בו ואמר לאהבה את ה' אלהיך ולעבדו בכל לבבכם ובכל נפשכם ואמר אחרי ה' אלהיכם תלכו ואותו תיראו ואמר ואהבת לרעך כמוך ואמר ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה ואמר ואהבתם את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים את ה' אלהיך תירא אותו תעבוד ובו תדבק ואמר ואהבה מכל הלב ומכל הנפש.
But it's interesting Chovot HaLevavot says that lu yehi that Chovot HaLevavot were were only mida hasechel. Lu yehi that they were not present in the Torah as well so then that that would have explained for why why no sefer has been devoted to Chovot HaLevavot. That much he says explicitly. I don't know, is it also implied and and he wouldn't have undertaken it either? Maybe, maybe that's also implied. But given that that earlier Chovot HaLevavot explained that there are three sources of of truth and and therefore three independent mechayvim and and sechel is one of the three, so why why does it sort of why would it have made sense that there were no sefarim dealing with Chovot HaLevavot if the chiyuv are only mida hasechel? Now it's an interesting diyuk here. When you continue after he finishes with the various pesukim in Chumash for Chovot HaLevavot, he says וכאשר התברר לי חיוב מצות הלבבות מן התורה כאשר התברר מן השכל חפשתי עליה בדברי רבותינו ז"ל ומצאתי יותר מפורש מדבריהם מאשר מפורש בספרים ומן השכל.
But here he doesn't preface the search in Chazal in תורה שבעל פה for Chovot HaLevavot with well, maybe the reason there's no sefarim devoted to it is because it's only in Torah She-Biktav and sechel, not in תורה שבעל פה as well. So itachen that that there is implied here the following. The Gemara in Yoma which which we've looked at, which is the source for this classification of two different types of mitzvot, the mishpatim that אלמלא נכתבו דין הוא שיכתבו. So does that mean that the Torah has mishpatim only to be mechazek? משל למה הדבר דומה the way they say, the same way some lavin are repeated, you have kefel halavin. You have so many places the Torah is mazhir on ona'as hager and ahavas hager. So too, ein hachi nami, we know lo sirtzach misvara, we know lo tignov. Well, no. I mean, that is true, but maybe that's not all that's true. Maybe even within mishpatim, the Torah within mishpatim has added pratim that you wouldn't know mi'sechel. And when the Gemara in Yuma says, when the Baraisa says in Yuma, hadin she'hayu nichtavu, it means that we would have had an issur gezel. We would have had an issur gezel. We would have had an issur shefichas damim. But lav davka that our issur—the Baraisa in Yuma isn't implying that our mi'sechel, the issur gezel would have been mechaven to every prat that the Torah tells us about issur gezel. And lav davka that sechel would have told us every prat within lo sirtzach etc. I don't know, would we have known in sechel the issur of suicide? I don't know. Would we have known, would we have recognized in sechel that אין נפשו של אדם קניינו אלא קניינו של הקב"ה, and therefore, the same way there's an issur to kill someone else, there's an issur to kill oneself? There certainly isn't any hava amina that we would have been mechaven to dinim of when shinui is koneh and when shinui is not koneh in terms of gezel, and the gezeilah should be treated as a lav hanitak l'asei and not have malkus. So yisachen, in a minute we'll give a more subtle example of this. So yisachen, that's the peshat in the Chovos HaLevavos, that if it only was mi'sechel, so you wouldn't need a sefer because everything about it would be mi'sechel. So just, if every prat and pirtei pratim of the mitzvah were mi'sechel, you don't need a sefer, you just need to think clearly. You just need to think clearly and you'll know what that mitzvah would entail. So that's what the Chovos HaLevavos says. No, so maybe it's only chiyuvam min hasechel. But once I see that it's in Chumash, so then agam, again, that these are all, as he emphasized, that Chovos HaLevavos all belong to the category of sichliyos. But again, that just means that there's an issur gezel that you know that mi'sechel. There's an issur shefichas damim, you know that. But that it aligns—that כל פרט ופרט שבאו בהלכה, certainly not. So that's what he says, that there is need, and there is need for it. Just to give one—I think we've commented on this example, but to give one example of this yesod. Take a look at the beginning of perek vav in Hilchos De'os. דרך ברייתו של אדם להיות נמשך בדעותיו ובמעשיו אחר ריעיו וחביריו ונוהג כמנהג אנשי מדינתו.
Human nature is that people are influenced and therefore drawn after the people they associate with, the society in which they find themselves, in terms of how they cultivate their character and how they behave. Lefichach, צריך אדם להתחבר לצדיקים. ולשבת אצל החכמים תמיד כדי שילמד ממעשיהם ויתרחק מן הרשעים ההולכים בחושך כדי שלא ילמד ממעשיהם.
So because of that susceptibility to influence, a person has to be careful about the company he keeps. He should connect, he should form bonds with tzaddikim. He should spend time with chachamim and he should distance himself from reshaim. הוא ששלמה אומר הולך את חכמים יחכם ורועה כסילים ירוע.
If you keep company with chachamim, you'll become wiser, but the opposite will happen if a person keeps company with fools. Then in Halacha Beis, the Rambam writes מצות עשה להידבק בחכמים כדי ללמוד ממעשיהם שנאמר ובו תדבק. וכי אפשר לאדם להידבק בשכינה אלא כך אמרו חכמים בפירוש מצוה זו הידבק בחכמים ותלמידיהם. לפיכך צריך אדם להשתדל שישא בת תלמיד חכם וישיא בתו לתלמיד חכם ולאכול ולשתות עם תלמידי חכמים ולעשות פרקמטיא לתלמיד חכם ולהתחבר להם בכל מיני חיבור.
So in Halacha Aleph, the Rambam didn't mention a pasuk. But the Rambam already told us a chiyuv in Halacha Aleph without any pasuk. Then in Halacha Beis, the Rambam begins all over and this time he has a pasuk. So it's clear that in Halacha Aleph, the Rambam says it m'sevara. If you know that human nature is such that we're susceptible to influence, then that tells you that you have to be mindful, you have to be careful with the company that you keep. You don't need a pasuk for that. The sechel tells you that. And what's more, the sechel tells more than the pasuk. The pasuk only speaks about lehidavek b'chachamim and the sechel is mechayev more than that in that it also says lehischaber l'tzaddikim and it says lehisrachek min ha'reshaim. Neither of those elements are present in the mitzvah. But m'idach gisa, and here's the illustration of what we're talking about, m'idach gisa, what the pasuk is mechayev by lehidavek b'chachamim goes beyond what the sevara tells us. The sevara is lasheves etzel chachamim and the mitzvah is להידבק בחכמים בכל מיני חיבור. Now clearly that lehidavek, and again the Rambam gives the examples from Chazal, that lehidavek, להתחבר בכל מיני חיבור goes beyond what the sevara says. So this is an example of what we're talking about. De'hainu, when we say that something is a mishpat, something is a mitzvah sichlis, it means generally, in terms of the general focus or the core or the crux of the mitzvah. But it doesn't suggest that everything in the Torah about that mitzvah is something that we would have been mechaven to in sevara. And that's what the Chovos HaLevavos is saying. So if the chiyuv had only been mida'as hasechel, so you wouldn't have had any chibburim about it. You don't need to teach anyone the halachos. Just think logically and you'll know what the chiyuv is. No, but the fact that it's in the Torah, so when mishpatim are in the Torah there's something new in the mishpatim. So that already requires a chibbur. Again, let's read a little bit here. וכאשר התבאר לי חיובם מצד השכל אמרתי בלבי שמא הענין הזה אינו כתוב בספר תורתנו.
And therefore henicha l'chabro b'sefer that would show us and reveal to us its matters. Until I searched in the Torah book and found that it was mentioned many times. עד שחיפשתי בספר התורה ומצאתי שנזכר בו פעמים רבות. Like it says ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך. ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך.
Earlier, when he listed the chiyuvim mida'as haseichel, he also listed ahavas Hashem, right? ve-ahavto. And Chovos HaLevavos said that ahavas Hashem is something... is a chiyuv mida'as haseichel. But when it comes to ahavas Hashem, so we darshen bechol nafshecha, that it means אפילו נוטל את נפשך. But we say that a ben Noach is not metzuveh on Kiddush Hashem. That a ben Noach if he's told, "Be over avoda zara or you'll be killed," so certainly everyone agrees that the Gemara says that betzina he's not mechuyav. And then depending upon girsos, maybe the Gemara says that afilu befarhesya he's not mechuyav. So again, you see that agam that ahavas Hashem is a mitzvah sicheilis, that chiyuvo is clear mida'as haseichel, but when the Torah has that mitzvah, so the Torah is mechadesh what goes beyond seichel. It's clear from the inclusion in this list of ve-ahavta lerei'acha kamocha and ve-ahavta es hager, that the Chovos HaLevavos thinks that both of these mitzvos are not only mitzvos that manifest themselves in מה דסני לך לחברך לא תעביד, but the Torah also commands an underlying attitude. If it were only מה דסני לך לחברך לא תעביד, so I don't know, that's not really Chovos HaLevavos, that's just chovos haeivarim. Now the Ramban's pshat that the reason the Torah says the lamed rather than the es by rei'acha, ve-ahavta lerei'acha kamocha, so the Ramban says it means that you should ve-ahavta for rei'acha kamocha what you like for yourself. That havana in the pasuk, it's very easy to, I don't know, see it as ve-ahavta, again, if you love this action for your friend, that's not really Chovos HaLevavos. That, agam that the word in Chumash is ve-ahavta, but practically it's chovos haeivarim. And yet it's clear from that the Chovos HaLevavos's understanding is no, that in addition to the way it is manifested, the Torah is commanding an underlying attitude. The Rambam is like that also. מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב את כל אחד ואחד מישראל כגופו,
Perek 6 Halacha 3. מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב את כל אחד ואחד מישראל כגופו שנאמר ואהבת לרעך כמוך לפיכך צריך לספר בשבחו ולחוס על ממונו כמו שהוא חס על ממון עצמו ורוצה בכבוד עצמו.
Right? So the Rambam doesn't say, you know, והוא שיספר בשבחו ויחוס על ממונו. Right? vehu would mean that's what ahavas Yisrael means, is that you do this. The Rambam says lefichach. No, the corollary, the practical application, is צריך לספר בשבחו ולחוס על ממונו, but it's clear, again, that's the practical application of an underlying chovos halevavos. And he says in the lavin that are in them: ולא תחמוד אשת רעך ולא תתאוה בית רעך שדהו ועבדו ואמתו שורו וחמורו וכל אשר לרעך, לא תקום ולא תטור את בני עמך, לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך.
achicha ha'evyon ולא תקפץ את ידך מאחיך האביון. See that there's a shayla, it's more pointed by lo sitor that maybe you have, you sort of have a version of it by lo sikom, but let's say by lo sitor. So what's lo sitor? Lo sitor is you take and lend him the kardom, but but you say eini kamoscha and and I am going to let you the kardom, right? So then a person violates lo sitor. What if you lend him the kardom and you don't say it, but that's what you're thinking. What you're thinking in your head, he's a jerk but I'm not a jerk I'm going to be a nice guy. So but you, you know, machshava b'peh, you don't, you don't verbalize it, but that's what you're thinking. So is that a violation of lo sitor? If you say again, when chazal illustrate, so they, the illustration that I think Rashi also brings in Chumash, the Rambam has it here in Hilchos De'os, they illustrate it with the person saying that, right? That one violates lo sitor when וכן כל הנוטר לאחד מישראל עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר ולא תטור את בני עמך.
Keitzad? ראובן שאמר לשמעון השאילני בית זה או השאילני שור זה ולא רצה שמעון. לימים צריך שמעון לראובן לשאול ממנו או לשכור. אמר לו ראובן הילך לך הריני משאילך ואיני כמוך ולא אשלם לך כמעשיך. העושה כזה עובר בלא תטור.
So if you say, again we don't have time to try to understand what the shita of the Rambam is here, but if you say that the lav is only if a person says it, the eini kamoscha, and similarly by nekama, the lav is that he refuses to lend, I don't know, so is it clear that there's a chovos halevavos? Is this really a proof of chovos halevavos? Netiva certainly wouldn't be a proof of chovos halevavos if you hold that one only violates the lav if you say eini kamoscha. So the p'shuto shel devarim, we'll pick up with this tomorrow bli neder. The p'shuto shel devarim is that the chovos halevavos holds it's lav davka if a person is thinking that to himself also, it's also over b'lo sitor. So if that's the case then that's chovos halevavos, because what happened? He asked to borrow, you're lending it to him, so in terms of chovos ha'eivarim, you're complying. The deficit is in the chovos halevavos. So we'll pick up with this bli neder tomorrow.