We left off Perek He Halacha Zayin in the middle of the halacha. אם ראה מקום שדבריו מועילין ונשמעין, אומר. ואם לאו, שותק.
So the Rambam gives two conditions, two conditions for the Chacham to speak. Number one is that what he has to say objectively is something which would be productive, which would be helpful. But then number two, a person can have an eitzah to give, information to share, whatever it is which objectively would be very helpful, but if the other person is not receptive, so then it's not going to be productive and it's not going to be helpful. So that's the second condition, nishma'in. It has to be mo'il and it has to be nishma. Ve'im lav shotek. As the nosei keilim, I think the Kesef Mishneh already cites it's a Gemara in the sixth perek of Yevamos, אף כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע, כך מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע.
It's not only a waste of time, a waste of words to say something which one anticipates pretty clearly will be a davar she'eino nishma, but it's a mitzvah shelo lomar because to say a davar she'eino nishma is counterproductive. It's not just that it's not productive, it's counterproductive. Maybe we'll just see some of the Rambam's examples and then we'll be'ezras Hashem try to follow through on this. כיצד? לא ירצה חברו בשעת כעסו, ולא ישאל לו על נדרו בשעה שנדר עד שתתקרר דעתו וינוח, ולא ינחמנו בשעה שמתו מוטל לפניו מפני שהוא בהול עד שיקבר. וכן כל כיוצא באלו.
So let's take the first example. If one attempts to be meratzeh besha'as ka'aso, when a person is sort of in the throes of his anger, his outburst, so then the teva of a person is that not only is he not receptive, but he's angered further by the attempt to calm him down. Aderaba, it adds fuel to the fire of the anger. The person is obviously by definition when we get angry so we're not rational or reasonable, and then the lack of recognition of what we consider to be right and just is just something which angers a person further. So it's not only that it's not productive, that it's not constructive, it's counterproductive, it's destructive to say a davar she'eino nishma. Similarly, the last example the Rambam gives about not extending תנחומים בשעה שמתו מוטל לפניו. Right, it's not appropriate when someone is delivering a hesped at the levaya to include as part of the divrei hesped the tanchumim for the aveilim. It's meforash against, it's a tos bedvar mishnah, it's against this mishnah. But here too, it's not only the fact that the person is bahul and not in a mindset to accept tanchumim. Again, it's not only that it won't be productive, but it'll be counterproductive, because there's a mitzvah, it's part of tzidduk hadin for an avel to accept tanchumim. For an avel to accept tanchumim basically means that the avel accepts what has happened and is gradually adjusting to the new reality. So it's a mitzvah to be mekabel tanchumim. So to extend tanchumim when they won't be accepted puts the krovim in a place of acting shelo kedin in terms of spurning the divrei tanchumim. This is what the Rambam is describing here לא ינחמנו בשעה שמתו מוטל לפניו מפני שהוא בהול עד שיקבר.
So the Rambam is describing and certainly in context of the other two examples of bishas ka'as and bishas neder, it's certainly a description of a mindset, a psychological state of mind, but at least in terms of this example of tanchumim, it also corresponds to al pi din. Meaning al pi din kol zman that the meis hasn't been nikbar, so then the aveilim are not supposed to be, again, what tanchumim represents in terms of adjusting to the new reality and picking up the pieces of their lives, so they're not supposed to be doing that. And the best proof of that veharaya is the fact that kol zman that they're in oninus, they're patur mi-mitzvos. So you see that they're not supposed to have moved on and have reacclimated to life. So this last example again is not only a description of a state of mind, of a psychological reality, but the psychological reality is very much in sync with the halacha here as well. Another example beyond the Rambam's keitzad of davar hanishma and davar she'eino nishma, מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע. Human nature is such that we're not always ready to recognize certain truths, usually about ourselves, that's the most common example of where we're resistant. And if one sort of just imposes the insight rather than guiding the person to his own self-discovery, so likely it will be a davar she'eino nishma. Again, depending upon the circumstances, the context, but there are many types of situations where it's a davar she'eino nishma. And here too it's not only that it's not productive, but it's sort of that once the person prematurely hears that idea and rejects it, so then he crosses it off his list of possible explanations, it's counterproductive as well. It's a big yesod that כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע. ולא יראה לחברו בשעת קלקלתו אלא יעלם עינו ממנו. ולא ישנה בדבורו ולא יוסף ולא יגרע אלא בדברי שלום וכיוצא בהן.
So here too this is one of, this is also an example of what we saw the Lechem Mishneh pointing out that several of the hanhagos here in Perek Hey are not limited to talmid chacham, but again just that there's a doreish chazak by the talmid chacham to be nizaher on them. The din of not being meshaneh bediburo and לא יוסף ולא יגרע אלא בדברי שלום is a hanhaga for everyone. It's clear from the Rambam's loshon reflecting the gemara in Yevamos. The gemara in Yevamos again also at the end of HaBa Al Yevimto initially says that מותר לשנות בדרכי שלום, that for shalom it's mutar leshanos. And then the gemara says no, it's not just mutar leshanos but it's a mitzvah leshanos. And then the gemara goes on to say and moreover that gadol hashalom that even Hakadosh Baruch Hu was meshaneh mipnei hashalom because when he reports to Avraham Avinu what Sarah Imeinu said he doesn't repeat ve'adoni zakein but he says that Sarah said va'ani zakanti. So even Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Even Hakadosh Baruch Hu was meshane. So lichora the pshat in the Gemara is like this. Rabbeinu Yonah explains in in Pirkei Avos at the end of the first perek on the mishna of על הדין על האמת ועל השלום that that there were two mechaivim in emes. That there are two mechaivim in emes. Like what's what's wrong about what seems to be, I guess what the velt, the outside velt calls a white lie? So what what's wrong with a white lie? What's wrong with with a lie about something which seems very inconsequential? So Rabbeinu Yonah has basically presents two mechaivim. Mechaiv number one is that that he says based on also on a Gemara in Yevamos of למדו לשונם דבר שקר. Where's that, in Eicha, right? למדו לשונם דבר שקר that the teva of a person is that if a person habituates himself to being willing to bend the truth in some situations, even if those situations in which he develops the habit initially are again inconsequential, they're white lies, but midos don't stay compartmentalized. If the person doesn't train himself to always speak the truth, then he's going to end up not speaking the truth in in areas that that everyone recognizes as being consequential. So so that's that's one one mechaiv in terms of in terms of emes. But then Rabbeinu Yonah goes on and says חותמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא אמת. The seal of Hakadosh Baruch Hu is emes. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's mida, kavyachol, is emes. Which lichora what he means is this and then mimeila, I don't remember how much of this is meforash or not, that mimeila that vehalachta bidrachav, a person has to always be has to be emestik. So vehalachta bidrachav, so then there are no exceptions between white lies and purple lies and green lies, there's no no no chilukim in terms of the the color spectrum in terms of the vehalachta bidrachav. Lichora that's the pshat in the Gemara in Yevamos. When the Gemara in Yevamos says first mutar leshanos and then mitzvah leshanos and then gadol hashalom that even Hakadosh Baruch Hu is meshane mipnei hashalom, the pshat is in order for there to be an exception, heyos that that that this is rooted in vehalachta bidrachav, so the Gemara finds the exception within the vehalachta bidrachav that Hakadosh Baruch Hu himself is meshane mipnei hashalom. It doesn't mean that the מצווה לשנות מפני השלום is not a way of a person evading responsibility. If I borrow your car and then I wreck the car, I can't concoct a story about how a Martian came from outer space and you know or or that the Iranians sent a drone and they took your car. A person has to take responsibility. What it means is not to provoke machlokes. Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't want to kavyachol doesn't want to create tension between Sarah and Avraham by by saying that Sarah said vaadoni zaken. The shevatim are are looking to they're not looking to evade responsibility, but aderaba, אביך צוה לפני מותו לאמר שא נא פשע אחיך וחטאתם,
they're acknowledging it, but they're looking to see that there shouldn't be machlokes moving forward between them and and and Yosef. Klal sheldavar, says the Rambam, אינו מדבר אלא או בגמילות חסדים או בדברי חכמה וכיוצא בהן.
So how does this klal sheldavar sort of summarizes the what the proceeding in this halacha? I mean the Rambam did, he talked about being מקדים שלום לכל אדם and ohev shalom, rodef shalom, but I don't know, most of what the Rambam said was not so much about the substance of what a person says as much as the way he says it, the timing. So how does this klal sheldavar, how does it connect? So I don't know, you have to, I didn't do this, but you have to search in the Rambam. Do you ever find klalo shel davar as as not a a not intended as a general klal summarizing what was said previously, but aderaba, the klalo shel davar is is lehaba, meaning in addition to to everything said until now about style of speech and timing of speech, so now here's a klal, new topic. Not not that the klalo shel davar is referring backwards, it's referring forward. Here's here's a klal as to what the the substance of what the of what one's speech should be. אינו מדבר אלא או בגמילות חסדים או בדברי חכמה וכיוצא בהן.
So if you go back to what we learned in Perek Beis for a moment, Perek Beis, Halacha Daled. לעולם ירבה אדם בשתיקה ולא ידבר אלא או בדבר חכמה או בדברים שהן צריכין לו לחיי גופו.
So that's that's a different prescription than than the one we're getting here in Perek Hey. Right, it doesn't, it's not contradictory, but but it's different. Here it's אינו מדבר אלא או בגמילות חסדים או בדברי חכמה. Here it's דבר חכמה או בדברים שהן צריכין לו לחיי גופו. So so maybe the the simple pshat is as follows, that in Perek Beis, Halacha Daled, the Rambam is talking about sort of as a מדה בין אדם לעצמו. How a person utilizes the koach hadibbur in terms of bein adam leatzmo. And in Perek Hey, the Rambam's talking about how a person utilizes koach hadibbur bein adam lechavero. The mida of of how a person should utilize bein adam lechavero. So bein adam leatzmo, so it's not really, there's nothing to talk about in terms of of of gemilus chasadim. You go over to your chavrusa, bein adam leatzmo, you go over to your chavrusa to talk through a point with in divrei Torah, divrei chochma, and דברים שצריכין לו לחיי גופו. And here in Perek Hey, the Rambam's talking about the the mida of again, how a person employs the koach hadibbur bein adam lechavero. You wouldn't mention דברים שצריכין לו לחיי גופו even bein adam lechavero? Yeah, that would, that would, it would be bechol gemilus chasadim, meaning if it's the if it's the chavero's דברים שהגוף צריך להן, so that's bechol gemilus chasadim, and if it's his own, so again, that's the focus in Perek Beis, not the focus here. Right, there's the famous line from Rav Yisrael Salanter, Rav Yisrael Salanter said, יענעמס גשמיות איז מיין רוחניות. That another person's physical needs are is a spiritual obligation, a spiritual obligation for me. So the דברים שהגוף צריך להן of someone else is bechol gemilus chasadim of of bein adam lechavero. I don't know why the dvar chochma is singular in Perek Beis and here divrei chochma is plural, I don't know, tzarich iyun. ולא יספר עם אשה בשוק אפילו היא אשתו או אחותו או בתו.
Okay, so maybe we'll stop here.