Transcript

We left off excuse me in Perek Vav. We saw that the Rambam has the chiyuv of lehischaver latzadikim twice. He tells it to us initially mikayach hasvara and then subsequently the pasuk, the gzeiras hakasuv of uvo sidbak. So we explained that even though the Rambam doesn't make a point of telling us about other dinim that they also emerge mikayach hasvara, he doesn't tell us in rotze'ach ushemiras nefesh that shfichas damim is an issur which is also מוכח ומוכח מתוך הסברא. He doesn't tell to us in gezeila va'aveida but the yesod seems to be that where the fact that it's also mikayach hasvara has some nafka mina ledina, so that's where the Rambam makes a point of telling us. And and we saw here in Perek Vav of De'os that even though there's obviously overlap between the mechayev of svara and the mechayev of pasuk, but they're not identical. The mechayev of svara for instance includes the tzadikim as well, it also includes the converse of avoiding resha'im ma she'ain kein the mechayev of the pasuk of uvo sidbak is only chachamim, not tzadikim, and only but it also requires a higher level of hisdabkus certainly goes beyond lasheves etzel hachachamim. And we saw the same thing in Perek Yud with regard to ahavas Hashem. So we we left off with a kasha that there seem to be other places where the Rambam also indicates that it's mikayach hasvara and and there's this yesod held up. So the first I think example we mentioned was in Hilchos Melachim, the Rambam makes a point of saying that שבע מצוות בני נח in addition to the fact that it's a kabala m'Moshe Rabbeinu, in addition to to the fact that it it appears that way in the Torah shebiksav, but also hadaas noteh lahen. And hadaas noteh lahen means that that it's mikayach hasvara. It's mikayach hasvara. So is there a is there a nafka mina there to to this fact that that it's additionally mikayach hasvara as well? So perhaps as follows, the Rambam paskens it's a machlokes amora'im in Makkos daf tes, the Rambam paskens in Perek Yud of Hilchos Melachim Halacha Aleph as follows. He says the machlokes amora'im is in the second half of of what we're going to see that that we're referring to. בן נח ששגג באחת ממצוותיו פטור מכלום. If the Ben Noach is shogeg in one of the zayin mitzvos so then he's patur. Skipping a little bit,

במה דברים אמורים בשוגג באחת ממצוות ועבר בלא כוונה. כגון שבא על אשת חברו ודימה שהיא אשתו.

Let's say there was mistaken identity, I don't know, his his wife is an identical his wife is an identical twin, so he he confuses his wife with with with his his sister-in-law or whatever.

שבא על אשת חברו ודימה שהיא אשתו או פנויה. אבל אם ידע שהיא אשת חברו

so shogeg in the sense of mistaken identity.

אבל אם ידע שהיא אשת חברו ולא ידע שהיא אסורה עליו,

but let's say the shogeg we're talking about is not shiggas ma'aseh but shiggas issur, right? That the shgaga is not in what he's doing, he knows what he's doing, he knows that this is eshes chaveiro, but it's shiggas issur he doesn't know that that that eshes chaveiro is one of the

עריות האסורות לבני נח. אבל אם ידע שהיא אשת חברו ולא ידע שהיא אסורה עליו אלא עלה על לבו שדבר זה מותר לו וכן אם הרג והוא לא ידע שאסור להרוג הרי זה קרוב למזיד ונהרג.

So this is the part which is as machlokes amora'im and the Rambam paskens like Rava that omer mutar is treated here as So when you look in the Gemara Makkot daf tes which is the Rambam's makor so what emerges is that this sevarat din of היה להם ללמוד ולא למד is because the issur itself is a davar hatalui bisevara. Because the way the Gemara explains it is the Gemara darshens the pasuk, darshens, explains the pasuk where Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Avimelech ועתה השב אשת האיש ויתפלל בעדך כי נביא הוא. So the Gemara says and if he hadn't been a navi so then Avimelech wouldn't have been required hashavat eshet ha'ish? So the Gemara explains as follows: ועתה השב אשת האיש regardless of whose wife she happens to be, who her husband is. ועתה השב אשת האיש. Then ki navi hu is Avimelech had toined in his own defense that בתום לבבי ובנקיון כפי עשיתי זאת because הלא הוא אמר לי אחתי היא. So Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to him that that defense is nothing because אכסניא שבאה לעיר על עסקי אכילה ושתייה שואלין אותה. When a person comes, when a stranger comes to the city, you ask him: do you need a place to eat? Do you need a place to sleep? You don't ask him al iskei ishto. So you should have known that and you should have known that therefore your inquiry put him on guard. So it's clear that the sevara of haya lilmod means that when something is a davar hatalui bisevara a person can't plead ignorance. Person can't plead ignorance. Ignorance is no defense when it's something which lechol hapachot a person should ask. He should ask what proper derech eretz is. Something which is davar hatalui bisevara. So yitachen that when the Rambam tells us at the beginning of, where was it, Perek Tes, that hadas notlah lahem, so that lays the foundation for the psak later again that the din sevara itself is in the Gemara Makkot but that's the Rambam's laying the foundation for this that because it's hadas notlah lahem, therefore when a person will be shogeg we will say that היה ללמוד ולא למד. It can't be, it can't be that a person just assumes that retzicha is muttar. It can't be. It can't be. There's no such thing as a person just assuming that retzicha is muttar. Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us a sevara to lechol hapachot understand, ask whether or not from an appropriate, to go to an appropriate address, whether or not it's ever countenanced. Does everything since the Rambam said about the seven mitzvot bnei Noach ever min hachai that it's a sevara? Do you think ever min hachai would also be a sevara? Does the Rambam, does hadas notlah lahem apply to ever min hachai? That's a good question. Meaning because clearly there's the din of haya lilmod velo lamad. The Rambam doesn't distinguish ever min hachai and shefichut damim, so it's a good question. Right, I think that is correct. I think that is correct. Why would ever min hachai be a sevara? Like that's a דבר שהיה ללמוד ולא למד? I mean why is it, let's say if it were again to pull it off, so that you can say that's davar shepashut. But let's say one animal mauled another animal and because of that an ever was detached. Is that a sevara? I don't know. I hadn't thought about your question so I need to bli neder, im yirtzeh Hashem. But I don't know, maybe inna hachi nami. Maybe why does the Rambam give two examples of this? He gives the example both of eshet chaveiro as well as the example of shefichut damim. So I don't know, maybe inna hachi nami. Maybe what you're saying about maybe there will be certain suyagim. So this isn't identical to the type of nafkamina that we saw hen legabei ahavat Hashem hen legabei u-voso tidbak, where there those sort of independently sevara is mechayev something different. Here it's sort of the the interaction between sevara and the mitzvah. But either way the point is, the fact that it's also מתוך מוכח ומוכח מתוך הסברה is something which is translating halacha le-ma'aseh. The other question that we raised in this context was that the first time we discovered this yesod in the Rambam was in פרק א' הלכות דעות. There too the Rambam initially tells us that there's a chiyuv to go in the derech hayeshara because that's what the lashon ra'u'i implies in the Rambam and he even has the din of שאדם שם דעותיו תמיד before he ever taught us the mitzvah. There too the Rambam tells us that there's a chiyuv which is מוכח ומוכח מתוך הסברה alongside the fact that it's a pasuk in Chumash of ve-halachta bidrachav. So does this also translate to halacha le-ma'aseh, which is again the suggestion that we made? So perhaps as follows. Again you have to, with everything in Torah you have to, but you have to think through carefully if this is correct. The Rambam writes here at the end of Halacha Daled in Perek Aleph. Take a look if you have it rabosai and then spilling over into Halacha Hey. This is פרק א' הלכות דעות is one of the places where it's just so blatant that what we have in the standard texts and the breakdown of halachos doesn't mirror what the Rambam wrote in his manuscript. The breakdown of halachos is very confusing and arbitrary here because it's wrong.

כל אדם שדעותיו כולן דעות בינוניות ממוצעות נקרא חכם. ומי שהוא מדקדק על עצמו ביותר ויתרחק מדעה בינונית מעט לצד זה או לצד זה נקרא חסיד. כיצד? מי שיתרחק מגובה הלב עד הקצה האחרון ויהיה שפל רוח ביותר נקרא חסיד וזו היא מידת חסידות. ואם נתרחק עד האמצע בלבד ויהיה עניו נקרא חכם וזו היא מידת חכמה. ועל דרך זו שאר כל הדעות וחסידים הראשונים היו מטים דעות שלהם מדרך האמצעית כנגד שתי הקצוות. יש דעה שמטה אותה כנגד הקצה האחרון ויש דעה שמטה אותה כנגד הקצה הראשון וזהו לפנים משורת הדין.

So we learned this, we saw this, that a chacham will again on a scale of 0 to 10 will calibrate to act in a fashion that correlates with a 5. מה שאין כן החסיד depending upon the context or depending upon the spectrum will either be a 4 or a 6, maybe it should be 4.5, 5.5, whatever. So whatever people are generally nimshach to so the chasid will somewhat overcompensate as a protective measure. Most of us are more nimshach to the extreme of ta'ava than to the extreme of asceticism. So therefore the chasid instead of being a 5 will be a 4.5 will make himself a 4.5. Now the Rambam tells us this, presents this distinction between the Chacham and the Chosid before he tells us the mitzvah of ve-halachta bi-drachav, right? The mitzvah then comes interestingly

ומצווים אנו ללכת בדרכים האלו הבינוניים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים שנאמר והלכת בדרכיו כך למדו בפירוש מצווה זו מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום.

Skipping to halacha zayin

ולפי שהשמות האלו שנקרא בהן היוצר הן הדרך הבינונית שאנו חייבים ללכת בה נקראת דרך זו דרך השם.

So yitachen and again iyun olov, yitachen if if we didn't know the midah beinonis mitokh ha-svarah as well. If we only knew it based on gezeiras ha-kasuv ve-halachta bi-drachav, would we have known of the alternate track of a Chosid? Because Hakadosh Baruch Hu never over-compensates, right? Hakadosh Baruch Hu never sort of you know will veer in order to compensate. So would we have translated, would we have interpreted ve-halachta bi-drachav in that way were it not for the mechayev of svarah? So yitachen that here too the fact that it's a chiyuv which is mukhach u-mukhach mitokh ha-svarah as well does impact halacha le-maaseh and the Rambam's not just telling it us, telling it to us as a point in machshavah because if that were the case he should have told it to us elsewhere as well. Either way yitachen that this yesod again of how the Rambam by some mitzvos is telling us that there are two mechayevim, maybe this is the I don't know the secret to answering a very, very old and very perplexing stira in the Rambam. The Lechem Mishneh there asks and it's I don't know a lot of I think has contributed to a lot of sleepless nights be-meshekh ha-doros. In Perek Aleph when the Rambam talks about the midah beinonis he illustrates bein ha-ye-shara both with kaas as well as with ga'avah. So for instance in halacha daled Perek Aleph halacha daled

הדרך הישרה היא מידה בינונית שבכל דעה ודעה מכל הדעות שיש לו לאדם.

Keitzad:

לא יהיה בעל חמה נוח לכעוס ולא כמת שאינו מרגיש אלא בינוני לא יכעס אלא על דבר גדול שראוי לכעוס עליו כדי שלא יעשה כיוצא בו פעם אחרת.

So this is the very first illustration the Rambam gives of midah beinonis. Yet in Perek Beis halacha gimmel the Rambam says that yesh de'os ve-yesh de'os שאסור לו לאדם linhog ba-hen ba-beinonis. And the second of those two exceptions is ve-chen ha-kaas. So that's stira number one. Stira number two, stira number two is that the Rambam Perek Aleph also illustrates the midah beinonis with the spectrum of ga'avah, anavah, shiflus when he's illustrating the difference between a Chacham and a Chosid. He says

כיצד מי שיתרחק מגובה הלב עד הקצה האחרון ויהיה שפל רוח ביותר נקרא חסיד וזו היא מידת חסידות ואם נתרחק עד האמצע בלבד ויהיה עניו נקרא חכם.

And yet in Beis Gimmel, so that's the first of the two exceptions that

ויש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית אלא יתרחק עד הקצה האחר והוא גובה הלב שאין דרך הטובה שיהיה אדם עניו בלבד אלא שיהיה שפל רוח ותהיה רוחו נמוכה למאוד לפיכך נאמר במשה רבינו עניו מאוד ולא נאמר עניו בלבד ולפיכך צוו חכמים מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח.

So a double, a double stira. But then the second stira is that So maybe, maybe lidvureinu, maybe the p'shat is like this. When the Rambam in Perek Aleph, and the same stira exists in Shmoneh Perakim where the Rambam has this discussion in Shmoneh Perakim as well, the same, the same stira. So maybe the teretz is like this. When the Rambam in Perek Aleph illustrates the middah beinonis, hein with ka'as, hein with ga'avah. At that point, the Rambam hasn't yet told us that the middah beinonis is also mechuyaves because of a passuk, gezeiras hakasuv v'halachta b'drachav. He's only taught us about the mechayev of sevara. Again, for reasons we already discussed. Maybe the p'shat is like this. Without it being also a mitzvah, so maybe in sevara ka'as wouldn't be an exception. And in sevara we wouldn't have known the exceptions. And the exceptions only emerge mikoach hapassuk. Mikoach hasevara, again as we discussed, there are devarim hamach'isim. There are things which are so morally outrageous that they warrant the vehemence of ka'as. But ella mai, but again whether it's, but ella mai within the mitzvah, so there these two exceptions are carved out. That's the suggestion. I don't know if that's correct. Okay, so we'll stop here for Hilchos De'os and bli neder at 1:30 there will be Gittin im yirtze Hashem.