Just see a little bit in Perek Yud of Yesodei HaTorah. Jump around a little bit, begin Halacha Gimmel here. הלא המעוננים והקוסמים אומרים מה עתיד להיות. ומה הפרש בין הנביא וביניהם?
How does a Navi establish his credentials as such? The Rambam says is by predicting, by forecasting what will be. So what's the difference between a Navi and meonanim vekosmim? They also predict, they also forecast. אלא שהמעוננים והקוסמים וכיוצא בהן מקצת דבריהן מתקיימין ומקצתן אינן מתקיימין כעניין שנאמר יעמדו נא ויושיעוך הוברי שמים החוזים בכוכבים מודיעים לחדשים מאשר יבואו עליך. מאשר ולא כל אשר. ואפשר שלא יתקיים מדבריהם כלום. אבל הנביא כל דבריו קיימים. כלומר שדברי הקוסמים והחלומות כתבן שנתערב בו מעט בר ודבר השם כבר שאין בו תבן כלל.
Okay. The fact that a person once predicts the future doesn't mean anything. I think there was some lady, every year she used to say the president was going to be assassinated. And then in 1963, her luck was gevaldick, you know, things couldn't have worked out better and takeh the president was assassinated and she became... That's what the Rambam says, meonanim vekosmim can win the jackpot also occasionally, but a Navi has to be 100 percent. ובדבר זה הבטיח הכתוב ואמר שאותן הדברים שמודיעין המעוננים והקוסמים לאומות ומכזבין הנביא יודיע לכם דברי האמת ואין אתם צריכים למעונן וקוסם וכיוצא בו שנאמר לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו כי הגויים האלה נביא מקרבך מאחיך. הלמדנו שאין הנביא עומד לנו אלא להודיענו דברים העתידים להיות בעולם משובע ורעב מלחמה ושלום וכיוצא בהן ואפילו צורכי יחיד מודיע לו כשאול שאבדה אבדה והלך לנביא להודיעו מקומה. כיוצא באלו הדברים הוא שיאמר הנביא לא שיעשה דת אחרת או יוסיף מצווה או יגרע.
See here just one simple, not even he'arah, but just clarification. When the Rambam writes שאין הנביא עומד לנו אלא להודיענו דברים העתידים להיות, the Rambam's not coming to define what the Navi's tafkid is here. Had that been the case, so then the glaring difficulty would have been he doesn't come to give us mussar? He doesn't come to mezarez us? He just comes to tell us the future? That what's going to be משובע ורעב מלחמה ושלום וכיוצא בהן and where to find missing donkeys? That's the whole tafkid of the Navi? The Rambam means in terms of the supernatural, in terms of when the Navi exercises in the realm of the supernatural, when the Navi exercises supernatural, demonstrates supernatural abilities, so what should you look for there? So the only thing that, the only thing in the realm of the supernatural is that he'll tell us the future. In, within the realm of the supernatural, that's what you can expect of the Navi, but not that he's defining the Navi's tafkid. I mean, it's just clear minei uvei. If you go back to Halacha Aleph, when the Rambam says, if you have the Frankel the very bottom of the previous page, לפיכך כשיבוא אדם הראוי לנבואה במלאכות. לפיכך כשיבוא אדם הראוי לנבואה במלאכות השם ולא יבוא להוסיף ולא לגרוע אלא לעבוד את השם במצוות התורה.
And his point is not, he's not being moseif, not being goreia. His point is again to get us to observe Torah. אין אומרים לו קרא לנו היום החיי מתים וכיוצא באלו ואחר כך נאמין בך אלא אומרים לו אם נביא אתה אמור לנו דברים העתידים להיות והוא אומר.
So this is the again this is the what what he does in the realm of the supernatural. But that's not it's not that that's his tafkid. It's not that the telling the future is his tafkid. That's sort of the way he establishes for us his credentials who he is. The tafkid is he comes אלא לעבוד את השם במצוות התורה. That's why similarly the Rambam has in Perek Alef of Deios on Halacha Zayin, Halacha Vav, excuse me, Halacha Vav, when he's commenting on ve-halachta bi-drachav. כך למדו בפירוש מצווה זו מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום מה הוא נקרא קדוש אף אתה היה קדוש ועל דרך זו קראו הנביאים לאל בכל אותן הכינויין ארך אפים ורב חסד צדיק וישר תמים גיבור וחזק וכיוצא בהן להודיע שאלו דרכים טובים וישרים הם וחייב אדם להנהיג עצמו בהן ולהדמות אליו כפי כוחו.
So here too the Rambam's talking about one of the purposes of nevuah in revealing to us the different kinuyim of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So why didn't he mention that here either? Again because peshita what what he means in this line is simply to delineate what the navi does in exercising supernatural abilities. Okay, what's Halacha Dalet here in Perek Yud? דברי הפורענות שהנביא אומר כגון שיאמר פלוני ימות או שנה פלונית שנת רעב או מלחמה וכיוצא בדברים אלו אם לא עמדו דבריו אין בזה הכחשה לנבואתו ואין אומרים הנה דיבר ולא בא שהקדוש ברוך הוא ארך אפים ורב חסד וניחם על הרעה ואפשר שעשו תשובה ונסלח להם כאנשי נינוה או שתלה להם כחזקיה. אבל אם הבטיח על טובה ואמר שיהיה כך וכך ולא באה הטובה שאמר בידוע שהוא נביא שקר שכל דבר טובה שיגזור האל אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר הנה נמצא שבדברי הטובה בלבד יבחן הנביא.
Fine. So here the Rambam in Hakdamah to Perush ha-Mishnayos asks on a stirah Gemara to two Gemaras in the first Perek of Berachos. That the Gemara on daf ches basically says what the Rambam is presenting here in Halacha Dalet שכל דיבור ודיבור שיצא מפי הקדוש ברוך הוא לטובה אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר.
Even al tenai eino chozer. The Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Moshe Rabbeinu ve-esecha le-goy gadol, but the truth is Hakadosh Baruch Hu only said that to Moshe Rabbeinu al tenai if he'll rachmana litzlan destroy the rest of Klal Yisrael. And אף על פי כן Hakadosh Baruch Hu keivan שכל דיבור ודיבור שיצא לטובה אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר,
so it was niskayem in future generations. So that's one Gemara. But then earlier on daf daled you have ויירא יעקב מאוד וייצר לו. Ah, he had a havtachah? So Chazal say no shema yigrom hachet. That Yaakov Avinu was afraid shema yigrom hachet. Ah, what do you mean shema yigrom hachet if שכל דיבור ודיבור שיצא לטובה is eino is eino chozer? So that's the kasha the Rambam asks in Hakdamah to Perush ha-Mishnayos. So the Rambam distinguishes between whether or not it's a nevuah which has been said to others, a nevuah which has been delivered, which has been conveyed, or whether or not it was just something that the navi himself, only the navi himself is aware of. So apparently at this point the havtachah to Yaakov Avinu, Yaakov Avinu hadn't wasn't supposed to share it with anyone. So so no one else knew about it. Ma she-ein ken at the point where it was niskayem, right, at the point where Hakadosh Baruch Hu was mekayem to Moshe Rabbeinu the ve-esecha le-goy gadol, so at that point it had been written in the Torah and had been shared with all of Klal Yisrael. So that's what the Rambam says, that it has to be it has to be that a sort of le-tovah that a nevuah le-tovah it has to be that once it's shared that be-shum ofan u-fanim it can't be chozer reikam because otherwise you can never ever really ascertain who's a navi. You can never really. how you ever gonna have how you ever gonna have a test? So a nevuah tovah can't be chozer reikam. Shema yigrom hachet is only when the nevuah hasn't been shared. If the nevuah hasn't been shared, so then it's no longer a test of the legitimacy and the truth of the navi klapei ha'am. So if that's not at stake, if the navi standing klapei ha'am isn't at stake, so then it can be chozer. That's what the Rambam says in the perush hamishnayos. Which is consistent and there's no kasha. He doesn't, he doesn't have that arichus here. He's not interested. Here the Rambam is only talking about half of it. Here in halacha daled the Rambam's only talking about the navi vis-a-vis the am. He's only talking about that half of where the navi communicates a nevuah to the am. So then he just tells us that that half of the story. He's not interested here in the, in the other half. The Maharal doesn't, Maharal doesn't like this Rambam. Maharal didn't like lots of Rambams, but this was, this was one of them, this was one of them that he didn't, that he didn't like. The Maharal has a different, different yishuv on the two gemaras. He says that it's, it's not a question of, he has a whole, whole list of kashas on the Rambam. And then he says that, that the yishuv in the two gemaras is as follows. He says, ich veis, משל למה הדבר דומה, a father can come home and he can promise his son a new bicycle. Going to get you a new bicycle for your birthday. Or he can go to ich veis parent-teacher conferences and hear such glowing reports that he comes home and he tells his son, "Oh, I see you're, you're working so hard and so conscientiously and, and, and because of that, so I'm going to get you a new bicycle. Going to get you a new bicycle." So he says that in the former case, the father just said, "I'm getting you a new bicycle for your birthday." He didn't, he didn't intimate that there was any connection, any correlation between anything the son is doing and the present he's going to give. He just said, he just said unconditionally, "I'm going to get you a, I'm going to get you a bike for your birthday." In the second case, agam that it's not with mishpetei hatenai, but it's clear that the, the father was saying, heyos that you're, that you're working so hard and conscientiously and, and you're showing yourself to be deserving, so because of that I'm going to get you the, the birthday, the, the bike, the bike. So the Maharal says so if it's in the first case, that's the Gemara in daf ches. The first case where there's no hint when Hakadosh Baruch Hu says it that it's being linked to any, anything that the person, that the people are doing to be deserving, so then that, that will never be chozer reikam. And the Gemara in daf daled is the second case where there's a clear indication that there's something that the, the person or people are doing to, to be deserving. That's the way he distinguishes. In, the older, the older texts of the Rambam here, the Frankel prints it in the shinuei nuschaos, so some, some texts in the Rambam had that the Rambam adds on here after saying שכל דבר טוב שיגזור הקל אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר.
So some have, again in the Frankel it's in the shinuei nuschaos, ולא מצינו שחזר בדבר טובה אלא בחורבן ראשון כשהבטיח לצדיקים שלא ימותו עם הרשעים וחזר בדברו וזה מפורש במסכת שבת.
So again, Frankel doesn't, doesn't print it, doesn't think that this is the correct nusach. He also tells you a little bit about the, Avodas Hamelech. The Avodas Hamelech also says that even the kisvei yad to which he had access, some of them didn't, didn't have it. And quotes an interesting hasharah from the Rav. He says that the Rav told him that mistama the, what it should say in vilo matzinu is that it was halo matzinu and someone had written a hasagah on the Rambam, where the Gemara in Shabbos nun-hei says that there is one example. Example of a nevuah tovah which was chozeres מתוך שהיה בידם למחות ולא מיחו. That since b'yemei bayis rishon the tzaddikim weren't moche, so though they themselves weren't ovdei avodah zarah but מתוך שהיה בידם למחות ולא מיחו, so they were nitpasim b'oso avon. So the word that it should say, this is what he quotes, כל המאמר הזה ליתא בכתב יד אבא וכן הראני בן גיסי הגאון שיחיה שבכתב יד ברלין ליתא,
and then he adds in parentheses, ולהשערתו היא השגת משיג אחד על רבינו ולכן צריך לומר והלא מצינו.
Mistama he doesn't spell it out, mistama you also have to take out the word ela. Change the v'lo to v'halo, so then the word ela doesn't really read. Okay, so naniah as they all say that this isn't from the text of the Rambam. The Abarbanel says anyone who has a feel for the lishonas haRambam knows that this isn't from the Rambam. So what does the Rambam takeh do with the Gemara? I mean, it's a Gemara it is. Whether it's in the Rambam is yesh ladon. A Gemara it is. I don't know. So apparently the way the Rambam presents it is midrashos chalukim. I don't know. I'm not sure what the, again, assuming that the Rambam isn't misyaches to the Gemara. I don't know. So we don't know exactly what the Rambam does with it. Okay, let's come back to one or two things in the earlier prakim. In perek ches, we discussed a little bit, the Rambam has in halacha alef, halacha beis, that the basis of Moshe Rabbeinu's standing, the basis in emunah in Moshe Rabbeinu is from Ma'amad Har Sinai. It is not based on all the osos u'mofsim, but based on Ma'amad Har Sinai and all the implications of that. And subsequently, we believe all other nevi'im because Moshe Rabbeinu said eilev tishmon, which is why by definition, you can't have a navi who'll contradict divrei Torah. You can't have a navi who'll contradict the nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu because the basis for belief is not osos u'mofsim. The basis for belief is Ma'amad Har Sinai. Only Moshe Rabbeinu has that. The basis for belief in every other navi is that Moshe Rabbeinu said eilev tishmon, if he'll predict the future a few times and be proven right every time, so then eilev tishmon, which is why by definition, a navi cannot contradict nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu. It's interesting there is a, you have a Shita Mekubetzas on this in Bava Kama? I think I can get one. דף ב עמוד ב? No. Here. You have it? Hold on. Where is it? In Shita Mekubetzas on Bava Kama. It has the lashon... who says it? The Rid? Wait, so is this the masechet, the Divrei Kabbalah? Who sang that, the Zeide? Is this it? How's it go? He's coming back. How's it go? שובו שובו שובו בניי שובו שובו לאביכם כי הנה בא היום אשר שובו בנים שובבים.
The Shitah Mekubetzet in Bava Kamma has an interesting question, right? So everyone knows that whenever Chazal refer to a pasuk from Nevi'im, it's Divrei Kabbalah. But why is that called, why is that called, thank you, why is that called Divrei Kabbalah? So the Shitah Mekubetzet quotes in Talmidei Rabbeinu Peretz. So the first pshat is that דברי נביא איקרו דברי קבלה על שם שהנביאים קובלים וצועקים על הצרות הנראות להם בחזון כדמתרגמינן אם צעק יצעק אלי אם מקבל יקבל.
It means to, to complain, to cry out. So why is Divrei Nevi'im called to complain, to cry out? Because they, because the Ribbono Shel Olam shows them what, what Rachmana Litzlan is going to be. So they're crying out to Hakadosh Baruch Hu to try to avert that disaster for Klal Yisrael. Veyeish mephareish Kabbalah in the normal Hebrew sense of the word, שכולם קיבלו נבואתם ממשה רבנו עליו השלום. They all received nevuah from Moshe Rabbeinu. I don't, I don't know that the Talmidei Rabbeinu Peretz means exactly what what the Rambam is saying here. He doesn't, he certainly, if he means it, he doesn't spell it out. But itachen that you put the two together, you get a variation of what the, I'm not sure exactly what the Rabbeinu Peretz means. But itachen that even if if what the Rambam is saying he doesn't have in mind, that you do have a variation of his understanding and what the lashon of Divrei Kabbalah is, Divrei Kabbalah in the sense that that they receive it from Moshe Rabbeinu that their whole standing as, as navi is based on on receiving as it were the endorsement, the imprimatur of of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Talmidei Rabbeinu Peretz sounds like more he's talking about the etzem tochan hanevuah. His lashon is שכולם קיבלו נבואתם ממשה רבנו עליו השלום. Sounds like he's talking about the actual tochan hanevuah, not just the the standing, the status as a navi. Okay, shoin. And and therefore the simple pshat is as the Rambam says in in the beginning of פרק ח הלכה א in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, that כל האותות שעשה משה רבנו במדבר לפי הצורך עשאן לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה.
Tzarich lehashki'as haMitzriyim, so קרע הים וצילם בם. Tzarachnu lemazon, horid lanu haMan, etcetera. Tzamu, בקע לנו את האבן. Okay, so everything was just lephi hatzorech. Everything was on on need basis. It wasn't to, it wasn't to prove anything. Proof comes from Ma'amad Har Sinai. That establishes Moshe Rabbeinu's truthfulness and it's the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu said eilav tishme'un is is why we believe a navi. The Rambam's mashal to believing eidus. So I saw in in passing over Pesach, I didn't see this carefully enough, so please if you have a chance look up to make sure that that I'm, that I'm conveying it accurately. In the new sefer that they published from Rav Moshe Shapiro on the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, so I think he says the following. That ein hachi nami, ein hachi nami, well, maybe first we'll, that ein hachi nami the osos umofsim of of the midbar taka were lephi hatzorech, lephi hatzorech. Tzumu and it had been a stash of Perrier water so it wouldn't have been bal tashchis. It was on a on on need basis. And moreover as the Rambam says that osos u'mofsim a person can always have יש בליבו דופי. A person can never have the type of certitude that that we're supposed to have based on osos u'mofsim. That notwithstanding I don't well I'll add one diyuk I don't remember whether he says it or not I think he does but I'm not sure. That notwithstanding iglei milsa l'mafreia in light of Maamad Har Sinai the osos u'mofsim of Yetzias Mitzrayim stand as as representing yesodos ha'emunah. Dehainu k'sheleatzmon no a person can have יש בליבו דופי but in retrospect iglei milsa after זה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלהים על ההר הזה
in retrospect so then the osos u'mofsim of Yetzias Mitzrayim represent yesodos ha'emunah. Lemai nafka mina? So before we say lemai nafka mina I think he has this diyuk I'm pretty sure but but ayen sham. In Halacha Aleph if you have the Rambam take a look rabosai Ches Aleph משה רבינו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בליבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה האות בלט וכישוף אלא כל האותות שעשה משה רבינו במדבר לפי הצורך עשאן לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה צורך להשקיע את המצריים קרע לנו את הים והצלילם בו צרכנו למזון הוריד לנו את המן וכולי.
So what's missing here in the Rambam's list? He started a little too late no? What about the eser makkos? Why doesn't the Rambam say he needed to have frogs jumping around and in their in their mixing bowls and in their their ovens? Why didn't the Rambam mention the the eser makkos? I'm pretty sure that that he mentions this diyuk. So it sounds like no the Rambam doesn't want to mention because on the one hand it's true that what he says יש בליבו דופי would be true about that but lefi hatzorech asaan wouldn't be true about that. And there inoch nami in retrospect in retrospect again beshaato could you have the type of certitude from from the the eser makkos that that we ultimately had from Maamad Har Sinai? No. And that's the whole thrust of perek ches. But the point is in retrospect yes these now stand as as representing yesodos ha'e- now lemai nafka mina? So what difference does it make then? Lemai nafka mina? So his nafka mina and again it's it's not far from something we once discussed that the Rav says al pi Rav Chaim but his nafka mina is this. He finds here it's a very very original idea very nice idea. He finds here that that basically when Hakadosh Baruch Hu comes and says in the first of the dibros אנכי ה' אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים so if you say again as we just said that in retrospect al kol panim the אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים represent again yesodos ha'emunah again at least in retrospect that they represent yesodos ha'emunah so then here basically Hakadosh Baruch Hu this pasuk in the Torah is expressing the Rambam's idea that in order to have Torah you have to have all the yesodos ha'emunah. And that's why Hakadosh Baruch Hu says the alef-beis is before we're going to get on before we're going to proceed to to all the taryag mitzvos and all the klaloseinu u'peratoseinu you should know that it's all going to be founded upon it's all going to be built upon a yesod yesodos ha'emunah which yesodos ha'emunah those yesodos ha'emunah of אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים so here again Again, ein hachi nami, in terms of the the source of belief is from Ma'amad Har Sinai. So lemai nafka mina, again, so we said, so lemai nafka mina, what the, what difference does it make lemai nafka mina to say that in retrospect iglai milsa that Yetzias Mitzrayim stands as as a as a symbol, as as as an embodiment of yesodos ha-emuna. Lemai nafka mina what's this pasuk of Anochi Hashem Elokecha expressing? That's lemai nafka mina. If אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים means that that Asher Hotzeisicha is a code word for אשר הראיתי שיש לעולם אלוה מחדשו חפץ ויכול ומשגיח ומנבא
so then then it's it's again with the Mechilta that first recognize me and then I'll be gozer gezeiros, so then that's what he says. So right here you have the the the Rambam's idea that you have to have the ikkarim as the basis for for subscribing to the ikkarim as the basis for all of Torah umitzvos. Again, it's not far, it's it's it's it's very much related to I think we discussed this earlier back in perek aleph maybe of of Yesodei HaTorah. It's it's not far from what the the Rav says על פי רב חיים that zichiras Yetzias Mitzrayim is not a a separate mitzvah but is rather is rather part of mitzvas Krias Shema, meaning that that קבלת עול מלכות שמים means part of קבלת עול מלכות שמים is to mention Yetzias Mitzrayim. So what do those words mean? That part of קבלת עול מלכות שמים is to mention Yetzias Mitzrayim? Now so, hem hem hadevarim. Part of קבלת עול מלכות שמים is to be mekabel upon oneself everything that is represented by Yetzias Mitzrayim. So in that sense, it's it's very much on the same on the same wavelength. Okay. Okay, I'm just one more ha'ara. We're probably not gonna do the entire perek hei, but maybe we'll just look at halacha yud. Take a look in perek hei halacha yud. כל העובר מדעתו בלא אונס על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה בשאט בנפש להכעיס הרי זה מחלל את השם לפיכך נאמר בשבועת שקר וחללת את שם אלהיך אני ה' ואם עבר בעשרה מישראל הרי זה חילול השם ברבים וכן כל הפורש מעבירה או עשה מצוה לא מפני דבר בעולם לא פחד ולא יראה ולא לבקש כבוד אלא מפני הבורא ברוך הוא כגון יוסף הצדיק עצמו מאשת רבו הרי זה מקדש את השם.
The peshat here is just in terms of punctuating and translating. I think mistama this is what the Frankel edition means also with the way it places commas. I think we we probably would have done it with with dashes rather than than commas. That when the Rambam, the Rambam is not giving us a list of four things. He's not giving us a list of לא מפני דבר בעולם, ve'lo pachad, lo yira, and ve'lo levakes kavod. He's saying לא מפני דבר בעולם and then he's he's I think we would then do a dash, dehaynu or or for example lo pachad, lo yira, ve'lo levakes kavod. Right? So לא מפני דבר בעולם dash. Meaning what that means is lo pachad ve'lo yira ve'lo levakes kavod. That's why it's very meduyak that there's no vav in ve'lo pachad because this isn't the second item in the list. This is now the first item because now what's what's coming next, this clause is just to explain what לא מפני דבר בעולם means. It's lo pachad ve'lo yira ve'lo levakes kavod. Okay. So iyun alav what what we're about to discuss here. Iyun alav. Again, the example so that the metzayein, right, the Gemara in Sotah speaks about how Yosef Hatzaddik קידש שם שמים בצנעה, Yehuda קידש שם שמים בפרהסיא. So Chazal refer to how Yosef Hatzaddik was mekadesh es Hashem. Agav, the Gemara there says, sounds like Yosef Hatzaddik had a little bit of help, no? Sounds like Yaakov Avinu comes and tells him that his name is going to be erased from the ephod if he if he's chotei. So how exactly is this a paradigm of lo mi-da'ato? He doesn't really do it on his own. So I don't know the full answer, but the answer begins that the pashtus in the Gemara independently of this kasha is the following. הבא ליטהר מסייעין לו. הבא ליטהר מסייעין לו. So according to that view in Chazal that ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו, so הבא ליטהר מסייעין לו. The teirutz is that אין מראין לאדם אלא מתוך הרהורי לבו. It wasn't that this was something that an image that was imposed upon Yosef Hatzaddik. No, it came from within, as Yosef Hatzaddik conjured up this image. It was from within. It wasn't that he was going along his way and nothing was going to stop him and all of a sudden the Ribono Shel Olam throws a go-block. No, it's אין מראין לאדם אלא מתוך הרהורי לבו. That's why he saw what he did. All right, you still have to understand why it davka is in the form of an ephod and what that represents, but lichora it's that's what Chazal have in mind. Either way, back to the Rambam. So the pashtus is like this. Pashtus is that the Rambam says something, again, ayin alava to see if this is correct, something very remarkable here. Certainly the impression that the Rambam here conveys is that a person does not have to be holding on the madreiga on the we spoke in Hilchos Teshuvah about the spectrum. A person doesn't have to be at the end of the spectrum of yarei es Hashem, אהבה גדולה יתירה רבה עזה עד מאד, עד שתהא נפשו קשורה באהבת השם ונמצא שוגה בה תמיד
to be mekadesh shem shamayim. The Rambam doesn't have any of the description, standard, that the Rambam tells us here to do a mitzvah and to thereby be mekadesh Hashem is just to do it leshem mitzvah. I'm doing it because the Ribono Shel Olam said to do it. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything I do 24/7 is on that madreiga. I mean, that's what we're supposed to aspire to. But a person doesn't have to be on that madreiga of the ahava gedola, אהבה גדולה יתירה רבה עזה עד מאד. I'm doing it because the Ribbono shel Olam said to do it. I'm abstaining from it because the Ribbono shel Olam said to abstain from it. The Rambam says that that's already a bechina of Kiddush Hashem. The fact that one doesn't, the fact that that one doesn't need, the fact that the Ribbono shel Olam's word doesn't have to be validated, as it were, by some ulterior motive, but that a person just responds to it because it is what HaKadosh Baruch Hu said. So that's a Kiddush Hashem. That that the Ribbono shel Olam, as it were, doesn't need any added, doesn't need to be any added incentive to comply with Devar Hashem. It's Devar Hashem. If a person is able to do a mitzvah, again, the person doesn't have to be holding on the madrega of Avraham Avinu to do that. Doesn't have, doesn't have, doesn't have to be an Avraham Avinu to do that. That even that the Rambam says is in terms of that mitzvah is is a Kiddush Hashem. I know.