Transcript

We left off discussing the yesod hashevii, the uniqueness and supremacy of nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu. That fact, that fundamental fact, that yesod ha'emuna that Moshe Rabbeinu is unique, it's not just a difference of degree, but it's a difference of kind. So that's what the Rebbe said, that's what the pshat is when Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Miriam and Aaron לא כן עבדי משה. That the לא כן עבדי משה doesn't just mean that Moshe Rabbeinu has more than you do. לא כן עבדי משה is it's a different class of nevuah.

אם יהיה נביאכם ה' במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו

but לא כן עבדי משה means this yesod that Moshe Rabbeinu is not just a difference of degree, but a difference of kind. The question is me'ever lekol zeh, what does the Sifrei mean that Rashi al HaTorah quotes at the end of Zos Habracha that the Torah says

ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אבל באומות העולם קם

and who was it? It was Bilam. So the emess is that even without the psukim in Parshas Behaalosecha, even without and stam it's a midrash pliah, but what does it mean? Chazal tell us that Bilam engaged in mishkav behemoth. He was ba'al kishuf. In Bava Basra when it says who wrote down each of the kaf daled sefarim, so in דף יד עמוד ב it says ומי כתבן משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם. Parshas Bilam is part of Chumash. זכרו תורת משה עבדי says, so Moshe kasav sifro, Moshe wrote the chamisha chumshei Torah. זכרו תורת משה עבדי, Torah given al yedei Moshe, it's Toras Moshe. Parshas Bilam, referred to here as Parshas Bilam, is part of Chumash. So what do you, you wouldn't say Moshe kasav sifro and Parshas Ve'eschanan and so? So the Rebbe used to say kimedumeh it's beshem Rav Chaim as follows. Let's say when Avraham Avinu went down to Mitzrayim and they asked him as to Sarah's identity and he said achosi hi. And when Yitzchak said to Avimelech

כי אמרתי פן אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה והרגוני על דבר אשתי.

And when Yaakov said to Lavan כי מששת את כל כלי. So when vechahaneh vechahaneh, when Pharaoh said לא ידעתי את ה'. All amiros which the Torah records are not, did not become a cheftza shel Torah and are not a cheftza shel Torah by virtue of the fact that Avraham Avinu said it. When Avraham Avinu said achosi hi, when Yitzchak Avinu said

כי אמרתי פן אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה והרגוני על דבר אשתי,

when Pharaoh said lo yadati, so that didn't constitute a cheftza shel Torah. When Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu the chamisha chumshei Torah and said to him write down that Avraham Avinu The one exception to the rule, for whatever reason, is that when Bilam HaRasha said מה טובו אהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראל. When Bilam HaRasha said ke'nachalim nitayu. When Bilam HaRasha said these words, they were, they became a cheftza shel Torah already then. That's the one exception. That Rav Chaim says, that's the pshat, that's the pshat in the Gemara, כתב ספרו ופרשת בלם. That's why the Gemara singles out Parshas Bilam. That Rav Chaim says, that's what it means

ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אבל באומות העולם קם,

with regard to this, that there was no other navi whose words, there was no one whose words, as they pronounced them, as they articulated them, constituted a cheftza shel Torah. It was only through the dictation to Moshe Rabbeinu and Moshe Rabbeinu's giving it to us. But be'umos ha'olam, there was an exception, that Bilam HaRasha's pronouncements of מה טובו אהליך יעקב ומשכנותיך ישראל, Bilam HaRasha's pronouncements, they constituted a cheftza shel Torah besha'ato, even before Hakadosh Baruch Hu then dictates it to Moshe Rabbeinu and tells Moshe Rabbeinu that it should be written in Chamisha Chumshei Torah. That's what it means משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלם, and that's what it means

ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אבל באומות העולם קם.

It means be'umos ha'olam there was an instrument for cheftza shel Torah, for divrei Torah. But it doesn't mean le'ha'alos al hadaas that Bilam HaRasha had the same level of, was a navi on the same level of nevuah as Moshe Rabbeinu. For Moshe, his words became cheftza shel Torah besha'ato also? When he said it? For Moshe, his words also became cheftza shel Torah besha'ato or only once Hashem said the words? I'm trying to remember if that was part of the nevuah Rav Chaim specifies. I don't remember. Maybe he did, I just don't know. Okay. Let's move on perhaps to the yesod hashemini.

היסוד השמיני הוא תורה מן השמים. והוא שנאמין שכל התורה הזאת המצויה בידינו היום היא התורה שנתנה למשה. ושהיא כולה מפי הגבורה כלומר שהגיעה אליו כולה מאת השם הגעה שנקראת על דרך ההשאלה דיבור ואין יודע היאך הגיעה אלא הוא עליו השלום שאליו הגיעה ושהוא נחשב כסופר שקורין לפניו והוא מעתיק וכותב את כולה.

So Torah was communicated directly verbatim from Hakadosh Baruch Hu to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rambam says no one other than Moshe Rabbeinu really knows what the, what that communication was. Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't, doesn't have a larynx, doesn't have a voice box, doesn't have vocal cords. So the Torah describes it metaphorically to us as vayomer, as vayedaber, because that's the way we communicate with each other. We communicate with each other again with the vocal cords and. and with the other person listening. What this communication was, so we just know that it was direct and verbatim. But beyond that only Moshe Rabbeinu knows. Again, as as we mentioned yesterday from the Rambam's preface, Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe Rabbeinu writes down Torah she-bi-khtav verbatim. Everything in Torah she-bi-khtav, divrei hayamim sheba, the Avos as well from Adam to Noach, from Noach to Avraham Avinu, the Toldos of Esav, vesippureha, its stories and mitzvoseha. Uv-khakh nikra mechokek. Moshe Rabbeinu chelkat mechokek safun. Moshe Rabbeinu is referred to as mechokek. So meaning mechokek not lashon chukim, laws, the lawgiver, but apparently it means more than that. It means mechokek is chakika is the way you write, you engrave something as a form of writing. Meaning that Moshe Rabbeinu was the was the scribe. Moshe Rabbeinu was Hakadosh Baruch Hu's scribe. The reason chukim mean laws is that's really a secondary meaning of the word. But really chakika really means when you you engrave something. So in contradistinction to mishpatim which are intuitive and even if they're not written, so we would we would and could intuit them, so they're not laws only by virtue of the fact that they're written. מה שאין כן חוקים which are not intuitive to us, so chukim are are laws by virtue of the fact that they are chakukim, hence they're they're known as as chukim.

ואין הפרש בינו ובין בני חם כוש ומצרים ופוט וכנען ושם אשתו מהיטבאל בת מטרד,

meaning psukim, psukim which at first glance we don't understand why they're significant, why they're important. And then there are other psukim, Onochi Hashem Elokecha, שמע ישראל ה' אלוהינו ה' אחד, so says the Rambam, never mind our ignorance and our superficial impressions,

הכל מפי הגבורה והכל תורת השם תמימה טהורה קדושה אמת. ולא היה מנשה ביניהם כופר ומחלל קודש חמור יותר מכל כופר אלא לפי שחשב שיש בתורה פנים וקליפה.

There's a shell and there's a there's a there's an inside, there's a there's a fruit inside the the shell. And Menashe thought

שדברי הימים הללו והסיפורים אין תועלת בהם ושהם מאת משה. וזהו עניין אין תורה מן השמים. אמרו הוא זה שסובר אין תורה מן השמים

doesn't mean that person doesn't only refer to someone who Rachmana litzlan says there's no Torah at all min hashamayim. No,

הוא זה שסובר שכל התורה כולה מפי הגבורה חוץ מפסוק אחד שלא אמרו הקדוש ברוך הוא אלא משה מפי עצמו וזהו דבר השם בזה.

Even a single word. If a person impugns a single word in Chumash, that's דבר השם בזה. Literally the word of Hashem he he he's scorned, he's been mevazeh.

יתעלה השם ממה שאומרים הכופרים. אלא כל אות ממנה יש בה חכמות ונפלאות למי שהבינה השם.

Ay, but there's some things we don't understand, ein hachi nami, things we don't understand. One who to whom Hakadosh Baruch Hu grants understanding, he he sees the chochmos veniflaos. ולא תושג תכלית חכמתה. No one no one attains the complete, full, ultimate understanding.

ארוכה מארץ מידה ורחבה מני ים. ואין לו לאדם אלא לילך בעקבות דוד משיח לאלוהי יעקב שהתפלל גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך.

So special in context of of it's not the pshat that that we have lots of needs. Tzorchei amcha merubim. So mimeila we daven, so we need health, so we daven for health, we need parnassah, we daven for parnassah, we need mechila slicha, so we daven for mechila slicha. We also need to understand divrei Torah, so we we're mispallel for divrei Torah. No, there's a special chiyuv tfila with regard to Talmud Torah. That's what the Rambam is saying. There's a special chiyuv, special chiyuv tfila,

ואין לו לאדם אלא לילך בעקבות דוד משיח לאלוהי יעקב שהתפלל גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך.

That that that's it's reflected in tefilla of רבינו נחוניא בן הקנה. that there's a tefillah that when a person embarks on talmud torah and l'chora it's also reflected just in the birchas ha-torah we say in the morning. The Gemara in Berachos has it in the first perek. So first it has the bracha of la'asok or al divrei torah, the different girsa'os in the Rishonim. Then it has the bracha of asher bachar banu. The Gemara says about the bracha of asher bachar banu, זו היא מעולה שבברכות. This is the most beautiful bracha of the different birkas ha-torah, but then the Gemara then concludes somewhat seemingly incongruously, hilkach limrinhu l'chulhu. So therefore we'll say all of them. Again all of them if you count ve'ha'arev na as an independent bracha semucha l'chaverta or both of them if it's ve'ha'arev na and it's one bracha arucha. But if asher bachar banu is ma'ulah she'ba'brachos, so just let's say asher bachar banu. Let's say asher bachar banu. So it can be the pshat is as follows. The pshat is as follows. Let's assume the girsa that the Chachmei Ashkenaz has, which the Rema has in the Shulchan Aruch, that the first bracha is אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעסוק בדברי תורה. So we say asher bachar banu because that's ma'ulah she'ba'brachos. It's ma'ulah she'ba'brachos, but on the other hand the matbe'a ha-bracha is not the typical birkas ha-mitzvah. So asher bachar banu hagam that it's ma'ulah she'ba'brachos, it isn't totally adequate either because talmud torah is lo gara from any other mitzvah. We should say a regular birkas ha-mitzvah, the same way we say אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצה, al netilas lulav, so we should say la'asok b'divrei torah. And again we want to say asher bachar banu because זו היא מעולה שבברכות. So what's again whether it's the arichus of la'asok b'divrei torah, whether it's its own bracha semucha, so what's ve'ha'arev na? So ve'ha'arev na is not that this yesod l'chora of the Rambam here in the Peirush HaMishnayos. Birkas HaTorah has to have a bakasha. It can't just be a regular birkas ha-mitzvah or even this shevach ma'ulah of asher bachar banu. There has to be a there has to be a bakasha because the special chiyuv bakasha to be able to understand chochmas Hashem is something which is on a certain level is almost by definition you would expect it to be beyond us. Hakadosh Baruch Hu made it accessible in the form of Torah, but that notwithstanding the fact that He makes it accessible in the form of Torah, but it still requires a special special bakasha, special tefillah. That's the ve'ha'arev na focused more on the learning itself not understanding. The ve'ha'arev na can't be without v'ha'areiv banu. That's the sweetness is in havana. Havana is at the highest it's a higher level of all of it. When you hear when you hear divrei torah, the Rav once said about some for tachlis purposes. And it wasn't a compliment. He said his chidushim are a bore. Emmes the divrei torah are leibedig, that there's a sweetness to them. Chaim's Torah, his Torah's they're always so exciting, they're so leibedig. That's what he often said, his chidushim are a bore. The other one said also in a tachlis context, it was very much a tachlis context that they say about a certain certain maggid shiur that listening to his shiurim, going to the shiur is like going to a cold mikveh. It's like a mikveh, pshat it's like a mikveh ponim, a stam tam of a cold mikveh. Gornisht mikveh. And the Havah Amina is Emes HaHavannah. That's where the Havah Amina comes from. וכמו כן פירוש המקובל הוא גם כן מפי הגבורה. Meaning until this point the Rambam is talking only about Torah Shebichtav. Now the Rambam is talking about Torah Sheba'al Peh as well.

וכמו כן פירוש המקובל הוא גם כן מפי הגבורה. וזה שאנו עושים היום את אופן הסוכה והלולב והשופר והציצית והתפילין וזולתם הוא אותו האופן עצמו שאמר השם למשה והוא אמר לנו.

So not only is Torah Shebichtav Min hashamayim miSinai, Torah Sheba'al Peh as well. And if for a person והוא מוסר השליחות נאמן במה שמסר. And Moshe Rabbeinu was a shaliach who was 100 percent faithful לא להוסיף ולא לגרוע both in the Torah Shebichtav that he wrote down as well as the Torah Sheba'al Peh that he orally transmitted. That constitutes the Yesod Hashmini. והמאמר המורה על היסוד השמיני הזה הוא אמר. Again, fascinating pshat in the pasuk when Moshe Rabbeinu in the context of the rebellion of Adat Korach, בזאת תדעון כי השם שלחני כי לא מלבי. Rashi says

בזאת תדעון כי השם שלחני לעשות את כל המעשים האלה.

So Rashi says the ma'asim ha'eileh is that I appointed אליצפן הנשיא על בני קהת and Aharon Kohen Gadol. None of those this isn't nepotism none of those were my it wasn't none of that is my doing. And the Rambam says no, B'zot teid'un that the reason why is Korach's rebellion so so chamuradik? Because if you think that Moshe Rabbeinu appointed Elitzaphan of his own accord, or if you think Rachmana litzlan that Moshe Rabbeinu appointed Aharon as Kohen Gadol of his own accord, so then that undermines all of Torah. So then maybe Rachmana litzlan Moshe Rabbeinu decided that we shouldn't eat chametz on Pesach of his own accord also. So m'meila the Rambam says that what Moshe Rabbeinu is countering Korach, the reason the reason Moshe Rabbeinu recognizes and obviously that's the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu sees it as well the reason that the rebellion of Korach is so so chamur is because if you question Moshe Rabbeinu so then you call the entire Torah Rachmana litzlan into question. So m'meila it's mistaber that what Moshe Rabbeinu is answering is that not only with these specific appointments that Hashem shelachani that you should know that everything I do is Hashem shelachani. I don't anything I tell you, any appointment I make, anything I do, any mitzvah that I give you is כי השם שלחני כי לא מלבי because implicitly that's what Korach's rebellion alleges and m'meila the counterpoint has to be that ki lo milibi on everything not just the appointment of Elitzaphan and Aharon. The Rambam writes in Yesodei HaTorah

משה רבנו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה שמי שמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה או יעשה.

she-ya'aseh, she-ya'aseh האות בלוט ובכישוף, על כל אות שעשה משה במצרים keflei ve-kafsai, על כל אות שעשה משה במצרים le-fi ha-tzorech asaan. לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה, צורך להשקיט את המצרים, karas ha-yam me-tzorech ha-dor, tzorachtem le-mazon horadnu ha-man, tzamu

בקע להם את האבן, כפרו בו עדת קרח, בלעה אותם הארץ, וכן שאר כל האותות.

So Rambam says explicitly here that the miracle of the earth swallowing up Korach ve-adaso was le-fi ha-tzorech, was the miracles in the midbar happened on an as-needed basis. It wasn't to prove to prove nevuah. So how do you integrate that with the Perush ha-Mishnayos where the Rambam says that

המאמר המורה על היסוד השמיני הזה הוא אמרו בזאת תדעון כי ה' שלחני אם כמות כל האדם ימותון אלה ופקודת כל האדם יפקד עליהם לא ה' שלחני ואם בריאה יברא ה' ופצתה הארץ את פיה ובלעה אותם וירדו חיים שאולה וידעתם כי ניאצו האנשים האלה את ה',

something like that. Right, so maybe we'll come back to this question. We'll come back to it later. It's interesting that here in the Perush ha-Mishnayos when the Rambam speaks of Torah min ha-Shamayim and speaks of the kefira rachmana litzlan of denying that, so he includes Torah she-b'ksav and Torah she-ba'al peh in one ikkar. He doesn't make it into two separate ikkarim, he includes it in one ikkar. In contradistinction in Hilchos Teshuva, when in the context of listing אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, he lists those who are kofer in the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, lists almost all of them, so here the Rambam writes in Gimmel Vav, he says אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, so one of it is ha-kofer ba-Torah. And then he says what does it mean to be kofer ba-Torah? In Gimmel Ches, so the Rambam writes שלושה הן הכופרים בתורה האומר שאין התורה מעם השם, afilu pasuk echad, afilu teiva achas, אם אמר משה מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה. So that's one type of ha-kofer ba-Torah, the Rambam says there are three kofrim ba-Torah. Number two:

וכן הכופר בפירושה והיא תורה שבעל פה והכחיש מגידיה כצדוק ובייתוס,

that's number two. And then number three is that no, Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu gave the whole Torah but he changed it later rachmana litzlan.

והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא הייתה מעם השם כגון הנוצרים וההגרים. כל אחד משלושה אלה כופר בתורה.

So here the Rambam lists it as two different types of kefira. Okay, and obviously it doesn't make a difference halacha le-maaseh. Either way the Rambam says it's kefira and either way he says it's אין לו חלק לעולם הבא. But אף על פי כן, le-maaseh, ha-vada hu, that in Perush ha-Mishnayos the Rambam doesn't list it as two ikkarim, there's one ikkar of Torah min ha-Shamayim and the Rambam within that one ikkar tells you that means both Torah she-b'ksav and Torah she-ba'al peh. So he could have said that ha-kofer ba-Torah means האומר שאין התורה מעם השם, whether he says that about any part of Torah she-b'ksav or Torah she-ba'al peh, but he doesn't. Here he sort of identifies that as two different types of kefira. Again there's no nafka mina halacha le-maaseh because halacha le-maaseh he's saying the exact same thing, that it's kefira and rachmana litzlan and אין לו חלק לעולם הבא. But b'maaseh why does he do it why does he do it differently. L'chora the way he does in Hilchos Teshuva is, b'maaseh we always distinguish between Torah she'bichsav and Torah she'baal peh. What he does in Hilchos Teshuva doesn't doesn't really raise any eyebrows. We always it's possible that, itachen that remember before beginning the yud gimmel ikkarim and again we've referred back to this at occasions, referred back to it as well, yud gimmel ikkarim are not about HaKadosh Baruch Hu, Torah, and s'char v'onesh. Yud gimmel ikkarim are all about HaKadosh Baruch Hu. About HaKadosh Baruch Hu, but what it means to have emuna in HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Part of what it means to have emuna in HaKadosh Baruch Hu is to have a correct conception of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Part of what it means to have emuna in HaKadosh Baruch Hu is how he relates to the world. One crucial, vital aspect of how he relates to the world is that that he gave us the Torah, is Torah min hashamayim. If if you wanted to sort of explain, identify what's Torah she'bichsav, Torah she'baal peh. Let's say someone never never heard these these terms before and and you wanted to give them a basic understanding of of just what the terms of Torah she'bichsav and Torah she'baal peh mean. So what would you say? You'd say that Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Har Sinai and okay depending upon Torah megillah nittna or Torah chasuma nittna exactly exactly at what point Moshe Rabbeinu wrote things down, the Gemara in Gittin, but okay so maybe in two stages, maybe the sof shemoneh, but Torah she'bichsav is the part of Torah again where Moshe Rabbeinu m'pi hagevurah wrote down b'chsav from Bereishis to l'einei kol Yisrael. And then there's a Torah she'baal peh, there was an oral commentary that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave him, and HaKadosh Baruch Hu told him, HaKadosh Baruch Hu didn't tell him to write it down, and that Moshe Rabbeinu transmitted that to us orally. So he told Moshe Rabbeinu to write down בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים, he didn't tell Moshe Rabbeinu to write down that a sukkah has to be tzilaso merubah meichamaso or that or that the s'chach of the sukkah has to be gidulo min ha'aretz, v'chulu. Okay. Okay so Torah she'bichsav is what Moshe Rabbeinu gave us b'chsav and Torah she'baal peh Moshe Rabbeinu gave it to us baal peh. What's more, what we were talking about yesterday, Torah she'bichsav is verbatim devar Hashem, Torah she'baal peh the content is is devar Hashem. So that's I guess how we would again in the most basic way identify what's Torah she'bichsav, what's Torah she'baal peh. Moshe Rabbeinu m'pi hagevurah, there was no difference between Torah she'bichsav and Torah she'baal peh. HaKadosh Baruch Hu didn't give Moshe Rabbeinu Torah she'bichsav b'chsav. Moshe Rabbeinu received Torah she'baal peh verbatim m'pi hagevurah. The whole difference between Torah she'bichsav and Torah she'baal peh is only in how Moshe Rabbeinu was then supposed at the next link in the chain transmit to Yehoshua and to kol Yisrael. But the first link in the chain of משה קיבל תורה מסיני, so what's Torah she'bichsav? Torah she'bichsav is it's the part of Torah that's written. HaKadosh Baruch Hu... didn't give Moshe Rabbeinu a Sefer Torah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu didn't give Moshe Rabbeinu a Sefer Torah. He didn't present them with Torah shebichtav. Torah sheba'al peh, it's the content which is, which is, which is the Torah. But maiseh, Moshe Rabbeinu heard Torah sheba'al peh verbatim from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicated them Torah sheba'al peh. So that whole difference between Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh is what Moshe Rabbeinu was commanded to introduce in how he transmitted Torah to us. That Breishit Bara Elokim write down for them in the Sefer Torah and give them what I told you verbatim and write it down. And tell them that's how they're supposed to transmit it. And when they teach Torah shebichtav, they shouldn't say תורה שבכתב בעל פה, they should be reading mitoch haksav. And everything else I told you about what a Sukkah looks like, that you should be, that you should be telling them only ba'al peh. You shouldn't be writing them for them. And there they should know it's the content which is the תלמוד תורה שבעל פה, not the verbatim. So the whole distinction only emerges in the masorah le'Yehoshua, not in the משה קיבל תורה מסיני. So the ikkar that the Rambam is telling us is Torah min hashamayim, but within that ikkar, it doesn't make sense to have two different ikkarim of Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh. Okay,

יסוד התשיעי הביטול והוא שזאת התורה לא תשתנה ולא תהא תורה מאת השם זולתה ולא תהיה בה תוספת ולא יגרע ממנה לא בכתב ולא בפירוש.

Unless Moshe Rabbeinu indicated that something in Torah is only a mitzvah l'sha'ah, it's by definition l'doros. Only what Moshe Rabbeinu, the Rambam's not denying that there's such a thing as a mitzvah l'sha'ah. So let's say, for instance, one of Rav Chaim's answers that the acharonim all have a discussion where the Gemara in Berachot says that ספק אמת ויציב ספק לא אמר, for a person isn't sure whether he said zechiras yitzias Mitzrayim, chozer ve'omer because zechiras yitzias Mitzrayim is d'oraisa. So the kasha which engages the gedolei acharonim is the Rambam doesn't include it in his minyan hamitzvos. זה אומר בכו זה אומר בכו. So the Rav in his kuntres Krias Shema quotes two answers from Rav Chaim. So the first of the two, I think it's in this order, but maybe not, one of the two answers he quotes from Rav Chaim is the machlokes of Ben Zoma and the Chachamim.

לא זכיתי שתאמר יציאת מצרים בלילות עד שדרשה בן זומא שנאמר כל ימי חייך ימי חייך הימים כל ימי חייך הלילות וחכמים אומרים ימי חייך העולם הזה כל ימי חייך להביא לימות המשיח.

So yemos hamashiach needs a ribbuy, right? Because in light of the pasuk that the Gemara in Berachot there quotes of חי השם אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים, but you'll say chai Hashem after the geulah ha'asida, so we'll reference what happened more recently. So in light of that pasuk, you need a ribbuy to tell you that zechiras yitzias Mitzrayim is noheg limos hamashiach. But according to Ben Zoma, the ribbuy is for leilos, kemois, you don't have a ribbuy for yemos hamashiach. So according to Ben Zoma, the mitzvah of zechiras yitzias Mitzrayim is not noheg limos hamashiach, so it's only a mitzvah l'sha'ah. Four thousand years, but lemaiseh that's only a sha'ah. It's not a mitzvah, it's not a, sometimes I listen to a shiur, that's right, so it's only l'sha'ah, it's only l'sha'ah. It's only, it's only a mitzvah l'sha'ah, it's not, it's not a mitzvah l'doros. So the Rambam says no, the minyan taryag, one of the yud daled shorashim that the Rambam has for what you include in the minyan taryag, are mitzvos l'doros, not mitzvos l'sha'ah. Hayosah, the Rambam paskens. paskens that zechiras mitzrayim is בין ביום בין בלילה, we pasken like Ben Zoma, we don't pasken like the Chachamim, so then it's not- it's not a mitzva l'doros, not a mitzva l'doros. That's why it's not in Minyan Taryag. That was one of the- many of the- one of the times- one of the times two answers. אף על פי כן, aval deha- aval de- there is such a thing as what- what the Rambam means is if it's not indicated by Moshe Rabbeinu, if- if you have an indication within Torah minei uvey, so then aval de- there is such a thing as a mitzva l'sha'ah. But what it means is a stam mitzva without there being an indication- without there being an indication that that's- that's l'doros. Okay, so the Yesod hachi basically is the immutability and eternity of Torah. But here there is in terms of the- the posuk that the Rambam quotes here, he says, immutability of Torah again, הן תורה שבכתב הן תורה שבעל פה. The Torah shebe'al peh, but what- what- what a pri etz hadar is, doesn't change. It's- it's lenetzach netzachim a pri etz hadar is- is an esrog. לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו. So here there is- that's a fascinating and- and very- very repercussive understanding of- of the posuk. Maybe just to give a little bit of the- of the implications. Tosafos in ראש השנה דף טז ask a kasha, as the Gemara says,

אמר יצחק למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין ותוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין כדי לערבב את השטן.

So Tosafos ask a kasha, why isn't it Bal Toseif? So Tosafos answers because repeating a mitzva is not Bal Toseif. If you expand a mitzva, you have chamish batim in the tefillin, so that's expanding a mitzva. Tosafos doesn't talk about this, but if you add a new mitzva, that's Bal Toseif. But if you repeat a mitzva, you do a mitzva twice, a Kohen duchans twice in the same day, that's not Bal Toseif. The Rashba chidushim there says Tosafos is right, but they didn't need to say that. What they said is 100% true, but lemaiseh kushya mei'ikara leisa. They didn't need to parrein for the kasha because there was no kasha to begin with, because it's a din d'rabbanan that you should blow תקיעות דמיושב ותקיעות דמעומד, and dinim d'rabbanan, Chazal in introducing dinim d'rabbanan are not subject to- to Bal Toseif. Chazal in introducing dinim d'rabbanan then are not subject to Bal Tigra, and that's how they can tell us that on יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל להיות בשבת not to blow shofar. Not- not to blow shofar. That's- that's what the Rashba says. So the Rambam in- in two places... Yesh mitzvos acheros in the paragraph between the Minyan Taryag at the beginning of the Yad and then where the Rambam explains what each of the yud dalet sforim are about. So in that paragraph in between, so the Rambam writes, אלו הן שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות. And then he says,

ויש מצות אחרות שנתחדשו אחר מתן תורה וקבעו אותם נביאים וחכמים ופשטו בכל ישראל כגון מקרא מגילה וחנוכה ותענית תשעה באב וידיים ועירובין והם כנגד המצות דאורייתא ומצות דרבנן.

I'm going to talk about that in- in the Yad as well. Now, כל אלו המצות שנתחדשו חייבין אנו לקבלם ולשמרם. Lekabelam means you have to acknowledge Chazal's authority to have introduced the mitzvos, and then in addition you have to then b'foal comply with the mitzvos. A person rachmana litzlan can not read the megilla for either of two reasons. He can not read the megilla who- who are the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah to tell me to read the megilla? Chayavin anu lekabelam. A person can say, okay, so they- I acknowledge their authority but I'm too tired- too tired to read the- the- the megilla. Too oysek in other different from- from tinsei asiken. No, so

חייבין אנו לקבלם ולשמרם, שנאמר לא תסור מכל הדבר, ואינם תוספת על מצות התורה.

Mitzvos d'rabbanan don't constitute a tosefes. ועל מה הזהירה תורה לא תוסף ולא תגרע? Says the Rambam, why isn't- why don't mitzvos d'rabbanan constitute a violation of Bal Toseif?

שלא יהיה נביא או בית דין רשאי לחדש דבר ולומר שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה במצווה זו להוסיף על מצוות התורה או לחסר אחת מהן אשר שש מאות ושלוש עשרה מצוות אבל אם הוסיפו בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הזמן מצווה דרבנן תקנה או גזירה אין זו תוספת.

Kitzer maaseh, the Rambam says and take a look, the answer is not so much our inyan now as the question. Rambam says, why aren't d'rabbanan's bal tosif? And the answer is for two reasons. A, because Chazal clearly delineate that this is d'rabbanan, not d'oraisa. If they would come and say basar of bechalav is assur min hatorah, that would be bal tosif. But if the Rambam has a whole arichus in Hilchos Mamrim with this example. But if they say no, min hatorah it's only basar behema bechalav, which is basar bechalav, but mid'rabbanan as a harchaka, because people get confused so we're assering basar of, so then A, the fact that they delineate that it's d'rabbanan and clearly distinguish it from d'oraisa, A, that's one condition, and the second condition that has to be met that Chazal always met, is that they have to explain what it is in the Torah that this d'rabbanan is coming to uphold, what it is in the Torah that this d'rabbanan is coming to reinforce, to protect. So those are the two conditions. If A, Chazal clearly delineate that it's d'rabbanan, not d'oraisa, and B, they don't introduce an independent d'rabbanan. Oh, we think it would be a nice thing to have a... we think it's a nice thing to have a picnic on July 4th, so we're going to introduce a mitzvah d'rabbanan that July 4th you have to have a picnic. So just delineating that it's d'rabbanan doesn't suffice. It has to A, be delineated as such and B, you have to explain what it is in the Torah that this d'rabbanan is coming to uphold, to reinforce, to foster, to facilitate. But you see klar from the Rambam's question and answer, and again he has the same question in perek bais of Mamrim as well. But you see klar from the Rambam, he doesn't give the Rashba's answer, right? What's the Rashba's answer to this question? The Rashba's answer to this question is that bal tosif doesn't apply to Chazal. Bal tosif applies to kol yachid veyachid. We as yechidim can't be mosif a mitzvah. Chazal who were charged with the ושמרתם את משמרתי עשו משמרת למשמרתי, they can add, they can, right? So according to according to the Rashba, the answer is it is bal tosif, but but bal tosif is not the same way, ich veis, there's an issur to be metamei lames. That issur is set to Kohanim, it's not set to us. So how how does a person Rachmana litzlan go to a levaya? Because he's not a Kohen. So he's not muzhar in the lav. There is such a lav, what he's doing is exactly what the lav says not to do, but the lav isn't addressed to him. So the Rashba's answer to the question is it is a tosefes, but the lav of bal tosif is not addressed to Chazal as such, it's only addressed to yechidim. And that stands in very, very sharp contrast with this Rambam, right? With this Rambam saying no, bal tosif applies to anyone, everyone, whether yechidim or whether Chazal. And the reason mitzvos d'rabbanan are not bal tosif is for a different reason. If a yachid would say, I'm mekaibel upon myself, I'm mekaibel upon myself that I should, ich veis, I should put covers on my light switches and the reason before Shabbos and the reason I'm doing that is because I've noticed that occasionally when I wake up in the morning I'm still half asleep and sometimes I automatically, Rachmana litzlan, flip the light switch on Shabbos. So he can do that also, he can do that also, he can say I'm imposing that upon myself. It won't be bal tosif, he's not saying Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to do it and he's explaining that this is a hanhaga that he's introducing for himself in order to protect the mitzvos hatorah. So what Chazal did, the difference is that Chazal have a right to tell us to do it, not just themselves. But the Rambam again, the point is that for the Rambam it's not that it is bal tosif, but like tumas Kohanim, like the issur tumah it's not addressed to Chazal. No, it is addressed to Chazal, it isn't bal tosif. is because the Rambam and the Rashba and without being ma'arich now, it's not only the Rashba, it seems to be the Chachmei Sefarad in general, not just the Rashba, but the Rambam and the Rashba have a very, very yesodize-dikke machlokes as to what the issur Bal Tosaf is. So the Rashba, the issur Bal Tosaf, which is probably the way it's pashut-er and the way most of us understand, the issur Bal Tosaf here is don't add a mitzvah, like Rashi quotes from the Sifrei that the Kohen shouldn't add a fourth bracha to duchening, and you shouldn't add a fifth bayis to the tefillin or the mezuzah, certainly not pashut, certainly not add a brand new mitzvah entirely. For the Rambam, again, what did we just read here in the Peirush HaMishnayos? But what we just read in the Peirush HaMishnayos is that for the Rambam, what the pasuk Bal Tosaf says is much more than that. The issur בל תוסף ולא תגרע ממנו expresses again the eternity and eternal immutability of Torah. Can't have an exception to that if it's not just that prati-is-dikke issur, prati-is-dikke issur. So Chazal can tell you, yeah, in chutz la'aretz you should sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres. You do it on your own in Eretz Yisrael, so that's Bal Tosaf. If we would have done it on our own in chutz la'aretz, it would be Bal Tosaf. Chazal can tell you that you should sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres. A prati-is-dikke issur, a prati-is-dikke issur can have an exception. But for the Rambam, what the Torah is saying when it tells you Bal Tosaf is, again, the combination of Bal Tosaf and Bal Tigra, that combination is that this is the Ribbono Shel Olam's Torah, again, eternal, immutable, so how can you say there's an exception to that? You can't have, you can't have that, if that's, if that's what, what is the substance of Bal Tosaf. Again, it's not just that prati-is-dikke issur which tells the Kohen after yevarechecha, ya'er and yissa and a sach nachas for for for from all the children. No, so you can't do that, Bal Tosaf. It's a prati-is-dikke issur, it's a prati-is-dikke issur. Now for the Rambam, what Bal Tosaf and Bal Tigra, what those two say is, together, those two lavin express the eternal, the eternity and the eternal immutability of Torah. So how can you say that by definition you can't have an exception to that? So then you're asking, so how do mitzvos d'Rabanan fit into the scheme? So the Rambam will tell you why d'Rabanan are not a tosefes, not, not why Chazal are exceptions to the rule. Okay, we still have יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות. Maybe if the oilem is available, so maybe we'll, not sure what it'll be, in the middle of the bechina or whatever it is, in the midst of the bechina. So maybe we'll try tomorrow or just to see the יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, maybe we'll say 10:30, 11:30 and again we'll see however that integrates with whatever whatever it was with the bechina.