Let's begin be'ezrat hashem tonight from perek daled rabosai. פרק ד משנה א. Ben Zoma omer איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם shenemar mikol melamdai hiskalti. eizehu gibbor hakovesh es yitzro shenemar טוב ארך אפים מגיבור ומושל ברוחו מלוכד עיר. eizehu ashir hasameach bechelko shenemar יגיע כפיך כי תאכל ashrecha vetov lach ashrecha ba'olam hazeh vetov lach la'olam haba. eizehu mechubad hamachabeid es habriyos shenemar ki mechabdai achabeid uvozai yeikalu. So we understand that Ben Zoma says that the gevurah should be understood not in a physical sense but gevurah should be understood in a moral sense, in a spiritual sense. A person who is not controlled by desires, urges, instincts which are pointing in the wrong direction, but on the contrary, he controls and channels his desires, his urges, his emotions etc. Understand that. Similarly ashirus is not measured in terms of dollars and cents but in terms of contentment and satisfaction. But how do you understand the first case of איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם? So what will be, you'll go online, you'll search every maggid shiur online, listen to five minutes from every maggid shiur online, so that that will catapult a person into the august company of chachamim, thereby he's going to be a chacham? How can you define the chacham without stating the most obvious, that it refers to a mastery of a certain body of knowledge? And again that's obvious ki'shele'atzmo. The Rambam here just gives us a mareh makom. Right, the Rambam says כבר הזכרנו העניין בפרקים שהוקדמו meaning the prakim she'hikdemu to the peirush hamishnayos i.e. Shmonah Perakim. So in the new Peirush HaMishnayos from Machon HaMaor, so they both give you the exact mareh makom and then in the notes they even save you from turning the pages. Kasav rabbeinu sham in Shmonah Perakim. והנה חכם הוא כולל כל המעלות ההגיוניות בלי ספק. A chacham is someone who in addition to mastery, all intellectual qualities, all intellectual virtues are present within him. He has cultivated. So how can Ben Zoma say איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם? Maybe that's takeh a quality which a chacham has, but the lashon eizehu chacham sounds like we're not just listing a quality that the chacham has, we're giving some kind of definition. So yitachen that the pshat is and what's more, how does the pasuk serve as a prooftext for this? It's true that Dovid HaMelech says the pasuk seems to say I learned from all my rebbeim. My P1A rebbe was very good, Dovid HaMelech, he went to a good cheder. Yishai clearly had a tvi'as ayin for chadorim, he sent Dovid HaMelech to a good cheder. So Dovid HaMelech says mikol melamdai hiskalti, I learned from my P1A rebbe and my first grade rebbe. and my second-grade Rebbe. Boruch Hashem from m'techila v'ad sof until until my Rosh Kollel so everyone was mikol melamdai hiskalti. Okay, so that's very nice. We should try to find out what schools Dovid Hamelech went to, but how does that prove the definition of איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם? So itachem that the pshat in the pasuk mikol melamdai hiskalti is not a just sort of a narrative of I, the translation is not I Dovid Hamelech learned from all of my teachers, but rather the hiskalti should be understood as, again remember in current usage so maskil obviously has a very very negative connotation and association. In earlier points both in Tanach and then later in rabbinic Hebrew so maskil has a positive connotation. A maskil is a maskil who is doresh es Elokim. A maskil is someone who looks for the pnimiyus hadavar. So just we should remember not to anachronistically transpose our negative associations. But the pshat of the pasuk is I became a maskil right which is a high darga of chacham. I became a maskil how? From kol melamdai. It was only because of kol melamdai that I became the chacham that I achieved that pinnacle. Or in other words what Ben Zoma is telling us is Ben Zoma is not giving us a definition of the result, he's giving us the root. Eizehu chacham for a person to become the biggest to become a big chacham objectively, B, the biggest chacham that he can become relatively, on a relative scale. The first is on an absolute scale, the second is on a relative scale. To become a chacham on an absolute scale, B, to become the biggest chacham that he is capable of becoming on a relative scale, he has to be a lomed mikol adam. As much as he'll learn from one Rebbe, another Rebbe, one chavrusa, another chavrusa, if he wants to become a big big chacham on an absolute scale, on a relative scale the biggest chacham that he's capable of becoming, he has to learn at every opportunity from and that means from every person. And then the proof from the pasuk is because the pshat in the pasuk of mikol melamdai hiskalti, the translation is not I learned from all my teachers. I became a maskil again maskil in the sense of in the sense of a high level chacham mikol melamdai. That's the root R O U that's the path to becoming a chacham is the mikol melamdai hiskalti. Hashata d'asinu l'hachi so now we need to rethink and reprocess the next examples in the mishna as well. So according to this when Ben Zoma tells us איזהו גבור הכובש את יצרו he's not simply telling us what the definition or description of a person who is already a gibor but he's also telling us how that gevura is attained. It's not just that it's the definition and the siman. siman muvak of the gibbor that being a gibbor that being the gibbor that he is that he's koveish es yitzro but it's rather the pshat is how did he become the gibbor by time and time again being koveish es yitzro. Important yesod here rabosai. Most occasions of of a yetzer hara and I'm not talking about a yetzer hara for ma'achalos assuros or k'yotzei baze. I'm not saying a yetzer hara for something which which has a which has kosher supervision, a good good reliable kosher supervision. And again obviously we're using the the realm of achila as as representative of the the yetzer hara's full spectrum of of of desires and and potential activities. Almost every individual instance can cogently you can make a cogent explanation for why it's okay to indulge the yetzer. You can make a cogent maybe with very very narrow tunnel vision maybe you can even make a compelling explanation for why it doesn't make a difference. If if the doctor puts someone on a diet one scoop of ice cream is really going to make or break the diet? No absolutely not. Maybe it means that the goal of the diet will be attained a half a day later. It doesn't it doesn't make a difference. And yet Ben Zoma is telling us is איזהו גבור הכובש את יצרו. The way the person again he's not just describing who the gavra of the gibbor is once he's already attained that level. But just as we understood איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם he's talking about what the path is what the what the trail leading up the mountain is. He's saying hakoveish es yitzro is each time - I'm not talking about Shabbos Yom Tov but obviously I'm not talking about kol hatorah kullah but but when when decisions need to be made so then all these kol hatorah kullah perspectives need to be brought to bear to have the correct the correct balance. What it means is that each time he's koveish es yitzro. We are noteh understandably but often wrongly to think of life to in terms of I don't know decades. If not decades in terms of years. The emes is that really life is comprised of seconds. What a person accomplishes in a year is a function of what he accomplished in a year's worth of of seconds because a person lives second by second. A person doesn't live a year at a time. Can't live a year a year a year a year at a time. Right all the great baseball philosophers after they strike out four times and make five errors and lose eighteen to one so they all come back say well gotta take it one day at a time gotta forget about this game look the next game. So leaving the the shtus context aside but lemaisa. It is true. It is true. A person doesn't live a year at a time. Right now, we're living a second. That's all you can live at a time. And that therefore means that even though it's understandable and even natural to say, again, so is the one scoop of ice cream gonna make or break my diet? The answer is no. But the way I stick to my diet is second by second. And therefore, I need to stick to it this second. And again, that's reinforced by the fact that you can be mechazek that argument by recognizing that because next second I can make the same argument about the second scoop and I can make the same argument tomorrow about the scoop. שלא להטיל קנאה בין vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream. I had my vanilla ice cream today, so shelo lehatil kinah so I need to have my chocolate ice cream tomorrow. You can make the same argument the same way you can make—the argument is cogent today, the argument is equally cogent tomorrow and the day after, which only really reveals that it never was cogent in the first place. Ultimately and really, again, a person lives in micro units. We don't live in macro units. A person doesn't live a year at a time. He lives—he lives a second at a time. That's what a person lives. And therefore, I can't rationalize away that what I do this second is insignificant, it pales. Because that's always the unit. That's always the unit of life. And it's a very, very big mistake that we make when we don't recognize—again, obviously there is a time that a person is also supposed to think in terms of macro, on a macro scale. But l'maiseh, it's crucial to think in terms of the micro scale. It's halacha l'maiseh, it's always halacha l'maiseh in life. It certainly very much halacha l'maiseh during this pandemic, rachmana litzlan. A person can make a pretty cogent explanation and argument for every instance of not taking safety precautions. What are the odds that my going gratuitously into the store—or wherever, it doesn't have to be a store, it can be l'havdil, it can be a shul—what are the odds, rachmana litzlan, that the person is gonna get the virus? You can make a very cogent argument, but you can make that cogent argument at every second. And the way a person is mizaher is from second to second. Now again, just as in the previous discussion, there are other considerations which need to be taken into account halacha l'maiseh which create the right balance. We're not reviewing all that now. But yes, of course that exists. To eat a balanced diet, so again, it doesn't mean that in every forkful a person has a fruit and a vegetable and a protein and a starch and v'chulu v'chulu. So the same thing in Talmud Torah, you can't talk about every consideration at once. But l'maiseh, so we're talking about this, not that it's the only consideration, but it's a major, major, major, major consideration. The way a person is mizaher is from second to second. It's not that a person in general—there's no such thing as in general. In general, how I lived Taf Shin Pei was the sum of how I lived every second of Taf Shin Pei. That's it. If you would depict it in a mathematical equation, how I lived the year Taf Shin Pei was the sum. of of the moments of of Taf Shin Peh because a person lives moment to moment. A person doesn't, I can't live, I can put a whole kezayit into my mouth at once, but I can't live a whole year at once. It just doesn't happen. A person a person can only live a second at a time, which means when there's an avodah to do, again, obviously there is a macro level, obviously, you know, I have to think about the 24-hour unit in terms of how much sleep I need and how much rest I need and obviously, obviously, there is there is a time and a context where a person has to look at macro units as well. But all that notwithstanding, lema'aseh, the way a person lives, and a person lives a bunch of, the same way a person's body is made up of of tiny atoms. He may be, there may be enough atoms that he adds up to Og Melech HaBashan, but lema'aseh, the building blocks are are tiny, are minuscule and the same thing is here. So a person can can can rationalize and if if a person just sort of has this tunnel vision and isolates, so what are the chances that this one thing that I'm doing is going to make a difference? I know, a person can make a very compelling, but then there's no such thing as being nizhar. There's no such thing as being nizhar. There's no such thing as dieting if I need to diet, because this one spoonful really makes a difference? No, but the only way you do anything in life is from second to second. So a person can't be dismissive of what does this second represent? The same way a person can't be dismissive of what is this, if this as a repeated exposure is is is not prudent, is not consistent with venishmartem me'od lenafshoseichem, so then on a one-time scale, it's not consistent with venishmartem me'od lenafshoseichem either unless there's compelling reason to distinguish this one time, unless there's something different about this one time. But the fact just that it's one time, that that that's not a basis. And that's why you see that there's one common denominator. I think, you know, gedolim are individuals, but there is one common denominator, maybe more than one common denominator, but le'inyaneinu, one common denominator that's that's especially relevant, which is consistency. Because lema'aseh, consistency is this yesod that if you climb Mount Everest, you get to the peak by putting one foot in front of the other. Or if you're scaling a steep thing by putting one hand over the other in terms of the rope. In in life, that's that's the way a person moves. That's the way a person progresses. The Gemara in Sukkah says, I think it's the Gemara in Sukkah, that the yetzer hara is nidmeh to tzaddikim as a har gadol, a mountain. And for resha'im, the yetzer hara is nidmeh like a little a little anthill. So lechora it should be just just the opposite, no? The rasha who's unable to cope with his yetzer hara, for him the yetzer hara was like climbing Mount Everest. Who's got kochos to climb Mount Everest? The tzaddik who successfully copes with and confronts the yetzer, for him no it wasn't Mount Everest, it was a little bump in the in the sidewalk. It's not so hard to to navigate a bump in the in the sidewalk. And yet Chazal depict it the exact opposite. So I think one of the ba'alei mussar explains that what it means is the following. When confronted with a yetzer hara, so the rasha says it's not a big deal. It's not a If I come, if I begin seder at 9:01 as opposed to 9:00, that’s going to make the difference between my knowing Masechet Psachim and not knowing Masechet Psachim? No. If I skip a whole two weeks of seder, okay, yeah, that’s taka going to have an impact. But the difference between 9:01 and 9:00? No. So I’ll come 9:01. S'is gut. With that mindset taken to an extreme, if I have that mindset day in, day out, hour in, hour out, minute in, minute out, second in, second out, so then l'maiseh a person can end up, you know, reductio ad absurdum, a person can end up a rasha with that approach, with that mentality. The tzadik experiences any encounter he has as though he's encountered, as this is a major defining moment. What do you mean it’s a major defining moment? Whether you get the Beis Medrash at 9:01 or 9:00 is a major defining moment? It is. And if he thinks of it that way, so then every moment he lives, and a person's life is just the sum of the seconds of 70 years, of 80 years, of however many years Hakadosh Baruch Hu blesses him with. איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו שנאמר יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך.
So ashrecha, you’ll be fortunate. A person who’s fortunate is happy, he’s content. What exactly is he happy with? Yegiah kapecha. He schvitzed. He worked really hard. And what does he have to show for this? Maybe a mansion? Not a mansion. Chotch a nice house, but a fancy car? A nice vacation home? Nacho. Yegiah kapecha, and what do you have to show for it? Ki tochal. And you’ll be able to put bread on the table. And ashrecha. That’s enough that you should feel fortunate. Here again, in the Machon HaMaor edition, so the Rambam says, again quoting from that same passage in the reference. So the Rambam said about איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו, כל מה שהוא מסתפק במה שהמציא לו הזמן ואינו מצטער על מה שלא המציא לו.
He’s content with what the zman, with what time has provided him, and he’s not upset by what time has not given him. Interesting figure of speech, right? מה שהמציא לו הזמן. That what a person is getting is what zman—we would in English, the idiom would be what life gives a person. But the Rambam's idiom, the Rambam's figure of speech, excuse me, is מה שהמציא לו הזמן. What does that phrase mean? Himtzilo hazman? So al pi pshat, what it means is as follows: what zman represents is transience, impermanence, that which is not lasting, that which is ephemeral. That’s what zman represents, right? Because you can’t freeze time. If you have a video, so you can freeze the video, but you can’t do that in life. A person can’t say, oh, you know, at age 28, this is a gevaldige age to be, I’m going to freeze it. No, it doesn’t work that way, right? Time is cholef v'over. Time can’t offer a person anything which is more enduring than Time can't offer a person anything which is more enduring than itself. So by using that figure of speech about mah shehimtzilo hazman, it's such a beautiful and and and powerful expression. The reason the person isn't mitztaer, the reason the person shouldn't be mitztaer, is because the more or less is more or less of something which is which is ephemeral anyway. So מאי כל הרעש הזה? Whether a person lives in a fancy house, whether he lives in a more modest domicile, there's nothing lasting about that difference. In terms of the nitzchiyus, there's nothing lasting. It doesn't it doesn't translate into into what a person's nitzchiyus is going to be, whether whether he wears designer suits or or or otherwise. And so the phrase mah shehimtzilo hazman, and and maybe maybe all of this is compressed into into the mishnah here, in אשריך וטוב לך אשריך בעולם הזה וטוב לך לעולם הבא,
that it's the Olam Haba perspective which allows the person to have the ashrecha in Olam Hazeh. You hear that, rabosai? It's the awareness that the ultimate tov lach is in Olam Haba, which is the basis for the ashrecha perspective of איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו in in Olam Hazeh. I don't know if if there's only Olam Hazeh and there isn't only Olam Haba. Okay, so I guess the way to measure life is how much how much Olam Haba you can get out of Olam Hazeh. So then yeah, so then it takeh makes all the difference in the world whether the person lives in the in the mansion and he's waited on hand and foot or whether the person lives in a in a modest in a modest house. But if if the difference doesn't translate into the chayei nitzchi of Olam Haba, so then that difference in in in domicile becomes inconsequential and and irrelevant. So it's it's because of the tov lach perspective Olam Haba that a person is able to have the ashrecha of of Olam Hazeh. איזהו מכובד המכבד את הבריות שנאמר כי מכבדי אכבד ובוזי יקלו.
So here there seems to be a gap between the Ben Zoma statement and the pasuk. Ben Zoma's statement is that who's michubad, who's a dignified person upon whom dignity and respect are conferred, a person who's machabed es habriyos. But the pasuk ki mechabdai achabed, right? When when you look at that pasuk in context via the navi, that's Hakadosh Baruch Hu speaking. Hakadosh Baruch Hu says ki mechabdai achabed, right? In in sending the nevuah to Eli about how he's being punished for the actions of his sons, how there's not going to be a continuity to to the Beis Eli. So Hakadosh Baruch Hu says ki mechabdai achabed, right? Those who are machabed Me, I will be machabed, and your sons are not doing that, u'vozai yeikalu. So how does that prove that איזהו מכובד המכבד את הבריות? It's ממידות הקדוש ברוך הוא. It seems a tad overly optimistic to think that the mitzvah of vehalachta bidrachav notwithstanding that all the briyos are are operating by that that principle and that therefore they too will be machabed those who are machabed them. So lich'ora, you have the way to close the gap. The Rav once commented in a drasha... Why is it, again, we have an instinct for this so we never really ask ourselves the question because Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us an instinct for this? But why is it a terrible, terrible avla to attack a person? Why is it a heinous crime to kill a person? Or to ask the same question differently, right, we all have an instinct, I don't know those people who go around protesting experiments on mice and therefore plant bombs and kill people who are doing experiments on mice because of their moral sensitivity for mice, but leaving those moralists to the side, so we all have an instinct that there's a difference between I don't know eating fish, chicken, and meat on the one hand and rachmana litzlan killing a person on the other hand. So why is that? Why is there a difference? So the Rav said in a drasha: it's a pasuk that the reason it's so repugnant, reprehensible to attack another person, על אחת כמה וכמה a brother, a Jew, and the reason it's so heinous to kill someone is because of the tzelem elokim. Lest that appear to be too big of a chiddush, it's a pasuk in Chumash as the Rav pointed out in Parshas Noach: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך. The punishment for murder is capital, capital punishment. Why? Why, because it's terrible for society? Because why? כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם. That's how the Torah explains it. The yesod of bein adam lechavero, whether it's interpersonal within the Jewish family, whether it's interpersonal within humanity, begins with tzelem elokim. Again, interpersonal within the Jewish family is then builds on the tzelem elokim, בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם רחמנים בני רחמנים וכולי. But the yesod is tzelem elokim. Pashta says that this is the basis for kevod habriyos. The reason people have to treat each other, again, this is universal, this is humanity now, have to treat each other with basic dignity, kevod habriyos, is because of tzelem elokim. Kummt ois that when a person is mechabed es habriyos he's really being mechabed Hakadosh Baruch Hu. When a person's mechabed es habriyos he's really being mechabed Hakadosh Baruch Hu. משל למה הדבר דומה if, if a head of state sends one of his cabinet ministers and and that cabinet minister or sends one of his ambassadors, the respect shown to that minister, to that ambassador, is really respect that's being paid to the head of state. So kummt ois that a mechabed es habriyos is really being mechabed Hakadosh Baruch Hu, כי מכבדי אכבד ובוזי יקלו as well. So mimeila now the mishna is very good, איזהו מכובד המכבד את הבריות. We said there's a gap here, or there seems to be a gap here between what the mishna is saying, what Ben Zoma is saying and the pasuk. Ben Zoma is talking about if a person is mechabed people, he'll be mechubad. The pasuk says if you're mechabed Hakadosh Baruch Hu, He'll be mechabed you. Oh, but according to what we just discussed, so there is no gap, right, that gap turns out to have been an optical illusion. There is no gap here. Because a person who's being mechabed es habriyos is really being mechabed Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Because that, because it's the tzelem elokim which is the mechayev to be mechabed es habriyos, so mimaileh he's being מכבד את הקדוש ברוך הוא, so he'll be mechubad. כי מכבדי אכבד ובזי יקלו. Okay, we'll stop here, but בלי נדר אם ירצה השם, again next Thursday, so the limud will continue here in perek daled, mishna beis. Okay, rabbosai, everyone should have a good, productive day, days im yirtzeh hashem until we be reconvened אם ירצה השם בלי נדר and be well, be safe.