Rabbeinu Yona mentions a pasuk Nachpisa deracheinu venachkora. Nachpisa deracheinu means to identify the chataim and nachkora means to assess the chomer ha'avon. And he says that's necessary for three reasons. It's necessary because the teshuva has to be commensurate to the cheit. The teshuva isn't sort of just something generic which is one size fits all, but the teshuva has to match the cheit. If it's an avon chamur, a person isn't, the teshuva, the Al Cheit that a person claps is not the same as for the teshuva for an avon kal. So that's reason number one why the nachkora is a necessary prerequisite for teshuva. Then he says the nachkora also will help to arouse within the person, engender within the person a sense of busha when he asks for mechila. Again the mechila is also what a person is asking for is also the more the greater the cheit, so then the greater the sense of busha in asking for mechila. And then finally he says that even after we assume based on bitachon that if we did a sincere teshuva that Hakadosh Baruch Hu forgave us, there should be an ongoing sense of bushas, a sense of indebtedness of, you know, look at my actions and look at how Hakadosh Baruch Hu reciprocates. Look at how I acted as a kofui tov and look at how Hakadosh Baruch Hu אף על פי כן is mekabel shavim, is mechaper. The lashon Rabbeinu Yona uses are very, very precise here. Reading here in os beis, take a look raboosai. ועוד תועלת חקירת עוצם העוון לכסות כלימת פניו בשאלת המחילה.
Ki inyan shene'emar, אלהי בשתי ונכלמתי להרים אלהי פני אליך. So again that was reason or to'eles number two for the nachkora and now comes to'eles number three. ולעטות בושה על נפשו to sort of encircle, to enwrap his nefesh with busha לפני השם יתברך אחרי הביטחון בסליחתו. But notice how in to'eles number two, he speaks of kelima whereas in to'eles number three he speaks of busha. I mean it's the same, he's talking about the same cheit, right? It would be the Nachpisa deracheinu venachkora of whatever the specific cheit is. In the context of bakashas hamechila, so that nachkora arouses kelima, right? Lechasos kelimas panav. Right, he should his face should be covered with kelima in asking for mechila. And yet that same nachkora is not ולעטות כלימה על נפשו but is ולעטות בושה על נפשו. What's the difference between busha and kelima? So it seems in the Rambam it's clear, in the Rabbeinu Yona as well, it seems that kelima is something which is more intense than busha. Maybe busha we would translate as embarrassment and kelima as humiliation. And then what Rabbeinu Yona is saying is very meduyak. The din that a person what a person should experience in asking mechila is a sense of kelima. The feeling which accompanies the having received the mechila, the kapara, so then that's supposed to be busha. Ein hachi nami, the hakira is capable of being me'orer even kelima, but the din in terms of bakashas mechila so there ideally a person should experience the kelima. Mashe'ein kein in terms of the receiving and the welcoming of the mechila, so there that's a din of bushas and it's meduyak in the pesukim, right? Because the pasuk... Elokai boshti venichlamti. So it's not only bushah but even klima. Ma she'ein kein the posuk in Yechezkel למען תזכרי ובושת ולא יהיה לך עוד פתחון פה מפני כלימתך בכיפרי לך לכל אשר עשית.
The truth is that posuk does mention klima and the posuk that Rabbeinu Yonah doesn't quote, but it's not talking about the klima which is associated with receiving kapara, it's talking about the klima that we had in terms of our degradation in galus. So that's why it's not relevant to what he's saying. When you reflect for a minute on what Rabbeinu Yonah is speaking of here, I don't know if you do a survey, so my guess is, and it's only a guess, that people would sort of say, "Yeah, we misyaches" to again to'eles number two, that in asking for mechila there's an embarrassment. But from personal experience, I don't know how many of us on Motzaei Yom HaKippurim, so we do appropriately, which one should have, do have a sense of simcha which one is supposed to have on Motzaei Yom HaKippurim, Tosafos in Yoma quotes a Midrash that there's a bas kol on Motzaei Yom HaKippurim that says לך אכול בשמחה לחמך ושתה בלב טוב יינך כי כבר רצה אלקים את מעשיך
is the end of the posuk. So the simcha is correct, but how many of us sort of alongside the simcha have this sense of boshas? This seems to be more of a chiddush in the Rabbeinu Yonah. To'eles number three strikes us as more of a chiddush than to'eles number two. So why is that? You mean, sort of, you know, once Rabbeinu Yonah says it, they're equally compelling, right? They're equally compelling. So if you turn back for a moment to Sha'ar Rishon v'Ikkar HaShishi: HaBushah. כי עניין שנאמר בשתי וגם נכלמתי כי נשאתי חרפת נעורי.
Again, vegam translates and even, right? Boshti, I'm embarrassed, vegam, and even nichlamti, and even humiliated. והנה החוטא יבוש מאוד לעבור עבירה בפני בני אדם ויכלם אם ירגישו ויכירו בעבירותיו.
Right? Who wouldn't be humiliated to be exposed for all of his flaws and shortcomings and misdeeds? ואיך לא יבוש מהבורא יתברך? So how is it that we're not embarrassed and therefore inhibited from doing the chata'im in the first place? ve'ein zeh says Rabbeinu Yonah, כי אם לפי היות השם יתברך רחוק מכליותיו. Because Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not on the radar, he's not on our radar. על כן יבוש מהברואים ולא יבוש מהבורא יתברך. So Rabbeinu Yonah here, this is very important, Rabbeinu Yonah is explaining why bushah plays such a central role in teshuva and he says because bushah, the shoresh of he would have been inhibited from cheit and the boshes reflects his his renewed his reinstated awareness of being in the presence of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So what what Rabbeinu Yonah in Sha'ar Hashlishi is saying is that that something which is not only limited to the moment of teshuva as it were but that's something that that is supposed to be sustained because again why is it that we don't have this sense of that Rabbeinu Yonah's third to'eles you know sort of oh that's a chiddush and I haven't thought of all that is because I don't know whether we sustain that sense of being lifnei Hashem that one does have in doing teshuva otherwise it's impossible to do teshuva that one does have in doing teshuva but I don't know whether it's sustained you know when we finish popping the Al Cheit and when when when they blow the the tekiya in Kaddish Tiskabel after after Ne'ila. So the question is do we to what degree do we try to sustain that renewed awareness of being לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא. If we don't so then mimmela what Rabbeinu Yonah's boshes is going to be is going to be something new is going to be going to be a chiddush to us. Ma she'ein kein if if a person sustains it so then yeah so then yeah that is natural that that sense of boshes you know at the magnanimity of Hakadosh Baruch Hu in in granting kappara and mechila. המשל בזה כי חוטא לאדונו ובוש פניו לפניו אין נפשו אל העבד בלתי אחרי ידיעתו כובד פשעו ואם ידמה בנפשו כי החטא נקל יגדל הקצף עליו וכן יתחייב החוטא להכיר עוצם החטא ועונשו כעניין שנאמר הנה הסכלתי ואשגה הרבה מאוד.
So the moshal was going back to the first of the three to'aliyo's right? That the moshal that Rabbeinu Yonah is giving goes back to the first to'alas that the teshuva has to be commensurate to the cheit that the in doing teshuva a person has to be aware of the the magnitude the degree of cheit. That's what the that's what this moshal is amplifying. על כן הוצרכנו ללמד את בני יהודה לתורה ולכל חומרי העונש מהעוון וכל חטאת על כן על פי דברי ההקדמה הזאת.
That's why he's he's devoted Sha'ar Hashlishi to basically it's it's a Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of of all mitzvos and all dinim so that we should know what the chomer ha'aveira is for for each of these. ועוד לתועלת נשגבה גדולה ובצורה כי ראו עיני ראש עם חשובים מקילים בקצת עבירות ובפשעים שאף על פי שהם חטאות חמורות כי הם קלים ועל חייבי מיתות וכריתות כי הזהירות בהם יתרון הכשר ומידת חסידות ונכשלים מבלי משים ואין תוכחות על כן הוצרכנו להזהירם ולגלות אזנם על כל עבירות ואשמות וכי יש במצוות הקלות דברים נצמדים מאבן מקילה ואשמה כבדה כי לא יתמרץ ואובד הנפש ורבים מן הרשעים יעזבו דרכם כי ידעו האובדן וההפסד אשר בו בהגלות להם גודל החטא והאש שנגזרה עליו ונכשלים מעזוב חיל לכבוש תאוותם כי איככה יוכלו ברוע באובדן נפשם.
So this four the first three to'aliyo's of of the nachkora of knowing the godel hacheit are are intrinsic to mitzvas teshuva to the process of teshuva right? It's intrinsic to teshuva it's not it's not based on any shortcoming of the generation it's intrinsic to teshuva that again teshuva has to be commensurate to the cheit that the teshuva has to reflect it has to take into account the godel hacheit. The bakashas hamechila should reflect the awareness of the godel hacheit. very well with the sense of busha u'kelima, and afterwards, the bitachon in the mechila, in the kappara, should also engender busha. All those are intrinsic. Now Rabbeinu Yonah says historically there's a fourth, there will be a fourth to'eles to what I'm setting out to do. And that is he says in my generation, our generation, he says because of people's ignorance, they mistake aveiros chamuros for aveiros kalos, and they even mistake aveiros chamuros for being a middas chasidus. And what Rabbeinu Yonah is saying is really the emes is obviously whether it's objectively an aveira kala or an aveira chamura, obviously a person should be doing teshuva. But in our generation, he says that people are under the wrong impression that the aveira they did is an avon kal, so they're not nis'orer to do teshuva. But when you show them that the aveira was an aveira chamura, so then they are nis'orer to do teshuva. And that's what he's about to give us a mashal for. Vehamashal bazeh says Rabbeinu Yonah לאדם החפץ ללכת אל עיר. He wants to travel to a certain city. ויאמרו לו כי הדרך משובשת בקוצים ופחים ואבני נגף. They tell him there's all kinds of thorns and things you can get ensnared in and stones, you're gonna get bruised, you're gonna get cut. ולתוקף המקום ההוא לא יחדל מהליכה. Now his desire to go there, or in the mashal his need to go there, is so great that even though he knows he's gonna get cut by a thorn here and he's gonna get pricked here and he's gonna stumble and bang his knee on a stone here, okay, that won't deter him. והיה כי יאמרו לו כי שחל בדרך ונמר שוקד עליך.
That if they'll tell him that there are wild animals on the loose, there are lions on the loose, that it's mamash a sakanas nefashos, so then אז יחד רגלו מן הדרך ההוא. So then he'll be deterred by that. And it's really he should have been deterred by the first warning, but even though he wrongly will persist despite the first warning, he will take heed of the second warning. על כן אמר שלמה Alav Hashalom lada'as chochma umusar. Peirush, תקון המעשה ועזיבת העבירות יקרא חכמה. Chochma means to improve one's actions. כענין שנאמר כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם. ואחר שילמד וידע המצות ומה הם העבירות צריך שילמד גנות העבירות.
And then a person has to know that again the just how damaging and demeaning the aveiros are, וההפסד והאבדון הנמצא בהן והרחק נפשו מהם ולהוכיח עצמו בזכרם העונש המיוסר זולתו. וזאת הידיעה תקרא מוסר.
Okay, let's begin the madreiga rishona. המדרגה הראשונה חומר דברי סופרים. So from one perspective, the lowest level is divrei soferim. נצטוינו מן התורה לקבל תקנות הנביאים והשופטים ולשמוע דברי חכמים ולהזהר בגדריהם. שנאמר לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל. וגם כי הוזהרנו מן התורה לקיים עלינו להיות עושים ככל אשר יורונו. אכן מצות עשה מן התורה חמורה מדבריהם מפני שהוזכר עיקר הדבר בספר תורת אלקים בפירוש וצוה השם יתברך בו בפרט.
This is very interesting. So Rabbeinu Yonah is bothered or is preemptively coming to answer for us the following question. Heyos that Hakadosh Baruch Hu authorized all derabbanans, so why do we distinguish between derabbanans and deoraisas? That's the question that Rabbeinu Yona is addressing. וכן כי הוזהרנו מן התורה לקיים עלינו להיות עושים ככל אשר יורונה.
I'm not sure whether he means it to the extent of the Drashos HaRan. It could be he does, I'm not sure. But the Rambam writes in several places that derabbanans are authorized by lo sasur. Ramban understands that to mean that basically every derabbanan according to the Rambam becomes a deoraisa. And says and says how can that be? How can that be? And if that's the case, why do we say safek derabbanan lekula and safek deoraisa lechumra etc. and he quotes a whole bunch of different kulas that we have by derabbanans that don't exist by deoraisas. So the Drashos HaRan, the way the Drashos HaRan answers, the Drashos HaRan says that and Ramban says maybe, maybe you'll answer for the Rambam that when Chazal introduced the derabbanan, they introduced it with that stipulation that in a safek you should go lekula. Meaning ein hachami, every derabbanan is a deoraisa and there's no intrinsic difference but משל למה הדבר דומה the same way the halacha lemoshe misinai of orlah chutz la'aretz stipulates that sfeka mutar, so when Chazal made the derabbanans which become deoraisas because it's like a blank check, right? If someone signs a check and then you fill it in over their signature, so then it has the backing of their signature even though it's your handwriting on the top of the check. It's not that intrinsically it's more kal, it's just that it was a stipulation me'ikara. So Ramban says someone's going to say that defense of the Rambam? That's crazy. So the Drashos HaRan comes and says, well, I don't think that's so crazy. I think that's what the Rambam meant. I think that's gufeh what the Rambam meant. That is ein hachami, every derabbanan is a deoraisa and every derabbanan is a deoraisa. So does Rabbeinu Yona agree with that? I don't know, but either way Rabbeinu Yona is bothered with why are derabbanans more kal than deoraisas? And what's his answer? His answer's very interesting. Again, just maybe we'll read it for a minute and then try to understand. ועל כן מצוות עשה מן התורה חמורים מדבריהם מפני שהוזכר עיקר הדבר בספר תורת אלוקים מפורש וציווה השם יתברך עליו בפרט.
Let's say משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say, let's say the melech sends word with one of his officers, one of the someone from his entourage, he sends a message to someone that they should carry out a certain mission, they should do such and such, they should not do such and such. That's one ziyur. The other ziyur is that he tells it to them directly, peh el peh, that it's not that the melech sends a message to the person, but the melech has a direct private audience with them and tells it to them directly. I want you to do this. I'm telling you to do this. So even though either way it comes from the melech, but there is something intuitive that the meridah is greater in the second scenario than it is in the first. The fact that there's no intermediary, the fact that it was communicated directly without any anyone else involved, so then it's just a hundred percent between the melech and the subject, and the subject doesn't do it. even when that shaliach carries out the shlichus, he's doing it faithfully. He's not mosif, he's not goreia. But af al pi chen, the very fact that it's communicated through an intermediary, it makes a difference. And Rabbeinu Yonah says that's why there's a difference in the chomer ha'avon between derabbanan and d'oraissa. Lich'ora, with this, so again, it's not so much an answer as it is a perspective. And sometimes you have a question, you have an answer, and sometimes you just need to clean your glasses. You just need that perspective. There is a Ran in Nedarim Daf Ches where the Gemara says that האומר אשכם ואשנה פרק זה נדר גדול נדר לאלהי ישראל.
If a person says without saying bli neder, 'I'm going to get up tomorrow morning, I'm going to learn...' Daf Yomi, Kiddushin... where are we up to? Kiddushin 43. He says, 'I'm going to get up tomorrow morning, I'm going to learn Kiddushin 43,' he doesn't say bli neder, so נדר גדול נדר לאלהי ישראל. So the Gemara says, mai kamashma lan? So the Gemara says that kamashma lan that you might have thought that mushba v'omed and אין שבועה חלה על שבועה. I mean, he's already mushba v'omed to be mkayem mitzvos haTorah, so he's chayav in Talmud Torah. עד שיזרמו מים כחול ולפני ה' אלקיך ועברה בברית ה' אלקיך ובאלתו.
Ala is a lashon shvua. U'v'alaso, ala is a lashon shvua. So he's already mushba v'omed and אין שבועה חלה על שבועה. Gemara says no, that in terms of that, איבעי פטר נפשיה מקריאת שמע שחרית וערבית. That's the Gemara in Nedarim Daf Ches. The Ran says, I don't think the Gemara means what you might think it means at first glance. It doesn't mean that mitzvas Talmud Torah it's enough to say קריאת שמע שחרית וערבית. Again, we spoke about this in a different context, but we're talking about the shittas haRan. Ran says the emes is no, he's mechuyav to learn as much as he can, kfi kocho. Not קריאת שמע שחרית וערבית. Whatever, again, it depends upon the person, but whatever he can, a person's supposed to learn kfi kocho. But what the Gemara means is something different. The Gemara means that within mitzvas Talmud Torah, the only thing that's meforash b'kra is b'shachbecha u'vkumecha, that you have to learn v'shinantam l'vanecha when, v'shinantam l'vanecha when? You have to learn b'shachbecha u'vkumecha. It has to be sometime at night and sometime in the day. So what's meforash in Torah Shebiksav is just the equivalent of קריאת שמע שחרית וערבית. It's only based on the drashos Chazal that we know תמיד יומם ולילה כפי כחו. So when you learn, so what the Ran is saying is the shvua that was administered, that we're all mushba'im v'omdim to be mkayem mitzvos haTorah, which chap's a nafka mina in the sense that if a person takes a shvua that 'I'll put on tefillin tomorrow,' it's just a shvuas shav because he's already mushba v'omed. It's nothing. So it chap's a nafka mina that we're mushba'im v'omdim. Rabbeinu Yonah says, the Ran says, we're only mushba'im v'omdim on what's meforash baTorah. What is known based on the Torah Sheba'al Peh interpreting the Torah, we're not mushba'im v'omdim. But what difference does it make? This is d'oraissa and this is d'oraissa. So when you read the Ran, you have it seems arbitrary. It's as if we're mushba'im v'omdim on every pasuk alef in Chumash but not on pasuk beis, on every pasuk gimmel but not on psukim daled. It seems like an arbitrary distinction. No, but lich'ora according to this Rabbeinu Yonah, the same perspective that Rabbeinu Yonah provides that distinguishes d'oraissas and derabbanans really distinguishes within d'oraissas between what's totally meforash b'kra and what's known to be the meaning and intent of the pasuk על פי תורה שבעל פה. Because there too there's an intermediary, not an intermediary in being metzaveh, but there's an intermediary. The mashal for that would be that the person's called in for a direct audience, but the Melech spoke very cryptically in terms of, 'I want you to go to that city and take care of things.' What does 'take care of things' mean? So one of the mesharshei haMelech explains, he knows how the So there too, on the one hand, that's more than the d'rabonon, that's more than the d'rabonon, but m'idach pisa, there is some other involvement here. So you can understand, you have a perspective on again, that's not to say that we wouldn't necessarily have known on our own that we're only mushpom on one and not the other, but it's a way of processing how that's a very cogent distinction. And really, based on Rabbeinu Yonah, so there would really be three dargas. There's a darga of what's mofurash bak'ra because that's צוה השם יתברך עליו בפרט, and then there's underneath that, that would be something which is a din d'oraisa, but it's a din d'oraisa... actually Rabbeinu Yonah the emes is also going to draw this distinction in a second, is a din d'oraisa based on the Torah sheba'al peh's interpretation, and then there's something which is the din d'rabonon. Ultimately they all come from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. They all have the backing of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they're all tzivuyim from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but the more intermediacy there is, so then the less chomer the aveirah is. So do you want to, do you want to touch... if you keep talking long enough they forget the questions and you can just say whatever you want. ויש דרכים וצדדים ימצאו שם דברי סופרים חמורים מדברי תורה כאשר אמרו רבותינו ז"ל חומר בדברי סופרים מדברי תורה שהאומר אין תפילין לעבור על דברי תורה פטור חמש טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים חייב וכל העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה.
So these are lichora two different, he said דרכים וצדדים לשון רבים because what Rabbeinu Yonah references here are two totally different dinim. Din number one is the din by zoken mamre. The zoken mamre is the point of disagreement between the zoken mamre and the chachamim can't be if the zoken mamre will come and say Shabbos is not the seventh day of the week, it's on a different day of the week. So that's mofurash baTorah, right? It's mofurash baTorah וביום השביעי שבת להשם אלקיך. So then he wouldn't become a zoken mamre, he'd be a kofer baTorah but he wouldn't be a zoken mamre. Analogously, if he'll say there's no such thing as mitzvas tfillin, he's not a zoken mamre, it says mofurash baTorah וקשרתם לאות על ידך. If he'll say that there should be five compartments in the tfillin instead of four, so it doesn't say that mofurash baTorah. It's drashos chazal on totafos. So there he becomes a zoken mamre. That's din number one that the Rabbeinu Yonah's referencing. Din number two is from the Gemara in Berachos daf daled that וכל העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה. חכמים עשו סייג לדבריהם כדי שלא יהא אדם בא מן השדה בערב ואמר אלך לביתי ואוכל קימעא ואשתה קימעא ואישן קימעא ואחר כך אקרא קריאת שמע ואתפלל וחטפתו שינה ונמצא ישן כל הלילה.
So a person's not supposed to eat and drink before davening maariv. אבל אדם בא מן השדה בערב נכנס לבית הכנסת רגיל לקרות קורה ורגיל לשנות שונה.
This brayisa is probably the mokor... historically there was a practice in Europe, so there used to be different chaburas of people learning. Some people were learning chumash, some people were learning ein yaakov, and some people were learning mishnayos. And that's what the Gemara says: רגיל לקרות קורה ורגיל לשנות שונה. Whatever a person's level of comfort is in learning, he should learn. וקורא קריאת שמע ומתפלל ואוכל פיתו ומברך. And only after davening does he eat dinner. וכל העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה. So the inyan is, this is the second thing Rabbeinu Yonah is referencing, meaning let's say if a person won't daven Maariv, won't say Krias Shema, is he not going to be chayav misa? Right? If he won't say קריאת שמע של ערבית, we don't say he's chayav misa. We would say he's mevatel mitzvas asei. Being mevatel mitzvas asei is not a chiyuv misa. But if he tramples on this syag, right? Which is kind of ironic. The syag is to protect mitzvas Krias Shema, to protect Arvis, and yet the syag is chamur than the mitzva d'Oraisa itself. That's what Rabbeinu Yonah, the second thing he's referencing. And now he says pshat. ואתה אל תתמה על דבריהם שאמרו העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה ויהיה יותר חמור מהעובר על מצות עשה ומצות לא תעשה.
How can that be given the fact that as paragraph number one begins and as we know that divrei Sofrim themselves are kal from divrei Torah, yet העובר על דברי סופרים it's chamur than being עובר על דברי תורה? So how do you reconcile those two things? Intrinsically the d'Rabbanan is kal from the d'Oraisa. But in terms of onesh, the d'Rabbanan is chamur. So how does that work? וזה פשר הדבר כי העובר על דברי חכמים אשם מלא לבב לעשות כן כי תקלו מצותם בעיניו לא מהתגבר יצרו עליו.
Rabbeinu Yonah says typically, he doesn't mean that there are no exceptions, but typically Rabbeinu Yonah says when a person is over on a d'Rabbanan, so deep down, really what causes him to do it is because he has, he takes d'Rabbanans lightly. Deep down that's what's happening. It's not that he's, when a person is over on a d'Oraisa, so typically it's just because he's overcome with taiva and he succumbs in a moment of weakness. But when it comes to d'Rabbanans, typically what happens is not because it's that same overwhelming taiva that he fails to resist, but it's rather because it's not such a big deal. Not such a big deal. What is it anyway? It's not such a big deal, right? כי תקלו מצותם בעיניו. It's because he takes it, he takes it lightly. Lo mihisgaber Hayetzer אלא כי תכונה אינו רואה אותם דברי אלוהים חיים ולא נמשך אחר גזרתם ולא יטרח לקיים מאמרם ככל הנכתב בספר תורה. ומה שאין כן בעובר על דברי תורה שנחשבו חמורים לו ומתחזקים בפניו.
And even after the fact, so if a person rachmana litzlan is over on a d'Oraisa, so then we have terrible pangs of conscience. ויירא וייצר לו כי השיאו יצרו לחטוא. And before the fact, so it's a pachad that the Yetzer Hara is pushing us to do a d'Oraisa. על כן משפט מוות יהיה לאיש כי הפיל דבר אחד מכל דבריהם הטובים.
So basically והוא כעומד ומנתק מוסרותיהם ודומה למה שכתוב בעניין זקן ממרא על פי חכמים והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון לבלתי שמוע אל הכהן.
So Rabbeinu Yonah says that basically the reason d'Rabbanans call העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה is because typically it's an act of rebellion. And when something is done rebelliously, so then the punishment and sort of the consequences are not just determined by what the chet is intrinsically but the way the person did the chet. משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say that you have the neveilah u'treifah and a person eats the neveilah u'treifah l'teiavon. Okay, so what happens? And let's say he does it habitually, not just once. So he becomes a mumar l'teiavon. It means that he's a mumar that he gives in to temptation when it comes to this issur. You wouldn't trust him as a mashgiach of kashrus because you see that in this realm he's a mumar, that he doesn't overcome his temptation. But that's sort of the extent of what you say about the person. Let's say he eats the neveilah u'treifah l'hachis. He eats l'hachis, he bedafka goes out of his way to be eating non-kosher food. If there's kosher food or non-kosher food available and they both taste the same and it's the same cost, everything, he bedafka, he bedafka spitefully takes the non-kosher food. So then he's a mumar l'hachis. No, but in terms of the rishus hagavra, you don't measure the rishus hagavra only by sort of what the aveirah מצד החפצא של עבירה is, but you measure it by how the person does the aveirah. And Rabbeinu Yonah says that's what Chazal mean by העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה, because Chazal are assuming that typically the reason we do that is because we're taking Derabbanans lightly, which means we're rebelling. That we're not acknowledging the weight that Derabbanans do have, we're not acknowledging fully the authority that Chazal do have and because of that, that's why we're ki tekal be'einav. So mimaila that's the mashal he gives to the zakein mamrei. You understand?