Equipped with this vav here in Shaar Hashlishi, vahashniya, the second reason, the second explanation for העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה כי האיש ההוא רחוק מן התשובה אחרי אשר אין הדבר חמור עליו כי ישנו באולתו תמיד.
He'll be a repeat offender Rachmana litzlan. והחטא הקל ענשו יותר מן החמור ויכשל בו החוטא פעמים רבות.
The Chofetz Chaim has a similar comment in his hakdama to Chofetz Chaim when he explains the prominence of cheit lashon in terms of arichus hagolus. So he says, besides its inherent chomer, the fact that there's such widespread zilzul means that Rachmana litzlan, if a person is not sensitive to shmiras halashon, it's as Rabbeinu Yonah comments here an aveira that will be repeated again and again and again. Question is whether this obviously the context is very different whether or not this is relevant to a famous diyun in halacha. The Rosh and the Ran in the last perek Maseches Yoma quote the question that was posed to the Ra'avad that you have a חולה שיש בו סכנה בשבת and the doctor says it's critical, absolutely critical that he eat meat right away. And the two options are either to shacht, there's no basar shchuta available so we'd have to shacht, or there is basar nevela. So which do we opt for? Do we shacht or do we give him the basar nevela? Everyone agrees that we shacht but the Rishonim have different reasons for that psak. The reason that the Ran gives, again this isn't the reason that Ra'avad gives and it's not the reason that the Maharam gives, but the reason that the Ran gives is because at first glance as the shoel to the Ra'avad suggested, nevela is an issur lav and shchita b'Shabbos is an issur skila, so clearly nevela is an issur kal relative to the issur chamur of melacha b'Shabbos. And when you have a case of pikuach nefesh, so the braisa says in Maseches Yoma hakal hakal techila. That you look to if avoiding an issur is necessary, okay you obviously you do it without question for pikuach nefesh, but if you have a choice, so all things being equal, hakal hakal techila. So does that indicate that you should opt for nevela? And everyone comes out and says no it doesn't in this case because there's some other consideration. And the reason that the Ran gives is that the choleh needs to eat a few kezaysim. So really the way to look at the question is multiple kezaysim of nevela versus a one-time shchita. And he says an issur lav which will be repeated let's say a person were eating nevela b'meizid and for each kezayis you'd give him you'd give him hasra'a, so he'd get malkus for each kezayis. So it's each one is its own ma'aseh aveira. Again, you would need a separate hasra'a for each kezayis in order halacha l'ma'aseh for the person to get malkus, but the point that it illustrates is clear. So the Ran says it's more chamur to be over an issur lav multiple times than to be over the issur melacha b'Shabbos once, which is again which is sort of the analog to what Rabbeinu Yonah here is commenting, again obviously in a very different context and on a very different level. Question is whether there's any tliya or not. It's very hard to know how the Ran got it. Like how can you like I mean how can you compare how did you know how chomer an issur Shabbos is versus like let's say there was one let's say a be over alav twice? Like would that already like how the Ran like make that comparison? What's the lashon HaRan? I don't remember whether would even twice be enough? I don't know, could someone get the lashon HaRan? It's in the eighth perek in Yoma, the Ran on the Rif, eighth perek in Yoma. I presume yeah, I don't know. I guess you could ask the same question, you know, in our Rabbeinu Yona. What does pamim rabos mean? Again, here it's not halacha l'maiseh because it's dinei shamayim, but in the Ran's case it's actually הלכה למעשה בדיני אדם. But a similar question would come up here. Thank you very much. אבל נראה לומר דלגבי חולה אין איסור נבילה קל מאיסור שבת. שני הנבילה איסור לאו ושבת איסור סקילה, איכא חומרא אחרינא בנבילה לפי שהאוכלה עובר בלאו על כל כזית וכזית שבה, כדאמרינן לגבי נזיר שהיה שותה יין, אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה, חייב על כל אחת ואחת. אבל לעניין שבת לא עובר אלא בשעת שחיטה וחד לאו הוא דאיכא. ומשום הכי לאוין הרבה דנבילה לא מקרי איסור קל לגבי חד לאו דשבת.
I don't know, you asked me very well, I don't know what the answer is. It's hard to it's hard to know what other than two where you'd have a mokor to how is it not arbitrary to say anything other than two? But on the other on the other hand, the lashon is lavin harbei. I don't know if two is harbei. I don't know the answer. עוד אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה כי טובים דודיך מיין חביבין דברי סופרים יותר מיינה של תורה ואנחנו צריכים גם לפרש זה.
How can that be? ידוע תדע כי יראת השם יסוד המצוה שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה השם אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה את השם אלהיך ולזה ירצה השם את ברואיו כמו שנאמר רוצה השם את יראיו ותקנות חכמים וגדריהם יסוד לדרך היראה כי יעשו גדר והרחקה פן תיגע יד אדם באיסור התורה כבעל השדה שיעשה גדר לשדהו מאשר יקר בעיניו כי ירא פן יכנסו בו בני אדם
ki yafei people will trespass והיה למשלח שור ולמרמס שה. And the animals will trample there. כעניין שנאמר ושמרתם את משמרתי עשו משמרת למשמרתי ורוב הזהירות והגדר וההרחקה מן האיסור הלא זה מעיקרי המורא.
Rabbeinu Yona says this very beautifully. He says, which is the higher or fuller expression of yiras shamayim? If a person is nizar on a din d'Oraisa or if the person is nizar on a din d'rabonon which is a harchaka? So he says that the higher level of yiras shamayim is when the person's yiras shamayim is not only that he doesn't want to he doesn't want to be guilty of the issur, he doesn't want to come any place close to possibly be over. That's the higher and fuller expression of yiras shamayim. And that's what Chazal mean that חביבים דברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה vehamarbeh lehizaher יגיע אל השכר הגדול excuse me כעניין שנאמר גם עבדך נזהר בהם בשמרם עקב רב על כן אמרו חביבים דברי סופרים יותר מיינה של תורה כי דבריהם וגזרותיהם מעיקרי היראה ומצוות היראה שכר הרבה כנגד מצוות רבות כי היא היסוד להם
vehadugma ladavar example כי הנזהר מהתייחד עם אישה מפחד פן ייכשל בעוון וכאשר גזרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה הלו זה ממה שזרחה על נפשו אור יראת אלוקים יתברך הנה הקדמנו לך בשער היראה
Sha'arei Teshuva was part of a much larger work from Rabbeinu Yonah that we don't have that he's going to refer to Sha'arei Avodah, Sha'ar HaYirah. It was a much larger work. We have Sha'arei Teshuva. הנה הקדמנו לך בשער היראה כי נתחייב אדם לראות בבנים
that's a funny sentence here ולהתבונן בהם ולהבדיל בין עיקש ופתלתול ובין הישר הולך ותועלת נשגבה אשר הודענוך
I'm not sure exactly what that sentence means. A person should be discerning about people, I don't know why he used the lashon banim, about people who go a crooked way, it's gedreit, they go crooked and those who go straight. והנה כי תראה כי שר אנשים זלזלו ומזלזלים בנטילת ידים וישבו לאכול לחם ואינם מברכים לפני אוכלם ואחרי אוכלם וכהנה רבות מדברי חכמים ותקנותיהם אשר פורצים גדריהם
bezot yivachnu ובזאת תדע ובחנת את דרכם You can take the pulse of such an individual just by observing that behavior. כי הם באים בחטאים אשם מאוד ואחריתם עדי אובד and then he's quoting a pasuk by Anshei Sedom? Wow. כי הם באים בחטאים אשם מאוד ואחריתם עדי אובד ועליהם אמרו כל העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה.
So why in this context did he also mention that אינם מברכים אחרי אוכלם? Either because מעשה שהיה כך היה, the derabbanans, the derabbanans he means is mezalzel netilat yadayim and they don't say hamotzi. Inami, the fact that they're not mevarech achar ochlam, that's already a din de'oraita, but you know he's just sort of describing what apparently was something that was benimtza in his generation, but the derabbanan part of it is the first two, that mezalzel netilat yadayim and אינם מברכים לפני אוכלם. Ultimately he's talking about that depending upon what their habits were, right, if a person, let's say, I think we do this quite often, if a person will wash and make hamotzi, he'll have fleishigs, kezayis, kebeitza, however much bread he eats, and then he doesn't really eat any more bread for the rest of the meal, and then he eats keday seva, so the pshat is that he's not chayav in ברכת המזון מן התורה, because he's chayav in birkat hamazon derabbanan if he stops after a kezayis also, but the pshat is if he eats it together with the bread, so it doesn't have to be that the seva is achar kach is exclusively owing to the lechem that the person eats, but mido derabbanan if a person is eating it, let's say he's eating a sandwich, he's eating it with the with the bread, but if a person first eats the bread and then eats the rest of the meal and doesn't eat any bread, so when he reaches even though he'll reach keday seva he's only birkat hamazon mid'rabbanan. That's why all time European Jews used to have a habit that they used to eat with the challah with everything they were eating. When they eat the chicken, they'd eat it with the challah. Whatever they were eating, they had a little bit of challah, presumably to be able to trigger a mitzvah d'oraisa of benshing. ועליהם אמרו כי העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה, כי המעלולים האלה לא יכריחם היצר עליהם, ולא תשקפם תולדות החומר והתאוה הגשמית לחטוא בהם.
It's not that they're succumbing to a yeitzer hara, they're succumbing to a ta'avah. אם זה כי אם רוע לב ופורק עול שמים מעל צווארם.
As as he had said earlier on the העובר על דברי סופרים, or העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה, it's for the rebelliousness she-bo, not for what's inherent in the aveira per se, but the rebelliousness she-bo. והנה הם ככל המון כת הזדים האומרים לאל סור ממנו ודעת דרכיך לא חפצנו. גם הם רחוקים מדרך האמת, גם הכת אשר אינם נזהרים מגבינה של עובדי עבודה זרה, בישולי עובדי עבודה זרה.
Again, dinim d'rabbanan, כי יקלו דברי חכמים בעיניהם, אף על פי שחוטאים למלאות בטנם.
Here the Rabbeinu Yona says there is an element of ta'avah, but l'ma'aseh intermingled with it is also just that they're scorning divrei chachamim, meaning they wouldn't eat מאכלות אסורות מן התורה. So agam that it's the ta'avah, but it's also because of this treating lightly, dismissively, contemptuously divrei chachamim. הנה בזה דברי חכמים ושב עול התורה והמורא. גם עליהם אמרו העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה כאשר ביארנו. והשנית כי אחרי שידעו כי עם הקודש נשמרים בכל אלה,
even forget the fact that it's a din d'rabbanan. Maybe it had never been niskan as a din d'rabbanan, maybe it was some kind of harchaka which became universally accepted. And then they disassociate. הבדל יבדילו עצמם מקהל עמנו ופרשו מדרכי ציבור. ואמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה כי הפורש מדרכי ציבור.
The Rambam lists and quotes this Gemara in Rosh Hashana, Rabbeinu Yona is about to quote, as one of those who rachmana litzlan loses a cheilek l'olam haba. יורדים לגיהנום ונידונים שם לדורי דורות. ודע כי העובר על דברי חכמים עונשו ביד בית דין להכותו מכת מרדות, כפי אשר עיני בית דין רואות ליסרו ולעונשו בעת ההיא, אם לפחות מארבעים או להוסיף להלקותו על אלה.
Right, unlike malkos Torah which has a set amount of thirty-nine, so makkas mardus is לפי ראות עיני הבית דין. Okay. Hamadrega hashniya in terms of mitzvos, mitzvos assei. יסוד השכר ושורש הגמול חלף העבודה בקיום מצות עשה. כמו שנאמר וירא מצוה הוא ישולם, ונאמר ושבתם וראיתם וגו' בין עובד אלהים לאשר לא עבדו.
What was the raya from the first passuk in Mishlei וירא מצוה הוא ישולם? I don't know, there must be some context that indicates he's talking about a mitzvas assei. Right, Rabbeinu Yona is saying that the schar that we get is for mitzvos assei. Mitzvos lo sa'asei inherently are not a source of schar. That's what this line means. יסוד השכר ושורש הגמול, the foundation for... of the reward and and the and the root of the of the recompense that again that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gives us is in exchange for וחלף העבודה בקיום מצוות עשה. So schar is davka for mitzvos asei according to Rabbeinu Yonah. והעבודה היא במצוות התלויות במעשה בין שאין בהן מצוות עשה בין שיש עמהן בין שאין בהן זולתי מצוות עשה בין שיש עמהן לא תעשה כגון בצדקה.
So there's some mitzvos where you have twin asei and lo saasei. Either way there's schar for the asei. שנאמר לא תאמץ את לבבך. ומצוות העבודה תתבאר בשער העבודה בעזרת השם.
It's what we mentioned before, the the other parts of of this work. אולם יימצא דרך בשכר הנזהר מעבור מצוות לא תעשה. There is a mitzvah lo saasei can occasion schar even though it itself is not a source of schar, right? That's what this means. יימצא דרך בשכר הנזהר מעבור מצוות לא תעשה אשר השיג ישיג לשכר אותה מצווה כגון בנזדמן דבר עבירה ליד האיש והתאווה תאבה לדבר עבירה וכבש יצרו כי זה מעיקר יראת השם יתברך.
So if a person experiences a taiva for dvar aveira and is kovesh yitzo, so then he does get schar, but it sounds like from Rabbeinu Yonah the pshat is that ein hachi nami the zehiras in the lo saasei is the occasion, but the schar is for becoming the mitzvah asei of yiras Hashem. Right, so the again, the occasion is provided by the lo saasei, but the schar is not really for the lo saasei itself. וכן מי שנזדמן לידו להתעשר באונאה ותרמית ואין רואה ואין יודע.
You have a customer walks into the store and he's clueless as to what a fair price is. So the moicher could charge him an exorbitant and exorbitant price and no one would know the difference. והסתלק בתומו ובור כפיו שכרו על זה כזורע לצדקה וטורח במצווה.
But again, it's for the it's for the yiras Hashem she'bo. So this is a this is a big machlokes. The Maharal says either something similar or or identical. Question on how you learn pshat in the Maharal. The Maharal, one of the contexts in which he says it is in the following in parshas Vayigash when Rashi cites the Chazal that Shimon married Dinah, Shaul ben HaKenaanis. So when that Shimon married Dinah. So apropos of that, the Maharal deals with the kashya that Ramban and others, the Teshuvos HaRashba of given that Avraham Avinu שקיים כל התורה כולה, so how do we understand that Yaakov married two sisters? And how do we understand that Shimon married Dinah etc.? Different different answers, right? The Ramban famously says no, only in only in Eretz Yisrael, not in chutz la'aretz. And the Teshuvos HaRashba says no, Chazal tells us davka Avraham Avinu שקיים כל התורה כולה, but but it wasn't something that he instructed Yitzchak and Yaakov to do afterwards. And so the shevatim didn't didn't observe kol HaTorah kulo kifshuto k'mashmao. So the Gur Aryeh suggests the following. He says when when Avraham Avinu, well not Avraham Avinu, but but when Yitzchak, Yaakov, the shevatim observe kol HaTorah kulo, it means davka mitzvos asei, not mitzvos lo saasei. And the explanation he gives is as follows: מי שאינו מחויב בדבר כמו הסומא אליבא דרבי יהודה והנשים במצוות שהן פטורות מצווה הוא דעבדי ומקבלים שכר זהו דווקא במצוות עשה דיש על זה שכר על מצוות לא תעשה שאין קיבול שכר על מצוות לא תעשה. ומאחר שלא נצטוו למה יקיימו?
What will be, ich veiss nisht, I don't know, a the daughter of a Kohen that the Maharal goes on to give this example, the daughter of a Kohen will voluntarily avoid tumat meit the same way her father, the same way her brothers are מוזהר על הנפש לא יטמא, she will voluntarily practice that the same way she eats in the Sukkah. So the Maharal says so eating in the Sukkah, so she's being mekayemet a mitzvah and she gets sechar and being nizhar in tumat meit, so she's not doing anything and because she's not doing anything she doesn't get any sechar. And hu hadin, again with the exception of Avraham Avinu for other reasons that the Maharal talks about, but hu hadin the Avos, the Shevatim, kodem matan Torah, so they were מקיים כאינו מצווה ועושה מצוות עשה, but there is no inyan to be nizhar as an eino metzuveh v'oseh on a mitzvas lo ta'aseh. And that's why, that's why Yaakov Avinu married two sisters and Amram married his aunt, etc. Veha'chiluk, what's the sevara? והחילוק שיש בין עשה ובין לא תעשה ידוע לכל משכיל. כי מצוות עשה הוא קניין מעשה מפני שהיא קניין אף על גב שלא נתחייב בה, אבל מצוות לא תעשה שאינה מצווה קניין המעשה רק שישב ולא יעשה ואינו קונה שום דבר ועיקר המצווה שלא יעבור רצון הבורא יתברך שעסר עליו.
The Maharal suggests a mitzvas aseh has positive content, right? A mitzvas aseh has tochen, it has positive content. That positive content is meaningful and significant even as an eino metzuveh v'oseh, which is why again after matan Torah, so it's it's it's very appropriate that an ishah should sit in a Sukkah, that she should bentsh lulav ve'chulu and it's meaningful because it has positive content. Mah she'ain kein a mitzvas lo ta'aseh has no content. The only content to the mitzvas lo ta'aseh is to be nizhar on שלא יעבור רצון הבורא יתברך שעסר עליו. There is no content to the mitzvas lo ta'aseh. So mimeila, it's not nitpas in eino metzuveh v'oseh, which is why there would be no sechar and which is why again, not that the Avos were measuring things by sechar but because there's no content to it, so it's not nitpas in eino metzuveh v'oseh. That's the Maharal. Now Maharal also, like Rabbeinu Yonah, recognizes that there are occasions when a mitzvas lo ta'aseh will be an occasion for sechar because the Gemara in Kiddushin says that beferush. Gemara Kiddushin lamed-tes that Rabbeinu Yonah is about to quote, the Maharal quotes as well, ישב ולא עבר עבירה נותנים לו שכר כעושה מצווה. So that's a beferushe Gemara. So what do Rabbeinu Yonah and what do the Maharal do with it? So Rabbeinu Yonah again says it explicitly that basically that the encounter with the potential aveira is an occasion to be mekayem the mitzvas aseh of yiras Hashem. That's how Rabbeinu Yonah says. The Maharal, not clear whether the Maharal means that. The Maharal says that the way the Gemara illustrates the case, so the Gemara says אמרו התם כגון שבא דבר עבירה לידו וניצל הימנה. Again, he had occasion to be chotei and he wasn't chotei. But then the example the Gemara gives is very, very dramatic. Ki ha hi, Gemara tells two stories about Amoraim, both of whom were nitba'im liznus by a matron. To accommodate and the Gemara tells what they resorted to to avoid over aveira. So the Maharal says it's for that mesirus nefesh that the schar comes, again, not for the mitzvas lo saasei per se, but for the mesirus nefesh needed to... Now, does he mean by that yiras shamayim like Rabbeinu Yonah? Not clear. But either way, they're certainly in the same camp that... that inherently there's no schar for mitzvas lo saasei, and again, the way the Maharal says gets the explanation more fully is because there is no tochen to the mitzvas lo saasei. There is no positive content in the mitzvas lo saasei. Leumasam, so the Rambam disagrees with that. The Rambam in Peirush Hamishnayos in Avos, Mishnah says in Perek Beis, Mishnah Aleph that הוי מחשב הפסד מצוה כנגד שכרה ושכר עבירה כנגד הפסדה.
The Rambam says, and previously in the previous line in the Mishnah is, הוי זהיר במצוה קלה כבחמורה שאין אתה יודע מתן שכרן של מצות.
So for the most part we don't know what the מתן שכרן של מצות is. Neither, says the Rambam, for fulfilling mitzvos lo saasei nor for being nizar on mitzvas lo saasei. But then in some cases we can... we can surmise what the schar is going to be. Some mitzvos assei are coupled with a mitzvas lo saasei. So let's say not doing melacha on Shabbos is a mitzvas assei of shevisa and it's a mitzvas lo saasei of lo saaseh melacha. And we know what the onesh for lo saaseh melacha is, so that gives you... that gives you an indication of what the schar is for the mitzvas assei of shovess mi-melacha. Similarly שכר עבירה כנגד הפסדה, the Torah never tells us what the schar is for not eating neveilah, but the Torah tells us what the onesh is for eating the neveilah. That the onesh is an onesh of malkus. So that's not the most chamurdik onesh, but it is a chamurdik onesh. So that again gives you some indication as to where the schar is, what the schar is for being nizar in a lo saasei. And the Rambam says meforash: גם כן אמר שכר עבירה כשלא תעשה אותה גם זה לא התבאר. אמנם תלמדהו מענשה שהחטא אשר ענש עשהו גדול שכר הנחתו כפי הערך הוא מן הגדול כמו שהתבאר בקידושין באמרם כל היושב ולא עבר עבירה נותנים לו שכר כעושה מצוה.
That's a very fundamental machlokes. So how does the Rambam learn pshat when the Gemara in Kiddushin says that that braisa which says that the schar for lo saaseis is כגון שבא דבר עבירה לידו? If it's for the lo saasei inherently, so why does it have to be בא דבר עבירה לידו? So it's klar like this. Right, even the Rambam obviously agrees, let's say you go take a nap this afternoon. So while you're taking a nap, you're getting schar for mitzvos lo saasei that you're not doing? I don't know, we should just sleep all day. We'd be in better shape then than walking around awake. No, so clearly, clearly even if you hold like the Rambam that there is schar inherently for mitzvos lo saasei, it has to mean... you don't need the dramatic examples the Gemara gives. That's a question how does he learn that according to the Rambam, but it has to mean, I don't know, you're hungry and you go... you go shopping, you're in the supermarket. So you only buy the kosher food, you don't buy the treif food. So then you're being mikayem the various issurim of maachalos assuros. You're going into a pizza store, you go into a kosher pizza store not to a treif pizza store, you're being mikayem. But just stam azoy, stam azoy at 10:30 in the morning you're not hungry, you're not shopping, you're not eating, you're not doing anything, you're not being mikayem that mitzvah at that moment. But the point is for the Rambam when the Lo Sa'aseh is relevant to what you're doing. When the Lo Sa'aseh is relevant to what you're doing, so then there is schar inherently for the Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh. Ay, but the Maharal, what is the Rambam's answer going to be to the Maharal's tayna? But there's no content to the Lo Sa'aseh. So the emes is that given the Rambam's understanding there is no difference between Asehs and Lo Sa'asehs. The Rambam says in Shemoneh Perakim, he says the majority of Mitzvos HaTorah are to discipline our middos. To discipline our middos. Now disciplining our middos happens equally through Mitzvos Aseh as it does through Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh. Sometimes the Torah says, so we human nature there's a tendency to be stingy. So all the mitzvos we have of Tzedakah and Matnos Aniyim from Min HaSadeh. All of that is to refine that middah within us. But it's equally true of the Lo Sa'aseh which says ושכחת עומר בשדה לא תשוב לקחתו, the Lo Sa'aseh which says that you can't go back for shikcha in Matnos Aniyim BaSadeh is equally training our middos as the Mitzvas Aseh of actively giving the Tzedakah. So they very much do have the same content according to the Rambam's understanding. ועוד אמר ליראי השם ולחושבי שמו זה הבא דבר עבירה לידו וניצול הימנו,
I'm not sure why he quotes it initially from that Midrash and not from the Gemara. וגם השכר הזה עיקר ויסוד מצות עשה של כבש יצרו ויראת אלוקים.
So again the Lo Sa'aseh is the occasion, but the schar is for Yiras Hashem כמשנאמר השם אלוקיך תירא ואמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה והוי זהיר במצוה קלה כבחמורה שאין אתה יודע מתן שכרן של מצות. והנה בתורה פירש מה יעשה לכל העובר על מצות לא תעשה
when there's malkos, when there's misa, etc. ויחלק עליהם עונשים ומשפטים ודת מה לעשות בהם. Different types of onashim. והעונשים מלכות ארבעים מיתה כרת בידי שמיים ארבע מיתות בית דין ומתן שכר כל מצוה לא נתפרש בתורה.
Why not? כדי שלא יחדלו לקיים המצוות הקלות ויעסקו בחמורות לבדנה. Okay, we'll stop here.