Think with what's towards the end of Os Tes here in HaShelishi. ואמרו רבותינו הוי זהיר במצווה קלה כבחמורה שאין אתה יודע מתן שכרן של מצוות. והנה בתורה פורש מה יעשה בכל העובר על מצות לא תעשה. ויחלק עליהם עונשים ומשפטים כדת מה לעשות בהם. העונשים מלקות ארבעים וייסורין בידי שמיים וארבע מיתות בית דין.
By contrast, ומתן שכר על כל מצווה לא נתפרש בתורה כדי שלא יחדלו לקיים המצוות הקלות ויעסקו בחמורות לבדן. ומשלו על זה מעניין המלך שאמר לעבדו לנטוע בפרדסו כל עץ נחמד ושכר אמר לעשות להם ולא הודיעם שכר מטע כל אילן כי חפץ המלך שלא יחסר כל בפרדסו על כן יטעוהו ואלו ממנו נטעי האמונים. ואילו ידעו עבדיו שכר נטיעת כל עץ מעצי הפרדס אז יתנו כל עמלם בנטיעי מטעיו אשר שכרם רב מן השאר להרבות השכר. כן עניין המצוות כי הועיל השם לזכות את ישראל בקיום כל המצוות להנחילם חיי עולם ולהיות כל המצוות יחד לויית חן לראשם כי בהשלים חוק מלאכתם תהא משכורתם שלמה מעימו. הלא ידעת כי אמרו רבותינו זכר לברכה כל העוסק בתורה בלבד דומה כמי שאין לו אלוה אף על פי שאמרו תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם. והמצווה הקלה שכרה גדול והפלא אשר לא ימד ולא יספר. הלא סיפר במצווה שילוח הקן שאין בה טורח ולא פיזור ממון נאמר בה למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים. ואמרו רבותינו זכר לברכה רבי יעקב אומר אין לך מצווה קלה בתורה שאין תחיית המתים תלויה בה שנאמר בשילוח הקן למען ייטב לך וגומר למען ייטב לך לעולם שכולו טוב והארכת ימים לעולם שכולו ארוך. ומה היא מצווה קלה שהיא כאיסר אם אותה כך מצווה חמורה על אחת כמה וכמה.
Sometimes what we tend to think of mitzvot as each mitzvah is an individual self-contained mitzvah. And obviously on one level that is true, they certainly are individual mitzvot, but what Rabbeinu Yonah here is emphasizing is that mitzvot together constitute a system. And the same way when you have any system, so you need all the parts there for the system to function, certainly to function optimally, perhaps even to function at all. The system of Torah mitzvot is the. designed for Shleimus HaAdam and as such, it's only this system in its fullness, in its totality, that that is designed to and therefore can lead a person to that to that goal, to that level. הואיל השם לזכות את ישראל בקיום כל המצוות, meaning the mitzvos together. That's implicit in you know the simanim that we have for the for the number of mitzvos, the remach mitzvos asei כנגד רמ"ח איברים שבגוף. That there too, yes each limb is sort of a discrete limb but but obviously they're part of a larger system and they're intended to function to function together. And that's why it's it can yield a distortion for a person to sort of prioritize some mitzvos at the expense of other mitzvos. A person has to see sort of which mitzvah is noheig now. If the person is rachmana litzlan not well to the point of there being possible sakana, so the mitzvah on Yom Kippur is v'shmartem l'nafshoseichem, the mitzvah is not v'iniysem es nafshoseichem. That's what the the mashal again of of the garden that that will be more beautiful because of its variety, that's what it expresses. That not to think of mitzvos only as individual and discrete but but as a system. So to prevent us from neglecting mitzvos that we would have classified as mitzvos kallos in favor of mitzvos chamuros, so the Torah doesn't disclose what the schar mitzvos is. So apparently that danger doesn't exist by mitzvos lo sa'asei, right? Because there as as Rabbeinu Yonah reviewed, the Torah does for the most part give us a provide us with a measuring stick to to know which lo sa'aseis are more chamur than than others. So lechora by lo sa'aseis, it's not pshat that meaning the the chashash that that the Torah was addressing is not a chashash of being mezalzel. Well, you know doesn't even have malkus, so you know the consequences are not going to be that terrible if if a person is oveir. We're not talking about zilzul but again we're talking about sort of a misplaced priorities. So that concern exists by mitzvos asei but not by not by mitzvos lo sa'asei. Yet that line in in Rabbeinu Yonah is an extraordinary line, המצווה הקלה שכרה גדול והפלא שלא ימד ולא יספר, the A light mitzvah relatively speaking, even its sechar is so great and wondrous that it's inestimable and unquantifiable. ועתה נדבר בענין עונש ביטול מצות עשה. אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה אם יסרב האיש לעשות סוכה ולולב ואינו עושה מכינים אותו עד שתצא נפשו. ואמרו כי האנשים שלא הניחו על ראשם תפילין מעולם הם הנקראים פושעי ישראל בגופם. ואמרו שחמור מן העובר פעם אחת על חיובי כריתות ומיתות בית דין. ואמרו כל שעונותיו מרובים מזכיותיו
hu bichlalan amongst those rov avonot, poshei Yisrael begufam. What's an example of poshei Yisrael begufam? Either כגון שלא הניח תפילין מעולם או עובר עבירה כגון עריות. ויום הדין יורדין לגיהנם ונידונים שם י"ב חודש. ואחרי י"ב חודש גופם כלה ונשמתם נשרפת ורוח מפזרתן תחת רגלי הצדיקים שנאמר ועסותם רשעים כי יהיו אפר.
So this is a ma'amar chazal as Rabbeinu Yonah indicates. I can't, it doesn't, the Rambam does not quote this in perek gimmel of hilchos teshuvah, though he lists those who don't have a chelek la'olam haba. I think, double check, I don't think he has it here in פרק ג הלכות תשובה, which would suggest that the Rambam thinks that lav davka that this ma'amar is muskam. Earlier in, when Rabbeinu Yonah was, I'm sorry, back to os yud for a moment, when Rabbeinu Yonah quoted הלא ידעת כי אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה כל העוסק בתורה בלבד דומה כמי שאין לו אלוה.
So even though in context the gemara is contrasting this with someone who wasn't sufficiently involved with chesed, Rabbeinu Yonah says, yeah, but the ma'amar itself of כל העוסק בתורה בלבד means again, he doesn't have this, the whole system of torah mitzvos is not represented. represented in in his in his avodas Hashem. So it's not only osek batorah bilvad to the exclusion of engaging in chessed. It's to the exclusion of again of mitzvos in general. Ve-amru continue here towards the end of os yud aleph: מי שמקל בעניין מצות עשה כגון המבזה חול המועד שיש בו מצות עשה שנאמר חג המצות תשמור אף על פי שיש בידו תורה ומעשים טובים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא.
Here the Rabbeinu Yona is is explaining similarly to what he explained by העובר על דברי סופרים חייב מיתה that the onesh is not because of the inherent chomer ha-issur but rather because of the way the person does it. Meaning if he's מקל בעניין מצות עשה and that's what the lashon of hamivazei chol hamoeid is because he's mezalzeil in the mitzvah. Again if the person is not being mezalzeil in the mitzvah he's nichshal or because of some ta'ava and he's over the mitzvah okay so the mitzvah has whatever its chomer is. But when when the person is sort of dismissive contemptuous of the mitzvah and that's why he's over so then the chomer of of that infraction is much greater than the inherent chomer hadin. And that's what the lashon Chazal of hamivazei chol hamoeid suggests and and that's what the Rabbeinu Yona also means with mishe-meikel be-inyan that he treats it lightly he doesn't take it seriously. ויש על כל מצות עשה—this line's also very important—ויש על כל מצות עשה אזהרת לאו כוללת שנאמר לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו.
Rabbeinu Yona says every mitzvas asei is really bolstered by the lav of bal tigra. So here the sort of the context and and the chiddush in Rabbeinu Yona is as follows. When Rashi al ha-Torah explains bal tosef and bal tigra so Rashi gives examples of instead of having ich veis the four compartments in the tefillin so a person will have five or three compartments. Instead of having the arba tzitziyos arba folded over so he'll have less or more. So or instead of the kohen giving the three brachos of birchas kohanim so he'll he'll expand in terms of bal tosef he'll expand it. So Rashi gives examples of expanding or diminishing within a mitzvah. The Ramban al ha-Torah says I think it also refers to if a person will add a mitzvah. He says if a person will בודה יום טוב מלבו a person will invent a new yom tov and and make it into a mitzvah so then the Ramban says that's also bal tosef. Bal tosef is not only within the mitzvah right? It's not only when the kohen when he's still omeid al haduchan once the kohen is yoreid min haduchan when he leaves where the birchas kohanim was so then what he does is not mitztareif to the birchas kohanim. So you can say gut shabbos you can say bruchin tihyu someone gives him a yasher koach but when you're still omeid al haduchan so then it's mitztareif to the birchas kohanim. So the Ramban says that too would be bal tosef. Ramban al ha-Torah. Then the Rashba—but we'll see in a minute it's really Rabbeinu Yona already said it before the Rashba. The Rashba in Rosh Hashanah tes-zayin in the following context: Tosafos—the Gemara says אמר רבי יצחק למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין תוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין.
Why do we have tki-os di-m'yushav and and tki-os di-m'umad? So Rabi Yitzchak answers כדי לערבב את השטן well whatever that means. So Tosafos asks a kasha so clearly in... And in our tekiyos de-meiyushav and tekiyos de-me'umad, we're blowing more kolos than the Torah said we need to blow. We're surpassing what the Torah said we need to blow. Why isn't that a sheila of bal tosif? So Tosfos says it's not bal tosif to repeat a mitzvah. Again, bal tosif is to add to the mitzvah, not to repeat the mitzvah. Let's say a Kohen won't add a fourth bracha to birchas kohanim, but he'll duchen, he'll make the rounds of all the shulen in the neighborhood and he'll duchen in every shul. That's not a problem. Repeating a mitzvah is not bal tosif. So too when you blow more kolos, you're just repeating the mitzvah of shofar. You're not adding a fifth min to the lulav and esrog. You're not adding a fourth bracha to birchas kohanim. So the Rashba then says, no, the kushya is even stronger. Tosfos's kushya is even stronger because when something is a takkanas de-rabbanan, it's not subject to bal tosif and bal tigra. Takkanos de-rabbanan are not subject to bal tosif and bal tigra. And then he says, veha'raya lach, how can the chachamim say not to blow shofar on yom tov of Rosh Hashanah which falls out on Shabbos? Not to take the lulav on yom tov rishon of chag which falls out on Shabbos? That's bal tigra. That's bal tigra. If a person doesn't blow shofar, that's bal tigra. If a person when he's chayav in shofar, a person doesn't blow shofar, if a person doesn't take lulav when he's mechuyav to bentch lulav, that's bal tigra. So how can the chachamim make such a takkanah? Ella mai, no, hem hem hadevarim says the Rashba, that a takkanas de-rabbanan is not subject to the lavin of bal tosif and bal tigra. So be-emes, that's what our Rabbeinu Yonah is saying also. So you see in the Rashba a gevaldig chiddush, right? The Rashba says that once the Ramban was mechadesh or meyassed that adding a mitzvah is bal tosif, so then subtracting a mitzvah is bal tigra. And the Rashba says it's not even though we're not writing mitzvas shofar out of the sefer mitzvos on yom tov of Rosh Hashanah which falls out on chol we'll blow shofar. No, but to not blow shofar on yom tov that falls out on Shabbos, that's bal tigra. And the only way that's permissible and justified is because takkanos de-rabbanan are not subject to bal tosif and bal tigra. So that's what our Rabbeinu Yonah is saying also. That's what our Rabbeinu Yonah is saying, that every mitzvas asei is really governed by the mitzvas lo sa'asei of bal tigra as well, the same yesod as the Rashba. It could be that I don't remember, you have to take a look in the lashon of Rashba in Rosh Hashanah tet-zayin. It could be that Rabbeinu Yonah is going even further. It could be that the Rashba said it only where there's a takkanah that year after year we're not going to blow on Shabbos, and year after year we're not going to take the lulav on Shabbos. And Rabbeinu Yonah is saying even if tomorrow morning a person will get up and he won't put on tefillin, so he'll be guilty of bal tigra in not laying the tefillin, even if it's not with a takkanah and even if it's not with a kevi'us that this is going to be a policy moving forward. It could be that Rabbeinu Yonah is even more mechudash than what is muchach from the Ramban and the Rashba. קיום מצות עשה נקרא יראת שמים כמו הזהירות במצות לא תעשה.
Just as a person is being mekayem, what we saw earlier, Rabbeinu Yonah, like the Maharal later, says that inherently mitzvos lo sa'asei are not a source of sechar. Aye, but the Gemara in Kiddushin that says there are times when a person does get sechar for mitzvas lo sa'asei. So he says that's for the mitzvah of yiras shamayim which a person is mekayem by being machnia es yitzro and being nizaher on the lo sa'asei. So he says the same way it's an expression of yiras shamayim, the zehirus on a mitzvas lo sa'asei, it's also an expression of yiras shamayim, the kiyum mitzvas asei. How do we know that? שנאמר מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן ויראת מאלוקיך אני ה'.
I think Rashi on that pasuk, Vayikra yud-tes lamed-beise. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. יכול יעצום עיניו כמי שלא ראהו. Some person will close his eyes and he'll pretend that he doesn't see the elderly person or talmid chacham, whoever. לכך נאמר ויראת מאלוקיך שהרי הדבר הזה מסור לליבו של אדם שאין מכיר בו אלא הוא וכל דבר המסור ללב נאמר בו ויראת מאלוקיך.
So according to Rashi, it's clear that he learns pshat that the reason the Torah speaks here of ve-yareita me-elokecha is not because prototypically we associate every kiyum mitzvas asei with yiras shamayim, which is the way Rabbeinu Yonah seems to be reading the pasuk. Rashi seems to say the pasuk of look, ein hachi nami, if you want to fake it, so bein adam, so no one's really gonna know and no one's gonna come give you makkas mardus or anything because no one really knows whether you genuinely didn't see him or not. But ve-yareita me-elokecha, like you're not fooling, you're not fooling Ribbono Shel Olam. So don't do it. And Rabbeinu Yonah is not going with that with that havanah. Because he's saying that the association of מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן with yiras shamayim is representative of kiyum mitzvas asei being an expression of yiras shamayim. ונאמר יראת ה' אלמדכם. ונאמר אחריו סור מרע ועשה טוב בקש שלום ורדפהו. למדנו מזה כי מי שאינו עוסק בעשיית הטוב ובבקשת שלום חסר יראת שמים והוא מן הרשעים כי לא ירא אלוקים שנאמר וטוב לא יהיה לרשע ולא יאריך ימים כצל אשר איננו ירא מלפני אלוקים. ויש במצוות עשה מן החומרה שאין המון העם נזהרים בהם כגון הזכרת שם שמים לבטלה שנאמר את ה' אלוקיך תירא. ואמרו
ve-amru raboteinu zal, the Gemara in Temurah says, והזהרנו בזה שלא להזכיר שם שמים לבטלה. To take Hashem's name in vain is an issur asei of את ה' אלוקיך תירא. וכן גמילות חסדים שהיא מצות עשה שנאמר והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה
zu gemilus chasadim. ואמרו גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה שהצדקה לעניים וגמילות חסדים בין לעניים בין לעשירים. על כן אמרו על שלושה דברים העולם עומד על התורה ועל העבודה ועל גמילות חסדים. והנה הצדקה בממונו וגמילות חסדים בין בגופו בין בממונו כי חייב אדם לטרוח בדרישת טוב לעמו ולשקוד בעמל נפשו על תקנת חברו אם דל אם עשיר.
The phrase drishas tov is from Megillas Esther, right, the description of Mordechai at the end of Megillas Esther, דורש טוב לעמו ודובר שלום לכל זרעו. Mistama what it means, ki chayav adam. Drisha means to inquire, right? ודרשת וחקרת ושאלת היטב. It means to when in the context of that pasuk, so when Beis Din hears testimony, so then they have to question, they have to inquire of the edim, they have to subject them to the drishas ve-chakiras, but it means to to inquire. So drisha... drishas tov amov, I think means that there's supposed to be a proactive posture in doing chesed. Usually we think of and maybe practice, engage in chesed sort of reactively, when the situation presents itself, when the oni rachmana litzlan, again, this is tzedakah but just as an illustration, when the oni comes and asks, so then we respond, we react. And itachen that what Rabbeinu Yona is presenting here of חייב אדם לטרוח בדרישת טוב לעמו is that a person should look to see what's needed and undertake, again, within given his resources, given his position in life, given his kochos, and proactively look to do כי חייב אדם לטרוח בדרישת טוב לעמו ולשקוד בעמל נפשו על תקנת חברו בין דל ובין עשיר. וזאת מן החמורות ומהעיקרים הנדרשים מן האדם, שנאמר: הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה ה' דורש ממך כי אם עשות משפט ואהבת חסד.
Meaning this pasuk in Michah is one of those psukim that the Gemara at the end of Makkos when it says that different psukim sort of highlight those mitzvos which are not only individual mitzvos but they're sort of pillars or yesodos of kol haTorah kullah, so this is one of those psukim, right? הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה ה' דורש ממך כי אם עשות משפט ואהבת חסד. וכן מצווה להכנס לפנים משורת הדין, שנאמר: והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון.
Right, the same pasuk as he had quoted before, והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון. ואמרו רבותינו זכרם לברכה זה לפנים משורת הדין. ויש בעניין זה דרכים רבים אשר תהיה בהן המצווה הזאת מן החמורות, הכל לפי עניין הדין.
What does it mean to go lifnim mishuras hadin? So Rabbeinu Yona says that can only be understood in relation to the din in each context. כמו שאמרו רבותינו זכרם לברכה לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שהעמידו דבריהם על דין תורה ולא נכנסו לפנים משורת הדין.
That Maamar Chazal of, where is it, Gemara, Bava Metzia? Where is the Chazal? לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שהעמידו דבריהם על דין תורה.
So on the one hand that points to the chomer, the chiyuv of lifnim mishuras hadin, but itachen that it also reflects something else. Hakadosh Baruch Hu judges us, at least at times... The way we relate to others. So if in our ben adam l'chavero interaction, so we insist on a shuras hadin. No, you owe me the $500, no it's my turn, why should I do that for you? If we insist on a strict mida hadin, so then rachmana litzlan, it's a double standard for us to turn around and ask that we should be treated with less than a strict mida hadin. And if we're going to be held to a mida hadin, we're not going to emerge zakai. Similar to Chazal say that a person who is mevater is מוותר לו על עוונותיו. Could be that it's the same idea. Why earlier in here in Yud Gimmel, when Rabbeinu Yona, again the second of the mitzvos asay hachamuros, he says שאינו מן הנזהרים בהם after הזכרת שם שמיים לבטלה is gemilus chasadim? So instead of the I don't know what we would have thought is a more explicit pasuk of v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha, so Rabbeinu Yona opts for the drashas Chazal on והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה זו גמילות חסדים. I don't know why does he prefer that to the pasuk of v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha? How is it possible? Isn't it a little bit of a contradiction in terms to speak of the chiyuv to do lifnim mishuras hadin? And Rabbeinu Yona is quite clear: ויש בעניין זה דרכים אמיתיים שתהיה בין המצווה הזאת מן החמורות.
It's a mitzvah, it's a mitzvah chamurah to go lifnim mishuras hadin. Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms? Doesn't lifnim mishuras hadin by definition imply that it's a midas chasidus? Isn't that what the teitch of the phrase lifnim mishuras hadin is? So two sort of two perspectives on that. Number one, I think the Or Sameach that we spoke about, I think we spoke about this in Hilchos Talmud Torah, that where the Torah sets the bar for chiyuv mitzvah is the Torah sets the bar for what's the least common denominator for everyone. And then relative to that, so going beyond that is described and defined as lifnim mishuras hadin, but it's a chiyuv in the sense that a person is not supposed to be content with the minimal least common denominator standard if ba'asher hu sham he's capable of more. So in that sense the lifnim mishuras hadin is basically what individualizes the mitzvos. The fixed definition of the mitzvah is the objective, absolute, universal standard, and then the lifnim mishuras hadin says, yeah, but then each person ba'asher hu sham is supposed to individualize that ba'asher hu sham, ba'asher hu adam. That's one perspective. Another perspective on lifnim mishuras hadin and this one lichora emerges from the Rambam in Hilchos De'os is that משל למה הדבר דומה I think we've, certainly last year in learning Hilchos De'os we spoke about this, but maybe it's come out this year as well, we've spoken about how sometimes you have a situation which is governed by two different, where two different considerations are relevant. So for instance, let's say how should the adon treat his eved k'na'ani? So on the one hand, the relevant halachos are those that delineate what the relationship is between an adon and an eved. But then in addition there's another perspective of whatever may be formally allowed m'tzad the relationship between the adon and the eved, a person has to bring Hilchos De'os to bear upon this situation as well, and that will yield a lifnim mishuras hadin. That maybe technically the din is that the adon can hit the eved, but that means formally in terms of what the relationship is between the adon and the eved k'na'ani. But the person shouldn't do it, again, vis-a-vis Hilchos Avadim it's lifnim mishuras hadin because m'tzad Hilchos Avadim it's muttar, but this is an intersection point between different areas of halacha, and that's what will yield a lifnim mishuras hadin which is mandatory. Okay, maybe we'll stop here. So a gut yor, behatzlacha, v'kol tuv.