Transcript

יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים קיבלו מהם. יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה אומר יהי ביתך בית ועד לחכמים והוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם והוי שותה בצמא את דבריהם.

What what what's in this between hevei mit'abek and his'abek or hevei shoteh and sh'tei? So hevei mit'abek, the lashon hevei mit'abek, hevei shoteh, has more of a sense of something which is constant, something which is continuous. Mah she-ein kein, if you just have the simple imperative form of his'abek or sh'tei, it can be more compartmentalized, it can be more of a one-time a one-time action. The lashon havaya of being gives it that sense of being something which is ongoing, which is as indicated here in the Masoret HaShas, the Rambam kotav be-mishneh Hilchos De'os, at the end of halacha bet, or maybe in perek vav, that maybe let's let's just read initially through the entire halacha here.

מצות עשה להדבק בחכמים כדי ללמוד ממעשיהם שנאמר ובו תדבק. וכי אפשר לאדם להדבק בשכינה? אלא כך אמרו חכמים בפירוש מצוה זו: הדבק בחכמים ותלמידיהם. לפיכך צריך אדם להשתדל שישא בת תלמיד חכם וישיא בתו לתלמיד חכם ויאכל וישתה עם תלמידי חכמים ויעשה פרגמטיא לתלמידי חכמים ולהתחבר להן בכל מיני חיבור שנאמר ולדבקה בו. וכן צוו חכמים ואמרו והוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם ושותה בצמא את דבריהם.

So the וכך צוו חכמים ואמרו sounds like the Rambam, that our mishnah encapsulates everything that he presented in this halacha, right?

וכך צוו חכמים ואמרו והוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם ושותה בצמא את דבריהם.

So lekhora the pshat is like this. The Rambam says מצות עשה להדבק בחכמים כדי ללמוד ממעשיהם, so it's clear that the kedei lilmod mi-ma'aseihem is not simply a ta'amei hamitzva, but it's the guf hamitzva. That the hisdavkus is kedei lilmod mi-ma'aseihem. Again, it's not it's not, you know, lurking in the background as a ta'amei hamitzva, it's the guf hamitzva. The Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot also when he presents the mitzva, and he's certainly not he's not even interested in the halachos per se in Sefer HaMitzvot, kal va-chomer that he's not exploring ta'amei mitzvos.

והמצוה והמצוה השישית היא שצונו להדבק עם החכמים ולהתייחד עמהם ולהתמיד בישיבתם ולהשתתף עמהם בכל אופן מאופני החברה במאכל ובמשתה ובעסק כדי שיגיע לנו בזה להדמות במעשיהם ולהאמין הדעות האמיתיות מדבריהם והוא אמרו יתעלה ובו תדבק.

So the mitzvah is the hischaber kidei lilmod mimaaseihem. So and that’s how the Rambam teiches out the Mishna. הוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם represents that chibur, the constantly keeping company with the chachamim, and והוי שותה בצמא את דבריהם is the kidei lilmod mimaaseihem. And that’s what the Rambam means when he says vekach tzivu chachamim, that this Mishna encapsulates what he presents in the Halacha. The Rambam’s quoting; the Kesef Mishna point out the Tziyun is pointing to the Gemara toward the end of Kesubos kuf yud alef amud beis.

כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר לאהבת ה' אלקיך ולדבקה בו וכי אפשר לאדם לידבק בשכינה אלא כל המשיא בתו לתלמיד חכם והעושה פרקמטיא לתלמידי חכמים והמהנה תלמידי חכמים מנכסיו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו מדבק בשכינה.

Again,

כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר לאהבת ה' אלקיך ולדבקה בו וכי אפשר לאדם לידבק בשכינה אלא כל המשיא בתו לתלמיד חכם והעושה פרקמטיא לתלמידי חכמים והמהנה תלמידי חכמים מנכסיו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו מדבק בשכינה.

So Chazal don’t say kidei lilmod mimaaseihem, right? That’s the Rambam’s interpretation of what Chazal means. So how does the Rambam know it? So it’s a svara, it’s a diyuk. It’s a svara in the sense that Chazal are explaining that the being misdabek betalmidei chachamim is a way of being misdabek baHashem. So how is that the case? How is that a way of the physical proximity that We don't deify people. So how is that a way of being daveik b'Hashem? But ela mai, no, it's the pshat is that the hischabrus to the talmidei chachamim is k'dei lilmod m'ma'aseihem. So it's that that a person is then becomes דבק בדרכיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא. So that's how the hischabrus to the talmidei chachamim accomplishes the hisdabkus b'Hashem because through the hisdabkus b'talmidei chachamim, again, the lilmod m'ma'aseihem is gufeh mitzvah so a person becomes daveik b'darchei Hashem. So that's a, that's a form of u'ldovko bo, the person becomes daveik b'darchei Hashem. That's the sevara. The diyuk is l'chora as follows. It's interesting that the lashon ha-pasuk is לאהבה את ה' אלקיכם ולדבקה בו. And when Chazal pose their rhetorical question וכי אפשר לאדם לידבק בשכינה, they say, they don't say lidabek b'Hashem, they say lidabek ba-Shechina. And then the Rambam maintains that lashon. The Noda B'Yehuda has a teshuva where he was asked what does it mean when we talk about the Shechina? So he references that the Rambam has a perek in the first cheilek of the Moreh where the Rambam gives his understanding of what the Shechina means. The Rambam gives two understandings. And he says that one of the, Noda B'Yehuda thinks they're both true, but the one that's relevant to us is that the Rambam says that Shechina means השגחת הקדוש ברוך הוא. That the Shechina shruya means that haKadosh Baruch Hu exercises a special, a special hashgacha. That's what it means that the Shechina is shruya. You have maybe the Sforno on the pasuk ועשו לי מקדש בפרשת תרומה ושכנתי בתוכם. ושכנתי בתוכם, I think he says it a little bit b'arichus earlier. ושכנתי בתוכם אשכון ביניהם לקבל תפלתם. So how does the Sforno get that? אשכון ביניהם לקבל תפלתם. So he clearly that he has in mind this definition that the Rambam gives of Shechina, that Shechina means hashgachas Hashem. So mimaila ושכנתי בתוכם אשכון ביניהם לקבל תפלתם. And then he says later v'chein ta'asu in the next pasuk of

ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו וכן תעשו.

So the Sforno says

וכן תעשו אתם כדי שאשכון בתוככם לדבר עמכם לקבל תפלת ועבודת ישראל.

So what this gemara in Kesuvos then is saying b'feirush according to the Rambam's havana of Shechina, when the Chazal very conspicuously when they pose the rhetorical question וכי אפשר לאדם לידבק בשכינה, so they're already intimating the way they posed the rhetorical question is already intimating what the answer to the question is. וכי אפשר לאדם לידבק so obviously again there's no such thing as vechi efshar. means hashgachas Hashem where the דרכי הקדוש ברוך הוא are displayed through his hashgacha. If you step back here and look at this a little bit, so halacha beis seems to be somewhat, I don't know, somewhat repetitious. Rambam begins פרק ו הלכה א, take a look rabosai,

טבע ביצירתו של אדם להיות נמשך בדעותיו ובמעשיו אחר ריעיו וחביריו ונוהג כמנהג אנשי מדינתו.

The human nature is such that we're influenced in our midos, in our behavior, by the company we keep, by the neighborhood, by the society that we live in.

לפיכך צריך אדם להתחבר לצדיקים ולשב אצל החכמים תמיד כדי שילמוד ממעשיהם.

He already says it here, he already said it here in פרק ו הלכה א, right? That tzarich adam again,

להתחבר לצדיקים ולשב אצל החכמים תמיד כדי שילמוד ממעשיהם ויתרחק מן הרשעים ההולכים בחושך כדי שלא יילמד ממעשיהם. הוא ששלמה אומר הולך את חכמים יחכם ורועה כסילים ירוע ואומר אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים וגומר.

Then Rambam has this extraordinary line,

וכן אם היה במדינה שמנהגותיה רעים ואין אנשיה הולכים בדרך ישרה ילך למקום שאנשי צדיקים נוהגים בדרך טובים ואם היו כל המדינות שהוא יודען ושומע שמועתן נוהגים בדרך לא טובה כזמננו.

Rambam thought what the metzius was in the 12th century. What would he think today?

ואם היו כל המדינות שהוא יודען ושומע שמועתן נוהגים בדרך לא טובה כזמננו או שאינו יכול לילך למדינה שמנהגותיה טובים מפני הגייסות או מפני החולי יישב לבדו יחידי כעניין שנאמר יישב בדד וידום.

So the Rambam already says in halacha aleph that

צריך אדם להתחבר לצדיקים ולשב אצל החכמים כדי שילמוד ממעשיהם.

And then all of a sudden he begins halacha beis as if none of this preceded and says מצות עשה להדבק בחכמים כדי ללמוד ממעשיהם. So how did he say it before without the pasuk? Why twice? So you have this in a few places in the Rambam that maybe just one hakdama. When Chazal in the Gemara in Yoma distinguish mishpatim from chukim, they say משפטים אלו הדינים שאילו לא נכתבו דין הוא שייכתבו. That sevara dictates as well. Even if the mitzvah we wouldn't have it in the Torah, sevara dictates. And the Gemara famously says in Eruvin that אלמלא לא ניתנה תורה, that if the Torah hadn't been given, so we would have learned tznius mechasul and derech eretz miyonah and gezel minamalah. We would have seen examples of these types of moral behavior in the natural world and we would have been expected to learn those lessons. That tznius mechasul, that derech eretz miyonah, the gezel minamalah. So it's clear in Chazal that sevara is also a mechayev. Whether there is or isn't the posuk for something, if something is mucha'ach is mucha'ach mitoch hasevara that's also a mechayev. And and that's what פרק ו הלכה א is, right? פרק ו הלכה א the Rambam tells us the chiyuv based on a sevara. He says the metzius is this. The metzius of human nature is that

דרכו של אדם להיות נמשך בדעותיו ובמעשיו אחר רעיו וחבריו ונוהג כמנהג אנשי מדינתו.

And therefore, lefichach

צריך אדם להתחבר לצדיקים וליישב אצל חכמים תמיד כדי שילמוד ממעשיהם.

I don't need a posuk to tell you that. The same way the Gemara in Eruvin says that אלמלא נתנה תורה היינו למדים צניעות מחתול et cetera. And even when the Rambam does quote the the posuk from from Mishlei and then the posuk from from Tehillim, so the Rambam introduces it as hu sheShlomo omer, not shene'emar. hu sheShlomo omer meaning this sevara is also reflected in the words of Shlomo HaMelech. He's not he's not citing it as a as a posuk midivrei kabbala which serves as a as a makor for the for the chiyuv. So it's clear then that the apparent repetition, it isn't really repetition, it's really just partial overlap, but the apparent repetition between Halachos Aleph and Beis is that in Halacha Aleph the Rambam is talking about the mechayev of sevara. And then Halacha Beis the Rambam says you know this is not only sevara it's also a mitzvas asei. And it's also clear that the mitzvah and the sevara again they they clearly overlap which is what prompted our question in the first place but they're not they're not identical. Specifically the mitzvah only only accentuates the positive of להידבק בחכמים כדי ללמוד ממעשיהם, right? The mitzvah doesn't tell us to stay away from the reshaim. The sevara is is two-pronged. The sevara says that since again human nature is such that we're influenced so צריך אדם להתחבר לצדיקים וייתרחק מן הרשעים. So that's one area where again the mitzvah is relying on the sevara. That part of the of the chiyuv which is noveia mitoch hasevara is not as it were repeated or reinforced in the mitzvah. The other the other differences are even in terms of the positive hischabrus. So it's interesting the mitzvah is only lehidaveik bachachamim. The sevara includes lehischaber latzadikim as well. Something to think about. That's not mitzad hamitzvah. The mitzvah is only only chachamim. Mitzad hasevara it includes tzadikim. A B the pshatus is that the degree to which that that one is mischaber the mitzvas asei takes it to a higher level than we would have known on our own mitoch hasevara. להתחבר לצדיקים וליישב אצל חכמים is is one thing. להתחבר בהם בכל מיני חיבור so much so that it can be depicted as uledovka bo and that it's that Chazal depict it as הוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם, so the middas hachibur certainly which the mitzvah imposes goes well beyond what we would have known misvara. But again but sevara tells us things that the mitzvah doesn't, the mitzvah tells us things that the sevara doesn't and that's what the two halachos here are in Halachos Aleph and Beis. And let's also skip Mishnah He for at least for now I'm not sure if we'll come back to it. Mishnah Vav. Yehoshua ben Perachia ve-Nitai Ha-Arbeli kiblu mehem. Yehoshua ben Perachia omer

עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות.

So the Rambam and then Rabbeinu Yonah following in the Rambam's footsteps explain that the halakhot of this mitzvah of being dan le-chaf zechut. The Gemara in Shvuot darshens this from the pasuk be-tzedek tishpot amitecha. Rambam actually quotes in Sefer Ha-Mitzvot that it's not some kind of an asmachta. Rambam says בכלל ולמצות עשה דאורייתא ובצדק תשפוט עמיתך it's not only that beis din is supposed to be equitable in terms of how they treat the two ba'alei devarim, but it's also to be dan le-chaf zechut. dan le-chaf zechut be-tzedek tishpot amitecha. So the Rambam says the pirtei ha-mitzvah as follows

עניינו כשיהיה אדם שלא תדע בו אם צדיק הוא אם רשע.

Either the person is unknown, you don't know who the person is

ותראהו שיעשה מעשה או יאמר דבר שאם תפרשהו על דרך אחת יהיה טוב.

You can interpret it favorably ותפרשהו על דרך אחת יהיה רע. So you can interpret it critically כך עשהו על הטוב ולא תחשוב בו רע. And Rabbeinu Yonah adds and similarly even if you know the person, but the person you know it would be sometimes he does good things but not all the time does good things. So his reputation also allows for makes both of those two interpretations equally plausible. So when both the tzad ha-tov, tzad zechut and tzad hovah are equally plausible, and again either they're equally plausible why? Either because I don't know the person at all so there's nothing to make me inclined either to the tzad hovah or tzad zechut or I know the person and knowing the person he's kind of a type of a beinoni that both interpretations are equally plausible, so that's the din of dan le-chaf zechut.

אבל אם יהיה האדם נודע שהוא צדיק מפורסם ובפעולות הטובות ונראה לו פועל שכל ענייניו מורים שהוא פועל רע ואין אדם יכול להכריע לטוב אלא בדוחק גדול ואפשר רחוק הוא ראוי שתקח אותו שהוא טוב אחר שיש שום צד אפשרי להיותו טוב ואין מותר לך לחשדו ועל זה אמרו כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו.

Rambam says if however this is a person he's known for his consistency, he's known for his dikduk be-mitzvot, he's known to be a tzadik. So then it's not just when the tov and the tzad hovah and tzad zechut are equally plausible. No, even if it looks really really bad, even if the only way to interpret it favorably is a far-fetched scenario, but if the person is a tzadik, known as a medakdek be-mitzvot, known as a so then one is supposed to again resort to what a-contextually would be a far-fetched interpretation. And the same thing in terms of a rasha in the opposite direction

וכן כשיהיה רשע ויתפרסמו מעשיו ואחר כך ראינו שיעשה מעשה שכל ייחוסו מורה שהוא טוב ויש בו צד אפשר רחוק לרע ראוי להישמר ממנו ושלא תאמין בו שהוא טוב אחר שיש בו אפשרות לרע.

What's the pshat? Cause the pshat is that context determines. Context. Things are supposed to be interpreted contextually. When you have someone who's a big tzaddik and he does something, so contextually, the fallacy of statistics when they're improperly cited is as if you take statistics for the population as a whole and you don't look at differentiating factors and then you just blindly uniformly apply it to everyone, so then the statistics can be very misleading. So ein nami, so what are the odds that the person in McDonald's who's eating the cheeseburger is not doing an aveira? Very, very remote. But if this person is a big, big tzaddik, so then no, that one-in-a-million chance for him is the most likely interpretation that maybe he's a diabetic, rachmana litzlan, and he just had an attack and he needed to eat immediately to avoid going into shock. So contextually, that's the correct pshat. It's not something that's forced. It's only forced when a person ignores the individuating context and the same thing in terms of the rasha. This halakha is also a klal in Chazal in parshanus. So when the pasuk says ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף, so Rashi quotes from Chazal he was ayef b'retzicha and then the Gemara in Bava Basra says that חמש עבירות עשה הרשע באותו היום. So you look at it at first glance and you wonder what do Chazal want from Esav? You know, in the Middle East in the summer it's hot, you know, so ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף. You're going to be in the field all day, so you're going to be tired. So where do you see that? So you do find Rashi has the pshat here. Rashi does say that there's a context in which ayef has to do with shefichus damim.

והוא עיף ברציחה כמא דתימא פסוק בירמיהו כי עיפה נפשי להורגים.

So it's clear that this same halakha again which tells us that descriptions, actions, speech, everything is supposed to be interpreted contextually. What something means you can't disregard who's saying it to interpret what the words mean. What an action represents you can't disregard who's the person performing the action in understanding what that action represents. It's something which is really again when you ignore context and just sort of blindly quote statistics so it seems far-fetched. When you look in context so then it's compelling and the parshanus is like that also. That's what Chazal's parshanus is also. There's a beautiful story I'd like to repeat in this context that someone once told me about Rav Pinchas Hirschprung, he was the chief rabbi in Montreal for so many years. A young avreich once came over to ask him a kasha. And Rabbi Hirschprung said to him, I don't know. And when he walked away, so you could see that it was sort of nikar, it was the siman of all that he felt very good at having stumped, you know, stumped Hirschprung. Hirschprung turns to his son-in-law and says, he thinks that his I don't know and my I don't know are the same. So it's the same words, it's the same words, but it's obviously a narishkeit to think that everyone's I don't know is the same. Rashi says I don't know sometimes also and we say I don't know, so that means it's the same I don't know? So that's what this perek is in terms of the mitzvah of being dan lechaf zechut. The Gemara in Shabbat, Rabbeinu Yona quotes on the mishna, has stories illustrating the being dan lechaf zechut again of the tzaddik even when Tanu Rabanan Maaseh be-chasid echad I've read these stories before, but the first one, Tanu Rabanan

הדן חברו לכף זכות דנים אותו לזכות ומעשה באדם אחד שירד מגליל העליון ונשכר אצל בעל הבית אחד בדרום שלש שנים.

So for three years he worked and didn't collect his wages. Erev Yom Kippur

אמר לו תן לי שכרי ואלך ואזון את אשתי ובני.

Pay me my wages for the past three years, let me go home and support my wife and children. אמר לו אין לי מעות. No cash. אמר לו תן לי פירות. אמר לו אין לי. Ten li karka. Ein li. Ten li beheimah. Ein li.

תן לי כרים וכסתות. אמר לו אין לי. הפשיל כליו לאחריו והלך לביתו בפחי נפש.

So he goes home after three years empty-handed, nothing to show for all his work. Le-achar ha-regel נטל בעל הבית שכרו בידו, after Succos I guess.

נטל בעל הבית שכרו בידו ועמו משוי ג' חמורים אחד של מאכל ואחד של משתה ואחד של מיני מגדים והלך לו לביתו. אחר שאכלו ושתו נתן לו שכרו. אמר לו בשעה שאמרת לי תן לי שכרי ואמרתי אין לי מעות במה חשדתני. אמרתי שמא פרקמטיא בזול נזדמנה לך ולקחת בהן.

Oh, maybe there was an incredible investment that just came your way and you used all your cash to buy the merchandise.

ובשעה שאמרת לי תן לי בהמה ואמרתי אין לי בהמה במה חשדתני. אמרתי שמא מושכרת ביד אחרים

etcetera. And then he says כשם שדנתני לזכות המקום ידון אותך לזכות. And the Gemara has a few such things. So what does it mean? Being dan lechaf zechut, how does one apply being dan lechaf zechut to Hakadosh Baruch Hu? Dan lechaf zechut means again, you see someone maasav setumim. Maasav setumim again, either because he himself is sort of, you know, gives mixed messages in terms of how he behaves or we don't know the person, he himself is unknown to us. So when we don't know what really happened, so this is being dan lechaf zechut. You have a tzaddik, so we don't know what really happened, but the context tells us, even if it's far-fetched, to interpret favorably. Hakadosh Baruch Hu always knows what happened, so what do you mean to say that the same way I was your beneficiary of your being dan lechaf zechut, so I'm mitpallel Hakadosh Baruch Hu should be dan you lechaf zechut? So the Rambam is here in Perek Hey of Hilchot Deot Halacha Zayin:

תלמיד חכם לא יהיה צועק וצווח בשעת דיבורו כבהמות וכחיות ולא יגביה קולו ביותר אלא דיבורו בנחת עם כל הבריות וכשידבר בנחת יזהר שלא יתרחק עד שייראה כדברי גסי הרוח ומקדים לשלום כל האדם כדי שתהא רוחו נוחה מהן. נוחה הימנו, ודן את כל האדם לכף זכות, ומספר בשבחו ואין מספר בגנותו כלל, אוהב שלום ורודף שלום.

So first of all, even before any any careful reading, the Rambam quotes being dan l'kaf zechus here in Hilchos Deos. The yesodo, beshorosho, being dan l'kaf zechus emanates from a deya nechona. The deya nechona is that we should have a positive attitude towards people. We should have a positive attitude towards people. That’s a deya, that’s a frame of mind, that’s an outlook, it’s an attitude. It’s not just sort of an isolated, well, I don’t know, I don’t know whether he meant to insult me with what he said or whether he meant to compliment me with what he said. No, that gufe, that how the person reacts to that ambiguity reflects, or if he'll do it consistently will instill, a deya nechona to view people positively, charitably. That that should be one's one's outlook. Now once we understand that, again, it’s applied in a context of not knowing whether something was positive or negative, but the yesod is a deya. So now we understand the Gemara in Shabbos. Let’s say as follows. Let's say you have someone who's he's brought before the judge. He was he was caught red-handed and convicted of selling drugs. Selling drugs. He's 18 years old and and he was caught selling drugs. So again, he was convicted and now it's the sentencing stage. So the prosecutor's argument to the judge is, this 18-year-old, he’s an adult. 18 is already legally an adult. He's a merchant of death. People die daily in this country from drug overdose and because of people like him, so he should be given the maximum sentence. Then the defense attorney gets up and and says that what he did was taka terrible. What he did was taka terrible. He’s had a clean record until this point. It’s true that 18 is is legally an adult, but in our society many 18-year-olds are still very immature. He’s an immature kid who made a mistake. He’s going to learn from this mistake, so you should give him the minimum sentence possible. So there's no ambiguity about what happened, but you can still be dan l'kaf chova or dan l'kaf zechus, right? Being dan l'kaf chova, dan l'kaf zechus is not only when, again, in the in the example the Rambam gives here, so it’s when there's an ambiguity in what actually happened. But if that's all it means, so then the Gemara in Shabbos is incomprehensible that Hamakom, that just as you were dan me l'kaf zechus, Hakadosh Baruch Hu should be dan you l'kaf zechus. So it’s clear that what the Rambam is saying is the application of a mida. It’s an application of a deya nechona. And again, that's why it's also reflected in Hilchos Deos. It’s an application of a deya nechona, again, the deya nechona of viewing people charitably. Viewing people charitably. That’s what the deya is. So then that deya, that deya one can say that a person should be zocheh that Hakadosh Baruch Hu should be dan him l'kaf zechus also because even when the facts are unimpeachable, incontrovertible, you still have they still will lend themselves to being interpreted. It could be that that this also would would solve a problem here in the Rambam. Again, if if you have the Rambam and with this we'll we'll conclude here in He' Zain, so the Rambam says again, speaking of the Talmid Chacham, דן את כל האדם לכף זכות, mesaper b'shvach chavero ואינו מספר בגנותו כלל. So how do you understand that ואינו מספר בגנותו כלל? That's how the Rambam in Perek Zain is going to define the issur lashon hara. The issur lashon hara the Rambam uses exactly those that those words,

יש עון גדול מזה עד מאד והוא בכלל זה והוא לשון הרע והוא המספר בגנות חברו.

And so that's the big shvach of of the Talmid Chacham, you know, he's he's not a baal lashon hara. That's a baal lashon hara. That עון גדול עד מאד, so he he doesn't do that avon gadol. So in the back of the Frenkel Rambam, some say that that some interpret that what the Rambam means אינו מספר בגנותו כלל means even avak lashon hara. That that one of the forms of avak lashon hara is if you praise a person in front of people who may not like him which will elicit from them a negative response. And that's what the Rambam means ואינו מספר בגנותו כלל, that that he's nizhar even on avak lashon hara. Okay, that already is a tremendous shvach. The Gemara says that most people are are nichshal on avak lashon hara on a on a daily basis. But but maybe lefi darcheinu, maybe the pshat in the Rambam here is that מספר בשבח חברו ואינו מספר בגנותו כלל means that that it's not simply that halacha l'maaseh he complies with hilchos lashon hara. What it means is that the de'ah, again, that same de'ah of דן את כל האדם לכף זכות, of of seeing, viewing, relating to people positively, charitably, he has that to such an extent that naturally it it translates, it's the ואינו מספר בגנותו כלל is is not just a description of compliance halacha l'maaseh, it's it's a description of of the character. And and that again, it's it's on the same spectrum as the as the דן את כל האדם לכף זכות.