Marriage. “Bilvad”. Ahavas Re’im.

צריך האדם שיכוין כל מעשיו כולם כדי לדעת השם ברוך הוא בלבד ויהיה שבתו וקומו ודיבורו הכל לעומת זה כיצד כשישא וייתן בעסק או יעשה מלאכה ליטול שכר.

So what we most think our immediate association with the word schar is in the phrase schar v'onesh and we translate schar as reward. But what the word really means is it's from, just like socher and maskir, to rent, to hire, to employ. Peulas sachir is a worker, a sachir is a worker, someone who's hired, someone whose time is rented out as it were. And therefore schar really translates as wages, as remuneration.

או יעשה מלאכה ליטול שכר לא יהיה בליבו לקבץ ממון בלבד אלא יעשה דברים אלו כדי שימצא דברים שהגוף צריך להם מאכילה ושתייה וישיבת בית ונשיאת אישה.

It's interesting that the Rambam here frames, contextualizes that a person should be able to support a wife as דברים שהגוף צריך להם. Meaning that it's not only, right, for the Rambam famously to get married is a mitzvah and the bracha under the chuppah of אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וציוונו על העריות is a birchas hamitzvah the Rambam says and therefore it has to be said over l'asiyasan. And all that notwithstanding, the Rambam says but it's also just part of living a, it's something which is very necessary just to live a normal balanced existence, that above and beyond the din mitzvah that it has, because the Rambam here puts it in the same context as achila shestiya, it's part of, it's necessary for a normal balanced life.

וכן שיאכל וישתה ויבעול לא ישים על ליבו לעשות דברים הללו כדי ליהנות בלבד עד שנמצא שאינו אוכל ושותה אלא המתוק לחיך ויבעול כדי ליהנות אלא ישים על ליבו שיאכל וישתה כדי להברות גופו ואיבריו בלבד.

So the reisha and seifa are a little, the diyuk from the reisha and the seifa seem to be a little confusing here. Right, initially the Rambam seems to say that when a person eats v'chulu, so he shouldn't have in mind that the tachlis here is the enjoyment associated with it. Or at least he shouldn't have in mind that that's the exclusive goal. Mashma that if he sort of has a dual kavana, so the Rambam is not objecting, right? Because the Rambam is just objecting to when the kavana is lehanos bilvad, when that's the exclusive goal. But then the seifa says, no, what the kavana should be is exclusively להברות גופו ואיבריו בלבד to maintain his health. So which is it? So the answer is that the Rambam uses the word bilvad often not in the sense of... We think of it only in terms of exclusively or of alone. But the Rambam also uses it in a very different sense, and there are many apparent stiros in the Rambam which are resolved by recognizing this. What we're discussing now I saw many years ago, unfortunately I can't I hope it's not my fault that the Gule isn't coming, but I don't remember the name of the Rav who there's a Torah journal that's published in England and a Rav submitted a dvar Torah about leshonos haRambam, an excellent, excellent dvar Torah. And one of the leshonos haRambam he talks about is how the Rambam uses sometimes the word bilvad. One of the other Rambams he points to, if you take a look in perek vav of hilchos chametz u'matzah. Again, this is a sugya in Pesachim that the Rambam is poskening here, perek vav of hilchos chametz u'matzah, halacha tes. חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שעשה אותם לעצמו. A person himself is bringing a korban todah. A nazir has finished his meloys yemei neziros and is bringing the korbanos nazir, which again, like the korban todah, are accompanied by

חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שעשה אותם לעצמו אין יוצאין בהן.

Even though both of these are matzah, right, kimat kol menachos, right, כל המנחות באות מצה chutz mishtei halechem.

חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שעשה אותם לעצמו אין יוצאין בהן

shene'emar ushmartem es hamatzos.

מצה המשתמרת לענין מצה בלבד היא שיוצאין בה אבל זו משתמרת לענין הזבח.

It's true that they exercise the shemirah to make sure that the חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר wouldn't become chametz, but they didn't have in mind l'shem matzah, they had in mind korban todah and korbanos of the nazir. However, אם עשאה למכור בשוק, if however he's intended to sell it to people who are חייבים מן הקרבן תודה ve'chayavem mikorbanos nazir, so then harei yotzei bah, הרי זה יוצא בו ידי חובתו. Why? She'ha'oso limkor bashuk,

דעתו שאם לא ימכרו יאכל אותם ונמצא בשעת עשייתן שימור לשם מצה.

If you own a bakery, so mistama you have in mind that whatever you're not going to sell at the end of the day you'll take home and you'll have for supper. But wait a minute, in the reisha the Rambam said that the gezeiras hakasuv ushmartem es hamatzos is it has to be משתמרת לענין מצה בלבד. Sounds like that the l'shma you have to have is exclusively the shem matzah. So how does it help that in the seifa, ועשאה למכור בשוק, he has a double l'shma that either these will be good for חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר or if I don't find a customer, so then I'll use it at the seder, but it wasn't משתמרת לענין מצה בלבד? So what this Rav shows is it's clear that for the Rambam bilvad also, not to the exclusion of our association with the word bilvad, I think you find that in the Rambam also, but bilvad in the Rambam also means directly or ultimately. And when the Rambam says ushmartem es hamatzos, מצה המשתמרת לענין מצה בלבד, it doesn't mean exclusively. The translation of that is not that it's mishtameres exclusively le'inyan matzah, but it means that there's a kavana that it's mishtameres directly for matzah, as opposed to this where there was no kavana that it was mishtameres for matzah, there was only a kavana that was mishtameres for חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר. And the Rambam never said that it had to be exclusively, exclusively le'matzah. I think he has another raya from the beginning of Hilchos Shabbos to this havana of bilvad in the Rambam. And lichora it's kor. I don't remember whether he has this example of Hilchos De'os or not, but either way it's kor that that's what it means here as well. That

לא ישים על לבו לעשות דברים הללו כדי ליהנות בלבד,

meaning that shouldn't be his direct or ultimate goal. He's not saying that that shouldn't be his exclusive goal. That shouldn't... be his that shouldn't be the direct goal. Were that the direct goal, so then a person would eat and drink not what's nutritious and not what's healthy, but he would only eat and drink that which is matok lacheich.

אלא ישים על לבו שיאכל וישתה כדי להברות גופו ואיבריו,

and that's his direct goal. His direct goal when he's eating is to maintain his health, to fortify himself. His direct goal when he's eating is not that he's searching for pleasure.

לפיכך לא יאכל כל שהחיך מתאוה ככלב והחמור אלא יאכל דברים המועילים לו אם מרים אם מתוקים ולא יאכל דברים הרעים לגוף אף על פי שהן מתוקים לחיך.

Keitzad.

מי שהיה בשרו חם לא יאכל בשר ולא דבש ולא ישתה יין כעניין שאמר שלמה דרך משל אכול דבש הרבות לא טוב ושותה מי העולשין אף על פי שהוא מר שנמצא שהוא אוכל ושותה דרך רפואה בלבד.

Again, that's his direct goal.

כדי שיבריא ויעמוד שלם. פה ואי אפשר לאדם לחיות אלא באכילה ושתייה. וכן כשיבעול לא יבעול אלא כדי להברות גופו וכדי לקיים את הזרע. לפיכך אינו בועל כל זמן שיתאוה אלא כל עת שידע שהוא צריך להוציא שכבת זרע כמו דרך הרפואות או רפואות ולקיים את הזרע.

The Ra'avad is massig, אמר אברהם וכן למצות עונה היא מקפדת. If the Rambam is listing occasions when he should be bo'el, so then certainly included in that list is to be mekayeim mitzvat onah. Kesef Mishneh comments,

ולא חשש רבינו להזכיר כאן העונה שהוא חייב בה וכאן לא דיבר אלא בדברים שעושה ברצונו בלא חיוב.

The Rambam is talking about the bechol derachecha da'ehu within the realm of reshus, and that's why he doesn't include it in the list. But emes is if you skip ahead to פרק ו הלכה ג here in hilchos de'os.

מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב כל אחד ואחד מישראל כגופו שנאמר ואהבת לרעך כמוך. לפיכך צריך לספר בשבחו ולחוס על ממונו כמו שהוא חס על ממון עצמו ורוצה בכבוד עצמו.

The two examples or the two applications that the Rambam gives of לספר בשבחו ולחוס על ממונו, so the Kesef Mishneh already is metzayein the two mishnayos in Avos that יהי כבוד חברך חביב עליך כשלך and יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך keshelach. And it's clear ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha, right? That's what the mishnayos when the mishnayos say

יהי כבוד חברך חביב עליך כשלך, יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך,

so those mishnayos are telling us what the mitzvah of ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha, ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha entails. Okay. In Perek Yud Daled of Hilchos Aveil, so the Rambam has as follows: מצות עשה של דבריהם. Yud Daled Aleph.

מצות עשה של דבריהם לבקר חולים ולנחם אבלים ולהוציא המת ולהכניס הכלה וללוות האורחים ולעסוק בכל צרכי הקבורה לשאת על הכתף ולילך לפניו ולספוד ולחפור ולקבור וכן לשמח החתן והכלה ולסעדם בכל צרכיהם. ואלו הם גמילות חסדים שבגופו שאין להם שיעור. אף על פי שכל מצוות אלו מדבריהם הרי זה בכלל

V'ahavta L'reiacha Kamocha.

כל הדברים שאתה רוצה שיעשו אותם לך אחרים עשה אותן אתה לאחיך בתורה ובמצוות.

Again, noch a mol,

אף על פי שכל מצוות אלו ביקור חולים וכו' מדבריהם הרי הן בכלל

V'ahavta L'reiacha Kamocha. Bikkur Cholim, Nichum Aveilim, Hotza'as Hameis, Hachnasas Kallah, V'chulu. So it's mamash a peleh. Here in Hilchos De'os, you have the sense that you get for the mitzvah of V'ahavta L'reiacha Kamocha is so narrow and so constricted. The only—you walk away—you walk away from Hilchos De'os, I mean the Rambam intended we should learn Mishneh Torah ke'seder. I'm not—takes a long time to get from Hilchos De'os Hilchos Aveil. I don't know, it must have been a few years, nu? A long time. So you walk away—you walk away from Hilchos De'os with such a narrow, bare-bone conception of the mitzvah of V'ahavta L'reiacha Kamocha. What is the Rambam—okay, so he's not going to elaborate on Hotza'as Hameis and Hesped. He's not going to elaborate on that here; he'll elaborate that in Hilchos Aveil. But some indication that the mitzvah of V'ahavta is broader than just Mamon Chaveircha and Kvod Chaveircha? Ella mai, when you re-read the two Rambams, so here in De'os Vav Gimmel, the Rambam writes:

מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב כל אחד ואחד מישראל כגופו.

What's the mitzvah? לאהוב כל אחד ואחד מישראל. How does he formulate it in Hilchos Aveil?

כל הדברים שאתה רוצה שיעשו אותם לך אחרים עשה אותן אתה—right,

so he should say: לכל אחד ואחד מישראל. But he doesn't. He says: עשה אותן אתה L'achicha B'Torah U'v'mitzvos. So it's clear that the Rambam has two tiers in the mitzvah of V'ahavta L'reiacha Kamocha. There's one which is כל אחד ואחד מישראל; it doesn't have to be Achicha B'Torah U'v'mitzvos—כל אחד ואחד מישראל. And then there's a second tier of L'achicha B'Torah U'v'mitzvos. And the Rambam in Hilchos De'os is only mentioning that which applies uniformly, universally to כל אחד ואחד מישראל even if he's not, unfortunately, Achicha B'Torah U'v'mitzvos. And the Rambam in Hilchos Aveil is telling us all the second tier, everything that's included there where the chiyuv is כלפי אחיך בתורה ובמצוות. Now the pshat is like this, rabosai. The mechayev in

יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך וכבוד חברך חביב עליך כשלך,

the mechayev is not the Bein Adam L'Chaveiro. The mechayev is a person's own middos. Right? Whenever we interact with each other, there's a possibility of either or both of two mechayvim. Number one, when a person interacts with someone else, so it could be that the chaveiro is a mechayev. It could be that what the chaveiro is deserving of is a mechayev. Additionally, regardless and independent of what the other one is deserving of. is mechayev. A person's own midos are mechayev certain things in interaction. So the Rambam in Hilchos Deos says that the mechayev which is לגבי כל אחד ואחד מישראל, could be a rasha. Could be a rasha. כל אחד ואחד מישראל, he's not achicha batorah umitzvos. The mechayev there is the person's own midos. In Hilchos Avel, he tells us what the second tier of ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha is. There the mechayev is no, the chaveiro is the mechayev. Ve'achicha batorah umitzvos. No, this is what is owed to him. It's not your midos that are the mechayev, it's what's owed to him. Oh, but when the Rambam has a choice of being comprehensive or preserving the havana, the conceptual framework, so he always opts for number two. The Rambam in Hilchos Deos doesn't tell us everything about ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha, he only tells us about that part of ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha which is midin Hilchos Deos, where the mechayev is Hilchos Deos. The rest, that's going to have to wait for later. There's another example, I'm not sure we'll have time to get to it today. And it's lichora that's the answer to the hasagas haRavad. Why didn't the Rambam mention mitzvas ona? Because the Rambam is talking about the moderation that the person shows, what occasions are correct and what occasions are incorrect mitzad Hilchos Deos, מצד המחייב הלכות דעות. The same way in perek vav he doesn't mention bikur cholim, nichum avelim, hachnasas kallah, vechulu. So hu hadin vehata'am. That's why in perek gimmel he doesn't mention mitzvas ona. One of the many many things that the Reb Chaim taught the world was to look to see not just what the Rambam says, but where he says it. And this type of example is just so nira ba'alil, the emes of the emes of that and how you don't correctly, adequately understand the Rambam without without that sensitivity. Okay, we'll stop here.