Ramban on Noach

The Ramban's first comment in Parshas Toldos, he takes sides on a major dispute amongst meforshei hamikra what the range of meanings of the word toldos is. Does toldos also mean the happenings as in the idiom of כי לא תדע מה ילד יום? Right? In that context mah yeled yom, a person doesn't know what a day will beget, what a day will spawn, what a day will generate. So some meforshim, some of the pashtanim say that toldos can have that meaning as well. And that's how they sort of see the opening pasuk in the parsha as reading smoothly because eleh toldos Noach, and then it doesn't say anything initially within this pasuk about his sons, it tells us נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו etcetera. So according to this havanah that toldos can mean the happenings, this is the happenings, this is the history of Noach, so then the history of Noach is Noach was a tzaddik and that's why he's chosen to survive the mabul, to build the teivah etcetera. Rashi implicitly, like the Ramban after him, doesn't accept that. Right? Rashi's comment on the original pasuk of eleh toldos Noach, Noach ish tzaddik, the first Rashi, הואיל והזכירו ספר בשבחו שנאמר זכר צדיק לברכה. So clearly what that comment is coming to explain is eleh toldos Noach, these are the children, these are the generations of Noach, so then why should it say right away Shem, Cham, and Yafes? So Rashi says no, zecher tzaddik livracha, when you mention a tzaddik, so as it were right away you have to digress and mention the shvachim of the tzaddik. Rashi's davar acher is also intended to answer that. The famous Rashbam at the beginning of Parshas Vayeishev is also triggered, what the Rashbam talks about how there's a level of pshat in אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, there's a level of pshat in chumash in addition to the drashos Chazal and all those halachos that are intended to be and are derived from the drashos Chazal, but there's also a level of pshat. So he also, his point of departure there is the psukim at the beginning of Vayeishev that אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה. There too you have the same problem. If toldos means the children of Yaakov, so then why is only Yosef mentioned? So again the two camps amongst the meforshim how to deal with that. That's where the Rashbam has his what he says, it's a little ironic that he mentions it in this context because he and Rashi his grandfather Rashi both understand toldos the same way, but that's what the Rashbam says that he had a that he argued this point with his avi imi his great-grandfather and hodah li and then Rashi said that whenever he should have to rework his perush al hatorah in light of the Rashbam's critique of that it's not sufficiently pshat. The Rav once commented about that Rashbam, he says he doesn't know why Rashi gave in so quickly because Rashi did such a good job in his perush al hatorah. Al kol panim, so the Ramban is aligned with that group of rishonim of meforshim that the word toldos means the children of, the progeny of, and in each context again, such as here in Parshas Noach, so you have to understand why it doesn't proceed immediately to listing them. The Ramban comments ish tzaddik tamim, right? Eleh toldos Noach,

נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו את האלקים התהלך נח.

Now the Ramban comments Ish Tzadik Tamim,

אלה תולדות נח נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו את האלקים התהלך נח.

The Ramban comments איש צדיק תמים היה, Yazkir HaKatuv שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו. The Ramban wrote very, very compactly. The Ramban is very, very much בבחינת מועט המחזיק את המרובה, the lashon of the Ramban is so, so compact, so, so terse. So the Ramban teitches as follows. First of all, again, here this is one case where he himself gives us a little elaboration. Ki HaTzadik, the Ramban says, להודיע שראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל. Let me read a few lines and then try to process.

שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו להודיע שראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדק כי הצדיק הוא הזכאי בדין הפך הרשע כמו שאמר והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע וכן אתה צדיק על כל הבא עלינו כי אמת עשית וכן בצדק תשפוט עמיתך.

So the Ramban seems to teitch as follows. First of all, the translation of Tzadik according to the Ramban is not righteous but is innocent. So the Ramban says that the basic meaning of the word Tzadik, it means innocent. That's why he renders it as Zakkai in translation. So if the Ramban is going to be the editor of an English translation, so he'd translate it as not that he was righteous, but as Onkelos says, Noach gvar zakkai, that he was innocent. Tamim for the Ramban here is an adverb. It's an adverb modifying the Tzadik, modifying the Zakkai, which means that he was completely, he was perfectly, perfectly innocent. Not just that on the scale, you know, it was 80/20, it was 90/10, so on the whole he's innocent. No, he was shaleim b'tzidko. That again, it's an adverb modifying the Tzadik. The fact that Tzadik means that, that's what the Ramban proves from pesukim in Ki Seitzei, והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע. What does that mean? So if there's a Din Torah, so then automatically, so Beis Din is supposed to favor, well, this guy looks like a Tzadik, so we'll find in his favor, this guy looks a little sinister to me, so we'll be marshia? No, v'hitzdiku es hatzadik means that they should, the one who's innocent, so they should exonerate him and the one who's guilty, Rasha, so they should incriminate him. So Tzadik, the basic meaning of Tzadik then means innocent, and Tamim is an adverb. Then the Ramban adds, להודיע שראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל. So it's quite clear that the mashmaos here the Ramban is that had Noach been a Tzadik, not Tzadik Tamim, a Tzadik, so then he would have been included in that gezeirah of the Dor HaMabul and he also would have been destroyed together with the rest of the world. The reason Noach is spared is because he's a Tzadik Tamim, is because he's completely innocent, because he's perfectly innocent. This would seem to be the Ramban's... The Rambam writes in Perek Gimmel of Hilchos Teshuva,

כל אחד ואחד מבני אדם יש לו זכויות ועוונות מי שזכויותיו יתירות על עוונותיו צדיק ומי שעוונותיו יתירות על זכויותיו רשע מחצה למחצה בינוני וכן המדינה אם היו זכויות כל יושביה מרובות על עוונותיהם הרי זו צדקת ואם היו עוונותיהם מרובות הרי זו רשעה וכן כל העולם כולו אדם שעוונותיו מרובים על זכויותיו מיד הוא מת ברשעו שנאמר על רוב עוונך וכן כל מדינה שעוונותיה מרובים מיד היא אובדת שנאמר זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה וכן כל העולם כולו אם היו עוונותיהם מרובים מיד הם נשחתים שנאמר וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ.

So the Rambam indicates pretty clearly that when there's din, so there's din not only for yechidim, but there's also din for communal. collective entities and specifically he singles out medinah and then a microcosm medinah and then the macrocosm the world as a whole. So the question is again so according to the Rambam and the Rambam's raya to this that cities that that microcosm medinas are judged as such and the macrocosm the world is judged as such is from the psukim in Chumash about Sdom and in regard to the end of Bereishis the beginning of Noach in terms of what occasions the mabul. So the question is what does the Rambam mean by that I mean Noach is spared. So the Lechem Mishnah understands I think the Lechem Mishnah understands the Rambam never intended to say when the medinah is judged as such or the world is judged as such that the gezar din then applies uniformly to tzaddikim and reshaim within that medinah or tzaddikim and reshaim within the world because we see Lot is saved by Sdom and Noach is saved from the mabul. What it means is the following: if the medinah as a whole as was the case with Sdom is reshaah so then the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu will destroy them is he'll physically destroy that place. Ma she'ein kein if physically destroy that place but in terms of the people only the reshaim will die. The tzaddikim will be spared but the place itself will be destroyed. Ma she'ein kein if the place if the medinah would be rubo zakai so then the place won't be destroyed just the individual reshaim will be destroyed but either way the Rambam never intended to say and the Rambam doesn't say according to the Lechem Mishnah that there's a gezar din on the medinah as a whole that would mean that even a צדיק שבתוך המדינה or a צדיק שבתוך העולם would be killed. The difference is again whether or not the way the reshaim are punished is that the again the reshaim Rachmana litzlan they can die Hakadosh Baruch Hu mevi aleihem mageifah. They can be a plague so the plague doesn't affect the city. There can be a volcanic eruption that buries a city. So the Lechem Mishnah says that's what's at stake that if the medinah is avonosem merubim harei zu reshaah so then the way the reshaim will die with the physical destruction of the place but the tzaddikim will not and so too in terms of in terms of the world. And that's right. Emes is the mashmaos in the Rambam is not so much like that. Mashmaos in the Rambam seems to be that the Rambam is describing a din for the medinah as a collective entity the same way Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not dan a person's right arm and his left arm and his right leg and his left leg individually. A person is an entity that's nidan as such. The simple reading of the Rambam seems to be that the Rambam is saying that so too a medinah is a collective entity that's nidan as such and so too the world. So then what do you do what do you do with Noach what do you do with Lot? So the Ramban's answer to this seems to be there's a difference between whether or not a person is a tzaddik or he's a tzaddik gamur. And that's what that's what our Ramban seems to seems to be saying.

הזכיר הכתוב שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו להודיע שראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדק.

And that this idea that the even the tzaddik because he's part of this collective entity is nidan as such would be if he's a tzaddik but when when the person is zakai veshalem betzidko so then he's not part of that he's not part of that din. The mashmaos is yitachen that what the Ramban means. And in the sefer al ha-Torah he talks about this. I don't remember whether he's misyacheis the Ramban or whether he says this in the Ramban. I'll take a look. Could be he does. I don't recall. But itachen that the vort is as follows that so the pshat in in that midah what's reflected in that midah is the following. A person who's zakkai v-shalem b-tzidko physically he's a part of the world physically he's a part of the medinah but in a different sense and on a different level he lives in his own world. That's he's so unaffected by the corruption of the world that ein hachi nami the world is being nidon as such but he's not part of that world. He lives in his own universe. He lives in his own world. And that's what the midah is that a person can be zakkai but not shalem b-tzidko so epes obviously maybe it's only microscopic and maybe it's subtle and maybe it's relatively speaking minor but be-ma'aseh he's affected by the world around him. You can't say that he's not part of the world. But a person who lives in such a totally totally corrupt world

כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם כי השחית כל בשר דרכו על הארץ

and he's a tzaddik tamim he's not part of the world. So ein hachi nami the midah is that the world is nidon as a collective entity but such a person he's not part of the world. There are different degrees and different forms of of being influenced and relatively speaking it's easier to recognize the more pronounced more dramatic forms of influence and more difficult to recognize the subtle forms of influence. They tell a story that one of the Rav Kotler first first came and settled he used to live in Manhattan on the Upper West Side and even after he had founded the yeshiva in Lakewood he used to commute. And then then one day he he moved. He moved to Lakewood. Someone asked him what happened? So he said that he noticed that he wasn't as bothered anymore he wasn't as troubled he wasn't as agonized by seeing chillul Shabbos. There was a drop if there was a scale on which you could measure how upsetting it was to him how troubling how agonizing it was to rachmanu l-tzlan see chillul Shabbos so he was afraid that he was becoming desensitized to chillul Shabbos. In Lakewood there were no other Jews other than the people who were the yeshiva. He wasn't going to see chillul Shabbos. When we see chillul Shabbos which we do all the time and it doesn't really bother us, it doesn’t really. That’s also a hashpacha, not only a hashpacha mamash, but one that’s a hashpacha, what’s it call, that a person is mechalel Shabbos. It’s not only that dramatic, terrible, terrible, tragic form of hashpacha. But but if seeing chilul Shabbos doesn’t, isn’t troubling, when sometimes a person sees an accident on the road, so they’re shaken, they’re shuddering, it’s it’s horrific to see. And ein hachi nami, people go to to war and some people become inured to it, they become desensitized to to that also. That’s also a form of hashpacha. What what we have to aspire to is is not only to to avoid the dramatic forms of hashpacha, but even the the more subtle, more subtle forms, forms of hashpacha. So I was thinking about a gavaladiger vort that I heard from from my Rebbe, Hashem yikom damo, on the pasuk ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר. So in in anticipation of Kabbalas HaTorah, so Klal Yisrael is is is encamped at the foot of Har Sinai. He said the vort is that sometimes to be mekabel Torah, you have to have your back to the world, be facing, be facing Har Sinai with your back to the world. The world we live in is so so confused and and the confusion of the gentile world, rachmana litzlan, seeps into and and penetrates the the Jewish world. אבל באברהם שאמר לעשות צדקה ומשפט. So again, the mashmaos of tzedek, of tzedakah, again, justice, innocence. אבל באברהם שאמר לעשות צדקה ומשפט, in in that context, where tzedakah appears alongside mishpat, שבחו בצדק שהוא המשפט וברחמים שהיא הצדקה. So Avraham Avinu practiced both, he practiced mishpat, he practiced tzedakah. Ramban doesn’t give us any clue, how how does that work? Again, tzedek means justice, it means it means innocence, so how does the word tzedakah come to to mean charity, charitableness, compassion, how how does that work? How is it clearly the same same shoresh, how does that work? The Ramban doesn’t give us any clue. I don’t know, maybe elsewhere he he explains the the etymology. The Rambam has a nifladiger peshat, nifladiger peshat in tzedakah. Yeah, so tzedakah clearly in context, we know... Tzedek means to do what's right. Tzedek tishpot amcha means judge them justly. Do what's deserved. If the din is that the person owes fifty dollars and you have to pasken that he owes fifty dollars, how does tzedakah come to mean rachmanus, etcetera? So the Rambam says a nifladike pshat. The Rambam says it means as follows. He says when a person acts charitably, when a person acts compassionately, ayee hachee nami, maybe vis-a-vis the other person you wouldn't describe that as tzedek. No, that's fine, I don't owe him anything and I'm going out of my way for him. He says but he's doing tzedek with his nefesh. He's acting in a way that befits his nefesh. You hear that taitch, rabbosai? The way tzedakah comes to mean acts of rachmanus, acts of kindness, acts of charitableness is because when a person does ma'aseh tzedakah, that's tzedek in terms of what's deserving for for his neshamah, how he should be conducting himself. Extraordinary taitch. And with that, take a look at this, rabbosai. The Rambam has in פרק ט הלכות תשובה again where the Rambam is explaining that what does it mean given the fact that שכר בהאי עלמא ליכא, that schar is in Olam Ha-ba. So what does it mean when the Torah promises us all the brachos of Olam Ha-zeh? So the Rambam says

הקדוש ברוך הוא נתן לנו תורה זו עץ חיים וכל העושה כל הכתוב בה ויודעו דעה גמורה נכונה זוכה הוא לחיי העולם הבא ולפי גודל מעשיו ורוב חכמתו הוא זוכה והבטיחנו בתורה שאם נעשה אותה בשמחה ובטובת נפש ונהגה בחכמתו תמיד שיסיר ממנו כל הדברים המונעים אותנו מלעשותה כגון חולי ומלחמה ורעב וכיוצא בהן וישפיע לנו כל הטובות המחזיקים את ידינו לעשות את כל התורה כגון שובע ושלום ורבות כסף וזהב כדי שלא נעסוק כל ימינו בדברים שהגוף צריך להן.

Kitzur, the brachos of Olam Ha-zeh are not the schar, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu says you want to devote your life to Torah and to kiyum hamitzvos, so then I'll give you circumstances that are conducive to that. And if rachmana litzlan you don't want to devote yourself to Torah and mitzvos, then I'll take my cue from that as well. So if again, נעשה אותה בשמחה ובטובת נפש, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives us all these brachos so that

כדי שנהיה פנויים ללמוד בחכמה ולעשות המצוה כדי שנזכה לחיי העולם הבא וכן הוא אומר בתורה אחר שהבטיח בטובות העולם הזה וצדקה תהיה לנו.

So the Rambam says this is the prooftext that that ultimately the schar is Olam Ha-ba. utzedakah tihyeh lanu. So how is utzedakah tihyeh lanu the prooftext for Olam Ha-ba? So lefi peshuto, you would think that the Rambam is learning pshat like the Ibn Ezra quotes, they point out here that Yonatan ben Uzziel says this. utzedakah tihyeh lanu, so the Ibn Ezra writes יש אומרים מכאן רמז לשכר המצוות לעולם הבא. So lefi peshuto that's that's how the Rambam read the pasuk. I mean, the previous pasuk is ויצונו ה' לעשות את כל החקים האלה, Va'etchanan at Shvii.

ויצונו ה' לעשות את כל החקים האלה ליראה את ה' אלקינו לטוב לנו כל הימים לחיותנו כהיום הזה.

And then but ultimately it will be utzedakah tihyeh lanu. So utzedakah tihyeh lanu is a remez for schar. which would seem to mean that Hakadosh Baruch Hu will act charitably with us in bestowing as s'char. But how does that shtim with the definition we just saw of the Rambam for tzedakah? So I think we discussed this recently in, we were looking in Hilchos Teshuva, right? We said, I think we saw the lashon, unbelievable. We saw the lashon in the Rambam in Perek Ches, right? The Rambam says

רחמנא לצלן מי שאינו זוכה לחיים אלו הוא המת שאינו חי לעולם אלא נכרת ברשעו ואובד כבהמה.

We talked about that, v'oved k'beheima. So we said, what's the Rambam, what does he mean by that? Is it just an insult that the Rambam is? No, v'oved k'beheima, the Rambam is saying is the tzelem Elokim of a person is that capacity to know Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Through that a person can be zoche, is zoche to chayim nitzchiyim. So basically what it means is when a person is not zoche to chayim nitzchiyim, it means he wasn't human, right? That's what it means v'oved k'beheima. That really, really the ye'ud of a person, the ye'ud of a tzelem Elokim is to be nitzchi because that's what the tzelem Elokim is, that capacity to know Hakadosh Baruch Hu and it's that which allows a person to become nitzchi and that's what the Rambam is saying. It's not, he's not insulting the person, he's saying that a person who rachmana litzlan forfeits his Olam Haba, he's not human, he's v'oved k'beheima because the ye'ud of a person, the tzelem Elokim of a person is what allows him to have nitzchiyus and that's what makes a person human. So that's what the Rambam says u-tzedakah tihye lanu. How does u-tzedakah tihye lanu refer to s'char Olam Haba? No, because that gufa the Rambam's definition of tzedakah. The Rambam's definition of tzedakah is when a person acts in a way that befits him, befits who he really is. When you give tzedakah, when you give a pruta to an ani, you're acting in a way that befits you, that's why it's called tzedakah. When you act with rachmanus, you're acting in a way that befits you, that's tzedek, that befits you, that matches who you are. The same way when the dayan paskens that Reuven owes Shimon $50 because that's what is, that's what's right, that's tzedek. When you give a pruta to the ani, you're acting in a way that befits your nefesh, your neshama, so that's described as tzedakah, it befits you. u-tzedakah tihye lanu. How does the phrase u-tzedakah tihye lanu refer to Olam Haba, which is clearly how the Rambam was quoting it? Because again the same, because not to be zoche to Olam Haba is to be v'oved k'beheima. The same idea. Ramban continues

ואחר שאמר שהוא איש צדיק שאינו איש חמס ומשחית דרכו כבני דורו החייבים.

After the Torah describes Noach that he didn't engage in acts of chamas, in acts of violent thievery. He wasn't משחית דרכו כבני דורו החייבים, like all his contemporaries. אמר שהיה מתהלך את האלהים הנכבד ליראה אותו לבדו, that he wasn't just tzadik on a practical level, it wasn't just that his behavior was moral and ethical, but it was rooted in a pure yiras Hashem. Hanichbad, he wasn't drawn after אל יפתה לבבכם אחרי הוברי שמים ומנחש ומעונן, all forms of astrology and the like and kol shekein after avoda zara.

ואינו שומע אליהם כלל רק בה' לבדו הוא דבק תמיד והולך בדרך אשר בחר ה' או שיורה אותו כי נביא היה,

Noach was a navi.

וזהו טעם אחרי ה' אלהיכם תלכו ואותו תיראו. הנה אחר שהניח צדיק ואיננו ראוי לעונש גם בניו ובית ביתו וכולם להינצל בזכותו כהיה עונש אבות על בנים או יאמר כי הוא הצדיק שלם וגם בניו ובית ביתו צדיקים כי הוא למדם כענין שכתוב כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו.

The Ramban here has two deiyos whether Noach's children were independently tzadikim and deserving to be saved or whether it was on his coattails that they were saved. Later, again, so here the Ramban clearly takes the position that Noach was ra'ui lehinnatzel. He says it again in the end of this passuk, Gam Bedorosav. Again, Rashi famously quotes whether dorosav is leshavach or legenai. The Ramban says:

ואנחנו נאמר לפי הפשט אינו כן כי טעמו לומר שהוא לבדו הצדיק בדורות ההם.

In those generations, he was the only one who was a tzaddik. Not he was a tzaddik despite the generation, he was a tzaddik only by the standards of that generation neither. In those generations, amongst people alive then, he was the only tzaddik and therefore he was the one who was going to be saved.

אין בדורותיו צדיק ולא תמים זולתו שאין אחר בדור ראוי להינצל.

So again, the Ramban here clearly says that the Noach was ra'ui lehinnatzel as we discussed. Later, at Sheni on the passuk of Vayomer Hashem L'Noach, so the Ramban is prompted by the use of the Shem Havayah as opposed to the Shem Elokim. So the Ramban writes:

הודיעו השם כי במידת רחמים ימלט אותו ואת ביתו ויחיה מהם זרע לדורות.

So here the Ramban isn't talking in terms of ra'ui lehinnatzel anymore. Here the Ramban is attributing it to middas harachamim. So the question is how we're supposed to integrate these two comments of the Ramban? You take a look here in the Penei Yehoshua, so he has what one suggestion of what the Ramban means. He suggests:

מצד הדין היו ראויים להינצל אבל לא לחיות מהם זרע לדורות.

That's the kosha of sheishi. Al kol panim, that's a question, how to integrate this later Ramban with what the Ramban said at the beginning of the parsha. Maybe just one more comment of the Ramban on passuk yud gimmel of

ויאמר אלוהים לנוח קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם והנני משחיתם את הארץ.

Chamas is hagezel vehahoshek. Stealing, withholding wages, etc.

ונתן לנוח הטעם בחמס ולא הזכיר השחתת הדרך כי החמס הוא החטא הידוע והמפורסם.

So that's what the Ramban says al derech hapeshat because Hakadosh Baruch Hu is citing to Noach what Noach is clearly going to be aware of. Again, Vagezel is ויגזול את החנית מיד המצרי. Gezel is something that happened in broad daylight. So Noach is obviously aware of the rampant gezel in the world. Raboseinu Amru, Chazal say differently as to why Hakadosh Baruch Hu only mentions hachamas and doesn't mention the gilui arayos. He quotes Bereshis Rabbah: שעליו נחתם גזר דינם. Because hashchasas ha'aretz notwithstanding, lemaiseh lemaiseh what brought about the gezar din for the dor hamabul was the chamas. Says the Ramban, why is that? A famous explanation of the Ramban:

והטעם מפני שהיא מצווה מושכלת אין להם בה צורך נביא מזהיר.

Those Mitzvos Mishpatim which are Mitzvos Muskhalos for which we have an intuitive moral sense, so when Rachmana Litzlan a person violates it, so that Aveira is more Chamur. And then said this already at the end of Parshas Bereishis also: Velo nigzar al, where is this? On the Pasuk: ויקחו להם נשים מכל אשר בחרו. The end of last week's Parsha, the Ramban says:

ולא נגזר עליהם העונש רק על החמס לפי שהוא ענין מושכל איננו צריך לתורה.

So clearly at the very least what the Ramban means is that a person can't plead ignorance for a Mitzvah Muskhalas. So a person can't say no one ever told me, no one ever taught me, no one ever warned me. That's what a Mitzvah Muskhalas is, that a person has an intuitive innate moral sense for that Mitzvah and he doesn't need the Torah. It's something that if a person is honest with himself and doesn't allow himself to be blinded by other forces, that a person knows it and there is no possible defense of ignorance. So it's obscene when people question whether there's any liability for Germans who were just following orders during the Second World War. The ultimate Mitzvah Muskhalas is Shefichas Damim. Mai Chazis? Mai Chazis? Every human being knows that you can't kill another person just because some Rasha is issuing orders. And itachein, again, not only does the fact that it's Muskhalas preempt any possible defense, as again as our Ramban says: אין להם בצורך לנביא מזהיר, but it also compounds the offense. When a person has a natural feel for a Mitzvah and allows himself to uproot that, so again not only is there no defense of ignorance, but that's a more egregious violation than if a person doesn't have that natural inclination and that natural understanding and that natural appreciation of the Mitzvah. Ve’od, shehu Ra Lashamayim Velabriyos. The other reason that the Aveira of Chamas is more Chamur than כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו is that promiscuity is Bein Adam Lamakom. Chamas, Gezel, is also Bein Adam Lachaveiro. Everything is Bein Adam Lamakom. It’s not that some things are Bein Adam Lamakom, some things are Bein Adam Lachaveiro. Everything is Bein Adam Lamakom. Some things are only Bein Adam Lamakom, some things are Bein Adam Lamakom and Bein Adam Lachaveiro. Ve’od, a person who engages in Chamas, Rachmana Litzlan, is Ra Lashamayim Velabriyos. Sometimes when when we look to to engage in cheshbon hanefesh and and to to improve ourselves, so sometimes our attention is drawn if not disproportionate, if not exclusively, certainly disproportionately just to the area of bein adam lamakom. Sometimes even exclusively so. Avada, avada, when we make cheshbon hanefesh we have to think about davening better, we have to think about about less bittul zman and less bittul Torah. But a cheshbon hanefesh can't, can't overlook bein adam lachavero. Rachmana litzlan shortcomings bein adam lachavero are worse than shortcomings which are only bein adam lamakom. A person shouldn't choose. It's not that the implication is not only to focus in bein adam lachavero chas veshalom. That's obviously not the implication. It's not an incidental, minor, secondary aspect of Torah.