13 Ikarim, Rambam P’ ‘Cheilek: Yesod 3

The third principle, Yesod hashlishi, she-shelilat hagashmius mimenu, to negate any notion of physicality or corporeality of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, שהאחד הזה אינו גוף ולא כוח בגוף. Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the one and unique, does not have a body, nor is he some physical force. And therefore, לא יאורו לו אותות הגוף. Anything which is predicated on physicality, anything which is a function of physicality can't happen to Hakadosh Baruch Hu either, gam hatnuah v'hamnucha, to be in motion or to be at rest, לא מצד העצם ולא במקרה. It can't happen either as an essential trait, let's say a chai or medaber, so it's an essential trait that the chai or medaber can either be at rest or in motion. You have a domem, so it's not mitzad ha'etzem, but you can pick up the stone and you can throw it and then b'mikreh the stone will be in motion. ולכן שללו ממנו עליהם השלום hachibur v'hapirud. There can't be connection, there can't be separation.

אמרו לא ישיבה ולא עמידה לא עורף ולא עיפוי כלומר לא פירוד והוא עורף ולא חיבור כי עיפוי מן עמרה ועפה

u'chtav poshtin

כל מי שידחף ועשה וכפר כלפי מעלה. ואמר הנביא ואל מי תדמיוני ואשוה.

To whom, to what, can you compare Hakadosh Baruch Hu? Or the Navi speaking in the voice of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, k'vayachol, ואל מי תדמיוני ואשוה. To whom can you compare me and can I be equated? V'ilu haya guf, says the Rambam, if Hakadosh Baruch Hu were physical, haya domeh lagufim, there would be some basis for comparison. וכל מה שבא בכתובים בתואר u'mitoarei hagufim, all the anthropomorphisms in Tanach,

כגון הליכה ממקום למקום והעמידה והישיבה והדיבור וכיוצא בזה כולם הם דרך השאלה.

They're all, they all need to be understood, they're all intended to be understood metaphorically. That all these things, in addition to having one physical, concrete meaning, they also have abstract meanings which are appropriate to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The same way we were talking yesterday about the lashon k'tzar, words, phrases have multiple meanings, so it's true in this context as well. U'k'mo she-amru

דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם וכפי דיבור בני אדם בעניין זה הרבה. והיסוד השלישי הזה הוא שהזהיר עליו הכתוב,

as the Torah says in Devarim, ואמר כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה at Ma'amad Har Sinai. And the Torah says there v'hishameru lachem. The Torah underscores, make sure that you keep in sharp focus the fact that כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה. The experience was not a physical experience in terms of beholding Hakadosh Baruch Hu because that can't be.

כלומר לא השגתם אותו בעל תמונה לפי שהוא כמו שאמרנו לא גוף ולא כוח בגוף.

We'll discuss shortly im yirtzeh Hashem the Hasagas HaRavad in the Yad, but it's just very important to keep separate the following two things. The Yud Gimmel Ikkarim the Rambam teaches us again the fundamentals of emunah and especially in the first four the Rambam teaches us the most basic parameters of what elokus means for us the most basic minimal parameters of what elokus means for us. B, the Rambam says that if a person denies it, so then he's a min and אין לו חלק לעולם הבא. Whatever discussion the Ravad instigates as to number two, in no way is the Ravad challenging number one in terms of that this is a basic fundamental Torah conception of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Ad k'dei kach the Kovetz Teshuvos HaRambam in his introduction to Perek Chelek and then the whole hakdamah he has there that preceded it surrounding the Moreh in Sefer Hamada he's commenting on this yesod haemunah that the Rambam puts front and center in Sefer Hamada as well that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is ein lo guf. So he says

כל הגאונים בחיבוריהם וכל חכמינו הקדמונים יחשבהו הנוטה מזה כהולך אחרי ההבל.

So everyone agrees with the Rambam, it isn't the Rambam, it's Torah, it's Yahadus, it's not a Rambam.

מפורש מפי נביאים משורש הכתובים כי עילת העילות יתברך על כל ברכות ותהילות אין לו תואר וגשם ותבנית.

And then he says and listen to this extraordinary line

סוף דבר הכל נשמע כי על זאת האמונה ומסורתנו אמונה.

This is the conception of am kadosh. סוף דבר הכל נשמע, this is the Jewish faith. If you have a Rambam, take a look in פרק ג' הלכות תשובה. So in halacha vav the Rambam lists

ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתים ואובדים ונידונים על גודל רשעם וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים: המינים והאפיקורסים והכופרים בתורה והכופרים בתחיית המתים והכופרים בביאת הגואל.

Then the Rambam explains what each of these terms, those that are not self-explanatory, what each of these terms mean. So what does minim mean in this context? חמישה הן הנקראים מינים says the Rambam

חמישה הן הנקראים מינים האומר שאין שם אלוה ואין לעולם מנהיג האומר שיש שם מנהיג אבל הם שניים או יתר האומר שיש שם ריבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה וכן האומר שאינו לבדו הראשון וצור לכל וכן העובד אלוה זולתו כדי להיות מליץ בינו ובין ריבון העולמים כל אחד מחמישה אלו הוא מין.

So the chamisha that the Rambam defines as minim here in Perek Gimmel, again as we've noted, corresponds to the first five of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. the way the Rambam presents, formulates the ikkarim here in Perush HaMishnayos is the Rambam describes in the affirmative, right? This is what a person has to believe, right? A person has to believe metzius haborei, a person has to believe achdus, a person has to believe shelilus hagashmus mimenu. And then he says, and if a person does, so then he's be-khlal Yisrael, and if nish-pohl, if he wavers in any of these, so then Rachmana litzlan, so then yatza min haklal. Over here, the Rambam presents it from the opposite, right? The Rambam presents a person who kofayr in these things. Instead of saying, instead of presenting them in the positive, that חייב להאמין שיש שם ומי שאינו מאמין, it's ha-omer. So A, why does he present it, formulate it in the negative? And B, what's ha-omer? אטו החושב ואינו אומר, so the sha'arei Gan Eden are going to be open for a person... if a person's an atheist, but he does not never says never shares that with anyone, never says so the sha'arei Gan Eden going to be open? So what does it mean? So lekhora it's klar, klar that there's a very very simple answer. The yud-gimmel ikkarim are of fundamental importance A in defining the basics, the threshold of emuna, and B as a corollary to that they have lots of halachic repercussions in other contexts. I think in in in the first shiur we we looked at we looked at some of those. Now if when you present the yud-gimmel ikkarim you're not thinking equally of those two aspects, you're primarily focused on the first and just the second one you're going to mention more k'man d'amar in a in a secondary, so then what you'll say is this is what a person has to believe to be be-khlal ma'amin. And you're not going to talk about speech and you're not going to formulate it in the negative as kefira. You're going to formulate this is what constitutes emuna. But let's say that when you're when you're presenting it you're equally interested in those, you have in mind and you're equally interested in those applications like do I return his aveida, don't I return his aveida? Do I eat from his shechita, don't I don't I eat from his shechita? מורידין ואין מעלין וכולו. So we're not mind readers. So how are you supposed to know when you apply these categories of min and apikoros and hilchos g'zeila v'aveida? So how are we supposed to know? Okay, so I guess a chozeh would look at the person's forehead and he would know. But for the rest of us, how are we supposed to how are we supposed to apply these categories? That's what Rambam says, No, when you'll see me talking about when you'll see me applying this, so I'm telling you that האומר שאין שם אלוה. How do I know who knows what's be-leiv chaveiro? Who knows what's be-leiv chaveiro? So often we take it we often we take it don't. But the person says be-feh malei, the person says be-feh malei, ein lo l'manhig Rachmana litzlan. The person says be-feh malei, יש לו מנהיג אבל הם שנים או יותר, so then Rambam says so then you should know that that triggers these halachic categories. So he's saying the same thing, there's no two different there's no he's not it's not it's not that there's an implication here that the person has to be davka kofayr. No, it's klar, it's klar that adara, the person has to be davka ma'amin. The Rambam says it bilshon ha-omer because if you want to also be able to not only use this in terms of knowing what what the what the Torah taught us and requires in terms of belief, but you also want to be able to apply these as categories. In other words, zeh ba'avodah, that's pikuach nefesh, in Hilchos Shechitah and so on. So that it's actually going to be a function of ha'omer. That's how you're going to know. You can't read someone's mind. Okay, but this is just- so the Ra'avad very famously comments here on

האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה אמר אברהם ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזה המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות.

So it's very, very important to understand what the Ra'avad's arguing about and even more important what they're not arguing about. A, what we said in terms of hakdama. Obviously the Ra'avad agrees and doesn't question this that the correct emunah is Hakadosh Baruch Hu's aino guf. The Ra'avad says: What happens if a person makes an innocent mistake? So, yes, he's wrong, and yes, he's wrong about ultimate reality about Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but אף על פי כן, even though that belief is minus, the Ra'avad questions whether or not the person who subscribes to such a belief should be labeled a min. Okay, A. But B, also very important is, I don't know, sometimes one hears said that the Ra'avad tolerates error in ikarei emunah and the Rambam doesn't. And that's wrong on both- it's a misrepresentation of the Rambam, it's a misrepresentation of the Ra'avad. This misrepresents both. Let's begin with the Ra'avad. The Rambam lists חמישה הן הנקראים מינים. The Ra'avad comments on one of them at a time. Let's say you have someone who is wrong on something else here in this halacha. So the Ra'avad doesn't comment about למה קרא לזה מין. He doesn't attach his hasaga to the entire halacha. He doesn't say... They told him this story, so he doesn't attach the hasaga to the whole halacha. So it's not that the Ra'avad just sort of open-ended accepts, quote, 'innocent mistake.' M'idach gisa, the Rambam also accepts mistakes. Because when you learn the- let's say Hayesod Hasheini. The Rambam has much more to say about achdus than he distills into the Perush Hamishnayos. He has much more to say about what a proper understanding of achdus means that isn't represented in the Yesod Hasheini. Because the emes is, the Rambam also thinks that the Torah at a certain point does tolerate innocent error. Machlokes the Rambam and the Ra'avad is this particular error. It's not this global machlokes. It's not that at all. It's this particular error. The Ra'avad says in this particular error where a person can come to this error through Talmud Torah, he can come to this error through learning Tanach and through learning Ein Yaakov, so this particular error, agam that it's minus, the person shouldn't be labeled a min. And for whatever reason that we need to discuss, the Rambam doesn't accept that defense, and the Rambam says: No, not only is it minus, but he's a min. Why did he say there were gedolim u'tovim who subscribed to this? Is that? Right, so the lashon Ra'avad is gedolim u'tovim mimenu. So here they explain that what gedolim u'tovim mimenu means... Forget people who believe in corporeality. How many people are bigger than the Rambam in Jewish history? Like, what was the Ra'avad doing? Mai shaila? What- where did he get? What do you mean, gedolim u'tovim mimenu? So mimenu means- mimenu means two things in Lashon Hakodesh. Mimenu... But the Ra'avad says כי גדול הוא ממנו and and let's say the way Rashi quotes from Chazal that they meant that kavei yakol. So that mimenu can mean, right, כי גדול הוא ממנו, that the nations there are greater than Him, right? And and if you would plug that meaning into here, so then the Ra'avad would be saying כמה גדולים וטובים ממנו of the Rambam. But mimenu also means from amongst us. Right? Echad mikem means one of you and echad mimenu means one of us. So the Ra'avad said "No, there's a lot of nice, ehrlich, shul-going people who make this mistake." No like I can't go like whatever... In any context you can't say that there are kama gedolim from the Rambam, or whatever the Ra'avad says, in any context don't be tamah hayom and any... if you if you gathered the Rambam and the Ramban and the Rashba and and and the Malachei Hashares, you couldn't say that there are kama gedolim mimenu of the Rambam. There isn't a tzibbur in which you could say there are kama gedolim mimenu of the Rambam. But clearly as the Ra'avad means כמה גדולים וטובים ממנו means amongst us. He says, the Ra'avad's an Ohev Yisrael. The Ra'avad says he's throwing out of Gan Eden a lot of nice balabatim. I'm sure he says he's throwing them out of Gan Eden and that's what the Ra'avad is being moche. What would be the hassaga of such a thing? Is it because people are doing it therefore it's not an ikkar? Or is it... No, because again, because everyone agrees, everyone agrees, the Rambam also agrees that the Torah tolerates error at a certain point. So the question is, at what point? At what point does the Torah tolerate error and at what point does the Torah not tolerate error? So the Ra'avad thinks there's nothing in the Chumash, there's nothing in the Chumash that a person can innocently mistake to think there's no Ribbono Shel Olam. There's nothing in the Chumash, שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד, there's nothing in the Chumash that a person can innocently mistake for thinking that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is shnayim o yoser. But you can learn Chumash and you can learn Agadata Chazal and innocently fall into that error. So the Ra'avad says that fact, I, the Ra'avad, think is compelling for why this would be an error that the Torah would tolerate, would tolerate. And that's why the Ra'avad is massig on the other parts of the halakha. But even if mimenu doesn't refer to the Rambam, isn't the Ra'avad mistama including himself in the tzibbur of mimenu, and therefore you'd have to say that people would be greater than the Ra'avad? No, but once mimenu means from amongst us, the gedolim isn't a comparison. If mimenu, so the mimenu, there's a double double meaning to mimenu. It can mean than, it can mean from amongst. So when it means him, it means the... and I... I think what I tried this morning I found out I found out that... in Ivrit they don't say this anymore, but once upon a time when I was young, so in modern Hebrew if you want to say that I'm five years older than him you would say אני גדול ממנו בחמש שנים. So I tried this morning to ask "how do you say it in modern Hebrew?" They'll say Ani gadol me-alav or something, mimenu, but once upon a time this is where they should say it in modern Hebrew. So there's a double, so once it means us, it means from amongst. That's what the mem means. So then the Ra'avad's not... he's not elevating them above himself either. He's saying that there are people who learn Chumash and people who be-tumam she-ma'aminim go to the yeshiva and and make this and make this mistake. So very famous, Rav Elchonon quotes that he heard from Rav Chaim that the Chofetz Chaim said that the Rambam's response... The Ravad is that

דער וואס איז נעבעך אן אפיקורוס איז אלץ אן אפיקורוס.

And then he went into that and obviously by extension what does that, what does the Rambam mean? It's some elements are not so complicated, some elements are very complicated. Where to begin with maybe what's a little less complicated? The Rambam himself actually rebuts this hassagah. Does that mean the Rambam saw the hasagos ha-Ravad? Lav davka. Legend has it that he did, but I don't know whether, not sure historical fact that he did, but legend has it that he did. But he didn't have to have seen the hasagos ha-Ravad to know that someone could raise this question. So the Rambam is aware of this question and the Rambam says well all the ovdei avodah zarah they also think what they're doing is real. They also think what they're doing is real and is beneficial and otherwise what are they doing? And he says clearly the Torah doesn't cut them slack for that. And if you go and you give them and you give them hasra'ah, so they think you're wrong and they think they're right and they go ahead and they do it. So the Torah says you give them misah. So clearly the fact that they are not doing it lehachis but they're doing it convinced that they're right isn't the defense. He says because if that were a defense so then you could whitewash all avodah zarah which the Torah obviously doesn't. Ah says the Rambam that maybe you'll tayna, I think the Rambam mentions Tanakh, I don't know if he mentions the Aggadita, but it's it's obviously the same the same point. He says but maybe you'll tayna that the peshutei hamikra'os can lead a person to to that error, and in that sense it's different than avodah zarah obviously. So the Rambam says I don't hold people responsible for not being able to understand that on their own, but I do hold them responsible for not deferring to people who do understand. Which is such an extraordinary statement with such extraordinary implications.

אין צידוק למי שאינו מקבל מבעלי הרמז בעלי העיון אם אינו מסוגל לעיון.

There's no justification for a person not having the self-awareness to know what his own limitations are and deferring to people who who know better and who understand better. Again the implications and applications of this are so important, so varied and so hard to overstate, how hard to exaggerate the importance of this. So that's the Rambam's answer. The Rambam's answer to the Ravad is: so who told them to pass judgment on דבר העומד ברומו של עולם based on their own feeble understanding of Mikra'os and aggados Chazal? He says inna hachi nami. And then the Rambam adds to it. He says and what's more if you measure rebi vi-Onkelos how they spoke, so you see that Onkelos Onkelos is merachek hageshamah at every at every turn. He says that, he says mah gav, he says moreover he says שמצא הפירוש של אונקלוס, he says hamerachek ha-hagsamah. So in context... In context, Rav Chaim's comment was about this Hasagas HaRavad. There's no hechrach that he meant anything more than this. That was his nebech and apikoros. Nebech, he made a mistake, but the nebech is not such a nebech because who tells the person to rely on his own feeble understanding? Once I got a ride back from the moshav to Chanoch where he went to speak about. So in the van, he was telling me that the guy who came to Kollel and said he has all kinds of questions and based on that he doesn't believe. I think he didn't even present them as problems and everything. So Osis says to him, you can get a sense of Osis says to him, he says to him, did you study the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim? No. Kuzari? No. Mesillas Yesharim? No. After pursuing that line of questioning, he says to him, he says to him, you're not a kofer, you're an idiot. The Rav says so the pshutei mikraos, the pshutei mikraos will lead a person astray. It leads a person who doesn't have the keilim to properly understand it. And the Rav says that's not an indictment, we're all very limited, but what is an indictment is when we're not self-aware of our limitations. That the Rav says, that's no justification for being delusional about one's own qualifications, about one's own ability, about one's own capacity for understanding. Since that's no justification for that's and that's what the Rav says, that's why I don't agree with this Hasagas HaRavad. And the Rav, hundred percent flips the question. Now what's pshat in the Ravad? How could a person think that such a person is klal? I don't think in pshat the Ravad is not pasul for observation, not biased for the fact that some people think he's klal. The Ravad doesn't think he's an what about the fact that there's some people who haven't bought into the system enough to even being they don't not believe in God and they're not anti-God, but they don't even know what the Kuzari is or that it holds value or that the Moreh Nevuchim holds value. If they had somewhat been involved in Judaism today, they'd know that if they set out I wouldn't read it, then they obviously are broken or whatever. Osis comes to suggest, just the context of that story of that story was he was talking to someone who certainly knew all of those books. But what we have here is further evidence of the fact that again the machlokes here between the Rambam and the Ravad is not about. is not about tolerating error because the Ra'avad only makes this one exception and even the Rambam explains why he doesn't think this is deserving of an exception, but the Rambam himself tolerates other types of errors that he doesn't bother recording. We see clear as the Rambam writes in Perek Yud-Dalet of Hilchos Shechitah, in Halachah Yud-Dalet and Halachah Tes-Zayin: אם היה משומד לעבודה זרה, the person who slaughtered is meshummad l'avodah zarah ומחלל שבת בפרהסיא o min

והוא הכופר בתורה ובמשה רבנו הרי הוא כגוי ושחיטתן נבילה.

The Rambam says so clearly. Then the Rambam says in Halachah Tes-Zayin meaning הרי הוא כגוי ושחיטתן נבילה means that even if there was a ישראל עומד על גביו and the Yisrael saw that the mechanics of the shechitah were perfect and it was done in accordance with hamesh halachos shechitah, so just it's shechitassan neveilah because if the same way, if the same way, shechittas akum is neveilah, so too the shechitah of this individual is shechitassan neveilah. And by contrast, the Rambam writes in Halachah Tes-Zayin

אלו הצדוקים והבייתוסין ותלמידיהם וכל התועים אחריהם שאינם מאמינים בתורה שבעל פה,

whom the Rambam lists here in פרק ג' הלכות תשובה as kofrim baTorah who also אין להם חלק לעולם הבא and they're no different than those other kofrim baTorah she'b'ksav. But here all of a sudden in Hilchos Shechitah the Rambam writes yes,

אלו הצדוקים והבייתוסין ותלמידיהם וכל התועים אחריהם שאינם מאמינים בתורה שבעל פה שחיטתן אסורה,

but listen to the caveat: ואם שחטו בפנינו הרי זו מותרת. But if we witness the shechitah and saw that it was done in accordance with hilchos shechitah

שאין איסור שחיטתן אלא שמא יקלקלו והן אינם מאמינים בתורת השחיטה.

Since they don't believe in Torah she'b'al peh and the hamesh halachos shechitah are all Torah she'b'al peh, it's all halachah l'Moshe miSinai, so they're not going to care if they use pressure or they didn't use pressure, they're not going to care, they're not going to report that to us, so they have no ne'emanus, לפיכך אינם נאמנים למה שלא קלקלו, but it's not that the gavra is disqualified. Ay, but the Rambam tells us that

אינם מאמינים בתורה שבעל פה ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתים ואובדים ונידונים על גודל רשעם וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים המינים והאפיקורסים והכופרים בתורה. שלושה הן הכופרים בתורה וכן הכופר בפירושה והיא תורה שבעל פה

v'hikchish maggidiah k'gon Tzadok u'Baytos. So in the Shiurei HaRav on Yoreh Deah, so the Rav says that clearly the Lechem Mishneh asks the kashya here in Hilchos Shechitah. He asks how do we understand this Rambam here in Hilchos Shechitah? So in the Rav shiurim the Rav answers that in Hilchos, that the Rambam here in Hilchos Shechitah, right there is a very famous Rambam in

פרק ג' הלכות ממרים: מי שאינו מאמין בתורה שבעל פה הרי הוא בכל המינים ומיתתו ביד כל אדם. מאחר שנתפרסם שהוא כופר בתורה שבעל פה

moridin v'lo ma'alin

כשאר המינים והאפיקורסים והאומרים אין תורה מן השמים והמוסרים והמשומדים, כל אלו אינם בכלל ישראל ואינם צריכים לא עדים ולא התראה ולא דיינים אלא כל ההורג אחד מהן עשה מצווה גדולה והסיר מכשול.

Bameh devarim amurim

באיש שכופר בתורה שבעל פה ממחשבתו ובדברים שנראו לו והלך אחר דעתו הקלה ואחר שרירות לבו וכופר בתורה שבעל פה תחילה וכן כל התועים אחריה.

So basically it's the same thing that the Rambam said about a person who believes in hagshama d'assah mimenu דהלך אחר דעתו הקלה ואחר שרירות לבו, it means that he elevated himself into the posek achron in matters of emunos v'deios. Aval b'nei So that's someone who was brought up with proper belief and he decided to reject it. Aval bnei osam hato'im. But bnei osam hato'im. So that's someone who was brought up with proper belief and he decided to reject it. Aval bnei osam hato'im, and their children, u'vnei vneihem, their grandchildren, she'hidichu osam avosam, oh, their parents, their grandparents led them astray. V'noldu b'minus, they were born into this heresy, v'gidlu osam aleha,

הרי הם כתינוק שנשבה לבין הגויים וגידלוהו הגויים על דתם שהוא אנוס. ואף על פי ששמע אחר כך שהוא יהודי וראה היהודים ודתם הרי הוא כאנוס שהרי גידלוהו על טעותם.

Thus elu osam she'to'u. She'to'u with a taf.

וצריך להחזירם בתשובה ולמשוך אותם בדרכי שלום עד שיחזרו לאיתן התורה. ולא ימהר אדם להורגם.

So the Rav said, the Rambam in Hilchos Shechita, this is what he's talking about. When he's talking about Tzedokim and Baithusin, so he's talking about, he's talking about the movement. He's talking about the movement. That's why he's very meduyak in Hilchos Teshuva when he illustrates

וכן הכופר בפירושה והתורה שבעל פה והמכחיש מגידיה כגון צדוק וביתוס.

He doesn't say kegon Tzedokim u'Baithusin. He says kegon Tzadok u'Baithos. Tzadok and Baithos, so they were talmidei of Antigonus Ish Socho. They were, they had the, they learned by the, by one of the greatest, greatest Chachmei Yisrael. So it's quite clear here also that the Rambam is, so the Rambam in Hilchos Shechita when he's machshir their shechita, he's being machshir the shechita of the later generations. He's not being machshir the shechita of Tzadok and Baithos, he's being machshir the shechita of the Tzedokim and the Baithusin. That also points to Avodah Zarah, the perek, the second perek, Halacha two. So here it gets a little complicated. Again, so just to sum up where we're holding now, again, the context of the Rav's comment and the way the Rambam himself explains his own shita clearly, clearly can't be reduced to, well, the bottom line is that he believes rachmana litzlan that Hashem is a ba'al goof. What the Rambam says is that without any legitimate defense, he believes HaKadosh Baruch Hu is a ba'al goof. And the Ra'avad's defense in the Rambam's opinion is not, is not an adequate defense because he should have deferred to people who know better. A person has to know his own, his own limitations. Along the same lines, de'hainu of taka only holding a person responsible for the error that's his fault, not for the error that's imposed upon him, are the two Rambams in Hilchos Mamrim and based on the way the Rav explains the Rambam in Hilchos Shechita as well. But Yehuda is asking very, very well, because lichora is as follows. Maybe there's a line. Maybe what the Ra'avad is saying and maybe what the Rambam again only rules out of order because the person went, because that... L'maise, the Ra'avad said, l'maise, he believes, he believes מציאות הבורא שהוא אחד. He believes שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד, and then he errs based on pshutei mikraos and aggados, not recognizing that they're metaphorical, and and without recognizing that they're metaphorical, so then mefaresh hashedeios. But l'maise, he believes in the Ribono Shel Olam, he believes in Hashem Echad. And again, and there too, the Rambam rejects the Ra'avad only because there isn't an adequate defense, only because he says that he doesn't think that the Ra'avad did a good enough job as a as a defense lawyer, that there isn't an adequate defense. But what if there's mamash no basis? What if what if the person, he I don't know, he grew up in in Communist Russia after the revolution and was indoctrinated with with atheism and lived his whole life in that in that society, in that culture, in that mindset? So it's it's certainly true that you can't extrapolate, you can't say, well the fact that you have what the Rav's pointing out about about the ikar hashmini of Torah min hashamayim, so you're 100% right that you can't extrapolate automatically. V'lav davka that in this sense all the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are gonna be are gonna be k'chada machta. The other piece of another piece of the puzzle that we notice in a different context during aseres yimei teshuva I think we mentioned, when the Rambam says that the olam haba is is purely spiritual, no no guf v'gvaya. So the Rambam says so what's the metaphor Chazal are always saying reshaim if that's the case?

וכן זה שאמרו חז"ל רשעים לומר דעה שידעו שבגללה זכו לחיי עולם הבא מצויים עמהם.

Question is maybe when it comes to what is deiah when it comes to the first two ikkarim? For the first two ikkarim if a person just has no shaychus to he doesn't know of the Ribono Shel Olam, so what does the Rambam say about those two? So you're absolutely right you can't you can't be there's no proof from the way the Rambam talks about eino guf and the way the Rav explains from there there's no proof to to what the Rambam would hold in those cases. I don't know if there is an explicit statement to to address that but you're right there is no source there.