Mishna 1:1

Let's see Mishnah Aleph in Avos.

משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע ויהושע לזקנים וזקנים לנביאים ונביאים מסרוה לאנשי כנסת הגדולה הם אמרו שלושה דברים הוו מתונים בדין והעמידו תלמידים הרבה ועשו סייג לתורה.

And Rabbeinu Yonah writes משה קיבל תורה מסיני, the second משה קיבל תורה מסיני d'be Hamussar from Rabbeinu Yonah.

משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע בין תורה שבכתב בין תורה שבעל פה שהתורה בפירושה נתנה שאם לא כן אי אפשר ללמוד ממנה והרי כתיב לא תגזול

v'chol nizkei nezikin

וכל השאר והן הן התורה שהיה קבלת משה בסיני אף על פי שלא נכתבו. ועוד כתיב בין דם לדם ובין דין לדין ובין נגע לנגע וכמה מראות דמים וכמה דינים מתחלפים ומראות הנגעים כמה וכמה ידועים אצלנו על פי הקבלה ואם היה מפורש לא היינו יודעים באיזה הדרך נלך.

And Rabbeinu Yonah is saying Moshe Rabbeinu was mekabel not only Torah Shebichtav but תורה שבעל פה as well, and that it's clear from within the Torah Shebichtav itself that it can't stand alone and that it doesn't stand alone because it would be unintelligible and therefore totally impractical if it wasn't accompanied by the תורה שבעל פה. We wouldn't, even on those mitzvos which within the Torah Shebichtav are more accessible to us, even there there's no way we could understand the full dimension of the pasuk. He gives the example of Lo Sigzol. I think Rav Gustman has an arichus in Kuntres Shiurim on Bava Kamma about the different shitas about what the issur for niskei mamon is in Parshas Mishpatim. At least when you move through it quickly, so there doesn't seem to be necessarily the Torah tells us about an issur associated with niskei mamon. The Torah tells us niskey shor and bor and eish and tashlumin, but the Torah doesn't necessarily tell us what the issur is. So comes Rabbeinu Yonah and says, no, the issur for niskei mamon, the issur d'Oraisa to be poshea b'shmira and therefore allow my eish to destroy your property, to allow my shor to go into your chatzer hanizak and trample your vegetable patch, is Lo Sigzol. Lo Sigzol means to deprive someone else of his money, of his assets. Ma li, says the תורה שבעל פה, ma li whether you deprive him of his assets as ויגזול את החנית מיד המצרי, you pickpocket, you grab it out of his hand, ma li that you deprive him of it by letting your shor run wild in his chatzer and inflict all kinds of damage. Then what's the raya from dam l'dam and din l'din and nega l'nega? So dam l'dam means that there are maros tameiros and maros tahoros. By nega tzara'as, there's a nega where the look of the nega is such that it is a nega tzara'as. And then it can be the look can be slightly different and it isn't a nega tzara'as. But you can't, ultimately you can't communicate that. First of all, you don't find it in the Torah Shebichtav. You don't find a description of the damim. What's the mareh which is tamei and what's the mareh which is tahor? A, you don't even have the description, and B, lu yetzuyer that there were such a description, at the end of the day without a visual component, which is obviously only possible m'ish l'ish because the Torah is not a picture book, the Torah doesn't have pictures in it, so the only way for those maros to be known and distinguishable is that there's a kabbalah as to them. A, we don't even have a description of what the different colors are in the Torah Shebichtav, and even if you did, l'ma'aseh l'ma'aseh without a kabbalah it wouldn't be known. It's very, very hard. Oh, is this what that description of white that's still— okay. So the Rabbeinu Yonah is, so he's sort of digressing to, I don't know, counter the Tzedokim, the Baitusim, the Karaim who denied Torah she-ba'al peh. And he's telling us how how it's clearly מוכרח ומוכרח מן התורה שבכתב עצמה that there has to be a Torah she-ba'al peh because otherwise the Torah she-bichtav is not, is not intelligible. If it's not intelligible, it's not functional, and and and and it's not a Torah. Torah means a something which is which gives direction, something which is which is a directive. But be'emes when you think about it, it's not that Rabbeinu Yonah is sort of agav orchah explaining this important idea to us that it's nikkar from within the Torah she-bichtav that there has to be a Torah she-ba'al peh. Lechora, it's noge'ah to the Mishna. It's not that he's, again, sort of digressing because it's so yesodidik of the Mishna. No, he's saying peshat in the Mishna. Yitachen that Rabbeinu Yonah is is explaining to us and this is really the the hemshech in Rabbeinu Yonah. Rabbeinu Yonah's explaining to us why does the Mishna say משה קיבל תורה מסיני. Hayose that Moshe Rabbeinu is mekabbel Torah she-bichtav and Torah she-ba'al peh mi-Sinai. Let's say the Gemara in Shabbos, just as as as a mashal.

מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי אמר לו כמה תורות יש לכם.

How many Toros do you have? So אמר לו שתים תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה. So elsewhere, we talk about Torah she-bichtav and Torah she-ba'al peh as shte tora'os.

עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וישמר משמרתי מצותי חקותי ותורתי,

Vetorosai lashon rabbim, shte tora'os, Torah she-bichtav, Torah she-ba'al peh. Here, we refer to it as one Torah. So leaving aside the the difference between here and elsewhere, but just here minei u-vei, that's what Rabbeinu Yonah's explaining to us. What Rabbeinu Yonah's explaining, the reason Rabbeinu Yonah is talking about how the how Torah she-bichtav cannot and does not stand alone without Torah she-ba'al peh, what he's really doing is he's being mefaresh the lashon yachid in the Mishna. The fact that the Mishna says belashon yachid משה קיבל תורה מסיני and doesn't say משה קיבל שתי תורות מסיני is because it's not two different Toros. Two different Toros sounds sort of as each one can can function independently, as though there were some... but you know, you have shte tora'os side by side. Rabbeinu Yonah says, no, that's not the peshat. That's not the peshat. It's rather shne chalakim, it's two sides. If you have a coin which has a heads and a tails, you don't have you don't have two coins. You have one coin which is which is two-sided. So it's Torah achas with shnei chelkei Torah. That's the peshat in Rabbeinu Yonah. Okay. So then it takeh brings to mind what takeh is the peshat. Why is it that sometimes we find or we depict the relationship between Torah she-bichtav and Torah she-ba'al peh as shne chelkei Torah, but we speak of of one Torah? משה קיבל תורה מסיני, lashon yachid. And other times we speak of the relationship between Torah she-bichtav and Torah she-ba'al peh as shte tora'os. כמה תורות יש לכם? So Shammai says shte tora'os. עקב אשר... okay, so maybe it's because in context he would have been misunderstood if he said one Torah. Okay, but וישמר משמרתי מצותי חקותי ותורתי. Other times we speak of shte tora'os. So so what's the peshat? So I don't know. I'm not sure whether the following, I don't know, you have to sort of look for all all contexts and and see whether or not this this holds up. I'm not sure, but bederech efshar, maybe as follows. I'm not sure. But bederech efshar, maybe as follows. The opening line of the Hakdama of Rambam to the Yad Hachazaka: כל המצות שניתנו לו למשה מסיני בפירושן ניתנו. Each of the mitzvot, each and all of the mitzvot that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, they were given together with the oral exposition of those mitzvot. Now what the omek or a little bit of the omek or a little bit of a fuller sense of what the Rambam means is, Rambam's not only telling us, he doesn't only mean that Moshe Rabbeinu was mekabel both Torah Shebichtav, the mitzvot, as well as Torah Sheba'al Peh, the perush, but what he lich'ora is also again kedarko, language by the Rambam is always a מועט המחזיק את המרובה. So the Rambam already in the Hakdama to Peirush Hamishnayot presents this idea, and there he's ma'arich a little bit more. So just reading a couple of the lines here:

דע כי כל מצוה שנתן השם למשה רבינו ניתנו לו אלא עם פירושה. היה השם אומר לו את הנוסח,

meaning the lashon hapassuk,

ושוב אומר לו את פירושו ומדרשו וכל מה שכולל אותו הנוסח המושכל.

And then the Rambam gives us an example, I'm skipping a bit, he says let me give you a for instance, ve'omar lekha mashal:

הנה אמר לו השם בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים וכן הודיע יתעלה שהסוכה הזאת חובה על זכרים ולא על נקבות.

So the Torah Shebichtav says basukot teshvu. So who's the subject of teshvu? The subject of teshvu is not spelled out in Torah Shebichtav. Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Moshe Rabbeinu Sukkah is the mitzvah of yeshivat sukkah is incumbent on z'charim not on nekeivot. ואין חייבים בחולים ובהולכי דרכים. Vas heyst a sukkah? What from what materials do you construct a sukkah? ושלא יהיה סכך אלא בדבר שגידולו מן הארץ and etc. What does yeshiva entail? None of this is at all clear from the Torah Shebichtav itself, or the correct way to say it is none of this is articulated in the Torah Shebichtav itself. ושיהיו האכילה והשתייה והשינה בה במשך כל שבעת הימים etc. So what does that mean? So it means as follows: Moshe Rabbeinu didn't first learn all of Chumash and then learn all of Mishnayot and all of Gemara, but it's quite clear that the tzurat halimmud that the Rambam is describing is the tzurat halimmud of the Torat Kohanim of the and the Sifrei, of the Sifra and the Sifrei. Dehainu that the Torah Sheba'al Peh is connected to and framed by the Torah Shebichtav. Moshe Rabbeinu didn't learn a mishna that אין מסככין אלא בדבר שגידולו מן הארץ when he learned the passuk of be'aspecha migornecha umiyikvecha, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him what that means is בפסולת גורן ויקב הכתוב מדבר and you have to be schach has to be דבר שגידולו מן הארץ. There was no daylight, there was no gap between the Torah Shebichtav and the Torah Sheba'al Peh. The din that anashim chayavim and that nashim are peturot, that din emerged and was taught to Moshe Rabbeinu from the passuk. The din that a mista'eir is patur was taught to Moshe Rabbeinu in conjunction with a passuk, in conjunction with the word in the passuk. that served as the mokor. And again, that's certainly the tzurah of Talmud Torah that we find in the Midrash Halacha, in the Sifra, in the Sifrei. La'umas zos, and and la'umas zos, the way we learn Torah she-ba'al peh today, other than those rare occasions when we dust off our Toras Kohanim or Sifrei to look up, to look something up, the way we learn it is not like that at all. Okay, if we remember to learn the psukim, we learn the psukim. Alavai we should remember. If we remember to learn the psukim, we learn the psukim, and then we learn the Mishnayos. The dinim, when you learn that holechai derachim, when you learn in the Mishnah that holechai derachim are peturim min ha-sukkah, you have no idea how that relates to the Torah she-bichtav. Right? In the Mishnah, there are very, very few psukim in Mishnah. Very, very few psukim in Mishnah. A lot of psukim in Gemara, but there's very, very few psukim in Mishnah. So when we learn, when we learn that holechai derachim are peturim. If we learn or if you have a Baraisa that, when we learn that holechai derachim are peturim, so we don't learn that in conjunction with the word in the Chumash that serves as that mokor. The way we learn now, in the form that Torah she-ba'al peh was presented to us by Rabbeinu HaKadosh, so again, obviously it remains true a thousand percent that Torah she-bichtav can't and doesn't stand alone. It's not that that remains as emes le-amito as it always has been. But that notwithstanding, in a certain sense and on a certain level, so we takeh until we learn Gemara, which retraces for us and provides the bridge between the Torah she-ba'al peh and Torah she-bichtav, we takeh experience them as two separate sort of limudim. There's the Torah she-bichtav and there's the Torah she-ba'al peh. And and maybe that's what sort of the two descriptions in Chazal reflect. And bedavka in our Mishnah with Moshe kibel. No, when Moshe was mekabel, so the way the tzuras halimmud, the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu taught Moshe Rabbeinu was on the model again of Sifra Sifrei. It wasn't on the model that we have in Mishnayos. Why that happened, so Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky has a fascinating suggestion in Emes LeYaakov, but whatever the pshat is, I mean the phenomenon is indisputable however one says pshat in in that. Okay, so you have to see whether or not, whether or not that's, does that account for the difference in when Chazal depict two Torahs, when they depict it as one Torah. I mean again, in terms of our Mishnah, l'chora it does fit, but you have to see whether whether it fits in every context. Okay, let's maybe skip to Mishnah Gimmel, see Mishnah Gimmel with the Rabbeinu Yonah there. אנטיגנוס איש סוכו קיבל משמעון הצדיק hu hayah omer. He, Antigonus,

אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס אלא הוו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב שלא על מנת לקבל פרס ויהי מורא שמים עליכם.

Antigonus Ish Socho, says Rabbeinu Yonah,

אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס לפי שאין זו עבודה שלמה שאינו עושה בשביל הרב אלא לקבל פרס אלא הוו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב על מנת

The qushya to this girsa zo, ki ein l'adam, either of two girsas in the Mishna. That's what Rabbeinu Yonah hears, gevaldig, על מנת שלא לקבל פרס or על מנת שלא לקבל פרס. Again, possibility number one, that's what I have printed here, I assume it's what we all have printed, שלא על מנת לקבל פרס, or is the correct girsa

על מנת שלא לקבל פרס? שלא על מנת לקבל פרס

means I'm not doing it, he's not doing it for the sechar. על מנת שלא לקבל פרס is, no, he's doing it kaviyachol as it were, he stipulated, no, I don't want sechar. I'm... sechar has got nothing to do with it. The first case is that's not why I'm doing it. I'm well aware and perfectly well aware that tehei maskurti shleimah, but that's not why I'm doing it. על מנת שלא לקבל פרס means, no, I'm willing to disavow the sechar. So which is the correct girsa? So Rabbeinu Yonah says, kasha l'girsa zo, the second of the two that we mentioned of על מנת שלא לקבל פרס, where do you find such a thing?

כי אין לאדם לעשות המצוות על דעת שלא יהיה לו פרס עליהם. אלא הגירסא שלא על מנת לקבל פרס שלא יעשה המצוות בשביל הפרס אף על פי שיש לו לבטוח כי שכר יהיה לו חלף עבודתו. אבל נראה לי כי גירסת הספרים היא עיקר.

No, the correct girsa is, again, the question I just asked notwithstanding, says Rabbeinu Yonah, that is the correct girsa, על מנת שלא לקבל פרס. So then how do you understand it?

שהעבודה כזו מצינו בבני אדם כי העבד מקנת כספו חייב הוא לעבוד עבודה בלא שיתן לו פרס. גם כן יש לאדם לעבוד את השם על מנת שלא לקבל פרס אלא מפני חסד שגמלו כבר.

When an eved serves the adon, so what should the eved's mindset be? The eved's mindset should be, I don't deserve sechar. I'm beholden to the adon, the adon as it were has already paid upfront for everything I'm going to do in buying me. So the frame of mind should be not only that I'm not doing it for the sechar, but I'm aware that the sechar... no, but the frame of mind should be that I'm not entitled to sechar. What am I entitled to sechar for? An eved is beholden to the adon and is duty bound to serve the adon. So it's not only that the mindset should be that I'm not doing it for the sechar, the mindset should be I'm not entitled to sechar. Similarly, similarly Hakadosh Baruch Hu paid us, Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us an advance on our avoda that we'll never be able to work off that advance. Hakadosh Baruch Hu created us. עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי, right, no one had any claim on Hakadosh Baruch Hu to be created. Hakadosh Baruch Hu created us. So אין לך שכר גדול מזה. A, אין לך שכר גדול מזה. And B, de'al m'nas hachi, the fact that that itself is already the greatest sechar, de'al m'nas hachi, the fact that that's the greatest sechar, a person of course is beholden to the Ribono Shel Olam. So that's what Rabbeinu Yonah says, no, so that's why the pshat, the girsa in the Mishna type is על מנת שלא לקבל פרס, that the mindset, the frame of mind should be not only that I'm not doing it for the sechar, but עס קומט נישט קיין שכר. I'm... I'm not deserving of any sechar. A, מפני חסד שגמלו כבר. And again that's true for two reasons, right? As we just said. A, it's true because Hakadosh Baruch Hu prepaid, He prepaid in creating us, in giving us life. A, 2, ומפני מעלת הרב שהוא ראוי לכך. And then 2, because the Ribono Shel Olam is the Ribono Shel Olam, so that's why I have to be oved Hashem, again, not... so I have no reason to expect, to think I'm deserving of any sechar. וזו היא עבודת השם יתברך כראוי. Antigonus Ish Soho, ואיזו היא עבודה, וזוהי עבודה שלמה בבני אדם. Excuse me,

ואיזו היא עבודה שלמה בבני אדם ורוצה לשמש את הרב מפני אהבתו אותם מימים קדמונים, ואף אם ידע שלא ינתן לו פרס, ואף אם...

I'm sorry,

ואף אם ידע שלא ינתן לו פרס, ואהבה כזו יש לאדם לעשות בעבודת השם.

Again, משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say, let's say you have an adult child with an older parent. An older parent is not well and needs help. So why does the child, emotionally, again, not just halachically because it's required, but why does the child emotionally want to provide and render that service? Because of everything his parents did for him for so many, so many years. It's true that at this point he doesn't anticipate getting anything more from his or her parent. That's not what the current situation is. But אף על פי כן, a person just feels because of the ahava which and the bonds of ahava which have been cemented for so many years, he's looking to do it knowing, even knowing full well, that there's no, again, b'derech hateva, I'm not talking about the schar mitzvos, but b'derech hateva, there's no payback. Good. Now, what does Rabbeinu Yonah add here?

ועל כן סמך זה לעניין היראה ואמר ויהי מורא שמים עליכם, לעבוד את השם מיראה ומאהבה, כעבד שעובד רבו מפני גדולתו ומעלה על דעתו שיכול להענישו ונמצא משמשו מיראה לא מפני יראתו מן העונש אלא מפני גדולת הרב שיש בידו להעניש.

What does that mean? So again, first of all, Rabbeinu Yonah is clearly, clearly commenting on why does Antigonus Ish Soho conclude with ויהי מורא שמים עליכם? The pshat is that Antigonus Ish Soho is telling us what it means to be oved me-ahava. Okay, so that's enough if you come to hear a shmuz from Antigonus Ish Soho, why do you need to branch out and tell us other things? So what sort of, what's the flow in the mishna? A. Because that's question again, what does Rabbeinu Yonah, clearly Rabbeinu Yonah is commenting on that question, how does he answer that question? B. What does Rabbeinu Yonah mean when he says ויהי מורא שמים עליכם? A person should reflect on the fact that it's b'yado l'onsho, but not be oved Hashem because it's b'yado l'onsho. So of what relevance is the b'yado l'onsho? Ma'ala al da'ato, a person should bring to mind sheyachol l'onsho,

מיראה לא מפני יראתו מן העונש אלא מפני גדולת הרב שיש בידו להעניש.

So Rabbeinu Yonah is saying something so beautiful and so fundamental as follows. Maybe we begin with, I hope this doesn't complicate things, let's begin maybe as follows. I happen to have a Rambam handy for Kinyan. Take a look. The end of Sefer Kinyan, Hilchos Avadim, the end of Hilchos Avadim. Mutzav la'avod, Halacha Ches. Okay, it's the last halacha in Hilchos Avadim, rabosai. Moving along Hilchos Avadim, the end of Hilchos Avadim. Moving along Halacha Ches. This is the last Halacha in Hilchos Avadim, Rabbosai. מותר לעבוד בעבד כנעני בפרך. And an Eved Ivri the Torah says you can't have Avodas Parech. And an Eved Kna'ani you can.

ואף על פי שהדין כך מידת חסידות ודרכי החכמה שיהיה אדם רחמן ורודף צדק ולא יכביד עולו על עבדו ולא יצר לו. ויאכילהו וישקהו מכל מאכל ומכל משקה.

Skipping a few lines.

ולא ירבה עליו צעקה וכעס אלא ידבר עמו בנחת וישמע טענותיו וכן מפורש בדרכי איוב הטובים שהשתבח בהן אם אמאס משפט עבדי ואמתי בריבם עמדי ואין האכזריות והעזות מצויה אלא בגויים הערלים. אבל זרעו של אברהם אבינו והם ישראל שהשפיע להם הקדוש ברוך הוא טובת התורה וציוום בחוקים ומשפטים צדיקים רחמנים הם על הכל וכן במידותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שציוונו להידמות בהן הוא אומר ורחמיו על כל מעשיו.

So on the one hand the Rambam says that technically a person can really be rather harsh with his Eved Kna'ani. Me'idach gisa the Rambam says that's not what you're supposed to do. And to do that and to display achzariyus is something which contradicts the Jewish character. So the question is so then why is it technically mutter? Like why is it when we learn this we wonder so how does this make sense? Me'chad gisa yeah you can. Me'chad gisa you can be oveid in avodas parech but me'idach gisa you're not supposed to do that. So what does that mean? What does that mean? So the answer is as follows and this is mamash a major major yesod in Torah and the system of Torah the system of Halacha. The fact that again to use a colloquialism the fact that there are certain dinim on the books. The fact that certain dinim exist in theory I mean they exist but should remain on the theoretical plane is crucial because it helps define and delineate what the relationship is. The fact that an adam can hit the eved. The fact that the adam can again on the books in theory act with force him to do avodas parech. Those dinim are indispensable because those dinim again define and delineate what that relationship is. And that's why agam that the Torah doesn't want us to do it but the Torah still needs to give that din. Again when you learn it at first so it seems to be that it's as if it's as if I extend a twenty dollar bill to you and then as you reach out to take it ha ha ha and I take it right back. You know it's as if it's as if it's שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה. That one pasuk says the adam can deal with the eved this way and the pasuk hashaini says he doesn't. So the Torah says no it's not שני כתובים המכחישים זה it's shnei kesuvim which are telling us two very different things. The kosuv harishon is not telling us what the adam should do. By telling us what the adam can do it's defining and delineating a relationship. The kosuv hashaini is telling us what the adam should do. There's no the again there's A it's not מכחישים זה את זה B more than that both of them are totally necessary. If you only had again in the mashal of the twenty dollar bill if you don't extend it so then if we wouldn't have the din that the adam could do this then we wouldn't have the same understanding of what the relationship between the adam and the eved is. It's another example... example of this in a totally, totally different context in halacha. So אשה נקנית בשלש דרכים בכסף בשטר ובביאה. Okay? That's a din d'oraisa. כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה. That kiddushei via is a din d'oraisa. Maybe kiddushei kesef the Rambam says is only based on the תורה שבעל פה. We don't know that, but this is meforash in the תורה שבעל פה. כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה. Tells us, the Gemara in Kiddushin tells us that רב מנגיד אמאן דמקדש בביאה. Rav would give malkos. He'd if he heard that someone, if he had eidus, not just based on a shmuah, I don't know... he'd give malkos that was mekadesh b'viah. So I don't understand. So how can you have a din if you're not supposed to follow it? How can you have a din that you're not supposed to follow? It's just a total tartei d'sasri. Isn't that just davar vehipucho? No, so again it's the same yesod. The fact that that there is such a musag as kiddushei via, so what that reflects something about ishus and what looms large within chayei ishus. That's needed. That din is needed on the books. That one can do that is crucial for understanding ishus. Me'idach gisa, that doesn't mean... the fact that that din needs to be there, that one can do that, to again help define and delineate the ishus, doesn't mean that a person should do it. That's already a question of there are other factors that come into play, whether it's the fact that he has to do it בפני עדות לקיום הדבר, whether it's the fact that that's the techilas hakayara is through... Tosafos has different pshatim. The techilas hakayara that the relationship should begin that way, okay. So it's a very very important yesod. Mamash mamash, it's fundamental to understanding the Torah system, the whole system of halacha. Hashata d'asina l'hacha, comes Rabbeinu Yonah and says the fact that HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the fact that the s'char v'onesh, the fact that it's beyado l'hanish, a person can reflect on that on either of two levels. Again, we only associate it with the first level, which is why at first glance Rabbeinu Yonah's words are stumum. We reflect on it on the level of gevalt, I better be careful, yesh onesh, יש דין ויש דיין, and דע לפני מי אתה עתיד ליתן דין וחשבון, and if a person would only focus on that, it keeps us on the straight and narrow. So a person can, and again, k'yadua, Rav Yisrael Salanter, no one can leapfrog over the stage of yiras onesh. A person needs to have it, needs to have it. But says Rabbeinu Yonah, a person should also reflect on the fact that it's beyado to give onesh on a second level, not on the practical level, but on the level of what does that signify and reflect about the relationship. Not just what does that mean for me practically if, Rachmana litzlan, I eat this shtikel chazir. Yeah, I should reflect on it on that level also. But additionally, additionally, and this is the level on which the Shaarei Teshuva is telling us to reflect on it, a person should also be reflecting on it on the level of what does that signify about the relationship? Again, comparable to again that first din that we were talking about, avoda, comparable again, now this is the analog to the fact that there is such a musag, there is a din of kiddushei via. So what does this signify about the relationship? What does it tell me? The fact that it's beyado l'anosh, what does it tell me? It means that my existence is not my own. What it means on a deeper level is that the emes is that the only way anything else can have life, can have chiyus, is because of a connection to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but that connection implies proper emunah, proper emunah u-vidayos, and proper behavior. And the whole thing is just an erech apayim if a person doesn't have those, if he still exists, it's only because of the middah of erech apayim because really ein od milvado and the only way that a person can feed off of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's existence is through that connection of emunah and proper behavior. So the fact that biyado lanefesh is not only sort of relevant on a practical level as a perspective which will bring about inhibition, avada it is that, and avada it's very healthy. Again, everything a person does, a person has to do in a balanced way, but in a balanced way is very healthy. But there's an omek to it, says Rabbeinu Yonah. And the omek Rabbeinu Yonah is telling us is that a person should be thinking, again, we've been talking about this two-tiered system in halacha and Torah. A person should be thinking about what it means on that other level. What does it mean not practically? Again, by avadim, what does it mean practically? No, you shouldn't hit the eved, you shouldn't be harsh with the eved. What does it mean by kiddushei biah? No, a person shouldn't do it, a person shouldn't think of that as an option, the practical level. But what does it mean again on the conceptual level? A din can be there because it's needed conceptually to define and delineate. So what is the biyado lanefesh, what does it mean on that level? Here again, there's no, again this is unlike the other two examples we gave in that the two don't diverge. In the other two examples we gave, they diverge. There's a din of kiddushei biah, but rachmana litzlan. There's a din that an adam can be mavir be-avodas perach, but he shouldn't, be-kol makom ma'aseh. So we needed that divergence in order to recognize this two-tiered system. Over here, there's no divergence. Again, there is schar va-onesh, there is schar va-onesh. So in that sense, the example we're giving here is different than the other two examples. But the other two examples are so crucial because it's very, very often the case that sometimes you have two things that they go hand in hand, but since they always go hand in hand, you don't even recognize that it's two different things. But if they only go hand in hand 99 percent of the time, if you look at the one percent, so then that sheds light on what's true in the 99 percent as well. So over here, there's no divergence. Yeah, halacha le-ma'aseh, there is schar va-onesh. And what's more, halacha le-ma'aseh it's a mitzvas asei and it's very healthy. Again, everything a person has to do in a religiously balanced way, it's very healthy that a person does think about the practical implications of schar va-onesh. But there's another level also, the conceptual level, of what are the conceptual implications of schar va-onesh? And that's what Antigonus is saying, that the ויהי מורא שמים עליכם points to the same thing as this recognition that a person is an eved. Just as the moshal of eved points to the fact that a person should be oved es Hashem in a mindset of נישט קומען קיין שכר. I do know the Ribbono Shel Olam gives schar, but I also know that really no one deserves any schar. A, the Ribbono Shel Olam has prepaid everyone, He created us. That prepayment is something, is a debt that we can never work off. Number two, because of who Hakadosh Baruch Hu is. So that's what the moshal of eved is. So then Antigonus Ish Soko says, and again, and that same mindset will be induced by reflecting on the fact of mora shamayim, that biyado lanefesh, not reflecting on it in terms of its practical implications, but reflecting on it in terms of its conceptual implications, in terms of what does that signify about my ontological relationship with What is, what does it tell me and in what mindset does that help create for Avodas Hashem? And that's a gevaldiger gevaldiger pshat of Rabbeinu Yonah in this Mishnah. Okay, so maybe we'll stop here. Rabosai, a little bit of a getting a head start, a gut Shabbos and everyone should be well, be safe.