L’Shem Shomayim

So perhaps apropos of the pasuk in Mishlei that we learned this morning, we'll take a look at the mishna here in Avos. Rabbi Yosi omer

יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך והתקן עצמך ללמוד תורה שאינה ירושה לך וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים.

So for today what we'll focus on the last five words: וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים. The Rambam quotes this in the Yad in פרק ג הלכה ה. If you have, take a look over there, Rabosei,

פרק ג הלכה ב. צריך אדם שיכוין כל מעשיו כולם כדי לדעת את השם ברוך הוא בלבד.

Everything a person does should be calibrated and oriented to facilitate, to contribute to, to culminate in yidias Hashem. ויהיה שבתו וקומו ודיבורו, maybe we would try to again initially just read, it's two somewhat long halachos and then try to get somewhat of an overview

בעזרת השם בלי נדר. ויהיה שבתו וקומו ודיבורו הכל לעומת זה הדבר.

Keitzad? כשישא ויתן או יעשה מלאכה ליטול שכר. Again, sachar means wages. We're used to the phrase sachar ve'onesh and we translate sachar as reward. But לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר, beyomo titein secharo, sachar means wages.

כשישא ויתן או יעשה מלאכה ליטול שכר, לא יהיה בלבו קיבוץ ממון בלבד.

The person's end goal shouldn't be amassing wealth,

אלא יעשה דברים הללו כדי שימצא דברים שהגוף צריך להם מאכילה ושתיה וישיבת בית ונשיאת אשה.

The more advanced, albeit not ultimate, kavana is that a person needs money in order to provide for the necessities of life. Again, the Rambam has yet to, but he will subsequently then contextualize what a person's approach should be to the necessities of life. וכן שיאכל וישתה ויבוא, right? So this the sequence is, it builds on each other. Right? So the amassing money, the earning a parnassa is to provide for necessities such as achila veshtiya. Now, but what's the sort of redeeming context and kavana with regard to these?

וכן שיאכל וישתה ויבוא לא ישים על לבו לעשות דברים הללו כדי ליהנות בלבד.

pleasure that a person derives ad shenimtza were that the goal so then that would have translated into ad shenimtza

עד שנמצא שאינו אוכל ושותה אלא המתוק לחיך ויבעול כדי ליהנות אלא ישים על לבו כשיאכל וישתה כדי להברות גופו ואיבריו בלבד.

It should be to maintain his health optimally. lefichach, the way that will nafka mina practically, it's not just a question of attitude but it translates practically concretely as well.

לפיכך לא יאכל כל שהחיך מתאווה כמו הכלב והחמור אלא יאכל דברים המועילים לו אם מרים אם מתוקים, וכן לא יאכל דברים הרעים לגוף אף על פי שהן מתוקים לחיך.

Here the Rambam, I guess it is pretty explicit, there's an idea that the Rambam that recurs in several contexts in the Rambam very, I don't know, very powerful, very sobering. A person is not acting on the level of a human being by virtue of the fact that we walk bekoma zekufa as opposed to on all fours. A person is acting humanly as opposed to animalistically by virtue of how he contextualizes and how he frames his physical life. And when a person is just nimshach achar ta'avosav, so then koma zekufa notwithstanding it's kimo hakelev vehachamor. There's nothing human about it. We're hungry, animals are hungry. There's no, there's nothing human about the instinct to eat to assuage hunger, and there's nothing human about when we eat what we enjoy. If a person wants to elevate that, not to the level of a malach, to the level of a person, if we want to elevate that to the level of a person, so it means that there has to be something which isn't instinctive about it. There has to be something which is conscious, deliberate, with a sechel is determining, dictating the what and the how much and the why of dealing with physical needs. Keitzad מי שהיה בשרו חם, okay, this is sort of in medieval medical terms, whatever the proper translation is in modern terms.

מי שהיה בשרו חם לא יאכל בשר ולא דבש ולא ישתה יין כעניין שאמר שלמה דרך משל אכול דבש הרבות לא טוב ושותה מי האלשין אף על פי שהוא מר שנמצא שהוא אוכל ושותה דרך רפואה בלבד כדי שיבריא ויעמוד שלם הואיל ואי אפשר לאדם לחיות אלא באכילה ושתייה.

vechen, the Rambam continues

כשיבעול לא יבעול אלא כדי להברות גופו וכדי לקיים את הזרע לפיכך אינו בועל כל זמן שיתאווה אלא בכל עת שידע שהוא צריך להוציא שכבת זרע כמו דרך הרפואות או לקיים את הזרע.

So the Ra'avad here is masig. that the and the vechein limitzvas onah. Why did the Rambam omit that omit that? So lechoira the the answer on the Ra'avad's hasaga that say if you if you go to Perek Zayin in Hilchos De'os, so that's where the Rambam has Hilchos Loshon Hora. That's where Hilchos Loshon Hora appears in the Rambam. And yet there's something there's a glaring glaring omission is that the Rambam has the issur of rechilous and the issur of being mesaper loshon hora, he doesn't mention the issur of shmias loshon hora. The Rambam doesn't record איסור שמיעת לשון הרע until you get to Hilchos Sanhedrin where he quotes the posuk of לא תשא שמע שוא. So how can it be that Perek Zayin is where כל הלכות לשון הרע is and and the Rambam omit something as basic as the issur of shmias loshon hora? So the answer is that wait a minute, how, what's Hilchos Loshon Hora doing in Hilchos De'os anyway? So clearly the Rambam is telling us that the pshat, the יסוד האיסור לשון הרע is that it's a hilchos de'os'dike issur. It it flows from and reflects and therefore also reinforces a de'ah ra'ah. Why is a person speaking disparagingly about someone else? It it reflects a de'ah ra'ah. That pshat, that teitch of issur loshon hora applies to being mesaper loshon hora where the person initiates the loshon hora. If I happen which which can easily happen, maybe it's the most common scenario of shmias loshon hora. It's not that I sat down hineni muchan u'zuman, I look around to see which table I sit at I'm likely to hear the juiciest loshon hora. No, the the normal scenario is a person happens to hear the loshon hora. So here that's not a hilchos de'os'dike issur. It's a different issur. It's assur, it's an issur d'Oraisa, but it's not a hilchos de'os'dike issur. So what do you see? What's the sort of the klal that you see is that the Rambam when he has to choose between being makef the inyan on one level as opposed to the conceptual organization on the other so he's opting for the latter. The Rambam would rather hold off on recording איסור שמיעת לשון הרע until Hilchos Sanhedrin rather than muddy the waters by mentioning it in Hilchos De'os when the issur of sippur loshon hora is an issur of Hilchos De'os, but the issur of shmias loshon hora is not an issur of of Hilchos De'os. Oh, hasha d'asinu l'hacha, so that's the answer on the Ra'avad's hasaga. Because the Rambam is talking about the the moderation in in a person's married life mitzad hilchos de'os. The fact that the chiyuv onah's got nothing to do with Hilchos De'os, so mimmiela the Rambam avada does talk about those dinim but he talks about those dinim in Hilchos Ishus where where they belong. Halacha Gimmel.

המנהיג עצמו על פי הרפואה אם שם על לבו שיהיה כל גופו ואבריו שלמים וחזקים בלבד.

So again in Halacha Beis we established that that a person earns his parnassa not to amass wealth but to be able to provide for the necessities of life such as buying food. And then in turn when a person eats so he's not doing that for pleasure he's doing that to sustain his his health and in an optimal fashion etc. But none of that has the Rambam touched on the ultimate yet right? So that comes in Halacha Gimmel.

המנהיג עצמו על פי הרפואה אם שם על לבו שיהיה כל גופו ואבריו שלמים וחזקים בלבד.

I want to feel good, I want to be in in good shape, I want to I want to live a long life, that's my end goal,

ויהיו לו בנים עושים מלאכתו ועמלים לצרכו אין זו דרך טובה אלא ישים על לבו שיהיה גופו שלם וחזק כדי שתהיה נפשו ישרה לדעת את השם שאי אפשר שיבין ויסתכל בחכמות והוא רעב או חולה או אחד מאבריו כואב.

In order for a person to have optimal conditions... In order for a person to have optimal conditions for learning, for study, for Yedi'as Hashem, so he has to be in the best of health. And the degree to which a person suffers from ill health, it impinges upon that pursuit of Yedi'as Hashem.

נמצא המהלך בדרך זו וישים על לבו שיהיה לו בן אולי יהיה חכם וגדול בישראל.

So how does that work? The Rambam says that the kavannah which contextualizes biah is

וישים על לבו שיהיה לו בן אולי יהיה חכם וגדול בישראל.

So in the previous line, so the Rambam has completed the chain for us, right? In Halacha Beis, the Rambam says everything should be for the ultimate goal of Yedi'as Hashem and he explained. He explained how a person can be on the subway and he's taking the A train to work and how that is ultimately for Yedi'as Hashem. He explained how a person can be sitting in the cafeteria and eating breakfast and how that's ultimately for Yedi'as Hashem and he traces it to that to that ultimate end goal. But over here he just leaves the end goal. Okay,

וישים על לבו שיהיה לו בן אולי יהיה חכם וגדול בישראל,

but how does that, how does that further or culminate in

צורך שיכוין כל מעשיו כולם כדי לידע את השם ברוך הוא בלבד?

So apparently what you see at this point in Halacha Gimmel is that when the Rambam said that in Halacha Beis, he didn't mean only a person's personal Yedi'as Hashem. He meant that there should be Yedi'as Hashem in the world. If that's what the Rambam meant in the beginning Halacha Beis that there should be Yedi'as Hashem in the world, so then we understand. So he did explain how it reaches the ultimate end goal.

נמצא המהלך בדרך זו כל ימיו כולן עובד השם תמיד.

If a person genuinely, again, A calibrates, B orients. Again, calibrates means that I calibrate how much parnassah I need and then orient is then I orient that towards the Yedi'as Hashem. Just the orientation without the calibration doesn't add up to

וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים. נמצא המהלך בדרך זו כל ימיו כולן עובד השם תמיד אפילו בשעה שנושא ונותן אפילו בשעה שבועל מפני שמחשבתו בכל כדי שימצא צרכו עד שיהיה גופו שלם לעבוד את השם. ואפילו בשעה שהוא ישן אם ישן לדעת כדי שתנוח דעתו עליו וינוח גופו כדי שלא יחלה ולא יוכל לעבוד את השם והוא חולה נמצא שינה שלו עבודה למקום ברוך הוא.

So why did the Rambam make this into a separate sentence? Rambam should have said

נמצא המהלך בדרך זו כל ימיו כולן עובד השם תמיד אפילו בשעה שנושא ונותן אפילו בשעה שבועל אפילו בשעה שהוא ישן.

So the Rambam doesn't do that, right? Rambam has two different sentences. First he talks about every other, again what we would characterize as mundane activity, not intrinsically sacred, then he has a separate sentence for sheina. So lichora, it's clear because the other difference is that in the first sentence the Rambam writes that a person is עובד השם תמיד. And by sheina, the Rambam doesn't say he's oveid es Hashem, he says נמצא שינה שלו עבודה למקום. So it's clear what the difference is. When a person is asleep, again not conscious because he's asleep, you can't say he's being oveid es Hashem. Oveid es Hashem is a description of a person who's awake and conscious and salient. When a person is asleep, what you can say, which again is the ultimate that can be said at that point, is that the sleep is avodah lamakom. But in that sense, you can't speak in the same breath of and describe in the same terms the person who's conducting business. In the first category, you can say he's being oved es Hashem. In the second category, you can't say that a person who's not conscious, that a person who's asleep is being oved es Hashem. You can say that the sheina is avoda lamakom.

על עניין זה ציוו חכמים ואמרו וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים והוא שאמר שלמה בחכמתו

bechol derachecha da'ehu. The I think the the regular dfusim print that the Rambam quotes the end of the pasuk also. Here they they print based on the Ksav Yad Teiman that the Rambam only quote the first half of the pasuk, and it seems pashut that that's the more accurate one because the Rambam doesn't make a point of quoting pesukim in their entirety. And the raya is only from the first half of the pasuk, it's not from the second half of the pasuk. So the pshas is that this is the the correct girsa. Rambam's just quoting the bechol derachecha da'ehu. Here, okay, so now if we step back for a minute, there's something very, very strange. A, if you go back to the, again, we we just tried to get a little bit of an overview of halachos Beis and Gimel. If you go back to halacha Aleph of perek Gimel. Again, so this is an halacha we saw in conjunction with a different mishna avos:

שמא יאמר אדם הואיל והתאוה והכבוד וכיוצא בהן דרך רעה הן ומוציאין את האדם מן העולם אפרש מהן ביותר ואתרחק לצד האחרון עד שלא יאכל בשר ולא ישתה יין ולא ישא אשה ולא ישב בדירה נאה ולא ילבש מלבוש נאה אלא השק והצמר הקשה וכיוצא בהן כגון כהני אדום גם זו דרך רעה ואסור ללכת בה.

Or in other words, in halacha Aleph, the Rambam is continuing the sugya, the topic of the previous two perakim of the derech habeinonis, of the middos hamimtza'os, the derech habeinonis. So it's very strange that he he, so we would have thought if if we were had been asked to edit Mishneh Torah, so we would have told the Rambam append halacha Aleph to the end of perek Beis, and then make בכל דרכיך דעהו וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים make that its own perek. It's so, so conspicuous that the Rambam doesn't do that. Let's ask a different question. וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים is a mishna avos. Yeah, the Rambam here in perek Aleph and perek Beis, the Rambam's been talking about one topic of the derech habeinonis. Halacha Aleph of perek Gimel is also about that. Halachos Beis and Gimel are about a totally new topic of וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים. It's very strange that that that that the Rambam one more halacha, okay, so I don't know, the Rambam was worried that we were going to learn perek yomi in Mishneh Torah, and you know, we already learned seven halachos in perek Beis, how much can you ask someone to learn? I don't know. So we'll push ourselves a little bit and we could have learned the halacha ches in in perek Beis also. It's very, very conspicuous. וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים is a mishna. Bechol derachecha da'ehu is a pasuk in Mishlei. So so this chiyuv of tzorchei adam that that what a person does should be leshem shamayim. So that's that's a divrei kabbala which then chazal are are reinforcing. So the pshat is is that it's a din d'oraisa, Shlomo HaMelech is not is not telling us a new chiyuv midivrei kabbala. If you go to פרק י' הלכה ו' in hilchos teshuva, the last halacha in Sefer HaMada, so the Rambam writes

דבר ידוע וברור שאין אהבת הקדוש ברוך הוא נקשרת בלבו של אדם עד שישגה בה תמיד כראוי ויעזוב כל שבעולם חוץ ממנה כמו שציוה ואמר בכל לבבך ובכל.

So what does that mean, that the person who's pursuing ahavas Hashem he doesn't, he doesn't eat? He's a malakh, he never eats. But what does that mean? That the person who's pursuing ahavas Hashem doesn't have a job? So that's certainly not the the the way the Rambam presents in Perek Gimmel of Hilchos De'os. So what does it mean when the Rambam says

דבר ידוע וברור שאין אהבת הקדוש ברוך הוא נקשרת בלבו של אדם עד שישגה בה תמיד כראוי;

he's he's constantly totally immersed in it. ויעזוב כל שבעולם חוץ ממנה. And and he has this single-minded devotion, dedication, pursuit. So clearly, clearly the Rambam doesn't mean that we're not eating breakfast. The Rambam means but we're eating breakfast, but eating breakfast leshem shamayim. And the Rambam doesn't mean that that it's not that we're not holding down a job. It means we're holding down a job, but we're doing so for this end goal of ahavas Hashem. So it's klar that the din de'oraisa, the mechayev de'oraisa of וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, the mechayev de'oraisa bekhol derachecha da'ehu is the mitzvah of ahavas Hashem. The emmes is if you take a look in in perek chamishi of shemonah perakim where the Rambam also talks about וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, he says it meforush. That that that the de'oraisa of ואהבת את השם אלוקיך, that's what it means בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאודך. So what does that leave? It doesn't leave anything. There's nothing that isn't included in בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ומאודך. That's the mechayev in וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, in bekhol derachecha da'ehu. In which case, so now our question of organization in the Rambam is is doubly puzzling. It's not only why didn't he give vekhol ma'asecha its own perek, and why does he let halakha alef spill over from the previous two perakim, it's why isn't this in perek yud of hilkhos teshuvah? Okay, maybe you want to put it back in perek bais of yesodei hatorah, but why is it here? Right? So it's clear that both of these questions are pointing to to to one fundamental idea, which is that you can't have vehalachta bidrachav, the derech habenonis without וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים. And that's why, we'll try to explain what that means in a minute bli neder, that's why the Rambam says no, I'm not switching topics here. That's why halakha alef is there, we should know, I'm still on the same topic. I'm not I'm not digressing, I'm still on the same topic, I'm still talking about the derech habenonis, the the derech hamemutza. But to do so, and that's why halakha alef bedavka is, continues, that's why that that discussion, the Rambam says I'm continuing it, it's continuing into perek gimmel. Perek Gimmel is devoted to that also. But you can't have that without וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, which is also why as it were, the Rambam has to jump the gun. That even though וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים is midinei ahavas Hashem and rightfully should have been presented in perek yud of hilkhos teshuvah, it it has to it it has to be presented here. Why so? So if you take a look in in shemonah perakim at the end of perek chamishi in shemonah perakim where the Rambam after the Rambam has has discussed it similar to his presentation here in hilkhos de'os, so there's a remarkable couple of lines here. The Rambam says

וכבר כללו החכמים עליהם השלום את כל העניין הזה בלשון קצרה ככל האפשר והקיפו את העניין הקף מושלם מאוד מאוד.

Chazal encompassed comprehensively this whole topic in in such a terse formulation. עד שכאשר יתבונן בקוצר אותן המילים. When you reflect at how few words Chazal used. Ech bit'u, how they expressed את העניין הגדול והעצום בכללו, and and in so so sparingly they encompassed this inyan gadol ve'atzom שכבר חוברו בו חיבורים ולא. encompass to be makif. תדע שהוא נאמר בכח אלוקי בלא ספק. You see that there's a koach eloki at work,

והוא אמנם בצו אותם במסכתא זאת וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים.

What was the, what was the Rambam so nispoyel here? Such hispoyelus. He has a simile in the hakdama to perek chelek, he has tremendous hispoyelus from Antignos ish Socho from that mishna in Avos. He's also the hispoyelus is just, he can't contain himself. What's the, what's the mamash the hispoyelus here? So the emes is that וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים there's an maybe, maybe it's an even unstated premise or axiom which is profound. And that is that וכל מעשיך הנתפסים בהיותם לשם שמים. If Chazal can tell us, if Shlomo Hamelech can tell us bechol derachecha da'ehu, so the first chiddush is, before, before one looks at what the practical mandate and charge are, so the first chiddush is that וכל מעשיך הנתפסים לשם שמים. You can eat Cheerios leshem shamayim. That's a gevaldige chiddush. I would have thought you can eat matzah at the Seder leshem shamayim. You can shake a lulav, you can put on tallis and tefillin leshem shamayim. But Cheerios? You got to eat Cheerios, all right. There are some who are meikel to eat cornflakes, but you got to, you have to eat breakfast. What do you mean וכל מעשיך לשם שמים? No, when you're being oved es Hashem by Torah u'mitzvos, do that leshem shamayim. Hechrach lo yeguneh. We're physical. In order to stay alive we have to eat, so hechrach lo yeguneh. So you can't deny that reality. Okay. So comes the Rambam says no, Chazal here, look how they were makif. Chazal are saying vechol ma'asecha, you should know that everything a person does in life, again if he doesn't do extraneous, irrelevant, gratuitous things, everything a person does in life is nitpas in being done leshem shamayim. Again, the Rambam says it's someone who is successful that this is on the madreiga of a navi. But everything a person does in life is nitpas, is nitan to being done leshem shamayim. What's the, what was the alternative? What would we have thought on our own without that hadracha? So what we would have thought on our own, and let's say you certainly find this in, it's a very, very prominent, for instance in Greek philosophy, so what we would have thought on our own is that a person has a physical side and has an intellectual and spiritual side. It's the intellectual and spiritual that can, when a person engages in those activities, a person can be spiritual, a person can be intellectual when he's engaged in the intellectual and spiritual. And when a person is engaged in the physical, so then he's physical. And that's the chiddush of וכל מעשיך לשם שמים is that that's not true. The chiddush of וכל מעשיך לשם שמים is no, a person can be spiritual 24/7. And even when a person is osek betzorchei haguf, even when a person is making hishtadlus for parnassa, even when a person is going to the doctor, inyanei refuah, a person can can be involved in devarim ruchniyim all the time. וכל מעשיך לשם שמים so first and foremost, before it comes and tells us what our kavana should be, first and foremost it establishes this tremendous yesod that וכל מעשיך הנתפסים הניתנים to being l'shem shamayim. And it's not only attitude. The nafkamina of this chidush is not only attitudinal. It's not only when when I'm eating breakfast, so does that automatically mean that it's a necessary evil to survive? Or is it potentially avoda laMakom? It's not only attitudinal. Avada it is attitudinal as well, but it's not only attitudinal. What's the practical nafkamina? The practical nafkamina is this. If when I'm eating breakfast, basically that's my physical side, that's my animalistic side, and and irredeemably and and irredeemably so, so then lichora I need to be mema'et as much as is humanly possible. I shouldn't eat one Cheerio more than I need to survive because it's basically something which is again, it's irredeemably physical, mugshamdig. So the approach to what's irredeemably again physical and mugshamdig. Okay, so תפסת מרובה לא תפסת. You have to be mema'et as much as possible. If, if it's nitpas in וכל מעשיך לשם שמים, so then what what should my degree of involvement be with with devarim gashmiyim? Not necessarily the absolute minimum, but what's optimal l'shem shamayim. So how many Cheerios am I going to eat for breakfast? That which will best sustain my health, which will make me as as as vigorous - not quite sure that I should be using that word with all these whatever - a young person, which would make a young person as as vigorous as possible. So it chaps a nafkamina, right? It's not only attitudinal, but then it also dictates to what degree one is involved. Oh, nimtzeinu l'meiddim rabosai that וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים is the is the indispensable complement to v'halachta bidrachav in two ways. Number one, how does a person just understand, say philosophically if you like, how does a person understand why shouldn't I be an ascetic? Why shouldn't shouldn't I be mema'et with the necessary evil of of physicality as much as possible A. B. How does a person determine, all right, so whatever, so even if a person thinks of it as gezeiras hakasuv that we don't understand, how does a person determine what the derech hamemutza is? So how many slices of pizza for lunch is the is the derech hamemutza? So you can't, cannot learn, understand, or implement v'halachta bidrachav without וכל מעשיך לשם שמים. You can't learn or understand it because it it it's one big midrash plia. A person should be an ascetic. He should eat as little as possible. And a person should wear sackcloth if without וכל מעשיך לשם שמים, without that chidush that the Torah teaches us that everything a person does is nitpas in being l'shem shamayim, so you can't begin to understand or appreciate what the din of v'halachta bidrachav is A. And B, practically there's no way of determining so what's moderate? What's what's what's moderate? What's moderate in terms of how much income should I look to have? What's moderate in terms of how much should I eat and drink? What's moderate in terms of how big a house should I look to have? What what is the derech hamemutza? So the answer is what's needed for all these things to optimally support leshem shamayim. That was the Rambam's tfilas. All that is in these five words of וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמיים. He does say that, but what does it mean? So one end, so what should my annual salary be? So we know what one end is. One end is zero. What's the other end? What's the guy with the electric cars? The guy with the electric cars and the spaceships? Musk, yeah. So maybe I should, so one end is nothing rachmana litzlan and the other end is, so derech hamemutza is that I should earn 50% of I think I need a little bit of a raise to be mekayem the derech hamemutzas. So you're right, but I think it means conceptual. I think it's conceptual because otherwise I mean what I mean אין סוף לאכילה גסה. So what's the other end of the spectrum? Again, one end is the person wouldn't need anything, or I don't know, maybe he would, I don't know, just drink water or something. I'm not sure what the zero end is. But what's the 100 end? I don't know what the 100 end is. There's ein sof what? Until he's literally incapable of any more achila gasa? So that wouldn't work quantitatively either, right? Because clearly the amount a person should eat is not half of the amount he could eat if he would push himself to the utmost of achila gasa. So al korchacha it means in a qualitative sense. Yitachen that ledvareinu if you reread one line here in halacha gimel when the Rambam says hamaneig atzmo, rereading from the beginning of halacha gimel rabosai if you have, take a look,

המנהיג עצמו על פי הרפואה אם שם על לבו שיהיה כל גופו ואיבריו שלמים חזקים בלבד ושיהיה לו בנים עושים מלאכתו ועמלים לצרכו אין זו דרך טובה אלא ישים על לבו שיהיה גופו שלם וחזק כדי שתהיה נפשו ישרה לדעת את השם.

So like this we'd be, you know, sort of just coasting along. No, that's not, that's not a good thing to do. The end game of a healthy lifestyle is not to be healthy. That's not the end game. But yitachen meod ledvareinu that when the Rambam says אין זו דרך טובה, he means that in a very specific and maybe even quite technical sense because back in פרק א' הלכות דעות, the Rambam described the midas beinonish as being derech hatova.

שני קצוות הרחוקות זו מזו שבכל דעה ודעה אינן דרך טובה.

They're not the derech hatova, neither of the extremes is the derech hatova. And then the Rambam says metzuvin anachnu, the end of halacha hei, ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינונים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים. So yitachen that maybe what the Rambam is saying is that the וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמיים, I don't know this would be a chiddush, but maybe that's what it really means here when he says אין זו דרך טובה. What would be if a person, he's a health and fitness guru? Mamash everything the healthiest diet imaginable and the exercise regimen. But again, it's all about just feeling good. It's all about, there's no וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמיים, there's no b'chol drachecha da'eihu element to it. But lemaise, how much does he eat? Exactly as much as he should. Not a cheerio more, not a cheerio less. And how much does he exercise? Exactly what he needs to be in in optimal health. But he's not doing it for any greater good. He's not doing it lada'as Hashem. He's not doing it בכל מעשיך לשם שמים. So is he mekayeim vehalachta bidrachav? Itachen, that's what the Rambam is saying, that that this link between the vehalachta bidrachav and בכל מעשיך לשם שמים is not only lehavin ulehaskil, to know, to understand peshat in in vehalachta bidrachav is not only to establish what's necessary to identify the derech hamemutza, but maybe the kavana is even me'akev. Maybe the derech hamemutza is not is not meaningful. The the discipline in eating, the discipline in one's health, all of that has to be contextualized, it has to be framed too, otherwise, as the Rambam says, you'll take a look in Perek Chamishi there in Shemoneh Perakim, so the person who's not careful about what he eats, so his take on gashmius is I want to enjoy, I want the gastronomical pleasure. And the other person's take on life is no, I want to enjoy the benefits of feeling good, of being in optimal health. Why is the second one, the second one is not superior to the first one? I mean if they have a race, I'd put my money on the second one. But lemaise, if you're talking spiritually, religiously, the second one is not is not superior to the first one. Okay, we'll stop here.