Introduction to the 13 Ikarim

Okay thank you very much Shalom Aleichem Rabosai. I hope you all well. We're going to try to begin tonight בעזרת השם בלי נדר with an introduction and try to gain some perspective on the Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim and then hopefully בעזרת השם בלי נדר in coming weeks we'll try to learn the Ikkarim themselves. What did the Rambam create for us in formulating the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim? So to approach this let's begin with some very basic questions that were posed to or against the Rambam. The Rambam again as we all know formulated Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. The Sefer HaIkkarim Sefer HaIkkarim was in the 14th century he was a Talmid of the Rashba in Spain. Sefer HaIkkarim asks that he doesn't understand why the Rambam formulated thirteen. The Rambam should have condensed it if the whole point of the Ikkarim is to highlight those most basic foundational aspects so the Rambam should have condensed it into three. Because basically when we look at the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim they really do organize themselves into three categories. There's one category about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The first five Ikkarim are about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The next four are basically about Torah min Hashamayim about Torah. Nevua, Nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu but basically one could very efficiently and appropriately describe that next cluster of four Ikkarim as being about Torah min Hashamayim. And the final four are basically Sachar V'Onesh. Yemos Hamashiach, Techiyas Hamaisim are both aspects and details of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's system of reward and punishment of Sachar V'Onesh. So why didn't the Rambam condense it? As a matter of fact the Sefer HaIkkarim points out sort of as marshaling support he says if you look at the Mussaf Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashana. So when we're Mamlich Hakadosh Baruch Hu, when the Mitzvos HaYom is to coronate Hakadosh Baruch Hu so the three additional Brachos which comprise the essence of the Mussaf Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashana Malchuyos Zichronos and Shofros correspond to what these three Ikkarim that the Sefer HaIkkarim suggests. Malchuyos about Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Zichronos is Sachar V'Onesh. אתה זוכר מעשה עולם ופוקד כל יצורי קדם. And finally Shofros is about Torah min Hashamayim. אתה נגלית בענן כבודך על עם קדשך לדבר עמם. You revealed yourself in that sacred cloud and mist to your holy nation to speak to them. So why did the Rambam insist on breaking it down into Yud Gimmel Ikkarim into thirteen principles when they very easily could have been condensed into three? That's the Sefer HaIkkarim's question. Then in this intergenerational discussion which is how Torah is learned throughout the millennia there's intergenerational discourse. So then later again one of the Chachamim in Spain but now we're already in the 15th century the Abarbanel has a different question on the Rambam. He says Heyos given that one of the Ikkarim is that everything in Torah is true so then everything is an Ikkar. If a person Rachmana Litzlan denies anything in Torah so that's heresy. So what's special or different about the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim? How can you single out any part of Torah, given that it's a fundamental to our faith that every word of Torah and everything in and about Torah is min Hashamayim, is divinely revealed truth? So sort of from two opposite ends, the Rambam was questioned: why 13, it should have only been three? How can it even be 13? It's everything. It's every word in Chumash. It's every word in Torah. Then another question where, again, we're fast-forwarding a few hundred years to 19th-century Hungary, the Chasam Sofer has a teshuvah where he was also asked about the Rambam's Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim and specifically he discusses the twelfth of the thirteen Ikkarim, which is that of Yemos HaMoshiach. And the Chasam Sofer says that the truth is he doesn't really understand why the Rambam classifies this as an ikkar. He says it's not foundational. He says lu yetzuyar, right, this is a counterfactual conditional, right? This is not true. But lu yetzuyar that there was no havtacha that there's gonna be a geulah, lu yetzuyar that we didn't have an assurance that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is gonna redeem us and that there's gonna be a Melech HaMoshiach who will usher in the eschatological era of Yemos HaMoshiach, lu yetzuyar that wasn't true, the Chasam Sofer says it wouldn't affect anything else in Torah. He says we'd still be עבדי הקדוש ברוך הוא. We'd still learn Torah. We'd still keep Shabbos. We'd still do everything the same. So belief in Melech HaMoshiach, Yemos HaMoshiach, how is that foundational for the whole edifice of Torah? If you take away belief in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, everything comes crumbling down. If you take away belief in Torah min Hashamayim, everything comes tumbling down. Says the Chasam Sofer, if you would take away belief in Yemos HaMoshiach and Melech HaMoshiach, nothing else would be affected. So how is this foundational? How is this an ikkar? So there's one profound insight from Reb Chaim. There's a redundancy in that phrase. There's a profound insight from Reb Chaim into the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim. Just to introduce it with the following: Let's say we're given a quiz on Chumash, a chidon, a quiz on Chumash, and we're asked, how many sons did Noach have and what were their names? Okay, so maybe some of us will press on the buzzer and we'll jump in and say he had three sons, Shem, Cham, and Yaphes. Or maybe we don't remember. Or maybe someone who wasn't blessed with a religious education hasn't learned that part of Chumash and doesn't know that Noach had three sons and what their names are. What's that person, if we would be lacking that yediya, if we would be lacking that knowledge that Noach had three sons and what their names are, or let's say we'd even be lacking a yediya from one of the halachic from a mitzvas haTorah, what are we missing? So the answer is that we'd be missing knowledge of Torah. We'd be missing a yediya in Torah. What happens if, Rachmana litzlan, a person doesn't know whether Hakadosh Baruch Hu is corporeal or incorporeal? A person doesn't know whether Hakadosh Baruch Hu has a body, Rachmana litzlan, or doesn't have a body, and we would ask the person, he'd say, I don't know. So is that the same as not knowing how many sons Noach had? Is it the same as not knowing... One of the halachos of shiluach haken. Reb Chaim says that's what the Rambam's yud-gimmel ikrim are. The yud-gimmel ikrim define what a person needs to know to have baseline belief. To have basic emuna about Hakadosh Baruch Hu, what does a person need to know and believe in order to be a maamin? And that's what's special and that's what stands out about the yud-gimmel ikrim is that if a person is ignorant rachmana litzlan of one of the yud-gimmel ikrim, על אחת כמה וכמה if the person denies it rachmana litzlan, he's not simply lacking in Torah knowledge, he's not simply lacking a yediya in Torah, but his emuna is deficient. He's not a maamin if a person doesn't know whether Hakadosh Baruch Hu is above and beyond time and space. If a person doesn't know that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is incorporeal. If a person doesn't know whether the Torah is min hashamayim, whether the Torah was given by Hashem at Har Sinai. So a person is not only lacking yedios in Torah, but then a person is missing integral elements of emuna. And that's what's unique and special about the yud-gimmel ikrim. Let's just articulate how that answers all the questions that had been posed throughout the generations about the Rambam. In terms of the Chasam Sofer, so again there's a little bit of work left to be done, but at least we see the direction of the answer. The yud-gimmel ikrim, the Rambam didn't intend that these are 13 foundational beliefs, but 13 fundamental beliefs. Again, the yud-gimmel ikrim were not intended by the Rambam as 13 foundational beliefs. The foundation of a building means that if you pull it out, the building comes collapsing down. The Rambam wasn't only identifying those beliefs which are foundational, he was identifying those which are fundamental. Something can be fundamental without being foundational. And the Chasam Sofer is right. Belief in yemos hamashiach, melech hamashiach, it isn't foundational, but what the Rambam is teaching us by including it in the yud-gimmel ikrim is that it is fundamental. Why is it so fundamental? So בעזרת השם בלי נדר when we get to the ha'ikar hashlosh asar, so we'll revisit this question. The Abarbanel's question: what's special about the yud-gimmel ikrim? A person can't deny anything in Torah. True. But if I'm missing a yediya about something in Torah, not that I deny it rachmana litzlan, but I'm just ignorant of something in Torah, so alright, that's nothing to be complacent about, but it's that and not more than that. It's just an incomplete grasp of Torah, a missing Torah knowledge. But the yud-gimmel ikrim, if rachmana litzlan a person is missing one of the yud-gimmel ikrim, a person can't answer definitively, is Hakadosh Baruch Hu rachmana litzlan corporeal or not? So then the person is lacking in emuna. And finally the Sefer Ha'ikrim's question: why didn't the Rambam condense it further into three ikrim? Why did he present it so elaborately as yud-gimmel ikrim? Because that's the whole point. The whole point is to spell out every detail which is fundamental. If the Rambam would have reduced it further from 13 to three and just said there's one ikar of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, so then I wouldn't have known from that how fundamental it is to understand that Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have a body, that He is incorporeal. And the Rambam bedavka has to spell out with that specificity because the whole point is to delineate those beliefs which are so fundamental, which define and draw what the contours of emuna are. So that's what the yud-gimmel ikrim are. What it means, what the substance of אמונה בהקדוש ברוך הוא is. What emuna, what faith, what belief in Hakadosh Baruch Hu consists of. Let's move to another general perspective question on the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. Given that the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, given that there's nothing more basic, more fundamental, more important than the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, so how is it that we don't find it systematized in Chazal? Now the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim the Rambam makes a point of telling us he identified by carefully, carefully, very carefully, very thoughtfully working through everything Chazal say. It's all drawn from Chazal, but on the other hand, it's not gathered together and concentrated and presented as the Rambam did for us in his Perush Hamishnayot in the hakdama to Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin. So something so basic, so again, there's nothing more important, there's nothing more fundamental, so how is it that we don't find it in Chazal? So the truth is that one could push back and say the question is not a question. One could mention the Gemara in the first perek of Chulin. The first perek in Chulin is commenting on the fact that Chizkiyahu Hamelech came and he did away, it's actually we just had it in Parshat Hashavua, that Chizkiyahu Kitat Nechash Hanechoshet. He ground up that copper snake that when Klal Yisrael were bitten by the Nechashim Haserafim, by the poisonous serpents, when they looked up at it, it was a refua for them. So the Nechash Hanechoshet had become an object of avoda zara, and because of that, Chizkiyahu destroyed it. So the Gemara says, how can it be that אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערו, בא יהושפט ולא ביערו? How could it be that Chizkiyahu's pious predecessors didn't do away with what had become an object of avoda zara? So the Gemara says, אלא מקום הניחו אבותיו להתגדר בו. The Gemara says, I don't know, we don't really understand it, but sometimes one of the mysteries of divine providence is that something so important, so basic, so fundamental that we would have assumed the earlier generations would have attended to it, and yet for some inscrutable reason, it's left to someone, relatively speaking, in a later generation that he should be the one who makes this contribution, this formative contribution to Jewish history. So one could push back and say that maybe the question isn't really a question. However, kimeduma that maybe this phenomenon isn't inscrutable. We don't have to chalk it up to one of the mysteries of divine providence. And let's consider the following mashal. Let's say you have two people. One of them was blessed to grow up in a house of Torah and mitzvot. He was born into the house, raised, nurtured in a house of Torah and mitzvot. He's been observing and experiencing Shabbat since his earliest youth, his earliest memories are about Shabbat. He knows hilchot Shabbat if we'll sort of quiz him on hilchot Shabbat and ask him, how do you know hilchot Shabbat? So he'll say, basically I just absorbed it naturally by osmosis throughout the years in my parents' home. Let's say we have a second... individual who didn't have this blessing of of being born into and raised in in a home of Torah Mitzvos. And is first introduced to Torah at a later age and stage in life. And he's invited to spend a Shabbos, he's just a novice, a novice to Torah and Mitzvos. He's invited to spend a Shabbos with a Shabbosdik family. But he's never observed Shabbos before and he doesn't want to make any missteps. So what what are we gonna do to help him? So we're gonna try to systematize for him Hilchos Shabbos and give him some kind of guide, some kind of manual in which the principles of Hilchos Shabbos, the Lamed Tes Melachos etc. are presented in a systematic fashion. What what's the mashal? The first individual, he doesn't need it because the first individual he doesn't need that systematic presentation because he just absorbed all of that naturally, gradually, by by a process of of osmosis, of being steeped in in Shabbos, he absorbed it all. When you think about it, systematization is is something we value and something which is so important and and basically what the Rambam did is he systematized for us Torah. That's what that's what he did in terms of Halacha in in Mishneh Torah and and that's what he did in terms of Emunah by formulating the יג עיקרי אמונה. That's what he did with with certain areas of Machshava in in the Moreh. But when you think about it, the need for that kind of systematic presentation only arises in a certain context and in an ideal context it's not necessary. Chazal didn't present us with the יג עיקרי אמונה because it was clear. There was no by Chazal were living at a time when I don't know chveiss a משל למה הדבר דומה. Whether whether Americans have ever heard of the Constitution or not heard of the Constitution, but they're aware of basic constitutional rights that they have. They don't need to be told that. They don't need to be told that they have basic liberties. It's just something that that a person is is aware of by by living and and it's it's absorbed. Bimei Chazal there was no need for this systematic presentation of the יג עיקרי אמונה. As the as time passed, then there was a decline and and the Rambam responded to a need that that had arisen to have this systematic approach. Another another perspective on the יג עיקרי אמונה. Sometimes there is discussion, for whatever reason, whatever prompts the discussion, wherever it comes from, as to do we really find psak Halacha, do we really find definitive resolution and adjudication between opinions when we're dealing with in the realm of Agadah, in the realm of thought outside of the realm of Halacha. That's a question again for whatever reason, whatever prompts the interest in this question, that's a question that that people talk about. And and then bring to bear on, well, are the Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim authoritative? How, you know, aren't we moving outside the realm of Halacha to the realm of Emunos V'Deios and do we really have, again, authoritative psak halacha, authoritative resolution out once you move outside the realm of psak halacha? So whatever the answer to that is, and again, the assumption that I apologize for the double negative that's about to come, the assumption that there isn't definitive resolution outside of Halacha is not so clear, to employ a little bit of understatement. But the emes is the whole discussion is irrelevant to the Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. My grandfather, zatzal, the Rav explained that the Rambam identified the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim as a matter of Halacha. What does that mean? Keitzad? So to give a few examples. In several areas of Halacha, for instance, in Hilchos Shechita. In Hilchos Shechita there's a Halacha that shechitas min is neveila. If the shechita is performed by a heretic, so then that shechita doesn't qualify, is discounted, it's as if the animal died without the benefit of shechita and you would have the issur- the issur neveila. There's a din for instance that there's no- there's no hashavas aveida- again, we're not talking about at some point בלי נדר אם ירצה השם we'll talk about what the status of people are, the status of people is who were never taught. But leaving that very crucial question aside for the moment, but let's say we're talking about someone who's a brazen heretic. So the Halacha is that there's no mitzvah of hashavas aveida. No mitzvah of hashavas aveida. And in other contexts as well. So the question of what defines proper belief and distinguishes it, Rachmana Latzlan, from heresy, is not a question of Agada, it's not a question of Jewish philosophy, it's a question of Halacha. Halacha speaks of proper belief. It's a halachic category whether a person is a mamin, whether a person is a believer, or Rachmana Latzlan a non-believer. That's a halachic category. And the Rambam wasn't delving into Jewish philosophy when he was identifying the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim for us, the Rambam was dealing with a very basic halachic issue. The classical and the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, again, and the text where we actually have it is in the Rambam's Peirush Hamishnayos, in the Hakdoma, in his introduction to Perek Helek in Sanhedrin. The Rishonim had the last two chapters in Masechet Sanhedrin, the Rishonim had different orders of how Masechet Sanhedrin was sequenced. Some had it as we have it printed in our Gemaras, that Perek Helek is the eleventh and concluding perek of Sanhedrin, and some have it interchangeable with Elu Hein HaNinkankin, that Perek Helek is the tenth. Okay, either way, whatever it is, whichever perek it is in Sanhedrin, so that's where the Rambam has in the Hakdoma to in his introduction to that chapter in Sanhedrin, that's where the Rambam has the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. Does he have it in the Yad HaChazaka as well? Does he have it in his- what the Rambam used to refer to as his Chibur HaGadol? his great oeuvre, his great compendium of Mishneh Torah? So the answer is yes and no, he does have it, but it's sort of not with the same, it's not spotlighted the same way it is in the hakdama to Peirush Hamishnayos. Teshuvah, where the Rambam begins he's talking about sachar va'onesh, in the context of doing Teshuvah he's talking about sachar va'onesh about reward and punishment, and then in that context, so the Rambam speaks of those Rachmana litzlan who forfeit their cheilek, their their portion in Olam Haba. And in that context, beginning in Perek Gimmel of הלכות תשובה הלכה ו, so the Rambam writes ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, that the following groups of people Rachmana litzlan have forfeited their share in Olam Haba, and then he lists המינים והאפיקורסים והכופרים בתורה, minim and apikorsim, two different types of heresy, two different types of heretics. Hakofrim batorah, those who deny Torah. Hakofrim bit'chiyas hameisim, those who deny that there'll be physical resurrection. Hakofrim bevi'as hago'el, those who deny that there'll be a Melech Hamashiach, that there'll be a King Messiah and a Yemos Hamashiach and a Messianic era, etc. When when the Rambam then tells us who is classified as a min, who is classified as an apikorus, who is classified as a kofer batorah, so basically in that context the Rambam presents us with twelve of the thirteen ikkarim. But אף על פי כן doesn't present it center stage and spotlight it the way he does in the Peirush Hamishnayos. Why not? It's so fundamental. There's nothing more fundamental, and yet it doesn't, it's not a headliner. It's here. It is here in Perek Gimmel, again twelve of the thirteen. Again we'll we'll well hopefully we'll have occasion to discuss which one doesn't seem to be there and and and how to explain how that's entirely consistent, which it is a thousand percent with the yud gimmel ikkarim as presented in in in Peirush Hamishnayos. But why doesn't the Rambam spotlight it the same way here in Mishneh Torah? So this is actually a fascinating illustration of a very very important methodological issue. Sometimes one's primary interest, ich veis, is let's say one's primary interest is this question of principles of belief, and for whatever reason one doesn't spend that much time learning Gemara and one doesn't spend that much time learning Rambam, but one just parachutes in to to investigate the the principles, fundamentals of belief in Mishneh Torah. Or let's say one's primary interest is Tanach and in a disproportionate way it eclipses the the learning that that should be there alongside that of of Gemara again and and of the Rambam's codification, so one sort of parachutes in to a Rambam here and a Rambam there to to see what he says about a pasuk. In order to understand a halacha in the Rambam, again, and this is a crucial methodological issue I'll say, one has to have a feel for what the Mishneh Torah as a whole is about. And if we just parachute in lacking that perspective and lacking that sense of context, so then we're prone and maybe it's maybe one could even say it's virtually inevitable to draw incorrect inferences. What is Mishneh Torah about? Mishneh Torah, the the again the Yad HaChazakah, the fourteen sefarim, what is Mishneh Torah about? If if we were To try in a sentence or two to define, he had to write a little blurb for a little blurb for for Amazon, making making a pitch, trying to sell some copies of Mishneh Torah, what is the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah though? So the Emes is we don’t need to we don’t need to work on this, the Rambam told us. So I just going to read just a few lines Rabotai, bear with me please. So the Rambam in his Hakdama to Mishneh Torah writes as follows. כל המצוות שניתנו לו למשה בסיני, all the 630 Mitzvos which were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Mount Sinai, bepeirushon nitnu, were given with the with an oral, they were accompanied by an oral commentary which we’ll see in a second the Rambam’s going to explain, which delineated the basic elements of the Mitzvah.

שנאמר עלה אלי ההרה ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצווה.

And I’m going to give you the Torah and the Mitzvah.

תורה זו תורה שבכתב ומצווה זו פירושה, וציוונו לעשות התורה על פי המצווה.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu commanded us to fulfill the 613 Mitzvos of the Torah Shebiktav based on the oral the oral commentary which identifies again the basic Halachos of each Mitzvah. ומצווה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה. The Rambam in his Hakdama to Perush Hamishnayos elaborates this and says let me give you a for instance. So he says for instance Hakadosh Baruch Hu taught Moshe Rabbeinu the Pasuk of בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים. There’s a Mitzvah of Yeshivas Sukkah for seven days. That’s what it says in the Chumash. Okay, what’s a Sukkah? How many walls does a Sukkah have to have? What materials are there specifications are there stipulations as to what materials I can use for the Sechach? Who’s obligated in Mitzvas Sukkah? Who’s exempted from Mitzvas Sukkah? So none of that is explicit in the Torah Shebiktav. So all those basic Halachos, Hakadosh Baruch Hu when he taught Moshe Rabbeinu Succos Teshvu, so he said Sukkah is given the fact that it’s a מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it’s incumbent upon men it’s not incumbent upon women. And since and and even amongst men so people who are traveling are exempt from Sukkah. And the material of the Sechach has to be something which is which grows from the ground etc. These basic Halachos of every Mitzvah is what the Rambam refers to as Torah Shebaal Peh. The Rambam doesn’t use the term Torah Shebaal Peh in that broad all-encompassing sense that we do. No for the Rambam Torah Shebaal Peh basically means a Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. He doesn’t use it as as that again that catch-all phrase for all of oral Torah, it means basic Halachos. Now the Rambam then says later in the Hakdama, he said that it’s almost impossible if not impossible for most people to make their way through all of Shas and then everything the Geonim wrote subsequently and distill from that the Halacha. So he said because of that I undertook to present people with that distillation of Halacha of Mitzvos of Mitzvos excuse me not Halacha of the Taryag Mitzvos and their basic their basic details. So in a word and again when you have a chance Rabotai please please take a look and and see for yourselves in a word the Rambam says that Mishneh Torah is fundamentally a Sefer about the 613 Mitzvos. As a matter of fact take a look in the Rambam’s introduction to his Sefer Hamitzvos. The Rambam tells us something fascinating that he wrote Sefer Hamitzvos as a checklist for himself for Mishneh Torah. When he wrote Sefer Hamitzvos he already had in mind to write the Mishneh Torah, he wanted to make sure he didn’t omit anything from Mishneh Torah so he... He compiled the list of the 613 mitzvos. So that Mishne Torah is about Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us the mitzvos and in the Torah SheBichtav. And then there was a Torah SheBa'al Peh of how do you build a sukkah, how many walls does a sukkah have, etc. Mishne Torah is about, Mishne Torah is about the Taryag Mitzvos and their basic halachos. Okay, that's what Mishne Torah is. Now it's true, and my father Zatzal called attention to this, that the Rambam did take liberties at times and introduced other themes and elements, but that as it were was a chidush that the Rambam allowed himself a certain license. But fundamentally, what the Rambam claims and delivered, comprehensiveness is 613 mitzvos and the halachos. Now, when we reflect, just two more minutes rabosai, but don't look at your watch to time these two minutes. Now, when we reflect on the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, there's something at first glance incredibly paradoxical. If you take out the Rambam's list of the 613 mitzvos and you look to find each of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim within the Rambam's list of 613 mitzvos, you will not find all of them. You will not find a mitzvah to believe in techiyas hameisim in the Rambam's minyan hamitzvos. Don't take my word for it, gezuntheit, check. You will not find in the Rambam's minyan hamitzvos a mitzvah to believe in yemos hamashiach and Melech HaMashiach. Kohena vekohena. How is that possible? So the answer is that for all the Rishonim, the list of Taryag Mitzvos doesn't and wasn't intended to encapsulate all our obligations. The term mitzvah is a technical term referring to a certain type of obligation, but it doesn't encapsulate all obligation. There are some of the most fundamental obligations which are not in the minyan hamitzvos. So Rav Chaim Vital, the primary talmid of the Arizal, who's the conduit for those who know Kabbalah of so much of the Arizal's teaching, says when you look, Chazal tell us that middos, basic character traits, are so fundamental, and if a person gets angry it's as if he's oveid avodah zarah. And if a person's a ba'al ga'avah, and if a person's a ba'al ga'avah, Hakadosh Baruch Hu says also it's tantamount to kefirah, to denial. And yet, says Rav Chaim Vital in his Sha'arei Kedusha, you don't find any of these embodied in mitzvos. You don't find an issur in the Torah, a mitzvas lo sa'asei, don't get angry. So on the one hand it's so basic, it's so fundamental, on the other hand it's not in the Chumash—it is in the Chumash, but it's not in the Taryag Mitzvos. Why? So the mashal lemahadavar domeh is as follows: Let's say you open a catalog for a medical school and you look in the catalog and you see that there's no course in basic biology, no course in basic chemistry, no course in basic biochemistry. Okay, so we think to ourselves, must be that basic biology and biochemistry is irrelevant to medical school because it's not in the medical school catalog. Really, the correct inference is that it's so basic and so fundamental that it's a precondition, prerequisite for medical school. The fact that it's not there isn't an indication of it being irrelevant, it's an indication of just how basic and fundamental it is. So for Rav Chaim Vital, for instance, what's most basic is not even in the Taryag Mitzvos because those are... Prerequisites for the Taryag Mitzvos. Basic basic middos tovos to a certain degree. After that the Torah helps us improve them even further. But basic middos tovos are a prerequisite. So that's just an example of how mitzvah has a certain again a certain technical definition. And for the Rambam it does as well, not necessarily the same as that of Rav Chaim Vital. And that's how for the Rambam despite the fact that there's nothing more elementary or fundamental than the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim they're not to be found, not all of them at any rate, within the Rambam's Minyan HaMitzvos. So now let's close the circle rabbosai. We asked how can it be that the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim that we know from the Rambam's Peirush Hamishnayos which Jews ever since have accepted as definitive and authoritative, just to read you a representative line from the Chazon Ish that the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim of the Rambam שעם ישראל עליהם נטעו, we, everything we plant, everything we build is based on the Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. The definitive, authoritative... how come the Rambam himself didn't spotlight it center stage in his Mishneh Torah the way he did in his Peirush Hamishnayos? The answer is because look to see what Mishneh Torah's about. Let's say someone today would write a sefer on Nezikin on torts. Okay. Would he spotlight the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim? No. Does that mean he doesn't believe in them rachmana litzlan? No. Does it mean that he doesn't think that they're of primary importance? No. But it means that that's not what his sefer is dealing with. In order to know what to expect in a sefer we have to know what the sefer sets out to treat, what the sefer sets out to speak of. The Rambam's Mishneh Torah sets out to talk about the Taryag Mitzvos and their basic halachos. That's the project the Rambam set for himself. That's the project the Rambam understood to identify and present the basic halachos of the Taryag Mitzvos. The Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are not, they're not center stage in such a sefer because the Rambam isn't writing a catch-all for all of Torah. The same way the Taryag Mitzvos themselves don't encompass everything in Torah, so too a chibbur, a work which is devoted to encompassing the Taryag Mitzvos and their basic halachos, so the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are not gonna be center stage in such a sefer as primary and as important and as fundamental as they are. If I'm writing a sefer on Nezikin I'm not gonna be talking about the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. Okay those are some introductory perspectives, maybe a little bit to frame the Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim and hopefully בעזרת השם בלי נדר in coming weeks we'll have the zechus to delve into the ikkarim themselves. Thank you very much rabbosai. Have a good night. Everyone should be well and be safe.