Hakdama 10

Good morning Reb Boruch, thank you very much for taking the time. Let's come back here in the Hakdama, before the Rambam has the section about where he distinguishes Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai from Perushim Mekubalim, where he describes Rabbeinu Hakadosh's efforts. So if you see, this will be in all the translations because it's a quote from the Gemara that

אהביבי דרבי הוה עתיר משור מלכא. אהביבי דרבי הוה עתיר משור מלכא.

You see where that is Reb Boruch? So Rebbi's wealth is relevant because לכן הביא רווחה לאנשי החכמה ומבקשיה. So Rebbi basically sponsored a very big kollel which allowed him to collect all of Torah Sheba'al Peh. V'ravatz Torah b'Yisrael

ואסף וקיבץ דברי הקבלה והמאמרים והמחלוקות שנאמרו מימות משה רבינו עד ימיו.

Good. Then the Rambam describes how Rabbeinu Hakadosh where he fit into the Mesora, and then he says a few lines later

ומשאסף את כל השיטות והמאמרים החל בחיבור המשנה שהיא כוללת פירוש כל המצוות הכתובות בתורה מהן קבלה מקובלת ממשה עליו השלום מהן הלכות שנלמדו בדרכי העיון ואין בהן מחלוקת וכולי.

It's interesting when you compare this discussion of Rebbi to the discussion the Rambam has in the Hakdama l'Mishneh Torah. Take a look if you can where it says in the Hakdama l'Mishneh Torah רבינו הקדוש חיבר המשנה. You see where that is Reb Boruch?

רבינו הקדוש חיבר המשנה ומימות משה רבינו ועד רבינו הקדוש לא חיברו חיבור שלומדין אותו ברבים בתורה שבעל פה.

This was something unprecedented. Mishnah was unprecedented in the sense that there never was a text, certainly not a written text for teaching Torah Sheba'al Peh.

אלא בכל דור ודור ראש בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הדור כותב לעצמו זכרון זכרון בשמועות ששמע מרבותיו והוא מלמד על פה ברבים. וכן כל אחד ואחד כותב לעצמו כפי כוחו מביאור התורה מהלכותיה כמו ששמע.

Agav, so here the shitos haRambam the Rav zecher tzaddik livracha used to point out, the Rambam understands a Gemara later in Gittin in towards the end of Hanizakin, where the Gemara says דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי d'varim excuse me the other half דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לומרם בכתב. So the Rambam clearly describes how people always used to take notes, right?

בכל דור ודור ראש בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הדור כותב לעצמו זכרון בשמועות ששמע מרבותיו.

Long before there was any eis la'asos that the Gemara says existed biymei Rebbi. So that's what the Rav used to say that the Rambam understands the din of דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לומרם בכתב is not that the cheftza of Torah Sheba'al Peh can't be written down but that Torah Sheba'al Peh can't be transmitted biksav. The din which was practiced which was observed until yimos Rabbeinu Hakadosh was that Torah Sheba'al Peh was nimser al peh. But each person for himself was allowed to take notes just for his own to to you know to prompt his own his own memory. But the point was a person didn't write a sefer and teach through writing a sefer. All teaching all mesiras hamasorah happened al peh. Okay and that's the shitos haRambam. I think that's maybe the Maratz Chayes says I forget who says that you find in the Gemara. a lashon megillas starim that they found a megillas starim literally again not megilla in terms of association with Chamesh Megillos that they found a parchment which was hidden away. So what's megillas starim? Megillas starim were these notes because you couldn't lend your notes to anyone because to lend your notes to someone again meant that he was then receiving the Torah she'baal peh m'toch haksav. So megillas starim is each Rosh Beis Din or Novi he wrote it for himself and he couldn't share it with anyone. He couldn't share his written notes with anyone. Okay.

וכן כל אחד ואחד כותב לעצמו כפי כוחו מביאור התורה והלכותיה כמו ששמע

but berabbim but when they taught they taught baal peh. וכן היה הדבר תמיד עד רבינו הקדוש והוא meaning Rabbeinu Hakadosh kibeitz he collected

כל השמועות וכל הדינים וכל הביאורים והפירושים ששמעו ממשה רבינו

shemuos are those which shamu and the beiurim and perushim are

שלמדו בית דין שבכל דור ודור מכל התורה כולה וחיבר מהכל ספר המשנה.

The Rambam continues and says

ולמה עשה רבינו הקדוש כך ולא הניח הדבר כמו שהיה?

Why did Rabbeinu Hakadosh change the way Torah was learned and transmitted? לפי שראה שהתלמידים מתמעטין והולכין there were fewer and fewer talmidim vehatzaros mis-chadsos u'baos and the suffering and the persecutions of golus were increasing in intensity וממלכת הרשעה פושטת בעולם ומתגברת and the Roman Empire was becoming more and more powerful. Again they were the source of the persecutions. וישראל מתגלגלין והולכין לקצוות and we were becoming very very spread out.

חיבר חיבור אחד להיות ביד כולם כדי שילמדו במהרה ולא ישכח.

So the Rambam has none of this in our hakdama right? He doesn't talk about how unprecedented the Mishnah is and then mimmeila he doesn't go on to discuss what the reasons were for this. So the answer lichora is just very simple. There's no stirah it's the Rambam has two different goals in the respective hakdamos. The hakdama to Peirush Hamishnayos basically is a hakdama to the corpus of Torah she'baal peh. In modern categories we'd call it a literary introduction. Like what is the Mishnah? Right? If someone who never learned before would come and ask us what is the Mishnah? What is the Mishnah? People learn mishnayos two mishnayos a day. Well what is the Mishnah? What are you learning? So the Rambam is telling us what the Mishnah is right? The Mishnah is a collection of all halachos and there are five types of halachos: perushim mekubbalim halacha l'Moshe mi-Sinai those which were discovered on their own through מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן and then the two types of derabbanans. So this it's a literary introduction as it were to Torah she'baal peh. Soon we didn't get up to this point yet in the hakdama the Rambam's going to give us an introduction to what Gemara is. What Gemara is. So in a literary it's a literary introduction. Masheinchein in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah the Rambam is sort of ultimately what the Rambam wants to do is provide historical context for Mishneh Torah. So he's giving us a historical introduction to Torah she'baal peh. In the hakdama to Peirush Hamishnayos it's a literary introduction to Torah she'baal peh. What is the Mishnah? What is the Gemara? Okay. If you're telling if you're telling me what the if someone asked you lehavdil lehavdil lehavdil elef alfi havdalos if someone asked you what the Constitution is what the Constitution of the United States is so alright you'll say the basic principles of the country the basic legal principles of this country. You're not going to talk about how the Stamp Act and how the colonies broke away. That's going to be... do if you want to know what the Constitution is. But if you want a historical introduction to the the Constitution, so then you're going to explain, no, that originally it was just they were colonies of Great Britain vechulu vechulu. So lehavdel lehavdel the הקדמה לפירוש המשניות is a literary introduction. What is the Mishnah? What is the Gemara vechulu? Ma she'ein kein the Hakdama leMishneh Torah is a historical introduction to Torah sheBe'al Peh. In a historical introduction Torah sheBe'al Peh, so the Rambam naturally highlights how the Mishnah was unprecedented. And again as part of a historical introduction he's also going to tell us why given that it was unprecedented, so why did Rebbe take such a take such a step? Okay. So let's continue here after the Rambam finishes his list of the Halachos leMoshe miSinai where he summarizes again the five types of Halachos that that exist and that therefore one finds in in Mishnah. So in this translation, agav, by the way, you know we were looking the other day in the translation in of of on Avos on Mishnayos Siyach Torah. So the reason all the translations are going to have gezeros and takanos is the Rambam wrote in the original gezeros ve'takanos apparently. So that's a rather futile search to look for a translation that's not going to have gezeros and takanos. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. Venimtza lefi hayesodos here.

ונמצא לפי היסודות שהקדמנו שחלקי הדינים המצויים בתורה הם חמשה חלקים.

You see that rabosai. Someone if you have it and you want to message people where it is in your edition so that would be great. Okay.

החלק הראשון הפירושים המקובלים ממשה שיש להם רמז בכתוב או אפשר לדורשם באיזו מידה.

Right? Again, perushim mekubalim. ובזה אין מחלוקת כלל. Meaning ein machlokes klal as we understood. Meaning not only is it not nitpas be'machlokes that if someone comes into the Beis Medrash and says I have a kabbalah that ayin tachas ayin is mamon, you can't argue against that. You can't engage him in shakla vetarya in משא ומתן של הלכה. But ובזה אין מחלוקת כלל. There's no such thing as someone else from the Chachmei haMasorah who doesn't have that masorah. Because perushim mekubalim is

לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך עד עולם.

Good, fine.

אלא שיאמר אדם כך קיבלתי יתבטל כל דיבור. והחלק השני הם הדינים שנאמר עליהם שהם הלכה למשה מסיני. ואין ראיות עליהם כמו שהזכרנו ובזה גם כן אין חולק בהם.

But again, אין חולק בהם כלל. But as we discussed that there were based on the Gemara in Temurah, there were halachos lemoshe misinai that were forgotten. החלק השלישי הם הדינים הנדרשים בדרכי הלימוד. Where we didn't have a tradition that such a din exists from Moshe Rabbeinu. And we gave the example in terms of the Rambam's example of sukkah. How when the Rambam lists the perushim mekubalim for sukkah, he didn't mention the din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. So דינים הנדרשים בדרכי הלימוד. And there potentially ונפלה בהם מחלוקת כמו שהזכרנו. There could and there were machlokesim there.

ונפסק הדין בהם כדעת הרוב כפי היסוד שאמרנו והיינו כשאין העניין מוכרח. ועל כן אומרים אם הלכה נקבל ואם לדין יש תשובה.

What does that mean? Im halacha, if you're telling me a perush hamekubal, okay, end of discussion. But im ledin, if you're reasoning it on your own, if it's not a perush hamekubal, so then if someone else disagrees, he can push back. Yesh teshuvah.

ולא יהיו מחלוקת וניכוח אלא במה שלא נשמעה בו קבלה. ותמצא בכל התלמוד חוקרים על צדדי הסברא שמהם מחמתם נפלה מחלוקת בין החולקים ואומרים במאי קמיפלגי.

In this third chelek. In this third chelek, so that's where you have machlokes and that's where the Gemara will ask, bmai kamifligi

או מאי טעמיה דרבי פלוני או מאי בינייהו כי פעמים הם הולכים בעניין זה במקצת מקומות ומודים הסיבת המחלוקת ואומרים שפלוני נתלה בדבר פלוני ופלוני נתלה בדבר פלוני וכיוצא בזה. אבל מה שחשב החושב

apparently there were those who thought כי הדינים שנחלקו בהם הם גם כן מקובלים ממשה. There were those who thought that where you find machlokes, no, the machlokes was about a din that originally had been mekubal miMoshe

אלא שנפלה מחלוקת מצד טעות בקבלה או שכחה ושהאחד קיבל נכון והאחד טעה בקבלתו או שכח או שלא שמע מרבותיו כל מה שראוי לשמוע.

So there were those who attributed all machlokes to error in transmission

ומביא ראיה על כך ממה שאמרו משבו רבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכם רבתה מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות.

And the chochev again who is the Rambam's the target of the Rambam's hasagos here, the chochev thought לא שמשו כל צרכם means that they didn't master the massorah adequately.

הרי זה חי השם דבר מגונה ודחוי מאד והוא דבר שאינו מקובל ולא מדויק על פי העיקרים ומוציא לעז על האנשים שמהם נתקבלה התורה וכל זה דברים בטלים.

So the Rambam is very upset about this. Right clearly I mean it's one thing you know if you take a test and you write a wrong answer and the professor gives you an X. It's another thing if in addition to the X in the red pen he tells you that what you wrote was a דבר מגונה ודחוי מאד and the reason you wrote that was מיעוט הבנת דברי חכמים המצויים בתלמוד. So the Rambam here is clearly not content to just say this is wrong and we'll try to understand אם ירצה השם בלי נדר in a minute why the Rambam why this is so central for the Rambam and why this misunderstanding for the Rambam is really a very big distortion in terms of massorah.

ומה שהביאו לידי סברא נפסדת זו מיעוט הבנת דברי חכמים המצויים בתלמוד לפי שמצאנו כי הפירוש מקובל ממשה וזה נכון לפי היסוד שאמרנו אך אינם מבדילים בין העיקרים המקובלים ובין החידושים הנדרשים.

So itachen what it means is as follows and the Rambam itachen as follows: if the Rambam in presenting again this overview this introduction to תורה שבעל פה this overview of תורה שבעל פה the Rambam says that there was development in תורה שבעל פה meaning that the basic halachos of every mitzvah are פירושים מקובלים ממשה רבינו but there were some details which HaKadosh Baruch Hu said no that I'm not going to spoonfeed them from Moshe Rabbeinu it's not going to be פירוש מקובל ממשה רבינו I want the chachmei hamassorah by applying י"ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן I want them to discover these dinim. Okay once it's up to them to discover these dinim there can be machlokesim about what should we darshan with this klal u'frat u'klal v'chulu. But for the Rambam there was development in תורה שבעל פה. If you don't accept that if you say no there's no development in תורה שבעל פה so then al korchacha you're going to end up saying that every machlokes in Shas is based on error in transmission is based on faulty massorah. Because for the Rambam for the Rambam the chelek harishon the first five chalakim of the dinim which are פירושים מקובלים ממשה רבינו so that לא נפלה בו מחלוקת כלל. And all machlokes in shas is because primarily of the chelek hashlishi, again, also part of the chelek hasheni because of the shichecha and v'halacha l'moshe misinai, but that's only a handful of cases in terms of where we have machloksim in shas where one thinks it's halacha l'moshe misinai and one thinks not. But the preponderance of machlokes in torah shebal peh is the chelek hashlishi. So for the Rambam, this is not stam a mistake because remember we looked in the yud gimmel ikkarim in hakdama l'perek chelek and we saw that be'emes the yesod hashimini of torah min hashamayim is not just that hakadosh baruch hu gave a torah min hashamayim, but that torah shebichtav and torah shebal peh that he gave is beyadeinu hayom. Torah min hashamayim means תורה נצחית מן השמים that still beyadeinu hayom. But that's only true if there's no shichecha, if there's no faulty transmission in perushim mekubalim. If there's no such thing as development in torah shebal peh, so then every machlokes or virtually every machlokes points to error in transmission, and then we don't have the entire torah shebal peh which was given to moshe rabbeinu hayom. That's why this isn't stam a mistake according to the Rambam. This is a very, very basic mistake. Now whether or not when the Rambam says, I just want to check one thing, excuse me. I think that's why for the Rambam this is such a fundamental error. It's not stam a mistake. This is a very, very fundamental error according to the Rambam. Okay, let's continue here, just skipping a few lines.

ומה שאמרו משנרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן ורבתה מחלוקת בישראל,

so what does that gemara mean that attributes machlokes or the preponderance, the explosion of machlokes to תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן if it doesn't mean what some people erroneously think, dahinu that there was faulty transmission and there's machlokes in perushim mekubalim, so then what does it mean?

ומה שאמרו משנרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן ורבתה מחלוקת בישראל הרי עניין דברים אלו פשוט מאוד.

No, it means something very different.

כי שני בני אדם שהם שווים בהבנה ובעיון ובידיעת היסודות שמהם למידים לא תיפול ביניהם מחלוקת במה שהם למידים על ידי איזו מידה בשום פנים. ואם נפלה תהיה מעט, כשם שלא נמצאת מחלוקת בין שמאי והלל אלא בהלכות אחדות. כי דרך הלימוד של שניהם בכל מה שהם למידים באיזו מידה הייתה קרובה מאוד. וכן היסודות שהיו נתונים ביד זה הם כמו היסודות שהיו ביד השני. משל למה הדבר דומה.

There are some letters between rav chayim and his son, the rav's father rav moshe soloveitchik. And in a few of the letters you find, so rav moshe wrote chidushei torah to his father, and his father wrote back, yeah I said the same thing in the shiurim in volozhin. And you find that keseder. You find for instance some of the chidushim that rav velvel has in his sefer, so the rav has on his own. So how does that happen? So the answer is clear, right? The answer is if you have people who mastered the same derech halimud and they apply the same derech halimud to the same gemara, to the same Rambam, to the same tosafot, to the same ramban, so they're going to, it's going to yield the same result. If you have the same derech halimmud and more or less comparable kishronos and you apply it to the same masorah, you're gonna end up with the same chiddushim. Mah she'ein kein if the training in terms of the derech halimmud is not as complete, if the derech halimmud is not mastered to the same degree, so now if you're already applying different darkei halimmud, ein hacha nami, it's different darkei halimmud to the same masorah, but different darkei halimmud you're gonna yield and gonna yield different chiddushim and different opinions. So the Rambam says שלא שימשו כל צורכם means shimshu kol tzorkam in terms of mastering, not mastering the perushim hamikubalim the way this erroneous peshat understands, but it means in terms of mastering the derech halimmud. And that's what accounts for, again, for this explosion of machlokes which previously didn't exist. Rambam, let's just reread it and see it in the words:

כי שני בני אדם שהם שווים בהבנה ובעיון ובידיעת היסודות שמהם לומדים,

again, right after where the Rambam quotes the Gemara again, of שלא שימשו כל צורכם, ravta machlokes b'Yisrael. So right after that:

כי שני בני אדם שהם שווים בהבנה ובעיון ובידיעת היסודות שמהם לומדים, לא תפול ביניהם המחלוקת במה שהם לומדים על ידי איזה מידה ובשום פנים.

Again, it's the same derech. It's the same derech. If it's the same derech in terms of how to apply a klal u'prat u'klal, so where's the machlokes gonna emerge from? Everyone's dealing with the same pesukim in Chumash. Everyone's dealing with the same traditions received from Moshe Rabbeinu, from Yehoshua, from the Zekeinim, etc. And then it's the same way of thinking. So where's there gonna be machlokes? V'im naflah, if there will be machlokes, tehei mu'at. It's gonna be isolated instances of machlokes,

כשם שלא נמצא תמיד מחלוקת בין שמאי והלל אלא בהלכות אחדות. כי דרך הלימוד של שניהם בכל מה שהם לומדים על פי איזה מידה הייתה קרובה מאוד וכן היסודות שהיו נתונים ביד זה הם כמו היסודות שהיו ביד השני. וכאשר נתמעטה בקשת החכמה של תלמידיהם ונחלש לימודם ביחס להלל ושמאי רבותיהם.

So that's an important line, right? משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שימשו כל צורכם means that they didn't measure up to Shammai and Hillel, means from our vantage point they were incomparably and indescribably great. So they didn't rise to the level of their rebbeim. They weren't talmidei Shammai v'Hillel. So yes, this is sort of a put-down in saying that they weren't, they didn't, they didn't fill the shoes of Shammai and Hillel, right? ביחס להלל ושמאי רבותיהם. It's not saying that they were little people, it's saying that they weren't giants to the same degree and of the same stature as Shammai and Hillel. So as a result,

נפלה מחלוקת ביניהם כשנשאו ונתנו בדברים רבים הואיל ודרך הלימוד של כל אחד מהם היא כפי שכלו,

because they didn't fully develop to the same degree that had happened previously in terms of their derech halimmud and therefore ul'fi hayesod shebeyado. But now the Rambam, and there's a little bit here I'm not sure, yet to figure, there's a little bit of, I don't know, a little bit of tension here. והם אינם אשמים בכל זה. Right? From the lashon of שלא שימשו כל צורכם, which the Rambam himself initially said nisma'atah bakashas hachochmah, it sounds like, again, that there is, that there is an element of criticism. But now the Rambam turns around and says no,

והם אינם אשמים בכל זה, כי לא נוכל אנחנו לכוף שני בני אדם המתווכחים שיתווכחו בשכלם של יהושע ופינחס.

You walk around the beis medrash and you hear a chavrusah arguing about a point, and you'll bop them both over the head and you'll tell one 'Why aren't you saying good like Rav Akiva Eiger?' and you'll tell the other one 'Why aren't you saying good like the Nesivos?' So the answer is, if I was Rav Akiva Eiger, I'd say as good as Rav Akiva Eiger, and if I was the Nesivos, I'd say as good as the Nesivos, but I'm only me, what do you want from me? Right? So the Rambam says

כי לא נוכל אנחנו לכוף שני בני אדם המתווכחים שיתווכחו בשכלם של יהושע ופינחס.

Okay, so is there what Is there is there an element of criticism called for here or not? I don't know, it's a little bit of tension here, you have to figure out what the, I mean the Lashon haGemara sounds like there is, but then the Rambam turns around says הינם אינם אשמים בכל זה. I don't know, tzarich iyun how to how to integrate those two. There is a fascinating mareh makom. It's in the Ba'al HaTanya has as follows. This is in Iggeres HaKodesh from the Ba'al HaTanya in Perek Yud Gimmel. מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך. A posuk in Tehillim. Hinei, says the Ba'al HaTanya, it's אגרת הקודש פרק יג. I don't know if someone wants to put it up on the screen. Oh, shekoach. Thank you very much.

מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך. הנה בכלל עובדי השם יש ב' בחינות ומדרגות חלוקות מצד שורש נשמתם למעלה.

There are two different dimensions, two different levels among ovdei Hashem, and ultimately you can trace that difference back to the shoresh, to the root of their neshama. Mibechinas Yamin Usmol. Again, obviously in olamos elyonim there isn't physically right and left, but using right and left metaphorically. Dehaynu Shebechinas Smol, right, what smol, when we speak of left, what that represents metaphorically, it represents din. Let's say Chazal say לעולם תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת. So we associate the docha, sorry, we associate the docha with left and we associate the mekareves with yamin. Smol is din and yamin represents rachamim. In this context, שבחינת שמאל היא מידת הצמצום, contraction. Vehahaster, and something being hidden, ba'avodas Hashem, and those yesodos avodas Hashem, Kemo Shekasuv, the posuk in Micha, והצנע לכת עם השם אלקיך. Bimistarim Tivkeh Nafshi the posuk says. כל העוסק בתורה בסתר. So we see all these again expressions of smol being underscored and accentuated within avodas Hashem.

והנה ממידה זו נמשכה גם כן בחינת הצמצום והגבול בעבודת השם,

which is why in certain halachos we find that even avodas Hashem, as it were, is constrained, is constricted. How so? כמו בצדקה להיות נידון בהשג יד. Tzedaka, a person should not give tzedaka beyond his resources. And generally there's a cap, unless someone is very very wealthy, there's a cap of המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש. A person should not give away more than 20 percent of his earnings, again unless he's unless he's very wealthy.

וכהאי גוונא בתלמוד תורה ושאר מצוות, דהיינו שיצא ידי חובתו מהחיוב המפורש שחייבתו התורה בפירוש לקבוע עיתים.

So that's the smol. dimension of avodas hashem. Ach bechinas yamin, yamin represents chesed ve-hispashtus. Right? If yamin represents chesed, not din, so chesed means you're expansive, right? You're reaching out, you're reaching out to orchim, you're reaching out to people. It's hispashtus, it's not the contraction of tzimtzum, it's the hispashtus, you're reaching out.

אך בחינת ימין הוא מידת החסד וההתפשטות בעבודת השם בהתרווחות,

right, expansively? B'li tzimtzum, without that contraction vehester klal

כמו שכתוב ואתהלכה ברחבה וגם בלי צמצום וגבול כלל ואין מצר לרוח נדבתו בין בצדקה ובין בתלמוד תורה.

In this dimension, so talmud torah's not just kvias itim, but it's yomam v'layla. It just spills over. There's no limit to the involvement in talmud torah.

והנה כל איש ישראל צריך להיות כלול משתי בחינות אלו.

The relative proportions may differ, but everyone has to have both. A person is not supposed to be purely either. Everyone's supposed to be both. Supposed to have both the yamin and the smol, both the hispashtus and the tzimtzum. ואין לך דבר שאין לו מקום because each midah, each dimension, has its time and place. And therefore,

ולכן מצינו כמה דברים מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל.

Right? Even though with just a handful of exceptions, Beis Shammai are always machmir and Beis Hillel are always meikel. Right? That's the rule of thumb. If you look at machlokes in Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in Mishna, so Beis Shammai are almost always lechumra and Beis Hillel almost always lekula. But the Masechet Eduyot tells us there are some exceptions.

ולכן מצינו כמה דברים מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל ללמדנו,

oh look at this, rabbosai, שאף בית שמאי ששורש נשמתם מבחינת שמאל העליון. How did it happen that Beis Shammai, again with this handful of exceptions, Beis Shammai were invariably machmir? How did that happen? Because

שורש נשמתם מבחינת שמאל העליון ולכן היו דנים להחמיר תמיד בכל איסורי תורה.

If your neshama is drawn from smol, so then you're naturally going to constrict, restrain, right? It's bechinas hatzimtzum, which means that things will be assur, right? That represents constriction, that represents restraint, restriction. ולכן היו דנים להחמיר תמיד בכל איסורי תורה. Again, not that they were consciously looking to be machmir, but that's the way things appeared to them without negias. That's the way things appeared to them because of their shoresh haneshama. And u-veis Hillel on the other hand שהיו מבחינת ימין העליון. The neshamos of Beis Hillel came from a different place in the olamos elyonim. It came from the right side, again, speaking metaphorically.

ובית הלל שהיו מבחינת ימין העליון היו מלמדים זכות להקל ולהתיר איסורי תורה.

Again, hispashtus, hispashtus will result in kula, making more things permissible. Af al pi chen, again, because everyone has to have, again, maybe the relative proportions will differ, but everyone has to have both. That's why you find kulei Beis Shammai and chumrei Beis Hillel. Fine. So look, it's quite here, it's quite clear what emerges from what the Baal HaTanya is telling us is that the source of machlokes, and this is something which is very, it certainly resonates with us, I think, that again on an exoteric level, he's saying it esoterically, that the source of machlokes is ultimately in the shoresh haneshamos of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. That's what the Baal HaTanya says, right? That the source of machlokes ultimately... I think the Chazon Ish, I meant to look it up so I could read it to you, but I didn't get around to it. There's... A little letter from the Chazon Ish. I think some, the Chazon Ish wrote something and someone wrote hasagos and wanted to argue on him about it. And the Chazon Ish wrote back, you know, I'm not going to argue because this is the kind of thing where different people just see things differently and there's no, it's not going to be a productive use of time to argue about this. I see it this way, you see it that way, and kachah zeh, you know, we're not going to, nothing's going to change by, you know, by arguing about it so chaval al hazman, which again you can say the same thing, I don't know, neurologically, neuropsychologically as as what the Baal HaTanya here is saying, you know, al pi kabbalah. The question is, again, it's not really juxtaposing the Baal HaTanya and the Rambam, it's more juxtaposing the Baal HaTanya, so then why does the Gemara attribute it to שלא שימשו כל צרכם? How does the Baal HaTanya learn pshat in our Gemara here, שלא שימשו כל צרכם? No, maybe it's שלא שימשו כל צרכם but they couldn't have the same derech halimmud because of the shoresh haneshamah. Okay, I don't know, obviously there's an answer, I don't know what it is, iyen sham, how does the Baal HaTanya learn our Gemara? Okay, let's just continue a little bit here in v'chen ein lanu. Again, so you can't, again, so the other, the other question we're leaving open for now is, initially the Rambam says נתמעטה בקושיות החכמה, which seems to be consistent with the mashma'us in the Gemara that there is an element of criticism for Talmidei Shammai v'Hillel. Again, criticism of giants of spirit that they weren't even greater giants. But there is an element of criticism and the Rambam says no, וכן אינם אשמים בכל זה. The Rambam seems to totally exonerate. That's the other kasha that we'll leave open. V'chen ein lanu, now what's more, a person's commitment to masorah and to the authoritativeness of the masorah sheba'al peh is in no way affected by that statement in the Gemara of

שלא שימשו כל צרכם. וכן אין לנו לפקפק במה שנחלקו בו מאחר שאינם כשמאי והלל או למעלה מהם, כי השם יתהדר ויתרומם לא שיעבד אותנו בזה אלא כפה עלינו לשמוע מן החכמים שהם חכמי איזה דור שיהיה כמו שאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשת.

So the Torah already says that, that a person is not allowed to say, oh, if, if the hachachamim in my generation were the equal of Shammai and Hillel, of course I'd listen to them. But these guys? No, they don't hold a candle to Shammai and Hillel. No, so that's what the Torah says, no, אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם. And Hakadosh Baruch Hu endorses the masorah and endorses the chachmei hador ba'asher hem sham. And that's not a legitimate position to say, oh, there's been a yeridas hadoros. No, I hold from Moshe Rabbeinu and Yehoshua, but not the, I don't hold from the subsequent links in the masorah. No, that's what Hakadosh Baruch Hu says,

אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשת. ועל פי אופן זה נפלה מחלוקת.

And this is where how machlokes emerged, לא שהם טעו בדברים המקובלים. Not that it was in the first chelek of Torah that what allowed for machlokes rachmana litzlan was was faulty transmission of peirushim mekubbalim.

וקבלת האחד היא האמת ושל השני דבר בטל ומאוד בואר עניין זה למתבונן בו וכמה חשוב היתרון הזה בתורה.

And again, there's the Rambam as we mentioned earlier, just underscoring this isn't, this isn't a minor error, this is a major distortion because it it basically contradicts, it contradicts the idea that Torah is nitzchis in the sense that Torah sheba'al peh has been preserved and we have the same Torah sheba'al peh in terms of peirushim mekubbalim that Moshe Rabbeinu brought down from Har Sinai. Okay, we'll we'll stop here. Thank you again rabosai for making yourselves available. Bli neder Sunday shiur will be regular time, regular, regular place, im yirtzeh Hashem. If it didn't go out yet, so then there will be, I think there are some mareh mekomos for what Sunday's shiur is about. It went out already? So then there will be, I think there are some mareh mekomos for what Sunday's shiur is about. Yeah, okay, so b'ezrat Hashem, so we'll pick up Sunday at twelve in person, b'ezrat Hashem, bli neder. Thank you very very much, gut erev Shabbos everyone.