Ikar hadin & Middas Chassidus in Shiflus

Good morning rabbosai. I think we left off in פרק ד' משנה ד', the mishnah of

רבי לויטס איש יבנה אומר מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח.

We had seen the beginning of the Rambam here. Ukevar isei continuing in the Rambam here rabbosai.

וכבר השיא בספר מספרי המידות ששאלו לאחד החסידים ואמרו לו איזהו יום השמח ביותר שעבר עליך מימי חייך. אמר יום שהייתי נוסע על גבי ספינה והיה מקומי בו במקום שפל ביותר והיו עלי בגדים בלויים והיו בספינה סוחרים ובעלי נכסים. ובהיותי נמצא במקומי והנה אחד מאנשי הספינה עמד להשתין ונגלו לעיניו שפלותי ומצבי הפחות שהייתי שרוי בו עד שגילה את עצמו והשתין עלי.

So this rich merchant was so contemptuous. He had such total bittul for the chasid, he wasn't even treating him as a person. He didn't feel the the rich socher didn't even feel as though he were degrading himself by exposing himself in front of the chasid because he had such total contempt for him that he wasn't even he was treating him as as inferior not even as being a person. תמהתי על חוזק תכונת העזות בנפשו. I was amazed at just how arrogant a person can be.

ומאידך גיסא באמת אני עצמי לא הצטערתי על מעשהו בשום פנים.

But I didn't feel aggrieved in the least. ולא התרגשתי ממנו כלום. It didn't provoke any reaction within me. Vesamachti simchah gedolah. This tremendous sense of joy I experienced a tremendous sense of joy על שהגעתי לכדי כך that I had reached a madreigah that I had attained a madreigah שאין מצערני ביזיון אותו הפחות that the scorn and contempt that he had for me just didn't it didn't register. ולא שמתי לב אליו. And I totally disregarded it.

ואין ספק שזו תכלית שפלות הרוח כדי להתרחק מן הגאווה.

Clearly the Rambam is endorsing the story in terms of its identification of and embrace of what מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח means. I guess there's no hechrech, no hechrech but mistsama he's endorsing the story as a whole although I don't know ayen alav, ayen alav if that assumption is correct. If it is so then there's another very very interesting limmud here. What generates the deepest and most meaningful form of simchah is the shleimus which comes from hisbattloos. The story, again, as the story, as the Rambam recounts the story, so the Chossid is citing this instance in response to the question of what was the happiest day of your life? So I think we easily could have imagined that even if the Chossid had had such an experience, that he wouldn't be citing this as the happiest day of his life. And I think we can think of lots of noble alternatives, not just sort of superficial and materialistic alternatives. And yet the Chossid cites this as the... So what's the pshat? Mamen pshat is as follows: The Rambam explains the posuk in Yirmiyahu. It's the haftarah for Tisha B'Av, right? About

אל יתהלל חכם בחכמתו ואל יתהלל הגבור בגבורתו ואל יתהלל העשיר בעשרו כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידע אותי.

So he says that I think he says the philosophers say, you know, there are different types of perfection a person can attain. When a person has financial security, right? He has enough money in federally insured accounts that he's that he not only has financial security in terms of his basic needs, but but even beyond that he can afford to live the lifestyle he wants and indulge as he wants, so that's a type of it's a type of shleimus. Maybe perfection has the wrong doesn't have the same connotation as shleimus in this context, so the the translation is is is off. It's one type of shleimus. If if a person is in peak physical shape, he can win the decathlon. So he he feels as good as a person can feel. He enjoys the all the physical benefits and opportunities that that type of good health afford. It's also a type of shleimus. But the Rambam points out, again, and he says, you know, it's I don't think he says it's his own, he says he's quoting the philosophers, that really this is something that these are external. Wealth is certainly external. It's not it's not who the person is. It's not what the person is. It's it's something external. And even even health, you know, the real person is the ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים. The real person is the nefesh ha'adam. So even the physical shleimus, the physical completion is a better word than than perfection although it's a little clumsy in English, is also something external. Because the Rambam there says that the the ultimate shleimus isn't even shleimus hamidos, which is what this story is depicting, but the ultimate shleimus is the pasuk in Yirmiyahu says is the haskel veyadoa osi. But midos which are not linked to that is also not not the ultimate shleimus. So in terms of whether or not the Rambam is endorsing this element of the story, I guess would depend upon whether or not the chasid's shiflus was be'einei elokim ve'adam and was a function of his yedias hashem or whether the shiflus was an ethical perfection on the way to to yedias hashem in terms of whether or not the Rambam would endorse the the yom hasameach beyoser. But either way, certainly the the shleimus hamidos is much more internal and intrinsic than the shlemuyos of osher be'oshro and the gibbor bigvuraso. Again, gibbor bigvuraso representing the shleimus of of a person's physical state. So at least whether entirely or partially, that point is is also correct. Again, it's not the focus here. The focus here is is the the extent of the shiflus. But either partially or entirely, let's say partially since there's no explicit link to to the haskel veyadoa osi, so then simple pshat in stam is that partially, at least partially, because the reason that's the happiest day is because that shleimus is more internal. That shleimus is more intrinsic. And and when the source of the simcha is more internal, more intrinsic, so then the simcha is going to be more profound than when the source of the simcha is more external or more extrinsic. They tell the story that Rav Chaim Volozhiner and his saintly angelic younger brother Rav Zalmele were traveling once. They didn't have on their shirts, you know, hello my name is Rav Chaim Volozhiner, hello my name is Rav Zalmele, we're from the gedolei hador. They they they didn't have that hello sticker on their on their shirts. So they and they traveled in regular clothing. There was nothing to identify them as as as anyone special. And they came to an inn late at night that they really needed to be able to stop for the night. It it was untenable and and even dangerous to continue traveling and they came to the inn and the innkeeper wasn't really interested in in dealing with guests at that time. And apparently whatever financial incentive there was wasn't enough for him. And he was mevazeh them terribly and then finally threw them into the barn and told them here you can stay with the horses overnight and threw them into the barn and and roughed them up literally, physically, as well as dealt with them with tremendous contempt. And Rav Chaim Volozhiner looks, again it's pitch black, there's no no candles there to illuminate the the barn, and and he hears that that his brother Rav Zalmele is crying. So he starts telling Reb Zalman, "What are you crying? The whole thing is hevel havalim. Who cares about his insults? The whole thing is hevel havalim, it doesn't mean anything." Reb Zalman says, "I'm not crying because he insulted us. I'm crying because when he dealt with us with such bizyonos, I felt something. And that's why I'm crying." That's this Rambam. That's this Rambam. Another famous story about Reb Zalman is that so there was a little chabura at one tkufa used to come in to the Gaon and then the Gaon would learn with them, would teach them. And Reb Zalman was the apple of the Gaon's eye. He was so chasidah uprishah, such an angelic person. And one day they come in to learn and the Gaon looks and he sees he doesn't see the normal simcha radiating from Reb Zalman's face. He sees an atzvos. So he says to Reb Zalman, "Mai hai? Das is supposed to be besimcha." So Reb Zalman says, "How can I be besimcha?" He says, "Here we are, it's ready for today's shiur and I didn't chazer yesterday's shiur 100 times yet." Every other day Reb Zalman was besimcha. The Rambam says,

"אין ספק שזאת תכלית שפלות הרוח כדי להרחיק מן הגאוה."

The Rambam says this story takeh is paradigmatic. It illustrates what מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח can mean, should mean. But lichora the Rambam's formulation here reinforces the havana that we tried to develop last time that the din of מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח is that it's midin syag. Whereas by other middos a person only goes to an extreme temporarily to offset the opposite extreme until he can regain his footing in the middle, over here this is a permanent syag. We need to permanently and constantly overcompensate. So that's what the Rambam is saying,

"אין ספק שזאת תכלית שפלות הרוח כדי להרחיק מן הגאוה."

Meaning if the shiflus haruach were meikar hadin, so then the Rambam should have just said "אין ספק שזאת תכלית שפלות הרוח." But if the shiflus haruach is midin syag as we saw last time, that

כגודל חסרון המידה הזאת אצל אנשי המעלה ובהכירם את נזקו הרחיקו ממנו עד הקצה האחרון,

where the Rambam depicted it as being betoras syag, so that's also כדי להרחיק מן הגאוה. That's why there's a need and a demand for מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח. I'm not sure if we pointed this out last time, but it contextualizes, it fits very well with the Rambam in the Yad also, because if we take a look in פרק ב הלכה ג where the Rambam again presents... ga'avah the extreme shiflus haruach as an exception to the rule, so the context is perek bais halachos aleph and bais are talking about again when a person the Torah siyag to extricate himself from one extreme goes to the opposite extreme but in all those cases he's doing it temporarily. And then apropos of that the Rambam says once you have that yesod that sometimes a person has to go from to one extreme to avoid the opposite extreme so now you can understand this din that I'm about to tell you that here again it's sort of a permanent protective measure a permanent overcompensation as it were because really there's no such thing as overcompensating because of godel niska and our susceptibility to it. Okay, let's try to, I'm not sure whether when all is said and done whether we'll get clarity on this next point or not but let's try to understand the following. There is a Gemara in Shabbos you're familiar on דף ח עמוד ב. No not דף ח עמוד ב oh yes דף ח עמוד ב on דף ח עמוד ב. Tnu rabbanan

הנעלבין ואינן עולבין שומעין חרפתן ואינן משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחין בייסורין

aleihen hakasuv omer ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו. So the brayisa describes a person persons lashon rabbim who הנעלבין ואינן עולבין שומעין חרפתן ואינן משיבין. Now the Sefer Hachinuch if you take a look in the mitzvah of ona'as devarim in parshas Behar it's מצוה של"ח in the Sefer Hachinuch. So the issur of ona'as devarim is not to speak hurtfully to another Jew. Could be there's no lashon hara in what I'm saying I'm speaking to him and I'm not talking about anyone else there's no lashon hara. There's no rechilus I'm not talking about anyone else but if I say devarim sheyach'ivuhu veyetza'aruhu if I say things which will pain him so that's an issur of ona'as devarim. The Sefer Hachinuch again almost all mitzvos the Sefer Hachinuch concludes with venoheges mitzvah zu when is this mitzvah noheges is it only bizman habayis is it always upon whom is it incumbent is it only kohanim is it everyone and then that's usually the end of the mitzvah. Here the Sefer Hachinuch has a postscript Ve'ulam lefi hadomeh. Ve'ulam lefi hadomeh. It where's Moshe? Where's Moshe? Do you see that Ve'ulam lefi hadomeh? Do you have that? Yeah yeah it's I've posted it in the chat. Oh okay so it's not on the screen? It is it's on the previous message it's at the end Ve'ulam lefi hadomeh. Okay okay thank you for some reason I don't see it on my screen. Okay.

ואולם לפי הדומה אין במשמע שאם בא ישראל אחד והתחיל והרשיע לצער חבירו בדברים הרעים שלא יענהו השומע.

Sefer Hachinuch says this lav of ona'as devarim notwithstanding he says I don't think that the lav entails that if a person is minding his own business and then another Jew comes and then he begins to chapper him he begins to be metza'er him. The lav of ona'as devarim doesn't demand of the person that he remain silent she'ee efshar liyot... what the Sefer Hachinuch really means bli neder. It's impossible for a person to react as though he were an inanimate object. I mean, if you insult a stone, and you point to a stone, and you say what an ugly stone and and then you launch into a whole litany of abusive language, so the stone doesn't react. The stone doesn't feel anything. It's inanimate. אי אפשר להיות אדם כאבן שאין לה הופכים. A person, and again, the stone the will always remain stationary, unless someone comes and overturns it, right? It's not going to move to- it's not moved to respond. Ve'od, what's more שיהיה בשתיקתו כמודה על החירופין. Sometimes his silence can be construed as admission.

ובאמת לא תצווה התורה להיות אדם כאבן שותק למחרפו כאלמים לא יפתחו פיהם.

The Torah doesn't hold us to such a standard. The Torah doesn't demand that a person, again, remain completely silent in the face of vilification.

אבל תצווה אותנו שנתרחק מן המידה הזאת ושלא נתחיל להקניט לבני אדם.

The lav of ona'as devarim is that we shouldn't be initiating something like this. ובכן ינצל אדם מכל זה. And what's more, most of the time a person will therefore, if he's not the type of person to initiate this, he'll also be spared because for the most part it's going to be true כי מי שאינו בעל קטטה לא יחרפוהו בני אדם. For the most part, it's true that if you don't sling dirt, other people are not going to sling dirt at you. It's not always true. The Sefer Hachinuch doesn't mean that, you see from the hemshech hadevarim. You see from the hemshech hadevarim, from the next paragraph, that he's not suggesting it's always true. But it's true a lot of the time. Zulasi hashotim hagemurim. The only people who are sort of muchzak to- to initiate and to vilify people who themselves are very respectful of others are people who are shotim gemurim ואין לאיש לב על השוטה. And there's no reason for a person to be mindful of divrei chiruf which come from a shote.

ואם אולי יכריחנו מחרף מבני אדם להשיב על דבריו ראוי לחכם שישיב לו דרך סלסול ונעימות ולא יכעס הרבה.

If circumstances necessitate that one respond to a vilifier, so the chacham, interesting, even here the Sefer Hachinuch is not expecting the chacham to be totally above ka'as, velo yichas harbeh. He should be working very hard to control and minimize. And and he should answer in a in a sweet way.

כי כעס בחיק כסילים ינוח וינצל עצמו אל השומעים מחירופיו וישליך החימה על המחרף.

And he should exonerate himself from these from the slanderous from the slanderous vilification in the presence of those who heard it, and let the, you know, the burden of having maligned a person maliciously, let that burden be squarely on the shoulders of the machaerf. זהו דרך הטובים שבבני אדם. Veyesh lanu lilmod lilmod davar zeh but this chiddush I’m telling you says the Sefer HaChinuch besides the sevara that I think it’s a sevara that says that the Torah doesn't require me ikar hadin that a person remains silent in the face of verbal onslaught. First of all I think it’s a sevara lefi hadomeh. But what’s more יש לנו ללמוד דבר זה I think you can bring a raya

שמותר לנו לענות כסיל כפי אולתו מאשר הטיבה התורה הבא במחתרת להקדים ולהורגו.

This is pretty extraordinary.

שאין ספק שלא נתחייב אדם לסבול הנזקין ביד חברו כי יש לו רשות להינצל מידו.

See what the Chinuch means here lichora is as follows, right? When Chazal explain what the what the Torah’s rationale is by the din of ba bemachteret so the Torah says that the ganaf knows that אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו. That a person doesn't stand by and let someone rob him. So the ganaf knows that the ba'al habayis is likely to resist and therefore the ganaf is clearly clearly coming ready to overcome that resistance meaning he’s ready to come he’s ready to kill him so heyos that he’s ready to kill him if that’s the only way that he can perpetrate the gneiva so הבא להורגך השכם להורגו. But but what sets off this whole chain reaction which culminates in in the need for the ba'al habayis to preemptively kill the ba bemachteret is the fact that a person is entitled to protect his property. We don't tell the person we don't tell the person no let him steal. No a person is it’s mutar for a person to be omed al shelo even though that causes an escalation which ultimately means that he’s going to have to kill the ganaf and the Torah says that that's that that is perfectly acceptable. So he says

כי יש לו רשות להינצל מידו כמו כן מדברי פיהו אשר מלא מרמה ותוך וכל דבר שהוא יכול להינצל ממנו.

So a person is also allowed to save himself from verbal onslaught the same way he’s allowed to save himself from a ganaf and physical onslaught. Bekitzur ma’aseh according to the Sefer HaChinuch but let’s let’s finish and then and then and then try to understand.

ואולם יש כת מבני אדם שעלה חסידותם כל כך שלא ירצו להכניס עצמם בהוראה זו להשיב חורפיהם דבר.

There are people whose middas chasidus is so exalted that they will not take advantage of this heter. Even though this is entirely mutar me'ikar hadin they will not avail themselves of that heter. פן יגבר עליהם הכעס ויתפשטו בעניין יותר מדי. Again notice what what we spoke about last time the volatility of ka'as because the reason for this middas chasidus is they’re afraid that that if you begin to respond it’s going to be impossible to modulate and and control the response.

עליהם הכתוב אומר ועליהם אמרו זכרונם לברכה הנעלבים ואינם עולבים שומעים חרפתם ואינם משיבים עליהם הכתוב אומר ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו.

So the Sefer HaChinuch says that clearly that halacha lema'aseh hanelavim ve'einam ovlim is It’s a middas chasidus. What does that mean? So let’s plug it into into into our case. The Rambam's example of this chasid who was so who was dealt with with such contempt and degradation at the hands of this rich merchant. So according to the Sefer Hachinuch, me'ikar hadin, it was mutar for the chasid to say something along the following lines: I’d rather be a poor person in economy than a than a vilde chaya, than an az panim in first class. I’d rather be a mentsch in tattered clothing than a par adam in in wearing silk and finery. According to the Sefer Hachinuch, according to the Sefer Hachinuch those responses are mutar. And it’s a middas chasidus to swallow and not say that. Our Rambam agrees with that? Our Rambam disagrees with that? There’s a machlokes halacha lemaaseh? So lefum rehitah it seems that there is, right? Because מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח, the Rambam in the Yad tells us is tzivu chachamim ve'amru, right? That’s the lashon haRambam in in perek beis of De'os. Lefichach tzivu chachamim ve'amru מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח. And then the Rambam says so tzivu. And then the Rambam says that this story illustrates the tachlis hashiphlus. Sounds like the tachlis hashiphlus which is a kiyum of this mishna. So lefum rehitah, the Rambam would seem to be disagreeing with the Sefer Hachinuch. Rebbi? Rebbi, can I ask a question? Yeah, please. Are we understanding the Sefer Hachinuch to say that you can return fire to the mecharef? That like some of the responses that Rebbi said he would be okay with, is that like to kind of return fire personally towards the mecharef or just to defend yourself and just to say no, it’s not true, these claims aren’t true? I think in context, I think in context, I think it’s clear again the Sefer Hachinuch appends this to the mitzva of ona'as devarim because it seems clear that in this context the person is saying something which in any other context would be ona'as devarim. Right? Ulam lefi adoma, don’t, don’t overstate this love, says the Sefer Hachinuch is telling us. So if it was just that I could defend myself, you know, without telling him, you know, you’re being a par adam, if I could just defend myself, then this isn’t really an exception to ona'as devarim. It never would have occurred to me that, right, there’s no reason it would have been ona'as devarim to just defend myself. So it’s clear that there’s some pushback here that the Sefer Hachinuch says me'ikar hadin is allowed. Again, he says the chacham, you know, will speak bine'imus and won’t necessarily avail himself of the heter, but in terms of what is mutar me'ikar hadin, you could tell him, you know, I’d rather be a pauper in, you know, sitting in the back of economy than a par adam in first class. And that’s a chiddush, because I would have thought that that’s ona'as devarim. So the teretz is, no, the Torah understands human nature and the Torah doesn’t demand, again when the Sefer Hachinuch said iy efshar, he didn’t mean iy efshar, because then he tells you that there’s a kat chasidim who taka do it. So what he meant by iy efshar is that it’s iy efshar that the Torah sets the standard for everyone. It’s iy efshar that the Torah says that the standard for everyone what’s me'ikar hadin is that a person should be as immune and insulated from insult as an inanimate object. It can't be that's where the Torah set the standard, the bar. So the shaila is I don't remember if he agrees or disagrees with this. So the Rambam also quotes this Gemara in Shabbos. He quotes it different parts of it in two places. So take a look first in at the end of perek he of Hilchos De'os. He Yud Gimmel. Again perek he, the Rambam introduced in halacha aleph as

כשם שהחכם ניכר בחכמתו ובדעותיו והוא מובדל בהם משאר העם כך צריך שיהיה ניכר במעשיו.

That the chacham should be discernible, he should stand out in terms of his code of conduct. Okay, so then halacha yud gimmel here:

משאו ומתנו של תלמיד חכם באמת ובאמונה אומר על לאו לאו ועל הין הין מדקדק על עצמו בחשבון ונותן ומותר לאחרים שיקח מהן ולא ידקדק עליהן ונותן דמי הלקח לאלתר,

the purchase price,

ולא נעשה לו עורב ולא קבלן ולא יבוא בהרשאה. וחייב עצמו בדברי מקח וממכר במקום שלא חייבו אותו תורה כדי שיעמוד בדיבורו ולא ישנהו. ואם נתחייבו לו אחרים בדין מאריך להן ומוחל להן ומלווה וחונן ולא ירד לתוך אומנות חברו ולא יצר לאדם בעולם בחייו. כללו של דבר יהיה מן הנרדפים ולא מן הרודפים, מן הנעלבים ולא מן העולבים.

All right, so that's part of the braisa, right? The first part of the braisa is tano rabanan hane'elavim ve'einam olvim. So that's the first part of the braisa.

ואדם שעושה כל המעשים האלו וכיוצא בהן עליו הכתוב אומר ויאמר לי עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר.

Then the nether part of the braisa, the Rambam quotes at the end of Hilchos Talmud Torah. If you take a look in the last halacha in Hilchos Talmud Torah, almost the midpoint of the halacha. אף על פי שיש רשות לחכם לנדות לכבודו, a talmid chacham has a right to impose a niduy, an excommunication on someone who was mevazeh him, אינו שבח לתלמיד חכם להנהיג עצמו בדבר זה. But it's not a laudable thing for the talmid chacham to do, אלא מעלים אזנו מדברי עמי הארץ. He turns a deaf ear to their bizyonos, ולא ישית לבו להם, and he doesn't pay attention to what they say,

כעניין שאמר שלמה בחכמתו גם לכל הדברים אשר ידברו אל תתן לבך. וכן היה דרך חסידים הראשונים שומעים חרפתן ואינן משיבין ולא עוד אלא שמוחלין למחרף וסולחין לו.

Okay. So we want to know if the Rambam agrees with the Chinuch or disagrees with the Chinuch. So clearly שומעים חרפתן ואינן משיבין the Rambam introduces this as derech chasidim harishonim. Right? The same way the Sefer Hachinuch said יש כת מבני אדם שעלה חסידותם כל כך, that there's a group of people whose chasidus, whose devoutness is so extraordinary, so the Rambam is also clearly clearly introducing this as a middas chasidus. Agav, what's pshat ne'elavim ve'einam olvim, שומעים חרפתן ואינן משיבין? So ne'elavim ve'einam olvim means they don't return insult, right? They don't return verbal fire. And the shome'im cherpasan, they may respond, right? But they don't respond with insult. Ne'elavim ve'einam olvim doesn't mean they remain silent, but they don't respond with insult. And שומעים חרפתן, not only do they not return fire, not only do they not respond with insult, but they don't respond at all. But if that's the difference, why did Chazal change the first half of it? Why didn't it just say... Hane’elavim ve’einam olvim, hane’elavim ve’einam meshivim, right? They changed ne’elavim to shome’im cherpatam. So the pashtus says what it means is as follows: the second group is surpassing the first group in two ways. Number one, not only is it einam olvim that they don’t return insult, but it’s einam meshivim. Number two, despite the fact that the provocation was even greater. Le’ahaliv, what is le’ahaliv? Lashon elbon means insult. What is lechoraif? shome’im cherpatam. Cherpatam means humiliation, vilification. So not only do they not insult in kind, but despite the fact that what they were subjected to, the provocation was so much greater, it wasn’t just ne’elavim, it was even a provocation of shome’im cherpatam. And even that doesn’t get a rise from them. So clearly the שומעים חרפתם ואינם משיבים is a middas chasidus. The Rambam is certainly in sync with the Sefer Chinuch on that. What about the ne’elavim ve’einam olvim? I don’t know. The fact that the Rambam didn’t quote that part of the maimar here, so does the Rambam think that that part is me’ikar hadin? To be ne’elav ve’eino olev, maybe that is me’ikar hadin? So maybe the Rambam. The only thing is, if you look at the context in Hilchos De’os, so it’s not only the fact that it’s in perek hey which to a degree consists of middas chasidus for the talmid chacham, but it’s clear that halacha yud gimmel again, יהא מן הנרדפין ולא מן הרודפין when you go back and see it in context rabosai, ולא מן הנעלבים ולא מן העולבים is the Rambam’s klala shel davar where initially he gave us specific examples and now he’s generalizing. Clearly the specific examples included middas chasidus. That a person is mochel lahem, that a person is nosei umivater. Clearly in the examples, in the specific examples in halacha yud gimmel there were examples of middas chasidus. So the klala shel davar can’t just be me’ikar hadin. So the klala shel davar is middas chasidus. So lachora the pashtus is then that the Rambam agrees with the Sefer Chinuch that what the braisa is describing ne’elavim ve’einam olvim, שומעים חרפתם ואינם משיבים is a middas chasidus. A middas chasidus which is mamash mamash kdai that we should aspire to and work towards. But l’mayseh it is a middas chasidus. It is a middas chasidus. But how does that being a middas chasidus shtim with the fact that the Rambam cites this reaction of the chasid as the ultimate kiyum of the tzivu chachamim ve’amru מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח? That’s the question. Maybe the answer is the following. Maybe the answer is the following. A little bit we didn’t really chazer this week. Last week we spoke about in perek alef about the middas chasidus of the chasid versus the chacham and we tried to understand how the middas chasidus in this context isn’t contradicting the ikar hadin. The ikar hadin is to be in the middle so how can the middas chasidus be off-center? So we suggested that maybe what it means is on the practical level, the chasid he’s not off-center, no, he’s not denying himself of the nutrition that he needs to function at maximum capacity and to be as healthy. But whereas the derech hachochmah wouldn't require him to avoid all hana'ah that matches that amount of intake, he's makpid on that. So we suggested that ordinarily what the din of vehalachta bidrachav, it's clear from the Rambam is that a person should align himself internally עד שיקבעו הדעות בו with what he's supposed to be doing practically. So if practically I should be earning enough money to pay my bills vechulu vechulu, so then inwardly I should have that much interest in money. I shouldn't be looking for riches but on the other hand I should not be totally disinterested in money. And what the chassidim did is that internally they went towards the safer extreme but practically they didn't sacrifice the practically. So with that distinction in mind, so what the Rambam is describing here from the chassid is that the chassid said I didn't feel anything. What would be if this chassid without feeling anything had told the socher again I'd rather be a poor mensch sitting here in the engine room than an az panim sitting in the first class cabin on the cruise ship? But he would have said that without feeling anything. There wouldn't have been any... So you'll ask why is he saying it? I don't know why he's saying it. That's a good question. I don't know why he's saying it. And maybe that question's a pircha? I don't know. But then could be that then we wouldn't have a stira. Meaning it's me'ikar hadin not to be affected by it to have such a shiflus haruach. But I don't know if the me'ikar hadin necessarily is to have to maintain one's silence. I don't know if the teretz is correct but okay so that's the Rambam and the Chinuch. Okay so we'll stop here rabbosai. Everyone should have a good productive day, gut Shabbos rabbosai, everyone should be well be safe b'ezras Hashem.