Kiddush Hashem 6

So we left off yesterday with Halakha He. Halakha He is, as the Kesef Mishneh quotes, the first half is a Mishnah in Terumot, the second half is the Yerushalmi in Terumot. So the halakha reads

נשים שאמרו להם גוים תנו לנו אחת מכם ונטמא אותה ואם לאו נטמא את כולכם יטמאו כולם ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל וכן אם אמרו להם גוים תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגהו ואם לאו נהרוג את כולכם יהרגו כולם ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל.

However,

ואם יחדוהו להם באמרו תנו לנו פלוני או נהרוג את כולכם אם היה מחויב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי יתנו אותו להם.

So we explained that the halakha doesn't really work out when you try to understand it in terms of mai chazit, right? The way Rashi and Tosafot present mai chazit, either that because the nefashot are shkulim, so mameila to be sheiv v'al taaseh, or because there has to be a net gain of saving a life. So lichora in the case of

תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגהו ואם לאו נהרוג את כולכם,

so mistama we're not going to say that a nefash achas is shkulah to asarah nefashot, and there is going to be a net gain of saving a life. So we said the emes is that the din here, it's not mitam mai chazit, but the din rather is midin mesirah. And that one can't engage in mesirah, one can't be a moser even to save lives. And that's why clearly that's what underlies Reish Lakish's view, which the Rambam paskens, that even if yichaduhu, even if they specify whom they want, but it will still have a chalos shem mesirah unless he's chayav misah. If he's chayav misah, so then that's not mesirah. If the Jew will suffer at the hands of the nokhrim proportionately, not disproportionately, so then that's not mesirah. Okay. So the emes lichora, if that understanding is correct, so then this din should apply in a third case also. It should also apply legabi mamon, because mesirah is not only if one surrenders the person to the governmental authorities, again, where it's going to be disproportionate, where it's going to be shelo kedin, but it's also to moser mamon Yisrael is also considered mesirah Rachmana litzlan. So if our understanding of the Mishnah is correct, then the din should apply in a third case as well. So the emes is, if you look, the Taz takeh says it in קנז סעיף קטן ז. So the Taz writes

ועוד נראה לי דבמקום שאין מוסרין אותו אין חילוק בין מסירה למיתה או לשאר יסורים או אפילו לממון.

Ein hachi nami. Ein hachi nami. Why doesn't the Rambam say it? It's not a kasha. One of the klalim that the meforshei haRambam have is that אין דרך הרמב"ם להביא אלא מה שמפורש בש"ס. The Rambam doesn't start, he doesn't take it upon himself to give all possible extensions, applications, v'chulu, because ein ladavar sof. But ein hachi nami, heyos that the yesod hadin is mesirah, so the same din would apply if they're saying, give us the keys to the bank vault or point out what this person's assets are. Then the Rambam writes that even if yichaduhu and he was chayav misah k'Sheva ben Bikhri, so Rambam says yitnu oso lahem. And then the Rambam adds ואין מורין להם כן לכתחילה. Beis din will not advise them to do that. The din is that yitnu, but Beis Din won't pasken it. ואין מורים להם כן לכתחילה. You have a similar, but again we have to try to see how similar or dissimilar, but later in the perek you have halacha tes. Halacha tes is the gemara at the end of the eighth perek in Sanhedrin. Halacha tes:

מי שנתן עיניו באשה וחלה ונתנה לשלומות ואמרו רופאים אין לה רפואה עד שתיבעל לו אפילו היתה פנויה ואפילו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר אין מורין לו בכך וימות ולא יורו לו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר שלא יהיו בנות ישראל הפקר ויבוא בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות.

So here too the Rambam says אין מורין לו בכך. He doesn't say l'chatchila though, right? In halacha hei when you have the mesira shayla and the nocher demanding that they hand over Sheva Ben Bichri, so the Rambam writes ואין מורים להם כן לכתחילה. By the מי שנתן עיניו באשה, so the Rambam just says אין מורין לו בכך. Doesn't say, doesn't have the word l'chatchila. So emes, the question is what's the din in each of these two cases, and then what's the significance of the fact that the Rambam does say l'chatchila in one case, not in the other? So now let's begin with halacha tes. What is this din again? It's the gemara in Sanhedrin at the end of the eighth perek. So what is this din? So the very first of the letters here in the Igros HaGrid is about this halacha, and the Rav explains as follows. He says that let's say earlier in the perek, right, when the Rambam talked about yehareg ve'al ya'avor and giluy arayos, he said the din is yehareg ve'al ya'avor. He didn't present the din in terms of what Beis Din does or doesn't pasken. The din is that giluy arayos is yehareg ve'al ya'avor. Yehareg ve'al ya'avor. Here in halacha tes, so the Rambam presents it in terms of Beis Din. So he says that the emes is mitzad giluy arayos, it's not giluy arayos. It's not giluy arayos. Even if she'd be an eishes ish, lidaber imah, there's no lidaber imah even according to the Rambam wouldn't be לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה. Even according to the Rambam that chibuk venishuk by arayos is d'oraisa from לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, bameh devarim amurim where there's where it's chibuk venishuk vechayotze bozeh, but stam lidaber imah so even by an eishes ish wouldn't be any kind of issur d'oraisa of arayos, and על אחת כמה וכמה if it's if hoisa pnuya. So what is the din? So the din is that here the chiyuv is not it's not a yehareg ve'al ya'avor the way halacha beis is, but rather it's a din in hora'as Beis Din l'migdar milsa, that l'migdar milsa, the gemara in Yevamos daf tzadi, l'migdar milsa Beis Din doesn't, Beis Din will tell him that there is no heter l'migdar milsa because if Beis Din will give a green light lidaber imah, so then that will create an environment where בנות ישראל הפקר ויבוא בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות. So it's a din in l'migdar milsa that Beis Din will not, Beis Din will withhold the information. Let me read you a just a few lines here:

גם הוא סובר דלא שייך הדין יהרג ואל יעבור אלא לדין של הוראת בית דין מהא דמבואר שם ביבמות דבשב אל תעשה יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה אף בשלא לפי שעה משום דהכא הוי שב אל תעשה שלא ידבר עמה ואפילו ימות ובזה יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה. אף שלא לפי שעה.

Havu nichma what they questioned on the Rambam דבכל הני דצריך למסור נפשו כתב דיהרג ואל יעבור, whereas here he changed his language and wrote that בית דין אין מורין לו, which results that in truth it is not a din of yehareg veal yaavor because it's not giluy arayos klal. And all the din is only by hora'as beis din, that through hora'asam they can la'akor divrei torah. And therefore שפיר כתב דאין מורין לו לדבר עמו וממילא ימות, that it's from the din that בית דין יכולין לעקור בשב ואל תעשה. Sounds like, again, sounds like lemaiseh, let's say he comes to beis din and he puts them on the spot and he pushes them to the wall and says I want to know, can I, can I talk to her? Sounds like they'll tell him no. You can't, you cannot. Not because it's inherently giluy arayos and therefore yehareg veal yaavor but

מדין יש כוח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בשב ואל תעשה למגדר מילתא,

so שלא יהא פירצה בעריות. So based on that they'll tell him no, you can't, you can't talk. And that's what the din is in halacha tes. What's the din in halacha hei? So in halacha hei the Kesef Mishneh, the Rash MiTrums quotes the same Yerushalmi: מעשה הווי בעובדא בהאי בר נש תבעתיה מלכותא. So the malchusa was trying to arrest a certain person and he ran away to Lod לגבי רבי יהושע בן לוי, which is where רבי יהושע בן לוי lived. Ve'akif malka medinsa and they laid a siege and they demanded that he be turned over veyahavei lehu. And רבי יהושע בן לוי takeh turns him over to the authorities. והוה אליהו רגיל דמתגלי ליה. רבי יהושע בן לוי on a regular basis had giluy Eliyahu and after he did this so then Eliyahu HaNavi stopped coming to him. Vetzam kama tzomin. So רבי יהושע בן לוי fasted many ta'aniyos and then finally ve'isgali lei. So amar lei, so Eliyahu HaNavi tells רבי יהושע בן לוי by way of explanation: Ledalshei ana misgali? I should be misgaleh to a mosa, to someone who is an informant? So amar lei velo mishnah asisi? But isn't this a din? Amar lei וזו משנת חסידים היא. It's takeh a din, but it's not mishnas chasidim. It's takeh a din, but it's not mishnas chasidim. You have mamash the same thing the Rishonim understand in the Gemara in Bava Metzia. Gemara in Bava Metzia tells the story. In the beginning of the seventh perek, the Gemara tells it about two people. And initially, the Gemara tells it about ר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון, that ר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון worked as a policeman for the Roman, for the Roman government in arresting thieves. So שלח ליה ר' יהושע בן קרחה חומץ בן יין. He's the son of ר' שמעון בר יוחאי. So ר' יהושע בן קרחה says,

חומץ בן יין עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלהינו להריגה?

You're a moseir. You're being moseir.

שלח ליה קוצים אני מכלה מן הכרם. שלח ליה יבוא בעל הכרם ויכלה את קוציו.

Later, the Gemara tells a story that אבא בישא ברבי יוסי, he did the same thing. He too was appointed by the melech to, to arrest gannavim.

פגע ביה אליהו אמר ליה עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלקינו להריגה?

So אמר ליה מאי אעביד פורמנא דמלכא הוא. I, I was appointed by the malkhus. I have no breira. So אמר ליה אבוך ערק לאסיא את ערק ללודקיא. Your father in such a situation ran away, so run away. Run away from the, run away from the authorities. So the Rishonim here say that here too, it wasn't rachmana litzlan that ר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון or אבא בישא ברבי יוסי were doing something that was אסור מעיקר הדין. But what what ר' יהושע בן קרחה, what Eliyahu HaNavi were chastising them for, is that it wasn't mishnas chasidim. It wasn't mishnas chasidim. Some even say that's the peshat in chometz ben yayin. That chometz ben yayin similar to the way the Gemara uses it in Chullin when Mar Ukva says that ana chometz compared to my father who's, who's yayin. That my father when he ate fleishigs, he would wait twenty four hours before he ate milchigs. And I the next meal—again, so according to the most widespread opinion that means five and a half six hours—and I already the next meal will, will eat, will eat milchigs. So there in that context also, the chometz ben yayin is used in a context of a middas chasidus. He's not saying that ana bar aveira and my father, and my father was a shomer Torah u-mitzvos. No, he's saying that in terms of middas chasidus, so chometz ben yayin. So that's how some of the Rishonim interpret here. It's mamash the same thing, mamash the same thing, that, that you see that there's a mishnas chasidim when it comes to, to mesirah. The mishnas chasidim is where that person is not endangering other Jews. There's no mishnas chasidim if that person is endangering other Jews. Of course a person has to ask a shailah on, on any case because it's so chamur. But, but in, in general, in principle, mishnas chasidim is not where—well, not where one Jew is is endangering another Jew. So now the shailah is like this. So again, so over here in the Yerushalmi's case, Eliyahu HaNavi. Had that טענה דיהושע בן לוי that it was lav mishnas chasidim, and the Rambam says based on that apparently that אין מורין כן לכתחילה. But l'chora there's a little bit of a gap here, no? The mishnas chasidim should be that רבי אלעזר בר שמעון is expected to act as a chasid, רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי is expected to act as a chasid, so m'meila they shouldn't be serving as policemen for the government. But over here let's say רבי אלעזר בר שמעון is asked a shayla, not not that he himself should be a policeman. Someone else who's not on such a madreiga that that he should be held to a standard of mishnas chasidim, so mistama when Beis Din or when a chacham gets a shayla, you answer the they answer the shayla on the level on which the shoel is asking the shayla. Let's say you come to a chacham, a moreh hora'ah, and you have a shayla about the kashrus of a of a beheima. So he is machmir that he only eats meat that's glatt. And the shoel is not machmir. So avada the chacham answers the question on the level of the shoel. He's not mechuyav, the shoel is not mechuyav to to live by the chacham standards and the chacham is not supposed to hold him to his own standards in answering the question. So what's pshat over here that m'meila in the Yerushalmi, in the Yerushalmi the the taina is Yehoshua ben Levi himself did it. So Yehoshua ben Levi himself shouldn't have been doing it because Yehoshua ben Levi was a chasid and and he has to abide by mishnas chasidim. But the Rambam says much more than that l'chora, right? The Rambam says אין מורין כן לכתחילה that that we won't even but maybe the shoelim, maybe the Yisraelim who are surrounded him, maybe they're not chasidim. So why is it that because the chacham who's who's being asked, the Beis Din who's being asked? It yitachen that the pshat is as follows. Again let's say in the kashrus case. So so the chacham is asked a shayla in kashrus, he only he only eats glatt, the shoel doesn't limit himself to that. So when the chacham paskens for him that that it's kosher, that it's not treif, so it's not as if the chacham is eating it, right? It's not as if the chacham is eating it and therefore he takeh should be answering it on the level of the shoel. If you come and ask a chacham a shayla about mesira, so by paskening that you can maser, it's k'ilu that he's doing the mesira himself. משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say I think the Gemara has in Bava Kama, I think so, check this. I think the Gemara in Bava Kama has the following din that that if you show a coin to a shulchani, he's an expert on detecting whether or not it's counterfeit, whether it's a pure weight or whether it's an alloy and and what the value is and and the shulchani will tell you it's tov and and really it turns out to be ra. So he's gonna be he's gonna be chayav to pay as though he did the hezek b'yadaim. Or or when Beis Din gives a psak and they say tzei tein lo and they're wrong, so it's as if they took the money away b'yadaim. Because when you give a psak, so when you give a psak it's as if you're doing it. Okay fine. So when they give the psak that he can eat the meat, it's as if they're feeding him non-glatt meat. That's okay. The fact that they're feeding him non-glatt meat doesn't contradict their standard of of kashrus. But if it's k'ilu through the psak that they're engaging in the mesira, so then it contradicts the mishnas chasidim. So m'meila the Rambam says that אין מורין כן לכתחילה because by the mesira case the psak itself is is part of the mesira and therefore they in giving the psak have to hold themselves to that standard and they can't give the psak, they can't give such a psak. What's the difference between the l'chatchila and the that you have in halacha hei that you don't have in tes l'chora as follows? That here in halacha hei the Tas says that Beis Din just doesn't get involved, right? They try not to answer the phone, they try not to not to even hear the question. And if the question is asked, they just say we we can't get involved. They don't insinuate that it's assur. They they can't give the green light, they just they they Stay on the sideline. And that's what l'chatchila lichora implies, you don't get involved. Ma she'ein ken Halacha Tes, lichora the ein morin kein means that if Beis Din is pushed to it, so Beis Din will say we have no hetter for you. There is no hetter for if the guy will come or someone will ask on his behalf, what's the din? So Beis Din is going to say we have no hetter for you. They're not going to say we don't get involved, we don't handle such shaylos, they're going to say we have we have no hetter for you, because again it's two totally different dinim. In Halacha Hey, it's because the mishnas chasidim is even ke-hai gavna not to masser. And the chiddush here, that which the Rambam is telling us, is that to give the psak is tantamount to doing the mesira itself, so mimeila there's nothing assur that they'll be doing. So Beis Din is not going to intimate to them it's assur, but Beis Din can't get involved. אין מורין כן לכתחילה. In Halacha Tes, it's a different thing. Halacha Tes, it's

יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בשב ואל תעשה.

So there it's not just ein morin kein l'chatchila. The Beis Din will say there is no there is we don't know of any such hetter. We don't know of any any such hetter. The Gemara has in Beitza, so there's a machlokes Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim whether or not, so everyone agrees it's a pasuk in Chumash that you're allowed to do melachas ochel nefesh on Yom Tov. What about can you do machshirei ochel nefesh? Not actual food preparation, but sort of preliminaries that are necessary for food preparation. So let's say you have a knife, and on Yom Tov the knife became dull. And because of that, it doesn't cut. So to sharpen the knife is not ochel nefesh, it's not food preparation, but it's machshirei ochel nefesh, it's an indispensable preliminary. So Rabbi Yehuda says that מכשירין שאפשר לעשותם מערב יום טוב אסורין ביום טוב. If the knife was already dull before Yom Tov and I could have sharpened it before Yom Tov, even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it's assur. But let's say it became dull on Yom Tov. So according to Rabbi Yehuda it's mutar, according to the Chachamim it's assur. Fine. So then the Gemara has a case like this. Amar Rav Nechemya on the bottom of chaf ches in Beitza.

אמר רב נחמיה בריה דרב יוסף הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבה והוה קא מעבר סכינא אפומא דדיקולא.

He was rubbing the knife on the edge of the basket. Ve-ameru lei, לחדדה קא עביד מר או לאעבורי שמנוניתא. Are you doing it to sharpen the knife and and that means that we pasken like Rabbi Yehuda? Or are you just doing it because you want to clean the knife, you want to get the fat off of the knife so that it won't so it'll be clean for the next use? Ve-amar le-aveir shamnunisa. And he said I'm doing it to get the fat off. However, חזיתי לדעתיה דלחדדה קא עביד. But I saw that he was really doing it to sharpen it. So he was intentionally misleading, right? He was he was intentionally misleading. Ve-kasavar, so I realized that he held הלכה ואין מורין כן. That even though me-ikar ha-din it's it's mutar, but you can't you can't say so. And if you're put in a position where you have to say something, so if anything you insinuate that it's assur. Because by saying that it was by by not telling the truth that he was doing it le-chadada and saying that it was le-aveir shamnunisa, he was that was an insinuation that that it's assur. The Gemara has the same story with Rava, that Rava did the same thing. So lichora that's the difference between the two cases. That Halacha Hey, Halacha Hey is just that Beis Din in giving a psak have to hold themselves to their standard when it comes to mesira. So because of that, Beis Din will refuse to say anything. Again, they'll try not to answer the phone. If they answer the phone, they'll say we don't pasken these shaylos. In Halacha Tes, no, they will give the impression that it's asur. Lechoyra in Halacha Tes, yeah. And that's why the Rambam writes אין מורה בכך ויאמר. Viyomar. So it's clearly not just that they'll say we're not paskening the shaylos. It's quite clear that they're gonna say something which will leave him with the impression that it's asur. Okay. Here I just wanted to maybe throw out one or two questions and I hope you can help me with them. If you go back to Halacha Beis for a minute, rabosai. Fine. So at the end of Halacha Alef the Rambam quotes וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, which is why mitzvos haTorah it's ya-avor v'al yei-hareig. Then the Rambam says in Halacha Beis

במה דברים אמורים בשאר מצוות חוץ מעבודה זרה גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים. אבל שלוש עבירות אלו אם יאמר לו עבור על אחת מהן או תהרג יהרג ואל יעבור.

Fine. Now

במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהגוי מתכוון להנאת עצמו כגון שאנסו לבנות לו ביתו בשבת או לבשל לו תבשילו או אנס אישה לבעלה

v'chayotzei bazeh.

אבל אם נתכוון להעבירו על המצוות בלבד, אם היה בינו לבין עצמו ואין שם עשרה מישראל יעבור ואל יהרג.

So what's that double lashon? Again, the din itself is meforash in the Gemara in Sanhedrin ayin-daled, right? That shear mitzvos are only yei-hareig v'al ya-avor if A, the intention of the anas is l'ha-aviro al hadas, and B, it's b'farhesia. Right? So that's meforash in the Gemara, that's what the Rambam is quoting. Fine.

אבל אם נתכוון להעבירו על המצוות, אם היה בינו לבין עצמו,

fine, so just skip the next four words, and ya-avor v'al yei-hareig, or אם אין שם עשרה מישראל יעבור ואל יהרג. What's the beino l'vein atzmo and the ואין שם עשרה מישראל? It's very conspicuous. So that's one question. Then even perhaps even a bigger question is that lechoyra this whole halacha, there's such a arichus. What the Rambam should have said much more compactly is this. At the end of Halacha Alef the Rambam already told us that the norm is ya-avor v'al yei-hareig, right? That's what the norm is. And then Halacha Beis tells us the exceptions. So he doesn't even have to tell us that if it's l'ha-aviro al hadas but b'tzina ya-avor v'al yei-hareig because that's just the regular rule from Halacha Alef. The only thing he should tell us in Halacha Beis is if it's l'ha-aviro al hadas b'farhesia so then it's an exception and yei-hareig v'al ya-avor. But the whole arichus here. Right? The Rambam says

אם נתכוון להעבירו על המצוות בלבד אם היה בינו לבין עצמו ואין שם עשרה מישראל יעבור ואל יהרג.

You don't need to give me that case because again the default position of which the Rambam established in Halacha Alef is

בשעה שיעמוד גוי ויאנוס את ישראל לעבור על אחת מכל מצוות האמורות בתורה או יהרגנו יעבור ולא יהרג.

Now what's the exception? The exception is A, the gimmel aveiros, B, shear aveiros b'farhesia. You don't need to repeat that shear aveiros b'tzina even if it's l'ha-aviro al hadas is ya-avor v'al yei-hareig because that's already been established as the norm, as the default position. So I don't know, there's something very important here that iyen alav what it is. What is the word, what does the Rambam mean when he writes אם נתכוון להעבירו על המצוות בלבד? What the Rambam means... that that if, but let's say the Ones has both in mind, right? Halacha l'maaseh there's a difference. If the reason he's telling the Jew to mow his lawn on Shabbos is because his lawn is messy and he thinks he can get away with intimidating this Jew to do it, so he says I'll kill you unless you mow my lawn. So that's l'hanas atzmo. If he does it because he wants the Jew to mechallel Shabbos, that's l'havir al hadas. What if he wants both? What if he's looking to force someone to mow his lawn and also he wants bedafke that it should be a Jew l'havir al hadas? So the Rambam means that that wouldn't be yehareg v'al ya'avor? That that it has to be exclusively l'havir al hamitzvos? Not so mistaver, no? It's not so mistaver. So ella mai, the truth is like this. Do you have a Rambam's Zmanim maybe? Rambam's Zmanim? Or you have it on the computer? So in Perek Aleph of Hilchos Shabbos, I forget which halacha it is, where the Rambam quotes the din of pikuach nefesh. Ches or Tes or something? Where he talks about the ראש של עוף לשחק בו קטן. Psik reisha? Yeah. But I don't know if he uses the word. I don't know if you can find it that way. Yud Zayin? Maybe Yud Zayin. I'm sorry? Yud Zayin? I'm sorry? Yud Zayin? Yeah, please.

כל העושה מלאכה בשבת אף על פי שאינו צריך לגופה של מלאכה חייב עליה.

No, no, maybe what comes after that? What's the next halacha?

המתכוין לעשות מלאכה ונעשית מלאכה אחרת שלא נתכוין לה פטור עליה משום שלא נעשית מחשבתו כיצד זרק אבן או חץ בחברו או בבהמה כדי להורגן והלך ועקר אילן.

And what's after that? What's Halacha Tes? המתכוין לכתוב אותיות משחורות. No. Where's the

הרי שצריך לראש עוף לשחק בו קטן? עשה מעשה ונעשית ממנו מלאכה שודאי תיעשה בשביל אותו מעשה אף על פי שלא נתכוין לה חייב שהדבר ידוע שאי אפשר שלא תיעשה.

So that's what we call psik reisha, right? You're doing something, what you're not in the melacha, but the melacha inevitably has to happen, so that's assur. That's a din psik reisha. Good. Okay. Go ahead.

כיצד הרי שצריך לראש עוף לשחק בו לקטן וחתך ראשו בשבת אף על פי שאין סוף מגמתו להריגת העוף בלבד חייב שהדבר ידוע שאי אפשר שיחתוך ראש החי ויחיה אלא המות בא בשבילו וכן כל כיוצא בזה.

So what does the Rambam say? Even though your intention is not only, right? Bilvad. Is not only to kill the of. So that's unbelievable what the Rambam holds, the din of psik reisha. Psik reisha is only assur if you also want the davar assur? That that's impossible. That's impossible. So some even magia and they take out the word bilvad. They say the word bilvad is a tosefet. So I forget the name of the mechaber, but I saw once a Dvar Torah where he gives three examples and and this Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos is one of them. The Rambam in Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah about מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה in Perek Vav of Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah is another example, where you see that the word bilvad in the Rambam, at least sometimes, doesn't mean bilvad as the way we, the only meaning we associate with bilvad is exclusively, right? Only or exclusively. The Rambam clearly uses it sometimes to mean directly or ultimately. And and that's clearly what it means over there, right? Meaning even though sof magamaso is not the harigas ha'of bilvad directly, ultimately he's not interested in the harigas ha'of. Not that that's not the only thing he's interested in. No, psik reisha is assur even if you're not interested in it at all, right? Even though directly, ultimately that's not what you're interested in, but if it inevitably is going to happen, that's the din of psik reisha. So if you go to Chametz u'Matzah Vav Tes, you have that? Chametz u'Matzah Vav Tes? So the Challas Todah and Rikikei Nazir are matzos, right? So when he baked them, he saw to it that they should be matzah in order to be able to use them as his Challas Todah or Rikikei Nazir.

מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה בלבד היא שיוצאים בה אבל זו המשתמרת לשם מצווה בלבד אם עשאן לצורך שוק הרי זה יוצא בהן ובשאר שעשו לצורך שוק שמסתמא בשעת עשייתן לשם מצוות מצה הן.

Right, so if you translate bilvad the way we use it, so then the reisha and seifa are contradictory. If you translate bilvad the way we use bilvad, so again bilvad means solely or exclusively. So if you translate it that way, in the reisha the Rambam says that when you do the shmirah on the matzah, it has to be done exclusively for the purpose of mitzvas matzah. Right, and that's what the reisha says: מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה בלבד if you use the word bilvad the way we do, so then, but then the Rambam turns around in the seifa and he tells you that if you had both kavanos, you had a kavana you're going to try to sell this for people who are bringing a Korban Todah or people who are bringing Korbanos Nezirus that they should use it for their Challas Todah or Rikikei Nazir but you had in mind that if you don't sell it you'll use it for yourself for mitzvas matzah. So that is good. So you see it doesn't have to be exclusively solely for that. So that's what this Rav, I forget his name, that's what what he writes: No, you see that the Rambam is that bilvad means, in the reisha what the Rambam meant is, it had to be a shmirah directly, ultimately he had to have in mind that the shmirah is for mitzvas matzah. He never said it had to be solely or exclusively for that. The chisaron in the reisha is that it wasn't bilvad for mitzvas matzah, it wasn't directly for mitzvas matzah. It just happens since the standards for Challas Todah and Rikikei Nazir are the same as the standards for mitzvas matzah. There are many other examples once you realize that there are many other things where there are pshut stiros in the Rambam if you translate bilvad as we do. If you take a look for instance in Hilchos Deos, so the Rambam writes as follows: when the Rambam's talking about bechol derachecha da'eihu in gimmel beis in Deos he writes like this:

וכן כשיוכל וישתה ויבעול לא ישים על לבו לעשות דברים הללו כדי ליהנות בלבד.

So the way we would translate is that a person shouldn't have in mind when he's eating and drinking solely, exclusively for hana'ah. Sounds like okay, it shouldn't be solely, exclusively for hana'ah, it should be for health, but it can also be for hana'ah. But then the Rambam continues:

אלא ישים על לבו שיאכל וישתה כדי להברות גופו ואיבריו בלבד.

But then he turns around and says: No, it should be bilvad for health. So again, here too, what it means is that his kavana shouldn't be ultimately for hana'ah, his kavana should be ultimately for health. It's clear, it's clear that the Rambam, what this Rav writes is 100%, 100% that his ha'arah is correct. And lichora it's the same pshat, I don't remember whether he gives this example, he gave three examples: Hilchos Shabbos, Hilchos Chometz u'Matzah, I don't remember what his third example is, maybe it was this, I don't remember, but lichora it's also the case here as well. אבל אם נתכוין לעבור על המצוות בלבד means as follows: lemaiseh, lemaiseh, even if it's lahano'as atzmo, he's forcing the Jew to do an aveirah. So נתכוין לעבור על המצוות בלבד means no, it's not just that he's forcing him to do it, but that's ultimately what he wants to accomplish. But he never said that that's solely what he wants to accomplish. That's ultimately what he wants to accomplish. And the nafka mina would be, so then lichora the Rambam would say if he has a dual kavana, so it would also be yehareg v'al ya'avor because the Rambam is just saying that lahano'as atzmo lemaiseh he is compelling the aveirah and maybe he's even aware of it. But that's not bilvad. That's not directly, ultimately what he's interested in. If it is directly, ultimately what he's interested in, so then it becomes yehareg v'al ya'avor regardless of whether that's the sole intent or not.