think we could start. Okay. Today is first שיחה, פרשת ראה in חלק י״ד, which happens to fit with the project of לקוטי שיחות, that this week we're learning the שיחות of ראה, both שיחות in חלק י״ד. We're going to learn the first שיחה. I do have to mention that this שיחה is pretty long, so it might even take longer than some other times. We can't learn many הערות because it's going to take up much time, but it's going to be a little longer than usual. Okay, we'll start with the שיחה. על הפסוק ״רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש״. The background of the פסוק is the תורה says in this week's פרשה that when you go to ארץ ישראל, the יידן were in the מדבר, when you go to ארץ ישראל, you're going to be able to eat what we call בשר תאוה. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט. When the יידן were in the מדבר, they were not allowed to eat meat. If a person wanted to eat meat, the only way he could do it is by bringing a קרבן. You have to go to the אוהל מועד, to the משכן, bring a קרבן, then you get the meat to eat from the קרבן. But סתם, you call it חולין, regular meat to eat, that they were not allowed. So the פסוק says, now when you're going to ארץ ישראל, you're going to be able to eat regular meat, you'll be able to שחט and eat meat if you want. But then the פסוק says, ״רק חזק״ - but be strong - ״לבלתי אכול הדם״ - not to eat the blood - ״כי הדם הוא הנפש״ - because the blood is the נפש, so you can't eat the נפש. And therefore the תורה says you should be strong not to eat blood. So on that פסוק, מייתי רש״י תחילת הפסוק, רש״י quotes in the דיבור המתחיל, in the heading of the רש״י, he quotes the beginning of the פסוק, he quotes the words: ״רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם״, just these words, 'but you shall be strong not to eat the blood'. ומפרש, רש״י explains like this: ״ממה שנאמר חזק״, from the fact that the תורה says be strong, ״אתה למד״, you could learn out, ״שהיו שטופים בדם לאכלו״, that the יידן were very much absorbed, very much involved in eating blood. ״לפיכך הוצרך לומר חזק״, that's why it has to say 'be strong'. In other words, he's telling us that in order not to eat blood, you have to be strong because they were so much immersed in eating blood. ״דברי רבי יהודה״, that is the opinion of רבי יהודה. ״רבי שמעון בן עזאי אומר״, רבי שמעון בן עזאי says, no. ״לא בא הכתוב״ - the פסוק didn't come for that - ״אלא להזהירך וללמדך״ - it comes to warn you and teach you - ״עד כמה אתה צריך להתחזק במצוות״ - how strong you have to be when you do the מצוות. In other words, he holds, the way it seems the simple פשט, that it's not so like רבי יהודה says that they were very much involved in eating blood. No, they weren't. So why did the תורה say חזק? To teach you בכלל by מצוות how strong you have to stay. And how did the תורה teach it us? The תורה wrote the word חזק by blood. So ״אם דם שנקל להישמר הימנו״, if blood, which is very easy to be careful not to eat blood, because ״שאין אדם מתאווה לו״, a person doesn't have תאוה, doesn't have a desire to eat blood anyway, so it's very easy to stay away from it, nevertheless ״הוצרך לחזקו באזהרתו״, the תורה has to give you strength in warning you, telling you how strong you have to do it, ״קל וחומר לשאר מצוות״, so certainly for all other מצוות. So really what רבי שמעון בן עזאי says, the תורה says the word חזק to teach you, not for the דם, that by all מצוות you have to be strong. And he picks a מצוה which is very light, and no one cares about it, anyway no one would do it anyway, so don't really have to tell you anything to be strong, but he's telling you even here shall be strong, to teach you that by other מצוות you

have to be strong. But the Rebbe says like this: בפשטות מובן הקושיא שבכתוב שרש״י נחות לתרצה. בפשטות, we understand what bothered רש״י, because the סדר בכלל of רש״י, when רש״י explains something, it's always because there's some problem. If the פסוק has no problem, the פסוק is understood clearly, רש״י will not comment anything. When רש״י comments, there is a קושיא. Now רש״י didn't say what the קושיא is, usually doesn't, but it's understood here. והוא, the קושיא is מה שנאמר חזק. The קושיא is why does the תורה use here by not eating blood, חזק? ״שלא מצינו לשון זה בשאר מצוות התורה״, we don't find a לשון like that by all other מצוות. Actually in הערה 3 the Rebbe brings a רמב״ן that we do find a לשון חזק, but that's when the תורה says generally by מצוות. A lot of times it says 'be strong to do the מצוות', but not by an individual מצוה. So why did the תורה here by the איסור דם bring this לשון, say this לשון חזק? על זה מביא הדרשה שבספרי כאן, that's רש״י brings what the ספרי דרש'ס here, שעל פיה מבואר לשון חזק הנאמר בדם, and this explains why it says the לשון חזק by the blood. So according to the first פשט of רבי יהודה is because they were very much involved in eating blood, so he had to tell them 'be strong', you had to work hard to get away from it, and according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי it is to tell you how strong you have to be by other

מצוות. אמנם צריך להבין, we have to understand like this: Number one, דובר כמה פעמים, the Rebbe says, I said many times, שכאשר רש"י מביא ב' פירושים, when רש"י brings two פשטים, הוא לפי שכל אחד מהפירושים ישנה קושיא בהבנת הפסוקים, cuz each one has something hard in understanding the פסוק. שיתורץ על ידי פירוש השני, which will be answered in the second one. There is a קשיא in the פסוק, so you have one פשט, but that פשט has a problem, so רש"י brings a second פשט which doesn't have that problem. But the second פשט has a different problem, that's why רש"י kept the first פשט. So both together take care of the problem. אלא שהפירוש הראשון קרוב יותר לפשוטו של מקרא, usually the first one is the one that's closer to the simple פשט of the פסוק. על פי זה, now we have to understand: מה טעם הוצרך רש"י להביא כאן ב' הדרשות? Why does רש"י have to bring both דרשות, both פירושים? מה קשה בפירוש א' שמתיישב על ידי פירוש השני? What's wrong, what's schwer in the first פשט that the second פשט doesn't have that problem, so that's why he brings the second פשט, ומה חסר בפירוש השני עד שהוצרך להביא פירוש הראשון? What's missing in the second פשט that רש"י has to bring the first פשט? That's one שאלה. Another שאלה: ב', בכלל במחלוקת זו דרבי יהודה ורבי שמעון בן עזאי ובפרט על דרך הפשט קשה. בכלל, the מחלוקת where רש"י brings between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון בן עזאי is hard to understand, certainly על פי פשט. Why? הרי זה פלוגתא במציאות! It's an argument פשוט in the fact! ובהיפך מן הקצה אל הקצה, it's an argument in the facts and it's from one extreme to another. לרבי יהודה, according to רבי יהודה, הוצרך לומר חזק לפי שהיו שטופים בדם לאכלו. Why does the תורה have to say חזק, according to רבי יהודה? Because they were so much involved in eating blood. והיינו שבזמן ההוא היו רגילים וביותר באכילת דם. That means at that time, when the תורה said, when משה רבינו said to the אידן "חזק and don't eat the blood," at that time they were very much involved, they were used to it and very much involved in eating blood. That's why he said, "I know it's hard for you, but strengthen yourself and don't eat blood." ולרבי שמעון בן עזאי, according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי it's the opposite: על דם עצמו אין צריך חיזוק כלל. For blood itself, you don't need חיזוק at all, כי קל להישמר ממנו, that רבי שמעון בן עזאי says it's a מצוה that's very easy to be careful, שאין אדם מתאווה לו, a person doesn't have any תאוה to it, there's no desire. ובאופן כזה היה גם בשעת הציווי, and according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי, at the time when משה רבינו said this commandment, that's how it was. שלכן הוזהרו בזמן ההוא, that's why, בזמן ההוא, that's why at that time he told them "רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם", "be strong not to eat the blood." But the רבי is trying to say with these words, he explains in אות ד', לכאורה you could have said maybe it's not a מחלוקת. Maybe רבי שמעון בן עזאי is מודה that at that time they were involved in blood, but when he says that the תורה tells you "be strong" even to teach you that it's a easy מצוה so to teach you by all מצוות, maybe he meant in the future. In the future this will be an easy מצוה so it teaches you in the future. But who says that that רבי שמעון בן עזאי holds that at that time it was like that? So the רבי says first of all he says the לשון קל להישמר, אין אדם מתאווה, it's a לשון הוה, it happened he told them it's easy to be careful, means nowadays. And the second thing is the לשון that the פסוק came not for blood, but just to teach you a קל וחומר from blood, is משמע that that's always like that, later and then. So the bottom line is according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי the אידן did not, were not involved in blood, which is the opposite of what רבי יהודה says, which is a strange thing to say that there's a מחלוקת במציאות. It's not so פשוט to understand. Normally when we know that it can't be a מחלוקת in a fact is only by a fact that you could you could verify. How can you be a מחלוקת, go find out. But a fact that happened 3,500 years ago or at that time two 2,000 years ago, how could you verify? So why can't there be a מחלוקת במציאות? But nevertheless, בדרך הפשט certainly, the רבי in other שיחות has the same thing, that he doesn't like to say there's a מחלוקת במציאות. Even though we find in גמרא מחלוקת במציאות from times early, but עכ"פ, בדרך הפשט for sure it's hard to say that they're פשוט arguing so far extreme. One says that they were very much involved, and one says it's the easiest thing to be careful with, complete opposite. Third thing is, בדברי רבי שמעון בן עזאי, in the words of רבי שמעון בן עזאי שבפירוש רש"י, that's in רש"י, רש"י uses the לשון by רבי שמעון בן עזאי he says that blood is אין אדם מתאווה לו. It's a something that no one has person doesn't have any desire. ולא, but he doesn't say שאין אדם שטוף בו. He doesn't say a person is not heavily involved. על דרך דברי רבי יהודה שהיו שטופים בדם, like רבי יהודה says that they were שטוף, they were involved. לכאורה it would have made more sense if if רבי שמעון בן עזאי would say, רש"י would say in the name of רבי שמעון בן עזאי, that רבי יהודה says that they were very much involved in blood, and רבי שמעון בן עזאי says they weren't. But he says בכלל a different לשון, אין אדם מתאווה, ואין אדם שטוף, must be saying something different, something special, which we will see. And the fourth שאלה is לקמן על הפסוק למען ייטב לך, later on the פסוק says that don't eat the blood, etc., so the אייבערשטער will be good to you, and do good to you. פירש רש"י, so רש"י says what does that mean? צא ולמד מתן שכרן של מצוות, this teaches you the שכר of מצוות. אם הדם שנפשו של אדם קצה ממנו, that if blood, which a person anyway is disgusting with eating blood, the תורה says, "I'll be good to you" for for for keeping the מצוה, so certainly by other things. But what does רש"י the What לשון does רש"י use? Blood is something that a person is disgusted with. And nevertheless, they for doing it, which is very easy to do, but רש"י used the לשון קצה. עם הלשון, it's a משמע שכן בכל זמן. And here it's משמע blood is something a person is it's disgusting to drink blood, to eat blood. נפשו של אדם קצה מן הדם. לכאורה, אבל לית כמר ולית כמר, it doesn't fit not according to רבי יהודה and not according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי. Why? רבי יהודה היו שטופים בדם. According to רבי יהודה certainly it's not. According to רבי יהודה, he holds that they were involved in blood, so you can't say that it was קצה מהם. היפך דנפשו קצה ממנה, the opposite of נפשו קצה, so certainly. וגם לרבי שמעון בן עזאי, even according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי it doesn't fit, because רבי שמעון בן עזאי only says אין אדם מתאוה לו, people don't care for it, people don't desire it, אבל לשון נפשו של אדם קצה ממנה, he doesn't say that something that people are disgusting with. So that ענין doesn't fit to either. It's again a פלא. רש"י writes something two פסוקים later, and it's contradicting, so to speak, both both פשטים that

he said before. The fifth קשיא: מדובר כמה פעמים The Rebbe says I said so many many times שאין רש"י מביא שם בעל המאמר, אם לא שעל ידי זה ניתוסף ביאור בתוכן הפירוש. רש"י בכלל doesn't bring who said it, because most of the things that רש"י brings is from מדרשים, from חז"ל, from גמרא, different places, but רש"י doesn't say a name. There are places, but much less than he does. So obviously, רש"י is not the system of רש"י, the סדר of רש"י is not to bring it בשם אומרו. If רש"י would follow this concept that you have to write everything in the name of who said it, he would say it every time. The fact that he's most of the times he doesn't, that doesn't bother him. Okay. So that doesn't bother him, why sometimes does he bring? So the Rebbe always learns that by bringing it, it adds something to the פשט. על כל פנים, לתלמיד מובהק. So if it's something that everybody needs to understand, then רש"י would not just be מרומז it, רש"י would explain it. רש"י explains everything the תלמיד should understand. But there are certain things which באמת is not a קשיא, but a smarter תלמיד will have a קשיא, so רש"י wants to answer that too. He answers it by bringing the name. וצריך להבין, so we have to understand By the way, it just came to my mind, I just You see the way that Rebbe writes it, וצריך להבין, ו צ ל ה ב. Usually in the מאמרים it's צריך להבין, צ ל. I remember when writing the שיחות the Rebbe like so to speak taught us that you should write out וצריך להבין, because צ ל could mean צריך לעיין, צריך להיות, all kinds of things. To make sure it's וצריך להבין, so he would write it like this. Anyway, so רש"י says So the Rebbe says, וצריך להבין, we have to understand, מה ניתוסף בפירושו כאן על ידי זה שבעלי המאמר רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון בן עזאי? What do we gain here, what is added to the פשט of the פסוק where רש"י explains by knowing that this was said by רבי יהודה and said by רבי שמעון בן עזאי? ועוד another thing: דברי רבי שמעון בן עזאי הובא בספרי גם בשם רבן גמליאל. The same opinion, רבי שמעון בן עזאי בספרי, is also brought in the name of רבן גמליאל. So there are two people that had the same פשט. ועל פי זה הוה ליה לרש"י הוה ליה למימר לרש"י רבים אומרים פירוש זה? רש"י should have Why does it It's an extra קשיא why he brings a name, when it's really not only him, someone else said it also. ראוי היה על כל פנים להזכיר גם את רבן גמליאל. It could say רבים say, it could be רבן גמליאל also. משמע here, רש"י is interested to tell us רבי שמעון בן עזאי. So רש"י has an interest to tell us that it was רבי יהודה to by knowing it's רבי יהודה, you could figure out this answers a certain question, and knowing that it's it's רבי שמעון בן עזאי answers another question. הנה, the Rebbe says, ככל הפירוש של רש"י

מספרי, the Rebbe is going to ask more שאלות. He says like this: As we said, רש"י takes it from ספרי. אומנם רש"י משנה כאן מלשון הספרי, רש"י changes from the לשון of ספרי, הן על ידי השמטה, והן על ידי הוספה. Some things he skips of what the ספרי says, and some things he adds what the ספרי didn't say. And he explains what it is. Number one: בספרי איתא בדברי רבי יהודה שהיו שטופים בדם קודם מתן תורה. In ספרי it says in the words of רבי יהודה that he said that the אידן were שטופים בדם, were involved, heavily involved in eating blood before מתן תורה, which means according to the ספרי that now, when משה רבינו said this to them in פרשת ראה, which is 40 years later, they were not, it's only from before. And the ספרי says that רבי יהודה says, "Since years ago you were שטופים בדם, I want to tell you, 'חזק'." But he says now they weren't, they were before מתן תורה. ואילו רש"י מעתיק רק שטופים בדם. רש"י doesn't say that, all רש"י says, רבי יהודה says the אידן were שטופים בדם. הרי זה השמטה שפירושה היפך הספרי. It's not just רש"י skipped a few words. Sometimes you know, you you you quote something and you skip a few words. By skipping the words, it's opposite פשט of the ספרי. כיוון שכתוב זה נאמר ל"ט שנה לאחר מתן תורה. This פסוק was said 39 years after מתן תורה. ועל זה פירש רש"י And on that, what he was saying now, רש״י says שצריך לומר להם, he was telling the people who were listening, חזק, be strong, מפני שהיו שטופים בדם, because they were שטופים בדם. So according to the way that רש״י says it, that רבי יהודה holds that they were שטופים בדם at that time, while the ספרי seems it's not seems, says clearly that they were שטופים בדם only before מתן תורה. Now, ואדרבה, The Rebbe is now saying that there would be a מעלה had רש״י quoted the ספרי. It's not only a קשיא why didn't he quote the why did he say the opposite. You lost something. If רש״י would have quoted the ספרי, it would have been something better. Why? אם היה רש״י מפרש פשוטו של מקרא, if רש״י would explain פשוטו של מקרא, וממילא מייתי מדברי רבי יהודה גם התיבות קודם מתן תורה, if רש״י would say פשט saying like it says in the ספרי that רבי יהודה said that when were they שטופים בדם, before מתן תורה, oh, you know what it would mean then? אין פלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבי שמעון בן עזאי במציאות, there's no מחלוקת במציאות. כי יש לומר, then we could say very פשוט, שגם לרבי שמעון בן עזאי היו שטופים בדם קודם מתן תורה כמימריה דרבי יהודה. When רבי שמעון בן עזאי says now they were not, they didn't care for blood, there's no contradiction to רבי יהודה. רבי יהודה also says now they weren't. Before מתן תורה they were. Maybe רבי שמעון בן עזאי will מודה, yes, years ago, in 39 years ago they were. ומה שאמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי שאין אדם מתאווה לה, we would have learned that what רבי שמעון בן עזאי says that a person is not מתאווה, does have no תאוה, המדובר לאחר ומפני שהזהירם על אכילת הדם לאחר מתן תורה. That's talking after מתן תורה because the אידן were already told not before not to eat blood, so they stopped. So they would have answered a שאלה from before. The Rebbe's שאלה before was it seems like it's a מחלוקת very far apart. Had רש״י quoted the ספרי, it would have answered that question. So the question is why doesn't רש״י quote the ספרי? So this is one thing that רש״י skipped in the ספרי. But on the other hand, רש״י מאריך, רש״י adds, goes into אריכות בדברי רבי יהודה. When he spoke quotes רבי יהודה, he says like this: ממה שנאמר חזק אתה לומד, he writes ממש a roundabout, because it says חזק, we learn out that they were שטופים בדם, ולפיכך הוצרך לומר חזק, and therefore they said חזק. So רש״י טייטשט it is very clear. כאילו בספרי ובלשון קצר, ספרי is very short. מגיד שהיו שטופים. ספרי quotes the פסוק and says, this teaches us that they were שטופים בדם. And רש״י goes into it says חזק, and חזק is for that, מאריך, adds to the ספרי. Another thing is ג׳, בספרי, said בדברי רבי שמעון בן עזאי, in ספרי it says in the words of רבי שמעון בן עזאי: מה דם שאין בכל המצות קל ממנו הזהירך הזהירך הכתוב עליו. שמעון בן עזאי says, מה, though blood, where there is no in amongst all the מצות there's nothing easier than not eating blood, nevertheless the תורה warns you, etc., etc. But רש״י מוסיף שאין אדם מתאווה לו. רש״י adds that according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי blood, it doesn't say just קל, he says אין אדם מתאווה לו, a person doesn't care about, doesn't have a תאוה to it. Must be some reason why רש״י adds this. Now, לכאורה the שאלה will be a different שאלה, which the Rebbe is going to not address, but it seems what he's trying to say, לכאורה the קשיא is not only what's the reason רש״י changes it, how could רש״י change? How could רש״י quote somebody when that's not what he said? How could רש״י quote רבי יהודה or רבי שמעון בן עזאי? Where did he get it from? רש״י saw it in the ספרי! So how could he quote him in his name, something that he didn't say? It's a שאלה. So the Rebbe answers that: ואף שבכמה מהנ״ל יש לומר שהייתה לו לרש״י גירסא אחרת בספרי, in some of the questions we have, maybe רש״י had this גירסא in ספרי, because רש״י does sometimes have another גירסא. מכל מקום, הגוף צריך ביאור. Okay, let's say טאקע רש״י had another גירסא and he quotes that גירסא. That itself needs to be understood. מדוע בחר רש״י בגירסא נדירה של הספרי, why does רש״י pick the the the the גירסא that's not common, the uncommon גירסא, ולא בגירסא הרגילה שלפנינו, not like the common גירסא that we have? Now how do we know our גירסא is a common גירסא? כי מזה שבדפוסים שלפנינו נדפסה בספרי גירסא זו, because in our prints, all

the prints the ספרי says it this way, מוכח, that shows, שכן הייתה הגירסא על כל פנים ברוב כתבי יד של הספרי. So before the print, probably most of the כתבי יד had it that way. גם בזמן רש״י, even in the time of רש״י. So ממילא you could answer that שאלה, that רש״י had a different גירסא. That doesn't answer the שאלה. Why did he pick it? Because the שאלה he had different The fact is he had a different גירסא, but maybe But what But still why did he pick this גירסא? Now, in הערה 3 12, I want to say, the Rebbe says that באמת sometimes you could say he didn't have a different גירסא. I, the question is how could he quote somebody didn't say, sometimes you quote somebody, you add words which explain what he meant. You could say it in his name by explaining. So that's why sometimes, so when רש״י says אין אדם מתאווה לו, he's explaining what what he meant. He's מברר דברי בן עזאי, even though it's not his לשון. But then but the question is, what forced him to say it? Why Why is that needed to explain רבי שמעון בן עזאי? So the bottom line, whichever way we're going to go, The question is why did רש״י change from the לשון הספרי? Now a ביאור that explains the explanation. רש״י אינו מעתיק מדברי רבי יהודה כגירסתינו בספרי שהיו שטופין בדם קודם מתן תורה. First thing Rebbe is saying why does רש״י not bring the לשון of the ספרי that רבי יהודה holds that they were שטופים בדם before מתן תורה? The משמעות, that means שנשתנה הלכה מתן תורה, that means that now not, after מתן תורה changed, before מתן תורה. ולכאורה that would have been better, as we said before. The Rebbe

says why: כי על פי זה אינו מובן. If that would be, something is not understood in דרך הפשט. והאזהרה על אכילת דם נאמרה בתורה כמה פעמים. The warning not to eat blood is written in the תורה a few times. Actually in הערה 13 he brings that the גמרא in כריתות says it's five times, in different places it says seven times, but there are many times before that the תורה warned about blood. דאם נאמר שהיו שטופין בדם רק קודם מתן תורה, if we're going to say that this whole thing of they שטופים בדם which the תורה has to tell you חזק is because they before מתן תורה were שטופים in דם, שבפשטות זו לפי שהיו שטופים בדם במצרים, what made them be שטוף in דם? Where did they get this from? Probably they just came out of מצרים, in מצרים people drink blood, so they were שטופים. That's what we're going to say. But if that's the פשט, הווה ליה למימר חזק כשהוזהרו על אכילתו בפעם הראשונה. So why doesn't the תורה say חזק the first time the פסוק says the אייבערשטער told them about not eating blood? היינו בסמיכות לאחר מתן תורה. They stopped probably after מתן תורה, but if he still had to feel that he has to strengthen them because of what they did before, so as closer as it is, it's more reason to strengthen. קרוב לזמן שהיו שטופים בדם, closer to the time they were שטופים בדם. ומדוע נצטוו להתחזק שלא לאכול דם באלה הדברים, why did they come with this חיזוק, they have to have a חיזוק to דם in דברים, שנאמרו בסוף שנת הארבעים לצאתם ממצרים, it's at the end of the 40th year from leaving מצרים. וכבר מת כל הדור ההוא, not only that, all the people who were in מצרים who were שטופים בדם and stopped, they're not alive anymore. ולא נאמר חזק באזהרה על אכילת דם שבחומש ויקרא. Why doesn't it say in ויקרא the ענין of חזק? Because this was closer to the time of שטופים בדם. לכן מאריך רש״י בדברי רבי יהודה. That's why רש״י, you

ever ask one of the שאלות, why is רש״י מאריך? ממה שנאמר חזק אתה למד שהיו שטופים בדם, so רש״י is מאריך, ממה שנאמר, he means like this: ממה שנאמר כאן חזק, רש״י when he says, not only because it says חזק is a ראיה they were שטופים. What he's trying to say is like this: since it says חזק here and not before, למד we could learn out שהיו שטופין בדם לאוכלו, that they were שטופים in דם to eat it, היינו בזמן האמירה, גם בשנת הארבעים שאז נאמר ציווי זה לישראל. That you can't say that now they were not. If now they were not and before they were, he would have said it before. Obviously רש״י says since it says here חזק, a סימן that they were שטופים בדם. דווקא רש״י is מדייק, not like it says in ספרי, only before מתן תורה. The ראיה in פשוטו של מקרא that he told them חזק, a סימן they were שטופים. ומכל מקום, אין בזה מחלוקת במציאות. One of the קשיות, yeah, but if they were שטופים בדם, רבי שמעון בן עזאי holds that they didn't

like דם. There's no מחלוקת במציאות, לומר to say שסברת רבי יהודה הפוכה מסברת רבי שמעון בן עזאי, שאדם אינו מתאווה לו, like we said before, that it's opposite of what רבי שמעון בן עזאי says, that they did not have a תאוה to דם. כי אפשר לאדם שלא יתאווה לדבר, it's possible a person not to want something, not to have a תאוה, ויתירה מזו, שנפשו קצה ממנו, it's even possible that the person is disgusted with eating it or taking it, ומכל מקום בפועל יהא שטוף באכילתו, and you still could be heavily involved in eating it. Disgusted, why? מפני טעמים צדדים, for other reasons. מחמת שיש סגולה, רפואה בזה, you could have an אמונה that something has a special סגולה, special רפואה. How many times are people involved in taking medicines and things like that which is disgusting and they can't stand it, but they're into it, full-fledged into it because this is healthy for them, and so we find such a thing. And the Rebbe says in הערה 18 actually, the חז״ל say כל נפש משיב את הנפש, that anything that has נפש in it helps you gain נפש. So there's a סברא there is a רפואה in drinking blood. So therefore it's possible not to like it, but nevertheless to be שטוף, מפני שרגיל בזה וכיוצא בזה, because you're used to it. וכנראה בחוש, you see it כפשוטו, the Rebbe says. You could say by blood, היו שטופין בו שנים רבות גם לאחר צאתם ממצרים, according to רבי יהודה they were שטופים in דם many years even after they left מצרים, אף שלא היו מתאוים לו. רבי יהודה could admit that, like רבי שמעון בן עזאי, they're not arguing. He says, I admit they didn't like it. אף נפשו קצה ממנו, the נפש was קצה, which by the way answers the שאלה that the Rebbe asked before that מהרש"א says later that מה דם נפשו של אדם קצה, so yes, it doesn't fit not to ר' יהודה, not to ר' שמעון בן עזאי. Because even according to ר' שמעון בן עזאי, it's not קוצעס, ne? So the רבי says no, it's פאַרקערט, רש"י holds it's טאַקע קצה. And still, ר' יהודה says they were שטוף בדם even though it's קצה, they couldn't stand it, but they were שטוף because of their philosophy. They thought it was געוואַלדיק. And ר' שמעון בן עזאי says no, they weren't שטוף, but they were they were not מסרב, but they and could be they were they're even קוצף, קצה. And still, he says they were not they're not מסרב to דם, they didn't want דם, but they still maybe drank it because of whatever reason it is. So this is So, this פשט answers the שאלה. The קשיא was why does it say חזק? And why does it say חזק here, not earlier? Obviously, they were שטוף בדם here. So רש"י answers by bringing ר' יהודה that according to ר' יהודה, the reason it says חזק because they were שטוף בדם now, and he told them אמנם, now you're going to answer why do we need the second פשט? אמנם אין די בטעם זה מה שנאמר דווקא כאן חזק בדם, this is not enough reason why דווקא here it says חזק. Why not? כי, number one problem is כי מכיון שהיו שטופים בדם, since you're saying they were שטוף בדם, which means not only before, they were שטוף בדם throughout the whole time, from מצרים, throughout the 49 year 39 years in the מדבר, they were שטוף בדם. If so, הווה ליה למימר חזק גם באזהרות על הדם שבספר ויקרא. Now, we understand that it fits to here because they were still שטוף, but why didn't he say it the first time? They were still שטוף, all these years they were שטוף. אדרבה, עיקר מקומו שם, mainly should have said it there, בסמיכות למתן תורה, closer to מתן תורה, ולא רק בסוף ארבעים שנה, not only at the end of the 40 years. Why didn't he write over there the word חזק? It fits here, see, according to רש"י, it fits here. See, according to ר' יהודה in the ספרי, it doesn't even fit here. That's what the רבי said, that's why רש"י can't learn like the ספרי. If they were not שטוף בדם, why would he tell them חזק here, not before? He couldn't tell them here. So רש"י says no, they were still שטוף, that's why he said. But it's still not understood why he didn't say it before. Now לכאורה, you would think this שלאָגס אָפּ the whole פשט. It's not a it's not a שווערקייט. שלאָגס אָפּ the פשט. So the רבי says, note 19 star, פירכא גמורה אין בזה. It's not a מין קשיא, a major קשיא. It's not a real אָפּשלאָג. Why? So he says why: כי מצינו כמה וכמה מצוות שאפילו פרטי אופן קיום המצוות ויתירה מזו שהמצווה עצמה נאמרה רק באלה הדברים. We find other מצוות that even not only some lesson, some לשון about it, but even how to do the מצוות, which were written earlier, and it's not told to us till דברים. So we find that כביכול, that's the style of the חומש. If you could use I'm using the wrong words, but that's what חומש is, that sometimes they write something that really could have been before and it's written later. But still, it's it's a שווערקייט. That's one שווערקייט. The second thing is, והעיקר, the main question is, כיון שכבר הוסרו כמה פעמים על אכילת דם לפני שנת הארבעים, since they were warned about not eating blood earlier, before this 40th year, אין מסתבר כלל לומר שבמשך קרוב לארבעים שנה, it's not doesn't make sense, not doesn't make sense, it's hard to understand to say that for 40, close to 40 years, לא הועילו כל האזהרות האלו כלל. So all these warnings that the אייבערשטער gave these years didn't work? ועדיין היו שטופים בדם? See, even if it wouldn't be שטופים, you would say some people still drank blood. The אייבערשטער told them, but but to say they were still שטוף בדם when they had warnings before so many times earlier, שווער to say. The third thing is וביותר קשה לומר, hard to say mainly, שבסוף ארבעים שנה, that at the end of the 40 years, שכבר מתו כל יוצאי מצרים, that all the people who went out of מצרים, that's where they got this habit of drinking blood, were already dead. יהיו בניהם שטופים בדם? Their children should be שטוף בדם? ובפרט לאחר שנאמרו בזה אזהרות הקדוש ברוך הוא כמה פעמים. The אייבערשטער warned many times. So the first ones that came out of מצרים got this habit from מצרים, but these were the children, 40 years later. They're still שטוף? So the רבי brings הערה 20 that the אבן עזרא and the כלי יקר say, yeah, because the טבע of the parents get to the father to the children, I mean. So the טבע the parents had of drinking blood got to them also. But the רבי says, when we say that the טבע of a father goes to the child, that's only לגבי the characteristics, the מידות, but not what to drink or what to eat. You don't say because the father liked this, the child will like this. The father has a good מידה, a bad מידה, whatever, it could transfer, a good head, but not לגבי what to eat. So it's hard to say this. ובמילא the שאלה is also, according to ר' יהודה's פשט the way רש"י learns, that they were שטוף בדם now, hard to understand. The children should be שטוף בדם when they were 40 years already away from מצרים? לכן מביא רש"י פירוש השני דעת ר' שמעון בן עזאי. That's why רש"י has to bring another פשט, which doesn't have these three problems. שמה שנאמר חזק כאן that when it says here חזק, אינו לפי שהיו שטופים אז בדם, not because they were then שטוף בדם, because like we said, that's the problem with the first פשט, to say that they were אז, then שטוף בדם. The reason the תורה says חזק here, ובוא הכתוב והזהירך ללמדך עד כמה אתה צריך להתחזק צריך להתחזק במצוות. The תורה comes to teach you how much you have to be careful and be strong in מצוות. שהרי אף שקל להשמר בדם, רבי שמעון בן עזאי says, even though it's easy to be careful with דם, שאין אדם מתאוה לו, a person doesn't desire it, הוצרך לחזק באזהרתו, nevertheless, the תורה had to tell you be strong in the in the keeping of the מצוה, קל וחומר לשאר מצוות. So it's telling us, טאקע, now they weren't שטופים בדם. Now they were They actually didn't want it. They were not מתאוה, they didn't have any desire. But he tells you, it's something that you don't have desire, and nevertheless, I'm telling you חזק. So the whole purpose is to teach you לגבי other מצוות, not for here, it's for other מצוות. ומוסיף רש"י בדיבור רבי שמעון בן עזאי שאין אדם מתאוה לו. And therefore רש"י adds in the words of רבי שמעון בן עזאי, not only it's a מצוה hard I mean easy to be careful, and from there we make a קל וחומר for harder מצוות, רש"י adds that he said it's a מצוה that a a דם is an עבירה, something that a person doesn't even have a desire. Why does רש"י mention that? Because he said that he adds that to the ספרי. The ספרי doesn't say that in רבי שמעון בן עזאי. So he says like this, number one why רש"י says it, מכיון שזה קל להשמר ממנו הוא לפי שאין אדם מתאוה לו. You see, in ספרי, רבי שמעון בן עזאי says דם is a is a מצוה that's easy to to be careful with. But רש"י feels he wants to give an explanation why. And and the reason why it's easy to be careful, because a person doesn't have a desire. But why does רש"י feel it's important to mention that? היינו שזה דבר שבטבע האדם. He wants to show that it's not סתם it's easy to be careful. You could say it's easy to be careful from from from not stealing a hundred dollars. It's not the טבע. בטבע a person wants to steal, you could steal a you could steal a... I'm just using this an example. It's something in the nature of a person that is something he doesn't have a תאוה to. So since that is, מובן שכן היה גם בזמן שנאמר הציווי. So it makes sense, according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי, בשעת הציווי was said, he says they were not into דם. So he says, what makes sense, why? Because naturally, you're not into דם. The only way you're into דם is, as we said before, because in מצרים they believe in all kinds of things and they believed in דם. But בטבע a person would not. So it makes only sense that now that they're not in מצרים and they're 40 39 years away, probably they were not into דם. So רש"י wants to make it clear, so he quotes these words. And another thing, ב, שלא נאמר שקל להשמר בדם דווקא כגון שנפשו של אדם קצה ממנו. So you should know, רש"י wants to tell us that it's because people don't have a תאוה, not because a person is disgusted in drinking blood. Why? כי אף שזה אינו זה היפך מן הדעה שהיו שטופים בדם כנ"ל. If you say that the reason is because נפשו קצה, so it's still we said before, not a contradiction. It's not a סתירה. It could be that it's קצה, a person's disgusted with blood, and nevertheless, according to רבי יהודה, he could be שטוף בדם. That's what you said before. It's not a סתירה. מכל מקום, but still, nevertheless, אז תהיינה הדעות של רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון עזריה רחוקות זו מזו, and that'll be pretty far apart. It won't be a contradiction, because רבי יהודה says they were שטוף בדם. It was טאקע, and he says and if if if we'd say רבי שמעון בן עזאי holds that they were קצה, so it's still no contradiction. You could say רבי יהודה also holds קצה, but they're still שטוף בדם, but it's still pretty far. Disgusting and שטוף are two opposites. ובמילא, רש"י says, I want to show that it's not two opposites, because רבי שמעון בן עזאי does not say קצה. Could be it's קצה, there's no סתירה, but that's not The reason why it's קל להשמר is not because of קצה, it's because not מתאוה. Now, not מתאוה and שטוף are not so far apart. שטוף is and מתאוה you don't have a תאוה to it. But קצה is a complete opposite. ועוד ועיקר, another נקודה, הרי זה היפך המוחש. Even though it's possible something should be קצה and nevertheless, you should be you should you should שטוף, it's not It looks against what the fact is. דבר שאין אדם מתאוה לו, something a person has no תאוה, וגם הזהירן על זה כמה פעמים, and you warn him many times, בוודאי שקל להשמר ממנו. For sure, it's easy to to be careful with. So that's why רש"י adds דבר שאין מתאוה to make it more the מוחש, that it's a דבר שאין מתאוה, so therefore it's easy. So when the when רבי שמעון בן עזאי says that it's a דבר שקל להשמר, he says why? Because אין אדם מתאוה לו. So it's א וואדע that it's easy to be So that makes it even stronger what the רבי שמעון בן עזאי was saying. So that's what רש"י adds, okay. So now we have a second פשט, but the first פשט with קשיות on the first פשט, so we have a second פשט we don't have these קשיות. What's wrong with the second פשט? אמנם אין רש"י מסתפק בפירוש זה לבדו, רש"י is not satisfied with this פשט alone. ועל כן מביא גם בנחיתות הפירוש He brings this as second, and we said before that the first פשט is always the better one. So in the the the betterment of the פשט, the first one is better. So obviously the second פשט has worse קשיות, stronger קושיות than on the first. What is it? כי מכיוון שסוף סוף נאמר חזק על הדם סוף כל סוף it says חזק by דם קשה לומר שהוא רק כדי ללמדך להתחזק בשאר מצוות. According to רבי שמעון בן עזאי has nothing to do with blood, blood is you don't need חזק, it's very easy to be careful, you don't need to be strong about it, other מצוות. It's telling you that if here what you don't really have to be strong, nevertheless you have to be strong certainly so it's telling you something other מצוות, but the תורה writes it here by דם. מסתבר יתר שגם איסור דם בעצמו צריך חיזוק it has to do with with איסור דם. According to רבי שמעון בן עזאי the way רש״י brings it, it doesn't have to do with דם. It's דם is just a a springboard to teach you for

other מצוות. ומשמע כן גם המשך הפרשה, and the המשך הפרשה is משמע that it has to do with דם, how? הפרשה זו באה להתיר, I said in the beginning, in this פרשה the תורה comes to be מתיר בשר תאוה. בשר תאוה means meat פשוט to eat, not as a קרבן, שהיו אסורים ביעד עד till now in the, in in מדבר they were not allowed to eat meat unless they brought a קרבן, so now the תורה is telling you that you are allowed to eat בשר תאוה, כמו שנאמר, it says, כי תאוה נפשך לאכול בשר, if you're going to want, you can have a desire to eat meat, בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר, whatever you want, you can eat בשר. The פסוק continues, ואכלת בשעריך בכל אות נפשך, you can eat in in all your cities which means you don't have to go up to ירושלים to bring a קרבן, you can eat the meat. וכשממשיך אחר זה and if right after that the תורה says, רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, but be strong not to eat the blood, משמע בפשוטו של מקרא is משמע the simple פשט, שגם בזה שייך כי תאוה נפשך, it's משמע it's yet תאוה. He says you can have a תאוה to eat meat go ahead, but don't eat the blood. So it was משמע that בעצם is had a תאוה, you would want to eat meat and you have a תאוה to eat blood. So the תורה is warning, the meat I'm letting you eat, but the blood not even though you might have a תאוה, here is משמע שגם בזה שייך כי תאוה נפשך, תאוה מאיזה טעם שיהיה, תאוה for whatever reason. So ולכן מה שנאמר כאן חזק אתה חזק אתה לומד שהיו שטופים בדם, and that's why the גמרא says that from here we see they were שטופים בדם, makes sense, because the תורה says you'll have a תאוה to eat meat, so you could do that תאוה, but not the blood, it's משמע they had a תאוה for blood too. So that fits the רב יהודה's פשט, מה שאין כן לדברי רבי שמעון בן עזאי, according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי, שדם אין אדם נתאווה לו, that a person doesn't have a תאוה to blood, ורק שבאה ללמד, it comes to teach you for other מצוות, הרי סגנון האזהרה על אכילת דם, so the way the תורה the style the way the תורה writes the איסור of eating דם the תורה says the לשון רק, when it says רק means למרות הנאמר לעיל, in spite of what I told you before, that you could eat the תאוה of meat, nevertheless I'm telling you חזק, by blood be חזק, אינו מתאים לקישור שלפניו, according to רבי שמעון בן עזאי it doesn't fit, the המשך of the פסוקים don't fit. ולכן מביא רש״י דעת רב יהודה לראשונה במעלה that's why רש״י brings the רב יהודה first which is not only first in place, it's first in מדרגה of פשט, as a better פשט. כי כן משמעות המשך הכתובים because that's how the seem the פסוקים look like they're going, והקושיא היא רק מצד תוכן הענין the קושיא on רב יהודה is the תוכן. What is the קושיא? Not a קושיא on the לשון of the פסוק, the קושיא is according to him they were שטופים בדם, the question was why would they be שטופים בדם? So long so many years later, and why didn't he say anything before, but not a קושיא on the לשון of the

פסוק. It's only the תוכן שהיו עדיין שטופים בדם the fact that they were שטופים בדם, כנ״ל. So therefore which which פשט is better? The first. Because the second one is a problem with פשט of the the פסוק, and according to the first the problem is in תוכן. So that comes first. אומנם עדיין יש מקום לתלמיד מומחה לומר, but another a תלמיד מומחה means a תלמיד that's a talented תלמיד, because whatever is not מובן for a simple תלמיד, רש״י tells us, but sometimes something that a talented תלמיד has a problem, that רש״י will answer it, but דרך רמז, just by something. So the קושיא a person could ask, מאי טעמא אמר מר הא ומר אמר הא פליגי על פירש חבירו? Why דוקא does he hold like this, and he hold like this? He holds like this against the other one, he holds like this against the first one, מאי אולמיה דהאי דוחקא מהאי דוחקא, they both have problems. Why does רב יהודה feel that the problem of רבי שמעון is on רבי שמעון's פשט is a bigger problem, and רבי שמעון בן עזאי holds that the problem on רב יהודה's פשט a bigger problem? לכן מביא רש״י שמו של בעל המאמר, כי כל אחד לשיטתו, says רש״י brings the name of the person that said it, because

it's everyone said it because it fits to his שיטה. What do we see? בדברי רב יהודה מצינו, we find in רב יהודה במה שכתוב there's a פסוק that says actually in this week's פרשה too, לא תאכלו כל נבלה don't eat נבלה, נבלה is an animal that died, wasn't geschächt, or got killed, whatever, what should you do with it? The תורה says לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה, give it to a גר that lives in your town, ואכלה let him eat it, או מכור לנכרי or sell it to a גוי. Now here a גר doesn't mean a real גר, because a גר is not allowed to eat נבלה, it means a גר תושב. There's a גר צדק is a regular גר who becomes a 100% full fledged Jew, then גר תושב is a גוי, stays a גוי, but he מקבל upon himself not to do עבודה זרה, to keep the seven מצוות. So the תורה says to this גר you shall give the נבילה or sell it to the גוי. So, here's a מחלוקת in גמרא between רבי יהודה and רבי מאיר. שסבירא ליה רבי יהודה holds דברים ככתבן. The תורה means what it says, as it's written. לגר בנתינה, to a גר you can't sell it. If you give it to a גר you got to give it to him. ולנכרי במכירה, and a גוי you have to sell it to. You can't give it to a גוי, but to sell it. You can't sell it to a גר תושב, you just have to give it to him. ופליגא דרבי מאיר דאמר, he argues against רבי מאיר that says, אחד גר ואחד נכרי בין במכירה בין בנתינה. רבי מאיר holds no, the פסוק didn't mean בדוקא. You could sell it or give it to a גוי, you could say to a גר תושב, and you could sell it or give it to him. But what do we see לפועל here? That רבי יהודה follows דברים ככתבן. רבי יהודה follows the way the פסוק is written. ולשיטתו זו בנידון דידן, the same שיטה in our case, שיש לפרש שבא הכתוב ללמד על שאר מצוות, אי שמדבר בנוגע לדם עצמו. Here we have a choice of what the פסוק is talking about. Here's the פסוק saying חזק to teach you something the way it's משמע from the פסוק. We said before, from the המשך of the פסוקים that it goes on דם. Or can we say it's teaching us עפעס בנוגע other מצוות. So which one is it? Which one would רבי יהודה pick? דפרוש דברים ככתבן, so he says it פסוק it goes on the way it seems from the פסוק. שבא ללמד איסור הדם עצמו, is come to teach in דם itself. שנאמר חזק גם גבי דם, why it says חזק by דם? פשוט שצריך לחזקן בדם. Yes, you had to in דם you had to have a חיזוק, לפי שהיו שטופים, they were שטופים בדם. ואף שיש בזה דוחק, and although there's a דוחק as we said, he feels still that's better because he goes according to the פסוקים. ולכן גם מאריך רש"י (question mark, I'll explain what that means in a second), that's why רש"י is also מאריך in the לשון, ממה שנאמר חזק אתה לומד, לפיכך הוצרך לחזק, we asked before why does רש"י go קוועטש, because it says חזק, from that you learn out. Because he wants to tell you, because it says חזק here in the פסוק, רש"י is stressing, why does רבי יהודה say that? Because since it says in פסוק here בנוגע דם, that's why he says his פשט, that must be something with דם. Now, רש"י, the רבי says here רש"י with a question mark. What in the world does that mean? רש"י says it, I mean, why does רש"י? But the question mark in רש"י in the רבי is like this: Is it something that רש"י himself says? Or is this because רש"י had a גירסא in the ספרי like this? It could be either way. We don't know. So that's why he says, could be רש"י is מאריך in this for this reason, but I'm not sure. Maybe the ספרי is מאריך for this reason. Or על כל פנים רש"י picks this לשון from ספרי, but could be the ספרי is מאריך. So רש"י and it's not clear. So the רבי says רש"י question mark, could be it's רש"י, could be not. So we see בנוגע רבי יהודה, that he דרש'נט that we דרש'ן the לשון of the פסוק. שיטת ר' שמעון בן

עזאי מצינו, we find by רבי שמעון בן עזאי a different thing. Number one we find that דבא להזהירך או לחזקך בקיום המצוות אפילו הקלות. We find by him, he goes into the שיטה that we have to find a חיזוק in מצוות בכלל, even in light מצוות you have to find a חיזוק, you always have to be מחזק. וכמאמרו, like he said in פרקי אבות, הוי רץ למצוה קלה, run. What's running? Run means put on strength, energy to do the מצוה. שפירושו, the פשט is גם אם לא גרסינן כבחמורה, see there is a גירסא הוי רץ למצוה קלה כבחמורה. Now some are not גורס, the גירסא of אלטער רבי, in the אלטער רבי is not גורס. But whichever way, whether we're גורס הוי רץ למצוה קלה כבחמורה or not without כבחמורה, the fact is he says you should run to a מצוה קלה. Now what does he mean, you should run to a מצוה קלה and not run to a מצוה חמורה? So it doesn't mean לא רק למצוה קלה, doesn't mean run just to do a מצוה קלה, אלא גם למצוה קלה, you should run to do even a easy מצוה. וכהטעם שמסיים, what's the reason as he says, שמצוה גוררת מצוה, because if you'll run to a מצוה, even מצוה קלה, you'll come to do more מצוות. So ועל דרך זה ולהיפך בעבירה, the opposite by עבירה אומר he says, ובורח מן העבירה, run away from עבירה. Not just don't do the עבירה, run away, that's חיזוק. וגם על זה הטעם, and the reason is עבירה גוררת עבירה, עבירה will bring another, every עבירה will bring another עבירה. So we see here like this, that his שיטה is that we always have to have חזק, and he says the reason for the חזק because it'll bring you to more מצוות. You see where we're getting to? קודם שמעון בן עזאי he says that the תורה writes חזק here by דם, not because of דם, because it'll tells you בנוגע other מצוות. You see that's what he holds. He says, be careful with a מצוה קלה because it'll bring you to more מצוות. So he sees how we extend when the תורה, when he's look at a חיזוק in a מצוה, it's בנוגע to other מצוות, too. That's one thing. So and, oh, here the רבי says it clearly: ב', כי קיום מצוה קלה מביא לקיום שאר המצוות, וגם החמורות ביותר. If you do a מצוה קלה, it could bring bring you to the most best strongest מצוות. ולאידך גיסא, the opposite by עבירה. עבירה, you do a light עבירה, could bring you a worse עבירה. So we see here two things. First of all, you see what I said before, I said that before we read it inside. So two things we see here: one is that רב שמעון בן עזאי says we have to be מחזק מצוות. That's his שיטה, and he says one מצוה could bring another מצוה and even could bring more חמור מצוה. So לשיטתו אז גם כן באיסור דם, that's why he says the same thing by דם. Number one, גם בציווי שקל לשומרו צריך להיות חזק באזהרה זו. He says by דם you don't, it's very easy to be careful. So לכאורה, why would the תורה mention חזק here? So it tells you, he holds that even a מצוה קלה, הוי רץ. Even by an easy מצוה, which is easy to keep, you've got to be מחזק. שבמצוות עשה הוא, by מצוות עשה it's מה שאומר רץ למצוה גם קלה. By מצוות עשה he said, positive מצוות he said run to do, be מחזק. ובלא תעשה בכל עבירה, ברח מן העבירה. By לא תעשה it's the same thing: be מחזק yourself and go away from the עבירה. So that's one thing you see here, and the second thing, that's the first part that we said by רב שמעון בן עזאי, that he says run to, run away from an עבירה, be מחזק not to, even an עבירה קלה. And the second thing, what does he say? That the reason the תורה says it here, להזהירך וללמדך עד כמה אתה צריך להתחזק במצוות, how much you have to be careful, be מחזק in מצוות, קל וחומר לשאר מצוות. It says here in order to tell you of other מצוות, כנאמר כאן הוא חיזוק לשאר מצוות, because it says here is a חיזוק to all the מצוות. דוגמת מה שאומר, just like he said, הוי רץ למצוה קלה שמצוה גוררת מצוה. Run to do a מצוה קלה, why? Because it's going to help your other מצוות. ותקיים גם שאר מצוות, do other מצוות. וברח מן העבירה, run away, be מחזק not to do the עבירה, על ידי זה תהיה רחוק גם משאר עבירות, you'll be far from other עבירות. וממילא that fits to what he says here, that this is טאקע חזק by דם, but mainly it's to teach you that this from this מצוה you'll get other מצוות. והנה האמור, על פי האמור, the רבי based on what we said, okay, so we know like this: we know you deal the שיטה זה רבי יהודה, דברים ככתבן. רבי יהודה, his שיטה is בכלל, if you're able to דרשן a פסוק according to the words of the פסוק, that's what comes first. שיטה of רב שמעון בן עזאי we see, לרוץ אפילו למצוה קלה, בורח מעבירה, to run even to a simple מצוה and to opposite meaning, running away, escaping from an עבירה, that's what he says. So we see what each one holds. אבל מנלן שרבי יהודה לית ליה כרבי שמעון בן עזאי? Where do we see that רבי יהודה doesn't hold like רב שמעון בן עזאי? See, we see what רב שמעון, רבי יהודה holds, but maybe the other thing is also good for him? Maybe he holds both? The fact that he holds that you you דרשן the פסוקים doesn't mean that he holds that you don't have to be מחזק simple עבירות and that it'll bring you to other מצוות. So he could have said the second פשט also. He טאקע says his פשט because he holds ככתב, but the second פשט is also, maybe he holds the second way also? So how do we know? אבל מנלן שרבי יהודה לית ליה כרבי שמעון בן עזאי שצריך להיות חזק במצוה שקלה לשומרה? How do we know he doesn't know that? ורבי שמעון בן עזאי לית ליה כרבי יהודה דברים ככתבן? But where do we see רב שמעון בן עזאי doesn't hold that we דרשן the פסוקים? רב שמעון, and we're saying here he doesn't דרשן, why? Because he wants to דרשן that it's a חיזוק of every מצוה. But he could have just as well דרשן that maybe he holds also that you if it's possible to פאר all the פסוקים, you should follow. So what the רבי is going to bring out here that we find בפירוש שרבי יהודה does not hold like רב שמעון בן עזאי. We don't go such a thing in the חיזוק in the מצוות way רב שמעון בן עזאי says. And רב שמעון בן עזאי בפירוש does not hold like רבי יהודה that we go according to the פסוקים. Where do we

see it? הביאור: It's interesting, this is look, brilliant. איתא בסוף מסכת ברכות, it says in the end of ברכות, תניא it says, a ברייתא: בן עזאי אומר, בן עזאי says, פעם אחת נכנסתי אחרי רבי עקיבא לבית הכסא, once I followed רבי עקיבא into the bathroom, ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים, and I learned לגבי how to behave in the bathroom three things, למדתי this and this and that other. אמר לו רבי יהודה, so רבי יהודה says to בן עזאי, עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך? Such חוצפה you had against your רבי? אמר לו, he told him: לא, תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך. It's תורה and I have to learn this. I came to learn הלכה, that's it. So there's a מחלוקת here. רבי יהודה says you shouldn't have done it, and and בן עזאי, which is רב שמעון בן עזאי, holds, no, it's right to do it. לכאורה מאי פליגי? What's the מחלוקת? יש לומר, they could say like this: רבי יהודה סבר, רבי יהודה holds אף שתורה היא וללמוד אני צריך, it's תורה and you have to learn הלכות, הרי כנוגע בלימוד התורה, what do you do usually when you want to know הלכה in תורה? הולכים לשאול הלכה בבית המדרש, go to ask the הלכה. וזהו שאמר לרבי שמעון בן עזאי, that's what he said to רב שמעון בן עזאי, עד כדי כך עזות פנים במקום שאלה בבית המדרש, this is the חוצפה you had instead of going to the בית מדרש? So he holds that you shouldn't have gone that far. You should have asked the שאלה like like every שאלה. אמנם רב שמעון בן עזאי, שמעון בן עזאי שמעמיד שצריך להיות ריצה אפילו למצוה קלה, רב שמעון בן עזאי holds that you have to do your best with the most strength to go even to an easy מצוה. על דרך זה מובן גם כן כבנוגע לבירור ההלכה, the same thing, you've got to be מחזק yourself to find out the true הלכה, because you got to be do everything with strength, with חיזוק, that's him. הרי במקום שאפשר He holds like this: If it's possible, אין מספיק שאלת הלכה בבית המדרש, כי אם לראות מעשה. If it's possible, not enough just to ask the שאלה to find הלכה, you got to see מעשה, אשר מעשה רב, the גמרא says in שבת, if you see a מעשה from a חכם, that's the best ראיה, that's the best הלכה. ועל דרך מה שחז"ל say, וכולי, it seems the opposite, but אין למדין הלכה, you can't learn out הלכה the גמרא says in שבת, לא מפי לימוד, not when you just learn, לא מפי מעשה, not even if you see a מעשה. Let's skip the parentheses for one second. עד שיאמרו לו הלכה למעשה, unless your רבי tells you this is a הלכה למעשה. Just seeing being done you can't. But the רבי explains in the חוץ, in the parentheses, when do we say מעשה itself is not enough and you have to hear הלכה למעשה? באם נגע ויש מקום לטעות בטעם המעשה. If the reason is important, and you could hearing the seeing the מעשה, you never know what the reason behind it is. But in a case where there's nothing to think about, there's no difference, so then that's the רבי says in אות ל"ה, אבל כשאין מקום לזה, where there is no place to make a mistake in the case, מעשה דווקא רב, אדרבה, מעשה is better. So, therefore, רב שמעון בן עזאי said, so the best case would be the best way to learn it, the best way to have a חיזוק in learning the הלכה is if I will see the מעשה. הלכך נכנס אחרי רבי עקיבא לראות הנהגתו בפועל. That's why he went after רבי עקיבא לבית הכסא, to see פשוט a מעשה what he does, because he felt this is even better to do. And by the way, the רבי says, על פי זה מובן התירוץ של קושית החידושי אגדות שם. This answers the קושיא the מהרש"א asks: מי הכריחו להעיז פניו, היה לו לשאול על דברים אלו מרבו? He asks a קושיא. He said, no, what was the פשט in the גמרא? He said to him: That's a חוצפה? So he says: תורה, I have to learn. So מהרש"א asks: What kind of תירוץ is that? תורה you have to learn, learn like every other תורה! Go learn it, find out the הלכה! והנה שם מתרץ, the מהרש"א answers דלא אסיק אדעתיה דהני מילי דצניעותא שיש איסור לשואלם. Because he maybe he wanted to know maybe there's certain things which I don't even know that we have to know how to do it. Have to ask a שאלה, certain things I don't even know what's a שאלה. That's why he said: תורה היא, ס'איז תורה, וללמוד, I want to learn, דקאמר, and when he said it's תורה and I have to learn doesn't mean I have to learn what the הלכה is, היינו לידע מה שיש שם ללמוד ממנו, I have to learn what do I have to learn. That's what he answers. But the רבי says לא זכיתי להבין, doesn't understand how that answers the קושיא. הרי זה גופא היה יכול לשאול את רבו. He could have asked his רבי אם יש שם ללמוד ממנו. He should have asked, is there anything that I don't know to what to learn? והיה למד הדברים מפיו, and would learn from him, ולא היה צריך להעיז פניו ברבו, didn't have to have this חוצפה. So על כל פנים what the רבי said before answers the קושיא of the מהרש"א. But the bottom line is we have the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה, רבי יהודה says, you shouldn't have done it, and he said, no, I have to do it. Why? Because it's תורה, meaning I have to go, and I have to do it the best possible way, which fits to what רב שמעון בן עזאי holds: הוי רץ למצוה קלה, you have to run to it, you have to do it. הביאור כנ"ל. What's the פשט why he held like that? What's the מחלוקת? שיטתו ודרכו של רב שמעון בן עזאי, his שיטה is לעשות כל דבר וענין בתורה ומצות באופן של ריצה והתחזקות יתירה. Everything you run, you do with חיזוק. ומכיון שאין פסק הלכה יותר טוב וברור ממעשה רב, there's nothing better than seeing the actual הנהגה of the רב, לא הסתפק בזה שישאל את רבו, so he wasn't satisfied just asking his רבי, אלא נכנס אחריו לבית הכסא, he went in, ללמוד ממנו על ידי שיראה הנהגתו בפועל, to learn the best way possible, because you have to do it in the best way. מה שאין כן שיטתו של רבי יהודה, שאין צריך לרוץ עד כדי להעיז פנים. He says, obviously רבי יהודה holds you have to be careful with מצות, but it's not that you have to be such a חיזוק even to make, do a חוצפה. ואף שתורה היא, but even though it's תורה and you want to know to see exactly how to do it, מעשה רב, די שישאל את רבו אם ישנם הלכות ודינים השייכים לבית הכסא. He says it would be enough if you ask your רבי, are there any special הלכות I have to know? It would be enough. So הנהגת בן עזאי הרי זו שלא כשיטתו של רבי יהודה דעד כאן עזות פנים כנגד רבך. So what בן עזאי did, according to רבי יהודה, it's a חוצפה. But according to בן עזאי himself, not a חוצפה, that's why he said to him, עזות פנים, it's a חוצפה? He says, no, I have תורה. And he felt it's not a חוצפה. But רבי יהודה says it's a חוצפה, why? Because you don't have to do it. As much as you have to have ריצה and חיזוק, but not so far. So here we see how רבי יהודה how רבי יהודה does not hold of בן עזאי. He does not hold that תורה is goes through such a way to make the ריצה so much. Now we have to find, where do we see that בן עזאי doesn't hold of רבי יהודה that we go by the פסוקים? על דרך זה מצינו לאידך גיסא, we find the other way also. בן עזאי אומר, בן עזאי says like this: נאמר מכשפה לא תחיה, the תורה says a מכשפה, a magician, he means a woman, but it means a magician, לא תחיה, cannot live, ונאמר, it says כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת, that if you have relations with a בהמה, you should die. The תורה doesn't say what מיתה you give. סמכו ענין לו, the תורה puts the two together to tell you, מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה, just like the תורה if you you're with a בהמה, says clear in the תורה you get סקילה, get stoned, אף מכשפה בסקילה, so to kill a magician is with סקילה. אמר לו רבי יהודה, so רבי יהודה said to him, מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא זה לסקילה? You want to kill a guy because they're written next to each other? No, that's not where we know it from. You know it from something else: אוב וידעוני בכלל מכשפה היו. תורה speaks about magicians. One of the magicians are אוב וידעוני, different types of magic. When the תורה speaks about general כשוף, they're included. למה יצאו? Why did the תורה take them out and write them separately also? להקיש להם ולומר להם, to compare and tell you, מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה, אף מכשפה בסקילה, to tell you just like אוב וידעוני, which is part of מכשפה,

get stoned, so they also get stoned. So here we have a מחלוקת from where we learn it. רבי שמעון בן עזאי says we learn it from סמוכים, because the תורה puts it together, and רבי יהודה learns it from the way the תורה writes, what it says in the תורה. וטעמא דמחלוקתם יש לומר, you can say their reasons like this: בן עזאי דורש סמוכים בכל התורה כולה. He says בכלל, we דרש them, if תורה puts two things together, we make a דרש. סמכו ענין, הפרשה בכללותה. But סמיכות means not in the word, סמיכות is the תורה takes a subject and puts one subject next to the other בכללות, so the תורה wants you to learn it from it. ועד כדי כך ללמוד מזה ענין סקילה. תורה, you take the ענין, the fact that the תורה took בכללות this type of person next to this type of person to teach you that they get the same מיתה. אבל רבי יהודה מתמה, רבי יהודה wonders and says, מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא זה לסקילה, because they're close, give him סקילה? כי אם ללמד הדין, he learns the דין מזה שאוב וידעוני בכלל, ולומר לך מכשפה בסקילה, he learns it because the תורה writes something extra, that תורה writes אוב וידעוני. Now, אוב וידעוני did not have to be written, because it says מכשפה, so we know every מכשפה. So the תורה writes something clearly, מקרא מפורש, it's a clear פסוק, to teach you a certain דין. So what do we see here? That רבי שמעון בן עזאי does not learn like רבי יהודה. So he doesn't care that, according to רבי יהודה, the מעלה is ופשוט learning it from a פסוק, that תורה writes something to teach us a דין, and רבי שמעון בן עזאי says, "I don't care. Near is good. That doesn't mean much. Near is I go with כללות. The תורה בכללות writes this פרשה next to this

פרשה, it's not what the תורה writes." So here we see clearly how רבי שמעון בן עזאי does not agree that we have to follow the wording of the תורה the way it says. So here we have both. So we see that רבי יהודה does not hold the fact that the דיוק, the מצוה, the חזק also strong, that's why he doesn't learn here either like that. He learns here, it comes to teach you something else, teaches you that שטופים בדם. And רבי שמעון בן עזאי does not hold of the that you have to follow the לשון of the פסוק, that's why he holds the other thing that you have to go because of the חזק of the other מצוות. והענין של תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה, we're going to go a little try to finish it. והענין של תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה is like this: בטעם אזהרת הדם פירש הכתוב כי הדם הוא הנפש. What's the reason why we can't eat blood? So the תורה says, because blood is the נפש. And what does that mean? So what's wrong if you eat a נפש? So it's נפש. וביארו המפרשים, the מפרשים say, so says the רמב"ן, and the חינוך, and the עקידה, and the דרך חיים, they all talk about it. דאף שגם בבשר הבהמה נמצאת הנפש, לכאורה shouldn't be able to eat meat, meat is also alive, the בהמה was alive, had a נפש. מכל מקום יש הפרש בין הבשר שבו נמצאת הנפש לדם שהוא הנפש עצמו. There's a difference: the meat, in the meat is a is a is life; blood, in the blood is not life, the blood itself is life. And הערה actually 42*, the רבי says that in the meat you can say, why is there life in the meat? Because there is blood in the meat. The blood is the נפש, and the meat contains the נפש, but the meat is not really the נפש, while the blood is the נפש itself. In הערה 43* he says, כל נפש משיב את הנפש, קרוב לנפש משיב את הנפש. Anyway, that so blood is called נפש. So, therefore, only blood you can't eat, and meat you could, why? Because the הנה מכל לכאורה, even if meat is not נפש itself, but still, and what's wrong with eating נפש? So he says like this: מכל דבר מאכל נעשה דם ובשר מבשרו. Whatever you eat becomes part of your flesh, becomes part of you. You are what you eat. ולכן נקבע באדם טבע המאכל שאכל. And therefore, you will get the nature of the food that you eat. That's the reason. Whatever Whatever you eat, you will get the nature, the טבע, the מדות of what you eat. וכשאדם אוכל בשר בהמה טהורה, if you eat meat, so even though it has נפש in it, but number one, אין בזה תוקף נפש וטבע הבהמה. It doesn't have the strength the the strong נפש of the בהמה, like we said before, it only נפש is in the meat, and נפש of a בהמה contains the מדות of the בהמה. The נפש is the life. So, just like by a person, the מדות of the person is his נפש, the מדות of the בהמה is is the נפש is the נפש. But the meat is not really the נפש. So meat does not really have the טבע of the בהמה in it. And also, הבשר צריך להיות נלעס ונתאכל, which means you have to chew the meat, and has to digest, and it changes, עד שנעשה דם ובשר, till it becomes part of the person, his flesh and blood, it's not the same meat. ושובר טבע means it has to change and change till it becomes food that gives you that feeds you. It goes through a whole process, so ממילא, the closeness of the טבע of the בהמה will not come into you because it's far. אבל הדם שאין צריך עיכול וכולי כבשר וכו' blood, which you drink, doesn't have to be digested like that. And it is נפש. הרי על ידי אכילתו את הדם שהוא הנפש דבהמה, by eating blood, which is the נפש of the בהמה, יתחבר נפש וטבע הבהמה בנפש האדם. So the טבע of the בהמה and the נפש of the בהמה will become into a person, will be נתחבר, connect to the person, ויתעבה כנפש הבהמה. He will become פארגראבט with it, like a נפש of the בהמה. והמובן מזה, so ממילא we can understand, שאלה השטופין בדם, those that are involved in blood, they have the מדות of the נפש הבהמית שלהם כטבע נפש הבהמה. Obviously these are people that their נפש הבהמית is

like a בהמה, has the מדות of a בהמה. He says in note 46*, and this also plays on the מדות of the נפש האלוקית. So they are basically people that still have the טבע of a בהמה. So when we talk about not eating blood to such people who are involved, meaning we're telling people, you're eating blood, you're שטוף in blood, and ממילא, you have a טבע of your מדות are בהמות. Stop eating it. That means fight your טבע of מדות of the נפש הבהמית of the בהמה. וזהו ב' הפירושים שברש"י. And those are the two פירושים. בתחילה מדובר בזה שהיו שטופים בדם. First he talks about the first פשט, that the people were שטופים בדם. ולפיכך הוצרך לומר חזק. And you had to tell him be strong, because they were שטופים. והוא הציווי, and what does that mean in רוחניות? הציווי על החיזוק בתיקון ובירור מדות הטבעיים של נפש הבהמית. What he's really saying, you have to fight strong against eating blood. Blood makes your טבע נפש הבהמית your מדות like a בהמה, and you got to fight that. So we're talking about people who are still in a מדרגה that have the מדות of the נפש

הבהמית like a בהמה, and you got to fight it. ופירוש, and how do you fight it? פירוש זה אומר רבי יהודה. It's all על פי חסידות. רבי יהודה said it. What's רבי יהודה's מדרגה? יהודה הוא מלשון הפעם אודה את ה'. How did he She called, לאה called him יהודה, so it says she called him יהודה because it came from the word הפעם, now I will thank ה'. So בבחינת הודאה, ביטול. It's not only thanking. הודאה means giving in, being מבטל to the אייבערשטער. ומצד זה, העבודה היא בביטול ובירור מדריגות הכי תחתונות. יהודה, which talks about ביטול, because when do you need that לכתחילה? How to fight the מדות of the נפש הבהמית, which is עבודה דאתכפיא, to bend it, you have to do it through ביטול. So היינו שיש לו שייכות למידות טבעיים דנפש הבהמית. We're talking about a person that has a שייכות to the מדות טבעיים of the נפש הבהמית, וצריך לבררם ולשנותם, you have to change it. That's what רבי יהודה talks about, because יהודה, that's what he represents, and he says, yeah, שטופים בדם, and you got to fight that, you got to get away from that, because חזק for that. אבל רבי שמעון בן עזאי, עבודתו היא בבחינת רצוא. שמעון בן עזאי his רצוא, עבודה was רצוא דוקא, like we said before, בכלל run to a מצוה, but besides that, we know שכל חפצו ומגמתו לעלות למעלה. He wanted to go up למעלה. He's one of the four that went into the פרדס. He went into the he went, an עליה, he had a רצוא to go in. So his מדרגה had nothing to do with נפש הבהמית. אדרבה, he was going higher and higher in the רוחניות. וכמו כן בעסק התורה שלו, נפשו חשקה בתורה. He wanted so much to learn תורה, he didn't even get married! Because נפשו חשקה, he wanted to learn. ועל כן, כל ענין של תורה ומצוות עושה באופן של ריצה והתחזקות כנ"ל. That's why he said everything he did in the מצוות, תורה ומצוות, was with a חיזוק with a because that was his whole מדרגה. So לדעתיה, according to him, which means in his level, לא בא הכתוב אלא להזהירך וללמדך עד כמה שצריך להתחזק במצוות. It doesn't come to tell you stay away from דם because you're drinking דם, you're שטוף בדם, because means you're נפש הבהמית, he he's not talking about people like he's not in that מדרגה of talking about מדות נפש הבהמית. But what is it? It comes to teach you how much you have to be מתחזק במצוות. היינו, שהכתוב לא בא על בירור ושינוי מידות הטבעיים, the פסוק over here is not telling you those that have מדות טבעיים, bad מדות naturally, the nature of the מדות is bad, and you have to change it, אלא להזהירך להתחזק במצוות, to warn you to become stronger in מצוות, in the positive way. And also להזהירך, מלשון זהר, להזהירך means to warn you, but להזהירך also comes from לשון of זוהר, which is shine. In note 52 he brings that in תניא, אגרת הקודש it says, one תנא asked the other, אבוך במאי הוי זהיר טפי? Your father, with which מצוה was he more careful? So, careful careful, every מצוה. It didn't mean that. Which מצוה shined by him? So here also, בן עזאי says we got to make the מצוה do the תורה's telling you to make the מצוה shine. היינו שעל האדם להתחזק ולהתעלות וכולי להאיר נפשו בעניני אלוקות על ידי המצוות. The תורה is not telling you to to fight your נפש הבהמית, telling you you have to go higher and higher in מצוות, you have to get shining in the מצוות. And how does he learn it out? Like this: אם בדבר שהוא קל ששמר מן הדם שאין אדם מתאוה לו הוצרך לחזקו באזהרות, if by something that it's easy to be careful and a person doesn't have a תאוה, nevertheless the תורה says you have to be מחזק באזהרות. What does it mean עפ״י חסידות? ס'הייסט, it means, אם בענין כזה שמעולם אין אדם מתאוה מצד נטית וטבע נפש הבהמית, if we're talking about something that you don't have any מצד נפש הבהמית any תאוה to it, ומובדל ממנו גם מצד טבע מדותיו, and you're staying away because that's his מדרגה, he has nothing to do with it, the מדות נשברות. So saying, that's what the תורה is telling you. Like even by דם is something you could stay away, because we're not talking about people who care about דם and they drink דם and it changes their מדות. So even by something which, that's what he says according to שיטה, we're not talking about changing your מדות, something that you don't even have to change your מדות, you have no connection to the מדות. ועכ״ז הוצרך לחזק באזהרות, nevertheless it tells you you have to be מחזק in the אזהרה, which means in the shining of it. שגם בזה על האדם להתחזק ביתר שאת באזהרות, you have to strengthen a little more by that אזהרה, בבחינת אור אלקי, you have to have more אלקי even in an easy, small thing. היינו לעלות ממעלה למעלה, גם בטבע מדותיו, even though you're higher than having a problem with your טבע המדות, you have to go even higher. The תורה says even by such things which you don't have a שייכות to, so you don't have a טבע המדות, nevertheless you have to go The תורה is you have to go higher and higher, עאכו״כ לשאר מצות, בעניני מצות כאלו שנפש האדם מתאוה להם, certainly by other things which a person has a תאוה, על אחת כמה וכמה שעל האדם להתחזק ולהתעלות ביתר שאת, בענין שלא יכשל בהם, definitely certainly you have to strengthen yourself to stay away from it, ולהאיר נפשו באור אלקי, and to shine your נפש in אור אלקי. That is the חסידישע פשט of He says that it goes on שטופים בדם, and ר׳ שמעון בן עזאי says it goes on the ones that are higher מדרגה. It fits ממש, all the פרטים fit ממש here so, so well every word of רש״י, and the whole חסידות'דיקן. Yeah. Okay. Every time we learn, we get a new, new חיות in learning. יישר כח הרב שפירא. יישר כח, thank you. יישר כח. יישר כח, thank you very much. I have a question. Yeah. When it speak about תיקון ובירור מדותיו, so the רמב״ם writes in הלכות דעות about תיקון ובירור המדות. Yeah. And in שמונה פרקים the רמב״ם writes little different of how to be מתקן המדות, and one מפרש that was writing about it says that when the רמב״ם writes about שמונה פרקים it's regarding פרקי אבות, which talks about דרכי החסידים, all this תנאים and all this, yeah. So what do you say? How come you say מפרשים said, now you ask me what I say? But the פשט it's two מדרגות. Talking to two people. It's two מדרגות. You could, there is in in פרקי אבות מילי דחסידות special for like חסידים, צדיקים, but there is also a לימוד that we have to learn for everybody. That happens many times. So ממילא, I guess in one place the רמב״ם goes according to that, in one place he goes to that. They're both true. Not only because אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים, because the טאקע itself, the רמב״ם himself could learn here like this and here like this because this is what it means and this

is what it means. Also, when they wrote Okay. Yeah. When they wrote the ספר המנהגים, I know in the beginning לייבל גראנער asked the רבי, he saw certain things מנהגים by the רבי, if he should put it in, and the רבי said that's מעשה רב, not to put it in. So not everything that a צדיק does is for everybody. Am I right about that? Yeah, that's when he does something which is not an ענין of הלכה. Uh-huh. When it's הלכה, when he does it, then it's מעשה רב. It's מעשה רב. Sometimes מנהגים and things like that, then You even have the ספר המנהגים, in some places called מנהגי אדמו״ר. Uh-huh. Why is it printed? I don't even know. Maybe it's for that reason, to tell you don't copy. Okay. Because these are extra things and קבלה things and this, but regular things in הלכה, yeah. If you see If you don't know if it's מותר or אסור, and you see the רבי do it, then you know for sure it's מותר. Unless, see, unless like we said, if there's a reason maybe he did it for some other reasons, then טאקע it's not מעשה רב, then you have to הלכה למעשה, then he has to tell you you're allowed to do it. That's what we learned, the רבי says there in the in the parentheses, that בכלל it says you don't say מעשה רב unless he tells you this is the הלכה. Right. And when do you have to wait for him to tell you? Only when he tells you it's only if it's something that when you see, maybe there's some reason, maybe you didn't see right, maybe something. But if that's not part of the problem, the best thing is when you see. Yeah. heard of many with מעשה רב, even if they brought it up or not, but here in this שיחה that the רבי explains in one line. Yeah, that's what I meant. That line. That's a So, it answers with it. Alright, יישר כח. Yeah, a good night. יישר כח, יישר כח, Rabbi. Tough, I know. Thank you, good night.