הלכות דעות פרק א

Hilchos De'os – Introduction, Mitzvos, and Chapter 1: The Middle Path

Introduction: The Place of Hilchos De'os in Sefer HaMadda

Speaker 1: We are learning Rambam. We have finished, baruch Hashem, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. We are already up to the second topic, the second set of halachos in the Rambam, in Sefer HaMadda — Hilchos De'os. De'os means character traits (middos), what we usually call middos.

---

The Connection Between Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah and Hilchos De'os

We have learned that these halachos fit together very well. We learned, we saw in the introduction that it says "Extend Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart" (mashoch chasdecha l'yodecha v'tzidkascha l'yishrei lev). We explained that there is the knowledge (da'as) of knowing, what we call theoretical knowledge — knowing the truth, knowing God and His angels and the world, etc., also how God communicates with the world, which we just finished with Hilchos Nevu'ah. But it's all matters of Yesodei HaTorah, meaning facts — I don't want to use the word facts, but things, true matters (devarim amiti'im) that one needs to know.

Besides that, the second thing — the Rambam says many times in other places that the essential perfection (shleimus) of a person consists of two things: knowing, and acting according to the proper character traits. Not necessarily according to that knowledge. I'm not sure if the action is according to de'os. It is according to de'os, but not in the manner of... No, because if de'os means [knowing] that there is a God, de'os doesn't tell us to go in the middle path. These are two things — there is action, etc.

Two Principles of the Entire Torah

The second thing — what are the true two principles of the entire Torah? Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah and Hilchos De'os are truly the principles of the entire Torah. Because very many mitzvos involve having the correct beliefs, or knowledge which we call da'as. And Hilchos De'os is about conducting oneself properly, having the right character traits, because according to the Rambam this is the reason for the mitzvos (ta'amei ha'mitzvos) — very many mitzvos were made to bring about good character traits, etc.

So that is the second group. It fits very well that this is truly the next thing — this creates uprightness of heart (yishrus lev). The Rambam says many times that "heart" (lev) alludes to all the virtues of character. So this is the second set of halachos.

Why Specifically These Mitzvos Are in Hilchos De'os

Now further, one needs to consider a bit... We are now going to see which mitzvos go into this set of halachos, but one needs to further think, similar to what we discussed regarding the mitzvos of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah.

The simple understanding is not that most mitzvos are about de'os, right? The entire Hilchos Choshen Mishpat is primarily about not taking someone else's property — that's also de'os. Rather, the explanation is that these are the mitzvos that directly address the subject of de'os.

Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah = Between Man and God; Hilchos De'os = Between Man and His Fellow

Perhaps one can say it this way: Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah are the foundations of the mitzvos between man and God (bein adam la'Makom), and Hilchos De'os are the foundations of the mitzvos between man and his fellow (bein adam la'chaveiro). That is, just as the Ten Commandments are composed half and half, the first two — which one could perhaps... I don't know, the first two which are the two major, like chapters of the Rambam's Sefer HaMadda — the first are about the foundations that make a person want to do mitzvos, because he believes there is a Creator and so on, he believes that God speaks to people through the prophet, so therefore one should obey. And here he is going to speak about the foundations of what makes a person act properly between man and his fellow.

Discussion: Is Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah Only a Means to Mitzvos, or a Mitzvah in Itself?

Speaker 2: Right, I'm not sure about the "therefore one should obey." Therefore one should know. It is itself a mitzvah. There are five mitzvos, the mitzvah to know. It is a mitzvah in its own right (mitzvah bifnei atzmah). It's not only in order to do mitzvos. It is itself a mitzvah.

Speaker 1: True, but he sees that it is also a foundation. The Rambam says it is among the foundations of the religion (mi'yesodei ha'das). True, but it is also a foundation that one needs to know how it works, and the like.

Speaker 2: And the sixth thing...

Speaker 1: After that, as you say the thing, the distinction of Hilchos De'os. It doesn't say "negative commandment" (lo sa'aseh) in Hilchos De'os. The things that are stated there are already a result of having the proper de'os. It is an action, and from that there are further detailed halachos. But here we are discussing the mitzvos that are directly about this — that one should have the proper character traits.

---

The Mitzvos of Hilchos De'os

Speaker 1: Very good. So the Rambam says as follows: "Hilchos De'os contains eleven mitzvos in total: five positive commandments and six negative commandments, and these are their details." These are the mitzvos:

1. To emulate His ways (l'hidamos bi'drachav) — to make oneself similar, meaning to act similarly to the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, to walk in the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He. How does one walk in the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He? "In what way should a person cling to them?"

2. To cling to those who know Him (l'davek b'yod'av) — one must attach oneself to those who know God, and these are the Torah scholars (talmidei chachamim) and the righteous (tzaddikim).

3. To love one's fellows (l'ehov es ha're'im) — to love upright Jews, Jews who conduct themselves according to Torah and mitzvos.

Speaker 2: "Re'im" already means friends. Love of friends. It doesn't necessarily mean re'im [in a limited sense].

Speaker 1: And besides that, there is another mitzvah regarding loving certain people:

4. To love converts (l'ehov es ha'geirim) — to love converts, Jews who have converted or Jews who have come to live among Jews. Converts are included in the category of re'im, but there is an extra mitzvah, like many cases of a general rule and a specific detail (klal u'frat). Because they need more help, more caution is needed.

5. Not to hate brothers (she'lo lisno achim) — one should not hate any brothers, any Jews. Ah, here it says "brothers" (achim). Further, it's the same thing — "brothers." Simply, the language of the verse uses "re'im" for one and "achim" for the other. There isn't truly a difference in the definition of the mitzvah.

6. To rebuke (l'hochi'ach) — to rebuke, to give reproof when one sees another Jew not going in good ways, one must immediately attend to it.

7. Not to embarrass (she'lo l'halbin panim) — not to shame a person, making his face turn white by embarrassing him.

8. Not to afflict widows and orphans (she'lo l'anos almanos vi'yesomim) — one should not torment vulnerable people, weak, broken people.

9. Not to go as a talebearer (she'lo la'haloch rachil) — one should not be a gossip, one should not carry and bring evil speech (lashon hara), tale-bearing (rechilus).

10. Not to take revenge (she'lo linkom) — one should not take revenge on a Jew, meaning to repay harm because the other person did harm.

11. Not to bear a grudge (she'lo lintor) — meaning, one should not hold in mind, remember that the other person did harm, even if one doesn't retaliate.

---

Analysis of the Structure of the Mitzvos

Mitzvah 1 — The Most General Principle of All

Speaker 1: I just want to look here for a second at the structure of the mitzvos, right? What the mitzvos are, with each mitzvah, we will see in the chapters, God willing. But what one needs to see is that now, seemingly mitzvah number one is the most general principle of all. After that there are mitzvos — I just want to understand why the Rambam placed this mitzvah specifically in Hilchos De'os.

This mitzvah is seemingly a general principle encompassing all the other mitzvos. Everything that... In a certain sense, if no other mitzvah had been stated after it, all of Hilchos De'os could already have stood on this alone.

Speaker 2: Because "emulating His ways" means good and upright ways, and all of these are not necessarily a good and upright way. Rather, as we see many times, there are specific details that are... But then, "was the Torah not given only to refine the creatures?" (lav nitnah Torah ela l'tzaref bah es ha'briyos). But approximately, we see here specific details that are also mitzvos.

Mitzvos Between Man and His Fellow — An Order of Levels?

Speaker 1: Good. After that there are mitzvos that have to do with, he says, between man and his fellow. There are mitzvos that once you are a friend you should feel this way, not steal from him, and the like. Now there is the mitzvah of having a friend. First of all, the mitzvah is to associate with good Jews, with those who know God. That is the mitzvah of whom one should associate with. This is already the most general mitzvah possible in the subject of between man and his fellow — who should be your friend, right?

After that there are the mitzvos of loving all friends, all Jews, and especially certain people regarding whom one must be extra careful.

Speaker 2: Perhaps you can say it a bit differently — these are all levels of how close you should be with the other person:

- With God you should have the greatest closeness — the greatest closeness is walking in His ways.

- With the righteous, you should not merely love them, but you should cling to them, you should want to be with them, you should want to learn from them.

- And after that there is simply loving Jews.

- And the weakest level is to rebuke someone who does wrong, and not to bother him, not to torment him, not to take revenge.

Discussion: Are These Really Levels?

Speaker 1: I don't know if these are levels, I don't know if you're right. I don't see that these are... One could perhaps say so, but "to cling to those who know Him" doesn't mean... It simply means to be his friend. It doesn't mean some special level. It doesn't mean that you will learn from him, that you will want to be there in order to learn from him. That's very nice, but "love of friends" doesn't really mean something different. I mean, perhaps... Okay, perhaps they are not less seen as a level, perhaps yes.

Sets of Mitzvos That Are Connected

Speaker 1: But I'm saying, for example, after that — "do not go as a talebearer," that is simply the prohibition of tale-bearing, that's the same thing. And after that, "you shall surely rebuke" and "do not embarrass" are also a set, as we will see. Rebuking means having complaints against your fellow and telling him, so it connects to "do not go as a talebearer." "Do not go as a talebearer" and "you shall surely rebuke," and on the other hand, "do not bear sin because of him." That's how it stands in the Torah, that's how the Rambam says it here — as one way of dealing with people, communicating with people. How the communication with the people one is going to be with should be — so it's very basic how that communication should be.

Special Warning for Vulnerable People

After that there is a prohibition against tormenting vulnerable people. Okay, this is similar to what we saw, as it says "do not oppress the stranger" (lo soneh es ha'ger) — here one needs a special warning not to torment.

That means, in other words, normal people whom one doesn't hate, one will treat them well and not embarrass them. But after that, even if one conducts oneself normally, with this vulnerable person one needs extra caution not to torment them, because that is what is needed.

General Mitzvos Between Man and His Fellow

After that there is the mitzvah regarding tale-bearing, which is certainly a very general matter — how a person speaks about another person. "Do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge" (lo sikom v'lo sitor) is further a very basic thing about not taking revenge on the other person — it is a more general matter.

That means, one can understand that all of this, as you say, is mitzvos between man and his fellow. These mitzvos are about how one relates to another Jew, to another person. These are very general mitzvos that pertain to a person as a person, not how he purchases his object — that's already a more specific matter.

---

Chapter 1: The Middle Path — Overview

Speaker 1: Okay. So those are the mitzvos. So the first chapter, Rabbi Yitzchak gave it the heading "The Middle Path." Going — the Rambam says "to emulate His ways" — how does one emulate the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He? The Rambam now proceeds to explain how one walks in the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, what the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, are.

Structure of the Chapter

So this chapter is another one of the chapters similar to all chapters of Hilchos De'os — except for the fifth and sixth chapters — which also follows the structure where he first explains to you a fact that you didn't know, more complicated things, deeper things that you wouldn't have known without this, and afterward he informs you how the mitzvah stands according to that explanation.

The Difference Between "De'os" and "Middos"

So what the Rambam does — I just want to give an overview beforehand. As I like to do — I don't know if you like it; if not, you should make a comment and say we should do the opposite — but my approach is as follows:

The Rambam explains that there are de'os. De'os, we said, means middos. Perhaps a better way of translating: middos is de'os — de'os comes before middos. De'os is the basic idea: people like certain things, dislike certain things, have various inclinations.

> Novel insight: De'os is what causes the middos. De'os is what the middos organize. De'os is the raw material (chomer) for which middos are the form (tzurah). De'os is, as he will explain, being a person of desire (ba'al ta'avah) — that is a de'ah. The proper amount of desire — that is the middah. So the middah provides the measure. Middah is literally a measure. The middah gives the measure of how much of each de'ah you should have — then you have a middah. A de'ah by itself is not a middah. A middah is an amount of a de'ah.

So consequently, the Rambam first describes the de'os — that people have various things he calls de'os. We can call them inclinations, liking things, disliking things.

Rambam Hilchos De'os – Chapter 1, Halachah 1

Overview of the Structure of the Chapter

So, what the Rambam does — I just want to give an overview beforehand, as I like to do. Whoever doesn't like it should make a comment and say we should have a different approach, but my way is as follows.

The Rambam explains that there are de'os. De'os, we said, means middos. Perhaps a better way of translating: middos is de'os — de'os comes before middos. De'os is the basic idea — people like certain things and dislike certain things, and have various inclinations, various... De'os is what causes the middos. De'os is what the middos organize. De'os is the raw material (chomer) for which middos are the form (tzurah). De'os is, as he will explain, being a person of desire — that is a de'ah. Having the proper amount of desire — that is the middah. So the middah provides the measure; middah is literally a measure. The middah gives the measure of how much of each de'ah you should have — then it is a middah. A de'ah by itself is not a middah; a middah is an amount of a de'ah.

So consequently, the Rambam:

- First describes the de'os — that people have various things he calls de'os; we can call them inclinations, liking things, disliking things, and so on.

- After that he explains how one acquires the de'os. And he explains that within the de'os there are extreme traits, extreme ways of being, and the proper ways of being. That is step two.

- Step three is he explains that the third way — that is the good way — and he goes through the Talmudic sources for how one can achieve the third, the middle path (derech ha'memutza), according to each of the de'os, according to each one of the subjects that is of the type of de'os he mentioned at the beginning — he gives an example of how one can conduct oneself in the middle path. And after that he gives details about it.

- After that he derives that the middle path — that is the mitzvah of "and you shall walk in His ways" (v'halachta bi'drachav) — to walk in the middle path, that is the mitzvah.

That is more or less the structure of the chapter, aside from all the details within it. Correct? So now we can begin to read.

---

Halachah 1: **"Every person has many de'os"**

The Rambam says: "Every single person has many de'os." There are various types of de'os, or qualities of the soul, regarding how people view things, or how people conduct themselves. Every single person has many de'os — every person has various traits, many de'os.

Let us try to use the Rambam's own terminology, because this will confuse us when we are translating. If one wants to translate, one should perhaps use a word in Yiddish or English, but when one says "middos" for de'os and the like, we will get confused.

Every Person Has Many De'os

So, one sees that a person has many de'os. It doesn't mean that every person has one of them — every person has many. He has many different emotions, you could say. De'os is emotions. Many emotions.

**"And one is different from another and very distant from it"**

He also has many things that are different from one another. The meaning is like internal contradictions, or different from each other. It could also be that he means to say that different people are very far apart.

Novel Insight: The Difference Between Humans and Animals

This is an interesting thing about humans, and the Rambam explains it in another place. But among animals or beasts or natural things, they are not so different from one another. You look at two cows — usually they all have the same de'os, the same emotions. A cow has cow-like emotions. Humans — you can see one person who is entirely different from another person — not in his body, but in his de'os.

Novel Insight: A De'ah Means a Type of Person, Not a Momentary Action

This is the... he proceeds to list many types of such dispositions that can exist. And this is very important – these are all types of people. That is, to have a disposition or a character trait of a disposition means to be a type of person. This is different from getting agitated. Getting agitated can happen to someone who is not an agitated person – he can get agitated. But to have the trait means that you are that type of person. You see that person? He's an agitated person. The other one is not an agitated person – he is settled. If we didn't know that both are of the same species and essence, we would have thought that there are different kinds of creatures – there are agitated ones and there are non-agitated ones. Because they conduct themselves completely differently.

---

Examples of Different Dispositions

(1) Anger

So he proceeds: "Yesh adam shehu ba'al cheimah" – he has a temper, he has rage. Cheimah is an expression of heat. Anger, anger, anger. Temper, temper. He has irritability. He's a master of... there's a master of mitzvos, a master of sins, and there's a master of rage, an angry person. A ba'al cheimah is very similar to cheimah – it means to say that he has a certain heat that brings him to be ko'es tamid – perpetually angry.

"V'yesh adam sheda'ato meyusheves alav" – his mind is settled, is calm – "v'eino ko'es klal", and he doesn't get angry at all. "V'im yich'as" – if he does get agitated once – "yich'os ka'as me'at b'kamah shanim" – he will have both a weak anger in quality, and also little anger in quantity. Even when he does get agitated, he gets agitated only a little.

And these are two types of people, you see?

Insight: "Biyoser" (Exceedingly) in the Extreme Examples

The wise person will notice that the term "biyoser" (exceedingly) keeps appearing right away. We would understand why – because the ba'al cheimah is perpetually angry, not that he gets agitated once; he always gets agitated.

(2) Pride

"V'yesh adam shehu govah lev biyoser" – there is someone who is tremendously haughty, he considers himself very exalted. "V'yesh shehu shfal ruach ad me'od" – there is someone who is the opposite.

Govah lev means that he conducts himself with great self-exaltation, he always speaks down to people, he doesn't treat anyone as an equal. Shfal ruach – he lets himself be trampled, he walks around in an extremely downtrodden manner.

Both are expressions... govah lev can be interpreted as a high heart. Shfal ruach, a low spirit. It's not ruach, it's not lev, it's something else. But they are both expressions of pride (gaavah) – one is a greater ba'al gaavah and one is a lesser ba'al gaavah.

(3) Desire

And the same applies regarding desire (taavah). People are very different regarding anger, people are very different regarding pride, and people are very different regarding desire.

"Yesh ba'al taavah shelo tisba nafsho mehaloch b'taavaso" – his soul will never be satiated from pursuing his desires. He always has more desires that he wants to fulfill, and he is not satiated; he has a great craving for more and more desires.

"V'yesh tahor guf biyoser" – a person has a pure body – "shelo yis'aveh afilu lidvarim me'atim shehaguf tzarich lahem" – he doesn't even have desires for simple things that the body needs. Even what the body needs, he will only do minimally, in a certain way. He has no appetite, he doesn't chase after so many desires.

(4) Broad Soul – Desire for Money (Making Money)

The same thing – there is another type of trait: "V'yesh ba'al nefesh rechavah" – a person is a very broad person, he is a spender on himself. He's not talking about a spender, or a big consumer. He needs very much for himself, he needs a lot of money, and he needs a lot of...

Yes, this is not talking about spending; this is talking about making money. Nefesh rechavah relates afterward to stinginess regarding spending money. Very good. So there is a trait whose subject is making money. He needs a lot of money for himself, he needs to have a lot of money, he wants to need it. He doesn't become satiated until he has all the money in the world, until he becomes rich like Korach.

"Shelo tisba nafsho" – this is not about desires; this is just a person who doesn't have a desire for money, he needs desires. Here the person – his soul becomes satiated from desires, his soul becomes satiated from money. Yes, both exist. "Lo sisba nafsho mikol mamon ha'olam" – his soul will not become satiated from all the money in the world. "K'inyan shene'emar: ohev kesef lo yisba kasef" – we are speaking of a certain type of person who loves money, and he never becomes satiated from money.

"V'yesh mi shehu mekatzar" – a person who has smaller needs – "shedayo afilu davar mu'at shelo yaspik lo" – he is smaller. What we noticed: all these second ones are the extreme descriptions. Even however little he wants, what he actually needs, he doesn't consider so important. "V'lo yirdof l'hasig kol tzorko" – he doesn't even chase to obtain everything he needs.

So this is regarding making money, regarding the desire for wealth, yes. Not desires of bodily pleasures – that was the previous one. Desire for money, desire for material things that he must go earn in order to live.

(5) Stinginess – Spending on Oneself

And now we speak about the trait of stinginess (kamtzanus), how much one spends:

"V'yesh mi shemesagef atzmo b'ra'av v'kovetz al yado" – he is a very great miser, so that he afflicts himself with hunger, and whatever little money he has, he gathers it together in his hand, and he doesn't spend it. "V'eino ochel perutah mishelo ela b'tza'ar gadol" – he doesn't eat, he doesn't enjoy using his own money; rather it causes him great pain when he has to spend his own money.

"V'yesh mi sheme'abed kol mamono b'yado l'da'ato" – the opposite, he spends away all his money.

---

Discussion: Can a Person Have Internal Contradictions in Their Traits?

A person can have all kinds of... This is seemingly how a person can have strong contradictions. A person who regarding pride is very refined, and he needs very little, but regarding desire he has a very great desire. That's a contradiction. That's all...

Speaker 2: No, what I can say is, just as a person could be with everything in one... you could always place him in one column, that he doesn't really like honor, he doesn't like to indulge... maybe there is such a person, there is such a person, and there are people with many contradictions.

Speaker 1: No, I'm saying, there are all types – that's what you said. There's no contradiction to the Mishneh Torah's statement "v'zo meshunah mizo u'rechokah mimenah biyoser" (and this one is different from that one and very far from it).

Speaker 2: Yes, but I think the Mishneh Torah's "v'zo meshunah mizo" meant people, not within one person. He means to say that people – that the discrepancy the whole time is – there are people who are very far from other people. The differences between people are very great.

Speaker 1: Okay, okay. But that is... yes, it's not that the traits as the Rambam divides them are according to what they are about. It's not... it could be sometimes a person who is content with little, and he is content with little in all ways. True, there can be such a person. But when the Rambam divides traits, there is a separate trait for making money, a separate trait for spending money, because that is a different subject – it's talking about something else. It's a separate thing. Each one of them – a person can have all kinds of combinations, as you say. Perhaps that's not the norm, but the trait divides itself this way.

---

Halachah 1 (Continued): More Dispositions

(6) Joy and Sadness – Meholal and Onen

So there are the four traits, and there are more... ah, five. And we have here: "V'al derachim elu she'ar kol hade'os" – pride.

There is a person who is meholal, which is a... it's loose, like from the language of holelus (frivolity). He is always excited, he is always happy.

And then there is a person who is onen – he is a very downcast person. He is too depressed.

Speaker 2: Yes. Onen – is that like a batlan (idle person)?

Speaker 1: Yes. Onen is like aninus (mourning). Yes, yes.

(7) Kilai – Not Giving to Others

Then there is a person who is a kilai, who is very stingy. Kilai is stingy, but this is different from kamtzanus (miserliness). Kamtzanus we discussed regarding someone who doesn't spend on himself, he doesn't buy for himself. Kilai means he doesn't give anything to others.

There are two types of stinginess; they are not the same. There is a person who spends only on himself and not for others, and there is one who doesn't spend for others and not for himself. They are not the same.

And a person who spends for other people.

Rambam, Hilchos De'os – Chapter 1 (Continued) and Chapter 1, Halachah 2

Further Examples of Extremes

And then there is a person who is onen, he is a downcast person, he is depressed. Onen is like mourning (aveilus).

We have a person who is a kilai, who is very stingy. Kilai is stingy, but this is different from kamtzanus. Kamtzanus we discussed regarding – one spends on himself, he doesn't buy for himself. Kilai means he doesn't give anything to others. There are two types of stinginess; they are not the same. There is a person who spends only on himself and not for others, and only for others and not for himself – they are not the same.

V'shua – and a person who spends for other people with generosity. V'achzari – a person who is cruel exists. V'rachman – one who has mercy on other people. And we have rach levav – a person who is a coward, he is afraid and he won't take any risk. V'amitz lev – we have a person who is great, he has much courage, he takes many risks. V'chol kayotzei bahen (and all similar to these).

---

Very good. So here we have described opposites, as one says, extremes – all kinds of extremes, one against the other. Extreme in anger, extreme in pride. We give nine examples of different people, where one is this way and one is that way. Four of them we discussed at length, four more briefly. And these are the examples.

---

Middle Dispositions – Between the Extremes

Now: "V'yesh bein kol de'ah v'de'ah harechokah mimenah b'katzeh ha'acher de'os beinoniyos zo rechokah mizo." Not all people are extreme, being very stingy or very generous. There are also all kinds of levels in between the two extremes. De'os beinoniyos zo rechokah mizo – there are also, in every trait, middle dispositions that are distant from one another. Zo rechokah mizo means that they are far from one another.

Discussion: What Does "Zo Rechokah Mizo" Mean?

I think that perhaps he means to say that when not – de'os beinoniyos means that there are many levels in between. Perhaps he means to say – and later when he discusses it he certainly means this, I don't know if here he already means this – that there is the extreme of kilai and the extreme of shua, and in between there is a middle disposition that is equally far from both sides. Zo rechokah mizo – it is equally far from both sides. That's what he will say later for certain.

Or – there are dispositions, each and every one of the groups of dispositions, all of the tendencies of dispositions, have among them intermediate dispositions.

So I think that is the meaning. Or does zo rechokah mizo mean that there are opposite middle traits? That doesn't make sense though. Just as it says earlier "zo meshunah mizo u'rechokah mimenah biyoser" – what does he mean there? That there are people who are drawn, but from what are two people different with their middle traits?

He is speaking from the Lechem Mishneh, but it's very hard to say that this is the simple reading here. He says that the middle trait is rechokah from each other. There are certain traits where the middle trait is close to one extreme – for example, things where the Rambam says one must distance oneself to the extreme – and there are cases where the middle trait is exactly in the center. But it's hard to say, because the Rambam has not yet begun discussing the middle traits. Something is unclear; the Rambam is not clear on how to interpret this zo rechokah mizo regarding the middle dispositions.

---

Sources of Human Dispositions – Nature vs. Nurture

Okay, the Rambam says, where does it actually come from that people should be so different? It's one strange thing – all people are composed of the same matter and form, the same fire, water, wind, and earth. Where does it come from? Essentially one learns that not all people are composed of the same four elements – part of it comes from that.

This is what I wanted to make a comment about:

Category 1: Bodily Nature – From Birth

"Yesh mehen de'os shehen la'adam mitchilat bri'aso lefi teva gufo." There are people whose nature is such that they are inclined toward a certain – he is a ba'al cheimah (hot-tempered person). The Rambam does not say what others say, for example that one has more of a certain element, that one has more of the element of fire and therefore he is hot-tempered. He doesn't go into that. Lefi teva gufo – according to his bodily nature.

Does the Rambam say somewhere such a thing, that if one has more of the element of fire one will be more hot-tempered? Yes, it's not more detailed than that, but yes, there are places where he discusses this. But seemingly that's not – he's talking about the puzzle of the four. The puzzle can come out in all kinds of ways. Yes, it can be more complicated than that. But lefi teva gufo includes – there can be other things; I don't know exactly how the body of a person works; there are many complications.

What the Rambam says here is what is called nature or nurture.

Category 2: Muchan – A Potential

"V'yesh mehen de'os shetiv'o shel adam zeh muchan v'asid lekabel osam b'meheirah yoser mishe'ar hade'os." Not that the person is by nature already a ba'al cheimah, but the person has the potential to be a ba'al cheimah. That means, it's easier, in other words.

For example, with a wise person it's easier to see, or with a person of good character. There is a person – let's say it this way – there is a person that when you go see the third way that he learns, he learns it from others, the various ways one can learn from others. So one sees that sometimes two people who are exposed to the same exposure – he was around the same righteous Jews or wicked Jews, wicked gentiles – and he learned from it and the other one didn't learn. Part of it is his free choice. It could also be that his body, his nature, he is more inclined to learn; his body is the type of body that is more influenced by such an environment than the other person. He wouldn't have – without the environment – but he has such a nature that he will be more influenced.

Summary of the Three Categories

There are people whose nature is so strong that either way, regardless of what happens to them later, they will already have a certain trait. There are those whose body is sufficiently inclined toward a certain way, so that if they are exposed to certain circumstances, they will end up with a certain trait.

Category 3: No Nature – Everything from Environment

And there is – "V'yesh mehem she'ein lo de'ah mitchilat bri'aso", he doesn't have any particular bodily nature, "ela lamad de'osav me'acherim" – he developed dispositions according to what he learned from other people, through other means.

Or – lamad seemingly doesn't mean that someone explained it to him. Lamad means through the way of learning; he means conduct – he became accustomed. He saw, he was influenced, and "by us everyone does it this way" – so he imitated. Not intentionally, but learning in the sense of habit.

"O shenifnah lahen me'atzmo lefi machshavah she'alsah b'libo" – or he heard some idea, or he read something, a certain thought came up in his mind, and he decided to conduct himself a certain way. Machshavah she'alsah b'libo – a certain way occurred to him on his own.

"O sheshama shezo de'ah tovah lo... v'hinhig atzmo bah ad shenikbe'ah."

Meaning: people whose disposition is not because of their bodily nature, but because they acquired it in one of three ways:

- Either they acquired it because they imitated all other people,

- Or because a certain thought occurred to them and they began acting on it,

- Or they heard from people that this is the way one should exert oneself, and they exerted themselves to follow that way.

And he conducted himself – as he will perhaps say shortly in more detail – he established the practice, he performed the actions that relate to the trait, until he acquired the trait, until he acquired the disposition.

---

Transition: From Description to Law

So up to here are general principles – principles of how things work. That there are various dispositions, there are middle dispositions, extreme dispositions, there are different ways of acquiring dispositions. Nothing has yet been said about halachos – what is good and what is bad. We have only stated what exists.

Now we're going to be revealed, now we're going to find out what is good.

Until now it was about what such a person is by default, or how such a person is. Now we're going to say what such a person should be.

---

Halacha 2 (Beginning): Two Extremes Are Not the Good Path

He says: "Shtei ketzavot harechokot zo mizo shebechol de'ah vede'ah einan derech tovah" — The two extremes that are far from each other in every character trait are not the good path. The Rambam at the beginning enumerated that there is someone who is a very great hot-tempered person, and someone who is very low-tempered — he never gets angry. Someone who has very great desire, and someone who truly — he doesn't want to give in to his desire at all. He says, all of these are distant extremes, and these distant extremes, these extremes, are not the good path — it is not the good path.

"Ve'ein ra'ui lo la'adam laleches bahen" — it is not fitting for a person to go in the extreme path. "Velo lelamdan le'atzmo" — it is not good for a person to teach himself and accustom himself to do this.

That means, if he is already caught in one of these character traits, he shouldn't continue further... If he is already at the middle measure — behold how good and how pleasant, he is a blessed person, that his nature was in the middle, or he trained himself to be in the middle.

What Does One Do If One Is Already at an Extreme?

"Aval im matza shetivu noteh le'achat meihen" — if his nature inclines toward one extreme, if "noteh" means like the first thing he said, that from the beginning of his creation according to the nature of his body.

Or he sees that — "noteh" simply means to be at the edge, he is entirely at one edge.

"O mukhan le'achat meihen" — his nature is truly more inclined toward a certain path. He is more ready, "mukhan" means ready. This is the second thing he says — "tiv'o mukhan" — meaning he sees that when he goes in that direction, he is immediately influenced.

Or the third way: "O shekvar lamad achat meihen venahag bah" — or that he has already learned one of the extremes, he has already gone in one of the paths toward one extreme.

"Yachazir atzmo lamutav" — he should return himself, he should move himself toward the middle path. "Veyelech bederech hatovim" — he should go in the path of the good. What is this path of the good? The way that good people conduct themselves. What is the path? "Vehi haderech hayesharah" — and it is the straight path.

---

Novel Insight: Teshuva (Repentance) Is "Built-In" to Hilchos De'os

So it is very interesting that here there is already a bit of teshuva built in. One could ask a question: Why doesn't the Rambam say "There is the right good path, and one needs to change, if one finds oneself on the wrong path one should change"? That's what it says later in the Laws of Repentance, that's straightforward. What does a person do who finds himself inclined toward extremes? He should stop.

What's very funny — seemingly one could ask a question. If a character trait is not a commandment — okay, so if a person has a bad character trait, it's a commandment to have a good character trait. If you didn't do the transgression, are you guilty, are you not guilty? One can discuss what the distinction is. You should do it.

But it appears that the Rambam understands that this is the reason why there is a commandment, why one needs to talk about having the right de'os — it is precisely because there are all these various ways that people already have character traits. By default, usually — he says it's possible that a person has exactly the middle path, but it doesn't seem to me that such a thing almost exists. Almost — a little you have more and less, a little you need to have your teshuva services.

So Hilchos De'os has teshuva built in from the outset. There is no way to talk about acquiring the right de'os without talking about "you already have some mistakes" — and otherwise one wouldn't need to discuss it.

Hilchos De'os Is Built on Da'as (Knowledge/Awareness)

The truth is, many people would say that Hilchos De'os is not the right de'ah — it's not Hilchos De'os. Hilchos De'os is built extensively on da'as — that with this as a foundation, you address all the various ways that people have bad character traits, and consequently one needs to learn and accustom oneself.

Rambam Hilchos De'os – Chapter 1, Halacha 4 (Continued) and Halacha 5 (Beginning): The Straight Path and Examples of the Middle Way

---

Why Does Hilchos De'os Exist?

You've already touched on this a bit, and otherwise one wouldn't need to discuss it. If most people, or even a third, but many people would have already had from the beginning of creation the right da'as, there would be no Hilchos De'os. Hilchos De'os is built extensively on the fact that generally all these various ways that people have bad character traits exist, and consequently one needs to learn and accustom oneself, to do teshuva.

---

Discussion: Why Is It So Hard to Land on the Right One?

Speaker 2: One could suggest, it has to do with the fact that the Rambam said there are so many, so many, so many distinctions, and it's very hard that you happened to land on the good one. There are a hundred ways to be, and you happened to land on number fifty. That's perhaps the point, right? If there were three, but as you said, a third of all people are on the middle path. It's hard. But there are ways to be sick.

Speaker 1: I don't know what the statistics are. The fact is, I know, the fact is that most people are not. In other words, the fact is that in order to have a good character trait one needs to learn, one needs to have attentiveness, one needs — as he will later bring the Gemara, just examples — one needs attentiveness, one needs da'as in order to acquire the good character trait. It's almost never true, perhaps here and there, an exception, one in ten million, that there isn't something where there's an easy way to do otherwise.

---

Halacha 4 (Continued): What Is the Straight Path — The Middle Measure

Now we will continue. So what is the middle path? What is the middle measure (middah beinonis)? What is the straight path (derech hayesharah)? He hasn't yet said what the straight path is, he has only said what is not the straight path.

He says: "Haderech hayesharah hi middah beinonis shebechol de'ah vede'ah mikol hade'os sheyesh la'adam" — the middle path in each of the de'os, in each of the character traits, the middle of it. "Vehi hade'ah shehi rechokah mishnei haketzavos richuk shaveh, ve'einah kerovah lo lezo velo lezo" — the good one is the one that is exactly as far from the extreme, for example from too much desire, as from the extreme of too little desire.

---

Novel Insight: "Equal Distance" Means Conceptually, Not Quantitatively

One must make an important note here that "equal distance" does not mean quantitatively, right? The meaning is not that there are ten — eating ten donuts is too much desire, and not even one donut is too little, so therefore one must eat five donuts. That's not the point.

"Equal distance" means conceptually, in the idea. The point he wants to bring out is that the middle is exactly — it's very important to understand — it's just as much not too much as it is not too little. That's the point. It's not that one should just go as far as one can and one shouldn't — one should just as much not remain stuck at one extreme as at the other extreme, but both should move away from the side extremes toward what is truly good.

---

Novel Insight: "Truly Good" Is Not Defined by Moving Away from Extremes Alone

What is truly good one must then determine according to what the Torah says is good, or according to what the Sages say is good. So the truly good is "not defined by being far." It's not enough to distance oneself from the extremes to become good. One also needs to know what is good, and conversely, after one understands that it is exactly as far from both extremes.

The Problem of Relativism — The Donut Analogy

Because someone who lives in a house where everyone eats ten donuts will think that eating five is normal. And someone in whose house the extreme is five will think that only two is normal. "It doesn't help."

---

"Therefore the Early Sages Commanded" — Constant Self-Assessment

He says, he brings up from a Gemara, the early Sages. "Lefichach tzivu chachamim harishonim" — the early Sages, earlier we said that chachamim harishonim means the Sages of the Mishnah, and therefore the Sages of the Gemara. "Tzivu chachamim harishonim" — the Sages of blessed memory said. Chachamim harishonim means the Amoraim, the Sages.

"Sham" — From the Language of Shuma, Assessment

Yes, I mean that it says there in the words of the Sages: "Sheyeha adam sham" — a person should always assess, from the language of shuma, an assessor. I don't remember in which source it appears.

"Sham ma'asav" — I mean that this is the language. Meaning "sheyeha adam sham de'osav tamid" — he should always make an assessment, he should always evaluate.

In the verse it says "sam" with a shin. The Gemara says one should read "sam." Sorry, the opposite — in the verse it's written with a samech. I'm "so confused." "Vesam derech ar'enu beyesha Elokim." I once got confused about this. There is a verse, "vesam" with a samech means to place, and with a shin means to assess. That is the language of shuma. Shuma is with a shin, yes? I have no idea. So shin, it should be with a shin?

"Sham de'osav tamid umeshaer osam umechaven osam baderech ha'emtza'is kedei sheyeha shalem."

Speaker 2: "To stand," from the language of standing, yes, sham.

Speaker 1: Yes, like shuma. So that is a drasha (homiletical interpretation).

---

Novel Insight: One Must Constantly Measure Oneself — Not Just Habit

But what he wants to bring out is that one must constantly measure oneself, assess — that is the language of middah, yes, a measure — assess oneself that one's character traits should be on the right path, in order to be complete (shalem).

What does this mean? In other words, the way you are by default, the way you are by nature or how you've become accustomed, is not enough. It's not enough to say "I am good." You must seriously contemplate according to the truth, and only the path that you develop according to the truth — that is the right path.

---

Novel Insight: "In Order to Be Complete" — The Middle Path Is Defined by Completeness (Shleimus)

It is also that the middle path is defined by what makes a person complete (shalem). It's not enough to measure how far one is from the ten donuts. One must see "in order to be complete" — see what is the path of completeness regarding, for example, desire, regarding anger, regarding all these things. And that constitutes your de'os, which will then indeed fit the middle path, the right way.

---

Novel Insight: Is a Person Who Is "By Default" in the Middle — Is That Enough?

I once thought that when a person who happens to be already on the right path — but it will only be called the right path if he has contemplated and decided that this is the path. And then, even if he stays there, it is good, because it is good through contemplation, not because he happens to be accustomed that way.

Speaker 2: What happens with a person who is complacent (yoshev al shemarav) and he decides that exactly how much he eats is the good path?

Speaker 1: Now it is good, because you are doing it after thought, after contemplation, after knowing that it is true.

---

Novel Insight: The Distinction Between a "Middah" and an "Inclination/Nature"

Speaker 2: It's not so much a question of before and after, as a question that the middle measure is to do what the da'as (knowledge/reason) says. The da'as says this, not just randomly.

Speaker 1: In other words, if let's say there is a person whose habit is just accustomed, or just without intellect, but just accustomed that his nature is to eat a certain amount — that is not yet the middah of eating, but rather the inclination, the nature of eating. A middah is a human thing, a middah is something that he knows — not that he didn't need to build himself in this, it's just a nature.

The Practical Difference — When Things Change

And afterward, the practical difference will be that that person, when there will suddenly be something where he won't know exactly what to do, he will immediately become lost. If things change a little — for example, let's say he eats three donuts every day, and then the bakery changed and the donuts became bigger — he won't catch on, because he's accustomed to eating three donuts. Someone who has intellect knows that it's built on how much is healthy. So, or he gets older and needs to eat a little less, and so on. All things — it's not possible to truly do it without intellect.

---

Halacha 5: How — Examples of the Middle Path

Overview of the Rambam's Approach Here

So, and the Rambam is going to give you an example. Yes, the Rambam goes back to his list of five, six — I don't remember how many — here there are five, he does it this way earlier. He goes through five, not the same five, he goes through five blessings, and he makes a brief summary for the others. He is going to show you how one can find the middle path.

You will see here clearly that a portion of the middle path has a definition of its own — the meaning is not just not this way and not that way, but in the middle. The middle has some meaning of its own.

---

The Rambam's Interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi's Words

I want to mention a small thing — this is the Rambam reading into the words of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi. The Rambam learned, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi says that one who weighs his ways and guards his ways merits the salvation of God. The Rambam said that the salvation of God is completeness (shleimus) — "kedei sheyushlam," he means he should merit the salvation of God, which is completeness.

It's not that the salvation of God is some reward that will happen to him, but this itself — he will merit the salvation of being a complete person (adam hashalem). And certainly a complete person has salvations, that will come to be. "Yesha Elokim" — what is the completeness of God, that the Almighty made a person in the image of God (betzelem Elokim), and we have learned, it is a complete person. That is certainly the salvation of God, one hundred percent.

The Physical Body Versus the Soul

Yes, but one cannot understand, because simply also, because the person is the way he is because of his physical matter (chomer), but if he uses his intellect, his da'as, the meaning is that he elevates himself to a higher level — he is closer to his soul (neshamah), to his more inner essence. That is the salvation of God.

---

Example 1: Anger — The Middle Path

Very good. The Rambam says: "Keitzad?" — How? What is the middle path? "Lo yehei ba'al cheimah noach lich'os" — he should not be a person who becomes angry quickly — "velo kemeis she'eino margish" — but he should also not be like someone who has no anger at all, no feeling, like a dead person, who feels nothing.

You see that here he brings out the problem. In other words, the opposite of the trait of anger is not to be a dead person, a person who feels nothing at all (eino margish klum), he is without being affected and he doesn't get hurt. It doesn't say that one must be a doormat, yes? One doesn't need to be one of those above who says "I am a piece of wood." A piece of wood is unaffected, but a person is a living soul (nefesh). One must feel.

"Ela beinoni" — one must be at the middle measure, in the middle. What does this mean? "Lo yich'os ela al davar gadol shera'ui lich'os alav" — one should only get angry about something that is worthy of getting angry about — "kedei shelo ya'aseh kayotzei bo pa'am acheres" — why should he get angry? So that the offense should not be repeated next time. The Almighty made anger for a reason — to stop abusers.

---

Anger Has a Legitimate Function

Yes, I saw someone said a good thing, that anger is useful. For example, a person works in an office and doesn't have the courage to stand up for himself. The Almighty made the trait of anger so that sometimes he should lose himself and finally stand up for what he deserves. Here anger comes in as a good thing.

---

Discussion: Controlled Anger — Becoming Angry vs. Making Oneself Become Angry

Very good. We will soon see that the Rambam wants to complicate it, but yes, here he gives the details of the middle path.

Speaker 2: Also, the fact that he loses himself can already be a problem, because sometimes a person can decide that now it is right to be angry.

Speaker 1: The other way of saying it is that it is right to be angry. The middle path is not that one should get angry every three days or every three months, even about something that is worthy.

Why are there things that are worthy of getting angry about? I'll tell you what is a great matter worthy of anger. True, but I want to tell you the "in order to." Why is it worthy? Why is it sometimes worthy to get angry? Because people understand that then one should not do it again. With pleasantness a person doesn't always get it. If all people were more rational, perhaps one wouldn't need to get angry.

Speaker 2: No, here one sees that one couldn't have thought that the point is that he should control his anger.

Speaker 1: No, it's not. The anger may control him, but only when it is very important. Then he should become angry, not then he should make himself become angry.

Speaker 2: I don't understand, I didn't mean that it's a contradiction. He does have control over something.

Speaker 1: The anger has a tone of speaking, meaning he has a certain loss of himself, he has entered into a certain state. He can be in control of his being.

Speaker 2: Yes, but then he does have control.

Speaker 1: "Davar gadol she'raui" — "raui" (fitting) is the wisdom of da'at (knowledge/awareness).

---

Parable: Using Deliberation to Create an Emergency Response

I used to tell the story about a certain person who once girded himself with yishuv hada'at (settled mindedness). He asked: "What once happened?" I know that sometimes there's a situation where one needs to be in a panic. So he said: "This is what I'm lacking. I'll sit down and think, and with deliberate mindedness decide that I need to create a panic."

So you have a thrust there. No, the thrust comes with the anger, but it's controlled in the sense that... you see clearly, what does it mean to have a bad trait with sarcasm? He gets upset about random things — it doesn't even make sense.

Rambam, Hilchot De'ot – Chapter 1, Halacha 4 (continued) and Halacha 5

Anger – Controlled Anger versus Uncontrolled Anger

"Raui" (fitting) is indeed a concept of da'at. I didn't want to tell the story about the simpletons and the pious ones, because I said that one must always go with yishuv hada'at. You asked what about a war? I know, sometimes there's a situation where one needs to be in a panic. So here the Rambam says, one should sit down and think, and with deliberate mindedness do what needs to be done in a panic. Here you have a statement.

The same thing applies to anger. It's controlled in the sense that — you see clearly, what is the meaning of a bad trait being an angry person? He gets upset about random things, it doesn't even make sense. Ah, but the trait of the great ones — they don't get upset about random things, only when it's called for. "When it's called for" makes sense, because the person who gets angry isn't necessarily angry about what happened to him; he gets angry because he's an angry person. As opposed to the one who gets angry because certain things cause anger. Okay, yes, a way of saying it.

So there is logic in this. Even if we say that anger for a great person involves losing oneself a bit, it's not uncontrolled. It is controlled, and this is the "way of the mitzvah" that controls it.

---

Desire – **"Lo yit'aveh ela l'dvarim she'haguf tzarich lahem"**

Very good. He continues with the next example: "V'chen, lo yit'aveh ela l'dvarim she'haguf tzarich lahem v'i efshar lichyot b'zultan" — He should only have desires for things that the body needs and that one cannot live without. That means, what the body needs, he should do with simple enjoyment. He quotes a verse: "Tzaddik ochel l'sova nafsho" — A righteous person eats what his body needs to become satisfied.

Insight: "Sova Nafsho" – Satisfaction, Not Merely Physical Satiation

No, that's not the meaning. The meaning is, in other words, one could imagine that a righteous person who is "always a person of desire" never feels happy with his eating — meaning with the measure of satiation — but he eats little because he says he wants to afflict himself, right? He says, he should eat as much as one needs. The Rambam says that sometimes one needs ice cream too. He doesn't say here that one should eat only bread and water. The body can also mean the emotional and so forth.

But what he's saying is, he should then be satisfied. Be satisfied. He is satisfied with the right amount. So the satisfaction is important, because otherwise he's a broken person.

Discussion: What Does "Ta'avah" Mean According to the Rambam?

I can't tell him, though, that "lo't aveh" means desire is not something beyond the eating. The eating itself is the desire. That means, well, it shouldn't — how does one know that he eats good food? Because he takes out the food and eats it. But I'm saying that, but it doesn't simply mean that he is — we think of ta'avah as meaning he thinks, "When am I going to eat? It's going to be good food." One doesn't need to have that desire. The enthusiasm is perhaps too much, but when he eats, he eats with an appetite.

I do agree that he eats with an appetite, because first of all, it's healthy to eat with an appetite. Someone who eats without an appetite, it's a sickness. And also because I think that's what "sova nefesh" brings out. He's happy.

Insight: Birkat Hamazon and Satiation as a Psychological Matter

When the righteous person — I say, if there's a righteous person who, as people sometimes say, has no taste in eating, he may not recite birkat hamazon (grace after meals), because he never has satiation. Satiation is a psychological thing. I mean, it's indeed a good — satiation doesn't mean stomach. When someone eats with an "ugh," he doesn't make birkat hamazon. I mean, I haven't asked the poskim (halachic authorities), but there's no satiation in that.

Yes, satiation means I'm happy. It's a bit emotional. It's emotional. I have enjoyment. Here, I have enjoyment.

The Difference Between a Tzaddik and a Rasha in Desire

On the contrary, a wicked person, a wicked person, I know, someone who is too great a person of desire, he has enjoyment, he only has enjoyment when he devours the entire cholent. A refined person, he has enjoyment from the small bit that he ate, and he's happy.

Insight: "Vayit'avu Ta'avah" – A Desire to Have Desire

Or I'll say it perhaps a drop differently. There is the expression "vayit'avu ta'avah" — they had a desire to have a desire. The righteous person, what his body demands of him, that alone is already desire. When a person feels hunger, there aren't two separate things — there's hunger and there's desire. That is the meaning of desire: he has a will to eat. That is the meaning of desire.

But there's a person who has a greater one — he remembers how good the food was, and "when will I become hungry again so I can eat again?" That is desire.

The righteous person has one desire: when he's hungry, he goes and satisfies the will to eat. That is the minimum of desire.

One Should Not Read These Things as Extreme

I mention this incidentally — sometimes people read these things as extreme, as not having any desires at all. But on the contrary, the extreme would be not having any desires even when eating, or eating even less than what's needed, overcoming himself. He eats as much as one needs. It could even be that not having desire means a person must eat very much, so he should never feel hungry. Before he feels hungry, he should have already eaten, and so on.

---

Making Money – **"Lo yihyeh amel b'esko ela l'hasig davar she'tzarich lo l'chayei sha'ah"**

The same thing applies to making money, yes? How much business should a person do? How much work? "Lo yihyeh amel b'esko ela l'hasig davar she'tzarich lo l'chayei sha'ah" — He should not be a workaholic who loves the very act of making money, the very act of accumulating money. Or in general, he should make money if he needs a business for the children, he shouldn't save up money. That's already too much.

For his temporal life he must live, he needs to have money. It's unavoidable, as it says "Tov me'at la'tzaddik" — A righteous person needs to have — the little that the righteous person needs is indeed good. He has a desire for it.

Insight: The Little That One Needs, One Should Do with Enthusiasm

And now, the little that he needs to have, he should do with enthusiasm. It's not as if he should cry "Oy vey, I have to work." No, what — one can say it this way: all these things are also about being a bit submissive to the Almighty. The Almighty made it so in creation that a person should need to eat and need to work, so he should do it with a certain enthusiasm, not with a great sense of b'dieved (reluctantly), when that would go to the extremes.

I'm not saying — this is perhaps — I'm saying this as an added point, but here he shows that the Almighty made the world so that the proper order is that a person should have a certain desire, and when it deviates too much, he creates destruction, and that is not the way of Hashem Yitbarach (God, blessed be He).

You see that when one eats too much, the head and the stomach hurt. If one eats the right measure with appetite, it's delicious. So you see that this is the way of Hashem Yitbarach.

---

Charity and Lending – **"Noten tzedakah k'fi misat yado, u'malveh ka'raui l'mi she'tzarich"**

Very good. And he continues, we're talking about spending. Sometimes he states the negative on both sides, and sometimes he states only the negative. "V'lo yikbotz yado b'yoter" — he should not gather all the money and keep it for himself, and also not "v'lo yefazer kol mamono" — and not scatter all his money. Rather, what then? "Noten tzedakah k'fi misat yado" — He gives charity according to what has come to his hand. What does "misat yado" mean? What has reached him. "Misat yado" is the language there regarding ma'aser sheni (second tithe), yes? "U'malveh ka'raui l'mi she'tzarich" — and he lends to whoever needs it.

Insight: The Rambam Immediately Introduces Mitzvot

It's very interesting that the Rambam immediately thinks to speak about the poor of your city. These are already mitzvot. "Im kesef talveh et ami, et he'ani imach" — yes? What does it say, what kind of thing must one lend? He immediately mentions giving and lending.

Lending is also part of the breadth — something is lacking for a person. He doesn't want to, he can't part with his money, perhaps it will come back. He lends. One can lend a bit more than what one can give away, right? Because perhaps it will come back.

The Middle Path in Charity – More Than a Fifth

This is seemingly very interesting. Here there's sometimes a thing that someone immediately asks: what is the middle path? Hilchot tzedakah (laws of charity), yes. Everyone knows up to more than a fifth. This is really — on this there are almost no halachot, really, on how much charity is important to give. It's interesting, in this trait there aren't even halachot of Zera'im (agricultural laws), practically how much charity to give, but one can see there.

And this continues. So the halacha, of course, is in Adar as well.

---

Joy – **"Same'ach kol yamav b'nachat, b'sever panim yafot"**

Regarding frivolity, which he mentioned earlier: "V'lo y'hei m'holel v'sochek" — he should not be one who is wild and laughing, "v'lo atzev v'onen" — also not one who is perpetually sad and downcast, "ela same'ach kol yamav b'nachat, b'sever panim yafot" — with a smile, he is always joyful, and this is the good trait of joy.

Insight: Joy Is a Middle Trait, Not an Extreme

So joy is a middle trait. People think that joy is extreme.

Discussion: How Does "When Adar Enters We Increase Joy" Fit with the Middle Trait?

That's the joy of the whole year. "When Adar enters, we increase in joy" — one goes a bit toward the other extreme. On the contrary, "when Av enters, we decrease" — one goes a bit toward the other extreme.

So perhaps it's simple — it could be that there's no contradiction, because we've already learned that the middle trait always includes that it depends on the context, yes? It could be that in Adar, which is a good month, it's appropriate to be a bit more content. And when someone asks that it's a contradiction to the middle trait of joy — no, because the middle trait means that now is a time of mourning, one doesn't need to be extreme entirely, but lean a bit more toward that side, still from the middle trait. So one compares the middle trait of Tisha B'Av to the middle trait of Purim.

Most People Tend More Toward Sadness

In my opinion, usually most people are sad and downcast, so one may be a bit more "joyful all his days with tranquility." Rabbeinu Yitzchak rules this way, that one needs to be a bit more joyful.

Because it appears that the traits that we would have asked and thought — the two extremes are: a Breslover, one extreme; the other extreme is a Litvak; and in between is what? Some plain, ordinary Jew. No, in between is a Breslover. Joyful.

Joy Doesn't Mean Excitement – Joy with Calmness

We'll learn more about this. The Rambam in Hilchot Berachot says what joy means. Joy doesn't mean getting excited — not from joy and not from sadness. Very calm. I know it's in good hands, I know it's with bitachon (trust in God).

But here it does say joyful. It does say "b'nachat" (with tranquility). Joy and calmness — perhaps there is also a trait of calmness.

But "Tov lev mishteh tamid" — A good heart is like a constant feast. "Mishteh" means always being like at a feast, it's joyful. In good spirits, but not too bold, not too — it's very good.

Insight: Joy Is a Deeper Thing – Wholeness and Calmness

But I think that perhaps it means a certain calmness, a certain temimut (wholeness/simplicity), a deeper thing.

Sever Panim Yafot – Joy Relates to Other People

"Sever panim yafot" (a pleasant countenance), by definition, means that he smiles at people, he's cheerful. I think that by definition, joy relates to other people as well.

Do you remember that Rabbi Yisrael Salanter said that a person's face is a reshut harabim (public domain)? Your face isn't for you; your face belongs to other people. I don't understand — do you see your own face? Only when you look in a mirror. This means that when the video is on, there's an extra mitzvah to be more joyful, sever panim yafot.

It's not frivolity, not wildness, but it's not enough. When people see that tranquility is not enough, therefore there needs to be a pleasant countenance.

Two Mishnayot in Avot

It also says in the Mishnah "V'hevei mekabel et kol ha'adam b'simchah" — Receive every person with joy. There are two mishnayot, remember? Once it says "sever panim yafot," and once it says "b'simchah." That's also a topic.

---

"V'chen She'ar Kol De'otav"

"V'chen she'ar kol de'otav" — So too with all his other traits. You see, he doesn't specify them all; one needs to look in other sefarim (books) or figure out on one's own how to be in the middle.

---

Halacha 5: The Wise Person, the Pious Person, and "Beyond the Letter of the Law"

The Way of the Wise – One Who Follows the Middle Trait

Now, "V'derech zu hi derech hachachamim" — This is the way of the wise. Here comes a new — now the Rambam says a very interesting chiddush (novel insight), which one could study for twenty years to understand. But he says an interesting chiddush.

"V'derech zu hi derech hachachamim." The wise are those who follow the way of the mitzvah. "V'halachta bidrachav" (And you shall walk in His ways) is a mitzvah. They are called "good." Wise, good, upright — there are many beautiful names. And a person, "kol adam she'de'otav kulan de'ot beinoniyot u'memutza'ot, nikra chacham" — anyone whose traits are all middle and balanced traits is called wise.

The Chasid – More Than a Wise Person

But you've heard that besides the wise, there are other things. There's something called chasidim (pious ones). Now, it's very interesting — what is a chasid? If the middle is a wise person, what is a chasid?

The Rambam says an interesting thing: "U'mi she'hu medakdek al atzmo b'yoter, v'yitrachek mi'de'ah beinonit me'at l'tzad zeh o l'tzad zeh" — someone who evaluates what the middle trait is and does a bit more than the measure of the average for a certain purpose — you'll see — then "nikra chasid", he is called a chasid.

Connection to Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah

And we've already learned about the chasid in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah — a chasid who is renowned for his deeds has a mitzvah of kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's Name), one who is a chasid.

And he needs to think about that, okay, and that continues about people who go and think.

Example of Chasidut: Pride

He says: "Mi she'yitrachek mi'govah halev ad hakatzeh ha'acharon" —

Rambam, Hilchot De'ot – Chapter 1, Halacha 5 (continued) and Halacha 6

The Trait of Chasidut: The Difference Between a Chasid by Nature and a Chasid by Wisdom

And we've already learned about the chasid in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah — a chasid who is renowned for his deeds has a mitzvah of kiddush Hashem, one who is a chasid. Okay, and that one who continues about people who go and think...

No time — he says: "Mi she'yitrachek mi'govah halev ad hakatzeh ha'acharon" — someone who goes away from pride of heart, from the trait of arrogance, instead of going away from it a bit and arriving at what the wise would see as a middle trait, he goes to the other extreme — "v'hu sh'fal ru'ach b'yoter, nikra chasid, v'zu hi midat chasidut" — and he is exceedingly humble in spirit, he is called a chasid, and this is the trait of piety.

Question: What Is the Difference Between Someone Naturally Humble and a Chasid?

One must understand, because what happens with someone who is simply naturally exceedingly humble? He's not a chasid; he's sometimes not even a wise person.

So yes, so what did we say? That someone who goes entirely away from pride and is humble in spirit — yes, so as R' Yoel Asher says, seemingly one must say that first of all there's a basic problem, because the middle trait tells you that too much is just as bad as too little. One must say that there's an exception — there are cases where there is a middle trait in the sense that this is okay, but one can be more for certain reasons, and it must be with wisdom. Certainly, as it says "Lo am ha'aretz chasid" — An ignorant person cannot be a chasid, yes? It could be that chasid means someone who is simply an extremist.

Answer: A Chasid Through Wisdom versus Naturally Humble

No, one can say that, but the definition can indeed be stated: someone who is humble in spirit (shfal ruach) because that's his nature, certainly that's just an extreme trait. Someone who arrives at the middle trait, and afterward decides that he needs to go a bit more toward the extreme of humility of spirit, and he does it with intention, with a path of wisdom perhaps, he knows what he's doing – that person is a chasid.

So the meaning is, a chasid who is by nature humble in spirit, he still needs to go to the other extreme and come back to become humble in spirit. He's always humble in spirit because that's his nature. The Rambam restated this matter in chapter 2 – and how one goes to the other extreme.

The Distinction Between Humility (Anavah) and Lowliness of Spirit (Shiflut Ruach)

But what he's saying is simply this: if he distances himself two [measures], then he is a chasid, and if he distances himself only one – "and that is humility (anavah)" – where the Rambam makes a distinction: there is anavah and there is shiflut ruach. Anavah is the middle trait. It says "and the man Moshe was very humble (anav me'od)", and about Moshe it doesn't say shfal ruach – Moshe was on the middle path. The Mishnah that says "be very, very lowly of spirit (me'od me'od hevei shfal ruach)", we see that this is an extreme thing, and this is the trait of piety (midat chasidut). "This one is called wise, and this is the trait of wisdom."

A Novel Insight: The Distinction Between Humility in Yesodei HaTorah Chapter 2 and Humility in Hilchot De'ot

It's interesting – earlier in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, the Rambam said that humility occurs when one contemplates the greatness of the Creator and all creatures, and one notices how small one is. But here that's not what we're discussing; here we're talking about conducting oneself with people, not about contemplating oneself in relation to the Almighty, in relation to creation. That's what I mean.

I mean that Chassidim used to speak a great deal about humility, but they mean the humility of chapter 2 in Yesodei HaTorah, of feeling small before the Almighty. Here he's speaking in relation to people, and I also think it doesn't mean feeling. I think anavah means as Rashi says on "and the man Moshe was very humble" – lowly and patient (shafal v'savlan). That means he speaks with people, he accommodates them, he makes room for them. Feeling – noticing creation – that's the Rambam still discussing the wisdom of God.

Humility is not that, and lowliness means, for example, as you said, a bit of a chasid interacts even with weaker people in a way that would be beneath his station, or he is a bit too self-effacing toward other people. He has lowered himself to people. It's not about thinking how great one is – that's an entirely different topic, that's what I mean.

A Side Note: People Who Consider Themselves Small

By the way, regarding those people who consider themselves small – usually they are very difficult toward other people. They're not overly kind to other people. Not always, but usually.

The Early Pious Ones (Chasidim HaRishonim)

Okay, good. The Rambam continues: "The early pious ones (chasidim harishonim) would incline their traits from the middle path toward the two extremes." The early pious ones would indeed conduct themselves this way; that's how pious people were. Yes, from time to time, pious people. Like earlier, the early sages. Perhaps today's Chassidim don't conduct themselves this way anymore, I don't know. Perhaps they don't hold that way yet, I don't know.

Discussion: Who Are the "Chasidim HaRishonim"?

Okay, good. If not the Chassidim of the Baal Shem Tov – he's speaking about a different topic. Chasidim harishonim, pious ones from early times. No, just as he says "the early sages," yes. Perhaps he means a specific thing that appears in the Mishnah.

Perhaps he means – the truth of the matter is that the chasidim harishonim, as the Rambam brings, they would correct people's traits, and they would act according to the situation. Sometimes they would go to the extreme of actual abstinence (perishut), and sometimes they would do otherwise.

A Note: When Is There Concern About Which Extreme?

Now, when is there a concern that one will go toward the lesser extreme? Too little pride, or too little money, or too little desire. When is there a concern that one will go toward the first extreme? Only too much. Only too much, many times too little.

Beyond the Letter of the Law (Lifnim Mishurat HaDin) – Explanation of the Concept

With this we can understand what is called lifnim mishurat hadin (beyond the letter of the law). Shurat hadin (the letter of the law) is the middle trait, what the law requires. Din (law) has something to do with intellect and wisdom. What wisdom dictates – usually law is a result of wisdom. The law follows what wisdom says is the truth. Shurat hadin is the middle path.

Lifnim mishurat hadin means otherwise – pushed further than the letter of the law toward one of the directions. Shurat hadin is like an image: there's a line, right? I mean it usually refers to laws of interpersonal relations. There's a line between me and you, right? Up to here is my domain, and from there onward is your domain. A chasid – he pushes your domain a bit into his domain. The line – he holds himself a bit further from the line than where the line actually is.

Summary of Halachah 5

Now the Rambam is going to discuss the mitzvah. So until now we have learned the foundations of what constitutes error in character traits, what the middle path is, and two important things:

- There is the trait of the path of wisdom, which is to proceed through contemplation

- And the trait of piety (derech chasidut), which is to go beyond the letter of the law according to whichever trait

Discussion: Does the Chasid Fulfill the Mitzvah?

I want to understand – did the chasid fulfill the mitzvah of the path of contemplation, and afterward did he do more than that? Is that how he becomes a chasid?

No, the chasid goes beyond the mitzvah. The letter of the law is fulfilling the mitzvah beautifully (b'hidur). So the question is, between whom is the question? One person is at one extreme and doesn't fulfill the mitzvah at all, and another is at one extreme and fulfills even more than the mitzvah. What do we need to understand?

It would seem the point is that one does it because that's his nature, and the other does it because he has so determined through wisdom. But don't worry, all these matters about piety being going to the extreme – no one is born with that.

Aha, okay. Good, we'll shuffle it back according to a funny explanation. That it means considering oneself small. Because by the way, regarding those people who consider themselves small, usually they are very difficult toward other people. They're not overly kind to other people. Not always, but usually.

A Side Note: Too Much Charity – A Real Problem?

And for example, isn't there such a thing as being a spendthrift with one's money by nature? A spendthrift is too much. Do you know people who give too much charity? Because they don't watch the needs of the person so carefully. Perhaps he doesn't need so much. You know, he doesn't spend. He spends more toward the other extreme. That's what I mean. And usually one doesn't need to worry about that.

You know, someone once said that he has not yet received many questions about the halachah of "one should not spend more than a fifth." And if he did receive such a question, it was from a poor person who indeed shouldn't. The wealthy don't usually ask that question, because it's usually more common that most people have the other problem, you understand?

---

Halachah 6: The Mitzvah of "Walking in His Ways" (V'halachta Bidrachav)

The Mitzvah to Walk in the Middle Paths

The Rambam says: "And we are commanded to walk in these middle paths, and they are the good and upright paths." He has repeated so many times "good and upright paths." It's certain that he means to say that it appears many times in the Torah, "to walk in the good and upright path," etc. Because it makes sense, since "good and upright path" means the straight one – not right and not left, but straight in the middle.

"As it says, 'and you shall walk in His ways' (v'halachta bidrachav)." What does it mean to walk in the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He?

Chazal's Interpretation of "Walking in His Ways"

The Rambam says: "This is what they taught in the explanation of this mitzvah. They said: Just as He is called gracious (chanun), so too you should be gracious." Just like the Almighty – his language is "called gracious." The Almighty is not gracious, because gracious is a human trait. But the Almighty is "called gracious," because His actions are the actions of a gracious one. "So too you should be gracious" – you should also be gracious. Chanun means one who gives free gifts, one who has mercy on people.

"And just as He is called merciful (rachum), so too you should be merciful. Just as He is called holy (kadosh), so too you should be holy" – you should separate yourself from desires, from physical matters. This is what it means to walk in the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the middle paths.

Question: How Does the Rambam See "Middle Paths" from This Verse?

The question is how the Rambam saw middle paths from this, because you could say: be merciful to the extreme, or holy to the extreme. That's the thing the Rambam tried to derive from this verse.

Perhaps from the word "derech" (path) – derech means a well-trodden path, not right and not left. Perhaps he follows a narrow trail, somewhere where one path lies there. I don't know, it says one path lies there.

It could be that we know that the Almighty is only merciful to those who... The Almighty is also jealous and vengeful (kana v'nokem) toward those who deserve jealousy and vengeance. It doesn't say so in this verse, but it could be that the Rambam understood this. The Almighty is merciful when it's called for, and about the same Creator it also says that He repays His enemies, and is jealous and vengeful. The simple meaning is that He is on the middle path.

I already said that it's built on the assumption that it's obvious. I mean that the topic of "walking in His ways" is truly obvious – that being gracious to the wicked is not graciousness. It's deafness to those who suffer from him. It's obvious that gracious means to those who are worthy. Even if gracious means even to those who are not worthy, there is still a way in which it is appropriate. It's not...

The Appellations of the Almighty – Why Did the Prophets Use Them?

The Rambam continues: "Since the prophets called God by all these appellations along this path" – just as we already learned this regarding the mitzvah about the prohibition of erasing holy names, we had there that "jealous" (kano) may be erased, because that is not the Almighty's name. Why is it not the Almighty's name? Because these are only paths that are good ways, which are attributed to the Almighty.

For example: "slow to anger" (erech apayim) – meaning restraining anger; "abundant in kindness" (rav chesed) – doing kindness; "righteous and upright" (tzaddik v'yashar) – upright is exactly the middle path; "wholesome (tamim), mighty (gibor), strong (chazak), and the like." All these things don't mean that this is what the Almighty is, but rather what?

A Novel Insight: The Purpose of God's Praises Is to Teach People

All these things it says: "to make known that these are good and upright paths." Ah, interesting. "And a person is obligated to conduct himself in them and to emulate Him according to his ability." The "a person is obligated" goes back to the prophets – that the prophets called Him so in order to know which paths we should choose. They didn't choose randomly to say a praise about the Almighty, but rather to say a praise about how people should conduct themselves.

Why does the Torah say that the Almighty has the attribute of mercy? Not in order to know about the Almighty, because we don't know about the Almighty in that way, but rather so that we should learn from it.

---

The Act of the Mitzvah: How Does One Perform the Mitzvah?

Until now we have learned the mitzvah. Now, how is the act of the mitzvah performed? I need to add a heading, as it were: the act of the mitzvah. Yes, how does one perform the mitzvah? We have both aspects. There's no such thing that a person wakes up in the morning and says "I have the trait." He needs to know how he does it. Just like building a sukkah – how does the sukkah come about? I need to know how one does it.

The Rambam says: "And how should a person accustom himself to these traits?" Perhaps, if you will – how should a person... Ah, the point here is that once a person already has the knowledge, it comes easily; he already does everything according to the knowledge. So how should a person arrive at the knowledge so that afterward all actions will come easily to him? So he should do...

Rambam Hilchot De'ot – Chapter 1, Halachah 6 (continued) and Halachah 7

How to Acquire the Traits – "He Should Do, and Repeat, and Do a Third Time"

He needs to know how he does it, just like building a sukkah – how does the sukkah come about? He needs to know how he does it. The Rambam says: "And how should a person accustom himself to these actions and traits until they become fixed in him?"

The point here is that once a person already has the proper mindset (de'ah), it comes easily – he already does everything according to that mindset. So how should a person arrive at that mindset, so that afterward all actions will come easily to him?

"He should do (ya'aseh)" – he should act.

Okay, it's a simple thing: it's good to be a chasid, or not a chasid, let's say an upright person (yashar). Okay, how do I become upright? He hasn't yet said how to do it; I have bad traits, what should I do?

He says: "He should do (ya'aseh)" – he should do the things that an upright person does. "He should do, and repeat, and do a third time (ya'aseh v'yishaneh v'yishalesh) the actions that are done according to the middle traits" – he should do things according to the middle trait, or in other words, he should do what someone who already has the middle mindset would do. "And he should repeat them constantly (v'yachzor bahen tamid)" – he should simply always keep doing so, "until the actions become easy for him and there is no difficulty in them (ad she'yihyu ma'aseihen kalim alav v'lo yihyeh bahen torach)" – until the actions become easy for him. And afterward it will become a mindset; he no longer needs to simply keep repeating them constantly, but it will become nature – "and the traits will become fixed in his soul (v'yikba'u hade'ot b'nafsho)."

That means the way to acquire something is through doing it multiple times, or as we know the expression "habit becomes nature" (hergel na'aseh teva).

---

Returning to the Question: Does the Chasid Also Fulfill the Mitzvah?

Until now was the mitzvah. Now one can receive through a blessing from the holy Rambam – not from the Rambam, from the Almighty – regarding what the Rambam brings down. But I still haven't understood so well whether the chasid that we learned about earlier also fulfills the mitzvah. I don't know. It could be that the chasid must have at some point walked with the middle trait – that's what I think – and he went from there to do more.

I understand why you need proof that the chasid also fulfills the mitzvah with his piety, because you need to remember that the mitzvah doesn't state the bare letters. The Rambam says the mitzvah says "upright paths." Now "upright," according to what the Rambam says – I need to explain it to you, I understand that you already understand it. But the mitzvah, the mitzvah says: walk in the right paths. Now what is right? There is normal right, and there is extra super duper special right. Just like every mitzvah – the stringency of "guarding the law" (mishmeret): a simple Jew doesn't work on Shabbat, and I have a stringency, I also keep control of the door on Shabbat. It's the same thing, more extreme. Okay, it's a question in halachah, but I mean, it's not prohibitions, but it's not beautification (hidur) – it's the trait of piety (midat chasidut).

You're saying that the piety is seemingly bad; you're saying it's a difficulty with the entire idea of midat chasidut. But, so, however understand that it's somehow better – it's the same thing. Just as with every mitzvah one can practice midat chasidut, it's the same thing: the mitzvah is performed with midat chasidut. I don't see such a big problem.

Discussion: If Middle Is Good and Extremes Are Bad, How Can Extremes Sometimes Be Good?

And the problem is a deeper problem, which one truly needs to understand: if middle is good and extremes are bad, how can it be that extremes are sometimes good? I mean, perhaps in other places he adds a resolution to this difficulty. Other places, it's more explained? Perhaps. I mean, in other places he sees that midat chasidut is not forever – that it's a part of the spiritual work (avodah), until one arrives at the... That's what it says in Shemonah Perakim in one place; in other places he says it without qualification. So one needs to understand it better there.

---

The Path of God (Derech Hashem) – Why Is It Called That?

Very good. He continues: "Since these names by which the Creator is called are the middle path that we are obligated to walk in, this path is called the path of God (derech Hashem)."

Why is it called the path of God? It's not called the path of God because that is the way the Almighty conducts Himself. It is called after Him. Rather, it is called so because these are the paths that are a mitzvah. Once more, once more: he just said that the paths the Torah teaches us, the middle traits, it's understood that one follows the path by which the Almighty is called. The Almighty's path is doing the things by which the Almighty is called in them. That is the Almighty's path.

Discussion: Derech Hashem – Recognizable in His Attributes or a Comfortable Middle Path?

Speaker 2: It's already called the path of God because it is recognizable in His attributes (nikar b'midotav), not because it's a comfortable middle path for him and others.

Speaker 1: Exactly, exactly. He says that the novel insight is that the middle path is the path of God. The middle path is the path of God because these are the paths that are recognizable in the Holy One, blessed be He.

It's clear that what he means to say is that for the Almighty there are no two extremes from which He chose the middle one. For the Almighty it's simply so — the Almighty does it this way without the whole... Does the Almighty even need to keep in mind the extremes? Rather, consequently for us, who need to keep in mind the extremes, it is called "the way of God" (derekh Hashem). Not that the Almighty only... It's hard to say, the Almighty doesn't... The Almighty has no point to stop incidentally from anger, because the Almighty has no character traits (middos), etc. That's not the point.

The point is only to connect the middle trait (middah beinonis), which is simply... "Derekh Hashem" doesn't mean what the Almighty says, so to speak — it means the ways in which the Almighty goes, in the aspect of what is recognizable, in the aspect of action — however one understands the theology of what "derekh Hashem" means. But the word — he simply wants to connect that the meaning of the word "derekh Hashem," the Almighty's way, is the path of the middle traits (derekh ha-middos ha-beinonios).

---

The Verse About Avraham Avinu – "And They Shall Keep the Way of God, to Do Righteousness and Justice"

"And this is what He taught Avraham Avinu to his children, as it says: 'For I have known him, so that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of God, to do righteousness and justice (tzedakah u-mishpat).'" — The Almighty says, "I love Avraham, so that he will command his children and his household after him," because he commands his children "and they shall keep the way of God" — they guard the middle trait which is called the way of God — "to do righteousness and justice." "Righteousness and justice" itself is interpreted as the middle trait. "Justice" (mishpat) means the middle way.

---

"And One Who Walks in This Way Brings Goodness and Blessing Upon Himself"

The Rambam says: "And one who walks in this way brings goodness and blessing upon himself." He writes further in the same verse that because He writes that He loves Avraham, He gave him all good things — "in order that God may bring upon Avraham that which He has spoken of him" — all the blessings. So what brings Avraham Avinu all the good things? His walking in the middle path (derekh ha-emtza'i).

From this we derive that every Jew who walks in the way of God receives all these blessings — not just a special act for Avraham alone. And this is essentially the esoteric explanation (al pi sod) for all the blessings that the Torah gives. The entire Torah came to teach us to walk in the way of God. It's understood that it's much more expansive, but the Torah came to teach us to walk in the way of God, and therefore the Torah promises that one who walks in the way of the Torah has all kinds of blessings.

---

Charity and Character Traits – Two Mitzvos in One Act

But there's another small point I wanted to understand here: If he is a compassionate person (rachman), and there is a poor person, he should give him charity (tzedakah) — that's a mitzvah. Fine. So it appears that there is something — besides the mitzvah, there is something else — that the mitzvah should come naturally, that he should be compassionate by nature. There is something beyond the general mitzvah of charity.

One could perhaps say that when a person gives charity, he does two things: one, he is now performing an act of charity, and two, he is exerting himself to walk in the middle path (derekh ha-emtza).

Speaker 2: It's not necessarily two things.

Speaker 1: Fine, it's technically two things, because there are two mitzvos, but it's not necessarily two things, because the Rambam would understand that the mitzvah of charity is indeed a practical scenario (heikhi timtza) in order to achieve — it is after all part of the way to be a good person, how to acquire the trait of righteousness (middas ha-tzedakah), and the trait of giving to other Jews.

---

Conclusion: Blessings Through Walking in the Way of God

And he says that this teaching comes to establish: the good path, which is the compromise of the middle trait, has various benefits and blessings. And so may each and every one receive goodness and blessings through walking in the middle path.