הלכות דעות פרק ב

Rambam, Hilkhot De'ot Chapter 2 – The Parable of the Physically Ill and the Healing of Spiritual Ailments

Introduction: Structure of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

Shimon: We are in the second chapter of Hilkhot De'ot in Sefer HaMada of the Rambam. This is a continuation of the previous chapter. In the first chapter, the Rambam said that there is a correct path – the straight path (derekh hayashar), the path of God (derekh Hashem) – and that is the middle path (derekh hamamutza). He said that in every character trait (middah) there are extreme ways of doing it, and the extreme is not good. The extreme, for example, means someone who pours out all his money; the other extreme means someone who is stingy and holds onto all his money; and the middle path means when one knows how to use money in the proper way. And so with various examples that the Rambam discussed.

In this chapter, the Rambam is going to continue with this – why indeed is this so difficult? Why aren't people, why don't people see the middle path? Everyone would want to be good, everyone would want to have good habits. So here the Rambam is going to address: What is wrong? Why don't people have the good taste to know what the correct path is and to do it? Why doesn't one follow the good path?

---

Discussion: The Analytical Approach of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 – Ideal and After-the-Fact in Character Traits

Yitzchak: Yes, more or less. We could add a bit, let's say – I want to think of a way we can give the structure of these two chapters more in an analytical, scholarly style, and say as follows: In every area of halakhah (Jewish law) there is the primary law, how things should ideally be – for example, the tithe (ma'aser) should ideally be such and such. Then one sees many laws that deal with what happens after the fact (bedi'avad), if it didn't work out, if there's an issue, there are all kinds of detailed laws. It's not exactly the same, but it could be that one can understand that in the first chapter, the Rambam gave what is essentially the correct path. Now it's essentially the pathways of repentance (darkhei hateshuvah). We already made a note last week that darkhei hateshuvah is a very basic part of character traits (middot), because all people have imperfect character traits.

So now he's going into detailed laws, but these detailed laws are critical, because one doesn't always start from the correct starting point, or a person isn't perfect, or he's clever but he's not perfect. So consequently, he's going to bring in laws that fit for that part, for the healing component.

Shimon: So you're saying that the previous chapter is when the world would be as it should be – as the saying goes, "if the world were ideal" – everyone would immediately see that one should follow the middle path. Now the Rambam is going to address why the world isn't ideal. What happens, right?

Yitzchak: Yes, and also the specific advice. There is, as we'll see later with the healing of the body – when according to Jewish practice a person should eat such and such. But once a person is already sick, he can no longer do that, he needs to do other things. So since such a person is sick, he needs to do differently from what would ideally be correct in the world, in order for things to be right, and other things.

Shimon: And he's saying it's like a remedy for when the previous approach didn't work out, when the situation has become somewhat damaged – how can one still fix it.

---

Halakhah 1 – The Parable of the Physically Ill

Shimon: The Rambam says, he begins with a parable. The Rambam says as follows: In general, regarding the body there is a phenomenon, a kind of thing, that there are people who are sick, and their "taste buds have gone bad" – "they perceive bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter" (ta'am hamar matok u'matok mar). Things that are truly sweet for other people are bitter for them, and what is bitter for other people is sweet for them.

And there is an even more severe case, when "there are among the sick those who crave and desire foods that are not fit for eating" (yesh min hacholim mi shemit'aveh veyit'aveh le'ma'akhalot she'einan re'uyot la'akhilah) – sick people whose sense of food is so damaged that they crave and are accustomed to eating foods that are entirely unfit for consumption, "such as earth and charcoal" (kegon he'afar vehapaḥam) – they eat dirt and charcoal, they eat sand and ash – "and they hate good foods" (veyisne'u hama'akhalot hatovot), and they despise good foods, "such as bread and meat" (kegon hapat vehabasar) – bread and meat – "all according to the severity of the illness" (hakol lefi rov haḥoli). According to how severe the illness is, they choose to eat the bad things, they crave to eat bad things.

Yitzchak: You once said, R' Yitzchak, that there is a certain illness where people have a certain deficiency, and because of that they seek... There is such a reality, people aren't aware of why they seek it. They perhaps have a deficiency in... they're lacking minerals, and because of that they eat all sorts of foods. So it just points to some illness, yes?

Shimon: Yes, but I think that in general, the truth is there are such illnesses. It could even be that it comes with every illness – you know that appetite is generally diminished; when a person is sick, he doesn't have a proper appetite.

---

Digression: Connection to Shemonah Perakim and Moreh Nevukhim – The Root of Bad Character Traits is a "Taste Problem"

Shimon: But I also think, I mean that this was discussed in the shiurim on Shemonah Perakim (Eight Chapters) regarding this. That chapter – yes, they say that Moreh Nevukhim (Guide for the Perplexed) is the Gemara of "this is the Torah of man" (lazot torat ha'adam). Apparently the Gemara of these chapters is not Shemonah Perakim, that's not a Gemara. But I want to discuss the topics there a bit.

There it was explained, the understanding is that a large part of what a character trait consists of – one asks why indeed is a person not good? Basically because he doesn't want to want. Even when he knows, he asks and holds that it's good to be the kind of person that one knows is not good – but still he feels that it's good. So his feeling contradicts his intellectual knowledge (da'at). Because da'at means character traits (middot). Or when a person knows the truth, his feeling is a contradiction – he feels that it's good, but he knows that it's not good. So this is very similar to the physically ill person, who knows that it's not appropriate to eat, but he feels drawn to it.

---

Halakhah 1 (continued) – The Analogue: Spiritually Ill People

Shimon: Good. Or a person whose illness is that he spends all his money – he doesn't know that he's at the extreme, he's doing wrong, he's accustomed to it, that's what draws him, he has an attraction to it – just as the person has an attraction to eating bad things.

The Rambam says, "similarly, people whose souls are sick" (ken bnei adam asher nafshosam ḥolot) – the parable was about a sick body, he says, when the soul (nefesh) is sick, meaning the spiritual part of the person, this is an illness of character traits – "they crave and love bad attitudes" (mit'avin ve'ohavim hade'ot hara'ot), they crave, they love the bad habits, the bad character traits, "and they hate the good path" (veson'im haderekh hatovah), they despise the good path, "and they are lazy to walk in it" (umit'atzlin lalekhet bah), it's hard for them to go on that path because they don't crave it, they don't love it, "and it is very burdensome for them because of their illness" (veyikhbad aleihem me'od lefi ḥolyam) – because they are sick, they don't know that they are sick, that their taste is very bad. They keep choosing, they keep doing the wrong things, but they think that these are the good things.

---

Digression: Moreh Nevukhim – Is the Torah Difficult or Easy?

Shimon: I remember what is mentioned with this language in Moreh Nevukhim – there's a place where the Rambam speaks to people about whether the Torah is good or bad.

No, sorry, it's certainly good. Is the Torah easy or difficult? I would have said that being a good person who follows the Torah is difficult. The Rambam says: No, the Torah is easy. Oh, sometimes there's a person for whom it's difficult? He says: Yes. There is, for example, someone who is a serial killer – for him it's very hard to restrain himself from killing. That doesn't yet make him [exempt], but it's very hard for him. You are sick; for you it's hard because you are a sick person whose illness leads you to murder, God forbid. But for a normal person, it's not hard to refrain from murder.

He says, the Rambam asks: Truly, every character trait where it's hard for you to restrain yourself – you have a small illness, there is something wrong with you, and that needs a remedy.

---

Halakhah 1 (continued) – Verses as Proofs

Shimon: The Rambam says that the parable is from what the prophet Isaiah says: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (hoy ha'omrim lara tov velatov ra) – people are confused, and about bad they say it's good, and about good they say it's bad. "Who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (samim ḥoshekh la'or ve'or laḥoshekh) – about darkness they say it's light, and about light, darkness. "Who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (samim mar lematok umatok lemar) – about sweet things they say it's bitter, and about bitter things that it's sweet.

About them, King Solomon says in Proverbs (Mishlei): "Those who abandon upright paths to walk in the ways of darkness" (ozvei orḥot yosher lalekhet bedarkhei ḥoshekh) – not because they don't want to go on the good and bright path, but because they don't know – they think that the darkness is good.

---

What is the Remedy for the Spiritually Ill – The Healing

Shimon: It's a big problem that the path of the commandments (derekh hamitzvot) is the good path, but the person doesn't see that it's the good path. What does one do?

The Rambam says: "What is the remedy for the spiritually ill?" (mah takkanat ḥolei hanefashot?) How does one heal the spiritual illness? How does one fix it so that they should begin walking on the path of the commandments?

The Rambam says: "They should go to the wise men" (yelkhu etzel haḥakhamim) – these people should humble themselves, they should see that they need guidance, and they should go to the wise men – "who are the healers of souls" (shehem rof'ei hanefashot). The work of the wise men is this: to heal the souls. "And they shall heal their illness through the attitudes that they teach them" (veyirap'u ḥolyam bade'ot shemelam'dim otam) – they should heal the illness of the person, the confusion of the person – the fact that he holds that being angry is bad, the fact that he has a taste for bad things – one should heal this through character traits, through teaching the character traits over a long period of time, encouraging over a very long period of time.

---

Discussion: What Does "Attitudes That They Teach Them" Mean – Intellectual Explanation or Practical Education?

Shimon: Or... how does it mean explaining, or is he not specifically talking here about explaining? It looks somewhat like habituating, yes?

Yitzchak: Someone tells me that according to the Lev Re'eder's writings, "melamed" (teaches) here means from the root of... melamed avukel... like a... from the language of habituation (hergel), not from the meaning of teaching. Because from what I understand, in any case, the next piece here apparently does speak about – someone whose opinion, his knowledge, what goes with it and what doesn't.

But generally, the healing of the spiritually ill, we're not talking about someone – just as in the parable of the physical healing, we're talking about someone who actually holds that it's good to eat sand. Someone who holds that it's good to eat sand – I don't know what kind of rabbinical talk you can give him. We're talking about someone who knows, he sees that all other people don't eat that, and it seems that something isn't right with him, but still he's drawn to it.

The healing of the soul here is not talk therapy where you tell him and explain. We're talking here about education (ḥinukh), about training. One does with children – one keeps telling such a person, do this, do that, one keeps reminding. Because when the person has done it many times, he has already begun to develop a good taste for it.

Shimon: Yes, "healers of souls" (rof'ei nefashot) literally means a wise person. When he says "wise men" (ḥakhamim) who are "healers of souls" – he doesn't mean certain wise men whose job is healing souls. Wisdom (ḥokhmah) here is practical wisdom, but wisdom in life is to be a good person.

For the Rambam, regarding the sick person – here it means a person who is entirely in a state of illness. If not, it doesn't apply to him. He's not talking here about someone who has a psychological problem, who one wouldn't go and tell him. And one needs to habituate him, to channel the flow toward the proper path. Because a person does what he loves, and how does he come to love it? From doing it multiple times – just as they learned earlier: go multiple times on this path, and it will make this become his path.

So the way is: there should be a good educator (meḥanekh), and the educator should keep telling him – remember, do again what we discussed, do it, do it – until he, by doing it multiple times, has seen that this is the path. He will stop thinking that evil is good, he will see the clarity.

---

"Those Who Recognize Their Bad Traits" – Those Who Know but Don't Act

Shimon: The Rambam says, and even more so here – the people who have a big problem: "Those who recognize their bad traits" (hamakirin bede'ot hara'ot shelahem). There are people who have an even bigger problem – they know that what they're doing is something that could benefit from education, but they don't go to the educator to be healed, they don't go to the wise man to be healed.

About this, Solomon said: "Fools despise discipline" (musar evilim bazu). Fools, simpletons, are those who despise musar (moral instruction). Musar means this.

Rambam, Hilkhot De'ot Chapter 2 (continued) – Healing Character Traits Through Habituation and the Path to the Middle Way

---

The Role of Education and Habituation – "Until He Returns Him to the Good Path"

Speaker 1: But what I mean is, what the Rambam is saying here is: it won't help to tell him once, it won't help to just tell him, rather one needs to habituate him, "until he returns him to the good path" (ad sheyaḥazirehu laderekh hatov). Because a person does what he loves, and how does he come to love it? From doing it multiple times. Just as they learned earlier – go multiple times on this path, and it will make this become his path.

So the way is to have a good educator (meḥanekh), and the educator should keep telling him: "Remember, do again what we discussed, do it, do it." And until he does it multiple times, he will see that this is the path – he will stop thinking that evil is good.

---

"Those Who Recognize Their Bad Traits" – The One Who Doesn't Go to the Wise Man

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, and here I take the people who have a big problem: "Those who recognize their bad traits" (makirin bede'ot hara'ot shelahem) – there are people who have an even bigger problem. They know that what they're doing is something that could benefit from education, but they don't go to the educator to be healed, they don't go to the wise man to be healed. "About them Solomon said: 'Fools despise discipline'" (aleihem amar Shlomo: "evilim buzei musar") – fools, simpletons, are those who despise musar. Musar means this – that one keeps educating him and exhorting him to do the right thing, but fools have no remedy.

He says: "What is their remedy?" (mai takanto?) There is a remedy, but for them no remedy is stated, because they don't accept the remedy. The Rambam has no advice simply for those who don't want to go to the wise men.

Insight: To Whom is the Rambam Speaking?

Speaker 1: I think this means to say – someone who reads this book, he already has a bit of advice: he should go to a wise man. Because for this purpose he wrote the book, he strengthened him. He means to say that it's very important to go to the wise man, because they have no other way. He doesn't mean to talk about someone who isn't present – just as with the previous parable about the child, the Lubavitcher Rebbe said he doesn't exist, and he's not talking about him.

---

Discussion: Why Does He Specifically Say "Those Who Recognize Their Bad Traits"?

Speaker 1: But it's interesting – why about these people does he say "those who recognize their bad traits" (makirin bede'ot hara'ot shelahem)? There could also now be people who don't recognize it, but they also don't go to any wise man, someone like the previous case. That one is even worse.

Speaker 2: So that's also – I saw that he also meant that this is speaking about someone who actually thinks he's right as well.

Speaker 1: No, this is speaking once, apparently about someone who knows, he recognizes it, but he doesn't go to the wise man, he doesn't do the... It's a hard thing, after all; he says, "I want to educate myself."

Speaker 2: No, it's interesting, because usually the reason for not going to a wise man is because one thinks that one is fine.

Speaker 1: But that's a bit of an insight about a person – he knows that it's bad, but why is he willing to let the comfort zone be so overwhelmingly strong? What? I mean that most people, if we're already talking about all these discussions, most people think it's normal to love bad things.

Insight: A Second Reading of "Those Who Recognize Their Bad Traits"

Speaker 2: No, but here we're not talking about that; we're talking about a person who recognizes that his way is bad.

Speaker 1: Right, but it's written in the context of evil inclinations (netiyot hara). The Rambam holds that if someone has an evil inclination, something is wrong with him, right? Why should you love being... Most people don't realize that they have a problem, and they don't realize that there's a solution for it. They think that's just the way things are.

It could be that they didn't learn it so well and weren't familiar with the bad opinions as one might think. People are such that they are stuck with their bad opinions – they recognize that this is the correct one. Not that the opinions are bad, not that they recognize that their opinion is bad, but rather they believe in their opinions.

Speaker 2: No? They are familiar with their opinions, they do hold strongly to their opinions.

Speaker 1: I would interpret that part as follows. And this is apparently the more common reason why a person wouldn't go to a wise man (chakham) – because he thinks he's fine.

Speaker 2: No, but the other one means... I'm afraid that such a statement doesn't appear in the Rambam at all from...

Speaker 1: But it's a verse, it's a verse. He says there, he brings the verse.

Speaker 2: What does the verse say?

Speaker 1: I think you're right, but what does the verse say? "Ki musar avicha" ("For the discipline of your father") and the verse?

I mean yes, the Rambam doesn't hold that one suffers, he doesn't hold that one gets better. And he wants to bring out that it's a specific type of problem that he doesn't go to a doctor.

The Parable of Physical Illness

Speaker 1: There are also people with physical illnesses who consider themselves smarter than the doctors and they don't go. Why? Because it's not simply a natural tendency – he doesn't go to the doctor. Such a thing exists.

---

"And What Is Their Cure?" – To Whom Is the Rambam Speaking?

Speaker 2: Yes. The Rambam says: "V'cheitzad hi refuasam? V'eich yirpa'u?" ("And what is their cure? And how shall they be healed?") It was asked earlier – to whom is he speaking here? To the patient or to the doctor?

Speaker 1: No.

Speaker 2: And one sees that this is apparently a question on the entire Rambam, because the entire Rambam is decided laws (halakhos pesukos), and it's not clear if one can issue rulings on these decided laws. This was discussed at length in another shiur.

But it's clear, basically clear, that the intention was to issue rulings on the decided laws in these halakhos. It's truly a question, because I mean, for example, you go to a doctor, a new doctor, he tells you in advance what his method will be. And the person who has already admitted that he's not on the good path – okay, he should just know.

He's speaking to both – he's saying what the method is, how you will work, how the doctor will work with the patient.

---

The Mechanism of Healing: Going to the Opposite Extreme

Example 1: A Hot-Tempered Person – Anger

Speaker 2: "Mi shehu ba'al cheimah" – someone who is extremely hot-tempered – cheimah is another expression for anger – "omrim lo l'hanhig atzmo she'im hukah v'kullal lo yargish klal" ("they tell him to conduct himself so that if he is struck or cursed, he should not feel anything at all").

What the Rambam is going to say here is that if one is not on the middle path (derech ha'emtza'is), one cannot reach the middle path through the middle path. You can't tell him – someone who is a great hothead, you can't tell him "only get angry when it's appropriate," because he's already so crooked that you need to go to the other extreme.

So the Rambam says: someone who is extremely hot-tempered, you tell him that even when someone hits him or curses him – which is normally, as we learned in the previous chapter, when a person should become angry, that's what anger was created for – but him you tell that even then "lo yargish klal" – he shouldn't... he should act as if he doesn't feel anything, because you obviously can't tell him not to know. "Lo yargish klal" – he should act like someone who doesn't feel anything at all.

"V'yeilech b'derech zu z'man merubah ad she'tei'aker ha'cheimah mi'libo" – until the anger will actually be uprooted from his heart.

Discussion: What Does "Until the Anger Is Uprooted" Mean?

Speaker 1: And he continues, he says that the goal is indeed to uproot the anger from you, and then to bring you back to anger at some point. One needs to see – perhaps this isn't so simple.

Speaker 2: When you uproot the anger, it means the extreme anger, or there is a method to create the other extreme and afterward bring him back to the middle.

Precision: What Does "Ba'al Cheimah" Mean?

Speaker 1: One needs to see – ba'al cheimah, what does the expression ba'al cheimah mean? Is a ba'al cheimah a person who is extreme?

Speaker 2: Yes, ba'al cheimah. Ba'al cheimah in the Rambam was the term for someone who is extreme. "Lo y'hei ba'al cheimah no'ach lich'os" – no'ach lich'os (easily angered) is not the same as a ba'al cheimah.

Speaker 1: He says, one is going to make oneself difficult. One is going to be a ba'al cheimah, one is going to show that one is a ba'al cheimah – "chamas ha'melech" (the king's wrath). A moderate person is not a ba'al cheimah, he's a ka'asan, he's a ko'eis (one who gets angry).

Discussion: What Does "Lo Yargish" Mean – Feelings or Actions?

Speaker 2: Here the language says "mishelo yargish". He says that the feeling shouldn't be there.

Speaker 1: Okay.

---

Example 2: Haughty Heart – Pride

Speaker 2: Further. "U'mahu govah lev?" Someone who is extremely prideful – govah lev, a high heart, I don't know exactly what the metaphor is for a prideful person.

Speaker 1: Someone who is prideful, you said earlier, yes. "Govah lev v'yoser" – this is what shfal ru'ach (lowly of spirit) is, and this is what shfal ru'ach is.

Speaker 2: Okay, back. Yes, what do they do? Someone who is extremely prideful – "yarchik atzmo b'vizayon harbeh" (he should distance himself through much degradation). To bring him back to the middle path, it's not enough to make him not be a great ba'al ga'avah (prideful person), rather he should be the complete opposite of a ba'al ga'avah. "V'yeishev l'matah min hakol" – he shouldn't sit in the middle where he belongs, he should sit in the back. "V'yilbash biluyei s'chavos ham'vazim es lovsheihem" – he should wear rags that shame the one who wears them. "V'chayotzei bid'varim eilu ad she'yei'aker govah ha'lev mimenu" – until the haughtiness will be uprooted from him, the extreme will be uprooted.

But he says this clearly: "V'yachzor la'derech ha'emtza'is she'hi derech ha'tovah, uch'sheyachzor la'derech ha'emtza'is yeilech bah kol yamav" – once he has reached the middle path, he should remain with it forever.

Insight: The Complete Process of the Rambam

Speaker 1: This is indeed the Rambam in its completeness – that govah lev means, according to the Rambam's interpretation, too much pride; shfal ru'ach means, according to the Rambam's interpretation, too much humility; and initially he will define the middle path (derech ha'emtza'is).

The Parable of a Bent Tree

Speaker 2: The teachers who always bring up an example of a tree that's bent to one side – is that parable somewhere in the Rambam, or do you know where it comes from?

Speaker 1: Not in the Rambam. It could be in the Arizal or one of those places, but I think it's a good parable. It's some kind of introduction, we're not talking about a tree that is... I need to be precise about where the parable comes from, I'm not sure.

---

Foundational Principle: Actions Influence Feelings

Speaker 1: In general, one needs to understand how this works. Because a person who is, for example, hot-tempered, he's not going to stop getting upset, but he's going to hold himself back from reacting. And you can't go directly to his feelings – he goes directly to his actions, that he shouldn't react at all.

And over time, he actually gets less and less upset.

Speaker 2: Yes?

Speaker 1: That means, his actions will influence his feelings, and it will upset him less, and then he won't need to strain himself so much to not respond.

Insight: The Rambam Speaks of Action, Not Feeling

Speaker 1: I think that all character traits (midos) – meaning, when we speak of them – all midos have feelings attached to them, but all midos, the Rambam speaks of the action, not the feeling. I mean, that's how it is.

I mean, I'm thinking – perhaps it's not even... Sometimes when we say someone is margish (feels), do we mean to say he doesn't feel, or do we mean to say he doesn't react with the feelings?

Speaker 2: He doesn't react like someone who feels.

---

The General Rule for All Character Traits

Speaker 1: The Rambam says: "V'al kav zeh ya'aseh b'she'ar kol ha'dei'os" – along this line he should do with all other character traits. "Im hayah rachman yeser al ha'midah, y'achzer atzmo v'lo y'rachem al ba'alei chayim ad sheyachzor la'derech ha'tovah, v'hi midah beinonis shel kol dei'ah v'dei'ah." And so he will arrive.

Insight: A Person Must Remember He's in the Middle of Treatment

Speaker 2: It could be that the point here is that a person should remember that he's in the middle of treatment. As long as a person is not in a state of mind that "I'm currently in the middle of healing," he's not going to break through. When a person says: "I'm still in the middle of my period of treatment – ah, I'm being triggered by anger now, but I'm currently in a treatment period," yes?

Speaker 1: Well, it is indeed a theory, one needs to understand it better. I don't understand it so well. I don't understand so well how to work, to go to the other extreme. It's somehow not clear to me how it works. I need to study the Shemonah Perakim (Eight Chapters) deeply to understand what he means. But apparently, from a learning perspective, I can say it more easily than understand it practically, to become a better person.

---

Structural Insight: The "V'ein Tamah" – The Hidden Question

Speaker 1: But from a learning perspective, I think the introduction here came to answer a question. When we learn an entire introduction, there's always a "v'ein tamah" (don't be surprised), a hidden "v'ein tamah." No question is stated explicitly, but there is a "v'ein tamah" that the introduction addresses.

---

The Question: Humility, Pride, and the Middle Path

Speaker 1: The introduction says that the way of God is the straight path. So you'll ask – what does that mean? It says in the Torah "V'ha'ish Moshe anav me'od" ("And the man Moses was very humble"). I'll bring the proofs in a moment. Yes, I have much humility, very much – I have more than the middle path. He should be humble exactly in the middle.

Or it says "lowliness" – meaning "b'vada d'shiflus ru'ach" – or it says... We learn the sources, we learn Chazal (the Sages) and the poskim (halakhic authorities), and we find many times praises for character traits that appear very extreme. It appears almost plainly that Chazal didn't want a person to have even a little arrogance, and the conclusion of the Gemara – or at least one opinion certainly holds – that one may not have any arrogance at all.

This completely contradicts the Rambam's principle of the middle path, the...

Rambam, Laws of Character Traits, Chapter 2 – Traits Where One Must Go to the Other Extreme: Pride and Anger

---

Halakha 3: Pride – "There Are Traits in Which It Is Forbidden to Conduct Oneself in the Middle"

The Question: "Very Humble" vs. the Middle Path

Speaker 1: It says "anav me'od" (very humble), he needs to be more than the middle path. He should need to be humble exactly in the middle, yes? Or it says "me'od me'od hevei shfal ru'ach" ("be very, very lowly of spirit"), or it says... Let's learn the sources. When one learns Chazal and verses, one finds many times praises for character traits that appear very extreme. It appears almost plainly that Chazal didn't speak about being allowed to have a little pride, and the conclusion of the Gemara has at least one opinion certainly that one may not have any pride at all. This is apparently a contradiction to the Rambam's principle that the middle path is the correct path, right?

The Answer: "Perpetual Treatment" – Pride Is a Constant Illness

Speaker 1: And apparently with this foundational principle one can answer all these questions. But the Rambam already argued this in Chapter 1 of the Laws of Character Traits, that those who go to the other extreme, they are a chasid (pious person).

Speaker 2: That is midas chassidus (the measure of piety).

Speaker 1: Midas chassidus, true, true. But apparently, okay, perhaps there are indeed two answers. Or perhaps, I mean truthfully, it could be that midas chassidus is about the third group. Because the midas chassidus people are those who are constantly educating themselves, constantly healing themselves. Since a chasid knows that he is usually sick, therefore he is engaged in the aspect of treatment. One needs to understand, treatment doesn't only mean sick – this is for people who need it, yes?

Which things are we going to practice? Which things does the Rambam say one should practice in moderation? Which things? The desires to which the soul is strongly inclined, right? Anger and the like. This doesn't mean only for strange people who are prideful, right? A normal person is prideful.

Speaker 2: The desire alone already pulls toward pride.

Speaker 1: Yes. Since the chasid, because he knows that the desire pulls him, he is already like a kind of ba'al teshuvah (penitent). He already practices the extremes a bit, like a ba'al teshuvah, all the time.

Discussion: The Parable of "Temporary Treatment" – The Student with the Rebbe

Speaker 2: I was thinking that the same... I didn't understand clearly enough the topic of chassidus, that it marches in my same direction more than not. But apparently I think it has to do with the fact that a person knows this is a temporary thing. That usually when I... when a person upsets me, I get upset. But now, because I'm under a rebbe, yes? There's a time when he leaves home, he goes to the rebbe, and the rebbe educates him. Therefore, for the entire period, I'm going to act as if I don't get upset at all. I'm going to remain silent when someone upsets me. I know it's only temporary, until I can reach the middle path. The Rambam says right after that, but until one arrives back at the middle path.

And a deficiency that upsets me my whole life, why couldn't they have said...

Speaker 1: Yes. Okay, that's getting into it, that's already a ruling, one can always say that, but sometimes one meant that for the learning perspective, right? But how can they permit bad character traits? That's such a bad time, that it's frightening.

Insight: The Parallel to Hora'as Sha'ah vs. Toras Moshe

Speaker 2: Ah, just like the distinction between hora'as sha'ah (temporary ruling) and prophecy there, yes. Very beautiful.

Speaker 1: No, it really fits, because the Rambam says that "b'Toras Moshe chukim u'mishpatim tzadikim" – let me translate more finely – the Torah of Moses is what is eternally good, and there's only a hora'as sha'ah here, for a certain time one needs a certain correction.

Speaker 2: Ah, very good. It makes a lot of sense. Why should Yoel ben Pesuel make such a shalom aleichem? But through these paths the seed will come. Once you say it that far, it makes sense. It's exactly the same with you. It's not Moshe Rabbeinu who is the educator. Moshe Rabbeinu says what the truth is. But there's the educator who works with the difficult time, to heal the difficult time.

---

The Rambam's Words: "There Are Traits in Which It Is Forbidden to Conduct Oneself in the Middle"

Speaker 1: Okay, so it is. The Rambam says further, besides the path of treatment, there's something more. The Rambam says, "V'yesh dei'os" (there are traits). This is a detail of the path of treatment, but the Rambam doesn't say that.

Speaker 2: Ah, there are things where one always needs treatment like this.

Speaker 1: The topic of the path of treatment says, one must answer all those statements of Chazal that appear to go in the opposite direction. He won't complete it, that this is because people always need treatment for them.

Ah, the Rambam says: "V'yesh dei'os she'asur lo la'adam linhog bahen b'veinonis" – there are character traits, unlike what the Rambam began with, that one must go on the middle path, there are things where one may not go on the middle path – "ela yisrachek ad ha'katzeh ha'acher" – one must go all the way to the other end.

"V'hi gavhus ha'lev, she'ein ha'derech ha'tovah she'yihyeh adam anav bilvad" – it's not enough that a person is only moderately humble, it's not enough that a person is only a little humble – "ela she'yihyeh shfal ru'ach, v'sihyeh rucho nemuchah lim'od" – a person must truly go to the extreme and be lowly of spirit, with strong humility, working on strong humility.

The Explanation: Pride Always Needs Treatment

Speaker 1: And as R' Yitzchak just explained it, because pride is something that always needs – just as every person has a certain illness of pride, it means one must always fight it. There are things one only needs to fight for a period of time, but pride one must fight one's entire life, and constantly go to the other extreme.

Speaker 2: In order not to arrive at the other side. As if it's very hard to be in the middle with pride.

Speaker 1: Or he could say that even if someone will be in the middle, tomorrow he'll already fall, because the evil inclination (yetzer hara) will immediately give him a push down.

He says, therefore Moshe Rabbeinu took humility "very much" (me'od), not just humility alone. "Me'od" means more than the middle, just as he earlier called the perushim (ascetics) – they go with humility "very much."

Proofs from Chazal

Speaker 1: "Lefichach tzivu chachamim" – therefore the Sages commanded in Avos (Ethics of the Fathers): "Me'od me'od hevei shfal ru'ach" ("Be very, very lowly of spirit"). That's an extra "very much."

"Od amru" – and furthermore Chazal said: "Shekol ha'magbi'ah libo kofer ba'ikar" ("Anyone who raises his heart is as if he denies the fundamental principle"). This is another explanation for why he says the same thing.

Discussion: "Anyone Who Raises His Heart Denies the Fundamental Principle" – Two Interpretations

Speaker 1: We would have thought that "kol hamagbiha libo kofer ba'ikar" (whoever elevates his heart denies the fundamental principle) is a proof for why one should go the middle path. On the contrary, why should one go to the extreme? If heresy is something of which one may not have even a drop, if it's a denial of the fundamental principle, then that is the destruction. If I'm correct that this is the inner remedy, and the plain meaning is that the Sages made such a sharp exaggeration on the subject of pride, it's because in this matter one must go to the extreme.

Speaker 2: No, I would say exactly the opposite – that because with other things both extremes are bad, but here one extreme is so much worse than the other extreme, it's different for you to go to the other extreme than to stay in the middle.

Speaker 1: But here there is a reason why one should go with the... a person is biased toward himself (adam karov etzel atzmo)... but here one can see that since it causes...

Perhaps let us explain "shekol hamagbiha libo kofer ba'ikar" – not meaning that it causes heresy, but meaning that it explains because it's a desire. But that is the meaning in the deep Torah teachings. The simple meaning is perhaps that it causes – sometimes a person goes with his pride to the end, and he actually arrives at denial of the fundamental principle, because it is truly a contradiction to being at ease with God. As the verse states "ve'ram levavcha ve'shachachta" (and your heart will be lifted up and you will forget) – one can understand that because it leads to forgetting, therefore one must distance oneself. It's a very dangerous character trait, to allow oneself even a little.

Because they said "kol hamagbiha libo kofer ba'ikar", as it says "ve'ram levavcha" – if you have great pride – "ve'shachachta et Hashem Elokecha" – you will forget the Almighty. Therefore, since it is dangerous, one should go to the other extreme, because one must have much more fear of the extreme of pride than of the extreme of lowliness and humility.

"Amru be'shamta de'ika bei gasut ha'ruach" – the Sages say, one who has arrogance in himself should be excommunicated – ve'afilu be'miktzat – even one who has only a little arrogance.

---

Discussion: A Dispute in Gemara Sotah – An Eighth of an Eighth

Speaker 2: But if I remember correctly, this is an explicit dispute in the Gemara. The Rambam doesn't speak here – the Gemara says that a scholar should have an eighth of an eighth. Also earlier when he spoke about a scholar, he expressed himself that a scholar should have a bit of self-respect, being careful about how far his humility goes.

So, if I remember correctly, this is truly a dispute. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said "lo minei ve'lo miktzatei" – he should indeed not have any, because it says "to'avat Hashem kol gevah lev" (an abomination to God is every haughty heart). But Rava, if I remember correctly, said no, he needs to have an eighth of an eighth. The Gemara is in Sotah, if I remember correctly. So, you see that it is truly a dispute. The Rambam rules according to one opinion.

Speaker 1: It could be, he argues that the Rambam rules like... an eighth of an eighth is also a very small amount, it's still not the middle. Okay, one could perhaps say that this is the correct middle for this character trait.

Speaker 2: But if I remember correctly, it's simply a dispute, and the Rambam decided to rule according to one Gemara.

Note: Ashkenazim vs. Sephardim in the Ruling

Speaker 1: So you see that pride is truly devoid of any good. If someone wants to know – ah, very important – when the Ashkenazim go more with the idea that pride is truly [bad], they bring Chassidic rulings from the Rambam, they should know that in Ashkenaz they said that one brings the other opinion – Rava and Rav Chiya, a dispute in the Gemara. So, one should know that there are two communities on this matter. If someone wonders with a bit of pride, there is a distinction in this.

---

Anger – "Ve'chen ha'ka'as, de'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od"

Speaker 1: So, when he finished the path of remedy, the Rambam continues: "Ve'chen ha'ka'as" (and similarly anger). He listed pride where one must go to the extreme of humility, and he says the same about anger: "de'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od" (it is an extremely bad trait). Here he doesn't call it an illness, here he is already speaking about anger, which we previously held that anger is more of the middle-path type. No, he says, even a little anger is "de'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od, ve'ra'ui lo la'adam she'yitrachek mimenu ad ha'katzeh ha'acher" – he should go to the other end of minimal anger – "ve'yilamed atzmo shelo yich'as afilu al davar she'ra'ui lich'os alav" – even something that it's appropriate to be angry about, a person should train himself and not become angry.

Speaker 2: "Ra'ui" in the true sense, not "ra'ui" as the Derech Mitzvosecha says in chapter one.

When Should One Show Anger? – The Act of Anger

Speaker 1: Now he goes into the idea that regarding anger he says a very beautiful teaching. He addresses the case of yes – if you say there are things where anger is appropriate, which is forbidden, he says: That is to say, when does one need to show anger? When one wants people to throw a fear on those around them, that this must not be done.

That is to say, for example – when Dasan and Aviram came to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, Aharon is a leader of the community, he thinks about how he will face his world tomorrow since this is a great sin, this is not done. He goes to present himself in anger – "ve'rotzeh lachazor lahem kedei she'yachzeru le'mutav" – he wants to be in anger so they should return to the good path, so they should stop committing the sin, and he should not actually become angry, because he said that anger is a bad trait.

"Yir'eh et atzmo bifneihem she'ko'es kedei le'ha'anisham" – he should appear before them as if he is angry in order to punish them – he should play the anger, he should control his anger.

Insight: The Difference Between "Anger Controls You" and "You Control Anger"

Speaker 2: You can say he should not let the anger control him, he should control the anger, he should use an act of anger in order to punish them.

Speaker 1: That is the meaning of the matter of anger, that is the problem with anger. The problem of anger is something where you lose yourself, then you don't need to come to that.

Speaker 2: Even with the one who does get angry, seemingly he has lost himself, he is angry with the evidence.

Speaker 1: In any case, anger is a problem of internal problems. It says from this piece of Tosafos above here that the problem of anger is an inner problem.

Discussion: What Does "Losing Yourself" Mean Regarding Anger?

Speaker 2: Then I think that anger is that you lose yourself. But I ask you, if someone who is controlled when he loses himself, is he still lost?

Speaker 1: He has lost himself, he has lost himself. It could be that once you've lost yourself you do anything, or you're still in control no matter how much you scream – that's what I mean to say.

Someone who is in anger, the meaning is that now I already know, even if he acts extremely, because he is now in anger, that means the anger controls him. Even if he will control when he becomes angry, but once he is in anger he has already screamed and he has already done crazy things, broken vessels in his rage.

But Moshe Rabbeinu, when he acts as if he is angry, he didn't do – even then he didn't do any crazy things, because he still has enough control. It's not just an act, it's not just anger – he doesn't just say harsh things, rather he says it with passion, he is still enough and he still remembers what he's doing, he still has enough control that yes – "ve'tihyeh da'ato meyushevet alav beino le'vein atzmo" (his mind should be settled within himself).

So this isn't clear, I remember I learned after Shabbos, and a Rambam with a Ramban...

Rambam Hilchos De'os Chapter 2 (Continued) – Anger, Control, and Silence

---

Halacha 3 (Continued) – "Da'ato Meyushevet Beino Le'vein Atzmo": Control in Anger

But essentially, when he acts as if he is angry, he doesn't do – even then he doesn't do any crazy things, because he still has enough control. It's not just an act, it's not... he doesn't just say harsh things, rather he says it with a slap, but he still has enough... he still remembers what he's doing, he still has enough control that... yes, ve'tihyeh da'ato meyushevet beino le'vein atzmo, so it's not clear. I remember I learned after Shabbos a Rambam, with a Rambam it becomes... it's not worth it for you...

---

Discussion: The Gemara "Mokre'a et Kesuto" – Breaking Vessels in Anger

Yes, there is a Gemara, there is a Gemara that says mokre'a et kesuto (tears his garments), mokre'a et kesuto, yes. But isn't that like worshipping idolatry? There was a question, I don't remember anymore in the second Tosafos. The Rambam is anyway different, but it could be according to the Rambam that he does break vessels, only in order to show anger, in order to... So, I don't know.

> Insight: But what is simple – even the one who says that anger is a middle path, he also agrees that one must be strict never to completely lose control. So, one needs to better understand, one needs to better learn this matter.

---

Two Levels in "Ke'adam She'medameh"

And the Rambam, ve'tihyeh da'ato – even then when he is in anger, his da'ato meyushevet beino le'vein atzmo should be maintained, that the people around should see anger, but he himself should be in control, he should know what he's doing. Ke'adam she'medameh ish bi'she'at ka'aso – like a person who is angry, he should act... should act anger.

> Insight: No, he doesn't say he should act anger – he says he should be a proud person like one who acts anger, right? Two levels. Ke'adam she'medameh – he doesn't say like the mind of a person at the time of his anger, what would he be acting? I don't know. No, not the opposite – he does become a little angry, but he maintains control.

I feel that one needs to better work out the words, I'm not happy with how this is going here.

---

"Kol Ha'ko'es Ke'ilu Oved Avodah Zarah" – Where Does It Say This?

Okay, let's go to the first point in this. I don't have a clear source for this. But what you said, let's say that you said regarding what Chazal say that it is so severe – "amru chachameinu ha'rishonim, kol ha'ko'es ke'ilu oved avodah zarah" (our early Sages said, whoever gets angry is as if he worships idolatry).

> Insight: Yes, this was a nice mistake that someone once convinced me that there is such a language of Chazal, "kol ha'ko'es ke'ilu oved avodah zarah." The Rambam says, it perhaps appears in the Zohar, but in the revealed Torah of Chazal such a language does not appear.

---

The True Source: The Gemara in Shabbos

And it is certain that the Rambam meant the Gemara in Shabbos that we discussed, "shuv eino choshesh" (he no longer cares). It does say "kol ha'ko'es ke'ilu oved avodah zarah", and the Gemara explains why: "Ha'yom omer lo kach, le'machar omer lo kach, ad she'omer lo lech avod avodah zarah" (today it tells him this, tomorrow it tells him that, until it tells him go worship idolatry).

In other words, the Gemara says exactly what you said – that the main point is that anger is not controllable. Someone who follows his anger, you cannot know what tomorrow his anger will tell him.

> Insight: If so, then truly – if this is the proof regarding anger, then it's very good that the Rambam understands from this a proof that one must go to the other extreme, because it's not controllable. It was indeed anger with a serious language, no distinction, but "kol ha'ko'es" means even a little can lead to idolatry – so the Rambam takes from this a proof that one must go to the other extreme.

---

Discussion: Does It Actually Say That There?

It's not a proof from the fact that the language appears there – it doesn't say that matter there at all. People say, it doesn't say that matter there, it says the matter there that anger is powerful, not just "he no longer cares," but also because he will come to idolatry. It doesn't say that the anger itself is idolatry.

> Insight: But if one posits that the entire proof of what the Rambam is discussing is the normal anger that can lead to greater anger that can lead to idolatry, then it makes sense that...

---

Wisdom, Prophecy, and Control

I mean, the next piece also goes in this direction. He says "kol ha'ko'es, im chacham hu chochmato mistalekes heimenu" – he loses his wisdom. It is indeed, he lets his emotions take over the entire person. "Im navi hu nevu'ato mistalekes heimenu" (if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him).

Incidentally, if one is not a scholar one cannot be a prophet – it's also connected one to the other. A scholar who is perhaps a prophet, that's no use. Not every scholar is a prophet, that's clear. But he says, he should continue to let his mind be in control and not his anger.

---

"I Was Angry" – Is That an Excuse?

Just as a person will, for example, often do things in anger, and when confronted he will say, "I wasn't in control, I was angry."

> Insight: Is that an excuse? According to the Rambam, that is no excuse, because you must remain in control the entire time. That is the question – not being in control is the worst thing. That is the result that leads together to idolatry, God forbid.

---

"Ba'alei Ka'as Ein Chayeihem Chayim" – Angry People Don't Live a Life

The Rambam says, "ba'alei ka'as ein chayeihem chayim" – they don't live a life. This is apparently also a language of Chazal, or? Yes, yes, yes. Did you see he brings it? This is to further bring out this point.

Here one sees that he goes a bit from anger to more like... it is indeed about anger, in the direction of the other side. It's truly just anger, that "ein chayeihem chayim." Because every day he encounters something – today he's upset at this one, that someone cut him off in traffic. And tomorrow the package wasn't big enough and today it's too small.

---

"Shelosha Chayeihem Einam Chayim" – The Angry Person as Victim

He brings the language from the Kesef Mishneh, "shelosha chayeihem einam chayim" (three whose lives are not lives). One is a compassionate person – because every thing affects him, he can suffer blood pressure. He says that someone who is empathetic, he is always judged for another's trouble – "ha'rachmanim ve'ha'ninei ha'da'at" (the compassionate and the sensitive).

Also someone who is an angry person – since he always has good excuses: "Really I'm a normal person, just now and now and now and now that person upset me, this thing wasn't right."

> Insight: So we can see, in other words, that anger is like a strong victim mentality – he is never... that person upset me, as if I didn't do anything, the car in front of me really upset me, and that person upset me. It's giving over control of yourself to others, to circumstances. All these excuses – the meaning is that the person is not in control of his life.

---

"Hisrachek Min Ha'ka'as" – The Middle Path Regarding Anger Is Extreme

The Gemara continues, "lefichach tzivu chachamim ve'amru hisrachek min ha'ka'as ad she'yanhig atzmo shelo yargish afilu bi'devarim ha'mach'isim, ve'zohi ha'derech ha'tovah."

> Insight: What the Rambam says – that the middle path regarding anger is indeed extreme. Usually the middle path is the center, but regarding anger it is indeed [extreme].

---

"Derech Ha'tzaddikim" – Joy in Suffering and Love of God

The Rambam continues, "derech ha'tzaddikim hi she'hem aluvim ve'einam olvim, shom'im cherpasam ve'einam meshivim, osim me'ahavah u'semeichim be'yisurim."

Yes, seemingly one doesn't need to say such a great level that they rejoice in their suffering, as the Rambam says in Hilchos Berachos that... there is something, he doesn't know everything, the suffering is not the whole world. They rejoice even when they have suffering because perhaps after the suffering comes something good.

---

The Parable of the Sun

"Va'aleihem ha'kasuv omer ve'ohavav ke'tzeis ha'shemesh bi'gvuraso." (And of them the verse says, and those who love Him are like the sun going forth in its might.) This is also a Gemara there.

> Insight: You can say, the sun is not a middle path – the sun is not a drop brighter than the moon. The sun knows that it must be the major, enormous sun. The righteous know that they cannot be the middle path when it comes to these things.

Ah, no, I wanted to say – the word "ve'ahavta" (and you shall love) is seemingly connected to what you said before.

---

Connection to Love of God – "Be'chol Midah U'midah She'hu Moded Lecha"

What are the righteous? "Ve'ahavta et Hashem Elokecha be'chol levavcha u've'chol nafshecha u've'chol me'odecha." (And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.) So the love of God – this is what the Almighty brings him, he accepts it happily. "Be'chol midah u'midah she'hu moded lecha hevei modeh lo." (With every measure that He measures out to you, be grateful to Him.) I think that this is...

> Insight: So the Rambam says here a tremendous thing. Here he says something by way of hint, something that also appears in Chassidic works – that the reason why they never become angry is because of their joy in suffering, because "aluvim ve'einam olvim" (they are insulted but do not insult), because they know that everything comes from Heaven, or as Rashi says there. Just as the Ibn Ezra's interpretation of "ve'lo yischam" – it's something of that sort of concept, yes? That they know that everything is from Heaven, and therefore... The Rambam doesn't say this here, but he connects the joy in suffering and the "shom'im cherpasam ve'einam meshivim" (they hear their disgrace and do not respond).

---

Connection Between Anger, Pride, and Love of God

So the Rambam continues... That's right, it connects with the previous trait of forbidden relations, "be'chol levavcha" (with all your heart). Both of these have some connection with the love of God or whatever it is, the cleaving to God (devekus ba'Hashem).

Alright, up to here are the two things where one must go literally to the extreme.

---

Halacha 4 – Silence: "A person should always increase silence"

Now he goes on to bring additional things where one needs to go a bit more to one side and make fences and safeguards (gdarim v'seyagim), but one doesn't need to go all the way to the end.

He says, "A person should always increase silence" – a person should lean more toward silence. He shouldn't remain at the minimum obligation of speaking often, but rather more silence. I think this is the proper conduct (derech eretz) with this – I don't remember where I saw this.

The Rambam holds that people use their mouths too much. They eat too much – later he'll say one eats too much, one talks too much. "A person should always increase silence, and should not speak except either words of wisdom" – either words of Torah or words of wisdom – "or things that are necessary for the sustenance of his body." So speech was created as a tool of service for what a person needs to have.

---

Why does the Rambam mention the name "Rav, student of Rabbeinu HaKadosh"?

Rav, the student of Rabbeinu HaKadosh, said – this is said about the Amora Rav who was a student of Rabbeinu HaKadosh.

> Insight: It's interesting that he attributes Rav as a student of Rabbeinu HaKadosh. Rav has a major dispute with Rabbeinu HaKadosh, but it was so long ago that there are those who say that Rav was a student of Rabbeinu HaKadosh. It could be that the Rambam held this way. Rav – we're not even talking about Rav – Rav said, which descends from Rav. He says that Rav, the person, the certain person called Rav, the student of Rabbeinu HaKadosh – one can say he is the Amora Rav.

The Rambam almost never brings names in this work, so it's very unusual. The Chacham already asks a good question. He says as follows – the early sages, always, even when he does bring [a quote], he says "the early sages said" – anonymously. Suddenly Rav? Like that. It could be this is the reason – because he loves to speak about Rabbeinu HaKadosh, so he is, as it were, specially connected to Rabbeinu HaKadosh. Ah, that's interesting.

---

"Idle chatter" = most speech of most people

"That he never engaged in idle chatter all his days."

The Rambam says, what does idle chatter (sicha beteilah) mean? You might think idle chatter means something strange? No. What is idle chatter? "This is the conversation of most people." Most people speak idle chatter, because most people don't speak only words of wisdom or things necessary for the body.

---

"Whoever increases words brings sin" – even with permitted speech

The Rambam says, "Even regarding bodily needs, a person should not increase words." I said that for bodily needs one should speak, but how should one speak? One can even speak about things one needs to discuss at length, or one can speak more to the point.

This is what he says, and so they said, "Whoever increases words brings sin."

> Insight: This means, even things one needs to discuss – if one speaks too lengthily, too much, it brings sin. So the Rambam creates a contrast for us. He says, "Whoever increases words brings sin" – what did you think this meant? Not to speak idle words? No, one doesn't speak idle words anyway – that's no novelty at all that one may not speak them. He means, this already refers to things one is permitted to speak about – even then one should speak more briefly. That doesn't help.

---

"I found nothing better for the body than silence" – even for the body

Also this: and they said, "I found nothing better for the body than silence." Even for the body – things one needs to speak about for the body. The body has needs that require speaking – even for the body, silence is better than speaking.

> Insight: This is indeed the greatest novelty possible. And I mean it this way – even regarding bodily needs, one should practice complete silence. Simply, for the soul (nefesh) it's certainly the case that one doesn't need to speak, but for the body one often needs to speak. And not only regarding ordinary matters, even regarding words of Torah – everything that goes on here.

Rambam, Hilchos De'os Chapter 2, Halacha 4 (continued) – Silence, Speech, Flattery, and Deceiving Others

---

Silence – even for bodily needs

On this topic, because they said "I found nothing better for the body than silence" – even a body, the things one needs to speak about, the body has needs that require speaking – even for the body, silence is better than speaking.

Now I'm going into a new section of the Mishnah. Even so, he says that even for bodily needs one should lean toward silence. Simply, for the soul it's certainly the case that one doesn't need to speak, but for the body one often needs to speak. And not only regarding bodily matters, even regarding words of Torah. That's no novelty at all. The Rambam is very knowledgeable in this field, extraordinarily so.

---

Words of Torah and words of wisdom – few words containing much

"And similarly regarding words of Torah and words of wisdom, the words of the wise should be few and their content abundant."

There are many times when one can have very little content, little substance, with many words. The Rambam says: make sure that your words should be "few containing much" (mu'at hamachzik es hamerubeh) – they should have much content, much substance, covered with few words.

The Rambam's own concise language

I mean, the Rambam himself practices what he preaches (na'eh doresh) – he has a very concise language, a beautiful language. I think the Rambam also loved the language of Rabbeinu HaKadosh, the author of the Mishnah, who also has a very concise language. The Rambam somewhat follows the language of the Mishnah.

It could be that this is why he mentions Rav – the straightforward understanding is that Rabbeinu HaKadosh's [conciseness] is seen in his language of the Mishnah, but perhaps regarding Rav it states clearly in the Gemara that "he never engaged in idle chatter all his days." It could be that Rabbeinu HaKadosh himself had to deal with Antoninus, and he had to deal with many matters, so perhaps one couldn't say about him that... He even speaks with holiness – Rabbeinu HaKadosh means he didn't even derive benefit from this world, there's some holiness in his very existence.

A person should always teach his students in a concise manner

He says, "And this is the way of the wise, and they said: a person should always teach his students in a concise manner." One should teach students in a concise manner. This means one should try to pack more into the words. A concise manner doesn't mean one should teach less.

> Insight: I think in education this is a powerful point. A person can sometimes think: I want them to understand very well. But perhaps there's something to the idea that eventually they might understand more if you pack in a lot and they'll need to struggle a bit.

Today's books or lecturers (maggidei shiur) generally assume that their readers are dumb and everything needs to be spelled out. That's why I do this – I hold that you can also understand. And if not, I'll take a second, I'll explain it to you, and afterward you'll see that I said it well. So let's see that our videos should become shorter, our lectures.

---

Foolishness – many words with little content

The Rambam says, "But if the words are many and the content is little, this is foolishness." If a person speaks many words with little content, little substance, "this is foolishness" – this shows, or this itself is stupidity.

"And this is what they said: 'For a dream comes through much activity.'" Dreams come with much content-rich material, said briefly. "And similarly, words of dreams are spoken with many words." Such dream-talk is spoken with many words. "And the voice of a fool is with many words." One hears the voice of the fool – how do you know someone is a fool? When you hear that he speaks too many words, he speaks many words.

Density of wisdom

> Insight: One can say that foolishness is, as it were, dependent on the density of the content, of the wisdom in one's words. If he has a hundred wisdoms in a hundred words, it works out that each word has one wisdom. If he has two hundred words and a hundred wisdoms, each word is only half as wise, because it includes many foolish words. The words are just fillers – many words without content. But the total words relative to the wisdom is very little.

---

A fence for wisdom is silence

The Rambam continues, "A fence for wisdom is silence." Besides the fact that a wise person speaks briefly, it also helps – silence also makes a person become wiser. It protects his wisdom, right?

I think "fence" (seyag) implies the plain meaning that this is a barrier – it protects his wisdom. Seyag is the language of fence, like "make a fence for the Torah." But also that one goes further than the path of the commandments.

---

Do not rush to answer – don't hurry to respond

"Therefore, one should not rush to answer." A person should not hurry to respond.

> Insight: A person thinks like this: first let me answer – if the answer isn't so good, I'll answer another one, I'll give five answers. But if he doesn't rush to answer, he knows: I'm going to give one answer, that answer will be the right answer, because I've thought it over very well.

This is indeed how the – you know who is a certain "voice of a fool with many words"? The one wise person, he knows... he speaks a lot. Indeed, he says one answer.

---

And should not speak much – not speak many words

And in the next section he also says much about flattery. And should not speak much – he should not speak many words.

Very good. When a person rushes to speak, he'll need to explain himself better, and retract, and go back and forth. But a person who thinks very, very carefully – as he says, he speaks few words with much content – he'll think it over a lot beforehand, and he'll only say the right thing.

---

Teaching students gently – without shouting, without lengthy language

"He teaches his students gently, without shouting, without lengthy language." With calmness, not shouting, without lengthy language.

> Insight: I think this is also a case where one thing leads to the other. If he speaks without thinking it over, people won't understand him so well, he needs to explain himself better, he needs to shout. But if a person thinks very much about his words and says very strong, clear words, he'll be able to speak gently, with calmness.

Shouting comes from lack of clarity

Often the shouting comes from the fact that one doesn't know what one wants to say, so he becomes frustrated – why don't they understand me – and he needs to shout. As it says in the notes, that it's a weak point, so he shouts louder. If you know what you want to say, you speak clearly.

This is what Solomon said – this is what King Solomon says – "The words of the wise are heard in quietness." When they speak calmly, then they are heard – not because he shouts.

Proper conduct for Torah scholars

The Rambam continues: what else can these matters be? It's truly a code of proper conduct (derech eretz) for Torah scholars (talmidei chachamim) who study Torah. It's not relevant to just come in – and later he says a chapter specifically about Torah scholars.

He already had a chapter about Torah scholars a bit earlier, that a Torah scholar creates a sanctification of God's Name (kiddush Hashem). There are very many laws that are specifically for Torah scholars. If you study and you're not yet at the point of fulfilling them, you need to investigate the matter a bit more. But he accustoms himself – a Torah scholar will accustom himself. But learn – you're holding at one chapter – make a chapter.

---

Flattery, deceiving others, and inner consistency

Do not conduct oneself with smooth and enticing words

"And he should not conduct himself with smooth and enticing words." He should not conduct himself with slippery, flattering words. As he says further, "He should not be a person of scheming and deceit." He should not be a person who acts like "one-one star" – having his own opinion, and he has a true thing, not what he imagines, talking himself into things.

"Rather, he should conduct himself" – there's a type of person who speaks in an exaggerated way, like ChatGPT says – he tells you what you want to hear.

Smooth words (chalakos) – I think it's a language of slipperiness, "a slippery path." Such flattery, like one slips down, it's slippery. One says all such things, one is a salesperson forever. When you need to sell things, one may sometimes be a salesperson, but one may not be a salesperson one's whole life, always trying to flatter and make a good impression.

Inner consistency – not one way in the mouth and another in the heart

"And one should not be one way in the mouth and another way in the heart." A person may not be one way in the heart and another way in the mouth.

I think the Rambam also said this – if I understood correctly how the Rambam learned revenge (nekimah) and bearing a grudge (netirah), "or you shall surely rebuke him" – a person needs to be open with people, a person needs to tell people truthfully what he thinks.

"Rather, his inside should be like his outside." A person needs to be on the inside the way he is on the outside.

> Insight: He doesn't say one needs to be on the outside the way one is on the inside, because then there's trouble. Rather the opposite – he shouldn't just say everything he says, he should think. He should speak nicely to people, but he should actually try to think well of people.

If you consider someone a fool, you tell him. That's certainly a wicked thing. Rather, work on this – speak nicely, but work on actually thinking well of him.

A person of truth – not saying everything

Even regarding truth – does someone ask, must he say everything? If a person of truth means that everything he has inside he says – no, that's simply a crazy person. A person of truth means: everything he says, he means.

> Insight: This also relates to speaking little, which we said earlier. What does speaking little mean? Even things you hold, you don't say everything.

The Rambam's use of "inyan" and "davar"

The Rambam says, "And the matter in the heart should be the word in the mouth." The proper way is that what you think in your heart, that is what one should say.

> Insight: An interesting thing – the terms "inyan" and "davar." Inyan means, for the Rambam, the meaning, the content. This is a term he uses. Sometimes inyan doesn't mean that, but for the Rambam, inyan always means the significance, the subject you have in your heart – that's the inyan. Davar, the act of speaking, that's the mouth (peh).

---

Deceiving others (geneivas da'as) – even a non-Jew's perception

What is geneivas da'as?

The next topic: "And it is forbidden to deceive people (lignov da'as habriyos)" – one may not... What is the literal meaning here? It means fooling someone with flattery, but stealing someone's mind – it means with words, flattering with words, even the perception of a non-Jew.

Let's see the Meshulam, and we'll understand what he says.

> Insight: How so? I think, it could be... I've seen people struggle with this. What does it mean? The meaning is like theft – that I hide from you something that belongs to you. Theft (geneivah) is different from robbery (gezeilah) – I don't grab from you. Nothing happens at all. Simply, I hide this one thing. This one thing belongs in your house, and I hide it from you in my house.

>

> You have a desire, you have an interest – when you speak with someone, you owe that person to be open with him. When you hide from him something that you believe he won't understand, but you hide from him something you could tell him, you hide from him the full story – it's like this: when a person is open with someone, the other person should see the full story, and the other person should make the decision.

Discussion: Parable of "best friends"

Speaker 2: Very good. For example, a person deals with someone according to how close he is to that person. So, when you're open with him – "Look, I'm not your best friend, but I'm a good friend to you, and I'm asking you a favor." No, I'm going to make like I'm your best, best friend, so you have to do me the favor.

Speaker 1: No, that's a very good parable.

Speaker 2: A person invites someone to a wedding – one should tell him: "Look, you're not among my ten best friends, but you're a good friend of mine, and I'm asking you a favor to come to my wedding." But when one tells the other person, "You're my best, best friend, so come to the wedding" – you've deceived him, you haven't let him make his decision based on the full reality, on the full story.

Speaker 1: Or you pretend to be a best friend. Sometimes one becomes a best friend – one acts so much, not from now, because I want to be a best friend, but ultimately the inside becomes like the outside (tocho k'varo).

Speaker 2: Very good.

---

Examples of geneivas da'as

The Rambam is concise:

"One should not sell a non-Jew meat from an animal that died naturally (neveilah) as if it were ritually slaughtered (shechutah)." A non-Jew – one sells meat to a non-Jew. For the non-Jew there's essentially no difference between neveilah or shechutah, and for you, shechutah is worth more. So you could now sell to the non-Jew – "You should know, I'm selling you my best meat."

By the way, it's very interesting, because the Rambam says even to a non-Jew one may not deceive. He says even though it's a non-Jew.

"And one should not sell him a shoe made from the hide of an animal that died naturally in place of a shoe from a ritually slaughtered animal." One sells someone shoes – there's really no difference. But "you should know, I'm selling you a very expensive shoe," when it's not actually so expensive.

Further, "And one should not send him a barrel with its measure unless one informs him that it contains only such and such." I know that the other person isn't going to come to my house, so it comes very easily to me to invite him. Very powerful.

Practical example – Shalosh Seudos

For example, I, at shalosh seudos (the third Shabbos meal), I honor people. So, many times I have a test where the people I've seen haven't washed their hands, let me honor them with leading the bentching (grace after meals). Because I know he's not going to answer anyway. And you can't honor two people. I can also honor the one who I know won't be able to bentch.

But seemingly this is one of the cases of geneivas da'as (deception), because again, if I know, if I'm only doing it for geneivas da'as. Again, first of all I just want to reveal my secret.

This needs to be thrown in – this is similar to the matter of flattery (chanifa) and not benefiting at all. There are such people where everything they do is a bluff, flattery.

Rambam, Hilchos De'os Chapter 2 (Continued) – Geneivas Da'as, Joy, Money, and the General Principle

---

Geneivas Da'as – A Practical Question

So, many times I have this kind of situation where the people I see haven't washed their hands. Let me honor them with bentching, because I know he's not going to answer anyway. I can't honor two people. I can also honor the one who I know won't be able to bentch. But seemingly this is a matter of geneivas da'as, because again, if I'm only doing it for geneivas da'as – again, yes, in short, I don't want to reveal my secret here.

---

The Rambam's Language – "Forbidden," Not Just Guidance

But one must know that this is a... the words of the Rambam, this isn't just stated in the language of guidance. This is indeed a person whose entire being is like that – everything he says is a bluff, flattery. You shouldn't be such a person.

Examples of Geneivas Da'as

Or to be excessive with offerings – when he knows, a person prepares a beautiful table with good things, as if he's already received someone, he knows anyway that person won't eat, but he puts it out for show.

Or he pressures his friend to eat with him, and he knows he won't eat – or he tells someone, "Yes, come to me for Shabbos," but in practice it never actually happens.

Or a person knows someone opens a new barrel for him, but actually he needs to open it tomorrow anyway, so that the guest should think he opened it in his honor.

The Guest's Gratitude (Hakoras Hatov)

The guest should indeed say, "How much effort this host went through for me." Yes, that is hakoras hatov (gratitude) – we should indeed think the other person is doing everything for us. But one must know.

---

Even a Single Word – Geneivas Da'as Is a Prohibition

And similarly all such cases, says the Rambam, and even a single word of enticement and of geneivas da'as is forbidden, and there he says explicitly "it is forbidden to speak." It is forbidden.

> Insight: Geneivas da'as is not just something minor – "forbidden" means exactly what the language implies, that it's not just a bad character trait, it's a transgression. It's a transgression. Every word of geneivas da'as – it's a minor transgression, but geneivas da'as is a prohibition.

---

Truthful Speech, an Upright Spirit, and a Pure Heart

Rather, truthful speech – that there should be honest language. And an upright spirit – the spirit should be there, one should truly love the other person. And a heart pure from all toil and wickedness – one should be clean from every falsehood.

"Toil and Wickedness" – Biblical Language

What does "toil and wickedness" mean? Bad... no, it's a biblical expression. "Toil" goes together with "wickedness." It means because one doesn't have bad thoughts, there's no such thing. A person should be truthful. A person should be truthful.

---

Summary: Flattery and Speech

It should be truthful – the matter of flattery. We spoke about flattery versus being truthful. I connected it with the topic of speech, right? I said the main things about speech.

---

Joy – The Middle Path

The Rambam's Principle

The Rambam continues with the same idea regarding the middle trait, or the proper measure of joy. The Rambam says as follows:

"A person should not be one who is full of laughter and jest" – a person shouldn't be a jester who laughs and is excessively cheerful. "Nor sad and mournful" – also not excessively sad. "Rather, joyful" – he should be happy, good-natured. He should be a good-natured person.

Laughter and Frivolity Lead to Immorality

He says even in the first chapter, which he only mentions, he brings from Rabbeinu Bachya such a thing: "So the Sages said: Laughter and frivolity accustom a person to immorality."

> Insight: This is an interesting reason why one shouldn't be a person of laughter – because "laughter and frivolity accustom a person to immorality."

Receiving Every Person with a Cheerful Countenance

"And they commanded that a person should not be unrestrained in laughter" – he also says, we were commanded that a person shouldn't be excessive with laughter. "Nor sad and mourning" – and not be sad. "Rather, receiving every person with a cheerful countenance" – he should greet every person with a pleasant face.

Discussion: A Cheerful Countenance Without Flattery

> Insight: One must also know – the "receiving every person with a cheerful countenance" must not have any trace of flattery. So further, further it's difficult. Flattery is capable. But at the end of the day, one must be joyful.

---

Money – A Broad Appetite Versus a Good Eye

The Rambam's Principle

Further, the Rambam says:

"And similarly, a person should not have a broad appetite, rushing after wealth" – a person shouldn't be a very expansive person who needs to have a lot of money, and who is rushing after wealth, who is very excited and runs after money. "Nor lazy and idle from work" – and also not a person who is lazy and doesn't seek money, but is idle from work. "Rather, a person of valor."

"Rushing After Wealth" – What Does It Mean?

"Rushing after wealth" means he is very driven, he can't sleep, he must have a million dollars. One also shouldn't be a miser who is lazy and idle from work. And these are the bad traits one shouldn't have.

The Rambam's Interpretation of "A Good Eye"

Rather, what should he be? A person with a good eye (ayin tova). I'll read the language – we also spoke about this.

> Insight: The Rambam learns that "ayin tova" means regarding money. Yes, "ayin tova" – I mean that "ayin tova" means the other thing: looking favorably, being generous. Yes, the Rambam has a different interpretation. It could mean being generous with oneself, allowing oneself the foods... I mean one needs to learn there how it connects.

>

> But the Rambam here learns that "ayin tova" means the opposite of what he says here – it means the opposite of not pursuing business, you could say, not pursuing money, not hoarding. Rather, you should have money – it's not about being generous to others, it's more like: I have a good amount of desire for money, exactly as much as I need.

>

> It's the opposite of "nefesh rechava" (a broad appetite). "Nefesh rechava" means he runs after it, he doesn't control how much money he needs. "Ba'al ayin tova" means he assesses how much money he needs.

>

> Ah, indeed – it's more like the expression "ayin tova": he looks at how much money he needs to have. "A generous eye regarding his friend's needs" – he assesses approximately how much money he needs to have, and he tries to obtain it. Not such a "nefesh rechava" where he must have millions, he doesn't know how much he wants to have.

Minimize Business and Engage in Torah

And minimize business – a person shouldn't... little business, he shouldn't work too much. And engage in Torah – the main occupation should be in Torah.

"He Should Rejoice in His Portion" – Two Interpretations

And even though his portion, he should rejoice in it – the little bit that he does need to have regarding money, the little bit that is indeed the proper "ayin tova" – he should rejoice in it. He shouldn't do... he also shouldn't do the little bit that he needs to work – he shouldn't say "oh, poor me, I have to work." Working is not a bad thing.

But also "his portion" means what he already has, the money. I mean, this is what he brings into "content with his portion (same'ach b'chelko)." I mean that "chelko" (his portion) is such an expression – it means like "this is the portion that I need to have, this is my part."

---

Quarreling, Jealousy, Desire, Honor

The Rambam's Principle

The Rambam continues:

A person should not be quarrelsome – a person shouldn't be one who fights a lot. Nor jealous – not a person who is jealous of others. Nor full of desire – not a person who has many desires, who needs everything. Nor one who pursues honor. And in all these things one should follow the middle path.

The Language of "Ba'al" – Not the Action, But the Type of Person

> Insight: Yes, you see that the entire style, the "ba'al" – the language he uses is "not such a person." Not the act, but the kind of person. A person of anger, jealousy, desire, honor.

Jealousy, Desire, and Honor Remove a Person from the World

As the Sages said: Jealousy, desire, and honor remove a person from the world – he loses himself, he's not in control.

> Insight: Perhaps all these things are a matter of where a person is not in control?

Discussion: "Control" – Is That the Right Word?

Speaker 2: Similar among the Litvaks?

Speaker 1: No, the Rambam... "Control" is not a good word, because he needs to have the right character traits too. There isn't a control station that directs everyone the way the brain directs the limbs.

The Rambam's Interpretation of "Remove a Person from the World"

The Rambam has an interpretation of this Mishna, which is brought here.

> Insight: "Remove a person from the world" – according to the Rambam, it could be that "world" here means the social world. It means a person won't be with other people, because he's jealous, he needs to have everything for himself.

He brings here the interpretations of the Mishna, and Rashi says it means both – "world" can mean the social world, and also the World to Come, because he has bad character traits, and he doesn't learn anything, he only thinks about jealousy all the time, and so on.

---

The General Principle – The Summary of Chapter 2

The Middle Path Is the Main Thing

Now, the general principle – all in all, all in all, once you say this, you see that all these things are connected to the middle path. But the Rambam says that the things which the Sages warn about, one needs to be more careful than the middle path. Well, but simply you see that here it is indeed the middle path.

Not Transgressions, But Bad Traits That Lead to Transgressions

> Insight: I mean that the general principle, I would want to look at what the chapter is about. The topic of speech and pride is an important topic that the Rambam felt was important to include here. But the last few topics are more that the Rambam shows from the Mishnayos, from the sources, that this is a trait that the Sages despise.

>

> It's not a transgression, it's not a transgression. But to be a jester, what you call, is something of a bad type of person. And why is it bad? As the Chassidic Rebbe said – it brings transgression, not because it is a transgression, but "it removes a person from the world." It's bad to be such a type of person, it brings all kinds of things. And here you see that one must follow the middle path.

A list that one can see from the sources that there is a topic of not being a person of desire.

The Rambam's Language

The general principle – the rule, we've discussed many details here, but the rule is: he should follow the middle trait in every disposition, he should go with the middle measure of every trait, until all his dispositions are directed toward the middle, as Solomon said "In all your ways know Him." All his ways should be directed toward the middle.

The Difficulty of This Chapter – The Rambam Departs and Returns

> Insight: But still, it's quite difficult, because he departs from the middle path to matters where one does need to go to a certain extreme, but then at the extreme he moves away from it a bit. But still, he comes back.

>

> It's that he goes with the principle that we need to learn that all these... two things that he says explicitly – one can think about speech and other things. It's still the two things that he says explicitly should specifically go in that direction.

Discussion: The Lechem Mishna's Question – A Contradiction Between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

The Lechem Mishna already asks: in Chapter 1, the Rambam explicitly states that the mitzvah is to follow the middle path even regarding humility. Yes, in the first chapter it explicitly states that one shouldn't be a person of anger, and in the second chapter he says one must go to the extreme.

Resolution: The Path of Teshuva

> Insight: Seemingly one must learn that this is the aspect of the path of healing. But I mean, what can make sense is that when a person does it as a path of teshuva (repentance), the meaning is: he remembers the entire time that the goal is to be on the middle path. Only I'm in the middle of working on it. I'm in the middle of working to be able to come back to the middle path.

Speaker 2: Yes, and what do you think about thinking? We had the enhancement of mitzvos for proper character traits?

Speaker 1: No, he remembers the goal. Meaning, once he has fully achieved it, you see that one never needs to... Like Moshe Rabbeinu – Moshe Rabbeinu is the greatest person, who must be that he is the most humble of all people. In practice, Moshe Rabbeinu is the Rambam's example.

---

Summary of the Chapter

Anyway, that's the chapter. It's a whole beautiful chapter.

> Insight: It's also interesting to notice that the Rambam thought about character traits before he finished his work. Here, a list – the topics are very important: not to talk too much, not to be a flatterer and not to deceive.

Shemoneh Perakim – More Elaboration

And as you said, to understand these things in more detail one needs to learn the Shemoneh Perakim (Eight Chapters), where he elaborates more on this. Perhaps there one understands and comes out with more clarity.

Or... one can be lengthy briefly, one can be brief at length, and one can be brief briefly, and one can be lengthy at length. The same topic. Yes. Okay.