הלכות דעות פרק ו

Laws of Dispositions Chapter 6 — The Person in Society

Introduction to the Chapter: From the Individual to the Community

Speaker 1: Gentlemen, we are holding at Laws of Dispositions, Chapter 6. Basically, until now we have learned about each person — how he should be a proper person. Now we are going to learn about how a number of people come together, and with which people one should associate, and how, and so forth. Right?

Speaker 2: Yes, very good. Laws of interpersonal relations (bein adam la’chaveiro), as one might call it.

Speaker 1: Right, but one can call it something deeper — the concept of another person. There are many laws of interpersonal relations. I’ll just explain what I said. Until now we discussed how a person on his own is a complete person (adam ha’shalem), up to the ultimate point we reached in Chapter 5 — a wise person (chacham) who is the complete person on his own. Now we are going to learn from the dispositions how a person finds himself together with other people.

So first the Rambam goes on to explain that there is such a thing that there are other people and how it works, and then upon that he builds the commandments (mitzvos) that pertain to dispositions.

—

Law 1: The Natural Way of a Person — A Person Is Drawn After His Environment

Speaker 1: Very good. The Rambam says: “Derech bri’aso shel adam” — the way, the way a person was created, the way a person operates, the way a person exists. You can translate it as “the nature of a person” (teva ha’adam). The Rambam says in other places that a person is political by nature (medini b’tiv’o), that a person is a creature, a social being. A person is a social being who cannot succeed alone; a person cannot have a normal life when he is not with other people.

“Derech bri’aso shel adam l’hiyos nimshach b’de’osav u’v’ma’asav” — with his character traits and with his actions one is drawn “achar rei’av v’chaveirav, v’noheig k’minhag anshei medinaso” — a person conducts himself according to the custom of the people in his city.

Insight: “The Natural Way” Is Not a Failing — It Is a Nature

Speaker 2: Very good. This is apparently a translation of what you mentioned that is written in other places, that a person is by nature [a social being].

Speaker 1: So the “way” (derech) of a person does not simply mean a failing of a person. This brings it out more deeply, right? It’s not simply — people often say after the Rambam, the Rambam says that a person is influenced. No, a person is built this way. A person is the kind of thing that lives with other people and conducts himself the way they conduct themselves. This is indeed the Torah: “Lo tov heyos ha’adam levado” — “It is not good for a person to be alone” — a person cannot be alone.

—

Therefore — One Must Associate with the Righteous

Speaker 2: Yes. Very good.

Speaker 1: “Lefichach” — therefore, it is relevant to a person — either you remember how strongly you are influenced by other people, that you will become the kind of person according to the people you associate with, according to the people around you. And therefore, “tzarich adam l’hischaber la’tzaddikim” — a person must associate with the righteous, “v’leishev eitzel ha’chachamim tamid” — and always sit perpetually with the wise, for what purpose? “K’dei she’yilmad mi’ma’aseihem” — so that he should learn from their actions.

Discussion: What Does “She’yilmad Mi’ma’aseihem” Mean?

Speaker 1: “Mi’ma’aseihem” — “she’yilmad ma’aseihem” — he should study their actions, he should study and understand what they do.

Speaker 2: They answered that “yilmad” means he should become accustomed.

Speaker 1: Yes, but I think it is straightforward — he should first study, understand what he does, think about what he does, and afterward he will naturally accustom himself to walk in those ways.

A Precision in “Mi’ma’aseihem” Regarding the Righteous Versus the Wicked

Speaker 2: He just says it like that, yes, just a place to understand “mi’ma’aseihem.” Can you stop a minute? I just wanted to make an observation. He makes a precision here, the Rav shlit”a, that regarding the righteous it says “mi’ma’aseihem” — he wants to make a different precision, that perhaps “ma’aseihem” means one should learn all the actions of the righteous, but regarding the wicked it means to say that one should not learn even a portion of their actions. Does the wicked person have some good actions?

Speaker 1: Okay, these are weak precisions. Apparently he means the same thing in practice; there is no precision that one can learn from here.

—

“Walking in Darkness” — The Wicked Don’t Think

Speaker 1: “V’yisrachek min ha’resha’im ha’holchim ba’choshech k’dei she’lo yilmad mi’ma’aseihem.” He has already told us several times that the wicked walk in darkness.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s because the wicked don’t think.

Speaker 1: It’s very beautiful — a wise person thinks about what he does, he thinks about what he does, so you too should think about what he does. But a wicked person, he walks in darkness, he doesn’t think about what he does, so you should think about what he does. “K’dei she’yilmad mi’ma’aseihem” — you should not learn from their actions, because their actions don’t come from study, they don’t come from learning; it means Torah here.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s interesting, because if you won’t exert yourself, if you let nature carry you, you will become wicked. You walk in darkness. In light one needs to look where one is going, one can look where one is going. In darkness one doesn’t even look where one is going, and one becomes wicked.

Speaker 1: Okay, very good.

—

Verses: “He Who Walks with the Wise Shall Become Wise”

Speaker 1: Once we understand this, we grasp how important it is to be with the righteous, because through being with the righteous one becomes righteous. This is what Solomon says, as King Solomon already says it: “Holech es chachamim yechkam” — one who walks with the wise will himself become wise, “v’ro’eh kesilim yeiro’a” — one who associates with, who plays around with fools, with simpletons, “yeiro’a” — he himself will become a bad person.

Insight: Fools and Wise Ones in Proverbs — Righteousness Is a Matter of Wisdom

Speaker 2: “Kesilim” (fools) doesn’t yet mean “re’im” (evil ones), but it could be as he says — wise and darkness — fools are people who don’t think, while a wicked person is evil.

Speaker 1: Wise ones and fools in Proverbs (Mishlei) in general — the good people are the wise and the bad ones are the fools. There aren’t “wicked” and “righteous” there. There are, but very much it is the wise person who is the good one and the fool who is the bad one, because it is smart to walk in the good path. Being righteous is not a matter of piety; it is a matter of wisdom (chochma).

—

“Fortunate Is the Man” — “The Counsel of the Wicked” Means a Gathering of the Wicked

Speaker 1: “V’omer”, in Psalms (Tehillim) it also says: “Ashrei ha’ish asher lo halach ba’atzas resha’im.” I think here it is very important to understand that “atzas” doesn’t mean the advice as when one asks for advice, but rather “mo’etzah” — like when people sit together. That is, “atzas resha’im” means in a gathering of the wicked, because that itself is the counsel of the wicked. As if what we call “advice” (eitzah) as a wisdom, a way of life — that happens because when one sits with the wicked one begins to behave like the wicked.

And he also means it the way the Gemara says on the rest of the verse: “U’v’derech chata’im lo amad, u’v’moshav leitzim lo yashav.” It is very clear that the verse describes a person who does not associate with the wicked and the scoffers and so forth.

Insight: A Person Doesn’t Realize How Strongly He Is Influenced — Knowingly and Unknowingly

Speaker 1: This is a very, very important law, because a person doesn’t realize how strongly one is influenced by the people around him. Knowingly, unknowingly. One is not always aware of how strong an influence it will have on me — which synagogue you walk into, or who the people around you will be, will have a great effect. It is very important to choose, truly.

The Ba’al HaSulam: The Primary Choice Is Choosing Whom to Be With

Speaker 1: And they bring the Ba’al HaSulam, Rabbi Ashlag, who says that a person is so strongly influenced by the people around him that he doesn’t truly have such strong free choice (bechirah). Because it literally takes away free choice, because so much of what you do unknowingly follows what your friends do. Where does a person have his primary free choice? To choose whom to be with. That is where the great choice lies. Choosing good friends is an important choice.

—

The Rambam — A “Chassid” of King Solomon

Speaker 1: Okay, that is… I have noticed that the Rambam is a great devotee of King Solomon in all these chapters. He brings many verses. Many times he says “in his wisdom” (b’chochmaso) — that doesn’t actually say “in his wisdom.” In Proverbs it is wisdom, that is the subject; it’s not commandments. But it’s interesting, because the Rambam doesn’t just bring verses for no reason. Verses are usually — when he brings a verse it is to bring a commandment (mitzvah), not just to collect verses.

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s true. It’s interesting — he wants to bring from verses all these foundations. Yes, he wants to show that it’s not only in the Mishnah, but it is already written in the verses as well. Not only in the Mishnah, not even in the Mishnah, not even in the arranged Mishnayos of Rabbeinu HaKadosh — these are verses, these are things that are already written.

—

Law 2: If the City Has Bad Customs — Two Levels of Influence

Speaker 1: Yes. And so, so that is… So he goes on two levels. First of all, one must associate with people who are righteous. Then he also said that “the people of his city” (anshei medinaso) — also has an influence.

So if you find yourself in a city that is bad, it is not enough that you have a few good people, because you will also not be spared from the larger society.

“Medinah” in Halachah Means a City, Not a Country

Speaker 2: It’s very interesting. You’re saying that a person is not only drawn after his close friends, not only specifically close friends, but “over time” (derech ha’zman) — the entire city, the entire town around him has an influence.

By the way, “medinah” usually in halachah doesn’t mean like the United States of America — it means your town. Lakewood is called the “minhag ha’medinah” (custom of the locale). In Choshen Mishpat it means your city where you live — Lakewood, Boro Park. And apparently the influence that affects a person is also the city around him, the city where he lives, the society.

Speaker 1: It could be that today, when we live in such a way that all charedi Jews have influence on one another — what is called the charedi culture, for example — it does mean that all heimish Jews have influence on all heimish Jews. Other things also have influence. But in any case, you are correct that “medinah” here means a city, not a state.

Insight: “Bad Customs” — Systemic Coercion, Not Just Bad People

Speaker 2: Yes. The Rambam says: “V’chein im haysah medinah she’minhagoseha ra’im v’ein ansheha holchim b’derech yesharah” — but it’s very good, because first he said one is drawn after his friends and companions, so make sure your friends and companions are righteous. But you can’t — now you also have the “custom of the people of his city,” which also has an influence.

Speaker 1: So if the city has bad customs and its people do not walk in the straight path — apparently he wants to define this a bit — one could elaborate greatly on this, but just to categorize it here.

A city whose decrees are harsh — that in the city the custom leads to stealing. So I say I won’t steal — but these are customs that one is forced to follow. As if he calculated that not only is one not with the city, one is [part of it].

For example, in the city, in order to do business, one must be dishonest in faith. One must make an advertisement — an advertisement with only the truth doesn’t work, because everyone advertises that way. So the custom of the city is to be a liar. The one who wants to be wholesome with the wholesome (tamim im temimim), from the previous chapter, who says yes for yes and no for no — he must go to a different city.

There is no such thing today — where there they don’t tell lies in business — because instead of it being just a sin, it is also the only way. It’s not only that their customs are bad so that you will learn from them — you will conduct yourself with them and you will have to. Or a person must do — it can even be that a person, as long as he is in the city, must follow certain customs of the city, even if they lead to bad. For example, one wears certain clothing, I don’t know, one conducts oneself in certain ways, one makes matches (shidduchim) in a certain way, I don’t know, one does business in a certain way. You have no choice; it’s not that you have a choice not to become [like them]. You must do so.

“He Should Go to a Place” — One Must Leave

Speaker 2: Very good. And therefore, coming back — you will not be spared from the spirit of the people of the city — “yeilech l’makom” — he should move away, he should go “l’makom she’anshav tzaddikim v’nohagim b’derech tovim” — he should go away.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s what it says there. Or even to a place of Torah.

—

The Rambam Is Not Speaking Specifically About Jews

Speaker 2: This is what one fundamentally needs to understand. I also think that the Rambam does not say in this law specifically about Jews — he says go where people are righteous. Apparently this also emerges from this fundamental principle.

Speaker 1: Good point. The Rambam says here a powerful thing — or as in his time. He doesn’t say specifically where Jews live; he says where it is good.

Speaker 2: Perhaps you are right that he should live among Jews is yet another matter, because Jews are good.

Speaker 1: I mean, the Rambam did not live in the worst period of society. That is to say, he lived in a Torah environment, but in a time that was not so bad. When you compare it to all other generations, it was among the better ones. Indeed, when one says “the Golden Age” (tor ha’zahav) one means a bit before the Rambam, but that is also what anyone would say.

Speaker 2: I mean not just casually, but it appears that the Rambam understood this. He says that today — perhaps he means during the exile — this is the purpose of the exile. This doesn’t exist. This is the purpose of the Torah, that one must have a Holy Temple (Beis HaMikdash) with all these things.

Rambam Laws of Dispositions Chapter 6 (Continued) — Living in a Bad Environment, Cleaving to the Wise, and Love of Fellow Jews

—

Law 1 (Continued) — “And If All the Cities… Conduct Themselves in a Bad Way”

The Rambam’s Own Time — “Like Our Times”

He says: “V’im hayu kol ha’medinos she’yodei’a v’shomei’a shmu’asan nohagim b’derech lo tovah k’mo zmanenu” — the Rambam says here an astonishing thing, like in his time. He already says before where Jews live, he says what he hears. Perhaps you are right in the approach that Jews is yet another matter, because Jews are good.

I mean, the Rambam — he did not live in the worst period of society. That is to say, he lived in a Torah environment, but in a time that was not so bad. When you compare it to all other generations, I don’t know — it could be that it was among the better ones. Indeed, when one says “the Golden Age” one means a bit before the Rambam, but that is also a Talmudic thing to mean, not Mishnah — Rambam. But it appears that the Rambam understood this.

The Connection to Exile and Destruction

He says that today — perhaps he means in the days of exile — that this is the purpose of the exile. This doesn’t exist. This is the purpose of the Torah, that one must have a Holy Temple with all these things. All in all he says, this is the way to create a good society. It is not possible with less than this — with a Jewish king, with a court of law (beis din), with all these things. This is what we learned earlier, that one must live in a city where there is a court that punishes for sin. It doesn’t exist — the whole world is one city.

“Or If He Cannot Go” — When One Cannot Leave

He says: “O she’eino yachol leilech li’medinos she’minhagoseihen tovim” — or he knows of a place where there are good customs, but he cannot go there — “mipnei ha’geyasos”, there are wars, “o mipnei ha’choli”, illnesses. That means he is sick.

“Yeishev levado yechidi” — there is no other option; he must be alone. He cannot go there — “yeishev badad v’yidom” — “let him sit alone and be silent.”

This speaks very well. It comes to the end of the destruction of the Holy Temple, he says: “A year, I have no other choice, I must be alone, because I will be in exile, I don’t want to learn from bad people.”

“Sit Alone” — Alone in the City

And if that is the case — this means he should live in his city, but only I in my home conduct myself well. And this is soon what he means in the city, because afterward he speaks about leaving the city. Here he speaks about being in the city.

“V’im hayu bnei veiso manhigim oso la’avodas Hashem” — very good. I once heard, someone said, a great righteous person said: even if the whole world will be religious, and he points to the service of God.

“What Should He Do” — When One Is Forced to Participate

It says in the Rambam: “U’mah ya’aseh adam she’kol anshei medinaso ra’im v’chata’im, v’ein manichin oso la’asok ba’Torah u’va’mitzvos, ela im kein nis’arev imahen v’nahag b’minhagam ha’ra?” — he is forced to conduct himself like them. He says, he cannot even, he doesn’t have the option of “being alone and it being good for him.”

“What should a person do if all the people of his country are wicked and sinful?” — This refers to Sodom. I mean, this was Sodom, when they said “bring them out” — everyone had to be like the wicked. You want advice? There is no advice. The advice is: “He should go out to caves, to thorns, and to deserts” — he should go out to the desert, “and not conduct himself in the way of sinners.”

Discussion: What Does “Chochim” Mean?

Speaker 2: Chochim? What is that? Chochim.

Speaker 1: Chochim? He should go out to chochim?

Speaker 2: Chochim, chochim v’kotzim (thorns and thistles).

Speaker 1: Ah, yes, chochim. Chochim is a… chochim, he says there among thorns, yes, chochim, among thorns. He should go to where people don’t live.

“And He Should Not Despair of Mercy”

In short, he should go out and hide — “and not conduct himself in the way of sinners, and not despair of mercy” — he should not give up.

The Verse “Who Would Give Me a Lodging Place for Wayfarers in the Desert”

“And so it says, ‘Who would give me a lodging place for wayfarers in the desert'” — the one who says, if only I could be in the desert, further “a lodging place for wayfarers.” Where only travelers pass through. This means, people who belong somewhere, living in a desert. But I will be there as a guest, and a person finds a tent, a guest in a tent — he should settle himself out in the desert.

The Parable of the Exodus from Egypt

And so it was with the Jews — the Jews couldn’t remain in Egypt, it was a place of idolatry (avodah zarah), so they had to be taken out into the desert, and there receive the Torah until they would receive the Land of Israel.

Jeremiah’s Lament Versus Practical Law

But further, there is Jeremiah — simply speaking, he doesn’t literally mean to say one should leave, one should go do that there. But the Rambam learned that we derive from this, because simply Jeremiah is complaining, he says: “I want to leave here, it’s all wicked people.” The Rambam says: Yes, indeed, that’s what one should do — one must leave, one must go to the desert.

Question: Why Didn’t the Rambam Himself Go to the Desert?

Why didn’t the Rambam go to the desert? Presumably because he perhaps held that he could indeed be alone — so he stayed.

The Story with the Satmar Rebbe and the Chazon Ish

I mean, there is the well-known story that the Satmar Rebbe and the Chazon Ish spoke about this, the Rambam. The Satmar Rebbe challenged the Chazon Ish: How can one live in a place of wicked people? He answered that the yeshivos are like deserts. I mean, he meant it sincerely — that if you do find a way that in this building you live and you are minimally not influenced, then that is a desert.

But for a Jew it’s not quite right, as I explained — there are indeed many things through which one is influenced that one cannot avoid. That this one will be a neighbor to the rabbi’s daughter, I don’t know whatever his problem was, I don’t know.

Question: What Does One Do When One Cannot Go to the Desert?

Also, what the Rambam doesn’t say further: “And if he is sickly and cannot go to the deserts” — one can’t go to the desert, it’s not realistic. What is he saying here? I don’t understand what he wants. It’s not practical law (halachah l’maaseh). The Rambam also didn’t go to the desert, right? So what does it mean?

Shemonah Perakim — Pious People Who Secluded Themselves in the Desert

And we saw in Shemonah Perakim, we saw that the Rambam says that the pious ones (chasidim) who went to seclude themselves in the desert, it was because of this. Perhaps he means that sometimes there is a person who actually goes to a desert, to a monastery, to a yeshiva, as you say.

—

Halachah 2 — The Positive Commandment to Cling to Scholars and Their Students

From Common Sense to Commandment

Okay. Now we’re going to learn the mitzvah that basically says this, if you think about it. Basically he says that common sense (seichel hayashar) says one should surround oneself with righteous people. There is a mitzvah, a positive commandment (mitzvas aseh). It’s not just good advice, rather it is a positive commandment “to cling to scholars and their students,” as it says “and to Him you shall cling” (u’vo sidbak).

“Is It Possible for a Person to Cling to the Divine Presence?”

And on this, the Sages say: “Is it possible for a person to cling to the Divine Presence (Shechinah)?”

Is this the first time the Rambam uses the word “Shechinah”? We already learned in the Laws of Prophets, I believe, the term “Shechinah.” That Shechinah means God, the Divine Intellect.

“Rather, this is what the Sages said in explaining this commandment” — the Sages interpreted, what does “and to Him you shall cling” mean? “Cling to scholars and their students.”

How Can a Person Achieve Perfection?

This seemingly fits with what we learned earlier in the Laws of Character Traits (Hilchos De’os), that the way of God is the good path, the middle path, the way of the wise. This is “and to Him you shall cling.”

But now he says, how? Perhaps he means to explain the question: How can a person achieve perfection? What does “Is it possible to cling to the Shechinah” mean? How can one even walk in the ways of being gracious and merciful? The advice is that you surround yourself with the righteous and you will learn from them.

Practical Ways of Clinging

“Therefore a person must endeavor to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar (talmid chacham)” — he must make great effort with his wife and with his father-in-law. He should marry a daughter of a Torah scholar. “And marry off his daughter to a Torah scholar” — because this way it will be his society, his family.

“And to eat and drink with Torah scholars” — even if the Torah scholars don’t want to eat with them, as we learned that Torah scholars don’t eat with… but he should go eat with Torah scholars. What will he do? He won’t go sit at his own table; he’ll sit with a few friends who are Torah scholars.

“And to do business for Torah scholars” — one should do business for Torah scholars or with Torah scholars.

“To Connect with Them in Every Type of Connection” — The Point Is Influence, Not Honor

“To connect with them in every type of connection” — one should connect with Torah scholars in all types of connections. The point here is not to give honor or to honor the Torah scholar — the point is so that you should be as much as possible with him, so that you should have his influence.

As it says “and to cling to Him.”

Discussion: The Difference Between “U’vo Sidbak” and “U’l’dovkah Bo”

What is the difference between “u’vo sidbak” (and to Him you shall cling) and “u’l’dovkah bo” (and to cling to Him)? I don’t know. From “u’l’dovkah bo” we learn “every type of connection,” and from “u’vo sidbak” we learn the advice with the mitzvah? Or it’s simply that he brings two verses because… I don’t know.

It could be that Rabbeinu Yonah means that there should be a multiplicity of ways of clinging. Either way, one should always find ways of how to cling to Torah scholars.

The Source for Going to the Rebbe’s Table

Here is the source for going to the rebbe’s tisch (table), and conducting oneself the way the rebbe conducts himself — because you see how the rebbe runs the table. It’s not simply that he comes to you; you come to him, and then you learn how to be a mentsch (proper person).

Discussion: “Chachamim” Versus “Talmidei Chachamim” — Why the Difference in Terminology

The “study and practice” says “chachamim” (scholars), and here it says “he should marry the daughter of talmidei chachamim” (students of scholars). The chacham doesn’t have that many daughters, right? So if you don’t have a chacham, go to a talmid chacham. The talmid chacham is the one who clings to the chacham, right? Go to the closest one you can.

And the person who clings to the chacham is himself a talmid chacham — that is by definition, because he learns from his actions and becomes a talmid chacham. What is the chacham here? The chacham can influence a large public, and he takes one of his students and takes his wife — so it revolves within the group.

It could also be that the Rambam is precise here with the terminology. I see the language of the Sifrei on “u’vo sidbak” is “chachamim and their students” — that is indeed a formulation that says talmidei chachamim.

It could also simply be that when a person gets married he is usually a young man, he’s not yet a chacham, he’s a talmid chacham. He’s still 15, 16, 20 — I don’t know how old he can be. One can’t be a chacham yet; one can be a talmid chacham at that point.

Speaker 2: What about talmidei chachamim? What about talmidei chachamim?

Speaker 1: Okay.

“And Roll in the Dust of Their Feet”

“And so the Sages commanded and said: And roll in the dust of their feet” — you should always be around them, to such an extent that if you won’t walk, you’ll become covered in dust from their feet. Meaning: that close should you go to them.

“And drink their words with thirst” — you should drink their words with thirst.

I think it also fits that when you see the scholars sitting up high, and you sit like this — I’m just saying — on a bench near something, I don’t know, a bimah (platform), whatever it was in those days, and you sit below, it’s literally as if you’re sitting there where the dust of their feet is.

Discussion: The Scholar’s Obligation to Be Accessible

But one must understand a bit — the chacham also wants to cling to a chacham, right? So the chacham, instead of letting all the common people who want to fulfill the mitzvah, he wants to go to his own rebbe.

So perhaps there is a mitzvah for a chacham to hold back, as they learned earlier that a chacham should let other people have access to him. So somewhere when a chacham knows he is already a great enough chacham, he should stop running to the greater scholars, and instead devote himself to the talmidei chachamim. I don’t know.

So practically, is this a problem? I don’t know.

Discussion: Meshiv Davar — A Torah Scholar with an Unlearned Person

So perhaps I’m thinking, when all the scholars will go to the greatest scholar, he won’t have time to get to them. So now you ask, if there is a concept of meshiv davar (responding to matters), and a talmid chacham also wants to have a connection with a talmid chacham or with a chacham — so who fulfills the meshiv davar, the wealthy people or the other talmidei chachamim? And not to pair a talmid chacham with an am ha’aretz (unlearned person) — that is stated very negatively, and we learned that it’s not even a pious mitzvah.

So how does this work? The problem that you have. It’s not clear. There is a difference — I mean, in different generations there is a difference in the problem. Not the… yes, fine. You continue.

—

Halachah 3 — The Commandment of Loving Fellow Jews

The Order: From Torah Scholars to All of Israel

So this was regarding Torah scholars. The first thing — one should roll in the dust of the Torah scholars. The most important friend you have, the friend who is a talmid chacham — for him, you don’t need to be an equal, you should help him, do business for him, be around him.

After that, there is a general matter of loving all Jews — even a Jew who has bad habits, and it doesn’t, you should not learn from him, but love him you must still. As long as he is not a complete wicked person (rasha gamur). It is a mitzvah upon every person to love — because when you encounter someone whom you must hate, you’ll be informed then.

“Love Your Neighbor as Yourself”

Yes, “It is a mitzvah upon every person to love each and every Jew as his own body, as it says ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ (v’ahavta l’rei’acha kamocha).” “Kamocha” (as yourself) means just as you love yourself, you should love the other person.

What does this mean literally?

Rambam, Laws of Character Traits, Chapter 6 (Continued)

Halachah 4 — Loving Fellow Jews: “It Is a Mitzvah Upon Every Person to Love Each and Every Jew as His Own Body”

The General Commandment of Loving All Jews

After that, there is a general matter of loving all Jews. Even a Jew who has bad habits, from whom we must not learn — but love him we must still, as long as he is not an apostate out of spite (mumar l’hach’is), as long as he is not a complete wicked person (rasha gamur).

It is a mitzvah upon every person to love each and every Jew as his own body, as it says “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

When you encounter someone whom you must hate, you should remember then: “It is a mitzvah upon every person to love each and every Jew as his own body, as it says ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'” “Kamocha” means just as you love yourself, you must love the other person.

The Rambam’s Simple Interpretation of “Kamocha”

What does this mean simply? The Rambam says: “Therefore one must speak his praise and be careful with his money, just as he is careful with his own money and desires his own honor.” Just as a person protects his own money, and he is aware of his money, and he is aware of his honor — you should also pay attention to the other person’s honor and the other person’s money.

So the Rambam interprets it very simply: that you want things to go well for you, want things to go well for the other person.

“One Who Gains Honor Through His Fellow’s Shame — Has No Share in the World to Come”

Regarding this, he brings here that one who gains honor through his fellow’s shame — one who receives honor from the other person’s embarrassment. This means, he becomes important because people see how foolish the other person is. He wants to be the smartest one in the group because he’s smarter than the other person; he shows how much smarter he is than the other. The simple meaning is: you don’t do this; your honor is much more important to you; you’re ready to elevate your honor a bit by stepping on the other person’s honor.

“He has no share in the World to Come.”

Why is it so severe, “he has no share in the World to Come”? This is even regarding a positive commandment, but also “he has no share in the World to Come” — it is an important mitzvah. I don’t know, it’s very frightening. Perhaps we’ll see in the “has no share in the World to Come” in Laws of Repentance (Hilchos Teshuvah), chapter 3; perhaps the Rambam will explain it there — he mentions it there.

One who gains honor through his fellow’s shame — this is presumably the list of “has no share” that is there. Yes, one needs to look in Laws of Repentance, chapter 3, halachah 14. The Rambam says there that these are things that are not truly “has no share,” but since it’s difficult — one needs to look at the commentaries there, and one will see the precise definition.

Gaining Honor Through a Fellow’s Shame — A Deep Human Weakness

Gaining honor through a fellow’s shame is a very important matter. This is a very internal thing; people have this, because one measures oneself against one’s friend and compares oneself, and one can show the contrast. When the other person says something foolish and you respond with something cleverer than him — that literally means, that is simply gaining honor through a fellow’s shame. That is a harsh thing.

Because this is the simplest way of seeing that your honor is more important to you than the other person’s — you are not fulfilling “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

—

Halachah 5 — Love of the Convert

Two Positive Commandments Regarding a Righteous Convert

The Rambam says that “Israel” doesn’t only mean someone who was born to Jews. Here comes in the love of the convert (ahavas ha’ger) — a new mitzvah, an extra mitzvah.

Ger Toshav — Laws for a Non-Jew Who Doesn’t Serve Idolatry

The few halachos that exist regarding a ger toshav (resident alien) — for example, we learned yesterday in Mishnayos in Bava Metzia, I believe, regarding fraud (ona’ah), regarding not deceiving a ger toshav. A ger toshav means a non-Jew who doesn’t serve idolatry, who is not a murderer, who is not a predatory person.

I think that when one lives in a non-Jewish area, one must consider that the non-Jews around, your neighbors, have a status like a ger toshav — regarding the matter that you should not commit fraud against them, you should not cause them suffering, you should not shame them, and so on. But this isn’t relevant to our topic, because here we are speaking about a ger tzedek (righteous convert).

The Sefer HaChinuch’s Broad Interpretation of “Ger” — Every Vulnerable Person

Speaker 2: And not only that, two things one can… You’re saying that the Rambam is speaking that a ger is not just any, he has in mind a ger tzedek. You’re saying that even a ger, a non-Jew, also has certain laws. There’s also the reverse — a Jew who is from a different city, a different Chassidic group, a different side, he enters like an orphan and widow, because he is a vulnerable Jew, because he is a Jew who is more vulnerable.

Speaker 1: Does every ger fall into this? The Sefer HaChinuch says that the plain meaning of the text (peshuto shel mikra) doesn’t necessarily mean specifically…

Speaker 2: You’re saying there’s no difference — even a non-Jew. But even a Jew can be a ger, not because he’s a ger because his father is no longer Jewish, but because he arrives in a new city and doesn’t know his way around.

Speaker 1: The Sefer HaChinuch says that the plain meaning of the text means this, and therefore this is also included in the mitzvah. But I’m saying that every person who is vulnerable falls under the category of ger, orphan, and widow.

Speaker 2: Okay. There are other ways of being vulnerable.

“Under the Wings of the Divine Presence” — What Does “Wing” Mean?

Speaker 1: “The love of the convert who came and entered under the wings of the Divine Presence (tachas kanfei haShechinah)” — this is a Jew who converted, and this is a very beautiful expression. He entered under the wings of the Shechinah. The Shechinah spread out a wing and brings in more people besides the original family.

Speaker 2: I think the wing here means more like “the edge of a garment” (k’naf begadim) — under the Shechinah’s apron, under the Shechinah’s coat. It doesn’t mean a wing like “as an eagle spreads its wings” (k’nesher yifros k’nafav). God is over the Jews.

Speaker 1: No, I say. I think kanfei haShechinah is the usual usage. I don’t remember, I had a proof. Kanaf usually means — “I will return, I will return, I will take shelter under Your wings” (ashuva ashuva echeseh tachas k’nafecha).

Speaker 2: But it doesn’t make sense. A bird’s wings aren’t something you go under. It’s as if you’re saying, “like an eagle” is the opposite — you fly on it. But under the wings doesn’t really make sense.

Speaker 1: Under the wings, as we say “tachat knafayich” (under Your wings), like there by Ruth — she comes under the wings of Boaz — it means under his protection.

Two Positive Commandments — “Included Among Friends” and “Convert”

“The love of the convert who has come and entered under the wings of the Divine Presence — two positive commandments” — he is included among friends. First, he is a Jew — “ve’ahavta le’reiacha kamocha” (love your fellow as yourself). After that, he is a convert, the Torah said “ve’ahavtem et ha’ger” (you shall love the convert) — which is an extra mitzvah.

“He commanded regarding the love of the convert just as He commanded regarding the love of His Name” — the Almighty commanded that one should love a convert just as one should love Him. “Just as it says ‘ve’ahavta et Hashem Elokecha’ (you shall love the Lord your God), so too it says ‘ve’ahavtem et ha’ger’ (you shall love the convert).”

Discussion: “Ve’ahavta le” versus “Ve’ahavta et” — Is There a Difference?

Interestingly, it also says “ve’ahavta le’reiacha kamocha,” but there the word “et” doesn’t appear. Here it says “et ha’ger.” It doesn’t say “ve’ahavta et reiacha.” Perhaps there is a difference between “ve’ahavta et” and “ve’ahavta le”? I think it means the same thing.

He brings some distinction between “le” and “et.” He argues that there is a difference between “le” and “et” — that “le” means as he said earlier, “to speak in his praise” and to take care of him, as if you give him a light. And “et” means that one should love him — it’s a new mitzvah, a different mitzvah. But it doesn’t say that here. Here it simply says the same thing, just with an additional mitzvah. The interpretation he gives here on this page doesn’t quite work.

Why Does the Almighty Especially Love Converts?

Okay, the Rambam continues: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself loves converts, as it says ‘ve’ohev ger’ (and He loves the convert).”

After all, the Almighty also loves Jews — “ohev amo Yisrael” (who loves His people Israel). We have a verse: “ahavat olam ahavtich al ken meshachtich chesed” (with everlasting love I have loved you, therefore I have drawn you with kindness) — that refers to Jews. The Almighty loves Jews. But the Almighty has a special love for converts, because their Judaism came to them through self-sacrifice (mesirut nefesh). He left behind his nation and his homeland. The Almighty Himself loves converts. “And therefore, in His ways” — one must also love converts.

A Possible Distinction in the Essence of the Two Loves

It could be that this is correct: that “ve’ahavta le’reiacha kamocha” means you shouldn’t hurt him and you should watch his honor, and “ve’ahavtem et ha’ger” means you should look up to his self-sacrifice, you should have a certain admiration for him because he is a convert — the courage to become a Jew.

—

Halacha 6 — “Lo tisna et achicha bilvavecha” (Do Not Hate Your Brother in Your Heart)

The Prohibition Applies Only to Hatred in the Heart

The Rambam continues — this is the positive commandment of “ve’ahavta.” “Anyone who hates any Jew in his heart violates a negative commandment, as it says ‘lo tisna et achicha bilvavecha’ (do not hate your brother in your heart)” — someone who hates a fellow Jew in his heart, he hates him but doesn’t tell him, it remains in his heart.

The Rambam says: “One does not receive lashes for this prohibition, because it involves no action.” What is the entire decree of the Torah? “Only regarding hatred in the heart” — the word “hatred” refers to when one hates in the heart and does nothing about it.

“But one who strikes his fellow or insults his fellow, even though he is not permitted to do so” — certainly one may not — “he does not violate ‘lo tisna’ (do not hate).”

Interestingly, the Rambam says that the prohibition of “lo tisna” does not apply. He hasn’t counted the prohibition of “lo tisna.” It’s an extra prohibition, but he doesn’t violate “lo tisna.” So, one could say that he hates in his heart, plus he also hit him. The Rambam says that the word “bilvavecha” (in your heart) — that is the heart. That’s how it appears.

—

Halacha 7 — “Hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha” (You Shall Surely Rebuke Your Fellow): The Remedy for Hatred in the Heart

The Main Interpretation: Bringing Out What Is in the Heart

And he goes on to learn — apparently, the remedy for this is the next mitzvah.

The Rambam says: “When one person sins against another, he should not hate him and remain silent.” What do you do then? The remedy is as follows: “When one person sins against another, he should not hate him and remain silent, as it says regarding the wicked: ‘And Avshalom did not speak with Amnon, neither bad nor good, for Avshalom hated Amnon.'”

If one tells him, one doesn’t violate anything at all. It says in the Sefer HaMitzvot: “That He commanded us to inform the one we hate of our hatred, until we tell him what we hate him for, and this is His statement ‘hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha’ (you shall surely rebuke your fellow).”

The Rambam says: “Rather, it is a mitzvah upon him to inform him and say to him, ‘Why did you do such and such to me? Why did you sin against me in this matter?’ as it says ‘hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha.'”

Avshalom and Amnon — “Regarding the Wicked”

The Rambam calls them wicked, he gives a general expression about them. Children of King David, yes, it records wrongs that they did, but…

Again, the Rambam calls them wicked. Wicked — there are, I know, Esav, Achav. This is after all from the whole story that Amnon violated Tamar, and Avshalom wanted to take revenge on him — that’s the whole story. Okay, the expression “regarding the wicked” is interesting. Yes, they conduct themselves with wickedness. If someone asks, “Who is called wicked in the Torah?” one would say Pharaoh, Haman — it wouldn’t occur to say Avshalom and Amnon, but it says so here. Avshalom — not Amnon — he remained silent about Amnon.

“Hochei’ach Tochi’ach” — Not Giving Mussar, But Communication

“Rather, it is a mitzvah upon him to inform him and say to him, ‘Why did you do such and such to me? Why did you sin against me in this matter?’ as it says ‘hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha.'”

The Rambam says here that the main, simple concept of “hochei’ach tochi’ach” doesn’t mean rebuking someone about a mitzvah they’re not doing properly or something, rather it simply means bringing out what is in the heart — having what we call today normal communication skills, being able to talk to a person, being able to say what hurts. I think this is much more than what we call normal communication skills — I mean it that way.

Practical Application: “He Should Understand on His Own”

And one should have a lot of sense, and one must be very meticulous about this mitzvah — I hold very strongly of it. You have a complaint against someone? If not, then he also doesn’t hold it in his heart either.

You’re not at the point of telling the other person, and what should you have in your heart? What is perhaps the word? Meaning, if you truly hold — many times a person says: “For such a small thing I should tell him?” Okay, if it’s for such a small thing, are you done being his friend? You need to make it work somehow. Many times the whole system works on things you wouldn’t have said because you’re too proud to say.

But if you would have said it in a slightly different way — he’s such a fool, you can’t understand if you want to tell him. But if you truly don’t hold that he’s someone who doesn’t understand how to deal with people, but if you would have ever held enough that one can talk, if he’s lucky he understood — then he committed a wrong.

I think this is very important. There are people who walk around embittered for years because the person says: “What do you mean? He should understand on his own.” You didn’t demand for your own honor, and he should understand on his own. Shalom bayit (domestic harmony) — people can carry things around for years in their hearts because “he should have understood on his own.” If he could ever break down and say it, his life would have been easier. Maybe he doesn’t understand? Maybe he wants to understand, he just needs to hear it.

Yes, one can also think—

Rambam, Hilchot De’ot Chapter 6 (continued) — Forgiveness, Rebuke, and Shaming

—

Forgiveness — “He Should Understand on His Own”

Speaker 1: If you would have ever held enough that one can talk, if forgiving him he understood, then he committed a wrong… I think this is very important. There are people who walk around embittered for years because of this thing called “he should understand on his own.” You didn’t demand for your own honor, and he should understand on his own.

Shalom bayit — people can carry things around for years in their hearts because he should have understood on his own. If he could ever break down and say it, life would have been easier. Maybe what doesn’t he understand? Maybe he would have understood if he would have ever said it.

—

The Rambam — Forgiveness After a Request: Avimelech and Avraham

Speaker 2: Yes, one can also think — we once discussed this, we learned this. There’s a question: what about Avraham with “ve’atah hashev eshet ha’ish” (and now, return the man’s wife)?

Speaker 1: Yes, here there’s such a thing — every matter can be made into a contradiction. Yes, one can make a contradiction out of everything. But in truth, “hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha” is also a mitzvah of rebuke regarding a sin. Because when the other person wrongs someone, he committed a sin of not being careful with his fellow’s honor. Okay. He didn’t fulfill “ve’ahavta le’reiacha kamocha.” That is what the Rambam holds.

—

Halacha 8 (continued) — “And If He Returns and Asks for Forgiveness”

Where is the next section? The Rambam discusses this. The Rambam says: “And if he returns and asks for forgiveness, one must forgive him, and the forgiver should not be” — the person who must forgive, the interesting language — “and the forgiver should not be cruel, as it says ‘and Avraham prayed to God.'”

We already know that after Avimelech asked Avraham for forgiveness, Avraham indeed prayed for him.

The Rambam continues: “Even though he caused him suffering and sought to kill him” — he truly did a great wrong to Avraham, but once he asked him for forgiveness and begged him.

“And Avraham rebuked Avimelech” — not on that verse, it says it regarding a different matter. Yes, he prayed, and in a different place it says he rebuked him. Does it say it here? No, here it doesn’t say he rebuked him; here it says the opposite, that Avimelech had complaints. But I remember that in a different place it says later, when he took the well, it says “vayochi’ach Avraham et Avimelech” (and Avraham rebuked Avimelech). But in any case, here we see that he truly did him a great wrong, and later Avraham forgave him again and even prayed that Avimelech should be saved from the illness, not be stopped from whatever happened there.

This is apparently also the approach in Hilchot Teshuva (Laws of Repentance), but this is not the place for the laws of forgiveness — we will learn more things there about how one should forgive.

—

Halacha 9 — Rebuke Regarding Sins: “One Who Sees His Fellow Sinning”

The Rambam says — oh, excuse me — further. The Rambam goes on to say what else is included in “hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha”? Not only when he wrongs you, but: “One who sees his fellow sinning or going on a bad path, it is a mitzvah to bring him back to the good and to inform him that he is sinning against himself through his evil deeds, as it says ‘hochei’ach tochi’ach et amitecha.'” This is also among the great mitzvot.

Rebuke Only in a Healthy Society

Speaker 2: Yes. It’s true, we’re talking here after they are already a healthy society with upright people.

Speaker 1: Just like that — when you’re with a group of wicked people, are you going to go around rebuking everyone and it won’t help? You’re in a good place, and one of the people stumbles, you need to rebuke him. I mean exactly this: if such a person hangs around with wicked people, what are you going to be the one who keeps giving mussar and saying? It won’t work.

A Matter That Won’t Be Heeded (Davar She’eino Nishma)

Speaker 2: Perhaps this also relates to the topic of davar she’eino nishma (a matter that won’t be heeded), which they haven’t yet learned here.

Speaker 1: Yes, he didn’t bring it here, but it was brought earlier. When he discussed rebuke, he said that one rebukes only in private matters between them. It could be that the same thing applies in interpersonal matters too — if you truly know that he won’t listen, perhaps there is no mitzvah. I don’t know.

—

Halacha 10 — The Manner of Rebuke: Gently and with Soft Language

The Rambam continues: “One who rebukes his fellow, whether in matters between him and his fellow, or in matters between him and God” — both the first type of rebuke, where he tells him you should know that you’re not considerate, you’re hurting me, you didn’t value my honor, or in matters between him and God — “he must rebuke him privately.” He must tell him quietly, when only the two of them are there. “And he should speak to him gently and with soft language, and inform him that he is only saying this for his benefit” — he should let him know, you should know I’m saying this for your good. He must actually mean it for his benefit beforehand, only then can he inform him. “To bring him to the life of the World to Come.” The Rambam derives this from the verse “ve’lo tisa alav chet” (and you shall not bear sin because of him). He’s going to bring it. But apparently this also applies in interpersonal matters.

Discussion: “To Bring Him to the Life of the World to Come” — How Does This Fit with Interpersonal Matters?

Speaker 2: Or does that only refer to matters between man and God?

Speaker 1: Both — he says matters between him and God.

Speaker 2: I understand, but it doesn’t make sense. How does “to bring him to the life of the World to Come” fit in?

Speaker 1: What? How does “to bring him to the life of the World to Come” fit in?

Speaker 2: Matters between him and God too? You should know, you’re not fulfilling mitzvot, you’ll leave this world.

Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, that concerns me — I’m not going to be bothered by that.

But in practice, he brings it in as well. It’s not — “to bring” doesn’t mean to say that perhaps this is my entire purpose. You should know, what I’m telling you now is something that is good for you.

So perhaps you can say that if it’s interpersonal, it could be life in this world. You want me to be your friend? True, get a hold of yourself, fix it, I can be your friend. So why does it need to be “to the life of the World to Come”? How does that fit in here?

So perhaps it could be that “for his benefit, to bring him to the life of the World to Come” applies more to matters between man and God. Or perhaps one can interpret “for his benefit” as interpersonal, and “to the life of the World to Come” as between man and God.

Because I don’t want you to think that the Almighty is a policeman. No, I want to help you. The Almighty doesn’t need a policeman. I want to help you, I want you to have a good life, I mean you. What does “the life of the World to Come” mean?

Speaker 2: Yes.

—

Halacha 10 (continued) — Until When Must One Rebuke?

Speaker 1: So, the Rambam continues: “If he accepted it from him” — after he gave him mussar, if the one he rebuked accepted it — that’s wonderful, “good.” “And if not,” one must try “a second time,” he should rebuke him a second time and a third time. “And so, one is always obligated to rebuke him” — not just a third time, but forever, he must rebuke him — “until the sinner strikes him and says to him, ‘I will not listen'” — until the sinner actually strikes him, or, as the Rambam says, “strikes him and says to him” — or perhaps either of the two: he strikes him or he tells him I don’t want to hear.

This is stated, and it is built on a Gemara that says, yes, until striking. Rava said until striking, Shmuel said until cursing. And the Rambam ruled until striking, but he also added the “says to him.” So I don’t know exactly.

Why Does One Stop at Striking?

So, because when he strikes him, he is further violating a prohibition — should he now rebuke him for the sin he’s committing right now? But it could be that the point is that now the rebuke will bring more sins, it will bring more harm than good, because striking and cursing are both prohibitions — striking a Jew and cursing a Jew. But with the rebuke you’re making him angrier, you could cause him to stumble with more sins.

But the stronger point is that the Rambam means to say that “struck” — as the Meiri brings — “struck, meaning ‘I don’t want to.'” That means, until then you make it very clear to him that you’re not interested. That until then, he actually is interested. After all, the concept is “at first he pushes away” — he actually is interested deep down.

Practical Understanding: “A Second and Third Time”

I believe the Rambam here doesn’t mean that one should be a clever nag. If you’re tormenting him, you tell him once, then a second time, a second and third time — it means, think perhaps a few months later, perhaps he’s become a bit more reflective, perhaps he understands better. This needs to be understood properly.

—

“And Anyone Who Has the Ability to Protest and Does Not Protest”

And the Rambam warns: “And anyone who has the ability to protest and does not protest” — interestingly, here he already calls it “protesting” (mocha), he no longer calls it “rebuke” (tochecha).

Discussion: Protest (Mecha’ah) vs. Rebuke (Tochecha)

Does he mean the same thing? Yes, yes. This is what today’s rabbis say — that there is a “mitzvah of protest” which is not rebuke — such nonsense has entered the world, it has no source whatsoever. Protest means telling the other person in a way that can help. Simply protesting into thin air is nothing at all.

“And anyone who has the ability to protest and does not protest” — he doesn’t try to stop the other from his sin — “he is held accountable for the sins of all of them.” Why? “Because it is possible for him to protest against them” — because it is possible for him, it is feasible for him to protest, and he doesn’t protest, and he is held accountable for all those sins. Why? Because he is responsible for them.

Discussion: Why Is He “Held Accountable”?

Speaker 2: But he’s talking about members of his household, people that you are…

Speaker 1: The Rambam didn’t bring here the topic of “kol Yisrael areivim zeh la’zeh” (all of Israel are guarantors for one another), that this is relevant. But it’s not clear why he is held accountable. He is also held accountable.

Speaker 2: No, I mean he is held accountable because a person is influenced by his companions.

Speaker 1: Ah, now you’re saying a nice interpretation. When he protests… “caught” means that he… but protesting is in order for the other person to become better. Protesting is not because I want to be the one who protested.

Speaker 2: No, but there are also those who say that I protest so that I should remember that it doesn’t become a normal thing. Every time I see that person committing a sin, I say something, because I don’t want to forget, because a person is influenced.

Speaker 1: But that’s not what the Rambam says. That Torah is such a modern Torah, I don’t hold of it. I mean, it’s simple — if you can prevent it, then… then of course you’re right.

It’s certainly not the same severity as what the other person did, but sometimes there is a… What is yes, your responsibility is like a father or someone who is the leader and the like, it’s your job. But perhaps he’s not speaking about that case l’chatchila (ideally). But that’s what “yochal” means — the wise man “yochal” means if you can accomplish something, you can’t accomplish something, you can only write a note — I have a blessing in vain (bracha l’vatala), there’s no permission to speak nonsense.

—

Halacha 11 — “One who rebukes his fellow, initially”

But the Rambam continues: “One who rebukes his fellow, initially” — when a person rebukes his friend, “initially” — “initially” apparently means the beginning, the first time, because later perhaps it’s needed.

Speaker 2: Perhaps later, yes.

Speaker 1: I hold I’m at a question, it’s certain that it’s already something more. But he means don’t begin…

“Initially,” he says, “he should not speak harshly to him until he shames him, that he should not say to him ‘aren’t you ashamed of your deeds’ and the like.” He should not speak to him sternly and shame him with his words, “that he should not say to him ‘aren’t you ashamed of your deeds’ and the like.” He should properly… This is what we already said earlier, “gently and with soft language.” The Rambam brings it later.

The Source: “And you shall not bear sin because of him”

“For so said Solomon, ‘the faces of the one being rebuked change'” — that the face changes, his face becomes ashamed, he becomes embarrassed, “and they say to him ‘aren’t you ashamed of your deeds.'”

Ah, it’s very interesting. The prohibition to shame a Jew, we learn from this: “So I have heard that it is forbidden for a person to shame a Jew, and know that one does not rebuke him in public.” It’s certainly not. This is like the “mouth of Shmuel” that we said — that we learn from this, even someone who deserves to have shame, one may not shame him. All the more so that you shouldn’t come here and just shame someone — certainly it’s forbidden.

—

Halacha 12 — Whitening the face (public humiliation): “It is a great sin”

The Rambam says: “Even though one who shames his fellow does not receive lashes” — here he goes on to discuss the prohibition of halbanat panim (whitening the face, i.e., public humiliation). Here he enters the topic of halbanat panim.

“Even though one who shames his fellow does not receive lashes” — even though one doesn’t receive lashes.

Why doesn’t one receive lashes?

It’s perhaps a lav she’ein bo ma’aseh (a negative commandment without an action), because the shaming is without a physical action. As if when a person says something to another, he doesn’t yet know how strongly the other will be shamed. The whitening of the face is not an action. Perhaps it’s not exactly a lav, it’s a lav she’ein bo ma’aseh, he brings. Why is it called a lav she’ein bo ma’aseh? Perhaps because speech is not considered an action, there’s such a concept. Okay.

But it doesn’t help, it’s not because of this that it’s less severe — this is very:

“It is a great sin, so said the Sages” — it’s also counted among the warnings by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos’ repentance? I mean so. Not Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos’ repentance, by “those who have no share in the World to Come.”

“So said the Sages, one who whitens the face of his fellow in public has no share in the World to Come” — here he says specifically in public.

Discussion: “In public” — the distinction

Speaker 2: But in private, perhaps one doesn’t have a share?

Speaker 1: Ah, “so said the Sages” — it’s also a prohibition.

“Therefore a person must be careful in this matter not to shame his fellow in public, whether small or great.”

Speaker 2: Wait, how did the “in public” grow out? The public one may not desecrate, the Sages say in public.

Speaker 1: Yes. In public is worse, that’s simple.

Speaker 2: Ah, only in public does one not have a share in the World to Come.

Rambam, Laws of Character Traits, Chapter 6 (continued) — Public Humiliation, Measure of Piety, Widow and Orphan

—

Halacha 13 — One should not shame his fellow in public

Speaker 1: A person must be careful in this matter not to shame his fellow in public.

Speaker 2: Whether small.

Speaker 1: Wait, how did the “in public” come to grow out? The Rambam didn’t elaborate on it. The Sages say in public.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: “In public” is worse, that’s simple.

Speaker 2: Ah, only in public does he not have a share in the World to Come?

Speaker 1: In public is worse. In private it’s also forbidden, but in public is worse.

—

Discussion: “Whether small or great” — What does “small” mean?

Speaker 2: The Rambam says, a person must be careful in this matter not to shame his fellow in public, whether small or great. It means “great” — does it mean even a small person? A small one you can already show?

Speaker 1: Even a small one, a Jew who doesn’t yet observe all the commandments.

Speaker 2: It means mature enough to learn with him?

Speaker 1: Yes, it could be. It’s important. Indeed, a teacher (melamed) can stumble with halbanat panim 25 times a day.

Speaker 2: Perhaps one can find a heter (leniency) for the teacher perhaps?

—

“And he should not call him by a name that he is ashamed of” — Giving a nickname to one’s fellow

Speaker 1: Okay. And he should not call him by a name that he is ashamed of. Here the Rambam brings what it says “one who gives a nickname to his fellow” — he calls him a name that he’s ashamed of. Every time you call him that name, you shame him.

And he should not tell before him something that he is ashamed of. He should not tell something that he’s ashamed of. This is apparently what the Gemara that you mentioned earlier in Tractate Arachin says.

Speaker 2: From ona’at devarim (verbal oppression), right?

Speaker 1: They learned ona’at devarim?

Speaker 2: No, ona’ah is the mitzvah from the 613 mitzvot, perhaps by that mitzvah. But there it says such a thing.

Speaker 1: Yes, but one tells, even things that are true. Here it says the word, or even a name — many people call him by that name, because you know that he doesn’t like it, he’s ashamed of that name — you don’t call him that.

Speaker 2: It’s very common with children, one shames and doesn’t think about it.

Speaker 1: Yes. That’s why we say these sermons (drashos), so that people should take it upon themselves, remind themselves.

—

Halacha 14 — The distinction between “between man and his fellow” and “matters of Heaven”

Speaker 1: When are these things said? In matters between man and his fellow. This is — one may not mention that the other person did something between man and his fellow and shame him with it.

But matters of Heaven — if someone committed a sin against Heaven, indeed a person desecrated God’s name let’s say — if he did not repent in private… It means he committed a sin and they tried to rebuke him. He goes back apparently.

You need to remember this, you need to keep this assumption in mind regarding the topic of rebuke (tochachah). He’s going back now to the topic of rebuke. When a person is… I know, between man and his fellow, even when I’m rebuking him — because I have, if you have complaints against him, you certainly cannot do it in public, God forbid.

If he did not repent — when I warned him in private… right, but this only works for matters between him and God. The complaints I have against him, I can never do in public. Except perhaps for a sin, but just a person I have complaints against, I need to tell him, but I can never shame him.

But he commits a sin — if he did not repent, when I warned him in private, then we shame him in public and publicize his sin and revile him to his face.

—

The distinction between protest (mecha’ah) and rebuke (hochachah)

This is the matter of protest that you said earlier — this is not a matter of protest. This is rebuke. Protest means I protest into the world; rebuke means I try to make the person better.

But here there is a matter of in public, literally in public, so that they should be ashamed of him. We revile him to his face, so that they should be ashamed of him, and we disgrace him and curse him until he returns to the good path.

The distinction between protest and rebuke is: the protest doesn’t think at all about how he’s going to make the other person better. He holds that it’s a mitzvah that I must protest — there’s no such thing that I must protest. They mean that this is the way one goes about protesting against the other person.

But the Rambam began with “one who rebukes his fellow” — he first tried to draw him close, he tried to be humble, until he returns to the good path, as all the prophets of Israel did.

—

What did the prophets actually do?

The Rambam says, this is what the prophets did. The prophets said sharp language, and they disgraced Jews, and they said all the things they said. But they rebuked in private, and they said that they had no other recourse, so they began to rebuke in public.

By the way, there’s almost no case among the prophets where they spoke about a specific person — perhaps about the king. But most prophets spoke in general terms, they shamed Israel collectively. Perhaps that’s also not quite right.

—

Digression: The Baal Shem Tov’s criticism of “rebukers”

The Baal Shem Tov said that all these rebukers who only speak against Jews are arousing the Satan. One of the great criticisms of the Baal Shem Tov was that people used to travel around and make a living from bashing Jews. So what, you bash Jews? You’re on the side of the Satan who bashes Jews. There’s no such thing. There’s no such thing that you should say such a good sermon. He asks, you have a good piece for me? It’s self-serving, literally.

—

Halacha 15 — One whose fellow sinned against him and didn’t want to rebuke him — a measure of piety

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, one who rebukes his fellow… okay. Now — here you see very well. We asked the question, I perhaps remembered it in the back of my mind, I’m speaking here. We said earlier that one must tell the other person. The Rambam says, no more than this. If you want to forgive him in your heart, you can.

Speaker 2: But he says, yes? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Speaker 1: One whose fellow sinned against him, and he did not want to rebuke him or say anything to him, because the sinner is very much a commoner, or because his mind is confused, and he forgave him in his heart, and did not hate him and did not rebuke him — this is a measure of piety (midat chasidut). And the Torah is only strict about hatred.

—

The main point: Hatred in the heart

The Torah is primarily strict about hating in the heart. That’s the main point. Because then the hatred always gets worse, until it bursts out.

It’s interesting, because when the friend wronged you, it’s also that the friend transgressed a prohibition. Why is it so different from when he transgresses a prohibition against Heaven? Apparently, when you were offended that he transgressed, you should have had compassion that you were wronged.

Perhaps because of this the Rambam inserts “very much a commoner” — he means to say, I have this question now, I always have this question.

—

Practical halacha l’ma’aseh: What does one do with a person who is not your friend?

I have various people whom I hold do wrongs or do offenses. And forgiving doesn’t matter. When I think about giving him a call — here, people — if he’s a good friend of mine, on the contrary, then it’s everything in life. He fixes it up, he wants me to make it hard for him.

But he’s not a friend, he’s a person I need to deal with, he’s not my friend. So what do I think? An explicit verse — you must tell him. You hate him, a Jew, you hate a Jew in your heart, you must tell him.

So I say, I forgive, forget about it. What do you mean you forgive? I don’t hate — forgiven. So I say, I hold he’s a boor. So I say, the Rambam says — I’ll tell you the truth — he’s very much a commoner. His mind is confused. He’s unfortunately caught up in some cold thing that one has to believe in doing, I know what.

I forgive him in my heart. It’s not a genuine forgiveness, right? Actively forgiving. You put him into some category — he’s one of those people who truly, I don’t hate him. Exactly, I don’t hate him, because I understand that he’s unfortunately caught up, he’s a tinok she’nishba (a captured child, i.e., one who doesn’t know better).

Okay. This is somewhat a measure of piety. To judge that the other person has a confused mind? I don’t know. One needs to be precise that this alone is not hatred. I don’t know.

—

Discussion: “Measure of piety” in practice

Speaker 2: Don’t you have the Chassidic expression in chavrusa, “that one is piety to me”? Which one? That he only has his few good friends, and he’s different with each one.

Speaker 1: No, I don’t know. If someone has advice — one of ours who learns with us — let them say the advice, the practical halacha, what is the halacha l’ma’aseh. Is there a rabbi who is relevant, or Yashele over there? People don’t ask the rabbis this question, right? No, nobody called to say the halacha for their part.

—

Digression: Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on Erev Yom Kippur

I saw, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman said to his son on Erev Yom Kippur, he said: “I’ve received so many questions, all kinds of questions, about all kinds of halachot — about the fasts, or this. Nobody asked me which halachot of repentance (teshuvah), how to do teshuvah.”

Why? It scares the group even more. Yes, how to appease the other person, whether one needs to.

—

Discussion: Whether one needs to appease when the other person doesn’t know

Speaker 1: I think there’s a nice dispute in halacha here, and it’s more relevant in the laws of the Ten Days of Repentance, where it says to appease — whether one needs to appease when the other person doesn’t know.

Here it appears that the appeasing is a matter when there is hatred, when there is animosity. I know, the Chofetz Chaim says one must appease even if the other person doesn’t know — because one spoke about him.

But here we’re talking about the opposite — here we’re talking about the other person having done something to you, that the one who was hurt should go and say. It’s actually a different point essentially.

—

Halacha 16 — A person is obligated to be careful with orphans and widows

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues, now there’s a new category of people toward whom one must have a certain attitude. There’s another mitzvah, yes? We’re still on the list of mitzvot. Here is a mitzvah of… where is the mitzvot, the list of mitzvot quickly? We’re already at the end, right? It’s almost the end.

So here we learned, basically the first five chapters were the first mitzvah. After that we learned “love your fellow,” “love the convert,” “do not take revenge,” “do not bear a grudge,” “not to whiten faces.” Here we are now — kindness. “And not to oppress a widow or orphan.”

It’s interesting how the Rambam read this. Here he says… here he calls it “widow and orphan,” but it perhaps means character traits (de’ot).

—

“Their spirit is very low” — even wealthy ones

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, a person is obligated to be careful with orphans and widows, because their spirit is very low. Their spirit is crushed. Even if they are wealthy — even if they have money.

Speaker 2: “Low spirit” — is this their being poor in spirit? Is this the same point, or is this a different expression?

Speaker 1: Interesting.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Even if they are wealthy. And so it says in the Mishnah in Bava Metzia that oppression, or taking a pledge from a widow — “you shall not take a widow’s garment as a pledge” — it says even if she has money. Even the widow of a king and the orphans of a king, we are warned about them, as it says “any widow or orphan you shall not oppress.” Every widow and orphan — even if you think they have power — but a widow and orphan are very unfortunate and very vulnerable.

—

Discussion: Does the Rambam mean broader than just widow and orphan?

Speaker 2: And what does one do, unfortunately, with such a person?

Speaker 1: The Rambam has a soft nature. The Rambam doesn’t add that it means everyone who is very crushed. The Rambam holds that one understands it on one’s own, and the Rambam actually doesn’t hold that way.

Speaker 2: No, it looks like yes, because in the note he said “unfortunate ones.” You see a precision, simply that he means not specifically.

Speaker 1: At the end he says, until when are they called orphans? He’s actually talking about orphans here.

Speaker 2: Yes, but the opposite — when it says “orphans,” it means to tell you that even the widow of a king, whom you see appears to be doing well, you should know that she is also crushed. That’s the novelty. Someone whom you clearly see is crushed is certainly included in the mitzvah. It’s not the other way around.

—

Halacha 17 — How should one conduct oneself with them

Speaker 1: Everyone, even the widow of a king — “any widow… you shall not oppress” — one should not cause pain, bother.

Speaker 2: There’s a powerful expression “torment.” I don’t know if he means specifically torment. He says “you shall not oppress.”

Speaker 1: Yes. How does one conduct oneself with them? The Rambam says: One should speak to them only gently, and treat them only with respect, and not cause them physical pain through labor, nor pain their hearts with words. One should not make them work hard, and one should not cause them pain. There is a way of causing pain physically, or by making them work hard. Causing pain to the heart is through speaking to them unkindly.

And one should be more careful with their money than with one’s own money. One should be more protective of their money than one is protective of one’s own money.

—

Chiddush: The Connection Between “The Most Common Person” and the Widow and Orphan

I found it interesting — the enactment, the halacha that the Rambam said earlier — that when a fellow has caused you pain, you should think that he is a great fool, his mind is confused. Once he is a fool, he will be like a widow and orphan, because he is unfortunate — he can’t, poor thing, figure out what to do, because nobody told him anything, because everything just goes in like with everyone else.

It’s a nice Torah thought, but it’s actually true — someone who is truly the most common of people, the simple meaning is that he is also unfortunate. He, poor thing, doesn’t have any social skills, everyone bothers him, he gets hurt very quickly — so one should forgive him more quickly and not harbor any hatred in one’s heart toward such a person.

But what he brings out is — that “widow” means to say, as he says regarding labor, it means someone who is an employee of a widow.

Rambam, Laws of Character Traits, Chapter 6 (continued) — Widow and Orphan

The Fool as an “Unfortunate Person” — Connection to Widow and Orphan

Once he is a fool, he has a status like a widow and orphan, because he is unfortunate. He can’t manage to give himself advice, because you don’t let him say anything, because you already get involved in everything.

It’s a nice Torah thought, and it’s actually true — someone who is truly the most common of people is indeed unfortunate. He, poor thing, doesn’t have any social skills, everyone bothers him, he very quickly becomes degraded. One must forgive him more quickly and not harbor any hatred in one’s heart toward such a person.

The Concept of “Affliction” Regarding a Widow and Orphan — Sensitivity

But what he brings out regarding being a widow — he means to say that as he says regarding labor, it means someone who is an employer of a widow, for example. You have a right to ask him, but you need to be extra specially kind. This is apparently the “lo te’anun” (you shall not afflict them). And the meaning of affliction is that if not, it is called affliction, since they are of a lowly spirit. It’s their sensitivity — because affliction has to do with the person on the receiving end. It’s more sensitive, because if you hit him a little, it’s as if you hit someone else a lot.

There is indeed a law that one may not make a slave work with crushing labor, but the slave who becomes degraded much more quickly.

—

Halacha 18 — Anyone Who Taunts Them, Angers Them, or Pains Their Hearts

The Distinction Between Taunting, Angering, and Paining Their Hearts

There is anyone who taunts them, or angers them, or pains their hearts… Do you know the distinction between taunting, angering, and paining their hearts?

– Angering — we know, it means he makes them upset.

– Paining their hearts — means he speaks unkindly and causes them pain.

– Taunting — means bothering, that it’s nothing, one gets used to it.

What is the distinction between bothering and paining their hearts? It’s similar, but taunting means provoking, agitating, or shaming, somehow.

Lost Their Money — Not Necessarily Intentional

If he lost their money — if you caused a loss of money, a certain type of loss. “Lost” means he certainly didn’t actually destroy it intentionally, it means he wasn’t as careful as one needs to be. So there are all these halachos that for a widow there is a claim on their behalf, or one must swear before a widow.

The Punishment — “And My anger shall burn and I will kill you by the sword”

A certain type of loss is only a loss, how much more so one who strikes them, but how much more so that he transgresses, because he transgresses regarding every Jew.

This prohibition, even though one does not receive lashes for it, its punishment is explicitly stated in the Torah — the Torah states a very harsh punishment, death by the sword. Not an ordinary sword, not a court-imposed death, but death by Heaven’s hand through the sword. “And My anger shall burn and I will kill you by the sword”, and it is measure for measure — just as it states, because you mistreated a widow and an orphan. Very powerful.

—

Halacha 19 — A Covenant Was Made With Them

The Rambam continues: A covenant was made with them by the One Who spoke and the world came into being — He made a covenant, “the One Who spoke and the world came into being,” the Creator who created the world with His utterance.

An interesting thing — why does he insert this expression?

He said, the oath is an expression of the Sages, which is in the tractate, that whenever they cry out due to violence — when a widow and orphan cry out from violence, from someone wronging them — they are answered, as it says “for if he shall cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry.”

Discussion: To Whom Does the Verse Refer?

“For if he shall cry out to Me” — does it refer only to a widow? Does it also refer to an orphan? To a poor person too? No? A poor person you don’t know.

Another thing — true, you can speak about a widow.

—

Halacha 20 — When Does This Apply: Affliction for One’s Own Sake Versus Affliction for the Sake of Education

Citing the words of the Rambam. The Rambam says: “When does this apply? When one afflicted them for one’s own interests” — when he bothers them for his own interest. “But if a teacher afflicted them in order to teach them Torah or a trade, or to lead them on the right path” — their teacher who tries to take over the place of the father and teach them Torah and a trade, or educate them — this is permitted.

“He Should Make a Distinction for Them” — Affirmative Action

The Rambam says: “Nevertheless, he should not treat them like everyone else” — even the teacher who may and must, he still needs to be very careful. “Rather, he should make a distinction for them” — he should discriminate, a good discrimination. What does this mean? Affirmative action. He should make a proper arrangement, he should make a distinction. “And guide them gently, with great compassion and with honor.”

I mean, the word “gently” — it appears very often in the Laws of Character Traits. Gentleness, calmness, is a great key.

“With great compassion and with honor, for the Lord will plead their cause” — because the Almighty fights for your widows and orphans.

Chiddush: “Distinction” Doesn’t Mean Letting Them Off — But Adapting One’s Style

But apparently the answer is the same thing. It will come later — the meaning is not that you let him off, but that a small bother for him is already a big slap for someone else. You simply need to take it to heart.

Your style with other people is not “that’s my style.” No, your style needs to adapt according to the person who is receiving it. If a person is very sensitive, you need to be more careful.

I just want to explain that the “distinction” doesn’t mean that you let him off. On the contrary — you need to realize that for him, when you give him a small word, it already helps as much as a big slap for someone else, because he is more sensitive.

“For the Lord Will Plead Their Cause” — The Difficult Test

But he says it a bit differently — he says “for the Lord will plead their cause.” It’s a very difficult thing, because many times indeed the orphan or a child from a home that is not in order specifically needs much more discipline, and it’s hard. It’s a difficult test, this.

—

Halacha 20 (continued) — Definition of an Orphan

Whether Orphaned from a Father or Orphaned from a Mother

The Rambam says: “Whether orphaned from a father or orphaned from a mother.”

What does orphan mean? What is an orphan from a father? What is an orphan from a mother?

Until When Is One Called an Orphan?

“Until when are they called orphans?” — Until when is one called an orphan?

They have the “Council of Orphans” — the rabbi there said about the Etzas HaTorah, when the new rabbi whose father passed away.

Until when is one called an orphan? “Until they no longer need an adult to rely upon to train them and care for them, but rather they can take care of all their own needs by themselves like all other adults.” From when one becomes independent, then he is already like a father, he doesn’t need to be an orphan anymore. An orphan is as long as one is a child.

Discussion: Until When Is One an “Orphan” in Today’s Times?

So, in today’s times this is generally until marriage. In today’s times — until one turns fifty!

No, I’m speaking realistically. True, in a certain way. But we’re talking here — the halacha of the Rambam apparently means… Perhaps one can say each matter according to its context. In certain matters a person is an orphan at fifteen, in certain matters he is an orphan at fifty. True.

—

Well, that was Chapter 6.