Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In the first five chapters, the Rambam dealt with morals in terms of the individual himself; what man should do to develop proper character. In this chapter, he turns to behavior within the context of society; how man should treat his fellow men.
The first halachah of the chapter joins these two components of the ethical whole. In Chapter 5, the Rambam painted a picture of the ideal personality — the wise man. In this halachah, he points out the benefits a person can reap by associating with these individuals.

As the Rambam emphasizes in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 8), man’s ethical makeup is a combination of character and action.

People are, by nature, social beings and there is a constant give and take between the individual and the people with whom he associates (See Guide For the Perplexed, Vol. I, Chapter 31).

Avot 1:4 advises: “Let your house be a meeting place for the wise.” See the following halachah.

In Halachah 2, the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah to associate with the righteous, while here he describes the need for such association as morally compelling. Note our commentary to that halachah.

Avot 1:7 states: “Stay away from a bad neighbor and do not become a friend of the wicked.” (See also the Rambam’s commentary to that mishnah.)

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (Chapter 25) explains this verse with an analogy of a person who spends time in a perfumery. Some of the pleasant fragrance attaches itself to him, even though he does not purchase anything.

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (ibid.) continues the analogy: Conversely, when a person spends time in a tannery, the unpleasant odor of the tannery imparts a foul smell even though he did not take anything from there.

The verse from Proverbs supports the previously stated concept that a person is influenced by his environment. The verse from Psalms introduces the concept which follows; that bad company should be avoided.

Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 23, states that this restriction does not apply to a person who settles in a community for the expressed purpose of spreading Torah. He need not worry about being influenced by his surroundings, because, to borrow a concept from Yoreh De’ah, Chapter 69, out of context, “one who is preoccupied with giving will not receive.”

See the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 4. In Iggeret HaShmad, the Rambam states that even when the difference between the two is relative, “a person who fears God is obligated to move from a country whose norms are not so proper to a good country.”

The Rambam was speaking about his age. One can only guess what the Rambam would say about our present society.

The Rambam apparently does not suggest risking one’s life to make such a move. However, note the passage from Iggeret HaShmad quoted below.

The obligation to find a proper society is not offered simply as a suggestion. The Rambam makes it a firm directive, incumbent upon us even if great difficulty must be endured to insure that the improper society be avoided.

This phrase is borrowed out of context, as is frequently the Rambam’s practice, from I Samuel 13:6: “and the people hid in the caves and crannies.”

In Iggeret HaShmad, the Rambam also discusses this question, albeit in connection with more extreme circumstances, addressing himself to people who live in countries whose governments do not allow them to follow Torah and mitzvot:
The advice which I give myself... my friends, and all those who seek counsel from me is to
leave those places and go to a place where he can establish his faith and follow the Torah
without interference or fear... He should try to do this even if it involves danger... It has
already been expressed by the prophets that whoever dwells among the nonbelievers becomes
like them as implied by the statements of King David of blessed memory (I Samuel 26:19):
“You have driven me away from dwelling in the heritage of God, telling me, ‘Go serve other
gods;’ i.e., [King David] equated his living among the gentiles with idol worship.

The conclusion of this verse: “I will leave my people and go from them for they are all adulterers, a faithless band,” demonstrates that the Rambam was not merely borrowing Biblical phraseology, but rather, quoting a verse that addresses itself specifically to the problem of living within a corrupt society.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 6) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 434) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
In Halachah 1, the Rambam described the association with the wise as a moral imperative and, here, he states that it is a Torah commandment. We saw a similar pattern in Chapter 1. First, he outlined his theory of the middle path of behavior as the optimal moral position. Only afterwards, did he equate it with the commandment to “walk in His ways.”
This approach is characteristic of the Rambam who maintains that the Torah does not impose a Divine Will upon man which he cannot grasp or understand. Rather, the Torah teaches rules and principles that can be comprehended as good by human thought and appreciated by our minds as a beneficial path of life. Thus, the workings of the Halachah can be seen as having been instituted as an organic part of the makeup of the world at large and man in particular. (See the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, ch. 48.)

To God.

Ketubot 111b, Sifri, Deuteronomy 11:22.

Since God is infinite, transcending the reaches of our emotions and intellect, there is no way we can cling to Him in a simple sense. Hence, the commandment cannot be interpreted literally.

Since they are identified with the Torah and thus bonded with God, clinging to them is, in essence, clinging to Him.

Pesachim 49a states: “At all times, a man should sell all his possessions [in order to] marry a daughter of a wise man and marry off his daughter to a wise man.”

Berachot 64a states: “Anyone who partakes of a meal at which a Torah Sage is present is considered like one who has benefited from the radiance of the Divine Presence.”

I.e., the Torah sage may be a silent partner who puts up a share of the capital in a partnership and the other person takes care of the actual buying and selling.
The Rambam harshly criticizes individuals who try to derive material benefit from their Torah knowledge (See Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11). Therefore, though Ketubot (loc. cit.), the source for these statements, also mentions “granting a sage benefit from one’s possessions,” the Rambam omits this clause. Nevertheless, he does allow one to do business on behalf of a sage as described above. See also Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:10.

Avot 1:4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 206) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 243) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.

In Hilchot Eivel (14:1, quoted in its entirety below), the Rambam states that the deeds associated with the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow Jew apply to “your brother in Torah and mitzvot.” The Hagahot Maimoni (See also Avot D’Rabbi Natan 16:5) specifically states that the mitzvah only applies to such people and that the wicked who do not observe the Torah must be hated. Nevertheless, the fact that the Rambam’s statements here do not mention such a restriction leads to the conclusion that they should be interpreted simply, i.e., that the mitzvah of loving a fellow Jew applies to everyone. Some of the privileges associated with that mitzvah, however, may only be afforded to those who are observant.
[Yad Malachi (Klallei HaRambam 6) states that the Rambam does not rely on statements made later in the Mishneh Torah to explain those made previously. Thus, the obligation to love all Jews which is stated in this halachah should not be interpreted as limited by his statements in Hilchot Eivel. Note also the Maharam Shik (Taryag Mitzvot) who states that since the commandment “Love your fellow man as yourself” is applied even With regard to a wicked man awaiting execution (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1), we can conclude that it is applicable to every Jew.]
Note Tanya (ch. 32) which explains that there is no contradiction between the mitzvah of loving every Jew and the commandment to hate the sinners. One must love them as people and hate their deeds. See also the conclusion of Iggeret HaShmad:
It is not proper to drive away those who desecrate the Sabbath and to despise them. Rather,
one should draw them close and encourage them to perform mitzvoth.

In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban questions: How one can possibly have the same degree of love for another person as one has for himself? However, since all Jews share the same Godly essence, when one relates to that essence, there is really no difference between loving another person and oneself (Tanya).

The question often raised in connection with this mitzvah is: How can one command feeling? Therefore, certain commentaries have stated that the mitzvah merely requires us to perform deeds which would normally be motivated by feelings of love. However, in Sefer HaMitzvot (Shoresh 9), the Rambam specifically states that this mitzvah involves our emotions. Therefore, it must be interpreted to mean that we are commanded to bring ourselves to a state of mind that will inspire feelings of love. Though the mitzvah involves our feelings, it also requires a specific course of behavior as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., the following are the applications of this mitzvah in the ethical realm. However, since “’Love your fellow man as yourself’ is a great general principle in the Torah” (Sifra, Leviticus 19:18), there are also applications of this principle in many other spheres. Thus, Hilchot Eivel 14:1 states:
It is a positive commandment ordained by the Rabbis to visit the sick, comfort mourners,
participate in a funeral or a wedding, accompany guests, arrange for all the needs of burial...,
and to bring joy to a bride and a groom and assist them with all their needs.
These are deeds of kindness performed with one’s person for which there is no measure.
Although these are Rabbinic commands, they are included in [the commandment], “Love your
fellow man as yourself,” [which implies that] all the things that you would like others to do for
you, you should do for your brother in Torah and mitzvot.
The Rambam also mentions this commandment in connection with choosing a bride (Hilchot Ishut 3:19), ransoming captives (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 8:10), and even determining the proper manner of execution (Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1).

Avot 2:15 states: “Your friend’s money should be as dear to your as your own.”

This corresponds to speaking praise of others. See Avot 2:13: “Your friend’s dignity should be as dear to you as your own.”

I.e., builds his reputation by emphasizing a colleague’s faults.

See Hilchot Teshuvah 3:14.

Here, the Rambam is referring to a גר צדק, a convert to Judaism, as distinct from a גר תושב, a gentile who accepts the seven mitzvot commanded to Noah and his descendants (See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, chs. 13-14).

This phrase is borrowed from the comforting words spoken by Boaz to Ruth in praise of her dedication in confronting the challenges faced by a convert (Ruth 2:12).

I.e., he is a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.

As mentioned in the previous halachah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 207) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 431) include this as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.

I.e., just as one’s love of God must be unlimited, so too, must one have boundless love for a convert (Mahari, commentary to Sefer HaMitzvot).

The Midrash Tanchumah (Vayikra 2) states: “The Holy One, blessed be He, states: ‘It is sufficient that he left idols behind and came [to live] among you. I adjure you to love him, for I love him.’”
In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) the Rambam also emphasizes that the sacrifices a convert made in coming to Judaism are the reason “God has offered him additional love and created an additional mitzvah for him.” A number of the Rambam’s responsa are also dedicated to strengthening the spirits of converts. He wrote to a convert named Ovadiah, that although the Jews trace their lineage to Abraham, the converts’ connection to Judaism is dependent on God, Himself and is, therefore, more praiseworthy. Similarly, he praises another convert for “leaving his father and homeland... pursuing God... and reaching such heights.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 302) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 238) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

The minimum punishment given for violating a Torah command.

This is a principle followed throughout Torah law; a court administers punishment only for actions, not for thoughts or feelings (See Hilchot Temurah 1:1).

Thus, here, we see a prohibition that involves only our emotions, i.e., we are forbidden to harbor such feelings in our hearts.

Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) goes further and states that if a person makes known his hatred for his colleague, even though he transgresses the prohibitions against seeking vengeance and/or bearing a grudge, he does not violate this prohibition. Thus, this mitzvah forbids holding feelings of enmity in one’s heart when they are never expressed.

The Rambam mentions the prohibition against insulting a fellow Jew in Halachah 8 (and against cursing a fellow Jew in Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:1-2) and the prohibition against hitting a fellow Jew in Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:12.

In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam describes this hatred “as more severe than anything else.” Once hatred has been expressed, it is possible to reconcile differences. However, if it is kept hidden in one’s heart, there is no possibility of improving relations and establishing unity.

See Halachah 9.

Avshalom had just reason for hating Amnon who had raped and disgraced Tamar, Avshalom’s sister.
Nevertheless, Avshalom is criticized for not making his ill feelings known and failing to try to resolve his differences with Amnon peacefully. The choice of this example appears to be the Rambam’s own, for the commentaries have not cited any sources which he quotes. Perhaps the Rambam cites this instance to demonstrate the negative effects of such hatred. Ultimately, Avshalom slew Amnon, triggering a series of unfortunate events which culminated in a bitter civil war and his own death.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 205) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 239) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This commandment has two dimensions: a) to bring the complaints one has against a colleague into the open as stated in this halachah; b) to rebuke a sinner as stated in the following halachah.

Leviticus 19:17-18 states:
(17) Do not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely admonish your fellow man and
not bear a sin because of him. (18) Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against the children
of your people. Love your fellow man as yourself.
Each of the clauses in these two verses is halachically significant. The first verse informs us that hatred of a fellow Jew is prohibited (Halachah 5). Then, it explains how one should respond if negative feelings towards a colleague arise (Halachah 6, here). Afterwards, it teaches that one’s negative feelings must be expressed in a manner that does not embarrass one’s fellow Jew (Halachah 8). Thus, the verse can be rendered: Do not bear hate in your heart, instead, inform your fellow Jew of your complaint, but do so in a manner that is not sinful. (Note the Ramban’s commentary to the verse.) The second verse teaches that vengeance or bearing a grudge is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachot 7-8) and then, concludes with a positive statement obligating us to love our fellow Jew (Halachah 3).

See Yoma 87a which gives several examples of Sages who went out of their way to create circumstances that would allow a person who had wronged them to ask for forgiveness.

The narrative in Genesis describes how after God punished Avimelech, King of the Philistines, for taking Sarah, he returned her to Abraham and Abraham prayed for Avimelech’s recovery. Though Abraham had been wronged, he was willing to forgive Avimelech.

The mitzvah הוכח תוכיח mentioned in the previous halachah.

Though the Hebrew חבירו literally means friend, we have used this translation since this term extends beyond one’s immediate circle of friends. However, it is possible that the Rambam desired the term to be interpreted more narrowly. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 156:7 states that one is obligated to admonish only a close friend. There is no requirement to admonish a person with whom one does not share such ties when there is little likelihood that one’s words will have any effect.

The Avodat HaMelech states that the expression “improper path” refers to incorrect behavior even if no actual violation of Torah law is involved. See also Berachot 31b, Arachin 16b.

The word חטא, generally translated as “sin” can also be rendered as “lack.”

The Torah mentions the mitzvah of admonishment directly after the prohibition against hating a fellow Jew, implying that admonishing is intended as a safeguard to prevent hatred from arising between Jews. The previous halachah dealt with this concept in terms of our interpersonal relationships. The present halachah deals with this concept within the context of a person’s relationship with God.
Pesachim 113a teaches we must hate a sinner. As a preventive measure, the Torah offers us an alternative, admonishing him, which hopefully will cause him to correct his behavior and thus, do away with the need for such hatred (Sefer Yeraim).

To prevent the person being rebuked from becoming embarrassed. However, note the latter portion of the following halachah. The Magen Avraham (608:3) states that we are only required to administer a rebuke privately for a sin committed in private. If a person sees a colleague commit a sin in public, he should immediately rebuke him to prevent chillul HaShem, the descration of God’s name.

For we are all naturally defensive when our actions are being criticized. We must demonstrate more consideration for a fellow Jew’s feelings if we wish our statements to be effective. The Sifri derives the need for privacy and gentleness from the manner in which God rebuked Miriam and Aaron for speaking against Moses.

Which is the ultimate good as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah, ch. 8.

And the latter persists in his negative behavior.

In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam quotes the Sifra which mentions repeating a rebuke four or five times. Bava Metzia 31b states one must rebuke a colleague even one hundred times.

Arachin 16b mentions a second limit, when the transgressor curses the one who rebukes him. The Rema (Orach Chayim 608:2) accepts this view as halachah. Nevertheless, in Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam specifically writes: “even if one is cursed or belittled, he should not slacken or cease admonishing until he hits him.” The Rema also mentions that the obligation to rebuke a colleague an unlimited number of times only applies when the rebuke is being given to a single individual. When one is admonishing many people for transgressing together, a single rebuke is sufficient.

The Rambam (Hilchot Sh’vitat Asor 1:7) states:
Women who eat and drink until darkness [on the eve of Yom Kippur, because] they do not
know we are commanded to add from the mundane to the holy [day] should not be
admonished, lest they [continue] doing so consciously... It is better to allow them to remain
unaware [of this transgression than risk] their willful violation of it. The same applies
concerning similar cases.
Commenting on this law, the Rema (loc. cit.) mentions that a person should not rebuke a colleague for the inadvertent transgression of a Torah law if he knows that the transgressor will not listen. However, this only applies regarding instances like the obligation to add to the Yom Kippur fast which are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

This statement is quoted from Shabbat 54b which relates that, after the destruction of the first Temple, the righteous were also slain mercilessly. Why were they subjected to this punishment? Because they failed to rebuke the transgressors. See also Sanhedrin 93a.

And perhaps, had he rebuked them, the sin would not have been committed. In Hilchot Teshuvah 4:1, the Rambam lists the failure to rebuke a transgressor as one of four sins that are so severe that “God will not allow a person who commits these deeds to repent.”

Arachin 16b quotes Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah: “I wonder if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to admonish his fellow man.”

I.e., from this verse, we can derive that embarrassing a colleague is a sin.

Arachin (loc. cit.)

In the second half of the verse requiring us to rebuke a colleague.

In Hilchot Chovel U’Mazik, ch. 3, the Rambam discusses the sin of embarrassing another person from the perspective of damages. Here, he focuses on the ethical aspect of the sin.

Even in private. The Avodat HaMelech states that when a person feels that a colleague wronged him, he should admonish the latter gently. If the person admonished does not respond, he may speak to him in harsher terms and even embarrass him in private. However, under no circumstances may he embarrass him publicly for his own personal reasons. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (156:8) and other commentaries disagree with this view and forbid embarrassing a colleague for personal reasons whether privately or publicly.

Where he will suffer greater shame.

Avot 3:14

The above-mentioned mishnah states that this applies “even if he possesses good deeds.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that, generally, when a person dies amidst suffering, his death atones for his sins and he is granted a share in the world to come. In this case, even the person’s suffering and death does not bring about atonement. See also Hilchot Teshuvah 3:14.

Alternatively, “whether an adult or a minor.” Bava Kama 86b relates that even minors and fools can suffer from public embarrassment.

Hilchot Teshuvah (loc. cit.) also states that one’s share in the world to come is withheld because of this transgression.

The Rambam discusses mentioning such matters outside a person’s presence in Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

Prohibition against admonishing a person in public.

Even in such a case, the person should first be rebuked in private. (However, note the statement of the Magen Avraham quoted in the previous halachah.)

The commentaries point to Nechemiah 13:23-25: “I saw Jews who had married wives of Ashdod and of Ammon... and I contended with them, cursed them, beat some of them, and pulled out their hair.” See also Hilchot Teshuvah 4:2 which describes how the prophets would publicly rebuke the people for their sins.

Though the previous halachot spoke of the need to admonish a colleague who wrongs us, there is no binding obligation to do so.

The Rambam’s words appear to indicate that if the person who committed the wrong was sophisticated enough to learn from the rebuke, he should be admonished so that he will develop his character. Only when the person would be incapable of benefiting from the rebuke, does the Rambam suggest withholding admonishment.

See Megillah 28a which mentions that each night, Rabbi Nechuniah ben HaKanah and Rabbi Zeira would make a statement forgiving anyone who wronged them. The Ari zal includes such a statement in his order of the prayers recited before retiring at night.

Since the Torah mentions the mitzvah to admonish directly after the prohibition against hating a fellow Jew, there is obviously a connection between the two. The mitzvah to admonish is necessary to prevent feelings of hatred. If one is able to rise above those feelings without admonishing, there is no need to do so.

These people tend to be oversensitive and the smallest harshness or slight might cause them pain and thus, constitute a transgression of the prohibition mentioned below.

In addition to the possibility of financial difficulties which are often experienced by widows and orphans, the loss of a husband or parent is an emotional crisis which creates stress and heightens the sensitivity of the family members. Even a family whose financial status is secure may suffer strain and emotional upheaval.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 256) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 65) consider this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Berachot 18b relates that Shmuel’s father was given money belonging to orphans to guard. He placed his own money above and below theirs so that he would suffer any possible loss and not they. Similarly, many leniencies and provisions have been instituted within Torah law to protect the interests of orphans. For example, a person who collects a debt from an estate left to orphans must take an oath that the debt had not been repaid even though, had the debtor remained alive, the oath would not have been required. See also Hilchot Nachalot, ch. 11.

The violation of the prohibition is thus dependent on the feelings of the widow or orphans in question. There is no objective standard of behavior. Rather, one must become sensitive to the feelings of the people who have suffered the loss and conduct himself accordingly.

Beating and cursing also involve the transgression of other prohibitions. Thus, a person who beats or curses an orphan violates two prohibitions by that act.

The commentaries have questioned why, in fact, the punishment of lashes is never given. Though punishment is not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed as mentioned in Halachah 5, it is possible that a person will commit a deed that aggravates a widow or orphan. Why does he not receive lashes in such an instance?
The Sefer HaChinuch states that since the nature of the prohibition is very subjective, the Torah does not specify any punishment. The Minchat Chinuch quotes an opinion which maintains that any prohibition that can be violated by speech or thought alone (as is possible in this case) is not punished by lashes even when it is transgressed with a deed. The Avodat HaMelech states that the reason one does not receive lashes is stated by the Rambam himself: that retribution is visited upon him from above.

And this punishment is more severe than lashes. Hence, the lesser punishment is not administered.

When people lose a loved one, they often despair and feel that the world is run in a random and arbitrary manner. Perhaps the Rambam uses this term for God — “He who spoke...” — to stress how He is the One who brought the world into being and controls every facet of its existence.

The use of a Biblical prooftext generally indicates a quote from a Talmudic or Midrashic source. However, though the concept the Rambam mentions is also alluded to in Bava Kama 93a, the exact expression he uses is not mentioned there.
This instance supports an opinion frequently expressed by certain commentaries, i.e., that the Rambam had at his disposal midrashic sources which are not available to us. Alternatively, we are forced to say the Rambam takes the liberty of developing Halachic interpretations of Biblical verses on his own. Scholars of the post-Talmudic period would rarely make such interpretations.

This point is mentioned explicitly in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The Mechilta which is most commonly quoted is that composed by Rabbi Yishmael. Many of the Rabbis who have devoted themselves to the study of the sources used by the Rambam note his partiality for the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his frequent use of it as a source.

Even though he is given permission to discipline them.

The Or Sameach notes that, although this verse may be understood as referring to the oppression of widows and orphans, it makes no explicit mention of such. Therefore, he suggests that the Rambam actually cited part of Proverbs 23:11 which states: “Do not enter orphans’ fields for their redeemer is powerful, He will take up their cause” and a printing error caused the other verse to be substituted.
Rav Kapach notes that manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah do not include the word שנאמר — “as it states.” Accordingly, he maintains that the Rambam was merely borrowing the phrasing of a verse (as is his frequent custom), but not quoting it as a prooftext.

This point is also mentioned explicitly in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The commentaries note only one other source which alludes to this concept, the description of Mar Ukva’s children as orphans (Bava Metzia 70a) although other references imply that they had only lost their mother.

Note Hilchot Nachalot 11:10 which mentions a guardian’s responsibilities to train the orphans in his charge to perform mitzvot.

Thus, this is not a matter of objectively determined chronological age and may vary from society to society according to the different socio-economic norms.