Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

E. g., splitting the sea, bringing the manna, or having the earth swallow Korach. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 8, Halachah 2, in the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 25, the Rambam differentiates between the miracles performed by Moses and those performed by the other prophets. Perhaps this is the reason why he separates them into two separate clauses.

Who revived the dead and performed the miracle on Mount Carmel.

Who also revived the dead, cured Na’aman of leprosy, and led the troops of Aram to Shomron.

As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 7 and Chapter 8, Halachah 2, a prophet must demonstrate the truth of his prophecy by performing wonders. Nevertheless, they need not be totally above the natural order.

The following verse continues, ‘If the prophet predicts something in God’s name, and the prophecy does not come true..., this message was not spoken by God.’ Conversely, we can conclude that if his prophecies materialize, his status as a prophet is verified.

I.e., he follows the course of behavior leading to prophecy described in Chapter 7, Halachot 1-5.

This would automatically establish him as a false prophet, as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

As Moses did (Exodus, Chapter 14)

As Elijah did (I Kings, Chapter 17) and Elisha did (II Kings, Chapter 4)

Note the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, where he quotes I Samuel 9:9: ‘He who is called a prophet now was called a seer,’ and explains that this title was given because he was capable of seeing the future.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 11:5) relates that in his confrontation with the false prophet, Chananiah ben Ozer, the prophet Jeremiah declared that Chananiah would die before the end of the year (Jeremiah 28:16). Though he died on the last day of Elul, Chananiah ordered his sons to conceal his death for a day, so that it would appear that Jeremiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled and hence, Jeremiah would be considered a false prophet. Thus, we see that every detail of a prophet’s prophecy must be fulfilled. Indeed, this precise accuracy is what distinguishes the predictions of a prophet from those of a soothsayer or diviner, as the Rambam states in Halachah 3.

And are obligated to follow his directives on all matters, whether great or small.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states: Even if his prophecies were fulfilled once or twice, his status as a prophet has not been definitely established. We should hold our judgment in abeyance until the truth of the totality of his prophecies has continually been proven time after time.
The Turei Even states that a prophet should be tested on three occasions. If his predictions come true, he should be accepted. Although, as stated in Halachah 5, it is forbidden to test a prophet more than necessary, from the above statements it would appear that the Rambam requires more than three trials.

The preceding verse relates, ‘And God was with him and did not let any of his words fall to the ground’ — i.e., all his prophecies were fulfilled.

Note the commentary to Chapter 8, Halachah 1, and the quote from Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:16.

The Rambam lived in an age where belief in such ‘spiritual’ potentials was common. Hence, he felt it necessary to explain this concept at length both here, in his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, and in the Guide.

Bereishit Rabbah 85:3.

Thus, this verse implies that although these individuals may make certain accurate predictions, they will never be completely correct.

I.e., they will be unable to predict the future at all.

As explained in Halachah 1, this includes not only the general thrust of a prophet’s statements, but all its particulars.

It is not entirely clear from the Rambam’s statements here if he totally discounts the forecasts of the sorcerers and diviners, attributing whatever success they have to chance, or if he maintains that their methods can afford them some knowledge of the future, but never a completely true picture. In the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapters 37 and 38, the Rambam discusses this subject at length, explaining that these sorcerers and diviners are people with developed powers of imagination, but little spiritual or intellectual refinement. Although they may undergo powerful mental experiences and trances which they may interpret to be spiritual or prophetic experiences, they are not receiving any new influence from God. What they are doing is focusing their entire attention and mental energy on one aspect of their previous experience. This particular matter becomes blown up and dominates their entire thought processes. Therefore, it appears to them that they have stepped beyond normal human limitations and entered into the spiritual realms. The focusing of their thinking processes in this experience can provide them with insight which they did not possess previously. However, since this experience is not ultimately being produced by spiritual influence, nor are they intellectually refined, the predictions they make will always be somewhat in error.

The Rambam also mentions this concept in the Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, stating, ‘They would consult the prophets about all their affairs... God established prophets for all our requests in place of the astrologers, sorcerers, and diviners.’

It is not clear whether the Rambam considers the prophets’ functioning in this capacity to be desirable, or “a necessary evil” in order to prevent the people from consulting sorcerers and diviners. Note the commentaries on Deuteronomy 18:13, “Be of simple faith with God, Your Lord,” which explain that the Torah teaches us not to inquire into the future, but to accept it as it comes, realizing that everything that transpires is an expression of God’s providence. On the other hand, it can be explained that one of the means the Torah grants us to elevate our worldly experience is to seek out Divine guidance concerning even our mundane affairs.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes that a prophet will resolve both the questions of the people as a whole and those pertaining to them as individuals. He restates that concept here.

I.e., questions of communal or national significance.

His father’s donkeys. See I Samuel, Chapter 9.

Samuel.

The Bible relates the episode as a matter of course, implying that there was nothing unusual about inquiring about such matters from a prophet.

The Rambam restates these principles, explained at length in Chapter 9, Halachah 1, to negate the claims of the Christians and Moslems.

That every facet of a prophecy must be fulfilled

I.e., we do not judge him to be a false prophet.

The latter phrase is borrowed from Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2. It is precisely because of these attributes that God sends prophets to the people to warn them of retribution, in the hope that they repent.

See Jonah, Chapter 3, which relates how Jonah prophesied that Nineveh’s sins made it worthy of destruction. When the people heard his prophesy, they repented and cried to God for forgiveness. He was moved by their actions and decided not to destroy the city, nullifying Jonah’s prophecy entirely.

And visited on the person, his descendants, or the people at large, at a later date.

Isaiah, Chapter 38, relates that King Hezekiah was punished by God for failing to sire children. He fell sick, and Isaiah prophesied that he would die. After hearing that prophecy, Hezekiah turned to the wall and prayed to God with all his heart. God heard his prayers and granted him fifteen more years of life.
In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains a similar idea, citing the example of Elijah’s prophecy to King Achav after the latter took possession of the vineyard of Navot. Elijah prophesied that he and his house would be destroyed. After hearing the prophecy, Achav ‘put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted.’ When God saw this, He decreed that the retribution that Elijah had predicted would not take place during Achav’s days, but rather during those of his son (I Kings, Chapter 21).

As stated in Halachah 1, every facet in a positive prophecy must come true.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam mentions the discussion, Berachot 4b, of the fear that gripped the Patriarch Jacob before his encounter with Esau. Our Sages question Jacob’s behavior, noting that God had already promised Jacob that He would be with him in everything that he did (Genesis 32:8). If so, why was Jacob afraid? They explain that, in his modesty, Jacob feared that his sins had made him unworthy of the fulfillment of God’s blessing. Similarly, the Rambam asks, why can we not say that all prophecies for good are dependent on our behavior, and if we do not merit their fulfillment, the good will not materialize? In reply, the Rambam differentiates between a promise made by God to an individual in private (as in Jacob’s case) and a prophecy made in public. In the former instance, the person’s behavior may cause God to withhold His promise of good. In contrast, once a prophecy has been proclaimed, God will never withhold its fulfillment, for were He to do so, He would leave us without any barometer with which to test the truth of a prophet’s prophecy (i.e., the prophet could always explain that his prophecy was not fulfilled because the people were not worthy).

This portion is set off in brackets ({}) because it does not appear in any of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. Furthermore, the fact that it cites a source is a departure from the Rambam’s style of presentation and has led to the conclusion that this was an addition of a later commentator.

And the righteous were also slain because they did nothing to try to correct the behavior of the wicked.

Shabbat 55a.

See Halachot 1, 2, and 5.

For these alone can produce conclusive evidence of the truth of his prophecy.

The destruction of Jerusalem and exile to Babylonia.

Victory over Babylonia and the return of the Temple vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had previously taken.

Because negative prophecies can be nullified.

Were the prophecy to be fulfilled, this would be a clear sign that he is a true prophet. As mentioned above, Jeremiah prophesied that Chananiah would die for uttering false prophecy, and Jeremiah’s prophecy was fulfilled.

Whose prophecy has already been established.

See Deuteronomy, Chapter 31.

Although subsequently Joshua performed many miracles — e.g., splitting the Jordan, having the sun stand still over Givon — the Jews accepted his leadership before then, as Joshua 1:17 states: ‘Just as we listened to Moses with regard to everything, so will we listen to you.’

E. g., Elijah appointed Elisha as a prophet in his stead (I Kings, Chapter 19). The people were obligated to accept Elisha without subjecting him to any trials.

As stated in Halachot 1 and 2.

As stated in this halachah.

Mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachot 1-4. Were he to deviate from this path, there would be room to doubt him, because, as explained in the commentary to those halachot, prophecy is a product of a person’s own spiritual refinement.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 64) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 424) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam defines the mitzvah as forbidding us “to test His promises and warnings which He conveyed by His prophets, by raising doubts about them.”

See the commentary to Halachah 2 with regard to the number of times one is allowed to test a prophet.

Interestingly, although the prooftext mentions testing God, halachically it is defined as directed against testing His prophets. In Emunot V’De’ot, Discourse 7, Rav Sa’adiah Gaon questions whether we are permitted to test God Himself — for example, by asking for a sign whether our service is acceptable to Him or not.

In Marah, there was no water for the people, and the Jews ‘strove’ and ‘murmured’ against Moses (17:2-3). Moses emphasized that the people were, in fact, defying God. Their complaints, nevertheless, were not directed against Him, but against Moses, His prophet.

As mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 7, listening to a prophet fulfills a positive commandment.

God made this assurance to Ezekiel after conveying the gift of prophecy upon him.

The Rambam uses the term, מרעים which means friends. His choice of terminology is based on Leviticus 19:18: ואהבת לרעך כמוך. This verse is the source for the mitzvah to love one’s fellow Jew, and applies to all Jews, regardless of whether they are friends in the conventional sense or not. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.)

Many commentaries assume that the Rambam means that there are many personality types, which he proceeds to describe: e.g., the angry man, the calm man, etc. They quote various sources in support of this viewpoint, among them Berachot 58a: “Whoever sees a multitude of Jews recites the blessing: ‘Blessed is... the wise who knows the hidden secrets,’ because just as their natures are not similar, neither are their faces.” However, by stating that the many character traits are possessed by “each and every man,” the Rambam is implying more than that there are people with different traits. Though in Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide to the Perplexed) 2:40 the Rambam himself elaborates upon that idea, here his intent is different. He is emphasizing the degree to which each individual’s personality is a combination of different traits, which may be unrelated and even distant from each other. Anger, generosity, and modesty, for example, can be found together in the same person, much in the same way that tenants of all sorts — unrelated to each other — can be housed in a common building. To illustrate these traits, the Rambam employs concrete examples of extreme personalities, so that the contrasts can be appreciated more easily.

Obviously, anger or passivity are not these individuals’ only traits. Surely, they share the full spectrum of human emotions. However, in these individuals, these traits are most prominent. See Halachah 2:3 for a further discussion of anger.

Chapter 2, Halachah 3, also deals at length with the contrasts between pride and humility.

Kohelet Rabbah 1:34 states: “No person will die having accomplished [even] half of what he desires.” This statement is difficult to comprehend since there appear to be many successful individuals who achieve their desires. Nevertheless, their accomplishments do not necessitate that their desires will be satisfied. As the Midrash continues: “A person who possesses 100 silver pieces desires 200. One who possesses 200 desires 400.” Desire itself is never satisfied. lnstead, it puts the person on a constantly moving treadmill, with ever-increasing aims. As soon as one reaches one goal, he instinctively begins the pursuit of another.

This pair of contrasting personality types deal with a person’s appetites which can be satisfied by sensual experience. For example, gluttony is stimulated and satisfied by taste. ln contrast, the traits mentioned below — the desire for money or the lack of desire for it — do not involve the senses.

Literally, “whose soul is not satisfied.” Perhaps the Rambam uses “soul,” both here and with regard to the man ruled by his sensual appetites, because it is the desire that characterizes the man, not the performance of an action as such. A man may never indulge his passion for food, or actually amass money and yet, be gluttonous or greedy. Though, in practice, his ability to gratify his ambitions may be limited by external factors, the desires of his soul are, nonetheless, unlimited.

Here, the Rambam describes an example where the desire for money becomes a goal in itself. ln contrast, a man who gathers money so that he can buy things or achieve power is not interested in money per se. Although he may be faulted for different reasons, he is not greedy for money. On the other hand, for the “lover of money,” money itself becomes his raison d’etre.

Literally, he “cuts himself short.” II Kings 19:26 employs a similar usage of the root, קצר: “And the inhabitants are broken, with shortened (i.e., weakened or useless) arms.”

This is the lazy man, who will not bestir himself even for that which is necessary. ln Chapter 2, Halachah 7, this type is described clearly as: “lazy and an idler.” This is the description, too, in the Rambam’s lntroduction to Avot — Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4.

In contrast to the “lover of money” mentioned above, the miser is not as bent on acquiring new wealth as much as hoarding the money and possessions he has.

The terminology the Rambam uses emphasizes the miser’s need to be close to his money and possessions. Similar, but not exactly correspondent, expressions are found in the Bible (Proverbs 13:11) and the Talmud (Bava Kama 80a).

Chullin 84b gives examples of such behavior: wearing linen clothing, using glass utensils, and hiring workers without supervising them.

The Rambam is not referring to an average optimist and a pessimist. Rather, he describes personalities who do not have a grip on reality. אונן is the term used for the bereaved who has not yet buried his dead. מהולל, the other extreme, is used by Jeremiah 51:7 to refer to a state of intoxication and delirious drunkenness.

Our translation of שוע is clearly evident from Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 7:11. It follows that כילי represents the opposite extreme. (See also lbn Ezra, Isaiah 32:5.) The difference between this pair of traits and the miser-spendthrift pair mentioned above is that the latter refers to a person’s conduct toward hiniself, while the former refers to his conduct with regard to others. The stingy man, unlike the miser, may spend money for his own needs, but is tightfisted when others are concerned. By the same token, a freehanded man need not necessarily indulge himself, though he is generous when giving charity. Though this may sound praiseworthy, when taken to extremes it can also prove dangerous, because a person may hurt himself in the process of giving excessively to another. (See Lechem Mishneh.)

We find a longer treatment of personal characteristics in the Rambam’s Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4.

The Lechem Mishneh understands this as follows: Let us imagine a line drawn from one extreme to another — between the stingy and the freehanded, for example. All who are neither stingy nor freehanded stand between them. They are all intermediate, whether they tend towards stinginess or freehandedness. Each point along this imaginary line stands· apart — “is distant” — from the others on that line. In a diagram, this idea might be depicted as follows: X-----* -------* ------*-------*----------*---------*-------*--------X stingy intermediate points freehanded However, it is highly unlikely that all the Rambam wishes to teach us is that there are many intermediate points of temperament between the extremes. After-all, that is self-evident. Furthermore, in each set of associated temperaments — for example, stinginess and freehandedness — only three points on the line are of importance to the Rambam in clarifying his view of personality development: the two extremes and the midpoint. Why should he mention all the other intermediate possibilities? Thus, it appears that the Rambam is telling us that there is a midpoint temperament between each pair of contrasting extremes. Given the entire range of human temperaments, there are a number of midpoints which are not necessarily related to each other. For example, the midpoint for generosity may be very different from the midpoint for humility. Thus, in Halachah 1, the Rambam stated that our personality traits are “different and distant;” in this halachah, he makes a parallel statement about the midpoints.

I.e., the Rambam distinguishes between genetic traits and those that are acquired.

Here, we see an interrelation between body and soul. Certain temperaments are produced by or relate to particular physical characteristics. [In Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam states: “From the outset of a person’s [life], he has neither virtues nor vices.... “However, there is not necessarily a contradiction between Shemoneh Perakim and this halachah. The possession of certain character traits does not determine whether one will use them for a vice or a virtue.]

i.e., these traits are not transferred genetically. However, a person is born with a tendency towards them. In Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam elaborates on this issue at length. He explains that some people are born with a brain whose internal chemistry is prone to intellectual achievement. However, if this person does not develop this tendency, he will not automatically become a thinker. Similarly, others have leanings towards courage or cowardice. Nevertheless, these are merely tendencies, and they will not manifest themselves unless consciously developed. Also, these tendencies are, at all times, subject to man’s control. We are granted free will, and choose our course of behavior.

In Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam writes: “From his youth, one becomes accustomed to acting in accordance with the accepted behavior of one’s family and locale.” In these few words, the Rambam includes all the people who might influence a person’s character development: his parents, siblings, teachers, peers, and others. Also, note Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

There are two ways of acquiring such traits

i.e., an intuitive realization of the correctness of a certain course of behavior stemming from one’s own creative thought.

i.e., through study a person understands. the value of a certain character trait and sets out to acquire it.

Unlike the inborn or easily acquired traits, these qualities must first be accepted intellectually. Then, through habitual actions, they become part of the personality.

i.e., the path described in this and the following halachot.

except in certain cases, as explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

if that his nature

and modify his behavior in this direction. In Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam elaborates on this concept, contrasting hedonism with asceticism, and pointing out how neither represents a healthy and mature approach to life.

i.e., a genetic trait, as mentioned in the previous halachah

a trait which is easily acquired because of the individual’s natural tendencies, as mentioned in the previous halachah.

the third type of trait mentioned in the previous halachah.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 2, for an extensive description of the process of correcting one’s excesses of temperament.

i.e., the path that good men follow. This translation is based on the fact that the word “path” is in the singular, while the modifier “good” is in the plural.

Perhaps the Rambam is borrowing a biblical phrase here: “That you walk in the path of the good, and guard the way of the righteous” (Proverbs 2:20). The nature of “the straight path” is explained in detail in the following halachah.

This expression is also used in Avot 2:1. ln his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam cites his explanation of the middle path in the fourth chapter of Shemonah Perakim.

i.e., a path develops out of a series of midpoints.

These statements echo the opening remarks of the fourth chapter of Shemonah Perakim: The good acts are those balanced ones midway between two extremes. Both of the extremes are bad — one reflects excess and the other, want. The virtues [good traits] are temperaments and habits which are midway between these two bad tendencies. These actions [good actions] are produced as a result of these [the good] traits. Despite the siinilarity between the Rambam’s statements here and those quoted, there is a slight dif ference. Here, the Rambam focuses on good traits, while in Shemonah Perakim, he emphasizes good actions.

The Rambam appears to be referring to Sotah 5b: “Whoever evaluates his paths in this world will merit and witness God’s salvation.”

At the conclusion of Chapter 4 of Shemonah Perakim, the Rambam writes:
When a man weighs his actions constantly and directs them towards their midpoints, he will be on the most elevated human plane possible. He will thereby approach God and grasp His will. This is the most perfect path in the service of God.
Constant introspection is a necessary element in any program of personal and spiritual growth. Even when a person has the highest goals, unless he frequently looks himself squarely in the mirror and examines his behavior, he may make gross errors.

We have enclosed the words “of body” with brackets because they are not found in authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and are problematic. Though a properly balanced temperament may also lead to physical health, this does not appear to be the Rambam’s intent. lf the Hebrew בגופו is omitted as suggested, the meaning of שלם would be altered from “sound” to “complete” or “perfect.”

Our translation is based on Chapter 2, Halachah 3. (Note also the commentary of the Knesset HaGedolah.)

The Rambam appears to be referring to matters which evoke personal feelings. Nevertheless, the Misrat Moshe interprets this passage as referring to an instance in which Torah law would require a display of anger — e.g., a colleague’s transgression of Torah law.

This refers to physical desire.

The Rambam quotes supporting verses for only two of the “intermediate traits;” perhaps, because his description of the middle-of-the-road position for these traits might appear to veer toward one extreme. We might expect the intermediate point between gluttony and its opposite extreme to be eating to one’s satisfaction. However, here we are told that we should desire only what is sufficient in order to exist. However, the Rambam is not telling us to deny ourselves satisfaction. Deuteronomy 8:10 teaches: “You shall eat and be satisfied, and bless God, your Lord.” Based on that verse, Berachot 48b explains that we are obligated to recite grace only when we feel physically satisfied. (The Rambam quotes this concept in Hilchot Berachot 1:1.) In Chapter 3, Halachah 1, and in Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, he elaborates on the negative aspects of asceticism. Thus, his intent cannot be that we deny our desires, but rather that we school ourselves to desire and feel satisfied with what we need, without excess. This is a dominant theme in the sections on diet in Chapter 4, and those describing the conduct of a Torah sage in Chapter 5.

The verse continues: “But the belly of the wicked will want. יי The commentaries note that the contrast between the two does not center on the quantity of food they eat, but on the attitude with which they eat it. Because the righteous are not given over to pursuit of gratification, they can be satisfied. Conversely, it is the gluttony of the wicked which actually causes their want. Note also the Midrashic interpretations of this verse: “The righteous... “This refers to Eliezer, who said to Rebecca: “Let me sip a little water” (Genesis 24:17) — a single sip. “And the belly of the wicked will want.” This refers to Esau, who said to Jacob: “Stuff me... “(Genesis 25:30). Rabbi Yitzchak ben Zeira said: he opened his mouth agape like a camel and said: “I will open my mouth and you put it in” (Tanchumah; Pinchas 13; BaMidbar Rabbah 21:18).

Here again, the Rambam quotes a Biblical verse, because his definition of an intermediate path may seem extreme. The verse also clarifies that the Rambam is not denigrating the idea of work, but excessive preoccupation with one’s profession as a means of acquiring possessions. It is highly unlikely that the Rambam would criticize work per se. Note Proverbs 6:6: “Sluggard, go to the ant, see its ways and become wise;” and Berachot 8a: He who enjoys the toil of his hands is greater than one who fears God..., as it is stated: “If you eat of the work of you hands, you are fortunate and will possess the good” (Psalms 128:2). “You are fortunate” — in this life, and “will possess the good” — in the world to come. The Rambam, himself, quotes the latter passage in Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:11. Thus, the Rambam is not criticizing a person for working hard, but rather teaching us that work and its profits should not be our greatest priorities.

The verse in its entirety expresses a contrast: “A little is better for the righteous man than the great wealth that many [of the] wicked possess.” Note the commentary of ibn Ezra: “The righteous man will be happier with his small lot than the wicked with their great wealth.”

The printed editions of the Mishneh Torah have יקפץ (close his hand). However, most manuscripts use the term: יקבץ (gather). יקפץ recalls Deuteronomy 15:7: “Do not close your hand from your needy brother.” Thus, the contrasting extreme would be freehandedness. יקבץ, like וקובץ in Halachah 1, reflects miserly behavior, the opposite of which is being a spendthrift. The variant texts might reflect a difference of opinion as to which opposing extremes the Rambam had in mind.

See Hilchot Erachin 8:12-13, which places restrictions on the extent of one’s generosity.

Lending is also a form of charity. In Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 10:7, the Rambam lists eight degrees of charity. The highest is the support of a fellow Jew who has become poor by giving him loans or the like.

Such expressive “happiness” is often a sign of inner discontent and suffering.

His joy should be a composed sense of satisfaction.

In his commentary to Avot 1:14, the Rambam defines “a friendly countenance” as “a spirit of will and gentility.”

In Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam mentions many other “intermediate traits.” Among them:
Courage is the midpoint between arrogance and fear. Humility is the intermediate between pride and meekness. Earnestness is the intermediate between boasting and lowliness.... Patience is the intermediate between rashness and insensitivity.

I.e., those whose behavior is controlled by their intellect.

Note the contrast to the “pious” of the following halachah. Though the published editions of the Mishneh Torah include this line as the final concept in our halachah, many of the authoritative manuscripts place it as the beginning of Halachah 5.

in an effort to achieve the desired intermediate path

to compensate for a possible error in calctilating that mean.

ln Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam explains that one can refine and correct his behavior by balancing a tendency for excess in one direction by intentionally forcing oneself to adopt the opposite extreme. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 2.) He continues: Therefore, the pious did not allow themselves to fix their traits at the midpoint, but would bend slightly to the side of excess or want as a hedge and a guard. He goes on to explain that, even for the pious, these extremes are not ends in themselves, but means to help them overcome natural tendencies. Thus, both the pious and a person of underdeveloped character may act in an extreme manner. However, the difference between them is that the behavior of the pious is carefully calculated with the intent of refining his personality, while the underdeveloped person does so without thought, as a natural response to his whims and fancies.

i.e., how is this concept exemplified?

At first glance, the choice of pride as an example is rather problematic, because in Chapter 2, Halachah 3, the Rambam states: There are traits for which it is forbidden for a person to follow an intermediate path.... Such a trait is pride... The proper path is not that a person should merely be humble, but rather hold himself very lowly... Therefore, our Sages commanded: “Be very, very humble of spirit.” It is possible to explain that because of the negative aspects of the quality of pride, the middle path that one should follow in regard to it does not resemble the middle paths of the other traits and may appear as an extreme. Pride represents one extreme, its converse being absolute lack of concern for self to the extent that one walks around in rags. Between these extremes are a number of intermediate points: modesty — which might normally be considered as the intermediate level; humility — which the Rambam considers as the true middle path; and extreme humility — which is pious behavior (Lechem Mishneh). See also the commentary on the halachah cited above. Possibly, it is the exaggerated contrasts in this set of traits that make it the most fitting example to demonstrate the principle of the middle path that the Rambam espouses. These gross differences allow for the possibility of clear distinctions.

The Lechem Mishneh emphasizes that one need not actually adopt the other extreme, but rather, he should tend his behavior in that direction.

which represents a deviation from the mean.

In his commentary on Avot 5:6, the Rambam contrasts the wise and the pious: A boor is one who lacks both intellectual and ethical development... A wise man possesses both these qualities in a complete way, as is fitting. A pious man is a wise man who increases his piety — i.e., his emotional development — until he tends toward one extreme, as explained in Chapter 4 [of Shemonah Perakim], and his deeds exceed his wisdom. Thus, the wise man is one whose ethical behavior has been developed to the point at which it reflects his intellectual sophistication. He is able to appreciate the mean of each trait and express it within the context of his daily life. The pious man also possesses this quality, but due to his desire for ultimate self-refinement, he is willing to sacrifice himself and tend slightly to the extreme in certain instances. Although in this halachah, the Rambam differentiates between the middle path — the path of the wise — and “beyond the measure of the law” — the path of the pious, in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 he describes how, “according to the greatness of the Sage, should be the care he takes to go beyond the measure of the law.” Thus, it appears that a truly wise man will ultimately seek pious ways.

I.e., there is a mean which is the path of wisdom, and a deviation from that course with a positive intent, which is the path of piety.

This expression is borrowed — out of context — from the Mishnah, Berachot 5:1.

excess (Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4)

lack (ibid.). Depending on the circumstances involved, deviation to either extreme can produce positive results.

by our Sages...

We find this expression used in a number of Talmudic passages. For example, Bava Metzia 30b relates that Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yossi’s son, was on a journey. A porter traveling the same road asked him to help lift a load of wood. Rabbi Yishmael was a distinguished scholar, and, therefore, this base task would have been demeaning for him. Nevertheless, rather than refuse the porter entirely, Rabbi Yishmael purchased his entire load from him. This was considered as behavior beyond the measure of the law. See also Berachot 7a and 45b, Bava Kama 100a, Bava Metzia 24b. However, in these and other Talmudic passages where the term is used, the emphasis appears to be on the ethical or legal imperative involved, without stressing the aspect of character development. [Note Hilchot Aveidah 11:7, the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 259:3 and 263:3, and Sefer Mitzvot Katan (Positive Commandment 49), which mention our obligation to go beyond the measure of the law.] Thus, the Rambam appears merely to be borrowing the term used by the Sages without referring to any specific instance. The path of behavior prescribed by one’s intellect corresponds to law, and an intentional deviation from that course for the sake of piety is “beyond the measure of the law.”

The Sifre (on Deuteronomy 13:5) states: “’You shall walk after God, your Lord’ — this is a positive commandment.” The Zohar (Ki Tetze, p. 270) also makes a similar statement. However, neither source elaborates. Among the Geonim, the Ba’al Halachot Gedolot does list it as a commandment. Rav Sa’adiah Gaon does not include it as a specific commandment. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 8) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 610) include this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. However, the Rambam’s inclusion of this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot is somewhat problematic. In Shoresh 4 of his introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, he states that he does not include any “general mitzvah” which does not involve a specific activity in his reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. For this reason, “Observe My statutes” (Leviticus 19:19) or “Be holy” (Leviticus 19:2) are not included in the 613 mitzvot. On the surface, the command the Rambam mentions here also seems to be an all encompassing charge to develop ourselves spiritually without any specific activity.

Despite the Rambam’s praise of piety, his very description of it as “beyond the measure of the law” implies that, though it is desirable, it cannot be considered as obligatory.

The Rambam describes this mitzvah in the following halachah. lndeed, the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah include the paragraph we have just explaind as the begining of Halachah 6.

The Rambam appears to be referring to the Sifre, Ekev 11:22, which he quotes in Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.). That explanation is also paralleled in the Mechiltah (Exodus 14:2) and Shabbat 133b. It must be noted that other Talmudic and Midrashic sources interpret the commandment to imitate God in a different light. Note Sotah 14a: [Deuteronomy 13:5 states]: “You shall walk after God, your Lord.” Is it possible for man to walk after the Divine Presence? Has it not been stated: “Behold, God, your Lord, is a consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24)? Rather, [it means] one should follow the qualities of God. Just as He dresses the naked..., you, too, should dress the naked; God visited the sick... ; you, too, should visit the sick; God comforted the bereaved... ;you, too, should comfort the bereaved; God buried the dead... ; you, too, should bury the dead. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam mentions emulating both God’s deeds and His qualities. Similarly, Sefer HaChinuch, in its description of this mitzvah, and the Kiryat Sefer in his commentary — both here in Hilchot De’ot and also in Hilchot Eivel — mention both deeds and qualities. There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two emphases. As mentioned above, our actions reflect our personalities. Therefore, it follows that developing our characters in the manner outlined by the Rambam in this halachah will ultimately produce the good deeds mentioned by our Sages in the passage from Sotah. Nevertheless, deed is often not a reflection of character. A person with many severe character faults may still do good deeds. Hence, for the “resemblance of God” to be complete, it is not sufficient merely to perform positive deeds. Rather, a person must undergo internal change by developing his character. Therefore, the Rambam focuses more on this aspect of the commandment.

Neither the Sifre nor the other sources quoted above mention the trait of holiness. Rather, the third trait mentioned is “piety.” Perhaps, since the Rambam gave a specific definition for piety in the previous halachah within his conception of personality development, he does not mention it in the present context to prevent any possible confusion.

The Rambam’s choice of words is · somewhat surprising since many of these expressions are also found in the Torah as well as in the prophetic works.. However, in the Torah these titles are mentioned by Moses or the other prophets. Perhaps this is the Rambam’s intent.

In Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:11-12 and in detail in Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed), Vol. I, Chapters 53 and 54, the Rambam explains that these names are not descriptions of God, who cannot be defined by any specific quality. To do so would limit Him and detract from His infinite and transcendent state of being. Rather, the use of these titles must be understood as follows: God brings about activities, which, had they been carried out by man, would have been motivated by these emotional states. For example, instead of utterly destroying the Jews after the sin of the Golden Calf, God allowed our people to continue. Were such a deed to have been performed by a human ruler, we would dcscribe him as “slow to anger.” Though that term cannot serve as a description for God — for He cannot be described — the Torah and the prophets referred to Him by such terms with the following intent.

i.e., God acted in ways which we identify with these qualities — and the Torah and the prophets mention these actions — because these are attributes which man should strive to achieve.

Likkutei Sichot (ibid.) states that with the latter phrase, the Rambam is adding a new thought. As explained above, God cannot be described by any particular quality. If He manifests a quality, it is for a specific intent. In Moreh Nevuchim (ibid., Chapter 54), the Rambam mentions that the leader of a country should act in a similar manner. Sometimes he will be merciful and generous to some people — not because of his feelings and natural compassion, but because they are deserving of such treatment. Sometimes he will bear a grudge, seek revenge, and rage against certain people — not out of feelings of anger... — but in order to produce positive results.... The ultimate ideal man can achieve is to imitate God according to his potential... i.e., to have our deeds resemble His deeds. For this reason, human behavior should not be motivated by the spontaneous expression of emotion. Rather, man’s emotions should arise as the result of a deliberate process of thought. This reflects themes brought out in the previous halachot of this chapter: that a person must constantly evaluate and review his emotions (Halachah 4); that it is a wise man who is able to appreciate the middle path (Halachah 5). This is what is meant by the imitation of God: that a person not be controlled by the unchecked expression of his emotions. Rather, he should control his feelings and, motivated by his desire to resemble God, search to find the correct and proper quality, the middle path, appropriate to the situation at hand.

For man is ultimately finite in nature, and no true resemblance to God is possible.

Having established personality development as a mitzvah in the previous halachah, the Rambam begins his explanation of how this mitzvah is fulfilled.

Thus, a person’s deeds will shape his character traits. In this process of personal change, the stress is on the repetition of an act, and not on its quantity or intensity. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 3:15, the Rambam writes that giving a thousand coins to one person at one time is not as effective in stimulating feelings of generosity as giving a single coin one thousand times. As mentioned in Halachah 4, though the Rambam’s explanations in this chapter parallel those of the fourth chapter of Shemonah Perakim, the texts differ in stressing actions (as the opening lines of that chapter imply), or on character development, which is the theme of our text. For this reason, the two texts also perceive the process of causation differently. In Shemoneh Perakim, the Rambam states: “These actions [good actions] are produced as a result of these [the good] traits,” while here he sees the traits being produced by the actions. Nevertheless, the two texts do not actually contradict each other. Both statements are true. Our deeds reflect our personalities, and they also help shape those personalities. Generally, this means that a person’s behavior will reinforce and strengthen the character traits that motivated those very deeds. However, this chapter — and more particularly, this halachah — deals with a person who has made a commitment to change and refine his character. Therefore — based on his intellect and the directives of the Torah, rather than his spontaneous feelings — he chooses to perform deeds that will bring about this process of inner change.

reflect and are motivated by...

described in Halachot 4 and 5.

A trait possessed by a person produces activities naturally and spontaneously. However, if one has not acquired a trait as yet, certain actions will be foreign to his nature, and one must trouble himself to perfo rm them. For example, a liberal man gives charity naturally; the miser must force himself to give. The action for each is the same, but not the inner feelings.

If the miser continues to give frequently, he will find that he no longer feels like a miser, but has become liberal in heart as well as in hand.

The Rambam uses the term יוצר (yotzer) — literally “the One who forms”. The Rambam describes God as the Creator with reference to the Divine qualities he describes in these halachot. Before the existence of the world and man, there would be no purpose for God to reveal these qualities, for until man’s creation, no one could learn from or emulate them.

As stated in the commentary to the previous halachah, “the path of God” involves controlling our emotions by using our intellect, so that our behavior is, to the extent that is possible for man, an objective response to a situation. In this manner, our behavior bears a resemblance to God’s transcendence of worldly matters.

See the Midrash Tanchumah, Shofetim 15: And what are the ways of God? Righteousness and justice, as it is stated: “And they will keep the path of God to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19).

Since the path of God is mentioned in the context of Abraham’s service, it appears that walking in those ways is not synonymous with the performance of the 613 commandments — for they had not been given in Abraham’s time. Rather, it must refer to ethics, qualities like righteousness and justice, which are mentioned in that verse.

The Rambam concludes his description of the obligation to develop our characters with the assurance that, ultimately, this course of behavior will bring us benefit and blessing.

I.e., sickness distorts a person’s sensitivity and prevents him from appreciating the true nature of reality. At times, the distortion reaches extremes (Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 3).

We find a comparison between physical and spiritual healing in the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 1:1. In his Shemonah Perakim (loc. cit.), the Rambam develops the parallel between physical illness and moral faults at greater length than here in the Mishneh Torah.

Literally, “ill of soul.” In Shemonah Perakim (ibid.), the Rambam writes:
The health of the soul is that its tendencies and that of all of its elements should lean toward good deeds and desirable actions.
The converse applies to moral illness.

I.e., the extremes (ibid.)

I.e., the middle path, which the Rambam describes in Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

Though these people may have developed negative tendencies, they are still granted free choice and at no moment are forced to sin. See Hilchot Teshuvah, Chapter 5, Shemoneh Perakim, Chapter 8.

The Rambam does not base his comparison of physical and moral failings on the basis of general knowledge alone. He cites biblical verses to show that this comparison is rooted in Jewish thought. The verse from Isaiah puts the physical and moral on equal footing: good and bad, light and darkness, and bitter and sweet are used in the same comparison. The Rambam seems to have been somewhat partial to this verse. It is also found in his commentary to Avot (4:7) and in the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. I, Chapter 31). However, in those places he uses only the language of the verse, and does not explain its content as he does here.

In this verse, the physical and the moral appear in a single comparison; upright paths (moral) contrasted against ways of darkness (a physical image). This Biblical comparison to paths is, as we have already noted, employed in the Mishnah (for example, Avot 2:1) and in turn by the Rambam throughout Hilchot De’ot.

The comparison between the physically and morally sick is not only applicable in a general way, but rather can be extended in detail. Both are alike in requiring treatment and cure; each has its own kind of physician. The treatment and cure of the morally ill requires clear cut and specific procedures, just as such instructions are necessary to cure the physically sick. The need to correct one’s improper temperaments is not only an ethical imperative; it is also a Torah obligation. Thus, in Hilchot Teshuvah 7:3, the Rambam writes:
A person should not think that repentance is only necessary for those sins that involve deeds such as lewdness, robbery, or theft. Rather, just as a person is obligated to repent for these, so, too, must he search after the evil qualities he has. He must repent for anger, hatred, envy, frivolity, the pursuit of money and honor, the pursuit of gluttony, and the like

In order to heal physical illness, a physician must have knowledge. Technically, his own health or sickness is of marginal significance. A man with a heart condition is not barred from being a cardiologist. In contrast, the healer of souls must not only possess knowledge, but must also embody proper character. Note also the concept of the interdependence of wisdom and character development in Chapter 1, Halachah 5 and in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

Here, the Rambam adds a further quality to his description of the wise; they are both capable and willing to help others improve themselves.

As described in the following halachah.

Here, the Rambam relates that not only must a person recognize his faults, he must seek the advice of a wise man to correct them. Many people ignore this point, and, though aware of their faults, try to correct them by themselves, without consulting an outside authority. This course of action is doomed to failure, as our Sages commented: “A person who is imprisoned cannot obtain his own release.”

By using the term “scorned wisdom,” the Rambam implies that this failure to seek out a wise man is itself a moral fault. In Shemonah Perakim (loc. cit.), the Rambam describes both people who are unaware of their faults, as well as those who are aware of them and continue in their ways, and he cites relevant verses.
The Rambam does not elaborate on either of these categories here. The Mishneh Torah is a practical code, aimed at those who are concerned with proper behavior and attitudes. As such, it has no relevance either to those who are unaware of their moral faults and think that they are on the right road, or to those who are aware of their faults and do not wish to change. The Rambam speaks to those who know of their faults and wish to improve themselves.

Chapter 1, Halachah 7, asks: “How can one train himself?” and proceeds to describe a course of behavior intended to ingrain a trait within a person’s character. There, the Rambam addresses himself to people who are of fundamentally sound moral health. Hence, the advice aims at actions that lie in the middle road. Here, the Rambam is concerned with the morally ill. Therefore, the treatment consists of adopting an extreme position. Note Shemonah Perakim (Chapter 4), where the Rambam elaborates on this approach in detail.

This is consistent with the advice given above. A man cannot dose or cure himself unless he is told what to do. Here, the Rambam lays down the general principles of behavioral correction. However, in particular, the wise man who is consulted must determine what degree of behavior should be adopted and the length of the period of treatment.

A person who is prone to anger is generally very sensitive to even the slightest affront to his person or dignity. To eradicate this oversensitivity, he is told to follow the other extreme and remain silent even when he has reason to protest.

As mentioned throughout Chapter 1, our deeds influence our traits. Acting in a calm and settled manner for a prolonged period of time will train a person not to overreact.

I.e., since his tendency is to seek honor, he should follow a course of behavior which will expose him to the opposite extreme.

And the goal for a person’s behavior, as explained in Chapter 1 in detail

He will have eradicated his natural excesses, and thus will have no need for further corrective measures. Hence, he can — and should — remain within the middle path in the future.

The commentaries note that the course of behavior suggested here is reminiscent of the acts of penitence mentioned by Sanhedrin 25b with regard to certain transgressions. The Rambam quotes this passage in Hilchot Edut 5:9:
When [can we be certain] of the penitence of those who lend at interest? When they freely tear up their promissory notes and fully repent and do not lend even to non-Jews at interest. When [can we be certain] of the penitence of dice-throwers? When they have broken their dice, fully repent and do not play even when there are no money stakes. When [can we be certain] of the penitence of those who race pigeons? When they break the instruments with which they capture the [pigeons] and do not follow their practice, even in the desert.... So too, a butcher who examines the animal and sells it, and sold a non-kosher animal [as kosher]... he is invalid as a witness until his deeds bear witness that he has repented. He should dress in black and cover his head with a black garment, go to a place where he is unknown and return a valuable lost object...
The Meiri comments on this Talmudic passage: Middle of the road ways cannot cure the morally ill. The only remedy is to tend toward the opposite extreme.

In the previous halachot, the Rambam explained how to correct excessive tendencies in certain temperaments and return to a middle path. In this and the remainder of the halachot of this chapter, the Rambam provides guidance regarding particularly acute character difficulties.

The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between these statements and Chapter 1, Halachah 5, which states:
One who shuns pride and turns to the other extreme and carries himself lowly is called pious.... However, if he separates himself [from pride] only until he reaches the mean and displays humility, he is called wise... We are commanded to walk in these intermediate paths. Similarly, in the previous halachah, the Rambam describes the middle path of humility as an ideal, yet in this halachah he states that one should overstep that middle path and tend toward excessive humility. The Lechem Mishneh attempts to resolve this difficulty by explaining that the middle path for the qualities of arrogance (and, similarly, anger) differs from that of the other qualities. (See our commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 5.) Avodat HaMelech offers a different solution, based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 4:4:
Humility is one of the more elevated qualities and is the middle path between arrogance and lowliness... It is fitting that a person always... find himself in the middle path with regard to all emotional qualities, with the exception of this quality, arrogance. The nature of this fault was so severely regarded by the Sages because they knew the damage that it could cause. Therefore, they removed themselves from it to the opposite extreme and tended to the quality of lowliness, so that even the slightest impression of pride would not remain within their souls.
Thus, what the Rambam is describing for us is not the ideal position, but the necessary stance. There is a midpoint — humility — that is a reflection of God’s qualities which would be ideal for man to emulate. However, since man is man, the Sages ruled that it is better not to seek this ideal measure, lest we err in our estimation of it and show a degree of arrogance.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that Moses was the most developed of all men, and yet he displayed humility to this degree. Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch (Sefer Ma’amarim 5710, p. 236) explains that the use of Moses as a paradigm of humility leads to a further concept. Though Moses was exceedingly humble, he also appreciated his own positive qualities and was able to act as a powerful leader. Thus, he told the Jewish people (Deuteronomy 5:5): “I am standing between you and God, your Lord;” and when it was necessary, he stood up against the entire people and rebuked them harshly.
These two qualities — extreme humility and strong leadership — are not mutually exclusive. Though Moses appreciated the unique qualities which he possessed and understood the importance of the function he had to serve, he realized that these potentials were given him from God, and thought that had they been given to someone else, that person might have used them even more successfully than he did. Therefore, he was able to practice total humility at the very height of his power.

Avot 4:4.

The passages from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah quoted above focus on this statement. After the introduction to this concept, the Rambam explains that this advice was given by the Mishnah because:
We fear that were man to stay merely on the border of humility, he might display a certain aspect of pride, because he is close to it.

Sotah 4b.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains this concept. A conceited person sets himself up as a god, as it were; i.e., his behavior can be considered as service of self and not service of God.

See Hilchot Talmud Torah, Chapter 7, for a description of the restrictions included in such a ban.

Sotah 5a relates:
Rav Chiyya bar Ashi states in the name of Rav: A Torah Sage should have one sixty-fourth part of pride. [So that the lightheaded not be arrogant towards him and his words be accepted by them (Rashi).] Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It [a small measure of pride] adorns him as the bristle adorns the ear of grain. Ravva declares: Whoever is proud deserves to be placed under a ban of ostracism. [Conversely,] whoever does not possess [this quality also] deserves to be placed under ban. [If he does not possess a small degree of pride, his townsmen will not fear him and he will not have the power to rebuke them (Rashi).] Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Neither it [i.e., pride], nor any portion of it.
The Rambam follows Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s position and accepts Ravva’s statement that an arrogant person is worthy of ostracism. When we consider the Rambam’s statements within the context of the Talmudic passage from which they are taken, we see how he totally negates the concept that a Torah Sage is entitled to derive a certain measure of pride from his accomplishments.

There is a close association between the qualities of arrogance and anger. Both stem from a basic tendency to egotism and self-importance. When a person is motivated by egotism, he expects others to respect him and accept his ideas. If they do not, he responds with anger.

Rather than follow the middle path,

Avodat HaMelech attempts to contrast anger, which the Rambam describes as merely improper, with arrogance, which the Rambam states is “forbidden.” However, this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the text, since the Rambam begins the halachah by stating that “there are temperaments [plural — i.e., both arrogance and anger] with regard to which a man is forbidden to follow the middle path.”

The commentaries refer to Ta’anit 4a’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes 11:10: “Remove anger from your heart.”

See Shabbat 105b, which gives several examples of sages who displayed anger in the presence of their families for this purpose.

See the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. I, Chapter 54), which describes how the leader of a country should be ruled by his intellect and not by his emotions. Though he may have to display emotion to motivate his people to produce to their capacity, he himself should not be inwardly affected.

The Rambam appears to imply that one should be like an actor playing the role of an angry person. Thus, the actions he displays do not reflect his own inner feelings. See also Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:4-5, which explains that a teacher should not be easily provoked to anger. However, if he feels that his students are not applying themselves, he should display anger to motivate better performance.

The exact source of the Rambam’s statement is somewhat problematic. The Rashbash quotes Nedarim 22b as containing this statement. However, our text of that passage contains a slightly different expression. A similar but not totally identical statement is found in Shabbat 105b; on the basis of the Rambam’s commentary to Avot 2:13, it would appear that he draws his statements from there. The Zohar (Vol. I, p. 27b) uses precisely the same phraseology as the Rambam does here.

If a person appreciated that the matter which provoked his anger came from God, he would accept it without question. Why does he become upset? Because he does not think about God and is preoccupied with his own concerns (Tanya, Iggeret Hakodesh 25).

Pesachim 66b.

Thus, we find that when Moses became angry with the commanders who took the women of Midian captives (Numbers, Chapter 31), he erred and forgot the laws dealing with the purification of vessels.

II Kings, Chapter 3, relates that after Elisha vented his wrath on Yehoram, King of Israel, he had to seek special means to regain the spirit of prophecy.

Pesachim 113b; i.e., because their lives are spent in constant irritation and discord.

With regard to most temperaments, the middle path is the good path. However, anger is an exception, and the good path is the extreme of complete lack of anger.

The following statement (without this introduction) is found in Shabbat 88b, Yoma 23a and Gittin 36b). However, the association of these qualities with the righteous can be found in the Sifri (Deuteronomy 11:21).

In Chapter 5, Halachah 13, and in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (5:11) and in Hilchot Talmud Torah (7:13), the Rambam also refers to this passage. Significantly, in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, the Rambam refers to this as pious behavior undertaken by the wise. That relates very closely to the theme of this halachah, which speaks about adopting an extreme attitude regarding these two qualities of pride and anger — not because one chooses the path of piety over the middle path of the wise — but because, with regard to these qualities, that middle path is difficult to follow.
Perhaps this is the Rambam’s intent in describing this as “the way of the righteous” instead of using the terms “pious” or “wise,” which he employed in the previous halachot. We are dealing with a person who does not have a commitment to the path of piety. Rather, to ensure that his behavior will continue to be righteous, he deviates from the path of wisdom to the extreme in these specific areas.

Humility and suppression of anger are not meant to be accompanied by gloom and depression. Rather, they are to be experienced in joy and love. Unhappiness stems from self-awareness. The more one is concerned with himself, the more needs, wants, and desires he feels, and the more he is dissatisfied when those needs are not fulfilled. In contrast, when a person rises above self-concern, the qualities of patience and humility become spontaneous and natural expressions of his character. It is not that he wants honor and respect, but holds himself back because of the Sages’ advice, or would really like to unleash his anger, but realizes that doing so is wrong. Rather, one rises above these negative emotions entirely.
In this context, the Rambam describes, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 4:4), how a pious man was subjected to the lowliest forms of denigration by a colleague and was able to undergo the entire experience without the slightest thoughts of anger or discontent.

The ability to rise above self-concern stems from an all-encompassing love of God. In Hilchot Teshuvah 10:3, the Rambam states:
What is a proper [degree] of love? That a person should love God with a very great and exceeding love...; he will always be obsessed with this love as if he were lovesick. [A lovesick person’s] thoughts are never diverted from the love of that woman. He is always obsessed with her.... With an even greater [love], should the love of God be [implanted] in the hearts of those who love Him.
To continue the comparison mentioned by the Rambam: A person who is deeply in love is not at all concerned with his honor or pride. He is willing to do many things which he would ordinarily consider undignified to express his love [See II Samuel, Chapter 6]. The same applies regarding the love of God. Because of one’s great love, he is willing to ignore his honor and control his anger.

A connection between this and the previous halachah can be seen in the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura on Avot 1:16. He associates “cultivating silence” with refraining from responding to the insults of others.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:16), the Rambam divides speech into five categories: a) that required as a mitzvah (e.g., the discussion of Torah subjects); b) the forbidden (e.g., bearing false witness, gossip, cursing); c) that which should be disdained (e.g., useless discussion and tales); d) that which is desirable (e.g., the discussion of ethical or intellectual values); e) the permitted (e.g., those things necessary for our daily lives). See also Chapter 5, Halachah 7.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that although Sukkah 28a praises Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai in the manner indicated below, there is no explicit statement to this effect concerning Rav in the Talmud. Nevertheless, other early authorities (see Teshuvot HaGeonim, Neharot Damasek 178) praise Rav in this manner.

It is uncommon for the Rambam to praise a particular Sage. In his commentary to Avot (loc. cit.), the Rambam also singles out Rav for this quality. [However, in that text, he refers to him as the disciple of Rabbi Chiyya.]

The title Rabbenu HaKadosh — “our saintly teacher” — is an accepted and frequently employed means of referring to Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, whose composition of the Mishnah made him the teacher of the entire Jewish people.

Idle speech is included in the third category mentioned above. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam gives some examples of such talk: what does such and such a king do?; how did this one die and that one get rich?

I.e., although such conversation is permitted, one should not overindulge in it.

Avot 1:16

“Because most of our words are unnecessary or sinful” (Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). If we talk excessively, our speech is likely to fall into the second or third categories mentioned above.

Avot (loc. cit.)

It must be noted that, in this halachah, the Rambam reverses the order in which this and the above quote are found in the mishnah.

Where conversation about such matters is desired.

Pesachim 3b.

In Hilchot Talmud Torah, Chapter 4, where the Rambam describes the proper manner of Torah instruction, he makes no mention of this directive. Its inclusion here appears to indicate that brevity is as much an expression of the teacher’s refinement of character as a proper educational technique.

When the subject is in the permitted area of physical needs, as above, extended conversation poses the danger of wandering off into an area of idle and perhaps, even forbidden talk. However, when the talk is of the required or desirable sort, long-windedness is more likely to lead to foolishness rather than to sin.

Avot 3:16. The Rambam appears to interpret this mishnah as a directive regarding one’s conduct while teaching Torah. In contrast, the mishnah cited in the previous halachah refers to all types of speech, even the discussion of everyday matters.

The Rambam implies that there are two advantages to silence: a) It allows one to contemplate a matter with composure and consider it in its entirety; b) It encourages brevity and prevents unnecessary and meaningless words which cloud a student’s appreciation of a concept.

This appears to be a paraphrase of the mishnah, Avot 5:6, “Do not rush to answer.” However, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets that clause within the context of his explanation of the entire mishnah and focuses on different concepts than those discussed by this halachah. See also Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:6.

As mentioned in the previous halachah.

The latter phrase is borrowed, out of context, from Isaiah 30:15.

See Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:4.

The commentaries explain that the verse does more than describe a wise man’s speech as being characterized by tranquility. It also implies a promise that when a wise man speaks with tranquility, his words will be “heard,” i.e., accepted by his listeners.

In the previous halachah, the Rambam taught that we must speak with composure. In this halachah, he explains that we should not use our ability to control our speech to deceive others.

See Isaiah 30:10 and Psalms 12:3 for Biblical uses of this expression.

This is included in the third category of speech mentioned in halachah 4. From the structure of this halachah, it appears that the Rambam is referring to a different prohibition than that against deception mentioned later on. However, he does not define whether the prohibition is a Torah command or a Rabbinic prohibition.

Two sources have been suggested for this clause: a) “There are three whom God hates: he who says one thing in speech and another in his heart...” (Pesachim 113b); b) “A person should not say one thing in speech and another in his heart” (Bava Metzia 49a).

Yoma 72b states: “a wise man whose inner self is not like the self he shows the world is not a wise man.” The Rambam rephrases the quote in a positive context and connects it to speech.

Rashi, Genesis 37:4, comments that the verse which teaches us that Joseph’s brothers could not speak pleasantly to him, “reveals their virtues while describing their faults,” for it shows that they would not hide their feelings from him.

The Sefer HaKovetz states that the prohibition against theft also forbids deception and quotes the Ritbah, Chullin 94a, who is also of this opinion. The Rambam also mentions this prohibition in Hilchot Mechirah 18:1, but does not mention a source there either. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 238) group this prohibition together with the prohibition of ona’at devarim — wronging a colleague with words. However, the Rambam does not link the two together.
The mention of this concept both here and in Hilchot Mechirah reveals that there are two aspects to this prohibition, one involving business transactions and one which is ethical in nature. The Rambam emphasizes the two aspects in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Keilim 12:7, where he elaborates on the prohibition against deceiving gentiles (also mentioning the aspect of chillul HaShem, the desecration of God’s name, which is involved). He concludes: “A man will acquire debased character traits by performing all these wicked deeds which God has stated that He views as detestable.”

Though the Rambam maintains that the prohibition against ona’ah — overcharging a colleague — does not apply to gentiles (Hilchot Mechirah 13:7), it is forbidden to purposely deceive one.

This instance is derived from Chullin 94a which explains that Shmuel rebuked his attendant for doing so.

And so the gentile would think that the Jew is honoring him by selling him meat that he would eat himself (Rashi, Chullin, ibid.). This prohibition applies even if one does not sell it at the price of ritually slaughtered meat.

The hide of a slaughtered animal is presumed to be tougher than that of an animal which died of old age or sickness.

One should not appear to show generosity when he knows that it will not be accepted.

Chullin (ibid.) questions this prohibition, noting that Rav Yehudah opened a barrel of wine in honor of Ullah. It explains that since they were close friends, this gesture was permitted.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that this expression leads to the conclusion that if a person remains silent, he may perform an action which his colleague might misinterpret as having been carried out in his honor. However, the Rambam makes no mention of misleading talk when speaking about the prohibition against opening casks which are for sale. Moreover, here the prohibition against deception is mentioned within the context of character faults. Therefore, it appears that the determinant is not whether one speaks or not.

The three phrases have a biblical ring. We find: “True speech will be established forever” (Proverbs 12:19) and “God, create a pure heart for me and renew a proper spirit within me” (Psalms 51:12). These closing lines recall the beginning of the halachah which stresses that one’s speech must reflect the feelings in one’s heart.

Avot 3:16.

Though the Rambam desires that a middle path be taken in this area as well, by citing this statement, he appears to imply that greater harm can come from lightheadedness than sadness.

See Demai 2:3.

There is no explicit statement to this effect in the Talmud. However, Berachot 31a, Shabbat 30a, and Sanhedrin 59b, stress the negative aspects of sadness.

“With a spirit of will and gentility” (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:14). This statement was authored by Shammai. Avot 3:12 quotes Rabbi Yishmael as stating: “Receive everyone with joy.” On that mishnah, the Rambam comments: “This surpasses Shammai’s ‘with a friendly countenance.’” The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam favors Shammai’s position here. Among the answers offered is that the ability to receive everyone with happiness is considered in the realm of pious behavior, beyond the measure of the law.

The Hebrew literally means “of a vast soul,” implying one enslaved by his desires. We find the term used also in Avot 5:17. However, there the Rambam interprets it as referring to a person who pursues sexual gratification.

This phrase is borrowed from Proverbs 28:22.

See Avot 1:10: “Love work,” and Avot D’Rabbi Natan 11:1: “A person only dies because of idleness.” Note also our commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 2:12, the Rambam defines the latter term as “satisfied with what one has” and adds “this is one of the higher rungs in character traits.”

See Avot 4:12. In Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11, the Rambam writes:
Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without doing work and derive his livelihood from charity desecrates [God’s] name, dishonors the Torah, extinguishes the light of faith, brings evil upon himself, and forfeits the life of the world to come.... It is a tremendous advantage for a person to derive his livelihood from his own efforts.
Nevertheless, in Halachah 7 of that chapter, he writes:
Perhaps, one will say: “[I will interrupt my studies] until after I gather money, and then I will return and study, [I will interrupt my studies] until after I buy what I need, and then, when I can divert my attention from my business, I will return and study.” If you consider such thoughts, you will never merit the crown of Torah. Rather, make your work secondary, and your Torah study a fixed matter. Do not say: “When I have free time, I will study,” for perhaps you will never have free time.
Similarly, in halachah 9, he describes the path of students who will be successful in their pursuit of Torah:
They do only a minimal amount of work each day [to earn] their livelihood if they have nothing else to eat. The rest of their days and nights are involved with Torah study.
In Chapter 1, Halachah 12, of those halachot, he describes a person who spends three hours working at his profession and nine involved in Torah study.

See Avot 4:1: “Who is rich? One who is happy with his portion.” In the following clause, the Rambam does not describe a middle path of behavior, but rather, negative tendencies which should be avoided.

Note Sefer HaMitzvot (negative mitzvah 45) which quotes Sanhedrin 110a: “Whoever perpetuates an argument transgresses a prohibition.”

Avot 4:27

In his Commentary to the Mmishnah, the Rambam writes:
... Because these traits, or any one of them, will of necessity cause one to lose his religious [values]. Such a person will not attain intellectual or moral virtues

The commentaries interpret this term as “balance” and see it as a directive to weigh one’s temperaments and behaviors carefully and see that they are evenly balanced between the two extremes.