De'ot - Chapter Two

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.