A halacha-by-halacha commentary on Rambam, Hilchos Deos.
These shiurim were given at 12pm on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in Y.U., to Rav Twersky’s shiur.
- Listen using the player below
- Click the “track lyrics” button
or see the table below the audio player to read a detailed description of a shiur - Click the download button
next to a shiur to download that shiur
See the table below the player for details about the shiurim in this series.
| Track | Title | Length | Description |
| 1 | L’he’damos | 23:26 | – Mitzvah #1 in the header to De’os is “l’he’damos”, also mentioned in 1:6. It is impossible to know HKBH’s essence, but we are to mold ourselves (“l’he’damos”) to imitate His actions/middos. – Rambam describes sefer Maddah as “ikar das Moshe”. How does De’os fit in? Because l’he’damos is based on knowing Him through his actions, i.e. is a mitzva of yedias Hashem. |
| 2 | Middah Beinonis Means Being in Control | 26:00 | – Middah beinonis means being sholet on his middos and not being enslaved to any middah; he has both extremes in him and does whatever is correct – End of 1:1 – Rambam doesn’t distinguish between bein adam lachaveiro and l’atzmo (interaction with others vs demeanor) because both are the same yesod of whether he is controlled by a natural or acquired middah, or whether he has developed the control to act and feel properly always |
| 3 | Bechira Chofshis. Middah Beinonis. | 23:45 | – Deos 1:2 + Teshuva 5:2,4 – innate middos & tendencies, habituation, bechira chofshis – For any given trait, there are only three essential middos – the two extremes and the middah beinonis |
| 4 | Chacham vs. Chassid | 22:49 | Deos 1:4-5: definition of chacham/tzaddik vs chassid. Lifnim mishuras hadin doesn’t contradict middah beinonis given the correct definition thereof, i.e. being sholet on both middos and mixing them as dictated by ratzon Hashem. Chiyuv derabbanan of shom deosav mi’sevara |
| 5 | Lifnim Mishuras Hadin | 18:49 | Deos 1:5, “zehu lifnim mishuras hadin” – the ikar hadin of of Hilchos Deos of “v’asisa hatov…” is the source of lifnim mishuras hadin in other areas of Halacha. |
| 6 | Constancy. Avraham’s Discovery. | 20:24 | – Deos 1:7 – “tamid”: attention and effort to fix does must be constant. We may go through stage of aspects Torah feeling onerous until we improve ourselves. – Avraham discovered derech Hashem in both the scientific aspects of the world and the moral |
| 7 | Fixing Middos. Gaava. | 29:30 | – 2:1 We need a comparative frame of reference to recognize the sickness, since the choleh can experience it as normal. Similarly, can’t weigh our Deos just based on what feels wrong to us. – Begining of 2:2, Rambam gives us a guide to how to get better, so do why need 2:1, telling us to go to chachomim? – lo yargish = don’t activate – zman merubeh – working on middos doesn’t happen in a fixed amount of time – process of cultivating proper middos is part of vhalachta biderachav, so going to the opposite extreme is part of the mitzvah, not a horaas shaa to do what would otherwise be shelo kdin – why is gaava == kefira? Because definition of gaava is kochi votzem yadi. |
| 8 | Anger. Speech. | 20:45 | – 2:3 while there are things that do warrant anger theoretically, one should only put on a show of anger but inwardly not be angry due to the volatility of kaas. As opposed to gaava, which is never warranted. – 2:3 – setira in definition of tzaddik – 2:4 – even in Torah, one should economize speech – 2:5 – shetika – think before you answer. 4 was highlighting talking too much as a source of problems; 5 is adding that by speaking carefully and judiciously one enhances quality of speech. |
| 9 | Mikabeil Es Kol Ha’adam | 19:59 | Deos 2:7 – a) why quote mekabeil kol haadam b’sever panim yafos, as opposed to havei mekabeil es kol haadam b’simcha – doesn’t simcha fit in better with this halacha? b) Why did Rambam switch from “onen” to “misabel”? Answer: First talkng about middah, b’lev, then switched to behavoir; simcha is the frame of mind, but in the second part is talking about behavior, hence “mekabeil…” – Seems to be a setira between here and Yesodei haTorah 5:11 about mekabeil… being ikar hadin or not. |
| 10 | Extremes. Lshem Shomayim & Middah Beinonis. | 22:04 | 3:1 – not supposed to go to the extreme of distancing from taava and kavod, but should distance oneself in such a way from kin’ah. Nedarim – Chazal are critical of someone creating his own ideal, but not of using them to help him implement the Torah’s ideal. One identifies middah beinonis based on kol maasecha, hence kol ma’asecha is in Deos, and hence 3:1 connects perek 2 and 3. |
| 11 | Marriage. “Bilvad”. Ahavas Re’im. | 22:56 | 3:2 aside from being a mitzvah, marriage is needed for a normal, balanced life. “Bilvad” doesn’t always mean exclusively for Rambam, also means “direct/ultimate”. Two tiers in v’ahavta l’reiacha – all Jews, and a’chicha b’mitzvos; in Hilchos Deos all Jews (even a rasha) is discussed, and in Hilchos Avel referring to a’chicha b’mitzvos. Mechayev in Deos is one’s own middos; in Avel it’s chiyuv to achicha. Answer to hasogas haRaavad – why not mention onah? Because only talking here about one’s own middos, not other chiyuvim. |
| 12 | Kavana l’Shem Shomayim | 24:44 | 3:3 – living balanced isn’t enough without the kavana l’shem Shomayim. If one calibrates his level of involvement and orients his actions l’shem Shomayim, then one can serve 24×7. That ALL activities CAN be avoda laMakom is a big chiddush. Kavana etc. can make it into avoda by contextualizing it. |
| 13 | Lead with Sechel | 25:50 | 4:1 – How is taking care of oneself physically midarchei Hashem? In addition, how do this and 3:3 flow from perek 1? HKB”H is in a constant state of perfection. We’re supposed to lead with sechel, not emotion, and act based solely on what the situation warrants, i.e. based on what is right and good. Hence, we’re supposed to be measured and disciplined, but for the right reasons, hence 3:3 and 4:1. |
| 14 | Defining a Chacham | 20:10 | 5:1 – ksehm…kach – but aren’t these things defined as being part of middah beinonis in earlier perakim, and are not distinct from it? How are these things additional for the chacham? 5:2 is clear that they are distinct, but not 5:1. 5:3 – not getting drunk is also for everyone!? 5:4 – lechem mishna asks: some of the things in this perek for everyone, so why is the Rambam filing them under chacham? Rav Meir Stern – yes, they’re relevant to everyone, but they’re especially relevant to a chacham, and if he lacks them he isn’t really a chacham. |
| 15 | The Bein Adam Lachaveiro of a Chacham | 40:25 | 5:7 – speaking very loudly or very softly looks like gasei haRuach. makdim b’shalom, dan lekaf zechus – required of a chacham or of everyone? There are cases that are a middah chassidus – maybe for the chacham, those are required. – dan lekaf zechus, in essence, flows from being favorably inclined towards people. Halacha 7 is about middos that express themselves in his bein Adam lachaveiro. – why does Rambam have to mention that the chacham doesn’t say lashon hara? Clear throughout Halacha 7 that he’s talking about treating all people – Jews and non-Jews alike – well. Lashon hara is only assur on Jews. Here he’s including a ger toshav among people he only speaks positively about. The middah is relevant beyond amecha. Big practical implications: have to be careful/conscious of the midda ra’ah even is there’s no issur. |
| 16 | When to Be Silent. Emmes. | 19:05 | 5:7 – Counterproductive to say something that will not be accepted. – Meshane mipnei shalom: two reasons not to lie – 1) it’s habit forming 2) seal of HKBH is emmes, and we have to emulate. Meshane referring to avoiding provoking machlokes. |
| 17 | Contextually Appropriate Behavior | 25:18 | 5:10 – There are legitimate differences in one’s lifestyle based on his means. But must be done in a manner consistent with 1:4, and living a lavish lifestyle still not OK. Beracha comes with responsibility. – “Derech eretz” – what does this term mean? Contextually appropriate behavior, menschlechkeit. It’s obligatory, and we are supposed to develop an intuition for it. |
| 18 | Financial Prudence. Society’s Influence. | 29:12 | 5:12 – Supposed to be careful with money, save if one can. – Talmid chacham must stand by his word in dinei mamanos even though there’s no kinyan. – Must be consistent in all aspects of behavior 6:1 – We are influenced by those around us, no matter how irrational their behavior is. What is common and frequent is normalized, no matter how crazy it is. |
| 19 | Sevara & Mitzva | 24:14 | 6:1-2 – chiyuv to connect to chachomim is both sevara and a passuk, but details learned from each aren’t identical sets. See Hilchos Teshuva 10:1-2 and 10:4-5. Why the double definition of ahavas Hashem? The first is sevara, second is mitzva; overlapping but not identical. When does Rambam share both? When what comes out of them isn’t identical. |
| 20 | Nafka Minas of a Mechayev of Sevara | 22:21 | Further nafkma minas of things being sevara in addition to mitzva: 1) 7 Mitzvos Bnai Noach – haya lo lilimod v’lo lamad applies since it is a sevara as well. 2) for derech hayeshara (Deos perek 1), would the chassid “overcompensates” (1:4-5) without the sevara? 3) Should one follow midda beinonis for ka’as and ga’ava (as said in perek 1), or for those 2 middos must we go to an extreme, as the Rambam says later, seemingly contradicting himself? Perhaps perek 1 is talking about based on sevara only, and later is talking about the miztva. |
| 21 | Bo Sidbuck; Ahavas haGer; Tochacha | 22:50 | – 6:2 According to one pshat in Rambam, Shechina means Hashgacha, i.e. Hashem’s behavior. Chazal used the term shechina, hence inference it’s to learn about His actions. How can we do so? Cling to exemplars, i.e. talmidei chachomim -6:5-6 why need “hocheach tochiach” – assur due to lo sisna!? Answer: muttar to hate avaryan, hence only “hocheach” obligates him to say something |
| 22 | Deos 6:6,7,9 | 30:01 | – Chiyuv to be mocheil is an extension of the chiyuv to be mochiach. – 2 separate mechayevim: 1) be efficacious to stop someone from doing wrong 2) to uproot sinas halev. Can have #2 even absent #1. – Reasons why we don’t give so much tochacha today. – tochacha includes explaining to the person the damage he is causing himself – the mochel should also be willing to help the person who wronged him, see Avraham |
| 23 | Tochacha | 25:45 | – additional sources for the two mechayevim of giving tochacha- deos 6:8 – don’t humiliate the person with tochacha. Also teaches us to stay far away from the lesser form, ie embarrassment, give that one can lose his olam haba. – must be very gentle with widows and orphans. |
| 24 | Lashon Hara | 28:01 | Perek 7: definition of issue L”H is communication, not l dibbur per se (Rambam doesn’t use a dibbur verb), so what the Chofetz Chaim says that one is oveir regardless of the medium (eg social media) is muchrach. Question: since it’s not dependent on dibbur, would one be a “meragel bachaveiro” by eavesdropping/snooping and finding out negative things? – 7:2 – recheilus isn’t inherently genus, but is something that may provoke the listener. End of tumas tzaraas- “hi lo dibra begenuso” – it only looked like L”H, but wasn’t. L”H is conceptually an issur Hilchos Deos, not an issur dibbur. She didn’t say L”H, it only looked like it, since her intentions were positive. |
| 25 | Deos 7:2 | 26:22 | Deos 7:2- LH, MSR, rechilus all same lav – No olam haba – teshuva 3:6, it’s baalei lashon hara. – without the mekabeil, the lashon hara woild t be effective. Mekabeil isn’t a hilchos deos chisaron, hence the issur only mentioned in hilchos Sanhedrin 21:7 as being “lo sisa shema shav”. – LH == Deos, cynically disparaging, hence Rambam doesn’t list off exceptions, since sharing for tachlis isn’t cynically…, hence not listed in Deos. – rambam seems to hold issur mekabeil == believing, not simply/just hearing. However – Halacha 6 – “assur…v’lador bishechunaso…” still required to stay away from a shachein ra, etc. |
| 26 | Deos 7:4 | 27:29 | – avak lashon hara. Why is dererch rama’us and sechok only derabanan? Because that veneer is enough to be a chisaron in merageil which downgrades it to derabanan – if someone says without giving a name, and then the listener agrees/strengthens what the mesaper says, the listener is over on lashon hara through his agreement since the mesaper does know who we’re talking about – 7:5 if word getting around will cause damage, it’s also lashon hara. Included in Deos because one has a responsibility to be mindful of the potential consequences of his speech. – apei tlasa: it’s inherently genai and the person said it in front of three so the one listener is not the one causing it to get around, so it’s not a problem. |
| 27 | Deos 7:7 – nekima, netira | 34:16 | – Rambam emphasizes that nekama is a de’ah ra’ah, in that the person attaches significance to that which is shallow and empty. Sefer Hachinuch emphasizes that nekama is theologically wrong, since it could only happen to him if HKB”H wanted it. See Beis HaLevi’s explanation of the tochacha of “ani Yosef, ha’od avi chai”; Sfas Emmes explains that Yosef on the one hand gave them tocahcha, on the other hand said that it was bashert not from them. What if the second guy does lend it to the first guy, doesn’t SAY I’m not like you, but does think it; is he oveir on netira? See in the Rambam that have to say it to be ovier the lav, but the Torah is still makpid that he shouldn’t feel it either. Rambam has these 2 teirs of nateria. – Ramban: “V’asi’sa hayashar v’hatov” – peshara, not din. Also – Torah must be finite, but we’re supposed to understand the direction the Torah is pointing in and follow through. We’re not supposed to function based on rigid din, hence netira, nekama, etc. being assur, and hence supposed to ask beis din for peshara. |