11/4 – can’t define Hashem; derech beinonis l’gabei ka’as & ga’ava

In Rambam Halacha Vav that

שמצווים אנו ללכת בדרכים האלו הבינוניים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים שנאמר והלכת בדרכיו כך למדו בפירוש מצוה זו מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום מה הוא נקרא קדוש אף אתה היה קדוש.

Alright, so to emulate the ways of Hakadosh Baruch Hu that

מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום מה הוא נקרא קדוש אף אתה היה קדוש.

So last week we discussed where does the Rambam see that these drachim of Hakadosh Baruch Hu are drachim beinonim? How do you know they're drachim beinonim? That's what we discussed last week. Today we'll turn our attention to something else. The Kesef Mishneh says כך למדו בפירוש מצוה זו מה הוא נקרא חנון. We're in Shabbos and also as you look in Sotah. So it's interesting that in the Gemara in Shabbos, the lashon hagemara, be'emes that the diyuk we'll have in the Rambam is even without the comparison to Chazal. The comparison to Chazal perhaps sharpens it a little bit, but the diyuk is there either way.

אבא שאול אומר ואנוהו הוי דומה לו מה הוא חנון ורחום אף אתה היה חנון ורחום.

So the Rambam changes that lashon hagemara, right? He doesn't say מה הוא חנון ורחום. He doesn't say מה הוא חנון ורחום. He says מה הוא נקרא חנון ורחום. So apparently the Rambam thought there was something we would have misunderstood about the lashon hagemara and to prevent that misunderstanding the Rambam writes מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון. So strange. Again, there's a lack of symmetry. We would have expected מה הוא חנון אף אתה היה חנון or מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה תקרא חנון. Why does the Rambam say מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון? So it seems very, very clear that the Rambam, I'm not sure if the Avodat Hamelech has this in mind because he says it on a different line, I don't know, but either way it seems clear that the Rambam has in mind as follows. The Rambam has a famous shita, very, very fundamental in Moreh Nevuchim, which says he talks about the pesukim in Parshas Ki Sisa. In Parshas Ki Sisa, so Moshe Rabbeinu has two requests. Moshe Rabbeinu says הודיעני נא את דרכך and Moshe Rabbeinu says הראני נא את כבודך. Those are two different requests. Question is, what were those two requests? So the Rambam says, the Rambam says that introduces the following categories. When you let's talk about a person now, not about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Talk about a person, the Rambam says you can, this is the way it's translated into English, but you can talk about actionable attributes, action, right, maaseh, or you can talk about essential attributes. Actionable attributes, right, that's what the Gra says is the difference in semantics between saying rachum as opposed to rachman. That that actionable attributes means that someone acts kindly, right, that's what an actionable attribute is. He acts kindly. And essential attribute is to say he's a kind person, right, you're not just describing the person's actions but you're saying something about the mahut of the person. You're saying something about the essence of a person. So there's actionable attributes and there are essential attributes. Actionable attributes, again, are descriptions of how a person behaves, it's not defining the person, right, you don't presume to be defining the essence of the person, whereas an essential attribute, right, if you give someone a compliment not just that he acts kind, but he's a kind person, so then you're saying the mahut of the person, the essence of the person, you're commenting, you're commenting on the essence of the person. So the Rambam says that that these were Moshe Rabbeinu's two requests. הודיעני נא את דרכך means let me understand your actionable attributes, right, in response to which Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him the yud gimmel middos, right, let me know... Again how one can describe how you, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, govern the world, exercise your Hashgacha Pratis. And then Moshe Rabbeinu said no I also want to know more than that I also want to know הראיני נא את כבודך let me understand you Hakadosh Baruch Hu. I want to understand you. And the Rambam says that Hakadosh Baruch Hu assents to the request of הודיעני נא את דרכיך but הראיני נא את כבודך so Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him כי לא יראני האדם וחי but that's beyond human comprehension. It's beyond human comprehension because you can't, you can't, a finite being cannot understand Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We can't, we can't, we can't define Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We can say that he's Eino Guf. We can say that there are no imperfections in him but you can't define what's beyond your comprehension. It's beyond our, infinity, infinitude is beyond our finite comprehension. And therefore the Rambam says whenever we talk about Hakadosh Baruch Hu being Rachum Vechanun so we can't even define Hakadosh Baruch Hu that way. All we can say is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu acts with us in the fashion that a person who was Rachum Vechanun would act. But it's not that we're again presuming chas veshalom to say that we can define who or what Hakadosh Baruch Hu is. That's why, that's the Rambam says that's the pshat in the Gemara in Berachos that even, even saying a shevach for Hakadosh Baruch Hu is really wrong. Lecha Dumiya Tehilla, the Rambam quotes the pasuk in Tehillim, is because we really can't say who Hakadosh Baruch Hu is. And he says that's the pshat in the Gemara in Berachos of הקל הגדול הגבור והנורא that אלמלא אמרו משה רבינו and then osa Ezra and was mesakein within Shmonei Esrei, so we would have no right to say it because again even to describe the, to talk about Hakadosh Baruch Hu again with adjectives which seem to be describing who he is so we really have no right to do that. So we need a heter to do it. And even when we do it, it's understood that we are saying them again as actional attributes describing how Hakadosh Baruch Hu acts but knowing full well that ultimately who Hakadosh Baruch Hu is in essence is beyond our comprehension. That the Rambam has in Moreh Nevuchim. It seems, it seems just abundantly, abundantly clear that that's what he's telling you in Hilchos De'os also. That's why the Rambam is medayek in מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון, saying מה הוא נקרא חנון, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, we can't say that Mah Hu Chanun because again that would be saying that we have the ability to define who Hakadosh Baruch Hu is. You can't do that. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is beyond, beyond our comprehension. We glimpse again, we're beneficiaries, we do our best to serve him but we can't, we can't define, we can't comprehend Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So not Mah Hu Chanun but rather מה הוא נקרא חנון. However when it comes to a person, so a person is אף אתה היה חנון. That's what the Rambam says is מה הוא נקרא חנון. When you, when you predicate Chanun of Hakadosh Baruch Hu it means that he's described as Chanun. But when you predicate it over a person, you can takka say he is Chanun because you can define a person. A person can be defined. So therefore our goal is to try to be worthy of that definition and that's modeled after the description of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. But not with Hakadosh Baruch Hu it's a description, with us it's a definition. It's clear that that's what the Rambam has in mind here:

מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום מה הוא נקרא קדוש אף אתה היה קדוש.

Okay, and the Lechem Mishneh here raises a double stira within the Rambam between Perek Aleph and Perek Beis. The Rambam here in Perek Aleph when he's illustrating the de'ah beinonis, the derech beinonis, so the Rambam says keitzad in halacha daled:

לא יהא בעל חמה נוח לכעוס ולא כמת שאינו מרגיש. לא יכעס אלא על דבר גדול שראוי לכעוס עליו כדי שלא יעשה כיוצא בו פעם אחרת.

Is good. Then again in Perek Beis, Halacha Beis, the Rambam, when the Rambam talks about how do you remedy a choleh hanefesh, if a person has strayed from the de'ah beinonis, from the de'ah beinonis, so the Rambam says in Perek Beis, Halacha Beis:

כיצד היא רפואתם מי שהוא בעל חמה אומרים לו להנהיג עצמו שאם הוכה וקולל לא ירגיש כלל וילך בדרך זו זמן מרובה עד שיעקר החמה מלבו.

So again, the Rambam uses ka'as as as an example of one of those middos where one is supposed to follow the derech habeinonis and tells you what the corrective measure is if one realizes that he has a temper. So one has to train himself that even though he's he has to suffer bizyonos that he shouldn't react at all. וילך בדרך זו זמן מרובה עד שיעקר החמה מלבו. Halacha continuing there in Beis Beis:

אם היה גובה לב ינהיג עצמו בבזיון הרבה וישב למטה מן הכל וילבש בלוי סחבות המבזות את לובשיהן וכיוצא בדברים אלו עד שיעקור גובה הלב ממנו ויחזור לדרך האמצעית שהיא דרך הטובה ולכשחזור לדרך האמצעית יילך בה כל ימיו.

The Rambam describes the same thing with regard to ga'avah. He describes the same thing with regard to ga'avah that if a person finds himself that he's noteh to the extreme of ga'avah, so then he has to again be mevazeh himself in public to uproot that ga'avah and then he'll be ra'uy to follow the derech habeinonis. Problem is that the Rambam then turns around in Halacha Gimmel and says that

יש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית אלא יתרחק מן הקצה האחד עד הקצה האחר.

And what are those two de'os which are an exception to this rule? Number one is

והוא גובה לב שאין דרך הטובה שיהיה אדם עניו בלבד אלא שיהיה שפל רוח ותהיה רוחו נמוכה מאוד.

Lefichach ne'emar by Moshe Rabbeinu anav me'od and not ne'emar anav bilvad. Ulefichach tzivu chachamim

מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח. ועוד אמרו שכל המגביה לבו כפר בעיקר שנאמר ורם לבבך ושכחת את ה' אלהיך.

Et cetera. And then the Rambam says

וכן הכעס מדה רעה היא עד מאוד וראוי לאדם שיתרחק ממנה עד הקצה האחר וילמד עצמו שלא יכעס אפילו על דבר שראוי לכעוס עליו. אמרו חכמים כל הכועס כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים ואמרו שכל הכועס אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת.

So the question is that there seems to be again just a glaring, glaring stirah in the Rambam here as to whether or not a person is supposed to follow the derech habeinonis with regard to middos of ka'as and ga'avah. That in Perek Aleph and as recently as Perek Beis, Halacha Beis, the Rambam is illustrating the idea of the derech habeinonis by giving examples of ka'as and ga'avah. Then in Halacha Gimmel, the Rambam turns around and says אסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית. So the Lechem Mishneh is meyashev the stirah. Lechem Mishneh is as follows: Lechem Mishneh says that the Rambam is telling you in Halacha Gimmel that the mean, the derech habeinonis, the mean between ga'avah and anavah is is going to be how do you explain? Is going to be more extreme. extreme than say the mean between a person who is a hedonist and a person who is an ascetic. Right? That if you again if you're plotting it on a piece of paper in front of you, so if you imagine by every middah the two extremes are at either end here, so the mean is going to be approximately over here. And that when it comes to ka'as and when it comes to gaiva, so then the mean of how you blend the two is what for other middos would be an extreme. That's how the Lechem Mishneh tries to reconcile the steera in the Rambam. Could be could be maybe there's another another way to to reconcile this as well. I'm not sure. I'll have to look. I'm not sure. But could be as follows. The Rambam at the end of perek aleph halacha zayin explains that whenever you talk about the derech habeinonis, so number one it's on the level of action, but number two it also means to internalize it. So what does that mean? Means there's a derech habeinonis in terms of let's say the example of eating which the Rambam gives. So that a person should eat the amount he needs to be strong and to be healthy, shouldn't eat less than that, shouldn't eat more than that. So that's a derech habeinonis in terms of action, in terms of what he does. But then it's also a middah, it's also a middah that a person is not supposed to be content with simply ensuring that his actions are beinonim, but he's supposed to try to internalize the middah that that's his instinct, that his instinct when he sits down to eat should be that he has appetite for what he needs, not less, not more. Right? And that's clear then the Rambam tells you how do you how do you not only practice this but how do you internalize it? Right? That's what the Rambam's telling you in halacha zayin כיצד ירגיל אדם עצמו בדעות אלו עד שיקבעו בו. That there's one thing to act moderately, there's another thing that to internalize and and possess them as middos. So with regard to every middah again you can discuss it on a practical level in terms of what a person does and then you can discuss it also on the level of a middah of what he feels. Right? That's clear from the Rambam that you have both levels. So perhaps the pshat is as follows. What the Rambam is clarifying in halacha gimmel in halacha gimmel is that in terms of action, in terms of action, so even when it comes to ka'as between the extremes of ba'al cheima and k'mi she'eino margish, so even when it comes to anava, when it comes to shiflus between the extremes of gaiva of gova lev and someone who walks around b'vgadim in torn and tattered clothing, so practically, practically, there too a person is supposed to follow a derech habeinonis. Meaning the Rambam says anger in terms of displaying anger, in terms of trying to achieve the results which a display of anger is suited to, so then there is a derech habeinonis. And that's what the Rambam describes for instance if it's to ensure that shelo ye'aseh kein again, that if a person is yesh beyado lehocheach and by a display of anger he will ensure that this avlah is not repeated so then there is On the level of action so then there is a mida beinonit. The Rambam says but unlike other things where when you sit down to eat it's not just that you have to be trained that you eat enough, not too little, not too much, but it's even correct that that be your instinct, that be what you feel, that you're hungry for what you need but you're not hungry for more. It's not that the halakha says don't be hungry at all but train yourself to eat so much or be hungry for enough to gorge yourself but train yourself just to eat a little. No, the halakha says this is what you do and the ideal is this is what you should feel, right? This is what you do, this is what you should feel, and there's no disparity. The de'ah habeinonit, the derech habeinonit, it's supposed to be a derech practically as well as a de'ah internally. And what the Rambam perhaps is saying by ka'as and anava is that of course a person has to conduct himself, if a person conducts himself in a way again not just that he doesn't feel any ga'avah, but a person that certainly is the way a person's supposed to be. But if he conducts himself in a way again where he doesn't even practice anything, so what's going to be a ich veis a talmid chacham? A talmid chacham so someone will be mevazeh him in a way that it's a bizayon hatorah. So he's going to say no I can't I can't I can't. So on a practical level no even there there has to be the correct blend of the two. But in terms of what a person feels unlike all of the middot again where there's complete congruence between what you're supposed to display and what you're supposed to feel when it comes to these two middot so it's only it's a derech beinonit but in terms of internalizing it then it's supposed to be internalized to an extreme. And the person who is supposed to be trained to show anger at something outrageous is supposed to do that in spite of himself, in spite of his natural inclination which is not to feel which is that he doesn't feel anger at all. And be'emes that's what the Rambam describes here in halakha gimel even when he tells you that you have to go to an extreme by ka'as. He says,

אם רצה להטיל אימה על בניו ובני ביתו או על הציבור אם היה פרנס ורצה לכעוס עליהן כדי שיחזרו למוטב

which is exactly what he described right earlier which is the derech beinonit so do it. However,

יראה עצמו בפניהם שהוא כועס כדי לייסרם אבל באמת תהיה דעתו מיושבת בינו לבין עצמו כאדם שהוא מדמה כועס בשעת כעסו והוא אינו כועס.

So perhaps that then would be the answer to the stira that yes it's supposed to be a derech beinonit practically but in terms of feeling, in terms of feeling, so it's never supposed to be a derech beinonit.