Shemonah Perakim 5

And we began Perek Daled last time we commented on the opening line here in Perek Daled

המעשים הטובים הם המעשים השקולים הממוצעים בין שתי הקצוות ששתיהן רע.

We suggested that iteichen what the Rambam is capturing with the description or the imagery of shkulim balanced is what in the Yad we inferred from the Rambam's illustration of the mida hamemutza’as by ka'as. Again in Aleph Daled the Rambam writes

הדרך הישרה היא מדה בינונית שבכל דעה ודעה מכל דעות שיש לו לאדם.

Hederech hayeshara is is beinonis. Keitzad?

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

So we said that what we would have expected according to our conventional understanding of the mida beinonis is if if the volatility of a בעל חמה נוח לכעוס is a 10 on the scale and the the apathy the aloofness the detachment of a mess she'eino margish is a zero on the scale so the Rambam should have said a beinoni is a 5 on the scale. But he doesn't say that right the way the Rambam translates and illustrates the mida beinonis no is a takeh he'll hit a 10 on the scale but very selectively only very infrequently and it's going to be targeted it's going to be what one very appropriate. So we said that what this is יצא מן הכלל ללמד על הכלל כולו that be'emes the pshat in the mida beinonis is that it's sort of not a it's not a that that you have a techuna which is one extreme you have another techuna which is which represents the opposite extreme and there's a third independent techuna imagine using the mashal from from colors on the color spectrum three primary colors that there's a primary color which is the analog to which what which we're using as an analogy to to each end of the extreme and there's a third primary color in the middle no the pshat is that the middle represents a blending of the two extremes. The middle represents a blending of the two extremes so ordinarily you can't really discern that that's what the pshat is in the mida beinonis because ordinarily the blending practically translates the same way understanding the midpoint as a third primary color as it were but but albeit a moderate there's a shvacha blue at one end of the spectrum and there's a deep deep intense blue at the other end of the spectrum and then there's a more typical average blue in the middle of the spectrum so ordinarily practically you can't discern the difference whether or not a person's generosity is a blending of kilyus and pazronus or whether it's again a third moderate techuna you can't really tell but by ka'as that's where it that's where this distinction surfaces. And we said that iteichen that that's what the ma'asim hashkulim means what it means is that the extremes are present but they're balanced it's not that either one has the the upper hand which which is why a person will always act more towards one end of the spectrum or the other end of the spectrum no because they're shaklu they're balanced when you think about it. When you think about it, it's again, it's very intuitive, very intuitive. And what's more, the pshat in the blend, what is that, what it means is that that what creates that blend is a self-discipline that the person has. That's the, that's what creates the mida beinonit is this self-discipline that a person has. That let's say one, the Rambam in Hilchot Megilla, so says that on Purim a person should be shote yoter milimudo. Okay so, kayadu’a, that the Rambam's ad d'lo yada is that a person should drink enough that it induces sleep. But either way, the very definition of the mitzvah, clearly, clearly, on a superficial level, is at odds with the mida beinonit, assuming, assuming that the person's limudo is, is what it should be, is the tzadik al pi sof hakatuv. So by definition, on Purim, a person is told that he's supposed to, again, even according to the Rambam's understanding in ad d'lo yada. So, ella mai, the pshat is, no, the pshat and mida beinonit is that both extremes are present within the person. The extreme of ka'as and the extreme of k'met she'eino margish. The discipline, the discipline that he has, keeps them shakul, keeps them in that productive balance. And that's why the Torah easily expects us, when instructed, to to adjust as the circumstances require. Whether the circumstances are that on Purim a person should, should drink yoter milimudo or here in, in our perek in perek dalet, later the Rambam's going to depict, he says that he quotes in the psukim in the Navi Zechariah when, when Bnei Yisrael inquire whether or not they should be fasting the tzomos during Bayit Sheni, whether they should be fasting asara b'tevet, shiva asar b'tammuz, tisha b'av during Bayit Sheni. So the Rambam says that

והשיב השם יתעלה על ידי נביאו למי ששאל על צום יום אחד בשנה.

Fasting one day, fasting one day. אם יתמיד בזה אם לאו. Meaning, so you would think, what's the big deal? What, what, what are we talking about?

והוא אמרו לזכריה האבכה בחודש החמישי כי נזר כאשר עשיתי זה כמה שנים והשיב להם כי צמתם וספוד בחמישי ובשביעי זה שבעים שנה הצום צמתני אני וכי תאכלו וכי תשתו הלוא אתם האוכלים ואתם השותים ואחר כך ציוום על דרך האמצע ומעלות טובות בלבד.

So everyone agrees, l'chora, with the exception of Tisha B'Av, even the Rambam agrees that they're being told not to fast, but with the exception of Tisha B'Av. And then the Rambam says that in response then inquiry, Hakadosh Baruch Hu then reinforces the mida beinonit.

ואחר כך ציוום על דרך האמצע ומעלות טובות בלבד לא בצום והוא אמר להם כה אמר השם צבאות לאמור משפט אמת שפוטו וחסד ורחמים עשו איש את אחיו.

V'amar achar kach

כה אמר השם צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים והאמת והשלום אהבו.

So what's the connection between the beginning of the pasuk and the end of the pasuk, between saying that the tzom should be... So what's the connection between the beginning of the pasuk and the end of the pasuk between saying that the tzom should be the

ששון ולשמחה והאמת והשלום אהבו? ודע כי האמת הם המעלות ההגיוניות מפני שהן אמתיות לא ישתנו כמו שהתבאר בפרק עשרים.

So emes represents again the the intellectual qualities that that a person should cultivate. והשלום הם המעלות המידותיות meaning that it is imperative that if you're not supposed to fast that you don't fast because only in that way are you going to be in fulfillment of emes vehashalom ohavu. That's the way the Rambam reads the pasuk, right? It's imperative that if you're not that if there is no chiyuv to fast you shouldn't fast. That's the way the Rambam reads the pasuk. I I on Yom Kippur Yom Kippur we do fast so what does it mean that Yom Kippur is an exception? No, again, because it's intuitive that what the pshat is is the again is that the midpoint means that the two extremes are blended through the self-discipline that a person has and sometimes the Torah tells us to adjust that balance between between the two. Then the Rambam goes on and says that again Shemonah Perakim

המעשים שהם טובים הם המעשים השקולים והממוצעים בין שני קצוות ששניהם רע והאחד מהם ההפלגה והשני המיעוט.

Again so one one one end of the spectrum is excess and and the other end of the spectrum is is is privation is is lacking.

והמעלות הן התכונות הנפשיות וההרגלים הממוצעים בין שתי תכונות רעות האחת מהן יתירה והאחת חסירה.

So Rambam says you can talk on two levels, right? We we can we can describe on the level of action then we can describe on the level of a person's tichunas hanefesh on the level of a person's character. Again when a person again conducts himself moderately so then the actions are ma'asim shekulim memutza'im and if that reflects again what what what he's ingrained within himself within the nefesh so then it it that means that there's also a tichunas hanefesh which is present. It yitachen that this framework will give us a little bit of a handle on on the famous problem within the Rambam. In Perek Alef of Hilchos De'os in the Yad so the Rambam doesn't make any exceptions to the rule of the middah beinonis. And what's more in illustrating the middah beinonis so two of the examples he gives are with respect to ka'as which we just read in Halacha Daled and later in Halacha Hey with respect to shiflus anava and ga'avah. So again not only doesn't he single either of those out as exceptions to the rule but more than that he even uses them as illustrations of the rule. And then kayadua in Beis-Gimel so the Rambam writes

ויש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית אלא יתרחק מן הקצה האחד והוא גובה הלב

so the first one is govah halev we'll come back to that later be'ezrat hashem.

וכן הכעס דעה רעה היא עד למאוד וראוי לאדם שיתרחק ממנה עד הקצה האחר וילמד עצמו שלא יכעוס ואפילו על דבר שראוי לכעוס. וכן אם רצה להטיל אימה על בניו ובני ביתו או על הציבור אם היה פרנס ורצה לכעוס עליהם כדי שיחזרו למוטב יראה עצמו לפניהם שהוא כועס כדי לייסרם ותהיה דעתו מיושבת בינו לבין עצמו כאדם שהוא מדמה איש בשעת כעסו והוא אינו כועס.

So the second of the two exceptions the Rambam gives here is kaas, says that even when kaas is called for, so a person should feign anger. He should be like an actor who's playing a role, that he's an actor on stage and the role that he's been assigned is to depict someone who's angry and that's the way a person should seemingly, ostensibly exhibit anger. Okay, so the question is, the famous question is that in aleph daled, when the Rambam wanted to illustrate הדרך הישרה היא מדה הבינונית, so the very first example he gave was

כיצד לא יהיה בעל חמה נוח לכעוס ולא כמי שאינו מרגיש אלא בינוני לא יכעס אלא על דבר גדול שראוי לכעוס עליו כדי שלא יעשה כיוצא בו פעם אחרת.

The very first example he gives is kaas. I don't know whether we've discussed this or not, there's another point which emerges here again in beis gimmel. Let's re-read for a moment part of it: וכן הכעס דעה רעה היא עד מאד. So anger is a very bad disposition. וראוי לאדם שיתרחק ממנה עד הקצה האחר. And a person should distance himself from it to the opposite extreme. Fine.

וילמד עצמו שלא יכעס ואפילו על דבר שראוי לכעוס עליו.

He should train himself not to get angry even over something that warrants anger. So if a person should never ever get angry, so then there's nothing that warrants anger. Right? It's if a person should never ever get angry, so lichora by definition doesn't that mean that there's nothing that really warrants anger? So what does Rambam mean that

וילמד עצמו שלא יכעס ואפילו על דבר שראוי לכעוס עליו?

He should have said

וילמד עצמו שלא יכעס אפילו על אפילו על אפילו על דברים חמורים המכאיבים וכולו וכולו.

So he should be mocha bechol tokef. But how can you define anything as a דבר שראוי לכעוס עליו if it's always wrong to get angry? So the teretz is as follows. Right? Rashi comments, where is it, Parshas Matos, is that where it is? In the Parsha ויקצוף משה על פקודי החיל, that wherever Moshe Rabbeinu is choes, is ba lichlal taas. Ba lidey taas. ויקצוף משה על פקודי החיל, and then it has to be vayomer Elazar hakohein, he has to teach the dinim of hagalah, of libun. Rashi says in Parshas Chukas it's the same and in Parshas Shemini it's the same. Wherever Moshe Rabbeinu gets angry, so he's בא לכלל בא לכלל טעות. So what's Rashi's point? Again, obviously in each of the instances where Moshe Rabbeinu got angry, the anger was warranted, was a hundred percent warranted. But the pshat that Rashi is telling us is that anger is such a volatile emotion. that it's something that we can't control, that's virtually impossible to control. Veharaya that Moshe Rabbeinu sholeim b'chol hamiddos, that even he couldn't or didn't have complete control when he allowed himself to get angry. So the vort is like this, the emes is, the emes is when you talk about anger, it's not the pshat that the reaction of anger is never warranted. No, the reaction of anger is warranted. And in terms of what the Middas Beinoni says, the Middas Beinoni says that a person should get angry every every every few years if and when the situation warrants it. Practically, lemaise practically, heyos that the emotion is so volatile and that almost inevitably a person will be bo l'klal to'us, so practically he shouldn't do that. Practically he shouldn't do it. And that's clearly the pshat in

וילמד עצמו שלא יכעס אפילו על דבר שראוי לכעוס עליו,

a person shouldn't express anger even when anger is warranted because of the again because of the volatility and near impossibility of being able to control and be 100 percent successful in exercising and displaying the anger with laser-like precision. Yitachen then that the answer to the stira would be as follows. When a person encounters a situation where it's rauy lichoas olov, so yitachen that on the level, question is what this almost inevitable loss of control. So that happens even if a person will feel the anger inwardly or it only happens if a person will allow himself to express and to vent and to act on that anger. So yitachen that the answer to the stira is that the Rambam is telling us as follows. In Perek Alef, again when he's telling us what the tchuna is, so the tchuna is that a person, it should elicit from a person, there are things that should elicit inwardly a very strong response. Ella mai yilamed atzmo, so a person in terms of whether or not practically, so had ka'as been like all other middos, so one would then act in accordance with the tchuna. Again coming back to the beginning of Perek Daled of Shmona Perakim, you can talk on two levels. There's on the level of the maise, there's on the level of the tchunas hanefesh. Yitachen that the answer to the stira is that in Perek Alef the Rambam is talking on the level of the tchunas hanefesh. On the level of tchunas hanefesh, yes, so there are things that happen, there are situations that will register, should register. It should affect a person. Now the question is having been thus affected, so should the person then act on it and should the person's actions then reflect it? So ordinarily the answer is yes, right? Ordinarily the whole point is that the tchunas hanefesh should yield should generate maisim that reflect that tchunas hanefesh. And that's where the Rambam says here that

וכן הכעס דעה רעה היא למאד וראוי לאדם שיתרחק ממנה עד הקצה האחר

meaning on a practical level. But on a practical level okay, so this again was so outrageous that the truth is that this is something which is upsetting. and appropriately, appropriately stirs intense feeling within one. Okay, so now, now you got to get control over that and not, and not allow that to be expressed when you react. The reaction again, you can feign the passion, but the reaction, the action and reaction should be dispassionate. So you're talking about the atzmius on the level of mesiras nefesh, so then ka'as is an exception. And what's more, the Rambam needs the example of ka'as because ka'as shows us the yesod again of what the mida beinonis represents. On the practical level, so there ka'as is very much an exception. I know if this, if that reads in the lashon. Could be, could be I should check but I know if this, if that reads, if this fits the lashon. The other, the other famous stira and here too there's a distinction which is lich’ora intuitive but again when you read the leshonos Rambam I don't know whether, I don't know whether, whether what I'm about to say really, really fits context. The other, the other apparent stira again between Perek Aleph and Perek Beis is as far as anava goes. Again, in Aleph Heh the Rambam says

מי שמדקדק על עצמו ביותר ויתרחק מדעה בינונית מעט לצד זה או לצד זה נקרא חסיד. כיצד? מי שיתרחק מגובה לב עד הקצה האחרון ויהיה שפל רוח ביותר נקרא חסיד וזו היא מידת חסידות. והמתרחק עד האמצע בלבד ויהיה ענו נקרא חכם וזו היא מידת חכמה.

And then in Beis Gimmel he says

יש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית אלא יתרחק מן הקצה האחד עד הקצה האחר והוא גובה לב שאין הדרך הטובה שיהיה אדם עניו בלבד אלא שיהיה שפל רוח ותהיה רוחו נמוכה מאוד מאוד.

Okay. So lich’ora the first part of the answer is as follows. Again, I don't know that, I think this may be a chatzi davar and lo davar, but as follows. If you take a look at the Rambam later, if you have the Perush Hamishnayos, take a look at the Rambam later on the mishna in פרק ד משנה ד of מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח. So the Rambam writes as follows here:

כבר הזכרנו בפרקים הקודמים שהענוה היא מן המדות המעולות והיא ממוצעת בין הגאוה ושפלות הרוח.

Meaning the other thing is that in Perek Daled in Shemonah Perakim the Rambam doesn't mention the exceptions even. That's the ever Hazal in trying to put everything together here. So he said mentioned earlier that anavah is a middah memutza'at between ga'avah and shiflus haruach.

וכבר ביארנו בפרק הרביעי כי האדם ראוי לו לנטות לאחד משני הקצוות עד שיקבע בהתנהגות ממוצעת על דרך הסייג. זולתי במדה הזאת לבד מכל המדות והוא הגאוה.

Now let's read very carefully the next few lines or so, the next couple lines:

כי לגודל חסרון המדה הזאת אצל אנשי המעלה ובהכירם את נזקה הרחיקו ממנה עד הקצה האחרון והטו אל שפלות הרוח לגמרי כדי שלא ישאירו בנפש רושם לגאוה כלל בשום פנים.

Again, לגודל חסרון המדה הזאת ga'avah

אצל אנשי המעלה ובהכירם את נזקה הרחיקו ממנה עד הקצה האחרון והטו אל שפלות הרוח לגמרי כדי שלא ישאירו בנפש רושם לגאוה כלל בשום פנים.

Then he goes on and tells the story of the height of shiflus haruach that echad min hachassidim achieved. Rambam here is meforash that the extreme that one goes to in the spectrum of ga'avah anavah and shiflus haruach is betoras siyag. But that couldn't be more explicit al kol panim in the Perush Hamishnayos here, right? כי לגודל חסרון המדה הזאת because again also just in terms of the seder hadvarim here, right? The Rambam wants to comment on the Mishnah of מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח. So he says that כבר ביארנו בפרק הרביעי before he comments directly on this Mishnah, so he reminds us that

כבר ביארנו בפרק הרביעי כי האדם ראוי לו לנטות לאחד משני הקצוות על דרך הסייג.

So why is that relevant to his commenting on the Mishnah? So it's quite clear because that's what he's saying. He's saying that the extreme of מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח is al derech hasiyag that all of us at all times need to practice. That vis-a-vis the middah of ga'avah, so all of us at all times need to engage in the להרחיק ממנה עד הקצה האחרון. So when the Rambam mentions anavah as typical of the middah hamemutza'at middah beinonit, he means without the siyag. Once you factor in the siyag, so then the Rambam says that's what results in the מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח. And yitachen, and I'd have to go back and look, I didn't check now, the Avodas Hamelech, I don't remember if he says it this way, it could be that he does, maybe he's even metzayen Perush Hamishnayos here, I don't remember. But the Avodas Hamelech suggests that the answer between Perek Aleph and Perek Beis is Perek Aleph is de'oraisa and Perek Beis is derabbanan, which is very much along the same lines as what we're saying now. Again, maybe he even mamash says the whole thing, I don't remember, you have to take a look. But yitachen, again within Perush Hamishnayos, yitachen that the pshat is more than that as well. Both the possibility and the need for the siyag is because lemaiseh there is something even me'ikar hadin where anavah is unique in terms of the middah hamemutza'at. And that is, right, we just reviewed at the beginning. today based on the Rambam's illustration by path, that the pshat in the mida hamemutzaas is really again, it's not that there's sort of a third primary t'chuna, but that that third t'chuna means the blending of the two extremes. That lichora is not true. The mida beinoniyus of anava is not a blending of shiflus and gaiva. And you see that the Rambam says that what's the reason, the goal, the need for the siyag of shiflus haruach?

הטיה אל שפלות הרוח לגמרי כדי שלא ישאר בנפש רושם לגאווה כלל.

But if you say the mida beinoniyus needs that, so then the siyag is something which is contradicting the mida beinoniyus. And the pashtus is, but when you think about it, it has to be that way. It has to be that way. If you define the gaiva which manifests itself as arrogance, as haughtiness, v'chulu as Rav Saks used to, that a person has this sense of kochi v'otzem yodi, so it's not pshat that the mida beinoniyus is that on the one hand the person should think he's nothing and on the other hand he should think kochi v'otzem yodi and then by having those two in balance, so he'll be anav. No. The pshat is that this mida is takeh unique even me'ikar hadin in the sense that here the mida beinoniyus takeh is a different primary mida. Oh. So here the Rambam says that's what creates the need, that's where Chazal saw the compelling need for the siyag because again, the mida of prishus combines the taiva of the ba'al taiva with taharas hanefesh of the person who has no interest in anything. And it's supposed to. It's supposed to combine the two extremes. And that's true for all midos. It's not true for the spectrum of shiflus and gaiva. By shiflus and gaiva, it's not supposed to represent a combination of the two. So here, that's why to be anav bilvad is going to be extraordinarily, extraordinarily difficult to be anav bilvad without a roshem of gaiva at all and gaiva which is so, so insidious and again basically heretical. So that's the pshat that again, in theory it should be a mida beinoniyus. What's a mida beinoniyus in theory? Right, the chasid here that some poshite arrogant rich person was mashtin olov. And it didn't bother him k'hu zeh. It's not gaiva for a person's ich veis to have enough self-respect to have been bothered by that. That wouldn't be gaiva for a person to be bothered by that. So if you call anava that a person is humble, but not a humility which has to erase his feeling that whatever self-respect he has makes him feel that he was violated in such a situation. So but that's not that the mida of what anava would have meant there isn't supposed to be a blending of shiflus and gaiva. And that's why there is such a need for the siyag. The pshat lichora in here in Peirush Hamishnayos if we take a look, kemiduma that seems to be what the Rambam is saying. Again when you read the lashonus in the Yad does it account for the way that the stira is formulated in the Yad, I don't know. That's not at all pashut that it does, but in perush hamishnayos, so that's the point that I'm understanding, that that that gaiva is an exception on the level of siyag, and that in turn reflects something again even deeper that the pshat in the mida beinonis of anava is unique from the other, from the other midos in the sense that it isn't generated by blending the the two extremes. Okay, I know, although if you'll take a look at the lashonos in the Yad, it's not so pashut.