יש דעות הרבה בכל אדם ואדם וזו משונה מזו ורחוקה ממנה ביותר. יש אדם שהוא בעל חמה כעוס תמיד. ויש אדם שדעתו מיושבת עליו ואינו כועס כלל ואם יכעס יכעס כעס מעט בכמה שנים. ויש אדם שהוא גבה לב ביותר.
geva lev beyoter. ויש שהוא שפל רוח ביותר. ויש שהוא בעל תאוה לא תשבע נפשו מהלוך בתאוה ויש שהוא בעל לב טהור מאוד ולא יתאוה אפילו דברים מעטים שהגוף צריך להם. ויש בעל נפש רחבה שלא תשבע נפשו מכל ממון העולם כעניין שנאמר אוהב כסף לא ישבע כסף. ויש מקצר נפשו שדיו אפילו דבר מעט שלא יספיק לו ולא ירדוף להשיג כל צרכו. ויש שהוא מסגף עצמו ברעב וקובץ על ידו ואינו אוכל פרוטה משלו אלא בצער גדול. ויש שהוא מאבד כל ממונו בידו לדעתו. ועל דרכים אלו שאר כל הדעות
kegon mehollal ve-onen, kili va-shoa, achzari ve-rachman, ורך לבב ואמיץ לב ve-khayozei bahen. Right, some people have a terrible temper, always always angry. Other people, other people nothing, nothing can disturb the equilibrium. Some are especially arrogant, some are extremely modest, lowly. Some are hedonistic and some are so pure that they don't even desire the minimum that's necessary for them to survive etc. And the Rambam continues in Halacha Bet: ויש בין כל דעה ודעה הרחוקה ממנה בקצה האחר דעות בינוניות זו רחוקה מזו.
Between each of these extremes that the Rambam outlined in Halacha Aleph, there's a middle de'ah. Then the Rambam says in Halacha Gimel: שתי קצוות הרחוקות זו מזו שבכל דעה ודעה אינן דרך טובה ואין ראוי לו לאדם ללכת בהן ולא ללמדן לעצמו, ואם מצא טבעו נוטה לאחת מהן ומוכן לאחת מהן או שכבר למד אחת מהן ונהג בה
yachazir atzmo le-mutav וילך בדרך הטובים והיא הדרך הישרה. That the middle path is the correct one between the two extremes in all of these de'os. הדרך הישרה היא מידה בינונית שבכל דעה ודעה מכל הדעות שיש לו לאדם, והיא הדעה שהיא רחוקה משתי הקצוות ריחוק שווה ואינה קרובה לא לזו ולא לזו. לפיכך ציוו חכמים הראשונים שיהא אדם שם דעותיו תמיד.
One should always be appraising his middos, u-mesha'er otan and evaluating them, u-mekhaven otan and directing them be-derech ha-emtza'it כדי שיהא שלם בגופו. Keitzad? So now the Rambam tells us, gives us the example of what the middle path, what the mean is between the extremes that he mentioned before. לא יהא בעל חמה נוח לכעוס. He shouldn't have a terrible temper, easily angered. ולא כמת שאינו מרגיש. He shouldn't be so apathetic that he's like a dead person, ela beinoni. What does it mean to be a beinoni in this area? לא יכעס אלא על דבר גדול שראוי לכעוס עליו כדי שלא ייעשה כיוצא בו פעם אחרת.
That he should have the capacity to display anger but only about something major and that the purpose of his display of anger is to prevent a similar happening. וכן לא יתאווה אלא לדברים שהגוף צריך להם. A person shouldn't be a hedonist. He shouldn't go to the extreme of having no no desire or capacity for material things, but he should want what he needs. לדברים שהגוף צריך להם. It's very interesting, very interesting. There's a little sefer on Shemonah Prokim. The Rambam has this, the Rambam discusses this in Perek Dalet of Shemonah Prokim as well. Shemonah Prokim is the Rambam's hakdomah to the Peirush Hamishnayos in Pirkei Avos. I'll let you guess how many perokim the hakdomah consists of. Those who get the answer wrong should see the chairman of the math department. And the Rambam there also discusses the idea that you have to go bederech habeinonis, bederech habeinonis. And he has a similar again description of how some people have terrible tempers and some people just there's nothing that upsets them, nothing that riles them. So there's a little sefer on Shemonah Prokim from Rabbi Charlap's grandfather, Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap, and his seforim are called Mei Marom. So there's one on Shemonah Prokim. Very interesting sefer. Very interesting sefer. Sort of a peirush more inclined to Kabbalah on Shemonah Prokim. Very interesting sefer. Al kol panim, so he has a very, very interesting he'arah here about Halacha Aleph. He says you'll notice how the Rambam describes that the Rambam doesn't describe anyone as being naturally on the mean, right? The Rambam says that some people, right, in Halacha Bet he tells you where people got these de'os from. So he said that some of them, right, lechol hade'os, the second line in Halacha Bet, the Rambam said יש מהן דעה שהיא לאדם מתחלת ברייתו לפי טבע גופו,
right? It's, we'd say, a genetic predisposition, a genetic inclination. ויש מהן דעה שטבעו של אדם זה מכוון ועושה לקבל אותם במהרה יותר משאר דעות.
So one is a genetic tendency and the other is maybe, again, not so much a tendency, but more of just an inclination, a weaker one. He says others are acquired. So the Rambam, meaning in Halacha Aleph, that some of these things in Halacha Aleph, that's the way a person is naturally. So it's very interesting, as the Rambam, this is what Rav Charlap commented on, the Rambam doesn't describe anyone as being naturally mitechilas beriyaso on the derech habeinonis. Right? The Rambam should have, it would have made more sense for the Rambam to say יש אדם שהוא בעל חמה כבד תמיד, יש אדם שדעתו מיושבת עליו אינו כועס כלל, ויש אדם שכועס רק על דברים גדולים.
No? So the Rambam doesn't mention that in Halacha Aleph and then he waits until Halacha Gimmel until he tells you where it is that you're supposed to consciously put yourself, right? When the Rambam tells you where you're supposed to consciously direct yourself, what it is, the idea that you're supposed to achieve, so then the Rambam says that this is what your, this is where you're supposed to be, right? When he tells you where people might be naturally, so he tells you naturally a person can be on one, one end of the spectrum, can be a ba'al cheimah, or naturally a person may be on the other end of the spectrum, or naturally he may not have any, any inclination, predisposition, but he doesn't describe, he doesn't give an example of a person being on the derech habeinonis naturally. So the clear implication is that that's not the case, is that all of us mitechilas beriyasenu, if we have an inclination, that inclination is off-center, to either, to which which side off-center, okay, that that varies from individual to individual, but no one, no one has the comfort in terms of tikkun hamiddos of saying, "I just need to maintain the instinct I have when it comes to anger. I just need to maintain the instinct I have when it comes to being involved with devarim gashmiyim, whether it's eating or drinking or whether it's having money." I just need to, to trust my natural instinct from birth. No. The Rambam says no one's instinct is perfectly on target. Everyone's, the Rambam doesn't necessarily mean that everyone's is all the way to, all the way to one extreme or the other, but he does clearly mean he doesn't describe in Halacha Aleph he should have given you a third when, again, when he's describing how people are. I'm telling you that without conscious effort to again, which begins with awareness of this goal, and then number two, again, conscious and consistent effort to achieve that goal, no one's going to be on that Derekh HaBenonit. It's a very very important Halakha. And that's what the Rambam says in Halakha Zayin, כיצד ירגיל אדם עצמו בדעות אלו עד שיקבעו בו. How does a person, how does a person achieve the goal that these de'os benoniyos should be internalized? יעשה וישנה וישלש במעשים שעשה על פי הדעות האמצעיות ויחזור בהם תמיד עד שיהיו מעשיהם קלים עליו.
That a person only develops the correct instinct by consciously doing it, right? If a person consciously regulates his responses, he thinks, should I grow angry, shouldn't I grow angry, he does that time and time again, so then and only then will he have within himself that he'll naturally react or respond correctly, but otherwise he's not going to have it. Mit-techilas bi'aso, a person is not going to have the perfect balance between tolerance and a quick temper. A person doesn't have it. Okay. So in Halakha Dalet, the Rambam goes on and gives you various examples of what the what the middle path is. Halakha Hei, we'll most of Halakha Hei we'll probably discuss next time, not this time. Then the Rambam concludes, seems to be just in terms of where the Halakha's divided. So I think some, I think some say that it's a mistake that what we have in the standard d'fus is a mistake. When you read Halakha Hei and Halakha Vav together, it seems quite clear that Halakha Vav should begin a line earlier. מצווים אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינונים. You'll see because that last line has to do with Halakha Vav and has nothing to do with Halakha Hei. So let's read Halakha Vav assuming it begins a line earlier. ומצווים אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינונים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים שנאמר והלכת בדרכיו.
So now the Rambam comes and he identifies this, this shita, right? This doctrine of going on that middle path. So the Rambam identifies that with the mitzvah of Ve-halakhta bi-drakhav. כך למדו בפירוש מצוה זו and he quotes the Chazal. מה הוא נקרא חנון אף אתה היה חנון. מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום. מה הוא נקרא קדוש אף אתה היה קדוש.
So something very difficult here. Where does the Rambam see that Ve-halakhta bi-drakhav means this middle path? I don't know, maybe Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu is Rachum ve-Chanun to an extreme. Maybe he's, maybe all of these things mean to an extreme. How is the Rambam, the Rambam claims that there's an equation, right? That this whole shita which the Rambam has been outlining in the first five, first four Halakhas of Hilkhos De'os, of the derekh ha-beinoinis, of the mean is identical with the mitzvah of Ve-halakhta bi-drakhav. And what does he tell you? That Ve-halakhta bi-drakhav is מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום. I don't know. So what does Rachmanus mean? Maybe Rachmanus means to an extreme. How do you know that it means, how do you know that it means with balance? How do you know that it indicates this middle path? So to say, because to go to an extreme is a chisaron, so al karkhakha the דרכי הקדוש ברוך הוא can't be that way, is circular, right? So avcha k'avtzasa, sort of like the proof that you have to wear a yarmulke, right? Va-yisa Ya'akov raglav, Ya'akov Avinu teitsh, Ya'akov used to walk around. Think he'd walk around without a yarmulke? Obviously you have to wear a yarmulke. So if you accept that, then you're going to accept this also, but if you're skeptical about that mofes, so what does it mean? So lekhora, lekhora... A little a little intricate, but let's try to simplify it for our madreiga. Take a look at the end of Perek Aleph in Yesodei HaTorah. Rambam Halacha Yud Beis, proving and summarizing what he's been saying in the previous two halachos, quotes a pasuk from Malachi, אני ה' לא שניתי. Hakadosh Baruch Hu says, I don't change. I don't change. So what does that mean? So what that means is as follows. So the Rambam explains what that means is this: A person, a human being, his moods fluctuate. In a good mood, in a bad mood, we're hurt, we're not hurt, the fluctuation of moods. By Hakadosh Baruch Hu, every Hakadosh Baruch Hu acts differently under different circumstances depending upon what reaction we elicit from Him. But it's not that that, again, this is just on the simplest level, it's not that He changes. Imagine, I think the moshal that's helpful is this: Imagine you had a parent who could control his or her emotions so well that the child comes home and got a hundred on on his Chumash test. So the child gets a hug and gets chizuk and encouragement, etcetera. And the child runs into the street after a ball without looking, so the child is disciplined. And you do what's necessary, you yell at the child to impress upon him that that can never be done again. So imagine that someone could retain the equilibrium that even though different reactions were demanded and elicited, but it doesn't mean that the parent was feeling any less love for the child when he was disciplining the child than when the child came home with a hundred. But it's just that the parent recognizes, no, that same mix that I have of loving my child but realizing that my child needs to be disciplined, so that mix is constant, right? I'm not changing. I'm not being inconsistent. I'm not even changing. Again, we don't do that, right? When the child comes home with a hundred, so we do change, we do fluctuate. It's not just that we realize that we have to respond differently, but we also do change. We also do change. But imagine that you had a parent who was superhuman and the parent maintained his or her equilibrium and the only thing that was different was the response because a different response was elicited because the child running out into the street or reaching to touch the burner on the stove elicits one response and getting the hundred on the Chumash test elicits another response. But that mix of love, of determination to give the proper guidance and discipline to the child is totally, totally constant and that equilibrium is not affected at all. It's obviously more than this but I think if we have that understanding that's enough for our purposes so the Rambam says that's the way it is by Hakadosh Baruch Hu. אני ה' לא שניתי. אני ה' לא שניתי. This kind of mood fluctuation or swing right which we have that doesn't exist by Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That kind of mood fluctuation. So now it's like this: How can it be that the Torah tells us contradictory things? The Torah tells us seemingly contradictory things about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We're told Kel Kana that Hashem is a Kel Kana. So many pesukim in Chumash Kel Kana. We're told Hashem Hashem is Kel Rachum v'Chanun. Good. So the answer is sometimes he's rachum, sometimes he's kana? No, that can't be. אני ה' לא שניתי. That can't be. Rachmanos it's not you can't say that. אני ה' לא שניתי. So what does it mean? It means that all of this coexists simultaneously in Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That all of this Kel Kana, Kel Nekamos Hashem, right, Middas Hadin, all of this coexists simultaneously with the י"ג מידות הרחמים, with ה' ה' אל רחום וחנון. How can it coexist? How does the midda of Kel Kana coexist with Rachum v'Chanun, ארך אפים ורב חסד? How does Kel Nekamos Hashem, how does that midda coexist? The answer is that clearly within Hakadosh Baruch Hu that all these middos are so perfectly balanced and harmonized that they do coexist. That there is perfect harmony and balance between these middos and that's how the middos can coexist. Once you understand that that Tanach tells us about different middos of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and in light of what the Rambam tells us in Perek Aleph of אני ה' לא שניתי, so al korchacha how are we supposed to understand it? That those middos coexist simultaneously. So what that means is again that they coexist in harmony. They coexist in harmony. The only way Rachum v'Chanun can coexist harmoniously with Kel Kana, with Kel Nekamos Hashem, is if they're balanced. So that means that דרכי הקדוש ברוך הוא are balanced. That's what the Rambam says that these derachim habeinoniyim is what the Torah is commanding when the Torah says vehalachta bidrachav. That's why you'll see something else in Shemonah Perakim. In Perek Daled which is the perek where he talks about these inyanim. So the Rambam describes people who in his opinion foolishly, ignorantly, do not live by this doctrine, this philosophy, or the Rambam would say this halacha of the derech habeinonus. And they go out and they live in caves and they wear sackcloth and they wander around in deserts. And he says זו התורה השלמה המשלמת אותנו כמו שהעיד עליה יודע תורת ה' תמימה מחכימת פתי משיבת נפש לא ציותה בשום דבר מזה.
Torah doesn't want any of this. והרצון שיהיה האדם טבעי הולך בדרך הממוצעת. Again hamemutza'as right middle path. what Dovid HaMelech says in Tehillim that תורת ה' תמימה מחכימת פתי. Why is the Rambam quoting the pasuk here? So it's quite clear that the Rambam's telling us that the correct understanding of what he describes here and then in Hilchos De'os of the derech habeinonis isn't that a person compromises. It's not that a person is striking the compromise between the two extremes, but rather what the derech habeinonis represents is blending the two, is harmonizing the two, and that it's a form of tmimus. And that's what he says, zu haTorah. Why didn't he just say haTorah lo ratsasah, התורה לא צותה שום דבר מזה? No, zu haTorah hashleimah, Toras temimah. And what is it given to us for? To make us tmimim, hamashleimas osanu, לא רצתה התורה ולא צותה בשום דבר מזה. So it's quite clear again that what he's saying between the lines or in the lines, again, is that this middle path again is not a question of sort of compromising, but rather is a way of encompassing everything, meaning that there is an occasion—this we'll have to talk a little bit more next week, there's a stirah—but based on what we read this week, there is an occasion for kaas. There is an occasion, so there is a midah of kaas which should be there. But there's also a midah of forbearance, of tolerance. So how is a person a tamim when he's able to strike the balance between the two? And that the Rambam says is veholachto bidrachav, because since you know אני ה' לא שניתי, so what it means is that HaKadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have these, where one day in a good mood, one day in a bad mood, HaKadosh Baruch Hu, no, HaKadosh Baruch Hu, HaKadosh Baruch Hu again, there exists an equilibrium, so that means that all the drachim must be drachim beinoni, in other words, to be shleimim.