Transcript

Let's see the beginning of Halacha Alef in Perek Dalet. Po

והיות הגוף בריא ושלם מדרכי השם שהרי אי אפשר שיבין או ידע והוא חולה. צריך אדם להרחיק עצמו מדברים המאבדין את הגוף ולהנהיג עצמו בדברים המברין והמחלימין.

And then the Rambam continues v'eleihen. Okay, so some of this we understand. The reality is that if a person doesn't feel well, if a person's in pain, it impairs his ability to concentrate, it diminishes his mental capacity. So we all know that from experience. Given this mitzius, it tka does follow that a person ought to, to the extent that it's biyado, avoid getting sick, avoid situations where or conditions developing that will result in his experiencing pain. That's also clear. But the Rambam insists that it's midarchei hashem. Midarchei hashem means that it's vehalachta bidrachav, and that's why I'm talking about it, the Rambam says in Hilchos De'os. That's why the Rambam proceeds to give us dietary advice in Hilchos De'os. So it's not only that this is a chiyuv, which we understand. That's grasped easily enough. No, it's Hilchos De'os. And even Hilchos De'os we could have and would have understood if the Rambam would have framed his argument differently. If the Rambam would have said that Hilchos De'os is about being balanced, and that means being balanced in matters of diet as well. So now I'm going to tell you how to be balanced in dietary matters. But he doesn't say it that way either. He skips over that and just says, no, since אי אפשר שיבין או ידע והוא חולה, that's why it's midarchei hashem. That's why it's vehalachta bidrachav. So how does this follow? How does this integrate into darchei hashem? When we learn פרק א' הלכות דעות, so we walk away understandably with the understanding that darchei hashem is when a person's actions are balanced, are measured. We don't walk away with the understanding from Perek Alef that anything good or noble that you do is darchei hashem. If the Rambam would have said that in Perek Alef, so we would have understood that, but he didn't say that in Perek Alef, right? He said the balance, measured. And here the Rambam says, well, since it's a good thing, since it's an important thing, since it's a necessary thing, it's midarchei hashem, without a... So itachen as follows. Again, this is- it needs an introduction to the idea. What we saw yesterday in halacha gimmel, rewinding to perek gimmel, halacha gimmel:

המנהיג עצמו על פי הרפואה אם שם על לבו שיהיה כל גופו ואיבריו שלמים וחזקים בלבד ושיהיה לו בנים עושין מלאכתו ועמלים לצרכו אין זו דרך טובה.

So as we understood yesterday, אין זו דרך טובה isn't stam a sort of dismissal be'alma, but it means it's bitul mitzvas d'oraisa because in perek aleph the Rambam said that the ve-halachta bi-drachav is dafka the tovim vehayesharim. So it's clear that when he says אין זו דרך טובה here, he doesn't mean just stam this isn't the right thing. He means that the balance notwithstanding, af gam that the person has the exact proper balance, he follows all the recommendations as to how much time you should spend exercising and what type of exercise you need to do vechulu. So he couldn't be more balanced than that. If he's not doing it for the right ultimate purpose or goal, it's not ve-halachta bi-drachav. Not just that it's lacking in ve-halachta bi-drachav, it isn't. It isn't. אין זו דרך טובה. So again, how did the Rambam lay the- again that keshe'atzmo we could understand this keshe'atzmo also. But how did the Rambam lay the foundation for that in perek aleph? How does all this connect and follow from perek aleph? It just seems to be, I don't know, a different take, a different understanding. So lich'ora as follows. Again, this is the hakdama. Back in perek aleph we understood that the correct havana, again within perek aleph of the midah beinonit is not that a person is supposed to be a five. If one depicts the two extremes as zero and ten, it's not that a person is supposed to be a five. But rather a person should be sholeit that neither the midah of zero, by illustration apathy, neither the midah of ten, by illustration being a baal kaas, that he shouldn't be enslaved by either of those passions, by either of those, but rather he should be sholeit. Ruba d'ruba d'ruba, what that means is, practically it will express itself as a five, but we saw by the example the Rambam gave of kaas that that's not what the definition is. The definition is not that he's a five, the definition is that he has this shlita. Which is why in the instance of kaas, the way the Rambam illustrates the midah beinonit is not that he reacts with an emotional reaction of a five. No, he taka does get angry, again leaving aside the stira to perek bet. He taka does get angry, but only על דבר גדול שראוי לכעוס עליו, and even then his kaas is intended שלא יעשה כיוצא בו פעם אחרת. Now itachen that the the the a little bit of the omek hapshat here is as follows. The Rambam writes in Perek Aleph of Yesodei HaTorah and the Rambam elsewhere says that everyone is mechuyav to know this to have proper emunah. This isn't something which is for the Rabbi Akivas and the Rambams and the Rav Chaims of the world, but this is for everyone. This is for everyone of us. Hakadosh Baruch Hu exists in an in a permanent unchanging state of perfection. Right? We're always changing, we're always affected by things. There are things that make us happy, there are things that make us sad. There are things that make us tired, there are things that energize us. There are things that interest us, there are things that bore us. We we change and as a result stimuli affect us and and we change we change in response. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu there's no hipalus. Again hipalus means being acted upon to change. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is in a state of perfection. Again we see Hakadosh Baruch Hu in different ways because depending upon what what the correct reaction is that we elicit from Him, so we see Hakadosh Baruch Hu as a melech rachaman. We see Hakadosh Baruch Hu as being dan and and being nokem, but not because there's any change in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not because He's because He's emotionally affected or acted upon but just because in His in His perfection different situations warrant different courses of action, different different responses. Obviously the degree the infinite degree to to which this is true of Hakadosh Baruch Hu can never be true of a person. But that having been said, ultimately the real kiyum of vehalachta bidrachav is that a person as much as possible doesn't react just because he's out of emotion where he's again sort of just being acted upon but a person acts in a way that's that's calibrated to do what's right. So if if the parent is disciplining the child, it's not because the parent is angered by the fact that the child is not listening to him. No, the parent I mean that is what happens an awful lot of the time, that is what one sees an awful lot of the time and that's not parenting and that's not not what's supposed to be happening. If the parent is disciplining the child, it should be because the parent is is making a calm composed judgment that this is necessary and this is what's best for the child's chinuch, not out of frustration that the that the parent is not being listened to. As much as possible to lead with sechel as opposed to being just Leading with emotion is the way we follow בדרכי הקדוש ברוך הוא by whom there is no hipaalos. And again, that's what underlies—again, we said that the use of the Rambam's example by ka'as, and that's the very first illustration he gives, and this is why it's the very first illustration, that really V'halachta Bidrachav means that a person is not a five but that he is sholeit on both the zero and the 10, and as circumstances warrant, he acts accordingly. That's why when a person is a five in acts, and let's say when it comes to achilah v'shtiyah, so 99% of the time he acts with a five. On Yom Tov he eats more than he does otherwise because it's a mitzvah. And on Yom Kippur he doesn't eat at all, and he has the capacity to do that because it's not that he's a five. No, he's sholeit. That's really what the full kiyum of V'halachta Bidrachav is. And again, the a little bit of the omek hadavar is because—well—so, one more step here, rabosai. If a person reacts emotionally, so I understand: why is he angry now? Because this is something that annoys him, that frustrates him, that provokes him. If he doesn't react, but again, but it's an emotional lack of reaction, so I understand: what determines that? No, because b'teva he's an apathetic person. That's just his comfort zone is not to react. But if a person is not being dictated to by that, so then what does determine? What—so then there's a vacuum here, right? Kol zman that I'm guided by my emotions, by my yetzarim, by my drives, by my impulses, okay, so there's an engine that's driving and that's going to chart the path. But if you remove that, so then there's a void here. So what fills the void? So again, we asked in Perek Gimmel when the Rambam says that even though a person is being so balanced and so disciplined in terms of diet, in terms of exercise, in terms of everything, if he's not doing it for the right toeles, it's not V'halachta Bidrachav. Again, V'halachta Bidrachav is בדרכי הקדוש ברוך הוא. HaKadosh Baruch Hu doesn't act mitoch hipaalos. HaKadosh Baruch Hu doesn't act when he's meracheim on us because we tugged at his heartstrings. But he acts out of doing what's right. So that means that the ultimate kiyum of V'halachta Bidrachav has to include what our goal is in what we're doing, not just what we're doing. So mimeila in Perek Gimmel, Halacha Gimmel, when the Rambam says that

המנהיג עצמו על פי הרפואות שמה לבו שיהיה כל גופו ואיבריו שלמים וחזקים

though he's a five, couldn't be more of a five, mamish bullseye five, אבל אף על פי כן אין זו דרך טובה, because basically he's substituting instead of—okay, so someone else, so he's driven by he wants pleasure out of his eating, so that's why he's not disciplined in his eating, and someone else is too lazy to exercise, so he's driven by that, and he wants to be a bodybuilder, so how is that better? How is that more of a how how is that he wants to feel good? That's not more of V'halachta Bidrachav. The fact that he's a five doesn't make it more of ve-halachta bi-drachov than the guy who's the zero or the 10. And the דרכי הקדוש ברוך הוא are not mi-toch hipaalus, but rather mi-toch what's right, what's good. So so too we, again, obviously without failing, obviously recognizing the infinite gap between what it means on on our level and what it means ba-kadosh baruch hu without losing sight of of that infinite gap. So for us, ve-halachta bi-drachov is yes, it means measured, disciplined, but measured and disciplined therefore for what's right. And that's exactly what the Rambam says here in Perek Dalet as well.

היות כל היות הגוף בריא ושלם מדרכי השם הוא אי אפשר שיבין או יידע והוא חולה

so then mi-meila, that makes it mi-darchei hashem. Practically and and phenomenologically 99% of the time, the the ve-halachta bi-drachov means to act with the five. That's what it means practically and and if you're sort of looking on the surface, right? That's what it means phenomenologically, right? You're looking at the phenomenon. It's a five. But in terms of what it represents, what it represents is instead of acting mi-toch hipaalus. The hipaalus can be I I like this. Again, I like it on a on an emotional level not not something which reflects, you know, which is born out of reflection and and and thoughtfulness. What what the yesod ha-davar is again that a person instead of acting mi-toch hipaalus, I like this, I don't like that, I want to do this, I don't want to do this, instead of acting mi-toch ha-yetzer that a person acts mi-toch mi-toch what? So what what what takes the place of that? mi-toch what's right. Maybe, I'm not sure. Again, all of this needs to be carefully thought thought through and and reviewed and presumably somewhat tweaked. But in Perek Alef, so the Rambam again more than once, but but I guess maybe most conspicuously at the end of Halacha Heh,

מצווים אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינוניים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים

the Rambam has two two adjectives that probably should be understood, you know, ke-ilu that it's even hyphenated maybe, tovim ve-yesharim. To say that it's yashar doesn't sufficiently capture, to say that it's tov doesn't isn't adequate. You need that combination. So maybe the pshat is as follows: What what's the the what what image does yashar evoke? So yashar evokes the following imagery: So imagine you're you're in a lake on in a rowboat and and you want to steer a course that's straight. So what that means is that you don't want to be pulled in either direction. That's what yashar represents, right? yashar represents to go straight on the lake, so it means that you're not going to let a current pull you in the northerly direction, you're not going to let the current pull you in the southerly direction, when you row you're going to exert equal force. your right side and your left side, so you're not being pulled in either direction. So that captures again that the person is not being ruled over by the mida of kaas, he's not being ruled over by the mida of apathy, he's not being ruled over by a hedonistic impulse, he's not being ruled over by an ascetic impulse. But then what is he being ruled over by? What substitutes for being guided by what's pleasurable, what's enjoyable, what's desirable? So tov is what substitutes for that. Maybe that's the pshat. Okay, we'll stop here for now.