Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 3

Sugya Map

The Rambam, in Hilchot De'ot 3:1-3, lays out a foundational principle regarding the derech ha'emtza'i and the proper approach to worldly engagement. This sugya grapples with the Jewish perspective on asceticism, contrasting it sharply with the ideal of sanctifying mundane life.

• Issue: The Rambam's categorical condemnation of excessive asceticism (פרישות יתירה) and self-mortification (סיגוף עצמו), even labeling a Nazir as a choteh (sinner). This raises questions about the scope and limits of self-discipline in Jewish thought.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The halachic status of voluntary fasts and vows for purposes other than teshuva or kabalat mitzvah.
  • The definition of choteh in the context of Nazir, and whether it applies to a Nazir Tahor (pure Nazir).
  • The proper kavanah (intention) for all physical and worldly activities, from eating to procreation.
  • The overarching pedagogical principle of integrating physical and spiritual life versus retreating from the material world.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De'ot 3:1-3
  • Bamidbar 6:11 (regarding Nazir's korban chatat)
  • Kohelet 7:16 ("אַל תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה וְאַל תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר לָמָּה תִּשּׁוֹמֵם")
  • Mishlei 3:6 ("בְּכָל דְּרָכֶיךָ דָעֵהוּ")
  • Avot 2:15 ("וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יִהְיוּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם")
  • Taanit 11a (discussion of choteh for fasting)
  • Nedarim 10a (R' Elazar HaKappar's view as a shita)
  • Nazir 3a, 19a (discussion of Nazir Tahor as choteh)
  • Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:1, Kiddushin 4:12, Berachot 2:7 (on forbidding permitted things and hedyot)

Text Snapshot

The focal point of our sugya is the Rambam's unequivocal stance against excessive asceticism, articulated in Hilchot De'ot 3:1:

שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר הָאָדָם, הוֹאִיל וְהַקִּנְאָה וְהַתַּאֲוָה וְהַכָּבוֹד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן דֶּרֶךְ רָעָה הֵן וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת אָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם, אֶפָּרֵק מֵהֶם לְהַרְבֵּה הַרְבֵּה וְאֵרָחֵק לַקָּצֶה הָאַחֵר. כֵּיצַד? לֹא יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, וְלֹא יֵשֵׁב בְּבַיִת נָאָה, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ בְּגָדִים נָאִים, אֶלָּא שַׂק וְצֶמֶר גַּס וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּכוֹהֲנֵי הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים. גַּם זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ רָעָה הִיא, וְאָסוּר לוֹ לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ. וְכָל הַמַּהֲלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, נִקְרָא חַטָּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּנָזִיר: "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ" (במדבר ו, יא). וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: וּמַה אִם נָזִיר שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרַשׁ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה, קַל וָחֹמֶר לְמִי שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ מִכָּל דָּבָר. וְאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת.

The Rambam here condemns extreme asceticism, citing the Nazir as a choteh (Bamidbar 6:11) and quoting the Sages (Ta'anit 11a) that if a Nazir who abstains only from wine is a sinner, how much more so one who abstains from everything. He concludes by stating that "Our Sages forbade a man from mortifying himself through fasting" (וְאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת). The phrase "כְּכוֹהֲנֵי הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים" (like priests of idolaters) is particularly sharp, with some manuscripts reading "כּוֹהֲנֵי אֱדוֹם" (Roman priests), likely referring to Christian monastic orders, underscoring the Rambam's view of such practices as foreign to Judaism. The term "מְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ" (mortifying himself) is key, implying an extreme and detrimental form of self-deprivation, not merely self-control.

Readings

Lechem Mishneh (LM) – Critique of Rambam's Halachic Basis

The Lechem Mishneh (LM) launches a robust critique against the Rambam's categorical ruling. His primary kushya revolves around the Gemara's discussion in Nedarim 10a, where the view of R' Elazar HaKappar that a Nazir is a choteh is presented as a shita (a minority opinion). The Gemara states, "שמעון הצדיק ורבי אלעזר הקפר דבר אחד אמרו," indicating a shared, yet possibly individual, opinion. The LM, citing the Rashba (Responsa 431), questions how the Rambam can pasken (rule) according to R' Elazar HaKappar when the general rule is אין הלכה כשיטה (halacha is not according to a minority opinion). Furthermore, he notes that Abaye is the one who presents this shita, and halacha k'Abaye where Abaye and Rava argue. Thus, if Abaye's statement implies that R' Elazar HaKappar's view is a shita, how can Rambam adopt it as normative halacha?

The LM further challenges Rambam on the prohibition of fasting. He points to Ta'anit 11a, where Shmuel states, "כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא," which the Gemara understands as following R' Elazar HaKappar. However, the Tosafot there reconcile Shmuel's statements by positing that there is a mitzvah in fasting, but also an aveirah in distressing oneself, with the mitzvah outweighing the aveirah (similar to Ta'anit Chalom on Shabbat). This reconciliation is predicated on the notion that fasting can indeed be a mitzvah. The LM argues that if Rambam prohibits fasting altogether as an isur gamur with no mitzvah component, then the Tosafot's reconciliation for Shmuel's apparent contradiction falls apart. Moreover, the LM raises a kushya from Bava Kama 91b, where R' Elazar HaKappar's view that "אין אדם רשאי לחבול בעצמו" (a person is not permitted to harm himself) is discussed. The LM implies that Rambam's stance here makes it difficult to reconcile with other Gemara sugyot which suggest a Nazir tahor is not a choteh (Nazir 3a).

Peri Chadash (PCh) – Defending Rambam's Halachic Consistency

The Peri Chadash takes on the Lechem Mishneh's critiques, striving to defend the Rambam's consistency and halachic methodology. Regarding the shita kushya, the PCh echoes the Rashba's response (Responsa 431), arguing that Rambam paskens not merely by R' Elazar HaKappar, but by Shmuel, who adopted this view. Since Shmuel is an Amora, halacha k'Amora in such a case, distinguishing it from a mere shita of a Tanna. The PCh adds a further defense: R' Akiva in Mishnah Nedarim also seems to hold that a Nazir is a choteh, and since no one argues with him in the Mishnah, his view is normative.

Concerning the apparent contradiction in Shmuel's statements on fasting (Ta'anit 11a vs. Bava Kama 91a), the PCh suggests that Shmuel's statement allowing fasting in Bava Kama was merely to resolve a baraita with a Mishnah, not necessarily his personal psak. He maintains that Shmuel personally held like R' Elazar HaKappar that fasting is problematic.

The PCh also addresses the kushya from Nazir 3a, which states that even R' Elazar HaKappar only considers a Nazir Tamei (impure Nazir) a choteh, but not a Nazir Tahor. The PCh argues that Rambam, in his Hilchot Chovel U'Mazik 5:1, explicitly states that "אסור לאדם לחבול בין בעצמו בין בחבירו" (it is forbidden for a person to harm himself or his fellow). This is an isur d'Oraita (Torah prohibition) derived from R' Elazar HaKappar's teaching. Thus, even a Nazir Tahor is considered a choteh by R' Elazar HaKappar due to the self-harm involved in abstaining from a permitted pleasure. The PCh tries to reconcile Rambam's Hilchot Shevuot 5:7, where he rules that a shevuah (oath) to harm oneself is binding, by arguing that this is not considered mushba v'omed m'Har Sinai (already sworn from Sinai) because the prohibition of self-harm, while d'Oraita, is not explicitly written in the Torah but derived via drasha.

Seder Mishnah (SM) – Nuance in Rambam's Condemnation

The Seder Mishnah (SM) offers the most comprehensive and nuanced defense of the Rambam, providing a deeper understanding of his intent. He argues that the Rambam's condemnation is not against any form of self-denial, but specifically against excessive or constant asceticism (סיגוף תמידי/מסגף עצמו) that impedes one's ability to serve God effectively.

The SM points out Rambam's specific language: "וּבַכְּלָל הַזֶּה אֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּתְעַנִּים תָּמִיד" (and included in this are those who fast constantly) and "וְאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת" (Our Sages forbade a man from mortifying himself through fasting). The word "תמיד" (constantly) and "מסגף עצמו" (mortifying himself) are crucial. Rambam is not prohibiting occasional fasting for teshuva or spiritual uplift, but rather a lifestyle of self-mortification that weakens the body and thus hinders the service of God, which requires a healthy body and mind. This aligns with Rambam's philosophy elsewhere (e.g., Shemoneh Perakim 5) where physical health is a means to spiritual ends.

Regarding the Nazir being a choteh, the SM suggests that the Gemara's distinction in Ta'anit 11a between מצי לצעורי נפשיה (one who can distress himself) and לא מצי לצעורי נפשיה (one who cannot distress himself) is central to Rambam's view. A Nazir, by making a vow for an extended period, might fall into the latter category, making it a choteh because it potentially undermines his well-being. The SM argues that the Gemara in Nazir 3a, which states that even R' Elazar HaKappar agrees a Nazir Tahor is not a choteh, is to be understood in a specific context where the Nazir initially makes his vow with careful self-assessment (umed nafshie) for a period he can maintain without undue suffering. However, if he becomes tamei and his nezirut is prolonged beyond his initial capacity, then he does become a choteh. This aligns with the idea that constant or excessive self-mortification is the problem.

The SM reconciles the kushya from Hilchot Nedarim 13:23, where Rambam praises one who vows for tiqqun hamidot, by explaining that such vows are means to an end (ethical improvement), not an end in themselves (asceticism l'shma). This nuanced approach resolves many of the LM's difficulties by highlighting the Rambam's consistent emphasis on moderation and instrumentalism in physical activities, all directed towards yediat Hashem.

Friction

The Grand Kushya: Rambam's "Sinner" and the Gemara's Nuance

The most potent kushya against the Rambam, primarily articulated by the Lechem Mishneh, lies in his categorical assertion that a Nazir is a choteh, and that fasting is broadly forbidden as isur gamur. This seems to fly in the face of several Gemara passages:

1. Nedarim 10a / Ta'anit 11a: The Gemara presents R' Elazar HaKappar's view that a Nazir is a choteh as a shita (minority opinion). If so, how can the Rambam pasken according to a shita? Moreover, the Tosafot in Ta'anit 11a reconcile Shmuel's seemingly contradictory statements on fasting (calling a faster choteh vs. permitting fasting) by stating that there's a mitzvah aspect that outweighs the aveirah of self-distress. Rambam's psak of isur gamur for fasting effectively negates this Tosafot's terutz.
2. Nazir 3a / 19a: The Gemara explicitly states that even R' Elazar HaKappar only considers a Nazir Tamei (impure Nazir) a choteh because his nezirut is prolonged, but a Nazir Tahor (pure Nazir) is not a choteh. Rambam appears to disregard this critical distinction.
3. Hilchot Nedarim 13:23: Rambam himself praises one who takes a vow to "stabilize his temperaments and correct his deeds." This appears to contradict the general condemnation of vows and asceticism in De'ot 3:1.

These kushyot paint a picture of internal inconsistency within Rambam's work and a departure from standard Gemara interpretations, suggesting a halachic psak against the established sugya.

The Best Terutz: The Seder Mishnah's Nuanced Reading

The most compelling resolution to these difficulties is offered by the Seder Mishnah, which hinges on a precise reading of Rambam's language and his overarching philosophical framework. The terutz has two main thrusts:

1. "מסגף עצמו" and "תמיד": The Rambam's prohibition is not against all forms of self-denial or occasional fasting, but specifically against excessive and constant self-mortification that weakens the body and thereby hinders Avodat Hashem. The phrasing "וּבַכְּלָל הַזֶּה אֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּתְעַנִּים תָּמִיד" (and included in this are those who fast constantly) is key. The Seder Mishnah emphasizes that constant fasting inherently falls under the category of "לא מצי לצעורי נפשיה" (cannot distress oneself) for a human being, making it detrimental. This aligns with the Gemara's concluding psak in Ta'anit 11a, which distinguishes between those who can and cannot distress themselves. Thus, Rambam does follow the Gemara's conclusion, applying the "sinner" label to those whose asceticism is excessive and harmful to their capacity for Divine service. Occasional fasting for teshuva or tiqqun hamidot, which is not "מסגף עצמו," remains permissible and even laudable, as indicated in Hilchot Nedarim 13:23.

2. Nazir Tahor vs. Tamei: The Seder Mishnah reconciles the Nazir sugya by arguing that even R' Elazar HaKappar would agree that a Nazir Tahor is not a choteh if his vow was undertaken with proper self-assessment (umed nafshie) for a period he could sustain without excessive self-distress. However, if he becomes tamei, his nezirut is prolonged beyond his initial capacity, forcing him into a state of "לא מצי לצעורי נפשיה," thus making him a choteh. The Seder Mishnah further argues that the world at large might mistakenly consider a Nazir Tahor to be praiseworthy, but R' Elazar HaKappar (and Rambam following him) views even such self-deprivation as problematic per se if not for a higher purpose and within one's capacity. The Seder Mishnah also highlights the Gemara's nuanced use of "קרי ביה" (it is called) regarding the Nazir, implying that while a Nazir Tahor might not be explicitly called a choteh in the pasuk, the underlying principle of R' Elazar HaKappar would still view the self-deprivation as problematic. This interpretation brings Rambam into perfect harmony with the Gemara's distinctions, demonstrating his nuanced application of the halachic principles.

Intertext

The Rambam's discussion here is deeply interwoven with other foundational Jewish texts, reflecting a consistent philosophical approach.

Avot 2:15 – "וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יִהְיוּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם"

This Mishnah from R' Gamliel's son, R' Shimon, serves as the ethical bedrock for Rambam's entire Hilchot De'ot. The Rambam explicitly quotes it at the end of Hilchot De'ot 3:3. This statement is not merely a pious platitude but a radical reorientation of human existence. It means that every action, no matter how mundane – eating, sleeping, working, even intimate relations – can and should be elevated to Avodat Hashem (service of God) through proper kavanah. The condemnation of asceticism in De'ot 3:1 is a direct consequence of this principle: if one can serve God through the physical world, retreating from it for its own sake is counterproductive and misguided. Asceticism implies that the physical world is inherently impure or an obstacle; R' Shimon's teaching, and Rambam's application of it, asserts the opposite – the physical is a vehicle for Divine revelation. As the Rambam elaborates in Shemoneh Perakim 5, the purpose of maintaining physical health is "to prepare for the soul healthy and sound vessels to acquire wisdom and intellectual and emotional advantages until he reaches the goal of [knowing God]." This makes the physical realm an indispensable part of the spiritual journey, not an impediment.

Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nedarim 13:23

This internal cross-reference within the Mishneh Torah is crucial for understanding the nuance of Rambam's position on vows. While Hilchot De'ot 3:1 states that "Our Sages directed man to abstain only from those things which the Torah denies him and not to forbid himself permitted things by vows and oaths," Hilchot Nedarim 13:23 states: "כָּל הַנּוֹדֵר כְּדֵי לְיַשֵּׁב מִדּוֹתָיו וּלְתַקֵּן דְּרָכָיו, הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׁבָּח" (Whoever takes a vow in order to stabilize his temperaments and correct his deeds, is zealous and praiseworthy). This seemingly contradictory stance is resolved by the distinction between asceticism l'shma (for its own sake) and vows taken as a means to ethical self-improvement (tiqqun hamidot). The Seder Mishnah emphasizes this point. A vow to abstain from something harmful or distracting in order to better serve God falls into the category of tiqqun hamidot and is commendable. However, a vow to abstain from permitted things merely for the sake of deprivation, without a clear, healthy, and instrumental purpose, is what De'ot 3:1 condemns. The latter is "מסגף עצמו" and undermines the body's capacity for Avodat Hashem, while the former is a strategic tool for enhancing it.

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's framework in Hilchot De'ot 3:1-3 is not merely an abstract philosophical treatise but a profoundly practical guide that shapes Jewish halacha and hashkafa.

The Sanctification of the Mundane

The core psak is the rejection of asceticism as an ideal. Judaism does not advocate for withdrawal from the world but for its sanctification. This translates into a meta-psak heuristic that all permitted worldly activities – eating, drinking, working, marriage, and even rest – can and should be performed with the kavanah of l'shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven), as a means to serve God. This means one should eat to maintain health for Torah study and mitzvot, work to provide for one's family and community, and engage in marital relations for procreation and marital harmony, all as expressions of Divine service.

Health as a Religious Imperative

The Rambam elevates physical health to a religious imperative. "לְמַעַן יִהְיֶה גּוּפוֹ שָׁלֵם וְחָזָק, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נַפְשׁוֹ יְשָׁרָה לָדַעַת אֶת הַשֵּׁם" (in order for his body to be whole and strong, so that his inner soul will be upright to know God). This informs halachot related to diet, exercise, and medical care, viewing them not merely as secular pursuits but as integral to one's spiritual well-being and ability to perform mitzvot. Fasting or other forms of siguf that compromise health are therefore problematic, unless they are temporary and for a specific, higher purpose (like teshuva) that ultimately enhances one's Avodat Hashem.

Limits of Self-Discipline

While condemning excessive asceticism, the Rambam, especially when read through the Seder Mishnah's lens, does not prohibit all self-discipline. Vows and fasts for tiqqun hamidot (ethical improvement) are permissible and even praiseworthy (Hilchot Nedarim 13:23). The practical distinction lies in the intent and effect: Is the self-denial a healthy, temporary means to a spiritual end, or is it an end in itself that harms the body and thus impedes one's capacity for Avodat Hashem? This distinction guides poskim in evaluating individual fasts or other forms of self-imposed prishut.

Takeaway

The Rambam's derech in Hilchot De'ot emphasizes a vibrant, engaged Judaism that sanctifies the mundane through conscious intention, transforming all of life's activities into opportunities for Divine service. Excessive asceticism is rejected as a misguided path that paradoxically hinders the ultimate goal of knowing and serving God, underscoring the vital integration of body and soul in the pursuit of spiritual perfection.