Bruce Lee: Self-Actualization vs. Self-Image Actualization

The following is an excerpt from Bruce Lee's handwritten notes entitled "The Top Dog and the Underdog." The italics and bold are his (though he used capital letters instead of bold).

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Bruce Lee: Self-Actualization vs. Self-Image Actualization

If we examine the two clowns – the top dog and the underdog – that perform the self-torture game on the stage of our fantasy, then we usually find the two characters to be like this:

The Top Dog

The top dog usually is righteous and authoritarian; he knows best. He is sometimes right, but always righteous. The top dog is a bully and works with “you should” and “you should not.” The top dog manipulates with demands and threats of catastrophe, such as, “If you don’t ... then – you won’t be loved, you won’t get to heaven, you will die,” and so on.

The Underdog

The underdog manipulates with being defensive, apologetic, wheedling, playing the crybaby, and such. The underdog has no power. The underdog is Mickey Mouse. The top dog is the super-mouse. And the underdog works like this: “I try my best,” “Look, I try again and again. I can’t help it if I fail.” “I have such good intentions.” So you see the underdog is cunning, and he usually gets the better of the top dog because the underdog is not as primitive as the top dog. So the top dog and underdog strive for control. Like every parent and child, they strive with each other for control. The person is fragmented into controller and controlled. This inner conflict, the struggle between the top dog and underdog, is never complete, because the top dog as well as the underdog fights for his life.

This is the basis for the famous self-torture game. We usually take for granted that the top dog is right, and in many cases, the top dog makes impossible perfectionistic demands. So if you are cursed with perfectionism, then you’re absolutely sunk. This ideal is a yardstick which always gives you the opportunity to browbeat yourself, to berate yourself and others. Since this ideal is an impossibility, you can never live up to it. You are merely in love with this ideal, and there is no end to the self-torture, to the self-nagging, self-castigating. It hides under the mask of “self-improvement.” It never works.

If the person tries to meet the top dog’s demands of perfectionism, the result is a “nervous breakdown,” or flight into insanity. This is one of the tools of the underdog. Once we recognize the structure of our behavior, which in the case of self-improvement is the split between the top dog and the underdog, and understand how, by listening, we can bring about a reconciliation of these two fighting clowns, then we realize that we cannot deliberately bring about the changes in ourselves or in others.

This is a very decisive point: many people dedicate their lives to actualizing a concept of what they should be like, rather than actualizing themselves. This difference between self-actualizing and self-image actualizing is very important. Most people only live for their image.

Where some people have a self, most people have a void, because they are so busy projecting themselves as this or that. This is again the curse of the ideal. The curse is that you should not be what you are. Every external control, even internalized external control – “you should” – interferes with the healthy working of the organism. There is only one thing that should control the situation. If you understand the situation that you are in, and let the situation that you are in control your actions, then you learn how to cope with life. For example, you don’t drive according to the program, you drive according to the situation (same thing in combat). You drive a different speed when you are tired, when it’s raining, and so forth.

The less confident we are in ourselves, the less we are in touch with ourselves and the world, the more we want to control.

Bruce Lee: On Lefum Tzaara Agra

Originally published in July 2013.

This picture of Bruce Lee learning Pirkei Avos may or may not be Photoshopped.

Bruce Lee: On Lefum Tzaara Agra

Pirkei Avos concludes with an oft-quoted teaching of Ben Hei Hei: לפום צערא אגרא (lefum tazaara agra). Although some like to translate this as "according to the effort is the reward," a Hebrew speaker will readily note that this is a poor rendition. צערא (tzaara) is the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew word צער (tzaar) which means "pain" or "suffering." A more accurate translation of Bein Hei Hei's statement would be: "according to the pain is the reward" or "according to the suffering is the reward."

I've heard this statement thrown around quite often, usually as a way of saying, "All that matters is how hard you try!" or "No pain, no gain!" (which, funnily enough, the Wikipedia article traces back to our mishnah). While there may be some truth in these common sayings, I don't think this is what Ben Hei Hei was getting at.

My rabbeim taught me that whenever I learn anything, I should always try to arrive at my own understanding first, and only afterwards consult the meforshim (commentaries). In that spirit, I wanted to share my own pre-meforshim understanding of lefum tzaara agra. My idea was inspired by a quotation from my Jeet Kune Do rebbi: Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee taught: 

People have to grow by skillful frustrations – otherwise, they have no incentive to develop their own means and ways of coping with the world. 

We all have habits. The Rambam would call these "deos" or "character dispositions." Collectively, we refer to these habits as "our personality." By and large, these habits dictate our decision-making. When we find ourselves in unfamiliar situations, our habits influence the direction our minds go in deciding how to act. 

In order to perfect ourselves in any area of life, we must be willing to alter these habits. In order to change our habits, we must act contrary to them. Forcing ourselves to go against our habits may be painful and frustrating, but it is absolutely necessary for the sake of our development. The Rambam writes about this at length in the first and second chapters of Hilchos Deos.

The most painful habits to break are the ones which are rooted in what we value most. The more attached we are, the more painful it is to act against our habits. For example: dieting can be torturous for those who are accustomed to eating whatever they want, whenever they want; controlling one's temper can be extremely difficult for someone who is accustomed to unrestrained "venting"; keeping halacha can feel especially oppressive for those who were brought up living a non-halachic life. 

This is where Torah and mitzvos enter the picture. There is no area of our lives about which the Torah has nothing to say, whether in the derech ha'am or the derech ha'yachid. In every area of our lives, the Torah guides us away from our default habits and develops us in accordance with its objectives. 

So far, we have set forth three premises: (1) we are dominated by our habits; (2) acting contrary to our habits is painful; (3) the Torah compels us to act contrary to our habits for the sake of our development. Put it all together and we arrive at the following truth: Every major breakthrough in our Torah development will necessarily be accompanied by pain and frustration.

Think about it: how would it be possible to have a real breakthrough which doesn't run contrary to our habits, emotions, and personality? If someone claims to have had a breakthrough in Torah which is so in line with his or her present way of living and thinking that it doesn't cause any conflict, then I would seriously question the authenticity of this "breakthrough." 

The Rav writes about this phenomenon in "Footnote 4" of Halakhic Man:

Religion is not, at the outset, a refuge of grace and mercy for the despondent and desperate, an enchanted stream for crushed spirits, but a raging clamorous torrent of man’s consciousness with all its crises, pangs, and torments.Yes, it is true that during the third Sabbath meal at dusk, as the day of rest declines and man’s soul yearns for its Creator and is afraid to depart from that realm of holiness whose name is Sabbath, into the dark and frightening, secular workaday week, we sing the psalm, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters” (Ps. 23), etc., etc., and we believe with our entire hearts in the ultimate destination of the religious man, not the path leading to that destination. For the path that eventually will lead to the “green pastures” and to the “still waters” is not the royal road, but a narrow, twisting footway that threads its course along the steep mountain slope, as the terrible abyss yawns at the traveler’s feet.

Let us reexamine this idea in light of the aforementioned statement of Bruce Lee, which I will reiterate here: "People have to grow by skillful frustrations – otherwise, they have no incentive to develop their own means and ways of coping with the world." To borrow his terminology: the Torah spreads a 613-part layer of "skillful frustrations" over our lives, but instead of leaving us directionless to "develop our own means and ways of coping with the world" the "skillful frustrations" of Torah guide us towards human perfection in accordance with the wisdom of the Creator. 

This, I believe, is the meaning of lefum tzaara agra. Any* time we experience pain as a result of our progress in Torah, we can rest assured that the Torah regimen is doing its job: breaking our attachment to our detrimental habits and our default, emotional, fantasy-based view of reality and instilling within us beneficial habits while guiding us to a truer view of reality. 

According to this reading of our mishnah in Avos, lefum tzaara agra is not a prescriptive statement, but a descriptive statement. Ben Hei Hei isn't telling us, "You'd better power through the pain, because the more pain you endure, the more reward you'll get!" Rather, he's providing us with a useful perspective for monitoring our own development, saying, "If you are experiencing pain and frustration in your relationship with Torah, this isn't necessarily a bad thing! To the contrary, it is indicative of progress: the more pain you are experiencing, the more progress you are (potentially) making." This perspective can provide a much-needed jolt of motivation during those "spiritual crises, pangs, and torments" of which the Rav spoke.

This is how I imagine Bruce Lee would say, "Nice pshat!"

Well, that was my pre-meforshim interpretation of lefum tzaara agra. Do any meforshim learn this way? ... Not exactly. I have yet to see any meforshim on Avos itself who take even a remotely similar approach. The only leads I have found are the Meiri and the Rambam. The Meiri interprets agra (reward) here not as "reward" (as conventionally understood). Instead, he writes that agra refers to "the outcome [of our involvement in Torah], namely, the apprehension of the truth." Check out the rest of his commentary there. It's possible he's taking a similar approach, but I'm doubtful.

I am more optimistic about the Rambam. The Rambam brings down lefum tzaara agra in the sixth chapter of the Shemoneh Perakim in the context of chasid vs. kovesh es yitzro. Frankly, I don't have enough energy tonight to summarize his views and explain why I think my idea is on the same train of thought as his. Perhaps I'll do that in another post.

For now, let me know what you think of this idea. Specifically, let me know whether you think it is a good pshat, or whether it might be more of a drash, or whether it doesn't amount to either.

* Of course, this assumes that we are keeping Torah in the correct manner. It is certainly possible for a person to experience pain, conflict, and frustration based on a misunderstanding of Torah; this tzaara would not yield agra.

Angelic Advocates and Accusers

Originally posted in June 2012.

Preface

Sometimes I'll begin writing about a relatively localized idea, but as I write, I suddenly find many other yesodei ha'Torah being dragged along. This is one of those instances. Although it would have been possible to write the "chiddush" of this post in only a few paragraphs, I opted for the more expansive presentation. I found myself making reference to many halachos in the Rambam, and I decided to sacrifice brevity and quote them in full. 

I encourage you to read the entire post, but if you are short on time, read "The Facts" and "Questions and Clues," then skip to the section entitled, "The Main Idea."

The Facts

The first clause of the mishnah in Avos 4:11 states:

Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He who fulfills one mitzvah acquires for himself a single praklit (advocate), and one who violates one aveirah (transgression) acquires for himself a single kateygor (accuser). 

This begs for an explanation. Unfortunately, the commentators don't give us much to work with. Rambam simply defines the terms and leaves us to work out the rest on our own:

A "praklit" is a man who advocates for the good on behalf of a person in front of the king and intercedes on his behalf, and a "kateygor" is the opposite of this: someone who informs upon a person in front of the king and strives to destroy that person. 

For some, this mishnah immediately brings to mind imagery like this:

Artwork: Seraph of the Dawn, by Todd Lockwood

And perhaps like this:

Artwork: Abyssal Persecutor, by Chippy

Based on an informal survey of friends and students, it seems that this is one of those notions that is planted in the minds of Jewish children at an early age: that the performance of a mitzvah produces a good malach (angel) who intercedes before Hashem on our behalf, whereas the violation of an aveirah produces an "evil" malach who acts as a prosecutor who seeks to destroy us. Indeed, there are Rishonim who seem to learn our mishnah this way, including Rashi, Rashbatz, and R' Ovadyah Bertinoro. They translate "praklit" as "angelic advocate" and "kateygor" as "angelic accuser" and cite a pasuk in Iyov as support: "If there will be for someone but a single defending angel out of a thousand to declare a man's uprightness on his behalf" (33:23). 

On the surface, it would seem that the Rambam does not share this view. He doesn't mention angels in his commentary on the mishnah. Furthermore, when defining the terms "praklit" and "kateygor" he explicitly says "ish ha'meilitz" ("a human advocate"), as if to exclude the standard angelic interpretation. The Rambam seems to maintain that this mishnah is speaking allegorically, and that the allegory has nothing to do with angels. We will proceed on the basis of this assumption for the time being, and we will revisit it at the conclusion of this post.

Questions and Clues

The basic question is: What is the meaning of this metaphor? How do mitzvos and aveiros acquire these advocates and accusers on our behalf? In what manner do they advocate and accuse? Moreover, why should we care? Avos is a collection of teachings on the subjects of ethics and piety - not angelology and metaphysics. Even if we can manage to understand what the mishnah is saying, how are we to utilize its principles in our ethical development? The Rambam provided us with the first step, but he left us to decode the metaphor on our own.

We can start by making a simple observation: whatever Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov seeks to teach us in particular, the general import of his statement is to alter our perspective on mitzvos and aveiros. Had we not learned this mishnah, we would not naturally view mitzvos and aveiros as a means of acquiring advocates and accusers. Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov aims to provide us with a new way of looking the halacha we practice.

In order to understand and fully appreciate this paradigm shift, we must first understand how we are naturally inclined to view mitzvos and aveiros. I would like to suggest that there are three basic frameworks through which people relate to mitzvos and aveiros - all of which are identified and explained by the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah. (Heads up: we will discuss these out of order.)

#1: Yirah (Fear)

The first is the framework of avodah mi'yirah (serving God out of fear). The Rambam introduces this concept in Hilchos Teshuvah 10:1: 

A person should not say, “I will do the mitzvos of the Torah and involve myself in its wisdom in order to receive all of the blessings that are written in it,” or “in order that I will merit life in the World to Come,” and “I will separate myself from the transgressions about which the Torah warns us, in order to escape from the curses written in the Torah” or “so that I will not be cut off from the World to Come.” 

It is not proper to serve Hashem in this manner, for one who serves Hashem in this manner is an oveid mi’yirah (one who serves out of fear). This is neither a virtue of the prophets nor of the wise. The only ones who serve Hashem in this manner are the unlearned men, women, and children, whom we train to serve out of fear until their minds develop and they serve out of love.

According to the Rambam, the majority of Jews are naturally inclined to focus on the rewards of mitzvos and the punishments of aveiros. Their adherence to halacha is fueled by the expectation of some sort of recompense, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is the lowest level of mitzvah-observance.

#3: Ahavah (Love)

The highest level of mitzvah-observance is what is known as avodah me'ahavah (serving God out of love). The Rambam continues in Hilchos Tehsuvah 10:2:

One who is oveid me’ahavah (serves out of love) involves himself in Torah and mitzvos and walks on the paths of wisdom not because of anything in the world - neither out of fear of the bad nor out of a desire to inherit the good. Rather, he does what is true because it is true, and the good will come of its own accord. 

This is a very difficult level to attain, as is evident from the Rambam's description in the same chapter:

10:2 (continued) - This is an exceedingly high level, and not every wise man merits it. It is the level of Avraham Avinu, whom the Holy One, Blessed is He, described as his “beloved,” since he only served out of love. This is the level that the Holy One, Blessed is He, commanded us through Moshe Rabbeinu [to attain], as it is stated, “And you shall love Hashem, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources” (Devarim 6:5). And when a person loves Hashem with the proper love, he will immediately do all of the mitzvos out of love.  

10:3 - What is the proper [type of] love? That a person will love Hashem with a great, exceedingly powerful love to such a degree that his soul becomes bound up in love of Hashem, and is constantly immersed in it – like those who are lovesick, whose minds are not free from the love of that woman with whom he is constantly preoccupied: when he lies down and when he rises up, when he eats and when he drinks. Love of Hashem will be even more than this in the heart of those who love Him, and they will immerse themselves in it constantly, as we are commanded, “with all your heart and with all your resources” (Devarim 6:5). This is what Shlomo said by way of metaphor, “For I am lovesick” (Shir ha’Shirim 2:5). All of Shir ha’Shirim is an allegory for this idea.  

10:6 - It is an evident principle that love of the Holy One, Blessed is He, will not be bound in the heart of man unless he immerses himself in it in constantly, in the proper manner, and abandons everything in the world besides it, as He commanded and said, “with all your heart and with all your soul” (Devarim 6:5; 10:12; 30:6) – that is, only with the knowledge with which one knows Him; the love and the knowledge correspond with each other – if one is a little, the other is little, and if one is exceeding, the other is exceeding.  

Therefore, a person must exclusively devote himself to gain insight and comprehension of those sciences which make known to him his Creator, according to man’s capacity for insight and understanding, as we have explained in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah.

She'lo Lishmah and Lishmah

The two frameworks of yirah and ahavah are also referred to, respectively, as lo lishmah ("not for its own sake") and lishmah ("for its own sake"). The Rambam goes on to describe these two modes of serving Hashem: 

10:4 – The Early Sages said: Perhaps a person will say, “I will learn Torah so that I will become rich,” “so that I will be called rebbi,” “so that I will receive reward in the World to Come” – but the Torah says, “to love Hashem, your God” (Devarim 11:13) - everything you do, you should only do out of love.  

The Sages also said: “he desired His mitzvos greatly” (Tehilim 112:1) – [it says,] “His mitzvos” and not “the reward for His mitzvos.” Likewise, the greatest Sages commanded their most insightful students who contemplated Hashem’s Oneness: “Do not be like servants who serve the master with the intention of receiving good; instead, be like servants who serve the master with the intention not to receive anything – rather, because he is the master, it is fitting to serve him.” In other words, serve Him out of love. 

10:5 – Anyone who involves himself in the Torah in order to receive reward or so that retribution doesn’t befall them – such a person is involved she’lo lishmah. And anyone who involves himself in Torah not out of fear and not in order to receive reward, but because of the love of the Lord of the whole earth Who commanded it – such a person is involved lishmah. The Sages said: “A person should always involve himself in Torah even she’lo lishmah, for from she’lo lishmah he will come to lishmah.” 

Therefore, when we teach the children, women, and general populace of laymen, we should only teach them to serve out of fear and in order to receive reward, until their minds mature and they gain additional wisdom; we should reveal this secret to them bit by bit, and accustom them to this concept with pleasantness, until they apprehend it and know it and serve out of love.

#2: Human Development

The challenge is building a bridge from she'lo lishmah to lishmah. The Rambam provides some guidelines for making the transition - both here, in the last chapter of Hilchos Teshuvah, and in his commentary to Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin - but in practice, this is easier said than done. In truth, this bridge-building a daunting topic, and I do not intend to tackle it here. For now, I am just going to state that the best way that I've seen to build this bridge is through a third and middle way of relating to mitzvos: as developmental tools.

The Rambam establishes the foundations of this approach in the last halacha of Hilchos Meilah. The entire halacha is quite long, but here is an excerpt:

8:8 - It is proper for a person to think into the laws of the Holy Torah and to know their underlying reasons, according to his ability. If he doesn't find a reason and doesn't know a cause of something, it should not be of a lesser stature in his eyes, nor should he break forth to ascend to Hashem lest He burst forth against him, nor should he think of it as a mundane matter … 

The mishpatim are the mitzvos whose benefits in this world are evident, such as the prohibitions of stealing and murder, and honoring one's father and mother. And the chukim are the mitzvos whose reasons are not evident.

The Rambam revisits this in the last halacha of Hilchos Temurah:

4:14 - Even though all of the chukim of the Torah are [Divine] decrees, as we explained at the end of Hilchos Meilah, it is proper to think into them to provide reasons for them wherever you are able to do so. The Early Sages said that Shlomo ha’Melech understood the majority of reasons for all of the chukim of the Torah …  

All of these matters [in Hilchos Temurah] are to subdue man’s inclination and to correct his character traits. And the majority of the laws of the Torah are but counsels from afar, from the Great Counselor, to correct [our] character traits and to make all [of our] actions upright. Likewise, it is written: “Surely, I have written for you extremely noble things, with counsel and knowledge, to teach you the veracity of true words, so that you may answer words of truth to those who send word to you” (Mishlei 22:20-21).

Perhaps the most categorical presentation of this approach can be found in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:31:

The sole objective of the Torah is to benefit us ... every one of the 613 mitzvos serves (a) to inculcate some good idea or to remove some bad idea, (b) to establish a just principle or to remove injustice, (c) to guide us in accordance with a good character trait or to warn against a bad character trait. Everything depends on three things: ideas, morals, and social conduct ... These three principles suffice for assigning a reason for every one of the Divine commandments.

Let us refer to this as "the framework of human development." It stands in an intermediary position (#2) between the lowest level of yirah (#1) and ahavah (#3) and partakes of both, which is why I refer to this approach as a bridge. Those who have embraced this framework will focus on the beneficial effects of the mitzvos and the harmful consequences of the aveiros. Their implicit questions are: "How will this mitzvah contribute to my human development? How will it improve me? How will it affect my development as a tzelem Elokim?" and likewise for aveiros. They are interested in how the mitzvos and aveiros will shape them and affect their way of living.

Back to the Mishnah

Now that we've identified the various modes of mitzvah-observance, we can take another step towards understanding our mishnah. Does Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's statement fit into any one of these three views?

It is evident that the mishnah is not speaking in the framework of ahavah. The oveid me'ahavah would not be concerned about the benefits and consequences of mitzvos and aveiros; he would keep halacha for its own sake (whatever that means). It is also clear that this is not talking about the framework of yirah. I'm sure there are many who learn it this way, but we must remember that Avos was written for the type of person who is working on becoming a chasid (pious individual), as the Sages teach: "One who wants to become a chasid should fulfill the principles of Avos" (Talmud Bavli, Bava Kama 30a). For this reason, it wouldn't make sense for a mishnah in Avos to be appealing to a base motive of avodas Hashem.

What about the framework of human development? It seems that this doesn't work either. Someone who is operating in the framework of human development would look at a given aveirah and ask, "How does this affect me detrimentally?" Likewise, he would look at a mitzvah and say, "How does this help to develop me?" But in Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's metaphor, the doer of the mitzvah or aveirah remains in the same condition. The metaphor does not depict the mitzvah as directly improving the doer or the aveirah directly harming him. The only thing that changes is the type of intercessor his mitzvah or aveirah produces - and, consequently, the report that this intercessor brings before the King (as it were).

Thus, we see that Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's metaphor doesn't fit any of our preexisting frameworks. This confirms our original suspicion: that he is trying to establish an entirely new way of looking at mitzvos and aveiros. We are left with our original question: What is the new perspective he is trying to establish?

The Main Idea

Now we are prepared to understand the new paradigm being proposed by the mishnah. This new framework may be summed up as follows: mitzvos and aveiros are not only tools for development, but tools for self-knowledge.

How so? Every aveirah is a valuable source of feedback about who we are. Every aveirah is the product of the unique and ever-changing amalgam of thoughts, feelings, ideas, values, whims, instincts, urges, desires, fears, fantasies, beliefs, and free will decisions which constitute who we are. That is what Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov means when he allegorically compares the aveirah to an accuser who "informs upon a person before the king and strives to destroy him." Each and every aveirah proclaims our imperfections and testifies to our errors before the King. (Obviously, Hashem does not need anyone to "inform" Him of anything. Rather, the metaphor of "before the King" means "from the standpoint of objective truth.")

Likewise, every mitzvah we do is an expression of who we are and provides us an opportunity to know ourselves. Of course, this idea is based on the premise that the same mitzvah can be performed on a number of different levels, as the Rambam describes in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:51:

We must bear in mind that all such religious acts as reading the Torah, praying, and the performance of other mitzvos, serve exclusively as the means of causing us to occupy and fill our mind with the precepts of God, and free it from worldly business; for we are thus, as it were, in communication with God, and undisturbed by any other thing. If we, however, pray with the motion of our lips, and our face toward the wall, but at the same time think of our business; if we read the Torah with our tongue, whilst our heart is occupied with the building of our house, and we do not think of what we are reading; if we perform the commandments only with our limbs, we are then like those who are engaged in digging ditches in the ground, or hewing wood in the forest, without reflecting on the nature of those acts, or by Whom they are commanded, or what is their objective. We must not imagine that [in this way] we attain the highest perfection; on the contrary, we are then like those in reference to whom Scripture says, “You are near in their mouth, and far from their reins” (Yirmiyahu 12:2).

The highly structured nature of halacha allows for a greater opportunity for self-knowledge, since a person will be doing the same mitzvah-action time and again, thereby allowing for side-by-side comparisons of different instances of mitzvah-performance at different points in one's development.

That's the basic idea, though I'm sure it can be developed further. To sum it up: every mitzvah and aveirah acts like an advocate or an accuser on our behalf, and if we listen to what these intercessors are saying, we can gain a tremendous amount of self-knowledge which will aid us in teshuvah and our pursuit of human perfection.

Addendum: Mitzvos as Angels

I'll end off with some food for thought. At the beginning of this post we mentioned that several Rishonim interpret the terms "praklit" and "kateygor" as angelic advocates and accusers. We noted that the Rambam seems to take a different approach, since he doesn't mention anything about angels in his commentary on this mishnah.

Elsewhere, however, the Rambam does use a peculiar phrase which warrants our attention. At the end of Hilchos Mezuzah 6:13, the Rambam writes:

Every person is obligated to be careful with mezuzah, for it is a continual obligation for everyone. Every time a person enters and exits, he encounters the concept of the Oneness of Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu’s Name; he will remember His love, and will wake up from his slumber and his immersion in vain pursuits and recognize that there is nothing that lasts forever and ever except for the knowledge of the Eternal Rock; immediately, he will returns to his mind and walk in the ways of uprightness. The Sages say: Anyone who has tefilin on his head and arm, tzitzis on his garment, and a mezuzah on his door – it is presumed that he will not sin, for he has many reminders, and these reminders are the angels that save him from sinning, as it is stated, “The angel of Hashem encamps around His reverent ones and releases them” (Tehilim 34:8).

Curiously enough, the Rambam refers to mitzvos as "angels" - specifically, the mitzvos of tefilin, tzitzis, and mezuzah as vehicles of zechirah (remembering). To explain how the Rambam can use the term "angel" in this manner would require another post. To explain why the Rambam chooses to portray the mitzvos in this manner here would require an understanding which I do not currently have. For now, let us leave that as an open question.

In light of this halacha, perhaps the Rambam would not disagree with those other Rishonim. Perhaps he just chose to express the idea in a more straightforward metaphor. Either way, the idea itself is true, and if you happen to associate to this idea when you encounter references to angelic advocates and accusers in tefilah, and if your kavanah is enhanced and your teshuvah is facilitated, then perhaps this idea has merit.