The Sin of Refusing to Look at Oneself

This week's Torah content is sponsored by the Reznik family in dedication to the loving memory of Silvia Tanzer (Sora Hesha bas Chaim Moshe) and Irving Tanzer (Yisroel ben Yechezkel).

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version. 

Artwork: Agonizing Remorse, by Robbie Trevino

The Sin of Refusing to Look at Oneself

The first of the Neviim Acharonim (Later Prophets) to prophesy about the destruction of Bayis Rishon (the First Temple) and Galus Bavel (the Babylonian exile) was Yeshayahu, in the first prophecy he received:

[Hashem] said: Go and say to this people, "You surely listen, but you do not understand; you surely see, but you do not know. The heart of this people has become fat, its ears have become heavy, its eyes have become covered over – lest it see with its eyes and hear with its ears and understand with its heart, and it return (i.e. engage in teshuvah) and be healed.” (Yeshayahu 6:9-10)

Radak explains:

You listen with your ears to the words of the neviim who rebuke you, but you do not understand; you see the wonders of the Creator but you do not know. In other words, you do not apply your mind, and you do not pay attention to Me. You intentionally fatten your heart and make your ears heavy and cover over your eyes so that you do not hear, and do not see, and do not understand, and do not know, for you desire neither teshuvah nor "healing," which is the forgiveness after teshuvah.

Yeshayahu does not focus on the people’s sinfulness per se. Rather, he rebukes them for their refusal to look at themselves with a critical mind, since doing so would prompt them to do teshuvah.

There are two ways to understand the intent of this message. The first is to assume that the navi is primarily concerned with the sinfulness of the people, and he is simply pointing out that their impediment to doing teshuvah and being “healed” is their refusal to look, listen, and know themselves. The second reading is that the navi is primarily concerned with the people’s resistance to the type of self-knowledge which leads to teshuvah, and the oblique reference to their sinfulness is merely the backdrop of this focus.

I believe that the second understanding is correct. The strongest evidence for this reading is that no sin is explicitly identified other than the refusal to look, listen, and know themselves. This sin is expanded upon by Anthony de Mello in Awareness: The Perils and Opportunities of Reality:

The first thing I want you to understand, if you really want to wake up, is that you don't want to wake up. The first step to waking up is to be honest enough to admit to yourself that you don't like it … We don't want to look, because if we do, we may change. We don't want to look. If you look, you lose control of the life that you are so precariously holding together. And so in order to wake up, the one thing you need the most is not energy, or strength, or youthfulness, or even great intelligence. The one thing you need most of all is the readiness to learn something new. The chances that you will wake up are in direct proportion to the amount of truth you can take without running away. How much are you ready to take? How much of everything you've held dear are you ready to have shattered, without running away? How ready are you to think of something unfamiliar?

We often resist doing teshuvah because we are attached to a particular behavior and don’t want to stop. But there is another reason why we may resist doing teshuvah: because we are terrified of seeing who we are in the present, or of who we may become in the future if we allow ourselves to let go of the life and the narrative about ourselves that we so desperately and precariously cling to.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

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.

Krishnamurti: On Listening

Originally posted in January 2012, and expanded here. Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Daze, by Richard Wright

Krishnamurti: On Listening

The ability to listen well is a hallmark of a chochmah (wisdom). The Sages list "listening of the ear" as one of the 48 qualities that are necessary to acquire Torah (Avos 6:6). It is not an easy thing to listen - to listen fully, attentively, objectively, and accurately - yet, the question of how to become a good listener is rarely discussed. 

I was recently reviewing some of the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti on this topic. I would not have encountered these writings in the natural course of my learning. I only looked into Krishnamurti on the recommendation of the best listener I know. And I was not disappointed. I can see how these ideas helped this person become such a genuine, deep, and sensitive listener, and when I watch videos of conversations between Krishnamurti and his students, I can see that he practices what he preaches.

I would like to share with you several passages that stood out to me, with minimal commentary on my part. I recommend trying to read - to "listen" to - these excerpts with a completely open mind, and allowing each one to influence your receptiveness to the next (or, depending on how you look at it, to NOT allow each one to influence your receptiveness to the next).

The first excerpt (Collected Writings Vol. VII, p. 213) is, I believe, a good introduction to Krishnamurti's view on this topic: 

How do you listen? Do you listen with your projections, through your projection, through your ambitions, desires, fears, anxieties, through hearing only what you want to hear, only what will be satisfactory, what will gratify, what will give comfort, what will for the moment alleviate your suffering? If you listen through the screen of your desires, then you obviously listen to your own voice; you are listening to your own desires. And is there any other form of listening? Is it not important to find out how to listen not only to what is being said but to everything? ... Listening has importance only when one is not projecting one's own desires through which one listens. Can one put aside all these screens through which we listen, and really listen? 

Elsewhere (Vol. XV 61, Choiceless Awareness) Krishnamurti emphasizes the necessity of listening in an all-encompassing manner:

The beauty of listening lies in being highly sensitive to everything about you: to the ugliness, to the dirt, to the squalor, to the poverty about you, and also to the dirt, to the disorder, to the poverty of one's own being. When you are aware of both, then there is no effort, that is, when there is an awareness which is without choice, then there is no effort.

Elsewhere (Vol. X. Action) he discusses the type of "partial listening" that most of us engage in:

[Listening] itself is quite an art. Most of us never really listen, therefore we hear only partially. We hear the words that are spoken, but our minds are elsewhere; or our minds respond only to the meaning of the words, and this immediate response prevents us from hearing that which lies beyond the words. So listening is an art; but if you can listen totally to what is being said, then in that very listening you will find there is a liberation, because such listening is unpremeditated, uncalculated; it is an action of truth because your whole mind is there, your total attention is being given. If you listen without interpreting, without remembering a quotation from some old book, or comparing all this with what you have read, then you will find that your own mind has undergone a really radical change.

Elsewhere (Bombay, March 1st 1964) he elaborates on the obstacles to listening, and contrasts this with the sense of liberation that comes when we really manage to listen - and the independence of mind that is necessary to do so:

We do not listen. There are too many noises about us; inside us, there is too much talk, too much questioning, too much demanding, too many urges, compulsions. We have so many things and we never listen to any one of them completely, totally, to the very end. And if you would kindly so listen, you will see that, in spite of yourself, the mutation, that emptiness, that transformation, the perception of what is true, comes into being. You don't have to do a thing, because what you do will interfere, because you are greedy, you are envious, you are full of hate, ambition, and all the mischief that thought can make. So if you can listen happily, effortlessly, then perhaps in the quiet, deep, silence you will know what is truth. And it is only that truth that liberates, and nothing else. That is why you must stand completely alone. You cannot listen through another; you cannot see with the eyes of another; you cannot think with the thoughts of others. But yet you listen through others, see through the activities, through the saints, through the dictum of others. So if you can put away all these secondary things, the activities of others, and be simple, quiet, and listen, then you will find out.

Krishnamurti maintains that this type of listening is necessary in order to apprehend the truth (Talks in India, 1953)

It is important to know how to listen, not only to me particularly, but to anybody. It is important to know how to listen because if we know how to listen truly, something extraordinary happens to us, because then without any bias, without any prejudice, we can go to the root of the matter immediately. But if we throw up a lot of arguments, concoct devices or contradictions to see who is correct and who is not correct and carry on with our own particular idiosyncrasies and ideas, then we will not discover the truth of the matter at all. We shall only be concerned with our own particular conclusions, with our own point of view. So if I may suggest, it is important that we should listen truly because if we can know how to listen, the truth will reveal itself. We do not have to explore the problem, but if we know how to listen to the song of a bird, to the voice of another, if we can listen as to music without any interpretation or translation, it definitely clarifies the mind; so similarly, if it is possible, let us listen with that intention - not to confute or to conform, but to directly find out the truth for ourselves.

Likewise, here is an excerpt (The Book of Life) on the relationship between learning and listening:

It seems to me that learning is astonishingly difficult, as is listening also. We never actually listen to anything because our mind is not free; our ears are stuffed up with those things that we already know, so listening becomes extraordinarily difficult. I think, or rather, it is a fact that if one can listen to something with all of one's being, with vigor, with vitality, then the very act of listening is a liberative factor, but unfortunately you never do listen, as you have never learned about it. After all, you only learn when you give your whole being to something. When you give your whole being to mathematics, you learn; but when you are in a state of contradiction, when you do not want to learn but are forced to learn, then it becomes merely a process of accumulation. To learn is like reading a novel with innumerable characters; it requires your full attention, not contradictory attention. If you want to learn about a leaf - a leaf of the spring or a leaf of the summer - you must really look at it, see the symmetry of it, the texture of it, the quality of the living leaf. There is beauty, there is vigor, there is vitality in a single leaf. So to learn about the leaf, the flower, the cloud, the sunset, or a human being, you must look with all intensity.

And here is another excerpt (ibid.) on the relationship between listening and freedom:

When you make an effort to listen, are you listening? Is not that very effort a distraction that prevents listening? Do you make an effort when you listen to something that gives you delight? ... You are not aware of the truth, nor do you see the false as the false, as long as your mind is occupied in any way with effort, with comparison, with justification or condemnation ... 

Listening itself is a complete act; the very act of listening brings its own freedom. But are you really concerned with listening, or with altering the turmoil within? If you would listen ... in the sense of being aware of your conflicts and contradictions without forcing them into any particular pattern of thought, perhaps they might altogether cease. You see, we are constantly trying to be this or that, to achieve a particular state, to capture one kind of experience and avoid another, so the mind is everlastingly occupied with something; it is never still to listen to the noise of its own struggles and pains. Be simple ... and don't try to become something or to capture some experience.

Lastly, here is an excerpt (Beyond Violence pp.37-38) on how listening to someone else can enable a person to listen to himself or herself:

You know, there are two ways of listening: to listen casually, to hear a series of ideas, agreeing or disagreeing with them; or there is another way of listening, which is not only to listen to the words and the meaning of those words, but also to listen to what is actually taking place in yourself. If you listen in this way, then what the speaker says is related to what you are listening to in yourself; then you are not merely listening to the speaker - which is irrelevant - but to the whole content of your being. And if you are listening in that way with intensity, at the same time and at the same level, then we are both of us partaking, sharing together, in what is actually taking place. Then you have the passion which is going to transform that which is. 

Does Krishnamurti's approach to listening correspond to what Chazal were referring to when they listed "the listening of the ear" as one of the prerequisites for Torah? Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. In fact, I admit that there is some tension between Krishnamurti's paradigm of listening and the type of Torah-learning we are accustomed to do - especially the part about suspending questions, analysis, and judgment. 

Nevertheless, I see - and have experienced - the value in being able to listen in the manner described by Krishnamurti. I know that if I can learn to listen like this, I will be a better teacher, a better learner, and a better friend. And if I can figure out how to integrate the principles of listening elucidated by Krishnamurti into the methodology of Torah learning in which I have been trained, then that would be truly wonderful.

Mishneh Torah as a Mirror of Self-reflection

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

Artwork: Extraplanar Lens, by Noah Bradley

Mishneh Torah as a Mirror of Self-reflection

Background Info: The Uniqueness of the Mishneh Torah

The Mishneh Torah is a one-of-a-kind work. The Rambam did something that none of his predecessors even attempted: he compiled, organized, and codified ALL of the halachos for ALL of Taryag (613 mitzvos). The Rambam first mentioned this project in his introduction to the Sefer ha'Mitzvos:

I deemed it advisable to compile a compendium which would include all the laws of the Torah and its regulations, nothing missing in it ... so that this compendium would embrace all the laws of the Torah of Moshe our teacher, whether they have a bearing in the time of the exile or not ...

And I would include in it everything of the Torah that has been established and confirmed, omitting no question which might arise, or at least I would mention the principle by means of which that question can easily be resolved without too deep reflection.

Such was my goal to be in this work: brevity with completeness - so that the reader thereof might encompass all that is found in the Mishnah and the Talmud, Sifra, Sifre, and Tosefta, and more than that, all decrees and ordinances of the later Geonim, of blessed memory, as well as all that they have explained and commented upon concerning the prohibited and permissible, unclean and clean, invalid and valid, liable and free, pay and not pay, swear and free from swearing.

In short, outside of this work there was to be no need for another book to learn anything whatsoever that is required in the whole Torah, whether it be a law of the Scriptures or of the Rabbis.

The Mishneh Torah was revolutionary not only in its scope, but in its structure and organization. The Rambam describes his decision-making progress:

As I directed my attention toward this goal, I began thinking about how the division of this work, and the arrangement of its parts, were to be done. Should I divide it in accordance with the divisions of the Mishnah and follow in its footsteps, or should I divide it in some other way, arranging the subjects at the beginning or at the end of the work as logic will dictate, since this is the proper and easier way for learning? 

Then it became clear to me that in place of the tractates of the Mishnah, it would be best to arrange this work in groups of halachos, so that it would read: Hilchos Sukkah, Hilchos Lulav, Hilchos Mezuzah, Hilchos Tzitzis, and that I should divide every group of halachos into chapters and paragraphs, even as the Mishnah has done, so that, for example, in Hilchos Tefilin there would be chapters one, two, three, four, and each chapter would be subdivided into various laws, so that knowledge of it by heart should render it easy for one who wishes to learn something from it by memory. 

The Mishneh Torah is comprised of 1,000 chapters grouped into 83 topical sections ("Hilchos _____"), the contents of which are all arranged conceptual order. These 83 sections further grouped into fourteen "books" - each of which is devoted to a thematic supercategory which encompasses all of the mitzvos therein.

The ingenuity of the Rambam's achievement cannot be understated. R' Isadore Twersky, in his Introduction to the Code of Maimonides, is effusive in his praise:

This syntopic presentation reveals, with immediacy and force, the innovative character of Maimonides' classification. There is novelty in the grouping of laws. There is novelty in the creation and delimitation of certain sections. There is novelty in the nomeclature, rather imaginative and often felicitous. There is novelty in the interpretations which inform and validate the juxtaposition of sections as there is in the entire sequential order, starting with the theoretical-ethical foundations of Torah, moving through the varied realms of ritual, and culminating in an imaginatively conceived presentation of civil and criminal, and we might add, constitutional, law. There is novelty in the amount of extra-Talmudic material and the generally smooth integration of halachic exposition with philosophical-ethical explication. There is also, as we have seen, novelty in the scope and style - in short, in daring to undertake a work of such magnitude and structure. This many-splendored novelty must be confronted and appreciated ... If, as Aristotle said, "it is the business of the wise man to order," Maimonides displayed great wisdom in his ordering and structuring of halacha. Diderot's evaluation of Leibniz is applicable: "He combined two great qualities which are almost incompatible with one another - the spirit of discovery and that of method" ... 

The fact is that there is no antecedent, or indeed sequel, in Rabbinic literature for such a keen, energetic, and comprehensive classification, nor is there any parallel to its rigor, precision, and conceptual tidiness.

There is obviously much more one can say about the greatness of the Mishneh Torah. I have limited myself here to a brief description as an introduction to the primary topic of this post.

The Crowning Pesukim

The Rambam begins each of his fourteen books with a "crowning" pasuk from Nach - a pasuk which encapsulate the overall philosophy or character of the mitzvos expounded upon in that book. For example:

Sefer ha'Mada (The Book of the Knowledge) is about mitzvos which pertain to the foundational principles of Torah; the crowning pasuk of this book is: "Extend Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to those with upright hearts" (Tehilim 36:11). 

Sefer Ahava (The Book of Love) is about mitzvos which are designed to continually remind us to love and remember God; the crowning pasuk of this book is: "How much I have loved Your Torah! All day long it is my conversation" (ibid. 119:97). 

Sefer Zmanim (The Book of Times) is about mitzvos which are obligatory at specific times - most of which are mitzvos described by the Torah as "testimonies" since they bear witness to historical events involving God's intervention; the bulk of these mitzvos are associated with the joyous moadim (holidays); the crowning pasuk of this book is: "I have inherited Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart" (ibid. 119:111).

The Rambam also chose a pasuk as a "crown" for the Mishneh Torah as a whole. That pasuk is:

"Then I will not be ashamed 

when I gaze upon all of Your mitzvos" 

(Tehilim 119:6) 

Just as the crowning pasuk for each of the fourteen books was chosen to epitomize the character of all the mitzvos in that book, the crowning pasuk of the Mishneh Torah was chosen to represent all of Taryag.

The Questions

When this pasuk was first brought to my attention, it struck me as strange. The implication is that we are - or ought to be - in a perpetual state of shame as our "default mode," and that the antidote to this shame is contained within the Mishneh Torah. Then (i.e. after we have mastered the Mishneh Torah) we will no longer be ashamed. 

This raises two questions:

1. What shame are we in / supposed to be in? What is the nature of this shame? What are its effects? What if we don't feel like we experience this shame? 
2. How, exactly, does the Mishneh Torah help us to remove this shame? Does the Rambam mean that someone who learns the Mishneh Torah will remove this shame, or is his implication that this shame will only be removed if we succeed in following all of the mitzvos in the Mishneh Torah? Or is it something else altogether?

I've been wanting to write about this for a while, but I wasn't clear enough on the idea to do it justice. I even raised the question in an earlier blog post about shame, but didn't propose an answer.

[Note: the answer I am about to suggest was arrived at without looking at the pasuk in Tehilim in its context. Perhaps I will offer a second answer using that route at a later time.]

An Answer

This past Shabbos I was reading The Week magazine and I came across a quotation which perfectly expressed the idea I wished to convey. That quotation came from the Swedish writer Alain de Botton, and it goes like this:

"If we are not regularly deeply embarrassed by who we are, the journey to self-knowledge hasn't begun."

The Torah is the God-given regimen to success as a human being, as the Ralbag explained in his introduction to his commentary on Sefer Bereishis. The very notion of a "regimen" presupposes that if we attempt to succeed on our own, we are at a disadvantage. To quote Eric Hoffer: "Animals can learn, but it is not by learning that they become dogs, cats, or horses. Only man has to learn to become what he is supposed to be." It is extremely difficult to simply be human without the aid of a program - which is exactly why the Creator of man provided us with the perfect program.

It follows, then, that to the extent that we have not "mastered" the Torah regimen, we are lacking in a fundamental way: we are living our human lives without knowing how to live as humans! Such an approach to life is shameful indeed. This is the type of shame that the Rambam was referring to by citing the pasuk from Tehilim - not the Christian shame of religious guilt, nor the relativistic shame of being obsessed with what people will think of you. The Rambam is talking about the shame that comes from our recognition that we are "[walking in] darkness, not knowing [on what] we stumble" (cf. Mishlei 3:19) and our realization that: 

The words of prophecy are like the words of a sealed document, which one gives to a literate person, saying, "Please read this," and he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed." Then the document is given to an illiterate person, saying, "Please read this," and he says, "I am illiterate" (Yeshayahu 29:11-12).

The more we understand Taryag, the more cognizant we will be of the type of life we lived before we learned Taryag. And as we reach each developmental breakthrough in our Torah-growth, it is as if we are being told by the Rambam (borrowing the words of Simon Stimson from Thorton Wilder's Our Town):

"Yes, now you know. Now you know! That's what it was to be alive. To move about in a cloud of ignorance; to go up and down trampling on the feelings of those ... of those about you. To spend and waste time as though you had a million years. To always be at the mercy of one self-centered passion, or another. Now you know - that's the happy existence you wanted to go back to. Ignorance and blindness."

This recognition of how we once lived and how there is much room there is for development is bound to cause shame (the good kind) in those who have embarked on this lifelong journey of Torah-development. Lefum tzaara agra ("The reward is in accordance with the suffering").

Conclusion

The Mishneh Torah is a multifaceted sefer, seen differently by different groups of people. They layperson relates to it as a halachic code, just like the others. The Briskers regard it as a repository of lomdus and sevara. The Yemenites treasure it as the bedrock of their halachic culture.

It is said that my Chumash rebbi was in the habit of referring to the Mishneh Torah as "the mirror of self-reflection." Personally, that is how I choose view it. And in light of my understanding of the Mishneh Torah's crowning pasuk, I believe that the Rambam would approve of this characterization, and endorse this approach to his magnum opus.

"and fools despise Pokemon GO" (Proverbs 151:7)

Part of me feels that this fundamental idea deserves its own blog post ... but this real-world example was just too good to pass up. 

"and fools despise Pokemon GO" (Proverbs 151:7)

According to an article in the NY Post, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton thinks that the recent Pokémon Go trend "is one of the stupidest ones I've seen." 

The top cop went on a rant about the dangers of the scavenger hunt-style game, which uses a cellphone’s camera and GPS functions to virtually populate real-world locations with cartoon creatures. The app, Bratton said, has turned millennials into “walking zombies” as they follow the game’s directive to “catch ’em all.”

"Okay," I thought to myself, "I can understand where this officer is coming from. He believes that Pokémon Go poses a threat to public safety because of how distracted people are when they play. That seems reasonable enough."

But then the article went on to quote the Commissioner as saying one of the most idiotic things that he could have possibly said:

“I don’t understand it, and I don’t intend to understand it,” he said. “It’s of no appeal to me, and at the same time, people are putting themselves at great risk.”

I laughed out loud in disbelief when I read this statement. Really? REALLY?! I get it that he has no personal interest in playing the game, but as someone who is trying to solve a problem, does he really think that refusing to understand the appeal of the game will help him achieve his goal? 

Sun Tzu, the legendary Chinese general, taught: 

If you know the enemy and know yourself, 

you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. 

If you know yourself but not the enemy, 

for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. 

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, 

you will succumb in every battle.

It just boggles my mind. What kind of problem-solver refuses to understand the problem he is trying to solve? What would happen if the police had this mentality about other societal ills, such as drug addiction, gang violence, and sex trafficking? Would this Commissioner display the same attitude towards the recent "craze" of texting and driving, or identity theft, or other new phenomena? If this rash of cop-killing continues, would he say, "I don't understand it, and I don't intend to understand it"? 

Officer Bratton's obstinate stance reminded me of two statements in Sefer Mishlei (The Book of Proverbs): 

יִרְאַת ה' רֵאשִׁית דָּעַת חָכְמָה וּמוּסָר אֱוִילִים בָּזוּ:

"Fear of Hashem is the beginning of knowledge, but eveelim (fools) deride wisdom and discipline" (Mishlei 1:7)

עַד מָתַי פְּתָיִם תְּאֵהֲבוּ פֶתִי וְלֵצִים לָצוֹן חָמְדוּ לָהֶם וּכְסִילִים יִשְׂנְאוּ דָעַת:

"How long, O simpletons, will you love folly, and scoffers covet mockery for themselves, and ksilim (fools) hate knowledge?" (ibid. 1:22)

Shlomo ha'Melech (King Solomon) identifies two types of fools in these verses: eveelim and ksilim. He says that the eveelim deride wisdom and discipline, whereas the ksilim hate knowledge. The questions are: (1) What is the difference between these two foolish attitudes? (2) Which type of foolishness is reflected in Officer Bratton's statement?

I brought this question up to my Mishlei rebbi this morning, and he answered me based on his current understanding of these two types of fools. I will do my best to summarize his answer, but I won't speculate about how he arrived at this answer (since he was responding on the basis of his Mishleic intuition that has been formed by years of learning hundreds of pesukim). 

He explained that the eveel is someone who looks at reality superficially. He assumes that his first impressions are correct, and that there is no need to look beneath the surface, or at the big picture, or at the long-term consequences. He acts on impulse, seeking immediate pleasure and the avoidance of immediate pain. 

Although the eveel is foolish, he is not stupid. He has enough life experience to realize that there is more depth to reality than he is willing to see. And yet, he can't bring himself to face that reality - whether out of laziness, or fear, or attachment to his present way of thinking, or what have you. Whatever the reason may be, he does not want to face reality because of the implications of doing so. But in order to justify his avoidance of reality, he must mock and disparage those who involve themselves is seeking knowledge of reality - otherwise, they would be too consumed with self-loathing on account of the anti-reality lifestyle he has chosen. 

The ksil has a different problem. He relates to reality as an authority figure who is trying to control him, and he relates to knowledge like the words of a stern parent disciplining a child. [1] This is the root of his hatred of knowledge. Every gain in knowledge poses a threat to his ego. In order to preserve his sense of self, he must utterly reject the pursuit of knowledge with vehemence. 

Based on this distinction, my Mishlei rebbi maintained that Officer Bratton's attitude corresponded to that of the eveel. For whatever reason, he just doesn't want to face the reality of the Pokémon Go trend. Not only does he refuse to understand it, but he even goes so far as to mock it, as another news article reported:

[the] constant peering down at their devices as they go walking around looking for - I guess it's Pokémon they're looking for, that's something like the Tooth Fairy, I guess - they're putting themselves at risk of accidents

His refusal to understand, his superficial assessment of the phenomenon, and his cheap and derisive comment about "looking for the Tooth Fairy" are all symptomatic of the mentality of the eveel. 

To be clear: I'm not saying that Officer Bratton is an eveel in all respects. Mishlei speaks in generalities and archetypes which rarely correspond 100% with any individuals in the real world. Still, the foolishness of his statement stands as a stunning example of the eveel's attitude towards those aspects of reality which he does not wish to face. 

So for those Pokémon Go players out there: may you succeed in catching Eevees, without encountering any eveels. (I'm sorry!!!)


[1] I'm aware that my Mishlei rebbi's explanation of the ksil sounds more like my explanation of the eveel. I guess I'll just have to learn more Mishlei to see whose explanation makes more sense to me!

Richard Mitchell: On Knowing vs. Knowing About

Last week's post from Richard Mitchell's The Gift of Fire reminded me of another of my many favorite ideas from that book. This one is from Mitchell's introduction. Since his introduction is so short and rich with ideas, I have decided to post the entire thing. I would like to call special attention to the three passages I've emphasized in bold towards the end. 

Originally posted in June, 2009.

Artwork: Ancestral Recall, by Ryan Pancoast

Richard Mitchell: On Knowing vs. Knowing About

- Introduction to The Gift of Fire

I SUSPECT THAT THOSE WHO have read some of my other works will be a little surprised by this one. I am a little surprised by this one.

That, in itself, is nothing new. I have never yet written anything, long or short, that did not surprise me. That is, for me at least, the greatest worth of writing, which is only incidentally a way of telling others what you think. Its first use is for the making of what you think, for the discovery of understanding, an act that happens only in language.

I have habitually found it convenient, and perhaps just a little too easy, to look for understanding by paying close attention to failures of understanding, which always take the form of bad language. Just as there is nothing but language in which to make sense, there is nothing but language in which to make nonsense. So, in my works, at least, the examination of sense and nonsense has ordinarily been a sometimes clever and amusing castigation of fools, who can be shown to imagine that they make sense when they don't.

The castigation of fools is, of course, an ancient and honorable task of writers and, unless very poorly done, an enterprise that will usually entertain those who behold it. No matter what else we imagine that we believe about the propriety of compassion for the unfortunate, we do like to see fools exposed. It's funny. And it is not only funny; it is the great theme of Comedy, and a mild, domestic counterpart of the great theme of Tragedy, in which we rejoice, however sadly, to see villains brought down.

So it is that the habitual contemplation of folly, which does not seem to be the worst thing in the world, leads little by little to some consideration of vice, which does seem to be the worst thing in the world. It is troubling to notice that when we are foolish or "only foolish," as we easily deem it, we find ourselves all the more likely to do bad things. And when we can see, as I think I have so often managed to demonstrate, that some very foolish people are in a position to bring the consequences of their folly not only on themselves but on others, we do have the suspicion that something bad is going on. Surely, if we could certainly pronounce certain persons wise, we would think it a good thing to fall under their influence, and it seems only natural and inescapably right to expect some badness from the influence of fools. So it was that I gradually found, in my own considerations of nonsense, less play and more brooding, less glee and more melancholy, and the growing conviction that the silly mind, just as much as the wicked mind, if there is such a thing, makes bad things happen. And my meditations on foolish language, my own included, grew somber and satirical.

Satire is a cunning, landless opportunist who poaches along the borders of the two great realms of Tragedy and Comedy. The hunting is good, no doubt, for the satirist is nourished by folly and vice, of which there is said to be never any shortage. But, perhaps because I was reared in Comedy's fair land, I am not convinced of that. Folly is thick on the ground, no doubt, but where is vice? I know, I truly do know and can demonstrate, just as surely as one can provide a proof in geometry, that certain influential persons, especially in the schools, do bad things to other people. But they are not villains. They do not will badness. On the contrary, probably far more than most of us, they deliberately intend to do good things. And I am certain that they would do good things, if only they could make sense.

But all of that, obviously, could be said of any one of us. Outside of the pages of fantastic fiction, there is no one who says in the heart, I will do evil. We all intend the good, and would, at least often, do it if we could. But we don't always understand what the good is.

That is hardly a new idea. But, while I have known about it for a long time, heard it with the hearing of the ear, as it were, I haven't truly known it. Between those conditions -- knowing about, and knowing -- I think there is a very big difference. The point of this book was, for me, the discovery of that understanding. True education is not knowing about, but knowing. It is the cure of folly and the curb of vice, and our only hope of escaping what Socrates once called "the greatest peril of this our life" -- not sickness or death, as most of us would say, but the failure to make sense about the better and the worse, and thus to choose the wrong one, thinking it the other.

This is, I'm afraid, a presumptuous book. It is a book about how to live by a man who doesn't know how to live, but who has begun to learn that he doesn't know how.

What to Do When You Are Lost in the Woods

This is a combination of two old blog posts: How to Cope with Panic (April 2012) and On Being Lost in the Woods (February 2012). The two posts belong together, so why not unite them? I still approve of my original decision to write exclusively about the nigleh and not the nistar, since the former is valuable in its own right, and the latter is something that each person must grapple with on his or her own.

What to Do When You Are Lost in the Woods

One highlight of my recent cabin retreat was the opportunity to revisit the highly enjoyable Complete Book of Camping, by Leonard Miracle and Maurice H. Decker. Take a gander:

As you can tell from its cover, this book is not written in recent times. The hardcover edition at the cabin was published in 1961, and the age shows in the writing style. I discovered the book sitting on one of the shelves covered with a thin layer of dust on my first trip to The Cabin. I initially picked it up just to flip through the table of contents, but I soon found myself engrossed in its pages. Since then, I've read through much of it several times, and I am always delighted by the gems I find.

For the record: I am by no means an outdoorsman. I have never been camping "for real" (i.e. without such luxuries as electricity and running water), nor do I foresee myself doing so in the near future. Nevertheless, I gain a tremendous amount of pleasure and benefit from reading what the frontiersman authors of this book have to say about the multifaceted art of camping.

Have a look at the authors and their bios and you'll get a better sense of who we're dealing with: 

The authors of this book are eminently practical men. Their writing reflects the same quality of craftsman's artful simplicity that I admire so much in Bruce Lee, only with a more rugged edge. Take, for instance, the opening paragraphs of Chapter 3 "On Bedding":

It should be established at once that it is the ignoramus, not the expert, who says that he will merely roll up in a blanket and spend the night under the stars. You will never hear such talk from men who know. 

The experienced camper knows that, to get a good night's sleep that will keep him healthy and efficient, he must have a bed that is warm, dry, level, and reasonably well padded.  

Youngsters and other novice campers get misleading ideas about outdoor sleeping from many Hollywood movies. Movie cowboys, for example, often doze off on the bare ground, their heads on their saddles. They sleep in their clothes, with a slicker or a saddle blanket as their only covering. At dawn they stand up refreshed and virile - ready to wrestle steers or bad men. But - make no mistake about it - such sleeping habits work only in the movies.  

Such professional outdoorsmen as forest rangers, big-game guides, and western sheepherders use air matresses, down-filled sleeping bags, and canvas ground cloths. The make their beds under a tent or some kind of waterproof roof when there is the slightest chance of rain or snow. Many of the wiser and more grizzled heads rest on pillows plump with waterfowl down. They are as finicky as rich brides about each item of camp bedding.

This excerpt exemplifies a theme that runs through the entire book: slapping some horse sense into the minds of young whippersnappers and city slickers who have been deluded by motion pictures into a highly romanticized view of the great outdoors. Almost every chapter begins with a refutation of commonly held notions which, after the fact, are clearly childish. For example, here is the opening of the section entitled "Choosing a Pack-Trip Horse":

Many novices given the chance to choose their own mount from a string of gentle saddle horses make the mistake of selecting by color. Fiction of one kind and another has spread the belief that a white horse, for example, will be of pure and dauntless spirit and of gentler nature than the coal-black steed. The strawberry roan is supposed to be wild and woolly. A buckskin horse is tough and durable. The palomino and the pinto are thought to have special virtue because of their unusual color. 

All this is pure fancy. Color by itself is no indication of a horse's speed, temperament, or any other ability. Disregard color, and choose a compact, short-backed horse with clean-cut legs and head. An excess of speed and spirit can be a hazard in a horse that will be ridden at a walk over rough, narrow trails with steep drop-offs. Leave the jumpy, highstrung mounts for flatland riders, and choose a horse that is alert but calm. Pass up the round-backed, big-bellied horse. It is awkward to straddle and possibly soft and lazy, and a saddle turns too easily on that balloon-shaped torso. The gaunt, long-legged horse is also a poor choice as a rule. It may be a poor rustler of feed in mountain meadows and is likely to be nervous and jumpy, lacking the steady power and stamina a trail horse needs.

See what I mean? No nonsense. Nothing but practicality.

Okay, enough about the authors and their general style. On to the topic at hand.

Artwork: Lost in the Woods, by Matt Stewart

My favorite chapter in the book is the chapter entitled "Plan to Get Lost." As you may have guessed, this chapter is about what to do when you get lost in the wilderness. The chapter begins with a vivid depiction of the scenario:

Thus, the cautious and meticulous route planner, trail marker, and compass checker rarely gets lost. His pessimistic caution, however, is foreign to the nature of most campers, so we deal now with the exuberant majority - the people who never think of back trails and compass bearings while the breeze is fresh and the sun is warm and the vale ahead full of promise. 

The crucial moment with 90 per cent of all persons lost in the woods comes in that instant when they first realize they are lost. One minute the wanderer is merely puzzled, perhaps irritated at the delay in locating a trail or landmark. A second later the words "I'm lost!" flash through the mind - and they panic the novice beyond all reason. This is the point where intelligent thought can be swamped. There is an irrational urge to run after the missing trail as if it were a live thing that must be recaptured by headlong pursuit. The friendly forest is abruptly full of stalking phantoms, and flight is your only escape. The fresh breeze is a cold wind now, the yellow sun paler and plummeting toward dusk and darkness. Walk faster, faster! Run! 

You will feel this panic the first time you are lost in big woods. Perhaps it sounds improbable as you read about it in your own living room, but some sense of panic at being lost is as normal as shivering when you are cold. Be prepared to cope with it. 

Although I have never been lost in the woods, this seems like a pretty good description of the state of mind. What would you do if you realized you were lost? I would probably try frantically to retrace my steps. I might use what little knowledge I have about how to find my bearings, such as the North Star or the thing about moss growing on the north side of trees (which, apparently, isn't always true). Maybe I would start shouting for help, depending on how desperate I was.

But this is not the approach advised by our authors. No sir. There is a reason why they begin with a description of the "I'm lost!" state of mind: in their expert opinion, the state of mind is the root of the problem. Thus, their first piece of advice:

Stop traveling the instant those words, "I'm lost" take shape in your thinking. If you are standing, sit down. If you smoke, light up. If you wear a pack, take it off. Get out a sandwich or candy bar if you have one. All of these are simple tricks to keep you rooted where you are until that urgent hurry, hurry mood passes. If you feel you are in serious trouble, build a fire. Nothing will calm and reassure you more quickly than to get a cheerful blaze going. The work involved keeps your mind from spinning aimlessly, and the fire gives you an established base. With the fire going, you have a camp right where you are, and the only problem now is to plan the best route back to the camp or trail you left in the beginning. In a sense you are not lost any more: that urgent need to escape is gone. 

The first step is to address the mental state of panic. Only then should you focus on regaining your bearings. The authors continue by providing some suggestions on how to do this, all while continuing to reassure the mind of the lost camper:

You are now in shape to use your head rather than your feet. Where were you last definitely on the right track? Think back step by step. Chances are your mistake will come to mind as vividly as the sudden realization that you were lost. You took the wrong fork in the trail, perhaps, or turned down the wrong slope of the ridge. Maybe camp is upriver, and you clung to the notion it was downstream from the point where you hiked out of the brush. The man who sits down and calms himself with familiar distractions such as pipe loading, eating, and fire building can nearly always think himself back to base camp.  

When the solution is immediately and positively clear to you, put out your fire, gather up your gear, and be on your way. You are not lost at all. If you have the slightest doubt, however, mark your trail as you go so you can easily find your way back to the point where you stopped to collect your wits and directions. That is the closest spot to camp or trail that you know for sure.  

Unless you see your mistake at once, do not move from the little camp you have established. Get out your map and compass. The map will show that horseshoe bend in the river below you. That tallest peak beyond the river bend is due west, your compass shows. The peak is on the map, too, and so is the road you are aiming for. It is about a mile south of the peak and river bend. You are just on the wrong side of the ridge. Climb to the saddle 200 yards south of you, and you will see the road in the valley beyond. Pack up and go there. 

Lacking map and compass, try drawing a map of all you can remember in the dirt with a twig, with pencil and paper if you have them. No help? Climb the little butte to your right, marking a foolproof trail as you go, and look for something familiar from that vantage point. Listen for any sound in a known direction - say, the noon whistle of the sawmill in the valley to the east, the rumble of the ore train from the mine where your car is parked.  

Still no luck? Well, you will now have to settle down to being lost overnight. 

The authors then go on to recommend procedures for how to set up an impromptu camp and how to send emergency signals. At the very end of the chapter - a subsection entitled, "Why Worry?" - the authors reiterate their fundamental insight:

The first and final thing to remember about being lost is that 99 per cent of the real danger is from panic - unreasonable fear that causes intelligent people to injure or deplete themselves in their own foolish stampedes ... 

There is considerable danger to anyone lost in such extreme climates as Death Valley or the Arctic. Even those formidable areas can be mastered by the standard traveler who calmly rigs a good shelter and uses emergency signals efficiently.  

The great majority of people who get lost are out in temperate climates and only a few miles from a good road or trail. With calm planning, this garden variety of "lostness" is no more than an inconvenience.  

As the following chapter will explain, the average man can get by without most of the things he considers necessities in his everyday life. The city-pampered gourmet will eat a rabbit raw after two hungry weeks in the wilds. The man who considers two flights of stairs a hardship can carry a pack over a mountain pass if he has to. And the fellow who shivers each time his home furnace falters can survive in a lean-to in weather far below freezing. There is a tough and adaptable animal just beneath the pampered skin of modern man.

And that, in short, is a sound approach on how to cope with the panic of getting lost in the woods. Let's summarize the steps:

1. Calm your panicked state of mind; recognize that your hope lies in a calm state of mind.
2. Mentally retrace your steps to see where and how you deviated from the proper course.
3. Once you have a clear idea of how you lost your way, start retracing your steps - but mark your trail so you can find your way back.
4. Map your route to the best of your ability, use all of the tools at your disposal, and stick to the most certain knowledge available - all while maintaining a keen awareness of your surroundings in order to pick up any clues that might help you to find your way.
5. Remember that you have the ability to adapt, and be prepared to do so. 

Pretty sound advice, right? Now for a real challenge: see if you can apply this to the nistar application as well. Rather than spell it out, I will leave you with a poetic bridge from the nigleh to the nistar in the form of an excerpt from "Walden" (1854), by Henry James Thoreau:

It is a surprising and memorable, as well as valuable experience, to be lost in the woods any time. Often in a snow storm, even by day, one will come out upon a well-known road, and yet find it impossible to tell which way leads to the village. Though he knows that he has traveled it a thousand times, he cannot recognize a feature in it, but it is as strange to him as if it were a road in Siberia. By night, of course, the perplexity is infinitely greater. In our most trivial walks, we are constantly, though unconsciously, steering like pilots by certain well-known beacons and headlands, and if we go beyond our usual course we still carry in our minds the bearing of some neighboring cape; and not till we are completely lost, or turned round -- for a man needs only to be turned round once with his eyes shut in this world to be lost -- do we appreciate the vastness and strangeness of nature. Every man has to learn the points of compass again as often as be awakes, whether from sleep or any abstraction. Not till we are lost, in other words not till we have lost the world, do we begin to find ourselves, and realize where we are and the infinite extent of our relations.

I hope that if you someday become lost, that you will be able to cope with the panic, and that you emerge as a found person. 

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.