Answer to bad habits

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Answer to bad habits

asked 5 years ago

Hello Rabbi.
Maimonides wrote in the Laws of Repentance: “Do not say that there is no repentance except for transgressions in which there is a deed, such as fornication, robbery, and theft; Just as a person needs to turn away from these, so too does he need to seek out the evil thoughts he has and turn away from them: from anger, and from enmity, and from envy, and from competition, and from envy, and from the pursuit of wealth and honor, and from the pursuit of food and how to get there – from all of them he needs to turn back. And these are the sins that are more difficult than those that are easy to commit; for when a person is immersed in them, they are difficult to explain. And so He says: “The wicked will forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts” (Isaiah 55:7).

I have always been puzzled by these words of the Maimonides. What seems to be understood from his words is that the very existence of a bad quality is a transgression, that having a character of anger or laziness is problematic.
In my understanding, this is not so. A hungry deed is only “instruments of transgression.” Those who have bad deed are more likely to sin, but the bad deed itself is not a transgression. The Torah does not mention that it is forbidden to have bad deed.
What do you think?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

I’ll start by saying that I don’t understand what the confusion is about Maimonides here. At most, you think differently. Okay, and he thinks differently than you. I have written here more than once that in my opinion there is intrinsic value in improving one’s character, and that it is not just a tool for good deeds. And this will settle the issue of the question of the Rabbis who stressed why the Torah does not command improving one’s character. And I have always wondered about this issue, since the Torah does command: to speak in one’s character. This is a commandment enumerated in the Rambam and other numerous commandments. And according to my method, this is settled, since the Rabbis stressed improving one’s character and the commandment is improving one’s actions (the Holy One’s character is not a defined thing. It is about imitating His behavior, as indeed the Sages demand: “He is merciful, so be merciful…”).

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

I would also add that what Maimonides is saying here does not necessarily mean that we are talking about virtues without regard to actions. He may be saying that when one's virtues are not corrected, then the actions that are derived from them are more difficult to correct.

אהרן replied 5 years ago

Thank you very much, I will phrase the question differently (maybe you answered me but I didn't understand):

According to the Maimonides, whoever has the measure of anger in him must return to it, even if it did not lead him to commit an offense.

1. Where does the Maimonides get this from? Where are we commanded about this?
2. Another thing, what is the logic of this matter? What does God supposedly care if I am angry but do not commit an offense as a result?

“Cling to his measures” simply refers to practical behavior, and not to the measure itself (just as with the Holy One, we recognize only the external expression of the measure).

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

It is what I wrote: The commandment to adhere to His virtues is only about practical behavior. But beyond that, there is a value of good virtues, and it is a Sabra. Just as morality is a Sabra. And it can be said that just as God cares about morality, He also cares about virtues. This Sabra can also be learned from the verses, such as “And the man Moses answered” and the like. As mentioned, I am not sure that these are the words of the Maimonides.