At the end of the sixth day of creation, the Torah tells us "God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good" (Bereishis 1:19). The commentators have pointed out that on previous occasions during the process of creation, the Torah says only that it was good. What was special about the end of the sixth day of creation, that made it very good ? One answer, given by Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, is that when one looks at everything that was created, taking everything into perspective, he realizes that there is an entire system involved, working in harmony, and that everything, even the seemingly negative elements, has its place. This explanation echoes and amplifies the comment of the rabbis, that the words 'tov meod,' very good, in this verse can also be understood as 'tov maves'- that death itself is good. If man were not destined to die, then he would make no effort to raise a new generation to take its place in developing the world. Thus, although death appears to be something negative, when looked at in a wider perspective it can be seen to be a source of good, as well.
The famous Talmudic scholar, Rabbi Yosef Engel, in a charming play on words, gave a different twist to this comment of the rabbis. He wrote that any 'meod,' any extreme, spells death. Rabbi Engel was alluding to the approach of the Rambam to ethical behavior, as explicated in his Shemoneh Perokim and in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Deos, that a person should try, in his behavior, to follow the middle path, the path of moderation. For example, a person should not, on the one hand, be stingy with his possessions, but, on the other hand, should not be too extravagant in the way that he donates his money to charity, either. In this way, says the Rambam, he will be following the path of God, and thereby fulfilling the Biblical requirement of walking in God's ways. Following an extreme, therefore, says Rabbi Engel, is a deviation from this approach, and can, under certain circumstances, be fatal. I would like to offer a variation of Rabbi Engel's remark, based on Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's understanding of the Rambam's 'doctrine of moderation.' Rav Soloveitchik explained that the Rambam did not mean to say that every action that a person does should be in the middle of the spectrum between extreme excess and extreme paucity. Rather, in each situation, there is a range of options, and if one acts appropriately, in the end, his approach in regard to each character trait will be roughly in the middle of the spectrum. Rav Aharon Soloveichik gave a somewhat similar explanation. He said that it is a violation of the command of walking in God's ways to be a drunkard. However, to take one drink does not constitute such a violation. There is, in fact, no specific act that constitutes such a violation. However, if a person drinks enough times to turn himself into a drunkard, then, in the end, he will have transgressed the commandment of walking in God's path.
Following the approach of both Rav Yosef Dov and Rav Aharon Soloveichik to the Rambam's 'doctrine of moderation,' it would appear that the way to know whether a person has followed this doctrine is to look back, at the end of his life, at his behavior and to see what kind of person he was, in the final analysis. Actually, this is how Rabbi Yosef Albo, in his Sefer Ha-Ikkarim - Book of Principles - explains the verse of Koheles 3:19, which is usually translated to say, "... and there is no superiority (mosar) of man over beast because all is nothingness." Rabbi Albo explains the verse to mean that the mosar, the superiority, of man over beast is 'ayin' - nothing - meaning, that it is discernable at the stage of 'nothingness,' meaning, after death. After a man dies, says Rabbi Albo, one can see whether and to what extent he was superior to the beast. With Rabbi Yosef Engel's play on words in mind, then, perhaps we can explain our verse in Bereishis in a way similar to Rabbi Albo's explanation of the verse in Koheles. When the Torah says 'tov meod,' it is alluding to death, and the message is that at one's death, we can see whether the 'meod,' the extreme forms of behavior a person may have taken at certain junctures in his life, were good. If, in the final analysis, he lived a life of general moderation, then the extreme positions he took at certain times were not a contradiction to the requirement of following in God's ways, but, rather, positions that were necessary as the situation arose. There are, indeed, situations in life that call for a certain degree of passion and extremism, and we should not be reluctant to comport ourselves in this way when the need arises. Our general approach, however, as defined by the Rambam, should be one that leads to a personality that is of a moderate nature.
Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) at the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.
To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe send message with subject line unsubscribe to same address.