....To what is this analogous? To a garden-maze, a type of garden common among the ruling class, which is planted for the sake of amusement. The plants there are arranged in walls between which are found many confusing and interlacing paths, all similar to one another, the purpose of the whole being to challenge one to reach a portico in their midst. Some of the paths are straight ones which lead directly to the portico, but some cause one to stray, and to wander from it. The walker between the paths has no way of seeing or knowing whether he is on the true or the false path; for they are all similar, presenting no difference whatsoever to the observing eye. He will not reach his goal unless he has perfect familiarity and visual acquaintance with the paths through his having traversed them and reached the portico. He who occupies a commanding position in the portico, however, sees all of the paths before him and can discriminate between the true and the false ones. He is in a position to warn those who walk upon them and to tell them, "This is the path; take it!" He who is willing to believe him will reach the designated spot; but he who is not willing to believe him, but would rather trust to his eyes, will certainly remain lost and fail to reach it.

So too in relation to the idea under discussion. He who has not yet achieved dominion over his evil inclination is in the midst of the paths and cannot distinguish between them. But those who rule their evil inclination, those who have reached the portico, who have already left the paths and who clearly see all of the ways before their eyes - they can advise him who is willing to listen, and it is to them that we must trust.

And what is the advice that they give us'? - 'Let us enter into an accounting.' Let us come and compute the world's account." For they have already experienced, and seen, and learned that this alone is the true path by which a man may reach the good that he seeks, and that there is none beside this....

Were garden Mazes common in the days of the Ramchal (1707-1746)?

Maze gardens proliferated during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. They took not only the traditional hedge form, but could also be incorporated into herbaceous borders. Their popularity began to decline in the late eighteenth century, however, and many were removed and destroyed, or simply allowed to become overgrown masses of hedge and tree. They were highly labour intensive to maintain, and authorities often facilitated their removal as maze gardens, ever the summerhouses of sin, 'served purposes not permitted in public spaces'.

Mesilas Yesharim ch. 3



Were garden Mazes common in the days of the Ramchal (1707-1746)?

When there is a question of performing a specific action, he should do nothing before he weighs the action in the scale of the aforementioned understanding. And when there is no such question, the idea should take the form of his bringing before himself the remembrance of his deeds in general and weighing them, likewise, in the scales of this criterion to determine what they contain of evil, so that he may cast it aside, and what of good, so that he may be constant in it and strengthen himself in it.

The whole link is interesting: http://www.gardenhistoryinfo.com/gardenpag...egardens02.html

ETA: Can a mod please fix the typo in the title?

Aseh lecha rav [marbeh eitza marbeh tevuna] v'histalek min hasafek.

I'm hung up on this:



Before you do something, you must say that this is good, and that is bad. Is that really how our actions are classified? Really?

If I am debating whether to get another half hour of sleep or get up for minyan -- or if I'm debating whether to learn another half hour or go to sleep, to give a simple example, what is "Evil" and what is "Good"? Both have pros and cons.

How is this advice helpful?

....Feeling," however, implies the investigation even of the good actions themselves to determine whether they involve any leaning which is not good or any bad aspect which it is necessary to remove and to eradicate. This is analogous to a person's feeling a garment to determine whether its material is good and sturdy or weak and rotted. In the same respect he must "feel" his actions by subjecting them to a most exhaustive examination to determine their nature, so that he might remain free of any impurities.

or do you prefer the "tzadik" who has never gone through it?

perhaps that is were "feeling" comes in:

No such person exists.

not sure i'm following your thought.. my question is that it seem like the chapter is saying one needs to think and decide before doing something what is Good and what is Evil. This is a nice thought, but most of our actions are neither Good, nor Evil. Staying up late in order to debate this point with you is neither Good, nor Evil. Rather it has pros and cons.

true, but the question then is, should this "rav" be preferably someone who has "expereince" having gone through this himself, or do you prefer the "tzadik" who has never gone through it?

ok, so how about a "Rav" who hasn't really "gone through" these things.

my question is that it seem like the chapter is saying one needs to think and decide before doing something what is Good and what is Evil. This is a nice thought, but most of our actions are neither Good, nor Evil. Staying up late in order to debate this point with you is neither Good, nor Evil. Rather it has pros and cons.

On asking advice, should one go to a Tzadik or to one who has already experienced and gotten out of everything? or it doesn't really matter if one "went through the maze" as long as they can see the whole thing?

The Chovos HaLevavos in his Shaar HaBechirah writes that ultimately everything can be boiled down to its essence. Either good or evil. I have to review his exact approach,but basically everything can be weighed one way or the other. The trick is to be honest with one's self and have the courage to truly identify what is driving us at any particular moment.

You'd be a fool to actually believe that even a Rav or Rebbe hasn't "gone through" these things. "Kol hagodel mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu." "Who ever is greater than his friend his evil inclination is greater still"
In addition,Rav Hutner, in his sefer Pachad Yitzchok, explains the concept of "sheva yipol tzaddik v'kom". Many wrongly translate this to mean that a tzaddik falls seven times but gets up.He explains that it actually means in order to become a tzaddik, one has to fall seven times. I.E. fail many times over. The difference between the tzaddik and the rashah ends up being who has the will and strength to get up and try again.He says can you imagine how many times the Chofetz Chayim must have been nichshal in the sin of lashon harah?
His greatness in this particular subject proves how many times he fell,but ultimately always got back up again.

Thanks Nooch, I understand better now what he is trying to say. So the question is that of motivation? Not so much the expected outcome?

I.e. if you do some introspection and decide that your motivation for X is Good, then you should go ahead and do it?

I still have two questions on this.

First, do you (collective you) think that it is true, that if you think hard enough about motives of every action you will be able to discern whether your motives are Good or Evil? It just seems like such an oversimplification of how people make decisions...

Secondly, there is a huge assumption working that if you just think hard enough, you will be able to describe accurately and fully all the motives that go into making a behavioral decision. However, we all know now that much of what goes on in our minds is hidden from our awareness. If just thinking hard about motivations had been enough, psychologists would be out of jobs.

I want to say though that the kernel of truth present is important. Just because our motivations are usually far more nuanced than "Good" or "Evil" and just because we often have a hard time understanding fully why we want to do something, does not mean we should not be introspective and self-aware.