Psychology classes galore focus on the anatomy of the brain, but many references to parts of the brain are referenced in Judaic texts. In fact, there is significant overlap between the lobes of the brain and the parts of the mind delineated by the ancient texts.
(לו) מִי־שָׁ֭ת בַּטֻּח֣וֹת חָכְמָ֑ה א֤וֹ מִֽי־נָתַ֖ן לַשֶּׂ֣כְוִי בִינָֽה׃
(36) Who put wisdom in the tuchot? Who gave understanding to the mind?
(א) בטוחות. בכליות ויקראו כן ע״ש שהם טוחות ומכסות בחלב והוא מל׳ וטח את הבית (ויקרא י״ד:מ״ב):
In the hidden parts. In the kidneys, and they were called such because they are plastered and hidden by fat, from the same wording as "and he shall plaster the home" (Va-Yikra 14:42).
The kidneys?! Hold on, we'll explain this soon. Nowadays, we know that we rely on wisdom from our brain, but let's see how we got here.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּאָדָם, אַחַת יוֹעַצְתּוֹ לְטוֹבָה וְאַחַת יוֹעַצְתּוֹ לְרָעָה. וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּטוֹבָה לִימִינוֹ וְרָעָה לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֵב חָכָם לִימִינוֹ וְלֵב כְּסִיל לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ״.
This is a bit closer to reality. Kidneys are internal organs which have symmetry across the body (in many cases), just as the brain has two hemispheres. However, it is the brain which allows for rationalization.
(ה) וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת יקוק אֱלֹקֶ֑יךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ׃
(5) You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
נפשך. היא הרוח שבגוף והיא המתאו' וכחה נראה בכבד:
With all your soul denotes the corporeal spirit (i.e., desire). This force manifests itself in the kidneys.
Once again, a brain function is attributed to the kidneys. However, what is it that the emotional part of the brain shares with the rational part of the brain? Perhaps these "kidneys" are actually a reference to the frontal lobe.
The frontal lobe, highlighted in orange, is the most developed portion of the brain. It is involved in everything from logical decision making to emotional reaction, from judgment to movement.
In essence, it is responsible for the decisions made above, though its position is quite a bit higher than the gut.
One should then consider and reflect upon the usefulness of the limbs and organs and the ways of his rectification through them - the hands serving for taking and giving; the feet for walking the eyes for seeing; the ears for hearing; the nose for smelling; the tongue for speaking; the mouth for eating; the teeth for chewing; the stomach for digestion; the liver for purifying the food; the tubes for removing superfluities; the bowels for retention. The heart is the sanctuary of the natural heat and the well-spring of life. The brain is the seat of the spiritual faculties, the well-spring of sensation, and the root from which the nerves begin.
Before moving on, let us just take one final moment to understand the importance of the frontal lobe. It contains not only logic and judgment, but also a sense of attempted understanding of the Divine. Without the frontal lobe's higher thinking, God would remain nothing more than the grey-bearded man in the sky for the whole of our lives.
(טו) וַיְהִ֗י כִּֽי־הִקְשָׁ֣ה פַרְעֹה֮ לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ֒ וַיַּהֲרֹ֨ג יקוק כָּל־בְּכוֹר֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם מִבְּכֹ֥ר אָדָ֖ם וְעַד־בְּכ֣וֹר בְּהֵמָ֑ה עַל־כֵּן֩ אֲנִ֨י זֹבֵ֜חַ לַֽיקוק כָּל־פֶּ֤טֶר רֶ֙חֶם֙ הַזְּכָרִ֔ים וְכָל־בְּכ֥וֹר בָּנַ֖י אֶפְדֶּֽה׃ (טז) וְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הוֹצִיאָ֥נוּ יקוק מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃ (ס)
(15) When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every first male issue of the womb, but redeem every first-born among my sons.’ (16) “And so it shall be as a sign upon your hand and as a symbol on your forehead that with a mighty hand the LORD freed us from Egypt.”
ולטוטפת. תְּפִלִּין; [...] טטפת. "טט" בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, "פת" בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם (סנהדרין ד'). וּמְנַחֵם חִבְּרוֹ עִם "וְהַטֵּף אֶל דָּרוֹם" (יחזקאל כ"א), "אַל תַּטִּיפוּ" (מיכה ב'), לְשׁוֹן דִּבּוּר, כְּמוֹ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן, שֶׁהָרוֹאֶה אוֹתָם קָשׁוּר בֵּין הָעֵינַיִם, יִזְכֹּר הַנֵּס וִידַבֵּר בּוֹ:
ולטוטפת. This is the tefillin; [...] טטפת. for טט denotes “two” in Katpi and פת in Afriki denotes “two״ (Sanhedrin 4b). Menachem ben Seruk, however, associated it with (Ezekiel 21:2) “And speak (הטף) to the south״, and (Micah 2:6) “speak ye (תטיפו) not”; so that טטפת would be an expression denoting “speaking”, and corresponds to ולזכרון, because whoever sees the tefillin bound between the eyes will remember the miracle (so that they become a זכרון, a reminder) and will speak about it.
- For whom do people don tefillin?
- What appears to be the significance of the placement?
(א) ולטוטפות בין עיניך ואמר ולזכרון בין עיניך, שיונחו במקום הזכרון בין העינים שהוא ראשית המוח, והוא תחלת הזכרון ומעמד הצורות אחרי הפרדן מלפניו, והם מקיפים את כל הראש ברצועותיהם, והקשר שהוא על אחרית המוח המשמר הזכירה ולשון ''בין עיניך'', שיהיו באמצעות הראש לא מצד אחד, או ששם שרשי העינים ומשם יהיה הראות.
(1) And for frontlets (totafot) between your eyes: And it states, "and for a memory between your eyes," that he should place them on the place of memory between the eyes which is the beginning of the brain. And that is the beginning point of memory and where forms are stored after they separate from being in front of him. And the expression, "between your eyes," is that it be in the middle of the head and not to one side; or since there are [found] the roots of the eyes, and from there is seeing.
- For whom do people don tefillin?
- What appears to be the significance of the placement?
There is a small nafka mina (practical difference) between Rashi and Ramban. Rashi states that the purpose of placing tefillin between the eyes is to allow others to see and thus recall the miracle of the redemption, with his focus being on the wearer's placement around eye level; Ramban states that it is placed over the brain (lit. mind) to allow the wearer to remember, either via the brain itself or through the message passed through the optic nerve (lit. root of the eye). In either iteration, Rashi (circa 1040-1105) seems to address the viewer's perspective, whereas Ramban (circa 1194-1270) focuses on a more medical perspective. This is quite telling about the perspective each bears, and even leaves an opening for interesting debate about donning tefillin in isolation.
The optic nerve, highlighted in the above image, is a bundle of axons (tails of nerve cells) which connect the retina to the brain. It is responsible for transduction (conversion of light into signals sent to the brain) and transportation of the signals which allow us to see.
Additionally, as pictured, the brain protrudes just above the eyeballs, the second option offered by the Ramban. But he is not the only one with an understanding of the optic nerve and its processing speed!
וְעַל כֵּן כְּשֶׁמַּעֲבִירִין דָּבָר לִפְנֵי אָדָם בִּמְהִירוּת גָּדוֹל, אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּת הַדָּבָר, אַף שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת רָאָה הַדָּבָר בְּעֵינָיו מַמָּשׁ, עִם כָּל זֶה מֵחֲמַת הַמְּהִירוּת, לֹא הָיָה פְּנַאי לְהָבִיא הַדָּבָר לְתוֹךְ הַמֹּחַ. וְעַל כֵּן כְּשֶׁהַדָּבָר רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ, אֵין כֹּחַ בְּהָרְאוּת לֵילֵךְ לְשָׁם וְלַהֲבִיאוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמֹּחַ, מֵחֲמַת שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁרוֹאֶה מִן הַצַּד מְבַלְבְּלִים אוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן מֵחֲמַת הַפִּזּוּר שֶׁנִּתְפַּזֵּר הָרְאוּת, עַל־יְדֵי־זֶה הוּא נִקְלָשׁ, וְאֵין בּוֹ כֹּחַ לְהָבִיא הַדָּבָר שֶׁרוֹאֶה לְתוֹךְ הַמֹּחַ.
This is why, when an object is quickly passed in front of a person, he does not know its nature. Although he did in fact see the object with his own eyes, because [it passed by] so quickly there was insufficient time for him to bring [knowledge of] the object into his brain. Also when an object is far away, one’s vision lacks the strength to reach there and bring it into the brain, because he gets distracted by the objects he views peripherally. In addition, his vision gets diffused and so is weakened, it lacks the strength to bring [knowledge of] the observed object into the brain.
Rabbi Nachman addresses two visual principles in quick succession.
1. Beings need to focus on something for long enough in order for it to be transmitted. This principle is true; anything seen for less time is considered subliminal messaging and can be influential subconsciously. Further, this applies in terms of change blindness, a phenomena in which one detects no difference when there is a change due to initial inattention to detail, as well as inattentional blindness, not seeing an object at all due to lack of attention.
2. Objects need to be close to be seen. This principle certainly applies today, seen especially in the case of nearsightedness and farsightedness; however, being the need for an object to be close enough points more to nearsightedness.
This is a fascinating idea! A small bug enters his mind and chews away at his brain-- and yet, his functioning does not appear to be impaired! How could this be? There are two main possibilities.
הא דאמרינן באגדה וניקר במוחו ז' שנים. מעשה נסים נעשי' בו לרעה שהרי ניקב קרום של מוח טריפה, וטריפה אינה חיה.
That which the story speaks of when it says the gnat burrowed in his brain for seven years. A miracle occurred to the wicked man because one whose brain's membrane is torn is a tereifah, and it is impossible for a tereifah to live [but nonetheless, he did].
Ramban seems to be of the opinion that the gnat in only chewed through the membranes in the brain (see image below). However, a gnat's lifespan is 3-4 weeks, from lain egg to adulthood. Considering this, there must have been dozens of generations and likely hundreds in his skull, assuming this was natural, in which case it would have burrowed deeper. Assuming a miraculous lifespan, though, the gnat would nonetheless require more food. Let us consider another possibility as to what the gnat ate.
אישתיק - אותו יתוש מלנקר מפני קול הקורנס:
It was silent - the gnat ceased burrowing because of the sound of the hammer.
I would like to propose a slightly more radical theory. Hippelates and Siphunculina gnats, two common varieties, are attracted to tears, among other bodily fluids. I would like to propose that the gnat entered through the eye instead, a documented event (googling not recommended!), and chewed back to the temporal lobe. There, it was content to lay eggs and chew before the intense, repetitive action potential of the hammering, the electricity of which must have jolted the gnat as it burrowed past the fluids in the skull to the temporal lobe.
The temporal lobe is the area of the brain which contains primarily the auditory context, facilitating hearing as the thalamus passes action potentials to the cortex.
Having sought out the lobes and having found three out of four (parietal, in charge of positioning, is missing), it is time to move on to other sources from other time periods which address other parts of the brain; as we move towards the modern day, some may even identify the brain as we know it!
כשתתבונן בפעולות האלוקיות - רצוני לומר הפעולות הטבעיות - יתבאר לך מהם ערמת האלוק וחכמתו בבריאת בעל החיים והדרגת תנועות האיברים ושכנותם קצתם לקצתם; וכן יתבאר לך חכמתו ותחבולתו בהדרגת עניני כלל האיש ענין אחר ענין. והמשל בהדרגת הנהגותיו ושכנות האיברים - המוח מה שלפניו - רך מאד ואשר מאחריו - קשה יותר וחוט השדרה יותר קשה ממנו וכל מה שיתפשט - יתקשה; והעצבים הם כלי החוש והתנועה. והנה העצבים אשר הצטרף אליהם בהשגת החושים לבד או בתנועה קטנה שאין בה רק טורח מעט כתנועת העפעפים והלחי נולדו מן המוח; והעצבים אשר הוצרך אליהם לתנועת האיברים יצאו מחוט השדרה; וכאשר אי אפשר לעצבים מפני רכותם ואפילו היוצאים מחוט השדרה להניע הפרקים - עשה האלוק ית' תחבולה שיצאו בעצב חוטים ונמלאו החוטים ההם בשר ושבו עורק; אחר כן יצא העצב מקצה העורק וכבר החל להתקשות להתערב עמו מן החבל חתיכות קשות וישוב מיתר; וידבק המיתר באיבה ויחוסר בו אז יוכל העצב להניע האיברים על זאת ההדרגה.
On considering the Divine acts, or the processes of Nature, we get an insight into the prudence and wisdom of God as displayed in [...] His wisdom and plan in the successive and gradual development of the whole condition of each individual. [...] The front part is very soft, the back part is a little hard, the spinal marrow is still harder, and the farther it extends the harder it becomes. The nerves are the organs of sensation and motion. Some nerves are only required for sensation, or for slight movements, as, e.g., the movement of the eyelids or of the jaws; these nerves originate in the brain. The nerves which are required for the movements of the limbs come from the spinal marrow. But nerves, even those that come directly from the spinal cord, are too soft to set the joints in motion; therefore God made the following arrangement: the nerves branch out into fibers which are covered with flesh, and become muscles: the nerves that come forth at the extremities of the muscles and have already commenced to harden, and to combine with hard pieces of ligaments, are the sinews which are joined and attached to the limbs.
This commentary has a beautiful, teleological understanding of God. In essence, the argument is as follows: Because of the intrinsically complex nature of the human being, God must exist. Because of the differences in toughness and weakness, God must exist. Because of the complexity of purposes in each facet of the human, God must exist. And finally, because we function, God must exist.
The description here, perfectly explained by physician and Torah scholar Rambam, is an in-depth assessment of both the Central Nervous System and Peripheral Nervous System. In truth, more of his analysis is accurate than initially assumed. Rambam describes the brain being "softer" in the front and harder moving back; the ventral portion of the brain has less grey matter (density of 1045 kg/m³) as compared to white matter (density of 1041 kg/m³). However, it comes down to the comparison between the front and back of the brain, which is, indeed, more dense towards the back. As for the spine, which is comprised of nerves (density of 1075 kg/m³), it bears more density as well.
Furthermore, his next point is true; Rambam has a deep understanding of nerves. Split into sensory, inter- and motor neurons, some receive stimuli and others potentiate movement.
הקרום שעל המוח, יש בו חוטין; והמוח עצמו, יש בו דם ואינו יוצא מידי דמו במליחת הראש, לפי שעצם הראש מקיפו ועומד לפניו, ואין מקום לדם לזוב. לפיכך, הבא למולחו קורעו ומוציא המוח, וקורע הקרום ומולחו.
The membrane surrounding the brain has many veins, and the brain itself has much blood which will not come out through simply salting the head, because the skull is blocking it, not allowing for the blood to flow. Therefore, one who wants to salt it must cut the skull and remove the brain, cut the surrounding membrane and salt it.
(כו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(26) And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
This excerpt is from the creation of man on the sixth day, when God discussed his plans with wat Rashi (see there) describes as his cohort of angels.
- What does it mean to be in God's likeness?
(ד) כדמותנו בענין המעשיות שידמה בם קצת לפמליא של מעלה בצד מה שהם פועלים בידיעה ובהכרה. [...] ובקצת ידמה האדם לאל ית' הפועל בבחירה.
(4) "In our likeness," acting intelligently like the angels; though from free choice, not like the angels who act under Divine compulsion. [...] In this respect man is a little more like God Himself than are the angels, though our habitat is in the “lower” regions of the universe.
Seforno, paving the way for many works by Rabbi Dr. Abraham J. Twerski, describes the unique element of man as being his intellect and ability to have metacognition, or thoughts analyzing thoughts or feelings.
This source is given as the basis of shemirat einayim, the obligation to be cautious about what material you take in and what you look at. This movement was in large part advocated for by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.
The first source discusses kashrut, and what one must do in order to eat a brain. While on the one hand, this seems fairly gruesome, it also points to a fascinating idea-- that the brain must be treated differently because it functions differently, allowing only for limited passage.
First, this is fascinating as it fits with the concept of shemirat einayim, looking only at "kosher" material to prevent perversion from entering the mind.
However, it also points to a deeper idea. It seems to fit quite well with the idea of the intellect being the identifying facet between humans and animals, forcing man to evaluate an animal's brain before consuming it, and allowing for introspection into what it truly means to be in God's image.
When blood flows from the heart to the brain, it comes in paired arteries, known as the internal carotid and vertebral arteries. They flow up to just outside the brain, at which point the blood is filtered and larger, potentially harmful, particles are denied access. Consequently, although the blood is "purer" than it may be elsewhere, there is still a surplus.
אי אפשר שיולד האדם מתחלת ענינו בטבע בעל מעלה ולא בעל חסרון, כמו שאי אפשר שיולד האדם בטבע בעל מלאכה מן המלאכות, אבל אפשר שיולד בטבע מוכן למעלה או לחסרון בהיות פעולותיה יותר קלות עליו מפעולות זולתה, והמשל בו כשיהיה אדם מזגו נוטה אל היובש ויהיה עצם מוחו זך הלחות (בו) מעט שזה יקל עליו לגרוס ולזכור ולהבין הענינים יותר מאיש בעל לחה לבנה רב הלחות במוח, אבל אם יונח האיש ההוא המוכן במזגו אל זאת המעלה מבלתי למוד כלל, ולא יעורר כחו ישאר סכל בלא ספק, וכן כשילמדו ויבינו זה העב הטבע רב הלחה ידע ויבין אבל בקושי.
It is impossible for man to be born endowed by nature from his very birth with either virtue or vice, just as it is impossible that he should be born skilled by nature in any particular art. It is possible, however, that through natural causes he may from birth be so constituted as to have a predilection for a particular virtue or vice, so that he will more readily practise it than any other. For instance, a man whose natural constitution inclines towards dryness, whose brain matter is clear and not overloaded with fluids, finds it much easier to learn, remember, and understand things than the phlegmatic man whose brain is encumbered with a great deal of humidity. But, if one who inclines constitutionally towards a certain excellence is left entirely without instruction, and if his faculties are not stimulated, he will undoubtedly remain ignorant. On the other hand, if one by nature dull and phlegmatic, possessing an abundance of humidity, is instructed and enlightened, he will, though with difficulty, it is true, gradually succeed in acquiring knowledge and understanding.
The concept mentioned in Rambam is the basic idea behind nature versus nurture. In essence, the idea as explained by Darwin is as follows:
- Some elements of the character come from biological dispositions.
- Some elements of the character come from environmental consequences.
While we now traditionally understand this as a matter of genetics, Rambam chalked it up to the quality of cerebrospinal fluid, the liquid surrounding the brain and in the spinal cord. However, he is not the only one who believes in the importance of nature versus nurture, nor does he only believe in nature.
But if Rambam believes so deeply in something which we understand to not be the sole factor in shaping personality, what is his source? He was a brilliant doctor as well as Torah scholar, so evidently this must be founded in some text. Indeed, this is the case. His opinion is a far less extreme form of a certain Gemara:
דמשמשא בי ריחיא הוו לה בני נכפי דמשמשא על ארעא הוו לה בני שמוטי דדרכא על רמא דחמרא הוו לה בני גירדני דאכלה חרדלא הוו לה בני זלזלני דאכלה תחלי הוו לה בני דולפני דאכלה מוניני הוו לה בני מציצי עינא דאכלה גרגושתא הוו לה בני מכוערי.
The Gemara cites other possible consequences of a mother’s behavior that could affect her children: A woman who engages in intercourse in a mill will have epileptic children; one who engages in intercourse on the ground will have long-necked children; one who steps on a donkey’s dung when pregnant will have bald children; one who eats mustard during pregnancy will have gluttonous children; one who eats garden cress [taḥlei] will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine [moninei] will have children with blinking eyes; one who eats soil will have ugly children.
This source seems to place an exceptional amount of weight on the actions of a gestational mother and her eating habits. While it is true that teratogens, toxic chemicals like pesticides and illicit substances, can harm the development of a fetus, many of the ideas listed here have yet to be studied or proven.
Next, let's consider the other side of the dialectic: that one may have full control over all traits and faculties, deciding independently to improve in one way and pursue another attribute in order to achieve an end.
לֹא יְהֵא אָדָם בַּעַל שְׂחוֹק וּמַהֲתַלּוֹת וְלֹא עָצֵב וְאוֹנֵן אֶלָּא שָׂמֵחַ. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שְׂחוֹק וְקַלּוּת רֹאשׁ מַרְגִּילִין אֶת הָאָדָם לְעֶרְוָה. וְצִוּוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם פָּרוּץ בִּצְחוֹק וְלֹא עָצֵב וּמִתְאַבֵּל אֶלָּא מְקַבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת. וְכֵן לֹא יִהְיֶה בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ רְחָבָה נִבְהָל לַהוֹן וְלֹא עָצֵב וּבָטֵל מִמְּלָאכָה. אֶלָּא בַּעַל עַיִן טוֹבָה מְמַעֵט בְּעֵסֶק וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה. וְאוֹתוֹ הַמְּעַט שֶׁהוּא חֶלְקוֹ יִשְׂמַח בּוֹ. וְלֹא בַּעַל קְטָטָה וְלֹא בַּעַל קִנְאָה וְלֹא בַּעַל תַּאֲוָה וְלֹא רוֹדֵף אַחַר הַכָּבוֹד. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הַקִּנְאָה וְהַתַּאֲוָה וְהַכָּבוֹד מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר יֵלֵךְ בַּמִּדָּה הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁבְּכָל דֵּעָה וְדֵעָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל דֵּעוֹתָיו מְכֻוָּנוֹת בָּאֶמְצָעוּת. וְהוּא שֶׁשְּׁלֹמֹה אָמַר (משלי ד כו) "פַּלֵּס מַעְגַּל רַגְלֶךָ וְכָל דְּרָכֶיךָ יִכֹּנוּ":
Man shall not be frivolous and sarcastic, nor sad and pessimistic, but of good cheer. Thus said the wise men: "Frivolity and light-headedness train man for prostitution" (Pir. Ab. 3.13). And they have commanded: Man shall not be boisterous in laughter, nor sad and forlorn, but receive every person with a kind expression upon his face.6Pir. Ab. 1.15.C And so should he not be a man of an over-ambitious soul rushing for wealth, nor despondent and idle from work; but a being with a goodly eye, engage in affairs but little and be occupied in the study of the Torah, and in that little portion of his he shall rejoice. He shall not be contentious, envious, covetous or vain-glorious. Thus have the wise men said: "Envy, covetousness, and vain-gloriousness remove man from life" (Pir. Ab. 4.25). As a general rule of the matter he should follow the tendency of the middle-course of each and every disposition to the end that all of his tendencies will be firmly in the center, which is as Solomon said: "Balance well the track of thy foot, and let all thy ways be firmly right" (Prov. 4.26).
Rambam clearly believes in the potential for human growth and mediation lies in one's own hands. In fact, he believes it to be extremely simple that, despite one's condition, one may overcome circumstance dictated by the constitution of the CSF.
- So which is right? Is it nature, nurture or some combination of the two?