In the Midrash (Genesis Rabba 5:7): Rav Huna said: He stood all of them up between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. Said Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: He supported them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. The Rabbis said: He squeezed them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. Joshua said to them: From the fact that the two carrying-poles of the Ark held all of you, know that the Presence of God is among you. This is as it says: “And Joshua said: With this, you will know that the Living God is in your midst (Josh. 3:10).”
Before we begin to breathe inner life into this teaching (even if the Rabbis did not have this in mind, the spirit of this teaching perhaps moves in the same plane),1This comment reflects R. Salanter’s sophistication as a reader (in light of his exposure to the role of the unconscious forces in a person). Plain meaning (peshat) is often not plain meaning. Reason and seemingly rational conclusions are often driven by irrational desires and forces to predetermined (non-rational) conclusions. One can also say that, by 1861, R. Salanter’s cultural interpretive context was affected by modern perspectives. He did not interpret this rabbinic text according to its “naive,” plain meaning, as did other readers still primarily embedded in traditional culture. let us express, briefly and succinctly, some generalizations about the character of the ways of human beings, for they are diverse. Some have good character. Their traits are naturally desirable. And some are the opposite. So too, within an individual person, sometimes psychic forces do not march in lockstep. Some march (without a control or guide) in a straight path. Some of them go in twisted paths. They will erupt to do harm if the person does not stop them with the power of his reason.
A person should not say: Whatever God has made2Compare Ecclesiastes 7:29. cannot be changed, and He, blessed be He, imbued this power of evil in me; how can I hope to uproot it completely? This is not so. Human powers can be conquered and changed. Our eyes see this in the nature of animals; a human being is powerful enough to master them in the control of his will, that they not do evil or destroy.3Compare Isaiah 11:9. He can domesticate them, changing their nature and thoroughly uprooting the evil of their character. So, the human being himself has within his power4Compare Genesis 31:39. to conquer his evil nature5Below R. Salanter describes this as a method of character formation – kibbush hamiddot – literally, “conquering the traits.” We translate this as the method of repression. so that it is not expressed in personal action, and also to change his nature for the better through study and habituation (hergel).6Below, R. Salanter describes this as an alternative method of character improvement called tikkun hamiddot – literally, “the improvement of traits.” We translate this as the method of sublimation. (See Ḥeshbon HaNefesh.)7A book whose title literally means “accounting of the soul,” published in the early nineteenth century by a moderate maskil, Menachem Mendel Lefin of Satanov (1749–1826), which deals with identifying character traits and working on changing them. Lefin’s work was influenced by the moral self-improvement program described in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1791). And as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Avot 4:1): “Who is [truly] mighty? One who conquers his [evil] urge, as it is said (Prov. 198This is a typographical error – the actual location is Proverbs 16:32.): ‘Better one who is slow to anger than one who is mighty; and one who controls his spirit than one who captures a city.’” For the definition of “might” is to rise up against an opponent and conquer him by force and strength. And the “capture of a city” occurs when the people of the city accede to the dictates of their captor with love and affection, and it is not burdensome for them to fulfill his commands. With joy and festivity, they are happy to carry out his plans. So the “conqueror of his urge” is only mighty in that he strengthens himself to hold back his desire. This is the state of “slow to anger” – the person has anger, but he holds it back so that it does not break out. From this, little by little, he can arrive at the state of “controls his spirit,” i.e., that the spirit of his desire is in the power of his straightforward reason to love righteousness – and not desire its opposite. This is the whole duty of man:9Compare Ecclesiastes 12:13. to root out of his heart every bad quality and character trait (midda). For as long as he has not been cured of their sickness, even if he overcomes his urge many times, he will eventually fall into its net (see Shaarei Kedusha,10R. Chaim Vital (1542–1620, Safed) was a kabbalist and the foremost disciple of R. Isaac Luria (Arizal), a Jewish mystic and the founder of modern Kabbala. R. Vital’s Shaarei Kedusha (TheGates of Holiness) is a manual of proper comport and character for aspiring mystics. Part 1, Gate 3). This was the virtue of our father Abraham, may peace be upon him, that he sublimated all the psychological drives that came with his body. As they, of blessed memory, said (Genesis Rabba, Lekh Lekha 46): “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: ‘You have only one husk – the foreskin. Remove it and the flaw will be gone.’ ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1).” See further there. And as they said (Genesis Rabba 11): “Everything that was created during the six days of creation needs work; for example, the mustard seed needs to be sweetened…even the human being needs to be perfected.”*11How can any individual do as much as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Can they start the Jewish people and religion again? R. Salanter’s answer is: “No” – but they can match Abraham in achieving perfection of the urge and removal of inner flaws. And with this we can explain the midrash (Genesis Rabba 46) on the verse (Hos. 9:10): “‘As the first fruit to ripen on a fig tree, so I regarded your fathers’…. R. Yudan says: Just as this fig has no husk except for its stem, take that off and the flaw will be gone, so the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: ‘You have only one husk – the foreskin. Remove it and the flaw will be gone.’ ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1).”
This also fits the midrashic statement (ibid., ch. 1): “Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some were created and some arose in thought to be created…. The patriarchs…arose in thought to be created. From whence [do we learn this about] the patriarchs? It is said (Hos. 9:10): ‘As grapes in the desert…’ (this is the end of the aforementioned verse, ‘as the first fruit to ripen in a fig tree…’).” This can be explained [as follows]: It is known that in action, cause precedes effect. And the effect (which is the goal) follows its preceding causes. However, in thought, the matter is reversed – the goal comes first. In accordance with the goal (and in order attain it), the preceding causes are arranged to arrive at the effect. Now in the creation of the universe (the earth and everything on it – see what the writers have said about this), the goal was the perfect human being, who fears God and observes His commandments. As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 31b): “What does ‘This is the whole duty of man’ (Eccl. 12:13) mean? R. Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The whole world was created solely for the sake of this one.”12I.e., the perfect human, the patriarchs. See further there. According to the saying of the Tanna DeVei Eliyahu (quoted above), it can be seen clearly that the focus, that is, the goal, of creation is for the sake of the superior human being – the one who fulfills his obligation to rise to the level of the patriarchs.
This is the meaning of the above-quoted midrashic saying: before creation took place, “the patriarchs arose in thought to be created.” That is, the goal of creating the world in His thought, blessed be He (which precedes the cause, i.e., the actual creation of the universe), was to generate human beings who reach the level of the patriarchs.
This is the meaning of the above-quoted midrash, “As the first fruit to ripen in a fig tree, so I regarded your fathers,” that is, the human was created for this goal. And each person has it in his hands and in his power to sublimate all the psychological drives that are intertwined with his materiality – except for the piece that Abraham was commanded to cut off.13Here again, R. Salanter, applying his own creative thinking, is re-presenting the practice of Mussar. Earlier, he stressed its importance as a particular behavior intended to increase awareness of God and true reverence. Now he presents Mussar as the way to achieve the universal goal of the Torah (and God’s reason for creating the world) – to perfect human character. Each individual is obligated to make himself whole, like Abraham. An oral tradition of the Mussar movement quotes R. Salanter as saying: “The Torah came to make a mentsch.” This, on one foot, is his summary and his view of the goal of the whole Torah.
However, even under conditions of “perfecting the urge” [i.e., sublimation], he should not slacken his grip on “conquering his urge” [i.e., repression], for even if the evil is uprooted from within him, there is still a source of pollution buried in him to taint his waters – through an intense stimulus that can arouse them to emerge from hiding, spread out, and destroy. For example: a man conditioned himself with the virtue of patience, so that he does not get angry at all at anything done against his will or advantage. Still, in an important matter, which weighs upon him heavily as a pile of sand and pains him because it strikes deep, he is not assured that it will not undermine and destroy the good thing he built with so much toil. At such a time, he will need extra strength to conquer this intense desire that he is not accustomed to. (For the habit of “conquering” [repressing] this trait [of anger], which he acquired earlier, when he was at the stage of repression, has already been abandoned and uprooted from within him, for he has not used it for a long time – since he first attained the level of “perfecting” [sublimating]). Who knows if at such a time14See Esther 4:14. he will attain the required degree of strength – especially since repression is hard to achieve without heavy conditioning?15Conquering (repressing, kevisha) the urge means resisting one’s inclinations. For example: Take the case of careful language. Conquering the evil urge would entail resisting the urge to speak derogatory words about another. (Note: Negative speech typically reflects the speaker’s own feelings of inadequacy or being in a low state.) Perfecting the urge (sublimation, tikkun) means controlling and redirecting the inclination so that it does not manifest in the desire for evil. In the case of language, this might mean channeling the desire to say something derogatory into a desire to speak positively. In the past, there was a pleasure in belittling the other person. Now, one receives pleasure from building the other up. (Such speech typically reflects the speaker’s attaining a state of self-acceptance.) However, R. Salanter warns that even after one reaches the states of sublimation, one must be careful to maintain the ability to repress when necessary. In the example of language, despite having redirected the urge, there are always latent levels of inclination that can be aroused by a personal setback or new pressures in one’s life. The evil urge then could come rushing back and must be conquered. At that point, one can only suppress the urge by an act of will.
So it is good for a person of upright character traits to raise them to a high level from the perspective of repression – to habituate [i.e., condition] himself to reverse his traits forcefully, thereby to light a lamp before him for the “bad days,” the time of temptation, when (God forbid) his good foundations will weaken. Nevertheless, since it is hard for a person to use the trait of strength [i.e., repression] and to bear its perpetual yoke and pain, one should seek counsel and strategy to perfect [i.e., sublimate] his character traits and psychological drives, more or less – so that, at least, the corruption of his character traits will be remote, and he will not need the trait of strength except very occasionally, at a time of temptation according to his emotional state, situation, and psychological constitution.16A chart comparing R. Salanter’s two methods of altering behavior – repression and sublimation – appears in the final footnote of this chapter.
This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Avot (4:2): “Flee from transgression.” Each person has different character traits, and so each person should be very cautious and seek the character trait that is most likely to corrupt him and sublimate it so that the path [to corruption] is remote. The foundational principle of when to use sublimation is in interpersonal (bein adam leḥavero) matters – for which even Yom Kippur cannot atone (Yoma 85b). As the verse says (II Sam. 24:14): “May I fall into the hand of God, for His mercies are many, and not fall into the hand of man.”17This is R. Salanter’s personal midrash on the verse. Literally, the verse means that King David chooses to have a divine punishment inflicted on him and Israel (for the sin of carrying out an unauthorized census) rather than a human enemy be sent by God to punish them. He trusts that God’s mercies will minimize the punishment. An enemy may inflict pain without limit. R. Salanter’s midrash is: If the person sins, let it be a failure in the service of God – for God is merciful and quick to forgive. But do not sin against a fellow human being – for that person suffers more than God does from your behavior. That person also possesses less love and compassion than God – so he will be slower to forgive. Note that in the Iggeret HaMussar, R. Salanter complained that in Lithuania, pious Jews meticulously observed the commandments to serve God (for example, keeping Jewish dietary laws) but permitted themselves too often to violate the laws governing behavior toward other human beings.
Rambam wrote (Shemona Perakim, ch. 6):18This translation follows the Gorfinkle translation, available on Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Eight_Chapters. Philosophers maintain that though the man of self-restraint performs moral and praiseworthy deeds, yet he does them desiring and craving all the while for immoral deeds, but, subduing his passions…succeeds, though with constant vexation and irritation, in acting morally. The saintly man, however, is guided in his actions by that to which his inclination and disposition prompt him, in consequence of which he acts morally from innate longing and desire. Philosophers unanimously agree that the latter is superior to, and more perfect than, the one who has to curb his passions, although they add that it is possible for such a one to equal the saintly man in many regards…. King Solomon, peace be upon him, entertained the same idea when he said (Prov. 21:10): “The soul of the wicked desires evil,” and, in regard to the saintly man’s rejoicing in doing good, and the discontent experienced by him, who is not innately righteous, when required to act justly, he says (Prov. 21:15): “It is bliss to the righteous to do justice, but torment to the evil-doer. Thus, what the prophets say [in Proverbs] is in agreement with what the philosophers mention. When, however, we consult the Rabbis on this subject, it would seem that they consider him who desires iniquity, and craves for it [but does not do it], more praiseworthy and perfect than the one who feels no torment at refraining from evil; and they even go so far as to maintain that the more praiseworthy and perfect a man is, the greater is his desire to commit iniquity, and the more irritation does he feel at having to desist from it…. Furthermore, they command that man should conquer his desires, but they forbid one to say, “I, by my nature, do not desire to commit such and such a transgression, even though the Law does not forbid it.” R. Simeon ben Gamaliel summed up this thought in the words, “Man should not say, ‘I do not want to eat meat together with milk; I do not want to wear clothes made of a mixture of wool and linen; I do not want to enter into an incestuous marriage,’ but he should say, ‘I do indeed want to, yet I must not, for my father in Heaven has forbidden it.’”19Sifra, Parshat Kedoshim 10. At first blush, by a superficial comparison of the sayings (of the Sages, of blessed memory, and of the philosophers),20This is R. Salanter’s parenthetical interjection. one might be inclined to say that they contradict one another. Such, however, is not the case. Both are correct and, moreover, are not in disagreement in the least, as the evils which the philosophers term such and of which they say that he who has no longing for them is more to be praised than he who desires them but conquers his passion are things which all people commonly agree are evils, such as the shedding of blood, theft, robbery, fraud, injury to one who has done no harm, ingratitude, contempt for parents, and the like. These proscriptions are called commandments (mitzvot) about which the Rabbis said (Yoma 67b): “If they had not already been written in the Torah, it would be proper to add them.” Some…called these rational laws. There is no doubt that a soul which has the desire for, and lusts after, the above-mentioned misdeeds, is imperfect, that a noble soul has absolutely no desire for any such crimes, and experiences no struggle in refraining from them. When, however, the Rabbis maintain that he who overcomes his desire has more merit and a greater reward (than he who has no temptation), they say so only in reference to laws that are ceremonial prohibitions. (That is, the commandments which we heard at Mount Sinai, and which otherwise our reason would not require.)21This is R. Salanter’s parenthetical interjection. This is quite true, since, were it not for the Torah, they would not at all be considered transgressions. Therefore, the Rabbis say that man should permit his soul to entertain the natural inclination for these things, but that the Torah alone should restrain him from them. Ponder over the wisdom of these men of blessed memory manifest in the examples they adduce. They do not declare, “Man should not say, ‘I have no desire to kill, to steal and to lie…!’” The instances they cite are all from the ceremonial law, such as partaking of meat and milk together, wearing clothes made of wool and linen, etc.
The words of Rambam do not contradict what we wrote, [namely] that a person must perfect [sublimate] all his psychological drives, for there are two kinds of sublimation. The first is that a person transforms his psychological drives and character traits for the good – until the evil urge is completely uprooted and is neither seen nor found22Compare Pesaḥim 5b; 48a. Compare also Exodus 12:19 and 13:7. in him at all. To reach this level, it is not enough for a person to sublimate his will in general to long for good and to hate evil. Rather a person must seek out ways to sublimate each character trait and each of the psychological drives specifically. This approach applies to the rational, interpersonal mitzvot, in accordance with the aforementioned words of Rambam, of blessed memory. The second type of perfection is the sublimation of one’s will in general to love to observe the words of blessed God in ceremonial [i.e., non-rational] commandments. One should seek to reduce the power of desire in every detail – until, practically, the sense of “I want to eat meat with milk” and the sense of “I cannot eat meat with milk” are distinguishable only in the abstract, not on the material level – rationally, not instinctively.
The more difficult aspect of sublimation pertains to the character traits, for the general rule of character traits is that good character traits apply only as far as the person himself is concerned, but with regard to one’s fellow, the duty is to use the opposite trait with all one’s might. For example, fleeing from honor is a rare trait. As the [Sages,] of blessed memory, said (Avot 4:21), the lust for honor shortens a person’s life. Yet when it comes to one’s fellow, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (ibid. 1): “Who is honored? One who honors all human beings.” Asceticism is a sublime virtue of the elite, but only with respect to the person himself. When it comes to the benefit and pleasure of his fellow, the duty to use the opposite of asceticism applies. One must go out into the markets and streets of the city for the benefit of his fellow and, all the more so, public benefit. This is [the meaning of] the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Deuteronomy Rabba 11): “What is [the meaning of the verse that Moses was] ‘the man of God’? R. Avin said: His lower half was human; his upper half was divine.” For our teacher Moses was a godly man – saintly, removed from the pleasures of the world – yet half of him was human when it came to Israel, who depended on him. So it is with most character traits, and especially humility, the greatest of all the character traits. The duty is to use it in the extreme, as they, of blessed memory, said (Sota 5a): “R. Aḥa bar Yaakov said: ‘[Have nothing to do] with [pride], even a bit of it.’” And as Rambam, of blessed memory, explained the mishna [Avot 4:4]: “Be very, very lowly in spirit….”23Rambam explains that humility is the one human virtue where we do not seek the golden mean – in the case of humility, between pride and lowliness of spirit. Rather, pursue the extreme of lowliness in spirit (Laws of Moral Dispositions 2:3). However, you dare not, you dare not, use this trait on a friend, to reduce his importance, God forbid.
This is [the meaning of] the saying of the Tosefta (Berakhot, ch. 4): “Saul merited the kingship only because of his humility, as it is said (I Sam. 9:5): ‘Lest my father stop worrying about the donkeys and worry about us.’ He rated his servant equal to himself. But Samuel did not speak accordingly. Rather [he said] (ibid. 10:2), ‘Your father has left the matter of the donkeys and is worrying about [the two of] you, saying: What shall I do about my son?’” Saul, with regard to himself, exercised the trait of humility and compared the servant to himself. However, Samuel was another person, so there was no place for humility; how could he rate the servant as he did Saul? Therefore, he said that the basis of the anxiety was “What shall I do about my son?” – for Saul was much greater in importance than his servant was.
To this end, a person must endeavor to incorporate everything and its opposite within his psyche.24Emphasis added. He should condition his soul so that when he seeks something on his own behalf, the necessary character traits are evoked, and their opposite is forgotten. But when he seeks the benefit of the other, this opposite trait should be aroused in him, and the root trait momentarily forgotten from his soul.25R. Salanter is developing a model of a Mussar disciple as a selfless spiritual hero. When it comes to himself, he is self-abnegating, modest to a fault. But with other people, he honors them by feeding their need for recognition and standing. Though not explicit, the underlying assumption is that the Mussar disciple is reaching out to and dealing with laypeople in this fashion. In the case of dealing with another Mussar disciple, would he seek to have them renounce their ego and be totally selfless, or would they be entitled to recognition and ego-stroking (just as another lay person would)? Disciples in later generations grappled with this question and took different paths. Accordingly, some demanded extraordinary selflessness only from themselves as Mussar disciples, while others sought to move both other Mussar disciples and even lay people to extraordinary spiritual standards.
One should not be crestfallen or astonished at this prospect; after all, we constantly see the phenomenon of a trait and its opposite within the human soul, and a person uses them naturally (without being led or guided), each one in its appropriate situation and time – such as memory and forgetfulness and the like. Furthermore, human beings have the capacity to expand the power of their psychological drives and naturally use them for a matter and its opposite. This is [the meaning of] the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabba 14): “If I create [man] from the heavenly creatures…from the earthly creatures…so I will create him from both.” The human being was created with this feature: that he has the power to sublimate his psychological drives, to be, with respect to himself, crowned with all the traits and virtues, like the heavenly creatures, removed from all the delights of the world, but with respect to others, to be like the earthly creatures, a person who senses and knows all the delights of the world,26Note that in R. Salanter’s typology, a typology which runs through much of classical Mussar literature, the heavenly aspect, i.e., the spiritual aspect, of the human renounces the pleasures of this world, including ego satisfaction. The earthly, physical side of humans wants and feels all the delights of the physical world, including ego satisfaction. The Mussarist raises himself to the spiritual level, including renouncing ego satisfaction, but honors and offers these delights to the average person, who enjoys worldly delights. This is in accordance with the Torah’s command to treat others with respect. able to give strength to the masses and to empathize with them. As the Rabbis, may they be blessed, said (Ketubbot 17a): “One’s mind should always be in sync with mankind’s.”
In general, when a person is young, before he has had the trial of bearing the yoke, it is very hard for him to repress character traits, but it is easier for him to learn to sublimate his character traits. As they say (Avot 4:20): “He who learns when he is young, to what is it likened? To ink written on new paper.” The days of middle and old age, when it is hard for a person to learn sublimation, accords with their saying (ibid.): “And he who learns when he is old, to what is it likened? To ink written on erased [blotted] paper.” Moreover, his heart is not in it due to preoccupation with the burdens of life. However, repression is not such a burden for him, since he is conditioned27In R. Salanter’s use, the term “murgal” refers to an intensive conditioning and internalization, to the point where the conditioned emotion or behavior becomes second nature. to bear a yoke to seek his food and needs and desires.
Therefore, his service to God, blessed be His name, in the younger years should be in the mode of sublimation of the character traits to serve willingly and joyfully, and in old age, the mode should be repression of character traits, without having to fight as much desire or will. If one is conditioned in his youth to sublimate his character traits, this will be helpful and useful for his old age (as there are many factors that can rekindle the evil of his character traits, as mentioned above), to clear the way to the path of repression. This is the meaning of the verse in Scripture (Prov. 22:6): “Initiate a young man upon his path (the path that is appropriate for him to remove his folly – as Scripture states, ‘Folly is settled [in the heart of a youth]…’ (Prov. 22:15) – so that the folly is not a screen that impedes him, thus bringing him to the mode of sublimation); thus, even when he is old (although he will not truly control [the urge] as when he was being initiated, at the very least) he will not stray from it.” And in Ecclesiastes (12:1): “Remember your Creator in your youth before the bad days come.” And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, deduced (Shabbat 151b): “These [‘bad days’] are the days of old age, when the years which you say, ‘I have no desire for them,’ will come.”
Perhaps we can read this idea into the words of our Sages, of blessed memory (Shabbat 63b): R. Huna said: Why is it written (Eccl. 11:9), “Rejoice, young man, in your childhood, and let your heart be happy in the days of your youth, and follow the ways of your heart and your eyes’ delight. But know that on all this, God will bring you to judgment’? Up to this point (up to ‘But know that on all this…’), these are the words of the evil urge. The rest of the sentence is the words of the good urge.” As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Berakhot 54a): “‘[Serve God] with all your heart’28Deuteronomy 6:2. – with both your urges, the good urge and the evil urge.”29Another advantage of the method of sublimation in youth is that one is able to serve God with both urges. The evil urge is being channeled constructively rather than repressed or crushed. Then, the person is serving God with all their desires, both the naturally good ones and the redirected dangerous ones.
This must be explained. The writers call reason the “good urge” (“yetzer tov”) and the other psychological drives are called the “evil urge” (“yetzer hara”). (See Ḥovot HaLevavot,30Baḥya ibn Pakuda, Duties of the Heart, a classic of medieval Mussar literature. Gate of the Service of God: ch. 5, on the dialogue of reason and the soul.) This means that reason seeks the ultimate purpose of everything. It does not focus its understanding on the short term, on the appearance of that which is attractive,31Compare Genesis 3:6. nor on the sense that something is sweet to the palate.32Compare Song of Songs 2:3. Rather, it looks into the distance, to the ultimate goal. If it is a just outcome, then reason will judge it so from the beginning and uphold it. Yet human emotions – this is their foolish way33Compare Psalms 49:14. – see the near term; whatever pleases the senses they bring closer to themselves, even when it will be bitter at the end, when all the human’s actions, whether good or evil, will be brought to judgment by God.34See Ecclesiastes 11:9. This is why straight35I.e., undistorted. reason decides to observe all of God’s decrees36Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. and is the yetzer tov, while the emotions draw into their net what is immediately pleasant, even when it goes against God. This is the yetzer hara. When a person is in the mode of repressing his character traits and psychological drives, repressed by his reason, he is called one who serves God with his yetzer tov, that is, his reason. And when he sublimates his character traits and psychological drives, to the point that they only desire what God asks of them,37Compare Micah 6:8. he is called one who serves God with his yetzer hara, that is, the psychological drives whose essence is disposed toward evil, which the person sublimated, sweetening their bitterness and changing them to good. This is “with both your urges, the good urge and the evil urge” – through repression and sublimation (as mentioned).
In his youth, a person’s primary efforts should be in the mode of sublimation, to the point where his psychological drives are drawn only to righteousness and uprightness; then he will be joyful, as Scripture says (Eccl. 11:9): “Rejoice, young man, in your childhood…and follow the ways of your heart and your eyes’ delight.” This means using the psychological drives, which are predisposed to look at the short term. This is what they, of blessed memory, said: “Up to this point, these are the words of the evil urge.” That is, a person’s concern in his youthful state should be to see to it that his traits are sublimated and his actions in accordance with the psychological drives, called the evil urge. From that point forward is the age of adulthood, when the primary concern is to follow the spirit of reason, which sees the long term, to repress his psychological drives, and to know that God will bring him to judgment for all of this. These are the words of the good urge, the rational mode.
Therefore, those who continue aspiring – those who, even into adulthood and old age, have the vigor to sublimate character traits and psychological dispositions to the point where the burden of temporality (and usually the heaviness of this burden derives from failure to sublimate character traits and psychological dispositions)38Above, R. Salanter wrote that a key difference between the yetzer tov and yetzer hara, or between reason and impulse, is that the former is able to set aside short-term desires in favor of long-term objectives, and the latter focuses on the short term. The “burden of temporality” (“ol hazemani”) thus refers to the effects of those unsublimated impulses that direct attention to short-term desires. upon physical and psychological life is lightened for them – when they occasionally, if infrequently, have to resort to the mode of repression, it will be hard for them, for it will have been a long time since they used this mode (as said above).
With this we can explain the adage of our Sages, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabba 59): “‘God blessed Abraham with everything….’ (Gen. 24:1) – ‘Everything’ means He gave him power over his urge…. ‘And Abraham said to his servant…who ruled over all that he had’ (ibid. 2) [means] ‘who ruled his urge as Abraham did.’” It is astonishing to think that Eliezer was at the level that Abraham had achieved only through God’s blessing! However, according to what was said above, we can say that Eliezer’s level was in the mode of a mighty person who conquers his urge – as the Midrash later states: “‘And the servant said to him’ (Gen. 24:5) – this refers to the verse (Hos. 12:8): ‘Canaan has deceitful scales in his hand to oppress the beloved one.’ Canaan – this refers to Eliezer; ‘deceitful scales in his hand’ means he sat and weighed whether his own daughter is worthy of Isaac or not; ‘to oppress the beloved one’ means to oppress Isaac, the beloved of the world. He said: ‘Perhaps the young woman will not want [to follow me to this land]’ (Gen. 24:5)…and I will give him my daughter [instead]….” One who has managed to attain the virtue of sublimation is not tempted by the evil urge or corruption of character traits; he has no affinity for them. But one who has only attained the mode of repression has all the lust of his evil urge. He enjoys it, but he manages to repress it.
Even one who has not reached the level of sublimation, though he may still find his way, as it is said in Scripture (Prov. 4:26): “Lay out the ways of your feet and all your ways will be upright,” error still dogs his footsteps. The strong desires of the psychological drives inject their poison into the functioning of his reason, to blind the eyes of the wise.
This is the [meaning of the] Midrash’s statement, “‘Deceitful scales in his hand’ means he sat and weighed whether his own daughter is worthy of Isaac or not.” Certainly Eliezer, who was master over his urge, would not consider speaking of even a trivial matter before he considered and resolved that it is worthy. However, his scales were deceitful scales – since he only could rule over his urge. Falsehood – that is, deceit – willy-nilly, still surrounded him, while truth stood afar.39In R. Salanter’s interpretation, Eliezer’s untamed psychological drives perverted his reason. They sought to convince him that his daughter was worthy of being Isaac’s wife. She was not. However, his instinctive desire distorted his reason and made it appear plausible to him that she was a worthy mate for Isaac, admittedly, only if the woman in Abraham’s family in Haran were to refuse to marry him. We find thus that even though quantitatively, Eliezer could master his urge like Abraham, qualitatively, Abraham’s mastery over his urge far surpassed [Eliezer’s], because he used the mode of sublimation. Repression, that is, “conquering,” was rarely before him (as said above) – it came to him as divine blessing.
Now, there are two types of sublimation:40See the previous footnote of this letter for a comparison of R. Salanter’s two methods of altering behavior, which we have translated as sublimation and repression. One is to sublimate the psychological drives so that they only yearn for the good demanded by straightforward reason (reason not corrupted and held captive by the psychological drives, which usually incline toward evil). The second is to raise them to a level higher than human reason can comprehend. Almost the entire basis of the virtue of humility (which is the greatest of all character traits according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi in Tractate Avoda Zara 20b) is a mode beyond human reason.*41Note that in his interpretation of the trait of humility, R. Salanter argues that the human must use a quality and its opposite to attain the right level. Here, the human should use his reason to assess the level of the other and himself. Then he must employ will and desire – beyond all reason – to convince himself of the other’s additional greatness and his own shortcomings. Of Moses our teacher, Scripture attests (Num. 12:3): “He was more humble than any other person….” (This refers to interpersonal humility, as is Scripture’s style.) He was greater and more refined than everyone in his generation. And the Rabbis said (Nidda 30b): “Even if the whole world tells you, ‘You are righteous,’ you should see yourself as wicked.” See further there. This is something that reason does not require. So what can yield all of this? Isn’t the capacity to reach these higher levels and virtues dependent on human reason (and [humanity’s] advantage over animals, which have nothing that can raise them above whatever they have by nature)? Then how can one go beyond one’s reason?
It is surely known that there are two types of speech and thought: rational and sentimental. With respect to the rational, all humans are the same.42I.e., using purely rational thought, based on the same information or assumptions, any two people will arrive at the same conclusion. This is not so in the arena of sentiment, where no individual is like another. Even under the same circumstances and with the same features, they will diverge, due to their different natural temperaments (whether acquired congenitally, through socialization, or through conditioning and study to train psychological drives). Therefore, even an individual, due to variation in his temperament, will not have the same sentiments at all times. This applies to sentiment that is only imagined. (It is not real; only an [external] factor can produce real variation.) Certainly, then, it applies when the temperament remains the same in both instances but the matter that arouses the sentiment changes. Reason, however, is the same at all times. It does not hinge on temperament, situation, or issue. Therefore, when two people disagree about a rational matter (although this usually grows out of different temperaments and stimuli), we say that one has made a mistake. Not so in matters of sentiment, i.e., emotional knowledge. Both are authentic and justifiable according to the connection of the effect and the cause. (For the measure of the truth of an effect is its following directly in the footsteps of its cause.) The same applies to an individual; if his reasoning is not identical on two different occasions, we can say for certain that he made a mistake one of the times (by juxtaposing contradiction and inconsistency). Not so with emotional understanding. There is no essential contradiction, for both are true (and the discrepancy arises from changing temperamental causes and stimuli).43This passage and the following represent a remarkable broadening of R. Salanter’s conception of how to arrive at correct knowledge and truth. Hitherto, R. Salanter has stressed rational truth and knowledge, which one achieves using straightforward (i.e., undistorted) reason to the maximum extent possible. Thus, one can establish, objectively, what the Torah says, and this becomes the truth and guide to behavior. Much Mussar learning is designed to curb the sentiments and unconscious drives that distort reason and erode the ability to know, objectively, what the Torah actually instructs. Knowing what the Torah wants and internalizing it so that it determines behavior is the key mechanism of proper behavior and avoidance of sin. However, here R. Salanter affirms that there is a whole realm of knowledge and truth that is arrived at through sentiment. Apparently, emotion and sentiment intuit or subjectively recognize the Torah’s message or the truth that one seeks. R. Salanter affirms that the Torah includes such truths. The Torah assumes that humans will use their emotions to arrive at this knowledge. For example, such virtues and behaviors as humility go against straightforward reason, yet are highly valued by the Torah, which expects one to arrive at such knowledge through sentiment. Sentimental knowledge differs from knowledge arrived at by straightforward reason in that it is more subjective; it may vary from time to time, place to place, and with changes in the individual. Since it is more individuated, their two clashing versions of the truth may both be correct. I.e., each understanding is true for the individual who arrived at it. Later in the letter, R. Salanter deals with the dangers of sentimentality: It can lead to distortions in judgment; it can lead to multiple contradictory behaviors and truths; it can easily slip into relativism and self-contained egocentric truths. Since the Torah expects us to use this method, there is no easy escape from these risks. The main corrective R. Salanter comes up with is to pool various individuals’ sentimental knowledge, or to have a truth arrived at and reviewed by a range of people. This interaction can reduce individual purely subjective elements and pool them into a kind of consensus truth. The wide range of judgment exercised will tend to exclude extreme distortions. Thus, one ends up with a refined sentimentality that has been filtered, improved, and objectified through the participation of multiple people in arriving at the conclusion.
Accordingly, it is a fixed element; it cannot be changed or replaced. When a person finds a demonstration or proof (according to the different scientific methods) to alter a matter of reason, it can be called “change” only in our imagination, not from the perspective of reason itself, as the original [thinking] was mistaken and is nullified. Sentiment is not so; it is a temporary, contingent element.44Sentiments can conflict and contradict and remain authentic. Two rational truths which contradict and change cannot both be true; one version must be an error.
Perhaps this is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Shabbat 10a): “Rava saw Rav Hamnuna praying at length. He said: ‘They set aside eternal life (Torah) to engage in temporal life!?’”45Prayer is considered an engagement in “temporal life” because it addresses material, contingent needs. Torah, by definition, is abstract reasoning, free of all desire and sentimentality (as explained in the introduction to the volume of Tevunah that I published in 1862).46Compare Letter 29 above. Prayer is based on fleeting, sentimental emotion, as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Taanit 2a): “‘To serve Him with all your heart’: What is the service of the heart? We say it is prayer.” Thus, prayer is temporal life and Torah is eternal life, something that endures.47This reiterates R. Salanter’s argument that the only way to know the Torah as truth is to read and study it with abstract reason, free of the unconscious drives and instinctive needs that distort judgment. Note: When one studies Torah rationally for a second time or more, one may come up with new insights, but they will not contradict what reason objectively understood before. Prayer, by definition, is meant to be an emotional experience, and therefore the experience will change every time.
Nevertheless, a person, inasmuch as he is human, even though he has the power and ability to abstract his reason from any desire or sentimentality, to the point where his psychological drives sleep and dream (without being awakened, so that they do not force their way into reason and distort it*1[The crux of this footnote by R. Salanter is that statements by our Rabbis, of blessed memory, are not free of any psychological elements, as are the words of Moses or the prophets. Nevertheless, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, achieved a high degree of refinement. Since God affirms judgments reached at this level of refinement, the Sages’ statements are deemed true; when one’s judgment differs from theirs, one tends to defer to them out of the realization that they achieved purer rational judgments. Furthermore, we follow those qualified judgments even in the face of contradictory demonstrations and proofs. Note: Just as one is to be modest in making claims about the authority of rabbinic judgment, so one is to be modest in arriving at an understanding of their statements. Here, too, as they do, one should welcome a variety of viewpoints and approaches and try to arrive at a considered judgment of what they are actually saying. This is on the grounds that listening to multiple viewpoints from multiple individuals will make one more likely to avoid the subjective distortions found in each individual view. Note also that R. Salanter’s conclusion, namely, that the king’s judgment achieves a level of truth unavailable to common judges, was apparently an attempt to satisfy government censors.] His psychological drives remain within him. He cannot separate them from his reason. Thus, a person cannot achieve true reason, completely removed from and transcending psychological drives, yet the Torah is given to human beings to render judgment in accordance with human reason (in its purest possible form; see Bekhorot [17b]: “The Merciful One said: Do it, and however you manage to do it is acceptable to Him”). By the quantity and quality of proofs, the matter will be clarified. On whichever side the assessment of the proof falls – whether on the side of quantity or quality – that is what he will decide, and so the matter will be established.2Based on Deuteronomy 19:15, which addresses the laws of weighing testimony.
As far as the quantity of proofs is concerned, all humans using their reason will arrive at a common conclusion, if only they have an understanding heart to comprehend all the steps of the proofs. However, regarding the quality of proofs, people differ from one another in spirit. This is [the meaning of] “considered judgment” [or “discretion”; “shikul hadaat”]3Quantity of proofs is an objective measure; once the number of proofs has been determined, there is no rational dispute about which side has more proofs. However, when it comes to assessing the weight of these proofs, there will be significant divergence based on subjective factors unique to each judge – the judge’s discretion or “considered judgment.” Ideally, each side presents how it weighs the evidence and is attentive to the assessment of the other side, as the divergence in judgment is not the result of ego or prejudice, but is part of the natural variation of human judgment. – regarding which people’s opinions often differ.
Assessing the quality of proofs was a central dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel.4Dispute first began to proliferate with the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and so their disputes are paradigmatic within rabbinic literature. R. Salanter asserts that enduring dispute between the schools was not because one side refused to submit to reason and acknowledge its error, and not because the sides were biased by psychological factors. Rather, they disagreed about how to consider evidence and render judgments. Each school came to a different conclusion as to which is the central criterion for reaching a conclusion – quality or quantity. According to R. Salanter, this dispute was not in the realm of strict reason, but in the realm of “discretion,” where difference of opinion is expected and justified. Each side was very familiar with all the proofs relevant to their dispute. Out of this grew a meta-dispute about how to weigh evidence within a dispute – [namely,] whether to follow quantity or quality. This is the [meaning of the] saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Eiruvin 13b): “Rabbi [Aba]5Note: In the actual letter, R. Salanter wrote “R. Elazar.” He was probably writing from memory. said in the name of Shmuel: For three years the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel argued. These said: The law is according to our view and those said: The law follows our view….” The School of Shammai adopted the view that one should follow quality, and they were sharper, so they said the law was according to them. The School of Hillel adopted the view that one should follow quantity, and they were the majority.6Both schools acknowledged that the School of Shammai had greater mental acuity and that the School of Hillel was greater in number. One who accepts mental acuity and “quality” as the key criterion (as did the School of Shammai) would adopt the rulings of the School of Shammai, and one who accepts larger numbers and “quantity” as the key criterion (as did the School of Hillel) would adopt the rulings of the School of Hillel.
They did not argue for three years merely to uphold their own views – only for the sake of justice and truth through purity of thought without any bias.7That is, they did not shape their arguments to prove that they were right. Rather, both schools were interested in reaching a correct understanding of the Torah. It was not intentional, but merely accidental, that the School of Shammai thought that they had the advantage, and the School of Hillel thought the opposite.8R. Salanter concludes that the differences between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were based on legitimate disagreement about non-rational, subjective elements that go into rendering judgment. In this, he inserted himself into a raging polemic; in certain traditional circles, acknowledging such a subjective element was seen as undermining the objective authority of halakha. Therefore, they denied that there was any subjectivity in study of Torah or rendering of halakhic decisions. They held that the human teacher of the Oral Torah was merely a vessel transmitting divine words; the subject had no influence and did not shape the words. In contrast, maskilim and reformers emphasized the subjectivity of halakhic disagreement in order to undermine the divine authority of the Oral Torah. R. Salanter offers a third path, which neither denies subjectivity nor undermines authority. He acknowledges the subjective element (“A person cannot achieve true reason, completely removed from and transcending psychological drives”) but asserts that it is a built-in component of the Oral Torah: “Yet the Torah is given to human beings to render judgment in accordance with human reason (in its purest possible form….).” Here R. Salanter states that the rabbis reached a high degree of purity of reason, one that is not distorted by personal bias, which approximates the “true” truth that God imparted through the Torah.
Since a heavenly voice went forth and stated that the law follows the School of Hillel, it follows that quantity is superior. Therefore, the codifiers have ruled that numbers outweigh wisdom.9A majority of sages outweighs a minority, no matter how brilliant its members. (See Shakh [at the end of Shulḥan Arukh:] Yoreh De’ah 242, [in his essay on] Procedures for Ruling on What Are Forbidden and Permitted Matters. See further there.)
Perhaps this is why the heavenly voice came out and said: “These and those are the words of the Living God” (Eiruvin 13b). The heavenly voice announced nothing new (for even rejected opinions are part of Torah), for the Torah “is not in heaven.”10Deuteronomy 30:12, applied in Bava Metzia 59b to mean that once the Torah was given at Sinai, it is in the hands of human beings to determine the law. God’s will is ascertained by derivation from past revelation as interpreted and applied by rabbinic learning and reason. R. Salanter is responding to an obvious problem with this passage in Eiruvin: If the Torah is “not in heaven,” how could a heavenly voice determine that the halakha follows the School of Hillel? R. Salanter answers that the purpose of the voice was not to decide in favor of the School of Hillel, but to affirm that both schools reached their conclusions with purity of thought, free of personal interests and biases. Certainly, [the principle of majority rule] was given to Moses at Sinai and never forgotten. Rather, the purpose of the heavenly voice was to prevent the people from becoming disheartened (upon seeing that for three years already the School of Shammai held out, saying the law follows their view, for they have the upper hand, while the School of Hillel held the opposite view), lest, God forbid, their self-affirmation deviated somewhat from purity of thought and came, God forbid, to some bias. These are not the kind of people to whom God chose to give over His Torah, and whose rejected views are still called God’s Torah. Therefore, the heavenly voice proclaimed that their thoughts are desirable, and it was mere accident that each group held, with all its might, that its view had the upper hand. Therefore, the rejected views of the School of Shammai are nevertheless the words of the Living God, and one who studies their words, studies God’s Torah, may His name be blessed.
This message [from heaven] is specifically that the intentions of these fellowships were desirable. This voice from heaven is not a violation of “It is not in the heaven,” which applies only to a universal issue, such as in the case of “a sin offering whose owner died,”11The Talmud mentions that hundreds of laws were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. The people asked figures like Joshua and Phinehas to divine the forgotten laws, but they averred that “it is not in heaven.” In these cases, the people sought a final answer that would apply throughout the generations, and it is in such cases that the recovery of the laws precludes divine involvement. Ultimately, Othniel ben Kenaz recovered the laws through cognitive effort. and similar cases, as mentioned in the Talmud (Temura 16a). Perhaps this [idea that a rejected opinion remains Torah] is included in the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Ecclesiastes Rabba, ch. 1): They said: This is the sum of Solomon’s wisdom that he came to assert: “What profit to the human being in all his toil?” (Eccl. 1:3). This might mean even the toil of Torah! They recanted and said: [Solomon] did not say “in all toil” but “in [all] his toil.” In his toil (for himself), he does not toil [for there is no profit], but he does the toil of Torah [for in this there is profit]…. R. Yudan said: “Under the sun” (ibid.) he has no [profit]; “Above the sun” he does. (See Shabbat 30b.) For our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Pesaḥim 50b): Rava raised a contradiction: It is written (Ps. 57:11): “For Your loving-kindness is great, up to the heavens,” and it is written (ibid. 108:5): “For your loving-kindness is great, beyond the heavens.” How can this be? Here [Ps. 108:5] [refers to] those who act for its own sake; here [Ps. 57:11] they act for other motives. This follows R. Yehuda’s view, for R. Yehuda says in the name of Rav: “A person should always engage in Torah and the commandments even not for its own sake; for in acting for other motives, he will come to do it for its own sake.” Accordingly, we find that engaging in Torah for its own sake should be called “above the sun,” and engaging for other motives should be called “under the sun.” When a person articulates words of Torah that are accepted as halakha, they are not his; rather, it is the discovery of something that was hidden until now. However, if it was not accepted as halakha, yet it is still the Torah of God, and one who studies its words receives reward, then it is his, for he, by his effort, has created something new in Torah that never existed before.12A rabbinic halakhic ruling which is accepted as authoritative was always present in the body of revelation. However, it was “hidden,” and not known until a particular rabbi articulated it and uncovered this eternal truth. In the case of a halakhic ruling which is not accepted, it was never part of the body of revelation – for if it had been, it would become authoritative. The rejected opinion is a genuine novum. It is now absorbed into the corpus of Torah, but it was not there until this person created it. But this is on condition that it was produced with purity of thought, without bias, which is the essence of “for its own sake.” This is [the meaning of]: What (eternal) profit in all his toil (his work, this refers to a matter not accepted as halakha) that he labors under the sun (i.e., not for its own sake); however, above the sun (i.e., for its own sake) it has eternal profit, for he has given birth to new Torah.
Perhaps this is included in the [meaning of the] verse (Eccl. 1:9): “There is nothing new under the sun.” (See Rashis commentary there.) For all that a person produces using the rational faculty, except that which is called the “Torah [of God but has not been accepted as halakha],” is not an innovation of reason, but an emotional innovation, for it is only uncovering something whose manner of synthesis had been lost.13Only innovations that are, on one hand, part of “the Torah of God,” and, on the other, not accepted as the halakhic conclusion are true innovations. Torah that is accepted as halakha and discoveries in non-Torah disciplines are not truly novel. So it is with “the Torah of God” that has been accepted as halakha – that is, the Torah; the person who produces it is only its discoverer. What is “new” (in the realm of the rational)? Torah that was not accepted as halakha, but which becomes Torah through the person who produces it. This is the meaning of “There is nothing new under the sun” (meaning, [Torah learned] not for its own sake, for Torah that was accepted as halakha, even though it has advantages over something that was not accepted as halakha, it is nevertheless not called “new,” and even [Torah] that was not accepted as halakha, if the study was not for its own sake, it is not considered Torah). However, “above the sun” (for its own sake) there certainly is “new.” These are the things that were not in the category of Torah, but through the effort of the person who created them with the purity of his thought, have been incorporated into Torah.
This is the [meaning of the] verse (Ps. 1:2): “He desires the Torah of God and studies his Torah day and night….” For the desire and ambition of a person are to purify reason, to strip it of the psychological drives so it can enter the category of true reason – this is “the Torah of God.” Yet he is still human, so “he studies his Torah day and night.” (The antecedent of “his Torah” [in v. 2] is “Fortunate is the man” [in v. 1], stated immediately prior.)14The verse (Ps. 1:2) refers to Torah twice: first to “the Torah of God” and then to “his Torah.” R. Salanter interprets “his Torah” to mean the Torah of the person studying. Thus, the learner “desires” God’s Torah, as He gave it to us, unadulterated and minimally shaped by human factors. However, he inevitably studies “his Torah,” the Torah as shaped by his own, human intelligence, and yielding novel insights. It is only by desiring the Torah of God that one’s innovations are considered, on one hand, “his,” and on the other, part of the corpus of “Torah.”
This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Berakhot 5a): “It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another, the seller is sad [about losing a valuable object] and the buyer rejoices [in gaining the object]. Not so the Holy One, blessed be He. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced….” For a gift is like a sort of sale, in that [the gifted object] is all but detached from the owner, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to human beings so that with it they will judge according to human reason – not as it was when it was under His tutelage.15This paraphrase of Esther 2:20 compares the Torah before it was given to Israel with Esther while still being raised in Mordechai’s home. The idea is that before it was given to human beings, the Torah was unaffected by human concerns and psychological impulses. It was understood through pure, divine reason. This recalls Shabbat 88b–89a, wherein the angels wish to keep the Torah in heaven, and Moses must debate them to show that the Torah addresses human needs and concerns.*[R. Salanter’s footnote:] For “it is not in heaven” (Deut. 30:12) where [to understand Torah one would need] to reveal secrets; rather whatever a person strives to know using the methods of proof – this is the Torah of God, blessed be He, itself. (See Temura 16a: “Three thousand rulings were forgotten [when Moses died]…. They said to Joshua: ‘Ask [for prophetic restoration].’ He said to him: ‘It is not in heaven….’ In a baraita it was taught: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori arguments were forgotten…but Othniel ben Kenaz recovered them [with cognitive effort].” See further there.) As to whether the heavens can resolve a dispute, this hinges on the two answers of Tosafot (Yevamot 14a). The Gemara there says: “The view that (the School of Shammai) acted (in accordance with their own views) [even after the heavenly voice ruled according to the School of Hillel] follows R. Yehoshua, who says: ‘We pay no attention to a heavenly voice.’” Tosafot state: Why do we not follow the heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of R. Eliezer [Bava Metzia 59b] and instead say in all places that he is a Shammaite and the law does not follow his view – yet it is through the heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of the School of Hillel that we establish that the law follows the view of the School of Hillel!? We can answer: The heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of R. Eliezer only due to his honor [after he said, “Let it be demonstrated from heaven!” the heavens issued a voice in his honor, not really to rule according to his view]…. Alternatively: The halakha certainly does not follow the heavenly voice that went against the majority – for the Rabbis were the majority. However, in the case of the School of Hillel’s heavenly voice, we have established that the School of Hillel was the majority, but that the School of Shammai was sharper. According to the first answer of Tosafot, the Torah is still in heaven, even if only one person in the whole world states it, and the majority disagree with him. [Note that in R. Salanter’s view, a heavenly voice will not intervene, using the authority of revelation to decide the ruling, if no human being holds that position. It will only speak if at least one individual holds this view.] According to the second answer, it is only still “in heaven” to add weight to it in a case of almost complete stalemate; for instance, when one side has the majority and the other is keener, the heavens strengthen one side in order to tip the scales. But according to R. Yehoshua, it is not in heaven at all – not even to give some extra weight to one side. According to what we have said about reason and sentiment, we can see clearly that the matter is thus [i.e., that according to R. Yehoshua, the principle that the Torah “is not in heaven” totally negates the weight of a heavenly voice in any context]. (This answers the objection of Tosafot where they stated: “Perhaps R. Yehoshua only there said, ‘We pay no mind [to a heavenly voice],’ but generally he does not hold this view….” See further there.) For it is the way of reason to guard itself from all forms of sentimental [that is, emotion-driven] judgment (as said above). The more one argues with someone else rationally, the more on guard one must be to avoid the emotionality likely to stem from the force of the love of victory, which may snuff out the light of reason. One sign that reason is proceeding alone according to its path is when a person listens attentively to the evidence that supports the view of his opponent, even if it is not compelling, in a state of calm tranquility, without sentiment. And if he must resort to sentiment to combat the sentiment of the opponent, he should leave it until later, so that reason can proceed securely on its path.16[See R. Salanter’s point above (starting at n. 49) about “considered judgment” (“shikul hadaat”) as well as our discussion in n. 43. We have seen that R. Salanter offers a third approach, between objectivity and self-interested subjectivity. Here he describes the importance of allowing the expression of multiple or contradictory viewpoints and listening attentively to them. When each listens to the other as openly as possible, without emotionally digging in to defend his own position, they can arrive at “considered judgment” that is relatively free of distortion by psychological factors, even if the parties remain in disagreement.] We see this in R. Yehoshua who, after all the great and terrific debate he had with R. Eliezer, stood up on his feet (which is a charismatic mode [that evokes sentiment], for those who understand its methods a bit) and said: “We pay no mind to a heavenly voice.” We learn from this that R. Yehoshua holds the view that “it is not in heaven” at all – not even to give weight to one side. It is not even the beginning of a proof. Therefore, he used sentiment to counter the emotional excitation of the students, upon whom the sublime light of true reason had not yet shined. They were prone to be affected by something of such great magnitude as a heavenly voice – though by qualitative criteria, according to R. Yehoshua, “it is not in heaven,” at all, even just to tip the scales. (See Derashot HaRan, Homily 7, which addresses the Talmud’s story [Bava Metzia 86a] about Rabba bar Naḥmani resolving a dispute between God and the heavenly academy.)
With this, the matter of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel is explained. We should not be astonished at this sight, at how it came to be and what caused it, at why the majority of the students of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree unanimously within their own group – for why should the group matter in this regard? Rather, the reason for their disagreement was rooted in their different psychological temperaments, which a person cannot distinguish from his intellect (as mentioned above). No one who delves into the “Torah of God” has anything but what his eyes perceive, so after [applying] his ability, maintaining his worth so that he does not breach his limits, purifying his intellect as much as humanly possible, in the main, the psychological forces of members of the same group will march in lockstep.17Hence, each Shammaite and Hillelite came to the same conclusion as their whole fellowship, and their perceptions and conclusions, filtered through their temperaments, are thus legitimate interpretations of “the Torah of God.” This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: “These and those are the words of the Living God,”18Eiruvin 13b. for there are no true contradictions between psychological drives19I.e., because they reflect the differing temperaments of their articulators, the contradictory conclusions are both nevertheless true. (as mentioned above). Even though a person’s psychological drives change all the time, there will be no change of view in the intellect of a person (who purifies his reason in the right way) resulting from psychological drives, for changes in psychological drives come from the stimulus of a new situation or a new idea.
This is the Torah of a human and his obligation: to strive with all his might that his psychological drives be dormant and quieted when he studies an intellectual matter. In this state of quieted forces, [the conclusions of the intellect] will almost always be the same, especially for a wholesome person who protects his psyche from strong stimuli that implant in his psyche drives that are likely to change continually.
Based on this, we can understand what [the Sages] said (Eiruvin 7a): “We do not follow the stringencies of two schools when they contradict one another, as in the case of the spinal column and skull20The Mishna records a dispute between the houses of Hillel and Shammai regarding how much must be missing from a corpse in order for it not to impart ritual impurity to anything under the same roof. In the case of a spine, the School of Shammai maintains that if it is missing two vertebrae, it does not impart impurity, whereas the School of Hillel maintains that even if it is missing only one vertebra, it can no longer impart impurity to anything under the same roof. In the case of a skull, the School of Hillel requires a larger missing piece (large enough to kill a human) than the School of Shammai (the size of a drill hole) to lose the power to impart impurity to the whole tent or house. Thus, there are two cases, one in which the School of Shammai is lenient, and one in which the School of Hillel is lenient. The Talmud then cites Rav Yehuda saying in the name of Shmuel that the two schools hold the same views with respect to determining whether an animal is a tereifa (i.e., suffering from a mortal injury and therefore forbidden to eat even if properly slaughtered). However, in this case, the school that adopts the larger size is taking the more lenient view. For instance, the school which maintains that a corpse missing one vertebra no longer imparts ritual purity to anything under the same roof – the more lenient view – would also maintain that an animal found to be missing one vertebra is not kosher – the more stringent view. Here, since the two disputes are really one, adopting the stringencies of both schools would be logically inconsistent, a self-contradiction.…but where they do not contradict each other, we may [follow the stringencies of both].” See further there. The same is true with two lenient opinions. However, this applies only if we can add his own opinion (if he is worthy) to decide the matter.21The implication of the Gemara is that if adopting the stringencies or leniencies of the two schools does not create an inherent contradiction, one may do so. R. Salanter qualifies that this applies only to one who is worthy of rendering halakhic decisions and has an independent view on this matter. That is, a person, having studied Torah deeply, may find himself agreeing with the School of Shammai on some issues and the School of Hillel on other issues; this is perfectly legitimate as long as he does not adopt self-contradictory views, and as long as he is worthy of making halakhic decisions. Without this, it is a complete contradiction to follow the School of Shammai sometimes and the School of Hillel sometimes – since the basis of their conflicting views flows from one cause.22One who is not worthy of rendering independent halakhic positions must rely on the decisions of others. Such a person must consistently follow either the School of Hillel or the School of Shammai, as any mixing and matching would be self-contradictory. For what [the Sages] said there,23Eiruvin 6b. “One who wishes to act according to the words of the School of Shammai may; according to the words of the School of Hillel – may,” also applies specifically to one who is capable of deciding (as explained in Ḥoshen Mishpat 25:2, in [Rema’s] gloss). And let a person not say: I will rule according to whomever I please in a matter in which there is a disagreement…. See further there. What an awesome spectacle for one who delves deeply into the words of our Rabbis, the codifiers, of blessed memory, plumbing and seeking the root cause of their disagreement – and those [disagreements] which emerged from their psychological differences are brought together into a covenant; they shall not be divided to follow the leniencies of both, even if they are not in essence contradictory, unless one is capable of deciding or can combine other views.
Reason discovers the mysteries of wisdom, the hidden secrets.24After an extensive excursus, R. Salanter returns to his exploration of the differences between using reason and sentiment to ascertain the truth of Torah. It arouses the mind and the initiative to inquire and question, and it clarifies uncertain matters. The fundamental [purpose] of sentiment25Sentiment – what we would call emotion, feeling, excitement, etc. – is the vehicle by which one internalizes one’s rational knowledge and enables it to affect character. In this passage, R. Salanter describes the process and method, hitpaalut (or “hispailus” in the pronunciation of the Mussar yeshivot), by which one attains emotional knowledge, wherein the acquired knowledge becomes part of the learners’ core being and can thus shape their character and psyche. is to break through the stultification of the heart, to pour into it the waters of his understanding – that which a person knows but has not yet internalized. Thus, the study of straightening the ways of the character traits and of the purification of the psychological drives is different from the study of all Torah and wisdom. In the latter, the knowledge and the person who knows it are two different things. The knowledge is merely stored inside a person. A person achieves wholeness by guiding his ways according to his upright and undistorted knowledge. Not so in the matter of straightening out the ways of the character traits and purification of the psychological drives. A person cannot live by knowing them alone,26Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. guiding his actions to align with what he learned, unless this knowledge has nestled into his heart; they are connected and joined to the person, becoming as one. This is the principle of their acquisition through the Torah of sentiment. This is its path and its strength, to have a blessed effect internally in the person.27Compare Isaiah 19:24. Even after [the emotional excitation] has passed, it does not evaporate into nothingness and get lost. Rather, it leaves behind at least some unripe growth attached to the person, so when the effort through sentiment is increased (particularly in a systematic way, prepared according to the nature of the person and his condition), the immature growth increases and strengthens, affecting the temperament of the person positively.
With this we can explain the verse (Prov. 2:1): “My son, if you will take my sayings and store my commandments with you….” It is known that the Torah of God, blessed be His name, can be divided into two broad types: The first consists of His (blessed be His name) commandments, decrees, and laws. The second is the rest of the Torah, whose fundamental purpose is to draw up, from the hidden depths, the integrity of the virtuous paths and the purification of psychological drives until they long only for what is good in the eyes of God and man. Thus: “If you will take my sayings” – these are the second type, whose fundamental purpose is for a person to acquire their ways of learning as a possession,28The plain meaning of the Hebrew tikaḥ, which appears in the first part of the verse, is “take”; R. Salanter interprets the verse according to a different sense of the work tikaḥ, namely, to buy or acquire, and relates it to those “sayings” of God that must be internalized. such that he and they will be one. “And store my commandments with you” – these are the first type, which are merely stored within him as information (as mentioned above).
The power and superiority of reason is [expressed] in its overflowing all its banks and spreading out, seeking and investigating every last aspect. Not so sentiment; its manner is to focus all his psychological force on the object at which sentiment shoots its arrows, to where practically all his other psychological drives are temporarily forgotten and extinguished, depending on the magnitude of the sentiment.
So it is deep within the human psyche and its hidden alleys; the forces rooted therein are the strong hinges on which the door of a person’s actions and desires swings (as we explained above).29See Letter 6. There, too, the force of sentiment will alight (even though it is barely discernible and not felt) to intensify one force, until the rest of the psychological forces are pushed aside by it and they are almost snuffed out (until the opportune moment, when a spirit of arousal comes upon them to awaken them to spread out – then they are seen and known).30Note that in this letter, R. Salanter has shifted the role of sentiment in learning from a general Mussar method that can be used in all areas so that the learning can have a greater impact and be internalized, to a technique used primarily in character development. So one should not be surprised that someone might take pride in himself over his peers despite his great shortcomings and little value: for a person’s love of being praised – this is his sentimentality – amplifies the power of such praise and pushes aside the power of his [awareness of] his shortcomings, completely eliminating them from his conscious perception. Likewise, one’s lust for superiority over the other disposes his psyche, in its state of sentimental agitation, to [perceive] his friend’s shortcomings. Its power is amplified, crushing his ability to perceive his friend’s qualities. Consequently, he consciously perceives only his own praiseworthiness and the shortcomings of the other. Thus, pride fills all the chambers of his soul, unnoticed. By the same token, a person is perfectly capable of amplifying his sentimental agitation about his own shortcomings, until they push aside the force of his [love of] praise and extinguish it from his conscious perception; the more his sentiments strengthen his [awareness of] his shortcomings, the more his sense of superiority is forgotten. This is the Torah of how to acquire humility, and this is its general principle.
This explains the adage of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Berakhot 32b): “‘Can a woman forget her nursing child (ulah)? [Would she not have mercy (meraḥem) the child of her womb?]’31Isaiah 49:15. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Can I forget the burnt offerings (olot) of rams and firstborns (pitrei reḥem) that you brought before Me in the desert?’ [The community of Israel] said: ‘Since there is no forgetting before Your Throne of Glory,32Compare Zikhronot/Remembrances section of the Rosh HaShana Musaf prayer. perhaps You will never forget the making of the [golden] calf?’ He replied: ‘Even these will be forgotten….’33The continuation of Isaiah 49:15.” See further there. It is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, metes out [reward and punishment] quid pro quo (rationally, not imaginatively; qualitatively, not quantitatively). When a person clings to the ways of righteousness, self-analyzing and struggling to forget his own virtues, then the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, returns his loving-kindness and forgets his shortcomings. The righteousness of his good deeds is remembered before Him, blessed be He, because the person remembers his own defectiveness. This is (according to the midrash on “Can a woman forget her nursing child?” – when the community of Israel forgets the burnt offerings of rams they brought in the desert, which stemmed from the increase of their sentimental agitation to remember the deed of the Golden Calf), the meaning of “even these will be forgotten.” The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, forgets the making of the Golden Calf and remembers the burnt offerings. Thus: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Can I forget the burnt offerings of rams and firstborns…?’”
So it is with all the processes of sublimation: If a person uses the method of training the sentiments, which will result in his being blessed (as mentioned above) to imbue sentiment into the hidden recesses of the heart, they will grow more robust (as a result of increased study and engaging in it in the right order, according to his own nature), to the point that they will be joined together in the person and form a steady anchor within one’s existing nature through repeated conditioning of behavior (as explained in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Moral Dispositions). Then there is no limit to the boundaries of their ascent beyond human reason – just as with the other qualities of the nature of human temperaments, which reason cannot encompass. Thus, the human spirit is raised up,34Compare Ecclesiastes 3:21. and so it can also sink down, God forbid, to the extent that it does not sense its own wickedness, because of the repeated excitation of lust, which will sink roots that corrupt a soul from its purity. So, when a person commits himself to desire life (the life of reason, for every living thing feels35But only humans can exercise reason.), he should do the following: He should learn sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, which deal with training the character traits and with eternal life, and go over them several times so that they affect his sentiments in that moment.
One should not be disheartened when he sees that no impression is left in his heart. He should know with certainty that his hitpaalut [his sentimental affectation] was not fruitless; rather, it left blessing36I.e., a positive effect. that cannot be discerned by the physical senses until they grow, at which point they strike roots to bring forth righteous fruit. As drops of water, if they fall drop by drop on a stone for many days and years, will wear a stone away – even though in the first drop this was neither seen nor felt – so the sayings of the Sages, of blessed memory, will affect a heart of stone. One should constantly turn them over, and they will plow his heart.37I.e., prepare it for cultivation.
Perhaps this is the meaning of the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory (Avot DeRabbi Natan, ch. 6): “What was the origin of R. Akiva? They said: He was forty years old and had not studied at all. Once he was standing by a well. He said: ‘Who hollowed out this stone?’ They said to him: ‘The water that continually falls on it each day.’ They said to him: ‘Akiva, have you not read [the Scriptural verse], “The stones worn down by water” [Job 14:19]?’ Immediately, R. Akiva reasoned a fortiori: If the soft [water] carved out the hard [stone], then the words of Torah, which are as hard as iron, will certainly impress themselves on my heart, which is only flesh and blood! He immediately returned to study Torah….” See further there. For R. Akiva, at the beginning of his studies [when he was young], saw that his soul was not affected, his heart tormented him, saying: You toil in vain (for if there is no reverence, there is no wisdom). You will use up your strength on vanity and fruitlessness. However, when he saw “the stones worn down by water,” even though the impression was not initially discernible – he girded up his might and courage to strengthen his soul, for “the end of the matter is better than its beginning.”38Compare Ecclesiastes 7:8.
How the heart of man will tremble, how terror will seize him, when he considers that, God forbid, the nerves of his heart are severed and his capacity for sentiment has been nullified, if it is known above in Heaven that he is in the category of one who cannot repent – even if in only one matter – and his soul is condemned, God forbid. As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Yalkut, Ezekiel 18): “They asked prophecy: ‘What is the punishment of the sinner?’ She answered: ‘The soul that sins shall die….’ [Ezek. 18:20]. They asked the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘What is the punishment of the sinner?’ He said to them: ‘Let him repent and be forgiven….’” See further there. And they, of blessed memory, said (Nidda 70b): “One verse (Ezek. 18:32) says: ‘For I do not desire the death of the [sinner] who dies,’ and another verse says (I Sam. 2:25): ‘For the Lord sought to put them to death.’ [Isn’t this a contradiction? No. Rather,] this [Ezek. 18:20] deals with those who repent, and that [I Sam. 2:25] deals with those who do not repent.” Particularly those preoccupied with daily life, burdened by tribulation, are very prone to terrible sins while feeling nothing, especially interpersonal sins: envy, hatred, slander, shaming, and above all cheating in business.39Elsewhere (see for example, Letter 7), R. Salanter generalizes that people who sin become hardened and lose sensitivity. Thus, shaking off sin and then repenting is not just necessary to avoid being punished by God as one who cannot repent, as expressed here, but also shunning evil and turning to good constitutes a reclaiming of zest for life and the revival of emotional life. One must seek the vitality of life from what is proper and correct to offset these tendencies through mitzvot and good deeds that outweigh them. But what shall a working person do? There is one simple activity, which does not require a clear mind nor a lot of time: to go over Mussar sayings of the Sages repeatedly, until it temporarily awakens sentiment within his soul. Even if it does not bear fruit initially to improve the person’s ways, he will still be considered in the book of the living – since he is still alive and feeling. And as long as he is connected to life, there is security,40“Bitaḥon”; he can trust that he won’t be struck dead as a sinner incapable of repentance. and he is counted among those who have the ability to repent.41R. Salanter believes that people who sin and slip into this unthinking, ongoing, bad pattern lose the capacity for feeling. The habitual sinner, as it were, is “punished” by a loss of feeling and of awareness. That is why he tends to end up in the category of one who will never repent. In turn, his inability to repent evokes a heavenly judgment that he deserves to die. The challenge (and the opportunity) of the sinner is to keep feeling and self-awareness alive, so even though he is in a bad pattern, he is able – maybe even likely – to repent, change, and improve. As R. Salanter said below, the human never loses the free will to change from evil to good, but once he loses his feeling and self-awareness, he is much more likely to sink hopelessly into patterns of wickedness.
With this we can explain the verses (Ezek. 33:8–11): When I [God] say to the wicked man, “You shall die” – and you have not spoken to warn the wicked man away from his ways – then that wicked man will die for his sin, [but I will hold you responsible for his life].… But if you have warned the wicked man to turn from his way and he did not turn from it, then he will die for his sin [and you will have saved your life].… And you, son of man, say to the House of Israel: You have spoken, saying: “Our sins and transgressions [weigh heavily] upon us, and we pine away in them; how shall we live?” Say to them: “As I [God] live...do I desire the death of the wicked? Rather let the wicked one turn from his way and live. Return, return from your wicked ways….” For retribution comes to a person in two ways. One is if he has filled up his measure, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Sota 9a): “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact retribution from a person until his measure is filled.” See further there. Then he is called wicked (before God, as Ran explained the notion, in Rosh HaShana [16b], that “three books are opened...the book of the wicked...,” that is, “wicked” with respect to this law; see further there). The second is if he has a sin which, in Heaven’s judgment, places him in the category of one who cannot repent – from a rational perspective, according to the chain of cause and effect.42Seeing the propensity of his addiction to his sin and the weakness of his counter-urges or influences, Heaven judges that he will never repent.
All things done under the sun fall into two general categories. One is the natural, which follows rational criteria: each effect is a product of its cause, and each cause has its cause, until the matter is thoroughly examined. The second is when the effect comes without a preceding cause (only because God’s wisdom, blessed be He, has decreed it – this is also the category of the miraculous, which is beyond human reason).
There are likewise two types of knowledge. One is absolute knowledge, which is subject to neither change nor replacement. The second is rational knowledge, arrived at by the chain of matters, from cause to effect, which in turn becomes the cause of another effect, and so the matter goes until reaching the final effect. This kind of knowledge is subject to change, for sometimes, something emerges without a cause, and even in opposition to its causes (this is the category of the miraculous). The first kind of absolute knowledge is not within human capacity (unless it be through the category of prophecy). Even in the second kind of knowledge, it is beyond human capability to arrive at its ultimate end, because of the limits of human capacity to know all the causes that pertain to the eventual effect. In this respect, human understanding is too frail to arrive at complete rational knowledge.
Likewise with regard to human choice – the way one goes, whether to good or to evil – there are two categories. One is rational choice, predicated on the chain of cause and effect. If [the choice is] toward evil, into the maw of lust, it is in keeping with how its methods incline him to itself in order to fulfill its wishes; if toward good, it follows the procedures of the ways of study of God’s Torah and the wisdom of His Mussar, to behave in God’s ways. The second category is simply choosing to go from evil to good, or the reverse, God forbid. For in every moment and occasion a person retains his capacity to choose with no impediment. God’s knowledge of human choice is also divided into two kinds.
The first is absolute knowledge,43I.e., foreknowledge of human choice. and one cannot grasp how such knowledge would not contradict free choice (as Rambam explains in chapter 5 of the Laws of Repentance). The second is rational knowledge, based on a person’s behavior, nature, and situation, and on properly linking cause and effect. It is with this latter knowledge that God governs His world for good (specifically for good, and not for evil, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not judge a person except in that moment in which he stands; as explained in the Yerushalmi [Rosh HaShana, ch, 1]. For good, however, the Holy One, blessed be He, extends credit, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say [Yalkut, Job ch. 41]: “‘Who has a prior claim on Me that I will pay…44…for everything under the heavens is Mine.”’ [Job 41:3] – Who practiced circumcision even before I had given him a son? Who made fringes before I gave him a four-cornered garment?...”; see further there).45In judging whether a person is evil, God judges the person as of this moment, without factoring in any future wrongs, which God alone knows are coming. In judging whether a person is good, however, God factors in future good behaviors by this person. That is God’s way in the world. God gives life and good to people before they have earned it or given back.
With this we can explain the verse (Deut. 11:27): “The blessing on condition that you listen….” I give you the blessing on credit, so that you then listen and do the good with My blessing. “The curse, [I give you only] if you do not listen…” (ibid. 11:28) – and not before then. We can also explain the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory (Pesaḥim 118a): “‘Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good’46Psalms 106:11 and elsewhere. – give thanks to Him who collects a person’s debts according to the good given him; a rich man with his ox, a poor man with his lamb….” Blessing comes to a man for two reasons. One, for the good he has done, the Holy One, blessed be He, pays his reward. This should not be called God’s goodness (as we do if we do not view it precisely). This bounty belongs to the human being. This is like a case of an employee who expects and receives pay for his labor.47It is not goodness, but justice. So what is plain and obvious good? This is the second type, wherein the Holy One, blessed be He, gives in advance, so that a person will do good with His blessing. When a person is punished by means of the money he obtained by toil and the skill of his actions, it is proper justice and lawful to collect debt from this. But what is true loving-kindness from God? That He collects man’s debt from His goodness, from the money granted to a person from God, blessed be He, as an unearned goodness, so that he will perform upright and just deeds with it. Yet if the person distorted their path, and God’s plan, as it were, was not carried out, it is just for the Holy One, blessed be He, to take back His money – He did not give it to him for these evil purposes – and at the same time, it will not detract from what the person is due. Thus, one should thank God for this loving-kindness, that even when taking back from the person the money given to him by God’s goodness,48Not the person’s own, i.e., the first type, which he earned by his own efforts. God lets his debt be paid off with this money.
How can we distinguish which credit is appropriately extended to human beings by God, blessed be He, if not by means of rational knowledge49Here again, R. Salanter uses the logic of business to make an ethical point. God, as it were, must decide which people are worthy of His investment and can be trusted to repay His “goodness” with proper conduct, justice, and righteousness. This decision must be rational, based on what can be expected of this person. Even though, at some level, God knows what the person will ultimately do, He nevertheless governs the world according to the principle of human free choice, not of divine foreknowledge. The decision is therefore based on rational criteria – who is likely to be worthy of God’s goodness. [to determine] who can be trusted and to whom is it appropriate to extend credit? (This is so even though sometimes things change, as said above, because God does not govern His world, which hinges on human choice, from the perspective of absolute knowledge; absolute knowledge thus has no bearing on this.)
The correctness of the Yerushalmi (Rosh HaShana, ch. 1) is thus evident: “There are three record books…. Those in between [the righteous and the wicked] have been given the Ten Days of Repentance between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. If they repented, they are inscribed with the righteous. If not, they are inscribed with the wicked…. R. Ḥananya, friend of the Rabbis, asked: ‘Doesn’t God see what is going to happen?’ But he (R. Ḥananya) had not heard what R. Shimon said in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, judges a person only as he is in that moment.’” (We cited this saying above.) See further there. It would be very surprising to say that the Yerushalmi is asking about the matter of foreknowledge and free choice, a matter which is beyond human reason in general to grasp, according to the aforementioned words of Rambam, and explaining it with respect to a specific matter.50I.e., it would be strange for the Yerushalmi to ask such a profound question, which touches on the foundations of theology, in context of a relatively technical discussion about the repentance of “those in between” during the Ten Days of Repentance. Rather, the Yerushalmi’s question is about rational [non-absolute] knowledge,51I.e., judging a person from current behaviors and the normal process of cause and effect. in accordance with which God governs the world.
The matter of “those who can repent and those who cannot repent” is judged by the same criterion: rational knowledge. If a person is, by rational calculation, capable of repentance, then the Holy One, blessed be He, is patient, waits for his repentance, and he lives. If by rational calculation, he is not capable of repentance (even though he always retains the free choice to repent) then, God forbid, He wants to put him to death – unless that person has some merit that tilts the scale to life. And what is the basis of a person being capable of repentance? It is the sense that he is alive, aware of his shortcomings. Then there is hope that he will awaken to repentance. But if there is no such sense, whence will repentance come? However, [this death sentence is decreed] only if this sense is completely extinguished in his psyche – to the point where he is not stirred by chastisement or by the arousal of another.52Excitement is contagious, so a source of one’s emotion is the emotion of those around him. Then he is not in the category of “one who can repent” at all – since even another does not have the power to awaken him from the deep slumber of his folly.
With this we can explain the allusion of the verse according to the Talmud’s resolution (Nidda 70b): “This verse (Ezek. 18:32): ‘For I do not desire the death of the person, [declares the Lord God – but rather return (i.e., be capable of repentance in this area) and live (for there is no repentance after death)],’ deals with those who repent, and that verse (I Sam. 2:25): ‘And they did not listen to their father’s voice [for the Lord sought to put them to death’] deals with those who do not repent.” [Since they did not respond to the words of chastisement of Eli, who was the greatest of the generation, they were consequently not in the category of those who can repent.]
Particularly those preoccupied with daily life, burdened by tribulation, who are prone to commit great sins and not feel anything53Elsewhere (see for example, Letter 7), R. Salanter generalizes that people who sin become hardened and lose emotional engagement in living. Thus, shaking off sin and then repenting is not just necessary to avoid being punished by God for being one who cannot repent, as expressed here. Rather the act of shunning evil and turning to good constitutes a reclaiming of zest for life and the revival of emotional engagement in living. – in particular, in matters between man and man: jealousy, hatred, speaking evil, shaming, and cheating in business above all – we have to seek out strength from life, from what is proper and correct, to offset these tendencies with good deeds and good actions which will outweigh [the bad behaviors]. But what shall a person who must struggle every day do? There is one easy skill, which does not require a completely clear mind, nor does it require a lot of time – it is to go over Mussar sayings of the Sages54Wisdom sayings of the rabbis that arouse conscience or stimulate spiritual consciousness, such as “Envy, lust, and excessive honor-seeking shorten a person’s life” (Pirkei Avot 4:21). repeatedly, until he arouses excitation in his soul at that moment. Even if it does not bear fruit initially to improve the person’s ways, he will still be considered in the book of the living – since he is still alive and feeling. And as long as he is connected to life, there is security, and he is counted among those who have the ability to repent.55R. Salanter believes that people who sin and slip into this unthinking, ongoing, bad pattern lose the capacity for feeling. The habitual sinner, as it were, is “punished” by a loss of feeling and of awareness. That is why he tends to end up in the category of one who will never repent. In turn, his inability to repent evokes a heavenly judgment that he deserves to die. The challenge (and the opportunity) of the sinner is to keep feeling and self-awareness alive, so even though he is in a bad pattern, he is able – maybe even likely – to repent, change, and improve. As R. Salanter said below, a human being never loses the free will to change from evil to good, but once he loses his feeling and self-awareness, he is much more likely to sink hopelessly into the evil patterns. This is the meaning of (Ezek. 33:8–9): “When I say to the wicked person…. And you have not spoken to warn the wicked man away from his ways” (then he would still be in the category of one who can repent, for perhaps he would have responded to chastisement), “then he will not die,” unless his measure is filled and he is judged a wicked man. “Then he, the wicked man, will die for his sins…. But if you have warned the wicked person to turn from his way and he did not turn from it” (he was not moved by your chastisement; for if he were moved and conscious of his shortcomings he would be called “one who turns from his way” because before your chastisement he was not conscious of his wickedness. Therefore, now he is in the category of “one who cannot repent,” and), then “he will die for his sin” – even if his measure is not filled and he is not yet considered wicked (for this general condemnation [of being deemed wicked] is for one who sins and is not in the category of “one who can repent”), still he will die by cause of his sin. We know by rational knowledge that he will not repent since he does not respond even to chastisement. What is his cure? It is renewal of emotional awareness to awaken anxiety and anguish – so that he will enter the category of “one who can repent,” and he will live.
This is the meaning of (Ezek. 33:10): “Son of man, say to the House of Israel” (in the manner of cause and effect) “you have spoken, saying: Our sins and transgressions are upon us, and we pine away in them. How shall we live?” (In this they are in the category of “those who can repent,” since they are emotionally conscious and are worried. This is the cause of the following effect, that) “say to them…let the wicked one turn from his way and live.” (Even though it is just the beginning of the awakening to repentance, still they are called “those who can repent.” Since they are capable because of their emotional awareness, they will come little by little into the category of those who repent properly. This is the meaning of) “Return, return from your wicked ways….”
It emerges from all of this discussion that there are three levels of serving God, blessed be He: One – the opening and the beginning is sentimental. One studies sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, and chastisements of the wise men, reviewing them over and over again, until he is affected and senses, within his psyche, his shortcomings.56R. Salanter is teaching us another effect of hitpaalut, namely, chanting particularly evocative texts with enthusiasm. Earlier he stressed using this method to affect the unconscious. Here he teaches that it also awakens one’s emotional awareness of one’s sins and future punishments, thus undoing the routinization and the loss of feeling that are caused by sinning. From this he comes to the second level: repression of the urge. The third [level] is sublimation of the urge, wherein one is joyful and happy to serve Him, blessed be He. The antidote for the evil urge, so that it is not a hindrance to all three levels, is the Torah. As they, of blessed memory, said (Kiddushin 30b): “I created their evil urge; I created the Torah as its antidote.”57The word for “antidote” is “tavlin,” which literally means “seasoning,” something that removes a foul taste. Perhaps this is why Torah is described in three ways. First, as a fortified wall (Bava Batra 7b: “‘Wall’ [Song. 8:10] refers to Torah”). Meaning, to the person who is completely virtuous and entirely sublimated his urge, the Torah is a wall that fortifies him, protecting from intense external causes so that they not do harm or corrupt58Compare Isaiah 11:9. his pure soul. Second, as medicine (Kiddushin 30b: “‘And you shall place’ [‘vesamtem’ – Deut. 11:18] refers to a ‘perfect cure’ [‘sam tam’]. This is likened to a person who struck his son and caused a large wound, so he put a bandage on his wound…. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: I created their evil urge; I created the Torah as its antidote…”; see further there). This refers to one who represses his urge, who is therefore very sick, because his intensified urge is within him. The Torah helps him to stand up to his urge. Third, as life (Avoda Zara 3a: “So too, human beings, when they separate from the Torah, they die at once”). This refers to the person who is still in the sentimental stage. The Torah keeps him from losing feeling and becoming, God forbid, like a corpse that has no feeling.
This is the meaning of the midrash [Genesis Rabba 5:7] we presented at the beginning of our words, for when Israel was in the wilderness, our Sages, of blessed memory, say (Yoma 76a59Note: The printed text erroneously cites Yoma 74b.): “‘Why didn’t the manna come down…once a year [instead of every day]?’… So too Israel; one who had four or five children worried and said, ‘Maybe tomorrow the manna will not descend and consequently their sons and daughters will die of hunger.’ Consequently, all of Israel directed their hearts to their Father in Heaven [every day]….”60I.e., when people receive food in daily doses, they become conditioned to sense their dependence on God and petition Him for sustenance every day. See further there. When almost all people are interconnected, then as there was an overwhelming reason for those in a state of knowing by sentiment to maintain their level, those at the stages of repression and sublimation remained secure at their levels as well. However, once they began to enter the land, and one turned to his vineyard and the next to his olive tree, there was a great concern lest the Hinderer (“Satan”), God forbid, dance among them and disrupt their service of God, blessed be He.61I.e., they will focus on themselves as sources of sustenance, and not God.
Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them that the Ark protects people at every level: “Rav Huna said: He stood all of them up between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark was like a wall protecting them. This refers to those at the level of sublimating the urge. “Said Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: He supported them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark formed a support for those who repress their urge, protecting them from falling. “The Rabbis said: He squeezed them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark sustains the person in the state of good by sentiment so that he does not lose feeling, which would erase his existence with respect to serving God – for if, God forbid, there is no feeling (the opening and the beginning), from where will the service come?
There are two modes of His service, blessed be He: One – to serve Him without rational contemplation, simply and naively keeping God’s word, walking in His ways, according to the nature of his character, and loving-kindness. In this mode, there is no way to ascertain the level of the state of one’s service of God, blessed be He, for with a light wind,62I.e., a slight negative stimulus. all the goodness of his ways may fly away swiftly, for what would hold them back?63R. Salanter again warns that unthinking religious observance is vulnerable to both negative inner motives and external forces.
There are also two modes of how God governs His world. The first is through natural processes, the linking of effect to cause, which can lead a person to erroneously think that his might and the strength of his hand have achieved everything for him.64Compare Deuteronomy 8:17. Yet it is not so, for the Holy One, blessed be He, gives a person the power to achieve and arranges for him the causes that will produce the resulting effects. The second [mode] is the miraculous, the uncaused effect, which a person sees, with his own eye, was done by the hand of God.65Compare Isaiah 52:8. This mode is called the Divine Presence (“Shekhina”) on earth. (See what Rambam writes about the root sh-kh-n in his Guide to the Perplexed 1:5.) All this pertains to tangible causes.*70
This was the virtue of our patriarch Abraham, peace be upon him. His service was through nothing but reason (for it had no other cause – neither from his parents nor from his environment), so the Holy One, blessed be He, “lifted him up above the dome of the heavens” (Genesis Rabba 44) – a euphemism for “above the natural processes.”
Thus, when the Ark supported them through different modes, it became known that each person perfected the rational aspect of their mode. Therefore, Joshua said to them: From the fact that the staves of the Ark upheld you, you know that God’s Shekhina is amongst you, governing you with miracles effected by rational causes, for you are servants of God, blessed be He, in the rational mode, as mentioned.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל גֹּשׁוּ הֵנָּה וְגוֹ' (יְהוֹשֻׁעָ ג') :
“And Joshua said to the Israelites: ‘Come step here’” (Josh. 3:9).
בַּמִּדְרָשׁ (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה פָּרָשָׁה ה'). רַב הוּנָא אָמַר זְקָפָן בֵּין שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן. אָמַר רַב אָחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא סְמָכָן בֵּין שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי צִמְצְמָן בֵּין שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן. אָמַר לָהֶן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִמַּה שֶּׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ אֶתְכֶם שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁשְּׁכִינָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא בֵּינֵיכֶם. הַדָּא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (שָׁם) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי אֵל חַי בְּקִרְבְּכֶם עַד כָּאן:
In the Midrash (Genesis Rabba 5:7):
Rav Huna said: He stood all of them up between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. Said Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: He supported them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. The Rabbis said: He squeezed them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. Joshua said to them: From the fact that the two carrying-poles of the Ark held all of you, know that the Presence of God is among you. This is as it says: “And Joshua said: With this, you will know that the Living God is in your midst (Josh. 3:10).”
טֶרֶם נַתְחִיל לְהָפִיחַ רוּחַ פְּנִימִי בְּהַמַּאֲמָר. (גַּם אִם לֹא כִּוְּנוּ לְזֶה רַק שֶׁהָרוּחַ אוּלַי בַּמִּישׁוֹר יְנַשֵּׁב). נַבִּיעַ נָא בִּמְעַט אֹמֶר וּדְבָרִים בִּכְלַל תְּכוּנַת דַּרְכֵי בְּנֵי הָאָדָם כִּי נִפְרָדִים הֵמָּה: יֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר תְּכוּנָתוֹ טוֹבָה. מִדּוֹתָיו בְּטִבְעוֹ רְצוּיוֹת. וְיֵשׁ לְהֵפֶךְ. כֵּן גַּם בְּאָדָם פְּרָטִי לִפְעָמִים כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ בַּל יֵלְכוּ בְּמִצְעָד שָׁוֶה. אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם יִצְעֲדוּ (בְּאֵין מוֹשֵׁךְ וּמְנַהֵל) בְּאֹרַח נְכוֹחָה. וְאֵיזֶה מֵהֶם יֵלְכוּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלְקַלּוֹת. יִפְרְצוּ לְהַשְׁחִית אִם לֹא יַעַצְרֵם הָאָדָם בְּכֹחַ תְּבוּנָתוֹ:
Before we begin to breathe inner life into this teaching (even if the Rabbis did not have this in mind, the spirit of this teaching perhaps moves in the same plane),1This comment reflects R. Salanter’s sophistication as a reader (in light of his exposure to the role of the unconscious forces in a person). Plain meaning (peshat) is often not plain meaning. Reason and seemingly rational conclusions are often driven by irrational desires and forces to predetermined (non-rational) conclusions. One can also say that, by 1861, R. Salanter’s cultural interpretive context was affected by modern perspectives. He did not interpret this rabbinic text according to its “naive,” plain meaning, as did other readers still primarily embedded in traditional culture. let us express, briefly and succinctly, some generalizations about the character of the ways of human beings, for they are diverse. Some have good character. Their traits are naturally desirable. And some are the opposite. So too, within an individual person, sometimes psychic forces do not march in lockstep. Some march (without a control or guide) in a straight path. Some of them go in twisted paths. They will erupt to do harm if the person does not stop them with the power of his reason.
אַל יֹאמַר הָאָדָם אֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים אֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת וְהוּא יִתְבָּרַךְ הִטְבִּיעַ בִּי כֹּחַ הָרָע וְאֵיךְ אֲקַוֶּה לְעָקְרוֹ מִשֹּׁרֶשׁ. לֹא כֵן הַדָּבָר. כֹּחוֹת הָאָדָם בְּנֵי כְּבִישָׁה גַּם חִלּוּף הֵמָּה. כַּאֲשֶׁר עֵינֵינוּ רוֹאוֹת בְּטִבְעֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים. אֲשֶׁר הָאָדָם רַב חֵילוֹ לְכָבְשָׁם בְּמַאֲסַר רְצוֹנוֹ לְבַל יִרְעוּ וּבַל יַשְׁחִיתוּ. גַּם לַעֲשׂוֹתָם בְּנֵי תַּרְבּוּת לַהֲפֹךְ טִבְעָם וְלַעֲקֹר מִשֹּׁרֶשׁ רֹעַ תְּכוּנָתָם. כֵּן הָאָדָם בְּעַצְמוֹ יֵשׁ לְאֵל יָדוֹ לִכְבֹּשׁ טִבְעוֹ הָרָע לְבַל יֵצֵא לִפְעֻלָּה אָדָם. וְגַם לְשַׁנּוֹת טִבְעוֹ לְטוֹב עַל יְדֵי הַלִּמּוּד וְהַהֶרְגֵּל. (עַיֵּן חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַנֶּפֶשׁ). וּכְמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (אָבוֹת פ"ד) אֵיזֶהוּ גִּבּוֹר הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מִשְׁלֵי י"ט) טוֹב אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם מִגִּבּוֹר וּמוֹשֵׁל בְּרוּחוֹ מִלּוֹכֵד עִיר. כִּי גֶּדֶר הַגְּבוּרָה הוּא. לְהִתְקוֹמֵם עַל שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּחָזְקָה וּבְאֹמֶץ יָד לְכָבְשׁוֹ. וְגֶדֶר לְכִידַת עִיר. הוּא בִּהְיוֹת אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר סָרִים לְמִשְׁמַעַת לוֹכְדָם בְּאַהֲבָה וְחִבָּה. בַּל יִכְבַּד עֲלֵיהֶם לְמַלְּאוֹת פְּקֻדָּתוֹ. וּבְגִילָה וְרִנָּה יָשִׂישׂוּ לְהָקִים מְזִמָּתוֹ. לָזֹאת הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ. הוּא רַק גִּבּוֹר לְהִתְחַזֵּק לִהְיוֹת עוֹצֵר תַּאֲוָתוֹ. זֶהוּ בְּחִינַת אֶרֶךְ אַף. שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל אַף אַךְ עוֹצְרוֹ לְבַל יִפְרֹץ. וּמִזֶּה לְאַט לְאַט יָבוֹא לִבְחִינַת מוֹשֵׁל בְּרוּחוֹ. שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רוּחַ תַּאֲוָתוֹ מָסוּר בְּיַד שִׂכְלוֹ הַיָּשָׁר לֶאֱהֹב אֶת הַצֶּדֶק בַּל יַחְפֹּץ הֶפְכוֹ. וְזֶה כָּל הָאָדָם לְשָׁרֵשׁ מִלְּבָבוֹ כָּל תְּכוּנָה וּמִדָּה רָעָה. כִּי כָּל עוֹד לֹא נִקָּה מֵחֶלְאָתָם. אַף כִּי יִתְגַּבֵּר עַל יִצְרוֹ פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת. יִפֹּל בְּרִשְׁתָּם. (עַיֵּן שַׁעֲרֵי קְדֻשָּׁה חֵלֶק א' שַׁעַר ג'). וְזֶה הָיָה מַעֲלַת אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם שֶׁתִּקֵּן כָּל כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ הַנִּלְוִים עִם גּוּפוֹ. כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (מִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה סֵדֶר לֵךְ לְךָ פָּרָשָׁה מ"ו) אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאַבְרָהָם אֵין בְּךָ פְּסֹלֶת אֶלָּא הָעָרְלָה הַעֲבֵר אוֹתָהּ וּבַטֵּל הַמּוּם. הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָּמִים. עַיֵּן שָׁם. וּכְמַאֲמָרָם (שָׁם פָּרָשָׁה י"א) כָּל מַה שֶּׁנִּבְרָא בְּשֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית צְרִיכִין עֲשִׂיָּה כְּגוֹן הַחַרְדָּל צָרִיךְ לְמָתוֹק כוּ' אֲפִלּוּ אָדָם צָרִיךְ תִּקּוּן *)וּבָזֶה יְבֹאַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ (סֵדֶר נֹחַ פָּרָשָׁה ל') אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים הִתְהַלֵּךְ נֹחַ כוּ' רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן אָמַר לַקָּטָן הֲלֹךְ עִמִּי וְאָמַר לַגָּדוֹל בֹּא וַהֲלֹךְ לְפָנַי. כָּךְ אַבְרָהָם שֶׁהָיָה כֹּחוֹ יָפֶה (בְּרֵאשִׁית י"ז) הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָּמִים. אֲבָל נֹחַ שֶׁהָיָה כֹּחוֹ רַע. אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים הִתְהַלֵּךְ נֹחַ. כִּי נֹחַ (לְפִי עֶרְכּוֹ) יַעַן לֹא נִצְטַוָּה עַל הַמִּילָה. לֹא הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ לָבוֹא לִבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן אֲמִתִּי רַק בִּבְחִינַת כּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ. וְהוּא בְּעֵזֶר ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ. כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (סֻכָּה נב:) יִצְרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְגַּבֵּר עָלָיו בְּכָל יוֹם וְאִלְמָלֵא הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא שֶׁעוֹזְרוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹ עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְזֶהוּ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְכוּ'. אֲבָל אַבְרָהָם אַחַר הַעֲבָרַת הַמּוּם נִתְקְנוּ כָּל כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ. וּמֵעַצְמוֹ כְּהוֹלֵךְ בֶּחָלִיל שָׂשׂ לִשְׁמֹר דֶּרֶךְ ה'. זֶהוּ הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי:. וְכִדְאִיתָא בְּתָנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ (פֶּרֶק כ"ה) לְפִיכָךְ הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּב לוֹמַר מָתַי יַגִּיעוּ מַעֲשַׂי לְמַעֲשֵׂי אֲבוֹתַי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. וּבָזֶה יְבֹאַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ (שָׁם) עַל הַפָּסוּק (הוֹשֵׁעַ ט') כְּבִכּוּרָה בִּתְאֵנָה בְּרֵאשִׁיתָהּ רָאִיתִי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן מַה הַתְּאֵנָה הַזֹּאת אֵין לָהּ פְּסֹלֶת אֶלָּא עֻקְצָהּ בִּלְבַד הַעֲבֵר אוֹתָהּ וּבַטֵּל הַמּוּם. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא לְאַבְרָהָם אֵין בְּךָ פְּסֹלֶת וְכוּ'. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ:
A person should not say: Whatever God has made2Compare Ecclesiastes 7:29. cannot be changed, and He, blessed be He, imbued this power of evil in me; how can I hope to uproot it completely? This is not so. Human powers can be conquered and changed. Our eyes see this in the nature of animals; a human being is powerful enough to master them in the control of his will, that they not do evil or destroy.3Compare Isaiah 11:9. He can domesticate them, changing their nature and thoroughly uprooting the evil of their character. So, the human being himself has within his power4Compare Genesis 31:39. to conquer his evil nature5Below R. Salanter describes this as a method of character formation – kibbush hamiddot – literally, “conquering the traits.” We translate this as the method of repression. so that it is not expressed in personal action, and also to change his nature for the better through study and habituation (hergel).6Below, R. Salanter describes this as an alternative method of character improvement called tikkun hamiddot – literally, “the improvement of traits.” We translate this as the method of sublimation. (See Ḥeshbon HaNefesh.)7A book whose title literally means “accounting of the soul,” published in the early nineteenth century by a moderate maskil, Menachem Mendel Lefin of Satanov (1749–1826), which deals with identifying character traits and working on changing them. Lefin’s work was influenced by the moral self-improvement program described in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1791).
And as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Avot 4:1): “Who is [truly] mighty? One who conquers his [evil] urge, as it is said (Prov. 198This is a typographical error – the actual location is Proverbs 16:32.): ‘Better one who is slow to anger than one who is mighty; and one who controls his spirit than one who captures a city.’” For the definition of “might” is to rise up against an opponent and conquer him by force and strength. And the “capture of a city” occurs when the people of the city accede to the dictates of their captor with love and affection, and it is not burdensome for them to fulfill his commands. With joy and festivity, they are happy to carry out his plans. So the “conqueror of his urge” is only mighty in that he strengthens himself to hold back his desire. This is the state of “slow to anger” – the person has anger, but he holds it back so that it does not break out. From this, little by little, he can arrive at the state of “controls his spirit,” i.e., that the spirit of his desire is in the power of his straightforward reason to love righteousness – and not desire its opposite.
This is the whole duty of man:9Compare Ecclesiastes 12:13. to root out of his heart every bad quality and character trait (midda). For as long as he has not been cured of their sickness, even if he overcomes his urge many times, he will eventually fall into its net (see Shaarei Kedusha,10R. Chaim Vital (1542–1620, Safed) was a kabbalist and the foremost disciple of R. Isaac Luria (Arizal), a Jewish mystic and the founder of modern Kabbala. R. Vital’s Shaarei Kedusha (The Gates of Holiness) is a manual of proper comport and character for aspiring mystics. Part 1, Gate 3). This was the virtue of our father Abraham, may peace be upon him, that he sublimated all the psychological drives that came with his body. As they, of blessed memory, said (Genesis Rabba, Lekh Lekha 46): “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: ‘You have only one husk – the foreskin. Remove it and the flaw will be gone.’ ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1).” See further there. And as they said (Genesis Rabba 11): “Everything that was created during the six days of creation needs work; for example, the mustard seed needs to be sweetened…even the human being needs to be perfected.”*11How can any individual do as much as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Can they start the Jewish people and religion again? R. Salanter’s answer is: “No” – but they can match Abraham in achieving perfection of the urge and removal of inner flaws. And with this we can explain the midrash (Genesis Rabba 46) on the verse (Hos. 9:10): “‘As the first fruit to ripen on a fig tree, so I regarded your fathers’…. R. Yudan says: Just as this fig has no husk except for its stem, take that off and the flaw will be gone, so the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: ‘You have only one husk – the foreskin. Remove it and the flaw will be gone.’ ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1).”
וְעַל פִּי מַאֲמַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ (שָׁם פָּרָשָׁה א') שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים קָדְמוּ לִבְרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם. יֵשׁ מֵהֶם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁעָלוּ בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לְהִבָּרְאוֹת כוּ'. הָאָבוֹת כוּ' עָלוּ בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לְהִבָּרְאוֹת. הָאָבוֹת מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (הוֹשֵׁעַ ט') כַּעֲנָבִים בַּמִּדְבָּר (סֵיפָא דִּקְרָא כְּבִכּוּרָה בִּתְאֵנָה הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל). וְיֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַדָּבָר. כִּי נוֹדַע שֶׁבַּמַּעֲשֶׂה. הַסִּבָּה קוֹדֶמֶת לְהַמְסוֹבֵב. וְהַמְסוֹבֵב (הוּא הַתַּכְלִית) הוֹלֵךְ לְרַגְלֵי הַסִּבּוֹת הַקּוֹדְמוֹת לוֹ. אָכֵן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה הַדָּבָר לְהֵפֶךְ. הַתַּכְלִית קוֹדֵם. וּלְפִיהוּ (לְהַצִּיבוֹ עַל מְכוֹנוֹ) יְסֻדְּרוּ הֲכָנוֹת הַסִּבּוֹת לְמֶרְכַּז הַמְסוֹבֵב. וְהִנֵּה בְּרִיאַת הַתֵּבֵל (הָאָרֶץ וְכָל אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ. עַיֵּן בַּמְחַבְּרִים מַה שֶּׁדִּבְּרוּ בָּזֶה) תַּכְלִית אָדָם הַשָּׁלֵם יְרָא אֶת ה' וְשׁוֹמֵר מִצְוֹתָיו. כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (שַׁבָּת לא:) מַאי כִּי זֶה כָּל הָאָדָם (קֹהֶלֶת י"ב) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל זֶה עַיֵּן שָׁם. וּלְפִי מַאֲמַר הַתָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ (הַמּוּבָא לְעֵיל) נִרְאֶה בַּעֲלִיל כִּי מֶרְכַּז הַבְּרִיאָה בַּעֲבוּר הָאָדָם הַמְעֻלֶּה. הַמַּשְׁלִים חִיּוּבוֹ לַעֲלוֹת בְּמַדְרֵגַת הָאָבוֹת:
This also fits the midrashic statement (ibid., ch. 1): “Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some were created and some arose in thought to be created…. The patriarchs…arose in thought to be created. From whence [do we learn this about] the patriarchs? It is said (Hos. 9:10): ‘As grapes in the desert…’ (this is the end of the aforementioned verse, ‘as the first fruit to ripen in a fig tree…’).” This can be explained [as follows]: It is known that in action, cause precedes effect. And the effect (which is the goal) follows its preceding causes. However, in thought, the matter is reversed – the goal comes first. In accordance with the goal (and in order attain it), the preceding causes are arranged to arrive at the effect. Now in the creation of the universe (the earth and everything on it – see what the writers have said about this), the goal was the perfect human being, who fears God and observes His commandments. As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 31b): “What does ‘This is the whole duty of man’ (Eccl. 12:13) mean? R. Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The whole world was created solely for the sake of this one.”12I.e., the perfect human, the patriarchs. See further there. According to the saying of the Tanna DeVei Eliyahu (quoted above), it can be seen clearly that the focus, that is, the goal, of creation is for the sake of the superior human being – the one who fulfills his obligation to rise to the level of the patriarchs.
זֶהוּ מַאֲמַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ הָאָבוֹת עָלוּ בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לְהִבָּרְאוֹת הַיְנוּ הַתַּכְלִית בִּבְרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ (הַקּוֹדֶמֶת לְהַסִּבָּה הִיא בְּרִיאַת הַתֵּבֵל) הִיא מַדְרֵגַת בְּחִינַת הָאָבוֹת:
This is the meaning of the above-quoted midrashic saying: before creation took place, “the patriarchs arose in thought to be created.” That is, the goal of creating the world in His thought, blessed be He (which precedes the cause, i.e., the actual creation of the universe), was to generate human beings who reach the level of the patriarchs.
וְזֶהוּ מַאֲמַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל כְּבִכּוּרָה בִּתְאֵנָה בְּרֵאשִׁיתָהּ רָאִיתִי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. הַיְנוּ שֶׁהָאָדָם נִבְרָא לְתַכְלִית זוֹ. וְכָל אָדָם בְּיָדוֹ וּבְכֹחוֹ לְתַקֵּן כָּל כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ הַמְשֻׁתָּפִים עִם חָמְרוֹ. לְבַד הַחֵלֶק שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה אַבְרָהָם לְכָרְתוֹ:
This is the meaning of the above-quoted midrash, “As the first fruit to ripen in a fig tree, so I regarded your fathers,” that is, the human was created for this goal. And each person has it in his hands and in his power to sublimate all the psychological drives that are intertwined with his materiality – except for the piece that Abraham was commanded to cut off.13Here again, R. Salanter, applying his own creative thinking, is re-presenting the practice of Mussar. Earlier, he stressed its importance as a particular behavior intended to increase awareness of God and true reverence. Now he presents Mussar as the way to achieve the universal goal of the Torah (and God’s reason for creating the world) – to perfect human character. Each individual is obligated to make himself whole, like Abraham. An oral tradition of the Mussar movement quotes R. Salanter as saying: “The Torah came to make a mentsch.” This, on one foot, is his summary and his view of the goal of the whole Torah.
אָכֵן בְּמַצַּב תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר. גַּם בְּחִינַת כְּבִישַׁת יִצְרוֹ. בַּל יַרְפֶּה יָדוֹ מֵהַחֲזִיק בָּהּ. כִּי אַף שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הָרָע מִקִּרְבּוֹ. עוֹד מַעְיָן נִרְפָּשׁ טָמוּן בְּחִבוֹ לְהָקִיר מֵימָיו. עַל יְדֵי סִבָּה גְּדוֹלָה הַמְעוֹרְרַתָּם לְהִתְגַּלּוֹת מִמַּחֲבוֹאָם לְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט לָצֵאת הַחוּצָה לְהַשְׁחִית. כְּמוֹ הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הִרְגִּיל אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּמִדַּת הַסַּבְלָנוּת לְבַל יִקְצֹף מְאוּמָה עַל כָּל אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה נֶגֶד רְצוֹנוֹ וְתוֹעַלְתּוֹ. בְּכָל זֹאת אֵינֶנּוּ בָּטוּחַ בְּדָבָר גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר כְּנֶטֶל הַחוֹל יִכְבַּד עָלָיו לְסָבְלוֹ. אִם לֹא יַחְתֹּר בְּעִמְקֵי גְּדֻלַּת הָעִנְיָן לְהָרוּם בִּנְיָנוֹ הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר קָנָה בַּעֲמָלוֹ. וְאָז נִצְרָךְ לִגְבוּרָה יְתֵרָה לִכְבֹּשׁ תַּאֲוָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הֻסְכַּן בָּהּ. (כִּי כְּבָר נֶעֱזַב וְנֶעֱקַר מִקִּרְבּוֹ הֶרְגֵּל הַכְּבִישָׁה בַּמִּדָּה הַלָּזוֹ אֲשֶׁר קָנָה מִלְּפָנִים בְּעֵת הֱיוֹתָהּ אֶצְלוֹ בִּבְחִינַת כְּבִישָׁה. יַעַן לֹא הִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ זְמַן כַּבִּיר מֵעֵת זָכָה לָהּ בִּבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן). וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לְעֵת כַּזֹּאת יַגִּיעַ לְמִדַּת הַגְּבוּרָה. אֲשֶׁר בִּלְתִּי הַהֶרְגֵּל קָשֶׁה לִקְנוֹתָהּ:
However, even under conditions of “perfecting the urge” [i.e., sublimation], he should not slacken his grip on “conquering his urge” [i.e., repression], for even if the evil is uprooted from within him, there is still a source of pollution buried in him to taint his waters – through an intense stimulus that can arouse them to emerge from hiding, spread out, and destroy. For example: a man conditioned himself with the virtue of patience, so that he does not get angry at all at anything done against his will or advantage. Still, in an important matter, which weighs upon him heavily as a pile of sand and pains him because it strikes deep, he is not assured that it will not undermine and destroy the good thing he built with so much toil. At such a time, he will need extra strength to conquer this intense desire that he is not accustomed to. (For the habit of “conquering” [repressing] this trait [of anger], which he acquired earlier, when he was at the stage of repression, has already been abandoned and uprooted from within him, for he has not used it for a long time – since he first attained the level of “perfecting” [sublimating]). Who knows if at such a time14See Esther 4:14. he will attain the required degree of strength – especially since repression is hard to achieve without heavy conditioning?15Conquering (repressing, kevisha) the urge means resisting one’s inclinations. For example: Take the case of careful language. Conquering the evil urge would entail resisting the urge to speak derogatory words about another. (Note: Negative speech typically reflects the speaker’s own feelings of inadequacy or being in a low state.) Perfecting the urge (sublimation, tikkun) means controlling and redirecting the inclination so that it does not manifest in the desire for evil. In the case of language, this might mean channeling the desire to say something derogatory into a desire to speak positively. In the past, there was a pleasure in belittling the other person. Now, one receives pleasure from building the other up. (Such speech typically reflects the speaker’s attaining a state of self-acceptance.) However, R. Salanter warns that even after one reaches the states of sublimation, one must be careful to maintain the ability to repress when necessary. In the example of language, despite having redirected the urge, there are always latent levels of inclination that can be aroused by a personal setback or new pressures in one’s life. The evil urge then could come rushing back and must be conquered. At that point, one can only suppress the urge by an act of will.
לְזֹאת מַה טּוֹב לָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר מִדּוֹתָיו יְשָׁרִים. לְהַעֲלוֹתָם בְּמַדְרֵגָה נִשְׂגָּבָה בִּבְחִינַת הַכְּבִישָׁה. לְהַרְגִּיל אֶת עַצְמוֹ לַהֲפֹךְ מִדּוֹתָיו בְּחָזְקָה. לְהָאִיר נֵר לְפָנָיו לִימֵי הָרָעָה עֵת הַנִּסָּיוֹן אֲשֶׁר יְרוֹפְפוּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם עַמּוּדָיו הַטּוֹבִים. וּמַה כָּבֵד לְהָאָדָם לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּמִדַּת הַגְּבוּרָה לִסְבֹּל עֹל וָצַעַר תְּמִידִי. לְזֹאת יְחַפֵּשׂ הָאָדָם עֵצָה וְתַחְבּוּלָה. אֵיךְ לְתַקֵּן מִדּוֹת וְכֹחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ אִם מְעַט וְאִם הַרְבֵּה. אֲשֶׁר לְכָל הַפָּחוֹת הַשְׁחָתַת מִדּוֹתָיו מֵרָחוֹק יַעֲמֹדוּ. וְלֹא יִצְטָרֵךְ לְמִדַּת הַגְּבוּרָה כִּי אִם לְעִתִּים רְחוֹקוֹת בְּעֵת הַנִּסָּיוֹן לְפִי מַצָּבוֹ וְעִנְיָנוֹ וּתְכוּנַת נַפְשׁוֹ:
So it is good for a person of upright character traits to raise them to a high level from the perspective of repression – to habituate [i.e., condition] himself to reverse his traits forcefully, thereby to light a lamp before him for the “bad days,” the time of temptation, when (God forbid) his good foundations will weaken. Nevertheless, since it is hard for a person to use the trait of strength [i.e., repression] and to bear its perpetual yoke and pain, one should seek counsel and strategy to perfect [i.e., sublimate] his character traits and psychological drives, more or less – so that, at least, the corruption of his character traits will be remote, and he will not need the trait of strength except very occasionally, at a time of temptation according to his emotional state, situation, and psychological constitution.16A chart comparing R. Salanter’s two methods of altering behavior – repression and sublimation – appears in the final footnote of this chapter.
הוּא מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל בְּאָבוֹת (פֶּרֶק ד') וּבוֹרֵחַ מִן הָעֲבֵרָה וְכוּ'. כִּי כָּל אָדָם וְאָדָם מִדּוֹתָיו מִשְׁתַּנּוֹת. וְכָל אֶחָד יִזָּהֵר מְאֹד בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לַחְתֹּר אַחַר אֵיזֶה מִדָּה הָעֲלוּלָה בְּיוֹתֵר לְקַלְקְלוֹ. לַהֲבִיאָהּ מְעַט בִּבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן עַד אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה דַּרְכָּהּ רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנּוּ. יְסוֹד בְּחִינַת הַתִּקּוּן הוּא. בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶם אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר (יוֹמָא פה:). וּכְמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (שְׁמוּאֵל־ב' כ"ד) נִפְּלָה נָא בְּיַד ה' כִּי רַבִּים רַחֲמָיו וּבְיַד אָדָם אַל אֶפֹּלָה:
This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Avot (4:2): “Flee from transgression.” Each person has different character traits, and so each person should be very cautious and seek the character trait that is most likely to corrupt him and sublimate it so that the path [to corruption] is remote.
The foundational principle of when to use sublimation is in interpersonal (bein adam leḥavero) matters – for which even Yom Kippur cannot atone (Yoma 85b). As the verse says (II Sam. 24:14): “May I fall into the hand of God, for His mercies are many, and not fall into the hand of man.”17This is R. Salanter’s personal midrash on the verse. Literally, the verse means that King David chooses to have a divine punishment inflicted on him and Israel (for the sin of carrying out an unauthorized census) rather than a human enemy be sent by God to punish them. He trusts that God’s mercies will minimize the punishment. An enemy may inflict pain without limit. R. Salanter’s midrash is: If the person sins, let it be a failure in the service of God – for God is merciful and quick to forgive. But do not sin against a fellow human being – for that person suffers more than God does from your behavior. That person also possesses less love and compassion than God – so he will be slower to forgive. Note that in the Iggeret HaMussar, R. Salanter complained that in Lithuania, pious Jews meticulously observed the commandments to serve God (for example, keeping Jewish dietary laws) but permitted themselves too often to violate the laws governing behavior toward other human beings.
וְזֶה לְשׁוֹן הָרַמְבַּ"ם (בִּשְׁמוֹנָה פְּרָקָיו פֶּרֶק ו') אָמְרוּ הַפִּילוֹסוֹפִים שֶׁהַמּוֹשֵׁל בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הַמַּעֲשִׂים הַטּוֹבִים וְהַחֲשׁוּבִים. הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָם וְהוּא מִתְאַוֶה אֶל הַפְּעֻלּוֹת הָרָעוֹת וְנִכְסָף אֲלֵיהֶם. וְיִכְבֹּשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ כו'. וְיַעַשׂ הַטּוֹבוֹת וְהוּא מִצְטַעֵר בַּעֲשִׂיָּתָם וְנִזּוֹק. אֲבָל הֶחָסִיד. הוּא נִמְשָׁךְ בִּפְעֻלָּתוֹ אַחַר מַה שֶּׁיְּעִירוּהוּ תַּאֲוָתוֹ וּתְכוּנָתוֹ. וְיַעֲשֶׂה הַטּוֹבוֹת וְהוּא מִתְאַוֶּה וְנִכְסָף אֲלֵיהֶם. וּבְהַסְכָּמָה מִן הַפִּילוֹסוֹפִים. שֶׁהֶחָסִיד יוֹתֵר חָשׁוּב וְיוֹתֵר שָׁלֵם מִן הַמּוֹשֵׁל בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַמּוֹשֵׁל בְּנַפְשׁוֹ כְּחָסִיד בְּעִנְיָנִים רַבִּים וְכוּ'. וּכְבָר אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה (מִשְׁלֵי כ"א) נֶפֶשׁ רָשָׁע אִוְּתָה רַע. וְאָמַר בְּשִׂמְחַת הֶחָסִיד בַּמַּעֲשֶׂה הַטּוֹב. וְהַצַּעַר מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צַדִּיק בַּעֲשִׂיָּתוֹ. זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר (שָׁם) שִׂמְחָה לַצַּדִּיק עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וּמָחֲתָה לְפוֹעֲלֵי אָוֶן. זֶה הַנִּרְאֶה מִדִּבְרֵי הַנְּבִיאִים נָאוֹת לְמַה שֶּׁזְּכָרוּהוּ הַפִּילוֹסוֹפִים. וְכַאֲשֶׁר חָקַרְנוּ דִּבְרֵי הַחֲכָמִים בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן. נִמְצָא לָהֶם שֶׁהַמִּתְאַוֶּה לַעֲבֵרוֹת וְנִכְסָף אֲלֵיהֶם הוּא יוֹתֵר חָשׁוּב וְיוֹתֵר שָׁלֵם מֵאֲשֶׁר לֹא יִתְאַוֶּה אֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יִצְטַעֵר בְּהַנָּחָתָן וְכוּ'. וְיוֹתֵר מִזֶּה שֶׁהֵם צִוּוּ לִהְיוֹת הָאָדָם מִתְאַוֶּה לַעֲבֵרוֹת. עַד שֶׁהִזְהִירוּ מִלּוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי בְּטִבְעִי לֹא אֶתְאַוֶּה לְזֹאת הָעֲבֵרָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. וְהוּא אָמְרָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם אִי אֶפְשִׁי לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְכוּ' אֶלָּא אֶפְשִׁי וּמָה אֶעֱשֶׂה אָבִי שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם גָּזַר עָלַי. וּלְפִי הַמּוּבָן מִפְּשׁוּטֵי שְׁנֵי הַמַּאֲמָרִים (רְצוֹנוֹ לוֹמַר מַאֲמַר חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל וּמַאֲמַר הַפִּילוֹסוֹפִים) בִּתְחִלַּת הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה הֵן סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְאֵין הָעִנְיָן כֵּן. אֲבָל שְׁנֵיהֶם אֱמֶת וְאֵין מַחֲלֹקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּלָל. וְהוּא שֶׁהָרָעוֹת אֲשֶׁר הֵן אֵצֶל הַפִּילוֹסוֹפִים רָעוֹת. אֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ שֶׁמִּי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְאַוֶּה אֲלֵיהֶן יוֹתֵר חָשׁוּב מִן הַמִּתְאַוֶּה אֲלֵיהֶן וְיִכְבֹּשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ מֵהֶן. הֵם הָעִנְיָנִים הַמְפֻרְסָמִים אֵצֶל כָּל בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהֵם רָעוֹת. כִּשְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים וּגְנֵבָה וּגְזֵלָה וְאוֹנָאָה. וּלְהַזִּיק לְמִי שֶׁלֹּא הֵרַע לוֹ. וְלִגְמֹל רַע לַמֵּטִיב לוֹ. וּלְבַזּוֹת אָב וָאֵם. וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. וְהֵם הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (יוֹמָא סז:) שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא נִכְתְּבוּ רְאוּיִים הֵם לִיכָּתֵב. וְיִקְרְאוּ אוֹתָן כוּ' מִצְוֹת הַשִּׂכְלִיּוֹת. וְאֵין סָפֵק אֲשֶׁר הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁתּוֹקֵק לְדָבָר מֵהֶם וְתִכְסֹף אֵלָיו. שֶׁהִיא חֲסֵרָה. וְשֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחֲשׁוּבָה לֹא תִּתְאַוֶּה לְאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ הָרָעוֹת כְּלָל. וְלֹא תִּצְטַעֵר בְּהִמָּנְעָהּ מֵהֶם. אֲבָל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם הַחֲכָמִים שֶׁהַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ מֵהֶם הוּא יוֹתֵר חָשׁוּב וּגְמוּלוֹ יוֹתֵר גָּדוֹל. הֵם הַתּוֹרוֹת הַשִּׁמְעִיּוֹת. (רְצוֹנוֹ לוֹמַר הַמִּצְוֹת אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ עַל הַר סִינַי. וְלוּלֵא הַקַּבָּלָה אֵין הַשֵּׂכֶל מְחַיְּבָם). וְזֶה אֱמֶת. שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הַתּוֹרָה לֹא הָיוּ רָעוֹת כְּלָל. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אָמְרוּ. שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הָאָדָם שֶׁיָּנִיחַ נַפְשׁוֹ אוֹהֶבֶת אוֹתָן. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מוֹנֵעַ מֵהֶם אֶלָּא הַתּוֹרָה. וּבְחֹן חָכְמָתָם עֲלֵיהֶם הַשָּׁלוֹם וּבַמֶּה הִמְשִׁילוּ. שֶׁהֵם לֹא אָמְרוּ אַל יֹאמַר אָדָם אִי אֶפְשִׁי לַהֲרֹג נֶפֶשׁ. אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִגְנֹב. אִי אֶפְשִׁי לְכַזֵּב וְכוּ'. אֲבָל הֵבִיאוּ דְּבָרִים שִׁמְעִיִּים כֻּלָּם. בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וּלְבִישַׁת שַׁעַטְנֵז וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם וְכוּ'. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ:
Rambam wrote (Shemona Perakim, ch. 6):18This translation follows the Gorfinkle translation, available on Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Eight_Chapters.
Philosophers maintain that though the man of self-restraint performs moral and praiseworthy deeds, yet he does them desiring and craving all the while for immoral deeds, but, subduing his passions…succeeds, though with constant vexation and irritation, in acting morally. The saintly man, however, is guided in his actions by that to which his inclination and disposition prompt him, in consequence of which he acts morally from innate longing and desire. Philosophers unanimously agree that the latter is superior to, and more perfect than, the one who has to curb his passions, although they add that it is possible for such a one to equal the saintly man in many regards….
King Solomon, peace be upon him, entertained the same idea when he said (Prov. 21:10): “The soul of the wicked desires evil,” and, in regard to the saintly man’s rejoicing in doing good, and the discontent experienced by him, who is not innately righteous, when required to act justly, he says (Prov. 21:15): “It is bliss to the righteous to do justice, but torment to the evil-doer. Thus, what the prophets say [in Proverbs] is in agreement with what the philosophers mention.
When, however, we consult the Rabbis on this subject, it would seem that they consider him who desires iniquity, and craves for it [but does not do it], more praiseworthy and perfect than the one who feels no torment at refraining from evil; and they even go so far as to maintain that the more praiseworthy and perfect a man is, the greater is his desire to commit iniquity, and the more irritation does he feel at having to desist from it…. Furthermore, they command that man should conquer his desires, but they forbid one to say, “I, by my nature, do not desire to commit such and such a transgression, even though the Law does not forbid it.” R. Simeon ben Gamaliel summed up this thought in the words, “Man should not say, ‘I do not want to eat meat together with milk; I do not want to wear clothes made of a mixture of wool and linen; I do not want to enter into an incestuous marriage,’ but he should say, ‘I do indeed want to, yet I must not, for my father in Heaven has forbidden it.’”19Sifra, Parshat Kedoshim 10.
At first blush, by a superficial comparison of the sayings (of the Sages, of blessed memory, and of the philosophers),20This is R. Salanter’s parenthetical interjection. one might be inclined to say that they contradict one another. Such, however, is not the case. Both are correct and, moreover, are not in disagreement in the least, as the evils which the philosophers term such and of which they say that he who has no longing for them is more to be praised than he who desires them but conquers his passion are things which all people commonly agree are evils, such as the shedding of blood, theft, robbery, fraud, injury to one who has done no harm, ingratitude, contempt for parents, and the like. These proscriptions are called commandments (mitzvot) about which the Rabbis said (Yoma 67b): “If they had not already been written in the Torah, it would be proper to add them.” Some…called these rational laws. There is no doubt that a soul which has the desire for, and lusts after, the above-mentioned misdeeds, is imperfect, that a noble soul has absolutely no desire for any such crimes, and experiences no struggle in refraining from them.
When, however, the Rabbis maintain that he who overcomes his desire has more merit and a greater reward (than he who has no temptation), they say so only in reference to laws that are ceremonial prohibitions. (That is, the commandments which we heard at Mount Sinai, and which otherwise our reason would not require.)21This is R. Salanter’s parenthetical interjection. This is quite true, since, were it not for the Torah, they would not at all be considered transgressions. Therefore, the Rabbis say that man should permit his soul to entertain the natural inclination for these things, but that the Torah alone should restrain him from them. Ponder over the wisdom of these men of blessed memory manifest in the examples they adduce. They do not declare, “Man should not say, ‘I have no desire to kill, to steal and to lie…!’” The instances they cite are all from the ceremonial law, such as partaking of meat and milk together, wearing clothes made of wool and linen, etc.
וְאֵין דִּבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"ם סוֹתְרִים לְמַה שֶּׁכָּתַבְנוּ. שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הָאָדָם לְתַקֵּן כָּל כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ. כִּי שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תִּקּוּן הֵם. הָאֶחָד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאָדָם מְהַפֵּךְ כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ וּמִדּוֹתָיו לְטוֹב. עַד אֲשֶׁר כֹּחַ הָרָע תֵּעָקֵר מִמֶּנּוּ וּבַל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא בְּקִרְבּוֹ כְּלָל. וְלַבְּחִינָה הַלָּזוֹ לֹא יַסְפִּיק לְגֶבֶר לְתַקֵּן רְצוֹנוֹ בִּכְלָל. לִכְסֹף לְטוֹב וְלִשְׂנֹא אֶת הָרָע. רַק צָרִיךְ הָאָדָם לְחַפֵּשׂ דַּרְכֵי הַתִּקּוּן לְכָל מִדָּה וּלְכָל כֹּחוֹת הַנֶּפֶשׁ בִּפְרָט. זֶהוּ בַּמִּצְוֹת הַשִּׂכְלִיּוֹת אֲשֶׁר בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ כְּדִבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"ם זַ"ל הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל. הַשֵּׁנִי. הוּא תִּקּוּן רָצוֹן הַכְּלָלִי. לֶאֱהֹב לִשְׁמֹר מוֹצָא פִּי ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ בַּמִּצְוֹת הַשִּׁמְעִיּוֹת. וּלְחַפֵּשׂ לְהַקְטִין כֹּחַ הַתַּאֲוָה בְּכָל פְּרָט. עַד אֲשֶׁר כִּמְעַט גֶּדֶר הָאֶפְשִׁי לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. אוֹ הָאִי אֶפְשִׁי לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. לֹא יְחֻלַּק רַק בְּצוּרִיִּי וְלֹא בְּחָמְרִי. בְּשֵׂכֶל וְלֹא בְּחוּשׁ:
The words of Rambam do not contradict what we wrote, [namely] that a person must perfect [sublimate] all his psychological drives, for there are two kinds of sublimation. The first is that a person transforms his psychological drives and character traits for the good – until the evil urge is completely uprooted and is neither seen nor found22Compare Pesaḥim 5b; 48a. Compare also Exodus 12:19 and 13:7. in him at all. To reach this level, it is not enough for a person to sublimate his will in general to long for good and to hate evil. Rather a person must seek out ways to sublimate each character trait and each of the psychological drives specifically. This approach applies to the rational, interpersonal mitzvot, in accordance with the aforementioned words of Rambam, of blessed memory.
The second type of perfection is the sublimation of one’s will in general to love to observe the words of blessed God in ceremonial [i.e., non-rational] commandments. One should seek to reduce the power of desire in every detail – until, practically, the sense of “I want to eat meat with milk” and the sense of “I cannot eat meat with milk” are distinguishable only in the abstract, not on the material level – rationally, not instinctively.
וְהַיּוֹתֵר כָּבֵד בִּבְחִינַת הַתִּקּוּן. הוּא בִּדְבַר הַמִּדּוֹת. כִּי זֶה כְּלָל גָּדוֹל בַּמִּדּוֹת. שֶׁרֹב מִדּוֹת הַטּוֹבוֹת. הֵמָּה רַק בַּמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לְהָאָדָם בְּעַצְמוֹ. אָכֵן בַּמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. הַחוֹב לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכָל עֹז בְּהִפּוּכָהּ. כְּמוֹ לִבְרֹחַ מִן הַכָּבוֹד הִיא מִדָּה יְקָרָה. כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ד') כִּי תַּאֲוַת הַכָּבוֹד תּוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָכֵן בַּמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (שָׁם) אֵיזֶהוּ מְכֻבָּד הַמְכַבֵּד אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת. הַפְּרִישׁוּת אֲשֶׁר הִיא מַעֲלָה נִשְׂגָּבָה לִבְנֵי עֲלִיָּה. הִיא רַק בִּבְחִינַת הָאָדָם לְעַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל בַּמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לְתוֹעֶלֶת וַהֲנָאַת חֲבֵרוֹ. הַחוֹב פְּרוּשָׂה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ הֵפֶךְ הַפְּרִישׁוּת. לָצֵאת בַּשְּׁוָקִים וּבִרְחוֹבוֹת קִרְיָה. לְחַפֵּשׂ לְמַלְּאוֹת טוֹבַת חֲבֵרוֹ. וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן טוֹבַת רַבִּים. הוּא מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (מִדְרָשׁ רַבָּה דְּבָרִים פָּרָשָׁה י"א) מַהוּ אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבִּין מֵחֶצְיוֹ וּלְמַטָּה אִישׁ. מֵחֶצְיוֹ וּלְמַעְלָה אֱלֹהִים. כִּי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ. אִם כִּי הָיָה אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים קָדוֹשׁ פָּרוּשׁ מִכָּל מַחֲמַדֵּי תֵּבֵל. בְּכָל זֹאת חֶצְיוֹ הָיָה בְּחִינַת אִישׁ. בַּמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַתְּלוּיִים עָלָיו. וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּרֹב הַמִּדּוֹת. וּבִפְרָט בַּעֲנָוָה הַגְּדוֹלָה מִכָּל הַמִּדּוֹת. הַחוֹב לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ עַד קָצֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן. כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (סוֹטָה דַּף ה') אָמַר רַב אָחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב. לֹא מִינֵהּ וְלֹא מִקְּצָתֵהּ. וְכַאֲשֶׁר בֵּאֵר הָרַמְבַּ"ם זַ"ל הַמִּשְׁנָה (שָׁם) מְאֹד מְאֹד הֱוֵי שְׁפַל רוּחַ וְכוּ'. חָלִילָה חָלִילָה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּמִּדָּה הַלָּזוֹ עַל חֲבֵרוֹ. לְהַפְחִיתוֹ מִמַּעֲלָתוֹ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם.
The more difficult aspect of sublimation pertains to the character traits, for the general rule of character traits is that good character traits apply only as far as the person himself is concerned, but with regard to one’s fellow, the duty is to use the opposite trait with all one’s might. For example, fleeing from honor is a rare trait. As the [Sages,] of blessed memory, said (Avot 4:21), the lust for honor shortens a person’s life. Yet when it comes to one’s fellow, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (ibid. 1): “Who is honored? One who honors all human beings.” Asceticism is a sublime virtue of the elite, but only with respect to the person himself. When it comes to the benefit and pleasure of his fellow, the duty to use the opposite of asceticism applies. One must go out into the markets and streets of the city for the benefit of his fellow and, all the more so, public benefit.
This is [the meaning of] the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Deuteronomy Rabba 11): “What is [the meaning of the verse that Moses was] ‘the man of God’? R. Avin said: His lower half was human; his upper half was divine.” For our teacher Moses was a godly man – saintly, removed from the pleasures of the world – yet half of him was human when it came to Israel, who depended on him.
So it is with most character traits, and especially humility, the greatest of all the character traits. The duty is to use it in the extreme, as they, of blessed memory, said (Sota 5a): “R. Aḥa bar Yaakov said: ‘[Have nothing to do] with [pride], even a bit of it.’” And as Rambam, of blessed memory, explained the mishna [Avot 4:4]: “Be very, very lowly in spirit….”23Rambam explains that humility is the one human virtue where we do not seek the golden mean – in the case of humility, between pride and lowliness of spirit. Rather, pursue the extreme of lowliness in spirit (Laws of Moral Dispositions 2:3). However, you dare not, you dare not, use this trait on a friend, to reduce his importance, God forbid.
הוּא מַאֲמַר הַתּוֹסֶפְתָּא (בְּרָכוֹת פֶּרֶק ד') אַף שָׁאוּל לֹא זָכָה לְמַלְכוּת אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָעֲנָוָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שְׁמוּאֵל־א' ט', ה') פֶּן יֶחְדַּל אָבִי מִן הָאֲתוֹנוֹת וְדָאַג לָנוּ. שָׁקַל עַבְדּוֹ בּוֹ. אֲבָל שְׁמוּאֵל אֵינוֹ כֵן אֶלָּא (שָׁם י', ב') נָטַשׁ אָבִיךָ אֶת דְּבַר הָאֲתוֹנוֹת וְדָאַג לָכֶם לֵאמֹר מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לִבְנִי. כִּי שָׁאוּל עַל עַצְמוֹ הִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּמִדַּת הָעֲנָוָה לְהַשְׁווֹת הָעֶבֶד לוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁהָיָה אַחֵר. וְאֵין מָקוֹם לַעֲנָוָה כְּלָל. אֵיךְ יִשְׁקֹל הָעֶבֶד כְּשָׁאוּל וְלַזֹּאת אָמַר כִּי יְסוֹד הַדְּאָגָה "מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לִבְנִי". הַגָּדוֹל בְּעֶרְכּוֹ הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מֵהָעֶבֶד:
This is [the meaning of] the saying of the Tosefta (Berakhot, ch. 4): “Saul merited the kingship only because of his humility, as it is said (I Sam. 9:5): ‘Lest my father stop worrying about the donkeys and worry about us.’ He rated his servant equal to himself. But Samuel did not speak accordingly. Rather [he said] (ibid. 10:2), ‘Your father has left the matter of the donkeys and is worrying about [the two of] you, saying: What shall I do about my son?’” Saul, with regard to himself, exercised the trait of humility and compared the servant to himself. However, Samuel was another person, so there was no place for humility; how could he rate the servant as he did Saul? Therefore, he said that the basis of the anxiety was “What shall I do about my son?” – for Saul was much greater in importance than his servant was.
לְזֹאת צָרִיךְ הָאָדָם לַעֲמֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת קְנִיָּה בְּנַפְשׁוֹ בְּכָל דָּבָר וְהִפּוּכוֹ, וּלְהַרְגִּיל אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ, אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵת כִּי יִדְרֹשׁ דָּבָר הַנּוֹגֵעַ לְעַצְמוֹ, יִתְעוֹרְרוּ בְּקִרְבּוֹ מִדּוֹת הַנִּדְרָשׁוֹת, וְהַהֵפֶךְ יִהְיֶה שָׁכוּחַ מִנַּפְשׁוֹ, אֲבָל בְּעֵת אֲשֶׁר יִדְרֹשׁ לְטוֹבַת חֲבֵרוֹ, תִּתְעוֹרֵר בְּקִרְבּוֹ הַמִּדָּה בְּהִפּוּכָהּ. וִיסוֹד הַמִּדָּה תִּשָּׁכַח לִשְׁעָתָהּ מִנַּפְשׁוֹ:
To this end, a person must endeavor to incorporate everything and its opposite within his psyche.24Emphasis added. He should condition his soul so that when he seeks something on his own behalf, the necessary character traits are evoked, and their opposite is forgotten. But when he seeks the benefit of the other, this opposite trait should be aroused in him, and the root trait momentarily forgotten from his soul.25R. Salanter is developing a model of a Mussar disciple as a selfless spiritual hero. When it comes to himself, he is self-abnegating, modest to a fault. But with other people, he honors them by feeding their need for recognition and standing. Though not explicit, the underlying assumption is that the Mussar disciple is reaching out to and dealing with laypeople in this fashion. In the case of dealing with another Mussar disciple, would he seek to have them renounce their ego and be totally selfless, or would they be entitled to recognition and ego-stroking (just as another lay person would)?
Disciples in later generations grappled with this question and took different paths. Accordingly, some demanded extraordinary selflessness only from themselves as Mussar disciples, while others sought to move both other Mussar disciples and even lay people to extraordinary spiritual standards.
אַל יִפֹּל לֵב הָאָדָם וְאַל יִשְׁתּוֹמֵם עַל הַמַּרְאֶה הַלָּזֶה, הֲלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ רוֹאִים תָּמִיד בִּתְכוּנַת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם דָּבָר וְהִפּוּכוֹ, וְהָאָדָם מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם בְּטִבְעוֹ (בְּאֵין מוֹשֵׁךְ וּמְנַהֵל) כָּל דָּבָר בְּעִנְיָנוֹ וּבִשְׁעָתוֹ, כְּמוֹ הַזִּכָּרוֹן וְהַשִּׁכְחָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם. כֵּן גַּם בְּכֹחַ הָאָדָם לְהַרְחִיב כֹּחוֹת מִדּוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ. וּלְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם בְּטִבְעוֹ דָּבָר וְהִפּוּכוֹ, הוּא מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (מִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה בְּרֵאשִׁית פָּרָשָׁה י"ד) אִם אֲנִי בּוֹרְאוֹ מִן הָעֶלְיוֹנִים כוּ' מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים כוּ' אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי בּוֹרְאוֹ מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ כִּי הָאָדָם נִבְרָא בַּתְּכוּנָה הַלָּזוֹ, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּכֹחוֹ לְתַקֵּן כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, לִהְיוֹת בַּמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לְעַצְמוֹ, מֻכְתָּר בְּכָל הַמִּדּוֹת וְהַמַּעֲלוֹת דּוֹמֶה לְעֶלְיוֹנִים, פָּרוּשׁ מִכָּל מַחֲמַדֵּי הַתֵּבֵל, וּבַמֶּה שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ לַאֲחֵרִים לִהְיוֹת דּוֹמֶה לַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, אִישׁ מַרְגִּישׁ וְיוֹדֵעַ בְּכָל מַחֲמַדֵּי הַתֵּבֵל, לְחַזֵּק יְדֵי רַבִּים וְלִהְיוֹת דַּעְתּוֹ מְעֹרֶבֶת עִמָּהֶם, כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (כְּתֻבּוֹת י"ז) לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעֹרֶבֶת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת:
One should not be crestfallen or astonished at this prospect; after all, we constantly see the phenomenon of a trait and its opposite within the human soul, and a person uses them naturally (without being led or guided), each one in its appropriate situation and time – such as memory and forgetfulness and the like. Furthermore, human beings have the capacity to expand the power of their psychological drives and naturally use them for a matter and its opposite. This is [the meaning of] the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabba 14): “If I create [man] from the heavenly creatures…from the earthly creatures…so I will create him from both.” The human being was created with this feature: that he has the power to sublimate his psychological drives, to be, with respect to himself, crowned with all the traits and virtues, like the heavenly creatures, removed from all the delights of the world, but with respect to others, to be like the earthly creatures, a person who senses and knows all the delights of the world,26Note that in R. Salanter’s typology, a typology which runs through much of classical Mussar literature, the heavenly aspect, i.e., the spiritual aspect, of the human renounces the pleasures of this world, including ego satisfaction. The earthly, physical side of humans wants and feels all the delights of the physical world, including ego satisfaction. The Mussarist raises himself to the spiritual level, including renouncing ego satisfaction, but honors and offers these delights to the average person, who enjoys worldly delights. This is in accordance with the Torah’s command to treat others with respect. able to give strength to the masses and to empathize with them. As the Rabbis, may they be blessed, said (Ketubbot 17a): “One’s mind should always be in sync with mankind’s.”
וּבִכְלָל לְהָאָדָם בִּימֵי עֲלוּמָיו, בְּטֶרֶם נִסָּה לִסְבֹּל עֹל, כָּבֵד לְפָנָיו בְּחִינַת כְּבִישַׁת הַמִּדּוֹת, וּלְעֻמַּת זֶה נָקֵל לְפָנָיו לִמּוּד תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת, כְּמַאֲמָרָם (אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ד') הַלּוֹמֵד יֶלֶד לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה לִדְיוֹ כְּתוּבָה עַל נְיָר חָדָשׁ, וּבִימֵי הָעֲמִידָה וְהַזִּקְנָה, אֲשֶׁר כָּבֵד לְהָאָדָם לִמּוּד תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת, כְּמַאֲמָרָם (שָׁם) וְהַלּוֹמֵד זָקֵן לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה לִדְיוֹ כְּתוּבָה עַל נְיָר מָחוּק, וּבְיוֹתֵר לִבּוֹ בַּל עִמּוֹ מִטִּרְדוֹת הַזְּמַן, אָכֵן הַכְּבִישָׁה לֹא תּהְיֶה עָלָיו לְמַעֲמָסָה כָּל כָּךְ, בִּהְיוֹתוֹ מֻרְגָּל לִסְבֹּל עֹל לְבַקָּשַׁת טַרְפּוֹ וְהִצְטָרְכֻיּוֹתָיו וּמַאֲוַיָּיו:
In general, when a person is young, before he has had the trial of bearing the yoke, it is very hard for him to repress character traits, but it is easier for him to learn to sublimate his character traits. As they say (Avot 4:20): “He who learns when he is young, to what is it likened? To ink written on new paper.” The days of middle and old age, when it is hard for a person to learn sublimation, accords with their saying (ibid.): “And he who learns when he is old, to what is it likened? To ink written on erased [blotted] paper.” Moreover, his heart is not in it due to preoccupation with the burdens of life. However, repression is not such a burden for him, since he is conditioned27In R. Salanter’s use, the term “murgal” refers to an intensive conditioning and internalization, to the point where the conditioned emotion or behavior becomes second nature. to bear a yoke to seek his food and needs and desires.
אִי לָזֹאת עַבְדוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ בִּימֵי הַבַּחֲרוּת, בִּבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת לַעֲבֹד בְּחֵפֶץ וְשִׂמְחָה, וּבִימֵי הַזִּקְנָה בִּבְחִינַת כְּבִישַׁת הַמִּדּוֹת בְּלִי חֵפֶץ וְרָצוֹן, וְכַאֲשֶׁר יֻרְגַּל הָאָדָם בִּימֵי עֲלוּמָיו לְתַקֵּן מִדּוֹתָיו, לְעֵזֶר וּלְהוֹעִיל לוֹ לִימֵי הַזִּקְנָה (אֲשֶׁר סִבּוֹת מוֹצְאוֹת לְמַרְבֶּה לְחַדֵּשׁ רֹעַ מִדּוֹתָיו כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל), לְפַנּוֹת לְפָנָיו הַדֶּרֶךְ לִכְבִישַׁת הַמִּדּוֹת, הוּא מַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (מִשְׁלֵי כ"ב) חָנֹךְ לַנַּעַר עַל פִּי דַּרְכּוֹ, (הַמֻּכְשָׁר לְפָנָיו, לְהָסִיר מִמֶּנּוּ אִוַּלְתּוֹ, כְּמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב אִוֶּלֶת קְשׁוּרָה וְכו', לְמַעַן לֹא תִּהְיֶה הָאִוֶּלֶת לְמָסָךְ מַבְדִּיל, וְלַהֲבִיאוֹ לִבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת, וּבְזֹאת) גַּם כִּי יַזְקִין (הַגַּם שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ בְּתוֹרַת קְנִיָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּעֵת חִנּוּכוֹ, אָכֵן לְכָל הַפָּחוֹת) לֹא יָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה. וּבְקֹהֶלֶת (י"ב) וּזְכֹר אֶת בּוֹרְאֶךָ בִּימֵי בַּחוּרוֹתֶיךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי הָרָעָה, וְדָרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (שַׁבָּת קנא:) אֵלּוּ יְמֵי הַזִּקְנָה וְיַגִּיעוּ שָׁנִים אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵין לִי בָּהֵם חֵפֶץ:
Therefore, his service to God, blessed be His name, in the younger years should be in the mode of sublimation of the character traits to serve willingly and joyfully, and in old age, the mode should be repression of character traits, without having to fight as much desire or will. If one is conditioned in his youth to sublimate his character traits, this will be helpful and useful for his old age (as there are many factors that can rekindle the evil of his character traits, as mentioned above), to clear the way to the path of repression. This is the meaning of the verse in Scripture (Prov. 22:6): “Initiate a young man upon his path (the path that is appropriate for him to remove his folly – as Scripture states, ‘Folly is settled [in the heart of a youth]…’ (Prov. 22:15) – so that the folly is not a screen that impedes him, thus bringing him to the mode of sublimation); thus, even when he is old (although he will not truly control [the urge] as when he was being initiated, at the very least) he will not stray from it.” And in Ecclesiastes (12:1): “Remember your Creator in your youth before the bad days come.” And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, deduced (Shabbat 151b): “These [‘bad days’] are the days of old age, when the years which you say, ‘I have no desire for them,’ will come.”
אוּלַי נוּכַל לְהַעֲמִיס הַדָּבָר בְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (שַׁבָּת סג:) אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מַאי דִּכְתִיב (קֹהֶלֶת י"א) שְׂמַח בַּחוּר בְּיַלְדוּתֶךָ וִיטִיבְךָ לִבְּךָ בִּימֵי בַּחוּרוֹתֶיךָ וְהַלֵּךְ בְּדַרְכֵי לִבְּךָ וּבְמַרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ וְדַע כִּי עַל כָּל אֵלֶּה יְבִיאֲךָ הָאֱלֹהִים בְּמִשְׁפָּט, עַד כָּאן (עַד וְדַע כִּי עַל כָּל אֵלֶּה וְגוֹ') דִּבְרֵי יֵצֶר הָרָע, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ דִּבְרֵי יֵצֶר טוֹב, כִּי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל אָמְרוּ (בְּרָכוֹת כ"ד) בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ בִּשְׁנֵי יְצָרֶיךָ בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְיֵצֶר רַע:
Perhaps we can read this idea into the words of our Sages, of blessed memory (Shabbat 63b):
R. Huna said: Why is it written (Eccl. 11:9), “Rejoice, young man, in your childhood, and let your heart be happy in the days of your youth, and follow the ways of your heart and your eyes’ delight. But know that on all this, God will bring you to judgment’? Up to this point (up to ‘But know that on all this…’), these are the words of the evil urge. The rest of the sentence is the words of the good urge.”
As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Berakhot 54a): “‘[Serve God] with all your heart’28Deuteronomy 6:2. – with both your urges, the good urge and the evil urge.”29Another advantage of the method of sublimation in youth is that one is able to serve God with both urges. The evil urge is being channeled constructively rather than repressed or crushed. Then, the person is serving God with all their desires, both the naturally good ones and the redirected dangerous ones.
וְיֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַדָּבָר, כִּי הַמְּחַבְּרִים יְכַנּוּ אֶת הַשֵּׂכֶל בְּשֵׁם יֵצֶר טוֹב, וְיֶתֶר כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹת הָאָדָם בְּשֵׁם יֵצֶר הָרָע (עַיֵּן חוֹבַת הַלְּבָבוֹת שַׁעַר עֲבוֹדַת אֱלֹהִים בִּשְׁאֵלוֹת וּתְשׁוּבוֹת הַשֵּׂכֶל עִם הַנֶּפֶשׁ), בֵּאוּר הַדָּבָר, כִּי הַשֵּׂכֶל לְכָל תַּכְלִית הוּא חוֹקֵר, לֹא יָשִׂים עֵין בִּינָתוֹ בְּקָרוֹב אֶל מַרְאֵה הַדָּבָר כִּי תַּאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם, וְלֹא אֶל הֶרְגֵּשׁוֹ כִּי מָתוֹק הוּא לַחֵךְ, רַק מֵרָחוֹק הוּא צוֹפֶה אֶל תַּכְלִיתוֹ, אִם יָשָׁר הוּא אָז מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ יִשְׁפֹּט הַשֵּׂכֶל עָלָיו לְהַחֲזִיק בּוֹ, וְכֹחוֹת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם, זֶה דַּרְכָּם כֶּסֶל לָמוֹ לַחֲזֹוֹת מִקָּרוֹב, וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר יִנְעַם לְהַחוּשִׁים יַקְרִיבוּ אֶל נַפְשָׁם, אַף כִּי מָרָה תִּהְיֶה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, וְכַאֲשֶׁר כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה הָאָדָם יָבִיא הָאֱלֹהִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט, אִם טוֹב וְאִם רַע, עַל כֵּן שׁוֹפֵט שֵׂכֶל הַיָּשָׁר לִשְׁמֹר כָּל מוֹצָא פִּי ה' זֶהוּ יֵצֶר טוֹב, אָכֵן כֹּחוֹת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם, יִמְשְׁכוּ בְּרִשְׁתָּם אֶת הֶעָרֵב לִשְׁעָתוֹ, גַּם לְהַמְרוֹת נֶגֶד ה', זֶהוּ יֵצֶר הָרָע, וּכְשֶׁהָאָדָם בְּמַצַּב כְּבִישַׁת הַמִּדּוֹת וְתַאֲוֹת כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ עַל יְדֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל הַמַּכְבִּישָׁם, נִקְרָא עוֹבֵד ה' בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב הוּא הַשֵּׂכֶל. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בְּמַצָּב תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת וְתַאֲוֹת כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַחְפְּצוּ רַק אֶת אֲשֶׁר ה' דּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאִתָּם, נִקְרָא עוֹבֵד ה' בְּיֵצֶר הָרָע, הֵם כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת אֲשֶׁר עַצְמוּתָם לְרֹעַ, וְהָאָדָם תִּקְּנָם לְמֶתֶק מְרִירוּתָם לְהָפְכָם לְטוֹב, זֶהוּ בִּשְׁנֵי יְצָרֶיךָ בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְיֵצֶר רַע, בִּכְבִישַׁת הַמִּדּוֹת וּבְתִקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל):
This must be explained. The writers call reason the “good urge” (“yetzer tov”) and the other psychological drives are called the “evil urge” (“yetzer hara”). (See Ḥovot HaLevavot,30Baḥya ibn Pakuda, Duties of the Heart, a classic of medieval Mussar literature. Gate of the Service of God: ch. 5, on the dialogue of reason and the soul.) This means that reason seeks the ultimate purpose of everything. It does not focus its understanding on the short term, on the appearance of that which is attractive,31Compare Genesis 3:6. nor on the sense that something is sweet to the palate.32Compare Song of Songs 2:3. Rather, it looks into the distance, to the ultimate goal. If it is a just outcome, then reason will judge it so from the beginning and uphold it. Yet human emotions – this is their foolish way33Compare Psalms 49:14. – see the near term; whatever pleases the senses they bring closer to themselves, even when it will be bitter at the end, when all the human’s actions, whether good or evil, will be brought to judgment by God.34See Ecclesiastes 11:9. This is why straight35I.e., undistorted. reason decides to observe all of God’s decrees36Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. and is the yetzer tov, while the emotions draw into their net what is immediately pleasant, even when it goes against God. This is the yetzer hara. When a person is in the mode of repressing his character traits and psychological drives, repressed by his reason, he is called one who serves God with his yetzer tov, that is, his reason. And when he sublimates his character traits and psychological drives, to the point that they only desire what God asks of them,37Compare Micah 6:8. he is called one who serves God with his yetzer hara, that is, the psychological drives whose essence is disposed toward evil, which the person sublimated, sweetening their bitterness and changing them to good. This is “with both your urges, the good urge and the evil urge” – through repression and sublimation (as mentioned).
וְהָאָדָם בְּבַחֲרוּתוֹ הַיְסוֹד לְחַפֵּשׂ בְּחִינַת תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ נִמְשָׁכִים רַק אֶל הַצֶּדֶק וְהַיָּשָׁר, וְאָז הוּא בְּשִׂמְחָה, כְּמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (קֹהֶלֶת י"א) שְׂמַח בַּחוּר בְּיַלְדוּתֶךָ וְגוֹ' וַהֲלֹךְ בְּדַרְכֵי לִבֶּךָ וּבְמַרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ, זֶהוּ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּכֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת אֲשֶׁר דַּרְכָּם לַחֲזוֹת בְּקָרוֹב, וְהוּא מַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל, עַד כָּאן דִּבְרֵי יֵצֶר הָרָע, הַיְנוּ עִנְיַן מַצַּב הָאָדָם בְּעֵת בַּחֲרוּתוֹ, לִרְאוֹת שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מִדּוֹתָיו מְתֻקָּנוֹת וּפְעֻלּוֹתָיו עַל פִּי כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ הַמְכֻנִּים בְּשֵׁם יֵצֶר הָרָע, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ יְמֵי הָעֲמִידָה, אֲשֶׁר אָז הַיְסוֹד לַהֲלֹךְ לְרוּחַ הַשֵּׂכֶל הַצּוֹפֶה לְמֵרָחוֹק, וְלִכְבֹּשׁ כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, וְלֵידַע כִּי עַל כָּל אֵלֶּה יְבִיאֶנּוּ הָאֱלֹהִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט, הֵמָּה דִּבְרֵי יֵצֶר טוֹב בְּחִינַת הַשֵּׂכֶל:
In his youth, a person’s primary efforts should be in the mode of sublimation, to the point where his psychological drives are drawn only to righteousness and uprightness; then he will be joyful, as Scripture says (Eccl. 11:9): “Rejoice, young man, in your childhood…and follow the ways of your heart and your eyes’ delight.” This means using the psychological drives, which are predisposed to look at the short term. This is what they, of blessed memory, said: “Up to this point, these are the words of the evil urge.” That is, a person’s concern in his youthful state should be to see to it that his traits are sublimated and his actions in accordance with the psychological drives, called the evil urge. From that point forward is the age of adulthood, when the primary concern is to follow the spirit of reason, which sees the long term, to repress his psychological drives, and to know that God will bring him to judgment for all of this. These are the words of the good urge, the rational mode.
אָכֵן בְּנֵי עֲלִיָּה, הֵמָּה אֲשֶׁר גַּם בִּימֵי הָעֲמִידָה וְהַזִּקְנָה רַב חֵילָם לְתַקֵּן מִדּוֹתֵיהֶם וּתְכוּנַת נַפְשׁוֹתָם, עַד אֲשֶׁר תָּקֵל לָהֶם גַּם עֹל הַזְּמַנִּי (אֲשֶׁר עַל פִּי רֹב גֹּדֶל הַכְּבֵדוּת מֵחֶסְרוֹן תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת וּתְכוּנַת הַנֶּפֶשׁ) לְחַיֵּי הַגּוּף וְחַיֵּי הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְאָז אִם לִפְעָמִים לְעִתִּים רְחוֹקוֹת יָבוֹאוּ לְהֶכְרֵחַ בְּחִינַת כְּבִישַׁת הַיֵּצֶר יִכְבַּד הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵיהֶם, יַעַן חָלְפוּ עִדָן עִדָנִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא הִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל):
Therefore, those who continue aspiring – those who, even into adulthood and old age, have the vigor to sublimate character traits and psychological dispositions to the point where the burden of temporality (and usually the heaviness of this burden derives from failure to sublimate character traits and psychological dispositions)38Above, R. Salanter wrote that a key difference between the yetzer tov and yetzer hara, or between reason and impulse, is that the former is able to set aside short-term desires in favor of long-term objectives, and the latter focuses on the short term. The “burden of temporality” (“ol hazemani”) thus refers to the effects of those unsublimated impulses that direct attention to short-term desires. upon physical and psychological life is lightened for them – when they occasionally, if infrequently, have to resort to the mode of repression, it will be hard for them, for it will have been a long time since they used this mode (as said above).
וּבָזֶה יְבֹאַר מַאֲמַר חֲזַ"ל (מִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה בְּרֵאשִׁית פָּרָשָׁה נ"ט) וְה' בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַבְרָהָם בַּכֹּל וְכוּ' בַּכֹּל שֶׁהִשְׁלִיטוֹ בְּיִצְרוֹ וְכוּ', וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל עַבְדּוֹ וְכוּ' הַמּוֹשֵׁל בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה שַׁלִּיט בְּיִצְרוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹ, הַדָּבָר מַפְלִיא לֵאמֹר שֶׁהָיְתָה לֶאֱלִיעֶזֶר הַמַּדְרֵגָה אֲשֶׁר בָּאָה לְאַבְרָהָם בִּבְחִינַת בְּרָכָה, וּלְפִי הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל יֵשׁ לְפָרֵשׁ שֶׁמַּדְרֵגַת אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָיְתָה בְּחִינַת גִּבּוֹר כּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ, כִּי אָמַר שָׁם בַּמִּדְרָשׁ לְהַלָּן, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָעֶבֶד, הַדָּא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (הוֹשֵׁעַ י"ב) כְּנַעַן בְּיָדוֹ מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה לַעֲשֹׁק אָהֵב, כְּנַעַן זֶה אֱלִיעֶזֶר, בְּיָדוֹ מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וּמַשְׁקִיל אֶת בִּתּוֹ רְאוּיָה הִיא אוֹ אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה, לַעֲשֹׁק אָהֵב לַעֲשֹׁק אֲהוּבוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם זֶה יִצְחָק, אָמַר אוּלַי לֹא תֹּאבֶה הַנַּעֲרָה וְכוּ' וְאֶתֵּן לוֹ אֶת בִּתִּי כוּ', כִּי מִי שֶׁזָּכָה לְמַעֲלַת תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר, אֵין בְּיָדוֹ כְּלָל עִנְיְנֵי הַיֵּצֶר וְהַשְׁחָתַת הַמִּדוֹת וְאֵינוֹ אוֹהֲבֵם. אָכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא בָּא רַק לִבְחִינַת כְּבִישַׁת הַיֵּצֶר, תַּאֲוַת יִצְרוֹ בְּיָדוֹ הִיא וְאוֹהֲבָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁכּוֹבְשָׁהּ:
With this we can explain the adage of our Sages, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabba 59): “‘God blessed Abraham with everything….’ (Gen. 24:1) – ‘Everything’ means He gave him power over his urge…. ‘And Abraham said to his servant…who ruled over all that he had’ (ibid. 2) [means] ‘who ruled his urge as Abraham did.’” It is astonishing to think that Eliezer was at the level that Abraham had achieved only through God’s blessing! However, according to what was said above, we can say that Eliezer’s level was in the mode of a mighty person who conquers his urge – as the Midrash later states: “‘And the servant said to him’ (Gen. 24:5) – this refers to the verse (Hos. 12:8): ‘Canaan has deceitful scales in his hand to oppress the beloved one.’ Canaan – this refers to Eliezer; ‘deceitful scales in his hand’ means he sat and weighed whether his own daughter is worthy of Isaac or not; ‘to oppress the beloved one’ means to oppress Isaac, the beloved of the world. He said: ‘Perhaps the young woman will not want [to follow me to this land]’ (Gen. 24:5)…and I will give him my daughter [instead]….” One who has managed to attain the virtue of sublimation is not tempted by the evil urge or corruption of character traits; he has no affinity for them. But one who has only attained the mode of repression has all the lust of his evil urge. He enjoys it, but he manages to repress it.
גַּם מִי שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת, הַגַּם שֶׁיְּפַלֵּס דַּרְכּוֹ כְּמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (מִשְׁלֵי ד') פַּלֵּס מַעְגַּל רַגְלֶיךָ וְכָל דְּרָכֶיךָ יִכּוֹנוּ, בְּכָל זֹאת הַטָּעוּת כָּרוּךְ בַּעֲקֵבָיו לִמְאֹד, כִּי תַּאֲוַת כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת מַטִּילוֹת אַרְסָן בְּכֹחַ הַשֵּׂכֶל לְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי פִּקְּחִים:
Even one who has not reached the level of sublimation, though he may still find his way, as it is said in Scripture (Prov. 4:26): “Lay out the ways of your feet and all your ways will be upright,” error still dogs his footsteps. The strong desires of the psychological drives inject their poison into the functioning of his reason, to blind the eyes of the wise.
זֶהוּ מַאֲמַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ, בְּיָדוֹ מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה, שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וּמַשְׁקִיל אֶת בִּתּוֹ רְאוּיָה הִיא אוֹ אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה, כִּי בְּוַדַּאי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁהָיָה שַׁלִּיט בְּיִצְרוֹ, לֹא יָשִׂים פָּנָיו לְדַבֵּר דִּבּוּר קַל טֶרֶם יִתְיַשֵּׁב וְיִשְׁקֹל בְּדַעְתּוֹ אִם כָּשֵׁר הַדָּבָר, אָכֵן מֹאזְנַיִם שֶׁלּוֹ מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה הֵמָּה, יַעַן לֹא הָיָה רַק שַׁלִּיט בְּיִצְרוֹ, וְהַשֶּׁקֶר, הוּא הַמִּרְמָה, בְּלִי חֵפֶץ תְּעַטְּרֵהוּ, וְהָאֱמֶת עֵדֶן מֵרָחוֹק תַּעֲמֹד. נִמְצָא לְפִי זֶה. הַגַּם שֶׁבְּכַמּוּת הָיָה אֱלִיעֶזֶר שַׁלִּיט בְּיִצְרוֹ כְּמוֹ אַבְרָהָם, אָכֵן בְּאֵיכוּת גָּדְלָה בְּחִינַת שְׁלִיטַת הַיֵּצֶר שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם לְמַעְלָה הַרְבֵּה, יַעַן הָיָה בִּבְחִינַת תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר, וְהַכְּבִישָׁה, הִיא הַשְּׁלִיטָה, יִקְרֶה לְפָנָיו לִמְאֹד לְמוֹצְאָהּ (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל) וּבָאָה לוֹ בִּבְחִינַת בְּרָכָה:
This is the [meaning of the] Midrash’s statement, “‘Deceitful scales in his hand’ means he sat and weighed whether his own daughter is worthy of Isaac or not.” Certainly Eliezer, who was master over his urge, would not consider speaking of even a trivial matter before he considered and resolved that it is worthy. However, his scales were deceitful scales – since he only could rule over his urge. Falsehood – that is, deceit – willy-nilly, still surrounded him, while truth stood afar.39In R. Salanter’s interpretation, Eliezer’s untamed psychological drives perverted his reason. They sought to convince him that his daughter was worthy of being Isaac’s wife. She was not. However, his instinctive desire distorted his reason and made it appear plausible to him that she was a worthy mate for Isaac, admittedly, only if the woman in Abraham’s family in Haran were to refuse to marry him. We find thus that even though quantitatively, Eliezer could master his urge like Abraham, qualitatively, Abraham’s mastery over his urge far surpassed [Eliezer’s], because he used the mode of sublimation. Repression, that is, “conquering,” was rarely before him (as said above) – it came to him as divine blessing.
וְהִנֵּה שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר הֵמָּה, הָאֶחָד, לְתַקֵּן כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִכְסְפוּ רַק הַטּוֹב הַנִּדְרָשׁ עַל פִּי שֵׂכֶל הַיָּשָׁר (אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִשְׁחַת וְנֶאֱסַר תַּחַת כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, אֲשֶׁר עַל פִּי הָרֹב נְטִיָּתָם לְרֹעַ), וְהַשֵּׁנִי, לְהַעֲלוֹתָם לְמַדְרֵגָה נִשָּׂאָה הַגָּבֹהַּ לְמַעְלָה מֵאֵת אֲשֶׁר יַקִּיף שֵׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי. וְכִמְעַט כָּל יְסוֹד מִדַּת הָעֲנָוָה (הַגְּדוֹלָה מִכֻּלָּן, לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְּמַסֶּכֶת עֲבוֹדָה־זָרָה כ:) הִיא בְּחִינָה לְמַעְלָה מִשֵּׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי *)עַיֵּן מַסֶּכֶת דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ זוּטָא (פֶּרֶק ב') וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם אִם הֲטִיבוֹתָ הַרְבֵּה יִהְיֶה בְּעֵינֶיךָ מְעַט כוּ' וְאִם הֱטִיבְךָ מְעַט יִהְיֶה בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַרְבֵּה, אַל תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבִיל מַעֲשַׂי הַהֲגוּנִים כוּ'. וְאִם הֲרֵעוֹתָ מְעַט יִהְיֶה בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַרְבֵּה כוּ'. אִם הֲרֵעוּךָ הַרְבֵּה יִהְיֶה בְּעֵינֶיךָ מְעַט כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְעַיֵן חוֹבַת הַלְּבָבוֹת שַׁעַר הַכְּנִיעָה פֶּרֶק י', וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶחָד מִן הַחֲכָמִים בַּמֶּה הָיִיתָ אָדוֹן לְכָל בְּנֵי דּוֹרְךָ. אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגַעְתִּי אֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁלֹּא רָאִיתִי לוֹ מַעֲלָה יְתֵרָה עָלַי, כִּי אִם הָיָה יוֹתֵר חָכָם מִמֶּנִּי, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הוּא יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי, לְיִתְרוֹן חָכְמָתוֹ עַל חָכְמָתִי. וְאִם קָטָן מִמֶּנִּי בְּחָכְמָה, אֹמַר כִּי חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ יִהְיֶה קַל מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹנִי בְּיוֹם הַדִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹבֵר בְּמֵזִיד וְהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּשׁוֹגֵג. וְאִם יִהְיֶה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנִּי בְּיָמִים, אֹמַר כִּי זְכֻיּוֹתָיו רַבִּים מִזְּכֻיּוֹתַי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקִּדְּמַנִי בָּעוֹלָם, וְאִם יִהְיֶה קָטָן מִמֶּנִּי, אֹמַר כִּי עֲוֹנוֹתָיו מְעַטִּים מֵעֲוֹנוֹתַי כוּ'. וְאִם יִהְיֶה יוֹתֵר עָשִׁיר מִמֶּנִּי, אֹמַר כִּי מָצְאָה יָדוֹ בְּעָשְׁרוֹ לַעֲבֹד הַבּוֹרֵא יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי, וְאִם יִהְיֶה דַּל יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי. אַר כִּי הוּא דַּכָּא וְכוּ' וְהוּא טוֹב מִמֶּנִּי, וְלֹא זַזְתִּי כוּ' וּלְהִכָּנַע לָהֶם, עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְאֵין זֹאת דַּרְכֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל הַיָּשָׁר הַמַּשְׁקִיף לְכָל צַד וְנוֹתֵן גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל כָּל דָּבָר לְפִי עֶרֶךְ אֵיכוּת הַרְכָּבַת כֹּחוֹתָיו, וְלֹא לְהַשְׁקִיף עַל עִנְיָן פְּרָטִי לְהַעֲלוֹת הַדָּבָר אוֹ לְהַמְעִיטוֹ, וְאֵינָם אֶלָּא רַעְיוֹנוֹת נִשְׂגָּבוֹת מִדַּרְכֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל, אֲשֶׁר מְחֻיָּבִים אֲנַחְנוּ לִקְנוֹת מִדּוֹת הָעֲנָוָה הַנִּרְצֵית.. כִּי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם הֵעִיד עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב (בַּמִּדְבָּר י"ב) כִּי הָיָה עָנָו מִכָּל הָאָדָם וְכוּ' (וְהוּא עֲנָוָה שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ כְּסִגְנוֹן הַכָּתוּב), וְהוּא הָיָה גָּדוֹל וְנַעֲלֶה עַל כָּל בְּנֵי דּוֹרוֹ. וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (נִדָּה ל:) וַאֲפִלּוּ הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ אוֹמְרִים לְךָ צַדִּיק אַתָּה הֱיֵה בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּרָשָׁע עַיֵּן שָׁם, הַכֹּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין הַשֵּׂכֶל מְחַיְּבוֹ. וּמֵאַיִן תִּוָּלֵד כָּל אֵלֶּה הֲלֹא כָּל כֹּחַ קְנִיַּת הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת וְהַמַּעֲלוֹת תָּלוּי בְּשֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם, (יִתְרוֹנוֹ עַל בַּעֲלֵי הַחַיִּים אֲשֶׁר אֵין לָמוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹתָם מַעֲלָה מֵאֲשֶׁר הָטְבְּעוּ), וְאֵיךְ יַעֲלֶה לְמַעְלָה מִשִּׂכְלוֹ:
Now, there are two types of sublimation:40See the previous footnote of this letter for a comparison of R. Salanter’s two methods of altering behavior, which we have translated as sublimation and repression. One is to sublimate the psychological drives so that they only yearn for the good demanded by straightforward reason (reason not corrupted and held captive by the psychological drives, which usually incline toward evil). The second is to raise them to a level higher than human reason can comprehend. Almost the entire basis of the virtue of humility (which is the greatest of all character traits according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi in Tractate Avoda Zara 20b) is a mode beyond human reason.*41Note that in his interpretation of the trait of humility, R. Salanter argues that the human must use a quality and its opposite to attain the right level. Here, the human should use his reason to assess the level of the other and himself. Then he must employ will and desire – beyond all reason – to convince himself of the other’s additional greatness and his own shortcomings. Of Moses our teacher, Scripture attests (Num. 12:3): “He was more humble than any other person….” (This refers to interpersonal humility, as is Scripture’s style.) He was greater and more refined than everyone in his generation. And the Rabbis said (Nidda 30b): “Even if the whole world tells you, ‘You are righteous,’ you should see yourself as wicked.” See further there. This is something that reason does not require. So what can yield all of this? Isn’t the capacity to reach these higher levels and virtues dependent on human reason (and [humanity’s] advantage over animals, which have nothing that can raise them above whatever they have by nature)? Then how can one go beyond one’s reason?
אָכֵן נוֹדַע, כִּי שְׁנֵי מִינֵי דִּבּוּר וּמַחֲשָׁבָה הֵמָּה, שִׂכְלִי וְהִתְפַּעֲלִי. בַּשִּׂכְלִי יִשְׁתַּוּוּ כָּל בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, לֹא כֵן הַהִתְפַּעֲלִי אֵין אָדָם דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. גַּם בְּמַצָּב וּתְכוּנָה אַחַת יִפָּרְדוּ, מִסִּבַּת מֶזֶג טִבְעָם הַשּׁוֹנֶה (אִם מִלֵּדָה וְהַקְּנִיָּה מֵאֲחֵרִים בְּהִתְעָרְבוֹ עִמָּהֶם, אוֹ הַהֶרְגֵּל וְהַלִּמּוּד לְיַשֵּׁר כֹּחוֹת הַנֶּפֶשׁ). לָזֹאת גַּם בָּאָדָם הַפְּרָטִי מִפְּאַת הִשְׁתַּנּוּת מִזְגּוֹ, גַּם הִתְפַּעֲלִיּוּתוֹ לֹא תִּשְׁוֶה בְּכָל עֵת. וְכָל זֶה הוּא רַק הִשְׁתַּנּוּת דִּמְיוֹנִית בְּהַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת. (לֹא אֲמִתִּית, רַק בְּהַסִּבָּה הַהִשְׁתַּנּוּת אֲמִתִּית), וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן כַּאֲשֶׁר הַמֶּזֶג יִהְיֶה שָׁוֶה בִּשְׁנֵי הָעִתִּים, רַק הָעִנְיָן, הַמְעוֹרֵר אֶת הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת יִשְׁתַּנֶּה, אֲבָל הַשֵּׂכֶל יִשְׁוֶה בְּכָל עֵת, אֵינֶנּוּ תָּלוּי בְּמֶזֶג וְלֹא בְּעִנְיָן וְדָבָר, לְזֹאת כַּאֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁתַּוּוּ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּדָבָר שִׂכְלִי, (אִם שֶׁגַּם זֹאת נוֹלַד לָרֹב מִשִּׁנּוּי הַמֶּזֶג וְעִנְיָן מְעוֹרֵר), נֹאמַר שֶׁהָאֶחָד טָעָה, לֹא כֵן בַּהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, שְׁנֵיהֶם כֵּנִים וּנְכוֹחִים בְּהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, לְפִי קִשּׁוּר הַמְסוֹבֵב בְּסִבָּתוֹ, (כִּי זֶה גֶּדֶר אֲמִתַּת הַמְסוֹבֵב בִּהְיוֹת הוֹלֵךְ בְּמִישׁוֹר לְרַגְלֵי סִבָּתוֹ). כֵּן גַּם בְּאָדָם פְּרָטִי, אִם לֹא יִשְׁתַּוֶּה שִׂכְלוֹ בְּאֵיזֶה עִנְיָן בִּשְׁנֵי עִתִּים, נֹאמַר שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי בְּפַעַם אַחַת טָעָה (עַל פִּי הֶקֵּשׁ הַסְּתִירָה וְהַחִלּוּף), לֹא כֵן בַּהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, אֵין סְתִירָה בָּהּ בִּבְחִינַת עַצְמוּתָהּ, כִּי שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲמִתִּים, (רַק בִּבְחִינַת סִבָּתָם מֵהַמֶּזֶג אוֹ שִׁנּוּי בְּסִבַּת דָּבָר הַמְעוֹרֵר):
It is surely known that there are two types of speech and thought: rational and sentimental. With respect to the rational, all humans are the same.42I.e., using purely rational thought, based on the same information or assumptions, any two people will arrive at the same conclusion. This is not so in the arena of sentiment, where no individual is like another. Even under the same circumstances and with the same features, they will diverge, due to their different natural temperaments (whether acquired congenitally, through socialization, or through conditioning and study to train psychological drives). Therefore, even an individual, due to variation in his temperament, will not have the same sentiments at all times. This applies to sentiment that is only imagined. (It is not real; only an [external] factor can produce real variation.) Certainly, then, it applies when the temperament remains the same in both instances but the matter that arouses the sentiment changes. Reason, however, is the same at all times. It does not hinge on temperament, situation, or issue. Therefore, when two people disagree about a rational matter (although this usually grows out of different temperaments and stimuli), we say that one has made a mistake. Not so in matters of sentiment, i.e., emotional knowledge. Both are authentic and justifiable according to the connection of the effect and the cause. (For the measure of the truth of an effect is its following directly in the footsteps of its cause.) The same applies to an individual; if his reasoning is not identical on two different occasions, we can say for certain that he made a mistake one of the times (by juxtaposing contradiction and inconsistency). Not so with emotional understanding. There is no essential contradiction, for both are true (and the discrepancy arises from changing temperamental causes and stimuli).43This passage and the following represent a remarkable broadening of R. Salanter’s conception of how to arrive at correct knowledge and truth. Hitherto, R. Salanter has stressed rational truth and knowledge, which one achieves using straightforward (i.e., undistorted) reason to the maximum extent possible. Thus, one can establish, objectively, what the Torah says, and this becomes the truth and guide to behavior. Much Mussar learning is designed to curb the sentiments and unconscious drives that distort reason and erode the ability to know, objectively, what the Torah actually instructs. Knowing what the Torah wants and internalizing it so that it determines behavior is the key mechanism of proper behavior and avoidance of sin.
However, here R. Salanter affirms that there is a whole realm of knowledge and truth that is arrived at through sentiment. Apparently, emotion and sentiment intuit or subjectively recognize the Torah’s message or the truth that one seeks. R. Salanter affirms that the Torah includes such truths. The Torah assumes that humans will use their emotions to arrive at this knowledge. For example, such virtues and behaviors as humility go against straightforward reason, yet are highly valued by the Torah, which expects one to arrive at such knowledge through sentiment.
Sentimental knowledge differs from knowledge arrived at by straightforward reason in that it is more subjective; it may vary from time to time, place to place, and with changes in the individual. Since it is more individuated, their two clashing versions of the truth may both be correct. I.e., each understanding is true for the individual who arrived at it.
Later in the letter, R. Salanter deals with the dangers of sentimentality: It can lead to distortions in judgment; it can lead to multiple contradictory behaviors and truths; it can easily slip into relativism and self-contained egocentric truths. Since the Torah expects us to use this method, there is no easy escape from these risks. The main corrective R. Salanter comes up with is to pool various individuals’ sentimental knowledge, or to have a truth arrived at and reviewed by a range of people. This interaction can reduce individual purely subjective elements and pool them into a kind of consensus truth. The wide range of judgment exercised will tend to exclude extreme distortions. Thus, one ends up with a refined sentimentality that has been filtered, improved, and objectified through the participation of multiple people in arriving at the conclusion.
לְפִי זֶה, הַשֵּׂכֶל בְּחִינָה קַיֶּמֶת, לֹא תִּפֹּל תַּחַת הַתְּמוּרָה וְהַחִלּוּף. וְכַאֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא הָאָדָם מוֹפֵת אוֹ רְאָיָה (לְפִי דַּרְכֵי הַחָכְמָה לְמִינֵיהֶם) לְשַׁנּוֹת דְּבַר שֵׂכֶל, נִקְרָא שִׁנּוּי רַק בְּדִמְיוֹן וְלֹא בְּשֵׂכֶל, כִּי הָאֶחָד טָעוּת וְדָבָר בָּטֵל. לֹא כֵן הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, הִיא רַק בְּחִינָה לִשְׁעָתָהּ לְפִי עִנְיָנָהּ:
Accordingly, it is a fixed element; it cannot be changed or replaced. When a person finds a demonstration or proof (according to the different scientific methods) to alter a matter of reason, it can be called “change” only in our imagination, not from the perspective of reason itself, as the original [thinking] was mistaken and is nullified. Sentiment is not so; it is a temporary, contingent element.44Sentiments can conflict and contradict and remain authentic. Two rational truths which contradict and change cannot both be true; one version must be an error.
אוּלַי הוּא בִּכְלַל מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (שַׁבָּת י') רָבָא חֲזִי לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא דְּקָא מַאֲרִיךְ בִּצְלוֹתָא, אָמַר מַנִּיחִין חַיֵּי עוֹלָם (תּוֹרָה) וְעוֹסְקִין בְּחַיֵּי שָׁעָה. כִּי גֶּדֶר הַתּוֹרָה הוּא, בַּשֵּׂכֶל הַמֻּפְשָׁט מִכָּל רָצוֹן וְהִתְפַּעֲלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. (כַּמְבֹאָר בַּהַקְדָּמָה לְסֵפֶר הַתְּבוּנָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי לָאוֹר בִּשְׁנַת תרכ"ב), אֲבָל הַתְּפִלָּה, יְסוֹדָהּ הִתְפַּעֲלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ לִשְׁעָתָהּ, כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (תַּעֲנִית ב') וּלְעָבְדוֹ בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם, אֵיזוֹ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא בַּלֵּב הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּפִלָּה, לְזֹאת, הַתְּפִלָּה, הִיא חַיֵּי שָׁעָה, וְהַתּוֹרָה חַיֵּי עוֹלָם בְּחִינָה נִצֶּבֶת:
Perhaps this is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Shabbat 10a): “Rava saw Rav Hamnuna praying at length. He said: ‘They set aside eternal life (Torah) to engage in temporal life!?’”45Prayer is considered an engagement in “temporal life” because it addresses material, contingent needs. Torah, by definition, is abstract reasoning, free of all desire and sentimentality (as explained in the introduction to the volume of Tevunah that I published in 1862).46Compare Letter 29 above. Prayer is based on fleeting, sentimental emotion, as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Taanit 2a): “‘To serve Him with all your heart’: What is the service of the heart? We say it is prayer.” Thus, prayer is temporal life and Torah is eternal life, something that endures.47This reiterates R. Salanter’s argument that the only way to know the Torah as truth is to read and study it with abstract reason, free of the unconscious drives and instinctive needs that distort judgment. Note: When one studies Torah rationally for a second time or more, one may come up with new insights, but they will not contradict what reason objectively understood before. Prayer, by definition, is meant to be an emotional experience, and therefore the experience will change every time.
הֶעָרָה
וּבְכָל זֹאת, הָאָדָם בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא אָדָם, אִם כִּי בְּיָדוֹ וְכֹחוֹ לְהַפְשִׁיט שִׂכְלוֹ מֵהִתְפַּעֲלוּת כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ הוֹזִים שׁוֹכְבִים (בְּלִי הִתְעוֹרְרוּת, לְמַעַן לֹא יִפְרְצוּ בַּכֹּחַ הַשִּׂכְלִי לְהַטּוֹתוֹ *)לָזֹאת הָעִיּוּן בִּדְבַר הַמִּדּוֹת, כִּמְעַט בִּלְתִּי אֶפְשָׁר לְטַהֵר הַשֵּׂכֶל לְגַמְרֵי וּלְהַפְשִׁיטוֹ מִכֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת, יַעַן כִּי מִתְעוֹרְרִים הֵמָּה מֵהָעִיּוּן וְהַמַּחֲשָׁבָה בָּהֶם, לָזֹאת בְּסוּג הַמְפֻרְסָמוֹת, יָבוֹא דָּבָר שִׂכְלִי מְשֻׁתָּף מְעַט עִם כֹּחוֹת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, גֶּדֶר טוֹב וְרַע. לָכֵן אֵצֶל הַמַּלְאָכִים שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת שִׂכְלִי בְּלִי שִׁתּוּף עִם כֹּחוֹת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, עַל כֵּן הַכָּרָתָם בְּטוֹב וְרַע בְּסוּג אֱמֶת וְשֶׁקֶר יִכָּנֵס (רָאִיתִי בְּחָפְזָה בַּעֲקֵדַת יִצְחָק שַׁעַר י', וְאוּלַי בָּזֶה סָרָה תְּלוּנָתוֹ, עַיֵּן שָׁם), וְהוּא מַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (שְׁמוּאֵל־ב' י"ד, י"ז) כִּי כְּמַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים כֵּן אֲדוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ לִשְׁמֹעַ טוֹב וְרַע, וְהוּבָא בַּעֲקֵדַת יִצְחָק שָׁם), כִּי אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (שַׁבָּת דַּף י') כָּל דַּיָּן שֶׁדָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִתּוֹ וְכוּ'. וְיֵשׁ לְבָאֵר כִּי שְׁבִילֵי הָאֱמֶת הוֹלְכִים אַחֲרֵי דַּרְכֵי הַחָכְמָה לְעִיּוּנִים, אֲשֶׁר נוֹדָע כִּי נֶחֱלָקִים הֵמָּה, יֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר נֶאֱסָרִים בְּמַאֲסַר הַמּוֹפֵת הַבָּרוּר עַל פִּי דַּרְכֵי הֶקֵּשׁ הַהֶגְיוֹנִי, וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר בִּרְאָיוֹת וְהוֹכָחוֹת תִּבָּחֵן אֲמִתָּתָם וְתִתְרַחֵב יְדִיעָתָם לְהוֹצִיא דָּבָר מִדָּבָר, וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר רַק בְּשִׁקּוּל הַדַּעַת הַיְשָׁרָה יוּסְדוּ. וּבָהֶם יִתְפָּאֵר כָּל אֱנוֹשׁ לֵאמֹר, אָנֹכִי הָרוֹאֶה וְלִי נִגְלוּ תַּעֲלוּמוֹת חָכְמָה, וּבֶאֱמֶת לֹא כֵן הַדָּבָר, הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר חָנַן לוֹ ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ דֵּעָה וְהַשְׂכֵּל לִמְצֹא דַּרְכֵי הַמּוֹפֵת, כֵּן גַּם בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְאָיוֹת יָדָיו רַב לוֹ (בְּלִי לְדַמּוֹת וּלְקָרֵב אֶת הַמְרֻחָקִים) אֲשֶׁר לָזֹאת גַּם שִׁקּוּל דַּעְתּוֹ הִיא הַיְשָׁרָה, וּלְאוֹרוֹ רַבִּים יִמָּשְׁכוּ, וְלֹא רְחוֹקָה הִיא לְהַלְבִּישׁ בָּזֶה שְׁאֵלַת סָבָא דְּבֵי אַתּוּנָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא (בְּכוֹרוֹת דַּף ח' עַמּוּד ב') מְצִיעָתֵיהּ דְּעַלְמָא הֵיכָא, זְקָפָהּ לְאֶצְבַּעְתֵּיהּ, אָמַר לוֹ הָכָא, אָמַר לוֹ וּמִי יֵימַר אַיְתוּ אַשְׁלֵי וּמְשָׁחוּ וְכוּ'. כִּי הָרַמְבַּ"ם כָּתַב בְּרֵישׁ הִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת. שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הָאָדָם לְהִתְנַהֵג בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַמְמֻצָּע עַיֵּן שָׁם. וּמִי יַגְבִּיל הַדָּבָר וְאַיֵּה הַחוֹזֶה לֵאמֹר, פֹּה הִיא הַנְּקֻדָּה הָאֶמְצָעִית, לֹא בְּמוֹפֵת וְאַף לֹא בִּרְאָיָה יוֹדֵעַ הַדָּבָר. כִּי אִם עַל פִּי שִׁקּוּל דַּעַת הַחֲכָמִים לְפִי מְקוֹמוֹ וּשְׁעָתוֹ. זֶהוּ מַאֲמָרָם מְצִיעָתָא דְּעַלְמָא הֵיכָא, רָצָה לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הַדֶּרֶךְ לֵידַע נָתִיב הַמְמֻצָּע. אָמַר לוֹ הָכָא, רָצָה לוֹמַר כְּפִי אֲשֶׁר תִּגְזֹר יַד שִׂכְלְכֶם, (יַעַן מַה, יַעַן חָזָק כְּחָכָם לְבָרֵר הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּתְלִים בְּמוֹפֵת אוֹ בִּרְאָיָה, לָכֵן גַּם בְּאֵלֶּה לָכֶם מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּחִירָה). אָמַר לוֹ וּמִי יֵימַר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדֵינוּ לְהָבִיא מוֹפֵת עַל מִשְׁפָּטֵנוּ וְהַשְׁעָרוֹתֵינוּ, אָמַר לוֹ אַיְתֵי אַשְׁלֵי וּמְשָׁחוּ. כִּי הַמּוֹפֵת לְבָרֵר הַדָּבָר, כְּמוֹ הַמְּדִידָה לֵידַע כַּמּוּת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֵין לִטְעוֹת בָּהּ, וְהוֹאִיל וְאֵין לֵידַע דֶּרֶךְ הַמְמֻצָּע עַל יְדֵי הַמּוֹפֵת, תָּנוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם בְּשִׁקּוּל דַּעַת הַחֲכָמִים, וְעַל פִּי חָכְמַת דִּבְרֵיהֶם יִתְנַהֵג:
וְאוּלַי עַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה אָמְרוּ (אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ו') בֶּאֱמוּנַת חֲכָמִים, כִּי הַדָּבָר הַתָּלוּי בִּרְאָיָה, מַה הוּא עִנְיַן אֱמוּנָה, הֲלֹא הָרְאָיָה תִּתֵּן צְדָקָה, וְזֶה כְּלָל גָּדוֹל בְּדַרְכֵי הוֹרָאָה לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת מוֹצָא פִּי גָּדוֹל בְּהוֹרָאָה, בִּבְחִינַת הָרְאָיוֹת וְהוֹכָחוֹת, וּלְבַטֵּל דַּעְתּוֹ נֶגְדּוֹ, אַף אִם דְּבָרָיו רַק מִשִּׁקּוּל הַדַּעַת יֵצְאוּ. וְהוּא מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (יְרוּשַׁלְמִי פֶּרֶק א' דִּבְרָכוֹת) נָבִיא וְזָקֵן לְמִי הֵן דּוֹמִין, לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁשּׁוֹלֵחַ פַּלְמַטְרִין (שְׁלוּחִים) שֶׁלּוֹ לַמְּדִינָה, עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כָּתַב אִם אֵינוֹ מַרְאֶה לָכֶם חוֹתָם שֶׁלִּי אַל תַּאֲמִינוּ לוֹ, וְעַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם כָּתַב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַרְאֶה לָכֶם חוֹתָם שֶׁלִּי הַאֲמִינוּ לוֹ כוּ', כָּךְ בַּנָּבִיא כְּתִיב וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת, בְּרַם הָכָא עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ, עַיֵּן שָׁם. כִּי אוֹת תּוֹרָה עַל הוֹכָחָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְבַעַל דִּין לַחֲלֹק עָלָיו, וּמוֹפֵת (לָרֹב) עַל רְאָיָה מֻכְרַעַת. וְהָרַמְבַּ"ם כָּתַב (פֶּרֶק ח' מֵהִלְכוֹת יְסוֹדֵי הַתּוֹרָה) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ, מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ בּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹתוֹת שֶׁעָשָׂה, שֶׁהַמַּאֲמִין עַל פִּי הָאוֹתוֹת. יֵשׁ בְּלִבּוֹ דֹּפִי, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הָאוֹת בְּכִשּׁוּף כוּ', (וּבַמֶּה הֶאֱמִינוּ בּוֹ בְּמַעֲמַד הַר סִינַי שֶׁעֵינֵינוּ רָאוּ וְלֹא זָר וְאָזְנֵינוּ שָׁמְעוּ וְלֹא אַחֵר כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם). אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אוֹת הוּא בְּחִינַת רְאָיָה, וְזֶהוּ לִמְבִינֵי מַדָּע. אֲבָל לְרֹב הָעָם, צָרִיךְ מוֹפֵת, הוּא הוֹכָחָה נִצַּחַת, זֶהוּ וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יִהְיֶה בְּעֵינֶיךָ מוֹפֵת, אַל תִּשְׁמַע לְהַנָּבִיא לַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדַת אֱלִילִים, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת תִּשְׁמַע לוֹ גַּם עַל פִּי אוֹת, בְּחִינַת הָרְאָיָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם שָׁם. בְּרַם הָכָא עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ, גַּם עַל פִּי שִׁקּוּל הַדַּעַת כִּדְאָמְרִינַן (סַנְהֶדְרִין פ"ח) אֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים כָּךְ הוּא בְּעֵינֵינוּ נֶהֱרָג, עַיֵּן שָׁם. עַל פִּי דַּרְכֵי עִיּוּנֵי הַחָכְמָה, תִּתְיַצֵּב גְּבוּל הָאֱמֶת, בַּל יַעְפִּיל הָאָדָם לַחְתֹּר תָּמִיד בְּדַרְכֵי הַמּוֹפֵת אַחַר הָאֱמֶת, כִּי אִם אֶת אֲשֶׁר נָתַן הָאֱלֹהִים לִבְנֵי אָדָם לַעֲנוֹת וְלַחֲקֹר, הִיא מַטְּרַת הָאֱמֶת. אֱמֶת תִּקָּרֵא, זֶה שְׁמָהּ וְזֶה זִכְרָהּ. כֵּן גַּם בִּדְבַר הַדִּין, אֲשֶׁר הָאֱמֶת יָקָר לִמְצֹא בָּהּ. מִסִּבַּת נְטִיַּת הַדַּעַת לְאַהֲבָה וּלְשִׂנְאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא הַמְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי פִּקְחִים, וְאַף אִם יִשְׁמֹר הָאָדָם דַּרְכוֹ לְהִזָּהֵר מִכָּל חֲשַׁשׁ נְגִיעַת הַדַּעַת (עַיֵּן כְּתֻבּוֹת דַּף ק"ה עַמּוּד ב'), בְּכָל זֹאת מִי יִתֵּן קַו וּמִשְׁקֹלֶת לְדַרְכֵי הַנְּטִיָּה, הֲלֹא זֶה דֶּרֶךְ כֹּחַ נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם לִקְשֹׁר חֶבֶל בְּחֶבֶל, נֵימָא בְּנֵימָא, הַרְכָּבַת רַעְיוֹנוֹת וַהֲבָלִים הַרְבֵּה, לְהוֹצִיא פְּרִי עָמָל מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא הָאָדָם רֵאשִׁית סִבָּתוֹ. אֲשֶׁר אוּלַי לָזֶה הִזְהִירוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (סַנְהֶדְרִין דַּף ז'), לְעוֹלָם יִרְאֶה דַּיָּן עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ חֶרֶב מֻנַּחַת לוֹ בֵּין יַרְכוֹתָיו וְגֵיהִנֹּם פְּתוּחָה לוֹ מִתַּחְתָּיו עַיֵּן שָׁם, וְלֹא הִזְהִירוּ כֵּן בְּטַרְפְּתָא (סִפּוּר רַב אָשִׁי הַמֻּזְכָּר שָׁם) יַעַן כִּי בַּדִּין, הַנְּטִיָּה עֲלוּלָה לִמְאֹד:
בְּכָל זֹאת אִם יָשִׂים הָאָדָם לִבּוֹ וְנַפְשׁוֹ לְטַהֵר מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ עַל פִּי יְדִיעָתוֹ, הִיא הִיא רְדִיפַת הַצֶּדֶק אֲשֶׁר ה' דּוֹרֵשׁ, זֶהוּ לַאֲמִתָּתוֹ (שֶׁל דִּין), מַה שֶּׁהוּא גֶּדֶר הָאֱמֶת אֵצֶל דִּין. וְאוּלַי הוּא מַאֲמַר הַיְרוּשַׁלְמִי (רֵישׁ סַנְהֶדְרִין) רַבִּי יוֹסִי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא אַתּוּן תְּרֵין בַּר נַשׁ מִידוּן קוּמוֹי, אָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּדִינֵנוּ דִּין תּוֹרָה אָמַר לוֹן אֲנִי אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ דִּין תּוֹרָה, עַיֵּן שָׁם. כִּי גֶּדֶר הַתּוֹרָה הוּא בְּחִינַת שֵׂכֶל בְּלִי נְטִיַּת הָרָצוֹן כְּלָל (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל), מַה שֶּׁרָחוֹק לְהִמָּצֵא בַּדִּין, כִּי מִי יַעֲרֹךְ נְטִיַּת הַנֶּעְלָמוֹת, לָזֹאת לְהַפְלָגַת יִרְאָתוֹ, חָשַׁשׁ אוּלַי לֹא מִלֵּא חוֹבָתוֹ:
וְאוּלַי הַדָּבָר בִּכְלַל מַאֲמַר חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (סַנְהֶדְרִין ו' עַמּוּד ב') שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר הַדַּיָּן מַה לִּי בַּצַּעַר הַזֶּה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעִמָּכֶם בִּדְבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט, אֵין לוֹ לַדַּיָּן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת, עַיֵּן שָׁם. כִּי לְאַחַר טָהֳרַת מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ בָּטוּחַ אִם לֹא יַד כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע. וְהוּא מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת (עַיֵּן לְעֵיל), וְעִמּוֹ הוּא הַמִּשְׁפָּט בְּהַרְכָּבַת כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ הַפְּרָטִית. לֹא עַל יְדֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל הַפָּשׁוּט אֲשֶׁר הוּא כְּלָלִי:
אָכֵן מִשְׁפְּטֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בִּהְיוֹתוֹ נַעֲלֶה מִכָּל הָעָם, מִשְׁפָּטָיו בְּגֶדֶר הָאֱמֶת, הַמּוֹפֵת יָבִיאוּ, אֱמֶת הָאֲמִתִּי. זֶהוּ, כִּי כְּמַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים כֵּן אֲדוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ לִשְׁמֹעַ טוֹב וְרַע כוּ' (שְׁמוּאֵל ב' י"ד, י"ז), כִּי מַה שֶּׁהוּא אֵצֶל הָעָם רַק בְּחִינַת טוֹב, הוּא אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת, כְּמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמַּלְאָכִים כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל, עַד כָּאן:, בְּכָל זֹאת אָדָם הוּא, וְכֹחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּקִרְבּוֹ הֵמָּה, אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַפְרִישָׁם מִשִּׂכְלוֹ. לְזֹאת אֵין בְּיַד הָאָדָם לָבוֹא אֶל שֵׂכֶל אֲמִתִּי הַמֻּפְרָשׁ וּמֻבְדָּל לְגַמְרֵי מִכֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת, וְהַתּוֹרָה נְתוּנָה לִבְנֵי אָדָם לִשְׁפֹּט בָּהּ עַל פִּי שֵׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי, (בְּטָהֳרַת הָאֶפְשָׁרִית, עַיֵּן בְּכוֹרוֹת (י"ז, ב') דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר עֲבֵיד וּבְכָל הֵיכִי דְּמָצִית לְמֶעְבַּד נִיחָא לֵיהּ), וְעַל פִּי רִבּוּי הָרְאָיוֹת וּמִשְׁקָלָם יִתְבָּרְרוּ הַדְּבָרִים, וּלְאֵיזֶה צַד אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל עֶרֶךְ הָרְאָיוֹת, אִם מִצַּד הָרִבּוּי אוֹ מִצַּד הַמִּשְׁקָל, שָׁם תִּהְיֶה הַהַכְרָעָה וְכֵן יָקוּם הַדָּבָר:
Nevertheless, a person, inasmuch as he is human, even though he has the power and ability to abstract his reason from any desire or sentimentality, to the point where his psychological drives sleep and dream (without being awakened, so that they do not force their way into reason and distort it*1[The crux of this footnote by R. Salanter is that statements by our Rabbis, of blessed memory, are not free of any psychological elements, as are the words of Moses or the prophets. Nevertheless, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, achieved a high degree of refinement. Since God affirms judgments reached at this level of refinement, the Sages’ statements are deemed true; when one’s judgment differs from theirs, one tends to defer to them out of the realization that they achieved purer rational judgments. Furthermore, we follow those qualified judgments even in the face of contradictory demonstrations and proofs.
Note: Just as one is to be modest in making claims about the authority of rabbinic judgment, so one is to be modest in arriving at an understanding of their statements. Here, too, as they do, one should welcome a variety of viewpoints and approaches and try to arrive at a considered judgment of what they are actually saying. This is on the grounds that listening to multiple viewpoints from multiple individuals will make one more likely to avoid the subjective distortions found in each individual view.
Note also that R. Salanter’s conclusion, namely, that the king’s judgment achieves a level of truth unavailable to common judges, was apparently an attempt to satisfy government censors.] His psychological drives remain within him. He cannot separate them from his reason. Thus, a person cannot achieve true reason, completely removed from and transcending psychological drives, yet the Torah is given to human beings to render judgment in accordance with human reason (in its purest possible form; see Bekhorot [17b]: “The Merciful One said: Do it, and however you manage to do it is acceptable to Him”). By the quantity and quality of proofs, the matter will be clarified. On whichever side the assessment of the proof falls – whether on the side of quantity or quality – that is what he will decide, and so the matter will be established.2Based on Deuteronomy 19:15, which addresses the laws of weighing testimony.
מִצַּד רִבּוּי הָרְאָיוֹת שָׁוִים כָּל בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּשִׂכְלָם, אִם רַק לֵב מֵבִין לָמּוֹ לְהָבִין הָרְאָיוֹת בְּמַתְכֻּנְתָּם. אָכֵן מִצַּד הַמִּשְׁקָל שׁוֹנִים רוּחַ בְּנֵי אָדָם זֶה מִזֶּה, הוּא הוּא שִׁקּוּל הַדַּעַת, אֲשֶׁר דַּעְתָּם שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם נִפְרֶדֶת לְמַרְבֶּה:
As far as the quantity of proofs is concerned, all humans using their reason will arrive at a common conclusion, if only they have an understanding heart to comprehend all the steps of the proofs. However, regarding the quality of proofs, people differ from one another in spirit. This is [the meaning of] “considered judgment” [or “discretion”; “shikul hadaat”]3Quantity of proofs is an objective measure; once the number of proofs has been determined, there is no rational dispute about which side has more proofs. However, when it comes to assessing the weight of these proofs, there will be significant divergence based on subjective factors unique to each judge – the judge’s discretion or “considered judgment.” Ideally, each side presents how it weighs the evidence and is attentive to the assessment of the other side, as the divergence in judgment is not the result of ego or prejudice, but is part of the natural variation of human judgment. – regarding which people’s opinions often differ.
וּבִדְבַר מִשְׁקַל הָרְאָיוֹת הָיְתָה הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁל בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. כִּי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהַצְּדָדִים יָדְעוּ כָּל הָרְאָיוֹת הַנִּדְרָשׁוֹת לִדְבַר מַחְלָקְתָּם, בָּאֵר הֵיטֵב. וּמִזֶּה נוֹלְדָה בֵּינֵיהֶם מַחֲלֹקֶת כְּלָלִית עַל הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת בְּעִנְיַן מִשְׁקַל הָרְאָיוֹת, אִם לֵילֵךְ אַחַר הַכַּמּוּת אוֹ אַחַר הָאֵיכוּת. זֶהוּ מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (עֵרוּבִין י"ג:) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ וְכוּ'. כִּי סְבָרַת בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָיְתָה לֵילֵךְ אַחַר הָאֵיכוּת, וְהֵם הָיוּ מְחַדְּדִים טְפֵי, לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן, וּסְבָרַת בֵּית הִלֵּל הָיְתָה לֵילֵךְ אַחַר הַכַּמּוּת, וְהֵם הָיוּ הָרֹב:
Assessing the quality of proofs was a central dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel.4Dispute first began to proliferate with the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and so their disputes are paradigmatic within rabbinic literature. R. Salanter asserts that enduring dispute between the schools was not because one side refused to submit to reason and acknowledge its error, and not because the sides were biased by psychological factors. Rather, they disagreed about how to consider evidence and render judgments. Each school came to a different conclusion as to which is the central criterion for reaching a conclusion – quality or quantity. According to R. Salanter, this dispute was not in the realm of strict reason, but in the realm of “discretion,” where difference of opinion is expected and justified. Each side was very familiar with all the proofs relevant to their dispute. Out of this grew a meta-dispute about how to weigh evidence within a dispute – [namely,] whether to follow quantity or quality. This is the [meaning of the] saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Eiruvin 13b): “Rabbi [Aba]5Note: In the actual letter, R. Salanter wrote “R. Elazar.” He was probably writing from memory. said in the name of Shmuel: For three years the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel argued. These said: The law is according to our view and those said: The law follows our view….” The School of Shammai adopted the view that one should follow quality, and they were sharper, so they said the law was according to them. The School of Hillel adopted the view that one should follow quantity, and they were the majority.6Both schools acknowledged that the School of Shammai had greater mental acuity and that the School of Hillel was greater in number. One who accepts mental acuity and “quality” as the key criterion (as did the School of Shammai) would adopt the rulings of the School of Shammai, and one who accepts larger numbers and “quantity” as the key criterion (as did the School of Hillel) would adopt the rulings of the School of Hillel.
לֹא לְמַעַן הַחֲזִיק דַּעְתָּם נֶחְלְקוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, כִּי אִם לְמַעַן הַצֶּדֶק וְהָאֱמֶת בְּטָהֳרַת הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה בְּלִי נְגִיעַת הַדַּעַת כְּלָל. לֹא בִּבְחִינַת כַּוָּנַת הַדַּעַת, רַק בִּבְחִינַת מִקְרֶה נִהְיְתָה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרוּ כִּי לָהֶם הַיִּתְרוֹן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרוּ לְהֵפֶךְ:
They did not argue for three years merely to uphold their own views – only for the sake of justice and truth through purity of thought without any bias.7That is, they did not shape their arguments to prove that they were right. Rather, both schools were interested in reaching a correct understanding of the Torah. It was not intentional, but merely accidental, that the School of Shammai thought that they had the advantage, and the School of Hillel thought the opposite.8R. Salanter concludes that the differences between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were based on legitimate disagreement about non-rational, subjective elements that go into rendering judgment. In this, he inserted himself into a raging polemic; in certain traditional circles, acknowledging such a subjective element was seen as undermining the objective authority of halakha. Therefore, they denied that there was any subjectivity in study of Torah or rendering of halakhic decisions. They held that the human teacher of the Oral Torah was merely a vessel transmitting divine words; the subject had no influence and did not shape the words. In contrast, maskilim and reformers emphasized the subjectivity of halakhic disagreement in order to undermine the divine authority of the Oral Torah.
R. Salanter offers a third path, which neither denies subjectivity nor undermines authority. He acknowledges the subjective element (“A person cannot achieve true reason, completely removed from and transcending psychological drives”) but asserts that it is a built-in component of the Oral Torah: “Yet the Torah is given to human beings to render judgment in accordance with human reason (in its purest possible form….).” Here R. Salanter states that the rabbis reached a high degree of purity of reason, one that is not distorted by personal bias, which approximates the “true” truth that God imparted through the Torah.
וְיַעַן שֶׁיָּצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, אַלְמָא כַּמּוּת עָדִיף, לַזֹּאת פָּסְקוּ הַפּוֹסְקִים דְּמִנְיָן עָדִיף מֵחָכְמָה (עַיֵּן בַּשַּׁ"ךְ יוֹרֶה דֵּעָה סִימָן רמ"ב בְּהַנְהָגַת הוֹרָאַת אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, עַיֵּן שָׁם):
Since a heavenly voice went forth and stated that the law follows the School of Hillel, it follows that quantity is superior. Therefore, the codifiers have ruled that numbers outweigh wisdom.9A majority of sages outweighs a minority, no matter how brilliant its members. (See Shakh [at the end of Shulḥan Arukh:] Yoreh De’ah 242, [in his essay on] Procedures for Ruling on What Are Forbidden and Permitted Matters. See further there.)
וְאוּלַי לָזֶה יָצְאָה הַבַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵם, וְלֹא דָּבָר חָדָשׁ הוֹדִיעָה הַבַּת קוֹל (כִּי גַּם דֵּעָה הַנִּדְחֵית בִּכְלַל תּוֹרָה הִיא), כִּי הַתּוֹרָה לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא, וּבְוַדַּאי מְסוּרָה הָיְתָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי וְלֹא שְׁכָחוּהָ, אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּסוֹד הַבַּת קוֹל הָיְתָה, לְמַעַן לֹא יִפֹּל לֵב הָעָם, (בִּרְאוֹתָם כִּי זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַחֲזִיקִים לֵאמֹר הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם כִּי לָהֶם הַיִּתְרוֹן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְהֵפֶךְ), פֶּן וְאוּלַי חַס וְשָׁלוֹם נָטוּ אֲשׁוּרֵיהֶם מְעַט מִטָּהֳרַת הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה, וּבָאוּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לִקְצָת נְגִיעַת הַדַּעַת. אֲשֶׁר לֹא בִּכְמוֹ אֵלֶּה בָּחַר ה' לִמְסֹר תּוֹרָתוֹ, לְהִקָּרֵא תּוֹרַת ה' גַּם בַּדֵּעָה הַנִּדְחֵית. לָזֹאת הוֹדִיעָה הַבַּת קוֹל, כִּי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיהֶם רְצוּיִים, וּבִבְחִינַת מִקְרֶה הָיָה הַדָּבָר, שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקָה כָּל אַחַת מֵהַחֲבוּרוֹת בְּכָל עֹז, כִּי לְדַעְתָּם הַיִּתְרוֹן. וְלָזֹאת גַּם דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הַנִּדְחֵית דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן, וְהַהוֹגֶה בְּדִבְרֵיהֶם הוֹגֶה בְּתוֹרַת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ:
Perhaps this is why the heavenly voice came out and said: “These and those are the words of the Living God” (Eiruvin 13b). The heavenly voice announced nothing new (for even rejected opinions are part of Torah), for the Torah “is not in heaven.”10Deuteronomy 30:12, applied in Bava Metzia 59b to mean that once the Torah was given at Sinai, it is in the hands of human beings to determine the law. God’s will is ascertained by derivation from past revelation as interpreted and applied by rabbinic learning and reason. R. Salanter is responding to an obvious problem with this passage in Eiruvin: If the Torah is “not in heaven,” how could a heavenly voice determine that the halakha follows the School of Hillel? R. Salanter answers that the purpose of the voice was not to decide in favor of the School of Hillel, but to affirm that both schools reached their conclusions with purity of thought, free of personal interests and biases. Certainly, [the principle of majority rule] was given to Moses at Sinai and never forgotten. Rather, the purpose of the heavenly voice was to prevent the people from becoming disheartened (upon seeing that for three years already the School of Shammai held out, saying the law follows their view, for they have the upper hand, while the School of Hillel held the opposite view), lest, God forbid, their self-affirmation deviated somewhat from purity of thought and came, God forbid, to some bias. These are not the kind of people to whom God chose to give over His Torah, and whose rejected views are still called God’s Torah. Therefore, the heavenly voice proclaimed that their thoughts are desirable, and it was mere accident that each group held, with all its might, that its view had the upper hand. Therefore, the rejected views of the School of Shammai are nevertheless the words of the Living God, and one who studies their words, studies God’s Torah, may His name be blessed.
הַהוֹדָעָה הַלָּזוֹ פְּרָטִית הִיא, כִּי הַחֲבוּרוֹת כַּוָּנָתָם רְצוּיָה. אֵין בָּזֶה מִשּׁוּם לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא, אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה רַק בִּכְלָלִי, כְּמוֹ חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְכַיּוֹצֵא שֶׁהֻזְכַּר בַּגְּמָרָא (תְּמוּרָה ט"ז) אוּלַי הוּא בִּכְלַל מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (מִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה קֹהֶלֶת פָּרָשָׁה א') אָמְרוּ הֲרֵי כָּל חָכְמָתוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁבָּא לֵאמֹר מַה יִּתְרוֹן לָאָדָם בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ, יָכוֹל אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה חָזְרוּ וְאָמְרוּ לֹא אָמַר בְּכָל עָמָל אֶלָּא בַּעֲמָלוֹ, בַּעֲמָלוֹ (שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ) אֵינוֹ עָמָל, אֲבָל עָמֵל הוּא בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כוּ'. אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵין לוֹ, לְמַעְלָה מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יֵשׁ לוֹ (עַיֵּן שַׁבָּת ל':), כִּי אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (פְּסָחִים נ':) רָבָא רָמִי, כְּתִיב (תְּהִלִּים נ"ז) כִּי גָּדוֹל עַד שָׁמַיִם חַסְדֶּךָ, וּכְתִיב (שָׁם ק"ח) כִּי גָּדוֹל מֵעַל שָׁמַיִם חַסְדֶּךָ, הָא כֵּיצַד, כָּאן בָּעוֹשִׂין לִשְׁמָהּ וְכָאן בָּעוֹשִׂין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, וְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְוֹת אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ כוּ'. נִמְצָא לְפִי זֶה יֵשׁ לְכַנּוֹת הָעֵסֶק לִשְׁמָהּ, לְמַעְלָה מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְהָעֵסֶק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, לְמַטָּה מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. וּכְשֶׁהָאָדָם מוֹצֵא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה, לֹא שֶׁלּוֹ הִיא, רַק הִתְגַּלּוּת דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר הָיָה נֶעְלָם עַד כֹּה, אָכֵן אִם לֹא נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה, וּבְכָל זֹאת תּוֹרַת ה' הִיא וְהַהוֹגֶה בִּדְבָרָיו מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר, שֶׁלּוֹ הִיא, כִּי הוּא בֶּעָמָל הוֹלִיד דָּבָר חָדָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה מַה שֶּׁלֹּא הָיְתָה מִקֹּדֶם וּבִתְנַאי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּטָהֳרַת הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה בְּלִי נְגִיעַת הַדַּעַת, אֲשֶׁר זֶהוּ הַיְסוֹד שֶׁל לִשְׁמָהּ. זֶהוּ, מַה יִּתְרוֹן (נִצְחִי) בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ (שֶׁלּוֹ, הוּא הַדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה), שֶׁיַּעֲמֹל תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ), אֲבָל לְמַעְלָה מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (לִשְׁמָהּ), יִתְרוֹן נִצְחִי הוּא, שֶׁהוֹלִיד דָּבָר בַּתּוֹרָה:
This message [from heaven] is specifically that the intentions of these fellowships were desirable. This voice from heaven is not a violation of “It is not in the heaven,” which applies only to a universal issue, such as in the case of “a sin offering whose owner died,”11The Talmud mentions that hundreds of laws were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. The people asked figures like Joshua and Phinehas to divine the forgotten laws, but they averred that “it is not in heaven.” In these cases, the people sought a final answer that would apply throughout the generations, and it is in such cases that the recovery of the laws precludes divine involvement. Ultimately, Othniel ben Kenaz recovered the laws through cognitive effort. and similar cases, as mentioned in the Talmud (Temura 16a). Perhaps this [idea that a rejected opinion remains Torah] is included in the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Ecclesiastes Rabba, ch. 1):
They said: This is the sum of Solomon’s wisdom that he came to assert: “What profit to the human being in all his toil?” (Eccl. 1:3). This might mean even the toil of Torah! They recanted and said: [Solomon] did not say “in all toil” but “in [all] his toil.” In his toil (for himself), he does not toil [for there is no profit], but he does the toil of Torah [for in this there is profit]…. R. Yudan said: “Under the sun” (ibid.) he has no [profit]; “Above the sun” he does. (See Shabbat 30b.)
For our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Pesaḥim 50b):
Rava raised a contradiction: It is written (Ps. 57:11): “For Your loving-kindness is great, up to the heavens,” and it is written (ibid. 108:5): “For your loving-kindness is great, beyond the heavens.” How can this be? Here [Ps. 108:5] [refers to] those who act for its own sake; here [Ps. 57:11] they act for other motives. This follows R. Yehuda’s view, for R. Yehuda says in the name of Rav: “A person should always engage in Torah and the commandments even not for its own sake; for in acting for other motives, he will come to do it for its own sake.”
Accordingly, we find that engaging in Torah for its own sake should be called “above the sun,” and engaging for other motives should be called “under the sun.” When a person articulates words of Torah that are accepted as halakha, they are not his; rather, it is the discovery of something that was hidden until now. However, if it was not accepted as halakha, yet it is still the Torah of God, and one who studies its words receives reward, then it is his, for he, by his effort, has created something new in Torah that never existed before.12A rabbinic halakhic ruling which is accepted as authoritative was always present in the body of revelation. However, it was “hidden,” and not known until a particular rabbi articulated it and uncovered this eternal truth. In the case of a halakhic ruling which is not accepted, it was never part of the body of revelation – for if it had been, it would become authoritative. The rejected opinion is a genuine novum. It is now absorbed into the corpus of Torah, but it was not there until this person created it. But this is on condition that it was produced with purity of thought, without bias, which is the essence of “for its own sake.” This is [the meaning of]: What (eternal) profit in all his toil (his work, this refers to a matter not accepted as halakha) that he labors under the sun (i.e., not for its own sake); however, above the sun (i.e., for its own sake) it has eternal profit, for he has given birth to new Torah.
וְאוּלַי הוּא בִּכְלַל הַכָּתוּב (קֹהֶלֶת א') וְאֵין כָּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (עַיֵּן פֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י שָׁם). כִּי כָּל מַה שֶּׁמַּמְצִיא הָאָדָם בַּשֵּׂכֶל, בַּמֶּה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְרָא תּוֹרַת כוּ', לֹא חִדְּשָׁהּ בְּשִׂכְלִי הִיא, רַק בַּחוּשִׁי, כִּי הִיא רַק הִתְגַּלּוּת הַנֶּעְלָם בְּאֹפֶן הַהַרְכָּבָה. כֵּן גַּם בְּתוֹרַת ה' אֲשֶׁר נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה הִיא הִיא הַתּוֹרָה, וְהָאָדָם הַמַּמְצִיאָהּ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מְגַלֶּה הַדָּבָר, וּמַה הוּא הֶחָדָשׁ (הַשִּׂכְלִי), דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה, וְעַל יְדֵי הָאָדָם הַמַּמְצִיאָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, זֶהוּ אֵין כָּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (רְצוֹנוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, כִּי גַּם בַּתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה. אִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת מֵהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה בְּכָל זֹאת. חָדָשׁ לֹא נִקְרְאָה. וְגַם אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִתְקַבְּלָה לַהֲלָכָה, אִם הַלִּמּוּד יִהְיֶה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, כִּי אֵין לָהּ בְּחִינַת תּוֹרָה), אֲבָל לְמַעְלָה מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (לִשְׁמָהּ) יֵשׁ וְיֵשׁ חָדָשׁ, הֵמָּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיוּ בְּגֶדֶר הַתּוֹרָה, וְעַל יְדֵי עֲמַל הָאָדָם. אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידָם בְּטָהֳרַת מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ, בָּאוּ בְּחַדְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה:
Perhaps this is included in the [meaning of the] verse (Eccl. 1:9): “There is nothing new under the sun.” (See Rashis commentary there.) For all that a person produces using the rational faculty, except that which is called the “Torah [of God but has not been accepted as halakha],” is not an innovation of reason, but an emotional innovation, for it is only uncovering something whose manner of synthesis had been lost.13Only innovations that are, on one hand, part of “the Torah of God,” and, on the other, not accepted as the halakhic conclusion are true innovations. Torah that is accepted as halakha and discoveries in non-Torah disciplines are not truly novel. So it is with “the Torah of God” that has been accepted as halakha – that is, the Torah; the person who produces it is only its discoverer. What is “new” (in the realm of the rational)? Torah that was not accepted as halakha, but which becomes Torah through the person who produces it. This is the meaning of “There is nothing new under the sun” (meaning, [Torah learned] not for its own sake, for Torah that was accepted as halakha, even though it has advantages over something that was not accepted as halakha, it is nevertheless not called “new,” and even [Torah] that was not accepted as halakha, if the study was not for its own sake, it is not considered Torah). However, “above the sun” (for its own sake) there certainly is “new.” These are the things that were not in the category of Torah, but through the effort of the person who created them with the purity of his thought, have been incorporated into Torah.
הוּא מַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (תְּהִלִּים א') בְּתוֹרַת ה' חֶפְצוֹ וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה כוּ'. כִּי חֵפֶץ וְתַחְבּוּלוֹת הָאָדָם, הוּא לְטַהֵר הַשֵּׂכֶל, לְהַפְשִׁיטוֹ מִכֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת לָבוֹא לִבְחִינַת שֵׂכֶל אֲמִתִּי, הִיא תּוֹרַת ה', וְעִם כָּל זֶה אָדָם הוּא, וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ (שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ) יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה. (וִיבֹאַר תֵּבַת "וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ" עַל אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ וְכוּ' הָאָמוּר קֹדֶם):
This is the [meaning of the] verse (Ps. 1:2): “He desires the Torah of God and studies his Torah day and night….” For the desire and ambition of a person are to purify reason, to strip it of the psychological drives so it can enter the category of true reason – this is “the Torah of God.” Yet he is still human, so “he studies his Torah day and night.” (The antecedent of “his Torah” [in v. 2] is “Fortunate is the man” [in v. 1], stated immediately prior.)14The verse (Ps. 1:2) refers to Torah twice: first to “the Torah of God” and then to “his Torah.” R. Salanter interprets “his Torah” to mean the Torah of the person studying. Thus, the learner “desires” God’s Torah, as He gave it to us, unadulterated and minimally shaped by human factors. However, he inevitably studies “his Torah,” the Torah as shaped by his own, human intelligence, and yielding novel insights. It is only by desiring the Torah of God that one’s innovations are considered, on one hand, “his,” and on the other, part of the corpus of “Torah.”
וְהוּא מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (בְּרָכוֹת ה') מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם אָדָם מוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ לַחֲבֵרוֹ מוֹכֵר עָצֵב וְלוֹקֵחַ שָׂמֵחַ, אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵן, נָתַן לָהֶם תּוֹרָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׂמַח כוּ', כִּי הַנְּתִינָה הִיא מֵעֵין גֶּדֶר הַמְּכִירָה, שֶׁכִּמְעַט נִפְרְדָה מִבַּעֲלֶיהָ, כִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא נָתַן הַתּוֹרָה לִבְנֵי אָדָם לִשְׁפֹּט בָּהּ עַל פִּי שֵׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי, לֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה בְּאָמְנָה אִתּוֹ *)כִּי לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא לְגַלּוֹת מַצְפּוּנִים, כִּי אִם אֶת אֲשֶׁר יַחְתֹּר הָאָדָם לָדַעַת עַל פִּי דַּרְכֵי הָרְאָיוֹת, הִיא הִיא תּוֹרַת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ, (עַיֵּן תְּמוּרָה דַּף ט"ז, שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים הֲלָכוֹת נִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ כוּ' אָמַר לוֹ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ שְׁאַל אָמַר לוֹ לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא כוּ'. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָנָא אֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת קַלִּין וַחֲמוּרִין נִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ כוּ' אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֶחֱזִירָן עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן קְנָז, עַיֵּן שָׁם):
וְאִם יֵשׁ כֹּחַ לַשָּׁמַיִם לְהַכְרִיעַ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַחְלֹקֶת, תָּלוּי בִּשְׁנֵי הַתֵּרוּצִים שֶׁל הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (בִּיבָמוֹת דַּף י"ד) עַל הָא דְּאָמְרֵי שָׁם. מַאן דְּאָמַר עָשׂוּ (בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם) כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּאָמַר אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל. וְכָתְבוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם, וְאִם תֹּאמַר וּמַאי שְׁנָא דְּלֹא קַיְמָא לַן כְּבַת קוֹל דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן בְּכָל דּוּכְתֵי דְּשַׁמּוּתִי הוּא וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, וּבְבַת קוֹל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל קַיְמָא לַן הֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּבַת קוֹל דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֹא יָצְאָה אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדוֹ כוּ', אִי נָמֵי בְּהַהִיא בַּת קוֹל שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּנֶגֶד רַבִּים, דְּרַבָּנָן הֲווּ רֻבָּא, וַדַּאי אֵין הֲלָכָה, אֲבָל בְּבַת קוֹל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל, קַיְמָא לַן דְּהָוֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל רֻבָּא, אֶלָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי מְחַדְּדֵי טְפֵי עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. נִמְצָא לְפִי תֵּרוּץ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל תּוֹסָפוֹת, הַתּוֹרָה בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא, אִם רַק אֶחָד בָּעוֹלָם יֹאמַר, הֲגַם שֶׁרַבִּים חוֹלְקִין עָלָיו. אֲבָל לְפִי תֵּרוּץ הַשֵּׁנִי, הִיא רַק בַּשָּׁמַיִם, לָתֵת אֵיזֶה כֹּבֶד בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכִּמְעַט שְׁנֵי הַמִּשְׁקָלוֹת שָׁוִים, כְּמוֹ, אִם לְצַד אֶחָד רֻבָּא וּלְצַד הַשֵּׁנִי מְחַדְּדֵי, הַשָּׁמַיִם נוֹתְנִים עֹז לְצַד אֶחָד לְהַכְרִיעַ. וּלְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא כְּלָל, אַף לָתֵת אֵיזֶה כֹּבֶד לְצַד אֶחָד. וּלְפִי דְּבָרֵינוּ בְּשֵׂכֶל וְהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, נִרְאֶה בַּעֲלִיל שֶׁהָדָּבָר כֵּן, (וְתִתְיַשֵּׁב קֻשְׁיַת הַתּוֹסָפוֹת שָׁם שֶׁכָּתְבוּ וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם, וְאִם תֹּאמַר וְדִלְמָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי דַּוְקָא הָתָם קָאָמַר דְּאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין אֲבָל בְּעַלְמָא לֹא כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם), כִּי זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַשֵּׂכֶל לְהִשָּׁמֵר מִכָּל הִתְפַּעֲלוּת נַפְשִׁיּוֹת (כְּדִלְעֵיל), וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף לְהִתְוַכֵּחַ עִם זוּלָתוֹ בְּדָבָר שִׂכְלִי, כֵּן גַּם הַשְּׁמִירָה רַבָּה לִמְאֹד, לְהִתְרַחֵק מֵהִתְפַּעֲלוּת הָעֲלוּלָה לָבוֹא מִכֹּחַ אַהֲבַת הַנִּצּוּחַ לְכַבּוֹת אוֹר הַשֵּׂכֶל אוֹת הִיא, כִּי הַשֵּׂכֶל לְבַדּוֹ יְהַלֵךְ מַהְלָכוֹ, בִּהְיוֹת אֹזֶן הָאָדָם קַשֶּׁבֶת לְקוֹל דִּבְרֵי הָרְאָיָה לְהַחֲזִיק דִּבְרֵי מְנַגְּדוֹ, אַף אִם לֹא תִּהְיֶה מֻכְרַחַת בִּשְׁקִיטַת מְנוּחַת הַנֶּפֶשׁ בְּלִי הִתְפַּעֲלוּת מְאוּמָה, וְאִם יִצְטָרֵךְ לְהִתְפַּעֲלוּת לִדְחוֹת הִתְפַּעֲלוּת הַמְנַגֵּד, יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְאַחַר זְמַן, לְמַעַן הַשֵּׂכֶל יֵלֵךְ בֶּטַח מַהְלָכוֹ. לָזֹאת כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ רוֹאִים בְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁלְּאַחַר כָּל הַוִּכּוּחַ הַגָּדוֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ עִם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, עָמַד עַל רַגְלָיו, (שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא דֶּרֶךְ הִתְפַּעֲלוּת לַמֵּבִין קְצָת דַּרְכָּהּ), וְאָמַר אֵין אָנוּ מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל, שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כִּי לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא כְּלָל, אַף לֹא לָתֵת אֵיזֶה כֹּבֶד, וְאֵינֶנָּה בִּכְלָל הַתְחָלַת רְאָיָה, לָזֹאת הִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, לִדְחוֹת הִתְפַּעֲלוּת הַתַּלְמִידִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא זָרַח עֲלֵיהֶן עֵדֶן אוֹר הַשֵּׂכֶל הָאֲמִתִּי, וְזֶה דַּרְכָּם לְהִתְפַּעֵל מִדָּבָר גְּדוֹל הַכַּמוּת, כְּמוֹ בַּת קוֹל מִשָּׁמַיִם, אִם כִּי לְפִי הָאֵיכוּת לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא כְּלָל, לְדַעַת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, גַּם לָתֵת אֵיזֶה כֹּבד לְהַכְרִיעַ:, (עַיֵּן דְּרָשַׁת הָרַ"ן דְּרוּשׁ ז' עַל הָא דְּמַאן נוֹכַח רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי, בָּבָא מְצִיעָא דַּף פ"ו):
This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Berakhot 5a): “It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another, the seller is sad [about losing a valuable object] and the buyer rejoices [in gaining the object]. Not so the Holy One, blessed be He. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced….” For a gift is like a sort of sale, in that [the gifted object] is all but detached from the owner, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to human beings so that with it they will judge according to human reason – not as it was when it was under His tutelage.15This paraphrase of Esther 2:20 compares the Torah before it was given to Israel with Esther while still being raised in Mordechai’s home. The idea is that before it was given to human beings, the Torah was unaffected by human concerns and psychological impulses. It was understood through pure, divine reason. This recalls Shabbat 88b–89a, wherein the angels wish to keep the Torah in heaven, and Moses must debate them to show that the Torah addresses human needs and concerns.*[R. Salanter’s footnote:] For “it is not in heaven” (Deut. 30:12) where [to understand Torah one would need] to reveal secrets; rather whatever a person strives to know using the methods of proof – this is the Torah of God, blessed be He, itself. (See Temura 16a: “Three thousand rulings were forgotten [when Moses died]…. They said to Joshua: ‘Ask [for prophetic restoration].’ He said to him: ‘It is not in heaven….’ In a baraita it was taught: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori arguments were forgotten…but Othniel ben Kenaz recovered them [with cognitive effort].” See further there.)
As to whether the heavens can resolve a dispute, this hinges on the two answers of Tosafot (Yevamot 14a). The Gemara there says: “The view that (the School of Shammai) acted (in accordance with their own views) [even after the heavenly voice ruled according to the School of Hillel] follows R. Yehoshua, who says: ‘We pay no attention to a heavenly voice.’” Tosafot state: Why do we not follow the heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of R. Eliezer [Bava Metzia 59b] and instead say in all places that he is a Shammaite and the law does not follow his view – yet it is through the heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of the School of Hillel that we establish that the law follows the view of the School of Hillel!? We can answer: The heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of R. Eliezer only due to his honor [after he said, “Let it be demonstrated from heaven!” the heavens issued a voice in his honor, not really to rule according to his view]…. Alternatively: The halakha certainly does not follow the heavenly voice that went against the majority – for the Rabbis were the majority. However, in the case of the School of Hillel’s heavenly voice, we have established that the School of Hillel was the majority, but that the School of Shammai was sharper.
According to the first answer of Tosafot, the Torah is still in heaven, even if only one person in the whole world states it, and the majority disagree with him. [Note that in R. Salanter’s view, a heavenly voice will not intervene, using the authority of revelation to decide the ruling, if no human being holds that position. It will only speak if at least one individual holds this view.] According to the second answer, it is only still “in heaven” to add weight to it in a case of almost complete stalemate; for instance, when one side has the majority and the other is keener, the heavens strengthen one side in order to tip the scales. But according to R. Yehoshua, it is not in heaven at all – not even to give some extra weight to one side.
According to what we have said about reason and sentiment, we can see clearly that the matter is thus [i.e., that according to R. Yehoshua, the principle that the Torah “is not in heaven” totally negates the weight of a heavenly voice in any context]. (This answers the objection of Tosafot where they stated: “Perhaps R. Yehoshua only there said, ‘We pay no mind [to a heavenly voice],’ but generally he does not hold this view….” See further there.) For it is the way of reason to guard itself from all forms of sentimental [that is, emotion-driven] judgment (as said above). The more one argues with someone else rationally, the more on guard one must be to avoid the emotionality likely to stem from the force of the love of victory, which may snuff out the light of reason.
One sign that reason is proceeding alone according to its path is when a person listens attentively to the evidence that supports the view of his opponent, even if it is not compelling, in a state of calm tranquility, without sentiment. And if he must resort to sentiment to combat the sentiment of the opponent, he should leave it until later, so that reason can proceed securely on its path.16[See R. Salanter’s point above (starting at n. 49) about “considered judgment” (“shikul hadaat”) as well as our discussion in n. 43. We have seen that R. Salanter offers a third approach, between objectivity and self-interested subjectivity. Here he describes the importance of allowing the expression of multiple or contradictory viewpoints and listening attentively to them. When each listens to the other as openly as possible, without emotionally digging in to defend his own position, they can arrive at “considered judgment” that is relatively free of distortion by psychological factors, even if the parties remain in disagreement.]
We see this in R. Yehoshua who, after all the great and terrific debate he had with R. Eliezer, stood up on his feet (which is a charismatic mode [that evokes sentiment], for those who understand its methods a bit) and said: “We pay no mind to a heavenly voice.” We learn from this that R. Yehoshua holds the view that “it is not in heaven” at all – not even to give weight to one side. It is not even the beginning of a proof. Therefore, he used sentiment to counter the emotional excitation of the students, upon whom the sublime light of true reason had not yet shined. They were prone to be affected by something of such great magnitude as a heavenly voice – though by qualitative criteria, according to R. Yehoshua, “it is not in heaven,” at all, even just to tip the scales. (See Derashot HaRan, Homily 7, which addresses the Talmud’s story [Bava Metzia 86a] about Rabba bar Naḥmani resolving a dispute between God and the heavenly academy.)
וּבָזֶה יִתְבָּאֵר עִנְיַן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, וּבַל נִשְׁתּוֹמֵם עַל הַמַּרְאֶה, אֵיךְ נוֹלַד הַדָּבָר וּמַה סִּבָּתָהּ, מַדּוּעַ תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל יַסְכִּימוּ לָרֹב כָּל חֲבוּרָה לְדֵעָה אַחַת, וּמָה עִנְיַן חֲבוּרָה לָזֶה, כִּי סִבַּת מַחְלָקְתָּם הָיְתָה מִשִּׁנּוּי מֶזֶג כֹּחוֹת נַפְשָׁם, אֲשֶׁר אֵין בְּיַד הָאָדָם לְהַפְרִישָׁם מִשִּׂכְלוֹ (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל), וְאֵין לְכָל חוֹקֵר בְּתוֹרַת ה', אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת, לְאַחַר הַיְכֹלֶת, וּשְׁמִירַת עֶרְכּוֹ לְבַל יִפָּרֵץ גְּבוּלוֹ, וּבְטָהֳרַת שִׂכְלוֹ לְפִי כֹּחַ הָאֱנוֹשִׁי אֲשֶׁר עַל פִּי רֹב, בְּנֵי הַחֲבוּרָה כֹּחוֹת נַפְשָׁם יִצְעֲדוּ בְּמִצְעָד שָׁוֶה, וְהוּא מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵם, כִּי אֵין סְתִירָה בַּכֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל), וְאִם כִּי כֹּחוֹת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם יִשְׁתַּנּוּ בְּכָל עֵת, לֹא יִפֹּל שִׁנּוּי בְּדַעַת שֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם (הַמְטַהֵר שִׂכְלוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַיָּשָׁר) מִצַּד כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, כִּי שִׁנּוּי בְּכֹחוֹת הַנֶּפשׁ יָבוֹא מִפְּאַת הִתְעוֹרְרוּת עִנְיָן אוֹ רַעְיוֹן מָה:
With this, the matter of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel is explained. We should not be astonished at this sight, at how it came to be and what caused it, at why the majority of the students of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree unanimously within their own group – for why should the group matter in this regard? Rather, the reason for their disagreement was rooted in their different psychological temperaments, which a person cannot distinguish from his intellect (as mentioned above). No one who delves into the “Torah of God” has anything but what his eyes perceive, so after [applying] his ability, maintaining his worth so that he does not breach his limits, purifying his intellect as much as humanly possible, in the main, the psychological forces of members of the same group will march in lockstep.17Hence, each Shammaite and Hillelite came to the same conclusion as their whole fellowship, and their perceptions and conclusions, filtered through their temperaments, are thus legitimate interpretations of “the Torah of God.” This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: “These and those are the words of the Living God,”18Eiruvin 13b. for there are no true contradictions between psychological drives19I.e., because they reflect the differing temperaments of their articulators, the contradictory conclusions are both nevertheless true. (as mentioned above). Even though a person’s psychological drives change all the time, there will be no change of view in the intellect of a person (who purifies his reason in the right way) resulting from psychological drives, for changes in psychological drives come from the stimulus of a new situation or a new idea.
וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הָאָדָם וְחוֹבָתוֹ, לַחְתֹּר בְּכָל עֹז לִהְיוֹת כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ נָחִים וּשְׁקֵטִים בְּעֵת עִיּוּנוֹ בְּדָבָר שִׂכְלִי, וּבְמַצַּב שְׁקִיטַת הַכֹּחוֹת כִּמְעַט שָׁוִים הֵמָּה בְּכָל עֵת, וּבִפְרָט לָאָדָם הַשָּׁלֵם הַשּׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ מֵהִתְעוֹרְרוּת חֲזָקוֹת אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְשׁוּ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ כֹּחוֹת עֲלוּלִים לְהִתְחַלֵּף תָּמִיד:
This is the Torah of a human and his obligation: to strive with all his might that his psychological drives be dormant and quieted when he studies an intellectual matter. In this state of quieted forces, [the conclusions of the intellect] will almost always be the same, especially for a wholesome person who protects his psyche from strong stimuli that implant in his psyche drives that are likely to change continually.
וְעַל פִּי זֶה נִרְאֶה מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ (עֵרוּבִין ז') כִּי לֹא עָבְדִינַן כְּחֻמְרֵי דְּבֵי תְּרֵי הֵיכָא דְּסָתְרֵי אַהֲדָדֵי, כְּגוֹן שִׁדְרָה וְגֻלְגֹּלֶת כוּ', אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא סָתְרֵי אַהֲדָדֵי עָבְדִינַן, עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְכֵן גַּם בִּתְרֵי קוֹלֵי, הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא אִם יֵשׁ לְצָרֵף דַּעְתּוֹ (אִם הוּא רָאוּי לְכָךְ) לְהַכְרִיעַ בַּדָבָר, אֲבָל בְּלִי זֶה הִיא סְתִירָה גְּמוּרָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת לִפְעָמִים כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְלִפְעָמִים כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיְּסוֹד מַחְלָקְתָּם נוֹבֵעַ מִסִּבָּה אַחַת, כִּי גַּם מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ שָׁם, הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עוֹשֶׂה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל עוֹשֶׂה, הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא אִם בְּיָדוֹ לְהַכְרִיעַ, (כַּמְבֹאָר בְּחֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט סִימָן כ"ה סָעִיף ב' בַּהַגָּהָ"ה), וְאַל יֹאמַר הָאָדָם אֶפְסֹק כְּמִי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם. מַה נּוֹרָא הַחִזָּיוֹן הַזֶּה לַמַּעֲמִיק בְּדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הַפּוֹסְקִים זַ"ל, לַחְתֹּר וּלְחַפֵּשׂ סִבַּת מַחְלָקְתָּם, וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר מִמְּקוֹר שִׁנּוּי מַצַּב כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹתָם יָצְאוּ, לְהַכְנִיסָם בִּבְרִית יַחַד בַּל יִפָּרֵדוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּקוּלֵי דְּבֵי תֵּי, גַּם אִם לֹא יִסְתְּרוּ אַהֲדָדֵי בְּעַצְמוּתָם, אִם לֹא תִּמָּצֵא לוֹ הַכְרָעָה אוֹ צֵרוּף דֵּעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת. (עַד כָּאן הֶעָרָה):
Based on this, we can understand what [the Sages] said (Eiruvin 7a): “We do not follow the stringencies of two schools when they contradict one another, as in the case of the spinal column and skull20The Mishna records a dispute between the houses of Hillel and Shammai regarding how much must be missing from a corpse in order for it not to impart ritual impurity to anything under the same roof. In the case of a spine, the School of Shammai maintains that if it is missing two vertebrae, it does not impart impurity, whereas the School of Hillel maintains that even if it is missing only one vertebra, it can no longer impart impurity to anything under the same roof. In the case of a skull, the School of Hillel requires a larger missing piece (large enough to kill a human) than the School of Shammai (the size of a drill hole) to lose the power to impart impurity to the whole tent or house. Thus, there are two cases, one in which the School of Shammai is lenient, and one in which the School of Hillel is lenient. The Talmud then cites Rav Yehuda saying in the name of Shmuel that the two schools hold the same views with respect to determining whether an animal is a tereifa (i.e., suffering from a mortal injury and therefore forbidden to eat even if properly slaughtered). However, in this case, the school that adopts the larger size is taking the more lenient view. For instance, the school which maintains that a corpse missing one vertebra no longer imparts ritual purity to anything under the same roof – the more lenient view – would also maintain that an animal found to be missing one vertebra is not kosher – the more stringent view. Here, since the two disputes are really one, adopting the stringencies of both schools would be logically inconsistent, a self-contradiction.…but where they do not contradict each other, we may [follow the stringencies of both].” See further there. The same is true with two lenient opinions. However, this applies only if we can add his own opinion (if he is worthy) to decide the matter.21The implication of the Gemara is that if adopting the stringencies or leniencies of the two schools does not create an inherent contradiction, one may do so. R. Salanter qualifies that this applies only to one who is worthy of rendering halakhic decisions and has an independent view on this matter. That is, a person, having studied Torah deeply, may find himself agreeing with the School of Shammai on some issues and the School of Hillel on other issues; this is perfectly legitimate as long as he does not adopt self-contradictory views, and as long as he is worthy of making halakhic decisions. Without this, it is a complete contradiction to follow the School of Shammai sometimes and the School of Hillel sometimes – since the basis of their conflicting views flows from one cause.22One who is not worthy of rendering independent halakhic positions must rely on the decisions of others. Such a person must consistently follow either the School of Hillel or the School of Shammai, as any mixing and matching would be self-contradictory. For what [the Sages] said there,23Eiruvin 6b. “One who wishes to act according to the words of the School of Shammai may; according to the words of the School of Hillel – may,” also applies specifically to one who is capable of deciding (as explained in Ḥoshen Mishpat 25:2, in [Rema’s] gloss). And let a person not say: I will rule according to whomever I please in a matter in which there is a disagreement…. See further there. What an awesome spectacle for one who delves deeply into the words of our Rabbis, the codifiers, of blessed memory, plumbing and seeking the root cause of their disagreement – and those [disagreements] which emerged from their psychological differences are brought together into a covenant; they shall not be divided to follow the leniencies of both, even if they are not in essence contradictory, unless one is capable of deciding or can combine other views.
הַשֵּׂכֶל יְגַלֶּה תַּעֲלוּמוֹת חָכְמָה סִתְרֵי צְפוּנִים, יְעוֹרֵר הַדַּעַת וְהַמְזִמָּה לַחֲקֹר וְלִשְׁאֹל, וִיבָרֵר דְּבָרִים הַמְסֻפָּקִים. הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, יְסוּדָתָהּ לְפַתֵּחַ טִמְטוּם הַלֵּב, לִשְׁפֹּךְ בָּהּ מֵי תְּבוּנָתוֹ, אֶת אֲשֶׁר נוֹדַע לְהָאָדָם, אָכֵן בְּקִרְבּוֹ לֹא בָּאָה, בָּזֹאת, כַּאֲשֶׁר לִמּוּד הַיְשָׁרַת דַּרְכֵי הַמִּדּוֹת וְטָהֳרַת כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת, נִפְרָדִים הֵמָּה מִלִּמּוּד כָּל תּוֹרָה וְחָכְמָה, יַעַן בָּהֶם הַיְדִיעָה וְאָדָם הַיּוֹדְעָם שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים הֵמָּה, וְהַיְדִיעוֹת הֵמָּה רַק צְפוּנוֹת בְּקֶרֶב הָאָדָם, וּבָזֶה קָנָה הָאָדָם שְׁלֵמוּתוֹ לְהַנְהִיג דְּרָכָיו עַל פִּי יְדִיעוֹתָיו הַנְּכוֹחוֹת וְהַיְשָׁרוֹת. לֹא כֵן בִּדְבַר הַיְשָׁרַת דַּרְכֵי הַמִּדּוֹת וְטָהֳרַת כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת, אֲשֶׁר לֹא עַל פִּי יְדִיעָתָם בִּלְבַד יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם, לְנַהֵל מַעֲשָׂיו בַּמִּישׁוֹר דַּרְכֵי לִמּוּדֵיהֶם, אִם לֹא קִנְּנוּ הַיְדִיעוֹת בִּלְבָבוֹ. וּקְשׁוּרִים וּצְמוּדִים בְּהָאָדָם יִהְיוּ לַאֲחָדִים. זֶה מִשְׁפַּט לְקִיחָתָם עַל יְדֵי תּוֹרַת הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, אֲשֶׁר זֶה דַּרְכָּהּ וְחֵילָהּ לְהַנִּיחַ בְּרָכָה בְּקֶרֶב הָאָדָם, וְגַם אַחַר הִסְתַּלְּקוּתָהּ, לֹא תַּעֲלֶה בַּתֹּהוּ וְתֹאבַד, כִּי אִם תַּשְׁאִיר אַחֲרֶיהָ אֵיזֶה עוֹלְלוֹת נִסְפָּחִים אֶל הָאָדָם. וְהָיָה בִּרְבוֹת עֵסֶק הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, (וּבִפְרָט בַּסֵּדֶר הַמֻּכְשָׁר לְפִי תְּכוּנַת הָאָדָם וּמַצָּבוֹ), כֵּן גַּם הָעוֹלְלוֹת יִתְרַבּוּ וְיִתְחַזְּקוּ לְהָפִיק מֶזֶג הָאָדָם לְטוֹב:
Reason discovers the mysteries of wisdom, the hidden secrets.24After an extensive excursus, R. Salanter returns to his exploration of the differences between using reason and sentiment to ascertain the truth of Torah. It arouses the mind and the initiative to inquire and question, and it clarifies uncertain matters. The fundamental [purpose] of sentiment25Sentiment – what we would call emotion, feeling, excitement, etc. – is the vehicle by which one internalizes one’s rational knowledge and enables it to affect character. In this passage, R. Salanter describes the process and method, hitpaalut (or “hispailus” in the pronunciation of the Mussar yeshivot), by which one attains emotional knowledge, wherein the acquired knowledge becomes part of the learners’ core being and can thus shape their character and psyche. is to break through the stultification of the heart, to pour into it the waters of his understanding – that which a person knows but has not yet internalized. Thus, the study of straightening the ways of the character traits and of the purification of the psychological drives is different from the study of all Torah and wisdom. In the latter, the knowledge and the person who knows it are two different things. The knowledge is merely stored inside a person. A person achieves wholeness by guiding his ways according to his upright and undistorted knowledge.
Not so in the matter of straightening out the ways of the character traits and purification of the psychological drives. A person cannot live by knowing them alone,26Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. guiding his actions to align with what he learned, unless this knowledge has nestled into his heart; they are connected and joined to the person, becoming as one. This is the principle of their acquisition through the Torah of sentiment. This is its path and its strength, to have a blessed effect internally in the person.27Compare Isaiah 19:24. Even after [the emotional excitation] has passed, it does not evaporate into nothingness and get lost. Rather, it leaves behind at least some unripe growth attached to the person, so when the effort through sentiment is increased (particularly in a systematic way, prepared according to the nature of the person and his condition), the immature growth increases and strengthens, affecting the temperament of the person positively.
וּבָזֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַכָּתוּב (מִשְׁלֵי ב') בְּנִי אִם תִּקַּח אֲמָרַי וּמִצְוֹתַי תִּצְפֹּן אִתְּךָ כוּ'. כִּי נוֹדַע שֶׁתּוֹרַת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ נֶחֱלֶקֶת לִשְׁנֵי סוּגִים כּוֹלְלִים: הָאֶחָד, הֵמָּה מִצְוֹתָיו חֻקָּיו וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ. וְהַשֵּׁנִי, יֶתֶר הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר יְסוֹדָהּ לִדְלוֹת מִמַּעֲמַקֵּי צְפוּנִים יֹשֶׁר דַּרְכֵי הַמִּדּוֹת וְטָהֳרַת כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת, עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִכְסְפוּ רַק הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי אֱלֹהִים וְאָדָם. זֶהוּ, אִם תִּקַּח אֲמָרַי, הֵמָּה סוּג הַשֵּׁנִי אֲשֶׁר יְסוֹדָם שֶׁיִּקְנֶה הָאָדָם דַּרְכֵי לִמּוּדֵיהֶם בְּדֶרֶךְ קִנְיָן, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הוּא וְהֵם דָּבָר אֶחָד, וּמִצְוֹתַי תִּצְפֹּן אִתְּךָ, הֵמָּה סוּג הָאֶחָד, אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה רַק בְּדֶרֶךְ יְדִיעָה לְהַצְפִּינָם בְּקִרְבּוֹ (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל):
With this we can explain the verse (Prov. 2:1): “My son, if you will take my sayings and store my commandments with you….” It is known that the Torah of God, blessed be His name, can be divided into two broad types: The first consists of His (blessed be His name) commandments, decrees, and laws. The second is the rest of the Torah, whose fundamental purpose is to draw up, from the hidden depths, the integrity of the virtuous paths and the purification of psychological drives until they long only for what is good in the eyes of God and man. Thus: “If you will take my sayings” – these are the second type, whose fundamental purpose is for a person to acquire their ways of learning as a possession,28The plain meaning of the Hebrew tikaḥ, which appears in the first part of the verse, is “take”; R. Salanter interprets the verse according to a different sense of the work tikaḥ, namely, to buy or acquire, and relates it to those “sayings” of God that must be internalized. such that he and they will be one. “And store my commandments with you” – these are the first type, which are merely stored within him as information (as mentioned above).
הַשֵּׂכֶל, זֶה כֹּחוֹ וּמַעֲלָתוֹ לְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט עַל כָּל גְּדוֹתָיו לְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּרַחֲבָה, לְחַפֵּשׂ וּלְבַקֵּר עַל כָּל צִדֵּי צְדָדִים. לֹא כֵן הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, זֶה דַּרְכָּם לְקַוֵּץ כָּל כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ, אֶל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו יוֹרֶה זִקֵּי הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת, עַד אֲשֶׁר כִּמְעַט כָּל יֶתֶר כֹּחוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ שְׁכוּחִים וְנִכְבִּים לִשְׁעָתוֹ, לְפִי עֶרֶךְ חֹזֶק הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת:
The power and superiority of reason is [expressed] in its overflowing all its banks and spreading out, seeking and investigating every last aspect. Not so sentiment; its manner is to focus all his psychological force on the object at which sentiment shoots its arrows, to where practically all his other psychological drives are temporarily forgotten and extinguished, depending on the magnitude of the sentiment.
כֵּן גַּם בִּפְנִימִיּוּת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם וּמַחֲבוֹאֶיהָ, אֲשֶׁר הַכֹּחוֹת הַמֻּשְׁרָשִׁים בָּהּ, הֵמָּה הַצִּירִים הַחֲזָקִים אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶם תִּסּוֹב דֶּלֶת מַעֲשֵׂי הָאָדָם וּמַאֲוַיָּיו (כַּאֲשֶׁר בֵּאַרְנוּ לְעֵיל), גַּם שָׁמָּה תָּנוּחַ כֹּחַ הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת (אִם שֶׁכִּמְעַט אֵינוֹ נִכָּר וְאֵינוֹ נִרְגָּשׁ), לְהַגְבִּיר כֹּחַ אֶחָד, עַד אֲשֶׁר יֶתֶר הַכֹּחוֹת נִדְּחִים מִלְּפָנָיו, וְכִמְעַט נִכְבִּים הֵמָּה (עַד לְעֵת מְצוֹא, בְּבוֹא עֲלֵיהֶם רוּחַ הִתְעוֹרְרוּת לַהֲקִיצָם שֶׁיִּתְפַּשְּׁטוּ, אָז יִרְאוּ וְנוֹדְעוּ). לָזֹאת, אֵין לְהִתְפַּלֵּא עַל הַמִּתְגָּאֶה עַל בְּנֵי גִּילוֹ, עִם גֹּדֶל חֶסְרוֹנוֹתָיו וּקְטַנּוּת עֶרְכּוֹ, אֵיךְ נִהְיְתָה, כִּי מֵאַהֲבַת הָאָדָם שִׁבְחוֹ, הִיא הִיא הִתְפַּעֲלוּתוֹ, לְהַגְבִּיר כֹּחַ שִׁבְחוֹ, לִדְחוֹת כֹּחַ חֶסְרוֹנוֹתָיו וּלְכַבּוֹתָם כַּלִּיל מֵהֶרְגֵּשׁ נַפְשׁוֹ. גַּם תַּאֲוַת הַיִּתְרוֹן עַל זוּלָתוֹ, מְקָרֵב אֶל נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְפַּעֲלוּתוֹ אֶת חֶסְרוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ, וְנִגְבַּר כֹּחוֹ לְהַדְעִיךְ כֹּחַ הֶרְגֵּשׁ מַעֲלַת חֲבֵרוֹ, וּמִמֵּילָא הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, רַק שֶׁבַח עַצְמוֹ וְחֶסְרוֹן זוּלָתוֹ. וּבָזֶה הַגַּאֲוַה מְלֵאָה כָּל בָּתֵּי נַפְשׁוֹ בְּלִי הֶרְגֵּשׁ. כֵּן הָאָדָם, רַב חֵילוֹ לְהַגְדִּיל הִתְפַּעֲלוּת בְּנַפְשׁוֹ עַל חֶסְרוֹנוֹתָיו, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִדָּחוּ מִלִּפְנֵיהֶם כֹּחַ שִׁבְחוֹ וִיכַבּוּ אֶת הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, וְכָל אֲשֶׁר תּוֹסִיף הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת תֵּת כֹּחַ בְּחֶסְרוֹנוֹתָיו, כֵּן לְעֻמַּת זֶה שָׁכֹחַ יִשְׁכַּח מִמֶּנּוּ הֶרְגֵּשׁ מַעֲלוֹתָיו. זֹאת תּוֹרַת דַּרְכֵי קְנִיַּת הָעֲנָוָה וְזֶה מִשְׁפָּטָהּ בִּכְלָל:
So it is deep within the human psyche and its hidden alleys; the forces rooted therein are the strong hinges on which the door of a person’s actions and desires swings (as we explained above).29See Letter 6. There, too, the force of sentiment will alight (even though it is barely discernible and not felt) to intensify one force, until the rest of the psychological forces are pushed aside by it and they are almost snuffed out (until the opportune moment, when a spirit of arousal comes upon them to awaken them to spread out – then they are seen and known).30Note that in this letter, R. Salanter has shifted the role of sentiment in learning from a general Mussar method that can be used in all areas so that the learning can have a greater impact and be internalized, to a technique used primarily in character development. So one should not be surprised that someone might take pride in himself over his peers despite his great shortcomings and little value: for a person’s love of being praised – this is his sentimentality – amplifies the power of such praise and pushes aside the power of his [awareness of] his shortcomings, completely eliminating them from his conscious perception. Likewise, one’s lust for superiority over the other disposes his psyche, in its state of sentimental agitation, to [perceive] his friend’s shortcomings. Its power is amplified, crushing his ability to perceive his friend’s qualities. Consequently, he consciously perceives only his own praiseworthiness and the shortcomings of the other. Thus, pride fills all the chambers of his soul, unnoticed.
By the same token, a person is perfectly capable of amplifying his sentimental agitation about his own shortcomings, until they push aside the force of his [love of] praise and extinguish it from his conscious perception; the more his sentiments strengthen his [awareness of] his shortcomings, the more his sense of superiority is forgotten. This is the Torah of how to acquire humility, and this is its general principle.
וּבָזֶה יִתְבָּאֵר מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (בְּרָכוֹת לב:) הֲתִשְׁכַּח אִשָּׁה עֻלָּהּ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא כְּלוּם אֶשְׁכַּח עוֹלוֹת אֵילִים וּפִטְרֵי רְחָמִים שֶׁהִקְרַבְתָּ לְפָנַי בַּמִּדְבָּר, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם הוֹאִיל וְאֵין שִׁכְחָה לִפְנִי כִּסֵּא כְּבוֹדֶךָ, שֶׁמָּא לֹא תִּשְׁכַּח לִי מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל, אָמַר לָהּ גַּם אֵלֶּה תִשָּׁכַחְנָה כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם. כִּי יָדוּעַ, שֶׁמִּדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא מִדָּה כְּנֶגֶד מִדָּה, (בְּשִׂכְלִי וְלֹא בְּדִמְיוֹנִי, בְּאֵיכוּת וְלֹא בְּכַמּוּת), וּכְשֶׁהָאָדָם אוֹחֵז דַּרְכֵי הַצֶּדֶק לְפַקֵּחַ וּלְהִתְעַמֵּל שֶׁיִּשְׁכַּח מַעֲלוֹתָיו, גַּם הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא כִּבְיָכוֹל גּוֹמֵל חַסְדּוֹ לִשְׁכֹּחַ חֶסְרוֹנוֹתָיו. אָכֵן צִדְקַת מַעֲשָׂיו הַטּוֹבִים נִזְכָּרִים לְפָנָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאָדָם זוֹכֵר פְּחִיתוּתוֹ. זֶהוּ (לְפִי הַדְּרָשׁ הֲתִשְׁכַּח אִשָּׁה עֻלָּהּ, כַּאֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁכַּח כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹלוֹת אֵילִים שֶׁהִקְרִיבָה בַּמִּדְבָּר, הַנּוֹבֵעַ מִתִּגְבֹּרֶת הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת לִזְכֹּר מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל), גַּם אֵלֶּה תִּשָּׁכַחְנָה, כִּבְיָכוֹל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא שׁוֹכֵחַ מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל וְזוֹכֵר הָעוֹלוֹת, זֶהוּ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא כְּלוּם אֶשְׁכַּח עוֹלוֹת אֵילִים וּפִטְרֵי רְחָמִים וְכוּ':
This explains the adage of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Berakhot 32b): “‘Can a woman forget her nursing child (ulah)? [Would she not have mercy (meraḥem) the child of her womb?]’31Isaiah 49:15. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Can I forget the burnt offerings (olot) of rams and firstborns (pitrei reḥem) that you brought before Me in the desert?’ [The community of Israel] said: ‘Since there is no forgetting before Your Throne of Glory,32Compare Zikhronot/Remembrances section of the Rosh HaShana Musaf prayer. perhaps You will never forget the making of the [golden] calf?’ He replied: ‘Even these will be forgotten….’33The continuation of Isaiah 49:15.” See further there.
It is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, metes out [reward and punishment] quid pro quo (rationally, not imaginatively; qualitatively, not quantitatively). When a person clings to the ways of righteousness, self-analyzing and struggling to forget his own virtues, then the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, returns his loving-kindness and forgets his shortcomings. The righteousness of his good deeds is remembered before Him, blessed be He, because the person remembers his own defectiveness. This is (according to the midrash on “Can a woman forget her nursing child?” – when the community of Israel forgets the burnt offerings of rams they brought in the desert, which stemmed from the increase of their sentimental agitation to remember the deed of the Golden Calf), the meaning of “even these will be forgotten.” The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, forgets the making of the Golden Calf and remembers the burnt offerings. Thus: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Can I forget the burnt offerings of rams and firstborns…?’”
כֵּן גַּם בְּכָל דַּרְכֵי תִּקּוּן הַמִּדּוֹת, אִם יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ הָאָדָם בְּתוֹרַת לִמּוּד הַהִתְפַּעֲלוּת אֲשֶׁר יַשְׁאִירוּ בְּרָכָה בְּקִרְבּוֹ (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל), לְהַשְׁרִישׁ הִתְפַּעֲלוּת צְפוּנוֹת בִּלְבָבוֹ וְיֶעֶבְתוּ הַרְבֵּה (מֵרִבּוּי הַלִּמּוּד וְהָעֵסֶק בְּסֵדֶר נָכוֹן לְפִי תְּכוּנָתוֹ), עַד אֲשֶׁר יִתְאַחֲדוּ בְּהָאָדָם וְיִתְקְעוּ יָתֵד נֶאֱמָן לְטֶבַע קַיָּם עַל יְדֵי רִבּוּי הַהֶרְגֵּל בְּהִתְנַהֲגוּתָם בְּפֹעַל, (כַּמְבֹאָר בְּדִבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"ם בְּהִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת), אָז אֵין עָרֹךְ לְגֶדֶר עֲלִיָּתָם הַגָּבֹהּ לְמַעְלָה מִשֵּׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי, כִּשְׁאָר תְּכוּנַת טִבְעֵי מִזְגֵי הָאָדָם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקִּיפָם הַשֵּׂכֶל, וּבָזֶה רוּחַ הָאָדָם עוֹלָה לְמַעְלָה. כֵּן תֵּרֵד חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לְמַטָּה, עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא תַּרְגִּישׁ בְּרָעָתָהּ, מֵרִבּוּי הִתְפַּעֲלוּת הַתַּאֲוָה, אֲשֶׁר תַּשְׁאִיר שָׁרְשָׁהּ לְעַוֵּת נֶפֶשׁ מִטָּהֳרָה. לָזֹאת, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן הָאָדָם אֶל לִבּוֹ לַחְפֹּץ חַיִּים (חַיֵּי הַשֵּׂכֶל, כִּי כָּל חַי מַרְגִּישׁ), זֹאת יַעֲשֶׂה, יִלְמֹד מַאַמְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל הַמְדַבְּרִים מִכִּשְׁרוֹן הַמִּדּוֹת וְחַיֵּי הַנִּצְחִי, וְיַחֲזֹר עֲלֵיהֶם כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים לְהִתְפַּעֵל בִּשְׁעָתָם:
So it is with all the processes of sublimation: If a person uses the method of training the sentiments, which will result in his being blessed (as mentioned above) to imbue sentiment into the hidden recesses of the heart, they will grow more robust (as a result of increased study and engaging in it in the right order, according to his own nature), to the point that they will be joined together in the person and form a steady anchor within one’s existing nature through repeated conditioning of behavior (as explained in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Moral Dispositions). Then there is no limit to the boundaries of their ascent beyond human reason – just as with the other qualities of the nature of human temperaments, which reason cannot encompass. Thus, the human spirit is raised up,34Compare Ecclesiastes 3:21. and so it can also sink down, God forbid, to the extent that it does not sense its own wickedness, because of the repeated excitation of lust, which will sink roots that corrupt a soul from its purity. So, when a person commits himself to desire life (the life of reason, for every living thing feels35But only humans can exercise reason.), he should do the following: He should learn sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, which deal with training the character traits and with eternal life, and go over them several times so that they affect his sentiments in that moment.
אַל יִפֹּל לִבּוֹ בִּרְאוֹתוֹ כִּי לֹא נִשְׁאַר שׁוּם רֹשֶׁם בִּלְבָבוֹ, וְיֵדַע נֶאֱמָנָה, כִּי הִתְפַּעֲלוּתוֹ לֹא עָלְתָה בַּתֹּהוּ, רַק הִנִּיחָה בְּרָכָה בִּלְתִּי נִרְגֶּשֶׁת לְחוּשֵׁי בָּשָׂר, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִרְבּוּ, וְאָז יַכּוּ שֹׁרֶשׁ לְהוֹצִיא פְּרִי צֶדֶק, וְכַאֲשֶׁר רְסִיסֵי מַיִם, אִם יֵרְדוּ טִיף טִיף עַל הָאֶבֶן יָמִים וְשָׁנִים הַרְבֵּה, יִשְׁחֲקוּהָ, אִם שֶׁבַּטִּפָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא הָיָה נִרְאֶה וְנִרְגָּשׁ, כֵּן מַאַמְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל עַל לֵב הָאֶבֶן, יַהֲפֹךְ בָּם לְמַרְבֶּה, וִיפַלְּחוּ לְבָבוֹ:
One should not be disheartened when he sees that no impression is left in his heart. He should know with certainty that his hitpaalut [his sentimental affectation] was not fruitless; rather, it left blessing36I.e., a positive effect. that cannot be discerned by the physical senses until they grow, at which point they strike roots to bring forth righteous fruit. As drops of water, if they fall drop by drop on a stone for many days and years, will wear a stone away – even though in the first drop this was neither seen nor felt – so the sayings of the Sages, of blessed memory, will affect a heart of stone. One should constantly turn them over, and they will plow his heart.37I.e., prepare it for cultivation.
אוּלַי הוּא מַאֲמַר חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (אָבוֹת דְּרַבִּי נָתָן פֶּרֶק ו') וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: מֶה הָיְתָה תְּחִלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרוּ בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה הָיָה וְלֹא שָׁנָה כְּלוּם, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיָה עוֹמֵד עַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר, אָמַר מִי חָקַק אֶבֶן זוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ הַמַּיִם שֶׁתָּדִיר נוֹפְלִים עָלֶיהָ בְּכָל יוֹם, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עֲקִיבָא, אִי אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אֲבָנִים שָׁחֲקוּ מַיִם. מִיָּד הָיָה דָּן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קַל וָחֹמֶר בְּעַצְמוֹ, מָה רַךְ פָּסַל אֶת הַקָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה שֶׁקָּשָׁה כַּבַּרְזֶל, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיַּחְקְקוּ אֶת לִבִּי שֶׁהוּא בָּשָׂר וָדָם, מִיָּד חָזַר לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם. כִּי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּרְאוֹתוֹ בִּתְחִלַּת לִמּוּדוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא הֶרְגֵּשׁ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, וְיַכֵּהוּ לְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר: לַשָּׁוְא יִתְעַמֵּל (כִּי אִם אֵין יִרְאָה אֵין חָכְמָה), לַתֹּהוּ וָהֶבֶל יִכְלֶה כֹּחוֹ חַס וְחָלִילָה. אָכֵן בִּרְאוֹתוֹ, כִּי אֲבָנִים שָׁחֲקוּ מַיִם, אִם כִּי לֹא נִרְגַּשׁ בִּתְחִלָּה, אָזַר עֹז וּגְבוּרָה לְחַזֵּק אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ, כִּי טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ:
Perhaps this is the meaning of the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory (Avot DeRabbi Natan, ch. 6): “What was the origin of R. Akiva? They said: He was forty years old and had not studied at all. Once he was standing by a well. He said: ‘Who hollowed out this stone?’ They said to him: ‘The water that continually falls on it each day.’ They said to him: ‘Akiva, have you not read [the Scriptural verse], “The stones worn down by water” [Job 14:19]?’ Immediately, R. Akiva reasoned a fortiori: If the soft [water] carved out the hard [stone], then the words of Torah, which are as hard as iron, will certainly impress themselves on my heart, which is only flesh and blood! He immediately returned to study Torah….” See further there. For R. Akiva, at the beginning of his studies [when he was young], saw that his soul was not affected, his heart tormented him, saying: You toil in vain (for if there is no reverence, there is no wisdom). You will use up your strength on vanity and fruitlessness. However, when he saw “the stones worn down by water,” even though the impression was not initially discernible – he girded up his might and courage to strengthen his soul, for “the end of the matter is better than its beginning.”38Compare Ecclesiastes 7:8.
מַה יָּחִיל לֵב הָאָדָם, פַּלָּצוּת תֹּאחֲזֶנּוּ, בְּהִתְבּוֹנְנוֹ, פֶּן חַס וְשָׁלוֹם נִתְּקוּ מוֹרְשֵׁי לְבָבוֹ וְנִתְבַּטֵּל הֶרְגֵּשׁוֹ, אַף גַּם בְּדָבָר אֶחָד, אֲשֶׁר יִוָּדַע לְמַעְלָה, כִּי הוּא בְּגֶדֶר אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה כִּי בְּנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וּכְמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (יַלְקוּט יְחֶזְקֵאל י"ח) שָׁאֲלוּ לַנְּבוּאָה חוֹטֵא מַה הוּא עָנְשׁוֹ, אָמְרָה לָהֶם הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחוֹטֵאת הִיא תָּמוּת וְכוּ', שָׁאֲלוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא, חוֹטֵא מַה עָנְשׁוֹ, אָמַר לָהֶם, יַעֲשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וְיִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם. וּכְאָמְרָם זַ"ל (נִדָּה ע:) כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר (יְחֶזְקֵאל י"ח), כִּי לֹא אֶחְפֹּץ בְּמוֹת הַמֵּת, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר (שְׁמוּאֵל־א' ב'), כִּי חָפֵץ ה' לַהֲמִיתָם, כָּאן בְּעוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה. וּבִפְרָט טְרוּדֵי הַזְּמַן עֲמוּסֵי הַתְּלָאָה, הָעֲלוּלִים מְאֹד לַעֲבֵרוֹת נִשָּׂאוֹת וּבַל יַרְגִּישׁוּ מְאוּמָה, וּבִפְרָט בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, קִנְאָה, שִׂנְאָה, לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, הַלְבָּנַת פָּנִים וּמִרְמַת הָעֵסֶק עַל כֻּלָּנָה, אֲשֶׁר לְבַקֵּשׁ אֹמֶץ הַחַיִּים, מֵהַיָּאוֹת וְהַיָּשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּנֶגְדָּם מִצְוֹת וּדְבָרִים טוֹבִים אֲשֶׁר יַכְרִיעוּ בְּמִשְׁקָלָם, וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה קְשֵׁה יוֹם. אַחַת הִיא מְלָאכָה קַלָּה, אֵינֶנָּה דּוֹרֶשֶׁת דַּעַת צְלוּלָה וְלֹא זְמַן אָרֹךְ, לַחֲזֹר עַל מוּסְרֵי הַחֲכָמִים כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים, עַד אֲשֶׁר תִּתְעוֹרֵר הִתְפַּעֲלוּת בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לִשְׁעָתָהּ, וְאִם גַּם לֹא תִּתֵּן פִּרְיָהּ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לְהֵיטִיב דַּרְכֵי גֶּבֶר, בְּכָל זֹאת בְּסֵפֶר הַחַיִּים יֵחָשֵׁב, בִּהְיוֹתוֹ חַי מַרְגִּישׁ, וּלְכָל אֲשֶׁר יְחֻבַּר אֶל הַחַיִּים יֵשׁ בִּטָּחוֹן, וּבִכְלָל עוֹשֵׂי תְּשׁוּבָה יִמָּנֶה:
How the heart of man will tremble, how terror will seize him, when he considers that, God forbid, the nerves of his heart are severed and his capacity for sentiment has been nullified, if it is known above in Heaven that he is in the category of one who cannot repent – even if in only one matter – and his soul is condemned, God forbid. As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Yalkut, Ezekiel 18): “They asked prophecy: ‘What is the punishment of the sinner?’ She answered: ‘The soul that sins shall die….’ [Ezek. 18:20]. They asked the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘What is the punishment of the sinner?’ He said to them: ‘Let him repent and be forgiven….’” See further there. And they, of blessed memory, said (Nidda 70b): “One verse (Ezek. 18:32) says: ‘For I do not desire the death of the [sinner] who dies,’ and another verse says (I Sam. 2:25): ‘For the Lord sought to put them to death.’ [Isn’t this a contradiction? No. Rather,] this [Ezek. 18:20] deals with those who repent, and that [I Sam. 2:25] deals with those who do not repent.”
Particularly those preoccupied with daily life, burdened by tribulation, are very prone to terrible sins while feeling nothing, especially interpersonal sins: envy, hatred, slander, shaming, and above all cheating in business.39Elsewhere (see for example, Letter 7), R. Salanter generalizes that people who sin become hardened and lose sensitivity. Thus, shaking off sin and then repenting is not just necessary to avoid being punished by God as one who cannot repent, as expressed here, but also shunning evil and turning to good constitutes a reclaiming of zest for life and the revival of emotional life. One must seek the vitality of life from what is proper and correct to offset these tendencies through mitzvot and good deeds that outweigh them. But what shall a working person do?
There is one simple activity, which does not require a clear mind nor a lot of time: to go over Mussar sayings of the Sages repeatedly, until it temporarily awakens sentiment within his soul. Even if it does not bear fruit initially to improve the person’s ways, he will still be considered in the book of the living – since he is still alive and feeling. And as long as he is connected to life, there is security,40“Bitaḥon”; he can trust that he won’t be struck dead as a sinner incapable of repentance. and he is counted among those who have the ability to repent.41R. Salanter believes that people who sin and slip into this unthinking, ongoing, bad pattern lose the capacity for feeling. The habitual sinner, as it were, is “punished” by a loss of feeling and of awareness. That is why he tends to end up in the category of one who will never repent. In turn, his inability to repent evokes a heavenly judgment that he deserves to die. The challenge (and the opportunity) of the sinner is to keep feeling and self-awareness alive, so even though he is in a bad pattern, he is able – maybe even likely – to repent, change, and improve. As R. Salanter said below, the human never loses the free will to change from evil to good, but once he loses his feeling and self-awareness, he is much more likely to sink hopelessly into patterns of wickedness.
וּבָזֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַכָּתוּב (יְחֶזְקֵאל ל"ג) בְּאָמְרִי לָרָשָׁע מוֹת תָּמוּת וְלֹא דִּבַּרְתָּ לְהַזְהִיר רָשָׁע מִדַּרְכּוֹ הוּא רָשָׁע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ יָמוּת וְגוֹ', וְאַתָּה כִּי הִזְהַרְתָּ רָשָׁע מִדַּרְכּוֹ לָשׁוּב מִמֶּנָּה וְלֹא שָׁב מִדַּרְכּוֹ הוּא בַּעֲוֹנוֹ יָמוּת וְגוֹ', וְאַתָּה בֶּן אָדָם אֱמֹר אֶל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כֵּן אֲמַרְתֶּם לֵאמֹר כִּי פְּשָׁעֵינוּ וְחַטְּאֹתֵינוּ עָלֵינוּ וּבָם אֲנַחְנוּ נְמֵקִים וְאֵיךְ נִחְיֶה. אֱמֹר אֲלֵיהֶם חַי אֲנִי וְגוֹ' אִם אֶחְפֹּץ בְּמוֹת הָרָשָׁע כִּי אִם בְּשׁוּב רָשָׁע מִדַּרְכּוֹ וְחָיָה שׁוּבוּ שׁוּבוּ מִדַּרְכֵיכֶם הָרָעִים כוּ', כִּי פֻּרְעָנִיּוּת בָּאָה עַל הָאָדָם עַל יְדֵי שְׁתֵּי בְּחִינוֹת. הָאַחַת אִם נִתְמַלְּאָה סְאָתוֹ, כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (סוֹטָה ט') אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא נִפְרָע מִן הָאָדָם עַד שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא סְאָתוֹ עַיֵּן שָׁם, וְאָז נִקְרָא רָשָׁע (לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאֵר הָרַ"ן בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה (טז:), עַל הָא דִּשְׁלֹשָׁה סְפָרִים נִפְתָּחִים כוּ', רְשָׁעִים כוּ', דְּהַיְנוּ רְשָׁעִים בְּדִין זֶה, עַיֵּן שָׁם), הַשֵּׁנִי אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵטְא, אֲשֶׁר הוּא בְּדִין שָׁמַיִם בִּבְחִינַת אֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, בִּבְחִינַת שִׂכְלִי לְפִי הַקִּשּׁוּר הַמְסוֹבָבִים בְּסִבָּתָם:
With this we can explain the verses (Ezek. 33:8–11):
When I [God] say to the wicked man, “You shall die” – and you have not spoken to warn the wicked man away from his ways – then that wicked man will die for his sin, [but I will hold you responsible for his life].… But if you have warned the wicked man to turn from his way and he did not turn from it, then he will die for his sin [and you will have saved your life].… And you, son of man, say to the House of Israel: You have spoken, saying: “Our sins and transgressions [weigh heavily] upon us, and we pine away in them; how shall we live?” Say to them: “As I [God] live...do I desire the death of the wicked? Rather let the wicked one turn from his way and live. Return, return from your wicked ways….”
For retribution comes to a person in two ways. One is if he has filled up his measure, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Sota 9a): “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact retribution from a person until his measure is filled.” See further there. Then he is called wicked (before God, as Ran explained the notion, in Rosh HaShana [16b], that “three books are opened...the book of the wicked...,” that is, “wicked” with respect to this law; see further there). The second is if he has a sin which, in Heaven’s judgment, places him in the category of one who cannot repent – from a rational perspective, according to the chain of cause and effect.42Seeing the propensity of his addiction to his sin and the weakness of his counter-urges or influences, Heaven judges that he will never repent.
כִּי כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ נוֹפְלִים תַּחַת שְׁנֵי סוּגִים כּוֹלְלִים: הָאֶחָד בְּחִינָה הַטִּבְעִית, אֲשֶׁר הִיא בְּחִינָה הַשִּׂכְלִית, כָּל מְסוֹבֵב נוֹלַד מִסִּבָּתוֹ, וְהַסִּבָּה מִסִּבָּה אַחֶרֶת, עַד בּוֹא הַדָּבָר לַבְּחִינָה. הַשֵּׁנִי וְהוּא מְסוֹבֵב הַבָּא בִּלְתִּי סִבָּה קוֹדֶמֶת (רַק כֵּן גָּזְרָה חָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, וְכֵן גַּם בְּחִינָה הַנִּסִּיִּית, אֲשֶׁר הִיא לְמַעְלָה מִשֵּׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי):
All things done under the sun fall into two general categories. One is the natural, which follows rational criteria: each effect is a product of its cause, and each cause has its cause, until the matter is thoroughly examined. The second is when the effect comes without a preceding cause (only because God’s wisdom, blessed be He, has decreed it – this is also the category of the miraculous, which is beyond human reason).
כֵּן גַּם הַיְדִיעוֹת שְׁנֵי מִינִים הֵמָּה. הָאֶחָד יְדִיעָה מֻחְלֶטֶת שֶׁאֵינֶנָּה נוֹפֶלֶת תַּחַת הַשִּׁנּוּי וְהַתְּמוּרָה. הַשֵּׁנִי יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית לְפִי קִשּׁוּר הַדְּבָרִים, מִסִּבָּה לִמְסוֹבֵב, וְהַמְסוֹבֵב נַעֲשֶׂה סִבָּה לִמְסוֹבֵב אַחֵר, וְכֹה יִתְגַּלְגֵּל הַדָּבָר עַד בּוֹא אֶל הַמְסוֹבֵב הָאַחֲרוֹן. הַיְדִיעָה הַזֹּאת נוֹפֶלֶת תַּחַת הַתְּמוּרָה, כִּי לִפְעָמִים תֵּצֵא דָּבָר מִבְּלִי סִבָּה, אַף אִם סִבָּתָהּ מְנַגֶּדְתָּהּ (הַנִּקְרֵאת בְּחִינָה נִסִּיִּית). הַיְדִיעָה הָאַחַת אֵינֶנָּה בְּגֶדֶר אֱנוֹשִׁי, (אִם לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְּחִינַת הַנְּבוּאָה). גַּם בַּיְדִיעָה הַשֵּׁנִית, קָצְרָה יָד אֱנוֹשׁ לָבוֹא עַד תַּכְלִיתָהּ, מִפְּאַת חֶסְרוֹן יְדִיעָתוֹ. מִכָּל עִנְיְנֵי הַסִּבּוֹת הַנּוֹגְעִים אֶל הַדָּבָר הַמְעֻתָּד לָצֵאת לַפֹּעַל, לָזֹאת רָזָה בִּינַת אֱנוֹשׁ לָבוֹא בִּידִיעָה שִׂכְלִית לִשְׁלֵמוּתָהּ:
There are likewise two types of knowledge. One is absolute knowledge, which is subject to neither change nor replacement. The second is rational knowledge, arrived at by the chain of matters, from cause to effect, which in turn becomes the cause of another effect, and so the matter goes until reaching the final effect. This kind of knowledge is subject to change, for sometimes, something emerges without a cause, and even in opposition to its causes (this is the category of the miraculous). The first kind of absolute knowledge is not within human capacity (unless it be through the category of prophecy). Even in the second kind of knowledge, it is beyond human capability to arrive at its ultimate end, because of the limits of human capacity to know all the causes that pertain to the eventual effect. In this respect, human understanding is too frail to arrive at complete rational knowledge.
כֵּן בִּבְחִירַת אֱנוֹשׁ, בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ יִתְהַלֵּךְ אִם לְטוֹב אוֹ לְרַע, יֶשְׁנָן שְׁתֵּי בְּחִינוֹת: הָאַחַת בְּחִירָה שִׂכְלִית בְּקִשּׁוּר הַמְסוֹבֵב בְסִבָּה, לְרַע, לְפֶתַח הַתַּאֲוָה כְּפִי אֲשֶׁר תַּטֵּהוּ דַּרְכָּהּ לְהָלְאָה אִם יְמַלֵּא חֶפְצָהּ, לְטוֹב לְפִי תַּהֲלוּכוֹת דַּרְכֵי לִמּוּד תּוֹרַת ה' וְחָכְמַת מוּסָרוֹ לְהִתְנַהֵג בִּדְרָכָיו. הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּחִינָה פְּשׁוּטָה מֵרַע לְטוֹב וּלְהֵפֶךְ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, כִּי בְּכָל עֵת וּזְמַן הָאָדָם עוֹמֵד בִּבְחִירָתוֹ בְּאֵין מוֹנֵעַ. גַּם הַיְדִיעָה בִּבְחִירַת הָאָדָם נֶחֱלֶקֶת לִשְׁנֵי מִינִים:
Likewise with regard to human choice – the way one goes, whether to good or to evil – there are two categories. One is rational choice, predicated on the chain of cause and effect. If [the choice is] toward evil, into the maw of lust, it is in keeping with how its methods incline him to itself in order to fulfill its wishes; if toward good, it follows the procedures of the ways of study of God’s Torah and the wisdom of His Mussar, to behave in God’s ways. The second category is simply choosing to go from evil to good, or the reverse, God forbid. For in every moment and occasion a person retains his capacity to choose with no impediment. God’s knowledge of human choice is also divided into two kinds.
הָאַחַת יְדִיעָה מֻחְלֶטֵת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין לְהַעֲלוֹת עַל הַדַּעַת, אֵיךְ לֹא תִּהְיֶה סְתִירָה לְהַבְּחִירָה, (כַּאֲשֶׁר בֵּאֵר הָרַמְבַּ"ם בְּפֶרֶק ה' מֵהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה). הַשְּׁנִיָּה יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית, לְפִי הַנְהָגַת הָאָדָם, טִבְעוֹ וְעִנְיָנוֹ, לְפִי קִשּׁוּר הַמְסוֹבָבִים בְּסִבָּתָם אֶל נָכוֹן, אֲשֶׁר בְּהַיְדִיעָה הַלָּזוֹ מַנְהִיג הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ לְטוֹב (דַּוְקָא, לֹא לְרֹעַ, כִּי אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא דָּן אֶת הָאָדָם אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בָּהּ, כַּמְבֹאָר בִּירוּשַׁלְמִי (רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה פֶּרֶק א'), אֲבָל לְטוֹבָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא נוֹתֵן בְּהַקָּפָה, כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (יַלְקוּט אִיּוֹב מ"א) מִי הִקְדִּימַנִי וַאֲשַׁלֵּם כוּ', מִי מָל לִפְנֵי עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי לוֹ בֵּן, מִי עָשָׂה צִיצִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי לוֹ טַלִּית כוּ', עַיֵּן שָׁם):
The first is absolute knowledge,43I.e., foreknowledge of human choice. and one cannot grasp how such knowledge would not contradict free choice (as Rambam explains in chapter 5 of the Laws of Repentance). The second is rational knowledge, based on a person’s behavior, nature, and situation, and on properly linking cause and effect. It is with this latter knowledge that God governs His world for good (specifically for good, and not for evil, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not judge a person except in that moment in which he stands; as explained in the Yerushalmi [Rosh HaShana, ch, 1]. For good, however, the Holy One, blessed be He, extends credit, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say [Yalkut, Job ch. 41]: “‘Who has a prior claim on Me that I will pay…44…for everything under the heavens is Mine.”’ [Job 41:3] – Who practiced circumcision even before I had given him a son? Who made fringes before I gave him a four-cornered garment?...”; see further there).45In judging whether a person is evil, God judges the person as of this moment, without factoring in any future wrongs, which God alone knows are coming. In judging whether a person is good, however, God factors in future good behaviors by this person. That is God’s way in the world. God gives life and good to people before they have earned it or given back.
וּבָזֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַכָּתוּב (דְּבָרִים י"א) אֶת הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ כוּ', בְּהַקָּפָה, לְמַעַן תִּשְׁמְעוּ וְתַעֲשׂוּ הַטּוֹב בְּבִרְכָתִי, וְהַקְלָלָה אִם לֹא תִּשְׁמְעוּ וְגוֹ', לֹא מִקֹּדֶם. גַּם יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר מַאֲמַר חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (פְּסָחִים קי"א) הוֹדוּ לַה' כִּי טוֹב, הוֹדוּ לְמִי שֶׁגּוֹבֶה חוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ, עָשִׁיר בְּשׁוֹרוֹ עָנִי בְּשֵׂיוֹ כוּ', כִּי בִּרְכַּת הָאָדָם בִּגְלַל שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים: הָאַחַת, עֲבוּר הַטּוֹב שֶׁעָשָׂה וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא שִׁלֵּם שְׂכָרוֹ, אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִקְרָא (בְּהַשְׁקָפָה בִּלְתִּי מְדֻיֶּקֶת) טוֹבַת ה', רַק שֶׁל הָאָדָם הִיא, כְּשָׂכִיר אֲשֶׁר יְקַוֶּה פָּעֳלוֹ, וּמַה הִיא הַטּוֹבָה הַפְּשׁוּטָה וְנִגְלֵית, הִיא הַבְּחִינָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מַה שֶּׁנּוֹתֵן הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא מִקֹּדֶם, לְמַעַן יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם הַטּוֹב בְּבִרְכָתוֹ. וְכַאֲשֶׁר הָאָדָם נֶעֱנָשׁ בְּמָמוֹנוֹ, אֲשֶׁר קָנָה בִּשְׂכַר עֲמַל כִּשְׁרוֹן מַעֲשָׂיו, דִּין וּמִשְׁפָּט נָכוֹן הוּא לִגְבּוֹת חוֹבָתוֹ בָּזֶה, וּמַה הוּא הַחֶסֶד הָאֲמִתִּי, שֶׁגּוֹבֶה חוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ, בְּהַמָּמוֹן שֶׁבָּא לוֹ מֵאֵת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ, בִּבְחִינַת טוֹבָה, לְמַעַן יַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר וְהַצֶּדֶק, וְהָאָדָם סִלֵּף דַּרְכּוֹ, וְלֹא נִתְקַיְּמָה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ כִּבְיָכוֹל, וְאָז בְּדִין שֶׁיִּטֹּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא מָמוֹנוֹ, כִּי לֹא עַל מְנָת כֵּן נָתַן לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא הַמָּמוֹן לְהָאָדָם, גַּם לֹא יְנֻכֶּה לְהָאָדָם מֵחוֹבָתוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לְהוֹדוֹת לַה' עַל הַחֶסֶד הַלָּזֶה, אֲשֶׁר גַּם בְּלָקְחוֹ מֵהָאָדָם הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁבָּא לוֹ מִטּוֹבָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, גּוֹבֶה חוֹבָתוֹ בָּהֶם:
With this we can explain the verse (Deut. 11:27): “The blessing on condition that you listen….” I give you the blessing on credit, so that you then listen and do the good with My blessing. “The curse, [I give you only] if you do not listen…” (ibid. 11:28) – and not before then. We can also explain the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory (Pesaḥim 118a): “‘Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good’46Psalms 106:11 and elsewhere. – give thanks to Him who collects a person’s debts according to the good given him; a rich man with his ox, a poor man with his lamb….” Blessing comes to a man for two reasons. One, for the good he has done, the Holy One, blessed be He, pays his reward. This should not be called God’s goodness (as we do if we do not view it precisely). This bounty belongs to the human being. This is like a case of an employee who expects and receives pay for his labor.47It is not goodness, but justice. So what is plain and obvious good? This is the second type, wherein the Holy One, blessed be He, gives in advance, so that a person will do good with His blessing. When a person is punished by means of the money he obtained by toil and the skill of his actions, it is proper justice and lawful to collect debt from this. But what is true loving-kindness from God? That He collects man’s debt from His goodness, from the money granted to a person from God, blessed be He, as an unearned goodness, so that he will perform upright and just deeds with it. Yet if the person distorted their path, and God’s plan, as it were, was not carried out, it is just for the Holy One, blessed be He, to take back His money – He did not give it to him for these evil purposes – and at the same time, it will not detract from what the person is due. Thus, one should thank God for this loving-kindness, that even when taking back from the person the money given to him by God’s goodness,48Not the person’s own, i.e., the first type, which he earned by his own efforts. God lets his debt be paid off with this money.
בַּמֶּה יִבָּדְלוּ הַהַקָּפוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לָתֵת לִבְנֵי אָדָם מֵאֵת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ, אִם לֹא בִּבְחִינַת יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית, מִי הוּא הַבָּטוּחַ, אֲשֶׁר מֵהַיָּאוּת לִמְסֹר לוֹ הַקָּפָה, (אִם שֶׁלִּפְעָמִים נִשְׁתַּנֶּה הַדָּבָר כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל, כִּי בִּבְחִינַת יְדִיעָה מֻחְלֶטֶת, אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא מַנְהִיג עוֹלָמוֹ הַתָּלוּי בִּבְחִירַת אֱנוֹשׁ, וְדָבָר אֵין לָהּ עִם יְדִיעָה מֻחְלֶטֶת):
How can we distinguish which credit is appropriately extended to human beings by God, blessed be He, if not by means of rational knowledge49Here again, R. Salanter uses the logic of business to make an ethical point. God, as it were, must decide which people are worthy of His investment and can be trusted to repay His “goodness” with proper conduct, justice, and righteousness. This decision must be rational, based on what can be expected of this person. Even though, at some level, God knows what the person will ultimately do, He nevertheless governs the world according to the principle of human free choice, not of divine foreknowledge. The decision is therefore based on rational criteria – who is likely to be worthy of God’s goodness. [to determine] who can be trusted and to whom is it appropriate to extend credit? (This is so even though sometimes things change, as said above, because God does not govern His world, which hinges on human choice, from the perspective of absolute knowledge; absolute knowledge thus has no bearing on this.)
וּבָזֶה צָדְקוּ דִּבְרֵי הַיְרוּשַׁלְמִי (רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה פֶּרֶק א') שְׁלֹשָׁה פִּנְקָסִין הֵם כוּ', שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִים כְּבָר נִתַּן לָהֶם עֲשָׂרָה יְמֵי תְּשׁוּבָה שֶׁל בֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אִם עָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה נִכְתָּבִין עִם הַצַּדִּיקִים וְאִם לָאו נִכְתָּבִים עִם הָרְשְׁעִים כוּ', רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא חַבְרוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן בָּעֵי, וְאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנּוֹלָד, וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא דָּן אֶת הָאָדָם אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בָּהּ, (הַמַּאֲמָר אֲשֶׁר הִזְכַּרְנוּ לְעֵיל) עַיֵּן שָׁם. אֲשֶׁר מְאֹד הַדָּבָר מַפְלִיא לֵאמֹר, שֶׁהַיְרוּשַׁלְמִי יִשְׁאַל בִּדְבַר יְדִיעָה וּבְחִירָה, אֲשֶׁר נִלְאֶה שֵׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי בִּכְלָל לַחְתֹּר אַחֲרָיו כְּדִבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"ם הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל. וִיבָאֲרָהּ עַל עִנְיָן פְּרָטִי, אָכֵן שְׁאֵלַת הַיְרוּשַׁלְמִי הִיא עַל יְדִיעָה הַשִּׂכְלִית אֲשֶׁר עַל פִּיהָ מַנְהִיג הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ:
The correctness of the Yerushalmi (Rosh HaShana, ch. 1) is thus evident: “There are three record books…. Those in between [the righteous and the wicked] have been given the Ten Days of Repentance between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. If they repented, they are inscribed with the righteous. If not, they are inscribed with the wicked…. R. Ḥananya, friend of the Rabbis, asked: ‘Doesn’t God see what is going to happen?’ But he (R. Ḥananya) had not heard what R. Shimon said in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, judges a person only as he is in that moment.’” (We cited this saying above.) See further there.
It would be very surprising to say that the Yerushalmi is asking about the matter of foreknowledge and free choice, a matter which is beyond human reason in general to grasp, according to the aforementioned words of Rambam, and explaining it with respect to a specific matter.50I.e., it would be strange for the Yerushalmi to ask such a profound question, which touches on the foundations of theology, in context of a relatively technical discussion about the repentance of “those in between” during the Ten Days of Repentance. Rather, the Yerushalmi’s question is about rational [non-absolute] knowledge,51I.e., judging a person from current behaviors and the normal process of cause and effect. in accordance with which God governs the world.
כֵּן גַּם עִנְיַן עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה וְאֵינָם עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה, הוּא עַל פִּי בְּחִינַת יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית, אִם הָאָדָם עַל פִּי יְדִיעָה הַשִּׂכְלִית מֻכְשָׁר לִתְשׁוּבָה, אֲזַי הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא מַאֲרִיךְ אַפּוֹ וּמַמְתִּין עַל תְּשׁוּבָתוֹ וָחַי, וְאִם עַל פִּי יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית אֵינוֹ מֻכְשָׁר לִתְשׁוּבָה, (אִם כִּי מִכָּל מָקוֹם בִּבְחִירָתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה), אֲזַי חַס וְחָלִילָה חָפֵץ לַהֲמִיתוֹ, אִם לֹא יִהְיֶה לְהָאָדָם זְכוּת מַכְרִיעַ לְחַיִּים. וּמַה הוּא הַיְסוֹד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאָדָם מֻכְשָׁר לִתְשׁוּבָה, הוּא הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַי מַרְגִּישׁ בְּחֶסְרוֹנוֹ, וְאָז הַתִּקְוָה שֶׁיִּתְעוֹרֵר לִתְשׁוּבָה, אֲבָל אִם אֵין הֶרְגֵּשׁ, הַתְּשׁוּבָה מֵאַיִן תִּוָּלֵד, אָכֵן זֶהוּ דַּוְקָא כְּשֶׁנִּכְבָּה לְגַמְרֵי הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ מִנַּפְשׁוֹ, עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִתְפַּעֵל מִתּוֹכָחָה וְהִתְעוֹרְרוּת זוּלָתוֹ, כִּי אָז אֵינוֹ בְּגֶדֶר עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה כְּלָל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁגַּם אַחֵר אֵין בְּכֹחוֹ לְעוֹרְרוֹ מִתַּרְדֵּמַת אִוַּלְתּוֹ:
The matter of “those who can repent and those who cannot repent” is judged by the same criterion: rational knowledge. If a person is, by rational calculation, capable of repentance, then the Holy One, blessed be He, is patient, waits for his repentance, and he lives. If by rational calculation, he is not capable of repentance (even though he always retains the free choice to repent) then, God forbid, He wants to put him to death – unless that person has some merit that tilts the scale to life. And what is the basis of a person being capable of repentance? It is the sense that he is alive, aware of his shortcomings. Then there is hope that he will awaken to repentance. But if there is no such sense, whence will repentance come? However, [this death sentence is decreed] only if this sense is completely extinguished in his psyche – to the point where he is not stirred by chastisement or by the arousal of another.52Excitement is contagious, so a source of one’s emotion is the emotion of those around him. Then he is not in the category of “one who can repent” at all – since even another does not have the power to awaken him from the deep slumber of his folly.
וּבָזֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר אֲשֶׁר נִרְמַז בַּכָּתוּב, יִשּׁוּב הַגְּמָרָא כָּאן בָּעוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה (יְחֶזְקֵאל י"ח) כִּי לֹא אֶחְפֹּץ בְּמוֹת הַמֵּת וֶהְשִׁיבוּ, (הָיוּ מֻכְשָׁרִים לִתְשׁוּבָה. וְלַמֶּרְכָּז הַלָּזוֹ) וִחְיוּ (כִּי אֵין תְּשׁוּבָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה), כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה (שְׁמוּאֵל־א' ב') וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ לְקוֹל אֲבִיהֶם כִּי חָפֵץ ה' לַהֲמִיתָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְעוֹרְרוּ לְקוֹל תּוֹכַחַת עֵלִי, אֲשֶׁר הָיָה גְּדוֹל הַדּוֹר, מִמֵּילָא לֹא הָיוּ בְּגֶדֶר עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה:
With this we can explain the allusion of the verse according to the Talmud’s resolution (Nidda 70b): “This verse (Ezek. 18:32): ‘For I do not desire the death of the person, [declares the Lord God – but rather return (i.e., be capable of repentance in this area) and live (for there is no repentance after death)],’ deals with those who repent, and that verse (I Sam. 2:25): ‘And they did not listen to their father’s voice [for the Lord sought to put them to death’] deals with those who do not repent.” [Since they did not respond to the words of chastisement of Eli, who was the greatest of the generation, they were consequently not in the category of those who can repent.]
זֶהוּ בְּאָמְרִי לָרָשָׁע כוּ' וְלֹא דִּבַּרְתָּ לְהַזְהִיר רָשָׁע מִדַּרְכּוֹ, (וְאָז הוּא עֲדַיִן בְּגֶדֶר עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, כִּי אוּלַי יִתְעוֹרֵר מִתּוֹכָחָה), וְלֹא יָמוּת, רַק אִם נִתְמַלְּאָה סְאָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא רָשָׁע, אֲזַי הוּא רָשָׁע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ יָמוּת כוּ', וְאַתָּה כִּי הִזְהַרְתָּ רָשָׁע מִדַּרְכּוֹ לָשׁוּב מִמֶּנָּה וְלֹא שָׁב מִדַּרְכּוֹ, (לֹא נִתְפַּעֵל מִתּוֹכַחְתְּךָ, כִּי אִם הָיָה נִתְפַּעֵל וּמַרְגִּישׁ בְּחֶסְרוֹנוֹ הָיָה נִקְרָא שָׁב מִדַּרְכּוֹ, כִּי מִלְּפָנִים לֹא הִרְגִּישׁ בְּרָעָתוֹ, וְלָזֹאת הוּא בְּגֶדֶר אֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, אֲזַי) הוּא בַּעֲוֹנוֹ יָמוּת, הַגַּם שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַלְּאָה סְאָתוֹ, וְלֹא נִקְרָא רָשָׁע, (כִּי הוּא מִשְׁפָּט כְּלָלִי לְמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ עָוֹן וְאֵינוֹ בִּבְחִינַת עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה), בְּכָל זֹאת יָמוּת מִסִּבַּת עֲוֹנוֹ, יַעַן עַל פִּי יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית לֹא יָבוֹא לִתְשׁוּבָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְעוֹרֵר גַּם מִתּוֹכָחָה. וּמַה הִיא רְפוּאָתוֹ, הִיא, הִתְחַדְּשׁוּת הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ לְעוֹרֵר הַדְּאָגָה וְהַיָּגוֹן וְיִכָּנֵס בְּגֶדֶר עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וְיִחְיֶה:
Particularly those preoccupied with daily life, burdened by tribulation, who are prone to commit great sins and not feel anything53Elsewhere (see for example, Letter 7), R. Salanter generalizes that people who sin become hardened and lose emotional engagement in living. Thus, shaking off sin and then repenting is not just necessary to avoid being punished by God for being one who cannot repent, as expressed here. Rather the act of shunning evil and turning to good constitutes a reclaiming of zest for life and the revival of emotional engagement in living. – in particular, in matters between man and man: jealousy, hatred, speaking evil, shaming, and cheating in business above all – we have to seek out strength from life, from what is proper and correct, to offset these tendencies with good deeds and good actions which will outweigh [the bad behaviors]. But what shall a person who must struggle every day do?
There is one easy skill, which does not require a completely clear mind, nor does it require a lot of time – it is to go over Mussar sayings of the Sages54Wisdom sayings of the rabbis that arouse conscience or stimulate spiritual consciousness, such as “Envy, lust, and excessive honor-seeking shorten a person’s life” (Pirkei Avot 4:21). repeatedly, until he arouses excitation in his soul at that moment. Even if it does not bear fruit initially to improve the person’s ways, he will still be considered in the book of the living – since he is still alive and feeling. And as long as he is connected to life, there is security, and he is counted among those who have the ability to repent.55R. Salanter believes that people who sin and slip into this unthinking, ongoing, bad pattern lose the capacity for feeling. The habitual sinner, as it were, is “punished” by a loss of feeling and of awareness. That is why he tends to end up in the category of one who will never repent. In turn, his inability to repent evokes a heavenly judgment that he deserves to die. The challenge (and the opportunity) of the sinner is to keep feeling and self-awareness alive, so even though he is in a bad pattern, he is able – maybe even likely – to repent, change, and improve. As R. Salanter said below, a human being never loses the free will to change from evil to good, but once he loses his feeling and self-awareness, he is much more likely to sink hopelessly into the evil patterns.
This is the meaning of (Ezek. 33:8–9): “When I say to the wicked person…. And you have not spoken to warn the wicked man away from his ways” (then he would still be in the category of one who can repent, for perhaps he would have responded to chastisement), “then he will not die,” unless his measure is filled and he is judged a wicked man. “Then he, the wicked man, will die for his sins…. But if you have warned the wicked person to turn from his way and he did not turn from it” (he was not moved by your chastisement; for if he were moved and conscious of his shortcomings he would be called “one who turns from his way” because before your chastisement he was not conscious of his wickedness. Therefore, now he is in the category of “one who cannot repent,” and), then “he will die for his sin” – even if his measure is not filled and he is not yet considered wicked (for this general condemnation [of being deemed wicked] is for one who sins and is not in the category of “one who can repent”), still he will die by cause of his sin. We know by rational knowledge that he will not repent since he does not respond even to chastisement. What is his cure? It is renewal of emotional awareness to awaken anxiety and anguish – so that he will enter the category of “one who can repent,” and he will live.
זֶהוּ, וְאַתָּה בֶּן אָדָם אֱמֹר אֶל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל (בְּדֶרֶךְ סִבָּה וּמְסוֹבֵב) כֵּן אֲמַרְתֶּם לֵאמֹר, כִּי פְּשָׁעֵינוּ וְחַטֹּאתֵינוּ עָלֵינוּ, וּבָם אֲנַחְנוּ נְמֵקִים, וְאֵיךְ נִחְיֶה, (בְּזֹאת הֵמָּה בְּגֶדֶר עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵן מַרְגִּישִׁים וְדוֹאֲגִים, לְזֹאת הִיא הַסִּבָּה לְהַמְסוֹבֵב הַלָּזֶה, אֲשֶׁר) אֱמֹר אֲלֵיהֶם וְגוֹ' כִּי אִם בְּשׁוּב רָשָׁע מִדַּרְכּוֹ וְחָיָה. (וְאִם כִּי עֲדַיִן הוּא רַק הַתְחָלַת הַהִתְעוֹרְרוּת לִתְשׁוּבָה מִכָּל־מָקוֹם נִקְרְאוּ עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵמָּה מֻכְשָׁרִים בְּסִבַּת הֶרְגֵּשָׁם, שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְאַט לְאַט לִבְחִינַת עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה כַּהֹגֶן, זֶהוּ) שׁוּבוּ שׁוּבוּ מִדַּרְכֵיכֶם הָרָעִים וְכוּ':
This is the meaning of (Ezek. 33:10): “Son of man, say to the House of Israel” (in the manner of cause and effect) “you have spoken, saying: Our sins and transgressions are upon us, and we pine away in them. How shall we live?” (In this they are in the category of “those who can repent,” since they are emotionally conscious and are worried. This is the cause of the following effect, that) “say to them…let the wicked one turn from his way and live.” (Even though it is just the beginning of the awakening to repentance, still they are called “those who can repent.” Since they are capable because of their emotional awareness, they will come little by little into the category of those who repent properly. This is the meaning of) “Return, return from your wicked ways….”
הַיּוֹצֵא מִכְּלַל דְּבָרֵינוּ, כִּי הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ. שָׁלֹשׁ הֵן בְּמִסְפָּר: הָאֶחָד הוּא הַפֶּתַח וְהַהַתְחָלָה, הוּא הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאָדָם לוֹמֵד מַאַמְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל וּמוּסְרֵי הַחֲכָמִים, לַחֲזֹר עֲלֵיהֶם כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה פְּעָמִים, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִתְפַּעֵל, וְיַרְגִּישׁ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹ, וּמִזֶּה יָבוֹא לַמַּדְרֵגָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה הִיא כְּבִישַׁת הַיֵּצֶר. וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית הִיא תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאָדָם עָלֵז וְשָׂשׂ לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ. וְהַתַּבְלִין לְהַיֵּצֶר, לְבַל יִהְיֶה שָׂטָן לְכָל שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת, הִיא הַתּוֹרָה, כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (קִדּוּשִׁין ל:) בָּרָאתִי יֵצֶר הָרָע בָּרָאתִי לוֹ תּוֹרָה תַּבְלִין, אֲשֶׁר אוּלַי לָזֶה נִגְדְּרָה הַתּוֹרָה בְּשָׁלֹשׁ בְּחִינוֹת: הָאַחַת, חוֹמָה (בָּבָא בַּתְרָא ז:, חוֹמָה זוֹ תּוֹרָה) הַיְנוּ לָאָדָם הַשָּׁלֵם בְּמַעֲלָתוֹ בְּמַדְרֵגַת תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר, הַתּוֹרָה חוֹמָה לוֹ מִסָּבִיב, לְהָגֵן עָלָיו מִסִּבּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת מִחוּצָה, לְבַל יָרֵעוּ וּבַל יַשְׁחִיתוּ נַפְשׁוֹ הַזַּכָּה. הַשְּׁנִיָּה רְפוּאָה (קִדּוּשִׁין ל', וְשַׂמְתֶּם סַם תַּם כוּ', מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת בְּנוֹ מַכָּה גְּדוֹלָה וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ רְטִיָּה עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ כוּ', כָּךְ הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא אָמַר לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בָּרָאתִי לָהֶם יֵצֶר הָרָע וּבָרָאתִי לוֹ תּוֹרָה תַּבְלִין כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם). הַיְנוּ לְמִי שֶׁהוּא בְּמַדְרֵגַת כּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא חוֹלֶה אַמִּיץ, כִּי תִּגְבֹּרֶת יִצְרוֹ בְּקִרְבּוֹ, הַתּוֹרָה בְּעֶזְרָתוֹ לַעֲמֹד נֶגֶד יִצְרוֹ. הַשְּׁלִישִׁית חַיִּים (עֲבוֹדָה־זָרָה ג', אַף בְּנֵי אָדָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁפּוֹרְשִׁין מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִיָּד מֵתִים), הַיְנוּ לְמִי שֶׁהוּא בְּמַדְרֵגַת הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ, הַתּוֹרָה שׁוֹמְרַתּוּ לְבַל יְאַבֵּד הֶרְגֵּשׁוֹ, וְיִהְיֶה חַס וְשָׁלוֹם כְּמֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ:
It emerges from all of this discussion that there are three levels of serving God, blessed be He: One – the opening and the beginning is sentimental. One studies sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, and chastisements of the wise men, reviewing them over and over again, until he is affected and senses, within his psyche, his shortcomings.56R. Salanter is teaching us another effect of hitpaalut, namely, chanting particularly evocative texts with enthusiasm. Earlier he stressed using this method to affect the unconscious. Here he teaches that it also awakens one’s emotional awareness of one’s sins and future punishments, thus undoing the routinization and the loss of feeling that are caused by sinning. From this he comes to the second level: repression of the urge. The third [level] is sublimation of the urge, wherein one is joyful and happy to serve Him, blessed be He.
The antidote for the evil urge, so that it is not a hindrance to all three levels, is the Torah. As they, of blessed memory, said (Kiddushin 30b): “I created their evil urge; I created the Torah as its antidote.”57The word for “antidote” is “tavlin,” which literally means “seasoning,” something that removes a foul taste. Perhaps this is why Torah is described in three ways. First, as a fortified wall (Bava Batra 7b: “‘Wall’ [Song. 8:10] refers to Torah”). Meaning, to the person who is completely virtuous and entirely sublimated his urge, the Torah is a wall that fortifies him, protecting from intense external causes so that they not do harm or corrupt58Compare Isaiah 11:9. his pure soul.
Second, as medicine (Kiddushin 30b: “‘And you shall place’ [‘vesamtem’ – Deut. 11:18] refers to a ‘perfect cure’ [‘sam tam’]. This is likened to a person who struck his son and caused a large wound, so he put a bandage on his wound…. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: I created their evil urge; I created the Torah as its antidote…”; see further there). This refers to one who represses his urge, who is therefore very sick, because his intensified urge is within him. The Torah helps him to stand up to his urge.
Third, as life (Avoda Zara 3a: “So too, human beings, when they separate from the Torah, they die at once”). This refers to the person who is still in the sentimental stage. The Torah keeps him from losing feeling and becoming, God forbid, like a corpse that has no feeling.
הוּא מַאֲמַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ אֲשֶׁר הִצַּגְנוּ בְּפֶתַח דְּבָרֵינוּ, כִּי כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִדְבָּר, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (יוֹמָא עד:) מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד הַמָּן פַּעַם אַחַת בְּשָׁנָה כוּ', וְאַף כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים הָיָה דּוֹאֵג וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא לְמָחָר אֵין הַמָּן יוֹרֵד וְנִמְצְאוּ בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם מֵתִים בָּרָעָב, וְנִמְצְאוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְכַוְּנִים אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְכַאֲשֶׁר כִּמְעַט כָּל בְּנֵי אָדָם תְּלוּיִים זֶה בָּזֶה, לְזֹאת, כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה סִבָּה נוֹרָאָה לִשְׁמִירַת מַדְרֵגַת בַּעֲלֵי הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ, אֲזַי גַּם בַּעֲלֵי הַכְּבִישָׁה וְהַתִּקּוּן עָמְדוּ בְּמַצָּבָם בֶּטַח. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁהִתְחִילוּ לִיכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר זֶה יִפְנֶה לְכַרְמוֹ וְזֶה לְזֵיתוֹ, הַחֲשָׁשָׁא קְרוֹבָה, פֶּן יְרַקֵּד חַס וְחָלִילָה הַשָּׂטָן בֵּינֵיהֶם לְהַפְרִיעָם מֵעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ:
This is the meaning of the midrash [Genesis Rabba 5:7] we presented at the beginning of our words, for when Israel was in the wilderness, our Sages, of blessed memory, say (Yoma 76a59Note: The printed text erroneously cites Yoma 74b.): “‘Why didn’t the manna come down…once a year [instead of every day]?’… So too Israel; one who had four or five children worried and said, ‘Maybe tomorrow the manna will not descend and consequently their sons and daughters will die of hunger.’ Consequently, all of Israel directed their hearts to their Father in Heaven [every day]….”60I.e., when people receive food in daily doses, they become conditioned to sense their dependence on God and petition Him for sustenance every day. See further there. When almost all people are interconnected, then as there was an overwhelming reason for those in a state of knowing by sentiment to maintain their level, those at the stages of repression and sublimation remained secure at their levels as well. However, once they began to enter the land, and one turned to his vineyard and the next to his olive tree, there was a great concern lest the Hinderer (“Satan”), God forbid, dance among them and disrupt their service of God, blessed be He.61I.e., they will focus on themselves as sources of sustenance, and not God.
לְזֹאת הֶרְאָם הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא, כִּי הָאָרוֹן הוּא הַמָּגֵן לְכָל הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר זְקָפָן בֵּין שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן, וְהָאָרוֹן חוֹמָה לָהֶם. הוּא לְמַדְרֵגַת תִּקּוּן הַיֵּצֶר. אָמַר רַב אָחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא סְמָכָן בֵּין שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן. וְהָאָרוֹן תּוֹמְכָם לְכוֹבְשֵׁי הַיֵּצֶר לְבַל יִפְּלוּ תַּחְתָּיו. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי צִמְצְמָן בֵּין שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן. וְהָאָרוֹן הוּא קִיּוּמָהּ שֶׁל מַדְרֵגַת הַהֶרְגֵּשׁ, לְמַעַן לֹא תֹּאבַד הֶרְגֵּשָׁם, וְיִתְבַּטֵּל קִיּוּמָם לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי אִם חַס וְשָׁלוֹם אֵין הֶרְגֵּשׁ (הַפֶּתַח וְהַהַתְחָלָה) הָעֲבוֹדָה מֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא:
Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them that the Ark protects people at every level: “Rav Huna said: He stood all of them up between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark was like a wall protecting them. This refers to those at the level of sublimating the urge.
“Said Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: He supported them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark formed a support for those who repress their urge, protecting them from falling. “The Rabbis said: He squeezed them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark sustains the person in the state of good by sentiment so that he does not lose feeling, which would erase his existence with respect to serving God – for if, God forbid, there is no feeling (the opening and the beginning), from where will the service come?
וְכַאֲשֶׁר שְׁתֵּי בְּחִינוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, הָאַחַת לְעָבְדוֹ בְּלִי הִתְבּוֹנְנוּת שִׂכְלִית, רַק בִּתְמִימוּת, לִשְׁמֹר דְּבַר ה' וְלַהֲלֹךְ בִּדְרָכָיו, כִּשְׁרוֹן הַמִּדּוֹת וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד, וְעַל פִּי בְּחִינָה הַלָּזוֹ, אֵין מָקוֹם לִגְדֹּר מַצַּב מַדְרֵגַת הָאָדָם בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי עַל יְדֵי רוּחַ קַל, מְהֵרָה תָּעוּף חַס וְחָלִילָה כָּל טוּב דְּרָכָיו, כִּי מִי יַעַצְרֵם. הַשֵּׁנִית הִיא הָעִקָּרִית, בְּהִתְבּוֹנְנוּת שִׂכְלִית, לְפִי דַּרְכֵי תַּהֲלוּכוֹת הָעֲבוֹדָה וּמַצַּב תְּכוּנַת הָאָדָם, לִקְבֹּעַ לְהָעֲבוֹדָה יָתֵד נֶאֱמָן אֲשֶׁר כָּל רוּחוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם לֹא יָזִיזוּ אוֹתוֹ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ, וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הִשְׁלִים הָאָדָם דַּרְכֵי שִׂכְלוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, אֲשֶׁר עַל פִּי יְדִיעָה שִׂכְלִית תְּגַדֵּר מַצַּב יְדִיעָתוֹ, הֲלֹא ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ:
There are two modes of His service, blessed be He: One – to serve Him without rational contemplation, simply and naively keeping God’s word, walking in His ways, according to the nature of his character, and loving-kindness. In this mode, there is no way to ascertain the level of the state of one’s service of God, blessed be He, for with a light wind,62I.e., a slight negative stimulus. all the goodness of his ways may fly away swiftly, for what would hold them back?63R. Salanter again warns that unthinking religious observance is vulnerable to both negative inner motives and external forces.
גַּם בְּהַנְהָגַת הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ, שְׁתֵּי בְּחִינוֹת. הָאַחַת מַהֲלָךְ הַטִּבְעִי מִקִּשּׁוּר הַמְסוֹבֵב בְּסִבָּה, אֲשֶׁר הָאָדָם עָלוּל לִטְעוֹת וְלֵאמֹר, שֶׁכֹּחוֹ וְעֹצֶם יָדוֹ עָשָׂה לוֹ אֶת הַחַיִל. וְאֵין הַדָּבָר כֵּן, כִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא נוֹתֵן לְהָאָדָם כֹּחַ לַעֲשׂוֹת חַיִל, וּמַזְמִין לוֹ הַסִּבּוֹת אֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאוּ הַמְסוֹבְבִים לְפָעֳלָם. הַשֵּׁנִית דָּבָר הַנִּסִּי, מְסוֹבֵב בְּלִי סִבָּה, וְעַיִן בְּעַיִן יִרְאֶה הָאָדָם, כִּי יַד ה' עָשְׂתָה זֹאת. הַבְּחִינָה הַלָּזוֹ נִקְרֵאת שְׁכִינָה בָּאָרֶץ (עַיֵּן דִּבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"ם עַל אוֹדוֹת שֹׁרֶשׁ שָׁכֵן בְּסִפְרוֹ מוֹרֶה נְבוּכִים). וְכָל זֶה בַּסִּבָּה הַחוּשִׁית *)כָּל דָּבָר הַיּוֹצֵא לַפֹּעַל, שְׁתֵּי סִבּוֹת לוֹ: הָאֶחָד סִבָּה הַחוּשִׁית, הַשֵּׁנִי סִבָּה הַשִּׂכְלִית, אוֹ לְאֵיזֶה תַּכְלִית, אוֹ לִגְמוּל וָעֹנֶשׁ. הָאָרֶץ כַּאֲשֶׁר תּוֹצִיא צִמְחָהּ. סִבָּה הַחוּשִׁית, הֵמָּה הַחֲרִישָׁה וְהַזְּרִיעָה. סִבָּה הַשִּׂכְלִית, הִיא אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲבוּרָהּ יִתְעוֹרֵר הָאָדָם לַעֲבֹד אַדְמָתוֹ, אִם לְתַכְלִית לְמַעַן יִתְעַנֵּג מִטּוּב פִּרְיָהּ, אוֹ לְהַרְוִיחַ מָמוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַסִּבָּה הַשִּׂכְלִית הָאֲמִתִּית, הִיא הַשְׁגָּחָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, אֲשֶׁר גָּזְרָה יְצִיאַת הַדָּבָר לַפֹּעַל, אֲשֶׁר בִּהְיוֹתָהּ בָּאָה בִּגְלַל מַעֲשֵׂי הָאָדָם, לְפָנָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ, אֲזַי הָאָדָם בְּחִינַת הַסִּבָּה הָאֲמִתִּית. וּבָזֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַכָּתוּב (אֵיכָה ג') מִי זֶה אָמַר וַתֶּהִי ה' לֹא צִוָּה, מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב, מַה יִּתְאוֹנֵן אָדָם חַי גֶּבֶר עַל חֲטָאָיו, נַחְפְּשָׂה דְּרָכֵינוּ וְנַחְקֹרָה וְנָשׁוּבָה עַד ה', נִשָּׂא לְבָבֵנוּ אֶל כַּפַּיִם אֶל אֵל בַּשָּׁמַיִם. כִּי בַּהַשְׁקָפָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִטְעֶה הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר, כִּי הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ מְנַהֵל עִנְיָנָיו אִם לְטוֹב אוֹ לְמוּטָב, אֲשֶׁר הָאֱמֶת אֵינוֹ כֵן, כִּי הַכֹּל מִשָּׁמַיִם, (עַיֵּן כְּתֻבּוֹת דַּף ל' חוּץ מִצִּנִּים וּפַחִים, וּבַתּוֹסָפוֹת שָׁם), זֶהוּ, מִי זֶה אָמַר וַתֶּהִי ה' לֹא צִוָּה, בְּכָל זֹאת, מַה הוּא הַצִּיר אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו תִּסֹּב דֶּלֶת הַהַשְׁגָּחַה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, הֲלֹא מַעֲשֵׂי הָאָדָם, וְעַל פִּי דְּרָכָיו תָּחוּל עָלָיו הַהַשְׁגָּחָה, וְהוּא הוּא הַסִּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לִיצִיאַת עִנְיָנָיו לַפֹּעַל, זֶהוּ מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב. לָזֹאת עַל כָּל מִקְרֶה וּפֶגַע רַע בַּל יִתְלוֹנֵן הָאָדָם, לֹא עַל הַנְהָגָתוֹ הַגּוּפָנִית כִּי בְּרַע הוּא, (כְּפִי אֲשֶׁר יִטְעֶה הָאָדָם בְּהַשְׁקָפָה רִאשׁוֹנָה), וְגַם לֹא עַל ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי אִם עַל הַנְהָגָתוֹ הַנַּפְשִׁית, (יְסוֹד הַסִּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה), זֶהוּ מַה יִּתְאוֹנֵן אָדָם חַי, גֶּבֶר עַל חֲטָאָיו. לָזֹאת, לְתַקֵּן רֹעַ מַזָּלוֹ לֹא יוֹעִילוּ לוֹ לְהֵיטִיב מַצָּבוֹ הַגּוּפָנִי. וְגַם אֵין מֵהַיָּאוּת לִדְפֹּק בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לִשְׁפֹּךְ שִׂיחַ לְפָנָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי אִם לְתַקֵּן הַסִּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, הִיא, לְהֵיטִיב דַּרְכֵי נַפְשׁוֹ, כְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (בְּרָכוֹת ה') אִם רוֹאֶה אָדָם שֶׁיִּסּוּרִין בָּאִין עָלָיו יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שָׁם) נַחְפְּשָׂה דְּרָכֵינוּ כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם, וְאָז נִשָּׂא לְבָבֵנוּ אֶל כַּפַּיִם אֶל אֵל בַּשָּׁמַיִם:, אֲבָל בַּשִּׂכְלִי נַהֲפֹךְ הַדָּבָר, עֶשֶׂר יָדוֹת בַּסִּבָּה הַשִּׂכְלִית, לַנִּסִּי מִבַּטִּבְעִי, כִּי מַדּוּעַ יְשַׁדֵּד הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא הַנְהָגָתוֹ הַסְּדוּרָה, אִם לֹא תִּהְיֶה סִבָּה גְּדוֹלָה שִׂכְלִית, אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲבוּרָהּ יַעֲלֶה הָאָדָם הַגְבֵּהַּ לְמַעְלָה מֵהַנְהָגָה הַטִּבְעִית, אֲשֶׁר לְפִי מִדָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא, מִדָּה כְּנֶגֶד מִדָּה, נִרְאֶה בַּעֲלִיל, כִּי יְסוֹד הַסִּבָּה הִיא, בִּהְיוֹת הָאָדָם מַשְׁלִים שִׂכְלוֹ לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, וּבְשֵׂכֶל יְנַהֵל דְּרָכָיו, כֵּן גַּם הוּא יִתְבָּרַךְ מִתְנַהֵג עִמּוֹ בַּבְּחִינָה אֲשֶׁר יְסוֹדָהּ סִבָּה שִׂכְלִית:
There are also two modes of how God governs His world. The first is through natural processes, the linking of effect to cause, which can lead a person to erroneously think that his might and the strength of his hand have achieved everything for him.64Compare Deuteronomy 8:17. Yet it is not so, for the Holy One, blessed be He, gives a person the power to achieve and arranges for him the causes that will produce the resulting effects.- 71
The second [mode] is the miraculous, the uncaused effect, which a person sees, with his own eye, was done by the hand of God.65Compare Isaiah 52:8. This mode is called the Divine Presence (“Shekhina”) on earth. (See what Rambam writes about the root sh-kh-n in his Guide to the Perplexed 1:5.) All this pertains to tangible causes.*70
הִיא מַעֲלַת אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, אֲשֶׁר עֲבוֹדָתוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה רַק מִשִּׂכְלוֹ, (כִּי לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ סִבָּה אַחֶרֶת לֹא מֵהוֹרָיו וְלֹא מִמְּסוֹבָבָיו), לְזֹאת הֶעֱלָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא לְמַעְלָה מִכִּפַּת הָרָקִיעַ (מִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה בְּרֵאשִׁית מ"ד), הַכִּנּוּי לְדַרְכֵי הַטְּבָעִים:
This was the virtue of our patriarch Abraham, peace be upon him. His service was through nothing but reason (for it had no other cause – neither from his parents nor from his environment), so the Holy One, blessed be He, “lifted him up above the dome of the heavens” (Genesis Rabba 44) – a euphemism for “above the natural processes.”
לְזֹאת כַּאֲשֶׁר הֶחֱזִיק אוֹתָם הָאָרוֹן בִּבְחִינוֹת מִתְחַלְּפוֹת, נוֹדַע, כִּי כָּל אֶחָד הִשְׁלִים בְּחִינָתוֹ בְּגֶדֶר הַשִּׂכְלִי. עַל כֵּן אָמַר לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִמַּה שֶּׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן אֶתְכֶם, אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁשְּׁכִינָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא בֵּינֵיכֶם. לְהַנְהִיג אֶתְכֶם בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַנִּסִּית, מְסוֹבָב מִסִּבָּה שִׂכְלִית, בִּהְיוֹתְכֶם עוֹבְדֵי ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ בִּבְחִינַת שִׂכְלִי, כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל:
Thus, when the Ark supported them through different modes, it became known that each person perfected the rational aspect of their mode. Therefore, Joshua said to them: From the fact that the staves of the Ark upheld you, you know that God’s Shekhina is amongst you, governing you with miracles effected by rational causes, for you are servants of God, blessed be He, in the rational mode, as mentioned.