Equanimity of the Ish hahalacha. The Mussar Movement.

On page 67 I think.

וכדומה שהשקפת עולם כזו היתה הגורם העיקרי מאחרי סירובם ומיאונם של אישי ההלכה כגון רבי חיים איש בריסק ורבי נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין איש וולוז'ין

v'cheiyotzei bahem

להכניס לתוך הישיבות שלהם את שיטת המוסר של רבי ישראל סלנטר שזו סמלה בראשית צמיחתה.

Right on page 69, the Rav is going to contrast the form that the Mussar movement took later in the beginning of the 20th century

את השקפת עולמו של איש הדת הכללי המכוונת כלפי הטרנסצנדנטיות וההוויה שמעבר לתחום המציאות הממשית.

And we'll just continue a little bit and then come back to that sentence.

רגש הפחד השפלות המלנכוליה הטיפוסית שבחווית איש הדת שלילה עצמית חשבון הנפש התמידי תודעת החטא חיטוט בפצעי רוח וכולו

were the

הקווים האופייניים והסימנים המובהקים של אותה פרשנות של תורת המוסר בימי ילדותה. נוהגים היו בקובנה ובסלובודקה מרכזי המוסר להיכנס אף בין השמשות של מוצאי שבת באווירה ספוגת עצב ותוגה

in an atmosphere that was saturated with sadness and sorrow

כשישותו של האדם פורקת את נשקה הרוחני עזו וגבורתו ונעשית רגשנית וערה ביותר לבטוח בשיחת המוות על אפסות עולם הזה על ריקנותו ועל חבלותו.

So even though the Rav is on one level equating the hashkafas olam of the Mussar movement in its initial stages with that of ish hadas haklali, but they arise very differently. He's not conflating the two. The sort of negation of olam hazeh and chayei olam hazeh of the ish hadas, the way the Rav has depicted it throughout, is one which arises predominantly from mystical roots. The way he presents the notion of tzimtzum from Likkutei Torah etc. That's not where it came from from the Mussar movement. Mussar movement wasn't drawing upon sources of Kabbalah. Mussar movement it was more this notion of man being sinful and in that sense that his olam hazeh-dik existence needed to be challenged because of his propensity to cheit. That's why the characterization that the Rav gives right after saying that the hashkafas olam was the same as that of ish hadas haklali involves things which I don't think we've seen before at all. Right, the depiction of the ish hadas, the homo religiosus, we didn't speak of cheshbon hanefesh tamidi or toda'as hacheit. They converge but from coming from very different directions. Again, one which the Rav has again presented at pretty fully from a certain type of mystical world. And the other again coming more from this characterization, this conception of man as being very sinful and gaivadick and and focusing as the Rav would say, and goes on to say, disproportionately on on that.

איש ההלכה הרגיש במידה זו סתירה החותרת תחת כיסא כבודו של ההלכה.

Right? Be-machteres, it tunnels underneath and undermines. איש ההלכה אינו מפחד ואינו ירא שום דבר. Right? The world is not a sinister. Do we have a yetzer hara and do we sin? The answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question is unfortunately yes. But but there's a difference between that realism, that recognition and describing, depicting the world as a sinister place that that just serves to lure a person into cheit.

איש ההלכה אינו מפחד ואינו ירא שום דבר. הרי הוא שוחה בים התלמוד הנותן חיים לכל חי.

Im achad chata... Right? The Rav is not not not looking at the world with some kind of rose-tinted lenses that that doesn't see cheit.

הרי הלכה של תשובה באה לעזרה. אסור לבזבז זמן על חשבון הנפש או בדיקת התודעה העצמית ועל חטוט בתחושת העבר.

So like like all of Torah, every every line needs to be understood in context. You can't just lift a line out of context. One wouldn't get up, in giving the שיחות מוסר עשרת ימי תשובה and say אסור לבזבז זמן על חשבון הנפש. So so what does this what does this... So for instance you find towards the beginning of Kol Dodi Dofek, sorry, towards the beginning of Kol Dodi Dofek, so there's a footnote where the Rav talks about ישנן שתי מצוות תשובה שונות זו מזו. Alef,

מצוות עשה של תשובה, וידוי על כל חטא שאדם נכשל בו. מצווה זו מבוררת בפרשת נשא, איש או אישה כי יעשו וגו' והתוודו חטאתם אשר עשו.

Ha-Rambam הקדיש למצווה זו עשרה פרקים המכונים הלכות תשובה. Beis, חובה מסוימת של תשובה בשעת צרה, ke-mevo'ar be-parashat chatzotzrot, וכי תבוא מלחמה בארצכם וכולי ונזכרתם לפני השם אלקיכם. So the Torah has two different chiyuvim of teshuvah. There's a mitzvas asei of teshuvah and then there's a חיוב תשובה בעת צרה. Ha-hevdel, skipping, בין מצוות תשובה לכלל, the general mitzvas teshuvah, לחובת התשובה בעת צרה, mitmatze be-ferat echad. Right? The the essence you can distill the difference between the mitzvah, the general mitzvas teshuvah and the chiyuv be-es tzarah, you can distill the difference into one crucial detail.

תשובה על החטא כרוכה בידיעת החטא. כל זמן שלא נודע לאדם חטאו, לא חלה עליו מצוות תשובה.

I efshar... חייב בכפרה בלי ידיעת החטא kemo shemevu'ar bakasuv

והודע אליו חטאתו אשר חטא. ידיעת החטא מחייבת בקרבן חטאת, כמו כן הוא עניין התשובה. אין אדם חייב לשוב על הנסתרות כי אם על הנגלות.

Chiyuv teshuva of of hilchos teshuva

כל מצוה שבתורה בין עשה ובין לא תעשה אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן

if a person is aware that he did an aveira, person is aware that he did an aveira, so yedi'as hacheit is mechayiv in teshuva. Ma she'ein kein, beram be'eis tzara and and that's part of what the rav has in mind when he says you know there's no there's no chiyuv of cheshbon hanefesh that al pi din the chiyuv teshuva is when there is yedi'as hacheit. Beram be'eis tzara be it a collective eis tzara as is the case now, be it a a personal eis tzara, beram be'eis tzara

מתחייב הסובל לבדוק את מעשיו ולחפש את חטאיו כדי לשוב עליהם.

Atzmo shel hasavel the the suffering itself me'yatzeg cheit that represents in the sense of reflects results from cheit והוא מצווה לאדם מצור חטאותיך ושוב אל בוראך. And and the I don't remember whether the rav quotes it here or not but but he alludes to it with with his idiom, the Gemara in Berachos that אם ראה אדם שייסורין באין עליו יפשפש במעשיו, yefashpesh b'ma'asav. So that's part of what the rav has in mind here in terms of his to a degree deflecting cheshbon hanefesh but again it needs to be understood as intended again in context again you know pushing back against this preoccupation with with cheshbon hanefesh which stemmed from again a fundamentally sinful conception of of a person that's and again דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם is the Gemara in Chulin says. That's clearly in context what the rav is pushing back against. He certainly doesn't mean to preclude the Rambam in

פרק ה' מהלכות דעות הלכה ד'. הדרך הישרה היא מידה בינונית שבכל דעה ודעה מכל דעות שיש לאדם והיא הדעה שרחוקה משני הקצוות ריחוק שווה ואינה קרובה לא לזו ולא לזו.

Now here comes the line that we're here for: לפיכך ציוו חכמים הראשונים שיהא אדם שם דעותיו תמיד. The chachamim harishonim commanded that a person should constantly be assessing his character traits, should be making a shuma, should be appraising his character, umeshayer osan and he should be calibrating, recalibrating his de'os, ומכוון אותן בדרך האמצעית. To be sham de'osav tamid is clearly a form of cheshbon hanefesh and how else how else does a person assessing and and appraising his de'os if not through through self self-examination? And the other maybe another point which it's also very important to be mindful of even according to the standard of yedi'as hacheit being mechayiv in teshuva as opposed to looking for for cheit in the first place, bameh devarim amurim again when there's no indication, leis de'safka as it were, let's say a person knows himself and he knows that I don't know I know that I'm lazy and I know that I waste time. Now, without stopping to think, so I can't necessarily pinpoint where in the past day or two days those middot surfaced. But I have that general self-awareness. And if I'll take the time to make the cheshbon hanefesh, so then it will become, you know, less vague, less amorphous and more focused, more pinpointed. So that's also not bachlal the cheshbon hanefesh that the Rav is dismissing with the issur of vazbeiz zman on cheshbon hanefesh. Again, you can see it from the chittut betichusat haavon. Again, this wallowing in a sense of being sinful.

אין אנליזה פסיכואנליטית כזאת מביאה את האדם לא לידי יראה ולא לידי אהבה.

Again, it's exaggerated. It's not in response to actual cheit. It stems from this general conception.

ועיקר העיקרים לא לידיעת התורה והבנתה. אין התורה נקנית מתוך מרה שחורה ויגון. כל ישועת הנפש צריכה להשתעבד לשלטון הכרת ההלכה. ועבודה זאת תציל את האדם מרדת לשחת. יראה ואימה בהלה ופלצות שאין שורשן בהלכה שכרן יוצא בהפסדן.

Emotion is supposed to be guided by halacha. When it's not guided by halacha, so a person at the very least does not come out ahead from such emotions.

ידועה תשובתו של רבי חיים מבריסק שהשיב לרבי איצלה פטרבורג.

Petersburg, one of Rav Salanter's leading talmidim. Rav Salanter was a generation older than Rav Chaim. He was a contemporary of the Beis Halevi. You know, this critique of Mussar in its early stages notwithstanding, and I don't mention this by way of question. There's no implicit question here. It's by way of giving a full picture. So the Rav used to quote from Rav Chaim that in the previous generation, meaning the generation before Rav Chaim, there were four individuals who in terms of their, he said, resembled Rishonim. He didn't mean in learning. He meant in terms of the persona. And the four individuals that Rav Chaim mentioned were the Beis Halevi, his father, the Malbim, רבי יהושע לייב דיסקין, and Rav Salanter. So Rav Salanter was obviously held in the utmost esteem. Again, that's not a kasha on this critique. This critique is not a kasha on that. They're both true.

ידועה תשובתו של רבי חיים מבריסק שהשיב לרבי איצלה פטרבורג.

Petersburg, when the latter, Reb Itzele,

בא לקבול ולהשפיע על ראשי הישיבה שהנהיגו לימוד המוסר בבתי מדרשם.

Reb Itzele בזה השתמש במאמר חז"ל ba'gemara b'Berachos.

אמר רבי לוי בר חמא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש לעולם ירגיז אדם יצר טוב על יצר הרע. שנאמר רגזו ואל תחטאו. אם נצחו מוטב ואם לאו יעסוק בתורה. אם נצחו מוטב ואם לאו יקרא קריאת שמע.

Ve'im lav, if that doesn't work out, יזכיר לו יום המיתה. כנראה הדגיש רבי איצלה she'chazal bikru they prioritized

את סגולת הזכרת יום המיתה על לימוד התורה כי על ידי כך אין עסק התורה מנצח יצר הרע בשעה שזכרון המות כובשו.

So you see that sometimes... that what will get through to a person is emphasizing mortality.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אדם החש במעיו נותנים לו שמן קיק.

You give him castor oil. If a person has some intestinal problem so you give him medication, strong medication.

ומה בהדבר שיפנסו את הברי בשמן קיק יחלה ויפול למשכב.

But if you give this strong medication to someone who's healthy, you'll make him sick. אם פגע בך מנוול זה. If normally ata baruch hanafshacha, shaleim betodatecha and ofyecha, asok ba-Torah, moshchehu le-veis hamidrash. Right? So Rav Chaim here is answering with a different Gemara, right? So Rav Issel comes with a Gemara in Berachos and Rav Chaim answers with a Gemara in Kiddushin that says אם פגע בך מנוול זה משכהו לבית המדרש. And Rav Chaim was saying that the kosuv hashlishi between those two Gemoros is

זוהי הסגולה היותר בדוקה במלחמת אדם עם יצרו. אולם אם חלית ברוחך שטות נכנסה בך

and some anomaly psychic bitzbatzba beolamcha

אז עליך להשתמש בסימני מרפא חריפים ביותר שהחולים ניזונים בהם זכירת יום המיתה. אנו בבלי שם שנולדנו עכשיו בריאים בנפש וגוף שלמים בתורתנו ואין צורך כאן בשמן קיק. אם חכמי קובנה וקלם מוכרחים לשתות סמים מרים ישתו ככל אוות נפשם אבל אל יזמינו אחרים לסעוד עמהם.

The Sridei Eish writes, Sridei Eish in cheilek daled of the sefer, he has some essays about the different gedolei Yisrael. So he has one, I think this is the one about Rav Itzele, I think. In the one about Rav Itzele, the Sridei Eish himself was a product of that world. He later went to West Germany and then he studied in university and then he was head of the Hildesheimer Seminary, I think the last head before the Nazis, yimach shemam, but his where he came from initially was the Eastern European world and the world of the mussar yeshivos. So he said that in Slabodka he heard a shmuess where apparently he quotes from Ish Ha-Halacha. He says that the Rav tells this story in Ish Ha-Halacha but in Slabodka they used to say that, I don't think it, apparently Rav Itzele didn't say it then but I guess subsequently I don't know exactly when when the postscript that the Sridei Eish has happened, that Rav Itzele used to say no, that the mussar is oxygen. It's not it's not castor oil, it's not medicine, it's it's oxygen.

ולמען הצדק והאמת יש להגיד כי תנועת המוסר כשהביאה סימני גדלות ובגרות

bishivas knesses yisrael Slabodka as we refer to it as it developed later, not as the Rav referred to it earlier, על ידי השפעתו של רבי נתן הירש פינקל Nossen Tzvi Finkel

ובישיבת מיר בתקופה אחרונה בהנהגתה הרוחנית של רבי ירוחם ליבוביץ לבשה צורה אחרת לגמרי והתקרבה להשקפת עולמם של אישי ההלכה הגדולים. הפחד המור המלנכוליה התנדפו

they blew away as it were ובמקומם תפס רגש איתן strong feeling

של קידוש החיים וחמדתם. פעולת ההכרה על פי הבחנה חידושי תורה ויצירה רוחנית

yarshu es reshusam the domain shel haragshanus. Again, which is what the Rav has been critiquing again, that melancholy שיורדו בראשונה לעולם תנועת המוסר. Me-idach gisa, just as the ish ha-halakha rejects that extreme of melancholy, נכוה איש ההלכה בשמחה יתירה. He's also burned, as it were, in the sense that he recoils from excessive simcha בחדוה משוללת כל יסוד הגיוני בריא, be-shikrut ruchanit, a spiritual intoxication,

ובצהלת החיים הרועשת יותר מדי. יש באיש ההלכה החגיגיות שבאופי,

and to use the term of William James, solemnity.

ועמדה זו עוצרת בעד האדם להמשך אחרי קיצוניות מופרזת בחייו האמוציונליים ושמה מחסום לרוחו הנוטה לפעמים להרוס את מחיצת ההתאפקות וההבלגה.

So here ki-medumeh in this section the Rav is taking his depiction of until now most of the essay has developed the idea of how halakha is an ideal system, right? It's not a system that's designed in response as a practical pragmatic response to concrete situations in this world but as an ideal system, an ideal tarte mashma, again one of ideas and number two again that instead that it then becomes the blueprint by which we elevate our lives in olam ha-zeh. So he's been emphasizing that a lot in terms of the intellectual dimension of the ish ha-halakha. Now he's saying the fact that the ish ha-halakha comes and approaches this world and sees this world through the lens of halakha, how it molds his character, not just how it shapes him intellectually but how it molds his character. And that's what he's describing here. The fact that the ish ha-halakha is so firmly rooted in halakha is what gives him this emotional stability and equilibrium. And in the same way it pushes back against an unwarranted sad and depressing view of the world it also rejects a disproportionate and unfounded extreme joy. כשאיש ההלכה שמח, when he does experience simcha, הוא יודע שאין החיים עלי אדמה גורמים לשמחה מוגזמת. Halakha doesn't, life in this world isn't the basis again for this exaggerated simcha. ואינו מגדיש את הסאה. He doesn't let things, he doesn't overflow and he doesn't overstep boundaries

בשעת דיצה וגילה. הוא מקיים את דברי הכתוב וגילו ברעדה.

On the other hand,

אבל גם בשעת אבילות ודכדוך. אבל גם בשעת אבילות ודכדוך הנפש

birgei tza'ar vetugah

אינו רובץ תחת אסונו ואינו מתבטל לייאוש ולא עצבות קודרת.

The Halakha provides him with an equilibrium. יש בחייו האפקטיביים משווי המשקל. Things are balanced min hasheket hastoi, a Stoic calmness.

מן הידיעה של שביל הזהב של אריסטו, מדמות יוקנו של הרמב"ם, ומן ידיעת ההכרחיות ונצחונה על ידי חוק ההלכה.

So Halakha guides him in his emotional life and memaila he doesn't swing between extremes. He's rooted. You know, obviously coming from a different, very different place, but the similarity bears note. You know, there's a vort from the Baal Shem Tov. The Baal Shem Tov says on the phrase in Tehillim שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד. So the pshat, the original pshat we learn pshat is shiviti is lashon to place. And David Hamelech is saying שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, that Hashem is always before me in the sense that I'm always mindful of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The Baal Shem Tov says that he says another pshat, that shiviti is lashon hishtavut, right? Shaveh means equal and hishtavut means, again, equanimity. In English also the two words share a common root. So shiviti is I maintain my equanimity, why? Because Hashem lenegdi tamid. And that's very, very similar to what the Rav is describing in terms of the, again, that rootedness that the ish hahalakha has in Halakha. He doesn't become overly depressed in bad times, he's not overly exuberant in normal or even in good times. There is a stability, there is an equanimity here.

כל מי שאינו מתאבל כמו שציוו חכמים הרי זה אכזרי

on the one hand. But on the other hand, the Rambam continues,

והמצטער עצמו יותר מדי על מנהגו של עולם הרי זה טיפש.

You know, the contrast between again both are true, אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים, but the contrast between the reason the Rambam gives for what's reflected in the limitation. So shlosha yamim livchi etc. so Chazal have shiurim for aveilus. And the Torah totally prohibited certain expressions of aveilus. לא תתגודדו ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת. A person can't cut himself, can't pull out his hair. לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת. So the Ramban al haTorah says because that kind of extreme aveilus contradicts a belief in hisharus hanefesh. If one sincerely believes that the nefesh, the neshama, is eternal, so then the grief, the Ramban says there's still grief, the same way there's grief when you go to the airport and, I don't know, one family member is moving or maybe just going away for the year. So people will cry and that's normal and it's natural and the Torah doesn't object to that. But on the other hand, you know, to be misgoded or to be meisim korcha, you know, because of such a separation, we would intuitively understand that that's extreme. So the Ramban says if a person believes in hisharus hanefesh, so that caps aveilus and that places a limit on the intensity of aveilus. The Rambam obviously would agree with all that, does agree with all that. But again, the yesod that the Rambam again אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים, the yesod that the Rambam sees reflected here is also a profound one that המצער עצמו יותר מדי minhagah shel olam can be painful. You know, a health regimen so you have to get inoculations, it can be, it can be painful. המצער עצמו יותר מדי but to be המצער עצמו יותר מדי on minhagah shel olam is harei zeh tipesh. A person is supposed to accept the realities of the world axiomatically as the realities of his own, his own life.

זוהי המידה של איש ההלכה בתחום הרגשי. לפיכך לא הייתה דעת גדולי ההלכה נוחה מריקודים וממחולות, מהוללות ומשכרות אפילו לשם שמים. מספרים על הגאון מווילנא שהיה שמח שמחה גדולה בלא כל שמץ של שכרות בשעת ההקפות,

haya roked, mocha chaf, clap, sher ve-mezamer, צוהל מתוך התפעלות והתלהבות. beram, ke-heref ayin, kedi dibur, lesiyum ha-hakafos, היה חוזר למצבו הרגיל והשאנן. So even when experiencing simcha, again, he's rooted in halacha and therefore it's within the boundaries of halacha. At the other end of the emotional spectrum,

כשמת אחיו של הגר"א והגיעה שמועת אבל ביום השבת, לא התרגש ולא הפגין שום סימני צער,

keshe-chas, to cry on Shabbos is, conflicts with oneg Shabbos. keshe-chasam, ברכת ההבדלה במוצאי שבת, paratz be-vechiya. כשבתו האהובה של רבי אליהו איש פרוז'נא, the Rav's maternal grandfather, the first years of the Rav's life he lived in his house when his father was, when his parents first got married, they lived with the Rav's maternal grandparents.

כשבתו האהובה של רבי אליהו איש פרוז'נא חלתה כחודש ימים קודם כניסתה לחופה,

she was a young woman, vibrant, in the best of health. In the days before antibiotics, a person could go from being rachmana litzlan young, young and vibrant rachmana litzlan, an infection, it wasn't such an uncommon tragic event that one could go from vibrancy to being at death's doorstep. ולאחר ימים מועטים, and that's what happened to her,

נטתה למות. נכנס בנו של רבי אליהו לחדרו, כשהלה היה עומד מעוטף בטלית ובתפילין ומתפלל בציבור, והביא לו בשורת הפורענות, כי ייסורי גסיסה תקפו עליה.

The doctor had detected that she was a goseses, that death was somewhat imminent. I mean, al pi din, it means, I don't think the Rav is using it that, I don't think he intends it that rigorously here, it means within three days. I don't think he necessarily means it that way here.

נכנס רבי אליהו לחדר בתו ושאל את הרופא כמה זמן יימשכו חבלי הגסיסה?

v-keshe-kibel, meaning do you think it's going to be within 30 seconds, within the next minute, what's your sense? v-keshe-kibel teshuvat ha-rofe,

נכנס רבי אליהו לחדרו, חלץ תפילין של רש"י ולבש תפילין של רבנו תם,

chish maher,

כי הלא לאחר יציאת נשמה יחול עליו דין אונן, שהוא פטור מכל המצוות. לאחר שחלץ את תפיליו וכרכן ברצועותיהן והניחן בנרתיקן,

again, this, that sense of heroic equanimity, nichnas le-cheder ha-goseses. Just parenthetically before we get to the main point, I think Rav Schachter has maybe it's in Nefesh HaRav, I forget in which of the sefarim that he quotes, I think he says he quotes from his uncle, that he was told that the Rav was very makpid about not leaving tefillin just without wrapping them up and putting them away. You know the sort of somewhat common practice, maybe Rosh Chodesh maybe, but sometimes people just take their tefillin off you know and will leave them to wrap them up later and put them back in the tefillin zakel. So the Rav thought that that was shelo, that that was improper because it wasn't consistent with kedushas tefillin. You take tefillin off, so you have to wrap them up and you have to put them back in the makom mechubad of the tefillin zakel. So itachen that that's also, you know, bein hashuras here, that כרכן ברצועותיהן והניחן בנרתיקן. Someone, someone once, I don't know, someone once came to me fit to be tied, I don't know, he just read this passage or I don't know, whatever, had just become aware of this passage and was so upset at the callous detachment, like he should have been there with his daughter. So it's quite obvious, it's sufficiently obvious that the Rav doesn't, didn't find the need to spell this out, but it's quite obvious that his daughter, that Rebecca Shoshana, his daughter, was comatose at this point and that it made no difference to her whether her father was in the room or wasn't in the room. And it is true that it would have been emotionally meaningful to the father to be there, but whereas it is, it's mentioned in sefarim, it is objectively meaningful to be present besha'as yetzias neshama, but there was nothing objectively meaningful about being there when she was comatose and would have been totally unaware of his presence. And that's what the Rav is describing, again, this heroic composure was that instead of just emoting as anyone else, virtually anyone else in that horrible, horrible, terrible situation would have done, so he had the, he had the gevura to behave as he did. But it's pashut that had she been conscious, of course he would have been there. Of course he would have been there. He wouldn't have been in shul davenin Shacharis either had she been conscious and and and his presence would have contributed anything.

יש כאן כפיפות הדעת קבלת דינו של הקדוש ברוך הוא באהבה והודאת החוק והדין תודעת,

excuse me,

תודעת החוק והדין עוזה של ההלכה וכוחה ואמונה חזקה כחלמיש צור.

Okay.