[Avodah] 15 fruits- [RavAviner] Parashat Beshalach 5768

[Michael Makovi]

> Again, for my part, there is no machloqes between RaMCHaL and RSRH: the
> sugya doesn't say what effort one must expend in order to "behold" a given
> item/aspect of this world, nor (to repeat what I wrote before) does it say
> one must indulge in "beholding"; and I don't understand RaMCHaL as
> advocating blocking oneself from any form of "beholding." Rather, he notes
> as a basic axiom in MY 13 (as he begins outlining ways in which a person can
> improve from being a "tzaddiq" to becoming a "chassid") that re those
> aspects of this world which are "muchrach lo mei-eizeh ta'am sheyihyeh," a
> person would be a "chotei" rather than a chassid should he be "poreish" from
> them.
>
> Gut Voch/Shavua Tov and all the best from
> --Michael Poppers via RIM pager

The reason I say that Ramchal has a machloket, is that he actively
extols perishut from all pleasures (such as food) except what is
absolutely necessary for physical life. He explicitly makes the ideal
to be one who abstains from all food that is not explicitly necessary
to live. Mesilat Yesharim brings up the dictum that one must account
for all pleasures he denied himself, but he says that this means only
those pleasures that are necessary for life itself. (If I remember
correctly; I don't have Mesilat Yesharim in front of me, and I've only
learned it once bekiut.)

By contrast, RSRH and others like him, seem to understand this dictum
according to what is (IMHO) the p'shat: Hashem gave us a beautiful
wonderful world of amazing pleasures and joys, and He wants us to
avail ourselves of them! He put them here davka for us to go
appreciate them! Obviously, there is a certain way of doing this; not
as a hedonist, but as one who appreciates that it all comes from
Hashem, that it is all created lichvodo, etc. etc. To describe how
this shita does not equal hedonism could take up a treatise, for which
I am not fit to author.

Obviously, the machloket is not absolute. Much of what Ramchal says
about how to use pleasures, RSRH will agree to. The difference is
rather one of perspective and emphasis, not on the actual pratim.

I would posit that this machloket is similar to that between TIDE and
parnasa-only. One says secular learning is intrinsically valuable (BUT
within certain limits, that again are detailed and controversial, as
just above), and the other says secular learning is for sustaining
life itself, only.

Mikha'el Makovi