[Aspaqlaria] Aspaqlaria

[Aspaqlaria]

Aspaqlaria

///////////////////////////////////////////
Who is wealthy?
 
Posted: 13 Feb 2008 01:53 PM CST
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Aspaqlaria/~3/234539093/who-is-wealthy.shtml

Ben Zoma would say:  Who is rich? He who is satisfied with his lot. As it is said: When you eat from the toil of your hands, you are fortunate and it is good for you (Psalms 128:2). You are fortunate  in this world; and it is good for you  in the World to Come.
 - Avos 4:1


When speaking publicly, I often use this story from the Kotzker Rebbe, a Chassidic master known for his sharp wit.

The Kotzker Rebbe once asked his students: There are two people on a ladder, one on the fourth rung, and another on the 10th, which one is higher?

The book where I saw this thought doesn’t record his students’ answers. I assume some recognized it as a trick question, and answered that it was the one on the fourth, some answered the 10th figuring the rebbe was leading them somewhere, and others were silent. But the rebbe’s answer was succinct, “It depends who is climbing the ladder, and who is going down.”

What is relevant isnt our state at any point in time, its how were changing.

Given that idea, I think ben Zomas notion of my lot in life is the path Hashem placed before me to travel. Not where I stand now physically, socially, psychologically or spiritually. Not even where G-d is leading me. My lot is the trip along the way. The whole roller coaster ride, the peaks and the dips.

My lot isnt what I have at any particular point in time. Not in the physical sense, although someone who makes $25,000 a year and is content is certainly wealthier than the millionare who is consumed with craving his next million. My lot, in ben Zomas sense, isnt even my current spiritual state. Its the road Im to travel.

I think this understanding is reinforced by his choice of proof-text and its image of eating by the work of ones hands. Fortunate in this world, along the way, and it is good for you in the world to come in terms of what you accomplish. The verses language can be taken as one of process, working toward a goal.

The knowledge that this constitutes my curriculum, something tailored specifically for the needs of my soul. Something Hashems plan for the universe needed me to do  and only I can do it.

When I start to feel like Ive been treading water too long and my arms are getting tired and Im scared that my head will soon go under, I try to return to the mental image that epiphany gave me. (And I hope I relayed, as its hard to convey an epiphany, as I cant share that Aha! feeling, just paint the ideas.)  It doesnt always work, but overall the idea helps keep me sane.

My lot in life is the ladder that I alone can climb. The job for which G-d created me as I am, when I live and where I live, with the people I know, the responsibilities I face, and the challenges He throws at me, solely because this is something His great plan required that required his having a Micha Berger to do it.
 


///////////////////////////////////////////
Brisk and Mussar
 
Posted: 13 Feb 2008 01:19 PM CST
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Aspaqlaria/~3/234523373/brisk-and-mussar.shtml


This post is a continuation of my previous post on the nature of Mussar, and on an earlier post contrasting Brisker and Rav Shimon Shkops derekh (as I saw Rav Dovid Lifshitzs variant thereon).

In the earlier post I wrote:

Fundamental to Brisker philosophy is the idea that halakhah has no first principles. It can only be understood on its own terms. As R’ JB Soloveitchik describes in Halachic Man, it’s only through halakhah that man finds a balance between his religious neediness for redemption and his creative constructive self. (Ironically, a true halachic man would never explore the questions addressed by Halachic Man! R’ JB Soloveitchik’s loyalty to Brisk, while true in terms of derekh halimud, style of studying gemara, was compromised on the perspective level by his interest in philosophy.)

R Gil Student recently cited sources to make this point (quoted at length for those who get these posts by email rather than chasing web links):

1. R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (the great-grandfather of Bostons and YUs R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik) explains that commandments were not given based on their corresponding historical events, e.g. eating matzah on the night of the 15th of Nissan based on the Exodus. Rather matzah is a chok (unexplained commandment) and God arranged history to play out so as to correspond to the commandment. While history can give us hints about the commandments true meaning, it is never its true source. (Beis Ha-Levi Al Ha-Torah, Bo sv. de-kevar p. 9d/18) I cant find it now but I seem to recall the Beis Ha-Levi using this to explain why Lot was eating matzah on Pesach (Rashi, Gen. 19:3) even though there was no historical reason to do so. The commandment of matzah is the reason that history followed the course to necessitate it.

2. In a similar vein, there are some commandments whose reasons seem to be to maintain the world, such as the prohibitions of murder and theft and the obligation to give charity. However, R. Chaim Soloveitchik (the son of the Beis Ha-Levi) is quoted as having said that this is not the reason for these commandments. God theoretically could have created a world in which charity was destructive and murder productive. However, God looked to the Torah and created a world that corresponds to the commandments. The reasons offered by various sages for the commandments are not true reasons because human intellect cannot fathom those reasons. Rather they are personal meanings  human benefits  that we can subjectively find in the commandments. (Haggadah Shel Pesach Mi-Beis Levi, sv. she-anu ochlim pp. 182-183)

3. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik quotes his grandfather, R. Chaim, as rejecting all attempts to explain why God created the world (e.g. because it is the nature of the good to do good) and asserting that it was simply Gods will to do so. Those types of explanations imply that there is a lacking in God, which is impossible. Therefore, the only possible explanation is that it was His will and there is nothing further to investigate. (Halakhic Man, pp. 52-53)

These approaches greatly minimize the effort of the vast philosophical and taamei ha-mitzvos literature, that search for reasons for the world and the commandments. One can only find benefits of the commandments and not reasons for them (cf. R. Hershel Schachter, Mi-Peninei Ha-Rav, pp. 68-69). They also seem to argue against a concept of natural law that is proposed by many medieval authorities and championed by the Mussar proponents. However, an argument could be made that there is an artificial natural law that God intentionally implanted into the world.



(R Student then continues by contrasting the Brisker position with that of the Rambam. They eschew philosophy and invoke the limitations of human knowledge. The Rambam was perhaps our most noted philosopher. And yet the Rambams Mishneh Torah is a key tool of the Brisker derekh.)

To these examples, let me add a recollection of mine of a shiur by R JB Soloveitchik in which he explains that even lo sirtzakh  do not murder can not be fully understood, and requires simple obedience to Hashems command. After all, is there any objective way to define life? Does murder include abortion? Euthenasia? Pulling the plug? Refraining to put it back in when the plug is pulled for regular maintenance? Heart death? Brain death? What about a milkhemes reshus, when the king makes war for the sake of expanding territory?

Similarly, RJBS tells a story of his father. Rav Moshe Soloveitchik was the rav in Chaslovitch, a primarily Chabad community. The shofar blower was preparing for his duty one Rosh haShanah, in a state of heightened emotion, in tears because of the awesome job ahead. Rav Moshes attitude: Do you cry before eating matzah at the seider? This is a mitzvah and thats a mitzvah. No different.

Even RJBS, who I claim (as quoted above) defied the notion of Halachic Man by being concerned to formulate the notion itself, limits his exploration of the meaning of mitzvos to post-facto lessons to be drawn from the experience of the act. Rav Herschel Schachter isnt quoted as using this term, but RJBS used to call these explorations halachic hermeneutics, which illustrates his belief that they werent fundamental understandings of the mitzvos.

My conclusion (although not uniquely my idea) in the post on contrasting styles of limmud:

In short, Brisk asks “Vus?” (What?), Telzh asks “Fahr vus?” (Why?) Anyone who has been following this blog should be unsurprised by which one I felt spoke to me.

Brisk doesnt simply refrain from asking fahr vus?, they stress the extent to which its unanswerable.

In my previous entry to this one, I gave the following as one defining element of Mussar:

A rebbe-chaveir of mine, R’ Dr Ephraim Becker, describes mussar (in the third sense of the previous triad) as a three part thing:

- There is the real, knowing where one stands

- There is the ideal, knowing where the Creator wants us to be

- There is the process of getting from the real to the ideal

And I wrote:

It is this notion of process, of climbing — literally “shteigin” — that is of value within nearly all derakhim, all paths, all approaches to the Torah. And thus lower case “m”, not specifically the Mussar Movement. The different derakhim define the ideal by stressing different aspects of it. Which will in turn suggests different paths, thus the name “derakhim“. But using tools to become the kind of person who can follow that path, to consciously pursue that derekh’s perspective on the end-goal, makes sense according to any derekh.

I wrote of value within nearly all derakhim because I thought of two possible exceptions: Breslov and related forms of Chassidus are so experientially oriented, that they refrain from overanalyzing things. By plotting a path one interferes with the natural emotional experience of having a relationship with the A-lmighty. The second exception was Brisk.

As we just saw, Brisk has as a fundamental assumption that one can not know the ideal. Therefore they can not define the process in terms of that ideal either. A Brisker doesnt look to go beyond the letter of halakhah for aggadic reasons, neither in finding supportive exercises (Mussar practices or Chassidic hanhagos) nor in his choice of stringencies. A Brisker Chumrah (stringency) is a term used for trying to cover all the bases, all the opinions in the textual halachic process.

There is therefore little utility in Brisker thought for consciously planning a process. If you focus on how much we can not understand of the motivation of mitzvos rather than how much we can, youre planning a trip without knowing where youre going! To a Brisker, the process begins and ends with submission to halakhah. It is guaranteed to achieve the unknowable goal.

This was the mindset in Volozhin when R  Yitzchaq Blaser (Rav Itzeler Petersburger, a student of Rav Yisrael Salanter and compiler of Rav Yisraels letters into Or Yisrael) visited. The students literally carried him out of the beis medrash. A page gemara is the best Mussar seifer. A position to which he would agree, actually, despite looking in that page for Mussar lessons rather than assuming its goals would mystically emerge from a straight focus on halakhah.

This is quite different than the position of earlier rashei yeshiva of Volozhin, such as its founder, R Chaim Volozhiner, whose seifer Nefesh haChaim is entirely about the function of mitzvos. It is also in distinction to R Chaim Volozhiners rebbe, the Gra, who not only writes about the reasons for mitzvos, he also taught that observance was a tool for reaching the goal, not a guarantee. In Even Sheleimah ch. 2, the Gra explains the use of water as a metaphor for Torah. Learning Torah is like watering a garden. If you have beautiful plants, it will produce healthier, more beautiful plants. If you water weeds, all you get is more weeds.

Sadly, I think the Vilna Goans metaphor is born out. We live in an era where few seek to understand the ideal at any depth greater than what they absorbed in the early grades. There are few attempts at a systemic study of aggadita, or how to tie that to ones observance of mitzvos and lifestyle. Aggaditas role has been reduced to nice vertlach on the parashah or a thought of Chazal with not grand picture, no grounding, no attempt to define a target to which one should aim their lives.

I think that is the same social force that brought Brisk to the fore  its a style of learning that not only allows one to neglect such studies, but actually invites such elision. (Symptomatic: Making a siyum on a volume of gemara without making any attempt to comprehend large sections of narrative within it.)

And unfortunately we see weeds in our garden. Well watered weeds. Talmidei chakhamim who make a splash in the national media for tax fraud. Schools founded and funded on embezzled money. Someone who prepared and teaches daf yomi who sold treif chickens for years. And even among the masses, an entire under the table economy designed to violate dina demalkhusa dina (the law of the land is the law), which undebatably applies to taxation. Disdain for Jews of other stripes.  Etc we all know the communal problems, no need to wallow in them any further.

Im not blaming Brisker Derekh for these ills. I am actually saying the causality is in reverse: We want answers about what to do next, with no eye toward the forest for all the trees. That kind of culture will cause people to gravitate toward a modality of learning which doesnt try to explain the trees relation to the forest. But also, I think that if were to cure the problem, advocating other modalities in our children may be part of the solution.

Let every page of gemara studied remind our youth that we not only must follow halakhah, we must do so for the sake of building and being idealists.
 


--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Aspaqlaria."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=4187981&key=cQD876uioH 

If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Aspaqlaria, c/o FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661

This Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner.
	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/aspaqlaria-aishdas.org/attachments/20080214/560debb7/attachment.htm>