<html><head><title>[Aspaqlaria] Baal Nefesh Yachmir</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/wp-content/themes/twentyeleven/style.css" type="text/css" media="screen" /></head><body>Aspaqlaria has posted a new item, '<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir">Baal Nefesh Yachmir</a>'<br />
<br />
<font size=+1><br />
<p>A recurring topic on Avodah is the Mishnah Berurah’s use of the concept of <em>ba’al nefesh yachmir</em>, that while the <em>halakhah</em> itself allows for some leniency, “one who masters their <em>nefesh</em> should be stringent”. (By the way, the idiom only appears 24 times in the MB, although the general notion of going beyond the letter does come up more frequently.)</p>
<p><a title="Avodah: vol 1, issue 28" href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n028.shtml#07" target="_blank">In 1998 I suggested</a> that the MB, having been written by the Chafeitz Chaim, reflects an attitude where the line between <em>halakhah</em> and personal improvement is intentionally blurry. To a <em>ba’al mussar</em> (although the CC was not an adherent of the movement), <em>halakhah</em> can be viewed as the bare minimum of a <em>mussar</em> regimen. <em>Mitzvos</em> exist to hone oneself, but someone who is serious about this task would try to harness them consciously toward that end, would commit to other practices toward that goal, etc… So, we can view “<em>ba’al nefesh yachmir</em>” as <em>mussar </em> advice, but that doesn’t stand entirely separate from <em>pesaq.</em></p>
<p>Although… it’s not 100% clear that the Mishnah Berurah was even written with the intent that it be used as a practical halachic guide. The Chafeitz Chaim writes in his introduction (traditionally found in the beginning of volume IV, tr. Rabi Seth Mandel, <a title="Avodah: vol 9, issue 55" href="www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n055.shtml#04" target="_blank">posted here</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>First is that the SA by itself without learning the Tur is not comprehensible, because when he wrote the SA it was the BY’s intention that people should first learn the sources of the halokho in the Tur and the BY, so that he would understand the reasoning and logic of each shitta and the practical differences between each… Many times it happens that the SA combines in one s’if something that is only l’khat’hilla with another that is b’di’eved and l’iqquva, something that is d’orayso with something d’rabbonon, and there will be a difference if there is a safeq etc… But learning every din in the SA with its sources and reasons from the Tur and the SA is too great a task for most people nowadays… since in this way one medium siman may take several days and sometimes a few weeks…</p>
<p>The second reason… is that it is difficult to know the halokho l’ma’aseh because of the multiple disagreements brought by the acharonim… and even if he would want always to be mahmir in the matter, that is also not a safe way, because sometimes it will be a chumra that leads to a kula. I also see that from the time the B’er Heitev summarized the Taz and the Mogen Avrohom and others and responsa about 150 years have passed, and in the meantime there have been very many famous g’onim who have dealt with the matters, such as the Elya Rabba, the Matteh Y’hudah, and many others, and the Sha’arei T’shuva only brings a little bit of this in some places. In particular, the Pri M’godim, which is a great work and deals in each siman with new questions l’ma’aseh, and whose conclusions have been accepted is almost not quoted almost at all in the Sha’arei T’shuva… and similarly many many other fam
ous g’onim whose views have been accepted after the Sha’arei T’shuva was printed, such as R. ‘Aqiva Eiger, Derekh haHayyim… So that now if a person wants to understand some halokho l’ma’aseh that is not fully discussed in the SA, he will have so search in many acharonim… Therefore I have strengthened myself with the grace of G-d to fix these matters. I have written an explanation to the SA that is sufficient in my opinion… and explained each din in the SA with its reasons and logic from the g’moro and posqim… and in each matter where there are disagreements among the posqim I have presented the conclusions of the acharonim (gathered from the BaH, the D’risha, the Elya Rabba, the G’Ro the P’ri M’godim…)</p></blockquote>
<p>It appears that the purpose of the book was not to provide his own ruling, but to survey the later posqim who have added complexity to the field so that someone looking to reach a decision knows who wrote on the matter.</p>
<p>Yes, the CC often gives his own opinion, including our “<em>ba’al nefesh yachmir</em>“, but it is unclear to me he intended that opinion to be a pragmatic ruling rather than a theoretical statement. This would explain why the Mishnah Berurah’s rulings diverge from accepted practice so much more often than the Arukh haShulchan (a contemporary work from the same region). <em>Halakhah lemaaseh</em>, pragmatic rulings, need to take such precedent and continuity into account; discussions of textual theory do not.</p>
<p>Dr Haym Solovetichik, in his famous paper “<a title="copy at The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education" href="http://www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm" target="_blank">Rupture and Reconstruction</a>“, describes the difference between the two as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>This dual tradition of the intellectual and the mimetic, law as taught and law as practiced, which stretched back for centuries, begins to break down in the twilight years of the author of the Arukh ha-Shulhan, in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. The change is strikingly attested to in the famous code of the next generation, the Mishnah Berurah.<sup>6</sup> This influential work reflects no such reflexive justification of established religious practice, which is not to say that it condemns received practice. Its author, the Hafetz Hayyim, was hardly a revolutionary. His instincts were conservative and strongly inclined him toward some post facto justification. The difference between his posture and that of his predecessor, the author of the Arukh ha-Shulhan, is that he surveys the entire literature and then shows that the practice is plausibly justifiable in terms of that literature. His interpretations, while not necessarily persuasive, always st
ay within the bounds of the reasonable. And the legal coordinates upon which the Mishnah Berurah plots the issue are the written literature and the written literature alone.<sup>7</sup> With sufficient erudition and inclination, received practice can almost invariably be charted on these axes, but it is no longer inherently valid. It can stand on its own no more.</p>
<p><sup>6</sup> Israel Meir ha-Kohen, Mishnah Berurah. This six volume work, which has been photo-offset innumerable times, was initially published over the span of eleven years, 1896-1907, and appears contemporaneous with the Arukh ha-Shulhan. Bibliographically, this is correct; culturally, nothing could be farther from the truth. Though born only nine years apart, their temperaments and life experiences were such that they belong to different ages. The Arukh ha-Shulhan stands firmly in a traditional society, un-assaulted and undisturbed by secular movements, in which rabbinic Judaism still “moved easy in harness,” R. Israel Meir Ha-Kohen, better known as the Hafetz Hayyim, stood, throughout his long life (1838- 1933), in the forefront of the battle against Enlightenment and the growing forces of Socialism and Zionism in Eastern Europe. His response to the growing impact of modernity was not only general and attitudinal, as noted here and below, n. 20 sec. c, but
also specific and substantive. When asked to rule on the permissibility of Torah instruction for women, he replied that, in the past, the traditional home had provided women with the requisite religious background; now, however, the home had lost its capacity for effective transmission, and text instruction was not only permissible, but necessary. What is remarkable is not that he perceived the erosion of the mimetic society, most observers by that time (1917-1918) did, but rather that he sensed at this early a date, the necessity of a textual substitute. (Likkutei Halakhot, Sotah 2 la [Pieterkow, 1918].) The remarks of the Hafetz Hayyim should be contrasted with the traditional stand both taken and described by the Arukh ha-Shulhan, Yoreh De’ah 246:19. One might take this as further evidence of the difference between these two halakhists set forth in the text and documented in n. 7. One should note, however, that this passage was written at a much later date than the
Mishnah Berurah, at the close of World War I, when traditional Jewish society was clearly undergoing massive shock. (For simplicity’s sake, I described the Mishnah Berurah in the text as a “code,” as, in effect, it is. Strictly speaking, it is, of course, is a commentary to a code.)</p>
<p><sup>7</sup> Contrast the differing treatments of the Arukh ha-Shulhan and the Mishnah Berurah at Orah Hayyim 345:7, 539:15 (in the Arukh ha-Shulhan) 539:5 (in the Mishnah Berurah), 668:1, 560:1, 321:9 (Arukh ha-Shulhan) 321:12 (Mishnah Berurah). See also the revelatory remarks of the Arukh ha-Shulhan at 552:11. For an example of differing arguments, even when in basic agreement as to the final position, compare 202:15 (Arukh ha-Shulhan) with 272:6 (Mishnah Berurah). This generalization, like all others, will serve only to distort if pushed too far. The Mishnah Berurah, on occasion, attempts to justify common practice rather unpersuasively, as in the instance of eating fish on Sabbath, (319:4), cited above n. 3, and, de facto, ratifies the contemporary eruv (345:7). Nor did the Arukh ha-Shulhan defend every common practice; see, for example, Orah Hayyim 551:23. (S. Z. Leiman has pointed out to me the distinction between the Arukh ha-Shulhan and the Mishnah Berurah is well
mirrored in their respective positions as to the need for requisite shiurim in the standard tallit katan, noted by Rabbi E. Y. Waldenburg in the recently published twentieth volume of his Tzitz Eliezer [Jerusalem, 1994], no. 8, a responsum that itself epitomizes the tension between the mimetic culture and the emerging textual one.)</p></blockquote>
<p>I am suggesting, though that this shift deemphasizing mimetic tradition (the flow of practice transmitted culturally) in favor of a near-exclusive focus on texts was not actually part of the Chafetz Chaim’s worldview as much as those post-war <em>rashei yeshiva</em> (such as R’ Aharon Kotler) who promoted the idea of using the Mishnah Berurah as a <em>poseiq acharon</em>. The Chafetz Chaim wrote textually because he was intentionally giving a survey of textual theory.</p>
<p>As further evidence that the Mishnah Berurah was not intended to be a practical law guide, we have a lot of testimony that shows that its own author often followed the common Lithuanian practice over his own “ruling”. Despite the origin of wearing one’s tzitzis strings out being in the MB, the CC did not. His <em>qiddush</em> cup doesn’t hold as much wine as the MB would require. (It is still in the hands of the Zaks family and has been checked repeatedly.) He used city eiruvin for carrying on Shabbos. The Chafeitz Chaim did not say “Berikh Shemeih” when taking out the Torah. Etc…</p>
<hr />
<p>All of the above are actually tangential to what I wanted to record that motivated me to pull out the WordPress editor and write this post! What I intended to explore was:</p>
<p>What is a <em>ba’al nefesh</em>, and why are some <em>chumeros </em>more his thing than someone else’s?</p>
<p>Rav Chaim Volozhiner (<a title="Hebrew Books: Ruach haChaim pg 39" href="http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=5303&st=%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%A9&pgnum=39">Ruach Chaim on Avos 3:1</a>); see also Nefesh haChaim 3:1) defines the <em>ba’al nefesh</em> as:</p>
<blockquote><p>This is what our Rabbis (<a href="http://e-daf.com/index.asp?ID=1551&size=1">Chagiga 12a</a>) intended by: Adam was as tall as from the earth to the sky. And when he sinned, HQBH places His “Hand” on him and reduced him, standing him on two levels.</p>
<p>If he wants, like at the time when he has a neshamah [the higher aspects of the soul], even though he has feet on the ground, his body and essence are planted in the storehouses of on high. And when he sins, the Holy One blessed be He places His “Hand” on him and reduces him etc… two levels — it means to say two steps: nefesh [the soul's more animalistic functions] and ru’ach [its spiritual functions].</p>
<div dir="rtl">והנה הבחירה חפשית באדם ברצותו מהפך חומרו המגושם להיות רוחני, וכן להיפוך חס ושלום פוגם הרוח ושבה כבשרו, ובדור המבול הרעו לעשות, ופגמו הרוח ושב כבשר, ולזה אמר הכתוב (בראשית ו’) “לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי [בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, בְּשַׁגַּם, הוּא בָשָׂר; וְהָיוּ יָמָיו, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה].” לא יהיה עוד הרוח בתוך הגוף בשגם הוא בשר נהפך לגשמי.</div>
<div dir="rtl">והאנשים המהפכים הבשר והיו לרוח נקראים בעלי הנפש…</div>
<p>A person’s free will turns his physicality into <em>ruchani</em> according to his will. Similarly in the reverse (<em>chas veshalom</em>) he can damage the <em>ru’ach</em> and reduce it to his flesh. In the generation of the flood they made their actions evil, they damaged their <em>ruach </em>and reduced it to flesh. It is about this the scripture says “My ‘Soul’ shall not put up with man for ever, for he also is flesh and blood; therefore his days shall be 120 years.” (<a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0106.htm#3">Bereishis 6:3</a>) There will no longer be a soul in a body, because [the soul] too is flesh — turned into something physical.</p>
<p>The people who change their flesh so that it becomes spirit are called <em>“baalei nefesh”</em>. However, because of our many sins, these people who have the <em>ruach</em> within them are few. Rather [only] at a time when they have some merit, they lower it down into their bodies. This is what is written (Iyov 32) “And so it is <em>ru’ach</em> in man, and nishmas Sha-dai will understand them.” The <em>ru’ach</em> at times is in man — in him literally! — and the <em>neshamah</em> isn’t in him. Rather, it sends to him from on high a response to the ru’ach, the “<em>Ru’ach Hashem, ru’ach chochmah ubinah</em> … — the spirit of Hashem, the spirit of wisdom and understanding…”</p></blockquote>
<p>So, the sinner obsesses with physicality until his <em>nefesh</em>, the “lowest” aspects and functions of his soul, is entirely about flesh and is physical. Whereas the <em>baal nefesh</em> is someone who can take even his body, and elevate it to being a pure vehicle for his <em>nefesh</em>. (Rav Chaim Volozhiner continues to explain how this is related to both reward and punishment in general, and how sin naturally caused the original fall from Gan Eden.)</p>
<p>This idea is also found in the Yerushalmi (<a title="Mechon Mamre: Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah, ch. 5" href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/r/r4705.htm" target="_blank">AZ 5:4, vilna 33b</a>). R’ Shimon ben Lazar went to a town in Shomron, and it seems he <strong>really</strong> wanted wine. The problem was that the locals were Kusim, not Jews. (The Kusiim were a tribe who presumably converted to Judaism, but as time progressed doubt arose as to their original sincerity. So, while they were initially treated as Jews, at some point the matter was treated as one of doubt, then probably not, until eventually they were considered non-Jewish.) At this point in history, it was permissible to drink a sealed barrel in a Kusi town. But an open barrel was too likely handled by someone capable of using the wine for religious libations. The town did hire a Jewish schoolteacher. RSBL asked him if there was any kosher wine available. The teacher offered him some water from a spring. Ra
v Shimon ben [E]lazar asked again, and the teacher replied:</p>
<blockquote>
<div dir="terl">אין את מריה דנפשך הא מבועא קמך שתי ואין נפשך מרתך “שַׂמְתָּ שַׂכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ, אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה” כבר נתקלקלו הכותים</div>
<p>If you are the master of your <em>nefesh</em>, then the spring is before you — drink!</p>
<p>But if your <em>nefesh</em> is <strong>your</strong> master, “they placed a knife at your throat if you are a person of <em>nefesh</em>” [a glutton] — the Kusiim already ruined it.</p></blockquote>
<p>The <em>pasuq’</em>s <em>ba’al nefesh</em> is a glutton, and therefore not quite the same usage as a modern description of someone who chooses stringency. Or is it? Perhaps the point is that someone who knows they have an internal tendency toward gluttony, hedonism, or the like is the one who needs to work on it — and therefor a “<em>ba’al nefesh</em>” should adopt extra practices to harness this tendency in a positive direction.</p>
<address>However, it is more consistent with what we saw from Rav Chaim Volozhiner to assume that the more recent Hebrew usage of “<em>ba’al nefesh</em>” actually derives from the Yerushalmi’s Aramaic, rather than the Biblical coinage. That the <em>ba’al nefesh</em> of today is the <em>marei denafshei – </em>master of one’s <em>nefesh, </em>the more animalistic functions of the soul — who turns his flesh and <em>nefesh</em> into something more spiritual (<em>ruach, ruchnius</em>).</address>
<address>Although this wouldn’t change the scope of <em>ba’al nefesh yachmir</em>. Rather than prescriptively advising the glutton to adopt the practice to sublimate his instincts, the phrase would be descriptive — the stringency would naturally fit the temperament of a spiritual idealist. (And of someone who wants to be one.)</address>
<address>This definition fits the older examples I found.</address>
<address>Shulchan Arukh (OC 240:8) discusses <em>tzenius </em>even during marital relations, and concludes “these are further separations, and a <em>ba’al nefesh</em> must be stringent in these”.</address>
<address>And in Yoreh Dei’ah (116:7), the Rama writes that an animal that was ruled kosher by the force of reason rather than established tradition is permissible, a <em>baal nefesh</em> shouldn’t eat it.</address>
<address>But the Mishnah Berurah (27 <em>s”q</em> 44) advises every <em>ba’al nefesh </em>to teach his <em>shul</em>-mates how to wear <em>tefillin</em> correctly. And similarly (32 <em>s”q</em> 189) that a <em>ba’al nefesh</em> would make the <em>titura</em>, the part of the <em>tefillin</em> base that the strap runs through, at least 2 fingers wide. Similarly, as we mentioned before, the MB (301 <em>s”q</em> 141) that a <em>ba’al nefesh</em> would not use a neighborhood-wide <em>eiruv</em>.</address>
<address>It would seem usage broadened by his day. Still, it’s possible that the MB does exclusively use the idiom for someone more focused on working on becoming in touch with his own soul than our other ideals –<em>anavah</em> (modesty), <em>ahavas Has</em>hem (Love of G-d), etc…. (Appointing oneself in charge of others’ <em>tefillin</em> poses a challenge with regard to <em>anavah</em>, actually.) So it is interesting to contrast the stringencies appropriate for the <em>baal nefesh</em> to that motivated by other ideals. I am not capable of a broad survey of this sort, so if you notice any that fit or violate this pattern, please leave a note in the comments.</address>
<address>To get the list going, let me open with what I feel is a glaring example:</address>
<address>The Chasam Sofer (YD 39) discusses the <em>shocheit</em> peeling off adhesions from the lungs and testing them for holes in warm water. If the adhesion can be removed without tearing the lung, the adhesion is external enough for Ashkenazim to still consider the animal kosher, albeit not <em>glatt</em>. He concludes that if done by a proper shocheit, “<em>yokhlu anavim veyisbe’u</em> — the modest will eat and be satiated” (<a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm#27">Tehillim 22:27</a>). However, “<em>shomer nafsho yirchaq </em>– one who guards his soul should stay away.” There are conflicting priorities here. The person working on his estimate of his own self-worth in relation to others’ should trust the <em>shocheit</em> to have checked correctly. But the person working on subduing his physical side should avoid all questions involving food and is advised by the CS to make a policy of only eating <em>glatt
</em>.</address>
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled"><div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social sd-social-icon sd-sharing"><h3 class="sd-title">Share:</h3><div class="sd-content"><ul><li class="share-facebook"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-facebook sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=facebook" target="_blank" title="Share on Facebook" id="sharing-facebook-4325"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-google-plus-1"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-google-plus-1 sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=google-plus-1" target="_blank" title="Click to share on Google+" id="sharing-google-4325"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-linkedin"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-linkedin sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=linkedin" target="_blank" title="Click to share on LinkedIn" id="sharing-linkedin-4325"><span></span></a></li><li class="
share-twitter"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-twitter sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=twitter" target="_blank" title="Click to share on Twitter" id="sharing-twitter-4325"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-email"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-email sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=email" target="_blank" title="Click to email this to a friend"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-print"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-print sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir" target="_blank" title="Click to print"><span></span></a></li><li><a href="#" class="sharing-anchor sd-button share-more"><span>More</span></a></li><li class="share-end"></li></ul><div class="sharing-hidden"><div class="inner" style="display: none;"><ul><li class="share-digg"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-digg sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.
aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=digg" target="_blank" title="Click to Digg this post"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-pocket"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-pocket sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=pocket" target="_blank" title="Click to share on Pocket"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-end"></li><li class="share-pinterest"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-pinterest sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=pinterest" target="_blank" title="Click to share on Pinterest"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-reddit"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-reddit sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=reddit" target="_blank" title="Click to share on Reddit"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-end"></li><li class="share-stumbleupon"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-stumbleupon sd-button share-icon no-text" href="htt
p://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=stumbleupon" target="_blank" title="Click to share on StumbleUpon"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-tumblr"><a rel="nofollow" class="share-tumblr sd-button share-icon no-text" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir?share=tumblr" target="_blank" title="Click to share on Tumblr"><span></span></a></li><li class="share-end"></li><li class="share-end"></li></ul></div></div></div></div></div><a href="http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/facebook/offer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Fbaal-nefesh-yachmir" target="_blank" ><img src="http://cache.addthiscdn.com/icons/v1/thumbs/facebook.gif" border="0" style="margin: 1px;" alt="Like" /></a><a href="http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Fbaal-nefesh-yachmir&title=Baal+Nefesh+Yachmir" target="_blank" ><img src="http://cache.addthiscdn.com/icons/v1/thumbs/twitter.gif" border="0" style="mar
gin: 1px;" alt="Tweet" /></a><br />
</font><br />
<br />
You may view the latest post at<br />
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir">http://www.aishdas.org/asp/baal-nefesh-yachmir</a><br />
<br />
You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted.<br />
Best regards,<br />
micha<br />
micha@aishdas.org</body></html>