[Avodah] Acharonim (and Mussar) as TT, Redux

[Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer]

Way back in the previous century, I posted the following:

    Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 13:03:38 -0600 (CST)
    From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbech... at casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
    Subject: Re: Just What is Talmud Torah Anway? 

    I would assume that it means engaging in the study of either Torah
    she'b'Ksav or Torah she'b'al Peh. TSBK is easy = Tanach. TSBAP
    is more tricky. I assume it definitely includes everything up to
    "Rav Ashi v'Ravina sof Horo'oh" but I do not know how it extends
    betond that. Nevertheless, the understanding of Talmudic texts and
    opinions inherent in the study of Rishonim and Acharonim is likely TT
    l'kol ha'dei'os, but what, indded, would the struggle to understand
    a passage in the Ktzos that did not relate to Rishonim and Acharonim
    constitute? I think it still fulfills the mitzva me'divrei kabbala of
    "V'higeisa ba yomam va'lyla", i.e., to occupy oneself with thoghts
    that relate to Torah.

Some discussion ensued, but never achieved any finality, so far as my
perusal of the archives just now discovered. Moreover, I seem not to
have come up with any source to back myself up at the time.

This came up in shiur in OS last week. I again asserted that, say,
Mussar bereft of pesukim and/or ma'amarei Chazal does not fall into the
category of TT, strictly speaking (but that as th DE that is kadma laTorah
it is of utmost importance nonetheless!). I was severely challenged on
that assertion.

I did find today that in Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hil. TT 3:4 he writes
that only Mussar works that are based on Chazal are considered Torah,
not ones based on "Seichel Enoshi."

My question remains, however, if one were to learn an Acharon of some
sort that had no pesukim and/or ma'amarei Chazal, would it in and of
itself somehow be considered a "Cheftza shel Torah" or not. Any mare
mekomos or ra'ayos anyone?

KT,
YGB