Israel Salanter's Musar Movement

I have been a kind of follower about the idea of Fear of God ever since I read about it in a book by Isaac Blaser --a major disciple of Israel Salanter.

This is something you really have to see his book to get a taste for. Ever since then the whole idea has gone up and down in stages for me.

To just to try to make it clear to people what I am talking about let me explain that to Isaac Blaser fear of God is the Dinge An Sich [the thing in itself].

But that original reading of Musar started a whole train of events. I read then the major corpus of the books of Musar [the Famous Five: Duties of the Heart, Gates of Repentance, Mesilat Yesharim (by Moshe Lutzato),  Sefer HaMidot, and Orchot Tzadikim (Paths of the Righteous)]. That led me eventually to notice that a lot of the books of Musar were in fact telling people to learn Kabalah. (That is most Renaissance books of Musar.) And that got me started on the Tree of Life of Isaac Luria.

He said that it relates to length of days. He said that when a day starts for most people it is short. There are lots of things to do and not enough time to do them. He said this in a context of learning Torah and doing mitzvot, but I suppose it applies in wider area of a polynomic realm of values also. [note 1]

So when I saw my days were in fact getting shorter. I was spending way too much time doing things that I knew were just plain a waste of time. I got a wake up call and realized that I had wandered too far from the path of Fear of God; and Musar.

I would like here to suggest that the idea of length of days also applies in a physical manner. I.e. that the door way to length of days can be found in books of Musar [Fear of God.] That is instead of the over emphasis on doctors and medicine I would suggest to people that have physical aliments that they also should work on Fear of God solutions. [Or to put it more bluntly--to go out a buy the regular Musar books and read them--out loud, word after word, until you get to the  end and then start again.]
[Also, I should mention that the general Musar corpus has expanded to include books like the Nefesh Hachahim by Reb Chaim from Volloshin and the Madgragat HaAdam by the Alter of Navardok. The more recent ones you might like more and you might like less, but they still contain that spark of Fear of God which is the Dinge an Sich!]

[note 1] Everyone it seems has some kind of problem with length of days issues. It does not matter if you are a movie producer, or a theoretical physicist, or the general secretary of the Communist Party in China. Half your days are spent on complete waste of time things, and the other half seems to get nowhere- even when you are doing what you know is right.
You try to do physics, and then you get to university and then you discover papers to be graded and other varieties of wasted time. Even if you are a fireman, you find this. [This hit me in particular when I went to Polytechnic University of NYU. The amounts of wasted time were enormous. I am sure everyone knows exactly what I am talking about and how it applies in their own lives.]

 I ended up at the Mir in NY.  So years were going by a no shiduchim [marriage proposals] were even offered to me while everyone around me was getting married at exponential rates.

Then a girl I knew in California decided to get me. [the blessing was during the 10 day period from Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur. ] She found out where I was during the Yom Kippur holidays and came there (without my knowing or telling her) and there was an arranged meeting after Simchat Torah. And then she ran to NY to get me. Nothing swayed her intentions. I told her many times in ever conceivable way that I did not want her, but eventually I did give in and I am happy I did so.

The world of religious Judaism has\ too much Sitra Achra [dark side] just waiting for naive people to stumble in. The main problem seems to be in fact in the cult the Gra put into excommunication. The Litvaks while not having much in the way of tzadikim, don't have much in the way of their opposite either.

It is almost as if the dark side found away to penetrate the world of Torah by coming in the disguise of tzadikim.
 And the only way this is possible is because there were true tzadikim that it is possible to copy in external dress and customs.

Normally I would just write this stuff in a private notebook but it occurs to me that there might be people out in the world that would like to understand what it means to learn Gemara [Talmud] properly.If I write in in a private notebook maybe no one will ever see it. On the Internet it might help people get an idea of how to learn the Talmud.

Gemara Tosphot Yoma 34b. [i.e. the Babylonian Talmud]
I wanted to mention two questions on this Tosphot.

But before I do I need some terminology. "Work done not for its own sake" = A. "Work that is not intended" is B (אינו מכווין). Pesik Risha פסיק רישא [automatically happens] is C.
In Tractate Kritut we have the case of turning over coals. For turning over the bottom coals Rabbi Shimon says he is not obligated. Tosphot says there are three reasons to say he is ought to be obligated in a sin offering: (1) Melechet Machshevet (מלאכת מחשבת). [ Done on purpose, not accidentally] , (2) damaging by fire which R. Shimon says is obligated, and (3) it is a case of  being intended and automatically happens. So why is he not obligated ? Answer (of Tosphot): A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
Then why, Tosphot asks, does not the Gemara say this? Why does it say the case is B (אינו מכווין)? Answer to show the strength of R. Yehuda who says even though it is B, he is still obligated in a sin offering.

Tosphot then approaches the Gemara in Tractate Shabat 103a. There is is picking green leaves (chicory, endive (plant)) [http://www.naturemanitoba.ca/botany/wildPlants/Chicory.pdf] that can be eaten. If he does it to eat, then to R. Shimon he is obligated only once and not for the additional obligation of making his field look nicer. But we ask is it not B+C (אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא)?
 Answer: It is someone else's field.
That is just the straight Gemara.
The two questions on Tosphot concerns the way he treats this later Gemara.
Question one: Tosphot is satisfied with his being not obligated in someone else's field since it is B+C (אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא) . This is in direct contradiction to what he said in Kritut concerning the parallel case of coals.
Question Two: In his own field, we should also make a distinction if it is A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה or not.

The 2nd question is really just a note, but not really a "kashe".


I really have to be running along but I will take a couple more minutes to make question one even more powerful.
Tosphot says the reason in Kritut that the Gemara said it is a case of B+C is because it wanted to show the strength of R Yehuda. So why, Tosphot asks, then in a later on case when he draws the coals closer to himself, the Gemara does not say the same thing? Why does it say it is a case of A?
Answer: In drawing coals it could be that he does not mind if they get hotter. So the Gemara can't say it is not intended. Only in the case of turning over coals in which case he is against the idea of the bottom coals getter hotter. He would rather they would not . But he simply has no choice since he has to get the top ones to the bottom of the pile where they will cool down and  become usable coals. My point here is that Tosphot says that even so, R. Shimon would say he is obligated to bring a sin offering except for the fact that it is A.

So why then in Tractate Shabat is Tosphot satisfied with the fact that it being B+C makes him not obligated even thought it is simply a case of his not caring whether the field gets improvement in value.

I probably should mention here that I do not mind if he is not obligated in Shabat 103 because it is A. I only wish that that would be the reason that the Gemara or Tosphot would use over there.

My learning partner made a suggestion that perhaps Tosphot meant for the original three means of being obligated to R Shimon  were meant to work together. [I.e.  that the idea B+C with the idea of damage by fire]. That is: Maybe Tosphot meant for those three original means to be obligated to work together. But if you look at the actual language of Tosphot you can see that is not what he says. But at least it might save Tosphot in a conceptual manner--even if it is not exactly what he said.



Incidentally this all came up because my learning partner and myself were looking at Reb Chaim Soloveitchik  who has very nice piece on Maimonides concerning Shabat. But after looking at his essay for a while it occurred to my learning partner that we ought to go back to the Talmud itself to get a little more background.
So that led us to this Tosphot in Yoma.




Appendix:
[1] Work done not for its own sake: Classical example: Digging a pit for the dirt, not for the hole to plant in.
Work not intended: Classical example: He does something permitted but something forbidden might result.
Pesik Reish is he does something permitted but something forbidden must result.
[2] You might take a look at the essay of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik about "work done not for its own sake" which has real grace and power. It is complete and self contained and answers some good questions about the approach of Maimonides to this whole subject.
[3] There is a third question also on the same Tosphot. It concerns the issue of how Tosphot treats the Gemara in Kritot. In that Gemara there is a case where someone pulls burning coals closer to himself. the Gemara itself says it is not obligated in a  sin offering because it is "A".work done not for its own sake.

Now to some degree we can accept this. we already are understanding that the only time lighting a fire is obligated is when he needs the coals. I might like to argue about this here but I am anxious to get to a much more glaring difficulty. Before Tosphot says one of the three reason R  Shimon would say tuning over the bottom coals is obligated is that even though it is accidental it would be obligated for even damage by fire is obligated. I mean to say that Tosphot. That is, you do not need intention to be obligated for lighting a fire. So even if he thinks he is pulling apples closer to him he would be obligated in a sin offering. how then do we say he is not obligated because of A? [That is for R Shimon you do not need melechet machashevet (מלאכת מחשבת) for fire.]

Normally, I would just write this stuff in a private notebook, but it occurs to me that there might be people out in the world that would like to understand what it means to learn Gemara [Talmud] properly. If I write in in a private notebook maybe no one will ever see it. On the Internet it might help people get an idea of how to learn the Talmud.

Trust in God

We do not find that the Alter of Navardok [the Madragat HaAdam] ( Joseph Yozel Horwitz )  tried to justify Torah based on reason.
In fact it seems that one of the minor themes that are developed in his book is the idea of tests. That is that people can have tests of their faith because of reality.

It is hard to know what he would've said about the Guide for the Perplexed of Maimonides.


On the surface it does look like a basic difference in approach.


I would like to suggest that there is no contradiction and that Joseph Yozel Horwitz was referring to a Platonic level of reality that supersedes physical reality.
 [I may not have said it in so many words, but I tend to look at the world as a superposition of a lot of planes of existence. There is a moral plane- -a world as real as this, and it is superimposed on this physical reality. This is not a thing different than Plato except that I think there are these planes right "inside" of things like Aristotle ]





I think in the West people been highly influenced by the empiricists like Hume and thus find this approach to be difficult to accept.


One of the most famous essays in the history of philosophy, and specifically in the philosophy of religion, is Hume's "Of Miracles," which is Section X in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Yet Hume's argument against miracles suffers from a logical circularity.
While Hume is the most famous for undermining the certainty and necessity of the Principle of Causality, that every event has a cause, miracles do not in fact violate the Principle of Causality. They are caused. The Red Sea parts, not because it just happens, but because God makes it happen.
[Trust in God and learning Torah,  Gemara, Rashi, and Topshot were the major themes in the book of Joseph Horowitz. Tests that prevent one from this path were a minor theme also mentioned in his book. He seems to have the idea that Torah always comes with tests. But the tests will be different for each person. In his days the attraction of the wider world seems to have been the major test.

Today people might have tests of different paths that lay claim to be legitimate Torah paths. But regardless of the type tests involved the Alter of Navardok thought that learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot  every day as much as feasible defines the true Torah path.
To get to Torah you have to deal with several layers of tests. One is being thrown out of good yeshivas. The other is to run from the frauds and charlatans that claim to be following the path of Torah. There might many other tests , but these two are the main ones. Even Hillel got thrown out of teh yeshiva of Shamaiya and Avtalyon. and in the Gemara there were plenty of great amoraim that had this happen to them too.

Evil.

I would like to take the opportunity here to discuss Evil. [Not "evil" with a lower case e, but rather Evil with a capital E.]  I know where I want to get to in this discussion but the track is long. It takes us through Plotinus, Schopenhauer, Job, Kant,, Israel Salanter,  and Isaac Luria.
The most thorough analysis of this problem is in Isaac Luria.

 
1) The first place to start from is clearly Plotinus. He has  identified the Good with the One of Plato. And in his framework it is easy to get to the idea that the farther one is from the One, he is closer to evil. This make physical desires closer to evil than is generally understood in the U.S.A.. At least with Plotinus we do not get the fulfillment of ones physical desires to be identified with the good. That is something Plato already knocked clear out of the water. Isaac Luria does us all a great favor by putting Plotinus together with the pre-Socratics to have a highly powerful self consistent system.(Its flaw is it is dressed in highly mystical terminology. But as a philosophical system it is as sophisticated as Hegel and maybe more so. And I think Luria avoids many of the pitfalls that Hegel fell into.)

 So with Luria we get what looks much more like a realistic account of evil that the simple physicality approach of Plotinus which frankly is a powerful system but does not take into account that Platonic forms might also account for evil.

  At any rate, with Isaac Luria at least we are finally getting somewhere. We have got the Tzimum [(צמצום) contraction of the Infinite Light] plus the Kelipot ("shells" forces of evil) caused by the breaking of the vessels [of nekudim (נקודים)][which as part of the correction eventually became Emanation (אצילות).]
This results in two separate types of evil, one from the contraction [tzimtzum] and the other from the kelipot. [Kelipot are basically when the light hit the vessels of emanation and broke them and the pieces of the  vessels fell.]  three major groups of evil: Dimion [delusion], physical animal desires that have not be absorbed into holiness.  [Desire for honor is also an animal desires as we see by all groups of primates] (3) Evil that stems from the original contraction of the Light.

The there is the holy angel [Satan] which in this scheme seems to stem basically from the world of the Kelipot.

 the higher one goes in spiritual growth, the stronger is the evil inclination.

[Schopenhauer has a different account, but I did not find the time here to go into his account. Schopenhauer in any case is best as a modification of Kant. They both ought to be learned together.

In any case, Schopenhauer puts evil right smack into the Will. And only in a latter letter admits that in the final analysis the will itself has a higher aspect of the Good like Plato thought..



  At any rate, this brings me to the end of this discussion and the question of how to deal with evil. \ the higher one grows in spirituality the stronger and more subtle his evil inclination becomes, he can't give much of a solution except to go to a a wise man and get advice. [Now this might sound like a "cop out" but it is not. . To him, getting advice from people that are not themselves holy is the cause of  evil in the world.]


But how does this help us? We already know people that claim to be holy or whom their followers claim to be holy are often the exact opposite.

Israel Salanter's idea might be more practical.

But Israel Salanter may have hit upon the germ of an idea that can answer this question. He noticed something unique about books concerning fear of God that were written during the Middle Ages. Books concerning philosophy during the Middle Ages have something that books written  do not have. They avoid circular reasoning. Circular reasoning seems to be a plague affecting all  philosophy from David Hume  and onward. [Hume excelled in circular reasoning. (Taking apart Hume) Not only does it affect all is major ideas but he seems intent on putting it into every single chapter that he writes.] On the other hand Medieval books do have a problem of accepting as axioms things that today we would consider not  true.

Now gaining Fear of God is not directly related to the question of evil since we know Satan disguises himself in mitzvot. He never comes and says lest do something wrong. When Satan wants to trap a person in some scheme he comes and says lets do a mitzvah and then shows you why it is a mitzvah.
However Medieval books about the fear of God do one very important service- -the issue of world view. and we already know that world view issues are even more important that issues about physical pleasures.

 I think one needs the Torah to open up ones soul to the objective moral universe. And when I say Torah I mean the Written and Oral law [Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot]. I do not mean the many many books that were written after the Talmud that people claim they also are Torah. It is not the right of any individual to write some book and then claim it is Torah.


Central contrast is between knowledge and life: the study of  knowledge concerned with the collection of data is opposed to the study of the Torah as a tool for promoting life.

Every person have have a direct connection with God by going to a place where no one else is like a forest or some other place in nature an talking with God as one talks with close friend.
Sex as something very holy and precious when between a man and his wife, but something bad when not so.
If one sees his days have become short and full of wasted time, he ought to try to gain fear of God.  books of ethics written during the Middle Ages --i.e. the standard Musar books.

But before I could reject empiricism and or rationalism, I needed to spend plenty of time going as deep as I could into both approaches and to see if there were any flaws. Well, to some degree with Spinoza it was easy to see the flaws, since some were obvious and some were pointed out by later philosophers. Leibniz was more difficult to deal with. There are no flaws but it just does not click.


The problems with John Locke are the same flaws that are a part of any of the empirical schools like Hume. Obviously I was going to need some kind of Kantian approach --- or Hegel. Later I learned about the intuitionist school of thought. There is something good to be learned from all these schools of thought.




 But my conclusion is that learning Torah, Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot has universal objective value for all human beings.  I have to conclude that learning Torah and private conversation with God are better than democracy and capitalism and communism and pretty much beat every other proposed solution

But back to my original questions. This is complex. There are reasons to think that this question is complex.
First question "Test". Are you worthy of learning Torah? Perhaps some person has joined some cult that tries to turn people to a evil path and by that has come into the category of those that are not allowed to repent and are prevented from repenting from Heaven.