Search Results for: mussar

Mussar Is Mushy

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA – PINCHAS

Here are excerpts of a representative Mussar homily interspersed with comments. This is a good example of the sort of mushy thinking found in Mussar.

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables[1].” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people[2]? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago – that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash – this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people – that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah – that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’[3].

This article is a great example of the intellectual dishonesty of Mussar literature. The strongest characteristic of Mussar is probably maliciously poor attention to the text. Had Chazal said “were not osek beTorah”, I would agree perhaps Moshe’s sons learned Torah but did not teach. But anyone familiar with “Talmudese” realizes that “sitting” means refraining from learning at all, as in the prohibition of forgetting one’s learning through “עד שישב ויסירם מליבו”.

Another mark of our age is the refusal to entertain any thought insufficiently complimentary of a Jewish hero. Since the writer compares only to himself, he cannot accept the fact that Moshe might not have known about his sons’ true situation. The “nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua” is simple. It’s Kal Vachomer (minor ad major). Moshe’s sons did not help teach; they did not even learn. Yehoshua, by contrast, not only taught himself Torah but also helped teach it.

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation[4], however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it – it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah – the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children[5]. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.

How typical of our Brisk-infested world. One quotes Chazal only via Rambam…

…

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah – his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

Actually, the whole discussion is silly. Moshe was only referring to dynastic political leadership, equivalent to a Shofet. There is no amorphous “Torah leadership”, the concept of which began with the politics of Agudas Yisrael and like precedents. The head of the Sanhedrin is chosen by merit alone, not mere inheritance, so God does not “appoint” them. For example, Yiftach was a Shofet, at the same time Pinchas was head of the Sanhedrin. (And yes, that specific example is meant to destroy a popular canard of Appeal to Authority.)

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah – it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.

As usual, Mussar invents ridiculous principles like “between man and himself” and corrupts the mind with vapid verbose “helps develop our appreciation of…” Blah blah. What’s the difference between Mussar and secular psychology? There isn’t any!

[1] Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14.
[2] This question is asked by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita, Divrei Aggada, p.319.
[3] Ibid.
[4] See his continuation in Divrei Aggada, p.319-20 where he elaborates on the necessity to share one’s Torah with those who are distant from the true path. We also learn from his explanation that the ability and willingness to share Torah with others is a key trait in determining an effective leader.

[5] The Mishna in Avos, 1:1 tells us that we must “establish many students.” The Tiferes Yisroel writes that it is not enough to merely teach one’s own children but one must teach other Jews as well.

…

Mussar has nothing in common with Judaism. Whenever you come across Mussar literature, ask yourself this: Can you take the author’s words alone (without the Jewish sources meant to grant them legitimacy), and picture them being spoken by a Cursedian Galach (“priest”) in his house of idol worship?

The original article was shortened, but you can see the rest in the link.

Chassidus Versus Mussar

Rabbi Zelig Reuven Bengis was once asked the following question: My daughter was given two match proposals. Both seem roughly equal. One young man is Chassidic, the other a devotee of Mussar. Which should we pursue first?

Answered Rabbi Bengis: Both Chassidim and Mussarites are ‘madmen’. But the Chassidim are happy while the Mussarites are depressed. Better the joyous madman than the sad one!

Can Mussar Have Negative Psychological Impact?

An excerpt:

Knowing how to behave does not necessarily translate into proper behavior. A student can study Torah and understand halacha and the expectations of the Torah but yet encounter difficulty in converting knowledge into action. Mussar is designed to address this issue. It is designed to provide encouragement and the motivation needed to advance from knowledge to action.

Based on this definition, it seems clear that the study of mussar is invaluable. But there is substantial controversy regarding the study of mussar. In fact, various of the Roshei Yeshiva of the famous Volozhin Yeshiva discouraged students in the Yeshiva from studying mussar. At least one even referred to the study of mussar as a distraction from the study of Torah.[1]

This controversy is difficult to understand. What is the basis for this discord regarding the study of mussar?

There is an interesting account of a debate between Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer regarding the study of mussar that may illuminate the issue. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik was one of the last Roshei Yeshiva of the Volozhin Yeshiva. As mentioned above, the study of mussar was not encouraged by the Yeshiva. Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer appealed to Rav Chaim to reconsider the Yeshiva’s stance. He supported his arguments with a comment from the Talmud in Tractate Berachot. The Talmud explains that a person should always incite his yetzer ha’tov – his good inclination against his yetzer ha’ra – his evil inclination. If a person cannot overcome his yetzer ha’ra by this means, then he should immerse himself in the study of Torah. If this measure is not effective, he should read the Shema. As a final resort – when all else fails – the person should contemplate his day of death.[2] Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer believed that this final measure represents a mussar approach. Therefore, it is clear that the Sages of the Talmud endorsed the study and methods of mussar.

Rav Chaim pointed out that there is another text from the Talmud in Tractate Succah that seems to contradict the comments of the Sages in Tractate Berachot. The Sages comment that if a person encounters the yetzer ha’ra, the person should take his yetzer ha’ra to the bait midrash.[3] In other words, the best response to the yetzer ha’ra is to change one’s focus and concentrate on the study of Torah. Rav Chaim explained that the two texts do not contradict each other. In order to resolve the apparent contradiction between the texts, Rav Chaim offered an analogy. If a person is suffering from digestive problems, a doctor might prescribe castor oil. But for a healthy person, it would not be advisable to take this medication. In fact, use of this medication would make the healthy person ill. Based on this analogy, Rav Chaim explained the two texts. I person who is spiritually ill needs to be treated. The treatment for this ill person may include counseling the person to more carefully consider his mortality – a motivational or mussar approach. But a person who is healthy should instead respond to the impulses of his yetzer ha’ra by focusing on Torah study. For this healthy person, contemplation of mortality – or the study of mussar may very well have a negative psychological impact.[4]

From OU.org, here.

Allergic to ‘Mussar’?

Mussar?

​by Reb Gutman Locks

 

A Charedi rabbi started publishing a new weekly booklet and someone has been handing them out at the Kotel. It has very interesting stories that strengthen the reader’s understanding and appreciation of Torah.

Well, the first half of his booklet does this. The second half of the booklet is filled with harsh mussar comments. Mussar is a non-Chassidic movement that tries to direct moral conduct. It is usually instruction or discipline. It really has the good objective of furthering ethical and spiritual discipline, but it almost always comes across as; “You better do this or you are going to be punished in hell!” Yuck! I am totally allergic to mussar.

When the booklet first came out I enjoyed reading it, but the second half of the booklet overwhelmed the nice stories so I told the man who hands them out that I did not want it any more. He asked why. The rabbi who writes them happens to be very skinny. I answered, “What do you do if one of your kids is very skinny? Do you yell at him and threaten him to get him to eat? Or do you serve him healthy and delicious food that is good for him; food that he will enjoy?” He understood.

I saw another non Chassidic rabbi friend accepting the booklet and I told him that I could not handle the mussar end of the booklet. He said, “We need it.” Well, maybe he needs it, but I don’t.

     Mussar has a fine objective, but as many things in the world it is not being delivered right. Here is how mussar is supposed to taught:

Once there was a cheder rebbe (a Torah teacher of small children): As most non Chasidic rebbes, this rebbe was always very particular to be on time. One day his bus got stuck in traffic. He jumped off the bus and ran to get to class on time. He was ten minutes late! He was so upset that he was late, but there was nothing he could have done about it.

As he ran into the classroom one of his best young students looked up at him with a huge smile. Then he pointed to his watch. He looked really happy! The Rebbe burned inside. “Is that how a student is supposed to respect his teacher? UGH!”

He took his place at the front of the room. He opened his book to begin his class but he was so upset with the boy that he could not teach. He could not restrain himself. He called the boy up to his desk intending to punish him severely for his extremely rude behavior.

But just before he started to unload on the boy, the boy smiled again, pointed to his watch and said; “Rebbe I love you so much, I wanted you to be the first one to see my brand new watch.”

Got it? Sure you do. Wait until you get all of the facts before you blow up.

To teach Torah, serve delicious, wholesome, enjoyable food.

From Mystical Paths, here.

Zos Chukas Hatorah: Never Apologize, Never Explain!

I don’t usually read Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz, but here’s his latest column.

First, he points out that the Leftist, lying “power religion” in the West seems to be mostly winning, so far. He adds some pessimistic speculation about politics I didn’t understand.

Then Rabbi Lipschutz asks the question we hear all around:

Where does that leave us? How are we to live our lives in a period such as the one we now face? Should we engage in outreach, attempting to explain the Torah to those who mock and vilify us? Should we demonstrate the truths that have been guiding us ever since we stood at Har Sinai? After all, we are in the 21st century now. Perhaps we should be using modern tools to explain to the world how wrong they are about us. Maybe they hate us because we have a marketing problem.

And he answers:

The first Rashi of the parsha quotes the Medrash Tanchuma, which states that the Soton and nations of the world mock us and ask for the rationale of this mitzvah. Therefore, says Rashi, the Torah spells out that Parah Adumah is a chok, a gezeirah min haShomayim, and we do not ask questions about it.

The nations of the world, and those who mock us and attempt to steer us from the path of our forefathers, question us and our practices. They say that the mitzvos are backward and without reason. We don’t answer them. We don’t try to explain it to them. We reinforce to ourselves that we are following the word of Hashem, which is a chok. This way, we are able to succeed and flourish in a world of sheker.

Well, not all the mitzvos are chukim, but OK. (Also, Charedi Judaism≠Torah Truth!)

For as long as people alive today can remember, gedolim such as the Chazon Ish and Rav Shach have been saying that the proper response to such situations is to add more yeshivos, more Bais Yaakovs, more elementary schools, and more kollelim. The way to respond to those who curse our existence, to those who seek to stem our growth and to the various festering issues, is by ignoring their calls and dedicating ourselves to increase our own study of Torah and to increase the study of Torah in general.

In our personal lives as well, when we are acting properly and people mock us and seek to harm us, our reputations, and things that we have worked hard to build up, our response shouldn’t be to get in the gutter with them. We should instead take the higher road and do our best to continue living our lives according to the Torah, halacha and darkei mussar.

We shouldn’t let detractors get us down and lead us to curtail our good actions. We should seek out seforim based on the Torah and mesorah to strengthen ourselves and give ourselves chizuk.

Life is tough enough without us stopping to engage with detractors of all types and fretting over the future.

Well Put (I would say it more aggressively than just “hunker down”)!

Read the rest here…