"Eight Chapters" (Chapter Six, Part 2)

“Spiritual Excellence” with Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

Our Current Text: Moshe Maimonides's (Rambam's) “Eight Chapters”

-- Rabbi Feldman's on going series for Torah.org

**********************************************************

"Eight Chapters"

Chapter Six (Part 2)

Not only are we to be admired for resisting temptation, but we're taught that the Talmud deems someone who wants to sin but somehow manages not to, as being even loftier and of a *higher* spiritual caliber than someone who doesn't struggle with the temptation.

That's to say, for example, that if I were to somehow be tempted to bite into a piece of cake on Yom Kippur, really dallied with the idea of doing that, knew I certainly shouldn't, then resolved right there and then not to take that bite, that I'd be more admirable for my victory than someone who didn't eat that Yom Kippur simply because he didn't care to or wouldn't think to.

"In fact," Rambam points out, our sages even said that "the greater and more perfect a person is, the *stronger* his craving for sins, and the greater his suffering for having to deny himself them"! As they put it, "The greater the person, the greater the yetzer harah“(Sukkah 52A). That's to say that not only is our yetzer harah native to our humanity, but it also acts as a barometer of our inner standing (though that's certainly not to imply that we're then allowed to act out on it!)

And not only that, but they also said that "the more the person who subdues his yetzer harah suffers in the process" -- the harder his struggle -- " the greater his reward", since “one’s reward is commensurate with his suffering“ (Pirke Avot 5:19).

Further yet, he adds, "they even commanded us to subdue our yetzer harah" rather than deny its power over us, "and warned us never to say (something like), 'I personally wouldn’t want to commit that sin even if the Torah didn’t forbid it'". That's to say that the sages wanted us to acknowledge the difficulty of certain things required of us that simply don't come easily to us, to buck up in the face of the challenge, and to emerge triumphant.

In fact, “Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, Never say, ‘I just couldn't eat meat and milk, ... wear shatnez, ... or marry someone forbidden to me’" since that would truly be wrong. Instead he would have us acknowledge the travails and constraints, and to say instead, "I can (do those things, and am even inclined to doing them despite how wrong they are), but what can I do -- my Father in Heaven forbids me to!’“ (Sifra, Kedoshim).

We're to own-up to the lure and temptation of the forbidden, to admit that we want to give in to it, but to resist it at bottom because G-d wants us to. For we're human indeed and open to untoward suggestion, but that we want deep down to draw close to the Almighty most of all.

But then again, wouldn't it be rather noble of us to never even *consider* sinning and to just naturally be drawn toward goodness? Aren't people who are inherently repelled by sin very lofty indeed? So, there must be something to be said for what those early philosophers held.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman and Project Genesis

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
AT LONG LAST! Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued at *at a discount*!
You can order it right now from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Tanya Ch. 11 (Parts 3 & 4)

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 11

3.

For once a rasha of this ilk -- once someone like most of us! -- regains himself and regrets what we did, and asks G-d to forgive him for his sins, He indeed will, and he’ll be a full-fledged penitent [6]. That is, as long as he takes our sages' advice as to how to completely undo the various sorts of sins we tend to lapse into [7].

Understand as well, nonetheless, that though he'd indeed be forgiven if he does teshuvah -- he nevertheless remains a rasha essentially (Likutei Biurim), since he's still capable of lapsing into sin (Tanya M’vuar)!

We'll get back to this troubling notion soon enough, but let's now speak about people we're more comfortable denouncing as rashaim.

4.

Though there's a wide variety of them as well, out-and-out rashaim are generally the sort of people who lapse into more serious sins and do, say, or think some rather bad, and even some awful and horrible things -- perhaps again and again, and time after time.

But some of them can also regret their sins and think of repenting (thanks to the native goodness in their G-dly spirits). It's just that they haven't the wherewithal to conquer one sin or another they'd become habituated to, so they *don't* tend to repent.

They're termed "rashaim (who are) full of regrets" (see Reishit Chochma, Sha’ar HaYira, Ch. 3). But at bottom all such rashaim have is regret, and little more.

In point of fact, though, some out-and-out, thoroughgoing rashaim *never* regret what they do and never even consider repenting. And that’s because their animalistic spirit had so overtaken their G-dly spirit that the latter leaves its place in their heart and merely "hovers overhead" instead [8].
__________________________________________

Notes:

[6] First, understand that his regret wouldn't be hypocritical, as we might think, but rather a partial [albeit flawed] victory in an inner conflict between his two disparate spirits (Biur Tanya).

Second, realize that if he so uproots his untoward desire that it was as if he hadn't committed that particular sin -- or any other, then he'd have become a benoni (Likutei Biurim), which will be discussed in the following chapters.

Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explains the dynamics behind the efficacy of regret in The Path of the Just, where he writes that "the uprooting of the *will* to (commit a particular sin) is equivalent to uprooting the act itself". For by virtue of the fact that "the penitent recognizes his sin ... and regrets having done it as much as he'd regret a vow he'd made inadvertently, sincerely wishes he had never done that thing, is terribly pained in his heart that he'd ever done such a thing ... -- such an uprooting of the (sin) from his will is likened to rescinding the vow, and he is forgiven (i.e., absolved)" (Ch. 4).

Assumedly, though, as Maimonides would put it, he'd have to have come to the point where "He who discerns all concealed things" -- G-d Almighty -- "would affirm that he'd never again commit that sin" (Hilchot Teshuva 2:2), which would be a decidedly solid and thorough point to have come to.

[7] See Yomah 86A (as well as RSZ's Iggeret HaTshuvah 1) where it's said that sins are indeed forgiven as a consequence of teshuvah, but not necessarily right there and then. For, one who doesn't fulfill an imperative but then repents is forgiven immediately; while one who commits a transgression but then repents isn't forgiven until the following Yom Kippur; and one who commits a transgression that incurs excision or capital punishment but then repents is only forgiven after having suffered tribulations.

Also see 7:4 above, and Hilchot Teshuvah Ch. 2. And see the late Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l’s insightful, rather exhaustive yet concise layout of the degrees of teshuvah one might achieve or not manage to, depending on his spiritual rank; the various categories of sins different sorts of rashaim might be more or less prone to; and what might inspire some rashaim to repent which might not influence others as cited in Likut Perushim 11:1.

[8] What that indicates for one thing is that one’s G-dly spirit is never totally vanquished and undone, no matter the depths to which we might sink; and that it's ready to descend at anytime, no matter how rarely it may be asked to. It also alludes to how little some people sense its presence.

Understand as well that while here are *degrees* of hovering, including hovering close overhead, somewhat at a distance, etc.; nonetheless at bottom, it's still a gift from G-d that such a state exists (Maskil L’Eitan).

Let it also be said outright that one could be utterly removed from and opposed to Torah, and still call upon his G-dly spirit (ibid.).

RSZ cites the sages' statement that "the Shechina is present whenever ten Jews (of whatever moral stripe) eat together" (Sanhedrin 39A) at this point in the text as proof of this. For what that indicates is that the Shechina can't help but dwell where there are 10 Jews -- even if they're utter rashaim (Biur Tanya).

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"

Tanya Ch. 11 (Parts 1 & 2)

“Nearly Everybody”: The Inner Life and Struggles of the Jewish Soul

(Based on “Tanya: Collected Discourses of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi”)

by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

__________________________________________

Ch. 11

1.

As we'd said in ch. 6, "each and every thing in this world has a parallel, mirror opposite" -- including our ethical and spiritual standing. So just as there are complete and less-than-complete tzaddikim, there are likewise complete and less-than-complete wrongdoers, *rashaim*. A complete and utter rasha (singular of rashaim) is someone who's hopelessly out-and-out wicked, while a less-than-complete rasha is one whose goodness has been overwhelmed and "outnumbered" by his or her wrongfulness, to be sure, but less so.

In short, a rasha is someone whose goodness which is nestled in his G-dly spirit is overcome by the wrongfulness in his animalistic spirit. But know too that there are as many different grades of rashaim as there are of tzaddikim.

In point of fact and highly ironically (as well as emblematic of our age, we’d dare say), we'd sometimes consider some rashaim to be rather *good and wholesome* people who "happen to lapse", as we’d put it, from time to time. Indeed according to RSZ, a rasha might even sin in only very minor ways and only once-in-a-great-while. So we'll clearly have to delineate just what a rasha is and what he’s not.

2.

We'll start off by examining the makeup of less-than-complete, let's say ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill rashaim. By definition, they're people who are guilty of either uttering, thinking, or doing forbidden things. But as we suggested above, the sins they commit might be rather innocuous.

They might for example dally with only minor, hands-on prohibitions; or they might say something ambiguous about someone that might only insinuate something bad about him rather than out-and-out slander him [1]; or they might speak disparagingly or sarcastically about something or another (which is forbidden of us), but certainly not vengefully or acrimoniously [2]; they might only think or fantasize about sinning (by having lewd thoughts, for example) without actually planning to act out on those thoughts [3]; or they might be free to study Torah and decide not to, and delve into inanities instead (see Pirke Avot 3:4) -- though not into actual heresy. In fact, they might not even really enjoy these lapses (Biur Tanya) and only fall into them out of sheer force of habit or upbringing, laziness, apathy and the like.

Nonetheless, despite the seeming "normalcy" and "reasonableness" of their sins, and *even though they might have committed no other sins in their lifetime* such individuals are still considered rashaim at that point [4]! For at bottom, anyone who sins -- whose animalistic spirit overtakes him and has him do something wrong -- is a rasha [5].

But all is not lost for the many of us who are guilty of this of course, G-d forbid!
__________________________________________

Notes:

[1] This is referred to as uttering the "dust" (i.e., the merest whisp) of slander. The classic example of that entails responding vaguely to a stranger's question as to where he could find a hot meal in town by saying that he could always find one in so-and-so's house, since there's always something on the fire there (Erichin 16B). The statement is somewhat slanderous because of its nebulousness. It could either indicate that so-and-so is always prepared for guests (to his credit) -- or that he's simply a glutton. Thus, a speaker who meant to praise so-and-so would have been guilty of besmirching his character if his listener took what he said the wrong way.

But we're told that *everyone* is guilty of the "dust" of slander (Babba Battra 165A) -- tzaddikim apparently included. "Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Most (people are guilty) of robbery, some (are guilty) of lewdness, but all (are guilty) of ... the 'dust' of slander". Apparently then RSZ must contend that the statement isn't to be taken literally, and that while indeed *virtually* everyone is guilty of it, some aren't. We'll return to this point shortly since it touches on a larger issue.

[2] One disparages another by insulting or discouraging him. Rabbeinu Yonah cites different examples of disparagement (The Gates of Repentance 3:174-177), but the most innocent of all is disparaging someone jokingly rather than out of meaness or worse, which is apparently the sort of disparagement RSZ is referring to here.

[3] RSZ points out in the text itself that we're taught that thinking about sinning is actually more serious and onerous than sinning itself (see Yomah 29A). But what's wrong with merely *thinking* about sinning if you don't actuate your thoughts? It's explained that since by definition thoughts aren't actions, it's harder regretting having had them and thus harder to repent for them (Biur Tanya), and that's why they're more serious. But that still begs the question as to why the fantasies themselves are forbidden.

Some say that since your thoughts are deeper within your being than your actions are, it follows that thinking about sinning taints you on a far deeper level than actions do (see Maskil L’Eitan). Others say that it’s because thought is a very significant phenomenon, so when you “stain” it, it would be like staining fine linen as opposed to staining the coarse wool of physical actions; or it's because the very fact that you’re thinking of something untoward goes to show just how attached to it you are (Likut Perushim, Maareh Mekomot, pp. 224-225).

Yet if thinking of sinning is worse than actually doing so, then why in fact is someone who thinks of sinning listed here among those on the lower, less serious scale of rashaim? Because at bottom some forbidden thoughts are less damaging than others.

[4] As we're taught later on, even if you commit a minor transgression you still and all do go against G-d's Will and thus sever yourself from His Presence (Ch. 24; see Maskil L’Eitan).

[5] See note 10 to the previous chapter for the sinful convictions a rasha could also have.

Let's refer back now to what we said at the end of note 1 above. There are other statements that indicate that no one is utterly without sin. We're told that "there is no one so righteous upon earth that does good and does not sin" (Ecclesiastes 7:20), that "there is no man who does not sin" (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36), and we're even advised not to be "too righteous" (Ibid. 7:16). Rambam asserts that “each and every person has his merits and his offences” (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:1), that "it is no more possible to be born either inherently lofty or flawed than it is to be born instinctively adept at a trade" (Sh'mone Perakim, ch. 8), and that prophets -- whom Rambam asserted were of greater rank than the pious (Ibid. Introduction) -- "couldn’t prophesy unless (they had) acquired all the intellectual virtues and *most* of the more significant personal ones" (Ibid., ch. 7, italics added), indicating that they were not without their flaws, however minor.

Hence, many would argue against RSZ's position and posit that *no one* is uttery righteous.

Another point to be made is that we might wonder how the world manages to go on if the great preponderance of us are rashaim. After all, weren't many in antiquity destroyed as a consequence of their immorality, like the people of the Generation of the Dispersion and of Sodom?

For Rambam records that "If a country's inhabitants' merits outweigh their offenses, the country is considered righteous; while if its inhabitants' offenses outweigh their merits, it's considered evil. And the same is true of the world at large, as well" (Hilchot Teshuva 3:1). He then goes on to report there that "when the offenses of (the world's) inhabitants outweigh their merits, *it's to be destroyed immediately*" (Ibid 3:2, italics added). Since the world hasn't been destroyed, it might stand to reason then that humanity as a whole is in fact more righteous than wrongful.

Rambam does provide us, though, with an insight about the state of things that might help to explain this conundrum. He points out that "the determination of all this isn't based on the number of offenses or merits (we each commit) so much as *their relative worth*. For there are some merits that compensate for several offenses ... and ... some offenses that compensate for several merits" (italics added). After all, not everything we do and experience is laid out plain and mathematically explicit.

His point is that the determination of the value of our thoughts, utterances, and actions "can only be made by All-knowing G-d; since only He knows the relative worth of our merits and offenses." Thus it could indeed be argued that we're less wrongful than we appear to be since we do still exist.

(c) 2007 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman

(Feel free to contact me at feldman@torah.org )

********************************
Rabbi Feldman's translation of "The Gates of Repentance" has been reissued and can be ordered from here
Rabbi Yaakov Feldman has also translated and commented upon "The Path of the Just", and "The Duties of the Heart" (Jason Aronson Publishers). His new work on Maimonides' "The Eight Chapters" will soon be available.
Rabbi Feldman also offers two free e-mail classes on www.torah.org entitled
"Spiritual Excellence" and "Ramchal"