Kankan Chadash

Mussar-Haskeil from a Mouse

2008-07-24T10:59:00.000-04:00

The Problem

Almost every day this summer, after my early-morning chavrusa, I head off to my favorite Starbucks to sip coffee over email and blogs. This morning, however, I found myself faced with a technical difficulty. I opened my laptop and was surprised to see that the on-screen cursor was shivering, wavering, and slowly wandering to and fro. Whenever I tried to control it by using the touch-pad, I was met with resistance.

"Okay," I thought to myself, "things like this have happened before. Sometimes, if the area around the touch-pad is exposed to heat for an extended period of time, it affects the movement of the on-screen cursor, causing it to move on its own. Other times, some liquid (usually coffee) will get on the touch-pad, and affects the movement of the cursor." I examined the touch-pad and the surrounding area . . . nope, no unusual heat or foreign substances.

"Well then," I thought to myself, "there are only two likely possibilities: Either there is a hardware malfunction in my touch-pad or a software glitch in my computer." I don't know anything about hardware, but there is a fairly easy way to see if my computer is suffering from a software glitch: restart the computer and see if the problem resolves itself. I restarted the computer and expected the on-screen cursor to show up acting like normal . . . but to no avail. The little arrow continued its nervous spasms.

The Solution

I was just about to resign myself to the fact that my computer is getting old and that I would need to call the Geek Squad, when another possibility occurred to me - a possibility that was so simple that I couldn't believe I had missed it.

You see, I operate my mouse using two systems: the built-in touch-pad, and my wireless mouse. When I am on the run (or sitting on a comfy chair in Starbucks) I use the touch-pad, but when I am at a desk I use my wireless mouse. However, my computer is so old that it lacks an internal wireless mouse-sensor to act as a medium between my computer and my wireless mouse. Instead, I need to plug a separate wireless mouse-sensor into the USB-port on the back of my computer.

The possibility suddenly occurred to me: "Wait a minute: What if there is no hardware or software problem? What if my mouse is not being controlled by the touch-pad at all? What if I simply forgot to unplug the sensor from the USB-port, and my wireless mouse in my backpack is wiggling around and causing the Parkinson-like symptoms of the on-screen cursor?"

With anxious trepidation, I reached behind my laptop to the region of the USB-port . . . lo and behold, the wireless mouse-sensor was plugged in! As soon as I unplugged it, thereby breaking the connection between my computer and the hidden wireless mouse, the spastic movements of the cursor stopped, and I was able to exercise full control over the cursor using my touch-pad.

The Analysis

As soon as I arrived at the solution, my Mishlei training kicked in. I asked myself: What was the cause of my mistake? Why didn't I see this simple solution at the outset? I realized that there were three factors which blinded me:

I assumed that the problem was due to a malfunction and immediately began looking for abnormalities; it didn't occur to me that the cause was the result of normal functioning (the computer picking up signals from my wireless mouse).
I assumed that the problem was rooted in something I could easily detect (an irritant on the touch-pad, a hardware malfunction, or a software glitch) and not in something that was concealed and not immediately observable (the wireless mouse-sensor and hidden wireless mouse).
I assumed more control than I actually had. If I couldn't control the on-screen cursor at all, perhaps I would have approached the problem differently, but the fact that I could partially control it using the touch-pad strengthened my illusion of total control, which blinded me to the possibility of another controlling agent (the wireless mouse in my backpack).

The Mussar-Haskeil

As soon as I realized this, the next step of my Mishlei training kicked in, and I asked myself: Do I make this mistake in other areas of my life as well? Just then, a frightening realization hit me like a ton of bricks: This is exactly what happens in the case of the conscious mind and the unconscious psyche.

Just as I had assumed that the on-screen cursor was "disturbed" and behaving erratically due to an observable malfunctioning cause and that by simply removing this cause I could put a stop to the dysfunctional behavior - so too, whenever you and I experience psychological disturbances or engage in irrational behavior we assume it is due to detectable causes which can easily be removed. But just as in the case of the on-screen cursor, in which the problem was due to a controlling system hidden from our immediate awareness (the wireless mouse) - so too, many of our conflicts and irrational behaviors are caused by the controlling system of the unconscious psyche which is hidden from our immediate awareness.

We are blinded to the influence of this system for the three reasons mentioned above:

We assume that our difficulties in life are due to routine malfunctions - not the result of normal, unconscious psychological functioning; thus, we look to the external world for the causes of our problems, rather than examining our own psyches.
We assume that the causes of our difficulties can be easily remedied by simple solutions rooted in observable phenomena; it doesn't even occur to us that the causes might be hidden from our consciousness.
We are blinded by the illusion of control. Since we feel that we are (or should be) in complete control of our behaviors, we resist the notion that there might be another controlling agent involved (the unconscious psyche).

Does this mean that we shouldn't look for "surface-level" solutions? Of course not! Every problem should be analyzed on every level possible. The first step must always be to examine our conscious decisions and behaviors for mistakes. To immediately blame everything on unconscious causes is a cop-out. To attribute everything to the unseen forces of this psyche is to act like a child who wishes to free himself from all responsibility and save himself the pain of dealing with his problems.

Rather, we must keep a realistic perspective. We must recognize that sometimes the problem with my mouse is caused by an irritant on the touch-pad, a hardware malfunction, or a software glitch, but we should always be aware of the other possibility: that the underlying cause of a disturbance or irrational behavior is our unconscious psyche.

Mishlei and Psychology

2008-07-23T14:49:00.000-04:00

I've often been asked to what extent Mishlei deals with psychology. I've been reading a book called Self-Analysis, by Karen Honrey (1885-1952, and it's pronounced "Horn-eye"), and I came across a paragraph that will be helpful in answering this question:

What then are neurotic trends? What are their characteristics, their function, their genesis, their effect on one’s life? It should be emphasized again that their essential elements are unconscious. A person may be aware of their effects, though in that case he will probably merely credit himself with laudable character traits: if he has, for example, a neurotic need for affection he will think that his is a good and loving disposition; or if he is in the grip of a neurotic perfectionism he will think that he is by nature more orderly and accurate than others. He may even glimpse something of the drives producing such effects, or recognize them when they are brought to his attention: he may be aware, for example, that he has a need for affection or a need to be perfect. But he is never aware to what extent he is in the grip of these strivings, to what extent they determine his life. Still less is he aware of the reasons why they have such power over him.

According to Horney, neurotic trends (which is the psychoanalytic term for "bad middos") can be recognized on four levels:

Level #1: You are aware of a certain emotion or personality trend that influences your behavior but you think that it is beneficial rather than harmful. Example: the person with a need for affection views herself as a loving person; the perfectionist prides himself on his perfectionism.
Level #2: You recognize that operating under the influence of this emotion or personality trend is actually (or potentially) harmful. Example: the person with the need for affection recognizes that it causes her to exercise poor judgment in her relationships; the perfectionist recognizes that his perfectionism causes him to obsess over details that don't matter, which is a waste of time and a cause of unnecessary anxiety.
Level #3: You realize that this emotion or personality trend isn't just limited to a particular behavior or decision, but that it controls entire parts of your life. Example: the person with the need for affection realizes that her need for affection doesn't just express itself in her desire for love and romance, but is the source of her excessive concern about what people think, the drive for success in her professional life, and the cause of her reticence to criticize others; the perfectionist realizes that his perfectionism isn't limited to areas of success and failure (grades, career, love life), but extends to his religiosity, his eating habits, and his inability to enjoy things that other people enjoy.
Level #4: You understand the underlying cause of the emotion or personality trend. Example: the person with the need for affection and the perfectionist trace these trends back to certain events in their childhood which caused their personalities to develop in the manner they did.

Now we are in a position to answer the question: What level of psychology does Mishlei deal with? According to my understanding of Mishlei, the answer is: Levels #1, #2, partially with Level #3, and not with Level #4. Let's examine how Mishlei deals with each level.

Level #1: Ormah

The first goal of Mishlei is Level #1 Instruction: to help people recognize that many of their behaviors and decisions are influenced, controlled, or dictated by their emotions/personality. This instruction is needed the most by the pesi (who, according to Chazal, is someone who is "seduced by his feelings"). The pesi's problem is his powerful conviction that what feels good is good, and what feels true is true. Shlomo ha'Melech states that the first objective of Mishlei is "laseis li'pesaim ormah" (to provide the pesi with cleverness). "Ormah" is an awareness and understanding of the deceptive and persuasive power of the emotions. The first step is to recognize that you must not trust your feelings to tell you what is good and what is real.

Level #2: Chochmah

The way Mishlei does this is through chochmah: by showing the consequences of emotional/personality-based decisions. The pesi will only be cured of his conviction in his emotions when he realizes that following them will only lead to harm, pain, and lost opportunities for pleasure.

I plan on writing a post about chochmah and mussar soon.

Level #3: Mussar

Gradually, after examining countless examples of particular emotional/personality-based decisions, the student of Mishlei will come to recognize how pervasive these forces are in his life. It slowly dawn upon him that most (if not all) of his behavior is not the result of free will, but of his personality. This awareness will generate shocking realizations: "You mean that's what made me do what I did?"

The reason I say that Mishlei only deals partially with Level #3 is that Mishlei deals almost exclusively with actions and decisions - not with one's psychological state per se. For instance, Mishlei will only examine the ramifications of perfectionism in action, but it wouldn't deal with the feelings of anxiety experienced by the perfectionist when he fails to meet his unrealistic standards.

Level #4: Psychoanalysis

Mishlei doesn't discuss the underlying causes of bad middos. As I have mentioned before, Chazal were clearly aware of the unconscious dimension of the yetzer ha'ra, as the Gemara states (Sukkah 52a):

Yoel called [the yetzer ha'ra] "tzfoni" ("The Hidden One"), as it says, "And I
will distance the hidden one from you" (Yoel 2:2). The Rabbis taught in a
Baraisa: "And I will distance the hidden one from you" - this refers to the
yetzer ha'ra, which is hidden and lurks in man's heart.

Chazal's recognition of unconscious forces is, in my experiences, most clearly expressed in their explanation of the fate of the yetzer ha'ra for avodah zarah, as I wrote about here. But all of this is beyond the scope of Mishlei - though I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's because not everyone is ready to handle the truth, perhaps because the causes are so particular to each case that the topic is not fit for a universal sefer, or perhaps it is for some other reason.

Bear in mind that the above is not intended authoritative. These are just observations, and rough observations at that.

Do Not Deviate, Right or Left

2008-07-06T12:16:00.000-04:00

As a followup to my last post, I was asked: What, then, does the pasuk mean when it says, "Do not deviate from the word that they [the Sages] tell you to the right or the left" (Devarim 17:11)? I assume that the intent of the question is: Doesn't the Torah seem to imply that we are to unconditionally accept the words of Sages, even when their words seem to be irrational?

Once again, I turn for my understanding to (a) the pasuk in its context, and (b) the interpretation of the Rishonim. The Ran (Drashos Ha'Ran #11) explains this pasuk as follows (with my emphases in bold):

According to the Torah we are commanded to act in accordance with the clarified ruling of the Beis Din Ha’Gadol, as it is stated, "If a matter of judgment is hidden from you . . . You shall come to the Kohanim, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgment. You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that Hashem will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you. According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left." We received an oral tradition which states: "Even if a judge tells you that your right hand is your left and your left hand is your right," meaning to say that even if it is clear to you that the ruling of the Sanhedrin is not in accordance with the truth, you must nevertheless obey them, for Hashem commanded us to act in accordance with the laws and mitzvos of the Torah in accordance with their halachic ruling, whether or not it corresponds to the truth.

The Ramban, in his commentary on this pasuk, explains similarly:

"Even if a judge tells you that your right hand is your left and your left hand is your right," says Rashi. The explanation is as follows: Even if you think in your mind that they have made a mistake, and the matter is as obvious in your eyes as the difference between your right hand and your left, you must nevertheless act in accordance with their command. You should not say, "How can I eat this completely prohibited piece of fat or kill this innocent man?" Rather you should say, "This is what the Lord Who commanded me in the mitzvos: that I do all of the mitzvos in accordance with the ruling of those who stand before Him in the Place He Chooses."

It is clear from both the context of the pasuk and the interpretations of these Rishonim that the statement, "Do not deviate from the word they tell you right or left" is telling us to unconditionally comply with the halachic rulings of the Sages, and does not refer to uncritically accepting their ideas.

To the contrary, there is no psak in philosophy (as I wrote about last summer in my post appropriately entitled, "No Psak in Philosophy"). We are under no obligation to blindly believe the words of the Sages. Shmuel ha'Nagid, another one of the great Rishonim, writes in his introduction to the Talmud:

And aagadah (or midrash) is any explanation in the Talmud on any non-mitzvah subject – this is an agadah, and you should only learn things from an agadah that are rational. And you should know that everything which our Sages established as halacha regarding a mitzvah came from the mouth of Moshe, our teacher, who received it from the mouth of the Almighty, and it should not be added to nor subtracted from. But the Sages’ explanations of the scriptural verses – each and every one [explained] according to what occurred to him and what he saw in his mind, and we should only learn those explanations which are rational, and the rest we should not rely on.

The Rambam likewise writes in his letter to the chachamim of Luniel:

Likewise, it is not fitting for a person to abandon rational things which have already been verified by proofs, and to cleanse his hands from them and hang his position on the words of an individual one of the Sages. For it is possible that this Sages lacked certain knowledge, or intended his words as an allegory, or said them at the moment based upon the information available to him. Don’t you know that there are many verses in the Holy Torah which are not to be interpreted literally? And once it was known with rational proofs that it is impossible for the matter to be literal, the translator Onkelos translated it in a manner that reason tolerates. A person should never cast aside his mind, for our eyes are in the front, and not in the back.

Let me be clear: If we are intelligent, we will exercise true emunas chachamim, and assume that what the Sages say is rational. If something they say doesn't make sense to us at first glance, we should assume that we are missing something, and we should do everything in our power to find a rational explanation of their words. If we cannot, it is wise to assume that the defect is in our understanding, not in their reasoning - but we must never believing something that doesn't make sense just because the Sages said it.

People call this "bitul ha'das" or "negation of the mind." The notion of bitul ha'das is Christian, and has no place in Judaism except for the injunction "Do not deviate from the word that they [the Sages] tell you to the right or the left," which refers to complying with the halachic rulings of the Sages, not to their philosophical ideas.

Emunas Chachamim Revisited

2008-07-04T16:34:00.002-04:00

I was recently discussing a Torah article with someone. I pointed out some serious problem with the author's approach, and the person I was discussing it with agreed and pointed out a few problems of her own, but then she concluded by saying, “Far be it from me to criticize a Rabbi – I assume that he is basing his statements on Torah fact as elucidated and discussed in various texts.”

I was reminded of the fact that this is a very prevalent sentiment in the Frum World which needs to be addressed again and again. The Jewish people – whose forefather, Avraham Avinu, questioned and criticized his parents, his teachers, and all the religious authorities of his generation – has been reduced to a dogmatic people, enslaved to the indoctrination by the so-called “gedolim” of their generation whose words they accept without question, believing that this blind faith is what the Sages had in mind when they spoke of Emunas Chachamim.

For those who haven’t done so, I urge you to read my essay on Emunas Chachamim (which I’ve relocated to the post right after this one). I don't have any new ideas, but I'd like to add a few sources and points.

Avraham ben Ha’Rambam begins his Essay on Aggadah with the following:

If a person puts forward a certain theory without offering proof, expecting people to accept it at face value just because they respect him, he is sadly mistaken; his approach flies in the face of both the Torah and common sense. It goes against common sense, because he wants people to believe something without evaluating and investigating whether it squares with the facts. And it runs counter to the Torah, because it goes against the truth and is unethical. The Torah says, "Do not give special consideration to the poor, nor show respect to the great" (Vayikra 19:15). And it says also, "Do not give anyone special consideration when rendering judgment" (Devarim 1:17). And there is no difference between a person who believes an idea without supporting evidence and one who trusts a person's statement simply because he respects him and holds that it must be true since it comes from a great scholar. This does not prove that the statement is true . . .

You can see that even the Sages themselves, when faced with an issue that could not be proven by debate and logical arguments, said, "I swear, that even if Joshua ben Nun had said it, I would not have believed him!" which means, "I would not believe him, although he was a prophet, since he cannot prove his point by the talmudical rules of logical argument."

Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paquda, in the first section of Chovos ha’Levavos, describes the person who relies on authority for his belief in God’s Oneness. He compares such an individual to “a blind man who is led by one who can see.” He then proceeds to describe the perils of relying on authority:

It may happen that one receives [the tradition] from one who, likewise, knows it only from tradition. That would resemble a chain of blind men, each of whom has his hand on the shoulder of the one in front of him, until the file reaches a person endowed with sight who is at their head and guides them. Should this guide of theirs fail them and neglect to watch over them carefully, or if one of them should stumble or suffer an accident, then all of them would be affected: they would all stray from the path and fall into a pit or a ditch, or blunder into an obstacle that would prevent them from continuing.

Apparently, when faced with the words of a rabbi that were problematic, Rabbeinu Bachya would not just assume “that he is basing his statements on Torah fact as elucidated and discussed in various texts.” That rabbi himself may have assumed the same thing about his rabbi, and his rabbi about his rabbi, and so on . . . but it only takes on link in the chain to lead the rest of the followers into a ditch.

Moreover, the assumption that a rabbi’s statements are founded in legitimate Torah ideas must also be considered in light of what it means to be a rabbi. Many people forget that the title of “rabbi” is bestowed upon someone who has a certain expertise in rendering halachic rulings in particular areas of halacha. Just because someone is a rabbi does not mean that he is a straight thinker in Torah philosophy. Indeed, the opposite is often the case. The Rambam writes about many people in his day who were Talmudic geniuses, but who were philosophically demented. Going to medical school doesn't imply that you know anything about English Literature, and getting semichah doesn't imply that you know anything about Torah philosophy.

But this leaves us with one important question: "If we, ourselves, don't know Torah philosophy, and we can't assume that our teachers know Torah philosophy, what are we supposed to do?" Think about it. I think I'll save that for another post.

What is Emunas Chachamim?

2008-07-04T16:32:00.000-04:00

Originally posted on 7/20/2007

The Baraisa in Avos 6:6 lists the 48 qualities through which the Torah is acquired. #23 is emunas chachamim – “faith in the Sages.” We must answer two questions: What is emunas chachamim, and what makes emunas chachamim essential to the acquisition of Torah?

There are those who believe that emunas chachamim refers to blind faith in the words of the Sages - that we must believe what the Sages say, in spite of what our minds tell us.This notion of emunas chachamim is incorrect for a simple reason: it is impossible to have blind faith in the words of the Sages. To those who object, I ask one question: "How do you know what the Sages mean?" In order to have blind faith in a statement of the Sages, one must have some understanding of what that statement means; that understanding must ultimately come from one's own mind. Even if a person relies on his teacher's interpretation, he must still rely on his own understanding of his teacher (not to mention that his teacher had to rely on his understanding of the Sages, and so on).

Rather, emunas chachamim is the conviction that the Sages are chachamim – that they reached the highest levels of abstract thinking and intellectual perfection; that they did not make casual statements, but only spoke or wrote after due contemplation and deliberation; that their ideas are not expressions of personal taste, psychological biases, or societal values, but are the products of rigorous intellectual analysis; that their words contain deep concepts and cannot be grasped through a superficial reading, but only after much thought, effort, and training; that they were humble, intellectually honest, and would never say or write anything for egotistical reasons; that they were aware of the facts in front of them as well as the other conceptual possibilities, and nevertheless concluded as they did because they had a conviction in mind's ability to grasp the truth.

A person who learns the words of the Sages with these assumptions has emunas chachamim.

Does this idea of emunas chachamim imply the Sages were always correct? No. The Sages were human, and even the greatest humans occasionally make mistakes. But this idea of emunas chachamim entails that if we see what appears to be a mistake or a nonsensical statement in the words of the Sages, there is a high probability that it is due to a deficiency in our own minds rather than in theirs. In such a scenario, we should think into their words with all of our resources to come up with a rational explanation. If we are correct, wonderful; if we are incorrect, then at least we will end up with a good idea, even if it wasn't want the Sages intended (needless to say, to the extent that we are in doubt as to whether our interpretation truly reflects the ideas of Sages, we ought to proceed with caution).

Does this idea of emunas chachamim mean that we cannot form our own opinion, siding with one Sage over the other? No. It is natural for the mind to favor one position over the other. But we should be intellectually honest and ask ourselves, "Do I favor this position because it appeals to my intellectual intuition, or because it appeals to my emotions?" Even if we are fairly certain that we are being drawn by our intellectual intuition, we must knowing how much weight to attribute to it - based on our years and experience in learning - and we should know when it is appropriate to suspend judgment until we reach the position where we are truly able to judge.

Does this in any way relieve us of the burden of thinking with our own minds? No. If anything, emunas chachamim forces us to work harder - to go beyond our first impressions, gut interpretations, and intellectual and emotional prejudices, and to learn from the words of the Sages themselves, rather than using the words of the Sages as a platform to say our own ideas and confirm our preconceived notions.

By now it should be clear why emunas chachamim is essential to the acquisition of Torah. A person who lacks emunas chachamim (or a person who thinks that emunas chachamim refers to blind faith) will never advance beyond his own, limited way of thinking, and will miss out on the opportunity we have to learn from the greatest intellects who have walked the earth.

Emunas chachamim not only enables us to gain from the ideas of the Sages, but by subordinating our untrained and underdeveloped minds to their superior intuition - all while continuing to think critically and independently - we are sure to improve and perfect our intellectual faculties as well.

The source of this definition of emunas chachamim is my own mind. I've looked and looked in many places, and although I've seen glimmers of it in the works of the Rishonim (Ibn Ezra on Shemos 20:1, the Rambam in the Peirush ha'Mishnayos: Introduction to Perek Cheilek when he talks about the "3rd group" and also at the very end, and several other places), I have yet to see anyone explicitly state a solid definition of emunas chachamim. If anyone has any sources which talk about emunas chachamim, please share!

What is Torah? (Part 1)

2008-07-02T22:10:00.000-04:00

Continuation of What is Torah? (Introduction)

Ralbag's Definition of Torah

There is a basic question that many people never ask is: What kind of thing is Torah? Is it a religion? Is it a philosophy? Is it a lifestyle? Is it a legal system?

In his introduction to Chumash, the Ralbag provides an interesting answer. The Ralbag defines Torah as “a regimen that brings those who practice it properly to true success.” A regimen is a developmental system - a training program designed to develop the unskilled layperson into an expert practitioner of an art. In order to understand Torah, we must first understand the nature of regimens.

Every regimen consists of principles, techniques, and behavioral regulations. For example, the best way for a person to become a professional athlete is to devote himself to an athletic regimen. Such an individual will need to learn certain principles about the human body in addition to the theory behind his sport of choice. He will need to practices various techniques – some of which prepare and condition him for the game, and others which he will use in the game itself. He will also need to regulate many other behaviors that are not directly related to the sport - behaviors which would be detrimental to his becoming an athlete. He will need to severely adjust his diet, his sleeping schedule, and his leisure activities, and he will have to refrain from using his body in harmful ways.

What is true of becoming an athlete is true of all regimens and all arts: music, carpentry, pottery, teaching, medicine, and so on. In order to become a skilled practitioner of these arts, one must follow a strict regimen, gradually refining one’s skill through learning the principles of the art, adhering to the necessary behavioral restrictions, and continually practicing the techniques of the art.

Bruce Lee on Technique

The beginner tends to view the techniques of the art as essentially physical. He believes that the rote repetition of these motor actions will somehow make him into an expert. For example, the little kid who wants to become a professional basketball player does nothing but shoot hoops over and over and over again. He believes that the mere repetition of this behavior (along with the other basic moves of basketball) will make him into a Michael Jordan. But the beginner is mistaken. Rabbi Sacks, in the name of Bruce Lee, says, “The key to training lies not in the rote doing of technique but in the understanding of technique.”

I can think of no better example of this than the movie Karate Kid. To refresh your memory: Daniel LaRusso just moved to a new city and finds himself the victim of the local bullies who use (or abuse) Karate to torment him. Daniel is sick of being a helpless victim and eagerly accepts Mr. Miyagi's offer to train him in Karate. But Daniel’s first Karate lesson is a big letdown. He expects Mr. Miyagi to teach him how to punch, kick, and block. Instead, Mr. Miyagi forces him to do hours and hours of household chores, such as waxing his car, sanding his floor, and painting his house and fence. By the end of the day, Daniel is exhausted and frustrated. He was hoping to start learning Karate, but all he did was menial labor.

Now, as you watch this short clip, think about Bruce Lee’s words: “The key to training lies not in the rote doing of technique but in the understanding of technique.”

For the entire day, Daniel did nothing but perform rote motor actions – actions which, in his mind, had nothing to do with Karate and would not develop him into a fighter. It was only when Mr. Miyagi enlightened him with understanding that Daniel able to see the moves for what they truly were: Karate techniques which were part of a regimen that would bring him to success.

Techniques of the Torah-Regimen

What are the techniques of the Torah-Regimen? You guessed it: the 613 mitzvos, and Bruce Lee’s statement about technique applies to them as well. According to the Rambam, every Jew must know Bruce Lee’s principle as a precondition to entering into the covenant. How so? According to the halacha (Hilchos Issurei Biah 14:3) that Beis Din is obligated to tell every non-Jew who wishes to convert that “it is impossible to become a completely righteous person (tzadik shalem) except for one who possesses wisdom (baal chochmah), who does these mitzvos and knows them.” This is what the Ralbag means when he defines Torah as “a regimen that brings those who practice it properly to true success.” Only by understanding the mitzvos as developmental techniques can one ever hope to attain success in the art of Torah.

Unfortunately, the majority of Jews keep the mitzvos without trying understanding what they are. This rote observance of mitzvos, unenlightened by understanding, does not bring those who practice it to any success. The Nevi'im refer to such rote practice as "mitzvas anashim melumadah." The Navi condemns the Jewish people, saying: "Inasmuch as this people has drawn close with its mouth and has honored Me with its lips, yet it has distanced its mind from Me; their fear of Me is like rote learning of human commands" (Yishaya 29:13).

Needless to say, keeping mitzvos by rote is not worthless and is the necessary first step in the regimen of Torah. This can also be seen in the example of Karate Kid: Daniel's rote waxing of the floor created the potential for the true technique of blocking. Daniel first needed to learn the techniques by rote before he was able to truly understand them. The same is true in all arts: the fledgling basketball player must practice the rote shooting of hoops before he learns how to implement them in the art of basketball, and the beginning musician must master his notes and scales before he begins to play even the simplest of songs. The same is true for mitzvos: learning and doing the mitzvos by rote prepares us for understanding how to implement them as techniques of the art of Torah.

I'm in conflict about interrupting in the middle of this train of thought, so I'll end by pointing you in the direction of the next post. Re-read Deena's problem, think about Daniel LaRusso before he realized why Mr. Miyagi was making him do these seemingly pointless chores, and ask yourself: What is Deena lacking that would solve her problem?

What is Torah? (Introduction)

2008-07-02T08:15:00.000-04:00

A few days before Pesach this year, Deena (a family friend) wrote the following on her blog:

It's just a couple days before Passover, and no time to have a crisis of faith. Most people I know are too busy pouring pots-full of boiling water on their counters,
perhaps with towels on the floor below waiting for the overflow. They're taking blowtorches designed for creme brulee to their stovetops. They're boiling pans of water in their microwaves. They're taping pieces of tin foil on the grates inside their refrigerators, being sure to poke holes for air circulation. They're cutting pieces of thick plastic or aluminum and using lots of sticky shelf paper. And they're wrapping up all their cereal, flour, cookies, and just about all their regular food – and completing a contract selling it to a non-Jew.
Is this crazy, or what? Hours and hours taking a toothbrush to the grout. Sorting through toys for a stray stub of granola bar. Flipping through the pages of books, shaking them upside down combing for crumbs. This is indeed insanity. Is this really what God wants us to be doing? I thought learning Torah was the most important thing--or maybe praying, or doing kindnesses for others, or visiting someone alone and sick. No, for a week--or several--Jews are overcome with a fear of specks of leavened products . . .
I do wonder how any clever God would come up with this as something beneficial to His creations. A test of faith, you may say--God provides this so He can reward our loyalty and our effort. Then why threaten us with being "cut off" from our people, i.e. the end of our eternal souls--if we snatch a slice of pizza over Passover's eight days?Or if we sell all our chametz except the bag of tortilla chips?
We're taught that the inflation of flour by yeast represents the puffiness of our egos--i.e. arrogance. Arrogance is one of the two characteristics--midos--that we're told to eliminate from our personalities. And here, for eight days, is a means to symbolically eliminate this puffiness, both spiritually, as we relive Jews' transition from earthly bondage to spiritual bondage to the only worthy master, God--and physically by never taking any leavened products into our bodies.
All the permutations of this chametz-restriction are so way out there as to make Jews look primitive and brainless. Gentiles who enter a Pesach-dik kitchen think we've gone to the moon. I don't really care what gentiles think; I want to do what God wants, and I trust He knows better than I do how to maximize my spiritual potential. But when you spend hundreds--usually THOUSANDS of dollars, and days, WEEKS of work to very indirectly and obliquely tamp down our egos--well, first off, I don't think it works any better than less intrusive means, and it just plain doesn't make sense . . . the "fences" around avoiding chametz, and the complexities of it, and the potential punishment for NOT doing it, or doing it incompletely--is just too bizarre. Tell me where I'm wrong.

When I first read this, I was overwhelmed. On the one hand, I realized that the doubts and questions raised by Deena are entirely legitimate and are shared by many, many other Jews who are too afraid to express them. On the other hand, I had no idea where to begin to answer her questions. It seemed that her dilemma can be attributed to several factors: the neurotic manner in which frum Jews relate to the laws of chametz, a misunderstanding of the reasons for these mitzvos, a mistaken notion of reward and punishment, and perhaps more.

The more I thought about it, the more I sensed that there was one unanswered question which was the root of her problems, and that question is: What is Torah? My intuition told me that a clear answer to this question would be the key to answering the rest of her questions.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of Torah was not sufficient at the time to even attempt to tackle this fundamental question. But I had a feeling that if I put her question on the back burner, my learning with Rabbi Sacks (whom I credit with all of the true ideas in this series of posts) would eventually equip me to formulate an adequate response.

Yesterday I sent Deena an email asking her for permission to quote her post on my blog. In her response, she said, "I must reiterate, however, that my original post was NOT the result of ponderous analysis--rather, it was more of an expression of my feelings at the time--though such thoughts and feelings are definitely recurrent."

I want Deena to know that I wanted to use her post as the basis for addressing this question precisely because it was not the the result of ponderous analysis. The feelings of "This is insane!" and "That doesn't make any sense at all!" are very significant in the eyes of the Torah. In fact, these feelings are the very gauge by which we evaluate whether we are keeping the mitzvos correctly. The Torah states (Devarim 4:5-9):

See, I have taught you chukim and mishpatim, as Hashem, my God, has commanded me. You shall safeguard and perform them, for they are your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the nations, who shall hear all these decrees and who shall say, "Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!" For which is a great nation that has a God Who is close to it, as is Hashem, our God, whenever we call to Him? And which is a great nation that has proper and acceptable chukim and mishpatim, such as this entire Torah that I place before you this day? Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest you remove them from your heart all the days of your life; and make them known to your children and your children's children.

Rashi comments on the phrase, “Only beware for yourself . . . lest you forget the things”:

Only then, when you will not forget them and perform them in their authentic manner, you will be considered wise and understanding. But if you will distort them as a result of forgetting, you will be considered fools.

We see one clear idea from this passage: the goyim are the barometer by which we should evaluate whether or not we are keeping the mitzvos correctly. In other words, if we keep and do the mitzvos in the manner which Hashem intended, the goyim will consider us an intelligent and rational people. But if they look at our keeping of the mitzvos as ridiculous and senseless, then we can know with certainty that we are not keeping the mitzvos the way we should be.

The Rambam expresses the same idea in his discussion of the group of people who approach the Torah superficially and accept the teachings of the Sages literally, without interpreting them rationally (Introduction to Chelek):

[The ideas of this group of people are] so crazy and irrational that if one were to repeat them, even to the uneducated amongst the goyim, let alone to wise scholars, their disbelief would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only pity their idiocy. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the Sages in accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah and extinguishes its light, for they make the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, “The nations who hear of these chukim shall say: Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our Sages in such a way that, “The nations who hear them shall say: Surely this pathetic nation is a stupid and irrational people.”

Deena's intuition was correct when she observed that "All the permutations of this chametz-restriction are so way out there as to make Jews look primitive and brainless." According to the Torah, the perception of mitzvos as senseless and irrational is a symptom of a diseased mitzvah-mentality. That is why the problems expressed by Deena are so important. The Torah only discusses the perception of the goyim, but if the Jews themselves see the mitzvos as primitive and brainless, then something is definitely wrong.

I can't promise that I'll be able to answer all of Deena's questions, I hope to at least open the right doors.

Note to Readers and Friends

2008-06-19T09:32:00.003-04:00

I know that there are close to a dozen of you who are awaiting responses to questions you've posted on the blog or sent in emails. I wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you! I've been busy writing half-response drafts to all of the questions - in addition to the other posts I've been working on. But rest assured, I'll get there eventually!

Criticism of "How to Take Criticism"

2008-06-15T17:04:00.000-04:00

It was just brought to my attention that there is a fundamental flaw in the method I wrote about in my post about How to Take Criticism. It is not a flaw of efficacy. Kahn's method does exactly what it is supposed to do: it emotionally dissociates a person from the criticism. I fell into the old trap mentioned by Einstein: striving to perfect the means without examining the end. I failed to ask the question: Should we emotionally dissociate ourselves from criticism?

The answer is: no. As David pointed out to me, these negative feelings that are stirred up by criticism provide a tremendous opportunity for self-knowledge. Criticism should be analyzed on two levels, each with its own type of questions:

Analysis of Content: Does the criticism contain truth? If so, what are the causes of my incorrect behavior? Why didn't I see anything wrong with what I was doing? What benefit did I think I was going to get by acting this way, and what harmful consequences did I or will I actually get? How do I go about correcting this behavior?
Analysis of Reaction: Why am I reacting to this criticism in this way? What is it about his criticism that makes me feel so angry, guilty, or depressed? What it is about myself that I do not want to face, and which these emotions surge to cover up?

David also mentioned that these two types of analysis are not entirely unrelated. We tend to hide behind negative emotions such as fear, anger, shame, guilt, and frustration. These emotions are like blockades which prevent us from examining the true causes of our behavior. Our immediate desire is to rid ourselves of these unpleasant feelings as soon as possible, and Kahn's method caters to that immediate desire. His method may free us from the pain and distraction of these emotions, but understanding these emotions is - in many cases - precisely what we need to pinpoint the underlying causes of our behavior. By implementing his technique, we deprive ourselves of this unique opportunity to learn about our own psyches.

Rambam's Philosophical Reading List

2008-06-06T09:46:00.001-04:00

Dan asked me where the Rambam says that Aristotle reached the highest level of human intellect below prophecy, as I mentioned in my speech. This statement of the Rambam can be found in a letter he wrote to Shmuel ibn Tibbon. I figured that I might as well post this letter on my blog.

Rambam: Letter to Shmuel ibn Tibbon

Be careful not to study the works of Aristotle without the help of his commentators, the commentary of Alexander [Aphrodisius], Themistius, or Averroes (ibn Roshd).

You mention two books that you have in your possession, “Sefer ha-Tapuach” and “Sefer Beis ha’Zahav,” allegedly attributed to Aristotle. These works are devoid of any substance and fraught with much folly and fanciful imaginings, and were not written by Aristotle. The work of Al Razi on “Metaphysics,” although authored by him, is worthless, as he was only a physician. The same applies to the Book of Definition and the Book on the Elements written by Isaac Israeli, who was a physician. However, the work Olam Katan by Yosef ibn Tzadik, I have no hesitation to recommend. Although I have not read the book, I am aware of his superior qualities which are reflected in the book. He, no doubt, follows the mode of discourse of the “Brethren of Purity.”

Generally, I would advise you to study only the works of logic composed by the scholar Abu Nasr Al-Farabi, for everything he was written, especially The Principle of Existing Things, is like fine flour. One can, indeed, derive knowledge and wisdom from his works because he was a distinguished philosopher. Similarly, Ibn Badja (Abubakr ibn al Saig) was a great philosopher. All his writings are lucid to one that understands, and correct to those that find knowledge.

The works of Aristotle are the basis for all those philosophical books and, as I indicated before, they can be understood only with the help of the commentaries of Alexander, Themistius, and Averroes. The other writings, however, apart from those here enumerated, such as the works of Empedocles, Pythagoras, Hermes, and Porphyrius, all belong to ancient philosophy, and one should not waste time upon them. While the works of Plato, the teacher of Aristotle, are profound and substantive, one may apprehend their essential notions in other works, especially in those of Aristotle, whose writings embrace all philosophical concepts developed previously. For Aristotle reached the highest level of knowledge to which man can ascend, with the exception of one who experiences the emanation of the Divine Spirit, who can attain the degree of prophecy, above which there is no higher stage. The works of Avicenna, although they contain good discernment and subtle analysis, cannot be compared to the writings of Al-Farabi. Nevertheless, they are useful and deserve to be studied diligently.

I have, thus, indicated to you the books you should study and on which you should concentrate your mind.

How to Take Criticism

2008-06-01T19:12:00.002-04:00

UPDATE: After you read this post, be sure to read the post entitled Criticism of "How to Take Criticism."

One of the worst things about criticism is that you almost never see it coming. One moment you're in a good mood, and the next moment, your self-esteem is shot and your day is ruined.

Based on a strong signal I received yesterday, I am pretty sure that I'm due for a well-deserved tochachah (criticism) within the next few days. At first, I was somewhat disappointed that I had picked up on this signal, which meant that I would spend the next 24 to 48 hours in a state of minor anxiety and dread. I know that the tochachah will be spot-on, which makes it that much worse. I thought to myself, "Well, it's only a matter of time until I'll feel upset, frustrated, and dejected."

But then I thought myself, "Wait a minute. I have a unique opportunity before me. This time, I know I am going to get tochachah. I might as well devote some time and energy preparing myself to receive it." This realization occurred to me during dinner, which I eat in front of my computer (yes, I am a yeshiva guy). I decided to Google "how to take criticism." The first item that came up was an article entitled, "Receiving Criticism" by a guy named Adam Kahn.

I started reading the article, and - lo and behold - this guy actually seemed to have a good method! Not only that, but the technique he recommends consciously implementing is something that has started to occur automatically to me as a result of learning Mishlei. It just never occurred to me to employ this as a method of dealing with the negative emotions that are triggered by tochachah. Come to think of it, the essence of the third step of his method was suggested by Rabbi Moskowitz when I was in high school.

Here is the entire article (well, 90% of the article - I removed a few of his examples). While I haven't experimented with this method yet, it looks promising, and I am anxious to try it out on the upcoming tochachah. For those of you who experiment with this method, please post your results!

Receiving Criticism - by Adam Kahn

CRITICISM USED TO UPSET ME. And because it was so upsetting, I was afraid of criticism, so it created more anxiety in me than was necessary. I figured if I could change my reaction to criticism so it didn't upset me so much, maybe I wouldn't be so anxious about the possibility of getting criticized.

I found a way, learned it, practiced it, and what do you know? It worked. Since it reduces anxiety, I thought you'd be interested in knowing how I did it.

I was reading a book called Heart of the Mind: Engaging Your Inner Power to Change With Neuro-Linguistic Programming, which has a strategy for handling criticism. There's another version of the same strategy in the book, Change Your Mind-And Keep the Change : Advanced NLP Submodalities Interventions. The strategy entails using dissociation. In neurolinguistic programming (that's what those two books are about), dissociation means being outside your body in your imagination. Being associated means looking at the world from inside your body.

To illustrate the difference and make it very clear what I'm talking about, right now imagine what it would be like to get up and go to the bathroom. Stay where you are, but imagine you are in the bathroom, walking back to where you really are. Can you see yourself sitting here reading this web page? Can you see what you look like? Can you see the position of your body? That's being dissociated.

Now imagine you're still looking at yourself reading this book and someone comes up and interrupts your reading to criticize you. You're standing there watching the other person criticize you, but you are outside the scene, watching what the other person looks like and seeing what you look like from outside your body, dissociated. Can you see that it wouldn't bother you as much that way? Since you feel separated from the situation, you feel somewhat distanced from your feelings. That's the first key.

I just ran across an example of someone spontaneously using this key to relieve suffering more significant than criticism. Viktor Frankl said one day he was suffering very badly in the concentration camp. They had to march out to a remote area and it was very cold. They of course didn't have much clothing on and they were desperately underfed. Frankl had thoughts going through his mind about things that were important to him at that time. If he got a little piece of sausage in his soup tonight (as sometimes happened) should he trade it for a piece of bread? Where could he get a piece of wire or string to replace the little piece that he'd been using as a shoelace? And on and on.

Frankl felt disgusted with the fact that he had to think about such petty things. He was a psychiatrist before the Nazis took control. He was disgusted that these petty thoughts consumed his mind in his daily struggle for survival. So he forced himself to think about something else, and he spontaneously dissociated. He pictured himself in front of an audience lecturing about the "psychology of the concentration camp"!

"All that oppressed me," wrote Frankl, "became objective, seen and described from the remote viewpoint of science. By this method I succeeded somehow in rising above the situation, above the sufferings of the moment, and I observed them as if they were already of the past. Both I and my troubles became the object of an interesting psychoscientific study undertaken by myself."

Dissociation is very effective for distancing yourself from emotional pain. The strategy from Heart of the Mind uses dissociation. I took that strategy and modified it a bit. I memorized my modified strategy, which I'll describe in a minute, and then I was ready to practice. Klassy (my wife) helped me by telling me real criticisms that were gradually more and more difficult to hear while I took my time and went through the steps one by one. It took us about an hour and a half. By the time I was done, even the very hard-to-hear criticisms didn't bother me at all. I went through my strategy many times during that hour and a half. Here is the strategy I used:

1. Into the Fort: First I created a safe place in my imagination. A ladder appeared in front of me. I climbed up into a solid steel fort surrounded by armed guards. It felt totally safe. In the fort was a television monitor and a printer. The scene on the screen was the place I was in actuality. But I didn't see the scene from my own eyes. It was from an upper corner of the room, like a surveillance camera.

In other words, my boss walks up to criticize me for showing up late for work. As soon as I recognize a criticism is forthcoming, I imagine climbing up the ladder into the fort and seeing my boss and I on the screen. So just to be extra clear, on my screen I see both my boss myself from a vantage point out and away from the two of us, as if there was a camera across the room pointing back at us, and I'm viewing the scene from that vantage point across the room.

2. Printer: In the fort, I couldn't hear what my boss was saying. I had to read it. This is a further dissociation — auditory dissociation. So I use auditory and visual dissociation. The reason I added this is because the two things that seemed to trigger the most negative emotion in me was the look on the person's face and the tone of their voice. Having to read the message removed the tone of voice.

3. Anything Useful: So I'm looking at the monitor seeing my boss talking to me. I read what he's saying. Having removed myself from the immediate frontal onslaught, looking at myself from the side and reading the message, I took away almost all of the feelings I normally associated with that kind of communication. I had a neutral feeling — not a negative feeling, not a positive feeling. Just kind of detached and observing. Then I evaluated the criticism as information to determine whether this information was useful to me or not. And this is the beauty of the strategy. You can gain information. A lot of criticisms, even when they are said meanly, contain information that could be useful to you. Some people, in order to avoid the pain of criticism, learn to simply reject all criticism. They aren't bothered by criticism, but they reject any information it might have contained.

This method protects you from having to feel the pain, but doesn't block you from gaining the information. It's a little awkward at first because it's new and you're not used to doing it that way. But after a few times, it starts to feel more natural. And the fact that you don't have to feel the pain is wonderful! I remember toward the end of our training, Klassy was throwing some harsh, genuine criticisms at me and they didn't bother me at all. And the fact that they didn't bother me made me so happy! I was free! It felt like I'd been clapped into prison my whole life — limited, hemmed in by the fear that I might be criticized and have to feel the hurt and upset. Suddenly the jailer was gone and the door was unlocked. I was free!

WHY THIS WORKS

The important thing is to dissociate and to see the criticism as information. The specific way you do these two doesn't matter. The strategy I put together is one of hundreds that would work just as well. Ask the question, What do I want? Given my goals, is this information useful?

I realize now that my response to criticism before was about the criticism. Rather than paying attention to the actual content — the information in the statement — I was noticing and responding to what it all meant and how it was said and what emotions were being transmitted and whether or not I felt rejected and whether or not they felt disappointed in me. I would simply get demoralized and distressed by criticism.

All of this is a lousy response to a criticism. It may be a "valid" way of listening to criticism, but it isn't at all helpful for either me or the other person. It feels bad to me and the other person has the frustrating experience of not really feeling that their message got across. It's as if the person was trying to tell me to get out of the middle of the street because there is a car coming and my response was to stand there feeling dejected because it seems he doesn't like me because his tone of voice seemed disapproving. Imagine how frustrating it would be to him because he's trying to tell me something and I'm ignoring what he's saying and only paying attention to how he's saying it.

This strategy stops the frustration for anyone trying to criticize me, and it stopped the dejected feeling I used to get when I was on the receiving end of the criticism.

The question is: Is this useful information to me given my goals? Usually when someone is criticizing you, they are reminding you of something important to you. And if it isn't important to you, there is no need to have a negative feeling. This is easy to say, but you have to know how to do it. You need a strategy. You can't just tell yourself, Don't feel that way. Not very many people know how to change their feelings at will.

My response could be: Thanks for reminding me! I often find myself feeling thankful for criticism. I have the feeling of appreciation for being told. Here's an analogy: Let's say I've decided to stop fidgeting and I tell my friend I really want to stop, and please help me. Then the next day she notices I'm fidgeting and says, You're fidgeting. The most sane response to that would be, Thank you! But you can't really respond that way to unexpected criticism unless you are dissociated and paying attention to the content of the criticism and how it relates to your goals.

A FEW MORE TIPS ON USING THIS METHOD

Let's talk for a minute about dissociation. To dissociate means to look at the situation from a different position. That means looking at it from another point of view, another physical location other than wherever you think you are. I think of myself as being in the center of my head, for example. So for me to take another position would be to imagine I am somewhere other than in the middle of my head. That could mean one of my hands, the wall next to me, on the moon, inside the person who is criticizing me, etc. Anywhere except where I normally locate "myself."

Just imagine it. You don't have to "project" yourself out of your body or anything wild or mystical. Just imagine you are the wall listening to two people talking. Or imagine what it must be like for the person doing the criticizing. Imagine you are over there in that person's body, looking out that person's eyes at you. Try to imagine how the criticizer feels and what their motivations are for saying it. Just imagine it. You don't have to be right.

Experiment with different points of view and see what works best for you — what allows you to take the criticism with the least pain and the most profit. You can think of yourself as outside your body. You can think of yourself as the whole universe (although perhaps that would be too abstract). You can think of yourself as the spirit of yourself from the future — yourself at age 95 — standing next to yourself now, listening to your younger self getting criticized. The options are endless. Experiment. Find points of view that serve you and use them when criticism comes your way and it makes you feel bad.

Believe it or not, you don't have to feel bad when you get criticized. I mean, you may not be good at it right off, and it may take some practice, and you may feel bad in the first few seconds, but you know that period of "mulling it over?" That's really the painful part — where you think about what they said and you get upset about it all over again. And then later in the day, you think about it again, and get upset again. This is painful. And it is unnecessary. Use this method to change your perspective. If you forgot to do it during the criticism, you can still use it for later when you are mulling it over, and it'll give you a different way to mull it over, a way that doesn't make you upset, a way that allows you to look at the criticism and actually see what's useful there, to find something you could use to enhance your own goals.

Not many people know about this idea, and it's too bad. You can make the world a better place by shouting it from the rooftops. People are so sensitive to criticism because it's so painful. And it's so painful because we take it in the face. We take it like a bazooka blast to the chest. But that's just one way to take it. There are others, and just about any of them work better than the one we usually use.

It seems like nobody teaches us how to think. Nobody teaches us that there are different ways to think during a criticism, and that some ways make the criticism painful or make it hurt your feelings or cause hard feelings between people who love each other, and yet there are other ways that allow people to take criticism without pain. If more people could do this, the world would be a better place.

When receiving criticism, dissociate and look for useful information.

Sin as an Opportunity for Teshuvah

2008-05-30T11:00:00.000-04:00

I recently reviewed an idea I heard from Rebbi on a shiur entitled "Teshuvah #2" (TTL R-06). The following is my presentation of this idea.

Adam Before the Cheit and After the Cheit

Before the cheit (sin) of Adam ha'Rishon, man's psychic energy naturally flowed to the realm of intellect, and was only drawn to the realm of the instincts when he was faced with an instinctual stimulus and a corresponding biological need. For example, Adam ha'Rishon would spend his day involved in the world of chochmah, naming animals and seeking knowledge of the universe. Only when he saw his wife would his sexual desires be awakened.

After the cheit, the situation was reversed: modern man's psychic energy is naturally drawn to the realm of the instincts, and in order to involve himself in the realm of intellect, he must actively withdraw his energy from the instinctual.

The Technique of the Psyche

When psychic energy cannot find gratification in the present reality, the psyche generates a fantasy - an idealized situation of future gratification - and he becomes preoccupied with the attempt to achieve that idealized state of pleasure. We've all had this experience. Let's consider some non-cheit examples:

You are about to go on a vacation, and you imagine that you are going to have the time of your life; the possibility of frustrations, complications, and disappointments don't even occur to you.
You are sitting down at a meal and are convinced that this meal will be a purely pleasurable experience; you don't think about how short-lived the pleasure will be, or the fact that the rest of the meal is never as good as the first bite, or the painful stomach ache you are going to have afterwards.
You are on your way to see a movie that you've been waiting for months to see, and expect it to be great; you fail to recall how many times you've been disappointed by movies that looked good, and felt that you wasted your time and money.

Exactly why the psyche seeks gratification from idealized scenarios is difficult to understand, but that it does so is evident.

Three Types of People

The chacham will be able to see through the illusion of such fantasies. He will realize at the outset that this idealized state of future gratification is false and unattainable. Since his conviction flows from his intellect, he will not be taken in by the pull of the fantasy, and will not stumble in cheit.

The fool will not even be aware that he is in the grips of a fantasy. He is convinced that he will actually be able to attain the pleasure promised by his fantasy. "She sways him with her abundant sophistication; she thrusts him with the glibness of her lips. He follows her unsuspectingly, like an ox to the slaughter . . . he is like a bird hurrying to the trap, unaware that its life will be lost" (Mishlei 7:21-23).

But there is a middle category. For the sake of simplicity, let's call him the beinoni (the middle man). Like the fool, the beinoni's conviction flows from his emotions; like the fool, he will be absolutely convinced that this ideal state of gratification really exists and is possible to attain. In all likelihood, the beinoni will be caught up in this fantasy, and he will commit the cheit.

Our Only Hope: the Opportunity for Teshuvah After the Cheit

Fortunately, the beinoni has one, excellent opportunity for teshuvah: immediately after experiencing the reality of the cheit. After we commit the cheit and experience the pleasure we anticipated, we have the opportunity to reflect upon that experience and ask ourselves: "Wait a minute. Did this experience really conform to my expectations, or were my expectations entirely unrealistic?"

You and I might not be on the level to avoid getting caught up in the fantasy of cheit, but if we are vigilant, we will seize this post-cheit opportunity to recognize that we were duped by our yetzer ha'ra. In this sense, a cheit is a sort of unwitting experiment which tests the truth of fantasy. Although we should never engage in this experiment le'chatchilah (at the outset), we shouldn't ignore the experimental data.

But if we are not vigilant, chances are we will just get caught up in another fantasy the next time. "This vacation had problems, but the next vacation will be a blast." "This meal didn't make me as happy as I expected, but the next one will." "This cheit wasn't as pleasurable as I had hoped, and I am now filled with guilt and frustration, but next time will be different."

As Einstein is reported to have said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Or as Shlomo ha'Melech said, "Like a dog that returns to his vomit, [so is] a fool who repeats his foolishness" (Mishlei 26:11).

Conclusion

It turns out that cheit has an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that it provides a unique opportunity for teshuvah by exposing the falsehood of the fantasy that led to the cheit in the first place. The disadvantage is that every time a person commits a cheit, his energies become increasingly tied to the realm of the instinctual, and it becomes that much harder to pull out.

Seneca on Personal Appearance

2008-05-28T09:05:00.000-04:00

This is the fifth letter of Seneca ("Letters from a Stoic," translated by Robin Campbell). Seneca's advice in this letter is very important for both the Frum and the Philosophers.

I view with pleasure and approval the way you keep on at your studies and sacrifice everything to your single-minded efforts to make yourself every day a better man. I do not merely urge you to persevere in this; I actually implore you to.

Let me give you, though, this one piece of advice: Refrain from following the example of those whose craving is for attention, not their own improvement, by doing certain things which are calculated to give rise to comment on your appearance or way of living generally. Avoid shabby attire, long hair, an unkempt beard, an outspoken dislike of silverware, sleeping on the ground and all other misguided means to self-advertisement.

The very name of philosophy, however modest the manner in which it is pursued, is unpopular as it is: imagine what the reaction would be if we started dissociating ourselves from the conventions of society.

Inwardly everything should be different but our outward face should conform with the crowd. Our clothes should not be gaudy, yet they should not be dowdy either. We should not keep silver plate with inlays of solid gold, but at the same time we should not imagine that doing without gold and silver is proof that we are leading the simple life.

Let our aim be a way of life not diametrically opposed to, but better than that of the mob. Otherwise, we shall repel and alienate the very people whose reform we desire; we shall make them, moreover, reluctant to imitate us in anything for fear they may have to imitate us in everything.

The first thing philosophy promises us is the feeling of fellowship, of belonging to mankind and being members of a community; being different will mean the abandoning of that manifesto. We must watch that the means by which we hope to gain admiration do not earn ridicule and hostility. Our motto, as everyone knows, is to live in conformity with nature: it is quite contrary to nature to torture one's body, to reject simple standards of cleanliness and make a point of being dirty, to adopt a diet that is not just plain but hideous and revolting. In the same way as a craving for dainties is a token of extravagant living, avoidance of familiar and inexpensive dishes betokens insanity. Philosophy calls for simple living, not for doing penance, and the simple way of life need not be a crude one.

The standard which I accept is this: One's life should be a compromise between the ideal and the popular morality. People should admire our way of life but they should at the same time find it understandable.

"Does this mean we are to act just like other people? Is there to be no distinction between us and them?" Most certainly there is. Any close observer should be aware that we are different from the mob. Anyone entering our homes should admire us rather than our furnishings. It is a great man that can treat his earthenware as if it was silver, and a man who treats his silver as if it was earthenware is no less great. Finding wealth an intolerable burden is the mark of an unstable mind.

Valedictory Speech

2008-05-27T10:42:00.000-04:00

The following is the speech I gave at the Touro College Commencement 2008 this past Sunday night. When reading a written speech, it is important to keep in mind that it is a speech. Picture the setting: Avery Fisher Hall, 2000 people (mostly frum), and several hundred graduates. I was given the following guidelines (though not in these words): "Make your speech frum enough to please the religious audience, but don't just say a dvar Torah. Show that you have a solid 'secular' education to dispel the notion that a yeshiva student can't be generally knowledeable as well." As always, any feedback will be appreciated.

The Rambam writes that of the entire human species there was one man who reached the highest possible level of intellect below prophecy. That man was Aristotle.

Aristotle begins his book, the Nicomachean Ethics, with his definition of “the Good.” According to Aristotle, the Good “is that at which all things aim.” In other words, everything we do is a means toward some end. The ultimate end to which all of our actions aim is what Aristotle calls “the Good.”

Different people aim at different ends. Some people pursue physical pleasure as the Good; for others, the Good is material wealth; some strive for perfection of the body as the ultimate Good, while others seek recognition for intellectual abilities. Aristotle aimed to teach us that there is an objective Good for man. Ethics is the practical study of how to organize our lives around that Good.

Unfortunately, Aristotle’s vision of ethics has been lost in our society. Albert Einstein once said, “Our age is characterized by the perfection of means and the confusion of ends.” Einstein meant that the modern age is afflicted with a uniquely human disorder. We blindly accept the idea of the Good that we are fed by our society, and we devote all of our energy to perfecting the means of attaining that Good, but we never stop to ask ourselves the most important question that a human being can ask: “What is the true human Good?” We fail to do what Adam ha’Rishon did in Gan Eden: we fail to name ourselves – to define the creature called “human being” and to understand what is objectively good for that creature.

Our society’s failure to understand the true human good has many ramifications, but I would like to focus on one in particular: the detrimental impact on education.

Education in our society has reached an ultimate low, and is far removed from the educational philosophy of the ancients. The ancients had a term for their concept of education. They called it “liberal education.” The aim of liberal education is to “liberate” the mind from the darkness of ignorance and the shackles of animality and to nurture our innate desire to pursue knowledge for its own sake. By “knowledge for its own sake,” I do not mean the mere accumulation of facts and ideas. I mean knowledge that is real to us; knowledge that transforms us from potential human beings to actual human beings; knowledge that fundamentally alters the way we see reality and the way we live our lives.

Sadly, the concept of liberal education has been almost entirely forgotten. Liberal education has been reduced to career training. In career training, knowledge is only seen as good insofar as it is useful for securing material wealth and success. Even the so-called “academics” are, for the most part, only interested in gaining recognition for their intellectual achievements – not in appreciating the beauty of wisdom in the universe.

So there you have it: liberal education, which seeks knowledge itself as the Good, has been replaced by career training, which seeks knowledge as a means to lesser, instrumental goods, such as wealth and power.

It should not come as a surprise that Judaism sides with the approach of liberal education. Our program of liberal education goes by the name Torah Lishmah – the pursuit of knowledge as a good in and of itself. Chazal allude to the liberating nature of Torah in the statement: “Ein ben chorine ela mi sh’oseik b’talmud Torah – There is no free man except for he who involves himself in the learning of Torah.”

But herein lays the problem faced by the modern Jew who subscribes to the approach of Torah Lishmah. On the one hand, he yearns to involve himself in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. On the other hand, he lives in a modern world which demands a rigorous and specialized career training. Not only is he severely restricted in the time and energy that could be spent pursuing knowledge for its own sake, but he is also at risk. The secular college campus is steeped in false ideas of the Good. To immerse oneself in such a culture is to jeopardize one’s attachment to the Good. What is such an individual supposed to do?

That is where Touro College steps in. Touro has enabled me, along with countless other students, to pursue a professionally focused career education without forfeiting the ideal of Torah Lishmah. Thanks to Touro, I was able to prepare for my career within an educational environment devoted to Torah. I was able to receive the education required for my profession and, at the same time, pursue my personal studies of Torah, science, and philosophy. Touro embodies the ideal expressed by Chazal in Avos d’Rebi Nosson: “Aseh Torasecha keva u’melachtecha arai – make Torah Lishmah into the ultimate Good, and your career into a means to achieve that end.”

Fellow graduates, as valedictorian, I am expected to translate this idea into a farewell message to you. But let’s face it: nothing I say tonight can have any direct impact on the way you live your lives. We are human beings. We have the free will to choose our own good. Only you can choose the Good around which you organize your lives. Nothing I say can change the Good that you pursue.

That being the case, all I can do is repeat the words of Toras Moshe: “Re’eh nosati lefanecha hayom es ha’chayim v’es ha’Tov, v’es ha’mavess v’es ha’ra. See I have placed before you today the Life and the Good, and the Death and the Bad. U’bacharta ba’chayim, l’maan tichyeh atah v’zarecha. Choose life, in order that you and your offspring may live.”

As you journey through life, remember that everything you do is a means to an end, and that the ultimate end toward which all of your actions aim is what you have chosen as the Good. It is not enough to want the Good. You must know the Good, understand it, and choose it: u’bacarhta ba’chayim.

At this time, I want to thank my parents for their love and support – for bringing me into Olam ha’Zeh. I want to thank my teachers for bringing me for bringing me into Olam ha’Bah. Most importantly, I would like to express my sincere hakaras ha’tov to the source of all Tov: Baruch ha’Makom she’nasan Torah le’amo Yisroel.

The Lion King and Malchus Shamayim

2008-05-04T19:50:00.003-04:00

Ever since I saw Disney's The Lion King earlier this year, I've wanted to write a series of posts on it. Sean and I spent a few weeks defining the philosophy of each of the main characters: Mufasa, Scar, Timon and Pumbaa, the hyenas, and Simba. But alas, I never got around to writing any of it up.

However, the liberating experience of Pesach has caused me to reflect on The Lion King once again. In realized that Mufasa represents the philosophy of the Torah, and Scar represents the philosophy of Pharaoh.

Mufasa's Philosophy

Mufasa's entire philosophy can be seen in his words to Simba, his son:

Mufasa: Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. As king, you need to understand that balance and respect all the creatures, from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope.
Young Simba: But dad, don't we eat the antelope?
Mufasa: Yes, Simba, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected in the great Circle of Life.

What Mufasa calls "The Circle of Life," the Torah refers to as Malchus Shamayim: the harmonious system of natural law which organizes all of the matter in the universe into the hierarchy of forms we know. The term "Circle" refers to the cyclical, ongoing process of organization and reorganization of matter into its various forms. The Rambam discusses this in the Mishneh Torah (Laws of the Foundations of Torah 4:3-5):

Every entity which is a combination of the elements will ultimately decompose into them. Some will decompose after a few days, and others will decompose after many years. It is impossible for anything which is a combination of them not to decompose into them. It is impossible even for gold and ruby not to decompose and return to their fundamental elements . . .

Every entity that decomposes will not return to the fundamental elements immediately. Rather, it will decompose and change into another entity. That entity will, in turn, change into another entity, until ultimately, it will return to the elements. Thus, all entities are constantly returning [to their elemental state] in a cycle.

These elements are in a constant state of flux at, with a certain portion - but never the entire matter - of one changing into another every day and every hour . . . From the combination of these elements are the forms of men, living beasts, plants, stones, and metals. God gives each body the form appropriate to it through the tenth malach, which is the tzurah called ishim.

Mufasa's philosophy can be summed up as follows: Every creature must understand and appreciate its own tzurah and the tzurah of all other creatures, and strive to live in accordance with Malchus Shamayim.

The Circle of Life

This philosophy is expressed in the song, "The Circle of Life":

From the day we arrive on the planet

And blinking, step into the sun

There's more to see than can ever be seen

More to do than can ever be done

There's far too much to take in here

More to find than can ever be found

But the sun rolling high

Through the sapphire sky

Keeps great and small on the endless round

It's the Circle of Life

And it moves us all

Through despair and hope

Through faith and love

Till we find our place

On the path unwinding

In the Circle

The Circle of Life

The Circle of Life (the continual expression of tzurah in the material world) is that which "moves us all" (is the cause of all change and organization in the universe). In the case of the plants, animals, and other bodies which are not endowed with intellect, this movement occurs naturally. But we human beings "must find our place" in the Circle of Life (understand our own form and the totality of Malchus Shamayim to the greatest extent possible, and live in accordance with this knowledge). This is a lifelong process, which begins "from the day we arrive on this planet, and blinking step into the sun" (when our minds are first illuminated by the light of knowledge). The wisdom expressed in the universe is infinite and our existence is limited: "there is more to see than can ever be seen, more to do than can ever be done." Since life is a journey from ignorance to knowledge, we perceive it as "a path unwinding," filled with both "despair and hope," which we must strive to understand in light of the Circle of Life.

Scar's Philosophy

Scar, Mufasa's evil brother, expresses his philosophy in the lyrics of his song, "Be Prepared!":

I never thought hyenas essential. They're crude and unspeakably plain. But maybe they've a glimmer of potential. If allied to my vision and brain.

The future is littered with prizes. And though I'm the main addressee. The point that I must emphasize is. You won't get a sniff without me!

So prepare for the coup of the century. Be prepared for the murkiest scam. Meticulous planning. Tenacity spanning. Decades of denial is simply why I'll be king undisputed.

Respected, saluted. And seen for the wonder I am. Yes, my teeth and ambitions are bared. Be prepared!

Scar's philosophy can be summed up as follows: All creatures are nothing but the instruments to securing supremacy and dominion, which can only be achieved through careful planning, ruthless manipulation, deception, and ambition.

Scar has no respect for any other creature because he views himself as superior to them. Their existence only has value "if allied to my vision and brain." He does not view the environment as the expression of Idea in the material world, which is Good in its own right. Instead, he sees the world as "littered with prizes" and assumes that "I am the main addressee." He wishes to see himself as the source of existence for all other creatures ("You won't get a sniff without me!"), and his ambition is to make them recognize that he is "the king, undisputed." He is driven to be "respected, saluted, recognized for the wonder I am."

Pharaoh had the same philosophy. "Thus said the Lord, Hashem/Elokim: I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great serpent that crouches within its rivers, who has said, 'The river is mine, and I made myself'" (Yechezkiel 29:3). In Pharaoh's mind, the Nile - the source of all life in Egypt - exists for him and because of him. Pharaoh's twisted mind proclaims, "I am the one who provides the good for all of Egypt!" Pharaoh does not recognize the Nile as a natural system created by God which benefits all creatures, of which he is but one example. He sees the Nile as power to be harnessed to sustain a kingdom whose ultimate purpose is to glorify his own supreme existence.

Hashem, through the agency of Moshe Rabbeinu, showed Pharaoh that his philosophy was incorrect by causing the ecosystem - which he believed was under his dominion - to rebel against him and to destroy him. The purpose of the plagues (which I regret not discussing on this blog before Pesach) was to show Pharaoh, the Egyptians, the Jews, and the rest of the world, "that the earth belongs to Hashem" - that He is the One Who organizes the matter in the universe, including man; "that there is none like Me in all the Earth" - that Pharaoh is not a supreme being, as he would imagine, but that he is a creature who is dependent on the beneficence of the Creator like everything else.

Two Philosophies of Kingship

The opposite philosophies of Mufasa and Scar can be seen in the manner of their kingship.

Scar's goal is to dominate the animal kingdom, and to reign as the supreme beast upon which all other animals are subordinate. Unlike Mufasa, Scar has disregards the Circle of Life. Instead, Scar seeks to impose his own self-centered design onto the natural order. This becomes apparent to the entire Pride Rock population soon after after Scar kills Mufasa and assumes control. He disrupts the food chain by enslaving the lions and turning them into hunters for the new, artificial dominant class: himself and the hyenas. Not only that, but Scar pushes the lions to hunt more than they naturally need. This leads to an over hunting of the pridelands, and the herds begin to move on, resulting in a famine. Eventually, the entire ecosystem of the Pridelands begins to collapse, even to the point where the climate changes, and the lush savanna becomes an shadowy wasteland.

Mufasa views his role as king in a completely different way. To him, "King" is nothing but a position in the natural order, and is no reason to feel inherently superior to any other animal. He tells Simba: "A king's time as ruler rises and falls like the sun. One day, Simba, the sun will set on my time here, and will rise with you as the new king." His influence on the ecosystem is necessary, but his time is limited. The position of king is eternal, but the particular kings come into being for a limited time and then perish, like all other material bodies.

What ultimately happens to Scar? He is eaten by the hyenas whom he had enslaved and forced to live like lions. The tzurah of the hyena, which Scar attempted to eradicate by forcing them to live like lions, exerted itself and overpowered Scar's efforts. Like Pharaoh, the consequences of denying Malchus Shamayim finally caught up to him, and overthrew the artificial Malchus Scar. As Shlomo ha'Melech states, "Like a roaring lion and a growling bear, so is a wicked ruler over a destitute people." Because he chose to rule with evil, Scar was destroyed by his own actions.