“And he (Moshe) spoke to Korach and all of his
congregation saying, “In the morning Hashem will make known who is His and who
is sanctified He will draw close to Himself.
Who He chooses, He will draw close to Himself.” (BeMidbar 16:5)
Should we devote time to the study of mussar (moral
discipline)? It would be best by
defining the term mussar. But the term
is not easy to accurately define.
Mussar is not so much a subject matter as it is a process of study with
a specific objective. It is easiest to
understand the term mussar in relation to this objective. At a basic level, mussar is study directed
towards motivating the student to conduct himself in everyday life in a manner
consistent with the Torah. In other
words, mussar responds to a specific problem.
Knowing how to behave does not necessarily translate into proper
behavior. A student can study Torah and understand halacha and the expectations
of the Torah but yet encounter difficulty in converting knowledge into action. Mussar is designed to address this
issue. It is designed to provide
encouragement and the motivation needed to advance from knowledge to action.
Based on this definition, it seems clear that the
study of mussar is invaluable. But
there is substantial controversy regarding the study of mussar. In fact, various of the Roshei Yeshiva of
the famous Volozhin Yeshiva discouraged students in the Yeshiva from studying
mussar. At least one even referred to
the study of mussar as a distraction from the study of Torah.[1]
This controversy is difficult to understand. What is the basis for this discord regarding
the study of mussar?
There is an interesting account of a debate between
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer regarding the study of mussar
that may illuminate the issue. Rav
Chaim Soloveitchik was one of the last Roshei Yeshiva of the Volozhin
Yeshiva. As mentioned above, the study
of mussar was not encouraged by the Yeshiva.
Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer appealed to Rav Chaim to reconsider the Yeshiva’s
stance. He supported his arguments with
a comment from the Talmud in Tractate Berachot. The Talmud explains that a person should always incite his yetzer
ha’tov – his good inclination against his yetzer ha’ra – his evil
inclination. If a person cannot
overcome his yetzer ha’ra by this means, then he should immerse himself in the
study of Torah. If this measure is not
effective, he should read the Shema. As
a final resort – when all else fails – the person should contemplate his day of
death.[2] Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer believed that this
final measure represents a mussar approach.
Therefore, it is clear that the Sages of the Talmud endorsed the study
and methods of mussar.
Rav Chaim pointed out that there is another text
from the Talmud in Tractate Succah that seems to contradict the comments of the
Sages in Tractate Berachot. The Sages
comment that if a person encounters the yetzer ha’ra, the person should take
his yetzer ha’ra to the bait midrash.[3] In other words, the best response to the
yetzer ha’ra is to change one’s focus and concentrate on the study of
Torah. Rav Chaim explained that the two
texts do not contradict each other. In
order to resolve the apparent contradiction between the texts, Rav Chaim
offered an analogy. If a person is
suffering from digestive problems, a doctor might prescribe castor oil. But for a healthy person, it would not be
advisable to take this medication. In
fact, use of this medication would make the healthy person ill. Based on this analogy, Rav Chaim explained
the two texts. I person who is
spiritually ill needs to be treated.
The treatment for this ill person may include counseling the person to
more carefully consider his mortality – a motivational or mussar approach. But a person who is healthy should instead
respond to the impulses of his yetzer ha’ra by focusing on Torah study. For this healthy person, contemplation of
mortality – or the study of mussar may very well have a negative psychological
impact.[4]
It is not our purpose here to remark on this debate
between Rav Chaim and Rebbi Yitzchok Belzer.
But the debate does provide an insight into the nature of mussar. Two observations emerge from this debate. First, Rav Chaim understood that there is a
clear difference between the study of Torah – in its purist form – and the
study of mussar. The objective in pure
Torah study is to understand the Torah.
Once the student shifts the emphasis of his study from seeking an
understanding of the Torah to other more personal objectives, the student is no
longer studying Torah in the ideal manner.
Second, it is apparent from Rav Chaim’s analysis that the very nature of
mussar dictates that it cannot be regarded as ideal Torah study. Because the objective of mussar is
specifically, the reworking of the personality and the evocation of personal
motives to deny the urges of the yetzer ha’ra, it diverges from pure Torah
study – devoted to seeking a deeper understanding to the Torah.
Rav Dov Katz, in his study of the mussar movement,
objects to the perspective articulated by Rav Chaim. He argues that the Torah is not just a work of law. It includes a lengthy account of the lives
of the Avot – the forefathers. Other
narratives discuss the redemption of Bnai Yisrael from Egypt and their
experiences in the wilderness – including their various shortcomings. These narratives are sources of personal
moral instruction. Rav Katz asks, “Is
this not mussar?”[5]
Maimonides seems to echo this sentiment. He explains that one of the fundamental
principles of Torah Judaism is that the entire Torah was revealed to Moshe at
Sinai. He explains that this revelation
includes not only the laws but also the narrative portion of the Torah. He adds that every element of the Torah –
including the narrative sections – is the source of unimaginable wisdom.[6] If we accept the contention that mussar is
the essential objective of these narrative section, then Maimonides’ comments
seem to confirm Rav Katz’s contention that Torah and mussar are inseparable.
This week’s parasha offers an opportunity to explore
more carefully the contention that the Torah itself includes accounts that are
akin to mussar in their very nature.
The parasha discusses the rebellion of Korach and his followers. The Torah explains that Korach and his followers
objected to Moshe’s assignment of positions of leadership to himself, Aharon
and to others. It seems that Korach and
his cohorts coveted these various positions and wished to challenge Moshe’s
right to appoint the leadership. Moshe
attempted to reason with his opponents.
The Torah does not explain in detail these conversations or
debates. But Rashi provides a
description of one of Moshe’s responses to this upraising. Moshe explained that Hashem created the
universe with boundaries. For example,
night is separated from day. It is
impossible to convert the day to night or the night to day. Similarly Hashem created boundaries within
Bnai Yisrael. He separated Aharon to be
the Kohen Gadol. Just as the boundary
between day and night cannot be opposed, so too, the status conferred on Aharon
cannot be reversed.[7]
Rashi’s account of Moshe’s appeal is difficult to
understand. It seems that Moshe’s main
point is that he did not appoint Aharon as Kohen Gadol. He was merely following Hashem’s directive. He is telling Korach and his followers that
there is nothing to be gained by opposing him – Moshe. Hashem is the source of Aharon’s
appointment. But if this is Moshe’s
appeal, his reference to the boundaries that Hashem established between night
and day is superfluous. Why did Moshe
stress the immutable nature of these boundaries?
In order to more fully understand Rashi’s comments,
let us consider a related issue. The
Torah commands us not to covet. We are
also commanded to not desire the possessions of another person. These two commandments are included in the
Decalogue. Maimonides discusses both of
these commandments in his code of law the Mishne Torah. We would expect these two mitzvot to be
included in the section of Maimonides’ code that deals with midot – character
traits. But instead, Maimonides
incorporates the discussion of these mitzvot in the laws concerning
robbery. Maimondes provides an insight
into his reasoning. Before we consider
Maimondies’ comments on this issue, we must clarify some terms. The prohibition against desiring a friend’s
property is violated once one begins to contemplate how one might pressure his
friend to part with the desired object.
The mitzvah prohibiting coveting is violated if this plan is put into
action. Based on these definitions,
Maimonides explains the desire leads to coveting. If the pressure does not lead to the friend selling or delivering
the desired object, the coveting leads to robbery.[8] It seems that this reasoning provides the
rational for placing the mitzvot prohibiting desiring and coveting in the laws
concerning robbery.
However, Maimonides’ assertion that desiring a
friend’s property may ultimately leads to theft seems to be extreme. It is possible to imagine the unfolding of
the scenario that Maimonides describes.
But it does not seem that this scenario is completely probable. What is the point in suggesting a scenario
that seems somewhat remote?
Perhaps, Maimonides’ point is that the underlying
attitude expressing in desiring and coveting someone else’s property is the
same attitude that underlies robbery.
In order to be drawn into violating the prohibitions against desiring
and coveting someone else’s property two basic elements must at work. First, the object must be something that
attracts the person. For example, my
friend may have a wonderful set of water skies. But I am not at all interested in water skiing. So, I will not desire or covet the
skies. Second, the person must be able
to form a fantasy of the object being his.
I think the White House is a nice home.
But I cannot imagine myself as one of its residents. So, it is not likely that I am in danger of
violating the prohibitions against desiring or coveting someone else’s property
as a result of my interest in the White House.
Now, the first of these elements is not really the problem. There is nothing wrong with being attracted
to material objects – as long as we don’t become overwhelmed by the pursuit of
material ends. But the second element
is of concern. The fantasy that someone
else’s property can be mine is a denial of the ownership rights of that
person. His property is his property
and no one else has any right to it.
The moment a person indulges in the fantasy of possessing someone else’s
property, this person has lost sight of the boundaries that halacha creates
through property rights.
Now, we can better understand Maimonides’ comments
on the relationship between desiring, coveting and robbery. The violation of the prohibition against
desiring involves indulging a fantasy that is contrary to the reality of the
property rights established by halacha.
Coveting is a further indulgence of this fantasy and a further
deterioration of the person’s grasp of reality. Once coveting occurs the basic attitude underlying robbery has
been established and reinforced. The
person who desires and then covets is lost in fantasy and has lost sight of the
reality of the other person’s ownership.
This may not result in robbery.
The person may be afraid to go this next step or not act out his fantasy
for other reasons. But nonetheless,
that basic attitude underlying robbery has been firmly established.
This interpretation of Maimonides comments is
confirmed by Rashi’s account of Moshe’s appeal. Although Korach and his followers may not have technically
violated the prohibition against desiring and coveting – they were not seeking
property – their basic attitude was the same as that underlying these two
prohibitions. They were wholly absorbed
in the fantasy that the leadership roles that Moshe had assigned could be
theirs. Moshe appeal was directed
towards this fantasy. He explained that
just as day cannot be night, they cannot acquire these roles. Hashem – Who created the boundaries between
day and night – also assigned the position of Kohen Gadol to Aharon. Imagining themselves in these leadership
roles was as far removed from reality as imaging that day could be night!
Let us consider whether this lesson is mussar – as
Rav Chaim understood the term. Moshe
was not attempting to evoke a countervailing fear or sense of shame that would
suppress the rebellion. He was not
telling Korah and his cohorts to contemplate their deaths or to merely consider
the guidance of their consciences.
Moshe’s appeal does not include any type of motivational material. He was appealing to the rational or
intellectual faculties of his opponents.
He was demonstrating the error in their thinking and indicating that
their desires were founded upon a flawed and fantastic view of reality. The approach used by Moshe was very
different from Rav Chaim’s conception or mussar. In fact, Moshe employed an approach that was the opposite of Rav
Chaim’s understanding to the mussar approach.
He did not attempt to motivate by appealing to an internal fear or
impulse. Instead, he asked his
opponents to rise above their subjective perceptions and fantasies and look at
the issue from a strictly objective – truth seeking – perspective.
Using this example as a model, we can anticipate Rav
Chaim’s response to Rav Katz’s contention that the Torah itself includes
mussar. It is true that the Torah
includes vast narrative sections. It is
also true that these sections are designed to serve as a source of moral
instruction. However, it is important
to recognize that according to Rav Chaim, not all moral instruction can be
defined as mussar. When the instruction
is primarily motivational, then the lesson can be regarded as mussar. However, material that is primarily designed
to reveal a fundamental truth – even an ethical or moral truth – would not be
regarded as mussar. Rav Chaim would
argue that the narrative sections of the Torah are not intended to be merely
inspirational or motivational. Instead,
the Torah demands that we guide our lives by truth and these sections reveal
fundamental truths. Therefore, he would
not agree with the contention that the Torah is permeated with mussar lessons.
Again, this discussion is not intended to evaluate the value of the study of mussar. However, hopefully this discussion does provide some insight into the nature of the debate.
[1] Rav Y. Hershkowitz, Torat Chaim on Pirke Avot,
p 2, note 3.
[2] Mesechet Berachot 5a.
[3] Mesechet Succah 50b.
[4] Rav Y. Hershkowitz, Torat Chaim on Pirke Avot,
p 2.
[5] Rav Dov Katz, Tnuat HaMussar, pp. 22-24.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary
on the Mishne, Mesechet Sanhedrin 10:1.
[7] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary
on Sefer BeMidbar 16:5.
[8] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne
Torah, Hilchot Gezaylah Ve’Aveydah 1:9-12.