Avot (2:2): “All those who toil for the community should do so for the sake of Heaven.” The mishna does not say that “their intention should be for the sake of Heaven.” There is a fitting explanation for this, as follows. [The Talmud in] Berakhot (17a) states:1The Talmud is commenting on Psalms 111:10: “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord – those who practice it (oseihem) gain sound understanding.” “It does not say ‘those who practice’ (‘osim’) but ‘those who practice them’ (‘oseihem’). [Reward awaits] those who practice for its sake, not those who practice for ulterior motives.”2The Talmud continues: “One who practices them for ulterior motives – it would have been better had he not been created.”Tosafot3Ad loc., s.v. “haoseh.” question this statement in light of the statement: “A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot, even for ulterior motives, for from ulterior motives he will come to do it for its own sake” (Pesaḥim 50b). Their question can be resolved as follows. Every mitzva is delimited by the parameters of its proper fulfillment, based on the Talmud and codes. If it strays from the limits and parameters, if the behavior violates this guideline and boundary, it is not a fulfillment of a commandment – to the extent that it has gone beyond the limit. As they, of blessed memory, state (Yerushalmi [Ḥalla 1:5], cited by Rosh in the chapter “Kol Shaa” [Pesaḥim 2:18]): “‘These are the commandments’ (Lev. 27:34): If he performed them as commanded, they are a mitzva; if not, they are not a mitzva.” Sometimes, the focus of one’s tendencies is misaligned with the parameters of practice – to the point where they conflict sharply. And if the force of the tendencies prevails so that the mitzva is performed in accordance with it, it is no mitzva. Is it conceivable that a person could take a nice, beautiful lulav to display before everyone, but [in taking it] not meet the [halakhic] parameter of “unto you”?!4Leviticus 23:40; the Sages derive from here that one fulfills the mitzva only with one’s own lulav. Certainly his punishment will be great, for he nullified a positive commandment. This is implied in the language of the Talmud: “It does not say ‘those who practice’ but ‘those who practice them,’” meaning, one who performs the mitzva within its true parameters. “Those who practice for its sake” means those who practice in the same manner as one whose intention is for the sake of Heaven, whose primary focus is to observe carefully the boundaries and parameters of the mitzva in all its detailed laws; “not those who practice for ulterior motives” refers to conducting oneself according to his tendencies. The more one behaves according to his tendencies, the further he is from acting “for its sake.”5R. Salanter is developing a thesis that a person who performs mitzvot in an externally correct fashion may not be fulfilling them at all (or may be committing a sin under the facade of performing a mitzva). This is why Mussar’s analysis and self-analysis, as well as the study of Mussar texts, is so important in order to prevent a perversion of Torah understanding or practice. However, when a person makes it a hard-and-fast rule to act in accordance with the law, and all the winds of the world will not move him – even if his intention is not for the sake of Heaven – still, the more he continues in these types of actions and holds fast to them, the more his tendencies will weaken (for, from time to time, the action will conflict with his intention and overcome it), and so he will come to act “for its sake.”6Nevertheless, if one can commit to the parameters of proper observance and execute them even when they conflict with his tendencies, it will weaken the control of his tendencies over him and move him closer to acting “for its sake.” The language of the Talmud is precise: “A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot, even for ulterior motives, for from ulterior motives he will come to do it for its own sake.”
So it is when one works for the community. Perhaps the Mishna did not impose on us to have the desirable intentions “for the sake of Heaven,” but all efforts must be patterned on those who labor for the sake of Heaven, free of the tendencies of the will, and only in accordance with what is appropriate for the community, according to the law and halakha.
Most important to me7R. Salanter has made two points in the essay. 1) Performance of a mitzva that is dominated and distorted by the egocentric sins of one’s tendencies does not constitute a true fulfillment of that mitzva. This implies the need to study and practice Mussar, so as to identify one’s distorting tendencies and to gain greater control over them – in order to perform mitzvot properly. 2) R. Salanter teaches that if, in performing a mitzva, a person steadfastly adheres to the parameters of observance described in the Torah and codes, it can defeat the biases and distortive effects of the egocentric tendencies. Then such a performance will be a true fulfillment of the mitzva. R. Israel now turns to the question of how to read the Torah objectively and identify the correct parameters of performance. How can one prevent one’s tendencies from distorting, or even undermining or reversing, what the Torah is actually instructing us to do? is to seek the true Torah.8I.e., the Torah understood as actually communicated by God, when one’s understanding of it is not twisted by unconscious drives and needs. One may arrive at true Torah if one can neutralize egocentric bias and not let it distort judgment or even the choice of criteria by which one judges what is true. In my dream,9Compare Genesis 40:16. while working for the needs of the body,10In his early study of Torah, he still focused on the body, i.e., external actions and observances. He had not yet grasped the power of “tendencies” and the centrality of psychological forces in shaping judgments as to what the Torah was instructing or the manner in which one interpreted and practiced it. I spoke in glittering generalities, without order, ideas that had been inscribed in me for some time. [Now I speak new thoughts which contradict the old truth.] However, through receiving strong criticism from others – on which I depend – I learned to speak confidently – for if I err, criticism will straighten me out. What is truth? Truth is not based on simplicity11I.e., plain meaning. alone12Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. – for plain meaning is but a branch of the methods for proving assertions, and, for the most part, the difficult questions that arise from the synthesis of strongly linked premises [which are not easily disconnected – for one should not ask for a demonstration whose linked premises cannot be disconnected, as Ramban (Nahmanides) wrote at the beginning of Milḥamot Hashem] stand ready to do battle with plain meaning and displace it. We see this in the Talmud in the case of okimtot13Qualifications on what initially seemed to be the simple meaning of a text. and in the words of our masters, the Tosafists, by whose light we walk always.14The Tosafists juxtapose two or more texts whose plain meanings seem contradictory or problematic. To resolve the clash between two texts, the Tosafists often posit subtle distinctions between cases and applications. Nor is truth supported by a brief, novel interpretation, for there may be a brief articulation whose premises are combined with ephemeral connections which do not even have a whiff of truth. And there are lengthy treatises whose [diverse] premises are combined properly; these enter the realm of truth, though they require much examination and extra investigation15Arguments and analyses of Torah texts need to be thoroughly examined and criticized. The implication is that if learning is done in a group, the others’ insights and criticism will help one to arrive at the truth. Others – especially others who have undergone Mussar analysis and character corrections – will discern things that one does not realize about himself. This will help in arriving at the truth. because there are so many links. Sometimes, if one of the links is broken, then they cannot be written in the book of truth. Nor can truth be built simply by the desire of a person to seek knowledge of truth, bringing into its chamber whatever his reason has taught him. This idea is stated fully in a verse in Scripture (Prov. 2:4): “If you seek it as you do silver…” (this applies to Torah as indicated in the beginning of these verses, “My son…” [Prov. 2:1], and as explained in Yalkut [Shimoni] ad loc.). When seeking silver, a person’s desire alone is not enough; only if he has prepared himself properly [will he succeed]. The same applies to the seeking of the Torah – and even more so – for when seeking silver, the basis is divine aid, whereas with respect to Torah, the basis is human preparation (by himself or others); only then will the divine light also shine on him. “For the Torah is not in the heavens” (Deut. 30:12); rather, the Torah is given over to human beings. However, it is not held captivity by them, i.e., to act with it as they see fit; rather, as one who uses straightforward reason16Here, again, is R. Salanter’s dialectic guidance. Humans cannot attain perfect rationality and objective knowledge of the Torah. God accepts that fact. This is the implication of giving the Torah to humans. They will mix in some of their subjective needs and distortions. However, God requires humans to try to neutralize the bias and reduce its distorting effects to a minimum. to devise causes that naturally lead to the desired effect.17E.g., correct understanding. There’s a reasonable relationship between your conclusions and the material in the text. The student of Torah must carefully analyze how one thing leads to the next and determine that this is a reasonable conclusion. Coincidence or superficial resemblance is not adequate. Correct meaning is established by rational analysis and straight, commonsense deduction and analogy. This constitutes knowledge of the truth. In general, there are two fundamental principles in the search for the true Torah: natural ability and purity of thought. Ability means comprehensive mastery of basic premises and additional insight through strong and keen reason to build composites that are strong as cast iron,18Lit. “a solid mirror.” and after much analysis of all sides of the argument to clarify the truth. Purity – this is what scientists call “scientific knowledge”19“Hakara mada’it”; R. Salanter was apparently aware of the scientific method and was familiar with texts and sources that spoke of it. Its superiority lay in the fact that the empirical method stripped out human subjective needs and distortions and established the truth objectively. and the Mussar sages call the stripping away of physicality,20“Hitpashtut hagashmiyut,” meaning, the stripping away of all instincts and drives that come with embodiment. To R. Salanter, this means removing or neutralizing the self-serving egocentric bias which is embodied in the self so that undistorted reason can grasp the Torah’s true meaning. meaning that the intellect stands alone and is not combined21I.e., intermixed and distorted. with other human psychic drives. Otherwise, the tendencies of the psychic drives are screens separating him from recognizing the truth. For, even though straight judgment helps [in recognizing the truth], tendencies distort [judgment, leading it] to proceed along crooked paths.22Hitherto, R. Salanter has presented Mussar learning and character refinement as ancillary activities, and in Letter 6 he stressed that learning Torah itself is the priority activity. Here R. Salanter is saying that without Mussar and character refinement, all the Torah that one studies will become distorted, because straight judgment is twisted by bias. Mussar and self-improvement are thus prerequisites for true understanding of Torah. The source of ability is in what has been distilled from the understanding of many great searchers,23Compare Judges 5:16. as was customary in the days of our Sages and Rabbis, of blessed memory. And the source of purity is when the psychic forces are in perfect equilibrium between the two sides. Reason will then stand upright, without bias. Then the good God will not deny good to those who go wholeheartedly (with proper preparation) to illuminate their eyes with His Torah. Perhaps we can attach these words to the words of the Sages, of blessed memory (Sota 22a). “‘Fear God my son, and the king, and with dissenters (shonim) do not get involved’ (Prov. 24:21). R. Yitzḥak said: These are those that repeatedly learn (shonim) halakhot [without proper study].” For it is a commandment of the Torah to observe the laws of the king even when no one sees or knows, as they say, “The law of the kingdom is law.”24Gittin 10b et al. For the source of truth is entirely in his hands – ability, purity, and God’s assistance. As Scripture says: “The heart of a ruler is in the hand of God” (Prov. 21:1).25The emphasis is in the original, presumably to dispel any possible danger that government censors might interpret the Talmud as saying that teachers of halakha dissent from the king’s law. So too, through fear of God is the Torah arrived at by the way of truth (see Bava Batra 16a, “‘He sewed reverence’ [Job 15:4]…[He created the evil urge and] He created Torah [to cure it]….”). The basis is ability and purity – and then God, blessed be He, helps from the Heavens. But “with dissenters” – those who study halakhot without the proper preparation – do not get involved.
One thing that the Mussar sages banished from entering the congregation of Israel26Compare Deuteronomy 23:2–3. is pilpul,27Dialectics/casuistry. In his early days, after he became conscious of Mussar and the dangers of egocentricity, R. Salanter also proposed eliminating pilpul. but in my present view, the opposite is true.28Compare Esther 9:1.Pilpul is a great and strong basis for seeking the truth, without which it will not endure. There are two reasons. One: its profound and straight reason, which is the prime basis (after the fundamental principle of encyclopedic knowledge) of getting to the goal of the truth. The necessity of expanding, sharpening, and straightening reason (each person to his level), which is practically impossible by only examining the truth, which is limited, from every angle, [is possible,] however, through pilpulistic study of Torah.29Which requires constant revision due to challenges from peers. It is in each person’s power to expand it as he wishes so that it will follow the pleasant and beautiful Torah that illuminates. Thus, human reason will be straightened and honed. Then, if it is accompanied by great mastery, it will be within his power (at his level) to seek out the truth. Two: This is what experience impressed upon me in my youth, when I was bound up in the study of Mussar and its laws.*30Compare Psalms 37:25. I had no idea where truth is found. It was as far from me as east is from west.31Compare Psalms 103:12. See also Yalkut Shimoni 1:178 and 631.) According to what I imagined then, truth was plain meaning, brevity, and the desire to seek the truth. As I went along in this state, I saw, with a penetrating eye, that the longing to demonstrate intellectual prowess breached the boundaries of truth and misled my intellect to divert the truth toward my desire – and that “truth” was being established by the underlying, driving will.32In other words: the anti-pilpul, just-the-plain meaning approach, was driven by egotistical desire (to be superior to those who were showing off their power of pilpul). R. Salanter’s conclusion is that distortion by the ego is inescapable. Using a method that allowed it full play but critiqued it and corrected it by encouraging expression of a wide range of interpretations was a better method of neutralizing bias than a method that suppressed it and gave the illusion that it was eliminated. Then I said: It is far, far, better for me to allow myself to use pilpulim without hesitation or fear (as the Sages, of blessed memory, permitted it to sharpen one’s mind) so that my reason would not be held captivity by the evil urge.33His reason was captured by the bias of “simplicity” (plain meaning) and was in its thrall just as much as egotistical scholars are driven to come up with farfetched pilpulim – but in this case, the bias tricked him into believing that he had freed himself from egocentric bias. This idea has grown so large in my mind that now I find it hard to believe (except possibly for an elite few) that a person can be staunchly pure of reason without being biased by the desire to say that his reason is refined – unless he freely says pilpulim, as he wishes, without any hindrance.
True – there is an obligation to study Torah even if no way can be found to seek the truth, and one may issue rulings even without achieving this elevated level.34It appears that R. Salanter is softening his statements in the previous paragraphs, lest people conclude that if one hasn’t studied Mussar, one should not study Torah at all (and certainly not issue halakhic rulings), lest the outcome be distorted. Still, the obligation applies to all who study Torah – and also to laymen who set time aside regularly for Torah – to seek truth as one seeks treasures. And where will truth be found? Will it take a sack of flour on its shoulder and go to the polymath in whom are found all the needed qualifications to find the truth…?
One more point I thought to raise about truth, which pertains to the advancement of character traits and its ramifications. Truth is rarely found through them, as they are conventional. In contrast to the rational, which is truly defined as true or false, depending on abstract reason and free of all psychic forces (as described above), the conventional is defined truly as good or evil,35Moral categories. ugly or beautiful.36Aesthetic categories. Even though their basis is in reason that is free of biases that divert,37R. Salanter is borrowing a metaphor from Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed: before they ate of the fruit, Adam and Eve knew everything as necessary truths, i.e., true or false. After their consciousness changed, they came to understand the good and the bad, which are conditional truths. In establishing the truth about Torah’s laws or text, the operating categories are true and false. In shaping and improving character traits, the operative categories are good and bad (i.e., conditional truth), because the admixture of psychic drives makes it almost impossible to arrive at pure, i.e., necessary truth. the psychic forces cannot simply be eliminated, because they, too, contribute, as long as they are restrained by reason so they do not breach the boundaries of their actual value. Now, the direction set by the tendencies are like a common breeze, diverting the truth toward an acquired desire, not to the natural desire implanted in the heart of a just man (who is not corrupted in his traits; who is in a simple, disinterested state without any attraction or repulsion), which supplies the primary foundational principles; at their direction, reason should build its analogies with correct combinations.
Speaking about these traits is also unlike speaking about the rational, where almost any whiff of imagery or figurative speech disqualifies them. Regarding character traits, it is the opposite; it is almost impossible to present them or explain them without some figurative image whose purpose is to awaken the psychic forces attached to them. The more a person puts his strength (if he can) into explaining something properly with soaring rhetoric, the more susceptible to error it becomes, as one can cover error in the garment of imagery. Therefore, it is very good to publish the “drush” (that is, the figurative component, for those not familiar with the definition of this art) and let the eyes of many scan it with exacting criticism. Thus, through middot (which are the prime basis for the spiritual and material), the truth will shine through for those who seek it.38R. Salanter has again articulated his “new” method: Bias is unavoidable, so expose it to scrutiny and alternative viewpoints, which correct distortions better than any internal self-correction can. In the case of figurative rhetoric, since the performance of a speech can mask errors, it is important to offer the material in writing or print, a medium that removes this charismatic element.
If I may be so bold, I will explain one more precious thing (in my estimation) that follows from putting together distinct elements of this book. Straighten out and condition the middot of an intelligent youth (who, in general, in matters of middot, needs extra oversight, lest his abundant intelligence divert his middot toward his desires) while he is still budding, before his feet get caught in the vicissitudes and preoccupations of time (whatever state he may be in), which make it difficult for a person to train and condition himself then. Only in youth can one learn and condition his middot to a wonderful degree. So when, with the passage of time he arrives39Compare Genesis 33:12, 14. [at older age] (when his heart and mind are not with him to concentrate or observe them), they will continue to strike root and bear the fruits of success – his behaving with proper and needed middot – to a degree limited by his nature and situation. Just like learning the science of war requires tremendous and awesome precision that is practically impossible to learn during actual battle, so it is with learning the science of the war to conquer the middot and direct and condition them in the right way. This is their rule: one must study and condition them with correct precision in advance, even though they will not operate completely40Meaning that in the storms and stresses of life, the theoretically well-trained method will not function perfectly but in a flawed manner. Still, by training in advance, it will operate better. when he is caught up in the waves of the ocean of time, even if he is on a successful path. And where is the material that can carry the heavy weight of learning and conditioning proper middot? The presentation of interpersonal experience is very limited and poor in quality.41Here ends the text as published by R. Blazer in Ohr Yisrael. Our translation continues until the end of the introduction written by R. Salanter, as actually published in Tevunah. [Therefore,] this book purports to ask and reply42Compare Avot 5:7. as is proper – in the correct path and with “derekh eretz (proper behavior), [which] precedes the Torah,”43See Leviticus Rabba 9:3. and in which all middot are included. This will be good and beautiful material with which to apply a paved path for studying and conditioning middot. So I beg the great Torah sages of this time to honor me with their correct words – followed by the youths – and may [they] deign to explain clearly how to present their names at the end of their essays so it will be accurately known who uttered these words.44Lit., “out of whose womb did they come forth.” Compare Job 38:29. And let me reveal in advance (so that I may not mislead people) that my essays (because of my scant knowledge) will be written with the help of others,45It is not clear whether R. Salanter is referring to a student/disciple serving as co-writer or perhaps is crediting the non-Jewish/modern scholars whose writings shaped his ideas about the role of the unconscious forces. That these forces drive reason and judgment in egocentric and biased ways is a prominent feature in all three of R. Salanter’s Tevunah essays. with the help of God. When I wrote to several great and eminent sages of our time, some honored me with their writings, and some promised to send them. I have fulfilled the obligation of incorporating their documents. The merit of those who work with the community for the sake of Heaven46Compare Avot 2:2, and the opening words of this introduction. will accrue to those who send correct writings, and the merit of their fathers will help them to increase Torah and glorify it. May God help me, I who speak am Israel, son of R. Zev Wolf, may his memory be a blessing and for life in the World to Come.
נֶעְתַּק מֵהַקְדָּמָה לְסֵפֶר תְּבוּנָה וְנִשְׁמַט הַדְּבָרִים הַשַּׁיָּכִים רַק לְהַדְפָּסַת הַסֵּפֶר:
אָבוֹת (פֶּרֶק ב' מִשְׁנָה ב') וְכָל הָעֲמֵלִים עִם הַצִּבּוּר יִהְיוּ עֲמֵלִים עִמָּהֶם לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. לֹא אָמְרָה הַמִּשְׁנָה יִהְיֶה כַּוָּנָתָם לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. בָּזֹאת נָאוֹת לְבָאֵר כִּי הַתּוֹסָפוֹת בִּבְרָכוֹת (י"ז) הִקְשׁוּ עַל הָא דְּאָמְרִינַן (שָׁם) לָעוֹשִׂים לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶם לָעוֹשִׂים לִשְׁמָהּ וְלֹא לָעוֹשִׂים שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמְרִינַן לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְוֹת אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ. וְיֵשׁ לְיַשֵּׁב קֻשְׁיָתָם דְּהִנֵּה בְּכָל מִצְוָה יֵשׁ גְּדָרִים מֻגְבָּלִים בְּאֹפֶן עֲשִׂיָּתָהּ עַל פִּי הַתַּלְמוּד וְהַפּוֹסְקִים וְאִם תֵּצֵא מִגִּדְרָהּ וּגְבוּלָהּ אֵינֶנָּה מִצְוָה — לְפִי עֶרֶךְ יְצִיאָתָהּ מִגְּבוּלָהּ — כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (יְרוּשַׁלְמִי הֵבִיאוֹ הָרֹא"שׁ בְּפֶרֶק כָּל שָׁעָה) אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת אִם עֲשָׂאָן כְּמִצְוָתָן מִצְוָה וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מִצְוָה. וְלִפְעָמִים לֹא יֵלְכוּ אֲחוּזֵי יָד מֶרְכַּז הַנְּטִיָּה עִם גֶּדֶר הָעֲשִׂיָּה עַד אֲשֶׁר תִּוָּלֵד הִתְנַגְּדוּת חֲזָקָה. וְאִם תִּגְבַּר כֹּחַ הַנְּטִיָּה לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמִּצְוָה עַל פִּיהָ אֵינֶנָּה מִצְוָה. הֲיַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת שֶׁיִּקַּח אָדָם לוּלָב נָאֶה וְגַם יָפֶה לְהִתְגַּדֵּר קֳבָל עַם בְּחֶסְרוֹן הַגָּדֵר לָכֶם? בְּוַדַּאי עָנְשׁוֹ גָּדוֹל כִּי בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְזֶה מְדֻקְדָּק קְצָת בִּלְשׁוֹן הַגְּמָרָא לָעוֹשֶׂיהָ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶם הַיְנוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַמִּצְוָה בְּגִדְרָהּ הָאֲמִתִּי. לָעוֹשִׂים לִשְׁמָהּ הַיְנוּ שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בְּזֶה הָאֹפֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מִי שֶׁכַּוָּנָתוֹ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר זֹאת מֶרְכָּזוֹ הָעִקָּרִי לְהַשְׁקִיף הֵיטֵב עַל גְּבוּלֵי גֶּדֶר הַמִּצְוָה לְהִלְכוֹתֶיהָ. וְלֹא לָעוֹשִׂים שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הַיְנוּ שֶׁיִּתְנַהֵג בְּמַעֲשֶׂה עַל פִּי נְטִיָּתוֹ — וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף הָאָדָם לְנַהֵל מַעֲשָׂיו עַל פִּי נְטִיָּתוֹ כֵּן יִתְרַחֵק הָלְאָה מִבְּחִינַת לִשְׁמָהּ — אָכֵן כַּאֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם לְחֹק נִצָּב לְהִתְנַהֵג בְּמַעֲשָׂיו עַל פִּי חֻקִּים וְכָל הָרוּחוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם לֹא יְזִיזֶנּוּ. אִם כִּי כַּוָּנָתוֹ אֵינֶנָּה לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם כָּל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף בְּטִיב מַעֲשָׂיו וְיַחֲזִיק בָּהֶם כֵּן תֶּחֱלַשׁ נְטִיָּתוֹ — בִּהְיוֹת לִפְעָמִים הַמַּעֲשֶׂה תִּתְנַגֵּד לְהַכַּוָּנָה וְתִתְגַּבֵּר עָלֶיהָ — וְיָבוֹא לְלִשְׁמָהּ. וְזֶה מְדֻקְדָּק בִּלְשׁוֹן הַגְּמָרָא לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ:—
Avot (2:2): “All those who toil for the community should do so for the sake of Heaven.” The mishna does not say that “their intention should be for the sake of Heaven.” There is a fitting explanation for this, as follows.
[The Talmud in] Berakhot (17a) states:1The Talmud is commenting on Psalms 111:10: “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord – those who practice it (oseihem) gain sound understanding.” “It does not say ‘those who practice’ (‘osim’) but ‘those who practice them’ (‘oseihem’). [Reward awaits] those who practice for its sake, not those who practice for ulterior motives.”2The Talmud continues: “One who practices them for ulterior motives – it would have been better had he not been created.” Tosafot3Ad loc., s.v. “haoseh.” question this statement in light of the statement: “A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot, even for ulterior motives, for from ulterior motives he will come to do it for its own sake” (Pesaḥim 50b).
Their question can be resolved as follows. Every mitzva is delimited by the parameters of its proper fulfillment, based on the Talmud and codes. If it strays from the limits and parameters, if the behavior violates this guideline and boundary, it is not a fulfillment of a commandment – to the extent that it has gone beyond the limit. As they, of blessed memory, state (Yerushalmi [Ḥalla 1:5], cited by Rosh in the chapter “Kol Shaa” [Pesaḥim 2:18]): “‘These are the commandments’ (Lev. 27:34): If he performed them as commanded, they are a mitzva; if not, they are not a mitzva.”
Sometimes, the focus of one’s tendencies is misaligned with the parameters of practice – to the point where they conflict sharply. And if the force of the tendencies prevails so that the mitzva is performed in accordance with it, it is no mitzva. Is it conceivable that a person could take a nice, beautiful lulav to display before everyone, but [in taking it] not meet the [halakhic] parameter of “unto you”?!4Leviticus 23:40; the Sages derive from here that one fulfills the mitzva only with one’s own lulav. Certainly his punishment will be great, for he nullified a positive commandment.
This is implied in the language of the Talmud: “It does not say ‘those who practice’ but ‘those who practice them,’” meaning, one who performs the mitzva within its true parameters. “Those who practice for its sake” means those who practice in the same manner as one whose intention is for the sake of Heaven, whose primary focus is to observe carefully the boundaries and parameters of the mitzva in all its detailed laws; “not those who practice for ulterior motives” refers to conducting oneself according to his tendencies. The more one behaves according to his tendencies, the further he is from acting “for its sake.”5R. Salanter is developing a thesis that a person who performs mitzvot in an externally correct fashion may not be fulfilling them at all (or may be committing a sin under the facade of performing a mitzva). This is why Mussar’s analysis and self-analysis, as well as the study of Mussar texts, is so important in order to prevent a perversion of Torah understanding or practice.
However, when a person makes it a hard-and-fast rule to act in accordance with the law, and all the winds of the world will not move him – even if his intention is not for the sake of Heaven – still, the more he continues in these types of actions and holds fast to them, the more his tendencies will weaken (for, from time to time, the action will conflict with his intention and overcome it), and so he will come to act “for its sake.”6Nevertheless, if one can commit to the parameters of proper observance and execute them even when they conflict with his tendencies, it will weaken the control of his tendencies over him and move him closer to acting “for its sake.” The language of the Talmud is precise: “A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot, even for ulterior motives, for from ulterior motives he will come to do it for its own sake.”
כֵּן הַדָּבָר גַּם בְּהֶעָמֵל עִם הַצִּבּוּר. אוּלַי לֹא הֶעֱמִיסָה עָלֵינוּ הַמִּשְׁנָה לִהְיוֹת דַּוְקָא הַכַּוָּנָה רְצוּיָה לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם רַק שֶׁהֶעָמָל יִהְיֶה עַל תְּכוּנַת הַמִּתְעַמֵּל לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּלִי נְטִיַּת הָרָצוֹן רַק כְּפִי הַנָּאוֹת לַצִּבּוּר כַּדָּת וְכַהֲלָכָה:—
So it is when one works for the community. Perhaps the Mishna did not impose on us to have the desirable intentions “for the sake of Heaven,” but all efforts must be patterned on those who labor for the sake of Heaven, free of the tendencies of the will, and only in accordance with what is appropriate for the community, according to the law and halakha.
וְהַיּוֹתֵר גְּדוֹלָה אֵלַי הִיא בַּקָּשַׁת תּוֹרַת הָאֱמֶת —. אֲנִי בַּחֲלוֹמִי בְּעֵת עִסְקִי לְצָרְכֵי הַגֵּו. אֲדַבְּרָה בְּרַעְיוֹנוֹת מְקַשְׁקְשׁוֹת בְּלִי סְדָרִים אֶת אֲשֶׁר נֻקְּרָה אֶצְלִי מִכְּבָר וְעַל יַד הַבִּקֹּרֶת הַחֲזָקָה אֶסְמֹךְ לְדַבֵּר דִּבְרֵי בֶּטַח כִּי אִם שָׁגִיתִי הַבִּקֹּרֶת תְּיַשֵּׁר דַּרְכִּי — מַה הִיא הָאֱמֶת? לֹא עַל הַפַּשְׁטוּת לְבַדּוֹ יִהְיֶה הָאֱמֶת כִּי הַפַּשְׁטוּת אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סָעִיף מִדַּרְכֵי הָרְאָיוֹת וְעַל פִּי הָרֹב קֻשְׁיוֹת הַחֲמוּרוֹת הַנוֹלָדוֹת מֵהַרְכָּבוֹת הַקּוֹדְמוֹת מְשֻׁלָּבוֹת בְּשִׁלּוּב חָזָק (בַּל יִנָּתְקוּ בְּנִקְלֶה כִּי אֵין לְבַקֵּשׁ מוֹפֵת אֲשֶׁר הַקְדָּמוֹתָיו מְשֻׁלָּב לְבַל יִנָּתְקוּ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ן בַּהַקְדָּמָה לְסֵפֶר הַמִּלְחָמוֹת) עוֹמְדִים הָכֵן לִלְחֹם נֶגֶד הַפַּשְׁטוּת וְלַהֲזִיזָהּ. כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ רוֹאִים בְּדִבְרֵי הַתַּלְמוּד בְּהָאַקִּימְתוֹת. וּבְדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי הַתּוֹסָפוֹת אֲשֶׁר לְאוֹרָם נֵלֵךְ תָּמִיד. גָּם לֹא בַּחִדּוּשׁ הַקָּצָר יִתָּמֵךְ הָאֱמֶת. כִּי יֵשׁ דָּבָר קָצָר וְהַקְדָּמוֹתָיו מְשֻׁלָּבִים בְּשִׁלּוּב פּוֹרֵחַ בַּאֲוִיר עַד אֲשֶׁר גַּם רֵיחַ הָאֱמֶת אֵין בּוֹ. וְיֵשׁ מַאֲמַר אָרֹךְ וְהַקְדָּמוֹתָיו מְשֻׁלָּבִים בְּשִׁלּוּב נָכוֹן אֲזַי בְּחֶדֶר הָאֱמֶת יָבוֹא. אִם כִּי נִצְרָךְ לְבִקּוּר רַב וּלְחִפּוּשׂ יְתֵרָה בִּהְיוֹת שְׁלִיבוֹתָיו רַבִּים. וְאָז לִפְעָמִים גַּם בְּהִנָּתֵק אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה בְּסֵפֶר הָאֱמֶת בַּל יִכָּתֵב. גַּם לֹא עַל יְדֵי חֵפֶץ הָאָדָם לָתוּר אַחֲרֵי תּוֹרַת הָאֱמֶת יִבָנֶה הָאֱמֶת לְהָבִיא בְּחַדְרָהּ אֶת אֲשֶׁר יוֹרֶנּוּ שִׂכְלוֹ. וּמִקְרָא מָלֵא דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב (מִשְׁלֵי ב') אִם תְּבַקְּשֶׁנָּה כַכֶּסֶף (קָאִי עַל הַתּוֹרָה כְּהַתְחָלַת הַפְּסוּקִים בְּנִי כוּ' וְכַמְבֹאָר בַּיַּלְקוּט בִּמְקוֹמוֹ) וּבְבַקָּשַׁת הַכֶּסֶף אֵין דַּי בְּחֵפֶץ הָאָדָם לְבַד רַק אִם יִמָּצֵא לוֹ הַהֲכָנוֹת הַשַּׁיָּכִים לְבַקָּשָׁתוֹ. כֵּן גַּם בְּבַקָּשַׁת בְּבַקָּשַׁת הַתּוֹרָה. וּבְיֶתֶר שְׂאֵת כִּי בַּכֶּסֶף הַיְסוֹד הִיא עֵזֶר אֱלֹקִי. וּבַתּוֹרָה הַיְסוֹד הֲכָנוֹת הָאָדָם (אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ אִם מֵאֲחֵרִים) וְאָז יַזְהִיר עָלָיו גַם נֹגַהּ עֶלְיוֹן. כִּי לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִיא וְהַתּוֹרָה נְתוּנָה לִבְנֵי אָדָם. אָכֵן לֹא בְּשִׁבְיָה הִיא אֶצְלָם לְהִתְנַהֵג בָּהּ כְּחֶפְצָם רַק כְּבַעַל דַּעַת יְשָׁרָה לְהָקִים הַסִּבּוֹת הַטִּבְעִיּוֹת הַמּוֹבִילִים לְהַמְסוֹבָב. הִיא יְדִיעַת הָאֱמֶת. וּבִכְלָל לְבַקָּשַׁת תּוֹרַת הָאֱמֶת שְׁנֵי יְסוֹדוֹת לָהּ. הַיְכֹלֶת בְּטִבְעִי. וְהַטָּהֳרָה בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ — הַיְכֹלֶת — הִיא הַבְּקִיאוּת הַגְּדוֹלָה בְּהַקְדָּמוֹת וְהַתְּבוּנָה הַיְתֵרָה בְּשֵׂכֶל יָשָׁר וְחַד לִבְנוֹת הַרְכָּבוֹת חֲזָקוֹת כִּרְאִי מוּצָק. וְאַחַר הָעִיּוּן הָרַב עַל כָּל הַצְּדָדִים לְבָרֵר הָאֱמֶת. — הַטָּהֳרָה — הִיא אֲשֶׁר יְכַנּוּהָ הַחֲכָמִים בְּשֵׁם הַכָּרָה מַדָּעִית וְחַכְמֵי הַמּוּסָר בְּשֵׁם הִתְפַּשְּׁטוּת הַגַּשְׁמִיּוּת הַיְנוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשֵּׂכֶל בּוֹדֵד בְּלִי הַרְכָּבָתוֹ עִם יֶתֶר כֹּחוֹת הַנְּפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר בְּהָאָדָם. כִּי זוּלַת נְטִיַּת כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁיּוֹת הֵמָּה מְסָכִים מַבְדִּילִים בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַכָּרַת הָאֱמֶת. אֲשֶׁר גַּם שִׁקּוּל דַּעַת הַיָּשָׁר בְּעוֹזְרָהּ. וְהַנְּטִיָּה תְּעַקְּמָהּ לְצַעַד בְּדֶרֶךְ עֲקַלְקַלּוֹת. מְקוֹר הַיְכֹלֶת — אֶת אֲשֶׁר נֶאֱצַל מִתְּבוּנַת רַבִּים גְּדוֹלִים חִקְרֵי לֵב כַּאֲשֶׁר הֻסְכַּן בִּימֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל וְהַקַּדְמוֹנִים רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל — וִיסוֹד הַטָּהֳרָה — כֲּשֶׁר יִשְׁווּ כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁית בְּמִשְׁקָל אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵי הַצְּדָדִים. וְהַשֵּׂכֶל יַעֲמֹד נִצָּב בְּאֵין מַכְרִיעַ. וְאָז ד' הַטּוֹב לֹא יִמְנַע טוֹב לַהוֹלְכִים בְּתָמִים (בַּהֲכָנָה הַנִּדְרֶשֶׁת) לְהָאִיר עֵינֵיהֶם בִּמְאוֹר תּוֹרָתוֹ. וְאוּלַי נוּכַל לְהַעֲמִיס הַדָּבָר בְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל (סוֹטָה דַּף כ"ב) יְרָא אֶת ד' בְּנִי וָמֶלֶךְ עִם שׁוֹנִים אַל תִּתְעָרֵב אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אֵלּוּ שֶׁשּׁוֹנִים הֲלָכוֹת. כִּי מִצְוַת הַתּוֹרָה הִיא. לִשְׁמֹר מִשְׁפְּטֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ גַּם בְּאֵין רוֹאֶה וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא. יַעַן כָּל מְקוֹר הָאֱמֶת בְּיָדוֹ בְּתַכְלִית הַשְּׁלֵמוּת. הַיְכֹלֶת וְהַטָּהֳרָה וְעֵזֶר אֱלֹקִי כְּמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב לֵב מֶלֶךְ בְּיַד ד'. כֵּן גַּם בְּיִרְאַת ד' הִיא הַתּוֹרָה עַל דֶּרֶךְ אֱמֶת (עַיֵּן בָּבָא בַּתְרָא דַּף ט"ז תָּפַר יִרְאָה כוּ' בָּרָא לוֹ תּוֹרָה כוּ') יְסוֹדָהּ הַיְכֹלֶת וְהַטָּהֳרָה וְאָז יְסַיְּעֵהוּ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם. וְעִם שׁוֹנִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁשּׁוֹנִים הֲלָכוֹת בְּלִי תַּלְמוּד אַל תִּתְעָרֵב:
Most important to me7R. Salanter has made two points in the essay. 1) Performance of a mitzva that is dominated and distorted by the egocentric sins of one’s tendencies does not constitute a true fulfillment of that mitzva. This implies the need to study and practice Mussar, so as to identify one’s distorting tendencies and to gain greater control over them – in order to perform mitzvot properly. 2) R. Salanter teaches that if, in performing a mitzva, a person steadfastly adheres to the parameters of observance described in the Torah and codes, it can defeat the biases and distortive effects of the egocentric tendencies. Then such a performance will be a true fulfillment of the mitzva.
R. Israel now turns to the question of how to read the Torah objectively and identify the correct parameters of performance. How can one prevent one’s tendencies from distorting, or even undermining or reversing, what the Torah is actually instructing us to do? is to seek the true Torah.8I.e., the Torah understood as actually communicated by God, when one’s understanding of it is not twisted by unconscious drives and needs. One may arrive at true Torah if one can neutralize egocentric bias and not let it distort judgment or even the choice of criteria by which one judges what is true. In my dream,9Compare Genesis 40:16. while working for the needs of the body,10In his early study of Torah, he still focused on the body, i.e., external actions and observances. He had not yet grasped the power of “tendencies” and the centrality of psychological forces in shaping judgments as to what the Torah was instructing or the manner in which one interpreted and practiced it. I spoke in glittering generalities, without order, ideas that had been inscribed in me for some time. [Now I speak new thoughts which contradict the old truth.] However, through receiving strong criticism from others – on which I depend – I learned to speak confidently – for if I err, criticism will straighten me out.
What is truth? Truth is not based on simplicity11I.e., plain meaning. alone12Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. – for plain meaning is but a branch of the methods for proving assertions, and, for the most part, the difficult questions that arise from the synthesis of strongly linked premises [which are not easily disconnected – for one should not ask for a demonstration whose linked premises cannot be disconnected, as Ramban (Nahmanides) wrote at the beginning of Milḥamot Hashem] stand ready to do battle with plain meaning and displace it. We see this in the Talmud in the case of okimtot13Qualifications on what initially seemed to be the simple meaning of a text. and in the words of our masters, the Tosafists, by whose light we walk always.14The Tosafists juxtapose two or more texts whose plain meanings seem contradictory or problematic. To resolve the clash between two texts, the Tosafists often posit subtle distinctions between cases and applications. Nor is truth supported by a brief, novel interpretation, for there may be a brief articulation whose premises are combined with ephemeral connections which do not even have a whiff of truth. And there are lengthy treatises whose [diverse] premises are combined properly; these enter the realm of truth, though they require much examination and extra investigation15Arguments and analyses of Torah texts need to be thoroughly examined and criticized. The implication is that if learning is done in a group, the others’ insights and criticism will help one to arrive at the truth. Others – especially others who have undergone Mussar analysis and character corrections – will discern things that one does not realize about himself. This will help in arriving at the truth. because there are so many links. Sometimes, if one of the links is broken, then they cannot be written in the book of truth.
Nor can truth be built simply by the desire of a person to seek knowledge of truth, bringing into its chamber whatever his reason has taught him. This idea is stated fully in a verse in Scripture (Prov. 2:4): “If you seek it as you do silver…” (this applies to Torah as indicated in the beginning of these verses, “My son…” [Prov. 2:1], and as explained in Yalkut [Shimoni] ad loc.). When seeking silver, a person’s desire alone is not enough; only if he has prepared himself properly [will he succeed]. The same applies to the seeking of the Torah – and even more so – for when seeking silver, the basis is divine aid, whereas with respect to Torah, the basis is human preparation (by himself or others); only then will the divine light also shine on him.
“For the Torah is not in the heavens” (Deut. 30:12); rather, the Torah is given over to human beings. However, it is not held captivity by them, i.e., to act with it as they see fit; rather, as one who uses straightforward reason16Here, again, is R. Salanter’s dialectic guidance. Humans cannot attain perfect rationality and objective knowledge of the Torah. God accepts that fact. This is the implication of giving the Torah to humans. They will mix in some of their subjective needs and distortions. However, God requires humans to try to neutralize the bias and reduce its distorting effects to a minimum. to devise causes that naturally lead to the desired effect.17E.g., correct understanding. There’s a reasonable relationship between your conclusions and the material in the text. The student of Torah must carefully analyze how one thing leads to the next and determine that this is a reasonable conclusion. Coincidence or superficial resemblance is not adequate. Correct meaning is established by rational analysis and straight, commonsense deduction and analogy. This constitutes knowledge of the truth.
In general, there are two fundamental principles in the search for the true Torah: natural ability and purity of thought. Ability means comprehensive mastery of basic premises and additional insight through strong and keen reason to build composites that are strong as cast iron,18Lit. “a solid mirror.” and after much analysis of all sides of the argument to clarify the truth. Purity – this is what scientists call “scientific knowledge”19“Hakara mada’it”; R. Salanter was apparently aware of the scientific method and was familiar with texts and sources that spoke of it. Its superiority lay in the fact that the empirical method stripped out human subjective needs and distortions and established the truth objectively. and the Mussar sages call the stripping away of physicality,20“Hitpashtut hagashmiyut,” meaning, the stripping away of all instincts and drives that come with embodiment. To R. Salanter, this means removing or neutralizing the self-serving egocentric bias which is embodied in the self so that undistorted reason can grasp the Torah’s true meaning. meaning that the intellect stands alone and is not combined21I.e., intermixed and distorted. with other human psychic drives. Otherwise, the tendencies of the psychic drives are screens separating him from recognizing the truth. For, even though straight judgment helps [in recognizing the truth], tendencies distort [judgment, leading it] to proceed along crooked paths.22Hitherto, R. Salanter has presented Mussar learning and character refinement as ancillary activities, and in Letter 6 he stressed that learning Torah itself is the priority activity. Here R. Salanter is saying that without Mussar and character refinement, all the Torah that one studies will become distorted, because straight judgment is twisted by bias. Mussar and self-improvement are thus prerequisites for true understanding of Torah.
The source of ability is in what has been distilled from the understanding of many great searchers,23Compare Judges 5:16. as was customary in the days of our Sages and Rabbis, of blessed memory. And the source of purity is when the psychic forces are in perfect equilibrium between the two sides. Reason will then stand upright, without bias. Then the good God will not deny good to those who go wholeheartedly (with proper preparation) to illuminate their eyes with His Torah.
Perhaps we can attach these words to the words of the Sages, of blessed memory (Sota 22a). “‘Fear God my son, and the king, and with dissenters (shonim) do not get involved’ (Prov. 24:21). R. Yitzḥak said: These are those that repeatedly learn (shonim) halakhot [without proper study].” For it is a commandment of the Torah to observe the laws of the king even when no one sees or knows, as they say, “The law of the kingdom is law.”24Gittin 10b et al. For the source of truth is entirely in his hands – ability, purity, and God’s assistance. As Scripture says: “The heart of a ruler is in the hand of God” (Prov. 21:1).25The emphasis is in the original, presumably to dispel any possible danger that government censors might interpret the Talmud as saying that teachers of halakha dissent from the king’s law. So too, through fear of God is the Torah arrived at by the way of truth (see Bava Batra 16a, “‘He sewed reverence’ [Job 15:4]…[He created the evil urge and] He created Torah [to cure it]….”). The basis is ability and purity – and then God, blessed be He, helps from the Heavens. But “with dissenters” – those who study halakhot without the proper preparation – do not get involved.
אַחַת הִיא אֲשֶׁר חַכְמֵי הַמּוּסָר הִרְחִיקוּהָ מִלָּבוֹא בִּקְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא הַפִּלְפּוּל וּלְדַעְתִּי נַהֲפֹךְ הַדָּבָר. הַפִּלְפּוּל הוּא יְסוֹד גָּדוֹל וְחָזָק לְבַקָּשַׁת הָאֱמֶת וְכִמְעַט בִּלְעָדָהּ לֹא תָּקוּם לִשְׁתֵּי עִלּוֹת. הָאַחַת. הַשֵּׂכֶל הֶעָמֹק וְהַיָּשָׁר אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְסוֹד הָרָאשִׁי (אַחַר יְסוֹד הָעִקָּר גֹּדֶל הַבְּקִיאוּת) לְמַטְרַת הָאֱמֶת. הַחוֹב וְהַהֶכְרֵחַ לְהַרְחִיבוֹ לְחַדְּדוֹ וּלְהֵישִׁירוֹ (אִישׁ לְפִי עֶרְכּוֹ) אֲשֶׁר כִּמְעַט בִּלְתִּי אֶפְשָׁר עַל יְדֵי בְּחִינַת הָאֱמֶת הַמֻּגְבָּל מִכָּל צַד. אָכֵן עַל־יְדֵי הִתְבּוֹנְנוּת בְּפִלְפּוּל הַתּוֹרָה. וּבְיַד הָאָדָם לְהַרְחִיבָהּ כְּחֶפְצוֹ. בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ עַל דְּבַר הַנָּאֶה וְהַיָּפֶה מְאִירַת עֵינַיִם. תְּיַשֵּׁר וּתְחַדֵּד שֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם וְאָז אִם יִלְוֶה גֹּדֶל הַבְּקִיאוּת. בְּיָדוֹ (לְפִי עֶרְכּוֹ) לְחַפֵּשׂ הָאֱמֶת. הַשְּׁנִיָּה, הִיא אֲשֶׁר חָזְקָה עָלַי יַד הַנִּסָּיוֹן בְּיַלְדּוּתִי בִּהְיוֹתִי אָסוּר בְּלִמּוּד הַמּוּסָר וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו *)וְיָצַקְתִּי מַיִם עַל יְדֵי מוֹרִי הָרַב מ' יוֹסֵף זוּנְדְּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם תִּבָּנֶה וְתִכּוֹנֵן בִּמְהֵרָה, וְעַד כֹּה לֹא הִגַּעְתִּי לְקַרְסֻלָּיו, הוּא הָיָה סֻלָּם מֻצָּב אַרְצָה טָרוּד בְּרַעְיוֹנֵי הַמִּסְחָר, לְבַקֵּשׁ טַרְפּוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר מִחְיָתָם כָּבֵד לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְרֹאשׁוֹ מַגִּיעַ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה בְּטִרְדָה גְּדוֹלָה מִדַּי לְחַיֵּי נַפְשׁוֹ. מִשְׁפַּט לִמּוּדוֹ הָעִקָּרִי הָיָה בָּעִיּוּן הַנִּצְרָךְ לוֹ לְמַעֲשֶׂה, לָמַד הַגְּמָרָא כו' הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף וְכָל הָאַחֲרוֹנִים בְּעִיּוּן, וּבְיוֹתֵר הָעִיּוּן הַגָּדוֹל בְּבֵאוּרֵי הַגְּרָ"א זַ"ל, וּכְשֶׁלָּמַד הַסָּעִיף שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ אוֹ הָעִנְיָן עִם כָּל אֲבִיזְרַיְהוּ, הָיָה הַצִּיּוּר לְפָנָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבָּא הַדִּין לְפָנָיו לְמַעֲשֶׂה. וְעִיֵּן וְחָקַר הֵיטֵב מִשְׁפָּטוֹ עַד שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוֹ לִפְסָק נִצָּב, וְאָז חָזַר פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת עַד שֶׁהָיוּ בְּיָדוֹ כְּמֻנָּח בְּקוּפְסָא, כָּל לִמּוּדוֹ בְּתָנָ"ךְ גְּמָרָא מִדְרָשִׁים זֹהַר הַיְסוֹד לְחַפֵּשׂ יְדִיעַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, וְעַל כָּל אֵלֶּה גֹּדֶל הַיְגִיעָה לְיַשֵּׁר הַמִּדּוֹת וּלְחוֹבַת הַלְּבָבוֹת, הֶאֱרַכְתִּי מְעַט בְּמַעֲלַת אָדָם הַגָּדוֹל הַלָּזֶה, (אוֹר עוֹלָם לְפִי הַשְׁעָרָתִי), יַאֲרִיךְ ד' יָמָיו וּשְׁנוֹתָיו לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ הַבַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים וְיֵלְכוּ בְּאָרְחוֹתָיו. גָּמַרְתִּי בְּדַעְתִּי לָכוּף יִצְרִי (אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁתּוֹקְקָה לְהַרְאוֹת פִּלְפּוּלִי נֶגֶד בְּנֵי גִּילִי) לַעֲזֹב לְגַמְרֵי דְּבַר הַפִּלְפּוּל וְרַק אֶל הָאֱמֶת יִהְיֶה מַבָּטִי (נַעַר הָיִיתִי מְקוֹם הָאֱמֶת לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי כִּרְחוֹק מִזְרָח מִמַּעֲרָב) עַל פִּי צִיּוּרִי אָז. הַפַּשְׁטוּת. הַקִּצּוּר. וְהַחֵפֶץ לִדְרֹשׁ הָאֱמֶת. בַּהֲלִיכָתִי בַּמַּצָּב הַלָּזוֹ הַשְׁקָפָתִי בְּעַיִן חוֹדֶרֶת כִּי הַתְּשׁוּקָה לְהַרְאוֹת כֹּחַ שִׂכְלִי פָּרְצָה גְּבוּל הָאֱמֶת וַתַּתְעֶה אֶת שִׂכְלִי לְהַטּוֹת הָאֱמֶת אֶל חֶפְצִי וְהָאֱמֶת בְּרָצוֹן תְּכוֹנָן. אָז אָמַרְתִּי טוֹב טוֹב לִי לְהַתִּיר לִי בְּאֵין חֲשָׁשׁ וְיִרְאָה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּפִלְפּוּלִים (כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל לְחִדּוּדָא) לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה שִׂכְלִי חָפְשִׁי מַשְׁבִּית הַיֵּצֶר. וְכָל כָּךְ גָּדַל הָרַעְיוֹן הַזֶּה אֶצְלִי עַד אֲשֶׁר רָחֲקָה נַפְשִׁי לְהַאֲמִין (אִם לֹא לִיחִידֵי סְגֻלָּה) כִּי יִתְיַצֵּב הָאָדָם בְּטָהֳרַת הַשֵּׂכֶל לְבַל יַטֵּהוּ אֶל הָרָצוֹן לֵאמֹר כִּי זֶהוּ שֵׂכֶל מְזֻקָּק. בִּלְתִּי אִם יֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי לְהַגִּיד פִּלְפּוּלִים כִּרְצוֹנוֹ בְּאֵין מַפְרִיעַ:
One thing that the Mussar sages banished from entering the congregation of Israel26Compare Deuteronomy 23:2–3. is pilpul,27Dialectics/casuistry. In his early days, after he became conscious of Mussar and the dangers of egocentricity, R. Salanter also proposed eliminating pilpul. but in my present view, the opposite is true.28Compare Esther 9:1. Pilpul is a great and strong basis for seeking the truth, without which it will not endure. There are two reasons. One: its profound and straight reason, which is the prime basis (after the fundamental principle of encyclopedic knowledge) of getting to the goal of the truth. The necessity of expanding, sharpening, and straightening reason (each person to his level), which is practically impossible by only examining the truth, which is limited, from every angle, [is possible,] however, through pilpulistic study of Torah.29Which requires constant revision due to challenges from peers. It is in each person’s power to expand it as he wishes so that it will follow the pleasant and beautiful Torah that illuminates. Thus, human reason will be straightened and honed. Then, if it is accompanied by great mastery, it will be within his power (at his level) to seek out the truth. Two: This is what experience impressed upon me in my youth, when I was bound up in the study of Mussar and its laws.*30Compare Psalms 37:25. I had no idea where truth is found. It was as far from me as east is from west.31Compare Psalms 103:12. See also Yalkut Shimoni 1:178 and 631.) According to what I imagined then, truth was plain meaning, brevity, and the desire to seek the truth.
As I went along in this state, I saw, with a penetrating eye, that the longing to demonstrate intellectual prowess breached the boundaries of truth and misled my intellect to divert the truth toward my desire – and that “truth” was being established by the underlying, driving will.32In other words: the anti-pilpul, just-the-plain meaning approach, was driven by egotistical desire (to be superior to those who were showing off their power of pilpul). R. Salanter’s conclusion is that distortion by the ego is inescapable. Using a method that allowed it full play but critiqued it and corrected it by encouraging expression of a wide range of interpretations was a better method of neutralizing bias than a method that suppressed it and gave the illusion that it was eliminated. Then I said: It is far, far, better for me to allow myself to use pilpulim without hesitation or fear (as the Sages, of blessed memory, permitted it to sharpen one’s mind) so that my reason would not be held captivity by the evil urge.33His reason was captured by the bias of “simplicity” (plain meaning) and was in its thrall just as much as egotistical scholars are driven to come up with farfetched pilpulim – but in this case, the bias tricked him into believing that he had freed himself from egocentric bias. This idea has grown so large in my mind that now I find it hard to believe (except possibly for an elite few) that a person can be staunchly pure of reason without being biased by the desire to say that his reason is refined – unless he freely says pilpulim, as he wishes, without any hindrance.
בָּזֹאת אִם כִּי הַחוֹב פְּרוּשָׂה לְלִמּוּד הַתּוֹרָה גַּם בְּאֵין דֶּרֶךְ מוּצֵאת לְבַקָּשַׁת הָאֱמֶת וְגַם הָרְשׁוּת נְתוּנָה לְהוֹרוֹת גַּם בְּלִי מַדְרֵגָה הַנִּשָּׂאָה הַלָּזוֹ. בְּכָל זֹאת בְּוַדַּאי הַחוֹב מֻטָּל עַל כָּל לוֹמְדֵי תּוֹרָה — וְגַם לְבַעֲלֵי בָּתִּים הַקּוֹבְעִים עִתִּים לַתּוֹרָה — לְחַפֵּשׂ גַּם אֶל דְּבַר אֱמֶת כַּמַּטְמוֹנִים וְהָאֱמֶת מֵאַיִן תִּמָּצֵא? הַאִם יִטֹּל נֹאד שֶׁל קֶמַח עַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְיֵלֵךְ אֶל אִישׁ הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקָּבְצוּ בּוֹ כָּל הַמַּעֲלוֹת הַנִּדְרָשׁוֹת לִמְצֹא הָאֱמֶת. כוּ':
True – there is an obligation to study Torah even if no way can be found to seek the truth, and one may issue rulings even without achieving this elevated level.34It appears that R. Salanter is softening his statements in the previous paragraphs, lest people conclude that if one hasn’t studied Mussar, one should not study Torah at all (and certainly not issue halakhic rulings), lest the outcome be distorted. Still, the obligation applies to all who study Torah – and also to laymen who set time aside regularly for Torah – to seek truth as one seeks treasures. And where will truth be found? Will it take a sack of flour on its shoulder and go to the polymath in whom are found all the needed qualifications to find the truth…?
עוֹד אַחַת אָמַרְתִּי לְהָעִיר בִּדְבַר אֱמֶת הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּתַהֲלוּכוֹת דַּרְכֵי הַמִּדּוֹת וּסְעִיפֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הָאֱמֶת יָקָר מְאֹד לִמְצֹא בָּהֶם לִהְיוֹתָם מֵהַמְפֻרְסָמוֹת נִבְדָּלוֹת מִמֻּשְׂכָּלוֹת אֲשֶׁר גִּדְרָם הָאֲמִתִּי הוּא אֱמֶת וָשֶׁקֶר נִתְלִים בְּשֵׂכֶל פָּשׁוּט חָפְשִׁי מִכָּל כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁי (כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל) לֹא כֵן הַמְפֻרְסָמוֹת בְּגִדְרָם הָאֲמִתִּי טוֹב אוֹ רַע. מְגֻנֶּה אוֹ נָאֶה. אִם כִּי יְסוֹדָם הוּא הַשֵּׂכֶל הַחָפְשִׁי בְּלִי נְטִיַּת צְדָדִי. בְּכָל זֹאת גַּם כֹּחוֹת הַנַּפְשִׁי יִתְּנוּ חֵילָם. בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרִים בְּמַאֲסָר שֵׂכֶל הַחָפְשִׁי לְבַל יִפְרְצוּ גְּבוּל עֶרְכָּם — בָּזֹאת — פְּנִיַּת הַנְּטִיָּה. רוּחַ מְצוּיָה הִיא לְהַטּוֹת הָאֱמֶת אֶל חֵפֶץ נִקְנֶה לֹא אֶל חֵפֶץ טִבְעִי הַנְּטוּעָה בְּלֵב כָּל אִישׁ יָשָׁר (בִּלְתִּי נִשְׁחָת בְּמִדּוֹתָיו. בְּמַצָּבוֹ הַפְּשׁוּטָה בְּלִי עִנְיָן אוֹ כֹּחַ מוֹשֵׁךְ אוֹ דּוֹחֶה) אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה יְסוֹדוֹת הָרָאשִׁי וְעַל פִּיהֶן יִבְנֶה הַשֵּׂכֶל הֶקֵּשָׁיו בְּהַרְכָּבָתוֹ הַנְּכוֹחָה:
One more point I thought to raise about truth, which pertains to the advancement of character traits and its ramifications. Truth is rarely found through them, as they are conventional. In contrast to the rational, which is truly defined as true or false, depending on abstract reason and free of all psychic forces (as described above), the conventional is defined truly as good or evil,35Moral categories. ugly or beautiful.36Aesthetic categories. Even though their basis is in reason that is free of biases that divert,37R. Salanter is borrowing a metaphor from Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed: before they ate of the fruit, Adam and Eve knew everything as necessary truths, i.e., true or false. After their consciousness changed, they came to understand the good and the bad, which are conditional truths. In establishing the truth about Torah’s laws or text, the operating categories are true and false. In shaping and improving character traits, the operative categories are good and bad (i.e., conditional truth), because the admixture of psychic drives makes it almost impossible to arrive at pure, i.e., necessary truth. the psychic forces cannot simply be eliminated, because they, too, contribute, as long as they are restrained by reason so they do not breach the boundaries of their actual value.
Now, the direction set by the tendencies are like a common breeze, diverting the truth toward an acquired desire, not to the natural desire implanted in the heart of a just man (who is not corrupted in his traits; who is in a simple, disinterested state without any attraction or repulsion), which supplies the primary foundational principles; at their direction, reason should build its analogies with correct combinations.
גַּם הַדִּבּוּר בָּהֶם נִבְדָּל מִבְּמֻשְׂכָּלוֹת אֲשֶׁר כִּמְעַט רֵיחַ רַעְיוֹן אוֹ דִּבּוּר מְלִיצִי פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶם. וּבַמִּדּוֹת נַהֲפֹךְ הוּא כִּמְעַט בִּלְתִּי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַצִּיגָם וּלְבָאֲרָם בְּלִי רַעְיוֹן בְּדַרְכֵי הַמְּלִיצָה אֲשֶׁר יְסוֹדָם לְהָעִיר כֹּחוֹת נַפְשִׁית הַנִּתְלִים בָּם. וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף הָאָדָם אֶת כֹּחוֹ (אִם בְּיָדוֹ הִיא) לְהַגְבִּיהַּ עוּף מְלִיצָתוֹ לְבָאֵר הַדָּבָר אֶל נָכוֹן. כֵּן הַטָּעוּת כָּרוּךְ בַּעֲקֵבֶיהָ לְבַל לְכַסּוֹת הַשֶּׁקֶר בִּמְעִיל הַמְּלִיצָה. לָצֵאת מַה טוֹב לְהַצִּיג לְעֵינֵי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ חֵלֶק הַדְּרוּשׁ (אֲשֶׁר הִיא דְּבַר הַמְּלִיצָה לָאֵינוֹ רָגִיל בַּחָכְמָה הַלָּזוֹ בִּגְדָרֶיהָ) וְעֵינֵי רַבִּים יְשׁוֹטְטוּ בָּם בְּבִקֹּרֶת נוֹרָאָה לְהִתְנוֹצֵץ בְּמִדּוֹת (כִּמְעַט יְסוֹד הָרָאשִׁי לְנַפְשִׁי וְגוּפָנִי) דְּבַר אֱמֶת לִמְבַקְּשֶׁיהָ. —:
Speaking about these traits is also unlike speaking about the rational, where almost any whiff of imagery or figurative speech disqualifies them. Regarding character traits, it is the opposite; it is almost impossible to present them or explain them without some figurative image whose purpose is to awaken the psychic forces attached to them. The more a person puts his strength (if he can) into explaining something properly with soaring rhetoric, the more susceptible to error it becomes, as one can cover error in the garment of imagery. Therefore, it is very good to publish the “drush” (that is, the figurative component, for those not familiar with the definition of this art) and let the eyes of many scan it with exacting criticism. Thus, through middot (which are the prime basis for the spiritual and material), the truth will shine through for those who seek it.38R. Salanter has again articulated his “new” method: Bias is unavoidable, so expose it to scrutiny and alternative viewpoints, which correct distortions better than any internal self-correction can. In the case of figurative rhetoric, since the performance of a speech can mask errors, it is important to offer the material in writing or print, a medium that removes this charismatic element.
וְהִנְּנִי מוֹצֵא עֹז בְּנַפְשִׁי לְבָאֵר עוֹד דָּבָר יָקָר (לְפִי הַשְׁעָרָתִי) הַנּוֹלֶדֶת מֵחִבּוּר דְּבָרִים הַנִּפְרָדִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַלָּזֶה. לְיַשֵּׁר הַמִּדּוֹת וּלְהַרְגִּילָם לַנַּעַר חַד הַשֵּׂכֶל (אֲשֶׁר בִּכְלַל דְּבַר הַמִּדּוֹת נִצְרָךְ לְהַשְׁקָפָה גְּדוֹלָה אֶצְלוֹ לְבַל יַטֵּהוּ גֹּדֶל שִׂכְלוֹ הַמִּדּוֹת אֶל רְצוֹנוֹ) עוֹדֶנּוּ בְּאִבּוֹ טֶרֶם יִנָּגְפוּ רַגְלָיו בְּתַהְפּוּכוֹת הַזְּמַן וְטִרְדוֹתָיו (בְּאֵיזֶה מַצָּב שֶׁיִּהְיֶה) אֲשֶׁר כָּבֵד לִפְנֵי הָאָדָם לְהִתְלַמֵּד וּלְהִתְרַגֵּל בָּהֶם. וְרַק בִּימֵי הַבַּחֲרוּת אָז יִלְמֹד וְיַרְגִּיל מִדּוֹתָיו בְּמַדְרֵגָה נִפְלָאָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא לְרַגְלֵי הַזְּמַן (לִבּוֹ וְדַעְתּוֹ בַּל עִמּוֹ לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן וּלְהַשְׁקִיף עֲלֵיהֶם) עוֹד יַכּוּ שֹׁרֶשׁ לָשֵׂאת פְּרִי הַצְלָחָה לְהִתְנַהֵג בְּמִדּוֹת יְשָׁרוֹת וְנִדְרָשׁוֹת בְּמִדָּה נִגְבָּלָה לְפִי תְּכוּנָתוֹ וְעִנְיָנוֹ. וְכַאֲשֶׁר הַלִּמּוּד בְּחָכְמַת הַמִּלְחָמָה הוּא בְּדִיּוּק עָצוּם וְנוֹרָא אֲשֶׁר כִּמְעַט בִּלְתִּי אֶפְשָׁר לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כֵּן בְּעֵת הַמִּלְחָמָה. כֵּן הַלִּמּוּד בְּחָכְמַת מִלְחֶמֶת כְּבִישַׁת הַמִּדּוֹת לְהַטּוֹתָם וּלְהַרְגִּילָם בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַנְּכוֹחָה. זֹאת מִשְׁפָּטָם לִלְמֹד וּלְהַרְגִּיל בָּהֶם בְּדִיּוּק נָכוֹן. הַגַּם שֶׁלֹּא יֵלְכוּ בִּשְׁלֵמוּתָם בְּעֵת עִסְקוֹ בְּגַלֵּי יַם הַזְּמַן גַּם כִּי הַדֶּרֶךְ יִהְיֶה צְלֵחָה לְפָנָיו וְאַיֵּה הַחֹמֶר לָשֵׂאת עָלָיו לִמּוּד וְהֶרְגֵּל הַמִּדּוֹת הַיְשָׁרוֹת? עִנְיָנָיו בְּעֵרוּב בְּנֵי אָדָם מְעַטִּים הֵמָּה וּנְקָלִים בְּאֵיכוּתָם:
If I may be so bold, I will explain one more precious thing (in my estimation) that follows from putting together distinct elements of this book. Straighten out and condition the middot of an intelligent youth (who, in general, in matters of middot, needs extra oversight, lest his abundant intelligence divert his middot toward his desires) while he is still budding, before his feet get caught in the vicissitudes and preoccupations of time (whatever state he may be in), which make it difficult for a person to train and condition himself then. Only in youth can one learn and condition his middot to a wonderful degree. So when, with the passage of time he arrives39Compare Genesis 33:12, 14. [at older age] (when his heart and mind are not with him to concentrate or observe them), they will continue to strike root and bear the fruits of success – his behaving with proper and needed middot – to a degree limited by his nature and situation.
Just like learning the science of war requires tremendous and awesome precision that is practically impossible to learn during actual battle, so it is with learning the science of the war to conquer the middot and direct and condition them in the right way. This is their rule: one must study and condition them with correct precision in advance, even though they will not operate completely40Meaning that in the storms and stresses of life, the theoretically well-trained method will not function perfectly but in a flawed manner. Still, by training in advance, it will operate better. when he is caught up in the waves of the ocean of time, even if he is on a successful path. And where is the material that can carry the heavy weight of learning and conditioning proper middot? The presentation of interpersonal experience is very limited and poor in quality.41Here ends the text as published by R. Blazer in Ohr Yisrael. Our translation continues until the end of the introduction written by R. Salanter, as actually published in Tevunah. [Therefore,] this book purports to ask and reply42Compare Avot 5:7. as is proper – in the correct path and with “derekh eretz (proper behavior), [which] precedes the Torah,”43See Leviticus Rabba 9:3. and in which all middot are included. This will be good and beautiful material with which to apply a paved path for studying and conditioning middot.
So I beg the great Torah sages of this time to honor me with their correct words – followed by the youths – and may [they] deign to explain clearly how to present their names at the end of their essays so it will be accurately known who uttered these words.44Lit., “out of whose womb did they come forth.” Compare Job 38:29. And let me reveal in advance (so that I may not mislead people) that my essays (because of my scant knowledge) will be written with the help of others,45It is not clear whether R. Salanter is referring to a student/disciple serving as co-writer or perhaps is crediting the non-Jewish/modern scholars whose writings shaped his ideas about the role of the unconscious forces. That these forces drive reason and judgment in egocentric and biased ways is a prominent feature in all three of R. Salanter’s Tevunah essays. with the help of God. When I wrote to several great and eminent sages of our time, some honored me with their writings, and some promised to send them. I have fulfilled the obligation of incorporating their documents.
The merit of those who work with the community for the sake of Heaven46Compare Avot 2:2, and the opening words of this introduction. will accrue to those who send correct writings, and the merit of their fathers will help them to increase Torah and glorify it. May God help me, I who speak am Israel, son of R. Zev Wolf, may his memory be a blessing and for life in the World to Come.