It has become customary to say that a man needs only six feet of land. But a corpse needs six feet, not a person.
— Anton Chekhov
[Background (feel free to skip till after the brackets): everyone knows the famous statement in Tanya that anything upon which the Divine Presence does not obviously rest is not holy but belongs to the spiritual category of klipah (lit. “shell”), the forces of impurity which conceal G-dliness from this world. Klipah can be in the category of nogah (“translucent”) or in the category of sholosh klipos tmeios (“three unclean shells”). The second type cannot ever be made holy. Example: pork. The first type is not holy yet, but can be made holy if used for the purpose of holiness. Example: meat of a kosher animal. When the animal is slaughtered and its meat is prepared according to Halacha, and then the meat is eaten so that a person has power to serve G-d, the spiritual status of the meat becomes elevated from that of klipah to that of kedusha (holiness).
The important part is: most things in our lives are klipas nogah. Most of them are neither required by Torah nor forbidden. For example, going bowling. So, one would be inclined to say that there is nothing wrong with those things. Alter Rebbe, however, points out that if those things are not being used for the purpose of holiness, they are still klipah and are thus inappropriate for a Jew. A Jew needs to strive to reach the level where everything he does is for the purpose of G-d, not “just ’cause”.
More about this here: “Carbon monoxide and reishus, Part II” (see Part I for a quote from Tanya).]
So, let us assume as an axiom that in Chabad, there is a number of behaviors which are considered unchassidish for a person. For instance, being obsessed with nice clothes or fine wine. Going to movies. Reading secular fiction. Listening routinely to secular music. Etc. These things distract a person from G-dliness (unless used specifically l’shem shomayim, for the purpose of Heavens), immerse a soul in coarse materiality and therefore are not examples of a refined behavior.
Now, the person I was discussing this with quoted the following Hayom Yom:
This Hayom Yom is mostly famous because it is used in the arguments with misnagdim regarding the reasons why one should eat breakfast before davening. But my friend pointed out something else: Tzemach Tzedek said that “A Jew must be healthy and strong. The Torah says about mitzvot, ‘Live in them’, meaning bring vitality into the mitzvot. To be able to infuse mitzvot with vitality, one must be strong and joyful.” For the Rebbetzin Rivka (as for the most of us), this mean eating a breakfast before davening. But what if this means wearing nice clothes?
When my grandmother, Rebbetzin Rivka, was eighteen (in 5611, 1851) she fell ill and the physician ordered her to eat immediately upon awakening. She, however, did not wish to eat before davening; so she davened very early, then ate breakfast. When her father-in-law, the Tzemach Tzedek, learned of this he said to her: "A Jew must be healthy and strong. The Torah says about mitzvot, 'Live in them,' meaning bring vitality into the mitzvot. To be able to infuse mitzvot with vitality, one must be strong and joyful." Then he concluded: "You should not be without food. Better to eat for the sake of davening rather than to daven for the sake of eating;" he then blessed her with long life. [She was born in 5593 (1833) and passed away on Sh'vat 10, 5674 (1914)].
My father told this teaching of the Tzemach Tzedek to someone at yechidus, adding: "And this must be done with joy."
Now, for me personally it doesn’t matter whether I am wearing a $300 suit or a $1,200 suit. But let us say someone is more comfortable in the latter. According to the teachings of Chassidus, this is an example of unrefined attitude and behavior, due to the interest in coarse materiality. A Jew should not care about such gross material things (although, of course, his dress should be clean and respectable).
But, my friend said, for this person, wearing a nice suit is like for the Rebbetzin Rivka eating breakfast. It’s part of the vessel which will receive the light. The light cannot exist in the vacuum. Chassidus must exist inside a real person, not a golem. So, if liking clothes is an aspect of that person, then that is a part of his service of G-d, just like eating, sleeping, showering, being healthy and all other things we do in order to survive in this world to do our holy mission as Jews. Therefore, a person (especially a ba’al teshuva, my friend added) should be careful not to break himself.
I want to add specifically that my friend did not say that the person should only be comfortable being himself now. He added: Tzemach Tzedek did not say “eat the breakfast now, but eventually phase it out”. So, the person who likes clothes should be comfortable liking clothes as a part of his humanity all his life, while filling this “vessel” with Chassidus, i.e., becoming holy while remaining a human.
My question is the follows. I had a friend who smoked a lot. He needed to smoke. He knew that smoking was ruining his health (not to mention costing him money; his girlfriend was disgusted by it, etc.), but he needed it in order to function. Specifically, to do experiments. So, he could say: smoking is what I need to do to remain a scientist.
Fine. But wouldn’t it be better if my friend did not smoke at all? What is wrong with saying: “I need to smoke now in order to function, but I would like to quit and eventually phase it out, replacing it with more healthy habits”?
What is wrong with saying: “I like nice clothes now, but I hope 20 years from now, this chitzoiniusdik obsession will be replaced with something holy — e.g., lehavdil, making sure there are especially nice mezuzas in my house”? An example I heard was this: you could say that in order to function, you need a vacation. But the Rebbe didn’t need a vacation (and devoted all his time to the service of Hashem). Wouldn’t it be better if you were more like the Rebbe?
31 comments:
Would it be better if you were more like the Rebbe? When you come up to heaven they won't ask you why you weren't like the Rebbe, they'll ask you why you weren't more like Crawling Axe.
I neglected myself for 2 yrs and broke myself for three weeks.
and I almost broke down
I said enough!
and tonight I read in Nun Aleph Nun Beis- "Tochen Vesikum"
one liner: Each of us must serve Hashem with all of our ten kochos, intellect, desires, and emotions. "כל אחד מאיתנו צריך לעבוד את ה' בכל עשר כחות נפשו, בשכלו רצונותיו, וברגשותיו" [to bring Moshiach]
I didn’t mean in general more like the Rebbe, lishmoh (although, why again do people wear bursolinos?). I meant in this particular area. The Rebbe was corresponding to Tanya’s concept of what a Jew should be like. So, wouldn’t it be better if I was closer to that standard?
What is Crawling Axe if not a Jew?
Anon — 1) nobody is talking about neglecting oneself. You should do what’s necessary. Including going to movies, if this is what’s necessary for you (now — but this is not something that has to be necessary for a chossid, unlike food and sleep). I am talking about things which are not necessary. 2) If you’re able to serve Hashem by going to movies, that’s great. But I am talking about something that you need to do because of your low condition.
Yes, I suppose you should be.
Should be...?
closer to the standard of what a Crawling Axe should be.
That’s now what I said. The whole question is what is that thing.
Ahh, now you're asking!
I am always asking.
You should have asked Tzvi Freeman when he was there.
I could also ask a magic ball.
Or write into the Igros.
Which would your mashpia prefer you do.
None of the above.
So what would he have you do?
He would have me do what the Rebbe told people to do when they had questions. Ask my mashpia.
That's like a dermatologist telling you that what you really need are more sessions with him!
Just read this on Wikipedia:
“Colonial American art saw a large amount of "memento mori" images in their art because of their puritan influence. The Puritan community in 17th century America looked down upon art because they believed it drew the faithful away from G-d, and if away from G-d, then it could only lead to the devil. However, portraits were considered historical records, and as such they were allowed. Thomas Smith, a 17th century Puritan, fought in many naval battles, and also painted. In his painting Self-Portrait we see a typical puritan "memento mori" with a skull, suggesting his imminent death.
The poem under the skull is a common puritanical poem which emphasizes Smith's acceptance of death:
Why why should I the World be minding,Therein a World of Evils Finding. Then Farwell World: Farwell thy jarres, thy Joies thy Toies thy Wiles thy Warrs. Truth Sounds Retreat: I am not sorye. The Eternall Drawes to him my heart, By Faith (which can thy Force Subvert) To Crowne me (after Grace) with Glory.”
For some reason, in that poem, I read “Therein a world of Elvis Finding”.
You forget that I have two mashpias and an ex-mashpia. Maybe each of my mashpias told me to ask the other one.
Mashpiim?
That would be an evil world indeed.
I wonder if people will say in 300 years something like:
“The Lubavitch community in 21th century America looked down upon cinematography because they believed it drew the faithful away from G-d, and if away from G-d, then it could only lead to the devil. However, Living Torah videos were considered historical records, and as such they were allowed.”
What do anthropologists say about Lubavitchers now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29
Really?
I was asked to comment.
1. Once someone becomes accustomed to a certain lifestyle, even what others would consider luxurious, to a certain degree, it becomes a need for him. The Gemara says:
Our Rabbis taught: [Concerning the command to meet the needs of the impoverished] "Sufficient for whatever he needs"--you are commanded to maintain him, but you are not commanded to make him rich; "in that which he lacks"--even a horse to ride on and a slave to run before him. They said of Hillel the Elder that he bought for a pauper of good family a horse to ride on and a slave to run before him. Once he could not find a slave to run before him, so he ran before him for three miles. [Kesubos 67b.]
2. However, I do see a difference between eating, which is a basic minimum human need, and wearing fancy clothes, which is a learned indulgence.
I agree with the general idea that at the beginning of one's avoda one should not focus on overly difficult things. Changing one's clothes is one of them.
3. There is a well-established but widely neglected concept and avoda of iskafya (see here). For someone serious about this avoda, the question of when it is appropriate to do iskafya and when it is not, i.e., when it is counter-productive, is one that arises constantly, and is a very individual thing for which when in doubt, a mashpia/Rav who knows one personally should be consulted.
In any case, both are kelipos nogat, meaning, "parve", that can be used in a holy way or in a non holy way. A tsaddik would look at food, and see that it is necessary for the body to keep functioning he needs to eat it. Alternatively, one might eat food for the sake of it, or eat it as an animal would devour something it strongly craves, in which case, that is obviously taking it and using it in the unholy sense.
Rabbi Oliver: thanks for the response. I guess my goal is whether it’s appropriate and praiseworthy to have as a goal the eventual shedding of as many things as possible that don’t connect one to Hashem. Or should one remain comfortable with those things remaining part of his “package” for the rest of his life. I am not talking about the immediate things one deals with.
tRP: As you know from the mouth of one of your rabbis, most of us are animals.
my question*
After the person dies, or when Moshiach comes, all these things will be shed anyway. As is known, before the neshomo can enjoy gan eden, it must shed all "chaizoi dehai almo", never mind the stain of indulgence, and worse, sin.
It's definitely better to shed as much desire for olam hazeh as possible, because that makes one all the more a keli for ruchniyus. The question is only in what areas, and to what extent, that is feasible and possible. This is where wise discernment is required.
There can be no question that iskafya and prishus, when done without discernment and guidance, can be severely damaging, and purely the advice of the yetzer horo.
But with guidance, it can refine the person immensely.
As to what we can hope for, why limit yourself? We'll try, do our part, and hope that we cover lots of ground in refining ourselves and transcending our animal instincts.
To a certain degree, we'll always have to fight: See Tanya, ch. 27, where he says "ולכן אל יפול לב אדם עליו ולא ירע לבבו מאד גם אם יהיה כן כל ימיו במלחמה זו כי אולי לכך נברא וזאת עבודתו לאכפיא לס"א תמיד."
Our mouths will probably always start salivating when we start eating. But if we've done lots and lots of avoda, it will only salivate as much as it is programmed to naturally, but our thoughts will be preoccupied not on how tasty the food is, but solely on the chayus Eloki in the food, on the vort that we have on our mind, etc.
Post a Comment