Olam Ha-zeh, Olam Ha-ba: This World and the Next (2)

 

*************************************************************
In memory of Rabbi Jack Sable z”l and
Ambassador Yehuda Avner z”l
By Debbi and David Sable
*************************************************************

In our last shiur, we began developing two themes simultaneously.  Our direct concern was to examine the orientation of our sources - and ourselves - to the world we inhabit: is it a place in which to be at home, or should it arouse the desire to be elsewhere?  Together with this first issue, we considered the ramifications of what we have seen so far for the study of Mussar in general.  Before learning more about the relationship between "this world" and the World-to-Come, I would like to begin by picking up the thread of one of our general conclusions about Mussar.

As you will recall, we raised the question of individual choice of texts and approaches.  Our encounter with various sources which posed vastly differing views on important matters drew us to a vital inference: since we can't adopt more than one of the views, we would be well-advised to develop our spiritual lives in accordance with the approach with which we identify closely. 

It is interesting to note that the dilemma of fitting the text to the reader was delineated by the "Alte Rebbe," Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in the introduction to his classic Chassidic text, the Tanya:

It is well-known and commonly acknowledged by all our colleagues that there is no comparison between the hearing of words of Mussar, and the reading of books, which are read by the reader according to his own way and understanding... If his mind and mood are confused, walking in darkness regarding the service of God, he will hardly see the good light that is concealed in those books, sweet and soul-healing though it be.  Also, books about piety which are based on human intelligence are definitely not appropriate for everyone, because not everyone is of the same mind, and what causes one person's mind to stir and become aroused will not affect another's mind in the same way... Even books about piety which are based on the holy sources, the midrashim of Chazal, in whom the spirit of God spoke and His word was upon their tongue, and even considering that the Torah and the Holy One are as One, and all the six hundred thousand souls of the Congregation of Israel (down to the last individual, even until the slightest spark of the of the simplest of our people Benei Yisrael) are all bound to the Torah, and the Torah binds them to the Holy One, as is known from the Zohar - but all this is true only in general terms.  And even though the Torah was designed to be understood in general but also individually, by each particular soul of Israel rooted in it - still, not everyone is able to know where is his individual place in Torah.

The Tanya distinguishes between a student who engages his human teacher in direct discourse and a student whose "teacher" is a book.  The book was written without knowing the person who reads it.  Its content is suited to its author, but its potential effect on the random reader cannot be predicted.  This is certainly true of works based on human insight and understanding, however inspired.  But, continues the Alte Rebbe, even when the content is based on insights gathered from Torah texts, this problem of individual appropriateness exists.  This latter claim is interesting.  The Tanya bases his statement on a mystical doctrine concerning the individual root of each Jewish soul within Torah, which implies that no person's grasp of Torah is exactly like another person's.  But does this mean that I can't just take any Torah text and learn it, without checking first to see that it is "for me?"

If we pay careful attention to what Rav Shneur Zalman has written, we see that he is concerned primarily with "books of piety," i.e. Mussar.  It is precisely here that individual proclivity is such an important factor that it poses a serious question to the reader: Is this book, idea, or directive mine?  Do I identify with it sufficiently to benefit from it, to grow with it?  As we saw in our first shiur, one of the distinguishing traits of Mussar is its individuality. [1]

To sum up, the Tanya recognizes the gap between text and student as a psychological reality grounded in metaphysics.  The potential for such a gap is an inherent characteristic of Mussar texts.  As such, encountering it should be expected as a matter of course.  No serious study of Mussar can ignore this phenomenon.

From here we return to our initial observation.  If our experience with a given text is one of dissonance, searching elsewhere is a reasonable strategy.  However, a word of caution is in order.  There clearly is a danger here of "censorship."  It is not always wise to set aside an entire text because one doesn't identify with certain aspects of it.  Using the example of Messilat Yesharim: even those who find themselves at variance with the work's above-mentioned views regarding Olam Ha-zeh, may still have much to gain from the book as a whole.  Also, excessive use of the individualistic approach could conceivably degenerate into a cavalier attitude, which dismisses difficult challenges with a shrugging, "This doesn't suit me."  Nevertheless, I think that, in general, anyone who is concerned with enhancing his spiritual life is not averse to taking up challenges, and shouldn't suspect himself wrongly of trying to "go easy" on himself.  Bearing the qualifications in mind, the over-arching consideration remains that I must identify with a message before I can motivate myself to adopt and apply it.

Let us get back to the topic of "Olam Ha-zeh," the physical world, about which we have already glimpsed three opinions.  Our next source is a relevant short remark of the Vilna Gaon, which comes down to us in a well-known homily delivered by his disciple, Rav Chaim of Volozhin, during the High Holiday season, on the subject of repentance:

It is therefore worthwhile, during these Days of Awe, for every Jew to pray mainly for his miserable soul, that it not perish, Heaven forbid.  Unfortunately, in our many sins, the evil inclination blinds the eyes of the masses of people, and puts a retort in their mouths in the form of a platitude which everyone repeats: "This world is also a world, and it also needs attention."  In fact, such a statement may be appropriately made by men of great piety, who serve God with love, with no extraneous intention.  I have heard so several times from the holy mouth of our master, the saintly Gaon Eliyahu of blessed memory: "What importance does the World-to-Come have?  One cannot serve God with love there, nor do anything to please our Creator and Maker.  This world is the main one.  That is why the Rabbis said, 'One moment of repentance and good deeds in this world is worth more than all the life of the World-to-Come.'"  [This I heard from the Gaon,] but as for us, lowly of worth, how could we presume to abandon the spiritual life in favor of the corporeal?

The Gaon expressed his deeply-felt conviction that this world, with its "corporeal life," is inestimably worthwhile in comparison to the next.  This feeling surely emanated from the intense fulfillment he experienced when doing God's will.  His student, Rav Chaim, denied that ordinary people could make such a statement authentically.  When the man on the street talks about "this world," he doesn't mean Torah and mitzvot, but much more mundane activities.  Hence, when addressing the masses, Rav Chaim of Volozhin asserts that Olam Ha-ba must be projected as the ideal.

Of course, as far as the basic issue goes, it is clear that Rav Chaim himself identifies with the view of his teacher.  On this main point, it would be instructive to compare the Gaon to Rav Hirsch and to Rav Soloveitchik.  They all assess Olam Ha-zeh as the quintessential place of human fulfillment - but do they all do so in the same way?  Also, what would Rav Hirsch and Rav Soloveitchik say about Rav Chaim's distinction between the great man and the ordinary man?  I leave these questions for the reader's consideration.

We will examine one more formulation of a stand taken on this issue.  The following excerpt is from Mei Marom (vol. 7, chap. 6), by Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlop, a foremost student of Rav Kook:

At first glance, it would seem that the thought of the future is the main factor in life.  The more the we envision a hopeful future, the more conscientious we are about fulfilling everything... All of life is viewed as an existence which can bring about a wonderful future, as a means to an end.  But although our Sages of blessed memory ... said, "One moment of satisfaction in the World-to-Come is worth more than all the life of this world," they were still wise enough to tell us that, "One moment of repentance and good deeds in this world is worth more than all the life of the World-to-Come."  This is no mere figure of speech, but the word of God speaking truly in their mouth.  As great and awesome as are the beneficial EFFECTS of Torah and mitzvot (namely, attaining the glory and delight of the World-to-Come), greater and even more exalted are the very ACTS of the mitzvot, the learning of the Torah ITSELF, the repentance ITSELF, and the good deeds THEMSELVES.  This difference in greatness is comparable to the difference between the effect of the Good and the Good itself.  Although from a utilitarian viewpoint, one may benefit more from the effect of the Good, yet as far as absolute value is concerned, the unknowable Good itself is certainly of greater value than the effect which emanates from the Good.  So it is with the value of the benefits which stem from Torah and mitzvot as compared to their fulfillment itself (which is inconceivable outside of this world): there is no comparison between the value of the thing itself and the value of whatever branches out from it...

It follows that the consciousness of the present, of the greatness of the elevated thought which recognizes the Good itself prior to its spreading forth, and that one moment of repentance and good deeds in this world is worth more than all the life of the World-to-Come, is much higher and more exalted than the consciousness of the future, even the purest and most exalted future.  Our duty is to purify ourselves and work hard to reach that level where all life is not only CAUSATIVE life, but ESSENTIAL life; not only life as a means, but life as an end, Divine life.

Here again, it is instructive to compare Rav Charlop's position with the others we have seen.  And again, I will leave this to you.  I would like to concentrate a moment not so much on content, but on the distinctive style of the foregoing passage.  It clearly bears the mark of Rav Charlop's philosophic and Kabbalistic background.  It calls upon the reader to respond inwardly to, and identify with, an abstract concept:  "the Good" - which we can perhaps define as absolute morality of Divine origin.  The reader's positive response to this passage will be commensurate to the extent that he "knows" what Rav Charlop is talking about, although this knowledge cannot be more than intuitive.  If Rav Charlop has struck an empathetic chord with you, you may sense the exaltation which clearly moves him.

This brings us to another general observation.  Different sources that deal with a given topic can differ not only in WHAT they say, but HOW they say it.  Sometimes the effect that a text has upon the reader is not only a matter of rational identification with the message, but depends on one's receptiveness to the author's mode of expression.  Two authors may say the same thing, but only one will "strike home."  This, in turn, can depend on various factors, such as personality and background.  But there is one set of influencing factors which I would like especially to mention.

One's ability to be affected by a given text can depend on factors which are TEMPORARY.  For example - what mood am I in?  Contemplative?  Agitated?  Depressed?  Placid?  Spiritual or "mystic?"  In any given state, I may feel the need for a text which speaks to my present condition.  Or to the contrary: I may find that something which is the opposite of my present mood will be most effective, something that will balance my condition, or take me out of it.

Likewise, a given source may or may not evoke a meaningful response on my part, because of the stage of life I am at.  People change.  The same person may find himself impervious, say, to classic Mussar works or to Chassidut while in his late teens, and discover a few years later that he has developed a receptivity, or even a need, for them.  The same can be true of any text or class of texts. 

We are all familiar with the phenomenon of schools of thought and lifestyle within traditional Judaism.  There are Breslovers, Litvaks, Lubavitchers, Merkaznikim, and more, and even among those mentioned there are subdivisions.  These groups represent communities of people who ostensibly have "found" their way, who will live out their life according to a given mold, and who do not expect to change.  They will be nurtured spiritually by the literature and lore connected with their group, and will not be significantly affected by currents from the outside.  Or at least so it would seem.  Is this an accurate description of the state of affairs?  If so, is it genuine, or does it have a large degree of artificiality, owing to the human need for stability and a sense of belonging?  I confess that I often wonder about this. 

My own impression is that alongside the tendency for people to label themselves, there is a growing trend towards cross-pollination of ideas even among the insulated.  People change, and as they change, they are wont to reach out for wisdom that is not readily found within the confines of their familiar environment.  I do agree that insularity was more real and more possible years ago.  Today, with the tremendous exposure to the wealth of ideas generated by our tradition, it appears to me to be less plausible.

Of course, there are undoubtedly many whose religious life finds true and total expression in one lifestyle such as those I mentioned.  If you are such a person, there's certainly nothing wrong with that.  You could be considered fortunate, and I am sure that many would envy you.  But speaking to the others, who I believe are the majority - be aware that you can benefit from many different viewpoints and modes of thought and expression.  Know that your spiritual inclinations and needs can change.  A working knowledge of what different texts have to offer may turn out to be an important resource.

Here we will close our discussion of "Olam Ha-zeh, Olam Ha-ba."  I hope you have gained an appreciation of some of the divergent treatments of this issue, and that our survey has helped you examine your own thoughts on the matter.  Our shiurim thus far have tried to help define what Mussar is: a very personal, individual study-search, which constantly confronts us with the necessity to choose what is right for us, and to commit ourselves to our choices.  We will, Be-ezrat Hashem, continue to address this process - its technique, and the obstacles along the way.

In our next lesson, we will begin to tackle one of the central issues of Mussar literature: ga'ava and anava - pride and humility.