The Pleasures of the Soul and the Pleasures of the Body, the Pleasures of Touch and the Pleasures of the Other Senses | Eight Chapters, Chapter 4 (Auto Translated) | תמלול וסיכום מתורגם

The Philosophical Problem of Ta’avah: A Shiur on the Middah of Perishus

Introduction: The Story of the Chozeh of Lublin

Maggid Shiur:

I know that the story goes like this: A Jew came to a Rebbe, I think it was the Rebbe of Lublin. I said that Google says it was Rebbeinu, but just every clever story comes from Rebbeinu, that’s no proof from them. There were other clever Rebbes, sharp Rebbeinu.

And he said that he holds that it’s nothing great that the Rebbe is a Rebbe. Being a Rebbe seems to him to be a ta’avah [desire, lust] just like all other ta’avos [desires].

The Chozeh of Lublin [the Chozeh/Seer of Lublin] is the story, yes? Google doesn’t know. It’s a ta’avah, just like I have a ta’avah to be a porter. It’s a ta’avah. You have a ta’avah to be a Rebbe.

So the Rebbe told him that you’re right, I indeed have such a ta’avah, but you just need to know that this ta’avah you must have, and you must give up all other ta’avos. So there’s a bit of a price.

The Fundamental Question: What Emerges from This Story?

Maggid Shiur:

What is the geder [definition, essential nature] of this story? True, it’s a good story. Yes, very good. So what emerges from this story? I thought to give a shiur to explain the story, but one of the things, go explain the story.

If you ask, there’s a negative connotation, that in practice it’s the same ta’avah as that already is. That’s the kushya [question, difficulty]. Very good, very good.

So let’s talk, let’s do a bit of philosophy, a bit of philosophy in these matters.

The Philosophical Problem: What Does “Ta’avah” Mean?

The Foundation in Mussar Works

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, I agree in the context as you say that it was the Rebbe, what’s his name, it was just some cheap shot, a cheap shot here, a cheap shot there. But deeper is, the story does bring out a real problem that exists here. What is the real problem?

That we have such a belief, such an education, which says that to be a ba’al ta’avah [one who is controlled by desires] is not a good thing. Do you agree?

Student:

That means you already don’t agree. You already don’t agree.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay. But it’s true that there is such a thing. Soon we’ll see why. We have such a belief, so it says in all Chasidic books, all Kabbalah books, all mussar books, all say that a Jew shouldn’t be a ba’al ta’avah. True, there’s no way to be a ba’al ta’avah. As the Malbim [Malbim: 19th century biblical commentator] translates it into English, what does it mean? A Jew shouldn’t be a ba’al ta’avah.

Trying to Define “Ta’avah”

Maggid Shiur:

Meanwhile there are very many things that seem to be quite pleasant. What did he mean to say that being a Rebbe is a ta’avah like all ta’avos? Which ta’avah was he talking about? Ta’avas kavod [desire for honor]? Kavod [honor]? It’s just a pleasant thing.

What’s so pleasant about being a Rebbe? I hold that he should have gone back from this better to Rosh HaBelzer. Is there such a ta’avah to learn Gemara [Gemara: Talmud] by you for a week? You have a… okay, I understand, there is a ta’avah. It’s even a greater criticism. Okay, there is a ta’avah to learn Gemara, it’s a ta’avah.

What is the ta’avah to be a Rebbe? Is it a ta’avah not to be a ba’al ta’avah? Is it a ta’avah of kavod? Do you understand what I mean? Do you understand what I mean? It’s a madreigah [spiritual level]. I mean, it can be a madreigah of a ta’avah.

Anyways, the problem is, and to generalize the problem, the problem is that there are many good things which, let’s say, what is the translation of the word ta’avah? What does it mean it’s a ta’avah? What do you say in Yiddish? In English?

Student:

Lust.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, what is… one has lust for being a Rebbe? For learning Gemara Tosafos [Tosafos: medieval Talmudic commentaries]? It’s not a good word. It’s not a good word, right. So what’s the better…

Right, lust already means something like a bad ta’avah. It’s built-in almost that it’s bad. Let’s find a better word that will make the kushya make sense.

Student:

Excess?

Maggid Shiur:

No, excess is again a word that has the badness built-in. What does one mean to say? It’s not bad the dishes, it’s the will.

Student:

Yes.

Maggid Shiur:

No. I mean that will is much broader than ta’avah. Because being a ba’al ta’avah doesn’t mean just wanting. Let’s say like this, let’s think about this. If being a ba’al ta’avah means someone who wants things, it makes no sense. As Reb Chaim mentioned, “ta’avah l’HaKadosh Baruch Hu” [desire for the Holy One, Blessed be He]. The Almighty wants.

Let’s… one can delve into ta’avah, ratzon [will], into chakirot [analytical investigations], into Chasidus [Chasidic teachings], into philosophy. To want things is in itself not a bad thing. Can you understand, no? No one thinks about wanting things. If ta’avah means the koach [power, faculty] to want, it makes no sense.

Digression: The Rambam’s “Cheilek HaMis’orer”

Maggid Shiur:

They spoke about this, for example, there are shiurim on the noseh [topic] that the Rambam [Rambam: Maimonides] calls cheilek hamis’orer [the aroused/awakened part], which one can call it, it’s not exactly the cheilek hamis’orer, but cheilek hamis’orer is a koach in which there are all kinds of retzonos and dechiyos [rejections], yes, things that we want and what not, then it includes much more things than just being a ba’al ta’avah, right?

It’s not when we speak in that sense you could call it ta’avah, there you would be able to call it ratzon or netiyah [inclination], I like the word netiyah, such sorts of things.

The Problem with Too-Broad Definitions

Maggid Shiur:

And when he speaks here, when he wants to say a chiluk [distinction] between a ba’al ta’avah and a ba’al ga’avah [arrogant person], both are based on wanting, everything is ta’avah, then it means nothing, right? Sorry, one must speak of something more specific.

But when he already speaks of something more specific, what it means, whether he speaks of wanting to be a Rebbe, whether the ta’avah of being a Rebbe, and whether the ta’avah of eating kugel.

Student:

Something like seeking of fulfillment?

Maggid Shiur:

Seeking of fulfillment is also, that would be way too broad, because everything is… even a killer seeks fulfillment. No one ever falls into a bad thing. Questions, perhaps, which fulfillment, what is among the clear fulfillment and shows… But he speaks already further very broadly, truly, once he talks so widely, then the words stop meaning anything, right?

So when it says kin’ah, ta’avah, kavod [jealousy, desire, honor], truly they’re all ta’avah, do you want ta’avas hakin’ah [desire for jealousy]? So also, so what does it mean? No, here it means ta’avah simply, but he also says it in such a way that it means something more specific. So what does it mean?

Student:

So a drive, actual, it’s also a ratzon, the same thing.

Maggid Shiur:

Drive is again something way too broad. Because everything is a drive. I mean, there’s little that isn’t driven. So so what does it mean other midos [character traits] that have spoken about this. So so one can call it ka’as [anger] or ta’avos.

Student:

So so there are physical things, so what includes eating and other things.

Maggid Shiur:

So ah.

Student:

Aaron, good, perhaps.

Closer to a Definition: Physical Things and Instant Gratification

Maggid Shiur:

So what else hold one more step before that, but, so what are physical things? So what do what, so what give what.

Student:

Okay, gratification.

Maggid Shiur:

I mean gratification is also a way, okay, instant gratification. Because physical things are such things that give instant gratification. Right?

Okay, so what about… so the chiluk, so what the Rambam tries to say is, that true that yetzer hara [evil inclination] for a ta’avah is a much greater aveirah [sin], but that’s a list instant gratification thing. It takes a long time though, not instant, it takes a few years to restrain oneself from ta’avos, to learn, whatever. Sometimes one just drops from these things because one goes crazy.

And that’s what one needed to have a Tanna v’Amora [Mishnaic and Talmudic sages], that means it’s an aveirah, that means it’s an aveirah, that means it’s an aveirah.

Methodological Foundation: How Does One Divide Midos?

Reminder of a Previous Principle

Maggid Shiur:

You can remember, let’s remind ourselves of something we said that will help us, just to help you out, and then we’ll go to the next step. You can still remember that we explained shiurim ago that it’s a great matter to divide midos, not like the Chazon Ish [Chazon Ish: 20th century Torah scholar] and tzadikim [righteous people] who said that all midos are the same thing. There’s a great matter to divide, to speak of each middah separately, true? Do you remember that we spoke about this?

The Principle: Midos Are Divided According to Their Object

Maggid Shiur:

And we explained that what divides midos one from the other? Very important. Not the koach penimi [inner faculty] that brings them out, because then everything is almost the same, and it’s very little useful to speak about this. Rather the thing that they are about, you can call it the chomer [matter], the subject, the object, the thing that is for or to or about, true?

In other words, the chiluk, we said the chiluk of ahavas mamon [love of money] and ahavas nashim [love of women] is the mamon [money] and the nashim [women], not the ahavah [love]. Right? Hey both are ahavah, you can say both is the same thing, no problem.

We speak in olam hama’aseh [the world of action], we don’t speak in olam hanefesh [the world of the soul] where everything is the same. It can indeed be that it’s in a certain sense the same koach banefesh [faculty in the soul], it’s a different chakirah [investigation]. But what is… anyways, no one has ever seen the kochos banefesh [faculties in the soul], it’s all anyways theories that one tries to divide accordingly.

But in the Aristotle and the Rambam’s way of style and midos is according to, very similar to how halachah [Jewish law] is divided into things, according to the subject, according to the thing he speaks about.

Back to Our Middah: What Is the Subject?

Identifying the Middah

Maggid Shiur:

So now, about which thing are we now speaking? We’re learning about a middah that’s called not being a ba’al ta’avah, okay? If you have a better word for it, tell me the better word. What is the better word? You don’t want me to say what is the better word?

You can say histapkus b’mu’at [contentment with little], but that’s a two-word translation. What?

Student:

Zerizus they called it last week, yes.

Maggid Shiur:

Zerizus [alacrity, diligence] is the middah that is the sheleimus [perfection] in the middah. The Rambam didn’t call it that, but the middah in memutzah [the mean] is not being a ba’al ta’avah, not being too much a ba’al ta’avah and not being too little a ba’al ta’avah. Because when you’re too little it’s also not bad, because you won’t do many things.

Many people translate it perishus [abstinence, separation]. But perishus sounds also wrong, because it sounds too extreme. But you can just say that in Chazal [our Sages of blessed memory] perishus means this. You can say that peshat [plain meaning] in the Mishnah is not bad perishus, rather you have taken on too much perishus or the wrong kind of perishus, but the right kind of perishus you can say is good. Perishus min ha’arayos [separation from sexual immorality], min ha’aveiros [from sins].

The Answer: The Subject Is Ta’anugim

Maggid Shiur:

Very good. So we’re speaking of the middah. Now, if every middah must be divided according to something, a thing that is about, a part of life, a part of things that people do, what is the sort of things that the middah is about?

Student:

It’s about not.

Maggid Shiur:

No, it’s also good about yes. There’s no such thing as a middah that’s only about not, it’s also about yes. Which yes and which not, how yes and how not, how much yes and how much not.

Student:

Yes, but how much not of what? Of ta’avah.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, you can say the word ta’avah, but that’s also very broad. What does ta’avah mean? Ta’avah is a broad word. You can say materialistic ta’avos not and spiritual ta’avos yes, I don’t know, I haven’t thought of that, I’m stuck.

Student:

No, no. The teiretz [answer] is… ah, I wanted to hear the old peshat. No, no, he’s not going to come with a pasuk [biblical verse].

Brief Digression: Context of the Parshah

Maggid Shiur:

The teiretz is like this, the teiretz is… I forgot to say that this is a shiur on last week’s parshah [Torah portion] of Nitzavim-Vayelech [Nitzavim-Vayelech], and the next week’s parshah, which when one thinks when one learns the parshah it’s exactly the noseh. But this week we’re already holding the next middah, we’re still holding by parshas Ha’azinu.

Back to the Answer: Ta’anugim

Maggid Shiur:

Anyways, the teiretz is, he wants to say the teiretz is, that this is the middah from the side of zerizus [alacrity] or perishus or not being a ba’al ta’avah v’chadomeh [and the like], is a middah that has to do with the subject of ta’anugim [pleasures].

The Middah of Perishus: A Precise Delimitation of “Ta’avah”

Precision of Concepts: Ta’avah Versus Ta’anug

Instructor: True, not being too much a rodef ta’avah means not being a rodef ta’anugim, right? That’s the first thing. That’s the peshat of the word ta’avah. It’s a bit of a better word than ta’avah, because ta’avah means wanting. True, ta’avah can mean just wanting in the Torah, “avat nafshecha” [the desire of your soul], it could be that it means a ta’avah, but yes, it can mean ta’avah, wanting. We’re now speaking of ta’anug, or wanting ta’anug, but certain pleasures, right?

Up to here it’s clear, the Ramban [Ramban: Nachmanides] already said this three times. Now, but we’re still not yet clear. Here… I know that the word ta’avah means pleasure. The middah we’re speaking about is the middah of the correct behavior in relation to pleasures. Very good. On this I must pipe according to the facts. There is such a matter, people are engaged in ta’anug. Perhaps everything that people do is ta’anug? Wait, that’s gonna make it too broad again.

Okay, do we have a problem here. Very good, I have a problem here. Let’s understand, I have a problem here. Very good, let’s understand the problem that I have.

The Relationship Between Ta’avah and Tzaar

Instructor: You agree with me, all people who speak about ta’avah always speak about ta’anugim. You can simply say, let’s understand, you can even say also about the opposite of ta’anug. What is the opposite of ta’anug? Tzaar, pain, ke’ev, suffering. Can one say that a parush is someone who goes to the crazy and it hurts him? Perhaps a bit, it’s not the ta’anug. It’s a gang, it’s ta’anug, it’s ta’anug, it’s ta’anug, it’s not a noseh of suffering. The middah that has to do with suffering is already a different middah.

Is there such a thing? What is that? He can’t just fast for no reason? Could be. One must judge whether there is such a thing, it’s not certain. He doesn’t have to, a person doesn’t sleep on account. He doesn’t have to.

I want to bring out something with this, I don’t want to get lost. What I want to get at with what I’m saying, that it’s also about tzaar. That if one speaks about tzaar, you can say like this that the perishus, or the correct middah that we’re speaking about ifah [moderation/temperance], which the Rambam calls in Arabic, it has to do with how one conducts oneself regarding tzaar also, but also only because tzaar is the opposite of ta’anug, let’s say.

A person, you have a person, someone who is a great ba’al ta’avah, it hurts him very much when he fasts, he can’t fast, the greatest yetzer hara stands before him. Someone who is a parush, he suffers the yetzer hara, he has no problem, he has no problem, it doesn’t stand before him. But it’s the tzaar, negation of the ta’anug, it’s not really about the tzaar.

If you want to speak of the middah of relating to tzaar, I would say that it’s a different middah perhaps. In our concepts, bitachon [trust/confidence], perhaps courage, perhaps, there are other midos that belong more to the noseh of what is the opposite of ta’anug, which is tzaar.

So it’s specific, when every single person who speaks about not being a ba’al ta’avah, speaks about the correct relation, the correct middah of ta’anug, or pursuit of ta’anug, you can say. Yes, right?

The “Iron Head” Question: If Ta’anug Is Bad, May One Learn?

The Question Arises: Should We Not Learn Because It’s Pleasurable?

Instructor: But here the question arises, here very well, we come to the questions of the iron heads. If so, one should also not learn, because it’s pleasurable to learn. And all the questions come that they are iron ones. Perhaps, perhaps this brings that someone asked that it’s better to learn without any pleasure, because pleasure is bad. So it comes out that one must learn dryly in the house.

He speaks of the talks, but you can speak without the talks. Let’s speak specifically of the trait of prishus. A parush is one who doesn’t press. Ah, he’s a presser of Gemara. Ah, you understand, shouldn’t you also not learn too much Gemara? Or he’s a presser of… let me ask you a better question. Okay, Gemara is… must one have pleasure in the pleasures of olam hazeh?

Student: Ah, very good, very good. You’re getting at something. Very good, very good.

Instructor: Should we express a secret and speak against pleasure, but we don’t mean it? Yes? It means I don’t mean it. That’s what philosophy does. We say many things, but we don’t mean them.

The mashgiach speaks that one shouldn’t be a pleasure-seeker. Right? You can even speak of instant gratification. I don’t know, must one speak here even of that. I say, I don’t mean that. What I mean is the wrong kind of instant gratification. Yes?

Student: Very good. Exactly. Exactly.

Instructor: But there was a great sage who said that it’s a standing issue. It’s a true problem. People are confused. Why are people confused? Very good. It’s an even deeper point. I don’t know if it’s… You can say that… Okay, I don’t know what the Rambam would have said. Very good. I can tell you, I think I know what he would have told you. I want to tell you, I want to tell you. Yes, I want to bring out here.

The Methodology of Philosophy: Narrowing Down the Concepts

Instructor: What do we do? What do we do in this class? What do people who learn philosophy do, who clarify things? He says that we use certain words. We are accustomed to saying “don’t be a pursuer of pleasure,” “don’t be a baal taavah,” but we don’t mean that.

The trait that is called prishus, don’t make a mistake. It doesn’t mean that. It doesn’t mean not running after any pleasures. Where’s the proof? I can bring you one proof. There are pleasures that you will admit that it’s good to have those pleasures.

Pleasure from learning is perhaps even a mitzvah. The Avnei Nezer says so. It’s a dispute. The Avnei Nezer says yes, perhaps not. Chaim of Volozhin, I don’t know. But it’s certain that they praise a person who loves to learn. He’s a better type of person than a…

I can tell you even the opposite thing. I can think of an opposite thing.

Kavod as a Separate Trait, Not Taavah

Instructor: What about someone who loves kavod very much? He’s also a baal taavah. Yes? No? I’m not saying it’s a good thing.

Student: I say that kavod is not… kavod is not instant gratification. Kavod is higher than taavah.

Instructor: There are many Chassidic rebbes, Chassidic rebbes have said that first one must break the taavah, afterwards one must break the kavod, or one way to break the taavah is to seek kavod, like one interpretation of the rebbes on the statement we said earlier.

But indeed, kavod is more long-term thinking. You think like him, as Reb Nachman said, “One is held according to the test, one is held according to the disgrace,” or “if there’s no test, there’s no disgrace,” nothing can happen, yes?

Student: So… what is instant now when I seek the kavod? Why don’t I need the kavod now?

Instructor: No, kavod means… when does a person get kavod? Only now will he… now he will suffer… it’s a whole life…

My point is only, that someone who is a pursuer of kavod, he mixes it up, he thinks that taavah and kavod, it doesn’t say taavat hakavod, it’s not the same thing. What’s the difference? Let’s get to that.

Student: As much as I know it seems, don’t tell him that he doesn’t make kavod for a good thing, it could be that relative to taavah it’s a better thing.

Instructor: I’m actually saying, I’m actually saying so… soon, soon one minute, first, first let’s divide, first let’s divide.

The Necessity of Precise Concepts

Instructor: If… because most of the world’s confusions, when one says words words that include within them many things, and one becomes confused, afterwards… let me speak one second… afterwards, someone can bring apostates, I don’t know what to bring, talk in various nonsense, because you have no way to answer such simple questions, because one speaks with words that mean various other things, that when you use it it’s broader than one actually means it. Because one must narrow down the meaning of a word.

When one speaks against taavah, one doesn’t even mean to pursue, not to be a kavod seeker. So does that mean that kavod is a good thing? No, I’m telling you, I’m showing you that they’re two different words, there’s a bad trait of kavod, although too much isn’t the right thing, whatever that is, there’s a bad trait of taavah, it’s not the same bad trait.

Someone who is a kavod seeker is not a baal taavah. Can you say he loves kavod? Yes, I don’t mean now… when I speak of taavah, I don’t mean loving things. I mean taavah, I mean a certain type of thing. That is, a certain type of taavah, basically.

The same thing, in other words, if you seek a… a… a… a… I can tell you another thing that’s a bad thing, perhaps… what… I already told you one good thing, and someone who loves to learn…

Batlah and Talking: Another Separate Trait

Instructor: Everything I say, I’m not saying it to his face, I asked him I asked him that he should write everything down on a note for me. I can’t say a bad thing about someone who loves kavod. I can’t even say any bad thing about someone who loves to talk.

A person in yeshiva, the mashgiach will test him on taavos. Taavos is not a problem by the mashgiach, because no one comes to the shiur because he’s such a great baal taavah, true? That’s not the problem. A bachur, anyway he’s a bachur. He loves another thing. What does he love? Batlah. That’s why you came into yeshiva?

There is… regarding lashon hara, even not lashon hara, by him there isn’t… let’s speak of batlah. A person who loves to talk, he chatters, that’s the test of a kollel young man usually, not taavah, true? Except for the taavah that you say, not in his body. Taavah is not the problem. The yeshiva doesn’t care that you’re a baal taavah.

Here we’re speaking of someone who wants to be an oved Hashem, but what disturbs him is the chattering, true? Agree? And what is that? Which bad trait is that? Is that taavah? A certain taavah? I guess it’s a taavah in the broad sense, a thing that you want. But someone who loves to talk, do you call him a baal taavah? A coarse fellow? A baal taavah is a coarse fellow. But he’s not a coarse fellow, he’s a fine Jew, true?

Fine Jews meet about… he gives a Tehillim shiur, understand? He’s a fine Jew, right? I also have some shiur that he goes up and says ideas and speaks. It’s not a yetzer hara, it’s not… everyone has that.

Let’s say even not intending to be a rav. There is “mi yiten.” I already told you the story of Reb Dov Landa. My father told me, he learned in yeshiva, he was a chavrusa of Reb Dov. He always learns with bachurim, he loves to learn with bachurim. He has a chavrusa every day.

And he told me that there was a masmid in yeshiva who stopped learning with Reb Dov, he says he talks too much, he can’t learn with him. A masmid? He, the rosh yeshiva, is not such a great masmid. When he learns, many times he talks through a thing. I have from my father a full notebook that he wrote from the rosh yeshiva who learned with him, a lot of politics is written there.

In practice, he says that he makes chavrusos of two hours at a time, every two hours he switches chavrusos. If he talks, he doesn’t want to talk with everyone in between.

Summary: The Specific Meaning of “Baal Taavah”

Instructor: So anyway, there are taavos. If I say that a coarse fellow is a baal taavah, he’s not a baal taavah. Which concepts in taavos? He has another problem, perhaps he has a problem, a bit. Good, one must speak, one must speak, very good, one must speak about how much is good, how much is too much, one must have a bit, one must be a person.

Very good, one asks, there are talmidei chachamim, he came here, he has ideas, he talks, he wants to know, he wants to have—

Taavah and Pleasures: The Distinction Between Pleasures of the Soul and Pleasures of the Body

The Distinction Between Talking and Taavah

Instructor:

He says that if one talks, like it’s not talking for two hours.

Anyway, is that a taavah? There’s someone who is a coarse fellow, he has a taavah, he can’t be a baal taavah. I don’t know what kind of taavah it is. But that has another problem, perhaps that’s a problem, but one must speak, one must speak very good, one must speak about how much is good, how much is too much, one must have a bit, one must be a person, very good. And especially if he’s a talmid chacham, he’s engaged in knowledge, so knowledge he talks, he wants to know, he wants to participate and so on. So, but we understand that that’s not a problem, that’s not taavah, that’s something else.

So in short, taavah doesn’t mean wanting, it doesn’t even mean wanting bad things. There are bad things where that’s not the problem of taavah. So the discussion, the topic that is called prishus from pleasures, or being the right measure of pleasures, is not the meaning of not wanting things, not loving things, even not loving not Torah or not spirituality. I don’t know, I don’t believe it’s spirituality, I call it kavod, I’m also doubtful whether talking is spirituality, I believe it’s not spirituality. But what is it? Something else. So how will one say what is the meaning of being a baal taavah? What are we talking about?

The Fundamental Distinction: Pleasures of the Body and Pleasures of the Soul

Instructor:

As we said, one will say, one will say that the trait has to do with pleasures of the body. Right? Pleasures of the body. There are pleasures of the soul, and there are pleasures of the body. Both are a pleasure, both are with aspects of pleasure, both are very pleasurable. Pleasure is a good pleasure for a person. But, we will say first a basic distinction. There’s a thing of pleasures of the soul, and there’s a thing of pleasures of the body. Kavod is a pleasure for the soul, yes? The complete soul is called kavod even, asks the man d’amar. Yes? “Kavodi, kavodi, yiru kavodi,” yes? My my complete. Okay, I don’t know if that’s the reason why it’s called kavod, but… what?

Questions and Discussion: Desire for Murder and Sick People

Student:

Does one have a desire for murder?

Instructor:

Okay, let’s say a rule, let’s say a rule. We’re not speaking of sick people. I mean, we’re speaking of sick people – cholei hanefesh, but not of… does someone have pleasure in murdering? That’s the trait of murder, not the trait of desire. He feels he actually gets… he gets… he becomes in desire. Yes, okay, he’s a sick person. I’m speaking already. No, I mean sick I mean that on the other side of normal. Very good. Let’s say that person. He’s sick, not mentally ill. Okay, one must find time another time. One has started the Rambam in the introduction. That person is on some other level. It’s already not one gets the pure person. It’s pure. It’s a daughter of the problem. Today one has there a psychological problem. Not any impression of being crazy. I know there’s truly a distinction.

Let’s say the division over… I hope therefore not the cooling it would that problem, it would we’re speaking? No, I say that it’s a sick person, the way is a cross, his desire way goes on the murder, it’s not a normal person, something is wrong with him, understand that and all these distinctions make it work on a normal person, understand what I’m saying?

Perhaps someone who he actually physically feels a physical pleasure from kavod, I don’t know, and a strange advice from ideas getting kavod? Perhaps there’s such a person I don’t know! One can say as a parable, but actually to someone, is he sick because go to a doctor! I don’t know! I don’t think there is such a person I’m not speaking of that person, we have a very important other discussion.

But exactly, a rebbe here, when we speak of middos, it’s very important to speak of normal people. Crazy people, whether the good, a great tzaddik that it is, in the category of an angel, is… one doesn’t speak of that. Category and of an animal, or… not of an animal, we can’t speak of an animal. I understand, but… it’s as deserved.

The purpose of the word, we want to find a word, to be useful for normal people to become better. The purpose of the word, theoretically, if there’s something is a modern breed, is not of our making. Yes, indeed. A restaurant, we work very strongly so. If that… for that is not the book, he should learn in Likutim for that, we’re speaking is a book when taking. Stands, normal people. No, stands, I mean. It’s not for crazy people.

How am I back? Ah, so, let’s say that we’re not speaking of every type of pleasure, someone who has for his friends, I know, that can also be a problem, but one doesn’t speak of that.

Friendship and Mourning – Not Taavah

Instructor:

Also he has much pleasure to have friends, very good. He’s very disturbed and he lost a friend, is also very good. But the one who is broken because his friend died or even his relative, he’s not a baal taavah. In other words, do you understand?

Another bit of a thing, I want to say this therefore. It could be, but the problem is not a baal taavah problem, the problem is another problem. It doesn’t help to use the same word for everything, because then one can’t speak of things. One must use other words for other things, right?

So, that’s not… So, let me say so, I’m holding in the middle, so I divide it into pleasures of the soul and pleasures of the body, true? So things that belong to kavod belong to the soul.

Analysis of Kavod as a Pleasure of the Soul

Kavod Doesn’t Belong to the Body

Instructor:

What do I mean by the soul? I don’t mean the part of the soul that when one dies, when one dies does one still have kavod? I don’t know, actually one has, I don’t know who knows of it, true? But kavod is actually a thing. No, I just want to bring out something with this parable, I want something out… Again, people can have kavod even they are dead, true? No?

Student:

That means no?

Instructor:

Halachah lemaaseh, kibud avos stands “mipnei kevod avosav.” One minute, his body doesn’t have. One minute, I just want to bring out, I want to bring out something that’s very important, because when we speak of pleasures of the body and pleasures of the soul, immediately one starts to think of some mystical souls that fly around. It could also be, but I want to say that it’s even a more simple, a more basic thing, right?

Honor is a Thing That Doesn’t Belong to One’s Body, and This is Not a Physical Pleasure

Honor is a thing that doesn’t belong to one’s body, and this is not a physical pleasure (taanug haguf). That is, when souls in the upper world (olam haelyon) have honor? I don’t know, it says “each one is burned by the canopy of his fellow” (kol echad nichveh mechupaso shel chaveiro – a Talmudic expression), I don’t know, maybe yes, maybe that’s just a parable so the body should understand. Anything is possible. But it’s certain that honor is not a thing that lies on my body, it’s not a thing that is with limitation (tzimtzum). Soon we’ll talk about pleasures (taanugim), pleasures is a thing that one must literally touch, to feel it. Honor, one can even have honor and not know about it, and I don’t have pleasure (hanaah) from it. I’m not talking now about the pleasure.

Questions and Discussion: The Objective Nature of Honor

Student:

That means you don’t have, that’s an objective thing. You need from the other desire (taavah), you take desire and you use desire.

Teacher:

No, no, no, honor is a part of desire. Honor means that the other person thinks highly of me, or the other person is not… But I need to know about it.

Student:

No.

Teacher:

No. No. No. When I honor (mechabed) a person, I am fulfilling the commandment of honoring father and mother (yoshev al mitzvas kibud av va’em), yes? I am honoring Maimonides (Rambam). He doesn’t know about it, he’s long gone, he’s not alive (bechaim). But yes, that is…

Student:

Wait, wait, wait. That’s what people call honor means that.

Teacher:

The Or LeTzion said, one must honor a father even if he has died, our fellow Torah scholars (mechaber talmidei chachamim) even if they don’t know. I laugh through and through.

Student:

No, it’s not for them. It’s for us. It’s for us, that makes our honor great.

Teacher:

No, their honor. Wait, wait, wait. I tell you, no, it could be that it’s not for them. I didn’t say it’s for their benefit (letoeles). We spoke about benefit (toeles), and the benefit is very limited. When is… This is the honor not of me, the honor of the Rambam, the honor of my father. When I say… It says my father died, a pure one… One doesn’t say any name or anything like that, one honors him. You ask, does he get tickled about that? No. But what does it matter? I have a positive commandment (aseh) from it.

That’s a different question, that’s already relevant to desire. That’s already the desire, right? When they call me up for an aliyah (being called up to the Torah) and I’m not there, do I have honor? There I also want to have pleasure, that’s a second level. But that’s a second thing.

Student:

It’s not a second thing. Honor for the… We already spoke about this.

Teacher:

But I want to tell you another thing. Honor is not…

Honor Lies with the Other Person – The Aristotelian Argument

Student:

No, no, that’s how it goes. Honor means that other people respect you.

Teacher:

For that the Rambam says, Aristotle says in the Ethics. I want to tell you, that’s actually the problem with honor. That’s actually the problem with honor, let’s be straight. That’s actually the problem with honor. We spoke earlier…

Understand that one makes a memorial meal (yahrtzeit seudah) and for a great thing for a person who has passed away (niftar gevoren), one makes a great… Wait, wait, wait. I don’t need to understand. For that very reason honor is not a thing that a person should chase after. They learned… Everything is not the ultimate purpose (tachlis). That’s not the discussion now. But there is an investigation (chakirah), another investigation, not the investigation that we’re learning today. What is the ultimate purpose? What is the best thing for a person to chase after? What is the end thing, the final goal, the best thing?

And there is a possibility (tzad) that it’s honor. Because there are many people for whom that’s actually what they chase after their whole life. First of all there is a possibility that it’s desire, and we need to talk about why it’s not desire. Okay. And afterwards there is a possibility that it’s honor. And they say why can’t it be honor? Because honor is not dependent on you, not dependent on you (talui beyadcha). There can be a righteous person (tzaddik) and not have honor, the honor lies with the other person. It would be very funny if the best thing for a person should be in the hands of other people. Therefore we know that honor is not the ultimate perfection (tachlis hashleimus). It’s a good thing, but not the best thing. The best thing must be a thing that belongs to you. But honor, the thing belongs to the other person, certainly.

Distinction Between Honor and the Feeling of Honor

Teacher:

Honor doesn’t mean that I get tickled, that’s a sort of desire. I’m not saying it has to do with honor, I know about it, but honor is even if I know already. Honor is the meaning, understand me the simple thing that this is what you’ll come to. I’m telling you spiritual matters (inyonim ruchaniyim), understand me, things that are not about this piece of flesh here that has some pleasure. The person has a pleasure. Who is the person? A question (kushya) lies, who is he?

Therefore the matter turns to he has a soul (neshamah). Do you get it? Therefore we say that we honor his soul. Actually that’s the relationship (hisyachus) to the soul, to receive (mekabel zein) honor from him. Do you get it?

I’m not saying I’m talking about the person. Who is the person? The person, when I talk about you, I don’t mean only you and your body. That’s one level of you. I also mean the one who is honored (mechubbad). Whom does one honor? Even when you are indeed here, and I honor your… If I had a button that makes you feel in your brain, I don’t know what, the same thing that you feel when I give you honor, that’s still not honor. That’s only the feeling of honor. Honor is what I am honoring. Whom am I honoring? That you ask correctly the question. Whom am I honoring?

I can give you food, I give food for your body, very good. But whom am I honoring when I give honor? The Torah says, the soul (nefesh). Therefore, that’s one of the things that we spoke here about a person’s soul. We speak this way, I don’t know if it makes sense. The sense that you’re asking is because it’s very hard for us to grasp this, because it’s an abstract thing (davar mufshat), no one has seen a soul. But when you see that we talk about honor, and it pains us that people are not so honored, and we say, “No, we give him honor.” Someone says, “He’s not here, what kind of honor lies here?” I’m not giving him any honor. That’s true, he gives honor to his soul. How that is, that’s a philosophical investigation. How is he here, he knows about it, it’s his problem. But soul means the sort of thing that receives honor. One level of soul. I’m not saying that’s the greatest level of soul.

Questions and Discussion: The Nature of Receiving Honor

Student:

The same thing, he receives honor, he is honored. Receiving doesn’t mean… In your head, receiving means only physical.

Teacher:

Receiving doesn’t mean only physical. You see, honor. I didn’t say it’s a virtue (maalah). If someone is not here… It’s a virtue! It’s a virtue from the Book of Character Traits (Sefer HaMaddos – part of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah). What is the virtue? I don’t know, I hold that it’s a good thing. Most people have.

There’s another thing, you can leave him alone, you can say, he should give the father’s number, and we’ll talk with him. He will honor his father. The father is proud of him, he’s not going to tell him anything.

I don’t know, I hold that the same thing, I hold that you have a point.

What do I give him? What do I give him?

Pleasure of the Soul, Honor, and Love of Wisdom: Three Types of Pleasures

Questions and Discussion: Honor for a Deceased Person

Student: What is the virtue of it? It’s a virtue. It’s a virtue on the soul. That’s the virtue. What is the virtue?

Teacher: I don’t know. I hold that it’s a good thing. Most people hold so.

You can’t put your finger on a place. You can’t say that he says the father’s name so they’ll honor him. They’ll honor the father. The father is not in the world.

Like all other things that you don’t grasp what you’re saying.

Student: What does it matter to me? What does it matter to me?

Teacher: Giving is not… Very good. One gives him honor, but not for his body, rather for his soul, for his soul. That’s the main part that speaks already.

Student: But he doesn’t know. How does he receive it?

Teacher: Receiving is not only a thing that you must know that you receive. He receives it. He receives the honor. You can’t… One doesn’t need to know. Knowing is another thing. What comes in knowing here?

Student: A person can receive something and not know that he receives it?

Teacher: Yes. Yes. Even money you can receive and not know, true?

Student: If I have money and I never knew, I didn’t receive it.

Critique of the Materialistic View

Teacher: You know what? I’m not going to stay here… I’m not going to stay here stuck. You are stuck in a very strict subjective materialistic view, which is actually how most people are stuck. But the fact is that most people don’t conduct themselves like you, true? You yourself admit that the world is completely crazy. They do indeed give honor to people who don’t know that they conduct themselves, true? Not about the little Torah that is for us. It’s not for us, it’s for him.

Student: Does it occur to you?

Teacher: No, it’s for him.

Student: Or by the way, they hold that he knows. That’s an answer.

Teacher: He knows actually so. The gentiles who don’t believe in souls know nothing. They have no respect. They throw him in a hole, they put flowers on him, they put…

Student: Rabbis, rabbis, that’s a good question. I want to tell you a few words.

Honor is a Pleasure of the Soul

Teacher: It’s not a pleasure.

Student: No, it is indeed a pleasure.

Teacher: No, I say that it is.

Student: I told you that it’s not. I want to speak here the Torah should bring out that they say that soul, honor is a pleasure of the soul. You can’t disagree that it means that the soul has a pleasure.

Teacher: It’s a different sort of pleasure.

Student: As you said that it’s a different sort of pleasure.

Teacher: No, it is indeed a pleasure.

Student: I said that it’s a pleasure. He shows indeed that the soul means house, the soul receives the pleasure. Pleasure doesn’t mean only that it scratches me, that’s pleasure. It also means that I receive honor. That’s a sort of pleasure, it’s a different sort.

You are very stuck, you are very stuck, I can have no doubt about this, because you are very stuck in a certain definition of what pleasure means and what receiving means. I don’t agree with the two things, and not only I don’t agree, the whole world doesn’t agree.

But you hold that it’s an answer, a great difficulty, or a difficulty that is very funny, that the soul feels the poison of the upper world, or another difficulty, that they don’t mean the other person, they only mean themselves. Both things are not what they say, it’s only your answer that you say, I can only that remains for me to talk about this now.

Both things are not what they say. People do say such mystical things, but even if they say, let’s say, one must clarify that it’s not so. Then one must at least make a reality that he doesn’t give.

Example of Self-Sacrifice for Honor

I need to continue further. Not only that, understand, not only that, that people in their lives sacrifice themselves to receive honor, understand? Why does a person die in war? He’s going to receive honor. Yes? He dies, he has a main business, he’s not going to die, he sacrifices himself, he’s going to receive honor. He’s going to receive honor when he’s not there. What is he going to do? Honor doesn’t need to be there.

That’s the answer, and that’s very materialistic, if you are according to instant gratification to say, I imagine now that that’s the honor that I’m going to receive, but that’s not true. When you tell him now, he does it to do. He does it because he has honor, he goes honor, and honor is forever and ever. Okay, not forever, people should remember etc.

If one says may his name and memory be erased (yimach shemo vezichro), one doesn’t mention the name of that person, he is disturbed, he can’t have any pleasure to do, to mention the name or not. What is the difference? He didn’t do it.

The Soul is Broader Than the Body

Honor is about his soul, not about him that he lived here in body. A soul is a much broader thing. You can say, if you want to give words, mystical words, to say, there are worlds, our brethren the house of Israel, that has no minute, that has no minute. Body is only, as we speak of me, there I am. Wherever you find the footsteps of your forefathers (kol makom she’atah motzei raglei avosecha), that means there I am. Not in body, in soul.

What does in soul mean? In soul means that our imagination has a problem. That’s what I want to say, our imagination. When one says soul, like another piece of body that one can’t see, that it flies around. No, soul means that. That’s a spiritual thing. A spiritual thing is wind, poof. An abstract thing, it’s a thing, it’s a concept, it’s not… A concept is also not the good word. It’s a different sort of thing, and it’s a different sort of pleasure. What is the pleasure there?

Honor as a Higher Level Than Desire

There are people who love honor very much, but when they speak of this sort of pleasure it’s not the same thing. That’s honor, but honor is still not the ultimate perfection. I will say, honor is still a whole… The whole obligatory thing to be one who is engaged in honor is better than desire, truly, certainly, because one who has no honor only desires, it’s more human to be a pursuer of honor than to be a pursuer of desire.

One Must Forgo Desires for Honor

And it’s even true that one must forgo many desires for honor, except in America where one can win the contest of eating the most frankfurters at once. But how he has he doesn’t have real honor, yes? So usually one must give up a bit of desires to receive honor.

Yes, for those days he makes uncomfortable, he is small. Must he perhaps give up a desire? Yes.

Example of a President

The truth is that our president tries, he tries very hard to show that he doesn’t need to, but even if he needs to, he needs to get up in the morning, that means he can’t sleep when he wants. Even let’s say he does sleep until twelve o’clock, somewhere he needs to get up, he’s not a young man, he has a certain responsibility.

He can’t eat, what can’t he eat? The truth is that, let’s not talk politics, but the truth is that one who is a leader of a country has no taste in eating anyway, it’s not possible. He has on his head so many real things, let’s say he means only himself, there’s no difference, he eats something. If he takes once a hot cigar it’s a pleasure for him, he has no life of desire. Life of desire live those who go to the night clubs.

A politician is… That’s the difference, the person who seeks honor prefers honor, it’s a different choice in life. He is a pursuer of honor, he is not a pursuer of desire. A pursuer of desire has better ways of finding desires than to be a politician or to be a rabbi or any of these things.

Student: What?

Teacher: Eh, it’s not a proof, I said, it’s an exception, there’s always an exception. But let’s talk about normal things.

Ethics of Kings – The Advice of Proverbs

Yes, it’s more complicated than that, there are many kings who are, actually for that there is ethics of kings, yes, in the Book of Proverbs (Sefer Mishlei) one speaks of this, all kings drank wine, princes drank beer (roznim o shechar). That’s not relevant to a servant of God, he says this verse, he says, if you’re already a king, can you still be a glutton too? You can be a bad king.

Indeed, people think, the king, he can order as many Big Macs as he wants. I didn’t hire my president so he should order as many Big Macs as he wants. He can’t pay for it, he can make it cheaper for that, it’s not worth it. No, it’s not that it’s not worth it, you want honor (kavod), don’t do that.

This is what Mishlei, the advice of Mishlei is not just that you’re going to go to Gehinnom, you’ll be a bad king, you’ll lose your kingdom, you won’t have any honor in the eyes of the people. “Al lemelachim Lemuel al lemelachim sheto yayin velaroznim ei shechar” [It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes to drink beer], there’s a title in women, one thinks it’s not an important thing, but even the king, even physically, even the honor of a good king is a contradiction to the life of pleasures of the king.

Love of Wisdom – A Completely Different Type of Pleasure

So that’s one thing. Then we spoke about love of wisdom (ahavat hachochma). This is very important to grasp, because otherwise one thinks it’s the same thing. But first I made clear, when we say abstinence (prishut) we don’t mean not having any pleasure at all, we mean a certain type of pleasure which is called physical pleasure (taanug haguf).

The Pleasure of Learning Is Not Physical Pleasure

And I’ll explain to you even better, that the other pleasures, let’s say someone loves to learn, a materialist comes and he says, okay, so everyone has something tickling in his brain, a dopamine, yours comes from learning. It’s not that, because learning one doesn’t have in the brain, learning one learns with the intellect (sechel). Okay?

What do I mean by that? Further, I don’t need to mean any magical thing. The brain is a physical thing, the intellect is not a physical thing. It could be that the brain lies, the intellect lies in the brain. I’m not saying that the soul (neshama) lies in the brain, it needs to have the brain in order to be able to work. I’m not saying that when one is dead one can perhaps without it, perhaps an angel, but a person who lives a body needs to be healthy, his body, he needs to be able to think and so on.

The Pleasure of a Good Sevara Is a Different Type

But the pleasure, this is very clear, and people don’t grasp this, the pleasure that one has from a good sevara (logical argument) is not true that it’s the same type of thing as the pleasure that one has from a good piece of kugel. Both are, and therefore I say that it’s not a contradiction, it’s only a contradiction in time or a contradiction in focus, a person can’t focus on two things at once.

But it’s not a contradiction that either you have this pleasure or you have that pleasure, as it says in certain Hasidic books, and it’s not true. But if you describe both in a physical manner, as if it’s the same thing, then there is a contradiction. It’s not the same type of thing, because just as I made the parable of honor, just as Yotam brought intellect, who is it that enjoys the sevara? Who is it? Your taste buds? No. Your, your, what? What is it?

Student: Okay, correct, but it’s a different person entirely.

Teacher: Correct, correct, from that it’s a contradiction. I say that it’s a contradiction in time. No, one feels it in the soul (nefesh).

“It Clicks” – The Intellectual Pleasure

One must understand it, a person enjoyed a good shiur, the shiur is only he felt good, but that’s the pleasure of the shiur. That’s only so that one should be able to use the numbers at the shiur. Yes, whatever. The enjoyment is that something clicks. Yes, one says it clicks, give a click. What is giving a click? By eating nothing clicks. I don’t know where, and the satisfaction is more complicated.

But let’s talk about the specific satisfaction. It clicks, yes? He cries to him Moshe, it clicks. The click is beautiful. The click is in the intellect itself, yes? There was a puzzle here, but someone didn’t have any question, he doesn’t enjoy it. Yes, you can’t give to someone who doesn’t have the desire. He perhaps has a question, the question is also an intellectual question, it doesn’t fit. What does one do with the topic? Ah, now it fits. It became complete, it became connected, it clicked. What is the click?

Student: It’s a different person, it’s a different subject, nothing more.

Teacher: It’s a different type of thing. It’s nothing more. No, it’s not, it’s not a physical thing. No, it’s not, it’s not. No one has ever…

Critique of the “Chemicals” Theory

By the way, the four theories one has never seen, I believe. First of all, one minute, one minute, no difference. I want to say two things. I mean that I want to say very truthfully. First of all, all these chemicals that you’re talking about, no one has ever explicitly been that they have to do with pleasure. It’s just a half-theory, he learns from the psychology I can say, he doesn’t know, he’s looking, he sees. It’s not true, no one knows that it’s true. First of all, even what that says, either yes or no, no one knows. Yes, one doesn’t know, it’s a sevara, a half-sevara that one thinks, and everyone buys it because we are materialistic, because we have difficulty imagining what a spiritual pleasure means, and what even a spiritual illness means.

A Sick Soul Is Not Just Imbalanced Chemicals

He doesn’t have normal pleasures there, he’s a sick soul (choleh hanefesh). A sick soul doesn’t mean that he has a chemical that is imbalanced. It could be that a sick soul also has imbalanced chemicals, I’m not saying he doesn’t have to do with it. It’s certainly true that a person, for this one doesn’t need to be a great awakener, one has always known that a person who drinks too much wine can’t think straight at that moment, but that means that he thinks crooked, don’t come drink wine.

It’s because of the other things, because a person is a body, in order that he should be able to have access to his intellect, he should be able to use his intellect, he needs to be healthy, he needs to be sustained, he needs even to be satisfied, he needs many things, pleasantness, external conditions.

The Spiritual Pain of Not Knowing

But the click of intellect, even the opposite, it hurts him, he can’t sleep because he doesn’t have any books. He can’t actually sleep physically, let’s say, if there is such a person, he can’t sleep because something is bothering him. But how is it bothering him? One asks the doctors, yes, where does it hurt you?

Abstinence and Desires: Analysis of the Five Senses

The Body as a Condition for Intellect – But Not the Intellect Itself

Teacher:

But that still doesn’t mean that thinking crooked comes from not drinking wine. It’s two different things, because a person is a body. In order that he should be able to access his intellect, in order that he should be able to use his intellect he needs to be healthy, he needs to be a vessel prepared for work, he needs to be satisfied, he needs many things, external conditions. But the click of intellect, when he has pains, it hurts him, he can’t sleep because he doesn’t have any book, he can’t actually sleep, physically let’s say, if there’s a person that he can’t sleep because something is bothering him. But where is it bothering him? The doctor asks, yes, “Where does it hurt you?” You feel it with your when you say “where does it hurt you?” In your back, in your head, it doesn’t hurt in your head. I don’t know if one has already gotten a physical headache from thinking too much, but I mean that there is such a thing, it’s an exercise or something. But where does it hurt you?

You don’t feel it with the head, you feel it with the body. Not you feel it with the head, the head, nothing, in the head one can feel nothing, except for a headache, and the brain has literally no nerves, it can’t be that you feel something there. So, when one feels in the connections with the head, let’s say it’s perhaps still physical in this there’s no difference, but not the neurons, the neurons is not things that feel. The neurons is only a work. I don’t want to go into this, I just want to say the simple thing conversely, I don’t want to say any investigations that I don’t know enough.

What I want to tell you is that the simple question, where do you feel the pain of your not understanding and the pleasure of yes understanding? Where do you feel that?

A normal person, except for people who have been taught various false beliefs, that one must say neurons with things that no one knows what that means, the answer is, I feel it in my intellect. Where is your intellect? I don’t know where the intellect goes in strongly, I don’t know, it remains. You don’t feel it in the feet, you don’t feel it in the feet, you also don’t feel it in the head. No, you don’t feel anything at all in the head. Again, feeling one still feels with the eyes, “einai ra’u” [my eyes have seen], I don’t know what, it’s a parable. I’m not saying that it’s not influential, you can feel it also in your heart, because if you’re a person that you’re connected with this your heart will beat faster. But not that, it doesn’t consist of that. It consists of a feeling in the intellect. Intellect is a part of the soul (chelek hanefesh), a new part that you haven’t heard of yet, we already spoke in chapter one, and it’s a new part, the power of understanding (koach hahaskala). A person has such a power. You want to know if one can have this power without a body? Perhaps one can’t, perhaps one can yes. That’s already investigations of the immortality of the soul (hasharat hanefesh) and so on, but it’s certain that it’s not a thing that one does with the body, it’s a thing that one does with the intellect. Therefore (mimeilah), there is a pleasure there, but the pleasure is not even, it’s only a parable to the pleasure.

Intellectual Pleasure vs. Physical Pleasure – Only a Parable

Truly, truly, I’m only saying it in this context, I need to have it clear, so that one should know clearly. One says a parable, in Torah there is a parable to bread and wine (lechem veyayin), but it’s only a parable, it’s not the same person, it’s not the same part in a person, let’s say, not the same person, not the same part in a person that enjoys physical bread enjoys the bread that is the parable for the Torah. It’s a different type of person, one can use the same words, because we don’t have enough words, one uses the same word “pleasure” (taanug).

The truth is, as the Rambam says in Laws of Repentance (Hilchot Teshuva), both are pleasure in the sense that it’s tasty, both are indeed tasty, it’s much more tasty, as it says in the introduction to the Commentary on the Mishna (Hakdama l’Peirush HaMishnayot), it’s hard to explain to a person a different type of taste, the parable of a blind person, the difference in the introduction to… sorry, it’s not mine to the previous part. But it’s still not the same thing, and therefore, very clearly, that when we talk about, when we talk about pleasures, we’re talking about physical pleasures (taanugei haguf), and physical pleasures doesn’t mean everything that is not true, it’s a bit not true, because someone who doesn’t believe in the soul needs to say the simple words, he needs to pretend that it’s true, but it’s a different thing. We’re only talking about physical pleasures, very simply.

Honor – A Social Pleasure

Okay, my ink has finished? No, not finished. Honor (kavod), for example, is a pleasure from the part of the soul that receives honor (mekabel kavod). It’s not the same part, it’s a social thing. Honor, let’s say the difference from pride and learning a chord, honor is still as a social thing, honor has to do with your social body, you belong to other people, they think of you, they don’t think of you, they honor you (mechabed), they disgrace you (mezalzel). The intellect, I don’t know, the intellect is a thing that belongs to you, it’s not what that one thinks of you, it’s what you yourself understand. You can understand a relation of the intellect and the thing understood (davar hamuskal), the thing that you understand, it’s the thing of cleaving to the thing understood (devekut b’davar hamuskal), but it’s not… it’s not for society, for that it’s better, one can’t take it away, yes? What the Rambam says: “yihyu lecha levadecha v’ein lazarim itach” [they shall be for you alone and not for strangers with you], yes? All honor, for the mitzvot that we do in the aspect of honor (bechinat kavod), it doesn’t belong to you, but the wisdom belongs to you alone. That’s the difference, for that it’s a different type of part of the soul, it’s a different type of thing, not just the same, not everything is one soul, there are parts of the soul (chalakei hanefesh), for that you can see the difference here.

Analysis of the Five Senses: Which Are Possessors of Desire?

But in any case (al kol panim), it’s still not enough to say that abstinence (prishut), the character trait (midat)… regarding desires (legabei taavot), is only about physical pleasures. Why? Because it’s noted an interesting thing: that not all physical pleasures are spoken about regarding this, it needs to be divided… there needs to be something more here about this dividing, and one can also in an interesting way divide it.

All physical pleasures are based on… what are they called? Five senses (chamesh chushim), yes. The body connects itself with the external world in five different ways, which are called five senses: sight (re’iya), hearing (shemia), smell (rei’ach), taste (ta’am), touch (mishush). Right? Five senses.

So let’s go through all of them, and think which of them are possessors of desire (baalei taavot), and can… here I also have a Hasidic story about this. There is… the Baal HaTanya [the author of the book Tanya, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi]… we learn Aristotle in chapter… Hasidic stories in chapter Aristotle they’re called.

The Sense of Smell – Not a Possessor of Desire

The Baal HaTanya, someone came and brought a tobacco box… yes? Do you know the story? But the Baal HaTanya said he didn’t like it, that he tore it up, buried the tobacco, and he made from it a mirror so he could see his tefillin, he wasn’t afraid of the great sin (aveira) to look in a mirror, because it’s a mitzvah… and he said that he doesn’t understand, one of the people who is not a possessor of desire, must one also make for a possessor of desire? That the sense of smell is not a possessor of desire, the people who smell tobacco all day are educated (mechanech) from this to become for a possessor of desire… so he said.

That the investigation of this shiur, of the next piece of this shiur, is if the Baal HaTanya is correct.

Discussion: The Sense of Smell and Desire

Student:

Or exactly the opposite, the Rambam… he says why he doesn’t speak of tobacco, smelling he can yes… ah. Not. A nu? It’s not a desire.

Teacher:

Because it’s an indecent thing (ervat davar), about that. It’s not a desire.

Student:

Because it’s an indecent thing.

Teacher:

Ah, it’s an indecent thing. It’s Torah is about that.

Student:

Yes, but it’s not… let’s talk about that.

Teacher:

Yes. But the soul enjoys it without effort (haneshama neheneit mimenu belo yegia), there is such a language in the Gemara, but in any case, “davar shehaneshama neheneit mimenu” [a thing from which the soul enjoys], yes? The soul has enjoyment. It doesn’t mean the soul like the power, it means something a… in any case, what one sees but from the places is, I haven’t heard, let’s say clearly, I’ve never heard a mussar preacher should speak against a person who smells too much spices (besamim). There isn’t such a thing today.

And there’s the opposite, there are things we’re very strict about regarding bad smells, yes? More than in the times of the Gemara, when there was a whole issue about reciting Shema – how one couldn’t say Shema. Today everywhere smells good, I mean, neutral let’s say, not necessarily good, but it smells good everywhere. I think that’s the reason we don’t walk upright in fragrances, because it smells good. Yes, except for New York, there you really need fragrances. Holy city. But aside from that, we don’t walk upright in this. But even so, you don’t find that there should be some desire, a matter of desire in this. I haven’t found it, at least. Interesting thing.

Sense of Sight – Also Not a Simple Desire

Okay, this is already an interesting thing. I need to know first other things. What about looking at things? Sight. I know it says “and you shall not stray after your hearts and after your eyes,” but that doesn’t mean the matter is not to look. It says in Berachos “desire for the eyes,” and so on. The first time desire is mentioned is for the eyes. Yes, but that doesn’t mean the problem is the looking. Let’s say, the looking brings to a thing that… Let’s ask another question. King David spoke against watching movies, but he meant dirty movies, which isn’t a pleasure from the eyes, it’s not the eyes that’s the pleasure from it, it’s something else the pleasure from it, right? But let’s say this way, no no, let’s say this way, good, but it’s not a matter of the eyes. Let’s say the eyes are incidentally here, the eyes serve here. Let’s say there’s someone who has a desire to look at beautiful paintings. Okay, is it a mitzvah? Let’s say someone has… yes. If you say beautiful paintings, there’s a Rambam.

Student:

Master of the World, that ruling is from the Master of the World. The Almighty is your rabbi, “every pleasant and good thing.”

Teacher:

Beautiful, no?

Student:

Yes.

Teacher:

You write that one must have pleasure from the Almighty.

Discussion: Beauty of Creation and Desire

Teacher:

What I want to say is, let’s say there’s a Jew who very much likes to travel to beautiful places, or even he likes to watch beautiful movies. Not movies of filth, but movies of art. Something beautiful… what came out beauty?

Student:

Very much.

Teacher:

Yes, let’s say. Let’s say it’s beautiful. But there are people who make beautiful movies, it’s made to bring out beauty. He goes a lot, he looks a lot, he goes, he travels to the mountains, he stands to look, he’s tremendously amazed at the beauty of creation. He makes a blessing on this. Okay, a blessing is on things that from the Tanya one really goes. Except for one thing, where there’s no blessing, I imagine, I don’t know. But aside from that he makes a blessing. You can’t say he’s not a baal taavah.

Student:

There are people who don’t hold of this. There are… I once heard that the Skverer Rebbe went to see beautiful things.

Teacher:

He’s not the only one.

Student:

There are many stories about great Torah scholars.

Teacher:

Certain ones.

Student:

Depends which.

Teacher:

There are other desires.

Student:

King David.

Teacher:

King David wrote Psalms about this.

Student:

“Bless my soul.”

Teacher:

“Bless my soul,” I brought “Bless my soul.”

Student:

But there are others. Have you ever heard a criticism about this?

Teacher:

No one, no.

Student:

But it’s true that the Chernobyl Rebbe very much didn’t come out with this.

Teacher:

Ah, they hang pictures in the corridor. They have pleasure being in the pictures.

Student:

I heard from him a talk in camp, in Camp Kadilac.

Teacher:

That’s not for beauty, that’s another desire.

Student:

That’s part of the desire.

Teacher:

I don’t know which desire that is.

Student:

What about Chassidic Jews?

Teacher:

They all travel.

Student:

But not in order to… I used to always ask you, why isn’t there a custom to simply travel to see beautiful things? You have arts here, you have beauty of creation itself.

Teacher:

That’s a great mitzvah. I haven’t seen that the rebbes, the Chassidic rebbes, should tell the young men which movies to watch because they’re very beautiful.

Student:

On a thought, seemingly I’m not obligated in this thing.

Teacher:

Okay, let’s say. Let’s say, we’re sitting. The rebbe makes it that Bismarck should be that… the rebbe acts as if he doesn’t care. He acts. It’s true. In any case, there’s a difference in this. Perhaps, the truth is, there’s a virtue that everyone loves beauty, because beauty is “happy is the people that has it thus, happy is the people whose God is Hashem.” I’ll show it. But those who aren’t, and simply really have my city.

Sense of Taste and Sense of Touch: The True Senses of Desire

Beauty and Aesthetics: A Brief Note

Teacher:

From fear, one is afraid one will stumble in more good things. Okay, let’s say, let’s say those who are sitting. The rebbe makes it that the beis medrash should be dirty. The rebbe acts as if he doesn’t care. The truth, but in short, there’s a difference about this. The true people of understanding all love beauty, because beauty is a praise of God’s name, there’s no doubt. But those who aren’t, they’re simple, really have less, it’s not a virtue. And here everyone agrees, understand?

The Principle of the Golden Mean: Too Much of a Good Thing

Teacher:

But in any case, let’s say there’s a thing of too much. Can there be too much? It’s neglect of Torah study, it’s too much. But even if it’s too much, let’s say everything is in the golden mean. Okay, let’s say he’s too much, he only travels on trips, he doesn’t learn a single minute a day. Let’s say someone learns too much, he neglects the entire community. Let’s say someone looks too much at such things. It could be it’s a deficiency, it could be it takes away from a certain measure. But the measure isn’t the measure of desire, it’s another measure. I know, neglect of Torah study perhaps, I don’t know.

Neglect of Torah study is a “catch-all phrase.” I don’t know when you don’t want to answer something, you say it’s neglect of Torah study. One asks him, what about women? “Ah, neglect of Torah study.” Ah, sitting with scoffers. Sitting with scoffers, very good.

Summary: Which Senses Are Masters of Desire?

Sense of Sight: The Eye Is Not a Master of Desire

Teacher:

In any case, “beautiful music,” yes? This is sense of sight, we didn’t talk about this. There’s the approach that sense of sight is a master of desire. Sense of sight brings to many desires, it’s true. Sense of smell can also bring desires.

Student:

Ah, very good.

Teacher:

Sense of smell, one may not smell fragrances of idolatry, the same way. One doesn’t make a blessing anymore, true? So says the Rambam. The Rambam rules thus as Jewish law, one doesn’t make a blessing on fragrances of idolatry. There’s a great dispute which exactly when he means. In any case, there’s such a thing, certainly if it arouses impurity not, yes? But not the smell is the problem, but what it brings to.

The same thing sight. But sight is not a master of desire. The eye is not a master of desire. The Baal HaTanya says that only the nose is not a master of desire. The eye is not a master of desire. The eye loves to look at beautiful things, a person’s eye loves to see beautiful things. There’s a pleasure to see beautiful things, it’s a pleasure, true. But it’s not a desire, it’s a simpler desire. I don’t know.

Sense of Hearing: Music and a Woman’s Voice

Teacher:

The same thing the ear. What does one do with someone who says he’s a great baal taavah, he listens to beautiful music all day? Not only the preachers, every Chassidic Jew came out music. If there’s one who didn’t? Very good.

The same thing, the scent of a woman, the sight of a woman, all these things are a problem, but not about the voice, but about the woman. Right? If one could separate you, if someone tells you “listen, I hear that the voice is not arousing,” that’s a real reality, I mean it’s not a personal reality. No difference. Let’s say it’s A.I. that speaks, or it’s a boy who just became, no difference. I mean you’ll agree that even when it’s forbidden, it’s not the voice that’s the problem.

Someone who only listens to music, is another question. No, there are other questions in music. Perhaps it’s remembrance of the destruction of the Temple, perhaps it’s neglect of Torah study, perhaps it arouses desires, we’ll talk about this. But let’s say the essential pleasure…

Student:

Yes, exactly.

The Difference Between Pleasure and Desire

Teacher:

But the essential pleasure, let’s talk, again, you said that the problem of desire is pleasure, not a proper pleasure. It’s the pleasure, yes? The word pleasure, the enjoyment. Therefore this isn’t the pleasure of… not the pleasure of desires. The pleasure that stands against desires, speaks of pleasures of the body. The pleasures of the body, as everyone knows, is not a pleasure of the soul. Soul is when one learns, or when one is angry, or rage, other things are pleasures of the soul.

Pleasure from beautiful music, or from beautiful scenery, from beautiful eyes or ears, is not a pleasure of desire. It’s another pleasure, perhaps another pleasure, but it’s not desire. Interesting, right? Smelling also not. So we remain almost with nothing.

Student:

Sometimes one eats together.

Teacher:

Speaking? Speaking we already talked about earlier. Very good.

The Two Remaining Senses: Taste and Touch

Teacher:

So it comes out, it comes out, gentlemen, it comes out, let’s go to the essential senses, because the way a body is divided is through senses, because that’s the connection to the body. So, we remain sight, hearing, smell, no pleasure. Other pleasure. We remain with only two senses which are taste and touch. Amazed? A person has two more senses, a sense of taste…

Student:

One minute, one minute, soon no one will come to all the things you’re saying, I’ll see everything, I just want to arrive exactly, I want to understand it exactly.

Teacher:

Okay, very good.

Sense of Taste: A Deeper Analysis

Taste Is Not the Main Desire

Teacher:

So seemingly, let’s talk about sense of taste. Sense of taste seemingly is the thing that usually one talks about enjoying kugel or pizza, when it’s in Lakewood it’s pizza, here it’s kugel, in any case, it’s the same thing. There is an aspect of desire there, and usually when one talks about desire one talks about a thing that has a taste. I want to tell you an interesting thing. Not relevant.

Student:

Not absurd, not abstracted.

Teacher:

Wait, not abstracted. No, not abstracted I mean, one narrows down. One must cut, I divide within, one divides, yes, divide. Yes?

Halachic Proof: Fasting and Tasting

Teacher:

But first of all, after all, it says… it says in Jewish law… it says in Jewish law, that you have a fast. Fast, fast is the translation abstinence, yes? One separates from eating.

Student:

With tasting, not necessary, also, also one may with the fast taste food.

Teacher:

Understand?

Student:

One may taste food. Questions are decided…

Teacher:

One may taste, taste, with a fast one may. Even perhaps even Yom Kippur, I don’t know, that’s already rabbinic law… but in any case one may taste, yes?

Student:

One may taste food.

Teacher:

Yes.

Taste Is a Type of Knowledge

Teacher:

And let’s say even more. There are differences between people how strongly they taste their food. Not how much they eat, how much they love to eat. There’s one person who is called a connoisseur, true?

Student:

One minute, I divide with you.

Teacher:

Listen.

Student:

Very good.

Teacher:

The… taste is essentially a type of knowledge. Because there’s a person who understands better, and he tastes something. When he eats something, he’s more discerning of the taste: this is sugar… a bit sweet and a bit… and he drinks good wine and he drinks a bit… one may not drink a lot, true? Because then one loses the taste.

The Contradiction Between Desire and Taste

Teacher:

It’s even a contradiction, desire with taste is a contradiction. One who should be a good taster of food, it could be he even needs to spit out, as one sees at tastings. Or he needs to drink little and stands, and really a second drinks stands each thing, or it’s a lick.

Yes? Very good.

Animals Don’t Have Taste

Teacher:

There’s the taste of food, and the taste of food is really, first of all in itself a human thing, true? But an animal doesn’t taste food. Do you know that no animal has taste in food? Except… remember the story of the cow, when the Rizhiner said that my father-in-law… my horse also didn’t talk about fifty days…

He also has no taste in food.

Student:

Ah, the snake has no taste in food, because he has taste really from minimum. If he eats, makes from dust his appetite, but, has…

Teacher:

Even the junk food they eat…

Student:

Listen, an animal… I speak to an animal. Selection by an animal…

Teacher:

No…

Student:

No, they have food they eat, but not, but not, but not the… have you ever seen a cat stands and he…

Teacher:

He has no connoisseur, he has no connoisseur!

Student:

No. A thing that disgusts you, it’s a taste, it doesn’t taste good to you, you don’t want it, you don’t want to have it, it’s not your thing, you have no pleasure from it, you have no enjoyment from it, it’s not your thing.

Against Extreme Abstinence in Eating

Teacher:

But there’s a thing that disgusts you, it’s a taste, it doesn’t taste good to you, you don’t want it, you don’t want to have it, it’s not your thing, you have no pleasure from it, you have no enjoyment from it, it’s not your thing. When one speaks against desire, one doesn’t say “eat quickly without taste.” There are people who say this, there’s a dispute among halachic authorities about this, but it’s not true.

I saw, Reb Asher’l’s responsum I saw this week in a collection, he says that someone asked him why he brought food, he says it’s not good until everything and should bring it back, something like that. He told him that it’s one… I said, you know what it says in the writings of the Arizal, that one cannot derive pleasure from eating with… it’s not good.

I’m not saying there isn’t something one can interpret, there’s a difference. But so there’s a path, this is one path, this is another path of normal people. There’s someone who has given in to his desire, eats just, doesn’t eat just. In any case, this is certain that when one speaks against desire, one doesn’t speak that one should eat quickly and it should be like a glutton. One should eat the opposite, everyone agrees that one must eat.

The Crazy People and Eating

The crazy people are, yes, all those who speak against eating. There are such people, it’s true, they sound weird. That’s the custom, as someone said, “My animal also eats, I also give it food.” I don’t know, it’s really for him. But again, it’s an aspect, it’s not that, it’s not what I mean that this is eating. I mean that even someone who doesn’t eat, not necessarily, he eats quickly, he can’t get any taste at all.

It says that one must indeed eat, one should eat well with pleasure.

Conclusion Regarding the Sense of Taste

Teacher:

In any case, I just want to bring out the distinction. I’m not saying, when I say all these distinctions, it doesn’t mean that it’s entirely good. There’s also too much in this, because there can be too much in this. There’s also lowliness in a certain way it’s worse. But I’m not talking about that, I’m only talking about when we speak about the disgrace of desire and the topic of desire and the true disgrace of desire, we’re not talking about the sense of taste.

You thought that the sense of taste would be a good candidate, we’re not talking about it. A bit close, I’m not saying closer to the sense of taste, but we’re not talking about the taste within taste. What are we talking about? Yes, there must be taste, because without concern, taste is actually only a certain part of the sense of touch. It’s called taste.

The Sense of Touch: The True Sense of Desire

Teacher:

What are we talking about? Yes, is it the sense of touch? Good morning. We’re talking about what the Rambam includes… One minute, here the Rambam comes from here, I’m backwards. They can be backwards, I want to explain it to you, you don’t grasp what he’s saying, you think that the sense of touch means I have a point and this. They mean a very precise thing. The Rambam says the sense of touch…

The Sense of Touch, Slavery, and the Nature of Animalistic Pleasures

The Sense of Touch vs. The Sense of Taste – The Rambam’s Precise Distinction

Good morning. We’re talking about what a person… Here the Rambam came. One minute, here the Rambam came from here. I’m backwards, I’m explaining to you. You don’t grasp what he says. You think that the sense of touch means grabbing a good thing for mother. It means a very precise thing. The Rambam says that the sense of touch… so it says in Aristotle explicitly. The touch that… not the taste that… In other words, I… let me go further, let me go further a bit, try to understand. Let me go further. The mind hovers over the business.

It’s entirely or… it hovers over this entirely. Wait, wait, let me try to finish here this point. In short, he says, those driven by desire don’t use the sense of taste, they use very little the sense of taste. Mainly they use the sense of touch.

The Parable of Reb Mottel Zilber and Philoxenus

I once heard from Reb Mottel Zilber, and it also says in Aristotle. Reb Mottel Zilber said that he holds… he didn’t find himself. No, he thought it himself. Therefore I say it’s a logical reasoning, a certain thought. He holds, he doesn’t understand that the desire for food, you see it’s a very ungrateful desire. Why? Because the entire desire for food is on two inches. Something from here to here one feels the entire desire. Your entire life you forget yourself for two inches. So he said. One minute, so… I don’t understand what ungrateful has to do with this. No, but that’s just a body, what you say never.

To take life from this, when I have pleasure, if so, what is the… I mean that’s what’s meant. Aristotle brings that there was an incident with a person, here it doesn’t say his name, in another book it says his name, I don’t remember, I forgot, he was called Philoxenus of Exionus, I don’t know what. And this person had a desire, he was a glutton, his life was about eating. He says, he hoped to the Almighty that the Almighty should give him a long neck, like a crane, a certain bird has a very long neck. He says, your entire life lies in the small neck. Instead of a person having a small neck, even animals enjoy their food much more according to man’s understanding, because he has a longer neck, he can feel his wine…

The True Nature of Taste

I eat, I try to see from this food to another food, I’m perhaps a great glutton, I hold my friend in this, I have pleasure between here and here, the whole thing. I can eat one piece of chocolate for twenty minutes, I won’t go into this. I don’t want to jump into this. Yes, it’s only the taste, the great world of taste. No, Trevor, it’s not wine tasting, it’s not that to the measure. No, Trevor, I say the taste, the sense, the touch within taste. Of course it must taste good, he enjoys the taste, good? But doesn’t enjoy the discernment. When I say taste I mean the knowledge within taste, the discernment, what is good and what is bad, this the ability he can have a name of discernment, he understands the understanding within it. It has almonds, it has almonds here and there.

But the desire, but the desire, but what is the desire, it says yes the sensory desire, but what is the something within desire. Because desire is only a part of the sense of touch, it’s truly a distinction. And the something within desire – this brings out what he says that the entire sense of desire is in two inches… Or other words, what we do isn’t every two inches… What we buy this to good one, that’s a lot degrees from the two inches.

The Application to Abstinence

Not about this speaks the Rebbe, he says that when one fights against being occupied in sensory matters, it touches the small touch of the thing, or the worldly thing, when they speak of the matter of marital relations, which is like the Gemara says, it’s not just bodies, it’s very small. And the other part, he wants the entire pleasure, he’s not speaking now of the entire matter of chasing, as they say running after, that’s already not… It can be all for… The hour is this, granted, it’s a problem. But the pleasure from it is literally the pleasure of touch, of touch. It’s not a pleasure of seeing, the seeing brings to it. It’s not a pleasure of smell, not a pleasure of not hearing. It’s a pleasure of touching.

The Universal Agreement Regarding Lowliness

Now he says so, but what, granted, everyone says that everyone agrees? That a low person says a low person, the entire world the entire world agrees, that a low person, one who eats too much is a bit of a low person, even lower is one who eats eats too much and marital relations. So the entire world agrees. Everyone agrees, it’s a question how much there is excess, it’s not a question, no one says that granted they should do nothing. But how much should be too much, is entirely mentioned, that means a low person.

The Slave Parable: Why These Pleasures Fit a Slave

Or Aristotle says, by the way, this says in our Gemara many times what you grasp, our Gemara thinks the same way, it just says briefly. And Aristotle says, this belongs to a slave, who you show. A slave, slave, servant, person, why? What does a slave mean?

The slave, let’s understand, a slave, once there were slaves, it seems also that there are slaves, but not only the aspect of slaves, but aspects of slaves, not real slaves. A slave is indeed a thing that he is essentially a machine, a slave doesn’t have his own independent judgment, he’s not a person, a slave is less a person, a slave is a tool, a slave is a tool for his master’s use, he doesn’t have his own will, his own, there’s no practical difference, one uses him.

But he’s still a person, so what pleasures does a slave have? A slave has only the most physical pleasures, by the slave one must do more, because he doesn’t have any sort of other compensation.

But a slave is a sort of thing that he doesn’t have a broader view, he can’t do this, you’ll give the slave, there’s no honor, he has no honor, he is granted a despised thing, he’s under another, he doesn’t have, he’s not even a person, he’s not a man. Does a slave get compliments? A bit, I don’t know, does a slave get compliments? I don’t know, he gets compliments. The compliments, today you drove well, today you cleaned well, that’s a compliment for an animal, that’s what one says to the machine that cleans, to the power that cleans one says that, that’s not a human compliment, you don’t say, you chose, a human compliment one gets for something that he has free choice, a slave doesn’t have free choice, he’s under his master’s authority, he’s not a person, he is a person, that’s the misfortune of a slave, that he is indeed a person, but essentially he doesn’t conduct himself like a person, the humanity doesn’t come out, therefore his pleasures are the most animalistic pleasures, that means pleasures that a person, a slave is indeed a thing that he’s occupied in marital relations, in gluttony, even more in this, because that’s the thing, that’s a slavish thing.

Free Person vs. Slave – Liberal Arts

Why is there a thing called liberal arts? Because the Gemara says that this is for free people. A free person is an aristocrat, he’s not just free, he can do what he wants, he’s more an elevated sort of person, free means an aristocrat. A free person has other pleasures that belong to a free person, a slave has pleasures that belong to a slave. A slave serves another, what pleasures does he indeed have for himself? They are bodily pleasures. A free person has honor for example, honor doesn’t need to be a free person to have. Intellect, all the more so, a slave isn’t occupied in intellect, if he’s occupied in intellect it’s only to know how to fix the vacuum cleaner, that’s not intellect, that’s intellect enslaved to practical matters. That’s not free intellect, not free.

The Slogan: The Sense of Touch is a Disgrace to Us

So therefore, everyone agrees that one who is occupied in too many lower pleasures of the body, that means the sense of touch, that’s a thing that fits a slave, or that’s a thing that fits an animal. A slave and an animal are close, but that’s not a person, it doesn’t fit a free person, for an elevated person, to do too much. Again, whatever the too much is, that’s not human. That’s what you’ve now grasped the meaning of the sentence that everyone knows, that the Rambam says here it says, and everyone benefits from it. Only I’m showing you why you think so. It’s not a novelty, everyone thinks so, only I’m showing you why.

That’s the slogan that says the sense of touch is a disgrace to us. Disgrace to us doesn’t mean to us, but to us as human beings. Why? Because that’s indeed a pleasure, indeed important, but it’s not relevant to man as he is a human being, it’s relevant to man as he is an animal, you can say a slave.

About this when we speak of abstinence, we usually speak mainly about this, or about eating a bit. One must speak about the distinction of the two things, but it’s the same thing, it’s also the sense of touch, the sense of touch in eating. Why? Because these are the things that are related to the animal part of man, not to the part of…

Questions and Discussion: Nazirite and Abstinence

Student: But the abstinence in the Torah is a Nazirite.

Lecturer: Fine. What is the abstinence?

Student: A Nazirite has nothing to do with “do not be wicked,” but he does have with drinking.

Lecturer: Well, what, what, fine, I don’t know.

The idea is different, it’s a different idea.

But in the Torah there is indeed, kind of, a verse that you mentioned. We see in the Torah that “you shall be holy” is “do not be wicked.” It’s correct, but it’s other things. A Nazirite is different, I don’t know, it’s interesting indeed, but it’s not so important. I don’t know, I thought that the Gemara says that the Nazirite is, it’s simply a different thing, because much wine makes, one who sees a wayward wife in her disgrace. It has a different reason.

Student: Yes, fine. In any case, it agrees, it agrees, also in the Gemara when we speak the word sin, I spoke last week, that sin fear sin means a deficiency, and sin almost always, or transgression always means evil. That’s a transgression. That means, not because of meat and milk, which is a thing that one may not do, it’s not a transgression. It’s true knowledge. It’s therefore until the sin a knowledge. The Gemara usually means it with a guilt offering that was in the Torah.

Lecturer: But fine. True. Why indeed is it only? Do you know what I said this afternoon? Okay. True.

Important Addition: Not All Sense-of-Touch Pleasures Are Animalistic

Let me finish one more two three matters, an introduction that says here in this chapter. A very important thing, that when I say the sense of touch I also don’t mean that. There are indeed pleasures that belong to the sense of touch that aren’t such a problem. We only mean certain pleasures, those that are indeed similar to an animal. If a person has a thing that only a person can have pleasure from the sense of touch, Aristotle says a parable, I’ll tell you a parable.

Parables: Exercise, Sauna, Massage

For example, exercise. A person has pleasure from exercise, he sweats. Or going to sauna, going in a warm bath. Going in a warm bath, I also haven’t heard that this is a great desire. Chassidic Jews used to go to sauna. Already today it’s stopped, I don’t know why. In the Gemara we see that they used to go to sauna. One can’t wash on Shabbat. It’s less. Once ritual immersion was in sauna. Do they still immerse in sauna? Still here? Tell me where. I’m asking you seriously, why isn’t it here anymore? It’s one of the most blatant sins. Ah, a lot.

In any case, okay, every thing one can do in a Jewish way, or not in a Jewish way. But what I want to bring out is… It’s still here? Okay. In any case, okay, that’s permitted for medical purposes. But medicine is true that it’s for medical purposes. You say medicine. Being healthy is medicine, he’s for his health because of this.

The Distinction: Whole Body vs. Small Piece

In any case, about this he says so, when I say the sense of touch I don’t mean, he says so, when I say the sense of touch we don’t mean the sense of touch in general, the entire sense of touch. But Aristotle says so, I’ll tell you a novelty, when you go to sauna the entire body enjoys, not one small piece. One small piece, that’s animalistic, with limitation, like the two inches, that’s the problem, the small organ. A person who has pleasure from the entire body, that’s already not a thing of an animal, that’s already a human thing. So that’s already better. A massage, he says massage or such things, isn’t a problem, it’s not about this we speak. Again, there are in every thing measures, but not that. The measures that he speaks about are very specific, exactly about this.

Closing Warning: Not to Mix Types of Pleasures

And the truth is what people speak when they mean opinions, and about this I go back to what I said at the beginning, one can mix people and say, “Ah, if so you’re also one driven by desire because you have to learn.” If you don’t know the answer, you can indeed become one driven by desire because you don’t know the answer. Because you’ll be wise I should tell you the answer, but not become mixed up, because you shouldn’t think that learning is the same sort, there are many other sorts of pleasures.

The Purpose of Man: The Conclusion of the Lecture

Clarification: The Specific Trait That the Rambam is Discussing

Maggid Shiur:

Again, again, again, it’s not about every kind of character trait (middos), but not this one. The trait (middah) that he’s talking about is very specific, exactly about this. And the truth is, when people talk about this they mean opinions (deos). That’s why I went back to the beginning, because it can confuse people. They say, “Aha, if so, you’re also a pleasure-seeker (baal taavah), because you love to learn.” If you don’t know the answer (teiretz), you can actually become a pleasure-seeker if you don’t know the answer.

By the way, I’ll tell you the answer, so that one shouldn’t become confused, so that one shouldn’t think that learning is the same thing, or even other kinds of pleasures from good things. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a very specific thing.

And likewise (hachi nami), if someone… about this there is truly a question (kushya), the Rambam has an answer (teiretz) to this question in other discussions. If someone, in everything, if he does it in a human way, if he puts preparation (hachanah) into it, it’s not about that… Again, this needs to be learned in the next lecture, what yes and what no, is already another question. But first we’re talking about what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about, we already know what we’re talking about. Until here (ad kan).

Questions and Discussion: Eating and the Human Purpose

Student:

What? It’s not human. It’s not human. It’s not human. It’s not a human thing to eat. The animal (behemah) was also given a blessing (brachah) earlier, not only for people.

Maggid Shiur:

True. It’s an animal thing. A person is also an animal, a person without an animal doesn’t live. But if you want to be only human, completely only human, you need to be in sanctification (hitkadshus).

Student:

Yes, but a person eats.

Maggid Shiur:

What?

Student:

Aha, do you need to go to another lecture?

Maggid Shiur:

Yes, but eating is unique to the person, it’s neither an animal nor an angel (malach). It’s a combination of the two.

The Parable of the Saws: How to Understand Purpose

Maggid Shiur:

We need to know, what is the idea of unique, so everything has its thing. However, unique… Let me give an example, it’s unclear. The subject (noseh) truly is about the end, not about what one does. That is, unique is like this, I’ll say why unique is interesting.

If I go into Home Depot, and there’s a whole row of saws, a whole row, saws. You know, the store sells tools. Yes, it sells tools. There’s a whole aisle, six hundred different kinds of saws. Can you tell yourself why one needs a sixth interest? I don’t know. I need to take what there are two, everything there are two, because there are two companies that have arguments with three, I need to take what there are another 300, there are 300 kinds, yes?

Now, I want to understand why there are so many kinds, yes? There’s something that’s a blade on a coil. All have perhaps a sharp thing, and they cut. Some cut by hand, some with a machine, and so on… Okay, I already know one difference.

Now, if I look, how do I know what it’s made specifically for, I see what it does differently for something different. If there’s only one that has exactly such a curved thing and turns right there, I know that it’s made to pull out the thing from the corner of the window, exactly that’s the only thing it can do, and that’s what it is.

Can one use it for other things? With difficulty one can use it for other things too, but the excellence (maalah) of this, the perfection (shleimus), the use, the purpose (tachlis) of this thing is what it’s different. Another one, it’s also a saw, it’s not that it’s the same as all, but when one uses it just as a regular saw, one doesn’t use it properly. It’s a shame, it’s cheap, it does saw indeed and the cheap, the expensive exact one is exactly, because that kind of use, the same thing, that’s the details.

The Application: What is a Person For?

Maggid Shiur:

By the way, if you look at an animal (behemah), all animals do what they do very well, people are animals among them, very well. If you want to know what a person is for, what to look at, what he does differently from an animal. The one thing he does differently, that’s what he’s for.

Now, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do everything else. Just like the saw, it also needs to be able to cut, it shouldn’t not, it can’t do that too, if it won’t be sharp, and won’t be connected with all these things.

The same thing, and those who think it’s a disgrace (hachoshvim cherpah) say, we mainly mean that this isn’t the reason, this isn’t the purpose of human life (tachlis hachaim adam). The purpose… I’ll say the animal wants to be an animal in actuality, it can’t reach the other aspects of a person. It should be so. Because the weaker saw is only weakest when there would be no active piece for days, when mine would be no drawer because you can fill with this being, what can that enter? True! It’s not trivial!

Tell you what is made… let’s say, approximately, and what comes as a point is, the person is a kind of animal. The question is which kind.

Every Animal Has a Kind – What is the Person’s Kind?

Maggid Shiur:

Every animal is a certain kind, and to be a healthy that animal or a good that animal is when it does that kind of thing. An ox (shor) needs to be a good ox, and a donkey (chamor) needs to be a good donkey. They’re two different things. An ox that can, I don’t know, pull a load isn’t something confused.

And when one educates (mechanech) an ox, one would use that the ox should do the actions of an ox (maaseh shor). And when one educates a donkey, one would use that the donkey should do the actions of a donkey (maaseh chamor). They’re two different things. A person needs to do the actions of a human (maaseh mensch). The question is only what are the actions of a human.

The Parable of Educating One’s Children

Maggid Shiur:

But do you understand? If all things that have to do with the animal one must indeed do in order to do the actions of a human, but not that this is its purpose. If someone says that the more pleasure (hanaah) he has in his mouth, that’s what he needs to chase after, then he has exchanged a person for an animal. Then he is “compared to animals, they are alike” (nimshal k’behemos nidmu – Psalms 49:13).

If he says, a person is still, let’s say, a person educates his children. The Rambam says, what is the intention (kavanah) of educating one’s children? That the children should be great ones of Israel (gedolei Yisrael)? No, not better than the world. He also means better than the world. But what is the intention of family (mishpachah)? That perhaps his son will be a wise person (chacham), he’ll be a complete person (adam hashalem). Certainly, when he’ll come to the son. It’s already long come. One keeps coming. The son will be a bit whatever.

The Final Ruling: What is the Sin and What is the Purpose

Maggid Shiur:

The point is, but you understand, this doesn’t mean that a person shouldn’t have children, he should indeed have children, he should even have more children, what I told you an important thing, that he should build not physical buildings, people. But what are people? A person isn’t the purpose the pleasure (taanug), rather the pleasure comes with it. It can be very tasty, it’s not at all a sin (aveirah) to have pleasure.

The sin is to make the pleasure into the goal, to make the pleasure into the true measure (emes middah), into the criterion of what is good. That’s the main thing we’re talking about.

And afterwards, if it’s too much, that already enters into more, there are many more parts of the character traits (middos). If it’s too much, it’s just a big animal (behemah gedolah). But you understand, we’re not trying to do as few things as possible that are animal-like. It’s not a sin, a person is also an animal.

But we’re trying to organize the person so that he can do the purpose of man (tachlis adam), and not get stuck in these things. And certain things have a tendency (netiyah) to make people stuck, and from that one needs to run away.

Okay, until here (ad kan).