Why Cowardice is Compulsion and Not the Evil Inclination of Desire (Auto Translated) | תמלול וסיכום מתורגם

Free Will and Desires: Why is Desire the Worst Character Trait?

Introduction: Stories from the Vizhnitzer Rebbe’s Book

Instructor:

Gentlemen, I saw, I bought a book of the Vizhnitzer Rebbe’s stories, the previous Vizhnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Mordechai Hager, may he rest in peace, the Rebbe of Monsey. And he only tells the truth there, everything he doesn’t understand he says he doesn’t understand, what he didn’t hear he says he didn’t hear, what he heard from a neighbor he says clearly where the neighbor was, and so on.

Story about Baalei Bechira [people with free will] and Bitachon [trust in God]

It says there that his grandfather and his uncle became Rebbes, the Ahavat Yisrael [the Ahavat Yisrael, a famous Vizhnitzer Rebbe] with his brother who was called Rabbi Chaim Antonyier, he said that… what? Yes. He told that the Goel Yisrael [the Goel Yisrael, another Vizhnitzer Rebbe] had a custom [minhag] on Shabbos afternoon [Shabbos tzufri] at kiddush [blessing over wine] he would speak about all the Rebbes. He spoke about, he says he spoke from, but he means that he should have spoken about. And when they became Rebbes, he says, “Ah, today we’ll take in two more young men into the group [chevura].” He tells this in his own way, they became Rebbes, so one knows.

Anyway, I saw another story that his grandfather said that he never had any fear [mora], he had great trust [bitachon], he never had fear in his life, but once, I don’t remember about the grandfather, about the older grandfather, about his grandfather about him, just his older grandfather, the Tzemach Tzedek [the Tzemach Tzedek of Vizhnitz] about his grandfather, once his grandfather was, the non-Jews [goyim] grabbed him about something to go into the military [militair], something was some problem with people. That was the only time in his life that he was frightened.

He says, such a young man, a baal bechira [person with free will], it’s terrible, you understand? With people, with non-Jews, with believers [maamin], with Chasidic leaders [roshei chasidim], that’s not baalei bechira. But the non-Jews can’t know, they can still do something, you get it? A baal bechira, it becomes dangerous. And also Rabbi Nachman [Rabbi Nachman of Breslov] under that thing that a baal bechira is very dangerous to deal with. It says with also the Chaim HaKadosh [the Chaim HaKadosh] about Yosef HaTzaddik [Joseph the Righteous], and you know the Jewish Chasidic saying, that even a tzaddik [righteous person], a baal bechira, can cause harm [shaten], even with how much trust [bitachon] he has.

Student:

For practical purposes [lemaan nafka mina], do you have another story?

Instructor:

I’ll tell many more good stories, many funny things that he tells, all higher things.

Student:

What?

Instructor:

God [the Aibishter] gave a person free choice [bechira], and it means it’s real. It’s not a joke [vertl]. Yes, he can’t. It says it’s decided from below, not from above [mechushin mimamel nisht lemaalah]. This week is the topic [seder]. What do I have from trust [bitachon] here? Trust is only when one deals with non-Jews, and with…

Student:

What?

Instructor:

Yes, because the choice [bechira] is real, so it seems. It’s not worth it, but it’s the real thing, so it’s accepted [mekubal].

Student:

Do you have something…

Instructor:

No no no, I’m just saying, you’re wondering that the Ahavat Yisrael was very great, right? I’m just saying, we’re talking about desires [taavos] of eating.

Story about Taavat Achila [desire for food]: Salt Instead of Sugar

Well, I saw a beautiful thing about desires [taavos] of eating. I just saw a beautiful piece there about this topic [nusah], since we’re talking. Chasidic books really express the problems of life.

He says that his grandfather, he says that his grandfather was guarded [nishmar] from all desires [taavos], as is known [kedua], he said that it’s also gematria [gematria: numerical value] something, I don’t remember anymore, eating [achila], drinking [shtiya], sexual relations [mishgal], something is gematria that’s his name, I don’t remember anymore. The acronym [roshei teivos] is gematria such and such in the Torah.

And he told a story, that once they gave him by mistake [betaut], the attendant [gabai] by mistake, instead of putting sugar in the coffee he put salt, some such story? And no one noticed until someone started screaming, something like that the story, and the Rebbe says, ah, it’s wrong. And he says, he doesn’t know, whether the explanation [peshat] is that he was too attached [devuk] to God, he didn’t catch that it was salt. He believes that it should be recognized, he doesn’t know. But or it could be, he simply… he overcame himself [misgaber], he did taste that it was salt. He overcame himself. I’ll drink anyway. Very honest.

The Rebbe’s Custom with Eating Soup

I remember that someone told me, that’s why I also looked at his gatherings [tishen]. One thing that was interesting, I thought that he was an older person, I mean everyone was until everyone was ten, yes, all those funny things, but he ate soup that he took a spoon of soup in his hand, he took the spoon, put down his hands, turned around, and took the spoon.

Someone told me, he tried to eat like that, it’s very hard. Now, and you just have to have the patience, to be able? I don’t press it, it was a difficult life. It’s funny that he could, I tried to imitate it, it’s very hard.

Student:

No, he also had, you know that he had such patience, he held that it’s not fitting for a Chasidic Jew to bend down to the food.

Instructor:

Usually we come with a fork and eat like this, the food comes to me, I go to it, you understand? It’s self-respect. But then the problem is, let Jews live a little, the problem is, listen, I don’t know if it’s greatness [gedolus] and smallness [katnus], the problem is that soup is very hard to eat like that because it spills.

Student:

What?

Instructor:

Ah, a straw isn’t Rebbe-like, otherwise you don’t know. I once saw a Rebbe drinking with a silver straw. He made a Rebbe-like solution [etzah], he bought himself such a cup that’s used for cups, and when he ate soup he had such patience, and he would then give the Chasidim the cup to drink leftovers [shirayim] from the Rebbe’s food, considered a blessing. Every week this was.

Student:

No, they go with a plate.

Student:

What?

Student:

They go with a bib.

Student:

Maybe he has a very big spoon and eats very little. That’s the secret?

Student:

What?

Student:

True, also true.

Instructor:

On the contrary, it’s… every nothing, it’s so… I don’t know, I don’t remember. That I don’t remember to that extent [ad kedei kach]. I don’t know. Also then. Anyway, we’re going to talk about the baalei bechira.

The Main Topic: Why is Being a Baal Taava the Worst Character Trait?

Digression: The Custom to Speak “About” Rebbes, Not “Against” Rebbes

Student:

Okay, people [the olam] love very much to talk about free choice [bechira], as is known [kedua].

Instructor:

We’re going to talk about this. That’s our discussion [shmues] for today. I’m actually holding on the next page here. I want, let’s see like this. I’ll have to say another story, but first I have to say another Torah teaching [dvar Torah].

Student:

Is this the part [chelek] where one speaks against the Rebbes?

Instructor:

One speaks about them.

Student:

About them.

Student:

About them.

Instructor:

I said that the Stutchiner Rav said that actually the custom [minhag] is to speak about Rebbes, but it’s not there. It’s there except the Satmar Rav, but him he’s afraid to speak about. He’s afraid, not because the Chasidim say he’s afraid he would hold that he’s a tzaddik, but when one can stand in line. The point is like this, we should hold in the middle of learning, and I’m going over a topic a bit, because one can get stuck on the same thing.

Review: The First Reason Why Baal Taava is the Worst Character Trait

We’re holding in the middle of learning about this. That the worst character trait [midah] is to be a baal taava [person controlled by desires]. The worst kind of person is a baal taava. The most, at least the most looked-down-upon kind of person. So we claim and argue that all non-Jews [goyim] also hold this way. Not only Jews hold this way, not only educated people [chanuchot] hold this way. Everyone, in fact, the educated people perhaps don’t hold this way, so we spoke last week. But actually, all people hold this way.

Now, they brought several reasons why. That was the discussion [shmues], they said that it’s a fact. When they spoke that there is the main reason [ikar rizon], the main approach [ikar mehalech], the explanation [hesber] why we hold that this is the worst thing, was in the name of Aristotle [beshem Aristu], that why? Because this is an animal-like [behemishe] thing. Whoever stumbles [nichshal], whoever doesn’t stumble, whoever doesn’t control [shult] himself on the level of desires [taavos], he’s an animal [koi]. He behaves like animals [behemos], that animals don’t overcome [misgaber] their desires [taavos], and he also doesn’t.

No, not exactly they didn’t go on their desires, but that the sense of touch [chush hamashash], these kinds of physical pleasures [taanugei haguf], are not human things. An animal has them exactly like a person. To stumble in this place, means [peshat] that you’re stumbling in an animal-like area [ariah], not in a human area. That’s the point [nekuda] that we spoke about.

Student:

Yes, that’s one explanation [peshat].

Announcement: There Are More Reasons

Instructor:

Now, we’re going to be revealed [nisgaleh]. There are more explanations [peshtim] in this. Perhaps it’s connected, most likely it’s connected, but there are more reasons [rizens]. There are more causes [sibos] why. Desire [taava] is the worst thing, it’s not the worst reason [taam].

Student:

And you know more reasons [teamim]? More causes [sibos] that Aristotle says?

Instructor:

Yes yes, Aristotle says it. But I’m saying there are, more causes, perhaps… I don’t know if it says, one must find how one can connect the thing to other things. More causes, why desire [taavos] is the worst thing.

The Billboard in Pennsylvania: Proof of “Stigma”

I’ll say the thing, the story is like this. The story is like this. I was driving on the highway last week, and I saw such a big sign, a big billboard. Today the custom [minhag] is that if one wants to say ethics [mussar] one writes it on a billboard. Once one used to say a sermon [drasha] in synagogue [shul], today one says it on a billboard, true?

The city, the state of Pennsylvania, decided [machlit] that they want to tell us ethics [mussar]. Who knows? But their ethics [mussar] is like I didn’t say what’s good for them is bad for us and so on.

Their ethics [mussar] says like this, so they wrote in their ethics book [mussar sefer], that it says like this. I wrote it down, I wanted to make a picture, I was driving too fast. I couldn’t make a picture in the middle of driving, but I just wrote it. The words stood like this: “Calling [addiction] a choice, ignores 50 years of research.”

Student:

What is the language [lashon/term]?

Instructor:

In other words, there is something called addiction? In Yiddish it means he’s a great baal taava. Agree [meskim]? Okay, I’m not bringing it agree, one should see everything. What do I mean? You get it, and then it says like this: the next line [shiur] said in stigma, “Stigma prevents recovery, not addiction.”

In other words like this, the billboard clearly says what I’ve argued [tenah] the whole time, that who has the greatest stigma? Not to write stigma about thieves [ganavim]. Thieves don’t have such a great stigma, it’s not a problem. Who has a stigma? Who doesn’t one hold of? Who does one look down on a person?

I looked in the dictionary, what does stigma mean [taitch]? Stigma is a great degradation [zilzul]. It had four definitions, I don’t remember, I didn’t bring it here, four different levels of stigma. But stigma means that you’re subhuman [ummentsh]. That’s the meaning [taitch] of the word stigma here.

Addiction, Stigma, and Free Choice: A Philosophical Investigation

The Paradox of Stigma and Free Choice

The Billboard and the Stigma Problem

Instructor: An addict. You’re an animal [chaya], you can’t… Yes, we’re talking about drugs. You see that now there’s a stigma against this, and the state holds that they need to remove the stigma. Why? Because they argue something an interesting argument that it interferes more with repentance/recovery [teshuva] doing than with sinning. Okay, I don’t know, I want to talk about that topic, maybe I will soon, but first I want to bring out the topic of choice. And here there’s a problem. Why?

Let’s say, it’s bad to put down. In general nowadays one holds very strongly, like the Belzer Rav [the Belzer Rebbe] said to the wise Srivka Rebbes, you know?

Did you know Rabbi Itzikl, the Rachmistrivker Rebbe here from 45th Street?

Student: Yes.

Story of Rabbi Chaim Mordechai: The Guidance of “Not Putting Down”

Instructor: So whoever knew him knows that he honored [mechabed] people very strongly, in a certain way. When it came to him, he smiled, and always said yes yes, he made no distinction whether one spoke to the point, whether one didn’t speak to the point, he made everyone feel as if he had said some great wisdom [chochma]. That was the way [seder]. And… yes? It’s true.

Student: Yes.

Instructor: That’s how it is. Right. Fact. I feel very bad because my father feels so good so many years that he said a word that Rabbi Chaim Mordechai agreed to one.

So, wait, wait, wait. I want to tell you, one minute, one minute. The yeshiva’s hello is Rabbi Chaim Mordechai, and everything else. So, now, the interesting story is that he wasn’t actually like that. Also truly at home he didn’t speak like that, he wasn’t really such a prophet, he made himself. Prophet I mean, not critical. When he spoke to his close people, his friends, his family, his friends, he could say criticism. And he grew up in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem no one was nice. He was very sharp, he didn’t let himself.

But what? When he was a groom [chasan], the Belzer Rav was somehow involved in making his match [shidduch].

The Skverer Rebbe [the Skverer Rebbe].

The Belzer Rav and his uncle.

The Skverer Rebbe’s uncle.

Yes, yes, yes. He became a… Right.

So, he went to the Belzer Rav, and he told him that he’s going to America, he discussed with him that he doesn’t want to go to America, he wants to come back. There’s some story about this. Rabbi Aharon of Belz, the Rav of blessed memory [zichrono livracha]. The Belzer Rav gave him several pieces of guidance [hadrachot]. One of the things he told him was that today, a person, even if one puts him down like this, it can hurt. One must not put down any people.

It’s perhaps a proof [mofes] even on the plane, I don’t remember, he immediately met someone, he didn’t put him down, that person became a penitent [baal teshuva], some story. In any case [al kol panim], from this he learned that in America, you get it, one can’t put down anyone. Everyone should be nice. So he worked on himself, and he started the respect and lies there.

Back to the State of Pennsylvania: The Logic of Stigma

Instructor: So, to what do these words apply [kelafei mah devarim amurim], the state of Pennsylvania also holds this way. The worst thing is stigma. One can’t put down. They try very hard not to put down people.

Now, what solution [etzah] did they find not to put down people? Everyone actually, so it seems the initial assumption [hava amina], one must always learn. I have a rule, I have here some political strategist who writes nonsense on social media. One of his rules is, that when you see that a politician says something, it means the opposite. In other words, we’re not afraid, we’re not afraid that one will do this. In short, that’s exactly what you’re afraid of, you understand?

And there’s no stigma means there’s a great stigma, because so it says in that note, true? Because things that don’t have stigma one doesn’t write. There’s a great stigma precisely on this. Many things have stigma, I don’t know, on this is the greatest, because stigma is the worst thing, it makes subhuman, it’s racism like it makes out a person. Kant says that the worst thing treats a person not as a person.

The Philosophical Analysis: Stigma and Free Choice

Instructor: And the greatest stigma is on an addict. And what does the state of Pennsylvania think the stigma depends on [tolui]? That a person should say it’s a choice, you’re an animal [chaya], you’re choosing [bocher] every afternoon to inject yourself with the drug, and you’re a beast [chamunus], you’re not a normal person, you go to work, talk to your wife, do something.

Addiction: New Concepts and Old Realities

The Great Principle: Physical Facts Can Be Discovered Over Time – But Human Nature Cannot

Physical Discoveries Are to Be Expected

Instructor:

One must be precise in the claim. I have a great principle (klal gadol) in Torah, we’ve already spoken about this many times, that if someone comes to me, “I’ve discovered a new type of bug under the water that you need to travel with a submarine to find, only then do you find it, which wasn’t known to all the generations (doros). Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our teacher) was a great one, he knew all the animals (chayos), but he didn’t know this, because it didn’t exist then.” I believe him, because this is a type of thing, it’s a physical thing, it takes time, it takes strength (koach) to find, it makes sense naturally that physical facts of the external world should take time, even in the body of a person.

You say that surgeries were never done before, they didn’t know exactly how many holes there are in the heart, I don’t know what. Now they know, they’ve checked, I believe that. And by the way (derech agav), this principle has always been known. It’s already stated in the Rambam (Maimonides) explicitly (befeirush) in the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) Part 2, and it’s understood that it comes from Aristotle and so forth, that in many sciences, in this type of sciences, time is a part (chelek) of the thing that reveals (megaleh) science. Time and experience. Experience means time, as one says that he needs experience. It’s experience. There are facts, one must travel, one must go. This is the order of things (seder hadvarim). It’s expected that there should be changes. It’s expected that not everything that’s known today… It’s so strongly expected that the sages (chachamim) from 2000 years ago already knew this. They imagined, one discovers new stars, one discovers new things under the water, and so forth. These are simple things (dvarim peshutim).

But Human Psychology/Nature – Here One Needs Great Proof

But if someone tells me that some new type of person has been discovered, some new type of psychology, not that you’re talking about the physical part, about some chemical, I don’t know, about some new type of behavior (hisnahagus) of people that never existed before, he needs great proof for the matter (ra’aya ladavar), at least. Because the assumption is that everything that has to do with people hasn’t changed at all.

Today he’s changed in what he does. Today he travels with a car, and yesterday he traveled with a horse. But how he travels with the car, and the type of habits (regalim) that he has, character traits (midos), the study of character traits (toras hamidos), even beliefs (emunos) in a certain broad sense, not beliefs of certain facts, but how he believes and his worldview, almost all these things are, one must assume that it’s very old.

So, consequently (memeilah), but I want to be precise what comes out consequently. Yes, this is the basic argument that’s being claimed. And consequently, it comes out that one must weigh what. Consequently what? Consequently it’s so, not… what? Yes, we’ve already spoken enough such nonsense (shtusim) last week, I don’t have the strength that they should arrest me and put me on YouTube, that they should put out my videos, so it’s better this way.

⟦#2⟧ Transition to the Topic: Half-Damage – Dispute of Tannaim

But consequently, we spoke that it’s a dispute of Tannaim (tanna’im), there is such a thing, it’s a level in itself (darga bifnei atzma) or half is also a half-damage (chatzi nezek). It’s a dispute, an old dispute, a dispute of Tannaim, a very old dispute. There is a dispute. There was one, I don’t remember who, who said a creation in itself (bri’a bifnei atzma), simply (pasht) that there are three. Okay, not what it’s talking about now. Okay, but already. I just want to bring out the… Let’s try to stick to… I made this week a paper, so that one should say that there’s order (seder) in the world. So, stick with me here, I want to bring a paper every week. And I’m learning this, I would have come inside if one wants, but one must know what one is learning.

The Concept of “Addiction” – Is It a New Reality?

“Addiction” Is a New Word, Not Necessarily a New Thing

So, you understand that I’m saying, well, I want to know what’s important. So, certainly you’re right, that the word “addiction,” the English word “addiction,” as far as I know, is a new word. My grandfather or my grandmother, if you would have said that someone has addiction, even my grandmother who still lives, she would have looked at me and said, I don’t know, do teshuva (repentance), I don’t know what to do with you. No? What is this, mother, what would you have said? Do teshuva, whatever, be a person, figure it out. So, whatever was done until now, stop running around, make a stop. No one says it’s hard, it’s not hard. Yes, let’s understand, I want to get to this here. Okay?

New Concepts Often Speak of Old Things with New Names

So, the new categories, there is a thing which is addiction, which everyone… One can be drawn to the thing, called (chanikreh) addiction, is more choice, less choice, is yes guilty, not guilty. The object (cheftza), the reality (metzi’us), was apparently (lekho’ora) not known thirty, forty, fifty, I don’t know how many years ago at all of such a reality. So one must be a great doubter in heresy (meharher bekefira), one must have many doubts in heresy (hirhurei kefira) that such a thing actually exists. There are already fifty years of… It was established in fifty years of research. Fifty years isn’t so long ago, fifty years is actually 1976.

So anyway, one grasps, the Rebbe z”l (may his memory be for a blessing) didn’t live long ago. Almost. Whatever, some Rebbe, I grasp, the Belzer Rav was already ninety years. I grasp, fifty years ago was yesterday. That counts. You’re already fifty, yes? I mean, not yet, something like that, well, seriously, fifty years is nothing. Not even fifty. Let’s not talk it out. What’s the difference (chiluk)? No, no, no. Enough. So, in short (kitzur), a story isn’t so long ago. One must be open to hear this.

On the other hand (mitzad sheini), I want to say on the other hand, on the other hand it’s very important to grasp that all these new concepts that exist, usually they speak of things that have long been known, but one has forgotten what they’re called.

Analogy: Modern Hebrew and the “Faithful Language”

And it’s many times, one says, many times one must be very careful (nizhar). Just as, exactly as one knows that there is such a whole system (ma’aracha) that says that Hebrew is a modern language, because there are all kinds of words that aren’t written in the Chumash (the Five Books of Moses), aren’t written in the Mishna, and even mean the opposite of what’s written in the Mishna, and so forth. Consequently one may not speak Hebrew, because there is a whole book (sefer) that’s called this, Safa Neemana (Faithful Language), there is such a language (lashon) that has approbations (haskamos) from several great scholars of Israel (gedolei Yisrael), who are very happy with it. He shows that Hebrew isn’t, because there’s a question (kushya), one may not speak Hebrew, but it’s the holy tongue (lashon hakodesh). No, it’s not lashon hakodesh.

If one thinks about this book, approximately seventy percent of the things there are ignorance (am-ha’aratzus). There is such a word, it’s actually a hidden word, it appears only once, it’s used many times, it’s been broadened a bit, and the like (vechadome). Very many times, it’s true, there is a point of truth (nekuda shel emes), by the way, if one really wants to speak, the truth lies much deeper, the structure of the sentences in lashon hakodesh is more or less from English, not from Yiddish, not from lashon hakodesh, and the like, but this is already there in the Mishna, I mean in the Mishna it doesn’t speak about the Chumash, but I’m not saying whether it’s an injustice (avla) or not. I’m just saying that many times, when one says this, when one goes with this type of reasoning (sevaros), many times one speaks nonsense.

The Real Reality of Addiction

If someone says that there’s no such thing as addiction, I mean that there is such a thing. But what has been made today into a new object (cheftza) is because one has forgotten how to speak about it. Consequently one says that there’s no such thing. That it’s a new thing, one must even ask what is the law (din)? And at all, if someone is addicted to… I don’t know what… to any thing, he’s exempt from all the commandments (patur mikol hamitzvos), because it’s not his fault. Right?

The Danger of the “Addiction” Framework: Exemption from Responsibility?

The Logical Slope

And I ask you, don’t you know how long the list of addiction is? Do you think there’s never been… a person who came to the court (beis din), he was told he did that sin (aveira) which today they say he can be addicted to, and actually he was addicted in other words, he did actually differently than most people, it should look like he can’t overcome (misgaber) himself, and the beis din said, one doesn’t see anywhere, one sees immediately and one sees, simply (bifshitus) one doesn’t see anywhere that there is such a thing, consequently it’s a compulsion (ones), consequently he’s exempt, one already finds such a thing. In court one stops in a way, one works on it. Also in business one works on it. I’m not saying. There’s a list? Yes. The list gets bigger every minute.

Phone is addiction. Someone is addicted to his phone, and he looks at his phone even on Shabbos, it’s simply that he’s exempt. True? Smoking. Someone is addicted to smoking and he smokes on Shabbos, he’s also exempt. I’m saying with addiction. Ah, somehow one begins to see.

Proof That Addiction Isn’t So Simple

By the way, it’s one of the proofs that the addiction is a bit not quite right, because most Jews who are addicted to smoking don’t smoke on Shabbos. Most of them, a great majority probably. There is a portion who, I once heard from Reb Dovid Twersky in the name of some complete Jew, the whole week he smokes and on Shabbos he smells. And the Rebbe preached on the foundations of the Torah, the whole week one must work and smoke, and on Shabbos one smells. In short, that one was indeed addicted to tobacco. But normal Jews don’t even smell on Shabbos, they smoke the whole… So, in short, it’s not so simple.

⟦#3⟧ The Philosophical Core: What Really Is the Reality of “Addiction”?

The Real Reality That Lies Under the Concept

What do I want to bring out? But I do want to talk about this. So, let’s try to say what is the simple plain meaning that people used to talk about, indeed about this topic. In other words, let’s be very clear. There is such a reality, I’m not talking about what the fancy people say that addiction is a disease and as if it comes… Let’s understand. There is such a reality of a person who does something that in a certain sense he doesn’t want to do, because he loves it so much and he doesn’t want to love it. It’s something very weird. There is such a reality.

What people talk about regarding addictions is built on some reality. A person says “do teshuva,” there’s something, something is lacking in saying “do teshuva.” Whoever learns Hilchos Teshuva (Laws of Repentance) from the Rambam (Maimonides) will already see that there’s a whole section about this in Hilchos Teshuva, because it’s indeed not enough to say “do teshuva.” Why isn’t it enough to say “do teshuva”? Because there are things that a person does that he doesn’t love. Ah, so, that’s some weird contradiction. He loves it, but he hates it.

The Rambam has the reality that there are things that a person does that we understand. The Rambam has a crazy example, yes, a person who stands with a woman, who says even if he’s going to die, he’s going to say, “I must speak, I’m not going to die, I should sacrifice my life.” Okay, so that’s like an extreme… No, no, no, I don’t mean extremes. I don’t mean extremes. Very good, very good. If… I want to say, there are today, there are today the philosophers today, the heretical philosophers, heresy I mean those who don’t believe in reality, who say how can one know to say that things are addiction?

The Heretical Philosophers’ Question

There is indeed such a reasoning, that’s how I mean the secular Jews more or less go with this reasoning. Addiction means to say, let’s say, the state does admit, it’s bad. Stigma means bad, and addiction means bad. If addiction isn’t bad, then what’s the problem at all? I love this, you love that, do me something, yes? That’s the question that all the young men ask, yes? What’s it to me? Call it addiction, don’t call it addiction. You’re addicted to learning, and I’m addicted to smoking. Who says your addiction is better than mine? Why do we call this addiction at all?

We don’t call that addiction. But when one wants to make the argument, one calls it that. But usually one doesn’t call it that. About this I already gave a lecture a long time ago, but I understand.

The Answer: The Being-Addicted Itself Is Bad

In other words, usually when one says the word addiction, it picks out, picks out and grasps something that is bad. Right? Now, it’s bad to be such a sort of person. In other words, it’s bad to be addicted. The addicted itself is a bad thing, no difference even to what. Because otherwise one wouldn’t have made such a word.

The Modern “Functioning” Criterion

Come the contemporary sages and say, what something? Everyone loves something different. One may love what one wants, true? Very good. Say the sages, the heretics, they say that everything is dependent on something called functioning, yes? If it disturbs your day-to-day functioning, then it’s a problem. If not, it’s not a problem.

Critique: The Circular Logic

Now I ask you, dear brothers, and who says what functioning means? That’s what he wants. Ah, we go back to the self-contradiction, right? We go back to what we said before, that the problem is

Addiction and Baal Taavah: The Same Thing on Different Levels

Point 1: The Definition of Addiction – Loving Versus Wanting to Love

Instructor: Because everything depends on what he wants. Someone smokes, is “functioning,” but he can’t breathe? Could be yes. Again, a person whose only purpose is to be as healthy as can possibly be. What did Reb Fishel say? There was a Jew, Reb Yaakov Fishel, he said, so they say that he said, I don’t know, better seventy years of life with smoking than ninety years without smoking.

Student: Father, how do you know he’s not right?

Instructor: I mean to say, if you’ve decided that the best thing is to live the longest that’s possible, then anything one does that disturbs that is a problem. But if you haven’t decided, who is the decision? Right?

So, the “truth” is that most people aren’t such heretics as they “pretend,” because when you push them to the wall they become heretics because they have no way to answer. But most people hold that there is indeed such a thing as, what it means to be a good person, or a happy person, or a “flourishing” person, one who works his humanity well, and the very thing that he is “addicted” means to say that he’s not going well.

Why? Because he loves something very much, but you ask him, “Do you want to love it?” He says, “I don’t want to love it.” There are two “levels” of loving: loving and wanting to love. Or loving to love. I don’t know, I say these are two different verbs, but it’s approximately the same thing. And living in a contradiction is certainly not good, according to all opinions. Right?

Now, so we’ve arrived at that when one talks about “addiction” one talks about some problem that the person himself admits is a problem. Not the person, all other people also. Right? If not, one couldn’t talk about it. If one says “functioning,” that’s “self-contradictory.”

So, there is such a thing that’s called… that a person is too much a baal taavah, everyone admits that it’s not good to be a great baal taavah. What does it mean to be a great baal taavah? You don’t want. You love it, but you don’t want to love it. That’s the meaning. A strange thing, but that’s the meaning.

This holds in one chain that’s normally called. What holds in one chain? What you don’t love holds in one chain. Okay, but there are certain levels. As you said about food, that it becomes more and more normal, it’s automatic, one is less and less ashamed. One is ashamed? There are things that people used to hold. You love it more and more, and you don’t feel guilty, you love it. I feel guilty isn’t right, I don’t love the word. You don’t love, but you love it.

Yes, if a person can be like in the aspect of “his father and his enemy gathered together” [a Talmudic expression for internal contradiction], he’s unfortunately completely addicted, he hasn’t taken any soul at all, understand? That can also be. I’m talking about all people, what all people hold. Every person holds this way essentially. Sometimes a person can be in good spirits, like the person from chapter 3, who is so sick, he doesn’t know anymore if he’s extremely sick. But essentially people think this way. Right? Now, right? Does one agree? I hope one agrees.

Point 2: Proofs That Taavah Is the Worst Thing – Ben Sorer U’Moreh

Instructor: I want to bring another proof from everyone that desire is the worst thing. It’s so bad that one must try to convince people they should have no choice, so that it won’t have stigma. Now we must indeed talk about… Yes?

Student: Doesn’t hold stigma anymore.

Instructor: Now I come back. Fake. I have no story, I don’t hold a story. We’ve now said that addiction is a new word, but we have some certain sort of understanding that it means something that a person doesn’t want, he holds that it’s something not good things. Addiction, to the extent it means anything, and it’s not just a random self-contradictory thing, is what people used to call being a baal taavah. Exactly! No less and no more. Doing something that you understand is not good.

It’s lacking, because the great rabbi said he doesn’t really want to eat even bread and he knows he hates his body, is the greatest addict. Yes, but his understanding is wrong, because one must indeed love to eat bread, as we talked about last week. I can add something. You’re right that I’m lacking something. I say that the world holds that there is a thing which is an addiction which is bad, and the only way how to explain that it’s bad is to be a baal taavah. It’s bad to be a baal taavah.

Therefore look, the greatest… What does a father say to his son? How the person shouldn’t grow up to be what? A drug addict. What’s the worst thing? What does one threaten the boy with? Lest you say to yourself perhaps so-and-so, yes, the ben sorer u’moreh (the rebellious son – a Torah category). But why then? And what’s wrong with letting a life that’s not a wife, children, job, nothing? And what’s bad? But he’s going to have… What does it mean? The… the… the… the morphine.

I tell you that it’s much better than having children. You don’t know how much better it is to have children, because people give up having children for it. Because people, even it’s very tasty. Just as you know, there are people who say that it’s very tasty to have dveikus baHashem (cleaving to God), it’s worth giving up having children. One says the same thing about this. And the one who has dveikus must once. What’s the problem? That it’s a netitzah (a tearing/destruction). Further you say that it’s a netitzah, and he doesn’t want to need it.

You know what a real tzaddik means? When he doesn’t pray one day for two hours, he feels actual pain. You don’t believe. I wouldn’t have wanted to believe a bit more. People are more interesting than you think.

Point 3: The Main Thesis – Addiction Is Not a Different Sort of Thing

Instructor: Okay. So I say. Now, I only want that this is correct. So I argue. I argue thus, the problem is that you should be a baal taavah. You’re right now, you say so. I mean that you point something else that one must here… If I want to talk about this, one must talk about this. And one must talk about this that just as all things, one talks about a derech hamemutza (the middle path). And when is talking? You must learn we hear.

When is talking about the disgrace of being a baal taavah? The worst thing in the world is to be a baal taavah. But there’s a great principle, one doesn’t mean a Chassidic boy who eats a second pickle at lunch. Great principle in Torah, anything that one does in yeshiva one doesn’t mean. New principle. Right?

I was caught last week this week, a new principle from Rabbi Aryeh Amban. He says, what the Jews say confession about on Rosh Hashanah is a sign that it’s not a sin. Jews don’t do sins. Do me a favor, pray Mincha late, it’s not a sin. Okay? A good word, I sent. Very nice.

In short, that’s not what one means. What does one mean? Certainly, the extreme means that, and one starts with that, and later one spreads in the brows. I’m not saying one doesn’t have to work on all the small things. But I have this very important. This stands in Torah “lo tachmod” (you shall not covet), this stands in Torah “ben sorer u’moreh,” all these extreme cases of taavah. Yes, ben sorer u’moreh is indeed the greatest proof that taavah is the worst thing, because in any case one kills him, because such a person is uncontrollable. In English this is called a drug addict. That’s what it’s called. The worst sort, not the half drug addict, a functional drug addict, I don’t know what he gives himself advice. No, one who is completely a drug addict. That’s the meaning of a baal taavah.

Now, you’re right that there are extreme desires, and there are normal desires, and there’s a person who only doesn’t learn without the lesson because he has a taavah, and a second one who ate because he has a taavah, and so on many levels. And when we usually, for an interesting reason, which isn’t crazy, for a certain reason, we’ve been accustomed to call the derogatory name of taavah only for very extreme cases.

It makes sense, because we are a society that has no strength. Rabbi Tzvi Meir said that it’s a weak generation. So, one can’t… Rabbi Tzvi Meir, so he says, that it’s a weak generation. So I received from him, my cousin. And he says that it’s a weak generation, so one can’t have complaints about people who are a bit baalei taavah, but the greatest, the huge ones, remain difficult for you.

So one took the derogatory name, one placed it on the worst. It doesn’t mean that the worst is a different sort of thing. You assume what the world said, he’s such a baal taavah, it’s already a different sort of thing. It’s not a different sort of thing, it’s very much of a sort of thing that you also have, of a normal thing. It’s a normal process where one arrives there, and it’s a normal process where one goes away from there also. But what? He’s very extreme, and we are like a bit, how does one say, like we have an unrefined palate.

Because we don’t talk, most people, contemporary people, even those who do learn yes, don’t learn any mussar, don’t learn any Chassidic books, they don’t have any refined distinctions between what is good and what is bad. A thing that is only refinedly bad, they don’t see at all as so bad. Today, addict, the other one does see yes that a taavah is bad. Therefore, it gives the awareness. That’s my theory of today. Right? That’s the thing that you’ve been missing the whole time. I mean that you’re talking a whole thing, but he can’t control himself. I mean that all these things, no controlling, and all things exist by every small taavah. But what we say, ah, the taavah is an extreme baal taavah.

Point 4: The Rambam’s Category – The Person Who Is No Longer Human

Instructor: Now, I must say that there is even more extreme, I must say this, it stands because it stands in the holy books. I must say that there is already a very old category of this. How it’s called is brought in the Rambam (Maimonides) in a certain way, in Aristotle in another way, I don’t want to go into this now, the Rambam brings it as praise, and here in Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed), and not in Moreh Nevuchim, and here it’s not Moreh chapters in chapter, I don’t remember anymore, I must review, okay, next week we’ll start a review, with God’s help, because one remembers already what it says, but in one of the chapters the Rambam brings one part of this, but there is an old category, which means it has very much to do, in the previous talks, I mention it only so one should have in mind the idea, regarding what we’ve now said that what we call the addict is a very extreme baal taavah, and therefore the contemporary people recognize it only when it’s so bad.

There is a very ancient category that says thus, that there is, it’s still all on one scale, but there are things that are already supposedly beyond the human category. For example, the Rambam says, brings in the name of the philosophers, that a person who shouldn’t have any single bad desire, should always only do one hundred percent what is correct according to reason. Such a person, the Rambam brings the language, and it’s Aristotle’s language, and if I remember in the fifth book, and one can arrive with him to say, is Aristotle’s language, that such a person, I mean that he’s already not a perfect person, he’s already a god. This is a perfection that belongs to God, or to gods in his language, for angels we would have said, he’s already an angel. Why? Because a person has 2 levels how great…

The True Concept of Free Choice: Habits, Character Traits, and the Boundaries of Humanity

The Scale of Humanity: From Angel to Animal

Perfection That Belongs to God or Angels

This is a perfection that belongs to God, or for God in His language, for angels we would say, he is already an angel. Why? Because a person has a level of how perfect a person can be. Such a person who, approximately like last week when we spoke, right? A person who doesn’t like to eat at all, because he only cares about spirituality, he only cares about spirituality, stops being a person, he is already more than a person, he is already a god.

The Other Side: One Who Is So Bad That He Is an Animal

Or, says Aristotle, the same thing exists in reverse. The Rambam doesn’t bring the second side, I think there are places in the Moreh where he speaks of the second side. I’ll give you the halacha, the concept of this in a minute. There is also the other side. There is someone who is so bad, he brings an example, for instance, someone who devours his own children. There are such stories. Do me a favor, you’re not a wicked person, you know what he is, a sick person. You must remember, in our language, every wicked person is a sick person. Right? But what? He is so bad, he is no longer within the category of human, he is already an animal.

Halachic Ramification: Two Types of Killing

Therefore, says the holy Rambam, so is the halacha. I think this is the halacha that is connected to this concept, that there is a person, there are laws, and one must learn ethics, a halacha is about the person. Aristotle says that states, cities, cultures, societies, are for people. Beyond people and below people is in the desert.

Therefore, I’ve said many times, when you go to the desert you meet two types of people, thieves and Breslovers. Why? Because these are either beyond humanity or below humanity. People are not there, just as someone said about the angels, right? He doesn’t know if they’re angels, but people they certainly are not.

Do you understand that there is beyond people and below people a level, and about this the Rambam says that there are laws of punishment, laws of evidence, one kills people. A person who is humanly bad, one kills him if there are two witnesses, “by the word of two witnesses shall a matter be established,” and so on.

But if he is beyond human, for example the law of the subverted city that appears this week, I think it has to do with this, the subverted city means the city is destroyed. The Gemara makes it indeed a proper Torah law, but in the verse there is also a distinction, there is strangulation, there is the sword, one kills them with the sword. So, there is such a Sephardic week, yes? No, this week, where does the other thing appear? Shavuot? I think this week. This week? Last week? Whatever.

It says one kills him, but him one doesn’t kill. The Rambam says, one kills him as killing to prevent harm and not killing as punishment. This is the language of the Rambam in the Moreh. That is, one kills him like an animal, not like a person. Because he is already beyond… I’m saying, it’s not exactly the law, but it’s the same… because he is already not a person. No, there is a level that is already beyond human desire. He says, he is already inhuman desire. Because it’s too bad, and one cannot deal with him.

Torah Only Deals with People

And our Torah, Torah deals with people, Torah doesn’t deal with angels and not with animals, not with beasts. Because a bad person, as someone said, a bad person is one who likes to dance with females and devour pigs. Someone who likes to devour females and dance with pigs, he is an animal, he is bad, he is not a normal person, but he is not a person anymore. To him one cannot kill with the law of a person, but with the law of an animal.

He says a Torah. The Rambam says approximately so, because it’s so dangerous. Because a person who doesn’t have idolatry, an entire city that serves idolatry one must kill no one. So says the holy Rambam. And no one deals with this, except the killings. Therefore one kills the seven nations. The seven nations one doesn’t serve, one doesn’t kill as punishment, but as danger. So says the Rambam. Also in other things he says this, in Part 3, Chapter 44, perhaps somewhere around there.

Back to the Topic: Addiction, Choice, and Stigma

The Extreme-Addicted Person Is Beyond the Category of Human

I want to go back to this. No, this is just, I want to show you that if I say that an addict is one who is an extreme person of desire, if one will say that there truly is someone who eats grass, as we spoke, he eats completely, it is already an old theory, it’s already an old category of a person who is so broken and so ruined, or perhaps he was born that way, I don’t know, he is not a person at all.

This connects with that category of a bad person, who is so bad, he is no longer within the category of a bad person, he is already within the category of an animal. And… this means he has become once a stigma. Usually one can… it means that we cannot speak with him. We can lock him up, we can inject him, I don’t know, one cannot speak with him.

Questions and Discussion: To Whom Do We Speak?

Student: One minute, one minute. One minute, one minute. Now one can speak with him.

Maggid Shiur: Master of the Universe, let’s speak now in Yiddish, okay? I don’t have strength. I don’t know, one will speak to that person, not nice. I don’t know. I don’t have the problem. The Torah speaks to people who will have children a bit of choice.

Student: True, the question says true. Someone who was like that, who works in a store of women, and he does nothing, he is crazy. To him one doesn’t speak.

Maggid Shiur: Okay, let’s not get into him. You’re saying the same thing. Could be, I didn’t have prayed. It could be. Theoretically, it’s practically, it’s another question. Theoretically could be. Yes, one hundred percent. What is the problem?

The Problem: State of Pennsylvania Doesn’t Speak of That One

The problem is like this, I’ll tell you the problem. The problem is, let’s go back to the problem, how it’s interesting. Okay, the State of Pennsylvania doesn’t speak of that one who is so addicted that one goes to lock him up against his will, because they don’t have a stigma. Everyone agrees, I think it’s already beyond stigma, it’s already after that. In our society more or less one doesn’t even do for that one. So you see there is such a problem.

Now, let’s just say clearly. I say too many things always. Let’s go back to what we’re speaking. So, the State of Pennsylvania says that the advice why to say to people that they shouldn’t have a stigma, is to say that it’s not a choice.

The Innovation: If It’s Not a Choice, It’s Not a Human Issue

Now, let’s understand, we said what? That they are right. A thing that doesn’t have choice is not a problem, is not a human issue. Could be an animal issue, let’s say. But a human issue, one cannot have complaints against him, and one also cannot fix him, one also cannot do repentance. Right?

But not at least on the normal human level of repentance, it’s another level, another thing. Now, first one needs a reincarnation, understand? Not repentance. Another sort, another lands.

The Main Point: What Does Choice Really Mean?

The Most Important Thing I’m Saying Today

Now, one must however grasp the topic of choice. Here is the important thing, a very important thing, the most important thing I’m saying today. The most important sort that I’m saying today is, that the person, whom we said earlier that he wants to do something but he doesn’t want to do it, he is one who has choice, and he is already once one who has choice.

Why do I say this? You will remember very old things. An addicted person. No, not every addict. Let every addict run. Okay? I think that the State of Pennsylvania also doesn’t speak of those people. Because those people one doesn’t have an assumption. That in practice, you will be amazed, I only speak of what is an assumption. My brother speaks of, not of the hardcore addicts. Do you stand? I don’t mean my brother, I mean the idea, yes?

They Admit That It’s Not a Simple Choice

Now, they say so, that it’s not a choice, it’s something else than choice. Now, let’s understand, they are in general admitting. If it would have been a choice in the simple sense, right? He wouldn’t have been an addict. Therefore one calls him addicted, therefore he says that he is addicted, therefore he has a problem, because he doesn’t have a choice. Good morning!

The people who say about him that it’s a choice, they are not fools, they are not idiots. They don’t say, ah, you choose, you make, you stand up in the morning, should I go to yeshiva for married men or should I go where one buys drugs? And he decides that day to buy drugs. That’s not the reality, yes?

What Do the Honest Jews Say?

But what do we say? What do the Jews say? What do the honest Jews say? The honest Jews say so, that the one who goes to yeshiva also doesn’t make a choice. Something is very funny with your idea of choice, that you must negate that that one doesn’t have a choice. Most people never have a choice in your way.

Do you remember already the lecture? Choice is not a thing that one stands up in the morning and decides so and so. True? Choice is what?

Student: What?

Maggid Shiur: A habit. Choice means, but which things mean with knowledge or with will? When it comes from you, when you did it, when you want to do it. When it doesn’t come from you, it comes from outside of you, that is the main thing that means coercion, not will. Right? There is a definition that means coercion. Coercion means “you did not do it,” it was done to you. You did it means it’s choice.

Choice Is Not Atomic Decisions

Now, certainly, we have already also learned this. You wanted to do, you hold from it, it’s good for you, you hold that it’s good. Have we already learned that most choices that people make, most interesting ones, the most that one speaks of doing repentance, that one speaks of being a good person, is not choices that one calls atomic choices, not a choice that I make now a choice and something happens. True?

Because there is such a thing that means a person. If it would have been so, there wouldn’t have been such a thing as a person. You must remember, if choice would have been radical like the people who speak of choice as an atomic thing imagine, there wouldn’t have been such a thing as a human being. Because he chooses every minute.

You’re a good person? I don’t know, I’m choosing this second. Certainly, in a certain sense I can choose every second to do or not do, no one disagrees with this. But there is still such a thing as a person, and a person means a predictable thing. One can say, you will go tomorrow to do so, you would have done yesterday so. Perhaps he is on a way up, perhaps he is on a way down, I’m not saying he remains stable. But a person is such a sort of thing that has what we call, for want of a better word, habits or character traits. True?

Aristotle’s Parable of the Stone

And we have already learned, Aristotle gave the parable that a person doesn’t have more choice to not have a character trait after he has gradually been the character trait, than the one who threw a stone has after the stone is flying.

You might say that I threw a stone at my neighbor, and meanwhile I had regret, I did repentance, yes? And it says in the Path of the Just that repentance, he says, that uprooting the will is like uprooting the deed. So, I did repentance in the middle of throwing the stone, it’s flying, and it goes to “with a stone by which one may die, he struck him,” and I’m holding repentance, and after that “and he died,” they drag me to court, and I say, “perhaps he regretted it.” Regretted? I didn’t want, I only wanted to throw, I didn’t want it to arrive.

They say to him, “No, a human choice means that you chose.” Certainly, it’s true! Every choice caused a choice, and this is as it should be. Because a person is not such a sort of creature who decides the whole time whether he should be a good person or not. A person is a sort of creature who decides to become a good person, and gradually he becomes. And he becomes drawn afterward, because he does what he becomes accustomed that it’s good, and what he begins to see the goodness of it, he becomes such a person.

The Habitually-Good Person Is the True Righteous One

To this that a person has the good habits, although he is habituated, as we have already spoken at length, not like the author of the Tanya made a mistake, and one says that he means “they did not serve,” but no, he is the first service, he is a good person, and he is the righteous person of whom the Tanya speaks.

The Tanya in the middle self-notices the contradiction, and he says now only within encouragement for the intermediate people. It’s not meant seriously. So, not a mistake in the Tanya, it’s a mistake of people who learn the Tanya. He is angry that I say that a mistake.

Habit for Bad, the Rambam’s Foundation “He Coerced Himself,” and the Distinction Between Desire and Fear

Review: Habit Is Not “They Did Not Serve” – The Tanya’s True Intention

That is, a person has good habits, although he is habituated, we have already spoken at length, not like the author of the Tanya made a mistake and one says that he means they did not serve, but no, he is the first service, he is a good person, and he is the righteous person of whom the Tanya speaks. The Tanya in the middle itself the contradiction, and he says now only within encouragement for the intermediate ones, it was not meant seriously. So, not a mistake in the Tanya, it’s a mistake of people who learn the Tanya. Right?

Habit for Bad – The Same Mechanism in Reverse

And the same thing, we spoke in praise, the same thing is on this side, the same thing is on this side. When a person begins the first cigarette, and the second and the third, he had a choice, he still has a choice. Afterward he becomes addicted, it’s not different from every other thing. How does he get out? He will conduct himself backward, to not smoke. Is it hard that he must take a medicine, he must do to him… just like every other thing in life, a person is such a creature that he begins his beginning with will and his end with will, not with coercion.

Why is it not with coercion? Because it remains his, it becomes even more his, not less his. And says Aristotle, if someone will tell me… it’s not called coercion, because he intended himself. It’s a language of the Rambam. I want to tell you a Rambam. This is exactly a language of the Rambam. I need… I need… I remember what the Rambam says, I’m going to rush.

The Rambam in Laws of Divorce – “He Coerced Himself”

The Source: Laws of Divorce Chapter 2, Law 20

So states the holy Rambam. I need to show you the language, the holy Rambam, and a very strange piece from the Rambam. But the people… I don’t remember what it says there. I want to show you a tremendous piece from the Rambam. It’s a wonder, all the Chassidim say this Rambam by heart. No one remembers what it says there. I want to show you what it says. In Hilchos Geirushin [Laws of Divorce], Chapter 2, Halacha 20. It says as follows.

Yes, a Jew who was coerced, he was forced, the law states that we force him to divorce his wife, and he doesn’t want to. What do we do? We beat him until he says that he wants to. And we give a get [a Jewish bill of divorce]. Even a non-Jew can beat him, if the non-Jew does it on his own it’s not good.

The Rambam’s Question and Answer

The holy Rambam asks a question, “Why is this divorce not void, since he is coerced?”

Says the holy Rambam, I will tell you the answer to this, you’ll see. Says the holy Rambam, “We only call someone ‘coerced’ if he is pressured and compelled to do something he is not obligated to do from the Torah. But one whose evil inclination overpowers him to nullify a mitzvah or commit a transgression – he is not coerced by an external force; rather, he coerces himself with his evil mindset.”

Explanation: What Does “He Coerces Himself” Mean?

What comes into this piece “he coerces himself”? Everyone knows to say the next piece, “but he wants to be a Jew,” it comes out that he wants. What does “he coerces himself” mean? He’s not coerced, right? Someone whose inclination overpowers him, says the Rambam first, he’s not coerced. “He is not coerced by an external force,” besides him means to say, someone didn’t coerce him, he coerced himself, right? And whoever coerced himself is not considered coercion.

What coerced itself? A desire. The Rambam agrees that we take his hands and we take a pen, and we take his hands and we turn them, that is coercion. Therefore, says the Rambam, since he actually wants to do this, and he also says that he wants to, so where is the coercion? He wants on both levels.

Application: The Contradiction Within the Baal Taavah

The Foundation: No One Wants to Be a Baal Taavah

Let’s understand. We said that there is such a thing called coercion. Let’s understand, let’s go back to what we said. Why do we say about an addict, in other words a baal taavah, that he is coerced? Why? Because you ask him, “Do you want to do it?” He says, “No, I don’t want to.”

In other words, not “do you want to do it,” let’s make it a bit more precise. You ask him, “Do you want to be an addict? Do you want to be a baal taavah?” There is no one who says, “I want to be a baal taavah.” That’s what the Rambam says. No one says, “I want to be a baal taavah.” He wants to be an honest Jew. True? Do you want to be a… “his evil mindset” means bad character traits, right? Do you want to be a baal midos ra’os? Is there anyone who wants to be a baal midos ra’os? Someone might want… what? No, you might think they’re good character traits, but no one wants to be a baal midos ra’os. No one wants to be an addict. Very good.

The Mechanism: “He Coerces Himself” – He Himself Created the Habit

Now, what is the meaning of an addict? What is the meaning of someone who does have bad character traits? An amazing thing, he has a… “he coerces himself.” This is what happens every day. Who is yesterday’s self, coercing today’s self? He comes to the thing, whatever his desire is, and he feels a tremendous craving for it, and he eats it, true? But he doesn’t want to have a craving for it. But what? His habit, his hergel that he tells himself, has made him accustomed to loving it, so he is coerced to eat it.

But who made the habit? Himself. And you yourself don’t count as coercion. You can’t coerce yourself. Even if I did it yesterday. There’s no such thing. Yesterday’s me is under the percentage. That’s the law of damages, adam mu’ad le’olam [a person is always responsible for his actions]. You couldn’t have gone to sleep there. There’s no such thing. You yourself are responsible. So make yourself a calculation. This is already the next piece of Torah that I don’t need to explain now.

Questions and Answers: The Contradiction Between General and Specific

Student: Not any mistakes. When one doesn’t make mistakes. When one does things willingly.

Teacher: No, yes, willingly, yes. When one makes a mistake one doesn’t become addicted. Now we have a Chanukah. Very good. No, now you want it specifically. Let me ask you another thing. When you do it, do you do it with desire or with coercion? You do it with desire, true? You do it with desire, but you don’t want to have the desire. Very good.

So one can say like this, generally speaking, if one asks you whether you want to have this character trait, you say no. If one asks you whether it’s a good piece of kugel, you say yes. True? There is a contradiction between the general and the specific. You don’t want to have a bad character trait, but you very much want, you want to enjoy, it’s already once yours!

Comparison: Baal Taavah vs. Pachdan – Why Do We Look Down More on the Baal Taavah?

Digression: The Slonimer Rebbe’s Teaching About “Death from Thirst”

Why do we look down most on a baal taavah? The Slonimer Rebbe said this, it says in the Gemara that misah mitoich tzama [death from thirst] is the worst death, so it says, it’s the greatest suffering. But the Slonimer Rebbe says perhaps it says why. A normal person when he is sick, he stops having desires. He no longer has strength. Imagine someone dying in the midst of the greatest desire, still thirsty. It’s obviously, there is disgrace.

It’s actually not true. If you actually don’t drink in a few days, you also get delirious and you stop having desires. But that’s how he imagined it, he made a mussar teaching. But you understand what I’m bringing out is, that we look down most on an addict, because specifically because he is the greatest baal taavah, because he wants it.

The Main Comparison: Yarei V’rach Levav vs. Yefas To’ar

Why do we look down on the baal taavah more? Let me contrast with a second thing, I want to give you another parable. What is someone who has such a tremendous fear? The opposite is not a baal taavah, we spoke about character traits that stand, and the next trait we’re going to speak about is the trait of courage. He is a tremendous coward, a tremendous coward, yes? Pachdan in Yiddish is coward? Not exactly. Is there such a thing? A tremendous coward, everything frightens him.

Like that one said? He heard that the Twin Towers happened, he immediately shaved off his beard and peyos, he doesn’t know, the Jews are frightened, the Muslims. A coward, yes? That person, R’ Elazar told me the story, I don’t know if it happened or didn’t happen. R’ Nachman has some such story. Anyway, he makes himself, yes? He is a tremendous coward, and in honor of this he transgresses mitzvos, he has tremendous fear, it could be that the non-Jews, he needs to hide himself. Yes?

Now I ask you about this person, he is an insane creature, okay, he is a bit exaggerated. But do we look down on him as much as we look down on someone who is a drug addict, or less?

Student: No, not the same.

Teacher: It’s unfortunate, that parable of mine is a bit crazy, but just let’s speak when he has, you know what, let’s speak about a real coward. He is one of those who it says in the next week, or two weeks, I don’t know when, that he can’t go to war because he is yarei v’rach levav [fearful and soft-hearted – referring to the Torah’s exemption from military service]. All the Jews put on their belts, and they make themselves “ready and prepared,” we’re going to do the great mitzvah of milchemes mitzvah [obligatory war], we send a kohen, and we stand in the rows, we’re going to fight against the enemies of Israel, against the enemies of Hashem.

And someone comes, and he gets cold feet, he starts to tremble. And they tell him, “Please, don’t say it out loud, say that you had a wedding, I didn’t have a wedding, I have nothing to do. Say that you made a vineyard, I have nothing to do.” In short, there’s no choice, he must declare that he is a coward. It’s embarrassing, true? But I ask you, who is a greater embarrassment? But we can understand him, right? He is a coward. Like Rabbi Akiva said, “I cannot withstand war and seeing a drawn sword.” I don’t remember which Tanna, Rabbi Akiva or the other one. He can’t, he has fear. We can understand him, true? We can understand him so much, the Torah itself will give him an exemption. “Aha, aha, no problem.”

The Distinction: Exemption for Fear, But Not for Desire

What about the second one? Also in the same parsha there is a second one, who saw some woman and he can’t restrain himself. And the desire is exactly as burning as by that one the fear of the drawn sword. What do we tell him? “Well, well, you’re going to hate the wife, and your son is going to be a sorer u’moreh [rebellious and defiant].” He gets a much weaker heter. True, he gets a heter. You know what? Some say there is no heter. There is such a heter. There is such a case, I know once in the Torah, anaso yitzro anaso [his evil inclination coerced him]. No problem.

So says Rashi, it’s not simple, but Rashi says it’s forced. I mean that the verse is not simple, it’s not simple that it’s a good thing. But Rashi says that it’s a bad thing, but no problem. Such a level of yetzer hara? For that there was a problem mister.

Student: He said that he has proof that no other yetzer hara can be conquered, because you see that this is the only one that is permitted.

Teacher: That’s not a proof, it could be we need to make a building now. But anyway, I just want to show you a basic thing: who do we look down on more, the yefas to’ar [beautiful woman captured in war] taker, or the ish yarei v’rach levav [the fearful and soft-hearted man]? I think it’s simply clear in the Chumash, and then in halacha, that the yarei v’rach levav we understand. Perhaps he is very pious, he is yarei mei’aveiros shebeyado [fearful because of sins he has committed], he doesn’t have merits. I don’t know. Yes, it’s an answer, but we understand him more, we’re going to give him the answer. For the yefas to’ar he didn’t get any answer. What says that he may even? But we look down on him. Why? Because he is a drug addict, and he has another trait that disturbs him.

The Foundation: Ones Rachmana Patrei – But Not for Yetzer Hara

What is the distinction? Generally speaking, I don’t need to elaborate, I brought an extreme parable, let’s not, generally speaking. Ones is exempt, ones rachmana patrei [the Merciful One exempts one who is coerced]. And the Rambam says that even if a non-Jew threatens you to commit avodah zarah [idolatry] and you do it, you are exempt, because ones is exempt. There is an additional obligation that one must give up one’s life, but it has nothing to do with it, it’s transgressing that positive commandment. But he is exempt, right? And ones exempt means even ones of money in many cases. It’s not clear, ones of life.

Ones in halacha doesn’t necessarily mean that someone stands and pushes your hand, right? Ones means a compulsion. Whether for lives, whether for money, there are distinctions. He threatens you, he will hit you, all kinds of things. That is ones, right?

There is almost no halacha, except for the case [perhaps: the case of yefas to’ar] and perhaps one halacha of yetzer hara, from Maseches Kesubos [Tractate Ketubot], there is almost no halacha where it says that someone has such a great yetzer hara, we can understand him. Everything we can understand him. Even that is perhaps one midrash. Why not? Have you ever thought about this question?

Desire and Coercion: Why Halacha Treats Them Differently

The Basic Question: Why Is “Anaso Yitzro” Almost Non-Existent in Halacha?

Definition of Ones in Halacha

Ones means, he compels you, whether loss of life, whether loss of money, there are distinctions, he threatens you, he will hit you, all kinds of things, that is ones, right?

There is almost no halacha, except for the Torah, and perhaps one halacha of yetzer hara from Maseches Kesubos, there is almost no halacha where it says that someone has such a great yetzer hara, we can understand him, at least we can understand him. Even that there is perhaps one midrash.

Why not? Has one ever thought about this question? Reb Tzadok HaKohen thought about this question, but the people didn’t think about this question. And the answer is, why don’t we think about this question?

The Contrast: External Ones Is Recognized, Anaso Yitzro Is Not

Who is he who is he who is he? He was a person, he comes to the beis din, he says, I want to do, I have a great yetzer hara, I have a doctor, I have a note from a psychiatrist, I suffer from addiction. It’s not even my fault, I was in cheder, someone showed me something and said, I’ve had an addiction since then, and I can’t restrain myself.

Okay, I just want to bring out, everything is there, everything is there. I just want to bring out that it’s not the normal case. The opposite, someone says in Choshen Mishpat [the section of Jewish law dealing with civil and monetary matters], in Yoreh De’ah [the section of Jewish law dealing with ritual matters], he says thousands of cases of the non-Jew threatened me, perhaps if I eat pork he will do something to me. We tell him, no problem, you are exempt. Very quickly we say, you are exempt.

Ones from fear, from fear, one is very quickly exempted, there are thousands, hundreds of halachos about such types of coercion, a whole Hilchos Yehareg V’al Ya’avor [the laws of martyrdom: when one must give up one’s life rather than transgress], where all the conditions are basically proof of such types of things. And the ones of desire, the ones of taavah is almost not there.

Analogy from War

And the same thing, people look down a bit on the one who runs away from war, but we understand him, what should he do? It is indeed difficult. The one who has a great desire, specifically for that we look down on him more, why specifically it’s a great desire? Do you get it?

The Main Answer: “Ones Es Atzmo” = Ratzon

What is the answer? The answer is very simple. What is the answer according to what we said before?

The answer is that ones means lo ones es atzmo [he did not force himself]. Ones es atzmo is the same thing as ratzon. Ones es atzmo means you want. Not you want today, you wanted yesterday, you already want. You want so much that you have already become a ba’al of it. You get it.

You are right that to do teshuvah it won’t go all at once. I agree that practically the person will have a problem. No one disputes that he will practically have a problem. One doesn’t do teshuvah, one doesn’t become better in one minute, because he has such a problem. And perhaps one should indeed be lenient with his punishment. I’m not going into details now, but the idea, that one is a ratzon, he is a more corrupt person, because he wants bad things, he wants so much, he can’t restrain himself.

The Distinction of Ones and Ratzon

The one whom someone else compels, what is the whole distinction of ones and ratzon? One, the non-Jew threatens you, a non-Jew threatens you, okay, I can understand you.

Don’t say, not always. There are many types of ones where sometimes we say, that one from the tenth house, we look down, it went a bit too far. No problem. But the far is much farther than the far of ratzon.

Why? Because if it means that one did to you, that one did to you, you are not a bad person. Someone forced you. He wanted, he waited for the answer. In any case, that that one waited is not dangerous. But that you yourself wanted, that is terrible, that is the distinction.

Why? Generally speaking there is no such thing in Shulchan Aruch [the authoritative code of Jewish law] of anaso yitzro. That is approximately what I wanted to say today. I did find a dangerous Gemara about this. Very interesting.

First Additional Distinction: Bechirah vs. Breichah

There’s another giant point, I need to say one more thing. There’s another small distinction, another reason why. Everything I’ve said to you is written on the last page 2 in the sources. There it says “התהלות רצונות יוסף מרחל לב” [the praises of desires, Joseph from Rachel’s heart]. On this I’ve written from the Sefer HaMidos [Book of Character Traits], more with my additions, a bit of Torah. I didn’t add enough here, but I’ve now told him all the laws that are built on this. And I need to add a piece of Mishnah, I need to say one more thing, after which I’ll say a piece of Gemara in Eruvin [a tractate of the Talmud].

The Essential Distinction: Bechira and Bricha

There’s another giant point, another giant, another two giant points to say Ribono Shel Olam [Master of the Universe]. One, I must say another two giant points. One, there’s another reason, another distinction. The essential distinction is this, I mean, I think this is the essential distinction, perhaps everything is connected to this.

The essential distinction is that a ba’al ta’avah [one ruled by desire] is what he wants. One can say it, I thought about it in terms of nishtar kodesh [hidden holiness]. One says thus: there is bechira [choice] and bricha [flight], they’re both the same letters.

Ta’avah [desire] means you are choosing inside, he wants. And everyone knows, I spoke earlier, the example is what are you choosing? You’re not choosing? It’s not a claim.

Ones [compulsion] means you’re not choosing, you’re fleeing. What does it mean from choosing you’re fleeing? Right? The same letters. I don’t know. It’s not there. The one not choosing is fleeing. And consequently what? He’s running away from that thing, not from himself. It’s not that he’s drawn to something, that thing is pushing him away, he’s running away from it. Not that he’s pushing it away, yes, he’s running away from something. That’s the distinction.

Second Additional Distinction: Fear Removes One’s Da’at, Ta’avah Does Not

There’s another important distinction, which is that ones, not a normal ones, let’s understand, when it’s a normal case it’s ones like that one, I don’t know that story, someone is in the kishrei hamilchama [those fit for war], the nature is that the person becomes a bit crazy.

The Case of War

Usually when a person abandons his weapon, let’s say there was someone who is really from the claimants, there’s such a thing in the military that is very strong, he’ll show, yes, you ran away from your post, even though it was very dangerous, you must, that’s your job.

Okay, but why does he run away? Usually he’ll say, I ran away like this, as it says in the Gemara. I ran away like this, I was so frightened, I went crazy. But I was out of my mind, what should I do? Out of one’s mind means I’m exempt. The rule is that a person who has no sekhel [understanding], you know what he does with himself, is exempt.

Ta’avah Is Different

Ta’avah, very hard to say, usually, there’s always a case, but usually, when a person has a ta’avah he’s completely fine, he loves the boss very much. You can’t say, usually, so he says a distinction, one must think about this more, I have proofs for this.

Usually one doesn’t see that fear is something that drives people crazy, people become crazy. In the normal case, the central case of someone who ran away from something because of fear and a terrible war, he’s out of himself, he’s out of his senses.

Someone who has such a ta’avah, such a thing from the Torah, is out of his senses? He’s not out of his senses. He has a great yetzer hara [evil inclination]. A great yetzer hara is not out of one’s senses, not the same thing. That’s the second distinction.

Third Additional Distinction: Opportunity to Practice

A third distinction, which is very connected, ones we’ve said, I’m being brief, I’ll just say briefly what’s already 10 20. The third distinction is, let’s remember an important thing.

The Question of Guilt

They’ve now said, what is a person actually guilty of? Certainly the one who is a great ba’al ta’avah is himself guilty, why? Because yesterday and the day before yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, his whole life basically, he accustomed himself to bad habits.

Now you must understand a very interesting thing, that if so, one can only have claims against the person if he had the opportunity to acquire good habits. If he’s now born for example, he’s still young, one can’t have any claims.

Children and Chata’ot Ne’urim

Before that, on children one has no claims even if he’s a ba’al ta’avah. Why not? Have you never thought about this? One giant reason is, he shouldn’t have da’at, because he should have been a ba’al ta’avah. It takes time. A person isn’t usually born a ba’al ta’avah, he’s born with more desires than he should have. And gradually he works it out, becomes a bit restrained.

But when a person is very young, one can’t have any claims. One sees clearly, this is by the way a heter [permission]. For young bachurim [young men] one allows, that is chata’ot ne’urim [sins of youth] for a giant reason, one says, not dangerous, he’s young. He actually, when older he didn’t have a… One allows him, he says, one should do teshuvah [repentance]. No, no, no. I just want to bring out, but I want it’s an important thing.

Where Does the Claim Lie?

So it comes out, let’s understand, where does the claim lie on the person? One says that you’re a terrible ba’al ta’avah, you’re an addict. When does one have claims? The State of California, on whatever, is very confused. On ones one is confused. By them it’s either it’s a choice, or it’s not a choice.

The ratzon [will] is a choice yesterday. Why must it be a choice today? They say, don’t make stigma, because stigma makes people from just giant reasons feel bad, and after they feel bad they don’t go to treatment.

The Essential Point

No, I’m explaining. No, no, no. No, no, no, more, more, more, if he made himself, himself with his evil mind from twenty years of becoming bad. I’m just explaining here that it’s very important to grasp that this is when one has claims.

When one says that you’re a bad person because you want so strongly a bad thing, one doesn’t mean because you want now a bad thing. You mean because you wanted yesterday a bad thing, and the day before yesterday, and the day before yesterday, it started with a less bad thing, it became worse and worse, as is the way of ta’avot [desires].

Digression: California and Stigma

The state of California is a bit confused. They say that if… whatever, they probably hold the same. If it’s not a choice, if it’s a disease it’s not a choice. A person can have a choice to have a disease. Even, as we spoke, even actual illnesses, the Gemara says what does peshi’ah [negligence] mean. If one could have had a better lifestyle where one can’t get illnesses. All the more so such a thing that he started, certainly it’s a choice. Now it’s already not a choice for him though. That means a choice, because yesterday it was a choice.

And about this they’re also not right that when there’s no stigma, because the stigma isn’t made for that person. The stigma is made for the person at step 0, not for the person at twenty. Perhaps he actually doesn’t need stigma, I don’t know, perhaps one needs to bring encouragement in, should say that there should be chizuk [strengthening].

But all those other people, who stand twenty steps before that, how will one they shouldn’t be frightened that they shouldn’t start this path? One must make a stigma on that person. Okay, this is a side thing, which I don’t want to go into, I’m just bringing out the point.

The Main Point of Opportunity

That the reason why one has claims, the badness doesn’t lie in what you could have habituated yourself. If so, it must be such a sort of thing that one can habituate oneself.

Now, an interesting thing, one spoke about a contrast of ones, as one calls in the Gemara ones comes in ta’avah and compels himself. Why is the great distinction? The main distinction is that the things that happen by themselves one has very many opportunities to work on. You know why? You do it yourself.

Every day you get up with a terrible ta’avah. If he has a refined ta’avah, restrains himself a bit, tomorrow restrains himself a bit more, the same, gradually you’ll become a person.

But to call a non-Jew to force you every day is very hard, the non-Jew doesn’t come always. The 20 means they only fall once in a century. So how did he have the opportunity to practice courage? He didn’t. Except a soldier, I don’t know, it’s his job, a normal person doesn’t have an opportunity to practice courage.

So one can’t have so many claims, usually it comes suddenly, it came, he was frightened, what does one want to do? A thing that comes always, from that one looks more somewhere in by ta’avah to many other bad middot [character traits], because ta’avot has the most opportunities to work on. Every single day one can work on it. That’s the third reason.

Summary of the Three Distinctions

What did I want to bring out? The first is because you want it, because you are choosing and it speaks of choice.

Tosafot’s Question and Answer: Why Yetzer Hara Is Not in the List of “Ma’avirin Al Da’ato”

The Baraita: Three Things That Remove a Person from His Da’at

No, the second is because you have da’at. Ah, I wanted to say a piece of Gemara. With this I’ll conclude. I searched, listen to a wonderful thing from the Gemara. I searched for a source for the two sorts. I searched for a source for the for sorts of ones. It comes out that there are different sorts of ones, yes? And one looked earlier on the first page, we saw that the Gemara that’s written in the Sefer HaMidos for ones, is either a great wind comes and drags you, or a person drags you. And I, Yitzchak, explained this, I would here today a Mishnah, it’s a Hamburg Mishnah. A Mishnah stands, in the first Mishnah of the fourth chapter of Eruvin, it says thus: “mi she-hotzi’uhu nokhrim o ru’akh ra’ah” [one whom non-Jews or an evil spirit took out] means an ones. That’s the Mishnah and the Rishonim learned think the same thing. There are two ways of being a complete ones: that one does, or non-Jews, or an evil wind.

The Rambam’s Definition of “Ru’akh Ra’ah”

Now one looks into the commentators, one sees they say that ru’akh ra’ah is not a wind at all. What is ru’akh ra’ah? The Rambam says that ru’akh ra’ah is anything that makes the person act shelo mi-da’at [without da’at]. Further, shelo mi-da’at. That’s said the second thing we’re saying, that when he doesn’t have da’at, then he’s the thing that comes from outside takes away his da’at.

The Distinction Between Machalat Nefesh and Middah Ra’ah

Before that it’s very important to notice, that when you say nowadays one says that there are all kinds of machalot nefesh [mental illnesses], and in the Gemara it’s always called a ru’akh ra, because it’s only the distinction of a badness with an illness if another does it. If a ru’akh ra comes and does it to you, and he doesn’t have da’at, then it’s not him. If it’s by himself, if in other words, can he habituate himself. That’s what like the difference. The illness that we call today a choli nefesh [mental illness] is something that one can’t habituate oneself in and out. If one can habituate oneself in and out, then it’s plain a middah ra’ah [bad character trait].

The Gemara’s Baraita: “Sheloshah Devarim Ma’avirin Et Ha’adam Al Da’ato”

Now, very interesting, it’s really a wonder, I want to tell you really. This is a law, a law in Eruvin and techumin [Sabbath boundaries], that one who goes out chutz latchum le-ones [outside the boundary by compulsion] has such a law, if he goes out bi-rtzon [willingly] he has another law, and these are the examples.

Halacha Is Ethics – No Distinction Between Aggadah and Halacha

Now, one looks into the Gemara, I want to tell you today a wondrous thing, one looks into the Gemara, and the Gemara thought like us, that there’s no distinction between aggadah and halacha. Halacha is ethics, it’s only, it’s understood that the law of techum is about desecration of Shabbat, it’s a whole path how one arrives here. But the investigations of ones with will with mixed, the same investigations of all human things, all virtues and deficiencies, it must be be-ones [by compulsion], not be-ones, it must be bi-rtzon, be-da’at [with da’at]. The Gemara thought that the Mishnah speaks of the sugya [topic], of what it means that the person is be-da’at?

The Gemara says thus: Everyone knows that what does the Gemara do when on a Mishnah it brings baraytot [external teachings] that connect with the subject of the Mishnah, sometimes it fits yes, sometimes it doesn’t fit, one answers. The Gemara says thus: “tanu rabanan, sheloshah devarim ma’avirin et ha-adam al da’ato ve-al da’at kono, elu hen nokhrim ve-ru’akh ra ve-dikdukei aniyut” [the Rabbis taught, three things remove a person from his da’at and from the da’at of his Creator, and these are they: non-Jews, an evil spirit, and the pressures of poverty]. Two of the three are in the Mishnah, true? And what does the Gemara say? That the Mishnah speaks of the matter of “ma’avirin et ha-adam al da’ato” [remove a person from his da’at]. “Ma’avirin et ha-adam al da’ato” is literally, it’s really a translation of the wonderful same thing, removes a person from his da’at, “u-ma’avirin al midotav” [and removes him from his character traits], it means it removes him from his da’at, it’s out in Yiddish, out of his senses. Removes him from his da’at, and da’at kono [the da’at of his Creator], which is correct. And two of them are non-Jews, that means ones, ru’akh ra, I don’t know exactly what that is, and there’s a third which is called dikdukei aniyut [pressures of poverty].

The Gemara’s Question: “Le-mai Nafka Minah?”

The Gemara asks a question, a tremendous question. And as I’ve now said, this means complete ones. The Gemara asks, “le-mai nafka minah” [what’s the practical difference]? If this is an ones, what are you telling me? I can’t. If you say that you must do something, don’t go out chutz latchum, don’t go out chutz latchum from non-Jews, ru’akh ra, and dikdukei aniyut. Dikdukei aniyut means what? You don’t have money. What should I do about that?

Digression: The Chafetz Chaim’s Story About Pikuach Nefesh and Dikdukei Aniyut

So the Chafetz Chaim said, it’s written in Reb Nissen Krelitz’s book, no one should say chiddushim [novel interpretations], Reb Nissen Krelitz was one of the most pious Jews that could ever be, he writes a book “Such Shabbat”, they told the Chafetz Chaim he should go to some city where there Shabbat desecration had become rampant, the people work there in some factory in that city, it’s open on Shabbat, there the whole community works, and they all work on Shabbat, and they should go say mussar [ethical rebuke] to them. The Chafetz Chaim said, on what should he say mussar? It’s pikuach nefesh [life-threatening situation], they may. Pikuach nefesh. In the city there’s only one factory, that’s the entire livelihood of the entire city. Whoever doesn’t work there starves to death. And what claims do you have that they work on Shabbat? Ah, go make a factory that keeps Shabbat. That would be a nice thing, because Jews must keep Shabbat. But to say mussar? So he says. He has a whole explanation to try to explain this, it doesn’t fit him, but he comes out like this, I can’t look outside two laws of Shabbat, the laws of pikuach nefesh stands the story. There stands the dikdukei aniyut, which is an ones? The Gemara asks, what can I do? An ones is ones, when it’s bi-rtzon, when I’m a bit guilty, I can do something.

The Answer: “Le-vo Rachamei” – Pray and Change the Situation

The Gemara answers, listen to a Gemara, this is a Breslav Gemara. The Gemara answers, the answer is, “nafka minah iz, le-vo rachamei alav” [the difference is, he should pray for mercy], he should pray. Because it’s understood that a person doesn’t want to have dikdukei aniyut, what does he want to do? Pray. I mean that “le-vo rachamei” [to bring mercy], according to Breslav means it literally, it means actually literally.

What Does “Rachamei” Mean in the Gemara?

But “levo rakhamim” [to come with mercy] we see in other places in the Gemara, it says “shema yikdimenu akher be-rakhamim” [perhaps another will precede him with mercy]. Rakhamim means this: there are things that are done in midat ha-din [the attribute of strict justice]. Why is tefillah [prayer] called rakhamim? Have you thought about this? Why “levo rakhamim”? The Almighty says, perhaps according to midat ha-din I don’t deserve to be poor. There is tefillah, tefillah means din [judgment], yes? Not all tefillah is be-midat rakhamim [in the attribute of mercy].

Why does the Gemara call tefillah rakhamim? What does the Gemara mean by “levo rakhamim”? It means this: it means that in the normal order, din means in the normal order, it’s the derekh ha-teva [natural way], the derekh ha-olam [way of the world]. I have a ruach ra [evil spirit], can I do something? I can’t. When I have a ruach ra, can I do something? I have a ruach ra, I can’t do anything.

Rakhamim Means Broader Changes in Life

But there are ways of doing things that are called rakhamim. In other words, as we learn in the Gemara, what is the way of teshuvah [repentance]? As the Rambam says, he should go to another city, he should change his name, he should be meshaneh mazal [change his fortune], meshaneh makom [change his place], meshaneh mazal. This is not din, one doesn’t become… perhaps in that city he’ll also be poor, we don’t know. Change something in the whole situation of his life, perhaps there you won’t have the triggers that make you crazy. There are no non-Jews there. Go live in other countries, there are no non-Jews. “Levo rakhamim” means that one can do things that are not directly on the action, one can do broader things. Things that change in life that spoil this. This is the meaning of the Gemara. And the way that one does it is through davening [praying]. Because, okay, whoever understands how to daven, or what it says.

Tosafot’s Question: Why Is the Yetzer Hara Missing from the List?

Now, I want to tell you, it goes further, says the holy Tosafot, listen to this, until Tosafot learned that in this topic in the Gemara it speaks of the topic of something that is not a yetzer hara [evil inclination]. A yetzer hara where when one wants alone is “hu yanus et atzmo” [he can flee from himself], “mi she-yotzi’uhu” [whoever took him out], that one took him out, is exempt, is an ones [unavoidable circumstance].

Tosafot asks like this, Tosafot says like this: “ve-af al gav de-ika nami” [and even though there is also] – why does the Gemara say that there are only three things that are “ma’avir al da’ato ve-al da’at kono” [remove him from his mind and from his Creator’s mind]?

Question A: Keshafim

First Tosafot asks a question, there is keshafim [sorcery]. Okay, keshafim is the simple meaning of ruach ra’ah. It says “makhkhishim pamalya shel ma’alah” [they deny the heavenly entourage], the simple meaning is “ma’avir al da’at kono” [removes from the Creator’s mind]. Do you understand Tosafot’s simple meaning? Why is it “ma’avir al da’at kono”? Because it’s “ma’avir al da’ato” [removes from his mind], it makes him crazy. That is, a sorcerer is a crazy person. No, that’s not what Tosafot means, but Tosafot means that a sorcerer makes other people crazy. Okay.

Question B: Yetzer Hara – The Main Question

Then Tosafot says, there is another thing, yetzer hara. Why? Tosafot brings such a way, one doesn’t need this language, but this is Tosafot’s question. The Gemara says that there are three things that are “ma’avir al da’at” [remove from one’s mind], that make a person crazy. A yetzer hara also makes a person crazy. And this has a proof, there’s a Gemara in “elu megalkhin” [these may shave – in Moed Katan], that there is such a thing, “mi she-ra’ah she-yitzro mitgaber alav” [one who sees that his yetzer hara is overpowering him], and he implies “ve-eino yakhol le-hitgaber” [and he cannot overpower it], he should go do some action, “yilbash shekhorim ve-yit’atef shekhorim” [he should wear black and wrap himself in black], and he should go do some action, “ve-ya’aseh mah she-libo khafetz” [and he should do what his heart desires], he should not make a khilul ha-Shem [desecration of God’s name].

It comes out simply in the Gemara, he says, it’s simply in the Gemara that one cannot, sometimes there is a yetzer hara that is “ma’aviro al da’at kono” [removes him from his Creator’s mind]. And this “ve-ya’aseh mah she-libo khafetz” Tosafot says actually a different meaning.

Rabbeinu Chananel’s Alternative Explanation

Tosafot brings Rabbeinu Chananel’s explanation that “yilbash shekhorim” doesn’t mean that he should do it, it means that through this he won’t do it, “yakhof da’ato” [he should force his mind]. But it’s not the simple meaning in the Gemara, Tosafot doesn’t go with this explanation.

Tosafot’s Answer: “In Every Case a Person Can Be Careful Not to Come to This”

He says, there is another answer. Tosafot answers, “be-khol makom adam yakhol lizaher she-lo yavo lidei kakh” [in every case a person can be careful not to come to this]. Certainly a person who is seized by the yetzer hara, about him was said the Gemara, “al ta’aseh mah she-libkha khafetz” [don’t do what your heart desires], do it with a nikname [pseudonym], not with your own name.

The Key Principle: One Can Be Careful Beforehand

But why can I have complaints against him? Why isn’t this called “ma’avir al da’ato ve-al da’at kono”, where then he is exempt, just like “nishbah la-listim” [captured by bandits] and “nokhrim”, non-Jews, whatever? The answer is, because yesterday you could have done something. No one told you to have internet. Now that you have it, you are indeed exempt. But no one told you to have it. You could have been careful “she-lo yavo lidei kakh” [not to come to this].

Conclusion

So these are words of Tosafot that we see what we have now discussed.

A freilichen Shabbos [a joyous Sabbath].