Two week's ago the Torah tells us about Yaakov's exit from Lavan's household. Ultimately, the reason why Yaakov decided to leave was because he received a prophecy from Hashem that it was time to leave. However, when Yaakov is relaying the message to his wives he gives a whole justification as to why they should leave. He explains how he has worked so hard for their father and all Lavan has done is trick him and then finally at the end of his speech he adds that God has told him to leave (Vayetzeh 31:5-13.) Why the need for a whole explanation, just cut to the chase, Hashem said to leave? Rav Neeman (Darchei Mussar) explains that we see from here that one of the tactics to fight against the temptation of the yetzer harah not to fulfill the word of Hashem is to give logical reasons for the commandments. He extends this principal to our parsha as well. When Yosef refuses to listen to the wife of Potiphar, he tells her "how can I do this treacherous deed against my master who has done so much for me (39:8-9)." Why didn't Yosef just say simply "I can't sin against God?" Because a rational explanation is something that speaks to the yetzer harah, it is an argument which must be considered and therefore is an important weapon to use against the yetzer harah.
This approach seems to be contrary to the approach of the Shem M'Shmuel. He points out that the first response of Yosef is וימאן. The first thing he does is to stop himself, he stops in his tracks and refuses to do the averah. The explanation comes only afterward, it is a mere afterthought in order to give an explanation to the wife of Potiphar as to why he won't listen to her. However, there are no reasons necessary to be given to fulfill the word of God, it should be kept because of the command alone.
Are these two approaches a major schism in the worldview of the baal mussar vs. the chassid, or are they just arguing as to what's the respond to the yetzer harah, with the talk to the hand approach or through the power of reason?
עיין ברמב"ן שרק לנשים צריך טעמים. ונראה שזהו דרך שלישית שאין צורך טעמים שכליים כלל לעצמו גם as an afterthought רק כשצריך להסביר הדברים לאדם שאינו מבין דברים דוחה אותם בקש.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the מדריגות האדם מאמר תקופות העולם is that he would side with the Shem Meshmuel on this one. And seeing as the alter of novardok was a baal mussar, this should probably be limited to a localized מחלוקת as to which approach works better against the yetzer harah. It could be that both are usefull depending on the person or circumstance. One must know oneself in order to decide which approach works better.
The novardeck school doesn't count. They were similar to Chassidim in emphasizing simple faith. I'm refer to the intellectual schools like Kelm, Telz etc.
ReplyDelete