Group None

“And Joshua said to the Israelites: ‘Come step here’” (Josh. 3:9).

In the Midrash (Genesis Rabba 5:7):Rav Huna said: He stood all of them up between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. Said Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: He supported them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. The Rabbis said: He squeezed them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark. Joshua said to them: From the fact that the two carrying-poles of the Ark held all of you, know that the Presence of God is among you. This is as it says: “And Joshua said: With this, you will know that the Living God is in your midst (Josh. 3:10).”

Before we begin to breathe inner life into this teaching (even if the Rabbis did not have this in mind, the spirit of this teaching perhaps moves in the same plane),1This comment reflects R. Salanter’s sophistication as a reader (in light of his exposure to the role of the unconscious forces in a person). Plain meaning (peshat) is often not plain meaning. Reason and seemingly rational conclusions are often driven by irrational desires and forces to predetermined (non-rational) conclusions. One can also say that, by 1861, R. Salanter’s cultural interpretive context was affected by modern perspectives. He did not interpret this rabbinic text according to its “naive,” plain meaning, as did other readers still primarily embedded in traditional culture. let us express, briefly and succinctly, some generalizations about the character of the ways of human beings, for they are diverse. Some have good character. Their traits are naturally desirable. And some are the opposite. So too, within an individual person, sometimes psychic forces do not march in lockstep. Some march (without a control or guide) in a straight path. Some of them go in twisted paths. They will erupt to do harm if the person does not stop them with the power of his reason.

A person should not say: Whatever God has made2Compare Ecclesiastes 7:29. cannot be changed, and He, blessed be He, imbued this power of evil in me; how can I hope to uproot it completely? This is not so. Human powers can be conquered and changed. Our eyes see this in the nature of animals; a human being is powerful enough to master them in the control of his will, that they not do evil or destroy.3Compare Isaiah 11:9. He can domesticate them, changing their nature and thoroughly uprooting the evil of their character. So, the human being himself has within his power4Compare Genesis 31:39. to conquer his evil nature5Below R. Salanter describes this as a method of character formation – kibbush hamiddot – literally, “conquering the traits.” We translate this as the method of repression. so that it is not expressed in personal action, and also to change his nature for the better through study and habituation (hergel).6Below, R. Salanter describes this as an alternative method of character improvement called tikkun hamiddot – literally, “the improvement of traits.” We translate this as the method of sublimation. (See Ḥeshbon HaNefesh.)7A book whose title literally means “accounting of the soul,” published in the early nineteenth century by a moderate maskil, Menachem Mendel Lefin of Satanov (1749–1826), which deals with identifying character traits and working on changing them. Lefin’s work was influenced by the moral self-improvement program described in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1791).And as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Avot 4:1): “Who is [truly] mighty? One who conquers his [evil] urge, as it is said (Prov. 198This is a typographical error – the actual location is Proverbs 16:32.): ‘Better one who is slow to anger than one who is mighty; and one who controls his spirit than one who captures a city.’” For the definition of “might” is to rise up against an opponent and conquer him by force and strength. And the “capture of a city” occurs when the people of the city accede to the dictates of their captor with love and affection, and it is not burdensome for them to fulfill his commands. With joy and festivity, they are happy to carry out his plans. So the “conqueror of his urge” is only mighty in that he strengthens himself to hold back his desire. This is the state of “slow to anger” – the person has anger, but he holds it back so that it does not break out. From this, little by little, he can arrive at the state of “controls his spirit,” i.e., that the spirit of his desire is in the power of his straightforward reason to love righteousness – and not desire its opposite.This is the whole duty of man:9Compare Ecclesiastes 12:13. to root out of his heart every bad quality and character trait (midda). For as long as he has not been cured of their sickness, even if he overcomes his urge many times, he will eventually fall into its net (see Shaarei Kedusha,10R. Chaim Vital (1542–1620, Safed) was a kabbalist and the foremost disciple of R. Isaac Luria (Arizal), a Jewish mystic and the founder of modern Kabbala. R. Vital’s Shaarei Kedusha (The Gates of Holiness) is a manual of proper comport and character for aspiring mystics. Part 1, Gate 3). This was the virtue of our father Abraham, may peace be upon him, that he sublimated all the psychological drives that came with his body. As they, of blessed memory, said (Genesis Rabba, Lekh Lekha 46): “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: ‘You have only one husk – the foreskin. Remove it and the flaw will be gone.’ ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1).” See further there. And as they said (Genesis Rabba 11): “Everything that was created during the six days of creation needs work; for example, the mustard seed needs to be sweetened…even the human being needs to be perfected.”*Gen. 6:9)…. R. Yehuda says: This is analogous to a king who had two sons, one big and one small. He said to the small one: Walk with me. And he said to the big one: Come and walk before me. So Abraham who had great strength – ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1); but Noah, who had little strength – ‘Noah walked with God.’”Because Noah (in accordance with his capacity) was not commanded to circumcise, he could not reach the stage of true perfection, but only reached the stage of conquering his urge, and even that, only with the help of God, blessed be He. As they, of blessed memory, say (Sukka 52b): “A man’s [evil] urge comes on strongly against him every day, and but for the help of the Holy One, blessed be He, he could not cope with it” (see further there). And this is the meaning of “Noah [walked with God]….” However, Abraham, after the flaw was removed, all his psychic forces were perfected. He walked on his own, like one marching with a flute, rejoicing to keep the “way of God” (compare Gen. 18:19). This is (the meaning of God’s instruction to Abraham to) “walk before Me.” As is found in Tanna DeVei Eliyahu (ch. 25): “Therefore I would say that each person in Israel must say: ‘When will my actions reach the level of deeds of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?’”11How can any individual do as much as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Can they start the Jewish people and religion again? R. Salanter’s answer is: “No” – but they can match Abraham in achieving perfection of the urge and removal of inner flaws. And with this we can explain the midrash (Genesis Rabba 46) on the verse (Hos. 9:10): “‘As the first fruit to ripen on a fig tree, so I regarded your fathers’…. R. Yudan says: Just as this fig has no husk except for its stem, take that off and the flaw will be gone, so the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: ‘You have only one husk – the foreskin. Remove it and the flaw will be gone.’ ‘Walk before Me and be whole’ (Gen. 17:1).”

This also fits the midrashic statement (ibid., ch. 1): “Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some were created and some arose in thought to be created…. The patriarchs…arose in thought to be created. From whence [do we learn this about] the patriarchs? It is said (Hos. 9:10): ‘As grapes in the desert…’ (this is the end of the aforementioned verse, ‘as the first fruit to ripen in a fig tree…’).” This can be explained [as follows]: It is known that in action, cause precedes effect. And the effect (which is the goal) follows its preceding causes. However, in thought, the matter is reversed – the goal comes first. In accordance with the goal (and in order attain it), the preceding causes are arranged to arrive at the effect. Now in the creation of the universe (the earth and everything on it – see what the writers have said about this), the goal was the perfect human being, who fears God and observes His commandments. As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 31b): “What does ‘This is the whole duty of man’ (Eccl. 12:13) mean? R. Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The whole world was created solely for the sake of this one.”12I.e., the perfect human, the patriarchs. See further there. According to the saying of the Tanna DeVei Eliyahu (quoted above), it can be seen clearly that the focus, that is, the goal, of creation is for the sake of the superior human being – the one who fulfills his obligation to rise to the level of the patriarchs.

This is the meaning of the above-quoted midrashic saying: before creation took place, “the patriarchs arose in thought to be created.” That is, the goal of creating the world in His thought, blessed be He (which precedes the cause, i.e., the actual creation of the universe), was to generate human beings who reach the level of the patriarchs.

This is the meaning of the above-quoted midrash, “As the first fruit to ripen in a fig tree, so I regarded your fathers,” that is, the human was created for this goal. And each person has it in his hands and in his power to sublimate all the psychological drives that are intertwined with his materiality – except for the piece that Abraham was commanded to cut off.13Here again, R. Salanter, applying his own creative thinking, is re-presenting the practice of Mussar. Earlier, he stressed its importance as a particular behavior intended to increase awareness of God and true reverence. Now he presents Mussar as the way to achieve the universal goal of the Torah (and God’s reason for creating the world) – to perfect human character. Each individual is obligated to make himself whole, like Abraham. An oral tradition of the Mussar movement quotes R. Salanter as saying: “The Torah came to make a mentsch.” This, on one foot, is his summary and his view of the goal of the whole Torah.

However, even under conditions of “perfecting the urge” [i.e., sublimation], he should not slacken his grip on “conquering his urge” [i.e., repression], for even if the evil is uprooted from within him, there is still a source of pollution buried in him to taint his waters – through an intense stimulus that can arouse them to emerge from hiding, spread out, and destroy. For example: a man conditioned himself with the virtue of patience, so that he does not get angry at all at anything done against his will or advantage. Still, in an important matter, which weighs upon him heavily as a pile of sand and pains him because it strikes deep, he is not assured that it will not undermine and destroy the good thing he built with so much toil. At such a time, he will need extra strength to conquer this intense desire that he is not accustomed to. (For the habit of “conquering” [repressing] this trait [of anger], which he acquired earlier, when he was at the stage of repression, has already been abandoned and uprooted from within him, for he has not used it for a long time – since he first attained the level of “perfecting” [sublimating]). Who knows if at such a time14See Esther 4:14. he will attain the required degree of strength – especially since repression is hard to achieve without heavy conditioning?15Conquering (repressing, kevisha) the urge means resisting one’s inclinations. For example: Take the case of careful language. Conquering the evil urge would entail resisting the urge to speak derogatory words about another. (Note: Negative speech typically reflects the speaker’s own feelings of inadequacy or being in a low state.) Perfecting the urge (sublimation, tikkun) means controlling and redirecting the inclination so that it does not manifest in the desire for evil. In the case of language, this might mean channeling the desire to say something derogatory into a desire to speak positively. In the past, there was a pleasure in belittling the other person. Now, one receives pleasure from building the other up. (Such speech typically reflects the speaker’s attaining a state of self-acceptance.) However, R. Salanter warns that even after one reaches the states of sublimation, one must be careful to maintain the ability to repress when necessary. In the example of language, despite having redirected the urge, there are always latent levels of inclination that can be aroused by a personal setback or new pressures in one’s life. The evil urge then could come rushing back and must be conquered. At that point, one can only suppress the urge by an act of will.

So it is good for a person of upright character traits to raise them to a high level from the perspective of repression – to habituate [i.e., condition] himself to reverse his traits forcefully, thereby to light a lamp before him for the “bad days,” the time of temptation, when (God forbid) his good foundations will weaken. Nevertheless, since it is hard for a person to use the trait of strength [i.e., repression] and to bear its perpetual yoke and pain, one should seek counsel and strategy to perfect [i.e., sublimate] his character traits and psychological drives, more or less – so that, at least, the corruption of his character traits will be remote, and he will not need the trait of strength except very occasionally, at a time of temptation according to his emotional state, situation, and psychological constitution.16A chart comparing R. Salanter’s two methods of altering behavior – repression and sublimation – appears in the final footnote of this chapter.

This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Avot (4:2): “Flee from transgression.” Each person has different character traits, and so each person should be very cautious and seek the character trait that is most likely to corrupt him and sublimate it so that the path [to corruption] is remote.The foundational principle of when to use sublimation is in interpersonal (bein adam leḥavero) matters – for which even Yom Kippur cannot atone (Yoma 85b). As the verse says (II Sam. 24:14): “May I fall into the hand of God, for His mercies are many, and not fall into the hand of man.”17This is R. Salanter’s personal midrash on the verse. Literally, the verse means that King David chooses to have a divine punishment inflicted on him and Israel (for the sin of carrying out an unauthorized census) rather than a human enemy be sent by God to punish them. He trusts that God’s mercies will minimize the punishment. An enemy may inflict pain without limit. R. Salanter’s midrash is: If the person sins, let it be a failure in the service of God – for God is merciful and quick to forgive. But do not sin against a fellow human being – for that person suffers more than God does from your behavior. That person also possesses less love and compassion than God – so he will be slower to forgive. Note that in the Iggeret HaMussar, R. Salanter complained that in Lithuania, pious Jews meticulously observed the commandments to serve God (for example, keeping Jewish dietary laws) but permitted themselves too often to violate the laws governing behavior toward other human beings.

Rambam wrote (Shemona Perakim, ch. 6):18This translation follows the Gorfinkle translation, available on Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Eight_Chapters.Philosophers maintain that though the man of self-restraint performs moral and praiseworthy deeds, yet he does them desiring and craving all the while for immoral deeds, but, subduing his passions…succeeds, though with constant vexation and irritation, in acting morally. The saintly man, however, is guided in his actions by that to which his inclination and disposition prompt him, in consequence of which he acts morally from innate longing and desire. Philosophers unanimously agree that the latter is superior to, and more perfect than, the one who has to curb his passions, although they add that it is possible for such a one to equal the saintly man in many regards….King Solomon, peace be upon him, entertained the same idea when he said (Prov. 21:10): “The soul of the wicked desires evil,” and, in regard to the saintly man’s rejoicing in doing good, and the discontent experienced by him, who is not innately righteous, when required to act justly, he says (Prov. 21:15): “It is bliss to the righteous to do justice, but torment to the evil-doer. Thus, what the prophets say [in Proverbs] is in agreement with what the philosophers mention.When, however, we consult the Rabbis on this subject, it would seem that they consider him who desires iniquity, and craves for it [but does not do it], more praiseworthy and perfect than the one who feels no torment at refraining from evil; and they even go so far as to maintain that the more praiseworthy and perfect a man is, the greater is his desire to commit iniquity, and the more irritation does he feel at having to desist from it…. Furthermore, they command that man should conquer his desires, but they forbid one to say, “I, by my nature, do not desire to commit such and such a transgression, even though the Law does not forbid it.” R. Simeon ben Gamaliel summed up this thought in the words, “Man should not say, ‘I do not want to eat meat together with milk; I do not want to wear clothes made of a mixture of wool and linen; I do not want to enter into an incestuous marriage,’ but he should say, ‘I do indeed want to, yet I must not, for my father in Heaven has forbidden it.’”19Sifra, Parshat Kedoshim 10.At first blush, by a superficial comparison of the sayings (of the Sages, of blessed memory, and of the philosophers),20This is R. Salanter’s parenthetical interjection. one might be inclined to say that they contradict one another. Such, however, is not the case. Both are correct and, moreover, are not in disagreement in the least, as the evils which the philosophers term such and of which they say that he who has no longing for them is more to be praised than he who desires them but conquers his passion are things which all people commonly agree are evils, such as the shedding of blood, theft, robbery, fraud, injury to one who has done no harm, ingratitude, contempt for parents, and the like. These proscriptions are called commandments (mitzvot) about which the Rabbis said (Yoma 67b): “If they had not already been written in the Torah, it would be proper to add them.” Some…called these rational laws. There is no doubt that a soul which has the desire for, and lusts after, the above-mentioned misdeeds, is imperfect, that a noble soul has absolutely no desire for any such crimes, and experiences no struggle in refraining from them.When, however, the Rabbis maintain that he who overcomes his desire has more merit and a greater reward (than he who has no temptation), they say so only in reference to laws that are ceremonial prohibitions. (That is, the commandments which we heard at Mount Sinai, and which otherwise our reason would not require.)21This is R. Salanter’s parenthetical interjection. This is quite true, since, were it not for the Torah, they would not at all be considered transgressions. Therefore, the Rabbis say that man should permit his soul to entertain the natural inclination for these things, but that the Torah alone should restrain him from them. Ponder over the wisdom of these men of blessed memory manifest in the examples they adduce. They do not declare, “Man should not say, ‘I have no desire to kill, to steal and to lie…!’” The instances they cite are all from the ceremonial law, such as partaking of meat and milk together, wearing clothes made of wool and linen, etc.

The words of Rambam do not contradict what we wrote, [namely] that a person must perfect [sublimate] all his psychological drives, for there are two kinds of sublimation. The first is that a person transforms his psychological drives and character traits for the good – until the evil urge is completely uprooted and is neither seen nor found22Compare Pesaḥim 5b; 48a. Compare also Exodus 12:19 and 13:7. in him at all. To reach this level, it is not enough for a person to sublimate his will in general to long for good and to hate evil. Rather a person must seek out ways to sublimate each character trait and each of the psychological drives specifically. This approach applies to the rational, interpersonal mitzvot, in accordance with the aforementioned words of Rambam, of blessed memory.The second type of perfection is the sublimation of one’s will in general to love to observe the words of blessed God in ceremonial [i.e., non-rational] commandments. One should seek to reduce the power of desire in every detail – until, practically, the sense of “I want to eat meat with milk” and the sense of “I cannot eat meat with milk” are distinguishable only in the abstract, not on the material level – rationally, not instinctively.

The more difficult aspect of sublimation pertains to the character traits, for the general rule of character traits is that good character traits apply only as far as the person himself is concerned, but with regard to one’s fellow, the duty is to use the opposite trait with all one’s might. For example, fleeing from honor is a rare trait. As the [Sages,] of blessed memory, said (Avot 4:21), the lust for honor shortens a person’s life. Yet when it comes to one’s fellow, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (ibid. 1): “Who is honored? One who honors all human beings.” Asceticism is a sublime virtue of the elite, but only with respect to the person himself. When it comes to the benefit and pleasure of his fellow, the duty to use the opposite of asceticism applies. One must go out into the markets and streets of the city for the benefit of his fellow and, all the more so, public benefit.This is [the meaning of] the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Deuteronomy Rabba 11): “What is [the meaning of the verse that Moses was] ‘the man of God’? R. Avin said: His lower half was human; his upper half was divine.” For our teacher Moses was a godly man – saintly, removed from the pleasures of the world – yet half of him was human when it came to Israel, who depended on him.So it is with most character traits, and especially humility, the greatest of all the character traits. The duty is to use it in the extreme, as they, of blessed memory, said (Sota 5a): “R. Aḥa bar Yaakov said: ‘[Have nothing to do] with [pride], even a bit of it.’” And as Rambam, of blessed memory, explained the mishna [Avot 4:4]: “Be very, very lowly in spirit….”23Rambam explains that humility is the one human virtue where we do not seek the golden mean – in the case of humility, between pride and lowliness of spirit. Rather, pursue the extreme of lowliness in spirit (Laws of Moral Dispositions 2:3). However, you dare not, you dare not, use this trait on a friend, to reduce his importance, God forbid.

This is [the meaning of] the saying of the Tosefta (Berakhot, ch. 4): “Saul merited the kingship only because of his humility, as it is said (I Sam. 9:5): ‘Lest my father stop worrying about the donkeys and worry about us.’ He rated his servant equal to himself. But Samuel did not speak accordingly. Rather [he said] (ibid. 10:2), ‘Your father has left the matter of the donkeys and is worrying about [the two of] you, saying: What shall I do about my son?’” Saul, with regard to himself, exercised the trait of humility and compared the servant to himself. However, Samuel was another person, so there was no place for humility; how could he rate the servant as he did Saul? Therefore, he said that the basis of the anxiety was “What shall I do about my son?” – for Saul was much greater in importance than his servant was.

To this end, a person must endeavor to incorporate everything and its opposite within his psyche.24Emphasis added. He should condition his soul so that when he seeks something on his own behalf, the necessary character traits are evoked, and their opposite is forgotten. But when he seeks the benefit of the other, this opposite trait should be aroused in him, and the root trait momentarily forgotten from his soul.25R. Salanter is developing a model of a Mussar disciple as a selfless spiritual hero. When it comes to himself, he is self-abnegating, modest to a fault. But with other people, he honors them by feeding their need for recognition and standing. Though not explicit, the underlying assumption is that the Mussar disciple is reaching out to and dealing with laypeople in this fashion. In the case of dealing with another Mussar disciple, would he seek to have them renounce their ego and be totally selfless, or would they be entitled to recognition and ego-stroking (just as another lay person would)?Disciples in later generations grappled with this question and took different paths. Accordingly, some demanded extraordinary selflessness only from themselves as Mussar disciples, while others sought to move both other Mussar disciples and even lay people to extraordinary spiritual standards.

One should not be crestfallen or astonished at this prospect; after all, we constantly see the phenomenon of a trait and its opposite within the human soul, and a person uses them naturally (without being led or guided), each one in its appropriate situation and time – such as memory and forgetfulness and the like. Furthermore, human beings have the capacity to expand the power of their psychological drives and naturally use them for a matter and its opposite. This is [the meaning of] the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabba 14): “If I create [man] from the heavenly creatures…from the earthly creatures…so I will create him from both.” The human being was created with this feature: that he has the power to sublimate his psychological drives, to be, with respect to himself, crowned with all the traits and virtues, like the heavenly creatures, removed from all the delights of the world, but with respect to others, to be like the earthly creatures, a person who senses and knows all the delights of the world,26Note that in R. Salanter’s typology, a typology which runs through much of classical Mussar literature, the heavenly aspect, i.e., the spiritual aspect, of the human renounces the pleasures of this world, including ego satisfaction. The earthly, physical side of humans wants and feels all the delights of the physical world, including ego satisfaction. The Mussarist raises himself to the spiritual level, including renouncing ego satisfaction, but honors and offers these delights to the average person, who enjoys worldly delights. This is in accordance with the Torah’s command to treat others with respect. able to give strength to the masses and to empathize with them. As the Rabbis, may they be blessed, said (Ketubbot 17a): “One’s mind should always be in sync with mankind’s.”

In general, when a person is young, before he has had the trial of bearing the yoke, it is very hard for him to repress character traits, but it is easier for him to learn to sublimate his character traits. As they say (Avot 4:20): “He who learns when he is young, to what is it likened? To ink written on new paper.” The days of middle and old age, when it is hard for a person to learn sublimation, accords with their saying (ibid.): “And he who learns when he is old, to what is it likened? To ink written on erased [blotted] paper.” Moreover, his heart is not in it due to preoccupation with the burdens of life. However, repression is not such a burden for him, since he is conditioned27In R. Salanter’s use, the term “murgal” refers to an intensive conditioning and internalization, to the point where the conditioned emotion or behavior becomes second nature. to bear a yoke to seek his food and needs and desires.

Therefore, his service to God, blessed be His name, in the younger years should be in the mode of sublimation of the character traits to serve willingly and joyfully, and in old age, the mode should be repression of character traits, without having to fight as much desire or will. If one is conditioned in his youth to sublimate his character traits, this will be helpful and useful for his old age (as there are many factors that can rekindle the evil of his character traits, as mentioned above), to clear the way to the path of repression. This is the meaning of the verse in Scripture (Prov. 22:6): “Initiate a young man upon his path (the path that is appropriate for him to remove his folly – as Scripture states, ‘Folly is settled [in the heart of a youth]…’ (Prov. 22:15) – so that the folly is not a screen that impedes him, thus bringing him to the mode of sublimation); thus, even when he is old (although he will not truly control [the urge] as when he was being initiated, at the very least) he will not stray from it.” And in Ecclesiastes (12:1): “Remember your Creator in your youth before the bad days come.” And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, deduced (Shabbat 151b): “These [‘bad days’] are the days of old age, when the years which you say, ‘I have no desire for them,’ will come.”

Perhaps we can read this idea into the words of our Sages, of blessed memory (Shabbat 63b):R. Huna said: Why is it written (Eccl. 11:9), “Rejoice, young man, in your childhood, and let your heart be happy in the days of your youth, and follow the ways of your heart and your eyes’ delight. But know that on all this, God will bring you to judgment’? Up to this point (up to ‘But know that on all this…’), these are the words of the evil urge. The rest of the sentence is the words of the good urge.”As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Berakhot 54a): “‘[Serve God] with all your heart’28Deuteronomy 6:2. – with both your urges, the good urge and the evil urge.”29Another advantage of the method of sublimation in youth is that one is able to serve God with both urges. The evil urge is being channeled constructively rather than repressed or crushed. Then, the person is serving God with all their desires, both the naturally good ones and the redirected dangerous ones.

This must be explained. The writers call reason the “good urge” (“yetzer tov”) and the other psychological drives are called the “evil urge” (“yetzer hara”). (See Ḥovot HaLevavot,30Baḥya ibn Pakuda, Duties of the Heart, a classic of medieval Mussar literature. Gate of the Service of God: ch. 5, on the dialogue of reason and the soul.) This means that reason seeks the ultimate purpose of everything. It does not focus its understanding on the short term, on the appearance of that which is attractive,31Compare Genesis 3:6. nor on the sense that something is sweet to the palate.32Compare Song of Songs 2:3. Rather, it looks into the distance, to the ultimate goal. If it is a just outcome, then reason will judge it so from the beginning and uphold it. Yet human emotions – this is their foolish way33Compare Psalms 49:14. – see the near term; whatever pleases the senses they bring closer to themselves, even when it will be bitter at the end, when all the human’s actions, whether good or evil, will be brought to judgment by God.34See Ecclesiastes 11:9. This is why straight35I.e., undistorted. reason decides to observe all of God’s decrees36Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. and is the yetzer tov, while the emotions draw into their net what is immediately pleasant, even when it goes against God. This is the yetzer hara. When a person is in the mode of repressing his character traits and psychological drives, repressed by his reason, he is called one who serves God with his yetzer tov, that is, his reason. And when he sublimates his character traits and psychological drives, to the point that they only desire what God asks of them,37Compare Micah 6:8. he is called one who serves God with his yetzer hara, that is, the psychological drives whose essence is disposed toward evil, which the person sublimated, sweetening their bitterness and changing them to good. This is “with both your urges, the good urge and the evil urge” – through repression and sublimation (as mentioned).

In his youth, a person’s primary efforts should be in the mode of sublimation, to the point where his psychological drives are drawn only to righteousness and uprightness; then he will be joyful, as Scripture says (Eccl. 11:9): “Rejoice, young man, in your childhood…and follow the ways of your heart and your eyes’ delight.” This means using the psychological drives, which are predisposed to look at the short term. This is what they, of blessed memory, said: “Up to this point, these are the words of the evil urge.” That is, a person’s concern in his youthful state should be to see to it that his traits are sublimated and his actions in accordance with the psychological drives, called the evil urge. From that point forward is the age of adulthood, when the primary concern is to follow the spirit of reason, which sees the long term, to repress his psychological drives, and to know that God will bring him to judgment for all of this. These are the words of the good urge, the rational mode.

Therefore, those who continue aspiring – those who, even into adulthood and old age, have the vigor to sublimate character traits and psychological dispositions to the point where the burden of temporality (and usually the heaviness of this burden derives from failure to sublimate character traits and psychological dispositions)38Above, R. Salanter wrote that a key difference between the yetzer tov and yetzer hara, or between reason and impulse, is that the former is able to set aside short-term desires in favor of long-term objectives, and the latter focuses on the short term. The “burden of temporality” (“ol hazemani”) thus refers to the effects of those unsublimated impulses that direct attention to short-term desires. upon physical and psychological life is lightened for them – when they occasionally, if infrequently, have to resort to the mode of repression, it will be hard for them, for it will have been a long time since they used this mode (as said above).

With this we can explain the adage of our Sages, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabba 59): “‘God blessed Abraham with everything….’ (Gen. 24:1) – ‘Everything’ means He gave him power over his urge…. ‘And Abraham said to his servant…who ruled over all that he had’ (ibid. 2) [means] ‘who ruled his urge as Abraham did.’” It is astonishing to think that Eliezer was at the level that Abraham had achieved only through God’s blessing! However, according to what was said above, we can say that Eliezer’s level was in the mode of a mighty person who conquers his urge – as the Midrash later states: “‘And the servant said to him’ (Gen. 24:5) – this refers to the verse (Hos. 12:8): ‘Canaan has deceitful scales in his hand to oppress the beloved one.’ Canaan – this refers to Eliezer; ‘deceitful scales in his hand’ means he sat and weighed whether his own daughter is worthy of Isaac or not; ‘to oppress the beloved one’ means to oppress Isaac, the beloved of the world. He said: ‘Perhaps the young woman will not want [to follow me to this land]’ (Gen. 24:5)…and I will give him my daughter [instead]….” One who has managed to attain the virtue of sublimation is not tempted by the evil urge or corruption of character traits; he has no affinity for them. But one who has only attained the mode of repression has all the lust of his evil urge. He enjoys it, but he manages to repress it.

Even one who has not reached the level of sublimation, though he may still find his way, as it is said in Scripture (Prov. 4:26): “Lay out the ways of your feet and all your ways will be upright,” error still dogs his footsteps. The strong desires of the psychological drives inject their poison into the functioning of his reason, to blind the eyes of the wise.

This is the [meaning of the] Midrash’s statement, “‘Deceitful scales in his hand’ means he sat and weighed whether his own daughter is worthy of Isaac or not.” Certainly Eliezer, who was master over his urge, would not consider speaking of even a trivial matter before he considered and resolved that it is worthy. However, his scales were deceitful scales – since he only could rule over his urge. Falsehood – that is, deceit – willy-nilly, still surrounded him, while truth stood afar.39In R. Salanter’s interpretation, Eliezer’s untamed psychological drives perverted his reason. They sought to convince him that his daughter was worthy of being Isaac’s wife. She was not. However, his instinctive desire distorted his reason and made it appear plausible to him that she was a worthy mate for Isaac, admittedly, only if the woman in Abraham’s family in Haran were to refuse to marry him. We find thus that even though quantitatively, Eliezer could master his urge like Abraham, qualitatively, Abraham’s mastery over his urge far surpassed [Eliezer’s], because he used the mode of sublimation. Repression, that is, “conquering,” was rarely before him (as said above) – it came to him as divine blessing.

Now, there are two types of sublimation:40See the previous footnote of this letter for a comparison of R. Salanter’s two methods of altering behavior, which we have translated as sublimation and repression. One is to sublimate the psychological drives so that they only yearn for the good demanded by straightforward reason (reason not corrupted and held captive by the psychological drives, which usually incline toward evil). The second is to raise them to a level higher than human reason can comprehend. Almost the entire basis of the virtue of humility (which is the greatest of all character traits according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi in Tractate Avoda Zara 20b) is a mode beyond human reason.*Tractate Derekh Eretz Zuta (ch. 2): If you have bestowed much good, let it be as little in your eyes…. If a little good was bestowed upon you, let it be much in your eyes. Do not say, “It is because my actions are deserving”…. If you perpetrated a bit of evil, let it be much in your eyes…. If much evil was perpetrated against you, let it be little in your eyes…. (See further there.)See also Ĥovot HaLevavot, Gate of Submission, ch. 10: They asked one of the Sages: How did you become the master of your peers? He answered: Because I never met one of them in whom I did not see some superior virtue to mine. If he was wiser than me, I said: He is more God-fearing than me, due to his superior wisdom. If he was lesser than me in wisdom, I said that his reckoning will be lesser than mine on the Judgment Day, because I [am like one who] sins willfully and he [is like one who] sins unwittingly. If he is older than me, I say that his merits are greater than mine for he has lived longer. If he is younger than me, I say: His sins are fewer than mine…. If he is richer than me, I say that he found a way to serve God in wealth more than I. If he is poorer than me, I say: He is humble and contrite in spirit…and he is better than me…. I never strayed [from this approach]…[to honor all of them and] to bow to all of them. (See further there.)This is not the way of straightforward reason, which observes all aspects and defines everything according to an assessment of the quality of its composite powers. Nor is it the way of straightforward reason to observe each specific situation and magnify it or minimize it. Rather, these ideas transcend the ways of reason, which we need in order to attain the desired quality of humility.41Note that in his interpretation of the trait of humility, R. Salanter argues that the human must use a quality and its opposite to attain the right level. Here, the human should use his reason to assess the level of the other and himself. Then he must employ will and desire – beyond all reason – to convince himself of the other’s additional greatness and his own shortcomings. Of Moses our teacher, Scripture attests (Num. 12:3): “He was more humble than any other person….” (This refers to interpersonal humility, as is Scripture’s style.) He was greater and more refined than everyone in his generation. And the Rabbis said (Nidda 30b): “Even if the whole world tells you, ‘You are righteous,’ you should see yourself as wicked.” See further there. This is something that reason does not require. So what can yield all of this? Isn’t the capacity to reach these higher levels and virtues dependent on human reason (and [humanity’s] advantage over animals, which have nothing that can raise them above whatever they have by nature)? Then how can one go beyond one’s reason?

It is surely known that there are two types of speech and thought: rational and sentimental. With respect to the rational, all humans are the same.42I.e., using purely rational thought, based on the same information or assumptions, any two people will arrive at the same conclusion. This is not so in the arena of sentiment, where no individual is like another. Even under the same circumstances and with the same features, they will diverge, due to their different natural temperaments (whether acquired congenitally, through socialization, or through conditioning and study to train psychological drives). Therefore, even an individual, due to variation in his temperament, will not have the same sentiments at all times. This applies to sentiment that is only imagined. (It is not real; only an [external] factor can produce real variation.) Certainly, then, it applies when the temperament remains the same in both instances but the matter that arouses the sentiment changes. Reason, however, is the same at all times. It does not hinge on temperament, situation, or issue. Therefore, when two people disagree about a rational matter (although this usually grows out of different temperaments and stimuli), we say that one has made a mistake. Not so in matters of sentiment, i.e., emotional knowledge. Both are authentic and justifiable according to the connection of the effect and the cause. (For the measure of the truth of an effect is its following directly in the footsteps of its cause.) The same applies to an individual; if his reasoning is not identical on two different occasions, we can say for certain that he made a mistake one of the times (by juxtaposing contradiction and inconsistency). Not so with emotional understanding. There is no essential contradiction, for both are true (and the discrepancy arises from changing temperamental causes and stimuli).43This passage and the following represent a remarkable broadening of R. Salanter’s conception of how to arrive at correct knowledge and truth. Hitherto, R. Salanter has stressed rational truth and knowledge, which one achieves using straightforward (i.e., undistorted) reason to the maximum extent possible. Thus, one can establish, objectively, what the Torah says, and this becomes the truth and guide to behavior. Much Mussar learning is designed to curb the sentiments and unconscious drives that distort reason and erode the ability to know, objectively, what the Torah actually instructs. Knowing what the Torah wants and internalizing it so that it determines behavior is the key mechanism of proper behavior and avoidance of sin.However, here R. Salanter affirms that there is a whole realm of knowledge and truth that is arrived at through sentiment. Apparently, emotion and sentiment intuit or subjectively recognize the Torah’s message or the truth that one seeks. R. Salanter affirms that the Torah includes such truths. The Torah assumes that humans will use their emotions to arrive at this knowledge. For example, such virtues and behaviors as humility go against straightforward reason, yet are highly valued by the Torah, which expects one to arrive at such knowledge through sentiment.Sentimental knowledge differs from knowledge arrived at by straightforward reason in that it is more subjective; it may vary from time to time, place to place, and with changes in the individual. Since it is more individuated, their two clashing versions of the truth may both be correct. I.e., each understanding is true for the individual who arrived at it.Later in the letter, R. Salanter deals with the dangers of sentimentality: It can lead to distortions in judgment; it can lead to multiple contradictory behaviors and truths; it can easily slip into relativism and self-contained egocentric truths. Since the Torah expects us to use this method, there is no easy escape from these risks. The main corrective R. Salanter comes up with is to pool various individuals’ sentimental knowledge, or to have a truth arrived at and reviewed by a range of people. This interaction can reduce individual purely subjective elements and pool them into a kind of consensus truth. The wide range of judgment exercised will tend to exclude extreme distortions. Thus, one ends up with a refined sentimentality that has been filtered, improved, and objectified through the participation of multiple people in arriving at the conclusion.

Accordingly, it is a fixed element; it cannot be changed or replaced. When a person finds a demonstration or proof (according to the different scientific methods) to alter a matter of reason, it can be called “change” only in our imagination, not from the perspective of reason itself, as the original [thinking] was mistaken and is nullified. Sentiment is not so; it is a temporary, contingent element.44Sentiments can conflict and contradict and remain authentic. Two rational truths which contradict and change cannot both be true; one version must be an error.

Perhaps this is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Shabbat 10a): “Rava saw Rav Hamnuna praying at length. He said: ‘They set aside eternal life (Torah) to engage in temporal life!?’”45Prayer is considered an engagement in “temporal life” because it addresses material, contingent needs. Torah, by definition, is abstract reasoning, free of all desire and sentimentality (as explained in the introduction to the volume of Tevunah that I published in 1862).46Compare Letter 29 above. Prayer is based on fleeting, sentimental emotion, as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Taanit 2a): “‘To serve Him with all your heart’: What is the service of the heart? We say it is prayer.” Thus, prayer is temporal life and Torah is eternal life, something that endures.47This reiterates R. Salanter’s argument that the only way to know the Torah as truth is to read and study it with abstract reason, free of the unconscious drives and instinctive needs that distort judgment. Note: When one studies Torah rationally for a second time or more, one may come up with new insights, but they will not contradict what reason objectively understood before. Prayer, by definition, is meant to be an emotional experience, and therefore the experience will change every time.

Nevertheless, a person, inasmuch as he is human, even though he has the power and ability to abstract his reason from any desire or sentimentality, to the point where his psychological drives sleep and dream (without being awakened, so that they do not force their way into reason and distort it*II Sam. 14:17): “As an angel of God, so is my lord the king, as far as discerning good and evil” (cited in Akedat Yitzĥak, ad loc.). For our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 10a): “Every judge who judges true judgment for the sake of truth [– it is as if he becomes a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation].” This requires elucidation. The paths of truth follow the methods of science in [different] disciplines, which are known to be distinct. Some [scientific disciplines] are bound to clear demonstration, using the methods of logical deduction; the truth of some is discerned by proofs and demonstrations, but knowledge is then broadened inductively, by understanding one thing from another; and [the truth of] some is based on considered discretion. Everyone boasts of these, saying, “I see it, and the mysteries of wisdom have been revealed only to me.” In truth, it is not so. The person whom God has graced with understanding and wisdom to find the ways of demonstration will also have capability in the ways of proof (without comparing and connecting things that are remotely similar) and also be considered in his judgment. Many will be drawn to his illumination.), he remains human after all. It is not farfetched to read this idea into the question that the sages of Athens asked of R. Yehoshua ben Ĥananya (Bekhorot 8b): “‘Where is the center of the earth?’ He held up his finger and said to them: ‘Here.’ They said to him: ‘Who says? [I.e., Prove it.]’ He replied, ‘Bring ropes and measure….” For Rambam wrote at the beginning of the Laws of Moral Dispositions [in Mishneh Torah] that a person should follow the middle path [i.e., the golden mean]. See further there. But who can demarcate this? Where is the seer who can say: Here is the midpoint? Not by demonstration and not by proof can we know this – only by the considered judgment of the Sages according to the place and time. This is the meaning of their statement: “Where is center of the earth?” That is to say, by what method can one ascertain the middle path? He said to them: “Here.” That is to say, it is where your reason dictates. (Why is this so? Just as their powers of ascertaining things that hinge on demonstration or proof were strong, so in these matters, the discretionary judgment was rightfully theirs.) They said to him: “Who says so? Since we can’t demonstrate our judgment or hypotheses.” He said to them: “Bring ropes and measure.” Demonstration is for ascertaining something, like measuring to know the quantity of something, which is unmistakable. But since one cannot know the middle path by demonstration, be satisfied with the considered judgment of the Sages, and act in accordance with the wisdom of their words.Perhaps they similarly said (Avot 6:6) that “trust in the Sages” (“emunat ĥakhamim”) [is one of the forty-eight ways by which Torah is acquired]. For when a matter depends on proof, what has it got to do with trust? It is justified by the proof. This then is a great principle in the ways of halakhic rulings: One must observe and act according to the utterances of one who is a leading decisor – as though it were proven and demonstrated – and nullify one’s own views in the face of his, even if his words grow out of a considered judgment only. And this is the [meaning of the] statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Y. Berakhot 9:1): “A prophet and a sage – to whom can they be compared? To a king who sent two of his messengers to a province. About one of them he writes: ‘If he does not show you my seal, don’t believe him.’ About the other one he writes: ‘Even if he doesn’t show you my seal, believe him….’ It is thus written about the prophet: ‘And he shall give you a sign or proof’ (Deut. 13:2). But here [with regard to the sage] it is written: ‘Go according to the Torah that they teach you’ (Deut. 7:11).” See further there. A “sign” (“ot”) refers to the sort of demonstration with which a litigant can argue. A “proof” (“mofet”) refers (usually) to a decisive proof. And Rambam writes (ch. 8 of the Laws of the Principles of the Torah [in Mishneh Torah]): “Moses our teacher was believed by Israel not because of the signs he performed, for one who believes because of the signs, retains some doubt in his heart, for a sign can be performed with magic…”. (“And on what grounds did they trust him? On the grounds of the revelation at Mount Sinai, which our eyes saw, and not a stranger’s, and our ears heard and not another’s…,” cf. ibid.) Nevertheless, a sign (“ot”) is a type of evidence for those who understand knowledge. But for most people, proof (“mofet”), an irrefutable demonstration, is necessary. This is [the meaning of] “He shall give you a sign” – or even if it is a decisive proof in your eyes – do not obey the prophet to worship idolatry. However, when it comes to other commandments, obey him even by a mere sign, which is akin to proof, as Rambam wrote there. However, here, “according to the instruction that [the Sages] instruct you” – even when it comes only from their considered judgment [you must obey]. As we say (Sanhedrin 88a): “Even if [a dissenting elder] claims that his teaching is a received tradition, and [the Sages] say, ‘We see the matter otherwise,’ [the dissenting elder] is put to death.” See further there.The boundaries of truth are established in accordance with the methods of scientific disciplines. A person should not press forward always to seek truth by means of demonstration. Rather, whatever God gave to men to answer and investigate – that is how to reach the goal of truth. It is called truth; this is its name and its memory. [This is a play on Exodus 3:15.] So it is with judgment, where truth is quite difficult to find because of the tendency of the mind to love and to hate and the like, which blinds the eyes of the wise. And even if a person watches his step to beware of any trace of biased thinking (see Ketubbot 105b), nevertheless, who can measure or weigh the ways of bias? It is the way of human psychological drives to bind one string to another, one rope to another, combining many concepts and vanities, to produce a result without having even found the primary cause. Perhaps this is the intention of the warning of the Rabbis (Sanhedrin 7a): “A judge should always see himself as if a sword is planted between his thighs and hell is opened beneath him”; see further there. Yet they issued no such warning about matters of kosher slaughter of animals (the story of Rav Ashi mentioned there) because in civil judgment, bias is much more likely. [That is, bias is more likely to affect adjudication between litigants than rulings about the ritual status of food items. Apparently, the “tendency of the mind to love and to hate” is more likely to affect judgment between two people, in which one litigant will win at the expense of the other, than rulings about ritual cases.]Nevertheless, if one sets his heart and soul on purifying his thought to accord with his knowledge, this is the pursuit of righteousness that God demands. This is [the meaning of] “for the sake of truth” [Shabbat 10a, cited above] within judgment; when it comes to judgment, this is the definition of truth. [I.e., when it comes to adjudicating a civil case, true objectivity and certain knowledge is not always possible; however, God demands that we judge “for the sake of truth,” working to eliminate biases and refine our thinking so that the judge’s sole pursuit is ascertaining the truth of the case.] Perhaps this is also [the meaning of] the saying in the Yerushalmi (at the beginning of Sanhedrin): “Two litigants came before R. Yosei ben Ĥalafta. They said to him: ‘[Be our judge] on condition that you give us a Torah judgment.’ He said to them: ‘I do not know Torah judgment.’” See further there. For the definition of “Torah” is the discernment of reason without any bias of the will at all (as mentioned above). This is rarely found in civil judgment, for who can assess the hidden biases? Thus, due to his extreme fear, he worried that he did not fulfill this duty. Perhaps this idea is also included in the saying of the Sages (Sanhedrin 6b): “Lest the judge say: ‘Why do I need this trouble?’ The Torah replies: ‘And [God is] with you in the matter of judgment’ (II Chr. 19:6); the judge can only go by what he sees.” See further there. After all the purification of thought, he is never certain that the effects of his psychological drives are not mixed in. This is [the meaning of] “what he sees.” Yet “[God is] with you in the matter of judgment,” in the makeup of his individual psychological forces, not only through simple reason, which is general [and not individual].However, when it comes to the king’s judgment, since he is above the people, his judgments are within the parameters of truth. They bring demonstrations, the true truth. This is [the meaning of] “As an angel of God, so is my Lord the king, to discern good and evil….” (II Sam. 14:17). For what the people comprehend as “good” [which, as noted, is a judgment that incorporates subjective and aesthetic components,] the king perceives as “truth” – in the manner of angels, as mentioned above.1[The crux of this footnote by R. Salanter is that statements by our Rabbis, of blessed memory, are not free of any psychological elements, as are the words of Moses or the prophets. Nevertheless, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, achieved a high degree of refinement. Since God affirms judgments reached at this level of refinement, the Sages’ statements are deemed true; when one’s judgment differs from theirs, one tends to defer to them out of the realization that they achieved purer rational judgments. Furthermore, we follow those qualified judgments even in the face of contradictory demonstrations and proofs.Note: Just as one is to be modest in making claims about the authority of rabbinic judgment, so one is to be modest in arriving at an understanding of their statements. Here, too, as they do, one should welcome a variety of viewpoints and approaches and try to arrive at a considered judgment of what they are actually saying. This is on the grounds that listening to multiple viewpoints from multiple individuals will make one more likely to avoid the subjective distortions found in each individual view.Note also that R. Salanter’s conclusion, namely, that the king’s judgment achieves a level of truth unavailable to common judges, was apparently an attempt to satisfy government censors.] His psychological drives remain within him. He cannot separate them from his reason. Thus, a person cannot achieve true reason, completely removed from and transcending psychological drives, yet the Torah is given to human beings to render judgment in accordance with human reason (in its purest possible form; see Bekhorot [17b]: “The Merciful One said: Do it, and however you manage to do it is acceptable to Him”). By the quantity and quality of proofs, the matter will be clarified. On whichever side the assessment of the proof falls – whether on the side of quantity or quality – that is what he will decide, and so the matter will be established.2Based on Deuteronomy 19:15, which addresses the laws of weighing testimony.

As far as the quantity of proofs is concerned, all humans using their reason will arrive at a common conclusion, if only they have an understanding heart to comprehend all the steps of the proofs. However, regarding the quality of proofs, people differ from one another in spirit. This is [the meaning of] “considered judgment” [or “discretion”; “shikul hadaat”]3Quantity of proofs is an objective measure; once the number of proofs has been determined, there is no rational dispute about which side has more proofs. However, when it comes to assessing the weight of these proofs, there will be significant divergence based on subjective factors unique to each judge – the judge’s discretion or “considered judgment.” Ideally, each side presents how it weighs the evidence and is attentive to the assessment of the other side, as the divergence in judgment is not the result of ego or prejudice, but is part of the natural variation of human judgment. – regarding which people’s opinions often differ.

Assessing the quality of proofs was a central dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel.4Dispute first began to proliferate with the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and so their disputes are paradigmatic within rabbinic literature. R. Salanter asserts that enduring dispute between the schools was not because one side refused to submit to reason and acknowledge its error, and not because the sides were biased by psychological factors. Rather, they disagreed about how to consider evidence and render judgments. Each school came to a different conclusion as to which is the central criterion for reaching a conclusion – quality or quantity. According to R. Salanter, this dispute was not in the realm of strict reason, but in the realm of “discretion,” where difference of opinion is expected and justified. Each side was very familiar with all the proofs relevant to their dispute. Out of this grew a meta-dispute about how to weigh evidence within a dispute – [namely,] whether to follow quantity or quality. This is the [meaning of the] saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Eiruvin 13b): “Rabbi [Aba]5Note: In the actual letter, R. Salanter wrote “R. Elazar.” He was probably writing from memory. said in the name of Shmuel: For three years the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel argued. These said: The law is according to our view and those said: The law follows our view….” The School of Shammai adopted the view that one should follow quality, and they were sharper, so they said the law was according to them. The School of Hillel adopted the view that one should follow quantity, and they were the majority.6Both schools acknowledged that the School of Shammai had greater mental acuity and that the School of Hillel was greater in number. One who accepts mental acuity and “quality” as the key criterion (as did the School of Shammai) would adopt the rulings of the School of Shammai, and one who accepts larger numbers and “quantity” as the key criterion (as did the School of Hillel) would adopt the rulings of the School of Hillel.

They did not argue for three years merely to uphold their own views – only for the sake of justice and truth through purity of thought without any bias.7That is, they did not shape their arguments to prove that they were right. Rather, both schools were interested in reaching a correct understanding of the Torah. It was not intentional, but merely accidental, that the School of Shammai thought that they had the advantage, and the School of Hillel thought the opposite.8R. Salanter concludes that the differences between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were based on legitimate disagreement about non-rational, subjective elements that go into rendering judgment. In this, he inserted himself into a raging polemic; in certain traditional circles, acknowledging such a subjective element was seen as undermining the objective authority of halakha. Therefore, they denied that there was any subjectivity in study of Torah or rendering of halakhic decisions. They held that the human teacher of the Oral Torah was merely a vessel transmitting divine words; the subject had no influence and did not shape the words. In contrast, maskilim and reformers emphasized the subjectivity of halakhic disagreement in order to undermine the divine authority of the Oral Torah.R. Salanter offers a third path, which neither denies subjectivity nor undermines authority. He acknowledges the subjective element (“A person cannot achieve true reason, completely removed from and transcending psychological drives”) but asserts that it is a built-in component of the Oral Torah: “Yet the Torah is given to human beings to render judgment in accordance with human reason (in its purest possible form….).” Here R. Salanter states that the rabbis reached a high degree of purity of reason, one that is not distorted by personal bias, which approximates the “true” truth that God imparted through the Torah.

Since a heavenly voice went forth and stated that the law follows the School of Hillel, it follows that quantity is superior. Therefore, the codifiers have ruled that numbers outweigh wisdom.9A majority of sages outweighs a minority, no matter how brilliant its members. (See Shakh [at the end of Shulḥan Arukh:] Yoreh De’ah 242, [in his essay on] Procedures for Ruling on What Are Forbidden and Permitted Matters. See further there.)

Perhaps this is why the heavenly voice came out and said: “These and those are the words of the Living God” (Eiruvin 13b). The heavenly voice announced nothing new (for even rejected opinions are part of Torah), for the Torah “is not in heaven.”10Deuteronomy 30:12, applied in Bava Metzia 59b to mean that once the Torah was given at Sinai, it is in the hands of human beings to determine the law. God’s will is ascertained by derivation from past revelation as interpreted and applied by rabbinic learning and reason. R. Salanter is responding to an obvious problem with this passage in Eiruvin: If the Torah is “not in heaven,” how could a heavenly voice determine that the halakha follows the School of Hillel? R. Salanter answers that the purpose of the voice was not to decide in favor of the School of Hillel, but to affirm that both schools reached their conclusions with purity of thought, free of personal interests and biases. Certainly, [the principle of majority rule] was given to Moses at Sinai and never forgotten. Rather, the purpose of the heavenly voice was to prevent the people from becoming disheartened (upon seeing that for three years already the School of Shammai held out, saying the law follows their view, for they have the upper hand, while the School of Hillel held the opposite view), lest, God forbid, their self-affirmation deviated somewhat from purity of thought and came, God forbid, to some bias. These are not the kind of people to whom God chose to give over His Torah, and whose rejected views are still called God’s Torah. Therefore, the heavenly voice proclaimed that their thoughts are desirable, and it was mere accident that each group held, with all its might, that its view had the upper hand. Therefore, the rejected views of the School of Shammai are nevertheless the words of the Living God, and one who studies their words, studies God’s Torah, may His name be blessed.

This message [from heaven] is specifically that the intentions of these fellowships were desirable. This voice from heaven is not a violation of “It is not in the heaven,” which applies only to a universal issue, such as in the case of “a sin offering whose owner died,”11The Talmud mentions that hundreds of laws were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. The people asked figures like Joshua and Phinehas to divine the forgotten laws, but they averred that “it is not in heaven.” In these cases, the people sought a final answer that would apply throughout the generations, and it is in such cases that the recovery of the laws precludes divine involvement. Ultimately, Othniel ben Kenaz recovered the laws through cognitive effort. and similar cases, as mentioned in the Talmud (Temura 16a). Perhaps this [idea that a rejected opinion remains Torah] is included in the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Ecclesiastes Rabba, ch. 1):They said: This is the sum of Solomon’s wisdom that he came to assert: “What profit to the human being in all his toil?” (Eccl. 1:3). This might mean even the toil of Torah! They recanted and said: [Solomon] did not say “in all toil” but “in [all] his toil.” In his toil (for himself), he does not toil [for there is no profit], but he does the toil of Torah [for in this there is profit]…. R. Yudan said: “Under the sun” (ibid.) he has no [profit]; “Above the sun” he does. (See Shabbat 30b.)For our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Pesaḥim 50b):Rava raised a contradiction: It is written (Ps. 57:11): “For Your loving-kindness is great, up to the heavens,” and it is written (ibid. 108:5): “For your loving-kindness is great, beyond the heavens.” How can this be? Here [Ps. 108:5] [refers to] those who act for its own sake; here [Ps. 57:11] they act for other motives. This follows R. Yehuda’s view, for R. Yehuda says in the name of Rav: “A person should always engage in Torah and the commandments even not for its own sake; for in acting for other motives, he will come to do it for its own sake.”Accordingly, we find that engaging in Torah for its own sake should be called “above the sun,” and engaging for other motives should be called “under the sun.” When a person articulates words of Torah that are accepted as halakha, they are not his; rather, it is the discovery of something that was hidden until now. However, if it was not accepted as halakha, yet it is still the Torah of God, and one who studies its words receives reward, then it is his, for he, by his effort, has created something new in Torah that never existed before.12A rabbinic halakhic ruling which is accepted as authoritative was always present in the body of revelation. However, it was “hidden,” and not known until a particular rabbi articulated it and uncovered this eternal truth. In the case of a halakhic ruling which is not accepted, it was never part of the body of revelation – for if it had been, it would become authoritative. The rejected opinion is a genuine novum. It is now absorbed into the corpus of Torah, but it was not there until this person created it. But this is on condition that it was produced with purity of thought, without bias, which is the essence of “for its own sake.” This is [the meaning of]: What (eternal) profit in all his toil (his work, this refers to a matter not accepted as halakha) that he labors under the sun (i.e., not for its own sake); however, above the sun (i.e., for its own sake) it has eternal profit, for he has given birth to new Torah.

Perhaps this is included in the [meaning of the] verse (Eccl. 1:9): “There is nothing new under the sun.” (See Rashis commentary there.) For all that a person produces using the rational faculty, except that which is called the “Torah [of God but has not been accepted as halakha],” is not an innovation of reason, but an emotional innovation, for it is only uncovering something whose manner of synthesis had been lost.13Only innovations that are, on one hand, part of “the Torah of God,” and, on the other, not accepted as the halakhic conclusion are true innovations. Torah that is accepted as halakha and discoveries in non-Torah disciplines are not truly novel. So it is with “the Torah of God” that has been accepted as halakha – that is, the Torah; the person who produces it is only its discoverer. What is “new” (in the realm of the rational)? Torah that was not accepted as halakha, but which becomes Torah through the person who produces it. This is the meaning of “There is nothing new under the sun” (meaning, [Torah learned] not for its own sake, for Torah that was accepted as halakha, even though it has advantages over something that was not accepted as halakha, it is nevertheless not called “new,” and even [Torah] that was not accepted as halakha, if the study was not for its own sake, it is not considered Torah). However, “above the sun” (for its own sake) there certainly is “new.” These are the things that were not in the category of Torah, but through the effort of the person who created them with the purity of his thought, have been incorporated into Torah.

This is the [meaning of the] verse (Ps. 1:2): “He desires the Torah of God and studies his Torah day and night….” For the desire and ambition of a person are to purify reason, to strip it of the psychological drives so it can enter the category of true reason – this is “the Torah of God.” Yet he is still human, so “he studies his Torah day and night.” (The antecedent of “his Torah” [in v. 2] is “Fortunate is the man” [in v. 1], stated immediately prior.)14The verse (Ps. 1:2) refers to Torah twice: first to “the Torah of God” and then to “his Torah.” R. Salanter interprets “his Torah” to mean the Torah of the person studying. Thus, the learner “desires” God’s Torah, as He gave it to us, unadulterated and minimally shaped by human factors. However, he inevitably studies “his Torah,” the Torah as shaped by his own, human intelligence, and yielding novel insights. It is only by desiring the Torah of God that one’s innovations are considered, on one hand, “his,” and on the other, part of the corpus of “Torah.”

This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Berakhot 5a): “It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another, the seller is sad [about losing a valuable object] and the buyer rejoices [in gaining the object]. Not so the Holy One, blessed be He. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced….” For a gift is like a sort of sale, in that [the gifted object] is all but detached from the owner, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to human beings so that with it they will judge according to human reason – not as it was when it was under His tutelage.15This paraphrase of Esther 2:20 compares the Torah before it was given to Israel with Esther while still being raised in Mordechai’s home. The idea is that before it was given to human beings, the Torah was unaffected by human concerns and psychological impulses. It was understood through pure, divine reason. This recalls Shabbat 88b–89a, wherein the angels wish to keep the Torah in heaven, and Moses must debate them to show that the Torah addresses human needs and concerns.*[R. Salanter’s footnote:] For “it is not in heaven” (Deut. 30:12) where [to understand Torah one would need] to reveal secrets; rather whatever a person strives to know using the methods of proof – this is the Torah of God, blessed be He, itself. (See Temura 16a: “Three thousand rulings were forgotten [when Moses died]…. They said to Joshua: ‘Ask [for prophetic restoration].’ He said to him: ‘It is not in heaven….’ In a baraita it was taught: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori arguments were forgotten…but Othniel ben Kenaz recovered them [with cognitive effort].” See further there.)As to whether the heavens can resolve a dispute, this hinges on the two answers of Tosafot (Yevamot 14a). The Gemara there says: “The view that (the School of Shammai) acted (in accordance with their own views) [even after the heavenly voice ruled according to the School of Hillel] follows R. Yehoshua, who says: ‘We pay no attention to a heavenly voice.’” Tosafot state: Why do we not follow the heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of R. Eliezer [Bava Metzia 59b] and instead say in all places that he is a Shammaite and the law does not follow his view – yet it is through the heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of the School of Hillel that we establish that the law follows the view of the School of Hillel!? We can answer: The heavenly voice [that ruled in favor] of R. Eliezer only due to his honor [after he said, “Let it be demonstrated from heaven!” the heavens issued a voice in his honor, not really to rule according to his view]…. Alternatively: The halakha certainly does not follow the heavenly voice that went against the majority – for the Rabbis were the majority. However, in the case of the School of Hillel’s heavenly voice, we have established that the School of Hillel was the majority, but that the School of Shammai was sharper.According to the first answer of Tosafot, the Torah is still in heaven, even if only one person in the whole world states it, and the majority disagree with him. [Note that in R. Salanter’s view, a heavenly voice will not intervene, using the authority of revelation to decide the ruling, if no human being holds that position. It will only speak if at least one individual holds this view.] According to the second answer, it is only still “in heaven” to add weight to it in a case of almost complete stalemate; for instance, when one side has the majority and the other is keener, the heavens strengthen one side in order to tip the scales. But according to R. Yehoshua, it is not in heaven at all – not even to give some extra weight to one side.According to what we have said about reason and sentiment, we can see clearly that the matter is thus [i.e., that according to R. Yehoshua, the principle that the Torah “is not in heaven” totally negates the weight of a heavenly voice in any context]. (This answers the objection of Tosafot where they stated: “Perhaps R. Yehoshua only there said, ‘We pay no mind [to a heavenly voice],’ but generally he does not hold this view….” See further there.) For it is the way of reason to guard itself from all forms of sentimental [that is, emotion-driven] judgment (as said above). The more one argues with someone else rationally, the more on guard one must be to avoid the emotionality likely to stem from the force of the love of victory, which may snuff out the light of reason.One sign that reason is proceeding alone according to its path is when a person listens attentively to the evidence that supports the view of his opponent, even if it is not compelling, in a state of calm tranquility, without sentiment. And if he must resort to sentiment to combat the sentiment of the opponent, he should leave it until later, so that reason can proceed securely on its path.16[See R. Salanter’s point above (starting at n. 49) about “considered judgment” (“shikul hadaat”) as well as our discussion in n. 43. We have seen that R. Salanter offers a third approach, between objectivity and self-interested subjectivity. Here he describes the importance of allowing the expression of multiple or contradictory viewpoints and listening attentively to them. When each listens to the other as openly as possible, without emotionally digging in to defend his own position, they can arrive at “considered judgment” that is relatively free of distortion by psychological factors, even if the parties remain in disagreement.]We see this in R. Yehoshua who, after all the great and terrific debate he had with R. Eliezer, stood up on his feet (which is a charismatic mode [that evokes sentiment], for those who understand its methods a bit) and said: “We pay no mind to a heavenly voice.” We learn from this that R. Yehoshua holds the view that “it is not in heaven” at all – not even to give weight to one side. It is not even the beginning of a proof. Therefore, he used sentiment to counter the emotional excitation of the students, upon whom the sublime light of true reason had not yet shined. They were prone to be affected by something of such great magnitude as a heavenly voice – though by qualitative criteria, according to R. Yehoshua, “it is not in heaven,” at all, even just to tip the scales. (See Derashot HaRan, Homily 7, which addresses the Talmud’s story [Bava Metzia 86a] about Rabba bar Naḥmani resolving a dispute between God and the heavenly academy.)

With this, the matter of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel is explained. We should not be astonished at this sight, at how it came to be and what caused it, at why the majority of the students of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree unanimously within their own group – for why should the group matter in this regard? Rather, the reason for their disagreement was rooted in their different psychological temperaments, which a person cannot distinguish from his intellect (as mentioned above). No one who delves into the “Torah of God” has anything but what his eyes perceive, so after [applying] his ability, maintaining his worth so that he does not breach his limits, purifying his intellect as much as humanly possible, in the main, the psychological forces of members of the same group will march in lockstep.17Hence, each Shammaite and Hillelite came to the same conclusion as their whole fellowship, and their perceptions and conclusions, filtered through their temperaments, are thus legitimate interpretations of “the Torah of God.” This is the meaning of the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: “These and those are the words of the Living God,”18Eiruvin 13b. for there are no true contradictions between psychological drives19I.e., because they reflect the differing temperaments of their articulators, the contradictory conclusions are both nevertheless true. (as mentioned above). Even though a person’s psychological drives change all the time, there will be no change of view in the intellect of a person (who purifies his reason in the right way) resulting from psychological drives, for changes in psychological drives come from the stimulus of a new situation or a new idea.

This is the Torah of a human and his obligation: to strive with all his might that his psychological drives be dormant and quieted when he studies an intellectual matter. In this state of quieted forces, [the conclusions of the intellect] will almost always be the same, especially for a wholesome person who protects his psyche from strong stimuli that implant in his psyche drives that are likely to change continually.

Based on this, we can understand what [the Sages] said (Eiruvin 7a): “We do not follow the stringencies of two schools when they contradict one another, as in the case of the spinal column and skull20The Mishna records a dispute between the houses of Hillel and Shammai regarding how much must be missing from a corpse in order for it not to impart ritual impurity to anything under the same roof. In the case of a spine, the School of Shammai maintains that if it is missing two vertebrae, it does not impart impurity, whereas the School of Hillel maintains that even if it is missing only one vertebra, it can no longer impart impurity to anything under the same roof. In the case of a skull, the School of Hillel requires a larger missing piece (large enough to kill a human) than the School of Shammai (the size of a drill hole) to lose the power to impart impurity to the whole tent or house. Thus, there are two cases, one in which the School of Shammai is lenient, and one in which the School of Hillel is lenient. The Talmud then cites Rav Yehuda saying in the name of Shmuel that the two schools hold the same views with respect to determining whether an animal is a tereifa (i.e., suffering from a mortal injury and therefore forbidden to eat even if properly slaughtered). However, in this case, the school that adopts the larger size is taking the more lenient view. For instance, the school which maintains that a corpse missing one vertebra no longer imparts ritual purity to anything under the same roof – the more lenient view – would also maintain that an animal found to be missing one vertebra is not kosher – the more stringent view. Here, since the two disputes are really one, adopting the stringencies of both schools would be logically inconsistent, a self-contradiction.…but where they do not contradict each other, we may [follow the stringencies of both].” See further there. The same is true with two lenient opinions. However, this applies only if we can add his own opinion (if he is worthy) to decide the matter.21The implication of the Gemara is that if adopting the stringencies or leniencies of the two schools does not create an inherent contradiction, one may do so. R. Salanter qualifies that this applies only to one who is worthy of rendering halakhic decisions and has an independent view on this matter. That is, a person, having studied Torah deeply, may find himself agreeing with the School of Shammai on some issues and the School of Hillel on other issues; this is perfectly legitimate as long as he does not adopt self-contradictory views, and as long as he is worthy of making halakhic decisions. Without this, it is a complete contradiction to follow the School of Shammai sometimes and the School of Hillel sometimes – since the basis of their conflicting views flows from one cause.22One who is not worthy of rendering independent halakhic positions must rely on the decisions of others. Such a person must consistently follow either the School of Hillel or the School of Shammai, as any mixing and matching would be self-contradictory. For what [the Sages] said there,23Eiruvin 6b. “One who wishes to act according to the words of the School of Shammai may; according to the words of the School of Hillel – may,” also applies specifically to one who is capable of deciding (as explained in Ḥoshen Mishpat 25:2, in [Rema’s] gloss). And let a person not say: I will rule according to whomever I please in a matter in which there is a disagreement…. See further there. What an awesome spectacle for one who delves deeply into the words of our Rabbis, the codifiers, of blessed memory, plumbing and seeking the root cause of their disagreement – and those [disagreements] which emerged from their psychological differences are brought together into a covenant; they shall not be divided to follow the leniencies of both, even if they are not in essence contradictory, unless one is capable of deciding or can combine other views.

Reason discovers the mysteries of wisdom, the hidden secrets.24After an extensive excursus, R. Salanter returns to his exploration of the differences between using reason and sentiment to ascertain the truth of Torah. It arouses the mind and the initiative to inquire and question, and it clarifies uncertain matters. The fundamental [purpose] of sentiment25Sentiment – what we would call emotion, feeling, excitement, etc. – is the vehicle by which one internalizes one’s rational knowledge and enables it to affect character. In this passage, R. Salanter describes the process and method, hitpaalut (or “hispailus” in the pronunciation of the Mussar yeshivot), by which one attains emotional knowledge, wherein the acquired knowledge becomes part of the learners’ core being and can thus shape their character and psyche. is to break through the stultification of the heart, to pour into it the waters of his understanding – that which a person knows but has not yet internalized. Thus, the study of straightening the ways of the character traits and of the purification of the psychological drives is different from the study of all Torah and wisdom. In the latter, the knowledge and the person who knows it are two different things. The knowledge is merely stored inside a person. A person achieves wholeness by guiding his ways according to his upright and undistorted knowledge.Not so in the matter of straightening out the ways of the character traits and purification of the psychological drives. A person cannot live by knowing them alone,26Compare Deuteronomy 8:3. guiding his actions to align with what he learned, unless this knowledge has nestled into his heart; they are connected and joined to the person, becoming as one. This is the principle of their acquisition through the Torah of sentiment. This is its path and its strength, to have a blessed effect internally in the person.27Compare Isaiah 19:24. Even after [the emotional excitation] has passed, it does not evaporate into nothingness and get lost. Rather, it leaves behind at least some unripe growth attached to the person, so when the effort through sentiment is increased (particularly in a systematic way, prepared according to the nature of the person and his condition), the immature growth increases and strengthens, affecting the temperament of the person positively.

With this we can explain the verse (Prov. 2:1): “My son, if you will take my sayings and store my commandments with you….” It is known that the Torah of God, blessed be His name, can be divided into two broad types: The first consists of His (blessed be His name) commandments, decrees, and laws. The second is the rest of the Torah, whose fundamental purpose is to draw up, from the hidden depths, the integrity of the virtuous paths and the purification of psychological drives until they long only for what is good in the eyes of God and man. Thus: “If you will take my sayings” – these are the second type, whose fundamental purpose is for a person to acquire their ways of learning as a possession,28The plain meaning of the Hebrew tikaḥ, which appears in the first part of the verse, is “take”; R. Salanter interprets the verse according to a different sense of the work tikaḥ, namely, to buy or acquire, and relates it to those “sayings” of God that must be internalized. such that he and they will be one. “And store my commandments with you” – these are the first type, which are merely stored within him as information (as mentioned above).

The power and superiority of reason is [expressed] in its overflowing all its banks and spreading out, seeking and investigating every last aspect. Not so sentiment; its manner is to focus all his psychological force on the object at which sentiment shoots its arrows, to where practically all his other psychological drives are temporarily forgotten and extinguished, depending on the magnitude of the sentiment.

So it is deep within the human psyche and its hidden alleys; the forces rooted therein are the strong hinges on which the door of a person’s actions and desires swings (as we explained above).29See Letter 6. There, too, the force of sentiment will alight (even though it is barely discernible and not felt) to intensify one force, until the rest of the psychological forces are pushed aside by it and they are almost snuffed out (until the opportune moment, when a spirit of arousal comes upon them to awaken them to spread out – then they are seen and known).30Note that in this letter, R. Salanter has shifted the role of sentiment in learning from a general Mussar method that can be used in all areas so that the learning can have a greater impact and be internalized, to a technique used primarily in character development. So one should not be surprised that someone might take pride in himself over his peers despite his great shortcomings and little value: for a person’s love of being praised – this is his sentimentality – amplifies the power of such praise and pushes aside the power of his [awareness of] his shortcomings, completely eliminating them from his conscious perception. Likewise, one’s lust for superiority over the other disposes his psyche, in its state of sentimental agitation, to [perceive] his friend’s shortcomings. Its power is amplified, crushing his ability to perceive his friend’s qualities. Consequently, he consciously perceives only his own praiseworthiness and the shortcomings of the other. Thus, pride fills all the chambers of his soul, unnoticed.By the same token, a person is perfectly capable of amplifying his sentimental agitation about his own shortcomings, until they push aside the force of his [love of] praise and extinguish it from his conscious perception; the more his sentiments strengthen his [awareness of] his shortcomings, the more his sense of superiority is forgotten. This is the Torah of how to acquire humility, and this is its general principle.

This explains the adage of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Berakhot 32b): “‘Can a woman forget her nursing child (ulah)? [Would she not have mercy (meraḥem) the child of her womb?]’31Isaiah 49:15. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Can I forget the burnt offerings (olot) of rams and firstborns (pitrei reḥem) that you brought before Me in the desert?’ [The community of Israel] said: ‘Since there is no forgetting before Your Throne of Glory,32Compare Zikhronot/Remembrances section of the Rosh HaShana Musaf prayer. perhaps You will never forget the making of the [golden] calf?’ He replied: ‘Even these will be forgotten….’33The continuation of Isaiah 49:15.” See further there.It is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, metes out [reward and punishment] quid pro quo (rationally, not imaginatively; qualitatively, not quantitatively). When a person clings to the ways of righteousness, self-analyzing and struggling to forget his own virtues, then the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, returns his loving-kindness and forgets his shortcomings. The righteousness of his good deeds is remembered before Him, blessed be He, because the person remembers his own defectiveness. This is (according to the midrash on “Can a woman forget her nursing child?” – when the community of Israel forgets the burnt offerings of rams they brought in the desert, which stemmed from the increase of their sentimental agitation to remember the deed of the Golden Calf), the meaning of “even these will be forgotten.” The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, forgets the making of the Golden Calf and remembers the burnt offerings. Thus: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Can I forget the burnt offerings of rams and firstborns…?’”

So it is with all the processes of sublimation: If a person uses the method of training the sentiments, which will result in his being blessed (as mentioned above) to imbue sentiment into the hidden recesses of the heart, they will grow more robust (as a result of increased study and engaging in it in the right order, according to his own nature), to the point that they will be joined together in the person and form a steady anchor within one’s existing nature through repeated conditioning of behavior (as explained in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Moral Dispositions). Then there is no limit to the boundaries of their ascent beyond human reason – just as with the other qualities of the nature of human temperaments, which reason cannot encompass. Thus, the human spirit is raised up,34Compare Ecclesiastes 3:21. and so it can also sink down, God forbid, to the extent that it does not sense its own wickedness, because of the repeated excitation of lust, which will sink roots that corrupt a soul from its purity. So, when a person commits himself to desire life (the life of reason, for every living thing feels35But only humans can exercise reason.), he should do the following: He should learn sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, which deal with training the character traits and with eternal life, and go over them several times so that they affect his sentiments in that moment.

One should not be disheartened when he sees that no impression is left in his heart. He should know with certainty that his hitpaalut [his sentimental affectation] was not fruitless; rather, it left blessing36I.e., a positive effect. that cannot be discerned by the physical senses until they grow, at which point they strike roots to bring forth righteous fruit. As drops of water, if they fall drop by drop on a stone for many days and years, will wear a stone away – even though in the first drop this was neither seen nor felt – so the sayings of the Sages, of blessed memory, will affect a heart of stone. One should constantly turn them over, and they will plow his heart.37I.e., prepare it for cultivation.

Perhaps this is the meaning of the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory (Avot DeRabbi Natan, ch. 6): “What was the origin of R. Akiva? They said: He was forty years old and had not studied at all. Once he was standing by a well. He said: ‘Who hollowed out this stone?’ They said to him: ‘The water that continually falls on it each day.’ They said to him: ‘Akiva, have you not read [the Scriptural verse], “The stones worn down by water” [Job 14:19]?’ Immediately, R. Akiva reasoned a fortiori: If the soft [water] carved out the hard [stone], then the words of Torah, which are as hard as iron, will certainly impress themselves on my heart, which is only flesh and blood! He immediately returned to study Torah….” See further there. For R. Akiva, at the beginning of his studies [when he was young], saw that his soul was not affected, his heart tormented him, saying: You toil in vain (for if there is no reverence, there is no wisdom). You will use up your strength on vanity and fruitlessness. However, when he saw “the stones worn down by water,” even though the impression was not initially discernible – he girded up his might and courage to strengthen his soul, for “the end of the matter is better than its beginning.”38Compare Ecclesiastes 7:8.

How the heart of man will tremble, how terror will seize him, when he considers that, God forbid, the nerves of his heart are severed and his capacity for sentiment has been nullified, if it is known above in Heaven that he is in the category of one who cannot repent – even if in only one matter – and his soul is condemned, God forbid. As our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Yalkut, Ezekiel 18): “They asked prophecy: ‘What is the punishment of the sinner?’ She answered: ‘The soul that sins shall die….’ [Ezek. 18:20]. They asked the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘What is the punishment of the sinner?’ He said to them: ‘Let him repent and be forgiven….’” See further there. And they, of blessed memory, said (Nidda 70b): “One verse (Ezek. 18:32) says: ‘For I do not desire the death of the [sinner] who dies,’ and another verse says (I Sam. 2:25): ‘For the Lord sought to put them to death.’ [Isn’t this a contradiction? No. Rather,] this [Ezek. 18:20] deals with those who repent, and that [I Sam. 2:25] deals with those who do not repent.”Particularly those preoccupied with daily life, burdened by tribulation, are very prone to terrible sins while feeling nothing, especially interpersonal sins: envy, hatred, slander, shaming, and above all cheating in business.39Elsewhere (see for example, Letter 7), R. Salanter generalizes that people who sin become hardened and lose sensitivity. Thus, shaking off sin and then repenting is not just necessary to avoid being punished by God as one who cannot repent, as expressed here, but also shunning evil and turning to good constitutes a reclaiming of zest for life and the revival of emotional life. One must seek the vitality of life from what is proper and correct to offset these tendencies through mitzvot and good deeds that outweigh them. But what shall a working person do?There is one simple activity, which does not require a clear mind nor a lot of time: to go over Mussar sayings of the Sages repeatedly, until it temporarily awakens sentiment within his soul. Even if it does not bear fruit initially to improve the person’s ways, he will still be considered in the book of the living – since he is still alive and feeling. And as long as he is connected to life, there is security,40“Bitaḥon”; he can trust that he won’t be struck dead as a sinner incapable of repentance. and he is counted among those who have the ability to repent.41R. Salanter believes that people who sin and slip into this unthinking, ongoing, bad pattern lose the capacity for feeling. The habitual sinner, as it were, is “punished” by a loss of feeling and of awareness. That is why he tends to end up in the category of one who will never repent. In turn, his inability to repent evokes a heavenly judgment that he deserves to die. The challenge (and the opportunity) of the sinner is to keep feeling and self-awareness alive, so even though he is in a bad pattern, he is able – maybe even likely – to repent, change, and improve. As R. Salanter said below, the human never loses the free will to change from evil to good, but once he loses his feeling and self-awareness, he is much more likely to sink hopelessly into patterns of wickedness.

With this we can explain the verses (Ezek. 33:8–11):When I [God] say to the wicked man, “You shall die” – and you have not spoken to warn the wicked man away from his ways – then that wicked man will die for his sin, [but I will hold you responsible for his life].… But if you have warned the wicked man to turn from his way and he did not turn from it, then he will die for his sin [and you will have saved your life].… And you, son of man, say to the House of Israel: You have spoken, saying: “Our sins and transgressions [weigh heavily] upon us, and we pine away in them; how shall we live?” Say to them: “As I [God] live...do I desire the death of the wicked? Rather let the wicked one turn from his way and live. Return, return from your wicked ways….”For retribution comes to a person in two ways. One is if he has filled up his measure, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Sota 9a): “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact retribution from a person until his measure is filled.” See further there. Then he is called wicked (before God, as Ran explained the notion, in Rosh HaShana [16b], that “three books are opened...the book of the wicked...,” that is, “wicked” with respect to this law; see further there). The second is if he has a sin which, in Heaven’s judgment, places him in the category of one who cannot repent – from a rational perspective, according to the chain of cause and effect.42Seeing the propensity of his addiction to his sin and the weakness of his counter-urges or influences, Heaven judges that he will never repent.

All things done under the sun fall into two general categories. One is the natural, which follows rational criteria: each effect is a product of its cause, and each cause has its cause, until the matter is thoroughly examined. The second is when the effect comes without a preceding cause (only because God’s wisdom, blessed be He, has decreed it – this is also the category of the miraculous, which is beyond human reason).

There are likewise two types of knowledge. One is absolute knowledge, which is subject to neither change nor replacement. The second is rational knowledge, arrived at by the chain of matters, from cause to effect, which in turn becomes the cause of another effect, and so the matter goes until reaching the final effect. This kind of knowledge is subject to change, for sometimes, something emerges without a cause, and even in opposition to its causes (this is the category of the miraculous). The first kind of absolute knowledge is not within human capacity (unless it be through the category of prophecy). Even in the second kind of knowledge, it is beyond human capability to arrive at its ultimate end, because of the limits of human capacity to know all the causes that pertain to the eventual effect. In this respect, human understanding is too frail to arrive at complete rational knowledge.

Likewise with regard to human choice – the way one goes, whether to good or to evil – there are two categories. One is rational choice, predicated on the chain of cause and effect. If [the choice is] toward evil, into the maw of lust, it is in keeping with how its methods incline him to itself in order to fulfill its wishes; if toward good, it follows the procedures of the ways of study of God’s Torah and the wisdom of His Mussar, to behave in God’s ways. The second category is simply choosing to go from evil to good, or the reverse, God forbid. For in every moment and occasion a person retains his capacity to choose with no impediment. God’s knowledge of human choice is also divided into two kinds.

The first is absolute knowledge,43I.e., foreknowledge of human choice. and one cannot grasp how such knowledge would not contradict free choice (as Rambam explains in chapter 5 of the Laws of Repentance). The second is rational knowledge, based on a person’s behavior, nature, and situation, and on properly linking cause and effect. It is with this latter knowledge that God governs His world for good (specifically for good, and not for evil, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not judge a person except in that moment in which he stands; as explained in the Yerushalmi [Rosh HaShana, ch, 1]. For good, however, the Holy One, blessed be He, extends credit, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say [Yalkut, Job ch. 41]: “‘Who has a prior claim on Me that I will pay…44…for everything under the heavens is Mine.”’ [Job 41:3] – Who practiced circumcision even before I had given him a son? Who made fringes before I gave him a four-cornered garment?...”; see further there).45In judging whether a person is evil, God judges the person as of this moment, without factoring in any future wrongs, which God alone knows are coming. In judging whether a person is good, however, God factors in future good behaviors by this person. That is God’s way in the world. God gives life and good to people before they have earned it or given back.

With this we can explain the verse (Deut. 11:27): “The blessing on condition that you listen….” I give you the blessing on credit, so that you then listen and do the good with My blessing. “The curse, [I give you only] if you do not listen…” (ibid. 11:28) – and not before then. We can also explain the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory (Pesaḥim 118a): “‘Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good’46Psalms 106:11 and elsewhere. – give thanks to Him who collects a person’s debts according to the good given him; a rich man with his ox, a poor man with his lamb….” Blessing comes to a man for two reasons. One, for the good he has done, the Holy One, blessed be He, pays his reward. This should not be called God’s goodness (as we do if we do not view it precisely). This bounty belongs to the human being. This is like a case of an employee who expects and receives pay for his labor.47It is not goodness, but justice. So what is plain and obvious good? This is the second type, wherein the Holy One, blessed be He, gives in advance, so that a person will do good with His blessing. When a person is punished by means of the money he obtained by toil and the skill of his actions, it is proper justice and lawful to collect debt from this. But what is true loving-kindness from God? That He collects man’s debt from His goodness, from the money granted to a person from God, blessed be He, as an unearned goodness, so that he will perform upright and just deeds with it. Yet if the person distorted their path, and God’s plan, as it were, was not carried out, it is just for the Holy One, blessed be He, to take back His money – He did not give it to him for these evil purposes – and at the same time, it will not detract from what the person is due. Thus, one should thank God for this loving-kindness, that even when taking back from the person the money given to him by God’s goodness,48Not the person’s own, i.e., the first type, which he earned by his own efforts. God lets his debt be paid off with this money.

How can we distinguish which credit is appropriately extended to human beings by God, blessed be He, if not by means of rational knowledge49Here again, R. Salanter uses the logic of business to make an ethical point. God, as it were, must decide which people are worthy of His investment and can be trusted to repay His “goodness” with proper conduct, justice, and righteousness. This decision must be rational, based on what can be expected of this person. Even though, at some level, God knows what the person will ultimately do, He nevertheless governs the world according to the principle of human free choice, not of divine foreknowledge. The decision is therefore based on rational criteria – who is likely to be worthy of God’s goodness. [to determine] who can be trusted and to whom is it appropriate to extend credit? (This is so even though sometimes things change, as said above, because God does not govern His world, which hinges on human choice, from the perspective of absolute knowledge; absolute knowledge thus has no bearing on this.)

The correctness of the Yerushalmi (Rosh HaShana, ch. 1) is thus evident: “There are three record books…. Those in between [the righteous and the wicked] have been given the Ten Days of Repentance between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. If they repented, they are inscribed with the righteous. If not, they are inscribed with the wicked…. R. Ḥananya, friend of the Rabbis, asked: ‘Doesn’t God see what is going to happen?’ But he (R. Ḥananya) had not heard what R. Shimon said in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, judges a person only as he is in that moment.’” (We cited this saying above.) See further there.It would be very surprising to say that the Yerushalmi is asking about the matter of foreknowledge and free choice, a matter which is beyond human reason in general to grasp, according to the aforementioned words of Rambam, and explaining it with respect to a specific matter.50I.e., it would be strange for the Yerushalmi to ask such a profound question, which touches on the foundations of theology, in context of a relatively technical discussion about the repentance of “those in between” during the Ten Days of Repentance. Rather, the Yerushalmi’s question is about rational [non-absolute] knowledge,51I.e., judging a person from current behaviors and the normal process of cause and effect. in accordance with which God governs the world.

The matter of “those who can repent and those who cannot repent” is judged by the same criterion: rational knowledge. If a person is, by rational calculation, capable of repentance, then the Holy One, blessed be He, is patient, waits for his repentance, and he lives. If by rational calculation, he is not capable of repentance (even though he always retains the free choice to repent) then, God forbid, He wants to put him to death – unless that person has some merit that tilts the scale to life. And what is the basis of a person being capable of repentance? It is the sense that he is alive, aware of his shortcomings. Then there is hope that he will awaken to repentance. But if there is no such sense, whence will repentance come? However, [this death sentence is decreed] only if this sense is completely extinguished in his psyche – to the point where he is not stirred by chastisement or by the arousal of another.52Excitement is contagious, so a source of one’s emotion is the emotion of those around him. Then he is not in the category of “one who can repent” at all – since even another does not have the power to awaken him from the deep slumber of his folly.

With this we can explain the allusion of the verse according to the Talmud’s resolution (Nidda 70b): “This verse (Ezek. 18:32): ‘For I do not desire the death of the person, [declares the Lord God – but rather return (i.e., be capable of repentance in this area) and live (for there is no repentance after death)],’ deals with those who repent, and that verse (I Sam. 2:25): ‘And they did not listen to their father’s voice [for the Lord sought to put them to death’] deals with those who do not repent.” [Since they did not respond to the words of chastisement of Eli, who was the greatest of the generation, they were consequently not in the category of those who can repent.]

Particularly those preoccupied with daily life, burdened by tribulation, who are prone to commit great sins and not feel anything53Elsewhere (see for example, Letter 7), R. Salanter generalizes that people who sin become hardened and lose emotional engagement in living. Thus, shaking off sin and then repenting is not just necessary to avoid being punished by God for being one who cannot repent, as expressed here. Rather the act of shunning evil and turning to good constitutes a reclaiming of zest for life and the revival of emotional engagement in living. – in particular, in matters between man and man: jealousy, hatred, speaking evil, shaming, and cheating in business above all – we have to seek out strength from life, from what is proper and correct, to offset these tendencies with good deeds and good actions which will outweigh [the bad behaviors]. But what shall a person who must struggle every day do?There is one easy skill, which does not require a completely clear mind, nor does it require a lot of time – it is to go over Mussar sayings of the Sages54Wisdom sayings of the rabbis that arouse conscience or stimulate spiritual consciousness, such as “Envy, lust, and excessive honor-seeking shorten a person’s life” (Pirkei Avot 4:21). repeatedly, until he arouses excitation in his soul at that moment. Even if it does not bear fruit initially to improve the person’s ways, he will still be considered in the book of the living – since he is still alive and feeling. And as long as he is connected to life, there is security, and he is counted among those who have the ability to repent.55R. Salanter believes that people who sin and slip into this unthinking, ongoing, bad pattern lose the capacity for feeling. The habitual sinner, as it were, is “punished” by a loss of feeling and of awareness. That is why he tends to end up in the category of one who will never repent. In turn, his inability to repent evokes a heavenly judgment that he deserves to die. The challenge (and the opportunity) of the sinner is to keep feeling and self-awareness alive, so even though he is in a bad pattern, he is able – maybe even likely – to repent, change, and improve. As R. Salanter said below, a human being never loses the free will to change from evil to good, but once he loses his feeling and self-awareness, he is much more likely to sink hopelessly into the evil patterns.This is the meaning of (Ezek. 33:8–9): “When I say to the wicked person…. And you have not spoken to warn the wicked man away from his ways” (then he would still be in the category of one who can repent, for perhaps he would have responded to chastisement), “then he will not die,” unless his measure is filled and he is judged a wicked man. “Then he, the wicked man, will die for his sins…. But if you have warned the wicked person to turn from his way and he did not turn from it” (he was not moved by your chastisement; for if he were moved and conscious of his shortcomings he would be called “one who turns from his way” because before your chastisement he was not conscious of his wickedness. Therefore, now he is in the category of “one who cannot repent,” and), then “he will die for his sin” – even if his measure is not filled and he is not yet considered wicked (for this general condemnation [of being deemed wicked] is for one who sins and is not in the category of “one who can repent”), still he will die by cause of his sin. We know by rational knowledge that he will not repent since he does not respond even to chastisement. What is his cure? It is renewal of emotional awareness to awaken anxiety and anguish – so that he will enter the category of “one who can repent,” and he will live.

This is the meaning of (Ezek. 33:10): “Son of man, say to the House of Israel” (in the manner of cause and effect) “you have spoken, saying: Our sins and transgressions are upon us, and we pine away in them. How shall we live?” (In this they are in the category of “those who can repent,” since they are emotionally conscious and are worried. This is the cause of the following effect, that) “say to them…let the wicked one turn from his way and live.” (Even though it is just the beginning of the awakening to repentance, still they are called “those who can repent.” Since they are capable because of their emotional awareness, they will come little by little into the category of those who repent properly. This is the meaning of) “Return, return from your wicked ways….”

It emerges from all of this discussion that there are three levels of serving God, blessed be He: One – the opening and the beginning is sentimental. One studies sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, and chastisements of the wise men, reviewing them over and over again, until he is affected and senses, within his psyche, his shortcomings.56R. Salanter is teaching us another effect of hitpaalut, namely, chanting particularly evocative texts with enthusiasm. Earlier he stressed using this method to affect the unconscious. Here he teaches that it also awakens one’s emotional awareness of one’s sins and future punishments, thus undoing the routinization and the loss of feeling that are caused by sinning. From this he comes to the second level: repression of the urge. The third [level] is sublimation of the urge, wherein one is joyful and happy to serve Him, blessed be He.The antidote for the evil urge, so that it is not a hindrance to all three levels, is the Torah. As they, of blessed memory, said (Kiddushin 30b): “I created their evil urge; I created the Torah as its antidote.”57The word for “antidote” is “tavlin,” which literally means “seasoning,” something that removes a foul taste. Perhaps this is why Torah is described in three ways. First, as a fortified wall (Bava Batra 7b: “‘Wall’ [Song. 8:10] refers to Torah”). Meaning, to the person who is completely virtuous and entirely sublimated his urge, the Torah is a wall that fortifies him, protecting from intense external causes so that they not do harm or corrupt58Compare Isaiah 11:9. his pure soul.Second, as medicine (Kiddushin 30b: “‘And you shall place’ [‘vesamtem’ – Deut. 11:18] refers to a ‘perfect cure’ [‘sam tam’]. This is likened to a person who struck his son and caused a large wound, so he put a bandage on his wound…. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: I created their evil urge; I created the Torah as its antidote…”; see further there). This refers to one who represses his urge, who is therefore very sick, because his intensified urge is within him. The Torah helps him to stand up to his urge.Third, as life (Avoda Zara 3a: “So too, human beings, when they separate from the Torah, they die at once”). This refers to the person who is still in the sentimental stage. The Torah keeps him from losing feeling and becoming, God forbid, like a corpse that has no feeling.

This is the meaning of the midrash [Genesis Rabba 5:7] we presented at the beginning of our words, for when Israel was in the wilderness, our Sages, of blessed memory, say (Yoma 76a59Note: The printed text erroneously cites Yoma 74b.): “‘Why didn’t the manna come down…once a year [instead of every day]?’… So too Israel; one who had four or five children worried and said, ‘Maybe tomorrow the manna will not descend and consequently their sons and daughters will die of hunger.’ Consequently, all of Israel directed their hearts to their Father in Heaven [every day]….”60I.e., when people receive food in daily doses, they become conditioned to sense their dependence on God and petition Him for sustenance every day. See further there. When almost all people are interconnected, then as there was an overwhelming reason for those in a state of knowing by sentiment to maintain their level, those at the stages of repression and sublimation remained secure at their levels as well. However, once they began to enter the land, and one turned to his vineyard and the next to his olive tree, there was a great concern lest the Hinderer (“Satan”), God forbid, dance among them and disrupt their service of God, blessed be He.61I.e., they will focus on themselves as sources of sustenance, and not God.

Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them that the Ark protects people at every level: “Rav Huna said: He stood all of them up between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark was like a wall protecting them. This refers to those at the level of sublimating the urge.“Said Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: He supported them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark formed a support for those who repress their urge, protecting them from falling. “The Rabbis said: He squeezed them between the two carrying-poles of the Ark.” The Ark sustains the person in the state of good by sentiment so that he does not lose feeling, which would erase his existence with respect to serving God – for if, God forbid, there is no feeling (the opening and the beginning), from where will the service come?

There are two modes of His service, blessed be He: One – to serve Him without rational contemplation, simply and naively keeping God’s word, walking in His ways, according to the nature of his character, and loving-kindness. In this mode, there is no way to ascertain the level of the state of one’s service of God, blessed be He, for with a light wind,62I.e., a slight negative stimulus. all the goodness of his ways may fly away swiftly, for what would hold them back?63R. Salanter again warns that unthinking religious observance is vulnerable to both negative inner motives and external forces.

There are also two modes of how God governs His world. The first is through natural processes, the linking of effect to cause, which can lead a person to erroneously think that his might and the strength of his hand have achieved everything for him.64Compare Deuteronomy 8:17. Yet it is not so, for the Holy One, blessed be He, gives a person the power to achieve and arranges for him the causes that will produce the resulting effects.The second [mode] is the miraculous, the uncaused effect, which a person sees, with his own eye, was done by the hand of God.65Compare Isaiah 52:8. This mode is called the Divine Presence (“Shekhina”) on earth. (See what Rambam writes about the root sh-kh-n in his Guide to the Perplexed 1:5.) All this pertains to tangible causes.*Lam. 3:37–41):Whose decree was ever fulfilled, unless the Lord commanded it? Evil and good do not come from the mouth of the Most High. Why should a living person complain, or a man over his sins? Let us search and examine our ways and return to God. Let us lift our hearts with our hands to God in heaven.At first glance, a person errs by thinking that he himself guides his own affairs, for better or worse, which is not true, for all is from Heaven (see Ketubbot 30a – except for colds and fevers; and see Tosafot ad loc.). This is the meaning of “Whose decree was ever fulfilled, unless the Lord commanded it?” Nevertheless, what is the hinge on which the door of Higher Providence turns? It is the deeds of human beings. According to his own ways, Providence will apply to him, so he is the prime cause that his matters be carried out. This is the meaning of “Evil and good do not come from the mouth of the Most High.” Therefore, a person should not complain about any bad occurrence or setback – neither about his physical behavior being at fault (in accordance with his error at first glance), nor about God, blessed be He – except about his own spiritual behavior (the basis of the primary cause). This is the meaning of “Why should a living person complain, or a man over his sins?” Thus, he will not improve his bad fortune by improving his physical situation. Nor is it right to charge straight to pouring out his prayer before Him, blessed be He. Further, the first thing is to improve the prime cause, that is, to better the ways of his soul, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, say (Berakhot 5a): “If a person sees that suffering comes upon him, let him search his actions, as it is said (Lam. ibid.): ‘Let us search our ways….’” See further there. Then, “Let us lift our hearts with our hands to God in heaven.”However, when it comes to the rational, the matter is reversed. Rational causes are present tenfold in the miraculous over the natural, for why would God override His regular governance without a powerful rational cause, for which a person is raised above the natural order of governance? According to God’s meting out [reward and punishment] quid pro quo, it seems clear that the basis for this [rational] cause is that inasmuch as a person has perfected his rational faculty to serve God and behave according to reason, God, blessed be He, acts toward this person in the mode based on rational cause.

This was the virtue of our patriarch Abraham, peace be upon him. His service was through nothing but reason (for it had no other cause – neither from his parents nor from his environment), so the Holy One, blessed be He, “lifted him up above the dome of the heavens” (Genesis Rabba 44) – a euphemism for “above the natural processes.”

Thus, when the Ark supported them through different modes, it became known that each person perfected the rational aspect of their mode. Therefore, Joshua said to them: From the fact that the staves of the Ark upheld you, you know that God’s Shekhina is amongst you, governing you with miracles effected by rational causes, for you are servants of God, blessed be He, in the rational mode, as mentioned.