Monday, September 12, 2011

On the Relevance of Nekius

Chapter eleven makes us feel bankrupt. While it seems reasonable to strive for zehirus and zerizus, no matter how you spin it, nekius just does not seem humanly possible. Complete and total eradication of the Yetzer HaRa?! Even our indefatigable author grants that it is "difficult" (See, however, the final paragraph of the chapter). One can't help but wonder how many years (centuries?) it has been since a naki has walked this earth.

But yet, the Mesilas Yesharim remains relevant, for why should we assume it is all or nothing? People are multidimensional. A person can certainly be less than zahir in one area and naki in another.

We should not make the mistake of working only on the areas where we are weak and abandon our qualities to habit. Where we are strong and have already reached zerizus, we should be striving for greatness, for nekius. (Yes, Virginia, everyone is a zariz for at least some Mitzvos.) The Ramchal tells us how to carry our strengths to new heights and we can use his advice. Nekius is relevant for us all.

This explains chapter eleven. Inordinately long relative to the other chapters of the book, in chapter eleven the author stops speaking in generalities and enters into the details of specific character traits and Mitzvos. He sounds almost apologetic when he explains why he isn't writing about every Mitzvah. "Even though the Yetzer HaRa tries to get people to violate every law, there are those that human nature finds more desirous... requiring greater strength to defeat his Yetzer and become clean (naki) of the sin." And later, "I am only going to discuss the [Mitzvos] where most people typically fail."

Why does the Ramchal need to discuss the details of every Torah challenge? He could drastically shorten this chapter by simply stating that the Yetzer HaRa must be defeated on all fronts. But life is not all or nothing. This is the Ramchal's message: Every single Mitzvah and every single Middah present a stand-alone nekius opportunity.

The Ramchal says as much quite explicitly in chapter eleven. "Many have achieved chassidus (yischasidu) in many aspects of chassidus, but have not been able to reach perfection when it comes to disdaining [illegal] financial gain." There it is: Perfection in one area; imperfection in another. It's not hypocrisy; it's just being human.

2 comments:

  1. Relevance of Nekius and Hypocrisy- I understand your point that one is not a hypocrite for outwardly being committed to Torah and being naki in one area while being a failure in another. But I don't think hypocrite is the right word. Hypocrisy is NOT saying that a particular set of values is the right one, despite failing to achieve those values. Hypocrisy is decieving others into thinking that you are in a constant state of the accomplishment of the values you claim to subscribe to. I agree with you that being a Naki in one area and a failure in another is quintessentially human.

    However, I would be hesitant to overemphasize this point, because one should not think of one's nekius in one area for a number of reasons. First of all, it can lead to hubris. Second of all it can excuse the failures in other other areas. Third it can, as the Mesilas Yesharim BEAUTIFULLY put, lead one to not examine their own good deeds. If the Mitzvos one performs are only the EASY ones for that individual to do, then nekius in those areas is simply not as meaningful as neikus in more challenging areas.

    (BTW: I like the idea of reading nekius as physical and spiritual cleanliness)

    ReplyDelete
  2. What word would you recommend in place of hypocrisy?

    "I would be hesitant to overemphasize this point, because one should not think of one's nekius in one area for a number of reasons..."
    Well, if you are worried about hubris, I would put the book down now. But there really is no need, for the Mesilas Yesharim deals with that concern. And if you keep reviewing this book, then you will also have no need to worry about nekius in one area excusing "failures in other other areas" or leading one "to not examine their own good deeds."

    ReplyDelete