Our author loves parables and analogies - remember, Luzzatto was a playwright (see here, here and here) - and he uses them regularly in Mesillas Yesharim to great effect. In his first chapter on Zehirus the Ramchal utilizes two very different analogies to depict the unexamined life. The first is his own invention: a blind man walking along a riverbank. The second comes from the Navi: a horse plunging into battle (Yermiyah 8:6).
A blind man on a walk and a madly galloping horse. It would be hard to come up with two more diametrically opposed images, but somehow they both describe the same problem. How can this be?
A more basic question. Is a blind man really the ideal depiction of a person who lacks Zehirus?! No one walks more carefully than a blind man. The blind man's slow and deliberate steps would seem to be the ultimate illustration of Zehirus, not the lack thereof! Moreover, why wasn't the Navi's analogy of the horse sufficient? Why does the Ramchal need to add the blind man?
It should be obvious by now that Luzzatto is making two very different points here. First, he wants to let us know that our assumptions about Zehirus are false. It is insufficient to merely "be careful." As the very title of chapter one makes clear, man must know "his responsibilities in his world." You can walk through life as carefully as a blind man - every single step by the book - but if you are unaware or unmindful of the demands of your environment, your family and your social circle, then you lack Zehirus and are in peril of falling into oblivion.
Back in the introduction, our author was outspoken in his criticism of those who focus solely on Talmud and Halacha and see no need to study Mussar. Here he derides them more subtly. Although every move of those Halachists is taken with the extreme care and trepidation of the blind, if they have never asked themselves uncomfortable questions about their personal obligations in their world, then they are far from true Zehirus. Their way of life is comparable to a blind man walking on the edge of a river.
Back in the introduction, our author was outspoken in his criticism of those who focus solely on Talmud and Halacha and see no need to study Mussar. Here he derides them more subtly. Although every move of those Halachists is taken with the extreme care and trepidation of the blind, if they have never asked themselves uncomfortable questions about their personal obligations in their world, then they are far from true Zehirus. Their way of life is comparable to a blind man walking on the edge of a river.
The Navi is describing an altogether different type of problem. A horse plunging into battle is very aware of his surroundings. He hears the screams, he sees the arrows and the spears, he knows he is charging straight into life-threatening danger and he is seized with terror, but yet he is powerless to change course for a rider drives him on with reigns and a whip. Some people are driven solely by their negative desires and character flaws and, despite their own better judgment, are as powerless to change course as a horse on the battlefield.
Two different kinds of people, two different kinds of problems, but both lack Zehirus. Thankfully, there is a known cure. Keep reading!
(For an alternative approach to these two metaphors see this post.)
(For an alternative approach to these two metaphors see this post.)
