Misunderstood & Unpopular

The great classics of Jewish literature are owned by many and read by few. Often it’s because the original is in Arabic and the medieval Hebrew translations are equally unreadable. Sometimes the philosophical terminology is the killer. In the Mesilas Yesharim’s case, the reason is different. The book just turns people off.

The introduction is great; a fresh and ever-relevant indictment of our educational priorities. But then, halfway through chapter one, our author speaks of lofty ideals and loses his readers. Trying to suppress the thought that Luzzatto is hopelessly naïve, we close the book and give it new home on the bookcase – the top shelf. Thousands upon thousands of Mesilas Yesharims are thus doomed to spend the decades untouched and unread, trapped between a crumbling Kuzari and an inscrutable Morah Nevuchim.

It’s an unfair treatment of the Jewish “Common Sense” and it doesn’t have to be this way. I believe chapter one is simply being misread. Read correctly, it’s not depressing; it’s inspiring. But for chapter one to have the intended effect we have to learn to read it right.

Chapter one describes the world in unapologetic, absolute terms: The only good thing in life is closeness to God and everything else is utter nonsense; to pursue our natural desires is to abandon God; every situation in life is a divine test; the purpose of life is solely for earning a portion in the next world; our souls hate living in this physical realm, etc., etc. With statements such as these, it is easy to understand why so many copies are collecting dust. Readers naturally assume that this is a book for the pious Tzaddikim of yesteryear and has little to offer ordinary folk – but they could not be more wrong. If, instead of closing the book, they had read on to chapter two they would have quickly recognized their error, for the truth is quite the opposite: Luzzatto expects his readership to be at the very bottom of the spiritual ladder. To speak plainly, he actually expects many of them to be low-lives. 

So why all the ultra-frum statements of chapter one?

The answer is that Luzzatto is not talking here about lifestyle; he is talking about faith. The Torah is founded on certain principles which define the ultimate purpose of life and before we can embark on our journey of spiritual growth we must understand these principles and get clarity on where we are headed. This is what Luzzatto is doing in chapter one: defining the destination.

R. Pinchas ben Yoir taught us that everything begins with Torah – "Torah leads to Zehirus" – but strangely enough, Luzzatto doesn’t seem to spend much time explaining what that means or how it happens. Maybe it is self-evident. Or maybe Luzzatto actually does address it – in chapter one. Torah leads to Zehirus because fixing and elevating our Jewish selves begins with understanding the Torah’s basic teachings about the purpose and meaning of our lives.  (Heard from my student Talia S.; cf. the beginning of chapter four and this post.)

As we stand at the beginning of the book and the beginning of our journey, there is obviously no expectation that our behavior is already in accord with the Torah’s demanding value system. This is not a book for Tzaddikim; it's a guide for how to become a Tzaddik. (That is, chapters 1-13. See the beginning of chapter fourteen and this post.) But before we can embark on becoming a Tzaddik, we first must have clarity on what we believe.

In the first part of Mesilas Yesharim, Luzzatto addresses not the Tzaddik but the everyman, and he starts at the very beginning, educating us about the ultimate purpose of our lives. This is not מוסר; this is אמונה. There is no cause for discouragement nor is there cause to abandon the book before it begins.

(A Jew should be a man of faith, but not a theologian. Despite our belief in the sublime reward for Mitzvos, the Mishnah instructs us to not to think about it. "Do not serve the Master for the purpose of receiving reward" (Avos 1:3). The powerful and fundamental principles of faith - from belief in an Infinite Being to the World to Come to Mashiach - serve as foundations for our lives in the here and now. Foundations are critical, but it is unnecessary and unhealthy to obsess over them. This is what our author is telling us in the opening line of chapter one: "The foundation of Chassidus and the root of divine service is to know..." Faith is a foundation and a root. It keeps us standing tall, so build it deep and solid. And then keep it underground.)
 

Viewed this way, chapter one is transformed from a disheartening screed into an inspirational declaration of faith. It informs us about the extraordinary potential of our lives, it gives direction to our spiritual striving, and it instructs us to settle for nothing less than the presence of God Himself. And one more thing – it also motivates us to keep on reading!

Luzzatto's Elevator

At the end of his introduction our author tells us that his book is actually a commentary on a commentary. Here's the story.

The Torah states: 

What does Hashem your lord ask of you? Just to fear Hashem your lord, to go in all His ways and to love Him, and to serve Hashem your lord with all your heart and all your soul, to observe the mitzvos of Hashem and His laws. (Devarim 10:12-13). 

After quoting this verse, Luzzatto writes: "All these values [listed in the above verse] need a lot of explanation. I found that our sages, may their memory be blessed, broke down this set and reorganized it into a more detailed listing - in the order required for properly attaining these [traits]. This is what it says in the tannaic teaching, cited in several places in the Talmud, one of them being in chapter "Lifnei Eideihem" (Avodah Zara 20b):

... From here R. Pinchas ben Yair taught, "Torah leads to carefulness, carefulness leads to alacrity, alacrity leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to Prishus (separation), Prishus leads to purity, purity leads to Hasidus (piety), Hasidus leads to humility, humility leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to sanctity, sanctity leads divine inspiration, divine inspiration leads to resurrecting the dead.

Luzzatto continues, "It was on this tannaic teaching that I decided to write this book, to teach myself and to remind others the conditions needed for the [different] levels of perfected service [of Hashem]. For every one of these [levels] I will describe its issues, its components or details, the way to attain it, the causes of its loss and how to guard against losing it. For then I will read [this book] and whoever else enjoys it so that we will learn to fear Hashem our lord and we won't forget our obligations before Him."

So there we have it: the entire Mesilas Yesharim is an extended commentary on the teaching of R. Pinchas ben Yair, itself a commentary on a biblical verse.

But things are not so simple. Luzzatto's statement that R. Pinchas ben Yair's list is a commentary on the above verse is not stated in the Talmud. It is Luzzatto's own contention. Moreover, the Talmud tells us that R. Pinchas ben Yair was actually motivated by a different tannaic teaching on a different verse: 

The sages taught: "Guard yourself against every evil thing" (Devarim 23:10). A man should not fantasize by day and come to tumah (impurity) by night. From here R. Pinchas ben Yair taught Torah leads to carefulness, carefulness leads to alacrity, etc.

What is the meaning of this? How does R. Pinchas ben Yair derive an entire system of spiritual growth from the simple idea that men shouldn't fantasize? What does one thing have to do with the other? I believe the answer can be found in R. Pinchas ben Yair's careful choice of words.

The sages said a man should not fantasize by day and come to, "VeYavo L'dei," impurity by night. This reality set R. Pinchas thinking. If, when it comes to sin, one thing leads to another in a natural progression - impure thoughts leading to actual impurity - shouldn't the same be true for purity as well? This is what R. Pinchas meant when he said, from here we learn that Torah leads to, "Maivi L'dei," carefulness. Purity is created by Torah thoughts no less naturally than the creation of impurity by impure thoughts. This is the source for Luzzatto's constant refrain throughout the book: these levels can only be attained by contemplating certain truths. מדה טובה מרובה. If it works for impurity, it must work even more powerfully for purity.  מחשבה טובה מצטרפת למעשה - thought evolves into reality.

This idea expresses itself in another Talmudic teaching.

It happened once that Rabbi Tarfon and the elder sages were reclining upstairs in the Nitzeh House in Lod and the question was posed, "Which is greater: study or actions?" R. Tarfon responded, "Actions are greater." R. Akivah responded, "Study is greater." Everyone [else] responded, "Study is greater, for study leads to (Maivi L'dei) actions."  (Kiddushin 40b)  

The story concludes with the consensus of the sages that study is greater because it leads to action. But why does that make study greater? As the Maharal of Prague asks, if one traveled to do a mitzvah, would anyone claim that traveling there was greater than the actual performance of the mitzvah?! The Maharal explains, "The meaning here is not that study is merely that which prepares us for action. Rather, it itself is what brings action into reality... Torah is the starting point and every starting point is what causes the end point to materialize... Just as planting a seed causes a sprout to come into existence, so too when the Torah is planted in man it functions to bring about the end point, and its end point is action... This is what [the Talmud] meant, "study leads to (Maivi L'dei) actions," the study itself functions to complete the action just as a seed functions to produce a tree..." (Maharal, D'rush al HaMitzvos).  

The Maharal could not be more clear. The study of Torah gives birth to actions. It is just as R. Pinchas ben Yair said, Torah leads to carefulness, which leads to alacrity... It makes one wonder if R. Pinchas ben Yair was one of those elder sages in Lod.

This reading of R. Pinchas ben Yair is further supported by Rabbeinu Yona's commentary on Berachos 6b. The Talmud states, "The God of Avraham will assist all who designate a place for Tefillah." R. Yona asks the obvious question. Why would such an extraordinary reward be granted for such a simple thing? Answers R. Yona:

The [sages] did not mean [God will assist you] just because you designated a place [for prayer]. Rather, they are saying that one who is so conscientious about prayer that he is even careful about this - he wants his prayers to be in a special location - such a person who loves prayer so much, must certainly be a humble man... For without humility, he would never be able to pray with intent... And since he has merited [to achieve the trait of] Humility, he will also merit the greater trait of Hasidus (piety), for one causes the other as it says, "Humility leads to Hasidus" ...

The fact that R. Yona's version of the Talmud has Humility prior to Hasidus is beside the point. What is important is that R. Yona understands that each level causes the next. This reading radically alters R. Pinchas ben Yair's central point.

R. Pinchas ben Yair's teaching is not simply a list of levels of righteousness. Nor is it merely a ladder of spiritual growth. It is an engine propelling us from one level to the next. All we need to do is get on the elevator.

The Ofek Translation: A Review

by Eliezer Brodt

There have been various commentaries and translations of this important work over the years. One such work has been published by the Ofeq Institute. They recently published an English translation of an alternative version of the Mesilat Yesharim. This version is fundamentally different than the standard edition of Mesilat Yesharim. The standard edition is divided into chapters based upon various character traits. This new version eschews the chapter divisions and instead is arranged in a conversation or dialogue format. Specifically, a dialogue between a "wise man" and a "pious person." This second version comes from a manuscript in the Baron Ginzburg collection in the St. Petersberg Library. The manuscript is in the Ramchal's own hand and is substantially longer than the other version. Although the Hebrew edition of the dialogue version has been available for a while (also from Ofeq) [1], this version has now been published in an English edition.

This English translation includes an introduction discussing the Mesilat Yesharim, the two versions, and the English translation employed. The translation does not skimp in the sense that it is annotated with English notes - something that does not appear in all English translations. Instead, many English translations provide the footnotes in Hebrew. This seems counter-intuitive for if the person wants to read the work in English, they would like to read the whole work including the footnotes. This edition does not suffer from that and instead, almost everything is in English. Additionally, Ofeq also included the original version in translation as well. There are, however, two parts that remain in Hebrew. The first are citations to verses, Talmudic passages and the like; the second is an appendix titled Bein HaMesilot which compares the dialogue version with the standard chapter version.

When it comes to English translations, there are typically two options. The first are academic presses which are typically expensive and not aimed at a popular audience. The second are the traditional Orthodox presses, while these are typically more readable, they (although not always) don't provide some of the scholarly detail. Ofeq's translation of the Mesilat Yesharim strikes a nice balance between these two - they have produced a highly readable yet include the scholarly detail as well.

As mentioned above, what is unique about this copy of the Mesilat Yesharim is that is is written in a completely different style than the current Mesilat Yesharim. This new version is written in a debate form. The Ramchal wrote other works in debate form as well. For example, his work on defending kabbala. For whatever reason, he chose to print the other, standard, version and the debate version remained in manuscript. It's unclear, however, why the Ramchal chose to do so. Many feel that a debate version is much better for two reasons: One, it keeps the reader much more interested and two, it brings out the various points much better as is always in a debate form.

Turning back to the Ofeq edition in particular, it is important to highlight the footnotes included. (While much has been written on the Mesilat Yesharim before this edition, especially worthy of mention is the edition of R. Sarna.) This edition includes notes by R. Shoshana. Aside from explaining the text and the concepts therein and providing sources from Hazel and the rishonim (R. Shoshana writes that he has spent many years learning this sefer very carefully), the notes also offer historical information, such as on page 6 when dealing with learning pilpul or on page 127 about a custom in those days in Italy where there were large plays and comics played before Jewish audiences.

The end section, Bein HaMesilot, is a great section discussing at length a few topics of the Mesilat Yesharim and comparing and contrasting how the two versions differ. This shows that at times the debate version is much lengthier than the current version we have. Another thing that was done in this edition is that they fixed up the original version of Mesilat Yesharim from all the mistakes that crept in since its first printing. This sefer by an the author who was subjected to much opposition in his lifetime by many great gedolim, as is documented in the Iggeres Ramchal, was zoche that one of his works became an enduring classic.

The only criticism I can think of on this edition is that they should have included all their appendices and introductions from their previously printed Hebrew edition. But with this new edition it should be much easier to learn and I am sure this all-time classic will continue to be enjoyed even today.

---

[1] The Hebrew edition includes an extensive introduction enumerating all the differences between the versions by R. Yosef Avivi, an expert on Kaballah and especially the Ramchal's writings.

Some Comments on the Mesilat Yesharim

By Eliezer Brodt

The Mesilat Yesharim, by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato (Ramchal), is one of the foundational works of mussar. What is rather remarkable about the Ramchal is that during his life time he was heavily persecuted [1] however that radically changed after his death. Many of his works became classics of Jewish literature, especially his work Mesilat Yesharim - the subject of this blog. In the past twenty-five years we have seen an explosion of printings of his and his talmdim's [2] works, many for the first time from manuscript. These works were printed by R Chaim Friedlander and more recently by R. M. Shreiki [3]. 

Many people of different ‘groups’ of Judaism praised the Ramchal. Most notably the Gra was very much ‘into’ the Ramchal and even said that if the Ramchal was alive he would travel by foot to study by him [4]. Talmidim influenced by the Gra most notably R. Chaim Volzhiner also use the work of the Ramchal [5].  In Chassdic circles we also find very positive mention and usage of the Ramachal’s work [6]. And of course the Mussar movement studied this work very much. Even in academic circles this book has received great praise, the famous professor of philosophy, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, said it is one of the five most important Jewish books of all time (related to philosophy) and he gave numerous classes on the work over the years. 

For many years, the sefer Messilat Yesharim was learned as a mussar sefer, becoming one of the classics. Many people used to take it into a dark room and learn it in special tunes saying the words again and again until they penetrated. However, many people have a fear of mussar, having bad memories from yeshiva, forcing themselves to read mussar sefarim during mussar seder that they felt did not talk to them. I would like to suggest a new way to read this sefer. Read it as a regular sefer. Concentrate on the ideas discussed in it, not only focused on the mussar, but rather on the pshatim, aggada and statements throughout the sefer. I later  found that Rav Henkin said a similar thing:

על אודות הספר מסילת ישרים אמר, שהוא ספר מלא חכמה עמוקה לא רק ספר של מוסר כמו שחושבים העולם...". (סוף שו"ת בני בנים, ב).

Just to list a few of these lesser appreciated portions of the Mesilat Yesharim: 

והנה ודאי שיעזרהו לזה רוב התמדה והעיון במזמורי דוד המלך והתבונוות בם במאמריהם וענינים כי בהיותם כולם מלאים אהבה ויראה וכל מיני חסידות. הבנה בהתבוננו בם. לא ימנע מהתעורר בו התעוררות גדול לצאת בעקבותיו וללכתב בדרכיו. (פרק כא)

Or highlighting the value of reading gedolim books or at least the aggadic section of the gemara:

וכן תועיל הקריאה בסיפור מעשה החסידים באגדות אשר באו שם. כי כל אלה מעוררים את השכל להתיעץ ולעשות כמעשיהם הנחמדים... (פרק כא)

In this passage, the Ramchal takes a positive view vis-a-vis working for a living, at least if learning remains a main focus

כי הנה העסק מוכרח הוא לאדם לצרוך פרנסתו, אך ריבו העסק אינו מוכרח שיהיה כל כך גדול עד שלא יניח לו מקום אל עבודותו. על כן נצטוינו לקבוע עתים לתורה. (פרק ה וראה פרק כא)

And, on keeping chumros he has an interesting point

הוא להחמיר בהם תמיד לחוש אפילו לדברי יחיד במחלקות אם טעמו נראה אפילו שאין הלכה כמותו(פרק יד)

Elsewhere he expands on this thought a bit more

באשר כבר יחשבו שהחסידות תלוי בדברי הבל או דברים נגד השכל והדיעה הנכונה. ויאמינו היות כל החסידות תלוי רק באמירת בקשות רבות ווידוים גדולים ובכיות והשתחויות גדולות ובסיגופים הזרים שימית בהם אדם את עצמו כטיבלת הקרא והשלג וכיוצא בדברים אלה... אך מציאות החסידות עצמו הוא דבר עמוק... כי הנה המצות המוטלת על כל ישראל כבר ידועות הן וחובתן ידועה עד היכן היא מגעת. אמנם מי שאוהב את הבורא ית"ש אהבה אמתית לא ישתדל ויכון לפטור עצמו במה שכבר מפורסם מן החובה אשר על כל ישראל בכלל... אלא אדרבא... יהיה לי לעינים להרבות בזה הענין ולהרחיב אותו בכל הצדדין שאוכל לדון שרצונו יתברך חפץ בו... נמצא כלל החסידות הרחבת קיום כל המצות בכל הצדדין והתנאים שראוי ושאפשר... (פרק יח) [7]

In the introduction the Ramchal has a puzzling remark that many have taken issue with, but in reality, the Ramchal was following in the path of Chovos haLevovos [8]

היתכן שיגע ויעמול שכלנו בחקירות אשר לא נתחייבו בם, בפלפולים אשר לא יצא לנו שום פרי מהם, ודינים אשר אינם שייכם לנו.

.

The Ramchal writes a puzzling remark in the beginning, showing his humility:

אמר המחבר החיבור הזה לא חיברתיו ללמוד לבני אדם את אשר לא ידעו אלא להזכירם את הידוע להם כבר ומפורסם אצלם פרסום גדול

R. Sarna writes in his notes on Mesilat Yesharim that he finds this statement to be the most puzzling statement in the entire sefer.

One last nice quote from Mesilat Yesharim is:

והפרישות... הוא התבודדות וההבדל מן החברה המדינית לפנות לבו אל העבודה והתבוננות בה כראוי ובתנאי שלא יטה גם בזה אל הקצה האחר שכבר אמר ז"ל לעולם תהא דעתו של אדם מעורב עם הבריות... (פרק יד)

---

[1]  On this topic see Igros Ramchal [on this work see my Likutei Eliezer, p. 109]; Chida, Magel Tov, p. 9 [On the Chida and the Ramchal see; M. Maimon, Yeshurn 25 (2011) pp. 973-974]; E. Carlebach, The Pursuit of Hersey, Columbia Press, 195-255.

For some general sources on the Ramchal see: Isaiah Tishby, Messianic Mysticism: Moses Hayyim Luzzatto and the Padua School, trans. Morris Hoffman (Oxford: Littman Library, 2008); R. M. Shreiki , Or Olam; David Sclar, "The Rise of the Ramhal: Printing and Traditional Jewish Historiography in the 'After-Life' of Moseh Hayyim Luzzatto," in Gadi Luzzato Voghera and Mauro Perani, eds., Ramhal: Pensiero ebraico e kabbalah tra Padova ed Eretz Israel (Padova: Esedra, 2010), pp. 139-153. See also this rare book.

[2] Jonathan Garb, Tarbitz 79 (2011), pp. 263-303; Jonathan Garb, "The Circle of Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto in Its Eighteenth-Century Context," Eighteenth-Century Studies 44:2 (Winter 2010), pp. 189-202

[3] In the ‘pizza pie series’ as Rabbi Gordon used to refer to them to me in the past.

[4] For a discussion about the Gra and his views towards R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato and the Mesilat Yesharim, see Y. Eliach, HaGra, vol. 1 pp. 240-45, where Eliach devotes a chapter to this issue. There is even a statement attributed to the Gra that there are no extra words in the sefer Messilat Yesharim, until chapter 11. This statement sparked a discussion as to exactly which word in chapter 11 is the extra one that the Gra was referring to. Additionally, it seems that the Gra even had some of the Ramchal's works in manuscript.

[5] See: N. Lamm, Torah Lishmah, pp. 338- 340. In a blog post discussing the content and censorship of the sefer Menuchah u-Kedushah, I note that according to the author of Menucah u-Kedushah, a talmid of R. Chaim Volozhiner, the Messilat Yesharim was written with ruach ha-kodesh. For other pro-Ramchal sources in litivish sources see R. Y. Chaver, Magen Vetzenah, p.7; Matzav Hayashar, 2: 74a. See also Y. Tishbi, Chikrei Kabblah, 3, pp. 937-939.

See also what Rav Kook Said on this work:

מסילת ישרים ראוי להקרא בשם ספר הספרים, כי על כל משפט שלו אפשר לחבר ספר (ר' משה נריה, מועדי הראי"ה, עמ' נ-נא).

See also R. Dovid Hanazir, Kol Hanevuah, pp. 278-318.

[6] See A. Marcus, Hachassidus, pp. 324-326; Keses Hasofer, p. 12a. See also, E. Zweifel, Shalom Al Yisroel, 3. pp. 17-18.

[7] For more on this Ramchal, see my Bein Kessah Lassur, pp. 237- 239.

[8] Much has been written about this statement. Y.  Leibowitz, Sichos Al Misslat Yesharyim Leramchal, p. 38, 43,  incorrectly I might add, goes so far as to say that this is the cause why the Rabonyim came out against the Ramchal. On this topic see, Marc B. Shapiro, "Aspects of Rabbi Moses Sofer's Intellectual Profile," in Jay M. Harris, ed., Be'erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 294-296; Hakira 4, 2007, p. 254, 264-266; Hakira 5, 2007, pp. 27-28.