Dealing with Fire

"and it is possible that this is the intention of the Mishneh, Avot {2:10}, "Warm yourself before the fire of the sages, but be heedful of their glowing coals for fear that you be burned" {that} it means to say {that one} should not warm {before their fire} from afar but {also} not to come exceedingly close; so that one does not cause damage that will burn him, and I believe that I have heard so in the name of my Master. and understand"

Toldos, Vayeiroh, 17d

It seems like a lot of earlier commentators (such as the Rambam, Rabbeinu Yona, Me’ieri, Rabbeinu Ovadyeh) have already understood this Mishneh along these lines. It begs the question: what is new here? Why is the Toldos quoting this in the name of the Besht?

Although I cannot answer this question with any amount of certainty or satisfaction, a friend suggested, and I suspect that he is right, that what we have here is the Besht advising us to keep a certain distance from a Zaddik, a distance that allows us to maintain our own identity.

Perhaps it was later, in 3rd generation and onward in the development of Chassidus- where complete bittul to, and the emulationof the Zaddik is encouraged (1)- here we imagery that spport the view that closeness to the Zaddik is only to “warm up,” to be inspired by him to become us not him.

Perhaps this is why the Besht continuously warns against imitating the Zaddik (2). The greatness of a Zaddik may very well lie in the fact that he lives freely, according to his own convictions, leaving room for nothing but his own conscience- a state where imitated is dead.

Like a fake rose, a fake Zaddik, may look good to the shallow amateur but it cannot bear fruit, will not have any pleasing aroma and is generally useless to the advancement of mankind.




Notes:

(1)Perhaps more culturally than official Chassidic doctrine

(2)“to do like him, but not {because one was inspired} by one’s heart” –Toldos, Vayishlach, 27a

“they did as Rashbi but not out of free will, but because they wanted to copy what others have done” – Toldos, Metzoyreh, 85a

“abandoning one’s level { a realm lower than that of the Zaddik } which is {grounded} in Nature, and the upper level {that of the Zaddik} not achieved, one remains a loser {“kerach”} on both ends” –Toldos, Mikaytz, 31a

Do you see what I see?!

I have heard from my Master that if one has witnessed sin [or heard (on){about} one {having sinned}], one should discern that he {too} has a smear of this {particular} sin, and {he said that} one should become motivated to improve oneself

Toldos, Koretz 1780, 17a

Now, we can approach this from several different angles- I would like to examine four in particular all of them equally valid, I believe:

One; a purely secular psychological approach:

Without getting into the details of who first discovered the unconscious, the psychological world has known for some time now that the unconscious exists. Not only that it does indeed exist, but also that most of who we are -our drives, desires, wills, needs, etc.-is {still} unconscious.

We now know that man's conscious mind is only the tip of consciousness’ iceberg and that Man may not be ruled by his rational and logical conscious mind (1) after all. We may assume that -at least partly- man's inability to rule his self and follow through with his dreams, is because man is mostly ruled by his unconscious that often operates in ways that conflict with what one consciously think that they need.

Without awareness of self, man is also plagued by repressed unconscious thoughts that give him no rest. Strong currents of unidentified feeling that allow him no rest. In severe cases, internalized feelings of anxiety may lead one to live an anti-social, self-destructive and illogical life(2).


My point is that one's understanding of one’s own unconscious mind is not merely a fascinating journey- but, a necessity since –to the Besht- our unconscious is the gateway to heaven (3).

Psychotherapy, in its various forms, attempts to help the patient by re-visiting the patient's repressed subconscious thoughts and dealing with its effects on the patient’s feelings and impulses.

The patient will always talk about his most repressed issues; all the therapist does is provide the patient with an environment where he can feel comfortable enough to revisit these places. Once the thought/event has been brought into consciousness it dissipates, it loses its toxicity, it can no longer harm the patient.

The Besht seems to have an amazing method of his own, a way of constantly accessing our sub-conscious mind:

At any given time, in any given scene, there are infinite arrays of things to notice and reflect upon. We, however, can only notice things we already have associations with.

The Besht teaches us that we can only hear and see what pertains to us (4). The Besht is essentially saying, what Psychology later would corroborate; anything that disturbs us, anything that evokes any sort of emotion within us- even if we'd like to think that it’s an externally caused emotion- is really our subconscious acting up. The external cause merely triggered an internal effect (5).

The Besht, however, takes it a step further by saying that the same would apply with mere sight. It would simply be impossible for me to notice that someone or something is ‘evil’ without my being connected in some way to that very evil. In other words, the bad that I have noticed in my friend, is essentially my own (6).

If we ever want to beyond a black and white world, beyond a world that can only mean that since I'm right the other must be wrong, if we are to free ourselves of the tyranny of being thrown around by our own subconscious mind- one way or the other:
We must get to know ourselves.

So, going back to our text- on this level of understanding- we have a practical method of the Besht of how to continuously dig into one's own sub-conscious mind and revisit the negative and lay them to rest, becoming one's own psycho-therapist.

In a nutshell: what needs healing will come to you. It always does so, 24/7.

Another, second way of understanding our text, is the one favored by later generation Rebbe's and Chassidim (7):

It is one that does not change the reality of sin or the sinner, but merely focuses on the observer. By grace, the divine is in constant communication with his people. He communicates via the world. Everything we hear or see, it is the divine communicating with us, constantly presenting us with opportunities to improve.

So, it was by the grace of god that he allowed this man to witness something negative, only so that he should use it to correct an old long-forgotten, or never-before-noticed, sin.

The Third, and most interesting angle is recorded in Sefer Rav Yeiveh (7a):

I have heard in the name of the Besht who was once told about someone who was Jewish who had desecrated the Shabbes, {to which} the Besht responded that he {the Besht?} is partly responsible for this sin, for he himself had also desecrated the Shabbes by being serviced by a Torah Scholar who is compared to the shabbes, and it was this {Beshtian} sin that later flowed over to that Jew who did a complete sin {i.e.} that he {actively} desecrated the Shabbes

The Besht takes responsibility for that sin, as he knows that no sin is isolated, neither is the sinner. If the Zaddik would be perfectly good, the sinner would no longer sin (8).

Reb Yaakov Yosef, the author of sefer Rav Yeivo, puts forth the following example:

“ for example if one transgressed by a sexual sin... Probably it is because a Zaddik had a bad thought {pertaining to sexuality} {and this is caused by} the even greater Zaddik who {though} was careful not to indulge in sexual thought {but yet sinned in a more subtle manner} by not constantly thinking of torah {a sin which in its essence is the same only subtler sin of fornication}"

The fourth is far more radical as it examines the nature of evil herself:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone or anything. To think bad about anyone or anything is to indict oneself along with god (10). Since that which we perceive as bad is really just as divine as the revealed good, as after all everything is god/good. To look at somebody or something and label it 'bad' simply means that I have labeled my own self as such.

Let me explain: since in {Beshtian} Chassidic thought everything and everybody is equally divine- what is the difference between the Zaddik and sinner, between right and wrong? Are we still left with 'sinner' and 'sin'?

The way the Besht sees it, both the Zaddik and sinner are expressing equally divinely-valid particles {so to speak} of the total divine unity. The only difference between the Zaddik and the sinner is locale. The Sinner is temporarily stuck in a an ego-centric godless universe- an angle from which all and everything seem bleak- he's in a world where nothing is what it seems, a world where the divine presence goes completely unnoticed, hence labeled 'evil'

Not so our Zaddik. Our Zaddik lives in a divine revealed reality. a reality in which all and everything appear as they are- Divine. The Zaddik can see the divinity of himself and of the sinner, while the sinner cannot find divinity anywhere.

In other words, the Zaddik lives in a completely pleasurable existence where all is good, while the sinner lives in a world of pain

Its the rules of the game: in order to see the goodness/godliness/light/pleasure, you must step out of the confines of sin/evil/darkness/pain.

It follows that if I can look at something or somebody and see them as ugly foreign evil- all I really just told myself is that I myself am not in the locale of the Zaddik- otherwise I would not have seen anything 'evil'.

I bless you to try this and see for yourself.



Notes:

(1) though this last bit maybe a more recent discovery, and to some not all that concrete. ChaZa"L would probably agree its truth regarding one ruled by his "yetzer hora"

(2) This extreme is an expression of what exists in all of us. we all have repressed thoughts, desires and disappointments, that haunt and manipulate our conscious being. Just because we ignore it does not mean that the pain stops. The pain actually intensifies as we keep on piling up these unresolved painful experiences in our sub-conscious mind. So, even if we learned to turn it off or how to keep it together despite the constant turmoil- we can all still benefit by getting to know our subconscious mind {better}. {naturally, I will not even attempt to document the sources of what is now generally accepted in the psychological world- but I shall do my best with locating and citing the relevant Beshtian text}.

(3) Or even heaven and god almighty himself. “I have received from my Master that there are within man {all the} Ten Spheres, for Man is a microcosm” Toldos, Lech Lecho, 16c

(4) Reb Isaac'el Komarner, Nozer Chesed 4:1 in the name of the Besht "and so one could also learn from a gentile in the market place when he tells him some story or concept, he should understand that its not for naught that he heard it"- Agav, how it is that the kmarner (1806-1874) has toyreh from the Besht (1698-1760) not mentioned elsewhere, quotes the Besht as "I have heard from my Master" -I hope to address some time soon
(5) see also Besht al Ha’Toreh, Breishis, 126 (quouting the Divrei Sholom, {Keidenov} Korach 56b) in the name of the Besht who translates “kol ha’negoim she’odom royeh chutz, mi’nigei atzmoy” as “all negative things that one notices externally, flows from ones own inner negativity ”
(6) see Toldos, Pikudei 70a in the name of the Besht who explained the meaning of the Mishneh "he is wise who learns from every man" that it is as one who looks in a miror- he can only see himself. That the world is our mirror.

(7) Bnei Yissoschor, Tishrei 4:6 quoted in Besht Al Hatoyreh, Bereishis 130
see also Toldos,201b, who quotes Reb Nachman {Kossover ?} explaining our current shtikel to mean "that one should get out of the attributes of Gevureh, {that one should} not think bad about people but one should approach them with compassion and judge everyone favorably. Also when one sees something indecent of ones friend, one should feel that it was for ones own benefit so one could spot in oneself that he too has a taint of it {i.e. the indecency that one just noticed about ones friend}. Which, according to the above mentioned Reb Nachman, is "a remedy sweeter than honey as it multiplies compassion in this world" unlike the one who tries to heal his soul through "the bitter remedy" {i.e.} "fasting, and self-inflicted pain or undisturbed study {which eventually cause the} increase of depression {and for one} to look negatively at his peers who do not act as he does" (Toldos, 202a).


(7a) Ostrah, 1808, 50c commentary to Psalms 22 D”H Yizkeru


(8) interestingly the toldos talks about this concept in the name of Reb Layb Pistiner on numerous occasions, see for example toldos, Kedoyshim 90a
we do however have him quote the besht as saying that it works one way
see toldos, Ki Seitsei 188c "... I have heard from my Master {the understanding of} "he who able {lit. he who has it in his hands} to protest vechulu (BT shabbes)" that it means to say that {when} the head of the generation has a smear of sin, from it {this smear of sin} it flows to the people of the generation {where it manifests as} sin and {even} deliberate sin, therefore one {at the head of the generation is advised that one} should erase {here the besht changes the usual translation of "limchoys" to protest- to now mean "erase"} VLIMCHOYK every sin that is in his hands and {then} automatically the sins of the generation will be repaired as well {as his own}"



(10) Toldos BPY 24b in the name of reb nachman {kossever?} dovid hamelech begging god not see bad since "from the prospective of unity he is accusing himself"
see Toldos, Pikudei, 70c-
"i have heard in the name of my master ZLHH the understanding of the Mishneh "Who is wise? he who learns from every man" according to a metaphor; one who looks at a mirror knows his {own} lack etc. so too one who sees the lack of another knows that he has a bit of it {himself} and charming are the words of the wise"

He goes on to say that even our sinner will turn around "since he {the tzaddik} will include him {the sinner} with him {the tzaddik} through (the aforementioned) unity"