My 52nd birthday is on Dec 2nd, so I wanted to share a short thought on happiness to mark the occasion.
The Mishna in Avos (6:1) says:
“Rabbi Meir said, anyone who engages in Torah study for its own sake merits many things. Not only that, but the entire world is worthwhile for him alone. He is called ‘friend’ and ‘beloved,’ he loves G-d, he loves man, he brings joy to G-d, he brings joy to man….”
The Maharal comments on “he brings joy to G-d, he brings joy to man”:
Happiness flows from completeness, just as grief is the result of loss and deficiency. Since this world was created to provide us with opportunities to enrich our lives through Torah, it is clear that Torah brings completeness into our lives and hence to the entire world. A person who engages in sincere Torah study brings joy to G-d for he fullfils the verse, “G-d shall rejoice in His works” by bringing completeness to His works.
So why doesn’t learning Torah give us tremendous happiness?
Perhaps we need to work on internalizing that learning is the ultimate source of happiness and bring the awareness of the completeness to the forefront when we learn.
In fact, any mitzvah has this potential to bring high levels of happiness, if we put ourselves in the right cognitive framework.
A great source on ensuring Torah study brings us closer to Hashem (see paragraph 134 for example):
http://bilvavi.net/content/view/283/32
“From reading the comment’s, the people seemed to feel that the movie expressed people’s bad experience with Judaism more than being a frontal assault and Rabbis and Judaism.
Perhaps Rabbi Bleich, who never had those bad experiences, couldn’t relate to it in that way, and since relating bad experiences inevitably casts a negative light on the subject, Rabbi Blech experienced it as a frontal assault on Judaism.”
Mark, you are absolutely right. when we articulate our ideals, we also need to gather empirical data about how people are experiencing Judaism, and whether those ideals are being put into practice. a film which provides that data simply gives us insight on what we need to do better. It certainly is not an assault.
Davka sort of means “especially”. As in,”There a lot of good webistes out there that you can use for grown. I, davka, like BeyondBT.”
Takah is, as Bob said, sort of “y’know”. As in, “I, takah, like the taste of Coke Zero over Diet Coke.”
Davka and takah are not words I use, so I’m an observer. My observation is that, whatever they really mean, they are used mostly for punctuation, like “y’know”.
I’m always confusing the terms “moshol†and “nimshol.†You guys out there promise not to laugh too hard when I mix up the two words. (Judy, message # 34)
Judy,
A moshol is something that is given as a metaphoric example, parable, etc. It is derived from the active form of the verb that means to speak comparatively.
The nimshal is the matter that is being alluded to by the example. Technically speaking, it is the subject of the passive form of the verb.
Is there anyone who can explain davka and takah to me?
Mostly, politicians have been expanding government.
“Someone ought to focus critically on the big government and labor union world as much as Hollywood focuses on the corporate world.”
Lots of people have. Politicians have been loud and merciless in bashing government for three decades, and bashing unions for seven decades. Today you hear little else on talk radio.
Bob, because I’m sure that he did not grow up in a Conservative or Reform shul and therefore couldn’t have experienced that experience.
Mark, how can we begin to speculate about what Rabbi Blech has or has not experienced?
There are two issues, what was the author’s intention and what was the experience of those who saw it.
From reading the comment’s, the people seemed to feel that the movie expressed people’s bad experience with Judaism more than being a frontal assault and Rabbis and Judaism.
Perhaps Rabbi Bleich, who never had those bad experiences, couldn’t relate to it in that way, and since relating bad experiences inevitably casts a negative light on the subject, Rabbi Bleich experienced it as a frontal assault on Judaism.
Mark wrote,
“Many seemed to feel that Rabbi Blech missed the point and that the film’s goal was not to bash Judaism, but rather to display the bad experience that many people in fact had with Judaism.”
It’s possible that both goals were intended, no?
I’m surprised you would say that, Mark!
I found it instructive to read the comments to Rabbi Blech’s A Serious Man post on Aish.
Many seemed to feel that Rabbi Blech missed the point and that the film’s goal was not to bash Judaism, but rather to display the bad experience that many people in fact had with Judaism.
Although I commend Rabbi Blech’s intent to defend Judaism, I don’t think his counter-attack approach is effective in our times and I’m surprised that an organization like Aish still positions Torah Judaism as an Us vs Them conflict.
Someone ought to focus critically on the big government and labor union world as much as Hollywood focuses on the corporate world.
FWIW, even though it is rated “R”, George Clooney’s new film about “human resources” personnel in the corporate world looks very interesting, especially given the current economic climate.
Mazel tov! I think there is a Mishnah in Avos that ascribes a certain Midah to reaching 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. As far as R Blech’s review of the Coen Brothers film and one’s view of the fim, the subject of which fascinated me as I read the reviews elsewhere, expecting Hollywood, and especially many of the very assimilated and liberal Jews who are part of the Hollywood world to have positive views, let alone actual knowledge, of Judaism and significant Jewish events such as the Six Day War is quite unrealistic.
To Bob Miller: I clicked on the link you sent and found a beautiful picture of the 1956 woody sides Ford station wagon. :)
Actually, a smiley emoticon doesn’t do it justice, I am laughing so hard that everybody thinks I’m meshugga. :)))
I’m always confusing the terms “moshol” and “nimshol.” You guys out there promise not to laugh too hard when I mix up the two words. I was just trying to continue the automotive moshol started earlier in this thread. Mark Frankel, the birthday gentleman, was compared to a classic car, the 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air. The 1956 Ford station wagon was a nimshol for myself, not a real car. My younger daughters used to share a 1982 Audi. That car, being “born” in August 1981, was older than they were.
Judy, here it is:
http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/squire.htm
Congratulations to a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air classic from a 1956 Ford station wagon (woody sides model).
1957 was notable for two demographics:
(1) The *number* of births in the US peaked.
(2) The teen birthrate peaked. (It has fallen to less than half that peak but remains higher than any other developed country. Incredibly, the rate in the Netherlands is less than one tenth that of the US.)
Yom Holedet Sameah from another recent 52 year man!
Bob, I recently heard from an old car salesman that the ’57 Chevy Bel Air was a problem because it was TOO good. They didn’t sell enough parts and replacements. Go figure…
:)
This Gen Xer is laughing.
People try to put us down…
For an analysis of the baby boom and other generations, you should read THE FOURTH TURNING.
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/archetypes_0.html
As an aside the authors of the book base their theory four archetypes of generations being cyclic. The Alter of Kelm though that time and the Yom Tovim were also cyclic.
The 1957 Chevy was a classic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_Chevy
Charlie, you do know that 1957 was the height of the baby boom, so there are more people to feel a completeness with.
My 52nd birthday was Nov. 19! I’m older than you!!!
Ron, thanks for the reply. I think, based on the vastness of Torah, that most people can find SOMETHING they enjoy learning b/c they enjoy it (aside from it Limud Torah being a mitzvah).
If the average BT can’t find something they enjoy learning, then we (as a community) have a really big problem that makes kids “at risk” seem like a walk in the park.
“Shades of Gray, Thanks for the comments, but it seems like the promise of happiness is across the board so I’m not sure exactly what your individualistic point is. ”
I agree that “put[ting] ourselves in the right cognitive framework is across the board; that’s “hachanah”, similar to by tefilah.
But the question of “why doesn’t learning Torah give us tremendous happiness” is a general one and can have more than one component, even if you are focusing on one single, necessary component.
For example, Bob mentioned practical factors such as “pace, the specific content, the setting, the difficulty, our performance vs. expectations, our time constraints”. These differ.
Regarding “performance vs. expectations” , see sources in footnote # 22 and #23 of Dr. Benzion Sorotzkin’s “The Pursuit of Perfection:Vice or Virtue in Yiddishkeit”, regarding the question of “sameach b’cheliko” applying to ruchaniyos. This factor also may or may not to apply to everyone, certainly not in the same degree, thus individuality.
http://www.drsorotzkin.com/pdf/pursuit_of_perfection.pdf
Bob Miller, it could be that is why the Coen Brothers chose that song as the basis for the film. This film is heavy on the connection between desperation and immorality.
PL, Aish has a very consistent record with picking essays that trash any serious secular work. Aish is only willing to praise — in a very strange fashion — the most empty of pop culture to find anything positive to take from it. That Aish takes from it. Of course.
Additionally, “A Serious Man,” is in my mind, a rather pro-Orthodox movie to some degree, that views traditional Judaism as filled with great, but for many, inaccessible wisdom.
Ron, you wrote,
On the other hand based on my mother’s explanation of it, it sounds like a fairly typical Jewish filmmaker’s attempt, a la Woody Allen, to separate himself from his all too obvious Jewishness by assuring everyone that he knows how awful “these people†are.
No, it is completely different than Woody Allen. It is an interpretation of Job in a contemporary setting, There is a lot of debate about what this film is actually saying, which as my MO brother noted at the Thanksgiving table, suggests that this is a strong movie. We don’t usually have these types of debates about pop cultural films, because they aren’t worthy of such debate.
The facts are the following to consider:
1) There is no English dialogue in the first three scenes. Only Hebrew and Yiddish. This is an insider film to a large degree.
2) It is based on the biblical Job, with many twists.
3) The movie begins with a quote from Rashi.
4) Everyone from the secular and Liberal Jewish community in the film appear to all agree that the older, Orthodox-ish sage is the wisest person in the community.
The message of the movie appears to be about the difficulty of staying righteous under pressure.
Hence, the bar mitzvah boy is asked by the rabbi,
“When the truth is found to be lies, and all the hope [instead of joy] within you dies….”
“What do you do?” Asked the rabbi.
And then the answer–the answer the father could not get from this rabbi, and the answer he did not follow under pressure–is given.
Some issues with Rabbi Blech’s essay:
So Larry meets with three spokesmen for the Almighty.
No, he doesn’t get to meet with the eldest, more traditional rabbi. His son does. Not Larry. Larry is denied access.
Rabbi Blech writes in quotes of the Coen Brothers,
“detesting Hebrew school and their boring rabbis”
It is not clear why he says this. The Coen Brothers did not say that, not that I could find. It is also strange that he ascribes revenge motives for their Hebrew School teachers. These are not 20-something filmmakers. They are in their 50’s. This is nonsense.
Rabbi Blech writes,
Of course there will be those who will immediately counter my criticism with the putdown, “What’s the matter, can’t you take a joke?”
No. Your criticism is off. This was a serious film, even if funny at many times. But it was a serious film. Like all of their recent films.
Since the Coen brothers can claim no familiarity with theological explanations for God’s silence in the face of evil — a subject of monumental concern and discussion by some of the greatest rabbinic minds of the centuries — they are left only with cheap gimmicks and snide jokes at the expense of the Creator.
Wrong. At the end of the movie is the wrath of God. It is horrifying. Not snide, not gimmicky. A sudden assurance that what we do matters and has consequences.
Rabbi Blech protests that the Coen Brothers did not tackle that,
In 1967, in all of six days, Israel achieved a military victory that stills strains credulity and was viewed by millions as a supreme example of the hand of God in history. Indeed, many mark it as the true beginning of the Ba’al Tshuvah movement
But this movie was not a history film. It was not about the state of Israel, it was not about the Baal Teshuvah Movement, it was not even about 1967. It was set in 1967.
It was about being a mensch under pressure, and how confusing and difficult that can be, especially when your only accessible guides are hapless, Liberal Jewish institutions, even as you suspect that what you need may very well be the old stuff, but you don’t find it accessible and/or you don’t consider it viable.
This is, in fact, the plight of large swaths of Eastern European Jewry. I fear Rabbi Blech could not take off his Kiruv hat, and frankly, I don’t think that this film is appropriate for FFBs. It’s just to foreign to their world, and often, even for the Modern Orthodox, this is taken as a tremendous disrespect and “defamation.”
Fine. Let’s say because the Coen Brothers don’t see the Jewish world like Rabbi Blech, they are defaming Judaism, rabbis, and God. Maybe they are.
But it still wasn’t like Rabbi Blech said it was. He made too many mistakes and ascribed too many dubious motives in his essay to be comfortable with his conclusions.
Bob, no, I don’t throw the eraser at them! Just at their pixels. If necessary.
DK, my parents just made the same recommendation to me, although unlike you they did not assume I had the slightest idea or interest in what Aish (or Rabbi Blech) thought of the movie, and in this case they would be right. On the other hand based on my mother’s explanation of it, it sounds like a fairly typical Jewish filmmaker’s attempt, a la Woody Allen, to separate himself from his all too obvious Jewishness by assuring everyone that he knows how awful “these people” are. Either way, I don’t go to movies. That I did learn at Aish!
(BTW, I went to the Aish site to see what you’re all talking about. After recovering from the vertigo I get from the homepage there, I finally found the article, which for the convenience of other curious and intrepid persons is here. Actually I do like Rabbi Blech’s article.)
Neil, I certainly appreciate the spirit in which your suggestion is offered, but again, even in your reformulation, you seem to be assuming the answer rather than answering the question, “Do I really enjoy learning a sefer at all?,” much less the follow-up, “If I don’t, or if I only just kind of like it or find it interesting, or if I really only do it because I’m supposed to — does that mean I’m not a good Jew?”
Reuven Andreesen suggests that the answer to this is, “yes.” So maybe I, for one, am finished!
Mark asks the question “So why doesn’t learning Torah give us tremendous happiness?” When Torah is learned for it’s own sake (LeShma), it does.If Torah learning is not giving someone happiness, it is an indication of not learning it with proper intention.
Re: Comment #6
“…you simply don’t experience what Neil says you ought to…”
Ron,
I was only offering a suggestion. I think, as Mark seems to, that happiness in learning (when it comes out of the woodwork) is hard to hold on to and spread out in all we do. It’s much more common for me to get discouraged, intimidated, and frustrated during learning.
Like every mitzvah, learning Torah has it’s own reward, and doing that mitzvah b’Simcha has its own separate reward.
My humble suggestion to pick up a sefer and enjoy learning it on a Shabbos night, was an attempt to take a momment to reconnect with why I first enjoyed “learning Torah”, back when Torah Judaism seemed less complicated.
#14
Aish’s understanding? The piece was authored by Rabbi Benjamin Blech, a professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University.
He wrote it for the Aish website, a place featuring a multiplicity of opinions, although all of them Orthodox.
It is proper to attribute articles to their authors.
Now, did you not like Rabbi Blech’s article? I think he is a terrific representative of Yeshiva University, and enjoy all of his writings wherever they are featured, including this one.
Re: Comment 14
The lyrics to the Airplane’s “Somebody to Love” perfectly illustrate the connection between despair and immorality.
Surely you meant 42 and not 52. Not that 52 is old but you look and think much younger. Must be all of that simcha.
Ron wrote,
after all there are all these different words for “joy†in Lashon Hakodesh and if we mix and match on the English side too I might assume the original also indicated a shift
The Coen Brothers played heavily upon these attempts at translations from Hebrew and Yiddish into English in their most recent film, “A Serious Man,” which itself delved into the concept of “mensch.”
One critical scene involved a not-so-accidental substitute of a line from a Jefferson Airplane lyric from “joy” to “hope.”
I think you would really like the film, and would insist that Aish’s understanding of the movie was exceptionally skewed and puerile treatment of one of the best American Jewish movies.
The concept of simcha/happiness is complex on both the secular and Torah understandings and there is clearly a lack of consensus of what simcha/happiness is.
We could get all scholarly and dismiss the entire discussion on both sides because of lack of precision on the use of the terms, but my sense is that it’s an important issue that needs to be continually explored despite the lack of precision.
Ron, when you hear someone refer “happiness”, what exactly do you do with your eraser—throw it at him?
OK, well, I don’t want to be pedantic but when I hear someone refer to “happiness” in context of Jewish classical texts I reach for my eraser, because we all know how complicated this can be… after all there are all these different words for “joy” in Lashon Hakodesh and if we mix and match on the English side too I might assume the original also indicated a shift — and all this matters because I have some skepticism about the concept of “happiness” as we moderns understand the word, as against the concept of simcha.
Joy. Although I only have the English Maharal in front of me, the Mishnah uses the word Simcha and the Maharal is commenting on that part of the Mishnah.
Mark, what is the word you have translated as “happiness” in the quote from the Maharal?
Ron, I think it is great to repeat thoughts as chazara (repetition) increases knowledge, understanding and internalization.
As you point, out integrating the physical and the spiritual is another example of experiencing completeness which will also lead to simcha. Even a purely physical meal has an aspect of completeness which is why it brings us some level of happiness.
I think truly think every Jew can achieve the completeness and happiness through learning, but perhaps we need a better cognitive framework of recognizing and appreciating what we are accomplishing when we learn.
Shades of Gray, Thanks for the comments, but it seems like the promise of happiness is across the board so I’m not sure exactly what your individualistic point is.
AJ, thanks or the birthday wishes and I think for the you seem much younger compliment?
Bob, I see this as a general problem. Although we can’t measure internal happiness, it doesn’t seem that most frum Jews are what we would describe as very happy people. In fact – Rabbi Miller wrote a book called “What’s wrong with being happy” which is partially focused on dealing with this question.
Neil, personally I love learning and really do feel happy when I am learning, but I don’t feel the happiness carrying over to my entire sense of being at all times. I don’t think the Mishna in Avos is only promising happiness during the time when we are learning.
Haven’t we been here before?
No, it wasn’t that. I mean it was, but I was looking for something else. I say a lot of things but I will always try to avoid saying them twice if I can! I remember saying something that directly addresses Neil’s suggestion that most of us can really plug into the simcha of learning Torah in a profound way, and by “directly addresses” I mean “really disagrees with”!
Yes — here it is:
Well, that’s my view of the matter! Must be; it says so right at that link.
I think this needs to be said because if, like me, you simply don’t experience what Neil says you ought to, you might be discouraged. This is not the path to simcha, that’s for sure!
Don’t be discouraged. Different spirits have different frequencies.
FWIW, real Torah learning does bring happiness. Most of us (and this observantion isn’t my own) tend to get caught up in the details of learning (the process) and execution of halacha (following and understanding the details halacha). These are important, for sure, but if one is primarily thinking about Torah learning and not “feeling” the learning, then you are not reaching that level of “completeness”
A good example would be (for the guys) making sure that the tzitzis on your tallis are all tied and kosher before Shabbos, yet rushing to say the bracha and put your tallis on quickly Shabbos morning.
If you don’t feel the “love” during learning, I’ll offer a suggestion. Now that Shabbos starts early, right before you decide to go to bed, find a sefer that you haven’t opened in a while or maybe Tehillim and just take a look inside.
Warm birthday wishes from up north! Many more!
(you seem much younger)
If Torah study leaves us less than happy, we need to examine our personal reasons why. Is it the pace, the specific content, the setting, the difficulty, our performance vs. expectations, our time constraints, or what?
First, Happy Birthday !
“So why doesn’t learning Torah give us tremendous happiness?”
Your point about “bring[ing] the awareness of the completeness to the forefront when we learn” is an important one, but perhaps this is also an individualistic question for two reasons:
1) Any mussar/spiritual work is individualistic as the Rambam lists different middos in the 1st two perakim of Hilchos Deios, which are as varied as different personalities
2) There might also be a blockage not only from a spiritual point of view but also from a more humanistic “happiness” point of view. I think of #2 as “hechsher mitzvah”.
Even further, is the case when Torah seemingly leads to unhappiness(see links below). My perspective is that Chazal say that Torah can be , “sam hamoves” if not used properly instead of “sam Hachaim” and “darchei noam”(ways of pleasantness), so one can not blame such compulsions on the Torah(actually, I’ve read that some religious Catholics suffer from the same).
http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=978-1-59826-358-9&type=store&category=search
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277946527&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
http://www.vosizneias.com/29011/2009/03/17/new-york-jewish-rituals-and-obsessive-compulsive-disorder/
1. Great post
2. Excellent D’var Torah
3. HAPPY BIRTHDAY MARK!!!
4. May you continue towards Shelaimus-completeness.