| http://www.torah.org/learning/spiritual-excellence/classes/ch13-2.html |
There are three sorts of abstinence, actually: the kind that the Torah
itself requires of us (when it charges us to avoid this or that); the kind
that the sages added onto those, known as “safeguards”, to make sure we
don’t come close to doing something the Torah itself forbade; and the kind
that those who are striving for piety would take upon themselves to ensure
they don’t even veer toward wrongdoing. We’ll be focusing on the latter
sort, for while the first two are incumbent on all of us, the last is
optional and are the very sort that the pious would choose.
Now, a question could reasonably be asked here. As Ramchal himself words it,
"What right has anyone to add on prohibitions” beyond the ones the Torah and
sages instituted? In fact, as he points out, the sages themselves raised the
question when they said, “Hasn't the Torah forbidden enough things for you
-- would you forbid even more?" (Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 9:1). After all,
he goes on to offer as devil’s advocate, "what our sages saw fit in their
wisdom to prohibit and to use as a safeguard should certainly be so, but
what they saw fit to allow should be allowed and not prohibited. So why
would anyone come up with decrees that the sages didn't see fit to make?"
Then he adds (rather tongue-in-cheek), “There’d be no end to this” sort of
thing in theory. “It would come out that a person would have to suffer (all
sorts of) desolation and deprivation, and derive no pleasure from this world
at all!” if this kept up. Why, “haven’t our sages said, 'You’ll have to give
a reckoning and account before G-d for each permitted and available thing
your eyes saw to eat that you didn’t eat'” (Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin
4:12). So how could anyone justifiably take new restrictions on himself in
light of all that?
“The only response to that”, he then offers, would be the following, In
point of fact, “abstinence is certainly necessary. Our sages (Sifra)
exhorted us about it by saying that when the Torah says ‘Be holy’ (Leviticus
19:2) it means to say ‘Be abstainers’. They also said that ‘If the Nazirite
(who would abstain from drinking grape products, from cutting his or her
hair, and from attending funerals) is called ‘holy’, we could extrapolate
from there that anyone who fasts is all the more so to be called holy”
(Ta'anit 11a), which implies that abstaining from food (or the like) as much
as possible is seemingly laudable. And he goes on to offer other traditional
statements which all “clearly indicate the need for and the obligation to
practice abstinence”.
The solution to this seeming contradiction is simply this, as he words it:
“there are the abstentions that we’re commanded to follow” -- each one of us
-- such as the ones the Torah and Tradition laid out. And then “there are
abstentions that we’re cautioned to observe so as not to come to stumble”
but not commanded to, which those who are striving for piety would eagerly
take upon themselves because it suits their loftier goals. The point is that
the rest of us needn’t take those restrictions upon ourselves in fact,
though we might draw lessons from them and reconsider our ways in light of them.
Text Copyright © 2007 by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman and Torah.org
The Path of the Just
Chapter 13 (Part 2)