Points well taken! 

More thoughts I'd like to share, and another thing that bothered me about that write-up.

Here's something quoted from the handbook article:

"There’s a well known adage that if Hashem gave us a test, we must have the ability to overcome it as well. R’ Tzadok HaKoehn says though, (in Tzidkas Hatzadik) that this is not as simple as it sounds. It is true that we all have free choice to do what Hashem expects of us in this world, over the course of our lifetimes.  However, in the process of our journey, there are many times when a person is considered an onus."

In Tzidkas Hatzadik this can be found in siman mem gimmel.

There also - if anyone actually pulls out the sefer and looks this up, they'll find that R' Tzadok HaKohen concludes his thought saying, "But the person himself cannot testify on himself concerning this, because perhaps he still had the power to overcome the yetzer."

And in the text that's: "אבל האדם עצמו אין יכול להעיד על עצמו בזה, כי אולי עדיין היה לו כח לכוף היצר".

"... this is not as simple as it sounds". 

That would be another important point to note for the handbook.

P.s. Check this out:

רבי שלמה וולבה כתב ב"בשבילי הרפואה" (סיון תשמ"ב, בית חולים לניאדו, עמ' פב'): התקופה הקשה של ההתבגרות היא קרקע פורה לגידול רגשי אשמה.... האוננות היא איסור חמור. רוב רובם של הצעירים נכשלים בזה ואינם יכולים להתגבר על זה בשום אופן. התוצאה הם רגשי אשמה. כאן הוא המקום להדרכב נכונה מצד רבנים ומחנכים. כידוע, רב אינו מוסמך... להתיר איסורים. אבל הוא יכול להדריך, להרגיע ולהביא את הצעיר לסבלנות עם עצמו. ויחד עם זה: טיפוח חיי חברה אינטנזיבית והכנסת הצעיר לתוך אוצרות התורה האדירים... [ש]מביאה לכך, שבמשך הזמן שוכחים לחטוא. במקום מלחמה תמידית שהיא אך שוא – יגיעה חיובית לתורה ולחברה, ולאט לאט נגמלים מהאוננות. זאת היא דרך החינוך הנהוגה היום אצלנו.
- from Teshuva B'zmaneinu by Dr. Sorotzkin

Then there's this:

"We must also realize that we didn’t always have free will in the past. This is clear from various Sefarim and in various places in Chazal. To quote one of the foremost baalei mussar of our times, Rav Shlomo Wolbe, [zt"l]"

Firstly - It's not clear where you're quoting from because there's no reference cited.

And because you go on to say something else, it's also not clear what you're quoting.

But assuming that you're addressing the quote that Tried-123 brings in last post, here I'm attaching an image so we can have the sefer right here in front of us.

His wording "and they can't overcome this in any way" can only be understood to mean that "they are literally powerless!" if it's read on it's own - as if disjointed from the rest of the paragraph.

Combined with the rest of what he's saying though; he's addressing the mechanchim, and telling them that we have to find a better approach in dealing with youth who are caught up in masturbation. The core issue he's dealing with here is guilt. He addresses the fact that they're burdened with guilt and if we can somehow help them relax about this issue, and help focus their energy in Torah, their masturbation issue will be "forgotten".

I happen to agree with that statement very strongly!

But I don't hear any talk about powerlessness and lack of free-will...

In this context, where he gives advice on how to deal with the issue till it's is "simply forgotten" - his statement, "and they can't overcome this in any way" can't in any way be seen as literal.

Here's another thing that needs to be seen in the sefer itself.

YMG wrote on 04 Aug 2011 04:00:


Good question.

The point and intensity of his decision that
(a) he must stop
as well as
(b) the realization that he can't
are both things that are "d'varim hamesurim la'lev".

That is why this defination of "addiction" and "powerlessness" can't be argued. As Dov always says, it will not help at all for me to tell you that you are an addict. It is only the person himself who can decide (a) how desperate he is to stop and (b) by studying his track record honestly, coming to the conclusion that he can't. No other person can tell him these things.

Only at the point that it truly hits his heart can he be considered an addict and powerless, as per the AA definition. It can't be measured or tested in any way, and it may be different for each person.

1. If you check out this page: www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5101.htm you'll see that it seems there is confusion about whether it is 1:8 or 1:9.

2. The point the handbook is trying to make is only that there are cases when a sin, even one we enjoy, can be an oness.

YMG wrote on 04 Aug 2011 05:32:

YMG wrote on 04 Aug 2011 07:24:


Very true. But so what? The handbook is not saying you can decide that you were an oness on your own, the handbook is just saying that there are times when Hashem decides you were an oness.

The handbook is just trying to help people get past guilt so they can move on. If Rav Tzadok says that it "could be" we were an oness, it helps us move past the guilt. Because we can't start teshuvah if we are stuck in the mud. The guilt keeps us in the mud. So if we let go of the guilt and succeed in stopping, only later can we start talking about teshuvah for the past...

This conversation is getting quite lomdishe; perhaps it should be moved into the beis medrish section.

Besides that...

YMG wrote on 04 Aug 2011 05:32:


I would like to make another point here, to REALLY keep this thread on-track.

The main point, at the beginning, if you remember, was jellybeans.

So, I set forth a motion to get back to that.

We will now clarify if the Rambam, indeed, liked black jellybeans.

Please quote only sources from the Rambam, and don't confuse the issue by quoting pesukim, gemaras, midrash, other rishonim, and certainly not contemporary mussar or (especially) chassidic writings (no offense).

The point, to be clear, is to determine if the Rambam liked black jellybeans.  Please do not diverge from this main topic and assert your own opinions as to whether YOU like black jellybeans, or whether people in general ought to like black jellybeans, or even to discuss whether black jellybeans are intrinsically likeable, or not.

As important as all these questions may be, and as well-taken as such points may be taken, they would comprise a horrible tangent, and are not the point of discussion at this point in time.  It would only serve to confuse matters, although such issues may be taken up at a later date or via PM.

Once again, as we are trying to determine whether or not the Rambam, indeed, liked black jellybeans, please support your viewpoint purely with quotes directly from the Rambam.

A final rule, however, is to bring only the quotes that support YOUR opinion.  If, by chance, you should encounter any quotes to the contrary (whether in the course of your own research, or whether as expressed by another party in this discussion), they must be disregarded immediately.  (For the time being, we are suspending the general rule (#13) by which the Torah is interpreted, that you often find 2 contradictory sources and then must resolve the apparant contradiction, somehow accepting both original statements in some way.)

I trust the bright Talmidei Chachamim of GYE should be able to keep up a heated debate on this matter (though heated jellybeans are overall less desireable under most circumstances, but I digress, as that is my own assertion). 

Let the games begin (keep it clean)...

--Elyah

Wow! That's really a great idea!

Let's do that! 

R` Elyah,

YMG started this thread. He used a metaphor to bring his point across. You are free to mark it read if you don't want to see it, but it seems to be one of the few threads that ARE staying on topic!!!!

i think i found a good proof

a question is asked, how do we know that Moshe Rabeinu wore a shtreimel? (works just as well for a frock btw)
the answer is simple, it says וילך משה, do you really think he would walk without his shtreimel?

so by extension, the Rambam, we can assume, ate a few meals a day, and being a doctor would be conscious of health concerns, so if he ate a snack in between meals, do you think he would eat black jellybeans?

i rest my case

Love it!  ;D

Despite the misuse of the sources I’ve seen presented here (at least the ones I’ve checked up thus far), there are, in fact, very valid Torah sources that assert the fact that there are indeed times when a person can be “forced” to sin (so to speak). These are some things I have seen even throughout my own learning.

At first glance – in reconciliation of the apparent contradictions between these two approaches on the “powerless theory” though - one might propose the following approach; being which; there be no need to deal with contradictions in something that relates to action. That means to say, that - be it philosophical or not - a Yid is to view matters that relate to halacha, only in the most practical, halachic sense. That’s despite the fact that there are other – Torah - views out there!

In demonstrating this fact, an example for this would be the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. Both opinions are Torah mamash! Both are “Divrey Elokim Chaim”! Although that is true, only one of them is halacha! While Torah speaks of two different ways to light one’s menorah on Chanukah, practically speaking, there’s really only one right way to do it! If a person lights his menorah differently then what the halacha prescribes, he’s actually doing it wrong!

In addition to the above, we also know that once something’s been stated halacha, everything changes  – even the very reality! The reality actually is or becomes what the halacha determines!

This concept can be seen in many places, including: Talmud Yerushalmi (Ksubos 1:2 and Nedarim 6:8 ), the Shach in Yoreh Deah (189:13 and 23), and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (189:23). There are also many examples for this, for instance – like a story of the Arizal’s psak and a story of the Rogochover Gaon’s psak – stories written in seforim – how they actually had an impact on the actual way of things!

I’d also suggest a look at Rashi in Shoftim 17:11, and in the beginning of the Rambam’s Hilchois Mamrim.

Anyway, that’s one approach…

YMG wrote on 04 Aug 2011 18:16:


Who cares what YOU love?  >

Eye.nonymous wrote on 04 Aug 2011 13:35:





Oh!

You mean that you love ZemirosShaboss's post?

We all love his posts!!!

And if anyone's interested in another approach to the apparent contradiction through a deeper look into the actual sources where this is discussed, please send me a private message, and I'll try to continue posting on this topic - be"H. 

And another thing...

I encourage everyone reading this thread to get into the habit of looking up sources.

And while I'm on that note:

Guard, did you mean to quote "Alei Asoir"? That's the only musar sefer that I know of that bears a title even slightly resembling the one you mention. I double checked that in a seforim database just to make sure I'm not missing anything here, and I found nothing. There are 2 different prints bearing the "Alei Asoir" title, but neither of them go up to page 156. Would you please verify/clarify your "Alei Schur" reference for accuracy's sake?

And from the Steipler, where?