Now for some learning; Torah and the 12 steps coming right up from the Beis Medrash of Harav Cordnoy Shlita. I was actually in the middle of putting something together based on Rav Dessler on the first step, and lo and behold, Cordnoy did it already.
It's good stuff.
It's the age old question with a 12 steps angle. Good reading for anyone interested in understanding
bechira a little better especially how it related to us.
cordnoy wrote on 19 Sep 2014 17:23:
Lately, the topic has been about composin' a rhyme
but I'd like to switch to the 12 steps - one day at a time
ok....forget that (the rhymin' that is)
A new book is bein' published, and we have gotten hold of the rough draft of it.
from Rabbi tannenbaum.
firstly, he discusses the necessity and the purpose behind the 12 steps.
That is crucial stuff!
but then, he gets into the main topic: Are the steps against the Torah? Are they sourced in other religions? Are we veerin' from our tradition?
Here is the openin' question:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable.
In this step, the Jew is asked to admit that he cannot stop his addiction on his own, and that his life has now become unmanageable as a result.
Certainly, admitting to one’s self a fault or shortcoming does not need a source. The idea of admitting that his shortcoming has caused his life to become chaotic also does not need a source.
The question that people ask on this step lies in the word “powerless”. This word seems to imply that the alcoholic or addicted Jew does not have free will to stop their maladaptive behavior-here, the Jewish AA critics scream “but this cannot be because Hashem gives every Jew free will, and the Ramban teaches that God does not give any Jew a test that he cannot pass!? Surely, then, Jewish addicted people can stop drinking or drugging at any time, and step one of AA is against the Torah?!”
By adding an exclamation mark and question mark at the end of the previous sentence, I attempted to convey to you the excitement and bewilderment that the AA critics usually show on their facial expressions when asking this question.
dd wrote on 21 Sep 2014 03:24:
Cordnoy i have a question on this matter,
Why is powerless against the idea of bechirah b'chlal?
The whole idea of powerless doesn't mean its not possible to over come. It means i'm powerless of doing it on my own. I myself can't overcome the addiction. But with help from hashem and the other steps i could. This is something we see in chazal too. אלמלא הקב"ה עוזרו אינו יכול לו. Many times in chazal and in the seforim hakdoshim we see the idea that a person can do nothing on his own even good or bad.
In the deeper seforim like R' Tzodak Z"l sfas emes etc we see that even the good we do we aren't really doing.
Maybe i'm missing something if you could please explain.
Thanks Avraham!!!!
cordnoy wrote on 21 Sep 2014 06:30:
Well, I wasn't gonna go out of order, but once DD asked his question and mentioned this Gemora, I will skip to a later portion where R"T quotes R"T:
We cannot complete this discussion without bringing Rabbi Twerski’s favorite Gemara on the topic. Rabbi Twerski is fond of quoting the Gemara (source-see Kiddushin 30b) which says “the evil inclination of man becomes stronger than him each day and tries to kill him…and if God did not intervene and help out, there would be no way for the man to overcome it [the evil inclination]”. The Maharsha and Iyun Yakov explain that this Gemara is actually referring to a righteous person who truly wants to do the right thing, and nonetheless, the evil inclination is so powerful that it is actually impossible to overcome him without Hashem’s aid (source-see Maharsha and Iyun Yakov in Kidushin 30b). So what is this Gemara teaching us? That even people who have free will and truly want to choose good are powerless! Understand the chidush of this Gemara because it is a great chidush! Is there any better source for “powerlessness” than this?! I suppose that is why Rabbi Twerski is so fond of it.
This powerlessness over the evil inclination is certainly true of the wicked people who have no strong desire to overcome their evil inclination. This is supported by several other chazals, vian kan makom liha’arich.
Continuation:
Once we are discussing ways to qualify “free will”, it is fitting to tell you what R’ Eliyahu Dessler famously says about it; this also sheds light on step one and closely resembles the idea laid down by R’ Volbe.
R’ Dessler coined a concept called “Nekudas HaBechira”, which means that a person always has a choice in every situation of temptation, but what exactly is the nature of a person’s “free will” will depend on the individual at that time, and with those circumstances; the nature of his free will may even change every day of his life.
According to R’ Dessler, free will is when a person’s level of truth meets face to face with his level of sheker, thereby creating doubt. In this place of doubt, where one can choose either way, we say that he has free will. Of course, it must be a situation where the person’s nature plays no role on choosing one way or another, because if so, then this again is not considered “free will”.
If I am correct, this teaching of R’ Dessler seems to mirror the words of R’ Volbe above.
As we continue on:
R’ Dessler gives several clear examples to illustrate his point-a Rosh Yeshiva will never take a gun and murder people in a shopping mall when he is angry. Therefore, in regards to murder he has no free will to murder. Similarly, an angry, disgruntled neurotic man with a loaded assault rifle in his car trunk will have no free will not to murder people after being laid off from his job. In either case, their nature will motivate them to kill or not kill.
Free will exists only be in a case where either the neurotic man or Rosh Yeshiva has a doubt about what to do, and choose one way or another.
R’ Dessler continues to explain that as a person does teshuva, his level of free will moves up. Conversely, when a person sins, his point of free will moves down.
See R’ Dessler in Michtav Me’Eliyahu, volume one, p. 10, p. 113, and volume 4 p. 95.
In either of the two extreme cases where a person does total evil or total good, they will also lose their free will entirely, and be subject to the whim of their evil or holy nature, and their free will is taken away (See Tanya chapter 17 who discusses this at length, and the Ba’al Shem Tov in Kesser Sheim Tov 152 who mentions this in passing).
cordnoy wrote on 23 Sep 2014 15:45:
Just to support this idea even further, the Ramchal (source-see Mesilas Yisharim, chapter two, end) says “it is obvious that even if a person supervises his conduct, it is not within his power to overcome the evil inclination without the aid of Hashem”.
This idea is so transparent in the Torah that the Ramchal said it is “obvious”; it is therefore truly astounding how ignorant AA critics make an empty fuss over the world powerlessness in step one! It is astounding that they err about something so “obvious”!
cordnoy wrote on 23 Sep 2014 21:04:
Conclusion about step one
Conclusion: We have seen from R’ Avigdor Miller that it is possible to lose free will in one area, while still having free will in other areas of behavior. We also saw from R’ Volbe, R’ Dessler, R’ Miller, and R’ Nachman that although every Jew has some sort of choice, he may not have choice over his behavior. The only choice he may have is to learn how to choose better than the way he is choosing right now, by joining AA, talking to a Rebbi, or in other ways. We also saw from R’ Volbe that some Jews never even learned how to choose in the first place, and they are held responsible for not learning how to have free will, but they still have no free will over their actual actions at the end of the day, making it correct to say that they are “powerless” to stop. Finally, we saw from the Gemara in Kidushin 30b that even Tzadikim who have free will and want to choose good are still powerless to the overwhelming power of their evil inclination. So to wrap it up:
a) Some people don’t have free will
b) Even the people that do have free will are still powerless to the yetzer hara without Hashem’s assistance, and this is true even about Tzadikim, and certainly about Rishaim
There you have it, the Cordnoy discourse on free will and the first step.