Naso: "Sitting" In Taanis, And Critiquing Homiletic Divrei Torah

On an earlier post on parshat Naso, Anonymous posted the following comment:

דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה'שם
The Nazir is a person who is described as one whom by not drinking wine and not cutting his hair. That is he separates himself in order to reach a higher level of Kedusha. The Gemara in Nedarim has a similar case of spiritual climbing, when addressing a person who accepts upon himself optional fasting. The Gemara there says כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא. The question is why is this separation from worldly pleasures viewed negatively? It would seem natural for a person climbing the spiritual ladder to want to take an active role in reaching his goal of spiritual growth. Why does the Gemara look at it as a negative thing? The Ostrovtze Rebbe gives a profound insight into the Gemara's question. A closer look at the words reveals the truth of the question. The Gemara does not view separating yourself from worldly matters negatively. The words are כל היושב that is one who sits, he tortures himself and does not let the message reach him, he is unmoved it is only then that the gemara says it is as if he is נקרא חוטא.

To which I replied:

"A closer look at the words reveals the truth of the question. The Gemara does not view separating yourself from worldly matters negatively."
If we look in Taanis 11a, we see the following:

אמר שמואל כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא סבר כי האי תנא דתניא ר' אלעזר הקפר ברבי אומר מה תלמוד לומר (במדבר ו) וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש וכי באיזה נפש חטא זה אלא שציער עצמו מן היין והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא המצער עצמו מכל דבר ודבר על אחת כמה וכמה ר' אלעזר אומר נקרא קדוש שנאמר (במדבר ו) קדוש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מדבר אחד נקרא קדוש המצער עצמו מכל דבר על אחת כמה וכמה ולשמואל הא איקרי קדוש ההוא אגידול פרע קאי ולר' אלעזר הא נקרא חוטא ההוא דסאיב נפשיה
ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי והאמר ר' אלעזר לעולם ימוד אדם עצמו
כאילו קדוש שרוי בתוך מעיו שנאמר (הושע יא) בקרבך קדוש ולא אבוא בעיר לא קשיא הא דמצי לצעורי נפשיה הא דלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה
ר"ל אמר נקרא חסיד שנאמר (משלי יא) גומל נפשו איש [חסד] ועוכר שארו וגו'

Or in English, from the Point by Point Summary:

(a) (Shmuel): Anyone who fasts is called a sinner.
(b) He holds like the Tana of the following Beraisa:

1. (R. Elazar ha'Kafar citing Rebbi): The Pasuk refers to the Nazir as having sinned, because he deprived himself from wine.
2. If he is called a sinner just for abstaining from wine, how much more so someone who abstains from all food.

(c) (R. Elazar): The Pasuk calls him "holy."

1. If he is called holy just for abstaining from wine, how much more so someone who abstains from all food.

i. Question: How does Shmuel account for the Pasuk calling him holy?
ii. Answer: That refers to his hair being forbidden for benefit.
iii. Question: How does R. Elazar account for the Pasuk saying that he has sinned?
iv. Answer: That refers to a Nazir who became Tamei.
v. Question: Surely R. Elazar said that a person should treat his insides as holy and not deprive them of anything!?
vi. Answer: That was referring to a person who finds fasting overly difficult.

(d) (Resh Lakish): Such a person is considered a Chasid.
Thus, upon this same language, "one who sits," Shmuel says he is a choteh, Rabbi Eliezer says he is kadosh, and Resh Lakish says he is a chassid. If the Ostrovtze Rebbe is correct, how come the gemara does not make this very distinction between the varying positions? Why not say that the pasuk which calls him a "choteh" is referring to one who sits, while the pasuk which calls him "holy" refers to one who climbs? Rather than saying that for Shmuel, "holy" refers to the hair being forbidden in benefit? And why, according to the Ostrovtze Rebbe, would Rabbi Eliezer and Resh Lakish consider this person who "sits" in Taanis to be doing a *good* thing?

Perhaps there is a valid response to this challenge, though I do not see it.

Now, I will admit it is somewhat "mean" to critique a dvar Torah like this, which after all is just trying to be inspirational. It is homily -- is it really fair to challenge a homiletic devar Torah?

I think that perhaps it is.

We are conditioned to hear "bad" divrei Torah all the time, particularly in parsha sheets. Such things as would not be accepted in arguing a pesak halacha are somehow fair game as a pshetl. In this case, it was an interpretation of the gemara which does not seem to work out if you actually read the gemara inside. Only by providing a select quote of the conclusion of the gemara can one teach this homiletic lesson. And I do not think that this type of conditioning is good.

In this particular instance, the issue is whether asceticism is good or bad. I do not think that Chazal were monolithic is their approach to it. We see even that Shmuel, Rabbi Eliezer, and Resh Lakish take different approaches to it. There are ascetics, and there are those who oppose asceticism. For example, Rambam was against asceticism. Mystical types are more likely to be in favor of it.

Even if this gemara is against it, others might be in favor of it. I would be OK if the response would be that Shmuel was against it, but we follow a tradition in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, or with Resh Lakish. Even though I personally do not think the ascetic approach is correct, and think that separating oneself from worldly matters is not the way to go, I understand others can argue with me. But I am against "reinterpreting" sources in order to conform with ones world-view, and am annoyed by the ease at which one does this.

One final, interesting note. Based on the recounting of this story from A Shabbos Vort: A Collection of Thoughts, Stories and Parables on the Parsha, this response from the Ostrovtze Rebbe was also personal. He himself was an ascetic who sat (that is, habitually) in fasting and other forms of self-affliction. One of his chassidim challenged him based on this gemara, and that was his response.

But they also recount his response as somewhat different. According to this book, it was not, as above, "one who sits, he tortures himself and does not let the message reach him, he is unmoved it is only then that the gemara says it is as if he is נקרא חוטא." Rather, as pictured to the right, it is "an individual who weakens himself by fasting and therefore remains sitting in his place, unable to reach lofty levels in his service to Hashem -- this is the person whom Chazal have called a sinner."

This is a very different response. And indeed, it is a response which works out well, or at least better, with the gemara.

That is, forget Shmuel for a moment. Focus on Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer says that one who sits in fast is called kadosh. And then they bring a contradictory statement:

ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי והאמר ר' אלעזר לעולם ימוד אדם עצמו
כאילו קדוש שרוי בתוך מעיו שנאמר (הושע יא) בקרבך קדוש ולא אבוא בעיר לא קשיא הא דמצי לצעורי נפשיה הא דלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה

Or to cite the English summary again, from Point by Point Summary:

v. Question: Surely R. Elazar said that a person should treat his insides as holy and not deprive them of anything!?
vi. Answer: That was referring to a person who finds fasting overly difficult.

This truly seems to correspond with what the Ostrovtze Rebbe said, that it refers to "an individual who weakens himself by fasting and therefore remains sitting in his place." Of course, this is a reading into Rabbi Eliezer, who argues with Shmuel on one who is "yoshev betaanis." So it is still not a fitting response to the query based on Shmuel's statement. But at least it is closer to the intent of the gemara.

Similarly, we find echoes of this in the words of Resh Lakish. Resh Lakish held that one who is "yoshev betaanis" is called a chassid. Yet later Resh Lakish says:

(R. Yirmiyah bar Aba, Citing Resh Lakish): A Talmid Chacham may not fast, as it detracts from his studies.

So once again there is the idea of weakening an individual such that he cannot engage in avodas Hashem.

Thus, what the Ostrovtze Rebbe says is rooted in the thought of Chazal, and in peshat in that gemara. But I think that there is no one harmonization here, and that attributing it to Shmuel would be incorrect, for it is quite clear that he argues.

And perhaps one can even come up with a harmonization, that they are all talking about different situations, but in any one situation, all would be in agreement. And the "yoshev betaanis," even if we do not say it can be true as peshat in the words of the gemara gemara, is good as a mnemonic to capture the intent of the conclusion of the gemara.

Of course, I am not sure whose version of the Ostrovtze Rebbe's words are correct. I would lean more towards the one printed in the book, because of how it works out so much better with the gemara, but I have not researched it extensively, and perhaps Anonymous is getting it from a more accurate source.