It occurred to me that the Rabbi rejects commandments of the heart on philosophical grounds, and that this is the main basis of his opposition to Hasidism. Or perhaps it is not a philosophical issue but a principled issue in Jewish law, that you cannot command emotions, as the Rabbi hints here. And that is why there is relatively little engagement with these commandments despite the explicit verses in Deuteronomy.

Hasidism, true to its name, deals with commandments of the heart. The Rabbi has a fundamental philosophical dispute with the Baal Shem Tov’s assumption that there is no place devoid of Him. But if we set that dispute aside, Hasidism deals with how one fulfills commandments of the heart, and it also has several new ideas. One of those ideas is presented by Kedushat Levi: if you want to be joyful, get excited. Don’t remain heavy. Do the commandments with enthusiasm. And if you can’t, if you are in exile, if you are reading Popper during prayer – not terrible, the commandments are in the category of markers, as he says. He presents this in the metaphorical language of “lighting performs the commandment.” Not because he thinks that is the plain meaning, but because metaphors grab people and he wants to reach his listeners. He risks losing control (as happened to him in this teaching, where the metaphor led him to a halakhic mistake, as the Sefat Emet noted), but revolutionaries don’t think about the price.

Hasidism is Torah. What it teaches is not content but instruction – how to fulfill commandments of the heart. How to pray, how to rejoice, how to serve God. Its practical parallel is actually books of Jewish law, not books of analysis (books of analysis are Kabbalah). And to judge it by the criteria of analytical books is simply incorrect.

Sorry for going on so long. You stirred up some thoughts for me, and in fact all kinds of ideas occurred to me that I hadn’t had before.

I absolutely do not reject that. The Sefer HaChinukh writes that there are six constant commandments, and they are in thought and in the heart. It’s true that emotions are usually instinctive and there is no point in commanding them (not that it’s impossible, but there is no point, and this is not the place to elaborate).
But in my opinion that really isn’t the issue. Kedushat Levi is not innovating anything whatsoever on the question of whether one should rejoice and be enthusiastic (certainly not about the connection between them). His innovation, that this is the main thing, is just nonsense. And of course his trivial conclusions are not connected in any way to the Talmudic passage. So nothing can be learned from him there, neither in terms of a program nor behaviorally or emotionally.

It’s a question of interpretation.
The question is whether you agree that Kedushat Levi would disagree with you and hold that joy is the main issue in the service of God. After all, in the end Kedushat Levi also agrees that one must always keep the commandments, even if only in the category of markers, as he says. But your constant demand that he provide sources hints that in practice you are unwilling to grant him the authority to be part of the interpreters of the Oral Torah.

It’s not the homily that’s the problem here. We both agree that the homily is metaphorical and is meant to clarify another point (the halakhic mistake doesn’t bother me either; I’ve seen enough mistakes made in passing even by the greatest scholars). Rather, it is his very assertion that joy is the main thing. That is what you challenge, and in effect you are hinting that you are not even willing to grant him the status of an interpreter of Torah.

The Rabbi writes:

“By the way, even this verse itself does not have that as its plain meaning, and certainly that is not how the central Torah tradition derived anything from it.”
Could you clarify?

As the Rabbi wrote, first of all, basic reading comprehension.
The intention of the verse is that God will give us abundance, but if because of all the goodness and joy we do not serve God, He will humble us so that we remember Him out of distress.
It simply makes sense and fits many prophecies in the Torah.
Maimonides’ homiletic reading of the verse, that there is a commandment to rejoice in fulfilling the commandments, is a bending of the verse that one need not accept.

Y.D.,

I am completely willing to grant him the status of an interpreter (after all, I am not really in favor of any official status of interpreter. Any reasonable interpretation is legitimate). I would have had no problem if he had brought the verse and interpreted it that way (against our entire tradition, as you yourself point out, and therefore he himself probably doesn’t really mean that). I am only against talking nonsense without arguments, or with childish and unserious reliance on a Talmudic passage. That’s what he does there (and not interpretation of this rather worn-out verse).

Aharon,

Do you not agree that in our tradition the main thing is fulfillment of the commandment and not the joy in fulfilling it? Why exactly is elaboration needed here? Even Maimonides, who derives from here an obligation to rejoice, does not say that this is the main thing.

Beyond that, there may be additional interpretations of the verse as well (one was brought above): that you did not serve God despite the joy and gladness of heart that you had. And again, as I wrote in this reply to Y.D. above, I have no principled objection if he had brought the verse and proposed this interpretation for it. But the childish reliance on the passage and the lack of arguments are what outraged me.

What Kedushat Levi lacks is a good editor.

Factually speaking, the connection between joy and enthusiasm does not, to the best of my knowledge, appear before Hasidism, and it is also not quite as trivial as you present it. Perhaps the very fact that you think it seems so obvious to you that you shoot arrows at him over this teaching is the best proof of the success of the Hasidic revolution.

Strange – spiritually, I have never been nourished by Hasidic teachings, and it may be that your post explains why. And still, something in me rebelled when I saw your post. It seemed that it was very important to you to say what you think about Kedushat Levi instead of thinking what Kedushat Levi would think about you (and I hinted at that). And so instead of learning from him, you condescended to him.

Nu, all right. Maybe there is some great depth hidden from me in the connection between joy and enthusiasm. I wasn’t privileged to attain it. In my eyes it is a completely trivial connection (on the contrary, joy without enthusiasm is a kind of innovation, and that would require a lot of discussion). But I strongly doubt that this is a success of the Hasidic revolution. A banal connection of this kind is certainly not their innovation. Note well: neither theirs nor an innovation.
Even though there is no need to say it, I will nevertheless repeat, like Cato the Elder, what I said: there are quite a few other things I wrote in my criticism of the words of Kedushat Levi, and I have been waiting in vain, to the point of embarrassment, for some advocate from among his defenders in Israel to come and explain them to me instead of scolding me. Such a miserable Litvak, lacking fear of Heaven, as I am…