I've seen this phrase used multiple times.

What do you mean by it? Is it?

Ha. Wish it were that easy.

HaShem is King. Halachos are His laws. Unless they are thinking of primacy in a very vague way.

That's why I'm asking what they mean.

Why don't you cite the places where you have seen that phrase used because often context is king.

I tried searching but didn't come up with anything, although my memory tells me it was posted on H.com, and at least once by you. I don't remember the context, except that it was on its own line in a short post -- in one of them.

here and here

Thank you, Exist!

You're more than welcome, Xi!

(tip- always go to "More Options" when searching.)

Note that in both places I said it's either a personal bias or otherwise a personal opinion that I think. Which means it was presented as a subjective feeling rather than objective reality.

And note as well when one speaks colloquially of a Lion King or a monarch butterfly, one is not asserting these, or an eagle, is king to the exclusion of God. In any event, God is the King of Kings of Kings. I thought that was sort of a given. Rather, as an eagle is king of the birds, or a lion is king of the animals, halachah, in context and subjectively speaking, is king of areas of limud torah - it comes first and is primary and behooves us to master before the feel good fluff. We are on earth to serve God and that includes acting according to halachah simply because God said so. And that in turn means knowing halachah.
The Yechaveh Da'at, for example, in 6:52 writes, "ve-lachein yeish bevadai she-be-nidun shelana (one should certainly, and in our case too [the yechaveh da'at in context is discussing someone who made a neder to learn daf yomi and now wants to get out of it in order to study halachah]) yesh le-ha'adif limud ha-halachot (one should give primacy to study of halachah) she-hem halachah le-ma'aseh, al limud ha-talmud ("halachah is king", so to speak)".
That said, chanoch lanaar al pi darko, and different strokes for different folks.

I believe it has been brought up before on H.com that Rav Hershel Shechter explains there are many case where mesorah overrides halacha - and those cases mesorah is king.

I'm not aware of RHS's views on the matter, but that sentiment doesn't surprise me a bit. But again, keep in mind that in context 'halachah is king' means that halachah as a study option is primary, not that nothing can trump halachah and does not speak to the issue of how one determines normative practice. After all, 'kabbalah arguably trumps halachah', and 'minhag oker halachah' is well-known Chazaldik aphorism, and just to be ornery let's reference 'Catholic Israel', so it surprises me not at all that 'mesorah overrides halachah'.

I see.

Well if we are using that context in my Yeshiva musser is king...

Right. Part of the polemic of "halachah is king" is directed specifically against the notion that "mussar is king", as indicated by the context of this post which existwhere linked above:
http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=930329

Yeah. I saw that link. I still do feel adequate musser levels are sorely lacking in today's generation. I think musser is king is the proper approach.

1. But mussar is a subset of halachah, isn't it, that it's notoriously absent from shulchan aruch notwithstanding [eg. try finding substantive halachot about lashon hara in shulchan aruch]. In other words, if one were properly familiar with halachah, wouldn't mussar come naturally, sort of the way torah true Jews don't need to learn dikduk separately from gemara?

2. How do you [the h.com membership] feel about Tanach being king (as opposed to halachah, gemara, or mussar)? Where should Tanach study fall in the hierarchy?

Understanding musser yes. But "taking it to heart," no! It can't be done the same way as halacha can be.

But if one had to choose between either mussar or halachah, if one could only choose one, would you still say mussar is king? Even where mussar is supposedly king, isn't that with an understanding that halachah reigns supreme regardless, or else you end up with an approach like Alan Morinis at best
http://www.mussarinstitute.org/about-alan.htm.

That the oldest story! If you only have time to learn one - mussar or halachah, you should learn mussar. And the reason is because if you learn musser you will find out that you have time to learn both mussar and halachah.

And if you learn halachah, you will learn that you have to have time to learn both mussar and halachah.

I view hilchos lashan hara as halacha, not musar. why its not in SA I don't know. (A rebby of mine (not Rabbi Segal!) once said that the Rambam has Hilchos Tshuva while the SA doesn't because the Rambam writes halachas even when they are not nohag bizman hazeh ) But it is true that musar is not codified in SA. Perhaps musar is harder to codify. Interestingly, the Rambam did include musar in the Yad in Sefer Mada.

To each his own.

Lashon hara is not the only thing missing from Shulchan Aruch. Try finding bal tashchit, for instance. I do not believe that Shulchan Aruch was ever meant to be a complete compendium of currently applicable halachot. That's also why, for instance, many melachot of shabbat are absent.Which is what I said above: chanoch lanaar al pi darko and different strokes for different folks.

Yeah, but most people should still treat musser as king.

I disagree.
The amount of mussar that can be taken out of learning "straight halacha" is incredible.

I agree, in fact people only NEED "mussar" because they can't/don't extract it themselves when learning Gemara/Halacha....

So the battle is only "halacha is king" vs. "mussar is king?"

Nobody said "chassidus is king?" Not even K-R?

And you could get all the vitamins and minerals you need from eating food, but doctors still tell people to take vitamin supplements.

The is no substitute for the impact to a neshama that a serious musser session can have!

I really enjoyed this post.

And this. (not that I know or necessarily agree with what you're referring to)

R. Menahem Mendel: The mitnagged served the Shulhan Aruch, but the hasid serves Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu.
- Quest for Authenticity: The Thought of Reb Simhah Bunim by Michael Rosen (page 144).

Yeah- if you don't get enough from the food you eat.

Or if you eat junkfood...

Which is apparently a widespread problem. As is musser-deficiency.

Or because they were never educated in 'yiras shomayim'(awe/fear of God), so they need attempt to scrape by with (at-least) 'yiras onesh' (fear of punishment...

That's not how I understand Mesillas Yeshorim.

Musor is King. More like a Tzar though.

Vast majority of the content of the non-chassidic "mussar" seforim is totally non-applicable and even damaging nowadays. In particular, most of the stuff referencing "the king"; maybe 300 years ago word "King" implied an quasi-omniscient, quasi-omnipotent relatively benign, moral and kind dude who knows better then everyone else , nowadays it all associates with corrupt, impotent imbecile who are the problem, not the solution and ideally should be done away with. The last candidate for a "king" in the good sense of the word was L. I. Brezhnev (maybe Mr. Il from DPRK would be a contemporaty candidate if DPRK had a Ministry of Mussar). So trying to pretend that it has any relevance to you in this day and age just conditions a person deeper in der erd and farther from the truth - paradoxically enough.

None of that applies to either words written in Mishna, Gemora and Midroshim that were written with a complete vision of all generations past, present and future, or to words of Chassidus that are above everything else but unfortunately are mostly inaccessible by most people's choice consequences.

A quick walk through the average yeshiva today will show that what is most lacking is actually an (even) elementary awareness of what is forbidden by the torah, as well as what is permitted. I mean, for example, the way the SA dictates a Jew rise in the morning, what he should and shouldn't do, how to daven, etc. on to the many ways yeshiva bochurim today might become mechalellei-shabbos (both d'oraysa & d'rabonon) simply because they wasted time in a yeshiva where the sum total of a students worth was determined by how many pages of gemara he knew, or certain philosophies, or other sadly mistaken attitudes like:

- whereas, had any of these pseudo 'mechanchim' been imbued with either basic yiras-shomayim, or (at least) basic knowledge of halacha, they might've been familiar with Hilchos Talmud Torah (SA haRav O'C 155, see also the Shach Y'D 246:sk5, & Taz 246:sk2) stating that "...and not talmud alone...as first one must know much of [what is] the forbidden and the permitted, without reasons and proofs, and how to fulfill the mitzvos, in order that he know [what] to guard and do, and that he not sin before he knows everything properly [as a result] of in-depth study of the talmud."
Somehow I'm inclined to believe that the words quoted above are likely a much "older story" than you might like to believe...

You say that because you didn't learn and take out enough mussar from the RaMChaL!

There are those who go more deeply into sacred studies, into the study of the holy Torah, some occupying themselves with Halachic discussions, others with Midrash and others with legal decisions. There are few, however, who devote thought and study to perfection of Divine service - to love, fear, communion and all of the other aspects of saintliness. It is not that they consider this knowledge unessential; if questioned each one will maintain that it is of paramount importance and that one who is not clearly versed in it cannot be deemed truly wise. Their failure to devote more attention to it stems rather from its being so manifest and so obvious to them that they see no need for spending much time upon it.

Yes, because you know exactly what I learn and how much I gain from it.

Presenting the Ramchal as somehow disagreeing with the need to first know the basics of ha'assur veha'mutar, is a wholesale distortion of what he wrote, not to mention simply ignorant. See the sources quote earlier, among many others.

Don't trust any book that speaks about Przysucha / Kotsk, espesially the ones written in English and hundreds of years later. Siach Sarfei Koidesh, Kol Simcha and a few more are a trusted source; but many are not.

How is it ignorant? It's straight out of the text. Those in his time that first devoted their time to halacha would not devote ANY time to musser. Only by first devoting time to musser will one come to also devote time to halacha.

Well... that was based on your comment.

Quoted for the sheer stupidity of it all. The Ramchal, as you quoted, speaks of going "more deeply" and occupying oneself with "halachic discussions".... much the same as what is quite clearly conveyed by the SA haRav quoted earlier. I imagine a quick glance at the Ramchal in the original text would make all this very clear. Obviously, the Ramchal would never suggest one start off learning mussar while transgressing multiple prohibitions every day - 'dvar hashem zu halacha.'

What's clear is that those that consider (or at least in his time considered) "Halacha to be King" would not learn musser!

Therefore consider Musser king and learn both Musser and Halacha.

Why not consider burger king? Im ein kemach, ein torah...

CHassidic Masters?

K-Rebbe, you taught me well!