Reality, Alternate Realities, Miracles and Moshiach

Reality, Alternate Realities, Miracles and Moshiach

An Examination of Axiomatic Truths, Perception and the Nature of Reality from the Torah Perspective, as Explained by the Maharal, Ramchal, Rav Hutner and Rav Dessler

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

1 – An Uncomfortable Comfort Zone

Most people assume that questions like “What is reality?”, or “Is truth absolute or relative?” are the province of philosophers and are not relevant to the daily lives of believing Jews. But consider this statement by Rav Yitzchok Hutner in Pachad Yitzchok, Kuntrus HaRishimos 5, Pesach: 

“In our current world, it is axiomatic to a normal person that 2 x 2 = 4. Now, we may believe that this is indisputable fact, and that a properly functioning intellect can come to no other conclusion. But, to put it baldly, this is a deficiency in faith. Just as it is possible for the sea to turn to dry land,  and for the sun at Givon to stop moving,  and just as it is possible for the same vessel to contain water for a Jew and blood for an Egyptian,  so also is it possible for our mind’s eye to see as incontrovertible fact that 2 x 2 =3.”

We will return to the words of Rav Hutner shortly. But this statement alone should give us pause. We all strive mightily to avoid “deficiencies of faith”. Yet, ask a typical observant Jew if it can ever be possible that 2 x 2 =3 and his answer will probably be a resounding “No!”, perhaps accompanied by expressions of concern for our mental health. So perhaps it is time for us to leave our “take it for granted” comfort zones and take a closer look at the questions like the ones in our opening paragraph, and discover the Torah perspective on them.

Hashem’s Capabilities Are Without Limit

We begin with the words of the Ramchal in Klach Pischei Chochma, Pesach 30:

“It is wrong to say that, since the Ain Sof [a reference to Hashem], may He be blessed, created the universe with the axioms under which it operates, that these axioms are immutable and it would have been impossible to create the universe with a different set of axioms… or to similarly say that things had to be a certain way because it is logically impossible for them to be otherwise. We may not say, Heaven forfend, that Hashem was bound to act in this or that particular way, because we must understand that Hashem is completely unrestricted in what He can do; He can do anything we can imagine and anything even if we cannot imagine it. The bottom line is that there are no boundaries or other limits to Hashem’s capabilities.

“The natural order that we perceive; every tangible aspect of it, is the way it is because Hashem made it that way, but He is not bound by that or any other natural order, in any way, shape, manner or form”.

It is difficult to perceive of realities other than our own, with different laws of nature – and even different rules of logic – than our own. But that is because our imaginations are limited by our experience. Hashem, however, is omnipotent in every respect and if it is His will to create a reality where 2 x 2 = 3, He can do so.

We will see that achris hayomim, the end-of-days epoch, is a time when an alternate reality will apply. But rules of nature can change even in our current reality – that is the essence of a miracle; as Rav Hutner points out, “it is possible for the same vessel to contain water for a Jew and blood for an Egyptian”. Clearly the laws of nature do not allow for such a phenomenon, yet when Hashem wills it, it happens.

The Maharal on Miracles

The Maharal discusses the nature of miracles at length in his second introduction to Gevuros Hashem. With respect to “self-contradictory” miracles, such as the same vessel containing blood for an Egyptian and water for a Jew, the Maharal explains that reality has two “tracks”, the physical world track, and the miracle track. These two alternate versions of reality exist in parallel and they intersect only insofar as those experiencing their version of reality may be aware that others are experiencing an alternate version of reality. Such was the case with respect to the plague of blood, dam.

This was also the case with respect to the plague of darkness, choshech. Whereas, for Jews, light functioned as normal, for the Egyptians, there was only darkness. Their eyesight was perfectly sound but there was no light to enable them to see. Thus, at the very same physical spot, the Jew was surrounded by light, the Egyptian, by darkness.  Those two forces are contradictory; they cannot coexist. Yet they did, on different reality tracks – the natural law track for the Jew, the miracle track, for the Egyptian.

A more dramatic example is that of Yehoshua stopping the sun. For him, his army and the enemy they were fighting, the sun indeed remained in place; time advanced but the sun did not. Yet the rest of the world did not experience this phenomenon. From the perspective of our reality this is impossible. An object cannot be in motion and motionless at the same time. Yet, miracles operate on their own reality track that replaces the natural law reality track for those for whom the miracle was intended, so indeed, the sun was in motion and motionless at the same time.

Rav Moshe Kasher, in an article titled “Introduction to the Torah of the Maharal” (Noam 25, pp. 261-263, quoted by Rav Yehoshua Hartman in his notes on Gevuros Hashem) writes, in explaining this Maharal, that the appearance of contradiction in these miracles is only from our natural law-based perspective. The human mind cannot fathom two opposites coexisting at the same time and in the same place. If one is there, the other is not; reality is one or the other, but never both. Otherwise the power of reason fails. However, the Maharal’s introduction of two tracks, natural and miraculous, solves this paradox. In effect, we have split time (in the case of Yehoshua’s miracle) into natural law time and miracle law time. They are now two separate entities, and there is no contradiction if each operates independently of the other.

Building on the Maharal

Rav Kasher cites Shailos U’Teshuvos Eretz Tzvi (1:105, p.241), who makes the same point, and extends the concept of alternate realities to the realm of the non-miraculous as well by distinguishing between physical reality and spiritual reality. He uses this concept to explain a Gemara in Pesachim 94b, which states, “The Sages of Israel maintain that the sun travels beneath the sky by day and above the sky at night; while the Sages of the nations of the world maintain that it travels beneath the sky by day and below the earth at night. Said Rebbi: And their view appears more plausible than ours…”. 

If their view appears more plausible than ours, why do our Sages maintain a different view? The answer, says the Eretz Tzvi, is that our Chachomim are speaking of how the sun behaves from a spiritual standpoint – an alternate reality from that of astronomers, who are limited to seeing the sun from the physical standpoint. To an ordinary person observing the sky, their view appears more plausible. But that is only because an ordinary person’s vision is also limited to the physical, like that of the astronomers.

Perception is Reality

Rav Eliyahu Dessler, in Michtav MiEliyahu 1, pp. 308-312, takes these concepts still further. He writes that reality is nothing more than perception and every person has his own version of reality; that which he perceives based on his individual level. This concept seems strange and even frightening, but that is only because we are comfortable with our reality; it is the only one we know, so we convince ourselves that it is absolute and shared by everyone. It is disorienting to contemplate that others may be experiencing a different reality than ourselves.

Yet, this explains how the Egyptian found himself drinking blood while the Jew drinking from the same vessel found himself drinking water. There is no contradiction because each was experiencing his own reality. Similarly, the Medrash Tanchuma relates that Avrohom identified the place where the Akeida was supposed to take place because he saw a cloud hovering over the mountain. Yet his gentile servants saw no such thing. Again, each was experiencing his own reality.

Yehoshua saw the sun’s motion cease, those for whom this miracle was relevant saw the same thing. Those for whom the miracle was irrelevant saw no deviation from the sun’s usual motion. Separate realities for different individuals because they had different situational needs.

But as we said, we are not speaking only of miracles. We all prepare a chair for the prophet Eliyahu at a bris, and set aside a cup of wine for him at the Pesach seder. Most people see nothing happening at either venue. But people on a sufficiently high level actually see, and possibly can even touch, Eliyahu.

Our forefather Yaakov was embalmed and buried, the Torah tells us. Yet, the Gemara tells us that Yaakov never died. How can those two facts co-exists, asks the Gemara. The answer, the Gemara says, is that we have verses to support Yaakov’s survival. But, we ask, how does that answer the question? How can a person be dead and alive at the same time – it seems the ultimate contradiction! But the Gemara’s answer is valid because once there are verses to support both versions of reality, they are both correct. Context – the individual, his spiritual level, the surrounding circumstances – will determine the perception that governs at any given moment of time.

The Alternate Reality of the Days of Moshiach

As we mentioned at the outset, Rav Hutner explains that a belief in the possibility of a shift in our mental operations that enables a belief that 2 x 2 =3 is a matter of bitachon, of faith in Hashem. He uses this principle to explain a fundamental fact about the times of Moshiach. Following is another excerpt from that Maamar: Rav Hutner begins by referencing a prophecy in Yeshayahu 65:17 regarding the end of days: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the first ones shall not be remembered, neither shall they come into mind”.

Rav Hutner writes,

“We are all aware of the “new heavens” and the “new earth” that will make their appearance at the end of days and it is easy to fall into the trap of believing, wrongly, that the primary change will be in the world itself, while our intellects will of necessity function in the same manner as they do now. However, this is a foolish mistake. The intellect is a creation of Hashem like any other. How it works, and the manner in which is comprehends things today, are functions of the will of Hashem, who, “said and it came about” (Tehillim 33:9), and “if He wills, He shapes it, if He wills, He dissolves it” (from the Piyut, ki hinei ka’chomer from the Yom Kippur service.

“The new reality of the end of days is primarily a difference in the rules governing how our intellects work. In our current world, it is axiomatic to a normal person that 2 x 2 = 4. Now, we may believe that this is indisputable fact, and that a properly functioning intellect can come to no other

conclusion. But, to put it baldly, this is a deficiency in faith. Just as it is possible for the sea to turn to dry land (as it did at the splitting of the Red Sea; see Shmos 14:21), and for the sun at Givon to stop moving (as it did when Yehoshua conquered Givon; see Yehoshua 10:12.), and just as it is possible for the same vessel to contain water for a Jew and blood for an Egyptian (per Shmos Rabbah 9:9), so also is it possible for our mind’s eye to see as incontrovertible fact that 2 x 2 =3. This rewiring of our intellects is what our Sages refer to as “the Torah of Moshiach”.

“I believe with complete faith that this Torah will not be exchanged for another…” (This is the 9^th of the Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith). If so, what will Moshiach make of the portions of the Torah dealing with death-based ritual impurity, or those dealing with the red heifer, after the dead are revived? We must conclude that the “Torah of Moshiach” will provide a different understanding of ritual impurity and the means of rectifying it, such that these Torah portions will make perfect sense in a post revival-of-the-dead context.

“Given our current understanding of those Torah portions, we might characterize the “Torah of Moshiach” understanding, whatever it may be, as the equivalent of 2 x 2 = 3. But that is only because we believe that the way our minds work now is how they have to work, and no alternatives are possible. That belief is a mistake.”

In other words, Rav Hutner is saying, rules of logic are not absolute; they are only valid relative to the context of how our minds currently work. But Hashem can “reprogram” our minds to work differently, such that what is self-evident as true now becomes axiomatically false, and what is self-evident as false now becomes axiomatically true. Doubting that such “reprograming” is possible, Rav Hutner says, is equivalent to doubting other miracles that violate laws of nature – it is a failure to properly appreciate Hashem’s omnipotence.

Thus, the “Torah of Moshiach” is identical to the Torah we have now – “this Torah will not be exchanged for another” – but our minds will be reprogrammed to understand those same letters, words and chapters differently, in a manner that befits the Moshiach epoch. The ashes of the red heifer were used to remove death-based ritual impurity. But death as we know it will no longer exist after the dead are revived so our current understanding of those Torah chapters will be obsolete and will have to be replaced by a new understanding, that suits the new context.

A Lesson About Hashgacha Pratis

There is a further lesson to be learned from the miracle of the Egyptian drinking blood while the Jew drank water from the same vessel, as Rav Hutner points out in Pesach, Maamar 48, and that is that every person is a world unto himself, and every person enjoys Hashem’s hashgacha not as part of a collective, but as a unique individual.

We can appreciate this idea more fully by imagining that we are sitting outdoors and enjoying the sun. Now, why is the sun shining on us and providing this enjoyment? The facile answer is that the sun is shining for the world as a whole and you and I are incidental beneficiaries of the sun’s rays. But this is false. Actually, the sun that is shining on me is a specific blessing intended for me, and the sun that is shining on you is a specific blessing intended for you. But, you might ask, if the sun is shining for me and you are next to me, you have to be exposed to the sun also, regardless of your personal worthiness for that blessing.

The proof that this is not the case is the miracle of the Egyptian drinking blood while the Jew drinks water from the same vessel! The Egyptian saw the Jew drinking water and thought that he was in the right place at the right time – water is water! – and took a few gulps. Of blood!

Thus, the sun shining on me is specifically intended for me, and if the sun is shining on you, too, it is because you, too, merit that blessing – not that you are piggybacking on my blessing of sunlight or the world’s general blessing of sunlight.

Conclusion

We do not advocate obsessing over what is real and what is not. Here and now it is the will of Hashem that we be grounded in the reality of this world and conduct our lives, interact with others, and perform our service to Hashem, accordingly. However, the concepts we have introduced in this article have several practical applications in the here and now; they add an important dimension to our understanding of Hashem’s infinite capabilities and that thereby enhances our faith in Him.

We hope and pray that by strengthening our bitachon we will hasten the arrival of Moshiach, and the Torah of the end-of-days.

May we speedily merit experiencing first-hand the alternate reality of the days of Moshiach!

Torah Study and the First Two Commandments

The Uniqueness of the Mitzva of Torah Study and its Relationship to the First Two Dibros

An Adaptation of the First Section of Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuos Maamar 25 by Rav Yitzchok Hutner zt’l

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

1 – Torah Study as a Component of Acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship

Rabbeinu Yonah, in Shaarei Teshuva, Shaar 3:25, writes that Tefillin and Mezuzah are positive mitzvos,  and are components of the obligation to accept Hashem’s Kingship, because they are included in the first chapter of Shma. It follows that the mitzva to study Torah, which also appears in this chapter, is also a component of our obligation to accept Hashem’s Kingship.

Moreover, the choice of the word , v’shinantam here, instead of the word , v’limaditem, which appears in a similar verse in the second chapter of Shma, makes it clear that there is an affinity between v’shinantam and acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship; an affinity that does not exist with respect to the word v’limaditem. This certainly requires explanation.

2 – The Shma Verse and the First Two Dibros

We begin our quest with the statement of our Sages (Yerushalmi, Brachos 1:5) that the Shma verse is an acceptance of the first two of the ten dibros. When we say, in Shma, “Hashem is our G-d” we are affirming the first of the ten dibros, “I am Hashem, your G-d”. When we say, “Hashem is one” we are affirming the second of the ten dibros, “You should not recognize the gods of others”.

We maintain, with trepidation, that our Sages are not merely noting the interesting fact that our acceptance of the first two dibros is expressed in the first verse of Shma. Rather,  our Sages are hinting at a new dimension of meaning in the Shma verse.

3 – Torah Study as the Covenant and Torah Study as a Consequence of the Covenant

The new dimension is as follows. Although we know that we satisfy the requirement to accept Hashem’s Kingship when we recite Shma, the full effect of that acceptance is lacking with Shma alone. A complete acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship can only be achieved when Shma is linked to the first two dibros of “I am Hashem, your G-d…” and “You should not recognize the gods of others…”, such that, when we say Shma, we reaffirm our acceptance of those dibros. Let us explain.

The mitzva to study Torah differs from the other mitzvos in that unlike the other mitzvos, where we did not engage in them until after we were actually commanded to do them, we did study Torah before we were commanded to do so. We did not don tzitzis, or take a lulav, before were enjoined to don tzitzis and to take a lulav. But Torah study was different. We learned Torah directly from Hashem, “Who teaches Torah to His nation, Yisroel”, before we were commanded to learn Torah. At Sinai, the first two commandments were “taught” to Yisroel directly by Hashem; the rest of the commandments, including the obligation to learn Torah, were relayed to Yisroel through Moshe.

This distinction underlies the relationship between Torah study and the other mitzvos. The obligation to perform the other mitzvos is a consequence of the covenant between Hashem and Yisroel. No covenant, no obligation. But the Torah that Yisroel learned from Hashem, the Teacher of Torah to His nation Yisroel, was the very stuff of the covenant. So it was imperative that Yisroel study this particular portion of the Torah before the obligation to study Torah was incumbent upon them, since all the mitzva obligations, including Torah study, are clauses of the covenant, but this particular portion of the Torah created the covenant.

4 – The Two Sides of the Covenant

The portion of the Torah that created the covenant between Yisroel and their Heavenly Father are those very dibros of “I am Hashem, your G-d…” and “You should not recognize the gods of others…”. These two dibros are not merely a part of the Torah, they are the mechanism through which the covenant between the Giver of the Torah and its recipients was put into place, and were “enablers” for the entire rest of the Torah.

We now have a context for understanding what our Sages meant when they said that the Shma verse is an affirmation of the first two of the ten dibros. The Shma verse should not be viewed in isolation. Rather it should be viewed as our acceptance of the covenant that is set forth in the first two dibros.  Every covenant involves two parties, the covenant profferer and the covenant accepter. The Shma verse signals our acceptance of the role of covenant accepter. It is the counterpart to the dibros of “I am Hashem, your G-d…” and “You should not recognize the gods of others…”, through which Hashem declares Himself to be the covenant profferer.

The first two dibros and the Shma verse, in partnership – and only through their partnership – create the covenant.

5 – Kingship Through a Covenant

In Shmuel B, 5:3 we are taught, “And all the elders of Yisroel came to the king to Chevron, and King Dovid enacted a covenant for them in Chevron before Hashem, and they anointed Dovid as king over Israel”. We see from this event that the appointment of a king is a form of covenant between the king, who is being appointed, and the nation that is appointing him.

It should now be clear what we meant when we said that the reason the Shma verse is a complete acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship is because it is part of a covenant. Dovid’s method of ascendancy to his kingship is a paradigm that describes how the appointment of a king must take place – it takes place only through a covenant, and therefore our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship also has to be through a covenant.

We said that acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship through Shma comes to full fruition not with Shma standalone but only when it is coupled with the first two of the ten dibros. The reason is the same – it is this coupling that brings out the covenantal aspect of Shma, since those dibros represents Hashem’s “side” of the covenant while Shma represents our “side” of it.

A certain questioner once asked, “How is acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship unique to Yisroel? Non-Jews also are obligated in the seven Noachide commandments – doesn’t that obligation imply subservience to Hashem as King?” The answer to that question is inherent in what we have been saying: Our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship through Shma is in the form of a covenant. The nature of a covenant is its exclusivity. Our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship through Shma coupled covenantally with the two first dibros is a declaration that we and only we are included in the covenant.

These concepts give additional meaning to the comment of our Sages (Mechilta on Shmos 20:3) on the first dibra: “[Hashem told Yisroel] first accept my Kingship. Only then may you accept my decrees”. Or, in our terminology, “First enter into a covenant with me. Only then may you fulfill the terms of the covenant”. Non-Jews are certainly obligated in the seven Noachide laws, but not, as the questioner assumed, because Hashem is their King in the same way He is our King. Hashem does rule over them but there is no exclusive King/Nation relationship as there is with Yisroel, with whom Hashem entered into a covenant.

6 – Unity of Covenant Participants – and Shma

We are now equipped to understand the usage of the unusual word v’shinantam, “And you should teach them with clarity” in the first Shma section – the section whose every clause is a component of acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship, as Rabbeinu Yonah explained. We wondered what the word shinun had to do with acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship. The answer will now become clear.  Let us explain.

In the Torah section dealing with the bris bain ha’besarim, “the covenant between the parts” (Beraishis 15:9-21) Rashi explains that what transpired when this covenant was made reflected the custom at the time for the parties to the covenant to split a whole item into halves and then pass between the halves. This symbolism was meant to convey that just as the two halves they were passing between, together formed a unified whole, so too, we, the parties to the covenant, are united into a single whole. With respect to the subject matter of the covenant we are no longer two disconnected individuals. We are united; we are one.

Now, regarding the word v’shinantam our Sages explained (Kiddushin 30a) that “this is an expression of chidud, sharpness, meaning that words of Torah should be sharply impressed in your mouth, so that if a person asks you something, you will not have to hesitate about it, but you will tell him immediately”.  The word chidud itself stems from the word chad, which means literally “sharp”. If a knife is sharp and thin, the cutting instrument unites with that which is being cut, but if the knife is dull the cutting instrument and that which is being cut remain individual and separated.

Since the custom of those engaged in forming a covenant is to unite two parts into one as a symbol of their own unity, it follows that when Torah study is a component of a covenant it must partake of this quality of unification – that is, the intellect of the Torah student should merge with the wisdom of Torah to the point where they are an indistinguishable unit.

Remember that, as we discussed, the acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship in Shma is a covenant-based acceptance of a King (as was the case with King Dovid), and remember that, per  Rabbeinu Yonah, all the clauses of the first Shma chapter, including the clause for Torah study, are participants in that chapter’s Kingship acceptance of Hashem. It therefore cannot be otherwise than the Torah study clause be couched in terms of the unity of sharpness – that is, in terms of shinun. V’shinantam l’vanecha –“And you should teach them with clarity to your children.”

7 – Torah Study – the Mitzva Requiring Inspiration

The Rambam, in the third chapter of the Laws of Torah Study, writes that, as a matter of Jewish law, “Anyone who is inspired to properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study, and to crown himself with the crown of Torah, must not allow himself to become distracted with other matters. He should not delude himself into thinking that he can crown himself with the crown of Torah and simultaneously acquire wealth and honor”.

The Rambam’s choice of words, “to properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study”, makes it clear that he is referring to a basic requirement of the mitzva, not to a beyond-the-letter-of-the-law adornment of it, or to adoption of extra measures of piety in observing it. Nonetheless, the Rambam describes a person fulfilling no more than the base requirements of the mitzva in terms of, “Anyone who is inspired…”. 

There is nothing comparable in any of the other mitzvos. There is no difference between one man’s level of inspiration and another’s when it comes to performing the minimum mitzva requirements. Considerations of inspiration apply, with respect to the other mitzvos, only when dealing with beautification or (on the negative side) when dealing with discretionary preventative, or other stringencies.

The mitzva of Torah study is unique in that even with respect to the unembellished mitzva itself there is a distinction between someone who is inspired and someone who is not. How can we explain this difference between the mitzva of Torah study and all the other mitzvos?

8 – Torah Study’s Covenantal “Chunk” and Those Who Are Qualified for it

We answer this question using the same principle that we set forth in earlier sections: Yisroel studied Torah directly from Hashem before they had a command to do so from Hashem, because the Torah that they learned – the first two of the ten dibros – created the covenant that made it possible for Yisroel to fulfill the mitzvos that comprise the terms of the covenant.

Now, there is a principle that when we study Torah we should emulate the manner Torah was originally studied when it was given at Sinai, limuda k’nisinasa (see Brachos 22a). This equation extends to our mindset during our learning. We should adopt a “covenantal mindset” when we study Torah to match the covenantal nature of the very first “Torah lesson” at Sinai – the presentation of the first two dibros, which we were taught before there was a mitzva to learn Torah. (Note that the Ramban, in Sefer HaMitzvos, Asai 1 pointed out that the first of the dibros, “Anochi…”, “I am Hashem, your G-d…”, was couched as a statement of fact not as an imperative. This supports the position that there was not yet a relationship that justified imperatives – and that this dibra was intended to create the covenant that supported such a relationship.)

The practical implication of a “covenantal mindset” is that the mitzva to study Torah, uniquely, incorporates an element of “covenant” – a necessary prerequisite to the very concept of a binding mitzva – in the act of performing the Torah study mitzva itself. The mitzvos, which are the terms of the covenant, have no basis without the covenant itself. (And therefore Torah study, which is the study of the mitzvos, would be futile unless there were a preceding covenant to make the mitzvos binding.)

In other words, a chunk called “covenant” is carved out of the Torah study mitzva, and that chunk is not identified as mitzva in the sense of incumbency at all, because by definition it must precede the incumbency of mitzvos. It is this distinct chunk of the Torah study mitzva that qualifies for the Rambam’s “inspiration” requirement – the Torah-study-as-covenant chunk.

In our discussion in Section 6 of the word v’shinantam in the context of the first Shma blessing we stated that the implication of the word is that covenant-oriented Torah study happens when the intellect of the Torah student merges with the wisdom of Torah to the point where they are an indistinguishable unit. We now understand why the Rambam writes that, “anyone who is inspired to properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study… must not allow himself to become distracted with other matters”.  The covenant chunk of the Torah study mitzva, which requires “inspiration”, must be chad, in the manner of those creating a covenant. The student must be united with the wisdom of Torah and single-minded in dedication to it. Distractions interfere with chad and thus dilute the covenant aspect of Torah study.

The idea that a mitzva has a “meta-mitzva” chunk that is distinct from the mitzva itself is unique to the mitzva of Torah study. This is because other mitzvos are merely terms of the covenant and have no actual covenant status, and therefore “inspiration” is irrelevant to the base fulfillment level of the mitzva. There is no difference between one man’s level of inspiration and another’s when it comes to performing the minimum mitzva requirements.

The mitzva of Torah study, however, in addition to resembling the other mitzvos in terms of being part of the terms of the covenant, has that unique additional chunk that is not present in the other mitzvos – the covenantal chunk. That chunk is only accessible to those who are inspired and single-mindedly dedicated to Torah study.

On Ears, Doors and Pesach: Juxtapositions Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Pachad Yitzchok

On Ears, Doors and Pesach: Juxtapositions Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Pachad Yitzchok

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

The Ear Problem

The Gemara in Kiddushin 22b explains why the Torah requires that an eved ivri (Jewish indentured servant) who wishes to stay in servitude beyond his mandatory six years, must first undergo an ear-drilling ritual: “Why does the Torah single out the ear over all other body parts? Hashem declares the answer: ‘This ear that heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I proclaimed (Vayikra 25:55), “For the people of Yisroel are servants to Me”; they are My servants, and not servants of servants, and yet this man went and acquired a [human] master for himself – let it be drilled!’”

The problem, the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados on this Gemara asks, is that the same ear heard all the mitzvos on Sinai, not just the declaration that Yisroel are intended to be the exclusive servants of Hashem. By the Gemara’s logic it should be appropriate to drill the ear of anyone who violates any of the mitzvos! Is there a special relationship between the ear and our exclusive servitude to Hashem that explains why ear-drilling is uniquely appropriate to an eved ivri who extends his servitude?

To Ear is Human

There is an important concept at play here, the Maharal explains, having to do with a distinction enjoyed by the ear that is not shared by any other body part. The ear, and only the ear, gives man his identity as man. We will explain this concept by examining a basic principle in the laws of tumah and tahara – laws regarding the ritual purity of utensils. In general, a utensil is not susceptible to tumah, ritual impurity, unless it is a receptacle; unless it can serve as a container. In fact, it is that quality that gives it its identity as a “utensil”. Until that happens it is unformed raw material (see Rambam, Mishna Torah, Keilim 8:1-2).

In the same way, the Maharal explains, a person’s identity as a human being (odom) is dependent on his ability to serve as a container as well. To be a “container” a person has to have a receptacle. It is the role of the ear to serve as a receptacle for man, and to thereby enable people to be “containers” and to claim the odom identity.

It is true that the ear physically looks like a receptacle but the Maharal is not referring to the shape of the ear. Rather, the Maharal is teaching us that a person is not an odom unless he is able to receive information from his surroundings, and the ear is the primary vehicle – receptacle – for garnering information from the surrounding world and assimilating it into himself. Ears make a person into a “receiver”. In fact, the Targum translation of shimah (hearing) is kabbalah (receiving; see Targum Onkelos on Beraishis 16:11), and even in English we say “I hear” when we want to communicate that we understand.

Our ears are considered entranceways into our selves, just as doors are entranceways into our houses, writes the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados on Kesubos 5a. We will have more to say on the Maharal’s equating doors to ears in subsequent sections.

Servants to Hashem and the Spiritual by Using Our Ears

A non-hearing person is considered incomplete and lacking in final form (tzurah); he is mass; unformed raw material (chomer) awaiting finalization – just like a utensil lacking a receptacle. In fact, the Gemara in Baba Kama 85b, in discussing damages due when someone inflicts an injury on another, assesses various amounts depending on which limb is injured but declares that if the injury causes deafness, full damages are assessed – in effect saying that the injured party’s value declines to zero if he is deafened.

Here, too, the house analogy is apropos. The Maharal points out that just as a house without a door is useless –  it is essentially unformed mass, since it cannot fulfill its designated function, which is to house people – so too is a man without hearing bereft of his ability to perform his designated function – his mission.

Now, what is man’s mission? Our mission, as servants of Hashem, begins with being receptive to what is expected of us at any given time. The primary impact of an inability to hear is an inability to properly serve Hashem. With this in mind let us return to the servitude of the eved ivri. A servant of a physical master is subservient to that which is physical, unlike a free person, who is subservient only to Hashem. The ear of a servant who wishes to extend his servitude is inherently defective since its function is to render him an odom by allowing him to be receptive to Hashem, and this fellow’s ear is deaf to that function since he wishes to remain a servant of another physical being, instead. By “shutting his ears”, as it were, to their true function, he demonstrates his preference for remaining a raw, unformed mass over becoming a receptacle attuned to the commandments of Hashem. It is therefore fitting to bring this ear’s existing defectiveness to the fore by visibly drilling a hole in it.

Passing Over the Doors On The Night of Pesach Mitzrayim

The Torah tells us (Shmos 12:7, 12-13, 21-23) that, prior to the plague of the first-born and the subsequent exodus from Egyptian slavery, Yisroel were commanded to slaughter a lamb or goat on the 14^th of Nissan and smear its blood on their doorposts and lintel. They were warned to stay indoors until the next morning; Hashem would see the blood on their doorposts and lintel, and cause the destructive forces to bypass their homes, as Hashem slay the Egyptian first-born.

The Maharal explains the significance of these events as follows. A house is a macro-enclosure for man; the door is the equivalent of the ear, which, when open, renders the house a receptacle. A closed door signals a lack of receptivity; that night it was a statement that the Jews inside the homes were already spoken for; they were in the midst of accepting Hashem’s Kingship and were not open to alternatives, including further servitude to the Egyptians. The blood on the door was a stand-in for the Jewish occupants of the houses; it was a declaration that the Jews inside the houses had declared their allegiance to Hashem.

Houses Are Bodies for Our Bodies and Souls

It might be asked, if that is the significance of the smearing of the blood, why were they not commanded to smear the blood on their ears – why use the more removed “ear” of the house – the door? The answer, the Maharal explains, is that the ear, being attached to the physical body could be perceived primarily as a door to the physical body. But a person’s physical body is not the most important part of his self – that function belongs to his intellect and soul. The house, however, being a macro-enclosure that is not a part of a person’s physical body, can more easily be perceived as an enclosure that encompasses a person’s intellectual and spiritual aspect, as well as his physical body. Thus they were commanded to smear the blood on the doorposts, making it clear that they belonged completely to Hashem – body, intellect and soul.

The Role of the Ear in Our Continuation of Pesach’s Acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship

On the 14^th of Nissan at night, the night that led to our exodus from Egyptian slavery, we declared our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship by smearing the blood on our doorposts and lintel. We reiterate that acceptance twice a day in the Shma prayer, the first verse of which is, “Listen, Yisroel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem  is one”.

In Pachad Yitzchok, Pesach Maamar 43 Rav Yitzchok Hutner asks why acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship is couched in terms of “listen”. In answer, he writes that our sense of hearing is unique in that all our other senses, except those of our ears, are two-way streets. Our eyes see; they also reflect our emotions outward. The nose is constantly inhaling and exhaling. Our hands give and take; our mouths ingest and expel. Only the ears are a one way street. They take in. They do not give out.

The ear is uniquely suited for accepting servitude because it reflects complete passivity. I will do as I am commanded. I will not object or argue or protest. That is why we reference our ears when we accept Hashem’s Kingship twice-daily. “Listen, Yisroel…”. We are unconditionally accepting Hashem’s will.

May are actions live up to those words, and may we soon merit our final exodus!

They Don't Get the Picture - an Essay on the Issue of Pictures of Women in Religious Publications

They Don’t Get the Picture

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. He has published numerous articles in a variety of Jewish publications.

A Time to Respond

As readers of this publication know, it has become common for many Chareidi publications to refrain from publishing pictures of women. Predictably, as is the case with other issues in our community that seem to impinge on “liberal” values that the secular world hold sacred – such as “feminist rights” – this issue has been escalated to the secular Jewish media and, again predictably, the chorus of condemnation has begun.

Often it is best to simply ignore comments from people who do not understand what makes the frum community tick, and whose sole interest is to criticize, not to understand. But sometimes the criticism seems to come from within, from people who purport to belong to the frum community, and other members of our community are swept along with the tide, and misguided efforts to “protest” and “repeal” the new “repressive” policy are launched. This is what is happening now with the issue of pictures of women in frum publications.

In such situations it is important to counter the criticism, provide a basis for our position and prevent well-meaning but ill-informed members of our community from being led astray by individuals who may be motivated by values antithetical to genuine Torah values.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

The impetus for this article is a piece that recently appeared in a popular secular Jewish publication titled, “Who needs rabbinic leadership? A call for Orthodox organizations to heed the voices of the women they cannot see”. The publication has given it a great deal of publicity and it has generated much comment. Negative articles about Orthodox Jews likely provide this publication a great deal of revenue so they play them up as much as they can.

The irony of the title is that it is strongly evocative of a Gemara in Sanhedrin 99b, which pastes a very unattractive label on someone who asks the question, “Who needs Rabbinic Leadership” but the irony is probably lost on the author of the article. I do not know the author of the article personally and it is not my place to paste labels on her. But despite her claim to be religious, and despite the tichel she sports in the biographic photo that accompanies her articles, her collection of pieces for this publication are a litany of complaints and fault-finding with the Rabbinic leadership of the frum community, which she portrays as self-centered, venal, cowardly, short-sighted and cruel. Indeed, “Who needs Rabbinic Leadership” is a recurrent theme in almost everything she writes. Does the Gemara’s label fit her? Judge for yourself.

The author cynically complained that no frum publication would accept her article so she was “forced” to place it in where she did, notwithstanding the chillul Hashem that was generated. The implication was that there was a conspiracy of silence in the frum publications about this issue. Nonsense! Given the author’s track record and agenda, is it any wonder that no frum publication wants to go near her with a 10-foot pole?

I ask the frum women who have joined this person’s crusade for “photo equality”: is this really someone you want to be following? Don’t you realize that although this issue may seem important to you, your “leader” has a larger agenda, one that is antithetical to Jewish values, and by joining this battle with her, you are joining her war?

The Big Lie

The article, and another article by the author on the same subject, in the same publication, contend that the motivation behind the policy to refrain from publishing photos of women is greed. The publications, she says, are afraid that consumers in Lakewood and Brooklyn will stop buying them if they publish pictures of women, the advertisers will stop advertising in them and oy vey, they will go out of business. So the publications kowtow to the ignorant demands of unnamed people with misplaced frumkeit. The Rabbis lack the guts to protest, she maintains, and by their silence they are allowing the community to spiral back into the dark ages.

There is so much sheker in that argument that it is difficult to know which lie to debunk first. Let’s start with the idea that the hamon demands higher standards of tznius to the point of rising up and boycotting publications that do not provide those levels. Halevai that were the case! In fact, unfortunately, our Rabbonim constantly have to fight the incursion of non-frum values into our community that negatively affect our observance of tznius! 

Besides, let’s take a step back and examine what would have had to happen here if this charge were true. Some brilliant publisher would have had to say to himself, “Hmm, how can I get a larger market share? I know! I’ll eliminate pictures of women!” How bizarre! Why would any publisher think that this would attract readers? There is no precedent for anything like this. And if it was done for market share, don’t you think the publisher would have publicized it? “Buy Mishpacha, the one and only magazine with no pictures of women!” There was no such publicity.

And did anyone stop to think that most of the readers of  these magazines are women, and the women would probably not be impressed by elimination of pictures of women the publications they read?

The idea that grassroots pressure created this policy, and/or the publishers jumped on it to get a leg up on the competition is too ludicrous to be believed.

The corollary lie is that the Rabbonim are silent on this matter. Not only are they not silent, they have actively advocated for this change! I have not polled all the publications that no longer include pictures of women but I am aware of at least two of them that have implemented this policy on the advice of their Rabbis – and these are Rabbis that are universally revered not only in the Charedi community but in the larger Orthodox community as well. I am sure that this is the case with most if not all of the other publications who have followed suit.

Far from being gutless, these Rabbis understood full well that there would be elements that would loudly and obnoxiously oppose the change, yet they persisted with it l’shaim shomayim and l’toeles of the communities they serve.

The Rabbis Have No Right!

Among the correspondents who weighed in on the article are several who trotted out the old canard, “show me in the Shulchan Aruch”, meaning that if a practice does not appear explicitly in the Shulchan Aruch it isn’t binding on them. What breathtaking amharatzus! I refer them to the first Mishna in Avos, “asu syog laTorah”, make a fence to protect the mitzvos of the Torah. The Gemara in Yevamos 21a derives this obligation from the posuk, (Vayikra 18:30), “ushmartem es mishmarti”, “You should guard my mitzvos”. Chazal teach us (Avos d’Rav Nosson 2:1) that the Torah itself provides a precedent for syogim for gilui arayos.

Torah leaders in all communities are enjoined to exercise this obligation to enact takanos, based on their knowledge of the people in their charge, and the challenges that they face, to protect them from aveiros. This is nothing new. Chazal have done this from time immemorial. To question Chazal’s right – Chazal’s obligation – to enact takanos is to question a fundamental principle of Judaism, emunas chachamim, without which we would have perished as a people eons ago.

The article author clearly has no problem denying emunas chachamim. Do her supporters realize that they are implicitly doing the same when they follow her lead?

True, a new policy change may take some getting used to. But let’s put things in perspective. Our grandmothers in pre-wars Europe were far more practiced in tznius than we are. Sarah imeinu stayed indoors when her husband Avrohom, was entertaining guests and the Torah is at pains to tell us this to emphasize her praiseworthy quality of modesty. We would consider such a practice quaint, or worse. We would claim that there is no precedent! Imagine the brouhaha if there was a policy change to adopt that practice universally!

We are very far from the level of Sarah and almost as far from the level of our grandmothers. The wars destroyed much of the basic fabric of our tznius, which is one of the signature traits of being a Jew. Our Torah leaders have spent the past century painstakingly nudging us back to where we were. Their job has not been made any easier by the decaying morals of the societies that surround us.

This policy change is another step in that process. You don’t understand why this particular policy change is necessary at this particular time? Keep two things in mind: 1) If you want to know, ask. Our Gedolim are accessible. Sincere questions, asked with an attitude of a genuine quest to understand daas Torah are generally answered. But keep in mind the second thing: 2) You are not “owed” an answer. Emunas chachamim means that we accept and follow daas Torah even if we do not have, or do not understand reasons. Suppress your ego. Acknowledge that people who are much better qualified than you are to understand what our tzibur needs have come to a decision and your wisest course is to follow it, just as you would follow the advice of an expert doctor, whether your understood it or not.

But Why?

I do not speak for the Rabbonim who instituted this policy change. But here is my personal attempt at explaining why it is not the unreasonable and “discriminatory” dictate that some are attempting to make it out to be.

Most of the dissenters argue that Rabbis of previous generations never instituted such a policy. What changed? First of all, newspapers and magazines did not start printing photographs until the early 1900’s. Color photographs did not become widespread in these publications until the 1960’s. Frum newspapers and magazines did not hit their stride until the 1980’s. Thus the need to consider a potential problem is relatively new. Scattered photographs here and there do not justify consideration of a policy change.

Besides, look at the pictures of frum women taken in the early 1900’s. The pictures are black-and-white. The women look like they are wearing sacks. Their expressions are dour. No make-up is visible. Contrast that to the full-color pictures in magazines today, even frum magazines. Usually the women are dressed, made up and posed to be as attractive as possible. It is entirely plausible that they could evoke improper thoughts even in a normal, healthy, religious man – in today’s day and age where even the most careful man is bombarded by inappropriate images all day and every day?

We Don’t Do It!

And if you belong to a tzibur where there is no such policy change, do not smirk. It does not mean that your tzibur is “better”. It may very well mean that your Rabbinic leaders realize that you would not obey that policy change if they issued it so they feel constrained to hold back. (I make this remark is response to correspondents from a certain tzibur in Israel who deride our Torah leaders for enacting this policy change. Yet this tzibur has a shockingly high attrition rate, especially post-army, and especially in areas of prohibited relations. This tzibur would seem to need all the help it could get in the area of tznius, and if its esteemed Rabbonim are holding back, it is no credit to the tzibur!)

The Spurious Argument

One of the arguments used to insidiously inveigle well-meaning women to the “photo equality” campaign is the role model claim, which makes the campaign sound holy and l’shaim shomayim. “Our husbands and sons have role models in the Jewish magazines”, the argument goes, “and we want role models also, for ourselves and our daughters, so we can grow in ruchnius!” This argument collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.

In the first place, if you want a role model for your daughter, Mom, you want a mirror, not a magazine! YOU are supposed to be the primary role model for your daughter and she sees you up close and personal all the time. To supplement, your daughter has her moros and teachers in her Bais Yaakov, whom she also sees in living color every day.

Add to that the many role models she learns about in Bais Yaakov. The imahos. The nevios. Sarah Schneirer and other heroines whose lives are worth emulating. No, the chumash does not have photos of the imahos or the nevios. Did that stop several millennia of Jewish women from looking up to them as role models? It did not! So why should it stop you, or your daughter!

This argument is nothing more than sucker bait to entice frum women to join in what is, to put it bluntly, a feminist campaign for “equality” with all the hashkafic problems that entails. Most of the good women who are writing letters to newspapers to protest the no-pictures-of-women policy with the “role model” argument are tools in the hands of people with an anti-religious agenda. Ladies, you are being used! Time to stand up and protest – not to the newspapers but to the cynical people with an agenda, who are trying to use you as tools.

Postscript

I would like to award a lump of coal to the Rabbinical Council of America (if the reader doesn’t understand the lump of coal reference, fine, the good Rabbis who head the RCA will certainly understand it) for their prompt issuance of a response to the article. Did they condemn the author for attempting to, yet again, further her anti-frum agenda? No! Instead, they piously declared, “we don’t do that” and had the temerity to add, “…we are of the opinion that it is important for every member of the Orthodox community to have women and men of integrity, piety, learning, and public [sic] serve as role models. This includes the names, ideas, and faces of women in publications.” Thanks for telling us what to do, guys! And which Gedolim did you consult on this matter?

I would like to conclude with a quote from a gadol of the previous generation:

“The attribute of tznius causes much good in this world, and because of that it is permitted to push away many things that would have been worthwhile in and of themselves, because man’s weaknesses would cause him to cross the boundaries of tznius which uphold the existence of the spiritual and material world. The attributes of love and friendship in all its comfortable actions and conversations, should have been equal between the genders, but it is because of the great value of tznius that derech eretz is sometimes pushed aside so much so that one doesn’t even ask about the welfare of a woman. The tzanua person knows that it is not because of the derision of the opposite sex that he keeps his distance and erects barriers, but because of the greater goals of tznius.”

Who wrote that? The Satmar Rebbe? Brisker Rav? No, it was written by Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Kook z’tl, in his in Middot Haraya (translation by Chana Sosevsky, from her article on tznius in the Fall 2001 issue of Jewish Action).

May all members of klal yisroel, from all our camps, be zoche to take these words to heart.