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.”
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment