Malchios – A Deeper Level of Kingship Acceptance: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Rosh HaShana Maamar 24)

 

Malchios – A Deeper Level of Kingship Acceptance: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Rosh HaShana Maamar 24)

Adapted 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 is currently working on a continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”. 

 A Seemingly Redundant Statement

Our Chachomim wrote (Rosh HaShana 16a), “Hashem said… ‘Recite pesukim of… Kingship (Malchios) before Me so that you may make Me King over you’”. This statement appears to be redundant. Certainly, reciting pesukim of Malchios itself constitutes acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship.

This statement with respect to Malchios is fundamentally different from a similar statement of our Chachomim, with respect to pesukim of remembrance (Zichronos), “Recite pesukim of remembrance (Zichronos) before me so that I remember you”, because it is understood that we are reciting the pesukim in the lower world so that Hashem will remember us in the upper world. There is a separate cause and effect. Our recitation of the pasuk is the cause, and it triggers the effect in another entity – Hashem, who will be doing the remembering.

But reciting pesukim of Malchios is itself an act of accepting Hashem’s Malchios. Why, then, do the Chachomim present the first and second clause of the statement as if they were separate cause and effect? A parallel statement with respect to Zichronos would be “Recite pesukim of remembrance so that you remember me”, rather than the actual, sensible statement, where the person is doing the reciting, which causes Hashem to be doing the remembering. Certainly, the former would be a meaningless statement, since reciting the pesukim of remembrance would itself be the act of remembrance. There would be no “so that” cause and effect in operation here, since there would be only a single entity involved – the person doing the reciting – and his act of recitation would inherently be an act of remembrance.

We must understand, then, why it is that, with respect to Malchios, a statement with that seemingly redundant construction is admissible. Where is the cause and effect relationship between reciting Malchios and accepting Hashem’s Kingship?

The Shma Conundrum

 

There is a difference of opinion between Tanaaim on the issue of whether or not a person can satisfy the obligation to recite pesukim of Malchios on Rosh HaShana with the Shma Yisroel pasuk (Devarim 6:4). Refer to that Gemara, which is in Rosh HaShana 32b. We must consider why this is even a question, because this is the very pasuk that every Jew recites in order to fulfill his obligation to accept Hashem’s Kingship. How can we even consider the possibility that reciting Shma Yisroel does not constitute an adequate acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship on Rosh HaShana?

The Coronation of Rosh HaShana

 

To answer this question we will make use of a tactic referred to in the pasuk (Tehillim 119:98) as, “Make me wise from my enemies”. At times we can extract wisdom from the way things work by our enemies. This is one such time, as we will explain.

We learned in the laws regarding the prohibition against Avodah Zara idol worship, that if one declares “You are my god” to an idol, that act has the same significance as throwing something to the idol or sacrificing something to it (Sanhedrin 60b; Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchos Avodah Zara 3:4). That is, the declaration is considered in violation of the laws against Avodah Zara and the perpetrator is subject to the death penalty if there are witnesses, and to excision, if there are not witnesses.

However, the Chazon Ish rules, remarkably (Yoreh Deah 62:17), that this person is only in violation of the Avodah Zara prohibition if the declaration was uttered in a manner that indicates that the intent was to create the ruler/subject relationship. However the Avodah Zara violation does not apply when the circumstances make it clear that the intent was merely to affirm a pre-existing status.

There is no violation when the statement is merely a description of a status quo because such a statement is no more than an acknowledgment of a reality. The person making the statement had no hand in creating that reality at that juncture. The only time there is a violation is if the person making the statement is thereby creating the ruler/ruled relationship – when his statement in effect “coronates” the idol as king.

We will utilize these concepts to make ourselves “wise from our enemies”, by suggesting that a similar distinction applies between the daily acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship in Shma, and our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship on Rosh HaShana. We are not creating Hashem’s Kingship when we recite Shma, we are accepting a Kingship that pre-exists our acceptance of it.

This is very different from the Malchios of Rosh HaShana, since its purpose is specifically to be an act of coronation. We are engaged in crowning our King when we recite the Malchios of Rosh HaShana; we are creating the King/subject relationship.

This is in line with the pasuk (Devarim 33:5), “And Hashem is King in Yeshurun, when the entirety of the people are gathered”. When is Hashem King in Yeshurun? The pasuk is teaching us that this happens when the nation accepts His Kingship. If not, He cannot properly be called their King, as it were. There is a similar implication in the pasuk (Yeshayahu 43:12), “…‘and you are My witnesses,’ says Hashem, ‘and I am G-d’” – as if to say, “When am I your G-d? When you are my witnesses. But if you are not my witnesses, then (as if such a thing were possible) I am not your G-d.”

This, then, is the purpose of the Malchios of Rosh HaShana. We are not declaring to Hashem, “You are our King”. We are, rather, declaring to Hashem, “We are making you our King” – we are engaging in the act of creating a new relationship of Kingship.

Shma: Acceptance But Not Enactment

 

We are now able to understand the view of the Tanna who holds that we do not satisfy our Rosh HaShana Malchios obligation with the Shma pasuk. This Tanna holds that although it is true that Shma certainly constitutes an acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship, it does not constitute a Kingship enactment – a coronation. Since this is a necessary condition of Malchios, the Shma pasuk does not qualify as Malchios.

Malchios Marching Orders

 

The meaning of the statement “Recite pesukim of… Kingship (Malchios) before Me so that you may make Me King over you” is now also clear. It is an instruction to us to make our statements of Malchios acts of Kingship creation and not merely statements of Kingship reality. Understand this well.

[Adaptor’s note: The view stated here is that that although it is true that Shma constitutes an acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship, it does not constitute an initiation of the Kingship and thus is ineligible for inclusion in Malchios. This apparently contradicts concepts developed in Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 25:4-5 and in Pachad Yitzchok, Pesach Maamar 76:5, 9.

In the Shavuous Maamar the point is made that Shma and the first of the dibros constitute the commitments of each of the two sides of bris-covenant between Hashem and Yisroel – Hashem declares that He is our G-d (dibros) and we declare our acceptance of Hashem as our King (Shma). The Maamar demonstrates that this bris constitutes an initiation of Kingship – or in other words, Shma, our side of the bris, is what triggers Kingship initiation. This runs counter to the view expressed in this Maamar that Shma is but an affirmation of an existing Kingship relationship.

In the Pesach Maamar it is explicitly stated that the daily Shma recitation is in fact an act of coronation not merely an act of affirmation. This, too, seems to directly contradict the view stated here.

Perhaps the answer might be that this Maamar is explaining the position of the Tanna who holds that we do not satisfy our Rosh HaShana Malchios obligation with the Shma verse. That Tanna evidently does hold that Shma is just an affirmation and that is why it is inadmissible in Malchios. However we do include Shma in Malchios. Thus our position is, as stated in the two Maamorim cited, that Shma actually is a coronation – and that is precisely why we hold that it properly belongs in Malchios.)]

 

 

Remembering Your Learning – The Torah Way: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 30)

Remembering Your Learning – The Torah Way: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 30)

Adapted 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 is currently working on a continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

Section 1 – “Let” Versus “Put” Torah in the Heart

In the first chapter of the Shma prayer the verse states (Devarim 6:6), “Let these matters (devarim) that I command you today be upon your heart”, while the parallel verse in the second chapter of Shma (Devarim 11:18) uses different wording: “Place these matters (devarai) of mine upon your heart and upon your soul”. [The “matters” that both this verse and the one in the second chapter deal with refer to the study of Torah.] Notice that while the first chapter speaks in terms of “Let… be upon your heart”, the second chapter speaks in terms of “Place… upon your heart”. Why the change in language?

We have dealt with this issue elsewhere (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuos Maamar 25) but we revisit it here to focus on a new angle that we did not consider before.

Section 2 – The Positive Commandment to Remember One’s Torah

Targum Yonasan translates the “Let these matters that I command you today be upon your heart” verse as “Let these matters that I command you today be inscribed upon the tablets of your hearts”. The Gaon, Rav Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik of Brisk explains in his Torah commentary on parshas V’eschanan that this verse establishes a positive commandment to remember the Torah that one learns. This commandment reinforces the prohibition (Devarim 4:9), “…lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life…”, which our Sages explain in Avos 3:8 as a warning not to forget even one detail of one’s Torah learning. The Gemara in Menachos 99 in fact enumerates this as one of the negative commandments.

The “Let these matters that I command you today be upon your heart” verse adds the additional dimension of a positive commandment to this obligation, making it clear that failing to continually give Torah knowledge its rightful place in one’s heart, assuring that it not be forgotten, is a binding positive requirement.

This, Rav Soloveitchik explains, is the underlying intent of Targum Yonasan’s choice of words, “be inscribed upon the tablets of your hearts”. We are enjoined with a positive commandment to remember the Torah we learn, and not to forget it. Rav Soloveitchik elaborates upon this point in depth; refer to his commentary for additional detail.

Section 3 – Two Approaches to Remembering

We know from experience that there are two approaches to defeating forgetfulness. The first approach is through a thorough review of the topic that one wants to remember. The second approach is a function of the impression the topic makes when it is first encountered. The more intense the initial impression, the less likely it is that the mind will let it go. When we absorb an idea that we know is essential, that we know matters deeply, it is practically impossible for the Forces of Forgetfulness to hold sway.

These two approaches to defeating forgetfulness are the foundation for the two approaches for remembering one’s Torah study – letting the matters rest on the heart, and placing the matters on the heart – that are mentioned in the first and second Shma chapters. Reinforcing one’s memory by placing on the heart implies an ongoing, active effort to retain the knowledge learned, and the only way to do that is via strenuous review. However, reinforcing one’s memory by letting matters rest on the heart means that the effort to retain the material is front-loaded; it takes place when the material initially enters the consciousness, and after that one need only let the memory persist.

Section 4 – Learning, to Retain

We have often discussed the concept of our Sages, cited in Yerushalmi, Brachos 1:5, that the Shma verse is an affirmation of the first two of the ten commandments, 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”. The second commandment is “You should not recognize the gods of others in My presence”. When we say, “Hashem is one” (“one” in this context means “one and only”) we are affirming that commandment.

This concept sheds additional light on the words of Rabbeinu Yonah, who says that the Shma verse encapsulates the content of the entire first Shma chapter; the rest of the chapter merely details what is entailed in the acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship expressed by the first verse. Refer to Rabbeinu Yonah’s statements in detail, in Shaarei Teshuva, 3:22.

In light of the concept of our Sages that the Shma verse is an affirmation of the first two of the ten commandments, “I am Hashem, your G-d” and “You should not recognize the gods of others”, it follows that, per Rabbeinu Yonah, the entire first chapter is a reflection of the context of the first two dibros, since those two dibros are the first chapter’s subject matter.

So, what was the context of the first two dibros? According to our Sages as expressed in Medrash Rabbah, Shir HaShirim 1:2, “When Yisroel heard ‘I am Hashem, your G-d’ and ‘You should not recognize the gods of others’, the Torah became engraved upon their hearts and what they learned was not susceptible to being forgotten” (except that after the transgression of the golden calf their newfound ability to retain their learning permanently, was lost).

The context of the first two dibros, then, which is reflected in the first Shma chapter, is an initial impression on the mind that is so intense that it cannot be forgotten.

Now, how would we go about replicating, in our small way, the experience of “learning that cannot be forgotten” by “engraving” the Torah on our own hearts? Surely that path to remembering does not entail the labor of reviewing! Reviewing over and over is a far cry from the “engraved upon the heart” path to not forgetting that we briefly attained at Sinai!

Rather, if we want to replicate that experience in ourselves, our only option is to focus on the learning experience itself, and to strive mightily to give maximum depth of meaning to the Torah we are learning, when we first are learning it; when it is first being absorbed in our souls. In that way, and only in that way, we may achieve, at least in some measure, the Sinaitic experience of engraving the Torah on our hearts. To the extent that we succeed, we will have a taste of the learning and the permanent remembering that we briefly enjoyed in full measure when we heard the first two dibros at Sinai.

Section 5 – Two Parallel Paths to Avoiding Torah Forgetfulness

The relationship our Sages taught us between Shma and the first two dibros applies only to the first Shma chapter. The second Shma chapter is a general acceptance of the mitzvos. We are now able to understand the reason for the “let” versus “place” difference between the first two Shma chapters. Certainly, the respective verses in both chapters parallel each other; they both deal with how to avoid forgetting one’s Torah learning. But they each deal with the issue in a manner befitting the context of the containing chapter.

The context of the first chapter is the first two dibros and in that context the path to avoiding Torah forgetfulness is intensity of acquisition and subsequent “let”. The context of the second chapter, however, is general acceptance of the mitzvos and in that context the antidote for Torah forgetfulness is “place” – active reinforcement of the learning through review.

Section 6 – The Double Benefit of Passionately Learning Torah

There is another aspect of the first Shma chapter’s “let” method for forestalling forgetfulness that is worth mentioning. It should be obvious that in order to achieve the level of intensity required to acquire Torah such that it will not be forgotten, the acquisition must be accompanied by a bounty of joy from the very moment that new Torah material enters the consciousness. The soul must delight in the bliss and sweetness of the words of Torah, because to the extent that we feel joy in our Torah learning, to that extent is the Torah is absorbed in our minds and not forgotten. Now, the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos (Mitzvos Asei 3), when discussing, ways to fulfill the mitzva of loving Hashem, states that the enjoyment and pleasure that a person derives from the word of Hashem (i.e. Torah study), is itself a fulfillment of the mitzva to love Hashem. Study this Rambam carefully.

This adds additional perspective to our understanding of the first Shma chapter. The chapter enjoins us to “love Hashem, your G-d…”, which, as the Rambam taught us, we can accomplish with a surfeit of joy, an abundance of pleasure and an appreciation of the sweetness that we derive from our Torah learning.

But these are the same factors that cause the Torah to stick powerfully in our minds at the time we learn it. This is the “let” method of remembering our learning! It is no surprise, then, that the very next verse is, “Let these matters which I command you today be upon your heart – studying Torah with the passion required to fulfill the mitzva of loving Hashem – is at the same time a fulfillment of the mitzva to remember our Torah study using this Shma chapter’s “let” method. Understand this well.