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.)]