On Visiting Your Rebbi on Yom Tov:

 On Visiting One’s Rebbi on Yom Tov: Adapted from the Torah of 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. He is currently working on a continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

 

The Basis for the Obligation

“A person is obligated to visit his Rebbi on yom tov” (Sukkah 27a). The basis of this obligation is not simply a matter of honoring the Rebbi; rather it is intended to be a depiction of how a student must accept from his Rebbi. What kind of acceptance, specifically, is the obligation intending to depict?

At the end of parshas Ki Savo, in the context of Moshe delivering his final words to the nation after forty years in the desert, the posuk states (Devarim 29:3), “Hashem has not given you a heart to know… until this day” and Chazal comment, as quoted in Rashi, “No one can fathom the depths of his Rebbi’s mind… before forty years. Hence, Hashem was not strict with you until this day, but from now on He will be strict with you; and therefore, “Observe the words of this bris…”.

Time-Delayed Understanding

These words teach us an incredible insight: it is possible for the divrei Torah conveyed by the Rebbi to become actionable to the student only after a long interval from when they were received, for Chazal are very clear that after forty years since the teaching was received there is more of a requirement that they be absorbed then there was at a time closer to when they were received.

Let us take careful note of the choice of words employed by Chazal to express this requirement –  amida al daas HaRav, “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. What form of understanding, exactly, are Chazal intending to convey with these words?

We are familiar, by now, with our oft-repeated explanation of the answer Chazal give (Yerushalmi Brachos 5:2) in response to the question, why was the Havdalah recitation inserted into the “…endow man with intelligence, daas” blessing? They answer, “without daas, whence separation?” Intelligence is required to distinguish between different things. In Hebrew the word daas implies a connection; a joining together, as in (Beraishis 4:1) “And Odom knew Chava, his wife…”. An ox is not safeguarded if it is handed over to a watchman who lacks daas, because the watchman does not “connect” to the responsibility he was entrusted with and is therefore unreliable.

We elsewhere explained the phrase “without daas, when separation?” by noting that being able to grasp when things are connected and when they are divergent are two sides of the same coin and a person who cannot grasp connections cannot grasp divergencies, either. Thus Havadalah is inserted into the bracha of daas because it is daas that enables us to grasp the distinctions between sacred and mundane, etc. – and grasping these distinctions is critical to our ability to serve Hashem.

Knowing Our Rebbeim

We come now to our central, novel point: It is possible for a student to understand the Torah teachings of his Rebbi on the deepest level; his understanding can even extend to being able to build new ideas on the basis of his Rebbi’s concepts, but he may still be totally bereft of the ability to “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. A student can only be said to have that ability when, in the process of absorbing his Rebbi’s teachings, he perceives the connection between the Rebbi’s individuality – his unique character – and  the Torah he is imparting. As we said, the ability to discern connections and disconnections is the hallmark of daas.

Just as, with his ability to understand, the student can process his Rebbi’s wisdom, so also, with the ability “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”, the student can process the Rebbi’s unique connection with that wisdom.

There are tell-tale signs that reliably enable the observer to determine whether or not students have this ability. For example, there are perceptive and sharp students who, nonetheless, find it difficult to listen to the same thoughts expressed multiple times by the Rebbi. By and large this is an indication that they lack the ability to “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. Similarly, these same students will become fidgety when they do not clearly understand what the Rebbi is teaching.

[Perhaps we can say that students who exhibit those symptoms are focused exclusively on the content of the shiur and are oblivious to an entirely different level of understanding, which is focused on why these particular concepts, expressed in that particular way, using these particular words and manner of delivery, could not have emanated from anyone other than the Rebbi who is currently delivering them.

Thus if they have heard this shiur before, they do not see the point in focusing on that content again. And if they do not understand the shiur’s content they see no benefit in continuing to listen to it. They see the shiur only in terms of its content. Whereas to students who are sensitive to the nuances of the relationship between the Rebbi’s presentation and his personality, there will always be new facets revealed about that relationship even in a reprise of the shiur. New facets will be revealed that transcend the content of the shiur]

Be a Growing Person – Not an Ox!

Now, the Gemara teaches that “a one-day old ox is already called an ox” (Baba Kama 65a). An ox has its salient characteristics at birth and those remain essentially static for the duration of the ox’s life. But the abilities of human beings evolve over time. The amount of time separating a just-obtained but dormant kernel of knowledge, from that knowledge in actualized form, is a function of the significance of that kernel of knowledge.

The most rarefied form of knowledge transfer is that of a student absorbing the Torah teachings of his Rebbi, and the most rarefied subset of that variety of knowledge transfer is the ability to “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. Therefore it is not surprising that Chazal assessed the gap between dormant and actualized for this ability to be forty years. “No one can fathom the depths of his Rebbi’s mind before forty years” – that is, forty years from when the knowledge transfer for this form of knowledge began.

To one who properly considers what is involved, the extent of the soul-penetrating labors required to receive and absorb Torah wisdom is truly mind-boggling. Anyone who deludes himself into thinking that the fruits of obtaining Torah knowledge are ripe just at the moment the knowledge is received, and if the benefits of the knowledge are not immediately apparent, they will never be apparent – such a person is studying in the manner of “a one-day old ox is already called an ox”, since he fails to appreciate the distinction between the potential of dormant knowledge and the actualization of that knowledge. His one-dimensional view of Torah knowledge acquisition does not take into account the fact that the knowledge takes form over time and does not come into full bloom immediately. The “ox” that he started off with will be the same “ox” that he will continue to have as time passes. Such a person will not achieve the ability “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind” since absorbing that form of knowledge can only happen over time.

The Unique Segulah of Visiting One’s Rebbi on Yom Tov

Visiting one’s Rebbi on the holidays is uniquely suited to absorbing the teaching we refer to as “fathoming the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. The purpose of the holiday visit is not to hear this or that particular teaching from the Rebbi. Its goal is, rather, to understand the workings of the Rebbi’s mind. The student will walk away from the visit with a deeper understanding of the relationship between the Rebbi’s essence and the Torah he imparts.

[Perhaps the less formal setting typical of such a visit will provide another level of insight into the Rebbi’s individuality and its relationship to his Torah, and the repeated exposure to that setting, holiday visit after holiday visit, will provide the time element necessary in order to bring the additional insight into full bloom.]

May we all be zoche this yom tov and every yom tov to deepening our understanding not only of the Torah we have learned from our Rebbeim, but also of how the Torah of our Rebbeim is intimately bound with the persons of our Rebbeim themselves.

(Based on Igros U’Ksovim, Igeres 12)

 

The Amalek – Paras Connection: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l

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

 

What is Amalek Doing Here?

Purim is coming and, as every child knows, Purim is when we celebrate our victory over the forces of Amalek. Yet the events of the Purim story took place during the galus, the exile, of Paras. We were subjects of the Persian kings, who ruled over Eretz Yisroel, and at whose pleasure we could – or could not – build the second Bais HaMikdash.

It behooves us to examine how Amalek – a descendant of Edom, whose galus we are currently in the midst of – insinuated itself into the much earlier galus of Paras.

The Torah, in the parsha of the Bris Bain Ha’besarim (Beraishis 15)  alludes to the entire panoply of exiles with which the Jewish nation will be subjected.

The kingdom of Yishmael is notable by its absence from the list of the kingdoms that exiled Yisroel; after all, Yisroel was subjugated by them for several generations. The Maharal takes note of this omission in Ner Mitzva  and he explains it as follows.

To qualify as one of the four kingdoms prophesized in the Torah, one of two conditions has to be met. Either rulership must be wrested by force from Jewish control, as was the case with respect to Bavel, or rulership must pass from the hands of a nation that took it from Jewish control by force, to another nation built on the ruins of the first one, as was the case with respect to Paras and Yavan (Greece). Yishmael is not counted among the four because it lacks both of those two conditions; it did not take control of rulership by force, nor did it inherit rulership from the ruins of a preceding kingdom.

Fueled by a Downfall

Chazal taught us in Megilla 6a that there is a relationship of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant” between Yaakov and Esav (see Rashi on Beraishis 25:33). “If someone, speaking about Yerushalayim and Rome (a reference to Esav) tells you that both are thriving, do not believe it. If they tell you that they are both destroyed, do not believe it. But if they tell you that one is thriving and the other destroyed, believe it.”

This relationship was already in place when Rivka consulted Shem, who informed her that “one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom” (Beraishis 25:23). Shem was telling her that the relationship between the kingdoms of Yisroel and Edom would be inverse – “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”. This relationship does not pertain to Yishmael; his rise does not depend on Yisroel’s fall.

Here is how we must understand this state of affairs on a deeper level. It took the lapse of three generations for the dross of profane to be filtered out of the lineage of our forefathers. Avrohom fathered Yishmael and Yitzchok fathered Esav, both of whom were unworthy. Only beginning with Yaakov was the dross expunged; none of his children strayed.

Now, until kedusha achieves a state of complete decontamination, it is tolerant, by definition, of the presence of that which is tamei. At that point kedusha and tumah are not in a “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant” relationship since the presence of kedusha does not immediately bring about a purging of tumah. They may coexist.

Only after kedusha is completely absolved of any taint of tumah, then and only then are kedusha and tumah diametric opposites, and only then can it be said that “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”; that each is built on the ruins of the other.

But until kedusha reaches that rarefied state of purity, the strength of the opposition between kedusha and tumah is insufficient to cause the ascendant of the pair to bring about the obliteration of the other of the pair. Only after kedusha achieves that milestone does the opposition between those two forces become a death-battle, such that the demise of one enlivens the other.

Thus the prophecy of “one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom”, which is tantamount, as Chazal explain, to the inverse relationship of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant, could only have been said about Yaakov and Esav; the same inverse relationship could not have applied to Yitzchok and Yishmael, because there was still some dross associated with Yitzchok, who fathered not only Yaakov but also Esav – even though, certainly, Yishmael opposed Yitzchok in the same way that Esav opposed Yaakov.

In that light let us return to the words of the Maharal, who wrote that the kingdom of Yishmael is not counted as one of the four kingdoms to which Yisroel was exiled, even though it, too, subjugated Yisroel for several generations, since it did not take control of rulership by force, nor did it inherit rulership from the ruins of a preceding kingdom which took control of rulership by force. In our terminology, that is the equivalent of saying that Yishmael’s subjugation of Yisroel did not reach the level of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”. Yishmael’s subjugation was oppression by force but it cannot be said that the ascendancy of Yishmael was fueled by the downfall of Yisroel.

This explains why our salvation from the oppression of Paras came about  specifically through a reversal of fortunes, v’nahafoch hu. Not only did Yisroel prevail, but we prevailed by way of the downfall of our enemies. Why? Because Amalek, as represented by Haman, insinuated itself into the picture, instigating our danger, and our battles with Amalek always play out in a manner of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”, since Amalek is a descendant of Esav.

The King of Jew-Hatred

Preceding the chronicling of the Bris Bain Ha’besarim, the Torah, in Beraishis 14, relates the story of the war of the four kings against Avrohom. The Ramban explains – and this thought is similarly expressed by Chazal in Beraishis Rabbah 42:7 – that the four kings are a homiletic reference to the four kingdoms that are destined to oppress Yisroel.

One of the four kings is called “Sidal, king of the nations” and the Ramban writes that he is so called because he ruled over diverse nations. What is the significance of the reference to “nations”? Which nation was king of the “nations”? The Medrash explains that the “king” is actually a reference to Edom whose despotism extended over the nations of the world. Edom earned this distinction because all the kingdoms that preceded his were limited to one particular location but Edom imposed its will over “nations” in general.

The significance of Edom’s empire-building was that his antipathy toward Yisroel also extended beyond the borders of his own land; his poisonous incitement against the Jews was spread far and wide among other nations and he propagandized the other nations to induce in them as well the toxic venom of anti-Semitism.

In fact Edom was so identified with this trait that, when enumerating the four kings, the Torah refers to him as “Sidal, king of the nations” – as if to say that his empire of hatred crossed all borders and had no boundaries.

The Progression of Amalek’s Infiltration

If we want to pinpoint the beginnings of Edom’s incitement-spreading we would have to focus on the period of the exile of Paras. The entire Megillas Esther centers around Amalek’s incitement of Achashverosh against the Jews. Earlier in history, such as during the lifetime of Moshe, or during the epoch of the prophets, Amalek – a scion of Edom – directly waged war against Yisroel. Amalek’s interaction with Achashverosh was the first instance of Edom provoking a proxy – Achashverosh, king of Paras – into Jew-hatred.

At the time, this innovation of evil was limited to one kingdom, Paras, but the exiles become more onerous as they progress, so that in the fourth exile, which we are currently in the midst of, there are no geographic limits to Edom’s incitement; it spreads indiscriminately to all nations. “Sidal, king of the nations”.

Let us trace this phenomenon through the sequence of exiles. The first of the four, Bavel, did not have Amalek participation. This was followed by the exile of Paras which was a reflection of Amalek’s infiltration into a single other nation. (The apparent absence of Amalek from galus Yavan is discussed in Pachad Yitzchok, Chanukah Maamar 15.)

The final galus of Edom reflects Amalek’s infiltration into every other nation.

The prevailing theme of our exiles in general is the inverse relationship between Edom and Yisroel, such that even when the nation oppressing us is not Edom, Edom’s fingerprints are visible. This was especially the case with respect to the galus of Paras – the first where Edom/Amalek “spread its wings” over a non-Edom nation.

We daven that just as Hashem saved us from that first galus exposure to Edom, he save us now, when we are in the thick of the actual galus Edom, so that we may again sing, “la’yehudim haysa orah, v’simcha, v’sasson, v’yikar!”

The Special Status of the Intellect

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

 The Intellect as “Outsider" 

We will discuss and attempt to understand as best we can a principle expounded by the Maharal, who wrote in chapter 9 of Gevuros Hashem that “the intellect is but an outsider, a ger, in this world”. The Maharal introduces this concept in order to explain the wording of a tefilla in the Shmoneh Esrai, wherein Chazal lumped together “the elders of the nation”, “the remnants of the scribes” and “righteous converts” in a single blessing. In that blessing, al hatzadikim, Chazal included in a single supplication righteous converts, gerim, with righteous individuals – the elders and the scribes – and the Maharal explains that the common thread between them is that “the intellect is but a sojourner, a ger, in this world”. In other words, elders and scribes, who are men of intellect, are properly grouped with converts because their signature attribute, their intellect, is an outsider in the context of this world just as a convert is an outsider in the context of the community he has just joined.

The notion of the intellect as an outsider is somewhat opaque, so we will attempt to the best of our ability to clarify it, and we will do so by introducing two halachos that are unique to the intellect.

One Halacha That Defines the Uniqueness of the Intellect

We are obliged, per a Mishna in Avos 2:12, to sanctify our discretionary activities by doing them for the sake of heaven.. For example, when eating one should focus the intent of the action on maintaining his health and strength in order to do Hashem’s will, when exercising one should focus on a similar intent, when engaging in recreation one should focus his intent on obtaining a clear mind in order to better learn Hashem’s Torah, etc. The Mishna derives this obligation from a posuk in Mishlei 3:6, “Know Him in all your ways”. All your activities, the Mishna in Avos exhorts us, should be done for the sake of Heaven.

Thus it follows that if some portion of a person’s discretionary activities are not done for the sake of Heaven, he has neglected his “know Him in all your ways” obligation. He is tainted in that he failed to sanctify an area of his life that was inherently non-sanctified and because of this failure that area of his life remains bereft of sanctity. This, then, is the taint that results from failure to satisfy the “know Him in all your ways” obligation. This is straightforward and obvious.

The point we want to bring out, however, is the uniqueness of the intellect with respect to the obligation to dedicate activity for the sake of Heaven. Whereas utilizing another area of human activity for non-sanctified purposes, without an intent to dedicate that activity for the sake of heaven, incurs only the taint of disregarding “know Him in all your ways”, one who utilizes his intellect for non-sanctified purposes incurs a taint that precedes that of “know Him in all your ways”; a taint and a violation arising from the very character of the intellect itself.

What distinguishes the intellect in this way? The distinction emerges from the halacha that the primary focus of your conversation (“Conversation” is here used in the broader sense of mental activity) should be Torah, and this halacha originates in a posuk from Shma (Devarim 6:7), “and you shall speak of them”, v’dibarta bam. See the commentary of Rashi on that posuk, based on the Sifri.

From this halacha we see that the ultimate objective of the mitzva of Torah study is not merely the study of Torah per se, but rather, the ultimate objective is that no other mental activity aside from involvement in the wisdom of Torah should assume a position of primacy in the intellect. Or, in sharper terms, at a minimum, a subsidiary connection to Torah must be evident in every intellectual activity.

There is, then, a fundamental difference between the intellect and man’s other capabilities when it comes to using them for discretionary activities. With respect to man’s other capabilities, using them in a non-sanctified manner (that is, without an intent to dedicate the activity for the sake of heaven) is but a violation of the general obligation to “know Him in all your ways”. In contrast, using the intellect in a non-sanctified manner constitutes neglect of Torah study and is thus a direct violation of the mitzva of Torah study, because using the intellect in that manner allows for non-Torah mental activities to assume a position of primacy, rather than the required subsidiary-to-Torah position.

Intellect: Not of This World

What underlies this fundamental difference between the intellect and man’s other capabilities? The answer lies in the words of the Maharal, introduced earlier in this discussion: “the intellect is but an outsider in this world”. The relationship between life in this world and life in the next world is that of a physical, senses-based life, versus a spiritual, concepts-based life. Our physical senses cannot grasp an abstract model of a thing. Abstractions are a faculty of the intellect.

Now, since life in the world-to-come and at the end of days is spiritual in nature, those are the epochs in which the intellect will come into full bloom. The power of the intellect in this world is a shadow of what it will be in the future. In that context we may say that our senses and other physical capabilities are native to this world since they are designed to function in a concrete, non-abstract environment.

But the intellect is radically different since its strength lies in its ability to abstract and conceptualize. The intellect is not at home in this material world of physical objects. Its primary power is reserved for the world-to-come and the end of days, where abstraction reigns supreme. Thus its existence here is that of an outsider – “outsider” in the sense that it can only function in an unfettered fashion in its home base. Here, it has one hand tied behind its back. Here, it resides only on a temporary basis.

Indeed, our prophets always characterize the end of days as a time when the status of the intellect, and only the intellect, is enhanced, raised and glorified.

So that is why using an ordinary human faculty for mundane purposes reflects only a failure to sanctify the mundane, while utilizing the intellect for mundane purposes is to wrest it from its natural state of sanctity and impose mundanity upon it.

Another Halacha: Chinuch in Torah Versus Chinuch in Mitzvos

To better understand this principle we herewith present another halacha in which it finds expression.

There are many differences between the mitzva of Torah study and other mitzvos, and one of them has to do with chinuch – readying a youngster for the performance of a mitzva. There is a specific mitzva of chinuch when it comes to mitzvos in general. There is no mitzva of chinuch when it comes to Torah. Let us illustrate what we mean.

When a father introduces his young son to the mitzva of Sukkah, there is in fact no fulfillment of the mitzva of Sukkah, there is only fulfillment of the mitzva of chinuch. See Sukkah 28b. Even though the underage son is going through all the necessary motions to fulfill the mitzva of Sukkah, there is no Sukkah mitzva fulfillment since he is under the age of bar mitzva. However, when a father introduces his young son to the study of Torah there is, in fact, a fulfillment of the mitzva to study Torah.

A lulav in the hands of an underage youngster is an object used to fulfill the mitzva of chinuch (but not the mitzva of lulav). But the words from Devarim 33:4, Torah tziva lanu Moshe, morasha kehillas Yaakov, “The Torah that Moshe commanded us is a legacy for the congregation of Yaakov”, on the lips of a youngster who is capable of speech are actual words of Torah. (The Rambam writes in Mishna Torah, Talmud Torah 1:6 that a father is obligated to teach his son this posuk, and the Shma posuk, as soon as the son begins to speak.)

As we stated, there is no place for chinuch as a separate mitzva when it comes to teaching Torah. Why? The reason is tied to the concept that we have been discussing – the intellect is “pre-programmed” for sanctity.

Chinuch is a matter of dedication – through chinuch the child is being dedicated to the performance of mitzvos. But dedication is necessary only when the object being dedicated is in a neutral state prior to the dedication. The process of dedication then effects a transition from “neutral” to dedicated. But when the initial state is not “neutral”, dedication is superfluous.

Therefore, since mitzvos in general are performed by ordinary human faculties – the ones that are native to this world, which is a place of “sanctity neutrality” – a process of chinuch to dedicate those faculties to the sanctity of mitzvos is necessary. But the study of Torah is the province of the intellect, which is an outsider in this world; intrinsically its proper place is the end of days. Thus, the intellect is not “neutral”. The intellect of a Jew is intrinsically dedicated to and “pre-programmed” for the wisdom of Torah. No further act of dedication is necessary. So it stands to reason that there is chinuch for mitzvos but no chinuch for Torah.

Understand this well; we have only scratched the surface of this topic, which requires a sensitive soul to fully appreciate. We cannot write more; it is impossible to dip the point of the pen into the depths of the inkwell of the heart.

This, at any rate, should provide a broader understanding of the difference between the intellect and the ordinary human faculties, with practical implications in halacha, and gives us a deeper understanding of what the Maharal meant when he wrote that “the intellect is but an outsider, a ger, in this world”.

We have reviewed these concepts many times in the hope that through repetition, the underlying principles will ingrain themselves in our minds, and will enable our own intellects to appreciate their self-worth, so that we treat them with the respect that they, with their exalted status, deserve.

This article is dedicated l’ilui Nishmas my father, Rabbi Yisroel ben Yaakov Willner, who learned and lived these words, on the occasion of his first Yahrtzeit, 18 Shvat.