The Long and the Short; the Loud and the  Soft – Approaches to Prayer from the Torah of the Maharal, with Elucidations from the Chofetz Chaim and 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”.

Introduction

The Gemara (Brachos 31a) teaches: 

“Rav Hamnuna said, ‘How many important laws can be learned from these verses relating to Chana! “And Chana spoke in her heart”  – from this we learn that one who prays must concentrate in his heart. “Only her lips moved” – from this we learn that one who prays must form the words with his lips. “And her voice was not heard” – from this we learn that it is forbidden to raise one’s voice when engaged in prayer.’”

Volumes can be, and have been, written about Tefillah; it is a massive subject that is well beyond the scope of a single article. Here we examine some specific issues regarding audibility and length of prayer, as explained by the Maharal, and as explicated by the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yitzchok Hutner in Pachad Yitzchok, and others.

Why Must Prayer be Spoken?

In Nesiv HaAvodah 2:2 the Maharal writes that man’s uniqueness among the living creatures that inhabit the world is identified with his power of speech. If a person does not verbalize his needs in prayer he has not identified himself as an appropriate “address” to which the prayer fulfillment may be sent. In order to qualify as a “recipient” he has to articulate his desire to have his needs fulfilled. Thus a person must speak out his desire to have his needs fulfilled. If he does so he is asking as a human with a need and this makes him eligible to have his prayer responded to. Man alone qualifies for the relationship of closeness to Hashem that can lead to prayer fulfillment and man alone was elevated with the power of speech, so articulating one’s prayer requests is the equivalent of presenting to Hashem the “documentary evidence” that entitles him to have his prayer accepted.

Only as humans asking as humans, are we able to have our needs fulfilled by the Creator – since, only then, are we humans who are lacking. A person who prays mentally and without verbalizing has failed to present his needs as a human. Even though Hashem certainly knows our thoughts, if we fail to articulate our needs, we fail to qualify ourselves as a valid recipients of Hashem’s response.

In Derech Chaim 2:13 the Maharal, in explaining the Gemara that states that prayer must be in the form on an entreaty, notes that not only the attitude of the prayer, but also its spoken wording, must be in the form of an entreaty. He explains that speech turns a thought into an action – the action of speaking – and that positioning oneself as subservient to Hashem via acts is a much more powerful expression of subservience than merely having those thoughts. And the Maharal explains in Nesiv HaAvodah, prayer is speech-centric.

This is why we must express ourselves verbally when we pray. Speaking identifies us as humans. A person who prays mentally and without verbalizing has failed to present his needs as a human.

As a corollary to this rule, a person must articulate his requests precisely, when he prays, and not be careless with his words on the assumption that Hashem will understand what he wants even if he misspeaks. In Gur Aryeh, Bamidbar 22:11, with respect to the wording of Bil’am’s request of Hashem for permission to curse Yisroel, the Maharal writes, “Do not think that Hashem will act on the basis of His knowledge of a person’s intent when he makes a request. Rather, Hashem responds only on the basis of what a person actually says”.

The Maharal makes a similar point in Nesiv HaTorah chapter 4 about the need to verbalize the study of Torah. Speech, he writes, is identified with life and the Torah is called the source and extender of life. By verbalizing Torah study one connects life (the power of speech) with the source of life (Torah). This allows the Torah’s life-giving power to take effect. That connection does not take place when Torah study is confined to the mind and not verbalized. For this reason, adds the Maharal, one does not make the Torah study blessings if the study is not verbalized. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 47:4.

The Power of Speech and the Power of Torah – The Potency of Spirituality (Chofetz Chaim)

In Nesiv HaLashon chapter 5 the Maharal refers to the power of speech as that which gives man his tzurah, his form – that is, it is man’s defining feature. Tzurah is identified with ruchnius – with man’s intellect and spirituality. Torah, of course, is also identified with ruchnius.

In that light, the Chofetz Chaim, in Shmiras HaLoshon, Shaar HaZechira 1, citing a Yerushalmi in Peah 1, writes that just as the reward for Torah learning is of equal weight to the reward for all the other commandments combined, so is the punishment for loshon horah, defamatory speech, of equal weight to the punishment for all the other prohibitions combined. The positive commandment of  Torah learning and the negative commandment of loshon horah are at opposite ends of the Torah’s spectrum; Torah learning is at the height and loshon horah is at the nadir.

The basis for the special status of these commandments lies in their relative detachment from the physical and their association with the spiritual. Torah study utilizes the intellect. Loshon horah utilizes the power of speech. Both are more spiritual than physical in nature and therefore both are far more potent in terms of the affect that they have in the spiritual realm than the other commandments, both positive and negative, since those all involve physical actions of the body.

An analogy from the material world: Of the four elements that comprise this world – fire, water, earth and air – the two non-physical elements, fire and air, have far wider-reaching consequences than the others and are capable of wreaking significantly greater havoc than the others. Similarly, the two commandments that are most detached from the physical body, loshon horah in the negative sense, and Torah study in the positive sense, have the most significant spiritual consequences. And since the spiritual consequences of the commandments directly affect the physical world, as the Nefesh HaChaim details, these two commandments have a major impact on the physical quality of our lives; on our security and well-being.

All the commandments effect the spiritual and physical realms, but Torah and loshon horah, because of their spiritual nature, have the most dramatic effect. That is why the reward for Torah study is so magnified that it outweighs that of all the other commandments together. And it is why the punishment for loshon horah is so magnified that it outweighs that of all the other negative commandments together.

The Relationship of Thought and Speech in Prayer

In Beraishis 48:22 Yaakov bequeaths the city of Schem to Yosef as a reward for Yosef’s undertaking to return the body of Yaakov to the Meoras HaMachpela burial cave in Israel for internment. He describes Schem as the city that he took from the Emorites “with my sword and my bow”. Rashi explains that as a meaning “with my wisdom and my prayer”. The efficacy of prayer is compared to that of bow and arrow weaponry.

Rabbi Yehoshua Dovid Hartman, in his commentary on the Maharal in Gur Aryeh on this verse, cites the Maharal’s explanation of prayer in Beer Hagolah 4. There the Maharal explains that the Hebrew word for prayer, tefilla, comes from the root pallal, which means “thought”. Prayer at its core is a will; a desire, that takes form as thought, that Hashem should fulfill the needs that he is praying for. Without that crucial thought, the words of prayer are devoid of meaning and cannot properly be called prayer at all.

In that light we can understand, Rabbi Hartman, explains, the appropriateness of the bow and arrow metaphor to prayer. A bow provides the force that propels the arrow. It is the arrow that strikes the target but it is the force of the bow that creates the effect of the strike. With respect to prayer, the thought, the will, like the bow, provides the “force” that propels; in this case, it is the spoken words of prayer that are being propelled. The analog to the “arrow” that carries the force are the words of the prayer, that articulate and “carry” the thought/will that constitute the core of the prayer itself.

Why is the force – the thought – itself not sufficient? Why is a “carrier” needed in the form of the spoken words of prayer? In the terminology of the Maharal here, the answer is that since speech is man’s signature characteristic, and since man’s sole entitlement to having his prayers responded to by Hashem is his status as man, he needs to stamp his prayers with man’s exclusive imprimatur – that is, he needs to “package” them in speech – in order to establish that he has a “right” to having his prayers answered. The thought, like the bow, indeed supplies the force. But without the “arrow” of the spoken word, the thought alone would be as impotent as a bow without an arrow.

Not Too Loud!

Although one must verbalize prayer, it is important that prayer not be too loud (as the Gemara with which we began derives from the prayer of Chana).

Ideally, writes the Mishnah Brurah in Orach Chaim 101:2, one should pray so quietly that even the person standing next to him should not hear him. This is to avoid disturbing the prayers of others.

But there is another, deeper reason for keeping the volume down when praying. The Maharal in Nesiv HaAvodah 2:3 quotes the Gemara in Brachos 24b.: “The braiso taught, ‘One who prays so that it can be hear is among those of little faith. One who raises his voice in prayer is counted among the false prophets.” The Gemara explains that the prophets of the idol Baal screamed to him for a response so one who prays loudly is compared to them.

The Maharal writes that such prayer indicates “little faith” because prayer is an expression of faith that Hashem will fulfill the supplicant’s requests, and this faith is indicative of an attachment to an exalted and hidden plane. This faith goes back to the very origins of the world when Hashem willed the world into existence from nothing. He therefore controls every last detail of the world’s operation and it is in His sole power to fulfill prayer requests. One who prays with the knowledge that Hashem and only Hashem can help him thus attaches himself to this lofty and primordial plane of existence. Loud prayer flies in the face of this kind of prayer.

(We should add that the Mishnah Brurah 95:2 writes that, aside from prayer decibel level, it is inappropriate to make unusual movements or sounds of any kind when praying publicly.)

 

When a Shorter Prayer is Better (Pachad Yitzchok)

In Nesiv HaAvodah 6:7 the Maharal speaks of the benefits of a long prayer, as long as the pronunciation of the words is not artificially elongated and the person praying is not fixated on his expectation of a positive response. However, there are occasions when a shorter, albeit complete prayer, is better.

With the Egyptians gaining on them from behind and the Red Sea blocking their way in front, and with no salvation in sight, Moshe cried out to Hashem in prayer, as the Torah relates in Shmos 14:16. Rashi explains that Moshe intended to pray at length but Hashem told him that when Yisroel is in distress, it is not the time for extended prayer. Hashem said, “Why do you cry out to me? Speak to Yisroel and have them travel”.

The Maharal in Gur Aryeh on that verse writes that the reason a long prayer was not appropriate at that juncture was that no prayer response could be forthcoming until the prayer ended. The salvation would have to be deferred until the prayer was completed. To avoid prolonging Yisroel’s distress, then, Hashem told Moshe to pray briefly, so as to accelerate the salvation.

Why, though, was it necessary to defer the salvation until the completion of the prayer? Why could Hashem not have alleviated the distress of Yisroel even while Moshe continued his prayer? To answer this question we turn to Rav Yitzchok Hutner’s Pachad Yitzchok, Pesach Maamar 14. He cites the Medrash (Shmos Rabbah 21:5) which asks, why did Hashem wait until Yisroel was literally cornered before delivering His salvation? The answer, says the Medrash, is that Hashem yearned for their prayers and thus brought about a situation that compelled prayer. In other words, Rav Hutner explains, although ordinarily a predicament is cause for prayer, there are times when Hashem’s desire for prayer is cause for a predicament.

On those occasions – and the crisis at the Red Sea was one of those occasions – it is impossible for the salvation to be delivered mid-prayer. That would defeat the purpose of the predicament, which was to engender the very prayer that would be cut short by a premature salvation. In such cases the prayer is not a means to an end, but is the end itself, and preserving its integrity is paramount.

That is why Hashem told Moshe to complete his prayer before delivering the salvation. When the prayer was complete, the objective of the predicament – to engender the prayer – was accomplished, and the salvation could be delivered without further delay.

But there is more, Rav Hutner continues. Ordinarily, after being rescued from disaster, the prevailing attitude is deep gratitude for the salvation. The salvation is the focus. After the miraculous events at the Red Sea, however, Yisroel’s focus was not so much on the salvation itself, as it was on the knowledge that their prayers had found a ready ear, as it were, in Hashem. They gloried in this demonstration that Hashem is attuned to their prayers. The rescue itself? That was but a means, whose end was this great realization.

Just as, for Hashem, the predicament was a means to extract Yisroel’s prayers, so for Yisroel, was the rescue a means to an appreciation that Hashem is listening to those prayers. As King Dovid expressed it, “I love when Hashem hears my voice in my supplications. For He extended His ear to me…” (Tehillim 116:1-2).

When Even a Deficient Prayer is Effective (Pachad Yitzchok)

Regarding our three daily prayer services, the Gemara in Brachos 26b says:

“Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chaninah said, ‘Our [three] forefathers established the [three] prayer services… There is a braiso supporting Rabbi Chaninah’s position: ‘Avrohom instituted the Shachris morning service, as is written,  “And Avrohom arose early in the morning to the place where he stood  before Hashem” and ‘standing’ can only mean prayer, as is written,  ‘And Pinchas stood and prayed, and the plague was stopped’.

‘Yitzchok instituted the Mincha afternoon service as is written,  “And Yitzchok went out to meditate  in the field towards evening”, and meditate can only mean prayer, as is written, “A prayer for a poor man when he enwraps himself and pours out his meditation before Hashem”.’

‘Yaakov instituted the Maariv evening service as is written,  “And he encountered the place and lodged there because the sun had set”, and encounter can only mean prayer, as is written, “[And you, pray not on behalf of this people,] lift up neither cry nor prayer, and do not encounter me”.

Let us shift our focus to the events of kriyas yam suf. With the Egyptians gaining on them from behind and the Red Sea blocking their way in front, and with no salvation in sight, Yisroel cried out to Hashem in prayer, as the Torah relates in Shmos 14:10. Rashi explains that in so doing, Yisroel clung to the prayer practices of their forefathers. He cites the verses brought in the Gemara in Brachos 26b regarding the prayer services established by each of the forefathers.

The Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains that there was nothing particularly special or meritorious about their prayer; indeed, at the same time they prayed, they complained, and expressed regret on having left Egypt. Rather, they were simply following their forefathers’ prayer tradition. It was a half-hearted, rote effort.

Rav Yitzchok Hutner, in Pachad Yitzchok, Purim Maamar 19:3, explains that it might be thought that Rashi and the Maharal are implying that the deficiency in Yisroel’s prayer at the Red Sea resulted in its inefficacy, but in reality they are describing a singular feature of this prayer; a feature that made this prayer accomplish its intended result notwithstanding its deficiency. Indeed, the result of the prayer was that “Hashem will fight for you, but you will remain silent” (Shmos 14:14).

This prayer did not operate as traditional prayers do, through intense focus, concentration and merit. Rather this prayer was effective because it served as a credential – it identified Yisroel as descendants of the forefathers. We can best understand this concept through a metaphor. A person petitions the King for something and while he is making his case the King cuts him off, telling him, “I do not need to hear your appeal. I am going to grant your request not because of your argument but because I recognize, in the manner of your speaking, your pedigree”. Similarly, when Hashem told Yisroel, “… you will remain silent”, the intent was not to dismiss their prayer, but rather to inform them that through their prayer, He recognized their ancestry, and the merit of that ancestry made prayer in the traditional sense unnecessary, and mooted the inherent deficiency of the prayer.

Yisroel’s prayer at the Red Sea operated on a different basis than traditional prayer. It identified Yisroel as children of the forefathers, and that in itself was an entitlement to salvation. This prayer was a path to deliverance that bypassed the need for traditional prayer.

Conclusion

It is important to articulate our prayers carefully, and, when we add personal entreaties to our prayers, to choose our words carefully. Prayers connect us back to our forefathers and they connect us to Hashem, who awaits them.

Prayers are potent weapons; they have the potential to move worlds, and we must take care that we are moving worlds in the right direction.

The Power of Ashrei – From the Torah of the Maharal and Other Commentators

The Power of Ashrei – From the Torah of the Maharal and Other Commentators

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”.

Introduction

We recite the Ashrei prayer three times every day – twice during Shachris and once during Mincha – and unfortunately, for many, familiarity breeds contempt. The prayer, which has immense potency, is often taken for granted, and its full benefit not realized. This is a great pity. We will try to understand, based on the words of Chazal, why Ashrei is so powerful, and what we need to do in order to benefit from its great power.

It All Starts From a Gemara.

The Gemara (Brachos 4b) teaches us that “Whoever recites the Tehillah L’Dovid psalm three times every day is guaranteed a place in the world-to-come.” This, of course, is a reference to the Ashrei prayer, Tehillim 145, which actually begins with the words Tehillah L’Dovid. (The first two verses of the prayer are not part of that chapter of Tehillim. Various explanations are provided to account for their addition. On explanation is that those two verses, like Tehillim 145 itself, begin with the word “Ashrei”, making in total three instances of the word “Ashrei” in the prayer – an allusion to the “three times a day” that, the Gemara teaches, is a guarantee for a place in the world to come.)

The Gemara explains that Ashrei has this power because it contains the verse, poseiach es yodecha… “You open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing”, and because its verses form an alphabetical acrostic using the entire Hebrew alphabet.

The notion that one can acquire as weighty a thing as the world-to-come with so seemingly mundane a measure as reciting a particular psalm three times a day is the subject of much discussion among the commentators.

How it Works- the Maharal

The Maharal in Nesiv HaAvodah 6:11 explains that the two features of Ashrei mentioned by the Gemara directly relate to the reward. Moreover, they are not two disparate and unrelated features. Rather, they work in tandem to create the relationship between Ashrei and the world-to-come.

Let us begin with the “You open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing”, feature. Parnoso, sustenance is synonymous with life itself, since sustenance fuels the life of all living beings. Sustenance and life amount to one and the same thing. Therefore we praise Hashem with the verse, “You open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing”, and in so doing we establish a point of commonality with the world-to-come, the inhabitants of which live the ultimate form of life – an eternal life. Despite the more limited version of life we  experience in this world, life is the common denominator between this world and the world-to-come.

Following the order of the alphabet – the second feature of Ashrei mentioned by the Gemara – assures that all twenty-two letters that comprise the Torah are utilized and this propels the Ashrei praise to the exalted level occupied by the Torah.

How do these two feature work in tandem to create the bond to the world-to-come? Certainly, the “You open your hand…” verse is not in itself sufficient to create a bond to the world-to-come because, while life in this world – which that verse is describing – is physical, life in the world-to-come is not. The alphabet-ordering feature of Ashrei is also not sufficient to earn a person a place in the world-to-come because, even though that feature demonstrates that the praises of Ashrei achieve the exalted world-to-come level of the Torah, it does not of itself attach the individual to life, which is a necessary condition in order to merit the world-to-come.

That is why both features are needed. It is the combination of Ashrei’s alphabet sequence, along with the “You open your hand…” verse that brings about the attachment to the world-to-come. The verse creates the association with life. The alphabet sequence, with its twenty-two letters, extends that life to the world-to-come. The end result is that through the life feature communicated by the verse and the praise arranged in the order of the twenty-two letters of the aleph-bais a person becomes worthy of the world-to-come.

How it Works – Rabbeinu Bechaya and the Pnei Yehoshua

Rabbeinu Bechaya says that ruminating on the deep meaning of these verses strengthens one’s faith in and service to Hashem and that brings a person to merit the world to come (See Rabbeinu Bechaya on Vayikrah 7:37). Similarly the Ben Yehoyada writes that this prevents a person from transgressing, and therefore reduces the chances of his losing his portion in the world-to-come because of his sins.

The Pnei Yehoshua on the Gemara in Brachos elaborates further on this approach to understanding the Gemara. He writes that the purpose of Ashrei is to reinforce, through the triple repetition, the belief in the centrality of the Torah; the idea that the world was created to provide a context for those who study the Torah – which was built out of the twenty-two letters of the aleph-bais that form the foundation of Ashrei. The, “You open your hand…”, verse reminds us that all living creatures are provided their sustenance by Hashem without any labor on their part. It does not make sense that man, the centerpiece of the universe, should be in a worse position. In fact, he is not. If man places his reliance on Hashem and makes Torah study his primary occupation, relegating his mundane work to secondary status, Hashem will provide for him adequately with a minimum investment in mundane work on his part, as He does for all other living creatures. A person who takes this, the lesson of Ashrei, to heart will indeed merit the world-to-come by dint of his focus on the primacy of Torah study.

The Maharal does not explicitly mention a requirement to ruminate on the deep meaning of the words of Ashrei in order to merit the world-to-come but presumably he would not disagree with that requirement. Ashrei has powerful potential as the Maharal explains, with the potent ingredient of life, from the verse, and the extension of life into the world-to-come, via the twenty-two letters, but it is not plausible that one can realize that potential while being oblivious to it when reciting the prayer.

How it Works – The Meshech Chochma

The Meshech Chochma discusses this subject at the beginning of Parshas Bechukosai. He writes that Hashem manages the world using one of two approaches – that of natural law and that of miracles that deviate from the laws of nature. Hashem’s preferred and “standard” approach is that of nature. Nature, however, is a misnomer; it is really nothing more than a continual series of mini-miracles that follow predefined rules. Because we are accustomed to those rules they appear to be self-running. In reality, however Hashem orchestrates world events down to the minutest detail within the “constraints” of those rules. Reward and punishment are meted out in exact conformance to what is deserved.

There is no limit, even within the bounds of natural law, to the reward possible for someone who follows the path of Hashem. The unfortunate converse is also true. The laws of nature that Hashem utilizes to deliver reward and punishment were tuned from the outset to accord with the strictures of the Torah and the consequences set forth in the Torah for those who follow – or do not follow – those strictures.

Miracles that deviate from the laws of nature are wake-up calls, to prevent us from complacently falling into the trap of assuming that nature runs on auto-pilot without divine intervention. Open miracles are not intrinsically necessary; their purpose is to bring into focus the inherently miraculous nature of what we perceive as natural law. Miracles remind us that natural law is under Hashem’s direct control; it is His “tool” for managing His world.

Tehillim 136, known as Hallel HaGadol, is primarily a series of praises to Hashem for His open miracles. The Gemara in Shabbos 118b says that one who recites this psalm daily is considered a blasphemer. A blasphemer for reciting praises to Hashem? How can this be? The Meshech Chochma explains that this is because he gives the impression that praise is due Hashem for open miracles, but, as for natural law, that runs on its own, without divine intervention, so no praise to Hashem is called for (G-d forbid). On the other hand, someone who recites Ashrei every day, as the Gemara in Brachos states, is guaranteed a place in the world-to-come because that psalm praises Hashem for His conduct of the universe using natural law. Ashrei acknowledges Hashem’s central role in the ongoing implementation of natural law.

The Meshech Chochma delves further into the significance of Ashrei, in line with the Gemara in Brachos.

Let us consider: which is more amazing, feeding a nation with the miraculous Mon during their forty-year desert sojourn, or feeding millions upon millions of living creatures, day after day, since the world was created, within the framework of natural law? Certainly, a thoughtful person would have to conclude that the latter behavior was more amazing; more reflective of Hashem’s infinite wisdom and His omnipotence. That conclusion is signaled by the full-alphabet acrostic of Ashrei. Systematically traversing the alphabet bespeaks the significance of system; of rules and order. It is in that context that the verse, “You open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing”, appears. That verse, in that context, is a statement that Hashem possesses the incredible power to sustain all living beings using only natural law. Without the need to call upon open miracles!

Reciting the psalm with the combination of that verse, and the alphabet acrostic, is the most potent praise of Hashem because it recognizes the full extent of Hashem’s direction of the universe. That is why it provides a guaranteed path to the world-to-come.

How it Works – Rav Shimon Schwab

Rav Shimon Schwab, in Iyun Tefilla, writes that the provision of man’s sustenance operates simultaneously on two tracks. On the one hand, the degree to which we are entitled to sustenance is divinely decided and the considerations that go into that decision are to a large extent beyond our comprehension. Those people who are considered worthy are referred to in the verse as, chai, deemed deserving of being sustained at least to some degree (u’masbia l’chol chai…). To the extent that they are considered worthy, they are gifted by Hashem with ratzon (u’masbia l’chol chai ratzon),  or “good will”, which translates to their finding favor in the eyes of those with whom they would be transacting business and therefore succeeding in their business endeavors.

On the other hand, a person must exert at least some degree of effort in order to earn his sustenance. This is the hishtadlus track, the Torah’s “system” for business success, which includes not only effort and intelligent business sense, but also a commitment to adhere to the Torah’s values of integrity and virtue in the conduct of one’s financial affairs. Cause and effect are much more visible on this track. Adherence to the Torah’s system leads to business success. Non-adherence leads to business failure. This track is exemplified by the systematic and predictable aleph-bais sequence of Ashrei.

The Deeper Meaning of “Ratzon”

As mentioned Rav Schwab renders ratzon as “good will”. We conclude with a brief discussion of the meaning of the word “ratzon”, which is usually translated as “desire”, as in “…and satisfy the desire of every living thing”. This translation (which we have used here as well) is puzzling. Are every being’s desires really always satisfied? The Maharal cited earlier alludes to a deeper understanding of the word.

Ratzon in a more profound sense means to find favor in the eyes of Hashem. Thus the verse is not saying that Hashem fulfills our desires, but rather that we are desirous in His eyes. The word ratzon means “desire” or “will” but it also means to find favor, since, when something finds favor in Hashem’s eyes, as it were, it is because it accords with His will.

The usage of ratzon to designate finding favor in the eyes of Hashem is found in a Kabbalistic context as well. The pinnacle sefira, or “emanation” is called keser, but is also known as “ratzon” as explained in Pardes Rimonim 11:6: “The sefira of keser, which is called ratzon…”, and in 23:20: “ratzon: this is the flow that descends from the exalted keser and which causes all the sefiros to be desirous and to find favor. This is why it is called ratzon… the sefiros find favor in the ratzon elyon (in the desire of Hashem) when they absorb [this quality from the sefira of keser]”.

In Derech Chaim 3:14 the Maharal writes that we, as “children” of Hashem, as it were, have the ability to “build” a crown for Hashem, the King of kings, with our prayers. He cites a Gemara in Chagigah 13b: “[The angel] Sandalfon stands behind the Chariot and assembles a crown for his Master out of the prayers of Yisroel”. Now, in Kabbalah, keser, or crown, is the highest and holiest of Hashem’s sefiros, or “emanations” and the Shaarei Orah (Shaar 2) writes that this is the pinnacle level that our prayers can achieve (and this is why the Kedushah of Mussaf in Nusach Sefard begins, “A crown will they give You… the angels… together with your people Yisroel”).

Now, as mentioned this pinnacle sefira of keser is also known as “ratzon” . This, then, is the potency of our prayers – they are forces for “building” keser, the highest of the sefiros, and thereby, for all the sefira emanations to find ratzon, favor, in Hashem’s eyes.

Our prayers have the power to effect the heavenly spheres in ways that we cannot even begin to comprehend, and those effects rebound on our world as well. Ashrei is particularly potent in that it has the potential to propel us to the world-to-come – if we appreciate its depth of meaning, and concentrate properly on what we are saying when we recite it. May we all merit doing so, and achieving our coveted places in the world-to-come!

In Memory of My Mother, Bronnie Willner a'h

Some Thoughts בראנא אסתר ב' ר' דוד ע"ה לעילוי נשמת

Whose yahrzeit was yesterday, שבת,י"ב ניסן

Unity

The בריח התיכון was an interior cross-beam of cedar wood that went through the קרשים, which formed the outer perimeter of the משכן. חז"ל teach us that Yaakov אבינו commanded the שבטים to plant cedar trees in Egypt for the קרשים, but he himself took charge of the בריח, personally bringing the wood for it from ארץ ישראל.

The Maharal explains that the קרשים represent the twelve שבטים of כלל ישראל; there were 48 קרשים, 4 for each שבט. The total length of the קרשים was 70 אמות, the total number of כלל ישראל that went down to מצרים.

Yaakov was the first of the אבות privileged to have all his descendants become a part of כלל ישראל. He is thus the force that brings unity to כלל ישראל. The מדה of Yaakov is אחדות. The בריח, which held the קרשים together, symbolizes the unity of כלל ישראל. It is thus apropos that Yaakov, himself, supply the בריח.

We know that מעשה אבות סימן לבנים and it is a fact that throughout the generations, כלל ישראל, and the individual families within כלל ישראל, maintained an unusual degree of unity and cohesiveness, despite all the travails that we were subjected to – צרות that usually lead to disunity and fractionalization. 

שמחות. She sponsored annual get-togethers at her summer home to make sure that the cousins got to know each other. She arbitrated any disagreements that arose and insisted that they be settled equitably.

May we learn from her example, and may she be a מליצה ישרה  for her descendants, and for the entire extended family.

The Art of Persuasion

When the time came for Aharon to take over the עבודה in the Mishkan, Hashem told Moshe, קח את אהרון, take Aharon. Rashi explains that this means קחנו בדברים, take him with words – in other words, convince him to accept the role.

The Maharal explains that it is impossible to “take” a person by force; a person is defined by his דעת, his mind, and no matter what happens to a person physically, his דעת, his opinion, is impervious to force. That is why, when acquiring an object by משיכה, moving it, one can use a verbal summons to induce an animal to move, thereby acquiring it – that counts as משיכה – but one cannot acquire an עבד כנעני that way. When you summon a person, even if he obliges you by moving toward you, it is because his דעת intervened and it is what he wants to do. Your summons is not the direct inducement for his motion. Whereas an animal does not exercise independent judgment to decide whether or not to listen to you. Your summons directly caused the animal to move and that is sufficient for a משיכה acquisition.

the role of כהן גדול but it was Aharon’s דעת that caused him to accept it. This is a good rule of thumb when attempting to convince someone to do something – the most effective approach is to convince them that it is what they, themselves, want to do.

Bubby Willner excelled in this מדה. She had well thought out beliefs about what was right and wrong; appropriate and inappropriate. But she did not attempt to foist them on others. Rather, she discussed and reasoned, and accepted the other person’s decision with grace, even if their דעת did not coincide with her דעת. She acknowledged the autonomy of her family members and the people around her and was content to make her point and let them decide what they would do.

May we all learn from Bubby’s example in our dealings with our own family members and others, and may she be a מליצה ישרה  for her descendants, and for the entire extended family.

Darkness and the Plague of Darkness – From the Torah of the Maharal and Other Commentators

Darkness and the Plague of Darkness – From the Torah of the Maharal and Other Commentators

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”.

Introduction

What is “darkness”? The high school science answer is that, of course, darkness is the absence of light. Really, though, it’s not quite that simple, either from hashkafa or the science standpoints. We will examine “darkness”, present two opposing points of view on its nature from our Gedolim, attempt to gain a better understanding of makas choshech, the plague of darkness, and demonstrate how both points of view can be reconciled with science..

The Bracha of “Yotzer Ohr U’Borei Choshech”

The first of the two blessings that precede the Shachris Shma is Yotzer Ohr U’Borei Choshech, Hashem, “forms light and creates darkness”. In Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah 7, the Maharal asks why it is that we mention an attribute appropriate to night – that Hashem “creates darkness” – during the daytime. Would it not be more fitting to mention daytime attributes before recitation of the daytime Shma, and nighttime attributes before recitation of the night Shma?

In answer to this question the Maharal writes as follows:

…There is another reason, and that is to make the point that Hashem, Who created them, is one. If we were not to mention an attribute of night during the daytime, and an attribute of daytime during the night, but would instead limit ourselves to treating daytime and night as separate entities, the fact that they are different, and in fact opposites, we would give the impression that we were, G-d forbid, tacitly endorsing the position of some non-believers, who claim that there are two deities.  They maintain that the diversity of created things in the universe attests to the existence of multiple creators.  

Therefore, if, when we are about to declare Hashem’s oneness by reciting day-time Shma, we only mentioned a daytime attribute and omitted a nighttime at-tribute, as if daytime and night were independent of one another, we would be implying that, G-d forbid, there were multiple creators.  Therefore we must mention an attribute of daytime during the night an attribute of night during the daytime, to affirm that the daytime partners with the night to form a single day unit. They are therefore not the result of separate acts of creation and their Creator is one.

Not only does mentioning, in the Shma blessings, the opposing part of the day,  not contradict the concept of a single Creator, but on the contrary, when two different things are shown to be part of the same entity, it demonstrates that there is only one Creator. The one Creator is the common thread that binds and unifies disparate things… This is clear.

From the “standpoint” of Hashem, as it were, the Maharal is saying, there really is no “diversity”. There are merely different aspects of creation – a creation that is unified in that all of creation emanates from a single Creator, and the diversity is apparent only from our very limited perspectives.

A Cataclysmic Mistake

Why, though, would anyone make the mistake of thinking that because there is diversity – because the world has the apparent opposites of light and darkness, for example – there are multiple creators? This erroneous doctrine, called polytheism, originated with Enosh, son of Shes, grandson of Odom HaRishon. Rashi on Beraishis 4:26 explains that in the days of Enosh mankind began the process of deifying objects. The Rambam, in Mishna Torah, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1, writes that Enosh and his cohorts rationalized that since Hashem created the heavenly bodies as intermediaries to conduct the affairs of the world, He would presumably want us to praise and honor them. They would therefore praise the rain intermediary in the hope of getting adequate rain, the sun intermediary in the hope of getting enough sunlight, and so on. One thing led to another and false prophets commanded that these bodies actually be worshiped. Ultimately, Hashem Himself was forgotten and these objects became mankind’s sole objects of worship. This degeneration continued until Avrohom came to recognize Hashem and sought to restore belief in Hashem’s oneness to mankind.

Yisroel, the nation that emanated from Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov, remains the standard-bearer for belief in a single G-d – monotheism – but polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Shinto and others, persist to this day. Thus, the Maharal teaches, it is critical for us to understand the full implications of the Shma declaration as an affirmation of Hashem’s unity. Yes, we have the apparent opposite creations of light and darkness, but we make a point of mentioning, in the first daytime Shma brocha, darkness during the light part of the day and, at night, light during the dark part of the day, to attest that they are really one, and the output of a single Creator.

What is Darkness?

Let us now examine an assumption inherent in the Maharal’s answer discussed above, and that is that darkness is a “creation” in its own right. As the language of the blessing itself testifies, Hashem “creates darkness”. Indeed, as we will discuss shortly, that language originates in a pasuk. If, however, darkness is the absence of something, it cannot be created at all!

This raises the question, what is darkness? Is darkness a “thing”, like light, which has an independent existence? Or is it merely the absence of light? If the latter, then darkness cannot be created and the Maharal’s demonstration would not be valid. So the Maharal apparently takes the position that darkness has a reality of its own and exists in parallel to light. It is not merely the absence of light.

The Plague of Darkness

The Vilna Gaon, in Kol Eliyahu at the beginning of parshas Bo, in the context of makas choshech, the plague of darkness, also says that darkness has its own reality is not merely the absence of light. He explains that normally light is a stronger force than darkness so when a light source is brought into a dark place the darkness retreats in the face of the light. During the plague of darkness that afflicted Egypt prior to the exodus, nature underwent a change and darkness became a stronger force, instead causing light to retreat.

The annotator on the Kol Eliyahu references the commentary of the Ksav v’Hakaballah on parshas Beraishis, who quotes the Vilna Gaon and adds that this understanding of darkness is inherent in the verse, “Who forms light and creates darkness” (Yeshayahu 45:7). If darkness can be created then it has its own reality, as we stated earlier. (The wording of this part of the verse constitutes the opening of the first Shachris Shma blessing and accomplishes the objective described by the Maharal of mentioning the attributes of night by day, as we explained.)

In support of the position of the Vilna Gaon the annotator also mentions a Gemara in Pesachim which cites the verse, “And Hashem called the light day, and the darkness He called night” (Beraishis 1:5) and explains that “call” in this context does not mean to give a name, as is commonly understood, but rather, it means “to summon”. If darkness can be summoned then it is a thing in itself, not the absence of something else.

However the annotator also mentions the view of the Bach on Tur Orach Chaim 6, who apparently takes issue with the view of the Maharal and the Vilna Gaon, and holds that darkness is in fact merely the absence of light.

The View of Science

The holy words of the Maharal, the Vilna Gaon, the Bach and the other Gedolim we have cited have deep meaning in the world of ruchnius – the world of the eternal truths of the Torah. It is not necessary to reconcile them with science, which is a continually changing “work in progress”. Nonetheless, it is interesting and instructive to examine the two views regarding the nature of darkness in the context of current scientific theory.

It would seem that science would side with the view of the Bach that darkness is the absence of light. Light is energy; when that energy is present it reflects off the objects that surround us and we see them, since our eyes are sensitive to energy of that frequency. When light is absent there is no energy to reflect off our surroundings and stimulate the sensors in our retina that respond to light. We perceive what we call “darkness”.

Interestingly, though, modern science can be reconciled with the view of the Maharal and the Vilna Gaon and perhaps even to favor it.

All matter emits energy in the form of photons; this energy surrounds us at all times, but our eyes are only sensitive to energy in a relatively small segment of the frequency spectrum. We call that energy “light”. When it is reflected off objects in our vicinity we can see those objects. Energy outside the segment that our eyes are sensitive to is also reflected off objects in our vicinity but they are not visible to us because the sensors in our eyes are not sensitive to non-light energy frequencies. That is “darkness”. Both light and darkness, then, are similar in that they are both forms of energy – that is, they both exist as independent entities. The difference between them is a function of our “receptors” – our eyes. If the energy outside the range of our reception is made to overwhelm and effectively blot out the energy within the range of our reception we remain in total darkness. Possibly that is what the Vilna Gaon meant when he wrote that during the plague of darkness nature underwent a change and darkness became a stronger force, causing light to retreat in its face.

Conclusion

The Shem MiShmuel (Parshas Bo, 5672) cites an opinion in a Medrash that holds that the darkness of the Egyptian plague of darkness originated in the “darkness of above”. He explains, based on an Arizal, that “darkness of above” is an energy so intense that the human eye is incapable of absorbing it. When it supersedes visible light energy the result is zero vision since, as we said, vision is our eyes reacting to visible light energy being reflected off surrounding objects. It seems clear that the Shem MiShmuel (and the Arizal) also hold that darkness has a positive existence and is not merely the absence of light. Their view appears similar to that of the Maharal and the Vilna Gaon.

In any event, it is clear from the description of the Shem MiShmuel of makas choshech as “darkness from above” that the discussion about the nature of darkness centers around deep ruchnius’dike concepts, not the laws of physics. May we be zoche to understand them on that level, and to merit absorbing the light of Torah and to “seeing” the ohr haganuz l’tzadikim l’osid lavoh, quickly, in our day!