They Don't Get the Picture - an Essay on the Issue of Pictures of Women in Religious Publications

They Don’t Get the Picture

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 has published numerous articles in a variety of Jewish publications.

A Time to Respond

As readers of this publication know, it has become common for many Chareidi publications to refrain from publishing pictures of women. Predictably, as is the case with other issues in our community that seem to impinge on “liberal” values that the secular world hold sacred – such as “feminist rights” – this issue has been escalated to the secular Jewish media and, again predictably, the chorus of condemnation has begun.

Often it is best to simply ignore comments from people who do not understand what makes the frum community tick, and whose sole interest is to criticize, not to understand. But sometimes the criticism seems to come from within, from people who purport to belong to the frum community, and other members of our community are swept along with the tide, and misguided efforts to “protest” and “repeal” the new “repressive” policy are launched. This is what is happening now with the issue of pictures of women in frum publications.

In such situations it is important to counter the criticism, provide a basis for our position and prevent well-meaning but ill-informed members of our community from being led astray by individuals who may be motivated by values antithetical to genuine Torah values.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

The impetus for this article is a piece that recently appeared in a popular secular Jewish publication titled, “Who needs rabbinic leadership? A call for Orthodox organizations to heed the voices of the women they cannot see”. The publication has given it a great deal of publicity and it has generated much comment. Negative articles about Orthodox Jews likely provide this publication a great deal of revenue so they play them up as much as they can.

The irony of the title is that it is strongly evocative of a Gemara in Sanhedrin 99b, which pastes a very unattractive label on someone who asks the question, “Who needs Rabbinic Leadership” but the irony is probably lost on the author of the article. I do not know the author of the article personally and it is not my place to paste labels on her. But despite her claim to be religious, and despite the tichel she sports in the biographic photo that accompanies her articles, her collection of pieces for this publication are a litany of complaints and fault-finding with the Rabbinic leadership of the frum community, which she portrays as self-centered, venal, cowardly, short-sighted and cruel. Indeed, “Who needs Rabbinic Leadership” is a recurrent theme in almost everything she writes. Does the Gemara’s label fit her? Judge for yourself.

The author cynically complained that no frum publication would accept her article so she was “forced” to place it in where she did, notwithstanding the chillul Hashem that was generated. The implication was that there was a conspiracy of silence in the frum publications about this issue. Nonsense! Given the author’s track record and agenda, is it any wonder that no frum publication wants to go near her with a 10-foot pole?

I ask the frum women who have joined this person’s crusade for “photo equality”: is this really someone you want to be following? Don’t you realize that although this issue may seem important to you, your “leader” has a larger agenda, one that is antithetical to Jewish values, and by joining this battle with her, you are joining her war?

The Big Lie

The article, and another article by the author on the same subject, in the same publication, contend that the motivation behind the policy to refrain from publishing photos of women is greed. The publications, she says, are afraid that consumers in Lakewood and Brooklyn will stop buying them if they publish pictures of women, the advertisers will stop advertising in them and oy vey, they will go out of business. So the publications kowtow to the ignorant demands of unnamed people with misplaced frumkeit. The Rabbis lack the guts to protest, she maintains, and by their silence they are allowing the community to spiral back into the dark ages.

There is so much sheker in that argument that it is difficult to know which lie to debunk first. Let’s start with the idea that the hamon demands higher standards of tznius to the point of rising up and boycotting publications that do not provide those levels. Halevai that were the case! In fact, unfortunately, our Rabbonim constantly have to fight the incursion of non-frum values into our community that negatively affect our observance of tznius! 

Besides, let’s take a step back and examine what would have had to happen here if this charge were true. Some brilliant publisher would have had to say to himself, “Hmm, how can I get a larger market share? I know! I’ll eliminate pictures of women!” How bizarre! Why would any publisher think that this would attract readers? There is no precedent for anything like this. And if it was done for market share, don’t you think the publisher would have publicized it? “Buy Mishpacha, the one and only magazine with no pictures of women!” There was no such publicity.

And did anyone stop to think that most of the readers of  these magazines are women, and the women would probably not be impressed by elimination of pictures of women the publications they read?

The idea that grassroots pressure created this policy, and/or the publishers jumped on it to get a leg up on the competition is too ludicrous to be believed.

The corollary lie is that the Rabbonim are silent on this matter. Not only are they not silent, they have actively advocated for this change! I have not polled all the publications that no longer include pictures of women but I am aware of at least two of them that have implemented this policy on the advice of their Rabbis – and these are Rabbis that are universally revered not only in the Charedi community but in the larger Orthodox community as well. I am sure that this is the case with most if not all of the other publications who have followed suit.

Far from being gutless, these Rabbis understood full well that there would be elements that would loudly and obnoxiously oppose the change, yet they persisted with it l’shaim shomayim and l’toeles of the communities they serve.

The Rabbis Have No Right!

Among the correspondents who weighed in on the article are several who trotted out the old canard, “show me in the Shulchan Aruch”, meaning that if a practice does not appear explicitly in the Shulchan Aruch it isn’t binding on them. What breathtaking amharatzus! I refer them to the first Mishna in Avos, “asu syog laTorah”, make a fence to protect the mitzvos of the Torah. The Gemara in Yevamos 21a derives this obligation from the posuk, (Vayikra 18:30), “ushmartem es mishmarti”, “You should guard my mitzvos”. Chazal teach us (Avos d’Rav Nosson 2:1) that the Torah itself provides a precedent for syogim for gilui arayos.

Torah leaders in all communities are enjoined to exercise this obligation to enact takanos, based on their knowledge of the people in their charge, and the challenges that they face, to protect them from aveiros. This is nothing new. Chazal have done this from time immemorial. To question Chazal’s right – Chazal’s obligation – to enact takanos is to question a fundamental principle of Judaism, emunas chachamim, without which we would have perished as a people eons ago.

The article author clearly has no problem denying emunas chachamim. Do her supporters realize that they are implicitly doing the same when they follow her lead?

True, a new policy change may take some getting used to. But let’s put things in perspective. Our grandmothers in pre-wars Europe were far more practiced in tznius than we are. Sarah imeinu stayed indoors when her husband Avrohom, was entertaining guests and the Torah is at pains to tell us this to emphasize her praiseworthy quality of modesty. We would consider such a practice quaint, or worse. We would claim that there is no precedent! Imagine the brouhaha if there was a policy change to adopt that practice universally!

We are very far from the level of Sarah and almost as far from the level of our grandmothers. The wars destroyed much of the basic fabric of our tznius, which is one of the signature traits of being a Jew. Our Torah leaders have spent the past century painstakingly nudging us back to where we were. Their job has not been made any easier by the decaying morals of the societies that surround us.

This policy change is another step in that process. You don’t understand why this particular policy change is necessary at this particular time? Keep two things in mind: 1) If you want to know, ask. Our Gedolim are accessible. Sincere questions, asked with an attitude of a genuine quest to understand daas Torah are generally answered. But keep in mind the second thing: 2) You are not “owed” an answer. Emunas chachamim means that we accept and follow daas Torah even if we do not have, or do not understand reasons. Suppress your ego. Acknowledge that people who are much better qualified than you are to understand what our tzibur needs have come to a decision and your wisest course is to follow it, just as you would follow the advice of an expert doctor, whether your understood it or not.

But Why?

I do not speak for the Rabbonim who instituted this policy change. But here is my personal attempt at explaining why it is not the unreasonable and “discriminatory” dictate that some are attempting to make it out to be.

Most of the dissenters argue that Rabbis of previous generations never instituted such a policy. What changed? First of all, newspapers and magazines did not start printing photographs until the early 1900’s. Color photographs did not become widespread in these publications until the 1960’s. Frum newspapers and magazines did not hit their stride until the 1980’s. Thus the need to consider a potential problem is relatively new. Scattered photographs here and there do not justify consideration of a policy change.

Besides, look at the pictures of frum women taken in the early 1900’s. The pictures are black-and-white. The women look like they are wearing sacks. Their expressions are dour. No make-up is visible. Contrast that to the full-color pictures in magazines today, even frum magazines. Usually the women are dressed, made up and posed to be as attractive as possible. It is entirely plausible that they could evoke improper thoughts even in a normal, healthy, religious man – in today’s day and age where even the most careful man is bombarded by inappropriate images all day and every day?

We Don’t Do It!

And if you belong to a tzibur where there is no such policy change, do not smirk. It does not mean that your tzibur is “better”. It may very well mean that your Rabbinic leaders realize that you would not obey that policy change if they issued it so they feel constrained to hold back. (I make this remark is response to correspondents from a certain tzibur in Israel who deride our Torah leaders for enacting this policy change. Yet this tzibur has a shockingly high attrition rate, especially post-army, and especially in areas of prohibited relations. This tzibur would seem to need all the help it could get in the area of tznius, and if its esteemed Rabbonim are holding back, it is no credit to the tzibur!)

The Spurious Argument

One of the arguments used to insidiously inveigle well-meaning women to the “photo equality” campaign is the role model claim, which makes the campaign sound holy and l’shaim shomayim. “Our husbands and sons have role models in the Jewish magazines”, the argument goes, “and we want role models also, for ourselves and our daughters, so we can grow in ruchnius!” This argument collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.

In the first place, if you want a role model for your daughter, Mom, you want a mirror, not a magazine! YOU are supposed to be the primary role model for your daughter and she sees you up close and personal all the time. To supplement, your daughter has her moros and teachers in her Bais Yaakov, whom she also sees in living color every day.

Add to that the many role models she learns about in Bais Yaakov. The imahos. The nevios. Sarah Schneirer and other heroines whose lives are worth emulating. No, the chumash does not have photos of the imahos or the nevios. Did that stop several millennia of Jewish women from looking up to them as role models? It did not! So why should it stop you, or your daughter!

This argument is nothing more than sucker bait to entice frum women to join in what is, to put it bluntly, a feminist campaign for “equality” with all the hashkafic problems that entails. Most of the good women who are writing letters to newspapers to protest the no-pictures-of-women policy with the “role model” argument are tools in the hands of people with an anti-religious agenda. Ladies, you are being used! Time to stand up and protest – not to the newspapers but to the cynical people with an agenda, who are trying to use you as tools.

Postscript

I would like to award a lump of coal to the Rabbinical Council of America (if the reader doesn’t understand the lump of coal reference, fine, the good Rabbis who head the RCA will certainly understand it) for their prompt issuance of a response to the article. Did they condemn the author for attempting to, yet again, further her anti-frum agenda? No! Instead, they piously declared, “we don’t do that” and had the temerity to add, “…we are of the opinion that it is important for every member of the Orthodox community to have women and men of integrity, piety, learning, and public [sic] serve as role models. This includes the names, ideas, and faces of women in publications.” Thanks for telling us what to do, guys! And which Gedolim did you consult on this matter?

I would like to conclude with a quote from a gadol of the previous generation:

“The attribute of tznius causes much good in this world, and because of that it is permitted to push away many things that would have been worthwhile in and of themselves, because man’s weaknesses would cause him to cross the boundaries of tznius which uphold the existence of the spiritual and material world. The attributes of love and friendship in all its comfortable actions and conversations, should have been equal between the genders, but it is because of the great value of tznius that derech eretz is sometimes pushed aside so much so that one doesn’t even ask about the welfare of a woman. The tzanua person knows that it is not because of the derision of the opposite sex that he keeps his distance and erects barriers, but because of the greater goals of tznius.”

Who wrote that? The Satmar Rebbe? Brisker Rav? No, it was written by Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Kook z’tl, in his in Middot Haraya (translation by Chana Sosevsky, from her article on tznius in the Fall 2001 issue of Jewish Action).

May all members of klal yisroel, from all our camps, be zoche to take these words to heart.

When Hashem Accepts Our Thoughts as Prayer: Some Thoughts About Prayer Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Mabit

When Hashem Accepts Our Thoughts as Prayer: Some Thoughts About Prayer Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Mabit

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”.

A Heartfelt Appeal to Hashem

In the devotional poem (piyut), “Merubim Tzorchei Amcha” written by Rabbeinu Yosef ben Rav Yitzchok of Orleans and recited at the end of the N’eila service of Yom Kippur we say, “The needs of Your people are many, but their mental focus is diminished, they cannot express their deficits and desires, please understand our thoughts before we call out, Oh great, mighty and awesome G-d”.

A Question Based on The Maharal’s Principle Requiring Prayer Articulation

The prayer request in this piyut to have our thoughts “read” and presumably our wants satisfied before we articulate them seems to run counter to the Maharal’s principle that speech is an integral and critical element of prayer. In Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah 2, the Maharal writes as follows:

“Man’s uniqueness [among the living creatures that inhabit the world] is identified with his power of speech. He is not distinguished in any other way. 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.]

“A person is not primed to have his needs addressed by the Creator until he expresses his needs specifically as the needs of a human. Only then does he qualify to be made whole by the Creator. Therefore we must pray to Hashem, the Creator, verbally. Only then, as men asking as men, are we able to have our needs fulfilled by the Creator – since, only then, are we men who are lacking.

“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.”

Based on this Maharal it seems inappropriate for us to ask Hashem to “…please understand our thoughts before we call out”.

Hashem’s Promise to the Navi Yeshayahu

The difficulty is compounded by the fact that a prophetic verse in Yeshayahu 65:24 seems to bear out the validity of the piyut’s approach to prayer: “And it will be that before they have even called, I will respond; while they are yet speaking, I will acquiesce”. The piyut, it would appear, merely has us beseech Hashem for this prophecy to be fulfilled on our behalf. How, though, can we reconcile this with the Maharal’s principle?

The Mabit Explains the Posuk in Yeshayahu

Perhaps we can resolve the apparent conflict through the words of the Mabit (Rav Moshe ben Yosef di Trani, 1505-1585) in Bais Elokim, Shaar HaTefillah 13. The Mabit is discussing this verse in Yeshayahu. He explains that prayer consists of two components. We begin with words of conciliation and praise to Hashem. This is the “calling” that the verse initially refers to (“And it will be that before they have even called, I will respond…”). Only after “calling” to Him do we begin our entreaties – which the verse refers to as “speaking" (“While they are yet speaking, I will acquiesce”). The verse is teaching us that when we are close enough to Hashem, and worthy enough, Hashem will, as it were, respond with, “I am here!” before we even begin “calling”. When it comes to our entreaties, Hashem will acquiesce “while we are yet speaking”.

Notice the difference between Hashem’s reaction in the first and in the second part of the verse. Once we reach the “requests” portion of our prayer we need to have actually started speaking before Hashem grants our requests, even though, when we began the “calling” part of the prayer, He is present even before we began speaking. This bears out the Maharal’s principle that prayer requests must be articulated before they can be granted. Why, though, do we not have to completely articulate the prayer before it is answered? After all, as the Maharal writes that we must not only speak out our entreaties to Hashem when we pray, we must also articulate our prayer requests precisely in order for them to be effective.

A Partial Articulation is Ineffective

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”. Similarly, in Bamidbar 23:7 Bil’am attempts to curse Yisroel using their names “Yisroel” and “Yaakov”, to assure, the Maharal writes, that his words are as precise as possible, since Bil’am understood that imprecision could render his prayer ineffective.

Why, then, is the verse in Yeshayahu telling us that our prayers will be effective even before we finish saying them?

The Exception to the Articulation Rule

The answer may be that, as the Maharal points out in Nesiv HaAvodah, “A completely righteous person  is the exception to this rule. Since he is governed completely by his intellect Hashem responds to him even if he calls to Hashem mentally and without verbalizing”.

Perhaps, then, the verse in Yeshayahu is referring to a time when Yisroel are on a very high level of righteousness, albeit not on a level of complete righteousness. On that level, the requirement to articulate prayer is not waived, but it is attenuated. We must still exercise our power of speech when praying, as the Maharal explains. But we do not have to fully exercise our power of speech by completing our prayer; because of our righteousness, Hashem is ready to respond just after we begin speaking, before we have finished expressing our requests.

Reconciliation of the Piyut with the Maharal’s Principle

We return to the piyut, “Merubim Tzorchei Amcha”, in which we ask Hashem to, “understand our thoughts before we call out”. We asked, does not the Maharal say that prayer must be articulated? Yes! But we recite this piyut at the holiest point of the holiest day of the year – at the end of the Yom Kippur N’eila service, when we are purged of sin, distant from the material and comparable to the angels in holiness. At this point we are as close as is possible in this world to a state of righteousness.

The author of the piyut therefore has us ask, in effect, “Hashem, please apply the verse in Yeshayahu to us! We may not be totally righteous, but we have spent the day in prayer. We are not ‘finished’; we cannot possibly express all the myriad things we depend on You for (‘The needs of Your people are many’). Please consider us righteous enough to fulfill not only our expressed requests, but even, per your promise in Yeshayahu, those that we have left unexpressed!”

As the Navi Yeshayahu said, “Please understand our thoughts before we call out, Oh great, mighty and awesome G-d!”

May Hashem accept all our tefillos, spoken and unspoken, l’tova.

Kollel Boker of K’hal Talmidei HaYeshivos Celebrates its Inaugural Siyum

Kollel Boker of K’hal Talmidei HaYeshivos Celebrates its Inaugural Siyum

By Eliakim Willner

“Phenomenon: Something that is impressive or extraordinary”

This past Thursday I was privileged to attend an event that commemorated a phenomenon –  the seudas siyum of the morning kollel of K’hal Talmidei HaYeshivos. The siyum itself – the kollel finished meseches Brachos – was a beautiful affair, held at the Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin Rochel Montag Simcha Hall, but it would be an overstatement to call it a phenomenon. That noun, however, is perfectly suited to the learning that led up to the siyum, and to the events that led up to the learning, as we will explain.

The Kehilla

Khal Talmidei HaYeshivos was founded four years ago by a group of working bnai Torah who were seeking a kehilla that combined the best of the Yeshiva davening experience with the varmkeit of a shteibel and the hadracha of a Rav and moreh d’asra. Approximately a year and a half after opening, they joined with Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin to become an Alumni Minyan branch, and simultaneously prevailed upon Rav Binyomin Cohen, Rosh Kollel of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin to become their Rav and posek. Under Rav Cohen’s leadership the kehilla expanded rapidly, quickly outgrowing their original rented location on Elm Avenue, and moving to their current, much larger location at 1609 Avenue M – a building purchased by the Yeshiva specifically to house the new home of the kehilla. (They are already stretching the seams of their new Bais Medrash!)

The kehilla boasts numerous sedarim tailored to the schedules of baalei batim. The Rav delivers shiurim as do other choshuve Rabbonim, and the mispallelim could very well have rested on their laurels and considered themselves a success. But, with the blood of bnai Torah coursing through their veins, they realized that the essence of success in avodas Hashem is shtaiging – never resting on your laurels, always striving to improve your ruchnius in whichever way possible.

The Kollel

Thus was born the morning kollel. The idea, whose primary advocate and organizer was Rav Binyomin Cohen himself, was to create a microcosm of the Yeshiva experience for an hour each morning, followed by Shacharis. But the intended attendees were working men. They would have to show up at 6:00am, which meant waking up somewhere around 5:00am. They would have to shake off their slumber by the time they arrived so that they could plunge into their learning with clear heads. Could they do it? Would the plan work?

It worked beyond everyone’s wildest expectations. On Shabbos morning the Rav spoke enthusiastically about the Kollel he planned to implement, and he personally urged mispallelim to join in the days following. Rav Mendel Braunstein, a noted talmid chochom, former chavrusa of Rav Binyomin and Mara D’asra of the Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin Avenue I Alumni Minyan, was appointed the Rosh Kollel. Rav Braunstein’s perpetual smile and natural warmth, combined with his personal interest in every single kollel member’s learning and general well-being, was the spark that set Rav Binyamin’s kindling on fire.  

The kollel started off with a bang. Over forty people came on the first day! And like the kehilla it is a part of, it grew by leaps and bounds as well. Today, a visitor entering the Bais Medrash shortly after 6:00am would scarcely believe his eyes. The room is packed with 60-80 men- yungeleit, baaleibatim and Rebbeim, of all ages and diverse Yeshiva backgrounds, learning with hislahavus. The seviva resonates with the sweetness of kol Torah. You might easily think you were back in a Yeshiva Bais Medrash during a busy morning seder!

More – the varmkeit and freindshaft that permeates the minyan itself has seeped into the kollel as well. Lasting friendships have been formed. A kollel member’s absence is noticed and the chavrei haKollel, as well as its hanhala, reach out to make sure everything is ok.

The Phenomenon

Prominent Rabbonim, including Harav Boruch Mordechai Ezrachi, Harav Eliezer Ginsburg, Harav Elya Brudny and others have visited the kollel to deliver divrei chizuk and were nispael that such a thing exists. So, indeed, is everyone who has had the privilege of visiting the kollel during seder. THIS is truly “impressive and extraordinary”. THIS is the phenomenon!

The Siyum

The siyum itself was a joyous event, attended by the mesaymim, of course, as well as wives, parents, grandparents and friends. The dais was graced with the presence of Rav Aharon Schechter, shlita, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin, Rav Faivel Cohen, shlita (Rav Binyomin’s father),  Rav Moshe Tuvia Lieff, Rav Hillel David, Rav Elya Brudny, Rav Avrohom Zucker,  Rav Moshe Baruch Kirzner as well, of course, with the presence of Rav Binyomin Cohen and Rav Mendel Braunstein. Mr. Avrohom Fruchthandler and the Rav’s father-in-law, Mr. Rubin Schron, founding supporters of the Shul, proudly graced the dais as well.

The event was expertly chaired by Reb Yehoshua Leib Fruchthandler, one of the founding members of the kehilla and the kollel, who greeted the guests and introduced Rav Binyomin and Rav Mendel. The program commenced with a short video which included divrei bracha from Harav Boruch Mordechai Ezrachi, shlita, and Rav Eliezer Ginsburg, shlita. Next, the Mara D’asra and Rosh Kollel addressed the assemblage. Rav Binyomin spoke passionately about the importance of the kollel and its mission, and issued an invitation to all attendees who were not yet members (and by extension, all readers of this article) to join. Rav Mendel reminisced about how the seeds for the kollel were actually planted many years earlier as a result of a casual conversation between Rav Binyomin and himself.

Both Rabbonim expressed gratitude to the wives, many of whom were in attendance, for not only allowing their husbands to be absent during such a hectic time of day, but for encouraging them with joy to go and learn!

The divrei Torah were followed by a professionally produced video presentation which featured kollel members speaking about what the kollel meant to them and to their families.

A recurring theme in their retrospectives  was how they were skeptical that they could actually sustain their new kollel schedule, how surprised and delighted they were to discover that they could, and how profoundly grateful they were that they did, since the kollel had a marked impact not only on the rest of their day, but on their wives, their mishpochos and their lives. Many, in fact, declared that, despite their hectic schedules, the morning Kollel quickly became the most important part of their day.

Following the video presentation, R’ Shai Markowitz, along with R’ Yossi Gutwirth were mesayeim the mesechta and said the hadran and Kaddish.

A bountiful five-star meal was prepared by Yeshiva Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin’s resident caterer and chef, Dovy Zeitlin. The meal and program were followed by spirited and uplifting dancing by the mesaymim, the Rebbeim, and guests.

The Conclusion

We have been reading with pride about the actions of our various public service mosdos, and of whole communities, who united to assist those affected by hurricanes Harvey and Irma. That was truly a kiddush Hashem. But when it comes to kiddush Hashem, nothing compares to limud Torah, as the posuk says (Devarim 4:6) “And you shall study them and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who will… say, ‘Only this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’”

Mazal tov to all the mesaymim! Special Mazal tov to our son, Nachman, who has been part of the kehilla and kollel since their respective beginnings!

May the Kollel Boker be zoche to finish many more masechtos, b’ezras Hashem. May the zechus of the Kollel Boker of K’hal Talmidei HaYeshivos continue to be a beacon of kiddush Hashem in our community, may it light to the way to a healthy, peaceful and productive year for the attendees, the Rabbonim, the kehilla and all of klal yisroel, and may it hasten the arrival of Moshiach!

The Oneness Bond Between Hashem and Yisroel, As Explained by the Maharal and the Pachad Yitzchok

The Oneness Bond Between Hashem and Yisroel,  As Explained by the Maharal and the 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

We are now in the midst of the days which epitomize the barrier between Hashem and Klal Yisroel that was erected after the churban, the destruction of the holy Temple in Yerushalayim. It is a depressing segment of our calendar, and it behooves us to be depressed at the thought of what we have lost. At the same time, though, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the bond between Hashem and Yisroel, although obscured, remains steadfast. There is a bond of oneness between us that will not come into full bloom until the end of days, but which exists today as well. An understanding of this bond will help us get through this difficult time, and also assist us in preparation for the yimei hadin, the days of judgement that follow it.

The Source: Shma Yisroel

We begin with a verse that Jews recite twice daily to accept the Kingship of Heaven on themselves: Shma Yisroel, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad, "Listen Yisroel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is one". The Maharal analyzes this verse in detail in Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah, Chapter 7. He considers other permutations of the verse that seemingly might more efficiently accomplish the same purpose as the actual Shma verse, and systematically rejects them one by one. Here is an excerpt:

“...We also cannot say ‘Listen, Yisroel, our G-d, is one’,  because Hashem’s Singular Name, in particular, is associated with Yisroel.   We must therefore precede ‘our G-d’ with ‘Hashem’. In this way we affirm that [the Bearer of] the Singular Name is ‘our G-d’, yet He is intrinsically one, and this will become apparent in the future, when the language of all the nations will transform into an unequivocal and universal declaration of Hashem’s oneness.  In this world, however, the oneness inherent in Hashem’s Singular name is not apparent. That is reserved for the future, per the verse,  ‘[And on that day…] it will come to pass that Hashem shall become King over all the earth; on that day Hashem will be one, and His name will be one’.”

The name of Hashem used in the context of this verse is the four-letter “Havaya” name which is spelled with the letter yud followed by hai followed by vov followed by hai, but it has no vowelization and is therefore unpronounceable in our current world. It is the name most closely associated with Hashem’s oneness; His singularity – with the concept that the only “real” existence is Hashem, that nothing exists besides Hashem, and the existence we perceive is an emanation of Hashem. That is why this name, in particular, is used in the verse that declares Hashem’s oneness and why it is sometimes also referred to as the Singular Name.

The Maharal is saying that when we declare that Hashem is our G-d we must explicitly use the Singular name (where we here write “Hashem”) because there is an association between Hashem’s singularity – His oneness –  and Yisroel’s oneness. Hashem's oneness is absolute - there is no other existence besides Him. That attribute is, of course, unique to Hashem. But Yisroel can also be said to partake of the quality of oneness because Yisroel and only Yisroel is the nation that “matters”, the nation on behalf of whom the world was created and continues to exist. All else is subsidiary. Only Yisroel is primary. That is our oneness, and it is integrally bound with Hashem’s oneness, as we shall see.

Hashem replicated, as it were, his attribute of oneness in Yisroel. The Maharal writes in Ner Mitzva, Section 1, that Yisroel and only Yisroel was created in order to further the honor of Hashem by proclaiming his oneness; the four nations that usurped Yisroel’s ascendancy after the destruction of the Temple (and who presided and continue to preside over our exile) obscure Hashem’s oneness. Yisroel is suited for its role as sole standard bearer for Hashem’s oneness by virtue of their own attribute of oneness. The verse (Yeshayahu 43:21) states, “This people I formed for Myself; they shall recite My praise”. The Hebrew word for “this”, zu, has the numeric value 13 – the same value as the three letters aleph-ches-dalet, echad, which means one.

More on the Oneness Attribute of Yisroel

In the same vein the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel 10 cites the verse (Shmuel 2, 7:23) “And who is like Your people, like Israel, one nation in the world”. There are indeed other nations but they are subsidiary to Yisroel, who are the raison d’etre of the universe, and ideally they would be limited to playing supporting roles to Yisroel’s lead role, as the Maharal writes in Derech Chaim, in his introduction to the Mishna, “kol Yisroel”.

The oneness attribute of Yisroel in relation to the oneness of Hashem also appears in the prayer service. The Mincha Shmoneh Esrai of Shabbos, referencing the verse in Shmuel 2, begins, “You are one, Your name is one, and who can be likened to Your nation Yisroel, one nation in the world?”. Similarly the liturgical hymn Om Ani Choma, recited on Hoshana Rabbah, declares that Yisroel is “the one and only, who declares Your oneness”.

The Relationship Between the Oneness of Hashem and the Oneness of Yisroel – Pachad Yitzchok

Rav Yitzchok Hutner discusses the relationship between the oneness of Hashem and the oneness of Yisroel in Igros U’Ksovim 55. A correspondent pointed out an apparent contradiction between Rashi’s commentary on the Shma verse and a Gemara in Pesachim 50a. Rashi, based on the Sifri cited earlier, comments, “Hashem, who is currently our G-d but not the G-d of the nations [of the world], will, in the future be one [i.e. universally accepted], per the verse in Tzefania 3:9, “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of Hashem”, and the verse in Zecharia 14:9, “And Hashem shall become King over all the earth; on that day Hashem will be one, and His name one.” In other words, Rashi is implying that it is a fact that as things now stand, we cannot truthfully say that Hashem is one.

The Gemara in Pesachim, however, on the same verse in Zecharia, asks incredulously, “[On that day Hashem will be one…?] Does the verse seriously intend to imply that on this day Hashem is not one?” The Gemara answers that this world is not like the future world. In this world, for good news we recite the blessing, hatov v’hameitiv, “He is good, and He does good”, while for bad news we recite the blessing, dayan emes, “Blessed be the true Judge”; whereas in the future world we will only recite the blessing “He is good and He does good”.

So, is it a matter-of-fact truth that the oneness of Hashem is reserved for the future, or is it something that merits incredulity?

Rav Hutner responded by referencing the Shabbos Mincha prayer we mentioned earlier, “You are one, Your name is one, and who can be likened to Your nation Yisroel, one nation in the world”. The manifestation of Hashem’s oneness, this prayer declares, and the elucidation of the quality of oneness of Yisroel, are two sides of the same coin and are, in fact, interdependent.

Dayan Emes and Tov Umeitiv

How are we to understand this? We begin with a consideration of the blessing of dayan emes, “Blessed be the true Judge”, recited over bad news, and there is no more egregious an example of bad news than the antipathy the non-Jewish nations have toward Yisroel. This antipathy can only exist in the context of a world where dayan emes holds sway; where the forces of evil that create bad news have power. In that world the oneness of Yisroel is obscured, since Yisroel is beaten down by the nations of the world.

In the world to come, however, hatov v’hameitiv, “He is good, and He does good”, dominates, and dayan emes is nullified. Evil ceases to exist. There is only a blessing for good. The opposition to Yisroel caused by evil melts away, and the unique status of Yisroel – their oneness – shines forth.

This is the message of the Gemara in Pesachim. Why, the Gemara asks, do the verses in Tzefania and Zecharia imply that Hashem’s oneness is impinged in this world? Because, the Gemara answers, the oneness of Yisroel is obscured under the weight of dayan emes as evinced by the oppression they suffer on the part of the non-Jewish nations, and when the oneness of Yisroel is obscured, the oneness of Hashem is obscured as well. The oneness of Hashem and the oneness of Yisroel are intertwined.

Only in the world-to-come, when dayan emes is vanquished for good, and the oneness of Yisroel is apparent, will the oneness of Hashem also be apparent. “On that day Hashem will be one, and His name one”.

Reconciling the Gemara in Pesachim and the Sifri

The reason the Sifri and Rashi are matter-of-fact about the reality that, today, we cannot truthfully say that Hashem is one, while the Gemara in Pesachim is incredulous about the possibility that we cannot today say that Hashem is one (the issue raised by Rav Hutner’s correspondent) is chronology: the Gemara’s question and answer predated the Sifri!

Until we know the Gemara’s answer we cannot help but be incredulous. How can we possibly say that Hashem is not one, in any context? But, once we understand, as the Gemara explains, that Hashem is linking His oneness to our oneness, and our oneness is not revealed until the world-to-come, we appreciate that this linkage is the message of the verses in Zecharia and Tzefania. “On that day [when our oneness will be revealed due to the cessation of the evil that hides it today] Hashem will be one, and His name one”. The Sifri presumes knowledge of the Gemara’s question and answer and merely restates the Gemara’s conclusion as established fact, without detailing the Gemara’s linkage explanation.

Truth in Davening

A question remains, however. If the oneness of Yisroel, and therefore the oneness of Hashem are not revealed until the world-to-come, how can we honestly declare, in Shabbos Mincha, “You are one and Your name is one”, in the present tense? The oneness of Hashem is, after all, obscured in this world. Now, it might be thought that since we know with certainty that Hashem’s oneness will be revealed in the future, there is no harm in speaking of it in the present tense, as if it were a fait accompli. In fact, though, we have a definitive indication that our Sages understood that Hashem is the essence of truth and does not abide falsehood of any kind, and they were therefore scrupulous about keeping even a hint of falsehood out of the prayer service.

What is this indication? After the destruction of the Temple our Sages were prepared to excise the phrases “mighty and awesome” as attributes of Hashem from the first blessing of the Shmoneh Esrai on the grounds that, with heathens cavorting on the site of the Temple, Hashem’s might and awesomeness were no longer apparent. The Sages surely understood that these phrases remained valid attributes of Hashem and were destined to be revealed again in the future. Yet, because they lacked present-tense validity, using them would not live up to Hashem’s rigorous standard of truth. How, then, can we permit “You are one and Your name is one” to remain in the prayer service if they, too, lack present-tense validity?

(In fact, the phrases “mighty and awesome” were allowed to remain in the first blessing of the Shmoneh Esrai when our Sages came to realize that Hashem’s self-restraint in the face of the intense provocation of heathens cavorting on the Temple site was in itself an act of supreme might and awesomeness, giving the phrases a present-tense validity. But is there an equivalent present-tense understanding of “You are one and Your name is one”, from Shabbos Mincha?)

There is, and it is an even more direct understanding than that of “mighty and awesome”, as Rav Hutner explains in Pachad Yitzchok, Pesach 60, 21-23. It is a mistake to believe that our oneness will not make an appearance until the end of days. In fact, our oneness was implanted in us when our nation was formed. It is not a future attribute, but a present one, latent in its fullest sense until the world-to-come but present as a reality in our nation since our formation as a nation during the exodus from Egypt. At that time, as Hashem promised Avrohom years earlier, Egypt was drained of its wealth, and that wealth was transferred to Yisroel. This, Rav Hutner explains, was a pre-enactment of the ultimate destiny of the newly formed nation of Yisroel at the end of days, when the strengths of the other nations of the world will similarly be transferred to Yisroel, to be used by them in their service of Hashem.

Thus our oneness is not merely a promise of things to come, it is a present-day reality, albeit not yet in full-blown form.

We return to the prayer of Shabbos Mincha, where we say, “You are one and Your name is one”, and we continue, “and who is like Your nation Yisroel, one nation on earth?” Notice that the prayer’s description of Hashem and His name as one appears as a declarative statement, while the description of Yisroel is couched as a question. A question implies immediacy; it demands an answer that has an application here and now. This signals that the oneness; the uniqueness of Yisroel is not something that we merely await, it is, in fact, present-tense.

As we said earlier, though, the manifestation of Hashem’s oneness and the elucidation of the quality of oneness of Yisroel are two sides of the same coin and are, in fact, interdependent. The immediacy of Yisroel’s oneness (“Who is like Your nation, Yisroel?”) brings the reality of Hashem’s oneness into the present tense as well, and thus our declaration that “You are one and Your name is one” is not merely a reflection of what will be some day, but a totally accurate description of present day reality that can be uttered without at all impinging on Hashem’s absolute standard of honesty.

May we merit seeing the fulfillment of the prophecies of Tzefania and Zecharia speedily in our days, when Hashem's oneness and Yisroel's oneness will be apparent to all, without question!

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.