Torah Study and the First Two Commandments

The Uniqueness of the Mitzva of Torah Study and its Relationship to the First Two Dibros

An Adaptation of the First Section of Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuos Maamar 25 by Rav Yitzchok Hutner zt’l

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

1 – Torah Study as a Component of Acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship

Rabbeinu Yonah, in Shaarei Teshuva, Shaar 3:25, writes that Tefillin and Mezuzah are positive mitzvos,  and are components of the obligation to accept Hashem’s Kingship, because they are included in the first chapter of Shma. It follows that the mitzva to study Torah, which also appears in this chapter, is also a component of our obligation to accept Hashem’s Kingship.

Moreover, the choice of the word , v’shinantam here, instead of the word , v’limaditem, which appears in a similar verse in the second chapter of Shma, makes it clear that there is an affinity between v’shinantam and acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship; an affinity that does not exist with respect to the word v’limaditem. This certainly requires explanation.

2 – The Shma Verse and the First Two Dibros

We begin our quest with the statement of our Sages (Yerushalmi, Brachos 1:5) that the Shma verse is an acceptance of the first two of the ten dibros. When we say, in Shma, “Hashem is our G-d” we are affirming the first of the ten dibros, “I am Hashem, your G-d”. When we say, “Hashem is one” we are affirming the second of the ten dibros, “You should not recognize the gods of others”.

We maintain, with trepidation, that our Sages are not merely noting the interesting fact that our acceptance of the first two dibros is expressed in the first verse of Shma. Rather,  our Sages are hinting at a new dimension of meaning in the Shma verse.

3 – Torah Study as the Covenant and Torah Study as a Consequence of the Covenant

The new dimension is as follows. Although we know that we satisfy the requirement to accept Hashem’s Kingship when we recite Shma, the full effect of that acceptance is lacking with Shma alone. A complete acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship can only be achieved when Shma is linked to the first two dibros of “I am Hashem, your G-d…” and “You should not recognize the gods of others…”, such that, when we say Shma, we reaffirm our acceptance of those dibros. Let us explain.

The mitzva to study Torah differs from the other mitzvos in that unlike the other mitzvos, where we did not engage in them until after we were actually commanded to do them, we did study Torah before we were commanded to do so. We did not don tzitzis, or take a lulav, before were enjoined to don tzitzis and to take a lulav. But Torah study was different. We learned Torah directly from Hashem, “Who teaches Torah to His nation, Yisroel”, before we were commanded to learn Torah. At Sinai, the first two commandments were “taught” to Yisroel directly by Hashem; the rest of the commandments, including the obligation to learn Torah, were relayed to Yisroel through Moshe.

This distinction underlies the relationship between Torah study and the other mitzvos. The obligation to perform the other mitzvos is a consequence of the covenant between Hashem and Yisroel. No covenant, no obligation. But the Torah that Yisroel learned from Hashem, the Teacher of Torah to His nation Yisroel, was the very stuff of the covenant. So it was imperative that Yisroel study this particular portion of the Torah before the obligation to study Torah was incumbent upon them, since all the mitzva obligations, including Torah study, are clauses of the covenant, but this particular portion of the Torah created the covenant.

4 – The Two Sides of the Covenant

The portion of the Torah that created the covenant between Yisroel and their Heavenly Father are those very dibros of “I am Hashem, your G-d…” and “You should not recognize the gods of others…”. These two dibros are not merely a part of the Torah, they are the mechanism through which the covenant between the Giver of the Torah and its recipients was put into place, and were “enablers” for the entire rest of the Torah.

We now have a context for understanding what our Sages meant when they said that the Shma verse is an affirmation of the first two of the ten dibros. The Shma verse should not be viewed in isolation. Rather it should be viewed as our acceptance of the covenant that is set forth in the first two dibros.  Every covenant involves two parties, the covenant profferer and the covenant accepter. The Shma verse signals our acceptance of the role of covenant accepter. It is the counterpart to the dibros of “I am Hashem, your G-d…” and “You should not recognize the gods of others…”, through which Hashem declares Himself to be the covenant profferer.

The first two dibros and the Shma verse, in partnership – and only through their partnership – create the covenant.

5 – Kingship Through a Covenant

In Shmuel B, 5:3 we are taught, “And all the elders of Yisroel came to the king to Chevron, and King Dovid enacted a covenant for them in Chevron before Hashem, and they anointed Dovid as king over Israel”. We see from this event that the appointment of a king is a form of covenant between the king, who is being appointed, and the nation that is appointing him.

It should now be clear what we meant when we said that the reason the Shma verse is a complete acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship is because it is part of a covenant. Dovid’s method of ascendancy to his kingship is a paradigm that describes how the appointment of a king must take place – it takes place only through a covenant, and therefore our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship also has to be through a covenant.

We said that acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship through Shma comes to full fruition not with Shma standalone but only when it is coupled with the first two of the ten dibros. The reason is the same – it is this coupling that brings out the covenantal aspect of Shma, since those dibros represents Hashem’s “side” of the covenant while Shma represents our “side” of it.

A certain questioner once asked, “How is acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship unique to Yisroel? Non-Jews also are obligated in the seven Noachide commandments – doesn’t that obligation imply subservience to Hashem as King?” The answer to that question is inherent in what we have been saying: Our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship through Shma is in the form of a covenant. The nature of a covenant is its exclusivity. Our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship through Shma coupled covenantally with the two first dibros is a declaration that we and only we are included in the covenant.

These concepts give additional meaning to the comment of our Sages (Mechilta on Shmos 20:3) on the first dibra: “[Hashem told Yisroel] first accept my Kingship. Only then may you accept my decrees”. Or, in our terminology, “First enter into a covenant with me. Only then may you fulfill the terms of the covenant”. Non-Jews are certainly obligated in the seven Noachide laws, but not, as the questioner assumed, because Hashem is their King in the same way He is our King. Hashem does rule over them but there is no exclusive King/Nation relationship as there is with Yisroel, with whom Hashem entered into a covenant.

6 – Unity of Covenant Participants – and Shma

We are now equipped to understand the usage of the unusual word v’shinantam, “And you should teach them with clarity” in the first Shma section – the section whose every clause is a component of acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship, as Rabbeinu Yonah explained. We wondered what the word shinun had to do with acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship. The answer will now become clear.  Let us explain.

In the Torah section dealing with the bris bain ha’besarim, “the covenant between the parts” (Beraishis 15:9-21) Rashi explains that what transpired when this covenant was made reflected the custom at the time for the parties to the covenant to split a whole item into halves and then pass between the halves. This symbolism was meant to convey that just as the two halves they were passing between, together formed a unified whole, so too, we, the parties to the covenant, are united into a single whole. With respect to the subject matter of the covenant we are no longer two disconnected individuals. We are united; we are one.

Now, regarding the word v’shinantam our Sages explained (Kiddushin 30a) that “this is an expression of chidud, sharpness, meaning that words of Torah should be sharply impressed in your mouth, so that if a person asks you something, you will not have to hesitate about it, but you will tell him immediately”.  The word chidud itself stems from the word chad, which means literally “sharp”. If a knife is sharp and thin, the cutting instrument unites with that which is being cut, but if the knife is dull the cutting instrument and that which is being cut remain individual and separated.

Since the custom of those engaged in forming a covenant is to unite two parts into one as a symbol of their own unity, it follows that when Torah study is a component of a covenant it must partake of this quality of unification – that is, the intellect of the Torah student should merge with the wisdom of Torah to the point where they are an indistinguishable unit.

Remember that, as we discussed, the acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship in Shma is a covenant-based acceptance of a King (as was the case with King Dovid), and remember that, per  Rabbeinu Yonah, all the clauses of the first Shma chapter, including the clause for Torah study, are participants in that chapter’s Kingship acceptance of Hashem. It therefore cannot be otherwise than the Torah study clause be couched in terms of the unity of sharpness – that is, in terms of shinun. V’shinantam l’vanecha –“And you should teach them with clarity to your children.”

7 – Torah Study – the Mitzva Requiring Inspiration

The Rambam, in the third chapter of the Laws of Torah Study, writes that, as a matter of Jewish law, “Anyone who is inspired to properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study, and to crown himself with the crown of Torah, must not allow himself to become distracted with other matters. He should not delude himself into thinking that he can crown himself with the crown of Torah and simultaneously acquire wealth and honor”.

The Rambam’s choice of words, “to properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study”, makes it clear that he is referring to a basic requirement of the mitzva, not to a beyond-the-letter-of-the-law adornment of it, or to adoption of extra measures of piety in observing it. Nonetheless, the Rambam describes a person fulfilling no more than the base requirements of the mitzva in terms of, “Anyone who is inspired…”. 

There is nothing comparable in any of the other mitzvos. There is no difference between one man’s level of inspiration and another’s when it comes to performing the minimum mitzva requirements. Considerations of inspiration apply, with respect to the other mitzvos, only when dealing with beautification or (on the negative side) when dealing with discretionary preventative, or other stringencies.

The mitzva of Torah study is unique in that even with respect to the unembellished mitzva itself there is a distinction between someone who is inspired and someone who is not. How can we explain this difference between the mitzva of Torah study and all the other mitzvos?

8 – Torah Study’s Covenantal “Chunk” and Those Who Are Qualified for it

We answer this question using the same principle that we set forth in earlier sections: Yisroel studied Torah directly from Hashem before they had a command to do so from Hashem, because the Torah that they learned – the first two of the ten dibros – created the covenant that made it possible for Yisroel to fulfill the mitzvos that comprise the terms of the covenant.

Now, there is a principle that when we study Torah we should emulate the manner Torah was originally studied when it was given at Sinai, limuda k’nisinasa (see Brachos 22a). This equation extends to our mindset during our learning. We should adopt a “covenantal mindset” when we study Torah to match the covenantal nature of the very first “Torah lesson” at Sinai – the presentation of the first two dibros, which we were taught before there was a mitzva to learn Torah. (Note that the Ramban, in Sefer HaMitzvos, Asai 1 pointed out that the first of the dibros, “Anochi…”, “I am Hashem, your G-d…”, was couched as a statement of fact not as an imperative. This supports the position that there was not yet a relationship that justified imperatives – and that this dibra was intended to create the covenant that supported such a relationship.)

The practical implication of a “covenantal mindset” is that the mitzva to study Torah, uniquely, incorporates an element of “covenant” – a necessary prerequisite to the very concept of a binding mitzva – in the act of performing the Torah study mitzva itself. The mitzvos, which are the terms of the covenant, have no basis without the covenant itself. (And therefore Torah study, which is the study of the mitzvos, would be futile unless there were a preceding covenant to make the mitzvos binding.)

In other words, a chunk called “covenant” is carved out of the Torah study mitzva, and that chunk is not identified as mitzva in the sense of incumbency at all, because by definition it must precede the incumbency of mitzvos. It is this distinct chunk of the Torah study mitzva that qualifies for the Rambam’s “inspiration” requirement – the Torah-study-as-covenant chunk.

In our discussion in Section 6 of the word v’shinantam in the context of the first Shma blessing we stated that the implication of the word is that covenant-oriented Torah study happens when the intellect of the Torah student merges with the wisdom of Torah to the point where they are an indistinguishable unit. We now understand why the Rambam writes that, “anyone who is inspired to properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study… must not allow himself to become distracted with other matters”.  The covenant chunk of the Torah study mitzva, which requires “inspiration”, must be chad, in the manner of those creating a covenant. The student must be united with the wisdom of Torah and single-minded in dedication to it. Distractions interfere with chad and thus dilute the covenant aspect of Torah study.

The idea that a mitzva has a “meta-mitzva” chunk that is distinct from the mitzva itself is unique to the mitzva of Torah study. This is because other mitzvos are merely terms of the covenant and have no actual covenant status, and therefore “inspiration” is irrelevant to the base fulfillment level of the mitzva. There is no difference between one man’s level of inspiration and another’s when it comes to performing the minimum mitzva requirements.

The mitzva of Torah study, however, in addition to resembling the other mitzvos in terms of being part of the terms of the covenant, has that unique additional chunk that is not present in the other mitzvos – the covenantal chunk. That chunk is only accessible to those who are inspired and single-mindedly dedicated to Torah study.

On Ears, Doors and Pesach: Juxtapositions Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Pachad Yitzchok

On Ears, Doors and Pesach: Juxtapositions Based on the Torah of 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”.

The Ear Problem

The Gemara in Kiddushin 22b explains why the Torah requires that an eved ivri (Jewish indentured servant) who wishes to stay in servitude beyond his mandatory six years, must first undergo an ear-drilling ritual: “Why does the Torah single out the ear over all other body parts? Hashem declares the answer: ‘This ear that heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I proclaimed (Vayikra 25:55), “For the people of Yisroel are servants to Me”; they are My servants, and not servants of servants, and yet this man went and acquired a [human] master for himself – let it be drilled!’”

The problem, the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados on this Gemara asks, is that the same ear heard all the mitzvos on Sinai, not just the declaration that Yisroel are intended to be the exclusive servants of Hashem. By the Gemara’s logic it should be appropriate to drill the ear of anyone who violates any of the mitzvos! Is there a special relationship between the ear and our exclusive servitude to Hashem that explains why ear-drilling is uniquely appropriate to an eved ivri who extends his servitude?

To Ear is Human

There is an important concept at play here, the Maharal explains, having to do with a distinction enjoyed by the ear that is not shared by any other body part. The ear, and only the ear, gives man his identity as man. We will explain this concept by examining a basic principle in the laws of tumah and tahara – laws regarding the ritual purity of utensils. In general, a utensil is not susceptible to tumah, ritual impurity, unless it is a receptacle; unless it can serve as a container. In fact, it is that quality that gives it its identity as a “utensil”. Until that happens it is unformed raw material (see Rambam, Mishna Torah, Keilim 8:1-2).

In the same way, the Maharal explains, a person’s identity as a human being (odom) is dependent on his ability to serve as a container as well. To be a “container” a person has to have a receptacle. It is the role of the ear to serve as a receptacle for man, and to thereby enable people to be “containers” and to claim the odom identity.

It is true that the ear physically looks like a receptacle but the Maharal is not referring to the shape of the ear. Rather, the Maharal is teaching us that a person is not an odom unless he is able to receive information from his surroundings, and the ear is the primary vehicle – receptacle – for garnering information from the surrounding world and assimilating it into himself. Ears make a person into a “receiver”. In fact, the Targum translation of shimah (hearing) is kabbalah (receiving; see Targum Onkelos on Beraishis 16:11), and even in English we say “I hear” when we want to communicate that we understand.

Our ears are considered entranceways into our selves, just as doors are entranceways into our houses, writes the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados on Kesubos 5a. We will have more to say on the Maharal’s equating doors to ears in subsequent sections.

Servants to Hashem and the Spiritual by Using Our Ears

A non-hearing person is considered incomplete and lacking in final form (tzurah); he is mass; unformed raw material (chomer) awaiting finalization – just like a utensil lacking a receptacle. In fact, the Gemara in Baba Kama 85b, in discussing damages due when someone inflicts an injury on another, assesses various amounts depending on which limb is injured but declares that if the injury causes deafness, full damages are assessed – in effect saying that the injured party’s value declines to zero if he is deafened.

Here, too, the house analogy is apropos. The Maharal points out that just as a house without a door is useless –  it is essentially unformed mass, since it cannot fulfill its designated function, which is to house people – so too is a man without hearing bereft of his ability to perform his designated function – his mission.

Now, what is man’s mission? Our mission, as servants of Hashem, begins with being receptive to what is expected of us at any given time. The primary impact of an inability to hear is an inability to properly serve Hashem. With this in mind let us return to the servitude of the eved ivri. A servant of a physical master is subservient to that which is physical, unlike a free person, who is subservient only to Hashem. The ear of a servant who wishes to extend his servitude is inherently defective since its function is to render him an odom by allowing him to be receptive to Hashem, and this fellow’s ear is deaf to that function since he wishes to remain a servant of another physical being, instead. By “shutting his ears”, as it were, to their true function, he demonstrates his preference for remaining a raw, unformed mass over becoming a receptacle attuned to the commandments of Hashem. It is therefore fitting to bring this ear’s existing defectiveness to the fore by visibly drilling a hole in it.

Passing Over the Doors On The Night of Pesach Mitzrayim

The Torah tells us (Shmos 12:7, 12-13, 21-23) that, prior to the plague of the first-born and the subsequent exodus from Egyptian slavery, Yisroel were commanded to slaughter a lamb or goat on the 14^th of Nissan and smear its blood on their doorposts and lintel. They were warned to stay indoors until the next morning; Hashem would see the blood on their doorposts and lintel, and cause the destructive forces to bypass their homes, as Hashem slay the Egyptian first-born.

The Maharal explains the significance of these events as follows. A house is a macro-enclosure for man; the door is the equivalent of the ear, which, when open, renders the house a receptacle. A closed door signals a lack of receptivity; that night it was a statement that the Jews inside the homes were already spoken for; they were in the midst of accepting Hashem’s Kingship and were not open to alternatives, including further servitude to the Egyptians. The blood on the door was a stand-in for the Jewish occupants of the houses; it was a declaration that the Jews inside the houses had declared their allegiance to Hashem.

Houses Are Bodies for Our Bodies and Souls

It might be asked, if that is the significance of the smearing of the blood, why were they not commanded to smear the blood on their ears – why use the more removed “ear” of the house – the door? The answer, the Maharal explains, is that the ear, being attached to the physical body could be perceived primarily as a door to the physical body. But a person’s physical body is not the most important part of his self – that function belongs to his intellect and soul. The house, however, being a macro-enclosure that is not a part of a person’s physical body, can more easily be perceived as an enclosure that encompasses a person’s intellectual and spiritual aspect, as well as his physical body. Thus they were commanded to smear the blood on the doorposts, making it clear that they belonged completely to Hashem – body, intellect and soul.

The Role of the Ear in Our Continuation of Pesach’s Acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship

On the 14^th of Nissan at night, the night that led to our exodus from Egyptian slavery, we declared our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship by smearing the blood on our doorposts and lintel. We reiterate that acceptance twice a day in the Shma prayer, the first verse of which is, “Listen, Yisroel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem  is one”.

In Pachad Yitzchok, Pesach Maamar 43 Rav Yitzchok Hutner asks why acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship is couched in terms of “listen”. In answer, he writes that our sense of hearing is unique in that all our other senses, except those of our ears, are two-way streets. Our eyes see; they also reflect our emotions outward. The nose is constantly inhaling and exhaling. Our hands give and take; our mouths ingest and expel. Only the ears are a one way street. They take in. They do not give out.

The ear is uniquely suited for accepting servitude because it reflects complete passivity. I will do as I am commanded. I will not object or argue or protest. That is why we reference our ears when we accept Hashem’s Kingship twice-daily. “Listen, Yisroel…”. We are unconditionally accepting Hashem’s will.

May are actions live up to those words, and may we soon merit our final exodus!

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!