Leading Up to Moshiach

 

Leading Up to Moshiach – The Factors That Lead to the Moshiach Epoch of the End of Days: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Ma’amarei Pachad Yitzchok, Sukkos, Maamar 114)

Adapted By Eliakim Willner

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

Section 1 – Missing the Point?

At the beginning of Moshe’s brachos, his blessings to the nation Yisroel before he passed on, the verse states,[1] “Hashem came from Sinai and shone forth from Seir to them; He appeared from Mount Paran…”. Rashi explains that Moshe initiated his bracha by praising Hashem, and then he mentions the merit of Yisroel.

However, this begs the question, if the intent was to make Yisroel look good in contrast to Seir and Paran – that is, to highlight the fact that both Esav and Yishmael declined the Torah and only Yisroel accepted it – it would seem that the verses overlook the main point, since they mention only the visit of Hashem to those nations, and the offer of the Torah to them, but do not mention their refusal to accept it. We will come back to this question in section 11.

Section 2 – The Uniqueness of Our Present Time

We now discuss two new phenomena that characterize our present day and age. The first is that, while in the past, oppression of Yisroel emanated from Esav acting independently or from Yishmael acting independently – and in fact they were often at odds with each other – our present time is characterized by an oppression that emerges from an alliance between Esav and Yishmael.

The second phenomenon will emerge from our subsequent discussion.[2]

Section 3 – The Superfluous Details?

After Moshe concluded his personalized brachos to each individual tribe, each shevet in Yisroel, he closed by saying,[3] “Fortunate are you, Yisroel! Who is like you, oh people whose salvation is through Hashem”. Rashi explains that, “After Moshe specified the blessings to Yisroel, he said to them, ‘Why do I have to spell out all the details? In general: Everything is yours!’”[4]

Well, then, why did Moshe spell out all the details? We will answer this question in Section 12.

Section 4 – Tents Like Streams

“They extend like streams, like gardens by the river”.[5] Rashi explains that the word “they” is a reference back to the tents mentioned in the previous verse,[6] “How goodly are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Yisroel!”, and the comparison of the tents to extending streams means that the tents “extend and are drawn out for a distance”. We will explain what this apparently obscure statement means in section 7.[7]

Section 5 – Oneness in the Future

“Listen Yisroel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is one”.[8] Rashi explains[9] that “Hashem, who is now our G-d and not the G-d of the other nations will in the future be declared “the one G-d,” as it is said,[10] ‘For then I will convert the nations to a clear language that all of them call in the name of Hashem’”.

It is astounding that Rashi makes no mention of how our Sages explained a similar point,[11] with respect to the verse,[12] “on that day shall Hashem be one…”. The Gemara asks, “Is his name not one today?” And the Gemara answers, “This world is not like the future world. In this world, for good news we recite the bracha, hatov v’hameitiv, ‘He is good, and He does good’, while for bad news we recite the bracha, dayan emes, ‘Blessed be the true Judge’; whereas in the future world we will only recite the bracha ‘He is good and He does good’.”[13]

Rashi, however, seems to be taking a different tack when he explains that that the oneness attribute is reserved for the future because only then will all the nations recognize Hashem. (Not that Rashi’s explanation contradicts the Gemara because the fact is that the “all good and does good” epoch requires that opposition to Hashem on the part of the nations, which emanates from the side of evil, disappear.)

It appears that Rashi felt compelled to take this path because he wanted to establish, for reasons that are off-subject for our present discussion, that the nations ultimately coming to recognize Hashem – a necessary condition to establish the oneness of Hashem –  has a biblical, rather than just a traditional source.

Section 6 – Unwitting Accomplices to Oneness

Implicit in the verse,[14] “For then I will convert the nations to a clear language that all of them call in the name of Hashem” is the implication that at that future time, the nations will not arrive at that state on their own. Yisroel will have a role in bringing about this change. This is clear from the words, “For then I will convert the nations”.[15]

To understand why this is so we turn to the actual words of the Rambam – words that were excised out of the text by censors in most extant Rambam editions. In discussing Esav and Yishmael and the religions they initiated[16] the Rambam writes,[17]

“Ultimately, all the deeds…[18] will only serve to prepare the way for Moshiach’s coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve Hashem together as Tzephania 3:9 states: ‘I will transform the peoples to a clear language that they all will call upon the name of Hashem and serve Him with one purpose.’

“How will this come about? The entire world will have already become filled with conversations about Moshiach, Torah…”.

Esav and Yishmael clear the way for the coming of Moshiach! Imagine, our cast-offs will achieve such incredible accomplishments![19] These drop-outs,[20] with all their falsifications and distortions of sacred concepts, will, in the end, be the only nations of the nations of the world who speak of a Creator, of Messiahs and of a Bible – concepts they imbibed in the home of our patriarch, Avrohom. Because they touched the doorknob of that home,[21] Moshiach concepts continued to linger with them, and the road leading to Moshiach is built on their backs.[22]

Certainly, this will only become clear in retrospect, after they are defeated. Only then will it become manifest that the Messiah banner they waved was, unbeknownst to them, for the purpose of laying the groundwork for the universal acceptance of the true Moshiach.

And certainly, this is not the intent of their focus on Messiah, and they have no idea that this is its covert purpose. As the verse states,[23] “And their light shall be withheld from the wicked…”; light passes over the wicked but they are completely oblivious to it. It is “withheld” from them; it bypasses them without making the slightest impression.

These are our drop-outs. We suffered mightily at their hand yet they carry the path to Moshiach on their shoulders. In fact, it is that word, “Moshiach” that provoked the most vicious hatred against us.[24] Yet, ironically, it is Esav and Yishmael who ready the world for “that day” when “His name will be one”.[25]

Section 7 – There is Nothing Without the Walled-In House

One of our great Torah Sages commented that embedded in the words of the evil Bilam,[26] “How goodly are you tents, Yaakov, your worshiping places, Yisroel!” is an acknowledgement of a unique distinction of Yaakov.[27] How so? A “tent” is a form of house. The Gemara teaches us[28] that Avrohom referred to the Bais HaMikdash as a “mountain”, Yitzchok referred to it as a “field”, and Yaakov referred to it as a “house”.

The difference between a mountain and field on the one hand, and a house on the other, is that while the former are unenclosed and can be abandoned at any time (as indeed, did Esav and Yishmael, who took their leave from Avrohom and Yitzchok), the latter is walled in on all sides.[29]

Bilam’s conception of “tents” and “worshiping places” included an acknowledgement of this important feature, unique to Yaakov, of a “house” as an enclosed place. This is what he had in mind when he prophesized, about the tents and worshiping places,[30] “They extend like streams, like gardens by the river”, which Rashi explains means that the tents, “extend and are drawn out for a distance”.[31] In other words, the “house” of Yaakov, as represented by the tents, is so entrenched and enduring that its scope extends far into the future, and this teaches us an important lesson about the course history must take in order to bring us to the Messianic era, as follows.

It might be thought that the road leading to Moshiach is exclusively via Yishmael and Esav and is rooted in the approaches of Avrohom and Yitzchok, which are characterized by “mountain” and “field”; in other words, by the apparent lack of boundaries that enabled the breaches of Yishmael and Esav.[32] It might be thought that they and only they share common ground with the other nations of the world and that the walled-in Yaakov (“house”) would not play a role in “I will transform the peoples to a clear language”.

This, however, is simply not so, and Rashi is teaching us, when he speaks of tents extending and drawn out for a distance, that it is not so. The tents of Yaakov extend, in fact, as far as the Messianic era; to the time of “For then I will convert the nations to a clear language that all of them call in the name of Hashem”. The critical message is that without Yaakov’s stalwart “house” even Esav and Yishmael[33] would not be able to sway the other nations into a belief in Moshiach.

The nations can be receptive to the proselytizing of Esav and Yishmael about a Messianic future thanks only to the durability of Yaakov’s “house – “your worshiping places, Yisroel”. (Our uncompromising adherence to Torah, to mitzvos and to our faith in the arrival of our authentic Moshiach continually fuels the Esav-Yishmael conversation about Moshiach.)[34]

Whatever contribution Esav and Yishmael make toward universal acceptance of Moshiach is built on the foundation of Yaakov’s walled-in “house”.

Section 8 – The Path to Universal Oneness is Through Open Miracles

In section 5[35] we cited the commentary of Rashi on the Shma verse: “Hashem, who is now our G-d and not the G-d of the other nations will in the future be declared “the one G-d,” as it is said, ‘For then I will convert the nations to a clear language that all of them call in the name of Hashem’”. The Ramban agrees with this explanation and adds, “This requires additional thought because the phrase ‘our G-d’ is a departure from Moshe’s usual mode of expression in Devarim, where he generally uses second-person – ‘your G-d’.[36]

“The reason Moshe uses “our G-d” here is because it was through Moshe that Hashem performed great and wonderous acts,[37] in order to bestow upon Moshe a reputation of splendor.”[38]

It is not our place to involve ourselves with the secrets of Torah that the Ramban interjects into his commentary but this much we can safely glean: Moshe’s inclusion with the rest of Yisroel in the phrase “our G-d” is related to the miracles and wonders he performed, which Hashem brought about through him to increase his reputation for splendor, and therefore it will be by Moshe’s hand that Hashem’s Havaya name will, in the future, be one.[39]

The source for this understanding of the Ramban is apparently the verse at the beginning of parshas Va’eyra,[40] “I appeared to Avrohom, to Yitzchok, and to Yaakov with the name Shakai,[41] but with My name Havaya, I did not become known to them”. The implication is that the Shakai name, with which Hashem interacted with the Avos, would not have been appropriate for the miracles of Egypt and the splitting of the Red Sea.[42]

When Moshe said “Havaya is our G-d, Havaya is one” he was actually saying that because I, Moshe, interacted with Hashem through His Havaya name, I was able to perform the miracles of the exodus, and to have thereby cleared the way for Hashem, ultimately, to be one – to be universally accepted by all the nations of the world. Without Moshe, who was the conduit for the miracles of the exodus through the Havaya name, the notion of uniting the nations under the banner of Hashem would have been a non-starter.[43]

(Do not fall into the mistaken belief that Rashi’s statement that the nations will universally recognize that Hashem is one minimizes the special status of Yisroel that is implied by the first part of the verse, “Hashem is our G-d”. Heaven forbid! Rather, from the perspective of the future, we add a nuance to the first part of the verse. Whereas now, we are the only ones who recognize Hashem’s oneness, since the nations of the world do not, in the future, the nations will also come to this recognition – precisely because His name will become known through us, since “Hashem is our G-d”.)

Section 9 – A Partnership of Facilitators

It should be clear now that the contributions of both “the house of Yaakov” and of Moshe are required in order to bring about a future situation where the nations of the world recognize that Hashem is one. Without Moshe the Avos would not have produced cast-offs[44] that would have been able to bring about “For then I will convert the nations to a clear language”, because that conversion requires the Havaya name whose mode of behavior was revealed through Moshe.

Moshe’s role, in this respect, is similar to that of the “house of Yaakov”. Just as, without the “house of Yaakov”, Esav and Yishmael would not have been able to accomplish anything with respect to awakening the world to Hashem’s oneness,[45] so too without Moshe’s contribution, the “house of Yaakov” alone would not have sufficed to bring about a state of “For then I will convert the nations to a clear language”. The recognition of the oneness of Hashem on the part of the nations requires a partnership between Yisroel (the “house of Yaakov”) and Moshe.

Section 10 – The Changing World Order

We now turn to the second of the two new phenomena that characterize our present epoch, as mentioned in section 2, and that is that heretofore insignificant nations have thrust themselves onto the world stage. We refer to nations such as China, and what is commonly referred to as “the third world”. These nations seek a status equal to that of the major powers, even though they have no connection either to Esav or Yishmael.[46] What is the reason for this sea change in the relative status of the world’s nations?

The answer is that we are living in a time where the alliance between Esav and Yishmael is becoming solidified, as discussed in section 2, and that is the time where the influence of Esav and Yishmael on the other nations as “Moshiach mediators” begins – it is a precursor to the ultimate recognition of “that day”. The role of mediators is theirs because, despite the way Esav and Yishmael ended up, their cradles were parked in the homes of Avrohom and Yitzchok.[47]

Section 11 – Piggybacking on the Merit of Yisroel

Some commentators say that the source for the Rambam’s statement that Esav and Yishmael clear the way for the coming of the Moshiach[48] are the words of the verse itself,[49] “…and shone forth from Seir to them; He appeared from Mount Paran…”. They understand וְזָרַ֤ח, v’zarach, “shone forth”, as an expression of enlightenment, and similarly they understand הוֹפִ֨יעַ֙, hofiah, “appeared”, as an expression of “revelation”[50]

We return to our question of section 1. In truth, embedded in this “shining forth” and “revelation” is the merit of Yisroel, since the only reason Esav and Yishmael merited these appellations was by virtue of their being the cast-offs of Yisroel;[51] the fact that their cradles were parked in the homes of our Patriarchs. That being the case there is no need for these verses, which speak of Yisroel’s receiving the Torah through Moshe, to be explicit about the refusal of Esav and Yishmael to accept the Torah, in order to highlight the merit of Yisroel. The very fact that Esav and Yishmael were granted the ability to “shine forth” and “reveal” the concepts of Moshiach to the nations of the world, speaks to Yisroel’s merit!

Section 12 – The Meaning of “It is All Yours!”

We return to our question of section 3. After Moshe enumerated the qualities of Yisroel in terms of their appropriateness for leading to the epoch of the end of days he concluded with the remark, “what is the point of enumerating specifics, in the end, it is all yours!” That is, even the roles of Esav and Yishmael in popularizing Moshiach among the nations; even that is yours!

There is no basis for bringing this up without first enumerating the many intrinsic qualities of Yisroel.[52] Once that is done it is appropriate and indeed necessary to make it clear that aside from their intrinsic qualities, everything – everything – originates from and belongs to Yisroel.[53]

---

[1] Devarim 33:2. ה' מִסִּינַ֥י בָּא֙ וְזָרַ֤ח מִשֵּׂעִיר֙ לָ֔מוֹ הוֹפִ֨יעַ֙ מֵהַ֣ר פָּארָ֔ן.... Rashi explains that Hashem “shone forth from Seir”, the land of the descendants of Yitzchak’s errant son Esav, because He had gone there to offer the Torah to them. Similarly, “Hashem appeared from Mount Paran”, the land of the descendants of Avraham’s errant son Yishmael, because he had gone there to offer the Torah to them as well.

The descendants of Esav are associated with Rome – that is, with the Christian world. The descendants of Yishmael are associated with Arabia – that is, with the Moslem world.

[2] And will be discussed explicitly in section 10.

[3] Devarim 33:29. אַשְׁרֶ֨יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל מִ֣י כָמ֗וֹךָ עַ֚ם נוֹשַׁ֣ע ה'.

[4] There is an implicit assumption here that the brachos of Moshe will take full effect at the end of days, in the time of Moshiach. See section 12, where this question is answered.

[5] Bamidbar 24:6. כִּנְחָלִ֣ים נִטָּ֔יוּ כְּגַנֹּ֖ת עֲלֵ֣י נָהָ֑ר. The context is Bilam’s attempted cursing of Yisroel, at the instigation of the nations of Moav and Midian, as Yisroel traveled through the desert after the Egyptian exodus. Hashem forced Bilam to utter words of blessing rather than curses.

[6] Bamidbar 24:5. מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹֽהָלֶ֖יךָ יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל.

[7] The “extend and drawn out…” explanation will be used in section 7 to explain the role of Yaakov in keeping the concept of Moshiach alive, throughout history, even among the gentile nations, but first the Maamar must establish, in sections 5 and 6, that the “front end” of keeping the concept of Moshiach alive among the gentile nations is carried out by Esav and Yishmael.

[8] Devarim 6:4. שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל ה' אֱלֹקינוּ ה' אֶחָֽד.

[9] Rashi is explaining the connection between the first part of the verse, “Hashem is our G-d”, and the second part of the verse, “Hashem is one”.

[10] Tzephania 3:9. כִּי־אָ֛ז אֶהְפֹּ֥ךְ אֶל־עַמִּ֖ים שָׂפָ֣ה בְרוּרָ֑ה לִקְרֹ֚א כֻלָּם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם ה'. The gentile nations of the world will be made to realize, in that epoch, that Hashem is the true and only G-d.

[11] Pesachim 50a. The point being explained here is why the oneness attribute is applied to Hashem only in the future.

[12] Zecharia 14:9. בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִֽהְיֶ֧ה ה' אֶחָ֖ד....

[13] Although we know intellectually that Hashem emanates only good, and what appears to us today to be bad must in fact ultimately be good, we are constrained by our senses and must therefore declare dayan emes, “true judge” when our senses tell us that something bad has happened. But the blinders will be removed in the future epoch and we will perceive that all is in fact good. We will then be able to dispense with the dayan emes bracha and recite the hatov v’hameitiv bracha in response to all events, and without any misgivings. We will sense the unity of Hashem’s behavior and can wholeheartedly declare “Hashem is one”.

[14] Tzephania 3:9. כִּי־אָ֛ז אֶהְפֹּ֥ךְ אֶל־עַמִּ֖ים שָׂפָ֣ה בְרוּרָ֑ה לִקְרֹ֚א כֻלָּם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם ה'.

[15] The verse is telling us that this change-of-heart on the part of the nations will be imposed on them from the outside – that is, by Yisroel, acting on behalf of Hashem, as it were.

[16] See footnote 1.

[17] Yad HaChazaka, Hilchos Melachim 11:4.

[18] Of the false Messiahs of Esav and Yishmael.

[19] Most of the Maamorim in Pachad Yitzchok were originally delivered in Yiddish and adapted into Hebrew for the print editions. Yet some Yiddish expressions carry a flavor that is impossible to carry over in translation so these expressions appear in Pachad Yitzchok in the original Yiddish. We continue that custom here. אונזערע פסולת האט אזעלכע תיקונים!.

[20] אונזערע אוועקגעפאלענע.

[21] אנגערירט די קלאמקע. The expression implies that they only had a fleeting relationship with the home and the values of Avrohom. Nonetheless that association left enough of an impression on them to implant Moshiach indelibly in their psyches, which carries through the generations.

[22] It is important to note that a signature feature of a belief in Moshiach is acceptance of the oneness of Hashem. When we say that Esav and Yishmael play an important role in keeping the concept of Moshiach alive, we are actually saying that they play an important role in publicizing the oneness of Hashem at the end of days – as discussed in section 5; “Hashem is one” in the Shma verse is a reference to the end of days, when all the nations of the world will come to that realization.

[23] Iyuv 38:15. וְיִמָּנַ֣ע מֵרְשָׁעִ֣ים אוֹרָ֑ם.

[24] The concept of a Messiah-like savior was lifted from Judaism and transplanted into their religions and they take umbrage at any implication that theirs is not the “true” Messiah. Our insistence on the Moshiach of Judaism is, to them, a slap in the face.

[25] That is, when the true Moshiach will come and change the world order. The next section will explain that although Esav and Yishmael will carry the brunt of the proselytizing burden to the nations of the world, the substance of their message originates with Yisroel.

[26] Bamidbar 24:5. מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹֽהָלֶ֖יךָ יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל.

[27] In a footnote in the original Hebrew version of this Maamar it is explained that the following thought was implicit in the words of the Sage being quoted, and was made explicit afterwards: When Esav and Yishmael act in concert it is because when the time for Moshiach draws near, these two national forces, which are normally at odds with each other, are pulled together by their common roots – what they absorbed in the home of their parents –  to the common goal of clearing the way for the arrival of Moshiach.

[28] Pesachim 88a. The Gemara is talking about the nations of the world urging each other to join the authentic worshipers of Hashem and journey to the Bais HaMikdash, the Holy Temple, and in that context these nations refer to it as “the house of the G-d of Yaakov”. The Gemara explains that this language was carefully chosen; even though Avrohom and Yitzchok worshiped there, it was only Yaakov who called it a “house”. The significance of “house” in the context of the nations of the world coming to worship Hashem in the Messianic era will be explained in this section of the Maamar.

[29] Yaakov, last of the three patriarchs, was the only one whose children, to a man, stayed in the fold, adhered to Yaakov’s faith system and maintained his manner of serving Hashem. See Pesachim 56a; also discussed in Pachad Yitzchok Yom Kippur 5.

[30] In the very next verse, Bamidbar 24:6. כִּנְחָלִ֣ים נִטָּ֔יוּ כְּגַנֹּ֖ת עֲלֵ֣י נָהָ֑ר.

[31] The simple meaning is that the tents of Yisroel that Bilam was looking at in the desert stretched out as far as the eye could see. However, the Maamar will explain that there is a deeper meaning to this verse as well.

[32] We are not, G-d forbid, entertaining the possibility that the approaches of Avrohom and Yitzchok were problematic; they were designed to encourage entry into the fold, not exit from it. Responsibility for that misuse of the openness lies squarely in the laps of Yishmael and Esav. Yet one might think, as the Maamar continues, that the silver lining in their otherwise inexcusable behavior is that it gives them entrée to the other nations, who never lived under any constraints at all, and who might be more apt to listen to them, than to Yisroel, espouse the concept of a Messiah, with a sympathetic ear.

[33] Who imbibed the concept of Moshiach with their mother’s milk, as it were.

[34] That conversation would have no credibility with the other nations of the world if not for our “walking the walk” while Esav and Yishmael just “talked the talk”. Without Yisroel visibly acting in a manner that brings glory to Hashem’s Kingship today, and making it clear that the world is gravitating toward a state of a universal recognition of Hashem, the Messianic prattling of Esav and Yishmael would be viewed as empty words with no substance.

[35] Having discussed the roles of the Avos, and of Esav and Yishmael, in bringing about a state of universal recognition of Hashem, the Maamar now turns to a discussion of Moshe’s role in achieving this goal.

[36] Rashi explains this discrepancy by contrasting “our G-d” with “Hashem is one” – that is, now He is only our G-d but in the future He will be everyone’s G-d. The Ramban agrees, but adds an additional dimension to our understanding of the discrepancy.

[37] The miracles of the Egyptian exodus as well as those that followed at Sinai and in the desert.

[38] שם תפארת. In his commentary on the Torah the Ramban frequently dips into Kabbalah, as he does here.

[39] The verse, according to this understanding, is teaching us cause-and-effect. Because Moshe performed, at Hashem’s behest, the miracles for his splendor, he thereby provides the energy that will ultimately unite the nations of the world under the banner of Hashem’s Havaya name. “Hashem [Havaya] is one”.

[40] Shmos 6:3 וָֽאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶל־יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב בְּקל שׁקי וּשְׁמִ֣י ה' לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם.

[41] Spelled shin-daled-yud; we follow the convention of replacing the letter hai with the letter kuf in the name of Hashem, so as not to spell it out, and of abbreviating the Havaya name as hai followed by an apostrophe.

The different names of Hashem describe different attributes. Hashem does not always interact with His world, or with individuals in His world, in the same way.

[42] The Ramban on Shmos 6:2 explains, in the name of the Ibn Ezra, that the Shakai name describes Hashem’s mode of behavior wherein he interacts with the world within the constraints of the laws of nature. Thus, although everything is miraculous in the sense that Hashem is controlling events “behind the scenes”, there are no deviations from natural law. Hashem interacted with the Avos primarily in this way. However the Havaya name refers to Hashem’s creative power, which supersedes the laws of nature and causes supernatural events, which are universally recognized as miraculous, to take place. The effects of this name did not come to the forefront until they were brought to bear by Moshe, for the sake of the Egyptian exodus and subsequent miraculous events.

The Ramban on Shmos 13:16 explains that the purpose of open miracles is to definitively dispel, for all time, false notions that seek to limit Hashem’s powers. A proper consideration of the open miracles that occurred at the time of the exodus, and their ramifications, the Ramban explains, makes it clear that Hashem is one, is omnipotent, is aware of every event transpiring in the world and takes an active part in running the world.

Thus Moshe’s contribution to bringing the nations of the world to this realization can be summed up as follows:

1)  Moshe was the first to employ the Havaya name to bring about open miracles, at the time of the exodus.

2)  The open miracles were a lasting demonstration of the oneness of Hashem and the unlimited nature of His power.

3)  Therefore, at the end of days the nations of the world will come to the realization that Hashem is one, thanks in large part to the miracles that Moshe wrought at the time of the exodus, which set the stage for such a realization.

[43] Perhaps we may add that without dipping into our tradition of Moshe-initiated open miracles, the nations would be wary of accepting the concept of a Messiah – a person who, like Moshe, is presumed to live in an environment of miracles.

[44] Esav and Yishmael.

[45] As discussed in section 7. See footnote 29.

[46] For many centuries prior to the present day the Christian and Moslem nations were the dominant world powers.

[47] See section 6.

[48] As discussed in section 6.

[49] Devarim 33:2. .. וְזָרַ֤ח מִשֵּׂעִיר֙ לָ֔מוֹ הוֹפִ֨יעַ֙ מֵהַ֣ר פָּארָ֔ן.... See footnote 1 for Rashi’s interpretation of this verse.

[50] "ערשיינונג". According to this interpretation the verse is describing not just Hashem’s appearance to these nations to offer them the Torah, but also a divine “light” that Hashem shone upon them that triggered their role as popularizers of the concept of Moshiach to the other nations.

[51] "אפפאל".

[52] Lest it be thought that Yisroel’s primary “claim to fame” is in spawning Esav and Yishmael; that they do not have merit of their own.

[53] Following is a synopsis of a major theme of this Maamar – the factors and contributors that lead to the Moshiach epoch of the end of days.

The Moshiach epoch is characterized by all the nations of the world universally accepting the unity and Kingship of Hashem under the leadership of Moshiach. (Section 5)

Islam and Christianity (Yishmael and Esav) were exposed to the concept of Moshiach in the homes of Avrohom and Yitzchok, respectively, and that concept remained with them even though they abandoned the Judaism of their fathers. It was incorporated into their own religions and thereby achieved world-wide exposure. (Section 6)

Thus, those two religions/nations are the “front end” that keeps the concept of Moshiach, albeit in distorted form, front-and-center in the world consciousness. (Section 6)

Avrohom and Yitzchok referred to the Bais HaMikdash using terms that imply openness – “mountain” and “field”; areas that are unenclosed. Yaakov, however, referred to it as a “house” – an enclosed and protected area. Bilam prophesized that Yaakov’s “house” would extend to the Messianic era. (Section 7)

It might be thought that the ability of Yishmael and Esav to keep the concept of Moshiach alive was rooted in the openness of Avrohom and Yitzchok and that it is this openness that enables Yishmael and Esav to share common ground with the other nations of the world. However, the prophecy of Bilam teaches us that this is not so; on the contrary without Yaakov’s stalwart “house” even Esav and Yishmael  would not be able to sway the other nations into a belief in Moshiach. (Section 7)

The nations can be receptive to the proselytizing of Esav and Yishmael about a Messianic future thanks only to the durability of Yaakov’s “house. Our uncompromising adherence to Torah, to mitzvos and to our faith in the arrival of our authentic Moshiach continually fuels the Esav-Yishmael conversation about Moshiach. Whatever contribution Esav and Yishmael make toward universal acceptance of Moshiach is built on the foundation of Yaakov’s walled-in “house”. (Section 7)

The final contributor driving the Yishmael/Esav conversation about Moshiach is Moshe. Moshe, at the time of the exodus, was the first to demonstrate Hashem’s mode of interacting with the world through open miracles that flout the laws of nature. These miracles provide, for all time, enduring evidence of Hashem’s omnipotence. At the end of days the nations of the world will come to the realization that Hashem is one, thanks in large part to the miracles that Moshe wrought at the time of the exodus, which set the stage for such a realization. These miracles provide vital credibility to the Messianic concepts espoused by Yishmael and Esav. (Section 8)

 

Ben Torah Versus Amalek – A Winning Strategy: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Purim Maamar 1)

Ben Torah Versus Amalek – A Winning Strategy: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Purim Maamar 1)

Adapted By Eliakim Willner

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

Section 1 – First In, and Out Forever

“Amalek is first among nations, but in the end he will be destroyed forever” (Bamidbar 24:20). The conclusion of this posuk means that - though the End of Days epoch can generally repair the faults of the non-Jewish nations - the nation of Amalek is beyond remedy. And since, at the End of Days, the correction of faults is a precondition to continued existence, the destruction of Amalek is inevitable. The words “in the end he will be destroyed forever” mean that the End of Days compels the destruction of Amalek.

The reason is provided in the same posuk. It is because “Amalek is the first among the nations”, that “in the end he will be destroyed forever”.

Amalek is “first among nations” because it is the first nation that fought against Yisroel. All the nations oppose Yisroel and fight against her but Amalek was the first to enter into this battle. It follows from the posuk, then, that the reason the destruction of Amalek is assured even at the End of Days is because of Amalek’s role as the first adversary of Yisroel.

“Amalek is first among nations, but in the end he will be destroyed forever”. Because Amalek is first in the battle of the nations against Yisroel, it has no hope of remedy, even when other nations undergo rehabilitation.

This Maamar explains the connection between Amalek’s position and Amalek’s destiny.

Section 2 – Scoffers Never Learn

The chapter of the Torah that discusses the defeat of Amalek is adjacent to the chapter that discusses Yisro, who was impressed by Yisroel’s victory over Amalek in battle. The chachomim explain the connection using the posuk in Mishlei “smite the scorner and the naive will become aware”. “Smite the scorner”: this refers to the defeat of Amalek. “And the naive will become aware”: this refers to Yisro. What the chachomim are saying is that Amalek itself learned nothing from its defeat, though the lesson of the defeat was apparent to others who observed it.

Amalek’s defeat taught it nothing because Amalek is a nation of scoffers. The scoffer, characteristically, is impervious to chastisement. What we have yet to explain is how the behavior of Amalek caused it to be categorized as a nation of scoffers.

Section 3 – Taking the True Measure of a Man

We are taught that all mockery is forbidden except as directed against idol worship. Certainly, the license to scoff is extended to evil of any sort. Why, therefore, did the chachomim seize upon idol worship to epitomize instances where mockery is permitted?

The answer is contained in the words of Rabbeinu Yonah on the posuk (Mishlei 27:21) “The refining pot for silver, the furnace for gold and a man according to his praise”. The simple explanation of this posuk is that the measure of a man is in the manner that others praise him.

Rabbeinu Yonah, however, interprets the posuk to mean that the measure of a man is determined by observing whom or what he praises. These are the words of Rabbeinu Yonah: “If he praises worthy acts and wise and righteous men we know that he is a good man and the root of righteousness is within him… and though it may be that he harbors some hidden transgressions, he is still one of the lovers of righteousness… And he who praises repulsive deeds and extols the wicked is the confirmed evil-doer.”

In other words, if we set out to determine a person’s character, the critical question is, where does he aim his derision? We ask that question because the direction of a person’s scorn stems from his sense of values; the more a man values something the more he sneers at its opposite. So the answer to this question tells us what this person really sets store by.

Consider two individuals, one involved in Torah learning with application and industry, the second, not at all involved in Torah learning. But the first individual, though he displays diffidence in the presence of a wealthy man, stands his ground in the presence of a Torah scholar. The second individual, in contrast, behaves with humility and reserve in the company of a Torah scholar.

Rabbeinu Yonah tells us that in this situation the first individual - who surpasses the second in terms of diligence in learning - falls far short of him in terms of closeness to Torah, when measured according to the standard of “man according to his praise”. The value that a person attaches to Torah brings him closer to Torah than the act of learning sans the value.

It is not at all unusual to look at two men in mid-life and find that one, who dedicated his younger years to Torah learning, regrets that he did not involve himself in business matters, while the other, whose youth was spent on worldly affairs, is remorseful over his past neglect of Torah learning. The former individual may be well-versed in the entire Talmud, the latter may be a complete ignoramus, but he is closer to Torah than the former. “A man according to his praise.”

Rabbeinu Yonah’s power of praise is the ability to assign primacy. Praise is no more nor less than an expression of esteem. “A man according to his praise.”

Section 4 – Damned With No Praise

Judging a man according to his praise works only with respect to a person who possesses a sense of values in the first place. If a person has such a sense we can determine whether or not he lays stress on the proper things. There is, however, a prior question to answer before we set about judging a man according to his praise.

That is because some people loath the very idea of praise; of assigning value to anything. They suffer from the trait of acute cynicism. Cynicism will not tolerate value; it is nourished by denigration. A sense of regard will assign value. Cynicism says that nothing is of consequence.

The goal of true cynicism is to find the chink in the armor of any structure of significance and thereby demolish that structure entirely. Praise and cynicism are contrary forces. Praise aspires to bring esteem to the world. Cynicism aspires to bring derision to the world.

To judge a man “according to his praise” two points must be ascertained. First, where does the man stand in the battle between praise and cynicism? Second - and this point is only relevant if the person stands on the side of praise in that battle – to what does this person direct his praise?

Section 5 – To Kill a Mockery (with Mockery)

Ponder this: what is the most extreme example of man taking something that is intended to serve the highest truth, and perverting it to serve the most execrable falsehood? Without a doubt, the answer is idol worship. There is no higher form of activity than worship. And there is nothing more false than an idol. Admittedly, the battle between praise and cynicism within the idol worshiper was won by praise, since any worship is a manifestation of praise. However, his praise is antithetical to truth. Idol worship is, therefore, the epitome of praise misdirected to evil ends.

That is why the chachomim use idol worship to exemplify instances where mockery is permitted. One may, without a doubt, scoff at any evil. But to apply cynicism against idol worship is to use the force most antagonistic to praise against the greatest perversion of praise. It is therefore natural for the worshiper of Hashem to reserve his cynicism for idol worship.

Section 6 – Cynicism: Subversion of Value

The preceding section speaks of cynicism as applied positively, such as against idol worship. There is, though, a fundamental difference between positive and ordinary cynicism. Earlier, we described cynicism as the subversion of value. This is true regardless of the area being mocked. Cynicism is a destructive force. But ordinary cynicism unleashes this destructive force against the very existence of value; we are left with nothing but destruction. Cynicism directed against idol worship, in contrast, is the outcome of attaching value to the opposite of idol worship. Scorn for evil follows as a result of regard for good. Cynicism directed against idol worship is best characterized as scorn developed as a byproduct of praise.

Externally the two forms of cynicism appear similar but they differ greatly in their origins. Ordinary cynicism is destruction for its own sake. Cynicism directed against idol worship is constructive destruction.

The Mesilas Yesharim writes that “a single sneer deflects one-hundred chastisements”. The source is undoubtedly the Gemara which states that just as it is a mitzva to rebuke when the message will be accepted, so is it a mitzva not to rebuke when the message will not be accepted. The Gemara derives this law is from the posuk “do not scold the cynic”. Now, there are many possible reasons why an admonition might not be accepted. Why does the explanation hinge on cynicism?

The answer lies in the concept we have been discussing. The Gemara is not talking about a reprimand unaccepted for this or that specific reason; there are untold possible explanations for the rejection of a particular reprimand. Rather the Gemara is talking about the general ability to accept or reject criticism. As a rule, the Gemara says, cynicism precludes acceptance of criticism. To reproach a person is to instill in him a sense of the importance of correcting that which is awry. Against reproach, the human psyche throws up cynicism as the first line of defense, for cynicism cannot tolerate importance of any sort. It attempts to quash a reproach on the ground that nothing is important, before the message of the reproach can be absorbed.

The dictum “a single sneer deflects one-hundred chastisements” goes deeper than isolated instances of men laughing off this or that reproof for this or that reason. It digs into the soul to expose cynicism as the force that keeps chastisement from the soul.

Section 7 – Amalek: The Quintessential Cynic

Study the language of Rashi in parshas Zachor: “‘When they encountered you [karcha] on the way’. The word karcha is used in the sense of heat and cold [kar]. They (Amalek) cooled you down and subdued the boiling. All the nations were afraid to war with you until this one came and showed the way to the others. It may be compared to a boiling hot bath into which no living creature could descend. A fool came along and jumped in; though he was burned, he cooled the bath for others.”

The most significant aspect of the Amalek affair was not that Amalek fought with Yisroel, but that, with their fight, they cheapened the importance of Yisroel. The chieftains of Edom, the noblemen of Moav, the inhabitants of Canaan, all absorbed the lesson of the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the sea. The bath was boiling hot. Significance was on the rise. But Amalek cannot abide significance. The essence of Yisroel is the power of praise. The essence of Amalek is the power of denigration. The battle lines are drawn. Amalek against Yisroel. Denigration against praise.

With the birth of the nation Yisroel the power to recognize value came into the world. The bath was boiling hot, and the heat was a direct affront to Amalek’s essential character. So they jumped into the bath and cooled it. The value embodied by Yisroel was breached in an attempt to demolish value itself. This breach is the eternal wellspring of cynicism. Man’s urge to cynicism is a drive to cool the boiling hot bath.

The chachomim said that “and the naive will become aware” refers to Yisro because the downfall of Amalek was no lesson to Amalek. On the contrary, Amalek’s very act of aggression was a rebellion against the whole idea of accepting a lesson!

“Smite the scorner”: this refers to the defeat of Amalek.” “And the naive will become aware”: this refers to Yisro. Yisro did accept the lesson of Amalek’s defeat, but such an acceptance is beyond Amalek’s capabilities. If Amalek were capable of accepting the lesson, there would have been no Amalek in the first place, since Amalek’s existence is predicated on eliminating the effect of chastisement from the soul.

Amalek came by this trait from his grandfather, Esav. As the Torah teaches us, Esav’s disgrace was not that he sold his birthright, but that he plundered [bozaz] his birthright. Or, in other words, he disparaged it. “Smite the scorner: this is Amalek.”

Section 8 – Death by Deaf Ear

We mentioned earlier that “in the end he will be destroyed forever” means that although the End of Days epoch can generally repair the faults of the non-Jewish nations, the nation of Amalek falls is irremediable. And since, at the End of Days, the correction of faults is a precondition to continued existence, the destruction of Amalek is inevitable.

The reason for this is now clear. A rebuke demands that that which is corrupt be repaired. Even severe corruption can be repaired, provided the corruption is not the sort that attacks the very rebuke that attempts to repair it. Corruption of that sort is never amenable to repair.

It should therefore be obvious why the epoch of repair is the very epoch that signals the destruction of Amalek. “In the end he will be destroyed forever.” And have we not seen that the cynicism of Amalek stems from its act of “cooling the boiling bath” by becoming the first to enter into battle with Yisroel? The posuk therefore flows smoothly: “Amalek is first among nations, but in the end he will be destroyed forever”. Because Amalek made itself “first among nations” it has no future to enjoy. “In the end he will be destroyed forever”.

Section 9 – Keeping the Important in Sight

“Amalek arrived and attacked Yisroel in Rephidim” (Shmos 17:8). The Mechilta says that Yisroel was attacked because their hands became slack [rafu y’dayhem] with regard to Torah.

Now, the phrase normally used to denote the opposite of Torah learning is neglect of Torah [bitul Torah]. What is the origin of this new phrase “their hands became slack with regard to Torah?” Again, the answer is contained in the concept we have been discussing. To slacken the hands means to lose sight of the importance of the object with which the hands should be involved. When a man loses sight of the importance of a thing, his hands become flaccid.

It is therefore particularly apt that the chachomim coined the phrase “their hands became slack” in the parsha of Amalek - whose essence is the derogation of importance.

Individuals in the world of Torah who wish to properly involve themselves in the study of Torah must recognize that the mitzva of remembering the actions of Amalek obligates them to stand in opposition to “hands becoming slack” with regard to Torah. They must always be in a position of “hands strong with regard to Torah”, or, put another way, the heart that seethes in recognition of the momentousness and glory of Torah should never be permitted to cool.

An adaptation into English of the full text of Pachad Yitzchok, Purim Maamar 1 can be obtained from the author at eli@eliwillner.com.

Question 2 Answer: Section 6

Chizuk for Daf Yomi – The Special Significance of Gemara Study: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 17)

Chizuk for Daf Yomi – The Special Significance of Gemara Study: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 17)

Adapted By Eliakim Willner

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

Section 1 – Laying the Groundwork

The Rambam writes the following in Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:11:

“A person is obligated to divide his study time into three: one third should be devoted to the Written Torah; one third to the Oral Torah; and one third to understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, inferring one concept from another and comparing concepts and understanding the principles by which laws are derived from the Torah’s verses, until he appreciates the essence of those principles and how they are used to determine what is prohibited and what is permitted, and the other laws which were received according to the oral tradition. The latter topic is called Gemara.”

In the next halacha, the Rambam continues:

“The above applies in the early stages of a person’s study. However, once a person increases his knowledge… he should focus his attention on the Gemara alone for his entire life, according to his ambition and his ability to concentrate.”

This Rambam conveys an innovative insight. We know that there is a distinction between laying the groundwork for sanctity and sanctity itself, as well as between laying the groundwork for a mitzva and the mitzva itself. But the Rambam is teaching us that there are similar relationships even when it comes to actual Torah; there are aspects of Torah that play a laying-the-groundwork-for-Torah role, and aspects that play a Torah-itself role.

This is clear from the Rambam’s presentation. The Rambam discusses all three of the Torah branches only in the context of the early stages of a person’s study. Once a person has graduated from those stages, however, the Rambam says that he should focus his attention on Gemara alone. In other words, only the study of Gemara constitutes Torah-itself, the other branches of Torah study are merely means to an end.

This, as we said, is an innovative insight. When we speak of the study of Torah-itself, the three branches do not have equal footing; each branch has its own role and its own relationship to the other branches. Specifically, these relationships are set up such that each of the branches of Torah study except the study of Gemara play a laying-the-groundwork role.

Section 2 – The Seemingly Redundant Bridge

It behooves us to find a basis for this insight. We know that there are two hekesh “bridges” that connect Torah study through the generations to the Torah study of the first-generation Torah recipients at Sinai. The first connection is via the “study it now just as we got it then” bridge – as the Gemara (Brachos 22a) puts it, Just as when the Torah was given, it was with reverence and fear and trembling and quaking, so must in be when studying it now, as well. The second connection takes the form of, “Just as I teach you for free, so too you also shall teach for free”. Figuratively speaking, Hashem is making that statement to Moshe, telling him that just as when Hashem taught Moshe the Torah, there was no quid pro quo, so also, when Moshe teaches the Torah to Yisroel, he may not take any form of payment.

The basis for the first bridge is the juxtaposition of the verses, “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” (Devarim 4:9) which speaks of present-tense Torah study, and the following verse, “The day that you stood before Hashem, your G-d at Chorev”, which is a reference to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Based on that bridge the Gemara declares, “Just as there it was with reverence and fear and trembling and quaking, so in this case too  it must be with reverence and fear and trembling and quaking.

The basis for the second bridge is the verse (Devarim 4:5), “Behold, I have taught you statutes and laws, as Hashem my G-d commanded me”, on which the Gemara declares, “Just as I teach you for free, so too you also shall teach for free”. In this verse Moshe is telling Yisroel that he is teaching them Torah in the same no-cost manner that Hashem taught it to him.

The practical outcome of the halacha that emerges from the first bridge is that one may not study Torah when not in a state of “reverence and fear and trembling and quaking”. This is the basis for tevilas Ezra (Ezra decreed, on the basis of the first bridge, that a baal keri may not learn Torah until he purifies himself by immersion in a mikva). But it is worth asking why the second bridge is necessary at all. Why does the first bridge not suffice, to derive the prohibition against receiving payment for teaching Torah, as well, since any number of specifics can be transferred from one topic to another using a hekesh? It would teach us that just as the giving of the Torah was without pay, so too should the teaching of Torah today be without pay! Why is a separate bridge necessary to teach us this halacha?

Section 3 – The Justification for the Second Bridge

The key to answering this question lies in the words of Rav Yosi (Brachos 22a), who says that tevilas Ezra is not required when one is reviewing superficially, which Rashi explains to mean that he is reviewing Mishnayos that roll off his tongue as a result of his familiarity with them – with rigilus. Thus we see that the first bridge is limited-application because it does not preclude review by rote Torah study. However it is obvious that the distinction between superficial and non-superficial Torah does not apply with respect to teaching Torah for payment, because the prohibition against taking payment applies to other mitzvos, not just to teaching Torah. Since accepting payment is a blanket prohibition that spans all mitzvos it would not make sense to differentiate between different forms of the mitzva of Torah study. Therefore, we require the second bridge to derive the payment prohibition: “Just as I teach you for free, so too you also shall teach for free”. Since any imperative derived from the first bridge will be limited to non-rote situations, we must find another source for the payment prohibition that does not carry along with it that limitation.

Section 4 – The Significance of Torah Study with Toil

The words of Rav Yosi provide a new perspective on the significance of ameilus, toil, when studying Torah. What is it that characterizes the superficial study that is exempt from the requirements imposed by “study it now just as we got it then”? It is that superficial study is the antithesis of study with toil. We see, then, that toil when applied to Torah study does not merely produce a more praiseworthy, or more exalted, form of study, because failure to achieve what is merely a non-obligatory level of study would not create an exemption from the requirement of “study it now just as we got it then”.

It is clear that the “reverence and fear and trembling and quaking” of Sinai pertains only study with toil, and only study with toil carries the obligation of “study it now just as we got it then”.

Section 5 – Gemara – The Ultimate Level of Torah Study

We are now in a position to better understand the words of the Rambam cited in section 1 about non-Gemara Torah study being a preparation for the ultimate goal, the study of Gemara .

The Rambam describes the study of Gemara as understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, inferring one concept from another and comparing concepts and understanding the principles by which laws are derived from the Torah’s verses, etc. Certainly, the study of Gemara is the natural habitat of an intellect that toils to get to the essence and the scope of a matter, and that labors to infer one concept from another.

Rav Yosi’s rigilus terminology is meant to refer to the bottom rung of Torah study, since that level of study involves the least amount of ameilus. When the Rambam discussed ameilus in connection with the study of Gemara he is attempting to put as much distance as possible between that and rigilus; they are at opposite ends of the exertion spectrum.

The study of Mishna falls somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, since it does not rise to the level of Gemara study, but some elements of Gemara study (such as “understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, etc.” which are the elements of the study of Gemara as the Rambam defines them) will always be present when studying Mishna; when the mind grapples to understand Mishna it is engaging in a mental activity that is akin to the study of Gemara.

In the same way, it is impossible to study the Written Torah without reference to Oral Torah – that is, to Mishna and Gemara – since the Written Torah is not understandable without external explanation, and external explanation constitutes Oral Torah, as the Rambam explicitly states.

Thus both Written Torah and Mishna do qualify as “training grounds” for the study of Gemara.

Now, the Torah was given at Sinai in a state of “reverence and fear and trembling and quaking”, as we discussed in section 2, and the epitome of that state can only be reached post-Sinai through the study of Gemara with ameilus, which takes us as far as possible from the level of rigilus – for which “reverence and fear and trembling and quaking” are irrelevant. This is the basis for the Rambam’s conclusion that the other realms of Torah study serve as preliminaries for the study of Gemara and therefore their place is  the early stages of a person’s study.

Section 6 – The Significant Absence

The question we must now address is, “Why?”. Why is the quality of ameilus when studying Torah so significant that its absence permits Torah study even in circumstances when Torah study is ordinarily prohibited? Clearly, the absence of the quality of ameilus creates a fundamental change in the nature of Torah studied in that state. Why does not the absence of ameilus create a similar fundamental change in other mitzvos, when they are performed without ameilus?

Section 7 – The Priceless Intellect

Our journey to discovering the answer to this question begins with the well-known halacha that if someone sells medicinal herbs to a sick person for more than market value, the buyer must pay no more than market value. If, on the other hand, a doctor sets a high price for his services, the buyer must pay the full price quoted. The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Daiya 336 explains that the rationale for this distinction is that the doctor is selling his sagacity, which has no set market value.

We explained elsewhere that the reason that wisdom, in general, has no set value is because each learned person’s wisdom is unique, and since it is unique there are no like items that it can be lumped together with to arrive at consensus value. Only when items are similar enough to fit together in a single category can the market establish a value for those items. Each person’s wisdom is unique, however, and is therefore not susceptible to having a “standard” price assigned to it. In other words, commodities have market values because the prices charged by individual sellers will tend to converge toward a narrow range. Sellers that charge more than the going rate will have a hard time finding buyers. Sellers that charge considerably less will arouse the suspicion that their product is of inferior quality. Most stores will sell an apple for about the same price, for example. But the owner of a rare and unique diamond can set his own price because there is no diamond similar enough to his, to assess whether his is over or underpriced.

Thus only when it comes to wisdom may the seller set his own price, and must the buyer pay that price. If a tradesman were to attempt to set a high price for his services, however, his customer would not be obligated to pay any more than market value for those services.

Now, it might be argued that since every one of man’s capabilities is unique to him alone, and the fruit of Reuven’s labors will of necessity be different from those of Shimon’s, why should not even the common tradesman be able to set and collect a high price for his services? Why should their unique capabilities be treated any differently from wisdom?

This is not a valid argument, however, because wisdom is fundamentally different from man’s other capabilities. Wisdom is what separates man from other life forms, and thus wisdom is the “true-man”, within “man-as-a-composite-of-his-various-capabilities”. In fact, wisdom is to man’s other capabilities, what mankind itself is, to the animal kingdom, within which there is no individuality. (The Torah uses the word, l’mino, “after its species” when speaking of animals. See, for example, Vayikra 11:15. As our early Sages put it, only with respect to man is there a concept of individuality. Men are provided divine sustenance as individuals, not in the composite, as a breed.)

The bottom line is that although a person may have multiple capabilities that theoretically differ from the parallel capabilities of his fellows, it is only with respect to the intellect that the differences in the capabilities between one person and another have any practical significance – to the extent that there is no set market value to a person’s wisdom. Man’s other capabilities may be individual to him, but they are not fundamentally different from the capabilities of other species, and therefore they are not significant enough for the variations between the capabilities of one person and another to have a financial value.

Section 8 – The Inventive Power of the Intellect

Individuality is ingrained in the intellect as a trait, and that means that in its very essence the intellect is an innovator. If it were not the case that every intellect, by virtue of its nature, carves out its own innovative path, it could not possess the trait of individuality. One intellect would be a cookie-cutter image of another intellect.

Intellectual individuality is only possible because each intellect creates something unique, something that no other intellect could have come up with. Thus the unique identity of an intellect is formed by its originative power. That is the meaning of the phrase (Chagigah 3a), “there is no Bais Medrash session without innovation”. The Bais Medrash is where the intellect shines most brightly; where its true nature comes to the fore. The statement that “there is no Bais Medrash session without innovation” is thus a statement that innovation is the hallmark of the intellect; more, that it is impossible for an active intellect not to be innovative.

The intellect exists to create; its toil is entirely dedicated to originating something that did not exist before. When the intellect contemplates a matter, it is laboring to discover a fresh outlook on that matter. Before the contemplation the matter appeared one way. Afterwards it appears in an entirely different light. This change in outlook is what we mean when we speak of the intellect’s creative power. We call the intellectual process of focusing on a matter to see it in a more clarified way “ameilus of the intellect”. Thus, to speak of the intellect divorced from ameilus is akin to speaking of the fatherhood of someone who is sterile – an impossible contradiction in terms.

When the intellect’s immersion in Torah leads to a fresh understanding of a Torah matter – that is ameilus in Torah. We refer to Torah study with this kind of ameilus as “Gemara-level study”.

We are now prepared to understand why the absence of ameilus creates a fundamental change with respect to the study of Torah, but does not create a similar fundamental change with respect to other mitzvos.

The study of Torah is an intellect-bound mitzva and as such it is primarily an act of innovation, and that innovation is achieved, as we have discussed, through ameilus. Ameilus, then, has the power to uplift Torah study to Gemara-level heights, the optimum level of Torah study, and to purge it from the superficiality of rigilus, which stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from Gemara study – so much so, that Ezra’s decree prohibiting Torah study when in a certain state does not even include rigilus-level study.

All this is true, however, only of Torah study, which is accomplished through the intellect. However, ameilus is not critical to other paths of service to Hashem, which are not necessarily tied to the intellect and therefore do not rise and fall on the basis of innovation. For those paths ameilus is beneficial and praiseworthy but it is not indispensable. The presence or absence of ameilus does not draw a firm line of demarcation between two distinct categories of that particular form of service, as it does for Torah study, where the categories are Gemara on the one hand, rigilus, on the other.

Section 9 – The Unique Association of Ameilus with Torah Study

With the concepts developed in this Maamar we can understand the words of the Maharal at the beginning of parshas Bechukosai. On the verse (Vayikra 26:3), “If you travel the path of My statutes…” Rashi comments, “what is the meaning of ‘If you travel the path of My statutes’? It means that you must toil in the study of Torah”. The Maharal explains that Rashi derives this interpretation from the verse’s choice of words, “if you travel…”; just as traveling a path transports a person from one place to another, so too does ameilus, toiling in Torah, transport a person from echelon to ever-rising echelon in his journey to increase the depth of his Torah understanding. The word tailaichu, literally means to travel a path; the simple understanding of its usage here is that it is merely a metaphorical way of saying, “If you follow My statutes” but the Maharal understood that Rashi derived his interpretation, “you must toil in the study of Torah”, from this precise choice of words.

However, this explanation of the Maharal is puzzling. After all, toil in any avenue of service to Hashem also transports a person from echelon to higher echelon. Why does Rashi conclude, according to the Maharal, that this stepwise elevation must be a specific reference to ameilus in the study of Torah?

The answer lies in what we have been saying. It is only with respect to Torah study that ameilus creates an entirely different category of the mitzva, for ameilus takes Torah study out of the category of rigilus and catapults it into the category of Gemara. As the Rambam writes, Gemara is to the other areas of Torah, as an end is, to a means toward that end. With respect to other areas of service to Hashem, ameilus creates an enhanced form of service but it does not create a different category of service. It does not transport a person to a distinctly different place. And because the Torah uses language indicating that kind of transport, Rashi infers, explains the Maharal, that “If you travel the path of My statutes…” is a specific reference to Torah study.

---

This article is dedicated in honor of my three grandsons for whom this is the year of hascholoas ha’gemara: To Efraim Willner and his classmates at Yeshivas Toras Aharon, Lakewood; to Efraim Meir Willner and his classmates at Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin, Brooklyn; and to Shmuel Wulliger and his classmates at Yeshiva Tiferes Torah, Lakewood. May you all shteig in your learning and grow to become great talmidei chachamim!

An adaptation into English of the full text of Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 17 can be obtained from the author at eli@eliwillner.com.

Question 2 Answer: Section 6