The Jewish “Common Core”: Common Core in Pesukim, as Explained by the Maharal

The Jewish “Common Core”:  Common Core in Pesukim, as Explained by the Maharal

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

Many pesukim in the Torah teach us multiple halachos, or lessons of mussar, based on the different ways these can be extrapolated from the words of the verse. It is commonplace for our Sages to derive one halacha from a verse’s pshat, or simple meaning, and what appears to be a completely unrelated halacha using the drush method of verse interpretation (examples to follow).

It might be thought that these disparate teachings are related only incidentally in that they derive from the same verse. The Maharal, however, explains that if a verse has multiple teachings, there is a single core concept that underlies and unites all of them.

Pre-Meal Handwashing and Tumah Purification – A Common Core

A good example can be found in the Gemara, Chulin 106a, which writes that, according to one opinion, the obligation to ritually wash hands before eating derives from the verse (Vayikra 15:11) “And whoever the zav touches, without [the latter] having rinsed his hands… shall remain unclean until evening”.

Both the verse and the derivation of the hand-washing obligation from the verse are difficult to understand, as the Gemara details:

“As Rava explained to Rav Nachman: where in this verse is there such an allusion? It is from the words, “without having washed his hands”. Is it really true, [Rava asked, hypothetically,] that with hand-washing [alone] the Zav-touched person becomes pure? [Certainly not;] we know that he requires full ritual immersion [in a mikva in order to become pure!] Rather, the verse should be [homiletically] read as follows: “[aside from the zav, who requires ritual immersion,] there is another form of ritual impurity that is removable with just hand-washing [and that is the hand-based ritual impurity that must be expunged prior to eating]”

In fact, the primary lesson of the verse as expounded by the Gemara in Niddah 43a is the entirely different subject of the purification process of a person who is tameh, ritually impure. The mention of hand-washing teaches, as a paradigm, the Gemara explains, which parts of the body require immersion; just as hands are exterior so is the obligation to immerse limited to parts of the body that are also exterior,  and parts of the body that are not exterior, such as internal organs need not be immersed.

It would seem, then, that there are two unrelated derivations from the verse. First and primary, that mikva immersion is required only for exposed parts of the body as the Gemara in Niddah states. Second, as drush (and as an allusion only), the obligation to wash pre-meal as discussed in the Gemara in Chulin. Indeed, some commentators explain the two derivations in this way.

The Maharal, however, in a novel approach to understanding the Gemara’s discussion of the two teachings derived from the verse-phrase, “…without having washed his hands”, explains in Nesiv HaAvodah 16:2, that both seemingly disparate derivations actually stem from the same concept. The primary derivation is the teaching that the requirement for mikva immersion is limited to parts of the body that are exposed, just as the hands are exposed. The underlying concept, however, is that there is a continuum ranging from “hidden” to “exposed” and the further along a thing is toward “exposed” the more prone it is to tumah. Hands are at the “exposed” extreme of the continuum, so they exemplify susceptibility to tumah and therefore require mikva immersion. By extension, other body parts that are exposed also require immersion. Items at the other end of the continuum, however, like internal body cavities, are not susceptible to tumah at all and thus do not require mikva immersion.

The concept that hands are tumah “magnets” because of their “exposure quotient” leads directly to the second teaching derived from the verse, the requirement for pre-meal hand-washing. This follows, since, as the Maharal explains, it is inappropriate that an act that is so directly tied to our sustenance be associated with tumah. These two teachings – that mikva immersion is required only for exposed parts of the body, and that one must wash prior to eating bread – both emerge from the same concept. The verse-phrase is not teaching us two disparate laws, it is teaching us a fundamental concept out of which each of these laws emanates.

The “Common Core Concept” Principle

The notion that there is a core concept common to multiple derivations from the same verse is a frequent theme in the writings of the Maharal. He makes it explicit in Be’er HaGolah, Be’er 3: “A wise person will express wonderment at the tight relationship between drush, [homiletic exegesis] and pshat, [the straightforward verse interpretation]. Someone bereft of wisdom, will, however, express wonderment at the chasm that separates the two… Indeed, every single medrashic interpretation is rooted in a deep understanding of the verse’s true meaning – the meaning that surfaces after a thorough analysis of the verse. In fact, that is why this method of exegesis is called “drasha”; it is the fruit of an in-depth study of the verse that elicits its ultimate depth of meaning.”

Self-Mutilation and Bais Din Discord– A Common Core

Here is another, somewhat simpler example of the principle that all the teachings extracted from a verse derive from a common core concept. Devarim 14:1 has the prohibition of lo sisgodidu; one may not make incisions in one’s flesh as an observance of mourning. Our Sages (Yevamos 14a) derive another prohibition from the same verse: the Bais Din that rules on Jewish law in a particular locale may not split between several opposing approaches to halacha; for example, it is prohibited for some members to rule like Bais Hillel and some like Bais Shammai.

This prohibition derives from an interpretation of the root of the word sisgodidu as meaning “creating factions” and according to this drush the verse is declaring a prohibition against factionalizing a town’s Bais Din. Apparently these two teachings – do not make flesh incisions and do not factionalize – are unrelated. But the Maharal explains that in fact they share a root concept. Do not create unwarranted separations where unity is warranted. We are a holy nation (as the next verse explains) and thus unity is called for. This implies preserving unity in our bodies by not making cuts in our flesh. And it implies unity in our communities by avoiding factionalization.

Matzos and Mitzvos– A Common Core

Similarly, the Maharal discusses the drasha our Sages derive from Shmos 12:17. The verse says, “And you shall watch over the matzos”. The simple meaning of the verse (pshat) is that we must take care to bake the Pesach matzos quickly, before they have a chance to leaven and become chometz. Our Sages, however (Mechilta, cited by Rashi), using the drush method, derive an additional stricture from this verse. They read it “And you shall watch over the mitzvos (commandments)” – there is a one letter difference in Hebrew between matzos and mitzvos – and they interpret it to mean, “just as we may not permit the matzos to become leavened, so may we not permit the mitzvos to become leavened (i.e., to wait too long before we perform them); if it an opportunity to perform a mitzvah comes your way, perform it immediately.”

Naturally, the Maharal seeks a common core concept that underlies each of these apparently unrelated derivations from the verse. He explains that the Egyptian exodus brought about a suspension of the constraints of the physical world since it was an event triggered by an extraordinary degree of open divine intervention. The divine world is not limited by those constraints. Thus the shackles of time – one of the constraints of the physical world – were broken. The notion of “delay” became irrelevant and impossible. On Pesach we “simulate” the removal of the time constraint by hurrying to bake the matzos as quickly as possible. Similarly, when we are presented with a mitzvah opportunity we are entering the world of the divine; the mitzvos are our “handle” into the divine world of Hashem. In that world there is no time constraint. So here too we “simulate” the removal of this constraint by hurrying to complete the mitzvah as soon as possible. Here too, there is a common principle underlying both teachings of the verse – breaking the time constraint via an attachment to the divine obligates us to accelerate both the baking of the matzos and the performance of mitzvos.

No Heterogeneity From Unity

That a shared core concept must underlie multiple derivations from the same verse is actually an instance of a broader principle articulated by the Maharal, and that is that disparate objects items cannot emanate from a single act of creation. A single verse from which halachos, laws, emanate is akin to a single act of creation and thus those halachos must have a common ground. The Maharal discusses the broader principle in connection with the creation of the sun and moon as described in Beraishis 1:16: “And Hashem made the two large luminaries; the large luminary to rule the day and the small luminary to rule the night”. The obvious question is that the verse first describes both luminaries as “large”, implying that they are equal in size, and then distinguishes between them as the “large” and the “small” luminaries. The Ibn Ezra explains that the original description of both of them as large is in relation to other luminaries, measured against which both the sun and moon are large. However, in relation to one another, the sun is large and the moon is small and they were originally created that way.

The Maharal in Gur Aryeh, Bamidbar 28:15 takes strong issue with this explanation since it contradicts a Gemara in Chulin 60b, which states that, “the moon said to Hashem, ‘Master of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown’? He answered: ‘Go then and make yourself smaller’.” The Gemara is clearly stating that the sun and the moon were originally created equal in size – and that is as described in the beginning of the verse which refers to them as “two large luminaries” – but the moon was later diminished and that is alluded to in the ending of the verse which describes them as being of different sizes.

In that context the Maharal explains that since the sun and the moon were created together – they both resulted from the same divine declaration of “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens” (Beraishis 1:14) – they had to be the same size because disparate items cannot emanate from a single act of creation. Therefore, as the Gemara states, and contrary to the view of the ibn Ezra, the diminution of the moon must have been a post-creation development.

Immutability of the Torah as Origin of the Common Core Concept

The principle that all the teachings extracted from a verse derive form a common core concept and are not haphazardly lumped together is better appreciated in the context of another Torah-related principle the Maharal discusses in Derech Hashem (3:2) and that is that the Torah, even in its minutest details, is immutable. Everything in the Torah is necessary in an absolute sense; that is, there is nothing in the Torah that is arbitrary or could be otherwise than the way it is. In Netzach Yisroel 10 the Maharal contrasts this with non-Torah-based civil law, where different societies arrive at different approaches to maintain public order and prevent anarchy, and there is nothing inherent in any given law to make it necessary in absolute terms. For example (the example is ours, not the Maharal’s), if a thief is to be penalized by having to repay more than he stole, there is no more reason to favor a larger over a smaller fine. The choice can be and often is arbitrary. But when the Torah imposes a pay-double penalty (as it does in certain circumstances) it is necessary for the penalty to be precisely that, not more and not less. A different penalty is an impossibility. The same is true about every law, every detail, in the Torah.

The Torah, the Maharal explains, is not a collection of disparate laws and narratives, it is a unity. Every element in it has its unique place; every element has to be exactly the way it is, or the unity is disrupted. We may not understand why these elements have to be the way they are and cannot be any other way, but, as the Maharal writes in Tiferes Yisroel 17-18, this is the divine will, reflective of divine wisdom. There is a difference, the Maharal continues, between “necessary truth” and “circumstantial truth”, and he illustrates the difference with an example. Consider the truth-value of the statement, “Reuven is in that house”. If in fact Reuven is in the house the statement is true but it is only circumstantially true because Reuven doesn’t have to be in the house; it is equally plausible for him to be elsewhere. If Reuven is not in the house the statement is false but again, only circumstantially because Reuven could just as easily have been in the house. The Torah, however, is necessarily true because, as we explained, it is impossible for an event or commandment or any other aspect of the Torah to be otherwise than it is. There is nothing circumstantial or happenstance about the Torah.

In that light we can better appreciate the previous principle espoused by the Maharal, that all the teachings extracted from a verse derive from a common core concept. To say otherwise would be to impute a degree of haphazardness to the Torah and as we have just seen, the Torah is an intricate gestalt, without any aspect of haphazardness or randomness whatever.

Conclusion

In summary, the principle that the Torah is absolute and not circumstantial truth presages the principle that disparate objects items cannot emanate from a single act of creation, and that principle in turn leads to the further principle that if a verse has multiple teachings, there is a common core concept that underlies and unites all of them.

The foregoing should enable us to appreciate that the Torah of the Maharal is itself a monumental and intricate tapestry where studying individual concepts yields the close-up beauty of its discrete components, but plumbing the depths of the Maharal’s many works reveals the broader picture – and triggers the realization that the tapestry has a grand design into which all the individual components are neatly subsumed.

Rav Gavriel Noach Holtzberg – A Tribute

Rav Gavriel Noach Holtzberg – A Tribute

By Eli Willner

(As published in Yated Neeman, 12/10/2008)

It is motzai Shabbos parshas Toldos and I am in Eretz Yisroel. I’m here on business but, like many other yidden, I spent Friday glued to the news, hoping against hope for good news out of Mumbai. I went into Shabbos with a sense of foreboding. The latest news, right before candle-lighting, was not encouraging. After havdala our worst fears were confirmed. Gavriel Noach Holtzberg and his Rebbetzin, h”yd, were no more.

After my initial shock wore off I decided to express my feelings in writing.  I’m an unlikely candidate to be writing a tribute to a Chabad sholiach. My background isn’t Lubavitch. And there are doubtless plenty of people who appreciated Gabi’s gadlus better than I, who merely spent several Shabbosos over several years as his guest and exchanged occasional emails with him.

Nonetheless, Gabi made a profound impression on me. I considered him a good friend and had the sense that the feeling was mutual. I don’t doubt that there are dozens, or maybe hundreds of people who feel the same – that was part of Gabi’s gadlus. If so, there will be other tributes, and kain yirbu, he deserves them all.

Let me begin by sharing my impressions of Gabi after my first trip to Mumbai, nearly four years ago. The following is an excerpt from a letter to a mutual friend after my return.

Hi, Reb Moshe. I am in the process of getting back into things here, after my trip…

Rabbi Holtzberg is an amazing person… he's about 27, two babies, yet he and his wife hosted about 40 people Friday night, and there is no take-out in Mumbai – if you want to eat it, you have to start from scratch (which means shechita, if you want meat or chicken)! I was impressed by the fact that he accepted with complete aplomb the fact that his home (which doubles as the Chabad House) constantly has people coming and going, sleeping on the couches, whatever, and that completely non-religious yidden are drawn there for reasons they can't put their finger on, and that Rabbi Holtzberg has the knack of talking to each individual on his own level (which implies also the ability to assess that level).

Here's a little excerpt from my trip diary:

I spent Shabbos with Rabbi Holtzberg, who is the Chabad sholiach in Mumbai. It was a wonderful experience. His home is on the top floor of a quaint, old-fashioned - but clean and comfortable - hotel overlooking the Indian Ocean, on a very swank street in the classy part of town [This was before the Chabad House moved to its current five-story structure]. He has the entire floor, including a huge balcony which overlooks the ocean. He makes his Friday night seudah on the balcony (and he had about forty people there, so you can get an idea of its size). The other seudos he makes inside, since it's too hot to eat on the balcony when the sun is out.  The Rabbi (who is now "Gabi" to me) is a very warm and hospitable man, with two young kids and a Rebbetzin who really has her hands full (although she does have local help). He holds dual American/Israeli citizenship; he was born in the Israel but moved to the USA in his youth. He's most comfortable in Hebrew, but speaks a colloquial American English as well.

His crowd was a mixed bag; about 70% Israeli, divided between post-army kids seeing the world and business people; the rest were from all over the place (even another guy from Brooklyn, if you would believe it). The Israelis were mostly not frum, and mostly not shy about being not frum. They came to the shabbos seudah complete with handbags, wallets and cell phones. However, given their backgrounds, the amazing thing is that they came at all - and came back Shabbos afternoon, and hung around after the seduah, and seemed to enjoy the ruach of Shabbos and talking with Gabi, who handled it extremely well…

The Chabad house doesn't have its own minyan, they daven at the Sasson shul, which is the oldest (and now I think one of the only two) shuls in Bombay. It's officially a frum Sephardi shul, but they have no Rav, and haven't for years, and things seem to have slipped somewhat. Most of the local mispallilim, Gabi tells me, are not frum. The baal koreh is looking back and forth between the sefer Torah and a chumash, and might be laining from either one of them at any given moment in time. Gabi is in a delicate position because although they accept his superior knowledge, and defer to him as a Rabbi, he has no authority to institute changes. He is trying, but has to tread carefully. He took over laining for a while, but then the "regular" guy decided he wanted his job back, so that was that. Cell phones ring during davening, and yes, I mean Shabbos davening (but hey, at least they go outside to answer the calls!) There is a kiddush after davening, which Gabi suggested we skip. Until he arrived, people did their own shechita. He himself is a shochet and now supplies poultry to whoever wants, but some of the old-timers still do their own, and since these are the same guys carrying around their cell phones during davening, there is a problem. So, we skipped the kiddush.

Some background on the Jewish community in Mumbai is in order. Mumbai is better known by its original name: Bombay. It’s Jewish presence dates back to the 1700’s but the community began to bloom in the early 1800’s with the arrival of David Sasson, a Sephardy Jew from Bagdad, who established a vast mercantile empire and built many Jewish institutions, including shuls, Yeshivos and mikvaos. At its height the community numbered over 15,000 people but began a steep decline in the 1940’s, as economic conditions deteriorated and much of the community moved to the west or to Israel. Today the community numbers approximately 5,000 people but the Sasson shul – one of the largest of the seven or eight shuls originally in Mumbai – is in disrepair and barely scrapes together a minyan on Shabbos.

The “tovai ha’ir” are gone and before Rabbi Holtzberg arrived in 2003 the community was essentially leaderless and on a steep decline.

To know Rabbi Holtzberg was to love him – he exuded self-effacing kindness and goodwill and had a knack of making everyone comfortable in his presence. The community might have rejected the arrival of an “outsider” – a foreigner, an Ashkenazi – and, moreover, someone whose presence implied the less than adequate state of their religious observance. But, they welcomed him with open arms. And, with tact, Gabi began the process of raising the standard of religious observance in Mumbai, while at the same time providing a haven for the many Jewish visitors to Mumbai.

The visitors loved Gabi just as the residents did and their diversity was amazing. They included Israeli backpackers, and tourists and business people ranging from Bnai Brak diamond dealers, to Chaim Berliners from Brooklyn, to high-tech Israeli entrepreneurs, to crusty British gentlemen and every kind of Jew in between.  Gabi was able to relate to all of them, and – astoundingly – got us to relate amongst ourselves as well.

His “MO” seems simple but it takes a person of stature to pull it off successfully and consistently. Kiddush, some good food, and a little “mashke”, and Gabi announces his “minhag hamakom”. All the guest will introduce themselves, and say a shtikel Torah, or tell over an inspiring maiseh, or suggest a zemira. Gabi’s sure but subtle hand guides the process to assure that halacha is observed, people’s sensitivities aren’t violated and everyone’s interest is continually engaged. Indeed, the seudah is long but no one is bored, and many linger afterwards, reluctant to break the spell.

I remember one visitor in particular, a distinguished-looking non-frum Israeli who didn’t say much, but who seemed familiar with Gabi’s tisch. When it was his turn to speak he introduced himself – he was a diplomat from the Israeli consulate in Mumbai and he came to tell Gabi and all assembled some good news. An Israeli who was arrested and held in an Indian jail was just released and was on a flight back to Lod. The diplomat wanted to thank Gabi for his role in obtaining the release and to publicly acknowledge it. Then he smiled, said “Shabbat Shalom” and left. Gabi, though obviously elated at the news, simply moved on to the next participant.

I had already known that Gabi was the local shochet, mohel, Rav, mechanech, baal korah, baal tokeah and more, but I had no idea of his pidyon shvuyim activities. Gabi didn’t believe in self-aggrandizement, he believed in doing what was necessary to help his fellow yidden in whatever way was needed, and if that included diplomacy, so be it.

Kiruv was one of Gabi’s primary activities and one of the most impressive things about him, to this litvishe Jew, was that Gabi was concerned about bringing Jews closer to Torah Yiddishkeit, but not to any particular “brand” of Torah Yiddishkeit, including his own. His divrei Torah by the Shabbos tischen, and by his wonderful melava malkos, naturally reflected his background, drawing from the Torah of the Lubavitcher Rebbes and other gedolei chassidus.  But he was delighted when I shared with him afterwards divrei Torah from litvishe sources on similar inyonim.

Indeed, I discovered as I spoke with him in learning on various occasions that Gabi was a talmid chochom of stature with a broad and deep knowledge of many areas of Torah. When we were talking one-on-one his eyes would light up and his entire being would become animated with his “bren” for Torah, and I had the feeling that I was seeing the real Gabi Holtzberg, the “pnimius” that defined and motivated all his other activities.

About three years ago Chabad of Mumbai outgrew its original location on the top floor of that hotel and Gabi ambitiously decided to raise funds for, buy and refurbish a five-story building that would enable him to broaden the scope of his activities. I remember visiting him shortly after he moved into that building. It wasn’t completely finished yet, but the “ikkar” was there – a bais medrash, and a dining hall for the guests. Gabi described with pride his plans to add a “hostel” so that his guests would no longer have to walk from the area hotels – and pay their steep rates – but could make his Chabad House their base of operations. That visit, I stayed at the Taj Mahal hotel and davened and ate with Gabi.

My most recent visit was a few short months ago. The refurbishment was complete and Gabi welcomed me with pride to the hostel – clean and comfortable, not quite as high-end as the Taj, but infinitely more heimish. Friday night Gabi announced that we were going to the Sasson shul to daven – about a 25 minute walk through the smelly streets of Mumbai. “Why?”, I asked him. “You have a beautiful new bais medrash, we have a minyan here – and it’s 100 degrees outside, in the shade!” “Because”, he answered me with a smile, “we have a minyan, but without us, they may not!” Classic Gabi!

That visit, when it was my turn to speak, I said, “Rabboisai, my business has offices in Yerushalayim and in Mumbai, and I travel to both several times a year. Traveling to the kedusha of Yerushalayim is always a joy. Traveling to the tumah of Mumbai would be intolerable, if not for this wonderful microcosm of Yerushalayim that Gabi has somehow managed to transplant right here.”

The loss of Gabi to Mumbai is incalculable. Gabi was one of a kind. His loss to klal yisroel is incalculable as well. Yehi zicho boruch.

Significance of Place: The Effect of Place on Status, Characteristics and Events in the Torah of the Maharal

Significance of Place: The Effect of Place on Status, Characteristics and Events in the Torah of the Maharal

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

In the summer months many of us leave our homes and travels to other places, near and far, to get a break from our regular routines. We are off our regular orbits. And that leads to the question, does place matter? Is there a halachic and hashkafic significance to our “home” place, or to other places? Indeed there is, and we examine the subject from various angles through the lens of the Maharal.

Where You Stand is Where You Stand

In Bamidbar 10:32 Rashi writes that the fertile area of Yericho was set aside as future compensation for the tribe in whose territory the Temple would ultimately be built, since the Temple land would be “nationalized” and would no longer be the property of the tribe originally holding it. The Maharal in Gur Aryeh on that verse notes that the area of Yericho that was designated as the “swap land” was relatively small and seems to be poor compensation for the land that was nationalized for the Temple. How, he asks, is that a fair exchange? He answers that the value of the land was inherent in its status – the status it obtained by being designated as “swap land” for the Temple – and in the fact that its status was testimony to the high standing of the land’s occupiers. Thus even though the fertile area of Yericho was relatively small, it had a high property value. The Maharal states as a principle that place is an indicator of the standing of the persons occupying the space.

Indeed, the word for place, makom, also carries an implication of standing, as in the phrase, mimalei makom avosav, used in Kesubos 103b as a reference to someone who lives up to the standing, or status, of his forefathers.

You Are Where You Stand

In fact, the Maharal on that Rashi goes further and states that the land a person occupies is not only a status indicator, it is a status determinant – prestige and blessing emanate from the land to the land’s occupants. The land’s inherent status transfers to the persons occupying the land.

Land also affects a person’s physical characteristics. When Moshe sent spies to scout out Israel and its inhabitants prior to Yisroel’s planned entry and conquest, he commanded them (Bamidbar 13:18),  “And you should see what kind of land it is…”, on which Rashi comments, “Some countries rear strong people, and some countries rear weak people; some produce large populations and some small populations”. The Maharal in Gur Aryeh on that verse explains that land is one of the factors that actually determine strength and prolificity and he instructed the spies to explore that factor with respect to the land of Israel, along with other factors that affect strength and prolificity, such as ethnological background.

The Gemara in Shabbos 31a tells of an individual who asked Hillel patently silly questions in an unsuccessful attempt to test his patience. Two of the questions were, why do the residents of Tardum have straight eyes, and why do the residents of Africa have wide feet? Hillel responded that these characteristics were a result of the conditions prevalent in those locales – and the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados on that Gemara explains that it is the same concept at play; the ability of land to affect a person’s physical characteristics.

As the Maharal writes in Netzach Yisroel, chapter 28, land also affects spiritual characteristics. There are places that are notable for their tendency to bring about an extremely high level of sanctity, and he cites as an example the cave where Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai hid from the Romans for twelve years. During that time he immersed himself in Torah study and became proficient in the hidden areas of the Torah, received revelations from Eliyahu and experienced miracles. The “atmosphere” of the cave was a factor in these events.

The Maharal continues to develop this concept in Gevuros Hashem, Chapter 19, where he writes that not only can place affect a person’s status and characteristics, but the nature of a place is also a causative factor for events. As an example he explains that a well gives rise to marriage pairings and that is why Yitzchok, Yaakov and Moshe found their betrothed by wells. In Chidushei Aggados on Horios 12a the Maharal explains that kings were anointed adjacent to wellsprings because those places mitigate toward longevity and anointing kings there facilitated the longevity of their reigns. In Chidushei Aggados on Sanhedrin 96a the Maharal writes that when Avraham encountered the land-portion of the tribe of Dan in Israel he felt weak, because that particular plot of land has a property that fosters idol-worship. (The reference is to the idolatrous golden calves that the evil king Yeravam ben Nevat erected there.)

Spiritual Counterparts to Physical Plots of Land

Physical plots of land have their spiritual counterparts which share their characteristics, and which impart those characteristics in the spiritual realm. For example, the Maharal writes in Gur Aryeh, Beraishis 23:2, that the city Kiryas Arba (the city of four, also known as Chevron) was called that because the land’s character begat four physical giants who lived there. In the spiritual realm of the afterlife, that property of the land translates to an affinity for spiritual, rather than physical, greatness, so the land became the burial place of spiritually great people, including our forefathers; it is the location of the Meoras HaMachpela. 

The concept of spiritual counterparts to physical places is further discussed in Gevuros Hashem, Chapter 47 where the Maharal explains that this applies in both positive and negative ways. On the positive side is the famous Medrash (Mechilta, Beshalach 9) that says that the spiritual Temple is “aligned” with the physical Temple, both of which exude holiness. Conversely, on the negative side, the valley outside of Yerushalayim called Gai ben Hinom is “aligned” with Gehinnom and exhibits physical characteristics that derive from that correspondence.

When Avraham first entered Israel he passed through the city of Shchem, and Rashi points out (Beraishis 12:6) that he saw in a prophetic vision the nearby mountains of Gerizim and Aival where Yisroel were destined to accept the Torah on themselves with an oath, prior to their entering Israel for the first time. The reason for this prophetic vision, explains the Maharal in Gur Aryeh on that verse, was to show Avraham the bond between places in Israel and their spiritual counterparts. Gerizim and Aival were not selected at random as the place for the Torah acceptance oath. Rather the characteristics of their spiritual counterpart “places” made them particularly suitable for their respective roles. Moreover, the Maharal states that when Avraham passed through those areas, it was precisely their spiritual characteristics that sparked his prophecy.

Place as Home Territory; The Transient Nature of Galus

In Gur Aryeh, Shmos 12:40 the Maharal articulates the concept of a person or nation’s “home” territory. When a person is elsewhere than his “home” territory he does not lose his attachment to it; he is considered a temporary sojourner even if his absence from home is extended. As long as he is away from home he is in a continual state of imbalance and there is a continual “draw” back to his home territory even if it cannot be actualized, via a return home, for a period of time.

In fact, writes the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel, Chapter 1, Yisroel in galus, exile, is a classic example of this condition; our “home base” is the land of Israel and when we are elsewhere we are fish out of water, under a continual “pull” towards home. This is why galus is inherently a temporary situation. The natural order is for things to revert to their proper place. Only then do they return to a state of equilibrium. It is therefore unavoidable for our return to Israel to be actualized, may it be soon!

Note that the Maharal is discussing a different dimension of “place” here than we outlined in previous sections. There the focus was on the effect of place on personal or national character, or on events, and in some of the examples cited the effect did not require a long-term or intrinsic relationship between the place and its occupants – for example the tendency of a well to give rise to marriage pairings, or the spiritual effect of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s cave, were effective even if the association between person and place was transient. Here, however, the Maharal is talking about an intrinsic and enduring relationship between a nation and a land, without specific regard to any effect the land might have on the nation. In fact, however, the land does have an effect on the nation; in Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah Chapter 5 the Maharal quotes a Gemara in Brachos 8a:

“They told Rabbi Yochanan,  ‘There are extremely old people living in Babylonia’. He was incredulous, remarking, ‘Does not the verse say (Devarim 11:21),  ‘… so that your days and the days of your children be lengthened in the land…’ implying in the land specifically and not outside the land?’ When they explained to him that these people come to the house of prayer early and depart from it late, he exclaimed, ‘This is what saves them!’ This is as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi instructed his sons: ‘Go to the house of prayer early and leave it late so that your days may be lengthened.’”

Thus Israel, the land native to the Jewish nation, promotes longevity, to the extent that Rabbi Yochanan was actually incredulous when he heard that Jews were living to a ripe old age outside Israel! He was mollified only when he was given to understand that prolonging one’s time in a shul has a similar effect on longevity. The Maharal elaborates on this concept in Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah Chapter 5 and further discusses the symbiosis between Yisroel, the nation, and Israel, the land in Chapter 18, sections 8 and 9, and elsewhere.

Place and Time

In Tiferes Yisroel, Chapter 25 the Maharal explains that there can be nothing coincidental about seminal world events, such as the giving of the Torah, and therefore the moment that the Torah was given was laden with significance. Similarly, he continues in Chapter 26, the place of the Torah-giving was also laden with significance. And he adds, “time and space are cut out of the same cloth, as those versed in Torah wisdom understand”. That is why the same verse specifies the significant time and the significant place of the Torah-giving (Shmos 19:1): “In the third month of Yisroel’s departure from Egypt, on this day they arrived in the desert of Sinai”.

On a simple level, time and place specifications are coordinates to precisely identify a point in our physical world that marks a significant event. In mathematical terminology this concept, which has evolved to a point of great sophistication, is known as “space-time”. Of course the mathematical model is a useful crutch to enable those of us who are not versed in Toras nistar to visualize the concept but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Maharal, who was versed in nistar, had a far deeper meaning in mind.

Not surprisingly, the Maharal writes in Gur Aryeh, Beraishis 1:5, in the context of the products of day 1 of creation, that just as place has an influence on its occupants, so does time. He expresses a similar concept in Gur Aryeh, Bamidbar 7:12 with respect to the order of the sacrifices brought by the Nesiim at the dedication of the Mishkan, in Netzach Yisroel, Chapter 8, in explaining why the events of Tisha B’Av and Shiva Assar b’Tamuz had to happen exactly on those days, in Tiferes Yisroel, Chapter 40, and in explaining the unique association between Yisroel and Shabbos, and elsewhere.

“Makom” as a Reference to Hashem and our Relationship to Hashem

Hashem is the “place” of reality as we know it since everything is an emanation from Hashem, as it were, and exists “within” Him. This is true in general of the universe but it is also true of every element in the universe and in particular, of every individual in the universe. In Gur Aryeh, Beraishis 37:33 the Maharal writes that every person has a “place” in the overall emanation from Hashem that constitutes the universe and thus every individual has a “place” in Hashem, as it were.

Since Hashem is continually sustaining the emanation-reality that constitutes the universe he is also sustaining every individual, in his or her unique “place”. Thus is can be said that a person’s “place” in the universe (which equates to his “place” in Hashem) sustains him – or in other words, where a person is positioned vis-a-vis Hashem determines the nature of his sustenance.

Thus, in the “place” model there are concepts of “closer to” or “further from” Hashem where “closer to” means a greater degree of divine protection and blessing and “further from” means less protection and blessing. The Maharal alludes to this concept in Chidushei Aggados on Gittin 68a.

There is also a concept of stability – one’s “place” can be fixed, secure and permanent, which again implies a greater degree of divine protection and blessing, or it can be unstable, insecure and transient, which implies a lesser degree of divine protection and blessing.

Our actions can affect where we stand with respect to closeness, as well as where we stand with respect to stability.

The Importance of Place in Halacha - Prayer

This is why the Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Brurah in Orach Chaim 90:19 write that a person should be consistent with respect to his shul and with respect to his seat within the shul, and when he must pray at home he should also consistently pray in a place where he will not be disturbed. A person who does this is drawing on an established relationship with Hashem and is more likely to be answered.

In Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah, chapter 4 the Maharal adds an additional dimension to this requirement, writing that prayer must be consistent and not haphazard in order for it to serve its primary purpose, which is to bring us close to Hashem. An important way to demonstrate that consistency is to maintain a consistent place for prayer.

Our Sages declared that such a person merits great things: he is considered a disciple of Avraham and achieves a closeness to Hashem akin to Avraham’s. He achieves humility and benevolence. His enemies fall before him.

Avraham merited continual assistance from Hashem because of his closeness to Him as evinced by his consistency with respect to his place of prayer. Avraham’s closeness was a product of his being the “first” creation in terms of importance. Those of us who are consistent about where we pray cannot claim to be “first” but by doing so we attach ourselves to Avraham’s merit as offshoots to a root and thereby lay claim to the benefits of closeness achieved by Avraham.

Maintaining consistency about where we pray helps us achieve great spiritual heights, especially in the areas of benevolence and humility, again by virtue of our attachment to the practices of our forefather, Avraham. These characteristics themselves help us to achieve a closer relationship with Hashem. See the Maharal text for more detail.

The Importance of Place in Halacha - Mazal

The Rama (Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 393:2) based on a Gemara in Moed Katan 23a, writes that it is customary for a mourner to change his place in shul for the entire mourning period. The rationale derives from a Gemara in Rosh HaShana 16b which enumerates four things that can cancel negative decrees: charity, prayer, name change and repentance – and, continues the Gemara, some add location change as a fifth item to the list. Since changing location can cancel a negative decree, and since the death of a close relative results from a negative decree, location-changing is recommended as one means of ending any negative decree that might be hanging over the mourner before it causes additional harm. Similarly the Yerushalmi on Shabbos 6:9 advises location change as a means of improving one’s mazal, or destiny. This concept is popularly known as meshaneh makom, meshaneh mazal.

How does changing location have an effect on negative decrees or on destiny? The Gemara in Rosh HaShana hints at the reasons by providing biblical references for the items enumerated. For example, with respect to name change, the Gemara references the change of name from Sarai to Sarah (Beraishis 17), which facilitated her transition from incapable of bearing children to capable of bearing children. The effect of name on mazal is beyond the scope of this article, but it is significant.

Building on this concept, the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados on the Gemara in Rosh HaShana writes that just as name is an integral part of a person’s identity, so is place, and in fact he notes that in a get (bill of divorce) the parties are identified as “so-and-so from such-and-such place”. The place designation is appended to the name as a means of further qualifying the person’s identity. It is identity that determines mazal. Changing place, like changing name, alters a person’s identity and thus refashions his mazal, and that is why one view in the Gemara counts place among the things that can affect a person’s destiny.

Conclusion

We have seen that place in Judaism is significant both on a physical and metaphysical level, has individual and communal applications, and has halachic ramifications. In whatever place we may happen to be, may we each find our proper place in our avodas Hashem, and may klal Yisrael soon return to its proper place in eretz Yisroel b’bias goel tzedek!

When a Half is Better: An Appreciation of Machtzis HaShekel Based on the Torah of The Maharal

When a Half is Better: An Appreciation of Machtzis HaShekel Based on the Torah of The Maharal

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”.

Fundraising for the Mishkan

When the Mishkan was constructed Yisroel were asked to donate three times. One set of donations was for the adonim, a set of bases for the cedar beams that constituted the frame of the Mishkan. This donation set was fixed at a half-shekel. A second set of donations was used to purchase the animals for the communal korbanos, sacrifices, that were mandated in the Mishkan. This set was also fixed at a half-shekel. The third donation set was comprised of the raw materials that were used in the construction of the Mishkan and for creating the clothing worn by the Kohanim, the priests. Here any Jew could give as much or as little as he or she wanted of any of the required materials.

The Maharal (Gur Aryeh, Shmos 25:2) explains that the Mishkan was an atonement for the sin of the eigel, the golden calf, which Yisroel participated in with the three components of their beings: their bodies, their spirits and their assets. By believing that the eigel had some kind of power external to Hashem, chas vesholom, they sinned with their spirits – that is, through their minds. By going through the physical motions of offering sacrifices to the eigel they sinned with their bodies. By offering their gold for the eigel they sinned with their assets.

For the Mishkan to properly atone for them they had to participate in its construction with the same three components they used to indulge in the sin in the first place. Each of the donation sets came from a different component and atoned for the sin-contribution of that component. Two of the components comprise a person’s actual being – his body and his soul (his assets are external to him). The two half-shekel donations corresponded to those two components and that is why each donation was only half a shekel. Each half-shekel represented one half of a person’s being, one for his body and the other for his spirit. Together they comprise his whole being.

Now, the Torah tells us (Shmos 30:15) that the sacrifices were “to provide atonement for your spirits”. Thus the half-shekel donation that went toward the communal sacrifices atoned for the spirit’s contribution to the sin of the eigel. The adonim were the foundation of the Mishkan; the “container” which provided the basis for the entire edifice. It is analogous to our physical bodies which are the “containers” for our selves. Thus the half-shekel donation that went towards the adonim atoned for the body’s contribution to the eigel. Finally the assets that were contributed toward the construction of the Mishkan atoned for the assets component of the sin of the eigel.

Moshe’s Half-Shekel Difficulty

Rashi on Shmos 30:13, based on a Medrash Rabbah, writes that Hashem showed Moshe a facsimile of a coin of fire amounting to a half-shekel and told him, “they should give the equivalent of this”.

There are other such Medrashim and Gemaros that describe how Hashem showed Moshe a fiery equivalent to clarify how a particular object should look or operate – for example, the Menorah, the new moon, permitted and non-permitted insects, the shechita process and others were all demonstrated to Moshe in this fashion. But in all those cases there were complexities that needed to be resolved through illustration. What, though, the Maharal asks, was the complexity that required a visual demonstration in the case of the half-shekel? It is, after all, merely a coin.

One answer the Maharal provides is that man-made objects never achieve an exact measure. Try as we might, our efforts to achieve exactitude always fall short. Thus our half-shekel coins may be just a bit more than a half-shekel in weight or they may be just a bit less, but they will never “hit it on the nose”. That limitation is inherent in our physical world and we live with it – the half-shekel coins we mint as currency are accepted as such despite the fact that they are by definition, imperfect.

On the other hand when Hashem shows a divine half-shekel we are guaranteed that it is a half-shekel without the slightest deviation in either direction. When Hashem showed Moshe the fiery half-shekel He was telling Moshe that the half-shekels to be used for counting could not be run-of-the-mill half-shekels. For counting Yisroel, exactitude was critical.

The Maharal’s answer, however, raises two additional questions. First, why was such a level of exactitude required? And second, how could it be achieved, given the limitations of the physical world? To give more potency to the both questions, consider that the utensils and artifacts of the Mishkan all had precise measurements specified for them in the Torah. Yet we do not find an insistence on attempting to achieve divine-level exactitude for them – in fact, the Gemara in Bechoros 17b specifically acknowledges that we are unable to achieve exactitude and declares that all the Torah expects of us is our best effort. Why, then, is more seemingly expected of us with respect to the half-shekel?

The Delicate Half-Shekel Balance

I would like to suggest two possible answers to these questions. First, as we mentioned earlier, the two half-shekels correspond to our body and spirit components. Now, we know that the conjoining of our bodies and spirits is a seeming contradiction in terms – it is nothing short of miraculous that such a feat is possible at all. Indeed, the asher yotzar bracha concludes with “u’mafli la’asos”, Hashem does wondrous things. What wondrous things are being referred to? The Rema in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 6 explains this as meaning that it is wondrous that the soul of man was “partnered” with his body – the coexistence of two opposites.

If in fact the two half-shekels represent this extremely delicate balance we can understand why Hashem wants us to be as meticulous as possible in assuring that the balance is maintained as accurately as possible. True, we cannot achieve divine perfection; this is understood. But the message of the fiery half-shekel is that we have to be even more painstaking with this particular “approximation” than we are with the others mentioned in the Gemara in Bechoros, so that we appreciate the extent of the mafli la’asos inherent in our creation.

No Jew is an Island

Another approach to answering the questions is via a commentary of the Chida on Shmos 30:13. He answers the question, why specifically a half-shekel, by pointing out that the lesson of the half-shekel is that no Jew can isolate himself and maintain that he is “self-contained” and can function independently of his co-religionists. As standalone entities we are only “halves”; to be complete we need the assistance of, and the society of, other Jews.

Consider what this means. At any moment of time any Jew may need the assistance of any other Jew and the other Jew has to be poised to provide it. In “half-shekel terms”, if each of us is represented by a half-shekel we have to “fit” with the half-shekel of any and every other Jew since we may need the assistance of, or be called upon to provide assistance to, any other Jew. This is only possible if our half-shekels are precise; only then can we be assured that we will be “whole” with the precise half-shekel of any other Jew. Thus, although theoretical precision is impossible, we have to go the extra mile to come as close as we can to it for this particular mitzvah.

This is an important lesson to keep in mind as Purim approaches since Haman understood that our weakness was disunity, as he said, “There is a certain people who are scattered and separate…” . To counter that Esther asked Mordechai to “Go, assemble together all the Jews”. We are in fact parts of an integral whole, not disparate individuals and this message is inherent in the half-shekel.

The Protective Effect of the Half-Shekel

The Torah tells us that the half-shekel has a powerful protective effect. When Yisroel had to be counted, half-shekels were used to protect them from the potential ayin horah that could be unleashed thereby – blessing is most prevalent in things that are hidden from the eye (Baba Metziah 42a) and counting is the antithesis of “hidden”. But when counting has to be done, doing it with the half-shekel shields from potential harm, as the Torah says (Shmos 30:12), “…then there will be no plague among them when they are counted”.

The Maharal in Ohr Chodosh (140) writes that this is so because the half-shekels were used for the purchase of sacrifices. To understand this we have to appreciate the underlying meaning of sacrifices. In Nesiv HaAvodah chapter 1 and similarly in Derech Chaim 1:2 the Maharal explains that a sacrifice is a statement that the offeror is a slave of the sacrifice “recipient” – that is, of Hashem; it is a statement that the offeror is transferring his animal to Hashem in the same way that the property of a slave transfers automatically to his master. My animal, declares the sacrifice offeror implicitly, is really Hashem’s animal because I myself belong to Hashem; my existence has no justification other than my servitude toward Hashem.

Donating the half-shekel for purchase of sacrifices thus conveys the same message: “I belong to Hashem and I exist to serve Him”! It is no wonder, then, that the half-shekels have such a powerful protective effect. And when they are donated by the entire nation en masse, as they were when the Mishkan was constructed and every Adar when the Bais HaMikdash stood, and as we commemorate on Taanis Esther even nowadays, they have an especially powerful protective effect. The Maharal explains that this is why Haman’s plot ultimately failed. Having handed ourselves over to Hashem, as it were, it is impossible for us to fall into the hands of Haman, and equally impossible for us to fall into the hands of the Satan.

As we donate our half-shekel coins let us remember the significance of this commemoration and mentally declare, as Jews have done through the centuries, “I belong to Hashem and I exist to serve Him!” – as a cog in the organism called klal Yisroel and not in isolation – and in that merit may Hashem protect us from our current day enemies as he protected us on Purim and throughout the millennia.

The Re-Invention of Yissachar-Zevulun: a “Push Button Judaism” Distortion

The Re-Invention of Yissachar-Zevulun:

a “Push Button Judaism” Distortion

By Eliakim Willner

It’s New! It’s Different! And It’s Wrong!

A recent article spoke glowingly about a “modern day version of the Torah’s Yissachar-Zevulun partnership”; an arrangement wherein members of a Kollel would daven for the success of a local businessman’s venture and would share in the profits if the venture succeeded.

Innovations in avodas Hashem always have to be very carefully scrutinized, especially when, as is the case with the aforementioned “partnership arrangement”, there were no hurdles precluding such “partnerships” a hundred or even a thousand years ago. Yet we have no prior record of such practices. Mosdos in earlier generations would presumably have latched on to such a potentially lucrative fund-raising tactic if it were legitimate.

In fact, this arrangement does not stand up to scrutiny. It exemplifies several hashkafic weaknesses that are symptomatic of the general 21^st century mindset and which have begun to affect the thinking of our own community as well.

Yissachar and Zevulun Would Not Approve

We’ll begin with the 21^st century tendency to gloss over accuracy for the sake of journalistic effect. Whatever the legitimacy of the “partnership arrangement” described in the article it is most assuredly not a Yissachar-Zevulun partnership, “modern day” or otherwise. The halachos of Yissachar-Zevulun relationships are complex but the fundamental structure is not: Zevulun provides sustenance to Yissachar, who spends his time learning Torah. Part of the reward for the Torah learning accrues to Zevulun in exchange for his material support of Yissachar.

The only reward Zevulun can count on from a bona fide Yissachar-Zevulun relationship is spiritual. In no way is he “buying” a guarantee of success in his business enterprises nor does he have grounds for complaint if he does not achieve success.  An arrangement whereby a businessman provides support for Torah study in expectation of material and not spiritual reward is emphatically not Yissachar-Zevulun. An arrangement whereby the support provided Yissachar is conditional on Zevulun’s material success or anything else is emphatically not Yissachar-Zevulun. Such arrangements are the antithesis of Yissachar-Zevulun. To use that term to describe them is a serious distortion that turns a venerable arrangement for support of Torah study on its head!

Yissachar-Zevulun Re-Invented: A Symptom of “Push-Button” Ruchnius

In fact it is questionable whether such an arrangement is legitimate or effective at all, whether it benefits the businessman providing the funds, whether it benefits the Kollel receiving them, and whether it benefits klal Yisroel.

It is a true that, as we learn in the haftorah of Shabbos HaGadol, one may, as it were, “test” Hashem by attaching conditions to tzdakah donations. However there are no guarantees regarding how the condition will be fulfilled, when it will be fulfilled and even, if it will be fulfilled.

We live in a push-button society. When we flick a switch we expect the light to go on – it almost always does and we are thus frustrated when it does not. When we press on the accelerator we expect the car to pick up speed and we are frustrated when it does not. We are, in general, a society that has become conditioned to expect instant gratification. “Click on the ‘Buy Now’ button to add the item to your shopping cart and it will be delivered tomorrow”.

However, cause and effect in ruchnius isn’t nearly so simple, immediate or obvious.  We understand the operation of a light switch and car; they are completely deterministic. But we understand very little about the ruchniusdike factors that underlie the hashgacha pratis that determines what happens to us. We do know that giving tzdakah conditionally, mitigates in favor of our condition being met. But we don’t know all the other factors at play and thus predictability in any sense is impossible. And immediate gratification is usually not forthcoming.

Bitachon: Yes. Instant Gratification: No

Bitachon is a cornerstone of yahadus – the proper attitude of a baal bitachon is to trust that Hashem is controlling events down to the last detail, that He “hears” our requests (and tzdakah conditions), that He wants to benefit us – and that He knows better than we do what is to our ultimate good. We may not get what we want when we want it, no matter how fervently we ask for it and no matter how much tzdakah we give. We are permitted, even required, to make our requests of Hashem. Having done so, we are required to assume an attitude of kol man d’avid Rachmana l’tav avid.

Being matzdik es haDin is a fundamental Jewish trait. We say, “Posaiach es yodecha u’masbiah l’chol chai ratzon”, G-d satisfies the desire of every living thing, and we follow it immediately with, “Tzadik Hashem b’chol drochov v’chasid b’chol maasav”, a declaration that all the ways of Hashem are righteous – even if an immediate desire is unfulfilled. When the Bais HaMikdosh was completed Shlomo Ha Melech asked Hashem to respond favorably to the requests of the non-Jews who came to pray there – knowing that, while non-Jews would lose faith if their prayers weren’t answered in an obvious way, Jews would not.

Faith, patience, acceptance, are characteristic of Jews. They are uncharacteristic of the general 21^st century population. Thus we have to hold fast to our values or we risk being sucked into the vortex of the prevailing and antithetical 21^st century value system.

Building Walls Against False Values

Indeed, these false values have already begun to leech into our thought processes, and the “partnership arrangement” described in the article is symptomatic of a creeping trend toward facile religious devices that are expected to yield instant and foolproof gratification. It is akin to other contemporary manifestations of the same disease: seeking “segulos” as a “push-button” means to achieve desires, consulting “mekubalim” in the expectation of immediate results, responding favorably to flyers from tzdakah organizations filled with “case studies” of people who, with disaster staring them in the face, make desperate pledges and are miraculously and instantly saved.

Like those other quick-fix religious tricks, the “partnership arrangement” sets false expectations. A businessman with an imminent deal is expecting a concrete positive outcome when he enters into this partnership – whatever the “fine print” of the “contract” may say. That expectation is reinforced when he is assured by Rabbis, whom he presumably respects, that this arrangement “works”.

What will his reaction be if and when the deal falls through – as it very well might, since, as noted earlier, Heaven cannot be manipulated by flicking a switch? A yeridah in bitachon is likely. A diminuition of respect for talmidei chachomim is inevitable.  And the more common such “partnerships” become, the more pervasive the yeridah in bitachon and diminuition of respect will become in our general society.

Moreover, conditioned now to view donations to mosdos as business deals more than as mitzvos, the businessman will be much less likely to make a donation in the future – after all, he’s seen that it’s a “bad deal”; why enter into it again?

Our Kollelim are supposed to be bastions of Torahs emes, beacons of light to their respective communities. It is saddening to see some of them inadvertently peddling spiritual snake oil instead.

A proponent of the “partnership arrangement” enthuses in the article, “The concept is to make Hashem your business partner. When you’re negotiating a deal you feel that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is with you. The extra confidence it brings is a wonderful feeling”.

May we all realize that Hashem is “with us” all the time, not just when we’ve pushed the right button, that davening earnestly to Hashem on our own behalf is far more effective than outsourcing the job to others, that proper hashkafos and bitachon provide all the “extra confidence” one could ever need – and may we be zoche to u’malah haaretz daiah es Hashem and to a complete geulah b’korov!

The Power of Thought and Ayin HoRah

The Power of Thought and Ayin HoRah

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 sequel, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

Introduction

The secular world views thought as an intangible brain activity with no implication beyond micro-current flowing through neurons. It is actions that count, they say, and thoughts that do not lead to actions have no import and are therefore meaningless.

This, however, is not the Jewish perspective on thought. The subject is wide-ranging and is worthy of a book in its own right. In this article we will summarize the Jewish perspective on thought with a focus on ayin hora, or evil eye – one of the better known areas where the reality of thought plays a significant role.

The Reality and Potency of Thought

The 10^th of the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith is that Hashem, “…knows all the deeds of human beings and their thoughts…”. This is evident in that there are commandments that are purely thought-based, such as belief in Hashem. There are also prohibitions that are triggered by motivation such as, “Do not… place a stumbling block before the blind” (Vayikra 19:14) which encompasses intentionally giving bad advice in order to achieve personal gain. The verse continues, “and you shall fear your G-d”. Rashi explains that the verse adds this phrase as a wake-up call to the advice-giver. He might want to claim that his advice was well-meant and not intended for his own benefit, so the verse exhorts him to remember that Hashem knows his motivations and thoughts and if they are in fact selfish he will have to face the consequences. It is clear that our thoughts are not ours alone. They are known outside of ourselves.

Beyond that, thoughts have an effect on the physical world. See Nefesh HaChaim, Shaar Aleph, and in particular chapters 4 and 14, where Rav Chaim Volozhiner explains that our actions, words and thoughts have the power to affect the celestial worlds, and that since the celestial worlds control the flow of Hashem’s beneficence to our own world, improper thoughts and motivations can negatively affect events in our physical world, and proper thoughts and motivations can positively affect events in our physical world. He cites the verse, “He forms their hearts together, He understands all their deeds” (Tehillim 33:15) – the same verse cited by the Rambam in support of his 10^th principle.

Thoughts, then, have both a reality and a potency outside our minds. Not only do they accrue merit or demerit to their “owners” but they also affect the world-at-large as well.

The Power of an Individual’s Thoughts and the Evil Eye

It is also possible for an individual’s thoughts to have a positive or negative effect even on specific people. In Michtav MiEliyahu v.3 pages 96-97 Rav Eliyahu Dessler explains that Hashem created man, as the Torah teaches, “in the image of G-d” (Beraishis 9:6) and that means that Hashem gave man capabilities “resembling” His own, as it were. Now, Hashem created the world by willing it into existence (in ten “steps”, as discussed by our Sages). We were granted a similar power to affect reality by willing things to happen. Our thoughts actually create an “energy” that triggers events.

From a practical standpoint these events often do not come to fruition because the object of our wish may himself have wishes that run counter to our own and the energy created by his wishes may overpower and negate the energy of our own wishes. Possibly he has merits that shield him from the negative effects of our wishes.

Nonetheless, even if the energy does not come to fruition on its intended object, it remains in existence and must find an “outlet”. The Maharal in Chapter 2 of Beer Hagolah compares this pent-up energy to throwing a rock with force. If it hits its target the force is expended but if it is blocked it bounces back and rebounds on the person who did the throwing.

The Maharal explains how this works in the context of the aidim zomimim (false witness) laws. The Torah specifies that false witnesses suffer the sentence that would have been imposed on their scapegoat had their testimony not been disproven. However this applies only if the sentence on the intended scapegoat had not already been carried out. For example, if the false witnesses testified that their scapegoat killed someone – a capital offense – and their testimony was discredited, the false witnesses would themselves be subject to capital punishment, but only if their scapegoat had not yet been executed. If he had been executed the false witnesses would not be executed.

This provision seems counter-intuitive. It would seem that the harsher punishment should apply if the scapegoat had been executed rather than only when he was still alive! The Maharal explains that the will of the false witnesses to harm the scapegoat generates a fatal negative energy that must find release. If the scapegoat is in fact killed that negative energy was expended. If their intent to harm the scapegoat was not actualized, however, the negative energy is active and it bounces back on the false witnesses themselves, causing them to suffer the fate they intended for their scapegoat – like the analogy of a rock thrown with force hitting a wall and ricocheting back on the thrower.

Rav Dessler writes that if all humankind joined in willing a common goal it would be in its power to bring it about since there would be no counter for all the common thought-energy created thereby. Because that common goal might not be a good one, Hashem blocked such events from taking place by making it impossible for mankind to unite for an evil common goal – this is the underlying explanation of the events of the tower of Bavel (see Beraishis 11). Humankind will only be able to join in a common goal at the end of days when all will join in service to Hashem and there will no longer be a motivation toward evil.

Rav Chaim Friedlander, citing Rav Dessler and the Chazon Ish, whom we will quote shortly, discusses this as well in Sifsei Chaim, Pirkei Emunah V’Hashgacha, page 393 and explains that this concept is the basis behind ayin horah, or “evil eye”. A very common impetus for willing something negative to happen to another person is jealousy or simply an inability to begrudge someone else their good fortune. The negative energy released is real and dangerous and thus our Sages urge us to be circumspect about our possessions and good fortune and avoid ostentation and braggadocio. (It is called “evil eye” and not “evil thought” because the process of casting ill-will on a person begins with seeing him or his possessions, as we will explain).

What are the mechanics behind this negative thought energy and its ability to have a harmful effect on others? Rav Dessler, in Michtav MiEliyahu 4, p. 6, explains that no man is a spiritual island; we are all interconnected at our spiritual roots and are therefore interdependent. We all derive some degree of spiritual energy from every other being. People who do not begrudge others their good fortune, whose very existence bothers them, blot these others out from any of their emanations of positive spiritual energy. Therefore, to the extent that the web of interdependencies that sustains the evil eye victim relies on the evil eye perpetrator, the victim is cut off from a vital life source. He is weakened, vulnerable and susceptible to harm.

In this light we understand that ayin horah is very real and not at all a “superstition”. It is discussed in Gemara and cited as a factor affecting Jewish law – halacha. For example, one may not display a lost object, even for its own benefit (air it out, etc.) if visitors are present because it may be damaged, as Rashi explains, by ayin horah of the visitors (Baba Metziah 30a). One may not stand in the field of his fellow when the crop is ripe because, as Rashi explains, he may damage it through his ayin horah (Baba Basra 2b). Two brothers, or a father and son, may not be called consecutively to the Torah because of ayin horah (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 141:6). And, soberingly, the Gemara in Baba Metziah 107b says that Rav went to a cemetery, recited incantations over the individual graves to ascertain the cause of death and reported that ninety-nine percent died through ayin horah, and only one percent through natural causes.

The Chazon Ish discusses the power of thought to affect events in Likutim, Baba Basra 14, #21. He writes, citing several sources in the Gemara, that a person’s thoughts can imperceptibly trigger real-world events and that this is one of the enigmatic aspects of creation. A fleeting thought, he says, can wreak serious destruction on substantial physical structures. Therefore when people gossip about a successful venture, they jeopardize it since that can cause jealousy and result in the evil eye.

Evil Eye in the Context of Divine Justice

One must keep in mind, the Chazon Ish, cautions, that Hashem’s will is behind all events and that if it were not the will of Hashem for damage to occur no evil eye could instigate it. The evil eye in this respect is one of the tools in Hashem’s arsenal, so to speak, that He uses to carry out His will. [It is no different from a gun wielded by a criminal – which also appears to cause harm even though it is also only an agent of Hashem in carrying out His will.]

In this light it is clear that one can only suffer from an evil eye as a result of a divine decree. Negative divine decrees are typically the outcome of improper actions. One way a person can bring evil eye vulnerability on himself is by ostentatiously flaunting possessions or attributes in a manner that evokes jealousy in others. While jealousy is improper, a jealous person nonetheless suffers and a person who causes others to be jealous is responsible for their suffering. This can activate the divine attribute of justice and cause a revaluation of his entitlement to the things he was flaunting, in light of the pain he caused to others by making them jealous of him – and to possibly lose those things (from Michtav MiEliyahu 3, p. 313).

(It is also plausible, the Chazon Ish says, that the greater the person, the greater the potency of his “eye” in both positive and negative senses. There are also factors that affect susceptibility to the evil eye – for example there are times when Hashem’s attribute of strict justice is dominant and people are judged more harshly than they would be otherwise. At such times the evil eye is more likely to have its negative effect.)

Evil Eye as a “Klippo”

Rav Shlomo Alkabetz, in his Kabbalah-based work Shoresh Yishai on Rus, associates the evil eye with a klippah, a spiritual entity rooted in impurity. Klippos, like all spiritual entities, are agents of Hashem, but these particular agents are enforcers when punishment is called for. The klippah associated with the evil eye is named Ra’ah, which means “evil”. It attaches itself to that which a miserly eye is cast upon, infecting it and using it as a “base” from which to emanate harm.

Why, asks Rav Alkabetz (on Rus 2:2), did Boaz warn Rus not to collect harvest leavings from fields other than his own? The answer is that some field owners resented the stricture to permit the poor to collect the leavings. They possessed an ayin ra’ah, or evil eye, and thereby invoked the klippah named Ra’ah, which attached itself to the leavings in their fields. Gathering and using those leavings would thus bring misfortune to the hapless poor person who collected them. Boaz was warning Rus to avoid those harmful leavings and to stick with those in his own field since, unlike some of the other field owners, Boaz had an ayin tova, a benevolent eye, and his leavings would thus not be harmful to the leaving-collectors.

The Maharal on Evil Eye

The Maharal devotes Nesiv Ayin Tov (“a good eye”) of Nesivos Olam to discussing this subject. Similar to Rav Alkabetz, but without referencing Klippos, he notes, based on a Gemara in Sotah 38b, that the evil eye has contaminating properties and substances infected with it are outside the pale. Attempting to benefit from these substances is equivalent to attempting to benefit from substances that are tameh, spiritually befouled, and is actually (per the Gemara) prohibited. Rav Dessler explains this to mean that since benevolence is one of the world’s foundations, a person who lacks it – such as a person who possesses an evil eye – shakes the world’s very foundations and weakens his own attachment to existence as well as the attachment of those who associate with him, by causing them to benefit from his evil-eye-infected possessions. The prohibition against benefiting from these substances is to safeguard people from this danger.

The Maharal also writes that the negative energy emanated by a person with an ayin horah is so palpable that birds can actually sense it and most of them will therefore avoid traps set for them because they can detect the negative energy of the bird-trappers. In discussing the relationship between ayin horah and the egla arufa ritual he states that ayin horah can kill – as borne out by the Gemara in Baba Metziah cited above – and he labels the person casting the ayin horah a murderer.

The Maharal concludes the Nesiv with, “A person should take extreme care to protect his possessions from ayin horah, as our Sages taught, ‘blessing devolves only on items that are hidden from the eye’ (Taanis 8b) as the verse indicates, ‘Hashem will order the blessing to be with you in your granaries’ (Devarim 28:8). [The blessing takes effect when the produce is hidden in the granaries and not when it is exposed.]

Antidotes for Evil Eye

The first line of defense against the evil eye is circumspection. As noted above, flying below the radar with respect to one’s possessions and attributes inoculates them against the evil eye. However we are not hermits and it is not always possible to avoid exposing one’s assets to others.

The Gemara in Brachos 55a prescribes advice for those who wish to protect themselves from the evil eye. It suggests that one should grasp his right thumb in [the palm of] his left hand, and his left thumb in [the palm of] his right hand and say, “anah ploni bar plonis mi’zarah d’Yosef k’asina, d’loh shalta bay aina bisha”. “I, Ploni [his name] son of Plonis [his mother’s name] am a descendant of Yosef, who was immune to the evil eye”. The Gemara goes on to explain why Yosef was immune to the evil eye, as we will discuss shortly. The origin of this advice is a Gemara in Brachos 20a which states that Rabbi Yochanan did, for good reason, something that could cause the evil eye but claimed immunity from it as a descendant of Yosef. The commentators cite verses to explain that all Jews are considered the spiritual descendants of Yosef even if they are not his physical descendants, so we may all use this formula.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita, as cited in Sefer Doleh U’Mashkeh p. 370 and in Sefer Segulas Rabboseinu p. 138 recommends this practice to those who fear the evil eye. He also specified that the mother’s name, rather than the father’s name (as some versions of the Gemara have it) be used in the formula.

The Ben Ish Chai in Sefer Ben Yehoyada on the Gemara in Brachos provides a Kabbalah-based reason for the grasping of the thumbs. He explains that the thumbs, which are separate from the other fingers, represent Yisroel, who are separate from the other nations. The other four fingers with the palm, in which the opposing thumb is grasped, contain thirteen joints (three on each finger plus the wrist) which is the Gematria numeric value of echod, one, and of ahava, love. Grasping the thumbs in the manner described creates a unity with a value of twenty-six (thirteen doubled) which is the Gematria value of Hashem’s ineffable name (yud followed by hai following by vov followed by hai). Presumably he means that this action envelopes Yisroel (thumbs) in our love of Hashem (who is One) and places us under the protection of Hashem via invocation of his ineffable name. More information on this intriguing shield against the evil eye can be found in Sefer Segulas Rabboseinu by Yishai Mazalmian (5763).

Finally, if we are claiming protection from the evil eye as descendants of Yosef it behooves us to understand why Yosef was immune to the evil eye and attempt to emulate him as best we can. The Gemaros in Brachos gives two  reasons. The first is based on the blessings Yaakov gave the sons of Yosef (Beraishis 48:16). In those blessings he compared the descendants of Yosef to fish, who are immune to the evil eye because they are concealed by the water. As explained above, concealment of one’s assets is the first line of defense against the evil eye.  The second reason is that Yosef steadfastly resisted the blandishments of the wife of Potiphar (Beraishis 39) and refused to sin with her – as the Gemara puts it, “the eye that refused to sate itself on that which did not belong to him is shielded from the evil eye”.

Rav Dessler (Michtav MiEliyahu 4 p. 6) explains that both properties derive from fish. Since they live under water, not only are they shielded from the gaze of others, but they live in their own world, isolated from the goings-on in the dry-land world around them. They are not seen by the “outside” and they do not see, and therefore cannot covet, what others have on the outside.

If we inculcate both these properties of Yosef into our own lives – that is, we are circumspect with our possessions and we build walls around ourselves to avoid the temptations of the outside world, and thus do not cast our eye on the possession of others – we will be secure, like Yosef, against ayin hora. In that event we can legitimately call ourselves Yosef’s descendants and utilize the Gemara’s segulah with a clean conscience.

May Hashem protect us from the ayin horah of others and bless us to project only ayin tov onto others.