On Visiting Your Rebbi on Yom Tov:

 On Visiting One’s Rebbi on Yom Tov: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l

By Eliakim Willner

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

 

The Basis for the Obligation

“A person is obligated to visit his Rebbi on yom tov” (Sukkah 27a). The basis of this obligation is not simply a matter of honoring the Rebbi; rather it is intended to be a depiction of how a student must accept from his Rebbi. What kind of acceptance, specifically, is the obligation intending to depict?

At the end of parshas Ki Savo, in the context of Moshe delivering his final words to the nation after forty years in the desert, the posuk states (Devarim 29:3), “Hashem has not given you a heart to know… until this day” and Chazal comment, as quoted in Rashi, “No one can fathom the depths of his Rebbi’s mind… before forty years. Hence, Hashem was not strict with you until this day, but from now on He will be strict with you; and therefore, “Observe the words of this bris…”.

Time-Delayed Understanding

These words teach us an incredible insight: it is possible for the divrei Torah conveyed by the Rebbi to become actionable to the student only after a long interval from when they were received, for Chazal are very clear that after forty years since the teaching was received there is more of a requirement that they be absorbed then there was at a time closer to when they were received.

Let us take careful note of the choice of words employed by Chazal to express this requirement –  amida al daas HaRav, “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. What form of understanding, exactly, are Chazal intending to convey with these words?

We are familiar, by now, with our oft-repeated explanation of the answer Chazal give (Yerushalmi Brachos 5:2) in response to the question, why was the Havdalah recitation inserted into the “…endow man with intelligence, daas” blessing? They answer, “without daas, whence separation?” Intelligence is required to distinguish between different things. In Hebrew the word daas implies a connection; a joining together, as in (Beraishis 4:1) “And Odom knew Chava, his wife…”. An ox is not safeguarded if it is handed over to a watchman who lacks daas, because the watchman does not “connect” to the responsibility he was entrusted with and is therefore unreliable.

We elsewhere explained the phrase “without daas, when separation?” by noting that being able to grasp when things are connected and when they are divergent are two sides of the same coin and a person who cannot grasp connections cannot grasp divergencies, either. Thus Havadalah is inserted into the bracha of daas because it is daas that enables us to grasp the distinctions between sacred and mundane, etc. – and grasping these distinctions is critical to our ability to serve Hashem.

Knowing Our Rebbeim

We come now to our central, novel point: It is possible for a student to understand the Torah teachings of his Rebbi on the deepest level; his understanding can even extend to being able to build new ideas on the basis of his Rebbi’s concepts, but he may still be totally bereft of the ability to “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. A student can only be said to have that ability when, in the process of absorbing his Rebbi’s teachings, he perceives the connection between the Rebbi’s individuality – his unique character – and  the Torah he is imparting. As we said, the ability to discern connections and disconnections is the hallmark of daas.

Just as, with his ability to understand, the student can process his Rebbi’s wisdom, so also, with the ability “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”, the student can process the Rebbi’s unique connection with that wisdom.

There are tell-tale signs that reliably enable the observer to determine whether or not students have this ability. For example, there are perceptive and sharp students who, nonetheless, find it difficult to listen to the same thoughts expressed multiple times by the Rebbi. By and large this is an indication that they lack the ability to “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. Similarly, these same students will become fidgety when they do not clearly understand what the Rebbi is teaching.

[Perhaps we can say that students who exhibit those symptoms are focused exclusively on the content of the shiur and are oblivious to an entirely different level of understanding, which is focused on why these particular concepts, expressed in that particular way, using these particular words and manner of delivery, could not have emanated from anyone other than the Rebbi who is currently delivering them.

Thus if they have heard this shiur before, they do not see the point in focusing on that content again. And if they do not understand the shiur’s content they see no benefit in continuing to listen to it. They see the shiur only in terms of its content. Whereas to students who are sensitive to the nuances of the relationship between the Rebbi’s presentation and his personality, there will always be new facets revealed about that relationship even in a reprise of the shiur. New facets will be revealed that transcend the content of the shiur]

Be a Growing Person – Not an Ox!

Now, the Gemara teaches that “a one-day old ox is already called an ox” (Baba Kama 65a). An ox has its salient characteristics at birth and those remain essentially static for the duration of the ox’s life. But the abilities of human beings evolve over time. The amount of time separating a just-obtained but dormant kernel of knowledge, from that knowledge in actualized form, is a function of the significance of that kernel of knowledge.

The most rarefied form of knowledge transfer is that of a student absorbing the Torah teachings of his Rebbi, and the most rarefied subset of that variety of knowledge transfer is the ability to “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. Therefore it is not surprising that Chazal assessed the gap between dormant and actualized for this ability to be forty years. “No one can fathom the depths of his Rebbi’s mind before forty years” – that is, forty years from when the knowledge transfer for this form of knowledge began.

To one who properly considers what is involved, the extent of the soul-penetrating labors required to receive and absorb Torah wisdom is truly mind-boggling. Anyone who deludes himself into thinking that the fruits of obtaining Torah knowledge are ripe just at the moment the knowledge is received, and if the benefits of the knowledge are not immediately apparent, they will never be apparent – such a person is studying in the manner of “a one-day old ox is already called an ox”, since he fails to appreciate the distinction between the potential of dormant knowledge and the actualization of that knowledge. His one-dimensional view of Torah knowledge acquisition does not take into account the fact that the knowledge takes form over time and does not come into full bloom immediately. The “ox” that he started off with will be the same “ox” that he will continue to have as time passes. Such a person will not achieve the ability “to fathom the depths of the Rebbi’s mind” since absorbing that form of knowledge can only happen over time.

The Unique Segulah of Visiting One’s Rebbi on Yom Tov

Visiting one’s Rebbi on the holidays is uniquely suited to absorbing the teaching we refer to as “fathoming the depths of the Rebbi’s mind”. The purpose of the holiday visit is not to hear this or that particular teaching from the Rebbi. Its goal is, rather, to understand the workings of the Rebbi’s mind. The student will walk away from the visit with a deeper understanding of the relationship between the Rebbi’s essence and the Torah he imparts.

[Perhaps the less formal setting typical of such a visit will provide another level of insight into the Rebbi’s individuality and its relationship to his Torah, and the repeated exposure to that setting, holiday visit after holiday visit, will provide the time element necessary in order to bring the additional insight into full bloom.]

May we all be zoche this yom tov and every yom tov to deepening our understanding not only of the Torah we have learned from our Rebbeim, but also of how the Torah of our Rebbeim is intimately bound with the persons of our Rebbeim themselves.

(Based on Igros U’Ksovim, Igeres 12)

 

The Amalek – Paras Connection: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l

 The Amalek – Paras Connection: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l

By Eliakim Willner

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

 

What is Amalek Doing Here?

Purim is coming and, as every child knows, Purim is when we celebrate our victory over the forces of Amalek. Yet the events of the Purim story took place during the galus, the exile, of Paras. We were subjects of the Persian kings, who ruled over Eretz Yisroel, and at whose pleasure we could – or could not – build the second Bais HaMikdash.

It behooves us to examine how Amalek – a descendant of Edom, whose galus we are currently in the midst of – insinuated itself into the much earlier galus of Paras.

The Torah, in the parsha of the Bris Bain Ha’besarim (Beraishis 15)  alludes to the entire panoply of exiles with which the Jewish nation will be subjected.

The kingdom of Yishmael is notable by its absence from the list of the kingdoms that exiled Yisroel; after all, Yisroel was subjugated by them for several generations. The Maharal takes note of this omission in Ner Mitzva  and he explains it as follows.

To qualify as one of the four kingdoms prophesized in the Torah, one of two conditions has to be met. Either rulership must be wrested by force from Jewish control, as was the case with respect to Bavel, or rulership must pass from the hands of a nation that took it from Jewish control by force, to another nation built on the ruins of the first one, as was the case with respect to Paras and Yavan (Greece). Yishmael is not counted among the four because it lacks both of those two conditions; it did not take control of rulership by force, nor did it inherit rulership from the ruins of a preceding kingdom.

Fueled by a Downfall

Chazal taught us in Megilla 6a that there is a relationship of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant” between Yaakov and Esav (see Rashi on Beraishis 25:33). “If someone, speaking about Yerushalayim and Rome (a reference to Esav) tells you that both are thriving, do not believe it. If they tell you that they are both destroyed, do not believe it. But if they tell you that one is thriving and the other destroyed, believe it.”

This relationship was already in place when Rivka consulted Shem, who informed her that “one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom” (Beraishis 25:23). Shem was telling her that the relationship between the kingdoms of Yisroel and Edom would be inverse – “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”. This relationship does not pertain to Yishmael; his rise does not depend on Yisroel’s fall.

Here is how we must understand this state of affairs on a deeper level. It took the lapse of three generations for the dross of profane to be filtered out of the lineage of our forefathers. Avrohom fathered Yishmael and Yitzchok fathered Esav, both of whom were unworthy. Only beginning with Yaakov was the dross expunged; none of his children strayed.

Now, until kedusha achieves a state of complete decontamination, it is tolerant, by definition, of the presence of that which is tamei. At that point kedusha and tumah are not in a “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant” relationship since the presence of kedusha does not immediately bring about a purging of tumah. They may coexist.

Only after kedusha is completely absolved of any taint of tumah, then and only then are kedusha and tumah diametric opposites, and only then can it be said that “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”; that each is built on the ruins of the other.

But until kedusha reaches that rarefied state of purity, the strength of the opposition between kedusha and tumah is insufficient to cause the ascendant of the pair to bring about the obliteration of the other of the pair. Only after kedusha achieves that milestone does the opposition between those two forces become a death-battle, such that the demise of one enlivens the other.

Thus the prophecy of “one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom”, which is tantamount, as Chazal explain, to the inverse relationship of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant, could only have been said about Yaakov and Esav; the same inverse relationship could not have applied to Yitzchok and Yishmael, because there was still some dross associated with Yitzchok, who fathered not only Yaakov but also Esav – even though, certainly, Yishmael opposed Yitzchok in the same way that Esav opposed Yaakov.

In that light let us return to the words of the Maharal, who wrote that the kingdom of Yishmael is not counted as one of the four kingdoms to which Yisroel was exiled, even though it, too, subjugated Yisroel for several generations, since it did not take control of rulership by force, nor did it inherit rulership from the ruins of a preceding kingdom which took control of rulership by force. In our terminology, that is the equivalent of saying that Yishmael’s subjugation of Yisroel did not reach the level of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”. Yishmael’s subjugation was oppression by force but it cannot be said that the ascendancy of Yishmael was fueled by the downfall of Yisroel.

This explains why our salvation from the oppression of Paras came about  specifically through a reversal of fortunes, v’nahafoch hu. Not only did Yisroel prevail, but we prevailed by way of the downfall of our enemies. Why? Because Amalek, as represented by Haman, insinuated itself into the picture, instigating our danger, and our battles with Amalek always play out in a manner of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”, since Amalek is a descendant of Esav.

The King of Jew-Hatred

Preceding the chronicling of the Bris Bain Ha’besarim, the Torah, in Beraishis 14, relates the story of the war of the four kings against Avrohom. The Ramban explains – and this thought is similarly expressed by Chazal in Beraishis Rabbah 42:7 – that the four kings are a homiletic reference to the four kingdoms that are destined to oppress Yisroel.

One of the four kings is called “Sidal, king of the nations” and the Ramban writes that he is so called because he ruled over diverse nations. What is the significance of the reference to “nations”? Which nation was king of the “nations”? The Medrash explains that the “king” is actually a reference to Edom whose despotism extended over the nations of the world. Edom earned this distinction because all the kingdoms that preceded his were limited to one particular location but Edom imposed its will over “nations” in general.

The significance of Edom’s empire-building was that his antipathy toward Yisroel also extended beyond the borders of his own land; his poisonous incitement against the Jews was spread far and wide among other nations and he propagandized the other nations to induce in them as well the toxic venom of anti-Semitism.

In fact Edom was so identified with this trait that, when enumerating the four kings, the Torah refers to him as “Sidal, king of the nations” – as if to say that his empire of hatred crossed all borders and had no boundaries.

The Progression of Amalek’s Infiltration

If we want to pinpoint the beginnings of Edom’s incitement-spreading we would have to focus on the period of the exile of Paras. The entire Megillas Esther centers around Amalek’s incitement of Achashverosh against the Jews. Earlier in history, such as during the lifetime of Moshe, or during the epoch of the prophets, Amalek – a scion of Edom – directly waged war against Yisroel. Amalek’s interaction with Achashverosh was the first instance of Edom provoking a proxy – Achashverosh, king of Paras – into Jew-hatred.

At the time, this innovation of evil was limited to one kingdom, Paras, but the exiles become more onerous as they progress, so that in the fourth exile, which we are currently in the midst of, there are no geographic limits to Edom’s incitement; it spreads indiscriminately to all nations. “Sidal, king of the nations”.

Let us trace this phenomenon through the sequence of exiles. The first of the four, Bavel, did not have Amalek participation. This was followed by the exile of Paras which was a reflection of Amalek’s infiltration into a single other nation. (The apparent absence of Amalek from galus Yavan is discussed in Pachad Yitzchok, Chanukah Maamar 15.)

The final galus of Edom reflects Amalek’s infiltration into every other nation.

The prevailing theme of our exiles in general is the inverse relationship between Edom and Yisroel, such that even when the nation oppressing us is not Edom, Edom’s fingerprints are visible. This was especially the case with respect to the galus of Paras – the first where Edom/Amalek “spread its wings” over a non-Edom nation.

We daven that just as Hashem saved us from that first galus exposure to Edom, he save us now, when we are in the thick of the actual galus Edom, so that we may again sing, “la’yehudim haysa orah, v’simcha, v’sasson, v’yikar!”

The Special Status of the Intellect

 The Special Status of the Intellect: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l

By Eliakim Willner

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

 The Intellect as “Outsider" 

We will discuss and attempt to understand as best we can a principle expounded by the Maharal, who wrote in chapter 9 of Gevuros Hashem that “the intellect is but an outsider, a ger, in this world”. The Maharal introduces this concept in order to explain the wording of a tefilla in the Shmoneh Esrai, wherein Chazal lumped together “the elders of the nation”, “the remnants of the scribes” and “righteous converts” in a single blessing. In that blessing, al hatzadikim, Chazal included in a single supplication righteous converts, gerim, with righteous individuals – the elders and the scribes – and the Maharal explains that the common thread between them is that “the intellect is but a sojourner, a ger, in this world”. In other words, elders and scribes, who are men of intellect, are properly grouped with converts because their signature attribute, their intellect, is an outsider in the context of this world just as a convert is an outsider in the context of the community he has just joined.

The notion of the intellect as an outsider is somewhat opaque, so we will attempt to the best of our ability to clarify it, and we will do so by introducing two halachos that are unique to the intellect.

One Halacha That Defines the Uniqueness of the Intellect

We are obliged, per a Mishna in Avos 2:12, to sanctify our discretionary activities by doing them for the sake of heaven.. For example, when eating one should focus the intent of the action on maintaining his health and strength in order to do Hashem’s will, when exercising one should focus on a similar intent, when engaging in recreation one should focus his intent on obtaining a clear mind in order to better learn Hashem’s Torah, etc. The Mishna derives this obligation from a posuk in Mishlei 3:6, “Know Him in all your ways”. All your activities, the Mishna in Avos exhorts us, should be done for the sake of Heaven.

Thus it follows that if some portion of a person’s discretionary activities are not done for the sake of Heaven, he has neglected his “know Him in all your ways” obligation. He is tainted in that he failed to sanctify an area of his life that was inherently non-sanctified and because of this failure that area of his life remains bereft of sanctity. This, then, is the taint that results from failure to satisfy the “know Him in all your ways” obligation. This is straightforward and obvious.

The point we want to bring out, however, is the uniqueness of the intellect with respect to the obligation to dedicate activity for the sake of Heaven. Whereas utilizing another area of human activity for non-sanctified purposes, without an intent to dedicate that activity for the sake of heaven, incurs only the taint of disregarding “know Him in all your ways”, one who utilizes his intellect for non-sanctified purposes incurs a taint that precedes that of “know Him in all your ways”; a taint and a violation arising from the very character of the intellect itself.

What distinguishes the intellect in this way? The distinction emerges from the halacha that the primary focus of your conversation (“Conversation” is here used in the broader sense of mental activity) should be Torah, and this halacha originates in a posuk from Shma (Devarim 6:7), “and you shall speak of them”, v’dibarta bam. See the commentary of Rashi on that posuk, based on the Sifri.

From this halacha we see that the ultimate objective of the mitzva of Torah study is not merely the study of Torah per se, but rather, the ultimate objective is that no other mental activity aside from involvement in the wisdom of Torah should assume a position of primacy in the intellect. Or, in sharper terms, at a minimum, a subsidiary connection to Torah must be evident in every intellectual activity.

There is, then, a fundamental difference between the intellect and man’s other capabilities when it comes to using them for discretionary activities. With respect to man’s other capabilities, using them in a non-sanctified manner (that is, without an intent to dedicate the activity for the sake of heaven) is but a violation of the general obligation to “know Him in all your ways”. In contrast, using the intellect in a non-sanctified manner constitutes neglect of Torah study and is thus a direct violation of the mitzva of Torah study, because using the intellect in that manner allows for non-Torah mental activities to assume a position of primacy, rather than the required subsidiary-to-Torah position.

Intellect: Not of This World

What underlies this fundamental difference between the intellect and man’s other capabilities? The answer lies in the words of the Maharal, introduced earlier in this discussion: “the intellect is but an outsider in this world”. The relationship between life in this world and life in the next world is that of a physical, senses-based life, versus a spiritual, concepts-based life. Our physical senses cannot grasp an abstract model of a thing. Abstractions are a faculty of the intellect.

Now, since life in the world-to-come and at the end of days is spiritual in nature, those are the epochs in which the intellect will come into full bloom. The power of the intellect in this world is a shadow of what it will be in the future. In that context we may say that our senses and other physical capabilities are native to this world since they are designed to function in a concrete, non-abstract environment.

But the intellect is radically different since its strength lies in its ability to abstract and conceptualize. The intellect is not at home in this material world of physical objects. Its primary power is reserved for the world-to-come and the end of days, where abstraction reigns supreme. Thus its existence here is that of an outsider – “outsider” in the sense that it can only function in an unfettered fashion in its home base. Here, it has one hand tied behind its back. Here, it resides only on a temporary basis.

Indeed, our prophets always characterize the end of days as a time when the status of the intellect, and only the intellect, is enhanced, raised and glorified.

So that is why using an ordinary human faculty for mundane purposes reflects only a failure to sanctify the mundane, while utilizing the intellect for mundane purposes is to wrest it from its natural state of sanctity and impose mundanity upon it.

Another Halacha: Chinuch in Torah Versus Chinuch in Mitzvos

To better understand this principle we herewith present another halacha in which it finds expression.

There are many differences between the mitzva of Torah study and other mitzvos, and one of them has to do with chinuch – readying a youngster for the performance of a mitzva. There is a specific mitzva of chinuch when it comes to mitzvos in general. There is no mitzva of chinuch when it comes to Torah. Let us illustrate what we mean.

When a father introduces his young son to the mitzva of Sukkah, there is in fact no fulfillment of the mitzva of Sukkah, there is only fulfillment of the mitzva of chinuch. See Sukkah 28b. Even though the underage son is going through all the necessary motions to fulfill the mitzva of Sukkah, there is no Sukkah mitzva fulfillment since he is under the age of bar mitzva. However, when a father introduces his young son to the study of Torah there is, in fact, a fulfillment of the mitzva to study Torah.

A lulav in the hands of an underage youngster is an object used to fulfill the mitzva of chinuch (but not the mitzva of lulav). But the words from Devarim 33:4, Torah tziva lanu Moshe, morasha kehillas Yaakov, “The Torah that Moshe commanded us is a legacy for the congregation of Yaakov”, on the lips of a youngster who is capable of speech are actual words of Torah. (The Rambam writes in Mishna Torah, Talmud Torah 1:6 that a father is obligated to teach his son this posuk, and the Shma posuk, as soon as the son begins to speak.)

As we stated, there is no place for chinuch as a separate mitzva when it comes to teaching Torah. Why? The reason is tied to the concept that we have been discussing – the intellect is “pre-programmed” for sanctity.

Chinuch is a matter of dedication – through chinuch the child is being dedicated to the performance of mitzvos. But dedication is necessary only when the object being dedicated is in a neutral state prior to the dedication. The process of dedication then effects a transition from “neutral” to dedicated. But when the initial state is not “neutral”, dedication is superfluous.

Therefore, since mitzvos in general are performed by ordinary human faculties – the ones that are native to this world, which is a place of “sanctity neutrality” – a process of chinuch to dedicate those faculties to the sanctity of mitzvos is necessary. But the study of Torah is the province of the intellect, which is an outsider in this world; intrinsically its proper place is the end of days. Thus, the intellect is not “neutral”. The intellect of a Jew is intrinsically dedicated to and “pre-programmed” for the wisdom of Torah. No further act of dedication is necessary. So it stands to reason that there is chinuch for mitzvos but no chinuch for Torah.

Understand this well; we have only scratched the surface of this topic, which requires a sensitive soul to fully appreciate. We cannot write more; it is impossible to dip the point of the pen into the depths of the inkwell of the heart.

This, at any rate, should provide a broader understanding of the difference between the intellect and the ordinary human faculties, with practical implications in halacha, and gives us a deeper understanding of what the Maharal meant when he wrote that “the intellect is but an outsider, a ger, in this world”.

We have reviewed these concepts many times in the hope that through repetition, the underlying principles will ingrain themselves in our minds, and will enable our own intellects to appreciate their self-worth, so that we treat them with the respect that they, with their exalted status, deserve.

This article is dedicated l’ilui Nishmas my father, Rabbi Yisroel ben Yaakov Willner, who learned and lived these words, on the occasion of his first Yahrtzeit, 18 Shvat.

 

Malchios – A Deeper Level of Kingship Acceptance: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Rosh HaShana Maamar 24)

 

Malchios – A Deeper Level of Kingship Acceptance: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Rosh HaShana Maamar 24)

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”. 

 A Seemingly Redundant Statement

Our Chachomim wrote (Rosh HaShana 16a), “Hashem said… ‘Recite pesukim of… Kingship (Malchios) before Me so that you may make Me King over you’”. This statement appears to be redundant. Certainly, reciting pesukim of Malchios itself constitutes acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship.

This statement with respect to Malchios is fundamentally different from a similar statement of our Chachomim, with respect to pesukim of remembrance (Zichronos), “Recite pesukim of remembrance (Zichronos) before me so that I remember you”, because it is understood that we are reciting the pesukim in the lower world so that Hashem will remember us in the upper world. There is a separate cause and effect. Our recitation of the pasuk is the cause, and it triggers the effect in another entity – Hashem, who will be doing the remembering.

But reciting pesukim of Malchios is itself an act of accepting Hashem’s Malchios. Why, then, do the Chachomim present the first and second clause of the statement as if they were separate cause and effect? A parallel statement with respect to Zichronos would be “Recite pesukim of remembrance so that you remember me”, rather than the actual, sensible statement, where the person is doing the reciting, which causes Hashem to be doing the remembering. Certainly, the former would be a meaningless statement, since reciting the pesukim of remembrance would itself be the act of remembrance. There would be no “so that” cause and effect in operation here, since there would be only a single entity involved – the person doing the reciting – and his act of recitation would inherently be an act of remembrance.

We must understand, then, why it is that, with respect to Malchios, a statement with that seemingly redundant construction is admissible. Where is the cause and effect relationship between reciting Malchios and accepting Hashem’s Kingship?

The Shma Conundrum

 

There is a difference of opinion between Tanaaim on the issue of whether or not a person can satisfy the obligation to recite pesukim of Malchios on Rosh HaShana with the Shma Yisroel pasuk (Devarim 6:4). Refer to that Gemara, which is in Rosh HaShana 32b. We must consider why this is even a question, because this is the very pasuk that every Jew recites in order to fulfill his obligation to accept Hashem’s Kingship. How can we even consider the possibility that reciting Shma Yisroel does not constitute an adequate acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship on Rosh HaShana?

The Coronation of Rosh HaShana

 

To answer this question we will make use of a tactic referred to in the pasuk (Tehillim 119:98) as, “Make me wise from my enemies”. At times we can extract wisdom from the way things work by our enemies. This is one such time, as we will explain.

We learned in the laws regarding the prohibition against Avodah Zara idol worship, that if one declares “You are my god” to an idol, that act has the same significance as throwing something to the idol or sacrificing something to it (Sanhedrin 60b; Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchos Avodah Zara 3:4). That is, the declaration is considered in violation of the laws against Avodah Zara and the perpetrator is subject to the death penalty if there are witnesses, and to excision, if there are not witnesses.

However, the Chazon Ish rules, remarkably (Yoreh Deah 62:17), that this person is only in violation of the Avodah Zara prohibition if the declaration was uttered in a manner that indicates that the intent was to create the ruler/subject relationship. However the Avodah Zara violation does not apply when the circumstances make it clear that the intent was merely to affirm a pre-existing status.

There is no violation when the statement is merely a description of a status quo because such a statement is no more than an acknowledgment of a reality. The person making the statement had no hand in creating that reality at that juncture. The only time there is a violation is if the person making the statement is thereby creating the ruler/ruled relationship – when his statement in effect “coronates” the idol as king.

We will utilize these concepts to make ourselves “wise from our enemies”, by suggesting that a similar distinction applies between the daily acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship in Shma, and our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship on Rosh HaShana. We are not creating Hashem’s Kingship when we recite Shma, we are accepting a Kingship that pre-exists our acceptance of it.

This is very different from the Malchios of Rosh HaShana, since its purpose is specifically to be an act of coronation. We are engaged in crowning our King when we recite the Malchios of Rosh HaShana; we are creating the King/subject relationship.

This is in line with the pasuk (Devarim 33:5), “And Hashem is King in Yeshurun, when the entirety of the people are gathered”. When is Hashem King in Yeshurun? The pasuk is teaching us that this happens when the nation accepts His Kingship. If not, He cannot properly be called their King, as it were. There is a similar implication in the pasuk (Yeshayahu 43:12), “…‘and you are My witnesses,’ says Hashem, ‘and I am G-d’” – as if to say, “When am I your G-d? When you are my witnesses. But if you are not my witnesses, then (as if such a thing were possible) I am not your G-d.”

This, then, is the purpose of the Malchios of Rosh HaShana. We are not declaring to Hashem, “You are our King”. We are, rather, declaring to Hashem, “We are making you our King” – we are engaging in the act of creating a new relationship of Kingship.

Shma: Acceptance But Not Enactment

 

We are now able to understand the view of the Tanna who holds that we do not satisfy our Rosh HaShana Malchios obligation with the Shma pasuk. This Tanna holds that although it is true that Shma certainly constitutes an acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship, it does not constitute a Kingship enactment – a coronation. Since this is a necessary condition of Malchios, the Shma pasuk does not qualify as Malchios.

Malchios Marching Orders

 

The meaning of the statement “Recite pesukim of… Kingship (Malchios) before Me so that you may make Me King over you” is now also clear. It is an instruction to us to make our statements of Malchios acts of Kingship creation and not merely statements of Kingship reality. Understand this well.

[Adaptor’s note: The view stated here is that that although it is true that Shma constitutes an acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship, it does not constitute an initiation of the Kingship and thus is ineligible for inclusion in Malchios. This apparently contradicts concepts developed in Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 25:4-5 and in Pachad Yitzchok, Pesach Maamar 76:5, 9.

In the Shavuous Maamar the point is made that Shma and the first of the dibros constitute the commitments of each of the two sides of bris-covenant between Hashem and Yisroel – Hashem declares that He is our G-d (dibros) and we declare our acceptance of Hashem as our King (Shma). The Maamar demonstrates that this bris constitutes an initiation of Kingship – or in other words, Shma, our side of the bris, is what triggers Kingship initiation. This runs counter to the view expressed in this Maamar that Shma is but an affirmation of an existing Kingship relationship.

In the Pesach Maamar it is explicitly stated that the daily Shma recitation is in fact an act of coronation not merely an act of affirmation. This, too, seems to directly contradict the view stated here.

Perhaps the answer might be that this Maamar is explaining the position of the Tanna who holds that we do not satisfy our Rosh HaShana Malchios obligation with the Shma verse. That Tanna evidently does hold that Shma is just an affirmation and that is why it is inadmissible in Malchios. However we do include Shma in Malchios. Thus our position is, as stated in the two Maamorim cited, that Shma actually is a coronation – and that is precisely why we hold that it properly belongs in Malchios.)]

 

 

Remembering Your Learning – The Torah Way: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 30)

Remembering Your Learning – The Torah Way: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 30)

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 – “Let” Versus “Put” Torah in the Heart

In the first chapter of the Shma prayer the verse states (Devarim 6:6), “Let these matters (devarim) that I command you today be upon your heart”, while the parallel verse in the second chapter of Shma (Devarim 11:18) uses different wording: “Place these matters (devarai) of mine upon your heart and upon your soul”. [The “matters” that both this verse and the one in the second chapter deal with refer to the study of Torah.] Notice that while the first chapter speaks in terms of “Let… be upon your heart”, the second chapter speaks in terms of “Place… upon your heart”. Why the change in language?

We have dealt with this issue elsewhere (Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuos Maamar 25) but we revisit it here to focus on a new angle that we did not consider before.

Section 2 – The Positive Commandment to Remember One’s Torah

Targum Yonasan translates the “Let these matters that I command you today be upon your heart” verse as “Let these matters that I command you today be inscribed upon the tablets of your hearts”. The Gaon, Rav Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik of Brisk explains in his Torah commentary on parshas V’eschanan that this verse establishes a positive commandment to remember the Torah that one learns. This commandment reinforces the prohibition (Devarim 4:9), “…lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life…”, which our Sages explain in Avos 3:8 as a warning not to forget even one detail of one’s Torah learning. The Gemara in Menachos 99 in fact enumerates this as one of the negative commandments.

The “Let these matters that I command you today be upon your heart” verse adds the additional dimension of a positive commandment to this obligation, making it clear that failing to continually give Torah knowledge its rightful place in one’s heart, assuring that it not be forgotten, is a binding positive requirement.

This, Rav Soloveitchik explains, is the underlying intent of Targum Yonasan’s choice of words, “be inscribed upon the tablets of your hearts”. We are enjoined with a positive commandment to remember the Torah we learn, and not to forget it. Rav Soloveitchik elaborates upon this point in depth; refer to his commentary for additional detail.

Section 3 – Two Approaches to Remembering

We know from experience that there are two approaches to defeating forgetfulness. The first approach is through a thorough review of the topic that one wants to remember. The second approach is a function of the impression the topic makes when it is first encountered. The more intense the initial impression, the less likely it is that the mind will let it go. When we absorb an idea that we know is essential, that we know matters deeply, it is practically impossible for the Forces of Forgetfulness to hold sway.

These two approaches to defeating forgetfulness are the foundation for the two approaches for remembering one’s Torah study – letting the matters rest on the heart, and placing the matters on the heart – that are mentioned in the first and second Shma chapters. Reinforcing one’s memory by placing on the heart implies an ongoing, active effort to retain the knowledge learned, and the only way to do that is via strenuous review. However, reinforcing one’s memory by letting matters rest on the heart means that the effort to retain the material is front-loaded; it takes place when the material initially enters the consciousness, and after that one need only let the memory persist.

Section 4 – Learning, to Retain

We have often discussed the concept of our Sages, cited in Yerushalmi, Brachos 1:5, that the Shma verse is an affirmation of the first two of the ten commandments, dibros. When we say, in Shma, “Hashem is our G-d” we are affirming the first of the ten dibros, “I am Hashem, your G-d”. When we say, “Hashem is one” we are affirming the second of the ten dibros, “You should not recognize the gods of others”. The second commandment is “You should not recognize the gods of others in My presence”. When we say, “Hashem is one” (“one” in this context means “one and only”) we are affirming that commandment.

This concept sheds additional light on the words of Rabbeinu Yonah, who says that the Shma verse encapsulates the content of the entire first Shma chapter; the rest of the chapter merely details what is entailed in the acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship expressed by the first verse. Refer to Rabbeinu Yonah’s statements in detail, in Shaarei Teshuva, 3:22.

In light of the concept of our Sages that the Shma verse is an affirmation of the first two of the ten commandments, “I am Hashem, your G-d” and “You should not recognize the gods of others”, it follows that, per Rabbeinu Yonah, the entire first chapter is a reflection of the context of the first two dibros, since those two dibros are the first chapter’s subject matter.

So, what was the context of the first two dibros? According to our Sages as expressed in Medrash Rabbah, Shir HaShirim 1:2, “When Yisroel heard ‘I am Hashem, your G-d’ and ‘You should not recognize the gods of others’, the Torah became engraved upon their hearts and what they learned was not susceptible to being forgotten” (except that after the transgression of the golden calf their newfound ability to retain their learning permanently, was lost).

The context of the first two dibros, then, which is reflected in the first Shma chapter, is an initial impression on the mind that is so intense that it cannot be forgotten.

Now, how would we go about replicating, in our small way, the experience of “learning that cannot be forgotten” by “engraving” the Torah on our own hearts? Surely that path to remembering does not entail the labor of reviewing! Reviewing over and over is a far cry from the “engraved upon the heart” path to not forgetting that we briefly attained at Sinai!

Rather, if we want to replicate that experience in ourselves, our only option is to focus on the learning experience itself, and to strive mightily to give maximum depth of meaning to the Torah we are learning, when we first are learning it; when it is first being absorbed in our souls. In that way, and only in that way, we may achieve, at least in some measure, the Sinaitic experience of engraving the Torah on our hearts. To the extent that we succeed, we will have a taste of the learning and the permanent remembering that we briefly enjoyed in full measure when we heard the first two dibros at Sinai.

Section 5 – Two Parallel Paths to Avoiding Torah Forgetfulness

The relationship our Sages taught us between Shma and the first two dibros applies only to the first Shma chapter. The second Shma chapter is a general acceptance of the mitzvos. We are now able to understand the reason for the “let” versus “place” difference between the first two Shma chapters. Certainly, the respective verses in both chapters parallel each other; they both deal with how to avoid forgetting one’s Torah learning. But they each deal with the issue in a manner befitting the context of the containing chapter.

The context of the first chapter is the first two dibros and in that context the path to avoiding Torah forgetfulness is intensity of acquisition and subsequent “let”. The context of the second chapter, however, is general acceptance of the mitzvos and in that context the antidote for Torah forgetfulness is “place” – active reinforcement of the learning through review.

Section 6 – The Double Benefit of Passionately Learning Torah

There is another aspect of the first Shma chapter’s “let” method for forestalling forgetfulness that is worth mentioning. It should be obvious that in order to achieve the level of intensity required to acquire Torah such that it will not be forgotten, the acquisition must be accompanied by a bounty of joy from the very moment that new Torah material enters the consciousness. The soul must delight in the bliss and sweetness of the words of Torah, because to the extent that we feel joy in our Torah learning, to that extent is the Torah is absorbed in our minds and not forgotten. Now, the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos (Mitzvos Asei 3), when discussing, ways to fulfill the mitzva of loving Hashem, states that the enjoyment and pleasure that a person derives from the word of Hashem (i.e. Torah study), is itself a fulfillment of the mitzva to love Hashem. Study this Rambam carefully.

This adds additional perspective to our understanding of the first Shma chapter. The chapter enjoins us to “love Hashem, your G-d…”, which, as the Rambam taught us, we can accomplish with a surfeit of joy, an abundance of pleasure and an appreciation of the sweetness that we derive from our Torah learning.

But these are the same factors that cause the Torah to stick powerfully in our minds at the time we learn it. This is the “let” method of remembering our learning! It is no surprise, then, that the very next verse is, “Let these matters which I command you today be upon your heart – studying Torah with the passion required to fulfill the mitzva of loving Hashem – is at the same time a fulfillment of the mitzva to remember our Torah study using this Shma chapter’s “let” method. Understand this well.

 

In Memoriam – A Tribute to Rabbi Dr. Eric Willner, a Noted Mechanech, on the Occasion of His Shloshim

 By Eliakim Willner

Yisroel (“Eric”) Willner was born in Vienna on October 20^th, 1926, to Yaakov and Mina Willner. Yaakov Willner came to Vienna as an older bochur; his family were chassidim, originally from Brezhev, Poland. Mirel (“Mina”) Willner (nee Lowe) was born in Hungary. She was orphaned at a young age and taken in by an older married sister who lived in Vienna. Yaakov and Mina were introduced in Vienna, married there and settled down to raise a family. They had two children, Malka (“Mali”) and Yisroel (“Eric”).

Yisroel went to “gymnasium” and cheder in Vienna. When, as an adult living in the US, he went to visit the kevarim of his parents in the Viener Chevra chalakah in NJ he always stopped to say some Tehillim at the kever of his cheder Rebbi in Vienna, Rabbi Hornspiegel, who is buried in the same chalakah.

On March 12, 1938, the Nazis, yemach shemom, invaded Austria. They encountered little resistance and Austria was annexed to Germany within a day. The Jews in Austria, and in particular in the larger cities like Vienna, realized the imminent danger, but getting out through normal channels was almost impossible. Jews outside the danger zone arranged permission for children to be sent out of Austria by boat, from Holland, to England on what became known as the Kindertransports. These trips were fraught with danger since the Nazis controlled the seas and had no hesitation sinking these ships filled with Jewish children; several were in fact sunk.

Demand for spaces on the Kindertransports was high; there were long waiting lists. But Yaakov and Mina were successful in getting Yisroel and Mali onto the Kindertransports, with Mali leaving first and Yisroel managing a berth on a later boat.

The Kindertransports were arranged hastily and the Jewish community in England was not prepared to absorb all the refugee Jewish children pouring into the country. The Jewish communities were centered in larger cities, which were targets of German bombers. So many of the children, including Yisroel, were placed in non-Jewish homes in the countryside.

Most non-Jews in England had never seen a Jew in their lives, and their opinion of Jews was formed by old, negative stereotypes. This was true of the family that hosted Yisroel. Whether he sensed that, or whether he felt that all non-Jews were anti-Semites because of his experience in Austria, he decided to hide his Jewishness from his hosts. He told them he was a vegetarian so he wouldn’t have to eat meat. He insisted on walking to school on Shabbos (since he couldn’t get out of going entirely). He refused to write on Shabbos and he was punished for it. All of this at age 11, without adult guidance.

His father had sent along tefillin with him, not knowing if he would see him again before his bar mitzva, or ever again, and Yisroel kept them hidden.

B’H, his parents eventually made it to England themselves and his father was present at his bar mitzva (his mother was only able to make it out a few months later). Shortly after they were reunited the family managed to obtain papers and emigrated to the United States, settling first on the lower East Side and eventually moving to the Bronx, where they became close to Rav Moshe Bick, zt’l. Yisroel maintained his kesher with Rav Bick for the rest of his life.

Yisroel went to Yeshivas Yaakov Yosef until high school, and for high school, he went to Yeshiva Yitzchok Elchonon, and continued in that mossad for college and for semicha, which he earned with distinction.

Yisroel had a burning love for eretz yisroel from a young age and became a leader in HaShomer HaDati, an organization for frum young people who shared his love of eretz yisroel his idealism, and his dedication to the klal.

There he met Bronnie Singer, who became his wife and life partner.

Yisroel and Bronnie’s ambitions in life were chinuch and kiruv. While many of his classmates went into the Rabbinate after graduation, Rabbi Willner took on a first teaching position at Yeshiva Zichron Moshe. Recognizing that there were more kiruv opportunities “out of town”, Rabbi Willner took a position as Talmud Torah principal in Malden, MA, but moved on to a similar position at a larger Talmud Torah in White Plains, NY, a few years later. His wife taught the younger grades in that Talmud Torah.

Rabbi Willner spent ten productive years in White Plains and he and Bronnie had a significant impact on the community. Prospective baalei teshuva, lonely seniors and many others were regular visitors to the Willner home. Hundreds of children were impacted by the chinuch they received at that Talmud Torah due to Rabbi and Mrs. Willner’s influence.

During his years in White Plains Rabbi Willner completed his PhD in Educational Psychology at NYU, laying the groundwork for his next career move. He and his wife realized that chinuch opportunities for their children were limited in White Plains and understood that as their children grew older they would have to move closer to a city that housed real Yeshivos, capable of giving their four children the chinuch they wanted them to have.

So, after ten years in White Plains, the Willners moved to Brooklyn, where Rabbi Dr. Willner became principle of one of the largest girls high schools in New York, Esther Schoenfeld High School on the lower East Side – the position that is most associated with his career in chinuch. It was at Esther Schoenfeld that he became famous for the traits that he was known for, for the rest of his life: his erudition, his competence, his calm temperament, sense of fair play and pleasant disposition.

Gradually, the demographics of the lower East Side changed and the Jewish population dwindled. Esther Schoenfeld had opened a sister branch in Borough Park, Brooklyn and the decision was made to close the East Side branch. Rabbi Willner was offered a position at the Borough Park school, but declined. His good friend Rabbi Ephraim Oratz was principal there and Rabbi Willner did not want to encroach on his turf.

Rabbi Willner was in his 50’s at the time and finding a secure full-time position in chinuch would have been difficult, and would have created parnoso issues. Rabbi Willner was always forward thinking and he realized that he was getting closer to retirement age, and retirement benefits in chinuch were not very promising. (He actually continued to work until he was 80.)

However, Rabbi Dr. Willner had excellent professional credentials and was able to assume a professorship at Kingsborough Community College where he taught Psychology and spearheaded the creation of several valuable programs that are still in use there today. In the files he left behind are warm and personal letters of commendation and thanks for his many contributions there.

Rabbi Willner’s first love was chinuch, and he continued in that role even after he assumed his full-time responsibilities at Kingsborough. He shared his expertise at running the secular studies department in a New York City high school with several Yeshivos struggling to get a handle on navigating the complexities of that task, including Bais Rivka in Crown Heights and the Yeshiva of Far Rockaway. He shared his life-wisdom with young men and women at Touro College when he assumed a part-time teaching and administrative position there.

Rabbi Willner had a brilliant mind and he continued to “hold in learning” no matter what else occupied his professional time. He was also able to self-train in other disciplines that he found useful and interesting, and became an accomplished financial planner – so much so that many of his Yeshiva chevra, whom he kept in constant touch with, consulted him for financial planning advice.

Above all, Yisroel Willner was a family man and he adored and doted on his children, grand-children, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren. It was his pleasure, for as long as he was able to do it, to speak from the heart and impart of his wisdom at family simchos, where his drashos were usually the high point. When writing new drashos became hard for him, and it was suggested that he “recycle” previous material – all of which was carefully archived, because Rabbi Willner was a meticulously organized man – he was horrified. For him, every grandchild and great-grandchild was unique and deserved his or her own custom-crafted drasho. No recycling allowed!

When he was in his 70’s, Rabbi Willner gave testimony to Project Witness, wherein he described his harrowing  war experiences. In his conclusion he remarked, “I feel obligated to live an appropriate kind of life – to help others and to be marbitz Torah”. And that he did.

Rabbi Yisroel Willner was a very special and unique individual, and he will be sorely missed by his large family, b’ah, by the people who he worked with, learned with, davened with, vacationed with and simply interacted with in any way.

Yehi Zichro Boruch.

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)