Personal Reminisces of Fifty Years Under the Tutelage of My Rebbi, My Rosh Yeshiva – HaRav Aharon Moshe Schechter z’tl

Personal Reminisces of Fifty Years Under the Tutelage of My Rebbi, My Rosh Yeshiva – HaRav Aharon Moshe Schechter z’tl

This is an expanded version of an article that appeared on page 78 of the September 1^st, 2023 edition of the  Yated Neeman.

By Eliakim Willner

Some years ago I was editor of the Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin Alumni Newsletter. In the issue that followed Rav Aharon’s becoming the Rosh Yeshiva I naively inserted a short paragraph mentioning the fact, along with a brocha for hatzlocho. That issue was placed at every setting at the Chaim Berlin dinner that year. At some point, prior to the arrival of the guests, the Rosh Yeshiva happened to see the issue, and the paragraph, and requested that the copies be collected and not distributed.

I was naturally perturbed, so shortly thereafter I told the Rosh Yeshiva that I wished to apologize. He said, “What for?” I responded, “To be honest, I’m not sure what for, but I heard what happened at the dinner and I want to understand what I did wrong.” With his characteristic smile, the Rosh Yeshiva explained that “Rosh Yeshiva” was not a “job” like, l’havdil, “CEO” and in no way should be treated as such. The Rosh Yeshiva understood and accepted that I meant well, but felt that it was worth confiscating all copies of that issue to avoid any hint of pechisus in the exalted role of a Rosh Yeshiva.

I begin with this story because it brings to the fore the Rosh Yeshiva’s constant emphasis on gadlus haTorah and chashivus haTorah. It also brings to the fore his ability to make almost every interaction with his talmidim into teaching moments.

The Rosh Yeshiva was exacting in his choice of words and I tremble with the thought that I may, in this article, inadvertently not phrase things in a manner befitting the kovod due him. I ask for mechila in advance, but perhaps some leeway can be permitted for devarim hayotzim min halev, written in the heat of emotion, just a day after his petira.

***

For many years the Rosh Yeshiva gave motzai Shabbos chazoros of Maamorim from his own Rebbi, Rav Hutner zt’l’s Torah – from Sefer Pachad Yitzchok. Time stood still during those chazoros; the Rosh Yeshiva was living the words of the Maamar, his face alight, his words carefully chosen. Deep concepts were repeated, often with a different choice of words, to bring out nuances that might not have been apparent before.

On Friday nights the Rosh Yeshiva often hosted bochrim for the Shabbos seudah, and the seudah was followed by an extemporaneous shiur on the Ramban of the parshas hashavuah. Although I ate at home, I tried, as often as possible, to walk to the Rosh Yeshiva’s house afterwards for the Ramban “shiur”. The lessons on how to approach a Ramban were eye-opening and have remained with me to this day.

The Rosh Yeshiva wanted us to remember that chol hamoed was yom tov. During the years that Rav Hutner gave chol hamoed Maamorim in the Yeshiva, Rav Aharon gave chazoros the next morning to a small chaburah. Rav Aharon reviewed each point of the Maamar, explaining it in detail and responding to our questions. The Maamorim, and the chazoros, opened up new vistas in machshova for those of us fortunate enough to attend them. They also took several hours, insuring that we would, in fact, be observing at least part of chol hamoed as yom tov!

***

The Rosh Yeshiva was once searching for a word to describe the actions of a predatory animal against its victim. Members of the chabura threw out some suggestions – perhaps “attack” or “injure” would do? The Rosh Yeshiva was not satisfied. His point could not be effectively made without the exact word he had in mind (the word, which he remembered with great joy, was “maul”).

I was privileged to serve as gabbai for Shabbos kabolas Shabbos and Maariv for some years. I needed to discuss something in that regard with the Rosh Yeshiva and I thoughtlessly started with “last Friday night…”. The Rosh Yeshiva quickly interrupted with a mock scowl: “Friday night??? NO, LEIL SHABBOS!” The Rosh Yeshiva was makpid not only with his own choice of words, but also with those of his talmidim.

***

The Rosh Yeshiva was also very makpid to daven slowly and carefully and aloud, looking at every word in his siddur.  He used a small card to be sure he was looking at the right place and, in the days when the Rosh Yeshiva was unfortunately not so audible, the shluchai tzibur, who would naturally not move ahead until the Rosh Yeshiva was ready to, learned to know his place by watching his card and waiting for it to stop moving.

The Rosh Yeshiva listened to every word of the sholiach tzibur and immediately picked up on any deviation from halacha or from the minhagim of the Yeshiva, as they were established by his own Rebbi, Rav Hutner. In fact he was strongly makpid to preserve those minhagim even when they were not halachically m’akev. If for example, the shatz dropped his voice by go’al yisroel, or said “morid haGOshem” instead of “morid haGEshem” he would hear about it from the Rosh Yeshiva. If the shatz dawdled by lecha dodi and risked not reaching mizmor shir l’yom hashabos before shkia, the Rosh Yeshiva would rush him along, nigun or no nigun!

The Rosh Yeshiva was makpid that the sholichei tzibur should take their tefillos, and particularly chazoras hashatz, at a sedate pace, often signaling to the shatz to slow down. In fact he had the following sign posted prominently on the amud, as a reminder.

The Rosh Yeshiva was strongly opposed to the use of cellphones within the confines of the Yeshiva and no one dared to take or make phone calls in the building lest the Rosh Yeshiva see them. One day I had to make an important call and walked out of the Yeshiva to do so. Since it was raining, I made my call on the bottom step of the covered portico leading out of the Yeshiva. At that moment the Rosh Yeshiva was leaving the building and sternly told me, “Eliakim! Remember, no cell phone usage in the Yeshiva building!” I stammered that I was out of the building and he pointed up to the roof overhead and said “as long as you are sheltered under a roof of the Yeshiva, even outdoors, you are in the mechitzos of the building!” Lesson learned!

***

I was in the  Rosh Yeshiva’s blatt shiur for several years. They were deep and comprehensive – so much so that I did not want to trust to memory or even notes, to engrave them on my mind. With the Rosh Yeshiva’s permission I recorded them and went over them later, often with a chavrusa, pausing frequently to review and write down questions, which we then took to the Rosh Yeshiva for clarification. (One of my chavrusas in this endeavor was Rav Mordechai Schechter, the Rosh Yeshiva’s son and the Yeshiva’s mashgiach ruchni – may he have a refuah shlaimo!) This practice formed the basis for the derech halimud that I use, in my own small way, to this day.

One zman my chavrusa, Yaakov Jacobson a’h and I, learned with the Rosh Yeshiva for afternoon seder. I asked the Rosh Yeshiva for reshus to leave early one day, explaining that I had to donate blood. The Rosh Yeshiva asked, with concern, if everyone was OK, and I explained everyone was fine, but my family’s medical insurance required that every year one family member donate a pint of blood in order to provide transfusions coverage for the entire family, and this year it was my turn.

The Rosh Yeshiva told me that it was questionable if donating blood in that circumstance was permitted, and that I should ask a shailo. I stammered that I had no idea who to ask, and how to ask, and that in any case my appointment was imminent... He excused himself and went to his office, returning ten or fifteen minutes later to tell me that he asked on my behalf and that in fact it was permissible. I was stunned at the Rosh Yeshiva’s level of achrayus for his talmidim – taking time out of his own afternoon seder to ask a shailo on behalf of a clueless bochur who unwittingly got himself into a predicament.

***

When I left kollel I went to the Rosh Yeshiva for hadracha and advice. Among other things he told me that it was important that I should have a seder in Mishnayos. I must have looked a bit taken aback because I was thinking, “Does the Rosh Yeshiva suspect that I’m finished learning Gemara now that I’m leaving full-time learning?” The Rosh Yeshiva smiled and responded to my unspoken unease. “I don’t mean that you should chav vesholom stop learning Gemara”, he said – “I know that you will keep good bekius sedorim. But I want you to have yedios from all of shas, and the best way to do that is to have a consistent seder in Mishnayos”.

I took his advice and several years later was making a Mishnayos siyum, with a seudah for family in my home. I was shocked when there was a ring at the bell and the Rosh Yeshiva himself was at the door. He had heard about the siyum from one of my sons and wanted to be mishtatef. Such was the Rosh Yeshiva’s mesiras nefesh for his talmidim, even after they left the Yeshiva.

During that post-kollel tekufah I wanted to discuss an urgent personal matter with the Rosh Yeshiva. I was generally reluctant to impose on the Rosh Yeshiva’s time but felt at that juncture that it was justified. The Rosh Yeshiva said, “Yes, we can talk later today. Come to my office at home at 2 o'clock. I stammered that I was working at 2 o'clock and could we perhaps make it after hours? The Rosh Yeshiva gave me a surprised look: “I know you work during the day. I meant 2:00 o’clock AM.”

When I arrived at that hour the place looked like Grand Central – people were coming and going, the phone was ringing, the fax machine was buzzing… Nonetheless, I had the Rosh Yeshiva’s full attention as I laid out my issue, and received the advice that I had been seeking, leaving in wonderment at the Rosh Yeshiva’s incredible stamina.

Another example of the Rosh Yeshiva’s legendary mesiras nefesh for his talmidim: Many years ago, one of our chabura was getting married the night after the Rosh Yeshiva was released from the hospital after serious surgery. Yet, the Rosh Yeshiva insisted on attending the chasunah. I observed him walking in, bent over and supported on each side. When the dancing started he asked to be taken in to the main hall to dance with the chosson. I and others around him looked at him incredulously. He could barely walk on his own, how could he possibly dance with the chosson? Yet, he shook off his gabbaim walked into the circle, and danced in his inimitable fashion, smiling, with his arms in the air, an active vision of kedusha, as if he were in perfect health. I have never seen a more potent example of “mind over matter”. It was known that the Rosh Yeshiva had other-worldly self-discipline. Here was living proof. The Rosh Yeshiva’s conviction was that dancing with the chosson was the right thing a Rebbi should do for his talmid, and he was able to push the physical barriers aside in order to do so.

***

There were times after that surgery that the Rosh Yeshiva felt that he would not be able to function properly unless he took some time to rest, and he kept a cot in his office for that purpose. One Sunday afternoon I was discussing a matter with the Rosh Yeshiva in his office, and when we finished, he said, “Eliakim, I need to lay down to rest for a while. Please do me a favor and sit outside my office and don’t let anyone disturb me”. I was happy to oblige so I picked up a sefer and took my post. (It became immediately clear that my presence was necessary, since there was a constant flow of would-be visitors.)

More than an hour later the Rosh Yeshiva emerged from his office with profuse apologies: “Eliakim I didn’t intend for you to sit out here for so long, I only wanted to rest for a few minutes!” I responded that I didn’t have anything time-sensitive to take care of, in any event I was learning, and besides “if the Rosh Yeshiva rested for so long then clearly his body needed the rest and I wasn’t going to be the one to disturb it”. What struck me, though, was that the Rosh Yeshiva’s primary concern was my supposed waste of time, and not his own waste of time.

***

The Rosh Yeshiva’s caring extended to every yid, talmid or not. Shortly before the wedding of one of my son’s, my mother-in-law was struck by a car, badly injured and rendered comatose. My father-in-law was very broken but he attended my  son’s wedding. During the dancing, however, he could not restrain his grief, and went into a quiet corner to cry. Someone called the Rosh Yeshiva’s attention to his situation. The Rosh Yeshiva left the dancing circle and spoke quietly to my shver for a few minutes. He then returned to the dancing with my shver in tow, and my shver was fine for the rest of the chasunah. We don’t know what the Rosh Yeshiva told him but clearly he found the right words to console an elderly European yid, in his grief.

***

The Rosh Yeshiva was capable of displaying a sharp sense of humor. Talmidim often made their brissim in the Yeshiva, and the seudas bris, in the Yeshiva dining room. The Rosh Yeshiva liked to keep things moving, so as not to cut into morning seder. At the bris of one of my grandsons the Rosh Yeshiva asked me who was going to speak and I told him that my mechutan and I were going to speak. He didn’t look thrilled at the prospect but all he said was “so get started and zeit mekatzer”. My mechutan, a Rav and talmid chochom, spoke first. When it was my turn I began, tongue-in-cheek, with “I can’t compete with my mechutan’s Torah but maybe I can outdo him in being mekatzer.” I said my piece and sat down, and the Rosh Yeshiva leaned over and whispered to me, “He was more mekatzer than you, too!”

***

I would like to conclude with an incident reported to me by a 7^th grade Rebbi in a Yeshiva outside of New York. As part of a chol hamoed trip, he planned on taking his class to visit the Rosh Yeshiva; to see a gadol b’yisroel, hear divrei Torah, receive a bracha. One of the bochrim created a disturbance and the Rosh Yeshiva had to send him from the room. The Rosh Yeshiva took the time to calmly explain to the rest of the class that, as a matter of chinuch, the boy had to learn that actions have consequences.

Another, rather impertinent bochur suggested to the Rosh Yeshiva that perhaps the boy had learned his lesson and should be re-admitted. The Rosh Yeshiva responded that if he did that, not only would that negate the lesson to the bochur himself, but would give the rest of the class a contrary lesson – that, in fact, bad actions do not have consequences.

The interaction was handled with ultimate respect for the talmidim and illustrates how the Rosh Yeshiva could transform even sticky situations into teaching moments – not only for his own talmidim, but for  talmidim from another Yeshiva.

In truth, though, to the Rosh Yeshiva every yid was a talmid to whom he could impart Toras Emes.

Life goes on, but the passing of the Rosh Yeshiva zt’l leaves a void in my life, and in the lives of my family members, that can never be filled. Yehi zichro boruch.

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.