In my heart I will build a mishkan to the magnificence of His honor,
In this mishkan I will establish an altar to the pride of His glory,
For an eternal lamp I will take for myself the fire of the Aqeidah,
And for an offering I will bring Him my unique soul.

- R’ Yitzchak Hutner^zt”l

The Torah is so sparse in the discussion of so many things. The narratives leave out all details of the scene and the people’s motivations that aren’t critical to the message. Mitzvos are reduced to their bare form, requiring derashos and other techniques to extract the details.

But not the building of the mishkan, the “dwelling place” where Hashem’s presence was felt during the period of the Exodus until the completion of Shelomo’s Temple. Here the entire construction is described in detail. Not just once, but twice — the giving over of the mitzvah and the people’s actually doing it are listed separately. Thirteen chapters. The creation of the universe fits in two, the revelation at Sinai in three! And how long did the mishkan last? The mitzvah of lulav and esrog is fit into a single verse! What’s the overwhelming significance of the mishkan that justifies such volume?

Shimon HaTzaddik was from the remnants of the Men of the Great Assembly. He used to say, “On three things the world stands: on Torah, on service [of G-d], and on supporting loving-kindness.”

As we saw in an earlier post, the Maharal (Derekh haChaim ad loc.) gives broad significance to this mishnah. The three pillars upon which the world stands as being are three classes of relationship that a person is capable of: with Hashem (avodah - service [of G-d]), with other people (gemilus chassadim - supporting others through kindnesses) and with oneself (Torah). In Mussar, these are described as the three categories of mitzvos, bein adam laMaqom, bein adam lachaveiro and bein adam lenafsho, respectively.

Each relationship is enabled by a different world in which a person lives. As the Maharal writes:

Therefore, the g-dly Tanna writes that one pillar that the universe stands upon is the Torah, for the pillar completes man so that he can be a finished creation with respect to himself.

After that he says “on avodah“…. For from this man can be thought complete and good toward He Who created him - by serving Him…. With regard to the third, it is necessary for man to be complete and good with others, and that is through gemillus chassadim.

You also must understand that these three pillars parallel three things in each man: the mind, the living soul, and the body. None of them have existence without G-d. The existence of the soul is when it comes close to Hashem by serving Him…. From the perspective of the mind, the man gets his existence through Torah, for it is through the Torah that man attaches himself to G-d. To the body, man gets his existence through gemillus chassadim for the body has no closeness or attachment to Hashem, just that Hashem is kind to all. When man performs kindness G-d is kind to him, and so gives him existence.

He continues to explain that that if existence is based on three principles, then any act which takes an ax to one of these pillars should not be committed even under pain of death, existence itself would have a lower priority. This is why there are three sins that are yeihareig ve’al ya’avor — one must let oneself get killed rather than violate. Idol worship is obviously the antonym of avodah. Murder is the ultimate denial of chessed. And the Maharal explains the link between Torah and sexual immorality as follows:

The glory of the Torah is that it is separated from the physical entirely. There is nothing that can separate man from the physical but the Torah of thought. The opposite is sexual immorality, which follows the physical [chomer] until one is thought of like an animal or donkey [chamor], it is a creature of its flesh’s desires, in all things physical.

The division of labor within Nara”n is a subject of dispute. The Ramchal places all of thought and emotion in the nefesh, and the ruach is the first step toward being a spiritual being. The Vilna Gaon in his “Peirush al Kama Aggados” (most easily found as the appendix to “The Juggler and the King” by Rabbi Aharon Feldman) disagrees. It is his model we’ll be using as nomenclature in this blog. The Gaon writes:

“There are three watches each night. In the first, the donkey brays. During the second, the dogs bark “hav, hav“. At the third, the infant nurses from his mother’s breast, and a woman converses with her husband.” (Bava Metzi’a 83b)

The commentators explain that this [text] is about three souls of a person: Nara”n. Nefesh has in it the lust for things of the body, which is why these things are called [by the expression] “a wide nefesh“. The ruach contains honor and jealousy, as it says “a tall ruach”, “an overpowering ruach”. Apparently, ruach is the jealousy that dries one out, as it says (Mishlei 14), “The dryness of bones is jealousy, and all honor and its traits are suspended by the vanities of the world.”
The first watch is the beginning of childhood. Man is drawn to desire because of childhood and freedom. As it is said, “Things done in his youth are much vanity in his old age.” As Rashi wrote about sexual desire, and so it is for all desires. This is the braying donkey [chamor] it is a creature of its flesh’s desires, in all things physical [chomer]“.
In the middle: Man goes and chases honor and wealth, like dogs that bark “hav hav” [which in Aramaic means: "Give me, give me"].
In the third watch, when he sees that his demise approaches, he returns in teshuvah, and that is when the neshamah sparks up. That is when the baby nurses from his mother’s breasts, as it says (Mishlei 5) “Her breasts will nurse you at any time that you love her.” And a woman talks with her husband as it says (Hoshea 2), “And I will return to my first husband”, for he returns to Hashem. Because Torah brings one to action, as it says in the prayer Hashiveinu [in the Amidah], “Return us, our Father, to Your Torah, and bring us close to Your worship.”

Combining the Gra’s terminology with the Maharal, we could put it as follows:

Each aspect of the soul exists to enable a relationship. They are also our presence in a world that also exists to allow the relationship to happen.

The nefesh, our animal drives, is our presence in the physical world. Through it we have the ability to encounter other people and work together for our common welfare. It also provides us with the opportunity to extend generosity by supplying each other our physical needs. As the aphorism goes, “יענעמס גשמיות איז בא מיר רוחניות — another’s physical needs/wants are for me, spiritual.” (See here for a post on the subject.)

The neshamah, is our presence in heaven, and seat of our higher calling. It enables us to encounter G-d.

Living in tension between them is the world between our ears, our mind. Free will, self, ego.

This returns us to the observation I made about man’s three-fold nature in that earlier posting:

It is important to note how all consider the basic human condition to come in threes, even if they don’t agree what the three are. The same is true of Freud’s Id-Ego-Super Ego, Adler’s Child-Adult-Parent, etc… Why?

When the alarm goes off, a person is conflicted. We can group his calls into two. One side realizes he has important things to accomplish that day, he has to get to shul, not be too late to his job, etc… The other just wants to hit the snooze button and get more sleep. Or, in choosing whether or not to sin, the yeitzer hatov says one thing, the yeitzer hara is recommending another. A movie or television show has a person making a decision, and they have a little image of him dressed as an angel on one shoulder, and another dressed as a devil on the other.

But you notice in those pictures, there are always three images of the person — the two angels, and the person himself. When I hear opposing callings from each yeitzer, or my body wants one thing and my sense of duty says another, there is always an “I” doing the hearing who has to decide between them. In the courtroom of my mind, there is a lawyer arguing each side, and a judge.

Decision making inherently conjures up three entities. And being a person is all about freedom of will.

In each world, we can run amok in trying to master it. We could become hedonists, idolators or power-hungry egotists. That is the perversion of taking the means and turning it into the ends. We can therefore use this model to view the conflict between the yeitzer hatov and yeitzer hara, the good and evil inclinations in two different ways:

When waking up in the morning, the conflict is between the nefesh’s desire for physical comfort, and the neshamah’s desire to do something meaningful with one’s day.  The conscious will, a function of the ru’ach, must decide between them. In this example, the nefesh is playing the role of yeitzer hara, and the neshamah that of the yeitzer hatov.

Alternatively, we can view the conflict as one between ga’avah, the need to expand the self and take over, playing in the field of nefesh; and the anavah, knowing one’s place in the scheme of things, to answer (anah), and connect to others, in the field of the neshamah. Trying to take over a domain vs. trying to establish relationship may be the more primary criterion than physical vs. spiritual. Idolatry is spirituality as well, after all.

On the other hand, R’ Soloveitchik’s Adam I, the pinacle of creation who is charged to “fill the world and subdue it” isn’t inherently evil, nor is Adam II, who seeks redemption through building communities, relationships, inherently good.

The error falls in when we confuse means and ends. Whether it’s placing the domain as the goal of the relationship or the physical as that of the spiritual.

(To be continued in part II, including how this relates to the mishkan.)

There is an interesting parallelism between this model and the “Three Viennese Schools of Psychology”.

They too recognized the three-fold nature of man implied by having conflicting desires and a third party that is the “I” who chooses between them. However, Freud did not recognize spirituality. Rather than a neshamah, he has the superego enforcing rules, which derive by parental and societal pressure. To Freud, the power of decision between the desires necessary to thrive in the physical world and the need for a redeeming relationship within that world. Thus, the superego records the taboos of society, and a person pays to fit in by repressing desire. Nefesh.

Adler saw man’s basic conflict as being the ru’ach’s need for self-worth. Decision making becomes entirely a ru’ach vs nefesh issue — am I an animal, or a “self” worthy of respect?

Frankl recognized that man has a drive for meaning no less primary than his drives for sex, food, or comfort. A truer tension between nefesh and neshamah.

As Rav Elchanan wrote, it’s all about trust. No actual wealth was lost in the Great Depression, and none now. What was lost was a false belief in wealth that didn’t really exist. The lesson of a depression, he writes is “אַל־תִּבְטְח֥וּ בִנְדִיבִ֑ים בְּבֶן־אָדָ֓ם ׀ שֶׁ֤אֵ֖ין ל֥וֹ תְשׁוּעָֽה׃ … אַשְׁרֵ֗י שֶׁ֤אֵ֣-ל יַֽעֲקֹ֣ב בְּעֶזְר֑וֹ שִׂ֝בְר֗וֹ עַל־ה’ אֱ-לֹהָֽיו׃ — Do not rely on generous people, in humans who have no salvation… Enriched is he whose help is the G-d of Yaakov, whose dependency is on Hashem his G-d.” (Tehillim 146:3, 5) And, “ט֗וֹב לַֽחֲס֥וֹת בַּ֑ה’ מִ֝בְּטֹ֗חַ בָּֽאָדָֽם׃ ט֗וֹב לַֽחֲס֥וֹת בַּ֑ה’ מִ֝בְּטֹ֗חַ בִּנְדִיבִֽים׃ — Better to rely on G-d than to rely on man. Better to rely on G-d than to rely on generous people.” (118:8-9, and said in Hallel, such as on this morning, Roch Chodesh).

Perhaps a key to getting through this is to say the following words of
bentching and think about what one is saying:

Notice we asked to be freed from “the power” or authority — literally, the “hand” — of people’s loans. Not the loans themselves. Having a loan and trusting in Hashem to have the means to repay it is very different than being under the control of the loan.

And in that is all the difference.

There are many mitzvos that are specific to Succos. Aside from the mitzvos we can observe today, Succah, Hakafos, and the Four Species, there are also a number that can only be kept in the Beis HaMikdosh, including the 70 Musaph cows, and Nisuch Hamayim followed by Simchas Beis HaShoevah. The Yom Tov has several names: In tefillah it is called Chag HaSuccos and Z’man Simchaseinu (the time of our joy), in Talmud it is simply Chag, “Festival”, and in a more agricultural vein it is also referred to as Chag Ha’asif - the Harvest Festival. One would like to have an understanding of how this diverse jumble of facts combine to make one holiday, and what this festival is supposed to represent.

The Mishna (Pirke Avos 4:1) states “Who is rich? One who is “sameiach” with his lot.” It seems from here that Rabbinically “simcha” is contentment, satisfaction. Not just joy, as one would feel at particular occasions, but happiness as a general state of mind. We say in davening “Yismichu Hashamayim Visagel Haaretz”, “the Heaven will be ’sameiach’ and the earth will ‘gilah’”. Simcha is reserved for the immutable heavens, whereas gilah refers to the transitory earth, even though both words are normally translated as happiness.

Using this we can understand a couple of the references we listed above. Succos is called “Z’man Simchaseinu” a time to feel simcha, contentment with our lot. Succos is to celebrate how Hashem protected us and fed us during our journey in the desert (Mishna Berura 625:1). It is thus a symbol of how He sustains us throughout all time. This is our lot, with this we should be happy. The Holiday is simply “Chag”, “Festival”, as its existence as a time for rejoicing is significant.

Succos is also Chag HaAsiph - the time for gathering the grain. Winter is beginning, and we thank Hashem for giving us the food to survive it. Thus Succos had to be in the Winter, when we feel the need for Divine aid more.

This is the joy of Simchas Beis Hashoevah. Rav S. R. Hirsch, in his commentary on Chumash (Bamidbar 29:19) describes Nissuch HaMayim, the special water libations as “pouring every drop of his joy in life into the foundations of the Altar of G-d’s Torah, signifying it as coming from Him”. Again, the key to Succos is found to be Simcha in the portion G-d has allotted us.

We remarked that over Succos and Shemini Atseres seventy Musaph offerings were brought. We are told that these 70 sacrifices correspond to the seventy nations of the world. “Poseiach es Yadecha, umasbiah lichol chai ratson” - “You open Your Hand, and feed every living thing what it desires” (Tehillim 145:16). In contrast to the message of Pesach, Divine Aid in sustenance is a universal theme, and all seventy nations must give thanks.

The special mitsvos of Succos are limited today to the taking of the Four Species, and the living in the Succah. These mitsvos are awesome in scope, the span the extremes of history. According to one opinion in the talmud when Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge he picked an esrog. After the final battle before the reign of the Mashiach, the War of Gog and Magog, Yechezkel tells us that the nations of the world will demand to receive the Torah, so that they to can receive Israels lot. The prophet tells that Hashem will present them with the mitsvah of Succah, and that the one mitsvah alone will be to much for them.

There is another connection between the esrog and creation of the world. The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 5:2) relates that in the original plans for the creation of the world the wood of each tree would taste like its fruit. The angels in charge of each tree refused to obey, as they were afraid that animals would eat the wood along with the fruit, and lead to the extinction of the species. One type of tree did obey Hashem’s wishes. The Gemara (Succah 35a) explains that when the pasuk asks for a “Pri etz hadar”, “A beautiful fruit of a tree” it means the esrog, for it is a fruit that is of the tree, the tree and the fruit have the same taste. It trusted in Hashem for its existence. Hashem protected it by prohibiting even the eating of the fruit of tree. It was the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil” it knew that trusting in G-d was good. Thus, when we are told to celebrate Hashem’s Sustenance, we honor the Esrog as a simple of simcha with what Hashem gives us.

There are two reasons one would need a building: for privacy, and for protection from the elements. The Succah has no restrictions on building its walls, only one the sichach, the ceiling. We move into the Succah not to diminish our privacy, but rather to diminish the man made protection from the elements. Only things fit to be utensils can become tamei. Thus, the sichach must not be of things that can become tamei. Those are things which are man’s making, the goal of the succah is to show we trust in Hashem for sustenance. Thus, the mitsvah of Succah is meaningful only in winter, when it is not the norm to be sustained in a hut.

In contrast, the final enemy is called Gog and Magog. Rabbiner Hirsch likens the conjugation of Magog to that of ma’or, lumniary. Magog is that which spreads the idea of “roof-ness”, that “my strength and the might of my hand gained for me this victory.” For them the only challenge could be succah. It is a universal theme: sustenance comes from Hashem.

At the end of days, the mighty nations will be faced with a test; can they rely on Hashem for their existence. This mitsvah is a fair test, as we said above Divine Sustenance is universal. At the first discomfort, they will fail. Without this key principle, they can not be a Chosen Nation. The giving of the Torah is likened to a marriage, with G-d The Groom presenting His bride Israel, with His ring, the Torah. A marriage requires mutual trust. Gog and Magog, without the ability to trust in the Lord, can not hope to maintain the special relationship the Jewish people have with the Almighty.

© 1995 The AishDas Society

I

There are many mitzvos that are specific to Succos. Aside from the mitzvos we can observe today, Succah, Hakafos, and the Four Species, there are also a number that can only be kept in the Beis HaMikdosh, including the 70 Musaph cows, and Nisuch Hamayim followed by Simchas Beis HaShoevah. The Yom Tov has several names: In tefillah it is called Chag HaSuccos and Z’man Simchaseinu (the time of our joy),

R’ JB Soloveitchik frames his Jewish thought and his perspective on mitzvos about tensions between various dialectics inherent in the human condition. Conflicting truths about man that are somehow both true.

For example, people construct a society in order to better serve their needs. And yet, man’s highest calling is to serve the society, rather than themselves.

Perhaps the most classical such dialectic is the distinction Rabbi Soloveitchik draws between Adam as he is portrayed in the creation story in Genesis 1 and Adam as portrayed in Genesis 2. Adam I is at the culmination of creation. All builds up to him. He is charged “to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth and master it.” Man the engineer and technologist, forming the world to serve his needs. Majestic Man.

In Genesis 2, we’re given a different view. From the time of his creation, Adam is in communication is G-d. “It is not good for man to be alone”, so Hashem creates a woman “therefore man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife.” This is a person as relying on his relationships and brings value to his life and the world through them. Adam II is Covenantal Man, who seeks redemption.

Succos is very much Adam II’s holiday. The farmer, having just brought in his crop, has a propensity to credit himself for his success. Succos re-addresses that, by reminding him that it’s not his mastery alone that brings food to the table. The succah teaches that it’s not his fine house and the engineering it represents that bring security to his life.

II

There is a dispute between R’ Eliezer and R’ Akiva (Succah 11b) as to the nature of the succos in the desert that the mitzvah actually commemorates. According to R’ Eliezer (and Unkelus Vayikra 23:42, as well as the Shulchan Aruch O”Ch 625″1, Gr”a ad loc), the original succos were clouds of glory. According to R’ Akiva, they were actual huts.

Perhaps they’re basing themselves on different ideas about the significance of the succah. In R’ Eliezer’s opinion, the succah is commemorating Hashem’s gifts to us. It’s to remind us that there is a Covenantal Partner in our efforts. R’ Akiva has the original succah being the product of a partnership. Man builds, but it’s Hashem who insures the success of that building. R’ Eliezer focuses on our Partner, R’ Akiva on our willingness to join the Convenantal relationship. (See Aruch haShulchan O”Ch 625.)

Each speaks to the farmer celebrating his harvest as he gathers it at the end of the year. One speaks of the role of bitachon, trust in G-d, which may otherwise be forgotten. The other speaks of the appropriate end-state, of the synthesis of bitachon and hishtadlus, personal effort.

III

“And a mist came up from the ground, and gave moisture to the whole face of the earth.” - Genesis 2:6

“‘And a mist came up from the ground’: For the topic of the creation of man. He raised the tehom [groundwater?] and gave moisture to clouds to wet the earth and to make man. Like one who kneads bread, who adds water and after that kneads the dough. So too here, ‘He gave moisture’ and then ‘He formed’.” - Rashi ad loc

“And Hashem E-lokim formed the man, dust from the ground, and He breathed in his nose a living soul; and the man was a living spirit.” - Genesis, ibid v. 7

“‘Dust from the ground’: He collected dust from the whole earth, all four directions… Another opinion, He took his dust from the place about which it says ‘an altar of earth you shall make for Me.’ He said, ‘If only the dirt would be an atonement for him, and he would be able to stand.’” - Rashi ad loc

In his work “Pachad Yitzchak”, R’ Yitzchak Hutner notes the steps of creation of man, according to this second opinion in Rashi. First, G-d adds water to the earth to make clay, then He forms man and breathes a soul into him.

R’ Hutner writes that this is exactly what we recreate during the nisuch hamayim (water libation on the altar). The kohein pours water on the very spot Hashem did. This is accompanied by the simchas beis hasho’eivah, celebration and singing. Music is the most spiritual of the seven wisdoms. It speaks and moves the soul on a fundamental level. Through the Simchas Beis haSho’ievah we imitate G-d’s breathing a soul into Adam.

We just came from Yom Kippur and teshuvah. When Hashem fulfills His promise “And I will give you a new heart, and place a new spirit within you.” (Yechezkel 36:26) Simchas Beis haSho’eivah is a celebration of man’s ability to recreate himself, and therefore follows the steps of our original creation.

IV

To continue R’ Hutner’s thought with a couple of my own, in light of the above: Repentance too can be seen in both R’ Eliezer’s and R’ Akiva’s perspectives. One can seek atonement from Hashem, and thereby realize the need to have a partnership with Him. Or, one can seek atonement from the partnership itself. As the same R’ Akiva says, “Praised are you Israel. Before Whom do you atone, and Who atones you.” Atonement is both done by man through the Divine Presence, and is a gift from Him. A dialectic.

I would like to suggest one additional point. This description is from the second chapter of Genesis, it’s the telling of the creation of Adam II. It’s not merely the celebration of our recent re-creation, it’s the celebration of our creation as beings in a covenantal partnership with the A-lmighty. And therefore, it’s not only on Succos as a postscript to Yom Kippur, it is a fundamental part of the message of the holiday.

© 2003 The AishDas Society

I wrote about bitachon that

Bitachon is awareness that the A-lmighty is acting in a covenental partnership with you. It is from there that Rav Dessler’s formula for hishtadlus emerges, one partner only picks up what he does not expect from the Other’s contribution. It is the Chazon Ish’s awareness that every event in our lives is part of a plan. And yet we can avoid simplistic dismissals of suffering. Yes, Nachum Ish Gamzutells us that everything is for the best, eventually. But since I must remember that no story, no “eventually”, is ever over, I can not find meaning or redemption in that fact. Pain remains pain. And yet, having bitachon demands that trust in “כחי ועצם ידי — my strength and the might of my hand” is misplaced, and through my activities I can not avoid the tragic. It is part of the role I play in the Divine Plan, and to not accept them as from Him and part of the covenant would be disloyalty to it.

And the melukhah of Malkhios can be seen as

אֲדוֹן עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ בְּטֶרֶם כָּל יְצִיר נִבְרָא

לְעֵת נַעֲשָׂה בְחֶפְצוֹ כֹּל  אֲזַי מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא

Eternal Master Who was King before all things were created

Once He, with His Will, made all, then his name was called “King”.

In Shema, we are referring to “asher Malakh”. On Rosh haShanah the goal is to make that manifest in this world - “azai Melekh shemo niqra“. Not the theory of Kingship, but actually declaring Him as King. “Hashem E-lokeikhem” even before we reach the point of “Hashem Echad“.

Hashem is unchanging, He was King in some ideal sense even without creation. But to be a king, “ein melekh belo am - there is no king without a nation” declaring Him their King.

…

A Melekh need not impose His will in the same way that a Mosheil does. A Melekh, therefore, has the opportunity to act with kindness and mercy at times when a Mosheil could not. We therefore introduce High Holidays, the days of judgment, by declaring G‑d’s melukhah. By voluntarily accepting Him as king we obviate the need for G‑d to direct us on the right path through trials and tribulations. The point of Rosh haShanah is accepting Hashem as our Melekh not just in theory, but declaring our acceptance of His Reign, thereby changing His relationship to us from one of Mosheil to that of Melekh.

Comparing the two, it would seem that both are about the beris, the covenent by which Hashem is our constitutional Monarch. Bitachon is the trust we have in His contribution to the beris. In Malkhios we declare our willingness to contribute our share.

Due to technical problems, I was unable to add this year’s divrei Torah. But you can find them here:

• And with what? With a Shofar
• Coronating G-d (the thought is further developed from the version in the booklet, using ideas from Pachad Yitzchak)

Table of contents:

Rabbi Yehudah said an idea from Rabbi Aqiva …: The Holy One, blessed be He said, “… say before Me on Rosh haShanah, Malkhios, Zikhoronos and Shoferos.
“Malkhios: so that you shall make Me King over you;
“Zikhoronos: so that your memories shall come before Me;
“And with what? With a shofar.”

- Rosh haShanah 16a

(Sidenote: There is a dispute as to what this implies as to the nature of the obligation. Rashi holds that these berakhos are mandatory from the Torah, if said with / as part of shofar blowing. He says that Malkhios is the essence of the day, as we see in practice we combine it with the usual holiday blessing for the day. And the words “yom zikhron teru’ah — a day of memory of horn-blasts” obligates us in Zikhronos and Shoferos. The Ritva in general holds that asmachtos, usually translated as mnemonic devices, are actually hints from G-d that an idea is a good one, but not mandatory. Thus a law from an asmachta is one that was suggested by G-d but made obligatory by the Chakhamim. Here, the Ritva says it’s an asmachta — G-d said “say before me”, but it wasn’t made mandatory until the Chakhamim codified it.)

מתנ’: כל השופרות כשרים חוץ משל פרה מפני שהוא קרן אמר רבי יוסי והלא כל השופרות נקראו קרן שנאמר (יהושוע ו) במשוך בקרן היובל:

גמ’: … עולא אמר היינו טעמא דרבנן כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא מפני מה אין כהן גדול נכנס בבגדי זהב לפני ולפנים לעבוד עבודה לפי שאין קטיגור נעשה סניגור

Mishnah: Every shofar is kosher except for that of a cow, because it’s called “qeren“. Rabbi Yosi said: but isn’t every shofar called “qeren“,  as it says “In the middle of the qeren of the yoveil” (Yehoshua 6)?

Gemara: Ula said: What is the reason for the Rabbanan [the unnamed first opinion in the mishnah]? [Because they rule] like Rav Chisda. For Rav Chisda said: Why doesn’t the kohein gadol wear the bigei zahav — [his full uniform, including] the golden clothes when lifnai velifnim — before Me and within [the Holy of Holies]? Because a prosecutor can not be turned into the defense attourney.

- Rosh haShanah 26a

Rav Dovid Lifshitz addressed these gemaras in his pre-Rosh haShanah shiur of 1989. (See here for an entry that opens with another thought from that talk.)

Notice that the kohein gadol did wear the full bigdei zahav the rest of Yom Kippur, including when doing the other parts of the service of the very same qorban! The notion that ein qeteigor naaseh saneigor, that the prosecution can’t become the defense, is not a law in atonement, it’s a law in lifnai velifnim.

What then does it mean when this rule applies to shofar? Rashi points out that the gemara is assuming a comparison — listening to the shofar is tantamount to entering the Holy of Holies, only performed by the kohein gadol on Yom Kippur!

To add something of my own to this thought, in the Sifra’s version of the thought Rabbi Yehudah repeated from R’ Aqiva, it concludes, “ובמה? בשופר של חרות — And with what? with a shofar of freedom.”  As Yeshaiah writes (27:12) “יג וְהָיָ֣ה ׀ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִתָּקַע֮ בְּשׁוֹפָ֣ר גָּדוֹל֒ וּבָ֗אוּ הָאֹֽבְדִים֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ אַשּׁ֔וּר וְהַנִּדָּחִ֖ים בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲו֧וּ לַֽה’ בְּהַ֥ר הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ בִּירֽוּשָׁלִָֽם׃ — And it will be on that day, he will blow a great shofar, and those lost in Ashur and those taken captive in Egypt will come and they will bow to Hashem on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.”

Similarly, the shofar’s blow at the shemittah year declared the freedom of slaves. A slave who refuses his freedom, preferring to live under his master’s patronage, has his ear pierced.  The ear that heard “ki avadai heim — for they are My servants” (Vayiqra 25:42) should know “My servants — and not servants to my servants” (Bava Metzi’ah 10a).

Cheirus appears associated with the tablets, which rested in the ark in the center of the Holy of Holies.”חָר֖וּת עַל־הַלֻּחֹֽת׃’ “אל תקרי חָרוּת אלא חֵרוּת — ‘engraved (charus) on the tablets’ (Shemos 32:16) — don’t read ‘charus‘ (engraved), rather ‘cheirus‘ (freedom).” Note also how Yeshaiah associates the shofar’s call with coming to the Temple Mount. The shofar’s call to freedom would seem to be an echo of the freedom engraved on the luchos.

Back to rebbe’s shiur…

Remember the feeling when you first came to the Kotel. The wall which Hashem promised us would stand until the end of time, whose persistence is testimony to our relationship with Him. And you reach the stones, the wall around the Temple Mount, and the feeling is overwhelming. Picture the emotions one would have being able to actually enter the courtyard. To be a kohein entering the Temple itself. To be the kohein gadol, after a week of preparation, now on the holiest day of the year busy with the holiest of service, to enter lifnai velifnim.

That’s Shofar.

How does one accept Hashem as Melekh, and remember our faults so that He remembers our potential? At that moment — “with the shofar.”

(Rebbe actually presented this thought before giving a source. After the students were entranced with the rebbe’s great chiddush, his passionate novellum, he asked one of them to read the Rashi and Tosafos. Had they known it was “just a Rashi”, they wouldn’t have listened the same.)

I

Melukhah (kingship) is a major theme, if not the major theme of Rosh haShanah. Aside from the ubiquity of the word in our liturgy for Rosh haShanah and the Ten Days of Teshuvah, we find another indication in the Amidah for Rosh haShanah’s Mussaf. Three blessings are inserted to the middle of that Amidah - Malkhios (statements about G‑d being King), Zikhronos (about His acting on His “Memory”) and Shoferos (about shofar, about the glory and noise of divine intervention). Like every holiday and Shabbos, though, there also has to be a Birkhas haYom, a blessing about the day. For Rosh haShanah Mussaf, Malkhios is fused with the Birkhas haYom, because kingship is the message of the day.

When Yoseif tells his brothers his dreams, they ask, “מָלֹ֤ךְ תִּמְלֹךְ֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ אִם־מָשׁ֥וֹל תִּמְשֹׁ֖ל בָּ֑נוּ?” (Bereishis 37:8), which the JPS translation renders “Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us?” Usually this is taken to be a repeated question, the two halves meaning roughly the same thing.

The Ibn Ezra suggests otherwise. When commanding us to appoint a king, the phrase is “שׂ֣וֹם תָּשִׂ֤ים עָלֶ֨יךָ֙ מֶ֔לֶךְ - appoint for yourselves a king” (Vevarim 17:15). A melekh (king) is appointed by the masses, he rules by the acclimation of the people. This stands in contrast to the mosheil (ruler) who, however well intended, has to rule by imposing his (or His) will on them.

The brothers are saying that they weren’t ready to place Yoseif as a king over themselves. “You think you would be melekh, an accepted king over us? No, you would only stand as mosheil, in opposition to our will.”

The Vilna Gaon takes this idea and applies it to several verses we know from the siddur.

” כִּ֣י לַה’ הַמְּלוּכָ֑ה וּ֝מֹשֵׁ֗ל בַּגּוֹיִֽם׃ - For G‑d’s is the Kingship, and He rules over nations…” (Tehillim 22:29) Hashem has the Melukhah, in potential He is King. However, as the nations do not yet accept Him willingly as their King, Hashem serves for them as their mosheil.

” מַֽלְכוּתְךָ֗ מַלְכ֥וּת כָּל־עֹֽלָמִ֑ים וּ֝מֶֽמְשַׁלְתְּךָ֗ בְּכָל־דּ֥וֹר וָדֹֽר׃- Your kingship is a kingship for all eternity; and/but your rule is in every generation and generation.” (Tehillim 145:13, said in “Ashrei“) Malkhus is truly eternal. Memshalah will only last from generation to generation, through the course of history.

At the culmination of history, ” וְהָיָ֧ה ה’ לְמֶ֖לֶךְ עַל־כָּל־הָאָ֑רֶץ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִֽהְיֶ֧ה ה’ אֶחָ֖ד וּשְׁמ֥וֹ אֶחָֽד׃ - Hashem will be King over the entire world, on that day Hashem will be One, and His reputation will be One.” (Zechariah 14:9, Aleinu) In the messianic age, after the “generations”, Hashem will be Melekh over the other nations as well. At that time, “veyei’asu kulam agudah achas la’asos ritzonicha… - and they will all make a single union to do Your will” (High Holiday Amidah) as willing subjects of the King.

II

In Pachad Yitzchaq for Rosh haShanah (ma’amar 11), Rav Hutner notes a curious question in the gemara. (I discussed this earlier, in the class I gave on VeHayah im Shamo’ah, you can listen to it here.)

The first paragraph of Shema is said as a daily acceptance of G-d as King. Qabbalas ol malkhus Shamayim - accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of [the One in] heaven. However, nowhere in the paragraph does the word “Melekh” actually appear! In what sense is Shema accepting Hashem’s Kingship?

The gemara in Rosh haShanah describes the structure of the Mussaf Amidah for the day, and tells us that each of the three additional berakhos should be buttressed with 10 verses from Tanakh: three from the Torah, three from Kesuvim, three from Navi, and a final verse from the Torah. In practice, this last verse is the opening verse of Shema. But the gemara, while our norm was still developing, asks whether that verse, “Shema Yisrael…” may be used as one of the verses for Malkhios. (Rosh haShanah 32b)

Rav Hutner asks: What’s the question? If we say this very verse every day for the sole purpose of accepting Hashem as King, how could it not be viable for the very same declaration on Rosh haShanah?

More so, the gemara’s source-text on the previous page (32a) for saying Malkhios altogether is from the end of Shema, “ani Hashem E‑lokeichem - I am Hashem your G‑d.” How can this be the entire basis of the obligation, and yet the words “Hashem E‑lokeinu Hashem Echad” are not only non-ideal, but the gemara can ask whether they are even sufficient to fulfill it?

Third, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of qabbalas ol Malkhus Shamayim that is part of Shema, one must also say the words “Hashem Echad“. So then why is the source for Malkhios given as “ani Hashem E-lokeichem“, a formulation that doesn’t declare Hashem as One? Why wasn’t the first verse of Shema cited?

It would seem that the manner in which this daily acceptance of ol malkhus Shamayim without actually calling Him “Melekh” is fundamentally different in kind than what we are trying to accomplish on Rosh haShanah.

Rashi explains Shema as saying, “Listen and accept Israel, Hashem, Who is our G-d now, in this world, will be, in the World to Come, One G-d [accepted by all].” In what way is G‑d’s presence in this world not unified? We do not perceive Him as One. As we learn in Pesachim (50a), it is because we do not perceive Hashem as one that we have two distinct blessings. When something good happens, we say “haTov vehaMeitiv - the Good and the Bestower of good”, but when something bad happens we say a berakhah that calls Him “Dayan haEmes - the Judge of truth”.

(As we saw in another essay, the Ketzos haChoshen understands this berakhah as accepting G‑d’s judgment as to when to hide truth, and when to allow it to be visible. The process of revealing the truth, of letting “the truth spring forth from the ground” is what we call ge’ulah. And so, this judgment of the truth only occurs before the final redemption.)

In the redeemed world, we will be able to see the good in everything, and thus Hashem’s Oneness. As we quoted from Zechariah, ” וְהָיָ֧ה ה’ לְמֶ֖לֶךְ עַל־כָּל־הָאָ֑רֶץ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִֽהְיֶ֧ה ה’ אֶחָ֖ד וּשְׁמ֥וֹ אֶחָֽד׃ - Hashem will be King over the entire world, on that day Hashem will be One, and His reputation will be One.”

In the first verse of Shema, we are speaking of this future time, when Hashem will be King over everything. For this idea, speaking of the latent “Hashem Echad” which we know is there, but can’t be perceived, is a critical component of the obligation. The gemara’s conclusion, that the verse may be used for Malkhios after all (which we do, as the last, 10th verse) is based on the clarification given in the rest of the paragraph, “Ve’ahavta — And you shall love Hashem your G-d and serve Him…” that the intent is also making that Platonic Kingship manifest in this world. Even though this is not explicit in the verse itself.

We also touched on this kind of Kingship along the way in our previous discussion. On the verse “כִּ֣י לַה’ הַמְּלוּכָ֑ה וּ֝מֹשֵׁ֗ל בַּגּוֹיִֽם׃ - For G‑d’s is the Kingship, and He rules over nations…” my explanation took it for granted that when speaking of malkhus as Hashem’s possession, we were referring to Kingship in potential.

Similarly, we say in Adon Olam,

אֲדוֹן עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ בְּטֶרֶם כָּל יְצִיר נִבְרָא

לְעֵת נַעֲשָׂה בְחֶפְצוֹ כֹּל  אֲזַי מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא

Eternal Master Who was King before all things were created

Once He, with His Will, made all, then his name was called “King”.

Hashem is unchanging, He was King in some ideal sense even without creation. But to be a king, “ein melekh belo am - there is no king without a nation” declaring Him their King.

In Shema, we are referring to “asher Malakh”. On Rosh haShanah the goal is to make that manifest in this world - “azai Melekh shemo niqra“. Not the theory of Kingship, but actually declaring Him as King. “Hashem E-lokeikhem” even before we reach the point of “Hashem Echad“.

This is why the gemara can be unsure if Shema can be used for the obligation of Rosh haShanah. It describes the ideal of Kingship but lacks an outright statement of calling Him “Melekh“.

III

Why is it so essentially part of Rosh haShanah to declare our active acceptance of Hashem as King?

As we saw from Adon Olam, this is one of the reasons for which man was created. The shift from Asher Malakh before we existed to “Melekh” shemo niqra. We therefore declare His Kingship on the anniversary of the creation of Man, Rosh haShanah.

It’s interesting to note that the man-Melekh relationship is a sub-theme in Purim as well. There is no over mention of G‑d in the book of Esther. However, the Talmud tells us that each occurrence of the word “melekh” that appears in that book (without naming the king) can be understood midrashically as a reference to G‑d. When Esther approaches the king, which is apparently Achashveirosh but has some parallel in her approaching the King as well, she opens her request with the word “Uvchein” (”therefore” or “with this”). Similarly as do a number of requests in the blessing of the day for the High Holidays (and therefore the Rosh haShanah Mussaf berakhah about Divine Kingship).

When Moses asked “הַרְאֵ֥נִי נָ֖א אֶת־כְּבֹדֶֽךָ׃ - Please show me Your Glory” (Shemos 33:18), Hashem’s answer was to give to him the 13 terms describing the aspects of Divine Mercy. Hashem’s Glory is his Mercy. And so, on Rosh haShanah we ask, “Meloch al kol ha’olam kulo bichvodecha -  be King over all the entire world in Your Glory” (Siddur). Thus, his “throne” is Mercy, as we say in Selichos “Keil Melekh yosheiv al kisei rachamim - G‑d, King, “sitting” on the throne of Mercy.

A Melekh need not impose His will in the same way that a Mosheil does. A Melekh, therefore, has the opportunity to act with kindness and mercy at times when a Mosheil could not. We therefore introduce High Holidays, the days of judgment, by declaring G‑d’s melukhah. By voluntarily accepting Him as king we obviate the need for G‑d to direct us on the right path through trials and tribulations. The point of Rosh haShanah is accepting Hashem as our Melekh not just in theory, but declaring our acceptance of His Reign, thereby changing His relationship to us from one of Mosheil to that of Melekh.

We, on the anniversary of Hashem creating His subjects, declare Him as King, and thereby enthrone Him as a Merciful one.

1- Bitachon is the belief that everything will turn out okay. This message is taught in an entire genre of stories which create the image that if you only are properly observant and had sufficient bitachon, the only airplane you would ever miss is one that ch”v is going to crash.

This notion is not as absurd as I just portrayed it.

Rav Dessler gave a famous formula: The amount of hishtadlus (pragmatic effort) one must invest to solve is problems is only to compensate for a lack of bitachon. To try harder than that would imply a lack of faith. For example, when Yoseif asked the wine steward to remember him to Par’oh, he was punished for the lack of faith by having to wait another two years for rescue (Chazal, as repeated by Rashi ad loc). For us, such effort would be fine, but for someone on Yoseif haTzadiq’s level, such hishtadlus was beyond the appropriate. Notice the implication: Bitachon gets you what you otherwise would have been working toward in more physical ways — getting what you want, what makes you happy.

2- The big problem with the previous model is that it doesn’t stand up very well to real world experience. Which then leads to a second version of the idea: that bitachon means that everything works out for the best. I may never know how and why Hashem wants me to experience some challenge, but as Nachum Ish Gamzu would say, “gam zu letovah– this too is for the best.” Or, to quote his student, Rabbi Aqiva, “Everything which the All-Merciful does, He does for the good.” Everything that happens is from G-d and therefore good, but I don’t always know what “good” is, and therefore often want something else. In the long run, it’s “letovah — for the good” even if the short-term event itself doesn’t seem so good.

3- The Chazon Ish (Emunah uBitachon ch. 2) not only differs, he calls both of these positions “wrong”.

This view of trust is incorrect, for as long as the future outcome has not been clarified through prophecy, that outcome has not been decided, for who can truly know Hashem’s judgements and providence? Rather, bitachonmeans realizing that there are no coincidences in the world, and that whatever happens under the sun is a function of Hashem’s decree.

Bitachonis the denial of the concepts of randomness, happenstance and accident. Not that everything is for my good, even if in some unfathomable way, but everything is according to Hashem’s plan and wisdom. The Chazon Ish has a problem with our assuming that something is good, since we never will know when an event’s story is complete, when we can judge it with full hindsight.

Rav Soloveitchik (e.g. in his disussion of the Holocaust in Qol Dodi Dofeiq) would state this more vehemently. One can’t deny the experience of suffering. Entering a meta-level, in which suffering is good by providing some reason for it, is either intellectually dishonest or emotionally frigid, and often both. The power suffering can have in our lives is when it is experienced as suffering. As he titled his essay “Uviqashtem misham“, from the pasuq in VaEschanan, “וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם מִשָּׁ֛ם אֶת־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ וּמָצָ֑אתָ כִּ֣י תִדְרְשֶׁ֔נּוּ בְּכָל־לְבָֽבְךָ֖ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶֽׁךָ׃ — And from there you will seek Hashem your G-d andyou will find Him, if you pursue Him with all your heart and all your life-soul.” (Devarim 4:29)

The Chazon Ish is not denying “gam zu letovah” (in the sense of the 2nd definition of bitachon, above), rather he is excluding it from the concept of bitachon in particular. As he writes later

There is another aspect to bitachon — that there rests a ruach haqodesh upon a person who possesses unique bitachon. It is a spirit of confidence that Hashem will help him, as King David says: “אִם־תַּֽחֲנֶ֬ה עָלַ֨י ׀ מַֽחֲנֶה֮ לֹֽא־יִירָ֪א לִ֫בִּ֥י; אִם־תָּק֣וּם עָ֭לַי מִלְחָמָ֑ה בְּ֝זֹ֗את אֲנִ֣י בוֹטֵֽחַ׃ – If a camp encamps against me my heart will not fear; if a war arises against me…” (Tehillim 27:3). This aspect is relative to this special person’s unique bitachon and special measure of his sanctity.

This confidence is not bitachon, it is the inspiration, the almost-prophecy of ruach haqodesh that emerges from bitachon. And, it would seem, the confidence will not always be met by the reality of how things unfold.

In sum then, how would I define bitachon?

In Rabbi Chaim Brown’s observation that motivated these three posts on bitachon, we actually find a union of these ideas. We are taking a lesson, meaning we are aware that the insecurity we feel due to the current financial climate is from G-d. Following Rav Elchanan’s words about the Great Depression, we are assuming it is middah keneged middah, repayment in kind, for relying on one’s own efforts for success. Trusting the wine-steward, as Yoseifdid. And so, Hashemshakes the institutions we consider our means for self-made success in order to remind us that we need His assistance.

Bitachon is awareness that the A-lmighty is acting in a covenental partnership with you. It is from there that Rav Dessler’s formula for hishtadlus emerges, one partner only picks up what he does not expect from the Other’s contribution. It is the Chazon Ish’s awareness that every event in our lives is part of a plan. And yet we can avoid simplistic dismissals of suffering. Yes, Nachum Ish Gamzutells us that everything is for the best, eventually. But since I must remember that no story, no “eventually”, is ever over, I can not find meaning or redemption in that fact. Pain remains pain. And yet, having bitachon demands that trust in “כחי ועצם ידי — my strength and the might of my hand” is misplaced, and through my activities I can not avoid the tragic. It is part of the role I play in the Divine Plan, and to not accept them as from Him and part of the covenant would be disloyalty to it.

In Ma’ariv, we insert “Hashkiveinu“, a berakhah about peace, and outside of Israel most communities also say “Barukh Hashem leOlam“. These are generally justified because Hashkiveinu is also on the broader subject of redemption, and Barukh Hashem leOlam is a surrogate for Shemoneh Esrei. So the concepts of ge’ulah and tefillah are still juxtaposed. A full discussion is off topic, but even in the case of Ma’ariv, R’ JB Soloveitchik would limit his responses to the intervening Qaddish to just “Amein. Yehei Shemei rabba…” and the final “amein” since these interruptions are mandatory, whereas the other reponses to Qaddish are custom.

Why the need to so closely preface ge’ulah to tefillah?

Ga’al Yisrael speaks of past redemption. We point to the miracle at the Red Sea and other redemptions as a source of emunah, of belief in the existance and involvement of the A-lmighty. We establish the foundation that there is a G-d capable of aiding us and we know this because He has in the past. It is only with that concept that Hashem is Omnipotent and involved in human affairs that it is meaningful to engage in the praise, requests and thanks of tefillah, to expect His involvement in our own lives.That’s bitachon, the belief of Hashem’s actual involvement in the present and future, that He can be relied upon..