The Role of the Prophet in the Miracle: Part 3 - Prophetic Technology

We have been discussing the idea of Moshe's active participation in the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt and that it is reflected in  the language of Maimonides in the "Guide for the Perplexed" and in Chumash  parsha of "Bo", both of which clearly indicates that there are miracles "performed by the prophet".  We explained this to mean that the prophet participates in some manner to bring about the miracle at that time and place.  All miracles are miracles produced by G....  Some though, seem to have the prophet play an assisting role. Maimonides also states in the "Guide" that miracles are performed   "for the prophet". Both categories of miracles ("by the prophet" and "for the prophet" require explanation as I would think that all miracles are done by G.. , not by the prophet and that miracles are done for the Jewish people and  not for the prophet (in the  case of the Exodus, for Moshe).


If we make the assumption that Maimonides is attributing some power of the prophet to assist G... in bringing about the miracles, what is the mechanism of this power?  Certainly, the prophet has no additional power within his body to turn rivers to blood, dust to lice or split seas!  So how does the prophet actively participate in "making a miracle happen?" What is the mechanism by which a prophet participates in the miracle? Although the details of how a prophet plays a role are certainly hidden from us, as this knowledge is in the deepest areas of "Mysa Beresheit" and "Mysa Mercavah" perhaps we can gain some perspective on a general approach by utilizing an analogy from   how people make us of science to produce scientific technology.


A human being with the significant knowledge of the abstract categories of mathematics and the sciences can bring about powerful changes in the physical world.   The transformation we see in the physical world accomplished by applying these categories of the mind to matter is quite dramatic. Amazing achievement  in construction, communications, machinery, energy and transportation technology would seem to the unschooled mind as truly miraculous.  But these "miracles" are brought about by the amazing fact that the human being's categorical thinking ability correlates precisely with the physical world and allows us to manipulate it in powerful ways.  As Einstein famously stated: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."  It is truly a miracle of G...'s design that man's mind coupled with the tiny force of movement within his body can create the profound changes we accomplish through technology. Using these abstract mental categories and applying them to the physical world around us, mankind has transformed the natural earth into a far more productive and secure human environment.  Perhaps this scientific structure of how man's rational abstract mind can powerful impact the physical world is a useful analogy for how the prophetic mind can bring about a miraculous outcome.


Just as the rational man is privy to dimensions of mind that are closed off from the beast, the prophet is privy to an additional  dimension of mind that is closed off from the non-prophet. To a species that cannot conceive of mathematical categories, the human manipulations of the physical world accomplished through understanding gravity, electricity, magnetism and other forces of nature would seem completely miraculous. This is why to child's mind, whose rational categories are still  underdeveloped, technology often does seem like magic.


What I would like to suggest here is that perhaps there is another level of thinking that is able to manipulate the world through its application. A type of "prophetic technology" utilizing the knowledge a prophet receives. Perhaps prophetic thought has its own mental structure, different from the categories of mathematical/scientific categories and the application of this knowledge to the natural world,  allows for different types of physical manipulation that are not possible  using the categories of mathematics and science.  When applying mathematical/scientific categories to the act performed (eg. "splitting of the sea"), the act is not possible. We therefore call it a miracle.


In light of the approach suggested here, we can re-examine what a miracle is.   A miracle performed by a prophet is not something that occurs from outside the system of the Creation- from outside the world.  A miracle is a manipulation of the physical world using a different set of mental categories and application of this knowledge,  that are only available to the prophet.  Just as a greater scientist with greater mastery over the laws of science can bring about greater changes in the physical world using mathematical and scientific laws, the greater prophet can bring about greater changes in the physical world by having greater mastery and use of prophetic knowledge and the manipulations of matter that can be accomplished with it.  This is why Maimonides states that only the great prophet of Moshe could perform the level of miracles that occurred in the Exodus from Egypt. The greater the mastery of prophetic knowledge categories the greater the prophetic technology (i.e.- miracles) that can be done with this knowledge.  The posing of this prophetic technology also gives meaning to the movement of the staff and the arms of Moshe and Aaron in performing the miracles?  Why was this movement necessary?  Perhaps just as scientific technology requires the application of a physical movement to "get things going", there is some physical manipulation that needs to be performed by the prophet to create a physical change in the briah through prophetic science.


This approach creates a subtle shift in how to view a miracle.  Miracles occur through the application of laws just like scientific technology. Just as a potential chemical reaction or explosion exists within the matter that is found in nature, so too, potential miracles exist within the matter of the creation.   However, this prophetic  technology requires the mastery of  different laws than the laws of science.   I would add to this that the understanding and mastery of prophetic law comes through a different process than that of mathematical scientific laws.  The scientific laws and mathematics can be taught to and learned by any person of sufficient intelligence regardless of their love of G... or the just nature of their character.  There were Nazis that were excellent mathematicians and engineers.  However, prophetic knowledge comes through the agent of prophecy and this prophecy is only receivable to a person who has a refined mind, a great love of G... and a balanced, just and merciful nature.   As Maimonides stated in the "Guide for the Perplexed" regarding the qualities required to be a prophet:


"The substance of the brain must from the very beginning be the most perfect condition as regards purity of matter, composition of its different parts, size and position; no part of his body must suffer from ill-health; he mst in addition have studied and acquired wisdom, so that his rational faculty passes from a state of potentiality to that of actuality; his intellect must be as developed and perfect as human intellect can be; his passions pure and equally balanced; all his desires must aim at obtaining a knowledge of the hidden laws and causes that are in force in the Universe; his thoughts must be engaged in lofty matters; his attention directed to the knowledge of G..., the consideration of His works, and of that which he must believe in this respect.  There must be an absence of lower desires and appetites, of the seeking after pleasure in eating, drinking and cohabitation; and, in short every pleasure connected with the sense of touch..... A man who satisfies these conditions, whilst his fully developed imagination is in action, influenced by the Active Intellect according to his mental training,-such a person will undoubtedly perceive nothing but things very extraordinary and divine, and see nothing but G.. and His angels.  His knowledge will only include that which is real knowledge, and his thought will only be directed to such general principles as would tend to improve the social relations between man and man."   ( "Guide for the Perplexed", Book 2, Chapter 36).


A prophet cannot be a scoundrel.  He cannot be hot-tempered, injust, selfish, a debauch. He must love G...
None of these superior  qualities are necessary to be a great scientist or mathematician.  Scientific categories of mind can co-exist with these ugly traits and injustice.  Prophetic categories and prophetic thinking cannot.   But what the scientist and the prophet do share is that once the knowledge in their respective areas is obtained, they can use that knowledge to manipulate the physical environment.  One is used to build a nuclear reactor or a submarine and the other to split the sea or turn the river to blood.  Just a scientist cannot defy the laws of nature that are correlated with the human mental categories in the mathematical/scientific area, so too a prophet cannot violate the prophetic categorical laws that exist within the creation.  Just as there are laws of nature, there are laws of miracles.  The scientist manipulates the laws of nature to make scientific technology and the prophet manipulates the laws of prophecy to make miracles.  Just as the laws of nature are from G..., so too are the laws of miracles.


Maimonidies, according to most readings, limits miracles to being performed by prophets.  He rejects the more widespread notion among the gedolim that the magicians of Egypt could manipulate nature in miraculous ways.  Maimonides approach would follow from what we are proposing here - that miracles are performed by prophets utilizing special knowledge of the creation that is obtained through prophecy.  Since the evil or flawed person cannot obtain prophecy, they cannot perform miracles.  This would exclude the Egyptian sorcerers from having access to prophetic technology and from doing anything but natural acts and their "miracles" would simply be visual illusions or some other type of illusion.


It is interesting to reflect on the sin of Moshe when he hit the rock instead of speaking to it.  It was certainly miraculous that the rock gave water upon being hit.  I don't think this occurred according to the laws of nature?  How then could Moshe perform a miracle that was not commanded by G... and one for which he was severely punished?!   This implies to me that the prophet can perform a miracle by utilizing the special knowledge he has obtained, even if he uses it wrongfully.  However, since a prophet is just, G... -fearing, G...-loving individual the doing of such an unathorized miracle would be rare indeed.  Perhaps only Moshe, whose relationship with G.. was so close and so "normal" ("like a man speaking to his friend") could have the freedom and strength  to perform such a  miracle.  Perhaps this could help explain why the hitting of the rock brought about such a severe punishment.


 End of Part 3.  R.Borah  - Next - What does Maimonides mean that a miracle is done "for" the prophet?




"

The Role of the Prophet in Producing Miracles: Part 2

What was the role of the Moshe in bringing about the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt? If Moshe was instrumental in bringing about the machot and the kriat yam, we can examine the accounts of these miracles in the Chumash for some insight into the prophet's role. It does seem that, in most cases, Moshe or Aaron perform a physical act to help bring about the miracle. Below is a chart of the machot and the kirat yam sof and the physical activity performed by Moshe and/or Aaron in connection with them.
　

Miracle	Action of the Prophet
First Plague: Blood	Aaron's hand with staff stretched out over “the waters of Egypt, over the rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their ponds of water, that they may become blood;" (Shem. 7, 19)
Second Plague: Frogs	Aaron hand with staff stretched “over the rivers, over the canals and over the pools, and bring up the frogs upon the land of Egypt” ; (Shem. 8, 1)
Third Plague: Lice	“And Aaron stretched forth his hand with his rod and he smote the dust of the earth, and there were lice upon the man and upon the beast, all the dust of the earth became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. “ (Shem. 8, 13)
Fourth Plague: Animals	No specific act done by prophet. Specific time stated by prophet. “by tomorrow will this sign be.”(Shem. 8, 19)
Fifth Plague: Death of Livestock	No specific act done by prophet. Specific time stated by prophet. “Tomorrow shall the Lord do this thing in the land.” (Shem. 9, 5)
Sixth Plague: Boils	Moshe took “soot from the furnace, and they stood before Pharoh; and Moshe threw it heavenward; and it became a boil with blains breaking forth upon the man and upon the beast.”(Shem. 9, 10)
Seventh Plague: Hail	“And Moshe stretched forth his rod toward the heaven; and the Lord gave thunder and hail, and fire came down unto to the earth“. (Shem. 9, 23)
Eighth Plague: Locusts	“And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind upon the land all the day, and all the night;” (Shem. 10, 13)
Ninth Plague: Darkness	“And Moshe stretched forth his hand towards the Heaven  and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days.” (Shem. 10, 22)
Tenth Plague: Death of the First Born	No act by prophet. Nature and timing of plague stated by Moshe. “And Moshe said: Thus saith the Lord; About midnight will I go out into the midst ofEgypt; and there shall die all the first-born in the land of Egypt.” (Shem. 11, 4-5)
Splitting of the Sea of Reeds	“And Moshe stretched out his hand over the sea: and the Lord caused the sea to go (back) by a strong east wind all the night” (Shem. 14, 21)

　
At the end of the Perek 11 in Shemos the pasuk states:

“And Moshe and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharoah; and the Lord hardened Pharoah’s heart, and he did not send away the children of Israel from his land.” (Shem. 11, 10).

From this review, it does seem that an act of Moshe or Aaron was part of 7 of the 10 makkot and the splitting of the Sea of Reeds. The 4^th and 5^th makkot do not seem to have any act of Moshe or Aaron- at least not stated in the Chumash. With these plagues it does seem to be that Moshe and Aaron announced the timing and nature of the plague but were not instrumental in bringing them about. With the other makkot and the splitting of the sea, the language of the Chumash is consistent with Maimonides language in the "Guide for the Perplexed", as I understand it, of the prophets being part of the bringing about of the miracle (i.e. miracle worker).  With the 10th plague - the death of the first born- the nature of the makkah is understood by our tradition to have been brought about by G.. alone and not done through an angel or another other agent. This would be consistent with no act by Moshe or Aaron being associated with the plague.


   I am positing here is that the acts of Moshe and Aaron in conjunction with the miracles, were more than dramatic displays to draw attention to the miracle. They were not merely a way of psychologically connecting Moshe and Aaron to the miracles so that the Jewish people and the Egyptians would believe in the validity of Moshe’s prophecy. There seems to be  some type of technique involved by which Moshe and Aaron with the use of the staff were able to impact certain forces that existed in a potential, dormant state within the briah and required the act of the prophet to cause them to occur. When we look at the" non-miraculous" laws of nature, we observe here that  to achieve a change in state or position of matter,  the briah's structure requires the application of force by a person, or by some other source of force (animal, wind, heat, etc). Thought alone or knowledge alone will not achieve a change in the position or velocity of any particle or collection of particles or object as far as we currently understand the natural world. Force, often described as some type of “push or a pull“ is required.  Perhaps there is also a necessity of physical technique for the prophet to actualize a miracle and bring about the change in nature within a particular time and place. Thought or words of a prophet will not suffice. What is the technique involved with the staff or arms of Moshe and the stirring up of dust or ash to create changes? This technique would be something only revealed to a prophet, with the greater prophet understanding greater levels of technique and able to perform greater miracles.

Interestingly, the language of Maimonides in the “Guide for the Perplexed” when distinguishing the public miracles of Moshe with the miracles of other prophets, states: “The miracles done by prophets or for them, are witnessed by a few individuals…” This statement implies that there are two categories of miracles:

1) ones done by prophets
2) ones done for prophets.

This is not to say that any prophet does a miracle independent of G… The miracles of the makkot which are stated as being performed by Moshe and Aaron are clearly explained in the Chumash to have been brought about by G… It is fundamental for us to recount and praise G..'s performance of the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt.  So then what is the  category of miracles “done by prophets”? Perhaps this means that the prophet played some assistant role in bringing about the miracle in conjunction with G…   On the other hand,  the category of miracles “done for the prophet” would be miracles in which the prophet did not assist in bringing about the miracle, but only predicted or announced them. This would fit with the description of the 4^th, 5^th  and 10th makkot,  which do not seem to by accompanies by any action on the part of Moshe or Aaron.
    
We will continue this discussion in Part 3 of this series where we will interpret the statement of Maimonides of a miracle done “for the prophet”. At first glance this seems strange. The miracles are not done for the prophet but for the Jewish people to save them or inform them in some way. What does it mean that a miracle is done “for the prophet”?


End of Part 2:

The Role of The Prophet in Producing Miracles

What is the role of the prophet in a miracle? More specifically, what was the role of Moshe Rebbenu in the production of the miracles that brought about the Jewish people’s Exodus from Egypt? Did Moshe play a passive role in the performance of a miracle- a type of “announcer” with pre-knowledge of the miracle and it timing or did Moshe play some type of more active role, being something of a “miracle worker“? This more active role seems to be the position of Maimonides in the “Guide for the Perplexed” when he states:

“ Scripture, therefore, declares that no prophet will ever, like Moses, do signs publicly in the presence of friend and enemy, of his followers and his opponents; this is the meaning of the words: ‘And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, etc, in all the signs and wonders, etc, in the sight of all Israel.’ Two thing are here mentioned together; namely, that there will not arise a prophet that will perceive as Moses perceived, or a prophet that will do as he did; then it is pointed out that the signs were made in the presence of Pharoh , all his servants and all his land, the opponents of Moses and also in the presence of all the Israelites, his followers. This is a distinction not possessed by any prophet before Moses; nor, as is correctly foretold, will it ever be posses by another prophet….Your mind must comprehend the distinction of the prophecy and the wonders of Moses, and understand that his greatness in prophetic perception was the same as his power of producing miracles.” (my underline RB)

So, for Maimonides, the prophet is more than a passive player in the miracle. Only Moshe, he states here could “produce” the public miracles of the plagues and the Exodus. He did more than announce them through knowledge. Bt what was Moshe’s role in the production of the miracles? To explore this passive versus active role of the prophet, I would like to revisit the difference of position of Maimonides regarding whether the miracle was designed with the initial creation of the world (Chazal) or whether it was produced at the time of its occurrence?  Maimonides states:

“ When I, however, said that no prophet ever announced “a permanent change of any of its properties,” I intended to except miracles. For although the rod was turned into a serpent, the water into blood, the pure and noble hand into a leprous one, without the existence of any natural cause that could effect these or similar phenomena, these changes were not permanent, they have not become a physical property. This is my opinion; this should be our belief. Our Sages, however said very strange things as regards miracles; they are found in Bereshit Rabba, and in Midrash Koheleth, namely, that the miracles are to some extent also natural; for they say, when God created the Universe with its present physical properties, He made it part of these properties, that they should produce certain miracles at certain times, and the sign of a prophet consisted in the fact that God told him to declare when a certain thing will take place, but the thing itself was effected according to the fixed laws of nature.” (Guide: Par 2, Chapter 29)

Upon reflection, the difference of opinion between Maimonides and Chazal seems very strange or even incomprehensible. It is true that miracles occur at a point in time. There is a timeline for all events that take place from beginning of the creation of the world up to the present moment. For example the splitting of the sea occurred in the Jewish year of 2448 on the 22^nd day of Nissan. This is at a specific time. Both Maimonides and Chazal, of course, agree on this. So what do they disagree on? It seems, at first, that the disagreement is whether the miracle was designed within the structure of the initial creation (Chazal‘s position) or whether this structure was “disturbed or altered” at the time of the miracle. Here is where it gets difficult for me. Maimonides holds, as does Chazal, I would assume, that G… is outside of time. G.. created time with the other elements of creation. This concept has always been, as I understand, a foundation of our belief. Parenthetically, with Einstein’s discovery that time is only a property of matter (space-time) and has no meaning outside of matter, science has certainly concurred with the idea that G…, having no matter, does not exist in time or act in time. An interesting quote from a prominent physicist, James Jeans in his book, “The Mind of God” states:
 

“What happened before the big bang? The answer is, there was no “before”. Time itself began at the big bang….the world was made with time and not in time, and that is precisely the modern scientific position.”

So, if we accept that G… is outside of time, as time is a property of the material creation, how can there be a disagreement between Maimonides and Chazal as to the timing of G…’s causing of the miracle. There are no “different times” with regard to the act of creation by G… The idea of arguing whether a miracle was pre-programmed by G… at the initial time of creation or done “on the spot” seems absurd. G… doesn’t act in the timeline. If time was created at the moment of ‘the beginning” it would seem that everything that was created was created at that point including all future time and its miracles. Time just keeps “rolling out” for us as we experience it in material existence.

So what is Maimonides position that implies an alteration in the creation at the time of the miracle? He certainly does not hold that G.. creates within time or creates at different times. But perhaps there is another factor in the production of miracles that is in time. This temporal factor ( one bound by time and existing on the timeline) is the prophet. Perhaps Maimonides agrees with Chazal that all miracles have a non-temporal element: part of the miracle created by G… who is outside of time at the point of creation. However, there is another element causing the miracle that is in time. The role of the prophet in bringing about the miracle. It is with this role that Maimonides and Chazal differ. This difference is whether the prophet plays a passive role as a simple announcer, knowing the timing and details of the miracle, but having no causative role (Chazal’s position) or whether the prophet plays a co-causative role with G… in the production of the miracle (Maimonides view).

In the next post we will explore what the active role of the prophet is in the miracle and more particularly what was Moshe’s role in bringing about the Exodus from Egypt. We will discuss the point Maimonides makes about the greatness of the prophet being correlated with the greatness of the miracle and that the greatness of the miracle seems to be associated with the public nature of the miracle. As Maimonides states in the “Guide for the Perplexed”(Pt. 2, Chapter 33)

“The general distinction between the wonders of Moses and those of other prophets is this: The wonders wrought by prophets, or for them, are witnessed by a few individuals, e.g., the wonders wrought by Elijah and Elisha; the king of Israel is therefore surprised, and asked Gehazi to describe to him the miracles wrought by Elisha: “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. And it came to pass as he was telling, etc. And Gehazi said: ‘ My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life’” (2 Kings viii, 4,5). The same is the case with the signs of every other prophet, except Moses our Teacher. Scripture, therefore, declares that no prophet will ever, like Moses, do signs publicly in the presence of friend and enemy, of his followers and his opponents; this is the meaning of the words: And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, etc., in all the signs and the wonders, etc. in the sight of all Israel.”

End Pt. 1  R.Borah 4/24/11

"Even If We Were All Wise" The Obligation to Experience the Redemption from Egypt At the Seder

The Obligation to Experience the Redemption from Egypt At the Seder

Each year at the seder every Jewish is obligated to recount the story of how G-d brought the Jewish people out of Egypt “with a strong hand and an outreached arm” performing great miracles and wonders on their behalf. This mitzvah of“seepore yitzeyat mitzrayim” is required of all Jewish adults, men and women. It is fulfilled in the telling or in the listening to the story as expressed in the Haggadah. It states clearly in the Mishnah Torah of the Rambam and the Haggadah itself, that our greatest scholars are required to perform this mitzvah, even when scholars are reciting it to each other or when an individual scholar is alone and recites it to himself. The Haggadah states: “Even if we were all men of wisdom, understanding, experience, and knowledge of the Torah, it would still be an obligation upon us to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. The more one tells about the Exodus, the more he is praiseworthy.” 

This statement in the Haggadah is followed by a description of the great Torah Sages of the Mishna (Tannaim) who were performing a seder among themselves in Bnei Brak. Maimonides in his great work states that even “a great scholar” is obligated in the mitzvah of recounting the redemption at the seder. The Rambam states: “Even great men of wisdom (chachamim gedolim) are obligated to recount the redemption from Egypt and all who increase their recounting of what occurred they are praiseworthy.” 

This specific detail of the Rambam describing the requirement that even “great scholars” are required to perform the mitzvah of recounting the redemption at the seder, is, it seems to me, a response to an unstated question. “Why is a scholar, who is thoroughly versed in the details of the story of the redemption from Egypt, required to recount it to other scholars who also know it very well, or to himself?” One could ask, “what purpose does it serve for such individuals to review a story they know so well?”
 
This idea (that perhaps you might think no purpose is to be served for the scholar to recount the Exodus) seems at first to me to be a curious one, requiring investigation. Torah scholars never complete their task of study. The Torah is “as deep as the sea” and “everything is contained within it”. So why might one think that the scholar has completely exhausted the area of the redemption from Egypt any more than a scholar would be completely done with a parsha in the Chumash or a tractate of the Talmud? These are endless pursuits as the finite human mind attempts to understand the Divine revelations of the Torah! How could one consider that even the greatest scholar is done with understanding the redemption of the Jewish people from Egypt?!


The Rav (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zt”l) analyzes the fact that the Rambam uses the term “great scholars” (chachamim gedolim) instead of the Haggadah’s term, “scholars” (“chachamim”) when describing the obligation to recount the redemption. The Rav states:
 
The Rambam in the 7^th chapter of the Laws of Chometz and Matzah adds to the words of the Haggadah and writes, “even great scholars are obligated to recount into the redemption from Egypt.” This is the Rambam explaining the intent of the Haggadah that not only is a scholar obligated in recounting the redemption from Egypt, but also a great scholar is obligated. It seems that the Rambam learns this from the description (in the event that follows) about Rabbi Eliezer, that comes immediately after this statement to bring a support for the statement “even if we were all men of wisdom and understanding we would be obligated in recounting the redemption from Egypt, since even the Tannaim (great scholars of the Mishna) recounting the redemption from Egypt. 
 
 The Rambam’s clarification of the phrase “scholars” to include “great scholars” is illuminating. It makes clear that there is no level of scholarship or wisdom that would exempt a person from the obligation to recount the redemption from Egypt at the seder. The Rav explains this specifically in his commentary on the Haggadah’s statement: “It is an obligation upon us to recount into the redemption from Egypt”. The Rav focuses in on the unusual phrase here “into the redemption from Egypt (“ beeyitziat mitzrayim”). He states:
 
It would seem that the Haggadah should have written “it is an obligation upon us to recount the redemption from Egypt” (et yitziat mitzrayim”). But since the Haggadah states “beeyitziat mitzrayim” we must reflect on this particular language. We can explain this particular choice of words (“nusach”). It seems that the distinction between the two phrases (“et yitziat mitzrayim” versus “beyitziat mitzrayim”) is as follows: to recount something means to describe the thing and after you have described it and know it, there is no more to recount. This is not the case with “beyitziat mitzrayim” In this case the explanation of the use of the phrase is to delve deeply into it and to clarify its foundations and not merely to recount the event. This is the meaning of the Haggadah when it states ‘even if we were all men of wisdom and understanding and knowledgeable in the Torah” – even if we knew all the facts of the event of the redemption we have to delve deeply into the area.”
 
The Rav’s explanation, of course, makes perfect sense. The Torah scholar is not simply supposed to recount the story in its narrative form (i.e. –the events that occurred) but must continually plum the depths of the underlying legal and philosophical principles that are associated with the events and laws of the redemption from Egypt. Once this is included as part of the mitzvah of “telling the story of the redemption from Egypt” it is clear to us that no scholar can ever complete the task. But I would ask the following: Of course this is so! Why might we have thought that the mitzvah of “seepore yitziat mitzyaim” (recounting the redemption from Egypt) would be limited to the telling of the series of events that occurred and no more? What about this mitzvah of “seepore” leaves us open to this possible interpretation? Why do we even require the clarification of the Haggadah and in the halachic sources that in-depth analysis of the redemption is part of the mitzvah?
 
This “Seepore” Different than Other Storytelling
 
Perhaps we can explain why it is necessary for the Haggadah, the Rambam and the Rav to clarify for us that the mitzvah of recounting the redemption includes in-depth study. First of all, the words “seepore yitziat mitzrayim” is simply translated to “tell the story of the redemption from Egypt”. It is not a mitzvah of Talmud Torah (learning Torah). Telling the story of an event does not usually include an analysis of the underlying concepts beneath the story. If , for example, I describe a hurricane that hit a particular town and destroyed some buildings and uprooted trees, I don’t usually include a discussion of meteorology and how hurricanes are formed. This is not “the telling of the story” of what happened. It is true that many news stories do go into background to explain the story, but these are two separate parts and I could certainly assume that the fulfillment of the mitzvah of “seepore” would be confined to the description of events and would not include the background and analysis. If this is so, then I can see why I would have thought that “seepore yitziat mitzrayim” might be limited to the description of events and, if this is the case, why the great scholars might be exempt. The basic events of the story of the redemption are completely known to them. To recount the events alone would add nothing to their knowledge. So the Haggadah and the halachah comes to tell us that the analysis and background ARE included in the mitzvah of “seepore” and therefore, of course the scholars (even the greatest) scholars can benefit from further delving into the subject and are, therefore, obligated in this mitzvah. It requires explanation why it states in the Haggadah that one is to “recount into the redemption from Egypt” (“beyitziat mitzrayim”) whereas one would think the Haggadah should state to “recount on the redemption from Egypt” (“al yitziat mitzrayim”). It seems that the use of the phrase “beyitziat mitzrayim” is to convey to us that the form and character of the recounting is to be done such that we enter with all our strength into the story and the mitzvah is to tell all the details with full emotion until it seems on account of this telling that one feels as if the he went out of mitzrayim. This is the recounting “into the redemption from Egypt” (“seepore beyitziat mitzrayim”) specifically, to be completely immersed is the body of the story, since this recounting is a “kiyam b’lav” – a fulfillment of the heart- and one is obligated to be completely absorbed into the story.”

But we still have not explained:

1) Why it is that “seepore” ,in the case of the Haggadah, departs from its usual structure and includes background, analysis and studying the underlying principals of the story?

2) If this inclusion of in-depth analysis is part of the mitzvah of recounting the story of the redemption from Egypt, why was the mitzvah called “seepore” and not “limud yitziat mitzrayim” (learning about the redemption from Egypt”?

3) If the mitzvah includes the delving into the depths of study of the redemption and the mitzvoth related to it, why is it that the mitzvah is performed in its optimal way when the facts of the “miracles and wonders” are told to a child who does not yet know the story? If the essence of this mitzvah is the learning dimensio, then it seems to me that the scholar’s “seepore yitziat mitzrayim” should be the optimal way to carry out the mitzvah and not merely the default case which you might not think is even required!

Let’s address these questions one at a time. First – “Why is it that “seepore” includes the in depth analysis?” The usual purpose of “seepore” – the telling of a story - is to relate to someone the external aspects of the event. As the journalists say, the “who, what, where, why, when and how” are the basis of reporting any story. This constitutes the usual boundaries of “seepore”. But the “seepore” of the redemption of the Jewish people from Egypt serves a different purpose from that of the usual story. The fulfillment or “kiym” of the mitzvah of “seepore yitziat mitzrayim” is not simply to assure that the reader or listener is informed of an event that occurred in the past. Instead the reader of the Haggadah and those listening are supposed to experience the redemption from Egypt themselves. The Rav explains this in analyzing once again the term “seepore beyitziat mitzrayim” – “to tell the story in the redemption from Egypt.” He focuses again on the unusual use of the term “beyitziat” (in the redemption) instead of “et yitziat” (about the redemption). The Rav states:

We can understand from the Rav’s explanation that the mitzvah of “seepore yitziat mitzrayim” is not simply a case of being informed about something that happened to others. At the seder the person is supposed to re-experience the event of the Exodus himself or herself- to feel it deeply as if it is happening to him or her right at that moment. There is an obligation, it seems, to call upon one’s imagination to relive the actual redemption in all of its glory.

There are other indications in the Haggadh of this obligation to actually experience the redemption from Egypt in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of “seepore yitziat mitzrayim.” It states in the Haggadah:

In every generation one is obligated to look upon himself as if he personally had gone forth out of Egypt as it says: “And you shall relate to your child on that day, saying: “It is because of this that H’ acted for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Shemot 13:8). Not only our father did the Holy One, Blessed be He, redeem but us, too, He redeemed together with them, as it says: “And He brought us out from there that He might bring us home to give to us the land which He had sworn to our fathers” (Devarim 6:23)


What does the Haggadah really mean to say when it states that “one is obligated to look upon himself as if (“leyrote et atzmo”) as if he personally had gone forth out of Egypt? You and I were not actually brought out of Egypt with Moshe and Aaron since we had not yet come into existence! Why am I then obligated to look at myself as if I was? It is certainly true that I have benefited from the redemption. In a similar way I would be “saved” if my mother was saved by a lifeguard from drowning when she was a child. The lifeguard did not “save me”. But without the lifeguard’s actions, I would not be alive today. Is this all that is meant by the Haggadah: that I should realize that I owe my current situation of freedom to the redemption from Egypt? If so why does the Haggadah state “to look upon himself as if he personally had gone forth out of Egypt” instead of stating “as if he was redeemed from Egypt.” The Haggadah requires that I look at myself not only as being redeemed through the Exodus but that I was actually “brought forth out of Egypt”! It does seem necessary to actually imagine oneself as going through the experience of the actual redemption. Why is this experiencing of the redemption necessary?

Jew’s Relationship to G… Requires Experiencing the Redemption From Egypt

Perhaps we can explain this requirement in the following manner: The act of redemption from Egypt was not only an historical event that created the Jewish nation at a point in time. The redemption from Egypt is an event that reveals the full relationship of G-d to each Jew. This revelation and the miracles and wonders were not simply to bring the Jews out of slavery to embark on a new path- it was to establish a new level of intimacy in the relationship between G-d and man. Until the redemption, the Creator had not revealed the full expression of his power, his concern for the Jewish people nor his relationship to the affairs of mankind. It is the experiencing of the redemption that fully and revealed G-d to man. The freeing of the Jews from slavery was a historical necessity at that moment for the Jewish people. But more than this, the redemption was G-d revealing of himself to man, so that man could fully embrace their relationship. The Jew is destined and required to have this full relationship with G-d. It is for this reason that every Jew must actually experience the redemption.

But there is a problem. We weren’t all present in Egypt to experience the miracles and wonders and the destruction of the mitzrim at the Yam Soof (Sea of Reeds). So how can we fully encounter G-d? How can we establish this full relationship with our Creator?

A human mind has a unique ability. It can imagine. We must, therefore, deeply imagine ourselves as living through the redemption from Egypt. We need to focus our energies on, not only studying and recounting the details of the miracles and wonders of the redemption, but on imagining ourselves living through these events. In this way we too, to the extent of our abilities to re-imagine it, can also “come forth from Egypt” and establish our fullest relationship with G-d.

The fulfillment of this requirement experiencing the redemption through the process of “seepore” at the seder can be seen as a uniting principal which explains a number of elements of the halachic structure of the Pesach seder.

1) The obligations of pursuing in depth study of the redemption, which the Rav explains as the reason that even the greatest scholar is obligated in the mitzah of “seepore”. From the perspective of reliving the redemption at the seder, this in-depth study can take on a new meaning. We can unite the concepts of “seepore” and Talmud torah in this way: The in-depth study and understanding of an area is a path towards the imagining of the experience. When a scholar studies an area lightly, he learns the facts about the subject and some interesting detail. But an in-depth study of the area allows for a deeper, more personal relationship with an event. The great scholar of any area can reach a point of intimacy with the information where the subject “comes alive” and is re-experienced by him or her. We can understand, in this way, how the in-depth limud of the redemption from Egypt can effectively lead a person to the re-experiencing of the redemption, which we are posing now as a goal of the “seepore”. The study here is not a purely intellectual pursuit, but instead is done to accomplish to “fulfillment of the heart” (“kiyam b’lave”) of personally experiencing the redemption from Egypt. So it now becomes clear why the in-depth learning of the foundations, laws and events of the redemption are part of the mitzvah of seepore. This in-depth learning is an effective method of transforming the seepore into the re-experiencing of the redemption.

2) The eating of the matzah and marror - The statement of “In every generation one is obligated to look upon himself as if he personally went forth from Egypt” is stated in the Haggadah immediately after the fulfillment of the mitzvot of eating the matzah and eating the bitter herb (marror). The eating of these foods is truly an unusual mitzvah. Why do we need to eat matzah to remember the bread of affliction and why do we need to eat marror to recall the bitterness of our enslavement in Egypt? The inclusion of the senses of sight, taste and smell in the “seepore” serves to help transform the recounting of the redemption from the purely abstract, reflective realm and transform it into an aid to the imagination in helping us to relive the redemption experience. It brings our senses and feelings into the retelling of the story and creates something of a re-enactment. Immediately after these mitzvot and the eating of the “sandwich” (koraych) we are enjoined to envision ourselves as personally being redeemed from Egypt. These eating mitzvot assist us in this process.

3) The drinking of the 4 cups of wine – The drinking of four cups of wine is an obligation in “sepore.” It is considered to be a sign of our freedom (“chayros”). But why does the expression of freedom take the form of 4 cups of wine specifically? Perhaps an important benefit of this fairly large amount of wine at the seder is that alcohol assists a person in freeing their imaginative faculty and dulls the dividing point between rationality and imagination to some extent. The mild intoxication experienced at the seder can also serve as an aid in freeing the imagination and assisting the person in imagining him or herself as actually participating in the redemption from Egypt on the night of the seder. One does not usually drink wine while learning. Wine, especially 4 cups of wine, is not conducive to a usual form of in-depth learning. However, when we place as a purpose for the “sepore” the stimulation of a person’s ability to imagine him or herself as being taken out of Egypt that night, the wine can be a definite aid in this process. The “sepore” is certainly a form of learning. But it is a specific type of learning in which one must partake in bold imaginative mental activity that has an almost dreamlike quality, in order to re-experiencing the redemption. For this task, 4 cups of wine are of significant help.

4) The involvement of the children – We have not yet discussed the central role of children in the seder. There is a specific directive in the Torah of telling the story over to your children (“haggaditah luvenchah”). What is the special place of the child in this mitzvah of “seepore yitziat mitzrayim”?

If we maintain our focus on the obligation to re-experience the redemption, we can easily see how children play a major role. Children have the most active imagination, as we see in their games and play. They have little trouble imagining themselves in different roles they read about or create in their fantasies. As their rational factuality and reality testing is still weak, their imagination is less encumbered and is easily capable of dominating their thoughts. Children are therefore the ideal candidates to re-experience the redemption on the seder night. For them it is a much easier task to place themselves back in Egypt, viewing and hearing the miracles and experiencing the joy and exhilaration of the redemption. We, as their parents, must do all we can to draw them into the “sepore” and assist them in living the experience of redemption. Perhaps in focusing on our children on the experiencing of the redemption it also assists us as adults in stimulating our imagination, bringing it to the fore in our own attempt to feel and experience the redemption from Egypt.

I believe we have addressed the three original questions:

1) “Seepore” in this case includes in-depth analysis because this analysis helps us to re-experience the redemption.

2) The mitzvah is not called “limud yitziat mitzrayim” even though it includes in depth learning because the in-depth learning in this particular case is for the sake of experiencing the redemption, experiencing the “seepore”.

3) Children are the optimal recipient of the “seepore” due to their most active imagination and their ability to relive the redemption on the night of the seder.

“Even if We Were All Wise…”

By: Rabbi Richard Borah

Israel and Amalek: A Study in Contrasts

by Rabbi Richard Borah

What is evil? For the purposes of this brief essay I will use the following working definition: Evil is the willful rejection of G..d’s authority over the actions of man.

Without an outside arbiter of what actions are permitted and restricted, a person can rightfully do whatever serves his purpose. People have many different interests and desires, depending on their individual make-up, society and unique circumstances. However, if one views him or herself as the only moral authority in the Universe, I would consider that person to be living an evil life.

The nature of the human personality creates inherent conflict with the rejection of G..d as the ruler of the world. Perhaps due to inherent qualities within the soul or the conclusions of the reasonable element of the mind, the rejection of G..d’s authority requires a state of active denial on the part of the evil person. The rejection of G..d is not a neutral state for a person. It is a very energetic, emotional stance, whether the person verbalizes it or not and even if the person is not clearly conscious of this rejection. A person can not simply and calmly walk away from G…. I don’t think we are put together that way.

This active rejection of G… is most profoundly expressed in the people of Amalek: the paradigm of evil and rejection of the authority of the Creator. As it states in the Torah: “ G..d will have war with Amalek from generation to generation ( Shemot, 17, 16) What requires explanation about the war between G… and Amalek, is the purpose of G… in allowing the continued existence of this enemy. Usually a war exists between two parties who desire to defeat one another and, in some cases, destroy the other party. War results from the fact that both parties have something of an equal level of power and must battle to decide the victor. This is not the case with G… and Amalek. G… has omnipotence and can annihilate the entire Universe if it is His will. How then can there be a war between G… and Amalek? Would we say there can be a war between a man and an ant? If it is man’s will to step on the ant he does. Kal v’chomer with G… and Amalek. The response to this question must be that it is G..d’s will to have this war and to allow it to continue as it must bring about some good. The question now becomes: What is the good brought about by the war of G… and Amalek?

The definition of Amalek, as explained by the Rav (Rav Yoseph Baer Soloveitchik, stated in the name of his father Rav Moshe Soloveitchik) includes any person or nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish people. The Rav does explain one difference with the non-lineage Amalek is that the right and obligation to destroy them rests only the melech Yisrael and not with the individual Jew. Nonetheless, the battle between G..d and Amalek continues even though the genetic line of Agag and his people was dispersed among the nations by Sancherev and no longer exist as a nation. It seems that this extended Amalek category would certainly apply to the Nazi regime and others throughout our past and present history who seek the annihilation of the Jewish people. To return to the question of “what is the good of the continued existence of Amalek in the world?” , what possible good can come from the existence of such evil regimes as the Nazis and others who desire the Jewish people’s destruction?

I would like to pose the following approach. The purpose of the Jewish people is to be “ a light to the nations”. What is the “light” that we are charged with imparting to humanity? At the risk of being overly simplistic, the special clarification that the Jewish people bring to the world through the practicing of the Torah is to make understood the concept of justice. The other nations and people seem quite capable of the understanding of mathematics, the physical design of nature and the technological utilization of this knowledge to cure diseases, move mountains, build cities and land on the moon. But to understand how human beings can live together in justice and mercy- this is not discovered in the laboratory or in the universities. This is the insight that has been brought to the world through the prophets of Israel in the laws and concepts of the Torah.

The central concept of justice and mercy are the result of the Torah’s clarification of man’s relationship to his Creator and to his fellow creations. The concepts of the holiness, the value of human life and the rights of the individual have no other source than the prophetically revealed law and the systematic clarifications of it by the wise of Israel. But there is a powerful desire in both the individual and the nations of the world to consider the possibility that man can create his own just and merciful world without need for any special insight from the Creator. Communism, Fascism and Modern Liberalism are all manifestations of this motivation. Perhaps, many a progressive thinker concludes, the same powerful intellectual tools that conquers the environment and render it under man’s greater control, can fully plum the depths in the areas of justice and mercy as well. Perhaps, they conjecture, man can discern, on his own, the boundaries of human rights, justice, mercy and the precise manner to live with good will among one‘s neighbors.

When reasonably logical people live together, it sometimes seems that man, on his own, can live in peace and harmony with one another. However, this is an illusion and never seems to work. Although technology has increased production to the point where prosperous people are less likely to outwardly attack one another for scarce goods, the inner demons remain fully intact. A human-centered, secular personality is one plagued with a tremendous need to compete successfully with his neighbors and even within his own family for prestige, recognition and personal greatness as the core value. This leads to a existence charged by jealously, bad will and a thinly and inconsistently concealed rage and frustration. But on the surface, it sometimes seems to those who want to believe, that the task has been accomplished. People seem to “get along”, sipping fine coffee in Starbucks, working on their laptops and messaging on their Iphones. The fact that the motivation beneath these civilized acts is one of the same basic ill will that has plagued mankind from the beginning is easy to deny. Mankind has made it! But “then came Amalek”. It is often the observation of Amalek that shatters the illusion.

Germany was , perhaps the most sophisticated and accomplished country on Earth in the beginning of the twentieth century. The philosophers, scientists, writers, composers and artists were unrivaled in the western world. Many thinkers surmised that the Germany and the west had entered a golden age and that civilization had achieved the dream of a human-centered utopia. But “then came Amalek”. Of course the rise of the Nazi regime and the resultant war changed the world in many ways. But one dramatic impact of the Nazi regime was the clarification that the mastery of science, art and culture does not bring man any closer to justice and mercy. The Nazi Amalek made clear to even the most dedicated secularist that the advancements in these technological areas of thought were found side by side with perhaps the cruelest most unjust society that has ever existed.

The Amalek Nazis (as well as the Stalinist Communists) have taught the world that science, technology and philosophy do not bring about justice and mercy or the peaceful harmonious living of man together. All the sophistication of the Nazi’s and communists accomplishments were used to empowerment the willful, cruel and primitive drives that have destroyed human happiness from the beginning. Although it is not for this discussion, perhaps the establishment of the State of Israel and the western world’s growing recognition of the “Jewish” value of compassion for the weak and unfortunate that came in the aftermath of the second world war, is the result of this growing recognition that justice and mercy will not come out of a test tube or through the dissertation of a Harvard professor, but instead from the nation of Israel.

Contrast is one of the most powerful teaching tools. When we see two objects, two people or two
systems side by side and compare them, it becomes much easier to discern the superior one.
Perhaps one of the reason G..d allows Amalek to endure is in order to help shatter the illusion of the
technological, intellectual, godless utopia. At what point will this clarification reach its greatest
impact? Only when the nation of Israel achieves its purpose in creating a nation of justice and
mercy. At that time the side by side comparison of Amalek and Israel will be so stark, so
overwhelming that it will shatter the secular, sophisticated illusions of the world and it will be “on that
day that G..d shall be one and his name one.”

The Joy of Purim and the Love of God

By: Rabbi Richard Borah

Maimonides, in his great work the Mishneh Torah, states that a person is obligated to make a ‘suedah’ according to their means (“אשר תמצא ידו”), and to give two types of food to one friend (“משלוח מנות”). Maimonides follows this law with a description of the obligation to give to the poor on Purim. He states:

[A]nd one is obligated to give to the poor on the day of Purim. No less than two poor people. Give to each one a gift, or type of prepared food (“תבשיל”) or type of food (“אוכלין”).

Maimonides continues in the next ‘halacha’:

It is better for a person to increase gifts to the poor (“במתנות אביונים”) rather than to increase the ‘seudah’ or the ‘m’shloach manot’ because there is no greater or more glorious joy than to bring joy to the hearts of the poor, the orphans, the widow and the converts. To bring joy to these people in misery is similar to the ‘Shechinah’ as it states: “To revive the spirit of the fallen and to revive the heart of the crushed.”

Rabbi Yosef Dov, Ber Soloveitchik (“the Rav”), in sefer Harerei Kedem, comments on this series of laws in the Mishneh Torah, and raises some interesting questions:

This concept that the giving of ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is a great and glorious joy requires study, but [also] what is the concept [that would explain Maimonides’ statement] regarding ‘matanot l’evyonim’ in saying that ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is greater than any mitzvah of Purim? …It is surprising [that Maimonides states] the ‘mitzvah of matanot l’evyonim’ is greater than the other ‘mitzvot’ of the day: greater than ‘m’shloach manot,’ greater than thesuedah and greater than the reading of the Megillah! What is the reason that ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is a greater and more glorious ‘mitzvah’?”

It seems the Rav is troubled by two ideas:

(1) Why does one even compare ‘matanot l’evyonim’ to the other ‘mitzvot’ of Purim as if they are on some type of scale of importance? Usually, each ‘mitzvah’ stands on its own and is not compared in terms of greatness with other ‘mitzvot.’

(2) If you are going to ‘rate’ the Purim ‘mitzvot,’ why is ‘matanot l’evyonim’ the greatest of them? And why does it constitute the “greatest joy” of all possible joys, as Maimonides states: “because there is no greater or more glorious joy than to bring joy to the hearts of the poor, the orphans, the widow and the converts.”

The Rav addresses the first question in sefer Harerei Kedem by explaining that the two Purim mitzvot of giving gifts to the poor (‘matanot l’evyonim’) and sending food to friends (“m’shloach manot’), are both parts of the same ‘mitzvah’ of joy on Purim (‘simchat Purim’). The Rav states:

It seems that an explanation for the Rambam’s words is that ‘the mitzvot of suedah, m’shloach manot’ and ‘matanot l’evyonim’ are one ‘mitzvah’ in essence, included in the ‘mitzvah’ of the joy of Purim and that all of them are part of the ‘mitzvah’ of the joy of Purim: the ‘suedah’ being the core of the ‘mitzvah’ to have a joyful drinking party (‘ha’mishte v’simcha’) and also the ‘mitzvah’ of the ‘m’shloach manot’ is a part of the mitzvah of seudah. Maimonides shows us this by stating in the beginning of the ‘halacha’ describing [the ‘seudah’]: “How is the ‘suedah’ carried out?” And then Maimonides continues in the description of this ‘halacha’ to describe the details of the suedah and of ‘m’shloach manot.’”

The Rav continues to explain that the ‘mitzvah’ of ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is also a part of the ‘mitzvah’ of the ‘simcha’ of Purim, similar to the ‘mitzvot’ of ‘suedah’ and ‘m’shloach manot.’ This giving of gifts of money and food to the poor is not simply a form of ‘tzeddakah’: it is a part of the ‘simcha’ of Purim, similar to the ‘suedah’ and ‘matanot l’evyonim’. This giving brings a profound addition to the ‘simcha’ of Purim and is of the highest value and the greater enjoyment to the person. The Rav explains,

Also ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is for the sake of ‘simchat Purim’ [as Maimonides states] “there is no greater or more glorious joy than bringing joy to the poor …for the ‘mitzvah’ is to bring joy to oneself and to others with him, and for this reason it is written that the ‘mitzvah’ of ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is greater than all the others “since there is no greater joy than the joy of bringing joy to the hearts of the poor….

The Rav goes on to refer to Maimonides’ statement in Hilchot Yom Tov, that when a person eats and drinks (to partake in the ‘simcha’ of a ‘Yom Tov’), he is obligated to provide for the convert, the orphan and the widow and the other downtrodden people, “for one who only concerns himself with the needs of his family; this is not a ‘feast of mitzvah,’ but a ‘suedat krisoe’ (“a feast of the belly”). The Rav brings other examples to show that it is the “Jewish standard,” that whenever a designated celebration or offering is partaken of by an individual or a family, there is a requirement to reach out to the unfortunate and struggling members of the Jewish community and invite them to join in the festivities. The statements of Maimonides about the ‘seudah’ of Purim certainly are consistent with this idea. However, there is a unique quality that distinguishes the Purim inclusion of the poor and unfortunate in the joy of Purim, from the inclusion of the poor in the other ‘yom tov’ feasts. The difference is that on Purim this act of kindness is not simply an obligation or an act of justice, it is an act that brings the greatest joy. This inclusion of the poor in the feast has the status of being a key component in the obligatory ‘simcha’ of Purim; and as Maimonides explains it, the greatest of the joys of Purim and perhaps the greatest of all joys. This joy of giving to the unfortunate members of Klal Yisrael needs to be explained. Few would describe the act of giving to the poor as their ‘greatest joy.’ Although the Jew is by nature and training, compassionate and empathizes with the suffering of his fellow Jew, for the most part, ‘tzeddakah’ is seen as an act of kindness, of justice and an obligation. It is not the first thing one thinks of when reflecting on the greatest source of joy of the Purim experience or, for that matter, the greatest of all life’s joys.

So how can we explain this great joy that results from “matanot l’evyonim”? How can we understand it and experience it? Maimonides expresses an idea that may be the key to understanding this phenomenon. The Mishneh Torah’s description of this halacha, states that “to bring joy to the heart of these unfortunate people (האמללים), is similar to the Divine Presence (דומה לשכינה), as it says, “to revive the spirit of the fallen and to revive the hearts of the crushed.” We know that there is a directive in the Torah, ‘הלכת בדרכיו,’ to walk in the ways of G-d, to imitate His “ways,” as we see them expressed through G-d’s intervention in the world. As He is just, we should be just. As He is merciful and slow to anger, we should strive to do likewise. Maimonides’ term, ‘דומה לשכינה,’ is consistent with this idea. But what does imitating the ways of G-d have to do with great joy?

What is Joy?

Why is acting is a manner ‘domeh l’Shechinah’ such a profound joy to the person? Why does it exceed all other joys of life as Maimonides states in the laws of Megillah,

‘שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארה’, “there is no greater or more glorious joy…”? Let us begin by analyzing what joy is. All normal people strive to have joy in their lives. The pursuit and experiencing of joy is something unique to the human being. Joy is different from simple pleasure in that it seems, animals can also experience. Pleasure is a physical experience associated with the sensual responses such as taste, smell, touch, and feel. But joy is an experience of the personality that brings fulfillment in a different way. Although it is often associated with physical pleasure, it certainly does not have to be. It is possible that great joy can come with great pain (giving birth and completing a marathon comes to mind). Finding out that others have succeeded (or failed), that can bring great joy, although there is no sensual response. What is at the core of all these joyous experiences?

The human being is unique among living things in that he or she has the ability to place value on things. This valuing of things is highly individualistic. Some people value being clean and neat so highly, that they get a huge rush of joy when their house is ‘spic and span.’ Some people value wealth so highly that they experience great joy in obtaining riches even under the most unjust and cruel of circumstances. Some value beauty so highly that they would joyously give up all other pleasures to obtain it. In this way, the human is very different from any other being. Most dogs, cats, horses and birds of a species have very similar pleasures and pursue very predictable courses of action. Humans however, have a great deal of variety in what they value, and therefore in the joys they pursue. Joy occurs when a person experiences the realization of something they highly value, whether it includes pain, pleasure or neither of these. The degree of the event’s value to the person, determines the intensity of the joy. Conversely, the experiencing of something of low or no value results in boredom or indifference. The experiencing of something that lessens or destroys something we value is experienced as anguish, sadness or despair (the opposite of joy).

If we explain joy as the experiencing of something of value to a person, and “great joy,” as the experiencing of something of great value to the person, the question now before us is: ‘How is a person’s acting in a manner ‘similar to the Divine Presence’ (‘דומה לשכינה’) in helping the poor, unfortunate people of Israel, be something of such high personal value that its joy would exceed all of his or her other joys?

What is Acting Similar to the “Shechinah”?

The next step in understanding the relationship of acting “דומה לשכינה” to great joy is to understand what it means to act in a way “similar to the Shechinah”. The concept that man can imitate the ways of G-d is very difficult, philosophically. The root concept and belief of Judaism is expressed in the ‘Shema’ in which we affirm that, “G-d in one.” This does not simply mean that G-d is singular (i.e., that there is not more than one G-d). “G-d is one,” describes, according to Maimonides, is that G-d is an absolute unity without parts or characteristics. Maimonides states in his Thirteen Principles of Faith:

[G-d], the Cause of all, is one. This does not mean one as in one of a pair, nor one like a species [which encompasses many individuals], nor one as in an object that is made up of many elements, nor as a single simple object that is infinitely divisible. Rather, G-d is a unity unlike any other possible unity.

Maimonides makes clear, in many works including, The Guide for the Perplexed, that it is blasphemous to conceive of G-d as possessing of a body, of emotions or even of possessing knowledge. These characteristics would be ‘parts of G-d,’ and would violate the concept of a perfect unity. This absolute unity of G-d is therefore, according to Maimonides, unknowable to the human mind. If this is the case, we have a great difficulty understanding the idea of acting ‘דומה לשכינה.’ When we are merciful we are not imitating G-d’s mercy, since for us, mercy is a “trait” that we possess, but when G-d acts in the world in a way that to us appears as His acting from a trait of “mercy,” it is really a result of His unity and definitely not the result of a separate trait of mercy.

This problem has been addressed by Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed, when it explains the human-like descriptions of G-d found in the Torah. Maimonides explains this by clarifying that when the Torah states that G-d is acting with mercy or some other trait, it does not mean that G-d possesses that trait, but that his actions take a form that appears to us, from our human perspective, as resulting from G-d’s mercy or some other trait.

So what we must say is that when the actions of G-d are imitated by man, although the actions of G-d are not the result of a trait of mercy, (as G-d has no traits), the imitation of these actions by man will instill and reinforce desirable human traits within the person. We imitate G-d’s actions, not G-d’s traits (since He has no traits), and as a result, we develop desirable human traits such as justice, mercy, kindness, patience, etc...

This analysis has now taken another step. In the first step we clarified the roots of “joy” as being distinct from pleasure and connected it to the occurrence of something of high value to the person. We then clarified the concept of ‘דומה לשכינה,’ explaining that this is the imitation of G-d’s actions which creates excellent traits in the human being. But to address our original inquiry, we still need to answer the key question: How does this acting ‘domeh l’Shechinah,’ bring about great joy in the person?

Which Person Values Acting “Domeh L’Shcheenah” Above All Things?

We can now state our question as follows: Why is acting in a manner similar to G-d’s acts of the highest value to a person? To address this final step in answering our question, I would like to narrow and restate the question as follows: Under what conditions is acting in a manner similar to G-d’s acts of the highest value to the person?

This restating of the question is key, in my opinion, because it is certainly not true that for all people (Jewish or not Jewish), in all circumstances, acting in a manner similar to G-d’s acts, is of the highest value (and therefore greatest joy), to the person. For most people, there are many other things of much higher value. Who is the person who values acting in a manner similar to G-d’s acts as the highest value? I would like to suggest that there is only one type of person that will place acting ‘דומהלשכינה’ at the pinnacle of value: This person is the ‘אוהב ה'’ (‘the lover of G-d’).

What is of the Highest Value to the “Ohaiv Hashem”?

The ‘אוהב ה',’ the lover of G-d, has a continual desire to draw close to the Creator. This concept of approaching the Creator is also difficult to understand. What is this experience; Maimonides describes it in the Mishneh Torah, as follows:

When a person contemplates His wondrous and great deeds and creations and appreciates His infinite wisdom that surpasses all comparison, he will immediately love, praise and glorify [Him], yearning with tremendous desire to know [G-d’s] great name, as David stated: “My soul thirsts for the Lord, for the living G-d.”

The ‘אוהב ה'’ seeks at all times to contemplate the greatness of G-d by reflecting on the creation and its wondrous qualities. This person will always strive to be occupied with two things only: (1) increasing his or her knowledge of G-d; and (2) serving G-d according to that knowledge.

Maimonides states in The Guide for the Perplexed, regarding this:

David therefore commands his son Solomon these two things and exhorts him earnestly to do them: to acquire a true knowledge of G-d and to be earnest in His service after that knowledge has been acquired. For he says, “And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the G-d of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart….”

These two activities of increasing knowledge of G-d and serving G-d according to that knowledge are of the highest value and, therefore, the greatest joy to the ‘אוהב ה'.’ It is through these two activities that the ‘אוהב ה'’ deepens his contemplation of G-d which brings him the most joy. Perhaps now, we can explain how the ‘אוהב ה'’ serves G-d by raising the spirits of the downtrodden peoples through the mitzvah of ‘matanot l’evyonim.’

“Chesed”/Loving-kindness As a Pattern of the Creation

What is of highest value to the ‘ohaiv Hashem,’ is to clarify and deepen his or her contemplation and understanding of G-d. As Maimonides states in many places, the direct conception of G-d’s oneness is not possible for the human mind. His contemplation is focused on the creation of G-d and the patterns within it. Through study of the creations of the Torah and the world and the practice of the law, this contemplation is deepened and the individual’s connection with G-d is strengthened. As Maimonides states in The Guide for the Perplexed:

The true worship of G-d is only possible when correct notions of Him have previously been conceived. When you have arrived by way of intellectual research at a knowledge of G-d and His works, then commence to devote yourselves to Him, try to approach Him an strengthen the intellect, which is the link that joins you to Him.

Observance of the ‘mitzvot’ are also, for the ‘אוהב ה',’ a great means to deepened contemplation of G-d as their performance brings to the mind to reflect on certain aspects of G-d’s creation and the forms and patterns within it. As Maimonides states:

We must bear in mind that all such religious acts as reading the Law, praying, and the performance of other precepts, serve exclusively as the means of causing us to occupy and fill our mind with the precepts of G-d, and free it from worldly business; for we are this, as it were, in communication with G-d, and undisturbed by any other thing.

Loving-kindness (‘חסד’), is a fundamental pattern of G-d’s action and the pattern of His creation as He provides for the needs of His creatures. As Maimonides states:

Loving-kindness (‘חסד’) is practiced in two ways: first, we show kindness to those who have no claim to it whatsoever upon us; secondly, we are kind to those to whom it is due, in a greater measure than is due to them. In the prophetic writings the term ‘חסד’ occurs mostly in the sense of showing kindness to those who have no claim to it whatsoever. For this reason the term ‘חסד’ is employed to express the good bestowed upon us by G-d: “I will mention the loving-kindness of the Lord.” On this account, the very act of the creation is an act of G-d’s loving-kindness.

We can see that the act of loving-kindness, when performed by a person, not only assists the recipient of this act, but provides for the person performing the kindness an experience of contemplation and reflection upon this fundamental element of the creation. Specifically, the loving-kindness of G-d for the downtrodden is a fundamental pattern of His creation. Regarding showing ‘חסד’ towards the vulnerable and struggling peoples, Maimonides states in the Mishneh Torah:

A person is obligated to show great care for orphans and widows because their spirits are very low and their feelings are depressed…. How should one deal with them? One should only speak to them gently and treat them only with honor…. There is a covenant between them and He who spoke and created the world that whenever they cry out because they have been wronged, they will be answered as it states, “When they cry out to Me, I will surely hear their cry.”

Loving a convert who has come to nestle under the wings of the ‘Shechinah’ fulfills two positive commandments: one, for he is also included among the ‘neighbors’ whom we are commanded to love; and one because he is a convert and the Torah states, “and you shall love the converts”. Thus G-d has commanded us concerning the love of a convert just as He has commanded us concerning loving Himself as it states: “and you shall love G-d, your Lord.” The Holy One blessed be He, Himself, loves converts as it states, “and He loves converts.”

In imitating this pattern of loving-kindness to the downtrodden, the “אוהב ה'” more deeply contemplates a fundamental pattern of the creation and draws near to the Creator. Therefore, the assistance of the poor through the ‘mitzvah’ of ‘matanot l’evyonim’ is a great joy to the ‘אוהב ה',’ as it brings him to deeply reflect on the great pattern of loving-kindness that G-d has placed in His creation through the structure of the Torah and of nature, in which He provides for the needs of His creatures.

The Connection of Loving-kindness and Matanot L’Evyonim to Purim

A Jew should always strive to draw closer to G-d through study and practice. This should be every Jew’s greatest desire and greatest joy. As we have said, since the practice of taking care of the downtrodden members of ‘Klal Yisrael’ is a central element in the pattern of G-d’s creation (as described in the Torah and through the prophets), it should always be our greatest joy to be involved in this activity and by doing so increase our focus and understanding of this key part of G-d’s creation, drawing us deeper into contemplation of Him. Unfortunately, this joy of understanding G-d’s ‘חסד’ better, by doing our own “חסד” (i.e., acting ‘דומה לשכינה’), is not always at the pinnacle of our desires. Few have reached the level where the contemplation of G-d’s creation and the joy of reflection upon it, fills us with our greatest joy. We are not at the level of ‘אוהבי ה',’ lovers of G-d. Perhaps it is because of this lack that the inclusion of the poor and unfortunate people of the ‘klal’ in our festivities is usually expressed as an obligation, but is not described as our ‘greatest joy.’ But on Purim it is different.

Purim - A Day of Ahahat Hashem for Every Jew

On Purim, “the veils are lifted.” The subtle pattern of G-d‘s hand in the world is glimpsed, and at least temporarily, the state of mind of the ‘אוהב ה',’ can be experienced by all members of ‘Klal Yisrael.’ On Purim, something quite unique happened to the Jewish people. The Jewish people of Persia were estranged from Torah and even joined in the debauchery of Achashverosh’s drinking festival, in which he grossly misused the vessels taken from the Holy Temple. But when Persia’s Jews experienced the unfolding of the Purim drama and how their impending destruction by Haman and “turned on its head” and instead resulted in the destruction of Haman the Amalekite, and the Jews other would-be exterminators, they glimpsed the “hand of God” and were filled with love for their Creator.

Regarding this special quality of Purim, Rabbi Pinchas Stolper writes of his Rebbe, Rav Yitzchok Hutner’s (zt’l) discussions of why Purim will endure as a holiday after the coming of the Messiah, while the other holidays will cease:

When the night of exile will be banished with the rising sun of the coming Messiah, when in the End of Days the presence of the Hand of G-d will be seen in all its strength and glory, G-d’s presence will be so obvious that we will no longer require the “lights” provided by our holidays to enable us to perceive His guiding Hand in historical events. …There is however, one exception. On Purim, during the long night of exile, the Jewish People developed the special talent to recognize G-d’s Providence, even when concealed. This will remain our eternal possession even after the sun of the Redemption will rise.

On the day of Purim we all can, to some extent, glimpse the glory of G-d and experience a day of “ovayd mey ahavah” “serving G-d through love.” Once this transformation comes over us, we long to get closer to G-d. As Maimonides explains, this is done through the contemplation of His creation and the wondrous patterns within it. By imitating these patterns we draw close to Him. On the day of Purim, this is our greatest desire. On Purim we all long to act ‘דומה לשכינה’—similar to the Divine Presence—to help us draw close to G-d. So when we give to the poor and downtrodden on Purim and our act of loving-kindness resembles the acts of G-d we have our greatest joy. We have drawn close to Him through this great mitzvah. Perhaps giving to the poor and reviving their spirits is not our greatest joy on other days. But on this day—a day of love of G-d, of walking with G-d and of imitating G-d to draw close to him—there is nothing that brings us greater ‘simcha.’

We can now explain why Maimonides saw fit to express in the law regarding ‘matanot l’evyonim,’ the concept of acting ‘דומה לשכינה’ in performing this ‘mitzvah’ and it being our greatest joy. On Purim, when we are transformed to a state of ‘אהבת ה',’ similar to the transformation that took place with the Jews of Persia, on this day we long to be close to G-d and to act ‘דומה לשכינה,’ by reviving the spirits of the poor and despairing members of ‘Klal Yisrael.’ This is the core of our Purim ‘simcha’ and our “greatest joy”.

A Final Note

My Rebbe, Rabbi Yisrael Chait, shlita, once mentioned that there is philosophical ‘חסד’ and personal ‘חסד.’ Although, he said, we all want people to be kind to us due to their personal feelings for us; this is not necessarily the best type of ‘חסד’ for either the giver or the receiver. Although it is gratifying to be treated kindly out of personal feelings, when kindness is dependent upon one’s feeling towards another, it is fragile and unpredictable. Love can turn to hate or indifference quickly. The giver can feel unappreciated by the recipient and turn away. The recipient can feel a great debt of personal gratitude, and end up being resentful for owing so much to the giver. Also, when “חסד” is of the personal kind we tend to help those we can identify with; those people who we share some common bond with. People who have experienced a particular hardship are moved to help those going through a similar hardship. This results in many people in great need, who we do not share a common bond with, being left to their suffering and despair with little assistance. This is not the will of God. But, when one acts with “חסד” towards another, with an eye to being ‘דומה לשכינה,’ the giving is not because the recipient is worthy of it, or because the giver expects gratitude or can identify with the recipient. It may not seem as personal but it is, in Rabbi Chait’s opinion, a higher quality of ‘חסד’ for all involved. This philosophical ‘חסד’ is not cold. It does not mean that the giver does not feel compassion and understanding for the receiver‘s unfortunate situation. Without this sensitivity the giver of the ‘חסד’ would not be very effective in helping those in need. What is does mean is that, although these kindly feelings are there, the main motivation for the giving is to act ‘דומה לשכינה,’ and through this action to draw closer to G-d. This higher motivation should also not be confused with those who look to help the most unfortunate because they are seeking some greater reward from G-d for their good works. This motivation of reward is quite different from the longing to draw close to G-d which motivates the ohav Hashem.