Taryag Mitzvos - Part 4: The Final Word…of G-d

Note to email recipients - I have noticed that sometimes the Hebrew text gets scrambled in the email version, mostly on moblie phones. This is due to inconsistencies in HTML rendering. If this occurs, you can see the proper text at the main blog site HERE.

Welcome to the final installment of the Taryag Mitzvos series. If you have not seen the earlier installments, they can be found HERE, HERE and HERE.

Thus far, we have studied the passage in masechet Makkos with the pirush of the Maharsha to understand that the foundation of all of the mitzvos is a single commandment, Emunah (or Yichud Hashem), which is itself comprised of two complementary components, Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. Thereupon we noted that this theme is reflected in certain specific mitzvos and, likewise, in the structure of human society (male and female).

We also said that it is represented in the term Hashem (YKVK) Elokenu-Hashem Echad, then contracted to Hashem (YKVK)-Echad, then we briefly mentioned it is represented in YK-VK and finally in the Yud and Heh of Y-H.

Firstly, I want to elaborate a little more on the idea I rushed through in the previous post – the four-letter shem YKVK where I said that the Y-H represents Anochi (the positive) and V-H represents Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (the negative).  To be a bit more precise, the name Y-H is associated with Bracha and the name V-H is associated with Kellala. How so?

The concept that the name Y-H is a reference to Bracha is fairly obvious based on how often Dovid Hamelech uses this name in praise to Hashem such as:

י-הברכי נפשי את השם, הללו-

And, as the concluding words of sefer Tehillim:

כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה, הללו-י-ה!

The name Y-H is worthy of praise.

Although the name V-H is also worthy of praise, it represents the midas haDin and the “dark side”. This comes from a Midrash in Vayikra Rabba 35:1:

ר' חייא בשם רבי יוחנן אמר חשבתי ברכות וחשבתי קללות. חשבתי ברכות מאלף עד תי"ו. וחשבתי קללות מן וא"ו ועד ה"א ולא עוד אלא שהן הפוכות

Rabi Chiya said in the name of Rabi Yochanan: "I calculated blessings and I calculated curses. I calculated blessings from Aleph to Tav. And I calculated curses from Vav to Heh. And not only this, but they are reversed (Vav before the Heh)."

The meaning of this Midrash is that the blessing part of Parshat Bechukosai begins with ם בחוקתי תלכוא– starts with an Aleph. It ends ואולך אתכם קוממיות  – ends with a Tav. This tells us that the Bracha is complete and all-encompassing from Aleph to Tav.

However, the Kelala part starts as follows: ואם לא תשמעו לי – starts with a Vav. It ends הבהר סיני ביד מש – it ends with the letter Heh. So the Kelala begins with Vav and ends with Heh (V-H). If we leave it this way, it goes around the entire aleph-bet. But, if we want to, we can reverse it so it only has space between Heh and Vav to take effect. Not much space at all – so not much Kelala.

This is also represented by the pasukim in Parshat Re’eh:

ראה אנכי נתן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה. את הברכה אשר תשמעו... והקללה, אם לא תשמעו...

Bracha from Aleph to Tav (A-Z) and Kelala from Vav to Heh.

So the Y-H part of the name represents the Bracha that we get if we keep our faith in Hashem and fulfill the Mitzvos Aseh – Anochi Hashem.

The V-H part represents the Kelala that we may, chas v’shalom, get if we lose faith in Hashem and fall to idolatry and transgress all of the Mitzvos Lo Taaseh – Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

Let us review the newly expanded list of Anochi/LoYihiyeh impersonators:

Emunah – Yichud Hashem
Anochi Hashem	Lo Yihiyeh Lecha
Positive mitzvos	Negative mitzvos
Aseh Tov	Sur MeRah
Hashem E-loheinu	Hashem Echad
Hashem	Echad
T’chelet	White
Zachor	Shamor
Weekday	Shabbat
Yud-Heh	Vav-heh
Bracha (Har Gerizim)	Kelala (Har Eval)
Yud	Heh
Man (ish)	Woman (isha)
(Acquiring) Olam Haba	(Preserving) Olam HaZeh

What is the chareidi Jews supposed to make of all this?

Want my opinion? (Don’t answer!) I think the lesson is that it applies to everything. I mean absolutely everything!

In the eyes – and heart – of a chareidi, every single activity or conscious inactivity can be characterized as a fulfillment of Anochi or a transgression of Lo Yihiyeh. This is not restricted to what is listed among the 248 positive mitzvos and the 365 negative mitzvos, it applies to anything that a Jew does or refrains from doing. If the activity serves to display loyalty to HKBH and to bring the individual closer to fulfilling his ultimate purpose, he is fulfilling Anochi. As we saw in Part I, any complete unmitigated fulfillment of Anochi is an Admit One ticket to Hashem’s world. If the activity is not one of loyalty, it is ipso facto one of disloyalty that serves to distance the individual from Hashem, thus, a transgression of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. It is an invitation to be shunned by HKBH and left to the forces of keri (chance).

Thus, HKBH says to us: Im b’chukotai teileichu – If you are to walk within my statutes, if you fulfill Anochi, then…And I will walk in your midst, and I will be for you for [a] G-d.

This is one of G‑d’s utterances for us all to hear. But He is not finished, He has a second utterance: V’im b’chukotai timaasu – And if in my statutes you will display loathing; and if your souls will repulse my judgments; to desist from performing all of my mitzvos for you to nullify my covenant.

What commandment did we learn is G-d’s version of all of my mitzvos?

That’s right, it’s Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. Only, to be a bit scarier, according to the Maharsha, any individual mitzvah, or even action, can be a transgression of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. Hence, to Hashem, that single transgression or undesirable activity can be deemed as not performing all of my mitzvos. Then what?

...I will likewise walk with you in happenstance (keri) and I will also smite you sevenfold in accordance to your sins.

Well, what do you know? We have come full circle to the credo of the chareidim, One Above and Seven Below.

The sincere chareidi takes all this very much to heart. Everything he does is either a fulfillment of Anochi or a transgression of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.  This means that when a Jew eats, he is either fulfilling Anochi or transgressing Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. The distinction is based, not only on what he eats, but on where, when, how, and why he is eating it. Any of these prepositions can account for the distinction between fulfilling Anochi or transgressing Lo Yihiyeh Lecha; but he is doing one or the other, never is he doing neither.

The same applies to what comes out of the mouth. It is not only what he says but where, when, how, and why he says it. Both work and play must be either a fulfillment of Anochi or a transgression of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. There is no middle ground. Here again the factors are what he is doing together with where, when, how, and why. Every time he sleeps, every time he cohabitates, again, either Anochi or Lo Yihiyeh - one or the other.  And, yet again, every time a coin or bill comes out of his pocket – or goes into it.

This idea is liable to make someone a wee bit anxious (חרד לדבר השם), don’t you think?

That is why chareidim are chareidi.

Are we done, yet? Just about. I have one final correlation (heard from HRHG Rav Asher Weiss, Shlita).

Every chareidi Jew is taught from his youth that his actions throughout his life must engender one trait: ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל (And I will be sanctified among the Children of Israel – Vayikra 22:32). This is the great mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem. In general, it means that every Jew is a representative of the Creator of the universe and his commitment to embodying this role must be so resolute that he must guard the honor of Hashem’s great Name with his very life. This mitzvah also comes with a complementary counterpart: ולא תחללו את שם קדשי (You shall not desecrate My Holy Name). This is commonly referred to as Chillul Hashem. Any action that might besmirch the honor of G‑d’s name must be avoided at all costs, even under total duress. No price is too high.

In the initial description, this obligation is only enforced in specific extreme circumstances. One need only forfeit his life to refrain from transgressing the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry (the literal Lo Yihiyeh Lecha), and immorality. At a second level, we are taught that during a time of heretical decrees one must forfeit his life to refrain from transgressing any law or even an established custom such as to alter the Jewish mode of dress. All of the particulars of these obligations are enumerated by Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:1-9. After composing nine articles of law that describe what, where, when, and how of the Jew’s obligation to offer the ultimate sacrifice (as well as when it is forbidden), Rambam adds a catch-all article (5:10):

Any person who willfully and without duress transgresses on any one of all the mitzvos that are stated in the Torah with a haughty disposition to provoke [G‑d], this is a desecration of His Name (mechalel et Hashem)… And, similarly, anyone who abstains from a transgression or who performs a [single] mitzvah not for any [personal] reason at all, not for fear, or for awe, or for the quest for [personal] honor, but rather, only for the honor of the Creator, Blessed is He, … this is one who is sanctifying the Name [of G‑d].

This assertion of Rambam seems to parallel the assertion he made in Pirush Mishnayos in Makkos. Any one mitzvah, when executed impeccably, is a complete manifestation of Yichud Hashem and carries the status of a Kiddush Hashem and ensures the individual of his share of Olam Habah. It is as if he performed all of the mitzvos of the Torah. Conversely, any single transgression is a strain of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. When it occurs due to carelessness or craving, it is viewed as a lost opportunity that can be rectified with teshuva. However, if it is performed wantonly and without duress, with the knowledge of its severity, it is a full-fledged commission of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha and a desecration of Hashem’s Name, a chillul Hashem. It is as if the individual has transgressed the entire Torah. A willful chillul Hashem cannot be fully atoned for in this world.

So now, once again, let us review the final cut of the parallel concepts to Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha:

Emunah – Yichud Hashem
Anochi Hashem	Lo Yihiyeh Lecha
Positive mitzvos	Negative mitzvos
Aseh Tov	Sur MeRah
Hashem E-loheinu	Hashem Echad
Hashem	Echad
T’chelet	White
Zachor	Shamor
Weekday	Shabbat
Yud-Heh	Vav-heh
Bracha (Har Gerizim)	Kelala (Har Eval)
Yud	Heh
Man (ish)	Woman (isha)
(Acquiring) Olam Haba	(Preserving) Olam HaZeh
Im B’Chukotai Teleichu	V’Im B’Chukotai Timaasu
V’ Nikdashti (Kiddush Hashem)	V’Lo TiChalilu (Chillul Hashem)

What a list!

In the Introductory chapter of One Above and Seven Below, I opened with the following question:

Hear the word of G-d, those who are anxious (chareidim) toward his word…(Yeshaya 66:5).

We asked: What should the chareidim hear? What is the word of G-d?

We now have a possible answer to this question. In true Jewish style, let us answer the question with a question:

How often has G-d ever spoken to all of us?

Just once.

And what did He say?

He said Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

וארשתיך לי באמונה - וידעת את השם

Taryag Mitzvos – Part 3: How Goodly are your Tents

Welcome back for Part 3 of Taryag Mitzvos. Let us briefly review the previous parts.

In Part 1 we discussed that from the perspective of HKBH there is only one primary mitzvah and this is the mitzvah of Emunah (or Yichud Hashem) – to believe in Him. Of course, one can only profess to believe in an Entity if there are alternatives. As such, the mitzva has to have a negative side which is not to believe in any possible alternative.

These are the two primary mitzvos of Anochi Hashem Elokecha and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha elohim Acherim.

All the rest of the positive mitzvos are manifestations of Anochi Hashem and all the rest of the negative mitzvos are manifestations of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

In Part 2 we discussed that these two basic elements are represented in the words of Krias Shema: Hashem Elokenu (Anochi Hashem) and Hashem Echad (Lo Yihiyeh Lecha). We went further to say that even just the two words, Hashem Echad, can represent the two elements. Hashem is to believe in Hashem (Anochi) and Echad is to believe only in Hashem (Lo Yihiyeh Lecha). We went on to say that these two elements are represented both in the techeiles and white of the tzitzis and in the Zachor and Shamor of Shabbos.

We can now review the list of positive/negative characters:

Emunah – Yichud Hashem
Anochi Hashem	Lo Yihiyeh Lecha
Positive mitzvos	Negative mitzvos
Aseh Tov	Sur MeRah
Hashem E-loheinu	Hashem Echad
Hashem	Echad
Techeilet	White
Zachor	Shamor
Weekday	Shabbos

Can we add to this list? (Please, no!)

Well, call me cruel (I’ve heard worse), but I am not dismissing the audience just yet.

Thus far we have extracted our two elements (Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha) from the expression Hashem Elokenu-Hashem Echad and then claimed we can extract these elements just from the phrase Hashem Echad. In this stage, we will suggest that perhaps we can extract the two elements merely from Hashem (i.e., Y-H-V-H). This means that the first half of the shem, Y-H, will represent Anochi and the second half, V-H, will represent Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

I will only very briefly elaborate on this idea by saying that the term “KaH” (Y-H) represents Bracha which is the positive aspect and comes from doing positive mitzvos and V-H represents Kelala which is the negative aspect and comes from transgressing negative mitzvos. This is more relevant to the upcoming final segment (Part 4) so I will cut it short now and explain it in more detail in Part 4. I am only mentioning it as a stepping-stone to the next step and this is – you guessed it – to extract the two elements merely from the first half of the shem, i.e., the two letters Yud and Heh.

It’s time to get a bit personal. Here goes:

In Part 1, we analyzed the statement of Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya (Makkos 23b) that G‑d wished to confer merit upon the Jewish people and, accordingly, He loaded us up with all kinds of virtue-heavy mitzvos and an inexhaustible program of Torah study and, as such, we are never lacking for scoring opportunities. We may not help but notice that this system seems to bypass a significant portion of the population (possibly the majority): those of the female persuasion.

Cherchez la femme!

Evidently, women have a very meager connection to the positive mitzvos. Indeed, there are but three positive mitzvos that are designated specifically for women (Challah, Nidah, and Neros) and two forms of obligatory korbanos. They are required to partake in matzo and marror on Pesach, kiddush on Friday nights, havdalah, birkat hamazon and mezuzah. (The issue of tefillah is a bit complicated.) They are also obligated in the Rabbinical mitzvos of megillah, Chanuka lights, four cups of wine on Pesach, and brachos. After these, the pickings are slim since women are exempt from many positive mitzvos and from Torah study, and are removed, although not really exempt, from many mitzvos that involve commerce, agriculture and warfare since they do not normally engage in these things.

Clearly, Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya’s uplifting homily does not endow the women with the full range of benefits. Could it be, as some feminists assert, that G-d is interested in a discriminatory system of virtue in an effort to bar women from Olam Habah?

I believe that most of us would consider such a notion patently ridiculous. Moreover, this assertion can hold true only if one believes that men and women are two distinct competing species of human-kind who manage to cohabitate when the conditions for such happen to be favorable. Furthermore, such an opinion relies on the assumption that G-d ‘Himself’ can be characterized as male in a biological sense. (See Shmos 15:3 and Rashi.)

Ironically, these (mis)conceptions are promoted mostly by those who consider themselves as liberal and egalitarian. Remember the old bumper sticker: “When G-d created man, She was only kidding!”?

The “chauvinistic” chareidim believe otherwise.

To review the question, I am asking that if, like Rabi Chananya ben Akashya, the purpose of such an extensive list of mitzvos is to give us maximal opportunity to merit Olam Habah, why are women “short-changed” and denied a large share of this opportunity? (Note – I am not asking, as the gemara in Berachos 17a asks, how do women merit Olam Habah if they have so few obligations? - but rather, why is it that they were not given as much opportunity as were the men?)

Numerous rabbinical scholars explain that men were created to civilize this world by engaging in industry, production, commerce, mastering the sciences, and, when necessary, warfare. To this end, it was necessary for Hashem to imbue man with fierce and passionate drives to motivate him to reach his full potential. These drives generally fall into three categories of lust: lust for wealth (kinah ­- envy), lust for physical pleasure (taavah - craving), and lust for glory and fame (kavod - honor).

Although these drives cause man to succeed in life, they are simultaneously tremendous obstacles for self-discipline and for forging a path to HKBH. To compensate for this shortcoming, Hashem gave us [men] a full spectrum of “channels” to Him in the hope that every man will find at least one that can suit him.

Conversely, women were not meant to be the instigators of all the above achievements and, therefore, there was no need for Hashem to instill in women these lustful drives at the same scale as men. As such, their conduit to G-d is not laden with obstacles to the same degree; hence, they have no need for such a full range of mitzvos.

While this explanation seems to adequately explain why it is not necessary that women should be as burdened as the men, it still falls somewhat short of explaining why they are held back from performing many of the mitzvos and getting reward. Of course, based on the response of the gemara in Berachos that I (parenthetically) alluded to earlier - that women merit Gan Eden by means of supporting, encouraging and enabling their menfolk to study and perform mitzvos - it follows that women are actually not excluded from any mitzvos, but rather, can be active participants in a supporting role. Still this avenue entails being fully dependent on the achievements of the men who, to be fair, do not always get the job done; and so I ask, why is it that women do not have their own access to these channels?

Perhaps, the rudiments of the Maharsha and the trend of our discussion can satisfy this question, as well.

Many readers may be familiar with the following discourse since it is a very popular generic “vordt” that is frequently presented at sheva berachos celebrations:

The gemara in Sota 17a states:

Man (Ish - איש) and Woman (Isha - אשה) - if they are worthy, G-d is with them; if they are unworthy, a fire (אש) consumes them.

Rashi explains that the Hebrew spelling of the word ish (man) is Aleph-Yud-Shin. The Hebrew spelling of the word isha (woman) is Aleph-Shin-Heh. They are essentially the same root, except that the man has a Yud and the woman has a Heh. The Hebrew letters Yud and Heh comprise an abbreviated version of Hashem’s name (KaH).

When man and woman are worthy, i.e., they conduct their relationship according to the Will of Hashem, they sustain G‑d’s presence between them and the letters Yud and Heh of Hashem’s name that He contributes to their essence is preserved and, in turn, preserves them.

If they are unworthy, He withdraws His presence and thereby withdraws the Yud that is His contribution to man and the Heh that is His contribution to woman. In both cases, the resulting essence are the Hebrew letters Aleph and Shin which spell out the Hebrew word esh אש (fire) to indicate that their relationship will transform into a fire of rage and consume them.

Typically, the homily ends here and the speaker goes on to hurriedly wrap up his speech and convey his blessings to the newlywed couple before the non-dairy frozen dessert completely melts into oblivion. But, for us chareidim, it may be a tad bit too soon to relax and enjoy the dessert. The discourse continues (I heard this from Rav Elya Svei, ZT”L at a sheva brachos):

Why exactly is it that, of the two special divine letters, the man is bequeathed the Yud and the woman is bequeathed the Heh?

For this we must study a passage in masechet Menachot 29b:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked of Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of the pasuk (Yeshaya 26:4), בטחו בה' עדי עד כי בי-ה ה' צור עולמים  

Have trust in G‑d for all Eternity for with Ya-H (the abbreviated name of G‑d that consists of a Yud and a Heh) G‑d has formed worlds…?

This concurs with the drasha of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rav Iloyi who expounded, “These are the two worlds that the Holy One created – Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba – one of which was created with the letter Heh (ה) and the other was created with the letter Yud (י); but I still cannot determine if the World to Come was created with a Yud and the present world was created with a Heh or vice-versa. When we find the pasuk (Breishis 2:4), These are the products of the heavens and the earth (i.e., this world) in the course of their creation (b’hibaraam) … and we expound “Do not read the word as b’hibaraam (in the course of their creation), but rather b’Heh baraam (with the letter Heh they were created)” I now understand that it is the present world that was created with the Heh and, consequently, the World to Come is created with the Yud.

And why was the present world created with a Heh? Because this world resembles a three-sided structure (i.e., a structure with a roof but with less than four walls that is not fully enclosed) that whoever wishes to exit may do so…and why is the World to Come created with a Yud? To symbolize that the righteous who inhabit it are few in number (as the letter Yud is the smallest of all Hebrew letters)…

Thus far, we understand that the letter Yud is symbolic of the Olam Habah and that the letter Heh is symbolic of Olam Hazeh. Now, let us note a passage in masechet Bava Metzia 59a:

And Rav said: All those who follow the counsel of their wives will eventually fall into Gehinnom as is written…Said Rav Pappa to Abaye: Is there not a popular adage, “If your wife is petite, [it is advisable to] bend over to whisper to her [to seek her opinion]”? This is not contradictory! This statement [of Rav] is regarding [outside] worldly matters, this statement [of Rav Pappa] is regarding household matters. Another version: This statement [of Rav] is regarding heavenly matters, this statement [of Rav Pappa] is regarding present-world matters.

If we consider the second version of the gemara’s solution, we can perceive a deeper reason why HKBH created mankind in two genders, male and female. (Of course, this is necessary for biological reasons, but the question is why such divergent personalities?)

Man (note - in this segment, I am being gender neutral referring to both male and female combined with the term “man” – this includes pronouns such as “he” and “him” or “his” and it holds true for the next six paragraphs) must simultaneously manage his status in two worlds – Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba.

His (and her) mission in Olam Hazeh is to maintain and enhance [quality of] life for himself and others. He does not need to actively acquire life or a life sustaining world as they are both already here. His job is to preserve this world and the life it supports. In short, his mission in regard to this world is a passive one of shemira (guarding or preserving) as is signified by the white of the tzitzis. In this world, Lo Yihiyeh dominates – do not do what is destructive to your existence.

Additionally, he (and she) has a second mission – to make use of this Olam Hazeh and his allotment of life to create and build an afterlife, an Olam Haba. This World to Come must be created and life therein must be earned. This is the zechira and assiya that is signified by the techeiles in the tzitzis that indicates that there is something active that must be done. This is dominated by Anochi – I am G-d who extricated you from the Land of Egypt to be your G-d. Come close to Me and prolong (immortalize) your existence.

The gemara in Berachos 61a states that initially the first Man was a man and woman fused together. One reason for this is that the Torah tells us that Man was created in G‑d’s image. This can be understood in a physical sense that just as Hashem is One and is neither distinctly male nor female but a (The) complete indivisible all-encompassing Being, the original Man was also a single complete physical being.

However, Man cannot be G‑d and Man cannot be One (capital "O"), Man is merely “one”. He who is One (HKBH) can think all thoughts, utter all words, hear all sounds, and be all places as One. He who is “one” (Man) can think one thought, utter one word, hear one sound, and be in only one place at any one time. Likewise, he can only focus his efforts on one goal at any given time. Yet, he has two missions or, as is the trend of this series, one complementary two-fold mission.

This two-fold mission is a bit too heavy for “one” Man to handle. G-d understands this and proclaims, “It is not good for Man to be by himself, I shall make for him a complement (ezer) who will be opposite him (kenegdo).”

Evidently, a two-fused-into-one being can only exist in G‑d’s realm where Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh are One and Zachor and Shamor are One (and, I suppose, white and techeiles are One) but not in this world where everything is merely “one”. Consequently, as with everything else we discussed, G‑d has to break down the intact entity into two sub-units and so He does. He makes “one” Man into two people: male and female – ish and isha.

Although they both have the same attributes of humans – intelligence, power of speech, free will, emotions, and consciously guided activities – they are designated for two distinct, yet complementary, purposes.

To the woman, the isha אש[ה], Hashem contributes the Heh, the Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. This is to signify that her primary function is to manage the shamor, the preservation of the integrity of this world. To the man, the ish א[י]ש, He contributes the Yud, the Anochi. This is to signify that his primary purpose is to enact the zachor and assiya, to create and acquire a share of the Eternal world.

True, both man and woman are cautioned to observe all the negative mitzvos. Nevertheless, man’s job is to distance himself from material involvement as if every day is Yom Kippur. Ideally, he should strive to live a life like Rabi Shimon bar Yochai who spent 13 years in a cave with no clothes, no gadgets, no women, and the barest minimum of food. In such a setting, negative commandments are a moot point as there is barely any opportunity to sin. He should focus on Torah study and the active performance of positive mitzvos. (Of course, he needs to get married.)

The woman has no such stipulation to engulf herself in “holiness”. She is entitled to and, as I am saying, expected to, spend the bulk of her time facing the challenges of the material world. Indeed, just as the woman is distanced, i.e., “out of proximity”, from the positive mitzvos, the man is meant to be distanced (out of proximity) from the negative mitzvos.

Thus we note that the complementary relationship between man and woman cannot be simply stated that he is the scholar (and/or breadwinner) and that she is the homemaker (and/or breadwinner), whereupon they combine their talents and mix and match their responsibilities to form a viable team. Rather, they are, each one, specifically groomed to specialize in a different phase of our two-phased objective. Hence, the gemara states that if they are worthy, they will complement each other (ezer); but if they are unworthy, they will instead become opponents (kenegdo).

Just as an army has ground forces and air forces and sea forces that do not oppose each other, but rather, complement each other, and that is what enables the army to succeed, so too, a man/woman union has Olam Hazeh forces and Olam Haba forces that are meant to complement each other and not oppose each other. It is only in this way that they can succeed as an integrated whole. It is obvious that the ground forces have no need for planes and the air forces have no need for tanks.

Woman, in her role as the complement (ezer) of Man, has no need for tzitzis, tefillin, minyanim and public Torah reading, sukka and lulav, etc., as they in no way assist her to accomplish her part of the joint mission. If a woman feels incomplete without assuming an active role in these activities, it is most likely because she is not successfully involved in a complementary relationship with her male counterpart (or does not have one). 

In such a situation, where Man does not live up to the obligations that are signified by the Yud and/or Woman does not preserve the integrity of the Heh, G‑d withdraws His deposit, the Yud and Heh, and goes Home. The couple has failed at their joint mission of creating and earning a World to Come. The alternative world is a world of fire.

Techeiles 6 and Taryag Mitzvos-Part 2: Hashem Echad

I still have not directly addressed the objections of HRHG Rav Yisroel Reisman, Shlita on the validity of the Murex trunculus snail. This will, b’li neder, be addressed in an upcoming post.

Since it is Parshat Shelach Lecha here in Eretz Yisroel, I thought I would write about why this topic is so important.

The proponents of the Murex techeiles are pushing the product on the pretext of the “opportunity” (or obligation) to fulfill the mitzvah in shleimus. But few of us really understand, nor appreciate, what this really means. What is techeiles and why is it so important? After all, the Mishna in Menachos tells us that it is not מעכב the mitzvah. So what is all the hullabaloo about?

Coincidentally, the answer to this question was elucidated in my book in Part 2 of the chapter about Taryag Mitzvos (Getting to the Heart of the Matter). Therefore, this segment has dual loyalties. If you have not already read Part 1, please do.

Here we go:

In Part 1 we discussed that, in reality, we only have two mitzvos: the positive commandment of Anochi Hashem and the negative commandment of Lo Yihiye Lecha. As Hillel says, all the rest are the “details”. In G-d’s realm, all of the mitzvos are one (Loyalty or Yichud Hashem via Anochi/Lo Yihiyeh), so we can accurately construe that G-d’s oneness fuses all of the specific mitzvos together. In our earthly realm, each mitzvah takes on a distinct characteristic and is relegated to its specific time, place, and constituency. Yet, Chazal tell us of certain mitzvos that apply to all of us (men, at least) and their intrinsic value is, of itself, equivalent to all of the other individual mitzvos. On this note, three mitzvos are singled out for special recognition: Shabbos, Tzitzis, reciting the Krias Shema. (Note – There may be a few others and, of course, we always say Talmud Torah k’neged kulam, but these three are interrelated as we shall see.)

Why are these three so special?

Based on our discussion, the answer is self-explanatory - but I will explain it, anyhow: they all explicitly symbolize Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh.

First, let us examine the Shema. 

In chapter 3 of my book, I noted that the recital of Shema is a realization of ameilus b’Torah and that it can single-handedly entitle the reciter to the accompanying benefits. At that point, I was at a loss trying to explain why the reciting of the Shema is such a potent feat. But now, once we have determined that the entire body of mitzvos is the advancement of the concepts of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh, we notice that this declaration encapsulates this ideal, and does so repeatedly.

Hence, the opening line:

Shema Yisrael – Hear O Israel
Hashem E-lokeinu – Hashem is our G-d	>>>>	Anochi Hashem E-lokecha – I am Hashem your G-d
Hashem Echad – G-d is One	>>>>	Lo Yiheyeh Lecha elohim acheirim – There shall not for be for you any other gods before me

Here we have it, all 613 mitzvos in one breath. We have just now recited the complete body of Law as it exists in G-d’s realm. This is clearly expressed in Mishna Berura O”Ch 61:1 MB 2.

Let us examine the three parshiot of Krias Shema.

In the first paragraph of Shema, we dwell a bit on this ethereal concept that we must love G-d with all our heart, soul, and strength and we must study the Torah and teach it to our children. Although this paragraph introduces to us the mitzvos of tefillin and mezuza as a way of affirming our commitment, it really makes no mention of any general requirement for performing physical mitzvos. This is because, in this paragraph, we are discussing the mitzvah at the ‘receiving end’. There is but one two-part mitzvah and it is not physical. Indeed, in many prayer books, it is annotated that when reciting the first paragraph of Shema one should bear in mind that he is fulfilling the mitzvah of Yichud Hashem as well as Kabbalas Ohl Malchus Shamayim (acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven).

The second paragraph brings us down to our neck of the woods. Here HKBH speaks to us in our physical language and tells us what we must do "over here" to fulfill the one mitzvah "over there". There are three parts to this diktat: (a) the requirement to fulfill positive mitzvos – to love G‑d and to serve Him (Anochi) - and the reward for compliance, (b) the admonition against transgressing negative mitzvos – the focus is on worshipping foreign powers (Lo Yihiyeh) – and the punishment for said transgression, and (c) a repetition of the requirement to study the Torah, to teach it to your children and to post these instructions on one’s person (tefillin) and on the doorposts (mezuzah). For this paragraph, the user-friendly prayer books instruct us to bear in mind Kabbalas Ohl Mitzvos (acceptance of the yoke of obligation to fulfill the mitzvos).

Finally, we recite the passage of the mitzvah of tzitzis. The gemara in Berachos (12b) asks why this paragraph qualifies as the closing paragraph of the declaration of Shema (perhaps it is bothered that it does not deal with the generalities of love of G-d and of studying and teaching Torah.) The gemara answers that the parsha of tzitzis features five matters that one must internalize on a daily basis – (1) the mitzvah of tzitzis, (2) recalling the exodus from Egypt, (3) acceptance of the yoke of performing mitzvos, (4) the prohibition to entertain thoughts of kefira and avoda zara, and (5) not to entertain thoughts of sinfulness. 

Despite this five-point list, Rambam cites only two of these features – numbers 2 and 3 (in reverse order) – as the primary reasons for including this parsha in the Shema. Specifically, to explain why Chazal appended this parsha to the other two parshiot, he remarks that this paragraph “also entails the command to recollect all of the mitzvos” (Feature #3). In his following Halacha, he validates why we recite this third parsha even at night by explaining that it mentions the exodus from Egypt (Feature #2) and, by reciting this passage with the Shema on a daily and nightly basis, we fulfill our obligation to “recollect the day of your exodus from the Land of Egypt all of the days of your lives”.

Of these two qualifications that are cited by Rambam, Keseph Mishna seems to favor the second qualification as the more comprehensive one since he asks why Rambam even bothers to cite the first qualification. He answers that the second qualification serves to explain only the significance of reciting this parsha but it does not explain in what way this passage is linked to the other two. The first explanation illustrates how this passage is related.

I thought it a bit curious that according to Rambam, and more so in light of the comments of Keseph Mishna, the first of the five features that the gemara mentions as to why this parsha is included – the basic mitzvah of tzitzis – being completely left out, does not seem to figure significantly (or at all) into the equation. Additionally, the gist of Keseph Mishna’s comment (why does Rambam cite the first qualification?) seems to suggest that Rambam’s first qualification by itself would be insufficient cause to include this parsha. Perhaps it is because, although this parsha “also entails the command to recollect all of the mitzvos”, it would still be only a “distant relative” to the first two paragraphs since there are other pasukim that underscore this concept that are much closer in proximity (i.e., in sefer Devarim and not in Bamidbar) and linguistic style to the other two – in other words, there are “closer” relatives (for example Devarim 7:12).

Our current trend of thought, however, casts a new light upon this matter and helps us to realize that this parsha may be more closely related to the first two than it appears and that the concept of the tzitzis is vitally significant.

The Torah commands that the tzitzis should include a string of t’cheiles. Thereupon, one should gaze upon the tzitzis and thereby “recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem”.

How does the tzitzis inspire one to recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem?

Herein lays a dispute between Rashi and Ramban. Rashi posits that the gematria of the word tzitzis is 600. The traditional number of strings (after they are doubled) is eight and the traditional number of knots is five. 600 + 8 + 5 = 613 or the total number of mitzvos.

Ramban is not comfortable with this explanation because (a) the Torah’s spelling of the word tzitzis omits the second ‘Yud’ thus reducing our numerical count by ten and (b) the number of strings and knots, although they are traditional, are not mandatory. Ramban opines that the impetus for recollection is the string of blue wool as the word t’cheiles is a consonantal of the word tachlis which means "all encompassing purpose’"  Furthermore, he quotes the gemara in Menachos 43b that states that the reason for the color blue is that “t’cheiles resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory”.

The words of these Rishonim are sufficient to us and “kol hamosif goreah”. Yet, if I may be so bold, I wish to suggest two additional ideas, in line with our discussion; one is a complement to Rashi’s opinion and the other is a complement to Ramban.

Idea #1 – We have just previously stated that the entire body of mitzvos from G-d’s realm is condensed into the two mitzvos that were heard directly from Hashem: Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. We further stated that Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha are themselves condensed into the two phrases of the opening line of Shema: Hashem E-lokeinu (Anochi) and Hashem Echad (Lo Yihiyeh). There is room to suggest that these two edicts can be further condensed into the two words – Hashem Echad: Hashem ≈ Anochi Hashem and Echad ≈ Lo Yihiyeh elohim acheirim.

Aside from the tradition of five knots and eight strings, there is also a tradition to the number of coils between each knot. The accepted Ashkenazi custom is the following order (see Note): Top knot → 7 coils → Second knot → 8 coils → Third knot → 11 coils → Fourth knot → 13 coils → Fifth knot. The most popular explanation for this sequence of coils is that the first three groups, 7 + 8 + 11, add up to 26 which is the numerical equivalent to the four letter name of G-d (the one that appears in Shema which we mask by colloquially saying “Hashem”). The last group, 13, is the numerical equivalent of the word “Echad”. Hence, the 39 coils in total say to us “Hashem (26) Echad (13)” which, according to my thesis, is a condensed version of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. Ergo, we have a reminder of all of the mitzvos "of Hashem" - of which, there are only two: Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

(Note - The Sephardim have a different tradition for sequence of coils so this idea won’t apply to them. I thought it sort of fanciful that this idea works in consonance with Rashi’s “gematria” explanation as Rashi was Ashkenazi. Ramban, who opts for the more “colorful” explanation (Idea #2), was Sephardi.)

Idea #2 – Rav Chaim of Volozhin in Ruach HaChaim in Avos (3:1) makes the following observation: The gemara in Menachos 43b (the Chazal that Ramban is referring to) sets out to explain why, of all colors, t’cheiles (light blue) is chosen for the special string? The gemara does not bother to first ask why it is that any special colored string is mandated to complement the white strings in the first place. The implication is that, in the eyes of Chazal, the impetus for having one colored string in the company of uncolored strings is patently obvious, the only question is: why this particular color? He asks, what, then, is the impetus that was so obvious to the sages of the Talmud?

He goes on to explain that the purpose of the tzitzis is to cause us to recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem. We know that there are two forms of mitzvos – positive and negative. Positive mitzvos entail some form of action. With this action we create, build, or remedy some spiritual entity that must be created, built, or rectified. A positive mitzvah is often referred to as an assiah (action or deed), but, additionally, is characterized as the manifestation of a זכירה zechira (commemoration). Negative mitzvos entail restraint. With this restraint we obstruct a potentially dangerous force – which would come about if we commit the prohibited act – that would damage or destroy a ‘healthy’ spiritual entity. In other words, we fulfill negative mitzvos by protecting or guarding what is spiritually intact against destruction (kilkul). A negative mitzvah is referred to as a שמירה shemira (safeguard).

White represents what is spiritually pure, clean, and intact. It says to us that we must stand on guard and protect the white from becoming sullied or colored. Color (any color) represents the converse of white. It is something that contains some degree of darkness, something that is spiritually “tainted”, something that is not completely pure or intact, something that requires tikkun. Color says to us that we must do something positive to dispel the darkness and to bring it closer to white. In this way, the white strings represent all of the negative mitzvos that are characterized as a shemira from kilkul. The colored strings represent all of the positive mitzvos that demand some form of zechira (and assiah) to enact a spiritual tikkun.

Now we understand why it is so fundamentally essential that one string must be colored and the remainder should be white. It is by gazing on this contrast of color against the white that we can simultaneously recollect all of the mitzvos of G-d – i.e., the negative mitzvos represented by the white strings and the positive mitzvos represented by the colored string. This was well understood by the sages of the Talmud. Their only question was why, of all colors, was t’cheiles the color of choice to represent the positive mitzvos? To this they answer that t’chelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory.

With this explanation we can look at the words of the parsha of tzitzis with added clarity. The parsha states:

“…and you shall place on the ציצת at the edge a string of t’cheiles. And it will be for you for a ציצת and you will view it and you will recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem and you will perform them and you shall not explore after your hearts and after your eyes, as you are prone to following after them. In order that you should recollect and perform all of my mitzvos and be holy for your G-d. I am Hashem your G-d that I have redeemed you from the Land of Egypt; I am Hashem your G-d.”

And you shall place on – along with - the ציצת –the white strings that comprise the ציצת – a string of t’cheiles - a string of a contrasting color which is to be colored t’cheiles. And it will be for you for a ציצת – the white and the t’cheiles combined – and you will view it – the contrast of blue on white – and you will recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem – both the positive and the negative mitzvos - and you will perform them - the color will inspire you to carry out the zechira and the assiah and to perform the positive mitzvos - and you shall not explore after your hearts and after your eyes, as you are prone to following after them – the white will enjoin you to observe the shemira and not to transgress on the negative mitzvos. The pasuk repeats: In order that you should recollect (tizkor) and perform (va’assitem) all of my mitzvos – zechira/assiah, the positive mitzvos - and be holy for your G‑d – shemira, the negative mitzvos. I am Hashem your G-d that I have redeemed you from the Land of Egypt – Anochi Hashem E-lohecha asher hotzeiticha…; I am Hashem your G‑d – Lo Yihiyeh elohim acheirim.

As I indicated, the first of these two ideas, the one that deals with numerical symbolism, is akin to Rashi’s explanation which is, likewise, premised on gematrios. The second idea which focuses on the supplement of the blue colored string is akin to Ramban who, likewise, emphasizes this feature. But, aside from that, within the scope of our discussion, there is another quite noteworthy distinction between these two ideas. The first one describes how the tzitzis remind us of all of G‑d’s mitzvos, i.e., G‑d’s two spiritual mitzvos of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh as represented by the phrase “Hashem Echad”. The second idea describes how the tzitzis remind us of all of G‑d’s mitzvos, i.e., the physical positive and negative mitzvos that exist in our realm.

We can now turn our attention to the third “special” mitzvah – the keeping of Shabbos. Two concepts that we “discovered” in connection to the tzitzis come back to visit us when we examine the essence of Shabbos. The first is that the positive mitzvos, the Anochi, are characterized as a zechira and that the negative mitzvos, the Lo Yihiyeh Lecha, are characterized as a shemira. The second concept is the significance of the number 39 as the numerical value of the phrase Hashem Echad which we posited as a reference to Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh fused together.

In the first version of the Luchos, the fourth item reads, “Remember (Zachor) the day of Shabbos to sanctify it.” In the second version of the Luchos, it reads, “Guard (Shamor) the day of Shabbos to sanctify it.” Chazal explain that when HKBH uttered this mitzvah to Moshe (which only occurred once), He sounded both words in a single utterance “what a human mouth cannot pronounce and what a human ear cannot discern”. If Man cannot perceive such an utterance, what is achieved thereby?

Here, once again, HKBH is “laying down the law” on His terms (more accurately – using His terms). We are taught that Shabbos observance is an אות, a sign of acknowledgment, that Hashem created the world and is the Master over all of creation, that all that we accomplish during our working days is by His will, and, consequently, our achievements will not be one iota more productive by working “overtime” nor will they be any less productive if we conform to His work schedule and take a day off. In short, it is a declaration of faith and loyalty, an embodiment of the single mitzvah of Emunah (faith or loyalty) that underwrites the entire fleet of 613 subroutines á là the prophet Chabakuk. 

Of course, to us multi-dimensional beings, there must be a positive aspect and a negative aspect; but to Hashem, they are one and the same. Therefore, HKBH instructs us to observe the Shabbos in His non-dimensional superhuman terminology – to do the zachor, the Anochi, and to observe the shamor, the Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (see Rashi Devarim 33:9 Ki Shamru) with a single utterance (which, most likely, did not ‘occupy’ any unit of time). Of course, this is way too abstract for us, so, we must break it down into discernible physical components.

Chazal tell us that Shabbos is מעין עולם הבא - a microcosm of the World to Come. It is an ethereal time wherein we are visitors in G‑d’s domain. As such, we truly only observe two mitzvos – Zachor and Shamor, a variation of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. The regular part of the week is olam hazeh, this world, where we have 611 other mitzvos to observe. We perform our obligations during the weekdays by utilizing 39 types of activities. In other words, during the week, we sanctify the 39 types of activities by executing them to carry out the mitzvos and to pursue our livelihoods. On Shabbos, we sanctify the same 39 types of activities by refraining from their execution. In this way, throughout all seven days of the week we can make 39 declarations of G‑d’s supremacy; with our (weekday) actions and our (Shabbat) inactions we scream out, “Hashem Echad”.*

*Note - Though I do not pretend to speak for the composer, I believe that this concept may be aptly represented in the words of the acclaimed Lecha Dodi poem of the Kabbalist Shlomo HaLevi Alkabetz that we all recite on Friday evenings. The opening stanza states:

שמור וזכור בדיבור אחד (Shamor and Zachor in a single utterance) / השמיענו א-ל המיוחד (was sounded to us by the Unique G‑d) / ה' אחד ושמו אחד (Hashem is One and His name is One) / לשם ולתפארת ולתהילה (For renown, for majesty and for praise).

End of Taryag Mitzvos Part 2. But we are not finished. There's more…