Rei'ach_Volume3

Diane Osen Covkin 35

doctors, for we are also enjoined to protect our health. And if, like billions
of other adults, we are diagnosed with a still-mysterious and debilitating
disease lacking a cure, we pray all the more for HaShem’s faithful healing.

But what happens if we continue to suffer from misfortune
nonetheless? What if our anguish slowly starts to sabotage the identity,
independence and aspirations we have nurtured for decades? What if,
imprisoned in our pain, we begin to regard illness – or any calamity – as a
metaphor for transgression that is proof not only of divine rebuke, but, G-d
forbid, divine rejection as well?

For centuries, our gedolim have grappled with these questions as
they have sought to help those in pain. Many have counseled us to reframe
misfortune – whether financial, interpersonal or physical – as a test meant
to spur our spiritual growth. In our era, for example, Rav Moshe Feinstein
z”l is said to have declared that the Torah takes care to detail even skin
ailments that do not constitute tzara’at to teach us that any unwanted
physical change is a sign from HaShem of a spiritual lapse which requires
immediate rectification. 10 The Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel
Schneerson z”l is said to have urged Jews to regard suffering “as a test that
examines how concerned you are with material comfort as opposed to
spiritual growth,” and as “an opportunity for growth – a chance to review
your conduct, to pause and examine your busy life for the source of such
pain.” 11 Rav Mattisyahu Salomon, Mashgiach of the Beth Medrash
Gevoha, agrees; he teaches that “G-d has given us challenges and He wants
to see how we react. Do we become depressed by weakness…Or do we rise
to the occasion and do the right thing?”12

Similarly, Rav Shalom Arush, founder of the Chut Shel Chesed
institutions in Israel, stresses in several of his bestselling books the felicitous
effects of suffering. He maintains that tribulations of every kind, including
illness, are the result of transgression; advises us to recognize that HaShem
sends us troubles for the sole purpose of bringing us closer to Him; and

10 The Stone Edition Chumash, R. Nosson Scherman and R. Meir Zlotowitz, general ed., (New
York: ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, 1994), p. 616 (commenting on VaYikrah 13:39).
11 R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Toward a Meaningful Life: The Wisdom of the Rebbe,
adapted by Simon Jacobson (New York: William Morrow, 1995), p. 132.
12 Mattisyahu Salomon, With Hearts Full of Faith: Insights into Faith and Trust in Jewish Life,
adapt. by Yaakov Yosef Reinman (New York: ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, 2002), p. 66.

36 Rei’ach HaSadeh

urges us do teshuvah. 13 If we adopt this view and spend at least thirty
minutes a day thanking HaShem for our misfortunes, miracles are sure to
follow.14

By contrast, Rav Yehudah Amital z”l, the other founder of
Yeshivat Har Etzion, cautioned that in our day, misunderstandings about
the causes and effects of misfortune are all too common. In his shiur “The
Fear of G-d in our Time,” he noted that very few of us earn
the zechut (merit) to comprehend HaShem’s involvement in our daily lives:

It is a mistake to think that the entire world is built on
immediate and clearly evident reward and
punishment. Only the righteous merit this level of Divine
intervention, as in the case of Rabbi Elazar ben Parta and
Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon, who knew precisely which
transgression had led to their arrest (Avodah
Zarah 17b)…as long as [one] has not yet reached that level,
he must remember that it is wrong to think that all of his
affairs are subject to God's providence in a clearly visible
way.15
According to Rav Amital, ordinary Jews can comprehend only the
natural laws that govern our lives; and quoting Rav Avraham Yitzchak
Kook in Middot ha-Ra’aya to reinforce this point, he warns that basing our
fear of G-d on fear of punishment may lead to:
panic, causing weakness, despair and impotence. This
effect is very bad, and when it spreads, it leads to revolt
against the yoke of the kingdom of God among the young
who had a taste of vigorous life, who rightfully seek a life
that is free of fear and horrors, and full of faith and
courage.
One may posit that those who regard their illness solely as divine rebuke
may likewise succumb to panic, weakness, despair and helplessness, and to
the same ill effect. Whatever challenges one faces, Rav Amital emphasized,

13 Shalom Arush, Say “Thank You” and See Miracles: The Garden of Miracles (Jerusalem: Chut
Shel Chesed Institutions, 2017), pp. 121-122.
14 Ibid.
15 Yehuda Amital, “The Fear of God in Our Time, Part 2 of 2,” The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash, available at https://www.etzion.org.il/en/fear-god-our-time-part-2-2.

Diane Osen Covkin 37

the way to maintain faith and courage is to balance fear of HaShem’s
punishment with awe of His majesty.16

Like Rav Amital, Rav Lichtenstein underscored the importance of
enriching one’s total religious personality in order to achieve this balance –
a process which teshuvah can effect by deepening and intensifying one’s
relationships with HaShem; by enhancing one’s ability to cope with
misfortune; and by strengthening one’s capacity to withstand suffering and
interpret its meaning through the lens of emunah.17 However, while Rav
Lichtenstein confirmed conclusively that Judaism links sin and suffering, he
added that “even as we do not deny any possibility, to asseverate with
assurance is out of the question. Such statements constitute the height of
arrogance vis a vis the Ribbono Shel Olam” and “vis a vis one’s fellow, they
are both morally and halakhically reprehensible.”18

Given these imperatives, one might argue that both the sick and
the well, the unfortunate and the fortunate, must acknowledge that no one
can fully comprehend G-d’s ways. As we learn from Rabbi Yehudah,
quoting Rav, HaShem withheld even from Moshe – the only person who
was privileged to encounter Him “panim el panim”-“face to face” – the cause of
suffering in this world (Menachot 29b). Nonetheless, since the time of
Avraham, ordinary Jews have also learned to accept the incomprehensible
while cleaving to their faith.

Another way our gedolim try to support those who feel forsaken is
by instructing us in the proper way to pray. For instance, Rav Salomon,
elaborating on the teaching of his own rebbe, Rav Elya Lopian, takes great
pain to differentiate between tefillah shleimah – a “complete prayer” offered
in perfect faith that it will be fulfilled – and prayers said by those do not
wholeheartedly believe their prayers will be effective. Thus, two people may
pray with equal intensity on their deathbeds for salvation from the Angel of
Death, but only the person who offers a tefillah shleimah will be saved: “The
entire world is in G-d’s hands…G-d is not restrained by statistics and
medical reports. Prayer has the power to accomplish anything, but only as
long as the one praying is convinced of it.”19 In an effort to motivate us to
commit more fully to intentional prayer, Rav Salomon notes that the
Shulchan Aruch declares the sin of conversing during Chazarat haShatz – the
repetition of the Amidah – is so grave it cannot be borne by HaShem,
adding that this designation is given to no other transgression. He goes on

16 Ibid.
17 Leaves of Faith at pp. 134-135
18 Id. at p. 145.
19 With Hearts Full of Faith at p. 94-95.

38 Rei’ach HaSadeh

to cite a dream in which it was explained to Rav Yom Tov Lippmann Heller
that so many Jews were murdered during the Russian pogroms of the mid-
1600s because they had committed this transgression – even though they
prayed for salvation with tefillot sheleimot.20

Rav Ari Marcus, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Reishit Yerushalayim,
makes a dissimilar but equally resonant point about HaShem’s response
to tefillot offered at a time of crisis. In his commentary on the Haggadah
titled From Despair to Destiny, he ponders the capacity for prayer among the
Jewish slaves in Egypt – who had descended, Rashi teaches us, to the
49th level of spiritual impurity – and notes that Rav Shimshon Pincus z”l,
Chief Rabbi of Ofakim in Israel, taught that HaShem “accepted our
screams of agony even though they were mere shrieks – because at their
very root, the were prayer. He may have heard only ‘our voice’ because there
were no words we could share.”21 Perhaps even today, if our desolation is
so deep that all we can do is wail, HaShem may hear our cries as a form of
prayer.

Rav Lichtenstein offered those experiencing adversity another
framework for understanding tefillah. In a sichah called “The Efficacy of
Prayer,” he argued that a prayer’s effectiveness does not depend on whether
it is answered as hoped; rather, our prayers are successful to the degree they
draw us closer to HaShem:

‘Tov lachasot ba-HaShem’ – there is goodness that results
from the sheer presence of the Ribbono shel Olam. In our
moments of greatest trial and need, in our hours of
greatest crisis, His presence is comforting, to the same
extent that it is humbling. In times of pain, prayer reminds
us that our tower of strength is there, the source of being,
the source of all good and all value and all worth. Much
has been lost, but we have yet the Ribbono shel Olam – and
that in and of itself is a source of sustenance and
comfort.22

Moreover, Rav Lichtenstein reminded us, just as we turn to
HaShem for comfort, He turns to comfort us, as it were, whenever we need

20 Id. at p. 99-100.
21 Aharon Marcus, From Despair to Destiny: Depth, Passion and the Pesach Haggadah: (Jerusalem:
Halpern Center Press, 2015), pp. 132-133.
22 Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Efficacy of Prayer,” adapted by Reuven Ziegler, Dov Karoll,
and Meira Mintz, The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, available at
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/efficiacy-prayer.

Diane Osen Covkin 39

Him most: “The midrashim describe that when we cry when tragedy strikes,
the Ribbono shel Olam cries with us, kivyachol…our pain is not only our own;
it is shared at the ultimate level by Malkhut Shamayim, by God Himself.”23

Which brings us back to tzara’at and HaShem’s Thirteen Attributes
of Divine Mercy.

In his shiur “The Opportunity of Tzara’at,” Rav Itamar Eldan of
Yeshivat Har Etzion explains the ways in which Chassidic masters of past
generations interpreted tzara’at as a metaphor for transgression that
prompts divine rebuke.24 While each offered a unique analysis, all reached
essentially the same, somewhat ironic conclusion: that a metzora is uniquely
positioned to effect positive change in others – for, unlike the innocent,
who have never lost the things they hold most dear, who have never been
thrust into a terrifying void far from HaShem, the metzora returns to the
camp with a more fervent faith that “can serve the individual and the nation
as a catalyst for renewal, for building, for closing the gaps and raising the
entire world to G-d.”25

If there is one thing that unites the ancient metzora with one who
suffers today in the kingdom of the sick – or indeed anyone in pain – it is
this sense of loss and terror. More important, his or her harrowing struggles
have the potential to spur a more intimate identification with the radical
compassion and love that HaShem reveals to Moshe on Har
Sinai in parashat Ki Tisa.

Commenting on Ki Tisa, author and professor R. Lawrence
Hoffman elaborates on the importance and effects of these traits. In a Dvar
Torah called “We Are More Than Our Accomplishments,” he delineates the
misery of those who because of illness or accident can no longer “do
whatever we adults normally enjoy without effort: meet friends, eat out, go
to work, vacation…They once threw themselves into therapy: physical,
occupational, emotional,” he writes, “but progress stalled, and now they are
unemployed, living alone,” too impaired to produce what the world seems
to value most.26 He goes on to note that HaShem could have chosen to

23 Ibid.
24 Itamar Eldan, “Parashat Metzora: The opportunity offered by Tzara’at,” The Israel
Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, https://www.etzion.org.il/en/parashat-metzora-
opportunity-offered-tzara’at.
25 Ibid.
26 Lawrence A. Hoffman, “We are more than our accomplishments,” New Jersey Jewish News,
February 18, 2019, available at https://njjewishnews.timesofisrael.com/we-are-more-than-
our-accomplishments.

40 Rei’ach HaSadeh

reveal His glory to Moshe by focusing similarly on His achievements, as it
were, such as creating the world. But HaShem is silent on this subject; he
wants to teach Moshe a timeless and more important lesson about Torah
values:

Nothing can ever make up for being stripped of the ability
to work, to read, to think, to speak, to cook, to DO…But
the message from Sinai is that what matters most is not
what we do; it is who we are: kind, compassionate, loving,
and forgiving…The thing that matters most each day is
showing up and being like G-d.27
No matter our circumstances, there is no greater human aspiration
than trying every day to emulate the Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy.

Rav Chaim Marcus, Moreh d’Asrah of Congregation Israel of
Springfield, might expand upon this insight by drawing our attention to yet
another attribute of HaShem: that He is for each and every one of us a Kel
Melech Ne’eman, a G-d and King who never loses faith in us.

With this in mind, Rav Marcus counsels those in physical, spiritual
or emotional pain – and especially those who can no longer accomplish
what once came so easily – to hold fast to HaShem’s faith in us if we feel
our own start to falter. Further, he suggests that we reexamine our attitudes
toward misfortune of any kind by mulling the dual meaning of the Hebrew
word lamah: “why” and “for what purpose.” Given the unlikelihood of
securing an unassailable answer to the former, asking ourselves the latter
may, on the other hand, yield results both surprising and satisfying. One
outcome of such a process might be the decision to reconsider our current
tafkid (spiritual mission) or to undertake a new one.

For those in pain, the search for a new tafkid may seem especially
daunting; and it may therefore be indispensable to reflect anew on the
prelude to the second bracha of the Amidah, in which we praise HaShem as
One who fulfills His faith in li’sheinei afar (lit. “those who sleep in the dust”).
Imagine: not only does HaShem support those who stumble, heal the sick
and liberate the imprisoned, but He also keeps His pledge to sustain those

27 Ibid.

Diane Osen Covkin 41

in a spiritual coma, unable to feel the spark of the divine within. Even in
our misery, we can rely on HaShem to feed this flame until we are ready to
do so ourselves. None of us will attain the spiritual heights of Moshe – but
even when we are at our lowest, HaShem has no doubt we will regain our
ability to burn more brightly. For some, fulfilling His faith in us this may be
the greatest tafkid we will ever undertake.

Inescapably, of course, all of us may one day feel the need to find a
new tafkid, for we will all G-d willing grow older; nearly all of us will be
obliged to reside for a time in the kingdom of the sick; and many of us will
eventually long for what we have lost and fear what we may yet lose. When
the task of finding a new tafkid fell to Susan Sontag, who had been
diagnosed with Stage lV breast cancer, she chose to write Illness as Metaphor
– and helped spark a revolution. Even with aching bodies and hearts, who
knows what we might accomplish if we reciprocate the faith of our Kel
Melech Ne’eman and retain our faith in ourselves as well?

“If we can relate to G-d as G-d, in His full transcendence and
majesty,” R. Lord Jonathan Sacks assures us, “then we can relate to humans
as humans in all their fallibility.”28Achieving this kind of attachment and
empathy may require a reassessment of our relationships with HaShem,
with others, and with ourselves. Cognizant of our shortcomings as well as
our capacity for change; inspired by the enduring faith of gedolim who were
and are shaken by suffering; and elevated by the knowledge that HaShem
cries along with us; perhaps we will consider taking on the tafkid of
practicing with a fuller heart mitzvot like bikur cholim and ve’Ahavta leRei’acha
kamocha. Whether we are well or ill, content or in crisis, perhaps we will seek
to emulate HaShem’s radical compassion and love by extending our own
zero’ot netuyot (“outstretched arms”) to those who need us.

At the same time, perhaps we will consider replacing the malignant
metaphors of illness with a more nuanced understanding of the divine
utterances that created the world and sustain it, along with each one of us –
ever mindful of all that we need from HaShem, and from one another, if we
are to thrive as individuals and His Am Segulah, His treasured nation.

Finally, if we choose to accept a new a spiritual mission, may we
choose one that underlines the importance of Torah; for as R. Sacks
explains, “Study is holier even than prayer, for in prayer we speak to G-d,
but in study we listen to G-d. We strive to understand what G-d wants

28 Jonathan Sacks, “The Struggle of Faith (Vayishlach 5778),” The Office of Rabbi Sacks,
November 27, 2017, available at http://rabbisacks.org/struggle-faith-vayishlach-5778.

42 Rei’ach HaSadeh

from us. We try to make His will ours.”29 No matter our particular tafkidim,
hearing the voice of HaShem through Torah will enrich our lives and
inspire us to draw closer to Him and to others. Most important, hearing His
voice will inspire us to respond to the challenges we face by internalizing
and emulating the emunah of David haMelech (Tehillim 16:9-11):

And so, my heart is full of joy
And my soul is happy.
My whole body rests in safety.
For you will not abandon me to the depths,
Nor allow Your devoted one
To face destruction.
You will teach me the path of life.
In your presence is complete joy,
And by Your right hand, eternal bliss.30

29 Jonathan Sacks, “The Way of Study: Listening to God | Unit 3,” The Office of Rabbi
Sacks, available at http://rabbisacks.org/tenpaths/educators/study.
30 Translation from Yitzchok Leib Bell, Psalms That Speak to You: A Clear and Meaningful
Translation for Our Generation (Nanuet: Tehillim Today, distr. by Feldheim Publishers, 2016), p.
61.

DO SOME SIGNS FROM HEAVEN REALLY COME FROM HELL?

BY: DAVID KOHN

~ INTRODUCTION ~

Israel’s first civil war pitted shevet (tribe) Binyamin against the other
eleven shevatim (tribes).1 The shevatim were incensed by a crime committed in
Binyamin’s territory, an incident popularly known as pilegesh beGiv’ah
(literally, the Concubine on the Hill),2 and they demanded that Binyamin’s
leaders turn over the perpetrators to face justice.3 When Binyamin refused,4
the shevatim assembled an army of 400,000 men.5 Binyamin’s army of 26,700
met them at the battle lines.6

The army of the eleven shevatim clearly had the upper hand. It
outnumbered its adversary by nearly fifteen to one. It had the moral high
ground. Even so, the army sought one last advantage before heading out to
fight. They asked for a sign from Heaven.

We Jews know the good fortune that comes with a sign from
Heaven. A voice calls to Noach: “Build an ark,” (Bereishis 6:14) and Noach
is the only one of his generation to be saved from the mabul (Great Flood).
The voice calls to Avraham, “Leave your home and travel to a new land,”7
and Avraham is met with fame, riches and children in his new land Cana’an.
The voice calls to Moshe, “Lead My people out of Egypt,” (Shemos 3:10)
and Moshe becomes the greatest leader8 of the Chosen People. We Jews
know, when Heaven calls your name, things end well.

And so the shevatim summon the Urim veTumim, the magical
breastplate worn by the Kohen haGadol (High Priest), and ask “ ‫ ָּלנוּ‬-‫ִמי ַי ֲע ֶלה‬
‫ ְב ֵני ִב ְנ ָּי ִמן‬-‫” ַב ְת ִח ָּלה ַל ִמ ְל ָּח ָּמה ִעם‬-“who will merit to lead the charge to battle
against shevet Binyamin.” (Shofetim 20:18)9 The Urim veTumim responds,
“‫ ְיהוּ ָּדה ַב ְת ִח ָּלה‬.”-“Yehuda should lead” (Shofetim 20:18). And so Yehuda

1 See Shofetim 20.
2 Id. at 20:3-11. A more complete account of the incident is recorded in Chapter 19.
3 Id. at 20:13.
4 Id. at 20:14.
5 Id. at 20:17.
6 Id. at 20:15.
7 Id. at 12:1.
8 See Devarim 34:10. The Rambam in Mishne Torah, Yesodei haTorah 8:2, explains how the
Jewish people’s ability to trust all other leaders is derived from their faith in Moshe.
9 According to the Metzudas Dovid, ad loc, and the Ramban, Shemos 28:30 ad loc “viNasata el
haChoshen,” the shevatim consulted the Urim v’Tumim.

44 Rei’ach HaSadeh

leads the charge to battle, the shevatim confident they will succeed with the
blessing from Heaven.

But things do not go as planned. The shevatim lose the initial battle
badly. They retreat with 22,000 casualties, and are left to wonder what went
wrong.10 Did they not have Heaven’s blessing?

~ REFLECTION ~

Imagine a Voice calls out to you from Heaven. It tells you what to
do. Build an ark. Move to a new land. Start a war. Would you listen? Should
you listen?

The answer may seem obvious: of course you should listen! It is a
sign from Heaven! The Voice speaks the truth. After all, the truth is known in
Heaven, and what Heaven knows is shared in its message. The message
brings clarity to an otherwise confusing world.

Who would not want a heavenly sign telling them what to do and
how things should be?! And one would expect the Urim veTumim, of all
media, to deliver the truth in the same way. After all, the literal translation
of Urim veTumim is Lights and Perfection. It delivers the message of Heaven
with clarity close to that of a full-fledged prophecy.11

Moreover, a sign from Heaven is more than truth alone. It is also
goodness, a derivative of the goodness of Heaven. It is a reward for the
righteous few who are in sync with HaShem’s Will. Noach’s honesty and
piety merited a Heavenly message that saved him from the Flood. 12
Avraham’s search for the one true G-d merited him divine guidance
throughout his search. 13 And the Torah intertwines Moshe’s work as a
faithful shepherd to his meriting to hear the Voice at the Burning Bush.14

Thus, you would expect the same result from the Urim veTumim. It
was worn by the Kohen haGadol, one of the most respected individuals of his
generation. Certainly the Kohen haGadol was a righteous man, and his ability
to summon near-prophecy from the Urim veTumim was a reward for his
righteousness.

10 Id. at 20:21.
11 See Ramban, Shemos 28:30.
12 See Bereishis 7:1.
13 Malbim, Bereishis 12:1.
14 Midrash Rabbah, Shemos 2:2-3.

David Kohn 45

And yet, what would you make of the shevatim’s ill-fated battle
against Binyamin? What would you make of the sign from Heaven that led
to 22,000 unnecessary deaths? Clearly, they should not have gone to war,
and the Urim veTumim gave a bad suggestion.

This sparks a critical question: Is a Heavenly sign necessarily good?
Is it necessarily true? Is it obvious that you should listen to the Voice, or
can it also lead to trouble?

~ ACT I – THE SHEVATIM’S ERROR ~

One approach to understanding the message of the Urim veTumim
to the shevatim is presented in the Malbim, citing to Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer:

‫ שהיה‬,‫ מפני שגם הם היה בקרבם עון פסל מיכה‬... ‫חז"ל (פדר"א לח) אמרו הטעם שנגפו‬
‫ וקצף ה' עליהם‬,‫ג"כ חטא של רבים‬

Our Sages stated that the reason [the shevatim] were beaten … is because
the sin of the Idol of Micah occurred in their midst, and this too was a sin
of the masses and HaShem was angry at them.

Malbim, Shofetim 20:18 (citing Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 38)

In other words, the Urim veTumim provided misinformation in
order to punish the shevatim for an earlier sin.15 This outcome could be
thought of as a form of justice. After all, the Malbim understands that some
punishments are meted in order to provide atonement. 16 So perhaps
without the Urim veTumim’s misinformation, the shevatim would never have
atoned for the Idol of Micah. This could even explain why the shevatim lost
this initial battle, but ultimately won the war against Binyamin.

By the Malbim’s account, the Urim veTumim are, in fact, “Light” and
“Perfection.” The information it provides steers the people towards the
light, towards atonement, and helps to restore them to a state of
righteousness. In fact, the Urim veTumim are elsewhere referred to as the
Mishpat haUrim, the Judgment of Lights.17 In this sense, the message it
delivers is a vehicle for justice, a way of judging and punishing the people
for their past wrongdoings. So the problem is not with Heaven. No, the
problem is with the people. Had the people deserved good advice, then

15 See generally, Shofetim 17-18.
16 Malbim, Devarim 28:15.
17 See BaMidbar 27:21.

46 Rei’ach HaSadeh

they would have received good advice. But they were sinners, and instead
received a punishment.

Rashi presents a different approach to what went wrong with the
shevatim’s consultation of the Urim veTumim:

‫ אבל לא בחנו לשאול אם לנצח אם לינצח‬- ‫יהודה בתחלה‬

Yehuda first – but they did not consider asking whether they would succeed
or lose.

Rashi, Shofetim 20:18

According to Rashi, the Urim veTumim would have told the shevatim
not to fight, had only the shevatim asked. Instead, the shevatim took for
granted that they would succeed, and asked only who should lead the
charge into battle. So by Rashi’s measure, the mistake was that of the
shevatim, not the Urim veTumim. The flaw was in the line of questioning, not
in the answer provided.

There is a difficulty with Rashi’s approach, though. After the
defeat, the shevatim learn from their mistake. So before the next battle, they
phrase their question to the Urim veTumim differently. They ask: “ ‫ַהאֹו ִסיף‬
‫” ָּל ֶג ֶשׁת ַל ִמ ְל ָּח ָּמה ִעם־ ְב ֵני ִב ְנ ָּי ִמן ָּא ִחי‬-“should I continue to approach in battle my
brother Binyamin?” (Shofetim 20:23) They do not assume that an attack
should be carried out. The Urim veTumim responds “‫” ֲעלוּ ֵא ָּליו‬-“go up to
him.” (Shofetim 20:23) and meet Binyamin at the battlefield. The shevatim
now have a clear message that they should attack. By Rashi’s reasoning, this
should signal victory, right? Wrong. They are badly beaten again, adding
18,000 soldiers to the casualty total.18 How can Rashi explain this second
message from the Urim veTumim misleading the shevatim?

Rashi does not himself address this question, but the question
could be resolved using a different approach: that the second message of
the Urim veTumim was misunderstood. The Urim veTumim does not
communicate in full sentences or even in full words. Rather, letters
engraved on its stones would light up to spell out a message. Unscrambling
the letters to form the correct message was the task of the Kohen haGadol.19
Therefore, if the letters were unscrambled incorrectly, it could result in the
wrong message being conveyed.

18 Id. at 20:25.
19 See Ramban, Shemos 28:30.

David Kohn 47

In one well known instance, Eli the Kohen haGadol observed a
woman praying at the mishkan (Tabernacle), her lips moving but her voice
quiet. (Shemuel Aleph 1:12-13) Eli incorrectly accused her of praying while
drunk.20 In fact, that woman was the righteous Chana, and she was praying
quietly from the bottom of her heart.21 According to the Vilna Ga’on, Eli
had consulted the Urim veTumim to understand what Chana was doing, but
he incorrectly unscrambled the letters. The letters, ‫ה‬, ‫כ‬, ‫ ר‬and ‫ ש‬lit up, and
Eli took this to spell ‫ה‬-‫ר‬-‫כ‬-‫שׁ‬, that Chana was drunk. But in reality, the
letters should have been arranged ‫ה‬-‫ר‬-‫ש‬-‫כ‬, meaning that Chana was like
Sarah Imenu (our Mother): barren and praying for a child.22

Similarly, it is possible to imagine the shevatim unscrambling the
message of the Urim veTumim incorrectly. Particularly, in the case of the
second message, one contemporary opinion23 suggests that the letters of the
Urim veTumim’s message could have been intended to spell ‫ו‬-‫ל‬-‫ע‬-‫א י‬-‫ו‬-‫ל‬,
“Do not go up.”24 Had the shevatim unscrambled the letters correctly, they
would have known not to go to battle.

According to the first two approaches, the message of the Urim
veTumim was intentionally misleading, either as a punishment to the shevatim
or as a consequence of their poor questioning. This third approach suggests
that the message was never intended to mislead anyone. In fact, the
message was meant to protect the people, but it was misconstrued.

~ REFLECTION ON ACT I ~

There is a common thread that aligns all three explanations of how
the shevatim were misled by the Urim veTumim: and that is, that the message
from Heaven is unreliable. Why is it unreliable? It could be that the people
are wicked and deserve to be punished. It could be that the people are
myopic and fail to ask the right question. Or it could be that the people are
inept and decipher the message incorrectly. Regardless of the reason, the
sign from Heaven simply cannot be trusted.

And whose fault is that? In all three cases, it is the people’s fault.

20 Id. at 1:14.
21 Id. at 1:15.
22 Aderes Eliyahu, Shemuel Aleph 1:13-16.
23 See http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/nvir/joftim/mlxmt_gvaa_2.html.
24 The spelling of ‫א‬-‫ו‬-‫ ל‬is found in the Torah, for example, at Bereishis 31:35. Other
permutations could lead to a similar message, such as ‫ו‬-‫ל‬-‫ע‬-‫ו‬-‫א י‬-‫ל‬, you will not be successful,
or ‫ו‬-‫י‬-‫ל‬-‫א ע‬-‫ו‬-‫ל‬, not against him.

48 Rei’ach HaSadeh

This seems to call into question the very notion of a sign from
Heaven. The sign comes from Heaven! It is pristine. It is light, and truth, and
goodness, and justice. It should stand apart from the confusion of Earth,
not be muddied by it! And yet, the opposite happens. The sign does not
pierce through the “darkness” of this world like a flash of lightning.25
Instead it is the “darkness.”26 For the shevatim, the sign is the catalyst of a
grave mistake and leads to mass causalities.

Do you know what this means? If a Voice from Heaven were to
call you tomorrow, it would not change you at all. You would either deserve
to be misled, or the Voice would address a narrow issue you posed but miss
the big picture, or you would outright misinterpret the message itself.
Worse yet, the Voice would likely convince you to not change. A sort of
confirmation bias from the ether!

Confirmation bias may be useful if you are Noach, or Avraham, or
Moshe. It will propel you to keep going down the righteous path you
started, and it will lead you to great things. But if you are not one of them,
then getting a sign from Heaven is about as useful as getting no sign at all.

~ ACT II – BIL’AM AND THE SIGN ~
Our Sages confirm the power of a sign from Heaven to coax a man
down the path he already started:

‫בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬
The path a man wants to walk, they lead him down.
Makos 10b

It means that when a man has made up his mind, Heaven will help
him continue down the chosen path. This principle applies for better or for
worse. Yes, even for worse. The Gemara cites a source from the Torah:

25 Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim, Introduction, analogizes flashes of lightning in a dark setting to
the acquisition of prophecy on Earth.
26 Ramchal, Mesillas Yesharim Ch. 3, explains that darkness not only conceals objects but also
disguises them.

David Kohn 49

‫ "קום לך‬:)‫ כ‬,‫ וכתיב (במדבר כב‬,"‫ "לא תלך עמהם‬:)‫ יב‬,‫ דכתיב (במדבר כב‬,‫מן התורה‬
."‫אתם‬

From Torah, as it is written “do not go with them,” and then it is written
“get up, go with them.”

Makos 10b (citing BaMidbar 22:12, 20)

These statements appear in the well-known story of Bil’am, the
mercenary sorcerer hired by King Balak to curse the Jewish people. Bil’am
asks HaShem for permission to take Balak’s job, and HaShem at first
refuses. 27 But when Bil’am demonstrates how much he wishes to go,
HaShem no longer stands in Bil’am’s way. Not only that, HaShem even
encourages Bil’am to go!28

In fact, as the story continues, Bil’am encounters an angel who
nearly kills him.29 Bil’am at first takes this as a sign from Heaven that he
should not curse the Jews, and instead should return home.30 But instead of
going home – because Bil’am truly wants to continue with his mission to
curse the Jews – he asks the angel what it wants him to do. Surprisingly, the
angel tells him to continue onward to Balak.31

At this point, it is clear to all that HaShem does not want Bil’am to
go. In fact, HaShem has angrily sent an angel in response to Bil’am’s
decision.32 The angel’s initial job was to quite literally to drive Bil’am off of
his path.33 Thus, one would have expected the angel to tell Bil’am to go
home and metaphorically derail Bil’am’s plans as well. But instead, the angel
encourages him to continue. Why? Because it is what Bil’am wanted all
along.

And the angel? The Torah identifies the job of this angel as
“liSatan” – derived from the root satan – which translates to “drive
wayward.” That name could mistakenly be assumed to mean that the angel
itself moves away from the path of good and rebels against HaShem. But as
the story of Bil’am demonstrates, this angel is actually a messenger of

27 BaMidbar 22:10-12.
28 Id. at 22:20.
29 Id. at 22:33.
30 Id. at 22:34.
31 Id. at 22:35.
32 Id. at 22:22.
33 Id. at 22:33.

50 Rei’ach HaSadeh

HaShem, not an adversary. Rather, the angel derives his name Satan from
his purpose liSatan, which is to drive Bil’am wayward.

Bil’am’s supposed sign from Heaven is in fact a sign from Hell, a
message straight from Satan. It was a message designed to drive him away
from the right decision of retreating home. And Bil’am took the bait. After
all, Bil’am really wanted to go. His mind was already made up; he just
needed an excuse. And not only did HaShem refrain from stopping him.
HaShem even gave him the excuse he was looking for.

~ REFLECTION ON ACT II ~

You may think that Bil’am’s “message from Satan” is some special
punishment reserved for most wicked individuals. But our Sages tell us
otherwise. They present ‫ בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬as a general
principle, a fate available to all. And they derive the principle from the
Bil’am’s exchange with the angel, meaning that anyone else can be misled
by Satan just like Bil’am was.

Our Sages confirm that any message that seems to come from a
heavenly angel may actually come from Satan. That when the shevatim
consulted the Urim veTumim, the answer they received may just as well have
been designed to mislead them. And that any time you feel as if you have
witnessed a sign from Heaven, the sign may just as likely come from Hell.

The Maharsha draws an insight from the phrase ‫בדרך שאדם רוצה‬
‫לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬. He asks: Who is doing the leading, and why is the
leading stated in plural tense?

David Kohn 51

‫לא קאמר שמוליך אותו הקב"ה אלא מוליכין אותו והוא ע"פ מה שכתבנו בכמה מקומות‬
‫שכל מחשבה ודיבור ומעשה האדם הנה הוא בורא לו מלאך לפי ענינו אם לטוב אם לרע‬
‫ אבל כפי רצונו ודעתו של‬... ‫וע"כ אמר בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך שהרשות בידי האדם‬
‫אדם מוליכין אותו אותן המלאכים הנבראים מאותו רצון ומחשבה אשר בו ומייתי ראיה מן‬
‫התורה דכתיב לא תלך עמהם שא"ל הקב"ה כן וכתיב קום לך אתם וגו' שרצונו ודעתו‬

...‫הרעה לילך אתם הביא ששלח לו הקב"ה מלאך כרצונו ומחשבתו שא"ל קום לך אתם‬

It does not say that HaShem leads him. Rather, they lead him. And this is
according to what is written is several places: that every thought, speech and
action of a person creates with it a corresponding angel, whether for good
or for bad. Therefore, it says “the path a man wants to walk,” since man has
license [to choose a path]. But the angels created by his desire will lead him
according to his desire. And it brings a proof from the Torah, since it is
written “do not go with them,” which HaShem said to [Bil’am], and then it
is written “get up, go with them,” since his desire to go with them brought
about that HaShem sent him an angel, according to his desire, that would
say to him “get up, go with them.”

Maharsha, Makos 10b

In other words, the Maharsha infers that all “leading” is done by
messenger, and the messenger is a product of human thought or desire. In
this sense, the message from Heaven is actually produced by a human on
Earth. This goes a long way toward explaining why the advice in a message
from Heaven is not always the most trustworthy. If the message originates
from you and you have a good idea, then the message will be helpful to you.
But if you have a bad idea and set off in the wrong direction, then the
message will be hurtful to you.

But this all begs a further question: is there a way out of this
dilemma? Can a message from Heaven ever help you to correct an error? Or
does it necessarily reinforce your error?

In all of history, there was only one person who never had to
confront this dilemma. To him, the standard rules did not apply. All signs
were helpful. Who was this person? How did he merit this treatment? And
is there anything can we do to at least sometimes deserve similar treatment?

~ ACT III ~ THE MAN, MOSHE ~

Our Sages list several actions that Moshe Rabbeinu [our Teacher]
took on his own that HaShem later approved. One of those actions was

52 Rei’ach HaSadeh

separating from his wife, Tziporah.34 Our Sages explain the logic behind
Moshe’s decision and attribute a source for HaShem’s agreement:

‫ופירש מן האשה מאי דריש נשא קל וחומר בעצמו אמר ומה ישראל שלא דברה שכינה‬
‫ יא) והיו נכונים וגו' אל תגשו‬,‫עמהן אלא שעה אחת וקבע להן זמן אמרה תורה (שמות יט‬
‫אני שכל שעה ושעה שכינה מדברת עמי ואינו קובע לי זמן על אחת כמה וכמה ומנלן‬
‫ כו) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם וכתיב‬,‫דהסכים הקב"ה על ידו דכתיב (דברים ה‬

.‫בתריה ואתה פה עמוד עמדי‬

And he separated from his wife. What did he deduce? He drew a kal
va’chomer on his own. He said: if HaShem spoke with the Jews for only one
moment at a designated time, and the Torah stated “prepare … do not
draw close [to your wives],” [Shemos 19:15] then I, to whom HaShem
speaks at all times and without designated times, all the more so [must I
stay away from my wife]. And how do we know that HaShem approved of
Moshe’s decision? As it says, “Go tell them to return to their tents [i.e.,
their wives],” [Devarim 5:26] and then it says “And you [i.e., Moshe], stay
here with Me.” [Devarim 5:27]

Shabbos 87a

By the account of the Gemara, Moshe’s decision precedes
HaShem’s approval. Moshe decides that he should separate from his wife.
He makes this decision entirely on his own. Then, he receives a message
from HaShem telling him not to return to his wife, thus confirming that
Moshe did the right thing.

At first glance, one might reflect on this episode and think
something like, “praiseworthy is the man whose actions are approved by
Heaven.” But if Bil’am has taught us anything, it is that a message from
Heaven cannot be trusted. Moshe’s actions are not praiseworthy. They are
foolhardy! How can Moshe know that HaShem is not misleading him? How
can he know that his message from Heaven did not originate from an angel
born out of his own poor decision to separate from Tziporah?

According to the Rabbeinu Tam, this is precisely what Aharon and
Miriam were thinking when they criticized their brother for separating from
Tziporah:35

34 Shabbos 87a further attributes to Moshe the rescheduling of Matan Torah from the 6th to the
7th of Sivan, and the breaking of the luchos rishonim.
35 See BaMidbar 12:1.

David Kohn 53

‫וא"ת מנלן דפירש משה מדעתו קודם ושוב הסכים הקב"ה על ידו שמא זה הוא צווי גמור‬
‫שצוה לו לפרוש ותירץ ר"ת דאם איתא דמחמת צווי הקב"ה פירש ולא מדעתו היאך היה‬
‫מערער אהרן ומרים דכתיב ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה אלא ודאי מתחלה פירש ממנה‬
‫לגמרי משה מדעתו ואע"ג דהסכים הקב"ה על ידו מ"מ נתרעמו עליו לפי שאילו לא פירש‬

.‫מדעתו לא היה הקב"ה מסכים דבדרך שאדם הולך בה מוליכין אותו‬

And if you will ask: how is it known that Moshe separated by his choice
first, and then afterwards HaShem approved, maybe this [i.e., HaShem’s
order to stay with Him] was an outright command to separate? Rabbeinu
Tam answers that if Moshe had separated in response to a Heavenly
command, then how could Aharon and Miriam have ever spoken up
against it! Rather, it must be that Moshe completely separated from her first
by his choice. And even though HaShem approved of his decision,
nonetheless, they [i.e., Aharon and Miriam] criticized him since had he not
separated on his own, HaShem would have never approved. Because the
path a man wants to walk, they lead him down.

Tosafos, Shabbos 87a, “veAttah”

Aharon and Miriam’s criticism was well founded. They believed
that Moshe could not trust the message he received from HaShem, that he
was as much vulnerable to confirmation bias as were they. Whether
Moshe’s decision to separate from Tziporah was right or wrong made no
difference; in either case, HaShem would tell him he did the right thing.

But in fact, Aharon and Miriam were wrong. HaShem appears to
them in a vision and explains to them that Moshe is not like them.36 They
are vulnerable to confirmation bias, but Moshe is not. If Moshe were to
make a mistake, HaShem would let him know about it instead of leading
him in the wrong direction. There would be no misleading message from
Heaven, and certainly no message from Hell.

Stated another way, Aharon and Miriam thought that Moshe was
subject to the principle of ‫בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬. But in fact,
Moshe was above this. He was a companion with HaShem.

Interestingly, HaShem’s words to Aharon and Miriam hint at the
various pitfalls that come with a sign from Heaven,37 and how each pitfall
did not apply to Moshe. HaShem says about Moshe:

36 BaMidbar 12:5-8.
37 The “various pitfalls” referenced here are the three explanations as to how the message of
the Urim veTumim came to mislead the shevatim at pilegesh beGiv’ah . See supra, Act I.

54 Rei’ach HaSadeh

:‫לא כן עבדי משה‬

,‫) בכל ביתי נאמן הוא‬1
,‫) פה אל פה אדבר בו‬2
.‫) ומראה ולא בחידת ותמנת יהוה יביט‬3

Not so my servant, Moshe:

1) He is trustworthy in all My house;
2) I speak to him mouth to mouth; and
3) He sees a clear vision of HaShem, and not charades.

BaMidbar 12:7-8

(1) Moshe is a righteous man, not a wicked man. He does not
deserve a sign that will mislead him as a punishment.38

(2) Moshe’s line of questioning is flawless. He does not merely
present a question. No, the two of us converse with one another. If a
question is unclear, I will ask him for clarification.39

(3) Moshe’s perception is perfect. He does not misinterpret or
misunderstand My directions. I give him a clear vision, not a scrambled
message, and, therefore, he understands the message fully.40

~ REFLECTION ON ACT III ~

Moshe was unlike anyone else who ever lived. He knew not only
his place, but the place of every other person and thing. The Torah states:

.‫והאיש משה ענו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה‬

And the man, Moshe, was more humble than any other man on the face of
the Earth.

BaMidbar 12:3

38 By contrast, the shevatim had sinned and thus deserved to be misled.
39 By contrast, the shevatim’s line of questioning was flawed, as they should have asked
whether to go to battle altogether. Furthermore, HaShem did not bother to ask them for
clarification.
40 By contrast, the shevatim needed to unscramble the illuminated letters of the Urim v’Tumim
in order to make out its message, and if the letters were unscrambled improperly it would
lead to misinterpretation.

David Kohn 55

Beyond his servitude to HaShem, Moshe was the ultimate Man, the
‫איש‬.41 Moshe was an ‫עניו‬, he did not have ulterior thoughts or motives. He
saw everything for what it was worth, not what it was worth to him.42
Could Moshe make a mistake? Arguably, yes.43 But were his thoughts and
motives only well-intentioned? Yes. And as the Maharsha points out, the
angels that lead a person are a product of their thoughts and intentions. As
Moshe’s were exclusively well-intentioned, so too were his angel’s.

The key to a receiving a helpful message from Heaven, then, is to
embody the humility of Moshe. To appreciate things for what they are
worth, not to desire them for what they are worth to you, and certainly not
to disregard them as worthless to you. This is hinted to in the Gemara, which
cites a further source for the concept of ‫בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬:

".‫ ולענוים יתן חן‬,‫ "אם ללצים הוא יליץ‬:)‫ לד‬,‫מן הכתובים דכתיב (משלי ג‬

From Writings, as it is written “if [a man chooses a path of] scoffers, then
[Heaven will enable him to] scoff, and grace will be provided to the
humble.”

Makos 10b (citing Mishlei 3:34)

It is specifically the ‫עניו‬, the one who emulates Moshe, who is
guaranteed grace of Heaven, protection against being led down the wrong
path. By contrast, the scoffer who denigrates and devalues everything
around him is assured to be led down the wrong path. In this respect,
Moshe and Bil’am could not have been more diametrically opposed. Bil’am

41 Rashi, Shemos 18:7 “vaYishtachu vaYishak lo,” identifies Moshe as the default ‫ איש‬of the
narrative by virtue of his traits.
42 The concept of ‫ ענוה‬is described by the Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim, Ch. 22 with the
following analogy:

‫ וראוי לו לעמוד‬,‫ שכל אחד ממונה על דבר מה‬,‫הא למה זה דומה למשרתי הבית‬
‫ ואין בכאן מקום לגאוה לפי‬,‫ להשלים מלאכת הבית וצרכיה‬,‫במשמרתו לפי פקודתו‬
,‫ והנה זה העיון והתבוננות הראוי לכל איש אשר שכלו ישר ולא מתעקש‬.‫האמת‬

.‫ אז יקרא עניו אמתי‬,‫וכשיתברר זה אצלו‬

To what does this compare? To servants in a house, each one appointed
over something else, and he is fit to perform his task, in order to
complete the work of the house and its needs. There is no room for
arrogance [of one servant over the other] in truth [since each has his
own unique job for which he is fit]. This is a study and contemplation
befitting any clear thinking person, and when it becomes clear to him,
he is then called a true ‫עניו‬.
43 See, e.g., VaYikra 10:16-20.

56 Rei’ach HaSadeh

desired other people’s money,44 and he could not appreciate things for what
they were truly worth.45 And for that, he was the archetype of a man subject
to the principle of ‫בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬. By contrast, Moshe
was the ‫ עניו‬par excellence, the Man who cared for each one of his father-in-
law’s sheep as if it were his own, and provided the same care for each
member of HaShem’s flock.46 And for that, he was the archetype of a man
to whom ‫ בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו‬does not apply.

One might think that HaShem’s willingness to approve Moshe’s
decisions was a reward for Moshe’s servitude to HaShem. But in reality,
HaShem was no more willing to approve Moshe’s decisions than anyone
else’s.47 HaShem was only more willing to discuss Moshe’s decisions with
him before giving them a stamp of approval. And this level of discussion
was a consequence of Moshe’s humility, not his servitude. In fact, Moshe’s
humility and his servitude were mutually exclusive traits. HaShem makes
this clear in His reproach to Aharon and Miriam with the following words:

.‫ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר בעבדי במשה‬

Why are you not afraid to speak about My servant, about Moshe?

BaMidbar, 12:8

‫ אינו אומר בעבדי משה אלא בעבדי במשה בעבדי אף ע"פ שאינו משה‬- ‫בעבדי במשה‬
.‫במשה אפילו אינו עבדי כדאי הייתם לירא מפניו‬

About My servant, about Moshe – it does not say “About My servant,
Moshe.” Rather, it says “About My servant, about Moshe.” [Meaning,] even
if he were not Moshe but only My servant, even if he were not My servant
but only Moshe, it would be sufficient for you to fear him.

Rashi, ad loc

44 Rashi, baMidbar 22:18 “M’lo Baiso Kesef viZahav.”
45 The Mishnah (Avos 5:19) refers to this trait of Bil’am as a nefesh rechavah. Rav Ovadya
Bartenura, ad loc, explains that only a man of Bil’am’s greed would ever suggest sending the
daughters of Mo’av as prostitutes to the Jews. Notably, the word generally used to describe
this act, liHafkir, also means “to make ownerless,” demonstrating how Bil’am’s advice
disregarded any value of the Mo’avi daughters.
46 Midrash Rabbah, Shemos 2:2-3.
47 See, e.g., Shemos 19:23-24 and Rashi, ad loc. Moshe tells HaShem that he does not need to
warn the nation against touching Har Sinai a second time prior to Matan Torah (the Giving of
the Torah), but HaShem still commands Moshe to warn the nation a second time.

David Kohn 57

This takes nothing away from Moshe’s servitude to HaShem. The
servant of a King is royalty too, and that alone should have been reason
enough to fear criticizing him. But Moshe’s servitude was not the only
reason to fear him. Moshe was the ‫ענו מכל אדם‬. He was beyond the
criticisms of Miriam and Aharon, since HaShem would never lead a man of
Moshe’s humility, servant or otherwise, down the wrong path.

~ EPILOGUE ~

After their first two defeats at the hands of the army of Binyamin,
the shevatim turned one last time to the Urim veTumim. This time, they asked:
“‫ ֶא ְח ָּדל‬-‫ ִאם‬,‫ ִב ְנ ָּי ִמן ָּא ִחי‬-‫ ְב ֵני‬-‫” ַהאֹו ִסף עֹוד ָּל ֵצאת ַל ִמ ְל ָּח ָּמה ִעם‬-“Shall I continue to go
out to war with my brother Binyamin or shall I stop?” (Shofetim 20:28).
Gone was the hubris, the false assumption of victory. Gone was the
assumption that the war should be waged. Very possibly, the shevatim even
questioned their moral high ground.

But most significantly, gone was the assumption that Binyamin
deserved to be wiped off the map of Israel. Had the Urim veTumim declared
“End the war,” the shevatim would have recognized Binyamin’s place among
them. The tribe that two days earlier did not deserve to live now deserved
more careful consideration. And with the honesty and humility of the
shevatim’s last question, they finally earned a sign of grace from Heaven:
“‫ ִכי ָּמ ָּחר ֶא ְת ֶננוּ ְב ָּי ֶדָך‬,‫ ֲעלוּ‬.”–“Go up for tomorrow I will deliver them into your
hands” (Shofetim 20:28.)48

Israel’s first civil war was decided not by numbers. It was not
decided by moral high ground. And it was not decided even by a sign from
Heaven. More than anything else, it was decided by a people’s ability to
value humility above hubris.

.‫ ִי ֶּתן ֵּחן‬,‫ִאם ַל ֵּל ִצים הּוא ָי ִליץ; ְו ַל ֲע ָנ ִוים‬
- Mishlei 3:34

48 In Act I, supra, Rashi’s explanation (that the Urim veTumim gave misleading advice before
the initial battle because the shevatim took for granted that they should go to war) was
challenged by the following question: why would the Urim veTumim continue to give
misleading advice after the shevatim ask “should I continue to approach in battle my brother
Binyamin?” It could be suggested the shevatim’s question “should I continue…”
(Shofetim 20:23) still takes for granted that Binyamin must be eradicated, and does not
consider the alternative choice of sparing Binyamin. Therefore, this question did not show
proper regard for Binyamin’s worth, and the shevatim did not deserve a helpful message from
the Urim veTumim. But the subsequent question, “Shall I continue … or shall I stop,”
(Shofetim 20:28) no longer takes Binyamin’s eradication as a given, and instead considers the
alternative. Therefore, the shevatim showed appropriate regard for their brother Binyamin,
and thus received a trustworthy message from the Urim veTumim.

FATE AND DESTINY:
THEODICY IN RAV SOLOVEITCHIK’S KOL DODI DOFEK

BY: HENNY BOCHNER

Kol Dodi Dofek: A Background

Kol Dodi Dofek, which is based on a speech R. Joseph B.
Soloveitchik1 delivered at Yeshiva University on Yom haAtzmaut 1956, has
become a seminal work of Religious Zionist philosophy, exploring the
relationship between the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel.2
The Rav uses the framework of Shir haShirim (5:1-6), which tells the
allegorical story of a young woman who waits for her Beloved; however,
when her Beloved knocks on her door, she fails to open the door, and by
the time she rises from her bed, her Beloved has already left. Rav
Soloveitchik, using the age-old rabbinic approach of interpreting this
allegory as one about the relationship between the Nation of Israel and
God, paints a vivid picture of the metaphorical “knocks” that God
delivered to the Jewish people:

Eight years ago, in the midst of a night of the terrors of
Majdanek, Treblinka, and Buchenwald; in a night of gas
chambers and crematoria; in a night of total divine self-
concealment...in a night of continuous searching for the
Beloved – on that very night the Beloved appeared. The
Almighty, who was hiding in his splendid sanctum,
suddenly appeared and began to beckon at the tent of the
Lover, who tossed and turned on her bed beset by
convulsions and agonies of hell. Because of the beating
and knocking on the door of the mournful Lover, the State
of Israel was born.3‎

1 R. Soloveitchik, a scion of the illustrious Soloveitchik family, became one of the
preeminent religious authorities of the 20th century. As Rosh HaYeshiva of the Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) at Yeshiva University, and as author of a variety of
works that explore core halakhic, philosophical, and spiritual issues in Judaism, “the Rav,” as
he is often known, has shaped much of the contours of 20th and early 21st century Modern
Orthodoxy.
2 Shalom Carmy, “Kol Dodi Dofek: A Primer” (New York: The Benjamin and Rose Berger
CJF Torah To-go Series, 2018), 4-7. Although the original speech was entitled “Kol Dodi
Dofek: The Voice of My Beloved Knocks,” the work has appeared in various English
translations, including one entitled “Fate and Destiny: From Holocaust to the State of Israel.”
3 Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Fate and Destiny: From the Holocaust to the State of Israel (Jersey City,
NJ: Ktav Publishing, 2000), p. 25.

Henny Bochner 59

The Rav then proceeds to detail six “knocks” that God delivered,
arguing that these developments are a call to action, proof of God’s desire
for closeness with us even amidst the horrors of the Holocaust.4

To clarify what this call to action means for the Jewish people, the
Rav delineates the distinction between a Covenant of Fate and a Covenant
of Destiny. A Covenant of Fate occurs when a group of people share a
history, identify with each other’s suffering, share a sense of responsibility
for each other, and are capable of engaging in single-minded action. While a
Covenant of Fate certainly applies to the Jewish people, it is not one that is
chosen; instead, it is thrust upon a group in the wake of shared experiences
of suffering. On the other hand, a Covenant of Destiny is one of choice: in
this framework, a nation – out of free will – chooses to fulfill its national
potential, and involves itself in an active, purposeful attempt to achieve
national goals. In this context, the Rav argues, it is not enough for one to
simply be part of the Covenant of Fate, to feel connected to his Jewish
identity, or to feel the pain of the suffering of his Jewish brethren. Instead,
the goal of one who is also part of the Covenant of Destiny (which the Rav
equates with the goals of Religious Zionism), is to play an active role in the
rebirth of the Jewish people, not just through the creation of a Jewish State,
but through increased settlement of the Land of Israel, and the
dissemination of Torah throughout the land.

In this context, it is understandable why Kol Dodi Dofek is cast so
often as a piece written in reaction to the Holocaust and a playbook of
Religious Zionist ideology. I would argue, however, that although the Rav’s
reflections on the Holocaust and Religious Zionism are a critical
component of the work, a vital, but overlooked dimension of Kol Dodi
Dofek lies in the fact that the Rav presents a novel approach to theodicy,
one that is both rooted in classical sources and is innovative in its approach.

Approaching Theodicy: The Dimensions of Fate and Destiny

Instead of starting with the allegory of the knocking Beloved, as
might be expected given the title of the work, the Rav actually begins his
essay by establishing that theodicy – a defense of God’s goodness and

4 Ibid. The six “knocks” span a full range of arenas: first, that the international community
(including both the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War) came together to vote for the
creation of the State of Israel; second, that the IDF was able to overpower its enemies,
despite being substantially outnumbered; third, that the Christian claim that God has rejected
the Jewish people and their connection to the Land of Israel has been repudiated; fourth,
that Jews who have assimilated have been forced to reckon with their Jewish identity; fifth,
that Jews now know, for the first time in the Diaspora, that their lives are not free for the
taking; and sixth, that Jews now have a place of refuge in times of persecution.

60 Rei’ach HaSadeh

omnipotence despite the suffering of the righteous (and by extension, the
flourishing of the wicked) – is central to the philosophy of Judaism, casting
it as “one of the darkest enigmas with which Judaism has struggled from
the very dawn of its existence.”5 From the time Moshe beseeched God to
“show [him His] ways” (Shemot 33:13), asking for an explanation to this
fundamental mystery, Judaism has attempted to formulate a response,
arriving at two possible approaches: that of Fate and Destiny.

The Rav describes the dimension of fate as one of duress and
passivity. The man who subscribes to a fate-bound existence, when faced
with suffering, responds in two stages. First, there is a crippling, paralyzing
sense of fear that overtakes the sufferer, as he realizes the full extent of his
passivity and inability to respond in a way that obliterates the suffering.
Then, in an attempt to grapple with the reality that is oppressing him, the
man of fate begins to question, trying to understand how evil can exist in
the world. At this point, whether in the hope that this conundrum can be
solved, or out of a deep-seated conviction that all God does is good, the
man of fate comes to a bold conclusion: despite appearances to the
contrary, there is no evil in this world.

To the Rav, such an approach is delusional, self-deceptive. In his
perception,

Judaism, with its realistic approach to man and his place in
the world, [understands] that evil cannot be blurred or
camouflaged, and that any attempt to downplay the extent
of the contradiction and fragmentation to be found in
reality will neither endow man with reality nor enable him
to grasp the existential mystery.6

As such, any attempt to deny the existence of evil is misguided: according
to the Rav, “it is impossible to overcome the hideousness of evil through
philosophical-speculative thought.”7 Critically, the Rav is not trying to argue

5 Fate and Destiny, p. 1.
6 Id. at 4.
7 Ibid. According to the Rav, this inability to logically account for the existence of evil is not a
function of one’s intellect, but is instead a byproduct of the limitations of the human
experience in the grand scheme of the universe. He offers the following analogy:

To what might this situation be compared? To a person who views a
beautiful tapestry, the work of a fine artisan, which contains, woven into
it on its front, a representation dazzling to the eye. To our great sorrow,
we see this image [e.g. the world] from the obverse side. Can such a sigh
become a sublime esthetic experience? Thus, we are incapable of

Henny Bochner 61

that God capriciously metes out reward and punishment. Rather, he posits
that man, with his limited comprehension, is incapable of grasping the
metaphysic reality in which God operates on a plane of justice, and is
therefore limited to perceiving evil in this world, no matter how much he
would like to deny its existence. Thus, with no workable approach to
solving his dilemma, man of fate is doomed to eternal passivity in the face
of suffering, causing him to be endlessly tormented by the existence of evil.

The man of destiny, on the other hand, has no such limitations.
Subscribing to an active, dynamic mode of existence, the man of destiny
approaches evil from a proactive standpoint. Instead of questioning why
such events are befalling him, he attempts to determine what his response
should be, particularly from the halakhic standpoint. In the face of evil, man
of destiny asks one question: “What obligation does suffering impose upon
man?”8 The answer, to use suffering as a crucible to refine a person into a
more pure and perfect form, is obviously significant, and has real-life
implications for believing Jews attempting to make sense of the suffering
we encounter. However, it bears noting that although the Rav suggests an
appropriate response in the face of suffering, he once again outlines a reality
in which there is no certain justification for theodicy.9

Jewish Sources and the Rav’s Approach to Theodicy

However captivating the implication that the question of the
existence of evil actually has no answer, we must examine if such an
approach is supported by Jewish sources. The best starting point is the
source the Rav uses as support for his claim that the question of the
existence of evil has plagued Judaism since its inception. In Berakhot 7a,
there is a machloket between R. Yohanan in the name of R. Yose and R. Meir
about whether theodicy has ever been explained in the Torah. According to
the first opinion, when Moshe asked God why the righteous suffer and the

comprehending the panorama of reality without which one cannot
uncover God’s master plan – the essence of the works of the Holy One.
8 Fate and Destiny, p. 7.
9 It is fascinating to note how well the paradigms of fate and destiny align with the
approaches found in the Rav’s other works, specifically the typologies of homo religiosus and
Halakhic Man. Like man of fate, homo religiosus tries to make sense of this world, “find[ing] in
this concrete and physical world the traces of higher worlds, all of which are wholly good.”
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991),
p. 13. In attempting to comprehend the workings of the heavens, he “searches for an
existence that is above empirical reality,” and as a result, his quest is futile. Ibid. Halakhic
Man, on the other hand, does not lose himself in abstract theorizing. For him, “cognition is
for the purpose of doing,” and as such, “he cognizes the world in order to subordinate it to
religious performances,” focusing his energies on doing rather than questioning (Id. at p. 63).

62 Rei’ach HaSadeh

wicked prosper, he received an answer: the righteous who suffer are
descendants of the wicked, and the wicked who prosper are the offspring of
the righteous. Alternatively, the righteous who suffer are not wholly
righteous, while the wicked that prosper are not wholly wicked. God is
offsetting the discrepancy in this world so they can receive their just
desserts in the World to Come. According to the second opinion in the
Gemara, however, Moshe never received an answer: God responded by
saying that sometimes even those who are wholly undeserving are treated
with mercy by God (and vice versa) – and thus, the question of why the
righteous suffer remains unanswered to this day.

The Rav’s approach, which is in line with the latter opinion in the
Gemara, seems to be supported by other sources. The Mishnah (Avos 4:15),
for example, quotes R. Yannai as saying that “ ‫ֵאין ְב ָּי ֵדינוּ לֹא ִמ ַש ְל ַות ָּה ְר ָּשׁ ִעים ְו ַאף‬
‫”לֹא ִמ ִיסוּ ֵרי ַה ַצ ִדי ִקים‬-“it is not in our hands [to explain] either the tranquility
of the wicked or the suffering of the righteous.” Similarly, many sources
from Nach seem to imply that Moshe did not receive a response to his
question, because the question continues to be examined. In Jeremiah 12:1,
for instance, the prophet laments his inability to understand “why does the
way of the wicked prosper and why are all the betrayers tranquil?”; and the
whole of the book of Job is devoted to the issue. Likewise, the Midrash
Aggadah in Shemot 33:20 writes that Moshe asked God the tzadik veRa lo
question – and God refused to answer.

Two Approaches to Explaining Theodicy: A Synthesis

However, the first opinion in the Gemara, which provides an
explanation for why the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper, still needs
to be accounted for. Not only are two direct answers offered, but the Rav
himself acknowledges that the Rambam subscribes to the first opinion, and
that God “enlightened Moshe regarding the governance of the totality of
existence.”10 Moreover, there exists in Judaism a well-established tradition
of explaining theodicy. By arguing that it is incorrect to do so, the Rav
might well be creating a new host of problems at the very same time as he
solves another.

I believe, however, that there need not exist a contradiction
between the two opinions in the Gemara, and that in fact, a closer reading
of Kol Dodi Dofek supports this premise. Yes, per the first opinion in the
Gemara, an explanation of “tzaddik veRa lo” was offered by God to Moshe,
and on a metaphysical, Godly level, it is absolute truth. However, the rules

10 Kol Dodi Dofek at p. 75.

Henny Bochner 63

of metaphysics are not readily discernible by mortals, and as such, the
answer Moshe received has little relevance to our existence. This is
supported by a close reading of the text of the Gemara in Berakhot 7a:
despite the fact that R. Meir claims Moshe was never given an answer to his
third question (about tzaddik veRa lo), he brings proof from something God
actually said to Moshe in response to his request to understand God’s ways.
In other words, an answer was offered, but at the end of the day, the human
mind, constrained by the realities of this world, cannot comprehend it--and
therefore the question remains not only unanswered, but unanswerable.
Instead of being discouraged by this reality, however, and allowing oneself
to wallow in the seemingly arbitrary nature of good and evil, the Rav
suggests the proactive, positive approach of using suffering as an
opportunity to better oneself and bring oneself closer to God.

In developing his approach, the Rav cites the Mishnah (Berakhot
9:5) which says that “[a] man must pronounce a blessing over evil just as he
pronounces a blessing over good.” In effect, the Rav argues that just as
“God’s goodness imposes upon man the obligation to perform exalted,
sublime deeds…so too do afflictions require of a person that he improve
himself.”11 In other words, the Mishnah is acknowledging that in this world,
we will inevitably experience things that we perceive as evil; however, our
response should be a proactive, halakhically driven one. This dovetails with
R. Meir’s opinion, as developed by the Rav: because there is no
understandable answer to the question of why evil happens, our only
response can be to ask what halakha demands from us in response.

However, because this reality is predicated on our inability to
grasp God’s hidden, ineffable ways, such a reaction is only appropriate in a
world in which we are removed from God: according to the Rav, “if man
could grasp the world as a whole, he would be able to gain a perspective on
the essential nature of evil.”12 In fact, the Gemara (Pesachim 50a) paints just
such a scenario, depicting the day “HaShem will be one and His name will
be One.” (Zechariah 14:9) In the World to Come, R. Acha bar Chanina
explains, we will say only “haTov vehaMetiv” (the blessing on good tidings), as
opposed to life in Olam haZeh, where we say both “haTov vhaMetiv” and
“dayan haEmet” (the blessing on bad tidings). In other words, while in this
world we perceive things as both good and evil, in the World to Come,
when God’s unity and “all-encompassing framework of being” becomes
revealed to man, we will be able to acknowledge the good, and the justice,
in all of God’s actions, including those that previously would have seemed

11 Id. at p. 10.
12 Id. at p. 5.

64 Rei’ach HaSadeh

to be a manifestation of evil in this world13. Then, and only then, will we
achieve an understanding of the answer to tzaddik veRa lo that was offered
to Moshe by God, one that will remain beyond the grasp of human
understanding until the world changes enough to allow humanity to
perceive it.

If such an explanation is embraced, then what the Rav
accomplishes in Kol Dodi Dofek is simultaneously revolutionary and
traditionalist. On the one hand, he is pulling the philosophical rug out from
under the age-old engagement in theodicean apologetics by claiming that
such an approach is not optimally desired by halakhah, since the reality of
this world dictates that no answer exists that will be helpful to mortals. On
the other hand, he doesn’t negate the existence of a solution to the
problem, arguing only that such a solution is beyond human
comprehension given the realities of our world. As such, Kol Dodi Dofek
deserves to be recognized not only for its importance as a seminal work in
the Religious Zionist canon, but as one which offers a novel solution to one
of Judaism’s oldest questions: that of tzaddik veRa lo.

13 Ibid.

DOES G-D SPEAK DIRECTLY TO PEOPLE TODAY?

BY: DR. RACHEL KOHN

The most direct method of communication from HaShem to man
is prophecy. Prophecy lasted for approximately 1,000 years from the time
of the Exodus (2448; 1313 BCE) until 40 years after building the Second
Temple (3448; 313 BCE). 1 During the time of Bayit Rishon (the First
Temple), prophecy was very
common in Israel. At times
there were over a million
people who had experienced When a severely disabled infant
prophecy.2 The Talmud states was born to R. Eytan Feiner
(Sanhedrin 11a): “The spirit of (currently the rabbi of the ‘White
prophecy ceased that year Shul’ in Far Rockaway) he and his
when the last three prophets – wife traveled to Benei Brak to
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi consult with the gadol Rav
– died.” Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman,
zt”l. They stood holding the

bundled baby and the rav came

While rabbinic out of his study to greet them.

authorities agree that we do He walked up to the bundle and

not have prophecy today, there said, “Hello Avraham Yeshayahu.”

are levels of Divine The Feiners were shocked. They

communication that are below had not told anyone the baby’s

prophecy. The Rambam name.

describes two such levels,

‫( סייעתא דשמיא‬Divine (As told to the author by Rebbetzin
assistance) and ‫רוח הקדש‬ Feiner on July 10, 2019)

(Divine inspiration):

Not all the degrees of prophecy which I will enumerate
qualify a person for the office of a prophet. The first and
the second degrees are only steps leading to prophecy, and
a person possessing either of these two degrees does not
belong to the class of prophets…

(1) The first degree of prophecy consists in the Divine
assistance (‫ )סייעתא דשמיא‬which is given to a person, and
induces and encourages him to do something good and

1 See, e.g., Kuzari 1:87, 3:39; R. Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought (Brooklyn, NY:
Maznaim Publishing Corp., 1979) at 6:86.
2 See Megillah 14a.

66 Rei’ach HaSadeh

grand, e.g., to deliver a congregation of good men from
the hands of evildoers; to save one noble person, or to
bring happiness to a large number of people; he finds in
himself the cause that moves and urges him to this deed.
This degree of divine influence is called “the spirit of the
Lord” and of the person who is under that influence we
say that the spirit of the Lord came upon him, clothed
him, or rested upon him, or the Lord was with him, and
the like…

And just as not everyone who has seen a true dream is a
navi, not everyone who has received [Divine] assistance in
some chance matter – such as the acquisition of property
or the achievement of an end that concerns him alone –
can be said to have been accompanied by ruach HaShem, or
that “HaShem is with him,” or to have done what he has
done “through ‫רוח הקדש‬.” We only say this about one who
has performed a good action of capital import or an action
that leads to that result; as, for instance, the success of
Joseph in the house of the Egyptian, which was, as is clear,
the first cause for great things that occurred afterwards.

(2) The second degree is this: A person feels as if
something came upon him, and as if he had received a new
power that encourages him to speak. He treats of science,
or composes hymns, exhorts his fellow men, discusses
political and theological problems; all this he does while
awake, and in the full possession of his senses. Such a
person is said to speak by the Holy Spirit. David
composed the Psalms, and Solomon the Book of
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon by this
spirit; also Daniel, Job, Chronicles, and the rest of the
Ketubim were written in this holy spirit; therefore they are
called ketubim (Writings, or Written), i.e., written by men
inspired by the holy spirit. Our Sages mention this
expressly concerning the Book of Esther…

We must especially point out that David, Solomon, and
Daniel belonged to this class, and not to the class of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Nathan the prophet, Elijah the Shilonite, and

Dr. Rachel Kohn 67

those like them. For David, Solomon, and Daniel spoke
and wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit.3
R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto also describes levels of Divine Influence
that are lower than prophecy:
[1] God ordained that man should be able to teach himself,
understand and reason with his intellect, and thus gain
knowledge from his observation of things and their
properties...This is the natural process of human reason.
God also decreed, however, that there exist another means
of gaining knowledge that is much higher than this. This is
what we call bestowed enlightenment.
Bestowed enlightenment consists of an Influence granted
by God through various particular means especially
prepared for this purpose. When this Influence reaches an
individual’s mind, certain information becomes fixed in it.
He perceives this knowledge clearly, without any doubt or
error, and knows it completely, with all its propositions
and corollaries, as well as its place in the general scheme.
This is called Divine Inspiration (‫)רוח הקדש‬.
[2] In this manner one can gain knowledge of things
otherwise accessible to human reason, but in a much
clearer way as discussed above. On the other hand, one
can also gain information that could not be otherwise
gained through natural means. This includes such things as
information concerning future events and hidden secrets.
[3] This experience, however, can take place on many
different levels. These may involve the power of its
Influence, the time when it is granted, the manner in which
it reaches the individual, and the nature of the things
revealed and communicated in this fashion. In every case,
however, the Influence comes in such a manner that its
recipient is clearly aware of it.

3 Moreh Nevuchim, Part II, Ch. 45.

68 Rei’ach HaSadeh

It is also possible,
however, that such
Influence be A musmach of Rav Moshe zt”l went
extended to a to visit his Rebbe on Chol Hamoed
Sukkos. When he greeted Rav
person's mind so that Moshe with “Gutten Moed Rebbe,”
he can clearly Rav Moshe responded, “ ‫בשעה טובה‬
perceive a given ‫”ומוצלחת‬. The man thought Rav
concept without his Moshe didn’t understand what he
being aware of this said or who he was, because he
Influence. In such a and his wife had tried
case, it is experienced unsuccessfully for decades to have
like any other idea children and wound up adopting
two children. He had even spoken
that arises to Rav Moshe about this. He said
spontaneously in gut moed again and Rav Moshe
one's mind. In a responded the same way he did
broader sense, this is the first time. He thought nebach
also called Divine that Rav Moshe was losing it....
Inspiration or
“hidden Influence” in Almost half a year later, this man’s
the words of our wife, who was a very large woman
(and wasn’t with her husband
Sages [even though it when he went to Rav Moshe),
is actually a much starting having the most intense
lower level]. True pains she ever experienced in her
Divine Inspiration, life. She called an ambulance and
however, is a clear was rushed to Staten Island
and vivid experience University Hospital. She thought
to the one worthy of she was dying and the emergency
it, and he is highly room doctor told her, “Lady, you’re
not dying...you’re giving birth!”
aware of its
Influence.4 She gave birth to a totally healthy
baby boy who now lives in the 5
Do we still have Towns with a large mishpacha.
these lower levels of prophecy
today? The Talmud (Bava (As told to the author by R. Chaim
Batra 12a) states: “Rav Avdimi Marcus)
from Haifa said, ‘From the
day that the Beit haMikdash
was destroyed, prophecy was
taken from the Nevi’im
(Prophets) and given to the

4 Derech HaShem, Part III, Ch. 3. Translation from The Way of HaShem, trans. Aryeh Kaplan
(New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1999), pp. 213-215.

Dr. Rachel Kohn 69

Chachamim (Torah scholars).’” The Talmud (Nedarim 38a) further states that
only chachamim can become prophets: “R. Yochanan said: HaShem doesn’t
spread His Shechinah on someone unless he is a gibor, ashir, chacham and
anav.” Ramban resolves this apparent contradiction: Even though nevu’ah
from visions and dreams was taken away from the prophets, the nevu’ah of
chachamim in the way of wisdom (‫ )בדרך חכמה‬was not removed; the
chachamim know the truth with the ‫ רוח הקדש‬that is inside them.5 Ramban is
explaining that the mechanism of prophecy has changed from receipt of
visions, whereby a message or image is delivered instantaneously, to receipt
of knowledge which requires thought and analysis.

What is the likelihood that you will receive a message through ‫רוח‬
‫?הקדש‬

Rambam, based on the Talmud, delineates the prerequisites for
becoming a prophet.6 And since ‫ רוח הקדש‬is a step leading to nevu’ah, it may
follow that the same prerequisites apply for receiving messages through ‫רוח‬
‫הקדש‬. The prerequisites include (but are not limited to):

1. Exceptionally intelligent and healthy.

2. Learned and wise…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 God,
the consideration of His works, and of that which he must
believe in this respect.

3. There must be an absence of the 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. It is further necessary to suppress
every thought or desire for unreal power and dominion;
that is to say, for victory, increase of followers, acquisition
of honor, and service from the people without any ulterior
object…

5 Chidushai haRamban al haShas, Bava Batra 12a.
6 Rambam identifies these requirements in both Moreh Nevuchim (Part II, Ch. 36) and the
Mishnah Torah (Yesodei haTorah 7:1).

70 Rei’ach HaSadeh

4. 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
“My grandmother had a sister named Chava nothing but
who was quite ill. She had had a very things very
difficult life, an unhappy marriage, and was extraordinary
extremely poor. Finally, in her old age, and divine,
Chava found a tiny basement apartment and and see
put up curtains and this was home. One day nothing but
she had a major stroke which left her God and His
completely paralyzed. When they carried angels. His
her off to the hospital, she called out, ‘My
heimila, my heimila.’ (‘My little home, my knowledge
little home’ - in Yiddish). will only
include that
which is real
When I heard what happened, I wanted to knowledge,
help Chava. In my mind, I offered G-d a year
of my life if He would cure her. That way and his
she would have a little more time to enjoy thought will
her ‘home.’ The very next morning, my only be
mother’s cousin called to say that a miracle directed to
had occurred, and Chava was cured! They such general
were afraid to tell her that she was principles as
paralyzed, and in the morning she had just would tend to
gotten up from bed and washed up as if improve the
nothing had happened. The doctors were
astounded. I smiled and didn’t say a word. social
All through the years, I knew that my deal relations
was worth it. Chava lived another six between man
and man.

months. And I knew there really is a G-d These four
who watches over us. This was only one of criteria clarify why the
several amazing occurrences during my life.” stories of individuals

(As told to the author firsthand by an anonymous with ‫ רוח הקדש‬are

source.) typically about

tzaddikim and great
rabbis. Rambam
states: “it is impossible that an ignorant person should be a prophet: or that

a person being no prophet in the evening, should, unexpectedly on the
following morning, find himself a prophet, as if prophecy were a thing that

Dr. Rachel Kohn 71

could be found unintentionally.”7 Rambam clearly does not support the
idea that God would inspire a person who does not have the qualities listed
above to deliver His messages. If you are interested in becoming invested
with ‫ רוח הקדש‬the path is clear.

The approach of the Rambam notwithstanding, I’ve encountered
people who would not be counted among gedolai Yisroel, but have
nonetheless heard a message communicated to them outside the normal
modes. In some of these cases the message was not clear although the
experience was startling. If messages received today require thought and
analysis, perhaps the meaning of a message remains unclear if the recipient
does not have the capacity to decipher it. It seems that there is more to this
subject than I have been able to uncover in the classical sources. Over time
more will be revealed, as, according to the Rambam, prophecy will be
restored before the coming of the Mashiach: “There is no doubt that the
return of prophecy is ‫( הקדמת משיח‬a harbinger of the Messiah),”8 may he
come speedily and in our days.

7 Moreh Nevuchim, Part II, Ch. 32.
8 Iggeroth HaRambam, Iggereth Teiman, 3.

72 Rei’ach HaSadeh

“I had the most extraordinary experience when we arrived at the Kotel…it
was not in any human experience that I knew of…I noticed something just
above me in the air to my left…I saw a long bar of grey energy hovering
above the men’s section. It must have been at least 20 feet long and on an
angle, with the top slightly inclined like a head. After a minute or two it
was suddenly directly near me and it had changed shape although I never
saw it move. Now I saw 5 bars of energy, each possibly 6 feet long…of
semi-solid gray matter…They stood there in the air in a circle tilted towards
me: two bars attached to each other in front, and three behind. They were
staring down at me and I just stared back up at them. I thought to myself,
‘It’s true! HaShem does intervene on earth! This is min haShamayim.’

Near these bars was a small, white and round area that looked like a white
cloud. But this was not a cloud. The center was open and a passageway
could be seen going up into the sky…there was no sign of this from the
outside. It was as if a hole had been punched in the sky!

There was absolute silence. Nothing moved. I was rooted to the spot.

Suddenly, my head exploded with the words, in Hebrew, “!‫”יש ה' במקום הזה‬
(“There is G-d in this place!”) A bolt of fear shot through me. I was
terrified, and I instinctively ducked and closed my eyes. I thought my time
had come. Then I felt as if a hand within me extinguished the column of
fear inside and a soft voice said, ‘Shush’ to calm me…I was afraid to look
back at what I had seen…So I straightened up and turned to face the Kotel.

The Kotel had changed. I did not see any people praying or plants growing
on the wall. I did see something out of this world. In front of the Kotel
were hundreds of little black, round dots moving in an oval pattern, each
within its own small area, and each moving independently of the others. It
seemed as if there was a curtain of energy in front of the Kotel. I thought
the stones looked almost alive because of all the activity. The words that
came to me in English were, “HaShem is waiting.”

Immediately, everything disappeared and I found myself facing the Kotel
looking for a place to pray among all the people…Afterward, I realized that
this enormous force I had seen in front of me knew my thoughts, quieted
my fear, and spoke to me within my head. A mere human is as nothing to
such a force from heaven.”

(As told to the author in writing by an anonymous source)

SHAMAYIM MIN HATORAH

BY: REUVEN PEPPER

Abraham Joshua Heschel writes in his magnum opus Tora Min
Hashamayim:

Some say that the standing at Sinai was the end of
revelation and that there can be no revelation after the
giving of the Torah at Sinai; whatever a diligent student
will teach in the future was already spoken to Moses. And
there are those who say that the standing at Sinai was not
the end of the giving of the Torah, nor was it a total
revelation. The Holy and Blessed One renews Halakhah
each day and gives Torah many times. “The Lord spoke
these words to your whole congregation at the mountain
out of the fire and the dense clouds, with a mighty voice
and no more.” (Devarim 5:19) This verse was interpreted
in two ways. “The first: [veLo yasaf] means “without end”
(so Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi), “for God’s voice is
mighty and eternally enduring” (Rashi). The Second: “veLo
yasaf” means “God never again appeared so publicly” (the
alternative understanding quoted in Rashi) In the blessing
over the Torah we say, “who gives the Torah.” In truth,
God already gave it, but God is still giving it, with no
cessation.1

Elsewhere R. Heschel remarks:

I am very excited about the fact that we have both
interpretations. If we only had one interpretation, namely,
a great voice but nevermore, we would have petrified Jews.
If we had only the second interpretation, a great voice that
never ceases, we would have slippery Jews, relativists. How
marvelous that we have both interpretations. They
supplement each other.2

1 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations, ed. and trans.
Gordon Tucker. (New York: Continuum, 2005), p. 671. Originally published as Torah min
HaShamayim b’Aspaklaria shel Hadorot. [In Hebrew.] 3 vols. (London: Soncino; New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965 and 1990).
2 Heschel first published this passage in the final paragraph of his ’Al ruah ha-kodesh bimey ha-
beynayim (1950) [Hebrew], translated as Prophetic Inspiration After the Prophet (Jersey City, NJ:
Ktav Pub. & Distributors Inc., 1996), p. 67.

74 Rei’ach HaSadeh

What is remarkable about this observation is that it contradicts R.
Heschel’s leanings toward an ongoing revelation that alludes to God’s voice
going beyond what was given at Mount Sinai. R. Heschel suggests we
search for the value of both interpretations, specifically by commenting on
the Talmud’s (Eruvin 13b) statement that “both are the words of the living
God.” He writes, “ya’ase adam et libbo chadrie chadarim, veyah ad ’im ze yeshotet
levakesh Halachah berurah”-“A person should make for himself a heart of
many chambers but should also seek out a clear Halachah.” 3 While R.
Heschel is both attuned and tempted to read ‘lo yasaf’ as God’s voice being
revealed continuously in the recesses of the inner self,4 I would like to
demonstrate that for R. Heschel such an evocation is merely an
afterthought that had already sought itself out through the modalities of
Rabbinic exegesis.5 In other words, for R. Heschel, to have heard God’s
voice is to have already been given over to the Torah through which such a
voice becomes revealed.

3 Torah min Hashamayim, Vol. III, at p. 95.
4 R. Heschel does have scant references of hearing God’s voice in everyday life, writing that
“God speaks in faint, understated ways even ‘in our own lives.’” God in Search of Man (New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1976), pp. 174-175. Shai Held dubbed this notion as
“proto-revelation,” which he explains:

Of course, Heschel does not attempt a taxonomy of modes of divine
communication, nor does he offer a clear line of demarcation between
what he would consider "revelation" and what he would regard as lesser
forms of divine communication (remember, for example, that Heschel
describes "the echo of an echo of a voice" in our lives as analogous to
revelation, but not as revelation proper). If pressed, he would have been
quick to remind us that one cannot hope to classify, let alone to analyze
exhaustively, phenomena which are inherently mysterious, and which
we can only indicate, but never adequately describe. One thing,
however, is clear: according to Heschel, even long after the age of
prophecy has passed, “God is not always silent.”
Reciprocity and Responsiveness: Self-Transcendence and the Dynamics of Covenant in the Theology and
Spirituality of Abraham Joshua Heschel, available athttps://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/
887900254.html?FMT=ABS.
5 R. Heschel anticipates such a conflation in the following words:

Some of that original understanding and response of Israel was poured
into words, conveyed from mouth to mouth, entrusted to writing, but
much, of which words were only a reflection, remained unsaid,
unwritten, a tradition transmitted from soul to soul, inherited like the
power to love, and kept alive by constant communion with the Word,
by studying it, by guarding it, by living it and by being ready to die for it.
In the hands of many peoples it becomes a book; in the life of Israel it
remained a voice, a Torah within the heart (Isaiah 51 :7).
God in Search of Man at p. 275.

Reuven Pepper 75

As noted, ‫ קול גדול ולא יסף‬can be understood to mean “a great voice,
which did not continue,” since the verb ‫ יסף‬means “to continue, to carry
on.”6 Conversely, Targum Onkelos translates these words as ‫קל רב ולא פסיק‬
– “a great voice that never stopped.”7 Further, in the Talmud (Sotah 10b), R.
Shemuel b. Ammi interprets the verb ‫ יסף‬as if it were related to the noun
‫( סוף‬end), and thus he interprets the word ‫ יסף‬as “cease” or “stop.”8

Rashi (Devarim 5:19 ad loc. ‫ )ולא פסק‬attempts to explain this
discrepancy:

We render this in the Targum by ‫“ – ולא פסק‬and He did not
cease,” – [Because it is in characteristic of human beings
that they are unable to utter all their words in one breath
(but must make pauses) and it is characteristic of the Holy
One, blessed be He, that is not so, therefore He did not
pause, and since He did not pause, He did have to resume]
– for His voice is strong and goes on continuously
(Sanhedrin 17a). Another explanation of ‫ולא יסף‬: HaShem
did not again ever reveal himself with such publicity.9

6 One could render the verb “yasaf” as “add, append,” thus translating the verse as: “a great
voice, and He added nothing to it.”
7 See Torah min Hashamayim, Vol III, at p.36.
8 The most extensive study on this topic was by Yochanan Sillman. Sillman finds three
attitudes toward the possibility of ongoing divine influence on Jewish sages through the ages.
First, the “Perfection ( ‫ ) שלמות‬Position;” which regards the Torah in our hands as entirely
complete. Sages who hold this position reject in principle the possibility of halakhic change,
though they admit that because of human forgetfulness and fallibility some changes have,
tragically, crept into the Oral Torah. Second, in what Sillman terms the “Being-Ever-
Perfected ( ‫ ) השתלמות‬Position,” human beings make original and positive contributions to
Torah, which becomes more and more perfect over the ages. The third approach is a
variation of this second position: The “Discovery ( ‫ ) גילוי‬Position,” in which Torah as it
exists in heaven is perfect, but the limited apprehension human beings have of the heavenly
Torah is being continually perfected. This summary was recapped from Benjamin Sommer,
Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition, (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2015), p. 189 (adapting Yochanan Silman, The Voice Heard at Sinai: Once or Ongoing? [In
Hebrew.] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999). Also refer to Shalom Rosenberg, “Continuous
Revelation: Three Directions” (in Hebrew), in Hitgalut, Emunah, Tevunah, ed. Moshe
Halamish and Moshe Shwartz (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976), pp. 131-143; Tamar
Ross, Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism, (Waltham, MA: Brandeis
University Press, 2005), pp. 184-212.
9 See further Nachmanides (Ramban) on Deuteronomy 5:19, found in The Commentators Bible:
Deuteronomy, ed. and trans. Michael Carasik, (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society,
2015), p. 43:

In the Hebrew, these phrases come at the end of the verse, and in
reverse order…Following Onkelos,…the sense is that God spoke in in

76 Rei’ach HaSadeh

R. Heschel’s discussion of God’s ongoing voice may be read
through the prism of R. Isaiah Horowitz of Prague (16th-17th c.; also known
as the Shlach). In Shnei Luhot Habrit, R. Horowitz establishes a close
connection between human creativity and the power of the divine voice.10
Contemplating a Talmudic saying (Gittin 6b) to the effect that God repeats
the Torah mouthed by the Sages, he notes that the divine voice heard at
Sinai is described in the Torah itself as “ceaseless.”11 This voice, according
to R. Horowitz, represents koach – both in the sense of power, as well as
potentiality.12 Similarly, “the Sages innovate ‘through the power’ (bekoach) of
the voice, and activate the potential contained in the voice through their
study.”13 However, he hastens to add, we should not think for a moment
that “the sages introduced anything from their own minds. Rather, they
focused on the supernal mind (da’at ‘elyon), and their souls which had stood
at Mount Sinai.”14

Further, R. Horowitz identifies another telling proof of the
ceaseless voice of HaShem in Jewish liturgy: “We first praise God as “the

a single breath…according to Exod. 19:19, “The blare of the horn grew
louder”, which (as the sages note) was to accustom them gradually to
the sound. Now, that the verse literally says not “the sound” but the
“voice,” but perhaps this indeed refers only to the sound of the horn.
God’s own voice speaking the commandments did not get louder but
remained at the same level. The translation “ceasing” is correctly
derived from the same verb in “take away their breath” (Ps. 104:29) that
the related verb in “rejoicing and gladness are gone from the farmland”
(Jer. 48:33). The sense would be that God’s might was not withdrawn
until all the commandments had been spoken. But the straightforward
sense of the verse is that “it went and no more”; that is, that such a
sound was never again heard. The true interpretation is that “those
words” (the first two commandments), and “no more,” were spoken
“with a mighty voice.” The Holy one enabled the entire assembly to
comprehend this single utterance, for that was the limit of their
capacity. See my comment to Exod. 19:20 and my other remarks about
this episode.
10 Shenei Luhot ha-Berit, cited and discussed in The Voice Heard at Sinai at p.100.
11 On this theme see The Voice Heard at Sinai at pp. 31-33; see also Zohar 2, 81A (discussing
the power of this ceaseless voice).
12 For Kabbalistic discussions of the dual sense of power see Jonathan Garb, “Powers of
Language in Kabbalah,” in The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign, ed. S. La
Porta and D. Shulman, (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Press, 2007), pp. 236-239. (extrapolating
Elimelekh of Lisansk [Likutei Soshanah], where the verse “the voice of God in power
(bekoach)” is interpreted as follows: “the voice of God is potential and is activated by the
speech of the righteous.”)
13 Isaiah Horowitz, Shenei Luchot Haberit, 25a (Amsterdam ed. of 1648); 18b (Warsaw ed. of
1930). See also, Powers of Language in Kabbalah at pp. 236-239.
14 Isaiah Horowitz, The Generations of Adam, trans. by Miles Krassen, (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press, 1996), pp. 265-266.

Reuven Pepper 77

one who gave (‫ )נתן‬us His Torah” and then as “the one who gives (‫ )נותן‬the
Torah.”15 Just as the kol simultaneously never continued and never ended,
so “in truth God already gave the Torah, but He is still giving the Torah
and does not stop.”16

In addition, R. Horowitz notes that the:

“great voice” at Sinai contained “ideas intended for certain
individuals in certain ages.” He alludes here to a Midrashic
interpretation of Psalm 29:4, which holds that God spoke
to the myriads at Sinai by conveying a personalized
revelation to each person, based on his or her capacity to
understand, resulting in myriads of individual revelations at
Sinai… According to R. Horowitz, each idea revealed at
Sinai has its own appropriate moment. On the day when
God revealed Torah at Sinai, the right moment had not yet
come for many an idea: “the matter depends on the level
of wakefulness of mortal beings, on their essence and their
quality, and on the level of the souls of each and every
generation.”17

It is for this reason, therefore, that “all of the words of the sages in
every generation that they initiate and all their argumentation (pilpulim) are
from Sinai.”18 Indeed, R. Horowitz insists, seemingly new interpretations of
the Torah offered by the Sages are not new at all:

It is not the case, God forbid, that the sages innovated
based on their own opinions! Rather, they simply arrived at
the conclusion that God had already expressed. Their
souls, which stood at Mount Sinai (for at that event all the
souls were present), received everything appropriate to the
nature of their souls and their generation…It follows that
the Holy Blessed One gave the Torah at every time. At
every hour the well that pours forth does not stop; what
God gives (‫ )נותן‬is what God gave (‫ )נתן‬in potential.19

15 See Horowitz, Sheini Luchot Haberit at 25a-b; 1:18b-19a. For an English translation see The
Generations of Adam at pp. 265-275.
16 Revelation and Authority at p. 205 (citing Horowitz, Shenei Luhot Haberit, 25a; 18b.)
17 Id. at p. 206 (internal citations omitted).
18 Generations of Adam at p. 267. See also Shenei Luhot Haberit at 25a; 18b.
19 Generations of Adam at pp. 265-266.

78 Rei’ach HaSadeh

From R. Horowitz we may conclude that the Divine voice which
emanated from Sinai was not solely a historical phenomenon, and it did not
disappear. Rather, it is the Torah itself which reveals the true nature of this
kol, as it embodies “the paradox of discovering anew what was previously
given.”20 The voice which was heard v’lo yasaf reflects this paradox in every
letter, vowel, word and phrase of the Torah – and in this phrase in
particular – making “the past in present tense.” 21 This “great voice”
disappeared even as it never ceased, a duality which enables us to hear it
“Bayom Hazeh,” today, even though we are not situated in the sands of
Ma’amad Har Sinai.

R. Heschel further bridges R. Horowitz’s duet between an ongoing
prophetic voice and one that ceases. According to R. Heschel, prophecy-
nevuah-and its continued reception may be learned from the following:

If your prophet is a prophet from Yhwh, it is through a
mirror [ ‫ ] ב ַמ ְ ַר ָּאה‬that I make Myself known to him; I speak
to him through a dream. Not so My servant Moses! He is
trusted throughout My household. I speak to him directly,
clearly [ ‫ ] וּ ַמ ְר ֶאה‬and not in riddles. He gazes on the form
of Yhwh, so why do you not fear to speak against My
servant, against Moses? (Numbers 12:6–8)

These verses use a subtle play on words to express two
types of prophecy. Moses sees God “clearly”—literally, he
is in contact with the actual sight (‫— וּ ַמ ְר ֶאה‬mar’eh) of God,
whereas other prophets see God by means of a “mirror”
( ‫— מ ְ ַר ָּאה‬mar’ah)…

Thus, in Midrash, Vayiqra Rabbah 1:14, we read: How did
Moses differ from all the prophets? Rabbi Judah son of
Rabbi Ille’ai and the Sages expressed their opinions. Rabbi
Judah said: All the prophets saw through nine Speculums
(from the Latin specularium, refers either to a mirror, lens or
to a pane of glass) aspaqlariyot . . . but Moses saw through
one aspaqlariyah, as it is written, “Clearly and not in
riddles.” (Numbers 12.8) The Sages said: All the prophets
saw through a dirty aspaqlariyah, but Moses saw through a
polished aspaqlariyah… [Further the Talmud (Yebamot

20 Elliot Wolfson, “Light Does Not Talk but Shines: Apophasis and Vision in Rosenzweig’s
Theopoetic Temporality,” in New Directions in Jewish Philosophy, ed. Aaron Hughes and Elliot
Wolfson, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010), pp. 87-148.
21 God in Search of Man at pp. 211-212.

Reuven Pepper 79

49b)] tells us that Moses saw through a bright aspaqlariyah
and the prophets through a dim one. 22, 23

Abraham Joshua Heschel attempts to assist us by quoting the
following:

Midrashic teaching from Bereshit Rabbah 17:5 concerning
the term ‫נובלות‬, a term referring to fruit that falls from a
tree before fully ripening. The midrash uses the term
metaphorically to refer to degrees of prophecy according
to their ripening:

Rabbi Hanena bar Isaac said: There are three cases of
fallen fruit/inferior fruit/lesser versions (‫)נובלות‬. The
inferior fruit/lesser version of death is sleep. The lesser
version of prophecy is a dream. The lesser version of the
World to Come is the Sabbath. Rabbuyh Avin adds: The
lesser version of the supernal light is the sun. The lesser
version of the supernal wisdom is Torah.24

R. Heschel refers us to a vital distinction describing prophecy as:

a particular act of communication – one that took place
not beyond, but within the consciousness of man, not
prior to, but within the realm of his historical
existence…Prophetic inspiration must be understood as an
event, not as a process…A process happens regularly,
following a relatively permanent pattern; an event is
extraordinary, irregular.25

22 Revelation and Authority at pp. 107-108.
23 R. Heschel writes:

The words of Scripture are the only lasting record of what was
conveyed to the prophets. At the same time they are neither identical
with, nor the eternally adequate rendering of, the divine wisdom. As a
reflection of His infinite light, the text in its present form is, to speak
figuratively, one of an endless number of possible reflections. In the
end of the days, it was believed, countless unknown rearrangements of
the words and letters and unknown secrets of the Torah would be made
known. Yet in its present form the text contains that which God wishes
us to know.”
God in Search of Man at p. 264.
24 Revelation and Authority at pp. 113-114 (internal citations omitted).
25 God in Search of Man at pp. 208-209.

80 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Elsewhere also R. Heschel asserts the uniqueness of revelation as a
onetime event:

Whatever the motive or content, and whatever be the
mode in which inspiration is apprehended, there remains
always its character as an event, not a process. What is the
difference between a process and an event? A process
happens regularly, following a relatively permanent pattern;
an event is extraordinary, irregular… The term
“continuous revelation” is, therefore, as proper as a
“square circle.”26

I believe that these two views are reconciled by Heschel’s
interpretive engagement in the Torah itself, which allows for a notion of
continuous revelation.27 In other words, that a continuous revelation calls
itself ‘continuous’ becomes for Heschel a function of the unique event at
Har Sinai, and its ongoing Rabbinic interpretation. 28 Through such a
ripening process, ‘kol gadol v’lo yasaf’ continuously resounds as God’s giving
(‫ )נותן‬and as what God gave (‫)נתן‬. Therefore, for R. Heschel the afterlife of
revelation becomes “an invitation to perceptivity, a call for continuous
understanding [Miqra]”29 or what Heschel coined, Shamayim min haTorah.30

26 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Prophets, Part II, (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society,
1962), p. 431.
27 Scholar of Jewish Mysticism Elliot Wolfson brings to our attention this conflict:

The obscuring of the chasm between revelation and interpretation holds
the key to unlock the doors of midrashic imagination, as the latter,
through the vagaries of time, works out in detail the ‘hermeneutical core
of Judaism,’ the ‘identification of God’s utterance and Torah,’ an
identification that is rooted in the belief that the written Torah itself is
an ‘extension of divine speech – and not merely its inscriptional trace.’
As the extension of divine speech, the text revealed at Sinai, whether we
construe this in the most limited sense as the Decalogue or in the most
expansive sense as the whole of Torah, ‘is accompanied by a prolepsis
or encapsulation of the future achievement of rabbinic interpretation.
The written text thus mediates between the original verbal revelation of
God at Sinai and the ongoing discourses of the sages in history.’
Elliot Wolfson, “Sage is Preferable to prophet: revisioning midrashic imagination,” in
Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination, ed. Debrah Green and
Laura Lieber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 187.
28 The insistence that, according to Heschel, God continues to speak even though the age of
prophecy has ended is a recurrent theme in the work of Alexander Even-Chen. See Even-
Chen, Kol min ha- 'arafel: Avraham Yehoshu 'a Heshel: ben fenomenologyah le-mistikah [A Voice from
the Darkness: Abraham Joshua Heschel-Phenomenology and Mysticism] (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1999).
29God in Search of Man at p. 273. R. Heschel also conflates understanding with continuous
acceptance (kabbalat): “Revelation lasts a moment, acceptance continues.” Id. at p. 213. See
also, Torah min Hashamayim at p. 95. Elsewhere R. Heschel writes, “Understanding prophecy

Reuven Pepper 81

is an understanding of an understanding rather than an understanding of knowledge: it is
exegesis of exegesis. It involves sharing the perspective from which the original
understanding is done.” The Prophets, Part I, at p.XIV.
30 Torah min Hashamayin, at pp. 30-32. Elsewhere, R. Heschel explains:

You cannot grasp the matter of the “Torah from Heaven” unless you
feel the heaven in the Torah. All temporal questions are in the context
of eternity…But whoever denies the wondrous has no share in this
world; how much more so can such a person have no dealing with
heavenly matters. If this event is like an everyday occurrence, given to
accurate apprehension and description, then it is no prophecy. And if
the prophetic encounter is sublime and awesome, without parallel in the
world, then it is clear that no description will do it justice, and silence
becomes it.
Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations at p. 668.

PRAYER AND HESTER PANIM:
THE HIDDEN POWER WITHIN

BY: AVI BORENSTEIN

In Tanakh, Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah, estrangement from
God’s presence is known as “hester panim” or “the concealed face of God.”
Judaism is a religion in which proximity to God, and growing near to
HaShem in love and ritual participation, is a central imperative for
individuals and the Jewish people. In contrast, the metaphorical hester panim
is a frightening yet recurrent theme that is responsive to bad or
inappropriate behavior by the “chosen people.”

The direct power and importance of God showing His face to His
People is pronounced in two powerful expressions in the Chumash. First,
in parashat vaEtchanan, (Deuteronomy 5:4), preceding his repetition of the
Aseret haDibrot (the Ten Statements (commandments)), Moshe describes
that HaShem spoke the first two of the Ten Commandments to the
assembled Jewish people at Mount Sinai, “panim b’panim,” “face to face.”
Hearing the first two of the Aseret Hadibrot face-to-face is an expression of
prophetic connection and the power of face-to-face communication.1

Second, earlier in the Chumash, in the Priestly Blessing of the Jewish
people found in parashat Naso, HaShem instructs the Kohanim to bless the
Jewish people with the following familiar incantation (Numbers 6:22-26):

.‫ ְו ִי ְשׁ ְמ ֶרָך‬, '‫ְי ָּב ֶר ְכָך ה‬
.‫ ִוי ֻח ֶנ ָּך‬, ‫ָּי ֵאר ה' ָּפ ָּניו ֵא ֶליָך‬
.‫ ְו ָּי ֵשם ְלָך ָּשׁלֹום‬, ‫ִי ָּשא ה' ָּפ ָּניו ֵא ֶליָך‬

May God Bless you and safeguard you.

May God illuminate his face (countenance) to shine upon
you and be gracious to you.

May God turn his face (lift his countenance) to you and
establish peace for you.2

1 Rambam reports that the assembled Jews only heard the first two of the Ten
Commandments, but they could only hear sounds. They did not comprehend what was
being said and Moshe had to explain it for them. Still, those Statements were said face to
face. See Moreh Nevuchim, II:32.
2 Translation from The Stone Edition Chumash, R. Nosson Scherman and R. Meir Zlotowitz,
general ed., (New York: ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, 1994), pp. 763-764.

Avi Borenstein 83

R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch sees in the second component of this
blessing a sense of closeness with God that is evinced by the bestowal of
material gifts that are used for Godly purposes. The illumination of
HaShem’s “face” inspires us to draw closer to Him and transform the
material into spiritual possessions and actions we direct toward Him. 3
Thanks to other biblical references as well, we also learn that tremendous
benefits accrue to the Jewish people when they are shown HaShem’s
“countenance.” We thus can understand that we crave HaShem to be open
to us, described anthropomorphically as HaShem “opening his face to us.”
That positioning of being face to face is is the anti-hester panim and is the
best of all possible experiences of interactions with God.

In contrast, there are many examples in Jewish Scripture of hester
panim, HaShem seemingly hiding his face. One of the earliest Scriptural
references to HaShem seeming to hide Himself – and thereby having
ignored the plight of the Jews for a period of time – and then after a period
of time hearing their anguish, is described in parashat vaEra. The
phenomenon of hester panim becomes apparent after Moshe expresses his
concerns to HaShem about the harsh treatment of the Jewish slaves in
Egypt and his ability to gain their freedom and deal with Pharaoh. Although
the term is not articulated in the text, this episode is an example of hester
panim in Scripture; for if God has now heard the groans of the Jewish
people, then it would seem that previously He either did not hear them or
was not influenced by them. Thus, HaShem ‘hid His face’ to the earlier
groans of the Jewish people.4

Ultimately, as the Exodus story unfolds, HaShem tells Moshe that
He is HaShem and there is an established covenant with Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob requiring their liberation from Egypt, before adding, “I have
heard the groan of the Children of Israel whom Egypt enslaves, and I have
remembered My covenant.” (Exodus 6:5)

3 See, Numbers, Hirsch Chumash, trans. Isaac Levy (Gateshead, England: Judaica Press,
1989).
4 The reasons for HaShem engaging in hester panim for the Jews in Egypt are many. The
Midrash Rabbah in Shemot suggests that the Israelites were not worthy of being heard by
HaShem because, among other shortcomings, they were guilty of idolatry in Egypt. But for
the merits of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the promises made by HaShem
to them, HaShem would not have “heard’ (i.e., acted upon) their cries. The Midrash
importantly observes that their groans and cries were not the cries of prayer but were cries of
discomfort. That was a marked difference between the Jews in Egypt and the cries of the
Jews of Persia as noted in the Book of Esther, which we detail later in this piece. See,
Midrash Rabbah, Kleinman Ed., (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 2016), Shemot,
parashat vaEra, Chap. 6, Sec. 3, p 5-2, n. 65, 67.

84 Rei’ach HaSadeh

The threat that HaShem will ‘hide His face’ in response to seriously
bad behavior by the Jews prominently finds its way into the Chumash as a
generic warning in parashat vaYelech (Deuteronomy 31:16-17), when HaShem
says:

‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬,‫ ָּה ָּא ֶרץ‬-‫ ֲא ֹב ֶתיָך; ְו ָּקם ָּה ָּעם ַה ֶזה ְו ָּז ָּנה ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱאֹל ֵהי ֵנ ַכר‬-‫ִה ְנָך ֹשׁ ֵכב ִעם‬
‫ ְו ָּח ָּרה‬.‫ ְב ִרי ִתי ֲא ֶשׁר ָּכ ַר ִתי ִאתֹו‬-‫ ְו ֵה ֵפר ֶאת‬,‫ ַו ֲע ָּז ַב ִני‬,‫ ָּשׁ ָּמה ְב ִק ְרבֹו‬-‫הוּא ָּבא‬
‫ ַה ְס ֵתר ַא ְס ִתיר‬,‫ ְו ָּא ֹנ ִכי‬...‫ ַההוּא ַו ֲע ַז ְב ִתים ְו ִה ְס ַת ְר ִתי ָּפ ַני ֵמ ֶהם‬-‫ַא ִפי בֹו ַביֹום‬
.‫ ֱאֹל ִהים ֲא ֵח ִרים‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ ִכי ָּפ ָּנה‬:‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ָּע ָּשה‬,‫ ָּה ָּר ָּעה‬-‫ ַעל ָּכל‬,‫ָּפ ַני ַביֹום ַההוּא‬

You will lie with your forefathers, but the people will rise
up and stray after the gods of foreigners of the Land, in
whose midst it is coming, and it will forsake me and annul
my covenant that I have sealed with it. My anger will flare
against it on that day and I will forsake them; and I will
conceal My face from them...But I will surely have
concealed my face on that day because of all the evil that it
did.5

Thus, HaShem assuredly will hide His face both when the Jews are
in Eretz Yisra’el and again, a second time, in a new environment: i.e., in the
Diaspora, after the expulsion of the Jews from the land of Israel. There,
while in galut, the result will be a concealment of HaShem’s “face of
redemption,” resulting in continued exile. However, due to HaShem’s
mercy, even in exile the Jews generally will live in as good or better
conditions than the nations among whom they reside. Why? Because
HaShem has promised the Jews (Leviticus 26:44) that despite rejecting them
for their sins, he will not obliterate them while they live in the lands of their
enemies.

When HaShem does not open his face to us – when in fact
HaShem hides his face – we experience what seems like a withdrawal of
HaShem’s responsiveness to our plight. We seem to be left to our peril, to
navigate the difficult highways of life with no GPS. We have the map – the
Torah – but no one telling us in our ear, “Turn right in 300 feet, turn left, I
am directing you, traffic is heavy take this detour,” concluding with a
triumphant, “You have arrived at your destination!”

No, we are overwhelmed by hester panim and the GPS is not talking

5 Translation from The Chumash, Stone Edition (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1996),
p.1096.