Rei'ach HaSadeh Vol 5

Rei’ach
HaSadeh

2021|5782

Congregation Israel of Springfield

Volume Five: Connections

Rei’ach HaSadeh

Volume Five: Connections

2021|5782

Editorial Board
Diane Osen Covkin
Adam Reich
Adam L. Sheps
Aron Srolovitz
Rabbi, Congregation Israel of Springfield
Chaim Marcus

Copyright © 2021 – Congregation Israel of Springfield
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted, in any form or by any means whatsoever without the prior
permission, in writing, from the editors.
Cover Design, production and printing:
Ganz/Gross – NY
Printed in the United States of America

A publication of

Congregation Israel of Springfield
www.congregationisrael.org

Congregation Israel of Springfield (“CIS”) is a dynamic Modern Orthodox Congregation
which takes pride in providing a warm, friendly environment in which to appreciate
the meaning of Judaism. Our shul is committed to embracing Judaism through
observance, prayer, study, and chessed.

Rei’ach HaSadeh

Volume Five: Connections

CONTENTS vi
xvii
Supporters of Rei’ach HaSadeh 1
Editors’ Introduction
Message from the Rabbi 7
ARTICLES 15

The Torah’s Crowning Glory: Moshe in Rabbi Akiva’s Classroom 31
Henny Bochner 47
The Redemption of Small Steps: 53
R. Jonathan Sacks’s Vision of a Covenantal Society
Reuven Pepper 77
The Right Piece in the Wrong Place 83
David Kohn 91
The Mishkan and Jewish Community Building 97
Moshe B. Rosenwein 103
Brit Milah: The Quintessential Connection Between
Man, Woman and God
Avi Borenstein
ESSAYS
One Cannot Be Two
Ben Hoffer
Be the Glue
Aron Srolovitz
Relationships: The Torah’s Guide to Eternity
Daniel Krausz
The Physics of Relationship
Uzi Beer
Gilgul haNeshamah: Connecting the Dots
Adam Greiss

The Wicked Son Revisited 111
Robert Goldberg, Ph.D. 121
Perspective and Precedent 125
Noam Zeffren
You’ll Never Walk Alone: Connections for Body and Soul 135
Adam L. Sheps 143
Reflections 155
A Call for Unity: The Hunter Shul 157
Joseph Rotenberg, z”l 163
Shema Yisra’el: The Man Who Loved Every Jew 169
Diane Osen Covkin 173
The Gifts of our Parents 177
Judy Cohen Sandman
A Divine Search Engine
Shari Stein
Old Connections with New Directions
Clara T. Harelik
Reflections of a Covid Kallah
Cheryl Becker
Ms. Youner, Are you a Nurse?
Sara Youner
Country Roads Can Take You Home – And Home Again
Gabe Cooper



JOURNAL SPONSOR

Dedicated in memory of:
MELVIN & DOROTHY HANOVER, A”H

‫משה מרדכי בן יצחק יעקב‬
‫דבורה בת בנימין‬

And our Dear Grandparents:
FRANCES AND NORMAN FREEDMAN, A”H

SARAH AND MORRIS KELNER, A”H
IDA AND ISADORE HANOVER, A”H
PAULINE AND BARNEY KATZNELSON, A”H

May their neshamot have an aliyah.

Sheila & Adam Hanover

JOURNAL SPONSOR

Dedicated in loving memory of our Grandparents:
‫זלמן בן מאטל‬
‫גניה בן נחמיה‬
‫מיכאל בן יוסף‬
‫פרידע בת נחום‬

‫אלטער יהודה יצחק בן יחיאל‬
‫חוה איתא עטל בת אברהם‬

‫משה מאיר בן בנימין‬
‫רײזעל בת קלונימוס‬
May their neshamos have an aliyah,

and
in honor of all of the authors and editors of Rei’ach HaSadeh.

This Journal represents the epitome of the
Congregation Israel of Springfield community’s greatest values.
Your tireless efforts toward spreading Torah are truly inspiring.

May the Torah you have shared be a zechus for your families
and all of Kelal Yisra’el.

Leah & Noah Kaminer

JOURNAL SPONSOR

In the summer of 2020, as the world was locked down
with Covid-19 restrictions, the editors and contributors

of Rei’ach HaSadeh, Volume Four, together with
Rav Chaim Marcus, encouraged shul members
to be writers and leaders and at the same time,

to follow the example of shul leadership
in maintaining community ties.

The result was an extraordinary Torah Journal which
enriched the lives and neshamot of many.

In early 2021, when masks and separation were
still keeping people apart, the editors
and contributors of Rei’ach HaSadeh
encouraged shul members to find and

maintain connections in Torah, in community,
and once again in leadership.

The result now is the superlative
Volume Five of Rei’ach HaSadeh.

Avi & Sharon Borenstein,
and our extended

Borenstein (Teaneck),
Abbou (Elizabeth & Jerusalem),
and Cohen (Baltimore, Tampa & greater Lakewood) families,

are pleased to join the Congregation Israel membership
and readership, to honor the Marbitz Torah of the editorial staff,

Rabbi Marcus and the Contributors, who have produced
Congregation Israel of Springfield’s

Rei’ach HaSadeh, Volume Five, 5782/2021.

JOURNAL SPONSOR

“The higher goal of spiritual living is not to amass a wealth of information,
but to face sacred moments.”

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

Dedicated in honor of
RABBI CHAIM AND LEA MARCUS
And the editors and authors of Rei’ach HaSadeh

In honor of our children
MICHELLE AND BARRY STEIN
ALYSSA AND MARC DANNENBERG
In memory of our parents and grandparents
SHIFRA AND DR. MORRIS EPSTEIN

BERNARD STEIN
EVA AND ARI HALPERN
SARA AND R. CHUNA HERSCHFUS

And in memory of
EMMY HOFFER

Sherry & Henry Stein

JOURNAL SPONSOR

Dedicated in memory of our grandparents:
FLORENCE & MORRIS BABICH
JEAN CAPELOTO-ROSENBAUM,
JACK CAPELOTO &
SAM ROSENBAUM
SUSAN & SAMUEL KLEIN
EUGENIA & PAUL SHARON
Leora & Shmuel Babich

JOURNAL SPONSOR

LEILUI NISHMAS EMMY HOFFER – CHANAH TEMAH BAS CHAIM A”H
Everyone who knew Emmy Hoffer was completely heartbroken over

her untimely passing. However, although she passed away at a relatively
young age, she still lived an extremely full life. Her years were full in that she
raised children and grandchildren who are all committed to an observant
Jewish life; and her days were full in that she never missed an opportunity to
help someone or brighten someone’s day.

Emmy’s journey in life was truly inspiring. She grew up in a Conservative
home in Bayonne, NJ, where she attended public school and Hebrew School.
She always said that from a very early age she loved everything about being
Jewish, and knew that she wanted to be more observant. It was that desire to
grow religiously that brought our family to Springfield back in 1989.

Emmy’s soul is pure love and kindness, which radiated through her body and
was reflected in her bright smile. She used that smile to build connections
with everyone she encountered; anyone who knew her can attest to her
genuine concern for others. This care for others, and her boundless will to
help anyone and everyone, was the embodiment of her personal avodah and
the means by which she connected and felt close to G-d. May we all continue
to learn from her example, be inspired by her life and incorporate her
middot/avodah in the way we all live our lives.

Emmy was incredibly impressed with the Rei’ach HaSadeh Torah Journal.
Because “connections” was a central theme in Emmy’s life, dedicating this
journal in her memory seems very fitting.

Yasher Koach to all the authors, and even more so to the editors.to whom we
all owe a tremendous HaKaras HaTov. May the Torah in this journal, and the
inspiration derived therein, bring an aliyah to the neshamah of Chanah Temah
bas Chaim, Emmy Hoffer, a”h.

Ben, Daniella, Yakira, Maytal, Tzofia & Atara Hoffer

ARTICLE SPONSOR

In honor of our parents, children, and all teachers
who continue to keep the scholarship
of Torah alive and relevant.
Alisa & Jeffrey Kigner

ARTICLE SPONSOR

Dedicated in loving memory of
CANTOR DAVID OSEN, z”l
David ben Yitzchak HaKohen
Who inspired us and thousands more

with his tefillot and kavanah
and who dedicated his life to
“the honor due to father and mother, acts of kindness,
early attendance at the house of study morning and evening,
hospitality to guests, visiting the sick,
providing for a bride, escorting the dead,
absorption in prayer, bringing peace between

man and his fellow; and
the study of Torah is equivalent to them all.”

Rick & Diane Osen Covkin & Family

ARTICLE SPONSOR

Dedicated in honor of all those who are in need of healing.
.‫ הושיענו ונושעה כי תהלתנו אתה‬.‫רפאנו ה’ ונרפא‬
.‫והעלה רפואה שלמה לכל מכותינו‬
.‫כי אל מלך רופא נאמן ורחמן אתה‬
Heal us, LORD, and we shall be healed.
Save us and we shall be saved, for You are our praise.

For You, God, King are a faithful and compassionate Healer.
‫ שתשלח מהרה רפואה‬.‫יהי רצון מלפניך ה’ אלהי ואלהי אבותי‬

‫ רפואת הנפש ורפואת הגוף‬,‫שלמה מן השמים‬
:‫לכל חולי ישראל‬

May it be your will, O LORD my God and God of my ancestors,
that You speedily send a complete recovery from heaven, a healing of

both soul and body, to all those who are afflicted in Israel.

Rachel Lohr & Adam Sheps



xvii

EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

Last summer, as we prepared the final manuscript for Rei’ach
HaSadeh, we felt relieved to know that despite the unprecedented changes
wrought by the global pandemic in 5780, our fellow members of
Congregation Israel of Springfield (“CIS”) would once again have the
opportunity to be enlightened during and beyond the Yamim Nora’im by
scholarly articles and personal essays focusing on “Leadership.” The theme
of Volume IV of Rei’ach HaSadeh proved to be prescient, given the necessity
for effective, ethical leadership after months of isolation, anxiety and
acrimony. Little did we know, as we arranged for the socially distanced
distribution of our Torah Journal, that 5781 would bring additional
challenges to our souls and psyches – challenges that would remind us,
more acutely than ever, of a foundational principle of Judaism: Kol Yisra’el
Arevin Zeh baZeh, all members of the Jewish People are responsible for one
another.

Connections, the theme of the 5782 edition of Rei’ach HaSadeh,
addresses the ways in which our members embrace this principle through
limud haTorah, tefillah, chessed and achdut: learning, prayer, lovingkindness and
unity. Thanks to our shul’s scrupulous adherence to the guidance of
governmental, medical and halachic authorities who prioritized pikuach nefesh
– the primacy of human life above all other considerations – we were able
to continue learning Torah during the height of the pandemic, while
sustaining our treasured tefillah traditions and the sanctity of our Mikdash
Me’at. Our members also demonstrated their commitment to chessed and
achdut, assisting others in Springfield with everything from healthcare
advice, to grocery shopping, to old-fashioned phone calls. Similarly, our
commitment to our fellow Jews in Israel was evident in the many online
initiatives in which CIS members participated. More than ever, we came to
appreciate the power – and the necessity – of our connection as a global
Jewish community united by our love for HaShem and one another.

In Hebrew, the word for “connection” is kesher. Interestingly,
however, this word does not appear at all in the Torah; and when it appears
in Navi – a total of sixteen times – it almost always means “conspiracy.”
For example, we read in Shmuel Bet about Avshalom’s efforts to conspire
with Achitofel haGiladi against his father Dovid haMelech(15:14): “VaYehi
haKesher amitz,” or “and the conspiracy grew strong;” while in Melachim Bet
we learn that Ataliah – the only woman to serve as a monarch in Yehudah,
and an avatar of evil – calls out “kesher, kesher!” or “treason, treason!” in the
moments before she is finally overthrown in favor of Yoash (11:14).
Significantly, the original shape of the letter kuf, the first letter of kesher,

xviii Rei’ach HaSadeh

is thought to have represented a needle, a tool used for piercing or
permanently altering – the ultimate goal of any conspiracy to usurp. Perhaps
over time the meaning of kesher was transformed to hew more closely to the
other functions of a needle: repairing a tear and knitting together disparate
elements. These, of course, are the tasks all of us must undertake in order
to create and sustain connections.

As with many words in Hebrew, we can enhance our
understanding of the various roles a kesher can play in our lives by studying
words with similar roots or sounds, as demonstrated by gedolim as diverse as
Rashi (see Vayikra 19:16 and Yeshayahu 21:14), Rav Samson Raphael
Hirsch and R. Lord Jonathan Sacks, in their voluminous exegeses of Torah.

One such word is gesher, which means bridge. Surprisingly, this
word also is absent from the Torah, perhaps because the Torah itself is the
ultimate bridge between the Divine and the human. However, like the
practices our members explored in previous volumes of Rei’ach HaSadeh
– Prayer, Reaching Out, Hearing the Voice and Leadership – bridging gaps and
building connections enable us to fulfill mitzvot bein adam leChavero (our
obligations toward others), as well as those bein adam leMakom (our
obligations to HaShem). In the first instance, these mitzvot compel us to
bridge perspectives and values that might otherwise divide us. None of us
can see as clearly or act as justly if we look inward only; we need the
wisdom, faith, kindness and example of HaShem to help us become the
people He created us to be. Similarly, connecting with HaShem through
learning, tefillah and action enables us to bridge the spiritual gaps we sense
within ourselves, to approach ever closer to the ideal relationship with
HaKadosh Baruch Hu.

Another near homophone of kesher is kasher, meaning fit or proper
according to Jewish law; for example, we are obligated in the Torah by
HaShem to eat those foods He has declared kosher, and to abstain from
those He has declared non-kosher. Strict, consistent compliance with
halachah is critical; but embodying kashrut in our daily lives requires us to
think deeply as well about our interactions with everyone we encounter.
Thus the Torah is replete with role models whose middot enable them to
cultivate the spark of divinity that HaShem implants within all His
creations; our job is to emulate their middot and mitzvot, so that we can
become ever more fit and proper companions for those with whom we
traverse the paths traced by our avot. This process enables us to strengthen
our connections to one another as we seek to follow the words of HaShem.

Editor’s Introduction xix

Another word reminiscent of kesher is nesher. A nesher is an eagle,
which functions frequently as a symbol of HaShem’s role as the Ribbono Shel
Olam, the creator and master of the universe. After the Jewish People are
redeemed from slavery – and before we receive the gift of Aseret haDibrot –
a HaShem reminds Moshe (Shemot 19:4), “You have seen what I did to the
Egyptians, how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Me. Now then, if you will
obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among
all the peoples.” Just as eagles carry their young on their wings, so too does
HaShem protect us physically and spiritually, forging a bond that cannot be
severed.

Our response, we learn, must be three-fold.

First, as we learn from R. Yehudah ben Temah, we must try to
mirror in our daily lives the love and devotion that HaShem continually
lavishes on us (Pirkei Avot 5:23): “Be strong willed as a leopard, fleet as an
eagle, swift as a deer, and mighty as a lion to do the will of your Father in
heaven.” Second, we must express our thanks to HaShem for His chessed
and infinite compassion. It is no coincidence that an eagle figures in one of
the most beloved tefillot in our Siddur, Nishmat Kol Chai, in which we
acknowledge that even if our “hands [were] as outspread as the eagles of
the sky and our feet as swift as hinds – we still could not thank You
sufficiently.” Finally, in all our roles – as children, siblings, parents, friends,
colleagues and community members – we must rise above enmity, anger,
disappointment and other divisive emotions in order to connect with all
those created in the image of HaShem. In eulogizing in equally loving terms
his jealous predecessor and his dearest friend, David models this middah
(Shemuel Bet 1:23): “Saul and Jonathan, his son, who were beloved and pleasant in
their lifetime, and in their death were not separated. They were swifter than eagles, and
mightier than lions.” To be an eagle in Jewish life is to soar ever higher in our
collective devotion, service, and gratitude to HaShem, as well as our
relationships with others.

Finally, in Hebrew a rainbow is called a keshet. Despite its ubiquity
after a rainstorm, a rainbow is a phenomenon so sublime that it merits its
own berachah: “Blessed are You, Lord our G-d, King of the universe, who
remembers the covenant, and is faithful to His covenant, and keep His
promise.” A rainbow, of course, famously appeared as a sign to Noach that
HaShem would never again destroy the world. But as this berachah confirms,
the sustenance of the world depends on us too – for a covenant requires
two parties who are equally faithful to one another. This mutuality is
reflected by the shape of the rainbow, which joins heaven and earth in an
incomparable display of HaShem’s glory and His delight in us,

xx Rei’ach HaSadeh

His Am Segulah, or treasured nation. To merit seeing a rainbow is to
experience instantly an ineffable yearning for connection with HaShem and
– it is to be hoped – an immediate resolution to actualize the chessed and
achdut that have always been the defining traits of the Jewish People.

It is the fervent hope of the Editors that the articles, essays and
reflections in year’s Rei’ach HaSadeh will lead readers to deeper levels of
appreciation for our uniquely Jewish connections, and inspire them to
achieve yet greater intention in ensuring their primacy in our personal and
communal lives.

II
The journal begins with articles by writers who adopt a scholarly
approach to their chosen topics, followed by essays in which writers share
their own interpretations and opinions. The journal concludes with
reflections by writers who recount personal experiences germane to this
year’s theme.
The contributors to Rei’ach HaSadeh, representing a variety of
backgrounds, were encouraged to use the Ashkenazi “saf” or the modern
Israeli/Sephardic “taf,” as they saw fit. We also encouraged their preferred
usage of the various English names for God. The transliteration of Hebrew
and Aramaic words into English derives mainly from the rules of the Torah
U-Madda Journal,1 with a few exceptions to promote the ease of reading for
the typical reader. Pessukim (verses) directly quoting Tanach include nekudot
(vowels), while quotations from the Gemara and other sources do not
include nekudot. All references to the Talmud are from the ‫תלמוד בבלי‬
(Babylonian Talmud) unless otherwise noted.
To benefit readers who lack familiarity with Hebrew, prefixes
(other than HaShem and HaSadeh) are written in the lower case, with the
main word capitalized. This distinction is meant to aid the understanding of
important Judaic terminology.

1 Available at: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/879973/torah-u-madda-
journal-editor/volume-17-transliteration-style-and-reference-format.

Editor’s Introduction xxi

III

We are especially grateful to all those who worked so hard to help
to make Volume V of Rei’ach HaSadeh a reality, starting with our Journal
Patrons, Daniella and Scott Wittenberg, who have generously enabled our
members to connect with the work of Daniella’s father, Mr. Joseph
Rotenberg, z”l, a beloved writer, raconteur and sports fan. His marvelous
essay leads off our “Reflections” section this year.

We also appreciate the encouragement and enthusiastic support of
our Journal Sponsors, Avi and Sharon Borenstein; Leora and Shmuel
Babich; Sheila and Adam Hanover; Ben and Daniella Hoffer, Leah and
Noah Kaminer, and Sherry and Henry Stein; and the myriad contributions
to this publication of our Article Sponsors.

Finally, we extend our gratitude as well to Rabbi Chaim Marcus, for
his wisdom, insights and guidance; Tuvia Ganz, for his striking cover design
and production; and of course, the members of our kehillah who devoted
many hours of research and contemplation to the compelling narratives
they composed for our Torah Journal.

We envision that Rei’ach HaSadeh will engender further reflection
and inspiration in response to the words of our diverse and dynamic
writers. Their views, however, are theirs alone, and do not necessarily
reflect those of the editors.



1

MESSAGE FROM THE RABBI

BY: R. CHAIM MARCUS

All the books of Tanach, in one way or another, address the theme
of ‘Connections,’ whether between HaShem and human beings, people with
other people, or individuals with themselves. The different modes and
means of connecting also vary between each sefer, and in some seforim, even
between each perek. However, there is one sefer of Tanach that I believe
demands careful examination when contemplating the theme of this year’s
Rei’ach HaSadeh Torah Journal: Megillas Rus.

The Medrash Yalkut Shimoni (Ch. 428) quotes Rebbe Chiya who notes
that of the 85 pessukim which comprise Megillas Rus, all but 8 begin with the
letter ‘vav.’ This is a unique phenomenon, not found in any of the other
books of Tanach, and thus it begs a deeper look. One could infer that the
overwhelming use of this prefix in the Megillah is meant as a message. As a
prefix, the way it is primarily used in the book of Rus, the Hebrew letter
‘vav’ means ‘and.’ The first definition of ‘and’ in the Merriam-Webster
Dictionary is “used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of
items within the same class or type.” In what way is this idea integral to the
theme of this book of Tanach?

It is clear from the many commentaries on Megillas Rus that this
book is focused on the importance of taking responsibility for others and
doing them acts of kindness. In the very beginning of the story, we are told
that Elimelech, a wealthy leader from Shevet Yehuda, abdicates this obligation
by abandoning his people in a time of famine and settling in Moav. He and
his sons are punished for their renunciation of their responsibilities, and the
sole survivor of the nuclear family who fled from Israel is Naomi, now
a penniless widow. Both of her Moabite daughters-in-law, Orpah and Rus,
initially insist on accompanying her back to her homeland, but Naomi
doubly rebuffs them. Orpah heeds Naomi’s instruction to return to her
people, her god, and her mother’s home, but Rus refuses. She stubbornly
insists on escorting Naomi back to Israel, and declares her intent to join in
the fate and destiny of the Jewish People. Thus, in the first perek we find
a clear contrast between Elimelech and Rus: two individuals who take
drastically divergent paths when confronted with the suffering of others.
Elimelech relinquishes his lifelong connections, while Rus embraces a new
one: sharing in Naomi’s pain and suffering, as well as her faith.

The Megillah continues to follow Rus’s journey, and highlights
another contrast in connectivity and responsibility. In the second perek we

2 Rei’ach HaSadeh

are introduced to Boaz, a relative of Elimelech, who sees a poor, Moabite
convert looking for charity in one of his fields. When informed that this
young woman is the one who traveled with Naomi, Boaz makes sure that
her needs are satisfied. However, he goes further when he steps up to marry
Rus. His immediate efforts to forge a connection stands in stark contrast to
the efforts of Ploni Almoni, another relative of Elimelech, to distance
himself from Naomi and Rus; he is only concerned with his status, and
ignores the plight of these two forsaken women. After this episode, Ploni
Almoni is forgotten, his very name indicating that a self-serving life is
ultimately an anonymous life, whereas Boaz becomes the father of the
Judaean Royal Dynasty that began with King David.

Significantly, the conclusion of Megillas Rus traces the lineage of
King David, highlighting the message of this Megillah: a life of service, of
embracing responsibility and recognizing the essential connection between
every member of Am Yisra’el, is the cornerstone of a life well-lived.
Additionally, it isn’t coincidence that Boaz and Rus are the progenitors of
the Davidic Line, as the king is the leader of a nation, and the principal
unifier and connector of its citizens. Dovid haMelech is the epitome of
Malchus Yisra’el, because his great-grandparents were the epitome of chessed.

Rav Chaim Yosef Dovid Azulai – also known as the Chida – in the
introduction to his commentary on Megillas Rus, explains why there is
a minhag to read this Megillah on the Yom Tov of Shavuos. He says that
Shavuos celebrates the giving of the Torah to the Benei Yisra’el, and the
essential message of the Torah is to be gomlei chessed, bestowers of
benevolence. We therefore read Rus because it is the book in Tanach that
stresses the primacy of kindness in our lives, and it is this lesson that we
must take with us from the holiday of Shavuos, and incorporate into our
daily lives. The theme of ‘Connections’ is one that obviously transcends
Megillas Rus but the sefer portrays, in vivid human terms, the necessity and
benefits of being a connector. May we all learn this vital teaching of Rus
and Boaz, follow in their path, and merit to be redeemed by their
descendant speedily in our days.

Our CIS Torah Journal, Rei’ach HaSadeh, facilitates a great deal of
communal and personal connection, and for that we must thank the editors,
sponsors, and of course, all the authors. May they and their families all be
blessed with the tremendous zechus of increasing limud haTorah and
connecting us to one other. I would be remiss if I didn’t specifically single
out three individuals by name: Adam Sheps, Aron Srolovitz, Avraham
Chaim Reich and Diane Covkin. Adam, Avraham Chaim, Aron and Diane
have truly labored over the remarkable sefer you hold in your hands. It is the

Message From the Rabbi 3

product of their combined passion and effort. May they and their families
derive great berachah and simchah from all their efforts, and may HaShem
bless all their efforts with the same success as they have found in producing
Rei’ach HaSadeh.



Articles



7

THE TORAH’S CROWNING GLORY:
MOSHE IN RABBI AKIVA’S CLASSROOM

BY: HENNY BOCHNER

‫אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שעלה משה למרום מצאו להקב”ה‬
‫שיושב וקושר כתרים לאותיות אמר לפניו רבש”ע מי מעכב על ידך‬
‫אמר לו אדם אחד יש שעתיד להיות בסוף כמה דורות ועקיבא בן יוסף‬
‫שמו שעתיד לדרוש על כל קוץ וקוץ תילין תילין של הלכות אמר‬
‫לפניו רבש”ע הראהו לי אמר לו חזור לאחורך הלך וישב בסוף שמונה‬
‫שורות ולא היה יודע מה הן אומרים תשש כחו כיון שהגיע לדבר אחד‬
‫אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי מנין לך אמר להן הלכה למשה מסיני נתיישבה‬
‫דעתו חזר ובא לפני הקב”ה אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם יש לך אדם‬
‫כזה ואתה נותן תורה ע”י אמר לו שתוק כך עלה במחשבה לפני אמר‬
‫לפניו רבונו של עולם הראיתני תורתו הראני שכרו אמר לו חזור‬
‫[לאחורך] חזר לאחוריו ראה ששוקלין בשרו במקולין אמר לפניו‬

.‫רבש”ע זו תורה וזו שכרה א”ל שתוק כך עלה במחשבה לפני‬

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he
found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the
letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe,
who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions?
God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after
several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined
to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon
mounds of halachot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added
to the letters of the Torah.

Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me.
God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end
of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not
understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he
thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva
arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My
teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It
is a halachah transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard
this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that
he was to receive.

8 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Moses returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and
said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man as great
as this and yet You still choose to give the Torah through me. Why?
God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. Moses
said before God: Master of the Universe, You have shown me Rabbi
Akiva’s Torah, now show me his reward. God said to him: Return
to where you were. Moses went back and saw that they were weighing
Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in a butcher shop, as Rabbi Akiva was
tortured to death by the Romans. Moses said before Him: Master of
the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? God said to him:
Be silent; this intention arose before Me.1

Moshe in Rabbi Akiva’s Beit Midrash: A Puzzling Tale

At first glance, this aggadah is puzzling. The story appears to be an
allegorical tale of time travel, of Moshe attempting yet again to understand
God’s ways.2 But it also raises troubling questions: how is it possible that
Moshe, the one to bring the Torah to the Jewish people, can sit in Rabbi
Akiva’s beit midrash and not comprehend what is being taught? Moreover
– and perhaps even more perplexingly – why would Moshe find comfort in
the attribution of these unfamiliar teachings to himself? And finally, what
are we meant to learn from the shocking and seemingly incongruous end to
the story?

Despite the difficulties that permeate the aggadah, a closer analysis
of this text is, in fact, instrumental to broadening our understanding of the
intersection of tradition and innovation within halachah. It is therefore
worthwhile to return to the story, and mine its details for the lessons it can
teach us.

When the story begins, Moshe finds G-d tying crowns to the letters
of the Torah. That he feels heartbroken after hearing words of Torah from
Rabbi Akiva that are incomprehensible to him is understandable; much
more difficult to understand is the comfort he derives from learning that
the teachings in question are ascribed to him. In fact, initially the source of
Moshe’s consolation is incomprehensible. G-d has made it clear that the
crowns on the letters are not for Moshe; it is not a matter of waiting it out

1 Menachot 29b. Homiletic translations from Sefaria (www.sefaria.org).
2 See Berachot 7a, where the Gemara explains Moshe’s request in Exodus 33:12 of “ ‫הֹו ִדי ֵע ִני ָנא‬
‫ ” ֶאת ְּד ָר ֶכיָך‬as an attempt to understand G-d’s ways, of why bad things happen to good people
and vice versa. In both cases, Moshe cannot be shown the reality of G-d’s ways head-on:
there (at Exodus 33:23) Moshe is shown only the back of G-d’s presence; here, Moshe
himself is asked to turn backwards before being shown the future.

Henny Bochner 9

until some future point of revelation, or pushing himself to learn more
Torah until the secrets of the crowns of the letters become clear. G-d is
directly letting Moshe know3 that although he will be the conduit to bring
the Torah down to the Jewish people, some of its secrets will remain
beyond his reach. In this light, Rabbi Akiva’s attribution of his teachings to
Moshe should not be comforting; instead, one would expect Moshe to be
infuriated; frustrated to see teachings ascribed to him when G-d has made it
clear that he will not be the man to unearth them.

And yet, Moshe is comforted. Perhaps what provides this succor is
his realization that even in a world that is unfamiliar, the basis of the system
of halachah is attributed to his teachings. In other words, Moshe recognizes
that mesorah (tradition) is given primacy in Rabbi Akiva’s beit midrash, that
teachings that seem innovative are in fact rooted in tradition, representing
a chain that stretches unbroken throughout history. Thus, while Moshe is
looking ahead to Rabbi Akiva’s time, overwhelmed by what he is observing,
Rabbi Akiva is simultaneously turning back to attribute his Torah to Moshe,
allowing tradition and innovation to exist in perfect balance with each
other.4

Tradition and Innovation in Torah Learning

In this light, the story of Moshe in Rabbi Akiva’s beit midrash takes
on a profundity that is easy to overlook from a cursory examination. No
longer is it simply a tale of a great man reckoning with his legacy; instead, it
becomes paradigmatic of how Torah transmission and learning take place.
From the beginning, G-d intends to give Moshe a Torah that is complete in
its content, yet one that leaves room for future generations to delve into it,
to make new connections, to read meaning into every minute detail of its
letters. It is, in its truest sense, a ‫ – תורת חיים‬a living Torah – one that turns
those who learn it into active participants instead of mere bystanders.

3 G-d’s words leave no room for equivocation: Rabbi Akiva and Moshe will not be
contemporaries. Rabbi Akiva will come in the future, after multiple generations: “‫להיות שעתיד‬
‫”בסוף כמה דורות‬
4 Time is a consistent motif in this story. Beyond the obvious elements of Moshe’s time
travel, the language used evokes the different ways time is perceived. Moshe begins this story
in past tense, but finds G-d tying on letters in the present. Rabbi Akiva is referred to as “ ‫אדם‬
‫אחד יש שעתיד להיות‬:” there is a man who will be. Throughout, time is non-linear, and reminds
us that when it comes to learning Torah, the past and the future are inseparably intertwined.

10 Rei’ach HaSadeh

It is this magic that Moshe witnesses in Rabbi Akiva’s beit midrash,
and it is this realization that brings comfort to him: far from being a static,
ossified document that leaves no room for creativity, the Torah maintains
its relevance from generation to generation. At the same time, learning
Torah opens the door for continuity and connection, for each generation to
tap into the traditions and teachings received from those that came before.
From this perspective, it is not only Moshe who merits to visit Rabbi
Akiva’s beit midrash. By sustaining their joint legacy, by honoring the primacy
of mesorah, by continuing a chain that stretches unbroken to Moshe
Rabbeinu himself, we all have the opportunity to recreate the scene
described in this Gemara, and delve into a world of Torah that transcends
time and space.5

Rabbi Akiva’s Death: A Lesson of True Connection

In many ways, it is tempting to end this article with the preceding
paragraph. After all, there is a sense of resolution, a lasting message that can
be derived and appreciated. However, no analysis of this Gemara is
complete without reckoning with the ending of the story, the moment in
which Moshe asks to see Rabbi Akiva’s reward and is shown Rabbi Akiva’s

5 This conception of Torah learning as something that blurs the boundaries of time is
reminiscent of a famous speech that the Rav, R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, gave at a pidyon
haben in 1974. He describes learning as the “combining, uniting, merging many generations
into one community, where discrepancy of age disappears, where years play no role,
centuries have no significance.” He then proceeds to paint a beautiful picture of his
classroom coming alive with the presence of Torah personalities who preceded him:

I start the shiur, I don't know what the conclusion will be. Whenever I
start the shiur, the door opens, another old man walks in and sits down.
He is older than I am. All the talmidim call me the Rav, he is older than
the Rav. He is the great, the grandfather of the Rav; his name is Reb
Chaim Brisker...Then, the door opens quietly again and another old
man comes in, he is older than Reb Chaim, he lived in the 17th century.
What’s his name? Shabsai Kohen – the famous Shach – who must be
present when dinei mamonos are being discussed; when we study Bava
Metziah, Bava Kamah. And then, more visitors show up...Some of the
visitors lived in the 11th century, some in the 12th century, some in the
13th century, some lived in antiquity – Rebbe Akiva, Rashi, Rabbeinu
Tam, the Ra'avad, the Rashba, more and more come in, come in, come
in. Of course, what do I do? I introduce them to my pupils and the
dialogue commences...This unity of generations, this march of centuries,
this conversation of generations, this dialogue between antiquity and
present will finally bring the redemption of the Jew.

For the full transcript of this shiur, see “The Rav’s Description of the Mesorah Experience,”
Kol haSeredim, available at https://kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-ravs-description-
of-mesorah.html.

Henny Bochner 11

brutal, gory death. There is a clear parallel structure to the text: in both
parts of the story, Moshe asks a question about the future, witnesses
a snippet of Rabbi Akiva’s life, questions G-d’s decisions, and is silenced by
G-d. Clearly, both parts of the narrative need to be dealt with to fully
understand the lessons it is imparting. At the same time, the barbaric scene
of Rabbi Akiva’s flesh being weighed out in the marketplace is a direct,
shocking antithesis to the comfort Moshe experiences in his vision of Rabbi
Akiva’s beit midrash. How can the two be reconciled?

One possible approach is to view this episode through the lens of
theodicy; in this framework, Moshe (and by extension, the reader) is being
reminded that no matter how much one thinks one can understand G-d’s
ways, a certain degree of comprehension will always remain beyond human
understanding.6

However, it is possible to view this episode in a different context,
one that draws on the other account of Rabbi Akiva’s death in the Talmud
(Berachot 61b):

‫ והיו‬,‫בשעה שהוציאו את רבי עקיבא להריגה זמן קריאת שמע היה‬
‫ והיה מקבל עליו עול מלכות‬,‫סורקים את בשרו במסרקות של ברזל‬
‫ כל ימי הייתי‬:‫ עד כאן?! אמר להם‬,‫ רבינו‬:‫ אמרו לו תלמידיו‬.‫שמים‬
:‫ אמרתי‬.‫מצטער על פסוק זה ”בכל נפשך“ אפילו נוטל את נשמתך‬
‫ לא אקיימנו? היה מאריך‬,‫ ועכשיו שבא לידי‬,‫מתי יבא לידי ואקיימנו‬
‫ ”אשריך‬:‫ יצתה בת קול ואמרה‬.“‫ עד שיצתה נשמתו ב”אחד‬,“‫ב”אחד‬

“.‫רבי עקיבא שיצאה נשמתך באחד‬

When they took Rabbi Akiva out to be executed, it was time for the
recitation of Shema. And they were raking his flesh with iron combs,
and he was reciting Shema, thereby accepting upon himself the yoke of
Heaven. His students said to him: Our teacher, even now, as you
suffer, you recite Shema? He said to them: All my days I have been
troubled by the verse: With all your soul, meaning: Even if God

6 This view would dovetail perfectly with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the Gemara
(Berachot 7a), where he interprets “And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious”
(Exodus 33:19) to mean that Moshe’s request to understand how G-d metes out reward and
punishment was denied. It would also explain why G-d shows Moshe the aftermath of Rabbi
Akiva’s gruesome death, and not the inspirational moment of his martyrdom: perhaps G-d’s
intention is to demonstrate to Moshe that His choices cannot be clearly understood by finite

human beings – something that is amplified by the striking incongruity of a great Torah

sage’s body being weighed out in the market. For further discussion on theodicy, please see
my piece “Fate and Destiny: Theodicy in Rav Soloveitchik’s Kol Dodi Dofek,” Rei’ach HaSadeh,
Vol. III (2019), pp. 58-64.

12 Rei’ach HaSadeh

takes your soul. I said to myself: When will the opportunity be
afforded me to fulfill this verse? Now that it has been afforded me,
shall I not fulfill it? He prolonged his uttering of the word: One, until
his soul left his body as he uttered his final word: One. A voice
descended from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, that
your soul left your body as you uttered: One.

The Gemara recounts the moment that Rabbi Akiva is murdered
by the Romans for teaching Torah, which had been outlawed in the
aftermath of the Bar Kochva rebellion. With this story of Rabbi Akiva’s
death in mind, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of the Gemara
(Menachot 29b) that we are analyzing. At first, G-d’s response to Moshe’s
request to see Rabbi Akiva’s reward seems incongruous, even mocking.
However, perhaps G-d’s response should be taken literally: Rabbi Akiva’s
death is his reward, the encapsulation of his greatness, a culmination of a
lifetime of connecting to G-d through a specific framework of learning
Torah. Where others see torture and unjust punishment, Rabbi Akiva sees a
unique opportunity to sanctify G-d’s name, to fulfill a commandment he
never thought he would have the chance to fulfill. And how does he
accomplish this incredible spiritual feat? By learning Torah by a means
specifically designed by HaShem, who Himself tied crowns to the letters of
the Torah for the sake of Rabbi Akiva’s future interpretations. Rabbi Akiva
lives his whole life plumbing each word, each letter, each crown of the
Torah. Nothing is wasted: after he interprets the text of Shema to mean
serving HaShem “even when one’s soul is being taken from him,” he
spends “all his days” worrying about the personal implications of this
commandments.7 Rabbi Akiva’s Torah is not purely academic, but one he
wants to see lived and enacted, and one which he lives and enacts. And so,
G-d rewards him with the opportunity to do so: with his dying breath,
Rabbi Akiva has one last, unimaginable chance for connection to G-d’s
words, dying with God’s name unified on his lips, in fulfillment of His
Torah.

With this conclusion in place, the story of Moshe in Rabbi Akiva’s
beit midrash takes on an additional layer of meaning, teaching us not only

7 In addition to the fact that both narratives (Berachot 61a and Menachot 29b) mention the
moment of Rabbi Akiva’s death, there is another noteworthy textual link between the two
texts: in Moshe’s vision of Rabbi Akiva’s beit midrash, Rabbi Akiva is questioned by his
students when he arrives at “‫’’דבר אחד‬, which can be seen as a connection to him dying with
the word “‫ ’’אחד‬on his lips in the Gemara in Berachot. See R. Ari D. Kahn, The Crowns on the
Letters: Essays on Aggada and the Lives of the Sages (New York: OU Press, 2020), pp. 74-75) for a
further discussion on this point, as well as the larger, metaphysical relationship between
Moshe and Rabbi Akiva.

Henny Bochner 13

about the way Torah study leaves room for innovation rooted in tradition,
but also about the importance of personally connecting to the details of the
Torah, of seeing it as a blueprint for our lives, the source of our knowledge,
our choices, and our relationship with G-d. In the words of the Mishnah
(Avot 5:26):

,‫ ומנה לא תזוע‬,‫ וסיב ובלה בה‬,‫ ובה תחזי‬.‫ דכלא בה‬,‫הפך בה והפך בה‬
.‫שאין לך מדה טובה הימנה‬

Turn it (the Torah) over, and over again, for everything is in it. Look
into it, grow old and grey over it, and do not move away from it,
because you have no portion better than it.

Henny Bochner and her husband, Elie, are proudly raising their children, Dovid, Shalom,
and Tamar, in Springfield. Henny is the Director of Educational Advancement at the
Rae Kushner Yeshiva High School in Livingston, New Jersey.



15

THE REDEMPTION OF SMALL STEPS:
R. JONATHAN SACKS’S VISION OF A COVENANTAL SOCIETY

BY: REUVEN PEPPER
In his landmark work The Dignity of Difference, R. Lord Jonathan
Sacks, z”l observes that we are all
particular and universal, the same and different, human
beings as such, but also members of this family, that
community, this history, that heritage. Our particularity is
our window on to universality, just as our language is the
only way we have of understanding the world we share
with speakers of other languages. Just as a loving parent is
pained by sibling rivalry, so God asks us, his children, not
to fight or seek to dominate one another. God, author of
diversity, is the unifying presence within diversity.1
This worldview, which perceives the universal through the lens of
the particular, is one of the dimensions of R. Sacks’s oeuvre that has
attracted the greatest attention from readers of every faith. Why? For four
reasons. First, R. Sacks locates this philosophy in the Torah, which he
characterizes as a covenant, or brit, between G-d and all the peoples of the
world. Second, R. Sacks treasures his identity as a Jew whose life is guided
by the dictates of G-d and mitzvot, therefore, for the Jew, covenant is
obligatory. Third, he believes that G-d created each of us in particular,
meaning that it was His wish for the world to be populated by people who
differ from one another on every dimension. Finally, although he celebrates
the universality for the many benefits it can confer on humankind, R. Sacks
also recognizes the risks it poses to particularity.
Indeed, when weighing these two ideologies, R. Sacks notes that
the “universal” is frequently employed in the political sphere to erase the
“particular.” He agrees with Samuel Huntington, who stated the “western
belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems:
it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous.”2 But perhaps even more
important, it is, according to R. Sacks, dangerous for another reason:

1 Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference (New York: Continuum Press, 2000), p. 56
(emphasis in the original).
2 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster,
2011), p. 310.

16 Rei’ach HaSadeh

“When a single culture is imposed on all, suppressing the diversity of
languages and traditions, this is an assault on our God-given differences.”3

R. Sacks’s skillful fusion of these seemingly dissonant views of the
value of the nature of Torah, the value of a Jewish identity, the purpose of
creation and the role of the Jewish People in the wider world represents just
one of his achievements as a rabbi, theologian and philosopher – an
achievement of notable magnitude during an era marked by the “sibling
rivalries” among those who embrace opposing ideologies, whether they are
universalism versus particularity, or multiculturalism versus pluralism. His
project is to answer the question, “how do I create a lasting relationship of
mutuality and trust with an ‘other’ while honoring his or her freedom and
dignity?”4 Put another way, his project is to define what it means to create
and participate in a covenantal society.

Significantly, R. Sacks locates an answer to this question in the
Torah, which in his view is an eternal inspiration for the moral imagination:
it is not “a blazing fire but a flickering flame”5 that is “hard to light but easy
to extinguish”6 – and whose unbroken chain of transmission is necessary to
fuel the “gentle revolutions”7 that will keep its flame going.8 Thus, he seeks
a vision of society that encompasses diversity and “offers its members equal

3 See Dignity of Difference at p. 60. R. Sacks brings a variety of Rabbinic sources to legitimize
this claim. For example, he refers to Maimonides and The Guide of the Perplexed (at 2:40;
referenced in Jonathan Sacks, Faith in the Future (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1997), p.
109.), to the Mishnah (Avot 4:1, Sanhedrin 10:1), the Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b), the Midrash
(Genesis Rabbah 8:5) and R. Abraham Isaac Kook’s Orot.
4 Id. at p. 53. Elsewhere, Sacks refers to sociologist Peter Berger who argues that one of the
most important transitions in Western modernity was the movement from honor to dignity.

The difference between them is that honor is something you occupy in
virtue of your rank in society; dignity is something that attaches to you
by the mere fact of being human. Honor presupposes hierarchy,
whereas dignity is an expression of a specific form of equality: namely,
equality of respect. That is one reason that honor cultures, so important
even in our own past, seem archaic from the point of view of the
contemporary West.
See Morality at p. 269. See further, Peter Berger, “On the Obsolescence of the Concept of
Honour,” European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 11, No. II (1970), pp. 339-47.
5 Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership: Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning (New York:
Schocken Books, 2012), p. 162.
6 Jonathan Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility (New York: Schocken
Books, 2007), p. 169.
7 See The Great Partnership at p. 290.
8 “It is about husbands and wives, parents and children, and the tense rivalry between
siblings, as if to say: This is the locus of the religious life. In the love that brings new life into
the world. In marriage where love becomes a covenant of loyalty.” Id. at p. 163.

Reuven Pepper 17

access to hope” 9 – that is, a society that celebrates diversity as an
intentional, ethical, theocentric pluralism that enables all members to
connect with G-d and improve the world. A multicultural society, on the
other hand, is in his view

like living in a hotel, where we occupy rooms next to each
other but with no concern for each other for the well-
being of the hotel as a whole, whereas as in a society which
functions as a home, we live and work with each other and
care for each other.10

The ideal covenantal society, therefore, “relates less to what we are than to
what we give,”11 and it assumes that diverse peoples can build ‘side by
side’12 for the common good.13

This distinction between pluralism and multiculturalism is notable
in many of R. Sacks’s works, in which he takes Western society to task for
claiming universal rights for everyone, while never speaking for anyone in
“particular.”14 He outlines the secular antecedents for this dilemma:

9 Jonathan Sacks, The Politics of Hope, (New York: Vintage, 2000), p. 13.
10 Jonathan Sacks, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society (New York: Bloomsbury,
2009), p.153.
11 Politics of Hope at p. 22.
12 The Home We Build Together at p. 23. And less “face to face.” Id. at pp. 173-174.
13 On R. Sacks discussing the historical antecedents of the ‘common good’ moving from
religion to moral codes or from the individual to the group, see, The Home We Build Together
at pp. 152-158. Catherine Keller astutely comments that such common goods

include the things we need, receive, give, and create, as well as the
values, rights, and enjoyments more or less materialized in each act of
creation. The singular good is good in as much as it remains open to the

conflictual complexity of values actualized in specific goods – which

themselves can only remain good to the extent that they participate in
the shareable planetary weal.
Common Goods: Economy, Ecology and Political Theology (New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 2015),
p. 5.
14 R. Sacks will ultimately come to frame this conflict as

every technological civilization faces two opposing dangers. One is the
hubris that says: we have godlike powers, therefore let us take the place
of God. The other is the fear that says: in the name of God, let us not
use these godlike powers at all. Each technological advance carries with
it the possibility of diminishing or enhancing human dignity. What
matters is how we use it. The way to use it is in covenant with God,
honoring His image that is mankind.
The Dignity of Difference at 172.

18 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Identity is about groups, about Us and Them. But groups
conflict. Therefore the Enlightenment sought a world
without identities, in which we are all just human beings.
But people can’t live without identities, and identity is
never universal. It is always and essentially particular. What
makes us the unique person we are is what makes us
different from people in general. Therefore, no intellectual
discipline that aims at universality will ever fully grasp the
meaning and significance of identity. This was the
Enlightenment’s blind spot. Identity came roaring back in
the nineteenth century, based on one of three factors:
nation, race or class.15

In the wake of two centuries of identity politics, R. Sacks argues instead for
a politics of recognition, in which he, for example, can be both a Briton and
a Jew, and in which rights function as the responsibilities of citizenship.
In support of his notion of the ideal society, he cites the view of political
theorist Michael Waltzer:

Societies are necessarily particular because they have
members and memories not only their own but also of
their common life. Humanity by contrast has members but
no memory and so it has no history and no culture, no
customary practices, no familiar life ways, no festivals, no
shared understanding of social goods. It is human to have
such things, but there is no singular human way of having
them.16

Of course, Waltzer’s contention raises its own issues for R. Sacks,
because it is untethered from the moral imagination embodied by the
Torah: “So long as tolerance and respect for human rights rest on a secular
foundation they will be overridden by those who believe they are obeying
a higher law.”17 But if every religion were to claim via its own “higher law”
the sole moral authority for defining human rights, what would prevent
a government from reconfiguring the responsibilities of citizenship?
And how can any faith make claims related universal human rights, given its
particularity?

15 Jonathan Sacks, “God of History (Ki Tavo 5778),” Covenant & Conversation, August 28,
2017, available at https://rabbisacks.org/story-tell-ki-tavo-5778.
16 See Dignity of Difference at pp. 57-58 (quoting Michael Walzer, Thick and Thin: Moral
Arguments at Home and Abroad (Nortre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Univ. Press, 1994), p. 8).
17 Jonathan Sacks, The Persistence of Faith: Religion, Morality and Society in a Secular Age (London:
Bloomsbury Continuum, 2005), p. 81.

Reuven Pepper 19

To explore these questions, R. Sacks returns to the generation of
Noah and the Flood, followed by the generation of Babel:

The story the Bible is telling is this: Genesis 10 describes
the division of humanity into seventy nations and seventy
languages. Genesis 11 tells of how one imperial power
conquered smaller nations, imposing its language and
culture on them, thus directly contravening God’s wish
that humans should respect the integrity of each nation
and each individual. When at the end of the Babel story
God ‘confuses the language’ of the builders, he is not
creating a new state of affairs but restoring the old.18

In both cases, he argues, the Torah “is profoundly concerned…with the
more fundamental moral and human issues. What kind of society do we
seek? What social order best does justice to human dignity and the delicate
bonds linking us to one another and to God?”19

R. Sacks’s criticism of the Babel project can be understood in light
of the rise of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, when Western
thinkers and politicians sought to replace the sacred with universal reason.20
R. Sacks comments:

Enlightenment thought paid scant attention to the
framework of personal relationships: to families and
communities and to the rules, rituals, and traditions that
sustained them…Thus began the disintegration of those
institutions within which human beings have, since the
birth of history, found meaning and identity through
relationship with others and membership in a community
with its memories and hopes.21

This abstract notion of human rights “suggests that the particularities of
a culture are mere accretions to our essential and indivisible humanity.”22

18 Jonathan Sacks, Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence (New York: Schocken
Books, 2017), p. 193. See also Jonathan Sacks, A Letter in the Scroll: Understanding Our Jewish
Identity and Exploring the Legacy of the World’s Oldest Religion (New York: Free Press, 2004),
p. 92. On the relationship between culture and language, see The Dignity of Difference at p. 54.
19 Jonathan Sacks, “The Economics of Liberty (Behar 5775),” Covenant & Conversation, May 6,
2015 available at http://rabbisacks.org/the-economics-of-liberty-behar-5775.
20 See The Dignity of Difference at pp. 48-56; Jonathan Sacks, Future Tense: Jews, Judaism, and Israel
in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Schocken Books, 2012), pp. 120-121.
21 Faith in the Future at p. 65.
22 The Dignity of Difference at p. 62.

20 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Significantly, the retreat from the particular challenged the identity and
practices of every faith group.

In contrast, R. Sacks return to the Torah, where covenants are
recognized from three vantage points: “the Universal (made with Noah),
the personal (with Abraham), and the National (with the Israelites at Mount
Sinai).” 23 He therefore infers that participating in a covenant means
affirming “I am human…bound to others…I am a child of Abraham and
can trace my identity literally or metaphorically with Christians and Muslims
through Abraham…I am a Jew.”24 Similarly, covenants encompass other
bonds such as marriage, children, community, neighborhood and
citizenship.25 Thus covenants bind participants to one another as well as
G-d; they are vertical and horizontal commitments.26

However, R. Sacks’s definition of a covenant raises issues for
anyone who agrees that all humans were all created in G-d’s image; does
membership in humanity imply, then, that we are all in fact the same? And
if so, where does this leave the Jewish People, since the covenants with
Noah and Abraham and at Mount Sinai are inextricably linked to our
particular identity?

I suggest that R. Sacks indirectly responds to this question while
responding to Darwinism in his work The Great Partnership. He writes there,
“Monotheism is something else entirely. The meaning of a system lies
outside the system. Therefore, the meaning of the universe lies outside the
universe.” 27 Monotheism, by discovering the transcendental God who
creates and sustains the universe, who is both impossible to see yet ever-
present, made it possible for human beings to find meaning in life. Other
ancient peoples worshiped idols or nature or mythological beings; the
Enlightenment worshiped science and universal reason. But the Torah
defies any system of understanding the world beyond the Torah itself.
Therefore, although R. Sacks declares “we are all in God’s image,”28 he
believes that this principle of universality finds expression in our
differences; and for a Jew, this process begins with the notion, ‘I am

23 The Home We Build Together at p. 155.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 See A Letter in the Scroll at p. 225.
27 This line is possibly adapted from Ludwig Wittgenstein, an early 20th-Century philosopher,
who stated: “The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time…
How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God
does not reveal himself in the world.” Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus (1921), extracts available at
https://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/phillang/TractatusExerpts1999.htm.
28 The Home We Build Together at p. 156. See also The Dignity of Difference at pp. 54-56.

Reuven Pepper 21

a human being’ (the Noahite covenant) that recollects its differences in every
declaration of ‘I am a Jew’ (the Abrahamic covenant).

R. Sacks’s underlying assumption is:

The human other [face] is a trace of the Divine Other. As
an ancient Jewish teaching puts it: “When a human being
makes many coins in the same mint, they all come out the
same. [When] God makes every person in the same image
– His image – and each is different.” [Sanhedrin 4:5] The
supreme religious challenge is to see God's image in one
who is not in our image. That is the converse of tribalism.
But it is also something other than universalism. It takes
difference seriously. It recognizes the integrity of other
cultures, other civilizations, other paths to the presence of
God.29

The Talmudic dictum reverses the imagery of debt in coinage and insists on
the sovereignty of the face. 30 The human face is not an icon in an
exchangeable market. Rather the face is a unique imprint of the Divine
image. Therefore, R. Sacks asserts, “The challenge to the religious
imagination is to see God’s image in one who is not in our image.”31

I suggest the ‘universal’ takes on multiple meanings in R. Sacks’s
work, which appears at times to subvert the entire enterprise of universality
as it is commonly understood. In fact, it might be said that universality leads
inevitably in the Torah to particularity, evinced by the replacement of the
Noahide covenant with G-d’s brit with Avraham (the Abrahamic covenant
that is particular to the Jewish People.) Whereas many other sacred texts of
other faiths claim to embody the structuring principles of reality for
everyone on Earth, the Torah transforms the universal into the particular
by emphasizing the divine nature of human diversity. Moreover, the Torah
encompasses two truths: all humans were all created in G-d’s image
(universal), but Jews also know they are both human and Jewish, with
a particular identity: ‘I am a child of Abraham.’ In philosophic parlance the
Torah’s vision of particularity is nothing more than the universal directed
against the uniform principle of universality. R. Sacks in essence

29 The Dignity of Difference at pp. 59-60.
30 Susan Buck-Morss adds, “Like the imperial coins that circulated throughout the economy
of political power, [icons] circulated throughout the economy of belief.” “Visual Empire,”
Diacritics 32:2–3 (2007), p. 182.
31 The Dignity of Difference at p. 60.

22 Rei’ach HaSadeh

is universalizing particularism by particularizing the principle of
universality.32

This backdrop allows R. Sacks to extract the Biblical notion of
‘covenant’ as a metaphor for a civil society that does not privilege the state
while diminishing the individual. 33 He proposes using the language of
‘covenant’ in the social character, without relinquishing the Jewish legal
precedents established by the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants. In such
a society, it is understood that the “God of humanity” means that
“no single faith is the faith of humanity.”34 By contrast, “HaShem…is what
God is called in the context of the Abrahamic and later Mosaic covenant.
It is a proper name, not a generic noun. It is the language of intimacy and
relationship.” 35 For the Jews, monotheism has always meant that the
singular One G-d is also a personal G-d for every Jew.36

R. Sacks, therefore, is greatly distressed by the effects of
universalism on Judaism in the modern world: “the fact that a people whose
very reason for being in the past was to be different, chosen, particular,
should today define itself in purely universalist terms, forgetting – surely not
accidentally – that it is precisely in our particularity that we enter and
express the universal human condition.” 37 He laments that some Jews
forget that the universal, sovereign G-d makes claims on the Jewish People
that do not apply to others faith groups, even as we recognize that the
Torah’s “moral truths are absolute but not universal; we are called to live
them out, not in the same way, but each culture and faith in its own way…
For the Jewish people, covenant is obligatory through the Sinai covenant.”38
Further, it must be understood by “its internalized sense of identity,
kinship, and loyalty” via the Abrahamic covenant.39

32 See Jonathan Sacks: Universalizing Particularity, ed. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Aaron Hughes,
(Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Pub., 2013), p.123.
33 R. Sack’s social covenant is situated to reverse the loss of social capital referred to by
Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam. Social capital is the network of reciprocity and trust in
the liberal democracies of the West. See The Great Partnership at p.277. See also, Morality at
pp. 386-287; The Great Partnership at pp. 323-324. For broader study, see Robert Putnam,
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster,
2000); Robert Putnam, David E. Campbell and Shaylyn Romney Garrett, American Grace:
How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).
34 The Dignity of Difference at p. 55.
35 Not in God’s Name at p. 195.
36 See A Letter in The Scroll at pp. 85-86.
37 Jonathan Sacks, “Love, Hate and Jewish identity,” First Things (November 1997) available
at https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/11/love-hate-and-jewish-identity.
38 See A Letter in the Scroll at p. 97.
39 See id. at p. 128. For R. Sacks’ description of the three-pillar structure of Jewish covenantal
faith (i) Mishpat ‘justice as reciprocity, (ii) tzedekah ‘distributive justice’ and (iii) chessed ‘the

Reuven Pepper 23

In the secular world of politics, the covenantal is similarly “a shared
bond between community members.”40 A sovereign state is ethical only if
takes into account the needs of its diverse members:

Wealth and power, economics and politics, the market and
the state, are arenas of competition. Covenantal goods are
arenas of co-operation. The home of covenantal goods is
not the state or the market but civil society: families,
communities, schools, congregations, fellowships
(chevrot), communities and society itself, once we have
clearly differentiated society from state. Covenantal goods
exist wherever human relationships are structured not
around wealth or power but around collective belonging
and shared responsibility, around, in other words, the
principle of “All Israel are responsible for one another.”41
Historically, R. Sacks reminds us, “the words ‘covenant’ and
‘contract’ were often used interchangeably, and the phrases ‘civil society’
and ‘political society’ were thought of as the same thing.”42 Yet, R. Sacks
points to figures such as Thomas Paine, who understood the distinction
between these two modes of human association. As he wrote in his 1776
treatise Common Sense:
Some writers have so confounded society with
government as to leave little or no distinction between
them; whereas the two are not only different, but have
different origins. Society is produced by our wants and
government by our wickedness; the former promotes our
happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter
negatively by restraining our vices … Society in every state is
a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but
a necessary evil … Government, like dress, is the badge of
lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the
ruins of the bowers of paradise.43

loyalty that is love,’ see A Letter in the Scroll at pp. 125-129. See also, To Heal a Fractured World
at pp. 30-56.
40 See also The Dignity of Difference at p. 151.
41 Future Tense at p. 175.
42 Id. at p. 110.
43 Political Writings, ed. Bruce Kuklick, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), p. 3.

24 Rei’ach HaSadeh

R. Sacks comments:

Society is one thing, the state – governments, kings, the
lineaments of power – is another. Society, says Paine,
emerges naturally out of the inability of each of us to
supply our wants and needs alone. So we co-operate,
divide our labours, trade, form friendships and
associations, and establish relationships of trust. Were
everyone to play his or her part, there would be no need
for government at all. But not everyone does. Some cheat.
Some steal. Some invade the territory of others. That is
when governments become necessary and social contracts
are made.44

R. Sacks therefore asserts:

What we need now is not a contract bringing into being a
global political structure, but rather a covenant framing our
shared vision for the future of humanity…That is at least
a starting point for a global covenant in which the nations
of the world collectively express their commitment not
only to human rights but also to human responsibilities,
and not merely a political, but also an economic,
environmental, moral, and cultural conception of the
common good, constructed on the twin foundations of
shared humanity and respect for diversity.45

R. Sacks believes the Hebrew Bible represents the most
advantageous attempt to make this framework plausible. In his view,
politically sovereign state that is based on a social contract alone merely
facilitates the redistribution of resources that would otherwise facilitate the
oppression of those who are not considered parties to the contract.46 The
twist in R. Sacks’s thinking lies in complicating the prerogatives for
establishing political sovereignty, without denying its power altogether.
He remarks:

44 Future Tense at p. 166. There, R, Sacks quotes Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America:
“[F]reedom makes demands not only of governments but also of people in their dealings
with one another: in families, communities and voluntary organisations, each an exercise in
the ‘art of association’, without which, he believed, democratic societies would eventually fall
to the sickness of individualism.”
45 The Dignity of Difference at pp. 205-206.
46 See The Great Partnership at pp. 103, 131, 140.

Reuven Pepper 25

It is as if the Bible were telling us that on the surface,
history is driven by the pursuit of power; in reality, it is
driven by the text and texture of interpersonal
relationships. Power diminishes those who wield it no less
than those they wield it against. We grow not through
exercising power over one another but by kindness,
attachment, compassion; by listening to one another and
making space for one another.47

This is how R. Sacks describes the covenantal framework of the
Hebrew Bible:

Genesis, which is about personal relationships, is the
necessary prelude to Exodus, which is about politics and
power, liberation and nation-building…We find the same
pattern in the closely linked books of Ruth and Samuel.
First comes the intensely moving story of Ruth, her loyalty
to her mother-in-law Naomi and the kindness of Naomi’s
distant cousin Boaz. Then, at the end of the book, we
discover that Ruth becomes the great-grandmother of
David, Israel’s greatest king. It is a prelude to the books of
Samuel, which tell of the birth of Israelite monarchy.
Genesis-Exodus and Ruth-Samuel are the literary way of
establishing the primacy of the personal over the political.48

Significantly, Israel’s kings were the only rulers in the ancient world
who lacked the power to legislate; our laws were the law of G-d alone.
When the When some of the Hasmonean rulers also sought to serve as
High Priests, the Talmud (Kiddushin 66a) records the objection of the Sages:
“Let the royal crown be sufficient for you; leave the priestly crown to the
descendants of Aaron.”49

With our history as a guide, R. Sacks privileges a pluralistic civil
society over all others, calling it “the domain of families, communities,
religious congregations, voluntary associations, charities, neighbourhood
groups and the like…where we relate to one another on the basis of
friendship, reciprocity and a moral bond, without the use of power.”50
In his vision of a covenantal society, “we each pledge to act for the benefit

47 The Great Partnership at p. 165 (emphasis in the original).
48 Id. at p. 164.
49 See Jonathan Sacks, “To Lead is to Serve (Shoftim 5778),” Covenant & Conversation, August
23, 2018, available at https://rabbisacks.org/lead-serve-shoftim-5778.
50 The Great Partnership at pp. 136-137.

26 Rei’ach HaSadeh

of all,” including those who are alive, unborn and dead – unlike a society
based on contracts that are by their nature time-bound. “A contract is
a transaction. A covenant is a relationship,” 51 he avers; and in
a covenantal society every “I” becomes a “We,” regardless of our
differences. Thus a foundational principle of Judaism is Kol Yisra’el Arevin
Zeh baZeh, or “all Israel are responsible for one another.”52

To reinforce this point, he discusses at length the role of the ger, or
stranger, in the Torah, noting that in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b) “the
sages went so far as to say that the Torah commands us in only one place to
love our neighbour but in thirty-six times to love the stranger.”53 R. Sacks
continues,

The Sages held that the word ger might mean one of two
things. One was a ger tzedek, a convert to Judaism who had
accepted all its commands and obligations. The other was
the ger toshav, the “resident alien,” who had not adopted the
religion of Israel but who lived in the land of Israel. 54, 55

51 Future Tense at p. 163.
52 See Future Tense at pp. 163-164 (citing Sifra to Leviticus 26:37). R. Sacks even contends this
is how the Jews survived in exile because they were a society before being a state. See Id. at
p. 167.
53 R. Sacks comments:

What is the definition of a stranger? Clearly the reference is to one who
is not Jewish by birth. It could mean one of the original inhabitants of
the land of Canaan. It could mean one of the “mixed multitude” who
left Egypt with the Israelites. It might mean a foreigner who has entered
the land seeking safety or a livelihood.
See Jonathan Sacks, “Behar 5771 – Minority Rights” Covenant & Conversation, May 14, 2011,
available at https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5771-behar-minority-rights.
54 Ibid. R. Sacks does refer to the Rabbinic authority Menachem ha-Meiri who ruled that that
“all members of cultures ’governed by ways of religion’ had the halachic [legal] status of ger
toshav,” inferring full equality of rights. Yet he is reading rights as civic responsibilities not
political dispensations. See Faith in the Future at p.121. Further discussion relating to Exodus
22:2 can be found in Jonathan Sacks, Covenant & Conversation Exodus: Book of Redemption
(Jerusalem: Maggid Press, 2010), pp. 179-199. R. Sacks also identifies as sources of note Bava
Metzia 58b, Bava Metzia 59b, Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Number 15:16, 15:29 as well as
the commentaries of Ramban (Nachmanides) on Exodus 22:22 and the Or HaChaim on
Exodus 22:20. See also, Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995).
55 R. Sacks refers to the Jewish commentator Behar who spells out the rights of such
a person. Specifically, when commenting on Leviticus 25:35 the Behar notes: “If any of your
fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them
as you would a resident alien, so they can continue to live among you.”

Reuven Pepper 27

R. Sacks’s definition of the ‘resident alien’ in this post-Biblical
period is inseparable from the principle of Darchei Shalom, “the ways of
peace,” premised on Proverbs 3:17: “Its ways are ways pleasantness and all
its paths are peace.” However, he expands on this traditional understanding
of the Torah, noting that unlike the biblical laws of the resident alien, the
ways of pleasantness are not confined to

neighbours with whom we share basic principles of ethics
and belief. The ‘ways of peace’ apply to idolaters – those
opposed to everything we believe. None the less, the sages
ruled, we have basic responsibilities to them, not only the
negative duty not to harm [those who pose a danger] but
the positive duty of welfare.56

Despite their divergent beliefs and practices, the strangers among us merit
our respect; indeed,

the rules that Israel must always remember its past, never
forget its years of slavery in Egypt, never forget on Sukkot
that our ancestors once lived in temporary dwellings, never
forget that it does not own the land – it belongs to God –
and we are merely there as God’s gerim ve-toshavim,
“strangers and sojourners.”57

Broadly, R. Sacks’s message is straightforward: no society can
honor its past without knowing where it wants to go in the future. As we
know from the Torah, ours was ‘redemption of small steps’ an “exodus
politics, the long, slow journey across the wilderness to redemption, an act at
a time, a day at a time.”58 Our particular journey as Jews – like the ethos of

56 To Heal a Fractured World at p. 102. Refer also to Jerimiah 29:5-7. R. Sacks seeks in the ger
toshav to expand on the general principle, not its legal legislation. Alan Jakowitz was therefore
wrong to accuse R. Sacks of hijacking the term ger toshav for a Western trusteeship. See Alan
Jakowitz, “Universalism and Particularism in the Jewish Tradition: The Radical Theology of
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Fall
2011), pp. 53-67.
57 Jonathan Sacks, “Vayishlach (5772) – The Jewish Journey,” Covenant & Conversation,
December 10, 2011, available at https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5772-
vayishlach-the-jewish-journey/.
58 The Great Partnership at p. 257. See also Future Tense at pp. 153-156; Jonathan Sacks, Essays
on Ethics: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible (Jerusalem: Maggid Press, 2016), p. 219 (utilizing
language of Eric Voeglin). For the full context of Voeglin’s thoughts, see his work Israel and
Revelation (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1956).