The Independence of One Who Engages in Torah and the Five Interpretations of the Essence of Matan Torah (Auto Translated) | תמלול וסיכום מתורגם

Freedom Through Torah Study: The Soul at Mount Sinai and the Freedom of Self-Learning

Introduction: The Soul at Mount Sinai – A Connection to Our Learning

Maggid Shiur:

So, I want to connect this a bit with where we are, because you should know how I hold regarding this, I try to do it and become aware. It has nothing to do with anything that I should speak about the soul. I was looking for some way that one can think, because it’s said that all souls were at Har Sinai (Mount Sinai). I thought that one can connect the idea to think about what kind of process of the soul. It makes sense, yes? Everyone says that a soul was at Har Sinai, yes? It’s one… I’m making a point, I don’t have an obligation… I thought of it perhaps five minutes ago before the shiur that this is a connection.

Yes, my soul is here on a site, it’s… what’s it called? “Souls of Sinai”? Do you know such a website? Yes. So, what is the foundation of this website? That all Jews were at Har Sinai. What does it mean all Jews were? Our souls were. So, what is a soul? It’s such a kind of thing that it could have been, it was a reincarnation? What does it mean that my soul was? Now, there is, it only makes sense according to a certain understanding of soul.

If I hold precisely that this is your connection. Now, you can say that if someone says that your soul was at Har Sinai, ask him whether he means to say that it was a reincarnation of your soul, or whether he means to say that it was the soul as we learned Rebbe Tzadok HaKohen (19th century Chassidic master) is only a part of this. But according to the other meforshim (commentators) who say that the souls were already created then, so kulei alma (everyone, all) souls were already there, not only Jewish souls, so gentile souls were also there. In short, you can engage in pilpul (dialectical analysis) as much as you want. This is one connection.

The True Foundation: Everything is Built on Assumptions

But the deeper connection that interests me more is the topic of what is our… what is my Torah, one can say. What is our shiur? In truth, all my shiurim are only about this. Not everyone always grasps that it’s about this, but all shiurim are about this.

As we said last time, that you’re selling something, yes? You have certain… certain… nokhim imka, “What you get out of this”. So what did we say last time? Ah, a deep Torah, but “get out of this” that everything is built on hanokhos (assumptions), yes?

For example, someone says “khelek Eloka mima’al” (a part of God from above) is a soul. I’m just giving an example, which is an example that is helpful. So he thinks he has said something. Actually one must, it has only added three more things. Not things about the soul, but general things.

What does khelek (part) mean? Khelek is actually a physical concept. Something is a part of something. What does this mean? I could have known it anyway beforehand. Khelek is, you need more basic, for you it’s relevant last week. What does it mean to be a part? Obviously you can say a part of greatness, but what does a part mean? A part can have many meanings, and it’s actually a makhloykes hameforshim (dispute among the commentators), a makhloykes hafilosofim (dispute among the philosophers) what a part means.

I can’t say that I’m going into this now, I won’t say that I know what this means. I don’t know what Eloka (God) means, so obviously I don’t know. I imagine that it’s just a verse, I mean that it means nothing here. But at least these two things one must know, what God means, what a khelek means. Afterward one can speak that a soul is a khelek Eloka mima’al.

So this is one thing that we sold last week, and it’s a very useful foundation, cause you could use it almost for everything if you realize that the basic things are a sugya (topic for analysis). As we explained last week, that the things that are not material existence… a pen? I used to have. In the previous car, it’s no longer there. Perhaps upstairs? Ah, here I have a bunch of pens. Paper I don’t have. I’ll take this in a sefer (book).

Yes, so this is a good example. It’s one foundation.

The Main Thing: Freedom Through Learning – “How to Learn”

But the true foundation, the true thing that must be sold is like this: Just as when one goes to yeshiva, I hold like when one goes to yeshiva, the… have I already said this here once? The Lithuanian yeshivas say that they don’t teach you anything, they only teach you how to learn.

That’s what they told me in yeshiva, I never understood what they wanted from me. I said, “Fellows, what do you mean you’re selling me this? How should I learn? What’s the point of that?” When I was in yeshiva, it seemed to me totally useless, this statement. It sounded to me like an excuse. But they advised me, “If you want to be a maggid shiur, you tell them like this: It’s not the Gemaras one learns, but how to learn the Gemara.” Do you know the Gemara? You say, “I don’t know the Gemara.” I said, “Fellows, I want to know the Gemaras, it interests me.”

Now. But truly they have a bit of a point, but it’s very hard to actually teach it. If we’re not the da’as hamakhria (the deciding opinion). But let’s say a great point. What is the point? I call it “freedom”.

Kheirus Al HaLukhos – The Freedom of Torah

Everyone wants freedom. It says in Tanya (foundational Chabad text) somewhere, “harei bnei Yisroel avodim, avdei Hashem v’lo avodim la’avodim” (behold, the children of Israel are servants, servants of God and not servants to servants). A Jew, if a Jew, this is indeed the story of kabolas haTorah (receiving the Torah), yes? “Anokhi Hashem Elokekha asher hotzeisikha me’eretz Mitzrayim” (I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt). One of the things, it says “kheirus al halukhos” (freedom on the tablets), “al tikrei ‘kheirus’ ela ‘kheirus’” (do not read it as “engraved” but as “freedom”). One of the things is that when one receives the Torah one becomes a free person. And people don’t understand how this can be. Now, this is a great question.

Avodim La’avodim vs. Bnei Khorin – Two Types of Jews

But in a simple way, as long as a person, let’s say, let’s say that we are Jews. If we weren’t Jews it’s a bit of a different level question, one must speak on that level. But let’s speak on the level that we are Jews, and Jews means that we are bnei Torah (children/students of Torah), yes, ohavei haTorah (lovers of Torah), bnei haTorah, I don’t know, we are nosen le’emunes haTorah (adhering to faith in the Torah).

So on this level, as you say, there are avodim (servants/slaves) and there are bonim (sons/builders). There are people who can’t learn. What does it mean he can’t learn? That he is always an eved la’eved (servant to a servant), like eved la’eved, yes? He must always ask the rav what it says in the Torah. Or if he wants to understand something, he must ask the mashpia (spiritual mentor) what it means.

Mah she’ein kein (in contrast) if someone goes to yeshiva, and in the yeshiva, I didn’t say such a radical thing, mistama (presumably) they don’t mean it. But according to my understanding, if someone goes to the yeshiva and they teach him how to learn. In other words, the rebbe’s job is to make himself superfluous. It’s also my job, by the way. No one should remain here. If one remains here it’s a brokhe levatoleh (a blessing in vain), I mean to say. One must remain until the time when I will tell him when he should stop. That’s the trick. Okay, I’m not speaking halokhe lema’aseh (practical law), but the idea is like this.

The Rebbe’s Role: Making Himself Superfluous

If a rebbe’s job, a real rebbe, is to make, is to make himself… make himself superfluous. And one shouldn’t need him anymore. In other words, he shouldn’t need to ask the rav what the question is, because he can learn. What does it mean someone can learn? He can look himself in the Gemara and see what the answer is. And this is actually a very big kisharon (talent/skill).

I mean that most yeshivas don’t teach this, now, certainly not legabei halokhe (regarding Jewish law), because when one learns halakha one learns precisely the opposite, one may not explain the halakha oneself, one must follow the Mishnah Berurah (authoritative 20th century halakhic code), so that’s useless. Also something, that one can look oneself in the Mishnah Berurah, one is already holding somewhere. One doesn’t need to look in the Piskei Teshuvos (contemporary halakhic work) to tell you what the Nitei Gavriel (contemporary halakhic work) thinks that the Mishnah Berurah said. Okay, that’s already some level of kheirus (freedom).

But further he can then say how the Chazon Ish (20th century halakhic authority) explained it, or how Rav Moshe Feinstein (20th century halakhic authority) explained it. He can learn the Gemara and pasken (rule), he has tremendous freedom. In other words, he is himself responsible for his own halakha.

Now, afterward someone will fight, because this one will say this way and the rav will say that way, ah, so you have politics. Okay, politics is a different matter.

The Example of the Chazon Ish: Practical Freedom

But because, and it’s very interesting, he actually taught, I truly mean that someone who is even not osek baTorah (engaged in Torah study), at least you could believe in this. In other words, it’s very interesting, a completely original, and all the rabbis, and someone told me to stop bashing rabbis, I’m not bashing rabbis, but all these, ke’ilu (as if), all the idlers who call themselves rabbis, I don’t mean the real rabbis, they are very interested in the sugya called mamra kehilkhoso (rebellion according to the law), in other words, that it’s not so.

I want to say that it’s very important, we must see in this truly radical how to be able to work the Torah, but it’s certain that bekhol yemos (in all times), since the time that we have the Torah, it doesn’t actually work completely like this. In other words, “al yomin ve’al smol” (to the right and to the left), “lo sosur kakhol asher yorukha al yomin ve’al smol” (do not turn from all that they instruct you, to the right or to the left), according to the actual, that it’s not so, not the true, let’s not say the true understanding of what a Jew understands the Torah, he learns Chumash Rashi (the Five Books of Moses with Rashi’s commentary), he learns Gemara, he learns the sugya, it comes out to him this way.

How the Chazon Ish explained it, the Chazon Ish actually befo’al mamosh (actually in practice) laid down guidance, whoever is bar hakhi (capable/qualified) should learn a sugya and should pasken for himself. Now whether the whole world will follow, that’s not your business, that’s another discussion. He wanted them to follow, but if they don’t follow, it’s not his concern. But at least he gave people when they learn this sort of independence, that you may learn, you don’t only have to, you may not only, you must learn a sugya. It’s mavhil al hara’ayon (frightening regarding the idea), but because this is not because he commanded not to follow earlier, and you have indeed learned, you may not not follow earlier, you must do as it comes out.

The Same Principle in Thought and Faith

And this is one account, let’s say, this is one way of understanding the Torah. And so for example, I want to go much further from this, I want to tell you that the same thing is in hagodoh (thought/philosophy), in makhshovoh (thought). Someone can’t come tell you that one must, as he says, one must believe, one must say until one believes. This is indeed nonsense. What does one must mean? Let’s not speak that one must believe what it says in the Torah, let’s look at what it says in the Torah. I’m even speaking on this level, but it’s the same thing on every level. It’s not that you can pick one level.

The Baal Shem Tov and the Coffee Parable

That someone says, one must believe since the Baal Shem Tov (founder of Chassidism, 18th century) came, one must believe that every beis hamidrash (house of study) must have coffee, and if not it’s not a beis hamidrash. Yes? The beis hamidrash is still from before the work of the Baal Shem Tov. So one can see, there are no cups, there’s no coffee, there’s no fridge, it’s also a beis hamidrash for me. Yes? According to him, according to the Baal Shem Tov, one may not pray in the beis hamidrash. Okay, I’m making a joke, but you understand the nimshal (the lesson/application).

Mai Khazis? – The Question of Source

But what does he come to say? You’ll tell me, “mai khazis?” (what did you see? what is your proof?) I mean, mai khazis d’natrana? I hear, you said that this is the Baal Shem Tov. Where did you get this from? It’s indeed some way, it’s indeed some seder (order/system), whatever it is. I don’t know precisely what it is. I mean that I know, but it’s not simple to make everyone agree on what it is.

If there is some way how we decide, it says in a verse, it says in a Gemara, okay, the Rambam (Maimonides, 12th century) says that one must follow the Gemara, we have some haskoloh (understanding/logic). What it doesn’t say, forget your Baal Shem Tov. I mean, I haven’t put anything into this. I have much derekh eretz (respect) for him and everything, but I don’t owe you anything. Yes?

Conclusion: Torah-Freedom is More Real Than Secular Freedom

This is one very important way of understanding the Torah. And I mean that this is, in a very real sense, much more free than there is anywhere else. Why? Because there isn’t even theoretically, I don’t need to say, there isn’t even theoretically such a thing. There are people who hold that there is theoretically such a thing, but halokhe lema’aseh (in practical terms), there isn’t even theoretically such a thing. The people I know who have this freedom, have it lema’aseh (in practice).

There isn’t even theoretically such a thing outside of the beis hamidrash, that you should learn the sugya of traffic lights, and you come out that the camera that sends you a ticket is rejected, the Rambam doesn’t hold of it, the Rif (Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi, 11th century) doesn’t hold of it, the Constitution doesn’t hold of it, the New York State Constitution doesn’t hold of it, ah, that they made teshukoh (desire/corruption), that they made corruption, it’s not right, it’s self-contradictory, and consequently it answers itself, and it hurts a Jew so, as I feel

Freedom Through Torah: The Anarchistic Nature of Halakha

Why the Secular System is Enslaved

Instructor:

Why? Because there isn’t even theoretically, I’ll have to tell you, there isn’t even theoretically such a thing. There are people who hold that there is theoretically such a thing, but halakha l’ma’aseh (in practical terms) there isn’t even theoretically such a thing.

The people I know who have this freedom have it l’ma’aseh (in practice). There isn’t even theoretically such a thing in the, outside of the beis hamidrash (study hall), that you should learn the sugya (Talmudic topic) of traffic lights, and it will come out to you that the camera that sends you a ticket is rejected, the Rambam (Maimonides) doesn’t hold of it, the Rif (Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi) doesn’t hold of it, the Constitution doesn’t hold of it, the New York State Constitution doesn’t hold of it.

Eh, they made, it’s sheker (falsehood), it’s corruption, it’s not right, it’s self-contradictory. And memeilah (consequently) I conduct myself this way, and will a Jew do so? So I conduct myself? L’ma’aseh (in practice) one conducts oneself, it doesn’t help much, one pays off the ticket with three times the ticket, and so on. And bekitzur (in short), there’s no way out.

The Jewish Freedom: A Practical Reality

So you’re always gonna be meshu’abad (enslaved). A person who is not a heimish Jew, who is not an Orthodox Jew in the simple sense, is in a certain sense enslaved. A Jew also, I meant, a Jew also can’t get out of this. It’s on that level terribly enslaved and he is an eved (slave).

Yes, theoretically he can say that there is a constitution, and if you want, if it will be successful [matzliach zayn: be successful], you’ll go to the, convince the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court, that essentially the whole idea of traffic court is not constitutional, it doesn’t say in the constitution that you must have extra traffic courts. Let’s go into it. In short, it’s not right, everyone knows, drive on the street, it’s not right.

But it doesn’t help you at all, it helps like a radish [like a radish: i.e., not at all]. And halakha l’ma’aseh you have to follow whatever low-life sits there in the sheriff’s office, you have to follow him, and if not he’ll make your life miserable. There’s no way out of this.

The Option of Freedom in Halakha

In contrast [masha khen: in contrast] a Jew, there is such an option. There is, there is. In Boro Park it’s a bit harder, yes, but there is such a, there is such an option. There are people who conduct themselves this way, there are such crazy people. I’m not saying I approve of them, but there are such people who conduct themselves this way.

He learns the laws of Shabbos [hilkhos Shabbos: the laws of the Sabbath], and he concludes that on Shabbos one may ride a bike, and he rides a bike in public, and he comes to the beis medrash with his bike. Let’s say, I’m giving an example [mashal: parable/example]. And they tell him, “Don’t you know what you’re doing?” “Well, I learned, I can teach you better than you.” And it comes out to me that one does do this, and that’s it.

And the rav says one may not go on the eruv [eruv: ritual boundary permitting carrying on Sabbath], and he does go. Why? Because he can look up the Shulchan Arukh [Shulchan Arukh: Code of Jewish Law] that the rav quotes. He says, Rav, I have you in the attic [in the attic: i.e., I have you figured out], my Shulchan Arukh says this, and I hold that it’s a mitzvah [mitzvah: commandment], and I want, and I even have to fight with the ervah [ervah: forbidden sexual matters], whatever.

I’m not talking about whether he’s right or not right, I’m only talking about that there is a strange, almost [kim’at: almost] anarchism in the way that halakha actually works, even in our days [biyameinu eileh: in our days].

Why the Authorities Are Not Satisfied

And there’s a good reason why all these authorities over the public [mishtarim al hatzibbur: authorities over the public] are not happy with the fact that halakha works this way. And they always seek out that one overworked halakha that says there that no, the rav can indeed make whatever enactment [takanah: rabbinic enactment] he wants even if it’s bad for the Torah, and it’s one halakha out of all 613 laws [taryag hilkhos: 613 laws]. Here’s one reason, I understand that it’s not so, I understand. It could be that I’m making it more important than it is, but there is one halakha.

And all the others, it says [omer: it says] that any stupid guy can just go, and it’s amazing, and it’s as if [ke’ilu: as if] not, and it’s very convenient that there is such a thing as a rav, there is such a thing as a rav, and there isn’t.

The Foundation: No One Can Decide Halakha for Another

I mean, there have been many attempts to make such a thing in Judaism, and sometimes it succeeded and sometimes it didn’t succeed. But fundamentally [b’yesodo: fundamentally], I mean, look, I mean, there is no such thing that there is someone who can decide the halakha for another. There is no such thing!

The Rambam thought that he holds that all Jews accepted [mekabel geven: accepted] the Babylonian Talmud [Talmud Bavli: Babylonian Talmud], let’s assume, but that doesn’t make much of a difference, because you can still interpret the Babylonian Talmud however you want. No one is authorized [musmakh: authorized] to tell you what to do. The only one who is authorized to tell you what to do is you yourself!

Now, but you can’t say, I follow the local custom [minhag hamakom: local custom], whatever the rav says. I’m not saying one can make complete anarchy, but the foundation [yesod: foundation] has a connection [shaykhes: connection] to freedom [cheirus: freedom], and the freedom works.

Examples of Freedom in Practice

Someone can come, and not only can come, it happens. And the whole city hates you, and you can have your minyan [minyan: prayer quorum], and by us we don’t say, in our beis medrash we don’t say any yotzros [yotzros: liturgical poems]. And you even want to make an excommunication [cherem: excommunication], and you can hang yourself with your cherem, it doesn’t change anything. They still say it.

By us we pray after midnight [chatzos: midnight]. Why? Because we made an interpretation [peshtel: interpretation] that it comes out that one may, Tosafos Yom Tov [Tosafos Yom Tov: a 17th century commentator]. Shulchan Arukh is only one person’s opinion what the halakha should be.

I mean to say, certainly [vadai: certainly], Shulchan Arukh, I mean to say, how far you want to go, I’m not going into various parameters [gedarim: parameters] of halakha and responsibility [achrayus: responsibility] and so forth. The foundation is like this, and the foundation is that there is a responsibility because it’s right, not because someone said it’s right. And this is how Torah works, and most of Torah truly works this way.

Poskim and Fear

You don’t see any posek [posek: halakhic decisor] say, I mean later you do see, “I hold this way, I have fear [yirah: fear].” Okay, I know you have fear, do you have fear? I mean, go to a therapist, don’t have fear. What do you want from me?

But the Vayoel Moshe [Vayoel Moshe: a work by the Satmar Rebbe] works this way, and this is a true, I mean truly that this is a freedom that doesn’t exist elsewhere.

Freedom Regarding Sin: The Deeper Freedom

And the same thing, it’s understood that this is truly the freedom regarding sin [ta’at: sin/transgression], and sin is much deeper for whoever truly knows how sinfulness works. And I’m not saying it works out this way in practice, because… but that this is that I can say, and I have the guts to say that essentially transgressions [aveiros: transgressions] don’t exist, why would I want to say them?

I, Yitzchak Levi, I have no problem going on YouTube. Now, YouTube can’t throw me out, I mean they can, but there are other transgressions. On those transgressions they’re not strict [makpid: strict], yes? There are transgressions that they are strict about. They’re not strict about Jewish transgressions, and the Jews are not strict about their transgressions.

The Principle of a Torah Scholar

In any case [al kol panim: in any case], I can say that I hold that every Jew may learn Gemara [Gemara: Talmud] and render halakhic decisions [poskenen: render halakhic decisions]. Why do I hold? I don’t hold that way, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein [Rabbi Moshe Feinstein] conducts himself that way, it could be that his responsum [teshuvah: responsum] is a leniency [kulah: leniency].

Once they told him that the Magen Avraham [Magen Avraham: a 17th century commentary] says… you know the story [ma’aseh: story] of the Chazon Ish [Chazon Ish: Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz] with Rabbi… who was it? Rabbi Shraga Brandsdorfer, I think, one of the Chasidic rosh yeshivas [rosh yeshivah: head of yeshiva]. Was his name Brandsdorfer? The Belzer rosh yeshiva? Shalom Brandsdorfer.

The Story with the Chazon Ish

He comes to the Chazon Ish, and the Chazon Ish showed a section [siman: section] of Chazon Ish, and they showed the Chazon Ish that the Magen Avraham says the opposite of him. He says, “Yes? Interesting.” He takes a pen to write, “There is no obligation according to the Magen Avraham” [vidui leisa k’Magen Avraham: there is no obligation according to the Magen Avraham]. The other one fell out of his vessels [keilim: vessels, i.e., he was shocked]. He thought he would engage with the Magen Avraham. He says, “Yes, I forgot to add it [shakhach far’n mir tzuleigen: I forgot to add it]. Okay, he holds differently from me. I forgot, I mean, interesting.”

This is a… and I can say this. And why can I say it? Because I’m backed [backed] by the power of that book. I’m not backed by witnesses [eidos: witnesses], like that one says, ten Chasidim who go slaughter that one who doesn’t follow like me. I’m not backed by police who have jails to put people in. I’m only backed by the idea, because I hold that the… and you also have, yes, the one who argues with me also holds that essentially one should only follow the book.

Can I have the audacity [chutzpah: audacity] to say, “Come, let’s learn, you’ll see, it says differently.” And this means that in reality there is a huge amount of freedom, if one has the guts, and in general [bikhlal: in general] if one keeps learning, if one keeps doing it, or simply [stam: simply] wants to say, “It’s really not a matter [inyan: matter], because you’ll say, ‘Who are you?’” Or he’ll say, “I’m not. I’m only telling you what it says in the verse [pasuk: verse], I’m only telling you what it says in the Gemara,” whatever, whoever is assumed to be the authority [samkhus: authority], I can do it, and I can’t do it in almost any other context in the world. One can’t do this audacity [chutzpah: audacity], at least not in this way.

There Is No Pope

Only by the Jews who have a Torah, who theoretically are obligated [mechuyav: obligated] to the Torah, and theoretically no one can tell another what it says in the Torah. And this is a tremendous freedom of one who engages in Torah study [mi she’oseik baTorah: one who engages in Torah study]. This is how I hold.

As they say, a Torah scholar [talmid chacham: Torah scholar], if you see a Torah scholar committed a transgression at night [ba’lailah: at night], he certainly repented [vadai asah teshuvah: certainly repented]. He wrote a responsum, we said, yes? No one else has this freedom. This is what it means to be a free person [ben chorin: free person]. He can, he really can. Hopefully he wrote a responsum beforehand, because he’s not just idle. But, but this is the…

But there it says that not, there it says that he is blessed [barukh: blessed]. Okay, that’s another conversation [shmu’es: conversation], we’ll see what it means to be blessed, and who decides who is blessed. Ah, it’s one minute. So let’s talk about thoughts [machshavos: thoughts].

The Practical Working of Freedom

So, this is in the world of action [olam hama’aseh: the world of action], and in the world of action it also works incidentally [agav: incidentally]. I’m telling you that it can work better. In other words, politics is politics, but theoretically everyone agrees [maskim: agrees] to this. Not everyone, I told you, there are people who are very interested in all these kinds of narrow-minded authorities [shmol: narrow-minded authorities] who say the opposite. But, and one must protest [mocheh zayn: protest] against, I’m not on that side at the moment.

But theoretically everyone agrees to this. And I mean that it works quite practically it works. In other words, there is no pope [pope] here, and I mean to say, to the extent that there is a pope it’s really a pope for the sake of [lesheim: for the sake of] what the rabbinate [rabbanut: rabbinate] is a bureaucracy, for the sake of writing certain papers it makes a practical difference [nafka minah: practical difference].

Almost no Jew, there are unfortunately Jews who yes, because they are really different from the, they don’t want to be free people [bnei chorin: free people]. But the religious Jews, the real solid Jews, they’re not so strict about being free people. Always strict about the anarchy. You can’t, the rabbinate is good for writing notes that one must, I don’t know.

But it doesn’t occur to him truly [be’emes: truly] to give such a thing that he was chosen [bachar geven: chosen] to be the chief rabbi [rav rashi: chief rabbi], he should now make the halakha for everyone. Crazy? He can make the halakha for me? I have the same Torah as him. Who is he? He’s nothing.

Theoretically, ah, there is a law of the Sanhedrin [Sanhedrin: the high court]. There really is a law, it’s a law not practiced [halakha v’lo l’ma’aseh: a law not practiced], because really about this, because they don’t like the idea. It’s not a good idea. Perhaps [afsher: perhaps] it’s a good idea, I’m not saying, somewhere there needs to be some system. But we almost never had such with real power, only as a nice theory that we talk about. And there’s a reason for this.

The Conditions of Freedom: One Must Know How to Learn

So this is our great foundation, that one should be able to do it. Certainly [nevadai: certainly], as he says, one must be able to do it. In other words, what does it mean that one can do it?

Let’s say, let’s say, one really must, I mean to say, it’s no wisdom [chokhmah: wisdom] to be an idler and say, he says he has a foundation for his foot, and he says. You must have some logical progression in thought [mahalakh b’machshavah: a logical progression in thought]. I mean that people make it much harder to do this, much harder to do this, and it’s truly much easier.

And in practice I can’t say, I haven’t learned enough. And people really haven’t learned enough. I don’t know what is the measure [shi’ur: measure] of learning, as a great investigation [chakirah: investigation], what is the measure of having learned and having done to be able to say that I hold this way.

The Chazon Ish’s “Le’iyuni”

And you know that the Chazon Ish used to write on sections that he didn’t hold were clear, “for further study” [le’iyuni: for further study], I know, “le’iyuni”, something like that he had a formulation [nusach: formulation]. And he says this, he was honest, he says, I’m less, it seems to me this way, perhaps tomorrow I’ll think more I’ll see that it’s not right.

But in practice he ruled according to the le’iyuni thing. He didn’t say that he doesn’t rule halakha l’ma’aseh, he says, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky [Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky]… no, he says a fact that you see, there’s still room to study more. But many times he wrote “le’iyuni” on something that he ruled on. Do you think I don’t have the strength [koach: strength] to the nice kittens? No, I’m learning now.

But the Chasidim [machsidim: the Chasidim] tell, he really took so much effort [terachos: efforts]. Do you think I say I have now, am I now obligated for every subsection [seif: subsection] that has a commentary [peirush: commentary] written on the sugya? I learn, it comes out to me this way.

As he says “God touched Abraham” [Elokim naga b’Avraham: God touched Abraham], someone will come, he’ll write. I have time, I see that that one says differently, we’ll see if he says some good logical argument [sevara: logical argument], we’ll see if I’m obligated to learn every thing. Okay, one must be able to study, how much is one obligated? I don’t know. But in in—

Faith and Thought: The Freedom of One’s Own Perspective

Introduction: The Distinction Between Halakha and Thought (Continued)

The Difficulty of Learning a Sugya in Halakha

The commentators explain, and really took so much effort, meaning to say, I must now, I’m now obligated for every subsection that has a commentary written on the sugya, I learn it, it comes out to me this way. As he says, God for strength, someone will come, and write to me, I have time, I see that that one says differently, and one sees that that one says some good logical argument, and one sees that one is obligated to see every thing. Okay, one can study, how much one is obligated, I don’t know.

In Thought It’s Different – And Perhaps Easier

But in faith and thought, what a person thinks, most people think it’s much harder. First of all, it’s not completely wrong, because there really are sugyos and topics that are no less, have fewer handles to grasp.

Most people, and most people especially not, and when I say most people, I mean to say the three-four good students in every yeshiva class. I mean, most people can’t do it even on a simple sugya, look in the Gemara, what it says in the Gemara, what it says in the Rishonim, what they said, how he innovated every step. These are things that even most people who do halakha certainly don’t know.

And when one takes a Gemara, a sugya in yeshiva, it’s very hard, even if he goes to yeshiva, he’s successful, he’s even on twenty sugyos over six years, I don’t know what, he’s not… just to figure out what’s going on, it’s a lot of work. You can look in the Talmudic Encyclopedia, the differences of opinion that the commentators say, it’s not… it’s a real, how do you say, it’s a real skill that you need to learn. I don’t know if one learns it, but one should have to.

Everyone should have been able to have such a thing.

Example: Kinyan Sudar and Jewish Understanding

Translation

Just as someone placed an ad, he wants to clarify something, this is literally an example of this. Someone placed an ad in the Jewish newspapers, I was with someone who called me. He holds that it’s about kinyan sudar [a symbolic acquisition method using a cloth or handkerchief], when people make a contract on a house, he says there’s a custom, I don’t know, I don’t know about it, he wants me to tell him whether one may retract or not, whether one must follow what’s written, whether one makes under the table a second deal.

In short, and the other one says, there’s a sugya in Bava Basra [a tractate of the Talmud dealing with property law], it discusses kinyan sudar, he wants to pay for someone who will clarify and publish a booklet, and… well, people won’t follow his booklet. But at least the idea is a crazy powerful idea. He tells us, I can pay, he wants to pay him thirty dollars an hour, I hold that it’s not enough, not for me, perhaps for someone else, but he’s going to do it, and he’s going to pay people. It could be that it will succeed. This happens sometimes someone writes such a booklet, and the people who do this, they say, “Ah, this is clear, one clarifies the sefarim, one can perhaps conduct oneself this way.” And it’s something that actually happens.

In the World of Thought This is All the More So

And in the world of thought this is kol shekein [all the more so], the world doesn’t know how to do this, and they’re very afraid to do this.

But if one is willing to acknowledge that it’s not such a hoda’ah al ha’emes [acknowledgment of the truth] of “without the need being beneficial,” then it’s even easier. One must simply be honest about the truth of what one actually thinks. Not what one says one should think.

Most People Don’t Know What They Think

Most people don’t know what they think. Well, he says everything that’s required, one must, a Jew is obligated to believe such and such. Okay, and what do you believe? “A Jew is obligated,” I heard. And what do you actually believe? It’s a very hard question to answer. Maybe nothing. I mean, one can say maybe there’s nobody home. Could also be.

The Method: Being Honest About What One Actually Thinks

But if one can do this, afterwards one can say, “Okay, apparently it would come out this way, now there’s a verse that says differently, or there’s a source that says differently,” and take the source seriously.

I think that regarding halacha you can say, “You are actually obligated to do this way,” but it’s not carried out. But it’s probably not hot for a person what to think. As long as he hasn’t carried it out, he hasn’t been convinced, he hasn’t been shown why he should think differently, he will actually think the way he thinks.

The Reality: People Believe What Makes Sense to Them

And most people actually conduct themselves this way. One must be honest about the truth. I say, most people actually believe, whatever, it’s that part. No, Yali, do you see such a fancy button? Yes. There is power.

Actually, most people don’t know what it is, but most people actually believe more or less what makes sense to them. That’s the reality.

And all the shiurim that we have here are the gemaras for this. If you look inside, you see that there’s a whole other way of understanding what matan Torah [the giving of the Torah] means, which one can learn. In Chumash [the Five Books of Moses] one thing comes out, in a verse in Gemara a second thing comes out, and a third source comes out a different thing. But most Jews that you’ll ask what matan Torah means, what is the kabbalas haTorah [receiving the Torah] that we celebrate on Shavuos [the holiday commemorating the giving of the Torah], he’ll tell you one thing and always, pass over, I don’t know.

Example: What is Matan Torah?

For example, I asked, I ask you, what is the story? What is the story? Halacha l’maaseh, not a story already. What is halacha l’maaseh? I asked one person today, I only checked with one Jew, and he told me, “Yes, it’s written in sefarim.” I asked him, “What is the whole shiur on Shavuos, matan Torah, what is it?”

He says, “Yes, it’s written in sefarim that one can rectify even on the fiftieth day of sefirah [the counting of the Omer], one can still rectify all middos [character traits].” Okay, in short, that’s matan Torah. I have no problem with the saying, it’s written in Kedushas Levi [by the Maggid of Chernobyl], there’s a whole explanation to explain even what he means to say, but that’s not the point of the person, he doesn’t care.

In other words, they’re with tikkun hamiddos [rectification of character traits], there are forty-nine middos according to some explanation, whatever, and on Shavuos one rectifies all the middos together, like someone who missed Lag BaOmer [the 33rd day of the Omer], we can do it again. Okay, so that’s what matan Torah is for him.

It’s a very simple thing, first, it appears for the first time, I can say as a chokker [researcher], the first one who says such an idea is whoever, some guy in the 18th century. So he doesn’t care, it doesn’t concern him at all, and we need to grasp this, it doesn’t concern him at all, and I use this to my advantage. And the average Jew it doesn’t concern at all.

Example: Rabbi Aharon Miller in Bnei Brak

You come to tell him, I’m told, Rabbi Aharon Miller went to Bnei Brak, he said such things, and they weren’t happy, and they came to yell at him. They brought him to some great old rosh yeshiva with a great white beard, and he gave him a tochacha [rebuke], he says like this, he says, “What does it mean? Come, open Chovos HaLevavos [Duties of the Heart, a classic work of Jewish ethics and philosophy], what it says.”

The other one never saw Chovos HaLevavos in his life, does it concern him what it says in Chovos HaLevavos? He looked at him, he told him a few normal explanations in Chovos HaLevavos. It doesn’t concern him, he doesn’t want to know what it says in Chovos HaLevavos.

People Believe What Makes Sense to Them – Not What’s Written in Sefarim

We will say what makes sense to us, according to all our hanachos [assumptions] none of which make sense, but more or less what makes sense to us halacha l’maaseh in our life, with the cheese and the cheesecake and with being up at night, what makes sense to us, that’s what we believe is real.

What we say theoretically that we believe in Chovos HaLevavos, we don’t believe in Chovos HaLevavos, we believe what we believe. And so it is with every single thing, no difference, the same thing no difference.

Example: A Book on Emunah That is “Totally Mixed”

I make today for my hero, a guy already, he wrote a book on emunah, and totally mixed, he says whatever the heart wants. He doesn’t bring a single source, even if he grabs a verse and it stands completely differently, perhaps not even a verse, I don’t remember. He brings some responsa of later authorities when he needs to, it’s not built on that.

He doesn’t pretend that he wants to say the way he pretends by every sugya, that’s also a bit pretending, let’s see what the Rambam [Maimonides] says and what the Ra’avad [Rabbi Abraham ben David] says, and we make some approach. He doesn’t do that, he sits down and he says, it looks like this, it looks like this, and that’s it. Move forward. And that’s what he actually believes.

And people, many people are angry about this, what do you mean you can come today and wipe away the whole thing? But necessarily it works this way, necessarily it works this way for thought. Even the most pious person works exactly this way.

Example: The Lubavitcher Rebbe and Moshiach

There are a few modern Orthodox Jews, I know who at YU, who are angry that the Lubavitcher Rebbe says an explanation in Moshiach [the Messiah] different from the Rambam. No Chassidic Jew cares, and no other Jew cares, except for David Berger [a modern Orthodox scholar], no one cares.

The Rebbe says differently? Okay, well I also say differently, what do you want from me? You want to believe the Rebbe? Okay, I also say an explanation in the Rebbe, do I think my explanation is nonsense? No one cares about this, because actually because thought truly doesn’t work that way.

People can say that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is an apikores [heretic] for other reasons, also not because his reasons are because the Rambam says so, just because it seems to me like heresy, okay. Not Rabbi Schachter, not anyone else, cares what David Berger says. He’s an academic researcher, he cares, because it says the Ramban said that one must have vikuach [debate], okay. It’s a matter practically, it’s not relevant to anyone, it’s history.

Summary of the Introduction: The Two Main Points

Therefore, in short, halacha l’maaseh, therefore halacha l’maaseh is just as in halacha the Chazon Ish [Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and other Lithuanian tzaddikim said that one may decide for oneself from the Gemara, so in thought regarding deciding for oneself from sefarim, about this one certainly cannot say that one needs to know more.

One must be familiar, yes, I actually hold that one needs to know more, but practically it won’t help that I say this, because you’ll think anyway what you want to think. So at least have awareness of this, and if you have awareness of this, you have a true try to learn more.

The Importance of Awareness

You don’t say, you grasp that your approach that you believe is not enough, something is missing, it doesn’t match with the sources, honestly at all, what most people think is terribly not developed, most people are not philosophers, I’ve already thought too deeply, I don’t want to here. Already, and on the contrary, you’ll start thinking, and little by little, the more you think the more you’ll know, the more you’ll believe.

Respect for Previous Understandings

Now, one must have respect for a previous understanding, one must have respect, this is not a contradiction, this stands on its own. Simply, whoever wrote it has a certain idea, I understand him, I don’t hold that way. I can’t believe something that I didn’t say, something that I don’t understand, I don’t understand how it works. Already, and this is the conclusion that emerges from this, and about this this is a good way of learning everything.

How People Come to an Opinion

And in truth most people who have at least some opinion, is because they learned one sefer that matched, and he goes with that. Ah, you come to a minority, you’re a daas yachid [minority opinion], let it be daas yachid, it doesn’t concern me. It truly works for you this way, and as is known it truly doesn’t work for you that way.

Cheirus: The Freedom of Torah

Already, until here is the introduction, and until here this is in the way of the writers, these are the two points:

That one must not only may one make the halacha oneself, because nowhere is it said, because nowhere is it said, because anyway, for the same reason because nowhere is it said, and secondly for aggadah one must oneself, there’s no way out, because anyway everyone believes for themselves what comes out for them, therefore be honest about the truth, already.

This is Called Freedom

And this is freedom, this is called freedom, like a gentile, but this is freedom, this is called cheirus mi she’oseik baTorah [the freedom of one who engages in Torah], because no gentile can do it, not in halacha, not in aggadah.

I don’t want to talk about gentile aggadah, because that’s already too much politics, but in the gentile world one may not be a heretic, in the Jewish world one may be a heretic.

All Souls Were at Mount Sinai

If you come out, everyone agrees, I’m not talking about the idle screamers who are here just in power and not in truth, but everyone who believes that essentially the Torah is built on truth, agrees that if someone clarified a version that comes out for him like the Rambam, the Kabbalah [Jewish mysticism], the Zohar [the foundational work of Kabbalah], he may do it, he came out with it, he’s not right, I know, I should perhaps yell, but there is the power.

People who, you see what people do, people go around yelling, “The Rambam said,” and it works, it’s at least a thing, there isn’t really such a thing anywhere else, not in the same way at least. Another punctual how it looks in the outside world is another discussion, but this is the, that’s why I am proud to be a Jew, because Jews can believe whatever they want, and nobody can tell them otherwise, because I was at Mount Sinai just like you, understand? This is the, all souls were at Mount Sinai.

Contrast with the Gentile World

There’s no such thing as a mitzvah by them, and therefore there is that one may not go through a red light, even if it’s in the middle of the night, it doesn’t make any sense, it won’t help anything, you can theoretically help it, but also practically it doesn’t help anything for all the reasons. Even if it was explained in a strict constitutional law, you can’t write just… laws that are relevant to people.

Ah, the gentile religious laws, the gentile religious laws, generally the gentiles… I don’t want to now come finally to say what Jews are better than gentiles in halacha, in fact, this is the matter of… I’m talking about the idea. Generally, most… not only that, even the more modern a Jew is, he’s less anarchistic. It’s more the rabbi said, and therefore that’s the halacha. Every one of the… Orthodox Judaism is the most… one doesn’t grasp it, one thinks it’s the most pious, it’s the most… the most… ah… how would I say? It’s the most free. Flexible I don’t know if is the right word, but there’s no authority at all, it’s anarchy. Every rabbi can tell you what he wants, and no one can do anything to him.

Or can one do? In Boro Park one can… I understand. Not geographically, it depends on which areas of Torah. There are things you can’t shake. They have, they have. Okay, no, I don’t want to… they have, but practically… practically, now, I… in… it’s Protestant, very Protestant in that sense, I don’t want to go in. The Protestants are like that. Very Protestant, but not… very Protestant in that sense. But… Protestant is actually a great innovation by the gentiles, by Jews it was always like that in a certain sense. Everyone can learn and say what he wants, what does one do about it.

Politics and Halacha

Already, I don’t want to mix halacha practically with politics. I said, politics is not our shiur. I only say ideas that one can apply to politics, but not the politics itself, that everyone makes themselves. Anyway, this is the… this is the halacha l’maaseh, and from this it’s very good to be a Jew who can learn. This is the point, in my opinion.

And I see it this way, and I truly see that the people who have the… I already spoke about this at my shiur erev Shabbos. After graduating one can already relearn. You’ll see, a real rabbi is someone who will teach you how to do that without being stupid. I mean to say, certainly one can be stupid, I’m not talking about that, but that’s the idea.

Matan Torah: The Fundamental Question

Already, these are the points. I wanted to say another shiur, end of the shiur, it’s eleven o’clock. I would have said another shiur, I’ll still say the headers of it, I also haven’t made it yet, but I’ll say the headers of the shiur. It’s a good thing to think about for Shavuos. And actually not in relation to this, I have no plans for this, the same thing, and shown an example.

What Does Matan Torah Mean?

The Giving of the Torah: Covenant, Acceptance, and the Halachic Meaning of Mount Sinai

There’s such a thing, what does matan Torah mean? Kabbalat HaTorah? Matan Torah? It’s roughly the idea. Yes, Shavuot was kabbalat HaTorah, okay, it was then, it wasn’t, regarding why the holiday, that’s another discussion. But this is what it says in the siddur, zman matan Torateinu, yes? Zman matan Torateinu, and it means that on one day the Almighty came upon Mount Sinai and gave the Torah. So, that’s the fact, the basic thing.

Now, I want to be mechadesh, I don’t know if I want to be mechadesh, I want to clarify, what does this mean, what is the translation? What does it even mean? I understand the story, I understand the story, but what does it mean? And as I always say, we’re all accustomed that it means a certain thing, it has a meaning in a certain system of meaning, and so forth. And one must say this to know what it means, and yet one must see that there are three, four options, or three options, to say what it means.

Should I try to frame it in one way, for example, in which way can one ask the question, so that one could at all come out saying that it’s not simple what it means, that it means one thing, is that there’s such a question, and the question is actually one can find very serious sources, Rishonim and Acharonim, who ask the question and they speak about this. And the question is, what happened? Mah nishtanah? What is the difference before matan Torah and after matan Torah? What do I mean? You all need to know all the attributes, yes? What happened? What is the difference?

The Question of Avraham Avinu

There is a Torah. There is a Torah, okay. Why, wasn’t there any Torah? It’s not the first time. You know that Avraham Avinu made eruv tavshilin? Ah, you don’t believe that, okay, it’s actually a reality. He also had mitzvot, Avraham Avinu. Let’s say not eruv tavshilin, the mitzvah of brit milah, the mitzvah of going to Eretz Yisrael. The Almighty said the whole time what to do. There were the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach. The seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach more or less is just the same thing as 613 mitzvot. I would say it was a shinua, on that it was the same long more or less. Why are you looking at me like this? It’s simple. Think about it, dinim, is Choshen Mishpat, is the whole, Yoreh De’ah, and so forth. There were mitzvot. Noach had a Torah, don’t eat this, don’t eat meat, there was Torah Seder HaMoed.

It’s not only that there was matan Torah. There was. And in general, let’s speak in a broader sense, laws, there was never any human civilization that didn’t have any laws, more or less, okay, I said last week that not, but I mean to say in a broader way, in a broader sense, there was. So what happened? So what is relevant at all regarding the event of Har Sinai? There are very many societies with laws, that don’t have some kind of event of “hayom nitnah Torah.”

The American Constitution as a Comparison

Ask an American, which day did America become? Okay, there was a constitution, they sat down, wasn’t there until then any constitution? Okay, there were already laws. But let’s say, but if there wasn’t, there is a constitution itself, why should they follow the constitution? There were always laws, English laws, okay. Today is a ruling, today one doesn’t need to follow the English laws, but the American laws, okay. So what exactly is the difference from the laws that were before? One could perhaps say that it’s different. But what was Avraham Avinu conducted differently? That’s the difference? They changed a few laws? Okay, so they changed the laws, that’s matan Torah, one celebrates? Let’s say, one celebrates that there are different laws?

The “New Rules” Theory

Before matan Torah one did this and that, basar b’chalav, before Avraham Avinu brought it, and now one may not. Different laws. But it’s still, the difference is only, how the Almighty, if you say it like this, it’s really not a real change, it’s not, as one says, a difference in quantity not in quality, yes? It’s different laws. Before matan Torah it was that Avraham Avinu was conducted thus and so, and now the Almighty changed. What is the purpose of such a nightmare? Why should He change it? It’s actually very weird when you think about it like that.

Moshe Rabbeinu, a day before, there was the taste of eating cheesecake, yes? A day before one could eat however it goes? Whatever, what is the milk and treifot, and today one may not. That’s a very mad way of thinking. Why is the point that one may not? Why exactly may one not? Did some magic happen?

Simply one didn’t do it. That’s the real truth. I mean, simply the midrashim that say that Avraham Avinu was mekayem the Torah, they say they understand that the Torah is what one must do. What a Jew must do, I know. What is the practical difference that Avraham Avinu also did? It’s yes obligated, it’s not obligated. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s very mad to think that one day the rules changed. Let’s say it could be that such a thing happened. It’s not so interesting, if you think about it like that. So what? Before did one dance on Yom Tov? New rules. Until now one could yes eat meat, now one may not. I’m saying what the building is mine. Yes.

Rav Saadia Gaon’s Question

So that’s only one way of explaining. And actually, there are actually Rishonim who don’t hold of this. I just want to say, Rav Saadia Gaon in his introduction, he speaks about that there must be a Torah. Rav Saadia Gaon is very… one of the oldest of my sort of talks that I speak here, that one must go into the foundation of the foundation of the foundation, Rav Saadia Gaon is almost the only one who puts in the fundamental things. And Rav Saadia Gaon asks such a question, when he speaks about Torah, he asks the question, why must there be a Torah at all? We are very convinced, most other people, that there is a Torah. The question is which Torah, which side, may one yes eat meat or not. But what makes you think that there is such a thing as Torah? Where do you get this concept from? It’s not just Torah, divine Torah from the Almighty. It’s quite good to live without a Torah. The Almighty doesn’t need to send. People figure it out without this. It’s a serious question.

And he tries to prove that there was. And because he tries to prove that there must be, he remained with a question, what was with Avraham Avinu? How did he live? Did Avraham Avinu also have a Torah. But it’s different, the Almighty is after all tachlit hayedi’ah, it’s very different from how we’re accustomed to think, the way how He thinks. I’m just saying an example. What?

And I assume, according to him one didn’t see Torah as such a great thing. He didn’t cook Shavuot too much, so it comes out. I don’t know. I guess he didn’t know to look, but it was already the custom, I don’t know. But yes, it was for… as he says there.

What Does the Chumash and Tanach Say?

The Event of Har Sinai in Tanach

Ah, so now it’s like this, if one looks in the Chumash, I want to say three or four theories what happened in Egypt. There are other theories, in Chabad they have a whole theory about this. They have dozens of answers about this question. And others.

What here, I won’t be able to be lengthy, I just want to give such a framework for three different theories that one can have about this. One theory, all that are not the first theory, the first theory is also a bit of a theory that one can perhaps make sense of, but all three theories are not the theory that there were new laws, that this is a revelation.

So it’s like this, in the simple meaning of the Chumash, whoever looks in the Torah, and in the Torah, as is known, in Tanach the event of Har Sinai is almost not mentioned as a thing. There are one or two times in Tanach it explicitly says the event of Har Sinai, and also that one then received laws. Twice in Tanach it is mentioned that the Almighty spoke to Jews on Har Sinai. Aside from Parshat Yitro and Parshat Va’etchanan, it says it twice at the end of Tanach.

But throughout all the days of the prophets, from Moshe Rabbeinu, from Yehoshua bin Nun until, well, who was the second who said? Nechemiah and… what’s his name? Malachi. Aside from the… Malachi also says, he says yes, he says Chorev. Aside from Nechemiah and Malachi, which is literally the last two, more or less the last generation of prophets of Tanach, the whole time, one cries out very much, Yirmiyahu cries, and one doesn’t follow the Torah, and Yehoshua bin Nun says the whole thing, he built himself on this, he never says, “and don’t remember the day that one saw Moshe Rabbeinu.” He says it once in Va’etchanan, but that’s all. From Va’etchanan until Nechemiah there isn’t. And one can find hints, perhaps it says it by hint, but explicitly it doesn’t say.

What Does It Say: The Brit

But what does it say? And this is important for us to grasp, what does it say? That is, what does matan Torah mean for the Torah? And even when one looks in Parshat Yitro and in Parshat Va’etchanan, one sees that it says there, and it doesn’t say what we mean that it says. What it says there is that the Almighty made a brit with the Jews. A brit means a deal, or a contract, or a treaty, however you want to conceptualize it. He made a deal, a brit. And in the brit it says, as it says in a deal, it has two sides, right?

We have “Hashem Elokeinu,” and so, by the way, Moshe Rabbeinu’s speech about matan Torah began like this, “Hashem Elokeinu karat imanu brit b’Chorev.” That’s how it begins. It doesn’t say “Hashem Elokeinu,” he speaks about this, it’s a tremendous thing, one saw the Almighty, it’s all very nice, but that’s not his main framing. And they have a custom to begin the portions in the wrong place. Whoever looks sees, there it begins, “vayedaber Moshe,” whatever. It doesn’t say in the hidden. Moshe came, he said, “Rabbotai, the Almighty made a brit.” And after that there is the thing, after matan Torah will be the whole time. He says, “Therefore, they must follow the brit.” And you see that the people don’t, don’t grasp.

The brit says more or less that everyone knows in Eretz Yisrael, in short, “If you will be good, I will be good, and if you will be bad, I will be bad to you.” But not just good in a spiritual way, because that was already before, one must remember. This is that if a person does good, it’s good for him, is already only

Matan Torah: Brit, Acceptance, and the Halachic Meaning of Har Sinai

Brit, King Asa’s Renewal of the Covenant, and the Halachic Foundations of Matan Torah

Brit as a Special Deal — Not Universal Morality

Instructor: Especially good, yes? In other words, it must be fair at all. But that’s still a level. That’s like, like I may not steal from you at all, but that you must defend me, for example, that’s a treaty, right? For example, that’s how the scholars say that all these treaties are modeled on such treaties. That which for example two kings, that America, for example, the measure of justice, the measure of morality says that one must send a few bombs to Ukraine, okay, a few. Not let Putin completely… one sends them help, but not any obligation. Seemingly you would want to say perhaps yes, but one doesn’t conduct oneself that way. There’s no obligation that he should really go fight for him. There’s no obligation.

If there would be a brit, NATO, yes? He would yes be obligated. If there would be NATO, he would have to go, why? There’s a deal. It says if we are on condition, that if I have a problem, he will come to me, and so forth. But that’s called a brit.

A brit is not the law, the laws of reward and punishment as if that are fixed in the world. That’s in general, the Torah generally believes that this is good, the Almighty is good, and one sees it by the Mabul, by Sodom, there was nothing to do with that. But this is a special thing. The Almighty goes special, you shouldn’t be exiled from all the land, I will specially take care of you. Why? Because you will be special with me.

In other words, a non-Jew may serve avodah zarah, simply almost. “Asher chalak l’chol ha’amim,” it says in Midrash Tanchuma, the explanation is that Moshe Rabbeinu, there’s no obligation, a person may go to another, may do. In other words, one is not forbidden to anyone. It’s forbidden, as the parable of the king, so is the parable that worked.

Yes, it’s not forbidden for Ukraine or for Turkey, I know what, to go make a deal with Russia. They may, no one can do anything to them. But if you go with me, you may not go with them. “Anochi Hashem Elokecha,” you want a deal with me? Don’t speak with a second one.

I’m already speaking into all these theological points of this, but that’s how the brit works. And that’s extra credit, right? And therefore, that’s always what all these things speak about this. And whoever looks in Moshe Rabbeinu, when he speaks about this, he makes again a brit, because perhaps they’ve already forgotten, perhaps one doesn’t want the deal anymore.

The Ramban’s Position: The Brit Was Nullified at the End of the First Temple

And the brit is already… I always hold like the Ramban, that the brit was more or less nullified at the end of the First Temple period. It doesn’t work anymore, the Jews said goodbye, the Almighty said goodbye, and that’s it. Until the Knesset HaGedolah made a new sort of matan Torah.

But so learns the Ramban, that it was nullified. That is, we’re not in Eretz Yisrael, so not. The deal stands, I’m not in Eretz Yisrael, so not is not. I have nothing… I haven’t invited you anymore. What? That’s the brit, more or less, yes.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin, not always, one can be medayek every time, but more or less, the brit is… so learns the Ramban, so is the simple meaning, that the brit was more or less made on the reward and punishment in Eretz Yisrael. In Parshat Yitro it doesn’t say this clearly, in Parshat Mishpatim it does say yes. One can be medayek every time, it says very many times the brit, one must be medayek every time. But in general, “v’im lo tishme’u” is all about Eretz Yisrael. So not is not, goodbye, good day.

And this is, anyway, this is another discussion. But I’m just saying, this is the simple meaning, and simply, this is what Har Sinai meant for Moshe Rabbeinu, it meant this.

Explanation #1 in Shavuot: Renewal of the Covenant — King Asa

This is the meaning of, if you want to ask about Shavuot, Shavuot is the time, so one can speak about this, right? Actually, I think that the first person that one can think, that I learned this in Divrei HaYamim, I just don’t remember it, I think that the first person that one can think that he did something in the third month was… trying to remember who… I’ve already forgotten, well internet… I wrote it down, I really need to add it to my list of sources. But there is, I want to say an example to my son, which is a very good proof.

The first… yes, yes, Asa, Asa, I’m already crazy. King Asa was a great ba’al teshuvah, as is known, as it says in Melachim and in Divrei HaYamim, his father wasn’t such a tzaddik, and he was a tzaddik. And King Asa made a great… gathering in the third month, “vayavo’u Yerushalayim bachodesh hashlishi,” so it says in Chronicles II, chapter 15, “in the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign, and they sacrificed to God and they entered into a covenant to seek God etc. with all their heart and all their soul etc. and they swore and rejoiced,” in short, they made a great holiday.

And the commentators (mefarshim), I don’t remember anymore who was the first to say this, but the commentators, perhaps there are midrashim, say that this was Shavuot. Perhaps Yoshiyahu (Josiah) established the concept that Shavuot is zecher l’matan Torah (commemoration of the giving of the Torah), but in any case, this is the first place where we find that he did it in the third month, which apparently was the time of Shavuot, and precisely on that day he made a gathering.

What was such a Shavuot gathering? A gathering of chiddush habrit (renewal of the covenant). That is, now, they had violated the covenant, they had served idolatry, violated the covenant, transgressed against the covenant. So he gathered the people, there was a yeshuah (salvation), the Almighty helped at that time, whatever the reason was, and saw, we must continue to serve the Almighty. And this is King Asa’s interpretation of Shavuot, and this is how it was learned in the times of the First Temple (Beit Rishon), at least. And this is interpretation number one, which at least makes sense.

Interpretation #2: “Hadar Kibluha Bimei Achashverosh” — A New, One-Sided Acceptance

The second interpretation, which I haven’t clarified so much, but briefly the matter, afterwards, and actually one needs to clarify this, one can tell it in historical context, I don’t like to make everything into history, that the Gemara says in Shabbat that “hadar kibluha bimei Achashverosh mehabbat hanes” (they accepted it again in the days of Ahasuerus out of love for the miracle), and this basically means, as the Ramban learns there speaking about this, and the Ramban in Masechet Shabbat, this is how I usually understand it, that it means that now we have a new Torah that is not built on the promise of a covenant.

One can learn it in way A and way B, “banayich arevayich” (your children are your guarantors), one can think a lot about how to understand this, but in any case, the Jews said, as the Ketav Sofer says about Nechemiah regarding bi’at haMashiach (the coming of the Messiah), we want to go with the Torah even if it doesn’t work out, basically.

The New Acceptance: Willingly, Not Because of a Covenant

In other words, we hold that the Torah is a good way of life, it’s good for us, not because someone forces us, not because it paid off to receive the Land of Israel. We’re not in the Land of Israel, we’re in Bavel (Babylonia), we’re in Paras (Persia), and we want it anyway.

And regarding this, they actually went to the Land of Israel, one can say the mitzvah, but the second going to the Land of Israel had a very different appearance than the first time. The first time they went b’koach (with force), the Almighty told them, and they did it all, and it went by itself, you understand? Yes, the Almighty gave strength and so on, but they weren’t with the same birur (clarification).

And so the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) speaks about this, and the Givat Aravot HaMusar [uncertain reference], that they weren’t mekabel (accepting) meratzon me’ahavah (willingly out of love), rather they were accepting, as it says there in Sefer Ezra v’Nechemyah (the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah), that when they came from galut (exile) they made a new covenant. They made an amanah (covenant/agreement), they wrote a document, they all agreed to fulfill the Torah. There’s written there a list of mitzvot that they agreed to, these are the things they’re going to do properly, and they’re going to fulfill the mitzvot of the Torah. Not that the Almighty came and they wrote a ketubah (marriage contract) and so on. Simply, we want to.

“We Want” — Not “We Must”

In other words, I already said this reason actually in the shiur on Nefesh HaChaim about this, we follow the Torah not because we must. We don’t have to. We don’t have to. The deal is over. But we want to. And we want to, and we don’t want to… you know, a great world. But those who want, they want. And this is the “hadar kibluha me’ahavah” (they accepted it again out of love).

The Fundamental Difference: One-Sided vs. Two-Sided

Now, the “hadar kibluha me’ahavah”…

Student: What?

Instructor: No, it’s very different, because it’s one-sided. It’s one-sided. It’s not a true covenant. The Yerushalmi uses the word “brit,” but it’s one-sided. It’s a whole different approach, it’s a whole different understanding. You can think, I haven’t thought of this, but it’s a whole different understanding of God, and therefore it may be that such other understandings are explained within it. But it’s not, it’s one-sided, that’s certain that it’s one-sided. It’s meritzonam (of their own will).

“Kafah Aleihem Har K’gigit” — Not a Real Deal

Therefore the Gemara, the Ramban says, when the Gemara says that the covenant was, how does it say? “Kafah aleihem har k’gigit” (He held the mountain over them like a barrel), it doesn’t mean literally that there was a mountain like a barrel. It means to say that when you come to someone and you tell him, “Come here, either you follow the Torah, or not, I’ll smash your head.” That’s not a deal. That’s not a deal. Ah, you’re stronger, okay. If America goes, Russia says to Ukraine, that’s not a deal, you understand? I’m the strongest, I’m the strongest god, you must follow me. That’s not how one understands it at Beit Sheina [uncertain reference].

One can yes differently. You see that there are gentiles, and everyone does everything. We want to. Why do we want to? There’s a whole introduction about why. I don’t know, a good question, “banai u’vanai” (my children and my children’s children) and so on. But why not, we want ourselves, it’s worth it to us. Even when the Almighty didn’t, so to speak, want to be in such a covenant, or He didn’t say that He’s going to make a covenant, we want it ourselves. This is a whole new thing.

I don’t want to go into this more, I just want to say that this is perhaps the reason why one comes to a new interpretation.

Interpretation #3: Mount Sinai in the Gemara — The Halachic Meaning

Now, when one comes to Chazal (our Sages), this is very interesting, and this is another shiur, a whole shiur. I’ll just say interpretation number two or number three, as we hold, is that he looks in the Gemara, where is Mount Sinai mentioned in the Gemara?

Student: Chaim knows?

Instructor: Okay, that’s aggadah (narrative/homiletical material), according to halachah. Say more aggadot, I’ll tell you what I meant. Yes, a halachah, sorry, a halachah. What does Mount Sinai do for halachah? For a halachic meaning of Mount Sinai, what is the meaning according to halachah?

Halachic Mentions of Mount Sinai

So I think of a few, one can do this a lot, but there’s mishpat v’omarta b’Har Sinai (a law that was stated at Mount Sinai)? One minute, I mean that it’s specifically, there’s mishpat v’omarta, halachah l’Moshe miSinai (law given to Moses at Sinai) is already about how one receives the Torah, not no, it’s another thing. There’s Rabbi Yosef who is called Sinai, because he knows all the halachot.

Student: What?

Instructor: Yes, that’s what I meant. It’s also to the point, but one must think about this. There’s, I mean about mishpat v’omarta b’Har Sinai, there are many more things. For example, the Gemara speaks many times about “hai kodem matan Torah havah” (this was before the giving of the Torah), the Gemara says this, that before matan Torah one was allowed to do such and such, or the halachah was different, because one was allowed to do more things and so on.

Mitzvot Before Mount Sinai — The Rambam’s Approach

Or, many times the Gemara says about Bnei Noach (Noahides), and at least the Rambam (Maimonides) spoke, the Gemara speaks a lot about mitzvot shellifnei Har Sinai (commandments from before Mount Sinai), whether one is obligated today, whether one is not obligated. The Gemara says, the Rambam took the Gemara very strongly, that even a mitzvah that appears earlier, is not following what appears earlier, but “chazar aleihem” (He repeated them), it’s a new obligation for the mitzvot.

So in other words, in the Gemara, it can still be with the first interpretation, in a new way, it’s a new meaning, it’s a new note, that Mount Sinai made two things, one can say it’s two things of the same thing.

Three Modes of Obligation

One, that the obligation, the lomdishe obligation, the legal obligation, I think still kol olam hahalachah (the entire world of halachah), the legal obligation, why is a Jew obligated and liable in the Torah?

In the first mode, the first mode is because the Almighty made a deal, for a good judgment.

And the second mode is simply because I want to.

And the Chachamim’s mode is because you committed yourself. You committed yourself, you must fulfill.

The Foundation of Commitment

There are Rishonim (early medieval authorities) who even ask, and where does it say that one must fulfill that you committed yourself? Where does this whole thing begin? Okay, a good question. There are Rishonim, the Bnei Yonah asks, he asks the question. Yes.

In any case, this is how the Gemara looks at it, you committed yourself, therefore it makes a difference for halachah. A person may, there’s shevuah (oath), the whole thing the Gemara looks at, but one swore to do that it becomes a law of an oath, or a neder (vow), that he had kabbalah (acceptance), he accepted upon himself that he’s going to follow the Torah.

Maamad Har Sinai as a Choshen Mishpat Law

Therefore, when this actually comes out that someone wants to do differently from this, you can compel him anything, you can’t obligate him anything he wants, but he’s already obligated from before, you’re simply before a legal thing. In other words, the gathering at Mount Sinai is essentially a Choshen Mishpat law (the section of Jewish law dealing with civil and monetary matters). Just as if I promised you something I can’t sell it tomorrow to a second person, if I already promised you first, if I promised you that I’m going to eat matzah, you can’t make the matzah forbidden.

Maamad Har Sinai: Legal, Epistemological and Mystical Interpretations

Interpretation #4: Oath and Vow – The Legal Nature of Maamad Har Sinai

Oath as a Legal Mechanism

A person may do it, oath, the whole Gemara looks at it that one swore to do, that it’s a law of an oath or a vow, that there’s an acceptance, one accepted upon oneself that one is going to follow the Torah. Therefore, when this actually comes out that someone wants to do differently from this, can he, why not? You can’t obligate him on what he wants, but it’s not an obligation from before, it’s simply a legal thing. In other words, the gathering at Mount Sinai is essentially a Choshen Mishpat law. Just as if I promised you something, you can’t sell it tomorrow to a second person. If I promised the Almighty that I’m going to eat matzah, you can’t make the matzah into idolatry. The same…

The Problem of Acceptance Upon Future Generations

Okay, there’s a lomdut that the Nesivot Yaakov, the Rogatchover, is about the Torah, how it works, how one can make that it should take effect on future generations. I’m speaking lomdishly, not legally, not theologically whether it’s right or ethical. Lomdishly there is such a thing, just as… can one accept upon future generations? Regarding inheritance… a city… yes, a king whose custom is a vow, you know, yes, laws of vows. One sees that a city can make a vow, how can one make it on the coming ones? You see that one can.

The simple understanding is that one can. One sees that the president signs a treaty, the next president must certainly follow it. Why? That’s how it works, that’s not how the world works. I mean, it’s a legal, there’s a legal concept that I can. It’s not so clear exactly, the legal concept is that I can only go on merit, on merit I have. But one must examine, there’s a lot of lomdut, and the Acharonim speak about this how exactly it works lomdishly the acceptance upon future generations. But for now, it works. I borrowed the word, but if not, one must actually explain it.

The Rambam’s “Rotzeh Ani” – Legal, Not Chassidic Reading

I’m not saying, perhaps, as the Rambam, people, I always mean that the Rambam who says also this well and famously that a Jew cannot accept a repentance of “rotzeh ani” (I want), because essentially he wants, it means legally, it doesn’t mean chassidically. Chassidically is good, Torah, but simply, the Rambam means, you signed a contract that you’re going to follow the Torah. You want to change today, there are things that one must judge you, fine. But bottom line comes to the step where one says, no, our Torah holds that you must do it, you don’t have to say “rotzeh ani,” it doesn’t fit so well. But I mean that this is a lomdishe, legal way how one can understand such things.

Shtar Kodem – A Lomdishe Matter

At some point, shtar kodem (prior document), so says the Gemara, shtar kodem, yes? Literally a lomdishe matter. If it says shtar kodem, I don’t remember, on something else. Shtar kodem is a promissory note. Yes, but on the Almighty, the Almighty says shtar kodem. Okay.

Oath as a One-Sided Commitment

Student: One must see first who was the first the treaty also. I’m not talking about a treaty, now I’m talking about the commitment. A commitment can be one-sided.

Instructor: An oath? No, not necessarily. Can be. One can go into this. But I mean simply, when the Gemara says “nishba’im la’avor al hamitzvah” (swearing to transgress a commandment), it’s not two-sided. It’s very one-sided. I committed myself. An oath is not to God always. That’s a part. That’s why we get into this infinite loop. But, yes, I agree. One can go into this.

Student: The Gemara says that an oath can go on a mitzvah. An oath is not only to transgress a commandment.

Instructor: Yes. It can be, it can be. One must understand, one must… This is legal language, right? One must… This is a lomdishe, this is a legal concept, yes? He thinks so, that it’s a lomdishe obligation.

Why Do We Celebrate Shavuot? – The Innovation of Matan Torah

Therefore, therefore one asks a lamdan, a Litvak, he says, why do we celebrate Shavuot? That Shavuot it was innovated that a person makes an oath not to eat matzah, it doesn’t work. This is the great greatness. Because otherwise he would say, what did you say before? Because otherwise, following what the Almighty commands one always had to, yes? It was always there. That’s nothing. If you fulfill what the Almighty requires, it’s not a great thing. But the commitment was always there, why didn’t you have such a thing? Because the Almighty says today, the oath of matan Torah made it. And therefore this is Chag HaShavuot.

This is not my innovation. There are sources in books, yes, earlier sources that say this interpretation of Chag HaShavuot. It’s actually not my innovation, but there are many earlier ones. Almost, there are sources with the Ben Ish Chai that say this interpretation. Yes. They swore the oath of the Torah.

And this is the second interpretation.

Interpretation #5: The Rambam’s Principle of Maamad Har Sinai

Recap of Numbering

Ah, the third interpretation, the third and the fourth, the third is number zero. I started with zero. In my lomdishe pages, zero was that there’s a new law, that one may not eat forbidden fat and blood. One was that there’s a covenant, and two is oath, we swore at Mount Sinai. I only said three interpretations.

Student: Okay, that’s… Okay, I’ll answer you. That wasn’t Shavuot, that was Purim. What do you say? That’s not an interpretation of Shavuot, that’s an interpretation of Purim.

Instructor: No, I wanted to say that perhaps, I’m not in doubt, that perhaps those two that you call two…

Student: Yes, it’s a good point. Okay.

Instructor: Ah, very good. 1.5. It could be that that one caused the law of children in the death of our father, I thought of that. But it’s not clear, because in practice one understands the first one also as laws of oaths, the covenant.

Student: Right, that’s what I thought. Okay.

Instructor: A mild complaint. Okay.

Student: Oath and covenant, oath and covenant.

Instructor: No, according to the first interpretation it’s only…

Student: And likewise, and likewise, and likewise, about this one must be in doubt.

Instructor: The main thing is that one keeps track. The main thing is that one keeps track, it’s correct. I haven’t forgotten a single day of counting. Okay.

The Rambam’s Radical Approach

Now, a third interpretation, a third thing that appears in the Rambam, and the Rambam makes this into a mitzvah. Very interesting. I’ll be briefly concise.

The Rambam was mechadesh (innovated) a fundamental principle of the Torah, this is the Torah that we are obligated in. As is known, as the Chasam Sofer says, that the Rambam was mechadesh all the principles. Not that they didn’t exist before, but he made it into a principle, he didn’t speak about it at length.

In any case, the Rambam learned that Ma’amad Har Sinai (the Revelation at Mount Sinai) is extraordinarily important. For the Rambam it is tremendously important, more important than for anyone else before or after. And by after I mean the students of the Rambam. For the Rambam it is tremendously important, for a whole complicated giant reason, I can’t say everything in one minute.

Nevuah vs. Ma’amad Har Sinai

But in general, because the Torah that we are obligated to follow, that we are obligated from the perspective of truth, not only from the perspective of acceptance. The Rambam doesn’t hold at all of the oath and the acceptance. When he speaks about why a Jew follows the Torah, he doesn’t say it that way. He says because the Almighty came and said it. And what the Almighty says is the truth. And how do you know it’s the truth? That is Ma’amad Har Sinai.

Says the Rambam, the short version is in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah Chapter 8, I can’t say the whole shiur, each one of the numbers is a whole shiur in itself, can take months. But in brief, the Rambam says that a Jew is obligated in Torah because the Almighty said so.

Universal Truth – Also for Non-Jews

Perhaps a non-Jew, actually a non-Jew must also follow Torah according to the Rambam. You’ll learn the Rambam at the end of Hilchos Melachim, you’ll see that he would have wanted the non-Jews to also follow Torah. Well, why don’t they follow? They’re non-Jews after all. They should follow. They are… These are the righteous chukim u’mishpatim (statutes and laws) that the Rambam says, it’s the truth, it’s the best law. The best law for the whole world, not just for us. It’s the best, not just for one of the non-Jews, it’s the best. Well, how do you really know that this is the best? That is Har Sinai.

That is what the Rambam’s argument is. What does Har Sinai mean for the Rambam? It’s another important thing. Simply, he brings pesukim (verses), he learns this way from the pesukim that the Almighty says, “atem re’isem” – you yourselves saw, and so on. This is the clear one. The standing of this overcomes all prophets, “ein navi rashai lechadeish davar me’atah” (no prophet is permitted to innovate anything from now on). Not inserted, a prophet must only a law, says the Rambam, a prophet is obligated, the Torah says that you should follow a prophet, but who says that one should follow the Torah? That one must see for oneself.

The Ramban’s Question on the Rambam

Therefore, this is a completely new interpretation of “anochi omed al Har Sinai” (I stood at Mount Sinai), to such an extent that the Ramban saw that the Rambam says it’s a verse of mitzvah, why did the Ramban forget to count this as a mitzvah? It says a mitzvah “v’yadata lefanav u’levanav u’levnei vanav” (and you shall make known to your children and your children’s children), and “Anshei Knesses HaGedolah” (Men of the Great Assembly) say that this is a mitzvah. It doesn’t fit for the Ramban, that for the Rambam, the author of the whole thing, couldn’t understand this way the “v’yadata lefanav”. Because the “v’yadata lefanav” is a good concept, but the whole idea that this means is… when the Rambam says mitzvah he means this. In other words, people don’t grasp, the mitzvah of the Ramban of “v’yadata lefanav” is essentially the principle of “v’zos haTorah asher sam Moshe lifnei bnei Yisrael” (and this is the Torah that Moses placed before the Children of Israel). It’s almost the same thing, only this is the power of the principle.

This is a third interpretation, and this is an innovative interpretation, and the first two interpretations don’t think this way.

Discussion: Faith and Inwardness

Student: Is there a mitzvah that relates to inwardness?

Maggid Shiur: What kind of mitzvah?

Student: The mitzvah of believing in Torah, does that relate to inwardness?

Maggid Shiur: “V’yadata lefanav” begins with emunah b’Hashem (faith in God), and until one comes to being oved Hashem (serving God).

Student: Why is that actually a problem? Because one can’t enter?

Maggid Shiur: The Rambam didn’t hold that all beliefs need to be in mitzvos. A portion he made into mitzvos, which is about this a discussion, and the principles of the Rambam, a portion of them are mitzvos and a portion not. The Ramban wants to almost make all of them mitzvos. That’s my approach about this, but I’m not going into it. In brief, this is a third interpretation, and I don’t know anything about this interpretation.

The Rambam’s Emphasis on Laws of Testimony

Whoever knows that the laws of testimony of mitzvos, all these things, the Rambam very strongly emphasized, very strongly took much further than their simple interpretation, specifically about the principle, not about the halachah. The same thing the previous thing that we said earlier that the laws of kabbalas haTorah (receiving the Torah) are not obligatory. The Rambam didn’t hold that it’s just a practical, technical piece of Torah from the Gemara, he held that this is the principle, because everything depends on this that everything else is not truth, because everything else we don’t know as clearly from Ma’amad Har Sinai. And this is the Rambam’s interpretation in the third or fourth interpretation of Rabbi Yoel Av Beis Din of Satmar.

Interpretation #6: The Chassidic-Kabbalistic Interpretation

Torah as “Garment”

Afterwards there is the Chassidic interpretation or the Kabbalistic interpretation, which has to do with what we explained, truly, it has to do with Kabbalah what we explained a few weeks ago, about what they hold that the Torah doesn’t mean the Torah, and the Torah means the beauty of heaven that became tohu va’vohu (chaos and void), as the Tanna D’vei Eliyahu said. And therefore, when we learn Torah, not necessarily that we learn Torah, Torah is black fire on white fire, and it becomes combined and the combination is according to the matter and according to the generation, therefore what there is is just changes, for example means a completely different thing, it’s as if “you can’t have the literal peshat,” it’s not “real,” “literal,” “because it only means that” the first alef of bereishis (Genesis) of anochi (I) is truth, but everything else is not truth, only a garment, only a way how it was combined according to the need, and the Geonim don’t learn Torah according to Kabbalah, one learns according to simplicity, one learns another interpretation.

Kabbalas HaTorah = Returning to the Root

And therefore according to them what does kabbalas haTorah mean? Kabbalas haTorah must mean the opposite, so learn the, I don’t know who says this explicitly, the Chassidic sefarim say this explicitly, that kabbalas haTorah essentially means arriving at the level where the Torah is “for real,” in other words, our kabbalas haTorah is the opposite of following the Torah, as we say that the Torah that we follow is only a garment, “levush Shabbos nisna v’lo le’ma’achal behemah” (a Sabbath garment was given and not for animal food), it’s all garments of this world which is not the true Torah, but when one receives the Torah, from where does it come? The Torah comes from the Torah’s root, and the root is in Olam HaAtzilus (World of Emanation) or somewhere in Olam HaEmes (World of Truth), and therefore when one receives the Torah, as if the act of Har Sinai according to Kabbalah, according to the Chassidim go with this and said it a bit less sharply, when Moshe Rabbeinu went, what does it mean that he went to Sinai to receive the Torah?

Moshe Rabbeinu’s “Receiving” the Torah

It means that he was contemplating the letter alef, and how the alef connects with the beis, and so on, from this he made a Torah, that is the Almighty gave him the Torah.

Shavuos Every Year = “Going Backwards”

And therefore if one celebrates Shavuos every year, what must one do? One must “go backwards,” one must go up, as if one must return to Har Sinai, and afterwards one can make a new Torah from the root, like the spiritual root, from which one makes the details of the mitzvos and so on, the garments that one sees today, when every year again one goes to the mikveh and one does tikkun leil Shavuos (the all-night study on Shavuos eve) and all kinds of things, it’s all the inner service that has to do with the conception of, the Baal Shem Tov says this in a simple way, “bas kol yotzeis b’chol yom va’yom me’Har Chorev v’omeres oy lahem la’briyos me’elbonah shel Torah” (a heavenly voice goes out every day from Mount Horeb and says woe to the creatures for the insult to the Torah), why does the Baal Shem Tov say?

The Baal Shem Tov’s Interpretation

What is the point that the Baal Shem Tov says that one must hear the bas kol? It shouldn’t be a parable, but it’s not the importance that there is a bas kol, rather the interpretation is that one must go back. The thought that Jews think during the day without concept, this is an inner thing, this actually comes from the service above, and what is difficult, that one hears the Creator, as the Chassidic rebbes say, how one hears in November one hears high things. Meaning to say, one thinks something more inner, a deeper thought, from which one can make Torah, but from this Rashi one makes Torah, this is completely different. This is the fourth, or the fifth, or the sixth interpretation of “hayom im b’kolo tishma’u” (today if you will hear His voice), and there

Interpretation #7: Bas Kol, Inner Hearing, and Kant’s Seven Interpretations

The Question on Bas Kol

If one doesn’t hear it, it’s useless, what is the point?

The Answer: Bas Kol as Inner Hearing

So the interpretation is, a bas kol doesn’t mean a bas kol. A bas kol means that the hearing, that Jews, the hearing on that day must have, that this is an inner thing, this actually comes out from the forefathers, and therefore what one feels, that one hears the bas kol.

The Chassidic Rebbe’s Approach About Hearing in the Sanctuary

As the Chassidic rebbe says, that one must say how one hears in the sanctuary, how one hears in the sanctuary. He means to say, the hearing has something more inner, deeper hearing, from which one can make pure, and afterwards he calculates what one makes from this pure.

Connection with Kant’s Seven Interpretations

This is completely different, this is the fourth or the fifth or the sixth interpretation of the holy Kant. And therefore he has there seven interpretations corresponding to the seven weeks of counting [Sefiras HaOmer: the seven weeks between Pesach and Shavuos].

Conclusion: The Seven Tikkunim

But the seven tikkunim he can count himself, thank God, the person without wine.