Torah is Grounded in this World, Including Knowing the Halacha Even When it’s not L’Maaseh

In v'chasav in Zmanim page 57 of the Siddur maiseh be-Admur שעלה לדאוון בראש השנה muchan u-mezuman lisfas hatekiyos. Hatokeiah me-chassidei Chabad ish Elokim. And I think it was the first place where the Rav's father served in Rabbanus I think in Chaslavitch. So even though the population was overwhelmingly Chassidish and in particular Chabad, they had a tradition to have a Litvish Rav. And the basis for the tradition was that during the Napoleonic wars, the Baal HaTanya opposed Napoleon. He was afraid of the assimilation that Napoleon's worldview would impose upon Jews and he was active in his opposition to the Napoleonic forces. So when Napoleon's armies came into the town where the Baal HaTanya was, so they were searching for him. And he was hiding in the house of the Litvish Rav. And they said to him, "Have you seen the Grand Rebbe?" however they referred to him. And he said, "I wish I had, if I had I'd be only so happy to turn him over to you and they make our life miserable" vechulu vechulu and he saved the Baal HaTanya's life. So that became the source of the tradition that they had a Litvish Rav. So

התוקע מחסידי חב"ד איש אלוקים שידו היתה רחבה במשנתו של הרב הזקן זכר צדיק וקדוש לברכה

satar v'dafak.

נענה אבא מרי ואמר הבוכה אתה בשעת תקיעת שופר ולמה זה תבכה תקיעת שופר הן שתי מצוות השם.

Now the story as it stands needs to be understood and contextualized lechora a certain way. Tosefos at the beginning of the fourth perek of Masechet Rosh Hashana has a kasha as follows:

לאחר חורבן הבית הקילו טפי בשופר מבלולב שהתקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהיו תוקעין בכל מקום שיש בית דין אבל לולב לא התיקע.

So both shofar, megilla, and lulav are the three instances where you have the Gezeirah deRabbah. Again the Gezeirah is a Gezeirah that goes to the it long precedes Rabbah, but Rabbah is the one who explained it שמא יעבירנו ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. So it's known as Gezeirah deRabbah. So le-achar hachurban so there was lulav was not nittal anywhere in the world on Shabbos immediately le-achar hachurban. Masheinchein initially even le-achar hachurban so shofar was still there was. So why that why that differentiation? Again you'll see I'm skipping the first half of the context it's not immediately relevant to us but that sets up discussion. So Tosafos answers as follows:

ויש לומר דשופר שהוא להעלות זכרונם של ישראל לאביהם שבשמים לא רצו לבטלו לגמרי וכיון דתיקון בחד בית דין תיקון בכל מקום שיש בית דין.

So Chazal didn't want again on the one hand there was a need for gezeira d'Rabbah, m'idech gisa לא רצו לבטלו לגמרי shofar which is להעלות זכרונם של ישראל לאביהם שבשמים. So you see just in halacha shofar is different than lulav. It's not that they're interchangeable. Yes of course they're both shtei mitzvos Hashem but m'idech gisa shofar is on a Yom Hadin is להעלות זכרונם של ישראל לאביהם שבשמים. And on that Yom Hadin as the Rambam famously characterizes it in quoting a different Gemara in Rosh Hashanah when he explains why we don't say Hallel on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur:

אבל ראש השנה ויום הכיפורים אין בהן הלל לפי שהן ימי תשובה ויראה ופחד ולא ימי שמחה יתירה.

I think the Ba'al Hamaor has in Maseches Rosh Hashanah that ha'emes hi me'ikar hadin even when you have the safek of Rabbi Abbahu as to what the Torah's teruah is, whether what we call teruah or what we call shevarim or shevarim teruah, me'ikar hadin blowing tashrat is enough because me'ikar hadin hefsek kol dehu doesn't spoil the mitzvah. So if you would blow a tashrat, so the emes hi that would cover all three tzadei hasafek. Whichever is the right one you blew it. Whichever is the right one you blew it. So why was Rabbi Abbahu mesakin? No because Rabbi Yehuda holds that it would be a hefsek. Me'ikar hadin we don't paskin like Rabbi Yehuda but by shofar, I don't remember the exact lashon of the Ba'al Hamaor, okay we'll take a look at the Ba'al Hamaor in the fourth perek in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, but it's very much along the same lines as the Tosafos in the beginning of the fourth perek that Chazal went out of their way to be machmir to be yotzei lechol hade'os by mitzvas shofar because of its role. The Rav used to explain that again that you see al pi din not just on the level of taamei hamitzvos but that you see that al pi din shofar is intended as tefillah so he would quote a couple of things you have in Rosh Hashanah daf chaf-zayin amud-beis the Gemara has a machlokes in the Mishna and the Braisa what the ideal shape of the shofar is, whether or not the shofar should be a straight one or as we obviously do whether or not it's supposed to be a kofuf, what's supposed to be bent. And the Gemara says what's the machlokes? And the Gemara says

במה קמיפלגי מר סבר בראש השנה כמה דכייף איניש דעתיה טפי מעלי ומר סבר בראש השנה כמה דפשיט איניש דעתיה טפי מעלי. ורש"י

explains כמה דכייף איניש בתפילתו פניו כבושים לארץ טפי עדיף. The ideal posture in davening on Rosh Hashanah is that a person's head is bent, right? So the posture, the person's posture if you would use that as the model for what the shape of the shofar is, so the shofar should be kofuf because our al shem והיו עיני ולבי שם and mai savar

כמה דכייף כמה דפשיט איניש טפי עדיף בשום נשא לבבנו אל כפים אל אל בשמים.

Now the idea of posture for tefilla is that a person is looking up. So then it's perfectly straight. That's what the Rav says, so clearly the fact that the shape of the shofar for zichronot ve-shofrot is modeled on what the ideal posture is for tefilla is because shofar is a kiyum tefilla. Another or another, I don't know if the other, another mareh makom: the mishna says כל השופרות כשרים חוץ משל פרה. You can't take the horn of a para. The gemara explains because אין קטיגור נעשה סניגור. The prosecutor can't serve as the defense attorney. So because of the association of the para, because of the chet ha-egel, you can't take its horn to serve as the shofar. The gemara says is there really such a klal? The kohen gadol does the avoda all year long, he does the avoda in bigdei zahav. Why don't you have the same association with the chet ha-egel, the egel ha-zahav? You should have the same association as you do if the keren is a keren of a para; you should have the same association if the kohen gadol is wearing bigdei zahav. The gemara says no, because all year long he doesn't go lifnai ve-lifnim. He doesn't go into the kodesh ha-kodashim. On Yom Kippur, takeh, he wears bigdei lavan because of that same rule of אין קטיגור נעשה סניגור, because that rule only applies when you go lifnai ve-lifnim. How does it apply with the shofar? If it doesn't apply to the kohen gadol all year long when he's in mikdash because he doesn't go into the kodesh ha-kodashim, it only applies on Yom Kippurim when he goes into the kodesh ha-kodashim, why does it apply to shofar? Says the gemara, and this is again the makor for that tosafot we looked at also here in כ"ו עמוד א, כיון דלזכרון הוא כבפנים דמי. Since the shofar is for the purpose of והעלית זכרונכם של ישראל לפני אביכם שבשמים, shofar is a kiyum tefilla al pi din, al pi halakha. It's not just על פי חכמת הנסתר, it's al pi halakha, it's like that. And it's a kiyum tefilla on a yom ha-din. You have to say that the pshat in the story is that the Rav Soloveitchik felt, diagnosed that the crying wasn't in response to this, but what the Rav is about to describe in terms of what shofar represents again al pi what the Ba'al Ha-Tanya has in the Likutei Torah, which is more than just the kiyum tefilla. But ein hakhi nami, if a person is into a shaila whether one does or doesn't cry on Rosh Hashanah, but leaving that question aside, if a person does, is reacting on Rosh Hashanah to this then there's no pushback to that. If a person is reacting to the fact that shofar is a crucial tefilla in terms of asking the Ribbono Shel Olam that the verdict for Knesset Yisrael ba-klal u-va-prat should be favorable, there's no pushback against that. The pushback lekhora is only if the bechi is

איש השוד ידו על אופי הסמלי של תקיעת שופר. מושג קול פשוט שאדם רוצה לחתור בו חתירה בהויה החוקית ולהגיע לכסא הכבוד של עתיק יומין וסתימא דכל סתימין.

This idea of looking to escape this world, looking to transcend this world, looking to access higher worlds and levels and dimensions of existence.

תקיעת שופר על פי השקפתו של בעל התניא מבטאת את החרג הכביר של איש הדעת השואף לצאת מן המיצר של מידת הצמצום.

It's the, it's that strong impulse of the Ish HaDat to again to escape, to transcend this world

למחוזו של התפשטות מידת החסד ומשם לעלות מעל לספירות של אבני הבניין אל תוך עולם הנעלם שהאין סוף מפיק בו כביכול. בכי הזה אדם בראש השנה זוהי בכיית הנפש המתגעגעת על מקום מחצבתה להידבק בדודה לא מתוך הסתר אלא מתוך גילוי.

So look, that's the, it's only if the bechi represents that, so then then then Rav Soloveitchik felt he should push back. I mean the lashon is stuma. תקיעת שופר מוחקת כנגד המציאות ומכחשת היקום. Again that idea that we've seen in the past that the Rav has presented, this idea that you know that one is looking to escape this world and only in that way to come close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

כל הפנימיות האונטולוגית של תורת הסוד מיעללת וגונחת מתוך השופר.

Right those are the choice of words there obviously is not not random, right? ילויל יליל וגנוח גנח the phrases that the Gemara uses for the call of shvarim and terua.

בשעה שאדם לוקח שופר ומריע הריהו מוחק כנגד המציאות המבדילה בין אדם לבין האין סוף. הוא נאנח קשות ומייבב על אי יכולתו,

his inability לדלג על הרי הישות, again inspired by Shir Hashirim, medaleg al heharim, לדלג על הרי הישות החוצצים בין נשמתו לקונו. Mapikei.

השופר מבשר את יום הדין הגדול והנורא שיבוא הקדוש ברוך הוא לערוץ את עולמו ומלאכים יחפזון וחיל ורעדה יאחזון ויאמרו הנה יום הדין לפקוד על צבא מרום בדין כדי שיזכו בעיניך בדין. דין פירושו שיקול אונטולוגי והערכת ההוויה הסופית מבחינת אין סוף. מידת הדין דרכה להכריע את הכף האונטולוגית לחובה ולהחזיר את ההוויה לתוהו ובוהו. ולפיכך מעפיל האדם, ויעפילו לעלות ההר. לפיכך מעפיל האדם בראש השנה לעלות מספירת הגבורה שהיא דין לספירת החסד ומשם לא-ל נערץ בסוד קדושים חוץ לישות הממשית.

Yeah, I heard there's a famous story of the Rav and maybe Rav Chaim also that when they were saying the avoda on Yom Kippur, they felt like they were mamash at that place at that place of avoda. How is that, like how does that work with staying kind of in this world and kind of imagine yourself also in the Beit Hamikdash? I think it's going to be later if you're on page so maybe when we get there בעזרת השם בלי נדר. I think the Rav tells that story later on page so we'll leave it till then. לכן מצוות נטילת לולב ואתרוג. Again explaining what the contrast is according to the way the Ba'al Hatanya presents.

המסמלת את כיסופי האדם לאלוקים המאיר דרך כל העולמות והשוכן בתוך הישות עצמה.

So shofar represents again the longing for Hakadosh Baruch Hu who's who's hidden from us in this world, whose presence is concealed in this world, so it's looking again to escape this world. And and mitzvas lulav is the exact opposite, right? It mesamel את כיסופי האדם לאלוקים, the נכסוף נכספת לבית אביך, like it says in the pasuk about Yaakov Avinu, the the intense desire of a person for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, המאיר דרך כל העולמות, again, that that light which does penetrate all the worlds, והשוכן בתוך הישות עצמה, and and is present even in the here in in this world,

ושצמצם כביכול את אורו בצורת ההוויה הממשית על כל גילוייה ותופעותיה.

Teki'as shofar represents

את העריגה לסתימו דכל סתימין דלית מחשבה תפיסא ביה שהוא מובדל ומופרש נורא וקדוש. השופר בוכה מילל ומייבב על המרחק האינסופי,

the infinite distance,

המבדיל בין ההוויה לבין האינסוף, לכן הוא שולל את העולם ומעלה את האדם להווית ההוויות הטרנסצנדנטיות והמוחלטות.

And netilas lulav is the exact opposite. Esrog pri etz hadar, that pri etz hadar is emphasizing the the physical dimension, right? The physical dimension, the fact that that that it's defined as hadar with that physical quality reflects the fact that in in this interpretation of the Baal HaTanya reflects the fact that it represents the longing for and the connection as it were to Hakadosh Baruch Hu that's possible in this world. And as such, it's

מקיימת ומאשרת היצירה הנהדרה והיפה שהאלוקים בבחינת ממלא וסובב כל עלמין מציץ מחרכיה. לכן נאמר מצוות שמחה יותר בחג הסוכות ושמחתם לפני השם אלוקיכם שבעת ימים וראש השנה נקרא בתרגום יום יבבא.

However, איש ההלכה אינו מבחין בין זה לזה. This distinction, right, and that's what that's how you have to say pshat here. This distinction between lulav and shofar, the ish hahalacha doesn't draw. קדושה כולו בתוך ההוויה, right? Again, ish hahalacha doesn't think kedusha, doesn't think kirvas elokim. None of that is to be attained by trying to escape this world, to transcend this world. So

אינו מבחין בין זה לזה. הוא שקוע כולו בתוך ההוויה, בין בראש השנה בין בחג הסוכות.

Anshei sod mavkiim, they they try to split, they split, נבקעו כל מעיינות תהום רבה, right? In Parshas Noach the the all the all the wellsprings were cracked open when when Hakadosh Baruch Hu brought the mabul. Anshei sod mavkiim את מחיצתו האובייקטיבית והממשיות של המצווה. They look to split that partition, that barrier of objectivity and concreteness within the maaseh hamitzvah.

בסירות פלאים שטים המה על גלי הסובייקטיביות שכולה סתומה ביותר שוטפת וחולפת פושטת צורה ולובשת צורה.

And לא כן מידת איש ההלכה. Right? Okay, take a look look here at section tes.

זיקתו של איש ההלכה להוויה היא לא רק אונטולוגית אלא גם נורמטיבית.

It's also normative. We'll see hopefully be'ezras Hashem in a minute what that means. לאמיתו של דבר, in truth, הגישה האונטולוגית, the ontological approach, משמשת כפרוזדור, it's only a stepping stone שממנו הוא נכנס. hatfisah hanormativit. הוא מכיר את העולם, ish hahalachah, investigates, understands, is discerning about the world

על מנת לשעבדו בתור אובייקט למעשים דתיים ופעולות של מצווה. הוא מכיר את החלל

when he examines space על ידי חוקיות דתית אפריורית. He comes with, again, an a-priori halacha

כדי לגשם בו אותה נורמה של שבת ושל יום הכיפורים, את המצווה של סוכה, את האידיאה של טהרה. הוא מחשב כדרך שהאצטגנינים מחשבים.

He engages in study of astronomy כדי לקבוע מועדים ושנים, es hacheshbon hamolad, to know which years should be leap years. עוסק הוא בעולם הצמחים. He investigates the world of botany leshem sidur mineihem for purposes of classification

ביחס לכלאיים ולשם קביעת שיעורי גידול בנוגע להלכות זרעים וכן הלאה.

In order for produce that grows in eretz yisrael to be chayav in terumos uma'asros, there are two michayvim. The second michayiv is gmar melacha basadeh. Whatever whenever the harvesting is complete. But there's a prior michayiv that it has to reach a certain stage of growth. By tevuah, that stage of growth is hava'as shlish, that whatever one-third of its normal ultimate growth would be. So if you would harvest the grain prematurely before it even had hava'as shlish, then it wouldn't be chayav in terumos uma'asros. If it would belong to a nochri... עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך. If it would belong to a nochri at the stage of hava'as shlish, there would be a p'tur. So that's what the Rav is referring to

לשם קביעת שיעורי גידול בנוגע להלכות זרעים וכן הלאה. משנתו הנורמטיבית קודמת מבחינה טלולוגית לתורתו האונטולוגית. ההכרה היא על מנת לעשות לימוד גדול שמביא לידי מעשה.

We have lashon limud and lashon talmud in masechet kiddushin. I don't know, I think it says talmud. I'm not sure why the Rav quotes it as limud. Look it up. So what does this paragraph mean? That since the focus of halacha is that avodas hashem is again not this attempt to escape the world, not an attempt to elevate oneself above the world, but aderaba, hakadosh baruch hu as long as we live in olam hazeh, hakadosh baruch hu put us in olam hazeh because olam hazeh is designed for our avodas hashem. It's not a hurdle to be cleared, to leapfrog over. Aderaba, this is the place. This is the stage for our avodas hashem. So if that's the case, so that's what it means that the person comes with the ideal world of halacha and views olam hazeh through that lens. That's what he means by the normative approach. אמנם גם הנורמה היא לכתחילה אידיאלית לא ריאלית. Even when we talk about the norm, the norm isn't... The emphasis is not so much on the practical side, but also on ideal in the sense of idea on the ideal side. אין איש ההלכה משגיח באפשרות התגשמות הנורמה בעולם הממשי. He's not focused, when when you talk about, again, viewing this world in in normative ways, he's not focused necessarily on: is it actually, actually, practically halacha l'maaseh? No, he wants to know what the halacha l'maaseh is, what the halacha l'maaseh would be, even if that's not at hand.

הוא רוצה לטבוע את מטבע הנורמטיבית אידאלית. גם בהלכות שאינן נוהגות בזמן הזה הוא עוסק מנקודת מבט נורמטיבית.

Even those parts of halacha which are not

הלכה למעשה בזמן הזה, אף על פי שאין בידו לקיים עכשיו את המצווה. מימרת חז"ל לימוד גדול שמביא לידי מעשה מופיע בצורה דו צדדית.

It it has two dimensions to it. Aleph, מעשה בתור קביעת ההלכה או הנורמה האידאלית. Maaseh doesn't mean, again, in the sense of actual implementation as much as it does distilling what the bottom line al pi din is, right? You can say halacha l'maaseh. You can say halacha l'maaseh. Let's talk about the following case. So halacha l'maaseh, what's the din in that case? Okay, now are we confronted with that case right now? No, but that can that can still be a focus on on halacha l'maaseh. Halacha l'maaseh, if if a kohen had such a machshava, is it mifaggel? Is it not mifaggel? Okay, we're not exactly holding by having such a shaila in front of us, but but you can still talk about focusing upon and and understanding what the what the norm is even if the actual circumstances to have such a case don't don't exist. Beis, hisgashmusa ba'olam hare'ali. No, that actually means to to do it halacha l'maaseh. One is to sort of know the halacha l'maaseh, the other is to do it halacha l'maaseh. איש ההלכה מדגיש את המעשה במשמעותה הראשונה. What's more significant is, again, knowing the halacha l'maaseh rather than the halacha l'maaseh, even if the halacha l'maaseh is not something which which can be translated. What the Rav is saying here is part of, I think we we've maybe discussed this in another context, what the Rav here is saying is part of the in the context of, you know, the ideal system of halacha. In the Rambam you see this same distinction within mitzvas talmud Torah. The shaila's as follows. We know the Gemara in Eruvin tells us that אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. We know that when you have a machlokes tannaim, which is the context of the Gemara in Eruvin, and then the Gemara in Kesuvos extends it to a machlokes amoraim. Rabbi Akiva Eiger there in the Gemara in Eruvin sends you to the to the Gemara in Kesuvos nun zayin extends the same thing to a machlokes amoraim that you can have two differing opinions and they're equally valid, equally true. Okay, one's gonna be halacha l'maaseh, one's not gonna be halacha l'maaseh. You're either gonna follow Beis Shammai or you're gonna follow Beis Hillel, but in terms of the דברי אלוקים חיים שבהם they can be equally valid, equally true. So the shaila is, given that that's the case, so why did the Rambam pasken in Kodashim? Why did the Rambam pasken in Taharos? Why did the Rambam pasken in in so many areas of halacha mitzad talmud Torah's אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים? There were no no shailas in Mikdash that that were being sent to the Rambam in in his lifetime. So it's clear the entire all of Mishneh Torah, this isn't a diyuk in this is all of Sefer Avodah, this is all of Sefer Korbanos, this is so much of Sefer Tahara, this isn't a diyuk in one word in the Rambam. This is maybe the the halakha that that that the most ink is devoted to in Mishneh Torah. So you see that even מצד מצוות תלמוד תורה knowing the halakha l'maiseh is crucial. It's not just that knowing the halakha l'maiseh is, okay, so l'maiseh we need to know what to do in the kitchen on Shabbos. So that's absolutely true and one can't one can't overemphasize the importance of that. Of course, that's absolutely true. But the point is that's not the only significance of knowing the halakha l'maiseh because if that were the case then there was no rhyme or reason for the Rambam to have paskened in all these areas which which were not halakha l'maiseh, not halakha l'maiseh in the sense of not halakha l'maiseh. So what the Rav is saying again in a very different context of explaining how halakha is again in its ideal world, in its world of ideas, is interested in the norm even if currently in olam hazeh the conditions don't exist where we can fulfill it. So what the Rav is saying on that level, I mean the Rambam clearly, clearly is telling us on in in within context of mitzvas talmud Torah. That it's part of mitzvas talmud Torah to be able to say tamei o tahor, to say it is pigul, it isn't pigul even though the shaila again in the sense of practically halakha l'maiseh doesn't exist yet bazman hazeh. You see and this is relevant too, the Tosafos in in different places in Sanhedrin and elsewhere where Tosafos discusses when the Gemara asks hilkhosa l'meshicha when not. When the Gemara has a psak halakha so there are places where the Gemara asks hilkhosa l'meshicha. What are you paskening shailos l'mashiach? So that would seem to go against this whole thing. So you'll take a look, the Tosafos has different answers and you'll see that the Rambam would certainly align with some of them and as would this mahalakh, not necessarily with with all of them. Again, just just just elaborating the same point, because halakha is not simply a system of the practical directives, but is first and foremost a world of ideas which we're supposed to then apply to olam hazeh. Its application to olam hazeh is not only on the level of action, its application is also on the level of understanding, knowing what the halakha l'maiseh is even when the case is not at hand. Again, if if it's only, if you see it as something only practical, so then okay, so if the case isn't at hand and until Mashiach comes and until the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt, can't and won't be at hand, so so then the halakha l'maiseh has no relevance or no significance. But if the realization of the ideal world of halakha is not only on the practical level but on the level of talmud Torah, so then the distilling what the halakha l'maiseh is is essential even if that case isn't at hand or given current historical conditions can never be at hand. Let's try to go back to the top of the sentence.

זה כלל גדול בתורה כי התורה הגדתה ולימודה היא שלב בבניין המציאות.

This is a big principle in Torah. That Torah, its story and its study, is a stage in the building of reality. If reality is created by nevuah, by dibbur eloki, so the study of that dibbur eloki, even if you're not a navi, even if you're only a lomed Torah, is the next stage in the unfolding and building of reality. That's why lilmod and lelammed, that's why learning Torah has an objective value that is independent of halachah le-ma'aseh. This is what we call Torah lishmah.