R. Hutner's Dramatic Reversals
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav Yitzchak
Blau
The previous
installments in this series can be accessed at:
http://vbm-torah.org/modern.html
Lecture #40: R.
Hutners Dramatic Reversals
Those who attended R.
Hutners presentations testify to his flair for the dramatic. His students would
eagerly await their masters arrival, and the presentation was a command
performance. I believe that a
similar love of drama attracted R. Hutner to a particular style of
interpretation in which his theories reverse conventional understanding. In
situations where a simple understanding suggests itself, R. Hutner cleverly
shows how arguing the reverse actually leads to a more profound
conception.
When Rav asks R.
Yehuda Hanassi a question regarding the laws of Shabbat, R. Hiyya admonishes
Rav, saying that one should not ask a rebbe about a tractate other than the one
the rebbe is currently studying because he might not know the answer. Had R. Yehuda not been a great man, he
might have given a poor answer and become embarrassed (Shabbat 3a).
Most readers of this
gemara assume that R. Hiyyas directive addresses the limitations of
rabbis, limitations which prevent them from maintaining fluency in many topics
simultaneously. However, R, Hutner contends that close reading of the
Rishonim indicates the opposite R. Hiyyas point reflects the greatness
of rabbis. Scholars dedicated to Torah become so immersed in the topic currently
under study that they can not possible relate to a different topic. Not asking a
teacher about a different topic reflects the intensity of the teachers focus,
rather than the boundaries of his knowledge.
We model Torah study
for all generations upon the revelation at Sinai. The gemara says that
each divine word at Sinai filled the entire universe. Due to the overwhelming
presence of the first word, the second word had no place to enter until God
released a word from His storehouse that blew away the first word
(Shabbat 88b). For R.
Hutner, this aggada conveys the idea of passionate concentration on each
word of Torah; every word fills the world, as it were. Rabbis emulating this
virtue find it difficult to answer a question from extraneous topics.[1]
In the above example,
R. Hutner reverses a standard reading and the reversal leads to a significant
message. A similar procedure enables R. Hutner to clarify the nature of prayer
and petition. His analysis begins with a verse we recite in Hallel: I love God because He has heard the
sound of my supplication, for He has inclined His ear to me (Tehillim
116:1-2). R. Hutner reasonably assumes that hearing the sound of supplication
means fulfilling the requested petition.
This crates an oddity in the verses sequence. Usually, inclining the ear precedes
fulfilling the request, yet our verse lists them in the opposite
order!
When the Jewish
People were standing before the
R. Hutner cites a
midrash comparing God to a king who wants bandits to attack so that the
princess will call out for his help (Shemot Rabba 21:3). When the Jews were under Egyptian
servitude, they cried out to their Creator to alleviate their distress. Having
escaped from bondage, they ceased praying. In response, God sent the Egyptians
after them because He desired to hear their prayers. This midrash
indicates a causal reversal. We normally assume that distress brings about
supplication; according to the midrash, divine desire for supplication
motivates the distress! We now understand why God would not save the Jewish
People until Moshe stopped praying. If the whole point of the Egyptian chase was
to generate prayer, the pursuit cannot end until the prayer
does.
Deeper reflection on
this point reveals a significant idea about prayer. Forging a relationship with God and
maintaining a dialogue with Him are more important than whether or not people
receive what they ask for. This leads R. Hutner to an even more innovative
reversal. Most people assume that we want God to incline His ear to us so that
He will fulfill our petitions. In truth, however, we want God to fulfill our
requests so that we will know He was listening. The verse from Tehillim
thus attains new clarity: I love
God because He has heard the sound of my supplication, for He has inclined His
ear to me. This verses order
reflects means and ends, not chronological sequence. The means of God responding
indicates the desired end - He listens.[2]
This idea changes our
entire conception of petitionary prayer.
We should evaluate a good prayer not by whether God granted us our
desires but by whether the prayer furthered our relationship with God. The act of a child in pain turning to a
parent has value even if the parent cannot remove the cause of pain. This is similarly true regarding our
turning to God.
Two discussions
relevant to Purim provide less drama but also include a surprising twist.
Megillat Esther first says that the Jews established days of simcha
u-mishteh ve-yom tov (Esther 9:19), but then says that they made
days of mishteh ve-simcha (9:22).
The gemara (Megilla 5b) explicates the shift: at first they
wanted to observe Purim as a yom tov, with an issur melakha
(prohibition of labor), but this proposal was not accepted and the yom
tov aspect fell away.
We can understand
that the people establishing Purim did not want to give the new festival the
elevated status of the biblical holidays and therefore did not create a work
prohibition. R. Hutner reverses this understanding, claiming that this decision
furthers the authentic nature of Purim and does not reflect a lowering of its
status. R. Hutner frequently cites the Vilna Gaon, and he was particularly fond
of the Gaons idea that Purim bears a reciprocal relationship with Yom
Kippurim.[3] The Gra explains that holidays usually
include an aspect of la-shem and an aspect of lakhem (half to
you, half to God). Since we do not
eat or drink on Yom Kippur, the lakhem aspect only finds expression on
Purim. Conversely, Purim needs to
be completely lakhem; it cannot incorporate a work prohibition. Dropping the yom tov fits the
overall theme of Purim and does not indicate diminished status.[4]
R. Hutner develops
the comparison and contrast between Yom Kippur and Purim in his volume on Purim.
Both days represent salvation from the possibility of hashmada - from the
nefarious plan of Haman on Purim and from divine wrath after the golden calf on
Yom Kippur. The former occurred on our mundane plane of existence, whereas the
latter took place in a heavenly dialogue between Hashem and Moshe. As a
result, Yom Kippur took on the wholly heavenly dimension of la-shem while
Puirm adopted the fully earthly lakhem.
The same distinction
finds expression in the interpersonal sphere. On Purim, we give the very
corporeal gift of food items to friends.
On Yom Kippur, we relate to the immaterial human spirit and ask our peers
for forgiveness. These two holidays
provide a constant balance between heaven and earth.[5]
An alternative exists
to the Vilna Gaons approach. Perhaps both Yom Kippur and Purim independently
have the combination of la-shem and lakhem, since we fast on
erev Purim and have a mitzva to eat on erev Yom
Kippur. Nevertheless, R. Hutner
certainly employs the Gaons approach to great effect.
Another Purim
discussion also explains how an apparent anomaly actually fits the essential
themes of Purim. The gemara
explains that we do not recite Hallel on Purim because the miracle
occurred outside of the
R. Hunter notes that
the classic poskim do not cite the Meiris position.[6] He explains this with another twist. The
gemara does not mean that the Megilla can stand in as the
replacement for a regular Hallel, but that the only way to express an
appropriate Hallel on Purim is through the avenue of reading the
Megilla. The essence of
Purim consists of the ability to see the divine presence even in the absence of
overt miracles. It requires the
ability to read between the lines. The corresponding Hallel also is one
that demands looking beyond the externals to perceive a Hallel hiding
within. Therefore, even lacking a Megilla, one still does not recite
Hallel. The anomalous mode
of Hallel on Puirm does not reflect some kind of second rate
substitution; rather, it coheres with the essential qualities of the holiday.[7]
A theme we have
discussed before, bitulo zehu kiyumo, fits in with these types of
interpretations. Those with insight perceive that what seems to be a
diminishing of Torah actually represents an increase in Torah. R. Hutner also uses this idea in a
Chanuka context. He identifies galut Yavan with our forgetting of Torah,
in accordance with the text of Al Ha-Nissim, which mentions that the
Greeks wanted le-hashkicham toratekha. Yossi ben Yoezer and Yossi ben Yochanan
lived at the time of the conflict with the Greeks and they were also part of the
generation in which halakhic debate began (Rashi, Chagiga 16a). Forgetting of Torah led to halakhic
arguments and actually generated a flowering of Torah.
The gemara
says that three hundred halakhot were forgotten during the morning period
for Moshe, until Otniel ben Kenaz restored them with his reasoning
(Temura 16a). R. Hutner
points out that the forgetting enabled Otniels pilpul to become part of
Torah. What appears to lessen Torah really increases Torah.
Talmudic debates in
the wake of forgetting Torah also represent growth and productivity. Each
opinion becomes part of the Talmudic corpus and a later generation may overturn
an earlier decision, thereby restoring a rejected position to prominence.
Debates manifest the greatness and depth of the Oral Law more than
unanimity.
One final reversal
completes the picture. The gemara says that Talmudic disputants despise
each other during the debate, but do not rise from the discussion until they
renew loving friendship (Kiddushin 30b). One might say that even though
the study partners argue heatedly, they manage to restore good feelings. In
contrast, R. Hutner contends that it is the very vehicle of heated debate that
forges the loving relationship. Scholars appreciate the expansion of Torah
generated by debate, and they love the fact that their disputants help them
cultivate the growth of Torah. Two
scholars engaged in Talmudic debate are partners in creation.[8]
All of the above
reversals surely add drama to the presentations. At the same time, I am not
suggesting that R. Hutner only presented these ideas to add flair. He deemed these ideas true, and we can
all vouch for the profundity of his analysis.
One supplementary
note on last weeks shiur: I noted a dating
discrepancy regarding a letter using the parable of a town clock to describe the
ideal standing of a community rabbi. It was pointed out to me that R. Hutner
might have simply sent the same basic letter to two recipients. Someone feeling
strongly about an idea might express it identically in two different
situations. This may be a more
likely explanation than what I suggested last week.
[1]Pachad Yitzchak Shavuot, no. 9. I am unsure where R. Hutner saw the roots of his interpretation in the Rishonim.
[2] Pachad Yitzchak, Pesach, No. 14.
[3] In addition to the other sources cited below, see Pachad Yitzchak Purim, no. 8.
[4] Pachad Yitzchak, Iggerot U-Ketavim, p. 61.
[5] Pachad Yitzchak, Purim, no. 21.
[6] For an exception, see Shaarei Teshuva 693:1.
[7] Pachad Yitzchak, Purim, no. 33.
[8] Pachad Yitzchak, Chanuka, no. 3. See also Pachad Yitzchak, Iggerot U-Ketavim, p. 50, where R. Hutner responds to a questioner contending that, according to the Rambam, halakhic debate was not caused by a forgetting of Torah.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!