R. Hutner and Religious Inwardness
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav Yitzchak
Blau
Please
pray for a refua sheleima for
Shimon
Elimelech HaCohen ben Sima Rivka
Gilad
Hillel ben Bracha Mirel
Shiur #43: R. Hutner and
Religious Inwardness
Unlike most modern
roshei yeshiva, R. Hutners most important contributions to Torah were in
the realm of Jewish thought and not in Gemara or Halakha. On the title pages of Pachad
Yitzchak, R. Hutners describes his literary efforts as Divrei Torah
Be-Hilkhot Deot Ve-Chovot Ha-Levavot. The first phrase alludes to the Rambams
term for the section of Mishneh Torah discussing issues of character and
moral growth. Chovot Ha-Levavot alludes to R. Bachya Ibn Pekudas work
contrasting chovot ha-evarim, duties of the limbs, with duties of the
heart. R. Hutners choice of
terminology places his work in the tradition of classic medieval works of Jewish
thought, which explore character and the inner life of a religious person.
An introductory
essay, appearing at the beginning of every volume of Pachad Yitzchak,
addresses the difference between study of Jewish law and study of hilkhot
deot ve-chovot ha-levavot. R.
Hutner agues that the road from study to fulfillment differs when we study
duties of the heart. Just as in the physical universe light travels faster than
more corporeal substances, so too in the realm of the spirit mitzvot
closer to the world of abstract spirit move with greater speed. Thus, when we
study laws of sukka or tzitzit, it takes time for the study to
impact on our physical actions. However, when we study laws pertaining to
obligations of the intellect and the heart, we move immediately from
limmud to kiyyum.
This introduction
reveals a self-awareness that R. Hutner is embarking on an analytical endeavor
different from works on Jewish law and that his topics call for a special
approach. When addressing a persons internal religious world, the study should
immediately impact on our fulfillment, as realized in our intellectual and
emotional state.
One student
apparently had trouble appreciating aspects of R. Hutners contribution. He
wrote to R. Hutner contending that some of the analysis in Pachad
Yitzchak on Chanuka does not contribute towards love and fear of God. R. Hutners response cites the
Sifrei (Devarim 11:2): Do you want to know the One who spoke and
the world came into being? Learn
Aggada and you will come to know God and cling to His ways. The Torah reveals
the commands of God as manifest in Halakha and the ways of God as taught in the
Aggada. This midrash implies
that Aggada in particular leads to devekut with the Holy One, blessed be
He. R. Hutner contends that his
analyses, about which the student struggled to see the purpose, investigate the
ways of God.
For example, essays
discussing the specific qualities of the beit din of the Hasmoneans who
established Chanuka reflect the history of
Towards the letters
conclusion, R. Hutner aims an arrow at those who fail to appreciate this.
If a person studies
in depth our investigation of the Hasmonean beit din and his soul is not
uplifted and he feels no connection to sanctity, this is a clear sign that his
soul is not a vessel for expanding the light of yirat Shamayim, and he
should truly restrict himself to the boundaries of individual details. About him, it is said: He constricts and
it is good for him (mitztamek ve-yafeh lo).[2]
Some people enjoy
halakhic study and more simplified issues pertaining to Jewish thought; they
will not enjoy the type of analysis R. Hutner employs. This letter clearly implies that those
with a deeper understanding will not fall into this category. The final phrase
cited exemplifies R. Hutners clever use of language. In its original context within the laws
of Shabbat, the phrase refers to food fully cooked that still improves with
further cooking. The root, tzadi
mem kuf, means to shrink, since heat causes the food to contract. R. Hutner
creatively applies the phrase to someone who needs religious constriction.
As part of his study
of the duties of the heart, R. Hutner often considers what
Two possible
different sources could motivate love of the convert. A convert lives a
difficult life, having abandoned his familiar world of family, friends, and
religion and entered a new society, where he may very much feel an
outsider. He lacks connections and
an awareness of how the Jewish community works. Perhaps we act benevolently to
the convert because we feel badly for him. From this perspective, the convert
resembles the widow and the orphan, people lacking power and influence and in
need of help.
On the other hand, we
could admire the convert as someone exalted who did something quite noble. A
person who makes a dramatic and difficult life change in the pursuit of an ideal
deserves our highest estimation. Perhaps this factor motivates love for the
convert.
The Rambam writes
that we are commanded to love the convert just as we are commanded to love
God.[3]
Why does the Rambam add this comparison, something he does not do regarding love
of fellow Jews? R. Hutner explains
that the Rambam uses this analogy to clarify the authentic nature of love of the
convert. We certainly do not love
God because He is weak and needs our help; we love His goodness, sanctity and
wisdom. Love of the convert resembles love of the divine in that our love is
rooted in admiration.
Although R. Hutner
does not cite it, the Rambams letter to Ovadia the convert supports this
interpretation. Ovadia asked the Rambam three questions, the answers to two of
which reveal the Rambams admiration for converts. The Rambam rules that Ovadia can say
God of our fathers in prayer since converts are ideological children of
Avraham, even if not biological descendents. Ovadia also debated a rabbinic scholar
regarding whether to consider Islam an idolatrous religion; in the context of
debate, that scholar had called him a fool. (Ovadia was a convert from Islam to
Judaism.) The Rambam reacts with indignation, stating that someone who made a
heroic move of conversion deserves the title maskil (person of
intelligence) rather than kesil (fool).[4] This letter bolsters R. Hutners
contention that the Rambam emphasizes the nobility of converts.
A revolutionary
reading of a biblical verse helps R. Hutners position. The Torahs
juxtaposition of converts together with widows and orphans (Devarim
24:17, 27:19) suggests that we feel sympathy for the convert as someone
disadvantaged, akin to those lacking husbands and parents. In theory, Devarim 10:18, who
does justice for the widow and orphan, and loves the convert, conveys the
identical implication. R. Hutner contends that the verse distinguishes between
two categories. God takes care of justice for widows and orphans in need; He
loves converts for their noble choices.[5]
The Ramban clearly
disagrees with this mode of analysis, since his commentary on the Torah
emphasizes the victimhood of the convert.[6]
The simplest reading of the Chumash supports the Ramban. The Torah
commands us not to oppress the stranger because we were strangers in the
R. Hutner contends
that these verses cohere with the Rambams position as well. The converts willingness to undergo
hardship is precisely what proves the strength of his character and idealism.
Jews should appreciate this kind of dedication to cause. Due to the sanctity of
This analysis is not
just an exercise in taamei ha-mitzvot irrelevant to halakhic reality. R.
Hutner contends that those who love the convert for the incorrect reason do not
fulfill the commandment. He cites an Acharon who questions why the Rambam
lists loving the convert as a commandment, since we must love the convert in any
case as part of loving your neighbor as yourself. In a seemingly analogous scenario, the
Rambam writes that he does not list the prohibition of kohanim taking
from the spoils of war as a separate commandment, since a prohibition on
participating in the spoils already applies to the entire tribe of Levi.[8] Can we not make the identical argument
regarding love of the convert and subsume one commandment within the other? R.
Hutners analysis solves the problem. We must love the convert because of the
nobility of the act of conversion. This reflects a separate theme that is not
subsumed under love for fellow Jews.
R. Hutner also adds
an internal component to the commandment of circumcision. He notes that every
mila includes a blessing on the act of circumcision and another blessing
on entering the covenant of Avraham. This implies that the mitzva demands
an awareness of entering a covenant.
Absent that awareness, mere physical performance of the commandment does
not suffice. The formulation in Pachad Yitzchak emphasizes the category
of obligations of inwardness. Even though a mitzva with this added
covenantal component does not have an additional action, nonetheless, if we have
no duty of the limbs, we do have a duty of awareness.
The same idea applies
to the asseret ha-dibrot, since Devarim 4:13 identifies the
dibrot as a brit.
This covenant could not possibly refer to the need to fulfill the Ten
Commandments, since that demand would relate to the whole gamut of 613
commandments and not just to ten.
Instead, suggests R. Hutner, the verse in Devarim adds an
awareness of entering a covenant centered on the asseret ha-dibrot.[9]
Along the lines laid
out above, R. Hutner sensitively probes the internal world of mitzvot
such as prayer, joy, love and fear of God, and repentance. An earlier shiur explored his
analysis of the purpose of petitionary prayer. Another profound piece explores the
uniqueness of prayer among all commandments. The Maharal suggests that traveling to a
synagogue further away merits reward in a way that traveling to a distant
sukka does not.[10]
R. Hutner explains that other mitzvot can bring a person close to God,
but prayer essentially consists of kirvat Elokim. Therefore, even when a
person finishes the amida, kirvat Elokim continues until he takes
three steps back. Distance traveled
on the way to prayer itself constitutes an act of kirvat Elokim, which
explains why for prayer in particular we value the effort spent getting to the
mitzva.[11]
Regarding repentance,
R. Hutner probes multiple themes in undertaking not to sin in the future[12]
and finds joy in repentance as a special theme beyond generic simchat
ha-mitzva.[13]
In a discussion of simcha shel mitzva, he differentiates between two Jews
joyously performing the divine command.
One experiences his mitzva as reaching the heights of impacting on
cosmic forces. The other humbly
feels he has no right to attribute such metaphysical impact to his actions but
he accepts the words of our sages that any mitzva act produces grand
results. Both certainly achieve
simcha shel mitzva; only the latter adds an element of subjugation that
raises the joy to a level of nobility.[14]
Next weeks
shiur will continue with a connected theme, R. Hutners approach to
talmud Torah and the role of joy and pleasure in Torah study.
[1] Pachad Yitzchak, Iggerot u-Ketavim, p. 90.
[2] Ibid., p. 91.
[3] Hilkhot Deot 6:4.
[4] The letters appears in R. Yitzchak Shilats edition of
Iggerot Ha-Rambam (
[5] Pachad Yitzchak, Pesach, no. 8.
[6] Ramban, Shemot 22:20.
[7] Pachad Yitzchak, Pesach, no. 29.
[8] Sefer Ha-mitzvot, prohibition 170.
[9] Pachad Yitzchak, Shavuot, no. 37.
[10] Netivot Olam Netiv Ha-Aoda, perek 5.
[11] Pachad Yitzchak, Rosh Hashana, no. 5.
[12] Pachad Yitzchak, Yom Ha-Kippurim, no. 19-20.
[13] Ibid., no. 8.
[14] Sefer Zikkaron Le-Maran Baal Pachad Yitzchak ztl, Reshimot, no. 23