A.
ואהכת את ד' אלקיך בכל לבבך וגו'(“And you will love Ha-Shem your G-d with all your heart....”; VI, 5.
As everyone possessed of a חוש חי לשפה העברית, a living sense of the Hebrew language, will attest, the word for “heart” has two variants, lév and lëvav. It is the second form which is used in our verse.
The Talmud informs us: "בכל לבבך" בשני יצריך ביצר טוב וביצר הרע (“With both your yëtzarim, with the yétzer tov and with the yétzer ha-ra‘”; ברכות נ"ד. במשנה). The Torah Tëmima points out the apparent basis of the Talmud’s insight, דכ"מ דהשם לב בא בשני ביתי"ן בא לדרוש כפילת השם (“that in every place that the word ‘heart’ appears with two béythin [as in our example] it comes to be interpreted in a double sense”,וע"ע תורה תמימה ס"פ שלח באותו הענין ). It is this “double” sense of the word that apparently motivates Chazal to see a reference to two I (the word is conventionally translated “inclinations”), one “good” (tov), the other “evil” (ra‘).
That said, whatever can it mean to “love” Ha-Shem with the yétzer ha-ra‘?
The Torah Tëmima himself asks the question, and proposes in answer: ואפשר לומר לעבדו בקיום מצות עשין ובמניעת עשיית הל"ת ומכנה את המ"ע בשם יצר טוב ע"ש הכתוב עשה טוב ואת המניעה מעשיית הל"ת בשם עבודה ביצה"ר ע"ש הכתוב סור מרע (“And it is possible to say, to serve Him by fulfilling the positive mitzvoth and by refraining from doing the negative mitzvoth, and calling the positive mitvoth by the name yétzer tov on the basis of the Scripture ‘do good,’ and refraining from doing the negative mitzvoth by the name ‘service with the yétzer ha-ra‘’ on the basis of the Scripture, ‘turn away from evil’ [Psalms XXXIV, 10]”).
This seems somehow incomplete. Surely “turning away from evil” can be as much a “good” action as actually doing something. It would seem, from the Torah Tëmima;’s description, that one does not serve G-d “through” the yétzer ha-ra‘ or “by means of” the yétzer ha-ra‘, as the instrumental prefix bë- in our mishna supra seems to imply, so much as by simply avoiding it.
And so our question returns, and we must dig a bit deeper.
B.
“Inclination” is not a very accurate translation of the word yétzer (the English word would appear much more accurately translated by Hebrew nëtiya). Yétzer is built on the root yud-tzadi-réysh, which underlies one of the three fundamental verbs denoting the Divine actions which brought the physical cosmos into being (bara’, yatzar, ‘asa). The root itself is formed from the more fundamental tzadi-vav-réysh which conveys a sense of delineation, shape, form (cf., e.g., such words as tzura, tziyyur). The radical prefix yud adds a sense of directionality to the fundamental meaning, and the verb comes to mean “to impart shape or form” to something. In other contexts than Creation, it refers to the work done by a potter in making a clay vessel. A yétzer, then, is the concrete result or object of such action.
וייצר ד' את האדם וגו' (“And Ha-Shem formed the human being....”; Genesis II, 7). Chazal note that the verb is deliberately written somewhat anomalously with two yudin to tell us that the adam’s formation resulted from the amalgamation of two yëtzarim, more fundamental forms, one physical, finite, and perishable, subject to the principle of entropy (the true root sense of the word ra‘, as is evident from other uses of the root; cf., e.g., Psalms II, 10), and the other metaphysical and counter-entropic, able to maintain and sustain the other in accordance with the Divine will, the real sense of tov (עיי' בראשות רבה פי"ד סי' ד' וע"ע רש"י עה"פ ע"פ מדרש אחר,).
With this in mind, we turn to the Maharal mi-Prag (נתיבות עולם ח"ב נתיב אהאבת ד' פ"א).
C.
The Maharal learns a bit farther into the mishna cited supra, and notes that חייב האדם לברך על הרעה כשם שמברך על הטובה (“A person is obligated to recite a blessing for an instance of ra‘ just as he does for an instance of tov”), and goes on; וזה כי כאשר הביא הש"י עליו צרה ועם כל זה מברך הש"י מורה זה על אהבה גמורה מאוד (“and this is because, when Ha-Shem brings woe upon a person, and nonetheless he blesses Ha-Shem, it is indicative of a very complete love”).
He goes on to explain that such a bëracha constitutes recognition that the woe, too, is of Divine origin: אף כי היא רעה מצד המקבל כו' גם הרע הוא מצד הטוב כו' אי אפשר בעולם שיהי' מדת היסורין באים על האדם ולא יהי' זה כפרה על חטאתו (“even though it appears to be ra‘ from the receiver’s standpoint... even the ra‘ stems from tov.... It is impossible in the world that a measure of sufferings [yissurin] come upon a person which does not serve as atonement [kappara] for his sin [chata’atho]”).
So, as we suspected above, the very concept of ra‘ is limited to this world; in origin it also stems from G-d, הטוב והמטיב, “the Good One Who brings about good,” as we say every shacharith. Ra‘ is a matter of perception.
The Maharal then cites a remarkable midrash: "וירא אלקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד", כו' אמר רב הונא, "והנה טוב מאד" זו מדת יסורין. וכי מדת יסטרין טוב מאד אתמהא! אלא שעל ידי' הבריות באים לחיי העה"ב וכן שלמה אומר "ודרך חיים תוכחות מוסר", ואמרת צא וראה איזהו דרך מביאה את האדם לחיי העה"ב הוי אומר זו מדת יסורין (“‘And G-d saw all that He had made and behold, it was very good [tov më’od; Genesis I, 31]’... Said Rav Huna, tov më’od is a measure of sufferings [yissurin]. And is then a measure of sufferings very good?! I am surprised! Rather, that by means of it G-d’s creatures come to the life of the next world, and so does Shlomo say, ‘The way of life is [through] the rebukes of discipline [mussar, from the same root as yissurin; Proverbs VI, 23]’; and you say, Go forth and see which way leads a person to the life of the next world? I would say, the measure of yissurin”; בראשיץ רבה פ"ו סי' י').
D.
It is this physical cosmos and its built-in quality of ra‘, of decline and decay, which we naturally perceive as “bad,” which leads to the quality’s being distinguished from tov. The quality of ra‘ is inherent in the physical realm’s distance and alienation from its Divine, metaphysical Source. We carry out the mitzva of ahavath Ha-Shem by using the physical realm to perform all of the other mitzvoth, whether by utilizing physical objects or by avoiding those to be avoided in the mitzvoth lo’ tha‘aseh, the “negative” commandments. The fact that we pick ourselves up, and continue in the way of the Torah, despite exile, despite the loss of the Béyth ha-Miqdash, despite our long and gruesome history, is primâ facie evidence of our ahava gëmura më’od, our very complete love for Ha-Shem, as the Maharal writes.
Nor is that love unrequited. The holy Zohar proclaims: "ועתה מה לי פה נאם ד' כי לקח עמי חנם וגו'" תא חזי רחימוץא דקב"ה בישראל אע"ג דחובייהו גרמו לאסתלקא מבינייהו ואתבדרו ביני עממיא הוא תבע עלבונא דלהון כו' כיון דגרמו חובייהו ואתגלי ישראל מארעא קדישא קב"ה לא עאל בגנתי' ולא משתעשע בי' ולא עוד אלא שהוא צווח ואמר "ועתה מה לי פה" וגו' (“‘And now, what have I here. says Ha-Shem, for My people has been taken for nothing’ [Isaiah LII, 5]. Come and see the love of the holy One, Blessed is He for Israel, that even though their sins have caused that they disappear from amongst them and be exiled amongst the nations, He claims recompense for their injury... Since their sins have caused Israel to be exiled from the Holy Land, the Holy One, Blessed is He does not enter His garden and takes no delight in it; and not only that, but He cries out, ‘And now, what have I here....”; ח"ג רס"ז.).
it is not only Israel who are in exile, and Israel’s return from exile, when the exile ends and the “garden of Ha-Shem” restored, it is not only faithful Israel, lovers of Ha-Shem, who will rejoice.
נחמו נחמו עמי (“Be comforted, be comforted My people....”; Isaiah XL, 1).
No comments:
Post a Comment