INDEPENDENCE
“Truth has legs; falsehood has
no legs”
Tikunei Zohar 425
A man once asked Rabbi Nachman from Breslov whether he should
accept the position he was offered as community Rabbi. Rabbi Nachman responded,
“If you accept, your Grace After Meals will
suffer considerably!”[1]
What did Rabbi Nachman mean? Some people pray intently in private with little
distraction, but get distracted in public. Others, however, focus well in group
prayer, uplifted by the communal energy, but fail to do so when praying alone. Both
individuals depend on a context for focused prayer. To pray with truth,
however, is to pray well independently of one’s surroundings. And so, with his
warning, Rabbi Nachman reminded the individual that as a community Rabbi,
constantly in the public eye, his prayers would suffer due to increased self-awareness.
In essence, Rabbi Nachman was intimating that if an individual’s Divine service
lacks truth - independence - it can deteriorate under new conditions.[2]
Along similar lines, the Vilna Gaon once asked the Maggid of Dubno to
rebuke him. However, the Gaon was so righteous that it was difficult to do. The
Maggid reflected and finally reproached: “It is easy to be righteous within the
halls of torah study. Let me see you go out among the people; will you still
remain righteous then?!” His rebuke challenges the independence of the Gaon’s
spiritual level; does it hinge on an environment conducive to spirituality or would
it survive the sensually tempting outside world? Essentially, the Maggid’s rebuke
questions the truth of the Gaon’s spiritual level.[3]
The connection between truth and independence is apparent in the episode
at the Burning Bush, where God instructs Moses to liberate the Jews from Egypt.
Moses asks the enigmatic voice, “Who should I tell them is sending me?”[4]
Why did Moses seek the name of the being charging him with a mission? After all,
a name appears to be a superficial aspect of an entity. In fact, a Hebrew name reveals
an entity’s essential being and purpose.[5]
By way of example, observe the names of the three angels who visited Abraham
after he circumcised: Michael, meaning ‘Who is like the divine quality of
kindness,’[6]
shared good tidings; Gabriel, meaning ‘Strength of God’, destroyed the depraved
cities of Sodom; and Rafael, meaning ‘Healing power of God’, came to heal
Abraham.[7]
Their names reflect their identities.
Aware of this, Moses wished to discover the nature of the being sending
him on the mission. In particular, he wanted to know whether the being was dependent
upon some higher force, or whether it is supreme and independent. This was
important to Moses on two counts: firstly, he was only prepared to serve the
Supreme Being; and secondly, he understood that if the being was dependent on
other forces for its existence, it may cease existing during his rescue efforts,
resulting in him losing support and failing.[8] God’s response was the famous ‘ﬡהיה ﬡשר ﬡהיה’ - “I am that I am”.[9]
Meaning, I am whatever I choose to be; nothing influences Me; I am completely
independent. Rabbi Albo explains that the numerical value of the word ‘ﬡהיה’ (I Am) is 21, while the term ﬡשר (that) serves as a multiplication sign. The full phrase, ‘I am that I
am’ thus converts into 21 x 21, the sum of which is 441, the numerical value of
the word ﬡמת - truth.[10]
Indeed, one may wonder why God chose to reveal the truth of Torah through Moses, who suffered from a severe
speech impediment. Unlike falsehood which is often disguised in eloquent or sophisticated
terms or provided with other flash packaging to have an impact, truth stands
independently, its power stems from within itself. The Torah was thus communicated
by one lacking eloquence and charm in order to stress that its effectiveness is
due to it being independent truth and not because it was communicated through a
charismatic orator.[11]
The reward for independence in divine service is illustrated
in Lot’s rescue from Sodom. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was saved from the
destruction of Sodom on account of a particular merit. When Abraham and his
wife Sarah were crossing the Egyptian border, Abraham prudently told the
Egyptian authorities that Sarah was his sister.[12]
Lot, also present, remained silent, notwithstanding his knowledge that the
Egyptians would reward him immensely for disclosing the truth. However, Lot performed
a seemingly more impressive deed when he risked his own life to provide
visitors to Sodom with hospitality and protection from the Sodomites.[13]
Why would restraint from treachery grant Lot greater merit than a self-sacrificing
act of hospitality?
Hospitality was Lot’s second nature, inculcated by Abraham, it was not his
own moral achievement. However, in curbing his strong proclivity toward greed, Lot
had to apply much conscious effort to struggle with his nature.[14]
In his silence, he displayed moral independence; in his hospitality, he did
not. It was thus his expression of ethical independence, of self-standing truth, that prolonged his
life; that commensurately kept him standing
when everything was collapsing around him.[15]
This definition of truth also explains why Maimonides says, “Receive the
truth regardless of its source.”[16]
Since truth is independent, it stands separate from the human mind. Therefore, even
if an unethical, dishonest, or foolish person states the truth, you should accept
it from him, for he did not produce it, but merely channels it. And, though our
Sages forbid learning Torah from immoral people, this is mainly because one can
be influenced by their disrespectful attitude and coarse behaviour.[17]
Therefore, Torah scholars of great piety and wisdom, impervious to negative
influence, would accept truth from such people.[18]
However, products of the human mind cannot be received indiscriminately,
for a fool is likely to produce folly, the unethical person may push immorality,
and the ignoramus offers guesswork with the confidence of omniscience. Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Schneerson stressed this distinction in his response to a letter from a
young man doubting the veracity of Torah because of the inappropriate behaviour
of various people in his Torah academy. Rabbi Schneerson said:
“If a teacher whom you respect will say two times
two equals five, it is incorrect; and if a teacher whom you do not respect says
that two times two equals four, it is nevertheless correct; for truth is independent of the one who states
it.”[19]
An extreme example
of truth being acknowledged despite its source is the case of Bilaam and his
donkey. While riding on his donkey to curse the Jews, Bilaam’s donkey deviated
off the road, mildly injuring Bilaam. Enraged, he began beating his donkey. Suddenly,
the donkey spoke up and assertively reminded Bilaam of all the benefit it had
provided him over the years.[20]
Upon hearing the rebuke, Bilaam fell into silent acquiescence; the donkey’s words
were distinctly and incontestably true.[21]
Observing the forms
of the three letters comprising the word ﬡמת, we find that each letter has two
‘legs’. This signifies that truth can stand on its own [without external
support.] In contrast, the letters of the word sheker - שקר, meaning
falsehood, have only one ‘leg’ each; reflecting instability and the dependence
of falsehood on external crutches.[22]
[2] Ibid.
[3]
Twersky, Abraham, Not Just Stories, Shaar Press, 2001, p.103
[4]
Exodus 1:13
[5]
Gikatilia, Joseph, Shaare Orah, Gate 7
[6]
Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya, Shaar HaYichud Ch.1, Likutei Torah, Behar, p.82
[7] Zohar
I, p.99a
[8] Albo,
Rabbi Joseph, Sefer HaIkarim, Maamre 2, Perek 27
[9]
Exodus 3:14
[11]
Rabbeinu Nissim, Deroshot Haran, Derush 3
[12]
Midrash Genesis Rabbah 51:8
[13]
Genesis 19:1-10
[14] Lowe,
Rabbi Yehuda, Derashot HaMaharal, Derush L’Shabbat Shuva
[15] This idea casts some light on the tragic incident where Cain killed
Abel. Both brothers, Cain and Abel, brought offerings to the Almighty; Cain
from mediocre crop, and Abel from the choicest of his flock. G-d accepted
Abel’s generous offering, but not Cain’s parsimonious one. Cain, burning with
envy, murdered Abel.[15]
As mentioned concerning Lot, mitzvot
have the power to shield people from danger. Why then did Abel’s lavish
offering not protect him from Cain's vengeance? Abel had merely imitated Cain
when offering his flock to G-d; he did not independently arrive at the
practice. His offering, lacking truth, was thus insufficient to protect him from
death.[15] In
fact, the name Abel is consistent with his character. Abel denotes vapour,[15]
something that appears to have substance but in actuality does not; much like
Abel imitated others but lacked the solidity of independence.
[16]
Maimonides, Shemoneh Perakim, Introduction
[17] Lowe,
Rabbi Yehuda, Netivat Olam, Netiv HaTorah Sec.8
[18] Ibid.
Genesis 4:3-8
[19]
Schneerson, M.M, Letters of the Rebbe Vol.II, Otzar Sifrei Lubavitch, 1997,
p.194
[20]
Numbers 22:21-30
[21]
Midrash Numbers Rabbah 20:14
[22]
Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 104a
No comments:
Post a Comment