This is the sequel to Davening North and South (1 of 2), which should be read before proceeding.
The Key Question
In my opinion, the key question is not Question #1: "How does this work?", but Question #2: "Why isn't tefilah sufficient?"
We maintain that tefilah is effective, and that Hashem does respond to our prayers. "Hashem is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth" (Tehilim 145:18). There is nothing more that a person can do or should do besides calling upon Hashem, in truth, in accordance with Hilchos Tefilah.
From this standpoint, our Gemara seems problematic. To suggest that a person who wants chochmah or wealth should modify his tefilah would seem to imply that his tefilah is somehow lacking. After all, if his tefilah were complete and "worthy" in Hashem's eyes (so to speak), why would he need to change anything?
An Approach
The strength of this question has led me to suggest the following theory: If a person truly understood what tefilah is, and if he related to it in the correct way, then he would have no need for our Gemara's advice. He would find the shemoneh esrei as established by the Anshei Kneses ha'Gedolah to be entirely sufficient and worthy of being favorably accepted by Hashem.
I realize that this theory means that our Gemara is an anomaly. Most halachos of tefilah apply to all daveners. In contrast, our Gemara is directed at a specific demographic: the rotzeh she'yachkim (one who desires to become wise) and the rotzeh she'yaashir (one who desires to become wealthy).
You might be thinking, "Doesn't everyone want to become wise or wealthy?" Yes. But that's not the type of person that our Gemara is dealing with. Our Gemara is aimed at a person who is looking for an edge - someone who feels that he has exhausted all of the normal channels, and is searching for some device by which he can get ahead of the game. He wants to be more proactive in his quest for chochmah/wealth, and he is looking for additional ways to guarantee his success.
This mentality poses a problem when it comes to tefilah. The rotzeh she'yachkim/she'yaashir will not be content with requesting chochmah/wealth by using a "standard tefilah." He'll feel that his regular tefilah isn't an adequate vehicle for obtaining what he desires. Consequently, he will turn elsewhere in pursuit of a "competitive advantage." Instead of placing his security in Hashem, he will place it in basar va'dam (human beings), or kocho v'otzem yado ("his might, and the strength of his own hand"), or avodah zarah (idolatry, superstitious practices, and magical forces). This would undermine one of the fundamental objectives of tefilah, which is to reinforce our bitachon (security) in Hashem.
This is where our Gemara comes in. Essentially, our Gemara offers a mechanism by which the rotzeh she'yachkim/she'yaashir can satisfy his desire for a competitive edge from within the institution of tefilah. Our Gemara tells him, "Yes! We CAN give you a way to 'hack' the system and become wise/wealthy! All you have to do is turn your face slightly to the south/north when you daven. Just remember that this is where the Menorah/Shulchan in the Beis ha'Mikdash is."
The Gemara's solution operates on a number of levels. At the very least, its implementation effectively harnesses the the rotzeh she'yachkim's/she'yaashir's need to proactively seek security and ropes it back into the institution of tefilah. If nothing more, it will prevent him from taking security in that which is not Hashem. Even better, it will enhance the kavanah of his tefilah, insofar as he relates to it as a "special" tool for furthering his personal success. At best, it will actually serve as an avenue of intellectual and psychological development which will make him more worthy of hashgachas Hashem, thereby raising his eligibility for his prayers to be answered.
This brings us to the next question: Why north for wealth and south for wisdom? At this point, the most I can offer is speculation. The most straightforward approach is one which is based on the keilim mentioned by R' Yitzchak: the Shulchan and the Menorah. In other words, the siman (mnemonic device) offered by R' Yitzchak isn't simply a way to remember which direction is which, but is a very part of the mechanism itself.
Generally speaking, an explanation along these lines will look something like this:
Generally speaking, an explanation along these lines will look something like this:
- The Shulchan and the Menorah reflect specific ideas having to do with wealth and chochmah, respectively.
- By facing in the direction associated with that kli, the davener will think about that concept during his tefilah.
- This concept will bring him to a truer understanding of what he seeks, and this understanding will raise him to a higher level.
- Eventually, his value-system will shift, and he will no longer feel the need to rely on the Gemara's device. Tefilah alone will suffice.
The particulars of this approach will differ, depending on how one understand the significance of those keilim. I'll give an example, just so you can see what a full answer might look like.
- The Shulchan is the place of the Lechem ha'Panim (Show-bread). When the rotzeh she'yaashir faces in the direction associated with the Shulchan, he will contemplate the idea that "not by bread alone does man live, but rather by everything that emanates from the mouth of Hashem does man live" (Devarim 8:3). This will guide him to reflect on the Source of his wealth and the ultimate objective of his wealth, namely, to sustain himself and his family in order to serve Hashem. Over time, the continual contemplation of this idea will affect his relationship to wealth, and the hashgachah will respond accordingly.
- Likewise, the Menorah provides light, which represents Torah and chochmah. When the rotzeh she'yachkim faces in the direction associated with the Menorah, he will be guided to reflect on the nature of chochmah, the limits of our chochmah, the purpose of pursuing chochmah, and so on. By "infusing" his tefilah with these ideas, he will gradually transform his relationship to chochmah, and in so doing, will become more worthy of receiving it.
Truth be told, I'm not really interested in exactly how turning northward and southward will lead him to insights about wealth and wisdom. To reiterate the main conceptual move: the aim of the Gemara's advice is not to improve upon a regular tefilah, but to harness and redirect the energies of a particular type of person in a manner most conducive to his personal development.
It is this conceptual move which allows us to explain the machlokes between R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi on which direction the rotzeh she'yaashir should face. I can't fully define the machlokes, but I'll describe each side.
R' Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that we ought to guide the rotzeh she'yaashir to the realization that chochmah will make him wealthy. Shlomo ha'Melech emphasizes this point throughout Mishlei and Koheles. For instance: "for to sit in the shadow of wisdom is to sit in the shadow of money" (Koheles 7:11). R' Yehoshua ben Levi argues that if we can draw this guy into the pursuit of chochmah - even as a lo lishmah to obtain wealth - then we ought to go for it. Ideally, this might eventually lead him to become a chacham.
R' Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that we ought to guide the rotzeh she'yaashir to the realization that chochmah will make him wealthy. Shlomo ha'Melech emphasizes this point throughout Mishlei and Koheles. For instance: "for to sit in the shadow of wisdom is to sit in the shadow of money" (Koheles 7:11). R' Yehoshua ben Levi argues that if we can draw this guy into the pursuit of chochmah - even as a lo lishmah to obtain wealth - then we ought to go for it. Ideally, this might eventually lead him to become a chacham.
R' Yitzchak agrees with everything that R' Yehoshua ben Levi says about the relationship between chochmah and wealth, but he disagrees with the approach we should take in guiding the rotzeh she'yaashir. Chazal repeatedly warn us that the pursuit of wealth cannot coexist with the pursuit of chochmah. For instance: "R' Yochanan said: '[The Torah] is not across the ocean' (Devarim 30:12) means that Torah is not to be found in merchants and tradesmen" (Eiruvin 55a). Similarly, "[Hillel said:] anyone who is excessively occupied in business will not become wise" (Avos 2:6). While it's true that a chacham will be in a better position to make money, a person who is attracted to wealth is unlikely to succeed in the pursuit of chochmah. For this reason, R' Yitzchak advises him to focus on the pursuit of wealth, since this is more realistic objective for the rotzeh she'yaashir.
In other words, both Amoraim agree that the rotzeh she'yaashir is in need of guidance. The question is: What form should that guidance take? R' Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that we should take this guy's desire for wealth and hitch it onto the chochmah-train as a lo lishmah in hopes that it will eventually make him into a chacham. R' Yitzchak maintains that this approach is overambitious and unrealistic, and that it would be better to allow this guy to pursue wealth independently of chochmah. At least his tefilah will anchor his security in Hashem.
I realize that this approach is half-baked. I still think that the initial move is what opens up the machlokes.
Your Move
That's all I have to say on this sugya for now. As always, your thoughts, questions, and ideas are welcome!
In other words, both Amoraim agree that the rotzeh she'yaashir is in need of guidance. The question is: What form should that guidance take? R' Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that we should take this guy's desire for wealth and hitch it onto the chochmah-train as a lo lishmah in hopes that it will eventually make him into a chacham. R' Yitzchak maintains that this approach is overambitious and unrealistic, and that it would be better to allow this guy to pursue wealth independently of chochmah. At least his tefilah will anchor his security in Hashem.
I realize that this approach is half-baked. I still think that the initial move is what opens up the machlokes.
Your Move
That's all I have to say on this sugya for now. As always, your thoughts, questions, and ideas are welcome!
I have to think about it more, but first thoughts: It seems that they both hold its a contextualization of the davener's need. RY has it to be from a simple psychological need to the psychological need of an eved Hashem. Whereas RYBL goes from psychic, animalistic need to the need of a complete human being, which includes both psychic/physical and intellectual/metaphysical, which are both antagonistic of one another and interdependent upon one another
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I'll have to think about that some more as well, but that is definitely the type of definition I was searching for.
DeleteI'm curious how this gemara sanctioned shortcut relates to the shortcuts (i.e. segulas) of today. Don't both partake of the same mechanism? Meaning, that when I bake my car keys in a challah, I'm using this segula as my shortcut. Generally people, somewhere in the back of their mind, do relate those things to God. They just think the action itself has the power. Here, there's room for the same association. That while God is ultimately the source of things, the act of turning or the object of the shulchan / menora is the proximate cause of my wealth / wisdom. Maybe this is also why no one brings this down l'halacha, since the danger of it is so great.
ReplyDeleteGood question. I don't have a fully answer myself, but I know where you can find the answer: the sugya of simna milsa by Rosh ha'Shanah (Horiyos 12a), which is subject to the same question, but to an even greater degree.
DeleteTo my mind, this is yet another area where the genius and expertise of Chazal is needed. In truth, ANY mitzvah can be made into a magical mechanism - yet, that didn't stop Chazal from instituting minhagim and giving explanations which might cater to that mentality. While I'm sure we can figure out certain categorical distinctions between what Chazal endorsed and avoided, I would imagine that there is also a certain amount of intuition about human psychology that is involved.
Additionally, what works in one generation won't necessarily work in another. Hashem commanded Moshe to make a nachash ha'nechoshes, which clearly lends itself to avodah zarah. During Moshe's time, under his guidance, that didn't happen, but a few centuries later, it was made into a deity. It's easy for us to look at this and say, "Wasn't it inevitable that this would happen?" But you know what they say about hindsight. More importantly, Hashem knew what he was doing.
So my answer is: I don't know. I still think that the mechanism suggested in our Gemara lends itself WAY less to magical thinking than the simanim of Rosh ha'Shanah, both on account of the context, and based on the nature of the action.
What I recently was thinking about is how, in my mind, the Jews leaving Egypt were so advanced. According to my understanding of Torah and the amazing ideas contained therein, it is roughly the equivalent of aliens coming and giving us technology from 2,000 years in the future. Yet otherwise, these people were pretty primitive. I'm not sure what they thought about natural phenomena, but, still, it's hard to think about them as primitive. And perhaps that's the issue. As a primitive people, you look for shortcuts and segulas to get you to heaven. And based on the level of primitiveness, you can refocus people's thoughts to God (i.e. nachash ha'nechoshes or davening facing a certain direction or simna milsa), but that, like you said, is probably based on the primitive mind. And what works in one generation doesn't work for the next because as one primitive idea is removed, it is replaced with another.
DeletePerhaps this midrash is also getting at a deeper point. Note that south is right and north is left. Also see what rashi on the pasuk says about the difference between one who takes the 'right' path vs. one who takes the left path.
ReplyDeleteto say this a little more clearly, the machloket would be how to use tefillah in a mitoch shelo lishmah ba lishmah framework
Delete