Even If We Are All Wise, Understanding, Elders, Those Who Know Torah

The content on this podcast has been sponsored by my Patrons on Patreon. The total cost of maintaining my five podcasts in 2021 amounted to over $2000 - all of which would have come out of my own pocket were it not for your generosity. Thank you for helping me make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone!

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version. Note that there are hyperlinks to PDFs of the two essays referenced in the article.

Cairo Geniza manuscript, date unknown

Even if We Are All Wise, Understanding, Elders, Those Who Know Torah

In the Avadim Hayinu section of the Haggadah we say: “Even if we are all chachamim (wise), all nevonim (understanding), all zekeinim (elders), all yod’im es ha’Torah (knowers of the Torah), we are commanded to recount Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt).” What do each of these terms mean? Moreover, what is the hava amina? In other words, what might we have otherwise assumed if the Haggadah did not include this statement? The Rashbatz (R’ Shlomo ben Tzemach Duran, 1361-1444) answers both questions:

Lest you [erroneously] say that this mitzvah is only for the tinokos (kids), to teach them what they don’t know, but this telling is unnecessary for one who knows this – therefore we say: “even if we are all chachamim,” who have heard this from our fathers; “even if we are all nevonim,” who can understand (i.e. derive or infer) one principle from another; “even if we are all zekeinim,” who have known this for many years; “even if we are all yod’im es ha’Torah,” who think deeply into Torah every day, and from our reading of the Torah, we recount Yetzias Mitzrayim – even with all this, we are obligated in this telling on this night.

According to the Rashbatz, people can be classified into five levels based on their knowledge of Yetzias Mitzrayim:

1) tinok: one who is utterly ignorant of and unacquainted with the basic facts of Yetzias Mitzrayim

2) chacham: one who has been taught ideas about Yetzias Mitzrayim; this person is a dependent learner

3) navon: one who is capable of going beyond the level of chochmah (i.e. received knowledge) by deriving chidushim (novel insights) on their own; this person is an independent learner, or a creative thinker

4) zakein: one who has engaged in these ideas on the level of chochmah and tevunah for many years; this person has internalized these ideas, and made them real by “living” them

5) yode’a es ha’Torah: one whose knowledge of these ideas is so thorough and so deep that even their daily Torah study connects back to the principles of Yetzias Mitzrayim

Of these five, the last is the hardest to grasp. What does this type of Torah study look like? Thankfully, I have learned Torah from two individuals who exemplify this level, and they’re both named Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

The first Rabbi Sacks (a.k.a. Rabbi Yoni Sacks) was my Chumash rebbi in yeshiva. His approach to Torah is like nothing I’ve ever seen. He approaches Torah as a unified system, with the Rambam’s Thirteen Ikkarim as the foundation and the Mishneh Torah as an organized Torah regimen. His “Level 5 Torah” can best be seen in his essay, Torah’s Place in Redemption and the Quest for Malchus Shamayim. There he explains how Chazal’s injunction “in each and every generation a person is obligated to see himself as though he left Egypt” applies not only on the night of the seder, but to the way we conceive of ourselves year-round. Rabbi Sacks endeavors to show how the entire Torah system, in all its manifold detail, connects back to the first principles embedded in the Yetzias Mitzrayim narrative, as part of the ongoing mission to redeem ourselves from Egypt in every generation.

The second Rabbi Sacks (a.k.a. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks zt”l) served as the Chief Rabbi of the UK from 1993 to 2013. He has published dozens of books, written hundreds of articles, and given countless shiurim. His unique approach to Torah, which he refers to as Torah v’Chochmah, seeks to harmonize the teachings of the God-given Torah with human wisdom – “the universals of man’s intellectual quest” – using our God-given intellect. His “Level 5 Torah” is best exemplified in The Jonathan Sacks Haggada: Collected Essays on Pesaḥ. In each of these essays, Rabbi Sacks explains how the principles of Yetzias Mitzrayim shaped the Western World throughout history, and how its ideas continue to be relevant today. My favorite of these essays is Building a Society of Freedom.

These are but two examples of what it means to be yode’a es ha’Torah. The challenge posed by this line in Avadim Hayinu is to develop our own way of seeing the ideas of Yetzias Mitzrayim in our daily Torah study.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Hunting for Treasure vs. Panning for Gold on the Beaches of Nome

This week's Torah content is sponsored by the Reznik family in dedication to the loving memory of Silvia Tanzer (Sora Hesha bas Chaim Moshe) and Irving Tanzer (Yisroel ben Yechezkel).

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Hunting for Treasure vs. Panning for Gold on the Beaches of Nome

According to Mishlei (Proverbs), you will achieve success in your quest for chochmah (wisdom) and tevunah (understanding) if you search for it “like you search for hidden treasures” (2:4). Rabbeinu Yonah explains:

[This means] that the wisdom is sweet to his soul, and working for it will not be a toil for him, due to the abundant love, in the manner of: “it was like a few days in his eyes, due to his love of her” (Bereishis 29:29). It will be like one who searches for hidden treasures, who is told that there is a treasure in this house or in this valley: the quest for the hidden treasure will not be a toil for him, due to [the prospect in] his mind of finding great wealth in one location and becoming instantly rich.

In other words, if you learn with the mentality of a treasure hunter who hopes to hit the mother lode, then learning will not be a toil for you, since it will be fueled by excitement and the hope of being rewarded with instant wealth. But unlike the treasure hunter, whose hope will likely prove to be a fantasy, the seeker of chochmah and tevunah really can strike it rich!

Thank God, the more I learn, the more this treasure hunting mentality has come to characterize my own learning. However, this same mentality has occasionally proven to be an impediment when it comes to teaching. When I was a high school teacher, I had no problem teaching “basic ideas,” since my students were all new to learning. Once I started teaching in yeshiva in the Fall of 2020, I felt a tremendous pressure to come up with major chidushim (new insights) in everything I taught. I’d feel this way in many of my daily shiurim and especially when I’d give a shiur to the whole community. But this wasn’t the first time I’ve experienced this type of pressure. I’ve gone through phases in which my writing suffers from the same problem. I end up feeling like I shouldn’t write an article unless it contains some groundbreaking chidush that will be seen as valuable to all, laypeople and chachamim alike, and this leads to writer’s block.

I am pleased to report that my “Summer 2021 Experiment” of writing one-page articles has counteracted this pressure. I am reminded of another Mishleic mashal (metaphor) for chochmah, stated in the previous chapter: “Chochmah calls out in the streets, in the public squares she gives forth her voice, at the heads of noisy [streets], at the entrances of gates, she gives forth her words” (1:20-21). In contrast to the treasure hunting mashal of Chapter 2, which depicts the scarcity and hidden nature of chochmah, the mashal of Chapter 1 emphasizes its ubiquity and vociferousness: chochmah is on every street corner, wherever you look, and it’s constantly shouting and clamoring to get your attention! In my case, now that I’m looking for “one-page ideas” to write about, I’m noticing them everywhere, which is fantastic!

If I were to create a highly specific mashal which combines these two mashalim, I’d borrow from Shlomo ha’Melech’s comparison of chochmah to gold (see 8:10,18 and 16:16) and I would liken my Summer 2021 experience to panning for gold on the golden beaches of Nome. According to Wikipedia:

The Nome Gold Rush was a gold rush in Nome, Alaska, approximately 1899–1909. It is separated from other gold rushes by the ease with which gold could be obtained. Much of the gold was lying in the beach sand of the landing place and could be recovered without any need for a claim. Total production of gold from the area is estimated to be 112 metric tons.

Chochmah is like Nome’s gold: it’s there in the sand, ready for the taking, and there’s plenty to share.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Mishlei 11:2 - Mishleic Tznius 1.0

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post. 

Mishlei 11:2 - Mishleic Tznius 1.0

משלי יא:ב

בָּא זָדוֹן וַיָּבֹא קָלוֹן וְאֶת צְנוּעִים חָכְמָה:

Mishlei 11:2

When zadon comes, disgrace will come, but wisdom is with those who are tzenua.

There are plenty of questions on this pasuk: 

1. What is "zadon" in this context? Even on a simple level, the term is difficult to translate. Common translations include "willfulness," "aggression," "malice," "wantonness," "brazenness," but it's difficult to know which of these applies here, or if it means something else entirely.
2. What is "tznius" in this context? This term is also tricky. It is often translated as "modesty," with an emphasis on physical modesty - usually in terms of attire. Some prefer to translate it as "humility," but then again, we have another word for humility: anavah. 
3. What is "kalon" (disgrace) in this context? Specifically, what type of disgrace, shame, or infamy is this talking about?
4. What is "chochmah" (wisdom) in this context? Although chochmah is a basic term in Mishlei, it can mean different things in different contexts.
5. What is the cause and effect relationship between zadon and disgrace? How is disgrace an inevitable result of zadon? And if, as many of the meforshim explain, the pasuk means that the ish zadon causes others to be disgraced, why not say so directly? Why phrase so awkwardly: "when zadon comes, disgrace will come"? 
6. What is the relationship between tznius and chochmah? On the surface, it would seem that a person could have tznius without chochmah, but the pasuk makes it sound like they go hand in hand. Why? 

[Time to think! Read on when ready.]

Here's my four-sentence summary of the main idea, which I will follow with some thoughts on Mishlei's take on tznius:

“Zadon,” in this context, refers to self-assertive, domineering, kavod-seeking behavior; an “ish zadon” is a person who aggressively seeks gratification by putting others down in order to boost his own self-image. The ish zadon fails to realize that by embracing a competitive, relative, image-based value system, in which his own happiness is contingent on the approbation of other people, he has ipso facto subjected himself to the fate of regularly suffering social disgrace. In contrast, an ish tzenua’s value system is objective insofar as it is based on chochmah (wisdom), and his happiness is not dependent on his image in the eyes of others. Therefore, he is immune to social disgrace, since he relates to any social “failures” as inconsequential, or as opportunities for wisdom and growth, rather than as “disgraceful” losses of kavod.

You may have noticed that the title of this post is followed by a "1.0." That's because I consider my concept of Mishleic tznius to still be "in the works." Still, I felt confident enough in my approach to share my findings thus far. I'd like to further clarify the ideas in my four-sentence summary by giving a play-by-play of how I arrived at my current understanding. 

This post began with a "Yom Iyun" ("Day of Study" = "Special Program") held at the high school where I teach. Every other year or so we have a school-wide program on tznius. In planning that year's event we expressed dismay over how easy it is for a girl to shut down during such tznius programs, saying, "Ugh! Another program where we're lectured on how long our sleeves and skirts can be!" 

This led to an epiphany: What if we designed a tznius program which has nothing to do with how people dress? We realized that many girls probably aren't aware that tznius a middah (character trait), and not merely a dress code. If we could craft a program which explored what the middah of tznius is, and we didn't mention dress codes at all, then even the most close-minded girl wouldn't walk away thinking that the program was about telling her how she can and can't dress. And if the only message she left with was, "Tznius is not just about the length of sleeves and skirts," then we would have accomplished something. 

Each of the teachers involved in the program chose one aspect of tznius to focus on. I volunteered to take on the topic of "tznius and chochmah" because I wanted to focus on Mishlei, and I recalled this pasuk. I was intrigued by two non-intuitive features of the pasuk: (1) the fact that it identifies "zadon" as the opposite of tznius, as opposed to something like "immodesty" or even "arrogance," and (2) the assertion that tznius and chochmah go together. 

In preparing my lesson I found four clues which ultimately led me to the idea summarized above. The first was Saadia Gaon's Arabic translation of the pasuk as: "If azus (brazenness / assertiveness) comes, disgrace comes, and with anavim (humble people) is wisdom." This provided me with my first clue: according to Saadia Gaon, the tznius in our pasuk is synonymous with anavah (humility), and is the opposite of brazenness / assertiveness. 

Rabbeinu Yonah provided a second and third clue by expanding on the definition of zadon, and by commenting on the relationship between tznius and chochmah. Here is a translation of his commentary on our pasuk: 

when zadon comes, disgrace will come - It is the nature of [an ish] zadon to mock and insult people, because he will deride and degrade his fellow for the temporary pleasure of taking pride in [the latter's] shame, or he will not be willing to tolerate the immediate pain of controlling his anger; is there a greater or more powerful zadon than that which culminates in words of shame and insult? 

but wisdom is with those who are tzenua - Tznius prevents a person from [speaking] words of disgrace and obscenity, and minimization of speech is one of the characteristics of those who are tzenua. And tznius causes wisdom for those who possess it, for it is a trait of the wise on account of which they are called wise, for they listen and pay close attention and do not desire to reveal their hearts, as it is stated: “Even a fool who is quiet will be considered wise,[and] one who seals his lips is understanding” (Mishlei 17:28). 

This is a difficult Rabbeinu Yonah, and I'll admit up front that I don't fully grasp what he is saying. Nevertheless, I took away several important points about zadon from his commentary:

• Whatever zadon is, its fullest expression is derision, mockery, and rejoicing in the shame of one's fellow. 
• The unwillingness to restrain one's anger at another person is also symptomatic of zadon. 
• A third feature of zadon is the inability to listen to other people, due to the need "to reveal one's heart" (i.e. to express one's own thoughts and feelings). 

At this point my picture of zadon started to come into focus. What type of person feels compelled to mock others for his own ego-gratification, is unable to hold back from retaliating when he's angry, and is so intent on expressing his own thoughts and feelings that his mind is closed to chochmah? Someone who operates in a competitive, relative, image-based value system, in which the most efficient way to boost your own standing is to put other people down. Bullying is a common form of zadon behavior. 

And what, then, is tznius if the term is being used as the opposite of zadon? Tznius must refer to the type of humility exhibited by a person who operates in an objective value system, whose self-image is based on chochmah rather than the opinions of other people. 

The fourth and final clue supported this conclusion. I looked up the chapter on tznius in Mivchar ha'Peninim - a collection of Jewish and Arabic ethical teachings widely quoted by the meforshim on Mishlei and Pirkei Avos - and I found the following three proverbs: [Full disclosure - there were more proverbs about tznius than these, and even these weren't presented in this order, but since they're proverbs, I feel that it's okay to pick and choose and rearrange.]

They asked the wise man: “What is tznius?”
He answered: “Chochmah.” 

They asked the wise man: “What is tznius?”
He answered: “That a person feels shame from himself.” 

They asked the wise man. “What is the tznius?”
He answered: “That a person shouldn’t do in secret what he is ashamed to do in public.”

The first proverb goes even further than our pasuk. Whereas Mishlei merely asserts that chochmah is found with tznius, Mivchar ha'Peninim says that chochmah is synonymous with tznius, or is at least an essential component of what tznius is. This is what planted the notion in my head that when Mishlei says, "chochmah is with those who are tzenua," it means that tznius cannot exist without chochmah.  

The other two proverbs fill in a missing piece of our pasuk in Mishlei by explaining the relationship between tznius and shame. In contrast to the ish zadon, who feels shame from other people (which he perceives as "disgrace," since views it as a negative thing), the ish tzenua "feels shame from himself," to the extent that his personal conduct will not change based on whether is being observed by others. In other words, the ish zadon might refrain from doing something wrong if it would cause others to look down on him, but he would act differently if nobody were watching. The ish tzenua, whose value system is based on chochmah, which is objective, would refrain from doing the wrong thing even if nobody saw him do it. 

At this point I was able to answer all six questions on the pasuk. Although Rabbeinu Yonah played a major role in helping me to understand the pasuk, I deviated from his approach in one major way. He explains "When zadon comes, disgrace will come" to mean that the ish zadon brings disgrace to other people by putting them down, whereas I explain that not only does he bring disgrace to other people, but he subjects himself to disgrace by pledging allegiance to a relative value system which ascribes importance to how other people view him. Likewise, Rabbeinu Yonah explains "wisdom is with those who are tzenua" to mean that the ish tzenua will acquire chochmah by listening to others, whereas I understand it to mean that chochmah is what makes him tzenua in the first place, as the Mivchar ha'Peninim implies. I think this is a more satisfactory explanation of the awkward phrasing in the pasuk: "When zadon comes, disgrace will come." 

So that's my basic understanding of tznius according to Mishlei. As we emphasized in our Yom Iyun, Mishlei teaches that tznius is about more than the way we dress. And yet, it is easy to see how the importance we place on clothing and appearances can be either consonant with or antithetical to the middah of tznius. A person who lacks tznius will relate to her clothing and appearance as a barometer for her own self-worth, and will make fashion choices designed to garner maximum admiration from other people in order to achieve "success" in the arena of public opinion. A person who has the quality of tznius will base her sense of self-worth on that which is objectively good (i.e. her knowledge, her middos, her mitzvos), and will not attach any real value to how much people admire her external beauty. To the contrary, she will recognize how easy it is to get caught up in such a relative value system, and will take measures to safeguard herself from its allure, and she will find that her dress code is a good method for such safeguarding.

Is Judaism a Religion? (Version 2.0)

Two hours into writing this post I realized that I had already written and published this post on this blog in 2014. Since the direction I took this time around is different than the direction I took last time, I decided to finish writing the post to see what would happen. I was happy with the result. Since I think this one is the better version, I decided to remove the other one from the blog.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Spoiler Alert: My answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question:
"Are both of these figures Betty White?"

Is Judaism a Religion? (Version 2.0)

Three Reasons for this Post

I was motivated to write this post for three reasons - two of which are pet peeves, and the other of which is a national teshuvah-related musing:

Reason / Pet Peeve #1: Throughout my teaching career I've had a number of students who have struggled with their relationship to Judaism. Sometimes these students express themselves by saying things like, "I have problems with religion" or "I have mixed feelings towards religion." 

This irks me. I'm not bothered by the fact that they have problems or mixed feelings, but by their use of the blanket-term "religion." Sometimes I'll ask them, "Really? Which religion?" They look at me with surprise in their eyes and answer, "Um. Judaism?" to which I respond, "So why did you say that you have problems with 'religion' as a whole, rather than with 'Judaism' or 'Torah' or 'being frum'?" The answers they tend to give lead directly into the subject matter of this blog post.

[Just to be clear: I don't blame or judge these students for lumping Judaism into the larger category of "religion." This is merely a symptom of the mistake which will presently be discussed.] 

Reason / Pet Peeve #2: Similarly, I am bothered by the use of the term "Judeo-Christian values." I do not dispute the fact that there are certain political agendas which unite religious Jews and Christians finding themselves on the same side of the aisle. I'm not talking about this kind of thing (i.e. "Judeo-Christian agendas" or "Judeo-Christian political objectives"). I am referring to the persistent myth that Judaism and Christianity share a common value system or a similar core belief system. I even considered entitling this post "The Myth of Judeo-Christian Values."

Reason #3: I am writing this post on the 17th of Tammuz. The Rambam [1] writes: 

"Five tzaros (calamities) occurred on the 17th of Tammuz: (a) the Tablets were broken; (b) in Bayis Rishon (the First Holy Temple) the tamid (continual offering) was discontinued; (c) the walls of Jerusalem were breached [in the war leading up to] the destruction of the second [Temple]; (d) Apostamos, the wicked [Roman general], burned a Sefer Torah; (e) he erected an idol in the Beis ha'Mikdash."

Based on Tuesday's post about national teshuvah gemurah, we must conclude that all five of these events were caused by national chataim (sins), and that these chataim still exist within the Jewish people today. In this vein, I began musing about the last tzarah mentioned by the Rambam. I thought to myself: "If the chataim of the Jews at the time of the Second Beis ha'Mikdash resulted in avodah zarah (idolatry) being erected in our holiest site, what is the parallel that exists today? How have we, as 21st century Jews, enabled avodah zarah to be erected in our holiest sites?" 

Call it speculation, call it drash (homiletics), call it "using symbolism as a rhetorical device" - my mind associated to the contents of today's post. I will explain this association below.

Without further ado, let's tackle the question at hand.

Is Judaism a Religion?

When asked this question by students, I tend to give the following answer: "Either Judaism is not a religion, or Judaism is the only religion." This is just a cheeky way of answering: "No, Judaism is not a religion." My answer is based on three features which place Judaism into its own category, distinct from other religions. In order to sound fancy, let us refer to these as "the three pillars."  

1. Emunah vs. Faith: I have written several posts about the definition of emunah and the primacy of emunah in Judaism. Most, if not all, other religions are based on faith, whereas Judaism is based on emunah. By "faith" I mean conviction without (or in spite of) knowledge, evidence, and reason. By "emunah" I mean conviction based on knowledge, evidence, and reason. 

Faith and emunah are polar opposites. Since other religions demand a leap of faith, whereas Judaism is built upon a foundation of emunah, it doesn't make sense to classify them under the same heading - just as it wouldn't make sense to include a non-fiction book in the fiction section of the library.

2. Regimen: I have also written several posts about the definition of Torah (which, in this context, is interchangeable with "Judaism"). Ralbag defines Torah as "a regimen that brings those who practice it properly to true success." By "true success" the Ralbag means "comprehension of Hashem, to the extent that is [humanly] possible" which is achieved by keeping halacha, by pursuing intellectual and ethical perfection beyond the dictates of halacha - that is, by emulating Hashem's middos (actions) of chesed (kindness), tzedakah (righteousness), and mishpat (justice) - and by striving to comprehend as much science and Torah as possible. This is the Judaism I practice.

I challenge anyone to find a religion whose character and objectives match this description. There are religions which emphasize ethical development but neglect the development of the intellect. There are religions which advocate pursuing a relationship with God, but have nothing to do with chesed, tzedakah, and mishpat. There are systems which may be described as "regimens" which focus on the pursuit of human perfection, but leave God entirely out of the picture. To my knowledge, there is no other religion which presents itself as a divinely authored regimen for perfection as a tzelem Elokim (truth-seeking human being). 

3. Chochmah: Everything in Judaism is based on chochmah (wisdom), exhibits chochmah, and promotes chochmah. Every halacha (Jewish law) is determined by the unique method of scientific thinking which characterizes the study of Torah she'baal Peh (the Oral Torah). Every mitzvah was given for rational reasons that can be grasped by the human intellect - even the chukim (statutes). No element of authentic Judaism was dictated by arbitrary whim, decreed by inexplicable mystical intuition, or prescribed by religious sentiment. Every feature was arrived at through chochmah. With other religions this is simply not the case. 

These three features set Judaism apart from all other religions. This is why I believe that the answer to the question, "Is Judaism a religion?" is a firm: "NO." 

Rambam's Analogy

One might object, saying: "Fine - I'll accept the fact that Judaism is fundamentally different from other religions, but you can't deny that there are many similarities. For example, consider how many things Judaism and Christianity have in common: monotheism, prayer, reward and punishment, heaven and hell, etc. What do you have to say about that?" 

The best response I have seen to this line of reasoning is the Rambam's analogy in Iggeres Teiman. The Rambam writes:

Our religion differs as much from the other allegedly similar religions as a living man endowed with the faculty of reason differs from a statue which is ever so well carved out of marble, wood, bronze, or silver. When a person ignorant of divine wisdom or of God’s works sees the statue that superficially resembles a man in its contours, form, features, and color, he believes that the structure of the parts of a statue is like the constitution of a man, because he is deficient in his understanding of the inner organization of both. But the informed person who knows the interior of both, is cognizant of the fact that the internal structure of the statue betrays no skillful workmanship at all, whereas the inward parts of a man are truly marvelously made, and testify to the wisdom of the Creator – such as the prolongation of the nerves in the muscles and their ramifications, the branching out of the sinews and their intersections and the network of their ligaments and their manner of growth, the articulations of the bones and the joints, the pulsating and non-pulsating blood vessels and their ramifications, the setting of the limbs into one another, the uncovered and covered parts, every one of these in proportion, in form and proper place.

Likewise, one who is ignorant of the deeper meaning of Scripture and the inner dimension of the Torah would be led to believe that our religion has something in common with a counterfeit religion if he makes a comparison between the two. For he will note that in the Torah there are prohibitions and commandments, just as in counterfeit religions there are permitted and prohibited acts. Both contain a system of religious observances, positive and negative precepts, and reward and punishment. 

If he could only fathom the inner dimensions [of Torah], then he would realize that the essence of the true divine religion lies in the wisdom of its positive and negative precepts, all of which benefit man in his striving after perfection, and which remove every harm that would impede his [pursuit of] this perfection. These commandments enable people to acquire moral and intellectual qualities – the masses according to their ability, and the elite individuals according to their apprehension – so that the community of God becomes pre-eminent, reaching a two-fold perfection: a first perfection, by which I mean man’s spending his life in this world under the best and most agreeable conditions, and a second perfection, by which I mean the apprehension of concepts, each person in accordance with his capacity. 

The other religions which resemble our own have no inner dimension [of wisdom], but are [merely] stories and imitations which are intended for self-glorification, so that people will say that they are similar to so-and-so. However, their counterfeiting is patently clear to the wise. Consequently they become objects of derision and ridicule just as one laughs and smiles at an ape when it imitates the actions of men. 

The Rambam here identifies two qualities which differentiate "the true divine religion" from "counterfeit religions." The first is the chochmah of the Torah, which the Rambam analogizes to the chochmah that is manifest in the design of the human body. The second quality he points out is the essential objective of the Torah's mitzvos, which is to benefit man in his pursuit of human perfection by helping him to acquire moral and intellectual excellence. In contrast, other religions lack an "inner dimension" of chochmah, and are not designed to facilitate man's moral and intellectual development. 

[You might have noticed that these are two out of the three pillars that I mentioned above. At first I wondered why the Rambam left out the fact that other religions are based on faith, whereas Judaism is based on proof. Then I remembered that the Rambam subsequently devotes an entire section of the Iggeres Teiman to this very point, which is why he doesn't mention of it in this analogy.]

All of the apparent similarities listed at the beginning of this section are just that: apparent similarities.

• The Jewish concept of Hashem's Oneness (i.e. that God is Absolutely One, without any parts, qualities, similarities, divisions, multiplicity, or plurality of any kind) is completely different than the so-called monotheism of Christianity - especially the Trinitarian sects of Christianity.
• The Jewish concept of tefilah is utterly different from the infantile Christian concept of prayer, as I wrote about in Jewish Prayer (and Jury Duty).
• The Jewish concept of reward and punishment has nothing in common with the primitive parallel notions in Christianity, as I wrote about in Malbim on Hashgachas Hashem and Human Responsibility.
• The Jewish concept of "heaven" (i.e. Olam ha'ba, or the World to Come) bears no resemblance whatsoever to the childish heaven of Christianity, as I wrote about in Mark Twain: On Olam ha'Ba.

According to the Rambam, the same goes for EVERY seeming similarity between Judaism and Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or all the other religions. If you learn what Judaism actually holds in each case, you will see that the Judaism differs from the other religions as much as a Madame Tussaud wax figure differs from the person it was modeled after. 

Revisiting the Three Reasons

Let's go back to my three motives for writing this post: (1) my annoyance when people say they "have problems with religion" when they really mean they "have problems with Judaism," (2) the myth of "Judeo-Christian values," and (3) the modern-day corollary to Apostamos setting up an idol in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

re: Reason #1: In my experience, if a student characterizes his or her struggles as being "problems with religion," there is a good chance that the characterization is accurate. Every single time this has happened (so far), I quickly discover that the student is unaware of one, two, or all three of the features that Judaism apart from other religions. Once I help bring these students to the realization of what Judaism really is, it eventually dawns on them that many of their problems have nothing to do with authentic Judaism, and that Judaism supports their criticisms of "religion." This doesn't mean that they won't have other problems with Judaism, but I usually find that this "Aha!" moment creates an inroad and helps these students to be more open to hearing what Judaism has to offer. 

re: Reason #2: I think it's pretty clear at this point in the post that my feelings about the notion of "Judeo-Christian values" are well-founded - certainly according to the Rambam. 

re: Reason #3: Does Apostamos's erection of an idol in the Beis ha'Mikdash have anything to do with the subject of this post? Maybe, and maybe not. But I know one thing: the fact that so many Jews are ignorant of these three pillars indicates that Klal Yisrael has allowed Judaism to become defined by the concepts, values, and terminology of other religions. "They mingled with the nations and learned from their actions" (Tehilim 106:35). This undoubtedly qualifies as a national cheit (sin), and this cheit has resulted in innumerable personal and communal tzaros (calamities). 

Each and every Jew has a sphere of influence. Mine, as a teacher, extends to my students. Yours might be in your shul, or among your coworkers, or with your children. Regardless of how big or small one's sphere of influence is, each of us has a responsibility to practice Torah in a manner which reflects that  “[it is our] wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the nations, who shall hear all these decrees and who shall say, ‘Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!’” (Devarim 4:6). 

If you agree with me about these three pillars, then I encourage you to bring awareness to them in your Torah discussions. And if you disagree with me, then I encourage you to speak out against these pillars. The main thing is that you fight to restore authentic Judaism to its previous splendor. The truth will ultimately emerge and be established forever.

Parashas Vaeschanan: The Loneliness of the Jew

This is a write-up of an idea that my Mishlei rebbi told me. Originally posted in July 2013.

Parashas Va'eschanan: The Loneliness of the Jew

In Parashas Va'eschanan, Moshe Rabbeinu exhorts Bnei Yisrael to observe the mitzvos upon entering and settling the Eretz Yisrael. He begins by reminding the Jews of an incident still fresh in their memory:

Now, O Israel, listen to the decrees and to the ordinances that I teach you to perform, so that you may live, and you will come and possess the Land that Hashem, the God of your forefathers, gives you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem, your God, that I command you. Your eyes have seen what Hashem did with Baal-peor, for every man that followed Baal-peor - Hashem, your God, destroyed him from your midst. But you who cling to Hashem, your God - you are all alive today. [1]

Next, he proceeds to describe how the surrounding nations will view them if they keep the mitzvos properly:

See I have taught you decrees and ordinances, as Hashem, my God, has commanded me, to do so in the midst of the Land to which you come, to possess it. You shall safeguard and perform them, for it is your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the nations, who shall hear all these decrees and who shall say, "Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!" For which is a great nation that has a God Who is close to it, as is Hashem, our God, whenever we call to Him? And which is a great nation that has righteous decrees and ordinances, such as this entire Torah that I place before you this day?

Moshe tells us that if we keep the mitzvos correctly, the goyim will admire us in three ways: (1) they will see that we are a wise and discerning nation, (2) they will realize that we, as a nation, are unique in that we enjoy a special, providential relationship with God, and (3) they will recognize that we live a life of righteousness.

My rebbi raised a basic question on Moshe's entire approach: Who cares what other people think? Why does Moshe place so much emphasis on how the goyim will view us? Is that really why we should keep the mitzvos? Should we really measure our value by the opinion of the surrounding nations?

My rebbi answered that Moshe is responding to an emotion that Bnei Yisrael were destined to feel once they settled in the land. That emotion is loneliness. Ahm Yisrael is destined to be different than all other people. Our ways are different from their ways and our values and ideas do not conform theirs. This difference is bound to make us feel isolated, rejected, and alone.

Moshe was the leader of Klal Yisrael. He witnessed and facilitated the birth of the nation through Yetzias Mitzrayim. He was the agent through whom the Torah was given, which forever altered the national destiny of the Jewish people. He shepherded them for 40 years in the desert, overseeing their arduous developmental journey until this point. Now, on the threshold of their entry into the Land, he knew that they would be faced with a new challenge: the challenge of living a unique lifestyle in the face of all the nations.

Moshe foresaw what we, with the advantage of historical hindsight, have seen play itself out for the past 3,000 years of our history until this day. Throughout the ages, the nation of Israel has struggled with a feeling of national loneliness. We cannot help but be self-conscious of the differences between ourselves and our neighbors. Theorize all you want about the roots of this emotion, but it is there, and it is inescapable.

There is only one antidote to loneliness. Not companionship, not affection, but acceptance. One must feel accepted by other people in order to overcome one's loneliness. [3] The lonely individual will seek acceptance at any cost.

Moshe knew there are only two ways that Bnei Yisrael would seek acceptance. The incorrect way - and, unfortunately, the easiest way - is to modify Torah to conform to the norms of the society. Ultimately, this approach will necessitate either adding or subtracting to the Torah, thereby violating the system of 613 mitzvos. This is precisely why Moshe reminds Bnei Yisrael about what happened to them the last time they attempted to assimilate into the surrounding culture in this manner (i.e. the incident with Baal-peor). All such attempts to "fit in" with the goyim by compromising Torah-observance are destined to end in destruction.

So, what is the correct way to earn acceptance from the goyim? By becoming an ohr l'amim (light onto the nations). [3] This is why Moshe Rabbeinu assures Bnei Yisrael that if they keep Torah properly, not only will the goyim accept them, but they will look up to them as role models. The goyim will laud them for their wisdom and understanding, for their closeness to Hashem (as evidenced by His hashgachah pratis over them), and for the justice and righteousness exemplified by Bnei Yisrael in the way they live. When this happens, the feelings of national loneliness will dissolve.

This lesson is just as relevant for us individuals as it is for the entire nation. As Jews, each of us will feel this existential sense of loneliness at some point - perhaps at many points - in our lives.

Sometimes, this feeling is easy to deal with, but at other times, it can be crippling. Nobody likes to feel unaccepted or rejected by the world at large.

We, too, are faced with the same two approaches to seeking acceptance: either compromise our adherence to Torah in an attempt to fit in with our surrounding culture, or embrace Torah and live up to its ideals, thereby winning the recognition and admiration of our non-Jewish peers. The crossroads of these two paths is the decision about whether to modify the system of Torah and its mitzvos.

As a wise man once said, "we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." The road to acceptance set forth by Moshe Rabbeinu is far from easy. One must learn and live Torah to the extent to which wisdom, justice, and hashgachah are manifest in one's life. But even if we do not achieve this ideal level in whole, we can at least achieve it in part. To the extent that we come to embody the three qualities mentioned by Moshe Rabbeinu, we can overcome that feeling of existential loneliness, enjoy the benefits that the Torah has to offer, and be a light unto the rest of mankind.

[1] Sefer Devarim, Chapter 4
[2] I know what some of you might be thinking. "Shouldn't a person just undo the need for loneliness altogether?" I have two responses to this: (1) Moshe Rabbeinu is talking to the entire nation of Bnei Yisrael, and most of them (read: us) will probably never be on the level to undo our need for acceptance; (2) even great tzadikim feel an existential sense of loneliness, and I suspect that Moshe's words have relevance to them as well.
[3] cf. Sefer Yeshayahu 51:4. Little do people realize that the real phrase in the pasuk is not "ohr l'amim" but "l'ohr amim." Whatevs.

Parashas Devarim: Chochmah, Binah, and Daas

Originally posted in July 2013.

Artwork: Brainstorm, by William Murai

Parashas Devarim: Chochmah, Binah, and Daas

Chochmah, binah, and daas. We encounter these terms all the time, in our tefilos and in our learning. What do they mean? This is a difficult question that I have taken up from time to time – most recently, this morning. My investigation was triggered by a comment from Rashi, and I decided to confine my research to Rashi’s view. Although my understanding is far from complete, I thought I’d present to you the sources I found, along with a few observations.

In this week’s parashah Moshe Rabbeinu begins recounting the events that transpired during the 40 years in the Midbar. One of the first incidents he mentions is the appointment of judges over Bnei Yisrael: “Provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are chachamim, nevonim, and well-known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your leaders.” [1]

“Chacham” refers to a person who possesses chochmah, and “navon” refers to someone who possesses “binah.” Rashi defines “navon” then provides an analogy to define the difference between a chacham and a navon:

nevonim: this refers to those who “meivin davar mitoch davar” (infer one thing from another). Arios asked R’ Yossi this question: “What is the difference between chachamim and nevonim?” R’ Yossi answered: “A chacham is like a rich money changer. When they bring him coins to examine, he examines them; when they don’t bring him coins to examine, he sits and does nothing. But a navon is like a merchant money changer. When they bring him money to examine, he examines; when they don’t bring him money to examine, he goes and brings in business on his own.” [2]

On a basic level, the main difference between the chacham and the navon is that the chacham is a dependent learner, whereas the navon is an independent learner. In other words, the chacham relies on other people to provide him with knowledge, whereas the navon is capable of deriving new insights based on what he already knows.

This basic understanding of Rashi’s view is confirmed by his comments on the introduction to Mishlei. Shlomo ha’Melech writes that Mishlei will help the “chacham to increase his learning, and the navon to acquire strategies.” [3] Rashi explains that a chacham is a “baal shemuah” (“a master of the teachings he has received”), whereas a navon “adds to what the chacham knows, since he knows how to infer one thing from another, and to add upon the teachings he has received.” [4]

Presumably, the navon is able to independently derive new knowledge because he possesses a deeper level of understanding than the chacham. This allows us to take another simple step, namely, that binah is a higher level of knowledge than chochmah.

So far, we've only examined Rashi’s view of chochmah and binah – but what about daas? This brings us to cryptic statement in Avos: “If there is no binah, there is no daas; if there is no daas, there is no binah.” [5] Once again, Rashi uses a money changer as an analogy:

“daas” is greater than “binah,” for if someone is asked a question, and he can respond, “Yes” and show his reasoning. This is “daas.” This is analogous to a person who shows a coin to a money changer and asks, “Is this coin counterfeit or authentic?” whereupon the money changer takes out of his pocket an [authentic coin] of the same type [thereby demonstrating authenticity of the coin presented to him]. “binah” refers to someone who knows how to understand, but is unable to show his reasoning. [6]

Rashi’s comments here enable us to take another step. Daas refers to complete comprehension of a certain truth, to the point where you can explain the underlying concept and support your explanation. Binah, on the other hand, refers to a more intuitive grasp of a truth, without the ability to explain you got there or why you maintain that your conclusion is correct. This level of comprehension is, by nature, incomplete – but it is a level of comprehension, nonetheless.

Rashi only defines the terms in Avos, but he doesn't explain the actual statement in the mishnah. Presumably, “if there is no binah, there is no daas” means that daas is a further development of binah, as opposed to qualitatively different type of thinking. Consequently, it is only possible to reach daas in a given area of knowledge by first attaining a binah-level of understanding. I have no idea what “if there is no daas, there is no binah” means.

That’s my current level of understanding of these terms according to Rashi. I haven’t yet reached a level of daas on these matters, but I have increased my binah, thanks to the chochmah I've received from Rashi’s comments. If you have any insights on this topic, please feel free to share them with me!

[1] Sefer Devarim 1:13
[2] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 1:13
[3] Sefer Mishlei 1:5
[4] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Mishlei 1:5
[5] Maseches Avos 3:17
[6] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Avos 3:17. There are several different commentaries on Avos whose authorship is attributed to Rashi. It is not clear which of these commentaries were written by Rashi, which were written by his students, and which are forgeries or misattributions. In this case, I’m going to assume that Rashi is the author of these comments, since other Rishonim take this to be the case here. I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong.

Davening North and South (2 of 2)

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: 

• 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' 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! 

Davening North and South (1 of 2)

Note: The post that I was working on to post on Monday morning was aborted midway through. I realized that the idea I was trying to convey would better be expressed from a totally different standpoint. After abandoning that project at around 11:00pm on Sunday night, I started writing this post, knowing full well that I wouldn't finish before I went to sleep. I decided to just post the facts and the questions, and leave it at that. I'd rather write "half" of a post well than to write a full post poorly. I'll either post the second half of this one later today, or I'll save it for Tuesday morning.

The Facts

The Gemara in Bava Basra 25b, following Rashi's explanation, states:

R' Yitzchak said: One who desires to become wise should turn his face southward [during tefilah (prayer)]; if he desires to become wealthy, he should turn his face northward. The mnemonic device by which to remember this is that the Shulchan (Table in the Beis ha'Mikdash) was in the north, and the Menorah (Candelabra in the Beis ha'Mikdash) was in the south.

R' Yehoshua ben Levi said: [A person who desires to become wealthy] should always turn his face southward, since, by becoming wise, he will [also] become wealthy, as it is stated [regarding wisdom], "Length of days is at its right; at its left, wealth and honor" (Mishlei 3:16).

Interesting, eh? Let's try to understand what's going on.

Artwork: Mystic Compass, by Amy Weber

The Questions

To my mind, the major questions are:

1. How does this work? In other words, how does turning one's face in a particular direction during tefilah (prayer) make a person wealthy or wise? Is this some sort of mystical mechanism, or is there a cause-and-effect relationship here that we can understand?
2. Why isn't tefilah sufficient? We already ask for wisdom in the fourth berachah of the shemoneh esrei, and we ask for wealth (i.e. a livelihood) in the ninth berachah. That being said, why does halacha prescribe a separate course of action for a person who wants to become wise or wealthy? Why can't this person just rely on his tefilah?
3. Why north for wisdom and south for wealth? The Gemara provides a mnemonic, but it doesn't explain the reason behind each direction. Is it arbitrary, or is there a reason? 
4. What is the basis of the machlokes between R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi? After all, R' Yehoshua ben Levi's argument seems to make a lot of sense! Why commit yourself to wealth alone when you can get wealth and wisdom? And yet, R' Yitzchak disagrees. Why? What are they really arguing about?

Unfortunately, the Rishonim - at least, the Rishonim I currently have access to - are silent on this Gemara. Not only that, but none of the Rishonic poskim (halachic deciders) bring this down in their halachic codes - neither the Rif, Rosh, nor the Rambam. There is no mention of this halacha in the Shulchan Aruch. Only the Rema (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 94:2) mentions it, and he does so in passing, and in an unusual manner:

One who desires to fulfill the statement [of Chazal] - namely, that one who desires to become wealthy should turn northward [while davening], and one who desires to become wise should face southward - should, nevertheless, turn his face to the east. 

(Note: The Mishnah Berurah brings down a machlokes as to whether a person who wishes to implement this halacha should face north/south with one's body and turn one's face to the east, as the Rema holds, or whether one should turn one's face to the north/south but remain facing east with his body, as Rashi explained on the Gemara. The Mishnah Berurah paskins that our minhag is in accordance with Rashi, and not the Rema.)

I can't justify listing this as a question on par with the others, but I will still ask: Can we infer anything from the fact that the major Rishonic poskim don't bring this down l'halacha? Moreover, can we infer anything from the fact that the Rema only mentions it in the context of, "if a person wishes to fulfill the statement of Chazal.

To Be Continued ...

While I can't yet answer all of these questions, I do have an approach to understanding the basic idea of this Gemara. Let's think about it some more, and I'll post my thoughts either later on today or for tomorrow's post.

Addendum (7/7/14 at 1:50pm): The following question was raised by REF/RAZ: "Perhaps another question: what is the relationship between this advice and the HALACHA of facing mikdash for tefilla?" This is definitely a question that must be addressed in order to understand the sugya. However, I chose not to write about it because the amount of space it would take up wouldn't be justified by its contribution to our understanding of our Gemara, since the ultimate answer is: "The advice given by R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi is unrelated to, and does not interfere with, the halacha of facing Mikdash for tefilah." If you are interested in understanding why, I encourage you to learn through the rest of the sugya here (Bava Basra 25b) and the sugya about facing Mikdash (Berachos 30a), it'll become clear that the two are on "different tracks." I'll be happy to field any questions about this in the comments. I just don't want to include it in the main body of this post.