Parashas Balak: One Reason Why Women Should Learn Gemara

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

Pictured: Bnot Sinai - a collegiate women's summer beit midrash.
Visit https://www.facebook.com/BnotSinai/ for more information, and to sign up!

Parashas Balak: One Reason Why Women Should Learn Gemara 

Two Like-minded Rebellions 

Zimri ben Salu, prince of the tribe of Shimon, staged a public rebellion against Moshe: 

Behold! A man from the house of Israel came and brought near a Midianite woman in the sight of Moshe and in the sight of the entire assembly of the Children of Israel, and they (i.e. Moshe and the Children of Israel) were crying at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (Bamidbar 25:6) 

Rashi, citing a midrash in Sanhedrin 82a, fills in the details of Zimri’s public demonstration: 

[Zimi] seized [Cozbi, the Midianite woman] by her hair and brought her before Moshe. “Son of Amram,” he exclaimed, “is this woman forbidden or permitted? And if you say, ‘she is forbidden,’ then who permitted you [to marry] Yisro’s daughter [Tzipora]?” 

This isn’t the first time that a leader of Israel challenged Moshe by attempting to undermine his halachic authority. The most famous instance was the rebellion of Korach. The midrash Tanchuma fills in the details of Korach’s confrontation with Moshe: 

What did [Korach] do? He arose and gathered 250 heads of courts … and he dressed them in tallisos (prayer shawls) made entirely of techeiles (i.e. the blue threads which it is a mitzvah to incorporate into the tzitzis – white fringes – on every four-cornered garment). They came and stood before Moshe. They said to him, “A tallis made entirely of techeiles – is it obligated in tzitzis or exempt?” He said to them, “Obligated.” They began to laugh at him, [saying,] “Is it possible that [in the case of] a tallis is made entirely out of another [color of] material, a single thread of techeiles exempts it, [but] this [tallis] which is made entirely of techeiles will not exempt itself?” 

There are clear parallels between the rebellions of Zimri and Korach. Both were driven by personal motives: Zimri by his lust for non-Jewish women, and Korach by his jealousy over the leadership positions held by his cousins, Moshe and Aharon. Both Zimi and Korach staged public acts of defiance which aimed to discredit Moshe in the eyes of the assembly. Both sought to undermine Moshe’s authority by showing that halacha is ridiculous, and should therefore not be taken seriously. 

Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of halacha can see through the childish arguments made by Zimri and Korach. Why was Tziporah permitted to Moshe? Because they got married before Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah), when there was no halacha prohibiting a Jew from marrying a non-Jew! In fact, before Matan Torah, there were no “Jews” in a technical sense. Both Moshe and Tziporah were halachically non-Jewish, and both became Jews at the same time as the rest of the Children of Israel, after the Torah was given and the covenant was made. Why does a tallis made entirely of techeiles still require a thread of techeiles? Because the halacha states that every four-cornered garment, no matter what color, is obligated in tzitzis and techeiles! Although Korach might be able to argue that there is no philosophical purpose to the thread of techeiles on a tallis made entirely of techeiles, this would have no bearing on the halachic requirements of the mitzvah, since we never make halachic rulings on the basis of philosophical considerations. 

Rationalization of “Going Off the Derech” (i.e. Becoming Irreligious) 

Every year, usually at springtime, I am asked to give a presentation to the 12th graders about how to retain and continue to develop their Orthodox Jewish identity after graduation, when they venture out into the secular world as young adults. One of the main points I make and stress is that the human being cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance for an extended period of time. If there is a contradiction between one’s beliefs, ideas, and values on the one hand, and one’s desires, actions, and habits on the other, the latter will tend to prevail. The most common means by which this will occur is theological rationalization. 

In other words, a person will not, in the long-run, be able to say, “I believe that the Torah is true and halacha is binding, but I don’t keep such-and-such halacha because I can’t help myself.” The cognitive dissonance and negative self-image will be too much for the psyche to bear for any prolonged period of time. Instead, she will rationalize her violation of halacha, coming up with spurious reasons as to why the halacha doesn’t make sense, or why it shouldn’t apply in her situation, or – in the most severe cases – why halacha as a whole is irrational. The individual will convince herself that her abandonment of halacha stems from her arguments, but in reality, the reverse is true: first she made the decision to abandon halacha, and only afterwards did she come up with arguments to retroactively justify her behavior. 

My decade of experience as a high school teacher, combined with my exposure to hundreds of “off-the-derech Jews” on the internet and social media platforms, have shown me countless examples of how flimsy these types of theological rationalizations tend to be. Every day online I encounter lapsed Jews making laughably fallacious and counterfactual lines of reasoning in support of their irreligious life choices. They think that their Clever, Enlightened, Superior minds have discovered a Truth which their religious brethren are too Dull-witted or Brainwashed to have spotted. They do not realize how ignorant, simplistic, and baseless their arguments are. 

[To be clear: I am not saying that anyone who goes off the derech is ipso facto a self-deceiving ignoramus whose arguments are all straw-men. I have encountered many Jews who do have knowledge of Judaism but have rejected it because of powerful questions and substantial philosophical arguments to which they could not find satisfactory answers. It just so happens that such individuals are rare, and tend not to be as vocal and militantly anti-religious on the internet. I also know Jews who went off the derech for personal reasons (e.g. tragedy, abuse, familial or martial relationship problems, etc.), and while these Jews may also engage in anti-religious rhetoric without substance, their situation ought to be viewed differently.] 

Rav Soloveitchik on Women Learning Gemara 

I will preface this next section with a disclaimer. The topic of whether women may or should learn Torah she’baal Peh (the Oral Torah) and Gemara (Talmud) is vast, nuanced, and fraught with difficulty. We will not even attempt to present an in-depth analysis or comprehensive overview of the topic in this article. Instead, the scope of this topic will be limited to a single statement of a single rabbinic authority: that of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (a.k.a. “The Rav”). 

On May 27, 1953, the Rav wrote a letter to Rabbi Leonard Rosenfeld on the topic of teaching Torah she’baal Peh to girls in a coeducational Jewish day school. Here is the letter in its entirety; the underlined portions do not appear in the original, and were added by me for emphasis: 

Dear Rabbi Rosenfeld,

Please accept my apologies for not answering your letters sooner. The delay was due to my overcrowded schedule. As to your question with regard to a curriculum in a coeducational school, I expressed my opinion to you long ago that it would be a very regrettable oversight on our part if we were to arrange separate Hebrew courses for girls. Not only is the teaching of Torah she’baal Peh to girls permissible, but it is nowadays an absolute imperative. This policy of discrimination between the sexes as to subject manner and method of instruction which is still advocated by certain groups within our Orthodox community has contributed greatly to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism. Boys and girls alike should be introduced into the inner halls of Torah she’baal Peh.

I hope to prepare in the near future a halakhic brief on the problem which will exhaust the various aspects of the same. In the meantime I heartily endorse a uniform program for the entire student body.

With kindest personal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Joseph Soloveitchik 

The Rav is unequivocal in his endorsement of women learning Torah she’baal Peh in exactly the same manner as men. Practically speaking, this means that girls should study Gemara and be trained in the rigors of Talmudic analysis to the same extent and following the same methods and curriculum as boys. Although the Rav was addressing a coed school, there is no reason to believe that he would hold differently about an all-girls school or seminary. 

The only part of the Rav’s letter which is unclear is his statement that “This policy of discrimination between the sexes as to subject manner and method of instruction … has contributed greatly to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism.” The question is: How so? How does teaching women Torah she’baal Peh and Talmud prevent this deterioration? 

Halachic Thinking and Assimilation 

I don’t know how the Rav would answer this question, but I do have my own answer. The failure to train Jewish girls and women in the highest levels of Torah she’baal Peh and Talmud renders them susceptible to the specious arguments used to denigrate and delegitimize halacha. 

A well-trained yeshiva bochur (a young man engaged in post-high school Torah study in a rabbinic seminary) should be able to spot the flaws in anti-halachic sophistry with relative ease, due to the depth and breadth of his halachic knowledge, as well as the critical thinking skills he has acquired from his Talmudic training. But what about bas Yisrael (Jewish woman) who is only familiar with halacha on a simple level? How would she respond to an accusation of halachic hypocrisy, like Zimri’s, or a pseudo-halachic polemical protest, like Korach’s? Ask her a question about a detail of halachic practice and she may know the answer, but present a critique of Torah as a system which is rhetorically engineered to make halacha seem foolish, outdated, or unreasonable, and what is she supposed to do? How can we expect her to know what to say or think in response? 

This, I believe, is why neglecting to teach young women Torah she’baal Peh and Talmud “contributes greatly to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism.” Women who do not have a firm grasp of the inner-workings of halacha and the nature of halachic thinking are particularly vulnerable to the false claims about halacha and false critiques of its validity. 

If this was true in the 1950’s when the Rav penned his letter to Rabbi Rosenfeld, then it is even truer in today’s world. Almost every Modern Orthodox girl has unfettered access (via the internet and social media) to all of the anti-halacha arguments under the sun. Teenagers and young adults are already at an age that is prone to rebellion and experimentation. Combine this with the dwindling numbers of religious people in general, and the increase in anti-religious sentiment on college campuses – both of which will make her a minority amid a hostile majority – and how can we expect her religiosity to survive intact through the crucible of her college years? Even if she remains religious, her internal conviction in Judaism will undoubtedly suffer due to the questions and doubts that have been raised and gone unanswered. 

This is one of the main reasons why I believe that girls should learn Gemara just like boys. This is also one of the long-term objectives in my own introductory Gemara course. Many of the girls in my class have never learned Gemara before, so the responsibility lies with me to give them a strong foundation. I don’t particularly care whether my female students retain knowledge of the details of what we learn. If they graduate from high school with enough Talmudic experience to appreciate halacha as a system, to be able to differentiate between the taamei ha’mitzvos (philosophical reasons for the commandments) and the technical halacha itself, and to have begun to realize that halacha operates based on its own internal principles and halachic reasoning rather than common sense, then I have done my job. 

And if I have done my job successfully, then perhaps I will have helped stem the tide of assimilation, thereby giving the next generation of Orthodox Jews a better chance to survive and thrive in Torah.

Four Levels of Reading

I recently found myself in a class full of English teachers - almost all of whom were non-Jews. On a lark, I decided to share with them a method that I use to frame and teach Talmudic analysis. It was so well-received that I was asked to type it up so that the professor could incorporate it into his lesson plans. This blog post was the result, which is why the tone is slightly different than my other posts.

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

Artwork: unknown

Four Levels of Reading

One of my teachers, Rabbi SZ, devised a method of teaching Talmudic analysis skills. This method consists of four sequential levels, or steps. Although his method was designed for Talmudic analysis, it can easily be adapted to any textual analysis. I have described these four steps with this universal application in mind. Here they are:

1. Reading the Lines: surface-level reading; our goal in this step is to understand the meaning conveyed by the words, as intended by the author; this is what people commonly refer to as “reading”

2. Reading Between the Lines: analytical reading; our objective in this step is to identify and articulate the author’s unstated premises, assumptions, and propositions, and to assess the logic, soundness, and rationality of his or her arguments and conclusions

3. Reading Behind the Lines: conceptual reading; in this step we attempt to understand and formulate, in the most concise and precise language possible, the underlying abstract definitions of the key terms and concepts in the text; oftentimes the cogency of the author’s conclusions will hinge on the validity of these conceptual definitions

4. Reading Beyond the Lines: syntopical reading; this is the only step which brings us “outside” of the text; the goal of this step is to compare the treatment of the subject matter in this text to its treatment in other sources, in an attempt to arrive at our own synthesized grasp of the subject matter

I will now illustrate how these four levels of reading apply to two very different examples. The first is a lyric from a song, considered in isolation (i.e. without any knowledge of its context, origin, or author). The second example is a snippet of a dialogue I heard in my dorm when I was a student in rabbinical seminary. The first example is closer to what we might see in an English Language course, whereas the latter is more akin to a Talmudic text and its legalistic analysis.

For the sake of brevity, I have opted to merely describe the application of this method to these examples, instead of fully fleshing out each step. 

Example #1: “All you need is love.”

1. Reading the Lines: This statement fairly straightforward, and the basic meaning of the words and their syntactical relation to each other is unambiguous.

2. Reading Between the Lines: 

- The fully explicated version of this statement is: “All you need for _____ is love.” What word should fill in the blank? Happiness? Health? Security? Morality?  

- The author is also making an assumption in his use of the word “all.” Does the author intend for this to be taken literally (i.e. “you need nothing else for _____ except for love”) or is this hyperbole? If the latter, then what does he mean by “all”? To what extent does love meet or satisfy one’s total need? What would still be lacking if someone had this love?  

- The author’s use of the word “you” is also ambiguous. Either he is referring to a specific audience, or he is referring to all people and is using “you” as synecdoche for “all human beings.” If the former, then to whom is he speaking? in either case, what is the basis of his claim? 

3. Reading Behind the Lines: 

- What does the author mean by “love”? What is the precise, abstract, conceptual definition of “love” which would make his statement true? Or, at the very least, what is the definition he had in mind when he composed these words? 

- What does the author mean by “need”? This will depend on whether the author is referring to a need which is physical, psychological, ethical, spiritual, etc. In any event, the concept of “need” must be defined. After all, a physical need is quite different from an ethical imperative, and an objective need is different than a subjective one. In other words, any use of the term “need” is built upon a number of philosophical assumptions about the nature of human life. 

4. Reading Beyond the Lines: 

- What information is available to us outside of the text that might shed light on the author’s meaning in this statement? Does the rest of the song provide insight into his meaning in this single line? Did the author compose other songs, speeches, or works on the topic of love that might clarify his view?  

- What do other writers and thinkers say about love and the need for it? How does the sentiment expressed here compare with other lyrics of that era? 

- After conducting this analysis, what conclusions do we reach, and how would we support those conclusions? 

Example #2: Upon seeing a student don a hoodie, the dorm counselor said, “You need to change your clothing. Our dress code requires you to wear a shirt with a collar during school hours.” The student responded, “What do you mean? This is a shirt with a collar.”

1. Reading the Lines: Again, the plain meaning of the text is clear: a student wearing a hoodie was reprimanded by the dorm counselor for violating the dress code, and the student responded by denying that he was in violation.

2. Reading Between the Lines: 

- On the surface it would appear that there are only two possibilities here: either the dorm counselor is correct, or the student is correct.  

- However, even if only one of them is correct by the legal standards of the dorm rules, it is possible that each disputant’s claim stems from a logical assumption.  

- If this is the case, then we may infer that the dorm counselor and the student each have a different interpretation of the dorm rule: according to the dorm counselor’s understanding, a hoodie would constitute a violation of the requirement to wear a shirt with a collar, whereas according to the student, a hoodie would qualify as a shirt with a collar.

3. Reading Behind the Lines: 

- From this last point it is evident that the key term at the heart of this dispute is “collar.” If we are correct in our assumption that each of the disputants has a different interpretation of the dorm rule, then it must be that each of them defines collar differently. Our task is to figure out that conceptual definition. 

- The dorm counselor is defining “collar” as a qualitative structural feature of the shirt (i.e. a band of material at the neck of a shirt which is folded over in a specific stylistic manner). According to this definition, a hood is not a collar. 

- The student, however, is defining “collar” as a quantitative extension of the shirt’s fabric. Accordingly, a hood would qualify as a collar just like the collar of a dress shirt, inasmuch as both are extensions of fabric at the neck of the shirt.  

- In descriptive Aristotelian terms, the dorm counselor defines “collar” by its form, whereas the student defines “collar” by its matter. 

4. Reading Beyond the Lines: 

- Now that we have defined how each disputant uses the term “collar,” there only remains one question: What do the dorm rules mean by “collar”?  

- To answer this question, we might turn to several sources which would directly answer our question, such as the author of the dorm rules, an administrator of the Rabbinic seminary. Alternatively, we might research the topic from other texts in order to build an argument – such as sources within Jewish law which deal with collars, or the codes of clothing manufacturers in American law, or experts in fashion and clothing design. 

(In case you are wondering, the dorm counselor won the debate. By authority.)

I hope these two examples have adequately demonstrated the usefulness of this method, in teaching and in learning.

Aliens, Soccer Balls, and the Brisker Derech

I have decided to reserve Thursdays for reposting old posts. Today's post was originally published in January of 2008. Although I don't have any interest in the World Cup, I figured this would be an appropriate time to repost this.

Aliens, Soccer Balls, and the Brisker Derech

My Gemara rebbi presented an excellent analogy which he used to illustrate the difference between "good science" and "bad science," and the difference between good Talmudists and bad Talmudists. The analogy is from a book about particle physics by Leon Lederman called The God Particle (1993). Here is the analogy as written by Lederman, with my own emphases in bold:

The Invisible Soccer Ball

Imagine an intelligent race of beings from the planet Twilo. They look more or less like us, they talk like us, they do everything like humans - except for one thing. They have a fluke in their visual apparatus. They can't see objects with sharp juxtapositions of black and white. They can't see zebras, for example. Or shirts on NFL referees. Or soccer balls. This is not such a bizarre fluke, by the way. Earthlings are even stranger. We have two literal blinds plots in the center of our field of vision. The reason we don't see these holes is because our brain extrapolates from the information in the rest of the field to guess what should be in these holes, then fills it in for us. Humans routinely drive 100 miles per hour on the autobahn, perform brain surgery, and juggle flaming torches, even though a portion of what they see is merely a good guess.

Let's say this contingent from the planet Twilo comes to earth on a goodwill mission. To give them a taste of our culture, we take them to see one of the most popular cultural events on the planet: a World Cup soccer match. We, of course, don't know that they can't see the black-and-white soccer ball. So they sit there watching the match with polite but confused looks on their faces. As far as the Twiloans are concerned, a bunch of short-pantsed people are running up and down the field kicking their legs pointlessly in the air, banging into each other, and falling down. At times an official blows a whistle, a player runs to the sideline, stands there, and extends both his arms over his head while the other players watch him. Once in a great while, the goalie inexplicably falls to the ground, a great cheer goes up, and one point is awarded to the opposite team.

The Twiloans spend about fifteen minutes being totally mystified. Then, to pass the time, they attempt to understand the game. Some use classification techniques. They deduce, partially because of the clothing, that there are two teams in conflict with one another. They chart the movements of the various players, discovering that each player appears to remain more or less within a certain geographical territory on the field. They discover that different players display different physical motions. The Twiloans, as humans would do, clarify their search for meaning in World Cup soccer by giving names to the different positions played by each footballer. The positions are categorized, compared, and contrasted. The qualities and limitations of each position are listed on a giant chart. A major break comes when the Twiloans discovery that symmetry is at work. For each position on Team A, there is a counterpart position on Team B.

With two minutes remaining in the game, the Twiloans have composed dozens of charts, hundreds of tables and formulas, and scores of complicated rules about soccer matches. And though the rules might all be, in a limited way, correct, none would really capture the essence of the game. Then one young pipsqueak of a Twiloan, silent until now, speaks his mind. "Let's postulate," he ventures nervously, "the existence of an invisible ball."

"Say what?" reply the elder Twiloans.

While his elders were monitoring what appeared to be the core of the game, the comings and goings of the various players and the demarcations of the field, the pipsqueak was keeping his eyes peeled for rare events. And he found one. Immediately before the referee announced a score, and a split second before the crowd cheered wildly, the young Twiloan noticed the momentary appearance of a bulge in the back of the goal net. Soccer is a low-scoring game, so there were few bulges to observe, and each was very shortlived. Even so, there were enough events for the pipsqueak to note that the shape of each bulge was hemispherical. Hence his wild conclusion that the game of soccer is dependent upon the existence of an invisible ball (invisible, at least, to the Twiloans).

The rest of the contingent from Twilo listen to this theory and, weak as the empirical evidence is, after much arguing, they conclude that the youngster has a point. An elder statesman in the group observes that a few rare events are sometimes more illuminating than a thousand mundane events. But the real clincher is the simple fact that there must be a ball. Posit the existence of a ball, which for some reason the Twiloans cannot see, and suddenly everything works. The game makes sense. Not only that, but all the theories, charts, and diagrams compiled over the past afternoon remain valid. The ball simply gives meaning to the rules.

This is an extended metaphor for many puzzles in physics, and it is especially relevant to particle physics. We can't understand the rules (the laws of nature) without knowing the objects (the ball) and, without a belief in a logical set of laws, we would never deduce the existence of all the particles.

The young Twiloan’s theory of the invisible ball is an example of “good science.” Of course, collecting and quantifying data is an absolute necessity. Without the charts, tables, and formulae of the elder Twiloans, the young one couldn’t have made his discovery. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between the findings of the elder Twiloans and those of the young one. The formulae of the elder Twiloans are merely descriptions. They might be precise, and they might enable the elder Twiloans to predict the actions of the players with great accuracy, but they do not help them to understand what they see. The “invisible ball” theory of the younger Twiloan, on the other hand, imbues the phenomena with meaning. Without his theory, the actions were meaningless, but in light of the theory, the Twiloans can understand what is going on: "That’s a kick-off!" "That's a pass!" "He just scored a goal!" Without the theory of a ball, all they would have is a whole lot of meaningless (albeit well-organized) quantitative data.

The good scientists are the ones who go beyond the quantification of empirical data. They do not content themselves with precise descriptions of how things behave but seek to understand what things are. Take Einstein, for instance. His revolutionary discoveries in physics didn't magically emerge from the data. Einstein only arrived at his theories by thinking about basic, fundamental questions, such as “What is time?” and “What is space?” The theory of special relativity isn't simply a new quantitative scheme, but a whole new concept of space and time.

What is true in natural science is also true in the science of Talmud. There are certain Talmudists who, like the elder Twiloans, believe that the essence of learning is the quantification of halachic data. The practitioners of these darchei ha’limud (methods of learning) content themselves with identifying “patterns” or “trends” in the various sugyos throughout Shas. They may even sharpen their findings with analytical labels (such as “cheftza” and “gavra”) and formulate the various patterns using the chakirah method of presentation. Unfortunately, such Talmudists have missed the boat. They become so preoccupied with detecting halachic patterns that they begin to think that the patterns are the ideas – that their descriptions are definitions.

Like the charts and formulae of the elder Twiloans, the explanations of these Talmudists are useful and necessary, but they are not the essence. The true Talmudists go beyond the quantification of halachic data and seek the invisible ball – the conceptual theory that gives meaning to the halachos. They will collect and organize halachic data and they will attempt to see patterns and trends, but only as a means of discovering the underlying concepts. Any analytical jargon they utilize will only be used to clarify their understanding of the underlying ideas; the analytical terms will only be employed to facilitate thinking, never to replace it.

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.