Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Talking to HaShem/Talking About HaShem

When I was first told I needed to call R' Fuerst, my first question was, "What?  Just call this rabbi out of the blue?  Isn't he going to find that strange?!"  I know, I know... how many ways can you say "naive"?  Besides not knowing that people called R' Fuerst all the time, I also had no clue about protocol.  In fact, I had been talking to R' Fuerst (as well as many other rabai'im) for years before I learned that one is really supposed to use third person when addressing a rav.  It is still very strange for me to refer to R' Fuerst in third person (eg, "May I ask the rav a question?", "How is the rav today?", etc) and I am only partially successful.

The objective, of course, is to remember that one is not just asking a knowledgeable person his opinion.  Rather, one is asking a representative of HaShem Yisbarach about how to understand some issue that affects one's eternal soul.  That makes the formula for blessings double quizzical.  First, we address HaShem directly in second person, "Baruch atah"/"Blessed are You".  But we immediately transition to third person. "asher kidishanu"/"who has sanctified us"; not, as you might expect, "kidashtanu"/"You have sanctified us".  So we have an interesting couple of stiros (contradictions).  First, halachah dictates that we address the representative of HaShem in third person, but HaShem Himself we go for the direct approach.  Second, once we started addressing HaShem in second person, why do we jump back to third person?

On the first question, the problem is that we might put a talmid chocham in the same category as a college professor/doctor/other professional.  That is, I might think, "he knows halacha and I know halacha, he just happens to know more than me, so I'll ask his advise."  Halacha therefore dictates an enforced distance so that we will keep in the forefront of our mind that we are actually addressing  a representative of the Author of Reality.  We don't need such a reminder when addressing the Creator Himself, of course.... but then why switch to third person?

The Mabit (building on the Rashba) says we begin with second person to remind ourselves that there are no intermediaries between us and HaShem; this is a very personal and intimate relationship.  We switch to third person for two reasons.  First, we are finite beings addresses the Infinite.  We have to know that our understanding of HaShem is very limited and, in fact, we only know HaShem by how He chooses to reveal Himself; we have no actual direct knowledge.  Second, we really are not worthy/capable of addressing HaShem; it is only through the mitzos (asher kidishanu) that we transform ourselves into a being capable of having a relationship with the Infinite.

That second aspect points to the love HaShem has for us.  Even though we are not capable of having a relationship in our current state, HaShem gave us -- His am s'gula/treasured nation -- Torah and Mitzvos to transform us.  Even though we are not there yet, He still asks us to address Him directly.

And you thought you were just saying a bracha.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...