Elul 1 - Thoughts on Car Design and Brisker Mussar

Have you ever been driving down the road when somebody suddenly honks at you for no good reason? Perhaps they thought you cut them off, when really there was more than enough room for you to pass them safely, or they incorrectly thought that you were driving too slow, or they were too impatient to wait one minute as you pulled over to the side of the road to drop off a passenger.

When I'm in such situations, I sometimes wonder about the prospect of car companies adding a horn to the back of cars, so that people would not have to silently absorb the high-pitched abuse of a car horn behind them. Given a second horn installed on top of their trunk, they would be able to respond with a honk of their own, pointing out to their attacker that they do not accept the insinuation of wrongdoing on their part, but rather were the model of a perfect driver, despite the misplaced insult which they were subjected to.

Like many other inventions, a rear car horn is an innovation which is clearly better off not existing. Could you imagine the road rage that such an automobile feature would encourage, and the horn-honking battles that would ensue? Instead, one who is the victim of a car honk is left with no effective reciprocal recourse save to tuck their tails under their rear wheels and to keep driving. The situation of driving a car is a perfect setting for such a submissive response to an attack, being that, as one will never again interact with one's attacker, there cannot be any rationalizations of a need to respond to an insult in order to save face, and that it is relatively easy to evade an attacker by changing lanes, slowing down for a few seconds, or merely keeping your eyes on the road and not paying attention to the lunatic yelling at you through his and your car windows.

One evening when I was in yeshiva years back, the line for the main course at dinner was rather long, so I decided to fill my plate with bread, cucumbers, and cheese instead, and to go to pick up my portion of pizza at a later point. When I went to get my portion later on, the Romanian doling out the food refused to give me, claiming that I had already received. As I protestingly explained to him that I hadn't yet received my portion, the Israelis who were standing nearby all jumped to my aid and began to argue with the server. Thus outnumbered, the server conceded and gave me my portion of pizza, before letting off as a parting shot, "Ata shakran". Offended, I began to vociferously argue anew with the server, before one of the older Israelis pulled me aside, and said to me, "What do you care what he says?". The propriety of my having put myself into a situation where I would be thus suspected can be left as an exercise to the reader, but I realized that the older bochur was right - while arguing would make me feel better, it would not convince the server of my truthfulness, and thus it was not worthwhile for me to press the issue.

If I understand correctly, Brisk was/is known for an antipathy towards the mussar movement, claiming instead that "der bester Mussar seifer iz a blatt gemara". Nonetheless, it seems that one can learn out a very deep lesson utilizing the classical cheftza/gavra dichotomy that epitomizes the Brisker derech of learning. Too often, we find our actions driven by forces exerted by other people and a need to respond to their actions against us. Ultimately, though, we bear the sole responsibility for our actions. When faced with a challenge to avoid engaging in strife, taking revenge, using insults, or other interpersonal sins, our opposite can be considered as a cheftza d'issura. Much as a chunk of pork is a cheftza that enables one to be oveir an issur bein adam laMakom, the person whom we have the option to retaliate against is also a cheftza that enables us to be oveir issurim bein adam lachaveiro, opposite our own personal gavra who is responsible to do mitzvos and not to do aveiros. A gavra is capable of acting on a cheftza; it's silly and sort of sad when a gavra allows himself to be acted upon by a cheftza.

Of course, one should not make oneself into a shmata; there is a time for everything, and sometimes a harsh response is permitted, or even encouraged. Nonetheless, it should be borne in mind that in the supplication following Sh'moneh Esrei, we pray before HaShem, "V'limkalelai nafshi tidom, v'nafshi ke-afar lakol tihyeh" - May my soul be silent before those who curse me, and may my soul be like dust before all. Do we truly see value in this attitude and pray that we be given assistance in achieving this level, or are we uttering false platitudes in our tefillah?

Brachos 21b - Interruptions during the Amidah

According to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shim'on the students of Rabbi Yochanan, one is allowed to respond Y'hei Shmo HaGadol (Shmei Rabbah) Mevorach during the Shmoneh Esrei, as one is even allowed to respond YSh"R while engaged in Ma'asei Merkavah. (The gemara notes that we do not hold like them.)

Why is this a proof? Why would we think that one should not be able to respond YSh"R while engaged in Ma'aseh Merkavah - is it not merely an exceptionally deep form of talmud torah, which, to the best of my knowledge, has no restrictions on responses to dvarim she-bikdushah?

My chavrusa wanted to suggest that learning M"M involves a more direct connection to HaShem than regular learning does, akin to the connection that one creates during the amidah. Tzarich iyyun.

Aseres Y'mei Teshuvah 1 - Shemoneh Esrei thoughts

Earlier today, I was thinking about the 6 additions that we added to the Shemoneh Esrei of the last week.

In the first two brachos, each of the additions are of similar structure to the proceeding line. The addition to the first bracha is a prayer that we be remembered and written within the Book of Life. This follows an acknowledgement that HaShem remembers the kindnesses of the Forefathers in bringing a redeemer to their descendants. The bracha as a whole is known as Avos, emphasizing its purpose as providing an opening for us to even dare approach HaShem in prayer, by using the names of our righteous fathers as a passkey of sorts. Were it not for this "in", we would never be able to muster the pure gall to approach the King of Kings and to lay forth our requests, or even to praise him. Since the bracha already asks HaShem to recall our fathers' righteousness, we proceed to ask Him to remember us for life. The two types of memory, though, are of disparate types, as one is a passive memory of the past, while the other is an active memory of the present, more akin to a p'kidah. The addition, then, is the only request ever included in the first three blessings, which makes it somewhat odd.

The addition to the second bracha is a statement acknowledging HaShem's mercy. This follows a statement acknowledging HaShem's might. Both statements begin with the phrase "Mi Chamocha", "Who is like you?", acknowledging God's uniqueness. Once we have been granted permission to approach HaShem in prayer, we begin by praising His all-powerfulness, which is the reason why prayer unto Him is worthwhile from a practical standpoint. During these days, we also add in praise for his great mercy.

In the third blessing, the emendation is not an addition, but rather is a change, in that we switch the word "Keil", God, for "Melech", King, which emphasizes his specific interaction with us during these days. The theme of this blessing is God's "holiness", as well as that of His name and that of those who praise Him. This is the only time that we excise the word "Keil" from the Shemoneh Esrei. We do not make the change in the first blessing by "HaKeil HaGadol", ostensibly because the phrase was used by Moshe. Nor do we make the change by "Keil Elyon" immediately following, perhaps in order to keep the phrases parallel (I'm not sure if its use by Malkitzedek is significant). The word also appears in Shome'a Tefillah (ki Keil shome'a tefillah v'sachanun ata), Modim deRabbanan (Baruch Keil ha-hoda'os), and the end of the bracha of Hoda'ah (ha-Keil yeshu'aseinu v'ezraseinu selah), but is not changed in any of these.

The only change during the middle blessings is a switch from "Melech oheiv tzedakah u-mishpat" to "Ha-melech ha-mishpat", which seems to be a change from the theoretical to the practical for these days.

The blessing of Avodah is the only one of the 6 primary blessings that is not altered during these days.

In the bracha of Hoda'ah, we add in a prayer that we be written for good life (compare to the first blessing, in which the prayer was to be written in the *book* of *life* (with no mention of the word "good")). I have no idea how this fits in to the concept of thanksgiving, as the addition is a linchpin connecting a summation that God's name shall be exalted for all of the goodness that we mentioned in Modim and a generalization that all living things shall praise God. The insertion of this request line would bother me a lot less if we were consistent in inserting some sort of request in all 6 primary blessings.

In the last bracha, we conclude with a plea that we be remembered and written in the book of life, blessing, peace, and prosperity. The last blessing, about peace, is also a somewhat general request, so the insertion, changing the focus from a general request to a recording in the book, makes sense.