2
“And he answered, ‘Here I am.’”:
An Educational Model for the Rav’s Halakhah of Suffering
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Halakhah of
Suffering can be brought to the classroom
through a values-based analysis of the ‘hineni’
response in Tanakh. This paper argues for the
importance of providing students with the tools
to raise the moral, philosophical, theological
and social questions such an analysis entails,
and allowing students to grapple, indeed
struggle, with them. The benefits of such an
approach are considered and recommended.
Medinah Korn has an M.A. in Tanakh from MaTaN, where she currently serves as the
Head Librarian.
3
Introduction
In the many works that comprise the literary oeuvre of Rabbi Joseph B.
Soloveitchik, very few relate directly to a concrete vision of Jewish education. If we
would still attempt to construct a sort of Soloveitchikian educational theory, however,
it might seem most logical to begin with those few.1
And yet all of his other
published lectures and writings contain his theological, philosophical, religious and
social views, “as if these had no clear bearing on the field of education.”2 To obtain a
broader perspective of our sought educational theory, it is therefore necessary to
extrapolate pedagogical messages from within these other philosophical works.
The dilemma of the existence of evil in the world, of zaddik ve-ra lo, the
righteous man who suffers, is a topic that teachers tend to shy away from addressing
deeply. By deeply I mean shunning the simple one-liners that silent the inquisitive
student, and courageously attacking the problem at its core, at its very essence, raising
the many moral, philosophical, theological and social questions and allowing students
to grapple, indeed struggle, with them. While this task did not daunt the Rav on a
personal level – various conceptions of dealing with human suffering reverberate
throughout much of his writing – he did view the experiential side of teaching as one
of the educator’s most intimidating and, at the same time, most crucial tasks. The Rav
relates this feeling with regard to teaching about his experience of the Yamim Noraim,
the Days of Awe, when he was young:
From an intellectual standpoint there is much I can transmit to my pupils from
what I absorbed from my forefathers and from my mentors about the
significance of the day, about the sanctity of the Days of Awe. What I cannot
pass on are the experiences that I myself underwent on those days. I cannot
give rise in them to … the emotion I felt when I heard my grandfather, Rabbi
Haim, tremulously breathe the words which describe the service in the Temple
on the Day of Atonement.... One could well-nigh see that at that moment
Rabbi Haim dwelt in another world …. This is a feeling that a Jew must
personally experience; it does not lend itself to transmission via theological
1
See, for example, many of the insights cited in Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav: The World of
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Edited by Joseph Epstein. 2 vols. (New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House,
1999).
2
Oded Schreimer, “Toward Understanding Buber’s I-Thou and I-It Dichotomy in the Context of
Education,” Journal of Jewish Education 2 (1984): 212.
4
tractates and essays, homilies and sermons. It is a feeling – and it must be
experienced! … I can give instruction on various subjects – but not on this.3
While the trouble that the Rav describes here relates to encouraging positive, uplifting
emotions, the same, perhaps even greater, difficulty can be imagined when trying to
relate methods of dealing with tragedy in a classroom. Reading the Rav’s approach to
suffering may at first make us feel the challenge even more intensely. Let us first
look at the ideas presented in some of his writings and then consider the pedagogical
test we face in bringing these ideas to the classroom.
The Rav’s Halakhah of Suffering
For our purposes we will analyze two passages, one from Kol Dodi Dofek4 and
one from the more recent publication, Out of the Whirlwind.5 Two messages of
suffering are presented in these essays. In Kol Dodi Dofek, the Rav focuses more on
suffering as a means toward self-improvement; in Out of The Whirlwind, suffering is
presented as an end unto itself, an inherently valuable and indeed essential experience.
These messages overlap in each of the essays as the Rav describes the dialectic of the
existence of man. Man “oscillates … like a pendulum”6 between two existences, of
fate and destiny; of cosmic and covenantal; of an object-like passive existence and an
active, creative one; of orderliness and chaos; of physical pain and mental anguish.
In the fateful, cosmic, object-like existence, man is not even so much as an
individual. He is merely a pawn on a gameboard of being, moved at the whim of a
Player.
He is the passive man of Creation, a slave in bondage, uninvolved,
powerless7. He lives a “tohu va-vohu [nothing] existence,” anonymous in history,
having left no indelible mark, and ignorant of destiny.8
3
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, On Repentance, ed. Pinchas Peli (Jerusalem: Orot Press, 1981), 149-50. See
also Moshe Simkovich, “Teaching Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Thought in the High School Classroom,” in
Wisdom From All My Teachers: Challenges and Initiatives in Contemporary Torah Education, eds.
Jeffrey Saks and Susan Handelman (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2003), 341-359.
4
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Kol Dodi Dofek: It is the Voice of My Beloved That Knocketh,” Theological
and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust, ed. Bernard Rosenberg (New Jersey: Ktav Publishing
House, 1992): 51-117. Henceforth KDD.
5
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Out of the Whirlwind,” in Out of the Whirlwind: Essays on Mourning,
Suffering and the Human Condition, eds. David Shatz, Joel B. Wolowelsky and Reuven Zeigler (New
Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 2003): 116-150. Henceforth OOW.
6
OOW, 148.
7
B. David Schreiber, Sefer Noraot ha-Rav, Vol. 7, Shene derashot al inyane yamim tovim u-megillat
ester, Me-et ha-Gerid ha-Levi Solovaits’ik (Forthcoming): 34-5, for one explanation of the Rav of
three possible relationships between man and God.
8
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Redemption, Prayer Talmud Torah,” Tradition 17: 2 (1978): 61-62
5
The Rav maintains that it is “man’s task in this world to transform fate into
destiny,” to become an acting, reacting being, to become an I-individual. Why? It is
only the man of destiny who can be realistic in “confront[ing] the environment into
which he was thrown … [who can] live like a subject, like a creator, an innovator,
who can impress his own seal upon his life”9 and upon history, for generations to
come. And it is only when man lives such an existence that he can encounter God.
Indeed, it is in the transition, the passage from an existence of fate to an existence of
destiny that this confrontation occurs. How so?
The catharsis of becoming a man of destiny, the Rav describes, occurs through
suffering. Anyone who is prepared to declare that evil exists and confront it head-on
is prepared to suffer. That same person is not interested in the lama, the “causa and
rationale” of suffering, but rather the madua,10 the “norm, the kerygma, the
message.”11 Man leading an active existence “asks neither about the cause of evil nor
about its purpose, but rather how it might be mended and elevated.”12
While contemplating how to act in the face of evil and catastrophe, the man of
destiny also asks, “why me?” He is surprised that he has been singled out for a tragic
experience, and is lonely in his quest for meaning. So too a person experiencing
Divine revelation: a person to whom God appears is also traumatized by having been
chosen. And since, as the Rav explains, it is only the man of destiny, not the man of
fate, who can experience sorrow (by contrast to pain), then in a sense one who suffers
either has experienced of is in the process of experiencing some form of Divine
revelation.
The man of destiny is commensurate with covenantal man: he has
encountered God and bound himself to a covenantal relationship through his
agonizing experience.
The sufferer, as the recipient of Divine revelation, in realizing that he has been
singled out, must respond “Hineni; here I am,” prepared to allow the “catastrophic
experience [to] be assign[ed] … a position within [one’s] inner world.” Revelation,
through the experience of suffering, one might say, is what allows man to reach the
heights of his “transcendental-covenantal nature.”13 Man cannot make that transition
without the willing consent of Hineni.
9
KDD, 54.
See note 15.
11
OOW, 128.
12
KDD, 56.
13
OOW, pp. 132, 148, 140, 119.
10
6
In responding Hineni to his call to action he has also demonstrated a sensitive
“time-consciousness.”14 He knows that if he does not respond to the Divine call at
that very moment, he will miss it.
The Educational Challenge
Why are we educators afraid of incorporating these ideas into our course
material? What is the challenge we face in presenting an intellectual analysis of an
experiential dilemma?
First, as we have said, experience cannot necessarily be described in words.
Can one allude to it? Perhaps. If the student has undergone a similar experience, our
story will speak to him or her intimately. If the teacher faces a group who has felt
emotions similar to the nihility and loneliness that the Rav describes, he or she can
proceed smoothly to discuss appropriate responses. One educator has described how
Rabbi Norman Lamm utilized such a situation:
On the morning of September 11, 2001, I found myself on the uptown campus
of Yeshiva University. As it was for the entire country and for much of the
world, initial reactions to the attacks on the World Trade Center were little
more than shock and disbelief. Particularly for those located so close to the
disaster, it was difficult to absorb what transpired that morning.
In response to the events of the morning, student leaders at Yeshiva
quickly organized an outdoor Mincha and Tehillim rally. The main speaker at
this rally was Rabbi Norman Lamm … There is one thought that he stressed
that I have not forgotten. David Hamelech exclaims in Tehillim "keili keili
lama azavtani?". [“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”] Rabbi
Shimshon Rephael Hirsh explains that in Hebrew, one can ask "why" with the
use of the word madua or of the word lama. The word madua means why in
its purest sense, wanting to know the reason behind something, what caused it
to happen. On the other hand, lama comes from the words "le ma," literally
"to what," trying to figure out not what caused something to happen, but
rather what is the purpose that is meant to come out of the occurrence. And so
when David Hamelech feels deserted by Hashem, he does not ask madua. It is
not his place to question the causes of the actions of Hashem. Rather he asks
lama. What is meant to come out of the actions of Hashem? What
responsibilities do they place upon me?
This must be our response to tragedy as well, explained Rabbi Lamm
to the hundreds of students and faculty assembled on the lawn outside of
Rubin Hall. It is futile to try to understand the reasons or causes for such a
horrible occurrence. What we can do, however, is to try our best to figure out
the ends to which events such as the attacks of September 11th are meant to
bring about in our lives. In the illustration of the Rav, we must view the
14
OOW, 123.
7
whirlwind of that horrible day as a way that Hashem is calling out to us. We
must be ready to respond, to listen to His voice, and to take action when
needed.15
Rabbi Lamm’s words resonated perfectly for this audience, having just witnessed
such a horrifying catastrophe. Would these words have the same impact on one who
was not in Manhattan that morning?
Several educators have established, however, the need for developing
discussion-based lessons to both connect with the witnesses and bring the messages to
those who have not experienced existential trauma. After all, if we have claimed that
one cannot encounter the Divine without experiencing some form of suffering, do we
not owe it to our students to give them the tools to recognize the call?
Professor Isadore Twersky, z”l, has delineated that
when we speak of the “educated person,” it is clear that we are discussing not
only the sum total of a person’s knowledge, but also, and perhaps most
significantly, a system of attitudes. We attempt to establish not what a person
should know, but what a person is, his nature, spiritual character, modes of
behavior, spiritual and moral aspirations. Every educational philosopher
admits that education intends to shape a certain kind of personality in
accordance with values and beliefs. The educated person reflects, as in a
mirror, the ideal person, who represents the embodiment and fruition of these
values.16
Our goal is not just to educate toward knowledgeable students, but toward spiritually
rich students. The risks we take in leaving emotions off our educational agenda
should weigh more heavily on our conscience then creating an opportunity to present
them. Susan Handelman has described the initial frustration of a student of hers in a
Bible course she taught in a large State university, at thinking she needed to repress
getting
emotionally wrapped up in the text. Why not get emotionally involved ….
Why am I discouraged [from trying] to experience books …. I have been
trying to read the Bible critically. It’s difficult because its language demands
15
Yaakov Mintz, ATUDA email, September 19, 2004.
Isadore Twersky, “What Must a Jew Study – and Why?” in Visions of Jewish Education, eds.
Seymour Fox, Israel Scheffler and Daniel Marom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003): 50.
16
8
both an intelligent and passionate reading. Isn’t reading supposed to change
us and the world in some way?17
By contrast, the educator who does encourage the pedagogy of emotion in his or her
classroom can savor
the initiative, creativity, energy, and dedication that are released when
students know they can express themselves freely … [This burst] shows, by
contrast, how accustomed they are to holding back, playing it safe, avoiding
real engagement, or just going through the motions.18
This educational theorist was speaking about the students “playing it safe,” but her
ideas here certainly apply to the teachers who avoid certain topics because they are
more difficult or problematic to tackle.
This challenge is one that Rabbi Twersky calls us to with regard to shaping an
educated person in Torah. Yael Unterman has also called for creating new goals for
the Yeshivah in nurturing spiritual completeness in helping students develop a
relationship with God. She challenges us to “strive to distinguish what “resonates” in
them [the students] in whatever they learn from us, by asking them, ‘How is what we
just learned relevant to you?’”19
Would we not teach the commandments of loving and fearing God just
because they do “not concern intellectual or rational understanding … [just because
they have] different meanings for different people, and therefore are difficult to prove
or define [?]”20
We would not dare.
Maimonides, in his explanation of these
commandments, left us with a pedagogical legacy of an ability to bring those
emotional, abstract concepts somewhat closer to the human logical sphere. We can
attempt to do the same in suggesting methods for dealing with the messages behind
Susan Handelman, “We Cleverly Avoided Talking About God: Personal and Pedagogical
Reflections on Academia and Spirituality,” Courtyard: A Journal of Research and Thought in Jewish
Education 1 (1999): 105.
17
Jane Thompkins, A Life in School: What the Teacher Learned, in Susan Handelman, “Cleverly,”
109.
19
Yael Unterman, “If You Seek Him With All Your Heart: Nurturing Total Individual Growth in
Yeshivah,” Wisdom From All My Teachers, 162. This article focuses specifically on the post-high
school one-year programs in Israel, but many of her arguments could certainly be applicable in high
school and elsewhere as well. For more information on dealing with emotions in the classroom with
younger children, and specific lessons as such, see Larry Scheindlin, “Emotions in Jewish Education,”
Courtyard: A Journal of Research and Thought in Jewish Education 1 (1999): 121-141.
20
Chaim Brovender, “Towards Ahavat Hashem: Art and the Religious Experience,” in Wisdom From
All My Teachers, 55. See also his analysis of Maimonides’ discussion of the commandments to love
and fear God in the same article, pp. 54-61.
18
9
the emotions of suffering. I would like to suggest that teachers begin to open the
discussion by looking at the broader Biblical context of the Hineni response that the
Rav deems necessary as a reaction to suffering. Highlighting the aspects of the
Biblical texts that allude to the depth of experience that the Rav has described can
give students a reference point and a rudimentary vocabulary for conceptual analysis.
Such an approach, rather than using blatant disaster as the starting point, starts with
the Divine encounter and the struggle that such a confrontation entails. This path is
one that suggests a “trace, that hints, points, invites, but does not compel” 21 students
to encounter these ideas. It allows them to cover ground at their own pace by starting
with the scenes of Abraham’s, Samuel’s and Moses’ encounters with the Divine, that
may not seem so much like suffering to them at first glance.
The Hineni Response and Its Pedagogical Implications
The word hineni, literally translated ‘here I am,’ appears in several scenes in
Tanakh as a model response to God’s calling. It points not only to an open readiness
to listen to and recognize God, but also indicates a willingness to assume
responsibility for God’s message, to act in a leadership role that demands
acknowledging and responding to suffering.
The intensity of the suffering of
Abraham, Samuel and Moses evident in each one’s ‘hineni process’ needs to be
evaluated one by one in context, and in juxtaposition to the others.
Abraham
In Abraham’s case, his encounter with the Divine in the Akeidah story is not
the first time he has spoken with God. Indeed, as the Rav points out, the covenant
that was established between God and Abraham and his descendants came about
through suffering. Genesis 15 is a “weird scene, full of undefined dread and grisly
uneasiness.”22
)‫ (יג‬:‫ימה חֲ ֵּׁשכָה גְ ֹדלָה נֹ פֶּׁ לֶּׁת עָ לָיו‬
ָ ֵּ‫ַאב ָרם וְ ִהנֵּה א‬
ְ ‫(יב) וַ י ְִהי הַ ֶּׁשמֶּׁ ׁש לָבוֹא וְ ַת ְרדֵּ מָ ה נָפְ לָה עַ ל‬
‫ַארבַ ע מֵּ אוֹת‬
ְ ‫וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר לְ ַאבְ ָרם ָידֹעַ ֵּת ַדע כִ י גֵּר י ְִהיֶּׁה ז ְַרעֲ ָך בְ אֶּׁ ֶּׁרץ ֹלא לָהֶּׁ ם וַ עֲ בָ דּום וְ ִענּו אֹ ָתם‬
:‫ (יד) וְ גַם אֶּׁ ת הַ ּגוֹי אֲ ֶּׁׁשר יַעֲ בֹדּו ָדן ָאנֹ כִ י וְ ַאחֲ ֵּרי כֵּן י ְֵּצאּו ִב ְרכֻׁש ּגָדוֹל‬:‫ָׁשנָה‬
21
22
Susan Handelman, “Cleverly,” 108.
OOW, 119.
10
As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great dark
dread descended upon him. And He said to Abram, “Know well that your
offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and
oppressed four hundred years; but I will execute judgment on the nation they
shall serve, and in the end they shall go free with great wealth….”23
By Genesis 22, God has already seen quite a lot of willing action on Abraham’s part.
And yet He tests him again. The Hineni response in this chapter of Genesis is a
catalyst theme; it is the actions of Abraham, both in response to God and to Isaac, that
prove the strength of his Hineni. In answering Hineni to God’s call, Abraham shows
an interest in a relationship with the Divine, an interest in transformation from cosmic
man to covenantal man, or, in the terms Rav Soloveitchik uses in Kol Dodi Dofek,
from a man of fate to a man of destiny.24 Though Abraham, as a father, must be
experiencing inner turmoil at the thought of losing his only son, of losing everything
that God promised him in previous encounters, the reader sees only pure “courage and
discipline … untainted by the slightest hint of partiality or self-indulgence”25 on his
part.
Note also the nuance in the way God addresses Abraham at the very last
moment before he sacrifices Isaac:
:‫ַאב ָרהָ ם וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר ִהנֵּנִ י‬
ְ ‫(יא) וַ י ְִק ָרא אֵּ לָיו מַ לְ אַ ְך ה' ִמן הַ ָשמַ יִם ַויֹאמֶּׁ ר ַאבְ ָרהָ ם‬
Then an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven: “Abraham! Abraham!”
And he answered, “Here I am.”26
The word va-yikra has not been used to initiate any previous dialogue with Abraham.
Further, God calls Abraham’s name twice, urgently, emphatically. When the hineni
response is coupled with this manner of speaking, the Revelation-level, covenantallevel relationship is produced. The pace of the chapter decelerates: Abraham has
23
Genesis 15:12-3. All Biblical translations follow Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures
According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985).
24
It would be interesting to compare these distinctions of Rav Soloveitchik with similar ones of Franz
Rosenzweig in his Star of Redemption. Rosenzweig illustrates a view of reality showing how God,
Man and the World are related through the processes of Creation, Revelation and Redemption. The
Revelation experience, as Rosenzweig describes it, is the coming out of self of both God and man.
God searches for new self-definition as He calls upon man to recognize Him. Man must acknowledge
God fully in return so that he can become an I, an independent being for whom God is the Thou. It is
the Hineni response that can allow for a Revelation-level relationship to be produced.
25
KDD, 64.
26
Genesis 22:11.
11
passed the test. It is Abraham’s story that is chosen for the Torah reading on the
second day of Rosh ha-Shanah as the paradigm hineni response over other
possibilities in Tanakh. Abraham has suffered, and questioned, and through that
process has concretized his relationship with God through action.
Samuel
We find similar language in Samuel’s hineni story. The dialogue that contains
the hineni response in Samuel chapter 3 is the very start of the contact between God
and Samuel, the beginning of God’s search for Samuel to recognize Him. And a
search it is indeed, as Samuel did not yet know God, “terem yada,”27 and mistakenly
assumes that Eli the priest is calling. Even though Samuel does not respond directly
to God the first few times, he demonstrates a zealousness to recognize a Thou when
he responds hineni and hurries to Eli.28 When God finally calls Samuel’s name twice
in a row, using the word va-yikra to describe His tone of voice as it were, Samuel can
respond appropriately:
:‫(י) ַו ָיבֹא ה' וַ י ְִתיַצַ ב ַוי ְִק ָרא כְ פַ עַ ם בְ פַ עַ ם ְׁשמּואֵּ ל ְׁשמּואֵּ ל וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר ְׁשמּואֵּ ל ַדבֵּ ר כִ י ׁשֹמֵּ עַ עַ בְ דֶּׁ ָך‬
The Lord came, and stood there, and He called as before: “Samuel! Samuel!”
And Samuel answered, “Speak, for Your servant is listening.”29
Though it might seem that Samuel is just following orders from Eli to respond as an
obedient servant, it is obvious that Samuel is prepared to connect with God on a
hineni level from his previous hineni answers. God, as a new Thou for Samuel,
acknowledges the newly emerged I in Samuel:
‫ (כ) וַ י ֵַּדע כָל י ְִש ָראֵּ ל ִמ ָדן וְ עַ ד‬:‫ָארצָ ה‬
ְ ‫(יט) וַ יִגְ ַדל ְׁשמּואֵּ ל ַוה' הָ יָה עִ ּמ ֹו וְ ֹלא ִהפִ יל ִמכָל ְדבָ ָריו‬
:'‫בְ אֵּ ר ָׁשבַ ע כִ י נֶּׁאֱ מָ ן ְׁשמּואֵּ ל לְ נָבִ יא ַלה‬
Samuel grew up and the Lord was with him: He did not leave any of Samuel’s
predictions unfulfilled. All Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, knew that Samuel
was trustworthy as a prophet of the Lord.30
27
I Samuel 3:7.
Note the different verbs used to describe Samuel’s actions here, and their indication of Samuel’s
zealousness. For a detailed analysis, see Shimon Bar-Efrat, I Samuel: Introduction and Commentary,
(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 2002): 77-85.
29
I Samuel 3:10.
30
I Samuel 3:19-20.
28
12
The fact that Samuel was shaken up by his dialogue with God on that night is
manifest in the fact that he does not run to tell Eli what has happened. The boy
Samuel returns to the comfort of his covers and lies there, perhaps trembling in the
“shock [of] being confronted with infinity,”31 until the morning. At dawn he clings to
his routine; maybe, he thinks to himself, he does not have to respond after all. He
hesitates. “U-Shmuel yare,”32 he was afraid – of what lay in store both for him and
for his beloved mentor Eli. What could a child understand of leadership? How can
he now rise above Eli and predict his downfall? He is tormented, utterly confused by
a foreign encounter in the mysterious darkness of the night. He feels he cannot share
this experience: he is lonely.
Ultimately he moves beyond this emotional turmoil to transform himself into a
leader. This process takes time, though, and is not without its roadblocks. Samuel
does not approach Eli himself; Eli begs for an explanation from him.
Samuel
becomes a leader who will respond when asked or when forced perhaps, but will not
completely initiate action. Later, Samuel follows God’s command to anoint Saul, but
not without taking the nation’s request personally; an undercurrent of tension exists
between Saul and Samuel as they try to share the leadership role. Samuel is not
completely confident in his ability as a leader, as is evident by his request from the
nation to testify before God that he has done them no wrong.33 God sought a leader in
Samuel because he demonstrated a passionate service to Eli, and by responding hineni
to the Unknown, a willingness to serve an Authority faithfully.
Moses
Rav Soloveitchik uses Moses as his ideal example of one who experiences the
“trauma … caused by the surprise of being singled out.” God tries to establish the
Revelation-level relationship in His first contact with Moses:
:‫ֹלהים ִמתוְֹך הַ ְסנֶּׁה ַויֹאמֶּׁ ר מֹ ֶּׁׁשה מֹ ֶּׁׁשה וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר ִהנֵּנִ י‬
ִ ֱ‫(ד) וַ י ְַרא ה' כִ י סָ ר לִ ְראוֹת וַ י ְִק ָרא אֵּ לָיו א‬
When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him out of
the bush: “Moses! Moses!” He answered, “Here I am.”
31
OOW, 121.
I Samuel 3:15.
33
See I Samuel 12: 1-5. Note that a comparison is drawn between Moses and Samuel as leaders by the
assignment of I Samuel 14-5 as the haftarah for Parashat Korah, which includes Numbers 16.
32
13
Again we see the double name-calling, the word va-yikra, and the ready and willing
hineni response. We know however, from the Samuel analysis, that a hineni response
does not necessarily indicate an Abraham-type immediate action. And Moses’ indeed
argues with God:
‫ֹלהים ִמי ָאנֹ כִ י כִ י אֵּ לְֵּך אֶּׁ ל פַ ְרעֹה וְ כִ י או ִֹציא אֶּׁ ת ְבנֵּי י ְִש ָראֵּ ל‬
ִ ֱ‫ וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר מֹ ֶּׁׁשה אֶּׁ ל הָ א‬.1
:‫ִמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִם‬
But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and free
the Israelites from Egypt?”
‫ָאמ ְר ִתי לָהֶּׁ ם אֱ ֹלהֵּ י‬
ַ ְ‫ֹלהים ִהנֵּה ָאנֹ כִ י בָ א אֶּׁ ל ְבנֵּי י ְִש ָראֵּ ל ו‬
ִ ֱ‫ וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר מֹ ֶּׁׁשה אֶּׁ ל הָ א‬.2
:‫ָאמרּו לִ י מַ ה ְשמ ֹו מָ ה אֹ ַמר אֲ לֵּהֶּׁ ם‬
ְ ְ‫אֲ בו ֵֹּתיכֶּׁם ְׁשלָחַ נִ י אֲ לֵּיכֶּׁם ו‬
Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them ‘The
God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me ‘What is His
name?’ what shall I say to them?”
:’‫ֹאמרּו ֹלא נִ ְרָאה אֵּ לֶּׁיָך ה‬
ְ ‫ וַ יַעַ ן מֹ ֶּׁׁשה וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר וְ הֵּ ן ֹלא יַאֲ ִמינּו לִ י וְ ֹלא י ְִׁש ְמעּו בְ קֹ לִ י כִ י י‬.3
But Moses spoke up and said, “What if they do not believe me and do not
listen to me, but say: The Lord did not appear to you?”
‫ וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר מֹ ֶּׁׁשה אֶּׁ ל ה’ בִ י אֲ ֹדנָי ֹלא ִאיׁש ְדבָ ִרים ָאנֹ כִ י ּגַם ִמ ְתמוֹל ּגַם ִמ ִשלְ ׁשֹם ּגַם מֵּ ָאז‬.4
:‫ַדבֶּׁ ְרָך אֶּׁ ל עַ בְ דֶּׁ ָך כִ י כְ בַ ד פֶּׁ ה ּוכְ בַ ד לָׁשוֹן ָאנֹ כִ י‬
But Moses said to the Lord, “Please, O Lord, I have never been a man of
words, either in times past or now that You have spoken to Your servant; I
am slow of speech and slow of tongue.”
:‫ וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר בִ י אֲ ֹדנָי ְׁשלַח נָא בְ יַד ִת ְׁשלָח‬.5
But he said, “Please, O Lord, make someone else Your agent.” 34
In the first argument, Moses is traumatized by the “Why me?”, “Mi anokhi?”, as the
Rav delineates:
The individual who was elected by the Almighty out of the crowd with which
he identified until the last instant suddenly finds himself different from others.
In his dialogue with God he is lonely, since no one joined him in this
paradoxical adventure, no one shares the burden which was foisted upon his
shoulders …. The indescribable content of the great message ... can never be
told and explained. The elected remains a solitary figure...35
34
35
Exodus 3:11, 3:13, 4:1, 4:10, 4:13.
OOW, 132-3.
14
Moses’ problem is his own self-definition as it relates to God. He does not want the
task, because, as he claims in his fourth appeal, “lo ish devarim anokhi,” I am not a
man of words. Why should the anokhi be me?36
God remains patient after Moses’ weak argument that the people will ask for
His name; the Thou continues to search for the I as He outlines the detailed direction
Moses will receive. God is even patient with Moses as he claims that perhaps the
nation will not believe him, as if to say it is not he, but rather the nation, who cannot –
or will not – accept the I responsibility. But God will not take no for an answer; when
Moses begs for a replacement, God responds indignantly. The scene which began as
puzzling has turned dreadful. Moses is not given another chance to speak for himself,
and the I responsibility is almost forced upon him.
Perhaps the hineni response already committed Moses. Moses said hineni
showing an inner basis for the I that just needed a little encouragement to emerge. As
God saw potential in Samuel that made it worthwhile to call him several times over
until he answered, He “fights” to bring out the I that He sees in Moses.
Moses struggles with the I responsibility throughout his career, continuing to
doubt that he is appropriate for his position. The most powerful example of his inner
struggle is in his complaint after the nation sins at kivrot ha-ta’avah. The structure of
the complaint centers on his personal feeling of anokhi, of the burden of the
responsibility he did not originally seek:
‫(יא) וַ יֹאמֶּׁ ר מֹ ֶּׁׁשה אֶּׁ ל ה’ לָמָ ה הֲ ֵּרע ָֹת לְ עַ בְ דֶּׁ ָך‬
‫וְ לָּמָ ה ֹלא מָ צָ ִתי חֵּ ן בְ עֵּ ינֶּׁיָך‬
:‫לָשּום אֶּׁ ת מַ ָשא כָל הָ עָ ם הַ זֶּׁה עָ לָי‬
‫יתי אֵּ ת כָל הָ עָ ם הַ זֶּׁה‬
ִ ‫(יב) הֶּׁ ָאנֹ כִ י הָ ִר‬
‫ִאם ָאנֹ כִ י יְלִ ְד ִתיהּו כִ י תֹאמַ ר אֵּ לַי‬
:‫ָשאֵּ הּו בְ חֵּ יקֶּׁ ָך כַאֲ ֶּׁׁשר י ִָשא הָ אֹ מֵּ ן אֶּׁ ת הַ ֹינֵּק עַ ל הָ אֲ ָדמָ ה אֲ ֶּׁׁשר נִ ְׁשבַ ְע ָת לַאֲ ב ָֹתיו‬
‫(יג) מֵּ ַאיִן לִ י בָ ָשר ל ֵָּתת לְ כָל הָ עָ ם הַ זֶּׁה כִ י יִבְ כּו עָ לַי‬
:‫לֵּאמֹ ר ְתנָה לָנּו בָ ָשר וְ נֹ א ֵּכלָה‬
‫ָשאת אֶּׁ ת כָל הָ עָ ם הַ זֶּׁה‬
ֵּ ‫(יד) ֹלא אּוכַל ָאנֹ כִ י לְ בַ ִדי ל‬
:‫כִ י כָבֵּ ד ִמּמֶּׁ נִ י‬
And Moses said to the Lord, “Why have You dealt ill with Your servant, and
why have I not enjoyed Your favor, that You have laid the burden of all this
people upon me? Did I conceive all this people, did I bear them, that You
36
This is almost as if to say how can I be anokhi if You are the Anokhi of the Decalogue. How can I
be a leader if You are the leader?
15
should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries an infant,’ to
the land that You have promised on oath to their fathers? Where am I to get
meat to give to all this people, when they whine before me and say, ‘Give us
meat to eat!’ I cannot carry all this people by myself, for it is too much for
me.37
Moses approaches the leadership role as a masa, a burden, which is all upon him, alai,
one that he bears alone, levadi. The metaphor of pregnancy and birth is strong in this
passage; Moses examines whether the responsibility should be his, given that the
people are God’s children and not his own. It is particularly interesting for our
purposes that despite the trouble Moses displays with the I-responsibility, he achieves
the most intimate relationship with God: “face to face, as one man speaks to
another,”38 a level that no one else reaches. Moses suffers the most, and achieves the
greatest result, the closest relationship with the Holy One. Moses did not “flinch from
confronting evil face to face”39 – he addressed problems where he saw them and tried
to solve them to the best of his ability. It makes sense that Moses functions as the
Rav’s paradigm “why me?” because, for the Rav, he is also the leader who established
profound distress over the prospering of the wicked, by asking God, in that face to
face encounter, the “question of questions, [that] prophets and sages, through all the
generations [up to the present] have continued to grapple with.”40 If anyone would be
enlightened about the answer to this query, it would have been him. And while he
experienced torment and anguish, he did not stop from demonstrating that he knew
the response to suffering: liberation. Moses is the messenger-deliverer of the Hebrew
slaves, living in a world of fate, headed toward a world of destiny.41
Hineni and Educational Goals
In presenting these texts to the classroom, teachers should use the comparison
as a means of “modeling a moral quality or anchoring a philosophical position.”42
37
Numbers 11:11-14, emphasis added.
Exodus 33:11.
39
KDD, 55.
40
KDD, 51. See also KDD, 105, n.1 about the dispute in Berakhot 7a between R. Meir and R. Yose
over whether Moses received an answer to his query.
41
Here the Rav’s analysis of the Zohar’s description of the stages of redemption from Egypt is most
poignant. See Soloveitchik, “Redemption, Prayer, Talmud Torah,” 66.
38
42
Twersky, “What Must a Jew Study – and Why?” 71.
16
This requires a value-oriented and not a pure factual presentation. While teaching
these texts we must ask the students questions about what they think of the characters
themselves. Encourage them to feel the characters emotions, good and bad, and ask
themselves, “How does this relate to me? How can I apply this to my life?” Each
classroom setting needs to create a vocabulary that is appropriate to the level of its
subjects. A teacher might ask students to imagine a scenario where they have felt
“shaken” by an interpersonal experience.43
effective in producing a desirable result?
Do they think this experience was
What did this frightening experience
produce that a more peaceful, orderly one may not have?
Evil can be used as a code word for any difficulty they have encountered
merely in order to help them grasp the concepts on their own terms first. “[Blank]
exists and I will neither deny it nor camouflage it … I am concerned about [blank]
from a halakhic standpoint, like a person who wishes to know the deed which he shall
do.”44
A specific seminar on these matters might be most effective at the beginning
or end of a school year, periods that naturally lend themselves to reflection and
introspection.
Students may have set goals for the year that they were able to
accomplish only under the pressure of the deadlines of the last week of school. Do
they understand the pressure of time awareness that forces them into an acting, hineni,
consciousness? One educator has pointed out that
“end of a cycle” experiences, while not always as painful as the suffering that
the Rav describes, can function in a similar manner. While we are caught up
in the middle of a cycle we engage in normal activities, hardly noticing that
time is passing. But at the end of a week/year we become aware of the fact
that time is passing, and indeed has passed. We experience a sense of loss, and
then we are compelled towards action, out of a desire to make the most of
time.45
Another important point to stress is the positive expressions that can come out of
the suffering.46 Can students think of a positive outcome from any misfortune they
have known?
43
My thanks to Rabbi Moshe Simkovich for pointing out this pedagogical direction out to me.
KDD, 55.
45
Shoshana Lockshin, ATUDA email, September 19, 2004.
46
Another text relevant toward that part of the discussion is certainly the Book of Ruth. Avivah
Zornberg presents an analysis along these lines in her chapter, “The Concealed Alternative,” in
Reading Ruth: Contemporary Jewish Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New York, Ballantine Books,
1994): 65-81.
44
17
At this point in the discussion, I believe it is relevant to bring personal stories that
may speak to the students more intimately now that they have the analytical
vocabulary.
One personal story rings loud in my ears.
It is the story of two
individuals who came together to donate organs on another’s behalf: certainly a
sacrificial, proactive undertaking that requires an acute time-awareness.
The
following was written by one of the donors just 7 weeks after the death of the
recipient who did not survive the surgery.
I am still trying to make sense of it all.... Even though it failed, this endeavor
was a good thing. I felt, in the time leading up to the operation, as good
people came together for this, as prayers were being offered not only in
Newton, in Columbus, in New York, all over the country and all over the
world, that G-d was watching, that He blessed the endeavor, that He saw this a
good thing, but as always, did not guarantee the outcome …. After it was over
we all tried to find meaning – it was right in front of us. All of us who
participated in this endeavor, near and far, were transformed by it. The
outpouring of help and real empathy beforehand and afterward were
extraordinary ….
For all adults and children who took part, helped or simply observed, they
emerged as better people, they had a benchmark event by which they could
measure chesed. I am sure that years down the line, in ways we know nothing
about, in ways we cannot predict, many acts of kindness will be performed by
the participants and the children of the participants of the event …. These acts
of kindness will be the echo of what happened that day ….
In a curious way, this was Rosalie’s last gift to all of us. By being who she
was, she called us to this task. I know that I, and I suspect that Sabina, did not
really think of our doing anything really special. It was Rosalie who called
and we just had to answer. In the end … this task … made all of us better for
having tried. In the final analysis we became better people because of what
was done for her. She enriched our lives and left a legacy of chesed that will
be manifest for many years to come.47
Judaism is a pro-active religion. “Our religious consciousness”, even in the face of
death, the Rav has said, “is life-oriented, and in-life rooted.”48 When faced with or
given the choice between life and death, blessing and curse, u-vaharta ba-hayim –
choose life, choose action.
Bring the students to understand the possibility of
goodness coming out of sorrow, learning their lesson not by asking for compensation
for the suffering – not asking lama – asking how we must move forward in the face of
adversity. Teachers and students should recall together, as a learning process, what
47
Personal email from my uncle, Dr. Sheldon Landesman, October, 2000, who donated a piece of his
liver to try to save the life of his sister, my mother, Rosalie Katchen, a”h. Also in honor of family
friend Sabina Feczko, who donated her kidney.
48
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “A Tribute to the Rebbitzen of Talne,” Tradition 17:2, 73.
18
we may have been trying to forget, despite the difficulties that arise, so we can feel
redeemed and cleansed.49 We cannot allow ourselves to hide behind the mask of
Adam’s va-ehabe, for which he was cursed with anonymity.50 Let us rather find our
path to historical legacy.
Conclusion
The Rav makes the following statement in Kol Dodi Dofek:
The teaching of the rectification of suffering – when it is put into practice –
demands of the sufferer both courage and discipline. He must find within
himself and draw upon prodigious resources, and subject himself to a rigorous
self-examination and self-evaluation, untainted by the slightest hint of
partiality or self-indulgence; he must contemplate his past and envisage his
future with complete and unwavering honesty.51
Who is the sufferer here? On the surface it is the victim going through the suffering
experience. The hidden message here is really to the educator. It is the person at the
front of the classroom who must have the “courage and discipline,” must “draw upon
prodigious resources,” and more, must have unwavering confidence to fill in the
potholes on the road of the lesson ahead. We must recognize that the sufferer and
teacher alike are receiving calls to responsibility: the sufferer has a personal
obligation, and we as teachers have a communal one. Both must answer Hineni: I am
ready to take action.
Soloveitchik, “A Tribute,” 73.
Soloveitchik, “Redemption, Prayer, Talmud Torah,” 61.
51
KDD, 64. A more explicit statement is made in OOW, 118: “The religious teacher is charged with
the task of teaching the apocalyptic experience to cosmic man. It is a difficult but great task.”
49
50
19
Bibliography
Brovender, Chaim. “Towards Ahavat Hashem: Art and the Religious Experience.” In
Wisdom From All My Teachers: Challenges and Initiatives in Contemporary
Torah Education, edited by Jeffrey Saks and Susan Handelman, 49-73.
Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2003.
Handelman, Susan.
“We Cleverly Avoided Talking About God: Personal and
Pedagogical Reflections on Academia and Spirituality.” Courtyard: A Journal
of Research and Thought in Jewish Education 1 (1999): 101-120.
Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Aaron. The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
Edited by Joseph Epstein. 2 vols. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 1999.
Schreiber, B. David. Sefer Noraot ha-Rav. Vol. 7. Shene derashot al inyane yamim
tovim u-megillat ester. Me-et ha-Gerid ha-Levi Solovaits’ik. Forthcoming.
Schremer, Oded. “Toward Understanding Buber’s I-Thou and I-It Dichotomy in the
Context of Education.” Journal of Jewish Education 2 (1984): 212-230.
Simkovich, Moshe. “Teaching Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Thought in the High School
Classroom.” In Wisdom From All My Teachers: Challenges and Initiatives in
Contemporary Torah Education, edited by Jeffrey Saks and Susan Handelman,
341-359. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2003.
Soloveitchik, Joseph B. “A Tribute to the Rebbitzen of Talne,” Tradition 17:2 (1978):
73-83.
-------------------------- “Kol Dodi Dofek: Is is the Voice of My Beloved That
Knocketh.” In Theological and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust, edited by
Bernard Rosenberg, 51-73. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 1992.
-------------------------- On Repentance. Edited by Pinchas Peli. Jerusalem: Orot
Press, 1981.
-------------------------- “Out of the Whirlwind.” In Out of the Whirlwind: Essays on
Mourning, Suffering and the Human Condition, edited by David Shatz, Joel B.
Wolowelsky and Reuven Ziegler, 116-150. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House,
2003.
20
-------------------------- “Redemption, Prayer, Talmud Torah.” Tradition 17:2 (1978):
55-72.
Twersky, Isadore.
“What Must Be Taught – and Why?” In Visions of Jewish
Education, edited by Seymour Fox, Israel Scheffler and Daniel Marom, 47-76.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Unterman, Yael. “If You Seek Him With All Your Heart: Nurturing Total Individual
Growth in Yeshivah.” In Wisdom From All My Teachers: Challenges and
Initiatives in Contemporary Torah Education, edited by Jeffrey Saks and Susan
Handelman, 159-178. Jerusalem: Urim Publications (2003).