Mattos: In the World, But Above It

The Mishnah5 clarifies the intent of taking vows, commenting, “Vows are a protective fence for piety,”6 because they train a person, enabling him to attain that attribute. By taking vows to forbid – and thus refrain from using or doing – things that would otherwise be permitted, a person reaches a desired level of piety. In general, this is an element of the Divine service mandated by our Sages’ charge,7 “Sanctify yourself in what is permitted to you.” The intent is that even when the Torah permits certain foods or forms of conduct, the Sages advised a person to adopt curbs so that he attains a higher level of refinement.

True, the Talmud Yerushalmi voices reservations regarding taking on vows, questioning,8 “Is it not sufficient what the Torah has forbidden to you?” This, however, only serves as a directive for a person whose conduct reflects the verse,9 “G‑d made man upright.” When a person conducts himself as he should, living up to his human potential, he does not have to restrain himself from involvement with permitted things. Indeed, such an individual must not practice such restraint,10 for he is obligated to involve himself with, and thus elevate, entities lower than himself – namely, animals, plants, and inanimate matter – by using them for a spiritual purpose.

However, when one conducts himself differently, “seek[ing] many forms of contrivances,”5 i.e., he looks for all sorts of rationalizations for concentrating his energies on worldly affairs, he does not see himself as a conduit11 for G‑dliness. Instead, he seeks pleasure in material things. Not only does such a person not elevate the material entities with which he is involved, but the desire and satisfaction he experiences from the food or the like draws his soul downward (and also lowers the spiritual level of the objects used). Such a person needs to follow the mode of conduct associated with vows and piety.12

A similar rationale explains why it was primarily in the time of the Second Beis HaMikdash that our Sages ordained many safeguards to the observance of the Torah. In the era of the First Beis HaMikdash, G‑dliness shone forth overtly. Even in the 70 years of exile following the first destruction, traces of this revelation remained in certain matters.13

By contrast, in the era of the Second Beis HaMikdash, the revelation of the light of holiness was lacking,14 and thus, the dark forces opposing holiness became stronger.15 Therefore, restraints and curbs were employed to help overcome the increased darkness that resulted.16

Thereafter, from generation to generation, as these negative forces have continued to intensify, the Rabbis have added even more strictures, restraints, and curbs.

This dynamic is seen not only in the history of mankind as a whole, but within the personal life of every individual, for every person goes through different phases. There are times when G‑dliness shines within his life and, at those times, he need not fear involvement with worldly matters, for the world does not conceal G‑dliness for him; on the contrary, it serves to reveal G‑dliness. It is as if the elements of his life proclaim, “See Who created these.”17

But then there are times of darkness, when a person does not perceive G‑dliness. At those times, he must employ curbs and restraints, avoiding involvement even with many pleasurable entities that are permitted. Otherwise, such involvement can drag him to a lower spiritual plane.

The positive effect of using restraints and curbs as aids to overcome the battle with the forces opposing holiness – even in a time when spiritual darkness becomes stronger – is twofold:

a) Through restraints and strictures, a person distances himself from material orientation, minimizing his involvement with the spiritual darkness within the world. By avoiding the enemy, he does not allow it the opportunity to battle against holiness.

b) Restraints and strictures draw down a higher G‑dly light,18 and this empowers the forces of holiness.

Similar concepts apply with regard to vows. Aside from the virtue of self-discipline associated with vows through which one can forestall (to a certain degree) the spiritual decline caused by excessive involvement in material matters, vows elicit positive energy, drawing down holiness.19 This empowers a person, providing him with added strength to confront the challenge of the forces opposing holiness.

The fact that the piety brought about by vows is necessary when one finds himself in a spiritual decline and darkness – at a time when the general public are “seek[ing] many forms of contrivances”5 – implies that a person sanctioned to nullify or absolve vows functions on a very elevated spiritual level. Not only does such a person not need the curbs resulting from vows himself, he is able to influence people who would otherwise require a vow, allowing them to persevere in their worldly involvement without stumbling.

For this reason, we see that those who are given the license to nullify or absolve vows are on a much higher spiritual level than those who take vows. For example, a father can nullify his daughter’s20 vow because “anything that accrues to her belongs to her father.”21 A husband can nullify his wife’s vows because his wife lives in his domain.22

Surely, this applies to a wise man who is given the power to absolve the vows of others.23 In fact, one opinion24 holds that, in this context, the term “wise man” refers to a person ordained with the special semichah conveyed in an unbroken chain from one Sage to another dating back to Moshe our teacher. Such a person surely stands on a very lofty spiritual plane.

(Even three ordinary people are sanctioned to absolve a vow. However, this power is granted them only because their status is elevated and their authority enhanced since they constitute a court of law.)25

The concept of vows and their nullification, like all concepts in the Torah, applies within both the macrocosm and the microcosm. Generally, we conceive of the person taking a vow and the one nullifying or absolving it as two different individuals as above in section 3. However, there are parallels to these two personages within every single individual. Everyone possesses the potential for two different modes of Divine service: one level which requires taking vows and a loftier level which requires that vows be nullified and absolved.

As stated in Kabbalah, and as cited and explained in Chassidus,26 these two levels refer to the two powers of chochmah and binah within our individual souls. The approach of binah necessitates vows and safeguards, while the approach of chochmah allows for the absolution of vows.

The difference between binah and chochmah can be explained as follows: Binah is the source of rational intellect, while chochmah manifests itself in bittul.

Rational intellect is limited in scope and can reach only so far. It cannot extend beyond its given range. This is why with regard to matters that are above the reach of intellect, our Sages dictate,27 “You have no permission to probe concerning it” – the implication is that we may not contemplate these matters with our reason. Since these matters transcend intellect, there is the possibility that our rational minds may err and fail to realize, or may even go against, the truth. In that vein, the Prophets warn28 against those who “are wise to do evil,” i.e., their wisdom is misdirected. Accordingly, piety and restraint – which limit the reliance on intellect – are necessary. Therefore, vows should be taken.

By contrast, when operating from the approach of chochmah, there is no concern that one will stumble, for the bittul of chochmah, complete selflessness, removes the possibility of error stemming from self-concern.

A comparable level of bittul is experienced in the Shemoneh Esreh prayer29 when one stands before G‑d “like a servant before his Master,”30 without any thought of self. Indeed, a servant is considered no more than an extension of his master. For this reason, “Whatever is acquired by a servant is acquired by his master.”31

Moreover, the bittul which characterizes chochmah empowers one’s understanding as well, directing it on the proper path.32 As mentioned previously, a wise man (a chocham) has the prerogative to absolve a vow, lending strength to a person who otherwise would require the restraint engendered by vows. In a similar way, the bittul of chochmah (described with the analogies of both a father and a husband) empowers the functioning of binah (described with the analogies of a young daughter and a wife).33

The need for piety stemming from vows arises not only because indulgence in permitted things may lead to transgression, but because the indulgence in permitted entities itself is undesirable. As a person becomes engrossed in worldly matters, he begins to consider the world important, an approach that runs contrary to the feeling that “There is nothing else aside from G‑d.”34

From this, it is possible to understand that the positive virtue of chochmah, which allows for the absolution of vows, enables a person to sidestep that difficulty. Not only does the bittul of chochmah cause a person to view the possibility of transgression as out of the question, it endows him with a different and loftier perspective regarding the physical entities with which he will become involved, enabling him to appreciate the G‑dliness they contain.35

To explain: As mentioned previously,36 chochmah and binah are described by the analogy of a father and a mother because they generate the “birth” of the emotional attributes. Binah is considered the “mother” – i.e., a closer source – of the emotive attributes.

The supernal emotive attributes are the source for the creation of the world.37 As such, the connection between our world and binah is not distant and, from the perspective of binah, the entities in this world possess a certain measure of importance.

By contrast, chochmah is described as the father of the emotions – i.e., it is further removed from them, and even more so from the worlds which come into being as a result of them. As such, the world is of no consequence at this level. On the contrary, chochmah is permeated by the awareness that “He alone exists; there is no other.”38

Since binah grants the entities in this world a certain measure of importance, restraint and withdrawal from worldly matters becomes necessary, for involvement in worldly concerns might create a separation between a person and G‑dliness. This is not true with regard to chochmah, a rung on which worldly matters hold no significance. Since the world is of no consequence for those who function at this level, it becomes possible for them to be involved with worldly concerns without fear of becoming separated from G‑d.39

During many years – as is also the case this year, 5722 – the Shabbos on which the passage concerning vows is read is the Shabbos on which the month of Menachem Av is blessed.40

Based on the above concepts regarding vows, it is possible to gain an insight into the unique nature of the coming month. To explain: Av is the name by which the month was referred to in the era of the Targum.41 Nevertheless, it is Jewish custom – and “Jewish custom is considered as the Torah itself”42 – to bless the month with the name Menachem Av. (Menachem means “comfort” or “consolation”; alternatively, “the Comforter” or “the Consoler.”)

Moreover, this is not merely a custom; it is halachically acceptable to use the name Menachem Av when writing the date of legal documents and bills of divorce. Furthermore, even if one writes the word Menachem alone, the document is acceptable, for, “It is well known that the month of Av is referred to as Menachem.”43

From a straightforward perspective, the month of Av is connected with the unfavorable events that occurred during this month and, therefore, “When Av enters, we minimize our joy.”44 For this reason, the month is referred to as Menachem Av, or merely, Menachem, implying a request that G‑d provide comfort for the negative elements associated with it.

The name Av also has a positive connotation, for it also means “father.” Indeed, it refers to a deeper dimension of consolation than does the word Menachem. Thus, our Sages comment45 on the verse,46 “I, I [Myself,] am He Who comforts you.”

It is the nature of a father to show mercy, [as it written],47 “As a father has mercy on [his] children.” And it is the nature of a mother to console and comfort, [as it is written,]48 “As a man who is comforted by his mother.” G‑d promises, “I will function as both a father and a mother.”

From this, we see that the name Menachem, the Comforter, is connected with binah (the mother), but the influence of chochmah (the father) is even higher. Thus, we find that the name of the month refers to three aspects: the negative dimensions of Av, the consolation stemming from binah, and the positive influence of the father, “the way of the father,” i.e., the contribution of chochmah.

The difference between consolation and mercy can be explained as follows: Consolation involves the recognition of a loss for which the consolation is offered.49 Indeed, even after a person has been comforted, he still feels the negative effects of the loss; he still views it as an undesirable factor. What does offering consolation mean? That it is possible to find different reasons with which to console the one who suffered the loss. It is even possible to find a reason that enables him to accept the negative factors with joy. Nevertheless, the feeling of loss – that something opposite of good took place50 – remains; it is only that one is able to accept it with joy.

For this reason, the law is that one should no longer offer consolation to mourners after the period of mourning passes.51 Since the time of acute pain has ended, one should not attempt to comfort them and thus reawaken negative emotions, because – as mentioned – consolation is associated with pain.

For similar reasons, after the Resurrection of the Dead, the concept of consolation will seemingly no longer apply, for then, “G‑d will wipe away tears from every face.”52

By contrast, mercy completely fills the lack a person feels, compensating entirely for the loss to the extent that pain is totally wiped away as a matter of course. For this reason, it is possible to explain the reason why the Resurrection of the Dead will come about through the attribute of mercy, as we say in our prayers, “He resurrects the dead with great mercy.”53 For the attribute of mercy does not allow for even the concept of death or descent.

This echoes the thoughts explained previously: that comfort stems from binah (the supernal mother), and mercy from chochmah (the supernal father). From the perspective of binah, the world is a significant entity. Therefore, even when a person brings himself to accept suffering with joy, the suffering remains suffering; it is only that he accepts it with joy.

However, from the perspective of chochmah (the level identified with utter bittul), worldly existence is entirely insignificant. As a result, from the very outset, worldly privations are not regarded as suffering.54

To cite an example: Reb Zusya of Anapoli was poverty stricken and suffered many types of hardships. The Maggid of Mezeritch once sent a student to him to learn how to accept suffering with joy. When the student came to Reb Zusya and told him the purpose of his visit, Reb Zusya replied that he did not understand why the Maggid sent the student to him, exclaiming, “I have never experienced any suffering or lack.”

Reb Zusya’s bittul was so great that he did not feel that he suffered even when confronted by great hardships which the Torah would rightfully consider privations. (For if these were not considered privations, the Maggid of Mezeritch would have had no reason to send his student to Reb Zusya.) Moreover – and this is also of primary importance – the Maggid surely knew Reb Zusya’s level of bittul and how he would respond, which is why he sent the student to learn from Reb Zusya in the first place. From this, it is understood that this mode of conduct is also included in accepting suffering with joy.

This is what G‑d means by saying, “I will function as both a father and a mother”: In the Ultimate Future, He will reveal to the Jews not only the comfort of binah, but also the mercy that stems from chochmah.

A question, however, arises: Since, in the Era of the Redemption, the quality of mercy will be revealed and, as a result, all deficiencies will be nullified entirely at that time, why will there be a need for the aspect of consolation, which is connected with a lack and the pain the lack causes? In other words: For what will we need to be consoled?

This question can be answered as follows: The ultimate purpose of creation is G‑d’s desire for a dwelling in our material realm. This implies that the entities of our material world, as they exist within their own framework of being, will become a dwelling for Him.

Mercy stems from such a lofty level that it leaves no place for the existence of our world, i.e., it does not allow for the consideration of the world’s limitations. Thus, it could nullify this framework of existence, eliminating it entirely. But, since the Divine intent is that this framework should continue to exist, consolation remains a necessary component, for consolation recognizes the need for the existence of our world and operates within the mindset it engenders. Thus, in the Ultimate Future, consolation will be manifest within the world, as it exists in its present framework.55

This is the intent of G‑d’s promise, “I will function as both a father and a mother”; He will reveal both the qualities of a father, i.e., the light of chochmah that transcends the limits of the Spiritual Cosmos, and also those of a mother, i.e., the comfort of binah. Then, this superior light of chochmah will not nullify the world, but will instead descend and be internalized within it.

On this basis, we can also appreciate the meaning of the name of the month Menachem Av – first Menachem, “the Comforter,” and then Av, the Father. Our Divine service follows a pattern of ascent from below. Therefore, the first stage is consolation, associated with binah. The reason is that as part of the calendar, the month of Av exists within its natural pattern of the ebb and flow of Divine energy. Without the effect produced by the Divine service of the Jewish people, it has negative connotations. As mentioned previously, we are instructed, “When Av enters, we minimize our joy.”

However, through their Divine service, the Jews have the potential to elicit comfort during this month, just as they have the potential to draw down holiness by taking a vow, calling forth the spiritual power of binah.

Afterwards, a higher level is reached. After receiving consolation, comes the influence of Av, associated with chochmah. This enables one to absolve vows. However, since the influence of binah is already present, the influence of chochmah does not lead to the nullification of the world. There can be Menachem Av, i.e., Av (“the Father”) has an effect on Menachem (the Comforter). The month thus represents the unity of chochmah and binah, enabling the light that transcends the structure of the Spiritual Cosmos to be drawn down and internalized within our world.

Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Mattos-Maasei 5722 (1962)Likkutei Sichos, Volume 4, P. 1076ff.