Needed for Lag BaOmer

From the Gift of the Desert – 2002

In note 5 of the article, we mentioned that the author of the above-mentioned Haggadah is debating whether the thirteen midya are the thirteen qualities of mercy or the thirteen qualities of preaching. Against this background, it is interesting to note that there is a parallel between these systems, as detailed by the Rema of Pano in his book Ten articlesHere we are attaching for public review an article by M. Avraham that deals with the relationship between the legal system and the law.

In his remarks, he also briefly addresses the question of the relationship between the explanation and the degree of preaching of the sermon, as the relationship between the revealed and the hidden in this degree.

A.

The Chass speaks about Lag BaOmer in an interesting and unusual answer, in the late Rabbi Si' Relag:

Although I knew that I had heard that now I would prepare my people and that from afar they would come and seek the Lord in Safed on the day of Lag BaOmer during the Hallula of the late Dreshbi. And even if all their intention was for the Shassh, their reward would undoubtedly be great… But for this reason alone I was one of the Pharisees, as a son of Druthai, who would not have to sit there and change their custom in front of them and who would not want to associate with them in this. Because already several Karkurim Karkar in the Farah of the Book of the Law of the Prophets, 1955, in the booklet of the customs of prohibitions, letter 14, about the places that perform Yot on the day a miracle was performed for them… That the reason why they perform Yot on the day a miracle occurred is from the island of KJV from bondage to freedom, saying that it is a song from death to life, not at all [=KJV from Pesach. See Megilla, page 14a]. But to set a date on which no miracle was performed and which was not mentioned in Shas and the rulings anywhere, and which is a hint and allusion, is merely a custom to prevent eulogies and fasting, and its reasons for this are not known to us.

And in the siddur of Mahar Yavetz 20, according to Nether, it is stated that all of it is obligatory and all of it is due, namely, ‘Hod in Hod’, the יואש. But according to Piz, it was appropriate to determine all good when we reach the Virtues [Gevura in Gevura] on the ninth day of the Omer, except that in the Lord’s sight they are the days of Nissan and there is no eulogy on it…

The Hatas, like many others, is puzzled and challenges the custom of performing a kind of Yot on Lag BaOmer on which no miracle occurred. And perhaps on days on which a miracle occurred, such as Hanukkah and Purim (and also the days of 'Purim' of private communities), they will be exempt from Passover, but on Lag BaOmer no miracle occurred, and what is the point of celebrating? Continuing his remarks there, he offers another reason, according to the Nether, for preventing a eulogy and fasting on Lag BaOmer, YOSH.

From the words of the Ya'abetz quoted by the Hatas, it appears that the meaning of Lag Ba'Omer is the law of the law. The sefirot of the law (left) among the seven lower sefirot (=Z"T) that are included in the Omer count are the vehemence and the glory. Therefore, it was appropriate to celebrate it "when we reach the vehemence," meaning on the ninth day of the Omer, which is the vehemence of the vehemence, but since it falls in Nissan, it is celebrated in the glory of the vehemence.

The 33rd of Omer is the essence of the law (the law in the law), and it is 'all of it is obligatory' (in the law, meaning that it is entirely law), but according to the law, in the law that is entirely obligatory on the souls of the person in question, the essence of the law is grace. The law is what is revealed, and grace is what is hidden within it that is revealed when the law reaches its fulfillment.

In the language of the Sages, 'law' is a term for the simple and the complex (the expressions in the literature of the Sages: "There is no punishment from the law," "Is it not law," and more). The law is the measure that is characterized primarily by being revealed, that is, understandable to the ordinary human mind, almost logically. However, to those who look within it, it is clear that there are principles within it that are not logical at all. That is, within it, and perhaps precisely within it, it is the essence of the revealed, the hidden.[1]

The problem that the Chas finds with the holiday of Lag BaOmer is that all the rabbinical holy days that we celebrate are based on 'Din', that is, on the law in the Book of the Law: "And what is death for life, etc.", while Lag BaOmer has no law to justify it (no miracle occurred on it). In other words, we see again that on Lag BaOmer we celebrate the essence of the law (everyone is obligated), which is in fact the absence of the 'Din' (entitled). This is a holiday without justification, without logic, and in particular without the usual justification for holy days that is based on 'Din' (that is, on law).

In fact, the opposite is true: Lag BaOmer is celebrated because of the law of the son of the son of the law (=law within the law), and not because of a regular law (=law) like other good days.[2]

on.

The Rema from Pano in the book Ten articles The article on the measures at the beginning of the first measure (especially) writes:

It is even easier to allude to the Supreme Crown in its relation to the cause of causes, because the crown is light and is not as light as its cause, and with all this, looking at it is forbidden, especially in what is above us.

His intention is to say that the very existence of a supreme crown is for the sake of the measure of the Creator, so that we may make of it the Creator of the Creator, and express our references to the Creator (= His cause) through His means and concepts. And because even the law of 'Dy'[3] We learn from this that the delegator is higher than the highest crown, and in 27 we discuss (=describe) him in terms of the highest crown. This reference is based on the rule 'it is enough to come from the law to be as decreed'.

So, here we already see that the quality of the law, which is the essence of the law, the understandable and logical, implies a supreme crown, which is the peak of grace, which is unlimited and defined, and incomprehensible. It comes to create a form for it so that we can perceive it and relate to it in some way. This is the function of law towards the grace that is hidden in it and stands at its root. According to the 7th, it is clear that the law in itself simply does not exist (crown = 'not'), and the whole thing is nothing but a shell that has created a form for the grace at its root.[4]

Therefore, the law of 'Dy' is an inseparable part of the KOH, since the thing being taught is higher than, higher than, the one who teaches about it, and in the KOH we are permitted to learn about it from its teacher, in the measure of the KOH (=the measure of the law).

Continuing his remarks there, the Rema explains the sages' interpretation of the law of "it is enough to come from the law to be as condemned" itself, and the late Rabbi:

Similarly, you say: "And her father is green, green in her face, will she not be covered for seven days?" Clear your mind, Amina, and more importantly, for the Shekhinah fourteen days [that if her father is covered for seven days from the Shekhinah, it is proper that she be covered for fourteen days], tel. 33: "She will be covered for seven days" [see BK 25a, which studies the law of 'Dyv' in this way].

And the reason is that her father, on the basis of wisdom, raised her up [the number of wisdom according to the Ari, z"l, is the face of the father], and there is no nothing [there is no being, and wisdom is created from the crown – there is from 'nothing'. And this is why it is said: "And wisdom is found from nowhere"], and there is no one [the number of wisdom according to the Ari, z"l, is the mother], and there is no one [wisdom is created from wisdom]. The Torah said that in Miriam's case, both of them turned into a greenish-green [which is "green in her face"], and in his own words, he exclaimed, "Will you not be filled with seven days," in contrast to the qualities under which they are worked by ["seven days" are the seven Sefirot below the Bina, those we count in the Sifiya." Is there nothing here that is trivial except for the sight of the eyes, according to the tangible simplicity, and in order for the revealed and hidden Torah flavors to be equal in their judgment, to be presented together on our lips, the Halacha came and established "Dy", and all the words of the rabbis were approved.

The Rama writes that in fact there is no KOH in these verses at all, and therefore no 'Dyu'. Their 'true' meaning (= on the path of truth) is that when wisdom harms understanding, then the seven Sefirot below these three (the crown of wisdom and understanding) are corrupted (affected) by them.

Indeed, if we were to study ordinary Pashet in these verses, and did not have the rule of 'ink', then we would conclude that Miriam needs to be purified for fourteen days, which is not correct according to the Sud. Therefore, the Halacha established the measure of 'ink', so that we would reach the correct conclusion that the seven Sefirot below are affected by the purity of the intellect.

It should be noted that the establishment of a halakhic principle such as 'ink' has broad implications in many and diverse issues and laws. If so, seemingly something very strange emerges here: in order to reconcile the plain with the hidden, an interpretive-halakhic principle is established that is apparently not true in itself, that is, it has no parallel and root in the hidden. According to the rabbinical opinion, it turns out that the implications that flow from this principle are also incorrect. For example, in the issue of BK 25a, it follows from the principle of 'ink' that a liar in the court of damages is paid half the damages and not the full damages. If indeed the principle of 'ink' is not true in itself but is created only from the constraints of compatibility between plain and hidden, then this law is apparently wrong.

It is quite clear that this law is correct, and one must indeed pay half the damage on a foundation in the court of damages, and this is indeed the case according to the law. If so, a wonderful 'coincidence' arises here: an incorrect interpretative-halachic principle creates 'by chance' correct laws throughout.

third.

God's way is to act in the world on several levels simultaneously.[5] We will present three such contexts: 1. There are physical-human explanations for events in the world, as well as metaphysical explanations. 2. Human activity also has psychological explanations (in the form of motives and impulses), and philosophical (intellectual, rational, and especially volitional decisions). 3. There are also parallel layers of explanation in the Torah, including: plainness and mystery. All of these are contexts in which the foreground is law (action according to rules) and within it lies kindness (action without rules). In all of these cases, there is seemingly a correspondence between the parallel levels.[6] However, the existence of such a match seems very incomprehensible.

In the human context, it is very difficult to understand how a person acts from psychological motives, and yet his action can also be justified on the rational-intellectual plane. If a person does indeed repent because of a mental state (but about a close person, etc.), how can we say that his repentance is a rational decision of adherence to the truth? If a person is a criminal because of personal-social problems, how do we judge him on the ethical-ideological plane? If indeed the psychological reasons are real reasons, then their existence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of the result, even if the conditions on the rational plane were not met (if a person in such a mental state truly repents because of his mental state, then he does so even if he did not decide about the truth in such a way. In fact, the decision is perceived as derived from his mental state and not as a result of a pure intellectual consideration).[7]

Even in a scientific context, it is very difficult to see that the reason why an apple fell from the tree onto Newton's head is a punishment from God for sins he committed, and at the same time it is also a result of the law of gravity. If gravity is what causes him to fall, then even if Newton had not sinned, the apple would have fallen, and vice versa.

Perhaps a solution can be offered to the problem in the human context. It is possible that the reason for a person's decision is composed of both levels, and neither of them constitutes in itself a reason for the occurrence. A person repents as a result of both philosophical and psychological considerations, and neither of these two levels can constitute a complete explanation for the phenomenon.

In the scientific context, the situation is more complicated, for if indeed the scientific-natural cause is a cause in the full sense of the word, and this is how we usually tend to understand it, then the result is inevitable even if the metaphysical consideration does not exist. If gravity acts on the apple, it will fall even if Newton did not sin at all. Here we are forced to say that following Newton's sins, God summoned him under the tree so that gravity could do its work on his head. Here too, this is a kind of combined description of the two levels.[8]

In the context of Torah interpretation, the problem is the most difficult. If the reasons in the Bible are a whole world in themselves, then they create the laws even without matching the hidden, and vice versa. Here there is no room at all for mixing between the levels. Sometimes a contradiction also arises between the levels, and in such a situation the poskim wrote that the law is as revealed (see, for example, in Maga Halacha Tefillin 35:25).[9]

The only solution to the problem of compatibility between the various levels of Torah interpretation is to assume that there is a pre-determined compatibility between them. Such compatibility is easy to achieve if we construct the revealed system in local conformity with the hidden system, meaning that every principle or law in the revealed has a parallel in the hidden. Such compatibility necessarily creates a revealed system that is completely compatible with the 'truth' (=the hidden).

However, in the words of the Rema above, a different perception is renewed. There is no local correspondence between the revealed and the hidden, the correspondence is global. From the words of the Rema it follows that not every law, or principle, found in the revealed system, has a parallel in the hidden system. For example, the principle of 'ink' has no parallel principle in the hidden. It was created only to create conclusions that would be consistent with the hidden.

If so, there is another type of correspondence here. There is a complete system of rules of interpretation and halakha on the revealed plane. There is also such a system on the hidden plane. There is no connection between a specific principle on one plane and another specific principle on the parallel plane. And yet the collection of conclusions (laws) created on both planes is completely consistent. The laws created from considerations of the revealed system are consistent with those created from considerations of the hidden system (except for exceptional cases, such as the aforementioned Maga, and ECM).

D.

Local matching can in principle be created by a human, or a human mind. It is a simple, algorithmic way to ensure compatibility between the two sets of conclusions that are created. In contrast, global matching seems impossible to be created by a human mind. It is clearly a divine creation.

In the revealed doctrine, we draw conclusions in the form of human-intellectual consideration, in the form of 'law.' These conclusions correspond, for some reason, to the conclusions that are hidden within the system of law, which are the conclusions of the occult doctrine. Within the revealed doctrine, there is the occult, but it is hidden in such a way that it is probably impossible for humans to fully discover it.

Within the law of law lies hidden grace. All of it is obligatory, meaning: entitled. This is perhaps a part of the "Hod in Hod" that is present on Lag BaOmer.

[1] And see this in my article onLogic in, which I explained in this in simple terms.

[2] And this is what the Sages said (see Rashi, Genesis 1:1):

Initially, He conceived of His creation [=the world] in the measure of justice [this is the measure of the intellect, which is the first measure among the measures], and He saw that the world does not exist [=with a measure that is understood by reason alone], and He preceded the measure of mercy and associated it with the measure of justice [He placed mercy at the root of justice, the intellect, meaning principles that are beyond reason (which for some reason are unjustly called 'feeling'), intuition]. And see the Mishnah on this at length in s. Two carts and a hot air balloon, and ECM.

At the root of the law is placed grace (mercy). When the law is condensed (in the glory of the glory), one can discern through it its emptiness as it stands for itself, that its entire being rests on grace (eternal). And so it is with the author of the 'Leshem', that when the law stands for itself, without grace mixed in with it, it consumes itself. And this is the matter of Lag BaOmer.

[3]  See our articles on the parashat Be'A'alo'teh, 566-6.

[4] Just as in the world, 'form' in itself does not exist but as an appendage to 'matter', and so on.

[5]  For a discussion of parallel levels of explanation, see in detail in my book What is and what is not, in the fourth gate.

[6] There are also inconsistencies. In the scientific context, this is called a miracle, which is an event that has no explanation on the scientific level but only on the metaphysical level. It is a breakthrough, or a glimpse, of the metaphysical into the physical, from the inside out. In the context of Torah interpretation, the corresponding inconsistency is called the 'scripture of the scripture.' This is a law that has no revealed explanation but only a hidden one. On the human level, such inconsistency is an act of free choice (in which the rational breaks into the psychological-deterministic layer). This is why it is difficult to give a scientific description of a person's actions, and especially impossible to truly understand his free choice.

A fascinating example of such a breakthrough, and with great power, is found in the book The wonders of reason, by Sylvia Nassar (which was also recently made into a film), about Nobel Prize winner in economics John Nash. Nash suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for decades, which is considered an incurable disease by psychiatry, and was cured of it (in some ways). He claims that he overcame his illness through purely intellectual and volitional means (without psychoanalytic probing, which is a treatment that deals with the psychological level of the disease, without using the rational-volitional level that lies beyond it). Mainly in Chapter 47, called: 'Recovery'.

[7] It is interesting to point out a strange phenomenon here: when a person repents, the tendency of a secular observer is to ask what made him do so (on the psychological level). In contrast, a religious observer will say that he discovered the truth (that is, he will describe the decision on the philosophical-rational level). In contrast, when a person does the opposite, then, for some reason, these observers switch roles: the religious becomes a psychologist ("to allow him to commit adultery") and the secular becomes a philosopher.

[8] In fact, if we look deeper, the problem here is not really solved in this way, since from a scientific point of view, Newton's arrival at the tree is also a physical event, and so on.

[9] And so on. AnciT P. 'Halakhah', around notes 201-209.