On the Law of “Let Us Make a Noise,” Rash Rash Rash, and Related Matters (Column 282)

Contents of the Article

With God’s help

On the Law of ‘Let Us Make a Noise,’ ‘Resh Resh Resh,’ and Its Ramifications

Come, let us make a noise: resh resh resh (ibid., ibid.)

1.

As is well known, many have shaken the world with that great question concerning the law of the noisemaker on Purim. For the author of Praise Him with Audible Cymbals, sec. Sheshakh (whose numerical value is that of ‘noisemaker,’ and your mnemonic is ‘They shall be brought to Babylon, and there they shall remain’—see Jeremiah 51:41, in Targum Yonatan), wrote to prove that at the moment people hear the name of Haman, may his name rot, they should make noise with their noisemakers. And although the matter is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and tripled in the Writings, from the verse ‘Do not rattle your mother’s ear,’ it still requires investigation why they specifically took ‘your mother’s ear,’ even though Scripture equates woman and man with respect to all punishments and all noisemakings in the Torah.

And this may be approached by what I saw from the author of Clear Hearing, who discussed before me from the ground, like a student before his master and the great sage of the generation (namely, I, the humble one), what exactly counts as the noise by which one fulfills his obligation. At first glance one might say that it is until they can no longer hear from the reader whether he is reading ‘Cursed be Haman’ or perhaps ‘Blessed be Mordecai.’ Anyone who can distinguish between these two has fulfilled his Megillah obligation but has not fulfilled his noisemaker obligation. And anyone who cannot distinguish has fulfilled his wine obligation, but not his Megillah obligation. May a pool come upon him and a curse upon his ear, and may he come to his fathers in old age. May water flow from his buckets in gladness, and may he flee from here at a run. Speedily in our days, amen; and a good name is better than fine oil.

2.

However, according to this, one must consider what Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot wrote (Laws of Megillah, sec. 19), innovating with respect to women that they are obligated to hear the Megillah and not to read it. Accordingly, of course, a woman who reads the Megillah into a pit or cistern has not fulfilled her obligation, whereas a man who reads has fulfilled it, and the matter needs no further elaboration. Now one may inquire concerning these women: if they hear the sound of an unceasing noisemaker (or, as the Targum has it, ‘and it did not cease’) and cannot distinguish between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordecai,’ have they fulfilled their Megillah obligation, seeing that they are not hearing in the way required of them? With regard to men, however, who are also obligated to read, it is obvious that we are not so exacting about hearing; even if they have not fulfilled the obligation of hearing, they have fulfilled the obligation of reading, and this is straightforward.

From here we arrive at the rule that men can fulfill both obligations, that of the Megillah and that of the noisemaker; and from here comes the practice of holy Israel to make noise with their noisemakers specifically in the men’s section and not in the women’s section. This nicely explains what is written specifically, ‘Do not rattle your mother’s ear,’ for only in the case of women is this matter of ear-rattling truly relevant, and the point is self-evident. And if it is empty, it is from you. Concerning this our sages quipped, in their holy spirit: Leave Israel alone; if they are not daughters of prophetesses, they are sons of prophetesses (and some say that this is only after the destruction of the Temple, but this is not the place).

3.

In my younger days I brought from here a simple proof, as plain as an egg, for a separate obligation upon women to read the Megillah on their own; for as we concluded above, they are not to make noise with noisemakers at all, and whoever breaches the fence shall be bitten by a snake. For if they were to read in a synagogue where the men make noise and the women answer back (like fire in stubble), the sound of the noisemakers would deafen their ears, and they would not fulfill their obligation of hearing, which is obvious.

However, this may be rejected, for from this very point we may learn the law of the partition in the synagogue: the partition certainly blocks the noise, and thus in the women’s section only a still small voice is heard. There they made an excellent enactment. But in those synagogues of those wicked and wanton people called Reformers, whose partition is perforated like a pomegranate, there one must also worry about the law of noise in the women’s section. And those wicked people did well not to put up any partition at all, for what is the use of a partition whose holes cannot hold pomegranates so as to contract impurity?

It is true that some permitted even a partition perforated enough to admit a pomegranate, by the law of lavud, and there is no doubt whatsoever that in their section there is no law of noise at all. Anyone who casts doubt on this is deemed a heretic, like one who says, ‘What benefit have the sages brought us?’ (for this is surely an explicit law given to Moses at Sinai: gud, lavud, and a bent wall). Therefore, after the fact, it appears that women fulfill their obligation through the reading in their section as well, and not only by themselves, even where in the men’s section those children are making noise with their noisemakers; and even a fool who stops up his ears is counted wise. But one question remains to be clarified: what are women to do regarding the obligation of noisemakers (for although it is obviously time-dependent, they are clearly not exempt from it)? This depends on a profound inquiry among the later authorities concerning the law of ‘resh resh resh,’ and I shall expand on it below.

4.

Not long ago I saw a marvelous suggestion in the holy book When Wine Enters, the Eye Comes Out, by the author of Making Noises, second edition, in his pamphlet Noises of the Heart. He wrote that women should sit in their section and men in theirs, and there they made an excellent enactment, and that they should tell two children to make noise with their noisemakers in one stroke. From that point everything works out beautifully, and they fulfill both the noisemaker obligation and the Megillah obligation. For in Rosh HaShanah (27a) we maintain that two sounds are not heard, and therefore these noisemakers cancel one another out and are not regarded as noise at all.

His proof is decisive from what is written: ‘Come, let us make a noise—resh resh resh.’ At first glance this is difficult, for why are three resh’s needed? It seems that one comes for itself, the second resh for one noisemaker, and the last resh for the second noisemaker. This, however, depends on whether we expound initial letters; for according to the one who does expound initial letters, it would seem to arise from the plain sense and not from exegesis, and this is not the place. And if you ask, from where does the other authority derive it? It seems that he derives it from the fact that it teaches ‘resh resh resh’ and not ‘resh, poor and destitute.’ And what does the first authority do with that? He derives from it a prohibition of eating, deriving benefit from, and cooking two noisemakers. And the other derives it from the extra heh in ‘let us make a noise,’ and from there derives them all. And the other does not expound the difference between ‘make a noise’ and ‘let us make a noise.’

5.

However, this may depend on what we find in the holy book In Praise of the Netshar (that is, Rabbi Kohen of Untarnished Name, founder of the movement of the opponents), which is all sweetness, though his palate is bitter as wormwood. It consists entirely of stories one must believe never happened, were never created, and indeed could never have happened; and were I not afraid, I would say they were not even parables. All of them are pure instruction, without the slightest suspicion of Hasidism.

Now in that small section of In Praise of the Netshar, on the portion ‘Remember,’ it is brought that this Netshar was traveling along the road in his study-hall wagon with his disciples, and they meditated on Torah all that night without noticing that they had not reached the forest at all and that their wagon had not broken down in the slightest. Suddenly they heard a commotion in town. The Netshar sent Berel the scholar to see what they had seen and what had befallen them. Berel came to the study hall of those Hasidim, with the Baal Shem Tov at their head, and saw them drinking and dancing, and speaking words of censure about this ‘aspect of Esau’ and that ‘aspect of the aspect of the world of chaos and the husk of Amalek’ (= Rashi: too long; did not read), and not studying Torah at all. Thereupon Esau’s rage leapt upon that Berel, and he asked them a tremendous question regarding the law of the noisemaker: how can women fulfill both the Megillah obligation and the obligation of noise at once? Shmerel the wagon-driver spoke up, ran over to the holy Baal Shem Tov, and said to him: Let me answer them, for if they defeat me they will say, ‘You defeated the smallest of us.’

Shmerel the wagon-driver then spoke and asked Berel the scholar: What are we to make of the verse ‘Come, let us make a noise—resh resh resh’? Why is ‘let us make a noise’ alone not sufficient, and what does Scripture add with this exposition of ‘resh resh resh’? Is ‘let us make a noise’ alone really not enough? Berel stood astonished for a whole hour and did not know what to answer them.

At that very time, meanwhile, the holy Netshar planted a sword in his study hall and posed the following question: What is this noise of the noisemaker? Is the law about the act of making the noise, or is our obligation to hear it? They debated this great legal question all that day, one saying thus and another saying thus, and no conclusion emerged from their hands. In the end the walls of the study hall inclined, and the watercourse changed its course, and a heavenly voice went forth from heaven; but in the end they took a vote and concluded: ‘It is not in heaven.’ And that heavenly voice concluded that it is a law of action, and its proof was from the very place from which you came. According to this, women properly fulfill both the obligation of noise and the obligation of Megillah with two noisemakers. For the act of making noise is present, even though there are two noisemakers, but there is no sound, because two sounds are not heard; thus the women also properly fulfill Megillah reading, for in the absence of sound they will certainly distinguish between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordecai.’ The marks of truth are evident. But as for the one whose heart emboldened him to go after the king and say that two sounds are heard more than one sound—let the matter be buried and never uttered.

Divine inspiration entered the heart of Berel the scholar, and he immediately answered Shmerel the wagon-driver in these terms. At once all those Hasidim repented fully, abandoned their Hasidism, and became opponents according to the law of Moses and Israel.

6.

It is true that there is still room to discuss great matters here. For in that passage in Rosh HaShanah we bring that two sounds from two men are indeed heard, and only two sounds from one man are not heard. From this there arose in my mind a way to resolve the fine point of that great man, after kissing the soles of his holy feet and wiping away his bacteria, and I said to myself that these two noisemakers should be placed in the hands of one child, and from that point everything is in order. Another suggestion occurred to me at an hour that was neither of day nor of night: to check whether those children had two hairs, for if the makers of the noise were not adult men but children (or a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor), then they would not fall under the category of two men, and accordingly their two sounds would be heard, which is obvious. Therefore, if there is no deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor there, then if another sage joins me I shall come after the king and permit, on the strength of my broad understanding, that one man hold two noisemakers, so that they indeed will not be heard. In this way both the women and the men in that synagogue will fulfill their obligations. Even so, one who guards his soul should keep far from such fire in stubble, and whoever breaches the fence will be bitten by a snake.

[From the students’ letters: After the lecture they asked the master whether one may derive a fortiori from the case of lambs breaking through a gap more than three handbreadths beneath the partition of a sukkah. For if lambs, which have actual substance, can break through there, then noise, which is a sound and has no substance, certainly breaks through and rises to the firmament even through less than three handbreadths beneath the partition. Therefore holy Israel quite properly adopted the practice that the partition be sealed against noise and reach all the way to the floor, like that of ‘He spread His cloud over him.’]

It is true that if two children make noise, and as we hold that two sounds from two children are not heard, then the sound indeed does not break through into the women’s section. Even so, one may still inquire whether non-penetration can apply in the absence of sound, or perhaps only sound does not break through whereas the absence of sound breaks through and through; but this is not the place. However, all pure-hearted people should beware not to place two noisemakers in the hands of one man, for then their sound is not heard, and consequently it would seem that their lack of sound breaks through and rises to the firmament even through an opaque partition with lavud joins. Divine inspiration appeared in my study hall when my reflections awakened me to the fact that this is precisely what Rashi on Kings wrote: ‘I heard that there is a voice that comes forth from the silence’—and give to the wise, and he will grow wiser.

7.

However, one must discuss whether this rule that two sounds are not heard is a matter of cancellation, or whether it is a law of the Torah that two sounds have no status of sound at all. The practical difference is whether, after the cancellation, the sound of one of them remains, or whether both are canceled and no sound is present at all. For if it is a matter of cancellation, then it is obvious that the canceling element certainly remains even after the cancellation, and only the canceled element is annulled. But if it is a law of the Torah that two sounds do not fall under the category of sound at all, then there is simply no noise here whatsoever.

A proof for this, it seems to me, may be brought from the testimony of two brothers, such as Moses and Aaron, where on the face of it each should have the law of one witness and impose an oath. For if Moses testifies concerning Aaron, he is disqualified as a brother and thus is no witness; and if Aaron testifies concerning Moses, he is disqualified as a brother. Thus, in either direction, one witness ought to remain to impose an oath. And I was astonishingly perplexed that, even with all the expertise of the Shakh, I did not find a carpenter or a carpenter’s son who would impose an oath in such a case. From here it follows that there is not even an obligation of an oath here, and thus we properly learn from this that two brothers are not witnesses at all. And from this you may also understand that two sounds are not sound at all; it is a law of the Torah.

And since we have attained this precious pearl, we have also attained the rule ‘from their mouths and not from their writing,’ for from my youth I wondered whence its source. A further difficulty was: where is that ‘from their mouths’ from which we derive it? Now I see that it is simple logic, so why should I need a verse? For if testimony given in writing were valid, then it could no longer be disqualified by the rule that two sounds are not heard (for writing, in reality, has no sound, even according to the view that writing is like speech), and then from two brothers one witness would indeed remain to impose an oath—and the matter needs no further elaboration.

8.

It is true that after writing all this, a certain sage of silences drew my attention to the fact (namely, a great man who was punctilious in the law of noise and listened often to noisemakers) that in that Rosh HaShanah passage we find that when the two sounds are beloved, both are heard full well. From that point one must discuss the case of two noisemakers that ordinarily are not heard: for those to whom the noise of noisemakers is beloved, have they thereby fulfilled the obligation of noise (and consequently not fulfilled the Megillah obligation)? One might say that even if both are in the hands of one man, or two are in the hands of two children, they would fail to fulfill their obligation because the noise is beloved to them.

Now when I saw this tremendous difficulty, my heart fell dead within me, until the dwellers of the pillows came to my aid (that is, the worms), and I studied the books, and from the mouths of noisy babes and sucklings I founded strength; and with this we conclude. Whoever finds the noises of the noisemaker beloved—their noises indeed do not cancel one another, and their sound is heard. Accordingly, there is reason to be concerned for the reading of the Megillah even when one hears two noisemakers, whether from two children or from one man. It is true, however, that anyone to whom these noisemaker noises are beloved has the legal status of an imbecile, and accordingly is not obligated in the Megillah.

May the good Lord save us and show us wonders, and save our ears from terrible noises. Whoever hears the noise, both his ears shall tingle; and whoever hears the Megillah, the chambers of his belly shall rejoice and his kidneys exult. Therefore its name is Megillah, in memory of that rejoicing. Thus shall it be done to the man who makes noise with two noisemakers. But if he is still a child and not yet old, then he has the status of a woman and not of a man. And pleasant shall it be for the hearer.