Scriptural Misappropriation and Do Angels Have Wings? Bava Basra 161-163

161

Scriptural Misappropriation

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the possibility that a witness might sign a document using his father’s name alone, without his name, as an identifier, much as different sages used symbols as a signature mark such as a fish or a palm branch. While symbols were accepted and plausible as signatory devices, the Gemara concluded that a person would not use his father‘s name as an identifier, as this would be considered disrespectful. (We are not discussing using one’s father‘s name as part of signing “Plony the son of Plony”, which is customary but instead just signing one’s father‘s name alone.) 

Rav Mordechai Weinstock in Mevaser Torani quotes a responsa of the Rogotchover who applies the ethics of this ruling in a novel way. Some have a custom to read the alphabetical verses from Psalm 119 at gravesite of a deceased person which correspond to his name. Psalm 119 contains sets of eight verses, each beginning with a letter from the alphabet, from Aleph to Tav. The Rogotchover believed that this practice was a misguided and a disrespectful appropriation of the holy Psalms for personal use. Reading the verses out of order to create some kind of incantation that spells the person’s name is a moral violation of the same spirit discussed in our Gemara. This is similarly disrespectful as a person using his father‘s name for identification.

The Rogotchover has a high standard of what is considered misappropriation of holy verses. We do find other examples of prayers being used to honor a person, usually by the author. It is common to see the first letters of each verse spell out the name of the author in the shabbos zemiros and other liturgy. One might argue that holy scripture is different than prayers, as one is written with some degree of divine prophetic voice, while even though the other is a prayer to the divine, the actual words that are composed come from the author.

Also, notably many Sefarim in history, contain some hint to the author’s name in the beginning of the work. Sefer Chasidim (367) says one who embeds his name in the title of a work takes away from his reward in the world to come. However, Rav Eliezer Mi-Garmiza writes in his introduction to his Sefer known as the Rokeach, that the title is a hint to his name. He states further that a person ought to allude to his name in the name of his written works, and cites  numerous historical examples. 

There is a Teshuva of the Rashba (also quoted by Rama, YD 249:13) which says that though it is wrong to aggrandize oneself for giving tzedakah, it is proper that his name be recorded for posterity as a remembrance. The Rashba cites numerous verses in the Torah which recognizes achievements and good deeds, even when the narrative shows that no else could have known, as if to specifically make sure he gets the credit. For example, the verse which tells us that Reuven secretly went back to save Yosef (Bereishis 37:21) serves no purpose other than to inform posterity.  Good deeds should be publicized, not for self-glorification, but to encourage others to give. 

We could consider the embedding of names in prayers and Sefarim by their author as an extension of this principle. Celebrating an important mitzvah and sharing it with others is like a siyum, whose function is to inspire others, and even the honoree. 

162

Click on Accept

Our Gemara on Amud Beis rules that the final line in the contract can only be a review of the contents, and cannot serve as evidence of any additional obligations or information. This is a safeguard against fraud, as this makes it difficult for a forger to squeeze in additional information between the bottom line of the contract and the witness’s signatures.

Sefer Daf al Saf quotes Sefer Haikarim (IV:40) who uses this to add depth to the closing admonition given by Moshe to the Jewish people (Devarim 32:46-47):

He said to them: Take to heart all the words with which I have warned you this day. Enjoin them upon your children, that they may observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching. 

For this is not an empty thing for you: it is your very life; through it you shall long endure on the land that you are to possess upon crossing the Jordan.

Just as it is customary to review the conditions of the contract on the final line, so too at the closing section of the Torah, Moshe reviews the covenant. In his words, he alludes to both blessings of the Torah: material success and everlasting life. The phrase, “It is your very life”, refers to the world to come. The phrase, “Endure on the land”, refers to material and societal success. Sefer Haikkarim explains that the declaration,  “Mitzvos are your very life” is literal. By keeping the Torah, everlasting and true life is achieved. He, like many philosophic rishonim, holds Immortality is not so much a reward but rather the consequence of the elevation of the soul achieved through attachment to God. This occurs via incorporating the values of the Torah because the way we are made in the image of God is via the intellectual capacity. Therefore to internalize thought patterns that are closest to the ultimate source of wisdom and intellect, creates a form of resonance and conjoinment with God. (Intellect is not a great translation, as this is not knowledge of facts alone but also wisdom and character that informs judgment.) To the degree that we, that is our souls, achieve this, is the degree of Godly life force we become part of. The Torah is life because it allows access to the immortal.

The reader may note that there is emphasis on the development of character and intellect, i.e. the soul, and no mention of behavior. This too is representative of the philosophical rishonim who understood the performance of mitzvos as a form of learning on the job to incorporate the higher moral virtues that become a part of self. Mitzvos either instruct and inspire, or are an automatic expression of the deeper moral truth that it embodies. Paradoxically, even though the thought and state of mind is the ultimate goal, practically this cannot be achieved by moral action alone, but moral actions are the byproduct of the elevated state of mind and inevitable to one who has evolved a Godly character.

Returning to the metaphor of a contract used by the Sefer Haikarim. Is he just using a borrowed term as a clever melitzah, or does the metaphor hold true even in the particulars? That is, does the idea that the final line of a contract serves as a review help us understand why Moshe reviewed the covenant at the closing section? I think yes. To the less westernized mode of thought, all matters are interrelated. The idea of reviewing a contract represents a deeper truth that goes beyond legalities. The way humans integrate, learn and incorporate ideas is via summary and review. To agree with something, one must grasp the entirety of it, which is impossible due to the large amounts of data that is in every agreement. The data must be summarized so the mind can “click on accept.” 

If I ask you, “Do you believe in honoring the Constitution?” You might pause for a moment before your answer, but unless you’re the Rogotchover or the Steipler, you didn’t review the entire text. Instead, you have a file in your brain that was created over years with the title, “The Constitution”. In this file are memories, key points and personal associations. You quickly scan the mental file, and decide to say yes or no. 

The spiritual idea of attachment to God via harmonization of intellect and character can be seen that way. The totality of the Torah and God are too large to grasp, but by the review and summarization of its ideas, an ability to intuitively see all of it manifests itself, even though its true nature can never be fully comprehended. Just click on accept.

163

Finding Yourself by Winging it 

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the standard width of a line in order to determine the acceptable width of a blank section between the closing line of the contract and the witness’s signatures. As we discussed on daf 162, this is a safeguard against cheating, to prevent the later insertion of fraudulent obligations and conditions.

The yardstick used by the rabbis is comprised of two words, which contain tall and short letters, so as to account for extra space typically required above and below a line:

Space enough to write the Hebrew word lekh, and then the Hebrew word lekha, this word on top of that one. These two words each consist of the two letters lamed and final khaf; the former has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space above it, and the latter has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space below it. Writing these words one under the other, then, would require an additional interlinear space above and below both lines. 

Of course the most famous use of letters that manifest this up and down are the word and letter combination which is from God’s first direction to Avraham (Bereishis 12:1):

God said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.”

The Hebrew phrase is “lech lecha”, and is difficult to translate. Literally it is saying, “Go to yourself”, which doesn’t make sense. The popular interpretation, based on the Midrash and Rashi, is “Go out for yourself”, meaning this journey will bring greatness and goodness to your life. 

Kli Yakkar says a beautiful peshat. It actually does mean to go to yourself. Hashem was saying, go and discover yourself. By going inside and connecting to your soul, you will become your true self and thereby bring about prophetic attachment to God. 

The process of finding oneself in God and God in oneself is somewhat reminiscent of the Rambam’s famous interpretation of Jacob’s Ladder in his dream (Guide for the Perplexed I:15).  It is notable that the angels in Yaakov’s dream first ascend the ladder and then descend. That is not logical as presumably angels originate in heaven, so the order should be descending and ascending. The answer hinges on what is the true translation of Angel. In Biblical Hebrew the word we translate as angel is malach, which actually means messenger, (see for example Bamidbar 20:16 where it is used in a secular sense.) This is why prophets are also referred to as malachim, since both prophets and angels bring God’s message and are His messengers. 

Therefore the “angels” in Yaakov’s dream are those who bring the word of God down to people, be they actual angels, prophets, or those who teach the word of God in their words and deeds. Now we understand the order. One first ascends in order to achieve spiritual connection and then descends in order to bring down the word of God.

Yaakov was to continue his grandfather’s mission, to discover his full self, his soul, and thereby bring the word of God to others. This is poignantly portrayed in a dream that he has when leaving his birthplace. He, like Avraham, had to embark on a long journey, externally traversing the physical world, but internally by becoming his fullest self. 

It occurs to me that this idea is symbolically represented in the actual letters of the words, “Lech lecha.” The Lamed reached above the line to Heaven and Kaf extends downward to bring the message to Earth.

One last point I cannot resist. I try to employ true understanding of Biblical Hebrew to decontaminate from subtle incorrect cultural attitudes and beliefs. These mindsets and world views are unconsciously incorporated as a result of powerful influences on thought that come from the implicit categorization and depictions in each language. We must always strive to use our best objective thinking to comprehend and translate Torah and be wary of words that may be loosely similar in English, but actually are different. A scholar pointed out to me an example that had not occurred to me; as I was duped by the English word. In English we have basically one word for Angel, but in Hebrew we have many, such as cherubim, ofanim, chayos hakodesh and seraphim (see for example, Yechezkel’s vision, Chapter one.) The Hebrew Bible never depicts malachim as having wings; only perhaps ofanim, chayos hakodesh and seraphim, and most famously the cherubim on the ark and in Shlomo Hamelech’s Temple. Therefore we have been duped by hundreds of years of Christian paintings, which ended up becoming part of our mental and physical art gallery. I do not know any Jew who studies Yaakov’s dream or who recites Sholom Aleichem Friday night without imagining winged entities. We have been bamboozled and deprived of true comprehension. Malachim are messengers, heavenly or otherwise. You might think, this is all semantics, who cares if we think angels have wings or not?  It is important to notice the subtle influence of language on thought. If we think of angels with wings whenever we see the word malach, we are missing an opportunity to understand more.  God has many messengers aside from angels. We certainly ought to welcome angels to our Shabbos table, and hope we merit that God will send His messengers to bless us. These may be human intellectual and moral faculties that God enlightens us with, prophecy, or hopefully even divine entities, such as angels. But one thing for sure to keep in mind is that they do not have any wings!