Yisro 5761 – Connecting to Hashem with Panim, not Achur

By Har Sinai we have a chiddush in Emunah, as the passuk says:

הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ וְגַם בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם:

Shemos 19:9

It needs hesber what this chiddush in Emunah is, because by kriyas yam suf we already have וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּיהֹוָה וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ. What exactly changed? It doesn’t sound like it’s quantitative, meaning Yam suf was a little bit of Emunah, which is good, but Har Sinai was a lot, which is very good. The passuk is saying ְ וְגַם בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם, which sounds qualitative, now the Emunah is l’Olam.

This is very similar to what the Rambam says by Moshe Rabbeinu – that our Emunah is not based on signs and wonders, because שֶׁהַמַּאֲמִין עַל פִּי הָאוֹתוֹת יֵשׁ בְּלִבּוֹ דֹּפִי. Instead he brings our passuk of “וְגַם בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם” and says מִכְלַל שֶׁקֹּדֶם דָּבָר זֶה לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ בּוֹ נֶאֱמָנוּת שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא נֶאֱמָנוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ הִרְהוּר וּמַחֲשָׁבָה: This is a qualitative change that happened at Har Sinai. I want to understand that nekuda.¹

Another ha’ara: Chazal say that originally all Asers Hadibros were given all at once, and klal Yisroel’s neshamos left them. So HKBH gave them each dibra one by one. But, interestingly, even when they were given them again one by one, Chazal say HKBH gave Anochi & Lo Yihyah b’dibur echad. Apparently, the giving of Anochei needs to be together with lo yihyeh, at once. Why is that?

Rav Yitzhak Isaac Chaver, a Talmud of a talmud of the Gra, says the shoresh of all Avoda zara is the Acher, as it says “Lo yihyeh elohim acheirim al Panai.” Now, Rashi explains the “acher” of acheirim as the AZ turns their backs and become strangers to their worshipers. Not that the acher is the root of AZ, but a feature – the AZ turns its back. Rav Yitzhak Isaac Chaver is saying differently – that the acher is the shoresh of the AZ. And the panim is the shoresh of Emunah. I want to understand how the acher and the panim are shorashim to AZ and Emunah, respectively.²

We’ve spoken before about the Rambam that Har Sinai is our source for all mitzvos. Even mitzvos that you may have thought we got before Har Sinai, like bris milah or gid hanasheh, our obligation in those is not from the Avos but because it was given at Har Sinai.³

However, listen to a Rambam in the beginning of hilchos ishus:

קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה אָדָם פּוֹגֵעַ אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק אִם רָצָה הוּא וְהִיא לִשָּׂא אוֹתָהּ מַכְנִיסָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְתִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הָאִישׁ לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה יִקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ תְּחִלָּה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב-יג) 'כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ':

Rambam, Hilchos Ishus 1:1

Meaning, before Har Sinai, we had no concept of Eirusin. But with Har Sinai we were introduced to the concept of Eirusin.

This Rambam needs bi’ur: Weren’t almost all mitzvos introduced by Har Sinai? We got lulav and tzitzis and kriyas shma and everything else. Why is the Rambam singling out Eirusin as the thing that changed with Har Sinai? The teretz is the Rambam is explaining that the tzura of Har Sinai was a tzura of Eirusin. Somewhere in the Har Sinai event was the experience of Eirusin. Where? Where do we see that?

The Ga’on hears it in the passuk of shir hashirum. The passuk says יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת פִּיהוּ: And the Ga’on says the passuk is alluding to 2 kisses. He says one kiss is that she’s with him, and the 2nd kiss is that she’s with no one else. There’s a kiss of connection, and there’s a kiss of exclusivity – that there’s no one else. And anyone with a sensitive ear can hear the anochi and lo yihyeh, that the Ga’on is alluding to.⁴

The hesber is like this:

When a person has a chibbur, a relationship with someone – for example, let’s take a friend that a person really enjoys his company because he’s very witty. But if another witty person comes along, I can enjoy that person’s company, too. There’s no reason why I need to stay with witty person A when I can get wittiness by person B. Or, let’s say I have a homework partner who is very smart. But then I discover someone else who is also very smart. So, I can do my h.w. with them, too.

If I am relating to a nekuda that is replicable and replaceable by something else, then I am only relating to a nekuda chitzona of the thing. In every metzius, where there are many kinds or varieties of that thing, the varieties are always found in a nekuda chitzona.

Let’s use another mashal: A person has a donkey that’s very helpful at shlepping stuff. If the donkey dies, he’s upset b/c the donkey was helpful. But if someone gives him a new donkey – great! The chitzonius can be replaced.

And not just animals but also people. If I need someone to help me schlep heavy boxes, I will think to myself, who is someone young and strong that can help me. I will make a list of all my young and strong friends. It doesn’t really make a difference which one steps up. I just needed a young, strong person. I can line them up in a line, with their backs facing me, and say “hey you” to one of them, and the person turns around, and it turns out to be my friend Chaim. “Chaim, can you help me schlep boxes?” I didn’t b’etzem need Chaim. I just needed anyone who has those characteristics.

That’s when I am relating to an external feature of the person, the achur of the person. But if I need something unique to that person, and he’s the only one who can do it, then I can’t just call on anyone. I need that person specifically.

This is the difference between relating to the Achur vs relating to the Panim. When I look at something from the back, I don’t relate to the atzmius of the person, I just relate to the genre, or the “min.” When someone “happens” to have certain qualities, then I am relating to the “achur” of the person.

But when I need one person specifically, then I relate to the “panim” of the person. The panim is the unique feature of the person – it’s the part of them that says “you can’t find the real me anywhere else.”

Animals don’t have faces, because no one cares for the uniqueness. A chamor is a chamor is a chamor! We don’t relate to the panim of an animal. We relate to their chitzonius, to their achur. The achur are all the features that are mikra-dik. They are the various characteristics that are replicable and replaceable. People, on the other hand, have panim, a face, and they have a p’nim, their own inner uniqueness. Like Chazal say: k’shem she’partzufeihem shonos, kach de’oseihem shonos.” If a person didn’t have a uniqueness, he wouldn’t have a panim! A person has a yichidus – which is his and no one else’s. When a person relates to the panim of a person, m’mayla he’s saying I want to connect to the part that is unique and specific for this person, and is not shayich to be found by someone else. The Panim is the Atzmius of the person.

This difference between relating to the Panim of a person, as opposed to the Achur, is also the difference between relating to Avoda zara vs relating to HKBH. The difference between a relationship with HKBH vs a relationship with avodah zara, is not just one is emes and the other is not. Of course that’s true, but there’s a deeper nekuda. The difference is – a relationship with Avoda Zara is a person connecting with the Achurayim of the briya, a nekuda chitzona, a mikra-dik element. A relationship with HKBH is connection with the Panim of the briya.

Avoda Zara is a ko’ach bein ha’kochos. There are many kochos in the world. When a person is oved Avodah Zara, the drive is simply which is the most useful of the kochos. The sun is powerful, but if I need a different ko’ach, then I’ll connect with something else. That’s not a connection of panim.

L’mashal if you have a dictator who is very powerful, I don’t really want to connect with him, I just need access to his power. If I could separate the power from the person, then I’d do it.

But by HKBH, the aim is not to find the best of the gods, Ch”vsh. The aim is to identify and be davuk in the Panim of the briya, the nekuda pnimi, which is not mikra-dik, but the Atzmius. HKBH is Echad. He’s not one of many. He is the Only! I want to connect with Him and only Him!

This is what Rav Yitzchak Isaac Chaver was explaining. That Acher is the shoresh of Avodah Zara, while Panim is the shoresh of Emunah.

And this is the chiddush of Eirusin. The chiddush of eirusin is not that a Nekeiva can have a kesher with a Zachar. That was already there pre-matan Torah. The chiddush is that the Nekeiva can have a kesher of Panim with a zachar. Meaning, Eirusin is not just a method of limiting her relationship. It’s more than that. If you’re not assur to other people, that means the zachar is just one of many options. A zivug between Ish v’Isha lies in it’s exclusivity. If a man relates to his wife as one of many options, that corrupts and debases the marriage! That’s an achur-dik relationship, which m’mayla is mafkia the panim of the relationship.⁵⁶

This chiddush of Eirusin was davka established with the Panim of Har Sinai. Lo yihyeh is not just a lo sa’asei – Don’t worship Avoda Zara. No – it’s defining the kesher to HKBH as a kesher with the Panim. If there’s acheirim, there’s no Panai! It’s not shayich to be shayich to pnei Hashem if there’s acheirim!

A connection with the Panim is mafki’a the alternatives, is mafki’a the acherim. Once you connect with the panim, you’ve connected with the atzmius, and there’s no room for alternatives. That’s why the Emunah of Har Sinai was forever – because once a kesher is made to the Panim, there’s no more room for dofi. If you haven’t connected with the panim, there’s room for dofi, for alternative possibilities. But when you connected with the Panim – there’s no possibility for alternatives.⁷

There are a couple of critical applications of these ideas to us:

First, we need to fully understand the role of Mitzvos Lo Sa’asei. We easily relate to mitzvos Asei, because it’s a positive action that motivates us. But lo sa’aseis are harder to appreciate. We’re just sitting and doing nothing. Not too exciting. We need to understand that the lo sa’asehs transform our mitzvos Asei into a relatiohsip of panim!

If a person does Aseis, it could be it’s because he likes many different things, and ruchniyus is just one of many nice enjoyable things. He likes food, he likes sports, and he likes learning. That’s good, but that merely puts his mitzvos into the category of one of many things I like doing, which makes all those Aseis achur-dik! It’s a total downgrade of the kesher the person has with his Avodas HaMitzvos. The way to demonstrate that your Aseis are Panim, is by making a statement of the enjoyable things you don’t do because of your kesher with HKBH. I don’t do these issurim because I relate to the panim of HKBH!

But it’s more than just refraining from issurim. Even d’varim shel hetter, a person needs to understand what’s needed for avodas Hashem, and what’s detracting and down-grading their avodas Hashem. Let a person at least strive to be kol koolo davuk b’torah. If a person approaches Torah as one of my many pursuits, it’s stripping away the Panim of Torah. When a person’s goals and dreams are split among many things; it’s not just that he’s losing an hour or two of time here and there. He’s losing the experience of panim in Torah.

And when you try cutting out the Achur-dik elements, it’s taka going to be a question – Why did you cut everything else out? Is it assur? it’s not assur. Is it wrong? it’s not wrong. So what’s the issue? There’s no issue. I’m simply not interested in anything else. I connected with the Panim, and m’mayla there was no room for anything else.

Matan Torah was the Eirusin, where the kesher to HKBH wasn’t just the “best” chibbur, but it was the only chibbur. When a person connects with the Panim of HKBH, that’s when there’s no longer dofi, and that’s when the emunah lasts l’olam va’ed. Good Shabbos!