Rabbi David Etengoff

ה' יעזור וירחם על אחינו, כל בני ישראל בארץ ישראל ובכל חלקי הארץ
 
The stirring drama of Akeidat Yitzchak is one of the most celebrated passages in the Tanach. While much of this storied narrative is accessible, its final pasuk conceals more than it reveals: “And Avraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer Sheva; and Avraham remained in Beer Sheva.” (Sefer Bereishit 22:19, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach).  The Torah informs us that Avraham Avinu returned to his young men; we know nothing, however, of the whereabouts of Yitzchak Avinu, the survivor of the Akeidah. This leads Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 56:19 to ask, “v’Yitzchak heichan hu—and where was Yitzchak?”

In their commentaries on the Torah, the Ibn Ezra (1089-1167), the Radak, (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160-1235) and the Malbim (Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel Wisser, 1809-1879) explain the absence of Yitzchak from our pasuk in a naturalistic manner. The Ibn Ezra suggests that there was no need to ask this question, since “he was within his own agency,” that is, he was his own person and free to travel wherever he so desired. The Radak opines: “It was not necessary [for the Torah to write] that Yitzchak was with him [Avraham]. [Rather,] it mentions Avraham as he was the ikkar—the essential one.” In sum, these approaches maintain that Yitzchak was certainly with Avraham, the protagonist of Akeidat Yitzchak, and as such, it was unnecessary to mention him in by name. In contrast, the Malbim focuses on a different side of the story, and portrays Yitzchak’s nonappearance in the text as driven by kibbud av v’ame:

Sarah lived in Chevron at this time. And when Avraham returned from the Akeidah, he sent Yitzchak to Chevron to notify his mother that he was alive [after having] withstood his great test. Therefore, the text writes that Avraham, alone, returned, and they [Avraham, Yishmael and Eliezer, see Rashi] went to Beer Sheva—whereas Yitzchak went to Chevron. Therefore, [following Sarah’s passing,] there is no mention of Yitzchak coming to eulogize Sarah in Chevron as he already was there. (Translation my own)
 
Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 56:19 follows these true-to-life approaches, as well, in its answer to its question, “v’Yitzchak heichan hu?” and suggests: “Rav Berechiah, in the name of the rabbis of the South, said that [Avraham] sent him [Yitzchak] to learn Torah from Shem.” This response raises two questions: “Why did Avraham send Yitzchak to study precisely at this time?” and, “If Avraham felt this was the moment for Yitzchak to double down on his Torah learning, why did he feel it was necessary to send him somewhere else to learn, rather than teach him himself?”
 
In his Torah commentary, HaEmek Davar, the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 1816-1893), in his inimitable manner, simultaneously addresses both queries:

It is possible to suggest that since Hashem proclaimed in the penultimate verse of the Akeidah: “eikev asher shamata b’koli—since you have hearkened to My voice,” [22:18] Avraham thought deeply about this statement and realized that it is the will of Hashem for one to be powerfully engaged in words of Torah. Moreover, even though Avraham had learned with him [Yitzchak], nonetheless, he realized that when it comes to depth-level mastery of the words of the Torah, it is better to base one’s learning on what one garners from two places [in this case, from Avraham and the yeshiva of Shem] … (Translation and brackets my own)
 
The Netziv’s trenchant analysis is based on the well-known passage in Chazal:
​
Rav said: Avraham Avinu fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is stated: “Because [eikev] Avraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My mitzvot, My statutes and My Torahs” (Sefer Bereishit 26:5)… Rav said, and some say Rav Ashi said: Avraham Avinu fulfilled the entire Torah, even the mitzvah of eruv tavshilin, a rabbinic ordinance instituted later, as it is stated: “My Torahs.” Since the term is in the plural, it indicates that Avraham kept two Torahs; one, the Written Torah, and one, the Oral Torah. In the course of fulfilling the Oral Torah, he fulfilled all the details and parameters included therein. (Translation, Talmud Bavli, Yoma 28b, The Koren Talmud Bavli, Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz zatzal editor, with my emendations)
 
I believe that the explanation of what transpired after the Akeidah, as found in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah and the HaEmek Davar, offers us a derech hachaim, a path we can follow when confronting great challenges. Rather than asking “Why did we have to bear this suffering?” Avraham and Yitzchak asked, “What is the proper response to this suffering that will enhance our relationship with Hashem?” Their answer is our guide: Learn Torah! As Dovid HaMelech taught us so long ago, “Torat Hashem temimah meshivat nafesh--The law of Hashem is perfect restoring the soul…” (Sefer Tehillim 19:8)
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

Please contact me at [email protected] to be added to my weekly email list.

*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
​
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

Rabbi David Etengoff

ה' יעזור וירחם על אחינו, כל בני ישראל בארץ ישראל ובכל חלקי הארץ
 
The brit bein habetarim (Covenant of the Pieces), wherein the destiny of the Jewish people was revealed to Avraham Avinu, is introduced by this verse:

After these incidents, the word of Hashem came to Avram in a vision, saying, “Fear not, Avram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great,” Sefer Bereishit 15:1, this and all Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
 
This pasuk is unique in that it is the sole encounter between Hashem and Avraham that utilizes the phrase, “in a vision--ba-mahazeh.” Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) stresses its singular nature:

It is the case that the Torah relates that prophecy was vouchsafed to Avraham on numerous occasions. It never explained, however, on which level of the prophetic experience the prophecy was to be found. For the types of prophecy are of two kinds or varieties: namely, dreams and visions… The terms “mareh” (“visualization”) and “mahazeh” (“vision”) are synonymous. As such, why did the Torah inform us in this particular case that Avraham’s prophecy was specifically a “mahazeh?” After all, this information is irrelevant to the matter at hand. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Bereishit 15:1, translation my own)
 
The Abarbanel was not the first interpreter to raise the question as to why the Torah deploys the term “mahazeh.” The Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160-1235) and the Ramban (Nachmanides, 1194-1270) are two classic commentators who addressed this issue. The Radak suggests that the Torah uses mahazeh in order to differentiate the impending prophetic experience from those that had come before:

Mahazeh is used in this instance, even though it was never said regarding any matter about which Hashem spoke to him prior to this moment, since this prophecy was not just verbal in nature. Instead, it contained elements of action, namely, Hashem taking Avraham outside, the counting of the stars and the specific matter of the brit bein habetarim. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Bereishit 15:1, translation and brackets my own.
 
In sum, Rav Kimchi opines that the Torah employs the term “mahazeh” in order to prepare us for the new kind of prophecy Avraham Avinu was about to experience, a prophecy of words and action, rather than one comprised solely of verbal communication.
 
In contrast to the Radak, the Ramban suggests that the Torah uses our expression to inform us that Avraham was now able to receive Hashem’s message at a new time: “Now Avraham was able to receive d’var Hashem in a vision during the day, whereas at first, his prophecy [like all of the other prophets except Moshe,] had been limited to visualizations of the night.” (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Bereishit 15:1, translation and brackets my own)
 
My rebbi and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and disciples, takes a different approach regarding “mahazeh” than either the Radak or the Ramban. For the Rav, this term signifies a different category of visionary experience than in the past. Prior to this time, Hashem’s prophecies enabled Avraham to experience the Almighty’s warmth, care, and concern. Now, however, “ba-mahazeh,” Avraham is confronted with distance and separation from the Master of the Universe. In part, the Rav derives this concept based on the absence of the term, “va-yomer,” that is found in all of Avraham’s other prophetic encounters, and the presence of the newly introduced term “d’var Hashem:”

The introduction, “hayah d’var Hashem el Avram ba-mahazeh, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision” (Gen. 15:1), is very interesting… Here the Torah omits the term va-yomer, which it had used repeatedly to describe God’s encounters with Abraham and adds the word ba-mahazeh. Va-yomer means a dialogue, a conversation held face to face. God encountered Abraham and addressed Himself to him. D’var Hashem connotes communication from a distance; the message got to Abraham, but indirectly, God was not present. Ba-mahazeh means perspective, vision. Va-yomer is a higher medium of prophecy than d’var Hashem. Here God was a little distant because the message God delivered to him [in the brit bein habetarim] was one of galut, of exile, oppression, humiliation, and suffering. (Abraham’s Journey: Reflections on the Life of the Founding Patriarch, pages 139-140, underlining and brackets my own)
 
The Rav continues his analysis of, “ba-mahazeh,” and suggests:

​“Before God spoke to him face to face; now, suddenly it is ba-mahazeh, from a distance. The word reaches him from infinity, from God’s transcendent abode.” In other words, for the first time in Avraham’s adult life, he experienced Hashem’s remoteness rather than His immanence. Little wonder, then, that he desperately needed to hear Him declare, “Fear not, Avram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great.”
 
Although we are blessed to have Medinat Yisrael, we live in a world in which the message of Hashem is far too often “one of galut, of exile, oppression, humiliation, and suffering.” As such, like Avraham Avinu, we long to hear the reassuring words: “Fear not, Avram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great.” May the realization of this promise come soon, and in our days. V'chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

Please contact me at [email protected] to be added to my weekly email list.

*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
​
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav
​

Rabbi David Etengoff

 
The post-Flood world should have been one wherein mankind felt humbled before the Almighty, as their forebears had so recently survived near-universal decimation. As such, they should have demonstrated hakaret hatov (manifest gratitude) to Him for His great chesed. Instead, we are met with this disturbing pasuk regarding the Tower of Babel: “And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered [by G-d] upon the face of the entire earth.’” (Sefer Bereishit 11:3-4, this and all Tanach and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach) At this juncture “Hashem descended to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built.” (11:5)  As Rashi (1040-1105) notes, the expression, “the sons of man had built,” is very peculiar:

But the sons of whom else [could they have been]? The sons of donkeys and camels? Rather, [this refers to] the sons of the first man (Adam HaRishon), who was ungrateful and said (Sefer Bereishit 3: 12): “The woman whom You gave [to be] with me [she gave me of the tree; so, I ate”]. These, too, were ungrateful in rebelling against the One Who lavished goodness upon them and saved them from the Flood.
 
In sum, Rashi views the actions of the Dor HaHaphlagah (Generation of the Great Dispersion) as paralleling Adam HaRishon’s behavior when asked by Hashem, “Have you eaten from the tree [of knowledge] of which I commanded you not to eat?” (3:11) Rather than taking personal responsibility for violating the one mitzvah entrusted to him, Adam denied his guilt and blamed G-d for having given him Chava; and Chava, in turn, for giving him the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The Ba’al HaTurim (Rav Ya’akov ben Asher, 1270-1340) supports this perspective when he notes that Adam’s reaction personifies the pasuk (verse), “He who repays evil for good—evil will not depart from his house.” (Sefer Mishle 17:13)

Unfortunately, Adam, and the Dor HaHaphlagah, repaid Hashem’s beneficence with ingratitude. Years later, the Dor HaMidbar (the Generation of the Desert) sadly repeated this pattern over and over again. As Tosafot in Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zarah 5a state: “Therefore, [Moshe] labeled them [the Jewish people as practitioners of] kafui tovah, since they refused [to give thanks to Hashem for all of His kindness,] that is, they refused to recognize the good that He had done for them in all these matters.” The Torah Temimah (Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein, 1860-1942) expands upon Tosafot’s gloss and suggests that kafui tovah is far more than a failure to recognize the good that someone else has performed for you; instead, it is a conscious rejection of the kindness—as if it never had taken place.

The Abarbanel’s (1437-1508) analysis of kafui tovah complements Tosafot’s explication:

The evilest of all middot is kafui tovah. This is the case, since when a person recognizes [and gives voice] to the benefit he has received from another individual, he adds to the strength of the benefactor to [continue to] provide him with overflowing kindness, with a full sense of desire and in complete goodness. When, however, the recipient of manifest kindness consciously withholds the requisite recognition of the good that is his benefactor’s due, he weakens his supporter’s strength and aspiration to demonstrate further kindness to him. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Shemot, chapter 29, this, and the following translations my own)
 
The Abarbanel cites Rav Ammi’s words in Talmud Bavli, Ta’anit 8a in order to reinforce his exposition of our term: “Rain falls only for the sake of Men of Faith (ba’alei emunah) [that is, trustworthy people],” as it is said, “Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will look down from heaven.” (Sefer Tehillim 85:12, Talmud translation, The Soncino Talmud)  In the Abarbanel’s estimation, ba’alei emunah are the people who practice hakaret hatov. As such, he reasons that those who engage in kafui tovah are the same people that our Sages identified as individuals steeped in brazenness and temerity (azut panim), and the ones who cause droughts. This idea is intimated in the text, “And the rains were withheld, and there has been no latter rain…you refused to be ashamed.” (Sefer Yirmiyahu 3:3)  Little wonder, then, that the Abarbanel maintains:

Everything proceeds as our Sages said: “During the times that the Jewish people fulfill the will of the Omnipresent [that is we guard the Torah and verbalize our hakaret hatov], we add to the power, so to speak, of that which is Above. As the text says, ‘Now, please, let the strength of Hashem be increased, as You spoke…’ (Sefer Bamidbar 14:17) [Conversely,] during the times that the Jewish people fail to fulfill the will of the Almighty, we diminish the power, so to speak, of that which is Above. As the text states, ‘You forgot the [Mighty] Rock Who bore you; you forgot the G-d Who delivered you.’” (Sefer Devarim 32:18)
 
According to Rashi, Tosafot, the Abarbanel and the Torah Temimah, kafui tovah is a reprehensible behavioral trait that manifests itself in a brazen repudiation of the good which either Hashem or an individual has done for us. Its remedy, therefore, must be the polar opposite action, hakaret hatov, wherein we demonstrate heartfelt gratitude to our benefactor through words and deeds. With Hashem’s help, may we master this middah and fulfill Shlomo HaMelech’s stirring counsel: “Kindness and truth shall not leave you; bind them upon your neck, inscribe them upon the tablet of your heart; and find favor and good understanding in the sight of G-d and man.” (Sefer Mishle 3:3-4)  V’chane yihi ratzon.
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

Please contact me at [email protected] to be added to my weekly email list.

*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
​
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
May Hashem protect our brothers and sisters in Eretz Yisrael, and may He bring a speedy end to this war. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Our parasha has always fascinated me. In my view, it contains some of the most thought- provoking and intellectually challenging pasukim in the Torah. One of the most notable examples is the description of humankind’s creation: “And the L-rd G-d formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life (nishmat chayim), and man became a living soul (l’nefesh chaya).” (Sefer Bereishit 2:7, this and the following Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)  Like the very first verse of the Torah, “In the beginning of G-d’s creation of the heavens and the earth,” our pasuk conceals far more than it reveals. Little wonder, then, that it has captured the attention of our greatest meforshim.
 
Rashi (1040-1105), building upon the translation of Onkelos (35-120 CE), focuses his interpretative efforts on the phrase, “l’nefesh chaya,” and suggests the following analysis: “Cattle and beasts were also called living souls, but this one of man is the most alive of them all, because he was additionally given intelligence and speech.” Somewhat surprisingly, in his monumental work of Torah exegesis entitled “Kli Yakar,” Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550 – 1619) completely rejects Rashi’s gloss. Moreover, in his view, nishmat chayim, rather than l’nefesh chaya, is the crucial phrase to grasp in order to understand humankind’s authentic nature:

Nishmat chayim must be understood as the eternal rational soul (hanefesh hamaskelet hanetzachi).  Come and learn [after all,] who was the One who breathed [into Adam the soul of life]? We, therefore, find that this [the nishmat chayim] refers to a portion of
G-dliness (chalek Elokah) from above. (This and the following translations my own)
 
In sum, Rav Luntschitz shifts the emphasis of the pasuk from l’nefesh chaya to nishmat chayim, defines the latter term in an unprecedented manner, and declares it to be a chalek Elokah. Beyond a doubt, this is a theological tour de force.
 
Rav Luntschitz continues his exposition of our verse and notes that Hashem’s overwhelming kindness in providing every person with a nishmat chayim is necessary but insufficient for the achievement of the highest level of humanity. Instead, we must respond in kind, and tirelessly expend our energies in order to reach the heights of that which makes us truly human:

This is to say, that although Hashem breathed the eternal rational soul into Adam, nonetheless, man, at the outset of his being, is indistinguishable from any other living soul (nefesh chaya) and is just like the other animals. [As the text states:] “For man is born as a wild donkey.” (Sefer Iyov 11:12)  [Moreover,] the essence of man’s perfection (shlaimuto) is contingent upon the diligence of his labors and the degree of good inherent in his choices as he opens his [potentially] intellectually maturing eyes (einei sichlo) while growing in age.
 
At this juncture, Rav Luntschitz clarifies the crux of his presentation:

Regarding the beginning of a person’s life – although Hashem has already breathed into an individual the soul of the breath of life (nishmat ruach chayim), this soul will nonetheless never be actualized and will remain solely in potential, unless he will try with depth-level efforts to go to the “head of the troops,” and fight the war of Hashem. If he fails to do so, he will remain in his original animalistic state (that is, ruled by the yetzer harah) and will be the equivalent of an animal…The text reveals this matter to us [through the use of the phrase, “nishmat chayim,”] in order to teach us the [vital] lesson that man should never beguile himself into thinking (lit. “saying”) that he can achieve perfection (shlaimuto) without tremendous effort and persevering exertion…rather, everything depends upon his own actions…
 
In my estimation, Rav Luntschitz’s explication of nishmat chayim is reminiscent of Rabbi Akiva’s famous response to the evil Roman governor, Turnus Rufus, when asked: “If [your] G-d is desirous that man should have a brit milah (ritual circumcision), why does the newborn not exit his mother’s womb in this state?” Rabbi Akiva’s response informs our understanding of the mitzvot until our present moment: “Because the Holy One blessed be He did not give the mitzvot to the Jewish people except to [spiritually] purify them through their performance.” (Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Tazria V, translation my own) Rabbi Akiva is teaching us a fundamental lesson concerning our relationship with the Almighty: A newborn male baby is born in a state of physical imperfection; the mitzvah of brit milah removes this deficiency, and sets him on a lifelong path toward spiritual perfection. Therefore, through the fulfillment of this commandment, we join our Creator and become His partner in Creation (shutaf im HaKadosh Baruch Hu b’ma’aseh Bereishit).
 
I believe that Rav Luntschitz is teaching us a parallel lesson on the moral–ethical plane of human existence: Just as we perfect the physical body that Hashem has bestowed upon us through the mitzvah of brit milah, and thereby serve as shutfim im HaKadosh Baruch Hu b’ma’aseh Bereishit, so, too, must we consistently actualize the nishmat chayim that He has given us, in order to be His partners in Creation and ultimately become all that we can be. As the Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) taught us so long ago in a celebrated liturgical poem (piyyut), “My soul thirsts for G-d, for the living G-d, my heart (mind) and my body run to the living G-d.” (Translation my own)
 
With Hashem’s help and our fervent desire, may we ever seek to become His shutfim b’ma’aseh Bereishit. V’chane yihi ratzon.
​
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at [email protected] to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon HaKohane, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Gittel Malka bat Moshe, Alexander Leib ben Benyamin Yosef, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
We know that the transformation of the second day of Shemini Atzeret into Simchat Torah originated in Babylon. Yet, exactly when this change took place remains lost in the sands of time. As Rabbi Ari Enkin, quoting Rabbi Avraham Yaari’s widely respected work, Toldot Chag Simchat Torah (The History of the Festival of Simchat Torah), notes:

The evolution of Simchat Torah as part of the Shemini Atzeret celebrations first originated in Babylon and was not even observed in Israel until the end of the Gaonic period [11th century]. For Babylonian Jewry, Simchat Torah was the celebration of the completion of the annual Torah reading cycle. The Torah had been divided up into 54 separate parshiot, with a different parasha (and sometimes two at a time) being read every Shabbat, thereby completing the entire Torah each year. (http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/10/simchat-torah.html, brackets my own)
 
Significantly, however, the name “Simchat Torah” does not appear in the Babylonian Talmud. This is particularly of note since this work contains material up to and including the Sixth century CE. Therefore, we can readily surmise that Simchat Torah is, in all likelihood, a product of the post-Talmudic period. Rav Amnon Bazak, a noted Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshivat Har Etzion, suggests that the transformation of the second day of Shemini Atzeret into the holiday of Simchat Torah by Babylonian Jewry was part of the overall conceptual transference of the chagim from agriculturally focused to essentially Halakha-based days of celebration:

As opposed to the “Biblical Jew,” for whom agriculture stood at the center of existence, the “post-Temple Jew” concentrates his religious life in the proverbial “four cubits of Halakha.” Therefore, the agricultural calendar was replaced by the “Torah calendar.” In this system, the festival of the first harvest (Shavuot), which commemorated the first opportunity to benefit from one’s produce, was transformed into the holiday of Matan Torah [the Giving of the Torah], the first step in the nation’s acceptance of the Torah. Shemini Atzeret, which, for the agrarian society, was celebrated as the end of the year, evolved into the celebration of the completion of the Torah reading, Simchat Torah. (http://vbm-torah.org/sukkot/shmin-bazak.htm, brackets my own)
 
At this juncture, it is clear that the Chachamim of Babylonia Jewry changed the nature of the second day of Shemini Atzeret into a day with its own unique identity and purpose—a day wherein the annual completion of the reading of the Torah was celebrated. Why, however, did Chazal create Simchat Torah? I believe this passage from the Siddur helps answer our question:

Therefore, we are obligated to thank You, praise You, glorify You, bless, sanctify, and offer praise and thanks to Your Name. We are fortunate (ashreinu)—how good is our portion, how pleasant our lot, and how beautiful our inheritance! (Translation, The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, page 27, with my emendations for clarity and parentheses my own)
 
The first mention of this citation is found in the Gaonic work, Siddur Rav Amram Gaon. We must recognize that Rav Amram did not compose this section. Rather, the overall purpose of his work was to report, and thereby effectively formalize, the liturgical practices prevalent in the Babylonia of his day. As such, the origin of this section predated Rav Amram’s classic work by an indeterminate number of years.

In my estimation, Simchat Torah’s underlying rationale is found in the words, “We are fortunate (ashreinu)—how good is our portion, how pleasant our lot, and how beautiful our inheritance”—one of the most popular phrases we sing and dance to during the course of the Hakafot. Ashreinu follows the introductory statement, “we are obligated to thank You, praise You, glorify You, bless, sanctify, and offer praise and thanks to Your Name.” This phrase is, perhaps, one of the preeminent formulations of hakaret hatov in our liturgy. No wonder we are so fortunate! No wonder we give such effusive thanks! Our inheritance (yerushatainu) is the Torah itself, the words of the Creator of the Universe! “Moshe commanded us the Torah, it is the inheritance of the entire congregation of Ya’akov.” (Sefer Devarim 33:4).

We can now understand why Simchat Torah was created: Chazal designated this time as a celebration of the Torah, in order to give voice to our innermost feelings of hakaret hatov to the Almighty for giving us this gift. In a word, on Simchat Torah we strive to emulate David HaMelech when he danced with passionate abandon while bringing the Aron Kodesh to Yerushalayim. (Sefer Shmuel II: 6:5). As such, it is the perfect day to fulfill his inspirational words: “Serve Hashem with simcha come before Him with praise.” (Sefer Tehillim 100:2, translation, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
​
May this Simchat Torah be a special time when we strengthen our connection to Hashem and demonstrate heartfelt hakaret hatov, joy, praise, and love of Him as never before.

V’chane yihi ratzon.

Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach!
​
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at [email protected] to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav