Darwin is Half Right

A quick thought in honor of 24 Teves, the yoma d'helula of the Alter Rebbe.  My uncle told me that he finds the Sefer Tanya a depressing book for its thrust is that we won't be tzaddikim, rather its our mission to be the benoni.  However, I find it isn't depressing, it is a very therapeutic and calming message.

Most people struggle with emotional, spiritual  swings.  There are times when a person has feelings of great spirituality and then the same person may come crashing down to earth, caught up in the most mundane, gashmious pursuits.  A person starts to think am I crazy, schizophrenic, a split personality?  Who is the real me?  The answer according to the Tanya is that there are two dinim within an individual.  There is the you of the nefesh elokis, the you of the lofty thoughts , the being that wants to cleave to God.  Then then there is the you of the nefesh habihamis, the person that is just interested in taking care of its basic needs and desires. [It isn't c"v evil (at least in a Jew,) it is just selfish, interested in its own self-indulgence.]  These  two souls exist within every individual and are engaged in a power struggle.  The yetzer tov and yetzer harah in the world of the Tanya aren't merely different urges, pulls and desires that a person experiences.  Those conflicting feelings are coming from two, independent forces that coexistent within a person. 

Darwin's theory of evolution besides the science of it, has tremendous theological applications.  According to Darwin, humans are no better than animals, we may be more technologically advanced but at our core we are no better than the apes.  In a certain sense he is right, there is a nefesh behamis inside a person which has characteristics much like an animal.  However, what he failed to recognize is the nefesh elokis.  It could be his colleagues were people dominated by their nefesh habehamis, had he been exposed to different people, he would've come to his conclusions. 

"The Alter from Kelm also remarked that Darwin was able to formulate his theory of evolution only because he had never seen a real human being. Thus he could view men as no more than smarter monkeys. "Had he seen my rebbe, Reb Yisrael Salanter, who developed his character traits to a degree of perfection that fully expressed the essence of the Divine Image, he never could have entertained the possibility that human beings evolved from monkeys," said the Alter" (From here.)  

The tzaddik lives the life of the rose without the thorns.  However, for most that just isn't a reality as we discussed last week here.  The Tanya teaches us how to live life with our struggles, not overlook them.  
Life according to the Alter Rebbe is a struggle.  I find sometimes sugarcoating Judaism to be a cheap,  untrue message.  There is a struggle between the two souls of man.  It isn't a easy battle.  However, we must realize that the struggle of the religious man doesn't at all take take away from the beauty, magnificence and greatness of Judaism.  I know this is a tough balance to strike and it a struggle of its own.  If you have any thoughts about how to balance these themes, please comment.

Be A Chameleon

After the מכה of ברד Moshe tells Pharaoh that he will pray for the hail to be removed.  The Torah then recounts that the flax and barley were destroyed for they were already ripened.  However, the wheat and rice weren’t smitten for they didn’t fully grow yet (10:31-32).  Why is this important to know, and why is this fact placed in the middle of the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh? [See the Ramban’s explanation.]  Rav Ezrachi explains that Moshe was giving a message to Pharaoh.  The plants which stood strong and were stubborn they were smitten.  It was the crops which were soft, which could bend before the hail which survived (see Rashi.)  Pharaoh, take a lesson from the crops and realize if you are so stubborn you will crumble.  It the ability to bend to the situation that will save you. Letting us go will be for your benefit, it is because you bend to the situation that you will survive.

Rashi cites the midrash (8:2) that one frog came up from the Nile and as the Egyptians continued to hit the frog it multiplied into many frogs.  If the Egyptians saw that the continuities hits kept on producing many frogs, why didn’t they stop?  They thought whacking the frog would get rid of the frog.  Since the Egyptians were convinced that this was the way to get rid of the frog they refused to give up hitting it.  They were stuck in their way of thinking and despite results to the contrary they wouldn’t change.  The root of the word Mitzrayim is maytzar-boundaries.  This inability to change was at the core of the nature of the Egyptians.  They couldn’t find the ability to give up on their way of doing things despite the tragic results.

The Even Ezra says that the sorcerers of Egypt after the מכה of the lice recognized that there was a Godly force affecting Egypt.  However, they refused to recognize that there was a force that wasn’t bond by the laws and rules of nature.  Egypt required rigid borders and they couldn’t tolerate a God that didn’t have to fit into the rules.  This is the difference between the name ש-י and  הו'.  The name of Shakia is the name used to express boundary מי שאמר לעולמו די, Hashem stopped creation so that the world wouldn’t keep on expanding.  This was the name expressed to the avos, however, this wasn’t enough in the Exodus, but we had to recognize the name of הו', there is a god that can break the rules of nature.               

The Exodus from Egypt was to leave these boundaries.  We can learn from the parsha that sometimes it’s necessary to change gears in order to obtain better results.  The stubbornness of the Egyptians led to their downfall and it’s the opposite which brings redemption.  The true redemption is not to feel constrained to one path, but rather to be able to chart a new coarse when it’s necessary.

The Great Debate

See this article of Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson here.  It is a shame that the article parvesizes (yes, I made up a word) the issue.  But to his credit the last footnote does point you to the edition involving the machlokes.  Thanks to Chabad.org the Sichos of the Frierdiker Rebbe are translated from the original Yiddush into English and available online for free, so I have just copied the whole thing here.  It is sicha 3 from Parshas Shemos 5704 (1942.)

Enjoy!! 

When the Alter Rebbe was in Mezritch, he heard not only the teachings that the Maggid delivered in public or shared with his disciples, the members of the Holy Brotherhood, but also teachings that the Maggid transmitted to him personally at certain fixed times. Most of those were teachings that he had heard from the Baal Shem Tov.

The erudite chassid, R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk, gave my grandfather a detailed description of the major disputation that took place in Minsk in 5543 (1783), between the Alter Rebbe and the towering Talmudic scholars of Vilna, Shklov, Brisk, Minsk and Slutzk. The two most fundamental objections of his opponents to the approach of the Baal Shem Tov and his disciples are outlined here.

Firstly: The approach of the Baal Shem Tov obligates even unlettered folk to give careful attention to their davenen and to their reading of Tehillim, even though they do not know what the words mean. Hence, the Alter Rebbe’s opponents argued with passion, this attitude no doubt elevates the self-esteem of those ignoramuses and cheapens the respect that is due to Torah scholars – and everyone knows that dire punishments are brought down to the world only because of ignoramuses.

Secondly: The Baal Shem Tov’s school of thought teaches that even a gaon and a tzaddik must do teshuvah. Surely, they protested, this attitude undermines the honor of the Torah and of its prominent scholars. After all, they argued, both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah teach throughout that Torah sages are the foundation of the world. They increase peace in the world, and they are its true builders – whereas the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings would have them regarded as the kind of people who have to do teshuvah!

R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk related further that the disputation in Minsk was conducted in two sessions. The first was an examination in lomdus, Talmudic scholarship, because the misnagdim stipulated that they would not conduct any disputation with chassidim until they were assured that their leader was a lamdan, an outstanding scholar. Only thereafter would they state their complaints, in the second session. The Alter Rebbe agreed to be examined by the geonim – provided only that the chassidim would have the reciprocal right, and to this the misnagdim agreed.

(By the way an additional source gives a detailed account of the discussions of the first session. There, the Alter Rebbe provided answers to all the questions he was asked, whereas a significant number of his questions remained unanswered.)

Both in his answers and in his questions, the Alter Rebbe’s words were clear, concise and distinct. This style of speech, notwithstanding the profundity of the subjects being analyzed, made a favorable impression on all his listeners, from the most outstanding scholars to the ordinary Gemara-learners.

Three of the most esteemed scholars then asked the Alter Rebbe to answer the unanswered questions that he had posed. Those three scholars were: the hoary rosh yeshivah, R. Aharon Yaakov of Slutzk; R. Zemele Stutzker; and the eldest rosh yeshivahin Yeshivas HaRaavad, the renowned R. Menachem Shlomo. The Alter Rebbe obliged, leaving just two problematic queries unresolved.

As to the two fundamental objections to the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov that were mentioned above, the Alter Rebbe answered:

“The underlying principle of the approach of the Baal Shem Tov and of the teachings of the Rebbe, the Maggid of Mezritch – the principle that illumines the paths of the Maggid’s disciples in their avodah – is based on the first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu. The following teaching on that subject was relayed to me by the Rebbe, the Maggid of Mezritch, who had heard it from the Baal Shem Tov.”

Concerning the revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu it is written: “An angel of G‑d appeared to him in a blazing fire from within a bush. He looked, and saw that the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not being consumed. Moshe said: ‘Let me now turn aside and look at this remarkable sight.’ “Now, the first verb in the quotation (וַיֵּרָא) means “appeared” or, more literally, “was seen,” yet it is translated in the Aramaic Targum as וְאִתְגְּלִי, which means “was revealed.” Revelation implies that something is made accessible to every individual according to his level, including even people of modest spiritual attainment. That explains likewise why in the verse that says that “G‑d descended upon Mount Sinai,” the Targumuses the same verb (וְאִתְגְּלִי), which means “was revealed,” whereas the expected translation of “descended” would be וּנְחַת, as in the verse that tells us that “Yehudah descended.” So, too, the Targum uses a verb of the same root (וְיֵחוֹת) in the verse that says that “the border [of the Holy Land] shall go down” [as far as a certain place]. In contrast, in a verse [preceding the destruction of Sodom], the phrase אֵרֲדָה נָּא, literally meaning “I will now go down,” is translated in the Targum as אִתְגְּלִי כְעַן, “I will now reveal Myself,” using the same verb as appears with regard to the Giving of the Torah – the verb that speaks of revelation. Revelation, as we have seen, implies that that which is being shown can be perceived even by those of very lowly spiritual stature. This was the case at the Giving of the Torah, which was received by everyone, from the stature of Moshe Rabbeinu, down to the lowliest of the Jewish people.

That is why, when relating that the angel of G‑d appeared to Moshe Rabbeinu from within the burning bush, the Aramaic Targum uses the word meaning revelation.

That revelation took place “in a blazing fire.” Rashi comments: “in a flame of fire, in the heart of the fire.” (In the Holy Tongue, the spelling of the latter phrase, belabas esh (בְּלַבַּת אֵשׁ) recalls the word lev (לֵב), meaning “heart.”) Where does G‑d’s emissary reveal himself? – In the heart of the fire. This signifies a man’s innermost kavanah [in his service of G‑d], the earnest and artless exuberance that is alluded to [in the verse in Shir HaShirim that says], “Its coals are coals of fire, an intense blaze.”

And where is the heart of the fire to be found? – In a [lowly] bush. Rashi notes: “And not in some other tree, in the spirit of G‑d’s assurance, ‘I am with him in distress.’ ” The word for “distress” (צָרָה) echoes the word צָר (“narrow”), and hence alludes to This World. In the higher, spiritual worlds, the Divine light is diffused far and wide. This World, by contrast, is described as narrow, because here the Divine light is restricted to the finite parameters of the laws of nature. And [underlying this restriction,] the Divine intent is that by means of avodah in studying Torah and performing mitzvos, this distress (צָרָה) should be transformed into a source of light (צֹהַר) that illuminates the world with the light of Torah and mitzvos.

Man is likened to “a tree of the field.” There are fruit-bearing trees which, as R. Yochanan teaches, represent talmidei chachamim, the Torah scholars, and there is the sneh, the [barren] bush. That is where the blazing fire is to be found. The talmidei chachamim are fiery because the Torah is likened to fire. However, of their fire it cannot be said that it is “not consumed,” because they quiet their fiery fervor by producing innovative Torah teachings. This is not the case with the unlettered folk represented by the sneh, because the blazing fire is their heart. True, they do not know the meaning of the words they are reading. Nevertheless, because their earnest, unsophisticated davenen and Tehillim spring from simple faith, the blazing fire within them is not consumed. It is never quieted, and they constantly experience an intense yearning for G‑dliness and the Torah and the mitzvos.

[Having beheld the burning bush,] Moshe said: “Let me now turn aside [and look at this remarkable sight].” Rashi comments: “I will turn aside from here and come closer to there.” Moshe Rabbeinu now comprehended the Heavenly sight: he had been shown how such ordinary folk possess a lofty quality in which they are superior to the Torah scholars. Now that he had been shown that the blazing fire is to be found only in the humble bush, he reached the rung of teshuvah. However, Moshe Rabbeinu was a consummate tzaddik, and for a person at this level, teshuvah is utterly different from ordinary teshuvah. In fact the Torah relates that when he was born, “[his mother] saw him, that he was good,” for “the entire house was suffused with light.” For him, teshuvah meant that he would now “turn aside from here and come closer to there.” This means that one should never be satisfied with his current spiritual rung. Even a tzaddik like Moshe Rabbeinu must engage in this avodah – to “turn aside from here and come closer to there.” This is the dynamic of teshuvah.

In that teaching, the [Alter] Rebbe said, the Baal Shem Tov spells out his approach to a Jew’s service of the Creator. The blazing heart of fire is to be found among the artless, commonplace Jews. Moreover, the fire of the Torah that burns within talmidei chachamimin general and within geonim in particular is quieted by the pleasure they experience at having produced chiddushei Torah, whereas the burning bush within the ordinary, unlettered Jews is never consumed. Indeed, their heartfelt davenen and their simple reading of Tehillim actually intensify the blazing fire within them, making them yearn even more ardently for G‑dliness. The Baal Shem Tov also states clearly that the avodah of tzaddikim demands constant ascent. Their [avodah] today should serve them to strive to attain a higher level in the service of the Creator than yesterday’s level, and tomorrow’s level should be higher than today’s – all of which adds up to teshuvah. Moreover, [the Alter Rebbe added,] the above approach of the Baal Shem Tov is learned from the first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu, whom G‑d chose to be “the first redeemer and the ultimate redeemer.”

The Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu was different from the revelation to No’ach, and even to the revelation to Avraham Avinu.

The revelation to No’ach was beamed specifically to No’ach and resulted from G‑d’s love towards him as an individual. Whether G‑d’s love and closeness towards No’ach sprang only from the favor that he found in the eyes of G‑d, (as it is written, “And No’ach found favor…,”) or whether it came as a response to his righteousness, (as it is written, “For I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation,”) G‑d revealed Himself to him as an individual.

The revelation to Avraham Avinu was utterly different. It included specific directives on the manner of his Divine service and entailed serious tests. True, this revelation was far loftier than the revelation to No’ach. Nevertheless, after all, the love and closeness shown to Avraham Avinu was addressed to him mainly as an individual, and with the future in mind. Thus it is written, “For I have known him, so that he should command his children and his household after him to observe the path of G‑d and practice righteousness and justice.” Rashi explains that here, the word yedaativ (here translated “I have known him”) really means “I have loved him” – because he will teach and command his children and his household to observe and to follow the ways of G‑d.

The Divine revelation to Avraham Avinu was thus addressed to him mainly as an individual, though at a higher level than the revelation to No’ach, because Avraham Avinu was superior to him as a servant of G‑d. In addition, of Avraham Avinu it is written, “For I have known him, so that he should command…” By virtue of that, the revelation to him was loftier, and he is called “the man whom the King loves.”

In contrast, the revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu was not only a revelation to an individual because he was a servant of G‑d. Rather, that Divine revelation was comprehensive, and was granted only to an individual whom G‑d had chosen to be a leader and redeemer of the Jewish people. What constituted this revelation? He was shown that a leader of the Jewish people who is destined to be the emissary for their redemption must discover the blazing fire in a mere bush, in an ordinary Jew. His entire spiritual life-taskmust be to reveal that blazing fire and to make it surface – and that can be accomplished only by the above-mentioned avodah which is implied by the words, “I will turn aside from here and come closer to there.”

R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk added that the [Alter] Rebbe repeated the above teaching of the Baal Shem Tov with passion, and concluded by stating its practical implication, namely: The greater scholar a man is, the more is he required to toil in this avodah. If he does not do so, he is (Heaven forfend!) a rebel against the supernal King; as it is taught, “Those who sin against Me” means that they are sinning (as it were) “against the King’s person.” Such an individual really needs to do teshuvah from the depths of his heart, in order to uproot from within himself the Amalek that freezes the ardor of his progress along the path of G‑d and along the paths of His service.

Those few words of the Alter Rebbe were delivered with such heartfelt ardor that their awe and love of Heaven struck a deep chord in the hearts of all his listeners. The aged R. Aharon Yaakov was the first of the assembled geonim to approach him and wish him, “May you be blessed!” And indeed, R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk reported that at that time, some four hundred reputed Talmudic scholars, both old and young, from Minsk, Vilna, Brisk, Shklov and Slutzk, joined the chassidic community.

This, then, is the narrative that I wanted to convey to you. I abbreviated it somewhat and retained only its inner content, in which the approach of the Baal Shem Tov is lit up by the beacon of Chabad Chassidus. That narrative is a seminal statement on the teachings of Chassidus and on the paths in avodah that characterize chassidim. By publicizing this teaching and by explaining its role in the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, the [Alter] Rebbe opened up for chassidim entire chambers of Divine service.

Thorny Soul

There are many interpretations given for the message of the burning bush.  I wish to share the interpretation of the Degel Machene Efraim with elucidation based upon lectures of Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.
At times people reach states of great spiritual heights, they are inspired to learn and daven with tremendous passion.   Their souls have truly been lit with a tremendous fire, they feel a tremendous yearning to cleave to God.  This is prevalent very much in bochurim that have maintained great spiritual heights throughout a zman.   Especially those that may have been attracted to the holy books and learnt words about great spiritual heights and levels.  It would lead one to think that his inside has been cleansed by the great fire, he will now be free from all the inner pressures of the yetzer harah.   However, inside the fire they still feel the prickly thorns of the yetzer harah.  The feelings of קנאה, תואה וכבוד are still intact in his soul.  And the person is left confused.  What happened, is the fire not as strong as he thought, why is he not spiritually fee from the bondage's of the yetzer harah.  The answer is that most people will never reach this level of spiritual freedom, it is out of reach.  What Hashem wants from is is to remain with the thorns inside the fire!  Hashem wants to have the problems, the issues of maintaining kedusha and a passion for avodas Hashem and still serve Him.  In short this is the nekuda merchazis of the Sefer Tanya.  The avodah of the benoni is that he doesn't reach a plateau where he can let down his guard, where he has slain the enemy.  It is a lifelong struggle! Yes, there are a few tzaddikim that become freed of their yetzer harah, the fire has put out the thorns, but they are few and far between. It is everyone's dream to have a rosy, relaxed life.  This desire is not only in regard to one's מצב הגשמי, but in regard to ruchnious as well.  We wish to be free of the קנאה, תואה וכבוד that bog us down.  However, that may not be what Hashem desires.
How can we be ready for geulah if we have so many internal issues, our insides aren't pure?  Hashem tells Moshe that isn't a problem.  Yes, we have a strong, prickly yetzer harah but our job is just to light the fire.

Jewish Suffering

There is a very enigmatic conversation that takes place in the first “meeting” between Hashem and Moshe.  Moshe says he can’t go back to Klal Yisroel because they will ask him what is the name of God? Hashem responds אהיה אשר אהיה and His name is אהיה.  Then Hashem adds that Moshe should say that the God of the forefathers spoke to him, זה שמי לעולם וזה זכרי לדר דר.  Why is there a need to know God’s name, and Klal Yisroel already knows who Hashem is?  Furthermore, what is the response?  And why does Hashem first say one thing and then another?  The whole episode is very difficult, and the commentaries offer different interpretations. 

I will share an interpretation based upon Rashi and the elucidation of his words in Likutay Sichos volume 26 sicha 3.   

Moshe saw firsthand the horrific suffering Klal Yisroel was going through in Egypt.  He was greatly troubled if indeed we are the chosen nation, if God loves us so much why is he making us endure such suffering?  If God loves us so much how can he have let millions of Jews die in pogroms, a holocaust, terrorist bombings etc.  It is the question that haunted so many Jews after the Holocaust.  It is a question asked from great feelings of pain.  There is no answer that can be given to a question asked from such deep feelings of pain.  And indeed, Hashem doesn’t answer the question.  He says I feel you’re pain, I too have tremendous pain over the great tragedies that befall our people.  אהיה אשר אהיה, I to suffer you're pain.  Full stop, the answer to such questions is that there is no answer that will justify you’re pain.  Only after this message seeps in, does Hashem continue.

If that is the case, the question looms even larger, if Hashem Himself is in pain why does the suffering persist?  Hashem says it is out of mercy, I am (שם הו') the God of your forefathers, you are indeed my children.  It is out of mercy that the suffering must occur.  However, there isn’t an explanation that will satisfy you.  The answer is hidden, זה שמי לעלם (חסר), it for now is a mystery, זה זכרי לדר דר, in the end of time the answer will be clarified.  

We can't explain human, especially Jewish suffering, but we must have emunah that in the totality of the greater picture it makes sense.

Learning Rashi

I saw in a blog this week a great question on Rashi.  For those who don't click on the link or can't read Hebrew, I will repeat the question in short.  Rashi explains the possuk (15:20)  calls Miriam "the prophet, the sister of Aharon" and not the sister of Moshe for she received prophecy even before Moshe was born that he would save Klal Yisroel.  Rashi cites his source is from Tractate Sotah.  The question is why is Rashi telling us his source (which isn't his common practice,) and why cite Sotah, when the same teaching appears in Tractate Megillah, which is first?  This question is asked among a slew of others in Likutay Sichos volume 16 Beshalach sicha 2 and the explanation (in regard to this question) given is that one might be bothered how could Miriam have received prophesy at such a young, immature age?  That's why Rashi points us to Sotah for in the Gemorah a couple of lines before explains that Miriam is called (2:8) a עלמה, meaning a girl that's mature because she ran with the quickness of a עלמה.  We see from there that Miriam was much further matured than her age and therefore it is possible that she received prophesy. 
 As an aside, many synagogues and battei middrash that carry a far share of the Chassidic literature such as Kedushas Levi, R' Tzaddok, Degel, Bear Mayim Chayim, Sfas Emes, Teferes Shlomo etc. even books of avodah not on the parsha like Likutay Moharan, Tanya etc. don't have a set of Likutay Sichos.  And while the other books are Chassidic teachings, Likutay Sichos is mostly analytical analysis of Rashi.  It is quite obvious that its not hisnagdus l'chassidus that bars Likutay Sichos from entering the door, it is a hatred of Chabad and the Rebbe and his followers specifically.  I am not here to condemn such hate, people are free to hate on whatever they want, but it is quite a shame that a work which is such a treasure chest of serious learning and an unparalleled commentary on Rashi will not be opened by so many people all because of hatred for the author.  A friend of mine once said, if only there was a different name on the title page, the olam hayeshivos would love the work.  Alas, it is a pity.     

Makings of a Leader

ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש, how was there no one there, he was spotted, as we see later on that he must run away from Pharaoh because he killed the Egyptian? 

Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson said in the name of the Rebbe that the intent of the possuk is that Moshe saw that there was no איש, there is no one willing to standup against this unjustness.  (Same idea can be found in the Ksav Ve’Kabbalah.) 

What was Moshe doing strolling through the working slaves?  Rashi tells us that נתן עינו ולבו להיות מיצר עליהם.  This leads to the Rashi on אכן נודע הדבר that Moshi was wondering why where Klal Yisroel subject to such slavery?  Moshe doesn’t just notice things, he thinks about them and tries to fix the problem.   

The Torah tells us that Moshe said אסרה נא ואראה מדוע לא יבער הסנה, presumably everyone would stare at a burning bush that’s in front of them, what’s special about Moshe?  The Sforno says אסרה means אתבונן and in he repeats this on the words וירא ה' כי סר לראות : להתבונן בדבר.  The Sforno is explaining of course everyone stares at what happens in front of them, but no one cares to stop and think about it. Moshe Rabbenu, a leader, stops and thinks about what he is seeing.

The Soul Of The Sole

Hashem tells Moshe to take off his shoes because he is standing upon holy ground.  Why must one remove their shoes to walk on holy ground?  The siddur of the Shla asks why is the morning blessing of שעשה לי כל צורכי referring to wearing shoes, where is the reference to shoes?  He explains that shoes are generally made from animal skin and therefore by wearing them man shows his dominance over even the highest of all creatures.  כל צורכי means that he has placed me above everything else.  Therefore, the Be’ar Yosef says, when one is standing in front of Hashem, one must be humbled before Him and can't show his dominance over anything. 

The Bechai (see also Kli Yakar and Nitziv) explain that removing one’s shoes is symbolic of removing one’s self from physicality. The Ruch Chayim at the beginning of Pirkai Avos says that the shoe is representative of the body of the person.  Just like the shoe holds only the very end of a person so too the body only contains the lower levels of the neshama.  This idea is the reason for chalitzah where the shoe represents the body of the dead brother (see the Zohar by chalitza.)  [The Zohar may even have an application in halacha, the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule that after untying the shoe it should be thrown to the ground and the Gra cites this Zohar as the source to demonstrate that the body is settled in the ground and the neshama is released.] 

The haftora of Vayeshev tells us that the brothers sold Yosef for shoes.  Where the brothers walking barefoot and figured let’s sell our brother to purchase shoes?  Explains the Oftrasfe Gaon that Yosef is the middah of yesod, he is the one ring that binds all the brothers together.  Before the sale, kedusha was present with the unity of the brothers, wherever they walked it was admas kodesh, however after the sale the kedusha evaporated now that Yosef was gone, and they could wear shoes. (I do believe this is in a spiritual sense, not that they went barefoot.)  [See Eretz Tzvi explains that the debate between Yosef and the brothers was that Yosef held one must purify the body as well, so one has no evil urge.  The brothers held it was better to have a yetzer harah and conquer it (see there how he reads this into their debate.)  Now based upon the Zohar we understand that by getting rid of Yosef the brothers could follow their view of having a physical body separate from the neshama, that is represented by the shoes.  This idea could be the explanation of the Gur Aryeh in Devarim (8:5) who writes that clothes are called מאני דמכבדותא by the Gemorah but shoes aren’t.  What’s the difference, why are shoes worse than clothing? Based upon these sources we can suggest that clothes are the garments (כמו שנקרא בלשון הקבלה לבושין,) the expressions of the soul.  Shoes however, function just to protect the physical, coarse body.

The Shem M'Shmuel has a slightly different approach.  In his view the ground is this lowly world and it is the shoes that connect the ground to the person that reaches towards the heaven.  The removal of the shoe in the chalitzah process represents removing any connection the dead brother has to this world and allows his neshama to go up to its proper place.  Chazal say that on every stitch of making shoes, Chanoch was miyachid yechudim.  Why do we have to know he was a shoemaker, just tell us in all his endeavors he had lofty intents (ואכמ"ל  about what the Michtav MeEliyahu cites from Rav Yisroel Salenter about this and the letter of the Mictav’s son-in-law.) The shoemaking is symbolic of his capabilities to unite the lower and upper worlds.  Chazal are mentioning that he was a shomaker for that is part of the description of what he was accomplishing.

Based upon what the Shem M'Shmuel, we can understand the Bechai in a different light.  For a regular person one must have shoes to join the spirituality of the person to the physical ground and elevate it.  However, Moshe Rabbenu was completely above the physical realm and had to remove his shoes (Eyun Haparsha.)

There is a Zohar cited in Chassidus that a malach called sandal ties the prayers of Klal Yisroel to the crown of Hashem.  It seems that there is a connection between shoes and the prayers.  What is the connection?  Tefilla is called in the Zohar the time of war (this idea can is also in Unklos and Rashi in Vayechi (48:22) that the sword and bows of Yaakov are referring to his prayers.)  What is the battle of prayer?  The battle is between one’s Godly soul and one’s animalistic soul.  At the time of prayer, one’s Godly soul is trying to overpower the animalistic soul and it fights back (see Likutay Torah beginning of Ki Setzah.)  That’s why it is the malach called the shoe (sandal) which takes the prayers up to the heavens.  It is through the refinement of the animalistic qualities of the human represented by the foot that allow the prayers to soar up to the heavens.

Annihilating The Nile

The Gemorah (Sotah 12b) says that when  the daughter of Pharaoh went to wash in the river, she was going to wash off from the avodah zarah in her father's house.  Rashi says that she was immersing herself as part of the conversion process.  We see from Rashi that there was the concept of gerus pre-mattan torah.  Now this might not be such a novelty, for Rashi already told us in Lech Lecha that Avrohom and Sarah converted people (though one might argue that wasn't in a halachik sense, rather they taught them monotheism, see interesting idea here.) However, if there was such a process why didn't Moshe have Tzipporah undergo this form of gerus, yet Rashi Sanhedrin (82a) is clear that she didn't have gerus?  Another difficulty with the Rashi in Sanhedrin is how could Tzipporah have done the milah of her son if she isn't Jewish, how can she be considered part of the bris (see Avodah Zarah 27a?)  

[See the Nitziv in Megillah 13a that understands the Gemorah not that it was an immersion for gerus, rather it was the immersion a baal teshuva goes through when they repent.]

The question is how do Chazal derive that the daughter of Pharaoh had this intent, maybe she just went to cool off from the hot Egyptian sun?  Rov Dovid Solovetchik explains based upon a story with his father.  When the family was running during the war, they were on a ship and of course didn't eat anything.  One of the people serving the food badgered them about their lack of eating and agreed to use new utensils and cook them rice.  The Briskor Rav relented and sent one of his sons to start the fire to avoid bishul akum.  The man preparing the food said its unnecessary, I'm a Jew! The Briskor Rav said he had an inkling this was the case, for it didn't make sense to him why this person cared so much about them.  If he was Jewish, it’s understandable that it was built into his DNA to be a nice person. Says Rav Dovid, Chazal understood if the daughter of Pharaoh was having such compassion on a stranger's child, it must be she was rejecting avodah zarah.  Now I understood some readers will like this idea, but it seems quite crazy to me.  Do you mean to say that your average goy will just abandon a baby that needs help?  The only people in the world that have any iota of compassion are Jews?  

The question though still remains, where do Chazal see to say such a derasha?  The Torah Temimah explains since the Nile was worshiped by the Egyptians it wouldn't be a place where one would go to just cool off, that would be denigrating to the avodah zarah.  If she was bathing in the Nile it demonstrated a rejection of the avodah zarah.  This point has a halachik ramification as well. The possuk says that Yocheved placed Moshe at the edge of the river (2:3) but in possuk 5 the daughter of Pharaoh finds Moshe in the water.  Was he next to the water or in the water?  The Rogatchover explains that Yocheved didn't want to use the Nile River for it was used as adodah zarah so she placed Moshe next to the river.  However, after bas Pharaoh was mebatel the avodah zarah by using it in a demeaning manner, it became permissible to benefit from the Nile and Moshe through Divine intervention was pushed into the river. 

The bittul of the Nile isn’t just a halachik bittul, it is also a theological bittul.  The avodah zarah of the Nile was the pursuit of gashmious.  When Pharaoh decrees that all the sons should be thrown in the Nile, he is ordering to drown Klal Yisroel in the pursuit of gashmious.  It is the Nile leading to the saving of Klal Yisroel that is the ultimate defeat of this plan.  It is Moshe Rabbenu (and there is a little Moshe inside everyone see Tanya chapter 42,) who gives us the capability to float and not get drowned in the mayim rabim (וד"ל) of gashmious pursuits (based on Likutay Sichos volume 16.)

What's In A Name

Our parsha is named names.  And in fact, that becomes the name of the entire book.  How do names give us a description of the golus and the redemption?  A name is merely a means of referring to a person, it is an external aspect of the individual, not his/her internal essence.  On the other hand, the name is attached to the very essence of the individual as we see that if one’s name is called s/he naturally will be aroused to answer.  The lesson is that the golus subjects our external self, our being is in exile.  However, our true essence never can be taken away from us.  We appeared to be completely lost into the fabric of Egyptian society, in the pecking our of society we were the bottom and spiritually we were assimilated.  However, deep down we retained our freedom, we remained connected to Hashem (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 3 and Toras Menachem 5746.)  

This was one of the messages of the burning bush.  On the outside we appeared to be as barren as a thorn bush but inside our hearts at least a trace of a connection to Hashem remains.  The coals still have life to them and with some bellowing it can turn into a large fire (see midrash.)

The ensuing paragraphs are stolen from an article on Chabad.org that bears the same title as this post, by by cousin-once-removed, Chana Weisberg.

As each of my pregnancies progressed, my husband and I discussed potential names for our soon-to-be newborn baby. We pored over lists, girls’ and boys’ names, as well as names of deceased relatives.

Despite our many hours of deliberation, we didn’t name any of our children after the names we had initially chosen. As each child was finally born, we looked deeply into the newborn’s eyes and just knew what the name should be.

Parents have a form of divine prophecy when they name their children. A name is intrinsically connected to the essence of the individual’s soul and is the channel through which his spiritual life force flows. That’s why to arouse someone from a deep sleep or even a faint, call them by their name. To get their full attention or affection, address them by their name.

A generation ago, the Nazis dehumanized our people by discarding our names and treating us as numbers. By robbing us of our names, they tried to rob us of our humanity.

Names are a big part of this week’s Torah portion which is called Shemot, “Names,” and is also the title for the entire book of Exodus.

The portion starts with G‑d calling names: And these are the names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt . . . 

G‑d counted the tribes again now, to express His love for them, by calling each one by their individual name. (Rashi)

The Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1:28) learns from this that the Jews in Egypt did not change their Jewish names.

Even though they assimilated into Egyptian culture, the Jews held strong to their names, language and clothing. This would become their weapon in their spiritual battle to preserve their unique identity as the Jewish people.

When Batya, Pharaoh’s daughter, goes to bathe in the Nile, she notices a basket floating and realizes that the baby inside must be one of the Hebrew slaves.

Batya’s name means, “daughter of G‑d.” Though she was the daughter of Pharaoh who terrorized, enslaved and murdered the Jews, Batya acted as the daughter of G‑d by risking her life to save Moses.

Batya names this Hebrew baby, Moses. Although Moses had seven different names, the name that the Torah calls him and the name by which G‑d addresses him is the name given to him by Batya, due her selfless act.

Perhaps that’s the message of this portion and the entire book of Shemot.

To experience our own personal exodus, we need to view every person as an individual with his or her own exclusive set of struggles and challenges.

To preserve our humanity and to see another’s humanity, we must see them as a name—as an individual with a unique story and a unique destiny.

What’s your Hebrew name? How does it connect to your mission and individuality?

Judgement of the Heart

The Gemorah is Shabbos (139a) says that as reward for being happy for the appointment of Moshe and not bearing any feelings of jealousy, Aharon merited to wear the choshen mishpat.  Feeling happy about the appointment of Moshe, וראה ושמח בלבו is a tremendous act of carrying for someone else and indeed may merit a reward.  However, why is the reward the choshen mishpat, which  represents strict judgement?  It seems completely opposite of middah k'neged middah?  The explanation is that it is only one who has compassion that can be a good judge.  The judge that says יקוב הדין את ההר with no regards to the consequences can't be a proper judge.  Such an attitude can  lead to more harm than good.  It is the one that feels for their brother that is the proper judge.   

Prayer of Pain

It is clear from reading the pessukim in the parsha that the turning point in the slavery, when Hashem decides its time for redemption is brought about via prayer.  This prayer doesn’t seem to be one of tremendous greatness or demonstrative of any great spiritual connection to Hashem, it is merely a cry of pain.  Yet the Bechai writes that this is the cry of agony is the most wholesome prayer service that one can have.  Why is this form of prayer the most complete form of prayer?  How is this better than a premeditated form of prayer filled with deep kabalistic intents?  The Chidushai Halev explains that prayer is avodah she’blev.  It is about one’s connection to Hashem, how reliant the individual becomes on Hashem.  It is because of the pain, sorrow and anguish that a person will recognize that s/he has no place to turn but toward Hashem that will make one feel the utmost connection to Hashem.

The Yalkut Shemoni (Yermiyahu 327) says when Klal Yisroel was going into the exile, Yirmiyahu brought before them Moshe and they started crying.  Yermuyahu told them if they had cried once before the exile it wouldn’t have happened.  We see from here that one cry of pain could’ve stopped the entire exile that we have been stuck in for so many years.

How many times do I speed through the daily prayers, my mind wandering?  How many times do I actually pay attention to the words in grace after meals?  Yet, Chazal understood that it is prayer that is a necessity to bring about the geulah and put it in to our prayers and benching so many times.  How about uttering the words with some feeling?  The pain of the regular grind of live is enough to make one want the geulah. That itself will indeed be the best prayer as the Bechai teaches us.  Maybe it is indeed worthy of taking out time to study the meaning of these holy words and hopefully that will lead to a more meaningful and heartfelt prayer service.  (For the akshanim in the crowd see Responsa Chasam Sofer volume 6 siman 86, Avnei Nezer Yorah Deah 454 and the Sefer Tzepesa L’yehoshu by Rav Chaim Yaakov Lebovitz chapter 1 part 4.)  

I am bothered by the many expressions the Torah uses to describe the prayers of Klal Yisroel.  In chapter 2 verses 23-24 we find the word ויאנחו, שועתם, נעקתם.  Then further on when Hashem is talking to Moshe, chapter 3 verses 7 and 9 the prayer is referred to as צעקתם, why is the language to describe their prayer constantly being switched?

Forging Of A Nation

Rashi (2:14) says that Moshe understood that the reason for the harsh enslavement of Klal Yisroel was because Klal Yisroel spoke loshon harah about each other.  What is the middad k’neged middah of lashon harah and slavery?  What is the relationship between the lashan harah and the lack of redemption?  The Sfas Emes points out in parshas Vayechi that Yaakov only had a thought of revealing the katz when all the shevotim were assembled because it is only through unity that geulah can be accomplished.  He explains that’s why Moshe asked for Shabbos to be the day of rest from the labor in Egypt for Shabbos unites everyone (as it says in kegavna,) and that through unity we could achieve geulah.  Why is unity a prerequisite for geulah?  The Meshech Chochma asks why does it say (3:7 ) רָאִ֛יתִי אֶת־עֳנִ֥י עַמִּ֖י אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְאֶת־צַֽעֲקָתָ֤ם שָׁמַ֨עְתִּי֙, it should say צעקתה  in the singular for its talking about the nation as one collective group?  He explains that it was the cry of every individual crying for the rest of the nation that aroused mercy.  It was the crying for one’s neighbor’s pain that evoked heavenly mercy.  It was the unity felt for other people that merited the prayers to be accepted.  Why was this unity necessary for the prayers to be accepted?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that the pre-Exodus Klal Yisroel and post-Exodus Klal Yisroel were very distinct.  When coming down to Egypt they were a bunch of families bounded together by family relationship.  However, they weren’t one unit, one nation.  They were like the various Mongolian tribes pre-Genghis Khan.  It was after the Exodus that we truly became Klal Yisroel.  It was only then that all the families became one unit, one cohesive nation united in their service of God.  This idea is explicit in the Book of Ezekiel chapter 16.   Now we understand why unity was an imperative, a necessity, a must for geulah.  For if we couldn’t unite, we couldn’t become one nation.  It is indeed the bonding together, the shared pain, that would mold us together as one nation.   It was the separation of people through lashon harah that would hold back the geulah and a prayer for your brothers’ pain that would bring it about (see LIkutay Sichos volume 31.)

However, we still need to understand that Rashi doesn’t say that it was hatred amongst the children of Israel or a lack of unity that was the cause of the terrible servitude, it was lashan harah?  Why is it specifically the sin of loshon harah more than any other display of terrible servitude?  Chazal equate the sin of lashan harah with the three cardinal sins that one must give up his/her life for.  Why is lashan harah viewed in such an extreme negative light?  What’s the big deal about saying a few bad words about someone?  The Shem M'Shmuel in parshas Metzora explains the severity of the sin of loshon harah is because there is a unique quality to the force of speech.  Most sins are done with the physical body, they are acts that don’t directly destroy the spiritual wellbeing of the person.  Speech on the other hand, is not a mere physical act but requires both the power of the physical and spiritual dimensions of the person כידוע  from Unklos who translates the nishmas chaim put into a person as the ability to speak.  Speech is the point of unity between the physical and spiritual dimensions of the person.  Loshon harah is a misuse of this unification and directly deforms one’s spiritual well-being.  (The same yesod can be used to explain the severity of a false shevua.  As on aside I merited to be at the siyum of two friends who finished Tractate Shavous, for one of them it was a siyum on all of nezikin, power to them for learning even masectos they haven’t studied in yeshiva and may we merit to at least aspire to reach they’re great heights.)  This destruction of the bond between the spiritual and physical being of a person on the micro-level is reflected on the macro-level between each individual.  Klal Yisroel is divided into many physical bodies, however they are united by their neshomos which stem from one general neshoma (see Tanya chapter 32.) Loshon harah severs a person’s physical makeup from his/her spiritual inside and therefore, sever the great bond that exists between us all.  The Zohar (parshas Vaerah) says that in Egypt the speech was in golus and Pesach is pe-sach, פה סח - the mouth was redeemed.   What does this mean that speech was exiled, our entire body was in exile?  Based upon what we have said we may suggest that it is the speech, the harmonious existence both on the individual level and on the national level that was the cause of golus and geulah. 

 Rashi (3:12) says that was the זכות we had to leave Egypt was kabbalos hatorah.  It not the peshat that there was an Exodus and then 50 days later mattan torah, it was part and parcel and indeed the very reason for the Exodus.  (The Exodus was just the beginning of a process as we express lael peshach in dayenu, ואכמ"ל.)  That’s why we find there was an emphasis on the unity of Klal Yisroel by kabbalas hatorah as Rashi says they stood ki’eish eched belav echad.  That eish eched belav echad is part of the forging of a nation that accorded as an account of the Exodus.  The Shla asks why was the Torah given only at Sinai and not to the Avos?  He explains that the torah wasn’t given to wise, holy, righteous individuals who recognized God, it was given to the nation of Klal Yisroel.  There had to first be a Klal Yisroel and only after that can there be a kabbalos hatorah (וזה יסוד חשוב ביהדות שהרבה אין מבינים ואכמ"ל.)  The eish echad feeling proved we were one holistic nation united at the core, at that point we were ready to receive the torah. 

The lesson is obvious, may we merit to see the final geulah speedily in our days, תיכף ומיד ממש

A Collective Nation

וַיקְרָ֥א יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב אֶל־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֵאָֽסְפוּ֙ וְאַגִּ֣ידָה לָכֶ֔ם אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָ֥א אֶתְכֶ֖ם בְּאַֽחֲרִ֥ית הַיָּמִֽים הִקָּֽבְצ֥וּ וְשִׁמְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י וְשִׁמְע֖וּ אֶל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל אֲבִיכֶֽם: What is difficult is to understand the double expression and the change of words in these two verses.  There are some of the commentators that maintain it is indeed the same theme expressed twice.  Others such as Hirsch and Malbim understand that there is a reason for all the changes.  In their footsteps I would suggest an interpretation.  See Rav Hirsch in explanation of God's promise to Yaakov (35:11) גוי וקהל גוים יהיה ממך.  He says, goy is one single unit, yisroel  "is to therefore not to show itself as being in any way one-sided, but as a model nation shall present in a nutshell the most varied appearance of all different characteristics." This is hausfu bnei yaakov, we are a single nation.  However, there is also hikabtzu v'shemu el yisroel avechem, we are a multitude of shevatim with various talents, capabilities and strengths that bend cohesively into one nation.   There is a specific blessing to each shevat, but there is also a collective blessing to all of Bnei Yisroel.  It is because we are made up of different talents that work together in harmony that we are a greater nation, we aren't just one homogeneous group.

My question on Rashi is why does he comment on the parsha setuma, what is the question on the verse, anyone reading from a vhumash will not realize this?  And it it is troubling, why didn't he comment on why Vayetza isn't precided by the normal space after the conclusion of a parsha, it has less space?  Furthermore, why does Rashi say it's a hint to the fact that the ketz was hidden from Yaakov if this only accorded a little later when he is talking to all of his sons as Rashi himself says there?

Fixing The Wings

The Arizal teaches that the six words of baruch shem correspond to the six wings that the angels have.  However, after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash they only have four wings (see Chagiga 13b.)  That means it corresponds to two words of baruch shem which are lacking.  Which words do these wings correspond too?  The Gra (Shnos Eliyahu Zeraim) and the Noam Elimelech both say that its the words כבוד מלכותו and that is the meaning of out prayers in the mussaf of Yom Tov, גלה כבוד מלכותך עלינו, that those wings should be reinstated.  The Ohav Yisroel (Vayeshev) is of the opinion that its the words לעולם ועד.  However, either way the point is the same, there is a lacking in the recognition of the malchus of Hashem after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and it is our mission to fix it.

This week my Korean friend told me that he has an interview to be a pastor in Alabama.  Although, I disagree with his religious views, I do admire him.  I question would I be willing to move to Alabama to teach in a Talmud Torah for a meager salary?  Can it be that this goy is more willing to pick himself up and move in order to spread what he feels is baruch shem more than I am willing too?

Two Dimensions Of Shema

The Gemorah in Pesachim (56a) says that after the shevatim said shema Yisroel to prove their allegiance toward Hashem, Yaakov responded with baruch shem.  Because of this we recite it after saying shema in our daily recitation.  The question is how we view this additional line added into shema, does it now become an extension of the possuk shema yisroel and therefore should have  all the stringencies that the law prescribes for the first verse, or is it viewed as a separate line with its own rules?  In many instances we find that the Mishna Berura rules that its part of shema.  See 61:11, 63:11, 65:10 in regard to interrupting to talk to someone, intent and if one must recite it with the congregation. In all these cases the Mishna Berura equates baruch shem with the possuk of shema yisroel.  From all those instances it seems that he rules that baruch shem is part of the verse of shema yisroel.  However, in 61:13 in buir halacha he rules that if one forgets to say baruch shem one must not repeat shema.  Here it seems that baruch shem isn’t considered part of the verse of shema yisroel, opposite from the aforementioned sources?  Rav Asher Weiss explains that there are two parts to shema.  There is the mitzvah of reciting shema and then there is the kabalos ol that must be accepted in shema.  Baruch shem isn’t part of the mitzvah of saying shema, its not at all in the Torah.  However, it is part of the kabalos ol.  Therefore, regarding the stringencies that affect intent, the baruch shem is just as important as shema.  However, if one forgot it since its not part of the basic recitation of shema one doesn’t need to go back to repeat it.

The following paragraphs (in different type set) are stolen from the blog Mevakesh Lev in the piece entitled "Baruch Sheim."

The Brisker Rav was exceedingly exacting in the way he said Krias Shema. It would take him a very long time. (Parenthetically, the Gemara says that the reward for reciting Shema carefully is that Gehinom will be cooled off for him. This is a tremendous schar. Nevertheless, apparently not all Gedolei Yisrael held of the extreme extent to which the Briskers take this inyan. One time, Rav Meir Soloveitchik was in the presence of the Chazon Ish when he (Rav Meir) was saying Shema. He said it in Brisker form, taking an extremely long time to say every word with the utmost of precision. Afterwards, the Chazon Ish told him, “Be careful you don’t catch a cold.”)

Baruch sheim, though, was not given the same attention to exactitude. Given his pace throughout the rest of Shema, the amount of time from when he finished the word echad until he began v’ahavtah was much quicker. When asked about this, the Rav answered as follows.

The halacha that one must be medakdeik in Krias Shema is not because of the act of kabalas ol malchus Shamayim, but a requirement as far as reading pesukim is concerned. The proof of this is the source of precision reading. It is derived from the word v’limadetem, which Chazal darshen to mean that your limud should be tahm, complete. The enunciation should be unadulterated. Where does the word v’limadetem appear in Krias Shema? In the second paragraph. Most Rishonim hold that the second paragraph is only required mi’d’Rabannan, so the derasha cannot be referring only to Krias Shema. Rather, it is a halacha that applies to mikrah, reading pesukim.

Rav Moshe Feinstein was once observed doing shnayim mikrah, and it was apparent that he was saying the words with the same degree of precision as when he would say Krias Shema. So we see that he too held that the halacha of precision reading is not a requirement unique to Shema, but that it is a requirement insofar as reading pesukim is concerned.

Baruch Sheim, despite being an integral part of kabalas ol malchus Shamayim, is not a pasuk, and therefore does not require the same level of precision.

There is another time we find the saying of baruch shem.  In the mikdash they wouldn’t respond to a blessing by answering amen, they would respond with baruch shem (see Taanis 16b.)  Are these two mentioning's of baruch shem, the response in the mikdash and our recitation in shema two independent dinim, or do  they share one yesod hadin?  Rav Solevetchik explains that the מחייב of baruch shem is the mentioning of the חלות שם הוי"ה.  In the mikdash it was always considered a חלות שם הוי"ה since that was the way it should been pronounced.  Even after the death of Shimon Hatzaddik when they stopped pronouncing it that way (see Yoma 39b) it still was considered a חלות שם הוי"ה. Similarly, the verse of shema yisroel is considered to be mentioning the שם הוי"ה (see Gra siman 5 Orach Chayim.)  That’s what is the trigger for saying baruch shem.  (The Gemarah in Pesachim is thus read to be analyzing if inserting this praise into the krias shema itself would constitute an interruption of the recitation.  The conclusion is since Yaakov said it, therefore we may incorporate it into shema and not only is it praise permitted to add into the shema, but it becomes part of the kabbalos ol.)

The Rambam at the beginning of the book of Ahava cites the verse of מה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי.  Rav Solevetchik said that in the opinion of the Rambam, shema has two parts too it, it is a mitzvah to read the words twice a day, in the morning and evening but there is an additional aspect of the kabalos ol, that fulfillment extends throughout the entire day, it is כל היום bookended at the beginning and the end of the day with krias shema.

The nature of this additional aspect of kabalos ol needs to be explained.  We already said Hashem eched, what are we adding?  And why is it said quietly?  When the Rizhonir was a young boy he asked the Alter Rebbe how can we say ואהבת את ה' אלקיך if we already said Hashem eched and acknowledged our existence as meaningless?  (Of course, this is to show the greatness of the Rizhonor that at a young boy he was asking such questions while older people like myself are asking if our favorite football team will make the playoffs and other such intelligent questions.)  The Alter Rebbe gave him a six hour explanation about יחודא עילאה  and יחודא תתאה and answered his question.  Obviously, this explanation is beyond the scope of this elucidation, but we can at least glean shema yisroel is the level of ultimate yechud with Hashem.  However, this doesn’t give any “room” for a person to live.  We must take it down a notch in order to maintain a living relationship with Hashem and we acknowledge this lacking in our ability to recognize yichud Hashem in its optimal form quietly.