Just about everybody walks around all day every day with a phone in his pocket/hand/ear/phone/car etc. One has access to a phone constantly. Sometimes a child on the bus or in the supermarket etc. will ask me to use my phone. I tell him that I don't have one but he can ask every other adult present and they will have one.
Is this a GOOD thing???
Let's see!
Avos 1-17
שִׁמְעוֹן בְּנוֹ אוֹמֵר:
כָּל יָמַי גָּדַלְתִּי בֵּין הַחֲכָמִים,
וְלֹא מָצָאתִי לַגּוּף טוֹב אֶלָּא שְׁתִיקָה;
וְלֹא הַמִּדְרָשׁ הוּא הָעִקָּר, אֶלָּא הַמַּעֲשֶׂה;
וְכָל הַמַּרְבֶּה דְּבָרִים, מֵבִיא חֵטְא:
Shimon his son says:
All my days I grew up among the wise,
And I found nothing good for the body but silence;
And the Midrash is not the main thing, but the deed;
And whoever multiplies words brings sin.
Says the Maharal:
פי' רש"י ז"ל שר"ל כל ימי גדלתי בין חכמים ולא מצאתי לגוף וכו', לומר שאף אצל החכמים מצאתי שיפה שתיקה להם שכך היו נוהגים בשתיקה, וכ"ש בני אדם שאינם חכמים שהשתיקה יפה להם, ופירוש לא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה ר"ל במה שהאדם בעל גוף יפה לו השתיקה. וזה כי הדבור הוא נפש המדברת אשר נפש המדברת הוא כח גופני שהדבור כח גופני ואינו שכלי לגמרי, לכך ראוי לו השתיקה שלא יבא לידי טעות ושבוש, כי כאשר הוא פועל בכח הדברי מבטל כח השכלי כמו שיתבאר בסמוך, לכך ישתוק ויהיה פועל בכח השכלי אשר אינו גופני כמו שהוא כח דברי שלא ימלט מן הטעות. ויש לדעת כי השכל והגוף הפכים זה לזה, ולפיכך אמר אין לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה, ולא אמר לא יפה לגוף הדבור, כי לא מצד הדבור הוא החסרון רק שיפה לו השתיקה כדי שיוכל לפעול בכח השכלי. וזה בא ללמד כי כאשר ישתוק האדם אז השכל פועל פעולתו, שאי אפשר שיהיו פועלים אצל האדם ב' דברים מתחלפים השכל והגוף, ולפיכך אם כח הגוף שהוא השכל הדברי פועל אין השכל העיוני פועל ויבא לידי טעות, לכך ראוי שישתוק ולא יפעול כח הדברי ואז השכל יפעל פעולתו.
Rashi of blessed memory explains that "I have been among the wise all my days and have not found for the body, etc.," meaning that even among the wise I found that silence is good for them, as that is how they behaved in silence. And certainly, for people who are not wise, silence is good for them. And the meaning of "I have not found good for the body" is that silence is good for a person in terms of his physical being. And this is because speech is a speaking soul, and the speaking soul is a physical power, since speech is a physical power and not entirely intellectual/spiritual. Therefore, silence is fitting for it so that it does not lead to error and confusion. For when it acts with the power of speech, it nullifies intellectual/spiritual power, as will be explained shortly. Therefore, one should be silent and act with intellectual/spiritual power that is not physical as is the power of speech that does not escape error. And it should be known that the mind and the body are opposites, and therefore it is said that the body's only good is silence. It is not said that speech is not beautiful for the body, because the deficiency is not due to speech itself, but rather that silence is good for it so that it can act with intellectual power. And this comes to teach that when a person is silent, the intellect/spirit performs its function, as it is impossible for two conflicting things to be active in a person: the intellect and the body. Therefore, if the power of the body, which is the power of speech, is active, the theoretical intellect is not active and leads to error. Therefore, it is fitting that it be silent and not activate the power of speech, and then the intellect/spirit will perform its function.
וזה שאין טוב לגוף רק השתיקה שודאי יפה ונאה לגוף שישתוק ויתן מקום אל השכל שיפעל פעולתו, ויהיה הגוף טפל מפני זה אצל השכל וטוב שיהיה הגוף זנב לאריות. ואם מרבה דברים אז השכל בטל אצל הגוף ויהיה השכל זנב לשועל, ואין כאן שכל כלל, ולכך אמר לא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה מטעם אשר אמרנו. ומפני זה כל כסיל מרבה דברים, שהשכל והגוף שני הפכים, והחכם כאשר יפעל תמיד בשכלו ואינו פועל בדבור הגופני. וזה שאמר לא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה, ר"ל כי השתיקה יפה ונאה וראוי לגוף מצד הגוף, שכל גוף אינו פועל כלל כי הפעולה מתיחס אל הנפש שהנפש פועלת ולא הגוף, לפיכך אמר במה שהאדם בעל גוף ונפש המדברת כח מוטבע בגוף שאינו כח שכלי נבדל ראוי לו השתיקה מן הדבור, מפני כי הגוף אינו פועל וראוי לו ההעדר מן הפעולה, ובפרט הדבור הוא פועל גדול מה שלא נמצא לשאר בעלי חיים ואין ראוי לגוף פועל זה ודבר זה שהוא השתיקה בודאי יפה לו:
And the fact that silence is the only good for the body, which is certainly beautiful and fitting for the body to be silent and allow the intellect/spirit to act, and that the body will be secondary to the intellect because of this, and it is good for the body to be a tail to the lions. And if one speaks excessively, then the intellect is nullified in the body, and the intellect becomes a tail to the fox, and there is no intellect here at all. Therefore, it is said, "I have found nothing good for the body except silence," for the reason we mentioned. And because of this, every fool multiplies words, because the mind and body are two opposites, and the wise person, when they always act with their mind and do not act with physical speech. And that which he said, "I have not found anything good for the body except silence," means that silence is beautiful, fitting, and appropriate for the body from the body's perspective. This is because the body does not act at all; action is attributed to the soul, which acts, not the body. Therefore, he said that since man is a being of body and soul, and speech is an inherent power in the body that is not a separate intellectual power, silence is appropriate for him instead of speech. This is because the body does not act, and it is fitting for it to be inactive. And especially, speech is a great action that is not found in other animals, and this action is not fitting for the body. Therefore, this thing, which is silence, is certainly beautiful for it.
"המלכות כנגד הנפש. וידוע כי הנפש הוא המנהיג את כל איברי האדם... ולפיכך כנגד זה הוא המלך... ואין הגוף פועל, גם השכל אינו פועל, רק הפועל הוא הנפש הפועלת, והוא דומה אל המלך שהוא פועל ומושל. וזה שאמר הכתוב [משלי כא, א] 'לב מלך ביד ה", וזהו כי המלך דומה אל הלב, ששם הנפש החיוני". ובתפארת ישראל פ"א [לב.] כתב: "התנועה היא מן הנפש", וראה שם הערה 32, שזהו יסוד נפוץ בספריו. וראה עוד תפארת ישראל פנ"ד [תתמא:] ושם הערה 36, ושם פנ"ז [תתצח:] ושם הערה 49. ובנתיב העבודה פ"ג [א, פג.] כתב: "הנפש היא בעלת מלאכה ובעלת תנועה, כמו שהתבאר פעמים הרבה דבר זה". ובנתיב העבודה פי"ח [א, קלט:] כתב: "כל פעולה אשר יפעול אדם מתייחס אל הנפש, שהוא כח פועל, כאשר ידוע". ובבאר הגולה בבאר השני [קעו:] כתב: "הפעולה מצורף לזה הנפש הפועלת".
The Maharal writes [Avos 4-14]: [The kabbalsitic sphere of] Kingship [מלכות] corresponds to the soul. And it is known that the soul is the leader of all the limbs of man... And therefore, this corresponds to the king... And the body is not active, the intellect is also not active; the only actor is the active soul and it is like a king who acts and rules. And that which the verse says [Proverbs 21:1], "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord," and this is because the king is likened to the heart, where the vital soul resides. And in the seferf Tiferes Yisrael, chapter 1 [32a] he wrote: "Movement is from the soul," and see there note 32, that this is a common principle in his books. And in the Nesiv Ha-avoda, [ch. 3 page 83] he wrote: "The soul is a craftsman and in motion, as this has been explained many times." And in the Nesiv Ha-avoda [page 139b] he wrote: "Every action a person performs relates to the soul, which is an active force, as is known." And in the Be'er Hagola [176a], he wrote: "The action is joined to this, the active soul."
לא זכיתי להבין דבריו הקדושים, שנראה לכאורה שנקט בשני טעמים לבאר שהשתיקה יפה לגוף; (א) למעלה [לאחר ציון 1471] כתב: "שאין טוב לגוף רק השתיקה, שודאי יפה ונאה לגוף שישתוק, ויתן מקום אל השכל שיפעל פעולתו, ויהיה הגוף טפל מפני זה אצל השכל, וטוב שיהיה הגוף זנב לאריות. ואם מרבה דברים, אז השכל בטל אצל הגוף, ויהיה השכל זנב לשועל, ואין כאן שכל כלל. ולכך אמר 'לא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה' מטעם אשר אמרנו". (ב) מה שכתב כאן: "השתיקה יפה ונאה וראוי לגוף מצד הגוף, שכל גוף אינו פועל כלל, כי הפעולה מתיחס אל הנפש, שהנפש פועלת ולא הגוף. לפיכך אמר במה שהאדם בעל גוף, ונפש המדברת כח מוטבע בגוף, שאינו כח שכלי נבדל, ראוי לו השתיקה מן הדבור, מפני כי הגוף אינו פועל, וראוי לו ההעדר מן הפעולה". ולכאורה אלו שני טעמים שונים, ומדבריו משמע שמחברם לטעם אחד. ועוד, לפי טעמו השני יקשה מה שהקשה למעלה [לאחר ציון 1468] מדוע "לא אמר 'לא יפה לגוף הדבור'". ושם תירץ "כי לא מצד הדבור הוא החסרון, רק שיפה לו השתיקה כדי שיוכל לפעול בכח השכלי" [ראה הערה 1469], אך לפי טעמו השני כאן ש"הגוף אינו פועל, וראוי לו ההעדר מן הפעולה, ובפרט הדבור... ואין ראוי לגוף פועל זה" [לשונו כאן], הדרא קושיא לדוכתא. וצ"ע.
I was not privileged to understand his holy words, which seemingly he used for two reasons to explain that silence is good for the body: (a) Above he wrote: "That nothing is good for the body except silence, that it is certainly beautiful and fitting for the body to be silent, and to give way for the intellect to perform its function, and that the body should be secondary to the intellect for this reason, and it is good for the body to be a tail to the lions. And if one multiplies words, then the intellect is nullified in relation to the body, and the intellect becomes a tail to the fox, and there is no intellect here at all. And therefore he said, 'I have not found anything good for the body except silence,' for the reason we mentioned. (b) What he wrote here: "Silence is beautiful and fitting and appropriate for the body from the body's perspective, because the body does not act at all, as action relates to the soul, which is what acts, not the body. Therefore, he said that since man has a body and a rational soul, a power inherent in the body that is not a separate intellectual power, silence is fitting for him because the body is inactive, and absence from action is fitting for him. And seemingly these are two different reasons, and from his words it seems that the author combines them into one reason?
Continues the Maharal:
ואמר לא המדרש עיקר אלא המעשה, שלא תאמר אחר כי השתיקה שהיא ההעדר הפעולה טובה ביותר מפני שיש לאדם לפעול בשכל וכמו שהתבאר, אם כן המדרש עיקר ולא המעשה עיקר כי המעשה היא לגוף והמדרש לשכל, אף שהמעלה בודאי גדולה מאד למדרש, ומכל מקום העיקר היא המעשה, רק שהמדרש שהוא השכל הוא המעלה העליונה, ומכל מקום המעשה הוא היסוד ואין קונה מעלת השכל רק שצריך שיהיה לו קודם יסוד מוכן ואחר כך בונה מעלה מעלה, ודבר זה יתבאר אצל כל מי שמעשיו מרובים וכו'.
And he said, "The study is not the main thing, but the deed." Lest you say that silence, which is the absence of action, is best, because a person must act with their intellect, as was explained, therefore the Midrash is the main thing, and not the action, because action is for the body, and the Midrash is for the intellect. And regarding this, he said that even though the merit of the Midrash is undoubtedly very great, nevertheless, the main thing is the deed. Just that the Midrash, which is the intellect, is the highest merit, and in any case, the deed is the foundation, and one does not acquire the merit of the intellect unless he first has a prepared foundation, and then builds merit upon merit, and this matter will be explained in (below, Chapter 3, Mishnah 9) "Whoever's deeds are many, etc."
וכל המרבה דברים מביא חטא, ר"ל בודאי יפה לגוף השתיקה כמו שאמרנו מפני שהוא נותן אל השכל לפעול פעולתו ודבר זה מעלה, אבל אין ראוי לומר שהוא חוטא אם מרבה דברים שהרי כח הדברי כח בפני עצמו, ואם ירצה לפעול בכח זה מבלי שיתן כל כחו אל השכל לא שייך בזה חטא. אבל כאשר מרבה דברים מביא חטא, וזה כי לפי מה שאמרנו כי ראוי לאדם השתיקה כדי שיהיה עיקר השכל ויהיה בטל אצלו כח הדברי, ומ"מ אם אין בוחר בשתיקה אין כאן חטא ג"כ, אבל להרבות דברים ולעשות עיקר כח הדברי ולבטל כח השכלי, כי כל אשר כח הדברי פועל כח השכלי א"א לפעול פעולתו כראוי כי הם ב' הפכים, ובודאי דבר זה חסרון לאדם להיות נמשך אחר כח הדברי לגמרי שהוא אינו שכלי לגמרי ולכן נחשב זה חסרון כאשר נמשך אחריו, ואחר החסרון נמשך עוד חסרון כי כל חסרון גורר עוד חסרון, וזהו שאמר שהוא מביא חטא שהחטא הוא חסרון כי כל לשון חטא בכל מקום חסרון כמו (מלכים א', א) אני ובני שלמה חטאים, (בראשית, לא) אנכי אחטנה ובהרבה מקומות, ולפיכך המרבה דברים בא לידי חטא וחסרון, בפרט כאשר החסרון הוא בדבר שנמשך אחר כח גופני והוא חסרון שימשך אחר זה עוד חסרון.
And whoever multiplies words brings sin. Meaning that silence is certainly good for the body, as we said, because it allows the intellect to function, and this elevates. But [you might think that] it is not appropriate to say that he is a sinner if he increases words, for the power of speech is a power in itself, and if he wishes to act with this power without giving all his power to the intellect, there is no sin in this. But [in fact] when he speaks many words it leads to sin, and this is because, as we said, silence is fitting for a person so that the intellect/soul will be primary, and the power of words will be nullified for him. Nevertheless, if he does not choose silence, there is no sin here either. But to multiply words and make the power of speech the main thing, and to nullify the power of the intellect, because whenever the power of speech is active, then the power of the intellect cannot perform its function properly, as they are two opposites. And certainly, this is a deficiency for a person to be drawn completely after the power of speech, which is not entirely intellectual/spiritual, and therefore this is considered a deficiency when one is drawn after it. And after the deficiency comes another deficiency, because every deficiency leads to another deficiency. And that is what he said about bringing sin, that sin is a deficiency, because every instance of the word "sin" is a deficiency, just as it says (1 Kings 1:21), "I and my son Solomon are deficient," (Genesis 31:39) "I will be deficient," and in many places. Therefore, the more one speaks, the more one sins and lacks, especially when the lack is that follows the physical power, and this lack leads to another lack.
ועוד יש בדבר זה עוד דבר עמוק מאד, כי אין כח הדברי דומה אל השכלי שאין גבול לשכלי, רק הכח הדברי הזה כמו צורה, כי צורת האדם חי מדבר, אשר הצורה אין בה תוספת כלל כאשר ידוע מענין הצורה, ולפיכך כל המרבה דברים יוצא מן הראוי והיציאה מן הראוי בדבר כמו זה מביא חטא ויש להבין זה. ואל יקשה הרי מקרא מלא הוא (משלי, י) ברוב דברים לא יחדל פשע כי זה אינו מדבר שבא לידי חטא רק בשביל רוב דברים אי אפשר שלא יהיה פשע שידבר דברי סכלות והוללות, אבל כאן אמר מביא חטא רצה לומר גורר חטא אחריו ודבר זה ענין אחר. וכך הוא פירוש המשנה כאשר תבין, כי הדברים האלו השנוים כאן אינם כאשר יש מפרשים המשנה, אבל הם כולם דברי חכמה דברים אשר השכל מחייב:
And there is something even deeper in this matter, for the power of words is not like the intellect, which has no limit, only this power of words is like a form, because the form of a living person speaks, and there is no addition at all to the form, as is known from the nature of form. Therefore, whoever speaks excessively goes beyond what is appropriate, and going beyond what is appropriate in a matter like this leads to sin, and this should be understood.
And let it not be difficult, for the verse says (Proverbs 10:19): "In a multitude of words there is no lack of transgression." This does not speak of sin that comes about, but rather that because of the multitude of words, it is impossible not to sin, to speak words of foolishness and frivolity. But here he said "brings sin," meaning he drags sin/deficiency after him, and this is a different matter. And this is the meaning of the Mishnah when you understand that these things stated here are not as some commentators interpret the Mishnah, but they are all words of wisdom, words that reason dictates.
----
Bamidbar is usually read on the Shabbat before Shavuot. So the Sages connected the two. Shavuot is the time of the giving of the Torah. Bamibar means, “in the desert”. What then is the connection between the desert and the Torah, the wilderness and God’s word?
The Sages gave several interpretations. According to the Mechilta, the Torah was given publicly, openly, and in a place no one owns because had it been given in the Land of Israel, Jews would have said to the nations of the world, “You have no share in it.” Instead, whoever wants to come and accept it, let them come and accept it.[1]
Another explanation: Had the Torah been given in Israel the nations of the world would have had an excuse for not accepting it. This follows the rabbinic tradition that, before God gave the Torah to the Israelites, He offered it to all the other nations and each found a reason to decline.[2]
Yet another: Just as the wilderness is free – it costs nothing to enter – so the Torah is free. It is God’s gift to us.[3]
But there is another, more spiritual reason. The desert is a place of silence. There is nothing visually to distract you, and there is no ambient noise to muffle sound. To be sure, when the Israelites received the Torah, there was thunder and lightning and the sound of a shofar. The earth felt as if it were shaking at its foundations. But in a later age, when the Prophet Elijah stood at the same mountain after his confrontation with the prophets of Baal, he encountered God not in the whirlwind or the fire or the earthquake but in the kol demamah dakah, the still, small voice, literally “the sound of a slender silence” (1 Kings 19:9-12).” I define this as the sound you can only hear if you are listening. In the silence of the midbar, the desert, you can hear the Medaber, the Speaker, and the medubar, that which is spoken. To hear the voice of God you need a listening silence in the soul.
Many years ago British television produced a documentary series, The Long Search, on the world’s great religions.[4] When it came to Judaism, the presenter Ronald Eyre seemed surprised by its blooming, buzzing confusion, especially the loud, argumentative voices in the beit midrash, the house of study. Remarking on this to Elie Wiesel, he asked, “Is there such a thing as a silence in Judaism?" Wiesel replied: “Judaism is full of silences … but we don’t talk about them.”
Judaism is a very verbal culture, a religion of holy words. Through words, God created the universe: “And God said, Let there be … and there was.” According to the Targum, it is our ability to speak that makes us human. It translates the phrase, “and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7) as “and man became a speaking soul.” Words create. Words communicate. Our relationships are shaped, for good or bad, by language. Much of Judaism is about the power of words to make or break worlds.
So silence in Tanach often has a negative connotation. “Aaron was silent,” says the Torah, after the death of his two sons Nadav and Avihu (Lev. 10:3). “The dead do not praise you,” says Psalm 115, “nor do those who go down to the silence [of the grave].” When Job’s friends came to comfort him after the loss of his children and other afflictions, "they sat down with him on the ground for seven days and seven nights, yet no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his pain was very great.” (Job 2:13).
But not all silence is sad. Psalms tells us that “to You, silence is praise” (Ps. 65:2). If we are truly in awe at the greatness of God, the vastness of the universe and the almost infinite extent of time, our deepest emotions will indeed lie too deep for words. We will experience silent communion.
The Sages valued silence. They called it “a fence to wisdom” (Mishna Avot 3:13). If words are worth a coin, silence is worth two (Megilla 18a). R. Shimon ben Gamliel said:
“All my days I have grown up among the wise, and I have found nothing better than silence.”
Mishna Avot 1:17
The service of the Priests in the Temple was accompanied by silence. The Levites sang in the courtyard, but the Priests – unlike their counterparts in other ancient religions - neither sang nor spoke while offering the sacrifices. The Zohar (2a) speaks of silence as the medium in which both the Sanctuary above and the Sanctuary below are made.
There were also Jews who cultivated silence as a spiritual discipline. There are Jews who practise ta’anit dibbur, a “fast of words”. Our most profound prayer, the private saying of the Amidah, is called tefillah be-lachash, the “silent prayer”. It is based on the precedent of Hannah, praying for a child.
“She spoke in her heart. Her lips moved but her voice was not heard.”
1 Sam. 1:13
God hears our silent cry. In the agonising tale of how Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and her son away, the Torah tells us that when their water ran out and the young Ishmael was at the point of dying, Hagar cried, yet God heard “the voice of the child” (Gen. 21:16-17). Earlier when the angels came to visit Abraham and told him that Sarah would have a child, Sarah laughed inwardly, that is, silently, yet she was heard by God (Gen. 18:12-13). God hears our thoughts even when they are not expressed in speech.
The silence that counts, in Judaism, is thus a listening silence – and listening is the supreme religious art. Listening means making space for others to speak and be heard. There is no English word that remotely equals the Hebrew verb sh-m-a in its wide range of senses: to listen, to hear, to pay attention, to understand, to internalize and to respond in deed.
This was one of the key elements in the Sinai covenant, when the Israelites, having already said twice, “All that God says, we will do,” then said, “All that God says, we will do and we will hear [ve-nishma]” (Ex. 24:7). It is the nishma – listening, hearing, heeding, responding – that is the key religious act.
Thus Judaism is not only a religion of doing-and-speaking; it is also a religion of listening. Faith is the ability to hear the music beneath the noise. There is the silent music of the spheres, about which Psalm 19 speaks:
"The heavens declare the glory of God
The skies proclaim the work of His hands.
Day to day they pour forth speech,
Night to night they communicate knowledge.
There is no speech, there are no words,
Their voice is not heard.
Yet their music carries throughout the earth."
Tehillim 19
There is the voice of history that was heard by the prophets. And there is the commanding voice of Sinai that continues to speak to us across the abyss of time. I sometimes think that people in the modern age have found the concept of “Torah from Heaven” problematic, not because of some new archaeological discovery but because we have lost the habit of listening to the sound of transcendence, a voice beyond the merely human.
It is fascinating that despite his often-fractured relationship with Judaism, Sigmund Freud created in psychoanalysis a deeply Jewish form of healing. He himself called it the “speaking cure,” but it is in fact a listening cure. Almost all effective forms of psychotherapy involve deep listening.
Is there enough listening in the Jewish world today? Do we, in marriage, really listen to our spouses? Do we as parents truly listen to our children? Do we, as leaders, hear the unspoken fears of those we seek to lead? Do we internalise the sense of hurt of the people who feel excluded from the community? Can we really claim to be listening to the voice of God if we fail to listen to the voices of our fellow humans?
In his poem, ‘In memory of W B Yeats,’ W H Auden wrote:
In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountain start.
From time to time we need to step back from the noise and hubbub of the social world and create in our hearts the stillness of the desert where, within the silence, we can hear the kol demamah dakah, the still, small voice of God, telling us we are loved, we are heard, we are embraced by God’s everlasting arms, we are not alone.
---
[1] Mechilta, Yitro, Bachodesh, 1.
[2] Ibid., 5.
[3] Ibid.
[4] BBC television, first shown 1977.
