Doctrine versus social convention

In a comment on a recent posting, one reader wrote about their own Mormon traditon and how the basic tenets of the faith embraced or reconciled "individual creativity with spirituality," but how the social convention made it "easy to overlook."

I believe that this description is true for perhaps all religious faiths and even many, many intellectual movements. The original source (you could call it revelation) often holds and encourages much individual creativity, and in fact, strives to nurture our freedom and spirituality.

Yet, over time as faiths and movements grow and develop, it is easy for them to become more rigid and controlled. That initial entrance of the divine into our world and the wonder and awe it can draw from us, can very easily be bottled up and tamed.

One of the things I love about the Talmud (please realize that I am not Jewish, but simply have a deep affection for the tradition as I read it) is that it seems to do its best to not bottle up God's revelation, but instead to strive to find Hashem in places and situations, one would never normally look. And by keeping the dissenting opinions alive within it, the Talmud does much to allow the Divine to continue to reveal Herself through our study and exploration.

The late Rabbi Walter Wurzburger from an article in Tradition magazine volume 3.1 from 1960 adds these lovely lines about the Talmudic tradition:

Halakhic questions call for a creative approach; they can not be answered by some electronic calculator which grinds out its answers the way an electrical brain finds the solution to a complex differential equation. It is precisely this creative aspect of the halakhic process that led the sages to the remarkable statement "both these and these are the words of the living God," that at times even conflicting halakhic opinions represent, in the final analysis, legitimate elucidations of the word of God.

The Torah "is not in Heaven"; it must be interpreted by the proper authorities [perhaps by each individual] of each generation.

When, according to the Aggadah, Rabbi Akiba found in the Torah meanings that had eluded Moses, he was not creating a new Torah. What he did was something altogether different. Reading the Torah in the light of the conditions of an entirely different age, he discovered chidushei Torah, new meanings of the Torah. Yet, in spite of their manifest novelty, there were implicitly contained in the Torah as received by Moses on Mount Sinai.

To employ the well know rabbinic simile, just as different sparks are emitted when a hammer breaks a rock into pieces, so does the word of God yields numerous meanings. And it is the function of the Halakhah scholar, employing creative halakhic processes, to unravel the specific meaning which the timeless message of Sinai holds for his own time.

Rabbi Wurzburger alludes to a number of very famous Talmudic stories that I will try to share in the next few days. His words also remind me of the stories I have heard and read about Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, who was one of the leading Orthodox thinkers and leaders of the 20th century.

There are innumerable stories about him that often have him present in very different lights (sometimes from the Right, sometimes from the Left and even the Center). But one thing seems clear -- he rarely decided specific individual halakhic or legal questions for people. If you came to him with a question, he would encourage you to read the texts yourself and come up with a decision. He did not want to make the decision for the person. This perspective seems to fit perfectly with his lifelong desire to encourage creativity in his students.

And it is this creativity that is so important for an individual, for a community and for an entire faith to keep alive.

The importance of creativity in the Rav’s thought

At times when one views an Orthodox tradition – whether that is Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, to name a few – one usually doesn’t think of “creativity” as an important quality. One instead views it as dogmatic, stagnant and repressive. And if anything, frightened of creativity and change.

Well, I would contend that Orthodox Judaism and in particular the thought of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, does embrace creativity and even places creativity at the center of its thought.

Here are a number of quotations from Walter Wurzburger’s article in Tradition, volume 30.4 1996 entitled, “The Centrality of Creativity in the Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.”

According to the Rav, human beings, as bearers of the image of God, are mandated to imitate the Creator. In view of the fact that the commandment, ve-halakhta bi-drakhav (imitatio Dei) refers exclusively to the divine moral attributes, the Rav treats creation as a moral category. . . .

R. Chaim of Volozin, a forebear of the Rav, [defined] the human task as the realization of one’s potential for spiritual creativity. In his view, that human beings bear the image of God implies that they are charged with imitating His creativity. . . .

He [R. Chaim of Volozin] goes so far as to assert that the bliss of the Hereafter can be enjoyed only by those who actually create their own immortality. The World-to-Come is not a pre-existing domain to which God dispenses visas of admission to meritorious individuals. Everyone must by his own good deeds create his own spiritual domain in the World-to-Come. . . .

According to the [Rav] individual providence extends only to those human beings who by dint of their intellectual and spiritual development have become genuine individuals and are no longer merely members of the human species. When a person creates himself, ceases to be a mere species (“man”), and becomes a man of God, then he has fulfilled that commandment which is implicit in the principle of providence. . . .

What matters for us is that, basing himself on Rambam, the Rav unequivocally declared that striving for ever higher rungs of moral perfection and participating as a partner with God in overcoming the imperfections of the universe is the pre-eminent approach to imitatio Dei. . . .

According to Rav Soloveitchik the extremist enjoys the advantage of being self-assured. But whoever has deeper insight and perceives different aspects of issues must forego the satisfaction of dogmatic certainty.

Rav Soloveitchik points to the dialectical tension within human beings as demanding the balancing of hesed and emet. In his interpretation, hesed mandates involvement in the world to transform it and create conditions conducive to human welfare. Emet, on the other hand, refers to the eternal values of the covenantal community, which transcend the world of temporal flux and which alone can provide us with a sense of meaning and purpose and enable us to overcome our existential loneliness. Since, according to halakhic Judaism, it is our task to seek to encounter God’s Presence primarily in the lower realms of being (ikkar Shekhina ba-tahtonim), we must not try to escape from this world by a flight into transcendental spheres. The human task is to create an abode for God in this world.

This is a vision of human creativity that I find quite beautiful and meaningful, especially in our world that seems so caught up in simplistic visions of good and bad, right and wrong, us and them. This is a profound challenge to each of us to create ourselves and to create a world that are truly fit for God, a world and a self full of love, care and hope.

From cleaning the intestines to raising the dead

One of the fascinating things about learning the Talmud is to discover passages like the following. In just a few sentences, we move from the issue of cleaning out the intestines of the Pesach offering to discussing whether the righteoius will be able to raise and heal the dead. An amazing set of associations . . .

The washing of its entrails." What is meant by washing the entrails? Said R. Huna: "The entrails are pricked with a knife and then washed," and R. Hyya bar Rabh says: "They are merely pressed with a knife, and in that manner the filth is removed."

R' Elazer said, "What is the reasoning behind Hyya bar Rabh's interpretation. For it is written [Isaiah v. 17]: "Then shall the sheep feed according to their wont, and the ruins of the fat ones shall sojourners eat."

Said Menasseh bar Jeremiah in the name of Rabh: The term "according to their wont" being expressed by (the Hebrew word) Kedabram, and "Debur" meaning "speaking," the expression Kedabram should be explained to mean, "as they were spoken of."

The word "sheep" refers to the Israelites, and thus the passage signifies: "Then shall the Israelites feed as they were spoken of."

What was spoken of concerning them? Said Abayi: "By the latter part of that verse and by the 'sojourners' are meant the righteous who at that time were strangers, but in the future they would be the inhabitants and feed on the ruins of the fat ones."

Said Rabha to him: This interpretation would be correct if there were not the word "and" between the two passages, but that word gives the latter passage a distinct significance; therefore, said he, the passage will have the meaning given it by R. Hananel in the name of Rabh, who said that in the future the righteous would have the power to arouse the dead; because in this passage quoted it is said: "Then shall the sheep feed according to their wont," and in another passage [Micah vii. 14]." Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old." By Bashan is meant Elisha, the man of Bashan, as it is written [I Chronicles v. 12]: "Yanai and Shaphat in Bashan," and [II Kings iii. ii]. "Elisha the son of Shaphat" (hence Elisha, being the son of Shaphat, was from Bashan).

By Gilead is meant Elijah, as it is written [I Kings xvii. 1]: "Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead" (and both of these prophets Elijah and Elisha roused the dead). Thus the original passage quoted [Isaiah v. 17] should be interpreted as follows: As in the days of old Elijah and Elisha aroused the dead, so will in the future other righteous men also have that power.

R. Samuel ben Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan deduces the above conclusion from the passage [Zechariah viii. 4]: "Thus hath said the Lord of Hosts, Again shall there sit old men and women in the streets of Jerusalem, and every one with staff in hand because of their multitude of years"; and as it is written [II Kings iv. 29]: "Lay my staff upon the face of the lad," the inference that the righteous will have the power to arouse the dead is deduced from the analogy of the two passages, the latter of which deals with the arousing of the dead.

The Talmud text is from this online translation, though for my daily reading I use the wonderful and helpful translation from Artscroll -- The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli.

Wisdom from the Daf -- Pesachim 66b

Here is some practical wisdom that the Talmud placed within its discussion Pesach sacrifice:

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "He who is arrogant, if he be one of the sages his wisdom leaveth him, and if he be a prophet his power of prophecy forsaketh him.

Resh Lakish said: A man who becomes angry, if he be a sage his wisdom leaveth him, and if he be a prophet his power of prophecy forsaketh him.

Today, there is often very little interest in this type of advice. Rather, one is supposed to express their anger and have pride in themselves. I believe that there is profound wisdom within these recommendations. Our haughtiness and anger can so easily cause us to lose sight of the true value of those in front of us and simply blame them for everything that is wrong.

Whether it is the progressives blaming the neo-conservatives, or the neo-conservatives blaming the progressives -- they all are seeing their own anger and pride and failing to see the other.

The Talmud text is from this online translation, though for my daily reading I use the wonderful and helpful translation from Artscroll -- The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli.

We must sanctify the physical world

From Daf-insights from The Dafyomi Advancement Forum

The Torah was given to man in order to enable him to utilize the physical world in the service of Hashem. A Jew is not supposed to live an ascetic life, severed entirely from the physical pleasures of the material world. Hashem placed the Jew's Neshamah [soul] into a physical body, fusing the holy with the mundane and charging him with the obligation to uplift and sanctify his physical existence and the physical world in which he lives. The Torah enables the Jew to sanctify the physical world, in contrast to the Nochri [gentile] who does not have the ability to uplift the physical world and infuse it with spirituality. The Nochri's spirituality is divorced from the physical world. For example, the Nochri's spiritual leaders practice celibacy, while the Kohen Gadol is obligated to be married when he performs the holiest service on the holiest day of the year (Yoma 1:1). It is therefore logical that on the day on which we received the Torah, which teaches us how to utilize the physical world in the service of Hashem, we are to partake in physical pleasures of food and drink. (Heard from Rav Kalman Weinreb, shlit'a.)

While this is of course an exaggerated, stereotypical view of Christianity, seeing is as "otherworldly" and "ascetical" -- clearly there are many tendencies with the Catholic Church that give these comments some truth.

A new blog -- A Rhizome Spirit

I have started another blog called, A Rhizome Spirit. It provides a more wide-ranging discussion of what I call "rhizeomss and holzwege of love and spirit."

The word "rhizome" comes from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari and represents something that is always on the move, always learning and changing. It "has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things" and "any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be." Which is very different from a "tree or root," "which plots a point, fixes an order. . . . A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections"

The word "holzwege," which comes from Heidegger and represents forest paths made by backwoods loggers leading to a place in the forest from which trees have been removed. In some ways these paths can be seen as leading "nowhere," or they can be seen as leading to a clearing in the forest.

Since my interests include a number of areas and issues, I think this new site will give me that flexibility.

And of course a huge and most wonderful collection of rhizomes and holzwege is the Talmud itself, which is one of the key reasons I am so attracted to it. So, I plan to continue to keep this site up as well.

Aflictions of love -- a Talmudic answer to the question of evil

Here are some classic statements from the Bavli Berachos 5ab, trying to make sense of the eternal issue of why bad things happen to good people . . .

The next section discusses “afflictions of love” – these are afflictions that occur to a person who when he or sheinvestigate their deeds finds no sin and investigates their commitment to Torah study and finds no failings – then “it can be assumed that they are ‘afflictions of love’ – as it is stated: For Hashem rebukes the one He loves. [Proverbs 3:12]

From Ramban (Nachmanides): “. . . out of love and compassion, God cleanses people from their inadvertent sins by afflicting them in this world. They are thus rendered fit to receive their full measure of reward in the World to Come.”

From Rashi: “God therefore shifts the onus of punishment from the average people onto the righteous, who will bear it with love. Since a righteous person who is afflicted for this reason is suffering on behalf of others, he is credited with the reward that is consequently taken from them.”

From Tzlach: “’The reward is in proportion to the exertion’ (Pirkei Avos 5:23). Thus, by visiting suffering upon the righteous, God increases their opportunities for reward.”

One of the sections on afflictions of love says:

Now, if the loss of a tooth or eye, which is only one of the limbs of a person, -- a slave goes free on account of it, then afflictions, which purge a person’s entire body, all the more so should a person be freed (i.e. from sin) on account of them!

The commentary states: “When a Canaanite slave goes free because his master injured one of his limbs he assumes the status of a free Jew. Thus, through the freedom wrought by his injury, he ascends from a lower level of sanctity to a higher level. This is, therefore, a fitting analogy to the suffering of a righteous person, which likewise frees him from his previous lower status and brings him close to the Almighty. He, too, is liberated in the sense that previously he was only God’s servant, but now he is God’s ‘child’ (Pnei Yehoshua)”

Fighting your evil inclination

A person should constantly agitate his Good Inclination to fight against his Evil Inclination – Tremble (i.e. be agitated) and sin not. If he vanquishes it, fine. But if not, he should engage in Torah study, as it is state in that verse: reflect in your hearts. If he vanquishes it, fine. But if not, he should recite the Shema, as it is stated in the verse: on your beds. If he vanquishes it, fine. But if not, he should remind himself of the day of death – as it is stated at the end of the verse – and be utterly silent – selah.

What is the meaning of that which written [Exodus 24:12]: I shall give you the Tablets of stone, and the Torah, and the commandment which I have written, to teach them?

The verse is interpreted phrase by phrase: “Tablets” – these refer to the Ten Commandments; “Torah” – this refers to Scripture; “and the commandment”; – this refers to the Mishnah; – “which I have written” – these refer to the Prophets and Writings; “to teach them” – refers to the Gemara. [The verse] thus teaches that all of them were given to Moses at Sinai.

A classic text striving to understand and explain how all the Oral Torah, even the Gemara they are writing at that actual moment, was actually given to Moses at Sinai.

Reflections on Berachos 4ab

Here are a few excerpts and reflections on the Talmud daf -- Berachos 4ab

--------------------------

This is what David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, am I not devout? For all the other kings of the East and the West sit among their company in their glory, but as for me, my hands are soiled with blood, embryos, and afterbirths which I examine, in order to permit a woman to her husband. And not only that, but I consult Mephiboshes my teacher about everything I do, and I ask him: “Mephiboshes, my teacher, did I judge correctly? Did I declare “exampt” correctly? Did I declare “tahor” correctly? Did I declare “tamei” correctly? And I was not embarrassed to do so.

In the early pages to Halakhic Man, Rav Soloveitchik writes:

Our aim in this essay is to penetrate deep into the structure of Halakhic man’s consciousness and to determine the precise nature of this “strange, singular” being who reveals himself to the world from within his narrow, constricted “four cubits” [Berakhot 8a], his hands soiled by the gritty realia of practical Halakhah [see Berakhot 4a] p4

While even the idea of David reviewing blood, embryos and afterbirths in order to determine if a woman is tamei (ritually impure) or tahor (ritually pure) is almost impossible for my twenty-first century mind to accept, it makes immensely real how interwoven Halakhah was with everyday life and how far away it is from an otherworldly type of mysticism. One more quote from the Rav, which I believe I shared before:

If you desire an exoteric, democratic religiosity, get thee unto the empirical, earthly life, the life of the body with all its two hundred forty-eight organs and three hundred sixty-five sinews. Do not turn your attention to an exalted, spiritual life rooted in abstract worlds. p44

In discussing whether one can recite the Shema only until midnight or all the way until dawn, it says: [4b] As was taught in the following Baraisa: THE SAGES MADE A FENCE (i.e. a safeguard) FOR THEIR WORDS . . . AND WHOEVER TRANSGRESSES THE WORDS OF THE SAGES IS LIABLE TO DEATH

The “fence” that they discuss in these lines is that a person (a man – women are not bound by “time-bound” commandments) should go the synagogue to pray before going home. Otherwise, the person may have a little to eat and drink and then fall asleep and fail in his obligation.

The discussion continues on why someone is “liable to death” for transgressing this Rabbinic ruling, while not for all the others. At this point it simply says that it is way of making it very clear that it is compulsory.

Just a note about the death penalty in the Talmud. We will see it mentioned very often. But in the introduction to the Sanhedrin tractate from Artscroll, they define that it is the Lesser Sanhedrin (twenty-three judges) who can sentence a person to death and only after he was warned just prior of the consequences by two witnesses. Also they say that a court that actually sentenced a person to die once every seven years was called a “destructive court.” So while, the death penalty is mentioned often, it seems like it was used very infrequently.

The next section begins a discussion that will take place throughout the tractate – what are the specific prayers and what are their order? At this point the discussion centers on whether one says the Shemoneh Esrei or Amidah (known simply as “the Prayer” in the Talmud) before or after the Shema and whether one must connect the redemption blessing that follows the Shema directly to the beginning of the Shemoneh Esrei.

Just to be clear when there is this type of discussion – all defense and arguments are initiated from and totally reliant on some word or phrase from tradition (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Mishnah, etc.). So this one focuses on the words from the Shema “when you lie down and when you arise.”

Next a line that has effected Jewish and Christian prayer for 2000 years –

[4b] Why, R’ Yochanon has said that – in the beginning, i.e. before one begins the Prayer, he should say the verse: My Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare Your praise.

This ruling from the Rabbis has made its way into the Divine Office of the Catholic Church and the Daily Office of the BCP of the Anglican Communion!

More discussion on what the prayer for the day consists. Here there is a claim that Psalm 145 must be recited three times every day. Of course, they ask why this Psalm. First, they claim that is because it follows the order of the aleph beit (though we will learn a few lines later that it does not include a line for the letter nun) but they also say that it is because it contains the line “You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.”

I find this line a lovely description of the ever-creative “hand” of God in all of creation as the creative force binding together and creating anew the infinite universes.

This daf closes with an interesting discussion of the angels Michael, Gabriel, Elijah and the Angel of Death – you probably didn’t know that to accomplish their missions: Michael performs his in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four and the Angel of Death in eight (though during the time of the plague he went in one flight)! There is a commentary on the Angel of the death that is interesting: “Since the mission of the angel of death is to kill people, he may not fly straight to his victim; rather, he must stop seven times along the way to give the person multiple chances to repent.”

A View of Simplicity from Rav Nachman of Breslov

It once happened that the king came upon the royal chronicles and discovered that two sons were recorded, one named "clever" and the other named "simple." It was astonishing in his eyes that these two individuals were known as "clever" and "simple," and the king desired to see them.

The King thought to himself, "If I suddenly send for them and ask them to come before me, they will be very afraid. The clever man will not be able to think properly, and the simpleton may lose his mind altogether for fright." So the king decided to send for the clever man by the agency of another clever man, and to send for the simpleton by the agency of another simpleton. But how could he find a simpleton in the royal capital, since the inhabitants of a royal capital are for the most part intelligent? As it so happened, the keeper of the treasury was a simple man. No-one wanted someone too clever to be the keeper of the treasury lest, through his cleverness and intelligence, he spend the kingdom's assets; thus, this simple man had specifically been selected.

The king called for a clever man and for the simple keeper of the treasury, and sent them off to the two sons, respectively, giving each of them a letter of appointment. He also gave them a letter for the governor of the region, explaining that these two sons were under his rulership and asking that the governor send them each a letter in the king's name, so that they would not be frightened. The king asked the governor also to write that this was not an official summons; rather, it was up to them to decide whether or not they wished to come. If they so wished, then they should come, since the king desired to see them.

The two messengers - the clever one and the simple one - set off; they reached the governor and gave him the letter. The governor asked about the two sons, and they told him that the clever one was an exceptionally intelligent and very wealthy man, while the simpleton was extremely simple and owned just one cloak, (as we mentioned). The governor decided that it would certainly not be appropriate for the simpleton to be brought before the king dressed in his shabby cloak, so he had suitable clothes made for him, and he placed them in the simpleton's wagon. Then he gave the letters to messengers, and the messengers traveled and reached their destinations. They handed over their respective letters - the clever messenger to the clever man and the simple messenger to the simpleton. The simpleton, upon receiving his letter, immediately said to the simple messenger who had brought it "I do not know what is written here; please read it for me."

The messenger replied, "I will tell you what the letter is about: the king wants you to come before him."

The simpleton begged, "Please, no foolishness!"

He replied, "This is really the truth, with no foolishness."

The simpleton was filled with joy, and ran to tell his wife.

Wife, the king has sent for me!"

She asked him, "For what reason?"

He had not even the time to answer her; in his great joy he hurried to set off immediately with the messenger. He got into the wagon and sat down, and found the clothes that had been placed there. His joy increased even more.

Meanwhile, rumors were circulating that the governor was corrupt, and the king decided to replace him. The king felt it would be better if the governor was a simple man, since such a person would govern in truth and uprightness, and lack guile and trickery. And so the king commanded that the simpleton for whom he had sent be made the governor, and he sent orders to this effect. The simpleton would travel via the governor's city: the guards would await his arrival and as soon as he reached the city he was to be detained and told that he had been appointed governor. And so it was. They waited at the city gates and as soon as he arrived, they stopped him and told him that he had been appointed governor.

He pleaded, "Please - no foolishness!"

They answered, "Certainly - no foolishness."

And so the simpleton was made governor on the spot, with all the appropriate pomp and circumstance. Now, his luck had begun to increase, and since luck makes one wise, he began gaining some understanding. Nevertheless, he made no use of his cleverness. He simply governed in all his customary innocence and administered the area with wholehearted truth and uprightness; no corruption was found in him. After all, the administration of a county does not require any great intelligence or cleverness; it requires uprightness and wholeheartedness. When two people came before him for judgment, he would say, "You are innocent, and you are guilty," in accordance with his wholeheartedness, with no guile or deceit, and so he conducted everything in truth. And the citizens of the county loved him greatly.

He had advisors who loved him, and it was out of love that one of them counseled him as follows: "It is inevitable that you will be summoned before the king - after all, he has already sent for you once, and in any case it is normal for a governor to come before the king. Therefore, despite the fact that you are entirely proper and there is no corruption whatsoever in your handling of the county, nevertheless, it is the manner of the king that when he speaks, his words are inclined in a certain way: he speaks of all kinds of wisdoms and in other languages. Therefore, it is proper and polite that you be able to answer him. Therefore, allow me to teach you wisdoms and languages."

This advice was acceptable to the simpleton, who replied: "What do I care if I learn wisdoms and languages?!"

Immediately after acquiring such knowledge, it occurred to him that his clever friend had once told him that he would never be able, under any circumstances, to exceed his clever friend's intelligence. Now he had already achieved such cleverness (although, despite the fact that he had learned wisdoms, he made no use of them at all, but rather continued to run everything with his customary innocence.)

Some time later the king sent for the simpleton, now the governor, and he went to him. At first, the king spoke to him about his administration of the county, and the king was very pleased with what he heard, for it was clear that he governed with uprightness and great truth, with no corruption and deceit. Thereafter, the king spoke of wisdoms and in other tongues. The simpleton answered him appropriately, and the king was pleased with this, too, saying: "I see that he is so clever, but nevertheless he governs with such uprightness!" And so the king was exceedingly satisfied, and he appointed the simpleton over all his ministers. He selected a special palace for him, where he would live, and commanded that beautiful and grand walls be built around the palace. The king then gave him his appointment as minister in writing. And so it was: they built him quarters where the king had commanded and he received great honor.

When the clever man received the king's letter, he said to the clever messenger who had delivered it: "Stay over here tonight, and we shall talk and decide." That evening he prepared a great feast for him. During the feast, the clever man thought with great intelligence and philosophy, and said:

What is this, that such a king should send for such a lowly person as myself - who am I, that the king should send for me?! The king has his kingdom and his greatness, while I am a lowly, despised being in comparison with such a great and awesome king - how can it be logical that such a king would send for such a lowly one as me? If he did so because of my wisdom - what am I in relation to the king? Has the king any lack of wise men? And the king himself must also be very clever, so how can it be that he would send for me?

It puzzled him very greatly. And then the clever man said (i.e., the first clever man; the friend of the simpleton, for all of this is what that first clever man, the friend of the simpleton, said). After being greatly puzzled and baffled, he answered his own question, and then said to the clever messenger:

"Listen to what I have to say. I think it is obvious and clear that there is no king at all, and everyone is mistaken in this regard, for believing that there is a king. Look and understand: how can it be that everyone subjects himself and dedicates himself to one person - the king? There is surely no king in the world at all.

The clever messenger replied, "But did I not bring you a letter from the king?"

The first clever man answered him with a question: "Did you personally receive the letter from the hand of the king himself?"

The messenger replied, "No. Another person gave me the letter in the name of the king."

He answered, "So you can see for yourself that what I am saying is true: there is no king."

Then he questioned further: "Tell me - are you not from the capital city? Did you not grow up there? Tell me - have you ever seen the king?"

The messenger answered, "No." (For this was true; not everyone managed to see the king, for the king showed himself in public only on very rare occasions.)

The first clever man said, "Now it is clear that what I say is true, that there is no king - you yourself even admit that you have never seen him."

The messenger asked, "Then who runs the country?"

The clever man answered, "I will tell you. It is good that you have asked me, for I am an expert in this since I have visited many countries. I was once in Italy, and the practice there is to have seventy advisory ministers. They ascend and rule the country for a certain period, and all the citizens of the country have a chance to hold this position, one after the other."

His words began to make an impression on the wise messenger, and eventually they were in complete agreement that there was no king in the world at all.

The clever man spoke once again: "Stay until morning; I will continue to demonstrate proof after proof that there is no king at all."

The clever man arose early in the morning (we refer here to the clever man who was the friend of the simpleton; we always refer to him as the clever man) and woke up his friend, the clever messenger.

He said to him, "Come with me outside; I will demonstrate to you how the whole world is mistaken, and that there is truly no king at all, and everyone is making a big mistake."

They went to the marketplace and saw a soldier. They stopped him and asked, "Whom do you serve?"

He answered, "The king."

"Have you ever seen the king?"

"No."

The clever man exclaimed, "See, have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?!"

They went on to another soldier and began talking to him, until eventually they asked, "Whom do you serve?"

"The king."

"Have you ever seen the king?"

"No."

The clever man remarked, "See for yourself, it is clear that everyone is mistaken, and there is no king in the world at all."

They all agreed that there was truly no king at all. The clever man spoke again: "Let us go and travel about the world, and I will demonstrate further how the whole world is greatly mistaken."

They traveled around the world, and wherever they went they found everyone mistaken. And this saying, that there was no king, became a parable between them, and wherever they went they mentioned the king as a parable: "Just as it is true that there is a king, so this is true." They traveled on and on until their means ran out, and they began to sell their horses one after the other until they were all sold and they were forced to travel by foot. And still they would study the world and find that everyone was mistaken. They became wandering paupers, and their importance was gone, and they were not held in esteem for no-one paid them any attention, for they were regular paupers....

The lone soul charting his or her path

From this line in Bavli Berachos 8a, which in the Schottenstein edition is on 8a⁴

the Holy One, Blessed is He, has nothing in His world but the four amos of halachah.

We read these notes from the commentators:

After the destruction of the Temple, the Divine Presence rests upon any place a scholar establishes for himself to plumb the Talmud [and it subsequent texts] and decide the halachah. He is in the place of the Sanhedrin (Maharsha).

Every item existing has a purpose for which it came into existence

The greatest of all truths and the pillar of all wisdoms is the knowledge of God. His Oneness and all fields of inquiry related to this. The purpose of other branches of knowledge is solely to prepare one to approach the study of Divine. Thus, man’s chief function is to comprehend Godliness.

Only a man who unites theory with practice has achieved the ideal.

Where may we learn the theory and where may we conclude the practice? In the words of our Sages. The words of our Sages blaze the trail before us, up the mountain of God, to the pinnacle of piety. The lone soul in the study hall poring over a Gemara, delving into the halachah, charting his own observance, he is the culmination of Creation. Thus, he is the final purpose, God’s portion from all His handiwork. The Holy One, Blessed is He, has nothing in His world but the four amos of halachah. (Rambam)

As I sit in my study reading the Talmud even though I am not Jewish and not part of a Yeshiva, I listen to the line from the Rambam, "The lone soul in the study hall poring over a Germara, delving into the halachah, charting his own observance, he is the culmination of Creation." While I certainly don't believe I am the "culmination of Creation," I do sense that I am part of something eternal and timeless, when I delve into the wonders of the Talmud.