English translation — אלול

A.

Regarding prayer with a minyan — which is among the most important virtues in prayer¹

— we find a dispute between the Sages and Rabban Gamliel²

: The Sages say "Just as the prayer leader is obligated, so is each individual obligated" — there is an obligation upon each individual

(of the congregation)

to pray for himself: "Rabban Gamliel says: The prayer leader fulfills the obligation of the many."

And the Gemara³

brings on this a baraita⁴

: "They said to Rabban Gamliel: According to your words, why does the congregation pray?

He said to them: In order to arrange the prayer leader's prayer

(The prayer leader should have time to prepare his prayer⁵),

He said to them: According to your words, why does the prayer leader go down before the ark? They said to him: In order to fulfill the obligation of one who is not knowledgeable,

He said to them: Just as he fulfills the obligation of one who is not knowledgeable, so he fulfills the obligation of the knowledgeable one."

That is: according to the Sages,

is — "the congregation is primary"⁶

: the matter of prayer

in a congregation is that the congregation prays together⁷,

and the matter of the repetition of the shatz is only a regulation to fulfill for the one who is not knowledgeable⁸

: but R. Gamliel holds,

that "the emissary of the congregation is primary"⁶

: the main matter of prayer in a congregation is the prayer of the shatz,

and that which before the repetition of the shatz each individual of the congregation prays the silent prayer for himself,

is this only a regulation because of the shatz⁹

— "in order to prepare the emissary of the congregation his prayer."

2.

In what consists the reason and logic of the dispute,

whether "the congregation is primary" or "the prayer leader is primary"?

One can say,

that this is connected with the well-known question¹⁰

— what has more importance,

multiplicity of quantity or quality

The quality — what one finds in it a dispute between Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues:

The Gemara¹¹

relates,

that when R. Gamliel was Nasi,

"He was ..

proclaiming and saying: Any student whose inside is not like his outside shall not enter the study hall,"

and afterwards,

when they removed him from the Nesiut and R. Elazar ben Azarya became Nasi¹²,

"They removed him¹¹

from the guard of the door and gave them permission for students to enter ..

that day were added many benches."

That is: R. Gamliel holds,

that the main importance of a yeshiva

(study hall)

is — <b>quality</b> of the students,

and therefore,

he would only let in the students whose inside is like their outside

(even though through this there was a diminution of the quantity of students)

: but not so his colleagues

(R. Elazar ben Azariah,

R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva)

hold that increase of quantity overrides the advantage of quality,

and therefore one must let into the study hall also students whose inside is not like their outside,

because the main thing is that there should be more students in the yeshiva — increase in quantity,

although this will cause a diminution in the overall quality of the study hall — and consequently — also in the quality of the individuals.

And based on this one may say,

that in that which R. Gamliel holds that "the prayer of the prayer leader is primary",

he follows his own approach that quality overrides quantity.

3.

The explanation in this:

In the action of a "tzibbur"

(itself)

are present the two virtues of "quantity"

And "quality"¹³

: a)

A congregation consists specifically of

(multitude in quantity)

<b>ten </b>

(at least)

of Israel¹⁴.

b)

The combination of ten of Israel creates a new reality,

a single unit of a holy congregation

(an importance in quality).

And this is the difference between communal prayer

(which includes the prayers of each one of the congregation individually)

and the prayer of the chazzan:

The prayer of the congregation has the advantage of &lt;b&gt;multiplicity &lt;/b&gt;of quantity — the multiplicity of prayers that are combined together — when ten Jews are praying together:

In contrast, in the prayer of the chazzan there is the advantage of &lt;b&gt;quality&lt;/b&gt;,

because

and consequently his prayer

(also as an individual)

has a greater importance in quality relative to the prayers of ordinary worshippers — is furthermore:]

A shaliach tzibbur is his essence,

that he includes the mouths of the congregation of the house of Israel&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "he becomes a messenger for all of them ..

his mouth is as their mouth"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

so that every word that he prays,

is as if the entire congregation says it through his mouth.

That is,

that in the prayer of the shaliach tzibbur is concentrated

And united the prayer of the congregation as it becomes <b>one</b> entity of a holy community — a different category in <b>quality</b> of prayer even relative to the prayers of many individuals praying for themselves.

And this is the dispute of the Sages and Rabban Gamliel¹⁸

: The Sages hold that multiplicity of quantity determines quality,

and therefore they say that the essence of communal prayer is — the prayer of the congregation; but Rabban Gamliel holds that quality outweighs quantity,

and therefore,

even though the prayer of the prayer leader is small in quantity — it is only one prayer — it is nevertheless more important than the prayer of the congregation,

because it is much greater

(more elevated)

in quality

(having the power of the entire congregation as one)¹⁹.

4.

It was already once spoken²⁰,

that when one finds a dispute among sages from the same reasoning in two

(or more)

places — there is a novelty in each dispute regarding the other disputes

(which therefore must be brought down explicitly all the disputes and one cannot learn them one from the other — and in the language of the Talmud "and it is necessary").

And so too in our matter: in each of the two disputes mentioned above there is a novelty:

In the matter of "the study hall",

since here it speaks about a student "whose inside is not like his outside",

he lacks the generality of the "quality" of a "student",

as the Sages said²¹

"Any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside <b>is not a Torah scholar</b>"; but regarding the matter of prayer,

in communal prayer there is

(not only the advantage of quantity,

but)

also the advantage of quality,

for when ten Jews pray together, the prayer

(of each individually but as a part of the community)

has an advantage²²

over the prayer of <b>the individual</b>; it is only,

that the quality of the prayer of the chazzan

(in which the entire community becomes unified as one entity of a holy congregation)

is with even greater excellence and elevation.

And therefore,

if the view of Rabban Gamliel were only in the matter of "the study hall", one would think,

that specifically there he follows quality; but regarding the matter of prayer he concedes that "communal prayer is primary"

(since it possesses both advantages: a greater quality

(relative to the prayer of the individual)

and also a multitude of quantity)²³.

Therefore the opinion of Rabban Gamliel also stands by prayer,

in order to let hear,

that also in this case the lesser quantity is appropriate for the sake of an even <b>greater</b> quality.

And on the other hand,

if the opinion of Rabban Gamliel would stand only by prayer

(is in addition to what one could say that by the study hall the sages agree with Rabban Gamliel for the aforementioned reason — it is also regarding the opinion of Rabban Gamliel)

one could not learn from there that he holds thus also regarding "the study hall".

Because the study hall is the matter of Torah which is <b>acquired</b> through attachment with friends and through the dialectic of the students²⁴,

and moreover from my students more than from all of them²⁵

is that the more students

(including also that their inside is not like their outside)

the more dialectic²⁶

and the deeper the "acquired".

: showing a person how

he must conduct himself — consequently there would be room to say that a yeshivah is also for the sake of students <b>whose </b>inside is not like their outside so that they should know how to conduct themselves and even more,

accomplish that with them there should become "their inside like their outside"²⁸].

And therefore the opinion of R"G must stand by "the study hall",

to inform us,

that also in this matter R"G holds that one reckons with quality.

H.

The content of the above question — whether quantity of quantity is decisive or quality — coincides or at least is akin to the question in several matters

(as the Rogatchover elaborates in several places²⁹)

: what is the main thing of the thing — matter

(and substance)

of the thing,

or its "form"

If one reckons primarily with &lt;b&gt;matter &lt;/b&gt;— then quantity has more importance than quality; but if the main thing is the form

(and content).

(and content)

of the thing — then quality outweighs quantity.

Based on this one can find another "according to his system" between Rabban Gamliel and the Sages — in the law of "He claimed wheat and the other admitted to barley, he is exempt,

and Rabban Gamliel holds him liable"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

The Sages

(Tanna Kamma)

hold that a partial admitter is liable only when the admission

In part it is "from the type of the claim",

but R"G holds,

that even when the admission is not from the type of the claim, one is liable for an oath because of one who admits to part of a claim.

What also regarding the dispute, one can say that this depends on the aforementioned question — what is the essence of a thing: its matter

(and quantity)

or its form

(and quality),

And with an introduction:

The reason why the admission of a partial admitter must be from the type of the claim is³¹,

because if the admission is not from the type of the claim it turns out,

that he is not a partial admitter of the <b>claim</b>³²

: regarding the claim of wheat he is not a "partial admitter" but a "<b>denier of everything</b>"; and regarding his admission of barley — there is altogether no <b>claim</b> from the plaintiff

(and consequently it is not applicable

(admitter of)

partial of the claim).

But this reasoning depends,

what one considers as the essence in a "claim" — because in a claim and demand for money there are two matters: the actual demand expresses itself in a specific thing — wheat,

barley and the like — which is the "matter"

(quantity)

of the demand; and the content

("form")

of the demand is — money that he claims from the fellow

(which is the same for all claims: wheat barley etc.).

And this is the dispute between the Sages and Rabban Gamliel, and they follow their respective systems: the

The Sages,

according to their system,

hold that the main thing in every matter is the substance and quantity of the thing.

And similarly in our case,

the main thing is the "substance" of the claim; and consequently it turns out,

that in a case of "he claimed wheat and he admitted to barley" there is no partial admission of the claim; but Rabban Gamliel holds that one takes into account the <b>quality</b> of the claim,

which is the <b>same</b> both for wheat and for barley — and therefore it is a partial admission,

even when it is not "of the type of the claim"

(from the perspective of the "substance" of the claim).

6.

And the novelty in <b>the </b>dispute compared to the previous two disputes is:

Beis HaMidrash

and prayer are an object of a mitzvah,

one could say,

that that which R. Gamliel reckons with them regarding the quality of the matter is from this same reason: since this is an object of a mitzvah and a matter of holiness,

is important and decisive the content and quality of the thing;

But not so words of permission have no

(Torah)

(Torah)

importance

says regarding a weekday meal — "a weekday meal is not important and designation does not apply to it,"

because being a meal of permission — not a Torah reality,

it has no importance that one should need a preparation for it],

And therefore,

when it would not have stood explicitly the opinion of R. Gamliel regarding he claimed wheat and the other admitted barley,

one would not have been able to derive his opinion from Torah and prayer,

with Rabban Gamliel only regarding admission of the type of the claim — one would not have known the view of the Sages regarding Torah and prayer].

7.

Just as we find opinions of R. Gamliel and the Sages regarding the two "pillars"³⁴

of Torah and prayer — likewise we find also regarding the third "pillar"³⁴

of charity

(acts of lovingkindness).

In the Gemara³⁵

there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of the verse³⁶

"And the kindness of the nations is sin": R. Eliezer says "And the kindness of the nations is sin,

all charity and kindness that the nations

(idolaters)

do is a sin for them, for they do it only to magnify themselves through it"; R. Yehoshua says "all charity etc. is a sin for them, for they do it only so that their kingdom may continue"; and R. Gamliel says "all charity and kindness etc. is a sin for them, for they do it only <b>to pride themselves</b> through it."

the Maharsha explains

the distinction here between "lehitgadel bo" and "lehit'ya'er bo": "lehitgadel bo" means

(not a "language of greatness and importance" — because that is

(also)

"lehit'ya'er" — but that means)

"greatness in years that they will lengthen days".

D.

H.

that the distinction between the first two discourses

(of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua)

and the discourse of R. Gamliel is: according to them, the "sin" of the nations consists in that their doing charity and kindness is only for the sake of <b>reward</b>; but according to R. Gamliel, their <b>sin</b> is in that their kindness and charity

(is for the sake of,

and consequently — )

brings them to the attribute and sin of <b>pride</b> — "lehit'ya'er".

What is the <b>reason</b> for the dispute?

One can say,

that this is connected with the question — what determines: matter or form.

Ch.

The explanation of this:

They say,

that the charity and kindness that the nations of the world do is

(not only is it no mitzvah,

but it is the opposite)

a matter of <b>chatat</b> — it is because it is done in a manner that there is a deficiency in their kindness and charity,

for which reason this is a matter of "chatat".

In the mitzvah of charity there are two parts: a)

the act of giving to the poor — providing the poor with his needs.

b)

the "quality" of the giving — with a pleasant countenance,

showing during the giving to the poor one's sympathy,

the

(in the language of Chazal³⁸)

"and he who appeases him with words".

And this is an <b>essential</b> in charity,

and as the Rambam³⁹

rules: "Whoever gives charity to a poor person with a sour countenance etc., even if he gave him a thousand gold coins, <b>loses his merit and forfeits it</b>".

And in this consists the dispute between R. Gamliel and the previous two Sages:

R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua hold that the essence of charity is — the "material" and quantity,

the action of giving to the poor.

And therefore is

(according to them)

since the nations of the world do charity and kindness for the sake of reward, it is a "sin-offering": since all their intention thereby is for the sake of reward for themselves

(and to such an extent — that if they will not receive the

Reward, they are themselves &lt;b&gt;regretting&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

on the charity)

— it turns out that there is a deficiency in the act of giving,

it is measured according to &lt;b&gt;their &lt;/b&gt;will regarding the reward and the greatness of the reward — not according to the needs of &lt;b&gt;the poor person&lt;/b&gt;: they are not occupied with giving the poor person &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;needs,

but with providing for &lt;b&gt;themselves &lt;/b&gt;with length

(that they may draw out the)

days or "that their kingdom be extended."

But R. Gamliel holds,

that the essence of every thing is its form and quality; and so regarding charity,

that the essence of charity is the "and the one who appeases him."

And accordingly, the "sin" in their charity and kindness consists

(not in their doing for the sake of reward

but)

in that they do it "to glorify themselves" — importance and greatness of the giver,

which is a deficiency in the &lt;b&gt;quality &lt;/b&gt;of the charity: the essence of charity is the pleasant countenance,

to empathize with and appease the poor person,

which is relevant only when the giver does not hold himself higher than the poor person — and here the giving of charity and kindness is in a manner &lt;b&gt;opposite &lt;/b&gt;to "and the one who appeases him": "to glorify themselves,"

pride and haughtiness of spirit!

9.

And also regarding charity there is a "necessity" to hear the opinion of R. Gamliel — that quality and form are decisive — because there is a novelty in his approach regarding charity compared to the same approach regarding other holy matters: prayer and the "study hall"

(Torah)

The essence and core of Torah and prayer is

(Not so the "material"⁴¹,

but)

the "quality" and form of them: the main matter of Torah⁴²

is⁴³

— the <b>understanding</b> of the subject being learned⁴⁴

(and so too — that this is a deep study that leads to action,

which is an essential matter in Torah⁴⁵)

; and so regarding prayer,

its essence is — "service <b>of the heart</b>"⁴⁶,

intention before Whom you stand⁴⁷

etc.

But not so regarding charity it is the opposite: the main matter of charity is to fill the needs of <b>the poor person</b>,

that <b>he</b> should receive his needs — and therefore one can accept that the intention of the giver is not relevant,

but the receiving of the poor person.

And as it says in our books⁴⁸,

that when someone "loses a sela from his hand and a poor person finds it and goes and supports himself with it, Scripture credits him as if he merited."

So if the opinion of R"G would stand only by prayer and Torah,

one could say,

that by charity he admits that the main thing is quantity; needs fur-

ther stand explicitly his opinion by charity,

to let us hear,

that also here holds R"G that one goes after quality.

And on the other hand,

And another matter: from the method of R. Gamliel regarding charity one could not learn how his method is regarding prayer and the study hall.

Because regarding charity it only pertains which of the two is determining — matter

(and quantity)

or form

(and quality)

— in a way that the emphasis on quality does not diminish the quantity;

But not so regarding prayer and the study hall they are in opposition: through the emphasis on quality the quantity becomes <b>diminished</b>: in the study hall — a <b>small</b> quantity of students

(only — their inside is like their outside),

instead of a study hall with many benches;

And even more so by prayer — that the entire &lt;b&gt;content&lt;/b&gt; the "quality" of a shaliach tzibbur consists in &lt;b&gt;paucity of quantity&lt;/b&gt;,

that there is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; any multitude

(quantity)

of prayers,

but only &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; prayer for the entire congregation.

And therefore from his method regarding charity one would not learn that also by them he goes after quality.

And from the above it is understood also the "need" regarding the sages.

Yud.

And it can be said,

that the novelty in the method of R. Gamliel

(which is learned from the prayer of the chazzan)

— that also a quality which diminishes the quantity is decisive — is connected with the subject of R. Gamliel — as a prince:

The main point of a nasi is,

that a nasi is specifically &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

In the manner of

A king,

that there can be a viceroy,

half Caesar&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;,

but a king can be only one

in the manner of the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel].

The reason of the matter is — because a nasi

(and king)

is a matter of <b>quality</b>,

and as is known⁵²

that a nasi and king is the point of existence of the entire nation,

therefore the matter of a nasi and king is not connected with multiplicity of quantity — rather the opposite: he is one,

the very fewest in quantity⁵³

— rather his virtue is specifically in the greatness of quality

(and therefore he is the one who unites all the people and leads them).

And therefore his view regarding prayer,

that quality is

(not only the main thing,

rather it is)

relevant to such an extent — that it overrides even when this <b>diminishes</b> the quantity to the utmost.

And this is also the difference of opinions between R. Gamliel and the sages,

that they

were only <b>members of the</b> Sanhedrin,

that the matter of

(members of)

Sanhedrin is — multiplicity of quantity.

For the Sanhedrin must have the multiplicity of <b>71</b>,

and if even one of them is missing, and the smallest among them, it is not a Sanhedrin⁵⁴.

And therefore their dispute is general,

as above — whether increase of quantity determines quality,

or the opposite,

and as this is emphasized in their dispute regarding the matter of prayer: the Sages hold that “

the congregation is primary” —

(like the members of the Sanhedrin which had to be &lt;b&gt;71 &lt;/b&gt;Sanhedrin)

But Rabban Gamliel holds that “

(prayer of)

(prayer of)

the prayer leader is primary”,

since the prayer leader is the point of quality of the entire congregation — like the Nasi&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;,

who is the point of quality of the entire nation.

(From the talks of 6 Tishrei and Simchat Torah 5737)