‘Cherut’ – Negative Liberty Leads to Positive Liberty

On the Etymology of חרות

SUNDAY, MARCH 24, 2013

The appearance of the root /חור/ with the meaning of nobleman, aristocrat, or elder appears mostly in the later books of Tanakh. Melachim I 21:8, 11 and Kohelet 10:17 juxtapose חורים with elders or contrast them with youth. Nechemiah (2:16; 4:8, 13; 5:7; 7:5; 13:17) consistently juxtaposes חורים with nobleman or priests (see also 6:17). Yeshayahu 34:12 and Yirmiyahu 27:20, 39:6 similarly place חורים in the context of royalty and is commonly translated as “nobleman.” In Rabbinic literature חור came to mean freedom (e.g. Gitten 4:4; Targum on Shemot 21:2; Bereishit Rabbah 92). Daat Mikra, however, understands חורים as aristocrats who were free from paying taxes throughout Tanakh (e.g. Melachim I 21:8; Nechemiah 2:16).

However, the original meaning of the root /חור/ appears too have been “white.”[1] In Bereishit 40:16, R. Saadia Gaon interprets חרי as “white bread,” a symbol of royalty (see Ramban).

Yeshayahu 29:22 uses יחורו as pale, and is understood by multiple commentators as being the Aramaic equivalent of “white” (Radak, Metzudot Tzion and Ramban on Bereishit 40:16; see Daniel 7:9). Being pale-faced may be a symbol of royalty since it implies that one is at leisure to stay in-doors protected from the sun.

Esther 1:7, 8:15, and Yeshayahu 19:9 (according to Ibn Ezra and Radal; see especially R”I Karo) use חור as “white linen,” especially in the context of royalty (Esther Rabbah on 1:6; see Jastrow on חור). It is possible that חור/white linen is related to, and possibly derived from, חור/hole (Rashi on Bereishit 40:16 and Yeshayahu 19:9 relates חור to wicker and nets).

Thus, three etymologies may be suggested: 1) the white bread-royalty connection; 2) the pale-royalty connection; and, 3) the white linen-royalty connection. Either way, it is not surprising that חור is a common name among the royalty (e.g. Shemot 31:2; Divrei ha’Yamim I 4:1; Yehoshua 13:21)

Hirsch (Shemot 32:16) threads the disparate meanings of /חור/ into one conceptual whole, and relates it to the well-known rabbinic dictum (Avot 6:2):  “Do not read engraved [חרות] but free [חרות], for there is no person who exemplifies freedom as one who engages in Torah study.”

“Now חור means white, free and open, from which we get the meaning of opening and hole. The basic meaning seems to be “unhindered.” Hence: free, open, and the unhindered i.e. unbroken, rays of light: white. So that חרות   could also mean “opening” in the sense of the stone being bored clean through, or actually “freedom,” and in this sense חרות על הלחות would mean “in free mastery over the Tablets” and thereby express that ם” וס” שבלוחות בנס היו עומדים. The Tablets did not bear the writing but the writing bore and held the Tablets. Then the sentence in Avot 6:2 אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה , that the Torah makes “free,” would be a literal fact, brought home to one’s mind by a glance at the writing of the Tablets. Just as the writing of the Divine Evidence was not only independent of the material but raises the material serving it to its own level of freedom above the ordinary laws of Nature which govern matter, in the same way human beings, who take upon themselves the spirit of this writing and make themselves the representatives of this spirit, are raised, borne and held by the very spirit itself, above the blind force of ‘you must,’ the lack of free will which clings to all matter, i.e. they become “free.” (See Maharal, Derech Chaim, for a similar interpretation).


[1] As is common in all languages, the concrete becomes a metaphor for more abstract concepts. Thus, “white” becomes “clear” and “logical” as in מחוור

From BM’EI HA’DAGA, here.

How to Read a Sefer – AR’s Short Guide

Becoming a Better Reader

Instead of a better listener; let’s compare & contrast the two means of assimilation. Note: Our definition of “reading” includes listening to a recorded lecture.

A: Same as with listening, one must concentrate on empathy (putting yourself in the author’s shoes), and have actual respect for the author (not some nebulous “withholding of judgment”).

B: Likewise, certain physical aspects of deferential body language (posture, “eye contact”, cessation of activity, eliminating distractions, etc.) are still important, though the source may not be present — this not for the author’s benefit but your own. These are strong signs of attention/detachment, so be vigilant.

On the other hand, unlike listening where you have but one ‘life’, and are generally “put on the spot”, reading is a kinder assignment. The author isn’t physically present to feel ignored when you ‘multitask’, interrupt or put him on Pause. You also have two stages for understanding as opposed to the one, often called First Reading and Second Reading.

C: First Reading is relatively easy. You sail through the words enjoyably, just “to get a picture” of the content. As you read, avoid formulating any rejoinder, whether disagreement or piggy-backing assent, regardless of your own feelings on the subject matter.

D: During First reading, take the text at surface value. Postpone deciphering “hidden” meanings, including psychological imputations of the author, making out his faction and orientation, influences and any Freudian extrapolations based on word choice, etc. I personally find this instruction unbearable (even for listening!), but I am aware of its importance.

E: Before approaching the Second Reading step, make sure you still have an open mind. If you acquired an overly negative view of the book or its author (whether previously or presently) you must “deprogram” yourself before continuing. This is mental effort well invested. If you are unable to reserve judgment, a true reading is henceforth impossible.

Unless you form a critical opinion of the author and decisively give up on any further attempt to dig his mind, you must forge on up until he has convinced you one way or the other. Which isn’t to say you can’t take a break (or several…)!

F: A worshipful, overly positive view is also harmful (a topic for another time).

G: Second Reading is more difficult, and involves more conscious action and critical thinking on your part.

Here, unlike with real interlocutors, you may “interrupt” the input to gain clarity or solidify. “Heichi dami” and similar interjections in Gemara readily come to mind. (In Shas we find this phenomenon even when the quoted sage was alive and present as well, interestingly.)

Just to clarify: There are no stiff rules here. Each of these stages may involve additional rereading, summaries, etc. If you want to mix things up, or are intellectually gifted you will find this division unreasonably limiting. That is, as long as you aren’t fooling yourself as to your true level of comprehension.

H: One more. When it comes to listening you have no choice but to follow the speaker’s pace. Let your mind wander, and you lose those words spoken in the interim. When reading, by contrast, take advantage of any paragraph or chapter (or other) breaks to ponder what you learn and to let it percolate.

As Chazal say (Bamidbar Rabbah 14:20):

א”ר שמעון… וכי מה הפסקות היו משמשות ליתן ריוח למשה להתבונן בין פרשה לפרשה ובין ענין לענין והרי דברים ק”ו ומה אם מי שהוא שומע מפי הקב”ה ומדבר ברוה”ק צריך להתבונן בין פרשה לפרשה ובין ענין לענין על אחת כמה וכמה הדיוט מהדיוט.

Stay hungry; stay foolish.

Try these tips out on your favorite Torah books, and tell me what you think!

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com

Did Rabbi S.R. Hirsch Deny Judaism Is a ‘Religion’? NO!

Rabbi Hirsch says Judaism is more expansive than competing definitions of “religious” practice. Fine, but why.

In my own opinion: “Judaism Is Not the BEST Religion, but the ONLY Religion!

The word religion in English means “law” (as in Megillas Esther, and לבדות להם דת) from the Latin “religio” (רליגיוזה). This definition is undisputed. (The origin of “religio“, itself, however, is disputed.) Correct, there is an enormous chasm between Judaism and its competitors, but, contra Feiglin and many others, Judaism is neither more nor less than a religion.

Judaism is not a race, a nation, a “ReligioNation” (as Rabbi Meir Kahane coined it)… or “so much more than a religion”…

It is not the case other religions are genuine “religion”, while Judaism belongs to another category. Rather, other “religions” are mere imitations of religion, while Judaism is the real thing. The tiny number of “mitzvos”, or laws, faux-religionists claim to observe are nothing but a way of evading all the rest of them.

But Rabbi Hirsch, despite his reputation, does not disagree!

Note the refusal to outright abandon the word “religion” in his timeless words on Jewish joyfulness:

Judaism is not a religion solely for holidays and feast days; it embraces all aspects of life – workdays and festival days. Judaism, the most “religious” of all religions has no word for “religion”, has no word for this concept; everything without exception is “religion”. The seamstress at her needlework, the farmer at his plowshare, the mother at the cradle, the father at his trade, the judge at his bench, the physician at the sickbed, the teacher at the lectern, the priest at the alter – all are actively engaged in the holy service of God. “Be holy” is the Divine summons of Judaism to every age, every generation, every walk of life, to the entire nation.

For the Jew everything is “religion”. Even the most painful reversal for him is but a new religious duty, as he goes from one religious experience to the next, מחיל אל חיל…

And since for the Jew everything is “religion” – and consequently “religion” is everything! – the happy moments in his life do not distance the Jew from his God…

(See the rest here.)

His more famous thoughts on the matter do not contradict.

Hirsch Commentary to Shemos 6:7:

לי לעם – שתי מילים קצרות אלה הן האמירה הראשונה על ייעודם של ישראל. הן מבטאות את התכונה העושה את היהדות לכל־כך ייחודית. אין מתאים כלל וכלל להתייחס ליהדות כ״דת היהודית״. חוסר מחשבה הוא להגדיר את היהדות כ״דת״, להציב אותה בשורה אחת עם הדתות האחרות, ולאחר מכן לתמוה ש״דת״ זו כוללת דברים כה רבים מעבר למסגרת המקובלת של ״דת״. ״לי לעם״: על ישראל להיות עם לה׳.
אמירה זו לבדה כבר מבהירה שהיהדות, כפי שייסדה ה׳, אינה דת כלל. נכון הדבר שהיהדות כוללת בתוכה יסודות, שמוגדרים בדרך כלל כ״דת״, אך המושג ״יהדות״ שונה לחלוטין ורחב לאין ערוך. ב״דת״, אין לאל אלא מִקדשים, כנסיות, מסדרי כהנים, עדות מאמינים וכו׳. ואילו אומות ועמים, כפופים למלכים ושלטונות בלבד; ומבוססים על מושג המדינה, ולא על דת ואל. אולם ביהדות ייסד ה׳, לא עדה דתית אלא אומה; כל החיים הלאומיים יקבלו צורה על ידו. ישראל יהיה ״עמו״, ולא רק עדת מאמינים.
כמה שונות הם דרכי ״לשון הקודש״, בבחירתן בביטויים מתאימים למושגים של ״עם״, ובן זוגו – ״מלך״!
בגרמנית, המלך (״קעֶנִיג״) הוא מי שבידו היכולת והכח (״דֶר קעֶנֶנְדֶה״); והעם ההולכים אחריו (״פוֹלְק״), הם אלה החייבים לשמוע בקולו (״דַס פוֹלְגֶנְדֶה״). (בשפות הלטיניות, נלווית למושג ה״עם״ משמעות חזקה יותר של זלזול והשפלה [עיין פירוש, בראשית יא, ז]). לכן קיים העם רק למען המלך; בלי מלך אין עם.
לא כך הוא בלשוננו הקדושה. המושג ״עַם״ אינו תלוי בסוג כלשהו של יחס למרוּת עליונה שמעליו או מחוצה לו; אלא הוא מושג העומד בזכות עצמו, אשר במרכזו אך ורק הקשר ההדדי שבין מספר רב של אנשים (״עם״ קרוב ל״עִם״ משורש ״עמם״). המשמעות הבסיסית של ״מלך״ היא: מי שמשמש כראש לאחרים, מי שמהנה את האומה בחכמתו ופקחותו, מי שחושב עבור האחרים. (השווה תיבת ״נמלך״ בלשון חכמים, ״להתייעץ עם מישהו״. קרוב ל״מלך״ ברמה המוחשית – ״מלק״ [עיין פירוש, בראשית י, י]). נמצא, שהמלך קיים למען חברת העם, כדי שבני העם יגיעו, אחד באמצעות השני ועם השני, לתכליתם הסופית; אך חברת העם אינה קיימת למען המלך.
כאשר ה׳ אומר ״ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם״, פירושו: על חייכם הציבוריים להיות מודרכים על ידי חכמתי, ולהוות התגלות של רוחי.
בני דור מאוחר יותר ביקשו לצמצם את כל תוכן הקשר שלהם לה׳, לחיי המקדש וקרבנותיו; ואף כשהוכיחו אותם על שחיתותם החברתית, הסתתרו מאחורי הקריאה: ״הֵיכַל ה׳! הֵיכַל ה׳!״ (ירמיהו ז, ד). ואז הרעים הנביא בקולו נגדם: ״הֵיכַל ה׳ הֵמָּה!״ (שם) – עליהם בעצמם להיות היכל ה׳. כפי שביאר הנביא: ״כִּי לֹא־דִבַּרְתִּי אֶת־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים בְּיוֹם הוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם עַל־דִּבְרֵי עוֹלָה וָזָבַח״ – לא קירבתי אותם לעבודתי כדי שיקריבו קרבנות. ״כִּי אִם־אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם לֵאמר: שִׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹקִים וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם״ וגו׳ (שם ז, כב–כג).
אמת, שה׳ דיבר אלינו גם אודות קרבנות. יתירה מכך, ביום גאולתנו ממצרים, הוא הקים אותנו לעם, בדווקא על ידי קרבן ורק על ידי קרבן. אך הוא לא עשה אותנו ל״עדה של מִקדש״ בכדי שנקריב קרבנות; אלא באמצעות הקרבן ביקש לעשותנו ל״עם״.
ודווקא מוסד זה – הקרבן – הוא שהקים לראשונה את המדינה על עקרונותיה המנחים היסודיים, כפי שנוכיח בהמשך (עיין פירוש להלן יב, ג–ו). בעוד שעמים אחרים נעשים מאוחדים על ידי חלקם המשותף באדמת המולדת, הרי שהעם יהודי נעשה מאוחד בחלקם המשותף באלקי ישראל.

Hirsch Commentary to Shemos 19:10:

תורת ישראל היא מערכת החוקים היחידה שלא יצאה מתוך העם אשר נועדה להיות לו לחוקתו. היהדות היא ה״דת״ היחידה שלא נבעה מליבות בני האדם המוצאים בה את הבסיס הרוחני לחייהם. דווקא התכונה ה״אובייקטיבית״ הזאת של תורת ישראל ו״דת״ ישראל, היא העושה את שתיהן ליחידות במינן, ומבדילה אותן באופן ניכר וברור מכל יתר הדברים בעולם המכונים חוק או דת. תכונה זו עושה את תורת ישראל לגורם היחיד בתרבות האנושית, שיכול להיחשב גורם מזרז ומטרה מוחלטת לכל צורה אחרת של התקדמות; בעוד שהתורה עצמה, כאידיאל המוחלט הניתן מלמעלה, נותרת מעל ומעבר לכל מושג של התקדמות…
לא כן ״דת״ ישראל ותורת ישראל. הן אינן נובעות מאמונות שאחזו בהן בני אדם בתקופה זו או אחרת, ואינן מכילות מושגים אנושיים מוגבלי־זמן על ה׳ ועל ענינים אנושיים ואלקיים. הן ניתנו מפי ה׳; ונאמר דרכן לבני אדם, על ידי רצון ה׳, מה צריכים להיות מושגיהם עד סוף כל הדורות, אודות ה׳ והדברים האלקיים, ומעל הכל, אודות האדם והענינים האנושיים.
למן ההתחלה עמדה תורת ה׳ במצב של ניגוד אל העם אשר בקרבו היה עליה להופיע לראשונה בארץ. היה עליה להוכיח את כוחה בראש ובראשונה על עם זה, אשר התנגד אליה בשל היותו עם קשה עורף. התנגדות זו שהתורה מצאה בקרב העם אשר בתוכו זכתה למעונה הראשון בארץ, היא ההוכחה הגדולה ביותר למקורה האלקי של התורה. התורה לא קמה מתוך העם, אלא ניתנה אל העם, ורק לאחר מאות שנים של מאבק רכשה התורה את לבות העם, כך שהם הפכו להיות נושאי דגלה במשך כל הדורות. (על ייחודיותה של היהדות ויחסה לדת, עיין אוסף כתבים, כרך א עמ׳ קפג–קפו; פירוש, לעיל ו, ז).
Enough for now.
(And I hope you noticed the part about politics!)

Rabbi Meir Kahane: ‘The Righteous Man REJOICES When He Sees Vengeance’

Rabbi Meir Kahane- Parshat BeShalach REJOICE WHEN THE WICKED DIE

“Then Moses and the Children of Israel sang this song…”–Exodus 15:1

Avraham Tirosh, a member of the Mafdal party (מפד”ל- מפלגת פועלים דתי לאומי) or the NRP (National Religious Party), recently wrote an article whose basic theme is love of all people, even enemies; equality of all people; and the sin of rejoicing over the death of our enemies. He begins, of course, with the usual partial quote from the Talmud (Megillah 10b) that when the angels sought to sing a song of praise as the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea, G-d said: “The work of My hands is drowning in the sea and you want to sing?”

Says Tirosh: “All who are created in the image of G-d, even the Egyptian, are G-d’s work and thus we must relate to them. When a disaster occurs to ANYONE, EVEN if he is your ENEMY, EVEN if he seeks to DESTROY YOU–do not sing praise. Or, in the words of King Solomon (Proverbs 24:17), ‘When your enemy falls, do not rejoice, and when he stumbles, let your heart not be glad.'”

As always, the Tiroshes of the world selectively and very partially quote the Talmud. The selection he cites really begins with R. Yehoshua Ben Levi starting his lecture on Megillat Esther with the verse, “As the L-rd rejoiced over you to do you good, so the L-rd will rejoice over you to cause you to perish” (Deuteronomy 28:63). And the Talmud asks: Does the Almighty then rejoice over the fall of the wicked? And to prove that He does not rejoice, the story of the angels asking to sing praise is cited. And this is where Tirosh stops. BUT THERE IS MORE!

The Talmud continues as follows: “Rabbi Elazar said: It is true that HE does not rejoice, but He causes OTHERS TO REJOICE.”

Ah, WHAT A DIFFERENCE! And a clear answer to the obvious question: If G-d does not want us to rejoice and praise Him when our enemy falls, why in the world does it say: “Then Moses and the Children of Israel sang this song to the L-rd…”? And a clear answer to why the Rabbis say (Mechilta, Beshalach 2:6): “Moses asked Israel: Will you stand and do NOTHING while the L-rd performs miracles and glories for you? Said Israel to Moses: What should we do? Said he to them: You will glorify and praise and give song and glory and greatness to the One to whom wars belong.”

Of course, the Almighty, the totality of compassion, the father of all, grieves for His children–all of them. HE does not sing. His angels, who are not of this world, do not sing. but the JEWS DO! Not only are they ALLOWED TO, THEY ARE COMMANDED TO…Why? For the very same reason that the Almighty, though He does not sing, DOES destroy the work of His hands when it turns evil.

Yes, of course, He grieves. He grieves at those who were made in His image have so perverted and destroyed the greatness of that image. But in His grief, He does not have pity. He destroys. He knows that evil and He cannot share the same world, as our Rabbis say: “As long as the wicked rule in the world, the Holy One Blessed Be He, so to speak, cannot sit on His throne” (Yalkut, Tehillim 47).

And thus do the Rabbis declare (Shemot Rabba 23:1): “This is the meaning of the verse ‘Your throne was firm from then (az אז)’ (Psalms 93:2). Although You exist from time immemorial, Your throne was not made firm and You were not renowned in Your world until Your children sang… [W]hen we sang before You ‘Az Yashir,’ then (az אז ) Your kingdom and throne were made firm.”

And that is why King David sings (Psalms 58:11-12): “The righteous one shall rejoice when he sees vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.” Why? Because only when we see the wicked punished, only when we see vengeance for their sins, do we have proof that G-d really exists and rules. And David continues by saying: “So that people shall say: There is, indeed, a reward for the righteous; there is, indeed, a G-d who judges on the earth.”

And that is why the Rabbis tell us that “Moses yearned to see vengeance against the Midianites” (Bamidbar Rabba 22:5). Moses. Yearned. To see vengeance on the wicked. What shall we do with the fanatic Moses…?

The incredible perversion of Judaism by confused and guilt-ridden Jews, ignoramuses and learned alike! Our Rabbis tell us (Yalkut, Beshalach 241): “‘And Israel saw the great hand of G-d’ (Exodus 14:31). When the Almighty wished to drown the Egyptians, the Archangel of Egypt (Uza) said, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! You are called just and righteous…why do You wish to drown the Egyptians?’…At that moment Gabriel rose, took a brick, and said, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! These who enslaved Your children in such a terrible slavery as this, shall You have mercy on them?’ Immediately, the Almighty drowned them.”

And allow me to introduce two other Talmudic sayings: “The generation was one of tiny faith, saying, ‘Just as we rose from the sea on this side, perhaps the Egyptians rose from the other side.’ The Almighty ordered that the bodies be washed up and Israel saw them” (Pesachim 118b). And Midrash Tehillim (22:1) adds, “Each Jew took his dog and put his foot on the throat of a dead Egyptian and said to his dog, ‘Eat of the hand that slaved me, eat of the heart that showed me no pity.'”

Poor Tirosh

As for the tiresome perversion of the verse, “When your enemy falls, do not rejoice” (Proverbs 24:17), it is time that Tirosh went beyond a Biblical verse and learned that G-d gave us an Oral Law, a Talmud, that explains verses. Let him open the Talmud (Megillah 16a) which tells of Mordechai kicking Haman as the latter bent over to help him climb on his horse. Haman, too, in a startling echo of Tirosh, wails: “Does it not say in your Torah, ‘When your enemy falls…’?” And Mordechai answers Haman, and Tirosh: “That applies to a Jew but concerning you the Torah states: ‘And you shall trample upon their high places’ (Deuteronomy 33:29).”

The Jewish Press, 1986

From The Kahane Bookshelf, here.

What’s the Difference Between ‘Chofesh’ and ‘Cherut’?

Defining Freedom

The Holiday of Passover, when the Jewish People were emancipated from slavery in Egypt, is described in our liturgy as Zman Cheiruteinu, “the Time of our Freedom.” However, as we shall see in the coming lines, the word cheirut is not the only Hebrew word for “freedom”. When the Bible refers to freeing slaves it uses two other words for “freedom”: chofesh and dror. An additional, conceptually-related word is hefker (“ownerless”), which is also related to freedom. We will seek to understand the differences between these four words and what lies at the roots of these words.

We begin with the words dror and chofesh. The word dror first appears in the Bible when discussing the freeing of slaves in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:10). Rashi, based on Rosh Hashana 9b, explains that the word dror is related to the word dar (“dwells”), and refers to one who dwells within his own domain, and does not fall under others’ control.

Dror is also a type of bird whose very essence expresses this notion. Ibn Ezra explains that the Dror Bird happily sings when free to its own devices, but if captured and stuck in man’s domain, it refuses to eat until it dies. Sefer HaAruchalso tells that the Dror Bird is suicidal when it loses its freedom. Radak in Sefer HaShorashim explains that a Dror Bird is called so because it builds nests inside people’s homes without fear of being captured as if it was completely free from the possibility of capture (see also Beitzah 24a). In this way, dror denotes being “free as a bird.”

When the Torah calls for “pure myrrh” to be used in the anointing oil (Exodus 30:23), the word dror is used for “pure”. Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach and Nachmanides explain that this is because the Torah requires they use myrrh that is free from outside impurities and forgeries. Interestingly, the word dror can sometimes be abbreviated as dar, like in Esther 1:6 when it refers to Achashverosh granting merchants a special tax exemption (see Megillah 12a).

The word chofesh also appears in the Bible in the context of freeing slaves (most notably in Ex. 21, Deut. 15, and Jer. 34), although it means “vacation” in Modern Hebrew. In terms of their mutual association with the concept of “freedom”, Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer (1866-1935) explains that dror and chofesh do not refer to the exact same phenomenon. Chofshi refers to freedom from an obligation to work, while dror refers to the freedom from subjugation to a specific person who lords over him. The word cheirut does not appear in the Bible in the context of freedom. Nonetheless, it is the standard word for freeing a slave in Rabbinical parlance. In the Birkat HaChodesh prayer, which we say on the Sabbath before Rosh Chodesh, we beseech G-d to redeem us from avdut (“servitude”) to cheirut (“freedom”). Moreover, the Mishnaic term shichrur is a cognate of cheirut that refers to the formal act of freeing a slave, and the Mishnaic phrase eved she’nishtachrar refers to a freed slave. On Passover Night we strive to act like Bnei Chorin — “free men.”

Although the Bible itself never uses the word cheirut in the context of freedom, Rabbinical tradition (Avot 6:2) finds a Scriptural allusion to such a meaning. The Bible describes the Tablets that Moshe brought from Mount Sinai as “the work of G-d, and the writing was the writing of G-d, engraved (charut) on the tablets” (Ex. 32:16). The root for the Hebrew word which means “engraved” is generally spelled CHET-REISH-TET. However, in this context a variant spelling is used, replacing the ultimate TET with a TAV. Because of this slight deviance from the norm, the Rabbis found something deeper alluded to in this verse: “Do not read it as not charut (‘engraved’), but as cheirut (‘freedom’), for the only person who is truly free is one who occupies himself with Torah study.” It seems fairly clear that if the ultimate purpose of the Exodus was to give the Jewish People the Torah at Mount Sinai, then the word for freedom resulting from the Exodus should appropriately be cheirut — and the holiday which celebrates that freedom should be termed Zman Cheiruteinu.

Nevertheless, our understanding of cheirut does not address its meaning vis-à-vis the other words for “freedom.” Why did the Rabbis decide to use the word cheirut for “freedom” instead of the words found in the Bible?

The British philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) famously differentiated between two distinct types of freedom: “negative liberty” and “positive liberty.” Based on this philosophical distinction, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi Emeritus of the United Kingdom), offers a deeper understanding as to the difference between chofesh and cheirut. He explains that the adjective chofshi denotes what a slave becomes when he goes free. It means that he can do whatever his heart desires. The word chofesh is related to chafetz (desire) and chapess (search out). Rabbi Sacks, philosopher, identifies this type of freedom with “negative liberty” because it simply denotes the lack of coercion.

Negative liberty may be worthwhile on an individual level, but on a society level there must be some form of rules — one cannot simply do whatever one pleases. On the other hand, law and order must not be imposed in a coercive manner, because then the masses will resent and resist said law. Instead, the law must be presented and taught in a way in which everyone willingly accepts it of their own volition. When this happens, the law becomes a part of them — engrained in their very essence — for the greater good. To that effect, the Rabbis coined a new term cheirut, which denotes a sort of freedom that comes to a society where people not only know the law but study it constantly until it is engraved on their hearts (so charut and cheirut become one). On the surface, this “positive liberty” seems restrictive, but actually, it proves quite liberating.

Truth be told, the cheirut-cognate chorim does actually appear in the Bible, just not in the context of freedom, per se. Chorim appears thirteen times in the Bible in reference to noblemen and other dignitaries (see Rashi to Jer. 27:20). Rashi (to Sotah49a) explains that chorin are people of lineage. The illustrious Wurzberger Rav, Rabbi Yitzchok Dov Bamberger (1807-1878), explains that chorim is related to the Aramaic words whose root is CHET-VAV-REISH, which means “white.” He explains that dignitaries are called “white” because their reputation must be untarnished and because only important people were allowed to wear white clothes in the ancient world. (Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) associates cheirut with the Hebrew root chor, which means“hole” and uses those exact letters, but we will not delve into his approach here.)

That said, it seems to me that the Rabbis chose to use the word cheirut and various conjugations thereof in order to convey the idea of freedom on Passover for a very important reason. They wished to stress that newly-freed slaves begin their new lives with a clean slate, and they have the potential to become important people in their own right. On Passover, we recognize and celebrate this potential for greatness. This optimistic, yet challenging, look at a freedman’s bright future warranted the Rabbis’ adoption of a new word for “freedom,” even though the Bible already has two words for that concept.

  • L’iluy Nishmat my mother Bracha bat R’ Dovid and my grandmother Shprintza bat R’ Meir

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

Reprinted from Ohr Somayach here.