070619_001.mp3

Topics

• A Question of Torah Perspective
• Other Worlds in the Zohar
• Rav Moshe and Life on the Moon
• The Future Generations at Har Sinai
• Present in Body, Yet Unseen
• A Dispute in Sefer HaIkkarim
• The Star Called Meroz
• Torah Sources Require Intellectual Honesty
• Why This Topic Had to Be Said
• Kayin and the Hidden Realms
• From Hashkafah to Hilchos Shofar
• The Practical Shiur of the Blasts
• Different Mesoros of Measurement
• Must the Tekiah Match an Extended Shevarim-Teruah?
• The Custom of a Tekiah Gedolah
• The Explicit Halacha of Teruah Gedolah

Transcript

# A Question of Torah Perspective

The discussion of whether there may be life on other worlds was not raised merely as an entertaining curiosity. The question touches upon a broader matter of hashkafah: would the existence of other created beings contradict the Torah’s description of Klal Yisrael as the *am hanivchar*?

There is no reason to assume that Hashem could not have created other worlds. Even the concept of an *am hanivchar* may describe our world and our particular sphere of creation. The Torah addresses mankind from the perspective of the world in which we live—the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars as they relate to us. The existence of another inhabited realm would not necessarily diminish the unique purpose assigned to Klal Yisrael here.

Nevertheless, such questions cannot be settled by imagination. We must examine what appears in the words of Chazal and the earlier Torah sources.

# Other Worlds in the Zohar

The Zohar in its discussion of Bereishis describes seven lands or worlds. Our world is called *Tevel*, and the Zohar speaks of other realms inhabited by creatures with a humanlike form who recognize the Ribbono Shel Olam. It relates that Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Chiya encountered a being who said that he came from the land called *Arka*.

Whether every detail is to be understood literally or through the deeper language of the Zohar is a separate question. The immediate point is that the very possibility of other inhabited realms is not foreign to Torah literature.

# Rav Moshe and Life on the Moon

I once repeated an account related by Rav Reuven Feinstein concerning Rav Moshe Feinstein. When the astronauts traveled to the moon, the world waited to learn whether some form of life would be found there. Rav Moshe reportedly had no doubt: they would find no living beings on the moon.

How could he speak with such certainty? His answer was that there is no indication anywhere in Chazal that life exists on the moon. The greatness of the story is not merely that Rav Moshe correctly anticipated the result. It demonstrates the confidence of a person whose knowledge encompassed *kol haTorah kulah* and who knew whether such an idea appeared anywhere within it.

At the same time, the statement concerned the moon specifically. It does not necessarily resolve what may exist in every distant realm of creation. The Zohar’s descriptions may refer to other worlds or dimensions altogether. One must therefore distinguish between what is stated clearly, what is suggested by a source, and what remains speculation.

# The Future Generations at Har Sinai

The Torah states that the covenant was made not only with those physically standing before Moshe, but also “with whoever is not here with us today” (Devarim 29:14). Chazal and the mefarshim understand this as referring to the future generations of Klal Yisrael.

This raises a fundamental question. If those generations were present only as neshamos, how could their acceptance obligate them after entering this world in a guf? They accepted the covenant in the spiritual realm, but they had not yet accepted it in the full condition of human life, with its physical struggles and choices.

One approach cited in the discussion from Rabbeinu Bachya is that the father is the root of the child. When the root accepts an obligation, that acceptance extends to those who emerge from it. The covenant accepted by the fathers can therefore bind their descendants. The Malbim develops this subject at length in his treatment of the covenant in Parashas Nitzavim.

# Present in Body, Yet Unseen

The Zohar presents an even stronger description. The future generations were not present only as disembodied neshamos; they were present *begufam*, in the bodily form they would eventually possess. They stood at Har Sinai as they would later appear in this world.

Why, then, were they not seen? The revelation of the Shechinah so overwhelmed those standing at the mountain that they were not looking around at one another. Their entire attention was directed toward the Ribbono Shel Olam. Thus, the later generations could have been present and yet remain unseen.

This is a remarkable concept. Every Jewish soul was included in Matan Torah, not merely in an abstract or symbolic manner, but as a participant in the covenant that defines Klal Yisrael.

# A Dispute in Sefer HaIkkarim

A related philosophical debate appears in the tradition recorded by Sefer HaIkkarim. Rabbi Chasdai Crescas, the rebbe of Rabbi Yosef Albo, maintained that there may be living beings in other worlds. This possibility accords with the descriptions found in the Zohar.

Rabbi Yosef Albo himself disagreed. If man is the central purpose of creation, he argued, what purpose would be served by another independent world populated by other beings? His disagreement reflects a question regarding the *tachlis habriah*: is humanity in this world the exclusive center of all creation, or may Hashem have established additional realms with purposes of their own?

This remains a philosophical dispute among the earlier authorities. It should not be presented as though the Torah has issued one simple, undisputed declaration on the matter.

# The Star Called Meroz

There is another striking source in the song of Devorah. After the victory over Sisera, the pasuk declares:

> “Curse Meroz, said the angel of Hashem; bitterly curse its inhabitants, because they did not come to the assistance of Hashem, to the assistance of Hashem among the mighty” (Shoftim 5:23).

The Gemara discusses the identity of Meroz. One opinion understands Meroz to have been an important person who failed to join the battle. Another opinion identifies Meroz as a star (Moed Katan 16a).

If Meroz was a star, the continuation of the pasuk is arresting: “curse its inhabitants.” Some have viewed this as evidence that the star—or the celestial realm associated with it—possessed inhabitants. It is certainly an intriguing proof.

It is not, however, necessarily conclusive. The term “its inhabitants” might refer to the people associated with Meroz, to those living under its influence, or perhaps to the celestial bodies surrounding it. The Gemara provides material for discussion, but it does not permit us to construct a complete doctrine from one ambiguous expression.

# Torah Sources Require Intellectual Honesty

The proper approach is neither to dismiss the matter because it sounds unfamiliar nor to announce a sensational conclusion. We must say exactly what the sources establish and exactly what they do not establish.

The Zohar speaks about other worlds. Earlier authorities debated whether other inhabited realms may exist. The Gemara’s discussion of Meroz raises an interesting possibility. Beyond that, one must remain honest and say: *I do not know*.

When this subject arose in conversation with a mashgiach, I shared these sources with him, and he intended to examine them further. That is the correct response to a difficult Torah question: learn the sources, think carefully, and resist the urge to claim certainty where certainty has not been given.

# Why This Topic Had to Be Said

When this subject first came to mind, I repeatedly told myself not to say it. It was an unusual topic, and I was not certain that it belonged in the shiur. Yet it continued pressing upon me until it finally came out.

I received a tradition from Rav Sholom Schwadron that when an idea suddenly enters a person’s mind in the middle of delivering a shiur, he should consider that perhaps someone present needs to hear it. That does not mean that every passing thought should be spoken. A person must exercise judgment. But there are moments when the hashgachah becomes clear afterward.

The following morning, a mashgiach called me and related that the same question had arisen during his own shiur. Not long afterward, someone who had heard my discussion came to speak with me privately. He had been deeply troubled by this very subject and did not know whom to approach. He had concluded from the shiur that I would understand the question and be prepared to discuss it seriously.

A person never knows why a particular thought was placed before him or why he was led to say something at a particular moment. We do not see how the Ribbono Shel Olam arranges His world. Sometimes the purpose becomes visible only afterward.

# Kayin and the Hidden Realms

A related source was mentioned concerning Kayin. After his sin, the Torah states that he would become *na vanad*—a wanderer and an exile—and that he departed from before Hashem (Bereishis 4:12–16). The Zohar connects Kayin’s wandering with remote or hidden regions inhabited by unusual creatures.

The precise meaning of that Zohar requires careful study. It may describe physical places, spiritual realms, or ideas conveyed through the language of sod. It should not be quoted casually as though its interpretation were obvious. Still, it belongs to the broader group of Torah sources that speak of regions and beings beyond ordinary human experience.

# From Hashkafah to Hilchos Shofar

We must now return from this broader discussion to the practical sugya of tekias shofar.

The first question is the required length of a tekiah. The Shulchan Aruch establishes the minimum relationship between the tekiah and the intervening sounds of shevarim and teruah (Orach Chaim 590:3). There is no maximum length; technically, a person may extend the tekiah beyond its minimum shiur.

Nevertheless, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that a baal tekiah should not unnecessarily prolong the blast. The longer he continues, the greater the danger that the sound will crack or deteriorate and create a halachic question. There is also no purpose in burdening the congregation merely to demonstrate endurance.

On the other hand, the Meiri speaks positively of extending a clear and beautiful tekiah. Length itself is not a defect. The issue is whether the added length enhances the mitzvah or merely creates an opportunity for error. The practical rule is therefore simple: the sound must first be unquestionably kosher, steady, and controlled. Only then is there room to consider beautifying it through added length.

# The Practical Shiur of the Blasts

The sugya of the length of the shofar blasts is more complex than it first appears, because the required tekiah depends upon the sound placed between the two tekios. A *tashrat* contains shevarim-teruah, while *tashat* contains shevarim and *tarat* contains teruah. The tekiah must possess the halachic shiur appropriate to that unit (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 590:3).

I discussed the matter with Rav Yisrael Belsky. He explained that, as a practical measured standard, a tekiah for *tashrat* of approximately four seconds provides the necessary shiur. For *tashat* and *tarat*, approximately three seconds provides the required measure.

I asked whether the distinction between the tekios deme’yushav and the tekios deme’umad affects that calculation, particularly according to the different practices concerning whether shevarim-teruah is sounded in one breath or two breaths. He maintained that even when the sounds are separated, the four-second measure for the tekiah of tashrat remains sufficient.

# Different Mesoros of Measurement

Other batei midrash follow a somewhat different practical measurement, reportedly based upon the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein. According to that mesorah, the tekiah of tashrat is between four and five seconds, while the tekios of tashat and tarat may be approximately two to two-and-a-half seconds.

These differences demonstrate why a baal tekiah should not build his practice from casual impressions. A few seconds can represent a significant difference in this sugya. He should receive a clear mesorah and practice with someone qualified to evaluate the sounds.

# Must the Tekiah Match an Extended Shevarim-Teruah?

Another question arises when the baal tekiah extends the shevarim or teruah beyond their minimum length. Must the accompanying tekiah also be extended to match the actual length that was sounded?

Rav Elyashiv is quoted as considering it proper to lengthen the tekiah correspondingly, although not necessarily an absolute requirement in every case. Rav Belsky indicated that once the tekiah contains its established kosher shiur, one need not become anxious merely because the intervening sound was somewhat longer.

Again, this is not a matter for improvisation. The baal tekiah must know the required shiurim, the form of each sound, and the halachos governing breath and interruption.

# The Custom of a Tekiah Gedolah

There are also different minhagim concerning the final *tekiah gedolah*. Some yeshivos and communities sound an extended final tekiah, while others—including certain established Lakewood practices—did not emphasize such a blast at all. Even among those who observe the custom, there are differences regarding whether it follows the first thirty sounds, the conclusion of Mussaf, or the final series.

The Mishnah Berurah discusses the custom in Orach Chaim 596, but one must distinguish carefully between the widely known tekiah gedolah and the separate ruling concerning a *teruah gedolah*. The two should not be confused.

# The Explicit Halacha of Teruah Gedolah

People frequently discuss the custom of sounding a *tekiah gedolah*, but there is another halacha that is stated explicitly and is far less widely known.

The Shulchan Aruch rules:

> “After the prayer, a great teruah is sounded without a tekiah” (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 596:1).

The text does not say *tekiah gedolah*. It says *teruah gedolah*—an extended teruah sounded after the completion of the tefillah. The Mishnah Berurah discusses this practice as well.

This is an important distinction. A custom may develop around an extended tekiah, and different communities may possess different minhagim concerning it. But the explicit language of the Shulchan Aruch refers to an extended teruah. A baal tekiah should know what is written in the halacha rather than relying only upon what he has seen performed.

The practical execution must be discussed with the baal tekiah. An extended teruah requires control, a proper sequence of individual sounds, and sufficient strength to maintain the correct form throughout. It should not become an uncontrolled noise merely because it is long.

The broader lesson of the entire discussion is that hilchos shofar cannot be reduced to “longer is better.” Every sound has a precise form and shiur. Beauty in a mitzvah comes through accuracy, clarity, and faithfulness to halacha.