Monday, September 30, 2013

simchas torah question: is it the first aliya of the third cycle through zos habracha or is it aliya #11?

On Simchas Torah there were a few stations set up in the beis medrash I was davening in to lein Zos haBracha over and over so everyone could get an aliya.  On what I think was the third cycle through at the station was standing near a kohen was called up for the first aliya, but there was no levi.  Myself and a number of other people told the stand-in gabai to just call anyone up.  However, a talmid chacham who was there opined that this was incorrect and the kohen should get the next aliya as well.

I was a bit surprised as I don’t recall having seen this done before, so I asked about it afterwards.  He explained that just like any other time when a kohen is called for the first aliya and there is no levi, the kohen gets the second aliya as well because there is a concern for creating a suspicion of pgam in his yichus.  If you ignore the kohen when you should be calling someone from sheivet levi, it looks like the kohen is pasul for some reason.  In our case, had there been no kohen, you can call anyone.  However, once the kohen got the first aliya and is standing there, he needs to get the second one as well to avoid the pgam problem. 

My counter-argument is that this is well and good were it the first aliya of the parsha -- but it’s not.  If, for example, you want to add extra aliyos beyond the required seven on a normal Shabbos, a kohen can be called for acharon and be followed by a yisrael, or vica versa, or any other order you like.  You don’t have to follow kohen with a levi, and you don’t need to call a kohen twice if no levi is present.  Once you are beyond the required number of aliyos, all bets are off. 

So here's the chakirah: how do you view the first aliya of the third cycle through Zos haBracha – is it the first aliya of round three (in which case the normal order of kohen followed by levi applies), or is it aliya # 11, one of many hosafos?

The person who offered the psak asked another Rav just to be sure and that person concurred with him, barring proof to the contrary.  I needed someone on my side to even the score, so I was happy (it was simchas torah after all) to find the Netziz in Meishiv Davar II:48 (link) agrees with my idea (see the Taz he quotes).

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

the test of sukkah

The gemara (A.Z. 3) writes that in the future the aku"m will complain to Hashem that it's not fair for us to receive all the reward for Torah because, they will claim, had they received the Torah they would have fulfilled it as well.  Hashem will respond by giving them a chance to prove themselves -- he will give them the mitzvah of sukkah.  The gemara says that the aku"m will run out and build sukkos on their roofs to do the mitzvah, but Hashem will then bring out the sun like on a nice hot summer day.  The aku"m won't just leave their sukkos because of the heat, but they will also kick the sukkah and show their disgust, proving that they have no real commitment.

Why of all the mitzvos did Hashem give the aku"m specifically the mitzvah of sukkah as a test?  Why not Shabbos?  OK, so maybe that's too hard a test (the gemara calls sukkah a "mitzvah kalah," an easy one to do).  But their are other easy ones.  We just did the mitzvah of eating on erev Yom Kippur -- what could be easier than that?  Why not tefilah -- that's one everyone can relate to?  Why davka sukkah?

The Maharal explains that the whole idea of Torah and mitzvos is to get a person to move outside the box the physical, material world would put him in.  A person's home is his natural habitat so to speak.  It's his comfort zone.  We all know the expression, "There's no place like home."  When the aku"m come and say they want to try out Torah, Hashem gives them the mitzvah of sukkah because this mitzvah in particular demonstrates the willingness to leave our natural comfort zone, to leave where "teva" tells us we belong, to leave the habits and mindset that nature programmed into us, and give all that up for the sake of G-d. The aku"m are trapped by the constraints of teva and can't give it all up, but we are able to.  Therefore, we alone deserve Torah, because that is what Torah is all about.

Of all the days that the sun has to come out with broiling heat, does it have to come out on the very day the aku"m build their sukkos?  Yes, this is part of the test to see if the aku"m will keep the mitzvah, but Hashem could just as well test them by making it rain a little, but bringing out some bugs, etc.  R' Bumim m'Peshischa explains that the sun here is the tremendous light of the mitzvah of sukkah itself!  That light is so covered up in this world that we might miss it, but in the future, Hashem will bring out that light of the mitzvah of sukkah for everyone to see.  The aku"m may be able to build little huts, but then when Hashem will show them what the mitzvah is really about, they can't measure up.

The gemara says that when the aku"m kick down the sukkah they will recite the pasuk, "N'natka es mosroseimo v'nashlicha mi'menu avoseimu," (Tehillim 2:3) let us will rip off our ropes and bonds.  The Maharasha explains that the ropes are the ropes used to tie down the sukkah walls, the bonds, "avos," are like "anaf eitz avos," hadasim plants, that were used as schach.  The Sefas Emes, however, explains that the bonds the pasuk is speaking of are metaphorical -- sukkah is a bond between us and G-d; sukkah proves that what happens down here is connected by a long rope with whatever goes on upstairs (and vice versa).

tosefes yom tov and the geder of zeman gerama

The gemara (Sukkah 28) quotes a derasha to teach that women are obligated in tosefes Yom haKippurim just as men are.  The gemara explains the chiddush here is that since there is no punishment for violating tosefes you might have thought women are not chayavos, kah mashma lan that they are.  So what if there is no punishment -- why should that lead one to think women are exempt?  The Ritv"a explains that since there is no punishment it means tosefes does not have a lav associated with it like inuy on Yom Kippur proper does.  Therefore, since it is only an aseh which is zeman gerama you would have thought women are exempt, kah mashma lan the pasuk that in this mitzvah women are chayavos.

There is, however, another way you can read the kah mashma lan here, but it needs a little background to make sense:

Tosfos (Kiddushin 29) asks why we need a pasuk to tell us that women are exempt from the mitzvah of milah -- isn't it a mitzvas aseh she'hazeman gerama, and we already know the rule that women are exempt from all mitzvos aseh she'hazeman gerama.  The Tos RI"D gives an answer that, to be honest, can be interpreted in a few different ways depending on how you read the words.  The way the Divrei Yechezkel siman 45) reads it as a chiddush is the definition of zeman gerama.  Zeman gerama means a specific point in time serves as the cause of the mitzvah.  The night of 15 Nissan is a specific point in time which generates an obligation to eat matzah.  The 15th of Tishrei is a day that carries with it an obligation to eat in Sukkah.  If I ask you to take out a calendar and tell me which day of the year generates the chiyuv of milah, you can't do it.  The cause of the chiyuv of milah is the birth of the baby.  Just because you can't do milah until eight days later does not mean that the time is the cause of the mitzvah -- all it means is that the kiyum mitzvah can only be done then.  It's like saying you need a knife to do milah: that doesn't mean the knife is the cause of milah; all it means is practically you can't do milah without it.

The Ramban in his chiddushim to Kiddushin has a strange comment (and it may simply be a bad girsa) that sefiras ha'omer is not a mitzvas aseh she'hazeman gerama.  How can that be -- the mitzvah is all about counting specific days between Pesach and Shavuos!?  The Divrei Yechezkel suggests that the Ramban holds like the Tos RI"D.  The Torah never says to start counting the omer on the 16th of Nissan -- sefirah is not caused by our reaching a specific day on the calendar.  What the Torah says is that "m'macharas haShabbos," the day after Pesach, whatever day or date that may be, is a day you should start counting.  It's like saying to do milah on the eighth day, whatever calendar date that may be.

Here too with respect to tosefes Yom haKippurim, one can read the gemara's conclusion not as kah mashma lan this is an aseh she'hazeman gerama and nonetheless women are mechuyavos, but rather as kah mashma lan tosefes is not a mitzvah she'hazeman gerama at all.  There is no specific date or time that the Torah gives to do tosefes; it never says, for example, on the ninth of Tishrei and 5:30 accept upon yourself inuyim in advance.  All the mitzvah says is that at some point before 10 Tishrei you need to have tosefes.  Time is not the cause of the mitzvah; it's just another ingredient necessary to achieve the mitzvah's fulfillment.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

m'erev ad erev -- ta'aroves with the rest of your life

Immediately after kol nidrei we recite the pasuk,"V'nislach l'chol adas Bnei Yisrael... ki l'chol ha'am b'shegagah."  Asks the Sefas Emes: how can we say this when we know it's not true?  Shegagah means a sin done unwittingly.  I don't know about you, but certainly some of my aveiros were things I did even though I knew they were wrong! 

Chazal tell us that if someone does teshuvah m'ahavah their sins become zechuyos; if someone does teshuvah m'yirah, sins done intentionally count only as a shogeg.  It is impossible, explains the Sefas Emes, for a person to come to Yom Kippur and not feel a stirring of at least a little teshuvah m'yirah inside.  When you sinned, it may have been intentional, but once Yom Kippur comes, teshuvah comes and knocks those sins down to at least just a shogeg.

One of my kids asked why we say "slach lanu..." in ma'ariv after Yom Kippur.  We've all heard the answer of the ba'alei mussar that we've already started thinking about what to eat and do after the fast during ne'ila and need forgiveness for that.  But the Chiddushei haRI"M answers that the reason we say "slach lanu" is because we fail to completely believe in the power of Yom Kippur.  Once we've reached the climatic moment of ne'ila there is no question that Hashem has heard our tefilos and forgiven each and every one of us and we have a clean slate.  But how many of us really feel and believe that?  How many of us walk out of ma'ariv feeling 100% like a "biryah chadasha" with no baggage of the past?  And so we have to say "slach lanu..."

The Sefes Emes explains that "m'erev ad erev" hints to "ta'aroves," mixture.  Yom Kippur is not just one special day set apart from the rest of life -- we have to mix the aliya of Yom Kippur into every day and make it part of the rest of the year. 

Thursday, September 12, 2013

what the akeidah teaches us about tzadik v'ra lo

My wife did a post on a shiur we heard from R’ Eli Mansour that both of us enjoyed immensely (link here) and which I would recommend listening to or watching once it is posted online.  It is refreshing to hear someone who has a such a straighforward way to present difficult topics in emunah and bitachon.

One chiddush that caught our attention: The Torah reading of the second day of Rosh haShana is devoted to the story of the akeidah and Avraham’s willingness to sacrifice Yitzchak; the climax of the story is the malach stepping in at the last moment to stop Avraham.  We could end the leining right there – everything else is anticlimactic.  But we don’t stop there.  The final aliya tells us of the news Avraham received that his brother Nachor had one child and another child and another etc. from his wives pilagshim until he had a huge family.  Why, asked Rabbi Mansour, do we tack this on?  What does it add to the story; why do we need to hear it on Rosh haShana? 

Let me save myself typing and quote my wife’s blog:
Avraham could have felt some tinge of discontent on hearing the news of all his brother's children and their descendants. It's not fair. He he was the one to bring monotheism into a world of idolatry and a paragon of chesed, and he had waited and prayed for a son that he had just been asked to offer up. His brother, on the other hand, had no such credits to his name, yet he had become a trunk to a substantial family tree.

It is the acceptance of the apparent unfairness in this world that is an affirmation of the tzadik's faith. Reward is not in the here and now, but we don't give up on doing what is right and believing that Hashem will deliver.
We both thought that was a fantastic hesber, one especially poignant given a tragedy that recently occurred in our community.

One additional thought from the shiur: Yitzchak sees Avraham with the wood, the fire, the knife, and innocently asks, “Ayeh ha’seh l’olah?”  Where’s the sheep?  Now, Yitzchak wasn’t stupid, and it’s fair to say that by this point he might have figured out just who the sheep was and why his father took only him along on this special journey.  What was he really asking? 

Rav Mansour quoted the Derashos R’ Yosef Nechemya who reminds us of the last Mishna in sha”s where Chazal tell us that Hashem promises 310 worlds to all the tzadikim.  This is what bothered Yitzchak.  He was saying, “Father – you told me that if I do all the mitzvos and become a tzadik then Hashem will give me this big reward of 310 worlds.  Now you are taking me up to shecht me.  Ayeh ha’seh” -– hey-sin-hey = gematria 310 – Where are the 310 worlds you promised, “l’olah,” for the one who goes up and becomes a tzadik?  I’m going to die and don’t even have this one world anymore!”

And the answer?  Elokim yireh ha’seh l’olah bni.”  Look at the first letters of the words in the pasuk: aleph – yud – hey – lamed.  The letters of Elyh(u) – Eliyahu haNavi.  Yes, there is a promise of 310 worlds, but don’t expect to understand how you will receive your portion, how the Divine justice works out, until the arrival of Eliyahu haNavi who can explain it all to us.
Again, read more from the shiur on my wife's blog and listen to it if you can -- it's worth your time.
I don't know if I'll get to post again before Yom Kippur, so let me wish everyone a gmar chasima tovah and ask your mechila for all the posts that may not have been appropriate or comments that were not responded to properly.  Yes, Yom Kippur is a serious day and a solemn day, but it is also a day of great simcha, as we have the opportunity to get a complete kaparah and total mechila and that is certainly something to look forward to.

chiddush of the Divrei Yechezkel on the geder of inuyim of Yom Kippur

There is a major machlokes Rishonim as to whether the inuyim other than eating and drinking on Yom Kippur are assurim m’doraysa or only m’derabbanan.  The Tosfos Yeshanim and the Ran in the last perek of Yoma raise similar questions against the view that they are d’oraysa, all of which can be boiled down to one basic point: if inuyim are d’oraysa, how do you explain all the exceptions?  Why can a kallah wash her face within the first 30 days after marriage (as we learn in the Mishna), why is there an exception for the king, why can someone with a skin problem do sicha, etc.?  If the issurim were created by Chazal, then Chazal are free to carve out whatever exceptions they see fit, but when it comes to issurei d’orasya, they should apply equally to all.  Where does the Torah allow for these exceptions?

The answer to all of these questions seems to be that on Yom Kippur the act of washing per se is not what is assur; the act of anointing per se is not what is assur – what is assur is being mevateil inuy, of getting pleasure from these acts.  It’s the end result, the enjoyment, which is assur -- not to act per so.  So, for example, if someone has to put cream on because of a skin problem, that’s not a bitul of inuy, as the purpose is medicinal.

The Ran goes a step further asks how it is permissible to bathe a child on Yom Kippur when we know there is an issur of giving ma’achalos assuros to a child.  If inuyim are derabbanan, there is no problem because the Ran (and Rashba in Yevamos) assume that the issur of “lo ta’achilum,” of giving a child something issur, only applies to issurei d’oraysa, i.e. the Ran holds you cannot feed a child neveilah, but you can feed a child tevel derabbanan (other Rishonim disagree).  But if inuyim are d’oraysa, how can you wash a child? 

The Ran limits his question to the inuyim of washing and anointing, but does not question the fact that a child must be fed –- apparently Ran holds that fasting would be dangerous, and even an adult is not obligated to jeapordize one's life to fast.  However, Rashi seems to disagree.  When the Mishna (Yoma 82) writes with respect to little children that that “ain m’anin osam l’sha’os,” Rashi explains that there is no *obligation* to withhold food even for a few hours.  The implication is that the choice is left to the adult whether or not to impose restrictions on the child, something that we certainly would not say if there was any danger involved.  Rashi, contra to the Ran, similarly makes very clear that when the gemara discusses which inuyim a child is allowed to violate and why (Yoma 78), eating is very much part of the discussion -- it does not fall under the blanket heter of sakanah. 

Even those Rishonim who hold washing and annointing are only derabbanan and therefore children are exempt hold that eating and drinking are issurei d'oraysa.  Therefore, if, as Rashi holds, there is no danger in a child fasting, why is one allowed to give them food?  Why is there no issur of "lo ta'achilum" like there is by neveilah?  How do you answer the Ran's question?

The Divrei Yechezkel (15:19) comes up with a unique chiddush here that needs one bit of background to get.  The gemara in Kiddushin (34) gives a few examples of mitzvos aseh that women are obligated in because they are not zman gerama, e.g. ma’akah, hashavas aviedah.  Tosfos asks: of all the examples to choose, it seems that in the one’s the gemara gives it makes no difference whether women women are obligated in the mitzvas aseh or not because in all of these cases there is a lo ta’aseh involved anyway.  If you don’t build a ma’akeh, there is a lav of “lo tasim damim b’veisecha;” if you don’t return a lost object, you violate a lav of “lo tochal l’hisalem.”  Since women are obligated in lavim, l’mai nafka minah in these cases that they are also obligated in the aseh?!  Tosfos comes up with a technical answer, creating various scenarios where the aseh applies and there would be no lav.  Ramban, however, writes a yesod: sometimes a lav does not stand on its own, but comes simply to bolster a mitzvas aseh.  The lav of “lo tasim damim” exists only because of the aseh of ma’akeh that drives it; the lav of not returning an object is there only because there is the driver of the mitzvas aseh that compels action.  The lav and aseh are not two independent forces – there is only one driving force and that is the aseh; the lav just tags along.

So too, suggests the Divrei Yechezkel, when it comes to the prohibitions of Yom Kippur.  They are all there just there to bolster the mitzvas aseh of “t’anu es nafshoseichem,” but if you don’t have the aseh, there can be no lavim.  Why can you feed a child on Yom Kippur but you can’t feed him/her neveilah?  Because the issur of “lo ta’achilum” prohibits giving the child ma’achalos assuros like neveilah, but “lo ta’achilum” doesn’t mean you have to chase after a child to take a lulav or put on tzitzis or do other mitzvos aseh.  Since inuyim all stem from a chiyuv to fulfill a mitzvas aseh, there is no chiyuv on an adult to force the child to do anything.

To end off with a question: what would be the din if someone is oseik b’mitzvah on Yom Kippur – does the rule of oseik b’miztvah patur min hamitzvah remove the obligation to fulfill the aseh of “ta’anu es nafshoseichem” and cancel m’meila all the inuyim that go along with it or not? 

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

no quid pro quo deals

“Vayashav Reuvain el ha’bor,” when Reuvain returned to the pit that Yosef had been tossed into after Reuvain convinced his brothers not to kill him, he discovered that Yosef was gone, sold into slavery.  Where was Reuvain during the interim?  The Midrash explains that he was involved in ta’anis and doing teshuvah for the sin (or apparent sin) of being mebalbel his father’s bed.  The Midrash continues that in the merit of Reuvain being the first to do teshuvah, his descendent, Hoshei’a, would teach us about teshuvah.  Therefore, it’s fitting that the haftarah of shabbos shuvah comes from Hoshei’a.

How can the Midrash claim that Reuvain was the first to do teshuvah when we know that Kayim begged Hashem for leniency for killing Hevel and the Midrash teaches that Kayin then came to Adam and told him what a great thing teshuvah is.  This inspired Adam to do teshuvah as well and say “Mizmor shir l’yom haShabbos?”  (The question of what the mizmor of Shabbos has to do with the mitzvah of teshuvah is fodder for many a shabbos shuvah derasha.) 

The Ksav Sofer answers that Adam and Kayin had nothing to help their case and could only plead for mercy from Hashem.  Not so Reuvain.  The Midrash presents Reuvain’s teshuvah in the context of his just having stuck his neck out to save Yosef; he had a tremendous zechus in his favor.  Reuvain could easily have figured that the good he had done more than offset the bad, or at least the balance sheet was all equal.  Nonetheless, Reuvain did teshuvah anyway. 

There are no quid pro quo deals with G-d.  The credit for the good on one side of the balance sheet does not absolve one of the need for teshuvah for what is on the other side of the balance sheet.

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

the simchah of Yom haDin

Hachacham einav b’Rosho, we are all already looking toward if not looking forward to Rosh HaShana, and at least for me, it seems like there is never enough time in advance to really put in the thought and preparation that Yom Tov demands.   My wife told me she saw in the supermarket these little pre-made eiruv tavshilin kits.  You don’t even need to boil your own egg – it’s all there in a little package, just recite the nusach and you are done.  Everything these days has been simplified, reduced to an easy instant fix, ready made.  If only Yom Tov could be done the same way, with an instant tefilah, teshuvah, and kapparah kit.   

Chazal tell us that the malachim ask Hashem where the hallel is for the Yom Tov of Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur, to which Hashem responds that Klal Yisrael cannot possibly recite hallel on a Yom haDin when the books of judgment are open.  What’s the hava amina of these malachim to ask such a question?  Don’t they know it’s Yom haDin; don’t we say in our tefilah that even “malachim yei’chapeizun… chil u’re’ada yocheizun…?” 

Yesterday we discussed the GR”A’s pshat that the malach which appeared to Avraham after the akeidah was created from his desire to do the mitzvah of offering Yitzchak.  I found that the Sefas Emes says that same thing here.  Yes, it’s Yom haDin, but, as the Shem m’Shmuel writes, we will still recite a “she’hechiyanu v’keymanu v’higiyanu l’zman hazeh” tonight because we are glad to be at this moment.  The Tur quotes the Midrash that a person has to dress nicely, get a haircut, act like it is any other Yom Tov where there is a mitzvah of simcha.  It’s Yom haDin, and on the outside we do stand trembling in awe, but b’pnimiyus inside, we all know that Hashem wants it to be a good year for us, and therefore, it is a mo’ed as well.  Just like the malach was created by Avraham’s intent to do akeidah, there are malachim created by our desire to say hallel and acknowledge this simchas hayom, even if we cannot bring ourselves to utter the words, because, after all, as Hashem tells them, it is Yom haDin. 

On a different theme, there is one other idea I wanted to share.  The haftarah we read on Rosh haShana speaks about Chanah’s tefilah for a child.  Why after years of being barren did Chanah choose this visit to the Mishkan to daven with such force that she merited to have Shmuel haNavi?

I saw an amazing answer from R’ Avaraham Shapira.  The navi tells us that when Chanah’s husband Elkanah saw that she was so despondent and refused even to eat, he said to her, “Halo anochi tov lach m’asarah banim!” “I am as good to you as 10 children would be.” (Shmuel 1:8)  Until this moment Chanah felt that Elkanah shared her desperate longing for a child.  However, when Chanah heard these words, she realized something had changed.  The very fact that Elkanah could give voice to the possibility that he or anything else could be “as good as” having a child meant that he had started down the road to making peace with the idea of Chanah being barren.  His passion and longing for Chanah to have a child were cooling.  He was starting to accept the “reality” of the situation. 

Chanah, however, refused to give up.  Chanah knew that there was no “reality” that could not be changed by rachamei shamayim, there was no goal that was out of reach, there was no surrender that was necessary.  What was needed was simply more tefilah…

Let’s be real – there are a lot of difficult situations, there is a lot of “reality” that we feel cannot be changed, at least not so easily, and we are not Chanah by any stretch of the imagination.  Teshuvah and tefilah do hold the potential to change things by 180 degrees, but that’s an ideal that few of us can reach.  For myself and many people it would be an achievement to just be able to move a few degrees in the other direction, or maybe even just stop from tilting even further away from where we should be.  The lesson from tefilas Chanah is not that we can accomplish whatever we want through tefilah, but rather that like her, we should never surrender our goals, we should never become less passionate about our commitments and ideals, even if the journey to achieve them is a long and difficult one.  A few degrees in the other direction is a good start. 

Last but not least, I want to wish everyone true simcha even as we stand in Din, and wish everyone a kesiva (v’chasima) tovah. 

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

lo chasachta es bincha... mimeni -- greater even than angels

The Tzitz Eliezer (vol 17 siman 27) shares the following beautiful pshat that he said over in one of his Rosh haShana derashos:

In the parsha of the akeida, when the malach appears to Avraham to stop him from harming Yitzchak, he calls out, “Al tishlach yadcha es ha’na’ar… ki atah yadati ki y’rei Elokim atah v’lo chasachta es bincha es yechidcha mimeni,” no need to do anything Avraham, because I now know already that you would not hold back Yitzchak from me.  Why does the angel use the word “mimeni” – from me?  It was not the angel that commanded that Avraham offer Yitzchak; it was Hashem!  In fact, when the malach continues and calls to Avraham a second time, he says explicitly “Bi nishba’ati ne’um Hashem,” making it very clear that he is speaking only in G-d’s name.  So why doesn’t the angel do the same here, the first time he speaks, instead of using the word “mimeni,” implying that this is his own message?

The GR”A explains that every good deed creates a malach, and the greater the kiyum mitzvah and kavanah, the greater the malach created.  This malach that appeared to Avraham was the angel that was created by Avraham’s intent to perform the akeidah.  “I know you are a yarei shamayim,” said the angel, “Mimeni,” from myself, from my very existence, because if you were not 100% willing to go through with the akeidah, I, the angel created by your mitzvah action, would not be here.

Abarbanel goes a step further and interprets “mimeni” not as “from me”, but as “than me.”  What the malach was saying to Avraham is, “You are even a greater yarei shamayim than me!”  A malach acts in accordance with the midah of yirah/din he is invested with.  He is programmed to do one thing and that’s it.  A human being, however, has free choice and a host of emotions to contend with.  The malach was saying to Avraham that someone like himself who otherwise acted with great chessed, with great ahavah, and here was able to turn around and put that aside to do an akeidah, is far greater than an angel who has no other emotions to struggle against and overcome.