L'shem Yichud: Do You Understand What You're Actually Saying?
Some days you just can’t open a regular Artscroll siddur without falling down a deep rabbit hole of theological controversy.
You’d figure that the siddur is the very poster child of consensus and ancient tradition. But you’d be wrong. There are, in fact, some odd expressions of extreme beliefs that many recite daily without giving it a second thought. Today’s example is the “l’shem yichud” attached to sefiras haomer (and to putting on tefilin). Artscroll even printed those in their Ashkenaz editions.
What’s the big deal about l’shem yichud? Well there is that famous Noda B’yehuda (חי”ד סי’ צג) who wasn’t at all shy about sharing his general feelings on the subject. But his forceful criticisms were largely focused on the chutzpa of later generations who felt that the mitzva observance of our ancestors - who simply made berachos and then did the mitzvos - was somehow incomplete. He did hint to something darker, but didn’t elaborate.
Let’s take a look at the text and try to figure out what it means:
לְשֵׁם יִחוּד קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא וּשְׁכִינְתֵּיהּ בִּדְחִילוּ וּרְחִימוּ לְיַחֵד שֵׁם י"ה בְּו"ה בְּיִחוּדָא שְׁלִים בְּשֵׁם כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל
Which roughly translates as:
“In the name of the unity of the Holy One, blessed be He and His presence in fear and compassion to unify the name “Havaya” [i.e., the four-letter name] in its complete unity in the name of all Israel”
What’s this “unity” business? I know I’m grossly oversimplifying this, but I think it’s useful to say that the big-picture goal is to acknowledge that all of the physical creation is subsumed within God’s infiniteness. That’s a radical idea which arguably wipes out the first four of Rambam’s 13 principles. But I digress.
The larger question is: “why just this name (Havaya)?” Isn’t there only one God? What’s the point focusing on one name over all the others? Aren’t they all ways of describing the one God?
I believe that the most likely explanation follows the plain meaning of the words when understood in the context of their authors’ ideological context. In other words, when kabbalists refer to Havaya, or elokim, or Kah, or other names of God, they’re thinking about very different things. Take this passage from the Zohar (פרשת בשלח דף ע”ב) as an example:
אמר רבי אבא, מאי דכתיב “היש יהו”ה בקרבנו אם אין”, וכי טפשין הוו ישראל דלא ידעי מלה דא, והא חמו שכינתא קמייהו, וענני כבוד עלייהו דסחרן לון, ואינון אמרו היש יהו”ה בקרבנו אם אין, גוברין דחמו זיו יקרא דמלכיהון על ימא, ותנינן ראתה שפחה על הים מה שלא ראה יחזקאל, אינון אשתכחו טפשין ואמרו היש יהו”ה בקרבנו אם אין. אלא הכי קאמר רבי שמעון, בעו למנדע בין עתיקא סתימאה דכל סתימין דאקרי אין, ובין זעיר אנפין דאקרי יהו”ה, ועל דא לא כתיב היש יהו”ה בקרבנו אם לא, כמה דכתיב הילך בתורתי אם לא, אלא היש יהו”ה בקרבנו אם אין, אי הכי אמאי אתענשו, אלא על דעבידו פרודא, ועבידו בנסיונא, דכתיב ועל נסותם את יהו”ה, אמרו ישראל אי האי נשאל בגוונא חד, ואי האי נשאל בגוונא אחרא, ועל דא מיד “ויבא עמלק”
Rabbi Aba said: why does it write (Shemos 17:7) “Is God in our midst or not?” Were the Jews such fools that they didn’t know this? Did they not see the Shechina before them, and did the clouds of glory not cover them? How could they say “Is God in our midst or not?” Men who saw the precious shine of their King on the sea, and (about whom) it’s taught that a slave girl saw on the sea things that Yechezkel didn’t see; could they have been such fools to say “Is God in our midst or not?”
Rather, this is what Rabbi Shimon said: they wanted to understand (the difference) between the Ancient One, hidden from all that’s hidden, which is called “Ayn,” and between Zeyr Anpin which is called God. And for that (reason), it doesn’t write “Is God in our midst or not (אם לא) – as it writes (Shemos 17:4) “Will they follow in My Torah or not”, but “Is God in our midst or (is) Ayn (in our midst)”…
“God” (Havaya), according to this formulation, refers only to the partzuf ain sof - who, according to kabbalistic thought, only came into existence during the process of creation and did NOT predate it! It is, the school of the Ari teaches, to this partzuf that we must direct all prayers. In their worldview, there’s simply no point davening to what Jews have always understood to be God.
In that context, prefacing your Omer count (or any other mitzva) with a shem yichud involves a deeply troubling theological declaration. You’re effectively saying that God can be divided into parts, that we are only to address a part which came into existence during creation (and not the eternal God), and that the eternal God isn’t even aware of our actions or prayers.
I’m certainly not the first to notice this problem. In fact, individuals have tried to rationalize that particular Zohar (including Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe in the second volume of hisעלי שור - Parshas Pinchas). But the interpretations I’ve seen don’t fit the Zohar’s words. And, in any case, the Ari and his immediate followers certainly took the Zohar at face value.
Even Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner (ספר נפש החיים שער ב פרק ב), in the context of prayer, wrote:
כי עצמות א”ס ב”ה סתים מכל סתימין ואין לכנותו ח”ו בשום שם כלל אפילו בשם הוי”ה ב”ה ואפי’ בקוצו של יו”ד דבי’ … וז”ש האריז”ל בלשונו הקד’ הובא בהקדמת פע”ח. שכל הכנויים והשמות הם שמו’ העצמו’ המתפשטים בספירות וע”ש
For Atzmus Ain Sof (“the Essence of God without end”) is hidden from all secrets and there’s no way to describe Him in any way, even with the Name “Havaya”…And this the Arizal wrote in his holy language – brought in the introduction to Pri Eitz Chaim – that all descriptions and names are (really just) names of the essence that has spread among the sefiros.
The delicious irony to all this is the awkward fact that it’s Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai himself (in Sanhedrin 63a) who’s most associated with the Torah prohibition of imagining God in any kind of partnership with other forces:
אמר לו ר"ש בן יוחאי והלא כל המשתף שם שמים ודבר אחר נעקר מן העולם שנאמר בלתי לה' לבדו
Here's Havot Yair reponsum 210, written by Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach, who lived c.1678 – c.1698 CE saying that he doesn't get it nor does he believe that anyone in his generation does
שאלני אחד מהם שאפרש ג"כ מ"ש המחבר החדש שיאמר לפני הנחת תפילין ולבישת ציצית וכן בכמה דוכתי לשם יחוד הקב"ה ושכינתי' ע"י ההוא טמיר ונעלם וכאשר השבתי לו שלא נאמרו הדברים רק לת"ח מופלגי' השיבני שלא יבקש לאמרו וגם להבין ענינו רק אגיד לו פי' המלות וכאשר דחיתיו שנית חרה אפו ואמר כדעת ודברי עדת המקהילים ובראותי דפקר טובא אמרתי להפיס דעתו שיאמין לי בהן צדקי שגם אני אינני מבין תכלית דיבור דברים אלו וענינם וכן האמת ואולי לא ידעו ולא יבינו את זה כל חכמי הקבלה דורתינו אף המצפצפים והמהגים בקבלת האר"י ובספ"ר שער ג' פ"ח לא ידעו מה הוא.
.’
"One of them asked me to explain as well what the new author wrote—that one should say before putting on tefillin and donning tzitzit, and likewise in several other places: ‘For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shekhinah, through that Hidden and Concealed One.’
And when I responded that these matters were never intended except for Torah scholars of exceptional stature, he answered that he does not seek to recite it, nor to understand its meaning—only that I should provide him with the plain meaning of the words.
When I declined a second time, his anger flared, and he declared himself in agreement with the opinion and stance of the sect of the mystics.
And when I saw that he had strayed too far, I sought to calm him, assuring him—truthfully—that I myself do not grasp the full intent of these formulations and their deeper meaning. And that is indeed the truth.
And perhaps even none of the sages of Kabbalah in our generation comprehend it—not even those who chirp and stammer in the Kabbalah of the Ari.
And in Pardes Rimonim, Gate 3, Chapter 8, they too confessed that they do not know what this is."
I think you may be misunderstanding the Zohar.
I think It’s basically using a non dualistic idea of God. Like Advaita (probably where the ideas came from imo).
In this framework The “Shem Havayah” is shorthand for the systems through which undefined infinity (“Ayn” indescribable non dual awareness or whatever you want to call it) take the forms we experience. (The Arizal went super elaborate with this Ab Saag MaH and BaN etc etc). I think What it’s saying was that Klal Yisroel saw this distinction.
As far as “Lshem Yichud” in this framework mitzvos etc are tools for breaking the illusion of separateness. That is what “uniting the Shem Havayah means.” Again, it’s basically Advaita with extra parts.
I may be wrong and have no opinion as to if it is “heretical” or “theologically troubling” (whatever that even means- how can something accepted by 99.9% of your religions greatest teachers and codifiers of Halacha in the past 700 years be inherently “heretical”. That’s kind of like telling a Christian that belief in the trinity is “heretical” to Christianity)