Grow and Become – Parshat Vayishlach

Before Ya’akov confronted Esav, he declared to God that “I have become diminished by all of the kindness and the truth that you have performed for your servant.” [1] From here, our Sages teach [2] that a person should not place himself in danger, because he cannot rely on God to perform a miracle for him. And even if God does perform a miracle for him, his merits are diminished in the process. This is what Ya’akov meant when he said “I have become diminished (lit. קטונתי).“

Why exactly are one’s merits diminished when he benefits from a miracle? The simple explanation is that Divine providence doesn’t dispense things for free. A miracle must be earned, i.e. paid for through a ‘withdrawal’ from one’s spiritual bank account.

However, there is a deeper explanation to this teaching. We develop spiritually only to the extent that we live an active life in pursuit of the good. God created us to be vigorous and active, and there is no room in Judaism for quietism or passivity. We are meant to earn merit by seizing initiative and applying ourselves to shape the world in accordance with God’s will. A disengagement from the world of action is a retreat from God and brings spiritual diminishment in its wake – as Ya’akov put it, קטונתי.

It may seem counterintuitive that God is meant to be encountered in the natural order (lit. טבע). Isn’t that man’s space to seize initiative, where he undertakes efforts that appear to be his own? The truth, however, is that the natural order reveals God just as much the miraculous. We know this from Yeshaya, who declared to God that “It is you have carried out all of our handiwork.” [3] After all, if טבע is God’s handiwork, to work within the natural order is to partner with God and experience His presence.

But if טבע and the miraculous are both equally Godly, wherein lies the difference between the two? The answer is that the natural order requires man to be proactive. In contrast, a miracle forces its recipient into a passive role, purely on the receiving end of God’s kindness. Because spiritual growth and maturity require action, it follows that miracles are a less than ideal way of encountering God. Instead of a triumph, they are a testament to man’s spiritual smallness, to his inability to experience God by marrying human initiative with the Divinely authored natural order.

We should clarify that this doesn’t mean miracles are bad. Sometimes man is spiritually immature. Sometimes he is defeated by the natural order and requires God to rescue him from his shortcomings. In these moments of failure, God does not expect the impossible and is willing to send a miracle. But the miracle is meant to tide us over until we can mature spiritually, and advance from recipients of Divine kindness to participants who strive to partner in the Divine plan.

Ya’akov experienced this very transformation. After he pleaded with God about being “diminished” by His miraculous kindnesses, Ya’akov wrestled with an angel and received a new name, one purified from any connotations of passivity. “Your name will no longer be called Ya’akov, rather Yisrael will be your name, for you have striven with God and man and prevailed.”

[1] Bereishit 32:11

[2] Gemara Shabbat 30a

[3] Yeshaya 26:12

Commentary

From this teaching of Rav Kook, we can perhaps derive the bold statement that action and initiative are primary values of the religious life, from which all else flows. Religious growth is not about submission and withdrawal, or man’s smallness in his encounter with God. These are all components of the religious experience, but they shouldn’t be its defining characteristic.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Very few of us experience miracles on a regular basis, but the dividing line between passivity and action affects so many areas of our lives. If God wants us to work diligently within the natural order, what does that mean for geulah and the modern State of Israel? For how God wants me to support my family? For decisions about medical treatment?
What is one area of Jewish life where you could be more active and less passive?
Many well-meaning Jews are inspired by stories of tzadikim performing miracles or being saved in miraculous ways. Would Rav Kook disagree with them and reject such stories as spiritually irrelevant? Or is there value in these stories even for Rav Kook?
How can someone participate in the natural order and still remember that God is acting through his handiwork, as Yeshaya puts it? Is this a paradox?
Where in last week’s parsha does Ya’akov’s passive character manifest itself? Where in this week’s parsha do we see him expressing a more active persona?
Can you think of an example of a person whose moral and spiritual development was stunted because everything was given to them ‘on a silver platter,’ without working for it?
If miracles are a less-than-ideal ‘fallback plan’, then why did God make such a big deal of them when He took us out of Egypt?
Is there anywhere in Parshat Vayishlach that Ya’akov seems disinclined to rely on miracles?

Additional Resources

A beautiful story from the world of Chabad about putting miracles in their proper perspective.
A monograph from Rav Elchanan Adler about whether Halacha allows praying for a miracle, and how that relates to Channukah.
The Rambam in Mishnah Torah about whether we believe in Moshe because of the miracles he performed.
A slightly different take from the Ramban about the relationship between miracles and the natural order.

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specifically Berachot, Shabbat and Seder Zeraim. Rav Kook began writing Ein Ayah when he was a young rav in Lithuania, and continued adding material until the end of his life. Ein Ayah seeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torah hashkafa from the world of Aggadah.[*] It is an excellent introduction to Rav Kook’s thought, inasmuch as the pieces tend to be more shorter and self contained and less esoteric than many of Rav Kook’s other worlds. While Ein Ayah has never been translated in its entirety into English, selected excerpts have been published by Betzalel Naor in Of Societies Perfect and Imperfect. An online course from WebYeshiva covering Ein Ayah on Masechet Shabbat is available here.

[*] As opposed to much of the traditional commentary on Aggadah (i.e. Maharsha and the commentaries printed with Ein Ya’akov) which is less systematic and takes a piecemeal approach to connecting Aggadah with major principles of hashkafa.

Wholesome Judaism – Parshat Toldot

Translation: Me’orot ha’Reiah (Vol. 4, Pg. 187)

The struggle between good and evil traces its origins to the conflict between Ya’akov and Esav, a conflict with cosmic spiritual significance. For this was not merely a squabble between two brothers, but a fundamental disagreement regarding God’s relationship with the world and humankind.

Esav resolved to follow his desires wherever they led him. He repudiated any notion of Divine providence, believing the world to be governed by an immutable and impersonal system of natural laws (lit. tevah). Within this system, it made no difference how a person behaved or conducted himself. There were rare exceptions, of course – an overt Divine miracle or perhaps a subversion of the system on behalf of an extraordinary individual. But the notion that Divine providence could override the world of tevah – that was anathema to Esav.

Ya’akov, who was deeply attached to the service of God, stood against this worldview. He could not countenance that humanity would forget God’s name and deny Divine providence. And so he taught that there is a spiritual reality which supersedes the laws and limitations of tevah.[1] As Ramban writes,[2] the Torah’s promises of collective reward and punishment are rooted in this very premise. As Ya’akov descendants and inheritors of his mission, the Jewish people are subject to special Divine providence. We are not subject to the same laws of nature as other nations.[3]

This helps us understand the symbolism of Ya’akov emerging from the womb grabbing onto Esav’s heel. The heel is the perfect symbol of Esav’s worldview because of the intrinsic connection between motion and the natural world, as is known.

Translator’s Note: Rav Kook does not elaborate on what sources he has in mind here. After some digging, I found that Maharal writes that (i) motion is associated with change, (ii) change is a property of the physical world, and (iii) the physical world changes because it is imperfect and transitory. It follows that motion is inimical to the spiritual world, where everything exists in a state of perfection. See Gur Aryeh (Bereishit 17:5, s.v. שאף יו׳ד של שרה, with sources cited there in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) and the introduction to Derech haChayim. Rav Kook may be referring to sources in medieval Jewish philosophy, but I know even less about that than I know about Rav Kook, so I will defer.

Ya’akov grabbing onto Esav’s heel thus symbolizes his attempt to block the proliferation of Esav’s poisonous ‘heel-philosophy.’

This also clarifies why Ya’akov is referred as an איש תם, lit. “wholesome” or “complete.” [4] Man is a dual being, with a physical body subject to the laws of nature and a soul that operates as part of a higher, Divine order. It follows that a person who lives according to a deterministic worldview (i.e. the worldview of Esav) is a fragmented and fractured personality. His body and soul are in irreconcilable disharmony, quite literally living in different worlds.

Contrast that with Ya’akov, whose soul was rooted in the realm of Torah and prophecy. In the way of life that Ya’akov modeled, one’s worldly conduct is not dictated by the laws of nature, but by the higher realm of Divine will and wisdom.[5] The body operates on the same wavelength as the soul and is guided by it. It becomes a partner to the soul and its spiritual aspirations. This is a life of harmony and integration – of being תם, ‘wholesome’ and ‘complete’, in the truest sense of the word.[6]

Commentary

Rav Kook teaches us that the conflict between Ya’akov and Esav is more than just a historical curiosity or a episode of sibling rivalry. It represents a fundamental conflict between two worldviews. Esav’s world is one of fragmentation and disharmony. The body follows its desires and ignores the spiritual aspirations of the soul. Divine providence is an illusion, and so is our freedom of choice. Like all other components of the physical world, our actions are determined by a blind and immutable system of cause and effect. In contrast, Ya’akov strives to integrates the spiritual and the physical. He teaches that the limitations of tevah are subservient to and supplanted by Divine providence. God’s universe is not indifferent to how we relate to Him or how we treat each other.

Rav Kook also asserts that Divine providence is not merely an important aspect of the Torah, but its defining feature. The battleline in the struggle between good and evil runs through Divine providence. Anything that strengthens humanity’s belief in Divine providence and the integrated worldview of Ya’akov contributes to good. In contrast, determinism, blindly following one’s desires and belief in Divine indifference magnify the strength of evil.

As an aside, Rav Kook’s understanding of Esav’s worldview is a strikingly accurate encapsulation of Christianity, which many sources understand as the spiritual successor to Esav.[7] Christianity teaches that this world is fallen and irredeemably sinful. Salvation cannot be attained by law/mitzvot, which Jesus abrogated, but only through Divine grace. The natural consequence – borne out by centuries of bloodshed, persecution and pogroms (and contemporary scandals, והמבין יבין) – is that Christianity summons the spirit to soar upwards, but abandons the body to unbridled license, violence and sensuality.[8] The inner world created by Christianity is fragmented and schizophrenic – the opposite of the harmony of integration modeled by Ya’akov.

[1] Rav Kook is not asserting that tevah is an illusion (like Rav Dessler and other thinkers maintain), only that there is a higher level of Divine providence that supersedes it.

[2] Shemot 13:16. See here for further discussion of Ramban’s comments.

[3] If this sounds overly abstract, consider the fact that the Jewish people have survived despite the efforts of the world’s most powerful empires to subjugate or destroy us. Clearly the laws of history that govern other nations do not apply to the Jewish people.

Consider also that:

a) the Hebrew word for habit (lit. הרגל) has the same root as the word for foot (lit. רגל); and

b) the heel is the part of the body that is furthest away from the head and closest to the earth.

[4] Bereishit 25:27.

[5] Rav Kook uses this to explain why Ya’akov is described as “dwelling in tents” (lit. יושב אהלים). A tent is a temporary dwelling, and so it embodies the transitory nature of the physical world. In order for there to be a partnership between body and spirit, one must be reminded that the physical is transitory. Ya’akov was naturally drawn to the world of the אוהל.

[6] In kabbalah (yet another subject I know very little about), Ya’akov is associated with the trait of תפארת, i.e. the harmonious integration of opposing traits and energies. Avraham embodied חסד and Yitzchak embodied גבורה, but Ya’akov was the synthesis of those two opposites.

[7] How this came about is beyond the scope of this piece, but a brief summary goes like this – (i) Esav/Edom became associated with Rome, (ii) the Roman empire adopted Christianity, and (iii) therefore the Church is considered the heir to Rome.

[8] See Rav Hirsch on Bereishit 1:27, s.v. ויברא אלוקים את האדם בצלמו.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

How does an ‘איש תם’ (as interpreted by Rav Kook) live differently than someone who lives by Esav’s deterministic mindset? And how is his/her relationship with God different?
Does the Torah tell us anything about Ya’akov or Esav that supports Rav Kook’s assertion about different philosophies regarding Divine providence? (I don’t have a good answer to this yet, but see Bereishit 25:32 as a starting point regarding Esav.)
What is a time when you experienced Divine providence in your life? How did it affect you?
Based on what you read and hear, do you think contemporary science supports the philosophy of Ya’akov? Or has it been co-opted by the philosophy of Esav?
What could you do to be more mindful of Divine providence in your life?

About this Piece

Me’orot ha’Reiah is a multi-volume anthology of Rav Kook’s writings on various Jewish holidays. The volumes are published by Machon Rav Tzvi Yehuda ha’Kohen, and began to come out in the late 1990s.

If you are interested in more English sources about Divine providence in Jewish thought, you may like Hashgachah Pratis by Rav Aryeh Leibowitz (available as an e-book that costs less than a macchiatto at Starbucks!) and the audio shiurim of my teacher Rav Netanel Weiderblank on YUTorah.org.

Room to Grow – Parshat Chayei Sarah

Translation: Ein Ayah (Berachot 26b)

יצחק תקן תפלת מנחה שנאמר ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה לפנות ערב ואין שיחה אלא תפלה שנאמר תפלה לעני כי יעטף ולפני ה׳ ישפך שיחו.

Yitzchak instituted the Mincha prayer, as it is stated: “And Yitzchak went out to converse [lit. לשוח] in the field toward evening” (Bereishit 24:63), and שיחה means prayer, as it is stated: “A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint and pours out his words [lit. שיחו] before God” (Tehillim 102:1).[1]

This statement of our Sages raises three questions that we must address:

What is the significance of the term שיחה?
Why is it particularly associated with the prayer of minchah?
And why is it specifically associated with Yitzchak, as opposed to the other Avot?

The answer lies in an interesting feature of the Hebrew language – the same term that our Sages apply to Yitzchak’s prayer (שיחה) is also used for grass and other forms of plant life.[2] This points to an inner connection between the plant world and the world of prayer.

Prayer can allow the soul to flower[3] and rejuvenate, bringing forth buds of new spiritual capacities. This mode is most suited to the late afternoon period, when a person is able to cast off the worldly and temporal burdens of the workday.[4] [5] At that point, his soul ascends towards God in accordance with its innate yearning for the Divine. Latent feelings of holiness were fettered during the workday, but now find free expression in a desire to cling to the Living God and strive mightily in pure love and reverence of Him. These buds will ripen into fruits and give forth branches and flowers.[6]

This blossoming of spiritual potential through prayer is a natural expression of the soul’s innate uprightness. It isn’t foreign to the soul or imposed from without. In this regard, the שיחה–prayer it is rooted in the Divine attribute of strict justice (lit. מדת הדין), which exacts consequences anytime someone deviates from the natural order. From the perspective of the מדת הדין, punishment is not vindictive or even retributive. It is simply a natural consequence that grows out of the poisoned soil of sin – woven, as it were, into the very nature of the soul.

And we know that Yitzchak is associated [7 ] with מדת הדין. For this reason, the שיחה mode of prayer is particularly associated with (i) Yitzchak, as opposed to Avraham or Ya’akov, and (ii) the Minchah prayer, which is an opportunity for the natural yearning of the soul to blossom.

[1] The gemara brings other verses to demonstrate that Avraham established the Shacharit prayer and that Ya’akov established Ma’ariv.

[2] See Bereishit 2:5 (כל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ) and Bereishit 21:15 (ותשלך את הילד תחת אחד השיחם). It is fascinating to note that each of these sources is connected with the notion of tefilah:

a) The midrash, quoted by Rashi on Bereishit 2:5, tells us that Hashem didn’t bring rain to facilitate plant growth until Adam davened.
b) The connection of prayer with the story of Yishmael and Hagar’s wandering in the desert is clear on a level of p’shat. Note also that Yishmael’s name comes from God answering Hagar’s prayer the first time she was cast out (see Bereishit 16:11).

[3] Rav Kook uses the term “הפרחת הנפש.”

[4] In this light, note that the word מנחה comes from the word “נח,” or “rest,” as the afternoon is the period that the sun descends in the sky and eventually sets. See Ramban al-haTorah (Shemot 12:16).

[5] You may be thinking “But I get work-related e-mails all day and never get to clock out at sundown!” Belive me, as a working professional, I can empathize with you. We should bear in mind that Rav Kook is formulating a spiritual typology.

[6] There is a rich literature of Torah sources that connecting trees to man’s spiritual development, based on the pasuk כי האדם עץ השדה in Devarim 20:19. See here and here for representative examples. Poets and thinkers numbered among the chachmei ha’umot have also been sensitive to the deeper spiritual dimension of trees – see here, here, and here.

[7] Rav Kook cites the verse ופחד יצחק היה לי (Bereishit 31:12). The connection between Yitzchak and מדת הדין appears in many sources, and is also evident on a p’shat level. Yitzchak is the most passive and withdrawn of all of the Avot. Further, his highest spiritual accomplishment is one of sacrifice (i.e. the Akeidah), which embodies the negation associated with מדת הדין.

[8] Olat Re’iah, Inyanei Tefilah #2.

Commentary

This piece expands our understanding of what tefilah has the power to be. It is not merely another halachic obligation to satisfy by rote or and it’s not even an opportunity to present requests to God or converse with Him. It is something far more – the expression of the soul’s innate desire to connect profoundly with God. If you’re like me, this desire is not something you feel or are conscious of on a regular basis when you open your siddur. Maybe if you’re lucky you feel it a little at Neilah. But Rav Kook believed that the “soul is always praying,” and that fixed times for prayer are just opportunities when the constant prayer of the soul finds active expression.[8]

Rav Kook’s description of tefilah is lofty and feels beyond our reach. But what would happen if, the next time we struggle with kavanah during davening, we reminded ourselves of this teaching about how our souls are waiting for their chance to blossom. We’re not trying to create kavanah from nothing, the kavanah is already there and waiting for us to help it sprout.

Questions for Discussion and Reflection

The ‘שיחה’ mode of tefilah as described by Rav Kook sounds like it requires a really high spiritual level. What are some of the challenges that make it hard for us to experience this kind of tefilah?
In this piece, Rav Kook discusses prayer as an expression of the soul’s innate desire to connect with God. What could be other expressions of this desire?
Is Rav Kook’s lofty depiction of prayer as “blossoming of spiritual potential” relevant to someone who is davening minchah from a siddur, with the fixed text that we use today? Or do you think Rav Kook is talking about prayer that is more improvised and spontaneous?
Have you ever heard of Divine punishment being a natural consequence of sin, like getting burned when you stick your hand in a fire, or is that a new approach for you? Compare and contrast the ramifications of this approach with punishment as discipline, retribution, etc.

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specifically Berachot, Shabbat and Seder Zeraim. Rav Kook began writing Ein Ayah when he was a young rav in Lithuania, and continued adding material until the end of his life. Ein Ayah seeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torah hashkafa from the world of Aggadah.[1] It is an excellent introduction to Rav Kook’s thought, inasmuch as the pieces tend to be more shorter and self contained and less esoteric than many of Rav Kook’s other worlds. While Ein Ayah has never been translated in its entirety into English, selected excerpts have been published by Betzalel Naor in Of Societies Perfect and Imperfect. An online course from WebYeshiva covering Ein Ayah on Masechet Shabbat is available here.

[1] As opposed to much of the traditional commentary on Aggadah (i.e. Maharsha and the commentaries printed with Ein Ya’akov) which is less systematic and takes a piecemeal approach to connecting Aggadah with major principles of hashkafa.