Small Pleasures – Parshat Shemot

Translation (Olat Re’iah, Vol. 1, pg. 288):

And I will come down to save them from Egypt’s hand, and bring them up from there to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey…” (Shemot 3:8).

The Torah repeatedly describes Eretz Yisrael as “flowing with milk and honey”, and even includes that phrase as the capstone of the declaration (recorded in Sefer Devarim) made by someone who brings first fruits (lit. bikkurim) to the Temple. [1] In that context, the Mishnah [2] understands the phrase as not only a description, but also a prayer that God imbue the land’s fruits with flavor. This seems like a non-sequitur. Delicious fruits are nice, but are they really worth focusing on? And isn’t that an anticlimactic way to end the bikkurim declaration after (i) reviewing the entire drama of Jewish history and (ii) beseeching God to bless the land with essentials, like rain? [3]

In truth, God’s gift of a land “flowing with milk and honey” is deliberate and truly of great significance. A lowly nation has neither need nor capacity to appreciate life’s supplemental pleasures. On the contrary, an excess of Divine blessing in worldly matters will be harmful to them, and inevitably lead to laziness and moral or ethical corruption. However, a refined and holy nation is meant to enjoy and appreciate worldly blessings. Only such a nation can partake of worldly pleasures as a Divine gift, and thus avoid becoming debased by them. It can use pleasure to lift its spirits and attain an expanded consciousness [4] (lit. הרחבת הדעת). We speak, of course, of the Jewish nation, established by God to acquire Divine wisdom, to shine understanding and an exceedingly great spiritual light upon all peoples. Such a nation must carry the banner of life in all its splendor, and cannot suffice with a narrow, unadorned and austere physical existence.

Thus, when God promised the Avot a land “flowing with milk and honey,” He was only superficially making a point about the quality of the real estate. God had a deeper message about the spiritual stature of the Avot’s descendants– that the Jewish People would be able to use material blessings as fuel for spiritual development and ascent. [5] Granted, this was not an immutable guarantee, and indeed, later generations failed the challenge and became debased by the bounty of Eretz Yisrael. As the Torah itself predicts, “After eating and becoming fattened to satiation, they will turn to other gods.” [6] However, this is only a temporary sickness, and the innate spiritual potential Jewish People remains intact. The travails and suffering of galut are God’s way of healing us from our sickness and restoring proper calibration between the physical and the spiritual.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Can you remember a time that you felt a spiritual experience in connection with a worldly pleasure?
Material abundance and poverty each present their own spiritual challenges. Taking a panoramic view of Jewish history, which do you think Am Yisrael has done a better job of contending with?
Rambam [7] writes that our physical activities should be done with an ultimate orientation towards avodat Hashem– i.e. a person should eat, sleep, etc. because a healthy body is necessary for engaging in spiritual pursuits. Is Rav Kook advocating this same approach to worldly pleasures, or does he have in mind something different than the Rambam?
Rav Kook notes that material abundance is not an unqualified blessing, and if misused, it actually distances a person from God. What can we do (individually and as a community) to ensure that we make proper use of the worldly pleasures that Hashem has granted us?
Do you think Rav Kook would regard certain types of worldly pleasures are less legitimate than others? Or is he granting legitimacy to all of them (in theory, at least)?
Rav Kook writes that on the collective/national level, a narrow, unadorned and austere physical existence is actually a sign of spiritual deficiency. Have you ever been exposed to that idea in the course of your Jewish education or the Torah sources you’ve learned?
Rav Kook connects his comments about the legitimacy of worldly pleasures to the verse about Eretz Yisrael“flowing with milk and honey.” Is there a basis to argue that worldly pleasures are less legitimate outside of Eretz Yisrael? I.e. perhaps they blur our sense of exile? Perhaps we can only use them appropriately in our own land, where we are freed of outside influences?

About this Piece

Olat Re’iah is a two-volume commentary on the siddur that Rav Kook began writing while trapped in London during World War I. Only a small portion was compiled by Rav Kook himself; the majority was collected by Rav Kook’s son from a variety of his father’s writings and unpublished manuscripts. The Hebrew in Olat Re’iahis quite challenging, but an English translation was published only a few months ago by Koren. The translation was done by Bezalel Naor, who is one of the world experts on Rav Kook’s thought. Koren’s translation is accessible and infuses prayer with Rav Kook’s unique dimension of freshness and exciting spirituality. It is well worth your time.

Other resources on Olat Re’iah for the English speaking reader are (i) a series of brief shiurim from R. Ally Ehrman, available on YUTorah.org and (ii) Rav Chanan Morrison’s translation of selected excerpts, available here.

Further Reading and Food for Thought

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s comments on “kosher hedonism,” printed in By His Light(pg. 16-18), available here.

Not all rabbinic authorities grant legitimacy to worldly pleasures to the same extent as Rav Kook. Consider the following striking example. In 1812, Napoleon invaded Russia, carrying with him the banner of “liberty, equality and fraternity” and promising emancipation to the oppressed peoples of the continent. The rabbinic leadership of European Jewry was divided over whether to support him. R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, supported the Russian Czar against of Napoleon, despite the Czar’s cruel decrees and policies of oppression against the Jews. He explained as follows – “If Bonaparte will be victorious, Jewish wealth will increase, and the prestige of the Jewish people will be raised; but their hearts will disintegrate and be distanced from their Father in Heaven. But if Alexander will be victorious, although Israel’s poverty will increase and their prestige will be lowered, their hearts will be joined, bound and unified with their Father in Heaven….” [8]

Contemporary articles by R. Gil Studentand Joseph Schickdiscussing whether a Torah life has room for leisure.

The broader culture that we live in takes it for granted that pleasure is a legitimate pursuit. However, it was not always this way. Shmuel Feiner writes as follows in The Origins of Jewish Secularization, a book-length treatment about the slow-motion collapse of Torah observance in Europe in the 1700s:

The tendency to enjoy the pleasures of the body and the soul is built in to human society and culture; but in the premodern age, it was the object of philosophical and… religious criticism and regarded as a human weakness. ‘‘What marks the innovativeness of the eighteenth century,’’wrote Roy Porter, scholar of English Enlightenment and culture, ‘‘is its new accent upon the legitimacy of pleasure, not as occasional release, aristocratic paganism or heavenly bliss, but as the routine entitlement of people at large to seek fulfilment in this world rather than only in heavenly salvation, to achieve the gratification of the senses, not just the purification of the soul.’’[Note – Rav Kook would assert that the Torah regards this as a false dichotomy.]The culture of Enlightenment, which, in contrast to the Christian ethos, turned its face toward man and his world, acknowledged the instinctive drives of human beings… Europeans came to believe that they should enjoy life on earth instead of enduring it in order to win a place in paradise after death.’’

[1] See Devarim26:15.

[2] Ma’aser Sheni, Perek 5.

[3] This is how the same Mishnah in Ma’aser Sheni interprets the preceding prayer that God “bless the Land…”

[4] I have a hunch that Rav Kook is alluding to the following statements in Gemara Berachot 57b – שלשה משיבין דעתו של אדם אלו הן קול ומראה וריח שלשה מרחיבין דעתו של אדם אלו הן דירה נאה ואשה נאה וכלים נאים.

[5] Rav Kook also writes that it’s a point about the quality of the physical blessings, not the physical ones.

[6] Devarim 31:20.

[7] Hilchot De’ot Perek 3.

[8] Igrot Kodesh Admor HaZaken, letter #64.

This week’s edition of Mareh Kohen is sponsored by:

Kivlaw.com
Phone: 973-339-7574

Inside and Out – Parshat Vayechi

Translation (Midbar Shur, Drush #3)

And Ya’akov’s sons did for him as he commanded them. They carried him to the land of Cana’an and buried him… (Bereishit 50:12–13)

On the level of p’shat, Ya’akov simply commanded his sons to take his body to Eretz Yisrael for burial. However, our Sages [1] add an additional layer of meaning. They note that Ya’akov assigned a specific station around his funeral bier to each son, and that this same arrangement was replicated in the midbar, when the twelve tribes camped around the Mishkan. Our Sages are identifying more than just an interesting parallel or instance of foreshadowing. What they are uncovering goes to the very heart of what Torah is and how we relate to it.

We find that the Torah is attributed to Moshe – as in “Remember the Torah of Moshe.” (Malachi 3:22) – and Ya’akov as well – as in “Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Ya’akov.” (Devarim 33:4). The Zohar [2] explains that “Ya’akov stands on the outside, and Moshe on the inside.” The Zohar is teaching that Ya’akov and Moshe represent two different aspects of Torah. The two elements are inseparable from each other in actuality, but they are logically and conceptually distinct. The first aspect is the Torah as a pristine and abstract norm, unfettered from any organic relationship with humanity or this world. [3] This aspect – the “inner” dimension of Torah, as the Zohar puts it – is represented by Moshe. Moshe conveyed the Torah and its laws to the Jewish people in perfect faithfulness to its Divine source. [4] The “Torah of Moshe,” the inner soul of the Torah, is stark in its absolute and singular character. It allows no room for multiplicity or divergent paths towards the Divine. [5]

This is the Torah as it exists in heaven. However, our Sages teach that “the Torah was not given to the ministering angels.” [6] And so there is a second, more ‘human’ dimension in which Torah expresses itself, i.e. through the innate aptitudes and spiritual capacities of the Jewish people. This aspect (what the Zohar calls the “outer” dimension of Torah) was founded by Ya’akov. Unlike the other Avot, Ya’akov succeeded [7] in bequeathing the Divine covenant to his entire family, all of whom stayed within the fold. Because of Ya’akov, a natural receptivity to holiness became part of the Jewish people’s spiritual heritage. However, this receptivity is filtered through the unique character and personality of each individual soul. Thus, we find that each of the twelve tribes established a unique path and typology of Divine service. [8] This is why the twelve tribes are directly descended from Ya’akov, and why the tribal camps in the desert replicated the arrangement of Ya’akov’s children around his funeral bier.

Commentary

Rav Kook addresses one of the most challenging paradoxes of Torah observance. Every Jew is subject to the same undifferentiated demands of God’s Torah, but the same God created us with unique personalities, inclinations and aptitudes. How do we keep the Torah in a way that gives expression to our unique sense of self, and avoid being stifled or suppressed by Torah observance? Or is that begging the question by assuming that God desires this – or even allows it – in the first place?

Rav Kook answers that it depends on which perspective you approach the question from. The abstract, “inner” dimension of Torah does not allow any differentiation, and leaves no room for varying paths of Divine service. However, God gave his Torah to human beings knowing – and desiring – that it would be filtered through the unique character and personality of each individual soul. We observe the same Shulchan Aruch and keep the same Torah, but each leaf on the Tree of Life has its own distinctive color and shape. Some individuals will be drawn to chesed and some to prayer. Some will find themselves in the world of the beit midrash (which, we should note, contains many antechambers itself), and others in the artist’s studio or on the trading floor. [9]

In this regard, we follow the model of Ya’akov’s twelve children, who founded twelve unique paradigms of Divine service. However, what’s more important for us – living in an era where our tribal heritage has long been lost – is the notion that divergent spiritual paths are not a quirk, a luxury or a problem to be eliminated. They are something that God idealizes and desires. A ‘cookie cutter Judaism’ – one that insists all Jews must look the same or live the same way – is not just wrong, it is a denial of human nature and מורשה קהילת יעקב.

Questions for Discussion

How do we a create space for ‘spiritual differentiation’ in our communities? In our schools? In our families?
We say two blessings every day as part of birkat haTorah. It seems that one blessing expresses the aspect of ‘Torah of Moshe’ and the other expresses the aspect of ‘Torah of Ya’akov.’ Look it up in the siddur to (i) decide if you agree with this and (ii) see which blessing expresses which aspect.
In a recent piece on the day school tuition crisis, one writer has noted that “The pressure to produce high earners discourages and marginalizes those members of the community whose calling is in music, literature, the visual arts, or the performing arts. The problem is not only that creative types will likely be unable to afford the Modern Orthodox lifestyle; the community itself tends to marginalize those who pursue artistic careers, viewing them as irresponsible. Some creative types will gravitate toward the rabbinate or Jewish education, careers that can offer a creative outlet, financial incentive in the form of tuition reductions, and social acceptability. Many will either give in to the pressure to pursue a stable, lucrative career, or leave Orthodoxy behind.” Discuss this problem in light of Rav Kook’s comments.
Rav Kook cites verses from Chumash and Sefer Malachi to demonstrate that the Torah is attributed to both Moshe and Ya’akov. Reread the verses in light of his analysis – does it seem to fit?
Suppose someone feels that their unique spiritual personality is drawn to things that violate halacha or compromise Torah values. What would Rav Kook say to such a person?
In terms of how your unique self finds religious expression, can you think of religiously observant friends/family members who are the polar opposite of you?

Further Resources
This piece was published in Midbar Shur, which is a collection of drashot on the parsha that Rav Kook wrote when he was the rav of Zeimel, Lithuania. Unlike Rav Kook’s later works, Midbar Shur is written in normal (i.e. non-poetic and non-kabbalistic) rabbinic Hebrew. Although the drashot were written in the 1880s, Midbar Shur was not published until 1999. It has not been translated into English, but various excerpts are adapted in the works Gold From The Land of Israel, Silver From the Land of Israel, and Sapphire From the Land of Israel, available here, here and here.

[1] Bamidbar Rabbah, cited in Rashi on 50:13.

[2] Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 13.

[3] For an exposition of this aspect of the Torah, see Chapter 8 of Mishlei, and in particular verses 22-31. Kabbalah and Chasidutdwell at length on the ‘supernal’ aspect of the Torah, emphasizing that its words, letters and seemingly mundane laws are a reflection of a much higher, abstract spiritual reality. For an illustrative example, see Chapter 4 of the Tanya.

[4] This is the seventh Ikkar Emunah of the Rambam.

[5] Rav Kook references (homiletically) the pasuk“משפט אחד יהיה לכם” (Devarim 24:22).

[6] Gemara Berachot 25b.

[7] Of course this does not mean that Avraham and Yitzchak were failures, only that they began a process whose completion culminated in Ya’akov. Our Sages refer to Ya’akov as the ‘most chosen of the Avot‘ (lit. בחור שבאבות) – see Bereishit Rabbah at the beginning of Parshat Vayishlach.

[8] The Arizal teaches that each of the tribes even has its own distinct nusach for prayer, in accordance with its unique and distinct spiritual qualities. See Shaar HaKavanot, cited in Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 68:1).

[9] This is my adaptation of Rashi on Devarim 33:19. I am well aware that none of the Twelve Tribes worked on a trading floor.

Sweating the Small Stuff – Parshat Vayigash

Translation (Ein Ayah – Berachot):

Exercising power in a self-aggrandizing manner [1] (lit. הנוהג עצמו ברבנות) is one of three things that shortens a person’s life… As R. Chama b. Chanina taught, this is the reason that Yosef died before his brothers. (Gemara Berachot 55a)

This teaching of our Sages is not about someone whose exercise of power is motivated by egotism or delusions of grandeur. After all, our Sages refer to Yosef, and we know that he did not have such lowly motivations. So they must be discussing someone who acts in a self-aggrandizing manner even in the service of lofty and holy goals. But what is so wrong with that? Why such a severe punishment for what seems like a minor transgression?

Someone who strives after lofty goals is liable to overlook the importance of matters – whether spiritual, material or ethical – that are comparatively less significant. This uncalibrated perspective fails to give due care to each of life’s concerns, and is a stumbling block in one’s path. For while life abounds with matters whose importance pales in comparison to greater goals, God has allotted a place and a purpose for everything. [2] And there are consequences for ignoring those smaller things – as our Sages teach above, one’s life is literally shortened. This is not a punishment, but simply the natural consequence of an uncalibrated way of living.

Our Sages pick Yosef to illustrate this principle. As viceroy of Egypt, he supervised the national and economic affairs of Egypt, at the time the most powerful empire in the world. As if this were not significant enough, Yosef saw his position of power as the vehicle for (i) realizing his prophetic dream about his family members bowing down to him [3] and (ii) fulfilling God’s decree to Abraham about his children being exiled in a foreign land. In particular, the Midrash criticizes Yosef for remaining silent when his brothers – who did not yet know Yosef’s true identity – referred to Ya’akov as “your servant.” [4] Putting this together with the gemara in Berachot cited above, our Sages are attributing Yosef’s lack of kibud av to his overriding concern with realizing his elevated and world-historic goals. He did not – and did not want to – let minor points of etiquette or protocol compromise that objective.

We learn from here that a complete life requires granting importance and accord to all things. We should not allow even the loftiest goals to crowd out our concern for matters of lesser value. After all, the moments of life actively filled with major goals and aspirations are few and far between. Most of our time and energy is occupied with small things. But this is not a zero-sum game or a tradeoff. If we conduct ourselves with integrity and strive to manifest goodness in all areas of life, then God will certainly bless us with strength to realize our lofty goals as well. [5]

Commentary/Sources for Further Research

A religious life is full of challenges, and there are different ways of conceptualizing this challenge. Much of mussar literature focuses on the struggle between the soul and the body’s physical desires. Other sources discuss the conflict between inner authenticity and insincere conformity with outside pressures. [6] Rav Kook, with his unique insight, identifies another dimension – the challenge of balancing significant and lofty goals with the matters that are comparably less important.

This may sound overly abstract, but consider:

The parent driving carpool who cuts off another driver in order to make it to school in time.
The startup founder who defrauds investors because she needs money to manufacture a product she genuinely believes will change the world. [7]
The teenager who returns from shanah aleph and expresses his passion for his newly religious lifestyle by (i) cutting off all contact with his less religious friends and (ii) provoking conflict with his parents.
The employee who lies or makes ethical compromises in order to rise through the corporate ranks, so that he can support his family.

Rav Kook teaches that although importance is relative, there are no unimportant things in life. We must implement the Torah’s laws and values in all circumstances. Our involvement in lofty matters doesn’t allows us to triage some religious priorities or compromise on others. This might seem demanding or harsh, but it’s actually quite practical. As Rav Kook notes, transformative moments of the sort Yosef was focused on are few and far between. We spend most of our life dealing with the small and the unremarkable. These “small” moments are not meant to be dismissed. They can be – and should be – infused with integrity, light and Divine purpose.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

What are the “big” and the “small” things in your life which generate the sort of tension Rav Kook discusses?
Practically speaking, how are we supposed to decide how to calibrate between “big” and “small” things? Decide on our own? Look to the Torah for guidance? Ask others? (See footnote 5.)
Rav Kook understands that a certain tension between “big” and “small” is an intrinsic part of life and human nature. Do you think that modern life creates more of a challenge in this regard? I.e., do we have to deal with more “small” things than our parents or earlier generations? Are we doing a good job of striking the right balance?
What was one time in your life where you feel like you succeeded at striking the right balance between the “big” and the “small”?
We’re coming up to the story of the Exodus. Can you think of a potential conflict between Moshe and Aaron where Moshe showed proper regard for the “small”, and didn’t let his mission overshadow the importance of respect for others?
Sometimes, religious inconsistency is motivated by an incorrect balance between “big” and “small” priorities. If this interests you (or irks you), check out this collection of talmudic sources from Torah Musings.

[1] It’s hard to find an English translation that captures the flavor of this Hebrew phrase. The Artscroll Talmud renders it as “assumes airs of authority” or “acts in an overbearing manner,” and Rav Chanan Morrison (Sapphire From the Land of Israel, pg. 97) translates it as “assumes a position of authority.” I think my translation is closer to what Rav Kook is getting at.

[2] Rav Kook cites the fourth chapter of Pirkei Avot – אל תהי בז לכל אדם, ואל תהי מפליג לכל דבר,שאין לך אדם שאין לו שעה ואין לך דבר שאין לו מקום.

[3] In assuming that this was the motivation behind Yosef’s behavior toward his brothers, Rav Kook follows Ramban (on Bereishit 42:9). Ramban uses this premise to explain why Yosef never “phoned home” to his family after he became viceroy of Egypt. See here for further discussion.

[4] According to Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer, Yosef predeceased his brothers by five years, and this was a punishment for each of the five that his brothers referred to Ya’akov as “your servant.”

[5] In a portion of Ein Ayah not translated above, Rav Kook notes that a Jewish king is commanded to carry around a sefer Torah, for which the Torah promises that “he and his descendants will live a long life” (Devarim 17:20). According to Rav Kook, this is not a mystical segulah or even a practical means of making sure the king follows the Torah. The king, as a result of his position of power, needs to learn how to properly calibrate between the “big” and the “small,” and the Torah provides that guidance.

[6] Most of the sources on this tension come from the Chasidic world. In this regard, an excellent work is The Quest for Authenticity, about Rav Simcha Bunim of Peshischa, which you should really purchase immediately. Come on, everyone is doing it…

[7] See here for the astounding tale of greed, duplicity and deception surrounding a company called Theranos.

The Two Footsteps of the Messiah – Parshat Mikeitz

Translation (Ma’amarei ha’Reiah, pg. 94-99): [1]

God created in man a body and a soul, and corresponding to them, forces that strengthen and develop the body, as well as forces that strengthen and cultivate the soul. Ultimate wholeness is achieved when the body is strong and well developed, and the soul, vital and cultivated, leads all the faculties of the body in the service of the intellect. Such is God’s will in His world.

The same applies on the collective level of Israel. God ordained two faculties, one corresponding to the physical side, which aspires to material improvement of the nation, and a second devoted to the cultivation of spirituality. By virtue of the first aspect, Israel is comparable to all the nations of the world. It is only through the second Israel realizes its uniqueness. As it says: “The Lord leads it (Israel) alone”; “Among the nations it (Israel) shall not be reckoned.”[2] It is the Torah and unique sanctity of Israel that distinguish it from the nations.

Originally, these two faculties were assigned to the two tribes destined to rule Israel, Ephraim and Yehuda, which is another way of saying Yosef and Yehudah…. Just as in the beginning, Yosef was the provider sent by God to save many from starvation, who sustained Jacob and his sons materially when they came to Egypt looking for grain [so in future generations, the descendants of Yosef would develop the material side of Jewish national existence]. Yosef is paradigmatic in other ways as well. According to our sages, Yosef was “swallowed up by the nations”[3] and was also fluent in seventy languages.[4] This symbolizes commonality between Israel and all the nations of the world…. Yehudah on the other hand, symbolizes that which is distinctive about the Jewish People. The Psalmist says that “Yehudah became His sanctified one,”[5] but of Yosef he says, “Shiloh, a tent pitched among men.”[6]

… G-d’s intent was that David’s kingdom would be the collection of the material powers necessary for a great and mighty kingdom, coupled with spiritual excellence. Unfortunately, sins brought about that Israel rejected the Davidic dynasty, and the nation was divided in two. The ten tribes subsumed under Ephraim (which is in reality Yosef), and the two tribes subsumed under Yehudah. Were it not for this split, all would have been united under the auspices of Yehudah.

… By gathering together these two powers, both would benefit: The material would be rarefied and sanctified by its exposure to the unique sanctity of Israel, and the spiritual would be invigorated to enhance Israel. Eventually, the rays would light up the entire world… But it came about that throughout the Exile there is a see-saw effect of these two opposing forces. At times, there is exhibited a drive toward material, worldly success that flows primarily from the foundation of Yosef and Ephraim; other times there is a stirring of the spiritual drive for observance of Torah and spiritual development, for awe and love of God.

Since it is impossible for our nation to attain its lofty destiny other than by actualizing these two components—the universal symbolized by Yosef, and the distinctive symbolized by Yehudah — there arise in the nation proponents of each aspect. Those who would enhance spirituality prepare the way for Messiah son of David, whose focus is the final destiny. Truly the focus of life is spiritual attainment, except that the spiritual can only develop properly if it is accompanied by all the material acquisitions of which a full-bodied nation is in need. Those who redress the material, general aspects of life prepare the way for Messiah son of Yosef.

[1] This is an excerpt of Bezalel Naor’s annotated translation, available at https://www.machonso.org/uploads/images/13-D-10-lamentation.pdf

[2] Devarim 32:12

[3] See Gemara Sotah 36b

[4] Ibid.

[5] Tehillim 114:2

[6] Tehillim 78:60. This verse is referring to the Mishkan’s encampment in Shilo, which was located in the territory of Yosef.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion:

Rav Kook understand that Yehuda and Yosef represent different faculties within the nation, one of which focuses on the spiritual distinctiveness of the Jewish people and the other which builds up its material side. Are there any other differences that you can discern from the parshiot that we have been reading? See footnote for a hint. [7]
What could you do differently in your own life to better implement a partnership between the physical and spiritual?
According to Rav Kook, the Jewish nation only achieves true vitality when the proponents of the spiritual and material work together with a united vision. What happens when there is an unhealthy and uncalibrated emphasis on the physical to the exclusion of the spiritual, or vice versa?
Do you know anyone who epitomizes the talents and faculties that Rav Kook associates with Yehuda? With Yosef?
Rav Kook notes two primary characteristics of the ‘Yosef’ tendency within the Jewish people – it is oriented towards the physical and it is also more universal. What do you think this means? How exactly do our physical activities or endeavors lend a universal dimension to our relationship with the non-Jewish world?

About This Piece:

The excerpt above is from a speech that Rav Kook gave in Jaffa in 1904, at a memorial service for Theodore Herzl. The speech is famous for outlining his conception of secular Zionism’s role in the redemptive process. It is probably more famous for the controversy that it caused. Rav Kook was accused of asserting that Theodore Herzl was mashiach ben Yosef. It should be noted that he never makes this argument explicitly, and that we have writings from Rav Kook in which he laments that his speech was misunderstood.

[7] Two hints – (a) compare Yehuda’s encounter with Tamar to Yosef’s encounter with Potiphar’s wife, and (ii) compare the consequences in Sefer Shmuel for Shaul’s failures with the consequences for those of David.

A Dignified Response – Parshat Vayeishev

Translation (Ein Ayah – Berachot):

It is preferable for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnace rather than embarrass his fellow in public. We learn this from Tamar [who did not directly accuse Yehuda of impregnating her while she was being taken to be executed, as this would have embarassed him. Rather, she sent him his garment and staff, in the hope that he would admit of his own accord.] (Gemara Berachot 43b)

Pursuit of illusory honor, based on external acquisitions such as wealth and fame, is one of the worst character traits. [1] There is, however, a nobler form of honor. The understanding of one’s true worth as a Divinely created being and the forceful rejection of anything that would deprive one of this noble stature – this awareness is the foundation of all moral and spiritual development. Without it, man cannot value the nobility of a life based on higher ideals and knowledge of the Divine, or comprehend the true honor incurred in pursuing them.

In this regard, one should live with the awareness that human life only has value when it is accompanied with recognition of one’s inner worth and dignity. Someone who lacks this recognition is alive in the biological sense, but is not truly living as a human being. [2]

For this reason, our Sages teach that it would be preferable to forfeit one’s life in this world rather than publicly shame another preson. They speak about public embarassment in particular, for while all embarassment is harmful, it is specifically public embarassment that causes irreparable and long lasting damage, to the extent that the worth of victim’s life is completely undermined.

We should note that our Sages do not state that a person is obligatedto sacrifice his life rather than embarrass his fellow in public, only that it would be preferableto do so. In other words, this is not a teaching that was meant to be implemented in practice, but rather an attitude towards the value of human dignity that one should strive to cultivate as part of leading an upstanding and ethically refined life.[3]

[1] Chazal (Avot 4:21) says that it “removes a person from the world.”

[2] Our tradition has many stories about pious people who joyously accepted shame and embarrassment. Rav Kook contends that they did so only to distance themselves from pursuing lower and illusory forms of honor, but not because they considered man’s dignity and sense of worth unimportant.

[3] Rav Kook briefly notes that certain halachic authorities actually do take this statement as halachically binding. See below.

Commentary/Sources for Further Research

Astonishingly, there are Rishonim who appear to take this statement in Gemara Berachot literally, as normative halachic practice. Further details are available here, in a brief shiur by R. Jonathan Ziring, and here, in a comprehensive set of sources and commentary from Olamot.net.

According to Rav Kook, public embarassment undermines the very root and value of one’s existence. This seems like an overly strong statement to make, but did you know that dozens of young people have committed suicide after being publicly shamed on social media? See hereand here.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

How can we use social media in a way that is consistent with Torah values and acknowledges the grave danger of public embarassment?
According to Rav Kook, this teaching of the Sages articulates an ethical principle, but isn’t meant to be followed in practice. Is it strange or paradoxical that the Torah articulates ethical principles that aren’t meant to be acted upon?
Rav Kook focuses on the negative ramifications of being deprived of one’s honor by public embarassment. However, he also talks about the positive side of honor – i.e. how one’s awareness of their self-worth can motivate them to live a Divine and upright life. In a practical sense, how might this awareness express itself?
Do you know anyone who excels at demonstrating a positive sense of honor and self-worth?

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specificallyBerachot,ShabbatandSeder 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 Ayahseeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torahhashkafafrom 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 covering Ein Ayahon Masechet Shabbat is available from WebYeshiva.