The Torah of Tolerance – Parshat Ki Tisa

Printable PDF available here.

Translation (Ein Ayah, Berachot 59b):

And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger (lit. ארך אפיים) and abundant in loving kindness and truth.” (Shemot 34:6)

Upon seeing a statue of Mercury [1] [or any other idol], [2] one pronounces the blessing “Blessed is He who is slow to anger (lit. ארך אפיים)with those who transgress His will.” (Gemara Berachot 59b)

As a general matter, it is important that a God-fearing and spiritually distinguished person acquire the trait of tolerance (lit. סבלנות). Those who turn away from God should be met with patience, provided that they aren’t harassing the faithful or trying to influence them to adopt evil ways. For this reason, the Torah directs us to traverse the “paths of peace” (lit. דרכי שלום) even in our dealings with wicked idolaters. [3]

However, there is a distorted form of דרכי שלום that actually compromises one’s spiritual vigor. One can easily fall into the mistaken belief that the Torah’s ארך אפיים, its measure of patience for wickedness, is because evil contain a measure of truth after all! This poisonous attitude confounds a person and undermines his confidence in the pristine purity of Torah and yirat Hashem. It must be that there is a deeper spiritual reason for tolerating wickedness and foolishness, one that does not involve the slightest compromise on the truth of the Torah. But how could that possibly be?

The answer requires a broad understanding of how Divine Providence operates. Not all of the paths that humanity must traverse before achieving spiritual perfection have a straight trajectory. God’s plan for humanity includes darkness and confusion as well, in the form of false religions, corrupt religious ideals, and impure notions of morality promulgated by wicked cultures. Kabbalistic sources [4] teach that this is also a part of Divine goodness, inasmuch as the existence of evil accentuates goodness and brings it into sharper relief.

Paganism participates in this very dynamic. Through the confusion and emptiness of paganism, humanity comes to a more profound comprehension of God and the pleasantness of His ways. This is why our Sages established that upon encountering idolatry, we praise God for being “slow to anger.” That encounter reminds us that the Divine will has a multitude of ways of achieving its ends, and that even wickedness plays a role in the universe’s movement towards perfection. In the words of Isaiah, “I am the Lord and there is no other. Who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil – I am the Lord, Who makes all of these!” [5]

Commentary

The non-Jewish world has developed various theories to justify religious tolerance. Some (like Milton) claimed that reason and free inquiry, as opposed to coercion, are the best ways to uncover religious truth. Others (like John Stuart Mill) maintained that there are insufficient sufficient rational grounds for verifying the claims of any religion, and so an attitude of agnosticism is called for. Some argued that tolerance is the only way to avoid sectarian bloodshed, of the sort that tore Europe apart in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. And finally, there is the cynical form of post-modern tolerance that it is meaningless and arbitrary to grant preferential treatment to any religion, as the concepts of truth, God and morality are all a fiction.

All of these theories compromise the absolute truth of the Torah, and are hence unacceptable to us as believing Jews. The second commandment is “You shall have no other Gods before me” – not “Live and let live,” “What harm does it do to you?” or “Thou shalt ensure a free marketplace of ideas.” Now, it would be easy if we could simply dismiss the entire world of non-Jewish belief, and condemn it for its wickedness and falseness. But as Rav Kook notes, the Torah itself advocates some measure of tolerance and darchei shalom! Rav Kook gives us a mystical and metaphysical way to make sense of this paradox.

This paradox is especially important because we live in a modern liberal ^[6] society that has granted tolerance a supreme position in its hierarchy of moral virtues. Outside of Israel, this has been a tremendous blessing, in the sense that we are free to practice our religion, educate our children and participate in broader economic and cultural life generally unencumbered by discriminatory laws and religious prejudice. This is a world that would have been unimaginable to ancestors in the shtetl, and we have much to be grateful for. But how do we participate in an open and tolerant society without compromising our passion and commitment to the truth of Torah Judaism? There are many answers to this question – R. Jonathan Sacks would not give the same answer as Rav Kook, nor would R. Samson Raphael Hirsch or R. Soloveitchik. But we have to ask the question and have our eyes open to the dangers – not just the opportunities – of the cultural milieu that we live in. [7] After all, it is not so difficult to slip from the ארך אפיים mandated by the Torah to a poisonous relativism that, in the worlds of one non-Jewish scholar “suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid.” [8]

This issue takes on another level of urgency in the State of Israel. In the words of R. Jonathan Ziring in an article on this topic, “For most of the last two thousand years, Jews were rarely in a position to prosecute practitioners of other religions – they had their own problems to worry about. Even now, in the Diaspora, Jews are not in control, so they can happily live in… nations that allow them to enjoy religious freedom, without worrying about who else enjoys those rights. However, the establishment of the State of Israel forced halakhic authorities to at least ask the question – should an ideal Jewish state have religious freedom?”

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Most of Rav Kook’s comments deal with non-Jewish idolatry and religion. Would he grant the same legitimacy to ארך אפיים towards sectarian or un-Jewish ideas within the Jewish community. Why or why not? (In this connection, see Ramban’s comments on Shemot 20:4 [9] regarding God describing himself as קל קנא.)
Does the culture we live in have a healthy and calibrated concept of tolerance?
Are there any particular ‘hot-button issues’ in the Jewish world where you think one side has allowed tolerance to compromise their commitment to Torah and halacha? Where one side is lacking in proper ארך אפיים and tolerance?
To quote R. Jonathan Ziring again, “A perusal of Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, or Midrash (not to mention Maccabees or Josephus) will uncover laws and narratives that make it clear that the Torah did not encourage “tolerating” idolatrous religions, especially in the Land of Israel. As the Jews entered the Land, they were enjoined to destroy the temples and religious artifacts of the indigenous peoples, and were warned against establishing treaties with them, lest they be influenced by that culture.” How does this fit with Rav Kook’s articulation of tolerance as a Torah value?
The Talmud Yerushalmi [10] says regarding God’s trait of ארך אפיים that “Whoever says that God is a ותרן [that he relents and doesn’t show too much concern for what people do] should be disemboweled. Rather, He delays His anger and then collects what is His.” Does this support or contradict Rav Kook’s explanation?
Do you know anyone who epitomizes the trait of ארך אפיים as Rav Kook explains it?

[1] See here and here for more on the historical background to this idolatry and its form of worship.

[2] Rishonim dispute whether this blessing applies only to Mercury or to idolatry more generally. The above translation follows the position of the Rishonim (supported by the Tosefta) which is adopted as halacha in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 224:1).

[3] Rav Kook seems to assume that darchei shalom reflects fundamental Torah values, and is not just a pragmatic way of avoiding enmity from non-Jews. See here for an excellent shiur on this topic from R. Jonathan Ziring.

[4] Rav Kook references Sefer Yetzirah.

[5] Isaiah 45:6-7. Rav Kook also invokes Iyov 14:4, as interpreted by Bamidbar Rabbah (19:1), that God “brings forth purity from the impure.” As examples, the midrash comments that כגון אברהם מתרח, חזקיה מאחז, יאשיה מאמון, מרדכי משמעי, ישראל מעובדי כוכבים, העולם הבא מעולם הזה.

[6] I am using ‘liberal’ in the sense of a political theory, not the way it would be used on Fox News or on an angry Facebook post.

[7] Indeed, Rishonim, quoted by the Rama (Orach Chaim 224:1), write that we no longer pronounce a blessing upon seeing idolatry because we encounter it constantly, and the blessing was only established for periodic exposure to idolatry.

[8] The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson, pg. 3. In the words of another contemporary scholar, “A consequence of such an understanding of tolerance is a tendency to insist that opinions regarding value, to the extent that they are not tolerant in the advanced liberal sense, be kept private. To allow opinions that insist that some preferences are better than others publicity and possible influence would unjustly burden other equally valid preferences. Advanced liberal society therefore discredits, neutralizes, or silences those who speak out about matters of good and evil… except… those who undermine understandings of the good that compete with liberalism.”

[9] ולא נמצא בכתוב בשום מקום שיבא לשון קנאה בשם הנכבד כי אם בענין עבודה זרה בלבד. ואמר הרב במורה הנבוכים (א לב) שלא תמצא בכל התורה ובכל ספרי הנביאים לשון חרון אף ולא לשון כעס ולא לשון קנאה אלא בענין ע”ז בלבד. והנה בקדושי עליון ויחר אף ה’ במשה (לעיל ד יד) ויחר אף ה’ בם וילך (במדבר יב ט) וכתוב (איוב מב ז) חרה אפי בך ובשני רעיך כי לא דברתם אלי נכונה כעבדי איוב. אבל בלשון קנאה אמת הוא וכך אמרו במכילתא (כאן) בקנאה אני נפרע מע”ז אבל אני חנון ורחום בדברים אחרים. ולפי דעתי שיזכיר קנאה בע”ז בישראל בלבד וטעם הקנאה כי ישראל סגולת השם הנכבד אשר הבדילם לו כאשר פירשתי למעלה (יט ה) והנה אם העם שלו משרתיו פונים אל אלהים אחרים יקנא בהם השם כאשר האיש מקנא באשתו בלכתה לאחרים ובעבדו בעשות לו אדון אחר ולא יאמר הכתוב כן בשאר העמים אשר חלק להם צבאות שמים.

[10]Ta’anit 2:1.

Pants and Belts – Parshat Tetzaveh

Printable PDF available here.

Translation (Ein Ayah,Shabbat 21a):

Certain materials, such as wool, may not be used as wicks for Shabbat lights because they don’t hold a steady flame. Ordinarily, these wicks may also not be used in the Temple. However, at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah on Sukkot, the worn-out pants and belts of the Kohanim [which were made from wool] were used to make wicks for the Temple lamps. (Shabbat 21a)

All human faculties are associated with either the soul or the physical body. These two dimensions of the human personality operate in fundamentally different ways. The soul’s different means of expression – character traits, imagination, emotion, a sense of inspiration, etc. – all involve the conscious self. Our ability to reflect and stand outside of ourselves enables the Torah to address these ‘spiritual’ aspects of life directly. In this regard, our feelings, thoughts and ambitions are wicks that can readily hold a Divine flame. [1]

In contrast, bodily faculties (like sexual urges and the need for food) involve no conscious process of cognition, and operate without any deliberation or volition. Unlike the ‘higher’ expressions of the soul, the bare experience of physical desires is neither moral nor immoral, but simply devoid of moral content altogether. [2] And because these faculties operate on the level of instinct, they cannot be conscripted outright to higher, spiritual goals. Bodily desires are like wicks that do not hold a steady flame. After all, they must be coaxed through initiative taken by man’s higher self. This requires reflection, Torah study and refining one’s character traits.

One could argue that this process is a waste of time, and that God desires that we embrace an ascetic approach to life. Perhaps the body really is the prison of the soul, and physical desires are something to be eliminated or tolerated as a necessary evil. But God forbid that the Torah would ever endorse such an approach! The Jewish path does not demand that we afflict or weaken any natural human capacity, nor diminish its stature or splendor. God made physical desires a part of human nature, and tasked the body, not just the soul, with bearing Divine light. [3] To tamper with these desires and stamp them out is an affront to Him and His wisdom. It is a sickness, not a path to spiritual completeness.

This is the deeper meaning of the Sages’ teaching that the pants and belts of the Kohanim were repurposed for wicks at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah. Unlike the other priestly vestments, these garments [4] were associated with the lower parts of the body, those associated with the digestive [5] and sexual organs. Our Sages are teaching that these faculties can also be consecrated to bear the Divine flame, provided that they are kept within holy boundaries [6] and guided by the Torah and its sanctity.

Because the physical world is full of temptations, this mode of Divine service is a demanding one. There is a constant danger that man’s desires will burst through their proper boundaries, and this peril will remain until the Messianic era. Only then, when the world will be totally permeated with Godliness, will bodily desires be able to serve as the day-to-day substrate of our Divine service. For this reason, the pants and belts of the Kohanim were only used as wicks a few days out of the year, at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah – and even then, only under the watchful gaze of the holy Kohanim. In our pre-Messianic reality, the balance of our Divine service must be through wicks that hold a steady flame – the refinement of the intellect and the emotional dimension of man’s personality, fueled by the ‘oil’ of Torah. And although the body cannot yet play an autonomous role in man’s striving toward the Divine, even in the pre-Messianic era it too can be illuminated with sacred light, and summoned to participate in pure and joyful living.

Commentary

Rav Kook is quite strident in asserting the legitimacy of the physical in religious life. Not all Torah thinkers adopted such a favorable perspective. Torah literature is full of sources that idealize asceticism and are deeply uncomfortable with man’s physical drives. In their view, man was created with desires not in order to channel them and keep them within holy boundaries, but to earn otherworldly reward by suppressing and transcending them. Rav Kook’s teachings on asceticism are complex, but he generally regarded asceticism as a spiritually unhealthy infirmity and a casualty of galut. For him, our return to the Land of Israel was meant to be more than just a redemption of the spirit. It was also to be a return to a vigorous and healthy engagement with worldly living and concerns, all conducted in the spirit of holiness.

Other than Rav Kook, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch is one of the few Torah thinkers who believed that the travails of galut had caused a corrupt and unhealthy perspective on life to creep into Torah Judaism. Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, the Sridei Eish, wrote as follows in describing Rav Hirsch’s legacy. It is also an excellent summary of Rav Kook’s views:

The Israelite religion… wishes to influence the whole man, to prepare his whole heart, his thoughts and deeds, for his exalted tasks…. So it was in ancient Israel, and in the time of the Tannaim and Amoraim and Geonim, and partially so in the Golden Age experienced by the Jewish people in Spain. Judaism was never a source of suffering for Israel. Judaism for Israel was life in its fullness. No one dreamed of a possible separation between religion and life, as though they were separate or opposing forces… But the Jewish people underwent a mighty change during the time of the terrible Crusades. The terrible persecutions, the banishment from the different areas of life, the deprivation of breathing space and limitation of movement, also damaged the religious strength of the Jew seriously and weakened it.

Together with the impoverishment of our life, the scope of our religion became increasingly narrower. Broad, important areas of life were cruelly wrested from our people and its religion. The Hebrew soul was torn to shreds. That joy which results from the total correspondence of spirit and life, ceased in Israel… The concept ‘secular life,’ which is foreign to the spirit of Israel, came into being during those dark times. The religious sense no longer drew sustenance directly from life… and was sustained only by the fear of death, and terror of the severe penalties of the World-to-Come. It is true, of course, that belief in divine reward and punishment is a basic Jewish principle… but extensive use of it, placing it at the center of religious feeling, turning it into the solitary propelling force for fulfilling mitzvot – can plunge a man into depression and induce spiritual malaise… This ‘separation from life’ resulted in the adoption of a negative stance towards life’s achievements. The spirit of Israel wore black, donning a cloak of asceticism foreign to the spirit of Judaism.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Rav Kook explains that the pants and belts of the Kohanim could not be used as wicks on a regular basis. But of all times, why pick Simchat Beit HaShoeivahto use them?
Tablet Magazine recently had an online symposium on the financial costs of a Modern Orthodox lifestyle. Rivka Press Schwartz, a teacher at SAR High School, wrote that “To a meaningful extent, what is going on in our community is that we are taking the demands of a certain class lifestyle and recasting them as religious obligations, which both ennobles our consumption and allows us to take pride in the sacrifices we make for it.” What would Rav Kook say about this analysis?
What are some of the major challenges that make it difficult or dangerous (psychologically, spiritually or otherwise) to sanctify one’s physical desires? What are the countervailing difficulties and dangers that faced by the ascetic approach?
One major issue in machshava literature is why the Torah does not make explicit mention of the rewards and punishments of Olam ha’Ba. Based on Rav Kook’s insights about the role of the physical body in Divine service, can you suggest an answer? [7]
Does Rav Kook’s approach resonate with you? Why or why not?

[1] There is an abundance of Torah literature, primarily in Chasidic sources, that uses the candle as a metaphor for the human personality. See here and here for representative examples. The verse from Mishlei (20:27) נר ה׳ נשמת אדם is often invoked.

[2]Rav Kook is not saying that there is no moral dimension to how/whether one acts on his desires, an antinomian view that outright contradicts the very idea of Torah and the halachic system. As Jews, we do not accept the degenerate premise of modern Western culture that every desire is a mandate and anyone who insists otherwise is a bigot. According to Rav Hirsch (Commentary on the Torah, Bereishit 3:1), this was exactly the claim that the serpent made to Eve when he said אף כי אמר אלהים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן– “Even though Hashem has commanded you not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you do indeed desire it, and He created you with that desire. Therefore it must be good.” And we all know how well that worked out…

[3]See Seforno (Bereishit 3:25), who he explains why Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness before they sinned.

[4]See Ramban (Shemot 29:9), who notes that the ‘lesser’ status of the Kohanim’s pants is reflected in peshuto shel mikra, inasmuch as the pants are mentioned separately from the other priestly garments [and also last], at the end of Chapter 29.

[5]The Kohanim tied their belts at elbow-level, not on their waist.See Gemara Zevachim 19a.

[6]Rav Kook notes, based on the mishnah in Sukkah (5:2), that care was taken at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah to ensure separation between men and women. According to some poskim, this is the source for the requirement of mechitzahin shul.

[7]Consider the words of the Vilna Gaon in his commentary to Shir haShirim (1:3) – ובזה מתורץ ג”כ מה שהקשו כל הקדמונים מה שלא נאמר בתורה שכר עוה”ב. כי עיקר עוה”ב הוא להשיב הנשמה למקורה לדבק בשכינה, ובודאי יותר טוב מזה כשהשכינה דבקה למטה כאשר היתה כוונת הבריאה כידוע. ושכר זה כתוב בתורה עד אין מספר ושכנתי בתוכם ולא תגעל נפשי וכו’…. This position is striking on its own terms, and all the more so when you consider that the Vilna Gaon spent much of his life cloistered in an attic and immersed in Torah, sleeping only a few hours a day (for 30 minutes at a time) and barely eating!

Rav Kook on the Siddur – A New Resource

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away (a.k.a. Shanah Aleph), I crossed paths with a very special teacher named Rav Mike Feuer. I’m pleased to announce that Rabbi Feuer has translated the prefaces of Olat Re’iah, Rav Kook’s commentary on the siddur. The fully annotated translation is available for free on Sefaria. While many of Rav Kook’s teachings are esoteric or abstract, all of us pray, which makes Rav Kook’s teachings in Olat Re’iah uniquely relevant to a broader audience.

As an FYI, Rabbi Feuer has other unique Torah content available at http://jewishstory.co and https://www.ravmike.com/

The Holiness of Beauty – Part 2

The following story is recounted by Hermann Struck (1876-1944), who is considered one of the outstanding early 20th-century artists in Germany. Struck was born to an Orthodox family and remained an observant Jew his entire life – an extraordinary rarity for someone with artistic tendencies during this period in Jewish history. Among his students was Marc Chagall.

The picture above is from Yitzchok Moully, a very special artist (contemporary) whose art I think embodies the best and the holiest of what Rav Kook believed art could be. Check out more of his creations at https://moullyart.com.

I went up to Jerusalem and visited the Rav. He received me warmly. Apparently, he had heard about my activities in Poland and Russia during World War I, when I served as a special officer for Jewish affairs on the staff of the invading German army. The conversation quickly turned to the topic of art; and I – the professor of art – suddenly saw myself as a student sitting before his master, listening with admiration to his comprehensive knowledge.

When the Rav began talking about the place of art in universal culture, I thought to myself, “It is, indeed, fascinating that this great Torah scholar knows about such matters, but that must be part of his broad knowledge of general philosophy,” of which I was already aware. However, when he went on to discuss – effusively – the art of painting, even relating to great and famous painters and their artistic genres, I was completely amazed. When and how did he attain such wide-ranging proficiency and such subtle distinctions in this complex discipline? Suddenly, I realized that this great rabbi sees all; his poetic soul is open to the entire range of artistic expression, and his brilliant grasp encompasses all of its varying approaches. He is also able to define and find precise terminologies to describe its most unique approaches.

During that broad conversation, which lasted much longer than I had expected, the Rav did not lose sight of me. He had a special request of me. He asked me to devote more of my energies to painting the scenery of Eretz Yisrael. “As an artist,” he said, “you have an important mission. You must reveal the beauty, grace, and sanctity of our Holy Land. You must depict historical sites which, when seen, will inspire Jews to love the Land and yearn for its hills and valleys.” The Rav concluded with a blessing: “May the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who bestowed wisdom upon Betzalel and Oholiav for the purpose of building the Mishkan, continue to bestow wisdom upon anyone whose artistic talents are devoted to the Jewish nation and its land.”

An Angel Among Men, by Simcha Raz (pg. 410-411)

The Holiness of Beauty – Parshat Terumah

Image result for keruvim

A printable PDF is available here.

Translation (Ein Ayah, Berachot 51a):

A spiritually complete life is not meant to be devoid of joy. On the contrary, God created the experience of joy as a means of drawing man toward the splendor of wisdom and ethical conduct. How does one attain this joy? It is by contemplating the majesty and beauty of God’s creation in its totality. King David expressed this point in two Psalms about the splendor of the natural world, proclaiming “[Y]ou have gladdened me by Your handiwork,” [1] and “You are attired with majesty and beauty.” [2]

It follows that we are not merely permitted to make use of beauty in our religious service, but commanded to do so. For this reason, the Temple, the place from which Divine light and pure wisdom emanate, was designed with a profound sensitivity to aesthetic beauty. [3] And in the Holy of Holies, the most sacred space of the entire Temple, rested two keruvim meticulously crafted with a human visage. Clearly, aesthetic beauty has tremendous sacred value, provided that it is consecrated and kept within suitable boundaries.

However, there is an obvious problem with the notion that the keruvim testify to the Torah’s regard for beauty. How is it reconciled with the prohibition [4] against making any sculpture [5] of the human form? And this is not a ‘minor’ or technical restriction, but part of the Torah’s framework for purging society of idolatry! That seems to suggest that aesthetics is null and void in the Torah’s hierarchy of values, that it belongs to the realm of impurity.

The answer is that despite its tremendous spiritual value, beauty is not an unmitigated good. Many people become trapped in externals and allow beauty to compromise their wisdom and ethical sense. Indeed, the polished surface of aesthetic refinement often conceals a lust for pleasure and material gratification. Many nations became intoxicated with aesthetic pursuits and thereafter fell into moral and ethical corruption. This danger is why the Torah prohibits making images of human forms. However, such danger is only present in the “borderlands” outside of the Temple (lit. בגבולים), where man confronts an admixture of kodesh and chol. But within the Temple, aesthetics is sanctified and purified by the Temple’s holiness. In the holiest place of the entire Temple – nay, the holiest place in the entire universe, God can demand that beauty be given its rightful place.

Thus, we falsify the Torah if we construct our ideology of beauty solely upon the prohibition against making images. The keruvim teach us that beauty is a valued servant in God’s panoply of creation, a ladder for us to climb upwards toward higher levels of refinement and closeness to God. “And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east, and its sound was like the sound of abundant waters, and the earth shone from His glory.” [6]

Commentary

Rav Kook writes that beauty is meant to draw man “toward the splendor of wisdom and ethical conduct.” How exactly does this work? While Rav Kook does not elaborate, I think the best explanation is given by Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, in an essay on Channukah:

Hellenistic thought… aims to develop, through joy in knowledge and pleasure in all that is noble, harmony and beauty as weapons to suppress brutish outbursts of passion. It makes him responsible to himself, and expects him to ennoble himself by self-control, by doing away with all that is evil and vulgar, attributes that disturb the divine harmony in character and in sentiment, in speech and in deed…. By measuring sensual beauty as a standard for self-perfection which develops nobleness of character, it fosters a loathing of the vulgar as a mortal danger to morality. The Hellenistic spirit appeals to the Godly spark in the human breast and encourages the human mind to perfect his self-perception, to the recognition of the greatness of intellectual pursuit and science, and guarantees man’s spirit of individual freedom… Not for naught did God clothe the world with the garment of beauty, formed the law of harmony into shapes and sounds, and opened the eyes and ears of mankind to grasp these harmonies and to enjoy them intellectually and spiritually. Every perception of the loftiness as demonstrated by a star-studded sky, by the rays of the rising or setting sun, every joy experienced by the grace and beauty of a flower elevates man to the level of lofty concepts and ideals. [7]

Chances are that you’re reading this on Shabbat. Did you know that according to Radak, Shabbat is an opportunity to appreciate the beauty of the natural world? That’s based on the following comment of Radak to Psalm 92, which is introduced as מזמור שיר ליום השבת, despite having no ostensible connection whatsoever to the Sabbath day. On the verse “You have gladdened me with the work of your hands” (also cited by Rav Kook above!), Radak explains that King David is saying “On Shabbat, when I am freed from the burdens of the workweek, I have the opportunity to contemplate the natural world and its fullness on Shabbat, and that brings me joy.” [8]

Many scientists maintain that homo sapiens emerged through a random, unguided process of evolution and natural selection. They are extremely troubled by humanity’s aesthetic sense and appreciation for beauty, which seem utterly devoid of evolutionary value. In fact, there exists an entire sub-discipline of evolutionary biology – known as evolutionary aesthetics – whose goal is to make sense of this dilemma. Perhaps this ‘problem’ supports Rav Kook’s theory about the spiritual purpose of beauty. To quote Rav Hirsch again, “Man is the only creature endowed with a capacity for enjoying beauty. This shows the importance of the aesthetic sense for the moral mission of man.” [9]

In the piece above, Rav Kook deals with what seems like a glaring contradiction in the Torah’s perspective on beauty. One could have taken an all-or-nothing approach and simply ‘explained away’ the sources that contradict the preferred extreme. Instead, he formulates an approach that embraces the complexity of the contradiction. He grants legitimacy and profound spiritual value to beauty, while still acknowledging its dangers. We should strive to emulate this approach anytime we come across competing values and priorities in Torah, whether it be between bein adam l’chaveiro and bein adam l’makom, universalism and particularity, peace and truth, etc. Instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, we should – to borrow a phrase from Rav Kook in a different context – build the palace of Torah above the apparent contradictions.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

If beauty is a Torah value like Rav Kook asserts, how should we understand the pasuk in Eishet Chayil [10] that “Charm is worthless and beauty is fleeting; a God-fearing woman is to be praised”? (If you’re interested in the Vilna Gaon’s answer, which fits beautifully (pun intended) with Rav Kook, see the footnote.) [11]
Are there other areas of Jewish life that are fraught with danger and bounded by prohibitions, but still fundamentally part of the “Holy of Holies”? [12]
What are some legitimate venues to express appreciation for beauty in a healthy and spiritual manner? Does the Orthodox Jewish community do enough to provide those outlets? If not, what can we do differently?
What might Rav Kook’s insights about beauty teach us on how we approach tzniut?

Additional Resources and Food For Thought

The Torah emphasizes that some of our holiest ancestors – Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Yosef – were quite beautiful. For an extraordinary shiur on how to understand this point – and the Torah’s perspective on beauty in general – check out this shiur by Rabbi Jonathan Ziring.
If you’re interested in slightly different takes on the spiritual value of beauty, see articles hereand here (both from Aish haTorah) and here (from Tablet Magazine).
Earlier, we included two quotes from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Aside from Rav Kook, Rabbi Hirsch is one of the view Torah thinkers with a positive regard for the value of beauty and aesthetics. He believed that centuries of exile and persecution had created an unnatural separation between Torah and life, a casualty of which was a disregard for beauty. As he writes, “The high, dark walls of the ghetto had prevented the Jews from seeing the blue skies and the wonders of nature… Happy the generation that had lived to see the exodus from the darkness of the ghetto into the light of liberty, that had been granted the opportunity to widen the borders of the kingdom of the Torah to include the world of thought and action from which the Torah had been barred by the harsh conditions of galut.” [13]
If you’re interested in a comprehensive academic overview of Judaism and the visual arts, check out this article, or this article at VBM if you’d like something shorter.
Rav Kook is far from the first Jewish thinker to address the seemingly problematic nature of the keruvim. For other approaches, check out these shiurim at YUTorah.comand this thought provoking video by Rabbi David Fohrman at AlephBeta.

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 shorter, 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 Ayah on Masechet Shabbat is available from WebYeshiva.

[1] Tehillim 92:5.

[2] Tehillim 104:1.

[3] In the Hebrew, Rav Kook alludes to Gemara Zevachim 54b, which refers to the Temple as נויו של עולם, lit. “the beauty of the world.” See also Tehillim 50:2.מציון מכלל יופי אלוקים הופיע –

[4] According to the Sages, this prohibition is latent with the very keruvim themselves! They teach that constructing the keruvim out of the wrong material or making more than two of them is regarded as making an idol. See Rashi on Shemot 20:19.

[5] Although poskim disagree on whether it is prohibited to make two-dimensional representations of the human form, it is universally agreed that three-dimensional sculptures are prohibited. For an excellent English summary of this topic, see this article by Rabbi Michoel Zylberman.

[6] Yechezkel 43:2.

^[7] Collected Writings, Vol. II, pg. 202.

^[8] בהתבונני בפעליך ובמעשה ידיך שהוא העולם ואשר בו ביום השבת שיש לי פנאי להתבונן בו אז אשמח וזהו חכמת הטבע, וכשאתבונן בה… אשמח וארנן בלבי. For what it’s worth, I once read someone suggest that this is where the practice of taking walks on Shabbat developed.

[9] Commentary on the Torah, Bereishit 2:9.

[10] Proverbs 31:30.

[11] According to the Vilna Gaon (Commentary on Mishlei), the verse means that beauty is worthless if that is a woman’s only praiseworthy trait. But a woman who is God-fearing deserves praise for her beauty as well.

[12] Well, apparently you couldn’t resist cheating and had to peek at this footnote. The Holy of Holies is referred to as the חדר המיטות (lit. the bedroom) – see Rashi to Melachim Aleph 11:2-3. Our Sages also teach that the keruvim (!) embraced each other intimately like husband and a wife. See Gemara Yoma 54a-b. והמבין יבין ויוסף לקח.

[13] Collected Writings, Vol. VII, pg. 12-13.

The Law of the Spirit – Parshat Mishpatim

Printable PDF version available here.

Translation (Orot, 3:3): [1]

The center of life of the soul of Israel is in the source of holiness. Through truth and faith we were born and thereby we grow. We do not have disparate values; unity rests in us and the light of the One Lord lives within us. The laws, laws of the Living God’s Torah, distinguish us from every other nation. Holiness is at work on us internally, the great aspirations of our life are directed to it. There are inklings of holiness in every nation, but not all their life-values stem therefrom. This is not so in Israel. “In all of your ways know Him,” that small passage that encompasses the entire corpus of Torah, which is actualized by rare individuals, is actually the inheritance of all (Israel). Every life’s aspiration and life’s desire – acquisition, wealth, honor, dominion, expansion – in Israel flow from the source of holiness.

Therefore the laws are holy-of-holies in Israel… Moses our Teacher, of blessed memory, upon grasping the power of the law when it was first instituted in the nation, uplifted all the values of law until the end of generations, to the divine content to which the laws of Israel reach, and the search for God came together with Israelite jurisprudence. “When the people will come to me to seek God, when they will have a matter come to me, I shall judge between a man and his neighbor. And I shall make known the laws of God and His precepts.” [2] The God-quest of Law has remained an Israelite treasure, which is manifest in the divine character that encompasses eternity, and shines forth in the Land of Israel, [3] the land of His portion, the place of light of the holy treasure.

Christianity abandoned law, rooted herself in apparent mercy and love that undermines the world and destroys it. By emptying law of its divine content, it becomes seized by the grossest wickedness. The poison invades the private law of the individual and spreads through the souls of nations, becoming the foundation of national hatred and the depth of evil of bloodshed, without removing the yoke from man’s neck. The eyes of all must be lifted to the light of the world, the light of the Lord, which will be revealed through the Messiah of the God of Jacob. “And He shall judge earth righteously, nations justly.”[4]

Commentary

Many think that the main differences between Judaism and Christianity are theological. We believe in one God, they believe in a Trinity. We believe God is incorporeal, they believe He took human form. We maintain that the messianic redemption has yet to come, they believe it has already arrived. Rav Kook takes a very different approach. What distinguishes Judaism from Christianity is halacha, our focus on law. Every dimension of individual and communal life is guided, addressed and legislated by an intricate system of obligations and restrictions. We are so used to this that we tend to forget how unique it is. Consider the following incident recounted by Rabbi Chaim Saiman, a contemporary Orthodox rabbi, about a class he gave to a Christian audience:[5]

The topic of the lecture was how the rabbis read the Bible…. After a short discussion, I told the group that the Talmudic rabbis maintain that the first “commandment for generations” (applicable beyond Adam and Eve) was to “[b]e fruitful and multiply.” The group nodded in approval, and I sensed we were then on the same page. Next, I asked a simple, almost inevitable, question from a Talmudic perspective, but one deeply foreign to my audience.

Me: “How many?” Group: “How many what?” Me: “How many children?” Group: “What do you mean, how many children?” At this point I realized that we reached a bit of a brick wall, so I backed up. Me: “Do you believe the Bible is the word of God that expresses His Will?” Group: “Yes.” Me: “Do you believe you have to follow it?” Group: “Yes.” Me: “Well, then how do you know when you have done it? How do you know when you have been sufficiently fruitful?”

Again, blank stares from the audience. It was clear that the last question produced some discomfort. I proceeded to explain that when the rabbis read the Bible, they look to put it into practice, to operationalize it. Thus, most of their questions, and the rabbinic discourse as a whole, look to define the nature and scope of various provisions in the Bible and Talmud. And much like a good law professor, the rabbis dream up some rather bizarre hypotheticals to test the limits of each rule. When the rabbis read the verse “be fruitful and multiply,” they immediately attempt to define the properties and scope of this commandment, or mitzvah. [H]ow many children are required to fulfill the Biblical command[?]…. What if the children were capable of reproducing at birth, but sustained genital defects later in life? Must a couple have more children if the first set of children die? If the deceased children themselves had children, are the grandchildren counted in lieu of their parents?

Not surprisingly, at this point I was beginning to lose the group. I got the bug-eyed, “you’ve got to be kidding,” expression from nearly everyone…” I then paused, saying, “Let’s leave the rabbinic answers to these questions for now, but let me hear how in your tradition, you reason towards the answers. Surely you want to fulfill the word of God, so how do you know when you have done it?”

The most obvious and telling response was the ensuing silence. The uneasy quiet indicated that the group had never thought to break down this question into the level of detail found in the Talmud. The command was not conceptualized as binding or operational in quite the direct way the rabbis assumed. While all agreed that the Biblical directives are binding, in the churchgoers’ minds the Biblical commandments took on a less concrete form. The assembled group did not interpret the verses as having the same degree of presentness and immediacy as assumed by the rabbis.

Many basic principles of our hashkafaare rooted in the centrality of law, a fact that is noted not only by Rav Kook, but other modern thinkers as well. The quotes below are from R. Eliezer Berkovits, who gives an extraordinary analysis of this point in God, Man and History:

In giving law to man, God affirms his dignity. A concept of original sin is not just foreign to the Torah, but a contradiction to its very system. “[The law] is an expression of God’s continued concern with man. That God commands man is the proof that he considers man. The law represents the highest affirmation of man, as well as his crowning dignity. By giving man the law, his Maker declares: I do care how he lives and what he does with his life. Charging him with the law, God testifies, as it were, that man is man enough to live under. The law is the sign that God has a measure of conﬁdence in man. The command of God implies the encouragement: I order you because I know you can do it.” (God, Man and History, pg. 89-90)
Divine law is not impossibly harsh and unforgiving, as Jesus maintained. It alone guides man to ethical and loving conduct, while a religion of the spirit inevitably gives rise to unthinkable evil. “This, indeed, is the noble formula for the historic bankruptcy of all “natural,” as well as “spiritual,” religions. The invisible service of God is the prerogative. of invisible creatures. When man adopts such service for himself, he makes the dualism of his nature itself a religion. He will expect …[sentiment] and noble intentions of the soul, and will readily forgive the profanity of the body; he will have God “in his heart” and some devil directing his actions. He will serve God on the Sabbath and himself the rest of the week. He will worship like angelic being in the speciﬁed places of worship and follow his self—regarding impulses everywhere else.” (God, Man and History, pg. 125)
A ‘spiritual’ religion is an irreconcilable contradiction to human nature. “The spirit itself is powerless; it may act only in union with the vital or “material” forces in the cosmos. No one has ever accomplished anything by merely contemplating an idea. All conscious action is the result of some form of cooperation between the mind and the body. Matter whatever its ultimate secret without the mind is inanity; mind without matter is, at best, noble impotence. Power by itself is purposeless; purpose on its own is powerless… What the idealism of numerous religions and philosophies overlooks is that man without a body is as little to be considered human as man without a soul… [M]an is a composite being, consisting of mind and matter, of soul and body. That God made him that way means that he has to make sense of his He in the form in which he was granted life. Any rejection of the body is a rejection of man himself of man as God created him for the tasks of this world. (God, Man and History, pg. 107, 120)

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Do you agree with Rav Kook and Rabbi Berkovits that the primary difference between Judaism and Christianity relates to law, as opposed to theology?
Have you ever had an experience like Rabbi Chaim Saiman, where you had to explain the concept of a halacha to a non-Jewish friend of colleague?
Rabbi Berkovits lists a number of hashkafic ramifications of the Torah’s focus on law. Can you think of any others?

About this Piece

Orot is a collection of essays, many analyzing Israel’s national rebirth. It was first published in Rav Kook’s lifetime, in 1920. It contains many provocative and complex insights. Rav Kook’s son referred to it as the “Holy of Holies” compared to Rav Kook’s other works. The Hebrew in Orotis extremely difficult, but an excellent English translation has been published by Bezalel Naor.

[1] Translated by Bezalel Naor, in Orot (Maggid, 2015).

[2] Shemot 18:15-16.

[3] Rav Kook is referring to the halacha that semikhah, which entitles one to serve in the Sanhedrin, can only be given in the Land of Israel. True semikhah involves an uninterrupted chain of transmission from Moshe, and has been defunct for many centuries. When we refer to contemporary rabbinic ordination as semikhah, we are using a borrowed term.

[4] Tehillim 9:9.

[5] Rabbi Chaim Saiman, Jesus’ Legal Theory, Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 23, No. 1 (2007/2008), pg. 102-104. Rabbi Saiman has written an excellent book-length treatment of this subject.