Printable PDF available here.

Translation (Orot,Orot haTechiya ):[1]

Whatever encompasses existence in all of its levels – by exerting a spiritual, ethical and holy influence – requires utmost purity. This is why we find the greatest emphasis on purity in the context of the Mikdash and the sacrificial order. These areas implicate the most lofty, sublime intellect but also the lower realms of blood and flesh, imagination and feeling. For these lower rungs, connected to the overall totality by a living bond, an exacting purity is required. They cannot be co-opted outright into Divine service.

Conversely, when the service of the Jewish people is more rarified and abstract, the details of practical purity are less necessary. After all, when the intellect is the driving force, Godly consciousness creates a fount of spiritual purity that raises up the lower realms as well. As Yirmiyahu[2]proclaims “‘Is not my word as fire?’ declares the Lord.” From here our Sages[3]derive that just as fire does not become impure, so too words of Torah cannot become impure, and so a בעל קרי is permitted to engage in Torah study.

The relationship between Divine service of the intellect and the lower realms of emotion, imagination and physicality is not static. We know that each individual has different spiritual tendencies, but the same is true of different generations as well. Different times in Jewish history have varying emphases. Latter-day Hasidism[4]turned to feeling and imagination more than to reason and action, and for this reason, stepped up the demand for bodily purity.[5]

Much earlier in Jewish history, when the Jewish people returned to Eretz Yisrael and rebuilt the Second Temple, we find that Ezra enacted a decree prohibiting a בעל קרי from engaging in Torah study until after immersion in a mikveh.[6][This decree was subsequently repealed and is no longer binding.] The timing of this decree was not happenstance. In the nascent period of the Second Temple, Ezra sought to to connect the Jewish people to the realm of the sacred and the Temple, and so purity was stressed.

But the Second Temple was destroyed. Exile impoverished the emotive and imaginative abilities, together with life’s strength and aesthetic peace. What remains is the influence of the intellect, with its abstract spiritual tendencies, combined with action. The place of the intermediate spiritual rungs – feeling and bodily proclivity – remained empty. As one of our piyutim laments,“The holy city, its sites and delights are scorned and destroyed. Nothing remains but this Torah.”[7]

For much of exile, precise purity no longer was obligatory and remained an idealistic longing, a concept of sanctity and piety reserved for individuals. Then modern Hasidism arrived and sought to implant it in the masses. Understandably there is a healthy kernel here that requires expansion and development. It is especially worthy of expansion at the time of the national renascence in the Land of Israel – in conjunction with the expanded immersion in spirituality, motivated by a healthy spiritual thirst to make healthy the whole nation and the root of its soul with all of its living quality, bodily purity being one of its strengths. Indeed, the Torah itself indicates that purity is of the greatest importance in matters of the collective:

When you go forth as a camp against your enemies, keep yourself from every evil thing. If there be among you a man that is not pure by reason of a nocturnal occurrence, he shall depart from the camp, he shall not enter within the camp. For the Lord your God goes about in the midst of your camp, to save you and to place your enemy before you, therefore your camp must be holy, that He see no unseemly thing in you and retreat from you. (Devarim 23:10)

Wherever the collective strength of Israel burgeons, there must immediately join with it a reinforcement of bodily and emotive purity. All these prepare a basis for a living, organic state of being, which encompasses the entire renascence, from the beginning of the highest abstraction to the end of the jubilation of life and its thunderous power. “I will bestow beauty in the Land of the Living [i.e. Eretz Yisrael].”[8]

[1]Largely taken from Bezalel Naor’s translation of Orot (Maggid Publishers, 2015).

[2]23:29.

[3]Gemara Berachot, 22a.

[4]Bezalel Naor notes that Rav Kook’s term for the Chasidic movement founded by the Ba‘al Shem Tov is meant to distinguish it from the movement of the medieval German pietists (most notably R. Judah haChasid of Regensburg), referred to as Chasidei Ashkenaz.

[5]Bezalel Naor notes the emphasis placed by the Chasidic movement on daily immersion in a mikvah. While this is definitely part of what Rav Kook has in mind, I think he is addressing Chasidut’s more general emphasis on conducting all physical activities with a spirit of holiness, and finding godliness in every aspect of being – and not just in Torah study.

[6]This decree was subsequently repealed and is no longer binding. However, there are halachic sources which indicate that continued observance of the decree is meritorious.

[7]העיר הקודש והמחוזות, היו לחרפה ולבזות. וכל מחמדיה טבועות וגנוזות, ואין שיור רק התורה הזאת.

[8]Yechezkel 26:20.

Commentary

This piece from Rav Kook is fascinating on its own terms, but even more so for the underlying premise. Rav Kook understands that avodat Hashem is not static and unchanging. Different periods of history can place an emphasis on different modalities or types of service. In Eretz Yisrael, more of an emphasis is placed on feeling and imagination, and hence the need for purity is greater. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, Judaism is primarily focused on the intellect. Presumably Rav Kook means that Torah study takes on an outsize importance in exile. But it seems like Rav Kook is making a much broader point – in exile, Judaism is impoverished and lacks the healthy, organic vitality that comes with collective living in Eretz Yisrael. It is only in Eretz Yisrael that one’s “emotive and imaginative abilities” can flourish and actualize themselves in every area of life.

While one can certainly disagree with this conclusion, I think it’s undeniable that the balance of the spiritual creativity and vitality in today’s Torah world comes out of Eretz Yisrael. Dynamic individuals and communities in Eretz Yisrael are creating (or at least striving to create) Jewish literature, music and even dance – and not merely literature, music and dance that happens to be created by Jews. They are developing new forms of Torah literature and innovative methods of education. I humbly submit that Jewish communities of Chutz L’Aretzstand much to gain by immersing themselves in the refreshing waters of Torat Eretz Yisraelto the greatest extent they are able. It seems like we spend far too much energy on consolidating our gains, building higher fences or arguing about whether something is ‘Orthodox’ or not. That is not to say those endeavors are not valuable, only that our efforts need to be properly calibrated. There is a wealth of spiritual vitality in Eretz Yisrael, only a plane flight or a few clicks away, and I think we’re missing out.

Also fascinating is the way Rav Kook conceptualizes of Chasidut as a meta-historic phenomenon, i.e. a retreat of the Jewish people from abstract intellectual matters and a renewed emphasis on emotion, imagination and bodily purity. Rav Kook asserts that this tendency is necessary and appropriate for the return of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisrael. If you read between the lines, it seems like Rav Kook is saying that Chasidut and Zionism both draw from the same root, which is a fascinating and provocative notion. At the very least, it can’t be a coincidence that these two movements sprung to life at concurrent periods in Jewish history….

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Rav Kook understands that different periods of history can place an emphasis on different modalities or types of avodat Hashem. What do you think is the dominant modality of our generation?
2. How do we determine what is the dominant form of avodat Hashem in any particular generation? Is the notion of change or evolution in this area a dangerous one, since it could lead to tampering with fundamentals of Jewish law, belief or custom?
3. Rav Kook writes that in exile, “what remains [of Judaism] is the influence of the intellect, with its abstract spiritual tendencies, combined with action.” What exactly do you think this means? How does being outside of Eretz Yisrael and without a Mikdash shift the emphasis away from emotion, imagination and bodily purity?
4. Do you agree with my contention that Jewish life in Eretz Yisrael is more vibrant? Why or why not?

–

Printable PDF available here.

The beginning of Parshat Tazria teaches that a woman who has just given birth must bring a korban– specifically, an olah and a sin-offering. This concept has puzzled many of the great Torah commentators,[1] especially the requirement of a sin-offering. What has this new mother done wrong? Why is bringing new life into the world anything other than a pure, unrequited source of joy?

A second question relates to a teaching of our Sages in Gemara Shabbat (51a) and Yoma (9a). Sefer Shmuel describes the sons of Eli (the Kohen Gadol) and their service in the Mishkan at Shiloh. Eli’s sons abused their position by forcibly taking their sacrificial portions. Their worst sin, according to the reports reaching the ears of their father, was that “they slept with the women who gathered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”[2] The Gemara cautions against taking this verse literally,[3] and explains that they failed to promptly offer the birth-offerings. This indirectly prevented the women from returning home, because they didn’t trust the kohanim and would remain in Shiloh until they personally confirmed that their offerings were complete. Since the inattentiveness of Eli’s sons caused these women to be unnecessarily separated from their husbands, the verse refers to their irresponsible behavior as if they had slept with them. Why was it specifically this offering that fell into neglect? Our Sages also teach that this sorry affair caused the eventual destruction of the Mishkan in Shiloh. But what about the birth-offerings gives them such gravitas?

The answer to these questions takes us to the very root of Divine service, which is inseparably connected to the sanctity of life. Although we usually associate the sanctity of life with the prohibition against murder,[4] it is more than just a theoretical basis for a ‘do not.’ The sanctity of life is an imperative. Life, in all of its aspects, in its pinnacles and its crises, must draw upon its supernal Source, the Creator of all life. And even though life also includes times of trouble and distress, an unceasing Divine holiness reverberates within. No matter how deep the darkness, reaching out to G-d will restore light and natural joy, splendor and rejuvenation, nobility and grace.

The birth of a child is a wonderful occasion, bringing new life and joy to the family. But the birthing experience itself is a challenging one, involving great pain and suffering.[5] Granted, these travails are not in the forefront of the new mother’s mind, and her consciousness is suffused with joy over the new life she has brought into the world. But deep down, the difficult impressions and feelings that result from her suffering remain. Indeed, the pain of childbirth is not just a biological phenomenon, but a spiritual one, rooted in the ancient sin of Chavah and the beginnings of humanity. The birth-offering allows the new mother to elevate the birthing experience. She rectifies the shortcomings caused by the rebellious tendencies of the human heart, and finds her soul uplifted in feelings of love for the greatness of the Creator of all life, who Himself overflows with love for all of his creations.

Thus, the birth-offerings, more than any other korban, express the inseparable connection between the Temple service and our moral intuition (lit.מוסר האנושי הטהור) that life, in all of its fulness, is intrinsically good. But Eli’s children lost sight of this. There was no room in their hearts for the concerns of the masses, nor for their emotions and their struggles. Life and the moral intuitions that reside in every pure heart – these they regarded with contempt. In their mistaken arrogance, Eli’s children regarded the Temple service as an end of itself, and viewed their priesthood as an entitlement to parade over the people. This is why our Sages teach that they specifically neglected the birth-offerings. The birth-offerings epitomize the harmony between the Temple service and sanctification of life. They encapsulate the foundation of the entire avodah – that life, harmony and peace in family life are all desired by G-d.

But Eli’s children had lost sight of this. Thus, our Sages teach that the neglect of the birth-offerings resulted in the destruction of the Mishkan in Shiloh. The absence of ethical sensitivity, the lack of integrity and compassion, the artificial divide between life and morality and the Temple service – all of this meant that the Mishkan was permeated with moral decay and no longer served its purpose. The result was not a punishment, but simply an acknowledgement by G-d that it suffered from a corruption that only destruction could correct.

Food For Thought [6]

“Judaism is in love with life, for it knows that life is G-d’s great question to mankind; and the way a man lives, what he does with his life, the meaning he is able to implant in it—is man’s reply. Actual life is the partner to the spirit; without the one the other is meaningless. The teachings of the Torah can therefore reveal their real sense only when there is a concrete reality to which they are applied. On the one hand we have Torah, trying to give shape to the raw material of life which is so reluctant and evasive; on the other, each bit of Torah-shaped life: In social institutions, in economic arrangements, in the relations between man and his neighbors, in the street and in the market as well as in the places of worship —living Torah, acting on the very intentions of Sinai. For just as Torah shapes life, so does Torah-shaped life, in its turn, direct and thus unfold Torah, It is as if the Torah were using its own experiences, to set the: course of its development. And in each new phase, it strives again to fashion our lives, which, once refashioned, will again inform the meaning of the teaching as it has been previously revealed. And so on to eternity: Torah leading life, and Torah-led life unfolding Torah…

Ever wonder where Eli’s children got their mindset from? Consider the following: [7]

• Eli’s response to the evil reports about his children (Shmuel Aleph, 2:24-25): “No, my sons, for the rumor which I hear the Lord’s people spreading, is not good.If man will sin to man, the judge will judge him. If, however, he will sin against G-d, who will intercede in the judgment in his behalf?” Does that sound right to you? Is that what we believe? (See Mishnah Yoma 8:7, and Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 506:1).
• Eli’s reaction to the terrible events decreed as G-d’s punishment (Shmuel Aleph 4:18): “And the one who had reported the news, answered and said, ‘Israel fled before the Philistines, and also there was a great slaughter among the people, and also your two sons perished, Chofni and Pinchas and the Ark of G-d was taken.’ And it was, when he mentioned the Ark of G-d, that he (Eli) fell off the chair backward through the gate opening, and his neck broke and he died, because the man was old and weighty and he had judged Israel for forty years.” Two of his children just died and Jewish soldiers have been massacred – but what causes him to topple over in shock?
• “And his daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was with child, ready to give birth, and she heard the news concerning the taking of the Ark of G-d, and that her father-in-law and her husband had died. And she knelt and gave birth, for her pains had suddenly come upon her…. And she called the child Ichabod (lit. אי–כבוד), saying, “Glory (lit. כבוד) has been exiled from Israel, because the Ark of G-d has been taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband.”(Shmuel Aleph 4:19, 21) Read her words closely – what does she seem more concerned about, the loss of the Ark or the death of her father-in-law and husband?

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Rav Kook asserts that the sanctity of life is a fundamental value in Judaism. Are there any mitzvot or practices we have that you think express this idea?
2. אחד מי יודעis one of the piyutim we read at the Pesach seder. Pull out your Haggadah and see if you can pick out one stanza that doesn’t seem to fit, but which Rav Kook’s insights may explain.
3. What change can you make in your own day-to-day existence to be more aware of the sanctity of life?
4. The sanctity of life is one ethical intuition, but there are many others. How do we know when we can rely on our ethical intuitions? Can’t they lead us astray?

[1]Rabbi Jonathan Sacks summarizes the most well-known answers in his Covenant & Conversation for this week. In no particular order: (i) the offerings recall the sin of Eve and her punishment (Rabbeinu Bachye, Kli Yakar); (ii) during the anguish of labor, a woman may have thought or expressed ideas that were sinful or that she now regrets (such as vowing not to have future relations with her husband) (Ibn Ezra); (iii) the sacrifices are a kind of “ransom” or relief offering for having survived the dangers of childbirth, as well as a form of prayer for a full recovery (Ramban); (iv) the woman has been intensely focused on the physical processes accompanying childbirth. She needs both time and the bringing of an offering to rededicate her thoughts to G-d and matters of the spirit (Sforno); the burnt offering is like an olat re’iya, an offering brought when appearing at the Temple on festivals, following the injunction, “Do not appear before Me empty- handed” (Ex. 23:15). The woman celebrates her ability to appear before G-d at the Temple (Meshech Chochmah).

[2]Shmuel Aleph, Perek 2:22.

[3]However, see Chiddushei haRitva in Yoma, who notes that some Tannaim may actually interpret their sin literally.

[4]“One who spills another’s blood, by others his blood shall be shed, because G-d created man in his image.” (Bereishit 9:5) In contemporary society, the concept of ‘sanctity of life’ is often invoked regarding abortion.

[5]Rav Moshe Lichtenstein notes– “According to Rabbinic thinking throughout the ages, the attitude to a pregnant woman, and even more so to a woman giving birth, is that it is a situation in which the woman’s life is in danger (חולה שיש בו סכנה). In the wake of advances in medical devices and technology, we have come to forget that the woman is in mortal danger. In the past, many women died during childbirth. We know this already from the matriarch Rachel, who died in childbirth after bearing her second son, Binyamin. That which is so self-evident to us today is actually a series of great miracles and kindnesses that we must remember and gratefully acknowledge each and every moment.”

[6]From Rav Eliezer Berkowitz, cited in the “Faith and Freedom Passover Haggadah,” pg. 47-78.

[7]All of these insights are taken from R. Benny Lau’s fantastic and highly-recommended book שמואל – בקדוש חזיתיך.