Zealotry and Holy Savlanut – Parshat Pinchas

Printable PDF available here.

Midot haRe’iah (ערך סבלנות)

The flame of pure faith, from which life derives its majesty, can easily become dampened by tolerance for the beliefs of Jews who are outside the fold (lit. סבלנות בדעות). However, when tolerance comes from a pure and refined heart, this danger is not present. On the contrary, the sacred flame of faith expands and is magnified.

This is because true tolerance is bound up with ardent faith and recognition that no soul can be entirely devoid of the light of holiness. The vitality of the Living G-d[1] (lit. אלוקים חיים) permeates every stratum of existence –even where a person’s thought and action seem to manifest only rebellion and denial. Deep within the heart and soul of every member of Israel – even those who are afflicted with kefirah and consumed by doubt – lies a holy and concealed light. True tolerance comes not from apathy or indifference, but from knowledge and faith in this holy truth.

When one who possesses sacred tolerance gazes upon all of Israel, he sees their inner charm and embraces the holiness concealed within them. As the prophet Michah proclaimed (2:12)– אָסֹף אֶאֱסֹף יַעֲקֹב כֻּלָּךְ, “I will surely gather, O Jacob, all of you.”

Orot haKodesh(חלק ג, צפיה לישועה אות יג)

When ahavat Hashem reaches its highest level, it flows outward and finds expression in zealotry (lit.קנאת ה׳). Love ceases to be a passive emotional experience and becomes a dynamic, active force that impresses itself on all of dimensions of life’s existence, in both thought and action…[2]

Both Pinchas and Eliahu – who the midrash teaches were one and the same[3]–embodied this trait of kinah motivated by ahavat Hashem. However, their zeal was not simply a function of their own personal religiosity. It flowed from a spiritual power possessed by the people of Israel as a collective. Am Yisrael fiercely resists any adulteration, any attempt to tamper with its sacred heritage by introducing foreign elements.[4]G-d Himself is described as ‘a zealous G-d’ (lit. אל קנא), Who cuts down any attempt at sharing His glory with idolatry. As Moshe put it (Devarim 32:12) “So the Lord guided them alone, and there was no alien deity with Him;”ה׳ בדד ינחנו ואין עמו אל נכר.

At this point in history, Israel is not yet able to implement zealotry on an individual level. But eventual success is guaranteed, by virtue of our collective aptitude for kinat Hashem… The eventual result of this kinah, in its pure and appropriate form, will be not strife and violence, but life and peace.[5]As Isaiah proclaims (9:6) לְמַרְבֵּה הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין קֵץ עַל כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל מַמְלַכְתּוֹ לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה זֹּאת.

Food for Thought

Rav Yehuda Amital (Sichah– Is the Zeal of Pinchas to be Emulated?): In our generation the problem is that people are generally apathetic; nothing shakes their equilibrium. They view others desecrating Shabbat in public, and feel no twinge in their heart. Once I was in the United States and I saw a Christian priest on television, talking about ‘the Mother, the Son…’ etc. I was completely shaken by this kind of talk. I couldn’t listen to it. The people sitting in the room, though observant Jews, continued drinking their coffee, sensing nothing…. People become apathetic and nothing shocks them. We must feel zeal in certain areas. This does not mean that our zeal need necessarily be demonstrated outwardly – sometimes outward demonstrations only bring harm; one must know, from a halakhic point of view, when rebuke is necessary, when it is permissible, and when it is forbidden. However, all of that is only on the outside. Inside ourselves, we dare not remain apathetic. We must be zealous for God.

Sefer haTanya (Likutei Amarim, Chapter 10): For the perfectly righteous person hates whatever comes from the sitra achra with absolute hatred, by virtue of his great love for G‑d and His holiness… For the two are antithetical one to the other. Thus King David writes (Tehillim 139:21-22) “Did I not hate Your enemies, O Lord? With those who rise up against You, I quarrel. I hate them with utmost hatred, I count them my enemies. Search me and know my heart.”… Hence, according to one’s love for G‑d is the extent of one’s hatred towards the sitra achra and contempt for evil.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Covenant & Conversation 5772): Pinchas gave his name to the parsha in which Moses asks God to appoint a successor. R. Menahem Mendel, the Rebbe of Kotzk, asked why Pinchas, hero of the hour, was not appointed instead of Joshua. His answer was that a zealot cannot be a leader. That requires patience, forbearance and respect for due process. The zealots within besieged Jerusalem in the last days of the Second Temple played a significant part in the city’s destruction. They were more intent on fighting one another than the Romans outside the city walls. Nothing in the religious life is more risk-laden than zeal, and nothing more compelling than the truth God taught Elijah, that God is not to be found in the use of force but in the still, small voice that turns the sinner from sin. As for vengeance, that belongs to God alone.

Rav David Silverberg (Yeshivat Har Etzion, Virtual Beit Midrash): Numerous sources identify Pinchas with Eliyahu… the prophet during the First Commonwealth who zealously opposed the worship of Ba’al in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and even killed the prophets of Ba’al at Mount Carmel. [From t]he Midrash… [i]t appears that God criticized Eliyahu… for his zealotry in opposing the worship of Ba’al at the time of Achav and Izevel. The obvious question arises, why did God now express disapproval of Pinchas’ zealous act, after emphatically congratulating Pinchas and even promising him reward for his zealotry?

Mussar Ha-nevi’im suggests an answer by noting the different contexts of these two acts of zealotry. Pinchas’ act at Shittim occurred during Bnei Yisrael’s travels in the wilderness, when they lived a miraculous existence and were accompanied at all times by the Divine Presence… Under such conditions, Pinchas’ violent response to Zimri and Kozbi’s act was, in principle, appropriate. When Bnei Yisrael lived on an especially high spiritual level and the Divine Presence was palpable, a grievous sinful act such as the one committed by Zimri and Kozbi warranted an extreme response. In Eliyahu’s time, however, the people were very far from Torah observance and from the Divine Presence. Their condition bore little resemblance to the atmosphere of sanctity felt in the Israelite camp in the wilderness, and thus a softer and more patient approach was warranted.

This insight reminds us that different circumstances and contexts warrant different responses. Solutions used effectively in one situation are not necessarily appropriate for solving the same problem in a different situation. Eliyahu’s failure was reacting in the times of Achav and Izevel the same way Pinchas reacted in the times of Moshe Rabbenu. Every generation and set of circumstances offers its unique challenges and requires different strategies, and so measures that were appropriate at the time of Ba’al Pe’or were not necessarily appropriate at the time of Achav and Izevel.

Questions for Discussion

What are some of the dangers of religious zealotry?
Take a look at 22:13 of Sefer Yehoshua, where Pinchas figures in a major conflict between the shevatim. Does Pinchas’ conduct seem consistent or inconsistent with the way he acts in this week’s parshah?
What are some guidelines for distinguishing between healthy and unhealthy forms of religious zealotry?
What kind of people are attracted to religious zealotry?
In “Food For Thought” above, Rav Silverberg argues that religious zealotry is not appropriate in every generation. What kind of generation do you think we live in? Why?
Another place we find קנאהmentioned in the Torah is the parsha of sotah. Does that have any connection to the target of Pinchas’ zealotry?

[1]See Devarim 5:22 and 30:20; Yehoshua 3:10, and Shmuel Aleph 17:17 and 36 for examples of this appellation for G-d.

[2]At first glance, the connection Rav Kook draws between ahavat Hashem and zealotry is counterintuitive. We usually associate zealotry with anger, righteous rage and fear of G-d. Consider, however, that Avraham Avinu was the אוהב ה׳par excellence. And what zealous act did he carry out against his father’s idols? See also Tehillim 97:10 – אוהבי ה׳ שנאו רע– and the excerpt from Tanya below.

[3]There are various ways to interpret this tradition. Some take it literally and maintain that Pinchas and Eliahu were literally the same person, and that Pinchas lived an extraordinarily long life. Others maintain that the midrash is pointing out a spiritual connection (or a gilgul neshamot, to use kabbalistic terminology) between the two of them.

[4]Rav Kook cites the liturgy of the brit milah in which Eliahu is referred to מלאך הברית. This is based on the Zohar’s teaching that Eliahu’s spirit attends every brit milah performed by the Jewish people. Interestingly, Rav Kook seems to learn that this is not a punishment/rebuke for Eliahu’s claim to G-d that ‘כי עזבו את בריתך,’ as is usually understood. Rather, Eliahu attends every brit because brit milah guarantees the sacred character of the Jewish pedigree and symbolizes our unique relationship with G-d. These are exactly the values which Eliahu zealously pursued.

[5]See also the last Mishnah in Eduyot – “The Sages say that Eliahu will come neither to distance [people of improper lineage] nor to bring near [people of proper lineage who have been unfairly maligned], but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Eliahu the prophet…he shall turn the hearts of fathers to children and the hearts of children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2).

Dwelling Alone, Together – Parshat Balak

Printable PDF available here.

Orot Yisrael (8:6):

For I see them from the heights of mountain peaks, and I behold them from the hills. It is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations. (Bamidbar 23:9)

The division of humanity into various nations is not arbitrary. Every nation has its own unique inclinations and perceives reality through a unique perspective. And all of these are incorporated within Israel. The Jewish People are a repository for everything that is good and holy in humankind, for every manifestation of the צלם אלוקים. As we read in the Song of Ha’azinu, “When the Most High gave nations their lot, when He separated the sons of man, He set up the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.”[1]

This unique quality of the Jewish nation is what enables us to be a “nation that dwells alone.” Many interpretations have been given to this appellation. Rashi says it means that Jews are indestructible. Ibn Ezra says it means that they don’t assimilate. Ramban says it means that they maintain their own integrity. But there is a deeper explanation as well. Only because the Jewish people contain all of humanity’s spiritual aptitudes are they capable of “dwelling alone,” i.e. in a state of spiritual independence and self-sufficiency. Unlike other nations, we have no need to seek out foreign shoots for grafting onto our national spirit, as the seeds of all spiritual potentialities are already contained within us.[2]

However, this unique quality of the Jewish nation presents a danger as well. It means that we are uniquely prone to factionalism and machloket, in a way that other nations are not. Other nations are able to formulate a discrete perspective on life and rally around its values. But Israel must express and harmonize all perspectives and all tendencies. It must give voice to all manifestations of holiness. Each of us can relate to only a portion of this totality, which can lead to friction and division with those who inevitably do not share our vision.

Only the Torah, in its mighty splendor and its consistent blueprint for conducting life’s affairs, can tame this tendency towards atomization and factionalism. The Torah’s all-encompassing Divine goodness binds everything and everyone into an integrated and all-encompassing whole. The more connected Israel is to Torah, the more it can draw blessing from the multitude of talents and perspectives of its members.

Commentary

Before G-d gives the Jewish people the Torah, there are a few short verses that articulate the Jewish destiny. One of the most famous is וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ. The concept of segulah is usually understood as referring to some qualitative uniqueness that the Jewish people possess (or acquire) by virtue of being G-d’s chosen people. Taken literally, מכל העמים thus means ‘compared to all other nations.’ But in light of Rav Kook’s insights, I think we can translate it differently – or at least offer a deeper interpretation. As many earlier commentaries point out, the word סגולה literally means a storehouse of treasure.[3]Could it be that סגולה מכל העמים means that the Jewish people will be a ‘repository for the spiritual treasures and aptitudes that G-d has distributed amongst the nations (מכל העמים)?

Food for Thought

Netziv (Ha’emek Davar, Bamdibar 23:9): For every other nation, when its people went into exile and assimilated into the dominant culture, they found acceptance and respect. With Jews, the opposite was the case. In exile, when they remained true to their faith and way of life, they found themselves able to live at peace with their gentile neighbors. When they tried to assimilate, they found themselves despised and reviled. The sentence, should therefore be read thus: “If it is a people content to be alone, faithful to its distinctive identity, then it will be able to dwell in peace. But if Jews seek to be like the nations, the nations will not consider them (לא יתחשב) worthy of respect.
Bereishit 49:28, with Rashi: “All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them and blessed them; each man, according to his blessing, he blessed them (lit. איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם).” The Torah should have said, “each man, according to his blessing, he blessed him.” Why does it say say “he blessed them”? The answer is that since Ya’akov bestowed upon Judah the might of a lion, and upon Benjamin the power to seize like a wolf, and upon Naphtali the fleetness of a gazelle, I might think that he did not include all of them in all the blessings. Therefore, the Torah states “he blessed them.”
R. Shlomo Luria/Maharshal (Introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo): One should not be astonished by the range of debate and argumentation in matters of halakhah. . . . All these views are in the category of divrei Elokim chayim as if each was received directly from Sinai through Moshe. This is so despite the fact that Moshe never projected opposing perspectives with respect to any one issue. The Kabbalists explained that the basis for this is that each individual soul was present at Sinai and received the Torah by means of the 49 paths (tzinorot). Each perceived the Torah from his own perspective in accordance with his intellectual capacity as well as the stature and unique character of his particular soul. This accounts for the discrepancy in perception inasmuch as one concluded that an object was tamei in the extreme, another perceived it to be absolutely tahor, and yet a third individual argues the ambivalent state of the object in question. All these are true and sensible views. Thus, the wise men declared that in a debate between true scholars, all positions articulated represent a form of truth.
Netziv (Ha’emek Davar, Introduction to Bereishit): The Talmud states that the Second Temple was destroyed due to baseless hatred (lit. שנאת חנם). Due to the baseless hatred in their hearts towards each other they suspected that those who disagreed with them on religious matters were Sadducees or heretics. This brought them to mistaken bloodshed and many other evils until the Temple was destroyed. This is the justification for the destruction: for God is yashar and God does not tolerate ‘tzadikkim’ like these. Rather, [God prefers] people who act in a way that is yashar even in worldly matters and not those who act crookedly even for the sake of Heaven, for such causes the destruction of creation and the annihilation of the world’s population.

Barbara Tuchman (Bible and Sword, Preface): The history of the Jews is . . . intensely peculiar in the fact of having given the Western world its concept of origins and monotheism, its ethical traditions, and the founder of its prevailing religion, yet suffering dispersion, statelessness and ceaseless persecution, and finally in our times nearly successful genocide, dramatically followed by fulfilment of the never-relinquished dream of return to their homeland. Viewing this strange and singular history one cannot escape the impression that it must contain some special significance for the history of mankind, that in some way, whether one believes in divine purpose or inscrutable circumstance, the Jews have been singled out to carry the tale of human fate.

Questions for Discussion

If the Jewish people are spiritually self-sufficient, is it legitimate to derive wisdom and/or inspiration from non-Jewish sources? To hold up non-Jews as role models?
Think of a perspective on Judaism or Torah that bothers you. Based on Rav Kook’s insights, can you see any positive tendency or religious value in it?
Rav Kook explains that factionalism and machloket are not purely evil phenomena, since they reflect the Jewish people’s spiritual self-sufficiency and need to harmonize all aspects of holiness. Can you think of any other explanations for why the Jewish people are so prone to machloket?
Can you think of any other ‘positive’ aspects of machloket?
Rav Kook writes that Torah is the only force that can check the Jewish’s people’s inclination towards factionalism and machloket. How exactly does the Torah accomplish that?
What do you think Rav Kook would say about intra-Jewish machloket with individuals or factions that reject the legitimacy of the Torah?[4]Can they be a part of the collective Jewish project?
Can Torah be used to divide the Jewish people instead of bring them together? If so, how?

[1]Devarim 32:8

[2]Rav Kook cites the gemara in Chullin (56b) –תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר ׳הוא עשך ויכוננך׳ (דברים לב:ו) – כרכא דכולה ביה ממנו כהניו ממנו נביאיו ממנו שריו ממנו מלכיו שנאמר (זכריה י, ד) ממנו פנה ממנו יתד וגו’. . The Jewish people is a city with everything in it. Out of it come its priests, out of it come its prophets, out of it come its chiefs, out of it come its kings, as it is stated: “Out of them shall come forth the cornerstone, out of them the stake, out of them the battle bow, out of them every master together” (Zechariah 10:4).

[3]For example, see Rashi there – אוצר חביב, כמו (קהלת ב ח) וסגלת מלכים, כלי יקר ואבנים טובות שהמלכים גונזים אותם.

[4]Rav Kook writes as follows in the continuation of the above excerpt from Orot – התורה כולה… מופיע על ידה הטוב הכללי, שמאחד את כולם בכללות קיומה של תורה, מלבד הרשעים המוחלטים העוקרים בית ישראל ופורקים עולה העליון ביד רמה, כדאמרה ברוריה למינא: רני עקרה שלא ילדה בנים לגיהנם כותייכו, שרבוי הכחות יפה הוא לאומה בהתאחדם בשורש קיומה בתורה.

Beyond Belief – Parshat Chukat

Printable PDF available here.

Ein Ayah (Gemara Shabbat 97a):

When G-d first recruited Moshe to take Israel out of Egypt, he objected “But they will not believe in me.” G-d responded “They are believers and the descendants of believers (lit. מאמינים בני מאמינים). But you – you are the one who will lack emunah in the future!” This is as the Torah states regarding the incident of Mei Merivah– “Because you failed to have faith in me (lit. האמנתם בי), to sanctify me in the eyes of the Israelites… (Gemara Shabbat 97a)

G-dly emunah[1] is supernal, and cannot be compared to any form of worldly knowledge or comprehension. After all, emunah is not a part of life, but its very foundation, what gives life its light and splendor. True emunah expresses itself in an inward awareness that defies all superficial labels and modes of categorization. This inner form of emunah is an Israelite treasure possessed by every Jew, but not on account of anyone’s individual merit or spiritual accomplishments. No, as Jews, emunah is part ofour immutable spiritual DNA we have inherited from the Avot, the rock from which we have been hewn.[2]

The inner dimension of emunah means that it survives intact even in the heart of the greatest sinner. It exists on a level where neither will nor conscious awareness can reach. Even when all externals suggest that the fire of emunah has been smothered, the coals still smolder within the heart, waiting to be coaxed into a roaring flame.

But we lose sight of this when we search too intently for external expressions of emunah. Viewed through those lenses, many of the Jewish People come across as failures, as faithless and spiritually compromised. Even the greatest of spiritual personages – those who have trained themselves to look beyond the artifice of worldly reality – can misjudge the faithfulness of Am Yisrael to the extent they look for external manifestations of emunah’s light.

This was Moshe’s mistake prior to the Exodus, when he claimed that the people would not believe in him. The people were indeed mired in the depths of paganism, on the lowest possible level of impurity. Logically, Moshe’s argument was justified. But Jewish emunah transcends logic. And according to our Sages, the sin of Mei Merivah was G-d’s response to Moshe’s claim. If you measure faith only by what is observable, then even the greatest of individuals – even spiritual giants like Moses – can stumble and fail to act upon their inner faith.

Commentary

In this piece, Rav Kook discusses a concept elaborated on at length in Kabbalistic and Chasidic sources. Every Jew, no matter how sinful or distant from holiness they may seem, contains an immutable spark of G-dliness and yearning for holiness. That spark can be covered up or ignored, but it can never be extinguished. (This is sometimes referred to as ‘Pintele Yid.’)

Rav Kook lived by this idea, and didn’t merely write about it. His profound and elevated gaze beheld sparks of holiness in individuals and movements that most other rabbinic leaders dismissed as sinful and empty.[3] He supported non-religious Zionism, partly out of a belief that its adherents were motivated by an inner fealty to the Jewish People and the Holy Land – and not, as all appearances suggested, a desire to create a new type of Jew and reject the Torah. He also formed relationships with non-religious artists and authors, encouraging them to use their profound spiritual potential for the benefit of the Jewish People and their renascence in their land.

But Rav Kook’s insights are relevant not only on a grand scale, for how we look at certain movements or entire groups. They are just as relevant for how we view ourselves. We all have moments where we fail religiously or do not live up to the standards that G-d’s Torah expects of us. Often, the natural reaction to such failure is despondency, dejection and depression. We feel about ourselves just like Moshe felt about the Jewish people in Shemot – ‘They are faithless, they lack emunah, they will not believe in me!’ But we would react differently if we tried to live – even just a bit – with the awareness that emunah is not something we need to acquire, but rather something we already have within us. We just have to draw it out. As Shlomo haMelech put it in Shir haShirim – מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת הָאַהֲבָה וּנְהָרוֹת לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּהָ .

Food for Thought

Rav Yehuda Amital (Commitment and Complexity, pg. 88): It is a mistake to think that in our generation everything is black. Thirty years ago everything was holy, and now suddenly nothing is holy? Suddenly everything is treif, everything is disqualified? Based on the teachings of Rav Kook, in the past people were able to find an element of sanctity even in the ardently secular Ha-Shomer ha-Tza’ir movement; is there truly nothing left today? There is room to re-think this and to evaluate the situation differently.

Tanya (Chapter 18): It should be recognized with certainty that even the person whose understanding in the knowledge of G‑d is limited, and who has no heart to comprehend the greatness of the blessed En Sof, to generate awe and love [of G‑d] even in his mind and understanding alone— however it is a “very close thing” for him to observe and practice all the commandments of the Torah… from the depths of his heart, in true sincerity, with fear and love; namely, the hidden love in the heart of all Jews which is an inheritance to us from the Avot… Hence all Jews, even… the illiterate, believe in G‑d, since faith is beyond understanding and comprehension… Therefore even the most worthless of worthless and the transgressors of the Israelites, in the majority of cases sacrifice their lives for the sanctity of G‑d’s Name and suffer harsh torture rather than deny the one G‑d, although they be boors and illiterate and ignorant of G‑d’s greatness. [For] whatever little knowledge they do possess, they do not delve therein at all, [and so] they do not give up their lives by reason of any knowledge and contemplation of G‑d. Rather [do they suffer martyrdom] without any knowledge and reflection, but as if it were absolutely impossible to renounce the one G‑d; and without any reason or hesitation whatever.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (G-d, Man and History, pg. 43): Logically speaking, a caring G-d ought to care always. But we generally do not recognize his care and concern; most of the time Gd is silent, as if absent. Transcendental divine indifference seems to replace the short and extremely rare moments of the relationship in the encounter. It is here that faith has its place. Faith turns the theoretical consequences of the encounter into living reality. Through faith we know that even though G-d seems to be absent, he is present all the time; even though he is far, he is close at hand; even though he transcends all life, still we confront him every moment of our existence. Through the power of faith we know, as if by actual experience, that his gaze is always upon us, that no matter where we may turn, we are forever in his presence.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Vayeishev, 5775): Emunah, the Hebrew word normally translated as faith, does not mean what it is taken to mean in English: a body of dogma, a set of principles, or a cluster of beliefs often held on non-rational grounds. Emunahmeans faithfulness, loyalty, fidelity, honouring your commitments, doing what you said you would do and acting in such a way as to inspire trust. It has to do with relationships, first and foremost with marriage.

Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Kovetz Ma’amarim): The fundamentals of faith in and of themselves are simple and compelling for any person who is not a fool, it being impossible to doubt their truth. This is true, provided that a person not be bribed, that is, that he be free of this-worldly lusts and desires. Thus, heresy is not rooted in a breakdown of reason in and of itself, but in a person’s desire to satisfy his lusts, which distort and blind his reason. We may now understand the Torah’s admonition (Bamidbar 15:39): “And you shall not stray after your own heart” – this refers to heresy (Berakhot 12b). That is to say, a person is admonished to suppress and subject his desires in order that his reason be free from the distortions they cause so that he may recognize the truth… Heresy has no place in man’s reason, but rather in his desires and lusts.

Rav Yehuda Amital (Jewish Values in a Changing World, pg. 277): I believe that Rabbi Wasserman’s explanations do not suffice. Many people come to a secular outlook not in order to satisfy their desires, but rather because of their dedication to ideals that may, at times, even demand great sacrifice. It is difficult to pin all disbelief on following after one’s desires.

Questions for Discussion

Why are we usually inclined to measure a person’s emunahby outward appearances?
As we approach the period of Three Weeks, how could Rav Kook’s insights into emunah help us cut back on sinat chinam? On lashon ha’ra?
In light of his comments above, how do you think Rav Kook would feel about classes or seminars about emunah?
Compared to earlier generations, do you think we have a harder or easier time acquiring emunah? Why?
As discussed above, Rav Kook’s approach to emunah is certainly very encouraging. But are there any dangers or potential problems with the idea that every Jew is a ma’amin, no matter regardless of what their behavior indicates?
See Rabbi Berkovits and Rav Elchanan Wasserman in “Food for Thought” above. How does Rav Kook’s understanding on emunah differfrom each of them?

[1] I have not to translate emunahas ‘belief.’ The continuation of the piece is clear that ‘belief’ fails to do justice to Rav Kook’s concept of emunah. See also Rabbi Sacks in “Food for Thought” below, who notes that ‘belief’ is likely anincorrect translation in any case.

[2] This is an allusion to Yeshaya 51:1-2 – “Look to the rock from whence you were hewn and to the hole of the pit whence you were dug… Look at Abraham your father and at Sarah who bore you, for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many.” הַבִּ֙יטוּ֙ אֶל־צ֣וּר חֻצַּבְתֶּ֔ם וְאֶל־מַקֶּ֥בֶת בּ֖וֹר נֻקַּרְתֶּֽם. הַבִּ֙יטוּ֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֣ם אֲבִיכֶ֔ם וְאֶל ־שָׂרָ֖ה תְּחֽוֹלֶלְכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־אֶחָ֣ד קְרָאתִ֔יו וַֽאֲבָֽרְכֵ֖הוּ וְאַרְבֵּֽהו

[3] As Bezalel Naor notes, while Rav Kook lived “he was on occasion ridiculed by his rabbinic contemporaries for being overly optimistic. The Ashkenazic Rabbi of Tiberias, Moshe Kliers, quipped: ‘Dots appear to him as lights.’ (The reference was to the title of Rav Kook’s seminal work, Orot, or Lights, his messianic vision of the renascence of Israel.)”

Featured

Koraḥism and Christianity – Parshat Korach

Printable PDF available here. For the first time ever, we have a second ‘bonus’ page of additional sources and commentary. Contact us if you are interested in additional sources from two thinkers not often mentioned in the same breath – the Shem m’Shmuel and Rabbi Eliezer Berkowitz.

Orot (Yisrael U’Techiyato, 16):[1]

“You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?” (Bamidbar 16:3)

The foundation of wickedness, which is subdivided into idolatry and heresy, comes to set up a place for the dross of life… to give them greatness and rule within the good and holy; not to purify the holy, but rather to defile and contaminate it. Idolatry stands outside, in the place of pollution and coarseness… But greater yet is the hidden, poisonous wickedness of heresy, which seeks a corner in the very essence of holiness…

Heresy strives to leave intact all the pollution of the world, all the coarseness of the flesh, and all the wicked inclinations of unrefined physicality… and to rise with them to the ecstasy of the holy. However, the holy is immediately profaned and defiled by impure hands. “The Lord did not turn to Cain and his offering” because of the wickedness that inhered therein. Yes, the murder of Hevel only materialized afterward, but it was already lurking in potential when Cain brought his sacrifice. His sacrifice amplified the power of evil[2]and was an abomination…

This is the ideology of wicked Cainism, which seeks G-d’s favor while inwardly knowing that the Lord has rejected it. Its face falls and it is extremely angry, and at every opportunity the hand of the murderer appears. Sin, the true longing of Cainite man, manifests in all of its abomination. Later, the founding of Christianity, which ridiculed the words of the sages and wreaked inner havoc in Israel… wove a web of deceit over the faces of many peoples. Paganism was exchanged for heresy…. The outer appearance was scrubbed up, but the goal remains the same – a repudiation of the imperative to sanctify the will, life, physicality, and inward being, through the order prepared by G-d and established in Israel, a holy nation from whose branchings all nations can derive nourishment.

Cainite Christianity accomplished among mankind what Koraḥism sought to perpetrate in Israel. The cry “All the congregation is holy and the Lord is in their midst” mocks the very essence of holiness, the inner refinement and preparation necessary to establish sanctity in life, to protect it against debasement and adulteration. Therefore, it was necessary that Korach’s band descend alive into the bowels of the earth and disappear forever, as a warning against “emulat[ing] Koraĥ and his congregation.”

The call to all the nations, who are sunken in all the filth of impurity, in the abyss of wickedness and ignorance, in the most frightening depths of darkness – “You are all holy, all sons of the Lord, there is no difference between peoples, there is no holy, chosen people in the world, all men are equally holy” – this is the Koraḥism of mankind, the new Cainism from which man suffers… until the day comes when “the Lord will visit punishment on the heavenly host on high and earthly kings below.” (Yeshaya 24:21) The pretentious flight to the heavens, of which Christianity boasts, will be fundamentally eradicated. The world will recognize that a phrase, a statement of theoretical belief, is insufficient for man to ascend to Paradise, while evil, murder, and abomination are stowed away intact in the chambers of his heart. The illusion that man requires no purification or education, no concentration or upliftment, will be eradicated… “An end will be put to the darkness…” (See Iyov 28:3)

[This is] why G-d desired to establish one nation as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Only through Israel can the supernal Divine light shine upon the nations. And even then, only when the Jewish nation is strong and free, having returned to its intact and unspoiled state, with its heritage of holy truths and spiritual wealth. And only when Israel relates to the rest of humanity with a shining countenance, despite suffering centuries of hatred and persecution at their hands. And only when the rest of humanity reciprocates with a longing for companionship with this godly people, in which is hidden the gift of holiness for pure and consecrated living…

Then will it be apparent to all that holiness is not a cheap trinket to be seized by any impure hands, but rather a treasure acquired through awesome toil, constant self-sacrifice, and ancestral merit, for sons who… guard the way of the Lord with love and might. Then the fog, the mask, will be lifted off the face of all the peoples, and the compromise of Christianity will be recognized for what it is: a counterfeit coin, which blinds the eyes and sullies the soul, which increases murder, bloodshed, and every abomination.

Food for Thought

Rabbi Ya’akov Emden (Seder Olam Rabbah Vezuta):[Jesus] brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically…. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles by doing away with idolatry and removing the images from their midst. He obligated them with the Seven Commandments [Noahide Laws]….He also bestowed upon them ethical ways, and in this respect he was much more stringent with them than the Torah of Moses, as is well-known. This in itself was most proper…

Rambam (Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 11): Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator is not within man’s power of man to comprehend… Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth… will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach’s coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve G-d together… [Because of Christianity], the entire world has already become filled with the concepts of a messianic redeemer, Torah, and mitzvot… They [at least] discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: ‘These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time’…. When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful… they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: The American Declaration of Independence (1776) [begins with] “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” [However] “these truths” are very far indeed from being “self-evident.” They would have sounded absurd to Plato and Aristotle, both of whom believed that not all men are created equal and therefore they do not have equal rights. They were only self-evident to someone brought up in a culture that had deeply internalized the Hebrew Bible and the revolutionary idea set out in its first chapter, that we are each, regardless of color, culture, class or creed, in the image and likeness of G-d. This was one of Judaism’s world-changing ideas.

Rachel Barenblat (a contemporary Reform rabbi): The Reform and Reconstructionist movements have relinquished the divisions between kohen, levi, and yisrael. In our egalitarian communities, all are equal (whether descended from one tribe or another; whether Jews by birth, or Jews by choice)… Maybe we’ve finally built what Korach was agitating for. I suspect that we can still benefit from learning from Korach’s mistakes. We need to bear in mind that if our yearning for social justice is going to bear fruit, it may require us to work within flawed systems. That it’s laudable to strive for more, but we need to be conscious of our own privilege and of how others see us. The whole community is holy, and G-d is indeed in our midst! [Editor’s note – she seems to overlook the next part, where G-d kills all the people who made this claim.] And the best way to open ourselves to that divine presence is to be gracious, generous, and kind to each other, even when we disagree. Otherwise, we may be swallowed up by our own self-importance, and lose the opportunity to build a better world.

Questions for Discussion

What are some dangers that come with the idea that everyone is equal?
Would you agree that many contemporary ‘hot button issues’ in contemporary Orthodoxy revolve around the idea of equality as presented by Korach? If not, why not?
According to Rav Kook, Christianity rejects the need to sanctify “the will, life, physicality, and inward being.” How does Judaism claim to accomplish that goal?
Korach claimed that “the entire congregation is holy”? Was this just empty demagoguery? If not, where did Korach go wrong?
Rav Kook understands Korach as not merely a character in the Torah, but the founder of an ideology that he calls ‘Koraĥism.’ Other than the idea that all people are equal, what are some other elements of Koraḥism?
After G-d punishes Cain for murdering his brother, he protests that גדול עווני מנשוא. If Cain represents proto-Christianity, what Christian idea would Cain’s claim correspond to?
Can you think of any other similarities between the incident of Cain/Hevel and Korach/Moshe? Are there any obvious differences or contrasts between the two?
Is Rav Kook’s criticism of Christianity directed at Jesus, the Church, or Christians in general?
The Declaration of Independence makes the claim that “all men are created equal.” Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (cited above) claims that the Founding Fathers based this on the Jewish Bible. Rav Kook seems to regard this idea as inimical to Torah and dismisses it as ‘Koraḥism.’ Who is right? What would Rav Kook do with the verse in Bereishit which suggests that all of man was created in G-d’s image?

Commentary

Rav Kook’s connection between Korach and Cain is based on earlier Kabbalistic sources. The Arizal (Sha’ar HaGilgulim, Ch. 29 and 32) explains that Korach and Moshe were reincarnations (lit. גלגולים) of Cain and Hevel, respectively.[3]According to Rav Aaron Lopiansky (a contemporary Rosh Yeshiva in Silver Spring), it is incorrect to treat gilgul as a purely mystical concept that is inscrutable to those uninitiated in Kabbalah. When one individual is regarded as a gilgul of another, that always points to some connection that is comprehensible on the level of p’shat as well. And if we look for connections between Cain/Hevel and Korach/Moshe, there are many:[4]

In Bereishit, the Torah says that the earth “opened its mouth” to receive Hevel’s blood. This phrase recurs only one other place in the entire Torah – in our parshah, when the earth “opens its mouth” to swallow Korach’s band.
Hevel’s name literally means ‘breath,’ insignificance. Similarly, we are told that Moshe was the humblest of all men.
Cain murdered Hevel out of envy, since G-d rejected his offering but accepted Hevel’s. Similarly, both Moses and Korach were members of the tribe of Levi, and Korach could not stomach Moses’s position of leadership.
Cain was motivated by a striving for honor and recognition. He regarded Hevel’s distinction as an insult and an offense against his position. Similarly, Korach felt deeply unhappy because he lacked the recognition he felt he deserved.
The Shem m’Shmuel notes an interesting midrashic allusion. The Torah (Devarim 11:6) says that the earth swallowed not just Korach’s followers, but all of their property as well – literally כל היקום אשר ברגליהם. Another place we find כל היקום being wiped out is by the Mabul. And guess what the midrash says on that? ׳וימח את כל היקום זה קין שנשטף׳

Even More Food for Thought

Rabbi Norman Lamm (Derashot Ledorot, Numbers): If indeed the story of Korah and Moses is but the reenactment of the old drama of Cain and Abel, why are the results so different? Why is it that Abel was the victim of Cain in that ancient story, while the man identified with Abel, Moses, is the victor over Cain’s representative, Korah? Why does the good lose in one case, and triumph in the other?

Before we answer that question, we must find yet one more similarity between these two couples. And that lies in the element of disguise, of cloaking evil in piety… Cain’s motivations were, as we have seen, completely selfish in nature. Yet, Cain did not announce his intentions as boldly as all that. Tradition teaches (Genesis Rabba 22:7) that Cain and Abel divided the world in the following manner: Abel was to receive all chattel, or moveable objects, while Cain was to possess all land, all real estate. Therefore, Cain decided to press his claims in the form of justice and righteousness. Wherever Abel went, Cain told him, “You are standing on my land. Please move on. If you continue to trespass I shall protect my rights against you.” From a formal, conventional point of view, Cain was apparently within his rights. He had justice on his side. If that was the agreement between the two brothers, Cain had the right to insist upon its complete execution – so his kina and ta’ava and kavod were all wrapped up in the cloak of legalism, piety, righteousness.

Korah, according to the Bible and Rabbis, did the very same thing…. He did not call a press conference and announce that he was going to initiate a coup d’état in order to satisfy his ambition for greater power and influence…. He set himself up as the great democrat, defender of the people. Jewish tradition further records that Korah tried to make Moses and Aaron appear as tyrants who needlessly exploited the people for their personal gain and profit. He cast himself in the role of the advocate of the ordinary, common man against the tyranny of Moses.

Here, then, we can discover why Moses was the victor, while Abel was the victim of his aggressive brother. In all our readings of the Torah and our midrash we do not find that Abel truly fought back against Cain. We do not find him calling Cain’s bluff. Instead, in all likelihood, he tried to counter his brother Cain on his terms. No doubt he rebutted his arguments with legal arguments of his own. And when you try to fight the devil on the devil’s terms, you are bound to lose.

But Moses had learned the lesson of Abel. He refused to discuss Korah’s complaints in the manner they were presented. Instead he pierced the mask, he went straight to the heart of the matter, and ripped off the disguises of these evil men…. He said to them (Numbers 16:8-9), “Listen here, you sons of Levi, is it not enough for you that G-d has chosen your tribe above all others, that you seek as well to become the priests, the sole leaders?” He stripped them of all their pious pretentions and let all the people see what these rebels really wanted – power, power, and more power. And then he turned to the people and said to them, “Depart from the tents of these evil, wicked people.” That is all that they really are. Moses learned from the story of Cain and Abel – and we must learn from the story of Koraĥ and Moses – never to be impressed by pious frauds, for even their piety is fraudulent. Evil should not be debated – it should be exposed.

This is a lesson for us in all aspects of life. In order to survive, physically and morally and spiritually, we must insist upon the truth and look for it with all the power at our command.

Professor Peter Westen (The Empty Idea of Equality):[I]t is hardly likely that anyone would want to see all men treated alike in every respect. We should not wish rheumatic patients to be treated like diabetics. Equals . . . ought to be treated alike in the respect in which they are equal; but there may be other respects in which they differ . . . which justify differences in treatment. Men who make identical tax returns ought to be taxed alike, but if they suffer from different ailments they should be treated with different medicines… Anatole France expressed the thought more quotably: “The law in its majestic beg in the equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to streets, and to steal bread…”

Thus, to say that people who are morally alike in a certain respect “should be treated alike” means that they should be treated in accord with the moral rule by which they are determined to be alike. Hence “likes should be treated alike” means that people for whom a certain treatment is prescribed by a standard should all be given the treatment prescribed by the standard. Or, more simply, people who by a rule should be treated alike should by the rule be treated alike… Equality is entirely circular. It tells us to treat like people alike; but when we ask who “like people” are, we are told they are “people who should be treated alike.” Equality is an empty vessel with no substantive moral content of its own. Without moral standards, equality remains meaningless, a formula that can have nothing to say about how we should act. With such standards, equality becomes superfluous, a formula that can do nothing but repeat what we already know…

As a form for analyzing problems, equality is a search for equivalences. Unfortunately, by justifying particular moral and legal conclusions on the ground that one individual is “equal to” another, equality tends to mislead people into assuming that such persons are generally equal for moral and legal purposes. As a result, foolish mistakes are made in the assessment of moral and legal standards, mistakes that would not occur if focus remained on the substantive rights that inform the notions of equality… [B]ecause the proposition that likes should be treated alike is unquestionably true, it gives an aura of revealed truth to whatever substantive values it happens to incorporate by reference. As a consequence, values asserted in the form of equality tend to carry greater moral and legal weight than they deserve on their merits. That is why arguments in the form of equality invariably place all opposing arguments on the “defensive.”

Equality will cease to mystify – and cease to skew moral and political discourse – when people come to realize that it is an empty form having no substantive content of its own. That will occur as soon as people realize that every moral and legal argument can be framed in the form of an argument for equality. People then will answer arguments for equality by making counterarguments for equality. Or simpler still, they will see that they can do without equality altogether.

C.S. Lewis (The Screwtape Letters): Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose… You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practice, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided. The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.

The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the center of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don’t mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says “I’m as good as you” believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, la-di-da affectation. Here’s a fellow who says he doesn’t like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here’s a man who hasn’t turned on the jukebox — he’s one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were honest-to-G-d all-right Joes they’d be like me. They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.”

[1]Based largely on the translation of Bezalel Naor (Maggid Books, 2015).

[2]Kabbalah teaches that mitzvot performed for improper motives can give strength to negative spiritual forces.

[3]This idea eventually made its way into more ‘popular’ sources – the Shnei Luchot haBrit (or ‘Shelah’) and the Yalkut Reuveni, an anthology of midrashim and comments on the parshah.

[4]Connections (c) and (d) are from Rabbi Lamm, in his Derashot Ledorot– Numbers.