The World of Divine Ideals – Parshat Ki Tavo

Printable PDF available here. Previous pieces on Ki Tavo are available here and here.

**Rav Kook (Ikvei ha’Tzon)**

“G–d will confirm you for Himself as a holy people, as He swore to you, if you observe the mitzvot of the Lord your G-d, and you go in His ways (lit. והלכת בדכריו).” (Devarim 28:9)

To the extent that one’s inner conception of G-d matures, his service of G-d will advance as well. The understanding of Divine worship (lit. avodat elokim) as the servitude of a slave (lit. avodat eved) derives from a crude and immature conception of G-d. And thus, if a person’s ethical and intellectual faculties are well developed (in accordance with his nature and the state of his generation), but his conception of G-d is immature, the inevitable result will be a profound inner aversion to the entire notion of Divine service.

The only cure is to raise up one’s inner conception of the Divine Name – ideally by means of an ennobled and comprehensive understanding, but at the very least, in a manner that accords with his soul’s conceptions of greatness and elevation. This is alluded to by our Sages’ teaching (Gemara Berachot 21a) that derives the blessing before Torah study from the verse “When I call out the name of the Lord, attribute greatness to our G-d” (lit. כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גודל לאלוקינו) (Devarim 32:3).

It is a commonly believed that Divine service relates to G-d Himself, that it is a means for us to connect to His very essence. But this is a crude faith, even if it is articulated by means of sophisticated metaphysics and philosophy, and it turns man into a terrified slave who quivers in G-d’s presence. The notion that humanity can deal directly with G-d is foreign to Israel. It is a defining trait of non-Jewish belief and readily degrades into paganism.

In place of ‘religion,’ Israel’s mature Divine service is rooted not in superficial subjugation to some abstract, transcendent power, but G-dly ideals. The depth of Torah [that is, Kabbalah] teaches that even the names of G-d signify not G-d’s essence but rather Divine ideals. The ideals, which the Torah refers to as the “ways of G-d” (lit. דרכי ה׳), are mapped by Kabbalah as the world of Atzilut, the Divine attributes and sefirot. Kabbalah charts this vibrant multitude of paths and conduits, through which an infinite G-d channels His interactions with our finite world. We are summoned to exert ourselves to perfect and raise up these ideals, to raise them up and invest them with splendor on the individual, national and cosmic planes. This task broadens and elevates the soul. Indeed, the Torah teems with elevated ideals and contains Divine blueprints for manifesting them.

This constitutes Israel’s unique and enlightened form of Divine service, the service of sons and daughters who sense within themselves an inner affinity to their Divine father, the author and source of all goodness, life and light. Here there is neither dry theology nor the quivering worship of terrified slaves – themselves two sides of the same blighted coin. The Divine ideals fortify and enrich the soul, bring joy and healthy psychic repose, inner confidence, delight and love in their wake.

“Israel will rejoice with its Maker; the children of Zion will exult with their King” (Tehillim 149:2).

Commentary

Kabbalah has a long and complex history as part of Jewish tradition, and not all sources are of one mind regarding the purpose of Kabbalistic knowledge. Some sources present Kabbalah as a gateway to an ecstatic mystical experience, while others idealize meditative contemplation. Various other sources emphasize theurgic and magical dimensions of kabbalah, articulating man’s ability to affect heavenly worlds by his thoughts and actions. Rav Kook charts a revolutionary and entirely different path.[1]According to Rav Kook, Kabbalah charts a precise map of the traits manifested by G-d in His interactions with the world, which we are called upon to emulate. The sefirot, partzufim and other phenomena identified by Kabbalah and its unique vocabulary are really “Divine Ideals” that humanity (and particularly Israel) is meant to manifest. For Rav Kook, this is the deeper meaning of “following in Hashem’s ways.” Kabbalah is the deepest and most profound manifestation of the ethical.

[1] Rav Kook’s approach is explicated by Yosef Avivi in his recently-published and magisterial four-volume work titled קבלת הראי׳ה.

Food for Thought

Shemot (33 and 34): וְעַתָּה אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת דְּרָכֶךָ, וְאֵדָעֲךָ, לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וּרְאֵה, כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה… וַיֹּאמַר: הַרְאֵנִי נָא, אֶת כְּבֹדֶךָ. וַיֹּאמֶר, אֲנִי אַעֲבִיר כָּל טוּבִי עַל פָּנֶיךָ, וְקָרָאתִי בְשֵׁם יקוק, לְפָנֶיךָ; וְחַנֹּתִי אֶת אֲשֶׁר אָחֹן, וְרִחַמְתִּי אֶת אֲשֶׁר אֲרַחֵם. וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת פָּנָי: כִּי לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם, וָחָי… וַיֵּרֶד יקוק בֶּעָנָן, וַיִּתְיַצֵּב עִמּוֹ שָׁם; וַיִּקְרָא בְשֵׁם, יקוק. וַיַּעֲבֹר יקוק עַל פָּנָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, יקוק יקוק, אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם, וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת. נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים, נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה; וְנַקֵּה, לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְעַל בְּנֵי בָנִים, עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים. וַיְמַהֵר, מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּקֹּד אַרְצָה, וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ.

Gemara Rosh haShanah (17b): “And The Lord passed before him and proclaimed” (Exodus 34:6). Rabbi Yochanan said: Were a verse not written, it would be impossible to say it. This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed is He, wrapped Himself like a prayer leader and demonstrated to Moses the order of prayer. He said to him: Any time that Israel sins, let them perform before me this procedure and I shall forgive them.”… Rav Yehudah said: a covenant has been made regarding the Thirteen Attributes that they never return empty, as it is stated, Behold I make a covenant (Exodus 34:10)….

Reishit Hokhmah (Sha’ar Anavah 1): And the matter is difficult because we have seen many times in which we have proclaimed the 13 attributes and [our prayers] are not answered. Rather the Geonim say that the meaning of “let them perform before Me this procedure” is not merely the wrapping of a talit. Rather that they should perform the attributes which the Holy One Blessed be He taught to Moshe: that He is a merciful and compassionate G-d. That is, just as He is compassionate so too you should be compassionate, etc. And likewise for all 13 attributes.

Is There a Jewish Philosophy? (Leon Roth): [I]t is not possible to extrapolate any positive theory of ethics from the notion of imitatio Dei, and second, judging from the import of the biblical texts themselves, no one has ever attempted so to do. And the reason is obvious. The G-d of Israel is a G-d who “hides Himself” (Isaiah 45:15) whose name, according to the Talmud’s perceptive interpretation u of Exodus 3:15 is le’olam: not ‘forever’, but ‘must be hidden’ (le’alem). What is hidden from us we can neither imitate nor emulate…. It is, moreover, quite certain that this was already appreciated in antiquity, for many a scholar has endeavoured to discover, from talmudic literature, the consequences of emulation, or, to use the conventional term, imitation, of G-d. But, as one of them has observed, the rabbis did not call upon people to imitate all the divine characteristics as they are described in the Hebrew Bible: and, from the philosophical point of view, this is the heart of the matter. We find no such summons as ‘just as I am “jealous and vengeful” [cf. Nahum 1:2] so be you likewise jealous and vengeful.’ Here is proof that the essence of the whole concept, even when propounded according to the foregoing formula, is not simply imitation. There is a selectivity of the appropriate characteristics for emulation; and once this is granted, imitation, as such, is not the touchstone.

Gemara Sotah (14a): What is the meaning of that which is written: “After the Lord your G-d shall you walk…” (Deuteronomy 13:5)? But is it actually possible for a person to follow the Divine Presence? But hasn’t it already been stated: “For the Lord your G-d is a devouring fire, a jealous G-d” (Deuteronomy 4:24)? Rather, the meaning is that one should follow the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He. Just as He clothes the naked, as it is written: “And the Lord G-d made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21), so too, should you clothe the naked. Just as He clothes the naked, as it is written: “And the Lord G-d made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21), so too, should you clothe the naked. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, visits the sick, as it is written with regard to G-d’s appearing to Abraham following his circumcision: “And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre” (Genesis 18:1), so too, should you visit the sick. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, consoles mourners, as it is written: “And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that G-d blessed Isaac his son” (Genesis 25:11), so too, should you console mourners. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried the dead, as it is written: “And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab” (Deuteronomy 34:6), so too, should you bury the dead.

Moreh Nevuchim (1:54): When [Moshe] asked for knowledge of the attributes and asked for forgiveness for the nation, he was given a [favorable] answer with regard to their being forgiven. Then he asked for the apprehension of His essence, may He be exalted. This is what he means when he says “Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory;” whereupon he received a [favorable] answer with regard to what he had asked for at first – namely, “Show me Thy ways.” …It is then clear that the “ways” – for a knowledge of which he had asked and which, in consequence, were made known to him – are the actions proceeding from G-d, may He be exalted. The Sages call them “characteristics” and speak of the “thirteen characteristics.” This term, as they use it, is applied to moral qualities…For the utmost virtue of man is to become like unto Him, may He be exalted, as far as he is able; which means that we should make our actions like unto His, as the Sages made clear when interpreting the verse “You shall be holy.” They said: “He is gracious, so be you also gracious; He is merciful, so be you also merciful.”

Rav Eliyahu Dessler (Michtav M’eliyahu, Vol. V, p. 21): When a person contracts his ego, he walks in the ways of G-d. [How so?] it is known [according to kabbalah] that G-d contracted Himself, as it were, for the sake of creating the world, for the ultimate purpose of revealing Himself here. So too, a person contracts his ego for the sake of revealing G-d’s honor and greatness. This is the [deeper] meaning of the verse: “And cleave to him” (Devarim 13:5) which Rashi explains as: “Cleave to His ways, perform acts of kindness [bury the dead, visit the sick, just as G-d did].”

Questions for Discussion

See the first few sources in “Food for Thought” above. How does the practice of reciting Selichot connect to Rav Kook’s insights on “following G-d’s ways”?
Rav Kook writes that “The notion that humanity can deal directly with G-d… readily degrades into paganism.” Why?
How do we learn/discover what traits of G-d we are supposed to emulate? (See Is There a Jewish Philosophy? in “Food for Thought” above.)
According to Rav Kook, is Kabbalah meant to lead to a withdrawal from the world or to a deeper engagement with it?
What kind of behaviors does the Talmud put under the rubric of “walking after G-d?”
Rav Kook believes that Kabbalah is the key to the deepest fulfillment of “following G-d’s ways.” What are other ways in which this mitzvah could be understood?

Halacha and Aggadah, Poetry and Prose – Parshat Shoftim

Printable PDF available here. Previous years’ pieces on Parshat Shoftim can be found here and here.

**Rav Kook (Based on Igrot ha’Reiah 103)**

If a matter eludes you in judgment… then you shall rise and go up to the place the Lord, your G-d, chooses. And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment. And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you. (Devarim 17:8-10)

I believe that it is incumbent on us to create an opening in the partition that separates the disciplines of halacha and Aggadah. Each discipline can benefit from and draw upon the unique wisdom of its counterpart. Aggadah speaks to the wisdom of the heart and the mind, and all of the Torah’s laws regarding beliefs and thought draw upon the domain of Aggadah. By contrast, halacha is the wisdom of practical conduct.

Each of these domains is nourished from a different ‘root’ in the holy Torah. The world of halacha draws on human wisdom and cognition, while Aggadah is rooted in the world of prophecy. Maimonides (Hilchot Yesodei haTorah, Chapter 9) erected an iron wall between these two disciplines, insisting that prophetic insight has absolutely no role to play in the halachic process. However, it is apparent that other Rishonim disagreed and saw nothing wrong with granting some level of halachic credence to prophecy. Indeed, this is the simple meaning of the first mishnah in Pirkei Avot, which records the early chain of transmission of the Oral Torah. That mishnah teaches that the “elders” passed the tradition on to the Prophets (lit. וזקנים לנביאים). It seems implausible to assert – as Maimonides presumably would – that their prophetic powers had no role in their custodianship of the tradition, that they received the tradition in their capacity as Sages and not in their capacity as prophets. Other Talmudic proofs can similarly be marshalled to demonstrate the role of prophecy in halacha.

Because the Land of Israel is the only place where prophecy exists, the prophetic dimension of halacha finds unique expression in the Land. Ordinary halachic discourse is deductive and methodical. Arriving at a conclusion involves a lengthy series of proofs, counterproofs and analogies, as anyone familiar with the Babylonian Talmud can testify. In contrast, prophecy arrives at truth rapidly and by means of an inner intuition. Instead of plodding forward on a dark path with a candle in one’s hands, flashes of lightning illuminate one’s entire surroundings. The structured and logical process of pure halachic reasoning is bypassed and one is led by a higher form of consciousness.

This is why the Talmud Yerushalmi is terse and concise, in contrast to the exhaustive and sprawling style of the Talmud Bavli. Unlike their counterparts in Babylonia, the inner intuition of the Talmudic sages in Eretz Israel enabled them to clarify matters with directness and brevity. Illuminated by a supernal light, their broad gaze could intuit halachic conclusions from the most subtle of hints or allusions. “The very air of the Land of Israel makes one wise” (Gemara Bava Basra, 158b).

The different spiritual paths of the Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi may illustrate a dispute regarding the zaken mamre, the rebellious elder who brazenly disregards the ruling of the Sanhedrin. The Torah writes that the disputed ruling relates to a ‘matter’ (lit. דבר). While the Talmud Bavli interprets this as a reference to Halacha, the Talmud Yerushalmi understands it as a reference to Aggadah.

Apparently, the Sages of Israel maintained that even aggadic matters – issues of belief and faith – were subject to definitive adjudication by the nation’s highest court, while the Sages of Babylonia disagreed. The basis of this dispute is readily apparent. In the Land of Israel, the style of Torah study was permeated with prophecy and transcendent spiritual wisdom. And so even aggadic matters could be clarified with decisive finality. The Sages of Babylonia did not believe that this was possible. For them, human reason was the primary means of determining halachic truth. Granted, the human intellect is powerful enough to be Divinely entrusted with binding authority in matters of halacha. But it will always fall short of absolute certainty in the matters of belief and faith that compromise the world of Aggadah.

Food for Thought

Chovot haLevavot (Introduction): Scripture says “if there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between affliction and affliction…and you shall do according to the sentence which they declare to you” (Deut. 17:8-10). If you examine what subjects are included in the first verse, you will find they are things which need to be detailed, distinguished, and discussed by the method of Tradition, and not by that of logical demonstration from Reason alone. You can see, the verse does not include matters which can be attained through Reason. For he did not say, for example, “when you have a question on the Unity of G-d”; or regarding the Names and attributes of the Creator, or as to any of the roots of the religion, such as the service of G-d, trusting in Him, submission before Him, devoting activities to Him, purifying conduct from the damage of detrimental things, repentance from sins, fear and love of Him, being abashed before Him, making a spiritual accounting, and similar duties which can be fulfilled through reason and recognition. He did not say to accept them on the authority of the Torah Sages and to rely only on the Tradition. On the contrary, Scripture says in regard to these to reflect on them to your heart and to apply your intellect on them after having first accepted them from the Tradition, which covers all the commandments of the Torah, their roots and branches. You should investigate them with your intellect, understanding, and judgment, until you will sift the truth of it from the false [notions], as written “therefore, know this day and consider it within your heart, that the Lord, He is G-d” (Deut. 4:39).

More Regarding the Talmud Yerushalmi (from Simcha Friedman, Emunat Hakhamim, Tradition 27:4): Rashi (on the above passage in the Babylonian Talmud) states: davar refers to the halakhot given to Moses at Sinai.” The commentators to the Jerusalem Talmud – the authors of Korban ha-Edah and Penei Moshe (in his Mar’eh ha-Panim) – follow suit. The latter echoes Rashi in explaining the term aggadah used in the Jerusalem Talmud in its non-literal meaning: “It may be that “aggadah”… is that which was told (mah shehugad) orally, hearkening back to the halakhah given to Moses at Sinai.”

Rabbi Chaim Eisnen (Maharal’s Be’er ha-Golah and His Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship): In the halakhic domain of talmudic literature, a staggering wealth of systematic analyses and codifications emerged during the medieval period of the rishonim (early rabbinical commentators). These classics remain the foundation of all serious talmudic erudition. Astoundingly, there was little simultaneous, parallel development in the realm of Aggadah. With some notable exceptions, this vast corpus eluded comprehensive treatment until the early period of the aḥaronim (later rabbinical commentators)…

Ramban (as quoted and discussed by Rabbi Marc Angel): The demand that one must believe all the words of our sages in the aggadah came into question in the famous disputation in Barcelona in 1263. Rabbi Mosheh ben Nahman, the Ramban, was challenged by his Christian opponent with an aggadah that stated that the Messiah was born on the day that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. The Ramban responded: “I do not believe in this aggadah at all…” He went on to explain that Jewish religious writings are divided into three traditional categories: Bible, Talmud and Midrash. “The first we believe entirely…; the second we believe when it explains laws. We have yet a third book which is called Midrash, sermons so to speak…; and this book, if one wishes to believe it he may, and one who does not believe it does not have to… We call it a book of aggadah, which is to say discourses, that is to say that it merely consists of stories which people tell one another. “

This explanation of the Ramban was rejected by those who insisted on maintaining the truth of all the words of our sages. Some argued that the Ramban never meant what he said, that he only said it to deflect the challenge of his opponent. The Sedei Hemed wrote that it is forbidden even to think that the Ramban meant what he said. Writing over two centuries after the disputation, Rabbi Yitzhak Abravanel strongly disavowed the statement of the Ramban because “it opens the gates to undermine all rabbinic authority when we consider any of their words as errors or foolishness.

Questions for Discussion

Could there be an alternative explanation for why the Talmud Yerushalmi is much shorter and terser than the Talmud Bavli?
What are some differences between contemporary religious life/Torah learning in Israel vs. in the Diaspora?
Why is it important to learn aggadah?
What do you think Rav Kook means by creating “an opening in the partition that separates the disciplines of halacha and Aggadah”?
In the absence of a Sanhedrin, how do we determine what positions in matters of belief and faith are beyond the pale?

There You Shall Seek – Parshat Re’eh

Note – The past week has been a hectic one, as I am following in Rav Kooks’ footsteps and making aliyah in mid-August. All of the packing and planning left little time this week for preparing a d’var Torah from Rav Kook. As a result, this week’s piece is excerpted from Rabbi Chanan Morrison’s excellent work “Sapphire from the Land of Israel”

Rav Kook (Adapted from Shemu’ot HaRe’iyah (Beha’alotecha)

Surprisingly, the Torah never spells out exactly where the Temple is to be built. Rather we are instructed to build the Beit HaMikdash “in the place that God will choose. “Only to the place that the Eternal your God will choose from all your tribes to set His Name — there you shall seek His dwelling place, and go there.” (Deut. 12:5). Where is this place “that God will choose”? What does it mean that we should “seek out His dwelling place”?

The Sages explained that the Torah is commanding us, under the guidance of a prophet, to discover where the Beit HaMikdash should be built. King David undertook the search for this holy site with the help of the prophet Samuel.

Why didn’t the Torah explicitly state the location where to build the Temple? Moses certainly knew that the Akeidah took place on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, and he knew that Abraham had prophesied that this would be the site of the Beit HaMikdash. 1

Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed III: 45) suggested that Moses wisely chose not to mention Jerusalem explicitly. Had he done so, the non-Jewish nations would have realized Jerusalem’s paramount importance to the Jewish people and would have fought fiercely to prevent it from falling into Israel’s hands.

Even worse, knowledge of Jerusalem’s significance could have led to infighting among the tribes. Each tribe would want the Beit HaMikdash to be located in its territory. The result could have been an ugly conflict, similar to Korach’s rebellion against Aaron’s appointment to the position of High Priest. Maimonides reasoned that this is why the Torah commands that a king be appointed before building the Beit HaMikdash. This way the Temple’s location would be determined by a strong central government, thus avoiding inter-tribal conflict and rivalry.

In any case, David did not know where the Beit HaMikdash was to be built. According to the Talmud (Zevachim 54b), his initial choice fell on Ein Eitam, a spring located to the south of Jerusalem. Ein Eitam appeared to be an obvious choice since it is the highest point in the entire region. This corresponds to the Torah’s description that “You shall rise and ascend to the place that the Eternal your God will choose” (Deut.17:8). However, David subsequently considered a second verse that alludes to the Temple’s location. At the end of his life, Moses described the place of God’s Divine Presence as “dwelling between his shoulders” (Deut. 33:12). What does this mean?

This allegory suggests that the Temple’s location was not meant to be at the highest point, but a little below it, just as the shoulders are below the head. Accordingly, David decided that Jerusalem, located at a lower altitude than Ein Eitam, was the site where the Beit HaMikdash was meant to be built.

Doeg, head of the High Court, disagreed with David. He supported the original choice of Ein Eitam as the place to build the Temple. The Sages noted that Doeg’s jealousy of David was due to the latter’s success in discovering the Temple’s true location.

The story of David’s search for the site of the Beit HaMikdash is alluded to in one of David’s “Songs of Ascent.” Psalm 132 opens with a plea: “Remember David for all his trouble” (Ps. 132:1). What was this trying labor that David felt was a special merit, a significant life achievement for which he wanted to be remembered?

The psalm continues by recounting David’s relentless efforts to locate the place of the Temple. David vowed: “I will not enter the tent of my house, nor will I go up to the bed that was spread for me. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor rest to my eyelids — until I find God’s place, the dwellings of the Mighty One of Jacob.” (Ps. 132: 3-5)

What was the crux of the dispute between David and Doeg? Doeg reasoned that the most suitable site for the Temple is the highest point in Jerusalem, reflecting his belief that the spiritual greatness of the Temple should only be accessible to the select few, those who are able to truly grasp the purest levels of enlightenment — the kohanim and the spiritual elite.

David, on the other hand, understood that the Temple and its holiness need to be the inheritance of the entire people of Israel. The kohanim are not privy to special knowledge; they are merely agents who influence and uplift the people with the Temple’s holiness. The entire nation of Israel is described as a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6).

Even though Ein Eitam was never sanctified, it still retained a special connection to the Beit HaMikdash, as its springs supplied water for the Beit HaMikdash. The Talmud relates that on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would immerse himself in a mikveh on the roof of the Beit HaParvah chamber in the Temple complex. In order for the water to reach this roof, which was 23 cubits higher than the ground floor of the Temple courtyard, water was diverted from the Ein Eitam springs, which were also located at this altitude.

Rav Kook explained that there exists a special connection between Ein Eitam and the High Priest’s purification on Yom Kippur. While the Beit HaMikdash itself needs to be accessible to all, the purification of the High Priest must emanate from the highest possible source. Yom Kippur’s unique purity and power of atonement originate in the loftiest realms, corresponding to the elevated springs of Ein Eitam.