Of Acronyms and Patronyms – Lech L’chah

Printable PDF available here

Rav Kook (Ein Ayah, Gemara Shabbat 105a)

Gemara Shabbat 105a: Certain phrases in the Torah can be interpreted as an acronym. This is derived from the verse “Behold My covenant is with you, and you shall become the father of a multitude of nations (lit. אב המון גוים). And your name shall no longer be called Avram, but your name shall be Avraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations (lit. אב המון גוים).” The acronym is:

א– I have made you an אב (father) among nations.

ב– I have made you בחור (chosen) among nations.

ה– I have made you[1]חביב (respected) among nations

מ– I have made you מלך (a king) among nations.

ו– I have made you ותיק (distinguished) among nations.

נ– I have made you נאמן (faithful) among nations.

As faithful students of the Torah, we know that there’s more to the Written Torah than appears on the surface. Our Sages frequently darshan the text of the Torah for deeper insights. Usually, we pay more attention to what they darshan than how. We’re more focused on substance than form. However, no aspect of Torah is so small as to be insignificant or devoid of meaning. Presumably, there is some correspondence between each deeper derashah of the Torah and the ‘form’ that it comes packaged in. Thus, it is appropriate to ask why the paradigm of acronym derashot is derived from G-d’s promise to Avraham.

To answer this question, we have to define the basic property that makes an acronym unique, compared to other midot she’haTorah nidreshet ba’hen. The distinctive property of an acronym is that every single letter corresponds to a deeper reality. What looks like a word is really a series of icebergs breaking through the surface, concealing an entire world beneath.

And there is no more appropriate expression of this dynamic than G-d’s promise to Avraham in this verse. Granted, Avraham is one our Avot and we refer to him as Avraham Avinu, but his religious influence transcends the Jewish people. He touched the entire world,[2]and affected humanity’s spiritual aptitude in a way that Yitzchak and Ya’akov did not.[3]

In the above teaching, Chazal are not just playing word games. They are identifying six unique dimensions in which Avraham impacted humanity. Avraham was an Av, the source of all true notions of ethics, justice and true knowledge of G-d that humanity would develop. Every spark of holiness in humanity traces itself back to the fire that Avraham kindled.

Avraham’s teachings were also Bachur, select and distinct. Although his message would spread to hostile and impure environments, where it would be buffeted by the dregs of paganism and confused belief, Avraham’s teachings remain pure and fundamentally untainted. Furthermore, Avraham was also Chaviv, regarded with respect for the elevated and holy conception of righteousness that he introduced into the world. Avraham’s message is upright and true, and possesses a charismatic and irresistible attraction.

Avraham was also a Melekh. He did not keep his G-dly message to himself, but fought for it against a world that preferred to remain in ignorance and paganism. The power of his G-dly truth was victorious, making Avraham a king over the hearts and minds of humanity.

Additionally, Avraham was Vatik, distinguished for his deeds and character traits. He was not just a religious revolutionary, but a truly good and G-dly person. The fire that he kindled has succeeded in burning away much wickedness, in bringing humanity closer to true goodness and holy righteousness.

Finally, Avraham was Ne’eman, a man of profound and unshakeable faith. As the Torah itself testifies, “He believed in G-d, and G-d counted it as righteousness” (Bereishit 15:6).[4]Avraham’s faith was not simply about negation, about denying paganism, but promoting an affirmative conception of G-d and what He expects from His creations.

Abraham and his radical ideas kindled a nascent spark of faith among the nations. This flame continues to illuminate the paths of many nations, and in the future, it will be elevated into a purer and more refined faith in G-d.

[1]The letters הand ח are often interchangeable in midrashic interpretation.

[2]G-d promised Avraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars. Many commentators are bothered that the Jewish people are quite small compared to other nations. Some commentators (Rabbi Jonathan Sacks?) interpret the promise as referring to Avraham’s spiritual descendants, which indeed comprise most of the world.

[3]Indeed, we do not find that G-d ever references a “multitude of nations” in His promises to Yitzchak or Ya’akov. Rivka is told that “two nations” are in her womb. And Ya’akov is promised that “a nation and a קהל of nations” will come from him.

[4]This pasuk is actually very enigmatic, and commentators disagree whether it refers to Avraham or G-d. Rav Kook is assuming like the former.

Food for Thought

Rambam’s Letter to Ovadia the Convert: I received the question of the master Obadiah, the wise and learned proselyte, may the Lord reward him for his work, may a perfect recompense be bestowed upon him by the Lord of Israel, under whose wings he has sought cover.

You ask me if you, too, are allowed to say in the blessings and prayers you offer alone or in the congregation: “Our G-d” and “G-d of our fathers,” “You who have sanctified us through Your commandments,” “You who have separated us,” “You who have chosen us,” “You who have inherited us,” “You who have brought us out of the land of Egypt,” “You who have worked miracles to our fathers,” and more of this kind.

Yes, you may say all this in the prescribed order and not change it in the least. In the same way as every Jew by birth says his blessing and prayer, you, too, shall bless and pray alike, whether you are alone or pray in the congregation. The reason for this is, that Abraham our Father taught the people, opened their minds, and revealed to them the true faith and the unity of G-d; he rejected the idols and abolished their adoration; he brought many children under the wings of the Divine Presence; he gave them counsel and advice, and ordered his sons and the members of his household after him to keep the ways of the Lord forever…Ever since then whoever adopts Judaism and confesses the unity of the Divine Name, as it is prescribed in the Torah, is counted among the disciples of Abraham our Father, peace be with him. These men are Abraham’s household, and he it is who converted them to righteousness.

In the same way as he converted his contemporaries through his words and teaching, he converts future generations through the testament he left to his children and household after him. Thus Abraham our Father, peace be with him, is the father of his pious posterity who keep his ways, and the father of his disciples and of all proselytes who adopt Judaism.

Therefore you shall pray, “Our G-d” and “G-d of our fathers,” because Abraham, peace be with him, is your father…. since you have come under the wings of the Divine Presence and confessed the Lord, no difference exists between you and us, and all miracles done to us have been done as it were to us and to you… Do not consider your origin as inferior. While we are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you derive from Him through whose word the world was created. As is said by Isaiah: “One shall say, I am the Lord’s, and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob” (Is. 44:5).

Rabbeinu Asher b. Yechiel, a.k.a. Rosh, 1250-1327 (Responsum, כלל טו סימן ד): For ketubot and gittin of converts, the custom is to write “So and so, the son of Avraham.” [And even though the convert may not be a biological descendant of Avraham,] the verse says “I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.” And so Avraham is the father of all.

Questions for Discussion

In this piece, Rav Kook discusses reading parts of the Torah as an acronym. What are some other ways the Torah can be read to provide deeper lessons?
What was distinct about Avraham Avinu as compared to Yitzchak and Ya’akov?
Where in the parshah do we see Avraham having a positive impact on the society around him?
Do Christianity and Islam have anything to do with Avraham’s role as a father to a “multitude of nations”? (Take a look at the Rambam in the end of Hilchot Melachim for a fascinating perspective.)
Rav Kook claims there is a connection between the inner message of a Torah teaching and the form it is conveyed in. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Some modern thinkers like to lump Judaism, Islam and Christianity together as “Abrahamic monotheism.” Do you agree with this categorization or think it’s helpful? Why or why not?
Are Jews supposed to emulate Avraham’s role as an אב המון גוים? If so, how?

How to Leave Your Ark – Parshat Noach

Printable PDF available here.

Please share with friends and spread the word about Mareh Kohen, so we can bring Rav Kook’s teachings to a broader audience.

Based on Mussar Avicha, Chapter 2

And the Flood blotted out all beings upon the face of the earth… only Noach and those with him in the ark survived…And G-d remembered Noach and all the animals that were with him in the ark, and G-d caused a spirit to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided….And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noach opened the window of the ark that he had made, and sent forth the raven, and it went out, back and forth until the waters dried up off the earth…. And he sent forth the dove to see whether the waters had abated…

Every story in the Torah has eternal relevance and contains lessons for future generations. Sometimes, these lessons are relatively easy to find. At other times, it is challenging to extract them. One solution is to read certain stories allegorically, to insist that they aren’t intended to be taken literally. According to this approach, the straightforward meaning of the Torah isn’t always factually correct, and sometimes conceals a true, deeper meaning. Many great Torah figures (such as Maimonides) made use of allegory, but others of equal stature were uncomfortable with sacrificing the literal meaning of the Torah to uncover deeper truths.

It seems that these two approaches are polar opposites. Either the ‘inner’ meaning or the literal meaning of the Torah is true, but they cannot both be true simultaneously. However, Kabbalah offers a way out of this apparent contradiction. According to Kabbalah, G-d’s supervision of the world is structured and mediated through certain channels. These channels shape the path of the spiritual development of all humanity (much of which is described in Sefer Bereishit), but they also apply to the development of each individual soul. Understood in this light, the central narratives of Bereishit are not allegories, but expressions of a profound spiritual architecture – one that, once understood, can guide every individual to develop a deeper relationship with G-d.

According to R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (a.k.a. the Ramchal), Noach’s time in the ark contains many lessons in this regard. In the Ramchal’s commentary on a section of the Zohar known as Idra Rabba, he writes that Noach had to be sequestered away while the floodwaters destroyed the world. During this time of seclusion, the inner goodness of the world was re-established under Noach’s direction. As Noach fed and looked after the animals in his care, he renewed the world on a basis of kindness and purity. However, Noach was not meant to stay in the ark forever. G-d wanted the fullness of his spiritual talents to be applied to a post-mabul world as well.[1]Even so, Noach did not simply run out as soon as the earth looked dry, but used the raven and the dove as scouts. He did not disembark until it was clear to him that the world was safe for him to re-enter.[2]

A similar process applies to moral and spiritual growth. Although G-d created us yashar, with an innate yearning for holiness and a desire to live rightly, we can unthinkingly drift into self-centeredness and pursuit of pleasure. But simply deciding to change is not enough. Once the will and intellect become subjugated to the desires of the body, they lose their vigor and cannot be immediately rehabilitated. Thus, after going astray, a person must withdraw the various powers of his soul, his strengths and talents, and gather them in like lines radiating outward that are pulled back to their focal point. There is a pain that comes from this period of constraint, while the “furious waters” (lit. מים הזידונים) rage outside. The soul, which yearns for freedom and independence, must instead bear a delicate pain of inwardness and limitation.

But the period of retreat from the world is not meant as an ideal. G-d wants a person to express himself vigorously in the world of action, to allow his G-d-given talents to flower forth in holiness. G-d wants our powers to eventually leave ‘confinement,’ just as Noach eventually had to leave the ark. Eventually, one succeeds in rehabilitating his will, purifying his desires and refining his character. Now, all aspects of his personality can be allowed to express themselves in a healthy, natural way. Physical life is now more than just a challenge or a temptation. It is an opportunity to infuse everything with G-dliness, an invitation to shape the raw material of worldly living according to the Divine plan.

But in bringing this period of retreat to an end, we must proceed gradually. It is not prudent to throw oneself back into the world of action. We must be confident that our powers are truly ready to be set free. We need to ‘test the waters,’ like Noach did when he sent the raven and the dove to check whether the earth was dry. He did not send creatures that could be endangered by the floodwaters. Similarly, we must find opportunities to re-engage our powers in a calibrated and cautious way.

Like Noach, we may find that when we try to leave, matters are not yet rectified. We may have to draw our powers back inward and defer setting them free to some later time, like Noach did when he gathered the raven back into the ark. But eventually, the “land” will be completely dry. At that time, G-d will command each of us serve Him with the fulness of our talents and abilities, with an unfettered soul full of strength, courage and healthy vigor. Eventually, G-d will tell each of us, like he told Noach – “Leave the ark!”

[1]It seems that this did not go as intended. Noach appears to fall apart after the mabul, and we aren’t told about any of his accomplishments after leaving the ark.

[2]Ramchal writes that the same process happened many generations later with Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, when he spent thirteen years hiding in a cave from the Romans. Ostensibly, this was just a pragmatic choice that he made to save his life (see Gemara Shabbat דף לג). However, Ramchal writes that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai needed this period of seclusion to purify and prepare himself for the inner light of kabbalistic teaching that would eventually be revealed to him.

Food for Thought

Rav Kook (as reported by Rabbi Dr. Benjamin Levin, Hamizrach 1903): Literature, painting, and sculpting are able to bring to fruition all the spiritual concepts engraved in the depths of the human spirit, and so long as one brush is missing, which is stored away in the depths of the spirit – which ponders and feels – but has not been realized, there is still an obligation on the purposeful worker to realize it. The matter is self-evident, that only regarding those treasuries, that when they are opened will sweeten the air of all existence, is it good and beautiful to open them. ‘From every utterance which came out of G-d’s mouth, the entire world was filled with fragrance’ (Gemara Shabbat 88b).

Zohar (Beha’alotkha 152a): Woe to the person who says that the Torah comes to give instructions and tell descriptive stories or simple tales. If this were true, even in our own time we would be able to make our own ‘Torah’ out of simple stories, and embellish them even better than the Torah’s stories… Of course this is not the case. Every word in the Torah reflects higher wisdom and higher secrets… The narratives of the Torah are only the ‘outer garments’ of the Torah. Whoever thinks that this outer clothing is in fact the Torah and there is nothing underneath is spiritually backward and has no portion in the World to Come. So it was that King David begged, “Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things in Your Torah.” (Tehillim 119:18)

This ‘body’ of Torah is dressed in stories from this world. The fools of this world only look at this outer clothing of stories. They don’t delve into what is contained beneath the outer shell. Those who know better gaze upon the body beneath the outer shell. The wise ones, servants of the Highest King, those who stood at Mount Sinai, see through to the soul of the Torah that is truly her essence…

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (The Nineteen Letters, Letter 4):From the slightest mental faculty… to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject – all of your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which will one day appear before the throne of G-d as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse.

Dr. Gregg Stern (TheTorah.com): Philosophic allegory is essential, according to Maimonides and his followers… who believe, for example, that no biblical reference to G-d’s body or G-d’s emotions may be understood literally. In such a case, the goal of the allegorist is to vitiate the surface meaning of the biblical text and allow its deeper philosophic meaning to shine forth. More frequently, however, the philosophic interpreter uses allegory to reveal, ever so carefully and selectively, the text’s inner meaning, without harming its superficial meaning. In this context, Maimonides refers to the biblical text as “an apple of gold, encased within a silver filigree.” This suggests that the text’s external meaning is only slightly less precious and should be preserved in the process of peering through its lattices.

Questions for Discussion

Is there a special talent or aptitude you have that could make the world a more G-dly place? What can you do to bring out the potential you have in that area?
Based on what happens later in the parshah, does it seem like Noach succeeds in re-entering the world in a proper way? Why or why not?
Does the dynamic Rav Kook describes apply only to individuals, or to the Jewish people as well? If the latter, do you think we’re living in a time of retreat from worldly concerns or re-engagement with them? Why?
How often does the cycle that Rav Kook describes occur? Is there a constant process of retreating and re-engaging?
What are the spiritual dangers presented by being overly engaged in the broader world? In being overly withdrawn from the broader world?
Based on the piece above, what do you think Rav Kook would say about young people in the Orthodox community feeling constrained in their career choices to law, medicine, finance, etc.?
How do Rav Kook’s insights apply to the process of someone becoming a ba’al teshuvah?

Human Judaism and Jewish Humanism – Parshat Bereishit

Printable PDF available here.

Rav Kook (Me’orot haRe’iah 1:206)

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with “This month will be to you the first of the months” (Shemot 12:2). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning G-d created”? Because of [the idea expressed in] the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים. (Tehillim 111:6)

Many of us are familiar with this midrash, which Rashi puts at the very beginning of his commentary on the Torah.[1]The midrash’s question seems strange. Why shouldn’t the Torah start with Bereishit?[2]How can we imagine a Torah without the creation narrative, without Adam and Chavah, without the Avot and Imahot?[3]And how exactly does the verse from Tehillim answer the midrash’s question? None of these issues are addressed in the midrash itself, but Rashi deals with them in his commentary.

According to Rashi, the Torah should have started with sanctifying the new month because that is the first mitzvah that Israel received. The unspoken premise seems to be that the Torah is primarily a collection of laws, and the place of narrative – even one as important as Ma’aseh Bereishit– is secondary. The answer, provided by the verse in Tehillim, means as follows: “If the nations of the world say to Israel, ‘You are robbers, for you conquered the land of Cana’an by force,’ Israel can answer that ‘The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it [i.e. as we learn from the Creation narrative] and gave it to whomever He deemed proper. He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us.’” Thus, according to Rashi, the Jewish people’s claim to Eretz Yisrael is a central message[4]of Bereishit. Before man has been created, before the universe even exists, the Torah directs our focus to Eretz Yisrael.

However, as we noted before, this is all Rashi’s interpretation. It doesn’t appear in the text of the midrash itself.[5]That leaves the door open to other ways of understanding the midrash and the concept of כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים. We can suggest as follows. The dividing line between “This month will be to you the first of the months” and “In the beginning G-d created” is not about law vs. narrative. It is about two completely different ways that G-d interacts with the world, two completely different ways of building a relationship with the Creator.

The first stage began with Creation and proceeded until the generations of the Avot. During this period, humanity’s development unfolded in a structured and gradual manner. Miracles occurred, but they were rare and performed only for individuals.[6]People sought G-d as individuals, not in the framework of a community or group.[7]Furthermore, humanity was not yet privy to any transcendent revelation of G-d’s will. Humanity had to grow into morality and discover holy living through man’s Divinely created nature. This was the pre-Israelite period of history, or נחלת גויים, the “inheritance of the nations” as Tehillim puts it. That phrase refers not to Eretz Yisrael, like Rashi understands, but to derekh eretz – i.e. the universal dictates of ethical, upright conduct and morality.

Many generations later, with G-d’s declaration of “This month will be to you the first of the months,” a new world began. G-d now revealed a new framework of spiritual development. No longer would all humanity seek G-d through a natural process of cautious and measured development. The light of the Shechinah, which illuminated the pagan darkness of Egypt and later shone in full splendor at Mount Sinai, would teach man how to “skip over the mountains and jump over the hills”(Shir haShirim 2:8).

But once this higher revelation was given, how would Israel relate to the earlier world of נחלת גוים, the “inheritance of the nations”? We would’ve expected those matters to beyond the scope of the Torah’s concern. Not because they are unimportant, but because Israel can develop its humanity and universal morality without the Torah’s guidance. After all, that is what humanity did for generations and it’s what Noachides are still expected to do. Or, as the midrash puts it, the Torah didn’t need to start with Ma’aseh Bereishit. It could have started with “This month will be to you the first of the months” and its transcendent spiritual reality.

But the Torah did start with“In the beginning G-d created.” The spiritual framework of נחלת גוים, embodied in Bereishit, is incorporated in and is subsumed within the Torah’s higher spiritual reality. Formulated differently, Israel aspires to universal morality and human virtue, but filtered through and imbued with the light of the Torah. Even the most human aspects of Israel, those it ostensibly shares with the rest of the world, are received from G-d’s hand, are truly distinctive and bear the mark of our Israelite character.

This is what the midrash means when it says that the Torah starts with Ma’aseh Bereishit, so that G-d could give us “the inheritance of the nations.” The midrash is teaching a lesson not about the centrality of Eretz Israel, but the uniqueness of the Jewish People and the concept of ‘Israelite humanity.’

[1]The midrash appears in Bereishit Rabbah and the Buber edition of Midrash Tanchumah (a.k.a. Tanchumah haYashan).

[2]Some scholars think that Rashi quotes this Midrash as a polemical response against the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders. But even if that is true, the midrash still has to be internally coherent.

[3]See Ramban al-haTorah, who addresses this problem. According to some commentators (i.e. Sifsei Chaim), Rashi does not mean that Bereishit would be entirely omitted from the Torah, just moved to after the section on mitzvot. I don’t think this is the simple reading of Rashi or the midrash, and it is not how Ramban interpreted Rashi.

[4]Presumably Rashi would agree that it is not the central message of Bereishit, although some contemporary sources in the Religious Zionist community do make such an argument.

[5]This happens all the time. Rashi’s commentary is not just a collection of midrashim, but an interpretation of them as well.

[6]See Ramban on Bereishit 46:27, addressing why the Torah doesn’t highlight that Yocheved gave birth to Moshe at an advanced age.

[7]The parshiot of Bereishit and Noach go through over twenty generations, and recount barely even one person in each generation.

Food for Thought

Rav Shimson Raphael Hirsch (cited in Horeb, pg. 270): It is, therefore, the Jewish task, as symbolized by the Sanctuary, to lift up the human element in man on to the plane of the Divine law; but the Jewish task and the Jewish consciousness are not something which should be separated from the human task and from human consciousness. The Jewish task must not be conceived as something alien to and divorced from the human task. Never must we think that the Jewish element in us could exist without the human element or vice versa. The Jewish element in us presupposes the human element; it builds on it, ennobles it and brings it to perfection. The Jew cannot fulfill his calling in isolation, but only within human society. The highest perfection of the Jew is nothing but the highest perfection of his task as a human being…Pure Judaism always returns to pure humanism.

Rav Shimson Raphael Hirsch (Judaism and Progress, Collected Writings, Vol. III pg. 123): The more we understand that Judaism reckons with all of man’s endeavors, and the more its declared mission includes the salvation of all mankind, the less can its views be confined to the four cubits of one room or one dwelling. The more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views and aspirations, the less alien will he be to anything that is noble and good, true and upright in the arts and sciences, in civilization and culture. The more the Jew is a Jew, the more joyously will he hail everything that will shape human life so as to promote truth, right, peace and refinement among mankind, the more happily will he himself embrace every opportunity to prove his mission as a Jew on new, still untrodden grounds. The more the Jew is a Jew, the more gladly will he give himself to all that is true progress in civilization and culture-provided that in this new circumstance he will not only maintain his Judaism but will be able to bring it to ever more glorious fulfillment.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (To Cultivate and to Guard: The Universal Duties of Mankind”): A berit (covenant) is something special and unique; by definition, it delineates a particular relationship between God and a specific community. What then happens to more universal elements? Do these fall away because of the exclusivity of the new relationship? Or do we regard the new relationship as being superimposed upon the old, but not at odds with it?

Even according to the latter approach, at times there may be a conflict between a universal value and a specific one. Fundamentally, however, this approach regards the specific covenant as complementing and building on top of the universal covenant, rather than replacing it and rendering it obsolete. According to this approach, we do not believe that what existed until now was merely scaffolding which was needed until the building was complete, but now that the building is finished, everything else is insignificant. Instead, we assume that whatever commitments, demands and obligations devolve upon a person simply as a member of the universal community, will also apply to him within his unique context as well; but in addition, there are also new demands.

Questions for Discussion

Do you agree with Rav Kook’s understanding of the relationship between Judaism and humanism? Why or why not?
See Rav Hirsch above in Food For Thought. Is he saying the same thing as Rav Kook or not?
Can you think of a practical example where the Torah’s standard of ethical conduct is higher or different than what’s demanded of Noachides?
According to Rav Kook, the book of Bereishit provides guidance for man’s moral and ethical development. Can you think of any particular stories that prove this point?
Many people claim that they don’t need to keep Torah and mitzvot because it’s sufficient to be a ‘good person.’ Why does Torah Judaism maintain that that’s incorrect? What would Rav Kook say?
What do you think we can learn from the book of Bereishit?

Inside and Out – Parshat Vayechi

Translation (Midbar Shur, Drush #3)

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

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

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

Questions for Discussion

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

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

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

[2] Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 13.

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

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

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

[6] Gemara Berachot 25b.

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

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

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

Sweating the Small Stuff – Parshat Vayigash

Translation (Ein Ayah – Berachot):

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary/Sources for Further Research

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

This may sound overly abstract, but consider:

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

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

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Two Footsteps of the Messiah – Parshat Mikeitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Devarim 32:12

[3] See Gemara Sotah 36b

[4] Ibid.

[5] Tehillim 114:2

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

Questions for Reflection and Discussion:

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

About This Piece:

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

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

A Dignified Response – Parshat Vayeishev

Translation (Ein Ayah – Berachot):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary/Sources for Further Research

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

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

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

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

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specificallyBerachot,ShabbatandSeder Zeraim. Rav Kook began writing Ein Ayah when he was a young rav in Lithuania, and continued adding material until the end of his life. Ein Ayahseeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torahhashkafafrom the world of Aggadah. It is an excellent introduction to Rav Kook’s thought, inasmuch as the pieces tend to be more shorter and self contained and less esoteric than many of Rav Kook’s other worlds. While Ein Ayah has never been translated in its entirety into English, selected excerpts have been published by Betzalel Naor in Of Societies Perfect and Imperfect. An online course covering Ein Ayahon Masechet Shabbat is available from WebYeshiva.

Grow and Become – Parshat Vayishlach

Before Ya’akov confronted Esav, he declared to God that “I have become diminished by all of the kindness and the truth that you have performed for your servant.” [1] From here, our Sages teach [2] that a person should not place himself in danger, because he cannot rely on God to perform a miracle for him. And even if God does perform a miracle for him, his merits are diminished in the process. This is what Ya’akov meant when he said “I have become diminished (lit. קטונתי).“

Why exactly are one’s merits diminished when he benefits from a miracle? The simple explanation is that Divine providence doesn’t dispense things for free. A miracle must be earned, i.e. paid for through a ‘withdrawal’ from one’s spiritual bank account.

However, there is a deeper explanation to this teaching. We develop spiritually only to the extent that we live an active life in pursuit of the good. God created us to be vigorous and active, and there is no room in Judaism for quietism or passivity. We are meant to earn merit by seizing initiative and applying ourselves to shape the world in accordance with God’s will. A disengagement from the world of action is a retreat from God and brings spiritual diminishment in its wake – as Ya’akov put it, קטונתי.

It may seem counterintuitive that God is meant to be encountered in the natural order (lit. טבע). Isn’t that man’s space to seize initiative, where he undertakes efforts that appear to be his own? The truth, however, is that the natural order reveals God just as much the miraculous. We know this from Yeshaya, who declared to God that “It is you have carried out all of our handiwork.” [3] After all, if טבע is God’s handiwork, to work within the natural order is to partner with God and experience His presence.

But if טבע and the miraculous are both equally Godly, wherein lies the difference between the two? The answer is that the natural order requires man to be proactive. In contrast, a miracle forces its recipient into a passive role, purely on the receiving end of God’s kindness. Because spiritual growth and maturity require action, it follows that miracles are a less than ideal way of encountering God. Instead of a triumph, they are a testament to man’s spiritual smallness, to his inability to experience God by marrying human initiative with the Divinely authored natural order.

We should clarify that this doesn’t mean miracles are bad. Sometimes man is spiritually immature. Sometimes he is defeated by the natural order and requires God to rescue him from his shortcomings. In these moments of failure, God does not expect the impossible and is willing to send a miracle. But the miracle is meant to tide us over until we can mature spiritually, and advance from recipients of Divine kindness to participants who strive to partner in the Divine plan.

Ya’akov experienced this very transformation. After he pleaded with God about being “diminished” by His miraculous kindnesses, Ya’akov wrestled with an angel and received a new name, one purified from any connotations of passivity. “Your name will no longer be called Ya’akov, rather Yisrael will be your name, for you have striven with God and man and prevailed.”

[1] Bereishit 32:11

[2] Gemara Shabbat 30a

[3] Yeshaya 26:12

Commentary

From this teaching of Rav Kook, we can perhaps derive the bold statement that action and initiative are primary values of the religious life, from which all else flows. Religious growth is not about submission and withdrawal, or man’s smallness in his encounter with God. These are all components of the religious experience, but they shouldn’t be its defining characteristic.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Very few of us experience miracles on a regular basis, but the dividing line between passivity and action affects so many areas of our lives. If God wants us to work diligently within the natural order, what does that mean for geulah and the modern State of Israel? For how God wants me to support my family? For decisions about medical treatment?
What is one area of Jewish life where you could be more active and less passive?
Many well-meaning Jews are inspired by stories of tzadikim performing miracles or being saved in miraculous ways. Would Rav Kook disagree with them and reject such stories as spiritually irrelevant? Or is there value in these stories even for Rav Kook?
How can someone participate in the natural order and still remember that God is acting through his handiwork, as Yeshaya puts it? Is this a paradox?
Where in last week’s parsha does Ya’akov’s passive character manifest itself? Where in this week’s parsha do we see him expressing a more active persona?
Can you think of an example of a person whose moral and spiritual development was stunted because everything was given to them ‘on a silver platter,’ without working for it?
If miracles are a less-than-ideal ‘fallback plan’, then why did God make such a big deal of them when He took us out of Egypt?
Is there anywhere in Parshat Vayishlach that Ya’akov seems disinclined to rely on miracles?

Additional Resources

A beautiful story from the world of Chabad about putting miracles in their proper perspective.
A monograph from Rav Elchanan Adler about whether Halacha allows praying for a miracle, and how that relates to Channukah.
The Rambam in Mishnah Torah about whether we believe in Moshe because of the miracles he performed.
A slightly different take from the Ramban about the relationship between miracles and the natural order.

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specifically Berachot, Shabbat and Seder Zeraim. Rav Kook began writing Ein Ayah when he was a young rav in Lithuania, and continued adding material until the end of his life. Ein Ayah seeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torah hashkafa from the world of Aggadah.[*] It is an excellent introduction to Rav Kook’s thought, inasmuch as the pieces tend to be more shorter and self contained and less esoteric than many of Rav Kook’s other worlds. While Ein Ayah has never been translated in its entirety into English, selected excerpts have been published by Betzalel Naor in Of Societies Perfect and Imperfect. An online course from WebYeshiva covering Ein Ayah on Masechet Shabbat is available here.

[*] As opposed to much of the traditional commentary on Aggadah (i.e. Maharsha and the commentaries printed with Ein Ya’akov) which is less systematic and takes a piecemeal approach to connecting Aggadah with major principles of hashkafa.

Wholesome Judaism – Parshat Toldot

Translation: Me’orot ha’Reiah (Vol. 4, Pg. 187)

The struggle between good and evil traces its origins to the conflict between Ya’akov and Esav, a conflict with cosmic spiritual significance. For this was not merely a squabble between two brothers, but a fundamental disagreement regarding God’s relationship with the world and humankind.

Esav resolved to follow his desires wherever they led him. He repudiated any notion of Divine providence, believing the world to be governed by an immutable and impersonal system of natural laws (lit. tevah). Within this system, it made no difference how a person behaved or conducted himself. There were rare exceptions, of course – an overt Divine miracle or perhaps a subversion of the system on behalf of an extraordinary individual. But the notion that Divine providence could override the world of tevah – that was anathema to Esav.

Ya’akov, who was deeply attached to the service of God, stood against this worldview. He could not countenance that humanity would forget God’s name and deny Divine providence. And so he taught that there is a spiritual reality which supersedes the laws and limitations of tevah.[1] As Ramban writes,[2] the Torah’s promises of collective reward and punishment are rooted in this very premise. As Ya’akov descendants and inheritors of his mission, the Jewish people are subject to special Divine providence. We are not subject to the same laws of nature as other nations.[3]

This helps us understand the symbolism of Ya’akov emerging from the womb grabbing onto Esav’s heel. The heel is the perfect symbol of Esav’s worldview because of the intrinsic connection between motion and the natural world, as is known.

Translator’s Note: Rav Kook does not elaborate on what sources he has in mind here. After some digging, I found that Maharal writes that (i) motion is associated with change, (ii) change is a property of the physical world, and (iii) the physical world changes because it is imperfect and transitory. It follows that motion is inimical to the spiritual world, where everything exists in a state of perfection. See Gur Aryeh (Bereishit 17:5, s.v. שאף יו׳ד של שרה, with sources cited there in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) and the introduction to Derech haChayim. Rav Kook may be referring to sources in medieval Jewish philosophy, but I know even less about that than I know about Rav Kook, so I will defer.

Ya’akov grabbing onto Esav’s heel thus symbolizes his attempt to block the proliferation of Esav’s poisonous ‘heel-philosophy.’

This also clarifies why Ya’akov is referred as an איש תם, lit. “wholesome” or “complete.” [4] Man is a dual being, with a physical body subject to the laws of nature and a soul that operates as part of a higher, Divine order. It follows that a person who lives according to a deterministic worldview (i.e. the worldview of Esav) is a fragmented and fractured personality. His body and soul are in irreconcilable disharmony, quite literally living in different worlds.

Contrast that with Ya’akov, whose soul was rooted in the realm of Torah and prophecy. In the way of life that Ya’akov modeled, one’s worldly conduct is not dictated by the laws of nature, but by the higher realm of Divine will and wisdom.[5] The body operates on the same wavelength as the soul and is guided by it. It becomes a partner to the soul and its spiritual aspirations. This is a life of harmony and integration – of being תם, ‘wholesome’ and ‘complete’, in the truest sense of the word.[6]

Commentary

Rav Kook teaches us that the conflict between Ya’akov and Esav is more than just a historical curiosity or a episode of sibling rivalry. It represents a fundamental conflict between two worldviews. Esav’s world is one of fragmentation and disharmony. The body follows its desires and ignores the spiritual aspirations of the soul. Divine providence is an illusion, and so is our freedom of choice. Like all other components of the physical world, our actions are determined by a blind and immutable system of cause and effect. In contrast, Ya’akov strives to integrates the spiritual and the physical. He teaches that the limitations of tevah are subservient to and supplanted by Divine providence. God’s universe is not indifferent to how we relate to Him or how we treat each other.

Rav Kook also asserts that Divine providence is not merely an important aspect of the Torah, but its defining feature. The battleline in the struggle between good and evil runs through Divine providence. Anything that strengthens humanity’s belief in Divine providence and the integrated worldview of Ya’akov contributes to good. In contrast, determinism, blindly following one’s desires and belief in Divine indifference magnify the strength of evil.

As an aside, Rav Kook’s understanding of Esav’s worldview is a strikingly accurate encapsulation of Christianity, which many sources understand as the spiritual successor to Esav.[7] Christianity teaches that this world is fallen and irredeemably sinful. Salvation cannot be attained by law/mitzvot, which Jesus abrogated, but only through Divine grace. The natural consequence – borne out by centuries of bloodshed, persecution and pogroms (and contemporary scandals, והמבין יבין) – is that Christianity summons the spirit to soar upwards, but abandons the body to unbridled license, violence and sensuality.[8] The inner world created by Christianity is fragmented and schizophrenic – the opposite of the harmony of integration modeled by Ya’akov.

[1] Rav Kook is not asserting that tevah is an illusion (like Rav Dessler and other thinkers maintain), only that there is a higher level of Divine providence that supersedes it.

[2] Shemot 13:16. See here for further discussion of Ramban’s comments.

[3] If this sounds overly abstract, consider the fact that the Jewish people have survived despite the efforts of the world’s most powerful empires to subjugate or destroy us. Clearly the laws of history that govern other nations do not apply to the Jewish people.

Consider also that:

a) the Hebrew word for habit (lit. הרגל) has the same root as the word for foot (lit. רגל); and

b) the heel is the part of the body that is furthest away from the head and closest to the earth.

[4] Bereishit 25:27.

[5] Rav Kook uses this to explain why Ya’akov is described as “dwelling in tents” (lit. יושב אהלים). A tent is a temporary dwelling, and so it embodies the transitory nature of the physical world. In order for there to be a partnership between body and spirit, one must be reminded that the physical is transitory. Ya’akov was naturally drawn to the world of the אוהל.

[6] In kabbalah (yet another subject I know very little about), Ya’akov is associated with the trait of תפארת, i.e. the harmonious integration of opposing traits and energies. Avraham embodied חסד and Yitzchak embodied גבורה, but Ya’akov was the synthesis of those two opposites.

[7] How this came about is beyond the scope of this piece, but a brief summary goes like this – (i) Esav/Edom became associated with Rome, (ii) the Roman empire adopted Christianity, and (iii) therefore the Church is considered the heir to Rome.

[8] See Rav Hirsch on Bereishit 1:27, s.v. ויברא אלוקים את האדם בצלמו.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

How does an ‘איש תם’ (as interpreted by Rav Kook) live differently than someone who lives by Esav’s deterministic mindset? And how is his/her relationship with God different?
Does the Torah tell us anything about Ya’akov or Esav that supports Rav Kook’s assertion about different philosophies regarding Divine providence? (I don’t have a good answer to this yet, but see Bereishit 25:32 as a starting point regarding Esav.)
What is a time when you experienced Divine providence in your life? How did it affect you?
Based on what you read and hear, do you think contemporary science supports the philosophy of Ya’akov? Or has it been co-opted by the philosophy of Esav?
What could you do to be more mindful of Divine providence in your life?

About this Piece

Me’orot ha’Reiah is a multi-volume anthology of Rav Kook’s writings on various Jewish holidays. The volumes are published by Machon Rav Tzvi Yehuda ha’Kohen, and began to come out in the late 1990s.

If you are interested in more English sources about Divine providence in Jewish thought, you may like Hashgachah Pratis by Rav Aryeh Leibowitz (available as an e-book that costs less than a macchiatto at Starbucks!) and the audio shiurim of my teacher Rav Netanel Weiderblank on YUTorah.org.

Room to Grow – Parshat Chayei Sarah

Translation: Ein Ayah (Berachot 26b)

יצחק תקן תפלת מנחה שנאמר ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה לפנות ערב ואין שיחה אלא תפלה שנאמר תפלה לעני כי יעטף ולפני ה׳ ישפך שיחו.

Yitzchak instituted the Mincha prayer, as it is stated: “And Yitzchak went out to converse [lit. לשוח] in the field toward evening” (Bereishit 24:63), and שיחה means prayer, as it is stated: “A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint and pours out his words [lit. שיחו] before God” (Tehillim 102:1).[1]

This statement of our Sages raises three questions that we must address:

What is the significance of the term שיחה?
Why is it particularly associated with the prayer of minchah?
And why is it specifically associated with Yitzchak, as opposed to the other Avot?

The answer lies in an interesting feature of the Hebrew language – the same term that our Sages apply to Yitzchak’s prayer (שיחה) is also used for grass and other forms of plant life.[2] This points to an inner connection between the plant world and the world of prayer.

Prayer can allow the soul to flower[3] and rejuvenate, bringing forth buds of new spiritual capacities. This mode is most suited to the late afternoon period, when a person is able to cast off the worldly and temporal burdens of the workday.[4] [5] At that point, his soul ascends towards God in accordance with its innate yearning for the Divine. Latent feelings of holiness were fettered during the workday, but now find free expression in a desire to cling to the Living God and strive mightily in pure love and reverence of Him. These buds will ripen into fruits and give forth branches and flowers.[6]

This blossoming of spiritual potential through prayer is a natural expression of the soul’s innate uprightness. It isn’t foreign to the soul or imposed from without. In this regard, the שיחה–prayer it is rooted in the Divine attribute of strict justice (lit. מדת הדין), which exacts consequences anytime someone deviates from the natural order. From the perspective of the מדת הדין, punishment is not vindictive or even retributive. It is simply a natural consequence that grows out of the poisoned soil of sin – woven, as it were, into the very nature of the soul.

And we know that Yitzchak is associated [7 ] with מדת הדין. For this reason, the שיחה mode of prayer is particularly associated with (i) Yitzchak, as opposed to Avraham or Ya’akov, and (ii) the Minchah prayer, which is an opportunity for the natural yearning of the soul to blossom.

[1] The gemara brings other verses to demonstrate that Avraham established the Shacharit prayer and that Ya’akov established Ma’ariv.

[2] See Bereishit 2:5 (כל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ) and Bereishit 21:15 (ותשלך את הילד תחת אחד השיחם). It is fascinating to note that each of these sources is connected with the notion of tefilah:

a) The midrash, quoted by Rashi on Bereishit 2:5, tells us that Hashem didn’t bring rain to facilitate plant growth until Adam davened.
b) The connection of prayer with the story of Yishmael and Hagar’s wandering in the desert is clear on a level of p’shat. Note also that Yishmael’s name comes from God answering Hagar’s prayer the first time she was cast out (see Bereishit 16:11).

[3] Rav Kook uses the term “הפרחת הנפש.”

[4] In this light, note that the word מנחה comes from the word “נח,” or “rest,” as the afternoon is the period that the sun descends in the sky and eventually sets. See Ramban al-haTorah (Shemot 12:16).

[5] You may be thinking “But I get work-related e-mails all day and never get to clock out at sundown!” Belive me, as a working professional, I can empathize with you. We should bear in mind that Rav Kook is formulating a spiritual typology.

[6] There is a rich literature of Torah sources that connecting trees to man’s spiritual development, based on the pasuk כי האדם עץ השדה in Devarim 20:19. See here and here for representative examples. Poets and thinkers numbered among the chachmei ha’umot have also been sensitive to the deeper spiritual dimension of trees – see here, here, and here.

[7] Rav Kook cites the verse ופחד יצחק היה לי (Bereishit 31:12). The connection between Yitzchak and מדת הדין appears in many sources, and is also evident on a p’shat level. Yitzchak is the most passive and withdrawn of all of the Avot. Further, his highest spiritual accomplishment is one of sacrifice (i.e. the Akeidah), which embodies the negation associated with מדת הדין.

[8] Olat Re’iah, Inyanei Tefilah #2.

Commentary

This piece expands our understanding of what tefilah has the power to be. It is not merely another halachic obligation to satisfy by rote or and it’s not even an opportunity to present requests to God or converse with Him. It is something far more – the expression of the soul’s innate desire to connect profoundly with God. If you’re like me, this desire is not something you feel or are conscious of on a regular basis when you open your siddur. Maybe if you’re lucky you feel it a little at Neilah. But Rav Kook believed that the “soul is always praying,” and that fixed times for prayer are just opportunities when the constant prayer of the soul finds active expression.[8]

Rav Kook’s description of tefilah is lofty and feels beyond our reach. But what would happen if, the next time we struggle with kavanah during davening, we reminded ourselves of this teaching about how our souls are waiting for their chance to blossom. We’re not trying to create kavanah from nothing, the kavanah is already there and waiting for us to help it sprout.

Questions for Discussion and Reflection

The ‘שיחה’ mode of tefilah as described by Rav Kook sounds like it requires a really high spiritual level. What are some of the challenges that make it hard for us to experience this kind of tefilah?
In this piece, Rav Kook discusses prayer as an expression of the soul’s innate desire to connect with God. What could be other expressions of this desire?
Is Rav Kook’s lofty depiction of prayer as “blossoming of spiritual potential” relevant to someone who is davening minchah from a siddur, with the fixed text that we use today? Or do you think Rav Kook is talking about prayer that is more improvised and spontaneous?
Have you ever heard of Divine punishment being a natural consequence of sin, like getting burned when you stick your hand in a fire, or is that a new approach for you? Compare and contrast the ramifications of this approach with punishment as discipline, retribution, etc.

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specifically Berachot, Shabbat and Seder Zeraim. Rav Kook began writing Ein Ayah when he was a young rav in Lithuania, and continued adding material until the end of his life. Ein Ayah seeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torah hashkafa from the world of Aggadah.[1] It is an excellent introduction to Rav Kook’s thought, inasmuch as the pieces tend to be more shorter and self contained and less esoteric than many of Rav Kook’s other worlds. While Ein Ayah has never been translated in its entirety into English, selected excerpts have been published by Betzalel Naor in Of Societies Perfect and Imperfect. An online course from WebYeshiva covering Ein Ayah on Masechet Shabbat is available here.

[1] As opposed to much of the traditional commentary on Aggadah (i.e. Maharsha and the commentaries printed with Ein Ya’akov) which is less systematic and takes a piecemeal approach to connecting Aggadah with major principles of hashkafa.