Rav Kook (Ein Eyah, vol. IV, pg. 249)

Excerpted from Rabbi Chanan Morrison’s RavKookTorah.org

The Luchot — the stone tablets that Moses carried down from Mount Sinai — were truly remarkable. The Torah describes them as being “made by G-d” and “written with G-d’s script” (Exod. 32:16).

What was so unusual about the writing on the Luchot? The letters on the Luchot were engraved on both sides. According to Talmudic tradition, this engraving went all the way through the stone, from one side to the other.

This tradition is especially amazing when taking into account that two Hebrew letters — the final Mem (ם) and the Samekh (ס) — have the topological shape of a donut. How did the holes inside these letters — holes fashioned in stone — not fall out? The Talmud answers that “The Mem and the Samekh letters in the Luchot stood there miraculously” (Shabbat 104a).

Why were the Luchot accompanied by continual miracles? And is it significant that there were miracles specifically with the letters Mem and Samekh?

What is the essence of a Divine miracle? Supernatural phenomena demonstrate that the world is not limited to a system of cause and effect. They reveal the Divine force that sustains all of reality, both material and spiritual, directly from the word of G-d, Creator of all.

This a fundamental tenet of Torah. We are free to act as we choose. We are not robots, acting out our lives as dictated by causal determinism, bound by the dictates of nature, genetics, and environment.

In particular, this quality of freedom is related to the Luchot, the symbol of the covenant of Torah at Sinai. The Sages noted that the word charut, describing the words engraved on the Luchot, can be read as cheirut — freedom. “The only free person,” they taught, “is one who engages in the study of Torah” (Avot 6:2).

The Luchot announced to the world: just as my letters stand by G-d’s will, unfettered by the laws of physics, so too, you are free to act as you choose. The entire universe is upheld by G-d’s will.

Why did this miracle specifically relate to the Mem and the Samekh?

The letter Mem refers to water (mayim) — the first created substance: “G-d’s spirit moved over the water” (Gen. 1:2). This primordial substance was supported by G-d’s spirit, the basis of all reality. Divine will transcends all aspects of causality; it is the basis for the absolute freedom which the Torah gives the world.

In particular, this letter is the Final Mem (ם) — the “Closed” (i.e. Esoteric) Mem — indicating the hidden spiritual source of the universe.

With regard to the letter Samekh: the word someikh means “to support.” The universe is not bound by causal determinism, but is supported and sustained by G-d’s will and His infinite light and good.

This is the essence of miracles in the world. They were revealed in the past, are revealed in the present, and will be revealed in the future, through the light of Torah and its message of freedom.

Printable PDF available here.

Translation (Ein Ayah, Berachot 59b):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

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

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

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

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

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

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

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

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

[4] Rav Kook references Sefer Yetzirah.

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

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

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

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

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

[10]Ta’anit 2:1.