Just Let It Happen – Parshat Nitzavim

Printable PDF available here.

Rav Kook – Orot ha Teshuvah (17:2)

When all of these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your G-d has banished you, and you will return unto the Lord, your G-d (lit. ושבת עד ה׳ אלוקיך), with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice, according to all that I am commanding you this day… (Devarim 30:1-2)

For the Lord will once again rejoice over you for good, as He rejoiced over your forefathers, when you obey the Lord, your G-d, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah, and return to the Lord, your God (lit. ושבת אל ה׳ אלוקיך)… with all your heart and soul. (Devarim 30:9-10)

Often, a person who wishes to do teshuvah encounters impediments. These blockages make him brokenhearted. Although he knows that his life is full of brokenness which must be rectified, he is unable to do proper teshuvah in practice. Nevertheless, his strong will for teshuvah purifies him. It sanctifies and illuminates his life, and the obstacles he encounters should not discourage him. He must continue to pursue exaltedness and spiritual elevation, in accordance with the holiness of his soul and its holy character…

Our parshah expresses this point with the way it describes teshuvah. It uses two different terms – one verse speaks of returning “unto” (lit.עד) G-d, whereas the other speaks of returning “to (lit. אל)” Him. Returning “unto” something means that you’ve come close, but haven’t yet reached what you’re seeking. Returning “to” something means that you’ve made it fully back. The Torah is clear that “return unto G-d” is also called teshuvah.

This is the teshuvah of the Jew who is seeking G-d’s embrace, but finds many obstacles blocking his way. We can call this “inner teshuvah” (lit. תשובה פנימית). It manifests itself in a person’s will, the deepest and most essential part of a person’s being. Although its light is obscured by many blockages and partitions, that light still shines, and ultimately, no obstacle in the world can prevent it from appearing in all of its beauty and perfection.

Commentary by Rav Moshe Weinberger (Song of Teshuvah, Vol. 4): When a person experiences a desire to do teshuvah… [h]e may suffer the confusion of not understanding what teshuvah means, he may feel that he lacks the strength to change, or he may be unable to repair damage that he had caused others. Perhaps he cheated someone who is no longer alive, perhaps he stole from the community, or perhaps he humiliated others without even realizing it. He takes his responsibility to do teshuvah seriously. He knows that he has to rectify everything in the most perfect way that he can. Yet he feels that in certain areas he cannot do teshuvah — and as a result his heart breaks. He might then think that his impulse to do teshuvah means nothing, that it is worthless. But a person’s will to do teshuvah — like his holy thoughts in general — stands on a high plane of existence… Thus, this person’s desire to do teshuvah is in itself something great and holy, a force that purifies and sanctifies him like a mikveh.

Therefore, he must not allow any obstacles… in his path to take him away from his desire to do teshuvah. He should not despair of reaching the most exalted level. And therefore, when he experiences any higher feeling, any spiritual ascent, even if it is of the most minor sort, he should not look down on it but hold onto it.

Rav Kook – Orot haTeshuvah (14:19)

Frequently, a person with newfound resolve for spiritual growth finds that his yetzer ha’ra grows stronger, casts him down and tempts him with lowly desires. The natural reaction is to take this as a rejection of the attempt to become a better Jew. This is a mistake. No one should ever regret their will for teshuvah. When you experience failure in the course of your ascent, the proper response is to redouble your resolve and to rectify those failures with additional teshuvah.

You should know that all of this is addressed by the principle (Gemara Shabbat 137a) that “when a person has erred in the course of performing a mitzvah, he is exempt from bringing a sin offering” (lit. טועה בדבר מצוה פטור מחיוב חטאת). No one should be afraid of failures or errors that occur as part of the teshuvah process. Instead, you must fortify your yirat Hashem, holiness, and sense of inspiration at every stage of the journey– even when you make a wrong turn on the way to your destination.

Commentary by Rav Moshe Weinberger (Song of Teshuvah, Vol. 4): When a person grows in Yiddishkeit, he is initially liberated from desires that had been plaguing him. His path seems clear and he feels good about himself. But “because the greater a person, the greater his evil inclination” (Gemara Sukkah 52a), he soon finds himself challenged by a new level of opposition… He expected that devoting himself to a more meaningful Yiddishkeit would earn him the world-to-come. Yet now he finds himself committing sins, or plagued by lowly desires, and he begins to think that he was better off before.

Nevertheless, he should not regret his resolve to serve G-d. To the contrary, he should realize that the troubles he is experiencing indicate that he is succeeding in his service of G-d… When a Jew’s life is spiritually trivial, even if he is keeping mitzvos, he is destroying himself and so the evil inclination ignores him. But the second that he grows stronger, the second that he begins to do something special and important, he experiences impediments and gains enemies. When he tries to accomplish anything meaningful…. he faces tremendous opposition. That tells him that he is doing something right.

A person may suffer terrible failures. Nevertheless, he should do teshuvah and move on. Once a Jew came to the Rizhiner Rebbe and confessed that he had committed adultery. He explained that it “just happened.” The Rebbe said, “That is the same way in which you should do teshuvah. Just let it happen.” When a person commits a sin, he does not make calculations. So too he should do teshuvah without calculations, without asking questions such as how this could have happened to him. He should consider that there are people much greater than him who had experienced more profound failures and fell to deeper places. With that thought, he should stop berating himself and simply do teshuvah.

When a person is not engaged in mitzvos, when he is living just to please himself, he sins because his life is unruly and meaningless. But when a person is engaged in mitzvos, any sin that he commits is refined and, in an inner sense, not even a sin part of but the fabric of his life of mitzvos. As a person does teshuvah — by fighting his evil inclination and struggling to become better, as he learns Torah, davens, and performs mitzvos — his life flows forward and upward….

In a broad sense, our Sages refer to this sort of individual when they speak of someone who “has erred in the course of performing a mitzvah.” They teach that if, in the course of performing a mitzvah, a person committed a sin, he is exempt from having to offer a sin offering because his intention was to do the mitzvah.[1] [For example, someone who is accidentally mechalel Shabbat in the course of performing a brit milah on Shabbat.]

Such a person may say that he committed the sin on purpose, that he knew what he was doing, that it was not an accident. We nevertheless tell him that he is wrong — that he was “erring in the course of performing a mitzvah”[i.e. the mitzvah of teshuvah].

Students in many yeshivas are constantly told that a person who has sinned is worthless, perverted, and corrupt. But if a sweet student who is living a life of holiness — working day and night to become a better Jew… commits a sin, somebody needs to tell him that he is not bad, and his path of teshuvah is simple. He need only do teshuvah, try not to let it happen again, and return to his Gemara. “He is exempt from bringing a sin offering.”

A person should not allow his failures to frighten, diminish or discourage him.

Questions for Discussion

What are some common impediments to doing teshuvah? How does a person break through them?
Is “inner teshuvah” always sincere and valuable? What is the difference between “inner teshuvah” and the idea of being a ‘Jew at heart’ (i.e. without mitzvah observance), which Orthodox Judaism decisively rejects?
As mentioned above, our Sages teach that “the greater a person, the greater his evil inclination.” Is this counterintuitive? Why or why not? And why did G-d create us this way?
Rav Moshe Weinberger writes “When a person commits a sin, he does not make calculations. So too he should do teshuvah without calculations, without asking questions such as how this could have happened to him.” Do you agree? Why or why not?
How can person strengthen their will to do teshuva?

Savoring Success – Parshat Ki Tavo

Printable PDF available here.

Rav Kook – Ein Ayah (Ma’aser Sheni 5:10)

When you have finished tithing your produce… you shall give them to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that they can eat to satiety in your cities. Then you shall say before the Lord, your G-d, “I have removed the holy portion from the house, and also given it to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, according to all Your commandment that You commanded me. I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten them… I obeyed the Lord, my G-d; I did according to all that You commanded me.” (Devarim 26:12-14)

In the fourth and seventh years of the shemita cycle, there is a mitzvah to declare our proper observance of the tithes given to the Kohanim, Levi’im and the poor. Puzzlingly, our Sages label this mitzvah as וידוי מעשרות – literally ‘vidui for tithes.’ This is counterintuitive, to say the least. Vidui means to confess, to acknowledge that we have failed and fallen short of G-d’s commands – but this is completely absent from vidui ma’aser! On the contrary, a person publicly declares that he has not forgotten anything and has not transgressed in any way. “I obeyed the Lord, my G-d; I did according to all that You commanded me.” How can our Sages possibly refer to this as vidui? What are they trying to teach us?

To answer this question, we have to address a fundamental tension of Torah life. Being an oved Hashem is an awesome responsibility. Serving G-d is not a hobby or a pastime that we dabble in on Shabbat and holidays. It is an all-encompassing vocation, one that demands maximal exertion in pursuit of holiness and in refining our deeds, our middot and our inner being. It is rare that a person fulfills his religious obligations properly and in their totality. For this reason, tzadikkim tend to be characterized by a deep sense of humility. After all, the closer you come to the Infinite, the more you comprehend how much is truly demanded of you. And although the tzaddik has internalized this awareness, every Jew is supposed to see themselves as imperfect, as having fallen short and a ‘work-in-progress.’

However, this attitude is dangerous if it isn’t properly balanced. A constant awareness of your failures and a nagging sense of being burdened by sin leads to depression and even self-hatred. It undermines your confidence and saps your desire to become a better Jew. After all, if it is so difficult to properly observe G-d’s demands, why try so hard? Or at all?[1]

But G-d wants us to derive joy from our relationship with Him. It is true that we are all imperfect and have fallen short – that “there is no righteous man on earth who does good and sins not” (Kohelet 7:20). But that’s only part of the picture. Every Jew has accomplishments in their resume, not just sins. Granted, it is rare that a person perfectly fulfills their religious obligations properly – but ‘rare’ does not mean ‘never.’

This takes us back to vidui ma’aser. We wondered why our Sages call this mitzvah ‘vidui,’ since there is no apparent mention of sin. The answer is that the premise of the question is wrong. Vidui is not so simple. Usually, vidui is an acknowledgement of sin, but there is another type of vidui as well. In this second type of vidui, a person acknowledges – even publicly declares – the good that they’ve done. Granted, vidui ma’aser relates to a very specific group of agricultural mitzvot that we no longer observe,[2]but it teaches us a lesson about mitzvot in general.[3] Torah is a burden, but one we’re supposed to be able to bear with joy. G-d wants us to derive simchah from our spiritual successes. He wants us to enjoy a sense of tranquility (lit. שלוה) and contentedness (lit. קורת רוח) when we’ve done something right. The G-d of Truth demands that we judge ourselves truthfully. That means acknowledging our failures but also what we’ve done right.

Ironically, being honest about our successes actually helps us identify where we really do need to improve. If we assume – mistakenly – that we’ve fallen short across the board, we may well throw ourselves into improving at something that we’re doing just fine at. Meanwhile, the area of our religious life that truly needs attention festers and remains neglected.

Equally important, however, is the fact that doing vidui for our successes gives us the confidence to build on them. Instead of seeing ourselves as sinful failures, we taste the joy of Torah life, and thirst for more of it.[4] Once we become aware of that joy, we are able to weigh the bitterness of sin against the sweetness of spiritual growth. That encourages us to take another step on the infinite path towards the Infinite.

[1]This is precisely the argument made by Jesus and Christianity regarding observance of the commandments.

[2]Things are actually a little more complicated. From the Star-K website: “The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch write that this mitzvah applies today, even in the absence of the Beis Hamikdash and not in the presence of the Kohanim. However, the Ra’avad and Vilna Gaon write that it does not apply nowadays. In addition, if one has not performed the mitzva completely one cannot say Vidui ; therefore, there are authorities who rule we should not say Vidui. Today, in Israel some do have the custom to recite the Vidui on the seventh day of Pesach. In the Diaspora, it is not the custom to recite the Vidui.”

[3]In a portion not translated above, Rav Kook notes that the obligations covered by vidui ma’aser encompass all of mitzvot– there are positive and negative commandments, obligations towards other individuals and responsibilities to the collective, bein adam l’makom and bein adam l’chaveiro.

[4]In a portion not translated above, Rav Kook writes that this too must be properly calibrated. A person shouldn’t dwell on their successes to the point that they become arrogant or no longer feel a need to grow spiritually. This is why vidui ma’aser is an infrequent obligation, i.e. only twice in a seven-year cycle. Rav Kook also writes that the process must be undertaken with as much modesty (lit. צניעות) and humility as possible. He suggests that this is why (i) vidui ma’aser is said late in the agricultural year, at Pesach; (ii) it’s said on the last day of Pesach (instead of the first); and (iii) even then, it isn’t said until the latest possible point of the day, i.e. in the afternoon at minchah time.

Food for Thought (Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, Likutei Moharan 282)

You must search for the good in yourself. When you start looking deep within yourself, you may think there is no good in you at all. You may feel you are full of evil: a negative voice inside you may try to drive you into depression. But you must not allow yourself to fall into depression. Search until you find some little good in you. For how could it be that you never did anything good in your whole life?

When you start to examine the good you have done, you may see many flaws. Maybe you did what you did for the wrong reasons and with the wrong attitude. Even so, how could it be that your mitzvah or good deed contains no good at all? It must contain some element of good. You must search and search until you find some good point within you to give you new life and happiness. When you discover the good that is still inside you, you literally swing the scales from guilt to merit. This will enable you to return to G-d. The good you find inside you will give you new life and bring joy to your soul. Having found one good point, you must continue searching until you find another. Even if you think this good point is also full of flaws, you must still search for some good in it. In the same way, you must continue finding more and more good points…

When a person recognizes the wrong he has done and how grossly materialistic and impure he is, he can become so depressed that he is completely incapable of praying. He simply cannot open his mouth to G-d. This is because of the deep sorrow and heaviness that overcome him when he sees his overwhelming distance from G-d. But finding your good points can give you new life. Even if you know you have done wrong and caused damage and that you are far from G-d, you must search until you find the good that is still inside you. This will give you new life and make you truly happy. You are certainly entitled to feel the greatest joy over every good point you find in yourself, because each good point comes from the holy soul within you. The new life and joy you will gain from this path will enable you to pray, sing and give thanks to G-d.

Questions for Discussion

What well-known verse in this week’s parshah emphasizes the importance of joy in avodat Hashem? (If you need a hint, look at Chapter 28.)
What aspect of Torah life have you done well at in the past year? How can you build on that in the coming year?
The following quote is from the Rambam. Do you think it’s making the same point as Rav Kook, or slightly different? “The joy which a person derives from doing good deeds and from loving G-d, who has commanded us to practice them, is a supreme form of Divine worship. Anyone who refrains from experiencing this joy deserves punishment… On the other hand, anyone who humbles himself on such occasions is indeed great and honored, for he serves the Lord out of love. David, King of Israel, expressed this thought when he said: “I will make myself even more contemptible than this, humbling myself in my own eyes” (Shmuel Beit, 6:22). True greatness and honor are attained only by rejoicing before the Lord, as it is written: “King David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (Shmuel Beit, 6:16).
Which is more challenging – to be mindful of our spiritual successes or our spiritual failures? Why?
Are there dangers to focusing too much on one’s religious accomplishments? If so, what are they? And how does one avoid them?
In the Talmud (Kiddushin 40b), our Sages teach that “A person should view himself as though he were exactly half-liable and half-meritorious. In other words, he should act as though the plates of his ‘scale’ are balanced, so that if he performs one mitzva he is fortunate, as he tilts his balance to the side of merit. If he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts his balance to the side of liability.” How does this complement Rav Kook’s teachings on vidui ma’aser?
If the term ‘vidui’ encompasses both admitting sins and declaring one’s accomplishments, it seems like “confession” is not a good English translation. What would you suggest as an alternative?

To See as He Sees – Parshat Re’eh

Printable PDF available here.

Shemonah Kevatzim (3:158)

If [any family member or friend]… tempts you in secret… saying, “Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known.”… You shall not accede to him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him. You shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. (Devarim 13:7, 9-10)

G-d gazes upon His creation with a kindly disposition (lit. עין יפה), with mercy and lovingkindness that transcend all limitations. Although it is a weighty task, we are summoned to uproot anger from our heart and see the world as G-d does. We must have compassion even upon the worst sinners mired in the filth of wickedness. We must find the points of goodness within them and seek out whatever merits they have, and diminish (but not eliminate) the magnitude of their guilt.

This sacred task applies even towards those who entice others[1]to embrace their sinful ways. The death penalty for those who entice others to idolatry does not contradict this principle. Judgment must be carried out in the world of action. There can be no tolerance for practice of idolatry within Israel’s midst. But in the inner realm of thought and ideas, points of holiness can be discerned even within the filth of sin and its enticers. When one discovers these sparks, he neutralizes the poisonous enticement of sin, and its venomous force dwindles away. After all, no evil is immutable. Even the most wicked of sinners will eventually become rectified.

When we reflect upon Chazal’s teaching[2]that descendants of Haman studied Torah in Jerusalem and descendants of the Canaanite general Sisra studied Torah in B’nei Brak, we arrive at the depths of G-dly chesed. We discover that there is no need to lash out with a torrent of hatred against obstinate and willful sinners. And certainly not against those who sincerely believe in a system of ethics and morality, or whose activities bring some practical benefit to Israel. Despite the harm they cause to the Torah community, the good within them does not become nullified.

However, not every individual is qualified to seek out the holiness within the wicked and their ideologies. It is a dangerous task, one that can easily lead to compromised religious commitment and outright sin. For that reason, it is specifically incumbent on the righteous of the generation to purify every thought, idea and ideology — to remove their dregs and extract what is untainted and holy. This task is critical to Israel’s spiritual vitality, because precisely from the realm of impurity will the greatest holiness emerge. When light shines directly from the realm of holiness, it lacks the force and vitality that emerge from a strenuous process of searching, purification and return. For this reason, the righteous must not excise the wicked out of Israel or ignore their merits. No evil is immutable. Everything will eventually be rectified.

Food for Thought

Rav Tzadok haKohen (Tzidkat haTzadik no. 54):[3]The essence of Yahadut is to be called by the name of Israel, as it is said (Isaiah 44:5) “One shall say, ‘I am the Lord’s, another shall be called by the name of Ya’akov and another shall write on his arm ‘Of the Lord.’ And he shall be called by the name ‘Israel.’” If someone has no merit but that he acknowledges the name Israel, that is sufficient… And regarding this, it says (Hoshea 4:17) “Ephraim is connected to idols — [but] let him be.” For they are connected to one nation, and have not broken away to become absorbed in the nations.

Rabbi Norman Lamm (Seventy Faces, Pg. 138-139): As an Orthodox Jew, I not only have no trouble in acknowledging the functional validity of non-Orthodox rabbinic leadership, but also in granting the non-Orthodox rabbis and laypeople may possess spiritual dignity. If they are sincere, if they believe in G-d, if they are motivated by principle and not by convenience or trendiness, if they endeavor to carry out the consequences of their faith in a consistent manner—then they are religious people… But neither functional validity nor spiritual dignity are identical with Jewish legitimacy. “Validity” derives from the Latin validus, strong. it is a factual, descriptive term. “Legitimacy” derives from the Latin lex, law. It is a normative and evaluative term.

Kol Yisrael on Perek Chelek (Rav Shmuel haLevi Haber): The mishnah in Sanhedrin lists certain sins which are so egregious that one who commits them loses their portion in Olam ha’ba. It also lists certain wicked individuals in Tanach who forfeited their portion in Olam ha’ba. In several of his letters and responsa, the Lubavitcher Rebbe dwelt with this subject at length. Chasidic and kabbalistic literature articulate a principle referred to[4]as לְבִלְתִּ֛י יִדַּ֥ח מִמֶּ֖נּוּ נִדָּֽח– literally “G-d devises means so that one who is banished not be permanently cast away from Him.” The Rebbe explained that every soul, no matter how wicked, will ultimately achieve its rectification. The purification process will be intense, it will involve gilgul neshamot and other factors which we cannot comprehend, but no Jewish soul is ever cast out. The mishnah in Sanhedrin means that certain wicked people cannot attain Olam ha’ba through the normal means – not that it is foreclosed to them entirely.

This issue is not mere theory – in the Shulchan Aruch haRav, R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, addresses its halachic ramifications. Kabbalistic literature is full of terrible warnings about how the forces of evil are empowered when wicked people study Torah and perform mitzvot. Shulchan Aruch haRav says that these sources are not to be heeded, and writes as follows: “It is true that when a wicked person learns Torah and performs mitzvot, he gives strength to the kelipot, but this is only temporary. When a person eventually does teshuva– if not in this lifetime, then in another gilgul (as it says לא יִדַּ֥ח מִמֶּ֖נּוּ נִדָּֽח)– then all of the spiritual energy of his Torah and mitzvot is freed from the kelipot and returns to holiness. For this reason, no person, no matter how wicked, should ever hold himself back from involvement in Torah.”

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (Regarding Contemporary Relations with Non-Orthodox Jews): In the course of his stay in Eretz Yisrael in the summer of 1935, the Rav [Rav Soloveitchik] visited the secular kibbutz of Kinneret. His host proffered some fruit, which the Rav naturally but politely declined. Sensing the reason for the refusal to partake of the offering, the kibbutznik observed that he presumes that it was grounded in concerns about kashrut; whereupon he proceeded to inform his thunderstruck guest that the local kitchen was absolutely kosher. When asked for the cause of this anomaly, he narrated the following story. Rav Kook once spent a Shabbat at the kibbutz, and he of course brought his own food. He ate each se’udah with the group, including participation in the motza’ei Shabbat fireside kumsitz. Upon taking leave of his hosts, he thanked them graciously and concluded with a brief wish. “I hope that next time I’ll be able to eat together with you.” Sure enough, the haverim voted to introduce kashrut in their public hadar okhel. I am not so Pollyannish as to imagine that such a scenario could be repeated routinely. Rav Kooks are few and far between, and the response to the force of his personality also is not too common. Nor do I pretend that I would or could have emulated him, letting my yearning for fraternity overwhelm my concern about tevel and orlah. And I don’t recall whether… the Rav ate.

My point relates to an entirely different continuum. Given the currently prevalent winds in our camp—or, for that matter, in that of our adversaries—let us assume that I, and my comrades, would have abstained. But to the accompaniment of which sentiment? How many would have felt and expressed Rav Kook’s pain? And how deeply? Would we truly yearn for that “next time,” consumed by candid regret that it seems to be constantly becoming increasingly remote?… Before we choose a course of action, we must effect a change of mindset and a change of heart. We must, at the very least, reduce the level and the scope of mutual demonization…. Unless—and until—we develop a propensity for mutual respect, acknowledging that there may be mediocrities and charlatans in various camps, but steadfastly refusing to tar indiscriminately, …the interests of klal Israel… will be adversely affected… History has amply demonstrated that internecine religious strife is often the most bitter, as combatants are animated by a sense of engagement in the encounter of the children of light with the children of darkness. For us, however, as Jews committed to the entirety of Torah, let vitriolic antagonism not prevail, routinely and consistently, as the sole or even as the dominant passion. Let us therefore be intent upon monitoring our motivation, with an eye to ensuring that if indeed we have been charged to enter the lists of fraternal strife…. we do so impelled by devotion and responsibility, but animated by the hope… of binding reconciliation.

Rav Yehuda Amital (Jewish Values in a Changing World, pg. 277): Rav Elchanan Wasserman wrote that “The fundamentals of faith in and of themselves are simple and compelling for any person who is not a fool, it being impossible to doubt their truth. This is true, provided that a person not be bribed, that is, that he be free of this-worldly lusts and desires. Thus, heresy is not rooted in a breakdown of reason in and of itself, but in a person’s desire to satisfy his lusts, which distort and blind his reason.” I believe that Rabbi Wasserman’s explanations do not suffice. Many people come to a secular outlook not in order to satisfy their desires, but rather because of their dedication to ideals that may, at times, even demand great sacrifice. It is difficult to pin all disbelief on following after one’s desires.

Questions for Discussion

According to Rav Kook, there are major differences between how we relate to the wicked in practice vs. how we think about them in our hearts. Practically speaking, how is it possible to live this way? And are there other places in Judaism the Torah requires us to act one way but feel another?
What are some of the dangers of finding the good points of ideologies that reject/run counter to the Torah?
Do you share Rav Kook’s optimistic outlook? Why or why not?
How can we apply Rav Kook’s insights to the way we see ourselves after we’ve sinned or failed to live up to our religious/ethical standards? (See Chapter 3 of Pirkei Avot – אל תהי רשע בפני עצמך.)
Which non-Orthodox Jew (living or deceased) do you admire for their excellence in a particular Torah value?

[1]In the Hebrew, Rav Kook states that this applies to both מסיתים ומדיחים– i.e. whether the target of their enticement is an individual or the collective.

[2]Gemara Sanhedrin 96b.

[3]This passage is censored in most editions. Can you guess why?

[4]Based on Shmuel Beit 14:14.

HaMeleh baSadeh – Parshat Ekev

Printable PDF available here.

Ein Ayah (Gemara Berachot 10b)

Beware when you eat and be full[1]and build good houses and dwell therein, and your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold increase, and all that you have increases, lest your heart grow haughty, and you forget the Lord, your G-d… and say to yourself, ‘My strength and the might of my hand has made this wealth.’ You must remember the Lord your G-d, for it is He who gives you the ability to prosper (lit. כח לעשות חיל), in order to establish His covenant that He swore to your forefathers…. (Devarim 8:12-13, 17-18)

As Israel stood on the threshold of Eretz Yisrael, Moshe warned them of the spiritual dangers to come. In the desert, G-d’s presence was palpable and the people were sustained by miracles. No human effort or initiative was required. The people were unconcerned with planting, plowing, building, and conquering. That period was coming to an end, but the people would still have to remain faithful to G-d and see His hand in their prosperity.

As noted by Rabbeinu Nissim of Gerona (Spain, 1320-1376),[2]Moshe did not say that G-d gives “prosperity,” but rather “the ability to prosper” (lit. כח לעשות חיל). There is a big difference. Moshe was not denying the significance of human initiative and hard work (a.k.a. hishtadlut). He was reminding Israel that hishtadlut is itself the greatest evidence of G-d’s guiding hand. Now, this may seem counterintuitive. Isn’t hishtadlut part of the system by which G-d’s hides His involvement? Isn’t His presence far more apparent when He performs miracles?

However, consider the fact that miracles are fleeting, by their very nature. They are like a bolt of lightning that brightens the darkness, illuminates the landscape for a brief moment, and then fades back to darkness. However, when one encounters G-d through the natural order, every moment is an opportunity for a renewed encounter with the Divine. For, as Moshe taught, G-d is the one who gives us the ‘כח לעשות חיל’. The wisdom required for human beings to plan, develop and accomplish comes from Him, as do the necessary physical strength and raw materials. G-d’s blessing and beneficence are present at every stage of hishtadlut– and not just in the end result, like we so often assume. We can accomplish tremendous things with our abilities, but Who gave us those abilities in the first place?

When the Jewish people partake of bread through difficult labor in their fields – or, for that matter, their stores or offices – they have a greater opportunity for encountering G-d than the generation of the midbar, who received their livelihood supernaturally and without effort.[3]Thus, hishtadlut is neither a punishment nor an illusion. When viewed in the proper perspective, it is an opportunity for continually encountering G-d.

However, attaining this perspective requires a degree of ethical and religious sensitivity that cannot be achieved instantaneously. It is not an easy matter. If the Jewish people are not spiritually mature, hishtadlut can make them coarse and prideful. Instead of attaining Divine consciousness, the people will be blind to G-d’s blessings. Instead[4] of ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה׳ אלוקיך, the result will be ואכל ושבע ודשן ופנה אל אלהים אחרים ועבדום.

This deeper understanding can help us resolve the multitude of contradictions about whether hishtadlut is an ideal way of life for the Jewish people.[5]The answer is that all depends on the spiritual state of a generation. The Exodus and the period of the midbar were Israel’s spiritual infancy.[6]An abundance of hishtadlut would have distanced them from G-d, and so open miracles abounded. However, after forty years, the people had reached a level of spiritual and ethical maturity. They no longer needed to be passive recipients of G-d’s kindness, and so G-d gradually weaned them from His miracles. Indeed, we find that the conquest of Eretz Yisrael took place largely through the natural order and diligent application of military strategy.[7]

However, by the period of the Shoftim, the people had lost the proper perspective on hishtadlut. They no longer adequately perceived the Divinity of the natural order. Thus, on the eve of Gidon’s battle with the Midianites (Shoftim, Chapter 7), Hashem insisted on minimizing their hishtadlut. He demanded that Gidon send most of his soldiers away – “The people with you are too numerous for Me to deliver the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast ‘My own hand has saved me.’”

[1]Notice the parallelism between the dangers of פן תאכל ושבעת and the earlier imperative of ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה׳אלקיך.

[2]Derashot haRan (Derush10).

[3]See Gemara Shabbat (31a), which expounds the following verse in Isaiah as referring to the six orders of the mishnah – והיה אמונת עתיך חסן ישועות חכמת ודעת, יראת ה’ היא אוצרו. The gemara interprets the word אמונותas a reference to סדר זרעים, which deals with agricultural mitzvot. The midrash, cited by Tosafot, explains the connection – שהוא מאמין בחיי העולם וזורע.

[4]Devarim 8:10, 31:20.

[5]Rav Kook alludes to the possibility that the guidelines for individual (as opposed to collective) hishtadlut may be different. וצריך עיון.

[6]In a portion not translated above, Rav Kook references a pasuk in Hoshea (11:10), which describes Israel’s early years as its ‘youth’– ‘כי נער ישראל ואהבהו וממצרים קראתי לבני’. Rav Kook notes that G-d dealt with the Jewish people like a parent. A young child has all of his needs provided for. However, the state of total dependence is not meant to last. The ultimate goal is for a parent to teach a child to function independently, to be able to support himself. (How many of us know people whose life skills and personal development were stifled because of overreliance on parental support?)

[7]In particular, Rav Kook mentions the battle to conquer Ai (Yehoshua, Chapter 8), where the text strongly emphasizes the extent of Yehoshua’s military strategy.

Food for Thought

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Parshat Shelach 5772): Most of the commentators assume that the spies were guilty of a failure of nerve, or faith, or both… However, in the Hassidic literature… an entirely different line of interpretation emerged, reading the text against the grain to dramatic effect so that it remains relevant and powerful today. According to their interpretation, the spies were well-intentioned. They were, after all, “princes, chieftains, leaders” (Num. 13:2-3). They did not doubt that Israel could win its battles with the inhabitants of the land. They did not fear failure; they feared success. Their concern was not physical but spiritual. They did not want to leave the wilderness. They did not want to become just another nation among the nations of the earth. They did not want to lose their unique relationship with G-d in the reverberating silence of the desert, far removed from civilization and its discontents… Here they were close to G-d, closer than any generation before or since. He was a palpable presence in the Sanctuary in their midst, and in the clouds of glory that surrounded them. Here His people ate manna from heaven and water from the rock and experienced miracles daily. So long as they stayed in the desert under G-d’s sheltering canopy, they did not need to plough the earth, plant seeds, gather harvests, defend a country, run an economy, maintain a welfare system, or shoulder any of the other earthly burdens and distractions that take peoples’ minds away from the Divine…

[But] Judaism is not a religion of monastic retreat from the world. It is supremely a religion of engagement with the world. The Torah is a template for the construction of a society with all its gritty details: laws of warfare and welfare, harvests and livestock, loans and employer-employee relationships, the code of a nation in its land, part of the real world of politics and economics, yet somehow pointing to a better world where justice and compassion, love of the neighbor and stranger, are not remote ideals but part of the texture of everyday life. G-d chose Israel to make His presence visible in the world, and that means that Israel must live in the world. The Jewish task is not to fear the real world but to enter and transform it. That is what the spies did not understand. Do we – Jews of faith – understand it even now?

Midrash (Eichah Rabbah): When faced with war, Dovid HaMelech said: “I will pursue my enemies and overtake them, and will not return until they are destroyed” (Tehillim 18:38)… [Later] Assa stood up and implored Hashem, “I do not possess the strength to kill them. Rather, I will pursue them and You will kill them.” Hashem accepted his prayer, as it says “Assa and the people with him pursued them to Gerar, and the Ethiopians fell… for they were crushed before Hashem and before His camp” (Divrei haYamim II, 14:12). [Later] when Yehoshafat waged war against Ammon, he said “I do not possess the strength to pursue or kill. I will simply sing songs of praise to You, and You will fight the war.” Hashem accepted his prayer as well, as it says “As soon as they began their exuberant song and praise, G-d set up ambushers against the Children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir who were attacking Yehuda, and they were struck down” (Divrei haYamim II, 20:22). [Later] Hezekiah said “I do not possess the strength to pursue or to kill or to sing songs of praise. I will sleep in my bed while You wage war.” Hashem accepted this prayer as well, as it says “On that very night, an angel of G-d went out and struck down 185,000 people in the Assyrian camp” (Melachim II, 19:35).

Rav Ya’akov Yosef of Ostroha (Rav Yeivai, cited in Bitachon v’Histadlut): When a person makes effort to save himself from troubles, instead of relying on complete bitachon, Hashem removes His assistance and says ‘You really think you can save yourself on your own?! I will withhold My help and you’ll see how things work out.’ But when a person is מסיח דעת and says “What’s the point of doing anything? Hashem will do whatever he wants” – then Hashem will help him.

Questions for Discussion

Can you think of a time when you felt G-d’s hand in something that one or your accomplishments or successes?
Do Rav Kook’s insights on hishtadlut enhance the religious value of Zionism and the State of Israel? If so, how?
Is Rav Kook’s understanding of hishtadlut counterintuitive to you? Why or why not?
Rav Kook sees tremendous religious value in hishtadlut, whereas certain other Torah thinkers regard it as a temptation, an illusion, or a curse. What are some practical differences between these two perspectives?
What can we do to better perceive Hashem’s involvement in the natural order?
Take a look at the midrash in Eichah Rabbah, cited above. How does it support Rav Kook’s thesis?

Di Zahav and The Glitter of Gold – Parshat Devarim

Printable PDF available here.

Ein Ayah (Gemara Berachot 32a)

At the beginning of Devarim, the Torah situates Moshe’s speech in reference to a number of places, including one called “Di Zahav.” The school of R. Yannai understood this as an allusion to the sin of the Golden Calf (zahav = gold). In the wake of that sin, Moshe said to G-d – “Master of the Universe, the gold and silver that you lavished upon Israel [as part of the Exodus from Egypt] until they said enough [lit. ‘dai’], that caused them to make the Golden Calf!” And according to R. Yonatan, G-d Himself ultimately conceded to Moshe. As the prophet Hoshea (2:10) states in G-d’s name, “I gave them an abundance of silver, and they used gold for the Ba’al.”

At first glance, this midrash is puzzling. How could Moshe blame the Israelites’ newfound wealth for the debacle of the Golden Calf? Is there really such an immutable connection between wealth and idolatry? Are rich people not expected to keep away from idolatry? And why did G-d lavish wealth upon the Israelites in the first place if he knew it would lead to a Golden Calf? This has to be more than a cute play on the words on Di Zahav, but what are our Sages getting at?

The answer to this question takes us to the very essence of the difference between avodat Hashem and idolatry. The foundation of avodat Hashem is a continual striving to come close to G-d, by refining oneself and attaining progressively higher levels of spiritual accomplishment. A person can never say “I’ve done enough, I’ve ‘made it’ and now I’m going to rest on my laurels.” After all, G-d is infinite. As one gets closer to Him, newer vistas of spiritual potential continuously upon up. The horizon is constantly receding.

Because G-d’s infinite nature is what creates the need for continuous spiritual growth, our limited minds cannot easily comprehend it. For this reason, G-d implanted in human nature an insatiable desire for wealth. This desire is not meant to be indulged thoughtlessly. It is a reflection, a reminder of the soul’s more refined longing to acquire true wealth, as part of perpetual journey of coming closer to the Divine. This was the reason that G-d showered Israel with wealth when they left Egypt.[1]

However, wealth only serves this deeper spiritual purpose when its bearer dwell independently and in their own land.[2]The desire for wealth expand and extends only in a context of normal economic activity and material development. However, during their time in the desert, the Jewish People were completely estranged from this reality. G-d provided all of their needs miraculously, without any need for initiative or effort on their part. This led to a sense of being overwhelmed with wealth, to the point that the people said ‘dai zahav!’ – ‘Enough gold, we do not need any more!’

The excess of gold led to a mindset of ‘dai,’ of contentedness about physical wealth. Eventually, that same mindset took hold with regard to spiritual matters as well. Instead of constantly striving for greater levels of spirituality, of awakening each day to climb another rung on the ladder between heaven and earth, they sought to arrive at the top. They wanted to arrive at the apex of spiritual perfection and lay down the burden, having arrived at the destination. But this is the root of idolatry. While G-d is infinite, the world of idolatry is one of limits. These limits are most pronounced in the crude idolatry of worshipping physical forms or representations. But even more ‘refined’ idolatry is defined by gods who are limited in the scope and extent of their power and their very being. Any idol wields power only at certain times and over a particular ‘jurisdiction’ of the created world – the god of the ocean is not the god of dry land, the god of death is not the god of life, and so on and so forth.

We can now answer each of the questions that we started with. We see how the Israelite’s mindset of ‘dai’ regarding their riches planted the seeds of the Golden Calf. According to our Sages, there is a deep spiritual connection between idolatry and a certain attitude to wealth – but not wealth per se. G-d was not setting up the people for failure by lavishing them with gold. He was giving them a catalyst for spiritual growth, but they failed to use it properly. Di Zahav is not a play on words, but a profound lesson about the need to chase the ever-receding horizon of closeness to G-d, and not fall prey to avodah zarah and its ideology of limitation.

Food for Thought

Rav Soloveitchik (Days of Deliverance, Pg. 164): Historically, the Jew has proven his ability to remain loyal and devoted to his tradition in poverty, in oppression, in distress. However, he failed miserably to prove his loyalty when his destiny was one of success and glorious achievements. We met the challenge of poverty and oppression and persecution with courage and determination, and we emerged victorious. However, with few exceptions, we have failed the challenge of affluence, of prominence in society. Jews have never lived as comfortably as we do now; never in Jewish history have we been as free as we are now, particularly in the United States. Moreover, the commitment of American Jewry to the Land of Israel is very impressive now. But many have not met with the required quality of heroism the challenge to commitment to observance and the ancient lifestyle that we have defended with our blood and tears and sweat.

Rabbis Levi Avtzon (Contemporary, Chabad.com): Our tradition seems to offer opposing views on wealth… So is wealth a blessing or a curse? The answer to all these questions is the same: It depends what you make of it. Wealth, like any means, is a potential. Potential is neither good nor bad; it’s neutral and colorless. The user gives it meaning and color. We take potential out of neutral and decide whether it will drive us forward or set us back into reverse.

Rav Soloveitchik (Derashot haRav, pg. 116-117): Within the non-Jewish world, one sees commendable responses to wealth. Wealthy nations foster culture, nurture creativity and spirituality contribute to science and the arts, and demonstrate generosity to their fellow man. America, for example, has weathered the trial of wealth over the last fifty years very well. The charity that America bestowed on their former enemies after both world wars is unsurpassed. The United States has built a great civilization and placed huge resources into its universities, music, and its literature. However, the non-Jewish world cannot tolerate the trial of poverty or the trial of suffering. The best example is Germany’s behavior as a nation after World War I. In response to military defeat and hyperinflation, it systematically exterminated twenty million people.

The Jew’s reaction to the experiences of both poverty and wealth is precisely the opposite. Historically, Jews have fared poorly when confronted with the trial of wealth. When a Jew acquires excessive wealth, he becomes animal-like. While the nations of the world divert a portion of their wealth towards spiritual matters, towards culture, towards higher ideals, under similar circumstances the Jew takes on the trappings of a vulgar, cynical materialism. “And Jeshurun became fat and rebelled (Devarim 32:15)” is the characteristic reaction of the Jew to wealth. Yet when confronted with the trial of poverty or suffering, the Jewish people have fared very well. A Jew does not spill blood when he is hungry When he is hungry he senses the hunger of his fellow; when he is cold, he feels his brother’s discomfort.

Vilna Gaon (Berachos 64a): The prophet Zechariah (3:7) describes angels as omdim— standing, while referring to humans as holchim— goers. Although angels are virtually flawless and on an extremely high spiritual level, this greatness actually limits them, as they remain static and unchanging throughout their entire existence. Humans, on the other hand, certainly make mistakes, but they also possess the unique ability of evolving and improving.

Tanach:

בראשית לא:וְעַתָּה הָלֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ, כִּי נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ – לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ אֶת אֱלֹהָי?

תהלים פד:נִכְסְפָה וְגַם כָּלְתָה נַפְשִׁי לְחַצְרוֹת ה’, לִבִּי וּבְשָׂרִי יְרַנְּנוּ אֶל אֵל חָי

איוב יד:תִּקְרָא וְאָנֹכִי אֶעֱנֶךָּ, לְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ תִכְסֹף

Questions for Discussion

What are some of the spiritual challenges presented by wealth?
How can a person constantly pursue spiritual growth without becoming unhappy with themselves and what they have accomplished?
Do you agree with Rav Kook’s argument that the desire for wealth has a spiritual dimension? Why or why not?
Take a look at the pasukim quoted above in “Food For Thought.” How might they support Rav Kook’s interpretation of the human desire for wealth?
What are some unhealthy attitudes towards wealth that you think are widespread in the Orthodox community. From where did these attitudes develop? Are they something we absorbed from the broader culture, or do we have only ourselves to blame?
Rav Kook writes that the desire for wealth reflects deeper, much more profound needs of the human soul. Can you think of any other desires that seem lowly on the surface, but really have a spiritual component to them?
What line in Birkat haChodesh supports Rav Kook’s understanding that wealth has a spiritual component to it?
What small step can you take in your own life to continue to grow religiously?

[1] According to the midrash, the Jews also collected riches from the Egyptian army at the Yam Suf. See Rashi on Shemot 15:22.

[2] In a portion not translated above, Rav Kook explains that G-d showered the people with wealth in anticipation of their needs in Eretz Yisrael. Although Hashem was providing everything in the desert, this would not last forever. It was Israel’s shortsightedness that led to the sense of being overwhelmed with wealth, that led to the attitude of ‘dai.’

Vows and the World of Emotion – Parshat Matot/Masei

4bEjbfuDJHDoCaN53xnr9V2UcxceGyiFGowqkJ2WBtZBpLosY27khdg2v3yHTqGhXDiJPq9r4eJ9hcHGZJDruojcoykBvoUBQKh2ConewMwqVXZ2A1HiCp95QBB9ordnNrzx1AnKBd36ZERhc9F7H5fp1AXtgH4eVH35mHReBBoKFdPnYW.jpeg

Printable PDF available here.

Ein Ayah (Gemara Shabbat 32b); Pinkasei haRe’iah (Vol. 1, pg. 170)

A complete religious life engages both the mind and the emotions of the heart. Every mitzvah has a role to play in developing our intellectual and emotional connection with G-d, but not every mitzvah acts in the same way. Certain mitzvot are primarily addressed to the intellect, while others engage mainly with the emotional realm.

The world of nedarim is associated primarily with the emotions. A neder usually comes from an outburst of intense feelings. Perhaps one is swept up in an overpowering sense of awe, fear, or gratitude that inspires a promise of greater dedication to G-d, or a measure of abstinence from the physical world. Or perhaps he takes a vow at a time of intense danger or trouble, pledging to improve himself if G-d sends His deliverance. In Parshat Matot, G-d warns us to be careful to fulfill our pledges – “If a man makes a vow to G-d or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not violate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do” (Bamidbar 30:3). This is more than just a technical commandment about vows, as a surface reading might suggest. It is a warning to take the basis of vows – i.e. the world of emotions – seriously.

After all, G-d bestowed a tremendous gift upon us by making emotional faculties part of human nature. Proper emotional sensitivity bestirs us to rise above conduct that is base and lowly, and maintain our holy dignity. An emotionally attuned person can sense the goodness (or absence thereof) in matters of ethics, and the truth or falsehood in issues of practical conduct. Wherever life’s paths take him, his perception of kedushah assists in in discerning what is beautiful or shameful, and reinforces his intellectual attainments. G-d forbid that a person should suppress his G-d-given emotional sensitivities and serve his creator with intellect only! By admonishing us to fulfill our pledges, G-d is training us to recognize the value of holy feelings. One who belittles his vows and fails to fulfill them rejects the great benefit of this holy gift.

Emotional sensitivity is a particularly important focus of chinuch. The essence of chinuch is to imbue a child with a sensitivity to kedushah and ethical conduct, so that they have a healthy foundation to build on upon reaching intellectual maturity. The most fundamental failure of chinuch is to emphasize only what can be rationally comprehended and grasped by the intellect, without warmth or holy fire, without a sensitivity to the delight of living in Hashem’s presence through refined middot, the sanctity of Torah and avodat Hashem.

Indeed, the greater and more spiritually refined a person is, the more his emotional faculties are intensified. However, harnessing these emotions requires continuous work and refinement. It is because of Israel’s tremendous spiritual potential that G-d obligated us in so many mitzvot. Together, the mitzvot deepen our emotional resonance to ethical values and kedushah. רצה הקב׳ה לזכות את ישראל, לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצוות “G-d desired to refine and purify the Jewish people, and therefore gave them an abundance of mitzvot.”

Food for Thought

Relevance: Pirkei Avos for the Twenty-first Century (pg. 235-236): To help another person, one must be able to relate to his emotional needs and desires… A man once came to Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe for advice on what to do about his son’s over-involvement in soccer. The father wanted to know if it was responsible to place a limit on his son’s playing time…[of] half an hour. “Half an hour?!” exclaimed Rabbi Wolbe. “You can’t play anything in half an hour!” Rabbi Wolbe was eighty-six years old at the time and had never played a game of soccer in his life, yet he managed to relate to the boy’s attachment to the sport, sensing his love for the game. He thus understood that half an hour would do nothing to satisfy his need to play. The boy’s father, on the other hand, who was forty years Rabbi Wolbe’s junior…had tried to deal with the issue on a purely intellectual level, ignoring the boy’s passion for the game.

Rav Soloveitchik (The Rav, Vol. 2, pg. 172): As a child I used to feel stimulated, aroused, and deeply inspired. I used to experience a strange peaceful stillness. As a child I used to surrender, using the language of the mystics, to a stream of inflowing joy and ecstasy. In a word, as a young child I felt the presence of kedushah on these nights… Paradoxically, I must say that these emotions and experiences, however naive and childish, have always been the fountainhead of my religious life. My religious life has always been a colorful life. This achievement I derived from my childhood experience and not from my intellectual accomplishments.

Rav Soloveitchik (A Tribute to the Rebbetzin of Talne): What is torat imekha? What kind of a Torah does the mother pass on?… Permit me to draw upon my own experiences… I used to watch [my mother] arranging the house in honor of a holiday. I used to see her recite prayers; I used to watch her recite the sidra every Friday night and I still remember the nostalgic tune. I learned from her very much. Most of all I learned that Judaism expresses itself not only in formal compliance with the law but also in a living experience. She taught me that there is a flavor, a scent and warmth to mitzvot. I learned from her the most important thing in life – to feel the presence of the Almighty and the gentle pressure of His hand resting upon my frail shoulders. Without her teachings, which quite often were transmitted to me in silence, I would have grown up a soulless being, dry and insensitive. The laws of Shabbat, for instance, were passed on to me by my father; they are a part of mussar avikha. The Shabbat as a living entity, as a queen, was revealed to me by my mother… The fathers knew much about the Shabbat; the mothers lived the Shabbat, experienced her presence, and perceived her beauty and splendor. The fathers taught generations how to observe the Shabbat; mothers taught generations how to greet the Shabbat and how to enjoy her twenty-four hour presence.

A Journey Through Nach (Introduction to Melachim): The kings of Yisrael are connected with Yosef (for their first king was Yeravam, who was a descendant of Yosef), while the kings of Yehuda are from the tribe of Yehuda. And since a central trait of Yosef was emotion (regesh; in Bereishis, the Torah gives us three instances of Yosef crying), the kings of Yisrael were also governed by emotion. This trait is also true of Yosef’s sole maternal brother, Binyamin (perhaps this emotion originated from Rachel), which was the root of Shaul’s mistake in his misplaced mercy on the people of Amalek in Shmuel Aleph. In contrast, the kings of Yehuda inherited Yehuda’s trait of putting mind (sechel) over emotion, in the same way that Yehuda rose above the emotions displayed by his brothers, and managed to save Yosef from death in the pit by suggesting that he be sold instead. Thus, Shlomo Hamelech, a descendant of Yehuda, was the epitome of this trait of sechel. It is perhaps for this reason that, in general, the kings of Yehuda were more loyal to Hashem than the kings of Yisrael; for they had greater wisdom, and could recognize Hashem’s ultimate control without being blindly led by emotions. We learn that emotions are important, but they have to be tied down and governed by sechel (intellect).

David Hazony (Human Responsibility in the Thought of R. Eliezer Berkovits): The mistaken belief that man can be made good solely through preparation of the mind is, in [R. Eliezer] Berkovits’ view, the salient tragedy of Western civilization… [B]eginning with Christianity… Western man as represented by European thought has associated the question of morality almost exclusively with the question of what a truncated, spiritualized actor, possessing only reason or faith, ought to do. The question of how, once right action has been determined, one is to overcome inner obstacles to taking the proper action is understood, when it is considered at all, to be a separate issue, relating to other realms such as psychology or education. The result was that despite centuries of moral teaching, Western man was never able to overcome the intrinsic amorality of his material element. The rise of murderous regimes in the heart of the most philosophically developed civilization stood for Berkovits as testimony to the West’s failure to grasp the nature of morality. [As he wrote] “In this respect, there seems to be little difference between ages of greater or lesser enlightenment; except that, in times of greater intellectual advancement, as knowledge increases, man grows in power proportionately and becomes correspondingly more dangerous…. Notwithstanding enlightenment, man seems to remain an essentially unethical being.”

Questions for Discussion

Rav Kook discusses the dangers of Jewish life without emotional depth. What are some dangers that come with an overemphasis on emotion, at the expense of the intellect?
How does one know if they’ve struck the right balance between intellect and emotion as an individual? As a community?
Who can you think of in your life that models a deep, emotional attachment to G-d and Jewish life?
Rav Soloveitchik seems to write that women have more sensitivity to the emotional texture of Jewish life than men do. Do you agree?
Do you think our culture emphasizes intellect more than emotion, or vice versa? On what basis?
Did your upbringing/education put emphasis on intellect or emotion? Or were the two balanced?
The first time we find a neder in the Torah is by Ya’akov (Bereishit 28:20, after he wakes up from his vision of the ladder. Re-read that parshah in light of Rav Kook’s insights on nedarim. Does it seem like Ya’akov’s neder has an emotional component to it?

Zealotry and Holy Savlanut – Parshat Pinchas

Printable PDF available here.

Midot haRe’iah (ערך סבלנות)

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

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

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

Orot haKodesh(חלק ג, צפיה לישועה אות יג)

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

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

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

Food for Thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dwelling Alone, Together – Parshat Balak

Printable PDF available here.

Orot Yisrael (8:6):

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

Food for Thought

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

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

Questions for Discussion

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

[1]Devarim 32:8

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

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

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

Beyond Belief – Parshat Chukat

Printable PDF available here.

Ein Ayah (Gemara Shabbat 97a):

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

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

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

Food for Thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Discussion

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

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

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

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

Koraḥism and Christianity – Parshat Korach

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

Orot (Yisrael U’Techiyato, 16):[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food for Thought

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

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

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

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

Questions for Discussion

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

Commentary

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

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

Even More Food for Thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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