Isolationism vs. Socialization - Part III
RAV KOOKS LETTERS
By Rav
Isolationism vs. Socialization (continued)
Chapter 2
In this
shiur, I will attempt to present the essence of ideas that are the subject
of whole books by Rav Kook himself and by his many commentators. Some of what
appears here is based on sources and/or articles which the reader may refer to
as directed in the footnotes.[1]
My aim is to present the main foundations of Rav Kook's theology and their
ramifications for the concept of the "kodesh" (holy), which is central to
his philosophy, from the point of view that is important for our discussion
here.
The
difficult philosophical problem underlying Rav Kook's idea of the holy arises
from the encounter between the following two assertions:
a.
Rav
Kook's theology is basically immanent: that is, the world with all its layers
and phenomena, is a multi-hued manifestation of Divinity. Both nature, which is
manifest as a circular necessity (the circular principle), and manifestations of
will are part of the "Infinite Light" in other words, to put it simply, they
are different forms of Divine manifestation. To define it negatively, what this
theology means is a negation of classical theism: the idea that Divinity is an
essence/entity/consciousness in its own right which is fundamentally different
from tangible reality. God is not transcendental to reality, but rather is the
locus of the world, and "there is no place that is devoid of Him," but even
these statements do not fully convey the idea that everything is God. Reality is
a sort of gateway through which we peek at the Palace (metaphor borrowed from "Ha-Tzimaon
le-El Chai," in Zer'onim, chapter 1).
b.
The
concept of the holy both normative and existential identifies essences in
the world (in the realms of place, time, and man) which are holy and others
which are profane. For example, there is Shabbat and there are the days of the
week;
These two
perceptions are mutually contradictory, and it is their reconcilement which Rav
Kook viewed as the basis for his entire religious philosophy. How can it be that
our perception of holiness or of the holy contradicts our principle of Divinity
or Godliness? How can it be that the pursuit of our theological theory leads us
to the conclusion that Godliness is manifest in the world and there is nothing
other than Godliness, while our pursuit of the concept of holiness establishes
that reality, for the most part, is not Godly?
The first
stage of understanding the problem is the distinction which needs to be made, to
borrow Chabad terms, between our perception of reality and "His"
perception of it.[2]
Or to borrow the terms of Kantian epistemology, we must distinguish between the
world of phenomena (the world as perceived through our categories of perception
and consciousness) and the world as it is in itself the absolute perspective.
The main significance of this distinction is that we should not, on the basis of
what we perceive, conclude anything about true reality.
Kant's
discussion focuses mainly on scientific regularity and the sensory world. The
importation of the Kantian hypothesis of consciousness into the realm of
religious ontology is of great significance. Rav Kook concludes, on the basis of
Sefer Ha-Tanya, that not only are our perceptions subjective, but even
the subject's own self-perception is part of the world of phenomena i.e., it
is real only from the subject's point of view.[3]
"Its point of view" i.e., reality as it really is does not recognize the
duality of me and God, because in fact no duality exists. Every "I" is a
manifestation of the Divine. The transcendental "I," from this point of view, is
merely an illusion. The "relative, subjective nature" of consciousness, as Rav
Kook refers to it, is the essence of the sefira of Malkhut[4]
which, according to the kabbalists, is not substance, but rather a form of
perception, the foundation of man's perception, which is not absolute. Sefer
Ha-Tanya explains that the Malkhut aspect of Divine emanation
requires the creation of creatures that will accept God's Kingship for "there
can be no king without a nation" (i.e., subjects). However, he takes the
metaphor a step further, teaching that the word am (nation) is derived
from "omemut" (dimming) meaning that God's Kingship is dimmed in the
resulting reality. This is the condition for the existence of full Kingship
that there be those who enjoy personal independence and accept the kingship upon
themselves. The sefira of Malkhut is referred to as "zot"
and "ani" because it is the source of the creation of concrete existence
("zot") and the appearance of the consciousness of "ani" (I,
myself) in other words, the existence of a personal, subjective reality
outside of Godliness.[5]
Even at
this early stage, we may raise the partial hypothesis that the "kodesh"
is conspicuous against the background of the "chol" only from within the
prism of Malkhut, while in truth everything is "kodesh." This is
the dialectic between the sefira of Yesod, which is the essence of
the inner quality of reality (the kodesh), and Malkhut, which is
the manner of the manifestation and reception of that reality and the impression
which it makes upon us. This may be compared to the difference between the
source of light, which is white, and its multi-colored refraction. What we
encounter is not the source, but rather the refraction.
The second stage is the understanding that
there is a chasm separating our theoretical knowledge about reality and
Godliness (theology and ontology), and our ability to perceive, experientially,
that which is known to us.
The significance of this understanding is
that the distinction between "kodesh" and "chol" is important
specifically within our world of perception. The manifestation, or appearance,
of "kodesh" is something different from its essence. We are aware that in
truth nothing exists outside of Godliness, and therefore there is no real
difference between different times, different places, different objects or
people. However, this knowledge has the status of speculative metaphysics, which
is understood but not (experientially) perceived.
There is scientific information which we
relate to in the same way starting with our knowledge that the sun's position
is fixed (relative to us) and the earth revolves around it, all the way to our
knowledge of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Although this information is
certain and able to be proven, it contradicts the manner in which we perceive
the world. We may therefore say that the theology of immanence is an example of
this sort of knowledge, which contradicts our most profound perceptions.
The third stage in solving the problem is
establishing the role of each of these perspectives. If I have information about
the world which is inconsistent with the manner in which I perceive the world,
what do I do with that information?
To answer this question, we may refer to
precedents which have arisen around various issues. One of the classic debates
in religious thought concerns the relationship between Divine decree and man's
free choice. A fatalist believes absolutely in predetermination i.e., he
believes that everything that happens in our world is the result of a primal
Divine will. How does this person relate to the idea of free choice? Obviously,
we intuitively perceive freedom of will as a fact; we perceive ourselves as
beings with the ability to make choices. When someone is shown the truth about
Divine Providence, how should he conduct himself on the level of his own
choices?[6]
Different answers are proposed for this
question. Some seek to diminish somewhat the scope of the Divine decree or of
free choice, so as to leave space for both; others accept the fatalist
conclusion on the existential level, too. For the purposes of our discussion, I
would like to focus on a third position, which compartmentalizes the two
statements (there is Divine decree, and there is free choice), viewing them as
applying to two different levels. The knowledge about God's decree is true, but
it need not influence our actual consciousness. In other words, since we see
ourselves, in our perception, have free choice, we must act accordingly,
ignoring the theoretical knowledge as to the nature of that choice.
Rav Kook adopts the same sort of
"compartmentalization" in addressing the ideological (and non-philosophical)
stage of the issue of the "kodesh. The compartmentalization has a
sociological aspect and a psychological aspect. In terms of the former, Rav Kook
differentiates between the masses including the great majority of talmidei
chakhamim and "regular" tzaddikim and the supreme tzaddikim.
For the great majority, the distinction between "kodesh" and "chol"
is vital, and any blurring of it spells destruction. The masses cannot
relinquish the identification of the "kodesh" in comparison with the "chol."[7]
In terms of the psychological aspect, the
distinction is between the level of action and choice, on the one hand, and
thought and poetry on the other. We shall dwell for a moment on the source for
this distinction, since it is of fundamental importance in understand Rav Kook's
teachings.
In a central section of his discussion of
the concept of overall unity,[8]
Rav Kook juxtaposes theistic theology (Divinity as an exclusive entity,
transcendental to existence) and pantheistic theology (immanence, the world as a
manifestation of divinity). He does not subject them to discursive investigation
i.e., there is no questioning of their theoretical truth. Rather, he explains
that the theistic worldview causes a weakening of thought, owing to the terror
and the sense of insignificance and nothingness which it imposes upon man, which
may manifest itself in a pathological way, even as jealousy.[9] The view that the
world is a Divine manifestation, in contrast, fills and satisfies man.
Upon reading this excerpt one might have
the impression that the conclusion is quite simple: theism is an erroneous
theology, as proven by its negative results. Some of Rav Kook's commentators
have indeed arrived at this conclusion. But it is wrong. Later on in the same
section, Rav Kook explains why it is only through theism as a vessel, a form of
perception, that the pantheistic view is revealed. We cannot reject theism even
after discovering that it is only imaginary. The reason for this is that theism
is the only manner in which we are able to maintain a realistic world view along
with fear of Heaven. Pantheism nullifies our subjective consciousness, the
distinction between good and evil, and to a certain extent even between
choice and necessity. The world that we perceive is a world of distinctions and
contrasts, a world of duality first and foremost, the duality of the
perceiving subject (I) and that which is perceived (you or him/it). This
duality, in kabbalistic terms, is expressed in the relation between Malkhut,
which is not an integral part of the Divine essence, the human "I," and the
sefira of Tiferet, which represents the Tetragrammaton, the "You"
from the human perspective.
The possibility of our knowing the
theological truth that there is nothing but God arises from our ability to
arrive at knowledge of the world through dimensions that lie beyond immediate
human perception. These dimensions are (philosophical/theological) thought and
poetry (as an expression of the Supreme will and imagination) which here again
is a metaphor for the profound psychological revelation of a person who has an
inner sense of reality that passes over the usual sensory, perceptive process.
The transferring of this inner knowledge to the practical realm certainly in
the public realm may lead to real religious or axiological nihilism or,
alternatively, to idolatry. The obvious conclusion is that on the practical
level and on the public level, the theistic concepts which draw an absolute
distinction between our world and the Divine reality are necessary and must
prevail.
The Halakha, which is the practical
expression of the Oral Law these, according to Kabbala and Rav Kook, being
manifestations of the sefira of Malkhut within our reality
creates a model for normative relations with reality, reflecting this practical
consciousness. Of course, the Halakha draws a clear distinction between "kodesh"
and "chol" and between "good" and "evil." Halakha also distinguishes
between Jew and non-Jew; Kohen, Levi, and Yisrael; and even
between a scholar and an ignoramus. It would be true to say of Halakha that it
also reflects our intuitive perception on the religious and moral level, which
distinguishes between values but at the same time also molds them.
However, all of this applies not only in
relation to Halakha in the narrow sense, as a defined codex of rules, but also
to the entire guidance of our conduct. Every decision on the practical level, as
well as every ideological position that is directed at action (as opposed to
being limited exclusively to the world of inner thought and poetry), must
reflect our simple perception of reality, and not the knowledge that we possess
concerning the true essence of things. Blurring these areas leads to
destruction.[10]
From the sociological point of view, only
unique individuals, whom Rav Kook calls "tzaddikim elyonim" (supreme
tzaddikim), whose consciousness has expanded completely beyond the simple
perception such that the recognition of the "kodesh" in reality fills
their consciousness and their emotions, can live on the level which transcends
differences and distinction. Even they experience difficulty when they encounter
the practical halakhic obligations which, as noted, reflect the human perception
that is on the level of Malkhut and not the fundamentally true reality.[11]
According to Rav Kook's description, these supreme tzaddikim experience
distress and constriction. Everyone else must conduct themselves and be guided
as required on the practical level. Even these tzaddikim themselves must
know how to pass from one level to the other when they seek to involve
themselves in public leadership. The difficulty of this is obvious, and Rav Kook
describes it at length.[12]
This insight is the key to reading many of
Rav Kook's letters. There are sections which we might call "personal," in which
Rav Kook describes his own consciousness or experience. In these instances, we
hear the echo of the inner consciousness of a "supreme tzaddik" (to use
his term), to whom all of reality is revealed in its Divine manifestation and
who therefore finds truth in every opinion, goodness in every person, and
holiness in everything; all the duality in the world means nothing to him. There
are other sections of Rav Kook's letters which we might call "esoteric" or
"ideological," in which we hear the voice of Rav Kook as leader and educator, or
the voice of this consciousness. Most of the contrasts in his writings may be
traced back to this dual aspect. His public writings (articles, letters, or
complete works) certainly reflect more of the aspect of practical leadership,
while his diary writings (the eight collections as the "Orot" books
comprising them) reflect more of the personal aspect, but this distinction is
not absolute.
Before dealing with the main problem of
the article, I propose based only on this understanding a way of looking at
Rav Kook's halakhic oeuvre, from within his teaching concerning the "kodesh."
To my mind, we should not expect Rav
Kook's halakhic works to reflect or realize his eschatological or mystical
vision, since Halakha is, as stated, the expression of the practical, historical
aspect. As such, Halakha must be aware of man's weaknesses, of the slow and
convoluted nature of historical processes, the yetzer ha-ra,
manipulations, etc. In short, it must be responsible and cautious. The
conclusion to be drawn from this estimation is ultimately a conservative one.
The renewal and creativity characteristic of the time of redemption take place
more inwardly i.e., in thought and emotion. Eliezer Malkiel[13] has analyzed Rav Kook's ruling concerning
the "heter mekhira" for the Shemitta year and has shown how
his various rulings in this regard reflect the anticipation of redemption, but
also and perhaps principally the understanding that the End of Days is still
far off. To put it differently, until such time as God is One and His Name One
and the screen that conceals the Divine appearance is removed, Halakha with
the principle of constriction and limitation so central to it is essential.
It should be noted that in all of Rav
Kook's important and lengthy teachings concerning Torat Eretz Yisrael,
the unification of Halakha and Aggada, the Written Law and the Oral Law, etc.,
there is not a single sentence about a change required in halakhic practice. Rav
Kook pointed out the difference between the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian
Talmud, but continued to rule in accordance with the latter. He called for
prophetic influence on halakhic decision-making, but his methodology follows the
classic legal, halakhic tradition. Any change that took place was on the level
of consciousness, emotion, and desire, but not on the level of practice.
The fourth and final stage: Finally, we
must ask whether the religious perception (theism on the level of "Malkhut") is
actually influenced by the recognition of the absolute truth of the overall
unity (everything is Divinity), or whether these are two separate, parallel
levels of relating which can be brought together only at future eschatological
time.
I believe that the general answer here is
certainly positive that is, there is an influence but there are important
differences between different issues and different situations, and the ways of
influence are not always clearly and unequivocally defined.
An obvious example of this is the question
of the proper attitude towards the secular Zionist pioneers. A halakhic
definition of them would, of course, be negative. Rav Kook, who clearly viewed
them as lofty souls ("souls from the world of tohu, according to
Zer'onim, section 3), as idealists, as people whose profound (if
unconscious) desire is to extend the "kodesh" to the "chol,"
treated them on the practical level, too, in a manner that went beyond purely
normative-halakhic codes. His sympathetic attitude, his famous visits, his real
cooperation, are to a considerable extent the result of his profound, inner
consciousness concerning them. When real halakhic issues arose (see the eulogy "Al
Bamotenu Chalalim"), the conflict between the two levels became particularly
difficult. In our next shiur, we shall see what the answer to this
question was in the realm of the socio-educational issue that is at the center
of our discussion.
(To be continued)
Translated by
[1]
See
[2]
See Tanya, Sha'ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emuna, chapters 3-11.
[3]
See Orot Ha-kodesh, part II, 397-401.
[4]
The following brief background review is meant for readers who are not
familiar with the relevant kabbalistic terms and their meaning:
Kabbala describes the coming-into-being of the world as a process whereby
existence emanated and emerged from Divinity, rather than as the result of the
Creator's free will, ex nihilo. The Divinity which preceded Y-H-V-H is
usually referred to as "Einsof" (Infinity), expressing our inability to
perceive this reality. Creation, or atzilut ("emanation"), means
particular, discrete appearances, separate from the undefined Einsof.
These appearances, which are actually modes of Divine manifestation and
influence, are referred to in Kabbala as "sefirot." The kabbalists speak
of 10 such sefirot, with multiple internal nuances. The first sefira
is Keter, expressing the most hidden dimension, beyond grasp; it is
followed by Chokhma, Bina, etc. The sefirot which reflect
the main aspects of Divine manifestation are Chessed (right side) and
Gevura (left side), with secondary manifestations in the form of Netzach
(right) and Hod (left). The sefira which combines these opposing
aspects and embodies the unity of Divine action, despite its contradictions, is
that of Tiferet, which is sometimes called Emet (perfection) or
Rachamim (combination of Chessed and Din). These five sefirot bring
down abundant beneficence into the world via the sefira of Yesod,
which is the source of the Divine abundance and fertility in the world. The
final sefira is Malkhut. Malkhut is, on one hand, one of
the qualities inherent to Divinity, but on the other hand it is external and
dependent on God's subjects (meaning all that exists, but principally mankind)
who accept upon themselves the yoke of God's Kingdom. In practice, Malkhut
is the aspect of Divinity that requires the creation of entities with separate
awareness. The very creation of anything at all, and of mankind in particular,
is part of the wholeness and perfection of God's manifestation. However, the
fact that they possess a non-Divine consciousness, that they are self-conscious
beings, is already no longer part of the positive manifestation of God's
attributes (Chessed, Gevura, or Tiferet), but rather the
creation of the necessary conditions for the appearance of Malkhut, which
by definition is a social, inter-personal function.
Malkhut is also referred to by other imagery, including "kalla"
(bride), Knesset Yisrael, Shabbat (evening), and others.
[5]
See Iggerot ha-RAYA"H I, letter 44, and the sources cited in note 4.
[6]
A materialist faces a similar problem. If everything may be reduced to
chemical and physical processes including all our thoughts and emotional
experiences then freedom of choice is, once again, merely an illusion. Is the
conclusion to be drawn here that man has no moral responsibility?
[7]
This distinction between the masses and a small cadre of tzaddikim or
philosophers rests, of course, on precedents within both Jewish and secular
thought. An obvious example is to be found in the Rambam's metaphor of the
"apples of gold in silver filigree" in his introduction to Moreh Nevukhim,
as well as in part III, chapter 28. Plato understood the difference between "the
good" and "the true" and spoke about the beneficent "lie" and its importance for
ruling a country. Both the Rambam and Rav Kook would reject the use of the term
"lie," but they agree with the idea of different levels of truth and the need of
the masses to suffice with a truth that is partial or limited.
[8]
Orot Ha-kodesh II, p. 399.
[9]
Ibid., p.397
[10]
Orot Ha-kodesh II, p.311, and especially II p.119 and elsewhere.
[11]
This is a level which Rav Kook often refers to as the "clear glass" of
Moshe Rabbeinu or, in its ideal form, the "supreme estate of Adam." It is also
referred to by the precise term, "supreme Divine cleaving," and it is compared
to the ideal set forth by the Rambam in his Moreh Nevukhim III: 51, where
he attributes it to the level of the forefathers. See Arpilei Tohar
pp.16-17; Orot Ha-kodesh II, p.493; Orot Ha-kodesh I, pp.278-9.
[12]
It is important to emphasize the historical dimension of this argument.
At the End of Days, the difference between the two types of consciousness will
fall away. But in our world, which is still far from achieving perfection, we
are still busy with the stage of clarification, for which the distinction
between "kodesh" and "chol" is vital. See Iggerot, vol. I,
pp. 173-177. To my view, this is an exalted expression of the other dimension of
Rav Kook's perception of the "kodesh," and not must the tension between
two opposing elements in his thought; see Ross, 69-70.
[13]
Eliezer
Malkiel, Ideology and Halakha in Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ha-kohen Kook's Heiter
Mekhira," Shenaton Ha-mishpat Ha-ivri 20 (5757), pp.169-211.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!