Isolationism vs. Socialization - Part IV
RAV KOOK’S LETTERS
By Rav
FESTIVAL OF
FREEDOM: ESSAYS ON PESAH AND THE HAGGADAH
by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
SPECIAL VBM 20% DISCOUNT $20.00
*********************************************************
Shiur #26d
Isolationism vs. Socialization (continued)
Chapter 3
Let us now return to the question we raised in
Chapter 1 – how the concepts which we presented as guiding principles of
religious consciousness and the perception of the "kodesh" in the
philosophy of Rav Kook are applied to the issue of separatism or socialization,
on the social and cultural levels.
It seems that a distinction must be drawn between
everything that Rav Kook says on the level of metaphysical and value judgment,
on the one hand, and the practical ideological guidelines that he recommends. In
other words, the theoretical ideas that he expresses about the need for loving
every person, and certainly every fellow Jew (which are also expressed in strong
personal language), or the fact that he acknowledges the necessity of having
different sectors within Am Yisrael, including those engaged in material
activity, cannot be translated directly into a practical guide for education or
social life. By the same token, the (correct) view that every idea and teaching
that has some positive purpose in improving and enhancing human life and the
world in general has religious and moral value, and that the good that is
manifest in the ideas of writers and philosophers of all stripes is indeed good
and that we should learn from it,[1] is not a
platform for a study curriculum. In attempting to establish a practical policy,
first and foremost we must consider practical considerations. Hence, our
question is not, “Is there holiness within all of Am Yisrael, or in their
actions, or in their ideas,” etc., leading us to an operative conclusion (what
to study, whom to draw close to). Rather, our question will be: Which
educational direction, study curriculum, social ideology, etc. (i.e., means,
rather than aims or values) are able to nurture people and a society with
religious roots and vision, which will be able to contain an all-encompassing
view of Divinity and of unity, and which will be able to look out from within
that view and perceive and accept all that is holy and good which exists in all
of reality and inside all people.
Rav Kook provides the answer to this question in his
treatment of the statement from the Zohar: "The Other Side (Sitra
Achra) starts with unity and ends with division" (and vice versa concerning
the Side of Holiness). The "start" and "end" are metaphors for the chasm that
separates the path from its result, or the seeming disconnect between the ideals
and the means of attaining them. Rav Kook's interpretation of this teaching is
as follows: The connection between people or communities may be accomplished in
a lower Sefira or in a higher Sefira. The world that we encounter
through our initial, immediate perception, is a world of contrasts. Some people
are engaged in holy occupations; others are mired in the profane. Some people
entertain elevated thoughts; others have narrow, constricted thoughts. There are
those who occupy themselves with tikkun olam – making the world a better
place – while others are concerned only with their own honor. The atmosphere
that some people surround themselves with is material and dense, while others
breathe the clear, clean air of the highest pinnacles. The same may be said of
the different styles of language that people adopt.
While it is true that there is an inner, more
profound perspective than that reflected in this evaluation, that perspective is
not our initial, immediate perception. It depends on a person's ability to
radically change the manner in which he perceives and understands the world, and
to elevate himself beyond the subjective, revealed appearance of reality. In
other words, that view is the end result of a long educational and
religious process, rather than its point of departure. This is because an
observer who is used to ordinary people doing ordinary things will view them as
such, and not as manifestations of some hidden holiness. If he wishes to engage
in holiness and surround himself with a different atmosphere, he has no choice
but to sever himself from that ordinary reality. Connecting, at the first stage,
means – almost of necessity – a blurring of the distinction between the material
and the spiritual or between the sacred and the profane. A connection between
people, or between communities, requires finding a common denominator in terms
of lifestyle, spheres of interest, aims, etc., and this precludes the
possibility of ascending and progressing within the sphere of holiness, with
spiritual objectives. For this reason, the aspiration for connection, at the
first stage, is a sort of temptation by the Sitra Achra, since it is
ultimately going to lead either to a deterioration and degeneration to a lower
state or to separation and strife, since on the revealed level the contrasts
exist and are quite profound. They will inevitably end up confronting one
another.[2]
The same is true in the cultural sphere. The truth
and goodness that exist within every scientific discovery, cultural phenomenon,
ideology, or work of art can be perceived only from within a higher perspective
which views every human thought aimed at goodness and tikkun, as a
manifestation of Divinity in our reality. Such a view can even regard sources of
heresy as holy points of light, and view the phenomenon of heresy as part of the
revelation of a higher truth. From a regular, practical perspective, different
truths compete with one another. Each is built on the negation of other truths:
Heresy denies faith; liberty negates the acceptance of a yoke; liberalism
negates idealism; socialism negates individualism. On this level, it would be
correct to say that Torah and faith likewise follow a specific path that is
distinct and different from other paths. The intermingling of different truths
during the process of study and education – teaching everything all at once –
is, on this level, inherently contradictory. More importantly, it prevents the
development of that higher faith perspective which, once attained, has the power
to overcome those contradictions.
The operative conclusion arising from this analysis
is that, paradoxically, in order to attain a level that allows containment of
contradictions and the revelation of the kodesh and the Divine in every
aspect of life, a person needs to disconnect and separate himself from that very
reality which he encounters, at the outset, in its external appearance.
This conclusion has implications for both the social
and the educational spheres:
In the social sphere, we conclude that we must
separate the society of sanctity from the society of profanity. To state this
point more accurately, it should be pointed out that this does not necessarily
entail a separation between "religious" and "secular" societies; rather, any
society which aspires to transcendence and sanctity in relation to its
surroundings, or any individual who feels that his environment is preventing the
inner listening and spiritual work that he needs in order to ascend spiritually,
must be separated from the environment that sees and seeks nothing beyond the
here-and-now. This guidance should not be identified with the more common idea
of isolationism (after all, the Rambam and Rabbeinu Bechaye, for example,
expressed similar ideas), as an ideal and end in itself. Rav Kook maintains that
the path starts with division, but "concludes with unity." In other words, the
purpose of the separation is not to have a person or a society that is separate;
rather, this is a condition for the spiritual work that will make it possible to
return to the surrounding society, or into the culture from which the individual
or the group removed themselves, equipped with a perception of the Divine unity
that is revealed in all of reality.
Let us explain further. How can a person free
himself from the theistic illusion or, in psychological terms, from the
consciousness of the separate self, from the image of a world of multiplicity
and division, when this form of perception is a very early component of
consciousness, serving to establish the subject's status vis-Ã -vis the world?
Rav Kook acknowledges that liberating oneself from
the confines of this illusion (dimayon, as he refers to it), is no less
difficult than freeing oneself from actual slavery. It may be that the task will
never actually be fully accomplished, and that he will not succeed in adopting
permanently a new consciousness.[3]
Nevertheless, it is possible, and it may be attained, by means of two main
processes:[4]
1.
A learning process
of contemplating concepts and ideas that are the source for the change in
perception (Divinity, unity, the kodesh, etc.). This study is not just an
analytical examination of the concepts, but rather real contemplation, with
internalization of and unification with the ideas. In real terms, there can be
no doubt that Rav Kook refers here to the study of kabbalah – i.e., study of the
Divine presence in our world, attained through contemplation of holy wisdom.
(Rav Kook terms this “chokhmat ha-kodesh,” although he is not necessarily
referring to the texts that are defined as kabbalistic works, but rather, more
broadly, to the inner forms of contemplation arising from kabbalah, even if they
assume aggadic or philosophical form.) Rav Kook explains that such study starts
out as an intellectual process, but ultimately it illuminates and changes one's
emotions and will.
2.
A psychological,
experiential process that is directed towards a person's primal perceptions
concerning the reality around him. Its purpose is to bring about a fundamental
change in his self-perception. In the language of mussar and Chassidut,
we might say that the intention here is to work on one's middot (moral
attributes), but in truth, Rav Kook means more than this. A person must indeed
work on humility, magnanimousness, patience, love, etc., but his work is not
focused on each trait individually; rather, it is directed towards a single
over-arching purpose whose attainment will inform all of these discrete
qualities. The purpose of "inner work" is nullification (bittul – a
negative movement) of the self-contained, complete self that stands before
reality and is defined by its otherness and its separateness. It also entails
the acquisition (a positive movement) of a consciousness of the self that acts
from within reality and as part of it, out of identification and belonging, and
senses its differentness as just one aspect out of many of the manifestations of
Divine light within reality – manifestations which he must bring to realization
as part of the process of the perfection and revelation of reality. In
psychological terms, we might say that Rav Kook calls for an expansion of the
self beyond the boundaries of the individual. To illustrate, we might say that
in a spousal or parental relationship, there is partial containment of the
beloved, such that when a parent is devoted to his child, he does not
necessarily feel that he is foregoing something of himself; rather, he feels a
fulfillment and expansion of himself. Similarly, out of spiritual work, which is
partially intellectual and partially psychological and consists of humility,
love, and more, one may come to feel a sort of self-love towards the other
members of one's nation, or towards other people, and even towards the non-human
reality that surrounds us. Even morality, according to Rav Kook, is not based on
closeness and foregoing, but rather on a self-love which includes within it far
more than the limited individual himself; hence, love is directed towards others
whom I perceive as an integral part of myself.
The possibility of achieving such a complete
self exists because unity is the foundation of reality and it exists within it
in potential, even if it is not revealed openly. (Malkhut, with its root in strict justice, in the concrete and the divisive, is its
external manifestation.) The knowledge that reality is a Divine manifestation
and therefore at its root is one gives us the confidence that this achievement
is possible, and the illusion of the ego can be burst.
To put this more concisely: Both on the level
of awareness and on the deeper psychological level, we are speaking of a
fundamental change of perception and sense of reality. This change cannot take
place so long as a person is bound to a world and a society which are ruled by
the concepts of divisiveness and multiplicity, a world which lives in an
alienated state – in short, so long as he lives in constant attachment to the
world of phenomena. A preliminary condition is the possibility of inner
concentration, self-listening, erasing the surroundings from one's
consciousness, changing one's perspective. All of these require alienation, on
the psychological and cognitive level, from the environment.
Obviously, as noted, this seems paradoxical: How can
a philosophy of love and unity require social and cultural separation? The
answer is that the love and unity that are the goal must be based on a real and
true awareness of and perception of reality as it is. Love of man which is
based, for example, on relativism or moral apathy is unstable and transient. For
this reason, a severance from reality and its perceptions, which are the source
of divisiveness, conflict, and moral weakness, is essential. This will allow
personal, spiritual growth, whose essence is a fundamental change in the way one
knows and feels reality, orientated around its Divine, unified foundation. The
result of this change is indeed a positive perspective on all of reality – both
its material and spiritual aspects; people and culture; love of everything. This
brings us back to the teaching from the Zohar, as cited by Rav Kook: "The
Side of holiness starts with division but ends with unity."
I believe that debates that have raged in recent
years around certain cultural and educational issues, led by the leading
ideologues among the students of Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook – such as Rav Tzvi Tau and
Rav Shlomo Aviner – are related to precisely this point of principle.
I refer here to the debate led by Rav Tau that led
to the division of Yeshivat Merkaz ha-Rav, surrounding the initiative to offer a
teachers' training program within the framework of the yeshiva, as well as
debates concerning the use of academic methodology in the study and teaching of
Tanakh and Talmud.[5] To this
we may add a trend which began some twenty years ago and which has become
increasingly popular in recent years: the establishment of educational
institutions which offer a religious curriculum with almost no general
instruction at all, in contrast to the Religious-Zionist tradition of
State-religious education and the "yeshiva high school" model.[6]
The problems raised were not in the
metaphysical realm; they were all educational issues. In other words, the
question was: Does the study of certain content at a yeshiva or a yeshiva
high-school, or the use of certain methods which all have their origin outside
of our tradition, not harm the pure spiritual environment which is a
precondition for the religious and spiritual education that we seek? We have
already explained that the precondition for the study and internalization of
chokhmat
ha-kodesh is a severance from the world and its profane perception. The introduction
of content or methods from the outside does not allow for this severance, and
hence obstructs the spiritual concentration and elevation to which we aim.
To emphasize the crux of the issue: The
process of separation and isolation, on the social as well as the educational,
cultural level, is not based, as I see it, on an abandonment of the purely
theoretical teachings of Rav Kook. The fundamental concepts of
chokhmat
ha-kodesh, the holiness of Israel, and love of man in general, illuminate the path of
Rav Kook's students and disciples to this day. Rather, the process is motivated
mainly by educational and cultural perceptions whose context is historical and
practical, and which are based on the assumption that the ability to educate and
produce pious, learned scholars, as well as lay members of the community, who
follow a path of holiness, is dependent on an environment that is separate, both
intellectually and socially, and on the radical practical application of these
views.[7]
To this aspect we must also add the historical
perspective. Rav Kook anticipated that the Zionist movement would represent the
source for a process of spiritual growth amongst the entire nation. The hopes
that were attached to the establishment of the State of Israel were great, as
were the hopes for the secular idealism that pushed for its establishment. The
disillusionment over the spiritual and cultural reality of the State match the
dimensions of that hope and anticipation. On the political level, the way in
which this disappointment is handled is mainly ideological: the redemption of
Israel is a slow, gradual process; complications are part of this process; etc.
On the spiritual, cultural level, we observe a process that recalls the
disillusionment following the Hasmonean revolt. The Religious-Zionist enclave is
being formed in order to allow for the continued anticipation of the redemption
which is delayed by the spiritual impoverishment of the general society. The
enclave is created and nurtured out of a belief that its inner spiritual work
and its accumulated influence on society at large will be an alternative
platform for the progression of the process of redemption, which is being held
up by the decline of the main culture. In other words, there is a direct link
between the redemptive view and the disappointment at the lack of a speedy
realization of the redemption, on one hand, and the process of the creation of
the Religious-Zionist enclave, which is meant to be a nucleus of
“kodesh” which will either become an alternative to the greater nation, or succeed
in influencing its spiritual state.[8] We might say that there is a clear similarity between the appearance of
sectarianism in the days of the Hasmoneans and the processes which are
spearheading a new type of sectarianism, here and now, in Israel.
To go back and summarize, using the terms that
served our discussion in the previous shiur, I believe that the
Religious-Zionist stream that follows the students of Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook has
made a significant move towards an existence as an "active enclave" – i.e., as a
distinct group that seeks to influence the stance of the majority, or to replace
it, while in the process creating thick walls around itself.
(to be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish
[1]
Rav Kook's own writings, of course, are
full of such insights, which are assimilated in his teachings.
[2]
See Orot Ha-kodesh II, 439, on
separation and inclusion.
[3]
For the same reason, a supreme tzaddik
does not remain in the psychological realm of the kodesh that is beyond
contrasts; he must return to the practical world, to halakhic problematique,
with all the difficulty that this entails. For more on this difficulty, see
Orot Ha-kodesh II, 499 on.
[4]
Rav Kook addresses this issue in diverse
contexts. What I present here is my own analysis arising from his writings in
several different sources, and with respect to elements which he appears to have
adopted from the Admor ha-Zaken and from Chabad in general.
[5]
Rav Tau's students published a book of
his shiurim on this subject, entitled "Tzaddik be-Emunato Yichyeh."
Rav Shlomo Aviner, the Rabbi of Beit El and Rosh Yeshiva of Ateret Kohanim in
the Old City of Jerusalem, published a response in the "Be-Ahava ve-Emuna"
newsletter distributed weekly in synagogues, entitled, "Tanakh be-Gova
ha-Enayim." A year later, around the end of 2002, a debate arose surrounding
the method of Gemara study which was called the "layers system." In both
instances, the conflict arose out of opposition to new, non-traditional study
methods which borrow from academic disciplines (literary analysis, historical
reading, etc.). Of course, various arguments were enlisted by both sides in the
debates. I address here only one point which, from a reading of the viewpoints
published by the opponents and statements which I heard orally, convinced me
that this was the root of the conflict. As an aside, it should be pointed out
that although our classical commentators also sometimes used literary devices
and historical criticism in their exegesis, there can be no doubt that while
such devices were occasionally employed, they were not treated as a discipline.
Likewise, historical criticism or analysis are rare in commentaries on the
Gemara and certainly do not represent the mainstream approach.
[6]
To this we must add the processes
described at the beginning of Chapter 1 (shiur 26a). Religious-Zionist
Talmud-Torah frameworks of this sort exist in many cities and communities in
Israel.
[7]
In the next shiur, I raise further
considerations which might support or raise questions about these educational
decisions. Here my intention is not to judge or to express an opinion, but
rather simply to argue that, as I see it, the debate should not be settled by
arguing about metaphysical questions or philosophical problems such as
pluralism, etc. The debate is conducted in the sphere of education and politics
(in the sense of social decisions). Rav Kook's teachings do justify the raising
of these considerations, even where the conclusion may create a discrepancy
between practice and the metaphysics or philosophy behind it. In these sense, I
believe that Rav Kook's students are correct in the way they perceive the
essence of their own role as leaders and educators. This does not necessarily
mean that every one of their instructions is the best or wisest guidance; there
are, of course, fiery debates on these issues among talmidei chakhamim.
[8]
A similar model was presented by Rav Yuval
Cherlow concerning the problem of tolerance. See Y. Cherlow, "Ve-erastikh Li
le-olam" (Chispin, 5756), 185-213.
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!