Netziv on the Dangers of Religious Passion
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav
Shiur #12: Netziv on the Dangers of Religious
Passion
Biography
R. Naftali Tzvi
Yehuda
As with European
royalty, many illustrious rabbinic families in
Netzivs immediate
family also included people of stature.
His first wife, Rayna Batya, has been the subject of several scholarly
studies.[2] His oldest son, R. Chayim
Breadth
The literary
productions of Netziv reveal a remarkable breadth. He was certainly not a Rosh Yeshiva who
restricted his attention to Shas and posekim. He certainly studied those as well -
note his Meromei Sadeh on the Talmud and his collection of responsa,
Meshiv Davar. Yet his scope
was far wider. R. Berlin gave a
Chumash shiur after davening each morning in Volozhin. Those shiurim served as the basis
for his Haamek Davar, one of the finest Chumash commentaries ever
written. Even more tellingly,
he wrote commentaries on works of the Geonim and midreshei
Halakha. Few rabbinic writers
devoted significant time to this material; nevertheless, Netziv wrote impressive
commentaries on the Sheiltot of R. Achai Gaon and on the
Sifra. Rabbi Gil Perls
doctorate on the latter represents the best academic analysis of Netzivs
thought to date.[4]
The Danger of
Devekut
One recurring theme
in R. Berlins Chumash commentary is his concern that an intense desire
to come closer to God can lead to antinomian behavior (that is, anti-legal or
anti-halakhic behavior). He
understands several mitzvot as addressing this problem and reads a few
biblical stories in light of this phenomenon. While a transgression so motivated
deserves more respect than a sin motivated by greed or selfishness, its noble
motivation makes it, in some ways, more dangerous.
In two places the
Torah prohibits adding to the commandments, once in the singular form
(Devarim 13:1) and once in the plural (Devarim 4:2). Netziv explains that the singular form
addresses the beit din (the court).
They are allowed to make new edicts but they are not allowed to portray
those innovations as biblical law, a position based on Rambams Hilkhot
Mamrim 2:9. The plural form
addresses each individual Jew who might be tempted to add mitzvot as a
means of achieving closeness to God. This verse warns against such behavior; the
very next verse (Devarim 4:3) mentions the worship of the idol
Peor. According to Chazal,
such worship infiltrated the Jewish community when people wanted to degrade this
idol by defecating before it.
However, this reflects this idolatrys precise mode of worship and
constitutes pagan practice. Thus,
the Peor episode reflects an example of good intentions gone awry.[5]
Interestingly, the
Torah twice anticipates this burgeoning problem and attempts to forestall it
before it breaks out. Netziv points
out that immediately prior to the sins of Nadav and Avihu and of the two hundred
and fifty men from the Korach rebellion, a verse warns about precisely this
danger. He writes that both of
these episodes were motivated by a desire to come close to God. Certainly, they were similar
transgressions - note that in both episodes, the sins involve bringing an
incense offering and are punished with death by Divine fire. Unfortunately, the divine warnings were
not heeded.
Zeh ha-davar
asher tziva Hashem taasu ('This is the thing which the Lord commanded
that you should do, Vayikra 9:6): Why does Moshe say this after the
people had already acceded to Moshes commands and brought all the necessary
sacrifices on the eighth day of the miluim (dedication of the
Tabernacle)? If they had already
fulfilled all the requirements, this exhortation appears superfluous. The Sifra says that Moshe
instructed them to eradicate a particular yetzer ha-ra from their hearts
so that they would all worship God with one form of worship. Netziv explains that the midrash
refers to the yetzer ha-ra of antinomian attempts to cleave to God. Having done all that they were commanded
to do, the nation was still subject to this danger. This midrash gives one of the possible
reasons against this phenomenon.
Allowing every person to strive for a relationship with God in his or her
own way ultimately creates anarchy.
There would be no sense of a common communal religious service.[6] Of course, another danger is that the
form chosen could itself be objectionable, irrespective of concerns about
community.
The same Sifra
cites the verse in Devarim (10:17) which says that God does not take
bribes. What could be a bribe for
God? Netziv argues that the bribe
could not be the standard fulfillment of mitzvot because that is just
taking care of basic obligations. A
bribe must refer to acts for God not commanded by the Torah. The religious individual might think
that God would be pleased by such behavior, but Devarim tells us that He
is not.
This problem reared
its head at other points in Jewish history. During the celebration of the
construction of the
Despite Moshes
admonition, Nadav and Avihu fall into precisely this trap. The verse refers to strange fire before the Lord,
which He had not commanded them (Vayikra 10:1). In a consciously homiletic fashion,
Netziv explains that the fire refers not to a physical item, but to the fiery
enthusiasm to come close to God, even in ways which He did not command.[9] He also uses this to explain
midrashim that these sons of Aharon violated other prohibitions,
including entering the Mishkan in an inebriated state and lacking the
priestly garments. Nadav and
Avihu reason that the normal priestly laws do not apply to them, precisely
because they are entering in a manner beyond of the bounds of Jewish law. If so, they thought, normal halakhic
restrictions cease to apply.[10] Sadly, their error leads to an early
death.
In the same way, the
Torah anticipates the wild desire for clinging to God of the two hundred fifty
men in the Korach uprising. The
commandment of tzitzit precedes that story because this commandment
attempts to forestall such behavior.
R. Berlin argues that this commandment reminds both regular Jews and
those who seclude themselves in pursuit of love of God to remain within halakhic
boundaries. The blue threads of
tekhelet symbolize those yearning for the heavens, and they need this
reminder. In this context, Netziv
cites a gemara (Shabbat 127a) which deduces from the behavior of Avraham
that welcoming guests is greater than receiving the Divine presence. For Netizv, this gemara is not about
absolute worth but about the priorities of religious life. One must first keep the law and only
then think about achieving devekut.[11]
This idea even
explains why the third paragraph of Shema was included in the twice-daily
recital. After all, the theme of
mitzva observance already appears in the second section. The tzitzit paragraph was added
to express the need for halakhic boundaries in the pursuit of God.[12]
Once again, this
preliminary warning did not stem the tide.
Netziv notes some striking differences between the various forces in the
Korach camp. There are two distinct
groups of sinners: the two hundred and fifty men who bring incense, and Datan
and Aviram who challenge Moshes leadership. (Later we will address where Korach
himself fits in.) Unlike the two
hundred and fifty men, Datan and Aviram do not participate in the incense
test. Additionally, the two hundred
and fifty men are consumed by fire, whereas Datan, Aviram and Korach are
swallowed by the ground. R. Berlin
explains that the different groups do not share the same motivations. Datan and Aviram are contentious men who
simply like a good fight and want to bother Moshe. The two hundred and fifty men, in
contrast, yearn for the religious experience of bringing an incense
offering. They cannot tolerate the
fact that this type of experience has been restricted to Aharon and his
descendents. In fact, they are even
willing to die for violating a prohibition, if they can just have this
experience. It becomes clear why
Datan and Aviram do not offer the incense: this aspect of the argument never
attracted them. Netzivs approach
can also explain the varying kinds of death. He assumes that divine fire is a much
more honorable way to die than being swallowed up by the earth. The two hundred and fifty men were
deserving of such a demise; Datan and Aviram were not.
Where does Korach
himself fit into this structure?
Netziv contends that Korach was a person capable of genuine religious
striving. In that sense, he had far
more potential than Datan and Aviram.
However, jealousy consumed him until he led the rebellion without any
kind of noble motivation. Yet, he
still portrayed himself as sharing the dreams of the two hundred and fifty
men. Therefore, he engaged in the
incense offering. Divine punishment
soon revealed the authentic truth and Korach was swallowed up together with
those cronies devoid of more idealistic urges.[13]
A terminological
parallel aids this interpretation.
Bemidbar 17:3 tells us that these two hundred and fifty men sinned
be-nafshotam. The same
type of phrase appears regarding the nazir who was not able to avoid
coming into contact with a dead body (Bemidbar 6:11). In both cases, there was a
striving for a level of holiness not truly deserved. The two hundred and fifty men were not
chosen for the priesthood. The nazir who became ritually defiled was
apparently not ready for this level of religious existence.
The firepans used by
the two hundred and fifty men are beaten flat and made into a covering for the
altar. The verse says this covering
will serve as a sign (Bemidbar 17:3). Netziv explains that it reminds those
yearning for God not to take the antinomian route. On the other hand, it also conveys
the fact that such transgressors should not be equated with those who sin for
fully ignoble reasons. Nothing
produced by the latter group would be worthy of use in the
What is the
alternative for people so motivated?
Netziv points out that Chizkiyahu was able to wean people away from
idolatry by showing them how they could cling to God through study of Torah.[15]
In other words, striving for
devekut is a good thing. The
key is to realize that the halakhic system allows enough room for individuality,
passion and religious experience without the need to break its boundaries.
[1] R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin,
[2] See for example, Don
Seeman, The Silence of Rayna Batya: Torah, Suffering and Rabbi Barukh Epsteins
Wisdom of Women, The Torah U-Madda Journal, Volume 6, pp.
91-128.
[3] Of course, this does not
mean that we should be quick to reject its
contents.
[4] The doctorate, entitled
Emek ha-Neziv: A Window into the Intellectual Universe of R. Naftali Zvi
Yehuda
[5] Haamek Davar,
Devarim 4:2-3.
[6] Haamek Davar,
Vayikra 9:6.
[7]
Ibid.
[8] Haamek Davar,
Devarim 4:21.
[9] Haamek Davar,
Vayikra 10:1.
[10] Harchev Davar,
Vayikra 10:1.
[11] Haamek Davar,
Bemidbar 15:39.
[12] Harchev Davar,
Bemidbar 15:39.
[13] Haamek Davar,
Bemidbar 16:1.
[14] Haamek Davar,
Bemidbar 17:3.
[15] Haamek Davar,
Devarim 4:21.
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!