Fear Of Thinking Is Not Fear of Heaven - It Is Ignorance.

החסרון היותר גדול שיש בתכונתה של יראת שמים שאינה מחוברת יפה באורה של תורה הוא מה שבמקום יראת חטא היא מתחלפת על יראת המחשבה וכיון שהאדם מתחיל להיות מתירא לחשוב הרי הוא הולך וטובע בבוץ הבערות הנוטלת את אור נשמתו מכשלת את כוחו ומעיבה את רוחו

(Free Translation) (Shemona Kevatzim – 267 – page 86)


The greatest downside of Yra’at Shamayim (Fear of Heaven) which is not properly rooted in the light of torah, is that fear of sin is replaced with intellectual fear. Once a person becomes afraid to think, he slowly becomes mired in ignorance that takes away the light of his soul, weakens him and thickens his spirit.

לעולם אין רשות להתיבה האמורה או הנכתבת להיות סותמת בפני השכל הישר וזה כלל גדול בתורה בין בדיעות היותר נשגבות בין בפרטים היותר קלים

(Idem 278 – page 88)

One may never let the oral or written word override straight logic. This is a great Torah rule, whether on the weightiest theological issues or in the lighter details.

The popular understanding of Yra’at Shamayim is meticulousness with the performance of rituals, especially ritualistic Mitzvot. It is at the root of the Chumra phenomenon we observe nowadays. It extends into the areas of thought. One may not think for himself, must accept on belief all that he was told is supposedly “Mesora” without questioning its veracity even when it goes against logic. The “consensus” of the opinion of, according to some “Klal Ysroel” and others “Gedolei Hatorah”, whatever the definition of these terms may be, is binding. This closed-mindedness is a false fear that is not rooted in Torah. It throws the person back into the dark ages. Torah on the other hand teaches us to seek out the truth and not to shy away from it. The “light” of Torah illuminates our minds, admonishes us to always think, observe things with open eyes and an open mind. Fear of sin is not the same as intellectual fear. Suppressing thought takes away from a person that which makes him human: his soul, creativity and spirit.

Reliance on one’s logic, the ability to think freely, applies in all matters even when confronted with oral or written words, no matter who the author is. This does not mean that an authoritative text that one does not understand should be dismissed. It means that if it is authentic and authoritative and does not make sense, it must have been misunderstood and needs further investigation. The Torah is truth and is not afraid of it. When honestly and thoroughly investigated, it stands up to all scrutiny. Such fear of thinking is an insult to Torah as if it has to hide from truth and has to be accepted on faith.

Shabbat Shalom.

Kefirah is Good For Jews.

כשחושבים על דעת אלוהים בלא השכלה ובלא תורה מתהוה ברעיון ציור אפל מלא תוהו ובוהו ואחר כך כשבאים להשתעבד לעבודת אלוהים על פי המושג הריקן הקדום האדם הולך ומאבד את זוהר עולמו על ידי מה שהוא מקשר את עצמו לדברי תוהו ובוהו נידף וכשהדבר הזה נמשך משך של איזה דורות מוכרחת הכפירה לצאת בצורה תרבותית לעקור את זכר אלוהים ואת כל המוסדים של עבודת אלוהים אבל מה היא עוקרת רק הבלים ודברי נואש שהם רק חוצצים בין האדם ובין אור אלהי אמת ועל משואות החורבות שהכפירה מחרבת בונה דעת אלהים הנשגבה את היכלה

(Free translation)


When one speculates about God without [secular] knowledge and without Torah, one develops in one’s mind a dark image, full of emptiness and confusion. When that person now turns to divine worship based on this previous empty concept, man slowly loses the splendor of his existence, because he becomes attached to empty and confused ideas. When this goes on for several generations, it is inevitable for Kefirah to show itself culturally[1] with the goal of eradicating the memory of God and all the trappings of God worship. But ultimately, what is it eradicating? It is eradicating nonsensical and hopeless ideas that truly interfere between man and the light of the true God. It is upon these destroyed ruins trampled by Kefirah, that God’s supreme wisdom builds its temple! (Shemona Kevatzim volume 1, page 31).

Rav Kook again amazes. Without the combination of the two, Torah and a good understanding of the environment, a person develops a distorted picture of God and in turn, a false concept of divine worship. One has to have a good understanding of reality and combining that knowledge with a correct understanding of the ontological teachings of Torah, one may develop a correct notion of God and His worship. Without that, religion descends into the dark ages losing its spark. Human thought cannot be suppressed. With time, people rebel against mind-numbing and irrational thought and rituals. They blame religion and the worship that it entails for this obscurantism. The reaction of the establishment is to ostracize and evict these miscreants. But what are these revolutionaries battling? They are not attacking truth, but nonsense and misunderstandings of the Divine. By cleansing society from this misdirection, a new sublime and true religion, based on Truth and a proper notion of the divine resurges. Rav Kook is describing the sociological process and internal upheavals of how true religion develops. He has an unbounded and optimistic view of human nature. What others see as a negative he has a broader and longer view and sees as constructive.

As I said in an earlier post, these are personal notes that Rav Kook used to jot down when ideas came to his mind. Reading this we can appreciate how he could love every Jew and accept all without exception. He was friendly and close with intellectuals and scholars of many different stripes and ideals, religious and non-religious even anti-religious. Just look at his correspondence.

Shabbat Shalom.




[1] I suspect he is referring to the Haskallah Movement.

Is Cognitive Dissonance a Religious Requirement?

Among my readings is Shemona Kevatzim, a collection of personal notes that Rav Kook Z”L used to jot down. Many of these show the thinking process of a great man, thinker and Tzaddik.

Here is one that made an impression.

Rambam was happy when Hashgacha (providence) took on a rational form in his mind. This happiness is well deserved. For as long as this belief, that is fundamental to [human] life on earth, does not have a rational form, it cannot partake in the living flow of the intelligent soul, the one that has an innate need to understand. However once it has taken on a rational form, it becomes deeply rooted in all the compartments and depth of the soul, the person now finds himself satisfied, as his spiritual inner life is now whole.

Here is the original Hebrew as my translation skills leave much to be desired.

שמח היה הרמב"ם כשצורת ההשגחה קבלה אצלו צביון של הדרגה שכלית וראוי הדבר לשמח על זה מפני שכל זמן שהאמונה הזאת שהיא מבססת את חיי העולם היא מונחת בלא תואר שכלי איננה מתערבת עם כל גלי החיים של הנפש החכמה השואפת להשכיל אבל אחר שקבלה לתוכה צורתה השכלית הרי היא משתרשת במעמקי הנשמה בכל חדריה ומעמקיה והאדם מוצא את עצמו מאושר כשצורתו הרוחנית מתאחדת לחטייבה אחת

This comment spoke very strongly to me. We are taught certain beliefs from childhood on, we develop a way of thinking that directs our actions based on these teachings but as we mature, questions about these beliefs start taking shape. There are two approaches. One sublimates the question and promotes blind faith. That is a very destructive attack on the innate human need to understand. It creates internal conflict, anger and frustration. It is at the root of the aggressiveness we experience today in our society where people condemn any thinking that is different from their own. It stifles and brings about cognitive dissonance and paranoia.

The other approach is to understand that a belief has to be consistent with reality. If one accepts that the Torah is divine, it cannot contradict reality. One has to be confident that thorough investigation and proper insight into the belief dictated by this divine religion will be consistent with reality. All one has to do is work hard and honestly at understanding both, because religion dictates how to react to reality not what it is. It is only then that the cognitive dissonance so prevalent in our community, the split personality supposedly required of the intelligent believer, will be healed and banished.

Here is how Rambam poses the same problem in his introduction to the Moreh Hanevuchim.


“The object of this treatise is to enlighten a religious man who has been trained to believe in the truth of our holy Law, who conscientiously fulfils his moral and religious duties, and at the same time has been successful in his philosophical studies. Human reason has attracted him to abide within its sphere; and he finds it difficult to accept as correct the teaching based on the literal interpretation of the Law, and especially that which he himself or others derived from those homonymous, metaphorical, or hybrid expressions. Hence, he is lost in perplexity and anxiety. If he be guided solely by reason, and renounce his previous views which are based on those expressions, he would consider that he had rejected the fundamental principles of the Law. Even if he retains the opinions which were derived from those expressions, and if, instead of following his reason, he abandon its guidance altogether, it would still appear that his religious convictions had suffered loss and injury, for he would then be left with those errors which give rise to fear and anxiety, constant grief and great perplexity.”

Natural Morality

Before I continue with the discussion about purpose and goals, I would like to explain my statement in the last post “He makes it clear that this proper behavior is not limited to Torah and Mitzvot but is moral behavior universally accepted by all philosophers”. This is extremely important because many hold that morality and ethics have no meaning without Torah.

I want to focus here on the issue of morality only and address the issue of ethics at another time. For this post, I define morals as setting limits to self-indulgence. In the introduction to Pirush Hamishna, I quoted in my earlier post, Rambam writes:

רצוני לומר: "החכמה
לצייר בשכלו אמיתות הדברים כפי שהם עליו, ולהשיג כל מה שאפשר לאדם להשיגו
ו"המעשה" - הוא תיקון ויישור הדברים הטבעיים, ושלא יהיה שטוף בתענוגים,
ושלא ייקח מהם אלא מה שיהיה בו תיקון גופו ותיקון מידותיו כולן

When I say [a perfected man is one who has] “knowledge” I mean one who can picture in his mind the reality of all things as they are and to apprehend everything a man can[1]. “Action” means: (i) - The perfection of natural things [using the scientific knowledge acquired to make things better]. (ii) - Not indulging in physical pleasures. One should not indulge in them more than the necessary for bodily needs. (iii) – Perfecting all of one’s traits.

But then Rambam surprisingly adds -

וזה הדבר לא נודע מאת הנביאים בלבד, אבל חכמי האומות החולפות, ואשר לא
ראו הנביאים ולא שמעו חכמתם, כבר ידעו גם הם, שאין אדם שלם, אלא כשיהיה
כולל החכמה והמעשה. ודי לך בדברי החכם המפורסם בפילוסופיה שאמר: "חפץ האל
ממנו להיות נבונים-חסידים". שהאדם כשיהיה חכם ונבון, אבל מבקש תאוות –
אינו חכם על האמת; שתחילת החכמה מחייבת, שלא ייקח אדם ממעדנים הגופניים
אלא מה שיש בו תיקון צורך גופו.

This is not something we were taught only by the prophets. The wise of the ancient nations, who never saw prophets nor heard their wisdom, already knew that a person is not complete unless he encompasses knowledge and action. The philosopher’s statement “God wants us to be intelligent and righteous” says it all; for a man who is wise and intelligent but a pleasure seeker is not truly wise. The basic premises of wisdom compel a person to not indulge in physical pleasures more than the basic needs of his body.

There is a natural morality that all wise men acknowledge exists. A narcissistic person, whose only goal in life is to indulge in as much pleasure as possible, even if that person is the greatest genius and has acquired all knowledge, is not a perfect human being. Knowledge is a very powerful tool and narcissism is the underlying cause for misusing that power, allowing it to be used destructively. Setting limits to self-interest and developing traits that promote altruistic behavior is crucial. The problem is that judging if the behavior promoted by knowledge is correct is subjective and we must develop criteria that allow us to measure it objectively.

I quote from Rav Kook’s recent sefer, Shemona Kevatzim (page 21) –

אסור ליראת שמים שתדחק את המוסר הטבעי של האדם כי אז אינה עוד יראת שמים טהורה סימן ליראת שמים טהורה הוא כשהמוסר הטבעי הנטוע בטבע הישר של האדם הולך ועולה על פיה במעלות יותר גבוהות ממה שהוא עומד מבלעדיה אבל אם תצוייר יראת שמים בתכונה כזאת שבלא השפעתה על החיים היו החיים יותר נוטים לפעול טוב ולהוציא אל הפועל דברים מועילים לכלל ולפרט ועל פי השפעתה מתמעט כח הפועל ההוא יראת שמים כזאת היא יראה פסולה

Fear of heaven (Yra’at Shamayim) may not supersede a man’s natural morals, for in that case it is not pure Yra’at Shamayim. Pure YS is recognizable as such when the natural morality that is implanted in the correct [proper] nature of man is elevated by it to levels that are higher than it would be without it. A hypothetical YS that without its influence on life, there would be a stronger push to do good by bringing to fruition things that contribute to the welfare of the public and the individual, while under its [YS] influence this would be diminished, such a YS is wrong [false].

Yra’at Shamayim, a subjective by-product of knowledge, can be narcissistic too, becoming counter-productive. To judge its legitimacy we must look at the practical results thereof. So too must we judge knowledge. If it causes one to act in ways that enhance the public and the individual, that knowledge is legitimate. Otherwise, that person is “not truly wise”. This brings us back to the subject of purpose and goals.


[1] It is worthwhile to note the language that gives a sense of limitation to what a man can know.

Fear Of Heaven, Ethics And Morality.

It is always fascinating to me how Rambam can be read many times and each time a new insight is gained. This applies not only to Rambam but also with many of the great amongst the Rishonim and Acharonim. This Shabbat I was reading Rambam MN 3:36 and noticed an interesting presentation. I will quote the Kafieh, Schwartz as well as Pines translations because it is important to note the nuance. (Friedlander missed the whole point.)

Rav Kafieh edition:

ופשוט הוא כי גם התשובה מן הקבוצה הזו, כלומר: מן ההשקפות אשר לא תהא סדירה מציאות אישי התורתיים 12
כי אם בסבירתה, לפי שאי אפשר לאדם, שלא יחטא ויטעה, אם שטעותו בהחשיבו השקפה או מידה שאינן חשובים באמת, או בהתגברות תאווה או כעס

Michael Schwartz Edition:

ברור שגם התשובה10
בקבוצה זאת, כלומר, שהיא מן הדעות שבלעדי האמונה בהן לא תסתדר מציאותם של אנשים בני-תורה11,
מפני שבהכרח אדם טועה ונכשל, או שמתוך בורותו הוא מעדיף דעה או מידה שבאמת אינם עדיפים, או שתאווה או כעס גוברים עליו.

And Shlomo Pines English translation:

It is manifest that repentance also belongs to this class, I mean to the opinions without the belief in which the existence of individuals professing a law cannot be well ordered. For an individual cannot but sin and err, either through ignorance – by professing an opinion or a moral quality that is not preferable in truth – or else because he is overcome by desire or anger.

The statement that caught my attention is – “by professing an opinion or a moral quality that is not preferable in truth”. What does being “not preferable in truth” mean? It implies relativity namely that an opinion - השקפה or דעה as well as a moral quality – מידה – may at times be considered wrong under certain circumstances.

Rav Kook in a new collection of his notes published recently – the Shemona Kevatzim (page 21) – writes[1] -

אסור ליראת שמים שתדחק את המוסר הטבעי של האדם, כי אז אינה עוד יראת שמים
טהורה. סימן ליראת שמים טהורה הוא, כשהמוסר הטבעי, הנטוע בטבע הישר של
האדם, הולך ועולה על פיה במעלות יותר גבוהות ממה שהוא עומד מבלעדיה. אבל
אם תצוייר יראת שמים בתכונה כזאת, שבלא השפעתה על החיים היו החיים יותר
נוטים לפעול טוב, ולהוציא אל הפועל דברים מועילים לפרט ולכלל, ועל פי
השפעתה מתמעט כח הפועל ההוא, יראת שמים כזאת היא יראה פסולה.

Yra’at Shamayim – fear of heaven – may not supplant the natural sense of morality of a person, for in that case it is not a pure Yra’at Shamayim. The signpost for a pure Yra’at Shamayim is when the natural sense of morality that is extant in the straightforward nature of man is improved and elevated by it more than it would have been without it. But if one were to imagine a kind of Yra’at Shamayim that without its input, life would tend to do well and bring to fruition things that benefit the community and the individual and furthermore, under its influence less of those things would come to fruition, such a Yra’at Shamayim is wrong.

I believe that Rav Kook is saying the same thing Rambam is. The Mitzvot are a training tool to bring us to proper Yra’at Shamayim. They have no meaning other than that. They are however clearly defined and regulated by Halacha unlike the Yra’at Shamayim they are meant to inculcate in us. The Mitzvot bring discipline into our life and focus us on thinking about our reality and our relationship with God who gave us the Mitzvot. This process is supposed to change the way we do things, making us less narcissistic and self-serving by enhancing the altruistic moral and ethical instinct we all have in us. We get used to doing things, not because they bring us physical benefits but because they are right. However once we leave the world of defined Halacha we enter the realm of the subjective. Moral and ethical decisions have a tendency to go beyond the prescribed Halacha. Real life is full of surprises and new situations that require us to make decisions that are not clearly prescribed. We know that they are correct if they are in harmony with our deep instinctual feeling of what is right and wrong. When we act in ways that do not meet this criterion, we are “professing an opinion or a moral quality that is not preferable in truth”.

Several years ago, I was present at a festive meal for the writing of a new sefer Torah. It took place at the “court” of one of the Rebbes who shall remain unnamed. The waiters were kids who obviously were not Chassidic, some wearing Kippot Serugot while others leather Yarmulkes and very few had Peyot behind their ears. The Rebbe was concerned that they not touch the wine that was being served and would not let them serve. The kids were made to stay in a separate room during the whole time. I kept on thinking about how these kids must have felt - ostracized and unnaccepted by a supposedly holy man. The Rebbe’s Yra’at Shamayim was clearly false; it was not Yra’at Shamayim but self-serving superstition. It went against the natural human instinct of what is right and wrong. His punctiliousness with Mitzvot had warped his instinctual sense of ethics and morality instead of enhancing it.

Rambam in one of the chapters (3:52) in MN where he clearly lets his emotions come through writes –

“We do not sit, move, and occupy ourselves when we are alone and at home, in the same manner as we do in the presence of a great king. We speak and open our mouth as we please when we are with the people of our own household and with our relatives, but not so when we are in a royal assembly. If we therefore desire to attain human perfection, and to be truly men of God, we must awake from our sleep, and bear in mind that the great king that is over us, and is always joined to us, is greater than any earthly king, greater than David and Solomon. The king that cleaves to us and embraces us is the Intellect that influences us, and forms the link between God and us.”

Note that the king in whose presence we must see ourselves at all times is not God but the “Intellect that influences us, and forms the link between God and us”.

“What I have here pointed out to you is the object of all our religious acts. For by [carrying out] all the details of the prescribed practices, and repeating them continually, some few pious men may attain human perfection. They will be filled with respect and reverence towards God; and bearing in mind who is with them, they will perform their duty. God declares in plain words that it is the object of all religious acts to produce in man fear of God and obedience to His word-the state of mind which we have demonstrated in this chapter for those who desire to know the truth, as being our duty to seek.”

Note that the “religious acts” are not “fear of God and obedience to His word”, but rather the tools that bring us to that state.




[1] Quoted recently by Marc Shapiro at http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/28/Marc-B-Shapiro-Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Sundry-Matters-Part-

Rav Kook on Rambam and the Significance of his Theology to a Contemporary Jew - Continued - Rambam Was Not a Schizophrenic!

Rav Kook ZL, in his letter to Ya’avetz, continues to disagree with specific statements he made in his book about Rambam’s philosophy. I will end by quoting/translating/paraphrasing a few that I find relevant to our contemporary thinking.

One of the criticisms of Ya’avetz was that the philosophic approach to religion minimizes the importance of praxis. He argues that Greek philosophy values intellectual growth and devalues action. RK vehemently rejects Ya’avetz’s accusation that Rambam accepted that premise. In fact, RK argues, Rambam ends the Moreh with an emotionally laden chapter that depicts the service of one who has reached the intellectual heights of understanding God’s ways. It is only after reaching that understanding that one can act in concert with God. Action is the ultimate goal of intellectual growth and religious philosophy. RK quotes the whole segment in the Moreh and here is the pertinent excerpt –

“The object of the above passage [in Yirmyahu] is therefore to declare, that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him when he has acquired--as far as this is possible for man--the knowledge of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it influences His creatures in their production and continued existence. Having acquired the knowledge he will then be determined always to seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, and thus to imitate the ways of God. We have explained this many times in this treatise.”

Clearly, to Rambam the end goal of all knowledge as he reads it in the Torah is to know how to act, which is the opposite of the philosopher’s meditation. RK develops this argument from other quotes in Rambam’s writing.

I find this reading of Rambam by Rav Kook ZL very satisfying as it reinforces what I have come to realize a few years ago. I believe that Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz ZL did not see this in Rambam. He could not accept that one can really understand anything about God that could be translated into a practical act. He felt that it would border on anthropomorphism. Rav Kook did not see it the same way.

RK tries to defend Rambam’s Aristotelian understanding of the spheres as living entities. He uses the standard argument that science has not yet reached its limits and it is therefore possible that we will find out that the underlying force of gravity, for example, is some kind of sentience. I find this the least compelling part of the letter. I prefer to see Rambam as trying to show how to interpret reality within our theology. He was doing that with his reality and we have to do the same with ours. After all, isn’t that the goal of religion, seeing the world from a divine perspective?

RK then lauds Rambam’s position that it is wrong to think that everything was created for the sake of man and that we must rather accept that it is not possible to know what was God’s ultimate purpose in creation. RK says that this insight saved Judaism during the great leaps forward that science took since his days. As we started to understand the physics of the universe, Copernicus and the subsequent developments, it became clear that man and the earth we live on, is only a very minute component of the cosmos. As most religions base their theology on man’s centrality, and this has been shown to be incorrect, an artificial conflict between science and religion develops. Rambam taught us that Judaism is not built on that premise. The idea that man is important is only a perspective suggested by the Torah to be used, to help us retain our focus in the service of God. It is a way to look at ourselves in context of our immediate surroundings but it is not a theological foundation. In fact, the Torah also teaches us that man is nothing in the context of the cosmos. That is a useful reminder if one should become too infatuated with his own self-importance. The dialectics of these two perspectives keep man on the straight path. Rambam’s approach therefore shows that all the scientific knowledge that was developed up to our times, Newton, Einstein et al, does not conflict with Torah. On the contrary, Torah gives a divine perspective.

Rav Kook ends the letter with an admonition not to dare say that “our great Rabbi, who provided us with the intellectual and moral insights [literally: sun] and the great holiness and purity of Torah, which he was learning day and night to be close to God, had a split personality. [We dare not say that] in the Moreh, he presented one position while in his other writings he showed a different one. God forbid! Our Rabbi was a sincere Tzaddik. Just like, he was a genius in Torah and Sciences, so was he a genius in sincerity and belief. All his words, including the words he wrote in his great Sefer, Moreh Hanevuchim, will remain forever as a light to the world as to the wisdom of Israel. His Torah [will remain] as a sun of righteousness that brings healing in its wings.”

These final words of Rav Kook ZL address the canard that was bandied around by people who could not understand Rambam and felt that he was therefore a heretic at heart, that he had a schizophrenic personality. They claimed that the Mishne Torah, (except for Sefer Hamada), was written when he was a believer while the Moreh was when he was in his heretic state. [I am using a little hyperbole in describing these positions. They are mostly much tamer in their presentation though they leave us with the same message.] RK sees this as what it is, an insult. On the contrary, anybody that seriously studies Rambam finds how subtly he intertwines his philosophy with Halacha. One cannot understand one without the other. All the great Gedolim saw this. I can think of two other contemporaries of RK who came out with a similar statement, R. Meir Simcha and R. Yosef Rosen, both of Dvinsk.

And all this from Rav Kook the great Kabbalist! A passionate defense of the great rationalist, Rambam!

Rav Kook on Rambam and the Significance of his Theology to a Contemporary Jew Continued - Revelation, Creation and Providence

“Sure, the Rambam's contribution to Jewish thought is invaluable, but that influence has been eclipsed by other streams of hashkafah that have had a far more significant impact on all the ba'alei Machshavah who have lived since the medieval period. Who among modern Jewish thinkers works with the Rambam's philosophical system? Not Rav Kook. Not RYBS. Not R' Chaim Volozhiner, the GR"A, the Ba'al ha Tanya. Not any Chassidic thinker, any of the Mussar giants. I would not go so far as to say the Rambam's Shita is illegitimate, but legitimacy and relevance are two separate issues.”

The above is part of a comment by one of my favorite Bloggers, R. Chaim B. of Divrei Chaim. It represents the typical thought process of most of our brethrens. If the majority does not find something significant it must be wrong, irrelevant or outside the pale. It is this type of thinking, the fear of individualization that turns many of our brethrens away from Judaism or, what I consider even worse, makes for lukewarm Jews focused on meaningless rituals and superstitious fears. True Rav Kook was more inclined to Kabbalah, as I noted at the beginning of my post, however R. Chaim also missed the following insightful words which I will repeat here –

“There is no question that there are people, on whom certain types of approaches have a positive effect, bringing them closer to holiness and purity, service of Torah and Mitzvot while others are affected the same way by different approaches… Can we doubt that there are a great many among our brethren that these ideas will have the same holy and beneficent effect on their psyche?”

I also do not agree with R. Chaim’s take on the theology of the greats he enumerates. I do not know enough about the theology of the Gra but all the others are all deeply influenced by Rambam either when they espouse his position, which is in most areas, or when they react to it and disagree. It is Rambam’s thinking that triggered many of the ideas that came out in Chassidus. Anyone who learns the Moreh will see him reflected in the writings of every great theological book written since as the silent interlocutor. I already mentioned several times that a very insightful and important Pirush on Ramban was written recently, the Yekev Ephraim, where he shows the hidden dialogue he was having with Rambam across his commentary. I hope similar sefarim will be written addressing the other greats and their relationship to Rambam.

Anyway, continuing with Rav Kook’s letter, he now addresses Ya’avetz’s criticisms of Rambam which are the typical ones that were thrown at the great thinker during the centuries since he wrote the Moreh.

Ya’avetz wondered how Rambam could not see the difference between Judaism and Greek philosophy, comparing and basing Judaism on it. RK responds –

“Rambam created a vast and deep chasm between Greek philosophy and Judaism showing the essentially great difference between the two. There is such a difference between the holy and the secular that it cannot be missed by anyone that delves into the Moreh. That difference is based on three essential foundational teachings.

The first teaching is Revelation. Rambam established that one could apprehend things that no other human ability can through prophecy, for it is the word of God.

The second teaching is that the world is created. This uprooted the idolatrous Greek weltanschauung, giving us back the holy paths of the Torah which is the original Jewish outlook on the whole of existence. It is the opposite of the Greek dependence on an eternal world… This does not make Judaism just slightly different from Greek philosophy, but makes the two philosophies completely the opposite of each other. There is such a fundamental difference between the vision of the eternal and idolatrous world of those who “have not served the God of heaven and earth” (Yirmyahu 10:11), and the Jewish vision of a unique God, “He creates all, spreads the heavens by Himself and founded the earth, who is with Him?”[1], that we cannot even find one position or a point of commonality between these ideologies.

The third teaching is personal Providence in “the species man in all his details and deeds[2]” which is the complete opposite of the Greek consciousness, whose claim that God abandoned the world is common to all sinners from time immemorial.

The awesome difference and the complete oppositeness that is reflected from these three foundational beliefs is what our great Rabbi has established in his great wisdom and holiness as an eternal barrier between the holy and the profane, the human knowledge that is Greek philosophy and the divine wisdom of Israel. It so opposite that even when some seemingly common threads are detected in the formulation of the ideas, the separation and chasm remains and neither comes closer to the other.”

RK then explains further that the difference between the two philosophies is the same as the difference between God and His creations. Just like the two are not comparable neither are the two philosophies. In both the comparison is only in the metaphors used to communicate, but the essences are very different.

Rav Kook ZL makes a very important statement in this segment of the letter. Rambam has been accused of being an Aristotelian or a Neo–Platonist by some. This could not be further from the truth. During Rambam’s times, the science that explained nature and the world was based on an Aristotelian model. Rambam followed the Torah’s intent – interpret nature from a religious perspective. He accepted the Greek’s science but not their philosophy. It is a road map for us too on how to deal with our contemporary science. We have to learn the sciences and understand our existence from the scientific perspective. It is our reality. But we also have to interpret what we observe, ontologically within the context of God and His Torah. The two, science and torah, are completely intertwined and one cannot exist without the other. However, science is a subject we can show and prove empirically while the interpretation we are talking about cannot. It is after all an interpretation of “how” things came about. We are discussing pre-existence. Left in human hands imagination and fantasy take over spawning idolatry and superstition. Revelation is therefore the key and the only approach possible. Only a perfected individual, who has reined in his imaginative faculty, developed his psyche and controlled his urges, can have an objective revelatory experience. The Torah teaches us that by presenting Moshe Rabbeinu as the paradigm of such a prophet. He was the one who gave us the Torah.

More of Rav Kook’s letter to follow.

---

[1] I could not find this verse anywhere in this form. It seems to be a composite of Iyov 9:8 and some other one. Maybe someone has an idea. The original is

הוא יוצר כל נוטה שמים לבדו ויוסד הארץ מי אתו

[2] I translated carefully and literally, as the exact wording is important, as I hope to show in another post when discussing providence.

Rav Kook on Rambam and the Significance of his Theology to a Contemporary Jew.

Over time, I received several emails and comments from readers on different posts arguing that Rambam is irrelevant nowadays and his philosophy has been rejected and is unacceptable to the mainstream of "orthodox” Judaism. It shows that many people do not know how our contemporary mainstream beliefs came about and more importantly are unaware how deeply Rambam’s thought is embedded and at the core of most of them. Rambam’s influence on contemporary Jewish thought is ubiquitous whether when it agrees with it or when it is the catalyst for new ideas in reaction to it. As it seems to be an issue, I will address this issue periodically. Here I would like to start with a translation/paraphrase of a letter written by Rav Kook ZL to Yaakov Ya’avetz, the historian. The letter is printed in the back of volume 10 of the Ya’avetz History of the Jewish People (Heb.). The letter is quite long so I will post just pertinent excerpts and summarize the rest. If anyone is interested, email me and I will forward a PDF of the whole letter.

Rav Kook was responding to Ya’avetz's discussion of Rambam and his theology who apparently was critical of the Moreh as being foreign to Judaism and influenced by the Greeks. (I did not read the pertinent chapters in the book.) Remember, Rav Kook was a great Kabbalist and read with this in mind!

“In our times after the Maimonidean controversy has subsided and Rambam was shown to have been right, the Sefer Hamoreh has become part of the Sifrei Kodesh (holy literary patrimony) which are necessary for the acquisition of Torah knowledge. [RK is referring to the Braitha at the end of Avot that is called Kine’yan Torah]. We may not treat Rambam’s words with disrespect. Not only are we supposed to defend him but we must also delve deeply into his words and consider the resulting precepts as Torah precepts. [The Hebrew here is Midot. I am having difficulty finding a better word in context. I understand him to say that the conclusions we arrive at through this in depth analysis becomes part of our theology.]”

RK then states that just as in Halacha we consider two sides of an argument and do not discard the opinion that did not win out, so too in theology. We have to consider all the theological arguments of all the great Rabbis who are generally accepted based on their erudition and behavior, and we dare not consider any one of their opinions as external [foreign].

“The fact that our Rabbi [Rambam] for whom God’s Torah was the source of life, considered himself faithful to God and His Torah while espousing these opinions, is in itself proof enough that there isn’t the slightest possibility of questioning them or seeing someone who follows them as not being part of the holy Torah and Israel. The decision in this [whom to follow Rambam or the others] depends upon the personal state of mind of each one of us and how we understand spirituality, each according to his makeup and the type of person he is. There is no question that there are people, on whom certain types of approaches have a positive effect, bringing them closer to holiness and purity, service of Torah and Mitzvot while others are affected the same way by different approaches. Consider the following. The ideas presented in the Moreh were in accordance with the holy sense, the strong Emunah, the attachment [to God], the true and holy service, all of the treasures of goodness and holiness, the care and striving for holiness and purity and the tremendous love and fear of HKBH which was always blazing in the heart of the great giant and holy light our Rabbi Rambam ZL. Can we doubt that there are a great many among our brethren that these ideas will have the same holy and beneficent effect on their psyche? Should some of them not be able to accept all of the ideas proposed in the Moreh, they may follow other great thinkers but one may not consider Rambam’s approach as outside the pale. How much more have we got to be careful not to refer to ideas that the holy sense of our great Rabbi Rambam sanctified, as Greek and foreign?”

So far, RK presented a reverential and circumstantial perspective of Rambam’s legitimacy. He proceeds to now discuss the meat of Rambam’s philosophy and its impact on contemporary thought.

(As I am rereading the letter, I realize that I have to post many more of Rav Kook’s arguments than I thought when I started, as they are seminal, so this will expand to more than one post).

“I am wondering how we can be remiss and not thankful to our Rabbi Rambam for his great work in the Moreh, where he established the foundations of pure Jewish belief, eliminating from our midst the fearsome nonsense of God’s corporeality. It is easy to imagine what would have happened to our religion had he not done his great work in spite of the great sufferings that he had to endure for that. Only such a great and holy person could surmount the opposition with such grace and so peacefully. It is his great work that has brought about that Baruch Hashem, nowadays, that erroneous belief [in God’s corporeality] has been completely eradicated from the consciousness of our nation. The dogma of incorporeality, that God has no body nor does any physical occurrences have any affect on Him and nothing compares (is similar in any sense) with Him has now become a universally accepted dogma. God knows how much nonsense and fantasy this error of [belief in] corporeality could have generated if not for our Rabbi saving us from that? How much would heresy and nihilism have destroyed us had our religion remained so crude and populist even during our times when the sciences and freedom of thought has become so common and well known to all?”

RK then proceeds to criticize Ya’avetz for repeating the old arguments against Rambam, especially the one that he followed the Greeks blindly. RK argues that if we look at Rambam objectively, we can see how critical he was of everything the Greeks said [he expands on this further as we will see] and only when their ideas did not conflict with Torah were they accepted. As to the fact that contemporary science sees things differently -

“Is it possible to say that the metaphysical issues discussed in the Moreh can be proven empirically as to their details? It is enough that the general foundations such as, the existence of God, His unity and incorporeality, can be shown to be true based on scientific reality. The other opinions are visionary [based on revelation?] such that we can at most say that man, to the best of his limited knowledge, understands them as relatively true and proven. [In other words, they do not contradict reality and are more likely to be true than other opinions – DG].”

RK then continues to say, that when Rambam saw that the seeming contradiction between these metaphysical conjectures that were accepted as fact, and the Torah, created problems among the thinking elite, he decided to publish his ideas. He showed that not only does science not disagree but is in fact strengthened by Torah. This put our religion on a strong footing to survive and stay relevant as human knowledge advanced.

There is much more but keeping to my policy against too lengthy posts, I will leave the rest for the upcoming ones.

Dr. Harkavy and the Aderet - How much we have changed!

I was reading this Shabbat in Kovetz al Yad 17:27 an introduction by Simcha Emmanuel to his article publishing for the first time several responsa of Geonim that were in the Avraham Firkovich collection at the St. Petersburg Royal Library. I would like to share a few snippets.

Abraham (Avraham) ben Samuel Firkovich (Hebrew אברהם בן שמואל - Avraham ben Shmuel; (1786-1874) was a famous leader of the Karaite who had a fabulous collection of old manuscripts which were taken over by the St. Petersburg library after his death. In 1877, the great scholar Avraham Elyahu ben Yaakov Harkavy (1835–1919) became the head librarian for the Judaica department. Harkavy was known as a Maskil and had misgivings about how accepted his efforts at publishing these manuscripts would be in the circles that could use those most - the world of the Yeshivot. In one of the early publications in scholarly journals, the editor noted that Doctor Harkavy, out of love of the Torah and its scholars has felt responsible to publish these hitherto unknown responsa of the Geonim. Should the Rabbinical population appreciate his work he promises to continue publishing many more manuscripts.

The enthusiastic response of the rabbinical world did not take long to come. Of note is a letter written in 1888 by the great Gaon Aderet, Rabbi Elyahu David Rabinowitz – Teumim, who was also the father in law of Rav Kook and later Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. I will paraphrase/translate the letter.

The scholar Dr. Harkavy of Petersburg wants to know if the Rabbis will support his publishing responsa from the early Geonim. I do not understand the question especially coming from such a great, well-known and recognized scholar? Did not the Rabbis say that the nails of the early ones are greater than the stomach of the later generations? One single drop of ink of one of our early rabbis is as valuable as the multitudes of the pilpulim of the later ones especially nowadays… Of course, we must accept with love the incomparable precious hidden pearls that he is taking them from darkness to eternal light, to bring merit to the many. It is to their beacon of light that we will go forward. It is only up to the Rabbi, the pride of the Maskilim, the great Rabbi Dr. Harkavy, with his great wisdom and knowledge, to verify that they were not yet published. We can rely on his great powers of critical analysis and sharp vision to know if these were not yet quoted in the Rishonim or Beit Yosef… Those that were not yet published we will accept them and drink with thirst their beautiful words. We will remember the name of Dr. Harkavy as a meritorious person who has brought us merits, him being a person that is involved with the work of heaven. This is my opinion and I estimate that many of my colleagues will agree with me.

I hope my blog does not have the same fate that “Making of a Gadol” had because I disclose how different the great of the pre war generation were. (Maybe I should wish to suffer the same fate. My readership will soar) Of course, they disagreed with the philosophy and modus operandi of the Maskilim. However, even a right wing Gadol like the Aderet, who was the head of the Edah Chareidit, who castigated Rav Kook constantly, would still deal respectfully with a Dr. Harkavy.
Harkavy went on to publish many Geonic Responsa that with time penetrated the world of torah and the Yeshivot.

As an aside, the Aderet wrote an autobiography which was published by Mossad Harav Kook under the title Seder Elyahu. It is a fascinating and worthwhile read. Rav Kook also wrote a biography/appreciation of his father in law called Eider Hayakar. Much heavier but also a fascinating read.

Rambam, Rav Kook and Einstein on intuitive knowledge.

Rambam in MN 2:38 describes certain prophetic experiences as follows:

“The true prophets undoubtedly conceive ideas that result from premises which human reason could not comprehend by itself; thus they tell things which men could not tell by reason and ordinary imagination alone; for [the action of the prophets' mental capacities is influenced by] the same agent that causes the perfection of the imaginative faculty, and that enables the prophet thereby to foretell a future event with such clearness as if it was a thing already perceived with the senses, and only through them conveyed to his imagination. This agent perfects the prophet's mind, and influences it in such a manner that he conceives ideas which are confirmed by reality, and are so clear to him as if he deduced them by means of syllogisms.”

The intuition of a developed mind allows arriving at conclusions without going through the systematic process of sequential thought.

Here is Rav Kook in Orot Hakodesh:

The truth does not reveal itself to a person piecemeal. It appears in one all-encompassing concept. All the hard work that one puts into learning and acquiring information is to facilitate the appearance of that all-encompassing concept.

Again we see a description of an intuitive grasp of truth.

A description of how Einstein arrived at his insights:

“The young man had asked Einstein how he had arrived at his famous relativity theory. Einstein said that after much work he found he had not advanced very far toward a solution to his problems. One night he retired in utter discouragement and feeling very depressed. He told himself there was nothing more to be done. Then he experienced an intuitive flash illuminating his subject and piecing together the parts as in a puzzle. The next day he began to work out his equations, in appropriate sequence.”

The question of how this mechanism works, the existence of the all-encompassing concept before it has been grasped by the mind is referred to in medieval philosophy as the “active intellect”. Trying to understand it and define it is the basis of all Rational and mystical thought. It is through it that we try to find God.

Free the creative soul!

I am reading Orot Hakodesh by Harav Kook Z”L and will be posting occasionally pieces that speak to me particularly loudly. I am no translator so I will paraphrase most of the time and therefore must caution that my own understanding of his words may not be what he meant. Here is a short piece on creativity and learning.

Someone who has the soul of a creator must create ideas and thoughts. He cannot limit himself to superficial study because one cannot control the soaring flame of one’s soul.

A thinking person always strives for broadness of thought. Superficial study tends to rein in thought and confuses it at the moment of birth. Constant superficial study exacerbates this sickness of constrained thinking and we must use all efforts to liberate ourselves from it so that we redeem our souls from self-imposed pressures and take it out of Egypt and slavery.

What this means to me:

In every area of thought we have to start with acquainting ourselves with the current state of the information. We cannot go back every time to the start and investigate from scratch. In physics for example we have to learn and understand the current science and only then can we move on if we want answers to the many open questions. The same goes with Jewish thought. We have to study the texts and understand them before we can develop our own understanding. The goal though is to develop a personal understanding because knowing the unknowable is very personal and cannot be transmitted. That is the meaning of the Mishna in Hagigah “Ein dorshin… velo bemerkavah beyachid ela im kein hayah Chacham umeivin mida’ato” – one does not teach in public … nor does one teach metaphysics to one unless he is wise and can extrapolate on his own. Rambam legislates this Mishna as follows:( Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 4:11)

שעניין מעשה מרכבה, אפילו לאחד אין דורשין בו, אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו, נותנין לו ראשי הפרקים

Metaphysic we do not teach even one person, unless he is wise and can extrapolate on his own in which case we transmit to him chapter headings.

Knowing the current state of thought in metaphysics is only a stepping-stone for further personal extrapolation.

Reading the text literally and insisting that it is the ultimate truth as read because Chazal or great Rishonim wrote it and that interpretation is heretic, Apikorsus, stifles the human creative soul. Freeing the mind, letting it take the accumulated information and translate it into a meaningful understanding that allows for glimpses of the ultimate truth is the goal of a freed creative mind. In his introduction to MN Rambam describes the experience as follows:

“At times the truth shines so brilliantly that we perceive it as clear as day. Our nature and habit then draw a veil over our perception, and we return to a darkness almost as dense as before. We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night.”

In the search for the truth one must allow the creative side of our personality to expand and soar. After all we are searching for the Creator, the ultimate source of creativity.