The conventional view of Rabbinic theology is that it accepts a distinction between the physical and spiritual world. The spiritual is above and the physial is below. Divine Presence rests on the Ark, which measures 10 tephachim high. Never had Glory (Shekhina) descended below and never had Moshe and Eliahu ascended to above, as it says” The heavens are heavens of the L-rd and earth he has given to the sons of men (Tehilim115) (Sukkah 5 and in the Mekhilta D.Rabbi Yishmoel, Yisro). Revelation is perceived as ocurring within the boundary between the physical below and the spiritual above. We find an example of this phenomona in this week’s parsha, Yisro.
…You have seen that from heavens I have spoken to you (Shemos 20,19) One verse states: “that from heaven” and another one says:”…and Hashem descended upon the mountain Sinai (Shemos 19,20)…” How shall both verses be reconciled? A third verse comes and mediates between them - from heaven He made you hear His voice to chastise you and His fire he made you see on the earth and His words you heard from within the fire (Devarim 4) - these are words of R. Yishmoel. R. Akiva says: “This teaches that the Holy One Blessed be He spread upper heavens on top of the mountain and spoke to them from heaven as it says “and He spread heavens and descended and darkness under his feet (Tehilim 18). Rebbi says: “and Hashem descended on Mount Sinai -top of mountain “and He called to Moshe” - to the top of the mountain “and Moshe went up” - you may think as it sounds, no, just like one who employs helpers can reach to places personally or through helpers, so much more the Glory of One who spoke and the world came into being (in other words, some messenger angel carried out Hashem’s commands and He Himself was not present at the top of the mountain)
Rebbi’s wording is somewhat obscure. I follow the explanation of Hagahos uBiurim.
Rabbi Yishmoel, as Rashi explains in his comments to this verse, understands that “His Glory is in heaven and his fire and power are on the earth”. In other words, what concerns R. Yishmoel is an obvious contradiction between G-d being described as located both on the top of the mountain at Revelation, in the physical realm, and Him being heard from heaven, presumably far above the mountain. The solution is likewise straightforward - He was seen on the mountain but His voice emanated from heaven. R. Akiva, on the other hand, resolves the contradiction by positing the folding over of heaven on top of the mountain. The spiritual was stretched and folded on top of the physical.
Similarly in an earlier comment, “…and all the people see the voices (20,15)”. They see that which is visible and they hear that which is audible - words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: They see and hear that which is visible. There is nothing that comes from the Mouth of the Almighty and (was not) inscribed on the tablets, as it says “the voice of G-d inscribes flames of fire”(Tehilim 29). Thus, here too R. Yishmoel simply points out that they saw the fire which was at one place, on top of the mountain, and they heard the sound that came from another place, from the heaven. R. Akiva, on the other hand, suggests that they saw and heard that joining of the physical and heavenly that was at that moment taking place on the top of the mountain. In Rashi’s words - “they saw the audible, something not possible in another place”
We realize, however, that R. Akiva is also addressing a completely different issue when we compare his words with an anonymous Tanna quoted in parsha 4 of the Mekhilta (19,20).
‘’...and Hashem descended on the mount Sinai”. You may think that the Glory literally descended and that He spread it over the mountain - it says to teach us - “for from heaven”. That teaches us that the Holy One Blessed be He spread the lower heaven and higher heaven on the mountain and that the Glory descended and spread them (the heavens) on mount Sinai as a man folds a pillow at the head of a bed and as a man who speaks from the top of that pillow. So it says: as the melting fire, fire bubbles water(Ishaia 64) and it says (ibid) in your making things of wonder”.
The most outstanding difference in formulation between this Tanna and R. Akiva is that the former describes a process of folding upper and lower heaven while the latter mentions only the upper heaven. The issue, perhaps, is whether there exists an intemediate substance, what philosphers called, ether (hiyuli), that is made of such fine particles that it is in some ways almost spiritual.This substance is the Lower Heaven. The interaction of the Heavenly and Earthly is portrayed as the touching of two opposite - fire and water. Nevertheless, though the twain shall never meet, they come together and are united at the boundary: the bubbles of boiling water.
It seems to me that R. Akiva is not as much troubled by the contradiction between verses as he feels the need to address the philosophical and religious difficulty that they present. Every religion must present a compelling vision of how the spiritual or heavenly realms can interact with the physical and the earthly. It does not matter whether the physical is the top of a mountain or the lowest valley and it should not matter whether you conceive of the spiritual as the highest or lowest heavens; the twain should never be able to meet. Yet history and human experience demonstrate unequivocally that in some way the physical and the spiritual intertwine, or at the very least, touch each other.
There are two ways of describing this relationship. The first one sees the spiritual as a dimension above and beyond the physical. To explain this, imagine a world that is completely two dimensional, consisting of length and width and nothing else. Imagine also that it is populated by two dimensional intelligent beings, sort of cut-out paper characters that operate and move solely along a two-dimensional plane. How would these beings perceive a man walking about in their world?
Well, first of all they see him as a set of footprints, unaware of the vast dimensions above their two dimensional space. More importantly, what they do percieve, seems to randomly disappear and then miraculously reappear far from where it was originally sighted. This is because they are only aware of him when he steps on their plain; they are blind to the process of walking that occurs above and outside their dimension.
R. Akiva sees the spiritual as a dimension above our world. Sefer Yetsira (5,2), attributed by many sources to R. Akiva (Pardes1,1) expresses this view in these words:”…depth of beginning and depth of end (dimension of time), depth of good and depth of evil (moral), depth of above and depth of below (height,) depth of east and depth of west (width), depth of north and depth of south (length)…When the dimensions, for a moment, connect, we perceive them as miraculous events - and that is what took place at Sinai. For more on this see here.
Chazal speak of Shkhina as "resting" upon a prophet. Avos are the Merkavah (Genesis Rabba 47:6). Just like the Shekhina rides upon the Keruvim, so can the Holy Spirit rest and touch a human being. Once you admit of it entering a human being, however, you are in the realm of the idolatrous, of incorporation of the spirit within a body, of a human becoming divine. Pagans believed in Possession, a spirit dwelling within the body as an uneasy guest, and Incarnation, a spirit entering the body as it sole element of vitality.
Chazal would never accept these concepts. There is no commentator (with the sole exception of R. Bachaya, which deserves a separate discussion) that would even consider explaining that the three men who visited Avrohom were incarnated beings.
There is, however, another solution to the problem of physical and spiritual. It is possible to see the spiritual as present within the physical and the physical as enveloping and enclothing the spiritual, and this is key, in a continuous process. Take for example, a concept such as kindness. Now, kindness does not exist in a physical sense; it cannot be touched, measured or tasted. It is, therefore, a spiritual entity.
One cannot, however, grasp the concept of kindness without understanding the concept of free choice to be kind or otherwise; in this sense, the concept of kindness enclothes the concept of choice within it. The concept of free choice itself cannot be grasped without knowing the concept of good and evil, without which choice mean nothing. Good and evil themselves presuppose a system of moral authority or a Divine Being from Whom it stems. The concepts of a Divine Being is enclothed within the concept of moral choice etc.
Thus, an observable physical act of kindness enclothes the concept of kindness, which itself enclothes a concept of choice, within which dwells the understanding of good and evil and the concept of a Divine Being. (I set up an example to consist of 4 stages corresponding to the 4 Kabbalistic worlds, but, of course, the act of kindness also envelopes many other concepts of different levels of complexity, analogous to the Kabbalistic idea of Partsufim).
The anonymous Tanna resolves the difficulty of the spiritual physical connection that is resident in the concept of Revelation in the manner just described. The higher heaven are folded into the lower heaven, G-d speaks, as if from a pillow above the double covering. In other words, spiritual comes in a series of "levushim", or, we might say is enclothed in various garments, some just a membrane, like a pillowcase, others thick and obscure, like the pillow itself. In kabbala, there is a disagreement whether this is true only of the spiritual worlds or even of the physical world. In other words, some believe that there is no discontinuity between the spiritual and the physical, so that the physical is sumply the end product of emanation. Others, hold that it is ony true of the spiritual worlds and the physical world was created through a separate process, as Creation, not as emanation.
The impression one gets from Chazal is like the latter view. It would be desirable to find the former view in the words of Tannaim as well, so as to legitimize it before all. The way in which we explained the view of the Anonymous Tanna may serve that purpose.
There is a well known diagreement between R. Yosi and Chochomim in Shevuos 35b. whether the name Tsva(k)os, which means Hosts, is a Holy Name of G-d of merely means hosts and is not holy. R. Yosi says that the name Tsva(k)os is not holy and can be erased, whereas Chochomim says it is Holy and cannot be erased (and this is the halacha). The Rogatchover once explained that the disagreement is the same one as about whether Tsimtusm is Kephsuto or not. If Tsimtsum Kipshuto, G-d withdrew from the world and allowed a space for physical beings to exist in it. He interacts with them from outside this "space" and hosts that are within it are not holy. All the things, (hosts) within it are physical bodies and are not holy. If not kepshuto, He remains within the physical space just as before the withdrawal, physical adn piritual are identical in essence, though not in degree, and both the name Hashem and Tsva(k)os are equally Holy.
ת"ר כתב אלף למד מאלהים יה מיי' ה"ז אינו נמחק שין דלת משדי אלף דלת מאדני צדי בית מצבאות ה"ז נמחק רבי יוסי אומר צבאות כולו נמחק שלא נקרא צבאות אלא על שם ישראל שנאמר (שמות ז) והוצאתי את צבאותי את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יוסי
In other words, is it that there is a separate G-d and there is a multiplicity of mundane events and beings in our world, the former is Holy and the latter are not. Or, is it that Holiness pervades all worlds, including our own and all the physical beings within it.
The anonymous Tanna and R. Akiva may be disagreeing about the very same point.
Chumros on Pesach and in general
I seem to write about chumros every Pesach because every Pesach brings with it additonal insights into this subject. Chumros on Pesach are a prominent feature of the Pesach landscape and partake of many related and important ideas in spirituality and Avodas Hashem.
Why is even a tiny piece of Chametz forbidden on Pesach? Radvaz (Rabbi David ben Zimra, 1479-1573) askes this question in She'elot uTeshuvot Radvaz, 3:546 (977). After finding that there is no other halacha that makes quite such stringent demands, he concludes that this is because chametz symbolizes the yetzer hara (evil inclination). One place where this idea is expressed is in Brochos 17a, where it says that when Rabbi Alexandari finished saying the amidah, he would add a tefillah: "Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? The se’or in the dough..."
However, Chido in Simchas Haregel extends this idea from searching for chometz to Pesach in general. He writes(Machazik Bracha 457): "It is well known that every person accepts on himself stringencies, adding fences and barriers because of the severity of the prohibition of chomets, as Radvaz explained in a teshuva". He adds that there is no prohibiton of appearing super-punctillious but it should be done in private and the rabbi who rules for others should not follow only the letter of the law. The Minchas Eleizer writes similarly in Machazil Bracha 457 that on other ares of halcha "the power to permit is preferable" but our tradition regarding chometz is to rule according to strict opinons. He attributes this approach "our rabbis, ZTZ'L". This, unlike Chido, he directs even the rabbis to rule strictly, even for others. This approach finds its expression in the the Chabad saying, "Pesach is andersh(different)" and in the practice of Ismach Moshe to accept any possible chumra found is seforim, as documentd in Tehila L'Dovid, a sefer written by his grandson. This remains the prevailing approach in Satmar as documented in the article in the Pesach issue of Mishpacha about the Williamsburg Matza bakery, the only bakery in the world in which, based on R. Yoel's directive, every possible chumra is being kept.
The Mei HaShiloach quotes Reb Bunim MiParshischa who said that all the stringencies that the Jewish People adopt on Pesach are adornments to holiness, and this is alluded to in the verse that states (Shir HaShirim 1:!0) tzavareich bacharuzim, your neck with necklaces. This means that every limb of a person’s body has a corresponding ornament or garment, whereas the neck can be adorned with an ornament that is not unique to the neck. A precious stone is not designed to clothe someone. Rather, it is intended to be suspended from a person’s neck. Similarly, the stringencies that have been adopted by the Jewish People on Pesach is due to the fact that the neck is the vehicle through which the food enters, and it is specifically regarding food matters that all the stringencies on Pesach apply.
Here is how I understand this concept. Generally, a chumra is praiseworthy thing and an expression of loving G-d, except that a person should not take on stringencies that are far above his or her current level of observance. Doing so exposes his other deficiencies and represents Kefitsas Hamadreigos which is not the right way in serving Hashem. However on Pesach even chumros that are far above the observance level are fully legitimate. Pesach is the time of mortal combat with Yetser Hara and in a fight to the last, any weapon is acceptable. It is no dishonor to a warrior in the midst of the battle to slay his enemy with a tree trunk, should a sword not be available. Similalry, Pesach is a "time-out" during which the usual considerations in Derech Hoavoda do not apply.
I always thought that the statement of Ramo in in Orach Chaim 443:6 contradicts this approach. Ramo writes that those who scour and wash the walls before Pesach have what to rely on and shold not be ridiculed. Mishan Berura points out that they rely on a Yerushalmi. Doesn't this indicate that chumros even on Pesach must have something on which to rely, something at least of the gravity of Yerushalmi?
There is also found in the traditional sources an approach that is against all chumros on Pesach. Not surprisingly it comes from Breslov. Sichos HaRan #235 says:
"The Rebbe was also very much against all the special stringencies that are observed on Pesach. Many people went so far in observing many fine points of custom that they were literally depressed by the holiday. He spoke about this at length. One of his followers once asked the Rebbe exactly how to act with regard to an ultra-stringent observance. The Rebbe made a joke of it.
The Rebbe spoke about this quite often. He said that these ultra-strict practices are nothing more than confused foolishness. He told us that he had also been caught up in this and would waste much time thinking up all sorts of unnecessary restrictions. Once he worried about the drinking water used during Pesach. He was afraid that a small amount of leaven might have fallen into the well from which they drew water. The only alternative would be to prepare water in advance for the entire Pesach week, as some people do. But this was also not good enough, for the water had to be carefully safeguarded from leaven from the day before Pesach, and this was very difficult."
Here is how the RCA put it in a statement issued in 1997. " The promulgation of stringencies were condemned because they add additional financial burdens on the Jewish consumer. Unnecessary stringencies are divisive........they foster an atmosphere of cynicism that no standards are ever good enough."
However, there is also a middle approach, one that says that some chumros are good and some are bad.The good ones keep you out of trouble because they bring with them zechus avos.
Inyan this year, the magazine of Hamodia, contains an interesting interview with the Squarer Rebbe. In it he quotes this Ramo as an indication that chumros IN GENERAL, not only on Pesach, must have something on which to rely. "This is how the Rav of Ostrow interpreted this Ramo. This something should be a received tradition from our forefathers."This is a gevaldige message", the Rebber enthuses. "If one relies on his ancestros, it is their responsibility to ensure that he does not stumble. On the other hand, if their way does not find favor in his eyes,then it is as if he has forged a new path, and in that case ancestors bear no responsibility and one is dependent on his own zchyos". He goes on to share a story of a certain machmir who would not eat of the Magid of Chernobyl's shirayim because of the minhag of not to "mish" (eat other people's food on Pesach). The Maggid told him to check his water barrel and he found there a piece of floating chometz.
It is important to point out that this is not the kind of oppositon to chumros that one sometimes finds in the "modern" sector. The argument here is for the authority of traditional minhagim, not their dismissal as not somehow relevant to our 21st centruy lives. What the Squarer Rebbe says is that raditional chumros are to be mantained but new ones should not be manufactured by individuals.
I end with a quote from Shelah, Beis Chochma, vol1.
We find that as generations unfold more and more halachic stringencies are enacted. During days of Moshe Rabbeinu only those prohibitions that were explicitly received on Sinai were proscribed. Moshe Rabbeinu enacted a nubmer of stringencies based on his perception of the spiritual needs of the nation. In later generations, be it at the time of the prophets or the Tannaim, the prevailing spiritual leadership instituted additional halachic stringencies and guidelines.
Posted at 05:12 AM in Breslev, Chassidic Thought, Sundry Comments, Talmudic Spirituality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)