Lecture #12: Letter 44, Sections F-H
RAV KOOKS
LETTERS
By Rav Tamir
Granot
Lecture #12:
Letter
44, Sections F-H
Introduction
Welcome
back from Pesach break. We are
still studying Letter 44. To refresh your memory regarding the background of
this letter, refer to the first lecture on it and to the biographical addendum
there.
Section
F is
a relatively straightforward section, and we will not expand upon it much. In
this section, Rav Kook explains why biblical criticism is not at all relevant to
a Jew for whom the Torah is spiritual nourishment, the actual word of God. No
normal human being asks his father to verify a family tradition through
scientific research. One whose approach to Tanakh is intimate,
traditional-familial, needs no external demonstration of its veracity, according
to Rav Kook; for him, the simple biblical truth is a basic principle that is
constitutive of national consciousness and historical memory. Despite this
fundamental position, Rav Kook intimates, as we will see, that even one who
doubts the historical veracity of biblical historiography can acknowledge the
moral-ethical significance of the biblical narratives.
This
lecture will focus on the next section Section
G in
which Rav Kook develops the metaphysics of the unity of opposites. Rav Kook
dealt with this in another letter to R. Alexandrov (Letter 110) following a
question that the latter sent to Rav Kook regarding what he wrote in the present
letter. These words will be cited in next weeks lecture. As will be clarified
below, this is an ancient and complex question. We will explain some of this
background and then focus on the aspects that Rav Kook
emphasizes.
Rav
Kook addresses R. Alexandrovs criticism of what Rav Kook wrote in Eder
Ha-Yakar, published about a year earlier. Rav Kook wrote as follows
there:
The
science of mechanics has survived for many years, and the thoroughly mistaken
law that two forces that oppose each other create a negation upon their
encounter became a line for industry, for which it was as an iron yoke on its
neck. But through experimentation and the broadening of awareness, the
realization strode forward proudly that two forces do not negate each other upon
their encounter they create a new, positive force that is also an active
force that contributes to mans betterment when they know how to utilize it.
(Eder Ha-Yakar p.13)
Here,
Rav Kook points out the accepted principle of modern science and philosophy of
science - that opposing forces create energy or a third force. The paradigm of
this conception is the parallelogram of force, from which we learn that two
opposing forces indeed create a new force. A magnet and, more broadly speaking,
an electromagnetic field show the potential of physical opposites to generate
new power. The discovery of magnetism indeed stirred the minds of modern
philosophers, who understood that the encounter of opposing forces need not
generate negation.
What
is the ramification on philosophy of these physical discoveries? Is there a
correspondence between material phenomena and the relationship among ideas in
the thought-world? Rav Kook addresses this point later in Eder
Ha-Yakar:
Human
thought has much more work to do before it realizes the value of the power of
thought and its manifold uses to the same degree that it albeit correctly
recognizes the physical powers in its world. Therefore, although general
knowledge has already arrived at the degree of understanding in which it can
comprehend physical forces that encounter their oppositions, it has not become
so sublime that it can understand the wealth of blessing latent in the
oppositional encounter of philosophical forces how precisely they are not
negation but positive, giving rise to a new and potent force, a proper path that
should be greeted with joy and light, with blessings of peace and
love.
The
law of positive results from the encounter of opposing forces completed the
recognition of the unity of forces in practical reality, which operates on the
material. The champions of higher unity, which brightens all the darkness of the
entire universe, the sages of
Rav
Kook explains that Chazal already expressed their opinion on the
possibility of holding contradictory positions without them canceling each
other. The task that he sets for contemporary philosophy takes this even
further: The great seal of unified thought is the placement of the
contradictory values and ideas within a unifying framework that transforms their
opposition into a constructive force and makes the idea more complete and
general.
In
Eder Ha-Yakar, Rav Kook presents this task as being imposed on the Sages
of the
However,
Rav Kook expands the range of application of the principle of unifying opposites
to his discussion of theology, and he wants to understand through it the basic
problem of the relationship between nothing (ayin) and the Divine
something (yesh):
Anyone
who understands knows how to act with the positive images [i.e., descriptions of
Divinity], which perforce must be portrayed in his heart in their positive garb,
but they immediately become the basis for negative abstract portrayals that are
more sublime than these and have more honor of the Divine, an abundance of
holiness and an abundance of realness, to the point that it is well known
amongst kabbalists and ancient theologians to call those first ideas that
emanate from the true reality in their true form ayin and darkness
[the sefira of Keter is called ayin and it is the
beginning of Atzilut]. This is the sublime, dim feeling that is more
precious, due to the exaltedness of this matter, than any clear feeling about
limited matters, for the source of life is with You in Your light we shall
see light. (Eder Ha-Yakar, p. 42)
Theology
is paradoxical since it posits that negation and positivity depend on one
another, and in a certain sense even stem from one another. It is precisely the
negation of limited descriptions of God that allows for the recognition and
sensation of the Divine reality in the fullest manner and with the clearest
recognition. Paradoxically, negation is the basis for something
positive.
We
see how this outlook on the unification of opposites has meaning in all areas:
in Halakha these and those are the words of the living God; in philosophy
the unification of ideas; in physics the magnet, for example; and in theology
the positive and negative in descriptions of the Divine.
R.
Alexandrov wrote the following about this:
In
my opinion, such investigations are only the fruits of a false and imaginary
game that combines two opposites of a single issue existence and non-existence
and there is no place for this in the world of logic
Later
in his letter, R. Alexandrov cites what he wrote himself in Tal Techiya
regarding the paradoxical nature of Jewish existence and the logical and
existential contradictions in our world of thought, although he testifies about
himself:
I
investigated all of this long ago
and as I [now] see, such decisions are
arrived at only by combining despair that leads to negation with the Divine
feeling that fights with all its power
Yet healthy logic is not like
this
He
adds:
I
wrote about this at some length because
almost all of his investigations are
the result of his central idea of the unification of
opposites
R.
Alexandrov indeed comprehended something major here. For Rav Kook, the
unification of opposites is not just a good and correct idea, but to a great
degree the methodological principle that defines his entire philosophic
approach.
R.
Alexandrovs questions are penetrating and, as stated, the importance of this
topic for Rav Kooks thought is great. Below we will attempt to clarify the main
points.
To
Consider Before
The
debate about the possibility of two contradictory axioms on the same question or
object is quite ancient.
The
contradiction of the rules of logic that R. Alexandrov refers to is the
contradiction of the law that Aristotle called The Law of Contradictions,
according to which something cannot be A and not-A simultaneously. For
example, an object cannot be both solid and liquid (i.e., non-solid) at the same
time. The general implication of this law is that if two statements negate each
other whether explicitly or by inference one of them must be
false.
Aristotelian
logic has ruled the day ever since, and the Law of Contradictions was accepted
as a virtually unquestioned logical and philosophical principle. The broad
application of this law leads to a monolithic view of truth: only one truth is
possible, as the prophet stated, Thus are My words like fire, says God, and
as
a hammer it will shatter rock (Yirmiyahu 23:29), according
to its simple meaning.
Other
philosophical positions have arisen, mainly within modern philosophy. Below we
will mention particularly Hegel and Schelling, German philosophers who were
active at the beginning of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the
thought patterns of Kabbala should be mentioned as well. Although it did not
always address this question in its classical form, Kabbala created an
alternative type of logic, built on contradiction and paradox. The kabbalistic
method of unification of opposites found explicit formulation in the philosophy
of Chabad, and since there is virtually no doubt that it is one of Rav Kooks
main sources, we will address it below.
As
an illustration of an approach that accepts the existence of opposites in the
world of thought, the rabbinic midrash on the verse cited above can be
brought: It was taught in the academy of R. Yishmael: As a hammer it will
shatter rock just as this hammer is divided into many sparks, so too every
utterance of God is divided into seventy languages (Shabbat 88b;
Sanhedrin 33a has so too one verse can have many meanings). These very
words of Chazal, which ignore the straightforward meaning of the verse,
actualize this general principle, for it is impossible to say that the word of
God is simultaneously unambiguous and multivalent and to understand both axioms
as the correct interpretation of the metaphor as a hammer it will shatter
rock. The resolution to this contradiction is rooted in the gap between
prophetic truth, which discloses the word of God in a sharp, clear, and
unequivocal manner, and halakhic and midrashic truth, which is also a mode of
revelation of Gods word, albeit a multivalent one.
(Translated
by
Letter
44, Sections F-H
F. Not to Kant shall
we return, but to the Red Sea, to Sinai, to
Now, thank God, we
are standing close to the shore. We can carry our flag high. The pure and sacred
spirit that flows from our source has already subjugated all of the ethical and
scientific world, so that we need no longer hesitate to proclaim our
victory.[5] Of course, this
proclamation will not be accepted in the world, but only at the place where it
first began to be accepted, the place whence the light shone, from
Even the
weaker-spirited among us will live, arise, and stand on their feet. Now that the
effort of our spiritual work has grown and expanded, both with respect to our
own survival and to the entire world, over what can the weak among us have pangs
of doubt? Only over the inability to display the past before the senses of the
present.[6] For this reason,
[some say that] perhaps the narrative portions of the Torah are just myths which
never actually took place. But this very doubt can only have been borrowed from
the gentiles,[7] for one who feels
himself growing and born in [a particular] house knows well the business of that
house, and could not possibly think that the living and enduring history of his
nation, which is so integrated, ordered, and distinguished, is a
fabrication.[8] But we shall walk
also with these captives,[9] who have distanced
themselves from their father's table, but without anger, and we shall say to
them: Brothers, [even] if it is as you say matters of legend which have such
great capacity to bring about good and blessedness, everlasting hope, and
morals, are so precious and noble, so much so that they are in effect words of
the living God, and it befits them that anything fixed in their memory should be
guarded with honor and great love.[10] This is insufficient
to fully revive them, but it will be enough to open a door, to remove the scorn
and hate, the rejection and revulsion to anything pertaining to Judaism, even in
the hearts of those children who are far away. And with the shining of the
exalted and inner knowledge,[11] and the august,
lofty morals, and the clarification of the great and lofty aspiration of the
entire nation, with its sturdy integration with the refined aspirations of the
elite mankind,[12] all these will bring
our children closer and closer to the innermost [holiness], until they return
and live the true life, the life of greatness, courage, and holiness.[13]
[1] This is a veiled criticism of Alexandrovs proposal to establish a
higher institution for rabbis, with the reason given that we do not have great
philosophers like other nations do. See Mikhtavei Mechkar U-Vikoret, p.
35.
[2] Yeshayahu 40:3. Here, as with the following verse, Rav Kook
emphasizes the expressions the way of the Lord or the way of holiness, i.e.:
the characteristic way of specifically Jewish thought, which is also the path to
our redemption.
[3] Yeshayahu
35:8-9. In
other words, there is a connection between the process of redemption and the
flourishing of the Jewish way of holiness. Based on this verse, the last part of
Orot Ha-Kodesh is called The Way of Holiness (Derekh
Ha-Kodesh).
[4] This is the point that links all of these sections of the letter. Do not
be led astray by style and language: what was said earlier about monotheism is
the paradigm for all our relations with foreign philosophy similarities are
merely external. The difference between our one God and the Muslim Allah is the
difference between nothing and everything. The same is true regarding
ethics.
[5] Rav
Kook is apparently relating to two phenomena: a. Ideal morality is universal
according to ethical philosophy apparently under the influence of Jewish
morality; b. The recognition of unity is spreading within the sciences, and the
world is getting closer to a recognition of the unity of existence, even if it
has not yet understood its source.
[6] Here, Rav Kook incidentally confronts another claim, related to the
denial of the Holy Scriptures and based on historical criticism of the Bible.
The weak-spirited have doubted our ability to verify the historical narratives
of the Bible, and consequently raised the possibility that they should be
treated as myths stories of legend.
[7] Biblical criticism originated with apostate Christian scholars such as
Wellhausen and his colleagues.
[8] Rav Kook claims that our relationship to the history of the nation need
not be the same as that of critical scholars. You do not subject the stories of
your grandparents to empirical rigor as though they were archaeological
findings; their truth is self-evident created by the connection to the teller.
This is the tragic error of Wissenschaft des Judentums (the science of
Judaism, i.e., academic study of Judaism) - relinquishing the traditional
connection in favor of an alienated quasi-objectivity is the relinquishment of
belonging on the national-existential plane and on the epistemological plane. It
is the relinquishment of the greatest source of certainty. When one stops
believing his fathers stories, he needs family therapy not a
historian!
[9] An allusion to the category of "captive children (tinokot
she-nishbu) that the Rambam borrowed from Chazal and applied to the
Karaites; nowadays, it is constantly used regarding those who lived in an
environment disconnected from the tradition.
[10] That is, the moral value of a metaphor, such as a prophetic metaphor, is
not dependent on its historical veracity. If these narratives influenced the
faith and morals of
[11] The reference is to religious thought and its foundations in esoteric
wisdom, which were discussed earlier.
[12] The difference between
[13] This conclusion is also apparently built on kabbalistic conventions:
truth (emet) = Tiferet (corresponding to the Name of
Havaya); greatness (gedula) = Chesed; courage
(gevura) = Din; holiness (kedusha) apparently corresponds
to Yesod, which is called holy (kodesh), or corresponds to its
root within Tiferet.